The general rule is that the vendor has the right to stop goods, while on their way to the vendee; but this rule may be controlled by the vendee taking possession before they reach the place of their ultimate destination. (Oppenheim v. Russell, 3 Bos. & P. 54; Mills v. Ball, 2 Bos. & P. 461.)
The above cases are recognized by Kent in 2 Com. 547, as containing the law as it now stands. (Wright v. Lawes, 4 Esp. 82; Valpy v. Gibson, in 4 Mann. G. & S. 837; 56 Eng. Com. Law R. 835.)
Applying this rule of law to the case at bar, the respondent says, that inasmuch as Pavenstadt & Schumacker, at New York, were the special agents of Markwald & Caspari, to receive the goods, and exercise over them certain well defined acts of ownership; such as entering the goods in the bonded warehouse; giving bonds for the duties thereon in the name of Markwald & Caspari; withdrawing them from bond and re-shipping them under new bills of lading; payment of freight, charges, etc.; that the rightto stop was at end when the goods reached New York.
Pavenstadt & Schumacker were not mere middle-men, but were the special agents of Markwald & Caspari, acting for them and in their name, and a delivery to them as such agents is a delivery to Markwald & Caspari.
" An actual delivery of the goods to the vendee, or a constructive delivery to him by a delivery to his agent, who is authorized by him to receive the goods as such agent, and not as a mere middle-man, puts an end to the vendor's right." Mottram v. Heyer , 5 Denio, 630.)
JUDGES: Terry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurring.
OPINION
TERRY, Judge
The facts reported by the referee do not sustain the judgment.
It is well settled that the right to stop goods in transitu, exists until they arrive at the termination of their journey or have come into the possession of the consignee. Depositing them at an intermediate point with an agent of the vendee, for the purpose of being forwarded, does not terminate the transitus. (Abbot on Shipping, 628; 1 Smith, L. C. p. 433.)
Pavenstadt & Schumacker, of New York, were agents only for the purpose of expediting the carriage of the goods to their original destination, and performed only such acts as were necessary to this end.
Judgment reversed.