How have the courts treated the issue of a bill of lading in the context of a discounted draft or discounted draft?

In Marine Bank v. Wright, 48 N.Y. 1, the plaintiff discounted the draft drawn by the consignor and transmitted it, with the bill of lading [279 F. 388] attached, for the acceptance of the consignee. It was promptly presented at the defendant's office in that form, but defendants did not see it, and it was not brought to their attention, but they were held to have had legal notice notwithstanding. The court said:

'It was promptly presented to the defendants in that form. That the defendants happened to be absent from their office, and that their clerk failed to inform them that the bill of lading was annexed to the draft, was their misfortune. The fact, however, of legal notice that the draft and the bill of lading were thus connected together, that the one was security for the other, was thus clearly brought home to the defendants. * * * The defendants received the corn, subject to the rights of the plaintiff, and, having applied it to their own use, are liable to the plaintiff for the money advanced upon it.'

And it was held that the defendants could not apply the proceeds to an existing debt of the consignor.

In Bank v. Jones, 4 N.Y. 497, 501, 55 Am.Dec. 290, it is stated: