^  In  Adams  Seed  Co.  v.  Ciiicago
Great  Western  R.  Ca  (la.  1917),  165
N.  W.  367,  the  court  said,  p.  372 :

As  sustaining  the  claim  of  these
<i«fcndanls  that  the  plaintiff  ratified
*e  recoDsignment  to  Philadelphia  in
^"^rig  suit  against  the  Philadelphia
«  Reading  Railway  Company  as  de-
UTering  carriers,  and  basing  the  lia-
Wity  of  the  Chicago  Great  Western
^  tbe  allegation  that  it  was  initial
^*"T€r,  and  therefore  liable  for  the
^^  of  the  Philadelphia  &  Reading
Company  as  delivering  carrier,  see
Converse  v.  Railway  Co.,  58  N.  H.
^'  In  that  case  the  plaintiffs  con-
^'^cted  to  furnish  slate  to  one  C  for
*  Kfaoolhouse  which  C  was  then
^''cting  to  be  'cash  on  delivery.*  The
"^  was  ordered  directed  to  them-
*«^  at  F.  Plaintiffs  found  the
^^*<1*  at  the  schoolhouse,  and  work-
'^  engaged  in  putting  it  on.  C.  was
**  Acre.  They  sued  C  Soon  after
^  called  on  the  plaintiff  and  gave


them  an  order  on  the  school  district
The  order  was  not  accepted  or  paid.
The  plaintiffs  were  never  paid.  They
commenced  an  action  against  C,  af-
terwards dismissed  the  action,  and
brought  an  action  against  the  railroad
company  as  for  a  conversion.  The
court  said:


tt  I'


'If  the  delivery  was  authorized,
the  plaintiffs  have  no  claim  against
the  defendants.  If  the  delivery  was
unauthorized,  and  they  subsequently
ratified  it,  the  ratification  is  equiva-*
lent  to  an  authorized  delivery,  and
is  an  effectual  bar  to  plaintiffs  re-
covery.*

"See,  also,  Burritt  v.  New  York
Central  Ry.  Co.,  76  Misc.  Rep.  520,
135  N.  Y.  S.  557.  There  a  carrier  re-
ceived freight  consigned  by  straight
bill  of  lading  to  a  consignee,  and  de-
livered the  freight  to  a  third  person
pursuant  to  an  unauthorized  order.
