US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

L, desiring to purchase cattle from P., a bank paid the purchase money for L. to P., and P. delivered the cattle to the bank, and they were shipped by rail to M., in six cars, to sell, accompanied by P. and L. and one G. A bill of lading for four of the cars was issued in the name of L. A bill of lading was to be issued for the other two cars in the name of G., as a pass could be issued to only two persons on one bill of lading. G. had no interest in the cattle. The cattle in the six cars were delivered to M. A draft was drawn by L. against the shipment on M., and endorsed and delivered by L. to the bank, with the bill of lading for the four cars. The draft and bill of lading were presented to M., but the draft was not accepted or paid. Three hours afterwards, M. sold the cattle, but kept the proceeds because he claimed that L. was indebted to him on an old chanrobles.com-red

Page 146 U. S. 621

account. Held that the bank was entitled to recover the proceeds from M.

The bank had a lien upon, and a pledge of, all the cattle.

The transfer of the bill of lading was a transfer of the ownership of the cattle covered by it.

There was a verbal mortgage or pledge to the bank of the two carloads, and G. represented P., and through him the bank.

It was proper for the trial court, as a question of law, to direct a verdict for the bank.

The question whether a trial shall be postponed on account of the absence of a witness for the defendant and the illness of one of his counsel is a matter of sound discretion, and will not be reviewed where no abuse is shown.

No specific instructions were prayed for by the defendant, and no request was made to direct a verdict for him, but he only requested the court generally to submit instructions to the jury.

The case is stated in the opinion.