614 FEDERAL REPORTER. �priving them of the beneflt of the condition upon which they agreed to pay the draft. Ttie value of a bill of lading as a eecurity is well understood, That value lies iu the fact that the property upon which advances are made is in the posses- sion of a carrier under an agreement on its part to deliver the property to the consignee named, and that, on presenta- tion of the bill of lading by the consignee or bis assigns, the property upon its arrivai will be delivered to him. Various advantages, not necessary to mention, may accrue to the consignee of the property who holds a bill of lading for the same; and it must be presumed, from the language of the dispatch which the defendants sent to the bank, that they des.ired to secure to themselves such advantages. �It is, I tbink, enough to say that, to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it must stand upon the letter of the contract which it seeks to enforce, and must therefore show full compliance on its part with the terms of the contract, in order to enforce it against the defendants. It was said, upon the argument, that there was a substantial compliance on the part of the bank, and the ground thus taken by counsel struck me with a good deal of force. The dilEculty, however, is that, as the defendants stated the precise terms upon which they would pay the draft, substantial compliance only results when there bas been a literal compliance with such terms. It is one of those cases where parties have stated a condition upon which they will do a certain thing, and it therefore becomes essen- tial that the precise condition named be performed, in order to hold the party to liability upon his specifie agreement, I do not refer to authorities upon the question, beeause the elucidation of the point seems free from difficulty. It is quite plain that the terms of the agreement, under which the defendants promised to pay the draft, were not com^^lied with. �Upon the testimony I think it must be determined that bills of lading did not accompany the draft when it was first presented for payment, and, moreover, the bills of lading upon their face, the one running to McCully and the other to A. D. Buckingham & Bro., did not meet the requirements ����
