Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/582

 570 FEDBBAli EBPOBTBR. �ant that the pledgors were plaintiffs' faotors, and that said chattels were the property of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs demanded of the defendaut the delivery to them of said property, which was refused. These averDiients are fol» lowed with the fonnal charge of conversion. �The answer states that the plaintiffs were indebted to their factors for charges and advances on the specifie chattels^ witfaout istating the amoant thereof; that said chattels had been deposited in a warehouse, and a warehouse receipt therefor given to the factors; that said factors pledged to th& defendant said chattels and warehouse receipt in order to raise means to pay said charges and advances ; and that th& defendant, "on the faith of said goods and chattels and ware- house receipt, duly indorsed by the factors, loaned to said fac- tors $10,557.87, which sum is still due and unpaid." Th& answer does not aver that said sum loaned was the amount of advances, etc. ■• �The second defence is that the defendant did not know, etc., that, as to said chattels, the plaintiffs wero owners- or consignors thereof, and that the pledgors were factors merely; but, on the contrary, that said alleged factors, hav- ing the warehouse receipt, and the defendant believing said factors to be the owners, the defendant did, "on* the faith of said receipts," etc., loan said sum of money to said factors, whereupon said chattels were transferred to the defendant, and said warehouse receipt indorsed and delivered. �The demurrer is to the first and second specifie defences, as stated, The Jirst is designed to raise the question whether a factor cannot, under the Missouri Statutes, assign a ware- house receipt, and pledge the chattels to raise money for advances and charges to an indefinite amount, even if the pledgee knows the factor's relation to the property. If not so, the amount of said advances and charges ought to have been stated, so that it would appear whether the pledge was for a larger sum than the factor's lien. Is it intended to assert that if advances and charges exist, or are about to be created, the factor m ay pledge ^e?iem%, even when the pledgee knows the precise relation of the factors to the property? ��� �