
    Daniel G. Dorrance, Jr., Resp’t, v. Robert J. Dean et al., App’lts.
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed June 7, 1887.)
    
    Warehousemen—Lien on goods—Laws 1830, chap. 179.
    Where commission merchants, having received goods upon consignment, deliver them to warehousemen, who advance money on account thereof; the latter can keep the goods as security for the money so advanced, provided they did not know at the time that a third party was the owner, but not if they knew that the commission merchants were using the property" of a third party, to raise money for themselves.
    Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.
    
      Edward S. Hatch, for app’lts; H. Morrison, for resp’t.
   Danforth, J.

The plaintiff, being the owner of certain corn, alleged and proved that the defendants had converted it to their own use, to his damage, $2,829.60. The defendants at the time of the conversion were warehousemen and bankers. They proved, in substance, that they received the corn from the firm of Littell & Co., commission merchants, advanced money to them on account of it, and insisted that they were entitled to hold the corn until this advance was repaid. It appeared that the plaintiff had consigned the corn to Littell & Co. for sale. They therefore had possession, and were the apparent owners, and the trial judge charged the jury that the defendants could keep the corn as security for the money so advanced, provided they did not at the time know that the plaintiff was the owner of the corn: on the other hand, if they knew that Littell & Co. were using the plaintiff’s property to raise money for themselves, then the defendants could not hold. the corn, and stood in Littell & Co.’s place.

To this part of the charge the defendants excepted. It presents the only point in the case, and to sustain it the appellants rely upon the factors’ act. Laws 1830, chapter-179. That act was to protect persons dealing in good faith with the apparent owners of property, and has no possible application to a case where protection would secure to a wrong-doer the fruits 'of fraud.

Many other propositions have been argued for the appellants, but they are raised by no exception,. and are not warranted by any evidence to be found in the appeal book.

The trial judge, in denying a new trial, and the general term in affirming the judgment, properly disposed of the case.

The judgment and order appealed from should therefore be affirmed.

All concur.  