bill of lading, Sept. 11, said ship arrived at London, said agent caused the wax to be entered at the customhouse, paid charges thereon, and ordered it sold on his account. This was accordingly done. Said bills negotiated by Fritzing became due Oct. 7, 1801, and not paid by Brown or Fritzing, he being insolvent, but they were taken up under protest by Feise for the honour of Kantens, to whom Fretzing sold and endorsed them, and Kantens sold and endorsed them &c. Feise so proved the bills under Brown's commission; and held Fritzing and his estate also responsible for the said bills. Judgment for the deft., Fritzing's agent; for he was in fact a vendor of the wax, and Brown the vendee. And this was but "the common case of the consignor of goods, who has not received payment of them, stopping them in transitu before they get to the hands of the consignee," though Brown accepted the bills. "Such acceptances proveable under his commission amounting at most to part payment for the goods, which does not take away the vendor's right to stop in transitu." "There was no privity between Brown and the owner of the wax." Fritzing bought it and sold it to Brown, and charged the first cost and his commission, a common among English merchants, and he honestly got the bill of lading and stopped the wax in transitu, said the court. case 3. In this case it was decided, that part payment for the goods does not destroy the vendor's right to stop them in transitu it can only reduce his equitable lien, pro tanto when he gets the goods into his possession. $4. In this case Crane in England, Sept. 1798, chartered a ship on certain conditions, for a voyage to Russia to bring goods from his correspondents there to England; the plt. shipped 100 casks of tallow on Crane's account and risk, and sent to him the invoice and bill of lading. Held, the delivery of the goods on board of such a chartered ship did not preclude the consignor's right to stop the goods in transitu on board the same to the vendee, in case of his insolvency in the mean time, before actual delivery; any more than if they had been delivered on board of a general ship for the same purpose. And as the consignor's agent demanded the tallow of the master before unloaded, and he afterwards delivered it to Crane the vendee's assignees, they were liable in trover to the consignor. And the court held, as to that, the delivery to the master of this chartered ship was no more than a delivery to a carrier, which was clearly no actual delivery to the consignee. But otherwise, if he have the entire control of the ship, as where he absolutely chartered the ship for three years, in a certain case cited. See 6 East 17, and post art. 4, s. 4. See Consignment Ch. 25, Ellis v. Hunt, and several CH. 21. other cases. Art. 2. -Lex. Am. 5. In this action it was adjudged, that where several bills of lading have been signed of different imports, no reference 1 T. R. 205, is to be had to the time when signed by the master. But Caldwell & al. v. Ball. the person who first gets one of them by legal title from the Same case in owner or shipper has a right to the consignment; also when 2 Mor. Ess. such bill of lading are constructively the same, though differ- 159, 179, 271. ent on the face of them, and the master acts bona fide, a Mer. 163.delivery according to such legal title will discharge him from 2 Cain. 38.all of them. And where one ships goods and the bills of lading are to his own order, he has the absolute controul over them, and may unship them &c. until he endorses the bill of lading. 3 Cain. 182. 1, 19. 2 Bos. & Pul. 457, Mills v. Ball.-3 East 389.-3 T. R. § 6. If a bill of lading be not endorsed, the master can only In error, deliver the goods to the consignee as factor, not as owner; for 1 Johns. R. till endorsed the consignor has full power over this bill, and nothing but his endorsement can vest the property of the goods specified in it in any other person. The transfer of the bill is solely by endorsement. The endorsement of a bill of lading primâ facie, transfers the whole property, but this endorsement may be controlled by the evident intent of the parties. § 7. In Mills v. Ball it was held, the vendor might stop the goods even after they were delivered to a wharfinger, who received them and paid the freight, and charged on account of the vendee, for as Lord Mansfield said in another case, the 466.-7 T. R. vendor or consignor may do this till the goods actually come into the hands of the vendee or consignee, to his corporal touch. Consignee or vendee becoming a bankrupt declined the goods. 8. Where the master is supercargo, bills of lading are unnecessary, for then he is not so accountable to others as to 1 Rol. Ad. R. make such instrument necessary, and it is required that this 27. bill should declare on whose account and risk the shipment is made. See Insolvency, Ch. 39, a. 1, Reader v. Knatchbrill, and other cases. 444. Am. Lex. Mer. 119. Beal.-Lex. 9. Cloth was purchased by the vendee, but not paid for. 3 T. R. 466, It was sent to an innkeeper on account of a trader with a bill Hunter v. of parcels, the receipt of which he acknowledged and credited Am. Mer. 165. in his books the amount to the vendor. The vendee ordered it to a wharf to be shipped where it arrived too late, and was taken back to the inn with directions to the innkeeper from the vendee to take care of it till another opportunity offered. The court held, this cloth still remained in transitu, and there was no actual delivery to the vendee. den.-Lex. 10. If the assignee of a bill of lading take it, knowing an- Dick v. Lamsother has an equitable lien on the goods, he takes it subject to Am. Mer. CH. 21. Lex. Am. this lien, though this be not expressed in the endorsement, but in a letter &c. § 11. The goods of one belligerent cannot he altered in transitu, as it respects another belligerent. For in a state of war existing or imminent, it is held, the property shall be deemed to continue as it was at the time of shipment, till the actual delivery. But this rule is only between belligerents. ART. 3. American cases. A being indebted to B, shipped goods to pay him, and the master of the ship gave a bill of Pemberton. lading, and it was held, that goods immediately on being shipped, and bill of lading signed, become the property of the consignee, as these goods were shipped to pay a debt. 2 Dall. 181.1 Dall 3, Ste venson v. 2 Dall. 180, Wood v. Am. Mer. 164. § 2. But in the same court it was determined, that where Boach.-Lex. the evidence of the consignments, being for a bona fide creditor, was doubtful, and a part of the property was not shipped, they had not passed by the mere shipment of a part and signing the bills of lading; the original owner of the goods he finds is deemed to have a lien on them to the amount of his rights, hence has arisen the right of stopping in transitu, the goods transmitted, if not paid for, or if reasons exist to suppose the consignee is insolvent. 4 Mass. R. 115, Bridge v. Austin. §3. Assumpsit against Austin in consideration the plaintiff made him his bailiff of one case of linens of the value of $500, and had agreed to allow him a commission of 5 per cent. on the sales, promised the plaintiff to transport it to Charleston, S. C. at the defendant's risk, against all danger but of the seas, and to dispose of the same to the plt's. best advantage, and to account &c. The goods arrived safe at Charleston, and were there deposited in a store, out of which they were stolen; the contract was expressed in a paper in the form of a bill of lading nearly. Held, the deft. was accountable to the plt. for the value at Boston, the place of shipment, deducting said commission on his contract, though not in fault, and five per cent. was the usual commission for selling only, and making returns. Leave to amend the declaration &c. The property passes by assigning a bill of lading bona fide, though made after the arrival of the goods in port, Chandler & al. v. Belden. 4. The deft. received at Liverpool, to transport to Boston, a quantity of velvets in cases, and gave a bill of lading in common form, expressing they were in good order, and to deliver them in like good order &c., the dangers of the seas excepted. Held, this bill signed at Liverpool was not conclusive evidence the goods were in good order when there shipped, though prima facie strong evidence of the fact. The goods were done up in cases, and the master never saw them except the outside of them. Nor is it usual for a master of a vessel to examine the goods when he gives such a bill, and often he is not skilled in goods he receipts for. C. 21. Art. 3. § 5. A usage for carriers to retain goods as a lien for a general balance of account between them and the consignees, Oppenheimv. cannot affect the right of the consignor to stop the goods in Russell. 3 Bos. & Pul. transitu. 42. § 6. Under some circumstances the mere affirmance of the Lex. Mer. master to a bill of lading, works a transfer of the property; Am. 163. but this is only where the purposes of justice demand such a construction. For this reason, shipments fairly made to pay bonâ fide debts, passes the goods on signing the bill of lading; for in this the lader's intention is clearly expressed, and the law implies, the creditor accepts the consignment, as every one is supposed readily to accept the payment of his honest debt. Also the goods shipped in such cases are to be viewed as paid for, and the delivery of the goods to the master to be carried to the creditor to pay his just demand, is to be viewed as a delivery to the creditor himself. On these grounds it was decided in America, before the American revolution, that goods thus shipped to pay a debt, could be attached for the consignee or creditor's debt, on the principle the property of them was vested in him by the delivery to the master. The payment of such debt being a consideration equal to actual payment for the goods. Am. 165, 166, 7. In this case the plt. chartered and loaded a vessel at Lex. Mer. the request, and on the account of certain merchants, declared Holt v. Powbankrupts. She arrived and their assignees went on board nall. her, and claimed the cargo as the bankrupt's, and opened some of the bales &c. The ship was then ordered into quarantine; while performing, a person for the plt., Holt, to whom he had endorsed one of the bills of lading, applied to the master for delivery of the cargo. He refused, being indemnified by the assignees, one of whom continued on board during the quarantine; at the expiration of it the cargo was landed and delivered to the assignees. The plt. brought trover against the master, and the court decided that the property was in transitu, and might be stopped during the quarantine. But it appears if the vessel be chartered or owned by the vendee or consignee, and entirely under his controul, then a delivery on board her is a delivery to him, and of course defeats the right to stop in transitu. For as the carriage is solely by him, and in no sense in the controul or possession of the seller or consignor, or of his master or servants, the vendee or consignee has the sole possession, and therefore the transitu is at an end. It is further true, that to put an end to the transitu and to the consignor's right to retain the goods in the bill of lading CH. 21. 10 Mass. R. 510, Wallis & &c. they must not only have come into the hands of the consignee or vendee in fact, or of his special agent, but his possession must be acquired with the consent of the original owner. Hence, if the vendee meet the goods on their way and take possession of them, they are still in transitu till they arrive at the place of their destination So a bill of lading may like a bill of exchange, or other negotiable contract, be assigned over specially, and so as not to convey any interest from the original possessor beyond the letter and terms of the endorsement. As where the endorsement is to "deliver the contents to A. B. on my account," A. B. receives on his account, and is not enabled to put the property in circulation, however absolute the property of the bona fide assignee for a valuable consideration may be against all the world, even the assignor who has not been paid for his goods, yet if the assignee take it knowing the goods are not paid for, he takes the property subject to the same equities as it was when in the assignor's hands, and it is enough the fact appears in the endorsement in bills of parcels or in letters, or in any other way which conveys to the assignee a knowledge of the fact. 8. This was assumpsit-the plts. shipped in the ship al. . Cook. Osprey on a voyage from Salem to South America, the goods described in the bill of lading signed by the deft., in which it was agreed the net proceeds of the goods, after deducting five per cent. commissions and $14 for freight, should be paid to the shippers in nine days after the ship's arrival at her port of discharge in the United States. She safely arrived in South America, and the goods sold, and the net proceeds amounted, after deducting duties, charges, and freight out, to $900 41. On her return for New York she stranded near New London lighthouse, and cargo was damaged fifty per cent. She was got into port and repaired, so that she might have gone to her intended port of discharge, but did not. Held, the shippers were entitled to the net proceeds of the goods, without any deduction for the loss by stranding, though they had caused their interest to be insured the voyage round, for they had no risk in the goods homeward by their contract. They were to be repaid in full if the ship arrived here in the United States, without out limitation of time, or as to the port, and she did so arrive, and it was no condition she should arrive without damage. 12 Mass. R. 9. Assumpsit for the value of certain goods, plt's. property, 565, Forres- shipped at Calcutta in the Caravan owned by the deft., bill of ter v. Dodge. lading signed by Augustine Heard, the master, for ninety-two bales of piece goods; plt. had received fifty-five of them only. Action was for the other thirty-seven. The bill of lading was in common form, excepting "the danger of the seas, the laws |