VOL. I.] MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1875. [No. 1. NEW YORK WEEKLY DIGEST. held the grain in trust to pay the drafts, and that the proceeds of the sale should be applied to the payment of the drafts in the bankers' hands. The proceeds of the sale were paid to Charles Campbell & Co., and were sufficient to liquidate the drafts, but they failed to make the pay ACTION. Will not lie on draft, against the maker, The acceptances were protested, and suit brought against the drawers. Held. That the plaintiffs cannot recover, for they made Campbell & Co. their own agents. Magoun et al. v. Sinclair et al. N. Y. Common Pleas, Gen'l T., June Opinion by Daly, C. J., Larremore and Parties to suit. Defect of plaintiff. Receiver in supplementary proceedings: when he can be appointed. II. Plaintiff was appointed receiver of the property, debts, etc., of a judgment debtor, before the return of the execution I. Plaintiffs advanced to defendants the full amounts of bills of exchange drawn by them on their agents, Adlington & Nicholson, at Liverpool, against shipments of corn. As security for the payment of the drafts, the bills of lading were handed to plaintiffs, with an agreement, so-called, of defendants, that the bills of lading were to be retained until the drafts were accepted; or until plaintiffs were satisfied that the drafts or acceptances would be paid. If the bills were accepted, and the acceptances satisfactory, then the bills of lading were to be given up to the acceptors. But if acceptances were not made, or if they were not satisfactory, then plaintiffs could place the corn in the hands of their own brokers for sale, on account of whom it might concern, and apply the proceeds to the payment of the bills, and any deficiency was to be made good by defendants. Adlington & Nicholson, defendants' agents, had, through their brokers, Charles Campbell & Co., contracted for the sale of the corn. Plaintiffs sent the drafts, with the bills of 2. The Code gives no authority in suplading and the "agreement," called an "hypothecation," but with no further in-plementary proceedings beyond that of structions than the "agreement" indica- the old creditor's bill. unsatisfied, and no order for the examination of the judgment debtor having been made. The complaint was dismissed, on the above grounds. Held, 1. Judgment of dismissal was correct, for a receiver of the property of a judgment debtor can only be appointed on an order for the examination of the judgment debtor, and on an execution returned unsatisfied. Holbrook, Receiver,v. Orgler, impleaded. N. Y. Superior Court, Gen'l T., Aug. 3, 1875. Opinion by Curtis, J., Sedgwick, J., concurring. ted, to their correspondents in London, who, in turn, sent them to their bankers at Liverpool. The bills were accepted, but the bills of lading were not delivered to the acceptors. They were delivered to the brokers, Charles Campbell & Co., by these bankers, according to a well settled custom in Liverpool in such transactions, to be used in the discretion of the holders of the drafts and the bills of lading, and they took from them a guaranty that they the Bowery Savings Bank for a loan on cer Attorney of lender of money cannot recover from borrower on implied contract, for examination of title. III. Defendant made an application to |