{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


For these reasons defendants claim cannot be sustained

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hereof, that afterwards Oria Hermanos & Co. learned that the forwarding firm, the plaintiff, had set larger prices on the said goods than it had actually paid for them and had unduly charged such prices, before it had paid them, to the defendant’s account, collecting for itself commission and interest thereon, to the fraud and prejudice of the defendant firm. Therefore the latter prayed that Gutierrez Hermanos be sentenced to render a complete account, accompanied by vouchers, of the shipments aforementioned. SC: The record of the proceedings shows no proof of the truth of the act charged to plaintiff. The fact of not having recorded in the invoices of the said effects shipped to defendant the names of the persons who had acquired them does not constitute proof nor even a presumption of illegal procedure on the part of Gutierrez Hermanos. As regards to the petroleum: The accounts presented by Gutierrez Hermanos, wherein note was made of the collection of interest at the rate of 8 per cent on the price of the effects acquired by plaintiff for Oria Hermanos & Co. and shipped to defendant for its disposal, notwithstanding that they were not paid for until many days afterwards, were approved and accepted by plaintiff without any objection thereto whatever and with no protest against the notation of the interest on the price of the articles purchased. Therefore, aside from the reasons given by the lower court in his judgment and relative to this point, it can not be held that there was either fraud or error in the procedure observed by Gutierrez Hermanos in charging in its account the stipulated interest from the date when it acquired the effects, afterwards shipped to the defendant, Oria Hermanos & Co., because Gutierrez Hermanos could have paid cash for the articles purchased. Even though payment might have been delayed for a few days more it is certain that Gutierrez Hermanos as commission agent was obliged to pay the price of the articles acquired and, consequently, said price began to draw interest chargeable to the consignee who, as owner of such articles, could dispose of them freely. For these reasons defendant’s claim cannot be sustained. – ABSOLVED excepting the part thereof relative...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online