shall be liable according to the terms of the receipt as altered. If the alteration was unauthorized, but made without fraudulent intent, the warehouseman shall be liable according to the terms of the receipt, as they were before alteration. Material and fraudulent alteration of a receipt shall not excuse the warehouseman who issued it from liability to deliver, according to the terms of the receipt as originally issued, the goods for which it was issued, but shall excuse him from any other liability to the person who made the alteration and to any person who took with notice of the alteration. Any purchaser of the receipt for value without notice of the alteration shall acquire the same rights against the warehouseman which such purchaser would have acquired if the receipt had not been altered at the time of the purchase.2 § 1052. Delivery of goods when receipt is lost. Section 14. [LOST OR DESTROYED RECEIPTS.] Where a negotiable receipt has been lost or destroyed, a court of competent jurisdiction may order the delivery of the goods upon satisfactory proof of such loss or destruction and upon the giving of a bond with sufficient sureties to be approved by the court to protect the warehouseman from any liability or expense, which he or any person injured by such delivery may incur by reason of the original receipt remaining outstanding. The court may also in its discretion order the payment of the warehouseman's reasonable costs and counsel fees. The delivery of the goods under an order of the court as provided in this section, shall not relieve the warehouseman from liability to a person to whom the negotiable receipt has been or shall be negotiated for value without notice of the proceedings or of the delivery of the goods.3 2 This section adopts the prevailing rule of the common law. Even fraudulent alteration cannot divest the title of the owner of stored goods and the warehouseman is therefore liable to redeliver them to the owner. 3 As it is for obvious reasons for bidden and indeed made a criminal offence, [Section 52] to issue an additional negotiable receipt, it is evident that even when receipts are supposed to have been lost or destroyed, great care must be used in permitting such an issue or (what is the same thing) the § 1053. Effect of a duplicate receipt. Section 15. [EFFECT OF DUPLICATE RECEIPTS.] A receipt upon the face of which the word "duplicate" is plainly placed is a representation and warranty by the warehouseman that such receipt is an accurate copy of an original receipt properly issued and uncancelled at the date of the issue of the duplicate, but shall impose upon him no other liability.1 § 1054. Adverse claims to goods. Section 16. [WAREHOUSEMAN CAN NOT SET UP TITLE IN HIMSELF.] No title or right to the possession of the goods, on the part of the warehouseman, unless such title or right is derived directly or indirectly from a transfer made by the depositor at the time of or subsequent to the deposit for storage, or from the warehouseman's lien, shall excuse the warehouseman from liability for refusing to deliver the goods according to the terms of the receipt.5 Section 17. [INTERPLEADER OF ADVERSE CLAIMANTS.] If more than one person claims the title or possession of the goods, the warehouseman may, either as a defense to an action brought against him for non-delivery of the goods, or as an original suit, whichever is appropriate, require all known claimants to interplead." 4 See note to Section 6. Section 18.-[WAREHOUSEMAN HAS REASONABLE TIME TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS.] If some one other than the depositor or person claiming under him redelivery of the goods, without the surrender of the original receipt. It is not enough that the parties agree that the goods shall be given up or a new receipt issued. It is essential that a court shall pass upon the question and make sure that the original is lost or destroyed and that a proper indemnity is taken, for the rights of possible innocent purchasers of the original receipt are involved. This is especially important, because under the laws of many States a warehouseman may be and frequently is of slight financial responsibility. 6 The case of Crawshay v. Thornton, 2 Myl. & C. 1, unfortunately held that interpleader was not a proper remedy in such a case. It is, however, the only adequate remedy and is probably generally allowed in this country. 3 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 762. Under the statute interpleader was allowed in New Jersey &c. Trust Co. v. Rector, 76 N. J. Eq. 587, 75 Atl. 931; Manhattan &c. Warehouse Co. v. Benquiat Art Museum, 155 N. Y. App. Div. 196, 139 N. Y. S. 1073. has a claim to the title or possession of the goods, and the warehouseman has information of such claim, the warehouseman shall be excused from liability for refusing to deliver the goods, either to the depositor or person claiming under him or to the adverse claimant, until the warehouseman had has a reasonable time to ascertain the validity of the adverse claim or to bring legal proceedings to compel all claimants to interplead." Section 19. [ADVERSE TITLE IS NO DEFENSE EXCEPT AS ABOVE PROVIDED.] Except as provided in the two preceding sections and in sections 9 and 36, no right or title of a third person shall be a defense to an action brought by the depositor or person claiming under him against the warehouseman for failure to deliver the goods according to the terms of the receipt. § 1055. Warehouseman is liable for the non-existence or misdescription of goods. Section 20. [LIABILITY FOR NON-EXISTENCE OR MISDESCRIPTION OF GOODS.] A warehouseman shall be liable to the holder of a receipt for damages caused by the non-existence of the goods or by the failure of the goods to correspond with the description thereof in the receipt at the time of its issue. If, however, the goods are described in a receipt merely by a statement of marks or labels upon them, or upon packages containing them, or by a statement that the goods are said to be goods of a certain kind, or that the packages containing the goods are said to contain goods of a certain kind, or by words of like purport, such statements, if true, shall not make liable the warehouseman issuing the receipt, although the goods are not of the kind which the marks or labels upon them indicate, or of the kind they were said to be by the depositor.9 7 It seems obviously proper that the warehouseman should be protected for such brief period as may be necessary to enable him to determine the rights of the claimants. See Zuber v. Mehrle, 112 N. Y. S. 1093. 8 Supra, § 1036. This section imposes on the warehouseman a stricter rule than that generally in force in this country in that it makes a warehouseman liable for an innocent misdescription of the goods. See Hale v. Milwaukee Dock Co., 23 Wis. 276, 99 Am. Dec. 169; but § 1056. Warehouseman's duty of care of goods. Section 21. [LIABILITY FOR CARE OF GOODS.] A warehouseman shall be liable for any loss or injury to the goods caused by his failure to exercise such care in regard to them as a reasonably careful owner of similar goods would exercise, but he shall not be liable, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, for any loss or injury to the goods which could not have been avoided by the exercise of such care.10 By special contract a warehouseman may assume a larger responsibility." Section 22. [GOODS MUST BE KEPT SEPARATE.] Except as provided in the following section, a warehouseman shall keep the goods so far separate from goods of other depositors, and from other goods of the same depositor for which a separate receipt has been issued, as to permit at all times the identification and re-delivery of the goods deposited. Section 23. [FUNGIBLE GOODS MAY BE COMMINGLED, IF WAREHOUSEMAN AUTHORIZED.] If authorized by agreement or by custom, a warehouseman may mingle fungible goods with other goods of the same kind and grade. In such case the various depositors of the mingled goods shall own the entire mass in common, and each depositor shall be entitled to such portion thereof as the amount deposited by him bears to the whole.12 Section 24. [LIABILITY OF WAREHOUSEMAN TO DEPOSITORS OF COMMINGLED GOODS.] The ware as the warehouseman can readily protect himself by inserting in the receipt only what he knows, namely, the marks on the goods or the statements of the depositor regarding them, it seems best to make the warehouseman responsible for what he asserts. If, however, a warehouseman's agent in violation of his authority issues a warehouse receipt when no goods have been delivered, the statute does not render the warehouseman liable. Whether the act of the agent is the act of the principal must be determined by the common law. Rosenberg v. National &c. Warehouse Co., 218 Mass. 518, 106 N. E. 171. 10 It has been held that this section merely states the common-law rule. See H. J. Keith Co. v. Booth Fisheries Co., 4 Boyce, 218, 87 Atl. 715; Levine v. Wolff, 78 N. J. L. 306, 73 Atl. 73, 138 Am. St. Rep. 617; Mortimer v. Otto, 206 N. Y. 89, 99 N. E. 189, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 1121. 11 See infra, §§ 932, n., 1946. 12 An exceptional rule prevails in this country by custom as to grain and similar merchandise. See definition of "fungible" in Section 58, infra, § 1065. houseman shall be severally liable to each depositor for the care and re-delivery of his share of such mass to the same extent and under the same circumstances as if the goods had been kept separate.13 § 1057. Remedies of bailor's creditors. Section 25. [ATTACHMENT OR LEVY UPON GOODS FOR WHICH A NEGOTIABLE RECEIPT HAS BEEN ISSUED.] If goods are delivered to a warehouseman by the owner or by a person whose act in conveying the title to them to a purchaser in good faith for value would bind the owner, and a negotiable receipt is issued for them, they can not thereafter, while in the possession of the warehouseman, be attached by garnishment or otherwise, or be levied upon under an execution, unless the receipt be first surrendered to the warehouseman, or its negotiation enjoined. The warehouseman shall in no case be compelled to deliver up the actual possession of the goods until the receipt is surrendered to him or impounded by the court. Section 26. [CREDITORS' REMEDIES TO REACH NEGOTIABLE RECEIPTS.] A creditor whose debtor is the owner of a negotiable receipt shall be entitled to such aid from courts of appropriate jurisdiction, by injunction and otherwise, in attaching such receipt or in satisfying the claim by means thereof as is allowed at law or in equity, in regard to property which can not readily be attached or levied upon by ordinary legal process. 1058. Warehouseman's lien. Section 27. [WHAT CLAIMS ARE INCLUDED IN THE WAREHOUSEMAN'S LIEN.] Subject to the provisions of Section 30, a warehouseman shall have a lien on goods deposited or on the proceeds thereof in his hands, for all lawful charges for storage and preservation of the goods; also for all lawful claims for money advanced, interest, insurance, transportation, labor, weighing, coopering and other charges and expenses in relation to such goods; also law. See Williston, Sales, §§ 153 et 13 This section and the two preceding sections state the general American seq. |