ABBOTT'S NEW CASES.

MUNROE v. BONANNO.

N. Y. Supreme Court, Special Term, First District; September, 1893.

1. Pledge.] Bankers at the request of a merchant advanced the purchase money for goods, and took the bills of lading therefor in their own name. The bills of lading were subsequently surrendered to the merchant under an agreement that he would hold the goods as the property of the bankers, with liberty to sell them, and if he should sell them to turn over the proceeds to the bankers to secure their advances, the intention of the agreement being to preserve the bankers' title to the goods. The merchant, however, secured other advances from third persons upon a promise to pay to them what the goods should sell for.-Held, that the lien of the bankers upon the goods or their proceeds was superior to any rights of such third persons.. 2. The same.] It seems, that a person making advances to another upon a promise by the latter to pay over the proceeds of property, when sold, acquires no lien upon the property or its proceeds.

Motion for an injunction pending an action to restrain one of the defendants, from paying to the other defendants, or other persons, the proceeds of the sale of certain merchandise.

VOL. XXXI.—1

Munroe v. Bonanno.

The action was brought by John Monroe and others against Domenico Bonanno and others.

The complaint in substance alleged, that plaintiffs as co-partners transacting the business of bankers under the name of John Monroe & Co., drew certain bills of exchange on the defendant, Domenico Bonanno, accompanied by certain bills of lading to plaintiffs for shipments of fruit; that the bills of exchange were drawn against acceptances given by plaintiffs at Bonanno's request for the purchase money of the merchandise referred to in the bills of lading; that subsequently the plaintiffs surrendered the bills. of lading to Bonanno under an agreement that he would hold the fruit as property of plaintiffs, with liberty to sell it, and if he should sell, to turn over the proceeds to plaintiffs as security for what was due them upon their acceptances, the intention of the agreement being to protect and preserve unimpaired the title of plaintiffs to the fruit; that Bonanno had placed the fruit in the hands of the defendant, Edward M. Brown, for sale, and he had sold it on credit and had not yet received the proceeds; and that Bonanno had instructed the defendant, Brown, to pay over the proceeds to Phelps Bros. & Co., instead of the plaintiffs.

It appeared by affidavits in behalf of Phelps Bros. & Co., that Bonanno had represented to them that the fruit was consigned to him, and at his request they had made advances of such sums of money as would probably represent the proceeds upon its sale.

Stern & Rushmore, for plaintiffs.

Rochfort & Stayton, for defendants.

INGRAHAM, J.-I think it clear that under the agreement between plaintiffs and the defendant, Bonanno, the plaintiffs acquired a lien upon the merchandise referred to in the complaint for the amount of their advances to Bon

Carter v. Arguimbau.

anno, superior to that of any one whose interest in the property was subsequently acquired. It seems to me also clear that Phelps Bros. & Co. never acquired a lien upon the property in question. They made the advances to Bonanno upon the faith of his representations that he was the owner of the property, and his promise to repay them out of the proceeds realized upon the sale of the goods; no specific lien was acquired. Under such circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid the amount due them out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, which right is superior to that of either the defendants, Phelps Bros., or the defendant, Bonanno.

Injunction granted.

CARTER v. ARGUIMBAU..

N. Y. Common Pleas, before Hon. WM. G. CHOATE, Referee, March, 1884.

1. Sale.] Bankers, who have accepted for a merchant a bill of exchange drawn upon them for the price of goods, and taken the bill of lading therefor in their own name, are the owners of the goods until the merchant remits funds to cover their acceptance; and their right to the goods or their proceeds is not lost as against the merchant or his assignee for the benefit of creditors by their surrendering the bill of lading to the merchant under an agreement that until their advances have been paid he will hold the goods, or their proceeds if sold, "under lien" as agent of the bankers.

2. Pledge.] It seems, that a pledgee may make the pledgor his agent to hold or sell the goods for the pledgee's benefit.

Trial before a referee.

Action to recover goods or their proceeds in the hands. of an assignee for the benefit of creditors.

Carter v. Arguimbau.

The plaintiffs, John W. Carter and others, were bankers. in London; Fabbri & Chauncey were their agents in New York; Arguimbau, Wallis & Co. were merchants in New York at whose request plaintiffs issued letters of credit to various persons from whom Arguimbau, Wallis & Co. ordered goods, which were shipped and bills of lading forwarded to the plaintiffs, who accepted drafts for the price thereof. The bills of lading were sent to Fabbri & Chauncey, who delivered them to Arguimbau, Wallis & Co., and took from them the following receipt:

"NEW YORK, OCTOBER 30, 1882.

"We hereby acknowledge to have received from Messrs. Fabbri & Chauncey of New York, the shipping documents of one hundred boxes of raisins per S. S. Picqua' from Malaga to New York, against which Messrs. John W. Carter Sons & Co. have accepted for our account £72 5s. 6d. sterling, due January 10, 1883, approved bills of exchange, for which sum we agree to remit through Messrs. Fabbri & Chauncey to Messrs. John W. Carter Sons & Co., not later than twenty-one days before maturity of acceptance in London, and until such sum has been paid by us and satisfied to Messrs. John W. Carter Sons & Co., we hereby bind ourselves to hold under lien subject to the order of Messrs. Fabbri & Chauncey as agents, and for account of Messrs. John W. Carter Sons & Co., the above lot of merchandise per Picqua,' and all or any portion thereof, and the policy or policies of fire insurance on the same, or the proceeds of said merchandise if sold. ARGUIMBAU, WALLIS & Co."

Arguimbau, Wallis & Co. made an assignment for the benefit of creditors to the defendant, Baldwin, and this action is brought to recover the goods of their proceeds from him.

WILLIAM G. CHOATE, Referee. In this case I think that the plaintiffs upon acceptance of the vendors' draft