Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/832

 824 FEDERAL REPORTER. �for conversion, and it is wholly immaterial that ail or any of the members of the firm were ignorant of the wz'ong eom- mitted, or innocent of any wrongful intent. But, when the thing misappropriated is money, other considerations arise, growing out of the nature of money. �It is a maxim of the common law that money has no ear- mark. The peculiarity of money, as distinguished from other chattels, is that the title to it passes by delivery, and any one taking it without notice of any other title to it may saf ely rely on the title of the party in possession of it. This is essential to ita beneficiai use as money, and any private mischiefs that may resuit from the principle are outweighed by the public and general good resulting from its use. Yet the maxim that money has no ear-mark was very early held not to prevent the owner of property wrongfully converted into money from tracing and recovering it, if the money had been again invested by itself in other property, although in the meantime it had been in the form of money in the Dossession of the wrong-doer. �Thus, in Whitcomb v. Jacob, 1 Salk. 160, (9 Ann.) it -was ruled that, if one employa a factor and "entrusts him with the disposai of merchandise, and the factor reeeives the money, and dies indebted in debts of a higher nature, and it appears, by evidence, that this money was vested in other goods, and remains unpaid, those gooda shall be taken as part of the merchant's estate, and not the faetor's; but if the factor bave the money it shall be looked upon as the faotor'a estate, and must first answer the debts of his superior crediter, etc. ; for, in regard that money has no ear-mark, equity cannot foUow that in behalf of him that employed the factor." See, also, Scott V. Surnam, Willes, 400, �Modern decisions, however, have so far modified or defined, in its application, the ancient doctrine that money cannot be traced when mingled with other moneys, that it is now established that the owner of property, which has been dis- posed of without his authority, can recover the proceeds, if the same can be traced, as a part of a particular fund or lot of money, or as part of a deposit of money in bank, though ��� �