MED1 1 \ AL AND MODERN PRODUCE MARKETS 839 



interesting to speculate as to the inferences that may be properly 

 drawn from Savary's statement and from the passage in the 

 Marine Code of 1681 to which he refers. It is difficult to avoid 

 the conclusion that merchants made frequent use of bills of 

 lading in ways that were not recognized by the courts, so that 

 one must avoid the narrow view of the matter. However, there 

 are plenty of reasons for supposing that such deliveries by in- 

 dorsement must have been rare. The practice of indorsement 

 of bills of exchange was only just beginning in the north of 

 Europe in this period and was not generally adopted until the 

 middle of the seventeenth century. Furthermore, the fact that 

 the full recognition of the negotiability of the bill of lading was 

 postponed till the eighteenth century is presumptive evidence 

 that the practice was not widespread. Had there been many 

 cases the problems would have come to the notice of the courts 

 earlier. The number of significant cases between 1750 and 1790 

 is eloquent evidence of the close relation of case law to the 

 needs of the community. 



The modern law takes form in the eighteenth century. The 

 more important cases are: Fearon v. Bowers, March 28, 1753; 

 Wright, assignee of Scott, v. Campbell, 1767; Caldwell 

 v. Ball, May 17, 1786; Lickbarrow v. Mason, 1787; and a 

 second trial in 1794. The principle of negotiability is definitely 

 stated in the earliest of these cases. Justice Lee said in sum- 

 ming up, "To be sure, nakedly considered, a bill of lading 

 transfers property and a right to assign that property by endorse- 

 ment." The legal problems centered in no small measure around 

 the nature of negotiability. Then- was disposition on the part 

 of some to assume that the degree of neiM>ti.tl>ility was precisely 

 similar to that of a bill of exchange doctrine w.< 



ted by the courts, and in the course of the period the 

 difference between this aspect <>f the two bills was clearly brought 

 out. Wright T-. CampU-ll involved the ri^ht of a ;<> sell 



goods consigned to him by his principal while they we 

 transit. Caldwell v. Hall involved the problem of precedence of 

 different copies of the bill of lading when the indorsements were 



cnt, though constructively the same. The ca.sc arrow 



