The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-06-14
The Supreme Court Decides
Very Important Case.
DECISIONS OF INTEREST
Opinions In Those Of Parsons VS..
Maury g. MaurY and Others OF
Moment TO Richmond-
Danyille Liquor Matter.

Tho Times Dispatch has received a copy
Of the opinion of the Court OF Appeals
delivered last Thursday at Wythevile
by Judge r. H. Cardwell. in the case OF
Milhiser Manufacturing Compony VS..
Gallego Mills Company. and it proves
to be as surmlsed in this paper Friday
The decision is of incalcuable Importance
70 the commerce OF Richmond and OF the
whole State. 1t enables the banks to re-
turn to their custom OF lending money
on warehouse receipts, whether licensed
or unlicensed warehouses, with perfect
safety, and this enables weak concerns
to do a. far greater business than they
could do * compelled TO use their own
capital only, 1t IS impossible 10 estimate
the amount that the decision adds to the
working capital OF Richmond, but it is
immense.
A condensed statement OF the decision
is as follows
The Gallego Mills Company became in
solvent in 1897, and the Chancery Court
OF Richmond appointed a receiver for II.
IT had created "a mortgage debt upon its
property for sao0,oN, OF which s125,o0o
had been given to the sellers OF Its real
estate and $1,000 had been negotiated In
other parties for various purposes priSr
of were furnished The company did q
milling business and kept a warehouse.
IT purchased much wheat and stored It In
the elevator OF the Chesapeake and Ohio
certificates for the wheat, on which
.he Gallego Mills Company borrowed
money from the banks and various other
} parties. This elevator was run as sta
lion OF the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
read, the successor In title to the prop
crty and franchises of the Louisa Rail-
road Company, whose charter authorized
II to keep warehouses.
The Gallego Mills Company conducted a
public warehouse for the storage Of goods.
Z wares. &C., separate and distinct from us
establishment as manufacturer OF hour.
&c, but 1t stored IN 1t It's own goods only,
and the court thought that fact OF no
I. moment.
THE CONTROVERSY.
The controversy in the case arose thus:
Certain parties held elevator receipts tor
wheat stored In 1t. which the Galego
Mills Company had deposited with them
sscollateral security for money due them.
me Union Bank and Savings Bank OF
.ichmond held Gallego Mills Companys
warehouse receipts, which the Galego
Nils Company had deposited with them,
certifying that 1t had received in store
for those banks certain barrels of -four,
10 be held subject to the order OF those
banks. and to be deivered 4, only on the
surrender OF the receipts. The flour was
the Gallego Mills Company's -four The
banks had loaned the Gallego Mills Com
pany money upon those receipts as col
lateral.
The Virginia act of Assembly gives all
persons furnishing manufacturing COM
pany supplies necessary to Its business
n prior lien upon all of Its personal prop
erty other than that forming part of its
plant The Mllhiser Manufacturing Com
many had furnished the Gailego Mills
Company certain supplies before 1t failed,
and II being insolvent and some one hnv-
and 1t bein insolvent and some one
having to lose It, tho Milhiser Com
pany claimed that its statutory lien
upon the property was superior to
that Of the holders of the $4,000 of bonds,
10 that of the holders Of the elevator
receipts and to that of the holders of the
Gallego Mills Company's warehouse re-
ceIpts The Chanceiy Court decided that
The title of the holders OF the $4,000 OF
bonds was superior to that OF the Mil
hiser Company, and that the title OF the
holders of the elevator receipts was also
superlor, but IL decided that the title of
the Mlhiser Company was superior To
that of the Union Bank and the Savings
Bank, holding the warehouse receipts OF
the Gallego Mills Company, The appeal
and cross assignment OF errors brought
before the Court of Appeals the Chancery
Courts ruling on all three points,
SUPREME COURTS DECISION,
The Court of Appeals disposed very
eummarily OF the question of the bonds,
holding the title of those who had them
good 1t treated the elevator receipts and
standing upon precisely the same footing,
and It held in respect to both that the
common law effect Of such instruments
was to transfer the title to and possession
OF the goods to the bona hde holders OF
the instrument upon the principle OF
equitable estonpel and not of symbolical
delivery osSfproperty, and that this was
the common law effect of such lnstru-
ments whether they were issued by
keepers of licensed warehouses or by
others who We're not licensed warehouse
Keepers. Q,if{3
1t deciSssA consequently that at common
law zho has in good faith lent
money upon such an instrument as coll
lateral security for his money becomes
the owner of the goods for the purpose OF
securing his loan, and that as the goods
we're no longer the property, of the ware
houseman after he had pledged his
warehouse receipt for a loan. he had no
property for the supply lien law to act
upon
This confronted the court with the ques.
l,o- ini sfa