Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/154

 BOBINSON U. MEMpraS & CHABLESTON B. CO. 139 �T. Bath, 2 Exch. 267; Brown v. Powell Col. Co. 10 C. P. 562; Grant v:jfprway, 10 C. B. 665; 70 Eng. Cotn. Law, 664. �ihese authorities establish beyond dispute that' where a master signs a bill of lading for goods not received, or for more than are received, he acts beyond bis authority, and the o-wner is not liable either to the original shipper or any assignee of the bill of lading, whether he makes iadvances on the faith of it or gives value for it or nOt; neither is the owner estopped to show the facts as they really exist. Some courts have reluotantly yielded to this principle, and some have sought to restrict or qualify it in the supposed interest of commercial dealing; but in England, although a statute makes the individual signing the bill of lading liable, it goes no further, and the doctrine of Grant v. Norway, supra, has withstood the assaults upon it and is established law. It bas been approved by the supreme court of the United States, and directly or in principle by other fed- eral courts. Schooner Freemdn V. Buckingham, 18 How. 182; Van- dewdter v. Mills, 19 How. 90; Tke Lady Franklin, 8 Wall. 325; The Keokuk, 9 Wall. 517, 519; Buckley v. Naumkeag Co. 24 How. 386, 392; S. C. 1 Cliff. 322, 328; The Loon, 7 Blatchf. 244; The Grant, 1 Biss. 193; The May Flower, 3 Ware, 300; The Edudn, 1 Sprague, 477; The Leonidas, 1 Ole. 12; The Marengo, 6 McLean, 487 ; McCready v. Holmes, 6 Am. Law Eeg. (0. 8.) 229; The Brown, �1 Biss. 76; The Wellington, Id. 279, 280; TheTuskar, 1 Sprague, 71; Sutton v. Kettle, Id. 309; Blag v. Ins. Co. 3 Wash. 5; i)ixon v. Railroad Co. 4 Biss. 137, and note at page 147; Bradstreet v. Heran, �2 Blatchf. lie-, Relyea y.Rolling Mill Co. 42 Conn. 579. �It must be coheeded, as is contended here, that none of these cases were against railroad companies — the case of Dixon v. Railroad Co., supra, being cited only for the note as a collection of authorities ; and in the Lady Franklin, supra, Relyea v. Rolling Mill Co., supra, Brad- street V. Heran^ supra, there are intimations, and in two of them something more than intimations, perhaps, that the rule might be different where the case is embarrassed by advances being made on the faith of the bill of lading. But it is thoroughly settled that there is no distinction between a bill of lading given by a carrier on land and one given by a carrier on water. Mr. Justice Story says as much, and that "each means the same obligation and liabilities, and is subject to the same duties." King v. Shepherd, 3 Story, 349, 360. The learned annptators of Lukharrow v. Mason, 2 T. E. 03, (S. C. 6 East, 21,) say : ��� �