Слике страница
PDF
ePub

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS and MR. JUSTICE BREWER, dissenting.

signee." Smith's Leading Cases, vol. part 11, 7th Am. ed. under the head of Lickbarrow v. Mason.

The conclusion warranted by the cases is that, as well advances made for the purchase of goods, as an absolute purchase, are protected by bills of lading, whether made out directly to the party purchasing or making the advancements, or indorsed to him by the shipper.

While possession of the bills of lading imports a legal title to the goods, yet in prize cases it is permitted for the courts to go behind the bills of lading, if there is evidence tending to show that the party in whose name they are issued, or to whom they have been indorsed, has no equitable interest or is a mere cover to an enemy. In the present case there was no transfer of the property from an enemy to a neutral. Up to the time of shipment the entire cargo was owned by Pla Gibernau & Company. They transferred it to the London and River Plate Bank, Limited, who in turn transferred it to Klienwort Sons & Company, who produced the bills of lading at the hearing and moved the payment by them, before the capture of the vessel, of the drafts whose negotiation furnished the moneys used in the purchase of the goods. The entire issue of each set of bills of lading was possessed by Kleinwort Sons & Company, under indorsements which gave to them only the right to demand delivery from the vessel.

The case falls plainly within the law as administered in The Amy Warwick, The Winifred and The Lynchburg.

If the rule asked for by the captors in this case should be upheld, namely, that bills of lading indorsed to neutrals, acting in good faith, who have advanced money to purchase goods shipped long before the declaration of war, do not create a right of property in the goods, there would be very little room left for the operation of the President's proclamation exempting neutral goods from condemnation. Such a rule would be very unfortunate as respects the commerce of the United States in case of hostilities between European countries. Owing to the limited amount of merchant shipping owned in the United States, the greater part of their products, whether breadstuffs or manufactured goods, has to be carried in foreign vessels, and

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS and MR. Justice BrewER, dissenting.

it is quite evident that bankers and capitalists could not afford to advance the moneys needed to make purchases, if they could not be protected against seizure by foreign belligerents, by the indorsement to them of bills of lading. Only those who actually own the goods could safely ship them on vessels owned by belligerents, and, what constitutes the larger part of international trade, the purchase and shipment of merchandise by factors with moneys advanced by banking houses would, in case of war, have to cease. The decree of the District Court should be affirmed.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

DECISIONS

OPINIONS

ANNOUNCED WITHOUT DURING THE TIME COVERED BY THIS VOLUME.

No. 561. CLIFFORD v. REUMPLER, SHERIFF. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. Submitted April 9, 1900. Decided April 16, 1900. Per Curiam. Order affirmed with costs on the authority of Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U. S. 398; Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293; Clifford v. Heller, 172 U. S. 641; Clifford v. Reumpler, 175 U. S. 723, and Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172. Mr. James S. Erwin, for motions to dismiss or affirm. No one opposing.

No.

Original. BELL V. MISSISSIPPI. Submitted April 11, 1900. Decided April 16, 1900. Per Curiam. Per Curiam. Motion for leave to bring an original suit denied on the authority of Hans v. Louisana, 134 U. S. 51. Mr. C. J. Jones for motion.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.

No. 557. STREATOR CATHEDRAL GLASS COMPANY v. WIRE GLASS COMPANY. Seventh Circuit. Denied March 26, 1900. Mr. Horace K. Tenney for petitioners. Mr. Lysander Hill and Mr. Charles Howson opposing.

No. 559. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES. Second Circuit. Granted March 26, 1900. Mr. John E. Parsons and Mr. Henry B. Closson for petitioner. Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hoyt opposing.

No. 560. WATERBURY MANUFACTURING COMPANY V. WALES. Second Circuit. Denied April 9, 1900. Mr. Edmund Wetmore and Mr. John K. Beach for petitioner. Mr. Roger Foster opposing.

[ocr errors]

Decisions announced without Opinions.

No. 552. KELLY v. SPRINGFIELD RAILWAY COMPANY. Sixth Circuit. Denied April 9, 1900. Mr. F. P. Fish and Mr. Julian C. Dowell for petitioners. Mr. Drury W. Cooper and Mr. T. B. Kerr opposing.

PANY.

No. 567. GEISER MANUFACTURING COMPANY V. FRICK COMThird Circuit. Denied April 9, 1900. Mr. John G. Johnson for petitioner. Mr. F. P. Fish and Mr. Francis Rawle opposing.

No. 568. OAKFORD V. HACKLEY. Third Circuit. Denied April 9, 1900. Mr. John G. Johnson and Mr. Maxwell Evarts for petitioner. Mr. Henry W. Palmer and Mr. R. C. Dale opposing.

No. 569. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON AND RAILROAD COMPANY v. PIERCE. Fifth Circuit. Denied April 9, 1900. Mr. Walker Percy and Mr. W. I. Grubb for petitioner. Mr. W. A. Gunter opposing.

No. 573. LA COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE v. MIDDLETON, ADMINISTRATOR. Denied April 9, 1900. Mr. Edward K. Jones for petitioner. Mr. George Whitfield Betts and Mr. J. Parker Kirlin opposing.

No. 576. NEW ORLEANS AND NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY V. CLEMENT. Fifth Circuit. Denied April 16, 1900. Mr. John W. Fewell for petitioner. Mr. Hoke Smith opposing.

No. 582. THAMES TOWBOAT COMPANY v. HAINES, MASTER. Fourth Circuit. Denied April 16, 1900. Mr. James Emerson Carpenter for petitioner. Mr. T. S. Garnett and Mr. Robert M. Hughes opposing.

No. 589. NEAL, TRUSTEE, V. THAMES TOWBOAt Company,

« ПретходнаНастави »