Brown, Graves & Co. v. Ambler, Marvin & Stockton

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. McGee and Hunt, merchants residing in Elorida, were authorized by a letter from Brown, Graves & Co., of Bal ³⁹⁶ timore, to draw on them at sight with a hill of lading for five hundred dollars, as soon as the schooner Russell should complete her cargo of yellow pine flooring. The writers stated that they would honor the draft. The schooner was loaded and McGee and Hunt drew a draft for the amount on Brown, Graves & Co., in favor of J. Van Evary.

He presented the draft with the lettér, and the schooner’s bill of lading to Ambler, Marvin and Stockton, bankers, who cashed the draft, and forwarded it to Baltimore for collection. It was duly presented, and payment being refused, it was protested. The bill of lading stated the cargo to be one hundred and forty-five thousand feet of yellow pine lumber, more or less, which was to be delivered to Brown, Graves & Co., or to their assigns, they paying freight. There had been previous dealings between Brown, Graves & Co., and McGee and Hunt, which it is not necessary at this point to state.

Under the authority of the decision in Franklin Bank vs. Lynch, 52 Md., 270 , we must hold that Brown, Graves & Co. made a contract which would enure to the benefit of every bona fide holder of the draft who should take it on the faith of their letter; and that the necessary import of the contract was that the draft should be paid according to its tenor and effect. The contract, however, was on a condition stated on the face of the letter. There was no right to draw the draft until and unless the schooner completed her cargo of yellow pine flooring. If this condition was not performed, the right to draw did not exist.

The bill of lading did not state that the schooner was laden with yellow pine flooring, but with yellow pine lumber ; and at the trial evidence was offered tending to show that only a little more than a third of the cargo was of the required description. The Court admitted evidence that the cargo was as valuable as yellow pine flooring would have been. In this ruling we think there was error. A purchaser of goods has a right ³⁹⁷ to articles of the kind and quality which he contracts to huy.

It is not sufficient to. give him something of a different kind which may he quite as valuable. It may not suit his purpose and wishes. An importer might order a cargo of coffee ; and he assuredly could not be required to accept in its stead a cargo of sugar on proof that it was equally as valuable. We have alluded to the other dealings between the drawers of the draft and Brown, Graves & Co. As these were not made known to the holder of the draft, he was not affected by them.

He had a right to stand on the terms of the letter; and if the cargo laden on the schooner had been such as was described therein, we think the writers would have been liable for the amount of the draft. It is a settled doctrine in our law, that a letter, written a reasonable time before or after the date of the bill of exchange, describing it in terms not to be mistaken, and promising to accept it, if shown or made known to the person who afterwards takes the bill on the credit of the letter, a virtual acceptance binding the writer. Lewis vs. Kramer and Rahn, 3 Md., 289 . It was said by Judge Story in Wildes vs. Savage, 1 Story’s R., 22, that this principle was not applicable to any bills of exchange except such as were payable on demand, or at a fixed time after date.

On this