consignor, of the consignee of the vessel, of the master, of the place of departure, and of the place of destination; also the price of the freight, with primage and other charges, if any there be, and either in the body of the bill or in the margin, the marks and numbers of the things shipped, with sufficient precision to designate and identify them.

It should be signed by the master of the ship, who, by the strict maritime law, has no authority to sign a bill of lading until the goods are actually on board. There is some relaxation of this rule in practice; but it should be avoided.

Usually one copy is retained by the master, and three copies are given to the shipper; one of them he usually retains, another he sends to the consignee with the goods, and the other he ends to the consignee by some other conveyance.

The delivery of the goods promised in the bill is to the consignee, or his assigns; and the consignee may designate his assigns by writing on the back of the bill, "Deliver the withinnamed goods to A B," and signing this order; or the consignee may indorse the bill with his name only in blank, and any one who acquires an honest title to the goods and to the bill may write over the signature an order of delivery to himself. The consignee has this power, if such be the usage, even if the word assigns" be omitted. Such indorsement not only gives the indorsee a right to demand the goods, but makes him the owner of the goods.

As the bill of lading is evidence against the ship-owner as to the reception of the goods, and their quantity and quality, it is common to say "contents unknown," or "said to contain, " etc. But without any words of this kind, the bill of lading is not conclusive upon the ship-owner in favor of the shipper, because he may show that its statements were erroneous through fraud or mistake. But the ship-owner, or master, is bound much more strongly by the words of the bill of lading, in favor of a third party, who has bought the goods for value and in good faith, on the credit of the bill of lading. In a case which occurred in New York, the court said, that, as between the shipper of the goods and the owner of the vessel, a bill of lading may be explained or corrected as far as it is a receipt; that is, as to the

quantity of the goods shipped, and the like; but as between the owner of the vessel and an assignee of the bill, for a valuable consideration, paid on the strength of the bill of lading, it may not be explained or corrected; because the master, by signing the bill, authorizes the purchaser to believe the goods are what the bill says they are.

The law-merchant gives to the ship, as we have seen, a lien on the goods for the freight. The master cannot demand the freight without a tender of the goods at the proper time, in the proper way, to the proper person, and in a proper condition; but then the consignee is not entitled to the goods without paying freight. The law gives this lien, whether it be expressed or not. But it may be expressly waived. The bill of lading, or other evidence, may show the agreement of the parties that the goods should be delivered first, and the freight not be payable until a certain time afterwards; and such an agreement is in general a waiver of the lien.

Nevertheless, if it seemed that the ship-owner did not intend to give up his security on the goods, a court of admiralty would so construe such an agreement as to give the consignee possession of the goods, for a temporary purpose, as to ascertain their condition, or, possibly, that he might offer them in the market, and by an agreement to sell raise the means of paying the freight; and yet would preserve for the master his security upon the goods for a reasonable time, unless, in the meantime, they should actually become, by sale, the property of a bonâ fide purchaser.

The contract of affreightment is entire ; therefore no freight is earned unless the whole is earned, by carrying the goods quite to the port of destination. If by wreck, or other cause, the transportation is incomplete, no absolute right of freight goes out of it. We say no absolute right, because a condi tional right of freight does exist. To understand this we must remember, that, as soon as the ship receives the goods, it, on the one hand, comes under the obligation of carrying them to their destination, and on the other, at the same time or on breaking ground and beginning the voyage, acquires the right of so carrying them. Therefore, if a wreck or other interruption

intervenes, the ship-owner has the right of trans-shipping them, and sending them forward in the original ship or another ship, to the place of their original destination. When they arrive there, he may claim the whole freight originally agreed on; but if forwarded in the original ship, he can claim no more; for then the extra cost of forwarding the goods is his loss. If the master or owner of the ship forwards them in another ship from necessity, and at an increased cost, the shipper must pay this increased cost.

The ship-owner not only may, but must, send forward the goods, at his own cost, if this can be done by means reasonably within his reach. He is not, however, answerable for any delay thus occurring, or for any damage from this delay. The shipper himself, by his agent, may always reclaim all his goods, at any intermediate port or place, on tendering all his freight; because the master's right of sending them forward is merely to earn his full freight. If, therefore, the goods are damaged and need care, and the master can send them forward at some time within reasonable limits, and insists upon his right to do so, the ship. per can obtain possession of his goods only by paying full freight. If, however, the master tenders the goods there to the shipper, and the shipper there receives them, this is held to sever or divide the contract by agreement, and now what is called a freight pro rata itineris, or for that part of the voyage which is performed, is due. This is quite a common transaction.

Difficult questions sometimes arise as to what is a reception of the goods by their owner. The rights of the master and of the shipper are apparently opposed to each other, and neither must be pressed too far. The master must not pretend to hold the goods for forwarding, to the detriment of the goods or their value, when he cannot forward them, but merely uses this pretence to compel a payment of full freight. And the shipper must not refuse to receive the goods, when the master can do no more with them, and offers their delivery in good faith.

If freight for a part of the voyage is payable, the question arises by what rule of proportion shall it be measured. One is purely geographical, and was formerly much used; that is, the whole freight would pay for so many miles, and the freight for

Another is purely commer

a part must pay for so many less. cial. The whole freight being a certain sum for the whole distance, what will it cost to bring the goods to the place where they are received, and how much to take them thence to their original destination. Let the original freight be divided into two parts proportional to these, and the first part is the freight for the part of the voyage through which they were carried, or, as it is called, the freight pro rata, and is to be paid by the shipper who receives the goods. Neither of these, nor indeed any other fixed and precise rule, is generally adopted in this country. But both courts and merchants seek, by combining the two, to ascertain what proportion of the increase of value expected from the intended transportation has been actually conferred upon the goods by actual partial transportation, and this is to be taken as the freight that is due pro rata itineris.

If the bill of lading requires delivery to the consignee or his assigns," he or they paying freight,"-which is usual,-and the master delivers the goods without receiving freight, which the consignee fails to pay, the master or owner cannot in the absence of express contract fall back on the consignor and make him liable, unless he can show that the consignor actually owned the goods, or by his words or acts made himself responsible therefor, in which case the bill of lading, in this respect, is nothing more than an order by a principal upon an agent to pay money due from the principal.

Under the usual bill of lading the goods are to be delivered to the consignee or his assigns on the payment of freight. If goods are accepted under this bill of lading, the party receiving them, whether the consignee or his assignee, becomes liable for the freight. If the master delivers goods to any one, saying that he shall look to him for the freight, he may demand the freight of him unless that person had the absolute right to the goods without payment of freight; which must be very seldom the case. If the consignee is not liable for the freight, his indorsement of the bill of lading does not make him so. And if the consignee is liable, and the goods are received by any one only as agent of the consignor, this agent does not thereby become liable.

If freight be paid in advance, and not subsequently earned, it must be repaid, unless it can be shown that the owner took a less sum for ready cash than he would otherwise have had, and for this or some other equivalent reason the money paid was as a final settlement, and was to be retained by the owner at all events.

If a consignee pay more than he should, he may recover it back, if paid through ignorance or mistake of fact; but not if, with full knowledge of all the facts, he was ignorant or mistaken as to the law.

If one sells his ship after a voyage is commenced, he alone can claim the freight of the shipper of goods, although by the contract of sale the seller is to pay it over to the purchaser. A mortgagee of a ship who has not taken posses sion, has not, in general, any right to the freight, unless this is specially agreed. Neither has a lender on a bottomry

bond.

No freight, of course, can be earned by an illegal voyage, as the law will not enforce any illegal contract, or sanction any illegal conduct.

The goods are to be delivered, by the bill of lading, in good condition, "excepting the dangers of the seas," and such other risks or perils as may be expressed. If the goods are damaged to any extent by any of these perils, and yet can be and are delivered in specie (that is, if the goods are actually deli ered although hurt or spoilt, as corn or hides although rotten, flour although wet, fish although spoilt), the freight is payable,

The shipper or consignee cannot abandon the goods for the freight, if they remain in specie, although they may be worthless; for damage caused by an excepted risk is his loss, and not the loss of the owner. If they are lost by a risk. which the ship-owner does not except in the bill of lading, he is answerable for that loss, and it may be charged in settlement of freight.

If they are lost in substance, though not in form, that is, although the cases or vessels are preserved, as if sugar is washed out of boxes or hogsheads, or wine leaks out of casks, by reason of injury sustained from a peril of the sea, though