6 Port. 311 | Ala. | 1838
In this case, the same question of law arises as to the admissibility of testimony to explain the import of the term “ dangers of the River” in a bill
The instruction of the court cannot be maintained.
It is true that a bill of lading vests in the consignee the'legal title in the goods shipped; but the title thus transferred, may be revested in the owner; and this must have been the fact, if the consignee had no interest in the subject consigned. To this effect is the decision of this court at the last term, in the case oí' Wm. Jones, Jr. vs. Sims & Scott.
The remaining points arising in this case have all been decided in favor of the plaintiff in error, in the case first mentioned.
The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Page 123.
Page 138.