380 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The firra of E. & C. Stokes ftiiled on January 18, 1878. For a number of years they had received goods on storage from various persons, and had issued warehouse receipts therefor. Atthe tiine of their failure the Philadel- phia Warehouse Company held a number of these warehouse receipts, on which it had made large advances. Learning of the failure, the warehouse Company sent to E. & C. Stokes' store, and fiuding that there were large defl- cieneies in the pledged goods, threatened E. & C. Stokes with a criminalpros- ecution under the "warehouse act."* On the next day a gentleman by the name of German Smith called upon the president of the warehouse company. He represented himself as a friend of E. & C. Stokes, and asked what could be done to avoid the criminal prosecution. The president replied that if the company could be paid or seoured $10,000, which was less than the amountof the deliciency, he would recommend the company not to prosecute. The next day German Smith called with Mr. Elton, the father-in-law of E. Stokes. Smith offered to ship the company 150 bags of sumac in settlement. This offer was declined, but finally the company accepted ajudgment bond for $10,- 000, signed by Elton and Smith, with the undeistanding that Smith should give the company 30 tons of sumac then in Philadelphia, and should ship them 90 tons more; tiaat the proceeds of this sumac should be credited on the bond; and that his liability should then cease. The company ou its part agreed not to institute criminal proceedings. The company received the 30 tons of sumac, and sold 10 of it, realizing -f 470.28. Subsequently it received and stored the remaining 90 tons, and still later, upon Mr. Elton making pay- ment of the bond, it transferred the sumac to him, giving him credit for the 10 tons sold. Meanwhile, in February, 1878, E. & C. Stokes, upon the peti- tion of creditors, were adjudicated bankrupts. It then tniiispired that Ger- man Smith was their debtor, and that the sumac shipped by him was shipped in payment of their claim. The wareliouse company learned of this fact after they had received but 30 tons of the sumac, and before the remaining 90 tons had been shipped. The assignee in baukruptcy filed this bill to recover from the warehouse company the value of all the sumac received. �B. L. Ashhwrst and Samuel S. Hollingsworth, for complainant. George Junkin, for respoiident. �Butler, D. J, The plaintiff seeks to recover from defendants the value of 150 tons of sumac, received by the latter from German �*ThB Pennsylvania act of asscoibly of twenty-fourth of September, 18C6, 5 2, proviiies that no receipt or Toucher for any goods shall be given by any porson, nnless the goods shall be in hls pos- session and under bis coutrol. �Sec. 4, The maker of siich receipt or voucher shall not sell, encumber, ship, transfer, or in any manner remove beyond hi« immediate control the goods or property, without the return of the receipt or Toucher therefor. �Section 5 enacts that any person Tiolatiag the act shall be deemed guilty of fraud, and «pon con- Tlction be fined and imprisoned. �Section 108 of the act tblrty-flrst of March, 1860, proTides that any bailee of property, who shall fraudulently take or convert the same tohis own use, or totlie use of any person otherthaa the oiyner, shall be guilty of larceny, and punished as in cases of lareeny of [ike property. �Section 9 enacts that any person, havlng a knowledge of the actual commission of larceny, who «hall Iake money or other reward, or promise thereof, to compound the crime aforesaid, he shall be guilty of a mlsdemeuuur, and ou couvictiuu be lliied and impnsuiied. ��� �
