Kufeke v. Kehlor

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Kufeke v. Kehlor

19 F. 198, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedDecember 3, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. 198 (Kufeke v. Kehlor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kufeke v. Kehlor, 19 F. 198, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494 (circtedmo 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, J.

As intimated at the trial, there is nothing in the facts shown to take the case out of the general rule. The authorities cited in defendant’s brief establish no doctrine, whereby defendant could be relieved of his liability to plaintiff. The common carrier is liable to the defendant, and whether the plaintiff could, under some contingencies, have maintained'an action against the carrier does not change the aspects of this case. Primarily, the defendant was bound to respond to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff had the right to rely on the accuracy of the papers forwarded by defendant on the faith of which the draft was accepted and paid. What was done by plaintiff on receipt of some portion of the shipment in the Georgia, and in cabling news concerning the Zanzibar, did not change the obligations or contract, but was merely for defendant’s benefit, of which he cannot be heard to complain. The general rule is based on sound principles and should be enforced. Besort to commercial paper in foreign or domestic commerce carries therewith what the law-merchant exacts. A bill of exchange, with bill of lading and an insurance certificate annexed, does not compel the acceptor of the bill to rely for reim[200]*200bursement on false bills of lading and certificates without recourse upon the drawer. True, the acceptor having received the bill of lading and acting as consignee, must do what the rules of agency require as to the receipt and sale of the shipments actually made as designated. In this case the bill of lading did not cover the shipment, and as to the certificate of insurance, the plaintiff had nothing to do, —that is, he was not bound to insure,—for the flour went forward on defendant’s account, to whom, in the event of loss, the insurance money would have gone, or been applied on his draft.

The motion is overruled, and judgment will be entered according to the verdict.

i

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Treat, J.

As intimated at the trial, there is nothing in the facts shown to take the case out of the general rule. The authorities cited in defendant’s brief establish no doctrine, whereby defendant could be relieved of his liability to plaintiff. The common carrier is liable to the defendant, and whether the plaintiff could, under some contingencies, have maintained'an action against the carrier does not change the aspects of this case. Primarily, the defendant was bound to respond to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff had the right to rely on the accuracy of the papers forwarded by defendant on the faith of which the draft was accepted and paid. What was done by plaintiff on receipt of some portion of the shipment in the Georgia, and in cabling news concerning the Zanzibar, did not change the obligations or contract, but was merely for defendant’s benefit, of which he cannot be heard to complain. The general rule is based on sound principles and should be enforced. Besort to commercial paper in foreign or domestic commerce carries therewith what the law-merchant exacts. A bill of exchange, with bill of lading and an insurance certificate annexed, does not compel the acceptor of the bill to rely for reim[200]*200bursement on false bills of lading and certificates without recourse upon the drawer. True, the acceptor having received the bill of lading and acting as consignee, must do what the rules of agency require as to the receipt and sale of the shipments actually made as designated. In this case the bill of lading did not cover the shipment, and as to the certificate of insurance, the plaintiff had nothing to do, —that is, he was not bound to insure,—for the flour went forward on defendant’s account, to whom, in the event of loss, the insurance money would have gone, or been applied on his draft.

The motion is overruled, and judgment will be entered according to the verdict.

i

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 198, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kufeke-v-kehlor-circtedmo-1883.