Kinder v. Shaw
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kee v. Becker (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
- Stinchfield v. Twaddle (Me. 1889)
- McCreary & Barlow v. Gaines (Tex. 1881)
- Inhabitants of Cape Elizabeth v. Lombard (Me. 1879)
- Davis v. Russell (Cal. 1878)
- Richardson & Martin v. Smith (Ga. 1864)
- Horr v. Barker (Cal. 1858)
- Walther v. Wetmore (New York Court of Common Pleas 1850)
- Hewes v. Doddridge (Va. 1842)
- Mowrey v. Walsh (New York Supreme Court 1828)
- Jarvis v. Rogers (Mass. 1819)
- Chickering v. Hosmer (Mass. 1815)
- Boyd v. Anderson (Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity 1809)
- Boyd v. Anderson (Tenn. 1809)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
afterwards observed that the Court, considering the question of importance to the mercantile part of the community, had looked into the case with attention, and were all of opinion that a factor has no authority to pawn goods which have been intrusted to him for sale. The rights of the principal and factor depend on the law merchant, which has been adopted by the common law. By this law a factor is but the attorney of his principal, and he is bound to pursue the powers delegated to him.
Judgment according to the verdict.
Wils. Rep. 405, Scott & Al. vs. Owen & Al
Odiorne & Al. vs. Maxcy & Al. 13 Mass. Rep. 178. — Jarvis vs. Rogers, 15 Mass. Rep. 396, 488. — Chesterfield Manf. Co. vs. Dehon & Al. 5 Pick. 7.— Guerrio vs Peale, 3 B. & A. 616. — Patterson vs. Tash, 2 Str. 1182. — Daubigay vs. Duval, 7 D. & E. 606. — De Bouchot vs. Goldschmidt, 5 Ves. 211. — Newson vs. Thornton, 6 East, 17. — M'Combie vs. Davies, 6 East, 538. — Martini vs. Coles, 1 M. & S. 146.—Paley, bv Lloyd, pp. 213—218. — Urquhart vs. M’Ives, 4 Johns. 103.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.