Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/589

 STEIGER V. THIRb NAT. BANK, §77 �person upon the faith thereof.' Three misconetructions of that act have been prevalent, but they have been corrected by the courts of New York. We concur -with them fully* One sfras that the statute altered the common law so as to give validity to a Baie made by the factor for an antecedent debt due. by him to the person with whom he contracta ; an^ other, that the statute gave to a purchaser protection whetheir he knew or not that the goods whioh the faetor contracted to sell him were not the factor *s, and belonged to the principal; and the other, that the concluditg words, 'upon the faith thereof,' related to the advance made upon the goods, and not to the property which the factor had in them." �Without pursuing these inquiries further, it is held that a factor may, under the Missouri Statutes, pledge his con- signor's goods to the extent of advances and charges thereoii; the advances to be evidenced as required, and to no greater extent. It may be urged that a praotical difficulty will arise in ascertaining the correct amount of advances and charges; but if that be so, the consigner may reply with greater force that his property ought not to be pledged for more than the factor's lien thereon. The pledgee is not obliged to loan mpney and receive the pledge as collateral. If he is wiUing to lend to the factor he can receive as col- lateral a warehouse receipt to the extent that the factor has a lien on the goods represented ; in other words, the factor can pledge what belongs to him, — his lien, — and not his prin- cipal's interests or rights of property. This may be ques- tionable legislation, inasmuch as it enables the pledgee to sell the goods if not redeemed, instead of the agent, in whose Personal skill and judgment alone the consignor confided. �If there were advances and charges existing for which the property was pledged, the plaintiffs, to recover in trover or for conversion, should have lirst tendered the amount thereof. In no event are they entitled tO more than the surplus after the lien is discharged. �Here arises the difficulty under which courts and legisla- tures have labored with respect to the common-law rule and needed modifications thereof. A consignor selects his con- �v.6,no.6— 37 ��� �