in making proper delivery of letters defectively addressed, we think the presumption is clear and strong that the letters would reach-indeed, that they did reach—the true Albert B. Geilfuss in Milwaukee. And it seems to us that any person knowing him, and knowing the correct spelling of his name, and having reason to acquaint him with the contents of a notice of this character if supposed to be intended for him, would probably realize for whom such notice was intended, notwithstanding the name was spelled "Guilfuss." The general resemblance between the names is striking, however they are to be pronounced. And the designation, "Assignee," was an additional means of identification. That Geilfuss himself, upon receiving the notice, would be sufficiently warned that it affected his interest in the Minnesota lands under his judgments against McKinley, is free from doubt. He would of course observe the misnomer; but, having received the notice which it was the purpose of the law to convey to him, he could not safely ignore it on the ground of the mistake in the name, any more than, if personally served with summons within the State of Minnesota, he could have ignored it on account of a similar misnomer. We conclude that there was due process of law in the partition suit, and that therefore the present judgment should be affirmed. Judgments in Nos. 325 and 326 affirmed. 234 U. S. Statement of the Case. DALE v. PATTISON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 330. Argued April 23, 1914.—Decided June 8, 1914. The legal effect of a transaction involving pledge or hypothecation depends upon the local law; and if the state law permits the pledged property to remain under certain conditions in the possession of the pledgor and those conditions exist, the trustee in bankruptcy of the pledgor takes subject to the rights of the pledgee. Taney v. Penn Bank, 232 U. S. 174. There is a well-recognized distinction between a chattel mortgage and a pledge; and a state statute requiring the delivery of the chattel or recording of the instrument does not necessarily apply to a pledge of personal property so situated that it is not within the power of the owner to deliver it to the pledgee. Where property is from its character or situation not capable of actual delivery, the delivery of a warehouse receipt or other evidence of title is sufficient to transfer the property and right of possession. Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. 384. Notwithstanding §§ 8560 and 8619, General Code of Ohio, the law of that State recognizes the force of long continued commercial usage and the effectiveness of a symbolical delivery of personal property by the transfer of warehouse receipts representing the same. Where neither statutes nor decisions of the courts are directly to the contrary, the courts may refer to established trade customs as evidence of what has been long understood to be the law. Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. 384. The law of Ohio not being dissimilar from that of Pennsylvania in recognizing the validity of transfers by delivering warehouse receipts representing property under conditions similar to those involved herein, this case is controlled by Taney v. Penn Bank, 232 U. S. 174. 196 Fed. Rep. 5, affirmed. DAVID ROHRER, for many years prior to November 5, 1909, owned and operated a distillery in Montgomery County, Ohio. On that day he was adjudicated a bank Statement of the Case. 234 U.S. rupt, and the appellants were appointed his trustees. In the following month they filed an application in the bankruptcy proceedings setting forth that in the distillery warehouses of the bankrupt there were stored about 9,800 barrels of Bourbon and rye whiskies, to which there were many conflicting claims; among the claimants being certain named persons to whom it was alleged the bankrupt had pledged or hypothecated certain barrels of the whiskies. One of the parties so named was the respondent, Edward M. Pattison. The application prayed that all of the claimants be notified of the proceedings, be made parties thereto, and be required to set up their respective claims. Pattison filed an answer and intervening petition, claiming that 210 barrels of whiskey (specifying them by numbers), were a part of a lot of 800 barrels that had been pledged or hypothecated to him by Rohrer as security for certain loans; the remainder of the 800 barrels having been sold by Rohrer without the knowledge of Pattison. It was denied that the whiskies were or ever had been in Rohrer's possession, it being alleged that all of them, as soon as manufactured, were placed in the storage warehouse in the possession and control of the Government of the United States, and that certain moneys were loaned by Pattison to Rohrer, to secure payment of which the latter assigned and transferred in writing to the former his entire interest in certain designated barrels of whiskey then on storage in said warehouse, the agreement and transfer being evidenced by documents in the form of warehouse receipts, of which the following is a sample: "No. 750. "Stored in Warehouse. "56 bbls. in No. 2. "94 bbls. in No. 1. "The David Rohrer Distillery, Montgomery County. "Fire Copper Bourbon and Pure Rye. "Brand and Distillery Established in 1847. 234 U. S. Statement of the Case. "GERMANTOWN, O., Feb. 23, 1906. "Received in my Distillery Bonded Warehouse No. 11, First District of Ohio, for account and subject to the order of E. M. Pattison, deliverable only on the return of this warehouse receipt and the written order of the holder thereof, and on payment of the United States Government tax and all other taxes and storage at the rate of five cents per barrel per month from storage free, "One hundred and fifty barrels D. Rohrer pure Bourbon whiskey, entered into bond as follows: 56 bbls. Rye; 94 bbls. Bourbon. 'Gauged by F. P. Thompson, U. S. Gauger. "Loss or damage by fire, the elements, riots, accidents, evaporation and shrinkage at owner's risk. It is hereby guaranteed that the loss by natural evaporation and on account of defective cooperage on each and every barrel of this whiskey shall not be more than one gallon in excess of the Government allowance during the first seven years of the bonded period. "It is expressly provided that in the payment of excess under this guarantee the basis of settlement shall be the cost price of said whiskey in bond at the date of tax payment figured upon the original contract price therefor, and the carrying charges thereon added thereto, together with the Internal Revenue tax thereon at the rate of tax imposed by the Internal Revenue law upon distilled spirits at the date of the withdrawal. VOL. CCXXXIV-26 Statement of the Case. 234 U. S. "The owner of the whiskey under this receipt in accepting it agrees to furnish the money to pay all taxes when the same become due. "This warehouse receipt is given in conformity with the warehouse laws of the State of Ohio and the laws of the United States in force at this date. "DAVID ROHRER, Proprietor." By an amendment to his intervening petition, Pattison set forth: "That for more than forty years last past and ever since the enactment by the Congress of the United States of the laws relating to the storing by distillers of whiskey in distillery bonded warehouses, it has been and still continues to be the usual and customary course of doing business by distillers of whiskey to sell, pledge and transfer whiskey deposited by them in their distillery bonded warehouses by the making, issuing and delivering by them of their warehouse receipts to the vendee or pledgee of the barrels of whiskey sold or pledged (describing and identifying in said warehouse receipts the barrels of whiskey sold or pledged, by their serial numbers, the date of their manufacture, the warehouse stamps thereon and the number of the bonded warehouse in which situated) and agreeing in said warehouse receipts to hold said barrels of whiskey sold or pledged for the account and subject to the order of the vendee or pledgee thereof, and in and by the sale and pledge as aforesaid of barrels of whiskey in their distillery bonded warehouses to obtain money and advances of money to enable them to carry on business as distillers, and during all of said time it has been and continues to be among distillers and bankers, brokers, dealers in whiskey and all persons having transactions with distillers an established custom and a commercial usage generally known and acted upon to regard and consider said warehouse receipts as giving constructive possession of the barrels of whiskey mentioned therein and as conveying |