indorsed by A, as bills of lading and insurance certificate read to order. C sends bill of exchange, bills of lading, certificate of insurance, &c., to his correspondent banker E, in Europe, who presents the draft to banker D for acceptance. B, who has an account current with banker D, is notified a draft of $750 has been presented to him for acceptance, and B will have to deposit or make good this $750 before banker D will accept the draft. B makes good this $750 and receives credit for say 55 days' interest before maturity of draft, as well as the amount of the draft, and B now gets possession of two bills of lading, certificate of insurance, and invoice. D now accepts draft and returns it to E without the bills of lading, insurance certificate, and invoice, and E holds draft for collection. Before maturity of said draft banker D has failed. Upon whom does the loss fall? Is not A released the moment banker E accepts banker D's acceptance of draft and surrenders the securities? Now should A be held as maker and indorser of the draft, and compelled to pay the same when returned to New York protested? Has he not the right to demand the identical papers he gave with the draft, such as bills of lading, etc., etc., or has the banker Cor E the right to surrender the securities and still hold A as maker and indorser of said draft? Are bankers allowed 10 per cent. protest on this transaction, and how does this affect B? Who is entitled to the assets of banker D?

A. If the draft is duly protested A is held responsible for its payment, and only the draft need accompany the demand. Not the acceptance of the draft, but its payment or a failure to present and protest it, will release the drawer. The ten per cent. is allowed by law in this State on drafts returned from Europe. B is responsible for the balance of the account beyond the $750; but in most contracts of this sort the shipper here answers the responsibility as to the banker, and the consignee (B) is usually only held to his agreement that the draft shall be accepted by D; if it is accepted it is then, as most of these engagements read, at the risk of the holder. A has recourse to D, and a claim on his assets.

5. A & Co. ship a boat load of corn from say Buffalo to New York, consigned to order of John Smith, Cashier. Bill of lading comes forward, and on demand of parties who buy the corn here, is turned over to them to secure title, and proves to be indorsed as follows. "Without recourse, John Smith, Cashier." What is the force of this indorsement, and does it release the bank in case of any question of title?

A. John Smith guaranties the genuineness of previous signatures and their regularity, but does not affirm the title of the shippers to the corn, nor their right to dispose of it.

6. We make advances on goods, shipped from a distant part of the country, consignors drawing on us through bankers at sight, with bill of lading attached. Goods are shipped to order, and bill of lad ing indorsed by shippers in favor of bankers. The bankers indorse bill of lading (which of course is surrendered to us on payment of draft) "without recourse to "--the bankers. We desire to know in regard to the legal effect of this indorsement, does it absolve the bankers of all responsibility, in case the bill of lading should turn out to be fraudulent--a forgery, no goods actually shipped, no such bill of lading signed by the transportation company? Would not the law compel the bankers to guarantee at least the genuineness of the bill of lading in spite of the indorsement "without recourse"? Has this question been well settled in law, and how?

A. The banker is not responsible under these circumstances to the drawee of a bill for the genuineness of the signature to the same, or for the genuineness of any of the accompanying documents, provided it has acted in good faith throughout, and was not a party to the fraud.

7. Will the JOURNAL advise us as to the usage, in cases where the shippers lose the ship's receipt, and require bills of lading without producing the evidence of shipment?

A. By proving that they are the shippers, and giving a bond to indemnify the master against any loss through the reappearance of the receipt, a bill of lading may be obtained.

8. Where a bill of lading, deliverable to order, is attached to a time draft, and forwarded therewith to an agent for collection without instructions, is not such agent required by law to deliver the bill of lading upon the acceptance of the draft? Will a sight draft (which in this State is entitled to grace), with a bill of lading attached, be held to be a time draft within the meaning of the law?

A. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that where no instructions are given, the agent is justified in surrendering the bill of lading upon acceptance of the draft, and this would apply to a sight draft that was entitled to grace.

9. Are the owners liable when a captain or the agents sign a fraudulent bill of lading or counterfeit ?

A. If a bill of lading actually signed by the master of a vessel for goods not on board will not bind the vessel, much less. can a bill which is not only false in that respect, but is counterfeit besides, constitute the ground of a claim. The opening remark of Judge Davis of the United State Supreme Court, in the

case of the Lady Franklin, 8 Wall, 325, may be appropriately cited here. The Judge said: "The attempts made in the prosecution of this libel, to charge this vessel for the nondelivery of a cargo which she never received, and therefore could not deliver, because of a false bill of lading, cannot be successful, and we are somewhat surprised that the point is pressed here."

10. In a decision you say "there is no law which obliges a carrier to give any written receipt or contract for the delivery of goods." When vessels are loaded, say with lumber, etc., the shipper requires bill of lading in certain form in order that he may draw for cost of his shipment, effect insurance, etc. Without this he must be subject to much inconvenience, and probably loss. What recourse has he then if captains refuse to sign bills of lading as presented, or give proper voucher for receipt of cargo?

A. The books declare it to be the duty of the shipmaster to issue a bill of lading in common form for goods shipped on board. And though this is not a duty enjoined by statute, yet it was intimated by the court in the case of the Mayflower (3 Ware, 300), that in case of refusal to sign such a bill, suit may be brought against the vessel.

11. What is the meaning of the clauses in bills of lading "with primage and average accustomed," when primage is paid, and "without primage and average accustomed," when primage is not paid? and would the omission of the first endanger the rights of a vessel, or would the omission of the second endanger the rights of the shipper?

A. Primage is the small payment allowed to the master of the vessel for his care and attention to the cargo; and average in this connection is the right reserved to divide pro rata between the owners of the ship and the proprietors of the cargo any small items of expense for towage, pilotage, &c. The prevailing custom would be observed without the insertion of the words.

12. Are steamship companies justified in demanding as a right that shippers make out their own bills of lading in full, even to the calculation of the amount of freight due? Can a shipper compel the steamship company to issue and sign bills of lading for goods taken on board ?

A. There is no law which obliges a carrier to give any written receipt or contract for the delivery of goods. Most shipowners

are willing to furnish and sign bills of lading, but some lines require their customers to submit the documents for signature.

13. Foreign steamship bills of lading usually contain this clause: "Freight payable at current rate of exchange for bankers' drafts on date of ship's arrival." Question: What is the current rate? Steamship agents contend: "Rate which consignee would have to pay for first class bankers' sight draft for an amount equal to his individual freight, even if same was only $5"

A. We presume that our correspondent has misquoted the bill of lading, as most of the steamship companies now insert the condition that the sight rate shall govern. But if this is not in the bill of lading, the freight is payable by immemorial usage (and settled by legal authority) at the sixty-day rate.

14. What responsibility is assumed by indorsers of bills of lading for goods shipped to order?

A. An indorser of a bill of lading assumes no responsibility in regard to the carriage or delivery of the property described, but may be held responsible for the bona fide character or genuineness of the document.

15. Is the bill of lading that a vessel brings with her the property of the consignee of the cargo, or is the consignee obliged to hand it back to the vessel, receipted, on the delivery of the cargo?

A. The vessel should have a copy of the bill of lading, besides the number which the captain has affirmed to for the use of the shipper. The ship may demand one of the latter, with the proper indorsement, when it delivers the cargo, and this is the usual custom.

16. Can railroads and vessels demand and retain bills of lading where goods are consigned direct? Would not consignee's own order be sufficient to obtain them? Have they any right to demand that they shall see invoices of goods for this information, to learn if they were properly named and weighed as stated in bills of lading?

A. It is a good delivery where one is made to a named consignee, because that fulfills the undertaking of the carrier; but he has the right, if he chooses, to demand the surrender of the bill-lading, as that also is provided for in the document. He has nothing to do with the invoice or other papers passing directly between the parties.

17. If the master of a vessel signs bills of lading for a lot of cotton on delivery of press receipts, with the shippers' guaranty against loss by fire, or otherwise, attached, and after said bills of lading are consigned and hypothecated, the said cotton is destroyed by fire while in press, and the shippers not being insured and unable to replace the cotton, on whom does the loss fall, the shippers of the cotton not being able to respond? Is not the signing of bills of lading as above a criminal act?

A. A bill of lading signed by the master where the property was never delivered to the ship, or in the captain's custody, will not bind the ship nor its owners, without express authority from the latter.

18. A vessel is chartered at London at 58 shillings per ton for a round voyage to Brazil and back to United Kingdom, or, at 50 shillings to Brazil and back to New York, finishing her round trip there. The charter gives the vessel a lien on the homeward cargo for full amount of freight of the round trip, or balance of it if she is paid anything on account in Brazil. The charterers' agents in Brazil recharter the vessel at say 20 shillings and 5 per cent. to New York, and insist that captain sign bills of lading without prejudice to sub-charter party. The captain refuses to sign them or to recognise this charter party, and sails without signing bills of lading, and now holds the cargo for balance of freight of his round trip.

1. Can he do this, or demand more than the sub-chartered rate ? 2. Was he not obliged to sign bills of lading even though the clause was inserted "as per Brazil charter party?"

3. Could the charterers in Brazil not have libeled the vessel, and held her till the captain did sign the bills of lading?

4. The charterers' agents signed the bills of lading; had they any right to do so without an order from the captain, and are such bills of lading negotiable?

5. Should not the Brazil charterers have refused to accept such bills of lading?

A. 1. There is some conflict of authority on the question whether the property of a third person can be thus subjected to a lien for freight due from the charterer, the affirmative having been held in the-English case of Faith v. East Indian Company (4 Barn. and Ald., 630), cited with approval in the United States Supreme Court of Gracie v. Palmer (8 Wheaton, 605). The more equitable rule would appear to be that the lien should take effect only to the extent of the freight money due, or stipulated, on the specific goods in question, being the property of third persons (The Volunteer, 1 Sum., 573; Christie v. Lewis, 2 Brod. and B., 410).