Newcomb v. Boston & Lowell Railroad

115 Mass. 230, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 193
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 18, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 115 Mass. 230 (Newcomb v. Boston & Lowell Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newcomb v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 115 Mass. 230, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 193 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The railroad receipts, in which Botsford, Hibbard & Co. were named both as consignors and as consignees, having been transmitted by them, together with the drafts drawn by them on Chandler & Co. for the price of the oats, to a bank in Boston for collection, were manifestly intended to be held by the bank as security for the acceptance and payment of the drafts. They continued to be held by the bank, after the drafts had been accepted by Chandler & Co., and until, at Chandler & Co.’s request, they were paid by the plaintiff, and the receipts, with the drafts still attached, were indorsed and delivered by Chandler & Co. to the plaintiff, to secure the reimbursement to him of the amount so paid, and of his commissions for selling the goods. This indorsement and delivery to the plaintiff gave him at least a special property in the goods to the extent of such advances and commissions, as against Chandler & Co., who never had any possession of the receipts, and, having no title or right of possession as against the plaintiff, could convey none to Beckford & Dodge. Seymour v. Newton, 105 Mass. 272. National Bank of Green Bay v. Dearborn, ante, 219. Stollenwerck v. Thacher, ante, 224.

The case having been submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, all objections to the form of action are waived; no point is made by the defendant of the amount for which judgment shall be rendered; and the case must be referred to an assessor to ascertain that amount, unless the parties agree.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Related

Citizens Bank v. Henry J. Perkins Co.
145 N.E. 280 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. Hanover Trust Co.
242 Mass. 265 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Fisk Rubber Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
132 N.E. 714 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Frank Adam Co. v. Orpheum Theatre Co.
193 S.W. 908 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1917)
Peoples National Bank v. Mulholland
113 N.E. 365 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
South Deerfield Onion Storage Co. v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
222 Mass. 535 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Co. v. Warren
58 N.E. 1082 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Commercial Bank v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co.
160 Ill. 401 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
Ramish v. Kirschbraun & Sons
40 P. 1045 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Frank O. Dame & Co. v. Flint
64 Vt. 533 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1892)
Forty Sacks of Wool
14 F. 643 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1882)
Robinson, McLeod & Co. v. Memphis & Charleston R.
9 F. 129 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1881)
Libby v. Ingalls
124 Mass. 503 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Dows v. National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee
91 U.S. 618 (Supreme Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 Mass. 230, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newcomb-v-boston-lowell-railroad-mass-1874.