V 52 ·t FEDERAL -nE1>oa*rEn.
Mills & Co. to them. It was further understood between Mills & Co. and
Wells, Fargo & Co. that the receipts should also stand as security for a gen-
eral balance standing against Mills & Co. on the bank’s books. Up to and
including January 11, 1886, Jones had in this manner shipped and sold
to Mills & Co. in the aggregate. 1_90,000 bushels of wheat, all of which
was delivered by defendant tothe order of plaintiffs. Subsequent to,
but soon after, January 11th, the wheat in controversy in the present ac- _
tion was shipped by Jones, through defendant, to Mills & Co.; the car-
rier’s receipts, in the same form as those previously given, (except that
in one, for 390 sacks, Mills & Co., care of Taylor, Young & Co., Port-
land, Oregon, and in another, for 310 sacks, Mills ·& Co., Portland, were
named as consignees,) were taken by Jones; drafts were drawn by him
on Mills & Co. in the approximate value of the wheat; the carrier’s re-
4 oeipts attached to them; and sent through Baker & Boyer to the First
National Bank of San Francisco for acceptance and collection. These
drafts were accepted by Mills .& Co., and paid in the same way, and
upon the same agreement, as the previous drafts; that is to say, with
money advanced by Wells, Fargo & Co. upon the security of the car-
rier’s receipts, which, as in the previous instances, were indorsed and
delivered by Millsdz Co. to them; »
Of the wheat sued for, numbering in all 5,363 sacks, 1,023, it was
proved on the trial, were properly delivered by defendant in San Fran-
cisco; and as to that lot, plaintiffs, on the hearing, conceded that they
‘ had failed to make good their claim. The remaining 4,340 sacks were
never delivered to plaintiffs, and for those they contend they are en-
titled to recover. ~
After the wheat in controversy had been shipped in the manner stated,
Jones came to San Francisco; and Ending Mills & Co. insolvent, and
that he had not been paid in full for the wheat sold and delivered prior
to January 11, 1886. stopped in transit all of that in controversy, ex-
cept the two lots consigned to Portland. Of those lots, that embracing
. 310 sacks, and consigned to Mills & Co., Portla11d,—at which place there
was no such firm,—was upon request of Jones delivered by defendant
to Caesar & Go. for Jones, andby him received; and that embracing 390
. sacks, and consigned to Mills & Co., care of Taylor, Young & Co., Port-
, land, was delivered by defendant to Taylor, Young & Co., at Portland,
for Jones, and by him received. The remaining 3,640 of the 4,340
sacks yet in dispute were delivered by defendant directly to Jones, pur-
suant to notice given to, and demand made on, defendant by Jones, to
the effect that he was the owner of the wheat, had not been paid for it,
` and that the consignees (Mills & Co.) were insolvent. ·
For the defendant nominally, but in reality for J ones,—he being the
_ , real party in interest,-—it is contended that Jones contracted to sell Mills
& Co. 190,000 bushels of wheat, the ownership of which passed to them
at_the time the wheat was delivered to the carrier, and for which he has
never been paid in full; that the wheat in controversy was shipped by
Jones through the mistake of his clerk "in running up figures;’? that the
drafts drawn by him on Mills & Co. were not drawn against any specific