Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

waiving general remarks, we will examine the question, as briefly as possible, in its application to borrowed money and endorsements. Relative to assignments, the exclamation is sometimes made with evident astonishment: "Not provide for borrowed money and endorsements? Why, it is as bad as theft!" Whether they who utter such language, or they who adopt the sentiment, but convey it in a mild form, have given to the subject a proper consideration, we are rather disposed to doubt.

It may be urged, and with much apparent force, that a man should return borrowed money in preference to paying a debt: for borrowed money may not be regarded in the light of a debt; and the money should be returned for precisely the same reason that any other borrowed article ought to be-namely, because it was borrowed. The word borrowed means, "to take from another by request or consent, with a view to use the thing taken for a time, and return it." That is, the thing itself is to be returned. It is not a matter of trade, or of speculation. No debt, in the usual sense of the term, is hereby contracted. A moral obligation, indeed, rests upon the borrower to return the thing borrowed; and the lender also has a legal claim upon the borrower for the loan. But the claim is unlike that where a sale of merchandise is made. That is a matter of trade, with all its attendant risks; and, in a certain sense, the seller is a copartner with the buyer, and shares with him the profit or loss of the bargain. He puts certain property into common stock, and receives a dividend with other creditors. The buyer, indeed, agrees to pay for the goods, and the agree ment is absolute and unconditional upon its face; but it is nevertheless subject to many contingencies which frequently occur in the course of business, and which prevent the fulfilment of contracts. Not so with a loan of money. Money is not an article of merchandise; it is merely a representative of property, and it is a solecism in finance to regard it as otherwise. If you loan your carriage, it is expected that the carriage itself will be returned; nor can any contingency happen whereby a creditor of the borrower may acquire a claim to the carriage; and would you have precisely the same right to demand your money as you would your carriage, when found in the possession of another.

A proper distinction may be made between this case and that of a loan by a bank or any other corporation. In the latter case the bank ascer tains what is the pecuniary credit of the borrower, and demands ample security for the loan, and is paid for it. In the former case regard is had not so much to the pecuniary credit of the borrower as to his character for integrity. The latter is a matter of business in the technical sense; the former a matter of honor, of personal favor. The one depends upon the contingencies of trade; the other mainly depends upon the common honesty of the borrower.

This seems to be the only plausible reason which can be offered in favor of the practice, so far as borrowed money is concerned; and we have endeavored to present it in as favorable a light as possible. It is also urged that when a man loans his name, he ordinarily does it as a mere matter of accommodation, for which he receives no pecuniary benefit; unlike the case of those who sell goods and obtain a profit upon them. He loans his name simply for convenience, and therefore ought to be preferred in the assignment.

Now we think that neither claim should be preferred on the ground of justice. The loan of money gives a credit to an individual which he

might not otherwise have; and it oftentimes delays an assignment which justice to creditors requires should have been made at the time of the loan. The loan, therefore, instead of being a benefit to the borrower, is an injury to him--and to his creditors especially, if the borrowed money be preferred. So of a man who endorses for another. He loans his name in order that the borrower may obtain credit. Without the name, the promiser would be without credit. The endorser is in fact the one who is credited, and not the promiser. He is not indeed the endorser in every case where the promiser gets credit; but his being so in a single instance helps the promiser to a credit which he could not otherwise enjoy. The fact of the endorsement will not be likely to be so generally known as the fact of the sale; and this latter fact may secure to the promiser a credit which will enable him to buy of others without an endorser. The only difference between the two cases cited is, that the fact of the loan of money is not so apparent as is that of the endorsement. But the truth unquestionably is, that both the lender and the endorser are, in a very important sense, copartners with the promiser in the business; and so far from being entitled to preference, it may with much reason be urged, are only entitled to what may remain after all the creditors are paid. A man may be a bankrupt to-day, and yet pay all his notes by the aid of borrowed money. And every day he continues in a state of bankruptcy renders it worse for his creditors when at length he fails. And does not the fact of his paying his notes promptly inspire confidence in his ability to pay, and give him a credit to which he is not justly entitled? And will it be said that those who furnish him with credit, whereby any are deceived as to his actual standing, can justly claim a preference over other creditors in the distribution of his effects?

MERCANTILE MISCELLANIES.

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM ANSWERED.

We have received from several correspondents answers to the mathematical problem proposed in our July number, but from a press of other matter we have been obliged to defer their publication to the present time. The desire of the proposer of the problem was to asertain the speediest method of solution-for it is evident that sufficient data are given for an ordinary arithmetical solution. Of the various answers, those from R. B. S., and "Charleston," are the readiest and most satisfactory. T. J., C. C. C., and J. L., have also given correct answers, but the processes they have adopted are not so brief. The answer from G. B. B., though correct, is evidence merely that he has guessed shrewdly, but affords no rule for the solution of problems of a similar nature. As a compensation for our delay, and as an acknowledgment to our correspondents for their favors, we publish all the solutions we have received, and in the order we have named them above.

In reply to the remark of C. C. C., that " it is not stated whether the differences in the prices are differences between the values at the time of their consignment, or differences between their values as they were sold," we would remark that the problem, as stated, implies no depreciation from the market price; but that in order to solve a problem of

the supposed character, it would only be necessary to determine the rate or per centage of depreciation.

The simplest solution which is given from which a rule may be constructed, is this:— Ascertain the amount of excess over the minimum price, which divide by the total quantity; the result will be the difference between the average and minimum price; and from this construct a scale of prices.

It will be seen that T. J. and C. C. C. have each proposed questions, to which we solicit answers. We would, however, remind our correspondents of the necessity of paying the postage of their communications.

To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine:

New York, July 19, 1842.

SIR-You will be pleased to insert the following answer in your next, provided you have not previously had similar ones:

Rule.-Ascertain the difference of value between the lowest quality, and each of the others separately. Multiply each difference thus obtained by the quantity to which it applies, and the aggregate of these products, if divided by the total quantity, will give the difference of value between the average price and the value of the most inferior quality : knowing which, the others are easily found.

Let me apply the rule to the problem in question.

The 6th is worth over the 7th

360

300 66 "1510 66 26421

cent per pound, which multiplied by 720 gives

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

66

1

66

66

66

[ocr errors]

450

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

which, if divided by 5020, the total quantity, will give a quotient of 1-the same being difference of value as before mentioned. Therefore,

The 7th is worth 134 cents, (being 14 the average, less 11)

[blocks in formation]

133 143

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

II.-A solution to mathematical problem in the July number of Hunt's Magazine:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

III. Answer to question on adjusting sales. The increase on the lowest price is as follows:

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

per yard on 720 yards is 3 60

[blocks in formation]

Total increase,

.$75 30.0 which, deducted from gross

amount of sales, viz:-740 45-665 15 Dividing this by 50 20-134 minimum price,

Then, 570 at

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

They bought goods which cost $159 30, and sold for 120, on which they are to share loss equally.

What must the one pay the other to settle the whole, and close accounts with each other?

IV. To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine:

SIR-In the July number of the Magazine is the following problem:

T. J.

A consignee receives from several consignors lots of a certain article, containing dif ferent quantities, and of different values, as follows:

1st lot from A. of 820 lbs., worth 1 cent per lb. more than the second,..

34

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

He sells the whole 5020 lbs. at an average price of 143 cents per lb. How shall he

apportion the price?

It is not stated whether the differences in the prices are differences between the values at the time of their consignment, or differences between their values as they were sold. If the former be meant, I should think that the problem could not have a satisfactory answer; if the latter, the solution is easy. In the last column above, I have put the excess of each price over the least of the prices. Multiply the number of pounds in each lot by the respective excess as shown in the last column; add these products together; subtract their sum from the price at which the whole quantity was sold, and divide the remainder by the whole number of pounds. The quotient will be the least price. From this find the other prices; and these multiplied into their respective quantities, will give the respective shares of the consignors.

The rule appears long in words, but the process is simple. In the problem given→→

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

If I understand the problem, this seems to me to solve it easily.

I would propose the following problem for solution.

Having, on the 1st of January, 1842, $16,150 in my hands, I wish to know which is the more profitable on the whole, (regard being had to profit alone, and not to the permanency of the investment,) to invest this sum in six per cent stock at $85, (per share of $100,) redeemable 1st January, 1863; or, in seven per cent stock at $95 (per share of $100,) redeemable 1st January, 1856; it being supposed that money is at all times worth and can be loaned for seven per cent, simple interest; that the interest in both cases is payable annually; and that both principal and interest are and will be paid punctually, without fear or danger of repudiation. If either, which of these is the better investment; and by how much at the present time, i. e. January 1st, 1842 ? C. C. C.

V.-To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine.

Carrollton, Ky., July 13, 1842.

One of your correspondents in the July number of your work proposes the following question:

"A consignee having received from various consigners several parcels of the same commodity, of different qualities, and known or appreciable difference in market value, and having sold the whole at an average price, wishes to apportion this price to the several owners, so that each may receive his equitable share. Required the simplest and readiest solution."

Then follows an example, which I shall state thus: The consignee receives from the 1st 820 lbs.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

5,020 lbs. in all, which is sold at average price of 14 cents.

In the first place I proceed to find how much more all the consignments would be worth were they of the same quality of the first or best.

The 2d 160 lbs. is worth 1 cent less than the 1st......

[blocks in formation]

$1.60
20 761
4 87

5th 940" do. 17

[blocks in formation]

6th 720" do.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

31

do.

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »