192 F. 55 | N.D. Ohio | 1911
The exceptions in this case deal very largely with the special master’s conclusions of fact subsidiary to the ultimate fact upon which only can his conclusion of law be founded, wherefore the court need not follow the laborious and detailed argu
The first two need no discussion. That each should receive an affirmative answer is not open to dispute. The whole case hinges on the application of the testimony to the third.
Two propositions are in force to work an answer to this question, from the facts before us: First, that the doctrine of responsibility for inquiry is of full force in such a case as this; and, second, that we may concede and use judicial notice of business customs and methods as criteria for valuing facts as imposing the duty of inquiry. Applying these propositions, we very readily see from the testimony that the special master was right in finding an answer to this third question.
'Considering the history of Rollins’ account with the Humphreys Grocery Company, how it increased steadily on the debit side, it is inconceivable that the defendant should not have reached an apprehension that its customer was failing. This was' apparently defendant’s state of mind when it demanded that Rollins should deal with, it exclusively. That arrangement, it seems to us, peculiarly and especially thereafter, put the company on inquiry, a relation it occupied' With increasing emphasis, as still the unfavorable balance grew.
However this may be, there can be no question but that the defendant had almost actual notice, through McConahy, of the insolvency at the time the money was paid on Rollins’ account by Cóm-rie. Then McConahy learned two things: First, that the stock would-not invoice half of Humphreys’ account; and,, second, that the bank.
Our conclusion is that the special master was right, and his report and recommendation will be made the order of the court; the exceptions thereto being disallowed.