Sec. 865. (§ 477.) Lien usually a specific one-When general. This lien of the carrier is only a specific or particular lien in being confined to charges and advances upon the particular goods upon which it is claimed,15 as distinguished from what 234; Bowman v. Hilton, 11 Ohio, 303; Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Penn. St. 120; Skinner v. Upshaw, 2 Ld. Raym. 752; Wilson v. Railroad, 56 Me. 60; Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 T. R. 63. In McCullough . Hellweg, 66 Md. 269, it is said that the lien does not attach until the contract to safely deliver has been so far performed that the carrier is in a situation to demand the freight. See, to like effect, John ston v. Davis, 60 Mich. 56. Carriers by water have a lien for their charges the same as carriers by land and, aside from the manner of its enforcement which is by statute devolved upon courts of admiralty, it rests upon the same principles as the commonlaw lien of carriers by land. Warehouse & Builders' Supply Co. r. Galvin, 96 Wis. 523, 71 N. W. Rep. 804, 65 Am. St. Rep. 57, citing Hutch. on Carr. A carrier by water has an u undoubted right to retain the goods until the charges for freight are paid, but he cannot detain the goods for such purpose on board the ship, as the consignee or own er of the cargo would then have no opportunity of examining its condition. Mordecai t. Lindsey, 79 U. S. 417, 18 L. Ed. 486. "As between the respective own ers of a ship and cargo, their rights are reciprocal. The right to a lien for freight gives a right to a lien upon the ship for due performance of the contract for safe carriage and delivery, and no such lien upon, the ship attaches until the lien for freight has attached upon the cargo." The Bella, 91 Fed. 540. See also, Warehouse & Builders' Supply Co. r. Galvin, 96 Wis. 523, 71 N. W. Rep. 804, 65 Am. St. Rep. 57, citing Hutch, on Carr. 15. Bacharach v. Chester Freight Line, 133 Penn. St. 414, 19 Atl. Rep. 409; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Oil Works, 126 Penn, St. 485; Atlas S. S. Co. v. Colombian Land Co., 102 Fed. 358, 42 C. C. A. 398. The better opinion would seem to be that the lien attaches to the goods as soon as they are delivered to the carrier. They cannot be demanded of him by the owner after such delivery without a tender of the whole freight which the carrier would earn by carrying them to destination, and giving him an indemnity, if it be required, against the consequences of any outstanding bill of lading which he may have given for the goods. And although the carriage may not have actually commenced, the carrier, by the delivery, has assumed the risk of the safety of the goods as a quasi-insurer. Tindall v. Taylor, 4 El. & B. 219; Thompson v. Small, 1 Com. B. 328, 354; Thompson v. Trail, 2 C. & P. 334; Bartlett r. Carnley, 6 Duer, 194; Van Buskirk . Purinton, 2 Hall, 561; Collman v. Collins, id. 569. is known as a general lien, by which the bailee has the right to retain his possession until any balance which the owner may owe him on other accounts than the expenses and services upon the particular goods has been paid. Thus limited, the lien of the carrier is favored by the courts, and the presumption will always be in favor of its existence until it is shown to have been waived by the stipulations or conduct of the parties, incompatible with the existence of such a right, or to have been lost by the voluntary acts of the carrier. But general liens in behalf of carriers, as well as of other bailees, are regarded with jealousy, it is said, as being encroachments upon the common law.16 And whilst carriers may, by express agreement or by the long established and well known usage of particular localities, or of particular classes of those engaged in that business, become entitled to retain the goods which may come into their custody for such general balances, they cannot acquire such right by notice to their employers, though it has been held that ordinary tradesmen or artisans, who may work for whom they please, may, in this manner, acquire the right to retain for all. that the owners of the goods intrusted to them may owe. But it was said that the same rule did not apply to carriers and inn Other cases state the law as be ing that no right to freight accrues or can attach to the goods until the voyage has commenced, or, as it is usually expressed, until the ship has broken ground. Bailey v. Damon, 3 Gray, 92; Curling v. Long, 1 B. & P. 634; Clemson v. Davidson, 5 Binney, 392; Burgess v. Gun, 3 Har. & J. 225. But it has been suggested that the rule adopted by these latter cases is appropriate only in cases of ships chartered at a freight payable according to time, and not to general ships or to other carriers. East, 224; McFarland v. Wheeler, 26 Wend. 467. But where the same vendor, under a single contract of sale, ships several consignments of goods to the same vendee, each shipment embracing several car-loads, the carrier has the right to retain out of any one or more of the consignments enough of the goods in value sufficient to pay the charges for freight without respect to the particular consignments out of which the goods are retained. Penn. Steel Co. v. Railroad Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. Rep 577. See also, cases cited in following sec 16. Rushforth υ. Hadfield, 7 tion. keepers, who have no right to say that they will not receive goods except on their own terms.17 Sec. 866. What charges the lien protects.-The lien allowed to the carrier by law to secure the payment of freight extends only to his charges for the transportation of the goods.18 It includes legal import duties paid by him either to the government directly or to a connecting carrier who has already paid such charges;19 it also includes salvage charges.20 It does not include, however, expenses for warehousing the goods,21 nor damages for the breach of collateral contracts or covenants by the shipper, even when incorporated in the bill of lading.22 And in England it has been held not to include the payment of port charges. 23 Sec. 867. (§ 478a.) Same subject-Lien of last of connecting carriers for freight advanced to preceding carrier.-But the 19. Railroad Co. v. Pearce, 192 U. S. 179, 48 L. Ed. 397, reversing Pearce v. Railroad Co., 89 Mo. App. 437; Waldron v. Railway Co., 22 Wash. 253, 60 Pac. Rep. 653. 20. Chicago, etc., Co. v. Packet Co., 38 Iowa, 377. 21. Lambert v. Robinson, 1 Esp. 119; Steamboat Virginia v. Kraft, 25 Mo. 76; Winchester v. Busby (Can.), 16 S. C. R. 336. 22. Phillips v. Rodie, 15 East, 547; Burley v. Gladstone, 3 M. & S. 205; Gray v. Carr, L. R. 6 Q. B. 522. A carrier cannot refuse to deliver until payment of charges for a former shipment is made. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bourdett, Kan. 85 Pac. Rep. 820. But see, Penn. Steel Co. v. Railroad Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. Rep. 577, cited in notes to preceding section. 23. Faith v. The E. Ind. Co., 4 B. & Ald. 630. Ken will extend to and embrace advances made to preceding carriers, for their charges for the portion of the transportation performed by them; and the ultimate or final carrier may refuse to deliver the goods until his own charges and all such advances have been paid,2+ unless the bill of lading shows, or the carrier is otherwise informed, that such preceding carriers fect the question if last carrier had no notice of it. Georgia R. Co. v. Murray, 85 Ga. 343, 11 S. E. Rep. 779; Bird . Railroad Co., 72 Ga. 655; Knight v. Railroad Co., 13 R. I. 572; Wolf v. Hough, 22 Kans. 659; Express Co. v. Shoop, 85 Penn. St. 325; Crossan r. Railroad Co., 149 Mass. 196; Schneider v. Evans, 25 Wis. 241; Railroad Co. v. Brookhaven, 71 Miss. 663, 16 So. Rep. 252. 24. Briggs v. The Railroad, 6 “released" or prepaid does not af Allen, 246; White v. Vann, Humph. 70; Wells v. Thomas, 27 Mo. 17; Galena, etc., R. R. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488; S. B. Virginia v. Kraft, supra; Express Co. v. U. S. Express Co., 88 Fed. 659; affirmed, 92 Fed. 1022, 35 C. C. A. 172; Cayo v. Pool's Assignee, 108 Ky. 124, 55 S. W. Rep. 887, 49 L. R. A. 251, 94 Am. St. Rep. 348; Thomas v. Railway Co., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1051, 76 S. W. Rep. 1093; Hoffman v. Railway Co., 125 Mich. 201, 84 N. W. Rep. 55; Evans & Hollinger v. Railroad Co., 76 Mo. App. 472. The final carrier will have a lien for charges advanced, and it is not required to go to the trouble and expense of investigating the merits of prior charges which are apparently just. Berry, etc., Co. v. Railway Co., Mo. App. 92 S. W. Rep. 714. The last carrier may pay the charges of previous carriers and hold the goods for his reimbursement as well as for his own share of the freight earned, and these charges, if within the ordinary rates and apparently regular, are not to be cut down nor the right to hold the goods defeated by the mistake or omission of a previous independent carrier, of which the last carrier, without fault or neg ligence on his part, has no notice. The fact that goods were shipped "It is the well settled law that every carrier, through whose hands goods are shipped, becomes the agent of the owner and has implied authority from him as such agent to advance previous charges upon them and collect them again from the next carrier or warehouseman into whose hands he delivers them. While this is so, the carrier is bound to act in good faith toward, and to carefully watch the interest of the owner, whoever he may be. He is bound to do this to the same extent that a prudent man would were he present acting for himself. He must see that the previ ous charges are reasonable before he is authorized to pay them, for it is not every charge which every extortioner through whose hands goods pass in transitu may see fit to impose upon them that he is authorized to pay and thus fix upon the owner a certain lia have been prepaid.25 And to ascertain this fact he must examine the bill of lading if one accompanies the goods. But if it be silent on the subject, and the carrier has no information from any other source of the prepayment, he is justified in advancing the freight, and will be entitled to a lien therefor.26 If the carrier who contracts to carry the goods employ another carrier to carry them, the latter will be entitled to a lien,27 unless the first carrier has been paid for the service, 28 or unless such first bility." Armstrong V. Railway Co., 62 Mo. App. 639, 1 Mo. App. Rep'r 552. In Railway Co. v. Stoner, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 50, 23 S. W. Rep. 1020, the court held that, where goods are tendered to a carrier by a connecting line, such carrier need not delay receiving them until the original contract with the owner can be investigated. Such carrier is required by statute in Texas to receive the goods when properly tendered, and if he has no knowledge of a previous contract as to the freight, and no special contract is made as to compensation, he has the right to charge his reasonable and customary rates for like service. Although a connecting carrier may refuse to deliver goods until all advances have been paid, he is not liable to the preceding carriers for their freight charges and advances if the goods are destroyed on his wharf preparatory to delivery to him. Railroad Co. v. National S. S. Co., 137 N. Y. 23, 32 N. E. Rep. 993, affirming 62 Hun, 621, 17 N. Y. Supp. 28; s. c. 14 N. Y. Supp. 253. 25. Marsh v. Railway Co., 3 McCrary, 236; Converse Bridge Co. v. Collins, 119 Ala. 534, 24 So. Rep. 561. 26. Travis υ. Thompson, 37 Barb. 236. Where goods were shipped under a through bill of lading over the lines of several connecting carriers, and the last of such carriers accepted the goods from the next preceding carrier with notice that the initial carrier had issued to the consignor such through bill of lading which recited that the entire freight charges had been paid, which statement was erroneous and known to the last carrier to be such, and with such information the last carrier paid the freight charges which had accrued up to the time it took possession of the consignment, he did so, in so far as a bona fide transferee of the bill of lading was concerned, at his own risk, and could not, as to such holder who had taken the bill of lading under the belief that the freight charges had been prepaid, withhold the goods to secure the payment of the freight charges so advanced. American National Bank v. Railroad Co., 96 Ga. 665, 23 S. E. Rep. 898, 51 Am. St. Rep. 155. 27. Nordemeyer v. Loescher, 1 Hilt. 499. 28. Matthews v. Gibbs, 3 El. & El. 282. |