Blane v. Proudfit & Blane v. Smith
File:CallsReports1854V3BlanevProudfit.pdf
Blane v. Proudfit and Blane v. Smith, Call Vol. III 177 (1802), [1] was a dispute involving whether a London merchant was liable for a corn purchases made by his agent in Virginia.
Background
Proudfit sued Blane of London stating that Blane employed Hunter to purchase grain and pay withdraw funds for payment on Blane’s behalf. Based on the understanding of Hunter’s authority, Proudfit sold Hunter 10,000 bushels of corn of 1,588 pounds. The money for the corn was to be drawn by Hunter and then endorsed by Patten & Dalrymple, agents of Blane. After 9,400 bushels of corn were delivered to Blane’s boat Proudfit went to collect his payment from Patten & Dalrymple. However, Patten & Dalrymple refused to endorsed the payment but ensure Proudfit that Hunter had the authority to make the payment. Proudfit then forwarded a bill to Blane in London to receive payment but the bill was refused. Thus, Proudfit is seeking attachment of Blane’s property in Virginia to satisfy the debt. Blane argues that Hunter overstepped his authority and he was not aware of the purchase, let alone willing to pay for it. Smith, another Virginian merchant, also filed suit with similar facts.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe found in favor of Proudfit and Smith. The Court of Appeals reversed.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia, 3rd., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Minor, 1854), 177.
