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
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
This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.
- Fall '14