§ 30. The statement of quantity or weight is, as we have seen, prima facie evidence that the quantities named in the bill were received by the carrier. The onus of rebutting this presumption and of showing that a less quantity was actually received rests upon the carrier. If this be satisfactorily shown, the carrier is relieved from liability for the apparent deficiency, but where the consignee has received goods at a wharf without qualification or reservation of the right to inspect, weigh, or measure them and the carrier proves due care of them during the transit and an actual delivery of all in his possession on his arrival, the burden of proof is on the consignee to establish that a deficiency in the weight specified in the bill, afterwards discovered, is chargeable to the wrongful act or neglect of the carrier.2 § 31. A custom to treat the statement of quantity as conclusive upon the carrier has been held to be unreasonable and void,3 but the statement may be made conclusive by the use of the words "quantity guaranteed." If the language of the bill of lading should be deemed insufficient to determine the meaning of the words "quantity guaranteed," it may be regarded as a technical expression to be explained by the testimony of persons in the business knowing and understanding it.5 To preclude the carrier from showing a mistake in quantity, the language of the bill of lading must be clear and explicit to that effect. A bill of lading contained the clause, "All damages caused by boat or carrier, or deficiency of cargo from quantity as herein specified, to be paid by the carrier and deducted from the freight, and any excess on the cargo to be paid to the carrier by the consignee." The quantity delivered was some seventy bushels short of the quantity specified in the bill of lading. It was held that this bill of lading was neither a guaranty of the quantity specified, nor an agreement that the bill of lading should furnish the only evidence of the quantity. No damages could have been sustained in case the carrier 1 McLean v. Fleming, 25 L. T. N. S. 317; 2 L. R. H. L., S. C. app. 128. 2 M'Cready v. Homes, VI. American Law Reg. 229, Dist. Ct. U. S. for S. Carolina. 3 Strong v. G. T. R. R., Co., 15 Mich. 206. 4 Bisselle. Campbell, 54 N. Y. 353. 5 Ib. delivered all he received and by such a delivery his liability was discharged.1 A bill of lading contained the stipulation, " Any damage or deficiency in quantity the consignee will deduct from the balance of freight due the carrier." This was neither a guaranty that the carrier had received the whole quantity of goods specified nor an agreement to pay for a deficiency. The words "deficiency in quantity" were held to relate to the property actually shipped and not to the amount named in the bill.2 In the case of Murton v. Kingston and Montreal Forwarding Company the bill provided, " All the deficiency in cargo to be paid for by the carrier and deducted from the freight and any excess in the cargo to be paid for to the carrier by the consignee." The quantity named in the bill was less than that actually shipped. The carrier claimed the excess, but was held not to be entitled to it as the provision in the bill did not have the effect of giving it to him, nor did any custom entitle him to it. Where a written contract was made for the purchase of the cargo of a ship as it stood, consisting of about 1300 quarters of Indian corn," the quantity to be taken from the bill of lading," etc., and the quantity turned out to be somewhat less than 1300 quarters, the proper construction was held to be that the parties had agreed to buy and sell the cargo at a price to be calculated from the quantity stated in the bill of lading and not to depend upon the actual quantity. The purchaser took the chance of the actual quantity turning out more, or the risk of its turning out less than the quantity stated and so he could not recover for short delivery. § 32. In order to preclude any possible misconstruction of the liability which the carrier intends to assume for the statement of quantity or weight contained in his bill, the qualification "more or less" is sometimes added. The use of these words indicates that the carrier does not intend to be bound by the statement of quantity or weight, and that it is to be regarded as an estimate rather than an exact measurement. A bill reciting a shipment of a specified quantity "more or less" is 1 Abbe v. Eaton, 51 N. Y. 411. 2 Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590. 3 18 Can. Law Jour. 278. Covas v. Bingham, 2 C. L. R. 212; 2 El. and Bl. 836; 18 Jur. 596; 23 L. J. Q. B. 26. 0 § 30. The statement of quantity or weight is, as we have seen, prima facie evidence that the quantities named in the bill were received by the carrier. The onus of rebutting this presumption and of showing that a less quantity was actually received rests upon the carrier. If this be satisfactorily shown, the carrier is relieved from liability for the apparent deficiency, but where the consignee has received goods at a wharf without qualification or reservation of the right to inspect, weigh, or measure them and the carrier proves due care of them during the transit and an actual delivery of all in his possession on his arrival, the burden of proof is on the consignee to establish that a deficiency in the weight specified in the bill, afterwards discovered, is chargeable to the wrongful act or neglect of the carrier.2 § 31. A custom to treat the statement of quantity as conclusive upon the carrier has been held to be unreasonable and void,3 but the statement may be made conclusive by the use of the words "quantity guaranteed." If the language of the bill of lading should be deemed insufficient to determine the meaning of the words "quantity guaranteed," it may be regarded as a technical expression to be explained by the testimony of persons in the business knowing and understanding it.5 To preclude the carrier from showing a mistake in quantity, the language of the bill of lading must be clear and explicit to that effect. A bill of lading contained the clause, "All damages caused by boat or carrier, or deficiency of cargo from quantity as herein specified, to be paid by the carrier and deducted from the freight, and any excess on the cargo to be paid to the carrier by the consignee." The quantity delivered was some seventy bushels short of the quantity specified in the bill of lading. It was held that this bill of lading was neither a guaranty of the quantity specified, nor an agreement that the bill of lading should furnish the only evidence of the quantity. No damages could have been sustained in case the carrier 1 McLean v. Fleming, 25 L. T. N. S. 317; 2 L. R. H. L., S. C. app. 128. 2 M'Cready v. Homes, VI. American Law Reg. 229, Dist. Ct. U. S. for S. Carolina. Strong v. G. T. R. R., Co., 15 Mich. 206. 4 Bisselle. Campbell, 54 N. Y. 353. 5 Ib. delivered all he received and by such a delivery his liability was discharged.' A bill of lading contained the stipulation, " Any damage or deficiency in quantity the consignee will deduct from the balance of freight due the carrier." This was neither a guaranty that the carrier had received the whole quantity of goods specified nor an agreement to pay for a deficiency. The words "deficiency in quantity" were held to relate to the property actually shipped and not to the amount named in the bill." In the case of Murton v. Kingston and Montreal Forwarding Company3 the bill provided, " All the deficiency in cargo to be paid for by the carrier and deducted from the freight and any excess in the cargo to be paid for to the carrier by the consignee." The quantity named in the bill was less than that actually shipped. The carrier claimed the excess, but was held not to be entitled to it as the provision in the bill did not have the effect of giving it to him, nor did any custom entitle him to it. Where a written contract was made for the purchase of the cargo of a ship as it stood, consisting of about 1300 quarters of Indian corn, "the quantity to be taken from the bill of lading," etc., and the quantity turned out to be somewhat less than 1300 quarters, the proper construction was held to be that the parties had agreed to buy and sell the cargo at a price to be calculated from the quantity stated in the bill of lading and not to depend upon the actual quantity. The purchaser took the chance of the actual quantity turning out more, or the risk of its turning out less than the quantity stated and so he could not recover for short delivery.* § 32. In order to preclude any possible misconstruction of the liability which the carrier intends to assume for the statement of quantity or weight contained in his bill, the qualification " more or less" is sometimes added. The use of these words indicates that the carrier does not intend to be bound by the statement of quantity or weight, and that it is to be regarded as an estimate rather than an exact measurement. A bill reciting a shipment of a specified quantity "more or less" is 1 Abbe v. Eaton, 51 N. Y. 411. 2 Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590. 3 18 Can. Law Jour. 278. Covas v. Bingham, 2 C. L. R. 212; 2 El. and Bl. 836; 18 Jur. 596; 23 L. J. Q. B. 26. The statement of value is seldom found to be in excess of the true value when the goods have been injured or destroyed. The effort of the shipper is to secure the lowest rate for transportation even at an increase of risk to his goods. He, therefore, ordinarily places a low estimate upon them when tendering them for shipment. § 34. If the valuation set upon the goods by the shipper be known to the carrier to be less than the true one and the parties agree that the goods, in consideration of the diminished valuation, shall be carried at a lower rate, the statement of value is conclusive upon the parties. Where, however, the carrier, knowing the value of the goods, fails to enter it in his receipt, he cannot rely upon a stipulation contained therein limiting his liability to a specific amount, in reality less than the true value of the goods, because the value has not been declared by the shipper. Where the reduced value, on the other hand, is fixed by the shipper with a view to obtaining a low rate of freight, without any knowledge on the part of the carrier that the property is of greater value, it would be a fraud upon the carrier to permit a recovery of a greater sum than that fixed by the shipper.3 § 35. There is no obligation upon the shipper, when tendering goods for transportation, to inform the carrier of their value unless he is asked so to do. If the shipper be not guilty of merchandise which he promised to deliver at New Orleans. The invoice accompanying the bill of lading was offered in evidence to prove the value of the contents of the box in a suit for damages for its loss. The evidence was rejected on the ground that the invoice was res inter alias acta and not emanating from the defendant as the bill of lading. Watson et al. v. Yates, 10 Martin's La. Rep. 687. Elkins v. The Empire Trans. Co., 2 W. N. C. (Penna. S. Ct.) 403; McCance v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 3 H. & C. 343; 34 L. J. Exch. 39; 10 Jur. N. S. 1058: 12 W. R. 1086; 11 L. T. N. S. 426. 2 Kimber v. Southern Ex. Co., 22 La. Ann. Rep. 158; Southern Ex. Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635; Stoneman v. Erie R. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429. 3 Harvey v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co., 74 Missouri, 538. 4 Levois v. Gale, 17 La. Ann. Rep. 302; Phillips v. Earle, 8 Pickering (25 Mass.), 182; Brooke v. Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218; Southern Ex. Co. v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, 45 How. Pr. 90; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Pa. St. 67; Relf v. Rapp, 3 W. & S. 21; Baldwin v. L. & G. W. S. S. Co., 74 N. Y. 125; Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 |