Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-04

guards against danger which is re-
CURED OF u passenger train might rem.
der the operation of a freight train I'm
practicable in many localities. These
views are supported by the authorities.
\ w. & A. r. co. ". OHIO VALLEY
b. 6 II. CO.
Supreme Court Of Georgia
July 10, 1899.
THE RIGHTS OF A BONA FIDE
HOLDER, FOR VALUE AND
WITHOUT NOTICE, OF A BILL OF
LADING FOR THE DELIVERY OF
GOODS AT A CERTAIN POINT
WITH DIRECTION TO NOTIFY A,
WILL NOT DE EFFECTED BY A
PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE coNsIGNOR. THE CARRIER
AND a. THAT THE LATTER
COULD CHANGE THE DESrI-
NATION OF THE GOODS.
If IN SUCH CASE THE CARRIER
STOPS THE GOODS AT AN INTER
MEDIATE POINT AND THEY ARE
TAKEN UNDER LEGAL PROCESS
AGAINST THE CoNSIGNoR THE
CARRIER IS LIABLE TO THE
HOLDER or THE BILL OF LAD
ING FOR IT'S FAILURE TO DE-
LIVER.
This was a suit brought by the plain.
tiff bank to recover from the railroad
company damages for the wrongful
conversion of four cars OF corn. rhc
bank waS the bona fide holder for value
OF ladinS for the corn issued to Waller
d CO.. the shippers, which provided for
It's delivery AT Charleston, S. c., 10
shippers order, notify Atlanta Gro
Gerry Co" The bank discounted drafts
for the shipper to which the bills OF
ladins were attached When the corn
got 10 Atlanta the railroad company,
without authority from the holders of
the bills of lading. or their production.
hut ut the request of the Atlanta Gro
Gerry Co.. stopped it, and il was seized
under legal process brought by said
company against the shippers, and was
never delivered ut Charleston to The
holder of the bills Of lading. The lower
court gave judgment for the plaintiff,
and defendant appealed.
The court says:
In the absence of the agreement or
custom existing among Waller & Co.,
the Atlanta Grocery Company. and the
Western & Atlanta Railroad Company,
the defendant. prior TO the issua nee OF
the bills Of ladinE by the Louisville Sc
Nashville Railroad Company, the initial
line, II WAS the duty Of the defendant,
under the terms of the bills Of ladng
and the wnybills 1t received with the
corn, tn safely transport the corn from
Chattanooga to Atlanta within a reas-
enable time, and deliver 1t at the latter
place 10 the connecting line, en- route
to Charleston. there 10 bc delivered to
the order of tho consiEnors. While the
Ohio Banking & Trust Company. the
plaintiff. as transfcrec of the bills Of
lading. having n special property in
the corn MS security for the payment
of the drafts on the Atlanta Grocery
Company which Il had discounted, In Il
the right, subject 10 the defendant 8
claim for the difference in freight, to
change the dcstina ton OF the corn, and
have ii stopped in Atlanta, The Atlanta
Grocery Company which the bills OF
lading and the waybills plainly indi-
Gated was not the consignee or owner
of the corn, had no such authority.
What effect did the agreement or cuG-
tom existing among the conSiSnors.
the Atlanta Grocery Company. and the
defendant. that the grocery company
could. without producing the bills OF
lad'ng. stop the corn in Atlanta. have
upon the rights of the plaintiff, which
was n bona fidc holder of the bills OF
OF such agreement or custom? In Ma
tional Bank OF Chester " Atlanta & C..
=. l.. Ry Co, 1t was held that where
time drafts, accompanied by indorsed
bills Of lading of cotton, where cashed
by a bank, any arrangement between
the drawee of the drafts and the ship
per, unknown to the bank, that the cot
ton should be delivered to the drawrn
without The production of the hills OF
ladirS. would be n fraud on the bank.
and would not excuse an improper de-
livery by the carrier to Snch drawee.
1t seems that the principle laid down
by thefa- a n i4efltiES: ~, effect thn
the rights of one who is a bona flde
holder of n. bill of lading. and without
notice, will not he affected by a de-
livery of the goods to the person to be
notified of their arrival. without the
production OF the bill of lading. and In
pursuance of an agreement between
such person and the cunsi%nor. or of
4 custom existing among the parties.
sustainS the position that the rights Of
the plaintiff in this case, as against The
defendant. were not affected by the ar
rangcmeat or custom. unknown to
plaintiff. that the Atlanta Grocery
Company, without the production OF
right to change the destination of the
goods. The general rule is that a bill
of lading. as contract expressing the
terms and conditions upon which the
property is TO be transported, is to he
regarded as the sole cvidence of the
final agreement. In which arc merged
all rrior and coDtcmpora neous agree
ments Of the parties, and, in the abb
sencc of fraud or mistake It's terms or
legal effect, when free from ambiguity,
cannot he explained. added TO. or CON
tradicted by paTol. Nor Is evidence q.
usage admissible to control. vary, or
contradict the positive stpulations OF
q bill of ladng.
The liza bility of common carrier
ceases ii the goods are taken from his