BPI v.

Herridge
FACTS:
The insolvent Umberto de Poli was for several years engaged on
an extensive scale in the exportation of Manila hemp, maguey
and other products of the country. He was also a licensed public
warehouseman, though most of the goods stored in his
warehouses appear to have been merchandise purchased by him
for exportation and deposited there by he himself.chanr
In order to finance his commercial operations De Poli established
credits with some of the leading banking institutions doing
business in Manila at that time, among them the Hongkong &
Shanghai Banking Corporation, the Bank of the Philippine Islands,
the Asia Banking Corporation, the Chartered Bank of India,
Australia and China, and the American Foreign Banking
Corporation.
De Poli opened a current account credit with the bank against
which he drew his checks in payment of the products bought by
him for exportation.
Upon the purchase, the products were stored in one of his
warehouses and warehouse receipts issued therefor which were
endorsed by him to the bank as security for the payment of his
credit in the account current.
When the goods stored by the warehouse receipts were sold and
shipped, the warehouse receipt was exchanged for shipping
papers, a draft was drawn in favor of the bank and against the
foreign purchaser, with bill of landing attached, and the entire
proceeds of the export sale were received by the bank and
credited to the current account of De Poli.chanroble
De Poli was declared insolvent by the Court of First Instance of
Manila with liabilities to the amount of several million pesos over
and above his assets. An assignee was elected by the creditors
and the election was confirmed by the court
Among the property taken over the assignee was the
merchandise stored in the various warehouses of the insolvent.
This merchandise consisted principally of hemp, maguey and
tobacco.
The various banks holding warehouse receipts issued by De Poli
claim ownership of this merchandise under their respective
receipts, whereas the other creditors of the insolvent maintain
that the warehouse receipts are not negotiable, that their
endorsement to the present holders conveyed no title to the
property, that they cannot be regarded as pledges of the
merchandise inasmuch as they are not
public documents and the possession of the merchandise was not
delivered to the claimants and that the claims of the holders of
the receipts have no preference over those of the ordinary
unsecured creditors.law lib
ISSSUE:
Whether or not the warehouse receipts issued are negotiable?
HELD:
Yes, a warehouseman who deposited merchandise in his own
warehouse, issued a warehouse receipts therefore and thereafter
negotiated the receipts by endorsement. The receipt recites that
the goods were deposited por orden of the depositor, the
warehouseman, but contained no statement that the goods were
to be delivered to the bearer of the receipts or to a specified
person. It is in the form of a warehouse receipts and was not mark
nonnegotiable.
Therefore the receipts was negotiable warehouse receipts and the
words por orden must be construed to mean to the order.