Edick,v. Judges York v. 139 of Herkimer C. P.,...... 186 Boyden v. Lyndes, v. The Superior Court, The People ex rel. Superior Court, The People v..... 663 Comptroller, 595 Suydam & Boyd, Allens v........ 321 607 Oakley, V. Acker,..... 612 Still v. Hall,.. ...... 338 Vail, The People v. 201 Van Duzer, Degroot v. 100 Van Kleeck v. Dutch Church N. Y. 457 103 Van Riper, ex parte, 609 205 614 Van Schaick, Hone's ex'rs v...... 564 W 267 Walker v. Sherman, ........ ..... 365 636 555 676 Ward, Sea Insurance Company v. 588 588 Watson v. Randall,... 416 v. Spence,. 673 Weed, Smith V...... 636 Welcome, Sterling v. ...... 201 260 103 Westchester Judges, Haines v.... 625 177 Westervelt v. The People, ex rel. 212 Sears,. 184 Whaling v. Shales, 684 260 ...... 416 673 174 96 189 ... 47 230 Willoughby v. Jenks, 149 679 238 51 Stilwell and wife v. Hubbard,.... 44 Zimmerman v. Rapp,..... ... 100 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW-YORK, IN JULY TERM 1838-IN THE SIXTY-THIRD YEAR OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. Continued from Volume Nineteen. JENNINGS VS. MERRILL and others. A contract of sale by a factor or agent, entrusted with goods for the purpose of sale, is valid, and will protect a purchaser against the principal, although no money is advanced, or negotiable instrument or other obligation given at the time of the contract; it is enough if an obligation be subsequently entered into on the faith of the contract, at any time whilst it remains unrescinded: It was accordingly held in this case, that the subsequent endorsements of promissory notes, and in anticipation of which the property was transferred, gave effect to the contract. ERROR from the superior court of the city of New-York. This was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away a quantity of merchandize, sent by the plaintiff, residing in Philadelphia, to a mercantile firm in New-York, transacting business under the name of Butler & Co. to be sold on commission. the 9th October, 1834, Butler & Co. put into the hands of two of the defendants, transacting business in New-York, under the On Jennings v. Merrill. name of Merrill & Bowen, an invoice of goods received from the plaintiff, amounting to $3135.19, with a note attached, that they considered the goods as the property of Merrill & Bowen to be removed at their pleasure. The goods were then in the store of Butler & Co. The invoice was delivered to Merrill & Bowen, to secure them for endorsements to be made on the faith of it, upon the paper of Butler & Co., to about the amount of $2,500, as the same should be wanted by the latter firm in making purchases. In the latter part of the month of October, 1834, Merrill & Bowen endorsed two notes for Butler & Co., amounting together to $2301.33, which they were subsequently obliged to pay. These notes were dated on the 23d and 28th October. The members of the firm of Butler & Co. having absconded, Merrill & Bowen on the 20th December, 1834, took possession of the goods specified in the invoice, and nine days thereafter, this suit was commenced. The chief justice of the superior court charged the jury, that if they should find that the endorsements of Merrill & Bowen were given under the contract between them and Butler & Co., relative to the property in question, and upon the faith thereof, that the defendants were entitled to a verdict. The counsel for the plaintiff excepted to the charge, and the jury found a verdict for the defendants. Judgment having been entered on such verdict, the plaintiff sued out a writ of error. D. Graham, for the plaintiff in error, insisted that the contract between Butler & Co., and Merrill & Bowen was not valid within the meaning of the statute, Session Laws of 1830, p. 203; that to render a contract of a factor, entrusted with the possession of merchandize for the purpose of sale, obligatory upon his principal, it should be shown that the case came strictly within the terms of the statute; that the sale or disposition of the property was for money advanced, or for a negotiable instrument, or other obligation given by the person to whom the goods were transferred at the time of the contract. Here was neither: at the time of the contract there was no money advanced, nor was any instrument or obligation given by the party to whom the |