TURNER V. YATES, 57 U. S. 14 (1853)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 57 U. S. 14

U.S. Supreme Court

Turner v. Yates, 57 U.S. 16 How. 14 14 (1853)

Turner v. Yates

57 U.S. (16 How.) 14


A bond, with sureties, was executed for the purpose of securing the repayment of certain money advanced for putting up and shipping bacon. William Turner was to have the management of the affair, and Harvy Turner was to be his agent.

After the money was advanced, Harvy made a consignment of meat, and drew upon it. Whether or not this draft was drawn specially against this consignment was a point which was properly decided by the court from an interpretation of the written papers in the case.

It was also correct to instruct the jury that if they believed, from the evidence, that Harvy was acting in this instance either upon his own account, or as the agent of William, then the special draft drawn upon the consignment was first to be met out of the proceeds of sale, and the sureties upon the bond to be credited only with their proportion of the residue.

The consignor had a right to draw upon the consignment with the consent of the consignee, unless restrained by some contract with the sureties, of which there was no evidence. On the contrary, there was evidence that Harvy was the agent of William, to draw upon this consignment as well as for other purposes.

It was not improper for the court to instruct the jury that they might find Harvy to have been either a principal or an agent of William.

An agreement by the respective counsel to produce upon notice at the trial table any papers which may be in his possession, did not include the invoice of the consignment, because the presumption was that it had been sent to London, to those to whom the boxes had been sent by their agent in this country.

A correspondence between the plaintiff and Harvy, offered to show that Harvy was acting in this matter as principal, was properly allowed to go to the jury.

The testimony of an attorney was admissible, reciting conversations between himself and the attorney of the other parties in their presence, which declarations of the attorney were binding on the last mentioned parties.

Evidence was admissible to show that a charge of one percent upon the advance made upon the consignment, was a proper charge according to the usage and custom of the place.

It is not necessary that the bill of exceptions should be formally drawn and signed before the trial is at an end. But the exception must be noted then, and must purport on its face so to have been, although signed afterwards nunc pro tunc.

The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the Court, to which the reader is referred.

Page 57 U. S. 21

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :