carrier had no authority, either express or implied, to forward the goods beyond his own line.29 Nor will the lien of the last carrier be affected by the fact that the previous carrier has been in default by reason of damage to the goods.30 And if the goods are carried to the wrong destination, or over a wrong route, by the fault of the shipper or his agent, the carrier will nevertheless be entitled to his freight.31 29. Siefert v. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. Rep. 899. 30. Thomas v. Railway Co., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1051, 76 S. W. Rep. 1093. 31. Briggs v. The Railroad Co., 6 Allen, 246; Fordyce v. Johnson, 56 Ark. 430, 19 S. W. Rep. 1050; Crossan v. Railway Co., 149 Mass. 196, 21 N. E. Rep. 367. In Glover v. Railroad Co., 95 Mo. App. 369, 69 S. W. Rep. 599, the plaintiff delivered a package containing a set of single harness to the Adams Express Co., at Chicago, Ill., to be delivered to him at Bloomfield, Mo. It was necessary, in order to reach Bloomfield, that the package should pass over several connecting lines. No route was agreed upon between the initial carrier and the shipper. The Adams Express Company, instead of tendering the package to a connecting carrier in the most direct line of route, delivered it to another company which necessitated that it pass over a longer route in order to reach destination. A greater charge was thereby incurred than if the package had been carried by the usual and more direct route. It was conceded that the initial carrier had misrouted the package. On the receipt of the package by the last carrier, it advanced the accumulated charges on and carried it to its destination. The plaintiff tendered the usual charge between Chicago and Bloomfield and demanded the package. The terminal carrier refused to deliver it until the greater charge was paid, claiming a lien thereon for its own and the preceding charges which it had advanced. The plaintiff sued the last carrier in replevin and the trial judgment was entered for the defendant. In affirming the judgment the appellate court said: "The law is that where the shipper delivers goods to a carrier to be carried over successive routes beyond the route of the first carrier, he thereby makes the first carrier and each succeeding carrier his forwarding agent for the purpose of making delivery of the goods to the next carrier (citing Hutch. on Carr.) and the act of the first or any succeeding carrier in directing the shipment of the goods over succeeding routes will be deemed the act of the owner. While so acting, if a mistake is made in directing the goods, such mistake will in no manner affect the last carrier's right of lien for its own or prior charges advanced, SO long as such last carrier acts in good faith in advancing the charges. It is not the custom, nor does the law require of such Where an initial carrier has no contract with a connecting carrier authorizing such initial carrier to contract for a lower rate than his regular rate for through shipments, but the initial carrier nevertheless guarantees a lower through rate to the shipper than the regular rate, and the last connecting carrier receives and carries the goods without knowledge of such guaranteed rate and advances prior charges, the last carrier will have a lien not only for the charges advanced but for his own charges.32 But where the last carrier does not advance to the initial or prior connecting carrier the accrued charges, and the consignee tenders the contract price which is in excess of the sum due the last carrier, a different case is presented. Not having advanced the charges to the preceding carrier, the last carrier would manifestly be acting as the agent of the initial carrier and his right to retain the goods would rest upon the validity of the charge agreed to by the initial carrier and would be limited by such charge. The last carrier, under such circumstances, would be entitled to retain the goods for a reasonable time within which to learn the facts, and after he had so done or had had a reasonable time to do so, he could no longer rightfully retain the goods. He would have the right to retain his own charges out of the carrier when the goods are offered It is amount paid, and when the charges that, in accepting the goods to be carried to destination, he acts in good faith, and in the usual course of business; and when he does so, mistakes or errors made by the first carrier or any intermediate carrier in giving directions for the forwarding of the goods will not affect his right of lien. 32. Lowenberg v. Railway Co., 56 Ark. 439, 19 S. W. Rep. 1051; Miller v. Railroad Co., 83 Tex. 518, 18 S. W. Rep. 954; Moses t. Railroad Co., 5 Wash. 595, 32 Pac. Rep. 488. balance was returned to the initial carrier he would have complied with his duty to such carrier.33 Sec. 868. Lien on sub-freight.-A lien on sub-freight given to a shipowner by a charter party can only be exercised before the amount due thereon has been paid to the charterer of the ship or his agent. The law confers no right on the shipowner to follow the sub-freight after the charges thereon have been paid.34 Sec. 869. (§ 479.) Lien lost by unconditional surrender of goods-Waiver by conduct. The lien of the carrier being nothing more than a right to withhold the goods, and being insep arably associated with their possession, and dependent upon such possession, it follows that it will cease whenever they are unconditionally delivered,35 and the fact that the consignee is an agent of the consignor, and agrees to hold the goods until the charges are paid, cannot alter the rule if the carrier has made a delivery to such consignee.36 But if it appears that it was agreed or understood between the parties that, notwithstanding the delivery, the carrier was to be considered as reserving the right to proceed against the goods for his freight, on the failure of the consignee or owner to pay it, or if such an understanding is plainly to be inferred from the local usage of the particular port, he will be treated as still constructively retaining the possession of the goods so far as to preserve his lien.37 But the mere intention of the carrier not to abandon 36. Lembeck v. Jarvis, etc., Co., N. J. L. 63 Atl. Rep. 33. Railroad Co. v. Brookhaven Match Co., 71 Miss. 663, 16 So. Rep. 252. 34. Tagart, Beaton & Fisher & Sons, 1 K. B. 391, 72 L. J. K. B. 202. 257. Co. v. 35. Bigelow v. Heaton, 4 Denio, 496; Sears v. Wills, 4 Allen, 212; Bailey v. Quint, 22 Vt. 474; Forth v. Simpson, 13 Q. B. 689; Reineman v. Railroad Co., 51 Iowa, 338; Geneva, etc., R. Co. v. Sage, 35 Hun, 95; Gregg v. Railroad, 147 Ill. 550, 35 N. E. Rep. 343, 37 Am. St. Rep. 238. 37. Bags of Linseed, 1 Black, 108; The Eddy, 5 Wall. 481; Cuff v. Tons of Coal, 46 Fed. 670; McBrier v. A Cargo of Hard Coal, 69 Fed. 469. In Costello v. Laths, 44 Fed. Rep. 105, the master of a ship discharged a car-load of laths by the direction of the consignee in the lumber-yard of a purchaser about three hundred feet from the vessel. On completing the discharge, his lien, notwithstanding the delivery, if uncommunicated to the consignee, and not assented to by him, will not continue the lien after the surrender of the custody of the goods, in the absense of a previous express agreement or some local custom or usage to that effect.38 So the lien will be deemed waived when the carrier bases his refusal to deliver upon other grounds, as that the goods are not in his possession at the place where the demand is made.39 But the rule that the carrier loses his lien by surrendering the goods has been held not to apply to a case where the surrender is made to one to whom the consignee has made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors. The carrier in such case is deemed to be a creditor for whom, with other creditors, the assignee holds the goods in trust after they are delivered to him. The delivery of the property to the assignee, being for the benefit of all creditors, it is held that the lien follows the fund realized on the property delivered, and that the carrier is entitled to be paid out of it the amount ascertained to be due him.40 Sec. 870. (§ 480.) Lien not lost by a delivery of part of the goods. Nor will the delivery of a part of the goods lessen the amount of freight for which the carrier may claim a lien, upon that which he may still hold undelivered. In other words, the whole amount of the freight is a lien upon all and every part of the goods, where they are capable of separation and of being separately delivered; and if a part of them have been delivered, the carrier may retain the balance until his entire freight has been paid, and the owner cannot insist that the lien shall be apportioned according to the quantity still retained by the master demanded his freight, but payment was refused owing to a dispute as to the amount. The master immediately served notice that his lien was not abandoned and action was brought to enforce it. Held, lien was not lost. Bags of Linseed, supra; One Hundred and Fifty-one Tons of Coal, 4 Blackf. 368, and Egan v. Laths were cited and distinguished. 38. The Tan Bark Case, 1 Brown, Adm. 151. 39. Adams Ex. Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 73. 40. Cayo v. Pool's Assignee, 108 Ky. 124, 55 S. W. Rep. 887, 49 L. R. A. 251, 94 Am. St. Rep. 348. the carrier.41 A partial delivery will not be taken as a constructive delivery of the whole, or as a waiver of the lien, unless such was the intention of the parties.42 And where the shipment is large, and cannot be landed in a day, if the carrier lands a part of it, his lien upon the whole gives him the power to ask from the consignee a satisfactory security for the payment of the entire amount, before a delivery of that part. But he cannot demand that the whole freight be paid until the goods have been unladen, and the consignee has been furnished an opportunity to examine them. And it would seem that if the consignee will not furnish the required security, the master will not be required to deliver the goods, or to receive his freight in parcels, but may store the goods as they are unloaded at the consignee's expense, and subject to the ship's lien, until they are all ready for delivery. Nor can the carrier insist upon a delivery of one shipment by parcels, and the payment of the freight by installments as the parcels may be delivered. 43 Sec. 871. (§ 481.) Lien not lost by delivery obtained by trick or fraud.—And if the delivery is procured by any trick or fraud of the consignee, or even by his promise to pay the freight as soon as the delivery is made, which he fails to do, the carrier does not lose his lien or his right to the possession of the goods. In Bigelow v. Heaton,44 the carrier applied to the consignee for his freight before he had delivered the goods, and the 41. Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Penn. St. 120; Lane v. Old Colony R. R., 14 Gray, 143; New Haven, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 128 Mass. 104; Ware River Railroad v. Vibbard, 114 Mass. 447; Potts v. Railroad Co., 131 Mass. 455; Railroad Co. v. Davis, 86 Hun, 86, 34 N. Y. Supp. 206; affirmed, 158 N. Y. 674, 52 N. E. Rep. 1125. 42. Boggs v. Martin, 13 B. Mon. 239. Whether such was the intention is a question of fact. New Haven, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 128 43. Brittan v. Barnaby, 21 How. 527. The law seems to be understood differently by the English courts, and the rule adopted by them is that, where the cargo is delivered in parcels, the carrier may require his freight to be paid upon each parcel as delivered. Paynter v. James, L. R. 2 C. P. 348. 44. 6 Hill, 43; s. c. 4 Denio, 496. |