document of title was in the form called negotiable in this Act. This rule still applies as to non-negotiable documents.1 Negotiable documents of title drawn or endorsed to bearer or in blank may also be negotiated by delivery, but with a different effect from non-negotiable documents as will be seen later.2 Negotiable documents drawn to order cannot be negotiated so as to retain the consequences of negotiability without endorsement.3 NEGOTIATION BY DELIVERY.-This section, following the analogy of the law of negotiable instruments, and declaratory of the common law, provides what form of negotiable documents of title may be negotiated by delivery without indorsement; it is (a) Where the document of title makes the goods deliverable to bearer:5 (b) Where the document of title is indorsed in blank or to bearer. 6 Analogous to the rules governing negotiable instruments, a subsequent indorser of a document of title, making the goods deliverable to the bearer or indorsed in blank or to bearer, may, by his 1. See sec. 31. 2. See secs. 33 and 34. Turner v. Israel, 64 Ark. 244. 3. See secs. 29 and 35. 4. A bill of lading drawn to the order of the shipper may be transferred by delivery without endorsement "Bills of lading are choses in action and no rule is better established than that instruments of this character may be transferred for a valuable consideration by delivery only." Merchants' Bank v. Union R. R. & Trans Co., 69 N. Y. 373, 379. Citing Bank of Rochester v. Jones. 4 N. Y. 497, 507; City Bank v. Rome, etc., R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 136. To the same effect is Dodge v. Meyer, 61 Cal. 405, 416; Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. Y. 1, 3; Barnard v. Campbell, 55 N. Y. 456, 464; First Nat. Bank v. Kelley, 57 N. Y. 34, 36; Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank, 60 N. Y. 40, 47; First Nat. Bank v. Shaw, 61 N. Y. 263, 294; Becker v. Hallgarten. 86 N. Y. 167, 175. 5. Stollenwerck V. Thacher, 115 Mass. 224; Davenport, Nat. Bank v. Homeyer, 45 Mo. 145. 6. Munro v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co., 75 Fed. 545; Glidden v. Lucas, 7 Cal. 26; Relyea v. New. Haven Rolling Mill Co., 42 Conn. 579, 581; Tison v. Howard, 57 Ga. 410; Burton v. Curyea, 40 Ill. 320; Michigan Cent. R. R. Co. v. Phillips, 60 Ill. 190; Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180; Low v. De Wolf, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 101; Allen v. Williams, 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 297; Pratt v. Parkman, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 42; Adams v. O'Conner, 100 Mass. 515; First 'Nat. Bank v. Dearhorn, 115 Mass. 219; Stollenwerck v. Thacher, 115 Mass. 224; Fifth Nat. Bank v. Bayley, 115 Mass. 228; City Bank v. Rome, etc., R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 136; Merchants' Bank v. Union R. R. & T. Co., 69 N. Y. 373. For negotiation of negotiable warehouse receipts by delivery, see Pub. Acts of Connecticut, 1907, ch. 220. § 37. indorsement to a specific person, prevent further negotiation by delivery until the document of title is again indorsed in blank or to bearer. Section 29. Negotiation of Negotiable Documents by Indorsement.- A negotiable document of title may be negotiated by the indorsement of the person to whose order the goods are by the terms of the document deliverable. Such indorsement may be in blank, to bearer, or to a specified person. If indorsed to a specified person it may be again negotiated by the indorsement of such person in blank, to bearer, or to another specified person, and subsequent negotiation may be made in like manner. Negotiable documents of title making the goods deliverable to the order of a specified person can be negotiated only by indorsement and delivery.1 This modifies the common law by which any document of title could be transferred by delivery alone without indorsement if so intended. This section carries out the analogy of the law of negotiable instruments as to form of indorsement and mode of negotiation. 7. See cases under § 27. 1. Shaw v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 557; Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 Ala. 353; Turner v. Israel, 64 Ark. 244; State Bank v. Waterhouse, 70 Conn. 76; Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Minn. 224; Erie, etc., Dispatch v. St. Louis Cotton Compress Co., 6 Mo. App. 172; Hunt v. Miss. Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 446; Robinson v. Stuart, 68 Me. 61; McCants v. Wells, 4 S. C. 381; Scharpf v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 426. See cases under § 27, note 9. See Warehouse Receipts Act, Pub. Acts of Conn., 1907, ch. 220, § 38. Under the Illinois statute which provides that warehouse receipts "shall be negotiable by endorsement in blank or by special endorsement in the same manner and to the same effect as bills of exchange and promissory notes are, it was held that warehouse receipts are not technically negotiable instruments, but merely stand for the property itself, and the instrument and delivery of such receipts have the same effect in transferring the title to the goods as a delivery of the goods themselves, neither more nor less." Burton v. Curyea, 40 Ill. 320. For the negotiation of negotiable warehouse receipts by endorsement and delivery, see Public Acts of Conn., 1907, ch. 220, § 38. 2. Harris v. Bradley, 2 Dill. (U. S. C. C.) 284; Gibson v. Stevens, 3 McLean (U. S. C. C.), 560; Halliday v. Hamilton, 78 U. S. (11 Wall.) 560; The Thames v. Seaman, 81 U. S. (14 Wall.) 98; Crapo v. Kelly, 83 U. S. (16 Wall.) 610; State Bank v. Waterhouse, 70 Conn. 76; Mears v. Waples, 3 Houst. (Del.) 582; U. R. R. & T. Co. v. Yeager, 34 Ind. 1; Robinson v. Stuart, 68 Me. 61; Gardner v. Howland, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 599; Chapman v. Searle, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 38, 45; Sumner v. Hamlet, 29 Section 30. Negotiable Documents of Title Marked "Not Negotiable."- If a document of title which contains an undertaking by a carrier, warehouseman, or other bailee to deliver the goods to the bearer, to a specified person or order, or to the order of a specified person, or which contains words of like import, has placed upon it the words "not negotiable," "non-negotiable," or the like, such document may nevertheless be negotiated by the holder, and is a negotiable document of title within the meaning of this Act; but nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as limiting or defining the effect upon the obligations of the carrier, warehouseman or other bailee issuing a document of title, of placing thereon the words "not negotiable," negotiable," or the like. non Stamping or placing the words "not negotiable" or nonnegotiable" on a negotiable document of title does not affect its negotiability. This Act aims not to affect the rights or liabilities between the owner of a document of title and the bailee, but merely to provide for the transfer of documents of title, the contract and goods from one person to another. Mass. (12 Pick.) 76; Carter v. Wil- Meyerstein v. Barber, L. R. 2 C. P. 38. The mere fact that a bill is drawn to order does not prevent its transfer by delivery without endorsement. First Nat. Bank of Syracuse v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 85 Hun, 160. 1. Dymock v. Missouri, etc., R. R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 400; Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri, K. & T. R. R. Co., 62 Mo. App. 531. The failure to mark non-negotiable warehouse receipts with the words "not negotiable " or "non-negotiable" subjects the warehouseman to the same liability he would have incurred if the receipts had been negotiable. Warehouse Receipts Act, Pub. Acts of Conn. 1907, Ch. 220, § 7. Section 31. Transfer of Non-Negotiable Documents.- A document of title which is not in such form that it can be negotiated by delivery may be transferred by the holder by delivery to a purchaser or donee. A non-negotiable receipt cannot be negotiated and the endorsement of such a receipt gives the transferee no additional right. TRANSFER OF NON-NEGOTIABLE DOCUMENTS.-Documents of title which are not negotiable1 in accordance with the provisions of this Act may be transferred by the holder by delivery if that is the intention of the parties. This follows the common law rule.2 1. "Definition of non-negotiable (warehouse) receipt.-A reIceipt in which it is stated that the goods received will be delivered to the depositor, or to any other specified person is a non-negotiable receipt." Public Acts of Connecticut, 1907, ch. 220, § 4. See, also, Cincinnati First Nat. Bank v. Bates, 1 Fed. 702; McNeil v. Hill, 1 Woolw. (U. S. C. C.) 96; Friedlander v. Ry., 130 U. S. 416; Davis v. Russell, 52 Cal. 611; Lowrie v. Salz, 75 Cal. 349; N. Y. State Bank v. Waterhouse, 70 Conn. 76; First Nat. Bank v. Crocker, 111 Mass. 163; Hallgarten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. 1; Nat. Bank v. R. R., 44 Minn. 224; Stein v. Rheinstrom, 47 Minr. 476; Thompson v. Thompson, 78 Minn. 379; Geilfuss v. Corrigan, 95 Wis. 651, 37 L. R. A. 167; Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 155, 157; Van Schoonhoven v. Curley, 86 N. Y. 187; Gill v. Frank, 12 Ore. 507. Contra: On the theory of estoppel. Wichita Sav. Bank v. Ry., 20 Kans. 519; Sioux City, etc., R. R. v. Bank, 10 Neb. 556; Batavian Bank v. R. R., 106 N. Y. 195. 2. Gibson v. Stevens, 49 U. S. (8 How.) 384; Ala. Gr. So. R. R. Co. v. Clark, 136 Ala. 450; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Phillips, 60 Ill. 190; W. U. R. R. Co. v. Wagner, 65 Ill. 197; Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180; Pettit v. Memphis First Nat. Bank, 67 Ky. (4 Bush) 334; Tuxworth v. Moore, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) 347; Allen v. Williams, 29 Mass (12 Pick.) 297; Fettyplace v. Dutch, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 388; Whipple v. Thayer, 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 25; Carter v. Willard, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 1; DeWolf v. Gardner, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 19, 24; First Nat. Bank of Cairo v. Crocker, 111 Mass. 163; Ober v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 81; Davenport Nat. Bank v. Homeyer, 45 Mo. 145; Scharpf v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428; Bank of Rochester v. Jones, 4 N. Y. (4 Comst.) 497; Merchants' Bank v. Union R., etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 373, 376; Becker v. Hallgarten, 86 N. Y. 167; Emery v. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 Ohio St. 360; Holmes v. Bailey, 92 Pa. St. 57; Richardson v. Nathan, 167 Pa. St. 513; Haille v. Smith, 1 B. & P. 563; Nathan v. Giles, 5 Taunt, 558. The delivery by an owner of goods of a carrier's receipt for them, not negotiable in its nature, as security for an advance of money, with the intention to transfer the property in the goods, is a symbolic delivery of them and vests in the person making the advance a special property in the goods sufficient to maintain replevin against an officer who afterwards attaches them upon a writ against the general owner. First Nat. Bank of Green Bay v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219. For transfer of non-negotiable warehouse receipts, see Public Acts of Conn., 1907, ch. 220, § 39. Section 32. Who May Negotiate a Document.-A negotiable document of title may be negotiated: (a.) By the owner thereof; or (b.) By any person to whom the possession or custody of the document has been entrusted by the owner, if, by the terms of the document, the bailee issuing the document undertakes to deliver the goods to the order of the person to whom the possession or custody of the document has been entrusted, or if at the time of such entrusting the document is in such form that it may be negotiated by delivery. This section follows the analogy of negotiable instruments and in a general way states the existing law under statutes and common law decisions with reference to negotiable warehouse receipts and bills of lading.1 When the owner of goods delivers them to a carrier for transportation or to a warehouseman for storage, and takes a bill of lading or warehouse receipt, he may, by the document of title, make the goods deliverable to the order of himself or another.2 In either case, strictly speaking, only the consignee can negotiate or transfer a bill of lading by indorsement or otherwise so as to pass the legal title to the goods. The owner or shipper by the well settled principles of commercial law constitutes the consignee, whether or not he be the buyer of the goods or the factor or agent of the owner, the authorized agent of the owner, whoever he may be, to receive the goods, and by his indorsement of the bill of lading to a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of any adverse interests, to negotiate or transfer the document of title and goods represented by it.3 1. Pollard v. Reardon, 65 Fed. 848; Munro V. Philadelphia Warehouse Co., 75 Fed. 545; Commercial Bank v. Armsby Co., 120 Ga. 74. 2. Conard v. Atl. Ins. Co., 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 386, 445. 3. "By the well-settled principles of commercial law the consignee is thus constituted the authorized agent of the owner, whoever he may be, to receive the goods, and by his indorsements of the bill of lading to a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of any ad verse interests, the latter becomes as against all the world the owner of the goods. This is the result of the principle that bills of lading are transferable by indorsement and thus may pass the property. It matters not whether the consignee in such case be the buyer of the goods or the factor or agent of the owner. His transfer in such a case is equally capable of devesting the property of the owner and vesting it in the indorsee of the bill of lading, and, strictly speaking, no person.but such |