STBIGER V. %HIBD NAT. BANK. 579 �business, irrespectiveof advances and charges. The protec- tion of the consignor requires the enf orcement of the statutory rules, which, as existing, are a relaxation of the common-law doctrines, and ought not to be construed to extend beyond their clear import. �If a stranger will take a pledge of goods from a factor without inquiry, the consignor is not to sufifer. Whether he knows or not that the person from whom he takes the pledge is a mere factor does not chatige the rule. A consignor's property cannot be taken from him without bis consent. A pledgee is bound, at his peril, to inform himself of the facts. The rule as to sales in the ordinary course of business is one thing, and as to pledges entirely different. This is fully stated in the case of Shaw v. Railroad Co., supra. The diffi- culty, as heretofore intimated, arises from the failure of de- fendant to aver the amount of advances and charges for which the goods were pledged. The answer states that there were advances and charges, and that, for the purpose of rais- ing means to pay the same, the warehouse receipts were pledged, and that defendant loaned "on the faith thereof" $10,555.31. If it be meant that the sum loaned was the amount of charges and advances, the defence is good, in the absence of a tender thereof; but if, on the other hand, it ia meant that inasmuch as there was some amount due, how- ever small, the factor could pledge the property for any loan he might obtain thereon, ho wever large, and hold the property against the consignor generally, that special defence would be bad. �The only difference between the two special defences seems to be that in one it is averred that the defendant believed the pledgor to be the owner, and in the other no such averment is made. As already stated, such a difference avails nothing. The defendant, in his argument, says: "The question pre- sented for the consideration of the court is this : If a factor pledges the bill of lading or warehouse receipt, having no rea- son to doubt that such factor is the true owner of the goods, can the consignor recover the goods without first offering to return the money borrowed ?" It will be apparent, from what ��� �
