■  Sect.  66.        On  the  other  hand,  Lord  Selborne  expressed  the  view  that  an
Does  delivery  indorsee  who  is  not  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  contract,  in  the

to  indorsee


alter  Ms
position  ?


redeem,  and,  in  the  other,  have  to  sue
in  equity  ;  but  as  it  would  equally  be  a
jpledge,  his  rights  would  be  the  same
in  substance.  I  am  therefore  strongly
inclined  to  hold  that,  even  i£  this  was  a
mortgage,  there  would  not  have  been  a
transfer  of  'the'  property  within  the

meaning  of  18  &  19  Vict.  c.  HI

Bowen,  L.  J.,  who  agreed  with  Field,  J.,
in  thinking  that  this  was  not  a  mortgage
but  only  a  pledge,  did  not  express  any
opinion  as  to  what  would  have  been  the
law  if  it  had  been  a  mortgage.  I
believe  all  the  noble  and  learned  lords
who  heard  the  argument  are  agreed  with
him  in  thinking  that  in  this  case  it  was
only  a  pledge.  I  do  not,  therefore,
intend  to  express  a  final  decision  that
an  assignee  of  a  bill  of  lading  by  way
of  mortgage  is  not  as  such  liable  to  be
sued  under  18  &  19  Vict.  c.  Ill ;  but
only  to  guard  against  its  being  supposed
that,  even  if  Brett,  M.  B..,  and  Bag-
gallay,  L.  J.,  were  right  in  holding  this
a  mortgage,  I,  as  at  present  advised,
should  agree  in  their  conclusion  that  the
defendants  could  be  sued"  (per  Lord
Blackburn,  10  A.  C.  p.  95).
