
    MUNROE v. BONANNO.
    
      N. Y. Supreme Court, Special Term, First District;
    
    
      September, 1893.
    x. Pledge.] Bankers at the request of a merchant advanced the purchase money for goods, and took the bills of lading therefor in their own name. The bills of lading were subsequently surrendered to the merchant under an agreement that he would hold the goods as the property of the bankers, with liberty to sell them, and if he should sell them to turn over the proceeds, to the bankers to secure their advances, the intention of the. • agreement being to -preserve the bankers’ title to the goods.. The merchant, however, secured other advances from third persons upon a promise to pay to them what the goods should sell for.—Held, that the lien of the bankers upon the goods or-their proceeds was superior to any rights of such third persons.. 2. The samel] It seems, that a person making advances to another-upon a promise by the latter to pay over the proceeds of property, when sold, acquires no lien upon the property or its. proceeds.
    Motion for an injunction pending an action to restrain one of the defendants, from paying to the other defendants, or other persons, the proceeds of the sale of certain merchandise.
    
      The action was brought by John Monroe and others against Domenico Bonanno and others.
    The complaint in substance alleged, that plaintiffs as co-partners transacting the business of bankers under the name of John Monroe & Co., drew certain bills of exchange on the defendant, Domenico Bonanno, accompanied by certain bills of lading to plaintiffs for shipments of fruit; that the bills of exchange were drawn against acceptances given by plaintiffs at Bonanno’s request for the purchase money of the merchandise referred to in the bills of lading that subsequently the plaintiffs surrendered the bills of lading to Bonanno under an agreement that he would hold the fruit as property of plaintiffs, with liberty to sell it, and if he should sell, to turn over the proceeds to plaintiffs as security for what was due them upon' their acceptances, the intention of the agreement being to protect and preserve unimpaired the title of plaintiffs to the fruit; that Bonanno had placed the fruit in the hands of the ■defendant, Edward M. Brown, for sale, and he had sold it ■on credit and had not yet received the proceeds; and that Bonanno had instructed the defendant, Brown, to pay over ■the proceeds to Phelps Bros. & Co., instead of the ;plaintiffs.
    It appeared by affidavits in behalf of Phelps Bros. & Co., that Bonanno had represented to them that the fruit was ■consigned to him, and at his request they had made advances of such sums of money as would probably represent the proceeds upon its sale.
    
      Stern & Rn'shmore, for plaintiffs.
    
      Rochfort & Stayton, for defendants.
   Ingraham, J.

I think it clear that under the agreement between plaintiffs and the defendant, Bonanno, the plaintiffs acquired .a lien upon the merchandise referred to rt the complaint for the amount of their advances to Bonanno, superior to that of any one whose interest in the property was subsequently acquired. It seems to me also •clear that Phelps Bros. & Co. never acquired a lien upon the property in question. They made the advances to Bonanno upon the faith of his representations that he was the owner of the property, and his promise to repay them •out of the proceeds realized upon the sale of the goods ; no specific lien was acquired. Under such circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid the amount due them out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, which right is superior to that of either the defendants, Phelps Bros., or the defendant, Bonanno.

Injunction granted.  