The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-09-30


starch or ground cocoa shells;
nothing but the nutritive and
digestible product of the choic-
4 est Cocoa Beans.
Ask Your Dealer for 1t.
-----------------
| with such indicia Of title to the property
that he may deceive innocent third
parties and make them Believe he is the
real owner, will be estoIped TO set up
any claim Of title to TIP property as
against one who is q bona fde purchaser
of It without notice. This doctrine wcs
enunciated in Wright VS. Campbell.
Barrows, 2046, and received pronounced
| judicial sanction in the early case OF
| Lickbarrow vs.. Mason, Dlrn. and East.
| D. 63 G. Smiths L. c., 3 ed, 1045, ct
seq.), repeatedly cited With approval.
and never criticised, SO fir as we have
been able tc find. by text writers Us well
as In the decided case. See also Nc.
Neil We. Bank. 40 N. Y, 325, where the
doctrine Is calculated and very In
structlvc opinion delivered =
| There can be no question rs to the
soundness of the doctrine that one who
is bona flde purchaser Of the ware
house receipt. that is. purchaser for
value and without notice, gets a good
and indisputable title to the goods. But
with respect, can any such condition Ct
things be pretended in this case? The
only parties to the transaction involved
| we're the Gallego Mills Company on the
one hand and the banks on the other.
and the banks were certainly not parties
without notice OF the pledge. II they
had transferred those receipts for value
and without notice. to another. that
other might have gotten a good and In
disputable title. though I am not pre-
pared to concede that to be clear as
against the supply lien statute.
The cases cited by the court in the
passage above quoted are ample to sus-
tain the title Of n party Holding bills Of
lading without notice. but they go no
farther. For the cases wnen read dis
closed the fact that in every one Of them
1t was the rights of a third party into
whose hands the bill Of ladlng had pass
ed from the party to whom they were
originally Issued that the courts sus-
tanned, as against persons claiming
under the consgnor.
The opening sentence Of the annoia-
tor. 2 SIN. l.. c. 18th ed), p. 1883. upon
the cass OF Lickbarrow vs.. Mason.
brings out. I think. most clearly the
point in question. Ho says:
This celebrated case involves two
important propositions. The former is,
that the unpaid vendor may. in case G:
the vendee's insolvency. stop the goods
sold in transtu. The latter, that the
right to stop in transtu may be de-
feated by negotiating the bill Of lading
with bona flde indorsee."
The last Of the cases cited by the
court In the passage quoted is Monet
VS.. the Bank, and to shew that it will
not support the court in it's decision In
this case, think it Is only necessary
to copy the opening sentence Ut tho
syllabus. viz:
when the owner of property confers
upon another an apparent title to. or
power of disposition over it. he is estop-
ped from asserting his title as against
an innocent third party. who has doalt
with tn eapparent owner in reference
thereto. without knowledge of the claim
of the true owner. The rights OF such
third party, do not depend upon the ac-
tual title or authority of the one with
whom he dealt, but upon tho
act Of the owner which precludes
him from disputing the title or authority.
he has apparently conferred.
In other words. these cases are but in
conformity with the we'll known princi-
pie of mercantile law that payee or ell
dorser may confer a better title upon his
transferree than he himself has.
FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS..
ROANOKE IRON WORKS.
It should be stated that the court also
bases its conclusion upon this case, re-
ported in 81 Fed aSs: upon that portion
of Judge simonton's opinion which dis
poses Of the claim of Croker Brothers.
submit that the court was unfortunate
in selecting this case as a basis tor
It's decision. 1t Is fuh and exhaustive
opinion OF Judge simonton's, and 1t Is
rrt,, ,,-tc 80 H.,
space.
AS to the Croker Brothers claim;
THE Roanoke Iron Company was tho
manufacturing company In that case. and
against 1t parties were asserting liens for
supplies under the statute ". G., sec.
As5). and the question was. whether the
non in the possession Of Crocker Brothers
was part OF the personal property or
the Roanoke Iron Company at the dnta
when the supplies were furnished? Judge
Simonton concluded that It was not, and
the court has followed him in the arsu-
ment by which he reached that conclu-
sion instead OF. as hnmbly submit would
have been right. following him in what
Is said with reference to the claim of
the Philadelphia Warehouse Company. It
seems that the Roanoke Iron Company
consigned to Croker Brothers the iron
In question, issuing bill of ladlnG there
for; that Crocker Brothers received the
iron and placed 1t upon a lot of their
own in the city of Roanoke; they made
Advancement upon this iron pursuant 10
their agreement to do SO as set out In their
letter to the company; they being thereby
constituted the sole and exclusive agents
Of the company for the sale OF the iron
and agreeing to advance on 1t as received.
to the extent of three-fourths OF lts
value The delivery OF the very iron
had been made to them and under that
contract they had advanced on 1t. The
. AIA15yAgzSssgZAa!Rf,Z1;ss