1 If a particular remittance of money or goods when made to a factor is accompanied by particular instructions as to how the money or goods shall be applied, the factor if he receives the remittance must make the application requested and cannot maintain a general lien. Frith v Forbes, 32 L. J. Ch. 10; Darlington v Chamberlin, 120 111. 585.

2 A factor's lien for advances Attaches as soon as cotton is delivered to his agent and placed on his drays to be transported to his warehouse, and is superior to the lien of an attachment levied while the cotton is being thus transported. Burros v Kyle, 56 Ga. 24. Mere possession by a factor of a bill of lading is not such a possession as will confer a lien as against an attachment of cotton as the property of the consignors, Saunders v. Bartlett, 12 Heiskell, 316; not even if he has made advances and paid the freight, Oliver v. Moor, id. 482. A factor does not lose his lien for advances on cotton stored with him, by a mere omission to inform a buyer of the advances, when the buyer deposits the receipts with him and directs a sale on his account. Daniel v. Swift, 54 Ga. 113 - K.

A factor's lien is an insurable interest, which authorizes him to insure the goods of his principal that are in his possession, for his own benefit. He has also a lien on a policy of insurance in his possession, effected by him for his principal, for his general balance; and though the principal should assign both the property and the policy, by the indorsement of a bill of lading, the indorsee will take the policy subject to the lien, (o)1 So a factor in possession of a ship, under power of attorney from the owner, to sell, has a lien upon the ship's papers in his hands, for his charges in trying to effect a sale. (p)

A factor's lien for advances will not be defeated by his knowledge at the time he made his advances, that his principal was in plaintiffs sued for these proceeds as the property of their testator, and the defendants claimed a lien thereon for the advances made by the factor. Among the items of the defendant's claim was one acceptance for £1,000, then outstand ing against the bankrupt's estate; and the chief stress of the case was, as to the factor's lien attaching for this unpaid acceptance. The court decided that it did, and for such sum as the assignees should be compelled to pay upon that acceptance. Per Grose, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the Court of King's Bench*. "The case of Kinloch v. Craig, (3 T. R. 119 and 783,) the authority which was relied upon to prove that the bankrupt had no lien for the acceptance which no has not paid, does not rule this case. For there Saudi man & Co. had never possession of the property on which they claimed a lien, as Fentham had in this case; and that case only determined that a person making himself liable by his acceptances did not thereby prevent the consignor's right of stopping in transitu, in case of his insolvency; and it did not decide that, when a man had in his possession the effects on the credit of which he had made his acceptances, that he might not retain those effects until he was indemnified against the liability to which he had subjected himself." Houghton v. Matthews, 3 B. & P. 485.

(m) Gurney v. Sharp, 4 Taunt. 242.

(n) Drinkwater v. Goodwin, 1 Cowp. 251. See Sweeny v. Easter, 1 Wallace, 166, and Bank of Mut. Redemption v. Stnrgis, 9 Bosw. 660.

(o) Gokin v. L. As. Co. 1 Burr. 490.

(p) Maester v. Atkins, 5 Taunt. 381.

1 A consignee, who has advanced money and effected insurance on goods for the consignor's benefit, has the same lien upon the Insurance money as upon the goods, after their loss by fire without his fault. Johnson v. Campbell, 120 Mass. 449. -K.

insolvent circumstances, (q)1 Only debts due to the factor by one in the character of principal, are secured by the factor's lien , and therefore a factor is not allowed to retain the goods of his principal for a debt owing by the latter, which was contracted before the relation of principal and factor commenced between them, (r) The lien is not divested by taking the goods in execution by a creditor of the principal.

* The possession under which the lien accrues must have been authorized and acquired bona fide, (s) No tortious possession can give a lien. Thus, possession given to a factor by a carrier by order of the principal, after the principal's bankruptcy, though the goods were shipped on the factor's account, and he had accepted bills on the faith of the shipment, gave no claim to a lien. The order of the principal was regarded by the court as tending to defeat the claim, as going to show that the carrier's possession was not that of the consignee (t)

A consignee of goods to be sold on commission, has no lien upon or property in them until they are delivered to him. (tt) But a delivery to a common carrier for the consignee, and an acceptance by him for the consignee, are said to be sufficient to give him a lien, (tu)

(q) Foxcroft v. Devonshire, 2 Burr. 931.

(r) Houghton v. Matthews, 3 B. & P. 485. The plaintiffs, assignees of a bank-rapt, brought trover against the defendant, a factor, for a quantity of indigo consigned by the bankrupt to the factor for sale. The bankrupt was indebted, at the time of the consignment, for goods bought of the factor belonging to other parties, and upon his failure the factor claimed to hold the indigo as security for the debt. The relation of principal and factor had never existed between the bankrupt and the defendant prior to the consignment of the indigo, and the factor had made no advances upon the consignment. The question, whether the general lien of a actor could attach under such circumstances, was elaborately argued before the Court of Common Bench; and it was decided that it could not, by the majority of the court; Lord Alvanley, C. J., being rather inclined to think that a verdict ought not to be entered' for the plaintiff, though by no means prepared to say that a verdict ought to be entered for the defendant. The judgment of the court against the factor's claim was based upon two grounds; namely, that he had no such property or interest in the debt owed by the bankrupt for goods bought of the factor as would authorize a set-off against the claim made by the assignees, and, secondly, that the general lien claimed for the factor by the custom of trade could pertain only to what concerns that trade. Sturgis v. Slocuin, 18 Pick. 40; Mathews v. Meuedger, 2 McLean, 145.