SPRING AND OTHERS v. the Executors of Gray

1S1 TERM JANUARY others, in Error Plaintiffs v. The Seth Gray, of Defendants in Error. William Executors ship, a who other members of a master of with the mercantile The house were commanded, approbation he of the .the firm, owners vessel merchandize, lading to deliver of articles of signed á.bill certain the property of “ vessel, port of shipper, freight at the destination of paid the the to be for the per agreement was, indorsed.” agreement The indorsed that goods the owners have, ship ship, should as the the one half of the net oh profits proceeds of goods, the the which were be in a invested return cargo, to.be by shipper. consigned proceeds sold the The of the outward cargo by shipper, part part the goods, money; received portion a cargo having been by the left unsold the vessel they where were delivered. subject was made an account The transaction the ctkrrent tbe owners of shipper goods, large a vessel with the balance was claimed to shipment them on said 1810, be due to account. The in May made 1829, May a recovery suit was for the balance, and in instituted stated defendants, account be due on current. Tbe an the executors of the pleaded shipper, the statute of limitations of the state of Maine. The defend- replied, that promjses ants arose “from such accounts as merchant, the trade of merchandise concern between merchant and their fac- plaintiffs,admitted and servants.” The tors had no other cause of action such as arose than from the bill lading, and the contract indorsed thereon. Held, the bill of the contract were not sufficient to maintain issUejoined part respect replication to the of mer- chants’ accounts. copied I., Maine is statute limitations of from the 21st The of James and'its “ pf are, upon case, all actions account and words than such an- merchandise, as concern the trade of counts between merchant, merchant and servants, factors.dr &ci shall be commenced.” It would seem to be the these, necessary construction words that the action on the case to which the exception applies, must be founded on language an The account. act “ conveys meaning account, the same as if it been all actions and all case, actions on the other than such as are founded on such accounts as con- merchandise,” , the trade of cern &c. foundation of the action must be account, not a contract. an case, association of actions on given a remedy From for al- law every money, claim for most and for every redress breacb.of contract seal, account, under with actions of only which lie special cases; few reasonably may be legislature conceived that the had in contemplation to except only articles those would lie. certainly The words imply that the action should be founded on an account. The account must one which concerns the trade of merchandise. presented case every is not transaction between merchant merchant; every might account which them; exist between but ft exemption act; must concern trade of merchandise. It is not an from the the merchant, merely personal privilege;, exemption attached but an which is conferred persons business as aswell between whom is carried on. The business accounts mu9t concern the trade of merchan-

[Spring and others v. The Executors of be, dise; and the ordinary trade must not an traffic between a merchant customer, airy ordinary but merchaut and merchant. preseut trade of merchandise protected which can the ex- ception, merchant, only must Hot betweeh but plaintiff and defendant. The business account —the of merchandize which it, produces must be between them. party, A charter a contract which owner lets his vessel to another for change freight, does not its parties happen because character to be mer- contract, special It is still a whereby compensation stipulated chants. perforriied; and an a service concerning the trade of mer- “ “ “ account,” It is no more chandize.” and no more connécted with the exchange, merchandise” than a bill of trade of or contract for the rent of a carriage, single of a house or transaction might .hire place take happen individuals who merchants. entry An of it in the nature, change books could not its of either convert it from an insulated individuals into an account concerning transaction between the trade of mer- They depend merchant merchant. chandize between must on the' nature transaction, not on party of the the books in may and character which either . a memorandum or statement of it. choose to enter certainly oppose do not English given casés construction court cases, American as they go, the statute: the far are in the words as. favour of it. deeply merchants, question especially, or one interesting to On a commercial only; respect. law New York is to great settled entitled to merchants to the circuit court United States for the dis- ERROR Maine. trict in action was instituted

This March originally 1829, M. error, who Andrew survived their co- plaintiffs Spring, in the coihmon York, court pleas county partner, Maine, of attachment; the state was process re- States, the circuit court of the United moved upon peti- the defendants. tion the declaration was the first assumpsit;

The action current, of an account balance count was .for to the The Second count was for annexed writ.. money .was received. had and issue, defendants which was pleaded general joined; of limitations. The the statute also pleas statute, accounts and arose replied promises the trade of accounts as concern merchandise be- such

from and servants;” their factors merchant, tween and- taken issue was replication. as

The declaration copartners described.the 1821, as 1st business merchants day July “transacting ” The; of Seth intestate name defendants’ Company. described, Boston, deceased.” late "William Gray, was follows:1 to the writ The account annexed JANUARY TERM 1832. others 7. Executors of

VOL. VL — Ü and others v. The Executors of

, This account out of a between the contract special grew to.the and evidence and of the court parties; instructions forth in a bill of were set stated exceptions; which jury to maintain the issues on their offered part, and to evidence read the jury: n Star, bill of A outward láding cargo Morning on the amount or contract signed Spring, Andrew’M.' it, back William and and Seth signed Gray Spring The, Sons. bill of was in form, the usual stipulated should be M. delivered at to Andrew .cargo Algiers; to be on Spring, paid per indorsed freight agreement the same. The was as follows: agreement of the within proceeds thirty-five cargo, amounting two hundred and cents, thousand- two dollars eighty-three invoice, costs ánd charges, invested per Algiers some port all (after com deducting charges, consignee’s included; mission except of insurance freight premium of which two within, last mentioned to be are made charges Star, returned in the on goods), said Morning barque Boston, when Seth tó Sons said (owners barque) one half of the net recover profits thereon, lieu bf round. The com primage, voyage consignee’s two and a half missions to be cent the sales per Within, no to be in Boston commissions cargo; charged what is an auctioneer. paid except Seeing Sons, Seth Gray. William $35,202’83. Also letters bf instructions addressed William Gray M. Spring, Star; Andrew relative voyage Morning also Andrew; correspondence M. and others relative Spring, trans- consignees closed their action. counsel plaintiffs’ evidence, having were the court whether they they inquired any other than bill cause action such as arose from the of the of-lading Star, of the and the contract cargo barque.Morning outward thereon; had not. answere'd that they indorsed defendants’ counsel And moved the court thereupon inasmuch as the plaintiffs instruct admitted jury, had. . arose from bf that their said bill whole cause action lading JANUARY TERM 1832. and others v. The Executors of

and thereon; contract the said indorsed bill of and con- lading, tract, documents, with the other and afore- papers, testimony said, evidence, law, were sufficient to maintain point the issue joined on plaintiffs respect part replication merchants’ accounts. counsel such instructions, plaintiffs’ objected

prayed court instruct the that the evidence intro- jury, duced sufficient to and did prove, wa$ the issue last prove, aforesaid on the part plaintiffs. But the court instructed the that inasmuch as the jury plain-

tiffs had admitted that-their whole cause of action arose from said last bill mentioned and contract indorsed there- lading, on; the said bill contract, with the other papers, documents, aforesaid, were not testimony sufficient evi- dence, in law, point of to maintain the last issue aforesaid on part the plaintiffs.

And returned for thereupon their verdiot the-de- jury issue; fendants on upon issue, the general found they verdict; no The court for defendants; gave and the judgment plain- tiffs,prosecuted this of error. .writ

The case was Mr for Evans argued by plaintiffs; Mr Webster for the defendants. contended, 1. That the question whether suit such as were the trade of concerned merchan- dise, was a for the should question jury solely; consider; And, been át That 2. the accounts liberty .to

in suit aré within the of the statute. Evans,

For the Mr argued, direc tion to return a of the court for the defendants was verdict erro whether the accounts neous; as plain question were, not, tiffs defendants’ testator merchants’ law; fact and not therefore accounts” was proper Bass, Bass exclusively. Pickering, jury is, in the case whether The main question do not amount taken together, agreement, merchant, within the in the accounts. of merchants’ limitations statute of comes take case always operates exception. An 156 Gray.] The

[Spiing and others Executors of clause; of the and what- it, of the out operation enacting within, is the effects of from exempted exception is ever the law. accounts to merchants’ has reference

The exemption to their and not the nature of character of dealing, parties; them. of the account between The ac- or the matter subject within this founded, this action count on which -fully principle. sustained fortunes

The statute of limitations has various The, its courts towards its enactment. since dispositions differed, have frequently change'd; haVe objects it has have been cases in which been operate, permitted increased, entertained or opinion according diminished the course At policy system. the,present period force; to its and to decisions is to restore law full give all full its mer- provisions influence* exception terms; chants’ is in clear and if accounts relieved express from be no cases, there would difficulty decided pressure The accounts its to the case before the court. application account, or at least is one parties, plaintiffs’ tl]e out in- them and defendants’ growing dealings to the trans- testate, of a It has reference mercantile nature. reinvestment, of merchandise, sale, its portation to the closed. account is not proceeds. yet Without the va- back to the history progress going sustained, may rious has exception "conflicts limited to in the first it was- state, instance .ac- proper form óf it was every of account’. At tions length extended at Jaw or in where sought proceeding equity, .were succeéded, recovered; some various questions which, court,- are now before having bearing upon still debatable.. to closed how far or applies

The question are accounts; or to those which Whether only open stated one item shall be within Is that some required current? six .years? from Ves; cases chiefly

Several maintain the last ground; 580; 15 400; courts of 6 Ves. the. 2 Ves. chancery. 224; 199; Gilb. 148, 286; 15 180; Eq. Rep. Ves. Ves. 19 217; 522; Eden, 2 There Cases, Johns. Ch. Bunbury, TERM 1832. JANUARY others v. Executors authorise the language nothing in these cases. Merchants’ accounts are adopted construction as to the the items period limitation without any excepted, of the first them, or as to the last of date compose which items. those maintain the decisions which the hand,

On other there is no item there and give operation; although exception, 2 119; Saunders, 6 Term within six Rep. the account years. 4 Yeates, 105; 2 6, 362; 264; 2 Dall. 127, 12, 7; 6 Pick. 3 15; 94. Cranch, 5 339; Wilson, Greenl. the and those law decisions

Thus between the common is Both annihilated. courts of the chancery, entirely merchants’ authorities, ac- law; cannot some more,favoured accounts, than other are no against counts of the statute. intent plain or stated accounts are is admitted that closed

It Saunders, this are, cases to exception. principle 124; 20 Johns. 533. 200; 2 Johns. Rep. Rep, court, in the

Another was discussed question circuit which accounts, its this court. far to influence How have* may entitle should be protection exception, .them mutual? It is said must on both sides. The accounts exist 149; doctrine of in Bul. N. P. accounts found mutuality Johns. This doctrine has been strangely, engrafted, very under An accurate examination consideration. this court, will excep- that to uphold satisfy authorities tion law are not The words mutuality requisite. merchant,” accounts be- “between merchant and but “trade tween and merchant.” And case before the cburt shows mutual accounts. which the transactions refers, are those of mutual that ac- dealing, requiring counts should that the results those kept, have be.en should books of the be stated that form. The dealings show an so do account, and the book's of defend- plaintiffs name, but ants’ in their testator —not with concerned, and in the business were in which they (cid:127) It how- said, both were interested. profits parties ever, that there con- was in but a these transactions nothing tract —no trade —no merchandize. SUPREME COURT

1S8 and others The Executors of were merchants. The of their parties subject transac- tions merchandise: was to be was a fo- transported there; to be sold place, proceeds reign purchase here; to be was back be sold brought merchandise, after the cost merchandise should be original repaid,' to be residue In all was divided parties. not concern required. D.o the trade of merchandise?

Does alter the nature these transactions? agreement trade there is In written or otherwise: as every agreement, contract; factors it is written and this generally case may be considered as one between merchant well and factor. The made partnership, contract they appointed this, to see it In of themselves executed. doing per- son acts under the appointed ad agreement, vantages the. to him, which accrue accrue to'the was, It without plaintiffs. doubt, contract, one of inducements to the that partner it. of the firm execute Courts should look at the substance of the mere form. bill The agreements,.not must lading have been necessarily the master signed by of the Morning Star. so It would been if signed, they appointed to execute the any The instructions person agreement. for same were him. reason.addressed to shipper The whole transaction is but one contract; the signature the bill of the master him did not from separate He became the his co-partners. firm agent keep them; for so these accounts were the ac- kept all the counts of partners. Webster,

Mr contra. one of contract, is The case on a special depending agree- the owners of the Star, and the Morning ment ship- The vessel was cargo. carry property pers sales; a on the proportion profits there shipped The whole is no transaction contained in the profits. and the account is a bill bill lading, agreement, out growing agreement. particulars called stated de- being that upon, entirely founded nundwas agreement. . fact, was one of and not of question law;

It is said TERM JANUARY v. The and others Executors that it was not taken from the by the-court. properly jury

Had this so, been on the trial as neither yet party requested the facts to be left &c. to the and both were jury, willing law; whole as matter of consider is now out objection place. stated, Justice that at the trial neither re- party Story [Mr quested facts to to the bé left jury.] But it is is of .Jaw, contended this a purely question The counsel for treated a error have so references numerous All the áre cases. facts .admitted —the contract, and all evidénce, the matters or offered in given are rise to writing; only questions, give opes, of this legal to the construction written evidence. as is It denied that the case there Pickering’s Reports applies; (cid:127)many facts were controverted.

This is not-a of account within the matter statute of limitations. There is no item within six years; necessary?

although case Cranch considered sanction giving to another has states, In of' been some held principle. that it is an item that the account should have necessary the limitation, but not in all. All the decisions are English in this otherwise. case. is not material But the principle current; oh a mutual must be running existing be an not.'a merchants: set- open, it.must tled written transaction. relation to books; The statute hasmo the words require state of will to such a apply things party to account; The relations and- trusts. be- as are analogous tween the nature of the parties determine cases.

mere fact there is an account between the parties, is it is stated, allowed, sufficient. An account settled (cid:127)within the matters of statute, is, the and the reason the has are the account account no become a open, longer debt. ho matter to maintain the action shows evidence

The the account, account. but The was bound to ship consignee owners, to who agreement, keep. the had no accounts signed The old action consignee receiver; bailiff and would not lie.

(cid:127) [Spring and others v. Executors of Gray.] The The a claim to ease does not exhibit any thing from be He had made the defendants’ testator. upon could did not received The manner paying nothing. a it same as was the one transaction account: make for and was a Chartér special party affreightment, agreement that a a It'is not liable enough party special purpose. account) an he must have make received pay. oney; Carthew, he is liable account. somtiAing for accounts; There must be mutual debts and credits both sides; side, claim on mutual a could debt dealings: account, in exception. view is,

The which the rests mer- ground a remittances, chant looks course dealing distance, at and the law parties inconvenience regards Some time. settlements made within a short trans- having closed not, actions between merchants are cannot with-. six and for cases law such intends period years; .of ‘Accounts between merchants are often open provide. kept n time, in for expectation remittances. long (cid:127) The statute must a full. and reasonable construction. account, to within must relate bring exception, trade of merchandise. in this case exhibit The'pleadings form; in this but no case there are such question relations. in the placed hands cargo captain purposes only. certain parties merchants,

Because shipped goods defendant’s testator were merchandise, articles of there of the law. The nois demand must be one in a application transaction, which between merchant and being merchant, the called is bound to upon account. party Mr Chief Justice delivered the opinion Marshal^ Court.

This depends cause entirely question whether the .on áre of the statute of plaintiffs limitations, made favour such accountsas "concern the trade of mer- chandise between merchant and merchant.” id error an action on the case brought against the defendants, in the Maine, court of the of. state proper 1832. TERM

JANUARY Gray.] of [Spring and others V. Executors by defendants into circuit court which removed was for district the United States of Maine. of, was balance accounts annexed to The first count for The de- writ; had and the second was for received. money and the of limitations. fendants statute pleaded non-assumpsit seebnd, Issue was on the To the first plea. plaintiffs joined accounts and mentioned in the decla- replied promises tfie are, ration and arose from accounts as such concern trade merchant, and merchandise their factors and servants; and issue on this replication. joined At the bill trial the plaintiffs produced lading tfie Star, outward cargo barque Morning by Andrew signed M. master of said barque, contract Spring, .it, back of William testator of the Gray, defend- signed ants, Sons, Seth and owners Spring bill of Star; and contract barque Morning lading are in these words: conditioned, in order and well William

Shipped good .Boston, a United native citizen of States of Gray Ame- sole in rica, risk, for his upon barque Star, is master called whereof for this Morning present M. now the of Boston, Andrew harbour Spring, voyage, to merchandize here say: and bound de- Algiers; [The marks, numbers and marked quantities]; scribed being as in the and are be in like numbered delivered margin, good well at the aforesaid conditioned order port Algiers, M. unto Andrew seas only excepted), (the dangers for the or to his or freight he they paying assigns, Spring,, hereon, indorsed per without'primage said agreement goods, whereof, In witness the said master of the said or average. affirmed to tenor hath four bills barque the other three then- date, accomplished, being Boston, May Dated stand void. 26^ Seeing. M. Andrew thirty-five cargo, amounting proceeds cents, dollars two two thousand hundred and eighty-three invoice, Algiers costs invested per and-charges, com- consignee’s all other port charges, some (after deducting of insurance included, mission except premium made are to charges two mentioned within, of which last VI. —V Vol.

[Spring and others Executors returned said Star goods), barque Morning Boston, when Seth and Sons of said barque) (owners the net half of thereon, recover profits lieu com- round. voyage primage, consignee’s missions to be half two and-a cent per sales on. and no commissions to be in Boston cargo; charged what an auctioneer. except paid Spring

Seth & Sons, Gray. William 535,202. £3. letters and from plaintiffs'also produced papers several Star, others, of the Gray, William master Morning the outward with the respecting barque; voyage "together _of bills-of inward invoices lading hé.r cargo, delivered to defendants. also an account They produced books of from the Sons, Seth as follows: Dr. Boston, William Gray, Mass., Esq., in account Cr. Sons. Seth’Spring

When the" had plaintiffs closed evidence, their the court asked whether than such they «ny cause of action arose from the bill of of the outward lading cargo barque

JANUARY TERM 1.832. [Spving and Gray.} others v. Exeentors Star, thereon; contract indorsed Morning an- they swered that had not. ' The counsel the defendants then to in- moved court struct inasmuch had admitted jury plaintiffs that their whole cause action arose from said bill lading and contract thereon, indorsed said bill and con- tract, with the other documents' and afore- papers, testimony said, were not sufficient evidence law to maintain point the issue on the joined part respect of merchants’' replication accounts.

The plaintiffs’ instructions, counsel to such objected prayed court to instruct the evidence intro- jury duced was sufficient and did the issue prove, prove, joined part plaintiffs.

The court instructed the that inasmuch as the jury had admitted that their whole cause action arose from said last mentioned bill of thereon, and contract indorsed -lading the bill said of contract,'with the other papers, documents and aforesaid, not testimony were sufficient evi- dence in of point law to maintain issue last aforesaid part plaintiffs. To this an was instruction exception taken. A verdict was found for the defendants; this writof error which, up.

brings rendered thereon. judgment

The statute I., of Maine is from the 20th of copied James are, and its words all actions case, account upon “ than other such as concern of merchandise the trade servants, merchant, their &c. merchant and factors commenced,” shall be &c. to be the

It would seem construction these necessary on words, that the case to actions which ap be an account. The must founded on plies, language as if it been all actions act the same conveys meaning as are case, than such account, and all on actions merchan trade founded on concerns the such as account account, an dise,” be adtion must &e. The foundation not a contract. case, a remedy given

From' the of actions association and for law for money, for almost claim every seal; actions under not every breach contract redress ' [Spting and others v. The Executors of which lie account, cases; a few reason- only special may be had in conceived ably legislature contemplation Be actions for which account lie. only would those except words the action should may, certainly require “ be on an account. The account must one which be founded .of the trade merchandise.” case protected concerns is not every transaction between merchant and them, merchant, not every which exist between might trade of but it must concern the It not merchandise. act, a from the attached to the merchant exemption merely but an conferred on exemption privilege, personal business,as well as between whom business persons on. The of mer- is carried account must concern the trade and this trade not an traffic be- be, must ordinary chandise: merchant customers, but between tween any ordinary “ merchandise,” and merchant. This merchant trade an account can furnish protected exception, must merchant, only but between the defendant. account—the plaintiff business of mer- chandise which it—must be between produces them.

If these founded, propositions well and we believe they are, us them let to the case. apply

The defendants were merchants. undoubtedly The plain- tiffs, Seth and Sons, were also merchants. But they likewise ship owners. were the They proprietors which they hired vessels to others for A charter freight. a contract which party, owner lets his vessel another its character freight, do.es because the change parties to be happen merchants. It is still a contract, special whereby is stipulated for a service to be compensation performed; and not an concerning trade merchandise. It no more account,” an and no more connected with trade than a merchandise,” bill or a contract of.exchange of for the rent of house, a or of the hire or any other carriage, transaction single take might place between individuals' who to be happened merchants. An onit the books entry of either could not its nature, an change and convert it from insulated transaction between individuals, into an account con- cerning the trade merchand ise, mer- between merchant and chant. This must on the depend and character nature

JANUARY TERM v. The Executors [Spring and others in which either party may on book- transaction, not choose statement of it. or memorandum to enter a in or a for a sum been sum contracted gross, Had the freight on its or occupied cargo; weight, on the space dependent value, been or on of- its perceived estimate would any contract, on at founded and not on account. to be a claim once transaction, fact, that the Is the varied by naturéfof [instead of charterer, to be paid being specific rule, is sum, a sum to be ascertained sotae dependent given on the Tliat the salesof théadventure? theoutward profits and all attendant on the inward the expenses enterprize, cargo, must be to .'ascertain the amount order freight? examined in an 'This must be action undoubtedly gone through process contract, action, its convert but does necessity one on contract, to be on the into founded ac ought the trade merchandise count concerning merchant of the outward is sales and merchant? cargo not his be between the shipper consignee, adjusted his owner in cha tween the and the adventitious ship shipper must the return So the salhs of racter a merchant. cargo and how much any examined .to ascertain whether1 order has whether the owner entitled made,, ship been profit not But this founded and how much any freight. on owner trade and merchandise between the and affreighter It founded on vessel. the trade the affreighter alone, to which reference must to ascertain be made order the amount of Mr not be considered as could Gray freight. S.ons, of- He factor Seth selling goods. the- own; his relation them was not was selling and-factor, but of charterer and charteree of. a vessel contract. by special statute,

If we were decide case the words themselves we should think the'plaintiffs brpught within the . consider the action as We should exception. as concerns of-mer- founded “such an account the trade . and'merehant.*’ chandise between merchant This cases to be is not which are found opinion changed the books. Tivil, Saunders, 121, Webber decla- In plaintiff’s counts, two contained in. indebitatus assumpsit ration The Executors of and.others Gray.] had and by received defendant for the money plaintiff’s and and for wares merchandise sold use, and delivered, goods, on an insimul To the other eomputasset. plea the plaintiff of limitations that the act replied, money mentioned became provisions payable several trade due merchants, defendant plaintiff between wholly merchandise. The demurred, defendant concerned and the in his rvhole court favour. gave judgment was of Morton,'Justice, that opinion, only actions of account does were within not exception. report contain the the other otherwise reasons than assigned judges, by stat- Jones were the reasons Mr that his they given ing argu- statute intends These ment. except nothing between merchants,but merchandise concerning only them, whereas declaration in current the second on an account stated count was He-also con- agreed. tended, the first count did not that make-a case to be brought á only within the for wares exception, bargain it-being sold lent;' money and for it’concerned although merchandise,, merchants, was between that was yet no itwhy reason statute; should out for if it should be excepted except- ed, the same reason every contract made between mer- would which was chants also be intention excepted; statute; for in the statute accounts between merchants and not only likewise. He excepted, contracts also con- tended, that actions of account were within the only excep- overruled, has been since it tion. seems This'point though been as settled law. have considered long This case decided,,as been us, reporter informs having for the reasons Jones, his must be assigned taken argument of the court. It decides, opinion accounts, only contracts, merchants, even although may merchandise, trade of are within the concern exception, accounts must current. v. Harris, Guildhall, Dennison, Justice, In Cotes at held that clause statute of limitations about merchants’ accounts extended cases where there only were mutual accounts, demands reciprocal between two This was persons. only decision of a but Mr Buller seems Justice single judge; also, by it sanction, his his introducing into work. given TERM JANUARY y. others The Executors [Spring and 150, Kenyon

Bul. And quoted Ni. Pri. Lord with appro- Kirkman, 121, Ni. Pri. bation in Peake’s Cranch v. adding of the case to Mr Justice that he furnished his note Buller. The an account current distinction between 105; 2 stated, taken, 456; has Ves. 4 Mod. been Ves. often 400; 1 is now 270; Mod. admitted.

The cases do the we certainly opinion English oppose formed on the words of the statute. cases, The American as far as in favour it. go, 15, In Wilson, said, 5 Cr. Mandeville v. this court that the current, all extended to accounts which concerned the exception trade merchandise between merchant merchant. The only addition to made in this the the words used part opinion, “ in the introduction the statute, is the word current.” “ accounts current.” saves opinion statute proc the eeds to that an account closed by cessation of say dealing is not an account stated, between the parties, and that it is not should be items within necessary five any years. This decision maintains the distinction cur rent and accounts stated. Hammond,

In 200, Ramchandu 2 Johns. the court against York, determined that the statute of New though slightly statute, from its was to English varying language mariner, construed in the same arid must be confined to on actions or current “It open must be a direct .accounts.” demands, concern trade: or bills and notes which liquidated traced merchandise, .are to the trade or too only áre remote up within crime this description.” et Murray al., In the ease of Coster et al. 5th Johns. Ch. 522, a made was purchase Rep. goods agents at defendants, parties mer Copenhagen, shipped New on York, chants in under an made joint agreement be sold defendants, should by the agents, goods free commission, and from orie-tbird proceeds paid plaintiffs, who were insurers. received were goods defendants, and sold money who mingled own, of it to part refused unless say plaintiffs, pay terms which the would To a bill not accede. filed defendants the act of limi pleaded The plaintiffs tations. contended that claim v. The and.others Executors of the. statute favour exception mer- accounts between trust,

chants, and that it also related the execution of a was therefore not within the statute. said,

On the first Chancellor point, Kent “to a case bring statute, within the there must ac- mutual counts, and demands reciprocal between two persons,

“In the case there was no present account current between There are no mutual and parties. demands.” reciprocal “ The took defendants of and charge to be accounta- agreed for some or the thereof, ble proceeds goods, which the par- interest; ties had a and as joint concerns and as parties, them, this seems hardly to be trade of merchandise between merchant and merchant.” The chancellor took a very elaborate review of all English this, in which cases had been discussed. Many went off them indecisive, points, many of some them seem to be other, to each opposed not though on the precise question which has been in this case. argued this

He concluded review the observing? “assuming before me to one that case concerned the trade of merchan- dise between merchant and I merchant, should rather be ia- to think was the statute well clined and that the pleaded, case the fall within exception.” did not decree was made in A favour of the on the other plaintiff from which the defendant to the of court point, appealed errors. on cause was several the of first argued points, it came within the the

was, “whether of statute of trade merchandise between merchant concerning and merchant, their factors or servants.”

Mr Justice said the Spencer chancellor had examined the Chief and had very come to the elaborately, case conclusion that the was well and case does not fall pleaded; statute within added, He is at all whether statute the exception. appli- of mutual to a case credits cable mutual between dealing a merchant, merchant and is now question necessary decided, because is not a case that kind. On present This part this is all. respondents, no at a case of there on merely part appellants; no or is a purchase of a selling case trading, joint

JANUARY TERM 1832. anil others v. Executors where one of the takes the goods, purchasers whole goods, is to account for one-third of the In such a proceeds. case, where the all on side, items of an account are one my judg- ment it reason not within the principle exception; which must current where accounts, have intended open there was and mutual.credits. mutual dealing and Woodworth concurred. There was some Platt

Judges errors; the decree of the chancellor the court but division affirmed. consideration, This case is that under than stronger turns on it.. which decide principles

No doubt is accounts be- necessity expressed on mutual, them current, ing being open bring of the statute. On a on commercial deeply question, question especially merchants, the settled law to merchants only, interesting is entitled to New York elsewhere. great respect the states. found no We decision any conflicting contains The account from the books of the barque item not founded on the contract for said insured Star, Francis, the loss Morning sloop exception, But item itself is not within Gray. whole declared was abandoned who by. claim, of action from bring

cause arose the contract. on the sale of rests entirely case within the exception, transaction has not equal This single inward cargo. an account-current to being pretensions (certainly superior) of mutual merchant, case in Carter Murrays, made by the sale them, with al., account, purchased et goods joint al. v. Murray et account, and sold defendants joint shipped account. defendants joint not founded on an ac- action are of We opinion between, merchant the trade merchandise count concerning servants; and not within merchant, their factors or . error is no There the statute of limitations. and the court, judgment instructions circuit given affirmed, with costs. Vox,. —VI. W

Case Details

Case Name: SPRING AND OTHERS v. the Executors of Gray

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Feb 18, 1832

Citation: 31 U.S. 151

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS