580 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �has heretofore been observed, that the proper answer to such question, thus broadly stated, would be in the affirmative. The factor cannot pledge the goods of his principal, except to the amount and in the manner stated. He has no authority, either at common law or by statute, to borrow money gener- ally on the pledge of the warehouse receipt ; nor can the pledgee protect himself against the demand of the consigner, except to the estent of such advances and charges. The pledgee may receive a transfer of the factor's lien, and nothing more. Hence, the answer being that advances and charges were due, (the amount not stated,) and that a loan was made to the factor, irrespective of the amount of said advances and charges, nothing definite is presented, unless, as stated in argument, that there was a valid pledge for the amount loaned on the faith of the receipt. Such a defence is not valid, and the demurrer thereto will be sus- tained. �The same ruling will be had as to the second special defence- If, however, the defence, if amended, should show that defend- ant was pledgee for advances and charges within the term of the Missouri Statutes, and that no payment or tender thereof was made before suit brought, then said defence as to this form of action will be valid. In other words, a pledgee can maintain his pledge only for what the statute provides, and in the manner provided. If he brings himself within the ternis of the statute, then as lienor he is not a tort-feasor, or guilty of conversion by refusing to surrender the property until the lien is discharged. �Demurrer sustained. ��� �
