retain all the above-mentioned sums from any moneys falling due under the contract.

There is a proviso that if the claimants 'shall by strikes, epidemics, local or state quarantine restrictions, or by the abnormal force or violence of the elements, be actually prevented from completing the work at the time agreed upon' without contributory negligence on his part 'such additional time may, with the prior sanction of the Chief of Engineers, be allowed him' 'as, in the judgment of the party of the first part, or his successor, shall be just and reasonable.' As we have intimated, the specifications also state that the time allowed is considered sufficient 'unless extraordinary and unforeseeable conditions supervene.' The claimant further thinks that he finds some support for his argument in a provision that 'solid rock, large bowlders, and compact gravel will not have to be removed at the prices bid for ordinary excavation. If such materials should be encountered their removal, if required by the engineer, will be done under special agreement and paid for as extra work.' On the other hand the claimant was required to remove all trees and "The channel must be cleared of all snags, logs, roots, stumps, or wreckage that project into or encroach in any way upon the cross section, the cost of same being included in the unit price bid for excavation." The claimant invokes a provision that the engineer's decision as to quality, quantity and interpretation of the specifications shall be final; and this ends the statement of his case.

It is hopeless to argue against the provisions that we have recited, and the further express warning that each bidder 'is expected to examine and decide for himself, as no allowance will be made should any of it prove to be otherwise than as stated,' except as above recited with regard to solid rock, &c. It is suggested that the special agreement to be made for the removal of 'such materials'

means materials of similar kind; but the phrase cannot be stretched to cover roots. The statement in the specifications that the time is sufficient unless extraordinary conditions supervene does not promise an extension if such conditions do supervene. The extent of this promise is found in the words of the contract providing for the allowance of such additional time as with the sanction of the Chief Engineer the engineer in charge may think reasonable. Those words tend also to support the contention of the Government that 'supervene' means come into being in the course of the work, as in the case of strikes, epidemics, &c., and not merely be discovered to have existed and still to exist. We may add that the averment hazarded that the submergence of the forest was due to abnormal force of the elements is too obvious an attempt to pervert the meaning of the proviso as to being actually prevented by such force from completing the work, to require analysis. But it is enough to say that any extension depended on the sanction of the Chief of Engineers and that that sanction was denied. It is said that the engineer in charge construed the contract differently as he recommended an allowance of time. But the ground of the recommendation does not appear to have been an incorrect interpretation of the contract, on the contrary it is alleged that the liquidated damages were withheld by Captain Brown; and if his interpretation had been wrong, it is hard to see how it would have bound his superior on whose sanction the recommendation depended for effect. The suggestion that it was the duty of the Chief Engineer to give his sanction in the absence of fraud finds no support in the words used. The claimant must abide by the words. Carnegie Steel Co. v. United States, 240 U. S. 156, 164.

The allegations by which the claimant attempts to avoid his contract making time of the essence, that the damages were difficult to prove and that therefore they should be fixed at twenty dollars a day, are too specula

tive to do more than emphasize the necessity for the liquidation. There is no element of deception or exorbitance and although the case seems a hard one we see no ground upon which the claimant can escape from the terms to which he has agreed. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U. S. 105, 119.

Judgment affirmed.

GEORGIA, FLORIDA & ALABAMA RAILWAY COMPANY v. BLISH MILLING COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

No. 292. Argued March 15, 1916.-Decided May 8, 1916.

The bill of lading of an interstate shipment issued by the initial carrier contained a stipulation that claims for failure to make delivery must be made in writing to the carrier at point of delivery within a specified period otherwise carrier not liable; there was a delivery, but it was made contrary to instructions, and the shipper telegraphed the terminal carrier that it made claim for entire value at invoice price. Held that:

Under the Carmack Amendment the connecting carrier was not relieved from liability, but the bill of lading required to be issued by the initial carrier upon an interstate shipment governs the entire transportation and fixes the obligations of all participating carriers to the extent that its terms are applicable and valid.

The question of proper construction of the bill of lading of an interstate shipment is a Federal question.

Multitudinous transactions of a carrier justify the requirement of written notice of misdeliveries of merchandise and claims against it even with respect to its own operations.

The Carmack Amendment casts upon the initial carrier responsibility with respect to the entire transportation; and in case of misdelivery by the terminal carrier the initial carrier is liable.

A provision in an interstate bill of lading is to be construed

241 U. S.

Argument for Defendant in Error.

the same as to the connecting or terminal carrier as it is to be construed as to the initial carrier, as the obligations of the latter are measured by the terms of the bill of lading.

Where the bill of lading of an interstate shipment requires notice of claim for misdelivery, such notice must be given before action can be brought against the terminal carrier making the misdelivery complained of.

The effect of such stipulation cannot be escaped by form of action; and if a suit cannot be maintained for damages against the delivering carrier without the required notice, it cannot be maintained for conversion.

Parties to the contract of an interstate shipment by rail made pursuant to the Act to Regulate Commerce cannot waive its terms; nor can the carrier by its conduct give the shipper the right to ignore such terms and hold the carrier to a different responsibility than that fixed by the agreement made under the published tariffs and regulations.

Where a provision in a bill of lading for an interstate shipment is applicable and valid effect must be given thereto.

The stipulation in this case was satisfied by the telegram from the shipper to the terminal carrier, it appearing that there was no such variance from a claim for value of the shipment as to be misleading and no prejudice resulted; such a stipulation being addressed to a practical exigency must be construed in a practical way and does not require a particular form of notice. 15 Ga. App. 142, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the rights and duties of carriers and shippers under the Carmack Amendment, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. T. S. Hawes, with whom Mr. Alexander Akerman and Mr. Charles Akerman were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. L. Miller and Mr. E. M. Donalson for defendant in error submitted:

There was no Federal question construed or decided by the Georgia court.

Even though a Federal question had been presented

and construed and a construction of the same were necessary to determine the cause, the remedy was not exclusively against the initial carrier; the contract of carriage did not provide that the shipper must give a written notice to the carrier who abandoned the contract and converted the property, but only provided that this written notice must be given in the event of loss or damage in order to recover; though a written claim were demanded, in order to recover for a conversion, such claim was made within a few days after the railway company converted the flour.

MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the court.

The Blish Milling Company brought this action in trover against the Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Company and recovered judgment which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Georgia. 15 Ga. App. 142. The facts are these:

On May 13, 1910, the Blish Milling Company shipped from Seymour, Indiana, to Bainbridge, Georgia, a carload of flour consigned to its own order with direction to notify Draper-Garrett Grocery Company at Bainbridge. The bill of lading was issued by the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company. The shipper's sight draft upon the Draper-Garrett Grocery Company, for $1,109.89 covering the price of the flour with a carrying charge, was attached to the bill of lading and forwarded to a bank in Bainbridge for collection. The flour was transferred to another car by the Central of Georgia Railway Company, a connecting carrier, and reached Bainbridge on June 2, 1910, over the line of the Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Company, the plaintiff in error, in accordance with routing. The plaintiff in error, without requiring payment of the draft and surrender of the bill