So also if a man takes a bag of money to his banker, and asks him to take care of that specific money, and give it back to him, or to any one else he may name, on demand, no Property in the money would pass to the banker. It would not be a Mutuum, but a Depositum or Bailment. The banker would have no Right to use the money for his own purposes: and if he did so he would be guilty of theft. If he gave a receipt for it promising to deliver the money to whomsoever the receipt might be transferred, the receipt would be one property with the money, as in the case of Bills of Lading and Dock Warrants. The money and the receipt could not be separated, and the Property in that very money would always pass along with the receipt. The Banker in such a case would be merely the Bailee or Trustee of the money and not its Owner. In the case of the captain, the dock master, and the banker, just described, the relation of Debtor and Creditor does not arise between them, and the owners of the Paper Documents.

Hence we see the radical and fundamental distinction between Bills of Lading, Dock Warrants and all other Titles to specific goods on the one hand, and all forms of Paper Credit on the other.

Bills of Lading, Dock Warrants, and other Titles to goods, are absolutely bound down to these specific goods, and cannot be separated from them, and therefore they form only one Property with them. They always arise out of a Bailment and never out of an Exchange; and they may justly be said to represent goods. They in themselves are nothing, and are no addition to the mass of other exchangeable Property.

On the other hand it is the fundamental legal requisite of all kinds of Paper Credit, that they shall be absolutely severed from any specific sum of money. They are even forbidden to be made payable out of any particular fund. They must be nothing but abstract Rights against the Person, and that is the very circumstance from which they take their name: because they must be received on the simple belief that the person can pay them. If any specific sum of money were appropriated to their payment they would not be Credit. Paper Credit always arises out of an Exchange, and never out of a Bailment. Bills of Lading and Dock Warrants always go along with goods: Bank Notes and Bills of Exchange are always exchanged for money, goods, etc. Bills of Lading represent goods, but are not of the Value of goods, because there is no exchange, and there can be no Value without an exchange. Bank Notes, etc, do not represent money, but they are of the Value of Money, because in their case there is always an exchange. And Credit in all its forms is an addition to the mass of other exchangeable property: as, indeed, is admitted by every Lawyer, every Merchant, and every Economist.

From this it clearly follows that Bills of Lading and Dock Warrants can never exceed in quantity the goods they represent. If any one were to negotiate such documents without any goods being attached to them, it would be an indictable fraud. But Paper Credit of all sorts immensely exceeds in quantity the Money in the country - on the lowest calculation, tenfold. Credit itself is merchandise, and the subject of a gigantic commerce. It may be said that all commercial crises arise out of the excessive creation of that species of Property called Credit. What are the due limits of Credit, is a question of the most momentous consequence, which will be clearly shewn hereafter.

We have shewn that in Roman Law all Rights, and Credit among them, are included under the terms Pecunia, Bona, Res, Merx; so also in English Law a Debt, or chose-in-action, or Credit is included under the terms "Goods" and "Chattels." It is an article of Merchandise, or a Saleable Commodity.

Thus Sheppard says under Chattels "All kinds of emblements, sown and growing grass cut: all money, plate, gold, silver, jewels, utensils, household stuff, Debts, wood cut, wares in a shop, tools and instruments for work, wares, merchandises, carts, ploughs, coaches, saddles, and the like: all kinds of cattle, as horses, oxen, kine, bullocks, goats, sheep, pigs, and all tame fowl and birds, as swans, turkeys, geese, capons, hens, ducks, poultry, and the like, are to be accounted Chattels."

"All Obligations, Bills, Statutes, Recognizances, and Judgments, shall be as a Chattel in the Executor.

"All Right of action to any personal action is a Chattel."

So it was resolved by Popham, Chief Justice of England, and many other Justices, that "personal actions are as well included within this word goods in an Act of Parliament, as goods in possession."

So in another case Lord Chancellor Hardwicke said - "And Debts come within the meaning of the Act, and would pass in a will thereby." Burnet J. said - "A bond-debt is certainly a Chattel." So Parker L.C3. said: - "But goods and chattels include Debts " - "things in action are considered as goods and chattels." Lee, C.J. said - "The inquiry on the second point is, whether choses-in-action are not included under goods and chattels? and I agree .. this is now out of question, choses-in-action will be included therein. Fulwood's case 4 Co. 65 proves that a chose-in-action (as an obligation) is a Chattel. So Staunf. Prerog. 65, c. 16 says that Chattels comprehend Right of action to goods." And Hardwicke C, said - "Choses-in-action are properly within the description of goods and chattels."

So Blackstone says - "For it is to be understood that in our law, chattels (or goods and chattels) is a term used to express any kind of Property which, having regard either to subject matter, or the quantity of interest therein, is not freehold."

"Property or Chattels personal may be either in possession, or else in action . . . Property-in-action is where a man has not the enjoyment (either actual or constructive) of the thing in question, but merely a Right to recover it by a suit or action at law."

"We need not give any more quotations; in fact, those which we have given are only intended for the benefit of lay readers. Every person who has studied the most elementary principles of Law, knows perfectly well that a Right of Action or a chose-in-action is a personal chattel like any other species of property: but it is just on this point that the greatest difficulty is felt by lay readers to understand how a mere Right of Action is saleable Property, just like so much iron, corn, gold, lead, coal, or anything else.