Markwald, Caspari & Co. v. Thier Creditors

7 Cal. 213
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1857·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Terry, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Murray, C. J., concurring.

The facts reported by the referee do not sustain the judgment.

It is well settled that the right to stop goods in transitu, exists until they arrive at the termination of their journey or have come into the possession of the consignee. Depositing them at an intermediate point with an agent of the vendee, for the purpose of being forwarded, does not terminate the transitus. Abbot on Shipping, 628; 1 Smith, L. C., p. 433.

Pavenstadt & Schumacker, of New York, were agents only for the purpose of expediting the carriage of the goods to their [215]*215original destination, and performed only such acts as were necessary to this end.

Judgment reversed.

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

Markwald, Caspari & Co. v. Thier Creditors, 7 Cal. 213 (Cal. 1857).

7 Cal. 213 (Markwald, Caspari & Co. v. Thier Creditors) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. First National Bank
43 P.2d 1078 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Jones v. Earl
37 Cal. 630 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Blackman v. Pierce
23 Cal. 508 (California Supreme Court, 1863)