UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

Where a warehouseman gave a receipt for wheat which he did not receive, and afterwards the quantity which he actually had was divided amongst the respective depositors, an action of replevin, brought by the assignee of the fictitious receipt could not be maintained when, under it, one of these portions was seized.

Evidence offered to show that the wheat in question was assigned to the defendant was objected to by the plaintiff in the replevin, but such objection was properly overruled. The plaintiff had shown no title in himself.

So also, evidence was admissible to show that the receiver of the fictitious certificate had never deposited any wheat in the warehouse.

The defendants in this case were the assignees of the original warehouseman, and were not responsible, unless it could be shown that wheat was deposited which had come into their possession.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. clubjuris

Page 55 U. S. 526