56Sentney v. Hutchinson, etc., R. Co., 90 Kans. 610, 135 Pac. 678; Leonard v. Howard, 67 Or. 203, 135 Pac. 549; Branson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 186, 11 Am. Rep. 335; Martin v. Drinan, 128 Mass. 515; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 64 N. Y. 35,13 Am. Rep. 556; Earle v. New Brunswick, 38 N. J. L. 47; Hagerty v. Lee, 54 N. J. L. 580, 25 Atl. 319, 20 L. R. A. 631; Maynard v. Moore, 76 N. C. 158; Hickey v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co., 51 Oh. St. 40, 36 N. E. 672, 23 L. R, A. 396, 46 Am. St. Rep. 545; West Virginia, etc., Ry. Co. p. McIntire, 44 W. Va. 210,28 S. E. 696; Chloupek v. Perotka, 89 Wis. 551, 62 N. W. 537, 46 Am. St. Rep. 858.

57 Short v. Kieffer, 142 111. 258, 31 N. E. 427; Sellers v. Greer, 172 111. 549, 50 N. E. 246, 40 L. R. A. 589; McPherson v. Fargo, 10 S. Dak. 611, 74 N. W. 1057, 66 Am. St. Rep. 723.

58 Lithograph Bldg. Co. v. Watt, 90 Oh. St. 74, 117 N. E. 25, 28, and see infra, Sec. 579, note 12, cases holding an undelivered deed is a sufficient memorandum under the Statute of Frauds.

by the Company, which contains printed terms and conditions is bound by them in so far as they are not violations of public policy.59 The same principle is applicable to writings delivered as contracts by common carriers. Therefore, ft shipper who takes a bill of lading or express receipt without objection should be bound by the terms of the contract of shipment legibly stated in the bill, and such is the law of England,60 and of most of the United States where the question has arisen.61 This view has found expression in the Uniform

59Portal Telegraph Cable Go. v. Nichols, 150 Fed. 643, 89 C. C. A.585, 16 L R. A. (N. S.) 870; Western Union Tel Co. v. Prevatt, 149 Ala. 617, 43 Bo. 109; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Warelhaurn, 113 Ga. 1017, 39 S. E. 443, 50 L. R. A. 741; Grinnell v. Weston Union Tel. Co., 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485; Clement v. Western Union Tel Co., 137 Mass. 463; Jacob s Western Unkm Tel Co., 135 Mich. 900, 98 N. W. 402; Cole v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Minn. 227, 22 N. W. 385; Kiley v. Western Union Tel Co., 109 N. Y. 231, 16 N. E. 75; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Edsall, 63 Tex. 668. In Illinois, however, the sender is not bound by the conditions unless he knew or assented to them; and mere use of the blank is not sufficient proof of this. Western Union Tel Co. v. Lycan, 60 111. App. 124; Tyler p. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 111. 421,14 Am. Rep. 38.

60Parker v. Southeastern Ry. Co., 2 C. P. D. 416, at page 418, counsel for the shipper said, arguendo: "There is do contract if one party means one thing and the other party means something else. There is no consensus ad idem" Bramwell, J., replied, however, "Not so, one of the parties may to conduct himself as to lead the other to believe that there was a contract." And at page 422, Meilish, J., said, in bis opinion, " Now the reason why the person receiving the bill of lading would be bound, seems to be that in the great majority of cases persons shipping goods do know that the bill contains a contract of carriage; and the ship-owner, or master delivering the ball of lading, is entitled to assume that the person shipping the goods has that knowledge." See also Acton v. Castle Mail Packets Co., 73 L. T. Rep. 158. 61 Cau v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 194 U. 8. 427, 431, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663, 48 L. Ed. 1053; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 597, 601; Atlantic, etc, R. Co. v. Dexter, GO Fla. 180, 39 So. 634; Central Railroad 4 B. Co. v. HasBolkus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37; McMveen v. Southern Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 249, 34 S. E. 281, 77 Am. St. Rep. 371; Adams Express Co. v. Carnahan, 29 Ind. App. 606, 63 N. E. 246, 64 N. E. 647; Mulligan v. Illinois Central Ry. Co., 36 Ia. 181, 14 Am. Rep. 514; Louisville, etc., R. Co. p. Brownlee, 14 Bush, 590; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 97 Am. Dec. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 131; Hoad-ley v. Northern Transportation Co., 115 Mass. 304, 15 Am. Rep. 106; Graves v. Adams Express Co., 176 Mass. 280, 57 N. E. 462; MoKinney c. Boston etc. R. Co., 217 Mass. 274, 104 N. E. 446; McMillan p. Michigan Southern R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208. (See also Hengstier v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 125 Mich. 530, 84 N. W. 1067; Slo-man v. National Express Co., 134 Mich. 16,95 N. W. 999); Christenson v. American Express Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Rep. 122; Snider v. Adams Express Co.,

Bills of Lading Act62 The courts of a few States, however, hare expressed a contrary opinion. In Illinois especially it has been held to be a question of fact, to be decided by the jury, whether the shipper in fact assented to the terms of the bill of lading.63

63 Mo. 376; O'Bryan v. Kinney, 74 Mo. 125; Merrill v. American Express Co., 62 N. H. 514, 515; Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, 10 Am. Rep. 575; Kirk-land v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, 29 Am. Rep. 113; Hill v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 73 N. Y. 361,29 Am. Rep. 163; Hoffman v. Metropolitan Express Co., 111 N. Y. App. Div. 407, 97 N. Y. Supp. 838; Boyle v. Bush Terminal R. Co., 136 N. Y. Supp. 365; Whitehead v. Wilmington, ete., R. Co., 87 N. C. 255; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Pontius, 10 Oh. St. 221, 2 Am. Rep. 391; Famham v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 55 Pa. 53; Newburger v. Howard, 6 Phil. 174, (See also Crary v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 203 Pa. 525, 53 Atl. 363, 59 L. R. A. 815, 03 Am. St. Rep. 778); Merchants' Dispatch Transportation Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847; Ryan v. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co., 65 Tex. 13, 57 Am. Rep. 589. (But see St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-Intyre, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 390, 82 S. W. 346; Galveston Ac. R. Co. v. Sparks (Tex. Civ. App.), 162 S. W. 943); Davis v. Railroad, 66 Vt. 290; Scballer v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 97 Wis. 31, 71 S. W. 1042; Ullman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N. W. 41, 66 L. R. A. 246, 88 Am. St. Rep. 949; Ross v. Northrup, 156 Wis. 327, 144 N. W. 1124.

62Sec. 10. See infra, {1134.