Opinion of the Court.

designation of beans as an article of food. It was shown by the evidence that beans are generally sold and dealt in, under the simple designation of "beans;" but that does not solve the question as between the rival designations of "seeds" and "vegetables." The common designation as used in every-day life, when beans are used as food, (which is the great purpose of their production,) would have been very proper to be shown in the absence of further light from commercial usage. We think that the evidence on this point ought to have been admitted. In addition to this, the court told the jury that "the commercial designation of the article, or what the article is called in trade and commerce, or the name bean, has nothing to do with the question." We think the court erred in this instruction. The commercial designation, as we have frequently decided, is the first and most important designation to be ascertained in settling the meaning and application of the tariff laws. See Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112, 118; Barber v. Schell, 107 U. S. 617, 623; Worthington v. Abbott, 124 U. S. 434, 436; Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 75. But if the commercial designation fails to give an article its proper place in the classifications of the law, then resort must necessarily be had to the common designation. We think, therefore, that the court erred both in its charge and in the exclusion of the evidence offered; especially as, without any evidence, and with the common knowledge which we all possess, the court might almost have been justified in directing a verdict for the defendant.

We have not adverted to a clause of the customs act in which beans are specifically named, because we do not think it applies to the case. We refer to that clause of the free list which enumerates "drugs, barks, beans, berries, etc., any of the foregoing of which are not edible and are in a crude state." As this clause refers to articles "not edible," it cannot include beans of the character now under consideration.

Nor have we thought it necessary to refer particularly to the case of Ferry v. Livingston, 115 U. S. 542, in which the clauses of the law respecting "garden seeds" in Schedule N, and "seeds of all kinds" in the free list are elaborately dis

Statement of the Case.

cussed and commented on. There the question was between "garden seeds" and "field seeds," and the decision depended on the particular circumstances of the case. The opinion conIcludes with this declaration: "As this case rests for decision on the facts found, it is not possible for this court to lay down any general rules which will apply to cases differing in their facts from this case." We regard our present decision as in harmony with the decision in that case; and only refer to it for the purpose of disclaiming any intention to dissent from it. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to order a new trial.

FRIEDLANDER v. TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 236. Argued April 4, 5, 1889. Decided April 15, 1889.

A bill of lading, fraudulently issued by the station agent of a railroad company without receiving the goods named in it for transportation, but in other respects according to the customary course of business, imposes no liability upon the company to an innocent holder who receives it without knowledge or notice of the fraud and for a valuable consideration: and this general rule is not affected in Texas by the statutes of that State. THE Court stated the case in its opinion as follows:

Friedlander & Co. brought suit in the District Court of Texas, in and for the county of Galveston, against the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, to recover for the non-delivery of certain cotton named in an alleged bill of lading hereinafter described, of which they claimed to be assignees for value, their petition after counting upon said bill of lading, thus continuing:

"That the said defendant, fraudulently contriving to avoid its liability to these plaintiffs, pretends and alleges that the said cotton was not so delivered as in and by said bill of lading is recited and acknowledged, but that the said bill of lading was

Statement of the Case.

executed without the receipt by its said agent of any of said cotton, all of which said pretences on the part of the defendant, plaintiffs allege are untrue; but they say that even if it be true that no cotton was delivered to said defendant as in and by said bill of lading is recited and acknowledged, yet is the defendant estopped from setting up that fact in defence of plaintiffs' cause of action upon said bill of lading, because these plaintiffs say that the said bill of lading was executed in form negotiable and transferable by indorsement under the usage and customs of merchants, and that these plaintiffs, relying upon the validity of said bill of lading in all respects and upon the facts therein stated, that said cotton had been delivered to said defendant as aforesaid, and that defendant had contracted to carry and deliver said cotton as aforesaid, advanced to the said Joseph Lahnstein and paid out upon his order and at his request and in consideration of his said transfer of said bill of lading to these plaintiffs the sum of eight thousand dollars on, to wit, the 10th day of November, 1883, and that said payment was made and advanced upon the faith of the recitals and effect of said bill of lading as a contract to deliver the cotton therein mentioned as aforesaid, and that if the said cotton was never received by defendant, yet ought it to be held to the terms of the said bill of lading for the indemnification of these plaintiffs for said payment, with interest thereon from the date thereof, because of the fraud practised by the said agent upon these plaintiffs in the issuance of said bill of lading in the ordinary form and manner wherein he was authorized by the defendant to act, and defendants are esstopped to deny that said cotton was received as against the claims of these plaintiffs for damages on account of defendant's failure to comply with said bill of lading to the extent of eight thousand dollars, with interest thereon, at the rate of 8 per cent per annum, from the date of payment thereof as aforesaid; and if it be true, as alleged, that defendant received said cotton in said bill of lading mentioned, then plaintiffs claim of defendant the full value thereof, to wit, the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, with interest thereon from and after the 6th day of December, 1883, when and before which time defend

VOL. CXXX-27

Statement of the Case.

ant should have delivered said cotton under said bill of lading, according to the true intent and meaning thereof."

Defendant demurred, and also answered, denying "all and singular the allegations in the petition contained." The case was subsequently removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, whereupon by leave the defendant amended its answer by adding these further

averments:

"That one E. D. Easton, on the 6th of November, 1883, was the station agent of defendant at Sherman station, in Grayson County, Texas, on the Eastern Division of defendant's line in Texas, and that as such agent he was authorized to receive cotton and other freight for transportation and to execute bills of lading for such cotton and other freight by him received for the purpose of transportation by defendant.

"That on the said 6th day of November, 1883, the said Easton, combining and confederating with one Joseph Lahnstein, did fraudulently and collusively sign a certain bill of lading purporting to be his act as agent of defendant, whereby he falsely represented that defendant had received from the said Joseph Lahnstein two hundred bales of cotton in apparent good order, to be transported from Sherman to New Orleans, La., and did deliver the said false bill of lading to the said Joseph Lahnstein; and defendant says that in point of fact the said bill of lading was executed by the said Easton fraudulently and collusively with the said Lahnstein without receiving any cotton for transportation, such as was represented in said bill of lading, and without the expectation on the part of the said Easton of receiving any such cotton; that the said pretended bill of lading was the one that is set out in the petition of the plaintiffs, and was false, fraudulent and fictitious, and was not executed by defendant nor by its authority, and that the said Easton only had authority as agent aforesaid to execute and deliver bills of lading for freights actually received by him for transportation."

The cause was submitted to the court for trial, a jury being waived, upon the following agreed statement of facts:

"1st. On November 16th, 1883, at Sherman station, in

Statement of the Case.

Grayson County, Texas, on the Eastern Division of the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, E. D. Easton, agent for the defendant at said station, executed as such agent a bill of lading, of which a copy is hereinafter given, and delivered the same to Joseph Lahnstein, the person named in said bill of lading.

"2d. That said Easton was at the time and place aforesaid the regularly authorized agent of the defendant for the purpose of receiving for shipment cotton and other freight for transportation by defendant over and along its line from Sherman station aforesaid, and that said bill of lading was in the usual form and made out upon the usual printed blanks in use by said defendant at said station, and that said Easton was authorized by said defendant to execute bills of lading for cotton and other freight by him received for the purpose of transportation by the defendant.

"3d. That the said Joseph Lahnstein indorsed said bill of lading by writing his name across the back thereof and drew a draft on the plaintiffs in this cause on or about November 6th, 1883 (of which draft a copy is hereinafter given), for the sum of eight thousand dollars, payable at sight to the order of Oliver & Griggs, and attached said draft to said bill of lading so indorsed, and on or about November 6th, 1883, forwarded the same through said Oliver & Griggs for presentation to and payment by the plaintiffs in this cause; that in due course of business Oliver & Griggs forwarded said draft, with bill of lading attached, to New Orleans, where the same was presented to and paid by plaintiffs on or about November 10th, 1883.

"4th. That in paying said draft said plaintiffs acted in good faith and in the usual course of their business as commission merchants making advances upon shipments of cotton to them for sale, and without any knowledge of any fraud or misrepresentation connected with said bill of lading and draft, and with the full and honest belief that said bill of lading and draft were honestly and in good faith executed, and that the cotton mentioned in said bill of lading had been in fact received by said defendant as represented in said bill of lading.