Case ID: ny-sup-ct_14/html/0233-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Davis, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE GERMANIA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and others, Respondents, v. THE MEMPHIS AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
    
      Bill of lading— Contents of, how far evidence of agreement between the parties.
    
    A carrier having agreed with a shipper as to the price of transportation, on the following day delivered bills of lading in ordinary form, specifying the rates agreed upon, and containing certain conditions. On the next day the goods were shipped. Held, that the bills of lading, in the absence of fraud, must be taken as the evidence, and the sole evidence, of the final agreement of the parties, and by it their rights and liabilities must be regulated. (Long v. H. T. C. B. B. Co., 50 N. Y„ 76.)
    
      The price agreed upon on the previous day having been correctly inserted in the bill of lading, it became part of tbe same contract.
    This case distinguished from Bostwielc v. Baltimore and Ohio Baibroad Company (45 N. Y., 712).
    The presumption of law is, that a party receiving an instrument in tbe transaction of any business, is acquainted with its contents. (Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y., 166; Steers v. Diverpool, If. T. and P. Steamship Co., 57 id., 1; Manhattan Oil Co. v. C. and A. B. B. Co., 54 id., 197; Wetzell v. Dinsmore, 54 id., 496; Maghee v. C. asid A. B. B. T. Co., 45 id., 514; Shelton v. Merchasits’ Dispatch Frans. Co., 59 id., 258.)
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee.
    
      F. TL. Churchill, for the appellants. Q. W. Ootteidll, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Daniels and Beady, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event.