118 FEBEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �exception must clearly be sustained, because the libel con- tains no averment wbatever of the delivery of the bill of lad- ing to the libellants, or to any one for their use ; or, by other proper averment, shows in any way that they consented to or became parties to the consignment. �A bill of lading may be made out ncvming a person as con- signee, but something more is necessary to make the person BO named a consignee. That relation to property cannot be established without such person's consent oragainst bis will; and a delivery of a bill of lading or some agreement in rela- tion to the shipment, between the shipper and the person named as consignee, is just as necessary as the delivery of a promissory note is necessary to make it anything but a piece of paper with scratches on it. Nor is any title in the shipper averred unless it be under the some-what ambiguous state- ment that the bills of lading were duly signed. The aver- ment cannot be taken to mean more than this : that somebody whose name is not given, having possession of the sugars, Bbipped them, and f ook bills of lading in which the libellants were named as consignees. But, passing these obvions de- fects, the respondents are entitled to bave the libel state what, if any, interest as consignees the libellants had in the goods. �It is true that the possession of a bill of lading by the con- signee named therein, or by the indorsee thereof, is prima faeie evidence of cwnersbip of the goods, just as possession of the goods themselves would be, and that the possession of such bill of lading is also prima facie evidence of the transfer to the consignee, or indorsee of the bill, of the title or interest which the shipper bad at the time of shipment, whatever that may be. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 107; The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575. But a bill of lading neither makes a title where the shipper bas none, nor transfers a title as between shipper and consignee, unless such is the intention of the parties. The ground sometimes taken, that at least a naked legal title passes by mere force of the terms of the bill, without regard to the intention of the parties, is ineonsistent with the well- settled rule of the common law, that the owner of personal ����
