WAREHOUSEMAN. A person who re ceives goods and merchandise to be. stored in his warehouse for hire. He Is not a guar antor of the title of property placed in his custody, although his receipts therefor are by statute negotiable; Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co. v. Klger, 103 U. S. 352, 26 L. Ed. 433.
He is bound to use ordinary care in pre serving such goods and merchandise, and his neglect to do so will render him liable to the owner ; 1 Esp. 315; Story, Bailm. § 444; Backus v. Start, 13 Fed. 69; Nichols v. Smith, 115 Mass. 332 ; Buckingham v. Fisher, 70 Ill. 121; Reamer v. Davis, 85 Ind. 201. The warehouseman's liability commences as soon as the goods arrive and the crane of the warehouse is applied to raise them into the warehouse ; 4 Esp. 262. See Farrell & Co. v. R. R. Co., 102 N. C. 390, 9 S. E. 302, 3 L. R. A. 647, 11 Am. St. Rep. 760 ; Titsworth v. Winnegar, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 148. He cannot have possession of another man's property, with its accompanying duties and responsibil ities forced upon him against his will ; Del aware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Transit Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 50, 17 Atl. 146, 6 L. R. A. 855.
Warehousemen have a lieu on property left in their custody, for their hire, labor, and services ; 1 Esp. 109; Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 466, 42 Am. Dec. 254 ; Jones, Liens § 967; being due on all goods stored under a single contract; Devereux v. Flem ing, 53 Fed. 401; though in some cases this lien has been looked upon only as specific, and not general ; Scott v. Jester, 13 Ark. 446. See Story, Bailm. 452 ; 3 Kent § 635. A warehouseman cannot recover storage for property stored for a certain time for a def inite sum, where it is destroyed within the time, without his negligence; Archer v. Mc Donald, 36 Hun (N. Y.) 194 ; but under a custom to collect charges when the goods are ordered out, their accidentally burning will not release the owner from paying storage ; Jones v. Chaffin, 102 Ala. 382, 15 South. 143. Grain delivered to a warehouseman upon the agreement that it may be mixed with other of like grade, and held for the owner is a bailment not a sale ; Ardinger v. Wright, 38
Ill. App. 98.
A statute requiring warehousemen operat ing public elevators to insure grain at their own expense is valid ; Brass v. North Dako ta, 153 U. S. 391, 14 Sup. Ct. 857, 38 L. Ed. 757. See WHARFINGER ; RATES.
Warehouse Receipts. Receipts given by a warehouseman for chattels placed in his pos session for storage purposes. Burton v. Cur yea, 40 Ill. 320, 89 Am. Dec. 350. They are not in a technical sense negotiable instru ments ; 2 Ames, Bills & N. 782. It has been held, that, even where no statute has been enacted on this subject, inasmuch as these in struments have come to be considered the representatives of property, and an assign ment is equivalent to the delivery of prop erty, the warehouseman is estopped, as against an assignee for value without notice, to set up facts or agreements contradictory to their terms ; Stewart v. Ins. Co., 9 Lea (Tenn.) 104.
Defendant is estopped from denying the validity of a warehouse receipt for grain fraudulently issued by its agent and trans ferred to the plaintiff for value without no tice; Fletcher v. Elevator Co., 12 S. D. 643, 82 N. W. 184. Other cases holding the same view are Armour v. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 111, 22 Am. Rep. 603 ; Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Bank, 10 Neb. 556, 7 N. W. 311, 35 Am. Rep. 488; contra, Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665; Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998 ; National Bank of Commerce v. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 560, 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566.
The Warehouse Receipts Act has been en acted in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missou ri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mex ico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wis consin, Alaska, District of Columbia and the Philippines.