1 McIntosh v. Gastenhofer, Mr. Justice MARTIN says: "The general rule is certainly that when goods are acknowledged to be received in good order and are delivered in bad, the carrier is responsible, but it is open to the exception that he may show that the damage arose from causes which existed anterior to the bailment, or from defect in the thing itself." § 48. It is competent to show by evidence aliunde that the goods were not in good order when shipped; to show that they were damaged before the carrier received them,3 whether that damage was done by the shipper or by any previous carrier of the goods; to show that the casks in which liquids were shipped were unsound, or badly made so as to cause leakage; or even to prove that the carrier wished to receipt for the goods as in poor condition, but was not allowed to do so. In a case where the goods were injured in their delivery to the carrier and he saw and knew it, it has been held that the carrier cannot give evidence to contradict his bill of lading receipting for goods in good order unless it be proved that a fraud or imposition was practised upon him. This would not be such a latent defect as would excuse him from liability for loss beyond that which was occasioned by the peculiar nature of the article carried." 49. The third proposition may be more accurately stated thus: though not conclusive, the bill is yet prima facie evidence Iowa, 214; Barrett v. Rogers, 7 Mass. also, Turner v. Ship Black Warrior, 1 McAllister, 181. 2 Wood v. Perry, 1 Weigh. (Ohio), 240; Kimball v. Brander, 6 La. 711; Ship Howard v. Wissman, 18 Howard, 231. 3 O'Brien v. Cilchrist, 34 Me. 554; Bissell v. Price, 16 Ill. 408. 4 G. W. R. R. Co. v. McDonald, 18 Ill. 172. Nelson v. Stephenson, 5 Duer (N. Y.), 538. Tierney v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 538. 7 Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts, 424. 1 2 Robinson (Louisiana), 403. See See Barrett v. Rogers, 7 Mass. 297. that so far as the goods were visible, or open to inspection, they were in good order and condition when shipped. The presumption thus raised, throws the burden upon the carrier of showing that the goods were not in the condition stated in his bill of lading. In the case of Bond v. Frost, Mr. Justice SLIDELL says: "If it be admitted that the clause in the bill of lading as to condition of goods when received is open to explanation, still it is certain that the receipt throws the burden of proof upon the vessel and its recital cannot be overthrown or qualified except by evidence of a very clear and convincing character. The recital of the bill of lading is not to be weakened by a conjectural showing." Again, it has been held that the carrier cannot stop by showing that goods were delivered to him in insufficient packing and that the defect was not discoverable by him. He must go further and show that the injury to the goods actually resulted from such insufficient packing. § 50. A bill of lading which contains no admission of the receipt of goods in good order or a promise so to deliver them, but provides that upon delivery of the cargo in sound condition the freight shall be paid, is to be construed as impliedly admitting the receipt of the cargo in good order. § 51. The admission as to the condition of the goods has been occasionally qualified by the use of the phrase "in apparent Choate v. Crowninsheld, 3 Clifford, C. C. 184; I. C. R. Co. v. Cowles, 32 Ill. 116; Tarbox v. Eastern Stm. Co., 50 Me. 339; Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533; Montgomery v. Ship Abbey Pratt, 6 La. Ann. Rep. 410; Hart v. Ship Jane Ross, 5 ib. 264; Ship Rappahannock v. Woodruff, 11 ib. 698; Whitney v. Gauche, ib. 432; Austin v. Talk, 20 Texas, 164; Richards v. Doe, 100 Mass. 524; Arend v. Liverpool, etc. Stm. Co., 64 Barbour (N. Y.), 118; Nelson v. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156; Nelson v. Stephenson, 5 Duer (N. Y.), 538; The Adriatic, 16 Blatchf. C. C. 424; M. & W. P. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Archer v. The Adriatic, 9 Cent. L. Jour. 201; Carson v. Harris, 4 G. Greene, 516; Mitchell v. U. S. Ex. Co., 46 Iowa, 214; West v. The Berlin, 3 ib. 532; The Freedom, L. R. 3 P. C. 594; The Olbers, 3 Ben. 148; Vaughan v. 330 Casks, 7 ib. 506; Price . Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Benjamin, 63 Ill. 283; Coulthurst v. Sweet, L. R. 1 C. P. 649; The Ship Black Hawk, 9 Benedict (U. S. D. C.), 207; The Pacific, Deady (D. C.), 17. 26 La. Ann. Rep. 801. 3 Zerega v. Poppe, 1 Abbott Bros., 397. The Ship Zone, 2 Sprague, 19. good order," etc. The interpretation given by the Courts to the simple statement in "good order," etc., would seem to render this qualification practically unnecessary and the insertion of the word "apparent" does not change the legal effect of the clause.1 "When a common carrier receives goods for shipment and gives the consignor a bill of lading in which the goods are described to be in apparent good order,' we see no reason why the bill of lading should not be held prima facie evidence that the goods were in good condition."2 Where goods are shipped, described as "in apparent good order and condition," and are delivered by the carrier in the same apparent external good order, the burden of proving that the goods are not as delivered, is thrown upon the shipper. In the case of The California the libellants claimed for goods which they alleged were in one of five cases described in the bill of lading "as shipped in apparent good order, value and contents unknown." The goods were not delivered by the carrier, although the case was. It was held that the libellants were bound to show that the goods were in the case when it was delivered to the carrier, and having only given evidence tending to show that they were therein when the case was delivered to the truckman to be taken to the vessel and no other evidence, the libel should be dismissed." § 52. The effect of the phrase was considered under a somewhat unusual state of facts in the case of Evans v. The Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company. This suit was brought for the recovery of damages to certain corn delivered at St. Louis, Mo., under a bill of lading which recited that the corn was "received in apparent good order on board good steamboat Emma C. Elliott to be conveyed from St. Louis to Memphis and from thence by the Memphis & Charleston R. R. with connecting R. R.'s to be delivered in like good order at the company's depot at La Grange, Ga." The corn was de 1 The Oriflamme, 1 Sawyer, 176. Ill. 148. See also Blade v. C., St. The California, 2 Sawyer's Reps. (D. C. Oregon), 12. 456 Georgia, 498. livered at La Grange badly damaged. The suit was brought against the defendant as the last company which received the corn in good order. On this bill of lading it was held that there was no presumption that the corn was received by the defendant in good order. The indorsements on the bill, as to the condition of the corn, by the agents of the connecting carriers, were not receivable as evidence and hence there was no legal proof as to the condition of the corn when it passed into the custody of the defendant company. 35 CHAPTER IV. EFFECT OF QUALIFYING CLAUSES, “CONTENTS "Quantity, etc., unknown, generally," "Contents unknown," as affecting the "Contents and gauge unknown," § 56. "Contents and value unknown," § 57. "Quantity and quality unknown," "Weight, contents, and value unknown," §§ 61, 62. § 53. The receipt in the bill of lading is, as we have seen, either prima facie or conclusive evidence of the reception of certain goods by the carrier and of the quantity, weight, quality, value and condition of those goods. To diminish the force of these statements or admissions, carriers have frequently added thereto a qualification in their bills to the effect that the quantity, weight, quality, or value is "unknown." This qualification is either stamped on the face of the bill or is made to form one of its written or printed clauses. In effect, it means that the quantity, etc., recited in the bill was so represented to the carrier when accepted by him for transportation, but that he intends to assume no personal responsibility for the truth or accuracy of the statements. The qualifying clause may affect the description of the goods or the statement of their quantity, quality, weight, value, or condition. While intended by the carrier to relieve himself from responsibility for the definite recitals of the bill, it sometimes operates to his disadvantage. We may examine the decisions in which the effect of each of the several clauses used, has been construed and determined. 54. The most common clause is "contents unknown." If the carrier guards his acknowledgment of the receipt of goods by saying "contents unknown," so that he does not charge |