Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/185

 178 FEDEEAL EEPOETER. �there was no sale, unless the circumstances attending the transaction amounted to a sale. In nearly ail the cases which have been cited in support of the decree herein the court found that there was a sale of the property. For instance, in Gibson t. Stevens, 8 Howard, 384, the case proceeds through- out upon the assumption that the party through whom the plaintiff claimed the property had purchased it of the ware- housemen, who issued the receipts therefor. It was the case, therefore, of a sale of property for which receipts were given, and in consequence of which the vendors became bailees of the purchasers, and so the title of the property was in the purehasers or in their assignees by virtue of the indorsement of the warehouse receipts. �The case of Gibson v. ChiUicothe Bank, 11 Ohio St. 311, was in many respects like this, and there would seem, from a statement of the evidence, to he strong grounds for the claim that it was a case of mere security, although the contract under which the advances were made and the receipts given in that case are not set forth ; but the court found that the receipts were not merely given as security, but that the money was advanced upon an agreement that the title of the property was passed when the receipts were given ; and that it was to be held for the payment of the advances made. �In Yenni v. McNamee, 45 N. Y. 614, the court referred to the difference between the case of a sale of property for which a receipt was given, and one where it was a mere se- curity, distinguishing the case from that of Gibson v. Stevens, and holding that as the property was held merely as a secur- ity, and there was not an absolute sale, it came within the principle of a mortgage of chattels, and, the law of the state not being complied with, it was invalid as against other creditors. �In the case of Shepardson v. Green, 21 Wis. 539, the owners of coal gave a warehouse receipt to the plaintiff for a certain quantity of coal then in their possession. They treated the coal as their own, and sold portions of it to their customers, appropriating the proceeds to their own use, and af terwards ����