Skip to content

Hutchinson v. Bours

Hutchinson v. Bours, 6 Cal. 383 (1856)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 1, 1856
Judges: Heydenfeldt
Citations: 6 Cal. 383

Cited by 7

Syllabus

Where goods are in the possession of a factor, whose usual business it is to buy and sell goods on his own account, and who is clothed with the external evidences of ownership of the particular goods, such apparent ownership gives him the power to sell or pledge. The rule as to the lack of power in factors to pledge, applies only to technical factors, whose notorious employment is to sell goods of others, consigned to thorn for that purpose.

Summary

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. Action for damages for the trover and conversion of fifteen tons of wheat. The record discloses the following facts: Cole and Dodge, farmers, stored fifty-six tons of wheat with Montgomery & Co., auctioneers and commission merchants, in the city of Stockton. Montgomery & Co. sold twenty-five tons of the wheat for Cole & Dodge, the latter holding a storage receipt for the remaining thirty-one tons, which they subsequently assigned to the plaintiff in payment of stock purchased by them. Montgomery & Co. were also wholesale dealers in grain on their own account. Wm. Montgomery, one of the firm, borrowed $1,000 of defendant, giving as collateral security a storage receipt in his favor, signed by Montgomery & Co. Montgomery failing to pay the loan when due, the defendants applied for the wheat pledged, which was delivered to them in accordance with the terms of the loan. The plaintiff being unable to procure the wheat called for by his receipt from Montgomery & Co., brought this action. On the trial, the jury, under the instructions of the Court, found a verdict for the plaintiff. One instruction asked for by defendants, and refused, is set forth in ’full in the opinion of the Court. Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment entered on the verdict. Defendants appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

The District Court erred in refusing to give the fifth instruction asked for by the defendant to the effect “ that if Montgomery & Co. were in possession of the property and clothed with the external evidences of ownership, and that it was part of their usual business to buy and sell goods on their own account, that such apparent ownership gave them power to sell or pledge.”

The rule as to the lack of power in factors to pledge goods of their principals was referred to by this Court in the case of Wadsworth & Meisegaes v. Lent, 5 Cal. R. This rule is only applicable where the party pledging is technically a factor, where his only business is to sell goods consigned to him for that purpose, wherefore, on account of his notorious employment, all the world is charged with notice that the goods in his possession are the property of others, and that he has power only to sell, them, and no power to pledge them.

In this ease Montgomery & Co. were not technical factors. From all the proof, besides the business of commission merchants, they were regularly engáged in trade as general merchants, buying and selling on their-:, own account, and especially so in reference to the very article which is .'the subject of this controversy. With but a little difference in the facts, the case is similar to the one cited from 5 Cal. R.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Fletcher v. Prather36 P. 658 (Cal. 1894)
Weyse v. Crawford24 P. 735 (Cal. 1890)
Clarke v. Huber25 Cal. 593 (1864)
Horr v. Barker11 Cal. 393 (1858)
Belknap v. Byington1 Cal. Unrep. 374 (1867)
City of San Francisco v. Works1 Cal. Unrep. 783 (1873)

Most recent

Fletcher v. Prather36 P. 658 (Cal. 1894)
Weyse v. Crawford24 P. 735 (Cal. 1890)
City of San Francisco v. Works1 Cal. Unrep. 783 (1873)
Belknap v. Byington1 Cal. Unrep. 374 (1867)
Clarke v. Huber25 Cal. 593 (1864)
Bragg v. Meyer4 F. Cas. 4 (1858)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.