tention of the parties that the property should pass, just as under similar circumstances the property would pass by an actual delivery of the goods. And for the purpose of passing such property in the goods and completing the title of the indorsee to full possession thereof, the bill of lading, until complete delivery-of the cargo has been made on shore to some one rightfully claiming under it, remains in force as a symbol, and carries with it not only the full ownership of the goods, but also all rights created by the contract of carriage between the shipper and the shipowner. It is a key which in the hands of a rightful owner is intended to unlock the door of the warehouse, floating or fixed, in which the goods may chance to be.

"The above effect and power belong to any one of the set of original bills of lading which is first dealt with by the shipper. Except in furtherance of the title so created of the indorsee, the other originals of the set are as against it perfectly ineffectual and have no efficacy whatever, unless they are fraudulently used for the purposes of deceit. By inveterate practice among most of the commercial nations of Europe, bills of lading have long been drawn by the shipowner in sets of three or more. Sometimes one of the set is retained by the captain, the others being transferred by the captain to the shipper. Sometimes the whole of the set are handed upon shipment to the merchant, the captain retaining a copy only. This practice of drawing bills of lading in triplicate may be at the present day, and under the altered conditions of communication between one part of the world and another less valuable than it was when originally

introduced. But it certainly had its distinct usages in the earlier period of European commerce, and it still survives. If it survives it is probably that the commercial world stills finds it more convenient or less troublesome to preserve it than to change it.

"And it is plain that the purpose and idea of drawing bills of lading in sets-whatever the present advantage or disadvantage of the plan-is that the whole set should not remain always in the same hands. The possibility of its separation is intentionally devised for the purpose not of fraud, but of protecting honest dealing. The separation may conceivably afford opportunities of fraud, if the holders chose to be dishonest, but on the whole the commercial world is satisfied to run the risk of this contingency for the sake of the compensating advantages and conveniences which merchants rightly or wrongly have, till lately, at all events, believed to be afforded by the system of triplicates or quadruplicates. The shipper or his vendees may prefer to retain one of the originals for their own protection against loss, or to transfer it to their correspondents. In such cases they are in the habit of treating the remainder of the set as the effective documents, and as sufficient for all purposes of negotiating the goods comprised in the bill of lading."

CHAPTER III.

Transfer of Goods at Common Law and in Equity-Sections 47 and 48 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893—Receipt for Goods put on board Ship-Question whether Master of Ship signing Bill of Lading for Goods which have never been shipped binds Shipowner-Case re Freight and Dock Dues-Injury done prior to Bills of Lading Act, 1855Signification of words "Signing the same in Bills of Lading Act, 1855-Question whether Consignee of Goods under Bill of Lading has right to deduct any Freight.

AT common law, so also in equity, a transfer of goods for valuable consideration by a consignee for a limited purpose does not destroy the consigner's right of stoppage in transitu;1 but the right of stoppage in transitu is wholly defeated when the bill of lading is assigned absolutely for a consideration which is wholly paid.2

By section 47 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, it is enacted that subject to the provisions of that Act the unpaid seller's right of lien [or retention] or stoppage in transitu is not affected by any sale or other disposition of the goods which the buyer may have made unless the seller has assented thereto. Provided that where a document of title to goods has

1 See Spalding v. Ruding, 6 Beav., 376; Leask v. Scott [1877], 2 Q.B.D., 376, C.A.

2 See Lickbarrow v. Mason, 1 Sm. L.C., p. 937 (9th edition).

been lawfully transferred to any person as buyer or owner of the goods, and that person transfers the document in good faith and for valuable consideration, then if such last-mentioned transfer was by way of sale the unpaid seller's right of lien [or retention] or stoppage in transitu is defeated, and if such last mentioned transfer was by way of pledge or other disposition for value, the unpaid seller's right of lien [or retention] or stoppage in transitu can only be exercised subject to the rights of the transferee.1

Furthermore, by section 48, it is enacted that (1) subject to the provisions of this section, a contract of sale is not rescinded by the mere exercise by an unpaid seller of his right of lien [or retention] or stoppage in transitu; (2) where an unpaid seller who has exercised his right of lien [or retention] or stoppage in transitu re-sells the goods, the buyer acquires a good title thereto as against the original buyer; (3) where the goods are of a perishable nature, or where the unpaid seller gives notice to the buyer of his intention to re-sell, and the buyer does not within a reasonable time pay or tender the price the unpaid seller may re-sell the goods and recover from the original buyer damages for any loss occasioned by his breach of contract; (4) where the seller expressly reserves a right of re-sale in case the buyer should make default, and, on the buyer making default re-sells the goods, the original contract of sale is thereby rescinded, but without prejudice to any claim the seller may have for damages.

1 See also sections 1 and 10 of the Factors Act, 1889.

I

It has been decided that where a receipt is given for goods put on board a ship it is the duty of the captain not to sign a bill of lading till that receipt is given up. And quite right too. If it were not so, it would be in the power of the master of the ship to elect which party should have the goods. The shipowner, therefore, should always require such receipts to be given up in exchange for the bill of lading.1

The question whether the master of a ship signing a bill of lading for goods which have never been shipped is to be considered as the agent of the owner in that behalf, so as to make the latter responsible, may be answered by stating that the authority of the master of a ship is very large, and extends to all acts that are usual and necessary for the use and employment of the ship, but is subject to several well-known limitations. He may make contracts for the hire of the ship, but cannot vary that which the owner has made. He may take up money in foreign ports, and under certain circumstances at home, for necessary disbursements for repairs, and bind the owners for repayment. But his authority is limited by the necessity of the case, and he cannot make his owners responsible for money not actually necessary for those purposes, although he may pretend that it is. He may make contracts to carry goods on freight, but cannot bind his owners by a contract to carry freight free.

The same remarks apply with respect to goods put on board. He may sign a bill of lading and acknowledge the nature and quality and condition

1 See Thompson v. Traill, 2 C. & P., 334.