| U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | Oct 15, 1849
It is admitted that the words, “in good order and well-conditioned,” in the bill of lading, have reference to the external condition of the cotton, importing that it was in good shipping condition at the time it was received on board of the vessel, but not referring to or warranting the internal quality or condition of the cotton in the bales. The question, therefore, is, whether the damage sustained by the cotton arose from defects in the bagging of the bales or the manner of securing them from external injuries while being transported, or existed in the shape of external damage, at and previous to the loading of the cotton on ship-board, having been occasioned by its exposure to rain or wet, without proper protection, or by any other ill usage in its interior transportation before it reached the ship, and which was readily visible on inspection; or whether the damage was occasioned by the internal bad condition of the cotton, which was invisible to the eye at the time of shipment, and could only be detected by cutting and inspecting the bales.
' The damage to the cotton was what is called “country damage,” which results often from the bad condition of the cotton when it is baled, or from its exposure to bad weather, or from ill usage in its interior transportation, and is not discoverable from an inspection of the bales at the time of shipment. Upon the question, from what the damage in this case arose, the testimony is somewhat conflicting; but it establishes generally, that the cargo was in bad shipping condition when it arrived and was delivered at New York, and that a large part of the bales were old and rotten, and badly torn and damaged, and the cotton therein consequently broken and disordered, and to some extent soiled and damaged by exposure in the shipment and delivery. The picker, who overhauled some two hundred of the bales and put them in order, states, that the cotton was in bad order; that some of the bales were rotten; that several had burst open for want of proper ropes; that others had the bagging torn; and that a portion of
The consignees made large advances upon the cotton, on the faith of the representation in the bill of lading that it was shipped in good order. They were justified in doing so, and their security should not be lessened or impaired by permitting the master to contradict his own representation in that instrument. It might be otherwise if the question arose between the master and the owner of the cotton. The question of damage might, in that case, be well limited to that accruing in the course of the voyage, notwithstanding the bill of lading. But the respondents stand in the light of bona-fide purchasers, who become such on the faith of the representations of the master. It is true, that it may be shown that the cotton could have been sold for an excess beyond the advances, sufficient to cover the amount in controversy. But that does not satisfy the principle; for the respondents were entitled to the cargo in the condition described in the bill of lading, as security for their advances, without regard to the fluctuations of the market, or to sales to be made at any particular state of it. Decree affirmed.