Source: https://openjurist.org/14/f1d/429
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:07:56+00:00

Document:
Where, by the negligence of the captain, an excessive delivery was made to one consignee and a shortage to another, in a libel by the latter against the vessel, tIle ship cannot avoid liability by a provision in the bill of lading that weight, contents, and material were unknown.
Whl're the charterer agreed to load with scrap-iron, and did load partly with scrap-st,·el, and the bill of lading provided that the shipment was subject to the ('harter.party, and weight, contents, and material were unknown, the vessel is lill ble to a consignee of a hill of lading for a shortage in the delivery scrapsteel occas:oned by the negligence of the captain.
That other consignments of scrap-steel were fully delivered, and that the'captain declined the assistance of an expert for distinguishing iron frOM steel, and aft.erwards made an excessive delivery containing, steel to a entitled to iron, are evidence in this case of negligence in making a shortage to a: consignee entitled to steel.
to the ship to assist in distinguishing Samuels & Oo.'s iron, the mistake would have been avoided. The sending of this expert to superintend the separation of the metals was additional notice of the necessity for care. The captain, however, asserted entire confidence in his own ability to distinguish the iron from the steel, as also did the mate. And yet he delivered 33 tons of. steel on Samuelfl & Oo.'s consignment of iron, 26 tons of which excess of the entire amount of metal called for by this consignment. This factthe delivery of such an excess without inquiry or hesitation-:is pregnant with evidence of negligence. The circumstance. that he was giving to this party such a quantity of metal more than he was entitled to, while the libelants' delivery was short in an equal or greater amoUlat, should certainly have created apprehension of mistake. Investigation then would have disclosed the fact. that he was deliveri.ng theJibelants' steel to Rqebling.'s Sons, as plainly as it did when subsequ6:lltly made. If it were granted that the respondent might, under the charter and bills of lading, have treated the entire cargo as iron, and delivered it as such, his position would not be improved. It would still be plaIn that he should have stopped when Samuels & Co.'s consignment was fully delivered, and placed what remained to the libelant's defi. ciency. The fact that the libelants were not present at the delivery does not tend to exeuse the respondent. As indorsees of the bill of lading the libelants have title, and may sue in their own names, as they have done. The Thames, 14 Wall.. 107, 108.
t3ee Pollard v. Vinton, S. C. U. S. 11 FED. REP. 351, and note; Lindsay v. CWJimano, 10 FED. REP. 302; The Bristol, 6 ]'ED. REP. 638; Merrick V. Wheat, 3 FED, REP. 340; Compart v. The Prior, 2 FED. REP. 819; Willis v. The .AWJtin, rd. 412; Richards v. Hansen, 1 FED. REP. 54; O'Rourke v. Tons of Coal, Id. 619; Hall v. Penn. R. Co. Id. 226; MWJer v. Am. Ex-. Co. rd. 382; Unnevehr V.l'M Hindoo, Id. 627.
RELEASE TO AmnNISTRATOR, RATIFYING SALE OF LANDS-FAILURE TO RESCINl>, OON'rRACT VOID-LACHES, ETC.
Decedent, in his life-time, was possessed of a certain interest in lands which he heid with others. His acting administrator, who ow.ns a part interest in the same lands, obtains the assent ot two of decedent's heirs to the sale of decedent's interest in the said land, and forthwith conveys the same to himself 'ani his associates. Thereafter all decedent's heirs, including the complainants, sign a release discharging him from all liability "on account of the assets and property: of the deceased in his possession or under hiscontrol." In the suit brought by two of these heirs against the acting administrator and his associ· ates, purchasers of the land aforesaid, asking for an accounting of proceeds of sales made by them, and for a conveyance to complainants of the undivided interest in. the lands still unsold, held, that the release from the heirs of decedent t.o the administrator, considered in the light of a sale of their interest in the lands by such acting administrator to himself and associates, or as an agreement ratifying such a sale previously made by him, was wholly invalid, and that' this being so, and it not appearing that the complainants accepted any benefit from the sale· after the facts were known, they are not estopped to assert the invalidity of the sale by reason of laches, failure to rescind, and the like.
PROTECTION TO BONA FIDE PORCHASERS.
The protection extended to a bona fide helongs only to the purcllaser of the legal title without notice of an outstanding equity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.