The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-09-28
COTTON BILLS OF LtDINo
the Only way In which the ConIra, .r,,
with the English BankrrS Can ne ss,,l.S

WIN tne Fhghsn banAers an Ne Setllaa
To THE EprroR oF rHF So ~ Wh.,N..
English bankers Niu require gu8r,,,.,,
on American cotton bulls Of Iau.nc
/ question To he decided a. 'nr .outnr.,,-,
OF the American aud luvusn IrpA.,.
This matter ~ OF great impartan,, "a .,.
financial world Tor the value uf common. -.
transported In a single yea uu both =. -,.,a,
and order balls Of ladIug awrlui- fp 4.
Oo. 0o M. and bank credits are .,,.ua.y,
10 the amount of SsUnu. us,.uun auursu, .a
order bills OF lading alone Nuv EryH.'
bankers have demanded ihIr after u,,,...
~ all bills OF lading Shurld 30. gutrau ...
by American banks National b.n.tu,, 40.
do not permit national h,nA - susr,r,.,
the obligations Of q rh,rd party. :, ,.-.
demand - here impossible stat. han.
and trust companies nave followed rH. 3D..
tional banks on he ground Of policy
10 promote ConndeIc" n ur,i.-. r.,,,.
balls Of ladlng most Of the southern ratI,o.s.
have passed regulations thai q I'm of ladIr.
signature certificate shall he signed ,,t
attached on behalf of the railroad cornpapv
by a valuation officer 10 each ordsr.nc,'t,
bill OF ladinE for export cotton ,s.ied bv
agents Of the compsny author, red 10 80.
such bills Of lading. zach valuation cor.
tificate will st forth that m. agent who
had signed the bill OF lading j. the Regulate
appointed agent Of the company and =.
such IL authorized 20 sign hills Of adm,
in accordance with the regulations Of M.
company. and that the signature ON "a.
attached order-notify bill Of ladins l. his o.
nature. The certificate will be irremovsbIv
attached TO the bill Of lading and The Iatt.,
in addition to lite own number. will be,,
the number Of tho certificate issued IA
connection with II Agents Will be IN.
sfructed not 20 sign bills OF IadinR un,u
the cotton 10 In possession OF the railroad
company
The courts have generally REGARDED IN.
form Of the bill OF ladinR a. the sttons.., -,
kind OF proof Of the ownership ~ the FOODS
80 II the bill 81 lAdinR Is made out 10 m.
consignee IL IL taken 20 mean ,ha, ,hs .
consiRnee has title to the goods ana M, A.,
any one else. The shipper becomes me y
baiiee for the person named In the dozen. !
ment In I'm gland this view il confined
10 shipments by water a. shown In the
House OF Lords case OF Shipperd " Harri.
son. l.. " ;, ~ l.. iiS but In this oountry
the same ruling applies 10 shipments by
railroads.
II l. customary for the seller Of goods
20 draw q draft for the purchase price upon
the buyer. to discount this draft. accom-.
panied bv the bill Of ladinE. at nsishpor.
ing hank. and this bank forwards H 10 ns
corresponding bank in the vicinity OF the
buyer 4 hothersome question arises when
ladinR stating that goods have been re-
Ceived which never, IN Tact. have come
into possession q the rsilrosd L az.
on the principle of agency for the inten-
.ionSi or neEi,sfn, mi ssu,i:ns 81 r.
a fs sup Ta tou1s o. he n.d .s
Arkansas. Illinois. Louisiana. Maryland
Minnesota. Mississippi, Missouri. North
have held 20 The CONTRARY. while Nabama.
connecticut, Kansas. Nebra.ka. New York.
Pennsylvania, Tennessee hold that the
principal cannot deny the authority ot bis
agent In Alabama, MARYLAND and MIN
nesota statutes have been pAssed making
Re SHiISe SSs In M S[SanSSs LSShi..ns
New Work North Dakota. Pennsylvanls,
south Dakota aud Wisconsin there are
~ a carrier or warehousenan to issue bills
~ lsding or warehouse receipts when tbs
specific goods have not been received
There seems no go"d reason why The Ney
YORK rule = not right The iheoreiicsl
-nundne=- Of the argument - generally ad-
m ted even nv the courts adopting ne
BANK Of commerce We. chicago. &c. Ry.
:. MINI ::t. '15: say; me Question
~ that this argument would be very CO.
gem
pnl i held under similar conditions The
opera or 81 telegraph company who sends
forged felezrsmS FOR money binds the com.
psnv that tn" loss falls upon n rather
han upon the innocenJ receiver OF the teie.
gram Inc court in McCord " W L. Tel
Co. 10 MINI. lsi. said
Persons receiving de.p4tohe. 10 NE usual cour,s
Of business. where there Il nothing 10 excite sus.
E.c,o3 are entitled 70 rely ug3n ne prs.ampiss
sad honestly discharged ne duty owed sS il o
It's patrons and that they would not knowiagly
nartiy be an unreasonable and impracticable ruie
require the question 81 the INTEGRITY and ndtly
Of the defendants agents In the performance q
Their duties before acting 10 b. rome into.
II seems then. that American banks vin
not GO further than to validate the certificate
OF railroad aRenta because 90 RuaTanfss
would be ultra wires on the part OF the IA
tional banks. and against sound hlsinass
policy on the part OF state banks and traAt
companies. In many Instances American
Legislatures are willing to impose criminal
liability on railroad aaents for fraudulent
bills OF ladtnG. many courts are willing 70
hold the railroads liahle IN such rases. and
he banks are willing TO validate certificates,
hut beyond this they will not go. all Of which
appears most reasonable.