Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/486

 THE FEBBEEI. 471 �master of the ship to give a bill of lading, — a question upon which Bomething may be said on both sides. Equally unnecessary is it to consider what damages could be reoovered by the libellants at this time, the vessel not having performed the voyage, and it being still possible for the vessel to deliver the goods to the real owner at the port of destination, {The Idaho, 5 Ben. 280; 93 U. S. 576,) if the case were to be treated as an action to recover the damages arising out of the breach of an implied contract to deliver the bill of lading to the holder of the shipping receipt. �I may, however, make a single remark in regard to the point made, that, under the circumstances of this case, the master was under no obligation to give a, bill of lading to the libellants, beoause no con- tract to transport the goods was ever made with them, but with Michel. �The fact that ai contract to transport this resin was made between the master and Michel, in pursuauce of which the bill of lading to Michel was issued«,by no.pieans compels the conclusion that the only obligation resting upon the ship arises out of that contract. Such might have been the case if the goods, when shipped, had been the property of Michel ; but Michel was neither the owner nor the tehip- per of the resin in question. This resin was received by the ship from Tolar & Hart, and a receipt given acknowledging the receipt on account of Tolar <% Hart. So long as, the shipping receipt remained in the possession of Tolar & Hart, the obligation to issue to them a bill of lading rested upon the ship. Ellershaw v. Magniac, 6 Exch. 570, note, shows that a shipper of goods shipping for a buyer can, nevertheless, get a bill of lading, for himself. Turner v. Trustees of Liverpool Dock, 6 Eich. 543, shows that goods may be put on the buyer's ship with nothing said at the time, and nevertheless the seller may get the bill of lading delivered to him. See, also, Falk v. Fletcher, 18 C. B. (N. S.) 403; Kreeft v. Thompson, L. E. 10 Exch. 282. The last-mentioned case is direct authprity for holding, in a case like this, that the master, of this vessel could not rightfully refuse to sign the bill of lading which the libellants demanded. ; �There is still another aspect in which to yiew this case. By the maritime law, when goods are laden on board a vessel, the master is deemed to contract with the goods. The Hyperion's Cargo, 2 Low. 94. That contract fiijures to the benefit of the owner, of the goods. In this case, therefore, it was open to the ; libellants, when Michel refused to pay for the goods, to claim the benefit of the contract made with the goqds whenthey were put on board, part of whjch ��� �