Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/360

 § 359.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. that the terms of a bill of lading cannot be contradicted by parol evidence. 1 But there are many authorities adverse to the two propositions last stated. 2 There is no presumption that a shipper knows of or assents to mere published notices ; and accordingly they will not be effectual in limiting the liability of the carrier; 3 except as to the amount beyond which he will not be liable when not in- formed of the value of the goods. 4 A notice printed on the Clyde, 67 Pa. St. 500; Fibel v. Livin- ston, 64 Barb. 179; Belger v. Dins- niore, 51 N. Y. 166; Newburger v. Howard & Co.'s Express, 6 Pbila. 174; Steers v. Liverpool, etc.,Steam- sbip Co. 57 N. Y. 1; Huntingdon v. Dinsmore, 4 Hun, 66; Prentice v. Decker, 49 Barb. 21; Knell v. U. S. and Brazil Steamship Co., 1 J. & Sp. (N. Y.) 423; Lee v. Marsh, 43 Barb. 102; Boswell o. Hudson River R. R. Co., 5 Bos. (N. Y.) 699; Muser v. Holland, 17 Blatchf. 412; Wertheiraer v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., ib. 421; Robinson v. Merchants' Despatch Trans. Co., 45 Iowa, 470; Louisville and N. R. R. Co. v. Brownville, 14 Bush (Ky.), 590; McMillan v. Michi- gan Southern, etc., R. R. Co., 16 Mich. 79. See Pemberton Co. v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 144; Ger- mania Fire Ins. Co. v. M. and C. R. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90; compare Wood- ruff v. Sherrard, 9 Hun, 322. But a bill of lading delivered subsequently to the shipment may not have this effect. Bostwick v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 712; Gaines v. Union Trans. Co., 28 O. St. 418; American Express Co. v. Spellman, 90 111. 455. Compare Wilde v. Mer- chants' Dispatch Trans. Co., 47 Iowa, 272. 1 Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pon- tius, 19 Ohio St. 221; Hill v. Syra- cuse, etc., R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 351. Compare Marian u. Sherard, ib. 329. Contra, Dillard v. L. and N. R. R. j 340 Co., 2 Lea (Tenn.), 288; Erie and Western Trans. Co. v. Dater, 91 111. 195. 2 Southern Express Co. v. Arm- stead, 50 Ala. 350; Merchants' Des- patch Trans. Co. v. Theilbar, 86 111. 71; Same v. Leysor, 89 111. 43; Field v. Chicago and R. I. R. Co., 71 111. 458; Erie and N. Trans. Co. v. Dater, 91 111. 195. See Railroad Co. v. Manu- facturing Co., 16 Wall. 319; Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. St. 208; Erie and Western Trans. Co. v. Dater, 91 111. 195; Merchants' Despatch Transn. Co. v. Joesting, 89 111. 152; Dillard v. L. and N. R. R. Co., 2 Lea (Tenn.), 288. 3 New Jersey Steam Nav'n Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 378; Judson v. Western R. R. Co., 6 Allen, 486; Hollister v. Nowlen, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 234; Cole v. Goodwin, ib. 251; Dorr v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485; Steele v. Town- send, 37 Ala. 247; Michigan Central R. R. Co. ». Hale, 6 Mich. 243; Pitts- burgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 36 O. St. 448. See Perry v. Thomp- son, 98 Mass. 249; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Brady, 32 Md. 333; Cam- den and Amboy R. R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67. 4 Oppenheimer p. United States Exp. Co., 69 111. 62; Erie Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 111. 239. Compare Mag- nin v. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410; S. C, 62 N. Y. 35; S. C, 56 N. Y. 168; Alabama Gt. Southern R. R. Co. v.