Toland v. Murray

Decided May 15, 1820

New York Supreme Court · decided 1820-05-15

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the value of goods consigned by the plaintiff to the defendants, to be sold by them, as his factors. The plaintiff’s counsel, at the trial, stated, that the plaintiff and RichardJ\l. Mead, of Cadiz, owned a quantity of tin. It was proved that early in the year 1813,Mead shipped the tin from Cadiz, consigned to the plaintiff residing in Philadelphia, to be sold for their joint account.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1911

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1820-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision at Nisi Prius. It is immaterial who was the real owner of the goods. They were received by the defendants of the plaintiff, who had a lawful right to commission them to sell the? goods as his sub-agents. They must account to him, as their immediate principal, so that he may settle with Mead. Toland has a prior lien on the goods, for advances which he may have made ; and he has *26a right to compel the defendants to account to him. (Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowp, 251. 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 573.)

¶2Motion for a new trial denied.

¶3Judgment for the plaintiff.