pursuant to an order by a person employed
by the owner to conduct the preliminary
arrangements with them. Berthold v. Gold-
smith, 24 How. 536,
16: 762
Delegation of authority.

existing agreement between himself and the have turned the goods over to another firm, consignor, which controls or varies this right; but he cannot sell it contrary to the orders of a consignor who stands ready to reimburse and discharge such advances or liabilities. Brown v. M'Gran, 14 Pet. 479, 10:550 Cited in Henry v. Buckner, 13 Colo. 21, 21 Pac. 916-Willingham v. Rushing, 105 Ga. 75, 31 S. E. 130-Lewis v. Galena & C. U. R. Co. 40 Ill. 287-Butterfield v. Stephens, 59 Iowa, 598, 13 N. W. 751-Marr v. Barrett, 41 Me. 405-Blackmar v. Thomas, 28 N. Y. 70Bean v. Adams, 1 Disney (Ohio) 391-Porter v. Patterson, 15 Pa. 234-Needles Estate, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 291-Beadles v. Hartmus, 7 Baxt. 479-Blair v. Childs, 10 Heisk. 202 -Bell v. Maximos, 85 Tex. 143 19 S. W. 1070-Jones v. Gallagher, 3 Utah, 61, 1 Pac. 15-George Campbell Co. v. Angus, 91 Va. 444, 22 S. E. 167.

21. A factor cannot delegate to his clerk the commission intrusted to himself. Warner v. Martin, 11 How. 209, 13: 667 Cited in Jenkins v. Funk, 33 Fed. 916-Bancroft v. Scribner, 21 C. C. A. 355, 44 U. S. App. 480, 72 Fed. 991-Terry v. Bamberger, 44 Conn. 562-Jones v. Brand, 106 Ky. 417, 50 S. W. 679-Gaither v. Myrick, 9 Md. 137, 66 Am. Dec. 316-Atlee v. Fink, 75 Mo. 103, 43 Am. Rep. 385.

22. The utmost relaxation of the rule, potestas delegata non potest delegare in respect to mercantile persons, is, that a consignee or agent for the sale of merchandise Effect of Consignee's Acceptance of One such is the usual course of business. War may employ a broker for the purpose, when Cargo, see Sale, 41.

Acceptance of consignment.

13: 667

ner v. Martin, 11 How. 209,
Diversion of principal's goods.
23. A factor cannot, for his own debts,
v. Martin, 103 U. S. 352, 11 How. 209,

16. [One accepting a consignment of goods, although not obliged to do so, is liable for failure to obey the positive orders of his principal. Walker v. Smith (C. Ct.) 4 Dall. pledge the property of his principal. Warner

389,

1: 878]

17. Where a cargo, sent contrary to directions and without authority, was received and sold, an assumpsit lies, by the sender, for the amount received, considering the goods as belonging to the sender, or for advances made by him on the goods, considering them as the property of the defendants; and any possible loss occasioned by the plaintiff's not following instructions to send a cargo to another place cannot be deducted from his demand. Willinks v. Hollingsworth, 6 Wheat. 240, 5: 251 Cited in Byrne v. Doughty, 13 Ga. 53-Delafield v. Illinois, 26 Wend. 226.

Special instructions.

18. Although an instruction from the con. signor to the factor, that he wishes him to hold the goods until the latter hears from him ordinarily imports only a desire, not an order, yet, under particular circumstances, such a wish may amount to a positive command. Brown v. M'Gran, 14 Pet. 479,

10: 550 Cited in Blot v. Boiceau, 3 N. Y. 82, 31 Am. Dec. 345-Porter v. Patterson, 15 Pa. 232Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Pa. 394.

13: 667 Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 103 U. S. 352, 26: 433

Cited in Allen v. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 120 U. S. 32, 30 L. ed. 575, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 460Steiger v. Third Nat. Bank, 2 McCrary, 500, 6 Fed. 575-Halsey v. Bird, 39 C. C. A. 641, 99 Fed. 528-Terry v. Bamberger, 14 Blatch. 237, Fed. Cas. No. 13,837-Commercial Bank v. Hurt, 99 Ala. 139, 19 L.R.A. 704, 42 Am. St. Rep. 38, 12 So. 568-Wright v. Solomon, 19 Cal. 72, 79 Am. Dec. 197-Hayes v. Campbell, 55 Cal. 424, 36 Am. Rep. 43Commercial Bank v. Lee, 99 Ala. 496, 19 L.R.A. 706, 12 So. 572-Everett v. Buchanan, 2 Dak. 272, 8 N. W. 31-National Exch. Bank v. Graniteville Mfg. Co. 79 Ga. 28, 3 S. E. 411-Dias v. Chickering, 64 Md. 358, 54 Am. Rep. 770, 1 Atl. 709-Dewing v. Hutton, 40 W. Va. 535, 21 S. E. 780.

24. Under the Missouri statutes a factor cannot pledge his principal's goods by the transfer, without a written indorsement, of a bill of lading or a warehouse receipt. Allen v. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 460, 30: 573

25. A transfer of property intrusted to a factor, by the factor's clerk, to a creditor 19. A factor of foreign merchants, under of the factor, both creditor and clerk be written instructions, is justified in depart lieving the factor to be insolvent, does not ing from them in obedience to the verbal pass title to the creditor, although the credidirections of a person accredited to him by tor believed the factor to be the owner of the principal as the bearer of oral instruc- the goods; but the owner may reclaim the tions, especially when by so doing he is act-goods from the first transferee, or from his ing in accordance with good judgment. bona fide transferee, or hold either accountable. Warner v. Martin, 11 How. 209, Manella v. Barry, 3 Cranch, 415, 2: 484 Cited in The Joseph Grant, 1 Biss. 197, Fed. Cas. No. 7,538-Ferguson v. Porter, 3 Fla. 38-Hays v. Stone, 7 Hill, 135-Sun Fire Office v. Armentrout, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 22. 20. Commission merchants are responsible for the value of goods shipped to them for sale, after the receipt of a letter from the owner stating that he would hold them responsible for the goods, although they

13: 667

Cited in Ayer v. Mordecai, 10 Rich. L. 291.

26. A factor cannot sell the property of his principal in payment of an antecedent debt of his own. That the purchaser be lieves the property to belong to the factor does not give him title. Warner v. Martin. 11 How. 209. 13: 667 cited in Moore v. Hill, 38 Fed. 336-Thurber

. Cecil Nat. Bank, 52 Fed. 514-Cecil Nat. Bank v. Thurber, 8 C. C. A. 368, 8 U. S. App. | 496, 59 Fed. 916-Colorado Soap Co. V. Burns, 2 Colo. App. 91, 29 Pac. 915-Romeo v. Martucci, 72 Conn. 512, 47 L.R.A. 606, 77 Am. St. Rep. 327, 45 Atl. 1-Benny v. Rhodes, 18 Mo. 150, 59 Am. Dec. 293Barnett v. Daw, 55 App. Div. 204, 66 N. Y. Supp. 880-Hoffman v. Kramer, 123 N. C. 570, 31 S. E. 828-Low v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 72 S. W. 421.

b. As to Third Persons.

Right to Maintain Trespass, see Trespass,

9.

27. A verbal mortgage or pledge of goods accompanied by a delivery is good, irrespective of any question of notice, at least as against the consignee to receive and sell the goods, and to whom they are shipped, but who did not advance any money on account of the shipment. Means v. Bank of

FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.

After Judgment, as Ground for Relief against it, see Equity, 262.

FAIRFAX GRANT.

See Public Lands, 1377.

FAITH AND CREDIT.

To be Given Judgment of Sister State, see
Judgment, VI. b.

FALKLAND ISLANDS.

Randall, 146 U. S. 620, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. Allegiance as Political Question, see Courts,

186,

36: 1107

101.

Probable Cause for Seizure of Vessel, see Prize and Capture, 155.

29. The lien of a factor for advances and liabilities incurred extends not only to the property consigned, but, when sold, to the proceeds of the sale in the hands of the vendee, and the securities therefor in the hands of the factor. Brander v. Phillips, By Officers of National Bank, see Banks, 16 Pet. 121,

10: 909

31. A factor has a limited right for advances on consignments,-a special property, not a general ownership. United States v. Villalonga, 23 Wall. 35,

23: 64 Cited in Camp v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 488Newman v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 211Randolph v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 283Gray v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 406— Steiger v. Third Nat. Bank, 2 McCrary, 500, 6 Fed. 575-Boston & M. R. Co. v. Warrior Mower Co. 76 Me. 261-Smith v. Dare, 89 Md. 51, 42 Atl. 909-McGraft v. Rugee, 60 Wis. 411, 50 Am. St. Rep. 378, 19 N. W. 530.

In

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

Federal Question as to Liability of Federal
Judge for, see Appeal and Error, 1772.
Imprisoning for Refusal to Testify be-
fore House of Representatives, see Con-
tempt, 68.
Admission of Party Arrested in Mitigation
of Damages, see Evidence, 1855.

Evidence, 2238, 2239.

Evidence in Mitigation of Damages, see | rant against him had been issued,-where he had been arrested, with probable cause. for horse-stealing. Wheeler v. Nesbitt, 24 How. 544,

Limitation of Action for, see Limitation of
Actions, 321.

Directing Verdict in Action for False Ar-
rest, see Trial, 523.

As to Malicious Prosecution, see Malicious
Prosecution.

1. A warrant will not justify the arrest of one not named therein, by reason of the fact that the name used was supposed to be his. West v. Cabell, 153 U. S. 78, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 752, 38: 643

FALSE MARKS.

16:765

On Stores Provided for Army, see Cheating.

FALSE PLEAS.

2. The sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives is liable to an action for When Plene Administravit Regarded as

false imprisonment, where he confines a person, by order of the House, for contempt in refusing to appear as a witness in a matter which the House had no jurisdiction to investigate. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,

26: 377

3. Members of the House of Representatives, who do not, except by their votes and by their participation in the proceedings of the House, personally order, direct, or assist in the arrest or imprisonment of a person who has refused to appear as a witness before a committee of the House which was attempting to make an inquiry into a matter outside of the jurisdiction of the House, cannot be held liable in such action. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,

26: 377

False Plea, see Executors and Administrators, 179a, 180.

FALSE PRETENSES.

4. Members of Congress are not liable As for the confinement of a person for contempt, by order of the House of Representatives, merely by voting for the order of arrest, unless they personally took part in the arrest. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 26: 377

5. Where an action was brought for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment on a charge of treason against the Confederate States, evidence of treasonable acts on the part of plaintiff against the United States was alien to the issue; and an instruction that, if plaintiff had himself been a traitor to the United States, he could not recover, was erroneous. Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. 197, 19: 551

FALSE REGISTRATION.

Probable Cause for Seizure of Vessel, see Prize and Capture, 155.

FALSE RETURN.

Nominal Damages Against Marshal for
Making, see Damages. 6, 7.
Remedy against Marshal for Making, see
Marshal, 70.

FALSE SWEARING.

See Perjury.

FAMILY.

6. Where a court is without jurisdiction over the subject-matter, but assumes it, or where the rules which an inferior court are bound to adopt are deviated from so far that the proceedings are coram non judice, and the liberty of the citizen has been restrained by its process or judgment, Title Granted to Indian Families or Heads trespass for false imprisonment is the proper remedy. Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65, 15: 838

7. Where a person was detained in prison for seven days, as the necessary consequence of his own request for bail, and the neglect on his part to offer any satisfactory security for his appearance at the time appointed for examination, such imprisonment was not unlawful, although no war

thereof, see Indians, 143-145.

FAMILY SETTLEMENT.

Presumption in Favor of, see Evidence, 600.
Presumption of Fraud from Subsequent Sale

by Person Making. see Evidence, 296. See also Descent and Distribution, 41.

Removal to Federal Court of Action against, See Generally, Courts, V. e.

Removal of Cause to, see Removal of State Taxation of, see Taxes, I. c, 2, d. Causes.