M'Neil v. Hill

16 F. Cas. 325

• Court: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
• Decided: June 15, 1865
• Status: Published

Opinion

MILLER, Circuit Justice.

As civilization has advanced, and commerce extended, new and artificial modes of doing business have superseded the exchanges by barter and otherwise. which prevail while society is in its early and simple stages. The invention of the bill of exchange is a familiar illustration of this fact. A more modern, but still not recent invention, of like character, for the transfer, without the somewhat cumbersome, and often impossible, operation of actual delivery of articles of personal property, is the indorsement or assignment of bills of lading and warehouse receipts. Instruments of this kind are sui generis. From long use in trade, they have come to have, among commercial men, a well understood meaning. And the indorsement or assignment of them as absolutely transfers the general property of the goods and chattels therein named, as would a bill of sale. Austen v. Craven, 4 Taunt. 647; White v. Wilks [5 Taunt. 176] 12 East. 614; Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet.[26 U. S.] 386; Gardiner v. Suydam, 7 N. Y. (3 Seld.) 357; Gibson v. Chillicothe Branch of State Bank of Ohio, 11 Ohio St. 311. When a warehouseman issues such a receipt, he puts it in the power of the holder to treat with the public on the faith of it. He enables him to say, and to induce others to believe, that he has certain property, which he can sell or pledge for a loan of money. If the warehouseman gives to the party who holds such a receipt a false credit, he will not be suffered to contradict the statement which he has made in the receipt, so as to injure a party who has been misled by it. That is within the most exact definition of estoppel. If A. gives to B. his note for 8100. although he has received no value therefor, and may defend against the note in a suit brought by B., yet if B. sells the note to a third party who does not know of the facts, A. then must pay the note. Just so in the case of a warehouse receipt. If A. issues such a paper to B., for articles which he has never received, a third party treating with B. on the faith of the statement and promise contained in the receipt, will hold A. for the goods or their value. It is of no consequence what the transaction may be between the original parties; whether the receipt, as is claimed here, was intended as a security for a loan, or was entirely false.

The defendant here offers to prove that he never received the property mentioned in the receipt which he has given, but that the paper was issued as a security for a loan, or as an advance on wheat to be delivered. But he has stated in this receipt that he has the "wheat in his warehouse, and also promised therein to deliver the wheat to the order of Upham & Co. These plaintiffs, believing this statement to be true, and relying on this promise, bought of Upham & Co. the receipt and property mentioned therein. They were justified in doing this, and the defendants must respond to their promise. The evidence is not admissible.