lading endorsed in blank, which is urged as applicable here, is where the carrier has information that the person in possession of the bill is not lawfully entitled to the goods. The shippers contend that the Big Four when it made delivery of the car had such information regarding Bindner. For this contention there is not the slightest basis in the evidence. The Big Four had no such information. Nor was there in the circumstances anything which should even have led it to doubt that Bindner was lawfully entitled to request that the car be shipped to Dumesnil.

Concluding, therefore, that there was a delivery, that it was made to a person in possession of the bill of lading properly endorsed and that it was made in good faith, the important question remains: Does such a delivery exonerate the carrier upon suit by the shipper when it failed to require surrender of the bill of lading as provided in that instrument? In our opinion there is no exoneration where loss to shipper or subsequent purchaser of the bill results from such a failure; but where the loss suffered is not the result of the failure to take up the bill, mere failure to take it up does not defeat the exoneration.

The plaintiffs seek to establish the carrier's liability for its failure to take up the bill on two theories,-first, that they are bona fide purchasers of the bill left outstanding; and second, that as shippers and owners their goods were converted by a delivery in violation of the terms of the bill of lading. But the shippers cannot claim the protection of § 11 of the act as bona fide purchasers of the bill, as those words are understood in the law, even if in taking back the draft and the bill of lading from the bank they can be deemed purchasers within the meaning of the act. They took back the bill of lading after the events here in question, with full knowledge of them, and because of them. The purchaser whom the act protects is he who is entitled to assume that the carrier has

Opinion of the Court.

254 U.S.

not delivered the goods and will not thereafter deliver them except to a person who holds the bill of lading. The purpose of §§ 10, 11 and 12 is to give bills of lading attributes of commercial paper. Here the plaintiffs were not buying commercial paper but a law suit.

There is nothing in the act which imposes upon the carrier a specific duty to the shipper to take up the bill of lading. Under § 8 the carrier is not obliged to make delivery except upon production and surrender of the bill of lading; but it is not prohibited from doing so. If instead of insisting upon the production and surrender of the bill it chooses to deliver in reliance upon the assurance that the deliveree has it, so far as the duty to the shipper is concerned, the only risk it runs is that the person who says that he has the bill may not have it. If such proves to be the case the carrier is liable for conversion and must, of course, indemnify the shipper for any loss which results. Such liability arises not from the statute but from the obligation which the carrier assumes under the bill of lading.

Does a delivery without compliance with the surrender clause of the bill of lading render the carrier liable for conversion under the facts shown here? Although there is a conflict of language in the cases in which a shipper sues a carrier for delivery of goods without requiring a surrender of the bill of lading, there appears to be no conflict of principle or in decision. Where the failure to require the presentation and surrender of the bill is the cause of the shipper losing his goods, a delivery without requiring it constitutes a conversion. Babbitt v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 285 Illinois, 267; Turnbull v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 183 Michigan, 213; Judson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co., 131 Minnesota, 5; see First National Bank v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co., 25 Idaho, 58; compare Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190. But

where delivery is made to a person who has the bill or who has authority from the holder of it, and the cause of the shipper's loss is not the failure to require surrender of the bill but the improper acquisition of it by the deliveree or his improper subsequent conduct, the mere technical failure to require presentation and surrender of the bill will not make the delivery a conversion. Chicago Packing & Provision Co. v. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co., 103 Georgia, 140; Famous Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 166 Iowa, 361; Nelson Grain Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 174 Michigan, 80; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. of Texas v. Gilbreath, 144 S. W. Rep. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1051. In the Chicago Packing Co. Case, supra, the court said, "The loss in the present case was not occasioned by the failure of the railway company to require the production and surrender of the bills of lading, but by the faithlessness of Hobbs & Tucker to their principal." Similarly, in the case before us, the failure of the carrier to require production and surrender of the bill of lading did not cause the loss. The same loss would have resulted if the bill had been presented and surrendered. The real cause of the loss was the wrongful surrender of the bill of lading by the Indianapolis bank to Marshall & Kelsey by means of which the car was taken to Camp Zachary Taylor and the shipper deprived of the Louisville market. Nor did the failure to take up the bill enable the buyer to throw back the loss upon the shippers. The shippers deliberately assumed the loss by their voluntary act in taking back the draft and the bill of lading which they had sold to the Grand Rapids Bank. Doubtless J. W. French & Company's relations with Marshall & Kelsey and with the Grand Rapids Bank and the relations of the latter with the Indianapolis Bank made this course advisable. But it is clear that they were under no duty to do so, since the tortious act of the Bank's agent for collection had occasioned the damage. Having as

sumed the loss of their own volition they should not be permitted to pass it on to the carrier merely because of its technical failure to take up the bill of lading. The delivery was made to one in possession of the bill of lading who could, and doubtless would, have surrendered it, had he not been prevented by distance from doing so. To hold a carrier liable under such circumstances would seriously interfere with the convenience and the practice of business.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES did not take part in the consideration and decision of this case.

LOUIE v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 337. Argued December 8, 1920.—Decided January 17, 1921.

Upon an indictment of an Indian for the murder of another Indian within the limits of an Indian Reservation (Crim. Code, §§ 273, 328), an objection that the District Court has no jurisdiction over person or subject-matter because the defendant had been declared competent and because the act charged was committed on land which had been allotted and deeded to him in fee simple, really goes, not to the jurisdiction, but to the merits, raising the question whether the act was a violation of the federal law; and the judgment of the District Court is not reviewable by direct writ of error from this court, but should go to the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 550. Clairmont v. United States, 225 U. S. 551, explained.

Reversed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. William B. McFarland, with whom Mr. Robert Early McFarland was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. W. C. Herron, with whom The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart were on the brief, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the court.

Louie, an Indian, was indicted under § 273 of the Penal Code in the District Court of the United States for the District of Idaho, Northern Division, for the murder of another Indian within the limits of the Coeur d'Alene Reservation. A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was overruled and the defendant was tried and convicted. By motion in arrest of judgment, he objected in terms to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant and over the crime charged on the ground that before the time of the alleged crime he had been declared competent and the land on which the crime was alleged to have been committed had been allotted and deeded to him in fee simple. Compare United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278. This motion also was overruled; the defendant was sentenced; and the case was taken on writ of error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court, one judge dissenting, dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction on the ground that, since the sole question presented was whether the District Court had jurisdiction, its decision could be reviewed only by direct writ of error from this court to the District Court. See United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 114, 115; compare Raton Water Works Co. v. City of Raton, 249 U. S. 552. The dissenting judge was of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the writ of error, because an additional error relating to the merits had been assigned there, although not raised below.