WEr.ïIIEIMER V. PENN. R. CO. 233 �tation to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, goods of the value of $1,710. At the time of receiving the goods the defendant de- livered to plaintifs a bill of lading, whereby it agreed to transport the goods, subject to several conditions, among which was one that the company should not be responsible for loss or damage by fire, unless it could be shown that such damage or loss oceurred through the negligence or default of the agents of the company. �On the seventeenth of July the car containing the goods was dispatched by defendant from Jersey City for Pittsburgh, reaching Pittsburgh about 1 o'clock a. m., July 20th, at which time a mob took possession of the defendant's property, in- cluding the car in question, and held possession imtil July 22d, when troops ordered by the governor of the state to aid the sheriiï in rctaking the property came in conflict with the mob,failedto disposses the mob, and the mob fired the property and thereby destroyed it. �The delivery of the bill of lading by the defendant, and its aeeeptance by the plaintiffs, at the time of the delivery of the goods, must be deemed to oonstitute a contract between the parties, with the conditions contained in the bill of lading. York Company v. Cent. Railroad, 3 Wall. 107; Bniik of Ky. v. Adams Exp. Go. 93 U. S. Ï74; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. .o05; McMillan v. Midi. Southern e N. I. R. Go. 16 Mich. 79 ; Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatch. 64 ; Kirldand v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171. These cases ail hold that the sbipper who accepts the bill of lading cannot be heard to allege ignorance of its terms. It is unnecessary to refer to the cases where, from the peculiar circumst inces attending the aeeeptance of the receipt, a.ssent to its terms was held not to be implied, as the present case is the ordinary one, where no peculiar cir- cumstances are shown. Neither are tho cases in point which accede that assent on the part of the shipper will not be implied to any conditions which do not appear on the face of the bill of lading. Such was the case in Ayres v. The West- ern R. Corp. le Blatch. 9, which was decided upon the authority of Railroad Oo. v. Manufacturing Co. 16 Wall. 318. ��� �
