CHAPTER III. A BILL OF LADING IS A RECEIPT, CONTINUED.-EFFECT OF THE STATEMENT OF VALUE, OF THE CLAUSE "SAID TO CONTAIN," OF STATEMENT OF THE CONDITION AT TIME OF SHIPMENT. Effect of the statement of value of the | Effect of the qualification "said to goods, § 33. contain," § 42. Effect of knowledge by the carrier of Effect of the statement "received in the true value, § 34. good order and condition," generally, Shipper not bound to state value unless asked, § 35. Legislation requiring the shipper to state value, § 36. § 43. Statement refers to external or appa rent condition, §§ 44, 45. The reason for the rule, § 46. Shipper, if asked, must state value The statement of condition is not contruly, § 37. clusive, § 47. Illustrations of the principle, § 48. § 33. THE statement of value contained in the bill has a somewhat different effect from the other recitals in that which we have called the receipt. It becomes part of the contract of carriage rather than a mere receipt. It is, no doubt, in the absence of other proof, prima facie evidence that the goods receipted for were of the value stated, but further than this it often becomes conclusive even as between the original contracting parties. "As a general rule the valuation of cargo in the bill of lading, without fraud, is conclusive between the owner of the cargo and the owner of the ship in the adjustment of general average at the home-port." Putnam, J., in Tudor v. Macomber, 14 Pickering (31 Mass.), 34. NOTE. A carrier was alleged to have received at Liverpool a box of The statement of value is seldom found to be in excess of the true value when the goods have been injured or destroyed. The effort of the shipper is to secure the lowest rate for transportation even at an increase of risk to his goods. He, therefore, ordinarily places a low estimate upon them when tendering them for shipment. § 34. If the valuation set upon the goods by the shipper be known to the carrier to be less than the true one and the parties agree that the goods, in consideration of the diminished valuation, shall be carried at a lower rate, the statement of value is conclusive upon the parties. Where, however, the carrier, knowing the value of the goods, fails to enter it in his receipt, he cannot rely upon a stipulation contained therein limiting his liability to a specific amount, in reality less than the true value of the goods, because the value has not been declared by the shipper. Where the reduced value, on the other hand, is fixed by the shipper with a view to obtaining a low rate of freight, without any knowledge on the part of the carrier that the property is of greater value, it would be a fraud upon the carrier to permit a recovery of a greater sum than that fixed by the shipper.3 § 35. There is no obligation upon the shipper, when tendering goods for transportation, to inform the carrier of their value unless he is asked so to do. If the shipper be not guilty of merchandise which he promised to deliver at New Orleans. The invoice accompanying the bill of lading was offered in evidence to prove the value of the contents of the box in a suit for damages for its loss. The evidence was rejected on the ground that the invoice was res inter alias acta and not emanating from the defendant as the bill of lading. Watson et al. v. Yates, 10 Martin's La. Rep. 687. Elkins v. The Empire Trans. Co., 2 W. N. C. (Penna. S. Ct.) 403; McCance v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 3 H. & C. 343; 34 L. J. Exch. 39; 10 Jur. N. S. 1058: 12 W. R. 1086; 11 L. T. N. S. 426. 2 Kimber v. Southern Ex. Co., 22 La. Ann. Rep. 158; Southern Ex. Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635; Stoneman v. Erie R. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429. 3 Harvey v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co., 74 Missouri, 538. 4 Levois v. Gale, 17 La. Ann. Rep. 302; Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pickering (25 Mass.), 182; Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218; Southern Ex. Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, 45 How. Pr. 90; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67; Relf v. Rapp, 3 W. & S. 21; Baldwin v. L. & G. W. S. S. Co., 74 N. Y. 125; Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 2 fraud or concealment as to the nature of his goods, it is the duty of the carrier to inquire their value, should he desire information respecting it.1 § 36. In Massachusetts, Maine, and other States the shipper has been required, by legislation, to state the nature, quality and value of goods shipped. In England the statute 17 and 18 Vict. c. 31, § 7, provides that no more than £50 shall be recovered for loss of or injury to a horse, unless the person shipping it shall, at time of delivery, declare it of higher value, whereupon the railway company may demand a proportionate increase of charge. In construing this Act it has been held3 that a knowledge by the company of the value of a horse, not derived from a declaration to that effect by the sender, does not give such company any right to demand an increased rate of charge under said section. To entitle the company to demand such increased rate the declaration must be made with an intention, by the sender of the horse, that it should so operate. § 37. If the shipper be asked by the carrier the value of the goods shipped, he must answer truly. Any concealment or misleading answer may absolve the carrier from liability for loss. The latter "has a right to demand from the employer Ill. 116; Warner v. Western Trans. 1 Merchants' Desp. Trans. Co. v. Bolles, 80 Ill. 473; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 90. 2 Mass. St. of 1818, c. 122; Gen. Sts. (Mass.) 1860, c. 52, §§ 18-21; Maine St. of 1821, c. 14; Rev. Sts. 1850, c. 35. See, also, U. S. Sts. of 1851, c. 44; U. S. Rev. Sts. (1873) SS 4281-4289. And Story on Bailments, § 493; Angell on Carriers, § 90 (and Lathrop's note); Dunlop v. International Steamboat Co., 98 Mass. 371; Pender v. Robbins, 6 Jones, 207; Walker v. Transportation Co., 3 Wall. 150; The Barque Whistler, 2 Sawyer (U. S. S. Ct.), 348; Hill Manuf. Co. v. Providence Steamship Co., 113 Mass. 495; Hill Manuf. Co. v. B. & L. R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 122; Spring 3 Robinson v. Southwestern Ry. 4 Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pickering (25 Mass.), 182; Levois v. Gale, 17 La. Ann. Rep. 302; Camden, etc., R. R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Penna. St. 67; Boskowitz v. Adams Express Co., 5 Cent. L. Jour. 58; Green v. Southern Express Co., 45 Georgia, 305; Little v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 16 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 442; 66 Me. 239. 5 Muser v. American Express Co., such information as will enable him to decide on the proper amount of compensation for his services and risk and the degree of care which he ought to bestow in discharging his trust." § 38. Though the shipper may not be asked the value of his. goods, he nevertheless must not deceive or delude the carrier by concealing their value, or by a careless treatment of them, or by his manner of shipping them. For, although no actual fraud may have been intended, such concealment or deception has been held to be constructive fraud upon the carrier and he cannot be made answerable in case of a loss of the goods." § 39. Thus, the shipper must not deceive or mislead the carrier by sending a check endorsed in blank in an ordinary letter ;3 by sending money in a package by an express company whose rules the shipper knew, required money to be put up, indorsed, and sealed in a particular way; by sending money concealed in a bag of hay, or in a box, with articles of no value; or by sending valuable jewelry, or other merchandise, as property apparently of small value. No one has a right, by concealment or artifice, to disarm a carrier of that vigilance which the nature Westcott, 6 Blatchford, 64; Mather v. 2 C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 Ill. 578; H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Texas, 323; Cooper v. Berry, 21 Ga. 526; Great Nor. R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 14 Eng. L. & Eq. Rep. 367; Lebeau v. Gen. Sť'm Nav. Co., 42 L. J. C. P. 1; 8 L. R. C. P. 88; Orndoff v. Adams Ex. Co., 3 Bush (Ky.), 194; Am. Ex. Co. v. Perkins, 42 Ill. 458; Earnest 490. v. Ex. Co., 1 Woods, 579; Coxe v. 5 Gibbon v. Paynton, 4 Burr. 2298. 6 C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 Ill. 578; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35; Earnest v. Ex. Co., 1 Woods, 573; Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166. 7 Everett v. Southern Ex. Co., 46 Ga. 303; ib., 37 ib. 688; Sleat v. Tagg, 5 Barn. & Alderson, 342; Oppenheimer v. U. S. Ex. Co. 69 Ill. 62; Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 459. of the case demands, or deprive him of the increased compensation for a more hazardous or responsible service. There is, however, no fraud or concealment if a carrier be told that a package is very valuable, though he be not told that it contains money.2 It is true that, where no artifice is used, carriers may be bound for the contents of all packages carried by them where they do not limit their liability by a notice, since it is their own fault if they do not inquire respecting their value. They are, however, entitled to assume that no greater value is contained in a package than its outside appearance warrants, which is as strong a representation as words. "If the owner be guilty of any fraud or imposition in respect to the carrier, as by concealing the value or nature of the article, or deludes him by his own carelessness in treating the parcel as a thing of no value, he cannot hold him liable for the loss of goods." Where a box containing valuables is so disguised as to resemble those which generally contain only articles of little value and the carrier is thereby imposed upon, it is well settled that he is not liable for its loss. Thus, where a shipper had, as she alleged, packed books, fine clothing, jewelry, etc., in chests such as emigrants ordinarily use and afterwards sued the carrier for loss and damage, she failed to recover, since, although fraud is always partly a question of intent, the shipper's expressed intention to have her boxes appear so that no one would suspect they contained anything valuable, was conclusive in that regard and relieved the carrier from liability. 40. Jewelry was shipped on a vessel in a trunk of the kind generally used in carrying shoes and was labelled "William D. Rapp-glass-this side up-with care." This description was held "equivalent to an assertion that the trunk contained glass and, if untrue, it was such a fraudulent misrepresentation as would prevent a recovery against the owner of the ship, even if the jewelry were purloined by the captain or any one of the crew. A common carrier is answerable for the loss of a box or parcel 1 Richards v. Wescott, 2 Bosworth (N. Y.) 589. 32 Kent, 603. 4 Warner v. Western Trans. Co., 2 Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. 5 Rob. (N. Y. Supr. Ct.) 490. Y.) 327. 0 |