ROBINSON V. MEMPHIB & CHABLBSTON B. 00. 141 �to distinguish the case, and the court itself somewhat relies upon the distinction; and the responsibility for any want of uniformity on the subject must rest on that court. Armour v. Mich, Cent. B. 65 N. Y. 111; Hutch. Car. § 124. The supreme court of Kansaa adopts this view of the New York court in the case of Sapings Bank V. liailruad, 20 Kans. 519. On the other hand, the supreme courts of Maryland, Louisiana, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Ohio Bustain Grant v. Norway and The Schooner Freeman Case in opinions that are instructive and conclusive to my mind. There may be other cases on both sides, but these are sufficient for the present purpose. I find no Tennessee case on the subject, and it is proper to say that the decision in Maryland tp which I refer inspired a statute since passod to make bills of lading negotiable, the effect of which upon the principle we are considering has not been determined. Balt. dk Ohio R. V. Wilhins, 44 Md. 11; Tiedman v. Knox, 53 Md. 612, 616; Fellows y. Powell, 16 La. ^tJiu. 316; Adams v. Trent, 19 La. Ann. 262 ; Hunt v. Miss. Cent. R. 29 La. Ann. 4^6 ; La. Nat. Bank v. Lavielle, 52 Mo. 380; Dean v. King, 22 Ohio St.; 118; Sears v. Win- gaie, 3 Allen, 103; 1 Meigs' Dig. (Tenu. 2d Ed.) p, 384, § 396; Id. p. 411, § 420, subs. 3..,- , �The Massachusetts case formulates the rules of- iaw on this subject,' the third of which says : �" When the master is aeting within the limits of his authority the pwmers are estopped in like manner with him; but it is not within the geiieral pcopp of the inaster's authority to aign bills of lading for any goods not actually receiyed on board." �A question is made by the defendant that the plaintifs cannot sue in their own name because it is contended that the assignment of a bill of lading goes no further than to give the assignee a right to bring replevin or trover for the goods or some action connected with his ownership, and does not assign the right to bring an action for a breach of the oontraot of affreightment. This was never so in our admiralty courts, though for a long time such was the contention in courts of law. But now, as the authorities already cited and numer- ous others show, the assignment carries the right to bring an action against the carrier for loss or non-delivery. This would be certainly 80 under the influence of our Code, which makes all bills for the per- formance of any duty assignable, and our decisions collected in Meigs' Digest at the places above cited. T. & S. (Tenu.) Code, § 1967 ; The Thames, 14 Wall. 98; S. G. 3 Ben. 279; 7 Blatchf. 22Q; The Vaughan and Telegraph, 14 Wall. 258; Curry v. Roulstone, 2 Teni^. ��� �
