Upon  this  settled  and  universal  principle,  that  no  man's  property
can  be  taken  from  him  without  his  consent,  express  or  implied,  the
books  are  full  of  cases,  many  of  them  hard  and  distressing  cases,
where  honest  and  innocent  persons  have  purchased  goods  of  others,
apparently  the  owners,  and  often  with  strong  evidence  of  ownership,
but  who  yet  were  not  the  owners,  and  the  purchasers  have  been
obliged  to  surrender  the  goods  to  the  true  owners,  though  wholly
without  remedy  for  the  money  paid.  There  are  other  hard  and
distressing  cases  of  advances  made  honestly  and  fairly  by  auc-
tioneers and  commission  merchants,  upon  a  pledge  of  goods  by  per-
sons apparently  having  the  right  to  pledge,  but  who,  in  fact,  had
not  any  such  right,  and  the  pledges  have  been  subjected  to  the  loss
of  them  by  the  claim  of  the  rightful  owner.  These  are  hazards  to
which  persons  in  business  are  continually  exposed  by  the  operation
of  this  universal  principle,  that  a  man's  property  cannot  be  taken
from  him  without  his  consent.  Why  should  the  carrier  be  exempt
from  the  operation  of  this  universal  principle?  Why  should  not_tEe
principle  of  caveat  emptor  apply  to  him?  The  reason,  and  the  only
reason,  given  is,  that  he  is  obliged  to  receive  goods  to  carry,  and
should  therefore  have  a  right  to  detain  the  goods  for  his  pay.  ]>ut"
he  is  not  bound  to  receive  goods  from  a  wrongdoer.     He  is  bound


only  to  receive  goods  from  one  who  may  rightfull}^  deliver  them  to
him,  and  he  can  look  to  the  title,  as  well  as  persons  in  other  pur-
suits and  situations  in  life.  Nor  is  a  carrier  bound  to  receive
goods,  unless  the  freight  or  pay  for  the  carriage  is  first  paid  to
him;  and  he  may,  in  all  cases,  secure  the  payment  of  the  carriage
in  advance.  In  the  case  of  King  v.  Richards,  6  Whart.  418,  it
was  decided  that  a  carrier  may  defend  himself  from  a  claim  for
goods  by  the  person  who  delivered  them  to  him,  on  the  ground  that
the  bailor  was  not  the  true  owner,  and  therefore  not  entitled  to  the
goods.
