(Oi'l'euit Oo'lilrt, E. D. New York. June 22, 1886.)
CARRIEM OJ' GooDs-SHIPs....,.LnnTATloN OJ' LIABILITY- BILL OJ' LADINQ.-
REv. ST. U. S. § 4281. . . A stipulation in a bill of lading that the carrier will not be responsible for certain specified articles of value contained in any shipped under the bill of lading, unless the value thereof be expressed, and extra freight paid therefoI', is authorized by section 4281, Rev. St. U.S., and the reasonableness of it cannotbequestioned.. . .
BA.ME-CONCEALlIENT OF VALUE-SUBSEQUENT LoS&---cCAlUUER'S LIABILITY.
Libelant shipped a trunk containing jewelry on the steam-ship B., under a bill of lading which contained the stipulation that the carrier would not be reo .sponsible for .the 108s of valuables, unless the value thereof were expressed in the bill of lading, and extra freight paid therefor. Libelant did not disclose the valuable nature of the contents of the trunk. On the voyage the trunk was broken open, and the contents stolen. HeliJ" that the carrier was not liable for the lOllS; affirming 27 Fed. Rep. 476.
In Admirlj.lty. LOf'enzo wtO, for libelants·. . fat' claima:p.t·
. The dec.ision of the district dismissing the libehvas correct, arid the grounds assigned for it were proper 27 Fed. Rep. 476. There was a special acceptance of the mercha.ndise under the clause in the bill of lading in regard to non-accountability for gold or silver, manufactured, plated articles, jewelry, trinkets, and watches, contained in any package or parcel shipped under the bill of lading, "unless the value thereof will be therein expressed, and extra freight, as may be agreed, be paid." The shippers were, in view of that clause, substantially guilty of imposition on the owners of the vessel, and of misrepresenting the nature of the articles, within the rule sanctioned in Hart v. Pellnsylvan';,a R. Co., 112 U. S. 340, S. O. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155, where it is said:
"If the shipper is guilty of fraud or imposition, by misrepresenting the nature or value of the articles, he destroys his claim to indemnity, because he has attempted to deprive the carrier of the right to be compensated in proportion to the value of the articles and the consequent risk assumed, aud what he has done has tended to lessen the vigilance the carrier would otherwise have bestowed. 2 Kent, Comm. 693, and cases cited; BeVv. Rapp, 3 Watts & S. 21; Dunlap v. International Steam-boat 00., 98 Mass. 371; Railroad 00. v. Fralo.ff, 100 U. S. 24."
The same rule was applied in Gibbon v. Paynton, and in Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. 21.
1 Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar. ·See note at end of case.
The reasonableness of the stipulation in the bill of lading cannot be questioned, for it is authorized by section 4281 of the Revised Statutes, whioh declares the total exemption of the carrier from liability for jewelry, manufactured gold or silver, watches, trinkets, or plated articl6S, contained in any parcel, package, or trunk, laden as freight on any vessel, unless at the time of the lading the shipper gives written notice of the true character and value thereof, and nas the same entered on the bill of lading; ar.d also provides that, when the value and ,character are so notified and entered, there shall be no liability beyond such value, or otberwisethan acc()l:'ding to such character. stipulation,s' by a c'arrier fpr exemption from responsibilityare sanctioned and upheld. York 00. v. Oentral R. R., 3 Wall. ;L07; Express Oo.v. Oa'ldwell, 21 Wall. 264. The lihel is dismissed, with 'posts to the claiJ'na.nt in the district oourt, taxed at $44.46, and ,with costs to it in this co,urt, to be ,taxed.
exempting the carrfeI' froin responsibilit,r for certain articles of value, unless the value theI'eof be expressed, and extra freight paid, is valid. Grogan v. Adams Exp. Co., (Pa.) 7 At!. Rep. 134. So is one limiting its liability to the amount of the agreed valuation of the property, on the basis of which .,alllation the freight is paid. ,H,ar,t v. Pennsylva,niB,' R. 00., I) Sup. Ct, ,ReP' 151 j S. 0 7 Fed. Rep. 630; The Lydian Monarch, 23 Fed. Rep. 298; The HadH, ,18 Fed. Rep. 459; Grogan v. Adams Exp. Co., (Pa.) 7 'Atl. Rep. 134; Rosenfeld v. Peoria, & E',R,y. OCl., (Ind.) 2 N,· E. R,ep. 3,44 i M, 0,ulton v,' St. Paul, M., & M. Ry. Co., (Minn,.) 16 If..:W. l,tt;p.,4W· Black v. Goodrich 'fransp. 00, (Wis.) 13 N. W. Rep. 244j but one limitfng liability to a certain arbitrarysnm i:J invalid, MoultoIiv. St. Paul, M.& M. R,'Yo Co·. (Mhni.) 16 N. W. Rep. 497 j:McCune' v. Burlington; O.j&& N. & 00., (Iowa,) 8N; W. Rep.l!ll). "
MILLER V. ROGERS.
MILLER, Jr., and others, Assignees, etc.,
D. Penn81/l'Dania. June 1,1886.)
In Equity. Sur motion by the Metropplitan National Bank for leave to file a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. J. H. McOreery and James Bredin, for the motion. D. D. Bruce and W. L. Chalfant. contra. ACHESON,.r. TIle Metropolitan National Bank,.a banking association under the laws of the United States, located and doing business in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, moves the court for leave to file in thie cause a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, agreeably to equity rule 57. The plaintiffs to the suit, as the record now stands, are the assignees in bankruptcy of Rogers & Burchfield; and the purpose of the suit is to set aside a deed of conveyance of real estate made by the bankrupts to Mary Ann Rogers, one of the defendants; the bill charging that it was a voluntary conveyance, and fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the bankrupts and said assignees. Pending the suit, the assignees sold this real estate at public auction to the said bank, and they have conveyed their title to the bank. The only objection urged against the allowance of the present motion is that, as the bank could not bring an original suit in this court against the defendants, they being citizens of Pennsylvania, so it cannot maintain the proposed bill, which, while partaking of the nature of a supplemental bill, is yet an original bill. Story, Eq. PI. §§ 349, 353. But while technically, and to' some intents, it may be an original bill, it is essentially supplementary to the 'bill of the'al;signees in bankruptcy. ld. §§, 345, 346 iMitf. & T. PI.& Pr. 158. Such a bill, by a party who haEPacquired the. plaintiff's title by transfer from him pendente lite, v.29F.no.10-26