The Progress of Uniform Legislation clear than we are in this instance as to the soundness of our conclusion.11
A case in Louisiana12 to which passing reference was made in the President's address of 1911, may be noted in con nection with this decision. The Supreme Court of that state, apparently over looking section 63 of the Negotiable Instruments Law as adopted in Louisi ana, holds that a person not originally a party to a note, who puts his name thereon, is presumed to do so as surety. This and another case,13 without men tioning previous authorities, follow the former jurisprudence in Louisiana.14 The point is in litigation and may come be fore the court for consideration again. It is an interesting fact, which was forcibly commented upon by my prede cessor, that a number of decisions have been rendered since the adoption of the act by the courts of various states seem ingly overlooking its existence. Such omissions will become rarer as the writers on the subjects of the acts make them better known.
461
The primary purpose of the codification as ex pressed in its title was to make uniform the law concerning the sale of goods. Any construction of the statute, therefore, which would throw it out of harmony with rules of law generally pre vailing, relating to that subject, would be in direct violation of its expressed object. It is consequently necessary to ascertain whether there is any generally accepted rule existing in other jurisdictions prescribing the measure of damages in actions by the vendee, for failure to deliver the goods, where he has made a con tract for the resale thereof.
This is a significant utterance. It is really the keynote to the proper con struction of all of the commercial acts, excepting in the very few instances where new definitions have changed the accepted law. The Bill of Lading Act
Hearings were held before the Com mittee on Interstate Commerce of the United States Senate at intervals during the past winter on the relative merits of two proposed acts of Congress, one known as the Stevens-Clapp Bill and the other as the Pomerene Bill. The StevensThe Warehouse Receipts Act Clapp Bill, which was urged for passage by various commercial bodies, deals I have been furnished with a number with the definition of bills of lading and of cases bearing upon this act, which are contains certain matters deemed most given in a footnote.14* vital in the uniform act, but does not The Sales Act attempt to cover the whole subject. The New Jersey Court of Errors in a It has the prestige of having been case 1S construing section 67 a of the passed by the House at a previous ses sion. It seeks to deal only with cer Sales Act, observes that tain specific evils. In substance, first, 11 (From Commissioner E. A. Krauthoff) : Union it aims to make carriers liable on inter Trust Co. v. McGinty, 98 Northeast. Rep. 680. "(From Commissioner W. O. Hart); Hackley v. state bills even if they have not re Magee, 55 So. Rep. 656 (128 La. Ann. Rep.). ceived the goods. Second, to make car » Parker v. Guillotl. 118 La. 223. "Claflin v. Feiblrman, 44 La. Ann. 518. See riers liable on order bills which they Pugh v. Sample, 123 La. 791. leave outstanding after delivering all or "J (From Commissioner Terry) : Ballston Refriger ating Co. v. Eastern Refrigerating Co., 142 App. Div. 135; Herrman v. New England Navigation Co., 143 App. Div. 551; Belzer v. Daub Storage Ware house Co., 130 N. Y. Supp. 153; Rapp v. WashingIon Storage Co., 134 N. Y. Supp. 855.
» Pope v. Ferguson, 33 Atl. Rep. 353 (from Com missioner Hardin). "Where there is an available market for the
goods in question, the measure of damages, in the absence of special circumstances showing proximate damages of a greater amount, is the difference be tween the contract price and the market or cur rent price of the goods at the time or times they ought to have been delivered, or, if no time be fixed, then at the time of the refusal to deliver.
