The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-09-25

ments. These acts apply on such bills
of lading, regardless of the point of des-
tination of the cotton. They apply equal
ly to intrastate, interstate and foreign
shipments The acts quoted by me do
not attempt, nor in fact do they In any
manner interfere with any interstate or
foreign shipment. On the contrary, they
are designed to- promote interstate and
foreign shipments by safeguarding the
holders of bills of lading and thereby
promoting interstate and foreign ship
ments of cotton.
Besides this these questions have been
passed upon by the supreme court of
Alabama in the case of Jasper Trust
company VS.. X. c., M. & B. r. r. COM
pany. 90 Ala. page 416. In that case the
agent of the railroad company at Jasper.
Ala, signed a bill of lading in which he
acknowledged to have received from San
ford & Co. 80 bales of cotton to be de-
livered to Barry Thayer & Co. at Bos-
ton, Mass, when in fact no such cotton
was received. One of the questions
raised by the attorneys of the railroad
company in this case was as to whether
or not the agent, not having received the
cotton when the bill of lading was Is
sued. the railroad company was RESPONSE
BILE for the same. Judge Stone, then chief
Justice, delivered the opinion of the
court and construed the statutes in ques-
ton which I quoted in my last article
in that opinion. In answer to the argu-
ment made by counsel for the railroad
company, to the effect that the railroad
company was not bound by the bill of
lading because the cotton had not been
received by the railroad, Judge Stone
said
1T seems to us that a full answer
Ia
that such Interpretation would prac-
tically annul that part of the statute
which we have copied Corporations
are artificial entities or things and can
act only through human agency. Deny
to them this agency and they are left
without power to do any act, or to
achieve any result. The depot agent,
in executing a bill of lading, is the
railroad company speaking through
him. His delegated power is restricted,
1t is true, for he Is authorized to re-
ceipt for freight only when the freight
Is actually delivered to the railroad.
But agents are sometimes false to their
trusts and injury to Innocent outsiders
Is the consequence. 1t was this which
rendered the statute under considera-
ton necessary and caused Its enact
ment. The legislature realized that
carriers or their agents might be neg
ligently or Intentionally derelict and
that damage. immediate or consequent
tial, might result therefrom. To visit
the loss thus occasioned on the car
rier was simply placing the penalty
where personal fault, or that of an
agent, had caused the injury to be
inflicted. Not to give the statute this
Interpretation is to deny to 1t all OBJ
Grafton when corporation Is the car
rier. It's whole intention was to punish
and prevent the giving of a bill of
lading when the property or thing was
not In fact received for transportation !;
and If we limit the carriers liabil-
ity to cases in which the property or
thing receipted for is actually received
do We not leave the statute without
any purpose to be accomplish ed? Its
language is. Not having received
things or property for carriage shall
give or issue a bill of lading. or re-
ceipt, as If such things or property
statute precisely applicable to the case
we have in hand and not to give it
such construction would be to deny
it all operation as against corpora
tions."
1t will thus be seen that under our
statutes and under tho decision of the
supreme court of Alabama If a rail-
road company or its authorized agent
should issue a bill OF lading for cot
ton, whether for intrastate. interstate
or foreign shipment, the railroad COM
pany Is, in law. responsible for the
cotton under such bill of iading.
If there is any foreign marker or