These  cases  favour  the  contention  that  the  bill  of  lading  is  not
conclusive  evidence  of  the  contract ;  and  in  a  later  judgment  by-
Lush,  J.  (y),  that  eminent  judge  expressed  the  following  opinion : —
"  A  bill  of  lading  is  not  the  contract,  but  only  the  evidence  of  the
contract ;  and  it  does  not  follow  that  a  person  who  accepts  the  bill
of  lading  which  the  shipowner  hands  him  necessarily,  and  without
regard  to  circumstances,  binds  himseK  to  abide  by  all  its  stipula-
tions. If  a  shipper  of  goods  is  not  aware  when  he  ships  them,  or
is  not  informed  ia  the  course  of  the  shipment,  that  the  bill  of
lading  which  will  be  tendered  to  him  will  contain  such  a  clause,
he  has  a  right  to  suppose  that  his  goods  are  received  on  the
usual  terms,  and  to  require  a  bill  of  lading  which  shall  express,
those  terms"  (z).
We  have,  however,  to  deal  at  present  with  cases  in  which  the
shipper  has  not  required  anything  diHerent  from  the  bill  of  lading
in  fact  tendered  to  him,  but  has  accepted  that  without  protest.
Where  that  has  been  done,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  docu-
ment can  be  treated  as  not  being  what  it  seems  to  be.  The
practice  of  looking  to  it  as  the  contract  may  be  said  to  be  uniform ;
and,  indeed,  has  been  adopted  by  the  Legislature  {a)  ;  and  the
scarcity  of  authority  is  in  truth  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  view
that  it  is  the  contract,  for  it  shows  that  in  practice  the  point  has
not  been  considered  open  to  question.
