Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/586

 574 FEDERAL REPORTER. �lading or warehouse reoeipt from pledging the same to the extent of raising sufficient means thereby to pay charges for storage and skipment or advances drawn for on such property by the owner dr consignor thereof and a draft or order hy the owner or consignor thereof; and a draft or order by such owner or consignor for advances shall be held and taken to he ' written authority,' witrhin the meaning of this section, for the hypoth- ecation of such bill of lading or warehouse receipt to the extent, and only to the extent, of raising the means to meet such draft, and to pay such freight and storage." tJnder this penal act the only question presented is whether a pledgee is deprived of his rights as such pursuant to prior acts, unless written authority from the owner or consignor by draft, order, or otherwise is presented to him at the time of pledge made ; or whether the pledge made without such written authority merely imposes upon the factor the penalties denounced, without invalidating the transfer. �It cannot be disputed, in the light of the decisions supra, 18 Mo. Eep., (which were in full accord with settled princi- ples,) that a factor could not pledge for his debt the goods of the principal. Such being the received doctrine in England and America, an act of the British parliament was needed to modify the rule as to GreatBritain, and acts by several states in this country more, or less in accord with the acts of George IV. The first and most important inquiry is as to the force of the statu te concerning the negotiability of warehouse receipts, etc. �In the case of Shaw y. R. Co. 101 U. S. 557, the doctrines involved were fully considered ; the statutes under consider- ation by that court being those of Missouri and Pennsylva- nia, which were, in this respect, declared to be alike. After a Tery full and clear exposition of the question concerning negotiability aa applied to bills of exchange and bills of lad- ing, respectively, the court said : "It cannot be, therefore, that the statute which made them (bills of lading, etc.) negotiable by-indorseinent and delivery, or negotiable in the same man- ner as bUls of exchange and promissory notes are negotiable, intended to change wholly their character, put them in ail ��� �