the said Verchot; and that pursuant to the agreement the iron and steel company moved the iron, to the amount of 500 tons, so pledged to said Verchot, into the storage yard of the warrant company at Briarfield, and received the warrants of the warrant company, which it pledged for money, but that the money so derived was not paid to Verchot. It is then averred that the warrant company had no knowledge or notice or information of what particular lot of iron may have been so weighed into its yards, if any was so weighed into its yards, to which Verchot had claim. The answer further alleges that the warrant company has made every possible effort, taking as a guide the description of the iron in the bill of complaint, to identify the iron therein named, and has been wholly unable, from inquiring of its agents, and from its records kept strictly of all iron weighed into its yards, marked and numbered, to identify the iron claimed by Verchot, and it denies that any such iron was ever weighed into its yard. The answer then alleges that for every 100ton lot of iron weighed into its yards it issued a warrant to the iron and steel company, in the nature of a warehouse receipt, and that the iron and steel company pledged every warrant so issued to it for value or for money presently obtained as a loan, and that the parties furnishing the money did so without any knowledge, notice, or information that Verchot had any claim, right, title, or interest in any of the iron so weighed into the warrant company's yards at Briarfield, and that each of the parties so receiving the warrants as pledges is a purchaser thereof without notice and for value. The answer then sets out a list of persons to whom the warrants are pledged.

On October 11, 1898, the chancellor rendered a decree declaring the complainant entitled to relief, ascertaining the amount due to be $9,825, and adjudging that the pledge to Verchot was superior to all other liens on the 700 tons of iron, and taxing the iron and steel company and the warrant company with the costs of the proceedings.

Petition of Pfaff.

R. H. Pfaff on September 18, 1897, filed his petition, showing that he was a creditor of the iron and steel company to the amount of $5,000, which indebtedness arose as follows: Mrs. C. S. Plumb in the fall of the year 1893 loaned to the iron and steel company $5,000, for which notes of the company were given, secured by the pledge of 100 tons of iron for each $1,000 loaned; and said iron and steel company leased to Mrs. Plumb a tract of land to be used as a storage yard, and the iron pledged to secure each of these notes was placed on the said yard. The petition further alleged that without the knowledge or consent of Mrs. Plumb, and while she was in the possession of the iron, and of the yard on which it was deposited, one Thomas J. Peter, who was

The

at the time president and manager of the iron and steel company, removed from said yard 623,750 pounds of the iron to the yards of the warrant company at Briarfield. which yards were also leased by the warrant company from the iron and steel company. petition also alleged that the iron thus removed was still on the yard of the warrant company, and that the latter company claimed some right thereto. Petitioner alleged that for a valuable consideration, and in good faith, Mrs. Plumb had transferred the notes of the iron and steel company to him, and that he was the owner of the same, and claimed a lien on the iron mentioned superior to the lien of the warrant company or any other person, and prayed an order directing the receiver to turn over to him the iron pledged to secure the notes.

On July 12, 1898, an amended petition was filed, which set up the same facts as the original, and, with more fullness of detail, alleged that, between January 10 and January 16, 1894, T. J. Peter, who was at the time president of the iron and steel company, removed from the yard in the possession of Mrs. Plumb 317 tons of the iron pledged to her, and deposited the same in yard 38, section C, of the warrant company, which yard had been leased by the warrant company from the iron and steel company, and was not far distant from the yard of Mrs. Plumb. The petition further alleged that, after the iron was removed to yard of the warrant company, it was marked Z.CC. and DD, but that before the iron was removed from Mrs. Plumb's yard it was marked P, the initial letter of her name; that all of the iron so removed came into the possession of the receiver, and was in his possession at the time of the filing of the petition, and located in the same position to which it was removed; that since the filing and service of the petition the warrant company had removed or caused to be removed about 100 tons of the iron which had been marked Z to its storage yard in Rome, Ga., but had left in lieu thereof 100 tons of other iron; that, after said iron was deposited in the yard of the storage company, under the circumstances above set out, that company wrongfully detained the same under a pretended claim thereto. The petition further alleged that for a valuable consideration Mrs. Plumb transferred and assigned in good faith to petitioner the four notes mentioned in the pleadings, together with the iron pledged to secure the same. and that petitioner was then the owner of the same. The petition further alleged that by reason of the wrongful detention of the 317 tons of iron by the warrant company, and the failure of the said company to return the same to petitioner, the iron had greatly depreciated in value, and was not sufficient to pay the debt secured thereby, and that, by reason of the delay thus occasioned, petitioner had been greatly damaged, over and above the present value of the iron, to the extent of $3,000. The petition

made the warrant company a party respondent, and prayed that it be required to account for the iron received by it, and to pay the damages caused by its failure to turn the iron over to petitioner.

On March 8, 1898, the warrant company answered the petition. It denied that Mrs. Plumb ever loaned the $5,000 as stated in the petition; denied that the iron and steel company ever leased to Mrs. Plumb a tract of land in Briarfield to be used as a storage yard, or that in any other way she acquired or owned or used any storage yard for the storage of iron at that place. The answer further denied that the iron and steel company, to secure any note or indebtedness to Mrs. Plumb, ever pledged any iron to secure a note of the date specified in the petition. It then denied the pledge of any iron to secure the notes alleged to have been given to Mrs. Plumb on the date they bear, and alleged that the said Alabama Iron & Steel Company at no time deposited on any yard any iron as security for any indebtedness such as is named in the petition to the said C. S. Plumb, as the consideration of the loan of money by her to that company, or for any indebtedness of the iron and steel company to the said C. S. Plumb then presently accrued and owing. The third paragraph of the answer denies that T. J. Peter, without authority, for and on account of the iron and steel company, or on his own account, or in any way or manner whatever, or for any account whatever, deposited in the storage yards of the warrant company on January 12 to 16, 1894, 275 tons of iron that at any time belonged to or was pledged to or hypothecated with Mrs. Plumb, or any one else for her account as a security for any indebtedness that the iron and steel company owed Mrs. Plumb. The petition states the quantity of iron in pounds, and the answer in denial gives the quantity in tons. It further denied that Mrs. Plumb ever had the custody or control of such iron so alleged to have been deposited on any yard belonging to her, and that the same, if any such iron was deposited, never had been from under the control of the said iron and steel company or of said T. J. Peter. The answer denied that on the 18th day of September, 1897, any iron to which Mrs. Plumb had any claim, or ever had any claim, or that had been pledged to her, was then in the storage yards of the warrant company at Briarfield, or that any such iron is in the storage yards at the time of answer. The answer further denies that Mrs. Plumb, for a valuable consideration, or for any consideration whatever, transferred the notes alleged to have been made to her to Pfaff, and denies that Pfaff has any lien for the payment of the promissory notes described in the petition, or to or on any iron that was in the storage yards of the warrant company at Briarfield. The answer further set up that long prior to the date of the promissory notes described in the petition the warrant 28 So.-39

company owned and controlled three yards at Briarfield, and that from time to time prior to the date of these notes, and during the fall and winter of 1893-94 and the spring of 1894, the iron and steel company had deposited in one or the other of these storage yards many 100-ton lots of iron, and that during that time more than 3,000 tons of iron had been deposited in said yards by the iron and steel company, and that for each 100-ton lot so stored with the warrant company it had given the iron and steel company a certificate giving a description, grade, and quantity of the iron so stored; that the iron so stored with it was kept for hire, and was not to be delivered to the said iron and steel company, or the purchaser therefrom, except upon the payment of storage, and upon the return and cancellation of the receipts given therefor; and that for each certificate of iron deposited with it the iron and steel company had obtained from the warrant company a storage-yard receipt, called a "warrant," which recited the facts of such storage, the grade, quantity, and quality of such iron to be delivered, upon the indorsement and cancellation of such warrant, and the payment of the storage thereon, to the person owning or holding such warrant. The answer further alleged that for all of the iron so stored certificates had been given, and for such certificates warrants had been issued by the warrant company, and that the iron and steel company had attached these warrants to their promissory notes, and borrowed money thereon, or sold its promissory notes for money, having said warrants given for the iron so stored as collateral security therefor, pledging the same, with authority to the holder of said promissory notes to sell said collateral upon the nonpayment of the money due and owing upon said notes; and that all of the iron stored with the warrant company by the iron and steel company was, before the filing of said petition, and long before May 21, 1894, pledged by the iron and steel company to sundry and divers persons for the loan of money. The answer further sets up the date of the delivery to it of each 100-ton lot for the dates mentioned in the petition, gives the number of the warrant issued for it, and the name of the purchaser of said warrants, and avers that they purchased the same without any notice or knowledge of the claim of Mrs. Plumb, and paid value for the same. The warrant company also demurred to the petition of Pfaff, on the following grounds: "(1) That the said amended petition is defective, in this: that the Market & Fulton National Bank of New York, and the National Bank of Orange county, New York state, at Goshen, in said state, are necessary parties defendant to said petition amended. (2) To so much of said petition as charged that this defendant wrongfully detains the iron in said petition named, this defendant demurs, for that said charges as made are a mere conclusion. (3) For that

said petition as amended shows no demands were ever made of this defendant for this iron alleged to have been stored in its yard C38. (4) It is nowhere alleged in said amended petition that this defendant knew when said iron was so stored in its said yard that petitioner had notice or knowledge of the claim of C. S. Plumb or of any other person thereto."

On March 18, 1898, the chancellor referred the matter to the register, to report on the truth of the allegations of the petition. On

June 30, 1898, the register reported that 300 tons of iron were in the hands of the receiver, which were subject to a first lien in favor of Pfaff. On July 5, 1898, exceptions were filed to the report of the register, and on October 11, 1898, the court rendered a decree ascertaining the amount due to Pfaff to be $6,825, and decreeing a first lien on 300 tons of iron marked, respectively, H, CC, and DD.

Petition of Lamar.

On September 16, 1897, a petition was filed by Law Lamar and Earnest Lamar, partners doing business as L. & E. Lamar, and Minthorne Woolsey; and it alleged that the iron in the yards of the warrant company had been hypothecated to the warrant company and to other persons to secure the payment of debts alleged to be due from the iron and steel company to them. The petition then alleged that, acting under the order of the court made July 11, 1894, the receiver issued receiver's certificates to the amount of $17,000, which certificates were made a first lien upon all the iron manufactured by the receiver. It is alleged that L. & E. Lamar are the holders of these certificates to the amount of $4,700, and that Woolsey is the owner of $500 of them. The petition further alleges that subsequent to said order of July 11, 1894, T. J. Peter, as receiver, manufactured the material on hand into iron, and sold the same, and applied the proceeds to other debts of the iron and steel company, which action, it is charged, constituted a conversion of the property to their damage, and asked that a reference be had to ascertain what disposition had been made of the fund derived from the sale of the iron, and that a lien be declared on the property benefited by these expenditures for the reimbursement of the holders of receiver's certificates issued under the decree of July 11, 1894. It was alleged that the iron on hand which had been manufactured by the receiver amounted in value to about $800, and that the certificates outstanding under the decree of July 11, 1894, amounted to about $7,250.

On September 17, 1897, the warrant company and the holders of the warrants issued for the iron answered the petition, demanding proof to be made as to the amount of iron manufactured by the receiver, denying the conversion of the proceeds of said iron as charged in the petition, and denying that

any of the iron in the possession of the warrant company was subject to the lien of the receiver's certificates in the hands of petitioners. On March 18, 1898, an amendment to the petition was filed, which made Frank Moore a party complainant to the petition, and set up his ownership of $1,500 of these receiver's certificates, by transfer from Mrs. Carrie S. Plumb, who loaned the money evidenced thereby to the receiver. The amended petition then set up that T. J. Peter had sold all the iron manufactured under the decree of July 11, 1894, with the exception of about 40 tons outside of the storage yards of the warrant company at Briarfield, and a further quantity then alleged to be in what was known as "Yard C," the exact amount of which petitioners did not know, and prayed a reference to ascertain the same. The prayer of the amended petition was that the amount of the funds arising from the sale of what is called "receiver's iron" be ascertained, and that the holder of the certificates be decreed to have a lien on the property benefited by these expenditures for their reimbursement, superior to all other liens.

On the same day the warrant company, and the holders of the warrants issued by it, filed their answer to the petition, denying that any of the iron in possession of the warrant company, or for which it has issued certificates, was made by T. J. Peter as receiver, or that said Peter, as such receiver, ever stored any iron made by him in storage yard C at Briarfield, or that any such iron was so stored, and that any money aris ing from the sale of said receiver's iron had been issued in such a way as to constitute the same a charge on any iron in the possession of the warrant company, or its warrant holders, and setting up that Peter had sold all the iron manufactured by him as receiver, and that whatever claims or demands petitioners may have were claims against the said Peter personally, and not against the pig iron aforesaid stored in said storage yards. The answer further set up that the receiver had received on May 21, 1894, personal property to the amount of $5,000 on which there was no lien in favor of petitioners, and that the receiver had not kept separate accounts of the money derived from the sale of said iron and the money derived from the sale of the personal property, but had mingled the one with the other so that they could not be distinguished. The answer then further set up that the warrant company was, prior to the year 1894, doing and engaged in a storage and warehouse business as a bailee for hire, and prior to May 21, 1898, upon the delivery into the storage yards at or near Briarfield, Ala., in 100-ton lots, from time to time, by said iron and steel company, said warrant company issued to the iron and steel company its storageyards receipts, called "warrants," for each 100-ton lot, and that the said iron and steel company executed its commercial pa

per, each containing a clause in and by which it pledged one or more of said warrants as security for the money named, to be paid in each of said notes made by it, and that the iron and steel company sold such commercial paper from time to time for value; that the defendants became the purchasers of such commercial paper in open market, for value; and that at the time they became such purchasers they had no notice, knowledge, or information of any lien, claim, or demand in favor of petitioners or others. The defendants further say that all their rights to the iron pledged to them accrued before May 21, 1894, and that the iron for which the warrants pledged to them were issued was in the storage yards when Peter was appointed by the chancery court, and that such receiver took charge of said iron as such receiver, and that, whatever iron said receiver put into said storage yards, he must have removed the same, as only the same amount remained in said yard at his death, as shown by the warrants. There was incorporated in this answer a demurrer to the petition (1) because the facts alleged therein do not show that money to which petitioners had a prior claim became invested in and for account of the pig iron stored in the storage yards of the warrant company; (2) because the facts alleged do not fix on the pig iron named in said petition a lien in favor of petitioners; (3) because the statements of the amended petition show only that petitioners have a personal demand against T. J. Peter or his estate; (4) that there is no certainty as to the amount of receiver's iron alleged to have been stored in said yard.

On the same day (March 18, 1898) the court made an order directing the receiver to pay to the petitioners the proceeds of 40 tons of iron, and the sum of $1,285.61, out of funds received from the sale of a steam shovel. On July 4, 1898, the register reported that he had paid to the petitioner $1,262.50, the proceeds of the 40 tons of iron, and $1,285.61 out of the proceeds of the steam shovel, and ascertaining the amount due to petitioner on that day to be $7,280.28, divided as follows: Lamar, $5,085.83; Woolsey, $549.72; and Moore, $1,643.73. The register then found and reported that T. J. Peter, as receiver, expended out of the proceeds of iron, to manufacture which the receiver's certificates were issued, the various sums which constituted a charge, as hereinafter stated, against the 11,600 tons of iron which was in the storage yards of the warrant company, amounting in all to $1,418.06. The register further found and reported that the iron then in the yards marked BBB and RR, and 100 tons marked XXX, was iron which had been manufactured by the receiver, and that, of the iron then in the possession of the receiver, the 300 tons marked E, F, and G were charged with a first lien in favor of petitioners, but that such iron should bear its proportion of the expense for watchmen among this and other iron, and there would

The final decree, rendered on October 11, 1898, so far as is necessary to set out here, was in words and figures as follows: "It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the demurrers of the several respondents to the amended petition of the said R. H. Pfaff be, and the same are hereby, overruled and held for naught; that the demurrers of the several respondents to the amended petition of L. & E. Lamar, and others be, and the same are hereby, overruled and held for naught. It is further ordered and decreed that the exceptions by the respondents to the report of the register in the petition of R. H. Pfaff be, and the same are hereby, overruled, there being, in the opinion of the court, sufficient legal and competent testimony to sustain said report, and said report is hereby in all things confirmed. It is further ordered and decreed that the exceptions of the respondents to the report of the register in the petition of L. & E. Lamar and others be, and is hereby, overruled, there being, in the opinion of the court, sufficient legal testimony to sustain said report, and said report is hereby in all things confirmed. In the opinion of the court, the complainant, Marie L. E. German, as executrix of Joseph Verchot, deceased, and R. H. Pfaff, petitioner in said cause, and L. & E. Lamar and others, petitioners in said cause, are entitled, respectively, to the relief sought by them in their respective bills and petitions, as hereinafter decreed. It is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the Alabama Iron & Steel Company is indebted to the complainant, as the executrix of the estate of Joseph Verchot, deceased, in the sum of seven thousand ($7,000) dollars, with interest thereon, by and under the seven certain pledge notes described in the bill of complaint in this cause, as alleged therein, the amount of which, of easy calculation and ascertainment, is here calculated, found, and decreed to be the sum of nine thousand eight hundred and twenty-five ($9,825) dollars, for which said indebtedness seven hundred tons of iron, as alleged in said bill, were pledged, as therein alleged, to secure the said indebtedness, which said seven hundred tons of iron is now represented by the seven hundred tons of iron set aside under the decree of September 18, 1897, of this court, known as 100 tons marked BBB, 100 tons marked ZZ, 100 tons marked XX, 100 tons marked UU, 100 tons marked KR, 100 tons marked 00, and 100 tons composed of the iron marked YY and VV. The two marks YY and VV together aggregate 100 tons,

and which said seven hundred (700) tons of iron in the hands of the receiver has been ordered to be sold, and the proceeds thereof stand in lieu of the said iron, by that certain decree of the court rendered in term time on the 16th day of September, 1898, under agreement of parties filed in open court on the 16th day of September, 1898. It is accordingly further considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the American Pig-Iron Storage-Warrant Company and the Alabama Iron & Steel Company, bodies corporate, pay all the costs of complainant's suit, including the costs and charges herein allowed and decreed to the receiver of this court for and on account of the said seven hundred tons of iron, for which let execution issue; that from the proceeds of said seven hundred tons of iron which the receiver shall sell under the said decree and agreements of parties of September 16, 1898, after the deduction by him therefrom of actual cost of loading the said 700 tons of iron on cars in the sale thereof, and the sum of three hundred and ninety and 39/100 dollars, together with the five per cent. (5%) of the proceeds of said sale of the said seven hundred tons of iron, which said sum of $390.39 and said five per cent. is the reasonable compensation for his services and expenses in and about the keeping, preserving, selling said iron, keeping the proceeds, and paying out the same, he shall reserve sixty-four and forty-one one-hundredths dollars, to be paid, or so much thereof as may be necessary to be paid, to the petitioners L. & E. Lamar, or their solicitors of record, for and on account of said seven hundred tons of iron, upon the contingency hereinafter mentioned and provided for; and in the event such contingency does not arise, and such payment be not made of said sixty-four and 41/100 dollars, then the same, or so much thereof as may not have been so paid, shall be paid by the said receiver to the said complainant, or her solicitors of record. It is further considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the Alabama Iron & Steel Company is indebted to the petitioner and intervener R. H. Pfaff in the sum of five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars, with interest thereon, by and under four certain pledge notes described in his original and amended petition in this cause, as alleged therein, the amount of which being of easy calculation and ascertainment, it is here calculated and found and decreed to be the sum of ($6,835) sixty-eight hundred and thirty-five dollars, for which said indebtedness was pledged three hundred tons of iron now represented by the three hundred tons of iron set aside under the decree of September 18, 1897, of this court, known as 100 tons marked H, 100 tons marked CC, and 100 tons marked DD, and which said three hundred tons of iron have been ordered to be sold, and the proceeds thereof stand in lieu of the said iron, by that certain decree

*

of the court rendered in term time on the 16th day of September, 1898, under agreement of parties in open court on said day. It is accordingly ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the American PigIron Storage-Warrant Company and the Alabama Iron & Steel Company, bodies corporate, pay all the costs incident to petitioner Pfaff, petition and proceedings thereunder, including the costs and charges herein allowed and decreed to the receiver of this court for and on account of the three hundred tons of iron, for which let execution issue; that from the proceeds of the said three hundred tons of iron which the receiver shall sell under the decree and agreement of parties of September 16, 1898, after the deduction by him therefrom of the actual cost of loading the said three hundred tons of iron on cars in the sale thereof, and the sum of one hundred and sixty-seven and 31/100 dollars, together with five per cent. (5%) of the proceeds of said sale of the said three hundred tons of iron, which said sum of $167.31 and said five per cent. is the reasonable compensation for the said receiver's services and expenses in and about the keeping, preserving, and selling said iron, keeping the proceeds thereof, and paying out the same, so much thereof as may be necessary to be paid to the petitioners L. & E. Lamar, Minthorne Woolsey, and Frank Moore, or their solicitors of record, for and on account of said three hundred tons of iron, upon the contingency hereinafter mentioned and provided for; and in the event such contingency does not arise, and such payment be not made of said $27.61, so much thereof as may not have been so paid shall be paid by the said receiver to the said petitioner Pfaff, or his solicitors of record. * It is further considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the amount due, with interest to the date of this decree, to the said L. & E. Lamar, on their said receiver's certificates described in their amended petition, and owned by them, is five thousand one hundred and fifty and 16/100 dollars; that the amount due, with interest to the date of this decree, to said Minthorne Woolsey on his said receiver's certificates described in his said amended petition, and owned by him, is five hundred and fifty-six and 30/100 dollars; and that the amount due, with interest to the date of this decree, to the said Frank Moore on his said receiver's certificates, described in his said amended petition, and owned by him, is one thousand six hundred and sixty-three and 73/100 dollars, which sums constitute first liens and charges of equal dignity, aggregating at this date seven thousand three hundred and seventy and 28/100 dollars, on the remainder of the proceeds of the said steam shovel now in the hands of the court, through its receiver, on the proceeds of three hundred tons of iron in the custody of the court, through its said receiver, known as that