Tison & Gordon v. Howard

57 Ga. 410
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 Ga. 410 (Tison & Gordon v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tison & Gordon v. Howard, 57 Ga. 410 (Ga. 1876).

Opinion

Bleckley, Judge.

Bills of lading are often mentioned in the books as negotiable instruments; and so they are, in a general sense, for they are symbolic of the property which they describe, and when there is a design to pass the property, that purpose may be accomplished by transferring the bills. But where the common law prevails and no statutes have been passed to better their standing, bills of lading do not enjoy the full dignity of negotiable paper, proper; that is, the mere possession of them in a state apparently regular, and under circumstances apparently innocent, does not always enable the holder to negotiate them with full protection to a bona fide purchaser. If they, are stolen, or procured from the owner by fraud, or entrusted to an agent for mere custody and safe keeping, they occupy much the same, or perhaps exactly the same, position that the property itself would occupy if it were thus dealt with instead of the bills which represent it. That they are on a dif[412]*412ferent footing from the negotiable paper of commerce, strictly so-called, is hardly questionable: Story on Bailments, sections 296, 323; Smith on Contracts, 446, note. The case before us is not a case of the actual sale of the bill by the bankers, the persons with whom it was deposited. The bankers did not even draw, in express terms, on the cotton mentioned in the bill of lading. Their drafts paid by the factors were drawn generally — not on this particular cotton. The bankers did not make any express pledge of the cotton or of the bill of lading. The lien claimed by the factors is for a general balance which is due them from the bankers. The owner, himself, was the consignor of the cotton, and this appeared on the face of the bill of lading. The factors were the consignees, and were thus the factors of the owner, as to this consignment. We do not think the cotton can be treated as lawfully sold, or as lawfully pledged by the bankers, or, that for any other reason found in the record, the factors can be excused from accounting'to their consignor.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Lilly v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
162 S.E. 639 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Commercial Bank v. Armsby Co.
47 S.E. 589 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Raleigh & Gaston Railroad v. Lowe
28 S.E. 867 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Haas v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Gulf RailRoad
7 S.E. 629 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Ga. 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tison-gordon-v-howard-ga-1876.