If the receipts were not true warehouse receipts, the transactions did not constitute a pledge of the leather by Flanders to the Trust Company which would be valid against attaching creditors. Casey v. Cavaroc, 96 U.S. 467; Sinsheimer v. Whitley, 111 Cal. 378; Second Nat. Bank v. Gilbert, 174 Ill. 485; Harding v. Eldridge, 71 N.E. 115; Sholes v. Asphalt Co., 183 Pa. 528; Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 137 Ill. 146; George v. Pierce, 123 Cal. 172; Watson v. Dealy, 59 N.Y.S. 623; Harington v. Blanchard, 70 N.H. 597; Story v. Cordell, 13 Mont. 204; Button v. Rathbone, 126 N.Y. 187; Caperton v. McCormick, 74 Miss. 85; Martin v. Sexton, 72 Ill. App. 395; Moores v. Redding, 167 Mass. 322; Drury v. Moores, 50 N.E. 618. The Trust Company had no equitable lien upon the leather enforceable against a trustee in bankruptcy.
The plaintiffs bought and paid for the boards in question in February, 1913, but left them with the vendor, and Eaton contends that their title failed for that reason. Twyne's Case, 3 Co. 80; Coburn v. Pickering, 3 N.H. 415; Parker v. Pattee, 4 N.H. 176; Trask v. Bowers, 4 N.H. 309; Paul v. Crooker, 8 N.H. 288; Page v. Carpenter, 10 N.H. 77; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N.H. 510; Shaw v. Thompson, 43 N.H. 130; Putnam v. Osgood, 51 N.H. 192; Putnam v. Osgood, 52 N.H. 148; Lang v. Stockwell, 55 N.H. 561; Cutting v. Jackson, 56 N.H. 253; Plaisted v. Holmes, 58 N.H. 293; Flagg v. Pierce, 58 N.H. 348; Parker v. Marvell, 60 N.H. 30; Sanborn v. Putnam, 61 N.H. 506; Parsons v. Hatch, 63 N.H. 343; Janelle v. Denoncour, 68 N.H. 1; Baker v. Tolles, 68 N.H. 73; Thompson v. Esty, 69 N.H. 55; Harrington v. Blanchard, 70 N.H. 597. In order to avail himself of such a defect in the plaintiffs' title he must show that he purchased these boards without knowing that they were the plaintiffs' property.
When they are considered in the light the surrounding circumstances, their true character is almost certain to appear. Two cases are relied upon by the defendant to sustain the proposition that the facts reported show, as matter of law, that the change of possession was insufficient, — Sanborn v. Putnam, 61 N.H. 506, and Harrington v. Blanchard, 70 N.H. 597. Although there is much similarity between these cases and the present case, there are differences which, though small, are very material and distinguish the cases from this one. In both of the cases the business was carried on after the sale the same as before, while in this case a significant change was made — a closing-out sale was begun.