Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/182

ADAMS V. MEBOHANTS' NAT. BANE. 175 �to a certain person, by name, the son of one of the firm, to be by him indorsed, and left with the bank as collateral security. This arrangement was carried out, the note executed, "with sureties, the apples purchased and placed in the •warehouse, for which a permit was taken out, the store being made a warehouse of class "B," and the receipts issued and indorsed to the bank, as provided in the agreement. The son, to whom the receipts were given, had no interest in the pfoperty, and had no business connection with the firm in any way. Dur- ing the time that these transactions occurred the bankrupts kept their general account with the bank, and deposited and drew out money as they received or needed the same ; and the note, discounted by the bank, was placed as a credit to their general account. �In January, 1878, Van Camp & Son were adjudged bank- rupts by the district court for this district, and the apples, covered by the receipts referred to, together with the other property, came into the hands of the assignee, and were sold by the order of the district court, the proceeds being permit- ted to remain in the hands of the assignee, subject to the same rights which existed against the property itself. Upon application by the bank to the district court, requesting that a lien might be declared in its favor on the fund arising from the sale of the apples, the assignee was ordered to pay the amount of the note out of the fund in his hands, on the ground that the bank had an absolute lien upon the property for which it held the warehouse receipts. That order the assignee asks to have reviewed. by this court, and the ques- tion before the court is whether the bank had a priority of lien over the general creditors, as the district court adjudged. �There is nothing in the statement of the case to indicate that the bankrupts used their warehouse, as a warehouse under the statute, in any other way than for the purpose specially intended by the bank. It does not appear that tha property of any other person than that of the bankrupts was stored in the warehouse. The case, then, was one where the bankrupts having purchased and taken possesssion of prop- ����