himself with the receipt of any goods in particular, the bill of lading alone is not evidence, either of the quantity of the goods or of property in the consignee.1

Where a bill of lading receipted for certain silk handkerchiefs as "domestics" and over the signature were inserted the words "contents unknown," it was held that the carrier need only answer for the missing package according to its actual contents. Where a bill of lading stated that certain hogsheads contained bacon but said also "contents unknown," it was held that the carrier did not admit the fact to be as stated and no presumption arose as to the true state of the goods at the time of shipment.3

In an action for the value of a "package of merchandise" which a carrier failed to deliver and which, in fact, was valuable jewelry, it was held, the bill reciting that the contents were unknown, that if the carrier has made no inquiry, and no artifice has misled him, he will be responsible for any loss, however great the value of the article.

§ 55. Where to the clause "received in good order and condition" was joined "contents unknown" in a bill of lading, it was held, by the Supreme Court of the United States, that "the acknowledgment of the master as to the condition of the goods when received on board extended only to the external condition of the cases excluding any implication as to the quantity or quality of the article, condition of it at the time received on board, or whether properly packed or not in the boxes, and if the evidence on the part of the defence laid a foundation for a reasonable inference that the damage resulted from an imperfection in the goods when packed in the cases, or had occurred previously to their being shipped on board, the burden was thrown upon the libellants [shippers] to rebut the inference."

A bill of lading acknowledged the receipt "in good order and condition" of casks containing bristles, which were covered

1 Haddow v. Parry, 3 Taunton, 303 (Eng. C. P.).

2 Fassett v. Ruark, 3 La. Ann. Rep. 694.

3 Vernard v. Hudson, 3 Sumner, 405 (U. S. C. C.).

* Levois v. Gale, 17 La. Ann. Rep.

302.

5 Clark v. Barnwell, 12 Howard, 272. Opinion by Mr. J. Nelson.

with matting secured by cords, and engaged to deliver them in like good order and condition to the consignees. The bill of lading also contained the clause "weight and contents unknown." The court held that there was no admission by the master in the bill of lading as to the condition of the goods, beyond that visible to the eye, or apparent from handling the casks, or their outside protection, whatever that might be, and that the burden of proof was on the shipper, in the first instance, to prove the condition of the goods at the time of shipment.' The shipper is, however, under no obligation to offer in evidence more than the bill of lading containing the admission "received in good order and well conditioned-weight and contents unknown"-until the carrier has given affirmative evidence tending to show that the actual condition of the goods at the time of shipment was not as stated.2

§ 56. In a bill of lading for a specified number of barrels of molasses, the addition of the words "contents and gauge unknown" cannot be considered as implying more than ignorance of the quantity or quality. The fact of there being molasses in the barrels is not to be implied.3

57. Where a bill of lading receipted in the margin in writing for "articles 30 bbls. eggs" and the printed portion contained the words "contents and value unknown," it was held that the latter words meant simply that the condition, kind, quality and value of the eggs were unknown, and that against a bona fide indorsee of the bill the carrier was estopped from denying that the barrels contained eggs.*

A carrier signed bills for 701 tons of cattle bones, "weight and contents unknown." On arrival at destination there were but 386 tons on board the carrier's vessel. The captain offered to deliver this amount (which he claimed and offered to prove was all that he had received), on condition of receiving real freight for the 386 tons and dead freight for the 210 tons. The House of Lords held that "the bills of lading signed by

The Columbo, 3 Blatchf. 521. Baxter v. Leland, Abbott's Adm. Rep. (N. J. Dist. Ct.) 348.

4 Miller v. H. & St. J. R. Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.), 607; but see Nichal & Co. v. Castle, 9 Beav. H. C. Rep.

Nelson v. Stephenson, 5 Duer (N. 321 for the rule in England. Y.), 538.

the master were prima facie evidence that the quantities of bones mentioned in them had been received on board," and that "though the master had not authority to sign bills of lading for a greater quantity of goods than is actually put on board, yet, as it is not to be presumed that he has exceeded his duty, his signature to the bills of lading is sufficient evidence of the truth of the contents to throw upon the ship owner, the onus of falsifying them and proving that he received a less quantity of goods to carry than is thus acknowledged by his agent." The ship owner, having satisfactorily rebutted this presumption by evidence, was held entitled to recover both his real and dead freight.'

The statement in a bill "shipped in apparent good order and condition five cases of merchandise, value and contents unknown," has reference to the external condition of the cases and excludes any inference that the carrier thereby admits any thing as to the quantity or quality of the contents of the cases at the time of delivery to him, beyond what was visible to the eye or apparent from handling the same."

§ 58. If, in addition to a statement of a specific weight of goods, the expression "weight unknown" be found in the bill of lading, the carrier is only bound to deliver the weight actually shipped,3—the statement of the specific weight being interpreted in such a bill to mean "about" or "estimated at" so much, without admitting such estimate to be exact. The clause "I do not know the weight," inserted by a master in a bill of lading given for about 200 tons, casts on the consignee the burden of proving that he did not receive what was actually shipped.

§ 59. Where there is a memorandum of the supposed or real weight on the margin, and the words "contents and weight unknown" are inserted in the body of the bill, the latter exclude the inference that the carrier is to be bound by the memorandum,5 and there is no admission by the master as to the condition

1 McLean v. Fleming, Law Rep. 2 H. L. (S. C. App.) 128.

2 The California, 2 Sawyer (Dist. Ct. Oregon), 12.

Shepherd v. Naylor, 5 Gray, 591.

Schultz v. The Pietro G., 40 Fed. Rep. 497.

5 The Andover, 3 Blatchford, 303 (U. S. C. C.).

of the goods, beyond that visible to the eye or apparent from handling the casks, boxes, or other outside covering whatever it may be. When, in such a case, a question arises as to the condition of the contents of casks or bales, the burden rests on the shipper in the first instance to prove their condition at the time of shipment. Where, however, a bale of cloth was shipped under such a bill and, on delivery to the consignee, it was found that the outer and inner coverings were injured and that a piece of cloth had been removed, it was held that it was incumbent on the carrier to show that the injury was only external.2

Where the agent of the carrier in point of fact, knew what the contents of the boxes were and failed to exercise the precaution necessary to their safe delivery, the carrier cannot shelter himself behind the words "weight and contents unknown" in the bill of lading.3

§ 60. The quantity and quality of certain wheat covered by a bill of lading was stated therein to be "unknown" On an alleged failure to deliver the whole amount shipped, the burden was upon the shippers to show the quantity of wheat delivered for transportation.*

A bill of lading with the phrase "in good order and condition" qualified by the words "quantity and quality unknown,' neither admits, as against the ship owners, that the goods were shipped in such condition, nor furnishes the proof required by law from the shippers, as to the state of the goods when put on board."

A ship was chartered to carry a cargo of grain from A. to B., for a freight of 7s. "per imperial quarter delivered" and the charter party provided that "in the event of the cargo or any part thereof being delivered in a damaged or heated condition, the freight shall be payable upon the invoice quan

The Columbo, 3 Blatchford, 521; Wentworth v. Ship "Realm," 16 La. Ann. Rep. 18.

Compart v. Steamship Prior, 2 Federal Reporter, 819.

5 The Prosperino Palasso, 29 L. T.

2 The Energie, 2 Asp. Mar. Law N. S. 622; The Ida, 32 L. T. N. S.

tity taken on board, as per the bill of lading, or half freight upon the damaged or heated portion at the captain's option.' Under this charter-party 2368 imperial quarters were shipped on board at A., and the master signed a bill of lading with the following words written at the foot, (as was proved to be usual in the grain carrying trade) "quantity and quality unknown." The ship experienced bad weather and 80 quarters were damaged by heating. It was held that the master was entitled to be paid freight on the invoice quantity taken on board notwithstanding the words written at the foot of the bill.1

§ 61. Where a bill of lading purported to be for fifty tons of coal and contained a printed clause "weight, contents, and value unknown,” and similar words were written above the signature of the master, it was held that this did not amount to an admission by the master that he had received fifty tons of coal on board.2

The force of the qualification in the bill of lading that the contents, weight, value, etc., of the goods are unknown has been fully considered and ably discussed in the opinion of Sir C. SARGENT, C. J., in the case of Nicol v. Castle. The question arose under the English statutes, making the representations in the bill conclusive against the carrier. Sir C. SARGENT says:3

"The question, is the bill of lading in the hands of the plaintiff's consignees for valuable consideration conclusive evidence as against the defendant of the shipment of fifty tons, turns upon the construction to be put on the Indian Bill of Lading Act 9, of 1856. The English act on the same subject (18 and 19 Vict. c. cxi.), of which the Indian act is a literal copy, has come under the consideration of the English courts of law on several occasions, but never so far as we are aware, except incidentally, on the point on which this case turns, namely, the liability of the master signing the bill of lading to a consignee for value under section 3 of the act. Section 1 gives a consignee of the goods or the indorsee of the bill of lading

Tully v. Terry, Law R. 8 C. P. Exch. 267; 36 L. J. Exch. 149; 15 684; s. c. 42 L. J. C. P. 240. W. R. 1041.

2 Nicol & Co. v. Castle, 9 Bom. H. C. Rep. 321; Jessel v. Bath, 2 L. R.

3 Vol. ix., Bom. H. C. Rep. 321.