One who receives it without objection is presumed to have assented to its terms; Cox v. R. Co., 170 Mass. 129, 49 N. E. 97 ; mere ignorance from failure to read or ascertain them is not sufficient in the absence of fraud or concealment; Schaller v. Ry. Co., 97 Wis. 31, 71 N. W. 1042. Reasonable doubt as to the construction of its printed terms is re solved against the carrier; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Doyle, 142 Fed. 669, 74 C. C. A. 245, affirming Doyle v. R. Co., 126 Fed. 841. Where a hill of lading is given, and accepted without objection, it is the real contract by which the mutual obligations of the parties is to be governed and not any prior agree ment ; The Caledonia, 43 Fed. 681.
Stipulations stamped on it before delivery are part of the contract ; The Henry B. Hyde, 82 Fed. 681. And one in a bill of lad ing that all claims for damages must be pre sented within 30 days from its date is rea sonable; The Queen of the Pacific, 180 U.
S. 49, 21 Sup. Ct. 278, 45 L. Ed. 419; as is also an exemption of loss by fire though the regular freight rates were charged; Arthur v. R. Co., 204 U. S. 506, 27 Sup. Ct. 338, 51 L. Ed. 590. In an action against a carrier for damages to property transported the shipper cannot set up a special contract and recover on an implied one, nor can he rely on a parol agreement and recover on proof of a written contract; Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. McKinney, 34 Ind. App. 402, 73 N. E. 148.
A clean bill of lading is one which con tains nothing in the margin qualifying the words in the bill of lading itself; 61 Law T. 330. Under a "clean" bill of lading in the usual form (viz., one having no stipula tion that the goods shipped are to be carried on deck), there is a contract implied that the goods shall be carried under the deck; and parol evidence to the contrary will not be received; Creery v. Holly, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 26; Sayward v. Stevens, 3 Gray (Mass.) 97; The Governor Carey, 2 Hask. 487, Fed. Cas. No. 5,645a ; but evidence of a well-known and long-established usage is admissible, and will justify the carriage of goods on deck, though, under a general rule, the party re lying on a 'local custom must prove it by clear and conclusive evidence; The Paragon, 1 Ware 322, Fed. Cas. No. 10,708.
See CARRIERS ; FREIGHT; SHIPPING; HART ER ACT.
It was decided in England that the master of a ship who signed a bill of lading for goods which had never been received was not to be regarded as the agent of the owner so as to make the latter responsible ; 10 C. B.
665. This decision was immediately followed by an act of Parliament, which makes clear the right of a holder for valuable considera tion of such a bill of lading as against the master or other person signing the bill, un less the holder of the bill had notice that the goods had not been taken on board; 18 & 19 Viet The statute makes the bill conclu sive against the person Who signed the docu ment; 18 Q. B. D. 147. As far as the ship owner or other principal of the agent issuing the document is concerned, the law of the first decision has been constantly followed in England; [1902] A. C. 117; Scotland; 25 Sc. L. Rep. 112; and Canada; 5 Duval 179. In the United States the question has given rise to great difference' of opinion. Most of the cases relate to bills of lading issued by station agents of railroads. The English rule has been followed in Missouri P. R. Co. v. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155, 14 Sup. Ct. 990, 38 L. Ed. 944 ; Friedlander v. R. Co., 130 U. S. 416, 9 Sup. Ct. 570, 32 L. Ed. 991; Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed.
998 ; Clark v. S. S. Co., 148 Fed. 243 ; The Isola Di Procida, 124 Fed. 942; The Asphodel, 53 Fed. 835; Martin v. Ry. Co., 55 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314; National Bank of Commerce v. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 560, 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566; Haz ard v. R. Co., 67 Miss. 32, 7 South. 280; Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Laveille, 52 Mo. 380; Williams v. R. Co., 93 N. C. 42, 53 Am. Rep. 450; Anderson v. Mills Co., 37 Or. 483, 60 Pac. 839, 50 L. R. A. 235, 82 Am. St. Rep. 771; Roy & Roy v. R. Co., 42 Wash. 572, 85 Pac. 53, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 302, 7 Ann. Cas. 728. Other cases hold that as against a bona Aide purchaser the principal is estopped; Jasper Trust Co. v. R. Co., 99 Ala. 416, 14 South. 546, 42 Am. St. Rep. 75 ; Relyea v. Mill Co., 42 Conn. 579 ; Wichita Say. Bank v. R. Co., 20 Kan. 519; Sioux City & Pac. R. Co. v. Bank, 10 Neb. 556, 7 N. W. 311, 35 Am. Rep. 488; Armour v. R. Co., 65 N. Y. 111, 22 Am. Rep. 603 ; Brooke v. R. Co., 108 Pa. 529, 1 Atl. 206, 56 Am. Rep. 235; Watson v. R. Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 255. In countries where the civil law prevails, the carrier would generally be held liable; 25 Sc. L. Rep. 112; French Commercial Code, art. 283; and the same is copied in Belgium, Hol land, Italy, Strain, Mexico and many Central and South American countries ; 34 Reicbs gericht 79.