^5^^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fe fi 1.0 ■50 ^^ I.I U t_ |l.25 [1.4 !l . .. IE 2£ 1.6 m p^^ / j^ Photographic Sdeiices Corporation 33 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) •72-4503 d •S^ \^ ^ A iV \ \ O^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couvoiture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents r~l Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout4es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-#tre uniques du point de vue bibliogrdphique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelMculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes r^f' Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impressiun Includes supplementary materia Comprend Qj materiel supplementaire PT^ Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dtd film^es d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction lat'o checked below/ Ce document est fiimd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X SOX , / 12X 16X 20X 2 (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fiim6 d par^ir de Tangle stip6rieur gauche, de ga-jche d dioite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cossaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la indthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 \ .z' A TUKATISK (IN TIIK. CONTRACTS oi- Wrril SPKCIAL lil'.l'KKKNCl-, TO MCll A- SKKK TO I.I.MIT TIIKIi; I.IAi'.ll.nV AT COMMON 1,AW. I'.V \IKANS OF i'.II.l.S OF !,Ai)iN(i. i;.\FiM>s i;::(i:ii'rs, i; \ii,'.;oa1) ; hkkis. I'.Aiic A<;i'. cnF.riv-. inc. ;:r('. -A' } 15V JOHN d: lawsox, i;iii I'ui! cr,- I'l; \i, i.\\\ .miiiNAi,. ST. i.or IS. Vio.: I AW ri r,:.T>i;!;;! and ni;i,isiir.!! or rii;; ■. KXTUAL \.\\V JorHN.M-. ISSO. s«&jii8iiMBS«*-;- V l:^ ' :, iliMiTJIMiiyilW -r fcf ISSd. Iiv Kiiii'ivil arconliii^' to Ar; ol' ('n;i;j,'iv-s ill llic ye .t(>;i\ !). r.Awsox. ill tlir otlii';' lit' t!ic ijlu-iiriaii nl' ( 'mii-ti'". ;iI W.Hiiiu.irtuii. iJrx ri'iM'i:i) iiv Ti::'. ;c"j>t under a, ('((iiii'ael exeiiipliiiii" the Carrier i'voni a part if iiol all of liis eoiiiinon hiw lial)ilities, pi'eseiils a sullieieiit reason for the a])}iearane;> of this !>ook. rile fact (hat all previous Treati-es on the Law of Coiii- inon V arriers lia\c eiidea\()red to cove'' the whole lield of the duties and res|)(,iisil)ililies of {lie Carrier under all eir- einiistanees, and lia\e, therefore, heeii al'Ie to !j,i\c hul small s[)aee to tln^ topics of the 1"olli»wiiiu' paii'es, I'cmoves this Treatise from the criticism that it is upon a sul)jeet already well discussed. It is thouu'hl that this work will he of some \alue to all who lia\(' any dealiii'^s with the <'lass of which it treats. It presents, hesich's a statement of the ia\v as it stands, a sketch of the ancient liahility of the ('omi.KUi Carrier; the reh'.x- alioii of those sli'ici rn!<'- and liie conl'iision and c, il which have resulted therefroi.i. Whetlier pui)lic policy as a safe- liuard auainst corporate monopoly will not soon I'CMjuiro a I'etui'i! to the (hx'trines which the wi-dom of our ancestoi',> estal)lished'. is a <|Uestion upon which discaission has just comnieneed. hut which has alread\' been answei-ed in the af- lirinatl\e in more than oiu- of the Slates. d. I). L. St. Jiouis, rei)r;iarv "iO. Issi). L -J' !t::Maaw6*.'»«— pjipn^wwmvr 1*»^ *WM I 1' ! I. TAHLIIOF CONTENTS. tllAl'TEIl I. INTUOIUCTION— TlIK MAUIMTIKS OK <()MM()\ DAlMUKltS INDKrKND- KNT Ol' STKC'IAI- CONTKAirf. 1 J \S'li() arc ('()imi\()u ciirricrs . . . ("omiiiim ciirricis MS insurers Hxcoptions ti) tlic li!il)ili(y :\s iinnvrs Tlic iift ot God Disi'onlaul decisions (.'ases not witliin llie ••net of (!od'" Tin' (jnesiion of ni'j^ligi'nee immaterial Aet of (Jod the exclusive cause ?<'e,u;li),'once and act of Clod ooncuninj; Loss l)y act of (Jod after iwjilijjjenl delay Loss l)y act of (iod after deviation . Duty of carrier to preserve goods damaged l)y The jiuhlic enemy Losses caused hy inluM-ent defects in gooils car I/iahilities of carriers of i)assengers Liabilities of carriers of animals . Losses caused liy seizure muler process . Discordant decisions [,osses caused by act or omission of owner Concealment of value or quality . Fraud always a bar Losses caused by neglect of owiu'r Owner undertaking part of duties of carrier act ( ried Sf.CTlON. • t • 1 , , 2 , , :i • 4 • • s " . ' . " 1(» ^ , 11 of Cod . V2 ■ • • y,\ , , 14 • * • 1") 10 ^ , 17 Ih , , 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . •2i f^ ■i-V 'I ■ J i ■■fliflw^ ^mm .»»?■«».,„■:.«•»• f »l TAIII.K ()!• CONTKNIS. A'JIAI'iKli II. ■ii:i; I'own; or coMAinN cAiiiMKits to limit tiikii; i.iaiiii.itv. I'liwiT fiiniiiTly mil ;.(linitliM| . i;h;(ii' of ihc MiH'ifiil rule rchixcil . iJcL^Ti'ls 111 till' alianildiiiiii'iil of llic inicifiil •|'ii.- Mll.U'li-ll >llllMllS .... (;i.iirr:il I'iilf ill Anici'iiM .... 'I'lic ni!i' ill llic I'liitiM] Si;iic- Cciiiri- 'I'lir i;iilc ill Al;iliniiiii .... .'irl'.iiiiMi-^ ( ';iliuiriii;i ( 'iiiiiiailii ( '(llllM'Ciil'llI I )i'l;l\\;ll'(' I'liiiiiiii . (i('or,ui;i MiiiKiis . Ill(li;iliil Kan^ii- Kciiliiiky I.iiiii--i:iiia . Maine . Marylaiui .Ma-siu'iiiisciis MicliiiCMii Miiiiii'sola .Mi>siska Ni'vaila . Ni'W llaiii|i>liiri N't'w .liTscy New Yorl< , '■ N'oi'lli ('aroliiia Oliia . Oregon I'ciiiisyivaiiia lUioili' Isjaiii'i Soiitli Carolina 'I'cniU'sscc Texas . SI- CIIUN. 21 •ji; •J 7 2s 211 n: ;is :!',► 10 n 12 II !.■> ii; 17 IS 1!) .")! .'.2 .■>;{ ."•I .")7 .-)S ,")!) (il (i2 T.Mll.i; OF ((jNTKNTH. VII •• \'rnii(il!l •» \'ir,nini:i •• Wf-; \'ir;;iui; •• W'i'ioiisiii . SKf'TION. (il I'll. I.I r^ , •KCTKiN. CIIAl'IKIt III. lis I'OI.K ^ ()!■ .U.l.(>\VIN(i A l,I.M!:i;i) I.I A lil l.ll V, :is II II I.". IS r.i .■)i^ I'rlicy ni' iillou III;;' (MlllliU'll (Mnirr- |(i iiiiiil llli'ir lillliililV li\ III' (iMirnw, It., in ilii.li'iiliain \. It^'iiiii'l' Sti'li'l virw •■ ( f Ni-.licl. .(..ill I'i^h V. Cliiii iiiiiin Opinliiii 111' \\'ii|ilrii. ( '. .1.. ill Mil lii;;;iii Smillii'rii li'i'.iiiu.iil ('liiii- piiiiy lllMlllll Klalioi'iili' jiiili^'iiiriii ol' Mr. .Iiisiii'c lliadlfy in Kailmail ('iiin|iaiiy V. I.iii'kwiiud .^iinllar vii'ws (•\|i|i'--im 1 in iiuliv iihi.il ii:il;ii'> in N'i'w \i)v\ <)|'iuiiill-i favui'ili:;' till' n|i[Hi. lie \ii'\\ ...... liii|in'>-it>iw (if \\'rlli's. .1.. ill I'arsiiiis V. Miiiitcnlli N'irwsiif \\'ri;;lil, .1.. ill Mnmi' v. i^vaiis . . . . . Ami III' W'diiilinff. .).. in I'r. ncli v. {{nrfaln \r. I.'ailroaii ( 'iiin|iaiiy (>|iinii I' I'arl ( 'iini|iany .1.. ill !).irr V. Xi'u .ti'iM'\ Sli'ain N'a\ ivfalidii Of (ioiiiil. .1.. in W.'IN V. Ni'w \'iirl< 'nilral l.ailniail ('miiiiany Of Alli'ii. ■!.. in Snii'.li \. Xi'w Vnrk < 'I'lilral Itailrn.ail ('iini|iaiiy Of Smith..!., ill I'lTkiii-* V. New Ynrk ('cnlral Kailmail Cni'iiiaiiy s;; Ai.;l iif Sriili'ii. ('. .1.. in llii' -ainr case SO SI S2 SI CIIAi'TKi: IV ,)S NOT'CKs innTiNi; i.iAi'.ii.r; :i:ii; i;i ikct. i;(> 111 (i2 I Xoii( 'riii'ir cffccl in Kii'.'lanil iliisiicc (if iiiTiniltin;;' iinlicr,-. as lo value ami clinractcr (if ^■o(i(l< . S(> ("lilii'lsni (in (ills piaclifc '7 M' v»l TAIJLK Ol" CONTKNTS. Notl,rsiist..cl.i!,Mcl.'fMii(l vmIm.' nf - V-Y\\^' nilr rin'cii-oiiiililc i'li;ii-fj;cs nol iiciiiiillril Notici wliiii si'vcr.i! If • • Coiillii'iiiii; mill Mmlii,u:iiiiii--(()iiiliiioiis Witliiiiit iiDlii'c no iliity Id stale valiu' . Ni.r when- ciirrifr liiis iiIIkt iiifnniiiiiioii Notice not (•(.miilieil Willi "o recovery al all Notice may lu' waiveil by earlier .... Kxiciil of notice . . . • • M(.(|c- of ;:iviiie- iiolii f liniiieil li.il.iliiy Ailverliseiiielils I'.istiii notices — i'lacanls The use f receipts iv^oricil to — 'I'lie Kiifxlisli •• Canic Notices o ily iin>iiosals for coiiiracis Assoiit from acceptiiij,' \\;\\)c\> coiilaiiiiii>j coiilraci Oilier cases sliowinu; assent to terms of notice What not sutVieient evidence of assent Notices attached to pjipers containin,;: contr'ct liailroad and stcamlioiit tickets llajl^^ajie cheeks Mamii-r of itrinting notices Aim si;( ■rii'a "s Act ril «)•-> ".a M 05 !i7 lis '.111 nil) 101 lo-i io:< 104 1(15 10(i 107 los 4 4 TAlll-K ()K CONTKNTS. CIIAl'IKIJ VI. I.IAIll.,l 1 > MirwrillsTAMUMi ( <)Nri{.\< T — Nr.dMlll'.NCK. Till' (lt';:;ri'i'^ uf nr'^li'^t'iict' ..... ii'rasiiii-' fur till' ili . i^ioii ..... |)i>ciii'(hllll (Irrisjiill < ...... N'it'ws Mppri^i' cari'lfr of valuer iumI ((.iiimiI ■ ( '(Piiliiliiilury iii',i;li!;'i'ii<'<' of liiiiloi" .... 'I'lif rule ill New NorU ...... Disciiidaiil (li'ci-idiis . .... Oilier I'ascs in iiic rarria;,^!' iif live -ln' 1» I'^N idfiicc (if ni'ulijri'iicc ...... ix (r.Ul.Kll'.NCK. >1 , TION. I'>it 1-J7 j-JM 1-JO i:u) i:ti V.\-2 !;t;j i:n in.-) i:)(i i:{7 i;i8 CIIAI'TKH VII. I.IAIIII.' I V NOTWrrilSTANKINd ('()NTi:A(T — 1 HCV 1 AllON. DKI.AV. KTC. ini> 110 HI ll-J 111! Ill II.-) iii; 117 lis nil rjo i-ji 1-J2 1_M M I'lrt'i'ct, of (Icvialiciii from terms of eoiiiraet i'oiilraei lo I'orward hy |iailieiilar ve>->el j'lxeeiiliolis ill idiitiael lust hy (levialioli l»e\ialioii 1p.\ c'diiiieeiinj;' f;iiiier . Conseiil of shipper I'ailiire to ohey r ijiilalions .... Liability for loss eaiiseti by delav Coiilracls eoneei-iiiiiii,' delay eoiistnied ("ontraets to deliver in spceilied time — reiialty .Vliaiidoiimeiit of eoiilrael — .Mall'easaiiee ClIAl'TKU viir. Til!-: CONSTIUCTION Ol' CONTliACTS LIMITING I.IAIUMTY, Tlio I'liited States Statutes as to carriers by wiitcr K>;eeptions in tin' I'oiilrj'.ets of earriers t'onstriied strictly The niaxlin cxprcssio nniiis est pxeliisio alteriiis Opinion of IMi^elow, (.'. .J., on llie appliciition of the maxim i:»;t 1-10 141 11-2 u:i 144 14,-) 14(i 147 MS 140 !.-)() 151 152 ! V sr .(•^-W^U^.^jIfcfca, % ■r.\)W-K <)!' co.Vir.NT.-', M",( TION. 'i't'nii:- ill insiirMiii'i' iii>licios am! liilN i>f l;!(liii.ii- (i.ii- (lutd diftVr- cnlly Iiitcrpirtiitidii (if words aiul ..liiasrs ill (■(iiilr.icis •• Accidcii'.al hclays" •• AlCl'ccs ■■ •Ail Hail- •• Arlicli'" '• ]iaj;-;;-am'" ■• JJri'aka/^'c." : cc •• !• ;!a.!';<' ;!i:i'. lir.'a; a.i' " .... ••('. (). D." . •• ('o;i:('ii!>- liiikiiowii." Sec •• \aliii' and (('iilcii ■ i;:.i.!r.\\ ii '" •• i»aiiia:ic " ■• l>aii<;i'i's iiicidciii Ik (lii' iia\iii'aiif nini^'aiiiMi "....... •■ ) '':in,:;',"r- of iia\ iiiatioii."" ami iicM'iii •• lianuc'i's iiicIdiMil lo llic iia\i;;alioii of the iVii-r." ••daii^'crv of llic lal^i'."" •• il,i;:u'i'r< lif (III' rivi'i'.'" •• (laii;;('r- of Ilio sra-." ■• iiicviialii'' acri- dcii!-:." •• |),iiis of lilt' laKi'." •• jHTJU of till' ri\ ('!•.■■ •• jicrils of till' seas " and •• uiiavoidaiili' accident." Sc(-.alMi •■ iiii- iivoidahlc aucidciils "■ '• DaiipTs 1)1' llic lake." Sci' •• daii;;'"i's()f iia\ iin'a.lioii " " Daiifi'iT- of till' river."' Sec •• dann'i'i's of iia'.iualioii " . ' Daiijjcr- of !lii' roads " •• i>:lllH'( IS of llit'scas." Sec •• daiiu:< r- of ll;',vi;valioii " . •• I ii'iicicncy in i|iiaiiliiy '" ••I)l'|10l"' '• lirrors " *• i'^scajio.-: ■■ .......... •• lixiraordii!.,! •• niariii" 1 i-i; ■■ " Feed, walcr :!iid i:i!.,' ]>r(i|i('r r.-irc o' " " iMlC ■■ '• Foi ward '" .......... •• i''n'(v.iii^'" '• Froni \vlii',(('\('r cai,,- ' '•(Joo'i ()rd< r iiiid I'ondillo. ■■ •• Heat, siiffoc'iiioii and llic o Ic : i!': ■^"c-.- i f ' - ■■.■ i rowdc 1 "" . " Incvilalilc .•iccidcuis."' Slh' "dancirs of na\ iiiaiion." •• iin.i- voidal.'lc aciMdcni-" '• liilicrcni di'tciioralioi! ■■ •' Leakage and Iircalvap' " •' Load and unload " -L.iss" " Owner's risk " *• On lakes or rivers " ** (>\\ tlie tr.iiii ■ •• i'ackajic." See "ariiele" '• Torils of llic lake." See •■ daiiiicrs of navi;>aIiou " i:.;; 1.V> I.-.;; I.")? l.-.s l.V.) mo ii;-j ii;:t !(;<; 1(!7 ](•,;) 17M 17! 172 17.! 171 177. 171! 177 17S 17! I IS!) isl is:; IS I IS.-, isi! 1S7 IKS ISl) I'll) m TAlUiR OF CONTEXTS. XI mt 155 15i( 157 158 15i) KiO llil l(i'2 1(13 104 1(15 ICf! 1(17 ]'.VA 1711 171 17-2 17.! 17 1 17.'. 17(1 177 17S 171' ISIl \^l ls-3 is;{ isl ].'■'(; 187 IS'.) mo 101 •• I'fiiis (if till' i-ivcr.'" Sec ••ilaiii^ici's of iiaviiciilion " •• I'l'iiU of llic st'Ms." Sec •• (liiiiLii'is of iiavig'iitioii " •• I'crisiiiihli' properly " ...... •■ Piloi. niiistrr or niariiuTs ■■ •• Place of (lestllialioil " ...... •• I'oi'l of (liseharije ■■ ...... •• Plivile«;-e of re-sliippillii' ■■ •• (iiiantily iiiiaraiiteed ■■ ...... •• iJe-itraiiits of prliie.'s " ...... •• Itohlieis" •• Siiffocalioii " . ...... ■• Tliieves." See ■•rolilu'l: ■■ ..... ■• 'riii-oii>;li w illioiil liaiislVr ■■ ..... •• Tow and assi-it Ncssejv" ..... •• riiavoidahle a.'cideiils."' See al.-o ••i'a:i;.;'er- of iia\ i;ialioii " \'aiue and eoiiteiits iinUiiow II '" ..... •• \'ic'iol|-i|l('S> "......... •• Waiered and fed "' ........ •• >\'eatlier. injiuies o 'ca^ioneil hy " .... Coiilliel of laws .......... SK( TION . 1!)2 l!i;! Ill I 1!).-. 1!IC. 1!)7 1!)S :>()1 202 20;{ 20-1 20.-. 2(i(; 207 20S 20!l 210 211 ClIAPrKK IX. Tin: gll-.STION OK CONSIHIMtATION AS AKl'KC riN(! C'ONTUAC'TS I.IMITINC MAUI MTV .\ eonsideralioii iii'ees>ary to support the eontraet What eonsideration siillleient ..... Caniers ol ])asseM<;'ers — l^iiiiiliii"' liability for iie<;;ligoiiee Duty of earlier t(t ltasseii;:;er ridiiiii' free I'owcr to evade liability in siieli ease .... \Vliat is a ji'raniitoiis i.assciijfer .... 'i'lie ease of a free pass — the Ainerieaii doetrine The doctrine in T.oni^iaiia and N'ew Jersey 'l"hf (h.cliine in New Yi.rk ...... Presiiniplion froni posse>;-ion of free pass Criminal liahililv 212 2i:? 214 215 2 Hi 217 21 S 21!> 220 221 ClIAPTKU X. l"(>\Vi;i;s AM. MAUIMTIKS OK A(iKNT- Power of a"ent of owner to contract with carrier r.| ^1 t ^. 22:? ■ T-i-'iiWSViAM** Xll TAULK or CONTEXTS. Wlio air witliiii lliU riili- (";inicr need mil cxiiiniiio iiiillKM-ity Xdticc til jiriiicipiil CiinicrV kiuiwiciliic of ii.aviilV wiiiit (if Mullioiitv I.ialiilily nf ajiciii u> piiin'iiKil Power of aji'i'iit of I'arricrlo \tt\\\ irracl Wiio art' \\ illiiii tliis rule Wlicii carriiT not hoiinil . . . • Acts of aji'i'iit wlii'ii not hindiii;;' Express, forwarding; and dis|iatcli eonipanics SKCTION. 224 225 22f; 227 22S 22!) 2:',n 2:51 2:i2 2:i;5 CH.Vl'lEK XI. CONNECTING CAKItlKIIS. (^^arriajio beyond carrier's route J'ower to eonlraet tni|mny v. Kf'n' mid Wcstcni Triinsporlatiim < '(ini|iany. — ruwcr to limit liahiiity — Kiilc in llliiiDis as to assciil 1(1 (•oiuiitioii- — Ivi^lil of iiisiiriT — INiwci' of carrier tit coiiiracl fur liciiclit of iiisiiraiici- — Iliiiinis stature roii- sinu'd. — I'uiieil Slates Distfiet Coiu'l. Kaslerii Distriet of Wisconsin .......... Iv'icliaiiis V. Ilaiiseii. — <'oiiimoii carriers hy water — I'.xceplloiis of •• pei'ilsof llie sea." •• leal. — ['idled Slates Circiiit Conn. Soulliern District of \e\v Y(n'l< .... ilail V. rennsylvania IJailroad < 'ompaiiy. — Status of carrier after ,-pecial coiiiraci — D»Ma>- — ■ Destriiclioii of ])roperty by moll — l';Nce|)tion from loss ••\Virile in t ran -it or depots." — I'nited Slates Circuit Court. Kastern District of I'cniisyl- vaiiia (iall V. Ailam- lOxpre-s Company. — K\press Company — •• i"or- wardcr" — Nenliu'enei — Condition in receipt as t"\aliit! of article — Dniyof shipper. — Snt reme ( 'onit of the Dis- Iric! of ( 'oliimhia ........ 15aiik of !\en".ucky \-. Adaii s lOxjiress Comiiany. — Express Com- pany — laaliility for losses caiir-ed by iieuri:;'ence of rail- road—Condition ii receipt limiting;' liability — I^videnceof as-en!. — liiited Si •, lis Circuit ( diirl. District of Kentiickv. Burke v. Sontlieasleiii I>;iil\vay ('ompany. — I'assenj;er tickets — ( olid it ions prinleil i hereon — Notice. — I^nnlish llii;li Court of .ill-lice. ( 'omnioii IMeas Division .... 2.).) 2r>(j 25!) 200 2(;i -/f A( I a: A'.i Al Al Al Al A I Al Al A: Al Al Al Al Al .VI A I A I .TAIUJ-: or TASKS crrKi). Nuiiu's ol i'!l;ii': iVIkm'c ri'iKii'U'il. I Wlicu I cidcd. A( ,v'in' si'"lioiis I I \(l;iiii> \'. New Orli'.Mis 'I'dwlioal C. il i,:!. i'l A(lalii> Hx. Co. \'- I-'c'M'.lrli'U \ . i iw'AwU' . V. liny lies . \. I.nci) \. Xdi'l; V. l.'ciiLriin . \ . Sll:irj)U'.--; V. Sli'il;uic'i'.- \-. \\'ils(ill A'AWW ilH. < 'ii. V. \\l;ci'!iM' .\;viif\v V. Tlic Cnlitra ! 'd.--;;! . Allii-:;',hi V. I'cmi .... Alillilu'i' V. (i'.-CM! \Vr~!M'!l i;.('l> AlM:iy~\ . (!ri';il Western 1". ( 'd Alili'ii y. i'c;ir-()ii .... Alrv;iiulrr v. (iivvm' . . . V. (;i'('iMif . . . V. 'roroiUd Ii. ( (t. All'iviJ V. Horn- AIN'ii V. M:icK;iv Aiun-rv.. I'll.' Aiin;-ic:m lOx. ( 'n. \ . f .c -cm . \. !'('rkiir~ v. Saiid-i v. Srlii'T . V. Si'i'o'id Xal l!:ink. Am: •■■.■•nn 'I'l'iiii-. ( '.i. v. .Mocirc .Villi;'- V. S.''Vi'ii- .... Aiii'i; >f I. ill' V. Datcr . . . Aii,i;'li' V. Mi^^N-lpjii H. <''>. . Aii'iiiyitmu- V. .lacksmi AiiiiiiHiy V. -K'.iia 1 ii~. ( 'd. .\iitojiii'i!a (.'.. 'i'li.' . . • . :.S Iml. l.!i> ■.I r.ii-!i. .".-^ i-> 111. .-:i 7 Uiisii. l.i'.i ■2 Diiv. :>r,-i :>!i Iii(l.-JI . 77 )'a. SI. .■.!(; Ill 111. \x\ . >-i 111. :!;'.;! . ;ii x. Y. c.k; :;;• cai. i-2:> 1 1 Tex. 2'.)(l i.'. <'. |{. (X. s :. K. lie S. ill):! i I .lur. (X. S.; ;5 (ir:<\-. :ii:: :; iiiii. It 7 Hill. .">:!.! .;.-> [-.('. (,». P.. .; ;T;;;:-k. i:!i; 1 S|.r:i.'i-'l". ■Jill S Urn.' :'.il .;i! 111. ::!;: . ■':■! ill. l.'.S . .".;■) I'a. St. 1 10 -..1 111. Ml) . . . I'^ijs ;i. i . . ]f<:\7 i. . . IS7I i;;. ii;5, . . 1S72 1:.'. lliJ. -I'i'K . . isc.ii ;n. 101. rjs. . .' |S7() '.:>. -y-^. . .i isdi; !;!. 7!). lie. i:!7. . .; 1S()7 :'.•'. I-"). . •' 1>;7.1 ■'•■K ill:!. . .'■ 1S7I ;;■-. f-^. i<>:;. loi. 1.;:;. i;s-'. I. . is7(; -J 10, . . is7:i •">:,. j;!i;. -jii. . .: 1m'>.") 7. Kk . .' IS.",') 7. ) ns2.i ISiM lb;. :i:;i!. . .: Ifnll ir.l. i ' I 1M55 4i;. :M7. -lis. ■ IS 12 1. .M. ! IS 1 1 55. i;(5. IS7. ; 187") 27. I 1822 !:.,. •.>':,. ! IS,-)-!- d-l', |S7!J '211. I.-,!. ISd'l 1(11. 1S(;7 2(»., l!^;. Isi;7 51). 1 :'.;'.. Ills. 2JS. 1S7I) :>s. 11)1. i(;i. I: 15:; .' 1871 5;i.2;i(). 212. 2!S. .1 iM5S :!7. 111. .■ IV IS i;^. .. IS7;! :is. ill I, .! |S.5<) 1240. Ti-ikc- .; lil.Ca-. IS5.1 ISO!) 25. 1 vMk {{'. S.) ;-;!:!.' ISIl!) 2!l. 5 1!.ii.5(il . . .: 1872 21). !ii5. is-l. 218. I I i;:i I'a.. St. ;!'il 5 A'licli. :;iis 1 Siran'rc i2s :•>•; II!. :;>i!) . . 1. I,)v a. '■■: . XVI TAllI-l-; OK CASKS (M'i'KI). N'anu'M of ciim'.'*, \y\wu Where ri'piiiicd, dc- ( idi'd. At wind s'( tidii.- ( ill d. Aroiitl V. I,i\('ri)i)ol ivc. Sleaiii | i ('(> II i.:iii>. i."i!i . . . isr-j :„•;. (i! J?il!'l>. IIS A-lnnoic v. I'ciiii. Sii',1111 'i\>\\- li.iat Cii -JS \. ,1, (I.,-\\i ISO. !m;I) I. .")|. 1,-(). Arclicr V. 'I'lic Ailrialic . . . '.i (en;. I,. .1. Li)l . \-7U IsO. Ati'liisdii Ac. li. Cii. V. \\a-li- 1)111 II. ." X;'!>. I! 7 ... i-'/!; Id. ."lO. .Uw'idil \. iJclin-.ii'c 'I'rr.'i.-'. Co. :i \'i'.iM- . >7 . . . l>:>!i .")'.». 7(i. Itl. .Vii>;ili V. .M:i!ir|ic>iiT c.r. J,'. Ci. II i::i:.;-. |,.iV Ivi. .'.ww. is"-.* 12!). V. >i;;!ir|icsier ivc. )!. ( II. 10 C. i!. i.M .' • . is.'.i) •_>.■). V. Maiii-lii'siiT iVi'. I!. ('i>. Ii;(^>. li. (;ili) . . . I'.il ■2'i. V. 'r.'ilk l;i 'l'e:<. Ill' . . . Ivi7 i';;. I.si). Ayciv V. Wi'MiTii (• 1 ! Diaichl. :,' . . . I'N'd -J;!. l(l.'». l.",(l liid ■j:.7. Ayiiiar V. .\s!:ir :! < i.w. i;i;:; . . . is-ji! .":,. l-j.',. ii;,-,. 'I Bahciirli V. [.akr .^.jiori' \c. 1{. ' i *'" in \. Y. ':i! . . . 1S7-J .•..-.. j;;i;. lM;i -'il li Mdv. ;•;■. Ilir Eii'-klioiL-i' V. Siicnl I .Mm I'll. I,;'. B.ikci' V. ]; I'lllvllll . . . :i lli''!i. >:>.(_'.) iliil. is.'it; M. Imi. j;;). .:, ■•III. .(.,;i V. 3i;i'liii;;m I'lic. If. Cii. . 1-2 111. V: Biildwiiiv. .Viiurieaii j;\|)i(-;-(''i. :;.; !ll. I'. 7 . V. ( 'iillill- :> ),•,•,!;. iiiS r>:'!l('niiij(' V. Xnrtji .■\!i->.iiiiri i;. <'<: ill .'i:i. i:;! E;i!.iiii;)ri'if.i-. R.Co. v. l!r:iM\- V. :'i.v,iii!i- ni'v :;,; ha!, ii'd . . V. !ialiil)iiiif I W. \a. S7 . . V. Srliiiiiia- I'lur J'.i .\M. Id-: . . -, , . V. Ske.'i> :; \V. \'a. ."i."i;; J<:iilllilori' iVc. S!('aii!!;(iai Co. v. ,'''■"" !i .-.; l>a.Si.77 . . ll;'ii'.'ri)ft v.MiTcii. !>is. 'l"r;!ii;..Co. 17 !ov. :'.■•!; > Bnnkof KcnUiickyv. Ail.Mii- I'.x- |M-|'..- <•■.. I (•.■ii(. ;„ ,1. I.ai V. .\ilaiiis !■;:,- i)n-.s (_'ii. •.)■:, r. s. 171 . . „ , , • I Ccn;. !.. .1. :■.-, I'-iiihvanl V. Bal-iiiiDiv I*;:,.. |;. r<,.::i \\,l. i;j7 Hi Biiliii;- V. IMoiiiis.; I5;invi; V. I!o.;'( rs . . . JJiiitir V. \\ hi (jiT liiitsoii V. Dmiavai! . . '. lillWrV V. Lclallll .... 15;i/iii \. .sicaiu-l,ij) Co. B*';iii V. (IriTii Bcal v. Soiiiii i'l'viiii U.Co." S:inili Devon JJ. Co. Bi'iuve V. ]^4K'sl. . . Bofk V. Kvaiis , . . Ill >'- I • ] - 7 Aid. Dec. ()7i) .7.M-i^s. L':'7 . i:i X. II. II . I >dii ,;,-:. i-^'-i 1.2;;:;. !■■;•"' !:;. !)i. ;iL'. m. vs ii'd. ,i''';v :;. iMi'' !•">. 12|i. I ■^•77 id. u::,- . 21 !. 1^7 1 2;^. 2:;:;. 2(;o. l'-7d 2!i.7it.;(i:i.Il:;.|7(; 2.;:;. 2:.;.. 257. 1.^7it I.". •'.•■' IM-^ 1... ;;l. '"■■'■ -■>-^-'.i^".i7i;.2ii • : 15:iii;. i\. Al.j. 2i . ls2l) ,-(1. :t|. Aiili. A(iin.:',.iS .:; W.all.Jr. 221t . ■ >i >!<'. 122 . ■ ■■■ U. i*: c. :!;;7 . • •' il. c': \. :.7:^ . • I Sjira;;!!,.. :!;.! i • Ki K:;.-i. 2!f . . ,;> (.'Midi'. 2(17 l«l>: 2;'. ]J.:,. Km. ''•■■'7 2:t. 12.1. 1 iO. Id."). 2!-.. 1 "-"!.■"' I !. 1!)!. 2';; I*- if ii>-. i><;d lis. I^'^'i! -J.i. Id,-,. 21.-). 2 IS. 2::d. 1.^12 s,. 2d. !);;. vs.). Bt !:i I In I'.r: 1:11 iin Mil iiy] !!ii I'.ri I in Hi-o| l!n lin m mm m TABLE OF CA.SES CITRD. XVll !:.iinf.-t of c'liHCs, III '■"< I inns iti'l. 1,-0. ». ■>. l.'.O. lliil. -.. 1(1."'. 11. -J!;!. •_•! I. II. U!!i. . '.IJ. ".i|. '.'S. 1.2 IS. ;;. -im. ;()iMi;;.i7(t i:iiM7i;.-:ii [.'). 1 io. !i;r>. i;. -is.i. ;.-! •>!:.. -MS. !. !):t. i:i:;. Bcckford V. ( 'nitwcU ]{('cl<)I1 Hi'lj;i'r V. DiiisiMDic lU'll V. licail . . BpIIoiiu. '1'Im' . . I'.clllll'tt V. Dllllnll V. I'ilviiw WhriT irpin'tcd. :> ('. i< 1'. 212 , r. Itiiwlc. 17!» , 10 .Mil. .•.il . , \. Y. IM . . . ! 15! ;i. I27 . . .!| Itni. :,\M . . . I0.\. 11. ISl . . .il Fill, lo;', \U')<^ V. N:iir;i,i;;ins('U Slciiinsliii) Co. ' ..■) Daly. ;;i)| . . BlMTV \. <'i>iii)i'i' !2S (J;!. ,■)!;'. . . Betl.« V. Fariiicrv" Loan Co. . .!_M Wis. >'() . . Bt'vcr V. 'rnmliii-iiii lAliW. (Hi Sliij). IlSfl. r>i;;ii'>l(l V. \\:ili'rliuiisc . . . .J! ,\i;iii. tS: Scl. -.I'u). Hinirlinm v. 1v(il;-.t> I(i W. A S. lO,'- Bin! V. Crniiiwi'll Birki'lt V. Wiilaii Biriu'V >. N'l'v Ymi.: i^ic. 'rci.Co. BisM'li V. Caiiij'lii'il V. New \>>vk ( 'ciii. K. 1 "ii. 1 Mo. M ... 2 B. .«;: AM. ;!:.(; . IS Mil. ;mi . . ;.i X. v. :(.-):{ 2.-) N. V. 112 . . V. New York ( 'cii; . |{. ( 'o. 2'.) Barb. (102 Biivcii V. liiiil-oii iMvn-K. Co. ii'iX.Y. |o:{ !lii(l.-oii l!i\('r U. Co. jilir.Miii. jSS Blossom V. Doilil i!.! N. Y. 201 (iril)in Blimi V. Soiiilicni I'lillinaii I'al- aci' ( 'ar < 'o BliiiiH'iitlial V. Braiiicnl . . . Bodciihaiii V. BciiikMI . . . . Bond V. 'IMic Cora !5ooii V. 'I'lic Bi'll'asi . . . . i;;x.Y. 500 . ;{ Cent. L. J. .■)!)! ;fs \'i. 102 ! I'lii'c. : (.'cut. L. J. .jS Adams !•;>;. Co. I Cent. L. J. :i8 La. .Vnn. 02;{ Bovk- V. .Mcl.anithlin . . . .'lI!. iS; ,1. 201 . Bradsiivi-i V. llcran i2 r.lalchf. 1 l(i riraiiiT v. Tlif .Mmoncr . . .1|S I.a. .\nn. 200 Breeze v. ('Mili'd States 'I',.]. Co.jlS N. Y. i;{2 . Brclim V. (Jivat Western J{. <'o.';M B;iil). 250 . Bicdnne v. Adams Hx. Co. . .125 Md. :{2S . . Briirji:s V. Vandefhill . , . .119 Barh. 222 . r.rind v. Dale !S C. A V. 207 . I'.rintnall v. Saraioi;-a i^c. Jt. Co. ;{2 Vt. 005 . . l?foad\ve|l V. Butler !l Xewb. 171 . ;o McLean. 20t; Brock V. Gale ill Fla. .52:! Bi-ooke V. IMckwlck |l Biiij;-. 218 Bfossean V. The Hudson . . .Ill La. Ami. 427 Wlicii (le- cltlcd. ls:!2 l,s:!5 1S07 IS72 ISIO 1S71 is:!<) 1S47 1S74 1S51» ISOO 1700 IKK! 1S4:{ 1S21 ISl!) 1802 is7;{ 1S(!2 ls.5i) |S07 ISOl 1,S70 1S.50 .\t wlmi sections clKiil. 9. 50. 10(1. 1.5!). l:;. 20. .55. ii:{, no. 0. .50. 20. i;;s, 207. .51. :U;. 210. 247, 218. •242. ;{7, 125,240. 2:1. (17, i;i7. 151, 1.52. 21. S.5. 50. .50. 105. 0. BW. 45. .55, l!)!t. 2S, .5,5,70.128,212. 2i:{, 217, 220. 220. Ir. )5. 102. 105, 107. )5. 100. 110. 1S7(! 1. ISOO |04. 101. 1817 |o. 71. i:!:5. 1S07 11. isdii !i:{. ISOO ,07. 102, no. 1S77 '20. 88. O;!. 101, il:!8,2;W. 240. 1870 ;8s. ii;i. 104, 116, 1:1S. 1,58. 2X\. 1871 55. 114. lUO, 157. 18;!4 212. I 1800 155, ];i5. 220. I 1S,58 '220. ' 1S20 215. : ISO! 245. ! 18.50 i4;{.105. I 1817 '45. 1840 20. ISO. 1800 4:i. 1S4, 248. 1871 .55. 1801 .245. 1800 :45. 102. ! 18.55 -242. I ls:{7 11,51. I 1800 '210. i 1854 120. 1(15. 108. j i 1874 :$0. 140. ! 1827 i2(). 2(1, 00. I 185(1 0. i H&SmfHHHm:* ■/I XVI!1 TAULK Ol" CASKS crrKi). Niinii' "I rifi'i. Wlicri' r('|)iirt('(l. I Wlii'ii Al wliiit si'C'tlons cited. Brown v. C'linnliMi iScf. |{. {'. Clll.Moll KiiMcrii l{. Cii ,'s;{ Pii. SI. ;iut in ciish. 1)7 I'** .")!». !I2, 'Jll, IS,");; k;. iih; Browiiiiiir V. L.m.r Isluiid |{. C().|2 Diilv. li; |4:{ l(.v. Ill iilis !I7 Mms .:.( l-il Brush V. S. A. iS: U. J{. Co. Bryan v. Mcni|iliis iVc. If. (Jo. . Bnokliintl V. .\(I:iMi-i Kx. ('('. . . Bu(!kni!i.slei' V. (irral Kastcrn R. Co Bnlkley V. Xaunikca^' Cotton C'o.jiM How. ;)S() isi; isr .:.. iL'l. III. 1S7.-) I-J. 1SII7 Id. nil. J2I. 2.!;i. I.. 'I'. (V. S.) 171 .j 1S7() I Hi. Nanmki'ii^' Steam (Jot- Ion Co 1 1 Cliff. ;i-J2 ';! K.-p. (17 . Biiller V. Fislie Bnrko v. Soiillieasteni 1{. Co Biiriiliani v. (irand 'riiiiik R. Co. (>;! Me. Jiis. Biirroiij'lis v. .Norwielutc. H. t-'o. HM) y\.\'<. 2(1 Burton v. NVilkinson Bntlor V. The Arrow . T'.iitier V. Jleaiie . Cailiff V. I)anv(Ms Caiifoi'iiia. 'I'he Camden Ac. II. Co. v. Baldanf.'ld I'm.' Si. (i V. Biirke . K! Wend. (Hi V. Forsvlh.dl I'a. Si. s| lis Vl. 1S(! . ,'(> .Mel.i'an. 170 .2 Camp. 11.') ,!l iVake. l.M !:> S, iw\ Camdon&o. Transp. Co v. Bell Cameron v. Kicli V. Kieh Ciiin]) V. ][aitfoid Ae. Steamboat Co Campbell v. M nap.'21 Wend.li.M . I Sti'olih. llis . ;.") Kieii. (S. C.) ;!.")2 linn. I!:!:; ors(f .14:? t Harp. I'lS 21 Wis. 'iS-l Candeo V. Pennsylvania J{. C CantlinK v. llaniiihal iSrc. H. Co.;.")4 .Mo. lis.' Cantti V. Bennett !;(!) 'iVx. :;(i;{ Capeliart v. Seaboard itc. J{. ( O. ti y.v.:w, , i; B ;en. ."iil-_'. Carey v. Atkii Carpne v. London Ac. 1?. (jo. ,;.-) q. li. 717 Carr v. Lancashire Ac. R. Co .7 Exch. 707 V. The Michigan Carson v. Harris . . Carter v. Peck . . Cash! 11 V. Wright Casco, The .... Cas.sllay v. Young Caton V. RnmiK'v Central Line v. Lowe Cbami)lon v. Bostwi(^k Chasca/riie . . . |7Railwav Cas. I2(i Ml 11(1 .i 1 (t. Glcene. ."ilO .1 S (I. JOli .,'(! E. A- 15. SIM . .jDavei^. jsi .4 B. Mon. 2(;:> . .'i;i Wenil.;!S7 . .;."iO (ia. ,V»li . .'IS Wend. 17.") . L. R. I .V(lni.4l(J |2;; L. T. (X. s.) II L. .1. Adm. 17 ISiiO (1. 21). lii."i. is.')!i 20. n;."). ISIKI 1(1,-,. 201. is7;i II. 100. 2;tii. isiis III. 110. 2:;i. 2:;o. 210. isk; 17. IS.V) ill. l.-,(). isiii ill). los. 1 7112 !i. 1S71 21». ISii. 207. ls.')| 20. ."):'. 100. i,-.;i. is:!.-, ir,. ISOl) ,-.!). 2:iO. 240. 214. is:i!) I.. v.. is:)i) (11. 211). IS ">2 01. 2111. 1S70 ;m. 1S2I ;{7. lSli7 24: 1S7;! ,-)ii. ls7;{ i;;!. 211, IS77 .■)(;. 120. 1S7;! 21). ISI. 24> IS 14 24.-.. is.-i2 10. 2.'). 70. 1S.\S ,-)(). ]1)N. 1S.-.4 I!). ISi). lv,-.(! ls.-)(i 210. 212. 211. s:is. Chase V. Washington Mm. Ins. (^o. 12 Barb. :,:\:> Chcvalller V. Straham . . . ''rex ]\; Clilcago &c. n. Co. V. Ackley . Dl C. s. 171') V. Monlford.liO 111. 17.-. . Is42 li;,-.. 200. isi:{ 12.111. ls;;.-> 1. ls7;i .-.. ;{7. 200. Is:i7 212. is7.-) i.'iii. ii;.-,. 2:)(; IS.-.2 2,- 1S47 0. V. P('oi)l( r.o 111. :!u,-) 1570 !. 1571 US. 2:10 IS70 240. !I0. !l. -J.'.il. lis. TAULK OF CASKS CITED. XIX XftlllCH of <'llHt'H, AVliorc rcportPd, 7 IJiiilwuv ('us. IS I'll. St'. '224 . l."t Minn. 270 — — I Cliicii^i) Af. n. <"(>. V. 'I'liompson 1!) 111. .'■)7S . Cliililsv. i.illU' .MiiMiiii K. Co, . I ('in. IS(i . ( iiiiipcni' 'i' y. I.iinrnsiiirc Scv. 11. Co . . . . . .7 Ifiiilw !iv ('liolllc.uix V. I. ('cell .... Clirislcnson v. Anicriciin Kxprcss C) Ciiiisiiiin V. St. Piiul i'lcc. R. Co. 'JO Minn. -Jl Cliiistic V. (iii;x;js . . . 2 Cinnp. 7'.l Cliiilil) V. KiMiaml . . .2(;l,ii\\ K'i'p. 102 Ciiicinniiti^c. K. Co. v. Marcn^.HS 111. 2iil . V. roMlins. l!M)|iio.st. 221 . V. Sprall . 2 Diiv. 1 . Citvof Ilartfoid.'riifV.'nicrMil. li nialclif. 2!I0 Ndrwiili. 'I'Ik' .... I Hen. 271 . 1 Hen. S!( . .S2I. Clark V. nurnwcll Clark V. l''axton V. St. I.I Clarke V. (iray 1 Hen. S!( . ;! IJiMi. ."•(;.">. ;i2 How. 272 ,..,..M. 2(! Wend. l."):{ V. St. I.onis cS:.'. J{. Co. .(II Mo. 110 •• ' ,1) East. .■)(;! j2 Sniilli. (122 |4 Ksp. 177 V. Hoclicslor I'if. U. Co. 1 1 N. Y. .")70 . (lay V. Willaii . . . . 1 II. I$1.2!)S ( 'la\ Ion V. Hunt . . . . 2 Camp. 17 CliVclanil l^t(•. K. Co. v. Cm-ran. IJiOliioSt. 1 . V. IVrkins 17 Midi. 2'.)(; , Clvdc V. (iravcr . . . . .')! I'a. St. 251 . Co'alrs V. I'nittMl States Ex. Co. !."> Mo. 2:;s Cotidcn V. Holton . . . 2 Camp. lOS Colli) V. .\l)liol . . . .11 I'ifk. 2S!l Cocliian V. Dinsnioif . . . -IK N. Y. 210 . ('oMln V. New York Cent. J{. Co. CI Hail). :570 . ('o--;;s V. HiMiiard. . , . 2 l.d. Havm. 00!) ;i Sniilirsl.d.Cas.lU.*) Cohen V. Soiilli Eastern K. Co. E. |{. 2 Ex. 1). 2."):5. V. Soiilliern Ex. Co . |."> (ia. 1 IN. Coif V. (ioodwin . . . . 10 Wend. 2.">1 . i< .11 t 'I'l... 1 i>i....i. i-ji Collenheiji'. The ( 'ollender v. E'lnsniore ( 'oilier V. \'alentine Cnjlins V. Bristol I've. I{. Co V. I{risloK<:e. U. Co. V. Hmiis V. Hnrns <'1 I IMaek. 170 (11 Ilarh. l.V. . .■).■» X. Y. 200 11 Mo. 200 I II. I's: N..-.17 . II Ex. 700 lid N. Y. (S. ('.) .-)1S (i:! N.Y.I. 1 Sprai^ue. .");iO. (i.lolni^. KJO 5 Am. Dee. 200 " 11 lien lie- lied. At wliiit MCftlons elU'il. It S,-|S 20. S71 .•)7. s.-.l 2.'>. S.-) 12. .^O. II.'.. 11(1, K!.-.. .S70 1. IS. 102. 1(15. 22;i. 221. 2;{:{. 2(10. s7;t IS. 121. S0!» 215. Sdl 2:5. 20. 21S. S(!5 20. S(j!» 57. 102. 21 S. 2:i5. 2;i(i. S(J5 212. S7:t MO. S70 20. S(I(i I 10. SdO 1(15.17(1. S51 7. 20. 1(15. 20 2 IS. 2.5(1. 257. SIIO l.,55. S77 .50. 218. 254. S(t5 25. 04. 0(1, 151 S.5d 14. 1(1. 220. 7S0 25. 04. Sll 00. lOS. SdO 57. 217. 21S. SdS 47.114. S(!7 50. 125. S70 .50. 242. SOO 01. suit 212. S72 .55. KIS. 2.52. S72 .55. 114. 70:$ :«. 4. 5. Ill, ]2d. 151. 220. S77 IS7. S72 240. s:!s 1. .55. SS. 00, 135. Sdl 14. S7:{ 55. 113, 11(1. 125. Idl. 242. S4S 50. 1(15. S5d 2;$7, 2:in. s.5d 2;io. S7:$ 55. 14S. S75 55. 14S. SdO 22. SIO 5. S70 50. 102, 170. 248. s:id 2.55. S,5d 20. 207. xx tahm; or casks rrrKi). XllllllS (if rllNCH, Where reimrled. ('iillillMill\V(>!lllll \. \'riiiiolll Ac. Ids M,'i>». 7 K.Ck ( '(mi|il;i. 'I'lic . . .1 S.iw \ . :u'< C.iiili'i V. (iiaiiil 'riiiiiK l{. To ..•.! \. v. :.(!() , ( 'i>ii;;t'i' \. IIihUoii i;i\ei' |{. ( 11. (1 hurl'. :i7."i ( 'uiiM'i'.-f V. Niiiwiili Ac. 'I'riiiis. Co :i:i rdiin. n'lii . CdoK V. (idiinliii . . .J Niiit ,V M. IH ( '(Mipcr V. iJci r\- . . . .:.'l (Jii. .'I'Jd Cojic V. ('(irdiivii . . .1 l.'awlc. •-•(i;; . Coiicliiriil V. New Kiij;;liiiMl M;i- liiie Ins. (' J Mclc. i;i-_' ('(islii l.'icii. 'I'lic . . . ;i Siiw V. ."(Its ( 'n\iii;;l(i|| \. Wilhlll . . .(in\\.||,"> CnWMII V. NelllKHII I*. Cii . . Ids .M;is-. 101 . Ciiwlcy \. I>iivi(!-s. :.'-J-J . Cm.'iliv V. Fiicii . . . . )•_' Cniiii. lid . V. (iriiiiiell <)li>i .!! .\. Y. ! lis) Criiiicli V. (ileal Wcslciii |{. ( o. 2 II. A \. Id! . riirlls V. JJdclic-icr Ac. |{. Co. |> X. Y. .'(ill Culls V. Hiiiiiicnl . . . 11! \i. ."idCi C/ccli v.iiciri Slcain .\av. Co . I,. |{, :i ( '. |*. | | ;t7 I,.. I. c. 1*. :t HI \V. K. Hid 17 L. T. (N. S.) -J 1(1 I When I lie- ,\l \\ hill .-erliuiiM leiiled. ; elleil. IS7I 1(1. IS77 2d. Kl.'i. is7:i :<:<, I7ii. -.M.".. -Md. is.-i7 1 1. Id. ls(i.-i :!|. -J Id. -J I'.', isid d. ls,-.7 -jd. ;17. !■-'."■. IS-.'! I I J.-,. IS 11 -j.-i.-i, Is7."i -Jd, 1(1.".. Isid -J."!, jsd. |s7l -iJ-*. I MIS IS. Id,-.. |s:i7 (1, ;td. ji-j. ii;j, l(l."i. I7ii. is.'.j •_'(). .■>ii, l-.Ci. ISCd -Jli!!. |.'-7l' Id. ."..'i. i;id. IM. 2.". -J. isi.';! I -J. (!•_>. Is7."> -J Id. ls;;s .-1, ;ii. III. i.vj. Id.'i. -Jdii. hi:.. is:i7 -jitd. is.Mi i.'i:i. Is7d (11. -Jld, -Jl'.'. |si;7 jdii. -Jis. Dafifreit V. Sliaw I)" Arc V. I.diiildii Ac. I{. Co I);irliii>i- V. Hosloii Ac. |{. Co Diiiicli V. Sillinian David and Caroline. 'I'lic Davidson v. (iiahain , ;! Md. -Jdl . I.. If. II. C. I'. II .Mien. i>d.-. . ■J l.ans. :{(ll ■ > Hlalchr. -Jdd . ■2 Oliid.si. |:{| . d Hill"-. 71(1 Davis V. (Jairelt V. Wcsicrn I'njon'rcl. Cd. I CinTlOO V- ^Villall . . . .'J.si.iiK.o;., Day v.J{ldley . . . . k; Vi. is Dcdckani V. Vosc . . . ;i lU.ilclil. 11 . Dclcwart' Ac. Towlx)!,! Co. v. . „ Starrs dd I'a.jSi. lid . """•""• I Hen!;!!.-. . Dcniiiie,- V. (irand 'rniiik K. Co. |s X. ||. .|.-,r. Denny v. New York Ccnt.J{. Co. |;{ (Jrav, ls| Dc ifolliscliild V. Kiiyal Mail Sleaiii I'ackcl Co. 7 Kx. 7:{ | 2\ L. .I.Kx. 271! ISlill .-,(). Kt.'i. IS7I IS7. Isd.'. J Id. ls7d I IS. Isd.-, :::i. is I. Is.Mi .-,7. 7d. Idd. i;!;{, •J Id, isild d. II. Is7d .-.7. 1S17 iiH. ISI I I -J. is.^iil ISI.2IS. 1S71 .Ml. Is7d -Jd. isl. '.'IS. ls(i!i jiKi. IS.^id Id. Is.Vj Ids. -Jill . i TAIIM', itV CAHi;,-* CITI'D. xxi NtllUIVi of C'llHOM, WIhti' i')>|iiti't<>il. 1 1 DiTWiii'i V. I.oiimci' . . .21 ( 'dmii. 'Jl."! DiMiuii Ac. |{. ('.). V. Adiiiiii . I."i Mich. |.">S ?m: •,; • V. l'';iiim'i-< Ilk-.Mt \Vi-, |-_"2 Dilililc V. Iliuwii . . . \-> (ia. Ji: v. Mmnaii . . .1 \V I-. Kli; . DiriM-ioi-iif Mii-i.il I!. ( 'ii. V. Cnl- liM-711. I,. Cm^. liil. i>iM>ii V. ( 'I'liiiiiiiiis Ac. i{.('i) . I r>i>s. i:i7 l»ii(l-iiii \ . (iniiiil 'riimk I'. ( '(( .7 ('aiinda I,. .1. (\ I S. ) •Jtllt . Dimlimil V. I »iicciiir-Ac. Midland |{. To 1,. i:.-JAp|>.<'a-.7!il' Dull' V. New .Id -cy Sicaiii Na\'. (' .' . . . I Saiidl'. l:itl Dorr V. New ,lcr>c\ Slciini Na\ . (' Down V. r'nnnonl I'.r.'vsiin V. Iliiiiic Drew v. I'cij l.iiic 'I'ran-^il ( 'o. Duff V. (ileal U r-icrii H. Co , Diinii V. I'lraiiiicr l>iin-cii V. Wade . Dii|ioiii \'. N'aiii'c . Dw ijiiil \ . |{rcw-icr II N. Y. IS,-) . H 'amp. 10 •-•7 W. |{. 7it:i . :tJ I., r. iN. S.) (Iitl :i Mo. (.\p|..) l!i.-) i;t Ir. I,. T. 10(». i;l l.a. Aim. I.Vj ;Mii. -is.-. . . M' How. k;-.' . I IMclx. ,-.(1 • . Ivi'_'!c V. Wliiic . . . .1(1 U'liart. .•)().') Kailc V. ('adimi< . . . . •.' Daly. -J:!"/ KaiiM'-l \. I'^xpic-- ( 'o . I Woods. .■)7it Ka-l 'I'cimcsscc U. Co. v. Moiii-; iioinciy . . • . .11 (;a. 27^ Kn-cc IJ. Co. V. NcNou.'l Ci.id. -.'72 Ac. K.Co. V. |{o- !;cr< IC llci-K. ; i;'. lOa-i 'rcimi's-('c Ac It. ( 'o. v. Whilllc 27 (Ja. .■);!."> I'M. I.MI Kdwiii. The . • . . .1 S|>raixn(', 177 KIKiii- V. Ito-loii Ac. n. Co . .2:1 \. Il.27ri KlUworlh V. Tarn Klli> V. Am. Tel. Co . V. 'riiriicr Kllioll V. IJo-eij Khnore v. Naii^a'iick K. Co. KiiiilN . The V. ( 'ariiey ICiiiina .lolmsuii. Tjie 10ii\pirc 'I'laii-:. ( 'o. V. Waiiwuila Oil Co. ii:t I'a. SI. I I Krii- I{. Co. V. L.ickwdod . .'2>i OliioSl. ;;.-iS V. Wilcox . . .:si III. 2;!;i . 21; Ala. 7:!:i i:; Allen. 22r, s T. n. .-Ml ID.Iohn-. I 2lt ( 'oiin. r)7 ."i Ka~. I! I"i I Spran'iK'. .-)27 Ac. Tran-. ( 'o. v. Daler Eliiel. Tlic . . . . .iSCenl. I,. .F. 2ii: .'.■) I5cn. I.-)l When I At ^.1,11, m.,.t|,„m cldfil. I '•'""'• IS.M III. nil. IS('.7 17. II I. |S(;,-| (17. 1112. |S.'.2 I. IM7:( 11. 2i». iii:>. IH.VS 2;is.2:»!t. isiis 2!». lir>. 1N70 27. IS77 I1!t. IS.M) ,-..•). 2211. 2(lll. l.s.-il Tm. 71. SO. 101 Ii:t. ISI I 2(1. !i:t. !M). 1S77 ."lO, I lis. IS7S 21(1. is.-.s lit. 111. is 10 lis. Hill. llis. 2!s. ls.->(l 2!». 1S22 il, 1(1. !il(. I.-/.I. IS II 7. 1S(17 l.-is. 1S7H ^20. 2!i. lit I. IS71 :!7. 212. IS(!0 (12. 210. 1571 2I1S. 210. IS.-.li 11.1(1. 1572 .■>.■). i:>o. |S.-.!l 111. 2is. 2.->:{. 1570 IS. ! IS.'i!) (1. 2:1. 111. Id.-). IS.-. I Ii. 2:10. I IS.-..-. 212. ! isiKi Id. ' ISOO IIS. ! isiii il. .->.->. 2.-.I1. IS.-,,-. 210. i isdi II, 102, 21s. j ISdi) 211. 1(1.-1. 2is. I ISd!) .-.1). 2 IS, IS7(i r)7. 17(1. 2 lit. 1S7(! :is. 110. loit. 2ii(i. 210. 1.S7!) KS, 101, lO.-., 12,-.. 1571 21). Km. Mill II I 111! '-^ XXII TAHI,!'; oi- CASKS CITKI). NlllllrH III CIIHCM, EVIIDH V. Kltl'lllllllH^ll V. Siiiilr Kviiii>\iii.' \r. n. r. K/fll \ . KMi;li-li Millir Kvcri'ii V. Siiiiilicrii !• I'lvi'lli'i;;!! V. Syhc-li'i Kwiirl \. SIrrci Kxiirt'-^( '(>. V. Aiiii«li V. It;i<'liiii V. IImi Inn V. IImiiics \. ( ':ilii\\( V. Cmjic'IIi V. <'i- . •U |{. < p. V. ]\. ( ■;i(l :ni nil '\'\ Ml V. |)i\ii|| , V. {•'fllijlirlv V. tillllll'il' V. llllilK'S V. Ililllis V. IlilVIH'S V. Ilimiiiciill V. KcclVr . v. I\iil||||/l> V. I,c«i'lll . V. I.n.'l. V, .MiPini V. Xcwliy . V. Xuck V. I'flkjllS V. Kciy.'iii V. Kii>ii . V. SiiikN . V. Scliicr . V. Sccdiid N'iil. V. .S||ill|)|css V. Sjl.'ii V. Sictiiiiicrs V. rninliiiii V. \Vils,.|l . V. Woiiiiuk Willie II'jmiiIimI. 11. .Ill Mil--, jl'i .2.M..VS. I Yi>tiii>;. JN liiil. 'iHi .11 I'nrt. :ill . I'lMl.llll? 'ii. . ii; (ill. ;iii:t .-• Hivv. I7S . J Itiiilcv, l.">7 . Alii.ll.'iO .■.'(ill. •J.-.l .■JSOliJ.i SI. Ill .:i(;(i;i. ."i:!'.' .■Ji w.tii. •j(;i . II Alii. IDI . II Alii. ics .HI I . S. .M'.t .:!s liiil. !.•.(» . !i Hii-li. 7s .(■.7 III. i;!7 . ..".I liiil. IJ7 . IJ III. S!) . ..".I .Mi~<. .-.(id ..■|!l I ml. •_»(!:( .s Willi. ;t 12 .:ttMII. :ir.> .7 Hii-h. I!i!) . .'f;i .MI-<. s±2 .|;((; (ill. (i:!."> I .'•J l»IIV. .'lO-J .l-J ill. l.-.s . . li!> lli.l. -JI . .-J I liiil. ii);i . .">."> l';l..S|. I 10 ..M III. I III . Hk. (ilM'ii. .Si.iiiii .77 I'll. SI. .".1(1 . :is (ill. .".l:i .(II III. |S| I .52 (ill. I l-J .SI III. ;i:{i) .:! Ilrisk. -IW, Mini ll.l Al » llll( Mi'i llllllH III' I'llll'll I'llnl. . IS72 II. Id. . isi:; n.'i. . |N(i7 ;i!i. . is;ts :i(i. Ki.'i. . ISIS ;i(i. 1 (;.•.. J is7-.> •-Ml. . ISII7 .">. . ls;ti 7. s. . is7;i ;i(i. 2-.'i. . IS72 .■.7. •-•I!>. . IS7:. .-.7. i;i:i. JIN . IS(I7 ;i7. . IS7I Jii. ijd. . Is7(t :tii. ijo. . IS7II •j(i. ;iii. '.i;i. IIMI. I.-P8. . |S7(1 •Jii. ii:;. .1 IS7I ;t!i. Mi,-.. . IS7J IJ. IK!. J 10. . Is7:{ •JIIC. J 10. is7:. nil. IJO. -Ji;!. Isciii :is. 101. ijs. iS77 111. IJO. is77 ;i!). Kii. |S(!!( J!». Isiii; nil. IS7(i IJ. J.".j. is(i;t lit. I.'.O. JIJ. ' ls(;7 1. ;i7. s(i. ii.->. j:;:t. Jiii. 1 1 J. 1 isc.d IJ. 7(1. 11(1. i:!7. 1 is(17 JO. lis. ISC, 7 ;t',i. IJO. |S(M ;t!). j;i(;. 1 ls(!7 .".!». i:!;!. i;is. J IS. IS7II lis. loi. Kii. IS7I .">'.(. J:i(i. JiJ. J IS. is7.". .V.I. lOJ. isds J 1(1. IS7I ;is. ss. ion. i;i:(, iits. Illl. is7l t7. Jill. ls7(i J 10. IS7() ;j. ij.".. (1; C (i; (1. (1; \f. i;. ( I'llllll V. I>llil;li|<'l|>lli:l ,Vr. |{. < I'liiil ;i\i'ii|iiirl Kdwlcs V. til. Wcicr. U. t '(>. I'laiiK \. .XiLiiif \'.\. < ii. I'lrrdulll. 'I'llf I'l'I'I'IIIMII \ . \i'\\ (oil I'lTllcll v. |{lltT;ilii iVc. |{. ('... l-'ricinl \ . WiiiiiU . I'l'iiliinlil \ . ( '•>ii|i|;iiiil . iiA< \. Il;iillii:lll (i.iillK'i' V. K.'iriicl . If. VI. .VJ . . ..v. I'li.si. :.:» . .!:il,;i. \iiii.i;!ii . 'ii. J l»i«ll«'\. 'J IS . . I{ir,'. |tl7 . ..:' ISUs. ."itij . \ ('ill. :'.i^ .IJM.I.'.t . . .V, II. A .1. ;;'.'! . .r>i liMiii. iT'.i . 7! III. l.-.s ;... ,-..•. M... M\-> 'i>. j;! I,, r. (N. s.) -j.M . liiJ Mil", -.'s;; , . (II .\. V. -js;! . . J (i;i. ;;i'.i . . Istl .Mtt. |S(17 ,V,i. 7(». IllJ, '212, •Ji;t. J IS. jsis L|;(. ii-.', -jti?. IsriM ,-,7. I 12. is:(s .-,. I -J. IN7I .'II. I Cm. IS.VI 'J I,-,. I.S.-.7 .M"i. isr. I.-.. -J.".!. |S7'.' .v.. ss. II).,. IM7I (.\s. KU. J 10. ISI17 11. nil. .!:i'.i. '•.!ll(l. I St 11 1 -JJ. 1S7I .v.. .Ml. IS 17 |.-.. ;;7. 7:;.s.'-, ir>i, •jtiti. isj,-, 11. IS7I i;;. is.-i7 ';!.■.. -Ji."!, -Jis. I IS77 J2I.-.. i IS7-J ;,V,i. -jis. I7s:) j;t. 1,(1. 7. i;!,Nr.. IS.VS (i;!. Id.-.. -Jtl;;. ' is.'iJ j-_M(l. •.•;i7. isdc, i:i. i;is. -.MS. I IS7I I.-.:'.. 111."., 1M).-J.I7. . I l>iMii'>. I.-. 11. -j;! |.;i. \mi. ll.Mt 1". 1 ||.,ii--i. Kill' . .:17 Mi'h. Ill . .11 I'hihi. .-.l.-i . I ■r.'cm |{.'|.. 17. . J I 'IVv. ii:(l . 7 I'IncIi. (I'.i'.i .IS |,;i. Aim. -'711 . i,. I!. :» !•. ('. V.ll •Jl I,. I". (N. S.) IVi 1 . :! K. I>. Siniili. JKl .' ls,-ii .v.. i-j:t. .1 l\r\i.>. Ills . .' istis ',-,.-). 7!t, l-.is. i:<«, It Aliii. .\|i|i. Off. ItKlj I ls7. 'JIS. . (1 (Ir.iii. I SI) . .] ISIl) I. (1. (!.■>, 111."). .J llliiu. 17(1 . .' IS-.M '2V2. .11 Allfii. -Jli:) . JS Ohlii SI. ,IIS . II I'll. s\.:<\:> . . 1 \\\i'\. ISS (i:ill:i,i;lifr v. (it. WcsUtii |{. ( "o. S Ir. ( '. I..(\. S.) :W( (lulliii V. i Ion Xf. K. ( 'ii. . •_' ( 'fill. I,. .1. -217 I,. i{. II) (,>. n. 2I-' (iMiiiifll V. l''onl . . . .."•!,. T. (N. S.) (1(11 (,). H. . . (Jani-oii V. Mf iii|iliis Ins. Co. .It) llnw . ;tl2 (Jail V. .\(laiiis K\. ( 'o. . .! (iarsidf v. l'io|nifioi-s . . I 'rfiin |{f|). ."iSl (iarlon v. Hii>.lol Ac. |{. Co. . I 15. A S. I IJ . (iass V. New Yolk iVf. I{. Co. . UU Ma-s. .'•JO (iciri. Mm. Ills. C(p. V. shfi-wood 1 1 How. :!."(i (icriiiaii V. ( 'liifa^ii Ac. |{. Co. ..IS Iowa. I'J7 (icniiaiiia l''irf Ins. Co. \. .Mciii- |ilii- ,Vf. I{. Co. . . .72 N. V.liO (ifiiiiaiiia Ins. C.i. v. 'riic l.aih \ I'ikf ".17 .\iii. l-aw Kc|».(ill iSilli 1. (iililion V. I'avntoii . . . ' IJurr. 221IS . .' 17til) 20. Sd. 1)8 istll Id, 1.V2. |S7(1 .v;, 21(1. '2 lit. ISIl) 2. :>'.>. 121. ISIl (II. i.-.i. IS7I 'll7. 1S7.") |!m1, ISl). I I ISdl [IIS. is.-iti 21). 12."). 11.:., 17ti. |S7!) •j.v.i. I7!t2 12.-). isdi US. 111). ISdS 212. IS.V2 I.".:'.. 2.V.. 1S7I Id. 10. 212. 1S7S ,■,.-.. ii Swi^-''Ei,W-. - '^^i3 XXIV T\lll,I'; Ol' CASIIS CIIKI). NnilU'S of I'MHI'S, \\ llCI IMltlcil. ^^ '"'" I \( Hlint SlTlillllH ,.i',l',„| lili'il. (iihlmiis V. U:i(lc . . . . S \ . .1. ; I.:i\\ i -J.'.,". . ISJi; ."i|. (;il)liii V. .McMiillcii . . . I.. 1.'. J ('. I'. lUli . ISiiS |-_'|i (Jihi'oii V. Am. Mnrli. I'ix.i'o. . I Mini. il^^T V. Culver . . . .17 W. ml. :t(i,"i (iill V. M;uiiiirs|rr Ac. I{. Co. . I,. 1.'. s (,>. !?. ISil . i;;:; |:!S. :.>!•_>. (;ill('ll V. Kllis . . . .11 III. ,7:1 . . . |s.,i, I. (Jillciiwulcr V. MM'li-nii Sc l>*. V,o '. IihI :;|() . (Jilniorc V. C.'iniiiiii . . . I '^. A .M. •„'7:i . (JisbDiini V. Iliiisi . . .1 SmIk. -JI!) (ilas-i V. (i(.M (Jodilillil V. Miillori . . . .'r.' I'.:irl). S7 (Joji-.uii: V. K!>ii-,i< Ac. K. Co. , |-J Wa-. !Ii; ( s. A u. .'.;!:! (!orli;im .Mnl'n'. Co. v, l'':ir"-o . I.'. Ilov. I'l-.'.H) (loslinjj \ . I liiiniiH (JoM V. Diii-iiioiT (Jininci' \ . .lollv (.'on'lil \. Ilill (iowiiy V. Lyon (.'iMic V. .\(l;iiii~ . (JiMllMlll V. |) a\is . . I ( '.iiiiji. I'll .III M.i.^. 1:. . Moll. :II7 . . ■>. iiill.c:.',! .:' I'.. Moil, iij . KMi M:i^-.. ."'II."! . ! oliio SI. :;(;:> I !S71 II. .Vi. I-JI. I I:.'. I •-'•.!; I. j isi;(i .•,.■,. ! >i. I (■>. -^-yj, ' is:;:! c-j. h;:,. ' l^^ii'i J I.".. Us I I I. ; Isjl" :i;i. ISds !7. -jjs. i 1^7.1 10. I MIS IS. is7i' n;. ;i i. isid :i|. III. 1:;;!. I -I-! js. :;7. :,:, j-.'ii. IMS !:'. ISO. isiis ;i;. hij. los. 1 1;;. i:;:i. ..'."(7. '-'I'O. IS.". I .■,7. 70. lii;i. i:;;!. :! I.'. IS77 -'17. JIS. (Jniiiil 'rriml» li. Co. \ . Sl<'\cii • . '" I ' . > , i i.i.". 1; I iMii. !.. ,1. -jor (i'lnc- V. 'ri<'kiior . . . Ii \. !|. ,"„;7 (Jr;iy v. Ihirip.T . . . .1 .si,,i\. .-.V I \ . .iMck^on .... ,| \ . I '. |i (iKMt UCsici-ii i;. Co. V. IJIowcr. JO w. 1;. 771; '. [ V. ( 'r Ii. :; \i. a \. \y,', V. (;lr;,i:|,.fJi \\ . );. 7.) •-'- I.. T. (X. S.) i.ij V. ji.iwlviii- |s Mii'ii. r_'7 . . lvi;;i ii; •>•; i- ,■.- (.'TMl NonliciiilM',,. V. Moivilli' 7 i;:ill\\:!v Cj~. <;o . |s,-,> ■'-,■■■ " \.Shr|.lii.|(| I I i;ii";. Law ,v ;:,;! is:; I :,:!. isii 11;:. l'-7l .v:. Jll. -Jio. Is7_' I I. HI. !s,"i;! :':','!, 1-7;! •->... •1'. .1.. . Is,", 2 -jii. . I si; I 11:1. 0ic<.-,,"y V. West Mi,nai;,| l.'.C,,..! II. ,\ ('..,l|l I -J W. W .".-..s ! • "■'or. , N. S.) -Jlit n,. ., •'•■ '■■•'• i:\eii.cii. i">r. cl^v'r"""" 'V"'"''" • ■■'''■^^^'■■■^' . . isr>: ;!o. 1711. '-,0. Ollll \. (...Jlelal L'oli .Siivw Co. L. IL ) C. {•. imo . |s,;r, I.!;.. I,-,:;, j;;:, 1-' .liii. ( \. s.i 7l>7 ;■■' I.. .1.. c. r. :!•; I I W. iL,s:i;! I I 'I'MU,!", OK (' \si:s cn'Ki). \xv I Nliliir> 111 CMMi"^, (ilill V. < JciMMIll ll'oll SciC'N « 'ii. (Jiiillilimu' \-.ll:iml>ui;;\c.rk'l < '< ll:;iUi'l| V. Itiwimi iVc. If. Co. IImIi' V. New .Irr-fv Slciuii Na\ Co. ..... Il:ill V. Clicni'V . V. \"illi I'lii-lcrn If. ( 'o. V. l'i'Mli-.\ l\;nii:i li. ( 'o. V. i;;iilro;nl Co . \. h't'lilro ... Ilillilllioiiil \ . Mr( hill' ll:iliil V. Hmniii'^ Ihinnony \. liiiiv.liiiiii V. i!in!'haiii . ll:iniiii:loii \ . I,\ |i'^ V. McShuiic ll.'.ni- V. Noiihciii iVc. i;. Co l':icU\\Mo(| K'.nid . ll:ini-oll \ . I.oiuloli iVc. i;. ( 'o lliirl V. Alliii \ . i;('li--rl:Mr ,Vi'. K. ( d V. Wc-K'ni i;. ( o ll:(i\\ \. I'iKc Ihl^hiin \ . Adiiiii- \\\. ( 'o . Il.i-~liiii;s \ . l'c|i|M I- I l.lIrliiMI V. Till' < oliipKilili- c ll:i\vkili- \ . ( ;ir;ii Wi'-icin I,'. ( 'o ll;l\ s \ . Kr|lll('ll\ V. Mill;ir ■ . Ilay.'s V. WcIN . I It'iii'iiiMU \ . \\ I'sicni iv. ( 'o ll:i/:ir(l \ . New I'. Mi;. Mill. ill-. « 'o lll'iMl'IIIMII \ . (il'Mllll 'rnilllt K. ( 1) llciidrii'l- - \ . Till' Mdlliiii^' S;:ir I IciKlcr-oii \ . Mi'\ I'll-oll llcl.lic. Thr llclllil.'Ui \. |loll:w|:iv . II.'I>1.\ V. M.'MI- . ' . Ilcivliclcl \. Ailaiii^ llililcr \ . M(( 'ari iicy • llidr \ . l'ro|iiii'loi- lli^■^■ill■- \. Ni'W <>i!i:iii'- At'. It ci. liill Mnlu-. Co. \. I'.oioii Ac. i; Co. ..... Ilill \ . SlIIV^i'Oli . \ Sy raellsr S r. |». ( d. \ . Syraciix' A r. |{. ( 'o. liililoli \ . I tililiiii . \\ lllTC l'l'|llll'll'll. ] I,. i{. ;! c. I'. i7ii ;t7 I.. .1.. c. r. -JO.-, Ii; W. Iv. 7'.r. IS I.. T. , .N. S. I is."> I.! \. 'i'. l!|-J . .:.< X. 11. :;:ii> . I."i ( on II. ."':i'.i :;i; N. II. -.n; I.. K. !n n. W. !:;; . i:; Wall. :;r,7 ;! M.'ir. ( K\ .) :,\ I I'.av. Ml ' I \M'ia;l. -Mil . I OiiiT. :;ii'.i UN. V.'.i'.i ■1 Noll. iV M. ss ■1 Walls, ii;; . •.!(• N. V. -.IH:! . II Tamil . "Ji'i I I \. ll.J.V.l ■1 I',. A S. 1:! ■J Walls. II.". s N. N . ;;: r.i Mclr. '.l',> N. C. Tcriii i;i'|). S-J. 7 Am. I>i'c. i;i»s i; Mo-w. •.!;;.■". il I'ic'U II \-2 I,a. Ann. 7^:! 17 Mirh.:.7 1! I "a. Sl.:!7.-; . 77 I 'a. SI. -Jits ..;: cal. l:-:, i;i N. V. !i s !•.•;. .-..".7 K! I low. !'r. |:;il is I.:'. Ann. :i:.;! I., i;. :>. S. h. A l>i\ 170 i;. A I., ijii ! Wiiojw . IWl.") . .". r.. \ < '. ."lOi . Ilijlarl). .'177 :;i Ala. .Mil I i';-n. :i(; . ■-'s I,;,. Ami. i:i;t l(i| Ma->. l-j;{ . 2s Mo. ;!-.!.". s linn. -jIIii; 7;'. \. Y. ;;.M •J i). 15. r>iii ".'^"'" \l Ulllll sccllnll- ,,|,|',„| •■iI'Ml. ! lsi;.s HI.") is7n .-,-.. 1 IS. ]M. \'X,. lsr.7 ."'. |s|;; .-., :ii. IiH. 17(1. L'll. ls.-,7 ."., (1, l;!. is7."> --il i.:Ji(!,-^:ii!.;ii;i. ISM) -.'.-.s. IS7I :'..i:>:k |si;ii ;(. ! I, Id. I71MI 111. I;!. I Hi. isdd lis. ls;i:! :i. .".:). ls,-.;i I'l-.!. IS 17 ;.'. jn.".. |sl7 .".II. 111.'.. isdii I. :::;;i. ls;!i 1 1. Id. 1S.-.7 1:!. I(i."i. I Its. isds s:,. 17. 1:17. I ".It. IS.-., isd! .■.. 7, .■>'.'. Km, -.M't. IS7I .".',1. -.'AS. I si;;! -ji). I.s."..". ±>.t). is:ii I.-.;;, isdd .".;.. Isdd 11.!. Is7."i litd. jdl. i Isdii IS I. J IS. j.sds -..'(I. is'jd 11:,. IS.-.,". .".,".. :i:!:!. l,s.")S :;o. ir,,",. I7'.t.i JI. ls7d 1:;. 7(1, 217. Ji'.t. IS7(> ■2\:i. is.-.'.i ."■o. Id.-., -J IS. l;^7(i .■..'.. III. IS7S ,-..., III. !,s|:2 !-J!t. X.VVI TAllLE OF CASES CITED. Xnmi's of oiises. Whore reported. When tie- eitled. At wliiit scetions cited. liiiK-klev V. Xow York ('ciitriil IM' liiiR'klcv V. Xcw York Ceiitriil J{. Co. il.i!i(ll('y V. Northern Tniiis. Co. Home V. Gt. Wosteni R. Co. II h: 111:111 V. ^Vl"st Jlidhiiul R. Co. V. We*tMi(llaii(lR.Co. Ilolford V. Adams Ilolliiifjworlli V. IJrodrk'k . lIoULster v. Nowieii Mood V. Now York I'Ce. K. < 'o. . Jlooper V. Cliic!i,<:;o S:r. 11. Co. V. Ratlilioiic V. Wells . Hopkins V. Westcoit Hubbard v. Hanideii Kx. Co. .'ID iJ. 1.2.">1 •{ Thdiiiii. it C. -JSl .-)(! X. Y. Ii".* . II.-. Mass. 101 . ;)7L. S. Kep. (N. S. 1S!I .-) B. li S. 17:5 . Kl.Iiir. X. S. ()7;{ !;{ L. .1. (,). 15. -2^ \-2\V. K. \-2:)l i:! w. K. 7:>s . (! H. i': S. .-.(lU 2 Diier. 471 r Ad. c*;: K. to . I'.i Wend. -.ilU . 22 Ciiiiii. r.02 . •27 Wis. SI .jTaii. I)e<'. .-.ll) . .127 Cal. 11 .'0 Biacchr. (!! . Iliiinplir<'ys v. IJeed Hiinnewt'il v. 'labor Hunt V. Morris V. 'i'lie t/Ievelaild Htinter v. I'otrs . Iliiiitiiigtoii V. Dinsiiiore Huntress. The llvde V. Trent. Xav. Co. .'i Wliai-t. i;!.") . .i2 Spra;;iie. 1 . 1! Mart. (17i'' .iii Mi'i.eaii. 70 . .1 Camp. 211:! .1; 'i'li(iiiii>. I'c C. l!t.") li lliili.OO .Daveis. S2 . .") 'reriu I!ep. :5.S1J Illinois Cent. J{. Co. v. Adams .12 111. 171 . V. Copelaiid'21 lll.;!;!2 . V. Cowles .::i2 111. 110 . V. Franlvcn- ber^- .':.( lll.SS. . V. Hall .':>S 111. lO!) . V. .Idlinson .'SI III. ;er .'\is \U.:\:,i . Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Mii'iidv .21 Ind. IS . Indianapolisiie. R. Co. V. Allt'ii . :n Ind. :;i)I V. lleav<'r 11 Inil. I!):{ V. lox .20 Ind. aoo V.l{emiiiv i:i Ind. .MS V. .Strain SI III..-iO| . Inhabitants V. Ilall . . . (II .Me. .■)17 lii^i'alls V. liroiikes . . !i:d. Sel. Cms. 101 Invincible. The . . . .!l l.i.wcll. -JJ,-. . Irish V. .Milwaukee i'i:e. R. Co. . 10 Minn. :!70 . Isaliella. The . . . .'s B,ii. piO 1/ett V. .Mountain . . , . | Kn^i. ;)7l 1.S74 i.".. ii:i. 2;i(;. 244. 1874 55. Ii:i. 2H0. 244. 10. 40. 102. lOS, 14.->. 211. 1S77 1802 ISO.-) 148. !I0. :)(>. i <>:) .V). s;). 200. I8;i7 ft. ISliS i,:{.2o. 2.'). .->;{. :>:, Oil. 101. i;i.'.. ls.-.;( 2:'.:>. 210. 1S70 (;7. I2.'>. is.-.s 21). 2 18. ISOl :!2, l.-)0. 2;;;{. 200 IsOS 20, 8S. I.->8. 2.-.7. 1S72 1:5. (;o. 21s. 1S4I .■)0. 10.-,, 2.-.I. IS.-,) 20. 1 84. 2 IS. ISl!) i:t. IS.Vi 20. 21.'). 21s. Is7.-. 102. ISIO I7:i:! 22. .r2.->. 1 2.-). 1807 :is. 128, 200. ISOO 240. lso:> 240. 1S7() ;i8. IV7. 210. 2:iO. 2:{8, 1871 2;i. 1801 210, 1S70 ;is. 104. IS,-.7 :;s. 12s. 2.-..-.. ISO.-, ;is. 2i.->. 21s. 18(;.-, :;8. ii',-,. lso;i :i'.i. 12s:. l.-,0. 215. lso;t :io. 12s. i;i7, 18.5. is7:i ;;o. 217. Is'OS .i'.i. 107. |s,-,;» M. li:i. 12s. 2.54. 1870 li^. 2;!7. Is7:i J2I0. 1SI5 111. ISOS i.);). 1S4. 21s, Is72 :240. |s75 120. 105, 105. 180;i I25. 04. 150. TABLE OF CASES CITED. XXVll Nmiiesof casi'M. AV'licrc reported. I When ^t ,yi,„f seetions I cided. ' '•"'=''• Jacobus V. St. Piiiil &c. n. Co. 20 Miim. 12.") . 1 (Vnt. h..l.l2.) .Icffersonvillc i^ic. H. Co. v. Wor- laiiil ..... .:.".() !ii(l. :VM Jciiiiisoii V. < 'iiiikIcii i^c. I{. ( '(). I Am. L. !{('<;•. 2l{r) JoliiisoM V. I-'iiar . . . .1 Veiii'. IS V. New York ('('lit. K. Co,;!:; N.Y.iilO . V. New York Cent. l{.<'o:iI Harl). I'.Hi \ . IJeilsoii . . .'4 .Moore. '-10 I 15. \ n. 151 .loncs V. I'itelier . . . . :i St. i*>: I', ll!.") . V. Sllll- V. \'ooiliee> V.Walker . .fiid-oii V. (ireal Western 15. Ci. .Iiiiiiata I'atoii, 'I'lie Ivalliiiaii V. r. S. I'^x. < 'o. Kansas iV.*'. 1{. Co. \. Nieliols I'ac. I{. Co. V. I{e\ Holds !sa\' V. Wheeler Keeiie v. 'I'lie Wlii-ller Keenev v. (iraiid 'rrniik I*. ( 'o. Keitli V. Amende . Kelliam \. 'I'lie Ken-^iiiiitoii . Ki'iiiher V. Soiitlieni Kx. < 'o. Keinlde \ . I, 111! Kendall \ . liondon R. ( 'o. . Kelirji;- V. lOirji'le-ton Kent V. Midland |{. Co. Keokuk, The Ken- V. The Norman V. Willan Ketehnm \. Am. I'ls. ( 'o. Kiinliall v. Uiillaiid i<:e. K. Co. Kin;;' \. Sliephe.d V. 'Voodhride-e . Kiniie.N' V. ( 'eiilral l{. ( 'o. V. Central |{. Co. Kirhy v. Adams V.\. ( 'o. Kirkland v. Uinsmore . V. Dinsmore . Kirk V. l'"olsoin Klanlicr v. Am. Kx. < 'o. Kiiell V. r. S. ^e. Steaiiisliip ( Knowles V. I>al)i!ev Kiiowltoii V. I'j'ie i\k;e. iJ. ( 'o. !i I'ort. -Jlid 111 Ohio. 1 l.'i .". Veru-. 127 C Alli'ii. IS.-) I Hi-s. 1.-) . . ;'. Ka<. 2(l.-> . !i Ka^. 2:ir) .IS Kas. (12;i .':ui I,. .I.e. 1'. isii :l,. If. 2 c. 1'. ;{(i2 ll.-) W. K. -I!).-) Ik; l. t. (N. s.) ci; :2 Sawv. :ilS .-.!• Barb. KM !| Hu-li. I.M 21 i.a. .\nii. 100 '•>•> I.a. Ann. \:>S :\ MeI.ean. 272 . I., u. 7 Kx. :{7:{ Alevn. '.y.\ . ,!,. |{. I0(,». H. 1 ,1 IJi-. .V2-J 1 Xewb. .■)2.-) Holt. (Ii:> . i(i M. A S. l.-)0 ,2 Si ark. ."i:; . .■)2 Mo. ;!1)0 .'2(;Vt.2l7 .l;tStorv.:illi .:m vt. :.(;.■> . .'■.w \. .1. (Kaw) r)i;! .;i2 \. J. (Law) ■!07 .2 Mo. (Ajip.) ltd!) i:; Cent. K. .1. -Hi.'i .'l Tliomp. .'i; C. :U)4 .(12 \. Y. 171 . . 2:! I.n. Ann. .^si . 21 Wis. 21 'o. ;i;i N. V. (Siipr. ct. 12.! . 10.-. Mass. i;i7 . . 10 oiiio St. 2(;o 187:! 4S. 70. 218. 187.") :io. 2.-) I. is.-)(; 210. is:!:i (;2. Kir). ISi;.-) 11..-)-). 142. 1N.-.7 n. .-).->. 142. I SKI k;.-.. is:!:i ;!(!, icm. is;ii) 21. IS 10 i..-,7. 1S27 (12. 24S. isi;:; 4(i.ss.'.is. i:v,!. 244 1S.-.2 2!l. It;.-). 248. . iSd,-) II. SS. 248. . 1S72 1(1.11. . IS71 14. Id, 41.24S. . 18(17 l(l.->. IS7:! 14!). IS70 :<:>. I ;!.-). 148. isdd 12. ISO. IS72 4:i. 248. 1S70 i:'-. !!.-). 112. 184:$ ii:i. 1872 Id. 20. 8(;. 1S74 2;id. 2:{7. Isdd 2!l. Id.-). 248. is.-).-) 211. 24.-). 1S17 2(1. 111). 100. i;?:i. 1S7:! .-.0. 248. 18.-) I k;, (;4. 101. 181) 7.8.2'.).!.-.:;. 2 IS. 2.-)(;. isdi (;4. ik;. ISO!) ,-)4. 2111. 18d8 .-.4. 70. 210. 1870 r.o. i:{:{. 212. Kj-), 1874 .-).-). 102. is;.-, .-..-), 102. 11:;. 1871 24S , I8(;(i 4. ). 22 IS7I .-..-). 1 ;!.■). 11/7. 1870 4(1. ISdl) ill. 21s. ^T7pm^^ms!ms^^^ms«-': XXVIII TAULE OK CASES CITED. XllUlPS of PIISPS, Wlii'iT rpportod. WliPii I At wlmtscHioiis I'illCll. cited. !l Kyle V. Laurons 11. Ci>. louicii. (s. 'A) :iS2 . isr.!) 212 L:u'l<;i\vaiiii:iAi'. It. t'o. v.Clu'iic- with .VJr'a.St.:?S2 Liulv I'ikc. The .... •-'• nis>. 1 H L:iiiii,^v. ('(.hlor . • • • '^ !'"• ^^t- '''•' Laki^ V. Ilru-il . • • . ;iS Conn. .■>:!(! Lake SIkhc iS:c. R. (.'i>. v. (Jrccii- wnod 7SI l>a. Sr.:i7;i V. r.'ikinsj:. Mi.'h. ;!2!l Lamb v. Caniilcn itc. li. Co. . W N- V. 271 V. Camden &c. T?. Co. V. Cannlen Ac. K. Co. V. Paikman f/imont V. \ainiljur;,a'r v. ^Ve^tcotl Little V. Boston t'\:c R Co . V. Semple . Live Yankee. 'I'lie. Liver Alkali Co v. .htjinson. 2I)alv. IM IDaly. IM! I Sprau'ue. 'M'.\ . !l llcisk. .")S .■)(! Mo. ;{!i; I l):dv. lit" .". 15. \ C. .■)!7 . 1:. M. c>c W. 710 S Kx. 1(11! 1(1 .Fur. 1021 22 L.. I. ::x.:! ;!lt ( 'onn. It;! Wri-ht. l!)!! . 17 llow. 100 . II Wall. 007 . If) Kas. :!:!;{ L. I{. SC. I'. SS 2S How. Pr. 27.") 1:; Harl). 102 72N.C. 2;!i; . 1 StMlk. iMi IS Pa. St. 40 . I !)alv. :!0(;. I., li.':! c. P. 17 12 Mo. SS II Allen. liOO . I Price. Kx. 2S0. OHow. :ill 17 La Ann. :!02. 21) La Ann. 177. IS. c. :i:!l. 1; Coldw. liOS . IS La Ann. I . "1 H. iV; X. SI 17 . L. n. :{ (}. 15. I). 10 10 Harl.. 2s:{ . oi; Mr. 2:{!i s Mo. ii!) . I Di'adv. 120 . 20 W. P. (•>;!;! L. li. 7 Kx. 2117 ISOii -vtO. IStlO 2!). lll.">. 2tS. ISJS .V.I. Kill. 1571 ;il. 102, 1S7.") jjlO. 1572 M. 1(1. !()!». 1S71 ."),•). ilili. 170. 2;!(1. I 240. 21:!. 211. 24S. iSllil ,-,.-.. 170. 21:;. ls7:i .v.. ls,-)7 20. 21s. 1571 I. 1572 :>i). |s7:i .').*>. 2.")2. IS2I1 212. I SKI 111.".. 1S,".2 0. 1(1,".. .' isiiii ;5|. SS. !)(i. 102. j 11(1. 1,")-). 24s. .1 is:t:5 ill. -.7. 102. .' is.-)i 2;i. 211. 1(1.".. . 1S71 2il. 171. . 1S7(; 41. . IS72 207. . ISIli 1(1. .").".. 1S7.-. .">(!. ISKl 2.">. 211. .S.".. OS is.-.l 1. ISIIH 11. ls(i7 202. |s(;7- ."lO. I.-.O. isd.-, 1. isl,-, '.111. 1S4S 2.'.H. ISO.") i:i. 02. IS71 i;i. 1711. 1S72 HI. 2:i2. 21:'.. Isd'.i :>. 1:!. isiir. 415. 111.-.. ISOd lis. 1S77 IIS. |S(17 .-..".. 107. 1S7(1 11. 02. lid. isi:{ ..O. I'.IS. ISIIS 211. 247. 1S72 151. TABLE OF CASE.S CITED. XXIX N'aiiics of cases. Wlicn ri!i)(>il('(l. Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson . L, |{. !) Ex. :i:!S. I^lovd \ . CJcncral Iron Screw <.'o. !! II. A- C 2S1 . JO.Iiir. (\. S.) (101 :i:! !,..(. K\. ■>(','.) \-2 W. II. ,SSJ 1(1 i.. T. (X.S.) .-)S(i I.lovd V. Wiilerfonl Ac K. Co . \T> Ir. ( '. ].. (X. S.) H7 . Lock Co. V. Kailroad . . . IS N. II. :i:is . Lonilon A Northwestern ]l. Co. V. Dinihani . . . . is C. 15. >vj(; I,on<^ V. New York ('ent. K. (..'<• . ">(l N. Y. "(! I.ooniis V. I'ear>on . . . Il.irp. 170 . I.unl V. Miilland U. Co . . I.. K. 'J C. 1'. ::;!:) I.onisville \c. J{. Co. V. lirown- lee '.I Cent. L. .1. 1(11 V. Iled^-er . '.I Hiisji. (;i."> V. <'ani|.ljell ; Il<'i'ix. •_'.".;5 . I.ov rin<: V. Muck Mt. Coal Co .M Ta. SI. :i!)l . I.owe V. Hoolh . . . . i;{ Price. :f:il» . Lowell Wire l''ence < o. v. Sar- j;eni S Allen, isi) I,nce-co Oil Co. V. I'enn. I!. Co . 'J I'i'!-. 177 Lnpe V. .Ml antic iVc J{. Co. . :i Mo. (App.j 77 Lvon V. MelU . . . . ,") Last. US. Lviio V. Ncwholil . . . .!» Kxch.:i(i-i Macklin v. New .Jersev Steam- 7 Aldi. I'r. (N. S.) Iioal ( o. V. Waterlionse Macauie\ V. I''urness J{. (.'o .Madan v. Sherard. V. Slierard. Magfiie llaiinnond. The Mairhee v. Camden Ac. |{. Co Ma,i;iun v. Dinsinore . V. Diusniorc . V. I )in>niore . V. I)in>niore . V. Din-niorc . \ . I )ln-inore . Mahon v. 'I'lie ( )live Hrancii Malone v. Kosion Ac. J{. Co Malpas V. London Ac. K. Co .Manhattan Oil Co. v. Camdei Ac. |{. Co. Manliatian (HI Co. v. < 'amden A K. « ■2 M.A 1'. HI!) ■2\ W. I{. 1 10 . ■27 L. T. N.S. IS.-) 10. 1. A s. :\:>:) . 7:5 N. v. liliO . !• Wall, i:!.-) ir. N. V. .Ml . ^V'" ' At wliat sections cidcd. 1 ^21^^ 1S74 inL ISI.-) 1 ().-). is(;2 nil. isc.ii 2:!s. -J 10. is.-c, •_>7. 1S7-J .'..-). n;?. 110. IS-J4 !». 1.-(17 lis. \2'.). IS7!I \2. is7;i i(i. i-j. 1:17. liiii. 1S7:2 -'WT. 210. lsi!7 I. 1S2I 11. •-'.-). ISO I i.2;!;i. is7i; .-.(). -Jis, IXII !i. 2r)0. IS.VI 24.-). IStiN ."..-). Hi), 121. 1S2S !)2. i:};i. 2;}2. 1S72 2.-). 1S77 .->•-). 107. 1S7S .-),-). 107. ISti',) 1: .-)H N. Y. (;r)2 . 70 N. Y. 410 . (12 N. Y. :!.■) :!.!. A s. (X. V.) 1S2 IS7;; .'):>. C. .F. A S. (N. Y.) 2S4 I'<7I r,:,. 24S. 1S71 II. ■"). 102, i;ii). i.-|7. 171. 211. I 2:i(j.24;5. 214. 1S7:{ .-).-). 1S77 ;-).-). 1S7.-) 20. .-),-). S8. iO X. Y. 1(!S IS La. Ann. lo7 12 Crav. ;tss . L. K'. i C. V. :VM', IM X. Y. l'.)7 . .') Alil). (X. S. 2S1I 1S74 150. istiti 4:1. k;.-). US.-)!) 40. iH). lOli. ISlid II. J. isr;! .-,-). 24;i. I SOS :>'). ^JfiSfVivr. ^fmrngm XXX TABLE OF CASES CITED. Xiinies of cases. WlicTo reported. When I ^Yt what sections elded. '•"«■> . . Ill \Vi~. ;!;!() . I,, i;. ;i Kk. !i . . 7 < 'ranch. l'(I . I Stark. 72 4 ('.■inip. L''.'."t . I Ohio. :i:tl . 1 Ncwl). Km . .;! H. iV: ('. (;oi . 1 ('. i^- 1'. ,■).-«( I .McAndri'w v. Electric Tel. Co . 17 ('. 1$. ;i . .McArllinrv. .Sears . . . -21 Wend. l!l(» . I I 1(1 Vt. ;L'.■)(;. . ISlS (11. Km. . \S->\ (II. Km. . isl'o !»;;. . IMm (i7. •JiiO, 211. . IN(!7 1S7. . ISI2 li. . ISI,-) 2.->.2(J.,s.-,,i;5l.2-JI ^lay V. H.alicock . ^lay {^neen. Tlie . ^lavliew V. Kanies :McCaIl V. IJrock . . . . .") Slrohh. 1 1!» . .McC'ancc v. London itc. U. Vo. . 7 11. iV X. 177 . .Mct'ann v. lialiiniore tVc. H. ( 'o. -JO Md. -W. .McL'Iaryv. Sioux City iV:c.H. To . li Xeh. II . .McClenajjlian V. Bnick • . ."> I'icli. 17 . JfcClnre V. Cox . . . . ;{l' .Ma. (il7 V. riiila. |{. Co. . .lit Md. .-,;{!) McCoy V. Keoknk iiic. I{. Co. . 14 Iowa. 124 V. Krie ».<:c. Transp. Co. . 42 Md. 4!>S McDaiilel v. ( 'lilca,i;o iV:c. J{. Co. . 24 Iowa. 412 McOre .Kir. X. S. (m1 ;t;i L. T. 2.-.!) 2S L. .1. Kxch. :!.■>;! Kx. Ch. JlcMasters v. rennsvlvania |{. Co. . lii) I'a. SI. ;;7I .Alc.Millaii V. :\Iielii«;aii iSjc. J{. Co. l(i Mich. 7 Jleniphis t'ic. 7{. Co. V. .[ones . 2 Head. .■,17 ,, '^- <'"• \- Iloiloway . 4 L. iV Lo. I{. 42.") Men/ell V. L'aihvay Co. . . j Dili,,,,..-,:!! Jlercantilc Mnt. Ins. Co. v. Chase ] |;. |). Sniilh lI." Ins. Co. V. Calebs . 2(1 X. V. 17:5 . .Merchants Dispatch Co. v. Coin- ,, , I'orih. ;; Col. ■2Xi) . Merchants Dispnich Trans. (',,. V. JJ.dles . . . .M)Iil. |7;{. . .M<'r(hants l)is)>atch Trans. Co. v ,,^'""'''' , : • • • .ssin. l;|ii . . -Merchants Dispatch 'JVans. ( 'o. v. 'I'I'filliar .... m; III -1 Merrick v. Uebster . . 'i Mi,.i .Merrill V. Arev . . . 1. :]i \Varc. 21. ■) . 1S2II .■.7. 102. . lS.-)4 2!». s.s. . 1S2.J ;22(). . 1NV> 1. 170. . \s:,\) (1. . 1m:i IIS. . ls(i;i 1,-,. . is7:i 10. 14.-.. . is.-.l .-.. . is.vs ;|(l. Km. . 1S71 4."). 2;io. .' 1S7(! 10. 40. . 1S7.-I l.'i. 102. .1 ISOS 40.211. .: is.'ti ,-.7. IDS. . ISIO 7. .i is;«i 24.-). i ' .1 1N.-)S 10. .' IS.V.l Ki. 27. 111). 1S71 12.-.. .': l.S(i7 47. SS. 101. KI2. , I 12.-.. 212. 2I.{. i 210. 2.->7. . l.^.-.ii 02. l.-.o. . IS77 121. . 1^70 21). k;:;. . IN.'iO .•).■). 21 J. . L^")l' .v.. 121. 2.-..-.. . I>i77 ;{;!. 70. 210. . IN7.-. lis. 02. 244. . 1S7N !0:!. . 1S77 :is. . 1S.-.4 47. i;!!l. . ISM 20. Km. 17(;. TAHLE OF (ASKS CITED. XXXI Nam('>< (if (uses. Wlirrc icpoi'tcd. ^lorritt V. Vm-\v . V. Iv.rlc . Mcr-lidii \ . Ilultciisiick Mcvcr V. Ilaiiulcn's Kx. Co, V. I'.'.-k r.i BiM-l). :is •J!) \. Y. 11.-) •.>:(\. .1. (Law •J4 lli)\\. I'r. -I'M) ■2S \. Y. .■'.Ml ."Miclii^aiu^tc.Il.C'o. v..M('l)iiu()ii<;l.l--'I .Midi. HI.-. V. Hale .(! .Micli.-Ji;! V. Ilt'atoii !;i7 hid. IIS V. Ward .i:i Mi.h. .-.:is Miletus. Tlic .-. IJIatchf. :!;?.-. Miller V. .Sii-am Xav. Co. . .'in \. Y. i;!l Milliiiiore v. Cliieajio i^c. H. Co.':!? \Vi<. I'.iil Missouri i^e. H. Co. v. Caldwell .|S Kas. -.Ml .■Milwaukee A;e. I{. Co. v. Sinltli .'71 111. \'.>7 . V. Smitli .Sim. -IM . Miiw.Mllkee j'.elle. 'I'l;.' . . .'2 I'.is^. I!l7 Mi.-soiiii. I'lie V. Weill. . . 1» .M(.. !!i:! . Miteliell V. i,aiiea>liire.'ve. ]{. Co. L. IJ. ilH;. H. V. I'liiled Slates \]s. Co. Jill Iowa. I'l I .Mobile \e. U. Co. V. Franks .^1 Miss.-I'.ll V. lldikin .III .Ma. tsi; V. .larlH, .11 Ala. i;|| V. Weiiiei . lilMiss. ;l>.-. .s Wall. !.•.;{ . ■_' Hiss. .M).-, . -.'l Wall. -IM). .Miiiitjioiiieiy \e. If. Co. v. Kd- luoiids ' II .Ma. (;(!7 .Mmil"iiiiiei\- iVe. I'. Co. v. .Moore. ')l Ala. li'.M M'lliaw k. 'i'lie Mollie Mohjer. The .Moore V. i;\aiis . V. Mieli. Cent. l{.Co. \ . Am. 'I'raiis.( d. .>'or;;aii v. Dil.lile Moriiirty \. Ilarden's \]\. . .Moi'iison V. Davis Morse V. Slue V. Slue .Aloses V. IJostou iV.e. i{. Co. .jl4 Karl.. .".21 . ;! Midi, -j;; . :il How. I •J!( '\\'\. 107 . 1 Dalv. -I-IT .20 I'a'. S!. 171 . Veulris. 1!M» Veniiis. -JoS . Jl .N. il. 71 v. Norris . . . .IX. Il.liOl .Mo-lier V. Souilieni Mx. Co. .l{S(;a.l>7 . Muddle V. Siride . . . . '.) C. iV 1'. :iSO .Midler V. (ill. \e. U. Co. . . -J Ciii. '-'SO . Muliinan v. 111. Cent. K. Co. .:'.;; Iowa. ISO .Miinii \ . ISaker . . . . 2 Stark. J.V. .Miiseliaiuii V. I.aueasier \e. \l. Co S M. 0. \V. IJl Mvai! V. IJostoii i-vie. It. Co. . . lit .\. II. 122 .Mviiaiil V. Svraeuse ^e. 1{. C(.. . 11! .Mli. L. .1. i;5l 7 lliui. ;(!)!! Syracuse I've. |{. Co. . 7i N. Y. iSO .Mvitoii V. M'idl.Tiid K. Co . .1 II. iV X. (Jl.-. . !72 tii WlKMl .Ilk At wlial .sections iie- <'i(li'(l. citeil. ls.-,» 7. 1S(it 7. is.-.o (i. 7. lS(i2 .-..-.. 22;!. 22.-). IStil ->.-.. 112. IKi, 1711. l;il). 1S70 11. 1(1. IS.-)!) IC. 17.70.08.1(1.-). 10!». 24-1. 1S71 :;'.!. 7:? 12S. i;;;i. I7(J. IS.-.;? 47. isiu; 2:1. k;.-). is.-.i! (i. IS7.-. .»■» 1S71 M." ]s\. 1S71 ;!s. 210. '.sili!) 2!i. k;.-). LSI.-) .-)(). ISO. 1S7-) i(i:;. IS77 40. ISO. 24S. LSI 17 4!>. ISC.S :!o. i;i;i. 21s. ISI'iS :;o. 2.-)0. IS74 411. 101. ISCiS (i. :■■<. Ki.'i. IS71 2!l. 1(1.".. 24S. IS74 11;.-.. 1,S(!S 2:?. 17(1. IS7-I 242. IS.-)2 .'..-.. 7s. i;i.-). !,-7 24S. IS.-)!! (>. isi;o Mil. KS('.7 1). ISII2 r^:^. 22;!. 22o. 2;!(; Ks.-)2 10. T)!). 20(). HiSI 2.-). l()8.-. Sd. IS.-)I :•,. .-.;!. 70. ss. ',10 '.i;{. 101. 227. IS2S .-). ISliS ;;7. i.-.(j. 240. IS 10 !). IS72 .-i7. 10;!. is7;i 40. 102. 2:i(i. 240 ISI7 2.-). '.d. '.IS. 1S41 2;)S. 2:i'.). 1S4S r.;i. 220. is7(i HI. ■>'>. 1;!.-). 1S77 •').■). 1 ;{.->. 1S.-|1I -2X1. w^. m!""P*" BVE XXXIl TAIU.K or CASKS ( ITKl). Ill ! 1 Nqiucs of fuses. I Wlii'ii Wlici'c rcpovtod. ilo- I cldccl. At wlmt scctioiiH cited. \u.«hvillf i<:('. I{. Co. V. Diivul . d IFi'i^U. -.'in v..Jiicksiin . 11 llci-^U. •_'7I N:ivi^;iii(>ii Co. v. Dwycr . . lin 'I'cx. K'H \<'!il \'. SaiiiKlci'soii . . . J S. i'j M. ■")72 .Nelson V. Iliidsiiii Kivcr |{.Co. . is .\. V. »!)S V. Nilliolllll S((';Mllslli|i Co 7 lii'll. Hid V. Woodruff . . .1 lii.ick, !.■)(; Xcinoiirs V. N'.iiirc . . . I'.i ||(]\v. Iii2 Ncvilis V. l{;iv Sl.il,' Stc;niil)o;il Co. I I'x.s a. •.':»:. Neville V. Cork Ac. !{. Co. . . :i !]■. I,. '1'. i;:) . < '\\ ick SI. Xmv. Co. \-. Tiers -;4 y. ,(. (F.:i\\) (;!»7 Xewliliril \-. .Iiisl . . . . iJ C. I'y; !'. 70 Xe\vl)er!;('r V. Express Co. . . 11 I'liila. 171 Newell V. Siiiitli . . . .V.I N't. •_'."> New .(ei'.-ey Steiuii N;iv. Co. v.i Mereiiaiii's Hank . . . d Hd.v. :!|| New Jersey. The . . . . Oleoti. Ill New Orleans Mni. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans i*;;!'. R. < ',,. . . -jo i,,.,. \|,|,_ ;j()j Newsladl V. Adani'i . . . .'i ! )iiei-. lU New \\. III. . IS7J ."i.'>. :il--'. •_>!:;. •.'•.» I. . IS7I -JM. ISI. . lS(>i -J'.l. -'I."i.' L'.')li. . iN'ii; -I'.K I';."). . is,".! I ,-,.-.. IOC. . is7:. J it;. 221, . iMfi 2:1. k;.".. . is.vi i;.s. II. 2;!. .")!.■.' IS. ., Is2;. i:t:!. .! isik; ,-i!i. iiw. 121. .j 1S77 111. Hi:,. ,; Isis 2!i. ss. i;i;;, iji». 221!. : 2t;(i. I Sid Ki,-.. 2(iii iis. 2.'):.. Nieholas v. New York I'ce. J{. Co. I IIiiii.:i27. ... , , ■„; l*>l';il^'. |{ep. (Moid 2S. .■.:.. i;i(;. IMM 2:.. 2(1, IM. Is.'ili 220. Is7l ;is. 2.".-l. . 1S7I 111 ():ikey v. fJordon . Oakley V. St-.'iin I'aekT^t Co! Oeean Wave. The . (Jliio \e. J{. Co. V. Dnnl.a.- ". V. .Mnhl'ii"'. V. Sell.,- ". V. Y(.iM'e . 7 r.i! Ann. 2:{."i . I! Hx. (US. iilJiss. ;ii7. 20 111. t;2:! . :ioill. 11 . 17 liid. 171 "il liid. 1^1 IN.".-' i:i. 2,!(;. 212. is.-i; !). IS72 21). ii;.->. 21s. 1>^"»' II. 11;. I St; I 21.".. 1S7I :!!i. 12s. 211. 117. 21s. Is7:i 17. /*- -^ ^ TAIJLK <)l' CASKS (ITKl). XXXlll NiiTiKw of case.' Wlicic r('|i(iilc(l. Ohrloff V. iJiisiiill OIIhms. Till- .... (Ih\('ll \ . .\ilaiii< lOx. C'l (»iirii>l. 'I'Ih' .... Upiiciilicinifi' V. r. S. Kx. <'o ( )i,iu'n(l(). 'I'lic Or.iiijL^c ("ouiity nmik v. Hrnw n Orillamiiir. Tlic • Oniilorif V. A(laiii« Hx. Co . Owcii V. liiiriK'il . Oxlt'V V. St. Louis i*tc. 1!. Co I-. K. 1 r. ('. -JIM .1-J.fiir. (N.S.)(!7r) :ir. L. J. I*. ('. (M !!.•) W. 1{. -jO-J II I., r. (\. s.) s7:t 4 M.Kirc I'. ('. (.'. (X S.) 7(1 Will'" I Al wlinl HOctiollS H.l.'c^l J •^•l^'"- 18(1(1 |I«4, 248. ;$ Wvu. 14S. 1 (Vat. I,. .1. isii I li.'ii. i:u. «;!! 111. i;-2 . . ISCJI :2'.». ISO, IM. 2IS, ■ i 1S74 (1-J. 1(12. .: is(i7 nv. .: is7:t 2(t. I's. ss. 110, 05, j io:<, 11:;. ;{N 1.. T. (X. s.) i.-.i. ■::,(;. '.) WiMui. s."> . .' is:t2 20. .'i.'i. I Sawv. i7t; . .1 1S70 '2:i. ISO. ls|. -MS. ■:, Hiisi'i. I'M . .1 is(;7 12. it;{. 1:1:!. 2 Cr. \ .M. ;i.M (m Mo. (i2!). I'acllic. TIk^ 1 hrailv. 17 I'ackard v. Karic . . . . IIH Ma--. 2S0 . I'almcr V. (Jrainl .Imiclioii K.Col M. .V \V. 740 . .' Pariliii^^ton V. Soiiili Wales |{. ( 'o ;!s Ihii;. Law i<: K(il Ki'i". ■i:>2 . .1 I II. v'v X. ;i;i2 ! 2,liir. (X. S.) 1210 i l;;cal. 122 . .! 71 111. lie. . . .| 10 111. .■-:.(; . II Wcml. 2l.-> . J V.\ IJarl). ;{.■);{ . .! I N't. 222. . .1 I.. i;.;j Aiim. 4:{(J .| 21 i.. "i". (X. S.) S40 I (17 I "a. Si. ,"00 . .! .■) X. V. is(; . .j Dmllov. l.V.t . .! ;ti coiiii. 14.5 . Kill. I,, ('as. 47:5 .! O.lur. X. S. 01 I ;i2 I.. .1. (,». I',. 241 11 w. K. 102:? S I,. T.. X. S. 7(iS 10 Wis. lis 04 V. S. 10 1 . I8;{:{ 1S77 1H(J1 KS7:{ is:5o IS.Ki Parks V. .Mta Cal. 'I'.'l. Co I'ariiiclcc V. I.owil/ V. Mc'Xiili.v . I'aisoiis \-. IImimIv . V. Moiitcath . I'a;a|)S('o Ins. ( 'o. v. ( 'oiiIom I'alriu. Thr . i'aiHTS'iii V. Clydf I'atlisoii V. IManchaiil . I'aUoii V. Majiratli I'rck V. \\ (■.■ks . \\>k V. X. s:affor(!-l'ii!' U. Co 120. .')(•. 122, 17:;. 2.-)4. 20. 12"). 40. l(i, 10(1. 1(1. IIS. (•(■I'l V. Cliicapi (."tc. i'. Co . I'cik V. Cliicajio i\..-. K. Co . I'l'inln'i-Ioi) Co. V. X. Y. Cent. I{. t'o 101 Mass. 144 . I'cii(!ci';:ast V. Ailains Kx. Co , 101 Mass. 120 . l'c,;i:i-'.(!ar iV:('. Si. Xav. Co. v. II .Iiir. (X. S.) 771 Shaml. I'ciiiicwi'". V. (.'iillcii . . . ."> Half. 2: . V. I'aiirhihKlo 111. 200 . ili IS.-.!) I. 1S74 11. is.-.s I. is:i.-) |4. is.-.i '.-.. (i. 7. is;!() !2rM. 1S71 :i(;r). 1S71 Lv.i. 2 IS. isni 242. is::. ;!I."> . V. .M('('l(.s- kcy . Jl! I'll. St. :>-2i> . V. Srln\;liv,-| i'iilicr;.'t'r:i:) I'.i. .s:. -Jits . Pcrcirc. Till- s ]{rii. :;ii|. ri'rkiii< V. New York Ci'iil. K.CoJI X. V. |!)i; . V. roriiiiiid Sir. u. Co .Jir Mf. :.;.!. rcrry V. 'l'lii)iii|)«oii . . . US .M:i>^. -jr.) riicrmi V. 'I'lic Alviiiado . . I .\iii. 1,. .1. :i;{i'. rimlps V. >Villiaiii-iiii . . , ."i S:iiiili. '>7s III N. V. 1,1'u'. Obsr. Pliilail.'li)liia \c. I{. Co. V. Id'ihy 1 1 llo\\. Ids I'liilliix V. IJriiiliaiii . . '. •_'(! (Ja. 017. V. Clark . . . .]■>('. IJ. ^^■. S.) \M . jlt.liir. (N. .S.) 1(17 •j<; I-. .]. c. V. Ids V. Karli' . . . .s IMck. !>l'. V. Norlli Carolina U. Co. '78 N. C. i".i| riio'iiix Ills. Co. V. Krif Ac. 'I'raiis. Co rii^kcrini; v. Biirkicy . . . j .Stvlc. ];»•_' I'ic^kford V. (J(l. Jiiiictioii U. Co . 12 .V|. ,S: w. 7dil. riacc V. Ciiioii Kx. Co. . .jj |li||. |ii . riiMTc V. Milwaukee a SI. I'anl l{- Co L>;! Ui>. ;is7 Plaistcil V. Ho^toii Sf. Xav. Co .!J7 Me. l;!2. Porter V. Soiiiherii Ex. Co . .'j .S. C. l;}."). Porlsiiioiilli. 'I'lie Id Willi, (js-j. l2 niss.'.v; ".' Poiiclier V. Xew York Cent. U.\ \si\:, :,<). 217. 21s. is,-) I :,'.,. isd'{ .".!». 2;i(i. -.'IJ. 1S7.") L".t. isi. -ji-. isiij L's. .■!.'.. s;i. SI. Kid. l::s. 21,-). 220. IWIi 21(1. 1S(;7 Id. I(»l. 12-'.. Id.-.. IS.-.2 ,V). Km, IS.-)2 2!i, Kill. 2i:.. 22(t. IS.-.II II. ls.'i7 ,70. ISI. 1S2!> 2(t. Id. 1)2. 1878 240. 187!) '2."). ldS7 Km. \xu !C). 2;{o. IS.\S ,V). 120. 1 17. 2.'i;i. Co . Powell V. Lavton . .4!) X. Y. 2ii;! . .1 .|2 Bos. & Pill. (X. J{.) V. Mvers . V. Peiiii. U. Co. Powers V. Davenport . Prentice v. Oeeker Price V. Ilartsliorn V. Powell . V. The I'riel Piillinaii I'al. Car Co. v. Smith . 7;i IlT.":!ilO i'lireell V. .Soiilliern Ex. Co. .;»(i:, ;)].-, .'2() \Veii(l. :.',ll . .';i2 Pa. Si. in . .17 IJlackf. -llld . .■4!) JJarh. 21 .'41 Hail), d.-).-) . .':i X. Y. ;i22 .10 La. Ann. 4i:{ Qiiiniliy V. Vaiiderliilt Railroiul Co. v. Aokley V. Ailanis V. Adams V. Allen . V. Aiidroseojjjiiii Mills "': 17 X. Y. ;!0d 04 r. s. i7!t .42 111.471 . . I.-) Mil h. l.-.s .:ii llld. :;iii .!22 Wall. ,-)lil . isds 217. .1 ISI7 d. II. K),'). .| 1872 dl. 120. Isii. ,1 ISdll 2!l. IC"). J iSdS Km. I 1S72 128. IS',), 2211, I Slid !l. IS II 1..M. Is.v.) II. Id. .-,;'. Is I,-) II. Isd7 .M. Ki7, isd.') ,■!.■). IS.-iO .V). ISO. Is.M Hi. 2 IS. Is77 1. isdd :{7. l8.-)8 .M. Kid. 2i2. IS7d 1. I.'~i.•.:{ . V. < 'lii'lirw illi . :>•! I'a. SI. :ts2 . \'. ('nln'liiml . •-M 111. ;!:!•-'. V. ( 'o\\ Ics :t--> III. in; . V. (N.X . ■>'■> Ind. :t(io. \ . Cri^l. . 11 '•. 15. .VJ7 . \ <'niii('li ;{ II. iS: N. is:» . \ . Ciirniii 10 (thin St. 1 . \ . havi.l. (i ll.'isk. 2til . \ . I>cii)y II How. ICS . \ . Ddriii.'iii 72 111. .^Ol . V. DiMiliiir 20 III. 02:! . V. Diiiiliaiii IS ('. M. S2i; V. Kdiiioiids . 11 Ala. (1(17 V. I'Miivliilil . ll'.l III. 2(>0 . V. Fitrnici'V Bank 20 Wis. 122 \ . l''(l|SV'll i\\ I'a. St. SI \ . Kialoff OCfnl. I.. .1. 43 \ . Fiaiikciilicrj; .-)l Ill.SS . \' Franks 11 Miss. 104 V. (Jlcnister . 22 W. K. 72 . 211 I.. T. (\. S.) V. (ircciiwdod 70 I'a. si.:i7;t \ . Hair . (1 Mi.'li. 211! V. Hall . .•)S 111. 100 . \ Hawkins . IS Mi.li. 427 V. ilcalun ;{7In(l. IIS \ ll.'dovr Hn V. lli'ndci'sDn . .•>l I'a. SI. :ii.-) V Ih-nli-in . .V2 Ala. (iO(! ^ Ili'iili'in . .")(; Ala. :t(;s \ I|iilli)\vay . 1 I.. iV Ivi. U. \- llupkins" . 41 Ala. 4S(; V ■fai'kson (1 ll.-isk. 271 \' •larltdi- II Ala. (il4 V. .liilinsiiM ;u 111. ;iso . V .loncs . 2 Head. .-)I7 \- Jones . 1),-) r. s. nil) () Ct'iit. L. J. 4." \' Locksviiod . 2s Ohio St. ;i:)S \ Lofkwood . 17 \Vall.:i.-.7 \ Manufac'turinj;- Co . u; Wall. :us » \' Mairns ;{s 111. 210 . \ Maris . Hi Kas. :!:(;{ 4-22 1S.-)1 20. .v.), 10(1, l.V.). 1S7;( :(i). 217. lS7(t 1. IS72 1 1. 10. 1 SI ill 4.-). 104,218. 1S71) 12. is;t.-, i:i.-). isds .■)1), 218. 1S71 II. 181. 1S72 2:17 , 210. isiii; 2:»o. ISO') 210. lso:{ 210. ISliS HI). 107. is.-.i 2.-). is.-,:t 2;io. isoo .■)7. 217. 218. 1S71 1. 12. IS,-)2 21). 21.-). 220. 1S74 10. 1 S.")S 11. III. lS,-)0 27. 1S0S 2:1,170. is7;i :{8, 211. ISO.-) 07. 102. ISO!) .■)1). 2:$li. 240. 244. 1S71) 111). l.")l). 1S7(> :ts. 177. 2;io, 238, 240. 1807 40. 187:» 2.-). 1S7.-) 1)1). 1 S.V.I 10. 17. 70. !»8. 1S71 2:». ISO!) 10. 2:!. 47. i:$7. 1S71 ;»!). 7:5. 12S. i:«:}. 1 "(I 1S7:5 1 ( (i. 10. 42. 1:57. 240. lS(i.-. .-)1). 217. 218. 187.-) 10. 2:i. :((). 122. 17.->, 2.-)0. 1870 :{0. 1S77 121. 180S ;{(). 1:1:1. 21 s. 1871 02. 1S7. ISOS :io. 2.-)0. ISO I 240. IS.V.) 02. 1.-jO. 1877 ID. 1870 .-.7. 170.241). I87:i 20, 74, 100. 110. 1S72 21). 10.-). 1:M, 240, 2.-).5, 257. ISO.-) ,20. 1S70 41. BB XXXVI TAIIM: OI' (ASKS crTKI). i! ii Nitmeiof coHON, Wliori) rt'j)ort«'U. ■YVIkmi I (' t'Uutl. •Idcit. I lions Riillri'ud < '<>, V. M,Clr||;lIl . V. MrCldskcy. V, .Mi|)ipiiiiiiy;li V. MrWIiiiiiii'y V. Mrniiiiim , V. Mciiil;; .Mich. :ii'!i . . 17 .Mich. -jiKi . . i:t Kas. ,-)(»,•■ . l!M)lii(. .St.-JJI . .I'J2 Wall. I:i;t . .l| r. s. (i.M fJCciit. I-. J. '207 .SI 111. .-)0I . ... . l!i 111. .^.7s . .2 Mich..-.;!s . .") .Veil. 117 Mx .Ma. .-)S,-, .111 Miss. 72.-) . . ;f7 Mich. Ill . . 27 (; a. .■>:{.-. . .SI 111. 2:il) . ■)0 Ind. ;t;{i» ■ >\ Ind. ISI 2S hnl. ,-)l(i 1 Itaihvay (,'as. 1 . 2:t.'.. 212. .'■i I . .1 1M7I) -AH. Ill I. . l.s,-| ,•.11. . 1S7(I 1 1. Id. . IS71 :iii. |s(i. . IS(1!» 212. . IS7I ;t7. 212. . 1S7I :is. Jilt!. •_>(!). . IS7I 212. , ls,-)7 ;is. I2S. 22.'). , ls.-,i> ■.>■•■. isdl -J I.-). isi;;i :{!i. I2s. i.-)(i. i.».'(;(>*(;2. 210. 1S72 HI. II. ls7(i 210. ls72 I I, HI. 1011. istis 17. III. 1S7I k;. isiiii .•)7. ]{)■>. 2ls. 1571 211. 2;ii;. 210. 211. 1572 111. isi;,-) (iii. ls(i.-) :ts. ji.-,, 21 s. ISO!! Id. |l>. is.-):) ;!!(. ii;{. 12S. IS7I 1 I. II!. II. L'l IS71 2:!s. j|(i. |S7.-, (1.-). 7(1. I. SOS 210. is(i;t :,'.). 2;!(i. 212. IS7I mi. 12s. 211. i.s.vj 20. ISIiil 0(1. 1H7I j:t.s. 1210. IS7I ;;ii. i.'>o. iss. I.s(r. ;{s. 12.-). isiM 212. 1.S77 2:1. 217. 21s. ls7i; :is. 2:i7. is.-)S 20. l.s.-);t 17. 1S7(! I ()..■)(). 1.S72 I. 1S7I lit. 101. 1.S77 21.V IS.Vi 1-1. 1(1. 1S7(J ;{s. ;i(i. iok. 2;{(; 210. IS7.") 1)11. 2.VI. ls7.-. 17. i.s(!7 :ti). l,s;ts 2.-). Ifoli Kohii h'orki ]{od. h'oot Houll Ho-<> J{oss Howl KllSS. .Saire .St. TAULl:: Ol- lAHK.S CITKU. XXXVIl Nllllll'x III I'llNI'H, Wliuru r«port«d. do- ctdod. Al ulllll KCrlillllN iltoU. |{;i\v<<))ii V. Iliilliiiiil V. l*i'iiii-\ l\Miii:i |{. ( 'ii. . V. l'i'iiii-\ l\Miii;i |{. ( 'ii. . ItllV V. TIm" MilwilllKi'i' Itrllc J{(iul V. SI. I.iiiii- iVc. U. < '<>. \ . S|Miiiiiiiiir V. S|i;lll|ilili^' Ut'llVt'f* V. \N;il('liniili . Ki'lii'i'i'ii, 'I'lic , . , . I'i'il|iiiili V. NiinuliMii . \'. N'mmuIimii . Kri'd V. I llili'il Mull'- Ks. <'i). . V. S;ir;ilii;i;i iVi'. It. Cn. l!iM'-i.|i'. 'I'lic . . . . lifll V. I>'ll|l|l . . . . lil'IIO V . lIllUMII . . . . \U\ iiiiliN \. rii|i|i;m . |{li"(l('< V. l.iiiii-villc It. < 'n. liici' V. K;iii'>;i- \i-. 1{. ( 'i>. . Itil'll V. I.MIIllll'l I . . . . ItirliiinN \. Iliiii-cii \. Wcicuii . It'll IiiiiiImiii v. Si'wcII . Jtil'kctt V. nMirillHHV Ac. it. ( 'ii. . liil'V \ . Iliiriii' . . . . \i\[/. \ . I'riiiis\ iMiiiia It. ( 'o. Itixliinl V. Siii'iili . . . . ItiiliiTis V. Itili'V . . . . \. 'riinicr ItiilitM'tsiiii V. Kciiiicily liiiliiii.^oii V. (ii'ciit Western It. (J V. Mereli:ilirs DN, 'I'lMIIS. Co. Huckel. The . Itnili rick V. It;iilriiii(l Co. . HiMit V. (Jre;|| Western ]{. ('(1. Kontli V. Ndrliie.istein ]{. ('(I. Hi)se V. l)e- .M(iinesiV:e. Jl.Co. IJi.ss V. 'iliiV \e. It. ("d. Hdwley \. Iliirne . Hiissell V. Nieniiin .MIX. Y. 111! . iHT'i ,W. 12.*i. llo. •J'JM, ■J .M.I.. IV. (X.S.) 2J() |S(17 IS N. V. ■2\-2 . I.S72 .'i.".. IIMl. IS .\ni. 1,. T. liep. (15 IMIIII 2!». Hi.".. I'll! Ml.. I'.l'.l I.S75 .•.(). I7S. 2 IS. .-. Hi i-w. ;;!•.■) 1H.')(I 1. t. .v.. IIIJI. I, VS. 2;t;i. III. ;;(i \. ^Miitit . ]Si\\ II). mil. 1 11. 2; 111. •_' Speels. 1117 . ISIll 11. (11. Id.-.. 1 Wiire. jSS is;n 2!l. Kl.'i. :,■> Hull., is'.i . IMIS 'ht. In."!. is \. V. fi.V. . 1N7I .v.. Id.-.. IS .\. V. 1112 . IS72 .v.. 1(1,1. 177. 21(1. 212. 2:i(i. Ill Wenil. .Vtl . ISIlS 212. 2 Snin. .Ml" is;»7 211. 1(1.".. 2.".(i. ;t w. \ s. 21 . IS 11 2(1. 12 It. .Mull. ii:( . isr.i 12. isi. 1.-. .M.i". :i7() . ISllI 2211. 11 1{|I-.1|.(1SS ls7:» 12. I;i7. 2()S. ii:! Mil. :ti 1 ls7(i .")(), 122. I2llu\v.:tl7 . is.-.i l(i.-). 2 IS. 1S7!) 2r)(t. 2 Hdsw. .".Sli IS.-.S 1. 2 Smith m. n.) 2l).'> . ISO.-) 2 IS. (11 r.url.. IS I.S7I ,M. 2.1(1. 1 I.MII-. 1 111 .-. Itin--. 217 1S2S S. 2r>. !l(l. 100 , i:i;j 2 M.A 1'. ;t:Ji Ills. 11 rhilii. sj l,s.-,s 1(1. .V.I. r.2 N. 11. ;(.-..-. . IS72 ;i. 1(1. :.:). 211. i;i7. 1.-. I.:i. .Vim. 10:t 1 SI lit i:;. III. nil. I2.li.liii-. 2:!2 . isi.-. :i. 2 l>:m;i. l;t(l ISlil r>. II W. U. 20(1 . . lS(l.-> lis. r. I.. .1. ('. r. 1211 l."> liiwii, I7(» . . IS77 K I Miss, r.l . . ISdO 7 W. V.i. .->! . .; lS7:i I.'. N. V. .V21 . .1 1S7I L. H. 2 Hx. 173 .' 1.S(17 It'.l Inwii. 21(1 . . 1S7I lOVt.liill . . IS77 It Jtiii;;-. 2 . . .' 182.') 17 C. Jt. (\. S.) 100 18(14 Siiiri'f V. Pi.rtsmi.iitli ite. U.Co. . Itl M(>. 22s St. .Ii.lm T. I'lNpiessC I NVi.tiils. (112 V. \'an SiiiitVdord . . 2."> Wend. (lilO t. 102. 112. Ill, 201. 211. 22;t. 221.212. 2!». l(i.">. 2 IS. 2lt. 211.".. 21(1. 212. ir.i. 10. 21S. 2lt. IIS. 100. lit. 1.S.-0 11. 41. 101. lltS. 1.S7I 20. 2!). lltl. 201, 2It(l. 212. 1841 240. P V ( { xxxvni TABLE OF CASKS CITKD. I. I l«l Nniiii'.-' of cii^.cx. Wlu'ii- ifiidi-tcd. I When de- cided At wlint Heetions cited. St. John V. Villi SantviMird . St. Louis &e. K. Co. v. Dorniaii V. riper V. Simiek . Sanipsoii V. Ga/.zirn Saiifonl V. Jloiisatonic 11. Co. Saiilee. 'i'lie Savaj>e v. Corn ICxeliaiiec Ii.-. Co. . . . . . Seaife v. Farnint . . . ■ V. tairant . . . • Sii:ieff('liiiv. Harvey . Selirooder v. lliulson Kiver H. Co School District v. liostoii A:e. H. Co Sc'hntter v. Adams Ex. Co. . Scotliorn v. Sontii Slaffordsliire It. Co Scranton v. Fanner's Bank . Seldonv. Williams Shiiw V. York & Midland K. Co. Sheltou V. Merchant "s Dis. Co. . V. Merchant "s Dis. Co. . Shonk V. Phila. Propeller Co. . Shcniian v. Hudson iScc. li. Co. . V. Wells Siiiiiiioiis V. Law .... V. l-aw . V. New JSedford Ac. 1{. Co Simons v. Great Western K. Co. V. Grea^ Western K. Co. Sinioii V. The Fuufj Sliiicy . Siiiffleton v. Ililliard . Siordet V. Hall . . . . Sisson V. Cleveland &c. il. Co. . Six Hundred and Tliirty Casks . Skinner v. Loudon I'ic. K. Co. . V. Hall . . . . Sleat V. Fafjjr .... Slim V. Great Northern li. Co. . .(I Hill. 157 .72 111. .'.Ill . . i;i Ka<. ."ill.') .Ill liul. :i(iJ . t; Fort. ij:i . 11 Cnsh. !,■).■> . . -J IJeii. .")!'.) 7 IJIatchf. isi; . ;!(! N. Y. lM."> . •_•;{ \v. H. iiiu . ■_' Cent. L. .1. :i.s;! ■j:t w. K. St I) . ■1 Cent. L. .1. (it).") C.luhns. 170 . Auth. .')(! lSi:« -240. 1S7I Ki. 1S7I 11.10!). 177. 2:10, 1S7) :'.!!. 1"'0. ISS. is;i7 :«o. Hi."). ]s.-):{ Id. 172. ISCS 211. 120. |S7(l 14S. 1S7,-) i,-)l. i,s7.") ir>i. isio i:i. .")."). 12."). l 1S7. 1IH Slocum V. Fail-child V. Fail-child Smith V. Bi-azelt(ui .") Ducr. .").") 1(12 Mass. .•).V2 . (i Cent. L. .1. 17.") ."> .Mo. (Api).) ;5u; S Fx.;!!! . 2) X. Y. 1 21 . !l Watts. !l i:u^H. :!I7 . I! Hailwav < 'as. S7 r.ll \. Y."2.")S . ;{(i N. Y. (S. C.) r)27 00 Fa. St. 10!) . (11 N. Y. 2.-. J . 2S Bail). |();{ . sj{osw. 2i:{ ;{Keycs. 21!) . !I7 Mass. ■.if,] . 2C. H. (X. S.) <;-20 IS c. B. SO.") 21 I,a. Ann. Wa 1 SiroMi. 20:? . 4 Biiiji". 1107 14 Mich. 4S!) . 14 Bl.itchf. .")17 . 2 K. ... A- K. ;t(;o ") Kx<'ii. 7S7 00 Me. 477 .") Barn. i<: Aid. ;?42 14 C. B. (M7 2 C. F. I{. S(14 2:{ L. .1. C. V. UK) IS.Iur. 111!) 7 Hill. 2!)2 1!) Wend. ;{2!) . IHeisk. 41 IS,-..-. 212. i,s(;i) k;. 1S7S ,".0. 212. Is.Vt 2:{!). i>(;2 17. I. Si!) ii:{. I.S4!) 2.-). I.S7I ,v.. 100. 111. 2-2;i. ■s7;i •■)■). 100. 111. 111. !2.">, 22;i. l,s(l!l .".!!. i,s7i; .").■). i.s.-,s i.-2:i:i. l.stil ,■.,-.. 12."). l.sc.t; ."),".. 1-2."). is(;7 I.'). l.s,-.7 11(1. IS.-.C lis. 11!). ISC!) 4:i. IS47 til. IS2S 7. !l. ISOO 17. 14(1, I.S."). 1S7S -21). 1,S4, 24S. 1S,".0 -21."). 1S72 ;240. 1S22 -20. is.-,i -2.-). 2:n. isi;i .-..-). IC.I is;{s k;.-). 1S70 i:{. TAHLK <)1' CASKS CITKI). XX XIX N'liiiU's of CUSPS. Where reported. "WlKMl (le- eided. At what seetioiiB eiled. lloll. r,i;i . S 'I'aiiul. Ill 2 .Monre. IS ••^inith V. Iloriic ... V. New ll;i\t'ii ,Vr. K. ( 'n. V. New \ (irU < \'ii'. !{. ( 'ci V. New Yuri; Cent. 1{, ( 'o V. Xorlii ( 'MriiliiiM |{. ( '<>. V. I'icrcc V. Sllcplli'Ki V. \Vliiiiii:iii Smyrl v. Niolun Si'i'ler V. Ail.nii- \'.\. ( 'd. . I tciii. 1.. .1 Soimiet V. N;iii(i:i;il Kx. <'(i. . iKi UmI'I . 'JS Siiiitii v'ic. Al;il>;niiii li. <'ii. \. ileiilfiii .'.J Ala. COii ISIS !». -.'."). '!{>. S"), i)9. . 1-J Allrii. .-.;{i . isdCi II. IC. . -J'.i l!:nl.. i:{2 . 1S.-.!I .v.. i;).-.. 17!), 217, 22(1. . 21 \. V.222 . ls,;2 .M. 7".. S2, l()(i. 12S. I7:t. 217. . (M N. ('. 2:!.") . 1S7(> .")(), 24S. . ! !,;.. ;;i'.i . ls;i!i 1. . Aiii>. (HI siiip. ;'>si . 17!i,-) Id.-.. . ;.; M... :;.V2 IS.Vi ;")U. 217. . 2 P.;ul.'\. 121 . ls.;i ."). . lilt M(.. ;!7() 1S7(! .■)(!. 102. !i)S. 1 r.'Mi. I.. .1. ITS) .(;(i n:\v\ . 2SI IS7:', .M. 102. Soiitii i<;c. Alntr :ii:i K.Cu. v.llcii- lejii .Soiltlicdie's ( ':i-i' . Suiitlierii Mx. <'". \'. Annslcad V. IJiu'iu'-; v. t ':i|icrl(iii \ . I )i\(>ii V. liiiiiiiiciiil \ . Modii . V. Newliy V. Sli.'a . V. I 'r(|uliiir! V. \^'(Ullal'k Sdiitlnvt-'.crii ]\. < '". V. Weill) SpeiU'e V. ( 'lii'ilv, ivk ."i!i Ala. ;ii;s I !ki|i. ."1 . .'ill Ala. :!.MI :i''i (;a. ."'.12 II Ala. !((1 II All. Ids ill r. S. .M'.i .".I MK>. .V.r, ;!;• Mi-^s. s2;.' :i(! (;a. dli.". :!>^ <;a. .";;i :<2 (;a. 1 12 I Ilei>k. 2.M; . IS Ala. .")>.-. Id (^ l>. .".17 II .Mir. S72 Id L. .[. (.}. H. :\r.) Siii'iicer V, DaL'u'ct; ■ • .2Vl.'.i2 Spey r V. 'I'lie' Mary IJelle Koh- orts . . . . . .2 Sawy. I Spiiietle V. Alia- Slcaiiisliiit ( 'n. . 11 lliiii. IdO Sin-owl V. Keliar . . . . 4 Slew. iV I'. :tS2 lis M.i^-s. 2:{'.i is7r> .i is7i; .1 iddi .| is7;i .i lsd7 .\ 1S7() .' 1S7(I .; is7d .1 1S77 .1 ISdi! . lsd7 .' iMiS :• Is74 .'. 1S7(I .; 1S72 .) 1S47 Id. 2;$. :;o. 122, i 17."). 2r)(>. :!d. 2."). :{•). 224. :!7. :?(). 120. 2(». ;ut. '.>;!. i.ks. isid. 2!i. ii;{. 4:1. 121). i!i. ir.o. 212. 1. :{7. sd. :i."), 112, 2;;:i. 241). 241). ;;7. 24d. d2. 12.*). 1. id.">. ts2;^ •■>■':. Id^. Sjirowl V. Keliar . .'-iiliilri' V. New York ( 'eiii. I{. ( 'o .Sjailliecker v. < 'oiiilis . Slar of Hope. The ;-iiar oi i lope. i iie Sti'aiiihoal Co. V. Hiisoii Sle.liiiaii V. We-leni 4'r.ins)i. ('( Steel V. Stall' Line Sleaiiilioal ( 'i Steele v. 'Tow iiseiid 1S71 1S7S 1S2X _ lSd7 !i Kiel). (S. ('.) i!i;t . isr.:; 1S7;; 1S24 . isdd 17 Wail, tir.l Star of Hope. Till O- V- ll:woli , . , IS Bail). ii7 :t7 I,. T. (N. s.) :(;i;} I \hi. Sei. C:\-. 201 . ISdl ;i7Aia.2l7 ; Steers V. Liverpool Slpaiiwhil) Co •">7 N. \'. 1 . . IS74 Sleiinvejj V. ICrie \e. I{. Co. . IH N. Y. 12;> . . lS7ll Slepiieiis i^e. 'I'rail-. ( o. v.'rileli- ; eniiaii ;i.; N . .1. (Law ) .")4:i . ISdl) 211. ld.">. .v., 1 ;<.-). 201. .'i, S. Id. 122. 2:i;5. 111. lo'.i. 2;{;i. 211. ld.">. .*). di. Id."). :>:>. I7d. 2")d. ;ii). 102. 10!). i;{s, I.".;). 1S4. 249. 2.".0. ,"m. Kid. PH. UH. 221!. 2:'2. :,:.. 102. v,\:>. xl TABLE OF CASES C'lTEb. Nnme.H of ciihcs. M'licrc rcporU^d. Stcwarl V. London i' Xoilliwc-^t- cin J{. Co -2 11. \ i'. lis:. . Sli'\v;irl \. ;\I('i'('Ii;uil"-^ Dis.'IVan-. I'o 17 |n>\;!. ^-I'.i Slilrs V. Davis . • . .1 iJlacl,. |(II Slin-on V. X. \\ Y. rk Ccni. H. (.'o ;i_' \. V. .•..!:; . Storlxlcn V. Kiev . . . .1 (Jili. idi; .Slodilanl v. Lon;;- Island li. Co. . .') Sainii. ISO StoKi's V. Sallonstall . . . i;; I'c. isi Slmliii V. Dciroi, t'lc. J{. Co. . .':> \Vis. 1:1.; V. i)c!i(iil ,Vr. n. Co. . :.M W;.. :):.l Small V. iJi'itish ac Sicani Xaw <-"o :;:; L. T. (S. S.) l'.")? Hlurp'on v. M. I.iiui> I'lc. J{. Ct.. li,) M,. ,)(;!» .Slnii;.'ss V. 'i'lu- Coiniii)ins . . -Jii .Mn. -j;;!) Snlii\an v. 'rii W is. I,")| iSiuiiici-laiiil V. )\'c-ic(iit . . "J Swi'cnv. 2il(» lit ilow.'i'r. )(;< Sinii, rlai:;l v. Civai \\'r-:cin R. *'<> 7 r. c. c. p. ion Swcfi V. .'jarniv .... •.■:; .\. y. :;;;,-, SwiiiilJ.-i- V. IHiiiard . . . i' jjifii. (S. C.) "iSO ! ^\'"'" At what si'H; I tic- ., , J ciilctl. ! f'f'l- is(;) i,s7. 1S77 Id. 111'. 111. L'di. I Ml I i7. is. \>ti') .".">. 77). Is,"), i^.i. ■2->(K I ■'Hi 2l."i. Is.', J .;,•>. ].>;;:) 2i:i. Isiis :.).;(). IS(17 )-2. III,. I>77 ">(i. 2(lL>. |,-..'.i; ,".il. l!is. I'-'is Id. •_';;(;. 212. 1 ••.'<'; :>. 107. iM'.. isiii I. :,:<. -i;'.:!. ■ ■^ii; di. 7'i. KM. i7d. 2V.K Til k \ I Tall.Dtl V. Mcivliimi's I>is. 'i'l-ans, ,,/'', li iou:i. :i!7 . lan!)niad v. I'acilic Sicani .\av. „/''.■■ • . •, • • • ■■-'' L. i". .X. S.) 7(tl Ja.vior V. Litiio U-.n-k dr. li. ( ;,. :i.i Ark. ;i!i:; \'. Liv('i|i(,ol Sir. .Stcain- ■''•"1' <-' :!d I.. '!'. (S. s.j 711 ,1.. I.', .'i-i. v.. .-.Id 1^:! I.. •/'. (.>. H. -JO.-. 2i' W. n. 7.-)2 :i:i lii.l. 2d . > JJiMI. i>i| 7) Iti'll. .")l)| III Ala. .^lO I lii'u. .•)ii;{ •-' .Sawv. 1i> i'avcis. M I., n. ; A'hn. lid ■-';; I.. 'J'. (\. s.) ,s;;s ,,., f ,, . , Jl 1- 'i. Adni. 17 Cit\ of llarltc.nl v.Tlicl'iiit II IJlatrhf. •".)(( Noiwicli . .1 ];,.„_ ^7, 1 JJcii. S!) t, u , I'-i Hen. ')('>:, (oh.nl...r^ .•..'! J{1:,H<. 17(1 to .,„H L.Mlyaid , . . , S|dau„... 5:i() f,"'"'"'"' • • . .;!J{latHif.,VJl ,V"'''";i- • • ■ .ISawv.;i7n ^:"'^l",^^"-^ • • . . :? SavvV. ,-,;is DavuKv Carol! n." . . . .-, Klai'.hf. -,;,; Tliay.'i V. .St. l.,,iiis ^'vr. ll.{\>. 'I'll • .\ni' rica Aii.oincita C. Belfast V. 15,,,,,, . Bcllona . . ; Calilofnia Casco Clias(.'a . . ■ ■ ls7.". !". -JU. IS7- 2:.. 1-77 ;i. 11)2. ''<•'', ii;;;. 201. 2:;d. . !>-i;i . Is7d 111). 21). is:{. . 1^72 21). id.-.. IS), . iM;7 i::. . 1>71 2:1. l:!s. 207. . |N7i 21 ). ISO. 21)7. . IS 12 idrt. 2oii Is7.-. I.-.:!. Id.-) . 27.1 IS7:! Hi). I>i7ii 2!). isdi; N!). ls(;;( 1(17). 17(i ISdl 11. ISdO •>•) IS.'id 2:1. 207. IS77 2!). ](',:,. 1S7.-, 2:1, 11;.-). lsi;.-i 2!). IS-I. Tl '11 T '1' TAIJLK OF CASES CITKD. Xli la/v Njinics ilccl. Whni (I.'- At wluit st'( '■ ciUMl 2!i. isi. 2-1-;. If.llS TliclK'llii .... . 1 lien. ;i|.") lS7i) Kilwiii .... . 1 ^|irii<.','ii«'. 177 IS,-,;) d. 211. 111. i )-> . I'linily V. ( 'anicy . .') Ka-. 'il.') ISiil tl. 102. 21-<. lOiimia .liiliiisoii 1 SpratiMii'. .")27 ISi'.l) 2!). k;:-. 2-!.-. Ktlirl .... :. r,(Mi.l.-.l ls7i 2!t. Id.".. ravciiilc •J Mi-.-. .•)02 IS71 2;t. !■•;.. Fl-('C(lulll (.. K. ;'. p. <:. rM L'i 1.. T. (X.S.J ir,L 1S71 !.■);{. id:>.i'(). 217. (J'. Id IImiiI( )• liialclif I'c H. :!(H) ls;;j 21). 1 (;.'>. ll.'Iciif .... n. \- L. !■_•!) isiii; :si. 2 IS. Iliiiilrc^s Davi'is. S'> ISKI •}•. 1 ll\ illi'ililc 1 Lowell, -i^.") . isi;s 2;i. is|. 2 Is. 2.-,d. •-al..'lla s Hell. I:;:i !S7.-. 21). 11).-,. Id;,. .iiiiii:\t:i j'almi 1 Bi>-. 1.-. ls:.2 21). ]d.->. 21S. KrcikllK 1 V,\<> .".-'•J . Iso; 21t. Id.-,. 2 IS. l.adv rikr :; Bi-s. ill iMili 2;i. id.-. 248. I.i'NillUlMIl (;iio\\. :{n ISIS 2'. ' l.ivi- V.-iiikcc 1 \h-.uW. 12(1 . ISfls ■il). 217. Ma/i'i-ic MamiiiMinl 1 Wall.' i:;:. iSC;) i. 12. Maralln-ii Ill 1,. !'. (X. s.) Ill;; 2.-|d. May <_*ii(MMi 1 Nt'wii. t(;r> 1 s.-. 1 2'i. SS. Mil'clii- .... .MJlaiclif. :!:!.") . iSiir, ■.';'. Id.-,. Mih\aiiki'(' ''.('lie . _> n\s-. ]'.)7 isdit 21). I. :.. Mchavk s AVa 11. !.■>;'. isii-; d. 211. Id.-,. .Mnllii' Mohl.T :' J'.i-^ .Vi.". 1S71 2'i. Id.-.. 2 IS. >!nHir .Mulil.T ■.:i Wall. :.':;n . 1S71 Id.-.. .\t'\vai-i. .... 1 IJiat.-iif. lilt! . Isk; ■21). Id.-.. Xt'W .Icivcy . Olcott.i i 1. isir. Id.-,, 2Dd. .\»'\v ^\■u|■|(l \. Kiiii;' 1<1 llow . \i\:i is.-,:t 21). K'.l). 21.-.. 220. \iaj;:i'.a \ . ( 'ordiv- . •il How. •; IS,-,-; 1. 21). Ill), 2 IS. 2.-,d. Id.-). ( '('('an W.iVc . :; iJi-s. ;;i7. 1S72 21). Id.->. 2 IS. ■>\\yv< .... ;i i?.'M. I IS. ISii!) 21). I>i). IS!. 2is. i'cii. IKil. IS7.-. 21). ISl. 2 IS. • '(rllSllll'llill . 11 Wail. (is2 isi;;) 21). H"..-). !'((ii-iiioiilli . 2 Bis-. ,-)t; . f isds Id.-). |{i'h('i-ca . . • . 1 Wall. ISS 1 is:n 2;i. n;.-,. Ki'i'sidf .... •J Sum. .-)l)7 is;{7 21). Id.-,. 2.-)(;. !{(>cl\<'l .... 1 i;i-.-. ;!:.!. ISdd 21). Id.-.. 248, Siiiitcf .... :>. n<'i\. .-.11). isds 21). 120. Sanlfc .... 7 Blalclif. ISO . 1870 148. Star tif ildpc . 17 Wall. i;.-)l . 187:? 21). Id.-,. Snilana \. ( 'lia|iiiiaii :> Wis. i.vL is.'jd (i7. 102. Vivi.l .... ■1 Ben. Itll). ]S7() 21). 24S. Waiiala .... 11.". r. s. mill 1S77 2.-)d. Wailiaii .... i;U)p. Attv. (Ji'li.ll! ISdl) 21). ld.->. \N'isciiiisin V. Vuiiii. Tliorp V. II:iiiiiiiniiil 12 Wall. lOs . 1S7() 14!). Tlu-ifi V. Vdiilc . I.. I!. 2 r. 1'. D. i:)2. '■ 1S77 184. WBom i. .-#3 xlu TAULK OF CASKS GITKD. )|: Naiiu's of cases. AVlipri- reported. Wlieu (Ic- eideil. At what sections cited. II ! J I' isrr "m. im>. 171S I'd. isd-i Ki. isd!) 21-J. ISII lM. 187(1 --'It. If!."). iM5. lMS. _ :.':.7. 7. 178, <«ii Tiorncy v. X. Y. Cent..: Co .'10 Hiiii. TM) . 'I'icliliiniie V. White . . .1 .sir;iii;j;e. 11.") . Tirroll v. Gaije . . . .4 Alien. 21.". Toledo i\je. 1{. Co. v. Meniinaii J'fl 111. I2:i . Tower V. ( Ilea i^e K. Co . . 7 Hill. !7 . 'i'ransportal ion Co. V. Downer .ill \\'all. 12!) j Trent Xav. Co. v. Wood . .1 1)omi>1. 2s7 . :i K«i..' IIU. Tiickertnan \. Sieiiliens ^c Trans. Co :t2 X. J. (I.aw.) ;{2I.' 18(!7 '.")!. 10."). Tn.-rirle V. SI. I.oiiis \c. ]{. Co .!(12 Mo. (2."i. . . 187{; .")(). 2.')4. Tn'rner V. The Hl.u'k Warrior . 1 MeAll. ISl . .' 18,")(I 2!». 2)s. Tnrn(>y V. Wilson. . . . 7 Yer^r. ;il(t . .,' is;).") (i2. Id."). 2-18. 'I'welve llnndred A-e. I'ipes . . :> Ken. 402. . .; 1S71 2!). Tyler V. Wesiirn L'nion Tel. Co. CI) 111. 421 . . .' 1871 ';{s. Tyly V. Morri^'i' . . . .li! Carih. is."» . . l(l!)Ii 20. si;. Tysen V. Moore . . . ..">(! Barb. 1 12 . .i 1870 .")."(.](;,-.. 24S. 2(! Ohio St. .")!),-). I'nion Ex. Co. v. Graham . I'nion .Mnl. Ins. Co. v. Indian- aiiolis ite. K. Co . . .1] Disnev. ISO . I'liiled .states Ex. (.'o. v. lJaeli-| in.i" 2Cin. 2.")1 . I'nited States Ex. Co. v. IJaeh- i":in 2S Oiiio Si. 1(1. Cnited States Ex. Co. v. Haines, v,-; (||. j;); . V. jr.irris ..")! Ind. 127 V. Keefer. ."i!i Ind. 2ii;! V. Hnsh .2! hill. I0;{ Vandersliee \-. The Snj)erior .'!) I'm. E. ,r IK! ^■an Hern v. Taylor . . .7 IJoh. 201. ^ an Horn v. Taylor . . .2 I.a. Ann. .".87 Van Santvoord v. St. .rolin . . (I Hill. l.-,7'. Van Sehaaek v. Xorthern Trans. ! Hiss. ;i!)| • Crahhe. 40.". < '» Van .Syekel V. The Kwin;i Van Xatta v. .Mnl. See. Ins. ( :, .2 siuidf. -I!i(') Van Winkle v. Adams Ex. Co V. i:. S. Mail Co Varble v. iJi^le,- . Vau. 2;i8. .1 1872 '20. li);{. 248. .;t i{\. 1S7I 2!l. 180. 1K4. 1S.-.8 1. .".It. io8.2:j;t.247 is;!.", 17. Vickshnrjr &e. ]{. Co. v. ]{m<.-s. ''"'/'. •. • .■ . . " . Id Miss. l,-,8 ^ irfrmia^e. ]{. Co. v. Sav.Ms . 2d (Jratt. :|-'8 \ It rihed ite. Sewer IMi.es . . .'i Hen. 402. ,- •, r,„ " Hlalchf.274 ^'^'^Mlif I H,.,,. ;{M. . 1872 10. . 187.-, (!,-,. 70. . 1S71 181. . 1877 2.-)d. . 1870 211. 248. N'liincs of ciisi's. TAIU.K or CASKS CITKO. Where reported. xliii When I At whiit sections ClO* clUed. I citeU. VroomiiM V. Am. t'ic. K\. Co WmIiI v. Holt. Wiilker V. .l;icks(Pii V. Skipwitli V. 'I"i':iiis|i. ( '(I . V. York i**:!'. H. ( '» NViilkici' V. ('layloii V. Miiilii'ws . V. Sanders V. N"h;ms . Wiilpole V. Kriilfffs Walstoii \ . Myers . Wanata. "riic." Warden v. (Jreer .'.-. \. Y. (S. (;.) 22 2 Hull. r)l2 . 2(i Wis. 70:? . 10 M.i^ W. lOl .Meii-s. .->()2. . :', Wall. I.V). .2 K. .>;; IJ. 7.".0 .12 (;a. ii:i. . :'.',) (ia. (;17. . 12 (Ja. ISC. . I 151:iekf. 2(10 . .■) I?la( kf. 222 . '> .Imies. 171 . ll.'i r. S. COO . C. Walls. 121 1S74 14G. Warliiis V. Howerv Saviiies irk . 21 N. V. ."ilH 1570 :(;7. 117. 2;!(>. lS-12 DO. isits (12. ISC.-) 1-10. ls.-):{ 10;$. 1571 1. isco :{7. so. no. 1S71 ;{7. 1S7. is;f7 4. is:5o .■). :jo. 20«. ls.-)7 1. IS77 :2.5(i. is:{7 14. .v.), 11(1. isiio :io,->. Watliaii. 'I'lie Walkiiisuii V. I.aii^iliioii Wayiand v. Mosehy Wayne v. Tlu! (ieni'ial I'ike. WeOli V. Railway Co . Weir V. Kxjiress ( 'o Weleli V. Hoo 14. ic. .-)7. i:{7. .1 is.-)S :7o, 12s. 220. . 1SC2 2S. .'),->. 7.->. SI. KK), I ' 12s. 15(1. 220. ■ i 1S40 ll. .' IS.-)!} {.-).->. n;5. 1:5."). 1S7, I ■ 220. 2()0. . ISCl i4:{, 207. ISSO 1S.-)C 2.)7. 4. 40. 1(1.'), ISO. 1S72 I.-).-). io;{. i:w. !:'>•'>. I i:{s. 1,S7.-) I.-).-). 103. 120. 1:!:$, KIS. , ISCO lis. SS, 101. KI5, I ! 24ti. . 1S(17 1.47. . 1S71 ;{;{. . 1S71 2:1s. 240. .'• ISlC 242. I i .' 1S7:{ .").-). i.-)S. .' is.-)7 lis. l.-)l. .! is.-)C 1. .1 is.-)C |.-).-). 102, 11:?. .' 1S4.-) l0!l. .■ 1S44 no. 1 (!.-). 10s. 240. . 1S40 40. IC.-). . is.-):i 40. . is.-.s |2:{8. 2:19. :'.-# Hi I 1 1 xliv TAItLE OF CASKS ( ITKD. Ximios of coses. Wlioro rcportfcl. "l',l^" I '^' wimt sect ions . 1S77 U). III. .' IS 10 :.(;. !(;.■). •' isKi ;{|. l.'iJ. .: is;it! -'15. .1 is7;{ !i). J isi;! 1 •_)<). .1 IS7-' (i,-.. loi;, 2IJ. J ISII ;!),-.. .1 IS.M ']{',. Wildt! V. Mcrcli. Dis. TiJiiis. Co . 17 lowii. •-'72 . !7 Iowa. •_M7 AVilliains V. IJraiisnn . . .1 .Miirplicy. 117. ?S^: V. (Jraiil. . . . M 'oiiri. IS7 ■' V. Tiivlor . . . ; Tort. SM Willis V. (iiMii(i 'rnmk U. Co . vd Me. ISS. U'ilsdii V. r.rcll . . . . II .M. i\c \V. Il;{ V. Clicsiiicakc iScc. I{. ('(1. L'l (Jrall. li.VI . V. Ficfiiian . . . ;i ('aiii|). :>-27 V. Ilaiiiiltoii . . .1 Ohio St. 7Jl' . V. York Xr. I?. Co . . Is Kiiir. I,. ^ Kij..V)7i IS,">I •2;',0 ^Viltoii V. Ailanlic Koyal Mall St. ' | ' X.iv. C.) . . ' . . . Id C. I!. N. S. !,• UMiiklicld V. I'ackini;i l!ail>. 1 1;! . Wolf V. AiMcrican i';\. Co . . i:! Mo. luM V. Wcsiciii I'nion Tcj. Co . (ii* |'a. si. s;i V- Myers . . . . :i Saniil. 7 . Wooden V. Austin. . . ..-,1 Haili. !i. WoodrntT V. Shcrrai'd . . . li linn. .•!-.':i ^N'orlli \ . Kdninniis . . . ,V_' IJaih. Id Wri-lit V. (;atT . . . . t; |,hI. lie. ^\yld V. I'ickl'ofd . . . . s M. \ w. 1 1;{ isdl idi;. 1S-J7 !i.-,. 2211. IS7(; ll. IS.")(! ;I|S. I'^">7 Id. IKi. is7d :,:,, 2;{(;. 212. i.^iiii .•.(). 17s. isd'.i .■.:(. I>i|ll .").'.. 1(12. ill!. l>^t»> .v.. I, •;,■.. 1S7(I ,V.. 107. IStiS I. !>■'")"> ;(!). IJs. i^^^ii '2.'>. !:;;;. i,-is. Yatc V. Willan . . . .2 Kast. I2S York <'o. V. Central liailroad . ;1 w'ali" lt~)7 York Xewcastle ,*,c. U. Co. v.' ^.*"'''^P lie. li. .-.27 . lonni,' V. Western I'lnon Tel. Co. :; I \. V. (S. C.) ;t!i(). Znii;a:v. Howland. . . . 5 Dalv. i;!(l V. Sontli Eastern JJ. Co . L. K.'i (^. ij. -,;{() ISOl !!)|. ISti.") 2:1. 7i>. 1::!. 17(1, 2.17, 2(;d. I>i7)l 2.-). 1.S72 l.V). 1S7I :,:,. 1!).-,. KS(!!I 1 10(1. « TAHLr.OF (ASMS PKNIKP. CKITICISKP. KKVKUSKI). OVKIJHII.KK ANI> 1 (ISTlNCriSIIKI). AlllllllS Kx. Co. V. llaviic: 1-j 111. SI) (isdii). AlcXMIIllcr V. (il'CCIIC :i Hill. 1) (ISI-2). AmiTJcan 'I'raiis. ( 'o. v. Moore 'i Midi. :<(;s (is.'.s). Austin V. Maiicli. \c. 1{. Co II Ku'^. L. iV: Kii. .">()(). IC .liir. 7r.;{ (IS.VJ). A Vina r v. Astor ti Cow. 20(1 (1S2(I). Bank of Kciitiickv v. Adams Kx. Co 1 Cciil. L. .»."i:t(i (isri). IJci'k V. Kvaiis K; Kasl. ■_>)). :? Camp. 2()7 (lSl->). Bis.-ell V. New York I'ciit. li. Co 21lJ{arli. (102 (IS.Vt). IJissfll V. Xcw York Cent. It. i'o ■2'> X. Y. 112 (1S(12). Blossom V. l)o(l(l . . . . . ■i:{ N. Y.2(ll (1S7()). Blum y. Soiiiliciii I'lilliiiiin Pahici' CarCo. HCciil. L. .1. .")H1 (1X7(1). Bosiwick V. Baltimore iVo. It. Co . •I.") N. Y. 712 (1S71). Crilii'ised in this treatise. Cai». \'l. !i 12N. Reversed ia Alexander v. (Sreeiie. 7 Hill. .••.:!;! (ISII). See Wells v. Steam Nav. Co.. 2 (.^oinsi. 2i)| (IS I!.). See People v. Tvler. 7 Mieli. Kd. 21(1 (is;t!t). See 2 (Jiceulf. Kv.. ij 21."). note. Oveirnled in .Mien v. Si'woll. 2 Wend. :i27 (IS2!i): Sewell v. .M- len. (I Wend. :?;t(i (is;{()) ; MeAr- tlmrv. Sears. 21 Wend. 1110 (is:?!)). .See al>n Hale v. New. Jersey Steam Nav. Co. I.") Ci.nii. ."):!',). .")|.i (ISi;!). Uveirnled in Bank of Kentiu'kv v. Adams Ex. Co. li;{ C. S. 171, I Cent. I...I. :!."> (|S7(i). Overiiiletl in M.ush v. Ilorne. ."> B. I i<: C. :i22(lS2(!). I ' }{eversed in Bissell v. New York , Cent. I{. Co. 2.") N. Y. 112 (IS(;2;. i Oveiriile1 N. Y. 1(1(1 (1S72). Critioiseil in this treatise. Cap. I. § 1. Distiiifjiiished In Hill v. Svraciise &v. \i. Co. 7:« X. Y.:(r.i (is7s). M xlvi CASES OVERUULKU, CinTIClSED, KTC. Cii<«'<>. 'I'lx' .... Diiv.'is. isi (isrj). Cliildsv. Little M;iitni II. Co . 1 ("in. (Oliio). 1.^0 (IS71). ("liristciisoii V. Amoricnii Ex. O) 1.-) Minn. -JTO (1S7()). Cliirlv V. l};irn\vcii llJ II. INN. HI (IN.-)I). Cole V. (Joddwiii lit Wend, -jni (is:t>i). Collcndt'i' V. Dinsnioi-c (!4 Hiivl). C): (lS7;i). Ci>lltMid('i' V. Dinsmoi'c .").■. N. Y. ■>(») (i.srH). Ccdlins V. Hiistdl \c. H. Co . II Ex. 7!M) (IS.VI). Collins V. Hristol Sir. \i. (jo . I II. iS: N. r.17 (is.-.(i.) Coll V. IMcMcciicn (i Johns. Kit). .') Am. Dec. JOO (ISIO). Cfiigin V. New York Cent. ]t. Co 51 N. Y.iil (IS72). Crosbv V. Kiti'li i-i (■ nn. no (is:(8). Dibble v. Morijiin 1 AVoods.'KK) (IS7;t). Kdwiii'ds V. )Vliile Line 'I'lansit C( 101 Miiss. i:.!) (IS70). Eveih'igli V. Sylvester 2Urev. 17S (1807). Express Co. v. Arinstead 50AIii. 3r)0 (187:!)- Exjiress Co. v. Ciipcrton 44 Ala. 101 (1S70). Express Co. v. Ilavni's 4-J 111. 8!) (IS(i(i). Ezzell V. Eiii^lisli (i I'ort. ;i'll (ls;iS). E/ell V. Miller (i I'orl. ;{07 (ISliS). Fibel V. Livin<;stdn (U JJarb. 17!) (187-2). Field V. Cldeai;o i^e. K. Co 71 I11.4r)8 (1S71). Fillebrown v. (Jrand Trunk R. Co o.") Me. 4 -JO (1807). Fisli V. Cbajjnian 2Ga. ;J4!) (1847). . Criticised in this treatise. Cap. VMI. I < -Joo. . See I'nited States Kx. Co. v. iJacli- nian. -J Ciii. (Ohio). -J.'.l (1872). , Denied in Hank of Keiitneky v. Ad- ams K\. Co. I Cent. L'. .1. t;i() I (1871). .See (iraliMni \'. Davis. I Ohio St. I ;{o-j (i^^.'ii). . See Meiranlile Ins. ( 'o. v. ( 'base. 1 . K. D.Smiib. ll."> (I8,-)I)): WeMi v. ritl>linr;;li \e. H. Co. 10 Obio St. ' C.:.. 7i> (18.V.)): Swindler v. Mil- liard. -J Hicb. (S. C.) 280 (IS40). . IJeverscd in ( 'ollender v. Dinsnnii'e. .").-> N. Y. 200 (I87;i). . ' Critii'ised In this treatise, Cap. V . ;> ■ II;!. . J{eversed in Collins y. Mrisiol \e. K. Co. I II. \ N. .".17 ( isr.O). . I ]{eversed in Directors of liri^tol I{. I Co. V. Collins. 7 II. I-. ('as. |ni I (18.-.8). . Critieiseil in Ibis treatise. ( 'ap. 1 <■ .">. , ( 'riliciseil in tbis treatise. ( 'ap. \'I. ei| in this treatise. ( 'ap. \'1 1. i; lii."i. Crilii'i-ed in this treatise. Caj). I. § IS. ('rilii'ised in Tatton v. Ma;;i'alb. ; Diidi. '.Vl (18:{S^ Overrnled in McClenajrban v. Hroi'k. 5 Kicb. 17 (18:>l,i. See Robinson v. Merchants Dis- patch 'I'rairs. ('o.. |.", Iowa. 170 (1877). ("riticised in Express Co. v. Cald- i well. 21 Wail. 201 (1871: Sontbern I Kx. Co. V. llimnicntt. .'>) .Miss. .")(;(; ■ (I^<77). Criticised in Ibis treatise. Cap. VI. iJ 128. Criticised in this i realise. ( 'ap. \ III. v( 10."). and si-e ( 'aj). \'. ^ 12."). Criiici.-id in ibis treatise. '( 'ap. VIII. *; 10."). and see ( 'ap. \'. j;' 12.'). Criiiciscd in Avre-; v. Western < 'o.. 14 ni.aicbr. ii! (1S70). Disiin,irni-be(l in Mrie i^cc Transpoi'- j tatioii Co. V. Dale)-. 8 ( '(>iil. L. ,1. I 2!i;! (1870). ! See (irace v. .\dams. |(l() Mass. .",().") I (I8(W). Overrnled in Cooper v. Herry. 21 ' (ia. .")20 (I8,")7) : IJerrv \. Coopei', I 28 (;a. ,".i:i (I8.-)0): (''entral Line i v. Lowe. .")0 (ia. .")0!) (I87;i). ..^^N- CASES OVKUIU'LED, CKITICISKD, ETC. xlvii Frt'i'dom. 'I'lit' .... L. U. ;t 1'. C. ,V.)I: 21 L. T. (N. S.) I.V_> (1S71). French v. niiffiiln \r. It. Co . I Kcv.'s. I(»s. ■-> Al)li. .\|)|.. Di'c. km; (1S(I8). GofJK'" V. Kansas I'lic. IJ.Co 12 Kas. IK; (IN7I). (id-liii;!; V. Ili^iiiiis . 1 ('ani|(. l')l (ISOS). (ioiild V. Hill . . 2 llill.(12;{ (ISI2). fJraiT V. Adams .... ii»() Mas-. .Mir. (isns). Jlaiiis V, Kami .... 1 N. II. 2."i'.» (l."<27). Ila\s V. Ki'IiihmIv ■ 11 Pa. Si. ;!7S (isci). llcmlt'isun \. SK'vt'ii-uii . \.. H. 2 Sc. \ Div. 170 {\s7:t). JIiTsli.dd V. Ailaiiis . lit Barl). :.77 (isi:.:,). Hiblcr V. Mc('ailn('\' . :tl Ala. .'.(11 (is.-.S). Hill V. Sviai'iisc \.'. K. ('(I 10. 1." I*;: S. 2'.m;. S Hum. 2:m; (ls7(i). lli'llistcr V. Ndwlt'ii . r.i Wciiil. 2:U (ISllS). Il'inil V. New York iVr. U. t 'o 22 Conn. .">02 ^ls,■.:l). llniipi'l- V. \V< IN. 27 Cal. 11 (^ISC.I). llnpkins V. Wi'slcntt . 11 lllatrlif. CI (IS(iS). Illinois ( 'cnl. !{. Co. v. Adam- 12 III. !7I (1.m;7). Indiana i^c. I'. (\>. \. Mnudv 21 ine. Cap. I. >■ 1^. . (h-'iiideil in ISi--cll V. New York . ."i2l. .")2(; (ls,-,2); Dorr v. New .lersev Sleani Nas'. ('o.. 1 Sandf. II'.C' (isr.O). 11 N. Y. Is.'i. ' r.M (lS."»|):See also Mercantile Mnt. Ins. Co. V. Ch;.:'!. 1 K. I). Smith. II.". i,ls.-.i)); Welch V. I'itis- l.nruli \c. K. Co., 10 Ohio St. C..".. 70 (isr.i;; Indianajjolis iicc. J{. ■ Co. V. Cox. 211 Ind.l'.dlt (IS(iS). Denied in Ameiican I'nion Kxi)re. V III. t; Kl.'i. . Distiiijcuislied in Unrke v. Soutli- easfrn li. Co.. reported in tiiis treilise j 2(11. . !'->'.;'. ."» r.usw. ;.!)."> (is."i',i); Place V. I'liion K\. Co.. 2 Milt, r.t (IS.-.S). . Criticised in this ireatisc. (.'ap. VIII. $ Hi.-., and sec <"ap. V. § 12.-). . o.errided in Mill v. Syracuse iS:c. U. » o.. 7:5 N. 1 . :i.->l (lS7s). . Denied in Michij;an Cent. K. Co. v. Hale. (1 Mich. 24;5. 2(iO (IS.-.li). ('iiiilrn. Hatson v. Donovan. 4 Harn. I'v; Aid. 21 (l,s20): 2 Par- son's t'oni. ■-'•">2. note (.'. VaI.). Si'c Mcrcanlile Mnl. ins. Co. v. Chase. 1 K. D. Smith. II.-.. 117 (IS.-.O). . Crilici-cd in this treati:-e. Cap. XI. S 2;!.-,. . Criticised in ( 'hristenson v. .\mcii- i';m I'^xpress ('o., i.". Minn. 270 (IS70). Denied in IJank ol Immi- tnckv. l.?ii Adam- Hx. Co.. 1 Cent'. L. .1. i;i(! (1S7I). . Denied in Uiossc.m v. Dodd. i;'. X. Y. 2(;i. 2(;s (IS70). . ( 'rilicl7 Ind. i IS (1S71 I : Ohi(. A;c. U. Co. V. S(dl)y. 17 iini. 471 (l.s7iK i 'riiii'isei! in ihi-trcatise. Vi\\u IX. s< 217. XlVlll CASKS OVKIMMI.KI), CKITinsi;!), KTC 0: liiili!Ui;i|ii>li« I'ii'. !?■ <'"• V. Alli'ii ;fl lliil. -Mi (1N(!!I). Iiiili!iiiiiiMili> iVc. |{. Co. V. I{iMiiiiiy i:i Itiil. .MS (Is.MP. Jnliiisiin \. N'rw York Cent. Ii. Ci> :il M;irti. I!M) (is:.7). joiios V. riiiiitT. :isi. A' 1'. i;i5 (is:f;{). .Idlics V. X'ui'i'lircs KMHlio. li:. (ISId.) II .loiiii-. Kir'dsin. KiMirlfT V. Ef,'^l('S((Hi . Al(',\ii. :».;. Klnil)Mli V. K'lilhiiii! \('. li. Co . 2(1 \t. i!l7 (is:)!.) Kirliv V. A(Imiii« K\. I'd . ■2 Mo. (Alili. ' :{(;!i. ;t Cent. L. J. 4U.") (I.S7(;). Klrkljiiid \'. iMiisinurc I 'riioiiip. i\: c. :m fis7i. I.iikc .*^luirc Ac. K. Co. V. I'cikiiis 2.') Mirh. ;;2;) (Is7-J.) I-('('.«oil \. iloll . 1 Stark, isi; (ISKI). Liver Alkali ( o. y. Joliiisoii I,, i;. u K\. :i;is (is7i). Maglico V. Caiiiilcii \c, |{. Co . -)." \. V. .-.II (I,s71j. .Maviii^' \. 'I'ndd .... 1 .stark. 72 (l^i:>). McCiiiic \-. Cox ;t7 Ala. 1)17 (l.s.-.S.:. Mcrcliants I)i.-iiatcli Trans. Co. v Moori' .... >SS 111. Km {IV7S-). .Merrick v. IJrainaiil . . . • :fs Jiarl). ',7\ (]y(:slier V. Soinlicni Ex. Co 3.S (;a. ;i7 (Is'tJS). New Jeisey Si cam \av. Co. v. Meirhf, R-iiik (i llow. :i44 (184S). 2se\v Jci.-cy, 'J'lic Oleott.444 (IS4(;) , (.'riiiciscd ill iliis ire.ilise. Cap. \'l. I ii I2S. . Criiici-cd ill lliis ircallx'. Cap. \ I. ;; I2S. . ONcrriiled III •loliii'oii \-. New York < I'lil. I{. Co.. :t;i N. Y. (ll(i(lS(i.*ii. . Criliciscd ill this irealiM'.Cap.Vlil. J |i;.-p. and MM. Cap. V. j I2.-.. . I See |)a\i(l«oii v. (Jraliaiii. 2 Ohio j SI. i;U ,is.-,;t). .See 'i'he Waldo. 1 Davci-. Kll (ls.||). . I Doillited ill (iililioii \. I'ayiitoii. 4 ! Hiirr. 22'.is ( I7ii:i;. . I Si c .Miclii!,'aii i^c. H. ( 'o. V. V.r- l»oiiou;.:li. 2! Mi.4i. 111.-) I Is7(i). . ' Ciiiici-c(l ill this treatise. Caii. IX. S 212. <>\ciiiilcd ill Kiiklaiid v. I »iii-iiioie. j •;2 N. Y. 171 . In7.-.). I ( 'ritii'i-cd ill iliis trc;iti-c. ( 'ap. \'. I j '<'■'. Overruled in Wii^lii \. I'lilliani. 2 Chitl. 121 ^ isltii: >cc Sinn Id > v Til-on. 2 M.d.ean l.'iS ( |s|| i. |)isiini;iii«licd in Scail'c v. r'airani. 2:1 W. U. Sill; 2 Ceiil. I,. .1. (iii.-> (ls7.-.). I»isiinMiiis||,.(i ji, .Kiiia Ins. Co. v. Wheeler. I'.i \. Y. HH; ( 172,. Denied in Mlin \. Mayo. Id \\. :,r, (ls;!Sj. l)oiiliiediii,S|(iry (Ml IJail- nients. ^ l.'il : .see Parsons mi I Coiiiraei> I i;{. note. (.-) Kd.) Critiii-ed in this treatise. ( 'ap.VIII. J 1(1.-.. and see Cap. \'. ^12.-.. I)istini;iii-licd in Mric ,V(. Trails. < 'u. V. Oaler. S Cent. I,. ,1. 2s:{ (|S7!I). h'everscd inl!! \. Y. I'.US I'lSllC). Overruled in .Midiiifan Central |{. <'o. V. Hale. (I Mich. 212 ns,-,!!). Denied in linlianapi'li- .Vc. |{. C(.. V. Cox. 2:1 liid. ;;r,o f IMIS). Doiil.icd in (iihhon v. ravnion. I liinr. 221IS (!7(!!)). See Wei.d V. ( ■idckcr. |s Wis. IM.'. (1S(i4). See Mall v. Chenev. :'.(! X. II. 211 Cl.'<.-)7); Ilaekeii v! ISoston ^e. 1{. <'o.. ;t.-> X. II. ;t!MI (•lS.-.7j. See Xnttinjr v. C Hiv. I{. C«... 1 (iray .->02 (Is.-.l: '^iiiniliv v. Van- ! derliilt. 17 .X. Y. :\W 1 \s:,s). I Sec Atkins v. Kil.iv C(... 1 Bin. j lis (ls(i7): The i.ei.iianl. ;; Hen. ! 2(j:t (ISO! I-). : Criticised in this treatise. Cap.Vdi. ! i;20(;. CASEH OVKURlLKn, rUITlCtSKI), ETC. xlix N'W'lK.lu^ V. N.w York ("."iif. K. Co . tl riionip. \ ('. (iOi;. iiiiiii.;{27 (isr.'i). N'icliolson V. Willaii .... .') Kiisl. .'lOT (ISO I). l)|i|i<'iili('iim'r V. rnilfd .stutt's Kx. Co t)7 111. 1)2 (\s:2). raclllc. riic 1 lUalclif. .'.(lit (\SM). r*!iiii \. Hiitfalo \f. I{. Co (!• N. Y. 201 (IS7-J). IVrkihs V. New York Ciil. 1£. . •J I N. Y. 1V<; (INiJ;. I't'iTv V. riniinpson .... '.'•s Mass. -Jilt (Isc.D. I'oiiiluT V. New YoiK CtMU. H. Co , 111 N. Y. -JC.;? (I,s7:i). I'lilliiiiM I'alMfc Car Co. v. .'^mltli . 7.1 III. :t(;o (IS77). liailroail Co. v. A;7('.). Kixlord V. .Smiili .".2 N. II. :i.M (ls72). Koliiiisoii V. Mcniiaiils Dis. Trans. l.'» Iowa. 170 (ls77). Sampson v. (Ja/zani . f. Toit. r.';: i is;i7). Santic. Tlif .... 7 IJlalcId'. IMi (IS70j. Slu'lion V. Mcrilianls Dispatch '1 Cm Mi N. Y. (S. C.) .VJ7 (1S7:J). Slii'lioM V. Mcri'liants Dispatch T Co. .VJ N. Y. -J.Vs (1S71). .'^in^ons v. Great Western I?. Co. ISC. H. SO.-, (is.-.c.i. Smith V. New York Cent. 1{. Co. 2-1 N. Y. 222 (1S(J2). iv Co. ran- ran! Crllldseil In this troatiso. Cap. II. )j 2s. VI. 5; |:{(l. D ireati-e. Cap. II. Jj 2S. VI. 4 12S I.\. >< 220. .See (irace v. .\ilam-^. liio Ma-s. .■)ii.-.. (ISCS). . Criticised in this treati.-e. Cap. VI. ! 5» I'-i''^- Crilici«ed in thi- ireati-e, Ca).. I. Ci'llici-ed in tlii- treatise. Can. \'I. j 1 2s. Criticised in this trea1i-e, C:i;i. \I. S 12S. See Micld^inn Oa-. I{. Co. v. lleaiun. :!7 Ind. IIS (1S71 : Ohio \c. K. Co. • Sell.y. 17 Ind. -471 (ls7n. Criti(i-ed in this ire.ati-e. Cap. IX «i217. Criiii rd in thi- treali-e, ( ap. V. i S 1 <>■.>. (_'ritii'i-ed in thi- treatise. Cap. \'|. 5il2s. Overrnied in .Miihiiian ( 'en! . I!. < 'o. V. Hale. 11 Mii'li. 2i:{ (IS.V.ii. Distini;ni-hed in Oxlev v. .s^t. I.onis A:c. k. Co. (ir. Mo. (12'.> (1>77). Critici-ed in liii- Ireati-e. Cap. \'\. S i:t7. .See Sonihern K\. Co. y. Ann-tead. .■)0 Ala. :i.".0 (1S7;!). Criticised in thistrc:iiiso. Cap. VIII. 5tl(M.and -ee Cap. \'. §12.->. I)i-tinl;lM^l!l•d in Collins v. Hnrns. :i!» N. Y. 2.-)S lls7l;. DistiiiLTni-hed in Wilde v. Mei'- chants Dispatch Trans. Co. ij la. 217 (1S77). Dictum donbtecl in (Jorton v. Rris- t<.i \c. H.Co.i IJ. iscs.irjcistii). Criticised in this treatise. Cap. II. ii2S. VI. :; 12S. IX. 220. li »>■,{ iS^'. R'ffi"=*^B|iS li '4- ■J! (III i S||I\ I 1 V. Nlnloll 'j H.iil.vv. 121 0*<:!lt- Sdiillicrn Kxpri'-is Cii. v. Aiiii-li'in .■|(» .Mm. ;i.'.(» (,|S7;!). ^lllltlM•nl Kxprc",- Co. v. (.'npcrtoii II .\l,i. Mil (H:(I). Siowan \ . [.oihIkii iV;c. l;. ('>>. :i II. iv r. i;i.-) (^|s(in. Slilcs v. |);iv|.i . I r.l:lrk. Id! (|S(!|). Si. .Injiii V. \mii SiiiilvitDnl •-'.". W.llil. f.llO (ISIJ), SiiJliiiiM. TIm' .'. Wi-. i:.i ^is.'iii). 'I'llC CilM'U .... Dav. Is. Is I (IS I-.)). 'I'lic Kn rilom I-. n. ;; v. c. iV.n. Jl L. T. (\.S.) .I.-.2 (1^71) 'I'llC N'i'w .Irr«('v oici.it III (isirt). Tlic l';i. iiic 1 Itlaiclif. .-)i;!i fls.-iO). 'I'lic Siiiitci'. 7 lil.t.'hf. isii (|,S7(>,). The Snltaiiii ... ."> \Vi«. IM (is,-.ti,. Van I lorn v. Taylor . -' La. .Villi. ^S7 (1817). Van Hern v. Tuvlor . 7 Hoi). JOI (isii). AVii]|)ol<' V, nri(l;;i's . .") U!a<-kf. 222 (l.s:i!t). AVanIt n v. (iwn- (IS.-,;;,. Western rnion Te!. Co. v. Carew 1". .Mi.li. -,o:, (i,s(j7). Wliitesidesv. Tlnirlkill . 12 .s. i\c y\. :,'M (IS tit). AVrii;ht v. Gaff . . 5 iiid. in; (is.w). Ziii:>; V. Sontli(!ast(>ni IJ. Co. . J.. K. 1 Q. B. 530 (ISG'.t). . Oveniilcil in MrCli'iiaijIian v. Hmek .•) Ilieli. 17 (ls:,|). . See |{(iliiii»on V. Mercliiiiit' Mi*- paicli Trail-. ( '<>. |."i la. I7il ( |S77). . Critii'heil in Kxpn'-" V. Caldwell. 21 Wall. 2iiil ' (is77i. . ()\ernil('il In C ilieii v. .Soniliea»lerii ' It. Co. I,, i:. 2 I'A. I). 2.v: (IS77). . >Crilii'i«'(| in I'Mward- v. lied Line Tran-i! < 'o. liH .Ma--. l.-iH i l«7i-ed in this ireati-e. Cap. \||| ii 211(1. . Cr'ilieisi'd ill Tlie Clia-ca. I.. I{. i Adni. IK;: 2,! I,. T. (\. S.) S,|S; ' II I,. T. .Vdni. 17 (1S7.-)). . Crlllei-ed in (hi- treali-e. C.ip.VHi. i it 21)11. .See Tlie (i'lierai Slieridan. 2 lien. j 211 1 (isiis). . jti-liimni-lied in Collins v. niirn-. :!il N. Y. (S.C.I .MS vls7;t : t!;i \. Y. I (i->7:.i. . Doiiliied ill li\ine V. The llainhiiry, j :; Minn. I!t2 ( |s.-,!(). . ( 'riliei-.'d in this treatise. Cap. VIM, I ij Hi.".. . ' Criliei-ed ill litis lieati>e.( 'an. VIII. i i> III''. . Criiieised in llii- treatise. Cap. VIII. ji 2l)ti. Critieised in this Ireali-e. Cai). 1. fill. . j Denied in IIoo]>er v. AVidls. 27 <'al. n. i:! (isc.i;: Jini.iie ,\:e. U. (•„. I V. Iliipkins. II .Ma. iMi; K'o^e v. I Des .Moines Valley |{. Co. :;!» In. I 2l(i(IS7l). ('rilieised inthis trea- I tise. Cap. II. ii2s. \l. ij I2S. . , Doiihied ill Sniitli v. >s'e\v York I Cent. |{. Co. 2!) Marl). I;t2 (ls.-.;i). . ('riliei-ed ill tiiis irraii-e. Cap. I. j I. . Critiei-ed iiitlii-lreati-e.Ca|). \'||1. j Km. . ' I'ritieised in tlii> ire;iti-e. Cip. VI. S 12S. See .Mieliiu,an Ae. K. Co. V. Il.aton. :i7 Ind. IIS (1S7I): Oiiio I've. K. Co. V. S(dl)V. 17 Inil. ■171 (1S7I). Criticised in Henderson v. Steven- son. 2 Sc. A Div. 170 (IS75). ii sii ff:*SN*''S**-'i»i rj IN SK T H K CONTRACTS OF COMMON CARRIERS. CIIAPTKll I. INTROOl (TION THK LIABILITIKS OF COMMON CARKIBK8 IM- DEl'KiNUKNT OF Sl'ECIAL CONTRACT. SKCTION. 1. Who arc Coimnon Carriers. 2. Coiiunon Carriers as lusiirers. ;}. Kxceptions lo ilie Liability as Insurers. 4. 'I'lie Act of God. .'). Discordant Decisions, 0. Cases not Witliin tlie Act of (Jod. 7. 'i'lie (Question of Xejjligencc Immaterial. 8. Act of (iod the Kxclnsive Cause. !l. N'c^li;;cnc»' and .\cl of (iod Conciirrin<5. 10. Loss by Ac-t of (Jotl after Xe Ciiiisfil by Xcu'lcc'l iif OuiiiT. •2A. Owner Uiulcrlakiu.u- I'ait of Duties of ('airier. [CH. I. Sect. 1. W/to an^ Conimo)! ('(irricrs. — A conunon car- ri 1- is one who uiulci-takcs, for liir<', to tnuisport the goods for such as clioosf to ciuplov him, from plaeo to place' His duties partalvc of a pul)lic character, and are subject to legibhitivc reotilatiou and control.-' Like other bailees for hire, he is hound to the exercise of that care and diligenco which are usually l)esto\ved by men of ordinary pi'udenc<' in the manam'inent of their own affairs ; and he is liable foi" any want of skill in his calliniT. In these respects the com- mon carrier diffei's not from other l)ailees for hire." As cominiT witiiin the definition first stated, tiie followinir are held to the responsibility of connnon carriers : An express company that forwards o-oods from phice to place, for hire, but in conveyances owned and nianaired })y others;' a staue coach jjroprietor as to the baogairo of passengers;^ a city expressman;" an omnibus line;' a railroad company," and under some cii-cumstances a horse 'Parker, C. J., in Dwiijlit v. Urcw^tcr. 1 Tick. .">() (1S22) ; Mr. .Instico Clifford in Tlie Niaj^iinv v. Cordes. 21 How. 7 ('1S.")S). 2 Peik V. Cliiciij,'o, Ac. H. Co..!l4 IT. S. HU (1X7(1) ; Chicajro, ^tc. R. Co. V. Aekley. !)4 11. S. 17!» { IS7(>) : Winona. i<:c. R. ( 'o. v. lilakc. !H l'. S. ISO (1S7(!). •■' Anjrcll on Carriers. >; 07: Browne on Carriers, j 12. * Cliristenson v. A eriean Kxpn^ss (■<,.. ir, Mjnri. 27(1 (1S7();; TiO\\<'ll Win- Fence Co. v. Sargent, s Allen, IS!I (Isiil); Siiernuui v. AVells, 2S Hurl). 4l);{ (1S.-)S): Baldwin v. .Vni.'riean Kxpress Co., 2:» 111. 197(18.5!)); Read v. SpaMldinsr, 5 Rosw. :{!l.") (IS.-)!)); Ifaslani v. Adams Exi)re.s.s Co., (i Bosw. 2:!.") (isiiO); Sweet v. Harney. 2K X. Y. :{;{.") (1S(!1); Vernor v. Sweitz.M-, :!2 Pa. St. 20S (^1S.-,S) ; Soiitliern Kxpress Co. v! Newl)y. :{<) Ga. O;!.") (IS(i7). •^ Ilollister V. Xowlen. l!) Wend. 2;?4 (ls;{S); Cole v. (Joodwin. Id. 2.-)l (ls;iS); Chirk V. Faxion. 20 Wend. l,-.:i i,18:W) ; Powell v. Myers, 2(! Wend. .-)!H (1S41); Camden &e. Trans]). Co. v. Belknap. 21 wi'nd.iril (lS:{i)); Jones V. Vooriiees. 10 Oliio. It.') (1S40). « Richards v. Westeott, 2 Bosw. .jSil (IS.kS). ' Parmelee v. MeXnlty. Ill 111. ,-,51; (IS.-.S); Pannelee v. Lowitz. 74 III 110 (1874); Dibble v. Brown. 12 (>a. 217 (IS.VJ). "Southwestern R. Co. v. Webb. 48 Ahi. .".s.-, (1S72). Story on Bail- ments, § 411(5. MWiB CH. I.J INTUODUCTION. 3 railroiid coinpiiiiy." Wagonors and teamsters who carry goods for hire from one part of a town to another, or be- tweiMi different towns, are common carriers.'" So ai'c the owners and masters of steam))()ats engaged in the transpor- tation of goods for persons generally, for hire. So are lightmen, hoymen, barge owners, ferry-men, canal boat- men, and others employed in like manner." But according to the weight of authority, the owners of steamboats em- Ijloycd in the business of towing are not common carriers.'"^ [t has been ruled in two cases that a sleeping car com- ])any is not within the detinition of a common carrier, nor subject to its responsibilities," but the decisions fail to con- tain any satisfactoiy reasons for the distinction. It is like- wise a disputed (piestion whether or not a telegraph company is a common carrier, the weight of authority, in this country at least, answering it in the negative.'^ The method by which these conclusions are reached is singular; consisting simply in an attempt to make these modern in- fit 'I , •' Levi V. lAiiii. iVr. ||(.rsi' R. Co., 11 Allen. :t(Hi < isd.-).) '"(Jordoii V. Iliitrliiiisoii, 1 W. »S: S. -JS,-) (ISll): Sloiy on B;iilinpnts. § ilii;. " Story on nailmcnts. «} 40(). '-'Tlic SnpnMiit' Conrts of Louisiana and North Carolina liavo decided tliat thej arc. Sniitii v. Pierce. 1 La. ;M!» (18:W) : Adams v. New- Orleans Towboat Co.. 11 La. 4(5 (1S;J7): Walston v. Myi-rs. .". Jones, 174 (l'^.")7). Tlie Snpreiiie Courts of California and .\e\v .lersey. while de- «'idin;j the cases l)efoi'e tlicni on other fjrounds. and waivinj^ this iiuestion as unnecessary to tlie decision of the eases, have intimated similar views. White V. The Mary Ann, <'al. U\i (lS,")(i) : Ashmore v. Penn. Steam 'r«iw Co., -JS N. .). (Law) ISO (ISdO). Tlie Supreme Courts of Xew York, Kentucky and I'emisylvania liold the ojjposite doctrine. < 'atonlv. Kuuiuey. i:i Wend. :IS7 (is:?.-)); Alexander v. (;reiMie. :{ Hill,'.) {^ii) \ AV.'lls V. Steam Nav. Co., 2 X. Y. 201 (IStlt); Leonard v. Ileudritikson, 1^ I'a. St. ID (iS.-.l) ; Varble v. Kiirley. !t Cent. L. .1. \y.\ (1S7!)). " Pidlman I'alace Car Co. v. Smith. 7:$ 111. ;{<)() (1S77) : Blum v. Soutli- erii I'ullnian Palace Car Co., lU.'ent. L. .F, .">ni (lS7(i). '* In lOnjfland and California a tele;irai)h company is rejjjarded as a «'ommon carrier. McAndrew v. Klectric Tel. Co. 17 C. B. :{ (185.")); Parks V. Alta Califonua Tel. Co.. 1:5 Cal. 42-.» (1S,-)!I). Elsewhere, the doctrine is as stated in tin- text. Western Cnion Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mieli. ,V2.") (1S()7):2 Parsons on (Contracts. 2.")1 : Hedtield (m Carriers, § .')iji'i; Seott A .larniyan on Telejjruphs. ,y.':\UX»-^iVmm a^iaaWBwafj^jpmil^. c .--•^^P': i It 4 THK CONTUACTS OF C'AIJKIKHS. [ni. I. volitions tit the dotiiiitions which (Miiof ,histic'cs II(.i/r and Ellknuokouch (w;)r«. CM. 1.] INTIiODUCTION. could Mcitlu'V prctvidc iiiraiiisi nor forcscio. Hut. Ik^ is not li;i!>l(' for :iuy loss oi- (l:un;iir<' to ufoods in his hiinds ciiuscd wholly cillu'i'liy Ihc act of (Jod ortlu^ "kin<>;'s cncniit^s," that, is, tiic |)ul>rK' ciiciny. It is said that the n^ason for these cxci |)lioiis is that the (•aiis(^s of loss thus excepted arc so notorious that they ai'e easily proved oi- disproved."* < )ther eausi's of loss niiti'hl, howevei', he eciuallv notorious; and other reasons for the exceptions niiiiht he suii:,ir<'sted. The dilli(adty of conipensatiniX the tremendous |osse^ ii^row- inir out of puhlic wai' is sulKciently obvious; and it in known that, in an cMrliei' ai;"e, losses caused l»v liirhtninLj, tempest, ("artlnpitdse, or any other of the more nppallinj; piienomena of Nature, were reLiar«h'd as the ju 1,(1. Kayin. !Mt!) (170;?); Hcst. 0. J., in Kilt'v V. Hornc. ."> Hiiifj. 217 (1S_>S); Forward v. IMtlard. 1 Term Uep. 27 (17sr)): 'I'lioma- v. IJd.ton \c. K. Co.. 10 Mete. 172 (184.')); Spcnciir, .F.. in UolMrl-; v. I'liiiicr. 12 .lolms. 2:J2 (ISi:,); llollisU-r v. Xowlcn. 1!) W.mkI. 2;M (is:is); KlKitw V. Hostoii i^cr. K. Co.. 2;{ X. n.,27."> (1S.-)1); Mo-t's v. Hostoii iV:f. It. Co.. 21 N. II. 71 (KS.")I); l{!xf- giv(!n in a note on Coggs V. Bernard, in the American edition (b}' Mr. Wal- lace) of Smith's Leading Cases. The best form of the detinition seems to us to be that the damage or loss in (pies- ti(m must have been caused directly and exclusively by such a direct and violent and sudden and irresistible act of Na- ture as the defendant [carrier] could not by any amount of ability foresee would happen ; or, if he could foresee that it would happen, could not by any amount of care and skill resist so as to prevent its effect.'"" This detinition is suscej)- tible of being misunderstood. The phrases "any amount of ability," and "any amount of care and diliizence," mi cjisos cited § 7. •^Niijicnt V. Sinitli. L. R. 1 (J. V. Div. lit (ISTro : 15Ei)fr. Kcp.. Monk's Nok's. 20;{ ; s. c, 1 C. P. Div. 4i:i. '^Antt'. sec. 1; Edwards on Hail. 454. Tin' dcllnitioii ;,'ivcii Ity Mr. Wallace is siibstiiiitially similar to tliat j,'ivcii ity IJrctt. .1. 1 Sinitli's I.d. Cas. 315. Sec. also. Kiaubcr v. Ainerieaii Kxi)ress Co.. 2i Wis. 21 (isodj ; Friend v. Woods. « Gratt. iSi) (1S4!)J. ni. I.] INTUODUCTION. diligence retiuiretl can l»e deterniiuctl only l)y the degree of the delicacy and importance of the duties assumed in each particuhir case. With this explanation, the detinition thus given may be acce|)ted as being a correct exposition of the law both in Kngland and America. In order to excuse the carrier, the act of Nature must liave been violent ; such as lightning,-' tein[)est,^'' or earth- quake, or an extraordinary Hood.-'' The driving of a boat against a bridge-i)icr by a sudden gust of wind,-' the freez- ing of navigal)le waters,-'" a snow-storm which blocks up a railway,"' have all been regai'detl as casi's falling within this exception. § /). Dixvonhtnt Ihn'sioiis. — Sir William .lones piously ob- jected to the use of the phrase "the act of God," as being irreverent, and proposed to i)ut that of "inevitable acci- dent" in its stead, intending, apj)arently, to give the same restricted meaning to the latter phrasv-. as had been given to the f(»rmer."' Some of the courts have been misled by this suggestion : and have supposed that a connnon carrier is not liable for any loss which he could not foresee or pre- vent, excepting, it would seem, .dl losses caused directly by human mea»v; — as by thieves and rol)bers." In some of the cases the phrase "the act )f (iod" has been used so vaguely that it is not e.isv i( aseertain that any i)recise "* Forwanl v. I'ittanl. 1 Tcrii! Rvp. 27 (ITX't). ••'■■<;ill..|| V. Kllis, 11 111. :.7!t (is,-)(i). '■'■ |{c;m1 v.Si.aiiidliij:. '> Hosw. : (IS.V.i); Nashville ^:c. I{. ( "o.. v. David, C. Ilfisk. -Jlil (1S71); Wallace V. t'laytdii. |-J (ia. U:? (1S71 ) : I.overiiij; v. IJuek Mnimtaiii ("oal ('o-.M I'a. St. -I'M {\SC,7 , : I.am.tiit v. Nashville ito. H. Co.. !t lli'isk. ns (1S71). •-^(Jeriiiaiiia Ins. ('<.. v. The I.aily IMke. 17 Am. Law Kep. CM (ISC.It). -■^ I'aisoMs V. Elanly. II Wend. 'Jl.") (Isit.")): llanis v. Kaiul. t N. II. 259 (Is27j: Wallace v. Vi(;); The Ma;,'.. ■" Ni'al V. Sai'.iderson. 2 S. \- M. .">72 (is|l): Wal|)olc v. IJi'id;j;es. .') Hlackf. 2j2 (lMt!ij. -■'tf^i^^vm "W 'smsm'^-i'-i- THE CONTHACTS OF CAKIUKU8. [CII. I. niciininf!: \vi\>* attachod to it."-' Oth(>r casos two more (wplicil, without hoiiiij more salist'actorv. 'riiiis. in ("onnocticul. it was hold that the h)ss of a vessel l»v I'liiiniiiir on a rock not ofeiierally l\M()\vn, and not known to the niasiei', was, prima J\ii''", a h)ss hy (he act of (Jod. Tiie deeision was unneees- siirv, us the hill of ladini;' contained an exception of nil losses hy 'Mlaniri'rs of the sea."'^' IJut in a lat'T case the saino court held that this hn ler ex<'eption did not vary the ooni- inon-law liability of the cai-rier. ' So. it has l»eeu jichl that the sinkinii' of a l)oal l»y a siiai;-, without neiilijrence, is within the exception of the act of (Jod.'' In South Caro- lina it was held, in an early case, that carriers In/ int/ir wvvo not lial)le for accidents aii'aiiist which ordinai'v foi-e- siirht, care, skill and diliiicnce could not provi(lc.''' Of this curious case the smne court afterwards said that "it was fortunately forgotten in the louii" sleep of thirty-two vears hefore i)ul)lication,"'' ■• ="! N'- H- •-'*">7). and lla.'kcit v. IJo>ion \-c. |{. To 'x> \ 11. ;m (\sru.) ••'" Evcrlci»;h V. Sylv.'stcr. 2 Hrcv. 17S (l,s07). •■'■ Met Jlcnaglian v. Hrock. :> IJich. 17 (ls.-,i). ''^Ha.Tin-tonv. levies. L> Noti ,^ M. ss , isi!.). Yd its at.thoritv was S('cnnn;rly iv.N.nni/,,.,] i„ steamboat Co. v. Kason. Ilai-p. -JtW (is-))) " i{„i it was diss."nted from in I>atton v. Ma,i,n'aib. Diidlev. 1.-,!) (isiis^ and was distinctly ..vem.lcd in Mc( 'lena-lian v. iJrock, .snpn,, which p.obablv oven-nles Smyil v. Xiolon. 1 ({alley. 4i'l ( is:',] >. *'See a ion- and lo..se opinion to tbi^ effect, bv (.owfic C. .1 in Hays V. Kennedy, 4n'a. St. :i7s (iMilj. ti ■■i^Hntlfv ^^i-i^mekfs^m^iFm-} CIl. I.J INTKODUCTION. In Indiiina there is an intimation of the sjunc kind.^" In Delaware it was held that if a vess<'l sti'ike on a ro<"k not hitlterl(( known, and not laiil dovn on any chart, the master is not lial)h'." In one case tlie eoiirl lield lliat, in order for the ai'l of Nature ♦(> fall wilhin llie exception of the act of (lod, it need not '>e violent — as where a vessel was caused to drift auainst (he shore h\ a siuUlen lull in the wind.'-' The court was mislead into usinir the conceptions and lan- iruaufc of theolony, in place of those of the law. These discordant (h'cisions have been of; en eriiicisetl and con- demned.'-' It may he remarked of I hem that they nvo for the most part not rect-nt, and that all of tliem, with one ex- i'cption,*^' relatt^ to carriers hy watei" — dindy foreshadowiui^ the statutory relaxations that have been made in favor of that class of carriers in the licncral interest of commerce, anti l)ecaus(! j^oods sent by water are more comnionlv insured than those sent by land : as carriers of the former class frerpiently lose all their means for payiuir for any loss to •roods intrusted to them, by the same accident by which that loss OCCUI'S. § «!, Cosps not Within the "vie/ of (toil.'' — A loss from tire not caused by li«rhtnin, Blackf. -ll'l (1S:W). <1 I'cMIU'Will v. Cllllfll. .J IlillT. -JiJs (ISIll). <-'('nli v. McMcclu'ii. () .loliiis. l«t) (ISJ",. N. ,'. .') Am. Doc. -JOO. *' I'tT I.c fJiaiid. .1.. in Fcr^iussoii v. Hn-nt. 12 Mil. !> (1S.")7) ; Par<(ins v. Moiitfatli. V.\ Marl). \\y.\ (1S.-)1); Central Mm' v. Lowe. oO (Ja. .■)(»!! (1S7;{). Niito of Mr. Wallace to ('ojr;rs v. Beniard. 1 Smith's Lil. Cas. :{1."). ** Walpole V. Hridije^. supra. *''Tlioro;r,„Ml V. Mar>h. 1 (iow. N.l'.C. 1()."» (isl'.l): Fonvanl v. I'it- lanl. 1 Term. Hep. •_»" (17S.")): Hyde v. Trent Xavif^jation Co...") Term. IJep. :!Sit (17!t:i): Moore v. Miehijran Cent. K. Co., ;j Mich. "JiJ (l.S.'):{); Cox. v. Peterson. ;{() Ala. i)(is (1S.")7) : Chevallier v. .Straham. -J Tex. 1I.'> (1S47) ; Miller v. Steam Navi^'ation Co.. 1(1 X. Y. 4:U (18."):{) ; I'arsims v, Monteath. I:< Barb, li.xt (IS.-.l); Hall v. Clionoy, :Ui X. H. I'tS (l.s.-)7). *' MeCall v. Brock. .'. Strol)li. ]1',» (IS.W) : Xavii,'ation Co. v. Dwyor. '2!) Tex. :{7(; {1S(J7): Bnlkley v. Xanmkea^' Cotton Co., 24 How. ;J8() (ISGO); The Edwin. 1 Spragiie. 477 (185l») ; Tlie Mohawk. 8 Wall. loiJ (18()S). ^^"^^T'^mmsmHmmi^^f 'i 10 THE CONTHACTS OF (^AlUMKItS. [CII. I. ii? pitioii,'' or by collision not ciiusod by tcnipcsf /" or hy tho l>urnin<; of a shi[) by the burstinir of a cask of cliloi-idc (»f lime, tiioufjli such an occurrence had never been |ii'e\ iously known, ^'' or by the sinkin;; of a vessel l>y runnini: on a piece of timber not visible in ordinary tides," or by the strand- ing of a vessel on a newlv-formed and previously unknown bar in a river,''' or by the shifting of a buoy,'-' have all been held as not fallin;.'(l V. Uoston Steam Navi-^ation Co., i>7 Me. i:f.' (1S«7); Mcr- 8hon V. Ilobcnsaek, ii X. .1. (Law) ;{72 (1S.")0). *' Broussoan v. The IIn7 (IMJiJ). Evans and Wardlaw. JJ., dissent in.a;. •'^'' Trent Navijjation C'o. v. Wood. 4 Don-;!. •Js7. I! i';-|). Kil (17s.'>); Siordet v. Hall. 4 Ulnj,'. 007 (Is2sj; Clark v. Harnwell, 12 How. 272 (1N.">1); Ewart v. Street. 2 IJailey. l.")7 (ISIM) ; Kiii'; v. Slieitherd. :{ Story, ;M!I(ISI4); Afjnew v. The Cc.nira Costa. 27 Cal. 12.". (IMmi: Slejiliens, &e. Trans. Co. v. Tnekennan. ;i:( \. ,F. (Eaw) .")4;t (IsCiIi): Chevallier v. Straiiani, 2 Tex. II.") (1S47): Alhriirht v. I'enn. 14 Tex. 2!K) (IS.V.): I'ar- stms V. Monteath. i;{ JJartt. ;{.-);{ (is,")!); M.IIenry v. Hallroad Co.. I llarr. 448 (IS4(>): Hays v. Kennedy. 41 l»a. St. ;{7s (iscij; M.Tritl v. Karle, ai IJarh. :ts (ls.-)!»): Merritt v. lOarle. 2!) \. Y. 11.". (ls(;4): Forward v. PIttard. 1 Term l{ep. 27 (I7S.-)j; Mershon v. Ilol)ensack. 22 X. J. (Law) ;{72 (isno); Baekhouse v. Sneed. I .Mur|iii. 17:$ (Is(»S); Ka;,'le v. White, (I Whart. 50,-) (Isil). aiid eases pn.ssim. J'* Si)rowl v. Kellar. 4 Stew & i'. :iS2 (ls:i:t) ; Kwart v. Street. 2 Hailey. 157 (1831) : King v. Sheplierd. 3 Story. ;{4:» (ls44> ; Ahh. on Ship. lU.').' .^wwM^i^JJ (I 1. 1.] INTKODUCTION. 11 loss, tlio act of God licinj; one, but iiol \hv inmiodiatc or proximatf caiiso, lln' can'icr is nol (lisfliar«f('d ;" as, wliero a vessel jxrounds in a s((»nn, the otHccrs and crew 1)imii. y>'tfh'(/f'nn' (lilt/ Ar( ■>/ (roll C'o)ii'urn'iiij. — Where the loss is caused partly l»y iiegligeiice and partly I >y the act of (lod, the carrier is liable;'' iis where a master of a, Vi'ssel tills her boilers overiiiuht to be ready for startiii<; in the morning, and a pipe fri f/es and l)ursts in the nighty thouirli it was customary t(t till the boilei's of outifoini; ves- sels overnight •/"'^ or where he has been guilty of any pre- vious misconduct by which the y;oods in his ciiarjii^ are ex- posed to tl • act of (lod, and are injured tiiereby.''" It i» neglig<'nce for a ferryman to start across a river when a dangerous wind is blowing,''" or foi a wagoner to start across a stream with an insutlicient team ;'" ami a loss sub- se(|uently occurring by reason of the wind, or the sudden rising of the stream, will not be excused. Hut where there is a loss by the act of (Jod, the carrier will not l)e held liable on a showing that there was a defect in his vessel, or M N'.'W Hniiiswick SH>:imt)oat (Jo. v. Tiers. 2t N. J. (I/nv) ti!»7 (IS.liJ). M .McAitliiir V. Scars. 21 \ycii(l. 1!«> ls;i!i). *" Lyon V. .Mflls. ."> Kasi. 42f< (1m>»j; Davis v. (Jarrctl. (i IJin^. 7ir> (ls:?(l) : Hiik.-tl v. Willaii. i H. it Aid. :!.•)(; ( IM'.)) : Hoticiiiiaiii v. IJciinctt, I l'iiic:U (IslT): Siiiitii v. Horiic. 2 .Monic. 1H(ls|s); I'owoll v. Layton, •JHos. vt full. (N. H.) :i(!:. (IsoCj; Sionlct v. Hall. I IJiii^MIOT (1S2S); .Muddle v. .stride.!* ^'. iSi I'. :{M) (ISl(l); Luwe v. liuc.th. i;i Price. :{2i) (1.S24); HccKfurd v. ( riuwell. ."i V. Si P. 242 (l.s:{2) : Cailiff v. Danvers, t IVaive. l.V. 171»2); lliinlcr v. I'otts. 4 ('amp. 20:! (ISi:,); OalNley v. Steam Packet Co.. 11 Kx. (;); Liivemiii v. Drury, « Ex. 1U(> (1S.-.2) : lluilin^'wortli v. Itrodrick. 7 Ad. A E. 4(1 (l.s:J7) : Dibble v. Mor- >caii. 1 Woods, km; (is7;i); Elliott v. itosseii. lo.ioiius. I (isi:$). ■■>■* Sionlct V. Hall. I Iliuij. i;(i7 (isi^). •''"Hurt V. Allen. 2 NVatIs 115 (ls:{;i); Williams v. (;raiii.l Conn. 487 (ISKI): Mor^rau v. Dil>l)le. 21» Tex. 107 (lS(;7i: Clievj'Mier v. Siraham. 2 Tex. ll.")(is|7); Klant)er v. American Express Co., 21 Wis. 21 (.ISOO); Cook v. Gourdin. 2 \ott it M. V.) (isilt). •' <'ook V. (ionrdiii. mtprii. «' E lis v. I'earson. Harp. 47tt (1S24). ¥&j.-,.'iSKS'>!aji'*. 12 TIIF: rONTUACTH ok CAUKIKItS. [CII. I. a want of skill (in his purl ; it must also he made to a|)|)<»ar that this (Icft'ct or want of skill contriliiitt'il to I he loss.''-' § 10. A'w.y fii/ Act of if oil nfd'r Ihhn/. — Wlu-rc thoro is a loss liy the iid of (Jod after a n(';.'liii('nt delay l»y tlu' fai'rier, the enses nre not uniform as In the lia!)ilily of tho carrier. Mr. Browne says :"^' "So, if he [Ihe eai'rierj (hdays nn unreasonalily loii. v. Tit.Ts. 2J X. .F (Law) Oil' (isr,:«). "■'' Browne on ( 'ar. !I5. <« Kead v. Spauhliiifj. ;{() N. Y. ():«) (ls(il), dissenting from Morrison v. Davis. 20 Pa, St. 171 (1S.52). « Morrison v. Davis, snpm: Hailroad Co. v. Keeves, 10 Wall. 17(i (iSfiO) ; D.Miny V. .Vew Yc.rk Cent. H. Co., i:t (Jrav. 4S1 (18.^)0) : lloadley V. Xortliern Transportation Co.. II.", .Mass. .-iOl (\^1A) ; McClarv v. SioiLX City *e. K. Co.. :t \el>. A\ (ls7:{). «« Bond V. The Cora. 2 I'et. Adm. WTA (1.S07;. 8^ Maryland Ins. Co. v. I.e Koy. 7 Crauoh, ;.G (1812). [| cir. I.] INTHorUf'TIiiN. l» iiiul li(^ is rcspoiisihlc fill* it.''"' 'I'lic saim" rule iipplics to nirrirrn l)y land.''" If a caiTicr has ajjrt'cd to sciul j^oods l»y land, and In- si'inls tlirni l»y water,'" or, if he has a^irccd to rarry t hcin l»y canal, and he takes ihcin out to sea,"' and they are lost l>y act of (lod, he is liai)le. So, if he ajrn'es to si'iid them hy one line of hoats and sends them Uy another.'-' The luirden of showing; a necessity for a devia- tion rests upon the eai'i'ier ;'' and the neeessity must he real, and not merely apparent."' If lln" (h'viiition Is oidy for the convenience of th«' carri«'r, he assumes the risk of any loss that may occur, and becomes an insurer at all events. '•'' Hut it is the duty of the carrier, in an unforseen emer<;(>r. Wri^rla, r.« (ls:!;{): l'liilii|.s v. Hrijiiiaiii. JC (ia. fll" (ls.V.>). ■• lii-jalls V. HriMiks. Kd. Scl. V:i<. KM nsi.")), ■I llaiul V. Kayn.'s. 1 Wiiarl. 2(11 (is:ts). ■ .r..liiis,,ii V. New Yolk Cent K. Co.. :n \. V. fiin (ISfi,-)), •' I.L' Sajrc V. (iivMi Wcstciii I{. Co.. 1 t)aly. MW ClSfCJ): Aoklcy v. Kcl- lon;;;, S ( 'o\v. '2'2'.\ I IS'JS). '* llaiiil V. Ila\ lie*, .tiiiivir. "•• .Foliiisoii V. New Yolk Cfiit. K. Co..:»:t \. Y. tllO (ISO.")), rovprsiiiy; •s. »•.. :{] llarlt. I'.M) (ls,"»7j ; Saf^cr v. I'orisinonlii Ac. K. Cd., HI Me. 22S (1S.-.0). "« [hid. " IhiiL; Fisk v. Ncwinn. 1 l)('nlo. I.") (IS-I.")) ; Story on Bail., sec. .")4:{:, (Joodriili V. Thotiipsoii. It \. Y. Ml (IS71). '" .loliiisoii V. N.-w York Cent. ]{. Co.. X.i S. Y. (ilO (180,5). i*j V K»r-,,ipimitimii:'-m:.} 14 THK COXTRACTS OK CAURIKRS. [nr, r. *! the ciirricr (•;in -liosv that a loss must have (■(•rlainl\ oc- furivcl had there l)eeii no deviation, tiie carrier shall l)e excused :'■' luit it is ditKcult to see how such pnxtf would i)e possilile. § 12. Dull/ port or send the irootls forward to the port of delivery, even thouirh he have to hire another vessel for that purpose."' In any event, the carrier will always he answerable for that amount of the (himage whit'li is the result of his ov.-n want of diliirence."^'" § 18. The Piih/ic Eiu'iiii,'. — Coiinnon carriers are not I'c- spoiisihle for losses caused hy ihe "kiiiix's enemies," /. f. the public enemy. Public encmii's are those with whom the nation or State is at open war, and pirates on th«' liii:li soas.'*' But ii loss by thieves or robbers,"' or by embezzle- 11 '9 Miighec V. Ciuncl'^n &c. ^^. Co.. ».'> X. Y. .">! I (1871). '^'^ Crul},' V. Childress. Peck. L>70 (182;i). >'^ Day V. Jlidh'v. 10 Vt. 4S (ISM). ^-' Kailroiul Co. v. Fifcvcs, K) Wall. 17i; flsi;'.)); N';i't's that are cansi'd bv theii' inherent vices and ^^S.-liicffi'liii V. Hiiivfy. t! ,l.,tiii.. 17(1 (ISIO); Wiitkinson v. Ltiiifihtou, s .lnliM<. -Jl:) ( |sil 1 : |,(.\v;s V. I.ii.lvi i.-k. () Coldw. :<"*i,* v. lyiKlwick. .si(/jra. •"Tlif Hi'lfa^t V. H(M)ii, tl Ala. .V» |S(;7j. '•*■- Amic- V. Stt'vi'iis. t Strang'. 12S rJ71s); Forward v. I'iltard, .vw/i/vr. '••■•'' Uu-«i'll V. Niriiiaii. 17 ('. H.. \. .S. imt ISCij. '•''Story o;i IJail.. -im-. Wi ,i; ;{ K.Mifs Cotii. 2!>ll-:{>;iti(-<."' '^md wliidi (•xciisc the cMiTifi' if lii- iicLrli^Tt'iice (Iocs not concur in causinii' tliciii. "' § 1'). Linl.illlii'K of ('(irrli'i'fi of /\issf'}i//rrs. — A cMfricr of passcnjrors for liirc i> not like a coinnioM can-icr of i^oods an insurer airainst cvcrylliinir ''Ut the act of (iod and tlio j)ul>lic cnoniv. He is liound, liowcvcr, to tlic use of tlic utmost f safe and sulHcicnt veliicies and means of transportation and in tlicir inanai.''enient . ' § 1(). J^i(il)ilili<'x of ( '(irrii'i's dj' Aninni/s. — As tlicti'iins- portation of iivin;; aniinals was uni\no\vn to the era of the formation of the coii'nion hiw, it lias l»ccn much d«'hated as to whctlier persons enirairinir in tiiis l)ii-ine>> assunu' all the liahilities of common carriers or not . Mr. Justice Wim,i;s reirardcd the tiuestion as heinu: prohaldy one of words, it hoinjr muc^h the same thinv are not liaide for any damaire or loss not oc- (■asioned in some way by their own want of -kill and ca!-<', tluuiirli sneh tiama;^e or loss may not fall within an\ of the exceptions made by law to the lial»ilitie- of cdiinnon eai'riei>. '•'■■• Anir. I'll Cm-., -cc. 214; .Miilii},',iii K. Co. v. .M(|)ihimii;,'|i. Jl Midi. Id,*) (1S7(I): I.iilif Slinic H. t». V. I'tTkiiis. 25 Mi.h. :{2l) , |s72i : Kansas I'a.'. H. Co. V. Kcyiicilds. s K:i+-. lii';! (|s7!i; (ircai Wc-tnii \{. Cu. v. IJiuw- ••r. 20 W. U. 77(i JS72). *('larkpv. KncliPstdiVc. It. Co.. 1 1 \. ^ . :i7(i < ls.">(l) : oliin a.. H. ("o. v. I)iiiil)ar. 2it III. "lj:t |S."(Si ; Smiili v. New HavciiAc |{.('«i.. 12 Allfii. .Vtl (iscd): Mali V. Hi'iifru. mipni; K\:\u< v. l-'iirliliiirirh |{. Co.. Ill Mas<. I 12 (!S72,i: CuiiiriT V. IIikNoii KImt 1{. Co.. c. Diht. :17.". (|S.*>7): hari'l- v. XortlM'niiV:r. |{. Co.. 2ll \. V. 2.12 js.v.i, ; |'o\M.|l V. I'l'iiii-yhiiiia |{. ( o.. :<2 I'a. .St. HI (IS.V.I1: East Tciiii. •>>,■.■ \c. H. Co. v. Wliiitlc. 27 (ia. .*);i."> ris,v.i) :\Vci<-ii V. I'itishmir \c. |{. ( .... 10 Ohio St. i;.-i , is.v.m. *^Siiiiaioiis V New Bedford. Ac. K. Co.. 17 .Ma»-. iti'd ( 1S(;7) ; siory oii Hailiiii'iils. such live >lock, the leiral presumption, pr'niKt f'iicU\ is that it was caused l>y the iieiiliiTence of the cMiricr.'"' Ill Micliii:aii, carriers of aiiiiiiiils are not re- i::irdc(| ;is common <'arriers, unless they have expressly assumed the respoii>il>iliiies of common curriers l»v sjiecial con! r;ict .'"-' lint in most of the Sliiles carriers of liviiic aii- im;ils arc lici>l to lie common carriers, \\\\i\ to he insurers to I he sMiMc extent as if eiiiiaired in carryiiii;' liii. A.-. H. (",,.. J II ,v X. ;i2>< (l.s.V.D: Cw\- v. Limcashirt' &c. K. Cm.. 7 lls.ii. 71:! IS.VJ): I'alincr v. (iraiid .liiiu'liuii It. (."o.. 4 M. \ W. 7 r.i iviiii : l'anliiiy:ton v. .SoutJi Walt- 1{. Co. ;(S ICiijr. Law i<: Ki|. |{.|). I ;l' IvM; . Mirhiiraii |{. C... v. McDdiionjrli. -Jl Midi Ki.") (1S70). "'"' K.M.iaii V. I icii i;. ( ',.. I.. |{. 7 i:\-. :{7;i ( 1s7l'). i"i I.MiiiMill.' iVr. W.C.I. V. Hi-.ly:.T. It Hiisli.(M.-. (IS7:{); Mall v. Kcn- lln. .; Mrli'. ( K\ . .-.I IN(II). I -Lake Slii.r.' \c. i:. Cm v. I'crkin-i. -J.') Midi. :!Jii ( |s7-_> > . iiviTniliii;; Mi.'ii. Ai'. |{. Cu. V. II .!.■. i; Mi.h. Ji;! d^''''*'- and (iivat Wc-ilcrii K. Cii. \. llawKiii-. IS Mi.h. l-'7 |M«;:i). "■'Kimliall v. Iiiiilaii : .\idti».ui, \c. It. Cu. v. \Va N'ch. 117 Is7il : Kaii-a- Af. It. ♦"••. v. ItcviioliN. s Ka-. HJ;} ils7n: Kansas \.-. |{. C... V. NiclnilN. SCKj.-. i•.\:^ \ 1S7J : Itil/ v. I'fiiii^.vlvaiiia It. Co.. W I'liila. s-_> is.-,Mi : Cra;rin \. .NVw YoikiV:.-. It. Co. .M \. V.ci (IS7-J) : IVnn V. Miifta^'Ac. K.Co.. »!C\. Y.ilH (IS7J): Myiianl v. .Syraciist- \c. It. Co. Ill Alli. I,. J. SX\\ s.r.. 7 lliiii. ;(!>!• (is7i; I : Ccnnan \. Cliicairo iV:f. It. Co.. lis Inwa. irr dST-t): McCoy v. Keokuk i^^c It. Co.. H Iowa. .|-24 (187ti): VVil«.M v. Ilainiltoii. J Oliio ,St. 722 (IM.Vn: WcUh v. I'ittshurg tmmmmmsm-^r^tr^fnmtl ^rr 18 tup: roNTWACTs of cahhieks. [en. I. IS killed iiiulcr ciiruinstaiiccs cxoiicralinjr the carrior, ho is not liable for not (Iclivcrinir tiu'ir carcasses.'"* § 17, Ao.w.v Cittisfil hi/ Si'lznro lonlcr I'rociss. — A car- rier is not liable t'oi' iroods taken out of his hands hy le-ral process."'-' Where iroods are attached in the hands of a conunon carrier, he can not iiive them up to t'he consi.. lit Oliio St. (i.'i is.v.t : St. 1,1.111- iV.!'. |{. ( u. v. Doniiaii. 72 111. 504(1 S74): Simlli Aliilmuiia iV.-. H. Co. v. Il*>iilfiii. .'.J Ala. fiOO (is;.")) ; Kixfdnl V. .Siiiitli. ."i2 X. II.IU". (ls72): ( larkr v. U(icIicsI)t\c. K. Co. II N. Y. 7.")<» (ls.">(l ; OiiioAc H. Co. v. Ihiiiliar. 2(i III. rcii ils.Vs-; Siniili v. yew Haven \-c. K. Co.. 12 .Mien. .'.:tl (|M;r, : Kvaiis v. I'lidilpiir^r |{. c,,.. m Mas<. 112 (1S72 : Coii-r'-r v. Ilii>l«.ii HIv v. NoimIi.mii \. . H. Co.. 20 \. V. 2:t2 (IS.V.I): rowcll v. Pennsylvania H. Co., ;i2 I'a. St. Ill Is.V.ti: Ka-t rciiiic<-ec \c.. |{. Co. v. Whittle. 27 i ls(i|i. "■Stile- V. Iliivis. I Black. |(ll (IMIh: Uliven v. Ilml^on River {{. Co.. :<(> \. Y. |(i:i I |s(;7 : Hliven v. IliuNon Kivcr |{. Co.. :!.-. ISarh. I^s^isiii); Villi Winkle V. Iniieil stales Mail Co.. ;t7 Uarh. 122 I>il2 : KiirKm v. WilkiiiMiii. is \t. Ist; ilSKij: Ohio. \, \{. c,,. \. ^■(,hc. .-.i |i„l. 1^1 (lS7r.). "^ Stile- V. l)avi-. »/-(■ sKin-ii; \ciiall v. l{ohinson. i'\ ru . |(h;!I: .v. <•.. | Dowl. I'. C. 242: .v. /.. 2 Cn.mi., M. i\:. K. r.i."> , IM!.-.). • It would he ali- snrd for the law to |inni-h a hi.ni for not doin;.'- or. in other words to rf'C|nire liini todo — th.ii whj.h It foihid- his doiii;;." 2 I'ars. on Con. fi74. •• If a coach he daniaired hy ii cinier"- fault, whatever i< loii(li ;i sciziifc is iiiinic, tli<' cMnifi" must itiiriicdiatcly notify lii.il r.'Ki t(» tlic coiisiLriior.""' 'I'lic ciirricr iniist ••issiiri' lii:ii-i'ir tli.il the proccctliiiiis iimlcr wh'cli tin- si'izuro is iiiii'Ic ni'c rcLiiilar iiiiiiinL;' iIh- process is (■(HTcct in l;nv or fact.'"" And he is nol lioniid lo assert tlietilli' of the haih)r, nor to foUow the u'oods."" ^ I'S. lUsi-nrildiif I h'rlxliiiis. — In a ease (U'cided in Kneen detained and conih'iiuied in elaniaili work on Cai-riers. and it is no douht re•///)/■,/. WlhTf a vessel was ilciaiiicd l>y :i !;'!Ii;ar\ niliicr. it was lirlil iliai ilir hwiut of it wa» net .'mswcriililc for ii |n«s \iy ii-a-^iiii of a fall of |)rii'c< of ;;(i(i(ls on Imai'il diifiii^ the pcr'Kul of ilrlciitioii. li.- Iiaviiiu'' yiflili'ij only to a force wliidi lie coiiltl not resist. Til" OiiiM-i. I n,-\i. nil (ISliT). "' tei-limr V. Hi^;:iii<. 1 ('amp. IM. 11- KcluaiiU V. While Line I'lan-il Co.. 1(11 Mass. l.".!l (|S7()). The conn u.iii a-^tiay on the inrlcvant ami nlistra<'l (|m'stloii as lo whether, when |i |n-o|ieily of A i- ailarlicd as tlit' |ii-o|i('rly of U. it is iti the en»loi|\ < the law a< to A. Tlii- 1 a«i' is rciiiarkiilile for si very ineffeetual iM'iiii'i^ih on Siilc^ V. I)avis. .•lujirit. tf^HBR 20 Tlir. CONTItAOTS or CAIMMKIiS. [cn. I. injury to lln'iii wliilf in tlic liantis of tin- ciinici-. l!i«' lalttT could not III" made .•niswcialilc lor -iicli iiijiirv. Sii.li a case \h not like to o<-cin' : Itiit <"i-«cs do oficii occiii- vlicn- tin- loss or daina own iie:iiip'nce or want of ordinary cai-c and cantion. ti.:il Inil I'i'r -u-Ii iie«:li- gonoo or want of care and caution oii liis par; tlic nii.-lor- tune would not have hapix'neil.'" § 20. CoiKTdh/ifiif of \'(tliii' or Qinilil;/. — The carrier has a liirht to know the \aine of liic piods. so that he may know what risk he take- on hini-cli'; what care In- shouhl exercise, and what clt:;rp' he .-liouhl UiaKc. The owner is not hound to stale the vahie inde.-s lie is a keil to do so.'" l)Ut if he is asked tlie \aliic. he nni t answer truly."'' Neither nujst the owner nii>lead the carrier liy makiiiiLi' him underestimate the value of the L;(>ods, even lliont:h no <|Ue>— tions ai'c asked ; as hv sendin<:' a laru'c sum of money con- cealed in a hair of liay,'"' or placed in a liox with arlidc^s of small value,"' or by sendinjra diamond rini^ in a small paper l)Ox tied with a slrinii,"'^ or hy sendin'j: \alual»le jewelry under any circumstances which woidd naturally lead the carrier to supposes it to he of hut trilling;' \alue :"' and if he does thus mislead the carrier, and the iioods are afterwards "^ Railroad Co. v. .Ioiic<. li.") I'. S. i:?0; fciil. I,. .1. i:i nsrri. '" llrooko V. I'ickwirk. I IJinii-. -Jls (is-j;.; Soinhi'in Kniht-^ ( 'n. v. Crook, 11 Ala. |()S (|S7(»); (;Mrliaiii Mf^. Co. \ . l':ii-;;o. \:> \\,,.\. pr. '.in (1S7:)); CamdiMi, &.v. |{. Co. v. Italilaiif. M I'a. Si. (17 l>".l : Kril v. K:il)p. :{ W. \ S. -Jl (ISII). and >«■.■ fiiiilMT y-.v. C,i|.. |. "■' CaindiMi iVi-. H. (Jo. v. Haldaiif. iihi siiiini; l'liilli|K v. Ilailr. s I'irk. lft'2 '1S-J!(): Hoskowitz v. .\daiii- Kxprcss Co.. .". Cent. I,. .1. ."■■> i ls77j. "" Ciil)l)oii V. I'ayiitoii. 1 Hiin. 2-_",is (17(llt). "' <;iiii'af,'o \i\ n. Co. V. Tliompsoii. Ill ill. .->7s fls.-,S): M.i;r„iii v. Diii-inorc, C.-J N. Y. ;?.") f I S7.". ) : Ivnni'^t ^. Kxi.rcss Co.. 1 Udnd-. ."»7:{ (1K7;!); JJcljfcr v. Diiisiiiorc, .">1 \. Y. \W i Is7-j). '"• Kvorcit V, SoiitlKTii Kxprcss Co.. |i; (;:i. :(():! MS7l>) ; sicii v. I'a;r,r, 5 Knrn. & Aid. ;U-_> Ms-J-J). "" Oppeiilioiini-r v. I'lutcd States Kxi)rc.«.s Co., (i!) 111. (;2 (ls7:{). CM. I.] INTIiODI'fTION. 21 ,■: l-,(; stolon Of lost, the carrier is lutt lialilc.'-'" In all cases of this kind the owner is held to he i^nilty of const ru(;tivc frand, althoui^h, in point of fact, no fraud was intended.''" In further illnsi latioii of this iniportant rule re(|uirin;j; fair dealinir on ihe pari of the owner, il niav l>e nieiuioni^d tiiiit if one seii uHass articles in a l)ox without inforniinii)|eii ;''■ oi- sends a check indorsed in Maul; in a lellci' wiliioul infoi-niiiii:' the carrier of the contents of the letler. and I he letter i.-. stolen :'■' or x-nd-^ money in a pack- aji'e, kuitwiui:' that l»y the rules of the carrier money- packaire- ail' rei|uirc'i to l)e piii u|», indorsed and scaled in a particular way, which i-ci|iiii-ciiient i> di>rci:arded, and the money i> --lolcii. the can'ier will not Ik- lial)lc.'-''' § '21. /■'r'Hii! A/ir'n/.-i (I liiir. — ()lhcr fi-auds may lie onj- niitt>'d l>y lie owiwi' on the carriei- which will prevent a re- covery liy the former — as where he oliiains from one of several proprietors of a coach an aiirccmcnt to carry him- self, !ii^ family, airl iii- ptods on a con-^idcration fi'otn whii'li tlic oihi'r proprietors are to I'crivc no henelit. Such an a'i'rccnicnt is a fraud a'^ lo them, is not itindinu' on them, and will no! ,-iip])ort an ;icli(m :;ua..i'l them.'-'' i-"'IMy V. Moiiiic. :t Caiili. |s:, /|(i!)ii : 'I'iiclilniriic v. Wiiilc, I Siran;:"'. I !•"> (I7ts); Kuni'^l v. i:\|ir-'" C.i.. I WomiI ;. r.::! (IS7:{); (Joxe V. llcM.-,. t'.t I'a. SI. -Jl:! ils.Vj): ll..lli-.|iiiiicrM Kxprcis «'<».. IC <;a. ;i(t;t ( |S7J) ; Ciiicintiiiti S:r. \\. ('(,. v. Marcii-. :;-^ 111. Jl'.i ilsc,:,); ili'llniMn v. Ildlladay. 1 VVnoiw. :iiiri il-^Ci^ : Kriniic \. I'^jiiici-ioii. Alcyii. 'X\: Oraiiirc <'iiiiiii>' IJaiil* v. IJinwii. M \\i ml. s."i ! ls:!-_'). '■■" «'lli(:iiru \i'. |{. Co. V. 'I'llnm|).-(i||. I'.I III. :.7S ( 1 S.'.S) ; Cxipcr V. I?i'rry. -Jl (ia. ."iJC (|->."i7i: <;',i'al N'lirlliiTii I{. Co. v. S1i('|iIumiI. 14 V.W'Ji. I.;n\ i', iv|. |{('|i. 1117 ( |s."ij,. '- .ViniMicaii Kxpri'^s Co. v. I'laKiii-. Vl III. -l.^s (1S(;7). '-' Ikcif \ . i'M|ip. siifirn; lIoilisUT V. Nowlcii. sitpni. 1^' llayi> V. Wells. '>:\ Cat. IS.") (lS(i:t). '-'■ St. .lulm V. I'.Niircss Co.. I Woods. (ilJ ris71*. I-"'' i'.i-nnld \. Wali'ilioiisc. I Mail. i»; S"l. -jr^'i (lsi;{); .roues v. Situs,!) Port. Jlii (IMS'.i). m^ I !■ i VWiauiUMliWtBpMH Ml 1(2 TIIK CONTHACXS OK CAKKIKKS. [CM. I. ' 7f I § 22. /vfAsw.v Causnl hij Xi'ijli-rl of On'iiir. — If nuods aro sent hy.i ciirricr without hciiiir lt';:il»lv iiiiirk(>(I, in consc- quonce of uiiicli tlic owiici" sustains a loss or inconvcnii'ncc, without, any fauh of the carrier, hi" can not hohl the cai-ri«'i' bound for it.'^ Nor is the hitler iial)h' for a hiss occas- ioned I)}' th(( ne^liirence of the shippei- in packini^' the goods. '-'^ § 2^5. Oinicr l/tnlcrfnkiii;/ /'frf of ( 'tirrhr's Ditths. — Whore tlie owiiei' liiniself undertakes a part of the (hities which wouhl otiierwise dcxolvc on the carrier, llic I'csponsi- hilily for results growinif out of the dischai-p' of tiiose du- ties rests on the owner, and the cai'i'ici' i< not lialih' in re- spect thereof. If the owner of catth' '^oes witii tiicni on a railway, undei- an ajzrccnient with the railw:iy company to give ((M'tain attention to the cattle, the company will not he lialile for losses occasioned l>y his inattention to th<' duties undeilaken hy iiini.'-"' In these cases there was ncLi'liiicnce on the pai't of the owner; hut neirliiicnce i- not a ncces>ar\ clement of the rule. Thus, if hoirs are scut in a car se- lected hy the owner, and not Itclon^inii' lo till- cai'iicr. and they ai-e injui'cd l)y reason of a defect in -iich c.ir. I lie car- rier is not lial»!e — at least, if ihe defcr| in ;||,. rai' was not known to tlie laMc!.' Mere 1- ..r ( onrsc. -111 stronger reason for 'die aiipKnition of ihc rule who'c the owner of cattle niiderlakcs |o pnt tlicni on a c.ii-, and puts thoin on accoidingly, knowini;- the car to he nns.afe, iind neir- loeting to inform the carric- of Ih.at fact, .-iiid a lo>s ocm:-, hy reason of th(^ defect in the car.''' Iiut if i^oods are {\v- '■^Tlic lliiiiticss. I);ivic<. S2 ' ISIII) : I'inu v. Wc-l,iii |{. (',)., 1()-J >I;i„. 2K;{ (I.Sd!)). '■»• Aiii;. on ('Ml., sec. -IVl: KImiiIh'i- v. Aiiicriciin Kxuiv^^ ('.... Jl \VU. 21 (]8(;(!:) '1'Ih' Colonel I.cil\ iii'l. 1 SiHMiriic. WM) I'isiiO). '^Sonlh Aliiliiiinii. i<:c. K. Co. v. Itciili'in. .".J Al;i. (JO.; (is::,) ; r,,v,,.r •, . lllioa, &r. n. Co.. 7 Hill, 17 (isil) ; (;i,.||.;,,n v. (Joodiirh Transpoiiatic.n Co.. \V1 Wis. 8,-) (IS7:i) : IJodciick v. HiiilroM.I Co.. 7 \V. Vii. r,l fl.S7:{). '■" Illinois Cent. J{. Co. v. HmII. r,s jjl. loa MS71;. '■" Rett« V. Farnuas" Lo:in Co. 21 Wis. SO (ISOO). (11. I.] INTUODITTIOX. 2:\ livcrcd to a ciirricr in a storm, and ho i-orcivcs tlicni, liin (•(iinnioii-law lialtility at onrc atlaclics ; ''^ and if tli<' u:<)(m1s art" placed l>y a carrier in an open car, wlien they shonid have heeii placi'd in a chtsed one. tiie mere fact that the owner knew of this at the time will not relieve the carrier from responsihility for tln'ii' safety.''' So an a|f all the ii>k arisiuL' therefrom;"^ and if one; pi'cfers to send a wajjfon on a platform-car to takinir it to pieces and pu1lino\-M < 'n. v.'I'iiT-, •_>! N. .1. (I.iiw) <'>77 (ISMfi. !•■ .Mipiiiiri'iin'iv \i'. It. ( 11. V. KiliiHiml*. II AIm. c,(;7 I iscs) ; Hawkins v.CiiMl Wr-i.Tii jj. < 1... 17 Mirli. :.7 ilsils,: <;icat Wc^iciii |{. ("d. v. llawKiiw. IS Mirli. I-J7 , IMI'.I . I ' j.awri'iir.' V. Miiiiiirti. 17 llnw. Kiit (Isr.h: Cliiiltli v. ItiMiaiul. 2i! Law {{('i.. I'.C' , isiih. I-' Mllliiiinic V. Cliirairo. !<:«■. K. ('.... :t7 Wi-. r.Ml 'ls7.*>l : Koss v. 'I'roy, i^f. |{. ('(t. Ill \t. Iir.l (ls77;. ^ I ( ^ '< 1 24 TMK ( (>NTIf.\< !> or CAKIMKl!?'. (II. II. (il.VPTKK IF. tin: r(t\vi:i! oi- common caimiikks lo limit iiikii; i.im'.ii nv it II tfKCTIOV. 'J-l. I'owcr Fdrincily ii"t AdiiiiltiMJ. •J.'i. Hlfjnriif ilic Ainiciii Kiilr dlaM'il. 2('>. J{l'^n('t< 111 llic AlilllKl'Himrlll of llir Alliiclll I'll!" . '27. Tlir Kiijrii-li SiMliil.-. •JS. (JfiiiTiil Knli' ill AiiiiM-i'M. ■2U. 'I'lii' Itiilc ill ilic I iiiiitl Mull- ('(Mill-. :tll. I'lii' Hull' ill Al:ili;iiii:i. .Ha. 8». 34. 3n. 36. .47. 38. 30. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 40. 47. 48. 40. 60. 51. 52. 63. AiKmii-.i-. (':iliiiii'iii;i. ( 'iiloriiilo. ('(iimiMlicut. |)<'la\viin'. Flinidii. (iciilifill. Iliiiiois. Iiiiliaiiii. Iowa. Kmii-i^. Ki'iiiiickv. I.uui>iaii:i. Maiiii'. Maiylaiui. Massicliiisctls. Mirtii;xaii. Miiiiicsiita. Mississippi. Mi>s(iiiii. Niliiaska. Ncvaiia. N't'w llaiiipsliire. -'^'^^f^tmmwm'h ^m (II. II.] I'<»WKU To LIMIT MMIIMTY. 25 Kl 1 n\. ."•1. Til. |{nli' ill N'lW .liMscy. ■>.*». X.'W Y.irk." :•(;. NiMlli ( Mniliiiii •"•". Ohio. UK ( )ii'y;(iii. r,u. I'i'lill^\ iv:ilii:i. IKI, >iil , ti.'i. S'il'iriiii;!. m. Wf.i \iii:in;;i. 117. \\i-i<.i|.iii. s |)i(inii>f wvw imihIc iiiiti) liiiii tliat III' slijill not I»c tli.iiiifil f(»r IK) inisdciiu'imnr tli:il should hi; ill liiiii, till' |Hdini>c were void: for it wire jiiiaiiist rciifson and iTood iiiiiiiiifis : aii»'ralion of" law, in su oi his riiihl^ i)y :i special aj.. ;((; i7'.i;;). 96 TIIK CONTIIACTS OF <\mJIKItS. [cil. II. U iM'iu'lit of tlio liiltrr tlioujrli -u
  • y jriviiij.' iiolirc," uiiasscntcd to hy the oilier party, "dis(liar«re liiinself." I^leven years later Lord Ki.i.KMioKoitiii spoke of the power of carriers to rotrict their ^reiieral lial>ilily liy express c(»iitra<'t as Itein;: uiKh.iihted.' The earlie-l aiitliorilv which is cited in siip- jjort of the relaxation of the ancient rnle is the note of Sir KdwardCoke to Sniif/noti-'s ( 'nsf, -.w] anihority often tjiiott'd on this suliject hnl which is xnnewhat aniliiirnons : "Xnfti, real." r, it i> L'ood policy f(l he can at the peril of the party: or if they happen to lie stcden or pnr- loiiH'd, that he shall n(»t answer for t hem : for he who ae- cepteth them oiiirht to take them in «uch or the like manner, or otherwise he may he chai'trcd l»y his ircneral acceptance. So if i:ood> are delivered to one to he d<'li\ered over, it is Hf(»od policy to provide for liim>clf in >nch >peci;il m.-nnuT, for douht of Iteinir chai'ired I'y his L''<'neral accepiance, which implies that he t:ike> upon lo do it."'' lint this c;i>e was one ajrainst an oi'dinary liaiiee without reward. anpeakinii' of common carriers. Neither was the doctrine that ;i carrier mav liniil hi- lialiility l»y .a special acceptance ddinitely acknowledired Ity .Sir .M\rriii:w IIai.k in Mnrsf r. .S7//r,' a> sonic writers, jJroun. IJed- tield, and ."^tory amonir others, iiave said, lint l)\ the early part of the pres(>iit century' it w;i> settled in l-'jiLdand tiiat common carriers miu'ht limit their lialiilities l»y special * As in IlnlJistcr v. Nuwlcn. ill Wend. -Jill (ls;»s). ■'' Nii-lidlsoii V. Will;m. ."> I^iisi. ,j(i7 ( ISdtj, ".Sdiitlicf.tcV Cast". 1 Kcp. M (lt;()lj. '1 Vent. 1!M) (1(JS4). " III isni T.onl Kljciilinniiijjli icinaiki'd : "'I'lii'rc is no case to Ix- met witii ill tlif liouks ill wliiili tlic ii;j|it of a rariicr lliiis to limit liy special ♦•oiitractliisnwiircspoiisiliility. lias ever lu'ciil)y express ih'cisictiuli'iiiiMl." Nicholsuii V. Willaii. '> Kasl 507. (11. II.] I'OWI'.lt TO LIMIT I.IAHII.ri'Y. 91 ••(iiitnict,'' imd lliiilllifv MiiL^lit Icjrallv tdiilrin't for rxcmp- tidii fmiii tln" t»tiis('t|ii('nr«'?. (tf tlicir (iwii ih'^rlcrt '" iiiid tins, oiilsidf (if lilt' >l!itul(' law, i> the rule in lliiit r(»iiiilrv at this day." " (IsOl): AnniiyimMi- v. .FiirVi-'Dn. I'lviKr- Ailil. <':i>. \l. :171 'Isii.! : It.uiunT v.CriMi Wr-ii-ni If. Co.. 1 |;;iilu;i\ C.l-. 1 l>;l> : l:il>V v. Ilonir..-. IJilli:. -.'irilSJS): Il.irrU V. |';i.k\Mi.iil. :; 'I'lunl. -Jiil ( l*«lii : Smilli v. liornr. > M. HI (isls : I -nil V. Hull. I Slink, isc, (|s|(;,; |i(.,.K v. Kviin . Hi K;i-l.-MI I l»|j : |...\\r \. UuMili. i:'. I'll. ■<•.:!•_»!» (|s-.>|) ; Wvlil v. i'irkfonl. sM.X \V. ) i;! ijsll : <':iirv. l,iiMc;i»liirc Xc. K. r.i.. 7 H\c|i. 7i>7 (Is,".:!). 'Mlivilli; V. 'rnild. 1 Slink. 7"-' I Isj.'ii : l,ri-. "York. Ni\\t:i-ili' \r. U. Co. V. Crisp, lie. 11. .Vi7 (is.Mi: Slim v. (i\rii\ NmilHTii I!. Co. 1 1 ('. n.l (is.Mh: K.r..]i\i}. H. 'hirf iV:c. H.Ci)..7 K\cli. 7(17. 7 Kaihvay C:i-. IJC (IS.'.-j); Sliaw v. York iV: Noitli Midlaiiil K. Co.. !:!(,». II. ;!I7: (! Itailway Cas. S7 (Isi'.t); Macaiilfy v. riirncs< H. Co.. "il W . \i. 110. 27 I., v.. N. S. IS,". (IS7-J); Taiilxnan v. I'acillc Steam Nav. Co.. jc. 1..'!'.. N. S. 7111 (IS7J): <;icat Western K. Co. v. (jleiiister, -22 W. I!. 72: 211 I.. T.. \. S. 122 (1S7:«). I- Meek \. Kvans. |l> Kiist. 211. '■' llani.'* V. I'ackwood. U 'raunl. 2f>4. "< I Hiiijj. 21S (1S27). ai '-•!^*msmm*tmmm *'mmmm' 28 TIIK ( oNTI.'Af T (»r ( AltKIKItS. [cn. M. Iff (•■•inicrs n'spdiisihililv." In X/i/to/smi /•. Wlllitn,^'' fjord Ki.i.KMioi.MH liii sm'kI : *'\\'f (iiiiiKil till otlirrw isc tli:iii siistiiin such rii/lit ill IIm- |ircsnit iiisiMiicc. Iniwcvcr liiiMc to ;il»us(» iiiid |)i'n(|iicli\(' of iiK'oiivciiit'iiiM- it iii:iy l>c : lc:i\ iii^' to the Iciiishiluic, if it >li:ill lliiiik tit, to .iiiplv siicli rcint'tly licrc- iiftcr MS tlif fvil iiiiiy li'iniii'c." In Doini r. Froniniit ,^''' lie said: >*l miii vcrv sorry, fortlif cuiivciiii'iicc of trade, lliat t'arri<'r> liaNc hci'ii alluufd tn limit llicir ('oiiiiikui law rr- s|)(>iisil»ilit\' ; and xuiu- lt'L;i>lati\f iiica-iiir upon the subject, will soon liccuni'.' ncccssarv ." In Murini/ r. '/'/^A/,'' he said: "I am sorry tin- law is so; it leads to vcty i^reat iiei;- liireiice."" In /I'l.r r. \\'///iiii .'" iie >aid : "All tlie dillieidties arise l»y a depart i re from tlie old law wliii-li was acted upon ("or aiic- ; and there is no doiil»t Iml it will i"e(piire niaii\' st riiiiLiies to l;'('I clear id" the wi>dom of" dni' ancestors." in ISrniiL-r r. I'li-I:irii-I,\^' I'iKst, ( '. ,1.. -aid; ••'I'hoii^h c<»acli proprietors e whom the coininon l:iu meant to i^iiard :iiiaiiist ."" \\\ Siiii'li r. //,,riii\'-' 1'\i:m;i;, ,1.. said: ••The (h»ctrine(d" carriers e.\emptiii'^' t heni--el\ c^ from iiahiiiix li\ notice has heeii carric I nnicli too far."" and I'.i i;i:i)i (.iis. ,1., added : •• I lament thai the (locii-in.' of notice wasc\ei inl;-odiiced into Westminster Hall.'" § 27. T/ir HiriUsh Shiliilm. — 'I'hc Mniili-ii coiii'is haviliu: thus declari'tl thelilsel'H'-' povverless to cli;ili'je a rule (d' law whose existence I heir predece^ M>r.- had created, liiit which lh art a i'ail\va\' or tMiial eoinpaiiy is lialtle (or llie |os> of or f'oi' aiiv iiijiirx done to an\ lioi'ses,, ealtir or other ani- mals, oi' to anv art ieles, ptods oi"llnni:s in the I'eeeivin^:. i'or\varioned liy the ne^leet or dcd'aidt »d" sneh eonipany or it- ser\allt^, not \s it h>taii(lini:' anv noliee, eondilion and (h'< laration L'ixeii hy ^ueli eonipany eoiitrarv thereto, or in any wi-e limit iiii'; -^iieh liability : (\('r\ siieli notice, eondilion or declaration heiiii:' I liereli\ de- clared null and \(»id. 'I'liere is a pid\i>o that notliinii coii- laiiiecl ill the act shall l»e coiislnied to prevent these com- panies from iiiakiiiL!' such conditions with respect to the receivini:', I'orw ardiiii:' and delixeriiiL;' of any (d' the said ani- mals, article-, -jdods or lhiiii:s as sliall lie adjiidii'ed Ky the court or jiid'je liel'orc wIkmii any (Hl«'slioii relatiiii;' thereto shall he tried, to I just and reasonalde." I'ly a second pro- viso, no irreater (laiiia;.:e-. >hall lie recoxered lor the loss of, or for am injury done, to any of such animals, lieyond the sinus after meiitioiied : that is to say, for any horse, ITiO; foranvMcal cattle, per head, t' I ."> ; for any sheep or piiis, per head, L'- : iiiile-- the person x'lidiiii^' or delivcrinu' the same to such company, shall, at the time of such delivery, have ileclared I hem to he re'-|iecti\ fly (d" a lii<:lier vahh- than as aliov*' meiitioiieil ; in vvlii( h ea>e it hall he lawful for such compam to demand and receive hy way o de- clared aliov e t he re-peiti\ c ^iim-- so linii'''d as aforesaid, and which shall li> paid in addition to the ordiiiirv rate (d' cliariz'e : and -inh peiceiila'.'c or jiicreasid rate of chaiic shall lie notitied in iIh- manner presccilied in 11 (ieo. -I and I -'•'17 Mini is Vic. rji. Ill (1S,-,|). w :¥) THE rONTRACTS OI" CAKKIKI.'S. [cm. II. ;! ir I Will, i, <■. <>><, and shall lie hiiidiiiir ii|)oii siidi coiiii)!'.!,^* ill till' inaiiiHT tii-'fcin niciiiioiicd. ll\ a ttiird pi'o". iso, |)i'()(.f of tilt' value oi" suili aiiinials, articlt-s. izoods and lliiii\ a roiir'ii proviso, no >|ierial eoiilraet hetue'ai sui'ii eoiiipain' and aii\ oilier parties respiviino- the recei\- iiitr. foruardiii;^- or delivcriiiir of aiiv animals, articles, the >aiiie he signed hv him, or liy the p t- soii deliveriiiiT sueh animals, articles, ijoods orthinirs respec- tively for carriaiT*'. .'ind lastly, it is pro, pri\ ilexes or liah'lities (if any siicli company unih'r 11 (ico. 4. aiii I Will. 4, e. (IS, ••The Carrier's .\ct." with rc'-pecl to arti- cles of the description meiilioiied in lli;il ;ic) All the parts of sect. 7. of 17 i^c \>< \"u , c. .'Il, niusi lie road t(>,ir<'ther, and therefore the coiulitions there >polt not onl\- lie in the opinion of a court or a jmliic, just and reasonalde, luit must also he emhodied in a special contract in writiii'jf, si/iueil hy the ow ner or sendei- of the Lioods.-' The stalule extends to eases where a special eoiil raet ha> heeii siiiMed, in accordance with the pi'o\i.>,i in the .-eetion that no sp( cial eoiitraet lietweeii company and cii--toiner, ropeetini:- the receivin-r of animals, shall he iMiidini:-, unless it he si-ned hy the customer or person deliverintr the animals.-' As s.aid hy .Ikk\is, V. ,].■' "The intention of i he lei^islature in ]iass- in^Mlie act in (|Ucstion was to place the whole railwa\ \ s- tein under the control of the cnnri." The numerous decisions which have heeii made under this statute, except « Ppi"1< v. Snvth Sf;iff(inl I.oiicl.iii A NoitlnvcsfiMii Ji. ( (>. V. DiinliiMii. is ('. B. S2ti (is.")(i). X CM. II.] I'OWKI! TO I.I Mir I.IAItlMTV. m as to wli.'il Mi'c "jiisl iiiid rt'Msoiiiiltlc" coiHlitions which hit citt'd ill :i siilisiMHiciil (iKipIrr, ,irc not iicl of is.iO. iiikI the K'ailwMV :iii'l ( miki! 'I'nilHc Act of lX."»t, liMvc not lie«'n M(lo|ile»l in (';iii!iil;i. the rcspoiisjliilit y of :i coniiiKdi c.'iiricr there !c>ts wholly upon the principles of the eoiniiion hiw , :m(l iii.iy lie >o liinited liy special con- tract that he >liall imi he lialile, even in ca.-e of jjfioss nejj^ii- jLTcne*', iniscoiidiict . or I'rand on the part of his servanls.-'" § 2S. fi'f'ii'iii/ li'iilr III Aiinricd . — A c(»ninion carrier has two distinct liahilitic-, incliidinir tir.-t all losx.- occasioned !iv accident or mistake and without his f;iull , where he is liahle li\ the custom of the realm, or the common law, as an insurer, and, second, for all ht>ses occasioned by his default or lu'irliireiice, where he is lialile as an ordinary hailce. In tlii-- country it is ii-eneially held that he may limit his ropoiisiliility as an insurer, hy special contract,-' hut that he cannot li\ any contia >er\aiit> or agents; contracts of the latter kind lieiiii!' considered as lieinii- void liecause they are airaiii>t pul»lic polic\ . aii sanction to injustice and op- pression. A separate view of the decisions in each State follow.- this section, from which it will he seen that this may properlv he called the American rule. tliou<:li not appliealile to Fowa or Texas where the statutes declai'e a stricter rule, nor to West \'ir:finia. where a looser doctrine prevails, nor -■"DiKl-uii V. (ii'iniil 'rniiiU K'. ( O.. 7 < 'iiiim(1:i. !,..!. (X. S.) -JC;! 'ISTD). One licliiiy: nil :i free |i;i»s. hy llic I('nii< of wliiili llii' iicr^mi iicrciitiii;;- il iis^iinii'd III!' risk-: of arcidnits Mini (liiniMirc ciiiinoi iiiMiiiliiiii ;iii Mi'linii fur an iiijnry sii.»iaiii('(| wliilc lidiii;: un ilir pass. Siiilicrlaml v. <;ri':il Wc^tciii R. i '<>.. 7 f. ('. « '. I'. Iii'.i ( ls,-is 1. .MfxaiiiliT \ . 'reruiiio !{. ( 'n.. :{r. I.e. q n. i.v.t ns7.">i. •-'^ 15ari.'r v. Wlifclcr. IK N. II. ii (iMliD. 32 TIIK CONTKACTK OK C.MMMKIiS. [ciI. II. to Xcw ^'ork, iIk' Iciidinir comincrciMl SImIc of the riiioii, wliosc ciMirls hcu'iiiiiiiii:' ill Itciiiii iiiK'oiupromisiiiir-"' Iimvc elided ill lieinu: wiiiitoii.-'' J) 2!t. 77ii' lidh- ill Ihr Cnlnl Sl(itr.< Cniirts- — In (lie F('ler;il <'(iiifts it is held that iid conirai't liy a <-(iiiiiii(iii ear- rier for an e.\em|ilii)ii from re>|ton>il>iiit v can lie siistiiiiied a~ lieiii'j- lawful iinle'-s it is just and reasonalde in the e\e eii- tial diitii'- on the part of cominon carrier- of Li'oods jind etirriers of |ia--eni^-(.|-s, >;!\ ||||. Sii|,icine ( 'oiiit y any arranL''emi'nt l)et w-eii the ('inployer .•ind the employee. ' W'itlltlli- exception the •>(;.. nil! V. Ilill. 2 Hill. r,i:\ '\s\-i . -"' l'"ikin< V. N'rw Ycirk Cciii. |{. (',,.. ji \, y.. I'.ic, , |s(;-j) ; \V,|N v. Niu Y-irk ( c ii:. i:. f.... jj \. ^^ \s\ , |s(ij, ; |{i,„ll v. \cw Yoik i ,rit. J{. <'u. .•_'.") N. V. IIJ Isiii; : Nichnl.i- V. New Vni'k ( Cnl. |{. Cn.. I lluii. \\11 |s7"i . :illlriii(i| li\ llii- ( iiiiil (.f \|i|pi',i|- ( |s7!)). ' l{;iilrn;i.| (',,. V. I.iirkw I. 17 \V;,||. :i,-,7 .|s7:(,: |;,h||„;„| c,,. v. l*iiill.2J Wall. IJ;t (|s7|,; Kmiii.-I v. |';s|.ic<- C... | \V I-. .-.7:! |s7,!): |';x|iri'^s Co. v. I\iiiiiii/r. - W.ijj. .!|j (|s(||ii: | lniincwfll \. T:,!..!. •_' Simiirni'. 1 i|s:,|i: I'li,. VavWW. \ Ijcjnly. I7 ,|si;h: Tiir Cjiy ..f \ui- wi.ji. I n.li. 271 i|s7n,; |{.ii||(i:i(( ( •(,. V. M.MiutM.nnillii' Cm.! H; \V;i||. :fl« (IS7-J): 'I'hf Mmv (,) ai. I New I.. U\:^ \<,\-. 'n,,. \,.u Wmld v. kiii.ir. Hi llou. |(;!i i|s.-,;|,: x,..., .i,.|-.(-, Sicmn .\;i\. I'o. v. Mrrrjiaiil-" Hank, (i Mow. ;»!( (jsls,; Vmk fn. v. ( Vniral ifaJIr.p.MJ. :l \Val|. ; "T (iNIi:. : The Ifr.rki'l, I \\\~<. :(.-,| ijsiKl); ||„. |,,,^i,| .,||,| (■.,,-,, ji,)), .r, Hlat.lif. J(!(! rlsir,): ■rill- ji.-lluiia. I jt.'n, .Mi;! < |s7l i: .\cl-uii v. .XaiNH'id Steamship Co.. 7 IJcii. :||ii , |,s7(i: I'l,,. Invimilpli'. I |,u«i-ll. j-j.-, ^\^^\- . 'I'lic Di'Ilii. I Hen. :it."i {\xH)). anil ciisi-s /»/.v.«(-),i. " Kaili. Aliihdniii. — In Ahd)ama the ride is tiiat common carriers may not contract for immunity from the c(»nse- qiienees of tlieir own iie^lijreiice ; yet they may contract for exemption from tlie extreme ineasiii'e of lialiility which the common hiw imposes where no fraud or ne. v. .S|cv. i; (rut. I.. .1. -HM Osi:). '-• l{!iiln>ii(t Co. V. Mimiifni'iiiiiii^c Cn.. ir, Wall. :tlS (1S72) ; .Vyrrs v. W.'Mcni Ci).. It lUatrli. 11 (I.STll): I'hr I'iicillc 1 Dcady. 17 (ISdlj; Tlii' .M:iy (i II. 1 Ncwl). n;."i (is.'il). M'i tluT cast's ill tin- Fi'dcral Cuni'ts aii' : Tin' Aiitninciia (',. ."> Hm. .'HU , |S7'_'); Till- AmiTK'a. s Men. I'.U (|s7i'.); .\iilli(.ny v. .Ktiia Iii>. Co.. 1 Al.!.. (f.S.) :ti;»(lsu!ij: IJaxtciv. L.-iaiid. Alil). Adm. :MS (ISjS) ; IIiuI.t V. Till- .\iro\v. t! .Mel.caii, 170 (IH.m); Hcaisc v. lto|u's. 1 Si>ia;jiH'. ICtl (ls.v>;: Ha/ill v. Sii';(iiisiii|iCo..;! \V:ill..rr..-J21i ( ls.-)7) ; Hiilklt\ v. Naiiiii- kca;:' .'Sii'aiii Coiion Co.. 1 Cliff. M-1 ( is.vi). ». c.-Jl Ilow. ;tM; JsilO;; JJroadwil! v. jliiilcr. 1 N'rwI.. 171 (IS.M); .s. <•..(; .Mci.i'an. -JIMJ ( 1S.")4) ; HradMiT.'l v. Ilnaii. -J IMalclif. IMl ISI'l); Clark v. Haniw.-ll. \1 Ilow. •J7J t is:)!) : Cliiilil) V. Kciiaiid. •JU Law Kc|i. VX\ (Istih: Carey v. \\- kiiis. i; Hfii. ."id-J ;1S7;{): 'I'lir Costa Uira. It Sawy. .YIS (1S7.-,); 'I'iic Coiii|ila. 1 Sawy. :{7.'» (ls77); 'rin- California. -J Sawy. 12 (1S71); 'I'lic C«»|iiliili(>. :t Mlalilif. ."iJl (l.s.'ifii; Kixoii V. Coliiiiiltiis \i'. K. Co.. I IJis,. I:J7 JMCiN): IUhlilc V. .Mor;;aii. 1 Woods. IOC, (l,s7:}); |>ii|ioii| v. Vance. Ill Ilow. IC.J (is,-,(l,: Kxpies^ ( o. V. Calilwell. Jl Wall. JUj (ls71); The Kiiiiiia .Jojiiisi,|i, I S|irajxiie. .")J7 (istlO); 'I'lie Kdwiii. 1 Si>ra;;iie. 177 J.SVi): The Kthcl..-. Men. i:.l (ls71); Tlu- Favorite. 2 Hiss. .V)2 (ls7r); Tlie(!oId Ihiiiler. nialclif. \ II. :!(»(» (1SH2): (larrison v. Meiiipliis Ins. Co.. I'.i Ilow. ;I12 'IS.VIi; IJailway Co. v. Stevens. !H 1'. S. (m."). (I I '..iif I I •)OT fIVTTi. II..>.I.i.^. <- IV',,^.1....>| 1! t>l..>..l.<' 1!) /Iw'i-vv. Il...,> — ■• \' '. •«.' ■■'•■..'•■..a i.i--t ..MM vi'.p.r;. ff" iJit.!* ■ii«..m Ml--. Ill (|(i'i!»): l-aiiil» V, I'arkniaii. I S|iia;iiie. :i(:t ,ls:)7j; Lawremev. .'|i|ililiii. 17 Ilow. 1(1(1 nsr.l,: The Live Yankee. 1 |)ead\. IJOdsiiS): l.eaiy \. If.ilid Stale-. II Wall. i;(t7 (lS7li: The Mileliis. ."> IMaU'li. iW.-) (|S(il!): The Moliawk.s Wall. ir>.l ils(iS): Merrill v. Are.\ . ;i Ware. 21.". (ls.-.!i); the M.dlie M"ld.r. 2 Miss. od.'. (|S7i); The Milwai.k-e Belle. 2 Miss. I!I7 (|s(i:),: .Meii/ell V. Uailwav Co.. ( |''|liin. r,;{i (|s7iii; Ne|.,.,|; r. :u TMK (ONTKACTH OF fAIUMKUS. [en. II. tiiblc to tliciii.-' TlifV <;m not limit their lial.ilily l>y a notice inserted in a receipt unassented to l)y tiu' shipper.'* That the •'■ooils were taken "at the owner's risk " only af- fects the lialiility of tiie carrier as an insurer.''-'' 5 ;n. Ark'iiisds. — 'I'licre lias been no direct adjudication . .11 this Mil»ject in Arkansa> : hut it has been lield in that State that a stipulation in a hill of ladinj; ;;iven by a car- rier, liinitinjr his liability to loss or daniairt oecurriiijr on his own line, was biiidiii); The PortsiiioiUli. !l Wall. (1S2 ^ls(!il): I'hilaiiclplila Ac 1{. ('■. v. Ucrliy. II lldw. KIS (IH.Vi): Jtailriiad Cn. v. .\iulnis(o>r;ri„ Mill-. 22 W^.ll. .MM (ls7h; The Itccsidc. 2 Simi. r)(;7 (ls:i7); 'I'lic Hcl.fn'a, 1 Ware. IsS (l,s:»l); K.'iy v. Tlii- Mihvaiikcr Hcllr. is Am. I,. T. IJcp. ('••*> (istl'.tj; 'llir SanliT. 2 Bfii. .')l!l (IsdS) ; St. .Inliii v. Kxiin's> Co.. 1 Woods. ('.12 1 1S71 ; ; .Six llniidird and 'riility Ca-ks. 11 Blatclif. .M7 (ls7s); Siii-yt-r v. 'Mm Mary llillf HotiiTts. 2 Sawy. 1 (l.s71); 'I'lii' Star of Hope, 17 Wall. f..".l ils7;{); Soiiilicrii Kxini'ss Co. v. Difksoii. !t( I'. S. .Mil (ls7t'(';: 'rnnifr v. 'I'lic Hlack Warrior. 1 .Mc.Ml. isl (ls.-,t;); 'I'raiisportatioii Co. v. l>o\Mi(r. 11 Wall. 121t (ls7(i,; 'rwclvc Ilmidifd. ^c. rip(<. .". H-^. ;!'.l| ils72); 'I lio Vivid. 1 lliMi. :n!1 (l.s7(M ; Van Syckcl v. Tlii' Kwin.i:, ( raMic. inr. i |.v|i)) ; Vaii-rlian v. (IllO Casks, 7 \Un. .VHJ (ls71) ; 'I'lu' Wallian, 111 Op.. Ally. (Jen. Mil (isdit). •■" (ircy V. .Mohilc Trade Co.. ".."> Ala. :!s7 |S7(1, ; sifclr v. 'I'ow nsiiid. :;7 Alii. 2-17 (IWil); Sonlli A North Alaliaina K. C. v. Ilndtin. :<1 Ala. Hik; (lS7.'>!..i. r., .''>il Ala. ;ti'.s (Is7ii): SoutliiMii V.\. Co. V. Arm-It ad. .Ml Ma. :(.">0 ;is7:i); Sonili.rM F:x. Co. v. Crook, II ,Ma. liis (,ls70); .MoMlf ,\;.-. |{. Co. V. Hopkins. 11 Ala. ISO (ISdS). »< Soiillicrn Kx. Co. V. Ariustcad, .'.II .\la. Il.M) (|S7;r,i; Soiillifrn Kx. Co. V. Cn„ik, II Ala. I'iS il.s70); Soiillicni Kx. Co. v. Capcrt"!!, 41 \\». 101 (lS7(t). *'■ Moliili- Ac. I{. Co. V. .lart II Ala. fill (ISCS). Thf ollit-r cases in tlii- State are: IliMer v. Me( art iiey, :il Ala. ."ill (1S,-(,S): .loiu'sv. I'itelier. It St. i^^ I'. IX*) (^is:{;t); McCluie V. c<>x.:{2 Ala, (il7 fls.'.S); Samji-on v. (iaz/ain. C Port. 12:1 ( ls:{7; ; K/ell v. Miller. D port. :{(l7ns;ts^: Kzell v. Knjrli>li, (J I'ort. :ni d-.tS); Waylaiid \. Mos.'hy. ."• Ala. i:t(t ; ISCt; ; ( ..x v. I'eter-on. :)(l Ala. (!I».S (,1.S,''(7). »« Taylor v. I.ittli- J?"<^1< Ac. J{. C>. \\i Ark. "!i;i (1>77). (11. II. J i'OWKK Tf) LIMIT I.IAIill.lTY, a5 found ill llic reports of tliis .Stale In tliiil rase a it'ccipt irivcn l»y an express company for a paekaire of irold dust, (■ontained lliis eonditioii: "It is further aL^'eed .and is part, of the consideration of this eontf.iet tliat Wells, KariTo & ('o, an' not to he responsihle except as forwarders, nor for any loss or damage arisini; from the danjrers of railroad, ocean or river navi<;ation, lire, itc., unless specially insured hy them and so specified in this receipt." This liinitati(»n was held not to dischar^rc the company from lial)ility for a l(tss caused liy the Ui'irliirenci' of the olHccrs of a vessel (•mployed l>y the express company to transport the jroods named in the receipt . The court simply construed the re- ceipt without dccidinj; the <|ue|i suit! that (In- contract in i|ii( >ilnn in i jciir ami nnciiiiivncal lcrni>- ncccs-arily evinces an inicn- liy llicin in tlic lran''|ioi'laiion of ti'iM>4n'c coin'.nilf*-"! to ilicrr care. If 'mil liaii liccri the intcntitni it cirtainly conlil and iiont(i|i'!>« •Aonid have liccn cxjircsscd in lanjrnajii- alioni wliidi tluTc could li.iv^ Ih I'll no nii-appuhchsioM liy cillicr pany. N'oiliin); is -aid al«»nt m u'li- /Xcncc. 'I'Ik' lan;in;i;;c ii,rcnlcd ii|»'»ii (lie receipt of Iii~ properi \ for iransporlatioii. 'I'liat plainiiff ciMild not hiiW' iinderstunii tli<' connact in the >eii-e claiineil (or ll liv I lie defemfanl.'' ccenis in the liiLriie-l dej^rf- prolialile. for it caw ^caicel', lie credited that a in. in of iprdinary cajiacitN ami intellijiciiee woidil comniii -n valnaliie a package to .iiher> in 1>'- transported a iosiij (li'-lame \\ illioii! apposin;; thai somdioih would !>»■ i'i'>.poM>.iliie in liim loi' al |ea-l ;!-oo(l failh and ordinaiy care dniin;: the tran.-il. Kill if the <'on>irnction claimed for the stipulation in (|ne-i ion i- to prevail. Ih** de- fciidaiit ' were miilier re>ipoi|.ii|i|e themselves lor ordinary ea^re. afu-r (lie (//',|-nie ,ef| IJii ir otll' e al I.os An^ of traiisportalion re-|ionsihh'. The lan;;nap' «»f th«* stipiiliilion under con^idei'aiiiilr;ul for ('.M'liiitlidii from anidt'iilal lo-^scs, l»ul not from iK'irli.iTt'Ml ones.'"* § ;{4. Ciiinii rllnit. — A coiiiiiKdi ciirricr may limit liis liahility In' «'oiitract cxcrpt for iicirliirciu't'.'' I>ut not l»y a notice unasscMlt'd to.*" § ,"5."). liiUnntri' — In tin- only i Siatc, the ijUfs- tie on the exaet jioint Iia> yet arisen in Florida.*'' ,§ ."57. (iiiinjiii . — In the eai'li«'sl ease in tln> Slate, /'VnA v. Cliapinan^ decided in 1MI7, it was held that notice-, jc- eei|)ts, and contracts in restri<-tion of the lialiility of a com- mon carrier, were void a> aLiaiiisI pul>li'' po|ic\ . ')'hi> decision i> l)ased principally on (imilil r. Ilill^^^ a case t IH.ri . \\ hill', as we liaxr sci'ii ilir nili' in lif, ili.> idii-liiii'liiin iiiii<'t In- Iiiii-I •iliii-ijy ii;.Miii-l till' (Iffi'inlaiii -. lli>liliii<;. a« we I In. that tlic t'\ci'|»-- liioi ill ihc I'lmiiai'i. lui' ilii' iim^mm- -laU'il. iIck-- nut cmmiiiiI llic lii-fciid- Hiii • fnnii lii-sfs resulting fnnn liic iit'^li;friirc of ilio-r ill iiiar;;f of ili,' sitMiii tiiiT. it ln'romcs umi«'ci--:irv lo tiu' iiimr ilillli'iill (|iic-<- tioli. ill till- IM'i'srllt .'t ate I if till' ailtl|iil'itie<. a> In the pciwernf eoliliniill carriiM!' I»y ."peeial coiitran i.i eMuieriHc tln'iii-clvr- frmii lialiilith - uri>ln;r from the iie;rliy:eiii-e (if tliiKc >Mii|ile4|);ii.li\e. Co. v. ( . riifoi; li, :H "ol. 2*>i' l^rTi; NVc-leril riiioii Tele^fiaiih « '«(. V. (iialiani, I ( ol. J.'id 1S7I ,. '|'|i«-»e are all III'' eases ill tills Stale. •' Weleli V. Uo-iton. &*■. K. ( o.. II (..nil. W'X:, ,\^~\ . Iii-rworl v. I.oDiiiei. 21 ( (Hill. L'l.'i (Kih; ('aiii|» v. Ila-lford \c. .si.iunlH.al « .... 4.; Conn. WWW (is'ti) : Lawrem*.- v. New y<»ik &.< . \{. < ,,.. ;H; « liy v. I'itcli. I J Conn. Iln f^'.'S . ; « ..nver-.' \. ,\.ir\i»;«li lie. Trans, ('o.. :i;! Conn, lui; |m;:i. ^' Flinii V. I'iiilaili'lpliia iVe. I! Co., I Hmi-i. i«;) |<)?). <-m'e Heniieit V. r"ilya\^. I l'!a. 10! ls|7i ; IJr .ek \ O.ilc. If Fla. .VJIJ (ls74,. '•• J«ia. :U!i. "2 Hill. (i-j;j risjj . ni. II.] rOWRIl TO I,IMIT I.IAmi.ITY 37 wliicli has since liccii (tvcrnilcd/'' It !•< vci v i 111)1 at all iH'ccssaiT to ctMisidtT in Fish v. ('/idpnifni, tlu> (|ii(>.sti|»eeial ((inliact. a> the evidence showed neirli- ;r«'iire (in the i)ai1 of the carrier. The fact, in ('(iiiijt/if// v. Moi'Ki /' where the carrier was lield lialde (»n tlie ^rroinid of .ie;jrlijr«'iice, were alni(t>l identically I Ik- sann-. Five yearrf liter an «'xce|)ti()n in a hill of ladinir nf tlu' "damage of the si'as," was ••.iistained." In ('nojur r. liirri/.*" \hv matter was aill of la he did not know tliat all the c(»tton was at the landinir ; the clerk of the steanhs" Oil receipt of the cotton made out a liill of l:idinsentini:. Iield that the loss of the cotton nnisl fall on the owner rt adhere«| to the s:nMC do(lrine. Iiul lichl that an exception as to tire wduld not reliese the carrier fidin liahilily caused liy his own neiflip'uic or that of lii-> >ervanls. Afh'l Ihc^e a slalulc wa parsed re(|uirini: the expretH a'-'^ent of the ouiier to any • onira/ 1 llinlllii^ llic liahilily of II eiiri'ii'i'i iiiid it V, II- held ill iSuuifiiin /J.ijiiiMH Ciiiiijiiini/ v, i ♦•'' Met' fiimt $ .V'l. w !f;ii|.. «;■ ■l>JI ♦■ IJrowii V. ( l;r Idii. I J (III. ."i ;| '• -Jl (;:i. .■;'(: |,v:,7 . h-;i;. 88 Tin: ( o.S THAI !,•. OK CAIMllKK.s. [< II. II. ]\'iirfi>/:" tliril siicli iissciif would mil he prcsiinicil fidm ;t iiific iin'('|>laiH't> of !i r<' flS()7}, anil s.c MnsliiT v. SoiHiiiiii Kx. ('.... :is (Ja. :17 (IStiS;. '^i I'mct'll V. Sniitlii.ni i:\|.n' (isi;i;;; Suuiliciii Kx- lH'i'v-i I'll. V. !{anii'-, itiKia. ."t:i-J (IMiT'i. ■''-' Wallacr V. .Malllii'ws, \VM\:\. (117 r|S(J!»). '"■' Wallace V. .SaiidiT-. 12 (Ja. |S(1 (|s7l). 'I'lic ..tli.T ca-c- aiv \\<-\\\ v. CiHipcr. -js (ia. r.i:i iisriiii; .Soiiilii-ni Kxpn-s ( 'u. v. Ni-why. ;u; (i i. (i;ir» (1S(I7); SuntlnMii I'Ixiucsh Cm. v. rit|llllilll, A'J (Iii. \\.l (Is7l>; Cfhlfal Miic V. I.uwc. .'lO (Ja, rillU I Israj; i'iasi Tciim's^cc li. Cd. v. Mniit^'nui.Ty, 44 Wr.lt To MMIT MAIUMTV Hi) n'(M'i|ii (If hill of l.idinj;.'^'^ Ami cvni l>_v cxprcs.-* (•(tntnu'l llii'V arc iml mIIowimI tu avoid (licir lialtilily for Iomsos . aiiscl l»y tlicir own or llirir st-rvaiits' iifj.'li;^ciHc oi* wilful iiiiscon- diMl,'" or Ity tin- laiU of rcasoiialilc ('arc," as, for t'xaiii|»lc failin;^ to prttviilr cai's willi (lie most improviMl plat forms. § ."{It. Inilimiii. — III Indiana a coininon rairicr may l»y contract limit his <-omiii iii law lia >)ilitv i'Xct i?< iici'.'* Hut not l>\ iiotici" pi r or m ■^'li w Aiifluii FJiH- V. Dul.T. t!S 111. :»tlli (1M7:»); 111. ii1mt>,'. .M 111. ss ils7(l); W.'xHtii Triuis. Co. v, New liall. 'il III. tCfi (iMMh; riclij V. «'liifup.. elf.. K. Co.. 71 III. ».".S (1871 ; III. rent. J{. Co. V. MorrUoii. lii III i:K5(INr>7); Cliiciipi. clc. U. Co. v. Munifori, (K» III. 17."i (l>7l ; III. <'.'iit. |{. Co. V. .Sinyscr. Its 111. ;t,Vl ( 1^..:, : 111. Cent. H. Co. V. Ufud. ;i7 111. 1st ( isii.'i) ; IJoskowil/, v. Ailiiiiis Kx. « o. r> C»'iit. I,. .J..;.s (1S77): llakor v. Mi.lii^'un itf. K. Co.. Ii! III. 7:1 (Is'!'".); Ki'ic \<. 'rraiixpoitiitlon Co. v. I)iilcr. s (cut. I,. .1.. 2!t:l (l«7!>); .Mrrcliaiits |)i-|i:iit|i Tniiis. «'o. V. 'riii'illmr, sc, 111. 71 (IS77). *« 111. Cent. K. <'o. V. .AdiiiiH. \1 111. -171 (IS(;7); 111. Ct-iit. U. Co. v. M<.rri-«(>ii. Hi 111. VM\ (lsr)7); Hoskowlt/ v. .Adamn Kx. Co..5C«Mit. 1-. J.. W (IS77) ; III. Criit. I{. Co. V. Sinyscr. :{8 III. Xt\ (18«.^) ; Krie U. Co. V. Wilrox, M 111. -r.V.) (187(1). *"• Adams Kx. C... v. .St«'ttainTs, til 111. 181 (1871). *■' Hoskowitz V. Adaii.s Kx. Co.. '> Cfiit. !-. .1.. 5S (1H77). '\'\w othor «'rts<'s ill this Stato an-: IJakcr v. Micliij^un &.c. |{. Co.. VI III. 7;» (18(1(1); Opp'"''!"''""'"'" V. I'nitt'd .sinU's Kx. Co., (ill 111. (>2 (I87;J); IViiiisylvaiiia Co. V. Kaircliild. (;'.» III. 2(i() (I87;t;; Adams Kxpn-ss Co. v. Ilayiu-s. 42 III. 811 (ls(i(i) ; Milwaiiki'c Ar. U. Co. v. .Smith. 7< 111. I!»7 (1S7I) ; N'orlh- t-rii Kiiic I'aokft Co. v. Shi-artT. IJl III. 2(i;J (1871) ; Merchants Dispatch Trans. Co. v. Holies. 80 111. .17:J (lH7r>) ; Indianapolis itc. \\. < 'o. v. Slraiii. 81 III. TiOt (lS7»i) ; Tyler v. Western riiion Telcfjiaph Co., (10 111. 421 (1871); Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. McChdlan, M III. .S8 (1870); Ameri- can Ac. Kx. Co. V. .Sillier, .Vi III. 110 (1«70); Dnnsetli v. Wade. :i III. as.'i (181(1); Aineriran Kxpress Co. v. Perkins. 12 III. 4.'>8 (18(17). ■■■■JSl. I.owis \i'. H. Cn. V. Smiick, r.t liid. :!02 (1871) ; .Miclii>,'an, Ac., ]{. Co, V. Ilcaton. M Ind. tJS (ls7lj; Ohio Ac. K. Co. v. Selliy, 17 Ind. 171 (1871); fnited Stales Kxpiess Co. V. Harris, ."il Ind. 127 (IS7r)); Adiims Kvpicss (o. v. Heajjan, 2!» Ind. 21 il'''>"); Indianapolis Ac K. Co. V. Allen. :!1 Ind. ;. T^%. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11^ ^^ BIO us 2.5 2.2 11.8 1 1.4 III 1.6 *" w A Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STRi^ET WEBSTER, N.Y 14S80 (716) 672-4503 v iV [v •SJ ;\ 6^^ s 40 THE CONTRACTS OF CAKIJIEKS. [CH. 11. § 40. Iowa. — In this State it is provided by statute'" tliat "in the transportation of persons or property by any rail- road or other company or by any person or firm engaged in the business of transportation of persons or property, no contract, receipt, rule or regulation shall exempt such rail- road or other company, person or firm from the full liabili- ties of a common carrier, which in the a))sencc of any con- tract, receipt, rule or regulation would exist with respect to such persons or property," This statute does not affectt contracts for the carriage of goods beyond the carriers own line,"'^ but applies to all contracts made in this State, though to be performed in a State Mhere no such legislation exists.'* Another statute enacts that "every railroad company shall be liable for all damages sustained by any person, including employees of the company, in consequence of any neglect of the agents, or by any mismanagement of the engineers or other employees of the corporation, to any person sus tJiining such damage, all contracts to the contrary notwith- stJinding."^ But prior to the passage of these statutes the Supreme Court of this State had refused to release to an}' extent the conmion law responsibility of carriers.** TLo statute first cited covers the carriage of live stock.'" 493 (187:5); Walpole v. Bridges, 5 Blackf. 222 (ISIW); Indianapolis &c R. Co. V. Rennny, l:J Iiid. 518 (18.")?)) ; United States Express Co. v, Rusli. 24 Ind. 40:j (ISO")) ; .Jeffersonvillc Ac. li. Co. v. VVorland, oO Ind. U;?!) (1875) ; United States Express Co. v. Keefer. 5 (1874).' 65 Wliitniore v. Bowman, 4 G. Greene, 148 (185:5) ; Carsuii v. Harris, Id. .516 ('854). 66MeCoy v. Keoknlv &e. R. Co. 44 Iowa, 424 (187(i) ; Brush v. S. A. A D. R. Co. 43 Iowa, 554 (187(!). Tlie other eases in Iowa are: Talbot v. Mereliants Dispatch Trai.-. Co. 41 Iowa. 247 (1875); Rohinson v. Mer- chants Dispatch Trans. Co. 45 Iowa. 470 (1877); German v. Ciiicago &c. R. Co. 38 Iowa, 127 (1874); West v. The Berlin, 3 Iowa, 532 (185G), Wilde v. Merchants Dispatch Trans. Co. 47 Iowa. 272; Id. 247 (1877) ; Bancroft v. Mereliants Dispa'icli Trans. Co. 47 Iowa. 2(J2 (1877) ; I CH. II.] POWER TO LIMIT J^IABILITY. 41i § 41. luDhfas. — A common carrier may relieve liinisclf' from the strict liability imposed on him by tlie common law by a special contract ; but not from liability for his negli- gence. ''^ § 42. Kentucky. — The rule in Kentucky is that carriers- may limit their common law liability by special contract made without duress, imposture or delusion,''*' Imt not for negligence, whether ordinary or gross.*'" But they can not- limit their liability by a general notice.™ § 43. Louisiana. — A common carrier may restrict his' liability by express special contract (not by notice), but ii^> liable nevertheless for the carelessness or unskilfulness of his servants."' In Jliggins v. J^ew OHean.^ d'c, Hailroad Coin- pany,'''^ a case of an injury to a person while riding on a pass which Avas given imder an agreement that the plaintiff would assume all risk of injury, the court said: " Is the agreement Stewart v. Merchants Dispatch Trans. Co. 47 Iowa. 2-21) (1S77) ; The Wisconsin v. Yoiuig, :? G. Greene, 208 (1851) ; Mitchell v. United State*' Express Co. 46 Iowa, 214 (1877). •^Goggln V. Kansas Ac. K. Co., 12 Kas. 416 (1874); Missouri itc, R. Co. V. Caldwell, S Kas. 244 (1871) ; Kansas vie, II. Co. v. lieynokls, 8 Kas. 623 (1871); Kallnian v. United States Ex. Co. W K:is. 20.'i (1865);- Kansas Ac. K. Co, v, Nichols, !) Kas. 225 (1872) ; St. I.onis&c. R. Co. v. Piper, i:< Kas. ,505 (1874); see also Leavenw«)rth &o. R. Co. v. Maris,, 16 Kas. X\\\ (1876) ; The Emily v. Carney, 5 Kas. 645 (1864). «» Adams Ex. Co. v. Guthrie, !) Bush. 78 (1872); Adams Ex. Co. v. Nock. 2 Duv. 562 (1866). «» Louisville Ac. R. Co. v. lledper, 9 Biish. 645 (187!$) : Rhodes v. Lou- isville ttc. R. Co.,!) Rush. 688 (187:5); Orndorff v. Adams Ex. Co.. :{• Bush. I!t4 (1867) ; Reno v. Hogan, 12 R. Mon. 615 (1851). "" Louisville itc. R. Co. v. Iledger, 9 Bush. 645 (187;{) ; Adams Expres'i Co. V. Xock, 2 Duv. 562 (1866); Louisville Ac. R. Co. v. Brownh'c. 1^ Cent. L. . I. 101 (187!t)- See also Adams Exj)ress Co. v. Loch, 7 Biisli. 41)i» (1870); Bryan v. Memphis &c. R.Co., 11 Bush. .5!t7 (1875); Cassilay v. Young. 4 B. Mon. 265 (184:5) ; Gowdy v. Lyon, !J B. Mon. 112 (1818) ; Keith v. Amende. 1 Bush. 4.55 (1866). ■' Hoherts v. Riley. 15 La. Ann. 10:i (1860); Simon v. The Fung Sluu-y.,. 21 La. Ann. :{6;} (1860) ; New Orleans Mat. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans &i'.. \i. Co.. 20 La. Ann. :W2 (1868) ; Baldwin v. Collins. I) Rob. 468 (1845). "28 La. Aim. i:i:{ (1876). The other cases in this State arc: Mahon v. The Olive Branch, 18 La, .\nu. 107 (1866) ; Frank v. Adams Express Co., 18 La. Auu. 279 (1866) :. wW 42 THK CONTUACTS OF CAKItlEUS. [cir. n. Itiwful? All contnicts may be made except those repro- bated by law or public i)olicy, and a contract by which one stiimlates for exemption from responsibility for losses oc- casioned to another from the neixliojence of his agents or servants, is not against public policy or forbidden by law ; but if the losses resulted from the fraudulent, wilful or reckless misconduc^t of the agent or employee, it would be." One judge dissented from this doctrine. § 44. Maine.^In Maine the liability of a common car- riei by the common law, may be restricted l)y notice, but not unless the customer has knowledge of the notice, and cither expressly or impliedly assents thereto, and in no ease where the loss or damage arises from misconduct or negli- gence." § 45. Maryland. — In 1818 the question came before the .Supreme Court of Maryland whether a carrier could limit his liability by a general notice, but the court waived the (juestion, holding that the iiotice in that ease was ambiguous and therefore inoperative.'^ In Brehme v. Adams Express Compamj,^'' decided in 186G, the court said that the right of \) -1 Dunn V. Brannci-, III La. Ann. 4')2 (18.'8) ; Lcvois v. Gale. 17 La. Ann. 302 (18G5) ; Boycc v. Welch, 5 La. Ann. 62^^ (1850) ; Keinhcr v. Southern Express Co., 22 La. Ann. 138 (1870) ; Flash v. New Orleans &e. R. Co., %\ La. Ann. .'l.iH (1S71) ; Oakey v. Gordon. 7 La. Ann. 2:J5 (18r)2) ; P'assett v. Riiark.3 La. Aim. 6!)4 (1848) ; Hunt v. Morris, G Mart. 670 (1810) ; Went- worth V. 'J'he Realm, 16 La. Ann. 18 (1861); Ilatehett v. The Conjpro- niise, 12 La. Ann. 78!^ (lS.-)7) ; Lewis v. The Sncoess,18 La. Ann. 1 (1866) ; Edwards v. The Cahawba, 11 La. Ann. 224 (18.i9) ; Levy v. Tontehartrain R. Co., -J:) La. Ann. 477 (1871) ; Price v. The Uriel, 10 La. Ann. 41:1 (IS.V")) ; IJrauer v. The Aln.oner. IS La. Ann. 260 (1866) ; Kelham v. The Ken- sin;i;ton. 24 La. Ann. 100 (1872); Thomas v. The Morning (Jlory. 13 La. Ann. 26!) (18.^)8); Van Hern v. Taylor, 7 Rob. 201 (1844) ; Van Horn v. Taylor. 2 La. Ann. 587 (1847). "Sager v. Portsmouth &c. R. Co.. ;U Me. 22S (1850); Fillebrown v. (irand Trunk R. Co., ,55 Me. 462 (1867); Bean v. Green. 12 Mc 422 (1SH5) ; Little v. Boston .i'c. R. Co.. 6(5 Me. %V,) (1S76) ; Willis v. Grand 'Trunk R. Co.. 02 Me. 4S8 (]S7:{). The other cases arc: Burnhani v. (;rand Trunk R. (>),, 61! M(\ 2!)S v*' Grace v. Adams. 100 Mass. .■)05 ('.808); Iloadley v. Xorthern Trans. Co. 115 Mass. 304 (1874) ; Pcmbcrton Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co. 104 Muss. 144 (1870) ; S(iiiirc v. New York Cent. R. Co. 08 Mass. 239 (1867). -^i School District v. Boston Ac. R. Co. 102 Mass. .•),52 (1809). Tlie oth- vr cases in this State relating to the topics of this treatise are: Gagt; v. Tirrdl.!) Allen. 299 (ISOt); Tirrdl v. Gage. 4 Allen. 245 (1802); Com. V. Vermont Ac. Ji. C.i. 108 Muss. 7 (1871); Sullivan v. Thompson, 99 Muss. 259 (1808) ; Packard v. Earle, 113 Mass. 280 (1873) ; Alden v. Poar- •sou. 3 (iruy. 312 (1855): S mfonl v. Ilousatonii' R. Co. 11 Cusli. 155 (ls,-,3); Dwight V. B'-i>-.vsli"r, 1 IMck. 50 (1822); Barrett v. Rogers, 7 Miss. 297 (ISli); llislhigs v. Pepper. 11 Pick. 41 (1831); Phillips v. Kurlc, 8 Pick. \<1 ns2l)): Knowles v. Dabney. 105 Mass. 437 (1870); IttV- ^,1^ K 44 THE CONTRACTS OV CAKHIKIJS. [CH. II.. t- § 47. Michigan. — In 1H53 it was decided hy a divided court that the coinmon law liability of a carrier could not be limited by contract.**'^ Six years later, however, this case was expressly overruled.'*' A common carrier may limit his liability by contract but not by notii-e.*** It is declari'd in this State l)y statute that no railroad company shall be permitted to change or limit its common law liability as a common carrier by any contract or m any other manner except b}' a written contract, none of which shall be print- ed, which :.hall be signed by the owner or shipper of the goods to be carried.'*'* § 48. Minnesota. — In Minnesota a carrier may limit his liability as an insurer but is not permitted to exonerate him- self from liability for his own negligence or the negligence of the agents whom he employs to perform the trans- portation.*^ § 49. Mississippi. — Although in 1849 an exception of the "dangers of the river" was sustained, *"" the power of common carriers to limit their liability by contract, was for some time an open question in this State. In Southern Ex- press Company v. Moon, decided in 18()3,** where it was Ellis V. Ainericiin Telogniph Co. 13 Allen, 226 (180(5) ; Biirroii, Express Co. 101 Muss. 120 (1609). "^Miohigiin Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Mifli. r):{S. >« Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, Mich. 24;{ (1859). ""American Trans. Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 30S (1858); McMillan v. Michigan &c. R. Co. 10 Mich. 79 (1807). The other cases are: Sissun V. Cleveland &c. R. Co. 14 Mich. 489 (1800) ; Clevelan'," &c. R. ("o. v. Perkins, 17 Mich. 290 (1808); Great Western li. Co. v. Hawkins, 18 Mich. 427 (1809); Hawkins v. Great Western J{. Co. 17 Mich. ", (1808); Merrick V. Wehster, ;j Mich. 208 (18.-.4); Detroit &.v.. R. Co. v.- Adanis, 1.5 Mich. 4rj8 (1807); Gordon v. Ward, 10 Midi. IJOO (1808); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carov, 1,") Mich. 525 (1807). «Mich. Conip. L. 1871, p. 7'^J, see. 2380. "^ Christenson v. American L..press Co., 15 Minn. 270 (1870); .lacolHis V. St. Paul &e. R. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 1 Cent. I.. .!., 125 (187:!). See, also, Cowley v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 92 (1808); Christian v. St.- Paid &c. R. Co., 20 Minn. 21 (1873). " Whitesides v. Thurlkill, 12 S. & M. 599. «« 39 Miss. 822. II. • CU. II.] POWER TO LIMIT LIAIULITV. 45 (led 1)0 aso ;iiiit lied !.(« .s a iiicr iiit- tlu'. provided in an receipt j^iven by an express company that the <'()inpany should not be liable for dangers of railroad, ocean, steam, or river navigation, etc., and that if the value was not .stated the company should not be liable for over $')0, it was held that the rei-eipt was not binding on the bailor unless there was an express assent on his part, with a full knowledge of the t»n-ms of the special contract and of the legal rights therel)y waived, and that there must be a consideration for such a waiver. The court did not make anv discrimination between the different clauses in the receipt ; nor did it pass upon the (juestlon as to the power of the company to limit its liability in any mode. "The public policy," it was said, "on which the extraordiiuiry Jiability of common carriers is founded, is too important to be thus virtually repealed 1)}' the fraud and circumvention ■ of artfully contriwd printed or prepared receipts thrust ui)on those to whom the hurry and press of railroad travel denies the time for examination or the opportunity of fair .assent." In the same year an act was passed prohil)iting railroad companies from limiting their liabilitv by contract. **' l>ut this statute was repealed by the Code of 1871 ; and in 1874 it was decided that in Mississippi a carrier may by contract, but not by notic(s provide for a limitation of or exemption from liability for losses arising from those acci- dents and casualities which prudence, skill, and care can not rahvays jjrevent or guard against."" § 50, Mi.'. V. Fniuks. 41 Miss. 404 (18(57). '•" Mobile i<:i'. ]{. Co. V. ■'.Vciui'r, 4!) Miss. 72.") (1874). Tlu> other i-mscs in this Sliite arc Giliuore v. Cannaii, 1 S. & M. 270 (lSj;i) ; N.-al V. Sami'.lcrson. 2 S. & M. .")72 (1844) ; Vicksbiirjj &e. K. Co. >v. U.ijijsdalc, 4(> .Miss. 4.")S (1872) ; Southern Exi)re.s.s Co v. lliiunicutt, 54 ..Miss. .")0(i (1877). "' Ketehum v. Anierh'an &c. Ex. Co., 52 Mo. 390 (1873) ; Lupe v. Atlan- ,!ie &e. K. Co., .3 Mo. (App.) 77 (187G); Cantling v. Iluunibal &o. 11. Co., T Ay f w 46 TlIK CONTKACTS OF CAIMilKItS. [ClI. II. '1 1 ft i inscrliiif,' ooiulitions in Iiis iiccopiiuu'C of -roods, hul to h:iv(5 the offoct of cxoiioriitinjr him, there must ho a spcciiil con- tnu't as.st'iiti'd to hy tho shii)i)i'r. 'llw iirjrumcnt in fiivor of the rijrht of the earrier to vary his lialiility hy iutnxhieiii;^ eonditions into his aeceptanee, is founded on a misconcep- tion in considering that his liahility is vohmtary and arises ex cnntradu. The hiw attaches tho responsil)ility to his empk)yniont or calling, and if he assumes that calling, \w has no power over tho duties which the law annexes to his ealliii". His assuming tho character of a common carrier depends entirely on his own will and assent ; hut if lu; un- dertakes that occupation, tlu; liabilities which coinc; upon him, in respect of goods brought or borne to him to \n\ (;ar- riod, are imposed by law and not created by assent or agrccv mcut. * * Public policy and fair dealing, on which tho extraordinary liability of a common carrier is founded, can not be undermined and frustrated by the design and circuin- vention of artfully prepared printed receipts, contrived i>y scheming corporations and soulless I'ompanies, thrust up(Mi the public without an opportunity of fair assent in the. niMo. :tS5 (187:t); LfvcrinKv. Ciiioii Trans. &c. C'i),,.l2 Mo. SS (l^'w) ; Kice V. Kansas Ac. ]{. Oo., (JU Mo. 'MX (1S7(!) ; Stiir^iffou v. St. I.oiiis \-c K. Co., G5 Mo. 500 (1877); Oxloy v. SI. Louis \-c. K. Co., (i.'. Mo. CJ!) (1877); Clark v. St. Louis &f. U. Co., CI .Mo. 410 (1S77) ; Snider v. Adams Ex. Co. (W Mo. 370, 1 Cent. L. .L 17!» (1S7(;); Kciid v. St. Loiii* Ac. It. Co., 110 Mo. l!t!» (1875). " ThtMc can he but little doubt as lo what is the doctrine in tliis Stat* fault, and in the absence of testimony to reliiit this picsumpliou, li(» must pay their value." 15al, the rule laid down hy the Supreme Couit of New Vork in JlollisU'r v. Nowh'n'-''^ that common carriers by a •general notice that thv l)a() Mo. :Ut) (1S72); Sehutter v. .\danis Express Co...") .Mo. (.Xpp.)' :n« (1S7S); The Missouri v. Webb. !» .Mo. l!»;i (1S15); Coates v. I'liitcd States i:xpress Co., 45 Mo. 2:»S(1S70); I)a{,'i(ett v. Sliii\v,*J{ Mo. 2(U (is;?:?) ; Wolf V. .\ineriean Express Co., 4.i .Mo. 421 (1S(J!»). '•'•'' .Vtchison Ac. 14. Co. v. Washburn. 5 \eb. 117 (1S70.) M 10 N. 11. 4S1. w 111 Wend. 2:54 (KSIW). w Moses V. Boston &i'. \i. Co. 24 N. II. 71 (1S51). t^ Moses V. Boston &c. It. Co. 24 N. II. 71 (1851); Barter v. Whoe'er,, 4'.) N. II. SI (iSOft)- See also Harris v. liand, 4 X. II. 250 (1S27) ; Graves \. Ticknor. G N.. H. .'»:{7 (1s;M) ; (Jray v. .laekson, 51 \. II. !» (1S71) ; Myall v. Boston \c.. R. Co. 19 N. IJ. 122 (1848) ; KixforU v. Sniitb 5'.i N. II. 356 (1872). ^SN.J. (Law) 255. ' %fi iT* .48 TIIK CO.VTIIAf TH OF CAUKIKIIS. [C... II. if 1)V .1 cMrricr by wntcr tlmt he would carrv for oiic-lliird less •ihiii tlio ('ust()iii;irv price Imt would "not he iiiiswcrahlc for • luiv loss in the Iriiiisportaliou of any frcijriils," the jury liaviiijr found llial his vcssid was not in ;;'ood order. In A' that carriers may by special contract oxemi)t themselves fr(>ni liabilitv for losses arisin*; from anv de-jfree of carcli'ss- ness and neirliijence on the part of their servants and .agents"*' and even, it is said, for their faults and wilful and •'■'iSN..!. (Law) ISO (ISOO). '•'lU X. .T. (I.iiw) .■)i:{ (lS(i!)) ; :52 td. 407 (1SG8). See al.-io Tiifk'Tiiiaii v. Stephens &e. Trans. Co. 32 X. J. (I.aw) IVil (Lsr>7) ; New iJniiiswiek Steam Xavij^atioii Ci. v. Tiers. 2t X. .1. (Law) <(577 (185:{). ' ' (Joiikl V. Hill, •_> Hill (!2;J (1SI2). In Alexander v. Greene, W Hill. 20 (1S12). tJionson, .T.. expressed a doubt whether a coninion carrier could limit his common law liability by contract; but tlie case did not call for a decision on that point. The case of Gould v. Hill, had not then been decided. '■-' Parsons V. Monteath. l;i IJu-b. im (18.>1); Moore v. Kvans, 14 Rarb. r>24 (l.S.ri). '■•See Parsons V. Monteath. l;5 Rarl). a.i:} (18:)1); Dorr v. Xew .lersev Steam Xav. Co.. 4 Sandf. VM> (lS.-)0); .\lexander v. Greene. 7 Hill. .-.:U (1«44); Wells V. Steam Xav. Co.. S X. Y. :t7.') (IS,'):!); Majfnin v. Dins- more. :) J. A S. (X. Y.) 1S2 (187:5) ; (J Id. 2S4 (1S74) ; Ileineman v. (Jrand Trunk R. Co.. M How. Pr. 4:50 (lS(i(J) ; Keeney v. Grand Tjnnk I{. Co. .V.) ,l5arl>. 104 (1870) : all of which cases have been inoditied or overruled. ■''< Westcott V. Fargo, (;;S IJarb. ;54!), s. c, « Lans. :51!) (1872) ; West- 4 I II. II.] I'owKu T(» i,i.\irr i,iAitii,n\ 4!i (•I'iniiii.il iicls.'"' l>iii siif!) a coiiti'ii t ciiii (tiilv I>c cvidciK^vil i»y plain and umui.''tiikal»l(' lanjriiajrc.'"" Mill the New V(irU coiirts i('c()jiiii/<- iiotliiiiii' Init a coiitracl ; a coiimioii caiTU'r can not screen liiniself hy notice wlu^tlicr iii'(tui:lit iiome to the owner or not . Nolice is no evidence of assent on tlic pari of ilie ownci'. and lie li.'is a riji'lit 1(» repose on tlie coninion-law lialiilil y of the cari'ier, wiio can not i-elieve liiniself from sndi liability l)y any act of liis own.'"' cott V. Kariro. (11 N". Y. rti> ns7.'>); I-i'c v. Marsli. 2S How. I'r. 27ri. .•<.<•.. .i:» Ihu-h, 102 (IWK); Mcvciv. MiiiiKlcri's Kxprcss Co. 24 Hitw. I'r. •-"Id flsilj): Mcrcaiilil.' Mm. Iik. (.•<.. v. Clias.-. 1 lO. h. Siiillli. lin (IHoO) : <'rii;,riii V. N. V. i>;:c. J{. Co. .".I \. Y. (il (1872); Coiidict v. (irand 'rnnik |{. Co, ."tt \. Y. ."idO (1S7:{): l-aiiil) v. Camdcii Sir. H. Co.. 4(1 N. Y. 271 (1H72): Ilisscll V. New York Cent. It. Co.. 2."> N. Y. 412 (18(12) ; IVrkiiis V. New York Cent. U. Co. 21 N". Y. 1!M1{IS(;2): Wells v. New York Cent. K. Co. 24 \. Y. isi (1S(12) : Myiianl v. Syracuse &e. K. (.'o.. 71 N. Y. ISO (ls77); Siclinve;; v. Krie H. Co.. 4;t \. Y. 121! (1S70); Bos\v«ll v. IIikNoii Hiver R. Co.. ."> |{.»^\v. (!!MI. n. <■. 10 Alih. I'r. 412 (IS(iO); French v. Buffalo iS;!'. U. Co. 4 Kcyc>. i;is. n. c. 2 .Mili. \]>\>. Dec. r.l(!(lS(iS); Prcn- llcc V. Decker. 10 Mwrli. 21 (ls(l7): I.iiiiiiurf,'er v. Westcott. 40 Marl*. '1K\ (1807): .Suuilcriand v. Wesicoii. 2 Sweeny. 2(10 (1^70); Suillh v. New- York Cent. K. Co. 20 Barb. i:(2 (lS.-)0): anirined 24 X. Y. 222 (18(52): (iuillaiMue v. Ilaniliur:,' \c. I'acket Co. 42 \. Y. 212 (187(»); Nt'lsou V. Hudson ]{iver If. Co. |s X. y. .|0S (1872): Nicholas v. New York ('cut. ^i-. K. Co.. 4 lliui. ;127 (l''7.">). I 'Knell V. Culted Slates Ac. Stcaiuship Co. :i:{ \. Y. (Supr. Ct.) 421! (1871). In till-; ca>c it is su;r.irested that a corporation can not contract for e\cni|)tiou from rcsponsihiliiy for th? ne,i;lijrence .ir inisconduct of il^- hoard of directors. ' « Condicl V. CJraiid Trnuk K. Co. .Vl \. Y. r.(M (]87:{) ; Land) v. Cam- den &r. I{. Co. I(! \. Y. 271 (1872); Lamb v. Camden Ac. K. Co. 2 Daly. t.Vt (18(10) ; KiU'll V. I 'iMted States A,-. Steamship Co. 2U \. Y. (Supr. Ct.) 42:1 (1871) ; French v. l^uffalo &v. R. Co. 4 Keyes. 108, .x. c 2 Ahh. App. Dec. 10(! (lS(i8): Sudtli v. New York Cent. u". Co. 2!» Barh. i:{2 (1860): alllrmed. 24 N. Y. 222 (lStJ2); Stoddard v. Lon Saiulf. 180 (is.->r) ; Edsall V. Camden Ac. Jt. Co. .")() N. Y.dOl (1872) ; C.uilliuime V. Ilamltiir^' Ac. Pacliet Co. 42 N. Y. 212 (1870): (Meadell v. Thompon. .V; N. Y. 104 (1874); Stedinan v. Western Transportation Co. 48 Barh. 07 (I8(i(;). '"' Jlollisterv. Nowlen. 10 Wend. 2:J4 (1838) ; Cole v. (Joodwin, 10 Wend. 2r)l (18:{8); followed in Camden Ac. Trans. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. :t.")4 (18;{0); see also Clark v. Faxton, 2(i W^'nd. 15:{ (18:50); Powell v. Myers, 2(( Id. r.Ol (1841); Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill, 1>; 7 Id. 5;W; 4 ^f?n^ I 50 THK CONTWACTS OF C AKIMKUS. l<\\. II. § :•(;. Xorf/i Cornh'iHi — III tliis Stiitc it is held IIimI ;i liiiiilcd liiil)ilily niay !»»' . ti^t Hull. :il!i.N. r.. (1 I,im^;il!t (IS72): niii»iii v. ImhIiI. Ill N. V. •ilil (IM71>); MeiVMlHile .Mill. ItW. ('.). v. Clliixr. 1 K. 1 ). .Smith. I 1.") (I v.MI) : Nevllis V. H:i> Slate Sleiimln.nt ('.... I IlO'W. L'l'.'i ilS.V.I); Prelllire \. Deeker, l'.> Itiul). 21 ( I>i'i7) : I/milniruer \ . We»tei>tt. Ill Harl), 'JSU ( I.s(i7) : SiiiKlerliiiid V. Westeott, \i Sweeny. 2(il) il><7lt); Slnemii v. Kiiiivliilii. 7 Hill, 211' (isilt); Miuliiii v. Slieiaid. 10 .J. i<: S. :!.'i:! (1^77). nllliineil. 7;J N. Y. :t;>. (1>7S); Maekliii v. New Jersey Sleuiiilmat < 'o., 7 AMi. I'r. (N. S.) 22!) ISd'.i); Wont In iff v. Slieri'anl. it llmi. :I22 {is7(lj: Itawsoii V. I'eimsylvaiila K. Co. 2 AM). I'f. (N. S.l 2211 ( 1MI17). IS N. Y. 212 i |S72). 'I'lie other eases in this State on the snliji-el of this treatise are ; Arend V. Liverpool i^c. Steam, (-'o.. (i I.ans. I.")'.i. (il ll.irli. llS(ls72i: Ayinar v. Ast.(»i'. I) Cow. 2(ill (1S2()); .Etna Ins. Co. v. NVheeler. lU N. Y.HK) iis72): Bree.se v. Knlled States Telej,naiih Co.. IS N. Y. i:S2 (1S71); llissel v. Catnphell. 51 V. Y. :i').\ (lS7;i) ; Hrownliiy; v. I.oni;- Islami K. Co.. 2 Daly. J17 (18(17) ; lJoslwi(!k v. Uallimore i^te. ]{. Co. I.") \. Y. 712 (1.S71 ) ; Hah- o. 1 (18i;{); Fairehild v. Sloeiim. 1!) Wend. :t2!t (ISUS,; Kaiivhild v. Sloenm. 7 Illli 2!)2 (IS4;!); Kihel v. Livingston. (!4 Bai-h. 17!l (1S72): Falkenan v. Fargo, :?!) N. Y. (S. C.) 'XVl, x. r. 41 How I'r.:i2.") (1S72) ; First National Bk. V. .Shaw, 01 N. Y. 2s;t (1S74); Freeman v. Newton. :< E. D. Smith. 24() (1S.")4); (Jit)son v. Anieri<'an Merchants Fx. Co.. 1 Hun. ;{S7 {1S74): Ue.rinania Firi' Ins. (Jo. v. Memphis &r. ]{. Co.. 72 N. Y. Ill) (1S7S): Goddard v. Mallory. .Vi Barh. S7 (ISdS); (ioodrieh v. 'I'liompson, I Kohl. 75 (ISOO); (ioodrieh v. Thompson. 14 N. Y. 1124 (1S71): Hill v. Syraens,. &e ]{. Co., 8 Hun. 2!)(» (1870); Hill v. Syracuse A«'. 1{. Co. 7:1 N. Y. :m (1878); lleineman v. CJrand Trunk H. Co.. :{l How. I'r. 4:5(1 (1800); Hinkley v. New York Cent. &c. U. Co.. :\ Tlionij). iS: C. 281 (1874); Ilinekloy v. Now York Cent. Ac. 11. Co.. .V; N. Y. 42!) (1874): Harmony v. Bingham, 1 Diier, 201) (IX.VJ); Harmony v. Bingham. 12 N. Y. 9!) (18,-)4); Herslield v. Adams. 1!) Barli. .■)77 (Is.-,:,): Holford v. AdamH, 2 Dner, 471 (IS,-,;}) ; Johnson v. New York Cent. U. (_"o.. ;?1 Barb. 1!)0 (1857); .lohnson v. Xew York Cent. K. Co.. ;t;{ N. Y. OK) (1805); Kirkland v. Dlnsmore. 4 Thonii). A C. :!()l (1871): Kirkland v. Dinsnioro, 02 N. Y. 171 (187.")); Eamh v. Camden. \c. K. C(,.. | Daly. 48;i (1873) ; Long v. Xew York Cent. H. Co.. ,■>() X. Y. 70 (1872) : Lands- berg V. Dinsmore. 4 Daly, l!)() (187:i) ; Meyer v. Peck, 2s X. Y. .5!))) (1864); Maghee v. Camden &e. K. Co., 45 X. Y. 51 1 tl871): Moriarty V. Flanideir.s Ex. 1 Daly, 227 (1802) ; Manhaltan Oil Co. v. Camden Ac 1{. •ir. II.] I'OWKIt TO LIMIT LIAIUMTV. SI L'ciuH'.''"* Altlio,i;rli coiuinon ciirricrs (.'an not, hy a j^cMioral iiDticc ol' "Jill hairf^iiLTi! at owikt'h risk," fret' (liciiis(>lv(>s from lial)ilily, tlicy may, l»y spucial notice l)rou<;l»t to tlin I\iio\vI('(1l'<' of till' owner, r('asoiial)lv (inalifv tlicir lialiiiitv (It ^ for loss of hritlic, pcrisliablt! (>r unusually valnal)l(' articles.'"''' § .')7. Ohiu. — In IS.J7,"" (iiioLsoN, .]., referring; to a ease decided in this State in 1 ils7."t); Mau'aiii v. Diiisiiinrc. :i.I. X S. IS-J (IsjUj; M;ijr|iii, v. Itiiii". tl .1. I'v: s. -JlSflsTI); .M:iM;iiiM V. l)iiHnii>n',;'i;i X. Ww^l (ls7;i); Majjiiiii V. I>insiiii>it'. 7i) N. Y. lid (iS77); Myimnl v. Synicii-f I'irc. U. Co.. 7 Ilmi.. li'.m (l-^ti); MfrnimlUi- lii^. Co. v. Cali-lis. ■_'(» N. \. \T.\ (IS,-:)); MrAflliiir v. Scurs. -ji w.mkI. 1!I(» (Is:!',Ij ; \-\v>tii(ll v. Adam-^. .') H'liT. i:! (Is.Vd; t>raii;,'c Comity IJaaiv v. IJrowii. !• \\'v\v\. sr. (is.lj); i'ricc V. llarMiorii. II Marl). (i.V) (18(ir»): Price v. I'owi-ll. 11 \. Y. Ml (is:,l(); IViiii V. Huff, lo I'cc. II. Co., 4!» \. Y. 201 (lS72j; Place V. I'liioii Kxpiess Co.. 2 Hilt. Ill (IS.-)S); Plielpsv. WiiliaiiKon, 5 .Samir. .".7.S (1S.V2); (^iiimhy v. Vaiulerbilt. 17 \. Y. liOO (IS.'iS); Itawson V. Ilollaiid, .->!) \. Y. C.ll (1S7.".); Uedpatli v. Vaii^'lian. .Vi Barb. 4S!) (isds); l{c(l|)aili V. Vaiiniian, 4S N. Y. (m.") (1S7I): UicluMts v. JJalii- m!)ro Ac. K. Co., (11 IJaih. 1S(1S71); Head v. Spaiildiiisj, .") Uosw. :»1)3 (IS.-)!)) ; Jieeil v. Tiiited States Kx. Co. 4S N. Y. I(J2 (IS72) : Seliieffeliii v. II irvey.i! .loliiw. 170. Aiuli. ."ill (iSlOj ; Steers v. LiviM-pnol .\:c. Steam. (Jo., .->7 N. Y'. 1 (is7t) ; .Sweet v. Harney. 2U X. Y. :U.-) (IS(il) ; Stiiison v. New- York Cent. 11. Co.. :i2 .\'. Y. \VX\ (isir)); Spinetto v. Atlas Steainihip Co., U lliui. lOi) (1S7S); Slielton v. Mereliants l)i!) X. Y'. 2.-).< (1S7I); Soiimet V. N'atioiial lOxpress Co.. (10 Barl). 2'U (^187:1) ; Sliorman V. HiidsdM i^e. U. Co.. t (1S7(!) : Simmons v. Law, S IJo.s\v. 2i:{ (ISiil); Simmon-i v. Law. ;{ Keyes. 217 (ISiKij; Tysen v. Moore, 51) Bill). 112 (IS7(»): 'rierney v. Xew Y'ork Cent. Jt. Co., 10 Iliin. mS) (1S77) ; Vrooman v. Ameiieaii«X:c. Express Co., .■) N. Y. (S. C.) 22, 2 Ilnn. .■)12 (IS7I) ; Van Winkle v. Adams Kxpre>s Co.. W Kot)t. W.) (18(il) : Wliito V. Van Kirk, 2.") Barb. 1(1 (iS.Vj) : Wolfe v. Myers. ;i Sandf. 7 (ISt!)); Wet/.ell V. Dlnsniore. .Vt X. Y'. 4!)() (IS7:5) ; Wooden v. Austin, .^l Marl). i» (IS(iU); Witl)eek V.Holland. .->:> Barl). I IK (1S70) ; Youni,' v. Western I'nion T.'lejrrapli Co. :U X. Y. (S. C.) :i!M) (1S72) ; /lln,^■ v. Howhuul, .". Daly, i:{(! (IS74). "^^ Lee V. Italeijih ^:e. H. Co., 72 \. i\ 2:50 (1S7.-)). •"'J Smith V. Xortli Carolina M. Co., OtX. C. 2;{.j (ls7l)j; Williams v. Brandon. I Mnrphey. 417 (ISIO). See also, Harvy v. Pike. X^ (J. Term. Kep. S2, .•*. v. 7 Am. Deo. (iO.S (1S17); Capcliart v. Seaboard Ac. J{. Co. 77 X. C. .','m (IS77). "" Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Indianapolis &.^\ \{. Co., 1 Disney, 480. '" Jones V. Voorhees, 10 Oliio. 1 1"). \? y : '-^^laMMMaHM 52 THE CONTUACT8 OF CAKIURIJ8. [CH. II. proprietor of a stage coach could not liniil lii.s liabiliiy for the ba Ohio St. .">0.) (l!S7.i). Tiie remaining eases in Oliio aro; Cliilds v. Little Miami U. Co.. I Cin. 480 (1871) ; Lawrence v. McGregor. Wright. VX\ {\iiX\) ; May v. JJaheoek. 4 Oliio, :W4 (1S2!I): Muller v. Cincinnati &o. li. Co., 2 Cin. 280 (1872): Fatinau v. Cincinnati Ac. R. Co., 2 Disney. 248 (IS.'jS) ; Wayne v. The General Pilve. 1(1 Ohio. 421 (!847); Davis v. Western Union Telegraph (;o., 1 Cin. 100 (1870) : McGregor v. Kilgore. (I Ohio. :)r)S (18154). 1" Beckman v. Sliouse, ,') Rawle, 1', ., (1835) ; Atwood v. Reliajiee Trans. (;o..O AVattiJ, 87 (1830); Camden &c. R. Co. v. Raldauf. HI Pa. St. fJ7 (1851); Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Pa. St. 335 (18(58) ; Peimsyl- vania R. Co. v. Henderson. 51 Pa. St. 315 (18(15) ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McCloskey, 23 Pa. St. 52(3 (18.54) ; Goldey v. Pennsylvania R. f ;o., 30 ]'a. St. 242 (1858); Empire Transportation Co. v. Wamsutta &c. Oil Co.. (53 Ta.St. 14 (1860) ; American Express Co. v. Sands, 55 Pa. St. 140 (1SG7) ; K .> cii. ir.] roWEU TO LIMIT LIAHILITY 5.) iuul explicit ixciirral notice brouj^ht lionu! to the employer.'''' This doctrine .seems to be well estiiblislicd here. In Lahn/ r. Colder, ^^^ Bei.l, .1., siiys : "The expediency of recoiven hei'e, has been strongly and justly • luestioned, and in some of our sister states alt(>ixether de- nied. Were the ((ueslion an o))en onv cxi'ivss couli-act,"'' and also, it would schmu, Ity notice.'-'" But in n.'itlici' case for iu'ii-li_ii,-ciicc.'-'' § ()2. Ti'iDK'KM'c. — A carrier may restrict his coinnion hr.v liability by contract except for neii-liuciicc.'-'-' Hut not by a ireneral notice.'-'' Brown V. CimMlrii .vc. li. Co.. 8;t I*;i. SI. liiC (1877) ; Sliciilv v. I'iiiladrl- pliiii I'ropolicr Co.. (il) l':i. .St. !()!» (1>S(;!(); Wolf v. Western riiioii Tele- f^raj)!! Co.. 02 I'a. St. Sli (ISd!)): i 'aiiuieii i^^ie. R. Co. v. Fot'svtli, (11 I';i. Ht. HI (ISC.ii): Hell V. Keed. I Hiiuiey. \T, (ISIO) : Hart v. Allen. 2 Watts.114 (ls;5;i): Xewlmrirer v. 7-:xpress Co..(l I'liila. 17t (IStit;); Cliou- tcawx V. Leech. IS Pa. SI. -lH (IS.VJ); Wliltesides v. iJiissell. S U'. A S. 41 (1S14) ; Weir v. Kxpn ss Co.. ."» IMiila. \Mm (l.S(U) ; llarriiiu-ton v. Me- Shaiie. 2 Watts. 4 1;{ (ls:M): Morrison v. Davis. -JO I'a. St. 171 (1S.V_'); Gales V. llailnian. 11 I'a. St. r)15 (lS4il) : Warden v. (In-vv. (i Watts. 424 (1837): Colton v. Cleveland i^ie. K. Co.. (17 Ta. St. 211 (1870); Ilnni- I)hreys v. I{eed. (J Wliarl. i:!.") (1811); Patterson v. Clyde. (J7 Pa. St. TiOO (1871). "» lluhhurd V. liarnden Express Co., 10 U. f. 244 (1872), is the oidy Khode [sland eas(> anywhere in point. "'•' Porter v. Southern Kxpre: s Co.. 4 S. C. K!.") (1872) ; Levy v. Sontli- ern Express Co.. 4 S. C. I'-U (1872) : Swindler v. llilliard. 2 Uieh. (S. C.) 2(11 (18,")(i): Baker V. Brinson. !) I{ieh. (S. C.) 201 (18.")()); I'atton v. Ma- grath. Diidl. l.V.) (18H,-:: Sin<;leton v. Hilliard, 1 Strobii. 20:! (1847). '2" Levy V. Sonttiern Lxpress Co.. 4 S. C. 2:J4 (1872); Patlon v. Ma- grath.Dudl. 1")!) (18:58). 121 Swindler v. llilliard. 2 Uieh. (S. C.) 2U; (184(;; ; Parlver v. Hrinson. 9 Rich. (S. O.)201 (lS.-)(i). The otlier eases are : Ilainniond v. McClnre. 1 Hay.!)!) (1700); (iaither V. Burnet. 2 Brt v. 488 (1811); Marsh v. Blytli. 1 N'. & Me. 170 (1818); Mar.sli V. Blyihe. 1 MeCord, ac.O (1821); Cameron v. llieh, 4 Strolih. ICs (18r)0),.s. c. .') Itieh. (S. C.) 'AWl (1852); Stadheeker v. Coinhs. !) liieh. (S. C.) ]!W \m\) ; Steamboat Co. v. Bason. Harj?. 202 (1824) ; Reaves V. Waterm„ii. 2 Sjjcers. 1!I7 (184:$). i"-!()lwell v. Adams Express Co., 1 Cent. L. .L 180 (1874); Oraij; v. Childress, Peck. 270 (182:{); Nushvillo Ac. R. Co. v. JaeUson. llcisk. 27! (1871) ; Soiitlic i ICxpress Co. v. Womaek, 1 Hoisk. 250 (1870) ; East, Tennessee &e. R. Co. v. Xelson. 1 Cold. 272 (18()0). "iw Walker w Skill with, Meiffs, .-)02 (18:r). The other eases are: Memphis &e. R.Co. v. Jones, 2 Head. .*)17 (IS.JO) : Gordon v. Bnehanan, .■> Yerg. 71 (18:5:5); Turney v. Wilson, 7 Ycrg. 340 Cll. ...] I'OWKi; TO IJMIT I,IAIWI,ITV. .')5 § (i;5. Tc.i-ds. — By :i slMditcof tliis Slate passed in 18(i(), it is provided, "that railioad (((mpaiiics and otiier coiiiiiioii carriers of u'oods, wares and niei'eiiandise for hire, within this Slate on hind ei" in Itoats or vessels on tiie water.s ru- tirely within the hody of this State, siiall not limit or re- strict tiieii' liability, as it exists at eoniinon law, by any {jjen- ei'al or special notice, nor by inserlinu: exci'ptions in the bill of ladinir or niemoriinduin liiven npon the i"eceii»t (»f the noods Cor transportation, nor in any other manner whatever, and no special aureement, made in contravention of the forcii'oinu^ provisions of this section shall be valid.'"'-' A pi-evions statute which this repealed was directed ajiainst notices ireneral or aetnal, but permitted a special ajrreeinent in writinir siirnetl by the parties or their airents.'-'' § ()1. \'cnii(iiit. — The liability of ihe carrier may be re- stricted by contract ; but not by u'eiieral notice, unless clearly proved to have been assented to by the em|»loycr.'* § (!;'). Vii'•>(; (1S:)S); Austin v. Tall*. '20 'IVx. II! » (1S.-.7); Caiiln v. IJi'iindt. : 'IV-x. Win (1S7;!)- '•*' Karnicrs Ac. Bank v. niaiiiiilaiuTrans.Co., 18 Vt. 131 (18t(!),,s.c.,2'a Vt. ISd (IS51); Maim v. IJircliaid. 10 Vt. :?20 (18(17): Hliiiiicnlhal v. liraiiicnl. ;18 Vt. 102 (IXiC); irinihall v. KiitlaiKUcc It. ( 'o.. 2(; Vt. 247 118.V1). The other Ci.scf* arc: Spencer v. I)a-j;.U'i'tl. 2 Vt. !t2 (182!l): King v. \V<...(ll.ri(l;re. :{| Vt. .')(•,:> (18(11); Maim v. Uirchanl. 40 Vt. :{2(; (18(57): Xcw.'il v. Smith. 40 Vt. 2.").") (1877): i'litts v. liraiiicnl, 42 Vt. :>(>('. (1870). '•-' VVilsDii V. I'hesapealve iV;c. U. Co.. 21 (iralt.C.Vl (1872): Vir<,'itii:i A:o. K. ('(>. V. Sayers.2(; iJratt. ;;2S (1S7.")). Se<- also Friend v. W(mmIs. (iratt. 180 (1840). ^ts 1. m TIIK CONTIIACTS OK C.MMMKKS. [(11. II. 14 tfiition of (Iio partii's to it.'-"* § (57. ir/N'Y)//,s'/// — Tlic (jU(>stion of the power of a ciir- ricr to I'cstricl his liahility hyuii cxccptioM in a hill of ladiiij;' or Jiv a special eoiitnict, was tirst raised in this Slate in l.sr)().'-'' r>iit the Supreme (^ourt then evaded the point, as it didai^ainin LSli:^,'''' iind aaain in ].S(!.").'" In liitornnni >\ American ExprcsM (J(.i)ipnni/,^''- decided one year later, it wart held thiU. an express eoiii[)any may lawlully limit its li.'ihilitv as insurer by contract, as to losses arisini;' thiouiili the default or neirliji'ence of any othei' j)erson, corporation or association to whom the property intrustiKl to it shall he delivered by the company for the performance of any act or dut,y in resj)eet thereto, at any point or place off the estab- lished routes or lines of tlu; company, and may free itself from liability for any loss or damage of any box oi' i)ack- ajjfe for ovei- $.')(), unless the just and true value is statc'd in the receipt ; or for |)roperty not properly packed, oi" frairib' fal)rics not so marked upon the packap', or fabrics consist- in <•• of or contained in glass, "The conditions of this re- ceipt," said the court, "do not involve the much vexed (lue.stion as to whether a common carrier can protect himstdf l»y contract from liability for losses o( currinir throuuh his own negligence or misconduct, or the negligc>nce or mis- conduct of his own agents or servants." In the same year a contract that the owner of lire stoclc would assuiiic all risk of damag*! or injury fiom whatever < ;uh(! happening in the course of transportation was held to he valid. l>ut the chief justice was careful to add: " Wt? intimate no opin.ion as to wlxither it is or is not competent for a com- mon carrier to mak(^ similar stipulations with regard to other kinds of pr Hctts V. Kaniifrt^ Lean Ac Co., 21 Wis. SO (ISCO). Tilt' i>tli«'r ciisi's in tliis Stiitc iiri' . Sti'oliii v. I)ctri>il i'v;c. K.es, and that parliament inter- fered, hrinirinj; hack the boundaries of the law to soniethinii; like its old landmarks. In America no such confusion has arisen. As was shown in tlu; i)revious cha[)ter, the doctrine in this country while allowin*:^ the carrier to rid himself of the liabilities of an insurer, will not permit him to escape the duties of a bailee. The American courts have not yet l)een compelled to enforce; and at the same time to himcnt the law, l)ut have, with but one excei)tion, declared thai a common carrier shall not be excused for a hick of that care and diliirencc wliich the law denninds of him, by a contract which he may have induced his custcmier to ap- l)rove. § •)!>. Rt'hjlion of Cari'icr to Customfr. — Tiiis rule has its foundation on the relation which the; carrier and the liailor hohl to each other, and tlie danger of fraud, actual or constructive. "Hy constructive frauds are meant such acts or contracts as, altlioujih not originating in any actual evil design or contrivance to perpetrate a positive fraud or injury upon other j)ersons, are yet, by their tendency to deceive or mish-ad other persons, or to violate private or public contidence, or to impair or injure the public interests, deenuid equally repri'hensible with positive fraud, and there- fore, are prohibited by law, as within the same reason and mischief as acts and contracts done nialo anhno/'^ The courts, therefore, have been called upon to consider whether by reason of the {)eculiar position which a common carrier occupies towards the public, he has not such a prcj)onderat- ing advantage as should place his employers under a certain disability as to their contracts made with him. It may be said that commerce flourishes best when it is left most un- tranuncled; but it may also be ursred that it is not to the ' Story Eq. Jur., nee. 258. :' '1 <;(> TIIK COXTUArTS OF CAUUIKKS. [(•II. 111. ifin ■mti'iTst of coiimu'rcc that a i-ominon fa.rior sliall hv able to lay an (•nil)ariro on tratlo at any tiinc, hy rcfusiiiir to tiansport iroods unless under such restrictions of liis liahil- itvas would hinder reasonable men from ' business of Enirhuid it was Ihouixht to be necessary to presenile rigid rules for the liability of common carriers, lest they mianeashiie ^e. \\. Co.. 7 Kxcli. 712. 7 liail-v. Cas. ^21! (lS.-)2) ; of Sniilli. .1.. in Welles V. New York < 'eiit. JI. Co.. 2(5 Barb, (j-li (IS.W); of liolierl- son. tJ.. in Adams lCxi)ress Co. v. Noek, 2 Dnv. (Ky.) nijl (l.S(i(!) ; of Thalelier. C .].. in Mereliants 1 )ispateli Co. v. Cornfortli. ;{ Col. 2S() (]S77 ) ; of Mr. .Iiistice Stroiif; in York Co, v. Central Railroad,;; Wall. 107 (18().')^ ; of Thompson. .1.. in Karnham v. Camden Ac., 11. Co.. 55 Pa. St. .*.;{ (IS(;7); of Coekbnrn. C. . .. in Phillips v. Clark. 2 C. B.. X. S.. AM (18.")7); of rosier. J., in Welch v. Boston &.i'. \i. Co.. H Conn. :\X\ (1S74); of I':vans, J., in Swindler v. llilliard. 2 Bicli. 21(5 (I8-U5) ; of Christian. J., in Virpnia, Ac. K. Co. v. Savors, 2(5 (^ratt. :?2S (187.')): of Wyly, J., in llifjginsv. New Orlearu-. Ac. K. Co.. 28 La. Ann. i;i;? (187(5) ; of Martin. C. J., in Michigan Cent. P. Co. v. Hale. (5 Mich. 24:5 (IS,')!)) ; of Gibson. C. J., in Atwood v. Peliance Co. t) AVatts. 87 (183!)); of Paii- ney, J., in Graham v. Davis. 4 Ohio St. :{()2 (1854); of Bartley, J., in Davidson v. Gr.iham. 2 Ohio St. 1151 (18."):{) ; of Boasley, C. J., in Kinney v. Central P. Co. ;52 N. J. (Law) 407 (18(58) ; of Perley, J., in Moses v. Bos- ton Ac. P. Co., 24 X. IL 71 (1851) ; of Berry. J., in Jackson v. St. Panl Ac. P. Co., 20 Minn. 125, 1 Cent. L. J. 1575 (1873); of Denio, C. J., in Bissell V. New York Cent. P. Co., 25 X. Y. 448 (1SG2). tv ' vr U Hi (12 THK CONTUACrs OK CAKlJIKIiS. [( !f. Ill safe.' Hill this case will tcacli thcin that it is their intei-cst to ein[)l(»v persons capal)!*' of altciidiiis; to their duty." ^ § 72. >S/n'c( Vlcirs of Xishff, ./.. in Fis/i r. ('/idpiiinii. "'riie carrier is recojiiii/ed as a puhlic au'eiit ; for his scr- vic(>.>; he is entitled to ample rewai'd, and is not hound to perform 1 hem unless it is paid or tendered; r.r iicccss/fafr rci, the most uncpialilied eonlidenee is reposed in him ; this eonlidenee is indis|)eiisal)le to the exercise of his vocation. From the nature of his eallinir, the utmost facilities are at his control for frautlulent conduct .and collusive comhina- tions; and for the same reason his frauds or con!l)inations are ditKcult of proof, lli' enters into this line of husimvss voluntarily and with a knowledii'e of all its hazards, for he is justly presumed to know the laws of the land, 'i'he law, then, lookiuiT to the great interests of commerce, and guarding with parental care tin; rights of the greatest num- ber, makes him an insurer of the property delivered to him. With what resistless force does not this reasoning iipply to the ten thousand inciorporations of our own coiniti'v? Stronjr in associated wealth ; strong in the mind which is usually enlisted in their management; and 3'et stronger, far stronger, in the large iipmunities and extraordinary privileges with which theii- charters invest them. If these, as carriers, can vary their liability at all, at what limit does the power stop? where are its boundaries? Outside o; the obligations which their charters imp()S(>, there would be neither bounds nor limitations ; the eiti/ens would be at their mercy, bound by their power and sultject to their ca- " 4 prices § 73. Opinion of Wordcn ('. J., in Mir/iiason why he should not be ))ermittennitted to make their own a valid? H" held valid, the advuiit ap'(tu> |i(i->Iti(iii of ihe eonipaiiies exereisin;,^ the liusim-s.s of eoninion eanier> is such that i! places it in their powor to ehaniif the law of eoniinon earriers in effeet, hy int rodurin^ new rules of ohlipitiDii. 'The carrier and his customer do not stand on a fnotiii;.'; of e(|uality. The latt»'i' is only oiu' individual of a million, lie can not afford to hiuirU' or stand out and seek redress in the courts. His husiiKjws will no admit such ,, course, lie prcd'ers, rather, to accopt liny hill of ladinir. or siiiii any paper the carrier presents ; often, indeed, without knowi;i;i what the one or the other contaiiiH. In most cases, he jias no alt«'rnativc hut to een more strictly so, perhaps, had the reasonableness of the contract been referred to the law instead of the individual judges. The decisions made for more than half a century before the courts commenced the abnormal course which led to the necessity of that statute, giving effect to certain classes of exemptions stijjulated for by the carrier, may be regarded as authorities on the ques- tion as to what exemptions are just and reasonable. So the decisions of our own courts are entitled to like effect when not made under the fallacious notion that every special contract imposed by the common carrier on his cus- tomers must l)e carried into effect, for the simple reason that it was entered into, without regard to the charai-ter of the contract and the relative situation of the parties. Con- <'eding, therefoi'c, that special contracts made by common car- 4 m. 68 THE CONTRACTS Ol" CAKKIKKS. [Cll. IIT. hi viers with thoir customers, limiting thoir liiihility, arc good mid viilid so far asthov are just and rcasonahh^ ; to the extent for example, of excusing them for all losses happening hy accident mthout any negligence or fraud on their ])ai-1 ; when thev ask to go still further, and to he excused for noj imiividnol Judr/ps i)t yeir York. — "The fruits of this rule," says Davis, ,I., in iSfinmnv. New York Central Hail rood (' ompa ni/, '^ rvfcrrm^x to the rule established in New York that carriers may by contract exempt themselves from responsibility for acts of. negligence, "are already being gathered in increasing acci- dents, through the decreasing care and vigilance on the part of these coi^ponitions ; and they will continue to be reaped until a just sense of public policy shall lead to legislative restriction upon the power to make this kind of contracts." In ii dissenting opinion delivered in /Smith v. Xew York (Jenlml Railroad Company,^ WuioiiT, J., obsi>rved : "Whether a contract shall be avoided on the ground of public policy, does not depend upon the question wheth- er it is beneficial or otherwise to the contracting j)ar- ties. Their personal interests have nothing to do with it ; but the interests of the public are alone to be considered. The State is interested not only in the welfivre but in the safety of its citizens. To promote these ends is a lending object of government. Parties are left to make whatever contract they please, provided no legjil or moral obligation iB thereby violated or any public interest impaired : but when the effect or tendency of the contract is to impair «32X. Y. 333 (18C5). "24 5?. Y. 222 ami). CII. III.] POLICY OF THE LAW. 69 such intort'st, it is contrary to public i)olicyiiud void. Con- tnu'ts in restraint of trade are void, hocause they interfere with the welfare and convenience of the State; yet the State has a deeper interest in proteetinj^ the lives of its cit- izens. It has manifested this interest unmistakably in re- spect to those who travel by railroads. Her jjolicy, and the uniform jiolicy of the law, has been, in regard for the safety of the citizen who has recourse to this dangerous mode of travel, upon a road and by agencies over which he has no control, to hold the carrier to the exercise of the ut- most foresight even as to p<)ssil)le dangers, and the utmost prudi'iicc in guarding against them. This policy is dictated both by a desire to ])rotect the citizen, and l)ecause the pub- lic is interested in his safety. Whether a carrier to whose exclusive charge the safety of a jjassenger has been com- mitted, by his own culpable! negligence and misconduct shtdl put in jeopardy the life of such passenger, is a ques- tion affecting the public and not the party alone who is l)cing carried. It is said that the passenger should be left to make whatever contract he })Ieases ; but, in my judgment, the public having an interest in his safety, he has no right to absolve a railroad comi)any, to whom he commits his per- son, from the discharge of those duties which the law has enjoined upon it in rcgJird for the safety of men. Can a contract, then, which allows the carrier to omit all caution or vigilance, and is, in effect, a license to be culpably negli- gent to the extent of endangeiing the safety of the pas- senger, be sustained? J think not. Such a contract, it seems to me, manifestly contlicts with the settled policy of the State in regard to railroad carriage. Its eifect, if sus- tained, would ol>viously enable the carrier to avoid the duties which the law enjoins in regard to the safety of men, encourage negligence and fraud, and take away the motive of self-interest on the part of such carrier, which is, per- haps, the only one adetjuate to secure the highest degree of caution anil vigilance. A contract with these tendencies, is, I think, contrary to public policy, even when no fare is IS." 1 '^^Hr^SUHMMH^^ > ^ -:_.y n 70 THE CONTRACTS OF CAUUIEKS. [ni. III. ;ili I paid." In a dlsscntiiiir ()i)ini()n in Wc/fs ?•. Xftr York Central Railvoad Compani/,^' Sl'TIIEKLAnd, J., took these o-rouncls : "If A roquost B to beat iinother and ))roniisc to save him hannles.s, the promise is void. So if A promise, in consideration of tw-ity shillinirs paid to liini l)y H, lie will pay li forty shillings, if he does not heat (J S out of such a a elose, the {jromise is void. These an^ eases \nit in the hooks, and it is said that the contracts are illeiial as confni honosmores. It can also he said that such contracts are void as airainst the policy of the law puiiishintr such hreaches of the peace as misdemeanors. If A offer to pay V> live dol- lars to promise that he Avill not take the law of A if A strikes him, and B take the live dollars and make {lie promise, and thereupon A strikes B, no one would su^^ijest that B's promise was valid ; but would it not be proper to say that the promise is void as ajrainst the jiolicy of the law punishiuir the battery as a crime? Certaiidy any con- tract Avhich induces or tends to induce or encouraue the com- mission of any crime can properly be said to be void, as ajifainst the policy of law declarinu' and punishiiiir the crime. After the actual connuission of tin; battery B could abandon or settle his claim for damages as he saw lit, but l)efore the commission of the »)ffense, he could not lawfully airroe not to prosecute for such dama<:;es without encourai>;- iiiir a public wronjx. In advance of the actual conimissiou of the offense, he could iu)t by contract lay aside the pro- tection of the law for his j)rivate and individual beuelit without interferinir with public interests and the policy of the law punishinir the battery as a criuu', and therefore tlu^ maxim modm et ronvcntio viiicnnf Jorfcm would not apply. * * * Is it necessary to advert to any other law or con- sideration than the connnon law aiul the statutes punisjiinir neirliirence as a crime to show that i\w protection of human life from nenfli.irence is a matter of public interest, of public polii'V? And is it not i)lain that any (-ontract which may induce or lead or tend to induce or lead to a relaxation of ""24 N. Y. 1«1 (1082). en. 111.] POLICY OV TIIK LAW. 71 t!u' carc^ ami attciitioii rctiuiivd i)y the law as a social duty for the protection of huinaii life, interferes with this public policy and should be held void as ad by law, foi- tho IxMiolit only of tho ])arty injiii'od in any ])art'rular case ; ])ut it was declared and is (Miforcod for Iho honolit of tho pid)lic also ; and thoroforo a ptissongrr can not hy con.- tniot in advance of tlu^ injury lay aside oven his individn.al bonoHr from t!io law or rule of liahility. Tho maxim (/k///- hfi /infest r('iin)i'-!iivt' jnri ;/ro w infrodiicfn. docs not apply in .siK'h a case. Pnhlic consiilei-ations and the polity of tho rulo or !ial)ility ilseif, forhid lliai it sliould,"' § 7'). ()j))ii('itis Ftiruriiuj Ihi' OpixfsKi- Villi'. — ();) the otiior hand opinions ha\ e Itcon e\])rossc!l. always hv the courts of Nov,' ^'oi'k. however, favoi'lnj;' tho ox'.nij)'. !.»n of tho carrier hy contj-act from all r(->j;onsiliil!|y whal(>\er. The\' are i>'iven in tho romainin;/ -eel ions of ilii-^ chaplo;-, a:> containinir all the arii'unionts wliiih tiiis op];v>'<-;ve doi ti'i;io can present. § 77. I)iiprrssi/i)is of llWA'.s', ./. , /// /'fir.-'i.-ns v. Mtni/'-'if/i . — " If I have li'oods to transooi'l . and tlie common carrici' tolls mo ho will carry iliem for a pjirtlcnlar p.i'ice, without in- cui'rinir the risk of loss or damap' ])y incvitidilo accident , l;ut that if h(> takes such ri>l-:s. he must a'id :■ per ct iitap' to the ]irico of trrnsporraiion, I I'eally can not s,'e what the puldic have to do with our neu'otiatiops, nor why we .-hould not he l)orinittod to make a valid coiiti'a''i . with su.'li conditions and stipnhitions as wo choose." § 7S. ]">'i'irs of \Vr/;//)f, '/., ill MuDi'c r. Eraiis. — '• \ am unaiile to a])prociato those ovorwhehninu' coi!siderations of l)ul)lic policA' which doma.nd that hocaU'^o an individual is usually ongag'od in tho (Mnploymcr.t of a carrioi-, ho should hiivo the common law liabilities fixed on him. in all cases, " I'jirsoiis V. MoiitiMUh. i:! I5;nl). ;;.V,; is.*)]). CH. HI.] I'OLKY OK THK LAW. 73 even thcHiirli tlio owiicr of the frood.s Ix; Avi!liii<^ to contriit't specially with liiiii as u jiriviite person." '-' § 7S>. A7u/ (if Woodrvf, J., in Frenc/i v. Buffalo tt*r. liailroad Coiiipati//. — " A party may certainly consent to place the instruments and airencies which he is employini;" in his business at the service pro hue vice of another, mider- takiniT to set them in motion under the scheme or i)lan of nnmatrement which he has estahlishetl, and say: ' You shall have the benciif of my enteri)ri.se, my machinery, my ser- vants, my rules, my regulations and scheme of administra- tion ; Itut I propose that you shall take the hazr.rds of evervtliinir but my own fraud or uross ;iej>li^ence, and re- jrard me in no rcspivt insurintr or Lruaranteeing the lidelity or the pi'udciice, diliirence oi' care of those servants, whom I have no I'casoii ti' iisti'ust. i)Ut who may, out of my ])ei- sonal pn'sencc, n. ■■ct tlicir duty or prove; otherwise un- faithftil.' 'i'lirre is no sound reas()n for ilenyii'tr that if a contract is r.iinlc on those terms, iuid presumptively for a much less compensation to be ])aid, it shall not bind the parties. It may safely be assumed that, in this country at least, men of busine>s :ire shrewd enoutih to take (arc of their own interests, and that if a jjarty consoits to sr.cl) a barirain, it is because it is for his interest to do so; he ex- pects 1o make or save money by relievin.; the other party from risks which he is willinu' to assume, and in general his ex}iectation is realized. Th.cre is neither honesty nor j)oli<'y in permitting him, when a loss liap[)ens through one of the risks he consentetl to beai", to denv the bindini; force of his contract. This is now the practical vieAV of the subject which is recognized as law." '' § rcises a quasi public employment, and hiis public duties to perform ; that he can not reject a customer at pleasure, or charge any i)rice that he chooses to demand ; and that if he refuses to carry goods according to the course of his cniiiloyment, without a sulficient excuse, he will be lialile to an action: and that he can only demand a reasonable compensation for his risk and services; and that an action will lie against him upon a tort arising ex dcJicfn for a breach of duty. In such case, there being no special contract, the i)arties are supposcnl to have acted with a full knowledge of ihcir legal rights and liabilities, and there may be, perhaps, good reason for the stringent rule of law which makes the carrier an insurer against all except the act of (lod and tlu^ public enemy. But when a special contract is made their relations are changed, and the carrier becomes, as to that tninsaction. an ordinary bailc and private carrier for hire. This neither changes nor interferes with any established rule of law; it only makes a case to be governed by a diff(>r(!nt rule. To say the parties have not a right to make, their own contract. c'lr. MI.] roi.K'Y OF TIIK I-AW. 75 jiiul to limit the precise.' extent of their own respective risk.-* mul liahilities, in a iniitter no wiiy affeetinix tiie puhlie morals or eontlii tin^ with thi; pnl»Iic interest, would, in my judi;- iniMit, he an unwarrantiihle restriction upon trade and com- nu'rce, and a most palpaMe invasion of personal ri'ffs r. Xi'ii^ Ynvk Ven- tral Jiaifnxid Compani/. — "Whether founded on j)ul)lic pol- icy or otherwise, there seems to he nothini; illeiral in such a contract. It cannot reasonal)ly Ix; said that hecause Hve ()!• ten persons on a train tiiat cai'i'ies two hundred have such [)asses, there is the less inducement to care on the part of the company or its air^nts ; or that a feelinjjj of indifference to human life would he therehy caused. The (juantiivi of interest, the ratio of motive, is too utterly insii:;niticant when compannl with the; vast liahility not protected by any contract and bindini; the company and its a<;ents to every measure of caution. That ai^ents will b»> careless ; that no considerations are sutKcient to indue(> constant vi<>ihincc, wo have freipient and terril)le proofs. But the holdinji" of such contracts illepil would not (!ven tend to alter the fact."''' § «2. ()/ Allen, J., in Smith v. Xew York Central Railroad (,'otupani/. — "The common law, from motives of public policy and for the protection of the public, has made common carriers of property charireable with all damaiic to and loss of property in their possession as P» 'M)oiT V. New .IcM-st'V Stt'iim \:iv. Co.. 11 \. Y. 4S.') (1X54). '•nVflls V. New York C.'iit. I{. Co.. -J I \. Y. IS] (ISC.-J). Tii.' plaintiff, ii imsscii;;*'!- on (Iffcndaiifs roail. was iiijiircd by a t'ollisioii htMuccu tlie train in wliidi he was ridini;' and a frcij^jht train wliicli was carelessly left standing' on the irael; in the nii;;lit time. lie hid paid no fai'o, l)Ut was heint; eaiiied on a free tieliet. on whieli was prinltMl the followinu; con- dition: "'riit^ person aeceplin;^ this free ticket assnines all risk of acci- dents, and especially a;;rees tliat the eompany shall not ho liable under any ••ircuinstanees. whether of nejrli(ren of their aj^ents or otherwise, foi any injiny to the person, or for any loss or injnry to the property of the passeni^er nsin;^ this ticket." The fonr previous eases ji'lven in §§ 77-S() did not preseiit tlie (piestion of m ijli^enee. and the expressions of the jnd;;es ill those eases oidy emhraee the restriction of the earrit'r's liabilitv as an insurer. Kut for that class of the public who have to ilo with those classes, and for the pi-oteclion of those who may suffer by neirlect of (kit V on their part; and unless there is some exception which is to o|)eratc in this class of cases which docs not affect any other riizht or duty, or the relations of parties in other situations, the individual for whose benetit the liability exists and the duly is imposed may waive them l»y airrce- ment. No jjrinciple is Ixttcr settled than that a party to whom any benetit is secured I)V contrai-t, by statute, or even by the Constitution may waive such I)enelit, and the pul>lic are not intcrestetl in protectinjr him or benetittiuij; him against his wishes. The ])ul)lic have no interest in the tpies- tion which of the two, A or 15, siiall take the risk of the seaworthiness of a ship, or the lilness of a raihv.ay carria_e in violation of the law, or for the commission of a crinuMal offense, neither party can maintain an action ai^ainst the other upon it or in respect to the transactions to which it relates. Such a contract will not be construed — except its terms compel such construction — as authorizin}i; or con- templatin<; a crime, or as providinj]^ airainst the conse(|uences of a crime, and hence would not ordinarily be held t(> e(!U- niarily responsible in the nature of a t^iarantor.*® § X^. Opinion of /Smith, ./., in Perkins v. New York Central Railroad Company. — " What then, did these par- ties mean by this contract? The j)art,ies both well knew '« Smitli V. New York Ojnt. R. <:<)., 24 V. Y. 222 (1S«2). In th4> hist two sontcnoes the right of a railroad coini)iiny or other cori»orati«>H or any person to limit their iiabilitj' for tlio ^■ri'inintilly iiegli^eHt acts of their iijBfents is referred to, and is lurtlier mni»taiiiely, more or less loss of life or limb, or hodily injury, and other disastrous conse(|ucnces. With perfect knowleil o." some of the defendants' many agents. Without an agieement exempting and absolving them from all liability in respect to such accitients, and the injuries resulting therefrom, the defendants would be legally responsible for such injuries. Mr. IVrkins assumes the risk for himself. lie becomes his own insurer. He absolves the defendants in advance from all liability for any injury to his person from such negligence. It was a fair insurable risk, and Perkins agreed to assume it for himself," " § M. Opinion of IScUlen, (J. ./., in the /Same Case. — "It is, however, suggested, although not made a point upon " Perkins v. New York Central U. Co.. 2t X. Y. l!)(i (lS(i2). In lliis ease the plaintiff's Imsbanil was killed while ricUnfr on a free jiass. wliieh contained this condition: "The i)erson aceeijtinfr this free ticket, as- sumes all risk of accidents, and expressly agrees tliat the coni))any shall not be liable luuler any eireunistances, whether of ne;;lif;ence by tlieir agents or otlierwise. for any injury to the jierson or for :iny loss or in- jury to the property of tlie passenger using this ticket.*" ijlli lit' <;ii. III. I'OLICY OK TIIK LAW. 7» tlu" iirjruinoiit, llml <>ii arcount of tlio very scmmous coiisc- (lUcMccs iiiul ^Tciit risk to lift' wiiicli attciuls sicudcnts upon riiilroiuls, puldic policy f()rl)i(ls I hat railroad conipairK's should III' permitted to exempt themselves l»y contract from those I'esponsihilities for the safety of their piisseiij^crs which the law devolves upon them. 'I'his positic-ii calls upon the coui't to introduce a principle entirely new. Jt is not pret«'niled that there is any precedent for sucii a luh'. Passenirers have been i-arried I)V stajre-coaches for centui'ics with(tnl tlu' application of any such restriction u\)(>u \hv natural liirht of individuals to take care of their own inter- ests, and to provide for their own security. No such prin- ciple has ever been api)lied to trans|)ortation by vessels or by steaniltoats. It may bo said that travelin<; by railroad is more hazardous than by other modes. Statistics would weem to jirove the contraiy ; but this is immaterial. The (|ues- tion is whether the principles of the common law which have always permitted men to manajre their own affairs and to make their own I'ontracts, provided they involve nothinj;' immoral or illejral, are to be atlhered to. Are the courts to interpose in a matter of mere i)rivate contract for the pro- tection of individuals ajrainst the conseijuences of their own improvidence? It may be ur<:;ed that such contracts of ex- emption, if permitted, will tend to a relaxation of vigilance on the part of railroad companies, and that this affects the .secui'ity of large numbers of persons, and is, therefore, a matter of public interest. But we have no i-eason to sup- j)()se that the practice ever has been carried to such an ex- tent as to produce any appreciable effect in this way; and there is little danger that it ever will be. It is eontined to the comparatively few cases in which persons travel gratuit- ously. If, however, it should ever prove productive of evil conse(|uences, which I do not apprehend, it would, I think, be better to leave the I'cinedy to the legislature than for the courts to bi'oak in upon the settled rules of law in respect to the right of individuals to bind themselves by contract. To establish the principle contended for would be an act of . m^m "^ If 80 THE (()NTHA(T8 OV CAKIilKUS. [CH. III. pure judicial legislation, aiul would, in my judgnuMit, bo an unwaiTiintahlc assumption of po\v(M'. It would noi ho the more application of a ])riMcip!o alrc.idy (\stahlisliod to a new class of cases — which is within the [iro\ ince of the courts — hut the i.itnttluction of a now principi(> whicli has neither precedent nor analogy to support it. To this I am opposed."' ''* liii OH. IV.] NOTICES AND THEIR EFFECT. 81 CHAPTER IV. NOTICES LIMITING LIABILITY AND THEIR EFFECT. SECTION . 85. Xotiws — Their Effect in Kiijrlaiitl. S(). Justice (>(■ rermittiiij; Notices as to Viilite :iik1 Cliivaolerof Goods. S7. < 'riticisin on this Practice. 88. Notices as to Cliaracter and Value of (Joods — Tiie Rule in America. 80. rnreasonahie Charjies not Permitted. !)0. Notices— AViien Severable. 01. rontlictinu: aiul Ambi<;uous Conditions. 02. Without Notice no Duty to State Value, o;?. Nor 'A'i)crc I'arrier has other Information. 04. Notice Not Complied With no llecovcry at All. 0,"). Notice may l)e Waived by Carrier. 0(i. Extent of Ncticc. 07. Modes of (Jiving Notice of limited Liability. 08. Advertisements, 00. Postiiiii Notices — Placard^. 100. 'I'lie Tse of Receipts Resorted to — Tiie Euj;lish "Carrier's Act." Idl. Notices only Proposals for Contracts. 1()2 ;.ssent from Accci'ti'iJI Pai)ers Contaiuinj;- Contract. 10;?. OthiM- Cases Siiowiiiij Assent to Terms of Notice. 101. Wliat Not Snlliciciit Evidence of Assent. 1().">. Notices Attached to Papers Containinj; Contract. lot). Kailroad and Stean'boat Tickets. 107. Bagfra<;e Checks. lOS. Manner of Printing Notices. § S,"). yof.ice>f — 'rheh- Efert in Enr/hind. — In 181H, BuR- ROUGH, J., said: " The doctrine of notieo was never known until the ease of Forward v. Piltard,^ which I argued 1 1 Term Rep. 27. '^asmm 82 THE CONTRACTS OF CARRIERS. [CH. IV. ^' luanv years ajro-"'"' lli^ ^"'^'^^ referred to was decided in 1785, bv Lord Mansfiklo, l)ut the report fails to show that ' anvthinout notice. In Bir/nnid v. Watcr- Jionse,^ decided in 181 H, it was lield tliat one who sent a parcel by a coach, havinir knowledjre of a published notice that the proprietors would not be responsible for packajres above a certain value, unless i)aid for accordinir to their value, would be bound by the notice. It was this class of notices which first found favor with the courts, and which served as a foundation for Lord Ellk.vhohoich on which to base his rulinjrs in Jfan'nr/ v. Todd,^ and Lrcwm v. J/o/f,^ that carriers could by notice exclude their liability alto- "•ether — a judicial decision destinetl to render the law of Eufland, on this subject, unjust as well as uncertain for nearly half a century. § 8(j. Juiifice of l^evmittiiKj Xotiven as to Vcdue and Character of Goods. — Notices of this class were early held valid, and properly so. The liability of a common carrier beiniT founded on his rewai'd," he is entitled to give notice that he will not be answeral)le for valuable j;oods, unless he is informed of their value." He has a riirht to claim this in order that he mav accommodate his charjies to the value of '-' Smith V. Ilorne. S Taunt. 144. •'< 1 M. & S. 2.55. n stark. 72 (ISl.")). •■' 1 Stark. ISO (181G). " ■• A hailce is only tdilijifd to keep tlic ;,"»h1> ^^ illi as iihk'Ii diii^ciii c ami caiitiou as lie woiilil keep liis own; l)iit a I'oiiniinii carrier, in n's|)t'i't of tho premium \w is to receive, inns t lie risk of tlieiii and must make good the loss, tlionj^li it liajipen witliout any fault in liiin; the reward making him answerable for their safe delivery." F.ord Manslleld in Gibbon V. Paynton, 4 Burr. 2298 (1700). "His warranty and insiiranc(^ is in respect to the reward he is to rei'eive; and the reward ought to be proportionable to the risk." Ibid. •' 'Tis tlie reward that makes the car- rier answerable." Lord Holt, C. J., in Tyly v. Morrice, Cartliew, 4S,"i (1090). "The true principle of a carrier's being answerabh' is tlie re- ward." Aston. .!.. in Gibbon v. Paynton. suprn. '*' There seems to be only one point to wiiich legitimately notices of carriers could be admitted, viz. : the regulation of the consideration for risk. Saving always the jjower of making an express contract, the effect (11. IV.] XOTK'KS AM) THEII! KPrKCT 83 tlio iroods comiuittcd to his ctirc. In i\ vory old case," whore the })l!iiii(iff, when he dclivci-cd a l)ox roiitaiiiin^ iiioncv anred that it was tilled witli silks and such like goods of »nean value, upon which the carrier took it and was roI)!)ed. And resolved that he was liable. But if the cai'rier had told the owikm- tiiat it was a dangerous time, and if there was monev in it he durst not take char/iif>>)i,*" disagrees with these two cases on the ground of the fraud pj'acficed on the bailee, and s|)eaks with appro\al of 7'y/// r. M>in'r(\^^ where a hag sealed up was tlelivered to the carrier, the servant of the latter giving a receipt for £200, which the scndei- stated it contained, while in fact it contained £4."»0. The l,;jg being lost ihei'ourt was of f)p!! - ion that the carrier should answer for nothing above £200, " because there was a particular imderiaking by the car- rier for the carriage of £200 only ; and his ie\\aril was to extend no further than that sum, and 'tis the reward that makes the carrier answerable, and since the plaintiffs h;id ^' Ji? ??•-■ of a nuM-c notice ouitlit justly to bo rostricttHl to tliis [joint, as to wliich alone it is conipotent for a carrier to refuse euiploynient."' 1 Bell's C'onniientarics. p. ;iS2. This langwafjie is apprtJved in Southern Kxpress <-(). v. N'e\vt)y. :{i> Ga. (i:J.") (1S07). " Kenrif!; v. Kfisl''slo!i. Aleyn. ".);{. !• Ventris. liISS (KJS.".). I" t Burr. 22:)S (17(iO). II Carthew. IS.") (l(i!)t)). 84 TIIK CONTRACTS OF CAIilUEIlS. [en. IV. II in taken this course to (Icfriuid the canicr of his i(>\v;inl ihcv had therchv i)iirr(!d iheniselves of that ivincdy which is founded only on the ri'ward." In GiJthoii r. /^ci/n/itii^' £H)0 in money was sent hy the cai'ricr hidden in hay in an old mail bag. The carrier had previously given notice hy ad- vertisement and hand l)ills that he would not he answerahlo for money, jewels or other valuables unless he had notice of them; and the evid«>nce cleaily showed that the i)laintiff knew of this notice.'' It w.is held that the sender could not recover. Loid MAXsriKi.i) said: " The party undertaking ought t(» I)e apprised what it is that he undertakes, and then h(^ will or at least may take proper care. Hut he ought not to be answeral)le where he is deceived. Here he was de- ceived." IJafsDii r. Donovan,^* decided in 1S2(), pr(>sents a some- what simdar case, and likewise a dift'erence of ojjinion aniouir the judires. The defendants havinu' u'iven notice that they would not I)e answeral)le for parcels of value unless entered and paid for accoi'dingly, a box containing bills and bank notes to the amount of £4,072 was delivered to thciu without anything l>cing snid about its contents. The box was stolen from ilic coach in which it wa- licing transi)orted, and tlu' owiu-r brought an action to recovc!' its value. The trial judg(> lei'l ii t(t tlK> jury to say whether or not the j)laintiffs had dealt fairly with the (h'fendants in not api)rising them of the value of the box, and they found a verdict for the defendants. Th(> case was taken to the (j,t.e(>n's Ijs'nch, and the decision turn<'d on th'- duty of the owner to give noiice, and its effect on the cai'rier's liability ; on which points then; was a disagreement. Hi'.sr, .1., pi'o- testcd against the introduction of what he thought a new principle in the law relative to carri(!rs, viz. : That the own- er of a parcel of value, such pai'ccl having i\othing in "The reports of tlio two fornuM- oa-ies coiiiiiiii uothius^ at)out tlio ciir- rier's notice. 'MBuiii. iV: Aid. 21. t'll. IV. J NOTiCKS ANi> riiioii; i:i riHT. 85 its ;i[)i)c'!ir!iiu'o iiulicalivc of its coiitciits l)(>iii ; for then it would have been his duty to make in- (|uiry, if he either wished to have a ri'ward projiortionate to their value, or to know whether they we;'(> goods of that • juality for which he iiad a sutlicicntlv si'cure conveyance ; for if lie had not. he might lawfully have refused to ti'ke them. * * ^ In cases where tlu' carrier h:is not gi'.cu notice or where the notice does not conic to the knowledge of a plaintilf, he holds himself out as a conunon carrier to fake goods in geii'i'al. and he would then be bound to in- ([\iire the \aiue, eilher if he expects an additional rewiud. or if he has a.ny objection to carry any particular article.'* II(! and the two other judges, however, agreed that the ef- fect of the omission of the owner to inform the carrier of the value prevented him from exercising the care he would ha\«' given and thus i-clicved him from lial)ility except for misfea-^. t¥. ^m Ikii'ii V..^- r 86 Tlir. COXTHACTS OF CAIIlUKltS. [vu. <- ; coiicli proprietor a compensation proportional to the risk; the other to enable him to put parcels of the greatest value in ii place of the greatest security. The risk upon a parcel of great vahuMs great.'r than that upon a small one. 'i'he value is a (emp:>tion to thieves to make attempts whii'Ii, hut for that value, thev would not mike. The omission, there- fore, to a])pris(' the coach proprietor of the value operates ill tv,-o wars. It deprives the [jroprietors of the extra com- i)e:isali()n tlu>\ ouuhl to have and it jjreveiits them fi'om lak- ln<'- that extraordinary i-aution which, upon a i)au. i of ex- traordinarx' value, they naturally would taki'. The value is an iii'-'redient to he taken into consideration hecausc that may he o-ross negligence in the ci'.sc of ;i parcel of large value which would he ordinary cure in the case of a parctd of small value. Tlu^ plaintiffs having prevented this extra care heing taken l>y the cai-rier should hear the loss. Aiujott, (". -T., thoui^'ht that if the carrier had known the contents of the 1)()X he would have taken better care of it ; lu> could not take upon himself to say that he would not. An opportun- ity at least to do so ought to have been given him hy tiie ])laintiffs. § -S7. (.'rificisiH on f/n's Pniff/C''. — in an old work on Carriers it is said : "'The favor which tlu^ courts iiave always shown to carrit;rs, in I'clieving them where any circumstan- ces of a fra\idulent nature have appeannl, has p(>rhaps in- duc(>d the latter to limit their responsiljiiily in all casi's Avhere the goods are hcyond a certain value ; and thus the l)eing allowed to make a s])ecial co;iti'a<'l in some justiliuMe cases has esiahlislicd itself into a i)retense for exemjjting thnnselves from the common law liability, without an ad- yanced price, in almost all othei's. I-'oi- a< there are but very few parcels, etc., in comparison, of a value Ixdow the limit which carriers have tixed as tin; extent of their resjion- sibility, it will appear that, except in their being conipellii- ])le to take the charge of goods as public servants, and the form of action against them grounded on such a relation which an injured jjarty has it still in his power to adapt CII. IV.] NOTICKS AND THKIU Kl-TKC'T. 87 iK'cor(lin,ir to circuinstaiu'cs, no i)iirt of the securities creasy rciuedios contcinplated by the aiu'ient coiiunou hiw for the (greater faeilities of eoinmercial intercourse at present remain, wlierever tlie vahie of the goods falls within the effect of these notices. Whilst, therefore, the power of tixinir the additional premium on valual)]e goods is usurped by such arbitrary and int(U"est(>d parties, and the general inclination of the pul)lic to avoid sul)jecting themselves to extortion, and a conse(iuent general neglect to give the notice rcfiuircd, continues, carriers instead of being what they were originally intended, useful and faithful subsidia- ries to public commerce, prove only arbitrary extortioners and succ(>ssful evaders of the common law policy." '•'' § notice given which exeini)tcd them from being liable for all losses not caused by themselves or agcnits, and also providing that they should not be liable "foi- a greater amount than $100 on any one package or article, unless the value thereof be disclosed and an extra amount paid there- for. This notice was shown to have lieen known to the plaintiff, l)ut his assent to the terms was not shown. It was held that the notice was not binding on tlu; plaintiff ex- cept as to the clause limiting the anu)nnt of liability. 1'ku- LKY, J., said: "We do not mean to hold that there are no cases in which the carrier may, by notice, define aiul (lualify his responsiI)iIity. It may be (|uite reasonable that he should insist on projier information as to the value of the article which he carries. This would not schmu to be any infringement upon the principle of the ancient rule. He must have a right to know what it is that he undertakes to '" lil ^Ven(^.2.^1 (183S). CM. IV. NOTICKS AM) TIlKIi: KKI T.CT. 8!) ciirrv, 1111(1 the iiinount ami extent of his risk. ^^'(' can see notliinu: that ouirht to prevent liini from retjuirinu' notiee of the value of th(^ commodity delivered to him, when from its natun^ or the shape and condition in which he receives it, he may need tlie information : nor why lie should not insist on t)einiij paid in proportion to the value of the jroods and the conse(iuent amount of his risk." '■' The American courts plac(! the justice of this exception more on the j^nmnd of the rii^ht of a cai'rier to have this kind of information, and the fraud practiced upon him in withholdinii: it, tiian on the Kiiijflish argument as to the consideration. Where the slii[)per knows that the carrier demands and has a rii^ht to •'•' .M(isc> V. IJostoti U. Cii., i{ N. It. 71 (is.')!). Sec. also, .ludson v. West. Til |{. Cn., C Allen. -IS.") (ISfW) ; Kiilliiinu V. I'liitcd .States Express Co.. ;i Kas. i>(i,") (ISO.')); Farmers Bank v. Clianiiilain Trans. Co., -J;'. Vt. 1S(> (1S.")1); Mairiiin v. Diiisninrc. (1-J N. Y. X> (ls7.")); I.a\sren<-e v. New York iSii'. it. Co.. ;{() C()im.(;;» (IS(lii); Kil el v. l/ivinf;ston. (i 1 IJaih. 17!) (lS7i'); Tlie May l^tiieen. I Newh. 4(i.") (I:i.")l): New . Jersey Steam Nav. Co. V. Mereliants liank. (i How. :t44 ,U>-1S) ; Hopkins v. Westeott. (5 Blatelif. (!1 (ISiJS). In Illinois iliere is a <;oo(l deal of eonfnsion ia the decisions on this (|neslion. The ease of Western Transportation Co. v. Xewhall. 21 III. -K'lC) (isiiO). ill whieh it is said: "He -nay qualify hisliatiility by a f;i:enera] notice lo all who employ him of any reas: •!:;;! 'n- i, t|;;;.'tion to he observed on their part in reijard t(» the manner of delivery and enfy of jtareels.and the information to he^iven him of their contents, the raies of frei;:;ht and the like: as for example, thai he will not be responsible for <^oods above the value of a certain sum iinle-s they are entered as such and paid for ae- eordim^ly." has been mneh (iiialilied if no! overruled by later eases. .See Aihims lsx])ress Co. v. Stetlaners. til Ml. 1S4 (1S7I); <)i)penhoimer V. I'niled States Kxpress Co.. G'.» III. (J'J (ls7li). which seem to intimate that where tliere is nothiiij;- from which the eourl can imimte want of jrood faith on the ])art of the shipper, the notice as to value will not avail the carrier unless both knowledge and assent to its terms are shown. Htit in IJoskowitz v. Adams Kxpress Co. ,11 Cent. L.J. .;!S;) (1S71)), decided while this liook \\;is in press, there is a dissent inu,' opinion by Sheldon, , I., in these words: "Where the provision, as here, is for the imrpose of seeiirlnjr diselo'N was iriveii hy an express conipany to a iiriii whieii, for inoretJKm a yciir, liad I)eeii in the li:il)it of seudiii;; p:ircels hy the express coinpiiuy. and hiid ivept a IxioU of receipts contaiiiiiiLr stipuhitions (pialify- iiiLMhe liahility of the company, wiiich they usually sent wltli parcels to l)e forwarded, aiitl which on such occasions were tilled up hy the express company. The receipt in e answerahle for " any loss or dainaire of'any hox, packajre, or thin*.' for ovi'r $">(), un- less the just or true value " shouUl he stated in the irceipt, while others were of a cliaracler l.X(H'p- tion which it cont;'.ins.-'' § !M . (U>njiivti)ui and Ainliiiiuoux ('undidons. — \(jtices must not l)e conllictiiiir or amhiiruous. In Goiuio' v. ./o// //,'-'•' (JiuHs, (\ ,1., said that carriers should he very careful that their notii-es corresponded in all ])laces where ;■ ! •^ Oil 111. (\-l (ls7-_>) : iiiul set' Eric U. Co. v. Wilcox, 8t 111. 2:5!) (1S7(J) ; Moses V. Boston J{, Co.. '21 N. II. 71 (185]). '^* Burroiiirhs v. Norwich I'tc. K. Co., 100 Miiss. 120 (ISG'.J;. »lloIt. :il7 (1810). 98 rilK CONIKACTS or (■AI!l!IKU.«i. [ClI. IV. • \W tlu'V uiTi' allixc'il a." llie same time, he will lu* bound l)V the least lu-iieiicial of the two.-'' 'I'hus in Volxh'n V. /iolfo)!,'-' on a l)oard in the carrier's otHce it was stated tiiat he would not l»e liable for jewels, "however small the value," unless entered aii liable for jewelry, bullion. Sir., not specially entered. A latei' advtM'ti>ement >:ave notice that the Vazoo, one of the line, would lcav(> the port on tlu^ next Monday. l! was liehl that this did not do away with the special provisions contained iii the lirst advertisement. In an early Maryland case,-'' the cai'rier had publisheil in several newspapers ilie time when his staixes would start and arrive, which pulilication contained the followiiiijj clause: ■■"'Miinn V. nnl (lS17i. "' •! Ciuiip. lOs (ISO!)). In tills cMSf a qiiosti'Mi !ire«' asto liow tln^ con- tents of tlio hoard, whicli was inlaid in the wall of ilio ulUcc. should ]w proved, and tlic court admitted an examined copy. •■i-it Hoh. 'KiS (IStr.). »'J}arncv v. I'reiitiss. I II. i^ .J.. :ir:, >-. 7 Am. Dec. liTO (ISIS). II! IP CM. IV. NOTICKS AND TIIRIll KlI'KrT. !•;{ "Kmi'c and alldWiuici' nf hairii'iiyi' as usual. All l»a":"ra";i' to !)(• at tlu' risk of the owiht tliiTfof. All Iiayrirayi' over twenty pounds will hereafter positively In- <'liarjr<'d and he at the risk of the owners there(»f." The plaintiffs sued for the value of a pareel which the carrier had fail- ed to deliver: it was adniitleil that hcfoi-e placiuLT it in the carrier's hands he had known of the advertisement. The Court of Appeals, without (h-cidin^- whether the car- rier could or could not I'vade his re^ponsiliility by puhlica- tion of notice, ordered judjiinent fm' the plaintiff, on the irrouiid that if (-arriers "can by their pul»lications exempt themselves from their liability, then the publiciitions in the laui:iiaii"e of the exceptions should lie plain, explicit and free from all ambi'. and tliei: any false answ<"r will 1)1- fi'audulcn! iiii-l will ex(iisi> him. oi', as lias been shown, if there is anv concealment or (|cce])li()!i the siwuv i onse(|uence will follow.^" ^ IK'i. Xor W'/ii'i-f ('arrirr //as OfJicr /iifoniiatiou. — When the value of the noods delivered is ap))arent, a state- ment of their value l>y the >hipi)er would be useh'ss, and is tlierefori' unnecessary. Mr. Anu'ell, citinir ^/ars/l r. Ilorue'^^ and Slorv on nailments,'-' stales the law to be that '"Pliillips V. Ivuli". s I'ick. Is-J (^is-ja) : Maikliii v. Wiiterliousc. Tt Hiiij;. •1V2. 2 .M. it P. ;U!i I ISJS) : IJiildwiii v. ('uUiiw. !> Knli. -KiS (1S4:o : Fiissctt V. I{ii:irk. :? l-:i. Ami. (i'.M (ISIS) ; I,cvois v. (ISO.")) ; I.ittlf V. MosidM itc. K. Co.. tiii M<'- ".i:"' (ISTI'O: McirlKints Disimtoh Trans. Co. v. I{ullf<. s(l HI. 17:? 0S7.".) ; Brown v. Camden etc. 11. Co. 8:1 Pa. St. :n(i (1S77). ••".5 1$. &C. :i2-J (l.s2(j). »-' Sec. .">72. I m ■:';' 94 THE CONTIIAC'TS OF fAIIRIKliS. [rii. IV. "i! 4 « ■ •ill; no j)resiinipti(>n of the waiver of the notice can arise from the rc'-eipt of goods inanifestly al)ove tlie value sialed therein, witliout any demand for extra [)ayment.'' IJut tins is very far from ln'in;:; correct, as an examination of tlie cases will demonstraU-. In Beck r. A'?"?/;.s'," under a notice not to he answerable for cash, notes, jewels, watches, hice, silk, etc., or '* any other goods of what natnre or kind so- ever, ' excei)t on conditions which were not complicMl with by the custoipc, it was held by Lio Hi.an(\ ,]., that t hi; 'car- rier was liable for the value of a cask of brandy intrust(Kl to his laiT. The opinion expressed by Lk Br.ANC, .1., it is true other judges in .several later cases — Jhncn r. Froiiionf'" and Levi V. Wafcr/inuse,^'' for example — refused to follow. P.ut these cases can hardly be said to overrule it. \\\ Jiairn i. Frnuiint th(> ))ackage sent was a larg*- lijunper basket , and Lord ELi-ENHOKorcH said: " I do not think the case cited jToverns the i)rescnt. There th»' carrier knowini; that th.c article intrusted to him was a cask ol i)randy, niM-e.-sarily knew that it was aI)ove the valtn> of £.">. Hut here, what was there to inciicat*' to the defendant the contents of the package? It might have contained cash, l)auknol(vs, ])late or wtitchesto the amount of XIOOO, or it might have been Idled with c(>arse materials not worth, forty shillings." In Lvrl r. Wdfpi'/ioiinr it was not clear that the servant of the carrier knew of the valm* of the jiackage ; it simply appeared that he might have inferred l)V Mr. .\iigell, fully sustain the tirst senten<'e of this section. In /}ns/,-i>iiu'fz r. Atlanm I'Jxpi'cxs Com pain/,'" the court say : ^-Wheii a small package contains an article f»f gri'at value, there is great })ropriety the carrier should have information thereof, but *'' Aii;^oll oil < 'iiiiicrs. >oi'. -jrn. •":t Ciiiiip. •jc.r (Isl-J.; «4('aiup. 40 (1SI4). •■« 1 Prill'. Kx. -JSO (isi.-,). Soo also M;ir-li v. Iloriic .". 15. I'i ('. Wl-l (182(i): Tiion);r('tul v. .M.usli. (Jow, l(l."i (ISlli); Allied v. llonif, :{ Stark. i:{(> (1s2l>). ■'"."> I'ent. F.. .1. .")S (IS77). Su|iri>im> Coiirl i>f lllliii)i». CH. IV.] NOTICKS AND TIIKIK KFKKCT, f)5. 2 J in lar|)ears to l»e no necessity for uivinjr information of the value, as the carrier can detta- inino that for hiniseif. The desijrn is to insure i^ood faith. Was an iii(|uirv made of a shipper of the valtie of the goods about to be shipped, he would be l)ound to state truly the value, but when the value appears in the packai^e itself^ such an in(|uiry would be useless, and a voluntary statenu'ut unnecessary." ** In a case in Alab;una two bales of cotton were delivered to an express company, and the consijjjnor acccrpted a receipt containinrallv known.''' Where a i)acka(), uidess otherwise stated therein, the company w;is charged with notice of the valuv' of the pack- age, and with liability for the full amount.'"' So where the owner of a package told the carrier that it contained ])ap»'rs as valuable as money, when it in fact contained money, it was held that this was snthcient to put the carrier on his guard as to thecals which sho dd be taken of the package. ■•' § 1(4. ^\o(ice 7iot Complied Wi(/i, ^Vo liccovfrij a' All. — If a carrier give notice that ho will not be liable for ■^ \ siniiliir view is oxprcssfil in Onulorff v. Adams Express Co., S Biisli. (Ky.) I!t4 (18(57); iin<()4); Yato v. Willaii. '2 East. 12S (ISOl): Clay v. Uillaii, 1 11. 151. 21»S (178!t); Hatson v. Donovan. -1 1$. it Alil. 21 (1S2()); llairls v. rack- wood.:} Tannt. 204 (IS'.O). In JJakhvin v. Collins. It Koh. 4(iS (1S4.".). the carritT havinj;^ jjivcn notice that he would not he liable for jewelry unless sjieeially einered. the shi])])!-!". knowinjj this, sent a liox of jewelry williont disclosing the c(nitent>. 'I'he court >aid: "In concln.-ion the counsel ur;;es that as Ihe defendants have not delivered any liox at all. 'hey must sliov. that it was lost, or account to the plaintiff for ilie apjia- rent value of tlie cont"'ni-. lie says it appeared to he a caudle or soda biscuit bo\. fioni \\liioda bi>cuits. I5ut the ludy witness wl'o knew auyiiiin;:; about the contents says that it did not con- tain either of thc>e articles. t)ut coiMaiue(l jew elry. for wliich we Ihiid; the defendants are not responsible anil shaviiiiis to which no value is ullixed. 'J'iie box itself is called by the witnesses -a two ami six-penny" affair, whicii we think is rather too >mall a sum to come within our jurisdiction." « Clarke V. (iray. (i East. .")tl4: 2 Smitli. (122: t Esji. 177 (isor.). ^tllelsby V. Mears. .") IJ. it C. .■)04 (lS2i;). ^'' Evans V. Soule. 2 .M. it S. 1 ( ISi;?). Where an exjiress company had uniformly f^iven reeeijjts for goods coulainin;j:a stipidation that thi- c(uu- pany would not be answeralile for over «•")<> for loss of any ]>acka!;e un- less its true value shoidd lie set out in the receijit. and Ihe coinjiany had jiaid !i loss to the i)laintiff- from which it wouhl have been relieved by lilcadinjr the qualifying clauise. and afterwards the i)laiiitiffs sued the same comi)any for another loss, it was held tiial tlie company was not precluded by the payment of the first loss from setting up the defense of cir. rv.] NOTICES AND TIIEIU EFFECT. 97 ruled that ii notice, that the carrier would not be iinswerahle for loss or dania_!j:e, unless occasioned by the actual negli- frence of his servants, had not been waived by his having on former occasions made allowances to the plaintiff without in(|uii'in_ii" into the cause of the daniaire. The waiver may be made l>y the agent and will then bind the principal. One l)eing told by the clerks of the defend- ant that his goods will i)e sent at a certain rate, and dcdiver- ing them on the faith of this statcnuMit, can not be charged more, although the printed I'ales of the defendant are higher."' So, though the notice of a railroad company states that goods reci-ived after 4 i'. M. will not be forward- ed until tlie next day, the receii)t of goods after that time with the assurance that tiuy will be forwarded on that day will amount to a waiver of the notice." If an exprc-s (•om;)any give a receipt conditioned that •' where tlu^ value of t!»e pi'ojjiirty is not s[)ecitied in the n;- ceipl the coaipiiiy will not !>;> Iiabl(> for a sum exc(!eding liftv tlollar>," th;' company will, mil withstanding, be liable for t!»;' full valu ' of the property in case of loss, if ii ap- pear that the receiving agent of the company was correctly informed of iis value at the time of the receipt of the g().)ds.'^ Wh.uv? th:i carricsr's notice declared that he would not b(> accountable for goods of a particular description al)ove a certain vaIu(^ unless spccitied and "paid for as such" when deliv(U'ed at his otlices, and an article of the kind de- s(!ril)ed was k>ft with the bookkeeper, he being informed of its value and told to (-hargo what he pleased, which would 1)0 [laid providvl that it was taken care of, I^ord Ellen- nouDiTUi'i h^^ll t'lit th:; prjkig.' having been sent, the pay- ment was waived and the notice unavailing.^'' it< (lii;ilili,^:l liiihility ;i-i sIdwii by a lilvi' oniulition in the receipt. Opimn- heinuT v. United States Express Co , «!) 111. 02 (tS72). w Winktlcld V. Piiekinjjtoii, 2 C. & P. 5!!!) (1827). « Pii'kfonl V. fJiuiid .Iiinetion It. Co., 12 M. & W. 766 (1844). +VSoMl,hcra Express Co. v. \ewl)y, M Ga. O;].') (1867); Kcmber v. Southern Express Co., 22 Ltv. Ann. l.'iS (1870). «' Wilson V. Freeniiin. \\ Camp. 527 (1814). 7 ■m ii-:A-) n 98 THE CONTRACTS OF CAlMilKRS. [oil. IV. § 96. Extent of Notiw. — In Itilnj v. Home,"' it was in- tiinatcd that where carriers run ti coach from A to B and back, notice that tliey limit their responsibility on the car- v\i\"0 of parcels from A to B is notice that thev limit it likewise from IJ to A ; and it was oariy determined that a notice not to b(; lial)l(! for goods ))eyond a certain sum ap- plied to the property of passenirers _cting at a certain point with a line of .stcaml)oats, kept a standing advertiscMnent as to the boats with which it would connect, and that through tickets would be, furnished and baggage transport((l to tlu; terminus, it was held that the information was jjublished for the benetit « 5 Binir. 217; '2 M. & P. :5:}1 (18-28). « Chirkc V. Oray. (5 East, not; '2 Smith, (522; 4 Esp. 177 (ISOr)). ailolt, :n7 (ISIO). "Alfred V. Homo, :} Stark. 13G (1822). 11. OTI. IV.] NOTICES AND THEIR EFFECT. 99 of piissongors only and that shippers could not avail them- selves of its terms.''* § 97. Modes of Giving Notice of Limited LlnhlUty. — The methods hy which carriers have souirht to convey to the l)ul)lic (he terms on which they desired to accept goods for transportation are (1), by advertisement either in newspa- pers or hand hills ; (2), l)y exhil)iting or posting notices, as placards, etc. {<\), hy notices printed upon bills of lading, receipts, checks and tickets. § 98. Adi'cvtlxonenfs. — Notices given by carriers by ad- vertising in newspapi'rs are little favored l-y the courts.^ In a case decided in 1S25,'''" in order to charge a person with ■■■' Linvn-Mcc v. New York i^ip. K. (."o.. ;{(; Coini. (i;{ (1S0!»). In Eng- liiiul il is held thai a railway cuinpany is entillcd to llio protection a;i liusi rcs|>()iisil)iliiy for tlic carria^o of animals _ij;ivon l)y tlie second jiroviso of 17 and is \'ic., c. ;>1, <; 7. altliongh no coniitlflo contract for tlu- carriaL!;*' lias h;'cn entered into, and no complete delivery has been made; il is eiioiiiih if the animal was in the course of being de- livered to ur reeeiv -il by the conii)any. llodgman v. West Midland R. (' ... .■) W. .V .^' 17,!: ID .Fnr. X. S. 07:5; ;{;{ L. J. Q. B. -IWW: VI W. K. 1254. alVirmed on appeai. 'li W. R. 7.')S, B. it S. .")(!() (IStM). So where uwr travels on a drover's jiass at his own risk, the s' datioii I'overs not only the transit on tlie liiu> of railway, but also all risks includi'd in get- ting; access to and deparlnre from the railway; all that tal^es place wliile 111- is a i);is^enj;,'r. (;,illiii v. F.on loii&e. U.('o..I.. \l. HX^. B. -JlJ.iCent. L..J. 217 O'*'''/"'). '"What woidd hav<' been the liability of the company to an ordinary passen^^jjery \ person who invites another to come on his premises is lioiind to tak( reasonable care not to exjiose snch person to Miidiie danger. That is the im;)lied engagement of a railway comi)any in the d in the (!(i:jltc and the Tliticx newspapers. Lord Kl.l.r.M'.oUKrcii, while receivini:; evidence of tiie notice in the (t:t.:('ff(\ thouiiht it of littler avail unless it was jti-oved that tl;e parly was in the habit of readinjr that paper. Tlie ad\( rtiNciiicnt in the '/'////f-.s he re- fuseil to admit witliout jjroof that it was taken in liy the plaintiff. The tirst instance he said in which such evidences was receiv(>(l was wiiere a per.-on inserted a notice in a pro- vincial Sunday paper and the coint hchi that it was admissi- ble in evidence, bccjuise it was ])i()bal)!e that the pai'ty had seen it, since he took the paper and the advertisenient related to his business. In the case at bar it subsc(iuently appearinji' that the plaintiff had occasionally read the 'J'i'dhs, the advertisenient contained in it was allowed to be read. In a ease in our own courts it was said : *' 'i'he mere publi- cation of a notice in one or more newspapers, no matter how lonir the time, of an intention not to be responsible for particular articles, unless upon disclosure of contents and value, is not sufJieient to release the carrier from responsi- bilitv. The notice must be brouirht liome to the shii)per or depositor. The circumstance of its beiiiii- published in sev- eral newspapers is one fact ; that the paity was a reirular subscriber to and reader of one or more! of those, papers is "Lord Ellcuborough in Minin v. JJakor. 2 Stiuk. 2."),") (1S17). llion;;lit tliat ii person ini},'lit, 1)0 oxpccti'd to look into the il. /'osfin;/ Xn(icrs — /*/(i((ii'(fs. — Notices contained in placards, (hoiiLrh more common, havir hardly fared Ixstler in (he courts, in one of the eai'ly Knjilish eases'"" in order to affect (he plaindff \vl(h kno\vleil;j;e of a notice! limit in;>' the <:irrier's lial)ili(y, i( was proved thsit it was painted on a hoard and hum: np in the defendant',-, otlice. The |)lain- tiff's servant (estilied tiiaL I;;' '.i.e! laken jjoods to the ofKco, had frei|uen(ly heen thei'c hefoic, and had seen the hoard, hut (ha( he did not suppose ('.ere was anythinjr upon it; (ha( allhouu'.i he could read, he had never in fac( reatl the n()(ice mitil after (he loss. Lord Ki.i,i;\i',()Kor(iii said: "Vou camiot miike (his n()(ic(! (o ( his non-su|)posini^ person ; i( is dillicuH (o strui^^Ie wi(h (he common law; and it is incunilxMd on a person wlo wishes to I'id himself of his re- sp()nsil)ili(y a( connnon la , (o uive ei"fec(ual nodce."'" So (li(( c()n(en(s of a pl;i'':t!'('i ai'e ineff(!clual where (he par(y soui^lU (o he chacL'cd is 'nial)le to read.'- In (he h'adinuj Amei'ican case of /fn/l/sfcr r. sYowli'u,''^ evidence (lia( a no- (ic(' was conspicuously placarded in moM of (he s(a<];(M)Hices of (he route, and particularly where (he plaintiff had re- sided for (hree years immedia(ely precediuiT the loss of the ti'uuk, which was iUc cans(> of ac(ion, was not consiiU'red ,'wl •'■' IJiilitwin V. Collina. !) KdIi. lOS (tsir>). '■" Knr V. Willaii, (I M. ."c S. ITiO; ■> Stark, ni! (1SJ7). "' '"'I'lic incrcly |)iilliiiu; up !i Itnard in iln-ir otlice ouj^iil not to satisfy ;i jury."' IJcst. < '. .J., ill Hroolvo V. I*iflv\vicl<, 4 IJiii^. 21S (1S.")7); Draysnn V. Iloiiic. 27 W. H. 7:);'.. ;!•-> (.. T., N. S. C.Dl ; (Jlayloii v. Hunt, •JCainp. 17 (isll): Uii'.lcr V. ilcaiic, '2 (^amp. 4t:) (IStO). "-'Davis V. Willaii, 'J .StaiU. •_»7!) (1S17); note to Siuitli v. llonu;, Holt V,U, (ISIT). <» 1!) Woiid. 2;U Cts:>S). See iilso Cole v. Goodwin, Id. 'i.')! (1S3S). >:i..is:mmm^ 102 THK C;ONTI{ACT8 OF CARUIKH8. [CII. IV. sufficient to authorize a jury to infer knoAvIedjre in the phiintiff of the terms on wiiicli the eonclies were run. A i)!issen<>er by boat is not bound l)y written or printed notices, posted in tlie i)oat in conspicuous places, statiuir tiie carrier's reuuhitions as to the delivery of baiiirairc,''' In Mackliii r. Xeiv Jersey Steamboat Conipaiii/,''" a notice? containinir these words : "IJaufiiairi' n(*i aUowcil in culiin oi- state-rooms. Tiiis company will not be liable for bajijiaiic unless checked," was posted up in ditT<>rent i)arts of the boat. The jjlainliff took his satchel to his slatc-rooni, where it was stolen. lie testilied llirt he did not see llu; notice. Daly. .[., said: ''Notices may lie (Miiploved Iiy tlu; carriers as a means of bringiuir to the pasMMip'r's knowledi^e any reasonable rejrulation ; but it does not follow from tliis that it is obliijatorv ujxni him to read all sucli notii cs ; for if we were to hold that, we would have to hold that whether he read them or not, it beinu' oblij^atory upon him to icad them, he would i)e charficabie with a knowledjic of theli- contents; and this is further than the law lias ever gone." In Walkcv v. Jarh.'^on,^'' a notice; at the door of a ferry where foot passengers entered was rejeeled wImmi offered in a case where the plaintiff had entered by the car- riage way. Where a })asseiiger had been in the habit of go- ing on a train and there paying her fare, a new rule [)osled in the otiice was held not to l)e sutlicient notice to her.'" Where there was i)osted up in a railroad car notices limiting the company's liability for passengers baggage and as to smoking in the cars, standing on the platforms, ;uhI putting lioads and arms out of the windows, and the plaintiff, a passenger in the car, admitted that he had read the notiei; as to smoking and standing on the platform, it was held that there was no presumption that he had seen the notice as to «M:u'kliii V. Xcw .T('i«cy StCiiniboat Co., 7 Abb. Pr. (\. S.) l»2!) (l)-(iS) ; GlPiison V. Goodiicli Trans, (^o., ;V1 Wis, 85 (1S7:{). .Sec, how(!V(M\ ■\Vhitesoll V. Craiu'. S W. & S. :?(!',) (184')). «7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 22!) (18G!;). «10M. & W. 101 (1842). "Lake Shore &c. II. Co. v. (Jreenwood, 79 Pa. St. \\T,\ (187r)). u m f II. I v.] NOTICKS AM) TIIEIU Kl FKCT. 103 hiijrga^c ,'* In ii Coiiiiccticut rase, dressed poultry, puckctd ill ice, wiis shipped on l>o:ird a sleaiiihoat for New York. It appeared tliu* llie carrier liad sniueliiiujs, when provcnlcd from sailiii;^' at (lie appointed time, sent such peiishulile freight by nJIroad. 'Ihv boat was detained by fog, and tlio poultry injured l)y the detention owing to the melting of tlio ice, no attention being paid to it. 'Ihe carrier signed a re- ceipt which slated the contents of the boxes shipiKul ; but ho did not ob-.erve what thesi' lioxes of poultry contained, or ho would have s(!nt them bv rail. 'I'he carrier had for a long time advertised ami posted a notice; on his boat that poultry Wi's at tin; owner's risk. i)ut the plaintiff had no knowledge of it. The carrier was held liable."' § I(»(). T/ic Csc i>f N'rditts liis<,rl('d to — 77/f; /'Jiiglish ''('(im'i'/s ^lif." — The niifrii'iidliiiess of the courts to notices by advert isemeiit and |)lacards having Ik.'coiiio inuni- fest, the carrier must needs have recourse to other niounu. In 117,'- who said that in this way the dilliculty of "proving kn()wledg( of the notice wou'd l»e removed, Haylky, J., adding, that if a carrier never .;)ok "i a parcel without a re(a'ipt he would be ii)''.'iiiiiihed, Carrii-rs wore not slow in acting upon these sugiicstions, and eitlu'r a bill of lading, a receijit, a elieck or other written or printed voucher, has come to bi- used by them almost without ex- ception in every contract at the present day."'' In Knglaud «^ Miili.iic V. Hostoii &.V. II. Co., VI fJriiy. ;iss (IS.".!)). «»Pcck V. Weeks, :il ("onii. 1 C) (IS(J7). '" Uilcy V. Iloriif, T) lV\w^. '217. ■> M. & I'. XU (1S2S). " liowlcy V. Horiic, :$ Hiii„'. 2 (1S25). '■^ Kerr v. Williiii, (I M. tt S. 150. 'J Stark. .->:{ (1817). "Shelton v. Moreliiiiits Dispateli To.. :{(5 X. Y. (Sup. Ct.) 527 (1873), s.c. iV.lN. Y. 2.J8 (1874). w' ;y| !■ 'itf iiiiiwmi — 104 TIU-; COXTlJACT.s OK CAUIUKKS. [CII. ■' J: by tho Hiiiluto 11 (ico. 4, 1 Wni. 4, v.. )i8, § 1, cullrd tlu! Carrier's Ad, It is jjrovidcd that no luail-contriictor, stnirc- coiioli i)r()i)riot()r, or other cominon c.'U'i'icr hy IuikI foi- hiif. shall 1)0 liable! for tlic loss of oi- injury to any ai'ticic or property of the followinjx desci-iplion, vi/. : (Jold or silver coin of the realm or of any foi'ei^n state; ^''old or silver in a inanufac^tured or unnianufaetured state ; precious stones, jevrelry, watches, clocks, or a. y time-pieces of any descrip- tion ; trinkets, hills, notes of any hank in KuLrhind, Scot- land or Ireland ; orders, notes, or securities for payment of money; Enjrlish or forci,L'n stamps; maps, writinirs, title- deeds, paintings, en;i'ravinirs, pictures, <;old or silver plate or plated artich's ; j^lass, china, silks in a manufactured or unmanufactm-ed slate, and whether wrouuht up or not with other materials; furs, lace, or any of them; , cari'ieis are to give, if re(|iiired, re- ceipts for packages, acknowledging the same lo l)e insured : and if not given when i'e(piii'ed, or the notice ho not allixed, they are not to have the henefit of the a<'t. By § 1, no notice shall limit or in anywise affect the lial)ililyat com- mon law of carriers, in respect of any articles to l)c con- veyed hy them, unless such as are mentioned in the act, and to which it extends. By § (i, nothing in the act is to extend or he consti-ued to annul or in anywise affect any special (contract between parti(!s for tin; conveyance! of goods. By § S, nothing is to be deemcid to pi'olect carriers from liability to answer for loss or injury arising from the felonious acts of servants, nor to protect servants from lia- CH. IV.] NOTICES AND Tllinu IJFFECT. 105 l)ilitv for loss or injury ofcasioiicd by their own personal n('<;lc'i't or iniseonduct. The provisions of thix stututc have not l)C(>n M(lopt('(l in any of the Stales, and the various de- eisloMs which have been made under it are for the most p:irt not applicalile herr, and are thei'cfoi'e not ijiven. § 101. Xofirrs Otili/ J'roj)iisned to insure uood faith on the part of the l)ailor in the transaction, the American doctrine does not allow the cari-ier to limit his liability, either as a bailee or as an insurer, by anythiuir short of a contract, express or implied. A notice can not be made to Iiind the customer simply from the fact that il was broujiht to his knowledge. ^1 Hii/icc is oii/i/ (I projutsdl for a cniitrucf ; il must therefore l»e also shown that it was adopted as the contract between the pai'ties.'' Unl as not; e on the part of the carrier and assent thereto on the i)art of the shipper are e(piivaleiit to an cxi)ress contract,'" the (lUestinn as lo what is sutHcient evi- ••'■ I5c:iii V. Crccii. Vl Me. \11 (isit:.): SMijor v. I'drt-iiiuiitli &.r. ]J. Co.. ;tl Me. 'JJs (i.s.-.i) : FiUiOnowii v.Cnind 'I'niiiU 1{. Co.. ."i.". Mf. AiVl (IsOT;; I.ittlc \. I'.osioii \i'. J{. <'().. till Me. -j;',',! (1S7(;) : Mohilc ^ic. J{. Co. v. WfiiKM'. I't Mis~. ;•_>.") (l-vri): \Vi'st('ni 'rninsporlatiou Co. v. Ninvhall, "Jt 111. Kir. (ls(;(M: I'.luincntliiil v. UriiiiHTil. lis Vt. 102 (lS(i('.> : Kimball v. Jtiitliiiul. \i'. Iv. Co. 'Jil \'t. -JIT (IS.Vli : I'anncrs iVc. Biiuk v. Cliniiiplain 'J"r.iii>. Co.. IS Vt. liil fistf;). .V. v.. •>:, Vt. lS(i (is.")!); Munn v. Blivlianl, II) Vt. ;!2(; (1S(17) : Mc\lillim v. Mk'lii-:m i<;:o. 11. Co., IG Mich. 711 (ls(J7). riiMlf uotk'c jrivcii liy a carritT that he will not hi' rcspoii^ibli? for ficijllit. or that it ^^ill ho at tlio risk of tlic owner, will not vary the car- rier's liability. Derwort v. Loonier. 21 Conn. 2-1.') (is.M) ; Dorr v. \(>\v •Jersey Steam Xav. Co.. 11 X. Y. 485 (18.")t) ; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co.. 15 Conn. W,',\) (ISC}) ; nntl see cases cited - his properly to him, must he uiid«'r- stood as ajrreeinjj: that it shall he carrii'd aceordiii;r to lli(! terms of the notice, would he conclusive, pro- vided the law permitted the carrier to iiisi.^l on the terms of his notice, and to refuse employment on any other condition. Nor is the fact that the shipper has seen tlit; notiee, anv ju'oof that that In- accepts its conditions," It \vould certainly \h' iroiiiij: too far to presume any willinjiness at all on his part to rcliev*' the carrier from anv [)()rtioii of thosi> duties cast upon him hy the law of the land, such an idea l)ei:- entirely irreconcihihle with the natural siijracity of men, and their univi-rsal desire to enter into those harj::ains alone which shall most hen- elit them. " ("oni'cilini; that then' may he a special con- tract for a rest ri. ted lial>ility." says Iiijonsmn, ,I., in a leadinii' American case,'' "such a contract can not, I think, he inferred from a •.'cneral notice iirouiiht home to the em- ployer. The arij^uinent u that wln're a party delivers ^oods to bo earried after seeinii- a notice that the carrier intends to limit his responsibility, his assent to the terms of the notice may i)e implii 1. lint this ai'irumeiit entirely over- looks a very important eonsid(>ration. Notwithstandinjr the- notice, the owner has a ri:rht to insist that the carrier shall receive the goods subject to all the resl)ollsibiliti^^s incident '"It issottlcd tliat ;ii^'Mit is not lU'ccssiiiily to toix' infi-ncd from tlic men' fiict lii;it liiiowloitjjc of siu:li notice on liu^ pai'l of an owner or coiiT-ij^nor of f!;oo(|s is sliown. The ovitlenee must «jo fartlicr and \w siilllcicnt to fliow tiiai tlic terms on wiiicli tlm carriiM' i)ro|ios(Ml to carry tlie ;L!;oods were adopted as tlic conlraet I.etween llie partie-* aci-ordini; to wliicli llie service of tlie carrier was to tie rcnilored."' liuclxland v. Adams Kx. Co., 07 Masfs. 121 (1S07) ; Moses v. Ronton &c. U. Co.. 21 N. II. 71 (IS.'.l). "•lloliister v. \owlcu, 19 Wend. 234 (ISiJ.S;. ■ (11. IV.] NOT I (KM AM) Tin; IK KITIM T. 107 lo Ills cuiploviiiciit . If tlic delivery of the iidods under siieli eiremiislaiiees iiiilli(»ri/e> iiii im|ilieiilien« of the other party. I'utlinir the matter in tho most favoralde liuiht for the carriei', the mere di'livcry of ;;o()ds after seeing' a notice, can not warrant a stronpr presumption that tiie owner intended to assent to a re- stricted iia!)ilily on the part of the cairier, than it does that he intendtd to \\\A>1 on the liahilities imposed hy law; and a special contract can not he in!|)lied where there is such an cipiipoise of prol)al)ilities." § lOl'. .I.SX'/// /'Vo/// Aci'' /ifilHf l*tlJ>C)\'< ('())l/llillilll/ Coii- frarf. — Most of the courts hold that anythinj:' inserted in a hill of hidiiii:- hecomes a part of the contract hetween thc^ parties (if not illeiial ). if accepted hy the shipper without dissent on his ]iarl to its terms. 'i"he hill of ladini:" is conclu- sive evidence of the contrac-t and its acceptance is sullicient evid«*ncc of assent to its terms.'' In tiie ahsence of fraud it is presumed that tln^ shipper r(!ads the hill of ladinir, for it is "9 Steele V. To\vn-ien(i.:!7 Al:i. *JI7 (ISdl) : Taylor v. Little Koel;. &r. U. Co..:i2 Arl<. :'.'.»;( if 77;: Lake v. Ilmd, ;{.S Coiiii. ."jliC (1S7I); I,ii\vreiic(? V. Now Yorli ite. U. Co.. :i(! Conn. G;{ (lW!!t): Miilli,i,'un v. lllinoin Cent. I{. Co., :{li IdWii. 1S0(1S7;!); Hol)ins(in v. Meitli:uit< Dispaldi Trans. Co.. «."> Ii.wa. •«7() (1877) ; The Kniily v. Carney. ') Kas. 01.") (1S(U) ; ?- • •_ '•rff'TP^^^^^B'^ . w^ i\ f , It; m 4 108 THE CONTRACTS OF CAUUIERS. [CII. IV. his duty to do so.'*" "IViils of hidiiiir," suys Coolkv, J., ''arc si«nied 1)V tlu' ciUTior only; and wIkm-c ;i contract is to ho si'i-ned o;\\y bv one 'larty, the evidence of assent to its Veruis I)V tJje other party "onsists usually in his rcceivin.. !J Md. I!is (is;,-)); Mnijlicc v. CmiikIcii A-c. I{. Co.. I.'« N. Y. .".11 (\-^:\): Vn\ v. ItMlxdi'K. I (Hii<..:i:;i (isj:)); ("iiiciniiiili. Sir. li. (■(.. V. I'DiUiii-. Ill OIi'kp Si. u'-.M (l^^il',),; I,i\\- ri'iicc V. .Mr(;rc,u'"r. Wright l!):5 (ls;t:»~) ; Ailiiiii-- liNpic-- ( n. v. Sli:ir|i|c>», 77 I'll. Si. .MCi (is;.",;. Colion v. Clivihmil Ai. II. Co.. (;7 I';i. Si. 211 (IS7a): l';inili:iiii v. Ciuiiili'ii Ac. {{. ( 'o. .">."i I'a. St .'i,! (1'^ii7). Wlictli.tr !i cImii-c ill 11 liill ol l.iiiiii.j ('\i'rii;>liir^' a lai'iicr liiiiii liability for lo-s liy (ire lit'rimics a (•(iiitiact liy iiiiTi' ai'i'i'|)iaiii'c, was iliiiihtcd in 'I'lic Sultana V. ( 'lia|uiiaii. ."i \Vi~. |."i| ( Is.'ii; I. ami al-o in j-'ahcy \. Noiilicrii 'I'laiis- jiorlatioii Co.. 1.") \Vi<. liii (ISCJ!. wIht,' it i~ >aiil liiat >ii(li a ircciiit would not liiiid the owner if lii' li:,u •i.'vrr .'-ecu il and liail not i'\|n<'--ly nssciitt'd to il. Ill Di'troit \c. I!. Co. v. i"aiiini'> JJank. -.Ml \Vi>. IJ7 (lS(i.")), the latter ca^c i> exiilaiiu'd 1>\ savin,; that it did nol a|>|ii'ar thai the hill of ladiiii:; had ever lieeii (h'ii\cred. Uiit it is now settled in thi-i (Slate ihat aeeeplanee is evideiiee jtiimn finic of assent. IJooriiiaii v. Anierieaii Kx. (Jo. 21 Wis. l.->2 (iMJii); Stiohii v. OiiiMit \e. K. Co. 21 Wis. .■).-)! (lS(i7). ""Grace v. .Vlanis HID Mass. r.i).-. (l.SOS); Iloadley v. .\orllionj Trans. Co., 11. "i .Mass. ;i()l (ls71). « McMillan v. .Miehi;,MM U. Co., 10 .Mich. 7i* (H'w). CII, IV.] NOTICES AND TIIEIU EFFECT. lOf) universal use, und on acconnt of their iinit'orni I'hanictcr tlio ru]«' is almost umvcrsally «'stal)lisliod that persons re- cfivinii" I hem are Itound to know that thev contain llie terms on wliieh liieir j)roi)erly is to he eaivi'^d.''^ They, therefore,, become the eontract hetween tli(^ parties, and can not, a.s a ji'eneral riile, he varied, or {'ontradieted l)y parol."' The same view is taken l)y many (oinls of the ease of expi'ess I'eeeipts.' In h' 1 rhid ml i\ />//(.s///or'','' the i)lainliff (lelivei'cd to an expri'ss eomiJany a paeUaiic of money to h(^ transport eteam." 'I'lie packau'c was lost i»y the iu'cidenlal linrnini:" and . inkinLi'of a vessel at sea. \\'hen he tiiok (lie I'eccipt the plaiiilitT supposed il was a naked i(ccipt : n the shipper. Andkkws. .1., Miid : ••lie [the ownci] can not escape from the l<'rnis (d' a contra<1, in the aliscnce of fiaud or imposi- tion, hecausi- he ne^Tii^'cnlly oniittelainfiff's aceeptunee of tho "•■' Klossc.iii V. Duiltl. i:} X. Y. 2(it (1X70; ; W-Piiiwo^; v. Krie ]{. Co., i;i N. Y. \i;\ (INTO). '•'( iiiriiiiiati Ac. J{. Ce. v. ronlius. 10 Ofilo %t. IIX riSOO) : Wliito v. Van Kirk. L'.". Harb. 1()(IN."H!); Wolfe v. M>.'is. IJ Saii); nrclmii' V. Adams Kx. Co. 2") Mil. li'JS (]S(i(>); compart' N'cwlM'rucr v. Kxprcss <'i).. () riiiia. 174 (iscit) ; Ohvoll v. Adams Kxpross Co. (Tcmii.) 1 Cent. 1.. ,]. ISC (IS71) ; Christciisou v. AiiHMican Express Co., 1.") Minn. 270 0!^'") ; ."^nider v. Adams Kxi)ress Co.. (i;i Mo.. ;<7(i, 4 Ont. L. J. 17'.> (ls7ti); Somnet v. National Express Co.. (UJ IJaib. 2S4 (lS7:t). « 02 N. Y. 171 (1>>7.")), reversing,', a. c. 4 Thonip. & C. :{04 (1874). no THE CONTKACTS OK CAnRlICRR. rcil. IV. receipt wilhout cli.ssont, tlinl lio assented to its terms, and now after a loss has oeeurred, it is too late lo olijeet that he is not l)ound. If he had ol)jeeted at the lime, the (U'fend- juit would have been entitled to exaet, as a condition of car- rvinj: the pan-el, a compensation equivalent to the I'isk of insurers. The circumstances imposed upon the plaintiff the duty to read the receipt." The court distinuuish this case from that of lilnKsotn v. Ihxhl,^' which was .i passenuer's ticket, witii a notice as to the lialiilily of the carrier for bairiraiic. § 103. Other Cases .Slittiriiiij AssoiHo Terms of jS'ofices. — In the following case< assent was presumed l>y the court : Where a railrctad company. sent nolii-e to a merchant that it would in future carry liis ooods on certain conditions, and he afterwards delivered tliem to the company without rais- ing any ohjeclion to the notici'.^' ^^'hel•c izooils, having ar- rived at their destination, the carrier gave notice lo the consignee that, if not rrmoved, he would hold them, not as a coinmon carrier, liut as a \\ai-elion>enian. at lii> ri-k. and .••uhject to the usual uai'eliousc cliaigc -. and '.lie M',n>i- I'ailc I io remove- iheni.^^ Where, in a hill of ! ulin'j i- uitaininij' the words "wiiidi are to lie d( livcicd at nctroil." the freight agcp-t in-> rteil in red ink ix-tween ''at" and "I)c- troit" the words •' 'J'nudo foi'."" ::ntcinier for daily use, and were tilled up !«y his clerk.' Where it was the usual <'ourse of husiness for a diipper of goods t. ^"■Ili N. V. liCI (lS7(t). ■ Walker V. York Sir. K. Cn.. l Kl. cS: HI. 7.'0 (is.vti. ••''Milclifll V. Laiicasliin- iVc I{. Co.. I.. U. 1^ ij. II. -j.-.c, (IST.")), >^ Miillcr V. Ciiiciniiiiti. iVc.K. ("o.. 2 (in. 2so fis'-j). »'(»ii)son V. .\iiicriiMii i^c. K\|iiv<.i (',,.. i Umi.iis; (|S7l):aiiil sen Op- pciiliciniiT V. I'liiteil StiUos K\|irc-« Co.. (iii 111. i',2 '|S7:! ; Kiic i;. Co. V. Wilcox. S4 III. 2:i9 (1870) ; li-lil v. Cliicapo \c. IH\ 71 111. ITiS (1S71); MiMrhaiits Dispaldi i<:c. C... v. M'")n'. s>. m. i:;(; ,is;-,. €H. IV.] NOTICES AM) THEIR EEFECT. Ill &c,, to a carrier I)v a teamster, and for the earner to deliv- er to the teamster a l»ill of ladinir for each shipment, whieh hill was in a form coiitaininir an exeei)tion of loss l)v lire, and ^vas liroiiLrht I)V the teamster to the shii)])er and re- tained."' \Vli«'re a shipper and owner of noods, at the time of deliverini; tl -ame to an e.\))ress company for trans|)ort- ation, also deli ered to the expi'ess company for their siiriiatiire a blank receipt, liUcd up liy him at his ollice, con- taininiT the nanus of hoth parties, and a seiies of condi- tions and clauses r(\irulalin;Li' the manner of transportation and the lisihility of the express lompany in ceilain cases and contingencies, and such receipt at the time of the de- livery of the merchandise was pres(>nted by the shipper to the cxjjress company for tiicii' >i. § 1(1 I. ]\'/t(ff \'i/ Siijfi'iriif f'Jrii/riiri- t,f ^Issiilf. lu Illinois it is lu-ld tliat from the nicie acceptance of a bill of ladiuii', or receipt, which con.tains <'onditions restrictiuiT the carrier's liabililv n(» pre>uniplion of ass(>nt to its terms can aiise.-'' nor fr(un ll»«' p'.'e\iiMi reci'ipt without objection '•''Van SrIiiiacK v. Noniikt-ni Trans. Co.. :t Biss. ;;'.il (ls7'2): ('(unpan' .\(lani~ K\|iii-- < 11. V. Si.'HaniTs. ()l 111. ISI (1S71). "■; FalUTi:iii V. Faru'". I' ll<'W- l*i-- •'''^'>- ••*• ''• •^'> N- V. (Snp. <'t.), •X\'2 flHT-.M. i':i Wc^iroit V. Far) ; ulliriiicd. 01 N. Y. .VCJ (1*17-). •^ Adams Krjiivs.; Co. V. Stcttaners. <;i ill. 1S| (1S71) ; .Adams Kxpirss m m: -il \wu 112 THE CONTHACTS OF CAURIEUS. [CII. IV. of similar papers cDntainiiiir similar fomlitions."'" In a Massachusetts case cvidi'iicc that ficqueiitly, hut not invari- ahlv, the c-arricr had uivcn to the i)laintitr receipts eontain- inix a printed clause limitiiiii" his li:il>ility lor ds trans- ported !>v him. and that, in this instance, after recciviuiX the iXoods, he irave to a servant of the plaintiff a receipt there- for, eoiitaininir- >uch a pi'inted clause: hut that over part of this clause in this receipt a revenue stamp was so pjisted as to render it unintelliiii'ilc, and that until aftei- the io-^s nei- ther ihc plaiatitT nor any of hi> aLi'cnIs or M'rvanI- had ac- tual Unowledi:-c of such a clau.-c in this or any of the other reccii)ts, was li.-ld noi sufiicicnt to warrant a iindinliip|)er paid for the transportation at :i tariff of cliarLi'«'s uiulei' uhicii li_\ the carrier's printed lal)le cd" rales, the latter assumed no rc- sponsih'lity for ci-tain losses, i> not suliicient evidence that Co. V. ILiync^. 12 111. SI* ISOi!): ilo-Uowitz v. Ailams Kxpns-; Co.. ."» Out. L. .t.'iS (ls77i: .Viii-iit.r Liiii- v. Dati-r. C.s 111. ;!(;!( (Is;;!); Am.i\;c. Exi)n's> ('— kowltz v. Adaiiia* Kxiucx Co.. '.i (int. L. .1. ;5Sii n^"I' • 'I'l"* opinion has been ticpn's^fil l»y this coinl that w licrc tin- recpipt coiiiain- unfair :inil oppn-.-ivf liinilalions. if any ])i'('siMnpti>>ii at all i» ti' !>»' in|)ecics of responsiliility. Il is irnc that it leaves them liahle for fraud and for (jross neijli^jence. lint even then only to ihe extenl (if 8'iO. Wc ai-0 at a lo-s to eonjccinie how a sane man coidd he induced to receive such an ii^recment KnowinLT its eontenls. If he luidorstood its terms and 0. And it appears that he paid an eii;||t|| of that .sum nominally for transpori.il ion .if tle^ property, hnl it looks more like a premium for violatin;;; their trust. No person can he surprised that .S.MItt wurth of property, intrusted to them under siu h a receipt, never reached its des- tination, hut it would have heeii sinj;nlar if it had." ••"Erie A;e. Transpr.rtalion Co. v. Daler. S Cent. L. .1. I'Xi (1879). « Perry v. Thompson. 08 Mass. 24!) (18(57). Hl CM. IV.] NOTK'EK AM) Til Kilt KKFKCT. 113 the tcrin.^ were known t(t the sliipix'i" aiul that he assented to tlu-ni.'' § 10."). .Vofit's Allitihcil ti) I'dpcvx Coiifahihiff Con/rncf. — When we come to notices attached to reccii'/ts or l)ills of ladinir, or printed on theii- l»ack, tliere is less difliculty, as most of the <'ouits have made a distinction hetween this class, and conditions containt-d in anlie Tnitcd States in 1S72, a receipt <.;iven hy a railroad coniiiany referred to certain rules and reirnlations of the comi):iny, "a part of which notice is uivcn on the hack Iiercof." ( )n the hack were prinle<| cci'lain conditions reslrictinu" the coimnon law lial)ility of I he company. The receipt \v;'.s taken l»v thi^ consii:nor wllhout either assent or dissent. It was iield that the notice was not operatixc to I'elieve the companw "The coiiNideralions ai^ainst the I'elaxation of the common law i'e>pon-iliility I»y puMic adveiMisemeiil ,"' said Mr. .Instice Davis, "apply wilh eijiial force t(» notices havin::- the same oltject, altached to receipts -essI()n for tra:e^poi'tation. Holhare attempts tf) o!);aiu hy indireclion e\emplio;i from hurdens imposel in the inicre>ls of irnde upon this particular husiness. It is iiol o!ilv against the policy of llie law. hui a serious iiijui-v m .'Sat ;:k77). !■!' \V(-t.Tii Iriiii-. ( .>. V. N.'wliiiil. -Jl III. Hill ilsdoi. Mm ill llliiini- iiiitjcr llw l:itc (l('ri>iiiii- till' (li.-lliiciiiiii hi'iwciii iiiljs of l.'KJiiii,' iiii.l I'c- rcipl- M kci- jiinl clinlx-. is imt pre t'rM'if. Sec I'jie Ae. 'i"i';ill>^|iiillili(Fn «'o. V. i»:M> r. s ( ',.|il. I,. .1. 2'.i:'. (1,S7'.>). >" K; \V:iII. ;lls. mr I ] 1 riiK (<)xti;a(Ts <^r cai;i;ik!:s. lch. iv. to I'ommci'cc, (() allow llu- carriiT to -"aytiiat a sliipjicr of nui'chaiulisc asscnl-. to (lie tiiaiis pi-oposcd in a i!oti( «■ win ih- (•!• it Ix' licncral to llic pul»lir or special to a iMVli'Milar |)ci'- soi), incrcly liccatisc li<' doc^ not expressly di-x-^it IV(»ii! tlicni. If the jiai'tics wi'i'c op. an (M|iial:ty with ca;'!! otiici-, tlicrc miii'lit ill' soiii" show of I'cason for a--iiiiiiit;i" ac(|uii's- (•••iicc ffoiii silence, liut in the )ia!n''e ol' thi- velalion eijiial- it\' (h)es no! e.\i>t, and, therefore, (\cry inlei;('i!ieni slionid lie made in favor of the shipper wh.'n he lak 's a i-eeeipl for hi- property with rotrictive condiiion;- annexed and sa.ys noihinii", that he intends to rely upon the law foi'tiie .^cc^lr- it\' of his i'iLi'ht>. It can readily he seen if llie carrier can rcdiiee his Iial)ility in the mode proposed, he can 1ran>acl hn-iiiu'ss on any terms he clioo c- to pre-i'rilie. The >hip- pi'i", a> a "i'eneral tliint:". is not in a condition to coiitend wilii him as to terms, nor to wail the re i;'i of an aciidn at law in ease of refusal to carry niicoii forward. Tiie la'>v, in concedini;' to cai'riei'- the aliilily to o'>tain anv ri'a^- oniole (|Ualilieation of theii" re-ponsihiliiy liv ex|.rc-- con- tr.iet, has <>-()ne as far in tin- direction a- pnlilic polic\' will a.ll iw. To relax still further the >ti'lil rules of imnmon law appliealile to them, hy pi'c.-uininLi' ac(|uie>cence in the conditions on which they propose to carry freiiiiit when they have no riii'ht to impos(> them, wouhl, in our opinioti, woi-h li'.'eat harm to li'.e i>u-ine>s community." Thi- ruiiii::' h i> liceii more re<'eiitly followed I»y \\'ai,i..\ conclusion c(]i.ilici> w iih many dci-i-ions (d hi..'.i authoi'ity in tin- country ar.d Kn^il.and nui-l I'c con- coded; l»ut the ca--e f(n'ni~-hes a rule of plain ami certain .MpplieatioM. and sweeps Mu.'.y many line and a"i!i"cial di.-- tin"tio:!s, ',\ iiich ha\'e in\ol\-e(| ;i; < onfu^ion ih" whole doc- tri le .if n.olices a.ml ■pcci;,! contracts as ai'lectiuL;' tiie rii:hl- aii'i liaoilili" of cotnmon c;!rriers. .'^onie of ihe-e case- li!'.v< tu'M-l upoi! th" jjoin; whellier the conditiit'i-; In ;i m CM. IV.] NOTICKS AM) TIIKIR KITKCT. 11.') priiiti'cl rcci'ipt were in siiiiill type or in laruc, oi' wlictlicr (lie rcccipl was laki'ii dclilxM'ali'ly or Imi'iirdly, wliilc one case in tin- codrt of last ri'sorl in lliis Slate places coiilrol- I'mu' cinpliasis upon the fa<'l that llic receipt was taken \>\ the shipper in a dimly liuhled ear, and holds that it was, Ihei'et'ore, not a contract.'"' Another casein the Supreme Court of the same Slate holds the I'cceipt a contract al- tlionijfh taken hy a foreiirner iirnorant of the laniiuaire in which it was |)rinted and to whom net explanation of its terms was vouchsafed,'"- Thus, while one man is al>solve(l from ol)Hj:ation hecause it may he inconvenient for him to inform himself of the terms of the proposed contract, another is held. The theory, of course, is that assent to the i)ropo>ed eontra<'l is (»r is not implied from the circum- stances of the transaction, hut the cases illustrate the utter uncertaintv of tlie test of assent, when one man who is i<>-- noi'ant aliropite a class of con- tracts to which, pi'actically, the carrier is tlu' only party." '"' In a Michipin case, tlu' notici' of exceptions was printed on the hack of tlm receipt uiven for the u'oods, and the reci'ipt on its face referivd to the exceptions. "vSomc <'vi(lence of assent to the terms of the notice," it was said, " Itlo^som V. Dixi.l. i;! N. Y. -Jill (ls7i)). '"-Filtt'l v. I/iviiiiT-'ti'ii. (il IJail). 17a (ls72): Wiwhiis v. Bowery .Saviiii^- Uk.. 21 \. Y. :.i:i (IsC.O). ' 'Ayrcs V. Wf-icni i{. Co.. II P.hitclif. !l (1S7 coiiipMiiy.' \v;is sucli notice of tlie contents of iuiy paper cnniuininii so ealled ■conditions of the com- pany," as to liind the pai'ly wiio acceided the hill of lading' lo a slale- nient in sueii conditions liniilin;; what would otherwise he the liahility of the vessel on the terms of the hill of ladinjj." The Isahella, s Ben. i;{!) (ls7.-.). 'A 1, L ..»^ iirt TlIK CONTKACTS OK CARKIKRS. [ril. IV. "is noc'ossarv, from which a contracl may \>v implied. In such case if it is soujrht to he inferred from the acceptance of a receipt spi-cifvini:' a limitation of liahility, or referring' to an acc()mpanyin<„' notice for such limitation ; or if it is souifhl to he inferred from previous notice and dealinir^ ; if it appear that the price of freiirhl was made lowei- in consid- eration of such sjjec'al i-estriction, and the party has received the hcnetit of such reduction of freijiht, such or similar facts mijj:hl , and undotititcdly would, furnisli stronjj: eviih'uce of assent. Hut if in a case otherwise similar, nosut-h diffei- ence in the price of freiiiiit was made, or if the party had paid or arices of which the foi-- wardinii' party may avail iiiinself is shown to exist, little or no inference of assent to such >pccial terms can i>e drawn without ailowinu' the company in effect to limit their liabil- ity l»y a mere notice.'""" § 1()(). lidilroaihntilSlriiiiihiitit Tickets. — Notices printe(| on tickets or checks are within the I'uh- mentioned in the last section, hecause neither a ticket iioi' a check is evidence of a contract. A railroad or steamboat ticket is nothintf more than a mere voucher thai the party to whom it is iriven and in whose possession it is has paid his fai'c and is entitled 1(» he carried a certain di>tance.''' In a case whi<'h arose in New Voi'k in 1N.")S, it heiniLr contended before the Court (d" .Vppeals that certain passage tickets were in themselves written evidence of the terms on which the passen<;er was to be carried, and that he was therefore |)recluded fioni contradict inearers as parlies who were entitled to l)e rcceivcti on hoaril. Thev are (piite consistent with a more special harirain. Hcin^Mhe nsual permits which were issued for llic iriiidancc of the masters of tiie vessels and the con- (hictors of I he carriaires, thev would necessarily he understandin;j: or suLTiTcstion of it." In a Massachusetts ease,"" it was ruled that when^ a ticket / .If "'■ t^iiiiiihy V. Viiinlcrliilt. 17 \. Y. :50ii (IS.'iS). '"'(!;( Me. -JOS (IS7;5). i"M{rewn V. Kustcrii K. ("d. II Ciisli. 1I7 (IS.*):?), juul st't> Miiloiic v. IJostoii iS:c. U. Co.. 12 (Jmy. :iSS (IS.V.i). Tiic following I'xtnicl from tlic opii.loii of the court state-; the whole Ciisc: '* Tl:-' liinitiition ami notice tiiiMcof wcri', ill the present instance, atteiii|>le(l to he estahlislicd niiiler these cireninstances. The traveler, a female, liad delivored iier trunks to the hajrjiaj^e master of the defend- ants to he carried to freeport. 'i'liey were received hy him without any ^1 ^:^ UN TIIK CONTKACTS Ol ( MMMKKS. [l| t (, m ■ 1 i; «1': is "ivi'ii to a i)!is«'('nir»'r f(nitiiiiiiiiir :i liinitiilioii \vci':il>le for Itiiiiiiiiu'e exc-eediiiLl' lif'l.v dolliirs in value, un- less additional frei<:lit is paid on it, it will lie a (lueslion for the jtirv whether llie passenger had notiei- of the e(»nditii)n before eonnneneinir his journey. iidtiif of any limitaliuii nf lialiilliir- |. sifr lraii>|inrtalilic c nidd v oni' fur Unniswick. a placf ii'iniitf, witli till- privilcp' nf sloppin^i ( rt'fpKil.and liavinyionc dollar ri'finidcd; and tliat tiu'iciipon -hr paiii lliri'c doiiai's and received a ticket In Hnin-w irk. 'I'lie lickei liad oil its face ijie route and various railroads to Ite passed over, and llie notice tlial one doHur wnidd lie re- funded lo those st(ip|iiiiir at {''reeidiri . There was mi notice on ihe face of the ticket of any eondilions or liinitations as to transpurliii;; llie lia;;- jjajje peakin;r of miiice- printed uii railroad tickets, Dewey. .1.. in Brown v. Kasiern |{. Co., II ( iish. 1I7 (1S'.:»). distiniruishes hetweeii >',icli as Mppi'ar on ' lie fucc and on the hack of tickets ; •• .\ ii)er<> passeii;;er ticket in llie foiiu in ireneral use would not naturally indiii . lo the minute readinn' of il> coiiicnis. The party recei\inic i' nii:.;lit well suppose that il was a mere check -ii;uif\ iiiij that Ihe parly had paid his jiassai^c to the place indicaicd on hi- tii'kct. Hui if it l)e correct in ii.ild that if this limitation li.>d iiecn -taled on the face of the ticki'i ami in conncciion with the name of the place lo which the party was ii> lie car- ried, and so ini:;iil 111 |iresiimcd to have hecn read and llieretorc hind- iiiff upon the person recciviuj; llie ticket : yei nevertheless a -lateniciii or notice to this effect ])laced upon the hacl» of the lickei, and delacliid from w hat ordinarily loiilain- ail Ilia I is material to the pa sscm^er. woidc I not raise a le<;al pn'sumplion tliat the jiarty at the lime of n'ceivin;; lIu' ticket, and hefore th" train had left ihe sialion. had know leil;i:e of the iimitation or condition- w Inch the carrier had atti' ImiI id the Iraiisporta- lion of the l(au:y:a;;;e of the pa--senj::ers." In a N' w York ease, the court say: •• li winildlie iinreasonalile to pres'tme lliai a passenjjer wliei: h" liiiys a rail'oad ticket at a ticket ollice, slops i.i ■:i. IV.] \<»ll< 1> VM) THKIK Kr. i:(T. i:> Till' ra-.'of notii'i's liinilliijr tlu- li:il»ilily of rMi'i'ici s iiml i.|)- |)i':iriii!Lr "II Nfciliilin:'.( (icN''H lia- i cccix cd lull' li a'ut iilifii; in Ivi'^laii'l ill late casi's ."iiul (he ml;" which lia> lu-cii at l('M;:th (••.tal>li>iu(i ill I'cirai'd lo lliis cl.i'-s of voiiflurs is foiiiuli'il on fojiimoii law |)i'iiiri|)lt'>. ilic •statute- of that (■(•iiiitiT in rc!a- tioii to iiulicc^ l»y idinnioii fai'iicrs, sudi as the h'aiiwiiy an-l Canal Trallic Ai-l aliT.uly rofcncd to, liciiiL:' ir.aii[»li<'ai»l(' to carria;.:'!' of this fhai'a<'tcr.' ' In Zitn:: >'. SdiiIIi hjuslt ni Itdihni ■/ ( '(tmjxnii/,^^" the [ilaiiitirt' lii.ik athr(iii!:h ti'.r( fi'nin thf London station of the Sonih lOaslci-n liailw ay Company to I'ari-. 'I'iic ticket was in tlntc c(»ti|)on> : I. Fro n London to Hisci ; 2. Ki'oin |),(\ci' to Calai- : ;'>. I'loin Calais to Taii-^ I'lMtn llic ticket ua-. printed the foliowinu' condition: "'llie company is not i'es|),insioh' for los.-. oi- dctcntiiHi of or injury lo iiiuii'ajre of the [.assenii'cr travdiiiir hy this thr(ni<:h ticket I'xcept ulnlo tlic pa--enu'cr is traveliiiLr ''y the company's trains en' l)oats." His pitrlinaiile;'.!! w is lo-t (tn tlic joiirmy hetween Calais and Pari-. Co(I\IUI;n, C. .!., said : "The special contract is set out on th ■ face of |he ticket : and howc'\'er hiird ;' niay seem to hold that a passenM-er is l)oimd Uy words pi'iiited npo!i a tiiket in smai! letters, and which, in the luirrv of t!ie la-'. nioniciU at a i .lilway station, he has no op;iortiinil \' oi' making' hiin-cli' ai'ijuain'ed with, there is no doubt tiial .; Ill- l»ce!i sci'led l>y decidt'd authorities that he must lu' pi''-;ni 'd i > know the contents of the ticket and to lie I)ound l>\ >!!' h coii.cnts." None of the "decided aiitlior- inicl n.'twi'i'ii ihc'-i- pMiiii'-; w;i- iiia'l" '.vlicii tin' |pi:iiiuift Ixniirli! Iii-r lii'k"! and lilt' I'inlil-; :pmI iIiiTk - nf ilic parlies wiic tlieii (Iriciiniiifd. IIi'ui'<'. even ii ill" plaiiullf liaii n-ii'l whiit i;pp<'ars iuhim Iht licl^i'i al'icr •-111 ' '1 cull It (1 iipiiii I., r jiiiiriiiv . il U' iilil liaxc iiiaile im dil'lViTiicc \/nli lii-r ii;j:lii-. Silt- \\a> iin; thru nlili'^cil :i> a cinUracI wliii-h >li(' iic\"'r III iij,' or l^MNc tilt' train anil "Itiiuiutl Iht l)a<;7;;ii;i'." IJawsim v. l*fnii-> Ivania I.'. < 11.. I"^ \.Y.-J1-J (IsTJ'. Hni -ff I.a'uii; v. Culiifr. S I'a. >i. 1711 (I-Im: 15t'tl,'ii,iii v. '^linii^f. ". IJaulf. 17'.) (,ls:iri): (.'ani'l"ii .';:f. Tran-;. <'t.. v. Haltlawi. 1(1 l*a. SI. CT ;;-.M). '■■'■' Atil' . I 'ap. II.. si't'. 27. "I. j{. ! (^>. Ji. .");{'.» OMiili) : and -t'c I'a'.iiii'r v. ( ;;;i;iil .iimctiDn |{. ( •!).. I M. *v W. 7!!i l-.l'.i). V % '. !! ' J ; 120 TIIK fOXTIUfTS or CAIMMKI.'S. [ni. IV. \\\vs" arc st'(|in'iil jii(i"'(' has <<.\|)r('ss(>(l liinisclf a>i wlinllv uiialilc to tiiiil lln'iii. the aiitli<>ril\ of this case is vi'iT tlnulill'iil. Uiil ihc (h'.-i- sioii (if ino-t iiilcrt'sl in this ((iiiiH'rlinn. aiwl oin' ii-riaiii In remain as hiiiii aiiliioril y, alike mi acroiiiil nf the lliitroiiirii (lixiission wliitli it rerfivcd. ami (tftlic ••liai'ii'-li'i- of the triliunni in wliirh it was linally (Icliiniincfl, is thai of //m- i/rr-i')ii r. SffffiiS'iii,'^^ (h-cidcfl ity the |'j)i:li--li Mnii-r of Lords in 1X7.'). 'riic phiintilT piirrhax d at tin- drlfii.lant "> ollic" in Dnitlin a titlvtl I'.ir liis |ia^'-air<' from DuMin In Whitehaven teamer'. 'j'iii.- the follnwinir imhirsement : "'I'his tii-ket is issued on t he condition that the companv inciii" no liahility whatevci- in rc-pcct of lo-s, inji!r\' or dela\'. to tlie pa^scnu'er, oi" to hi-- or her lni;i',iiL:('. wliethci' ari-ini;' from the a<'l, ne<:lect i>v dcfnidt (d' tiie com- pany or tlieir xrvants, or otherwise. Il i> ai-^o issnentirely throui!h the ne'_diL''ence of the waptain and crew, and all (»f the plain'iifi "•• IiieLraife h)st. He Itroiiirhl suit to recover its \a!nc in Scotland, and the Lord Oi'dinary and the ("oiirt of Sc->ion haxin;^ hoth deci(h'd in his favor, the company appealed to the House of Lords. Il wa> here a'/ain held that the plaintiff wa- not hound l>y the condition, "it seems to nie" >aid the liord Chancelloi", "that it woidd lie extremely danLreroiis not merely with regard to eontrait> Tlir.ll.' KI TKCT 121 priiitcil wliirli hii-i not iiftuully Im'cii hrniiirlil t(» ami hny^ iiol <-(»iii(< 111 llic iiotit-c of oiM' of the roiiti-!ii'(iii;r |iai'tifs, thill colli rart in;; parly is to he held to have a>*"*<'iil(Ml to that wliifli lie liMs not si't'ii, of wliirli lie knows iiotliiiiL:'. and wliirli is not in any way o^icn^ildy connci'tcii with that wliitli is piinltd or wrillm upon the face of tlic contiarl pn-scntctl toliini. I ainjrlad lo lind llial llici'c is noaullio?-- ilv for >ii«li a proposition in any of IIm* cases that iiavt' lu>rn cited."' liOi-d ("iii;i,Msroi!i), said : "'lln' F.ord Cliicf .In-'licc in llic cas(> of /Ctm.-: r. Si,n//i Knstirn linilirinf ('iiiii/i'iiii/.'^- wiii
  • cif hound Ity llic iiiillioritic-^ lo hold that when a man lakes a lick'>t with conditions printed on it. he must he presumed lo know the rontciils (d' it and niii-l l»i' hound Ity them. I was extremely anxious to he fid'erfcd to th<' authoiilies whi'h inllin-nccd Ihe jiidi:niciit of the Lord Chief .lustice; hill altlioiiLfh nuiiierou- authorities were li--liiii:.;' tliiil a pr( >uinprion scnl i- a (juestion of I'videncc, ami the a^^rnl niu>l lie iiiven hcforc lh<' coinplc- lioii of the cctntract. The ronipany undertake to convey pa>'ieni:crs in their M'sscIs for a certain sum. 'i'he nnuiieiit fhf nioiir\- foi' the pa, that lli«' money liuvinj; heen paid, and the ticket havinir heen taken up, a conlfaet was ((tmpletcd u)it for till- luoiicy v.liirli liiis hct'ii paid." 'I'ln' coiitlu-ictiis to III' di'awn from llicsc cases arc liiat a ticlvcl i> a mere voudicr of ijayiiiciit : liml llicrc must itc notice (o tlic ;ia>>''ii2i'i' <»r any «'oiitliti()ii i' may contain at or hcforc the coniiiieti(»n of the contract; ihat it i> imnia- torial wiietiiei a coiitlilion iimitini'' the cai-rier's lial)irily is contained on tin- face oi' the i»ael< of a ti<'i heeii caUed to it before the coniph'tioii of the contract, and that from the hare possession of the ticket conslructisc k;i(»\\ h-ilj^e of its conditions can not l»c presijine«|. A (hstinction i> taken i:i a New York ca>e"' l)et\veen or- tlinai'v steanilx at tickets and ocean >teani>hip ticket^, for the reason that an en;iaLri'inent for a \iiyai:'e across tlie ocean is a matter of more (h'lil»erati<»n and attention than ituyinu' !i raih'oad ticket or takinii" an expres-- company's receipt for Ijatr.il'aii'c or for freiirht, and that there is, tliereforc, no ri^oiij hi such a case for the suiiu'cstion tiial the paity is surprised into a contract, when lie supposes iiim>elf only to l»c takin<; a token indicative of iii> riiilit. in the ca^' referred to, ;;n ()c<'an steamship company, on receiving' a pa--enL:'er's fare, irave her a printed ticket siuncd l>y their ili'.'iiI, conlaininu- a stipuhition tiiat tlie company shouhl not i»e iialih' for h>>s of hai^'iraure excepi in ca-e of iiro^s ne;j:liL:<'nce of the company or its ap'iits, and tix'ii only to the amount of :{!.')(i, u!de--> a hill of ia(hni:" or receipt spccif\ ini^' the arti(le-> was sion.d ; and that money, jewelry and di \alual.h'>, wcrcjil thepas.-en- umed to tal;e char;:'c oi' it: hut the comp.mN' failed to produce or accoiinl for the trunk at (lie end (d" the \o\- a.' lo^s of the trunk and contents, it was jield that in tlie altsence of a I'il! of la '';!<; or receipt as specitied in tin' contract, a rec(i\'i\ (ould not "■■'Slfcr-' V. I.iNcriiiKil iVc. SU';Liii>lii|i I'o.. ."i7 N. V. 1 (Is7lj. f- --ri-H- -jjiffr '^^fsA-JSixxt^iSiSSX II. 1\ .] N(»TI( KS AM) TIlKIli i:ili:( T. 1 -Jl) l(c IkkI fill' (i\ci- iiTiO, and im fccoviry could Nc had fnv j<'\\- cli'v or silvci' ware. In an Knjiiisli case the fads and deci- sion were vciy >iiniiai'. A passcniicr liy >tcani('r from Anicrira paid tor and received a ticket from tiie aii'enls of tlic oivners, conlainin^i: a condition e\eni|itini:' tlic ovtiiers fidin iialiility in ca-^e of lo>>^ or detention of tiie siiip liy ac- cidents \;il Mail St-'iiii \:ivi:r:iti.>n ('.... IOC. I!. N . S. ir.:t (i>^tii). "■■Wfljs V. N. Y.f.ni. K. (•o.._M \. V.. |s| ist;;.: alllrmin<:, n. '■.. .Mi iJ.iih. r.il ; Siiiilli V. N. Y.c.nt. |{. < ....21 \. Will l-iiJ-: I't-rkhis v. N. V.i'i'iit. |{. Co.. 21 \. V. I'.Hi (iN(iJ). hi ilii' liisi case it is -aid: ••.\p|)l\ ill:.' lor a pas- or fi-rc liclvct: laUiiiv:it -..mi iiaviii<; it In liN [xx-irs- siii'i -uiuc -i\ or ciirlit liiiiii-i licfitrt' till' -larliiii;- of iIm- Ic liii in w liiili lie \\:i- lotro: ami lia\ iiii; hi- attfiiliiiii cxitrc— ly callrij lo its icfin-. la I..' in iiiiiiM (lidii Willi llif f.ni fMiiml 1>\ llii- jiiiy llial In' ^^asal llii' lliiic !nr-i'i| ii|i. Ill till' til ki't fi'iiiii vvhicha jiM'\ uin'lil lie aittliuri/i'il. lo iiii|ily siuh a-sfiii." •I MP 124 THK CONTIiACTS OF CAIMUKHS. [cm. IV Lwbe*^ courts ill the followiiiir cases; In tilossatii r. /)()(,■■>,'"'• al the time tliut a receipt for hajrptjrc was driven to tiie plain- tiff lie was in a car wliicii was so darl"' tile (hdendant's aircnt came into the car in wliicli the plain- tiff was si'ated, called for ltan the paper, hut sup- posed he was writini:' his address. The receipt was marke(| upon its maririn *' Domestic l)ill of ladin;r," and piii-ported to he a coiitracl rclieviiiu- the plaintiff from lialiilily l>evoiid !^1(M) ill ccrlaiii speciticd cases, amoiiL:' oth.cis a loss or de- tention thidiiuh his nei7i)). "• MkI.ui v. SJiiMMi-.l. 10 J. ^t. S. :{:>;j (1><77): 7:\ \. Y. :U0 (1S7S). CM. IV •] NOTIf'KS AND THKIK KKKKCT i2r» Ixiuiul to tn'iit the papt'i' a> a i'oiitiact wlicii \\v lakes it, ami imist be iissiinicd to do so. Hut in tho case of (.•arryin;/ a trunk from a railway station to one's residence l»y I'xpi-ess. and delivering; into tile iiands of an airent a eli«'ek eonlain- ini; the nundter, and receiving a reeeipt , does not neces- sarily "niply terms of limitation to !ie set down in \vrilinL^ It may lie an implied coniiact , and it mi^ilit or it mi^ilit not contain terms of limitation, in such a <'ase a person to whom the receipt is deli\«'red is not oMiiied, as matter of law, to make himself a<'i|iiaiiite(| with it^ terms and I'ound liy llicm as if he had done so."" Cii.ns, ( '. ,1.: •• No cas- liohls that a traveler rec«'ivint iiict ion di'aw n in the eases above re- feiM'ed to intended."" Andukws, .1. : •• The plaintiff a \ituciier to imk'.Mc him to follow I'.ml identify his property ; and if he had no notice that it was intcijfled to sidiserve any other purpose or that it einluidied the term- of a special I'onlract, his omission to read it u-is not />' r sr iH^uiiufenee. NN'hen a conii'act i< i'e(|uire'. hcrhr.^^" Llnilnn'ti'r r. M V.s/»7;//.'' ' niid iSnnih'rl(tii'. \\'i->ilriilf^-" arc to tin* same ('Ffcct. In IiidiMiia il lias Ix-cii held that a printed liiDitatimi on tlir liack of a cluck for i»ai:;ii-aii-c that tlic cai'iic!' will uoi Kc hoiiiul o\t T one liundi'cd dollar- in cax' of lo>s. is not 'lind- ini:' on the passcniicr uuh'ss his cxpi-css assent to the limita- tion is shown — the men* receipt of the check is no evidence of such assent,'-' the court referrinii' with conlidence to F^ord Ki.i.KNni)i!ot (ill's "noii-supposiiiL!: person,"'-- and saving:: "We inav well conclude that a passenj^er I'cceivini:- a nieial check fi»r his ItaLrpiii'e marked willi its (h'stinatiou and the numher would i>e '*non-supposin:f' of the release of the carrier's liahility stamped upon the other side." § lOiS. MtiiiiK'i' of Prliillmi Xnli<'i's. — Notices which show up<»n their face an attempt to distfuise their real purpose ohtain little sympathy from the i'onrt< — as when small type i> usetl to set out the conditions in oi'dcr that they may es- ('a|)e the attention of the (aistomer. It wa^ cai'ly said that a ni' I!) B:irt>. 'l^A (tMir,). '-" -J SwtM'Mi'y. •Jiiil (Isru). Till- pliihitifrs ilmiirliliT. iicciiinpMiiici! In- iUioilifr y(mnj; irirl. liflivfi'cil ;i dici'U fur ;i irimk in ilic clcik >if ii ii:m-- fcr ciiiiipaiiy :ii Ni'W Vlii' niiirhi in Iia\i' a iccciiii. ■^Iic niiiiiic(l tn ijic (|c>i» ami ()i'iiiaii(li'i| a ri'ri'i|ii n| ilic rlcrk. \\ Im liainlcil jut nnr in w lilcli. aninii!;' otln-r lliin;:'^. il was sii|iiilali'i| ihal liic ennipaiiy >iiniil(i imi he iialih- In an ainniint ixci'dliii;; ■'SKiii. iinlcss a s|ici-ial cnnliari wa- inailc. 'I'lic trunk ami its cnnii'iils were wmih 91111(1. Iml iinlliiiiti,' wa- salil a- li valiii'. iiciiliiM- iliil -lie rcail tin- r''i'i'l|(l nr :-i'c Its cniiti'iii- ni t.! ;i| i ; lin' lo-s nf the trunk. It ua- licjij jjial tin- iintjci! wa> iii('ffi'ciiia|. h-• (iSTlj). '-' liiiliaiia|inli- U. Co. v. {'>\s. ■.'!l iml. :5(iO flSfW). '-'-' Set- iiHli\ < 'a|p. IV. siT. !i;i. '-■( 'laytnii V. Hunt. :l < 'anip. il i\<\\). ( II. IV.] XOTKKS AM) TIIKIi; KKFKCT. \2: cicnl ((I render it ineCfeetiinl.'-' In mm old ease,'--' a liand- hill was iiaile(l upon the door of ll;e reeeiviiiu' olHee of tlie carrier wliifli stated in iarL'c piiut the many advantaiics of the route, and in small eharaeters at the l)ottom tli.nt the carrier would not l)e answerahle for Li'oods altove the value of i.'') uidess entered and paid for aecordinuly. Lord 10i.i.i;\n<)i!or(iii : ••This is not enoiiiih to limit the defend- ant's common law liahilitv. We have not sntKeient evi- dence of any s|)ecial contract. The jury ouiiht to believe that at the time when the trunk was delivered at th(> w.aijou ofliee the plaintiff or his aireut tiiei'e s:iw, or had ample nu' nis of .-(■(■in::, the terms on which the defendant carries on his husiness. How can liiis he inferred fi-om the hand- It;!! nailecl on tin- door, which called tiu' attention to everv- tliiiiu' that was attractive and concealed what was calculated to rcp^'l customers? If a common cari'ier is |o h(> allowed to !iniit his responsihility, he mu^t take care that everv one wlit) deals with him is fully informed of the limits to which lie conlines it."" In Hslin. '-'" (JiMco v. Ailiiiii-. !il!) M:i<-. .Vl.-i (IsfpS); IlDudlcy v. X.irliii'rn 'friUH. ('o.. liT) ."\Ia«. ;IUI (js7l): SniiJiT v. .\ilaiii< {•:\. Cii.. (;;{ Mo. :i7ii. I Cent. I.. .1. ITit (isriij. In Steel- V. I,i\er|io,il Ae. Sle:i in^ili]) Co.. .■>7 N . Y. 1 (1S71). the coniM. in -n-!alninir a enniliiiuM in ai can «te;iiiislii|) tieliet. say: ••A printeil^Wi'- ./ki/'. of iiii~ |ianer i< hefoii' h<. and alllioui;li part el' it IS in -mailer type tlian lie' r-'-l. n i part of it is in sneli type as to ■.Ui:u,es| lo ihe iniinl the iijea di' eoni-e.-iinienl as liie pdssilije motive for it liein^ tiiiis piin'ed. Ii |s all prinleil on one side of the paper, and all the piinted matter pre.-cdes the illf'lH'IMJ. Il-J. Ilill« of Ladiii;;-. IK!. Wrillcii ( oiiliaci ('oiii'lii>ivi'. III. ilfli'ct of Siil)S('(|iii'iit DcliviiT of Writing,'- IJmilin;.; Mahiliiy. ll."i. < 'ojjalci'al A.i^i'ci'iiiciit oi Sii|ipl('iii('iitary ("oiilrari .May lie Slio\\ u. in;. Oilier Cases Wlicic I'arol K\i(leiiee Adillissilile — I'laiid Mj-lilk«' — Duress. 117. 'I'll!' IJi^li.-li •• Railway and Caiial 'riallie Ael." IIS. ••.Iii>laiid |{ea-oiialile ■■ < diidiiioiis. Ilii. ('oiidltioiis .\o| ".lii^laiid h'ea-oiialile."" IJd. ( 'oiidilioiis .Siislaiiied liy Ihe .\iiierieaii I oiirts. I'Jl. I'lireasoiialile and \'oid ( oiidilioiis. I'J'J. Ue;illlatioiis ill llii- 'riall-|>orlaiiuii of |,i\e Sloik. \2'A. Means of Carryinir Ont ('oiidilioiis Mu-l lie I'l'iiviileil, 121. iii'^nijinee. l'l'>. I'sa^res and ('iisioins. •11 § ion. ( '//(D-dcfcr iij' J'Jiii/i/iii/iiK'iif Nnl Cluimjcil In/ ( 'on- (nivL — It lin.s Ik'cii .>s;ii(l in some cuscs ' llml wlific a liinitcd r(>sj)(>iisil»ility is conlractcd for l»y ;i (iiiiimiom •■arriri'. lio thcrcliy loses that cliaraclcr, and In'romcs a private carric;' or an ordinary liaiicc for liiic. ISiit this view i,s olivioiish in- ('orrcct . and is snpporlcd liy iicitlicr reason nor autliorit \ . It is only in the iili.-ciici' of coiitiad tiial the law dcliiics ilic ' A- ill I'emi V. r,ii;'tal<> A ■. I{- Co.. I'.l N. V. J(l| (|s7J): i.aUe M.or.' t^c. i{. ( o. V. I'.Ti.iiis. •.>,". Mich, :i-';i ( IS7J). /«/• (ir.ives. .1. (II. v.] CONTKACTS AM) TIIKIU KII r,( T. 1l'!I r('s|ioiisiliiIilic-i oF cKinnioii cnrrici's in their widcsl sense; iji llie purlies liave made lliei" own iin':iiii_'«'ineiil , lluit ((iiitiaei will i^oveni unless coiitl'arv lo llie |> (if llie carrier iiiav he moditieil Iti aiiv exieiil MJldWCil li\' law. In Udllrntil ( 'nm jui in/ r. /.or/.-irnntl,- .Mr. ,ltisiiee l)i!Ai)i,i;v referriMl 1(1 llie dixii^sion whieli Iliis siili- jecl lias received in tlic^e words; " It i> ar'.riieil," he said, "that a eiimniDU eai'i'iei-, hv eiiterin;.!' into a speeial eontraet with a partv for eari'vini;' his n'onds oi- |i«'rs(iii mi modilied terms, dn)i»> his ehai'aeler and lieeoiiies ;in ordinary luiilee for liii'e, :iiid thei'eftn'e iiiav make any eontiMet he |»lea-es. 'riiat is, lie mav make aiiv eontraet wliateNcr, Iter.Miise he is an (irdinarv Iiailee ; and he is an urdinarv liailee l»ee;iii-.i> he ha> made the con tract . ^^ e jire niialde to see the >ouiMiness of this i"e;i>oninjjf. Il >eeni> to n> more accurate to >ay that coinnion ciiri'iers arc -iich liy \iiiuc of ijicir occup.a- lidii. iii/l li\ \ii-|ne(d' the rcs|ioii>il>ilili<'~ under wliichtluv re-l . I lio-e rc-)»oii>il)ililii's may \aiv in dill«icnl coim- (ri''s Mini at ditTcrcnl times, without chan;:in^- 1 In- cli.tracjer of iIh' I ;ni>ioymenl . The common law .>nl;jccts the com- mon caiii''r lo iii-in.ince of the _;i)od> carri-.d. ••.\i-e|t| a-. a<;ain-! lh<' ai I of (ioil or pnMic enemies. The civil law ex- re|)|s, n\f(i, los-cs liy m.'aii-< (d' any -upeiior foi-c and any ilievila!»lc iiccjd.iif, "let ihe enij>lo\ nieul is ihe »ame in holli cases. Aij-i if l»y special aureemcnl ilie carrier is e\- empteil from still oiher risp(m»!l»ililies it doe> iioi fidlow thai his ciiijiloymenl is cliaiiii'tMJ, hut only liiat his I'esjiMUisi- Itiiilie-^ jire chanL'('d. The il!e(ny oceasion;dly anmouiM-ed, ihal a siMcial contract as to ihv Icniis ;;nd re-poii-ihilHVs of rari'iap' c'linti'^t'-- the naiuie ui' iln' eiiiplo\mcm, is cal»-u- lattdf/; mi>lcad. The respoiisihilil ie- of a common carrier max Ite icdi/ccd lo those of :tri (U'di:iai'y haiice fi^r hij'e, wlii|-.| the naliire of hi^ hiisiue^'. reuih-r^ him a c )iiniion carrier still. i- tlarc anv irood sense in liohlln^- that a rail- road coni)Miiy, wli()s«' onl\ hiisiness is lo cari'V passeii«:«'r.H 'J 17 \V;ill. ;!.".7 ( is7:t;< 11 M m n li l.'U) TiiK coNTitArrs or caimmkiis. [cii. V •iimI l''<»(m1s, iiiid uliicli \\;is crcjitt'd ;iii(l csljiitlislicd for ilmt jtiii'|K)sc iilinif, is t'li;iM;Lr<'y ihr lalfcr as- suiiifs llic risk of iiu-vitaMc arci(iciit> in the cairiatic of his •roods? Siippovf llic conlract rclMtcs to a sir;_d(' i rale of ^iass or crorkcry, wliils) at liic same lime llu' cai'i'icr rcccivc.- from llic same lurson tuciily oilier paiccis, ics|)eeliiiir wliicii no coiiliacl is itiade. fs tlie foiiipaiiy a piiMic eaiTier as lo llie twenty panels and a private eanier as to tlie one?" In a Mieliiiraii ease' M.m;ti\, (". J., illiist lales the status of the parties niidei' a special (oiitiaet. l>y the somewhat aiial- a_i;'oii> employment oF an iiin-keepei*. *' An inn-keeper is one who keep- a house open foi' the eiilertainmeiit of Irav- t'lers ; and the law, in hi- ea>e (as in that of eomnion eari'i- evs), imposes upon him >pe( iai lialiilities as to his iieli lialulity ma\' he lessened or restri<'led l)y a eontraet ix-tween the landlord and sueh i:'ne>t : and if it >hould lu>, I apprehend no one would eon-ider the foiMiier any the less an inn-keeper. He is still exei'ei-in<:' his pnltlie employment, and Itound l»y his primary ol»li<:'alion, namely, to entertain all pei>ons apply- ing: : ainl this olili^Tiilioii e.\leiid> in fa\()r of the traveler who may. hy spt-eial i'oiilra<'t, have rtdeased him from some or all of the extraordinary lialiilities imposed l»\ (he Iii\s in his behalf, [t is upon the ha -is of his holdinc- sneli • haraeler that the eomiaet is made."' For llie>e n-a.-ons a piirly eiiL''af.''ed a- a ediniiion <'airier ean not. l",- derjaiin^- or slipulillill^ (lull he sIimII not he so considered, divert hiliiseH' c al-0 lhtsiii»(iU V, (iniliiiiii, -2 Olil'i Hi. jilj /|Nri:ii: (iniliiiiii v. |)|ivi<. I III. :'>i;2 nsrd): Hwhldll'l' V, llllllnnl. I Idcli. (S. <'.) 2\n . IM-7^A• (11. v.] rOXTUACTS AMI IIIKlIt Kll r.< i;ii § 110. I^.iiijil ill Sjtirldl ('iiHi'S, — "A comiiKiii ciinicl" iii!:\ , iiii(l(»iil>t('(lly, Ix'ciiiiic a private canicr, or a Itailcc foi* liirc, when a> a niatter of aeroniniotlalion or speeial eii- /aiiemeiit, lie iiiitlertakes to earrv sniiulhiiifr uliieji it is not his business to carry, l-'or example, if a carrier of pro- duce, ruiniiiiLi' a truck Itoat ltet".\eeii New VorU city ami Norfolk, shouhl l>e i-e(pie>te(l to carry a keir of specie, or a load of expeiisi\(' furiiiiure. «liicli he could justly nfu^i' to take, such .•ii'reenieiii nii^iht lie Miad<' in reference to his takinjj: and carryinii' the same as the parties eho^c to make, not invol\intal»li'-lii'd l»usi- ness foi- carryiiii:' ail or ceitain articlo, and especi.dly if that carrier l»e a corporation ci'cated for the pwi'posc of the cari'viui:' tratle, and the eari'iai;*' of the articles is eniiir.iccd within the scope of its ehartered p )w»'rs, it is a c(unmon carrier, and a special conli'act ahoul its respoiisihility does not divot it of the character."' '■ vj 1 1 1 . Cniilniil lluir h'rii/riirci/. — Altiioui:h in this <'oinitry there is no t:('neral law i-ei|uirinu" contracts limitinir the lialiilities of eominon carriers to l»e in writinir, and >uch contray paidl.' t he dilH- «ulty (d" proNinii' an express aifrcement to wai\e any pait of the (ariicrs duties jn imy ease renders it lu'cessaiy that ncLiotiations of this characlei' should l»i' evidenced l»y some- thing: UKU'c dclinite than mere words. It has thci'etorc he- c(une the almost univeisal practice f(U' (lie carrier at the time of llli' t'i'cclpl (d' the ^MO<{s |o pi|| hi ^U'ilJlig the terms Upon which they are receivetj fid' lh||h|i(i|'l(lll(ill. Hl|('l» »iitiii Ac. II, ri), V. |'||Mr. l:t \\:\<. ."id;. ils7l): Ul..s«i.iii \. (Iiillin. 1:1 N. V. , ■){;'. i (ls.".(i). ' Mr. .In*llic Mnidl.-y in i{Miln.;i.| < '... v. I.dcliu 1.7 WmII. ;i:,7 (IS7:!). ' AiiiiTitaii Trail'. Co. V. Mcum. ."> Mirji. ;|i|,s txri"*ii |>iitiiiv. lliiiniH'r. i:{ l.;i. .\iiii. I-".-' Is.-.S): |!..l,ci!> \. jJilty. 15 |,a. Ana. Ifi.l tsllOj ; Mlicj- l>'ii V. M. c.. ,")!) N . V. 'J.Vs (\>7\ . I il i;j-> TMK niNTIfACTS or CMMJlKItS. [tricliic-.> a liill (if hidiM'i is the iiclxiioulciliiiiii'iit jfivfii l>v till' iii;i-t( r nf i\ \ »■>>«•! si-ilinir (111- rci('i|ll of ill*' jroods, SI't tiller "Ht lln' «'llHr!|y;(illil|lt tuc.ll'IV iiikI ii>ii!'ii"t'. "lie rclMiiii'il liv I III' ((iiisiiiiior :iimI niic liv tlic niMstcr.' nm >iiiiil;ir iii>lniiiiriits, cx.ciit tlint im diipli- cillcs Ml'»' lllililr. iil'c now il-rd liy cMlTicl'-- liy l.-iliil, :iiii| :iic ;i|s(i <|('iii>iiiiii:itt''l liill^ <•!' I:iri'li\cd to tlic dr^rri|iii<)ii ; and llic imni'i's dclivt'i-i'il l>y rNpcc-- coiiiiianio ai'i'(d' like <'liaracl('r. ' A Kill of ladinu' i> lln rt'foic at oiict- a iTccipl and a coii- Iract; and so fiir !i> il is incicly llic foriiiir il may In- varied or cuiilradiclrd liy jiaroj r\ idciict'.'" 'I'lnis the (|iiaii- tilv of i:(»ods rci'i'ivi'd, the (■onti'ii(> of lioxcs or halc> or (he liUt', and tln'ir value or condilioii, may l>e shown Itv parol to lie different from the >tatemeiils regard ini;' them made in the receipt." So, one who forwards i^oods l»v ex- press is not ali.-oliitely etnieliidcd hy a I'eeilal of the value eoiilailied in file express receipt. Me may >liow. for ili- stanee. not witlistandiiiL:' thai the receipt \aliies the pacl recci\cd liy the com- pan\'s ae-eiit with full kimw Icdn"!' that il eoiilaiiied a much laru'er sum ; and on such |)roid' licinn' niade, the lialiilily of l!ie company for loss i-> not limited to lif'.y dollars. '-' ^ 11."). Will till Cituii-drl ( '(Hicliis!)-!'. — liiit in rc>pecl to the aLii'eemeiil to carry and deliver the t;ood>. the hill of lailinu' or oila r writini;' dili\crci| and accepted a> the auTee- inelit lietwecn llie parlies coii^t iliiles, with it- exceptions, " Alil")ll"~ Law i»ii-ii(iiMi-.v, 1 |.s. '•' Aiiti' Cap. IV. it Wl. I" (\^K V. I'clcrsi.n. Hi) Ala. iii>-« i |s,-)7 i ; Wayland v. Mn^cliv, .". Ala. Il'.i) (I8l:»); MfViT V. I'fck. -js N. V. .V.io (Isiili. Sr.' //..v/. ( ',ip. \ III. ■•(id...! ( ifdiT ami ( 'ciidiliipii." ••N'aliic ami ( 'iiiil<'iii> 1 tiluiuw ii."" 'riic iii|iii()ii l' lailiiiu' is a jtarl nl' tlic cuiitiaii. li'oliin-iMi \. Mi icliaiil-i Ui-ipali'li 'I'laii^. I 'n.. I'l liiwa. I7ii > |s77i : Slew mi \ . Miiiliaiil- hi-jiali'li 'rraii-. I n.. 17 liiwii. i'AW (I.s77j. II ll.i.i. I- Kcmlicr V. SniilliiTii Mxiut'-- ( 'u., -J-J I, a. .\iiii. l.'iS (_ls7(l) ; .Sdutli'-ni Mxprc-s ('(). V New liy. :!ii (Jr. ii;i."i (|S(;7). ^ ■ ■.■-'x i;.'iiiii;r prt-suiiiiMl to do >o with his eyes open, and in tlu' al»>t'ii«t' t)f IVaiitj or inisiaki' lan not lif allo\\rt| to prt'ti'iid III aLiii'f to thai whicli it is his intfiitioii al'lciuards tti rt'pii- dialc. Sijtji a fontral is to he foii>t rufti liki" all ttthcl" uiitti'ii ctfiitiMt't*. iiffofdiiiir to the It'^ral import td' ii^tiTms, aid It may ii-ly fxciiipts tin' fai ritT I'liiiii liiliilily for (tilain losers, will he 'toiiiid liy the tf-iii' til' the tvcmpiioii, allhoiiLih at tlif timt' landimi tlii- fliiiM-. tlii.> licini: nifrcly an opiiiitm as !<» thf lc,i:;il .dT.'ct <>( ihf liill (d" ladiinr.'-' Iiili', ii ■■ ill llic ca-i' (d' ollii'i' I'oiitiMcts, ihf writing liccoiiif^ till' -oil' ('\ iilciiic id' the midcrtakiiiir ami all anlc- cfdciit aiiTi-cmfiils or uiidfrtaUiiiiis :irc mcriifd thcrt'in ami i'\lim;iiis|icd tlicniiy.''' As uhcrt' the foiiti'aft stipniatfs '• ItMiiK i.f KriiiiiiKy V. Ad. nil- i;x|irrs. ( i... !i;t I'. >. 17l(ls7(ii: I i'.iil. I.. .I.;i.". I><7i; : Vi'iU ( niniinnv v. < 'fiilr.il l!ailii>:iil. :! \V;ill. H>7 ilsc", : (;i;i(r V. Ail.im-. 1(1(1 Mii>-. ."id.'i (Isc.s); Will- V. SicMiii Nav. t'ii..s N. V.;;7.") ils."i;ti: |>,.ir v. New .li'i-rv Stciiiii Nav. Cn.. II N. V. IS.'iJS.'ilj; i\illJ;iiMl \ . |li|i-|i|i«n'. (IJ N. \. 171 (, I '**'"•"') • Sec -ni/- . ( Mp. iV. s< IdJ. '^ While V. Van KiiU. -J."! It.irli. Ki (IS.V.): WCIIf v. Mvcr-. :i Siiiiilf. 7 (ISI'.M: Cox. V. l'<'iri>nii. ;f(i Ala. (Ids (IS.-.7): NVii\laii(l v. Mnsrliy..'i Ala. ■i;i»> ( |st:t) : |{(iliiMls V. Uilcy. I."> l.a. Ann. Kill (iMid): linli:iii;i|i(ilis itc. i;. ('(1. V. Cciniiiy. i:t Inil. .Ms (Is.V.i) : (i|i|iciilii'iiiicr v. Inilc(l .smii's K\. Co.. c.'.i III. c.J ( |S7;() : ,^/^ < ',i|i. |\'. ;; Ki-J. '• I'cnili.'riuii ( '.p. V. New Vuik ( 'ml. K. ( 'n.. Idl .Mas<. 1 II (|s7d). "■'."Suiiilii'i 11 i;\|iii'-- (ci. \ . Dick-dii. ill f. s. ."»r.i (ls7(l) : < 'nllcmlcr v. I>iii-nic>r('. .">."• \. Y. 2d i i |s7;ti : l.diii: v. New Y (ls7J): l$i'l;:cr V. Kisi-iiiiiri'. ,"il \. Y. Iii(i (ls7:>). In Collcndfr v. I»iii-nic.ic. sii/ird. it \\;i^ >:iltl : ••Then' arc c.'isc^ Imlili..';- in cfft'ct lliat tin- piicir ii('^'i(ii;iiiciii< ;iiiil cum n-;iii(in of the pMrtii'-' can lie jrivcn in cvi- (li'iiiT. w lien ilicic i- .'III ,iinlii::iiiiy. to show in \\li;il scn-r icirticniar worcl- or |ihra-i'> were ii-cd liy ilic |i;Mii('-. in niiikiiiL:' lIu' conlnift." I'iiini;' >ildiii v. Williiini-. a Wiiils. li (IsllH): (iiiiy v. Il;ii|ii'r. I Shiry. ."•71 js|i,: Ki.|,ihi,. V. I, nil.:'. .Mfl.iMn. Jll ilsiit). Hut Kt'inlilc v. I. nil ( s^v^'Ttmrnf'^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) c / o {/ .1^ V wa u. 2e 1.0 :.i 11.25 ui Iti ^ tiS. 12.0 I ^IJi^ Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. M580 (716) 872-4503 1 :\ i;;4 TllK CONTIJAt'TS OK CAIMMKns. [('II. ^. i! 1 thill tlir iioods iiiav be forwarded by Jiny ciirrici-, SiC, cvi- d(MU'0 of a verbal direction niveii by tlie shipper at ihe liiiit^ is iiKuhiiissibh'.'" § 114. h'ffhi of Sii/)Si(jii(')if Dc/ircri/ of W'n'fiiif/s IJiiiil- ini" hands him pi'inted re<'cipts for the o-oods containinii' exceptions in his favor, and it docs not ajipcar that the contents of the i-eceipts were made known to tlu) bailor and assented to by him, the former agreement will not bo affected by the receipts, but the liability (d" the carrier Avill remain as at common law.'-' In Boshrick r. /io/Z/'i/iorc dv'. Ji'difroatf CoiiijHiiit/,'-''^ it was held that where iioods are shipped under a verbal aare<'mcnt, a delivery two days thereafter of a bill of ladini!' containinu' conditions Avould be ineffectual to protect the carrier. In ///// '•. *S'//- racHsc ii'c. lidiJrodtl x.'odi/hdii/,'-^ the plaintiff delivei'cd to the defendant a (luantity of wool upon a parol aii'i'eement Avith an ag-ent of th(> company that it would I)e shipped within two v.eek.s. Afterwards, and upon the same day, receij)ts were jriven to him by which the defendant was ex- empted from all liability ai'isin<>- from delay. The plaintiff did not examine the receipts, except to see that the weiaht was correct, and did not notice the <'onditions until the next ilccidps iiolliini; of tlio kind. 'I'lic coiirt only rcinirkcil tlnit llicrc \\;is no iinihiiiuily in tlic rontraci and lliiil parol cvidcnci' wa- iioi adniis-.ilil<' to ('X|)iain or \ary il. '"Hinckley v. Xfw VorkCiMil. i<:c. 1{. ('o.. .".(i N. V. Iii'.i (1S7I). '"Shell on V. Mereiiants Di^pateli Co.. :!('. \. Y. S.( '.j .")-J7 (ls7;i). '■'Collin V. New York <'eni. 1{. (Jo.. CI ISarl). ;!7'.i i Is7"j). •-'" !.■> X. Y. 71-.' (1S71). -'S Jlim. -JUii (lS7il); reverse(.'d in tlu' reociptsi and that tlu! plaintifr was entitled to ret-over. On appeal to the Court of Ai)peals this rulinu" was reversed, the hitter court distinii'uishiii^' it from llie liostirirk caj-e, on the ground tliat so short a time haviii*,^ ela[)sed between the [)aroI aji:reement and tlie delivery of the paper, they shouhl he eonsitUnvd as parts of tlie same ti'ansaelion. A carrier can not, after a h)ss has occurred, I'estriet his Hal'ilily hy siiiiilnj:' and (h'liverin conipaMy notiticd liiin that lii('\ liad cars in wldcli to sliij) it. 'I'liis tlicy afterwards did, and tlic balance of the wool was delivered to and aecei)ied Ity Iheni, iit wliicli lime llie sliipper siiiiied a shipping- request which eontaiiieil cer- tain exeniplioMs in favor of tlie company. Some of the wool haviuf? been lost before the balance was shipped the exemptions were held not to ajiply to that. Detroit I've. J{. ( d. v. Adams, 1.") .Mich. .l.")8 (18(17). A jiaekai^e w;is delivered to a cairier at New York, marked •• Iowa City."* and a receipt ;iiven to the consignor, which entitled him to il hill of ladinj;-. Some days after, the eairier. knowiiii'' tliat the ^tiods hud been destroyed //' tnini^itn at ('liica;io. j:;ave the shipjier a bill of ladinj;' which undertook to carry tiie package only to ('hica,n<). //<7(/. thai the bill of ladin;,^ was of no effect to rc-triet the cairicr's liability. Wilde v. Mer- chants I)i>|iiitcli Trans. ( 'o.. -17 Iowa. 217 (ls77). -* Uotl V. uiiismore. Ill .Mass. -l."> (1872). 41 h\ i « I 13() THE CONTRACTS OK CAKUIEItS. [Cll. V I I m tninsportcd subject to the coiulitlons expressed in the hill of hidinir, tlie hivter in the ahsenee of fpiiud hinds tlie con- si<>nor. '*'•'' In a case of this kind the court said: "It flhe receipt] advises the consiunor Avlicre lo apply for hills of latlinir, and provides that the merchandise is lo !)(• for- warded suhject to the conditions contained in the l)ill of hulinir, to the point to which the hills of iadiui:- would he iriven. The consignors were notilicd that the contract was not the one which the law would imply from the simple de- livery and recci[)t of the merchandise, hut that it was to !)e such an one as should afterwards he cmhodied in a printed and written hill of ladiniz'. 'i'he consiii'uois miiiht ha\c pro- cured the hill of ladinu" Ixforc the i^oods were shipped, or miirht have directed lliiM the a'oods he not moved until the hill of hidinu' had been procured. Then if the tci'ms con- tained in the hiil of ladinu' were nn-^ati.-lactorv or wei'c not assented to, they mitiht refuse to make the siiij)ment . Hut havinii: permitted the iioods to p) forwai'd under an ai^ree- ment that the tei'ins of shipment should he contained in a hill of lading", they * * nuist hi' hound hy whatever terms are in iiood faith inserted in the hill of ladiui:'/" § 11'). Coihitt-ral AiP'i'i'Uicnt ov iSiipplciiK'tifari/ ('(nifrdcl May he ^S/ioini. — Hut thouiih parol evidence is not a! I'a. St. 77 (KSi!7). '-'^ Malpas v. Lomloii itc. K. Co., L. !{.. 1 C. T. oMi (ISW). CH. v.] CO.NTKACTS AM) TIIKIII KrFKCT. 137 stated ill Iiis l)ill of liidiiiii'.-'^ And where a fieiulit 1)111 does not appear on its faee to lie Ww eoiitract of a railroad coni- l)any, i)arol evidence is not adniissil)le to show that it is the contract of the comijanv.'-"' § IK). Ollicv (Utscs Wlio-c /'(iri'/ Erldcnc' AihutHKible — Framl — Mlslaki' — Diirfss. — 'I'h*' hailor may, of course, show, not withstandinir the jxjsscssion by him of the carrier's receipt, tiiat hv never, in fact, accepted the paper as a contract hindini:' lietnccn himself and llie carriei-. '''" In a very hite <'asi' in Illinois, th(> receipt of an exjjress compar.v contained a c:indili<)n tliiit if the value of the irood; sci'.t wci'ciiot stated the carrier w > udd not !»e liahUi i'oi' (i\('i' $."ili. Three pacl-iau'cs of expensi\-e fur.-, were de- livcind hy the shipiM'r to ',he coinpan\ without anythinij; lieinu" said aliout tiie value, a.nd ucre v lire in transit. To overt ne this clause in the receipt, the plain- tilT on tiie trial otu'red evidence to prove that the conii)any, tiii'nuiih its aLi'ents, had solicited his patronau'c on the same tci'nis as other companies, vi/., that the u'oods in Avhich he dealt shoidd l»e taken on n(»n-valuation rati's, which offer tlie court rejected, 'i'iiis rulinu" was rcvi'rsed on appeal. "It Avas," said S'ott, ,]., " most important evidence, tendinj^ to show why no valuation was slated. If not re(pnred to do so by express conti'act with defendant, or hythe uniform course of business with defendant and other carriers, then tlie i)laintiffs were not bound in the tirst instance, unless in- »e. b ■ eoiistrned in a t 'clinical seii^e. JJlossoni V. Gritlin, lU N. Y. nci) (is.-)i;). ia« THE CONTI£ACT8 OF CAIMMKlCS. [cn. V. r- sm I • quired of conccrniiij; tlic actual value of the uoods, to state anv valuation. The teslinioiiy excluded was important for another reason, as tendinji' to show why neither party paid any attention to the limilation clause in the icceipt taken for the iroods. ( n the under.standinu' such iioods as the plaintiffs were shipi)in«i!; were to I)e and had heen received and carried at non-valuation rales, neither i)arty was inter- (>sted to consider tlie limitation clause. It was evidence, to say the least of it, that tends to sliow that neither jjarty attached any importance to thai clause in the receipt." " Fraud and mistake may also ,»e sliowi.'- A\'hei'e the slii[)per of p)ods who has previou>iy entered into an oral uirreement with a common carrier, takes a I'cceipt for tin; same, he has a I'iuht to assume, in the sihsence of notice to the eontriiry, that his agreement is cnil)i'aced in the pa])(>r or receipt, or at leas that his i'ecei[)t contains nothinii; to the contrary; antl it is in the nature of a fraud on tlu> |)art of the carrier havinjr entered into su«'h oral agreement, to insert in the receipt a contract of an entirely different char- acter, and present it to the shipper, without callin;:,' his no- tice to it or lic'tting his assent.'' in an KuiiHsh ea.-i' the l)laintiff at the time the jroods were deliveri'd at the defend- ant's warehouse, heini!: asked hy a clerk to si^n a paper, ex- pressed his unwilliniiness to do so, because he could not see to read it, whereupon the clerk said it was of no conse- (juence and that the si<>i;'!ture was a mere matter of form. The plaintiff relying upon these assui-ances signed it, l)ut it turned out to he a contrai-t limiting the defendant's lialiility. It was held by the Court of Common l*leas that the jjlaintiff was not bound.'' As a common carrier can not coerce th(! owner to yield assent to a limitation of rt'sponsibility by "'Rortkowitz V. A(l:uiis IOxijit-js Co., !) Cciil. I,. .1. :JS!1 (lS7i)). '"-'I'lio Wisroiisiii V. Yoiui;;'. :i(i. (iivciic. JCS (IS.")!) ; Meyer v. Teck, 28 X. Y. .V.Mt (ISIM); CoUemler v. Dinsmore. ."».". X. Y. :>()() (is;;!); Ldiii^ v. Xew York ('cm. II. ("o.. ."iO N. Y. 7'i (l>!7:2); I{el.ii,'er v. Diu-inor.', 51 X. Y. KiC) (1S72); Ail:iins Express Co. v. (iiilliric. ii liiisii. 7S (is7-Jj. ■■"Stroiiii V. D-troil iS:e. ii. Co.. -Jl Wi^. TmI (ISi;7). "^ Simniisv. Great U'esterii |{. Co.. 2 C. 15. (N. S.) i'di) (lS."i7). <'II. V CONTKACTS AM) TIIKlIi EKKKCT. l.ill iniikiiiir cxorhitiiiit cliiirjjfcs when his assent is refused to ii coiulitioii liinitiiiir llic ireiiei'iil liahility of tlic carrier,''' it has I)eeii said in one <'ase tlial wliere tliere exists an extra- ordinary necessity for tlie innne(hate transjxn-ialion of LToods and tiie cari'iei" refuses lo lake tlicni except unih'r a speciid conti'act, liie exact ion of siieh a contract ouiilit not to he sanctioned — sucii unreasonahle extortion I)ein ('o. v. Nock. 2 Diiv. '>i'>2 (ISIH!). It i^ siiidiii ii Coii- iiccliciil cMsc tli;it llic fuel lliMl llic sliiiijicrs liiid c'iii-imI bills (if liulinij to lif priiilcil for llicji' o\\ II I'oiivciru'iic'c. mikI Ii;i(i Iiccm in the li;il)il of lilliiii;' iqi lil;iiiks for lliciiisclvc-i iiiid tlicii sciiiliii;^ lliciii to llic ciuricrV .•lii'ciii to sitrn. would ciiliii' dls|iro\c tlic plci of coii^iiiNioii in olMMiiiiii;;' iIk' ;is- sciii to till' coiiditioiis. i,;i\\ rciici' v. Nr\v \ork iSic. H. Co.. ;!i) ( 'oiiii. Ii:? (|s(;!)). •'•■ ( 'hoiiicniix V. I.i'cch. is i';i. St. 'JJI iis:,2): Wnnlrii v. (Jricr. li Wiiits. (21 (l.s.{7). •■'■'* 2 Duv, ,")(;2. I i iU --^v; -^iiiMiittiiiiilBij '" 140 TIIK CONTliACTS (tr CAKIMKKS. [(■II. V. .1, lu'ss to prove tliiil he did not icud or midcrstand, and did not iU'ccpt the condition liiuitinir the ciiiTicr's lial)ilit;v, uiid ill the al)si'iic(' of such full and complete understandiuir and acce[)taiice, tlie carriers were lial)le for a loss of the i^oods to their fidl value. § 117. 'I'/ic rJiKiilsh "'■ I'liHirdi/ (iikI ('(Iiki/ Tnijfir Acf." — The Enji'lish statute known as the '• lJail\va\' and Canal TraiHc Act,"" '■' and nliich has already hci-n referred to, makes notices l)_v railway and canal companies, liniitini:- their lia- l»ilit\' as carriers, void : l)ut it does not prevent them from enterinu' into spe<'ial contract-; foi" llie cai'i'iai:'e of i^oods, j)rovide(l the condition- c(intaine(l in >ucli conir:ict are such as lire held " ju--t and re:ition I'chitini:' ihci'cto i- trie(|, and pi'o- vided tile conlracl is siLjiied !>y the party dcliverlni:' the le. Ix'comes "just and I'casonalile " if an alternative is left to the pai'ly forwai-dini;' or dclivei- inir the u'oods to enter into a contra<-l wliich is "ju>t and I'casonahle." ^" The <|uestion as to what are to he (()ns!(h'i'ed as "just and reasonahle "' conditi(uis, as these words !»i-e here used, has been before the Hniilish courls in mnnei'ous cases. § lis, '•'■ Jitsf (tiiil lit'dxondhlc" ( 'oiiilithhiK. — I'lidel' this statute the followinji" conditions have heen held to i>e "■ just, and reasonable," and thei'ef(»i'e within the power of carriers of this class to impose u|)on their custrMMcrs by special con- tract : That " no claim for damaire will be allowed uide;-s made within threi' days after the delivery of the jioods, nor for loss uidess made within three days aftei- they should have been delivei'cd ;"" " that in the case (d' li'oods conveyi'd at special or mileage rates the company will not be respon- ■^' 17 iiiid IS Vic. eh. ;!1. § 7. Sec auto. Cap. II. <; -27. ^ (;all:i,:;licr V. (ircat Western H. Co.. S Ir. ('. F>. (N. S.) :'.-J(l (is7l). '• Simons V. (;i-eat Wesleril \{. Co.. IS C. 15. s(ir> (IS.")!;); Lewis v. (ireat Western \l. Co.. .") II. iV: X.8(;7 (IsdO). jjiil see (iarton v. Hijstol Ae. it. Co.. I IJ. & S. 112 (lS(il)./K.r Coekhiirii. C. .1. cir. v.] CONTItACTS AM) TIIKII! KKl'KCT. in sihK' for any loss or (liiui!i_ for further conveyance;"'' that lish would only he couveyeil Itv a railwav I'V spci'ial agreement liy piirlicular trains, and that the si'uder should siii-nthe fojldwini:' conditions; " The companv shall not he respousihle und( r any circumstances, f(ir loss of market, or for other loss or inj(n'y ai-isinir froui delay, or detention of train, exposure to weather, stowage, or from anv cause whatever olhci' than u'ro>s lu'iilect, or fi'aud ;" " that "the company will not l)e respoii,-,il)le for any damau'c to any meat on the !i,"r(tund of loss of mai'ket, jji'o- vided the >ame he delivi-red within a rcasouahle tiuu' after the arrival thereof ;" '■' that horses shall he carrieil at. tho owner's risk."' A contract to carry »• at owner's risk" is not unreasonahle whci'e a <'arrier offers to carry in this way for a le>s price than where he insures; that fact heinu" known to tin' employer. The carrier would still he lia!)le foi- misconiluct : hut the jiackinu' of Li'oods hy his servants in such a manner as to cause their injury would not l)e miscon- duct, unless the servants knew that iiijuiw wouhl result from the manner of packiii,!:'.'' A party sent cattle uiiiler the care of a drover, to I)e carried Ity railway. .\t the time of receivin (isdd): \\U\\<- V. r,vr:\{ \V.'«lcni U. Co.. -' C. 15. (.\.S.) 7 (1S.")7). <■■ I.onl V. Midhiuil U. Co. I.. li. 'l C. P. lilil) (\Si'u). "'• .MrCaiicc V. l.oiiiloii \f. 1\. Co.. 7 II. >S; X. -177 (ISIH"); Caimcll v. Foril. .") I.. T. (\. S.) (!l)l. (},. 15. (IMII) ; Harrison v. Loinloii Ac. R. Co.. •1 15. I'i S. \-2 (ISCO) : \Vicd for the car- riau"e of ^oods, which were entirely <'lose(| on evei'y side, and could only he opened hy a s.irl of lid or slide, 'I'hc drover saw all this aiul did not complain, and the train started with the cattle in these vans, and the (lr(»ver in a railway carriau'e. ( )ii arrivinn' at thi! end of the journey it was found that the lid of one of the vans had for some un- ascertained cause heeii closed, and on openiliij: it some of the cattle wore found siiff(»cateii and others much injured. Those in the other van where tlu' lid remained open arrived safe. The stipulation was considered by the court a "just, and reasonahle " condition. ^"^ § 111). t'(>ti(lifii)iif< \()f ^'Jiisf (111(1 I/cdsoiKihfc." — A con- trary conclusion has hecn reached hy the Knulish courts re- gardinii: conditions of this character: That a railway com- pany conveyinji' cattle shall he exempt from liability for loss however occasioned :"' that the company will not he ae- ('ountal)le for the " loss," detention or damau'c of any pack- aect to any loss or damaire arisiui;" +'*L'iir(litij,'t(.ii V. South Wales J{. Co.. 1 ll.it \.:{!)2; -J .Fur. (\.S.) 1210 (\s:>r,). *■' J{(iotli V. Xortli Kustcrii H. ("«>.. L. H. •> Kx. 17;{ (ISd?). *" Siinntis V. (ircaf Western II. Co.. IS C. 15. SO.') (IS.VI; ; (jartoii v. IJris- tol &v. 11. C< .. 1 15. its. 112 (ISdl). •"'' (JivM-oi-y V. Wc<; Mlillaihl K. Co. 2 11. it C. !»44 (ISIM). i (11. v.] (•()NTI!A(TS AM) TIIKIK r.llKCT. ill the loiidiiii;" or \iiilt)!i(IiiiL'', from siilTocMtioii or from liciii^ lr:im|)l('(l upon, liniiscd or otlicrwisc injured in tli(^ traiisil, from tire oi- from aiiv oilier eiiiise wlial soever ;" ''•' that tli«^ owner of eallle is to see lo (he ellieieiiev of the waLi'ons lie- fore liis stock is placed liiereiii, eoin|»lainl (o he made in wrilinjx to the eompaiiN "s ollieer l»efore lh(^ wau'cm leaves the station ;"' (hat a railway eompany is (o I)e free from any iii- jiiiT however caused to eatth' cari'ied l)y them in eoiise(|uene(^ (d' over-carriajje, detenJion or dehiy, even thouu'h the I'ate chai'ji'ed for earria^^c is reduee(| (he sum ordinarily demand- ed ;'*'tha( a railroad eompany for\vardin<; •ji'ood.H beyond its lines in vessels owiK'd and employed l>y if should not he I'e- sponsilile for any defauH or neulii;-ence of (he mas(er or any of the olHcers or crews of the comi)any's vessels/'' A cus- (omei', on delivi'rinjJT some horses (o be carrie*! by a railway company, sitnied a ticket , on which was (he foll()win<>' mem- orandum : "This (icUe( is issued, subjee( to the owner's undei'taUini"" all risks of conveyance, loadinji' and indoadinj^ w hatsoever, as the company will not be responsible for any injury or damage, howsoc'ver caused, occurring' to live stock of any description, (ravelin;^ upon the railway, or in their vehicles." This it was ruled was no( a "just and reasonable"' (•((iidition, ami that the (ruck in which the h irses Mere con- veyed heim:; defective, and the horses havinj^ in tlio course of the journey knocked a hole in it, by means of which they injured (hemselves, (he co)ni)any was lialdo.'"" .Vn owner of sonu' marble chimney jjieces desired to send them to London. Messaires and notes passed between him and (lie aji'ent of the railway com|)any, on the subject of tlio terms on which they were to be carried. 'I'he agent stated ■'•- (irt'i^ory v. West Midliitid II. Co.. paxt. ■''•'(;rc,i;i>ry v. Wi'sl Miilliiiid K. <'(>.. 'J II. it ('. !M 1 : 10 .hir. \. S. -IV.',: :i.! L. J. lOxcli. Cli. ir).-.: 12 W. U. r)2S (ISOl). ■■■• Allduy V. (iicat W.'sttTu K. ('()..."> 15. A S. !)(>:!; 11 Jiir. (X. S.) 12 (ISC) I). ■'■•'■ Doelaii V. Director- cV;c. MiiUaiid K. Co., I.. 1{. 2 Al>p. ('as. 7'.)2 (I'^^r?). ■•■' MrMaiius V. I.aiirashiiv. I'ic. li. Co.. i II. i.t \. ;!27 : :> .)ur.. (\. S.j i 1 Tin: (•()MI!.\< rs ()|- CAlilJII'.KS, [cm. V mi as ii coiidititiii tlial llic conipiiiiv uoiiM not Ik- rc.-poiisihlc Tiir - clanMl, and (ln'V were "hi-'Iii'imI, llic rate of iiisiiraiic;' liciii'j: lixctl al 10 per <'i'iil . r in transit and eon- vi-yance, or \\hiUt in the company's vehicles or on their pn-miscs. 'I'he court decided that this was unjust and un- reas(uial)le, and could not lie aided hy an alternative eondi- lion, whereiiy th<' company olTei'cd to »Mintlei'take the ri>k of con\'eyance only, in consideration of an additional payuM'Ut of -I' per cent, on the low rate of charuic, hut refused lo cnteilain any claim I'oi' damaiic sustained l»y any animal conveyed at sucii additional rate, unless the injui'V was .slated and pointed out to lieinii' unjust, and unreasonaMe. § 1-0. ('(iiiiiltliiiiK Sushi! ii<'(h 1,1/ ihi' AiiK'i'icii ii ('iiiir's. — In the I'liited State- a condillon commonly insertdi li\- com- mon carriers in tlieii' contract.^ relates to the time and man- ner of presentini:' claims for (himaircs ; and the courts have lieen lihcral in siistaininii' such rcizulalions. In /■Jx/nyss ('ot/ip(tiii/ r. ('(//:/ ir< //;■'' \{ w'Ms lii'Id livlhc Supreme Court of the I'liited Slate-; that a condition imposed hy an express •cr>i (is.-.!)). •'" IVolvV. Xm-lii Stiit'l'orilsliin' R. Co.. iO II. I.. Cii-^. 17:!: li.tiir. (\. S.) 1)14(1802). ^•* r.Ioyd V. Wiiiorfoi'd iV:c. IJ. C... IT) !r. ( '. ].. ^X. S.j ;!7 (tsi;.>j. ■"•■'21 Willi. -Jfil (is; I). CM. V (•f)NTI!.\(TS AND rilKIK I'.III'.CT. (•(iiii|i;iiiy IIkU il ^\\:\\\ ikM Itf li.-ihlc for iiny l()s.> or (limuiirt' to !i |);icU;iL2(' \li)lt'ss cliiim llicri'fol' >li;ill lie iiiiidc uilliiii iiiiM'ly (liiys from llic lime of its I't'ccipt l>y the coiiipaiiN, is liiw fill Mild liitidiiiu-, ;md is not iiiircusonahlc where the tiiiKi for the IrMiisjt of llie |);i(k!iL!(' is oidv one (hiv. The eliiiin should l)e made within llie niiiely days, hut suit iiitiy after- warch lie hi'onL;'lil al any lime wilhin the period of IJie stal- ule i(i.'), (hn'iu<4' the civil war.'- But in a subseipient case in the same State where a i)acka|fe of money was leceived by the Adams Express Comi)any, at Pittsburuhi I'a., directed to a person at Jonesboro, Ind., the bill of ladiuj;- stipulatinjr that the company was not to be liable for any loss unless the claim therefoi' should be made in writinir, at the oilice of ship- ment, within thirty days frojn the date of the receipt, and the com[»laint did not a.llcire that the claim for such loss was made in Avritiuir within thiriy days after Uie date of the contract, it was ruled that the stijjulation that such claim should be nnide in writing v/ithin the time speciiied was reasonable ; that in such a case a^. this it was not ncH-essar}' to make the claim at the otlice of shipment, but it mi (1S77). •" Adiinis Express Co. v. Reiigiiii. 2!» Fiid. 21 (lS(i7). '" I'liited States Express Co. v. Harris. 51 Ind. 127 (1S7.5). «^ Capehart v. Seaboard &o. It. Co., 77 X. C. :S55 (1S77). rir, V •] CONTKAfTS AM) TirKIIl KKKKCT. 147 ' 1 or coiisiu-in'c lliiTcof, ;is soon as ddivci'i'd from the tackles of tlu' stcaincr at her pori of (Icst'mai'oii ; and tlu'V sliail 1)1' rccrivcd l>_v tlif coiisij^'iUH' tlici'cof, pai ka^'c I»_v packau'c, as so dolivcrc'd, and if not taken away tlic same da}' l)y him, liiey may, at the option of the steam(M'"s airent, i)C st'nt to store, or permitted to lie Nvliere hnided, at the ex- pense fand risk of the aforesaid owner, shijjper or eon- siunee." It was held that these ehuises wi'i'e not unrt'ason- ahle, and that it was the duty of tlie eoiisinnees, haviiiii' had due pre\ ious notice, to examiiu^ each hide as it left tlio vessel's tackles and was deposited on the wharf, and to sec if it was their cotton ; aiul that the duty of the vessel was discharii'ed when tlu; cotton was put on the dock.'"' Where an express company gave a receipt for li-oods con- tainiui*: a clause exi'm[)ting it "from any loss or damau'e whatever, unless claim should he made therefor within ninety days from the delivery to it," it was held that this clause had no ai)[)licati<)n to :i t^uit airainst the companj' for the non-delivery of the goods themselves — that not being ti suit either for "loss" or "damage;""" and su'h a elause not being a condition i)reeedent to a i)laintiff".s right to recover, but being rather in the nature of a limitation, can not, it has been said, be availed of u[)on trial, unless set up by the defendant in his answer."' In a New York ease it was ruled that a reservatior in an exi)ress eoinjiaii} 's con- tract that all claims for danuiges Avere to be presented at the New York olHce for settlement, did not make such pre- sentation of them a cohllition jn-ecedent to the companj^'s liability. Their readiness at that ofKee went oidy in de- fence of interest and costs, and not to the cause of action.''** § 121. I7nn'(is())i(i/j/e and I'oid C'o)idltionn. — A stipula- tion that a claim for loss must be made at the time the goods are deliveied will not protect the carrier where the '^'' The Si>iil('(>. 2 IJiMi. r>l!) (isos). '»■' I'ortcr \. SoathiTii Kxpress Co.. 4 8. C. i:i.j (1872), «' WcsU'ott v. Fiirgo. (;i X. Y. 542 (1875). »*riiR'C V. Union Kx. Co.. 2 Hilt. 1!) (1858). ik\' - 148 THE COXTUAfTS OF CAHKIERS. [nr. t --Mir claim is iritule iii a reasonable (iuie aflcr (he loss is ascer- tained.'"* A reu'uliition of a I'aiiroad company i)oste(l uj) in llieir depot, r((|uirin_u' all t'laims for damages to be made ■within ten days after delivery at the station is uni'easonahie, l)e( aiise more than ten days mijiht elaj)sc before a pai'ly know of the loss of his proijcrty.'" Of the sanu^ order is a reu'uhition of a railroad company that before a consii>'iieo can oblain his wheat from the conij)any's bins lie shall receijit for the (luantity,'' and that a i)asscnu-er on a steam- boat shall not take into his state-room such bau'iz'a,ii"t'':is he mav rc(iuii'e for his personal use.'-' in a Pennsylvania case it is said: " There can be no iloul)t that if a carrier were to attempt to provide eillu'r that all iroods shoe.ld be valued at ii fixed sum indei)endently of theii' real value, or demaiul an increased compensation in the foi'm (»f insurance dis- pi-oi)ortione(l to the inci'case of responsl])ility and risk, the attempt would be one which the law would discountenance and i)ut down. The remedy of the owner Avould then bo found either in suimnoninii' the carrier to aceejit the lioods at the real value and subj(>ct to a I'easonable chai'ii'e, and luulctinii" liini in damaires if he refused, or in deliverinji' them under protest and callinu" upon th(> cou"ls foi- redress in case of loss." '*' Hut where the terms of the canier's special accei)tance are reasonable, the fact that the shipixT a<2'reed to it " under protest '" i,;, it seems, not material.'' § 122. lieriulatious hi IIip Transportation of Live tSton-. — In contracts for the carriau'c of live stock, sti])uIations that the carrier shall not be responsible for loss or injury to any one animal for more than a sum specitiod ; that the owner shall bear the risk of 1 iss or damau'c by reason of delay; and that the owiier > all take the I'isk nl' injuries I «'■' >r(>uiiiliisl{. Co. V. n<.lloNv:iy. t L. I'v: V.17). '1 Cliri^li;iii V. St. I'aiiliitc. U. Co.. 20 Minn. •_>! (1-7.;). '- :\I:i(liliii v. N(" -.R-rsoy Stc:niil)o;it Co.. 7 Ahh. i'r. (X.S.) -22!) (IStJS). "Newliiir;;'cr v. ICxpross Co.. I'liilii. 171 (ISiUi). ''* Goggiu V. K;uis!i> .'tc. 1{. Co., 12 Kas. 111! (1S7!). CM. v.] CON'ritACTS AM) TIIKI!; KFl'KCT 149 wliicli llic iinim.ils may receive '• in eoii.scMiuenee cf lieat, suffocation or of heiiitj ci'owde;!, or on a<'c()tiiil of Ix'iiiix in- jured, wliellier such injuiy i>; caused by the huniiiii; of liav, straw, or any oilier material for fcedinu' said animals or olherwise,"' have all heen held valid and binding.''' In a case in Alaliama''' a conunon carrier and tlu' owner of live stock made a sjjccial contract, wherein it was agreed that in consi(h'ration of reduceil rates anil a frei' i)a»is to the owner, the latter would attend tlu' stock and care for it at his own expense, in case of accidents, and that the value at the time and place of shi[)m(,nt, not to exceed $.')() per head for ordi- nary beef cattle, should be the measui'e of recovery for any loss for which the carrier might be liable. The contract was enforced by the Supreme Court as the measure of the car- rier's liability, l)i;icKKr.L, C. J., saying : "We have had much dilHculty in determining the validity of the stipulation. * * If the measure of the liability thus iixed api)eared to be greatly disproportionate to the real value of the animal and the amount of fi'eight receiv(>d we should not hesitate to de- clare it unjust and uiu'casonable. But as the ease is pre- sented, it seems to have l)een intended to adjust the measure of liability to tlu^ reduced rate of freight charged and to protect tlu^ carrier against exaggevated or fanciful valua- tions.'" Manmnc, ,]., dissented, iioUling that in order to rendi'r such a condition reasonable the sum mentioned ought to be the maximum value of any one of the cattle, while in the case at bar it was but the average value. A sti|)ulation in a contract of sliipment of live animals that no claim for loss or damage will be allowed unless the s ime is made "before or at thi' time the stock is unloaded," is reasonable." The object of such a condition is to pro- tect the company from false and lictitious claims by having the cattle ins[)ected bi'fore they are removed or mixed with "■' S(|wii-(' v. \('\v York Cciil. K. Co., !»S Muss. 2:5!) (1S(J7). ■'■ Soiilli ^c. Al:il):imii R. Co. v. lU'iilfin. 52 Ahi. OlXi (187')). " (Jouniii v. Kansas i^lc. J{. Co., 12 Kas. 410 (,1874) : I{iee v. Kansas i^iC. 1{. Co.. (iii Mo.:{14 (1S7(!). 51 ^ i f i f 150 TMK CONTItACTS OK CAKIMIOiiS. [cir. \. ollh'i- C!:t',l(>. l)iit ilic ;!i:r;i>(' " hcforc ov ai llu- time the .stock is unloaded," is not limilcd to the idciilical inomcul : till' notice need onlv oe so iinnicdiate V.v.'A i'.s oi)ject may lie attained.'" In a I'ecent ease in Missouri a sj>eeial eonti'act for tlie shipnu'nl of eallle provided that no •■laiui was lo I)e allowed unless " the same is made in wrilini^' hefoi-e or at the time th. • . ck is unloaded."' The ears were thrown from the track Avhile the slock was in transit, .'Uid pari of the stock injurcMl. After Ix'inu" detained for some lim(> the train jjroceeded to its destination, where it ai'ri'icd at mid- iiiu'iit. ])ef()i'e unloadinii' the owner v;'r')ally notilied the company's a<>"(>nt that he would not receive the cattle e;\cept midei- i)i-otc'st, and asserted his claim for damajzes. The au'ent made no objection to its form, but assured him that it was not neci>ssary to p) to the c()m])an_v's olliee that iiiu'ht. From that lime he pive his enlii'e attention to the stock; a.nd in conse(|uence of the unlitness of the stock yard and with tlu^ compiniy's consent, the ca.itle were re- moved tliat niii-ht to the plaintiff's farm, several miles dis- tant, Avhero the company miu'ht have examined them. Tlii'ee days later ho irave a written notice of his claim to an ofiicei* of tlie company. It was held that t!ie p.urpose of the con- ditiori had been complied with, via.: an oijpoi'tunil \' for the company lo insj)ect the slock b'-foi'e they were mixed with others or slau; I'cc. It. Co.. xii/ira. In llii- ciisc^ tlu' coiitnict ])m- vidcil tliat till' slii|)p('r -iiniilil ;iri ■iiiipiiny llic iMitlc. ;iiiil llic c(.ml say: '• Xor Will 1 1(1 siicli a nuliic 1m' !'''a~(iiialili' in Ih.' case (if an onlina.i'v .-Iiip- ])('!■ who (lid not ac('oin|iuny or supci'iMli'n i Iii- slocl;: nor would il Iiroliably in-cvcnt a rccoxcry I'or injn^i(•^• ^;nslain('d wldcli conid not I'cad- ily ))(' seen , ".lid acliialiy -jioii'd not he discovcrcil until il'c lime I'or jiT,- inji' the notice had cxiiircd." "" Klcc V. Kansas i^c. H. Co.. (;; Mo.;;! I ( I'TCi). 'I'iic ciiii-i here refer to the fact that !lie Kans;.-: eonrl in tlie (io'.'.'LViii e.-ise declared 1h;it tlie jihrase. •• hil'ore or at tlie time of mdoadin:';.'" does not inean that the iio- tiee nni-t Ir.' at the ideiitieal iiioineii!. hat so iinniediately thai the ohjeet .sou'i'lil l)V tiie notice can he aliainc'l. Tiierel'ore t!ie two deei -ions do vu. \ CONTKArTS AM) TIIKIIJ ICFFKCT. 151 § 12."». Mi'diis of Ciirt'i/liKi Oiif ('oi>'/''//o)is J/iisf he l^rn- ridi-il. — If a cMrricr uivc notice llial he will not he liable unless certain condiiimis aie complied with he must ijrovide the means for ohtaininu" the eustomei-'s compliance. Thus a regulation tliat the carrier will not he lial)le for the loss of hauiiau'e, unless the same has been checked, if it have any effect, will not pre\ent a person who i>ii\ his I )aii'<>a^'e to the cai'i'ier's ai^'cnt and demanded a check, hut failed to re- ceive one, l)ecMUse the person whosi^ dutv it was to .> Mo. {>:>'.) (1S77), il is siiiij : "II may also lie well to ohsei've lliat lliis case is (listiiii;-iiislial)U' from llicea~eof Kiee V. Kansas iV:c. 1{. <'o.. sKjini. in this thai it was lliere ai;:reeii iliat no claim for dania^es should he allowed unless de- U'aiid was made in wriiinu,- • at llie lime of or liefore " the stuck was iiiiloaded. wiiercas. in the ea-e hefore us. It is sini|)ly provided that the clahn for daina.iies ,-iiall he made in the iieneral freight ai^'eiit in writiiiu 'willihi three days " from the lime the >iock was imloadetl. \Ve are not j)rciiared to say that the failure of tin- jilaintiff to make this claim in the manner and within the time desi2;iiated would on that accouu aloiiu |>ri\(' liiin of his rinhl of action." *■' Freeniaii v. Xewtoii. IS K. I). Siiiiili. -Jli! (is.'if). ^' (;ail(s V. Ilailman. 11 i'a. St. .")]."• (IS!',)). « .Mercantile Ins. (Jo. v. ('alei)s. 21) N. Y. 17;{ (IS.V.)). 152 THE CONTHArrS or CAItUIKKS. [fir. V, 3 sT iiiu'c on a portion of tlic yooils could not opcnitc to relievo their li!il)ilitT/^' § l'2'>. rs(i(i(s (nxl (^iisf'n/is. — Tliat custom or nsaife will control the ii'cncral law of liability of (carriers i.s shown hy many cases :^' hut it is e(|ually well settled that such a cus- tom or usau'c to he hindinir must he u'enei'al, reasonable and uniform, and known to the party souiiiit to he hound l)y it y-'' a usau'e at one port will not he presumed to he the usaii'e at another [jort.""' M'hei'c the terms of a hill of ladinu" have ac(|uired hy usaire a i)arli(ular sij^nitication, the parties will he })resumed to have usi'd them in that sense. ^' But tin- express aiii'eement of the])arties will overcome this ; as foi' example the practice of lines of steamshii)s to ship 'aet specifying a different mai-.ner in Avhich to ship them.^^ If carriei's on a particular river sometimes jj^ave hills of ladinir ('ontaininy tire, and at other times contain- ing; no such exemption, such a usaue is not estahlished, he- cause not uniform, and this althoujrh in a majority of cas(?s the exception >vas contained in the hills of lading.'^' A car- I' i- '^'' Goodrich v. Thompson. 4 J?oht. 75 (ISdd). anirnu'd U X. :524 (1S71). »* McMastcrs v. riMinsylvaiiiii R. Co.. 0!) Ta. St. :{74 (1S71) ; Baxt(>r v. T.ehiiid. Aljb. Adin. :i4S (1S4S) ; (iiltsoii v. ('iilvcr. 17 WimkI. :U),-) (1S37); (iarsulo V. rroprietors. 4 Term JJcp. .")Sl (17IIJ) ; Jlyilc v. l'r()i)netor!*, 5 Id. ;{8!) (17!W); Van Santvoord v. St. Jolin. (I Ifill. l.")7 (1S4;S) ; Cope v. Cordova, 1 Kawlc. 'iO;} (1S2!I). But in Scliifffdin v. Harvey. Ant ii. .")(► (1808), evidence was offered to show tliat aeeordinj^tothe {general nnder- staiiding of niereliants as soon .as a custom lioiiseotlieer wasi)ut on l)oanl a sliip tlie floods were at tlie risk of the shipper. Tliompson. J. : " 'J'iie testimony is inadmissible. Tlie established principles of law can not be controlled by eu>toni.'" **•'' •• At most it was a nsaf,'e recently established, and conlined to the l)artieidar l)nsiness of the defendant at a particular i)iaee. not known to the plaintiffs and which they were not bound to ascertain. The iisaj^e relied upon in tliis ease lack tlie essential elements of a valid iisaj^e. It is neither j^eneral. established, uniform or notorious.'" Jiawson v. Hol- land, .■)!) N. Y. Gil (187.-)). >* Bazin v. Steanwhip Co., ;{ Wall. Jr. 22!) (18,")7). ••*' ^Vayne v. The (J.'iieral Pike, iti Ohio. 421 (1847). '^Bazinv. Steamship Co.. ;{ Wall. Jr. 22!) (18.-)7). "'•' Cooper V. Berry, 21 Ga. .")2(i (18.-)7) ; Berry v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 54:5 (18.')9). lilt CIt. V,J CO.NTWACTS AM) TIIKIU KI'lKl T. liu] I'ior call iiol limit his lial»ilil v hy merely pi-oviiiu' a usaife on his pari in ji'iviiiir l)iiis of huliiiirto exempt himself from ecr- taiii classes of losses — lliat he in fact iievei' did husiiiess on any other terms."" 'I'hus where no receipt is j^-iven hy tho carrier, he can not limit his liability 1)V sjiowinu' that it Avas his custom to jzive receipts containinu' limitations, and that if ii recei[)t had Iteen li'iven it would liav(! been in the usual form.'" iSo the fact that an express com[)any commonly li'.ive pi'intcd receipts containinii' certain conditions, for o-oods received, will not ant hovi/e the admission in evidence of such a receipt lo limit their liability in a case where a nu're written receij)! was oiven which conta'ned no limita- tion at all,'- In a Xev\- ^'orlc case''' it is said that althouiih a carrier can not vary the liability which attaches ui)()ii the receipt of jroods for transportation without (|ualiiication, by the delivery of a subseijuent bill of ladinu" containinsr con- ditions, yet that this rule will be differ«'nt if the i)arties liave been in the habit of transactinii; their business in this way. It is held in Michiiran and Illinois that the s«nding of goods under n restrictive contract in any number of in- stances does not bind the party sending them to a similar contract in the future, without his agreement to that ef- w Illinois t Viit. T{. Co. v. Siny>:<'r. :{S 111. :?r)4 (ISO.")). A ciistoiii not to sign Wills of liulinj:; for lookinj^-glusscs without tlio words *• not rosponsi- ])le for contents,"" ciui not be proved for the purpose of (lualifying the liiihility of a carrii-r. •• The law, and not such a eustoni. aseertains and limits the rights and liabilities of shii)i)ers and eonunon eari'iers."' The I'ueitlc, 1 Deady. 17 (ISdl). A eominon i-arrier upon a canal I'an not, in the absence of an exi>ress eontraet. limit his liability by showing that by a custom on the canal I'arriers are not liable for losses resulting from the dangers of nuvig;ition. from tire or from inevitable accident. Coxe v. llcisley, 1!» Pa. .St. 21:5 (IS.VJ). "' Where a contract for the shlinnent of goods contained no exception !is to loss by fh-e, although the usual bills of lading issued t)y the currier did contain this |)rovision. in an action for the \n'iw. of the goods, the .same having been destroyed by tire, a copy of such bills of lading is not evidence for tln^ transporter. Clyde v. tJraver. .")4 Pa. St. •2r)l^(IS(>7;. '■>'^ Southern Kxpresi Co v. Woniack. 1 lleisk. "i'lO (ISTO). '•'■'' Sh"lton V. Merchants Disi)ateh Trans. Co., 'M X. Y. (S. C.) 527 (187;J). '¥■ 1 m i:)4 TIIK CONTItACTS OK C.MMM i:i:s. [cir. V. 1^; feci.'' Ill ii .M:iss:i('liiisi lis ciisc il is siiid : "We do not iiu'iiii to !)(' iirth'rstood as saviiiii' t liiil siicli assnil and ar(|ui- oscciicc iiiav not !><' sliouii l»v cv idciict' drawn from a loii^' and unifoi'in course of dcalinj:' hctuccii ptirlics, in comicc- tion willi oilier circunislaiices leadinu" to llie iiifei-ence llial a notice of a restricled lialiilily on llie |iart of llie carriei- was recoii'ni/ed Itv the other party as const it ill inii' ihe ai:reeiiieiil on which llie contract of carriaiic was to he ))erforine(|. JUit siK'ii dealiuL;" and rccounilion niiist he tantaiiiounl to a clear assent to the terms of the notice on the pari of the owner and eonsiiiiior, or it will fall short of eslaltlisliinn' a limitation on the common law liahility of the carrier." ''' lint Ihoiiii'h iisau'f is sometimes admissihle to add to or explain a contiact, it is never allowed to vary or contradict, either expressly or hy iniplicalioii, the terms of a wri'icii instrument, or the fair and leu'al iiii[)orl of a coiiirad .'"' Thus, wluM'i' the master of a vessel received shins to he carried from New Orleans lo New York, there to he deliv- ered in n'ood order, " daiii:-ers of the sciis" excepted, and the skins were injured liy rats, it was held that evidence of mercantile usap' and understaiidini:' that injuries hy rats are treated as "danu'ers of the sea" was not admissihle."^ In The Rcciilih-,'^ Mr. .lustice Stokv refused to admit evi- dence of a custom amonu' ship-owners tiial the exception of the "daiiLi'crs of the seas" extended to all losses except those arisiiijr from their neulecl. In discnssinu' the (iiiestion the learned jud:L;'e saitl : "I own myself no friend to the al- ■'^ .Mc.Mill;m V. Miclii^im Ac. H.Co.. IC Midi. 71) (lMi7) ; Kric \c. Traii-^. (jo. v. Diilcr. S Cciil. I.. .(. i'.y.\ (Is71)). '•'"• J5i;;cl(iw. C. ,).. in IN-rry v. 'i'li(.iiii)-<)ii. '.!S Mass. 21!) (1M!7). '■"(JollriHlcr v. DiiisiiKirc. .")."> N. Y. -.'(ill (1S7:!). '■'• Aymar v. Asinr. li Cow. (\. V.) 2iii; ( lS-_>(i). I5ia sec Cap. \III. '• Datiiicrs of N'a\ iijalioii." '•'-:* Sinn, ."iiw (ls;)7). 'I'liis nilini,' was apju'ovci] by llic Snpicinc ( 'onri of tlic I 'nit I'll Stale- in (Jarrisoii v. Mt'inplii- In-. ( 'o.. I'.i How. I!! 'J (JS.'iDj, wlicre i'vi(l('iii'(>, to llu' cfft'ct tlial Ihc word- liic --piTiis of tin' river" were aoeor;iiii^- to tlie iisaii'es of iiaviLV.'.tion nndeisliDod to inejiide losses by aei'idiMaal tire was lield to iiave been pn iierly rejeeled by tlie ti'ial euart. •I., v.] C'ONTItAC'I'S AM) 'rilKIK Kl'FKCT. 1;-)-) most iiHliscriiniiiiUc liahit, of late ycai's, of scUiiiir u|) piir- ticiilar usatrcs or c jstoiiis in aliiiosl all Uiiitis of hiisincss or Iradc, to coiilrol, \aiy or aniiiil the ucnci'al l:;il)i!il!('s o, parties uiulcr the ('otmiiou Ian', as well as iiiidcr the coiiiiiicr- cial law. It has lon^i' apiJt'arcd to nic, that llici'c is no small (laiiircr in a(hnittiii;j;* such loose juid iiiconcliisive iisau'es and eiistoms, often iinknown to parlicidar parties, and always lialtle to li'reat misiiiiderstaiMiiiiLis and misinterpretations and ahnses, to oiHweiuh the well-Unown and weli- ollice of a usaire or custom is to interpret the otherwise inch'tei'minate inten- tions of parties, and to ascertain the nalnre and extent of their contracts, arisinu' not from express sti|)ulations, hut from mere implications and presumptions and acts of a dou!)tful or e(|uivoeal character, ll may also l)e admitted to ascertain the true meanini;' of a particular word or of jsariicular wiH'ds in a ,i':i\cn instrument, when the woi'd or words have vai'ious senses, some common, sonie (pialilied and some technical, accordinii' to the suljject-nnitter to Avhieh they are ap.plied. Ihit I a[)prehend that it can never he proper to resort to any nsau"e or custom to control or vary the jjositive stipulations in a wi'iften contract, and, a J'orfiiiri, not in order to contradict them. An express eon- tract of the i)arti(\s is always admissil,le to sui)ei'sede, or \arv or control a usau'e or custom ; for tlie lattei' may al- Avays he waived at the will of the parlies. Hut a v.i'itten and express contract can not i)e controlled, or varied or contradicted hy a nsau'e or custom ; foi" that wouhl not only he to admit parol evidenei' to control, vary or contradict writfer contracts: hut it would he to allow mere [)resump- lions and inipliciitions, properly aris;njj,"in theahseiice of any l)ositive expi( ■;-ioiis of intention, to control, vary or <'ontra- dicl the most formal and diTiherate declarations of the par- 4? {; ir)(; TIIK CONTIJACTS OI" (\\.i;i!Ii;i!S. [cii. V, : 'i' ]i ml ■l ll ^^n' 1 lies. Now, wliat is tlic ohjcci of the pi'csciil iisscrlcd usiili'c or (■iistoiii""' II is 1(1 show, tii;i(, ii()(\villisl!iii(linill of liidiiiLr), ity which liic owners have ii^i'i'ccil to (it'iivi'V (lie jioctds shipped in ^ood oriler and coiidilioii, lit Boston, liie daiiircr of llie seas only excepted ; yet the owners are not to Ix' held hound to deliver them in ii'ood oi'der and condilion, althoULdi the danger of tlii' seas has not caused or occasioned tlu'ir heinu' in liad condition, hut causes wholly forei:.ni to such a peril. In short, tlietdi- jcct is to suhslitule for the express terms of the hill of ladinir an implied au'i'ernient on the part of the owners that they shall not I)e hound to deliver the iToods in u'c'od order ami condition ; hut that they shall he liable only for daina<:e done to the uoods occasioned l»y their own n«\iilect. It ap- pears to me that this is to sui)ersi'de the positive aufreemeiit. of tlie parties, and not to construe it." In iSiiiiiii'Dis r. /ydir,''-' under a hill of ladinuf for the ear- riajri' of treasure from San Francisco ria the Isthmus to New York, by the fair ccuist ruction of which the cari'ier was lial)le as such for the transportation across the Isthmus, evi- dence was held inadmissible in an action ai^ainst the carrier for the loss of the goods on the Isthmus, to pi-ove that it was the custom ol shippers of treasure to insure it ai^ainst risks u})on the Isthmus; or that there was a custom, by which the carrier of uold refused to assume any risk of transportation on the Isthmus, or that the bills of lading- then in use excepted all I'isks of land and I'ivi'r carriau'e on the Istlunus; or that tin; plaintiff liad previously shipped treasure by this line, and knew of this custom when h(^ lade the slii|)ment in (juestion. Hut where a railroad coin- ni »»8B(isw.2i:{ (ISOl); iifliniu'd, ;( Kcyi-s. -217 (lS(;il). 'I'lic liillof huVuv^ of {ijokl (IclivciPil :it Siiii Frinicisco stated tliat it was sliippcil on the vt's- ^ set at San Fi-aaciseo. and that "ini arrival at Panama tin- saan' is to t)i'. forwarded across ilie Isthimis. and to i)i' ri'-siii|ii)('il l)y one of tlic I'nitiHl States Mail Stt'anislup Company's sliips to New Vorl\. » * ♦ * aiid to be delivered in like ;j;ood oi'iler and condition at tin- port of New York, daiif^ers of the seas, land cariiage and river navi;^ati(jn. thieves aud robbers excepted." •... v.] coNTnACTs ^\u Tiri:iu EFri:rT. IT)? j)!iiiv r"('t'ivc(l jjjoods tuldrcsscd (o m poiiil hryoinl its Icniiiii- iis, iir.d lc to prove that llicrc was a fustom in su«'ii casi'H to (h'livcr to a coniicctiiin' canicr, such evidence! not lend- ing" to varv ov eontradicl the hill of lading?.'"" 1" lluLiMT V. ('liic!i;;o U. Co., 27 Wis. M (l.S7Uj. l.-)H Tin: CON TKACrs or CAltUIKKS. [('11. VI. (II. ■*:' lU: ClIAl'TKi: VI, l.IAIUr.lTY NOTWITIISTASMINd CONTIIAC T — NKdLKfKNCK. SKPTIOX. 1.'7. l-js. 12!». i:»o. i;n. i:»2. 'I'lir r)i';;r('t'!< f»f \(';;li;;('IM'i'. Kr;i-i(n< fur ilic Divi^imi. Di-ic'idMiit l)((i«iiin». Views of tlic i;ii;;lisli ,lii(l Apiuise ( 'airier of \ aliie ami L'oiileiils. VM. Coiitriliiitorv \ej;ii.i,'eiiee of JJailor. i;i."). Tlie Iliiie in New York. I'M). Diseonlant l)eei«ion.<. 1^7. Other Cases in the (.'arriago of IJve Stock. 138. Evldenee of Xej;lij,n'iiee. § 12tt. 77ip Jj('(/r('i's of ycf/I/t/fnicf. — Sir William Jonk.s in his essiiy on the Law of liiiilinciils,' distinjiruishcs l)e- twecn ordiiiitry, jrross and sliirlil iiciiliuciicc tiius: " Ordi- narv nosrlt'ct is tho omission of lliut care which ovcrv man of common prudence and capalih' of li( (liliiiciicc, Mild sli;:lit ll('<.di,v'i'IM'(' t(i lie till' wiiiil of ;;rf;it dili^iciu'c ; " -' and llic r may fall. It is pos-ihlc that no iinifonii iiicaninu' lias always liccn ascriiictl to to tliti words * •^ros,'* iH'Li'liLi't'iK'f,' aiitl tilt' tfi'in lias soiiictiliics hccii joctscly ap- plii'd to lanici's for hire, whereas it is more correctly used in descrihinii' that de^zree of neiiliu't'iici' for which a <;rii(uitoiis hailee is rcsponsihie. Hut the existence of a practical>le difference Itetweeii the deurees of ue^iiH(>iie(' lien at the foiindalioii t)f the law of hailments." ' § 127. h'l'dsniis /(If till' I)irisiiiii. — It may pi'o|)erly ho hailnient may he for the sole henelit of the bailor, as in tlio case of a person stoi'inir the u'oods of another on his prem- ises without compensation. This is \\\v iii'j)osifum or naked hailnient, or the )ii(niifiifii)ii of Lord lloi/r, of which he Hay.s in Coijijs v. Jii'rnonl:^ " 1I(! is not answerahle if they 2 Story oil Biiiliiicnts. § 17. 'I'lic terms used hy the civil liiwyors were hviH riil/)ii, lutii I'liliiii 1111(1 hrissiiiiii fiiljiii. ■■' III Siiiith's I.cadiiiL:; Cases (note to CofrRs v. Beriiiiril, IU(t), it is said: "Nearly all llie coiifiisnui and obscurity which heloiij; to the siihject of haihncnis have hccn occasimicd hy the niifortiiiiate inlrodiictioii of tli(> words 'fjross' and "slifilil" iie;4ii<;e.nce. which do not helon;;- to our law, and which convey no precise idea. 'I"he civil lawdistrihiition and classi- lication of these lialiililies is entirely different from ours; diir law has conceived of llie le;;al ol)lii*iinli> !iii. iiei;jlil)or's iirojierty. and has. hy this action on tin with so much comprehension and ]irfcision that the plies irresijectively of the seat of tlie possession." < I.d. liay. 707. ■ '>!» Ill- * tl.^\ I VII llllt \» lll\ Ilfc hat the same principle ap- • ^* <'.^t 160 THK CONTIIACTS OF fAItltll'.ItS. [Cir. VI. are stolen witliout any fault in him ; ncitlicr will a wonunon noglcrt make him charii'onhlc ; hut he must he uuill y of some ii'i'oss n»\;i'h'i't ;"' or it maybe for the sole lieiielit oF the bailee, as in tiu' case of a uratuitous loan, in whieh ease the " l)orii)wer is boiuid to the strictest care and diliu'ence to kei'i) the li'oods, so as to restore lliem back aii'ain lo the lender, Iiecause tlie i)ai!ee has a Ix'Uclit I)y tlie use ot" tliem, so as if the bailee be nuilly of tiie lesist neiiiecl, he will be answerable;" or lastly the Ix'uetit may be recipri.cal. as in the case of ii<)ods to be used or worked for rewai'd. In tlie tirst case the bailee was held to answer only for uross uei:- loct ; in the second for even sliiilit neglect ; in the third oi-- dinarv diliii'cnce only was re(|nirt'd of him, and he was an- sweral)le simply for what Avas calleil ordinary neniect. Tiiis distinction was reasonable. It appeared not improper that one ■who had all the benefit of any transaction should carry the most risk, and that he who had possession of uoods under other circumstances than these, should not be re(|uired to ex- ercise more diligence than the common run of men exhibit in the transaction of their owTii affairs. Hut in this last class there "was one oi('U])ation upon which was imp(»sed an extraordinary and exceptional liability. 'Hie common ciuvier, thouiih ren- derinu" service to his em[)loyer for hire, and therefore for this reason Avithin the third chiss mentioned, was at a very eai'l\- day placcfl upon another and a different footing", l)einii' in short, as has b(H'n seen,'' held to answer foi' the uoods in- tnisted to him at all ev» nts, "th.'act of (iodand the pnl)lic ene.ny only excepted" — a rule in the absence of conti'act still adhered to in this <(iunlry, on izronnds of pnlilic <'onvenience and i)ul>lic policy. Thus it >eems clear tiiat so far as common carriei's are <'oneei'ncd. the division of nej^li- li'ence intc deii'rces is improper and illoi^ical. because want- ing" the reasons upon w liich l!ie (ii\i-^ion has l)een founded. § ]'2>>. i)/srf,r(f(nif J)('i /'::,. ,iis. —Not withstanding this, there are decisi( . . lo be found in 'lie rcjiorts of this conntrv rec- ognising the degrees of iiegii_i';, in the cas;- of common ' Ante, (,'mi>. I, J ;;. ClI. VI.] NKOLIGENCE. 161 ciirricrs and which seem to ronsiilor the f|ue.stioii of their liahilit y for hrcach of contract in certain ca.se.s us dejieiulinj; upon the particuhir kind of neuliiicnce with v iiidi they may he [)roi)erIy charu'c'd. In a case in the Siip/enie Court of Inihana in IS;");"),'' the tlefendaiit had a<>reed to tow a ihit- hoat, Ihe owners of the latter a;- liucnce of tlu' defendant in towinu' at an iiii[)roi)er sp(>ed, the conrt held that this was " irross nciili.tronce " and that he was tlierefoi'c l!:il)le, and this rulinjj; was cited Avitli ap- j)i-()val in a subse<|uent case.' In Indiana Central liailroad Conipanij v. Mnnd;/,^ the indorsement on a free pass that the i)erson receivinjj: it aureed to assume all risk of personal injury and loss or damaire while usin<>; it, was held not to exemi)t the com[)any from the conseciuences of gross negli- gence. "Ordinary negligence " was subsequently spoken of in the same way by the same court." In Illinois in an action jMriiinst a railroad for damages for injuries to live stock, the court in discussing the evidence said: " If tlien, it was gross negligence in the conductor of the train carry- ing these hogs, in refusing to ap[)ly water to them when rc- s." In jliisfin v. Manclicstcr renee to carriers for hire." In lival v. ^^oidli J)evon Jiailwatj Company, '^'^ Ckomitox, J., defined the phrase gross negligence as the failure to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. And the remarks of Kulk, J., in Ca•■' See Mi(lii,i,'tin itc. 11. ("o. v. Ilcaton. :{7 Iiul. 448 (1.S71) ; Ohio &o. R. Co. v. Scll)y. 47 Iiul. 471 (1.S74). See also unU'. Cap. II. (i«j ;)S. ;i;». '•• Ficiich V. Buffalo iico. J{. t'o. 4 Kcycs, lOS. 2 Al)l). App. I'.Xi (1)S()8) ; Wells V. New York Cent. R. Co., '24 X. Y. isl (ISO-J) ; rcrkliis v. Xew York Cent. K. Co.. 24 N.jY. liXi (lS(i2); Smith v. New York Cent. K. Co.. 24 N. Y. 222 (18(12) ; Bissell v. New York Cent. II. Co.. 2.5 N. Y. 442 (1S02) ; Poiuher v. New York Cent. K. Co., 4!i N. Y. 2G:{ (1872). '•'■Wilson V. Brett, 11 M. & W. li;i. i«L. J{. 2C. r. :i40 (18G7). '" 11 Eng. L. & K(i. .-)00 (18.-)2). i^SlI. &C. 337 (1804). CM. VI.] NE(!LI(!KNCE. ] (53 Wrujlit,'^'^ arc to the sainc offoct. Grill v. Ucneral Iron iScrew Com 2)0)))/,'^^' was an aclioii on a bill of ladinji: for the non-delivory of goods intrustctl to the defendants, and whieli were lost in a eoUision. The hill of ladintr excepted the " })erils of the sea," a term which is lield to enihrai-e an accidental collision. The plaintiff's replication averred that the loss was caused throujih the <;ross neuli*WS»('s, and it is more conrct and si-ientiHc to dcliuo ihv logroos of care than the doixivcs of nculiu'cnce." (ilhlhi v. Mc- 3Ji(II('P,'-^ was a case iioainst a l)anU as u-ratnitous bailoe.s of a (|uantily of railroad dclx'uttu'cs wliicli were stolen by its servants, L(»rd Cliaiiccllor C'm:i,:\isi'()i!i), while indorsing the expression of Kom'k, li., in M7/.sv>/t r. Ji ref f, " ih(yu:Iectin. After eitinji" the lan- ^ua^rc of IVvvr-KV, 1'., in Oicot v. litirnctt r'' "As for the oases of what is called uross neiilili"encc, which throws upon the carrier the responsibility from which, but for that, h" would have been exempt, I believe that in the are others in which the carrier has been h(dd liable for such negligence as Avarranted the court in holding that he had put off that character. But there is nothing in this declaration amounting to a charge of mis- feasance or renunciation of the character in which the de- fendants received the goods. The charge is that they ought to have taken precaution to guard against the conso(|uences of friction of whecds and axles, and that they did not do so, and were guilty of gross negligence in not doing so. The terujs 'i^ross ne<>lii>"ence' and 'culpal)le negligence' can not ul- t«'r the nature of the thinir omitted, nor can thev exaggerate such omission into an act of misfeasance or reiumeiation of the character in which they received the horses to be carried. The (piestion, therefore, still turns upon the contract, which, in express terms, exempts the company fnun i-i'spou- sibility for damages however caused, to horses, &v. In the largest sense tiiose words might exonerate the company from responsibility even for damage tlone wilfully, a sense in which it was not contendetl that they were used in this contract ; *•••_• cr. i^ M. ;{.■)) (is:u). '^ N'c^lifji'iu'c (lifters from iiiisfcasaiii'*! in this, tliut the former takes plact' ill liiL' performance of tlie contract, while ttie lutteris done in di- rect eontiineiition of it. Aii";. on Car. sec. 12. Kw; THE CONTUACTS OF CAKKIKKS. CM. VI.] ' I! ' but jiivinj;' thom the most limitod nioaniiifr, they must applj to all risks of whatovor kind ami howovor arisinir, to lu' cn- countorod in the course of the journey, one of wiiich is undoubtedly the risk of the wheel takiiiir tire, owin^ to ne;}. FoiJuve to Apprise Carrier of Vohie and Contents.. — liut ev(Mi in England it was re({uired of common carriers if they sought to limit their liability for their own or their servants' negligence that the notice to that eifoct should be explicit ; so that persMis with whom they dealt could un- derstand the conditions upon which the goods were re- ceived. Thus a notice that tho carrier would not be answer- 's Jntc, Cap. II. §§ '.w-Gr, 170 TlIK CONTKACTH OF CAUUIKKS. [CII. VI. able for j)!ii'<'('ls iihovo the value of ,£'), unless an additional l)rlee was paid, was held not to reU-ase him from liability for the loss of a |)arcel of more than that value, on which the additional price was not paid, when^ such loss was oc- casioned bv the d on is less than tiu- value of the ^oods. Sueh ajrreenieiits can at most only cover a loss arisinjf from .some < ause other than the nej^liji'enee or default of the carrier or his servants, and the rule of dainaires is the same, althouirh less is charired and paid for the transjjortation than when the <'xeini)linjjr clause is omitted.''" § I'M. ('oiitn'hiifori/ Ncijliiji'iur of liailov. — Hut tho omission to state the value of an article when called upon \ \ ■'" I'liitcd Stall's Kxprt'ss C'dinpaiiy v. Hadiman. 2S()hio St. Ill (lS7r>) ; Adams Kxprcss Co. v. Stt'ttaiicis. (il III. |S1 (1.S7I); Now Jersey Sleaiii \a\. Cii. V. Mcicliaiits Hank. (! How. :ill (1S»S); (iiacc v. Adams. 100 Mass. ."lO.") (I.S(iS); Davidson v. (iialiam. -J Ohio St. llfl (IS.VI); Gialmm V. Davis, 4 Id. 'MVl (lS.-)4) ; .liidsoii v. Wosiciii K. ( 'o.. (J Allen 4S.-) (|SO;i) ; Mi.lii;,'an \c. K. Co. v. Ilcatoii. :?7 liid. IIS (1S7I) ; l.amli v. Camden Ji. <'<>.. 10 \. Y :i71 (1S7-J) : .Vmeiiean Kxpress Co. v. Sands. .V. I'a. St. 140 (|S(i7). Where ilicre Is an express stipulation limiting tlie responsibility of a carrier for t»a;;y:aj;e to a specilied sum. tliis w ill not exempt the ear- riei- from lialiility for the ne;i;li;.jenee oi' malfeasanee of himself or his servants. Mohile i^e. K.Co.v. nioned hy the ne;;li;;ence of the <'ompany. Westcott v. Far;,'o. 01 N. Y. r)42 (1S7.">); Westcott v. Far^o. o:! Harh. lUlt. s.<\, (! Lan-^. :tl!» (Is72). Whi^re an express company f^ave a frei;;ht receipt foi' <'i;;ht boxes of boots and shoes with tlie stipulation '■valued under tifly dollars unless other\\is(> licrein stated :" VA'/i/. that tl xpress eiMiipany coidd not exonorate itself ivv\n liability for any uciilect.by an\ such stipulation, even if it should be considered that the words of the I'cceipt amountecl to such a covenant ; b\it to allow such a limitation in cases of n-ross neulect and conversion, would recoj;:- nize tlieir ri;rhf to convert other people's property to their own use al their own price. Orndortf v. Adams Kxpress Co., :$ Hush.l!)4 (IS(17). \ clause in a ciuitracl between an express company ami a shipper stated that jjoods shipped are of the value of ••^."lO, unless their value should be inserted in the conti'acl. and that the company in case of loss would not lie liable for more tlian .'s,-|(l. unless the value was so inserted, and the value of the v til*' Itiiilt'c m;iy MMioiiiit lo ((uitrilmtdry nc-jrliiri'in'c on llic part (if till' l)!iil(tr, ami iiiiiy l»i' ii liar lo his action tor (jic ncuiiirciiff of lln' lan-icr. In LSl^o, IJavi.kv, .1., remarked thai in addilion to seeurin'jf a reward lo the carrier in pro- portion to the ri>U which he luuh'i'look, notices rciiniriiii;; the (lisehisure (»f the contents aMe said to have a furlher olijeet, vi/. : to cnalilc tiie carrier to put parcels of ihc <;r«'atest value in a place of the <:reatest security. The value is a temptation to thieves to make attempts which hut for that value they would not make. The omission to state tile value may prevent th<' ( airier from takiuii' that care which in the ca-^e of properly of extraordinary value he naturally would take. 'I'hal may lie neij;li;.''enee in the case of a paekaire of larL'<' value which would l»e car*' in the ease of a parcel of small value. 'Ihis reasoning" has heen applied in recent eases, 'i'hus it has heen h. Id hy tin? Supreme Court of thi' Tniled States that if an exjiress company have a settled iind uniform I'ule that money paek- u(), refusing to statu its contents. Packages of value wer(\ according to custom, when received hy tlu company placed in sealed pouches and these again in an iron safe ; unvalued parcels were some- times placed in a wooden l»ox and sometimes thrown to- gether upon the Hoor of the car. The i)laiutiff's package ^ Ante, (.';ii). IV, § Wi; Kailioad Co. v. Miiimfiictiiriiif; Co.. 1(1 Wall. IJIS (1872). •■« 1 Wooils, .-.7;» (187:5). mid sec St. J. .ha v. Kxprc.-.s Co.. I Woods. 012 (1871). IT lo l(> IS (II. ■'■] NKCI.KlKNfK 17;5 lii\iii'>' I II trr.'ilctl liv lilt' I'Mrricr us of tlic Ijiltcr cImss was S:(» Icii. It was lidd lliiit lie WHS iiol ciilitlcd t<» rccoNcr li \(Hi(l till' liflv (Inllai's. Jj 1 ;;.'). Till' Hull' ill Xt'ii' Vfir/,'. — Wliili- it is cstahlisluMl ill New York tlial (•(•iiinioii carriers mav l»v special contract e\<'iii|)t tliciiiseives t'roiii iial)ility \'nv losses arisiuji; from the n ■.i:iiizeiice of llieii- servants or aireiils,'"' siicli II eoiitraet it lias Iteeii aL:aiii and auain said can only he evidenced Uy jilaiii and umnistakahle laiiiriiap'. >N'liere a loss occasioned li\ tlie cari'h'ssness or neL;Ti;^('iice ol' a carrier or his a/jfents or servants is not mentioned in terms in the contract, (ho law will not |iresume that a loss so occasioned was intended l)V the parties,'" Tlins where .. .">!( Marl). 101 (1S70). <| M.M.if V. Kvaiis. 1 1 IJaii). .".21 (1S.")2); Alcxuiidcr v. (Jrccnc, 7 Hill, r.;i:!(isirj; Wclls v. steam .Nav. ("O..S \. Y. ;{7."> (is.'i:tj: Wcsicdtt V. Karj^o. Cili IJarh. :m:i (1S72); Woodi-ii v. Aiislln. ,"il Ilail). !t (ISdd). rriiilcil iKitii'i' iiiit u|i on a boat that all liafj:;ja>ii' 1> at risk of tlic owiiciv, alllioiii^li it is Itroiifxlii liomc io tlic owiit'f. does not t'xciiso tlic carfior 41 from losses aiisiiiit from llie ai Is of liimseii' or iii- servaiits. nor from ae- liial iie;;li;ienee. nor Die iiiellleieiiey of liis macliiiieiv or vehicles, tlioii;jh it can not l)e discovered iiy the eye. Camden Hailioad Ac. Co. v. JJufke, i:MVeinl. (ill (is;(.")). "It is clear, thereloie. that the same care and dilij^enci^ svliicli would excuse tlie carrieis in case of at'cideiit to jtassen- jjers would not excuse them in ease of damage to or loss of goods. In ti II' ease i)f ixissrin/irs the carriers ai'e responsil)le only for neiijljgonce, l)Ut in respect of their Iukjijuiji' they are responsiitle as common carriers, ami accidenl is no excuse." Tiie court said thiit the notice exonsed the I'arriers from losses li;ippeni!i hy means of the eondiict of others, from rolil)ei'v or Jarcenv. hut ii it trom such losses as arose from tlie acts of themselves or M"ir servants, llollister v. Nowlen, It) Wend. 2o4, (ls;tS) ; Cole V. (ioodwiii. Id. 2.'.1 ns;{S). ^'i^^ ,: 174 THE CONTHACT8 OF CAllIUEUS. [CII. VI. from whatever causo arising;" *' and an ajrrceniont l)etweou a carrier of persons and a passenijer, providing" that the hitter shall take "the risk of injurv from whalever eause," does not exempt the carrier from lial)ility for the Avant of ordi- nary care.*' Other examples mii>ht be uiven wiierc the same rule has lieeii api)lit'd, alliioiiuh the laniiuaiiv used seems broad enouiih to cover ncirliiicnce ; as " at the risk of the master or owners '" ^^ or "damage or loss to any article by fire."« § 13(j. Disconhnif DfcisiouK. — 'I'wo late cases in that State entirelv ignoi'c the rule thus laid down. In (.'ra. i;!2 (IS.JD). Coinparo Koswcll V. llndson Sic. R. Co.. 5 Bosw. (i!llt, n. r.. 10 Alii). I'r. 1)2 (iS(iO). « Alt'xanilcr v. (ircciic. 7 Hill. "ilW (1S| (). *''Tlie i)laintiff shiiipcd floods over the road of tlio dofcndant : by a clan?!' in the bill of lading tlio dofcndant wa-s rtdcasod from liability '• from damiij^c or loss to any article by fire." 'I'lic jjoods wen; lost by fire commnnicatcd by sparks which caiijjht from an cmiinc on the Irain on which the fi'oods were rarricil. Ft was held that thi' defendant wa.s li.ibic for loss arisin;? from lire; caused i)y its ncixli^<'ii('e or thatof its ser- vants, whether the nei;li<^en('c was slight or f:;ross, and that if the tin' '^•Vinated in defet'ts of the machinery of the ili^fendant, the defendant was liable for the loss. Steinweg v. Erie R. Co., 4:5 X. Y., 123 (1.S70). «51N. Y. 01 (1872). (•II. VI.] NRCLICKNCK. 175 "If it be held," said Eaiu-, ('., " tliat tliis stipulation simply exenii)ls llio dofVndant from liability for injuries to the h(\ns from heat Avithout any fault on its part, then it •rets nolhinir; for in such case, without tlie stipulation it would not be responsible. Force and effect can be given to this stipulation only by holdinif that it was intended to ex- empt tlie defendant from neuliu'enc(! in e()nse<[ueneo of which the hogs died from heat." In A/c/i(jhis v. Xew Yoi'h (Unitral y the (h'fcndant"s road, in the Mionth of Marcii, a (juantity of fruit trees, to be transi)orted from New York to (Jeneva. At the time of shipment he cxei'Uted a release to defendant from liability for loss or " damage to perishable i)roper(y of all kinds, occasioned by delays from any cause, or change of weather, or loss or in- juiy by tire or water, heat or cold." The release was con- strued l)v the Supreme Court to relieve the defendant from liability for a loss by freezing occasioned I)v the negligenco of the defendant's servants. The (.'r((;/in case was iin'orsed, and its reasoning followed. Cold, against which the carrier could not guard, was the '• act of (iod," for which, at com- mon law, he was not resj)onsii)le. Again it is said that "to give any foi'ce to the terms in the release" the risk of the carrier's negligently exposing the goods to the cold must bo incor|)orated in the release. Jn the Court of Appeals this ruling, it is understo^xl, has been recently afHrincd by a di- vided court, but the case has not yet l)een officially reported. Of both these decisions it may be said that they are without the support of a single American or lOnglish i)rccedent and are opjjosed to all the previous adjudications in the State v>^here they wer(> made. For a loss occasioned by the act of rjod or the publi«' t-neiny a carrier is still liable if it bo lirought about by his own negligence, liut if these rulings are coirect, the simple fact thiit the bill of lading or other contract sets out these exemptions, is sufficient to excuse the bailee for a negligent loss of this description ; yet no *'() Tlionip. & V. ()()(!,. s. c, 4 IIuu, 3-27 (1S75). ■J'K II ' I W I 176 THE CONTHACT.S OF CAlHtlKKS. icu. vr. cjisc t'Mii be found in llu' hooks which contains even u hint of such a doctrine. § \iM . O/Iicr Cases ill llic CavrlcKii' of Live /Stock. — In nearly all the States carriers of live stock are hekl to be lial)le as common i-arriers and to he insurers to the same extent as when eiiiraLied in the transportation of li'.Mieral merchandise, except as to injuries caused l)y the ani- mals to themselves and to each other. Hut even where the ride is different thev are still hekl to the t-xercise of proper care.^"* In Ohio and Kentucky a railroad com[)any actinu" as a carrier of live stock can not contract for exemption from responsibility for loss arising' by its own nenlect of eluties incident to such em})loyment.*' A s[)ecial contract devolv- inj; on the owner the personal care of the cattle, with the risk of their esea[)ing or beinjr injured throujiii their own rest- iveness or vieiousness, does not exonorate the co'upany from responsibility for damaires resulting from a failure to pro- vide a safe car for their transportation.''" In Michigan where carriers of animals are not regarded as eonnnon carriers, un- less the}' have specially agreed to be liable as such, a eon- tract for the carriage of live stock exemi)ting the carrier for losses " in loading, unh^ading, e()nve3ance and otherwise, ■whether arising from negligence or otherwise," does not exem})t him from a loss caused l)y defective cai's.''' In AViseoniMii a carrier of live stock is not a common carrier to the full extent, and may exem[)t himself from liability for damage to them during transi)ortation /)v>;/i ani/ cause.''' Jn an Indiana case a contract for tlu; carriage of live stock provided that the shii)[)er was to bear all loss by their " es- caping." Several of the hogs escaped through an open ♦SSoofOi^c. Ciip. I. § K). *■> Welsh V. ritls))iii-^li i<:c. U. Co.. If) Ohio St. (m (lS.-)t)) ; Adams Kx. Co. V. Nock. -Diiv. .")()2 (ISOO) ; Louisville &e. R. Co. v. lh;(l<,'('r,!) IJush. G4.'> (187:i). 5" Khotlcs V. Loiiisvillt" &v. U. Co. Bush. (;s« (lS7:i). «• lluwkiiis V. Gri'iil Wi'sti-rii R. Co., 17 Mich. 57 ((180S) ; (Jrcul West- oni K. Co. V. lliiwkius. is Mich. -127 (lS(i!l). s=i Bells V. l-\irniers Loiin ilCc. Co., 21 Wis. SO (lSt3(i). »II. V '•] M:(ii.i(iK\rK 177 window ill llic ciiv. iiiul it appc-u'cd llial after only one liale dispatch. ^^'Ilat- <'\cr was re(|uir( d to prevent injuries from uiiavoidahle de- lays was to l»e done l>y the owner or his aii'cnt in chara'e. TIk' couil v,as of opinion that the pi'ovision for niiload- iii;j.' refer:' -> to the terminus and not to an intermediate sta- tion : and ii.a' is the injury was caused l)y the neglect of tlu; owner's au'ci;. to unload the cattle the company was not lia- ble. ' 'I'lieiH' is an odd ('X])ressioii of judicial opinion in a New Ilanipshire case,"' where it is said by Doi:, fJ., that •' seiidini:" live <'attle or allowinir them lo be sent Ity a rail- I'oad in cars loaded in the usual maimer, is not an exercise of a liijili decree of care for the safety and welfare of the; animals. It may be, liiiaiieially, a judii'ious thin:;' for the owner to do. Ills prolits may exceed his losses, but then; is a decree of lu'trliireiice, not to say cruelty, on the i)art of iii:> (1S72). 1-i m i 178 THE CONTRACTS OF CAKKIERS. CH. VI. J the owner in such si traiisai'tion, agtiinst which tlie ciirrier is not required to insure him." Tlie learned judjjje had lie not overlooked the fact might have added that killing live eattle, or suffering them to be killed for food in the usual manner, is " not an exereise of a high degree of eare foi- the safety and welfare of the animals." § li^8. Evidence of Xe^iliijence. — Where goods never reaeh their destination and the carrier can give no account (»f them, this is proof of negligence ;•""' so Avhere goods are lost or injured Nvhih^ in the custody of the caiTier under a special contract, ami lu^ gives no account of how it oc- curred, a i)resumption of negligence is of course.''^ 'I'he fact that a carrier has received a trunk belonging to a pas- senger aiul has not delivered it to him nor accounted for it at the end of the voyage, will sustain a linding that the trunk was lost hy the gross negligeiu'e of the carrier.''^' Where a receipt given by a car"ier contained the words "valued under $1'>0, unless herein otherwise stated," it was held that a demand for tlu^ goods at the point of desti- nation and non-comi)liance with the demand by the carrier, without explanation or apology, was y>/'/»y/f/ yWfvVM'vidence of fraud or gross negligence ; but that the recovery must be reduced to $14!».J»!».^" Under a bill of lading which ex- empts a vessel from damage caused by " any neglect of the pilot, master or mariners," or " resulting from stowage or contact with other goods, for leakage, l)reakage, damage caused by heavy weather, or pitching or rolling of the ves- sel, or defective packages," or "arising through insufli- ciency of sti'ength of packages," it is responsible for cargo not delivered and not accounted for.''*' Ife; <'H, VI.] NEOLUJKNCE. 17i> The want of Huitahle vi'liiclcs Is iicgligenco on tlu' part of the {'arrier ;'" and it luis also boon hold that the faihire of a ralh-oad company to provide ears with the safest and most improved phitforms will amount to nejrligenee on its part."'^ As from the simple fact of the oeeurrenee of fire no infer- iMice of negligence can properly be drawn f'^ the fact of the bui-ning of a ship, and the fact that the witnesses can not account for the origin of the tire, do not in point of law absolutely establish negligence on the part of the car- rier ; they are only competent to found an inference of want of care.'^ Where a railroad comi)aiiy agreed to trans- port a van partly on its own road and i)artly on the roatl of another company, and the van proved to be too high to pass on the road of the other company, whereby there was some delay occasioned, it was held that the contracting company was not shown to have been guilty of negligence, as it was not shown that its servants knew that the van was too high to pass on the other road."'' Under an agreement with a railroad company for the carriage of goods exempting the company from liabilitv for anv loss or damage not caused by its neir- ligence or that of its servants, it is not sufKcient proof of negligences to show that certain cars belonging to the com- pany became detached from each other, without showing tins cause of the occurrence."'' In an English case a cow was put into a truck belonging to the defendant, and on arriv- ing at the place of destination was brought to a siding by de- fendant's yard for the purpose of being unloaded. The por- ter in charge of the yard, though warned riot to do so by the plaintiff, unfastened the truck and let her out, and she was killed '>v a i-ar. The plaintiff had signed a contract "' SajitT V. PortsiMoiilliA:.'. K. Co. :!1 Me. 228 (ISoO). •K-' Uoskowitz V. Adams Express Co., 5 Cent. L. .F. .18 (1S77); IJosko- witz V. Adams Hxprcss Co. !» Cent. L. J. ;58!) (lS7!t). '■'' 'l'li()iiii)S()ii's Lcadiiiii Cases on Nc^lifjeiu'i'. p. 148. « Cochran V. Diiismoro. Ill N. Y. 21!) (1872). *'• Wchb V. Jtailway Co., 2(; \V. K. 70 (1877). 'W Kivncli V. Buffalo &o. U. Co., J Koyos 108,2 Ab»). App. IX'c. !!)« (18G8). '! .;i i ■• m i J \ ^.'' tv. ISO TIIK rOXTIJACTS or CAHIilKKS. [c'FI. VI. tijjfroc'iiig tliiit the (Icf'ciulaiil sliould iu»( l)o linblc for :my loss or injiirv to llic cow in lln> (h^livcrv, if such tlimi!ii>"c slioiild \w occMsioiicd l)v I'cickinii'. ])limitiiiu' or roslivciicss. 'I'lic Court of (Jiiccn's Iiciicli held the dcfciidiiiit liahlc,''' In Frini/i' r. AdaiHs I'Jxprcsx Cohipani/,*''* n carrier, who hy th(- lerins of his contract to caii'v a draft was relieved from lial>ility as an insurer, was held to have used jji-opei- dili- gence and foresi(.-lii in ])ljicin same place usually arrived safe and uninjured is admissi!)le to show negligence fui his pari, and I'o cfiin'i'rso, the fact that such goods usually arrived in a damaged and broken condition is admissible, as tending to show that the 1)reakage was not the result of negligence on his i)art."'' ••• (;ill v. MnnclKvlcr iS:c. It. Co., L. K. 8 Q. Ji. 180 (187;}). '■•^ IS Lii. Ann. 270 (18(i()). '■' Steele V. 'I'owMsend, :$7 Ala. 'IM HSfil). (11. VII. J UKVIATION, IJELAY, KTC. 181 MAr.lI.llV NOTWITIISIANDINC CONTKACT DKVIATION, UKLAY, KTC. Slf'S m CHAPTER VII. m4 ^'m i;tll. Kffcci of Dcviiilioii FniiM Terms of C'oiitnu't. Mil. Contract to forward by Particular Vessel. I'll. Kxceplions in Contract Lost by Deviation. 1 |-J. Deviation hy Connectinf; (.'arfier. Ml?, (.'oiisent of Shipper. 14). railiii-e to Obey l{e^iilations. Il.'i. Liability for I^oss Caused by Delay. MCi. Contracts Concerning; Delay Construed. 147. Contracts to Deliver in Specilled Time — Penalty. MS. Abamlonment of (Nmtract — Malfeasance. § 13!>. hy<'r/ of Deviation Froiu Tenns of (Jontvad. — As was scfii in tho introductorv fhtiptcr. if u farrici- dcviato from his i-oiilc witliout lU'i'cssi.y or irasoiial)li' causo and a l(»ss ensue, wliieh iiad he not ile[)arled from iiis course he would not hav(^ been responsihU' for, lie will nevertheless l)e l„,ijii(l — his wronirfiil act heinji' eoiisideri'd as the iiroximtite eause of the disaster.' This is an elementary ride i>(>vern- iiii^ the liid)ilities of common carriers independent of eon- tract. Uiit it is likewise well settled that by deviiitinji" from the manner of the carriajxe the carrier loses tlu' heiietit of any <'x<^'niplion in his contract,-' as when- he a<:fees to ship ' AiiU . Cap. I. § 10. ■■' Ma>;li.c v. Camden »\:c. |{. Co.. 4.') N. Y. .")14 (iNTl . :!! H \ \ r^ J' \ t. A CwHJ II ffiS" K' '' |i t^ 1S2 THK CONTUACTS OF CAIMMKIIS. [CH. VII. 1)V a sailiiii>" vessel and slii|)s liy steam,' or where he ajjrees to carry the <>()()(ls " all rail " and takes them l)_v s»'a or in any other mode even for a few miles. ^ The rule is that if he attempt to pei-form his contract in a manner different from his undertakinii', he hecomes an insiirer for the a))so- lute delivery of the iroods and can not avail himself of any exceptions made in his heliaif in the conli-act.'' § 140. (Jontvdct to Fonrfinl hi/ I'dr/icii/dr |Vn,sW. — In the ii.*sonce of evidence of a general custom controllinf; bills of ladinods, havinir repird to the voyage and time of sailing: and the party issuing the bill can not send the goods by a vessel other than that nanx'd therein without assun)ing the whole risk of loss oi' damage to the goods while )n such vessel.'' The case of liarJii r, /Sfraiii.s/tij) CoDijKiiii/,' which is an authority on this ])oint, was sonunvhat jx'culiar in its facts. In this case the defend- ants' agent at Havre issued a bill of lading containing tin' following clause: "Received in and upon the steamship called Shamrock, now lying in the port of Havre and bound for Liverpool, eighteen cases of merchandisi' to be tran- shijjped at Liverpool on boai'd the Liveri>ool and I'hil- adelphia steamship. City of Manchester, or otlu'r sleam- ■' Merrick v. Wclisicr. :i Midi. 'MS (1.s.->-lj. Mliifjht'o V. Ciimdt'ii Ac. H. Co.. 4."> \. Y. T>\A (1S71): Bostwielx v. «!iltiiii(m' &C. H. r<)., !.-> X. Y. 71:2 (1S71). ■'' Diiiiseth V. Wilde. :{ III. 'iS.') (IS-IO). •• Tlie slvili iind eN|ienenee of tlie master o' tlie boat, tlie ehuracter of the erew and iiie siaiiiicliiies.-* iUid six'ed of the l)o!it. may all l)e tak ha> a ri;xht to retinire that the eonlraci be fnltilled in the manner ajrreed. nnless the master of the boat reserves the privileife of re-sliipi)in,ij;." Diinsetli v. Wade .siijira. See furlhei' /<'<>'. ("ap. VIII, ••Privile<>e of Ke-Shipiiinji." " (Joddard v. Mallory..VJ Uarb. S7 (1S(!S). ':; Wall. Jr. -J-JO (ls.-)7). CII. Ml. I)K\ lATlON, DKI.AV. KIC \HH ship appointed t(» suil for IMiiliidflphia on Wednesday the sixth day of Scpteinhcr, and failinjr sliipnient l>y her, then l>y the first steamship sailinir after that date for J'liiladelphia." The hill of ladini:' exee|)ted loss 1)y *' ueei- ut those sent hy tin; for- mer were, on account of the wreck of the City of IMiiladi'l- ])hia, lost. In an action to recover the value of the "e amonn' steamship coni])anies to ship uoods as soon as possible after their receipt . Hut the defendants were Ik Id liable. Mr. «lustice (iiMKK, by whom the ciise was decided, was of opin- ion that it was not necessary that tlu' plaintiff should show a n'asou why he had mentioned the particular vessel. Ueason or no reason he had a riii'ht to have his contract fulfilled ac- cordinjjf to its stipulations, jiiid the result showed tli.at if it had l»eeii so performed the n'oods would have arrived safely. If the iroods had bi'cii sent by the City of Manchester the plaintiff would have been obli>el had de- viated." So if a cai'rier undertake to deliver i;dods the *' daiiii'ers of the river e\cepl«'d," wilii pi-ivilep" of ic- shipi)inji" at a particular point, and he stop short of that point ami the yoods he there lost in a >torm, he will li«' re- sptmsihle.'" Where ooods were deliveiu'il to a carrier at Worcester, Mass., to lie taken to .Muscatine. Iowa, the hill of ladinu', which excepted liahility from loss from lii-e, containine' the followinu' In-adinu', ** .Merchants Despatch Transportiition Company. Fast Kr«'i^ht Line fi'oni Boston, Alhaiiy and all New Knjilaiid I'oints to the West, Northwest and Southeast, f/tronif/i n'if/tnnf tnnisfir in cai's (»wned and eontrollecl In* the? company,"" and the j^oods on their arrival at Chioajfo were transferred to a wai'ehouse, where the same eveninjr th<'y were hurned in the <;i'eat tins it was held that the carrier could not avail itself of the exemption." § 142. iJi'i'ltitioti hi/ ( 'i)intf'c/hii/ ('(irn'f'r. — A contract by the first of several carriers on a route to forward jzoods l»y railroad in liood ord(M", to the terminus of the whole route, at a stipulatetl pi'ice, is an entirety. If at the end of his own line, he changes their route by deliverinii' them to a M;r(>sl)y V. l''il.li. IJCunii. lilt (IMtS); Ki^d v. Spiiiililiii.i!;. ."i Hosw. :{!t.'i (IS.V,)). iilllrmed :t(l N. Y. (i:{0 (ISIU). '■' lliiiul v. IJayiifs. 1 Wli.ut 201 (Is:iS). '' Ciissiliiy V. Vuiiliu,-. t 1$. Moil. I'd.") (Isi:?). " Sti'Wiirt V. MiTchaiiis Dispalcli Trail-. Co.. 17 Iowa. 22!) (1S77) : Itotiiiisoii V. Mcrcliaiits Dispjiti'li 'riaiH. <'o.. |.")I(>\\;i. 170 (IS77). j J'V : -\ ni. VII.] DKVIATION, DKLAV, KTC. 1M5 second c.'in'ifr In iro liy stc:iiul»oiil , lie assiinii's |ln' risk of Iraiispoilatioii and is iJMldf for any loss or dania,i;(( in the .sul)sc(|U( aureed to forward ;.roods l»y a pai'ticidar vessel, and that vessel does not i;-o,tln'y have no i'i<>ht to forward the li'oods hy any other usual and proper mode of eonvey- an('( It is their duty to notify the owners and await their instructions." \\\ philnisnn r. Xi'ir Yorit Ci'iilrtil Ji'di/rodd CoitijKini/, plaintiffs sent l»y the defendants to Albany, ifoods consiiiiied to a person in New \'ork, with directi.)ns to defendants to foi'ward from All)any. Appeiuhid to the freiidit way-iiill was a memorandum *'■ rteinji' iibout to close, t' "j f>iily peal to the Court of Api)iNils this rulin<>; was reversed. " The defendant" said that court, " was clearly liable. On the refusal of the steamboat proprii'tors to receive the iiroix'rty, the company should either have communicated the fact to the })Iaintiff and awaited further instructions, or it should have relieved itself from liability by depositing the hemp for safe keeping in a suitable warehouse." '"' § 1 43. Coiisfuif of >S/tfj)j)«'r. — It would of course be dif- ferent if till' consent of the customer w..:» Disney. 248 (1S.")S). i'(i<).)(lik-li V. 'niompsciii. I lioh. 7.\0S(j(;), H N. Y. All (tS71). n:tl Barlt. I'.ii; (IS.-)?). '■'.I..I111S..11 V. Ni'w Yiirk Criitral 1{. Co.. ;!;i \. Y. (ilO (lS(ir>). ISC, TIIK COXTKArTS OF CAItlMKIlS. [Cir. VII. i^H (»iif \('s>r|, hut (•(nis('nt<'(l tdlln' sciidinji' of lii.t ;;«t(>v a hostile cniixcr wliiU- on tlic voyairc it was held that the «>\vn<'r.'< of the linr were no! liaMc for the loss.''' In an earlier ease in New llanipsliire,'" A airreed to ti'ans- port salt for \\ in a lioat, It tellini:' liiin that he nuist carry the salt as far as he could liy water and then land it in the nio>l convenient place. A carrie(| the salt as far as II, where tindinj.' that the river was frozen he landed it, leavinir it in the care ()f two hoatnien, and sendinj; word to li where the salt wa- . The next niufht the I'iver was so ohstriicted with ici' that the current clianjrcd and a part of the salt wa> swept away ant. The court held the carrier liable, on the i:n»iind that B haion is not based on that i^round, but >olely on the L'roiind of non-acceptance, the court say- inir tliiit tin- airrcenient of H to accept the salt was not tant- amount to an ai'tual acc«'ptance. ^ 141. Fm'/urf fn Ohi'i/ Ji'i'(/ii/ii/!itiis. — Where by contract with a carrier on :i canal the j^oods were to be (h'livered within a certain time in L'ood order, " the dani-crs of tlu' naviiration. from leakaire and all other unavoidable acci- dents excepted," it w:is held that it was the duty of the carrier to proceed accordinir to public re;.rnlations, and that he was liable f()r a loss arisinir from the bilirinjj; of his boat while lyinjr for the nijrht on a lock, contrary to the rules of the canal, althoULrh there was evidence of frequent user of locks for such a purpose. '"* '!; 14">. LiahHltif for Loxs (.'(iKsi'il 1)1/ Ih'Uiij. — In the ab- sence of special contract, the decisions are eonilictini^ as to the liability of the can-ier for a loss by the act of (iod oc- ''■ lli-ii.lri.-k- v. Tin- MMriiin;r Stiir. 1ST,m. Ami. :'>:.;{ (ISdd). '■ llam> V. l{:ii«l. I \. H. 2.V.I ( ISJ7). I' Al\v..;)il V Ki-li;iii(-.- Trail-. «'(..!» \yalH. S7 (l><:iil)- iii'il -<■■' Hiiml v. B:i\ lie-. I Whai-t. 201 (ls:JS). to that p.Mi't (»f tilt' road wlici'i' the tfaiii would have Ik'cii if it liad Ix'cii niiiiiins and that tin- eai-riei' is tln-i'efore n(»t lia- ble. '•' In the ease of an ex|ires- contract a similar discordanev ♦ xists. in New \'orh where a Itill of ladin<; exempted the «'arrier from i-es|»on>iliilily f(»r loss hy fire, and he delayed foi' an uni'easoiialiie Icnirlh of time to deliver the jioods t() ii connectinir line, and the i:«io(U wei-e hurnt in the ware- house «d" the former, it wa> held that the exemption in the hill of ladiiiii' did n(»t al»-ii\ e *' unavoidahle " where the hill of ladinu" ext'cjits •• unavoidal)le delay."" A transj)ortatJon coni[)any ivci-ived uoods in New \'ork on the 10th of Novendx'i', which they ai>i-eed to dclixcr in iJacine, the owner assuniiiiiT the ."isk of lo-s hy lake naviuation and dainare lost on the lake a few hours after leavin;:" l»uftalo, hy wreck. The court held that the delay in transpcntiu;',' t he noods to IJuf- falo, tlu! usual time for the transit lieini:" oidy thi'ec days, was, in View of increased daniirer of lake ii;i\ ligation as win- ter ap[)roached, prhmi farU' ])rTiu('nhowinu' that the delay \vas f:urly within the exception of tlie contract.-' In the common stipulation on railioad tickets thai the company shall not Ih; liable for any delay in the start ini:' or arrival cd" trains, arisinj; from accident or other cause, the wiu'ds "other cause" me'i:\ •• other cause in tin- nature of ;ick exceptinu' *• risk of any loss or damau^e whiel, ma}' Ix^ sustained l)y reason of any delay, or from any other cause or thinji' in or in«idi'nt to. oi- from or in the loadinji or unloadinir the stock."' is held to apply to losses from delays in loadini:' (U* unloading and to have no refer- ence to other losses which the delays of the .-ai-ricr may cause to the owner.-"" The clause in a receipt that tlie car- rier shall not l)e Iial)h' foi' damaiic or lo>< to the Lioods be- yond a certain amoimt does not apply in a ^uit aijainst a currier for dama<;«'s for delay in transport ini>' the ;^dods.-'' -' I'":ilvi'y v. Nerihcrii \i'. Cn.. i:. Wi-. IJ'.i i |m;J). '■'■■ IJiickmii^lcr V. <;rt'at lv!>li'i i: !.'.('.>.. J:!!.. I". ^ \. S.) 171 (jsro). •••" SissuM V. <'|(.v.'l;iii(l\c. K. ('.... I! Mich, isii (ls<;(j). '■'^ N'roiiiiiiiii V. Ani'Tii'iiii iVc. 1-:n|iit~- ('u.. .'iN. Y. (S.<'.; I'l. >■. c.. J lliiii..">12 (V.7t). N, DKI.AV, i:t(". 18!» <;■ 117. ('(tiilrarls h) Ih'Hi'ci' III Sjucijicil Thnf — Pcnnllij. — Ill lilt' sliidiliitioii oi" !i l)ill ol" liidinu' lo (Idivcr floods williin :i sijcciliod lime. " in i^ood (irdcr, the diiiiLicrs of the r;iiii'<>;id, life :md other mi;ivoid:il>le jicc'hU'hIs excepteti," the e.\<'ei)lioii I'ehiles exellisivel v to the eoiidifioii of the u'od'ls, jiiid the e;in'iei' is not excused from his ohliu-.-itioii to deliver within tlie time by showim:' tiiut the ehiy was eaiised li\ iiii:',voidMl)le aeeideiil .'-'" Whel'e (he eoiilrael sjteeilies tlie time and tixes the rate of dt'iiia-ics for delay, swh damaLi'es ai'e not the whole extent of lial)ility wliere there is injury hv I'eason of delay. 'IMiiis in I'hiri' r . Cnln)! l^^xprcss (U))n- jiaini,'^ expi'essnieii. who were common I'arriers, stipulated to |);i.v a certain sum per tHim for delay in delivery of fruit heyoiid a time speciiied, exempt inij llu'niselves fn)in liability for casualties beyond their control, and for injui'y to the rrcii'lit duriuL'' the course of transjxo'tation occasioned by tile weathei', accidental delays or by nalui'al tendency to de- c:r. . and providini:' that t heii* "iruaranly of special dispatch" .-hoiild not covi'r exti'aordinary cases: there was such delay, aii ;(' were held not allcniiitivc :iy;rco- tnciits, liiit that tlif aiiioiiiit to Ix- ilcdiictcd wus in tlio iiiitiirc of liipii- dati'il diiinufics, iuid tin- (Mrricr was l)oiind to pay for a dcday ocrasioriiMl by aa injury to a canal by a frcslict. Harmony v. IJin:;ham, I Diicr, "20'.) (i.sr>4), allinncil 12 N. Y. !)!) (1851). 3' I'lacc! V. Union Kxprciss Co., 2 Hilt. 10 (18:i8). « Klli8 V. TiirmT, 8 T. K. Wl (1800). cir. VII.] DEVIATION, DELAY, ETC. 191 (lelivorcd the jroods to h person of a iianie very similar to that of the person named as the eonsignee. The contraet of carriage was at a reduced tariff, conditioned to exclude all lirhility except for wilful misconduct. It was held that the delivery of the goods amounted to wilful misconduct.'' So in a case in our own courts a railroad company rer ceivcd cjittle to he transported over its road under a special contract, in which it was stipulated that the owners of the cattle should undertake " all risk of loss, injury, damage and other contingencies in loading, unloading, con- vi'vance and otherwise," and that the company should neither he hound " t() forward the cattle hy a particular train, nor he responsihle for their delivery within any cer- tain time." On the arr'val of the train on which the cattle were heing transported, at a station intermediate hetween the points of shipment and delivery, the cars containing the cattle were switched off on a side track hy order of the freight su[)erintendent of that section of the road, and de- t^iined thiee or four days. During this detention the cattle were neither fed nor watered, it heing impracticahle to sup- ply them with food and water while on the cars, and there being no facilities for unloading them. In conse(|uence of thi." and of exposure to the inclemency of the weather some of I'le cattle died, and the value of the others was greatly depn I'iated. The court ruh.'tl that the act of the freight sui)erintendent in detaining the cattle was not negligence, hut a deliherate and int«'ntional hreach of the contract, and that the company was liiihle in damages to the owner of the cattle.'' In another case a clause in a hill of lading pro- vided that " tln^ <>()()ds are to he taken alony-side hv the consignee immediately after the vessel is ready to discharge, or otherwise they will he deposited at the expense of th(^ consignee, and at the risk of tire, loss or injury in the ware- house provided foi" that purpose on the wharf." It was held that tlH'i'c wa'* nothing in this condition which would "' WiKUo V. Crcat Western K. Co.. :t7 L. T. Ht'p. (N. S.) ISO (IS77). •■« Kfi-m-y V. i.ivmul Trunk Ac. R. Co., .'>!) Hiir)>. 104 (1870). ti £' ".*■ i 1J)2 TlIK CON in ACTS OK CAKIUEKS. [CII. VII. relieve the ciirrier from liability for loss oeeiirriiiir l>y llie delivery of the iroods to the wroiiii' person l)v the clerk who htul control of the waieliouse, which helonucd to the t-arrier."' The conrt distiniiuisheil this ease from that of Ti.f' >S(i)iffi','"'' Avhere the uoods were to he delivei'ed at the wharf, hut tiie carrier was not in charii'e of the wharf, and the iioods were taken away hv an unauthorized person without the ap-ncv or interference of the carrier or his servants. Where one had contracted with a eoinnion cari'ier for the transpor- tatation of iroods, and afterwards discoverinii' that the car- rier had been iiiiilty of material misrepresentations, for- bade him to undertake tlu^ carriains which eommand, how- ever, the carrier disreirarded, and the jroods were daniM \. Y. "JIJ (1S70) ; (.Ifii- dcll V. TliDiiisoii, ,■)(■) N. Y. I'.M (1.S7-I;. ■■«7 niatchf. 1S(! (1870). "^ D;iiU'h V. Silliiiiaii. ■_' h:iii.<. IJUl (1S70). m T^ '^IWk* , <'U. VIII.] CONSTRUCTION OF CONT1JACT8. 198 CIIAPTKH \ III. THE CONSTiaCTION OF CONTHACTS LIMITl\(i LIABILITV. XK.criox. 1 »!». Tilt! UuittMl States Statiites as to ( 'arrieiis by Water. l."i(). Exc('])ti()iis ill till' ("out met -i of Carriers Coustnietl Strietlj'. I.")l. Tiie >[axiiii Kxprcssio riiiiiscst Kxcliisiu Alteriiis. I'rj. Opinion of IJijjclow. C. .1., on the Ai)i)lii'ation of the Maxim. 15;i. Tfrins ill Insurance I'olii-ies and Hills of Lading Constnied Dif- ferently. l-M. lnleri>retatiiin of Words and IMirases in Contracts. l.'i.'i. '•Accidental Delays. i.".i!. " Aitrces." All Kail." Arlicle.*" I. -.7. l.->s. I.V.l. i(;(t. inj. |(;:{. ici. Kir.. See •• Leakage and Brealiasie." Hii;. Kir. I (•.;>. 170. 171. 17-'. Baggage." ' nreaka,i:-c." C. O. D." ( 'onteii;> liiknown." See •• Valne and Contents rnknown." Damage." Dangers Incident to the Navigation of tlie IJiver." Sec •• Dan- gers of Navigation." 1) iiigcMs of Navigation." .\nd herein •• Dangers Incident to the Navigation of the River," •• Dangers of the Lake," •• Dangers of the l{i\('r." •• Dangers of the Seas." •■ Inevitable Acci- dents," >• Perils of the Lake." •■ Perils of the Jtiver,"' "Perils of the Seas" and " l'na\ oidable Accidents." See also '• I'mi- void.-iblc Accidents." • Dangers of the Lake." .See •• Dangers of Navigation." • Dangers of the Kiver." Sec ••Dangersof Navigation." ■ Dangers of the Ifoads." • Dangers of tli.- Seas." S(!e •• Dangers of Navigation." • Deliciency in <^iianlity." • Dciii.t." ■ Lrrors." L! .^mmt..' fM 194 TIIK rONTRACTS OK CAHItlERS. [ni. vm. U: • -KCTIOX. 17;!. •• Escapes." 171. ■• KMriKir.liiiury Miiiiiir Ki-i;."' 17."). •• I'ct'il, WaliT ami 'I'akc I'ldpi'i-Carc I'f."' 17(). ••Kin'." 177. •• l'"(ir\v:inl." 178. •• Frce/ini,'." 17!). •• From Wliatcvor < 'aiisc.'" ISO. •• (iiMxl Onlcr ami I'oiKiilioii."" 181. •• llt'at. .SiiffocallDii and tlic Otlicr 111 Effcft.s of B(iii>;(; ISiJ. •• lii(vilal)lt' ,\c('i(l('iils."" ^^'^• - l>an;;. VM. 1!)7. 1!)S. 1!)!). •200. 201. 202. 20;{. 201. 20.^). 20(1. 207. 208. 20!t. 210. 21 1 . rowdt'd." I'lia- Owncr's Hisii." On I,akt's or l{iv< On liic Train." I'aclxajrc." S('<' • IVriis ol" tiic Lal<('. rcrilsof the Www. Arli'.'ic. Sec Si'c Si'c ' Dangers of Navijjation."' • Danj^crs of Naviixation." • DangfTs of Navigation." •• I'lTils of tilt" Seas. •• rcrisiiahtf rmpii'iy." ■• Piiol. .Master or Mariners." •• I'iai !■ of Destination." ■• Tor! of Disehargc." •• rriviii';.'.'!' of Kfshipi)ing." •• t^nantity (Jnaranteed." •• Restraints of I'rinces." '• Kobber.s." ••Suffocation." '• Tliieves." See •• J{(il)l)ei-^." •• Tin'ongli 'VVitliont Transfer." ■'Tow and Assist Vessels." •• I'navoidahle Aci'idents." See also " Danger.- •• Value and (.'onicnts I'liluiown." •• \'iei(insiicss." •■ Watered and Vi-t]."' *• Weatlier. Injni'ies Oceasioneil l)y." (.'oiilliet propci- to set out tho .sttituto of the United Sttilcs rcliiliiio- to ctirrior.s by wjitcr iind the deci.s- ("II. VIII.] fONSTKlCTION OF COXTKAC'TS. 195 ions tlicrcundor. These* provisions are ii^iven in C"iiiipt( r six (•(>iic('rnineyond the valu • and according to the character thereof so notified an 1 entered. iSfr. 42.S2, No owner of any vessel shall be liable to answer for or make good to any iierson any loss or damage which may hai)peii to any merehandise whatsoever which shall be ship- ped, taken in or put on board any such vessel, by reason or by means of any lire happening to or on board the vessel, unless such tin* is caused by the design or neglect of such owner. See. 42S;?. The liability of tlu owner of any ves- sel for any embezzlement, loss or (h'struction by any person of any i)roperty, goods or merchandise shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage or injury by {■ollision, or for any act, matter or thing lost, damage or forfeiture done, occasioned or incurred without the i)rivity '■^^:Mmm<. 11K5 THE CONTIJACTS OF CAIMUKKS. [Cir. VIII. or kiiowlodjic of such ownor or owners slmll in no cuse ox- coed the amount or value of tlio interest of sueli owner in such vessel and her freijjcht then j)ending. iSfc. 4281. "Whenever any .- ach enihez/lenieni, loss or destruction is suffered by several freijjfhters or owners of iroods, wares, merchandise or any ijroperty whatever on the same voya or by his own pi-ocurenn-nl, shall be deemed the owner of such vessel within the meaning of the pi'ovisions of this Title relating to th<' limitation of the liability of the owners of vessels : and such vessel when so chartered shall be liable in the same manner as if navigated by the owner thereof, .SV'r-. 4287. Nothing in the live ])i'c- cedint the mas- ter, otlicers or seamen for or on account of any embezzle- ment, injury, loss or destruction of merchandise oi- [)ropcrty ])ut on board any vessel, or on account of anv negligence. ■ 'WdMWi ni. vrii.] fONSTHLCTio.v of coxtkacts. lit? fraud or other iiiiilvcrsiitioii of such lUMstcr, ()tfio(M'.s or scii- int'ii rcspoclivcly, nor to h-ssi'ii or take; away any responsi- l)ility to which any master or sciiuiau of any vessel may by law l)e liahh', n(»twitlistan(lin_ir sucl; master or seaman may !)(' an owner or i-art owner ov tlie vessel. l)ly to any vessel of any de- scription whatsoever used in I'ivei's or inland naviji'ation. .SV'C. I^Sl'. 'I'he provisions of [M/n 'J\'//r'] [the seven })re- cedinu" se- .Mtus] relatinu" to the limitation of the liahilily of the owm rs of vessels shall not apply to the owners of any canal-lioaf, hart-e or liuhti'r, or to any vessel of any descrip- tion whatsoever used in rivers or inland naviiration.' § l.'»(). h'.i-c('p/i(iiis ill (he ( 'oiifnu-fs of ('(irricvs (Jonxtvucd Slrlrlh/. — In an old work al'-eady referred to,'-' the writer aflei' reui'cttinir that the Knirlish courts had pi-rmittcd the introduction of notices to limit the connnon law liahilities of c'arriers, adds: " Hut this tler«'liction of public duty has not heen always successfully effectey water who eai'fies in liis trunk liis ordiiiai'y wear- ing n|)paiel. ornaments and professional implements, however rare or vahiahlc they may lie. IJrock v. (Jale. 11 Kla. .")'JI{ (187 tj. The excep- tion as to ••inland navij:;ation "" does not inehide vessels used on the LTieat lakes. .See also as to the constrneiion of this; statute. The City of llartfoid V. 'IMie ruit. II IMatehf. -J'.K) (Is7:t): The (.'ity of Norwich. 1 Hen. S!i (isdC.) : The \iafj:ara v. Cordes. i\ How. 7 (IS.")Sj; Thorp v. Hammond. 1-2 Wall. lOS (1S7(>); .N'orwieh Co. v. Wrij-ht, Kl Wall. 1(14 (1871) : Walker v. Transportation Co.. ;{ Wall. I.V) (180.")) ; Keeiie v. The Whistler. -i Sawy. :(I8 (187;{); Allen v. Muekay. 1 Spra.^^ue. 21!) (1854); Moore V. .\merican Trans. Co.. '24 How. I (18(Jt)). ' Antf. Cap. IV. § 87. ' ■'J ' /I I ■'H^smm^^ 1!>« Tin: CONTItACTS OF CAKKIKItS. [n. vm. fordi'il cvi'iT rcliff in llicir power l)_v const niiiiji- such no- tices most sti'ictiy in the hin^Uiiiic and r('<|uii-in,uous laiiiiuaire. Kxceptions Inserted in their re- ceipts and eontra<'ts are construed strictly ajzainst tliem.^ Examples of this rule are doii" in cliai'Miiil iiiiaiiilii;:;iioiis ]aii^iia<;t'. and tiic nilc tliat tin' lanniia;:;"' of contract^ if aiiiliii^iioiis is to lie construed ay;aiiist tiif party ii-innit. slioiild lie riujidiy apiiiicd to siicli contracts. Kdsall v. Canidrn i>ir. I!. <'o.. .".O N. V. iKll (Is7-j,. •• .\s tlic cxccplioii is an innovation on tin- principles df law. and intr:ain-l the earriers." Hooper \. WelN. -JT <'al. II (!S(;i). 'See Caj). VI. « Hawkins v. Great Western U. Co.. 17 Mich. .^.7 (iSfW). ' IJiitler V. The Arrow. McLean. 17l( (is,").")). A foininoii carrier may fll. Vm.] CON8THI (TION OV roNTUACTS. 1!M> — Mr. .Iuslic(! Stoisy. rt'forriiiiT to an I'iii'ly Knjilisli case, has rairti'il till' (jiicst ion williont aiiswcrinir il, wlicllicf if a Mi|>iiliit(3 fur ('\('iii|iiiiiii ii'uiii li:il)ilily loi' Inssi's (icriiniiii;' llii'iiiiM'li lii.-. iM'>;li;;<'iii'i': Itiit lii- I'liiiii'Mcl will imi lir cnti^truitl Id (oiiiiiiii siit'li an fXi-inptioii. iiiili'-i- il be so cxiH'c-i^ly ii'^'i 1, 'I'll' i fo'-c. wlicrc llif t'oii- li':ir: dill mil runiaiii such t'\|iri'.> siljuilalinii. Imt diil iinitaiii a sti])- iilaiioii liiiiitin;; llic ciiiTicr's lialdlily in any rvcnt lu ■-.i.Ml, ami tlicro wus l.iiicii (if ilii' niin-ilcliscry of tlii' i^oixN In llic ('c)n*i;ini'c. and Unit some niiiiiilis alU'i' sliljinirnt llir lii>\ whicli had coniaiin'il llifin wa-^ jticki'd np fniply. ni> rxplainitiiin nf the nini-dt'livt'ry iM-iufj slinwii : 7/»'/(/. that thcM- facts waiiantcd ihc siilnnissinn of Ihc (inc-ilnn of nc^liircncc to till' jnry, who. in tlii'lr verdict, should n<:t i'(;;ai'd the siipnlation liinit- liij; lln' canicr's liahility to )<:){i. •• The leruis of lliese conlracts are v<'ry much under tin nind of the carriers, and tlr y may justly he reipiired III express in plain lei'ins the eiitifc exemption foi- which they siipniate. The laiif^ua^e of this clause 'svery limad; hut if it he desired that a I'lause siiall cover losses liy ncjjli^eiicc, it is not loo mnch to say that the pmpoM- nuisl he clearly expressed." .Mannin v. Din-more, ."iii X. Y. Ui>< (IS7lj. ,\ hill of ladinj,' contained this pi'ovision: ■•-Mi loss and dam- iifje * * from any act. ne;flect or default what>ncver of the pilot. ma-ier oi' maiiners liein;; excepted, and the owners liein^ in no way lia- hlc for any coii-eiiui'iices ahove excepted." 'i"he floods were delivered h\ (le mate of the vessel on which they were shipped to a siran;j;er who ncithei had nor presented any anihority to receive tliem. Il was litdd that the jirovisions in the hill of ladiiii; did not cover this careless act of the defendants' serxani. ;e. or otlierwise the |irivilc ■ is reserved to the vessel to land the: i the pier. * » * at llie expense of the eon- sii;ii"e and al his risk of lire. |o>s or injury:" //«■/(<. lii il after such landini; the ;;oo(ls remaiiu'd in plaintiffs custody as carriers, snliject to Ihe modilied re>pon-il)ility created hy the conlrael, until after notice of arrival had been i;i\'en the consjjrn,.,- and a rea«onalile lime had elapsed for their removal, and that the clan>e did not exempt the plaintiff from liahility resnltinjj from his ow n nc;fli(! N. Y. Iltt (1S71). The anient of a tow-lioal a-jrecd to tow a canal hoat "at the ri»k" of the master and owner of il. the ma>ter aj^reein;; to liavc a <-ompelent man at the helm and to f^uaranlee the seaw<)rthine boat for the trip: /A/i/. that Ihe contract did not exempt the owner of the tow-boat from liability for Ihe ne• And all risks incurred or liability to accidents whilst in said service is compensated for and covered by the pay aj^reed uiion: the said r:iilri)a(l comiiany assmnin^' n.i respon-il)ilit\ for dama;res from !■ J 2<>(> THE {ONTIIACTS OK C'AIMCIKIIS. [nr. VIM. carrior's rontriut coiitaiii ccitiiiii ('X(('i)ti()ns to liis liaMlily, hut omit those which the coiiiiiioii hiw aHoAvs for iiis hcin-tit — thi' aft of (iod and the puhiic ciiciiiy — the rxpic^s fxccptioiis do not cxchidc the iniplii'd ones,'' in accoid- ancf with the maxim rjjii; fr< in llii- in ;rli;;(iH r of ilic roiniianv"- -fivaiil-. Mcinplii- »\:f. |{. Co. v. .loiics. "J lli nd. ."il7 O^*.'.!!;. A railroad tlikil n.ntaiind tlii- itrovi-ioii : •• It is a;;nMd llial tin- pfisoii acft'ptiii;; Iliis ii< Ixct a— uiiH's ill! ri-li of pcrsoiial iiijiiiy and loss or diiiii- a;j(' to pr<»])cii.\ uliil-l ii-iny; llif -aim- on llic trains of tin- niinpaiiN ." Tills cvni If the ronipany loiild coiili.H t against iif^lifjciicc would imt Ih' <'ff»'ftnal. Indiana iV<'. I{. (.•(.. V. Miiiidy. -Jl hid. IS (l,s(i;i). in Niw .fprscy Steam Navi^ralion < 'o. v. Mficlianls IJaiiVw. tcr and hand«. * * * If it i- I'ompcteni al all for llie carrier to stipulate for the ;ji'oss nejilip-nce of hinisell ai'd his servants oi' a;;ents in the transportation of ;;oods. it should be rcijiiircd to be done at least in teiins that would leave no doiibt as to the meaidii^ of the parties.** " Hever V. Tomlinsoii (17'.»i). thus slated in Abl ^tl on Shipping (i;ili .\in. ed.) p. 4. c;ip. •!. p. :?m;: "Inatasc which came before the Com t of Kinj^'s lieiich a -hort time before the late alteration of the bill of ladiiifj and which was .•in action broii;;hi to recover the \aliie of jjoods for which the master had >i<;ned a bill of ladin<; containin<;' an exccpiiea. alth(iii<.^h made durinj; the time of a w;ir. and which j^oods wi-re lost in coiiseiiuenee of the ship belli;; desi^fiiedly struck by the vessel of an enemy: it was doubted by the court whether a loss so occasioned were within the meaning; of this i-xception. and llie cause never proceeded to a tinal jud;;ment. 'I'he exjiiess exception in this case afforded room to contend Ilial tlie excejitirtii of the at-t of the Kinff's enemies, which arises out of ^reneral lules of law. was uu-ani to be excluded in thi" particnlar instance."* " Storv on Itailments. i .""mO. CII. VIII.] COXSTUrrTION of (((NTKACTS. 201 This has lu'vor ])vvn scHh'd in Kii modern l>iils of l:i(lin<; contain all the exceptions. It was said in an early case in South Carolina that if a coin- nion carrier spt-ciallv undertake to deliver safclv anv articio carried, he will l)c l»ound l>v his undei'takinL' to ansvM-i' for the loss, alth(»ui;h it may happen from a cause which in tho ahsencc of an express conti'act would excuse him;'" and in Fis/t r, Cliapman^^^ where a wa;j;oner contracted to deliver certain packages in jjood oi'der and condition, *• unavoidaido accidents only excepted," it was hi'ld that this exception excluded all others and that lln-refoic he would he liahle for a loss l»y the pul)lic enemy. The case of Svtnj'f r, I'^nrraitl ,^- decided in the Knjriisli Courl-^ of Iv\che(iuer and Kxehe(|uer ('hand)er,''' in IHT'), I" (iiiilluT V. Hiiriii-t. li I5rf\ . iss (|sll). 'I'lic iciiortcr .'pciik- of ilic loss ill ilii- ciisi' iis an "miiivdiiliililc iiccidi'iit," but il is cli'Mr from llu' iipininii ili;ii tiiis phrase is iiscd liy I'iin as "yiioiiymuiis witli ilic •• ail of (iixi." "2 (ia. :14!) (1847). i--j;{ W. H. 1(1!). 2 ('fill. F-. J. ;{s;! (IST.-i). 'i'li,. facts slatcil fully wcic! iis follows: Tlic plaintiff bcin;; (Ic-iroiis of inovinj;; liis fiiriiitinc fidiu I'aijriiloii to I'lyiiioiitli, apjilifd to tlic ih'fciMlniil for that piiiposc, 'I'he fiiniitiirt' v\a> sfcii liy the dcffiMlaiit's fofcniaii. and the dt't'cndanl on the liHli of Aiij^iist, ls7;t. wroti- to thf plaintiff in the followinjj; tciins: "I l)i';r to inform yon that the turms for th« removal of your fnrnltnrc and effects, as seen l>y my fori'inan. fnnn I'ai^fiitoii to IMymonth. will he Cl'l Ids., with risk of hieaKa;;c> in tran.'.it. iiiclndin;;; the use of all necessary nrits. case< and packini; inntciials ami every expense. In tin; event of ycnr a<'ccpiin;j this estimate, he kind enonjih to -iiji;!! ami return to me the annexed memorandum hy which I am liable to the amount therein spi'cilied." The incmorandnm was >i^'ned by the plaintiff, and was in the followinj; terms: •• 1 hereby a;(ree to pay yon the sum of L'1'1 lOs. for the removal of my fmiiitnre and effects from I'aijjnton to I'lyinonth, yon imdertakiiijn' risk of breakaji:es (if any) not exeeedinir C\ on any one uvtiele." The dcfeiiilant had an olllee in 't'oripiay and exliil>ite(l a l)oar(l t'ontaininj; tin' words: •• \V. I'"arranl, Tonpiay. S. I).. Jfailway Com- pany " A;;eni. Mattinj;, ( 'ases. A;e.. on sale or hire. Horses, Vans, iV:e., on hire. I'^xtensive stores for warehonsin^ fnrnitnre iV:e.. by the, week,, month and ye;ir. (Joods and parcels collected :in(l delivered." Similar words appi'ared on advert isincr hoards at the railroad station and also on the defenilanl's cards. Tlie floods were destroyed by tire dming transit by rail. " Scaife v. Furrunt, 23 W. K. SIO. 2 Cent. I.. J. CO") (IST.^i). The argn- m -«» w 20 J Till". COMKAC TS OF CAUItlKUS. [cH. VIII. called for the ;i|i|)lic:iti(iii of this ip.axiiii. 'IMi!- (l(f»'ii»l:iiit w;)s the iiircnt of a railroad coiiipaiiy for carrviiiu: iroo(l,< and i'cmovinsr f limit lire, and lie also sonl l^hkIs and fnniifurc iiicMts and jnil;ri!H'iil« .m ;i|i|iim1 an- hcn-w itli aii|ivnilcil. ill llif ( 'iiiiit _t a I'liniiiinn rai'ficr. he has. nil the fai i> of liii» case, tlu' lialiiiiiy of a foiiiiiiou carrii'i-. ami iiiii-l ]h' llcid to ll:l\c' li'.'iMl ll;i' absolute ill-lircr of tllt'sc ;,'ood-. ( >ll liotll tlli'sr jioiiil* tiic iM- ■ of I.ivcr .Mk.ili ' 'oiii|iaiiy. 2(1 \V. ]{. C.:;;?. I,. 1{. 7 V.\. 'Ku (1.^72). and L. |{. :t 'As. :{:{s (Kx. (Mi.) (1S7I). is decisive. In llial .msc in tilt' Cfiiii-t l)t'lo\v it \\,i.- indil iliat tlif defendant was a coinnioii latrier. i\iid ill tills eoiir' III. II iie had at all events tlie lialiility of ii eoninion rar- iiei-. [IJiett. .). : I liied to expft'ss in my jud;;meiit in tint easi my oliiaion tliat tlie di-fenil:iiii was not lialile a> a eoimii 'ii eairier. Inn that lie was liaMi' liy i-easoii of a eiistom.J 'I'iie jiidirment of the majoriiy of till' roiirt x'i'ins to lie tliat lie was lialile as a common <'ariier. 'I'iie deti- nitioii of a eoiiiiiion i-airiei- is found in ( 'ojr.ics v. nenianl. I ."^m. I.. ( '. 2S1 I 17l>:i). and the del. ndaiii eomi's within the deiinition in (ii'iioiirn V. Iliifst. 1 .Saili. 21'." (1710.. fl.iish. .1.: The jiidjrimiil of .Mr. .lu-^tiee Iiiai-l\lini'ii in l.iver Allxali ('omiian.\ v. •lolmson. does not eleaiiy iiiaik the differeiiee lietwt'eii a eomiiion carrier and one wlm t;ike> on liiiiis.'lf liy iisa;re or contract the liahility of a common carrier. 'I'liese are two distinct cases.] Tlie plaintiff relies iipon Imtli |ioinl-. |<'ock- iMiiii. ( '. .1. : .\--nmiii;; that the defendant i< a cominoii carriev. lie w onid be lialde for lireakaj^e: but here there i- a ^jieciai claii-e rcmleriiii;' liim liable. ^VIly was that in-ertcd?] That is imt an ;ii:reeineiil to cNcinpt «lefeiidant fi'' '11 the liability of a caniei-: it i« merely a ciaii-e ti\in;j the niea-iiire of nania^re- on each article in tli" event of a certain kind of ac- «'ident : it does not di~ili ir;;e the defendant, ('lirke \. (ira; . i; Kast, ")t'i| (IMI.")). The defendant can not. by makin;: :i --jiecial >lipiiialion .i^ ,n i'ertain delaiU of his duty a- a common carrier, alter bis ciiaractei' ;i> 8tii h carrier or relie\e liinweif from his ;;;ineral ri --pon-ibiiity. Cole. C^. ('. (I'inder. with iiiini. for tlie delemlanl : The jiid;;:meiit nf the court b(dow is rij^lit : the defendant i- not a common cirrier. and if lie is. ...till in liie present I'.ase he ha- limiied his liability by a special t'liiilracl. lie inspects irooils in each ca-c ••im! makes ,, ■•■■iiraci wiili ','acli cnstonier. The terms of his ad\erii~eiiieiii exclude the contention thai he i- a common carrier, and tlie letter-- thai p.is-ed between the plaintiff and ilefendant clearly .^iiow that a special contract was made in thi- case. Tile jikIm;!!!!' It of Mr. .Insiice Creswell in \Vliite v. (ireat \Ve<;e!n |{. Co.. .") W. Ii. iss. 2 C. U. (N.S.) 7 ( In.'>7 i. i- in point. Tlie le.iriied jml;j:e says. p. I!l: •• It ;i|)peareil that the dereiid.in;- did not re- i'ci ■■.' floods to be cari'ied, unless the consiirnor sij^ned a paper coiitainin;^' various con. litions. The jndf;e wlm presided at tiie trial tlionifhl that fonliact was sjiecial, and tlial the defendants did not receive the yood- ff liMfa^ \i^--*-*am,H (II. VIM.] ("ONSTIM'fTION OF CONTUArTS. 203 ill his own VMiis to all piirts of Kii<:l:iii(l. lie puhlislicd ii cMitl ill wliidi lie set forth his husincss, Iht' ciird concluding iis foUows: "Conlnicts ciilcrcd into foi- rcniovinir furniture MS cciiiinuii 1 Miiiris. 'riic cciiiri i- III i>|iiiii<>ii tlial lie w a> rijilil." 'i'hat ca-i' a|i|ilics line. Miiinl \ . Dalr. s ( '. iS; 1'. -.Mi: (ls;{7).is authority for till' (li'fcmlaiil. Ill', as ilic ili fi'iilaiii tlirrc. incn'l.v li-ls out carts for hire, anil luTc as IIuti'. Ilic ciuilrart i» only to cairy Ilic irooils .-afcly as far a- i-i'irai(i> llic ni'i;lrr| of liini-rif ami liis srivants. anil not to insure ihrirsafi'lv Ml all i'\fnl-. < 'ur. mh-. nilt. Till' folio" iiiir jiiiliruirnU wi'M' -iil)-i'i|iii'Mtly iIi'IImti'iI : .Mcllor. •!. : I am of opinion that tlii< jnil;^'ini'nt nuisl lie aHirnii'il. 'I'lic fads appear to me clearly to show that the ilelivei'v of the furniture in (|iii'-lion to the (lefenilanl \\as not a ilelivery to him as a eommon carrier or a< luiilcrlaKinj:: the lialiililie-: whieh attach to a couiuioii carrier, hut \\as a ilelivery iiniler a -peilal contrai'l . to lie eolleeteil from the lettei's of the ilefenilani to the ]ilaiiuiff. and the niemoi ainliuu signed hy the plaintiff. I thinl\ thai the nie.'inimrof the letters ami memoranilum is. thai the ilifemlaiit ua- willinj;' to remove the furniture from I'aii^ulon to riymoutli for the «um of £-J2 KN.Jie uiidortakiii:,' the particular risk of hreakaiie. not exceeiliujr U'l on an.\' one article. (»f eoiu'.-e thi> does not cM'ludc liahilitN foi- ne;ili;r,.iice or want of reasonalile care on thi' part of the defendants ;iuil his servant-. I think tliat the circuinlio\v that the dcfi'iidani undertook no other ri-k of casualty than that, and the ar;.iunieiii for the plaintiff has failed to show that any fiiiliier M' more exteii-ive lialiilitv allached to the difeiidanl . The eou- teiiiion I'll liehalf of the pl.iiiiiiff rested mainly upon thi' .iMil;>'iiii'iit in |,i\er .Mk.'di (oiniiaiiy v. .lohii- m. in the Mxchtijiier ( 'hanitier. I.. 1{. !i ]',\. 'X\S (I^TI). Had that ca-e imt lieeii clearly di-tin)j:uishalile in its faci- from the piesent. it would ha\e heeii l.iiidin;:' upon us sittiii.uas a co-ordinali' loiirl of appeal, and it can only he i|iialiti"!l or rever-ed hy a ill . i-imi of ihe lloiis,. ,,f I.nrds. |'nr my-e!f I deelilie ciii tlie ]iresellt oeia-iou to di-ciiss the niounds upon whii h that ca-e proeetded. hceausc I think it is entirely unneee-s.iry to do so, and ! therefore eoiifiiie i»iy dc- ei-ioii to ihe nieaiiiiiLr of the -pecial conlraet hetwei 11 Jtw parti«»i«, to whirh I have already referred. I may add that my hrolher firovc ajfrefii ill this judgment. I,llsll..l.; Il does imt appear to he neees..iu\ Id deeidi' the ipiestion wlii''li wa- tir-t ari^iied on this appeal, namely, whetlier the defendant coini's within the detinition of. or whether in the ordinary course of his hiisiiiess lie incurs the liahility of a common carrier, so a- to he aiiswera- t)le for damage to ihe yfoods not caused hy any act or default of himself or his .servants. I airne w itli the eoiirt ludow tlial the lettors and meino- randiiiu eontained in this ea e eoii-tiliite a speelal contract, and 1 think that whether withoul those letters the defendant would have heen liahle or Hot for the accident which liai>pone(l to the );oo(ls, the terms of tlie coiitraci siillleieiitly show that Imtli parties understood that the risk iiii- 'wsw^gj/gggg^i- Is: 204 •! I f THE CONTKACTfS OF rAUUIEUS. [cil. VIII, to or from any part of the Kingdom. Kstimati's y the plaintiff, form the cdntract in tliis ca-e. The propioal is, •■ riie;;' to inform yon tlie terms for remo\al of yonr fnrniiure will l)e £22 Id-., with the risk of hri'aka;xes in transit. In tlie e\«'nt of your aeee|(tin;^ this estimate. In- kind enon<;li to return to me the aimexed memoraiidiini l)y wliii'h I am liable to the amoinit speeitied." Tlie answer i< in thes(> terms: •• I hereby ajjree to pay yon tlie -nm of 1.22 10». * * * y,,n nndertakiiij^ risk of breakaj^e (if anyl not exeeeilin;;' t."> on any one article." It w.is eontended by the plaintiff- eonii-el that these doeii- ineiits should be read as merely liinitiiifj: the ainoniu which .-honid lie payalile by the defendant in the event of dama-ie Uy breakaiie. leavin;;' him by implicalion liable to the full extent for all other ca>nallies. It is impossible. I think, to iml siieh a constriietion on the letters, or to sup- pose that either party so niiderstood them. The fail- meaiiini; of them is that the defendant was willing to undertake a paiiiiiilar and no other casualty, and to pay up to f.") for any article damaired by that ca-nally. and this the plaintiff nm-t have nnder-^iood to be the meaniuir. and b>' that contract liotli partie- are bound. 1 au:rec that ilii- conuiirt doe- not exclude liability for such daniai;e ,i- miyht re-ult from want of due and reasonable care in the packing; or the eari-iajje of the >s I-. but the damap' which happened was not caused by any -iicli default. Iiut \\a- as far as the defi'iidaut was conceriKMJ purely accidental. I tliercfdi-e think that the iud'niient should be allirmed. and in thi- juilirnient mv brother J' rjndley aj^rees. Denmaii. .1. : I am of opinion that the Judi.nneni of the <'<>urt of Ex- chequer oui;ht to be allirmed. It w,i- coiii ended for the defendani. lii-l. that the "general coinv-e of hi- ilealin<; did not make bim a cuinmon car- rier, or one who was subject to the li.'ibilil\ 'if a ii.niinoii carri"r 7/"/ furniture undertaken to be carrii'd; ami s inlly. that c\eii if lie nii'^ht. in the absenci' of any special contracl. have I n liable as a comiiii'U -ucli a -peiial cofiiraci for the i-.uriai^e cif carrier, there was in thi- c the furniture of the jilaintiff as to exempt him from the liability uhicli. ill the absence of a special contract, mij^ht pos-ibly li.ive been implied. I'pon the first iioiiit the plaintiff relied mainly on the i-ase of I.ivcr .\lkali (.'oinpany V. Johnson. L. K. 11 Kx. :iH.s (|,s71). If that ca-e werc^ identical in its material facts with the pre-ent. 1 should hold m\-elf bound liy it so far as to sav that, w hether a common car rier ir not .['> a II intents and purposes the defi-ndant must be held liable ;i- hasin ■: under- taken a business iniposin the de- fendant a- s(de aL;enl. which I interpret to mean of the S. I). Uaihvay roiiipaiiv. It speak- of •• furniture sioii'd. of vaiw. carts and horses on hii'c." iii'ithcr of w hii'li can )»■ -aid to refer to the piopei' )iusiiic-s of a 4'ommoii carrier. It lleii coiiiaiiis tliei-tcnl with the liiisiness of lettin;jf out such van- on hire a- with an uiidcrlakiii;; to use such vans a- a carriei' in re- juo\ ini; the ;;(Mids of others. 'I'lien at the foot of the card are the words : "Contracts entered into for removiii;; furniture t^ or from any part of till' kinirdom. Hstiinates ;;-iven fr-'i'."" On the h ' ..f thi' card is eii- ;;ra\cd a >| imcii of one of the vans on a railway 1 1 k. 'I'lie case finds thai the com-e of hiisiness js for an inspection of the luriiitnre to take jilace hefore any contract i> made, and for the price to he tixed after such inspection. |{eadiii<; the whole of ihc c.ird lojfcther with the facts fipuiid. I come to the cimcln-ion that the def>'iidant diil not so deal with the piililic .1- to umlcrtake in carry j^oods jn the altsi'iice of an a;;reement a- to the teiiii-of carria;xe. 'i'he card il-elf iiiiisi. I think, hi' taken as a l)arl of the dclendaiit's neide of divilin;:. and the sulistaiice of it appear- to III'' to he. not that he will carr> at all ev>-nts. lint only that he will - ii-cil lor the ijoods nf one per-oii. and mail} oilier mailer-. -i^Hi .1- route ,| d, whciherin van or cart, \e.. the deci-ion a- to w ire-fciMWiii^hl allcr the esijmiiic. In I.ivi'r Alkali ( 'niiipany V. .lohnsnn. the f.j'r'f ( hief Itiron say-^: "No doiihl. if each pariiciilar voyai;'e had 1 11 nude under a sjieclal contract cniitainin^ only the siipiil ilinii- applicalile lo iliai voy.i^c the I'a-e would ha\e heeii ■'1 1^ 20(5 TIIK CONTUACTS Of < AKI!IKI{S. [ciI. vm. tlio t'liniituiv \vas in transit it was hiinicd, without any iicif- ligciico on the part of tiic defendant. TIh' jui'v found for the i)laintiff, llic judjjjc ri'st-rvinir l^'avc to the (h-fendanl to move to enter a nonsuit. A ruh' ///.s/ haviuL^ lieen aeeord- inu'ly obtained, it was made ahsolute and a nonsuit entei'ed \)\ the Court of Kxt-henuer, it \n'\i\s i»v hreakajre or l)v his ne'iTiucnee, ami excluded anv (lues- different." Fn tin' [iresciii imsc I iliink lli;il ilie\crv innile of deiiliuir IMiiiitcil (lilt ill tile eanl. ami -laied in llie ea-.'. iieiT--aril\ iiiviii\i'< a speeial (■(iiiliaet ill each ea~e aniilieaide In I'acti iuiinicy oiilv. ami llial the case iif I, iver Alkali (loiiipany V. .lip|mM>ii i~ very tli-tiiijiiii^lialpj" on that ^roiiiiii. I tliiiiU the cant it-elf \\a- fair iiH«»iee to the wnild Uiai a special eontraet iiiiist he made liefore .iiiy lialKliiy In earry wniild he in- eiirreil. and tiiat it fnllnws thai anyone haviii;; >iieh iiutiee would lie hound to stijiiilale e\|n-e«ly for any such iiaUility as that of u eoinnion oarrier. hefore lie could cliar;:e ihe defi nd:: :i- ii(i<iii;r the defendant in lie fjeiierally carryiii,:; on the hn-iiie-s of acointui'Oii carrier, or carryiii;! on a biisincs< so a-< to he ijeiierally lial)le as a eomiMion carrier, he was so lia- ble in till- ia; risk of hreaka;re." thoHLrhio an aniniini imniedi;.>dy afte; Aards limited, soein to me coiichi-ive In -how ihal the relaiinnnf enmiitoii carrier In the owner of ;i;(mhIs was not conienipialed hy tli.- plaintiff in tie' pariie- iilar ca:-e. whatever iiii;rht have Ip.-cii ilie relatinii helwecii lie- |ilaiiniff and defendant in the ahseiio- of -ii h a >lipiilalioii. On hmh ;;roiinds I am of upinion that our judgment slnnild he fnr the resp, indent. roekhiirn. « '. .1.: I enth'el, a;;ree in the view taken hy the rest of ihe court that this was a special coiilrai'l. and lli:it therefore the liahiliiv nf the defendant, as a cniiiinnii cariii r i-oiild not arise. | wi-h it in he clearly iindei-iond thai I cnnciii' with the re-i of the cniirl : Imf if it iiad not heen -n I -hnlllil ha\e thnllixhl ni\ -idf honiiil In enter into the ipies. tioii wlieiher Ihi' defeiidani wa> a iniist he made ahsoIiil(<. If iiothinir more had hai)i)(MU'd lliaii that I lie lioods wcri! .scut for. I think th<' (h'f<'n(hint wouhl ha\i' made him- self lial)h' as a lommon earrier. \\\i\ that was not the «'ase, as tiiere wa.s a special airn-emeiit hetween the parties. We nuist h)oU at the natni'eof the hiisini'ss carried on hy the defendant. He descrilies himself on his card as » enterinjj^ into contracts for renioviiiLr furnitnrc t(» or from any part of the Kinirdoni.' His i;-encial mode of carrying: on l>usines.s was iiy contraci , and in this instance he made a contract, for \vhi( h we must look to the two letters written. In these letters he limits his lial>ility in lespcct of lireakaiic If he were a common carrier, I dit.' This means •> I will take on me risk of l»ii'akai>'e in transit.' If he WH're a connnon carrier he would undertake not only this risk l)nt all risks. Hut he says * I undi-rtake for one |)articular risk.' Why do not the <;eneral rules apply — •• rj- jji't'ssio iiuiitfi rs( i'.i-rli(sitt (i//i'riits," and ' xj/rifision J'tict'f c-s- stin' f>n-ifi())i / " That is to say, the defendant stipulates not to he lialtle for anythinif else. No douht he would l)i' liai»le for failure in the use of (udinary skill, liecaus(> ordii.ai'V care i> not excludeil. The ' 'Iter proceeds to say, ' foi' the amount I herein .j..citied.' These words do not alter the case as lo i|nality, Imt as to amount, 'i'he memorandum siirned l»y (he plaintiff says, » I herchy airree to pay £'J'2 lOs., you undcrtakinir the risk of i>reakap's ( if ariv) not exceeding: t'"» on any one article," the elTect of which is that he is lial)le f(M' !)reakair»' and nothinu; elsi', and only for that to the extent of i . I think thai justice is done hy this view of th<' case. Very likely neither |)arty had any .< ii 20S THE CONTUACTS OF CARHIKUS. [cm. vim. '■Vil !■■ i\ ii ' '< ■■'+ i^ notion of liability us a conunon carrier. Tiu' tlcfcndant has an aj;roeni, china, jxlass, etc., and ddc^ much beyond the duties of a common (-arrier, such as pack- ing:, etc. I do not propose to enter into tlu- terms (if tile con- tract. What may faiily have been intt'iidcd by the parties was that the defendant was to be liable for lu'cakaii'e oidy, and that to a limited extent. I think our judirnient should beforthe defendant." 'i'lie case beinj; subse(|ueiitl\ car- ried to the Court of Kx■ m' i-ni 210 THE CONTRACTS OF CAKIUER8. [CH. viir. wjis iiisortotl. But the exclusion of all iinplirations must bo continod to tlio sanio class or kind of acts or stipulations us that to which the express agreement or covenant relates. It can not he extended so as to embrace matters concernin*: which the parties have nnido no stipulations. In other words, it can not bo said that a party is deprived of the benefit of all implied covenants in relation to the subject- niattor of a contract, because he has. entered into express stipulations concerninjj certain specific incidents or particu- hirs connected with or growing out of the contract. For e.\ample, an express covenant in a lease b}' a tenant to re- pair would in no way affect the im|)lied covenant not to commit strip or waste on the premises. So an agreement in a charter party that the shipper should bear a loss which might arise from an inherent vice of the article shipped, would not exempt the carrier from liability for an injury resulting from the negligence of the master or sailors. The reason is that in such cases the agreement exjiressed is not connected with and bears no necessary or direct rehition to that which is implied, and hence no just inference can be drawn that the parties intended by inserting one stii)ulation to ex- elude all other implied obligations on distinct and independ- ent nmtters. The only safe mode of applying the rule is to ascertain whether it can fairly be presumed from that which is expressly stipulated that the matter sought to be excluded was prestMit to the minds of the parties when the agreement was entered into. The exclusion can reasonably extend no further than to shut out all implied agreements and stijjulations of the same nature or relating to similar matters. Thus, if a party take an express warranty of an article from a vendor, it is rea.>;onablc to suppose that the subjiH't nnitter of warranty was in his mind at the time of the sale, and that he caused to be inserted in the contract a promise concerning the nature and quality of the articles sufficiently comprehensive to include all on that subject which the parties intended should form part of the bargain. But if the contract contained no warranty at all, but con- CH. VIII.] CON8TKUCTION OF CONTRACTS. 211 slstcd of stipuliitioiis , if there had been no exception inserted in the contract ; or in other words that a stipula- tion exempting the carrier from lial)ility for the conse- <|uences of perils of the sea carries with it by implication an agreement to assume the distinct and independent risk of a seizure or capture. Such an inference seems to us not only to be imreasonal)le and illogical, but to I)e in direct violation of the i>lain intention of the parties. The object of the exception was not to enlarge the carrier'; lial)ility. On the contrary the purpose was to put an additional re- striction on the I'isks \vhi«'h they were contenteil to l)ear. Tiie spwcial exception was not conliued to acts of (Jod. If 919 TlIK CONTSIACTS OF CAKIMKUS. [cii. vr»i. i' A it had been, llu' arfjiimcnt wduld \v.i\v, liad jrrcat force that the insertion of an exception, wlii( li the law would imply in the alisonce of any stipulation, indicateti the int(>ntionon the part of the carriers to exclude this class of risks and to assume all others. It woidd he diflicult to assi«iii any reason for makinir a special exception of risks which thft law did not impose. Hut the exemption for which the de- fendants stipulated include(l other risks than those coin- prehemh'd within the <-lass denominatetl as the acts of (iod. J'erils of the seas emi)racc not only inevitaltle ciih'nts arisinii' from tempests. Hoods, earth(|uakes and other dan- p-rs happi'ninu: without the intervention of man, hut .mIso those caused hy collisions, tires, pirates and other occur- rences, to the happeninir of which human a^^ency directly (•ontril>utes. It was to escape liahility for losses occasioned by risks of the latter character that the special excep- tion was i'.'.serted in the hill of ladini::. It was dcsiirnc(| to confine the risk for which the defendants were to he liable within narrower limits th.'in those athxcd to the contract of affreijrhtment by the <>-eneral rules of law. It woidd be u jjross perversion of the ph'.in intent of the parties to hold tiuit by sui'h a restriction the liability of tin; carriers was increased, and the burden of additional risks thereby as- sumed by them for which in the absence! of any stipulation they would he exempted by Iciral implication. It follows from this view of the contract of afficiixhtment into which the parties entered, that the doctrine, well established and familiar, that a party who takes on himself a duty or charire is bound to fulfil or t)ei-form it, and cannot alleiit on the contrury tin- effect of tlie clause in the hill of ladiu-; exct'plinj^ poril.s of the .sea from the risks assumed hy the defendants was to extend this leyal exempt i»)n, and to relieve the defendants from certain risks for which they would have been liable hut for this special stipulation in the contract of shipniont. 'I'iie «'ases cited by the plaintiffs' counsel do not support his aru;ument. None of them art' adjmlications on the liability <»f connnon carriers, 'riiey all relate to special charter parties or contracts of affrei«rhtment for the carriajfo of floods in vessels in which the ship owner let his ship for a voyaijc (»r aclf out to carry m«'rchamlise for persons irenerally. In such cases the shipowner can not be rcjrarded as a common carrier, lie is not subject to tiie risks (U' entitled to the ex- emptions which the law altaclu's to persons acting in that capacity. His liability nnist depend entirely on the special agreement for the transportation of merchandise into which he has entered. If he has auiccd absolutely to carry it to a i)articular place, he can not set up as a sulKcient reason for the non-pei'formance of his contract any special ground of exemption for which he did not stipulate. The precise (juestion which we have lieen considering seems not to have been settled in tlu Kngli>h courts. It was raised but not determined in the cise of Jicvcr c. Tumhiison.^'' It is not likelv to arise air:iii» there, Iteeause the form o f bill s oi lading now usually adopted in England contains an expre.s.s exception, exc-mpting shipowners from liability for losses caused by the act of (Jod and the public enemy, as well as from many other risks commonly embraced within the gen- eral description of jxiils of the seas. Nor has the (juestion heretofore come uj) for express adjudication in the courts in th is country. In Williiunx v. Grant "* it was said that common carriers are not liable for los.se.s by the act of (iod whether the bill of lading contains any'exception of them ^^ Ante, § 151. " I Coun.ts: (1810). f i '<3 n 214 TlIK CONTRAfTS OK rAKUIKllS. [ciI. VIII. ! Ill I il li or not ; and the siunc doctrine wiih ro-asscrtcd in CroMfii/ v. Fitch ?'^ Tlu'sc dicla seccnj to accord with the views which we have taken ()f the proix-r eff<'ct to be «jiven to a special exception of i)articnh»r risks in \\w hill of ladin«r. Cer- tainly no authority has l»e«'n citccl and none we Itelicve can he found to sustain the |>roposition urjred in hehalf of the plaintiffs, that an exception of perils of the seas of itself oj)erates to render a connnon carrici' liable foi- other risks of a different character from which he would otherwise l»e e\- eniptt'd hy the ^ri-ncral ride of law, or in other words that it is equivalent to a distinct stipulali<»n hy the cari'ier to as- sume the risk of loss caused l»y a public enemy. In th(! absence of any bii Injr authority wt^ can nctt property in- trusted to theuj, causesolnle contract to indcnmify for loss l)y perils of the sea, and it is (»nly necessary to svv, whetlu'r the loss comes within the terms of tlu' contract and is caused hy jiorils of the sea; tin* fact that the loss is partly caused l>y thinjjrs not distinctly perils of the sea does not prevent its comin«: withinjhe contract. In the <'ase of a hill of lading it is different, hecause there the contract is to carry with reasonable care unh-ss pre- vente(| hy the excepted perils. If the floods are not car- ried with reasonable care and are conse(|uently lost hy perils of the sea, it hecoincs necessary to reconcile the two parts of the instrument, and this is done hy holding that if i\u' loss thr«)u;rh pei'ils of the sea is caused hy the previous default of the shipowner he is liable for this breach of his covenant." In 77/c J'Wcihm,'^ it was said by one of the judges. Sir JosKi'ii Naimkii : "The words in the bills of lading ' danjrers of the seas ' nmst of course be taken in the Bcnse in which i\wy are used in a policy of insnrance. It is the settled rule of the law of insurance n<)t to go into dis- tinct causes but to look exclusively to the immediate and proximate cause of the loss. In the present case the re- mote causes are not only (ISlKJ). «' I.. It. :» I". <•. .V.t4. •_»» I.. T. (X. S.) J.Vi (1S71). " I.. K. I A.lm. 4 10. -Ja L. T. (N. S.) S:7/,<» and Phrcxes in Covfract.i. — In tho remai'.iing sections hut one of this chapter the in- terpretation of particular words and phrases to l»e found in tho contracts of carriers limiting their common law liahilitics is considered. Those a'"e given ali)hal.eiically and witli cross refeiimces so as to he easily referred to, and are arranged ":!:ch in the form of a digest. Considering that fjuestions of construction of tho t«'rms of contracts are constantly hefore the courts, and that no ])revious treatise on Carriers has devoted any space to the suhjects of the following sec- tions, it is thought that this chapter may not he without real value. § 1. ').'). ^* Accidental Delnt/^.'' — A railroad con1pan^ was a eonunon carrier of passengers and freight, which were transported part of the way on a line of steamhoats. The hoat whi(^h usually made the connection with the road hav- ing hen taken off for nocessarv repairs, a small one was used, which not hciiig ahio to carry all the freight hrought, j)art of it was left in the depot and there accidentally hurned hefore it could ho forwarded. This was held to he an " accidental delay " within a clause in a hill of lading that the carriers should not ho liahlo " for any i:ijury to f- ! >*!v«4i;uw^,Mirj(4iy w< «^rtiMn CII. VIII.] CON8TKUCTION OF CONTUACTS. 217 fieijrlit ;irisiii»». ^^^Iffreen.'' — " Tlu-re l)L'iiiw miles.'-' Hut ii necessary crossing of ferries is permissible under tlmso words.*' § l.')'S. "yl/7/cA'." — In accordance with the ml" hereto- fore stated that a notice uiven Ity a carrier to limit his re- sixHisilijlily for goods lost must l»e strictly construed against liim, sualy, 2;{7 ^lS(i7); llo|(kiiM v. \Vi stuoU, JUalclif. Ct (IS(;H). •«.M N. Y. t'>0 (lS7.t)- •■it .1 J^ IT J V, 218 THE COXTUACTS OF CAKRIKRS. [cif. VIII. il it 1 •■ 3 ^ (^eivcd Jit Now York for Iransportiition to plaintiffs at St. Louis, a packajxo contaliiiujjr throe jrross or cusos of " Slial- lonl)('r<,'t'r's pills," worth $113.50 ))('r jjross. The receipt or bill of la(liiim\ v. S|.;ml(liiij;. r> B-.w. \V.\T> (IK5!i). mik] «•.' W> Id v. Pickfunl. H II. Jk \\. in (isil M SoiUhcni Kxprcss Cm. v. Cnx.k. W .\l;i. lOS (1K7(»). ai IJoskowitz V. A.laiii-^ Kximc-s Co.. !» Cent. L. .1. :{S!t (1S79). oil, VIII.] CONKTUIICTION OF C()NTKACT8. 210 § ir)l>. Jiaf/r/df/c. — A notice coiifaiiicd in iiii iulvt'rtisc- nicnt of the rate of fiirc for tijivcliiiir in a coacii in llic fol- lowinjr words, "AH l)ajr,ira." — Some courts have taken judicial notice, of the s'(inia(j('." — A condition in a hill of laUtnj,' ex- empt inji^ u carrier from liai)ility for " any dama<;e " is to i)e riiud as if followed by the clause " if not occasioned by his nejrli<;cnce or that of his si'rvants." In an Knjjiish case goods weie shipped on board a steamer under a bill of ladinir which contained an exception from liability from ♦'bicakagc, Icakairc or damaije." The goods were found at the end of the voyage to l)e injured by oil. It was piovcd that there was no oil in the cargo, but that theiv were tw(» donkey engines on deck near the place where the goods were stowed, in lul)i'icaling which oil was usi>d. There was no direct evidence how the injury to the goods occurred. The court held that from these facts a jury was justified in finding the existenct; of negligciuc.^' .So where the bill of lading contained a clause : "The shipowner is not to be liable for any damage to any goods which is capable of being covered by insui'ance," it was held that "damage" would include damage to tiie goods amounting to a total loss or tie- conu! to 1)0 wi'll iiiidiMsliiDil ill tin' coiniiiiiiiily ami by tli<' |>iil)lic, but pfiliiips roiild iKit, witlioiit ilic aid of extrinsic i-vidcnct', Ix' read ami in - ttTprclcd hy till' courts; tliat Is tln>ir mi'aiiiii^j may not In- coiisidt'icd as jinlitially sdtliMl, or so well iindi-rstood tliat judicial iioilcft can \m tiikt'ii of tlic |>iii|»os(' for wliicli tiiosc It'ttt'rs arc ii-;cd. in tlic connection in wliidi tlicy arc found, or tlic contract to bi- iiii|ilicxtcnd to a total loss of them by lire whili; in the t'ompany's warehouse lit an intermediate station/'' § 1(!1. " Ddutji'i'K Incident to (he Naviijatiim of' thn J{iri-r. — See " Danirers of Navipition." § Ki.'). " Ihnitfrrs of \ts and bills (if ladiii;^ now used by <>oniinon rarricrs avo w<'ll cliaractt'i'izcd by tindgc Kcdiicld as tin* iw plus ultrin)i the ingiMiionx. (J«vie«H of tliK common caiilci' craft in linding some mode of escape from all jusi n-spon-iliility. Kxaniplcs of ilit- modern bill of lading arft given below , in tlie receipts of foni of Die largest e.xpress compiinies ii> this uoniitrv. ' .' [UKAO THIS ItJ-fKll'T.] " Keceivod from— , at- " lI.\!Ti:i) STATKS KXI'UKS.S CO. , the following articles, which we un- dertake to forwiird to the point nearest ty thi.'i oonipuny only, perils of navigation exfcpied. Ami ll Is hereby expres.-ly agreed, that III. ,>aid I MTl.l) S TA IKS KXI'UKSS ((J.MI'ANY are not to ?!!' 'ield liabli! for any loss or danMige, except as forwarders ies of the Ueveiiiment, the re-itraint of goverinnents, ini.bs, riots, insnrreclions oi|ilialei, or froiif any of tlic dangers incident to u time of war; nor apoa any property 'or l';0USl»«Ui<> 222 TlIK CONTKACT8 OF CAIUtlKllH. [Cll. VIII. M ■<* 1 I: I t thin;;; imloss projxMly packed mid secured for tiaiisportiitloii; intr iipmi fnif^ilt! fulnifs. unless so iiiiiiked upon tin? pueka^^e contaiiiiii;^ the same; nor upon any fralnies t-onslstin;; of or eontaiiu'd in <;lass. If any sinn of njouey. besides tlie tale of war. Nor shall this company be liable for any d.-faull or negligence of any person, c(U'poralion or association to whom the above described property shall or maybe (hdivered by this compauN . for the performance of any act or duty in I'cspect thereto, at any phwe or point off the established routes or lines run by this company, and any sin-li per- son, cor|)oration or association is not to b<' regarded, dceinetl or taken to be the agent of this company for any such purpose, but (Ui the contrary .such |)erson, corporation (.r association shall be deemed and taken to be the agent of the person, corporation or association from whom Ibi-i company received the property aboV(> described. It being unl I that this com])any relics upon the various railroad iind steamboat lines of th(^ country for its means of forwarding property delivered to it to bi' forwarded, it is agreed that it shall not be liable for any damage to said |)roperty caused by the detention of any train of cars or of anv steamboat upon which said property shall be placed for transportation; nor by the neglect or refusal of any railroail ciunpany or steamboat to receive and forward the said property. It is fnrtlier agreed thai ibis company are not to be iield lialile or responsil)le for any loss of. or dam- age to said propel ty or any part thereof, fnun any caime whatever, un- less in every case tlie said loss or damage be proved to have occurri-d from the fraud or gross neglig<'nce of said company ov their servants; nor in any event shall this coini»any be held liable or responsible; nor Khali any demaiul be made upon them b(>yond the sum of llfiv dollais.at which sum said property is hercl)y valued, unless the ju-t and true \ ilue thereof is statcrd herein; nor upon .any property or thing nidcss pioiwrly packed and securi'd for tran>porlali(Mi; nor n|ion any fragile fabriis un- less so marked upon tlie package containing the .-anie; nor upon any '-.''.■■3 CH. VIII.] CON8TKUCTION OF CONTHACTS. 223 fiihrirs t'onslxliiijj of or coiitaiiicd hi ;jliiss. If any siiiii of inoiioy JicsltltM tlic ili!ir;;fs for t^all^^llo^latio|| Is to Ix- fullcitctl from the ('oii«l;;iit't? on any may rt'lnrn said |)ro]iiM'ly to Idm at fxpiration of tiiat time. siilijtM t to tlio conditions of tids receipt, and tliat lie will |)ay tin- cliar;;es for transpor- tation hotii ways, and tliat the liability of this company for such prop> crty while in its possession for the purpose of maUin;^ such collection, fliall he that of warehousemen oidy. In no event shall this company \>i'. liahlc for any loss or dania;;e unless tiie claim thereof shall he presented to them in wrltin;^ at this olllce within ninety days after tliis date, in ii titatenu'nt to whieli tIds receipt shall he iinnexod. 'I'he party aci-eplin;; this receipt hereby ajjrees to the conditions herein contained. Tho Anu'iican Kxpress ('ompuny assume no liability for delays, losses or non-delivery beyond their lines." [KOMESTic HIM. OK i.Ai.iNd.] "ADAMS KXl'HKS.S ("OMl'ANY. 1S7 . Iteceived of . value , for which this company »liarj;es Marked , which It is nuitually a;;rce.s or daina;;e to said piopcrty while bcinjy «'onveyed by the iirriers to \\boni the same may be by >aid express ri<«u- paiiy Intrusted, or ui'isiii)( from the daiif^ers of railroa hereby valued, unless otherwi-e her« 111 expri'ssed. or unless specially insnreil by theiii. and ho sp<'cilled in Ibis receipt. mIiIcIi insurance shall constitiitfl the limit of the liability of the /\i| ini" Mxpie-'s Coinpanv . And d Ibe Kiune Is liilru»ied or dcliveri-d lo ni\y other express company or a;;ent (which said .\danis Kxpress rompimy are hereby aiilliori/ed to do. such person orcom|ialiy so selected shall be rejfaided exclusively as tile . ;.''»*ilt of (lie shipper or owner, and as such iiloiie liable, and the Adam^ \'.\- press Company fliall not he, in any event, reponsible for the iie;r|io^en<-e or noii-p(>rformiiiM'e of any such company or p(>rson, and the ship|>»>r and owner hereliy "everiilly a;,—ee thai all the slipulations and coiidi- tioiis in lids receipt conlahied, sjiall extend to and inure to the benelii of each and every eompany or perxoii to whom the Adams Kxpress Coni- pany may iiilriisi or deliver the above descrilied property for triin>|>orla- tation. and shall deline and limit the liabilltv therefor of •'Uch otiior compiiny or person. In no event shall the Adams Kxprt>»s <'<4iipany be liable for any loss (tr damaj^e, unless the claim iherefur sliall be piv- M'liled lo them ill wrilin;^ at tUi» olllce, within thirty days after this date r.WHV ^ie^^'-r-t^Vn/iT-UiAJK 4^.:'-uj-,iB.'-« h-Hfsi^n ■ ">»»!■--. ■*l I 224 THK rONTUACT.S OF rAltltlKUS. [rii. VIII. In n Htatoiiu'iit to wliicJi tliln rocpipt sliall bo iiniu'XOiJ. All arllclfs of jjliisH or I'diitaini'd ill j;lii«s. or any of a fia;;ll»' iiatnif. will In- lal\rii ui Hlii|>|u'r's risl\ only, ami till' sliippcr aj;ifcs that tin" /'oinpany ^liall not he held r<'sii()iisihl(! fof any Injury by hrcakajjc or otln'r\M«f, nor for (lania^i- to jjooils not properly packed and scenrcd f(»r tran-^porlatjon. It is further agreed that »aid eonipaiiy shall not, in an\ event, he iiaMe for any loss. dania;;e or detention caused hy the acts of (!od, civil m military aiithoiity. oi- liy lehcllion, piracy. Insuriccllon or ilut. or tlie dati;;<'rs incident ton time of war. or liy any riotous or armed assem- hla;;^. If any sum of money, besides the charjce for transportation, i^ to be collected from the con»i;;nce on delivery of the aliove de-cribed pinp- rrl\ . and the same is not pa:e>«ion for the purptise of making; sucli coilection sliall be that of warehoiiscmei) onlv," fltl-AH Tilts UKCKIIT.I "SOI'TIIKUN KXnn;SS COMPANY. !'• l>omc«iic Itill of Ladinjj.J licceived of , valued at dollars, and for which amount the ehar;;es are made liy said company, marked . Which it is mutually ai,'rci'd is to lie forwarded to our aircncy nearest or most convenient to desiination only, and there deiivereil to other parties to conifdete the transportation. It is a part of the con>id- oralion pou-i- blc for any loss or dama<;e to sabi properly while Im'Iiij; I'onveyed by tlie C.MiKIKK.S to whom the same may be b\ said express company in- trusted, or arlsinir from tli*- ilan^^ers of railrafe|;i of Hiild property iiflcr It* iirrlvul nl l(s pjiii'i' i»f desiiiniiioii. AiuI'I/ ihr kihw is tiitrunliil or ililivi-ml 1,1 iimj hllni lliinii"! I'lnnjinnii i>r tHI>'iit (whtrlt miiil Siiullnrii h'riirrsn <'i,m]iiinii li;ill i'Mi'ikI til mill iinirc l<> tin' lniK'tlt of imcIi iiimI every eiuujiaiiy or pi TMiii III wlioiii i!ii' S"uilieiu ilxin •-< <'om|iim> in.iv inliii-it nr 1. 'liver llie aliove (leseriiieil luuperly for lr;m«iiiiriaiiiiii. and shall tleiliu' and limit till' iialtiiity lliciefur event •liall III'' Suiuinrn Hxpie— < ',,in|iany lie liiilile tor any lo<- or (lania;,'i', nnle.-s tin- elaini tliei>'l'or >!iall lie pre-riiled to lliein In w liiiiiu' il H'l-' "f- llee williln Ihirt)' da\ - ifter till- dali'. in a statement to wliieli this ii leipt hliali II'' iUiiH'Neil. All nriii'li'" of Initli'i- a^rried thai >aid eonipiiiy sliill not. in any e\i iii. lie liaMe I'm' an\ lo--^. dainagr fi detention eaiised liy tlie ai'I^ of (iod. ii\li ir iiiijiiaiy aiithorily. or liy insuiieilioii or riot, or the daiiicers iiuidi'iii to a liiiic of war." On the liai'k of ilie rei'i'Ipt of this last eompany i- the fojlowiiijf : •• Siiiilhi'in I'lsiui'-- ( 'ompan\ lnTcliy ijnaranty the safe arrisal of !li(» article- named in litis receipt (sei/nre iir stoppaj^c hy civil or niiiitaiy force excepted), at ---. and in case of failure, or damaj;e li\ tire, water, or the peril- ot iia\ iu^alimi or transporlalion. to p.iy to or iissi^rns, the slim of - dollar-. Ill' in |iro|iortion thereto as the amount of dama<;es sii-taiiied liear-^ to till' value -taled aliove. The same to lie delermiiied liy three disinterested apprai-irs. if the parties can not «ithcr\vlse afjree; it lieiii;; nndei'stood that lhi< ;;nai'anlee shall not extend lieyoiul twidve lionrs after the arrival of thi' ;;oods at the aliove named olllce or station." Ill INdtield'- American Ifaiiway (.'ases. Vol. 'J. p. "Jll, the foliowinj; form of ;i liill of ladinj^ -aid to lie In use in a nei^rlihorin;; province is Hlven: " shipped. In i^iiod order and condition hy in and upon the screw iiltMiinsllip calli'd the wlicji'iif |s inastci for the present voyaj^i; or w hoever el-e may ^o as master in the Huid *hlp and hoimd for he- iiii; marked and ;.iiinliered as in the margin, and aic to lie delivered from the -liip's dei k (\\hi're the -hipowner's responsiliility shall cease; in the like ;;iioil order, and well eondilioiu'il (siihjecl to liio ex<'eption.s uml rv- ftrictiojH of the lojjovN lii^ and ninh't iiielilloinil claiisi i ,ii the jiort of llhe ml of (iiiil. the tiuecn's enemies, pirates, rolilicrs, thieves, vmiiilll, hiillHliy iif liiaHtri'H iiitil lilijlllli-l'K, restraints of princes and nili'i'i, or pfopje, '■m'lttliiK. ih-iil1lclenc\ of piiikaj^e in size, strciiirth or otherwi-e. leakafU'. Iireaka;;e. jdlfeiiine, i»il«|a){e. lain, sjiray, nist, frost, deeiiy. mntact with or smell, or evaporation from any other j^oixls, inae- ciiraeie- in. olditei atjiin. Insntlli iency or ahst-nce of marks, immliers or addt('»-es. Ill de-'Ci'ipiioii of j;i>ods shipped, injnry to wi'a|ipi rs however lanseij. lifrjiU'rane i»» or from the venHel, trans-shipment, jettison, oxplo- »hin. heat, fire at anytime or in any jilaee, boilers, steam, macliinery t,inclndln>{ conseiiiicnce of defect tlu'iein or damage thereto), eoilision, etiandliig. >tniining ui otiier periU uf the neixt, riv«r8. uavigutioa or 2-2C) Tiir; n>NTi!.\rTS of caiiimkus. [CM. II. 9t H II land U'iiii-il of wliiit'iocvci- iialiii')' i>v Uiml. Ami all i1aina;;c, \,»< or Injury aii-ln;; fmni ilu' |irrlU nr lliin;.''* alx'Vf nn-ntlnni'd. ami whcilicr Hiii'h ]»'v\\* or tliiiijjx arlsf fmni iIh- n<';rll,::('m'i', di-fanlt or i-rior in jiiiiiinii'nt of llio pilot. iiiiis'.iT. ni.iiiinT>». i'n;;lnc<'rs. .xtcvi'tloros, or oil'ci- person- in tin' »\illi lilMM'ly to aelx into any port, or oiherwi-e liein;; pri'\enleil from niiy fan->e from eoimnenejn;; or proe lin;^ in Ihe ordinary i-onr^e of her voya^'. to proeccd under sail or in tow of any oilier \es-el.or in any otlier manner wliieh till" -liipowner sliall tliinlx lit, and to ship or tian<- sliip tlie i;ii()(U hy any oilier \e«-el I iiiilo or to as-ij;n-. freijjhl ami prima;je payaltle by at ihe rale of wilh aviMa;;<' aeeiis- tomed. •• \V'ei.jlit. Mjonsnro. i;;nee in llie \\arelioii>e proxided for thai purpose, or in the public sture as the ciilleetor of the port of shall direct, ami wbi'ii deposited in the pn I die store to be subject in rent, ami the keys of the warehouse id be delivcrcil to and kept in chaifie of tlie odiecr of customs under tlie ilirei'iion of the collector, the collector of the port beinu: hercliy aulhori/ed to ;;ranl a ^encrai order for ilis- cliaif^iny; immi'dialidy after the entry of the shiii. '■ Not accoimtalde to any cxtont for bullion, speiie. precious metals niannfactnred or unmanfactnred, plated artiides, f::lass. china, jewelry, ar- ticles used for jewelry, precious stones, trinkets, watclics, clocks, tinie- jjiioees, mosaics, bills, liaiik notes of any country, orders, notes or secur- ities for i)aympnf of money, stamps, maps, letters, writin;;s, title-deeds, l>aiiiliny:s, en;rravin^s. pictures, statuary, silks, furs, lace or cashmere niamifactnred or unmanufactured, made up into clotln's or otherwise, •contained in any packajie or parc(d, wliat<'ver may lie the value of such ■articles, nor for any oilier >;oods of whatever description aiiove the value ■of fllKI per i)ackajr<', unless the value be therein cxpressi^d. and extra jtcinlit as may lie a;;roed on lie paid. '"I'lie I'liipowtier is ncd to la> lialiie for aiiv dainiiun |o itiiy ^;oods which Is capalde of bein;i covered by in^Miauce; nor for any claim notice of -which is not driven t)ofoie llie removal of the ^joods; n Ml-] CONHTKl ( lluN Ol' ((iMIJACrs. 237 »liiiii;i':f i' ili'iii- (ir (lc|cnti'iiMi('riir«i wliil-i Uh' yiidiU iirc iinl in tlii> pi)<«. tt('.'>'-ii)ti of till- --liiiiM^N iii-i-; iiiii' ill liny iM lor iiini't' than the iiivi.iri' or (|t'rliir<'li ill li" (III' Ica-i, • ' I ;i.iii|> oT Mil iiillaiiiiiialili'. rxjilo^ix I- or oiIhi-w Ni' liaii^^i-ioiH cliarac- ti'i'. >iii|i|><'i| wiilioiit |ii'i'ini~>ioii, ami witliuiit lull ill-cln^inc of llivirim- liirc. Ilia-. Ill' >ci/ci| ami coiill-'ati'il or di'si ro\ imI liy llir ^liijiow ni-r ut iiii> liiii'' ln'foif ili'li\i'i'\ , w iiliiiiil any roin|irii»alioii lo the >lil|i|irf or foll-iLjIH'l'. "All lliii's. ivvjK'ii^oi, lo^-c- or (Iiiina;r<' wlilcli tin' sliiiiowncr (ir U\n Huciit- or scrviiiii-, or till' >lii|i oi- carK" may liinir or >ulf('r on acconnt (if iiK'onri'i or in'iiU'K'Icnl inarUiiiu; of ilu' |iai'Ka;;i'H or ili'<^('ri|ilioii of tlit'ir roiilcnt'^, or till' ilaii;;i>roii-i iiatiii'i* oi stirli lonlriil^. ^Iiall In' paiil by till- >-lil|i|>i'r or i'oii«iun"i' a* ina.x' lie f<'i|iilrril. aii'l llic --irijiow iicr shall liav'c a lien n|ioii the ;; U for the |ia\ iih'IiI tlM't'cof. •• Till' onl.\ fondilion on wliirli ^ila^s will I arried W timl the slilp- owiKT sliall not 1)1' lirlil lialilt' for any lin'aUa;;i' wliirli may oi'ciir, wlii'tlu'r from iii';;li^>'ni r any oilier cai, ■• w liatcNcr. •• {•■|i'i;;lil. if jiayalilc liy >iri|i|ii'i«, i< iliif in full in t'\i'liati;;i' for liill of ladin;;. or if pavaliii' liy coii-i;; irc> on arrival of n^nods at plai'i' of «i(;s- linalion. in fxcliaii;;)' for drlivcry order. --I'tl lenient in ei'lier ea«e to li» made w iilioHi di-eoinil or aliatemeni. I'lei^ht payalde li\ shippers to lie paid. -Ilip ln«t or not lo-l. {■'reii;lll pa\Mlp|e hy eo|i-it;liee In lie paid al the eiiireni rati' of e\eliaii;;e for liaiiUei»" »i;;lii liiJU oil London on IIk! dale of llie «|eaiuei'« report at the eii-lom hoii^e. •• I'leii^dit oil ;;(iod-. to order. Ijipiid- and hrilllc or peri-hahle ;;ood.i, ]pa\ aide liy -hipper- if iei|iiii ci|. ••'riii- hill of ladin;^. duly iiidoi>.ed. to he ;;iven in exehaiiLje for de- livers' order. •• III ease the w Imle or aii\ pari of iiieMi„,i|. speeitieil herein he pre- vented hy any eau«e from ^roiii'; in «aid sii'amer the «liipu\\iier i- only lioiiiid to forward them hy siiee linj; -teamers of tlii> line. •• In aeeeptin;; this hill of ladlii-^ the -hipper or other a^^cnt of ihe owner of the property carried e\|iies>|y aeeepi> and a^rrees to all its stipulation-, exeeptiiiii> and eondiiion^. w lieiher w riiteii or printed. •• In wiliie-- wheieof the master or a;r<'iit of the said ship hath alliinied to hills of ladiii<;. all of this tenor and date, the one of w hieh hills heiii;; aeeoniplished the others lo stand \oid. •• haled in l.'^T for aeeiits." •• 'rill-.'" sa\s the aiiihor aho\e referred to. •• seems to he a (loeiiment, wliieli iniirlit do eiedii to aii\' a;;e or eonnirN for ii^ exhan-live eharaeii'r in the way of e\ilii-ioii of all |io-«ilile ies|ioi|..iliility. All we need say of sneh >iiidiiiiis e\elii~ion of all re>piiiisiliiliiy whatever on the part of the earlier is ihai it is so eslreme in ii- terms of e\elu--ioii as at one.- t. alliance in eoniin;^ he fore a US' eoiirl fur adjiidiealion. w here we may i-s[ t the iiisiiiiii> of jii-iieo and fair d"alin,;;' lo prevail, that all eon- IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ^ '^ i 1^ A^.<^ 1.0 I.I LitM. B2.5 s? tis, mil 2.0 12.2 iI'LLS L25 11^ 11^ 7] 7^/ -y; m. >? .%f^.#/ ^ ^ «>.■»■ ^ %:^* "'^ o / HiotDgraphic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14540 (716) 872-4503 ' ^-^ °\^ ^^ ^^2^' ^ '%'■ cv ; *rf (V i'l fe' .m 22.S TIIK rONTh'ACTS OK ("AKIMKIIS. [nr. VIII, ])V the Court of Kinii's IjciuIi in 17'J.V''* and which j^sivo •i^rcat aluiMH to cai'i-i-'i-s hy watiT n mow s\v('('[)in_i>; chuiso canio into use. This ciansc whicli, according' to Lord Tkn- TKUDFA', still prevails in l""aii:hin(l. is in IIk'sc words: " 'I'lio net of (iod, liic Kinii"'s <'ii(Mnics, lire and all and cvcrv other danixcr and accident of the seas, rl\'ers and navigation of whatever nature and i^ind :-oc\cr excepted. " Where it is necessarv to land the i^ood-; l>y 1/oats from the ship, tiie 1'ur- tiierclause isadde.l, '• I'isk of Iioats so far as ships aix- liahh; thereto." '■' The [ilirase:; '• peiils of the seas," " perils of the river,'' " perils of the lake," " daiiLiers of na\ i,Liation," ocnicd weiihl r(':!i! iipoii llic vi ry fiicc nT lln' (■(iiiti':icl iiii iinqiiiilil'KMl ami niililiisliiiii;' (lisiMisilioii (III till' jiirt <>f llic caniiT to i>,ai;i tlic iilnidst at- tiiinalilc? cxciiiptidii from all jiional(le and jusl that the eai'rier sliould assume all the risks which properly attacli to his portion of the work of transportation, whicli will fnil)ract; all aids and ai)pliances connected witli tlie work." *• Smith v. Shepherd. Al)hott on Shippiiifj;. (!lh Am. ed. :iS.|. la this case a flood ]iavin<; swept away a part of a t)aid\ on which ve.-s(ds wcri; accustomed to lie in safety, a vesstd sunk, one of its masts remainin;; near t lie surface. 'I'he defendant upon sailinle. « In .Jolmston v. Henson. 4 Moore. !M). 1 «. it 11. -151 (ISl'.t), j>;ood.s wore shipped at TiOmlon to Ix; eonv<\ve(l to .lamaica. The ;;'oods were tlu-re sent on shor«^ according; to Uw custom of the West India trade, in a shallop lielonujin^ to the shi|). and lost t)y perils of the sea. Tiie cltiusc of exception in tlie tiill of ladiujij was in tlie follow in<^ terms: " Tlie act of (Jod, iuul all and every other daiifjer and accident of tlie. geas, rivers and navij^ation. of wliatevor nature and kind soever, r "( risk of lioats, so far as sliips are liable thereto, excepted." It was liehl that tlic shipowner was not liable for sucii loss under the bill of lading. '■n cii. viir.] coNSTiiucrnoiV of coxtuacts. 229 *' danucrs of the .sens," '" " daiiircrs of Ihe rivor," " dan- gers of the lake," " unavoidaMc dangers of tlie rivor,"" ^'dangers incident to the navigation of tlic river," '''^ "inevitn- hle aecidenls" and "nna>'oidal)le accidents,"^* are converti- ble terms and will he considered togcilher. They are such perils, dangers and accidents as are of an extraordinary na- ture; :in within the {'xcej^ticnis. The follow- ing have hcen jjropci'ly hehl to Ik; within one or other of these tcniis : Hidden o!)>lructions in a river, sucli as logs, :is liic s;iviii<; I'laiiM- I'xlciitlcd to llie siiiiio ri-k iu* if the <>()i)ils hud beeji oil hoard llit> ship. •• i;a\t.'!' V. J.claiid. Al)l>. Adiii. lil^ (ISIS); ,Toii»s v. Pitclicr. :$ St. & V. \X> (is;!;!;. ■••1 The I'aviiriic. 2 Hi-s. .■>(!_' d'-i;',). ■^^'I'hc \Vaih;iii.l:i()|)iii. .Mty (i"ii. 11!) (ls(i;i). M I'owlcr V. l)avcii|iorl. 21 'ri'x. (J-Ji! (ls.-)S): Mar>h v. ISlylho, 1 Mc- Cord.;:(;i) (is-.>|): Marsh v. I'.lyth. 1 N. iS; .Me. 170 (ISIS). ■■t 'I'lic Ivfcsidf. 2 Sum. r>()7 (ISliT): Haxtcr v. Lclaiid. 1 Ahh. Adiii. :U8 (IStS): (Jcaisc V. liiipi's. I Siira,:;iu'. H;!! (l.s,")!'.); Story on Bail'iiciits, § 512; ;> Kent. 2l(i: Tin' Niaijara v. Conies. 21 How. 7 (1S.">S) ; Tiickcriiiaii V. Stcpii'Mir; iKic. 'rraiisporlatioii Co.. ;)2 \. .1. ("Law) :)21 (lSt)7); Giliiiore V. Cariiiaii. 1 S. I'C: M. 27'.l (isC;); Tiiriiry v. Wilson, 7 Yi'r Vcr;:'. 71 (is;!:i); Joliusoii v. Triar, 4 Yci-i,'. -IS (ls;i;{); Hill v. Siiir;;('oii. 2S Mo. ;{2;i (is.'ill): Tysoii v. .Moore, f)!') Harl). 112 (1S7()). Tin; phrase ilie •• d;ui;J,'ers of tlie seas "" has been detiai'd in a very late eas(> as iiieliidiii,'; all iiiiavoidalile accidents from wliifh eoniiiK.n carriers i)y the i;eiieral lav, are not cxeiiscd unless they ari>e fiiiin '.he act of (Unl. WikmIs. .J., in Dihble v. Moi'u'aii. 1 Woods, 4()(; (1S71). ;;iid see Friend v. Woods. C (irall. IS!) (ISl!)): hut this dehni- tion is niiieh loo broad and is not ihe law. •'"''■■ Till s phra-e iuii;ht eertainly lie construed to ine.iii danfj,'ers which arise on tiic sea. and it would thciiinchidc evei'y hazard and dani^er from Ihe bcniniiintc to tiie end of l!ie vnya'^e of whatever kind. But the in- clination oT the courts is to inieipret it as ineludiiii;- only dan::;ei's which arise from the action of the elemcnls. and Iliose incident to that cause, rather than to include all that arise nimii the sea." Morrill v. Arey, 3 Ware. 215 (is,-)'.)). ■"■« McArihiir v. Scars. 21 Wend. 1!!() (is:!!)). m -*immimmKi^~ liif: 11 230 THE CONTKACTS OF CAUKIKKS. [cii. Vlll. rocks, snags and the liUo, Avliidi i)rud('iu'0 couid lu'itlior discover nor avoid;'"' a dense fog : '"' a delleclion of the compass from accidental or unfor<'scen causes :'' liic ca- rceninir of a vessel after her arrival at a wharf hv whieh water enters her ports;"" boisterous weather, adverse Avinds and low tides, causing dolay ;'" a sudden s(|iiall or gust of wintl;"- the "blowing'" of a vessel,'"' or the o[)en- ^'Tiirm-y v. Wilson. 7 Yi-rj,'. ;il() (isr.) ; The KcoUuk. 1 IJi.-s. '<±1 (1S0()) ; Ttio Fiivoritc, 2 IJis>. 502 (1S7I) ; Ki'dpalli v. Viiuj>'li:iiu .')2 IJiirl). 4Wt riSdS). iiltiniuHl IS \. V. (•,:>:> (ISVI); Villi llriii V. Tayldi-. 7 \U>U. 201 (ISI4); 2 J.a. Aiiii.r»s7 (lsi7;; Hoycc v. Wclcli. .") La. Ann. (i2:i (^ls,-.o). Tlie rule whicli iinpiilcs cart'li'ssiicss to a caplalii whose boat siiilios a known rock or shoal, unlc-s (hlvn by a icinpcsl (Abbott on Siiippnij^, 258), is only apiilii'ablc to the navigation of the ocean, where the rocks and shoals are marked upon inajis ami may be avoided, and does not ap- ply to the naviiiation of the \\('>terii rivers. Tlii'ie each case must hi; goveriKMl by its own circumsta:ices. and be tested by the cours(> usually pursued by slvilfiil jiilots In sneh cases. Collier v. N'aleiitliu'. II .Mo. 2i)l) (184S). *" ]Jiit ii shljiper is not excused by the presence of a dense fo^. al- thouj^li it isadau<;er of navi;j:atioii. if the loss occur through iiejiliij-enco or want of care — as while riinninji at a hlj>h rate of speed. The JJocket, 1 Blss. :{54 (ISOO) ; The Portsmouth. U Wall. (;S2 (ISOii). •'■'But it must bo clearly shown that the ollicers of the vessel iiuder- Ktood and discharj^ed their full duty. The Rocket, 1 IJiss. :{54 (18(10). •' A vessel laden wl'h ^-of^ds arrivetl in port and was taken into a dock to discharge her car;;o. I''or this i)iiri)o>e she was fastened by tackle on the one side to a loaded ligiiter lyinu; (Uitsidc her. and on the other to a barge lying between her anil the wharf. The crew was ilischarged ex- eejit the mate, and lumpers were being emiiloyed in unloading her, when the tackle broke whereby she was fasteneil to the lighler. and in conse{(uenee she canted over, water got into her i)oi'ts, and the goods Btill on board were (lamaged : //(/»/. that this was a loss within the ex- oxes were shipped at New York to be deliveicd at 8an Francisco, It ^Yas shown on the trial that if nuls are stowed in the hold on this voyage they are vcrv liable to be injured bv sweat : that it is the almost invariable practice to carrv then) in the cabin or cabin state- roonis, and to enter them on the bill of lading as to be thus carried ; and that if they are carried in the hold they arc sometimes inclosed in water-tight oil-casks in order to keep them in proper condition. The packages in this case were all marked " in cabin stute-rooiu." The contract of the bill of lading was that the goods should be delivered in San Francisco " in good order and condition, dangers of the seas, lire and collision excepted." The goods were placed in the hold without notice to the shi^jpers, and were damaged on the voyage by sweating. It Avas held b}' the Supreme Court of the United States that in view of the almost inva- riable j)ractice as to the stowage of nuts on this voyage ; of the well known fa:!! (IS.")!".). C'Tli.'.liiiiiiUu I'aloii. 1 Hiss. 15 (ls:>2). •^ •• No il«)iil)t the miiHtial (.liiriitidii t»f the voyag'e on aceoiiiit of toin- lii'sUioiw wi'.'itlii'i' and adverse wiiuls in connection with tlio faet that it \\a< line in wliicli llie ship passed from a northern to a s(intliorn latitude, and in a season of llie year \\ iiere tlie i'lian How. Ill (.ISol). «■ 17 Wall. «r)I (.isriij. m 2n2 THK CONTRACTS OF CAUKIICRS. [ni. vm. i^ " I- . diivctioiis oil llio pai'kiifxos in (]nosti()n in tliis (•i(S(\ il wms culpahlc iH'ii'lijXi^iH'o in the niiislcr of the vessel to slow tlieiu in the hold, and tliut the vessel was liable aecordiniily. A loss by a jettison occasioned by a "pei'il of the s(>a" is a loss by a " ])eril of the sea." In such case the sea-peril is deemed the i)ro.\iniate cause of tlie loss. But if a jettison of a cin'ijo IxH'omes necessary in conse(]uence of any fault or breach of contract by the master oi- owners, oi- of tlie unseawoitliiness of the vessel, the jettison is attributable to that fi.ult or breach of contract, and not to the sea-|)ei'il, thoui>li that may also bo ]iresent and enter into the case.'^'* Is a collision a " dauijer of naviiration ? " The weiuht of authority answers this (]uestion in the atHrmaliv(>, but fail- ing to make any iljstinction in the cases, remains inconclu- sive. The St. Louis, Cinciimati and Chicago, three river boats, stall from different points at the same time, carry- hig i)oxcs of tobacco, the [)rop(M'ty of A. The liills of ladiiiij:; in each case ai'e alik(\ (\\c<>ptin re- spective boats. The St. Louis answers, sdting u]) the exception in the bill of lading, and alleging that at a bend in the river during a heavy fog she collided with The Cin- cinnati and was sunk, neither boat l)cing in fault and cvcm'v- thing having been done l)y the otlicers on each boat to pre- vent the collision. This allegation being proved is held a sudicient answer to the action.'''' In the proceeding against The Chi<'ago the bill of lading with its conditions ai'c pro- ''** Liiwiviicc V. Miiitiirii. 17 How. 100 (is.")!); 'i'lic ^o^t^ln()lltll. 2 Miss, no (ISOS), !) Willi. (is-_> (ISOD); 'I'ho Mihv:uik(>p IJcllc. 2 lii.-s. i;i7 (ISOD), s. v., Kuy V. The Mihviiiikpo Px'llc, IS Am. L. T. ]U'\\ :>11 ; Xcmoiirs v. Vamo, 1!) How. ]()2 (lS.")(i): Crosliy v. Fiirli. 12 Coiui. )10 ;I^:!S). When' tlio vessel ran atiroiinil ill sailiii;; up tlie liailior in iniisiiit of .-i ])ilot hoal. and the niasier broke open heavy casks ol' li(|ii(ii- lo lii^lucn tlie vessel. inst(>a(l(i£ throwiiij;- tiieiii oveilioanl. ii wa< held thai the loss nii,<;hi under the cireninslanees he reuai-ilcd a> a •■peril of the sea." Van Syekel v. The Ewiiiii'. Crahlx'. lO.') ( ls|Oj. «■' Plaisted V. l^osioii \-c. Xavipitioii Co.. 27 Me. l:;2 nsi7) : 'I'lie New -Jersey, Olcutt. Ill OSKi); ."\lar>li v. Hlyllic. I Met 'ord. ;;(i;i ilS21). en. VIII.] rONSTUUCTION OK CONTKAOTS. 283 diK'cd, iuul the loss of tlio properly by a collision with The Ciiicinniitl shown. The evidciico shows ihiil the collision was caused hy the nei^liii'ence of the defendant's otHcers in nianau:in; aiiainst The Cincinnati tlu^ i)re- j)()nderance of testimony establishes tliat tin; lo-.s arose throuirh th(! boat beinir run tlown by the nci^liirence of the olHccrs of The ('hicairoi but without the fault of the defend- ant. The bill of ladinu; is in form as in the other cases. The defenilant has judiiinent.'' In tlie tirst and second of these cases the conclusions rea<'hed are clearly correct — be- <-ausc the dan;^'er of aci'idenlal collision is known to all who orted by all the American autlioi'ities, can hardly stand. N'ot only is it ditti- cult to bi'ini;' it within the definition of the phrase u^ed, but tlie I'cason for iiie exception is alto_i>ether sibsent. The ex- ception was allowed to a carrier to jjrotect him from the c(inse(|uence of a disaster orcnriiii!.>' in sjjite of his vi;Llilance, and which would swee]) away at om^ time his own as well as his ciniiloyer's property. Uut for the neu'liu'cnt handling of '" I.lciyd V. (ii'iiiTiil Iron Scivw ^c. Co.. :! II. i<: <\ -JS I : lO.liir. (N. S.) 7: :!.-) h. ,).. ('. 1'. :i-Jl : It W. R. 8!):$ (ISDin. .•itliniicd on npp.-n!. L. U.IIC. I'. I7(i; :i7L. .)..('. P. -JO,-): Id VV. ]{. 711D: IS h. T. (\. s.) !>r. (iscs). ■'Van llcrn v. Taylor. 7 l?ol>. -JOl (lSin:-J I,a. Ann. 5S7 (1S47); Wliitcsiilc< V. Tliurlkill. 1-' S. iS: M. .V.i;) (\> ;•.)). In Hays v. Kennedy. It I'a. St. ;>7S (isdl).;! tii'ni sliipped i;-"'id-i iijiou a rivci' stea'iilioal, 11i<^ owner-; of wliicli as coMMiion cari'iers contiacird liy llidf till of Iiidini!; to delivei- al the place of destination safely and in n'ood oi-dcr. ■• iIk' mii- avoiiialile danneri of the ri\er. navigation and life exci'pted." The boat was lun into and suid>. and the ivi'ods lost, wilhoni fault on its pail, hnt liy leaxiii of carelessness on the pari of the other. In an iictjoii against the owners to recover tln^ value of the ijoods. it was held that the loss was covered by the exception in the bill of ladin;;- !"id Hin Hie plaintiffs were not enlilied to recover. ■A I ij fii' ' 2;5i TIIK COXTIJACTS OF CAUKIKIIS. [cif. vrii. h! 1 1 If tlio vcssol ciiu.siiig the iiijiiiT, tlu^ iiijiii'cd ciin-icr liiinsclf has his ri'iiicily over. 'I'lic Aiiicriciiii cases contaiii no niciilioii of l!iis disliiK'tion, (liomili in a ciisc (Iccidcd in ICnu'liuid at Uw Ix'uinninii" of this century whei'e a h)ss had iteen caused by an unav()idal)U' collision, and which seems t(» havo escaped the notice of succecHJinii' judtrcs, Lord Kknyon said "that, if the defendants had heen ji'uilly of any nei:li- gence and it could have l)een proved that the accident could have heen ])ivv{'nted, they would ceitainly have heen lial)le, but they were exempt by the condition of the bill of lading from misfortunes happening tluring (lie voyage which hu- man prudence could not guard against — against accitlents hapi)ening without fault in either jiarty." '^ Although Lord Kknvon's judiiinent is vi'rv obscurely reported, it must be taken for granted that the parties whom he was of opinion must be free from faidt were tlu' masters of the vessels which collided. Second. As to what are not within these excei)tions. And lirst it must be noticed that no losses, however accidental, can be brought within the exeei)tions, so as to excuse the car- rier, whit'h might have been avoided by the exercise of dis- cretion and foresight.'' In a very early case '^ the owner of '^ IJiillcr V. Fislicr, !! I<:si). (;7 (I SOU). "Williams V. Hnuwoii. 1 Miirpli. (X. ('.) ti: (l>^l(lj; Sixmuht v. Daj,'- gctt, 2 Vt. ',f2 (lS2:))i .Jones V. I'ltelicr. :'. St. i!^ 1'. Ki.'. (ISIiltl: Fair- chilil v. Slociii:., r.» Wend. ;i2!) (ls;;s): Uilildo v. Mi)i;,'aM. 1 Wouds. |()(! (l.S7;i); Tli(i Casco, Davcis. IS! (1S(2); Tlie Kt'hccca. 1 Waiv, 1S,S (IS;tl ) ; Cliiistciisoii V. AniiTicaii Kxprcss ( 'o., l.'i Minn. 27(1 (1S7(I). Kun- niiifi; against a caix- or continent can not lie lernieil an •• aeeideni of the, Kca," wliieh i)f(i|)er foresijjlit and slter of a steamer atiemplin<>' to enUi- a poi't in a dense fog, he not heini;; oomiielied by any e.\igene\ to inaKe the attempt,, will not he attributed to '• perils of the sea." 'Die Costa Jtiea, ;' Sawy. 5;{8 (is7r)). ^■' Williams v. I5ranson, supra. •• N'or indcn'd is every loss in'oeeedinu; from a natural cause to be considered as happening; by a [danger of the. river] for if a ship perish in constMinence of striking against a rock or Bliallow tii(! I'ii-einnslances under which tlu^ event takes plai'(> nnist bo considered in order to determine whether it happened by a [danger of en. viii.] CONSTIUKTION OK CONTUACTH, 235 ii boat was held liahlc for the loss of goods caiiscMl by liis skippci- Iiavin;x altciupU'tl to ptiss u daniicrous bend in the river (Uirinir a fi-cshct, aUiiouiiii by {\w bill of ladiiijr llio '« dangers of iiaviiialioii " were excepted from his uiider- taivinjjT. So where !i boat upon the Oliio I'iver I'an upon ti stone and luioeked a hoU' in its hull, it was held that tlu! carrier was not (lis('harf Pftiul in a place where ships could before sail in safety, the loss is to be attributed to tln5 act of (Jod or tlu! perils of the sea." Taylor. J., in Williams v. IJranson, supra. " Suppose for a moment the snaj^ not liid- den, or one wliich mij^lit liave been discovered by tlie ripplinj; of the water; or suppose the snajr. thoui;;h liidden, yet known to tlic patrooiis of tlie rivcM- craft, would an accident arisinj^ from it constitute any ex- cuse':' Surely not. Or suppos(> tlu^ sna^, thouf^li new and hidden, to have been so weak that it could not have pierced the bottom of a sound hull. In none of these instances could it form an excuse for the carrier. Aj^ain. suppose tlie sua;; to pierce a sound boat, but, to let in only so much water as by dilijifent exertion niii^ht l)e kept down, wonld the bare nauK^ of an accid(Mit by a snaj^ throw a mantle over nejiliiience or pliield the carrier from the cliar;^e ot after inactivity. Surely not."' Richardson, J., in Steamboat Co. v. JJason, Harp. (S. 0) 202 (1S2-4). Where carriers provide that tlu^y shall not be liable for .inavnidabJe dani^ers of naviij^atiou, they mean dan.i;ers that are niunoidable by tliem, sujiiiosiiifj; that they have exercised a'A tlie precaution, care and skill that the law usually demands of coninion carriers. Hays v. Ken- nedy, -tl I'a. St. ;{7S (ISCl). "* Wliitesides- v. Russell, S W. &. S. 41 (1S44). '6 Tlio Ocean Wave, ;{ JJis.s. 317 (1S72). miiifBmiimiw-"" .-->^'- i: 2;5(5 TUB CONTUArTS OF CAItltlKKH. [nr. VIM. jiro uimvoidiiblc," ivlcjiscs llio carrier from losses ciiuscd hy hiddiMi ol)slruflions newly placed in the I'ivcr, su<'ii as luiiiiaii fon'si«^h(, could not. discover and avoid; \ml if ho knows of a \w\v ohsti'nction hefore an injury is caused hy it, he must use* increasi'd caution ; and if h(! could In' any means have removed it he will Iw char<,'eal)le.'' Aj^aiu, if the <;oods he badly stowed or put on nt the exceptions will not save the oarrior."'* Hut where a hill of lading; declan's (hat (he propei'ty is to he stowed on deck and excepts "perils of the seas," the exception must he conslrued with rcfen'uce to the particular atlvcntui-e which the; contract of affi'ci;;htnient shows was contemplat(!(l hy the parties; and under such bill of ladinj> the (juestion is not what in other circumstan- ces could be deemed a "peril of (he sea," lint what is to be diHMued such when operatini;' on this vessel with this deck- load.'" Under what circumstarices the carrier may lose tin; benetit of the cxceptictus in his conliait l)y delay or devia- tion has been considered in a former chapter.'"' Where j^oods ai'c dama!i,'c(l by water arisini^ from asi <'x- co[)ted peril, it is tlie duty of liie carrier to exercise ordi- nary caro and diiiirenc<' (o prevent the conse((Ue!ices of the injury, and where it woidd bi- of advantaii^e he should open tlu! i)ackai>'e and dry the ^oods ; and if such precautionary nuvisures ai'(* not taken th(i carrier will be liabh; for the; loss.**' ^Vilere a sieainboat in i^oin:^ throu^'h an inland pas- sujyc j2;round(id upon the rellux of the tide, and fell oxer so that bilire-water I'ose into the cal)iM and injured a box of books, it^ was held tiiat the owners of the boat were I'cspon- eible for this injury, thoiiu;!! liie bill of ladini;; excci)t('d " Gordon v. lJii('liiin;in. ") Yer:;. 71 (ls;i;!) ; .Joliiwon v. Kriar, 1 Li. IS (is:!:{). "The lichiMva. 1 Wans 1SS(lS.;i); '{'lie ( 'asco, l^avois, LSI (1SI2); Tlu! Newark, 1 IJlatdi. 2(i;{ (ISKI). "' LawriMicc v. Miiiliirii, 17 Ho>v. 100 (I.Sol). >^'A)ilr. (Jap. VII. '*" Choiiteaiix v. I.cci'li, IS I'a. St.. -JJ t (ls:.2) ; ISinl v. Cromwell, I Mo. 81 (1821). M. I)y as iiu ly iiy •k IK! h(! lit C'll. VIII.'J CONSTIMTTION OI' fONTKACTS. *2'M •• (liiiipTs of the iiiiviifMfioii," iiiid liioUL?!) \\\v jjrroiindin^ of llic l)oii( was iiiiavoidalilc. as I lie can'icfs were liouiid to rc- niovf tlic hooks froiii tlic <'aliiii hcl'orc (he water rcailicd lliciii/-' If the vo\a;;i' is In-okcii up Iiy reason of IIk; perils of the sea, it is the duty of IIk! eanier to trans-ship the cariro ami forward it to its destination, if it can he done; iind the disahlinir of the niasier and unite hy iniioss will net exoii(iral<' iiiiii from responsiltililv.''' Tlie <'arrier to make L!:<"<»d his defense is hound to show thai tlie dainaiic arose from a sea-peril. It is not enou;:h for iiini to show that it ?///////Miave arisen from lh;it cause; he must jirove that it did;''' and whetiier the; loss happened hy a peril of tlu^ s(>a or Iiy the neiiliirenee of tin; carrier i.s in every ease a <|iiestion for the jury.'*''' Where jjoods arrivo in a dainaucd condition and it is apparent that the daniago was in a irreat pai't caused hy the carrier's fault, tli()Ujj;h to some extent would proiialily have heen caused hy the perils of the sea encountered hy tlu! vessel, hut to what extent the carrier is unahle to show, he will ho held liahle for tho whole.''" liut although it app(!urs that his hoiit was not sea- x- Stciiiiiltoiit Co. V. Biisoii, Hiirp. -iCi (1S21). M I'licliUi V. Tlio Aiviir;i(l(., 1 Ami. L. J. ;t:!2. In West. v. The Berlin, IJ Iowa. ");{■! (IsnC)), ii :)ntriict was niadu in XovcniDcr for tlic innncdliite tnuispoitiitioii of jfoods from DuIkkiuo to St. I'liiil by steiiinl)oat, " iina- voidiildc (liinfffis excepted," " witli tlie nwiiiil privllcf^es." It was held that the eaptaiii had a rij;ht to store the ^oods until spriiifj if hy rtisoii of the season the whole voyaije was tl;eM impraetieablc, he having car- ried them as far as eould n^asonahly he re(iiiiied. ^ Hoffman. .F.. in Thet'ompla. •! Sawy. i!?"- (1877). "Marsh v. IMylh. 1 X. & Me. 170 (isi8) ; llainmond v. MeClurc, 1 Bay, !l!) (17!I0); (iordoii v. Biiehanaii, 5 Verg. 71 (1S;W); Humphreys V. keed, (! Whart. 4;r) (1S41). >* Speyer V. The Mary Belle Koherts, 2 Sawy. 1 (1871). In deciding this ease Hoffman. J., gaid: "The real difUeiilty in the case arises from the fact, which, however, is not conclusively established, that the cargo would have sustained some damage even if it had been properly stowed; but how much can not he known. We an; thus forced to choose between two alternatives, either to hold the carrier responsible for damages, a part of which he is not accountable for, or else to deny the shipper any compensation for losses which in great part was caused by the carrier's fault. The former alternative must, in my opinion, be adopted. By hia } ■ I H iltrWWMiM. ■'■ 2:]H TIIF, roNTUACTS OF CAIMMKIIS. [('II. VIII. ii'.'J. Ml: worthy, yet the carrier limy show (liiil the loss was In fact oct'usloiu'd hy tho excepted perils of the river and not hy the unseaworthiness of tlu! l)oat,and iniisl, liave happened if that (h'feet had not existed; hut, a (h'Hncpieney wliieh niiu'lit hav(! eontrihutiMl to tlie disaster oeeasioninir tli-' lr)ss, or n«'iriito he should establish the degree and (sxlent of the exoner- ntion to which he is entitled. If he falls to do this, it seems to me that lie must be held responsible for the whole damage."' **■ Collier V. Valentine. 11 Mo. -I'M (1S|S). •« Phelps V. AVilliamson, '> Sandf. 578, s. c, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obsr. 272 (1852). I : hH III. CM. VIM.] rONSTUlTTION OI' CONTII.ACTS. 2;i9 iiiosplicric ciiuscs ;**' (lie mcpc roHiiijj; of ii vessel in ii cross .sea, •III onliimry iiicideiii of eveiT voyiiije ;"" ii mere lenU not sli(»\vii to have Iteeii cjiiised liv llic irresistililc^ a<'lioii of tluM'leiiieiits ;"' damage caused hy rals"^ or oilier veriniii ;" (heft or rol)l)erv unless |)iraey on llie lii;i:li seas;'' theft or rcthherv coniinitted \>y persons eoininj:; on hoard the ship hj consent of the muster when sin* is not on the hiirh seas, or hy pcM'soiis on hoard, is not within these* terms ;''■'' depredii- lioiis on the ship's s(oi-es or cari;(> eoinmitted hy her passen- jj^ers or crew in eonse(|uen('(! of a short allowance made necessary hy the lenj^th of the voya/^e ;"" the hiirratrons act of the crew in horinuf holes in the ship for the purpose of .scuttling her ;"^ einl)e//,lement ;"" iihmdering of the ship hj a custom house otficer whilo in (thiirgo of it ;'^''' the iiiiUilful- "'•' IJiixtor v. Lolaiid. Al)l). Adiii. :t|H (1S|S). «"i'lH! Jtccsidc, •_' .Slim. .->(;; O^'M). >" Tlic Kiiiiim Jolnisoii, 1 Si)nigm', 'y27 (ISOO); Tiie Comptii, t Ssvwy. :{7.-. (1S77). '■'«Tlif'lsiilH"llii, H Mon. l:»!) (is;.')); Ivav v. Wlioclcr. ;?(! L. J. C. V. ISO, L. K. 2 C. I'. :{(>2, 1.') W. K. 11)5. Hi I,. T. (\. S.) W, (lS(17j ; I.avcn.iii v. Dniry, i'l L. .1. Kx. It. S Kx. l(i(i. Id .liir. 1021 (lsr)2). Wlicrc llic liiastcr of 11 v(!ss('l rci'oived skins to l»u carried from N'ew Orleans to New York, tliere to he delivered in ;^ood order, the *• dangers of the seas " ex- c'oi)ted, and the skins were injured l>y rat>. tlu! court refused to admit o'.ideiu'c to show that uccordin;^ to merctintilt' usage and iiiidcfstandiiig injuries hy rats were considered and treated as dangers of the sea. Ay mar v. Aslor. (i Cow. 2(i(; (1S2()). '•'■'' Cockroaches ato off and defaced the paper lahels pasted on the oiit- side covering of chests of tea. which injury emliar;assed tin; assortment iind delivery of the goods to tlu? consignees and dei)reciateil their miirket value. Jlild, thai the damages were not the result of a '■ peril of the sea"' or of any of the "dangers or accidents of navigation." within anexcei)tioii to that effect in a hill of lading hut were damages for which the ship and its owners wen^ liahle as insurers of the safe conveyance of the cargo. The Miletus. .") IJlatchf. ;t:{.) (ISOti). '•'*Klng V. Slieplierd, ;t Story, I14!t (IStl) ; Temlerden on Shipping, pt. I?, c. :t, § !). p. 214; Ahhott on Sliii)ping. i)t. ;!, o. 4, § 1, p. 2.j2. '■'■'' King V. Shepherd, :» Story, ;!4!) (1S44). '•«The Gold Hunter, Hlatdif. & II.IJOO (is;i2). '■" The Chasea, L. K. 4 Adin. 440, 2:5 L. T. (N. S.) aS. 44 L. J. Adm. 17 (1S7.5). '« Iving V. Shepherd. S Story, :U!) (1844). '•" Schieffelin v. Harvey, Antli. 5(5, (5 Johns. 170 (1810), n- ■'Wj7i.irfHWiiiii r. i 1 Hk-s 240 TlIK CONTRACTS OF CAKlllERS. [CII. VIII, ncss of the i)il()t :'"" llif desertion or insubonliiiiilion of s( ;i- an iiceideiilal lire:"-' llie explosion of a boiler of a men .stoanislii[) ;'"• low water in a river,'" or at the entran-o iw Ilarv.v V. I'ik^-. N. ('. Term It<'i). S2. 7 Am. Dcf. (i'.is (1S17). i'!'71ic ktlicl. :< IJiMi. i:.l (1S71). i"-'(;ilm(irc V. iaiiiiaii. 1 S. A M. "J"!! (1M:'.). Sliarkcy. <'. J.: -It is not ii (laiijjcr wlilcli |irin'i'i"ls from or is iicciili.ir to tlic \i\ov. It aiiscs fnMii llic means MS) ; Sampson v. (ia/,zam, ('. I'ort. 121! (1 '"^•5''^) ; •"^>'t'll v. Mil- ler, Id. :'.07 (is;i7): K/./.ell v. Knoiisli, id. :{11 (ls:$7); .McCliirc v. Cox, :V2 Ala. 017 (lsr)S) : Jones v. Pitcher, W St. «S; V. ]:{.'• (ISIW). IJnt this is contrary to the weij;ht of auUiortty. See (i>U<\ Cap. V,§ 12.">. 1"'' The Mohawl;, S Wall. 1."j:{ (l.^dS), For perils arisinj; on the sea are not necessarily ix'i'ils arisini; from the sea. The Edwin. 1 Spra;;ii(! 477 (185!)) ; Bulkiey v. Xanmkeak Steam Cotton Co. 1 Cliff. 222 (18.")!)), .s.c, oi\ appeal. 2 1 lIo\v.3S(J (1800), co/Ura, Adams Express Co. v. FeiKlrioh,;W Ind. 159 (1871). ^"* Daiif^er of navigation does not mean want of navigation. Cowley V. Davidson, 11? Minn. !t2 (1808). " 'J'he obligation of this common carrier under this hill of lading was to deliver the goods at Shreveport. without unnecessary delay, in good order and condition, unto the con- signees or assigns, tln-y paying the spc^citied freight and no more, the dangers of the river and lire only excepted. T-o\v water is not to be classed among the dangers of the river which absolve the carrier from this conventional obligation."" llatchett v. The Compronuse. 12 La. Anp. 78:5 (1857); Jiroadwell v. IJuth'r, 1 Newb. 171. G McLean, 2!)0 (1854); Mahon v. The Olive Branch, 18 La. Ann. 107 (1800). An ex- ception of "dangers of *'ie river "" will not cover the case of a less of goods by fire in a warehouse wlnu'c they had been dejjosited by the car- rier Oh account of low w ater in the river which j)reventcd liis vessel from prosecuting tlu! voyage to tlie place of destination. Cox v. Peter- 8on, ;50 Ala. G08 (18.57). iM Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall, 12!) (1870). "« Keeves v. Waterman, 2 Speers, 197 (1843). I M'' « ' i ■■'^^-. ' CII. VIM.] ("ON'STRUCTION Or CONTRACTS. 241 occ.'isioiu'd by coiituct with other carifo ;'"" ov by want of vciitihitioii."" In 'Lite J\tfn'(i,^"'' tho niaslcr of a North (icrniiui vessel under a North Clerinan ehartcr parly, uave a I)ill of hidiiiLi' for u'oods sliip[)ed on l)()ar(l his vessel, in South America, as i)art of a general caruo to l)c delivered in North (Jer- inany to Kniilish eonsiirnees. The Enulish lanunaue, nionev and weiiiiils were used in the l»ill of ladinii', which contained the proviso "the danuers of the sea only excepted." 'I'he niastt'r of the vessel, on her arrival at Falmouth, refused to proccH'd on account of the outl)r(>ak of war l)etween France and (Jermany. It wa , held l»y Sir Kohkiit I'hilli.mokk that the master was liable, oidy one event excusing him, which event was not present in th's case. In Spcncc r. Vhml- irick,^^" to an action by a ship[)er of a bill (jf goods under a bill of lading for carrying goods to be shipped on board a ship lying at (Jibralter and bound for London, calling at Cadi/ from (ribralter to London, " the act of (iod, and all and every other danger and accident of the seas, rivers and navigation of what nature and kind soever excepted," the defendant i)leaded that the ship, in the course of her voyage to London, called at Cadiz, and that the goods were within the jurisdiction of the ottieers of customs of Cadiz, and within the jurisdiction of a court held at Cadiz, ana thiit the goods were by the authorities having jurisdiction '"" Casks of blfiU'hing powder were stowed in the hold of a vessel a;jainst the skin, without (hiiinai^e. Water, wliieli came in throiij^h the deck and water ways, readied tlie casks and wet their contents, whieli rotted tlie wood of the <'asks. The casks were stove by reason of tlii~, and the bleachinj!; powder was mixed with tlie water, and this water reaeluHl some bundles of bags and injured them. The ba;^.^ were being carried under a|,bill of lading wliii'h excepted the "dangers of the seas."' Held, that the injury to the bags was not caused by the dangers excepted and that the ship was liable for the damage. The Antoinetta C, .") Ben. .■)64 (1872) ; and see Daggett v. Shaw, ;5 Mo. 2G4 (18:5:<) ; The Freedom. L. K. :{ I'. C. .Wt, 24 L. T. (X. S.) 4.-)2 (1S71). '"« The Freedom, L. II. :{ P. C. r)'.»4,24 L. T. (X. S.) 4.-)2 (1871). '<» L. R. :« Adni. 430,24 L. T. (N. S.) 84!» (1871). "" 10 Q. K. r)17, 11 Jur. 872. 10 L. J. Q. B. 'MW (1847). IG jismmi^i- 11' TIIK CONTUAfTS OV (AIJIMKRS. Vlll. ill th.'il liclmlf aihl iiccortliiii!; to tho l:i\v of Spain, lawfully taken out of tlic sliii) and tlotainod, without the fault of tlio shipowner, on a eh:ir<^e wliieli was duly preferred in the eourt ; and by a deerec of the court inad(^ aeeordin;,' to the law of Spain were eonliseiited. It, was held l»y the Court of (Queen's tJeneh that the loss was not within any of the exceptions in the bill of ladiiiu,', but was occasioned by inev- itabUMioecssity, against which the shipowner ouiiht to have l)rovided by his contract, and that the plea affordecl no an- sw'er, inasmuch as it did not allege any wrongful act or de- fault by the shipper, or knowledge by him that the goods were contraband at (^adiz, nor that they were taken to Cadiz by his desire. § l(i(). ^^ Ddiiijfrs of f/h' L(i/,i'/' — See " Dangei's of Navigation." § 1(57. "'' Dangcr.s of the lio'cv.'" — See "Hangers of Navigation." § l()S. "'■ Daugpvx of (he Roftd.s." — In bills of lading containing an exeini)tion from " the dangers of the seas, roads and rivers," the word " roads" is construed to mean marine roads. It might, however, be held to include roads on land, but if so it would be restricted to those dangers which a>'e immediately caused Ity roads, such as the over- turning )f carriages in rough and precipitous i)laces. Thus in De Roth sell ild v. Iio>/af Mall Steam Packet Coiiijxnn/,^^^ where the carrier received goods at Panama to be delivered at Loudon, "the act of God, the Queen's enemies, pirates, robbers, tire, accidents from machinery, boilei-s and steam, the dangers of the seas, roads and rivers, of what natuic or kind soever excepted," and the goods wore; carried by the company across the isthmus of Panama to Chagres, where they were shipped to Southampton and there placed ill a railway truck whence they were secretly stolen in the cours' of their transit to London, it was held that the car- rier was liable notwithstanding the exception. Ill 7 Ex. 734,21 L. J. Ex. 273 (1852). (•II. viir.] ('()NS'ria;c;Ti()\ or con tkacts, 24; ^ !(!!>. ^^ l>a)i(j('i's 0/ tin', tSms." — .Sec " Daiiiicrs of \:iv- igiiiion." § 170. " Dcficit-ncij ill QnaiifHij." — Astipulation in a hill of ladiiiir that " any damair*' or deticioncv in bsdanco of frciulrl due till! cari-ici-,"' does not import a ^-naranty that the carrier has received the wliole (piantily of goods specilied theivin, iioi" an agreement to pay for any [)orlion whicli maybe deticient. 'I'lie words " deliciencv in (piantity " relate to the property shipped and not to the amount as contained in the l)ill of lading. "-' ^171. "Depot." — The word " tlepot "" in a clause ex- empting the cari'ier from " unavoidal)le accidents of the raili'oad and of lir(> in the i/epot,"' is a broad one, and in- cludes (>very place where the carrier is accustomed to re- ceive, deposit and keep ready for transportation or delivery, goods and merchandise."' § 172. "ICn'ors." — In 'Saiiford v. llouxafonic liailwaij Coi/i/xni;/,^^* a receipt given by the consignees of goods to the carrier, acknowledging their reci ipt in good order, and In wliich the I'onsignecN were re(|uested to notice any "errors" therein in twenty-four hours, or the carrier would consider himself dischargeii, was held not to estop the consignor from sumg the carrier for damages caused by negligence in transporting the goods, although no notice was given thereof to the carrier. The word "errors" in this connection moans mistakes, and not waste or negligence. § 178. ^'•Eticapeii." — "Notwithstanding the stipulation in the contract that defendant should not be responsible for damages occasioned by ' escapes from any cause whatever,' the defendant would still be liable for an " escape ' occas- ioned by its n(^gligonee, ov where sucli negligence was an active and eo-operating cause in producing it. How far the failure of defendant to seal the car when requested by "■^ Meyer v. I'eok, 28 X. Y. 590 (18G4). "•^ MiiRhee v. Cumueu &c. R. Co., 4.') X. Y. 514 (1871). "Ml Cnsh. 155 (1853), :- %»;tt.Miwl^i^i^W^ '-' 244 TIIK fONTHACrS OV CAliUlKKS. [CH. \ III, Hi plaintiff to do so, iiijiy liuvo coiitrihutod to tlic oscapc of the aiiinial, was a (HU'.xtioii for tlic jury," "'' ^ 174. >■' E.i'fnKifi/hifiri/ Mdrhic A'/sV.'.'" — In a diarltM- nartv i)V wliidi a vessel was liii't'il hv tlu' irovci'iinient for the piii'posi' of plyinii- in tlie liafi)oi' of Port Ivoyal, S. ('., or for such other services as the iioverninenl iniiiht desiji- nale, it was stipulated thai in case the vessel, while e\e- eutii^ir the orders of the ji'overninent, should be destro\rd or damaged, or hy heiiiu' coni[)elIed by the uovernmeiit lo run any •• exti'aordinary marine risk," tlu^ owner should be indenmilied. In coniplyiiiii' with the orders of tiie Itarbor inastei' at Port Royal, tlie vessel struck upon the Huke of a sunken anchor in the harb(»r, and was sinik. It was held that the risk wliich the vessel thus incui'red was not an "extraordinary niai'ine risk"' within the ineaninir of the charter-party. It was an ordinary risk, which every vessel that enters a harbor runs, and which every marine policy covers."" § Hi). ''J'Wi/, Water anil Take Proper Care of." — The carrier of stock takes upon himself the duty of waterinu-, feedinjr !»ud bestowinj>' such care upon them as they may I'c- quire. IJut by special contract and in eoiisideralion of re- duced fare or other benctits this duty may be assumed by the shipper. In such case, for a loss happeninjr from a want of attention in this res[)eet, the carrier is not resi)on- siblc.lf he has been uuilty of no negliirence — *' if he fur- nished adequate carriage, afforded reasonable oj)|)ort unities to the owner or his agent to eare for the stock, and sul)- jeeted them to no unnecessary delay in transportation." "' § 17(3. " /*V;r." — As avc have seen, an accidental tire, unless caused by lightning, is not the "act of (iod." ""' To protect himself from an accidental loss of this charac- '" Norton, J., in Oxlcy v. St. Louis itc. K. Co..«.") Mo. C.-JO (1S77). "« Leary v. United States, 14 Wall. ti07 (1871). I'" Soutii &c. Ala))aniaK. Co. v. Ilenlein, :y2 Ala. (iOli (lS7r)). "s.lHt*;, Cap I, § (i; MoArthiir v. Sears, 21 Wend. 100 (lS:J!t) ; Hale v. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co.. 15 Conn. 5:{9 (184^). CH. VIII.] CON'STKLCTION OF CONTRACTS. 24r) tor the ciirri'.'r must ('xi)i'ossly contnu't for tlio exemption, for it is not includod in tlio cxccplioiis of " uniivoida))!*' (Ill Hirers,'" "' " cl:inir<'rs of the river," '■" " perils of the seii," '-' " i)erils of the river""- or the like. Bui even where expressly excepted, it will not protect nirainst a de- struction of this eliiiracter ori<>inatini>' in the ne;j:li_gligence of those having her in charge, and tlu' cargo is thereby lost, the owners of the cargo may recover against the steanun-, even though the l)ills of lading expressly except the vessel and her owners from liability for loss in case of tire. The tire in such a case is a mere incident of the collision. '-''' The failure of a steamboat carrying passengers and freight on an inland river to have the cotton on its decks " protected by a com- plete and suital)le covering of canvass or other suitable ma- terial to prevent ignition from sparks," as re(|uired under a , i! "'■' I'liion Miitiiiil Ins. Co. v. IiidiiiiiapolU iS:c. U. Co.. 1 Disney. 4S() (lS.-,7). '■^"Cox V. I't'tcrson. :i() Alii.(;08(IS.-i7) •a' Mcnill v. Are\ . :5 Ware. -Jl.") (l.S.W). i-"^ Gilniore v. Ciiiniiin. 1 S. cV: ^\. Wi (\^V,\) ; Garrison v. Moinpliis Ins. Co.. 1!) How. :ni> (is.-)(;). 'i' New Orleans Miit. Ens. Co. v. New Orleans itc. J{. Co.. 20 r^a. Ann. 'M)i (IS(iS) : Levy v. t'onteliartrain U. Co.. 'i!? La. Ann. 477 (1871) ; York Co. V. Central Kailread. ;nVall. 107 (18(i,")) ; Michigan .ic. 1{. Co. v. Uea- ton. :$7 Iiid. W^ (1S71); (Jrey v. M.ibile Trade Co., Tw Ala. 3S7 (lS7(i): Rank of Kentucky v. Adams Kx. Co.. !):} I'. S. 174.4 Cent. L. J. li.". (lS7tl): Erie It. Co. v. Loekwood. 2S Ohio St. ;{."»,S (187(i). '" Condiet v. (irand Trunk II. Co.. .•)4 N. Y. 'M (187;{) ; Lamb v. Cam- den &v. ^{. Co.. •> Daly. 451 (18G!)) ; LamU v. Camden e<:c. R. Co.. 40 N. Y. -271 (1872) ; Stef a steaiul»oat the word '• tire " means any lire and is not restricted to lire or.red with proper insti-nctions to another rcsjjonsible carrier upon the line to I he point of destination.'''-' In a Kansas case,''''' the S; . Louis, Kan.-as City i!C Northern K'ailway Company, owning and operating a line of railroad from Kansas City to Mexico and there connecting with another road runninu;- toChicairo, made a '•-'^ M v. S. Stui. :il l.iirs'c. -i^r. '-"* (Jrcy V. Mobile 'I'nidc ("n.. T).") Al:i. :iS7 (I87(J). 'i«' Swindler v. llillianl. 2 Kieli. (S. C.) 21(1 (ISItl). '■■"('oltoii V. Cleveliiiid Ac 1{. Co.. i)7 I'a. St. 211 (1S70). '■" I$iirler v. WlieeliM-, (!) X. 11. !) (]S(;:)). '■'■'-' Keed V. I'liited States Express Co., (S \. V. 1(12 (ls72). (omiiare Illinois Ceiil. II. Co. v. Frankenhuf().•> (1S71;. and >e.> fmllier pott, Cap. X. \ ni. \ III.] fONSTIUJCTIOX (»I- CONI'lIArTS. 247 coiilriict (() " foi'uai'd "" ccrtMin calllc frdiii K!ui>:is City to Cliiciiiro, stipuliitiiijj: tlicrcin that tlir shipper slioiild " tako (•arc <»f 1h(! catth- whih- on the trip," and that ** it and <'on- n(M'tini:' lines over whieli sneh fi'eijflit niiirlit pass shoidd not he liahh' I'oi' any h)ss, daniaLre or injury which niiuht ha])- pen in h)adin,i:', forwardinir or nnloathnir, \)y suft'ocalion * * * or by any other eaii>e except i^ross neii'lipMice,"' and that " it and conneetini:' lines shouhl I)e deemed merely for- warders, and not eonnnon carriers, and only lial)le for such loss * * * .(s miirht he uross nejriiucnce only, i nd not othei'wise."" It was held that the St. Louis, Kansas City A Xorthern IJailway Company was liable as a carrier for the transportation the entire distance, and was responsible for any loss or injury occni'rinu' from ordinaiy neirliu'cnce, whether such iieiiTiuence was on its own or a connecting' line. § 17S. '* FrrcrjiiKj." — Not witlistandintr this excc[)tion a carrier is still liable foi' a loss from this cause arisinir from a failm-e to forwai'd ihe iroods with reasonable dispatch. A bill r>f ladinii' foi" a cai-load of potatoes ha owners" risk freezin;:'." Durinu' a delay of ten days on the road the potatoes were injured by frost. 'IMie delay was caused by a strike amonu' the defendants' engineers, which oriuinalcd in conse<|uence of the t-niploy- ment of an cn;:iiiee:' not of the l)i'othcrhood. their i)Iac(>s Ix'inu' lillc(l a- rapidly as other engineers could be found to lake liiem. The company was held liable foi' the damau'e.'"' § ITIt. -' From Wlndi'vci' ('nitsc.'' — An au'rcement lo take the risk of injury arisini;' " from whatever cause"" will not include an injury caused l>y neiiliii'enee. In >Sinilli r. Xrir York ('(III ml liiulnntd ('(iiiijxnii/,'^"''' the plaintiff who was in charu'e of a quantity of live stock which the d(>fend- ants were transporting:" on their I'oad, had accepted a stock pass which contained a condition that the '• persons ridinii' '•'^ Rciul V. Si. I.iuiis i»ci-. I!. ('(•.. (id Mo. I'.Ki ils7.-.) : Wull' v. Ainorican Kxitivss (■(... 1:5 .Mo. 121 (ISC)!!). '■<•■■ ->!i B;irl). WVi (ls,-,!ii: alliiiiicMl -J I N. Y. •Itl. ilSC-J-). %■ ■'l! ^■a^ra aawws v II 24H TI!K ('<)NTI!.\( TS OK CAIMMKKS. [CIl. Mil. free to lake cliiirjic of the slocU (li> so nl tln'if own I'isk of personal injiirv from wlialcvci" cause." " Tlicrc arc risks incidcnl to the transaction," said IIociKiiooM. .1., " to wliicli this chiuse niiirlit naturally and properly apply ; risks from the stock themselves ; risks from detentions ahmi:' ihc nay: risks fiom the ncci'ssity of inovini: about the t-ars for the purpose of fcedini'' and l.'ikini:' <"ir<' of the stock ; risks from the increased ditliculties and perils of opcratini;" a train of cars heavily incumhered with live stock : I'isks inci- dent to the manairement of every railroad tr.'iin, iind inhe- rent in the vei'v nature of the husiness, ,'ind not always pos- sible to l)e avoided even hy the exercise of the utmost ])ri'cauti()n. Aji'ainst such risks we may well conclude the parties intendetl to contract ; h.it to assume that the pjissen- iror ii\tended to issue a license foi- misconduct or pay a pre- mium for n(\ij:li^cnce is more than I am willinu" to believe." vj ISO. ^^(t(i()i/ Order (iiii/ ('o)uli'fioii." — 'I'lie admission In a bill of hidiiiir that the <;oods were i'ec(>ived in " ;rood order and condition," refers only to tiieir external appear- ance : the carrier is not concluded by this statement, but may explain or <'ontradict it by parol evidence. "The adoj)- tion of the principle that the bill of ladinji' is conclusive on the carrier not oidy as to the apparent but also as to the ac- tual condition of the yoods would impose on him the necessity, for self-protection, of openiiiii every box of uk r- chandise to examine and ascertain the condition of its con- tents before he receives it. 'i'his would not only be inconvenient but impracticable on the p.-irt of steaml)oat owncr.s, on account of the vast carrvinii' business on the rivers. The injury that would be inflicted on the owners of freijjfht by the process that it would be subjected to in con- seipience of such a requisitif)!! is also a cojicnt arirument against it. The bulk of every j)ackaj:e would have to be broken up and examined, and the contents of every box if merehandise of the most delicate t(>xture oi)ened aixl handled before a bill of lading could be safely signed. Public jjolicy, therefore, prohibits a rule which would be •^mmk. CM. VIII.J (ON'STifrcrrox ok coNTKArrs. 24!) j)r()clii('tiv(' (if such results, iiixl wliicli, iiislcad of hcuotil- tiiii:', would iiillict mm iiijiii-y upon t'lc (•oiniuniiity."''" 'I'liiis llic rcccipl for h.'ilcs of coltc :. " in nood order iiiid well eoiidilioiit'd,'" docs iioi warraiil the iiilcriiMl (jUidity or con- dition of llic cotton in llic hides.'" And the cliiusc '• ship- ped in jippiirent j^'ood order .'ind condition, live cases of incrilily for injuries l>v heal , etc., tlu' result of his own ne;_'^iij:-ence."' § 1H2. " Iiicrifah/r Aci ithiifx." — See " hanirersof Nav- ijration," " riiavoithilde AccicU-nts.'" § 1)^.'). "■ /ii/if'iTiif Dctcviorafinti." — 'I'his plirase in a hill of huliiiu- will not excu-c the cleliverv of fruit in a decayed condition, which it is shown was so slowed In the carrier as not to permit proper veiililatioii, and therefore roU(-d."- § 1-Sl. "- L<'(iko(i>' and lircalciKic." — The condition " not to he aceountaltle for leakage or hreakap' " i> inserted l»y the carrier to [U'otect himself from uiiavoidalile losses of this kind, leavinu- him still responsihle for want of >kill or care in the handliii":, .stowa.■(• «(„,'-■. <'ap. VI. !; i:i.".-i;is. and sec poM. i -HVl. "-"I'lit' AiiiiTica. s Urn. I'.U (JsTC). n'l Pliili])- V. Claik.^ ('. |{. (\. S.) I.".r,. :{ .lni-. ( N. S.) KIT. -iii !,. .1. ('. I'. lOS (ls.-)7): and sec Stcidi- v. 'I'crwn-ciid. :{7 Ala. 217 (Isiil); The I't-rcirc. S IJi'ii. :}()1 (ls7:)): Six lliindrrd and Tliirty ("asks. It Hlaldif. .■)17 (IJ<7S); 'I'he David and Caroline. .'> Blatehf. liUl! (IS(!:>) : Tiie K.'ilii. I IJon. :U.') (1X711): Hono v. llot-im. 12 H. Mmi. (Sli (ls,-,|): 'i'i„. Invineil.ie. 1 Lnw. 25.") (isc.s) : Dedi kam v. Vdsc. ;{ lUalrlif. II (ls,-):i): H'uiinewell V. Taljcr. 2 Si»ragne. 1 (1S.')I); Tin- Orillainnie. 1 Sawy. 17(! (lS7(t): 'i'iie Olhers. ;{ Ben. IIS (lS(i',t); Vaiifxliai) v. Six Hundred and 'i'liirty Casks. 7 He;i. .->()i; (1X71;. '^' I'ndera hill of ladini; eontainin.n' a slipuhilioii that oil. uiiieh i< a part of the carjfo. shall he wet twice a week, and also the clause "not accountahle for loakaire oi' stow.ajfe." the carrier is liahle for loss of oil hy leakage, caused hy the casks not boini; iiroperly wet. Iliinnewcll v. 'I'aber, 2 Sprajrue. I (is,")!). Where an action was ln'oui-iit under a clause in a hill of ladini;; •■ not acc(juntahle for lireaknije." to recover foi (II, VIII.'] CONSTIMCTION f.l' (((NTItAC TS. afil t(» protect (lie caiTicr from liahilit v t(» coiupciisntc llif owiUT of tlio ijoods for the \vii^(c ort'MsioiictI l»\ lr;iUiii!»'. does four iiiillslmics liioki'ii mi tin' vo\ii;j('. imd two (illifis tliiit never ciiiiu' ti> tllC |Pl>SSC>^i<)ll of IllC Cillisli;-)!!.!-.. it Uil> lu'lll IIkU it \MI- illl'imilu'lll Oil llic iiw IH'IN uf lilt' slli|i Ml lc;l-l tu .-llOW lllll llli' IWil IIiIs.hIiijX ftttlU'f* WOI't! ili«i'li;irj;i''l >i|i"ii lln' w li;ii f iiml plMccd willi lli" nllicrs nii tliut [mrl of it uhic'li huil Imiii Mifclcil lor llic lilii'll;iiil"s ;;()ii(ls. siiid lliiil siicli Jinidf lii'iii;;- waiilliijj: tlif stiip wttiild lie lial)l<'; while ii> lo tlie I'oiir l)iol;eii vtdiies. Ilie -l(i« i i^e lieiii;; pi'Dved to liiive tieeii "^ond and no e\ ideiiee of iiej;lij;eiiee lieinj; sliown liie eaifjer \\:i> not lialile. ('aicy v. Atlun-. <> Hen. ."i(i2 (ix'li). Stonewan' jiipes wei-e sliipiied on a vessel luider a Itill of ladin;; I'xeeptin;,^ •• danpM's of the sea and navlf^allon." Imt eonlain- iii;^ no exception of los^ liy lireal;a;re. 'I'liey \vi re in {^ood oidcf wlien reeeived, weie stowed pfoperly and wcfe liaiidled eareliilly in loadini; and dis('liai';;in;^. Imt some of tliein eanie to i)ie(e- wlicn lpein;j; ilis- eliar^ed. frointiie development of ei'aejts existinj;- when the pipi's wcfe |iut on hoard or caused while on hoard Ity liie •• jieiils of tlii' sea." the ship haviiijr m;M with had wcatliei'. The consii,niee tendered the fiviujlit on tlie sound pipes delivered, whidi was refused. aiM tici;j:lil was demanded on the wiiole. at the rate per Ion sjiecilied in the Idll of ladinir. and a lil>el was tiled ajjain-t the lidods to reco\<'' the fii-i.^lit. //'/(/. that as tlie }i Is were properly >towed w itli reiermce to llieif character and their apparent condition, the \c>sel was not liahlc fortlieir hreaka^e. and was entitled to III Id all the ;,'<)ods till the full frei^lil was paid. Vilritied i^c, St'wcr I'ipcs. .-> IJoi. I(»2 (Is"!). Casks of plmnliaj^o were liroii;ilit in ilift'crciit sliips of a line under Iiills of ladin;;' which ex- empted llic ship from daniaL!;e> rcsnllinit •• from I 'aka^Jte oi' hical.auc. or from slowauc. liowe\('r siicli damiii^'cs minht he i'air-.cd." On sonic of tlie hills of ladinic were niemoi'aiida that the casks were loose when shipiied. 'I'he eoiHiijiicc-. hioux'hl -nit a:;;!!!!-! Ihe owner of the vessel to rei'over for phiniliap) lost out of the ca-ks. as tlicy claime>l t>y rea>on from careless handlimj;. llill of lading- was not siillicieiit to exempt the owner from loss arising from his nciiligence: tiial ii. ca-cs where the memoranda that the ca-ks wi're loose were on the liill of lading, the prcsmnptioii would he that any loss which occurred arose from such loose condition of the ca-ks. \e!- son v. \al. Steamship Co.. 7 I5eii. IMO (isri). A railroad comiiany transporting a mirror over its road at the •■owner's risk as i-egards hreakage." jilaccd it along with agricnltnral implements and other heavy frcigiit in a narrow passage way. throngli which drays and other vehie!<'s were constantly pa-sing. It was there struck hv a passing dray and hroken. 'I'he company was held liable foi- Ihe loss. .Missouri iSiv. \l. Co. V. Caldwell. S Kas. 211 (1S71). Where a hill of lading con- tained the clause •• not accountahlo for breakage."" and it iipiieared that certain cases muler the liill had been placed llatwise and endwise, and that the contents of some had broken: though all were receii)ted for ..!!>;;!; ' 5 ]-A 2rrJ TIIK CONTItAfTS or fAKinKlls. [cil. VIII. not cxlriid to «lamMiii' cMii^cd l»v (lie liiiuid to oilier irood-.. So " Id'cakii;;!' " will not cover (lamiiue »loin' l>v tiir broken •roods (o other ^oods."' It is held in I'JiLrliiiid thiit, iie^rli- Jjeiice JK'iii;:' nhseill, tile e(»iiditioil lis to leidxilir*' extends In Jill le:il| as lo the nieaninii' (d' (lie word ' leakaui'e." I''or the res|miideiils it was eonteiided that the Word means only ordinary leakajje (which accord- iii<; to the evidence ainoiints to olie pel- cent . ). and does not oxieiid lo exlraordiniiry leakai^e, such as that in (|nestioii, ainoiintiii;:' to an alle<:'ed delicieiK'V of J, (MM) tralloiis. * * * * 'I'lie learned jiid;:<' of the admiralty court appears to have adopted the conslruetion (d' the word ' leakaji'e' e(»ii- IcMided for liy the respomh'iits. * • • |^„j \y,, ,|,, |,,,| think such a const met ion allowahle. 'i'lie condition that the shipowners are not (o he accoiintahle for leakajfe does not, in its ordinary and own risk,"" places uj)on him the risk of damaire to his I ?v. ',. t. l)('f(irt' Dpi'iiiiinf as ill ijooil (ndcr. l)iii it iidI api)<'jiriiijf tliat the hrcaka^jc was ciiuscd In- tln' fad that tiic cases liad lieeii i)ile(l Hat anil einhvi-e: lli'lil. .hat the ('oiisi;:;iiees 1i:ii| faileij to show that any damage had lieen done on the siiip. The Dellii. I Hen. :U.") (IS7(I). ""'Thiii' V. Yoiile. L. l^. 'i (". 1'. 1). X.Vl (IS77). '«■' L. U. . I'. (". •J:tl, 12 .liir. (\. S.) 07.".. :!.■) L. .1. 1*. ('. (lit. IT. \V. I{. 202. 1 1 h. T. (X. S.) 87:$. 4 Moore. \\ ('.('. (\. S.) 70. .s. ,\. s„l, nom. The llelene. H. it I,. -12!) (isdi;). "■ IJiaiU'i- V. The Almoner IS I,a. Ann. 2('>(; (Isoi;); Thoiims v. The Morning Glory, 111 Fiii. Anii. 2(!l» (l.s.VS) ; Arend v. Liverpool &v. Steani- t»hip Co.. (I I.;ins. l.-)!». s. r.. (U Hirh. lis (1S72). \ III. (11, VII!. CONSTItfCriON Ol" ((iNTItACTM. 2r>3 ...Is. I<<'ll •-li- t(* ■loir (I if- ,!^' < • r Kird itnl- llul inn, |ir<>|)crty or to liiiiix'ir fi'oiii the iiianiKr ut' luMdinu' or iiii- loiidiiiLi'. Tilt' "■oiidirKtii dues ii.ii, liuwcNcr, phirc iiiiv !•*•- >|)(>iisil>ilil V upon liiiii dmiii'i ilic iniDspoi'lulioii,"" nor cm- linict' loiidini:' or indoiidiiiii' at intcniicdiiitc sliiti(tii.-i,"'' nor pcrsonjil injnrifs wliitli he nuiy Misiain IVoin external causes, IIS w lici'c a shippci- while eiiua.i:'''! in loadiii;:;' lii-i «'ai' was run into liy anollier tiiiiii.''"' Where hy a eoiitniet for the eaiTiai:e of live >loek t he owiiei' took tlie risk (d' dani- ai:e "in loa.liii;^', unloadin_i>', eonveyaiiee and otherwise, whether arisinj:' from neiiiiucnee or oliierwise," and liie l>ol- totu of the ear dropped out, it was held that if the <'ar was unlit the earrier was lialde.'' >i isii. "Arwx." — A delivery (»f the iii be insuHioiont to pivvciit, ami the latter is lial)l(' only foi' tlioso daiigei's which, with ordinary care and prudence, might be avoiiUnl.' " He will still l)e answeral)le for his own negligence or misconduct, or that of his servants or aaents.''" A loss arisinir from embezzlement of the <><)ods is not within the phrase.'" In >lh'V(ifl >•. London d* Xorlh •'■■■Freiieh v. Hutlilo I'tc. U. Co.. I Kcyc-. liis. i Al)li. App. Dec. P.ni (ISOS). '"■^AlexandPi- v. (ircoiio.? Hill. .">;!;! (ISll) ; .Moon- v. Kviiiis, II Harh. ."rJ! (IS.Vi); V/'olls V. SlCiim X;ivig:itioii Co.. S X. Y. :i7.") (1S,'):{) : Wiilliicc v. Sandorv!, 12 Ga. -ISO (1871); Xiislivillc &.v. R. Co. v. Jackson, (I Ilojsk. •J71 (1S71): !)■ \n- v. Lniiilon &.v. \\. Co. I-. H. !) C. l'.:!2r> (]S7(.) Tin' plaintiff".* floods were carrii'd hy defendant.-; iindei- a contract wiilillie •fovcrnnienl Uy whicli the l)M;c^a;:;e of certain, troop.-;, ineiniiini; tlie plain- tiff'fi ji;oods. wi'.YO to remain in eiiai-j^e of a inilitai'v <;Mard. •• the coniiiany aeeeptim:; no re-pon.sihility :"" lIiUU that tiie company were liable for ihe lo.-:s of the goods occasioned hy their own negli.u'enee. and that the plain- tiff could sue for ihe iiegliLCence though ho could no! have sued for Ov. nou-iierformance of the contract. Marlin v. (ireat Indian H. Co.. I.. I?. ;{ Ex. !l (lsii7.) Where a cai'rier trauspor!s goods at two rates, one lower than ihe other, anil the reeeipi for the lower rale contains the words •' at ov, nei'"s risk." whii'h term is explained therein as intended to free the carrier irom any liahility for loss except that caused hy wilful misconduct, it w Hi not he liable for damage to goods so sent, occasioned by the imjuoper packing of the goods by the servants of the carrier. Lewis V. (ircat AVesi<'ru K. Co.. -JCi W. R. 1 1 (1S77). "'riie contention |)ut forward by Mr. Powcdl is this: There is evidence of something hav- ing been done winch ought not to have been done: that is miseontlnct. That niseonduet was not accide'.ilal. iluM'efore '•{ \\;is wilful. Hut there iu a mass of authority on this i)oint ; ano it all goes to show that • wilful niiseonilnct " moans some miscondiut to which the will is a party, as opposed to accident or negligence. If .a person does an act an(i knows tliat mischief will result fi'oju it, or if. knowing that mischief may (u- may iu)t ensue, he does an act with in(liff(>renee as to the result, that is wilful misconduct." Bnimwell Ti. J., in Lewis v. Groat Westorn II. Co.. 2G W. K. 14(1877). '•"On arrival of a ship at London, the goods were refused admission, being prohil)ited by the laws of England, and as .soon as it was discov- erod that they ooidd not l)o landed, the consignees and master agreed that the goods should remain on Ixjard. and t)e rettnaied to N'ew York, " to the shippers at their risk," and an indorsement was nnide on the bill of lading to that effect. 'I'ho return frtnght was a sum exceed- ing the freight from Xew York to Tjondon. Hdd. tlmt the shipowner I i f'll vin.] CONSTItlTTION OF CONTItACTS. 255 Wenfcrii Jidf'hrat/ Compaiit/^''^ i\ [jiisscnj/cr on iin oxcur- sion train received a ticket will; a condition printed on the hack declaring that I'tiiiiiagH^ was to he "at pa.s.>:cnger's risk." Ilis hairgajre >ias h)st tlirough the negligence of the carrier. It was heUl that tlie case of baggage of a passen- ger was not within the [)rovisi()ns of the Railway Canal and 'J'ratHc .Vet, and that the company was not responsihlo for the loss. 'I'his case has, however, hi-en recently overruled, and it is now held that a similar condition jirinted on a ticket is void under the Railway Canal and TratKc Act.'''' In the former case, Mr. Jirrff, of counsel for i)laintiffs, cited from Story on Bailments '"" tlie following language : " The doc- trine seems now Hrmly established both in England and .Vmei'ica, that the responsibility of coach proprietors, earrj'- inii passenixcrs with their bairiraire, stands as to their baau'aire upon the ordinary footing of connnon carriers." But all the judges expressed their dissent from the proposition. It may now, however, be regai'ded as stating the present rule of the law, both in this count I'V and in England. § I'SS. " Oil Lakes or Jiirrrs." — A clause in a ])ill of lading that the carrier will not be responsible for loss or dama^rc! " on the lakes or i-ivers" means in the navijxation of the lakes and rivers, and accordingly where a (juantity of wheat was lost by the sinking of a wharf I)oat on which it was stored, awaiting the arrival of the packet on whii'h it was to be slii[)ped, the loss was held not to be within the exception."" was rcspoiisiltlc for tlie (Miibczzlcinciit of uny part of tlie goods between the time of tlie (list shipment at New York and their retnrn there, though the onstom house otUeers were on board during the time the ves- sel was in Lonilon. and might have embezzled the goods. Emljezzle- tnent was one of tiie risks the master assumed, and the stipulation in the agreement that the goods were to be at the shipper's risk could not have been designed to throw such a loss upon them. Sehieffeliii v. JIarvey, Johhs.. 170; n. c. at nisi priuK, Anth. X. V. .")0, (1810). «^3 11. & C, 135 (18(!4). iw Cohen v. South Eastern U. Co.. L. R, 2 Ex. D. i'ui (1877). »» § 4{li). .'«»St. Loui> &v. R. Co. V. Snmok. 1!) Fnd. 1502 (1S74). '■3 T n 250 TIIK CONTliACTfS OF C'AHlilKKS. [ClI. Mil. § l^. •' On the Train." — This i)lira.s(' li:is icccivod in one case an exteiulcd eonstruction. A di'ox cr liaviiii; received a "stock jjass," allowiiiL!: liim to ride free with his callic l>ut i)rovidiiiu' that its acceptance shouUl he coiisiiU'red a waiver of all claims for injury *' received when on the ahoM- train," and intendinu' to u'o with them, loaded them n\n)\\ the train, and afterwards in passinu' the ti'nder to the engine was strui'k iii)on the foot l)v a laru'e stick of wood thrown from the tender by the engineer and seriously injured. 'I"he injury Wiis held to he within tlu- stipulation, and that it W!;'< not necessary that he should have been actually riding on the train at the time."'-' IJul inth(> same IState it is held that the phrase " ridin2. '^Pcvih o/ tlte 7i'/m-."— See " Dangers of Navi- gation." § 1!>3. '^ Perils of tilt' ^Sea." — See "Dangers of Navi- gation." § 1{>4. '■^Perishable Property." — Mature merchantahle corn is not within the exception of " perishal)le property.""'* " Perishable i)roperty in the commercial sense is that which from its nature decays in a short space of time with- out reference to the care it receivs. Of that character are many varieties of fruits, some kinds of liquors, and numerous vegetable productions." liut not goods which with reasonable care can be |)reserved for many years."""' i«2PouclR'r V. New York (Vnt. K. Co.. 4!) N. Y.. •H)\\ (1872). Soo also Gallin v. Lomlon Ac. K. Co.. L. ]{. 10 l^ IJ. i\i. i Cent. L. J. J17 (Is;.*.) ancl«H^', Caj). IV, ij !l(5. '«■•', Stinsou V. Xtnv Y'ork Cent. K. Co., \V1 N. Y. :{;{;{ (18«:)). "■-< Illinois &.V. H. Co. v. McClclIan. .>( 111. .-)S (ISTO). CH. VIM.] CONSTRUCTION OP CONTR CTR, 257 § 1!»'). '•'■ l^iJot, Me carried to Cleveland, Ohio, marked " T. H. C, Cleveland, Ohio," and also "care Western Transportation Co.," u cor- poration whii li was t(» nn'cive them at the terminus of the railroad at East Albany. While at the warehouse of the I'ailroad at East All)any and before the transjjortation com- piiiv had received them, they were destroyed by tire, with- out fault of the railroad company. The latter was held lial)le. The " place of destination" was not the i)oint on the carrier's route where he was to deliver the goods to an- other carri<'r, but was the ultimate destination — that point on the road of the first or connecting carrier at which the con- sii:iiee was to receive the goods, according to the usual course '"« Ziui;^ V. I[o\vl;ui(l. 5 Daly. VM\ (1S47). '"■ Spiiiettf V. Alias Stcanisliip Co. 14 Hun. lOO' (lS7.>i). '»^ 1-2 X. Y. -Ill (isro). ami see Gleudell v. Thoiusoii. 50 X. Y. lltl (1S74). 17 1-^;.^ 258 TMK CONTItACTS ( »!•' CAUUIKHS. [Cir. VIII. of Imsiiicss of tlic fMiricr." ' By tlic pi'iiitcd conditions cf a bill (»f la(lin('" I'efer to the port to which the j^oods. for a loss whereof a claim is made, wei'c shipped.'"' § l!tS, "■ /*r/r//i^i/f' of I{(^->S////tpi)i(/." — The "pri\ ilc^a- of ir-sliip|)inj:" is reserved in a hill of ladinir to allow the car- rier to re-ship the jroods in another boat, without renderiii!:' him responsible for the conse(|uences of a deviati(»n.''-' Hut it does not dischariic the boat from any liability not excepted in the contract: and th(tn"t a jirivilcf^e to tlie carrier in the execution of his con- tract to convoy and deliver, insert(!d for his own benefit, to secure him the advantajrp of as <;reat a portion of fieit;ht as lie could earn, and to tlirow upon tlie owner any increase of expense. 'I'lie relation of cari'ier continues from the shipment of the >:;()ods until their arrival ut the des- tined port and deliv'ery." Mefii-e^or v. Kil;;ore. (i Ohio. WTtS (1S;{1 ; : Whitesides v. Russell. 8 W. it S. 44 (1S41) ; Diinsoth v. Wade. ;{ III. 285 (1S4()). '■< (ioods were shipped from N'esv Orleans to Cincinnati, und'T hills of an. cir. VIM ] coNSTiu rnoN or contracts. 259 111])- r its (•!ll'- ()i:ir . " QnaiiUhj Gaarioifccd . Ti le words " quantity jiiiaranieed," in a l)ill of ladiiiii' of ^raiii, mean that the bill of ladinu" is eonelusive evidence of the Jimount of iifrain to be delivered, and if it fall-; short the carrier will jiayfor the shortaue. In liis-:. (Janiphi']!,^''^ it is said : " 'I'liere has been considerable litiiration in the courts irrowinj; out of tho chiims of consignees ;nrainst carriers for sliortaijo. and it must always be ditlicult to show whether the shortaue was occasioned by the miscoiuUict of the cari'ier or some mistaken in the measurements. Hence, some years since, the »'lauso was inserted in bills of ladiiiiT upon the canals, that the con- siiiiiec miu'lit make a deduction from the frei;j:ht on account of shortair<' in substantially the form contained in the bill of ladinir in the case of .}frf/«'r v. I^cck 1711 It >eems to have been suppos(>d that such a clause would make the carrier re- sponsible for the quantity specitied in his bill of ladiiiii', but the Court of Appeals held otherwise, .aiul recently the words ' (piaiitity guaranteed' have b(>en inserted." § 2()(». "• Itcstraiiils of Priiweti.''' — An exception in a bill of hidini,'' of acts or I'cstraints of princes and rulers, refers to the forcDde interference of a State or the ijovern- liuliiisi in tin' iisii;il form, iiiiili'i-iiikiii"- for tlii'ir dtiliverv. and <^oiitiiiniii. vo-shiu instead of waltiiij;' for a rise. liroadwi'll v. Hiitlcr. 1 Nfwb. 171. •> JIcLcan, :'{)(i (18r)4). '" Stiiri,'css V. Till- (/olnnibiH. 'IW M«. 'I'M (tsr)()). '™ (\irr V. Th." Miclii>;an. 27 Mo. 1!U> (18.')S). »" ilatclictt V. Tlic Conii)roini<(". 12 Lii. Ann. 783 (lt;57). '"'■■Vl N. Y. \\r<<> (1S73). »''J2S N. Y. ,WO(18G4). i 2l!0 THE CONTRACTS OF CAKIMKKS. [CH. vm f. nifiit of M country tiikinji" {)oss(>ssioii of (hoiroodss hy stroiiji' haiul, and docs not extend to legal proeeedinjis in the eonrts of a foi'eijin eountrv.''*' §21)1. '^ liofjftrr.-i.'' — l\()l)I)ery is distingnisiied from tliefl in coniainin^' the elements of force or fciir. The word " n)h))ers" in a hill of lading will not jjrotect the car- rier where the goods are st(>len from him."^' And *' thieves" is rest'ictcd to thieves external to the ship, and will not ex- empt t lie carrier from lial)ility for theft conu>iitted hy one of the crew or a passenger,'"- or hy the purser under whose charge' the prop(>rty is placed."^* Where money is stolen from a carrier, under such a state of facts as will exonorate him from liahility for the loss, the carrier will, nevei-theless, he answerable for the money in iii(le/jifa(ufi aN!iHhi2>'' L. '1'. \. S. •_'.">]. '-' 1) 'Kotls liilil v.llo.viil Mail SUmiii I'lickct (O. 7 Ex. 7:!l. 21 1..T. K\. ' -'I'lviur V. l.ivcrpoolAc. Slciuii Co. \..\l. '.K^. B. ."iH;. i;i K. .1. (^). IJ. :-•'■. 11 W. 1!. 7.V2,:i() 1,. T. (N. S.) 71 1 (1S71). '• ■ S;.i;nMl(' V. Atl.is Sto:i!nsl>ip Cii. U Hun. 100 (1S7S). ' ' ^M. .fulMi •,-. Kxprcs? Co. 1 WoDils. (;!■_> (ls7I ). 1^' Leu A- V. Diul-cor, I.. ]!. W C. P. 17. nott> (1SG7). ' ■' >tii!i,nMii V. St. i/)uis iV:c. K. (/o.. (;.-) Mo.. .Vill (1^77). en. VIII. 1 C()\ST!!l'rTI(i:% Ol" C'ONTliACTS. 2(il liniiliiiLr ii i'iirricr's liaiiility do not t'luhrace his ucLiiiii-i-iicc. § -iO.'J. '' 77,.Vrf^s-." Sec " KoI)lH'rs." § 204. " 'riii'omjli irllluiKt 'rninsfci'." — Tlicsc words in a hill of liidiuu' iir*' coustriK'd sd-iclly : and a transfer (»f li-oods from a car to a warehouse for a temporary purpose is luid to amount to a iii'eaeh of tiie eontrai't .''" § L^O.'). " '/oirtni(/. Assisf IV.sw/.s'.'" — The [)la;ntiff shipped p)0(ls at Liverpool on hoai'd the Liberia, a steam vessel he- lonalni:' to a steamship company, to lie carried for freiiiiit, p.iyai)ie iiy the plaintiff.-- to the company, to Ijcnin, on the coast (>f Africa, whicli iroods, on the iirrival of tl:e Liberia at IJonny, were, in the usual course of the business of t!ie company, aiul accordinjr to the terius of the liill of ladinrebv to their destination ;a lienin. 'IMie Kwara, with tluq)laintiff"s <'(>o-ester, Mas-^achnsi'tis and Cedar Rapids. Iowa, over \\hich Ihe goods had to ])ass. and it is the iransfcr from i!ie ieiininus of one .•o;i(! or depot to anoiher that is referred to. In some plares this transfer is mid'' with wagon-; or d.M>s. la oihi-r-. by mi'ui; of swirehes or side trai'ks. cars loa.ded witli good« are trausferrei] fiMui one road to auotiicr. Can it he said as a matter of law the goo_jl-^ ia 'Hie^tion could nol. withou' a breach of the coutraci. be unloaded and iiiaced tcmpoia- rily in a wari'liouse. and then reloaded in cars (>vined liy the defeiulant a:id transferred from one roail to another, if the caj)'.ion be a pa it of theconti'act it nuisi hav<' a riMsonable ( on.-;rnciion. and therelore i' can- not be said to proiiibil a transfer from (me car to anoiher. It m;:y be that among sliippeis the word -iraiisfei'.' through usage or cust(im. has ac:iuireil a iiu-auing which will warrant the construction placed thereon liy th(! maj'irity of the court. If so. siudi custom should have been aveii'i'd and proved. Hnl I slreiinously olijet't that the la.w attaches any sc.eh mcaiii:in' thcivto." ;; ta A 2(;2 THE CONTKACTH OF C.MiKIKKS. [('11. VIII. f I: V • i L ^i|. lilk^' ' HilLiLii on boai'd, Irft lioiiny tim\ \^\•o(^^HH{v^\ on her voyajrc to HtMiin, o;il!iiii;()!i her W!iy !il Brass, wlicrc she liad both to (lis(liai'<>;(' and lake in ('ai'>i:o. Wliilst lyinir in tlic liarltoral lii ass, and after liavin/4' discharjjjcd anil taken in carjio, and witliin two Of tliiTo lioui's of hi'ing n-ady to in-oct'cd on licr onward voyasxc to IJoiiin, tlic Kwava was taken hy her captain at the r('i|iicst of the captain and owners of anotiiei" vessel, to tlie mouth of the Brass river, some tiiree miles from the har- l)oi-, for tlu> purpose of towin;j: such oth(>r vessel whieii iiaiJ j;ot stranded on the hn^akers in attempt in;^' to cross the bar at tlie entrance of the river, and in her efforts to tow tliat vessel off, the Ivwara hersi'lf, in conseiiucnce of her screw fjettinj; fouled with a rope, was wrecked, and the plaiiitii^"^s jroods wcr<> lost. It did not ai)pear that human life was in any imminent danjicr, or that the assistance of the Kwara was sounjlit for exce))l to save propei'ty. The bill of hidinii" fxiven !)V the company on ii'ceivinii' the iroods at Liverpool, contained a clause ssels " liberty to tow and assist vessels in nil situ;!t ions," and also a memorandum in the mar<>;in as follows : "The within jioods t(» lie tiansported at Bonny, and forwarded to destination by branch steamer at >hip's (wix-nse but shipi>ei''s I'isk." In the action by tlu> plaintiffs to recover the value of tiieir ^oods, it was held that under the expi'css woi other vessel in the manner and und(M' the circumstances stated.''"'^ § 2()(). " Uuavoidahlc Acciflfiifs.'" — See also " l)an;ati<)n."-^The distinction between "unavoidable" or " inevitable " accidents "" and th(> act of (Jod is best ex- pnvssed by McCay, -)., in C/ni/rcI Lhic v. Lnirr;^'"' " Tin- latter ('overs onlv natural accidents, such, as linhtiiim;', '^■'Stu;ir! V. Hritisli &r. Stoum Xiiv. Co.. ;?2 f,. T. (N. S.) .',")7. ''■' The leniis '> uii;ivo;dMl)l(> ai'i'id'Mits "' aiid •• iiicviiMhli'iii'cuii'iUs ' siyiioiiyinoiis. I'owli'r v. Davoiiport. 21 'IVx. iii'd (IS.'S).' '■"nooa. -.():) (is7;5). Mrc 1^ (II. VIII.] CONSTUnCTION OF CONTUACTS. 2i;;s tcmin'sts, ('!irlli<|ii!ik(>s iind tlic like, and not accidents aris- inyr from the iicirliu'cncc or art of nunt. To make onl the case of an exemption for a <'arrier against either tiie iict of (iod or unav()idal)ie accident there must he a vis iiKiJDr: tlie interfcrinu" cause must he irresistihh'." In this case a common carrier und<'rtook to carry cotton under a special contract, in which it was stipuhited tiiat he was not to he iiahle for *' unavoiihihh' accidents.'" One of the l>auit hrought for the loss, the di'feiitlant proved that the rod liiid heen lately exaniined, and liiat it appeared sound; tiiat it had previously horne heavier weights, and that it hroke in conse(|uence of a hid- d(Mi Haw. The defi'iidant was Ik Id lial)le. " It seems ah- sunlfosay" said the court, "that it was not possiMe to have avoided the l)reaking of this chain or rod. It ought to have been made stronger; it ought to have heen t<'ste(l. The case is one of simple failure to have a good vessel. This was doubt h'ss an accident, and were that tlu' only woi'd used in the agreement the carrier would be excused; I)u1 the woi-ds arc far stronger than this." As has been s(-en in the introductory chapter,''" this phrase has received in some cases a very different interpivtation. Thus it has been held in Indiana that the exception of '* unavoidable dangers" was includen held in two cases in the .Vdmiraltv courts."*^ Similar I'" .1///.' Caj). 1. ij.'). '■'■^ Walpulc V. Uri(ly;.>s. :• Bliu kf. -222 (|S;(<>). !■'•■' ]-2 Comi. IK) (is:is). ''•MThc (.'iisijo. Dav. ISl (ISIl); Tlic Xew .toivey, Ok'otl. (44 (l-^Xi). I ■ I •s^v; ■**«'^*'i><'-' y^*:^^ •%'^ • ■J 2M THK rONTItACTH OF CAKIMKItS. [rii. vni. ^r- i views wliicli li;iv(' Ik-cm t-xpi-csscd in I'ciiiisvlviiniii ainl (ii'or^ia,'"'' liiivc little iiiitlioril \ , in liie liist ease the opinion l)einod condition. 'I'lie Iturden of |»ro(d' is then ui)on the shipper to show that the contents were in •rood onler and condition when shipped.'"** On the other hand a i-eceipt, for example, foi' *' boxes of raisins" would imply the receipt of boxes tilled witii raisins.''"' liut the effect of these words may sometimes I'csult to the benefit of the shipper. In Fasseff r. Jfiuirk'^''* a bill of ladinir was given foi" certain cases of considered at mkkc leiiirtli in ("a|). !.§!;.").(!, of tliis treatise. ''••^Tiie California. > Sawy. 12 (ls71); Tlie Colnml.o. H Hlatclif. :.21 (18.')(t): Clarl< v. Harinvell. 12 How. 272 (IS.M) : see (intc -(Jood Order and ( 'ondition." ''•" Wentwortli v. Tlio Uealin. IC. I. a. Ann. \s (ISC.l). '^^'The IJellona. I Ben. :m (Is71;. -"':n-a. Ann. (i'.H (IS(S), «'i i^ (•II. VIII.] CONSTRICTION OK CONTIlArTS. 2(!.') the evidence sliowcil tli:il liie misdcscript'KMi wiis not iiiinle loi- the |nii'j)nse of iinii(t>iii'i- oil the ( an'ier, Mild that no higher frie^lit would have he<'ii eliai'L'ed had the real eoii- tenls heeii Unitwii. '• ^^'e I !iiiil<." said the eoui'l , " t he de- seriptive terms ii-ed ill this hill nf ladini:' Mie not eoiielusisc upon th«' parties. 'IMie ohjcct (»r the iii»lniiiieiit was to eni- iiody the writ tell ackiiow lediiliieiit of the receipt ol' a <'er- ;a;ii numl)er of pacUajres oi" merchandise, and the a^^'ec- nient to transport and deliver tlieni to the party named. It was not essential that the contents of the packaii'es should he staletl : and the master must he considered as expressly declininii' to I)e liomxl as to the c(»ntents l»y insertinjr at tiie foot of the hill of ladinir ' contents unknown.' The pack- aii'es were not opene(| so that he could examine them ; and his undertakiny: was to delivei* so manv iiackaires of certain marks and numbers. Ilavinir failed to do this, he must an- swer for the value of the niis>inu' packau'e aecordinjr to its actual contents. The rights of the parties should in this respect he n'ci|)r()cal. Sui)pose the captain had heeu al)le to prove that the missinjjf ease contaiiu'd articles of much less value thiiii those denominated 'domestics' it is very clear that liaviuii: siirued ' contents unknowH ' he would have heen allowed to offer such proof, and on estahlishiuir the fact, could not have heen held as for the value of a case of do- mestics." In a moi'e recent Kn^ilish ease plaintiffs delivi'red to the (h'fendants, to he carried on their vessel, a ])ackaove, the defendants contracted to carry the packaize, whatever its contents, and that they weri' liable for the loss.-' •''I I.cl)cau V. (Jencnil Siciiiii X:iv. Co.. I.. 11. s. < '. I', ss (IS7:2;. .. I\ m •2{\(\ TIIK CONTKACTS OI' CAItUIKKS. [('II. VIII. ]U § 20H. »• \'iriinfsih:-oi't:ition of live stock that the stock is to l>c •' wiilered and fed l»y th*' ownci" and at his risk" while on the cars, refers oidy to the oi'dinaiT sustenance the animals lUiiy r('i|uire in the course of transportation. The throwin;*' of water upon the cattle f(U' the purpose of cooliui; tlu'in. and which in hot weather is often al)S(dutely essenli:d to save them froui dyin<^ of the excessive heal, is not with- in this exception ; this duty still, for n'asons of pul>lic con- venience, devolves upon the carrier.-'"' § 210. " \\'i'iif/ii'i\ /ii/'iin'i'M (icnisiniH'i/ /))/ I'/ir." — All ex- emption fi'oni "injury to any ai'ticlc of ficiL'ht diwiiiii' the course of tr.aiisportatioii, occasioiie<| Iiv the wi-.-ithcr "' will not include nei;lie;t ,)ee, as where a railroad company in tianspoi-t- iiiiT fruit in cold weather used a common l»ox car when they should have used a refriiicrator car.-'"' ^211. Ciiujlirf iif Ijiiirs. — The rirle that eontr.acts are in <;;ener;d to he construed accordinir to the law of the phuH' where they are made applies to the contracts of com- mon carriers, 'riius the liahility of a carrier who uiider- t.ikes ill Mcxic(» to coiivev i^oods into Texas is to lie «i'overncd iiy tlu^ laws of Mexico.-"' In an I'jiirlish case, S. took a ticket in lOnirland from a steam packet company for the con- veyance of himself, family and l»aij:;faire from .Southampton to Alcx.'uidria, and from .'^ue/ to Mauritius. T!ie ticket was issued subject to a condition, si;.!:ned hy S., that the com- ^■-' lllindcs V. liOiiisvillc K. <'.)., <) Hiisli. (!SS (1S7:{). ■^« Iliin.)is<;(Mil. It. ('(.. V. Ai!:iiii>. ti 111.471 (isiiT). *'< Morcliiiiits I)isi);itcli \-i\ (.'(). V. ('Driifurtii, I'.Col. -Js!) (IS77). *MJ)iiitii V. Boimi-tl. itld'cx. :!():( (1>S7:!). l\ iV> III. II. VIII.] CONSTUirCTION (tr roNTIUCTS. 2r.7 jiiuiy would not liold IIiciuscIvch liiihlc for «l!iiim;r«' to, oi' • Ictf'iitioii of, |>iiss('n;.fci's' l»:i;r;:'!i;jf»'. In tli<' course of tlic journey some iirtii'le.s for personiil use \v«'i'e lost. It wjis iieid that the eontrael was to !)«• ronstnied hy the law of Mn<;land, and that as at euninion law it iso|)en to earriei-s to limit their <'omnion law liability l)y speeinl eontrael with ihe e«»nsi;;nors of j^oods, the loss nf S. fell within the .s|i|)iil,ited condition.-'"" The same |)ri!\ei|)le ^'ovei-ns contracts of cai'- lia^c between the diffei-ent States ;■'"' a contract made, for example, in New York to carry jroods to I'oslon is ooverned l»y the law of New V(H'k.-'"'* It will he presumed that the contract (tf a railroad company of another State is not iillni rives:'" In a New llanipshii'e ease it was I'uled th;it where a con- iracl is made l>y a common carrier in one Slate to transport troods from that Stale into another, and the jroods are lost, the rii!;hls of the parlies are ifoverned l»y the law of the State in which the loss happens.'"" Hut in a late <-;ise in the . ('. ->'' I'fiiii.-^ylviini:! Co. v. Fiiiivliiltl. !)!i III. u'ti(t (ls7:i). •*^ A slcniiiliKut was in tin- liiisincss of triui,-|iortin,u' jjooils i'roin Nfw V'>ik lo I'rovidi'iii'r. Tilt' plMiiiliff owiicii (•iuriii;H's. which he wlsiicd to liavf lraiH|ioil(Mi to lio-^loii. Thi' carriers I'cccivcd llicin in New YorU. to convey them to Providence (»r Uo-ton. and Ihev were lost iulhe.'^onnd near lFnntin;:lon. I,. 1. //'■/(/. that the conlraet of tlie i)arties was to lie -•ovenied hy the laws of New York. Hale v. N. .1. Steam Nav. Co.. 1.") Conn. .".:!!! (lS|:i). A hill (if ladiii;;' execiiied in Oiiio. of niercliandi>e 'liere shipiied to he ti'aiisjioi'ted to a place in New York, which hill is ile- livered. in iniisiiaiice of a conlraet made in luid liv I'ciidents of Ohio, to • lie thi'ie making; advances n|)on tin- faith tliercof, and to .('cnre drafts drawn fm' sncli advances n|)on parlies in Ne« York, i-; an Ohio contract, .uid is to l)e conslriicd hy and under the laws ,'\nd conunereial n--a^ce» of that .State. First Nat. Hank v. Shaw. HI N. Y. -Js:? (1S7I). ''■•MaKlMM' V. Camden i! N. 11.1) (ls71). (Joods were shipped in Oliio. hilt were lost in transit in New York. Ii was held lh:it as to the h^s (he I ase was n'overni'd hy the law of the latter Stale. Uarier v. Wheeler. ID .V. II. 1) risi!!)). 2fi8 TIIF CONTlIArTS OK CAKUIKUS. [C'll. VIJI. the State of New Iliuuitsliirc, it was t-aid by the SuprcTiic Court of the latter State that so far as the eoiitraet was to bi' performed in Vermont, it woiihl seem to be ptvcrned l)y the law of that State.'-'" In Uaaillci/ v. Xorliiiru Tmuspor- littUni Coiupaiii/-^'- \\u' jury found that by the law of lUinoi- where tlie ijfoods were shipped, the mere receipt without ob- jeet:o!> of a bill of ladinji; which limits the ca!'rier"s li;i!)iii- tiesfor lo-is 1)\' lire would not raise a pi'esumption that its terms weri' assented to. in .Massachusetts, where the cause was tried, the law is that a ItilTof ladinjr or shippiui:' receipt . taken by a consiii-nor without dissent at the fiiue of the de- livery of the |)roperty for transportation, liy the terms of which the carrier stipulat<'s airainst such lialiility, will exempi the carrier when t'.ie loss is not caused by his own nei:li- li'enct'. The court held that the rule of law laid down in Illinois affected the renu'dy only, and that the law of the forum as t(» the implied assent of the shipper to conditions of iadinir must prevail. In u l^'nllsylvania eas<' plaintiff purchased from defendant " New .lersey corporation, at its ortice in Pennsylvania, a ticket from IMiiladelphia to a plac<' in New Jersey, for which he had his trunk checked. Th-- trunk was lost. It was held that as the contract \v:is to be performed in New riersey by a New Jersey corpoi'at'on, it was to be jxoverned by the laws of that State, and that an a<'; r.f the Pennsylvania le^'islature, limitinir the liability or railroad companies for loss of baiiirau'e, did not iipplv.'" A contract for earriaii'e which is valid in the State where it is entered into by the consij^noi', will ImikI a consii-iu-e res- ident in anoth r State. '■■' In an Iowa ease a I)!ll of l.Hlinjr. stipulatin;:: for exemption of tlic^ cai'rie!" from lialiility for losses by tire, v.as drawn in Connecticut, where such ex- emption is lawful, and whence the mei-chandisi' was to be shipped to Iowa, in which State carriers aj'e iittt pei'inittcd -I' I{ixf(.nl V. Sinitli. .VJ N. H. :{."):> (lS7-_>). -'•-' IIT) Miiss. :i()l (IS7t;. -I'' Hrowii V. CaiiKliMi &','. 11. Co.. s;5 pn. St. MKJ (1S77). -'•* l{ul)iit-()ii V. Mi'icliioits I>i-^p:i(fli 'rrnn-. (.'o.. 1.") lowii. .170 (!s77). cii. viir. CON'STIIUCTIOX OV COXTUACTS. 2()i» to limit their liahility. The jroods wcro transported to C iiiciiji'o, 111., uhoi'c tliev were dcstroyccl without fault of tiio carrier. Jii an action broutiiit a<:ainst the latter hy tlu; ronsi;jfnee to recover their value, it was lu Id that the con- tract was valid, and that the plaintiff could not recover.'^'' Althoufih where a contract is made in one State, and suit is l»rou:iiii<'l \. ('hi(M;;o ivc. H. Co.. 2i Io\\ii.-412 (ISOS). ■^"i K'lowltoii V. Krio li. Co., 1!) Oliio St. 2(ji) (lSG;)j. i;, if m ii imiiHiiimi 1^70 THIC CONTRACTS OK CAUKIKK8. [cm. IX. f CIIAITER IX. niK C/l'l>IIO\ OF <()NSII)i:i!ATIO.\ AS AI TJU TLN(i CO^TIiA(•rS l.IMlTlXCi I.IAIJILITV. e. lM7. Wliat is a (iratuitous I'as-eiii;er. •JIS. 'I'lie ( 'a>e of a I'"ree Pass — 'I'iie Ameriean Doelriiie. •Jilt. Tlie I>oetriiie ill Louisiana and New .iersey. ■120. 'Die Itoelriiie in New Yorlv. 221. I'resiimiitloii From I'ossessioii of Fn e I'ass. 222. ('riiiiiiial l.iahilitv. § 212. A ('(nisl(h'i-(itii)U Xci'iasdfif to Siippitit tin' (loii- fmrt. — It is !i I'ulc of law, loo radic'il to lu'cd any citation of iiiithoi'ity ill this place, iliat a coiitiact to lie Itindiii;; rc- (liiircs a coiisidcratioii to support it. It has hccii sim n that a coiuDioii carrier is hound Ity law to i)car the cxtraordiiiarv risks attached to his callino', for idl who may choose to eiii- pioy liiiii, upon the terms r)f payinir him his reasonable com- peiisiitioii therefor, lie can not refuse to receive and trans- port o()()d.s f)ffcred to him hecaiise tlie shipp«>rwill not assent to their heinir carried tmder a special contract limit in;! his ctnnmon law responsihility, and if heslwudddo so, ho woiill render himself lialile to an Jiction.' Now, the performatice 1 .l)*ati()n of his responsihility at common hiw, nor does lils ajireement to carry for the price which he mijrht charp' in case his lia- !)ility was not limited or which it was his custom to char (IS.-.!»): Kiilty v. A(tiiiiis Express Co.. 2 Mo. (A|)i>.) :{<)!».:< Out. ].. .1. i:\'> (l.S7(>). Ill SoiitlHM-ii lOxprcss Co. v. Moon, 'M Mi-^s. S'JJ (lS(i;{). it is said : •• ("onsio(N. offeriiii;' to i)ay reasoiialile eompensation. and steadily refiisimt tlie art fully jirepared reeeii)ts limit in,<>; the carrier's liahility and depriviiif? the consignor of his legal rights, to restore in practice th, ;$ Cent. L. .1. -I.C) (IS7(i). * Nelson V. Hudson Kiver R. Co., 4S N. Y. 4!t8 (t872) ; IJissell v. New York Cent. It. Co., 2.") X. Y. 412 (lH(i2) ; German v. Chic igo i^ic. ]{. Co.. ;»s Iowa. 127 (IS74); Fanihiun v. Camden &e. R. Co.. ."..') l»a. St. r>:t (1807; ; McMillan v. Mii-higan Ac. li. Co., IG >Iieli. 79 (KsG7). > ^M "'iimiiiwBWWWIiiij.' THE COXTIJACTS Of (^AUKIKHS. [CH. IX. 1 1 it imist inako compoiisiition for that relief hy the reduction (.1 fare or otherwise.""'' A ease of interest upon the consid- eration required in aiireonu'uts hetween .shi|)pers and cai- riers is that of Gcnnrin v. Chicivio Ji'tilvoad Con) pa in/,'' decided bv the Supreme Court of Iowa, in 1S74. Tliere a contract for the shi])nient of cattle stipulated that the owner shoidd assunu' all risk of injury done by the cattle to each other, and that the owner should he permitted to jro on the train in charj^e of them. 'I'he railroad company rilled fsi"ll V. \c\v York ('.'lit. ]{. Co., u>.') N. Y. 112 (1802). «;ts Iowa, 127. ■JSissoll V. \."\v York ('.mi(. U. Co.. 25 \. Y. 412 (1S(;2): Xdsoii v. Iliid-on IMvcr 1{. Co.. (S \. Y. r.lS (1S72). " Bl,«.«i held by the Supn'niP Court of the IJiilti'tl Stalt's llml when :i l)i!l of liiding coutiiiiis n'stri(.'tions on Ihi- li:il)ili{y of tlit- oiirricr the couft will not pivsumc in the iil)S('ni'(^ of testi- mony that it was not done upon profxT and suiii:'icnt con- sideration." And a similar ruiinu" has hc-n mad;' in Miehi- iran. § 21-1. (.'((ri't'U'.'i of T*,'an I'tc. 1{. Co.. 10 Mich. 7!) (1S(!7). ".1«<(', Cap. II. § -jsi " Id.; Ohio itc. K. Co. v. Soll)y.t7 Ind. 471 (1S74). " Hall V. North Eastern R. Co., L. H. 10 q. H.4\i7 (1S7.')). ^'^ Anlr. Caj). II. § .").">, and sec pout. § 220. '■ Flint i-tc. ii. Co.. V. Weir, :!7 Mloh. Ill (1S77) ; See Williams v. Ta.v 18 y ■' . , • li 274 TIIK CONTUACrS OF CAHHIERS. [ciI. IX. prcme Court of Iho United States, the plaintiff was a stoek- Iiolder in the defendants" railroad company and was the president of another railroad eompany. He was on the road of the defendants hy invitation of the president of the eompany. in a small locomotive car used for the conve- nience of the olliccrs of the com})any, and paid no i';in>. lie was injured \)\ collision of this car with an eui^ino whose drivei' was actini;' in disobedience of orders that had hcen given him to kee}) the track clear, 'i'lie court Itelow in- structed tlu- jury that if the plaintili ...is injured through the gross negligence of one of the servants of the defend- ants then and there employed on the road he was entitled to recovt'r. The Sui)renie Court held this instruction to Ixv correct. (iuiKi!. »F., saying: *' 'i'lii^^ duty [that of a carritu'] does not result alone from the considei'ation paid for (he service. It is imposed by tiie law, even where the service is gratuitous. The conlidence inducc(l ity undertaking any service for another is a sulHcieiit legal consideration to create a duty in the [)erformance of it. It is true a distinc- tion has been lake)i in some cases between simple negli- gence and great or gross negligence, and it is said that one who acts gratuitously is lial)le only for tlu' latter. Hut this case does not call ui)on us {a detine the difference (if it l)e eapal)le of delinition) as the verdict has found this to be a cas(> of gross negligence. When carriers underlidic to con- vey persons by the powerful and dangerous agency of steam, pul)lie policy and safety re(pni-e that they be held to the greatest possible care and diligence. And whether tlu^ consideration for such transportation be pecuniary or other- wise, the personal safety of the passengers should not Ix; left to the sport of chame or the negligence of careless lor. 4 Port. 2;U(IS:!(;j; Fay v. Tin- N'cw World, 1 Cal. ;!1S (1850): Gordon v. (Jrand Street J{. Co.. 10 lijirlt. 510 (lS(i;{); Indiana It. Co. v. Mnndy. 21 Ind. IS (18(J:{); (Mrio Ac. R. Co. v. Midiling. ;?(t ill. !l (IS(il) ; Illinois Cent. R. ('o. v. Head. :}7 Id. 4SI (ISd.")); IVrkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 21 X. Y. lt)(J (ISCd) ; Fliun v. I'hUadelphia etc. R. Co.. I I [oust. 4(J!I (18r)7). Hi en. IX.] CONS 1 1) Kl{ ATI ON. 275 iigcnts. Any imfrligoncc in such cases may well closcrvc the cpitlict of ' ned tliem. l$hu'khurn, . I. .said: •* It is true the plaintiff did not si;;n the ticket, and he was not asked to do so; but he traveled without paying any fare, and lie must be taken to be in the same i)i)sition as if he hail signed it.*" '•''' In an Indiana case the jjlaintiff was spoken of as a free passenger,^ the fact being overlooked that he had paid freight to the company for goods which he had in charge;. Indiana Cent. 1{. Co. v. Mundy.'Jl Ind. 48 (ISdIi). See. also. Higgins v. Nesv Orleans iV:c. R. Co , -28 I.a. Ann. i;i:! (I87ti). I { ) m 270 THE CONTHACTS OF rAIJHIKKS. [('II. I\. K'onlriict Ix'iK^Hcijil to the carrier, as for ('\aiui)I(' a di'ovcr ■who n'ci'ivcs a pass 1o (i-avcl with stock on whicli lie ])avs freiii'lit, is not nierclv a urat nitons passenircr.-' and this even thonjrli'his ticket may iiave the words "free pass" l)i'inted niii>n it." Tiie prices which he pays for tiie trans- l)ortation of liis cattle ami the care which he takes of them on tlie jonrney are a sntlicient consideration for his own j)assaire. A contract of this kindns to tiiose in Pierre r. Mihraukee <(• .S7. I'aul Jiiilhi-d 1/ ( 'niiijidin/^-' where corn was shipjx'd hy a railway company which aurecd to return the emi)ty hairs fre(>, and llai'r'nvjtitn r. MrSlmtie,-^ wliere a carrier undertook to transport uoods and sell them, and hrinjr the money arisinir from the sale hack with him without charire. In these cases it was held that neither the carriaire of the emjjty I)a_ifs nor the retui-n of the money could he considered as oratuitous. In a late case in the Supreme Court of the United Slates,'-'' the plaintiff, who resided at Portland, Me., heinij interestcMl in a car <'ouplim!' which had been in use upon the car.s of the defendant com- l)any, was requested 1)V its ofHcers to meet them at^NIontreal to arrange about its future us(>, they ayreein<; to ])ay his exi)ense.s. In pursuance of the aiTanijement he was fur- nished with a i)ass which ])urported to be a " free ticket," and which exemjited the company from liability for the neirligence of its servants.-"' Durinir the; jjassaire Irom ii-' 2' Oliio Ac. K. ("o.v. S('ll)y. 17 fnil. 471 (lS7t); (.'levoljind I'tc. I{. Co. v. Ciiniin. lit Ohio St. 1 (isO'.t) ; I'cMinsylvaniu R. Ce. v. Hciulcrson, ni Vn. St. :?!.') (ISC.-)); Smith v. Now Yori< TViit. U. Co.. '21) l»;irl). V.Vl flS^O). iif- flniu'd l)y a ilividt'ii court. 21 X. Y. 222 (1^02); IiidiKiiaix.lis Ac. J{. Co. V. IJcavor. II liid. VX\ ('IS7;?). But sec Rii^sclj v. New Ynrl< ("ciil. K. Co.. 2.-) \. Y. 112 (18(52); Kailmad Co. v. Lo(>l<\vood. 17 Wall. r)7 (is7:{). --' Cleveland Ac. 11. Co. v. Curran. 1!) ()hii> St. 1 (ISdlJ). ^■'2;? Wis. ;{87 (18(W). -'M Watts. 44;? (18:U). •■i"' Grand 'I'nmk \\. Co. v. Stovons. O.') V. S. 0."). ( Viit. T.. .1. 207 (1877). ^ On the face of the ]iass wci'o those words: •• Pass Mr. .Stevens from I'ortland to Montreal." and it \\ as signed hy the iiro',)e." ollleer. On the back was the following printed indorsement: ■• The ixTson aciieptiiig (II. IX.] CONSIDEIJATION. 277- Portliiiid to Montreal the train was thrown from the track and the i)laintitT was injured. 'I'lie Supreme Court of tlu^ I'uited States lield tliat lie was not, under these cireum- stanees, a gratuitous passonjicn-, Mr. .Iustie(> 1?I!A1)I.kv say- iiii:-.- " 'i'he traiis[)ortation of the plaintiff in t lie defendant's ears, though not i)aid for by him in money, was not a mat- ter of eharity nor of u'ratuity in any si'use. It was by vir- tue of an agreement in which the mutual interest of the parties was consulti'd. It was part of the consideration for which the plaintiff consented to take the journey to Mon- treal. His expenses in makinii: that jouriu-y were to ho paid l»v the defendant, and of these the expense of his transportation was u part. The uivinu' him a free pass did not alter the nature of the transaction. The pass was a mere tick(;t or voucher, to l>e shown to the contluct( - of the train, as evidenci' of his I'iuht to he transported therein. It was not eviilence of any contract by which the plaintiff was to assume all the I'lsk ; and it would not liiive been valid if it had been. Ir. this rcsjx'ct it was a stronjrer case than that of Lo.kwood.-' There the pass was what is called a ' drover's j)ass,' and an agreement was actually signed, declaring tha* the acceptance of the pass was to be considered as a waivi'r of aii ciaims for damages or injury received on the train. The court rightly refused, there- fore, in the present case, to charge that the l)laintiff was traveling upon the conditions indorst'd on the pass ; or that,, if he traveled on that pass, the defendant was friie from liability. And the court was e([ually right in refusing to charg(! that if the [)laintiff was a free or gratuitous passen- ger, the defendiint was not liable. The evidence did not II n I' I |:^-''v/i- k' « I: P this free lickct in coiisidci-ation tlicrcof ussimics all risk of all aecirloiits, and expressly auit'cs that, the cimiiKiny shall not ho liahle. tinilor any cir- cninstanccs. wlu'ihcr of Mc^ilij^cncc hy thciraf^cnts or otherwise, for any injury to the person, or for any loss or injury to the property of tli(> pas- nlra*^/?i//,'''' tlu! reasons for lliis rule art; well stated I»y the court. " 'I'hei'e are (wo distinct considerations," says Hi:i:i!Y, .1., " upon which the striiis of its subjects. So far as thi^ considei'atiou of public policy is concerned, it can not be over-ridden by any stipulation of the pai'ties to the contrac of passenger carriage, since it is paramount from its vei-y nature. No stipulation of the pai'lies in disregitrd of .,oi' involving its saci'itiee in any S , 1 ^ l! m ^^ ;■ ■^1 !- ■ 1 • 1 hL^ 2«{) TIIK CONTUACrs OK CAItlMKKS. [ril. IX. thi'HO j)r()|)(>sili()iis arc in»t (M|ually applicaltlc (<> passriijicrs of citlicr of tlic kinds alxivc iiicntioiicd. It is sjiid, liow- t'vcr, lliat it is iimcasuiialik' to .siippnsc that tlif iiiaiiiijicrs of a I'ailroad train will Ics.scn (lu>ir vi<:ilanc(' and caiT for tli(» safety of tlic train and its passcnLTcrs, hccausc there niav he a few on lioard for whom thev are not responsihh'. In the tir>t plaee, if this consideration were aMowcil to |trevail, it would prove too much : for it <'(tuld i»c urj^cd witli ci|nai force and [)ropi'iety in the case of a merely ^.natuitous pass- enar. Vet, as we h •escen. no .such consideration is pci'niittc<| to I'clicvc the 'er fi-oni the same deiiive of lialiilitv for a L'latnitous , ,. .^cn<;•c^ as for a i)ass<'nii-cr for Inn'. Airain, suppose (what i> not al all impossible or ii>i[)rol)ai>Ic, as. for instance, in c;ise of a free excursion,) that most or all of the passenjrers upon a tiain were iri'Mtiiiious, or ridinir upon conditioned free passes, tjic consideration ur;j:ed would he no answci' to a claim that the carrier shoidd he lesponsihlc. A jrcneral I'ule can hardly l)c hascd upon such calculations of chances. .Moreover, while it might not ordinarily occur that the pi'csence of a free passenger upon a train, f(ti' injui-y to whom the can-icr would not he liahle, would tend to lessen the c;il'rier's sense of responsihijity and his vigilance, it still rem.ains tiiic that the greater the >cnse of respoiisihility the greater the caic ; and that (ini/ relaxation of rcsponsihUity is dangerous. He- sides these consideiations. it is to lie icmemhered that the c.'ire and vigilance whicli a carrier cxercist's do not depend alone upon a mere sense of responsihilty, or upon i\w, exist- ence of an ah>tract rule of imposing sti'ingent oldigalions upon him. It is t!ie enforcement of the rule and of tin; liahilily imposed thereby — the mulcting of the carrier for his negligence — which brings home to him in the most prac- tical, forcible, and effectual way, the necessity for strictly fulfilling his ol)ligati()ns. It may bo that on a given occa- sion, the gratuitous passenger or the passenger upon a free puss is the oidy jjcrson injured, as foi- aught that appears was the fact in this instance, or the only party who will pio- M. IX.] rONSIDKItATION. 2M1 (■(•('(I ii^riiiiisl \\w. ciirricr — llic only ptrxm ulio will |irii(li- ciilly cnrorct' upon the ••ari'icr llir iinpoilaiHf of :i I'nillirnl »liscliiir;.''c of his dnty. TIicsc con ii(lcr;ili(iiis, as it sccinHto IIS. oiiirlil 1<> !»<' (IcM'isivc upon lli'' point tiitil sound piiMic; policy i'c«piii'cs (hat the rule as to tlic liai»ility of the caiiicr for flic safety of the p;issciiircr should not he relaxed, though the pa/ r. /jitf/cirafx/;'''' was a case of a stock pass, and in (ri'dwl Trunk Ittiihrtn/ (Umiinniif r. S/cri'iis,'^' iihhoiiL^h (lie (icke( pur|)orted to he a *' frci^ ticket " a consideration Wiis i^hown. Hut in the latter case, Mr. .Iiistici- HijADi.KY said ; "We do not mean (o iiiii»ly, how- ever, (lia( we should have coiiK? (o a rvice ; and the coiidi- fions on which that public service shall l)e performed i)y private enterprise are not yet entirely settled." It may bo >aid, however, that the opinions of Mr. Justice Huadlkv, who delivorod the judirmont of the court in the Lovkirood and StcccDs' cases, leave little room for conjectui'c as to what (he decision of that tribunal would be in a case of this kind. ••"i 17 Wall. 357 (187:5). •'■ iir. I', y. «.J5. (J CViil. L. J. 207 (1870). S • 'is ''- 2^3 THE CONTKACTS OF CARUIEU8. [CII. No court in the hind exhibits a more dotcnnincd ondoavor to protect the puljlic in their dealings with eo.nnion carriers than the Supreme Court of the United States.'"^ § 21S>. T/k' Doctrine in Louisiana and Xt'w Jevxei/. — In New Jersey, in a case whii-h was considered tirst by the Su- preme Court and next by tiie Court of Appeals, it was hehl without dissent in either court that a contract that in con- sideration of a free passage a passenger will assume the risk of injuries to his person from the negligence of the servants of a railroad conJi)auy, is valid in law/'-' Jn Ilig- ginx V. ycir Orleans Railroad Conijtani/,*" a news-vendor had the privilege from the com})any of si'lling books and l)a|!ers on its trains by his agents, on conditio!! thai >.uch agents as went on the trains should sign a contr.M't ;'xenip(- ing the company from all liability for injuries which they might receive. There was no consideration paid for the l)rivilege ; but his agents rendered small services to passen- gers. The plaintiff, an ager.t who had signed the agree- ment, was injured while riding on a train under this con- tract. It was held that the injury not being occasioned by the " fraudulcnl , wilful or reckless conduct'' of the tle- fi'ndant, h(> could not recover. § 220. VV/r- Doctrine in XU J?:irl.. 04 1. * ' IX- CU. IX.] CONSIDKRATION. 283 the property of the passenger using this ticket." No con- sideration for tlie carriage was shown. By ii collision between the passenger train in which he was riding and a freight train negligently left standing on the track, the holder of the ticket was injured. A verdict for IT.'jO hav- ing heen found in his favor tlu^ Ciisc was taken to the Supreme (\)urt . There the judgment was reversed, that court holding that the contract was not unlawful. Smith J. said: "In the conclusion of the judge of the circuit, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action, 1 tind myself unable to concur. The plaintiff received a free ticket from the defendants, entitling or permitting him to ride in their cars at his own pleasure, with an indorsement on his ticket by which ' he expressly agreed that the com- pany should not l)e liable under any circumstances, whether of negligence by their agents or otherwise, for any injury to his pei'son oi" for any loss or injury to his property.' These were the terms and the conditions on which the de- fendants gave and the plaintiff received his ticket. It implies in effect, an agrecnu'nt on ' c part of the i)laintiff to take the risk of all the casualties attending railroad travel, so far as they arost- or might arise or result from n<'giig'iiice on the part of the oflicers and agents of the de- fendants, 'i'he defendants are a corporation, engaged in carrying persons and property as common carriers. They are necessarily ol)lig(>d to carry on their business through the instrumentality of numerous otHcers and other agents. From tile character of the business, the great liability to accidents or injuiies to persoi and property I'esulting more or less in most cases from sciiie degi-ec of neglect or want ()■ care on the pai'l of some of their numerous ein[)loyees, and the sei'ions character of such injui'ies, the company might well dcsiiw' to resti'ict their liability to diimages from sucli ci'sualtics l(; (h(> nari'owest possible limit. In resp(>ct to persons carried for hire, they could obviously do nothing to restrict their liability or that should excuse them from the exeicisc of the utmost diliirenee and care. But they * n l%r^ 'J I pp ■ ''5 * * : ;.'' ! '7 i v\ !>:v 284 THE CONTRACTS OF CARRIERS. [CH. IX. Sire not obliged to earrv any person without conipeiisa- tion, at their own risk. They must liave the clear rijriit to contract with any such person that lie must tak(^ his own risk. He would ride in tlie same cars with other passengers, and would he lial)le to the same and no greater accidents, hut as he would pay nolliing for his fan; he might well agree to take his own risk. lie knew that the coujpany was liaMc to suffer gre:it lo s and damage from the ne. would natur- ally seek to avoid or had a great interest in preventing such loss l)y every reasonal)U' precaution. liut with the best of care and the utmost caution, some accidents, he knew, would unavoidaI)ly occur from the unforsccn negli- gence, carelessness or want of skill of its employees. Against all such acciilents, <■ under any eircumstan entiri' lange or seope of negligence not arising from bad faith »)r fraud. I see nogi'tund t<» measure the degrees of negligence. The contracl makes no degrees. It is sweep- ing and includes all negligence. It makes no exception of gross negligence. The plaintiff and defendants both knew that there was a liability t(t accidents fi-om gross as well as from slight negligence. They use the W(»rd negligence in its general legal sense, to embrace all accidents or injuries resulting from cai-clessness or non-feasance of the defend- ants' agi'iits. Nothing else, it seems to me, will satisfy llie fair meaning — the plain import — of the contract. The plaintiff's injury resulted from a collision l)et ween the cars of till' train in which he was riding as passenger, and some I.X, en. IX.] CONSIDKUATION. 285 oars staiuliuir on tlio trac^k. It was of courso a case of lU'irligoncc to have sucli a collision occur ; but collisions do happen (piite fre(piently, and that was well known to the plaintiff and to all the public. This cause of injury was most oi)vi()Usly within the contemplation of the i)arties, for it is the most fruitful cause of aiT'idents and loss and injur- ies in railroad travelin(Mic(!. But with this ticket as his title and authority to ride in the defendants' cars, and as the contract on which the defendants aureed to carry him, 1 think the defendants are n'-t liable foi- any injuries except such as wen; the result of fraudulent, wilful or reckless misconduct on the [)art of the defendants' otiicers or ajrents. 1 put the exem[)ti()n from liability for injuries resultinix from nejjliirence entirely upon the terms of the ex- press ajxrcement between the parties. If the j)laintiff had l)een ridin. 1 '! 'ti ■^1 28fi THE CONTRACTS OF CAUHIERS. [CII. IX. They arc a private corporation, yet in theory at least, they were ineorporated from pul)1ic considerations and for the l)ul)lic good. Hence tlie powers given to them whicli inter- fere so materiallv with iirivatc riirhts. Tliev are constituted carriers of })ersons and property, and are expressly made liahle for any ilamaires occasioned by theii' neglect of duty. As carriers of passengers as well as of property, they may he considered as acting in a public cajjacity, and as a kind of pul)lic orticers. Their admitted ol»ligation to carry all passengers who pivsent themselves and are to pay the usual fare, is conclusive evidence that tluy are considered as act- ing in a public capacity in carrying passengers. The care and diligence then, expressly imposed upon them as car- riers of passengers bv the very law detlning their powers and duties as a corporation, is imposed upon them as a pul)- li<' duty. Can it be said that any contract tending to pre- vent, or relax or modify the performance of a })ublic \ If ; :.M . Wf3 ■,.a;i Pi :; IPi ; < ill 288 THE COXTItACTS OF CAlUilEKS. [(•II. I\. MS Welles was. 'I'he priee wliidi he liad paid fd. the li-ans- IJortation of his catlle aiitl the care which he eoiitraeted to lake of them duriiii:: th(> joiiniev eonslituted a sutliriciil cdii- ^sideratioii for his own passa^^c. 'I'here was no dissent on these [X/iiits hy any ineniher of the court. The case wa^ then taken to the Court of Api)eals where the judunieni l)i'low was aflirnied \\\ <\ divideil « '>urt — five judu'es auainst three. ^'^ A\ KKiirr. »!., held that the netrliixen'" was tiiat of the corporation itself in furnishing- an unsafe car : tlial the words in the pass "from whatever lausi' "" did not include ne;ilirlati<>n of liis stoci\. luil fur ilic (arriairc of himself to lalie cliai-jie of ii. lie is to ]>(' rcfranled in tin; same li,u;ht as a ])assr'njrcr w hi) has paiil a compensation for Ix-ini; earrietl. AVhatever may he saiil. therefore, in resiieet to a i)erson ridin;^ free in pnrsuanee of an n<;Teement to a>sMnie all risks, the direct (|Mesiioii here i-. whether it is aj^ainst the poliev of our laws for a railroad company earryinija i)assen;ier for a com]ieii~atiun to euntraef with sneli pa-isi'ni^er for exemption from lialiilily for its ne^- liirence. 'I'liat it i< I can not entenain a douht. If. !h( n, tlie a<::i'i'emeni in thi-i ease is to he eonstrned as releasinafe car- ria'^e. it is void. Hiil wa-; that the tenor ami effeei of tiie au:reemenl ? The eontract in which ilie stipnlation i< found. I'elated to ijie transjiorta- tioii of his ho^-s. and that contract |>rovided thai the owner >honld assume certain ri-ks in re-peet theieto, ami eiihei- aceoinpany the ti'ain liimsolf to take care of thi'in oi' fiirni-h -Hher jieisons to (lischar;::e that duly. With re ,1., was for artinninj; tlio judunicnl on the first irrouiul stntod by WiudiiT, .1. Dkmo mikI Davis, ,1,1., were of opinion that a contract !)V wliich a railroad corporation exempted itself from liability for the uejrliijfence of its ajjents in re- spect to a i)urely jiratuitous passcnirer was not forl)iddcn by public policy, but it was different with lej^ard to a paying provide tlif rojul, attciuliints. snj)Vard intended to hold the carriers for loss oecasiiuied by tlieir omission of care in the transpor talion of Ills jiroperly. but to excuse them from any liability for injury to himself whilst takinij i-are of it, lhou:('r, and a person f ra\(>IiiiiLr iiiidcr the «'ir('uiuslaiic('H proved ill thiscax- (lieylield was no' a liraliiilous passeiiiicr. SlTIIKI.'LAM*, .1., <"»iiciiiTe(l ill alHriiiiiiu: the jiidji'ineiit onllie •grounds stated l»y liiiii in the Wr/hs case, viz., tliat the ((Mi- truct for exi'inption for iie«f|i,ireiiee was void, irrespective of (lie <|iieslioii whellier the traiisjiortatioii wa> i^rat nitons or for hi"e. Ski,I)Kn, ('. .1., Ai.M'.x and (ioiM), .1.)., dis- sented. /V/7.v'//.s' '•. Xf'ir Yurk Ci'iih-dl U((ilr(>(iil f 'o////w;*y, decided hy the Court of Ai)peals in 1S(!2,"' wns the east' of an ali- soliite free i)ass jxiven to the phiiiitiff's intestate Ity a direc- tor of tlie company and cnlitliiijjf Iiiiii to ri(h' fr<';lvcii to the sti|Milalioii in view of tiic circiim.-'taiii'fs niulcr wiiit'ii it was made ami the only on(> I think the law will pt'rmit is this: The persons ridinj;- on tln' train to take eai-e of the stock will (In so at their own risk of personal injuiy fifun causes not prodnceil liy the wilful nii-t'ondiict. <;;ross neiiii^ience or want of ordinary care of the carriers or their servants in the control and inanaifenient of the raili'oad on which theni.-ehcs an aj^reement have sncceeilcd in estahlishin;^ the relation as to this transae- tioii of an ordinary hailee and private carrier for hire. Unl a pri\al(! carrier for hire is auswerahle for rid}xTn>ence on his part, such as would sul>ject him to indictmiJiit for manslauiihter had he been the owner of the road — then the defendants are lialile because his neirliircnce is their negli- <>;ence. The statute, in reirard to such neulijxi'iice, is this : [readinir the statute detinitive of )iianslau;>hler in the fourth deirrec for culi)able neulijreiicel. If the neHiijence of the trackmaster canu' u{) to this, so that he would ln' intlictable, the defendants are lialile although Mr. Perkins was riding on a free pass and notwithstanding its conditions." The jury found a verdict for tlu^ plaintiff for $,')0(H> which, on appeal to the Ct)urt of Appeals, was reversed. The o[)inion ■ \ 292 THE CONTRACTS OF CAIIKIKIiS. [Vii. i\. ^■) of the coui-t was (lolivi'ivil hy E. D. Smith, J., wlio said: "Assuming; dial iln* pass on uliicli tlic (It'ccascd was lidinji; is to Id' n'«;ar(l(M| as a tVcc lickd, and tliat the d(>f('iidaiils wci'c canvinu' the (iiifslioii wiicllicr Mr. I't-rkiiis cxpn-ssly a«'d to assume all risU of acfidciils upon the trip, the dcft'iidanls would l)(> clearly lial)]«' for aiiv iniiirv sustaiiuvl hv liiiu if ho hud HiH'vived tli«' same; and in this adion, on (he same iri'ound, would he liable also to th(* plaintiff. llavin«r re- ceived the deceased into their cars, they would, in this view, 1)0 hound to carry him safely. They were and are not hound to carry him or any person d, in [jrinciple, in the case of Co[/f/n V. lievnaril/^ \n that case the defendant undcrlo(»k to take uj) several lioi^sheads of brandy, then in ii c'crlain cellar, and lay them d(»wn apiiu in a certain ollu-r cellar, and did the woi'k so carelessly (hat one of tlu^ casks was staved and a irrcat i|iiantity of the brandy lost. The de- f(Midant was a mere private person, and it was claimed that as he was not a connnon portci- and was actinir jziatuitously he was iM)t liable. \\n\ upon very full arjiumcnt an'rh>/ ; •'' in T/ie Xno World v. khi;/:'' and in (rilh'nwator v. ^^adixo)^ <(* Indianapolis liail- road (■o))ipa)i>/:'* Assuminji. then, that Perkins a^n-eed to take ' all the risks of accidents, and expressly aj^reod that V "2 1/1. Rnym. 000 (1704). ■wi.-)\. Y.Vm (IsriT). 5" U How. KiS (18r>2). •^ IG How. 477 (lS.-):{). ^5 Iiul. :U0 (1851). BUh' CM. IX.] CONSIDKUATION. 2!>:] :..' llic (IcffiKliiiit^ sliould iiol lie li'ilil;' imil.-riiny ciiTmiistaiiccs, wlictlicr of iit'U'lijjri'iicc l)V tln'ir iiLii'iit or ollicru isc, f(ir :iiiv in jury to his ))its()ii ' — for such uw tin- terms df thi' licl-'ct- — the (|iH'stioii viumIiis, \vl;;il is thocxt -ul miuI force of -^uch iiirreeuieiil y i ,)OM il < fuce, it is dearly sullicicnily c(»iii|mc- lieusive to euiIuiU'c cvei'V (Ic^-criiiliou of iKcidciit , ciisuiih V or risk iittciuliuLi' I'ailroad lrn\cl. I'ut il must oltvioiisly iie sultject to s()Uarties. and c:iu not apply to such as are not within the lejiitiniiite com- pass (if eoinract upon (irinciples of pul)lic |)()licy. '1 hi' ieai'ned juilue who tried this rase at the circuit charircd the jury thai 'while if the deceased was ridinu' upon thejjass, he was ridinir upon thi ' onditioiis annexed to the pass, yet not witlistandinii' the <'ondilions thus particnlai'ly expressetl, if the ne!jlii:"ence of the defendants was <;ross and culpable ; if it was of such a cliaracter that it would subject the parly to a pi'osecution for fraud or crime — then it does not come within these condition-.' in othi'f \\(»rds, that if the lieki't is in its nature a contract, the parties to the contract did not «'onteniplate such cases of ni'iiliircnce as are fraudu- lent or criminal in theii" charactei'. The rule of exceptiim from the appai 111 scope and purview of the contrai't, asserted in lliis part i>f the charue, I tliiidi can not be sus- tained, li -states thai fraudulent ami ciiniinal nejiliirence is not wilhin the scope of tiie contract. This would clearly be -u, if l!ie defendant were a nal ural perxm and was stipidat- inu" in respect merely to his pi-rsoiial jnis. And if it were not SI), fraud vitiates all i-ontracts : and no person will I>e allowed to stipulate for crime. If the difendants were pri- vate pcr-ons. "vho coiild commit crime and couKl be indicted and con\i»' I'lu- IdJiccd ill \\\\s orniiv coiitrarl. Like mII oiIht aLvn'<'infnls, this contract must Ix' cousinicd in tin- liiilil of the t'.\istin;j; facts and circuinstiuiccs at the lime il was madi', :ind not derive its const I'uct ion Ironi -ul>s('(|U»'Ul c\cnls. Piirti( - in inakii);^: a eontrael must lie licid lo contcin|ilat<' all tlie mdi- navy and possihie incidents, aceid«'nl> or eontin^<'neic> wliicli may alit'iid its cxcciiticui ; and >ucli accident-" and .oiilin- jireiieies must l)e deemed within the |>uv\iewof I h- c(»nlract , not as ;ie«'idi'ills expected, liut as act ideiils po-siltle. " What, then, did the.-e parties mean liy this cdiitracty The cardinal riih' of inlcrprclalion i>. what wa- the intent of the eonlracliiifi pariies at ihctimeof making the eoniraet y In tin- li/zht of this rule, wirtt :ii'e the fact-^? l'<-rkins ap- plied to the del'endanls' director for a free pa>-. A fi'ee pass means ihe p. ' ilene of ridiii;; o\cr the defendants' railroad without payment (d' I lie <'U>iomary fare. The I'e- fendanls are a r.ailroad coi poration, exercisiui:' tlx- ri'jhls and >ui)ject to the lesponsiiiiliiic.^ of common c;irricr>, and li.ilile, in a eivil action, in this capacity, for all injuries to persons or property tran>porled l.y ihem resiillint;' from the neulineiice or unskilfidiiess of iheii- a;:'ents oi- servants. 'Ihe l)Usin(>ss of the defeiulants is ;dl necessarily performed l»y aiicnts .-md servants, ;ins.s or neelii.'-ent , not w it list.indinu' and in despite of Ihe utmost eare, diliixenee and caution in their employment . Thi- de- fendants iire IraiisportiuLf pci-ons and passeiiLi'crs l.y iIm- powerful .'lijeney of steam : and when aeeidciits did occur, they were li.ahle to he attended, more or Ic s, wiih \erv sei-ions eoiise(|nenees. This the parties lioth well kn( w . and they also well kiiov th:d raili'oad aceid(>nts v,''i'e of frcipriit oeeiiirence: that railroad tr.ivel was suhject ecn-lanlly to peiils resultinj; from the earele^- and nei;!ii:iiic» of en;.'in- eers, conductors, liaiiuau'enien, Krakemen, switeh.-tt ndeis, (11. I.\.] CONWIDKItATION. 2!>r> :iii(l oIIh'IN : tliiit li;iiii> ufi'c ri(M|ii(iii |y | lndw miH t In- liiitU (irriillir ill I'ollisioii iiiid \\(>|-(> >i|iijrit toM Vill'icl V ut' ;i*'('i(l('llts aii'l r;i>ii;ili ii'> :io';iii)s| wliit'li iiii liiiiiiiiii )>nis of lift' or liiiii) or l»otli|y iiijiii'v, iiiid other disa>lroiis coiisc- i|Ui'liri'^. Willi |il\t'(| Cor iilid !lccc|ilcd llic iVfc |»m>s, ii|m)|| (lie express (•oiiditioii tli.'it In- -.lioiild ' iis-iiliiu' iill risk of iircidciils ' ;iiid (Xiii't's^ly ii;ri'»'tMl ' thai the coiniciiiy shall not he lial)N' iiiidtr any I'irciinistaiiccs, whether l»y the iieirli|L!'eiice of the dei'e:iil nils' aL'ents or othdwisc. for any iiijnry to the per- .son." Sneh is the liaruain. It eaii mean nolliiim' else than liial I'erkins will lake for hiin-eif the risk of all aeei- deiits aiMJ injuries to his person atteiidinj:' his eonteinplated trip in the defendats" ears from lutehester t(» AII)aiiy. so f. r as such areideiits and injuries miiilit result from the neulip'iiie of the defendants' agents and servants. 'I'lie defeiMlints. ill \ iew of the aceideiils attended willi niiieli peennia|-y loss residtiliii" eoiistjintly fl'oiii the nei;iiiieiice of some (d" their airents, proposed to eai'ry .Mr. Perkins with- out ehariic to Alhany upon eonditicm that he would take for hims<'lf the risks attemlinir the trip. The i|iiestioii i)elwei'ii the p.irties was simply which should lake the risk of such aeeideiits as miiiht oeelir in eonse(|iienee (d' the lieuliufenee of some (d' the defendants' many aiicnts. Without an aixreeinent exempt imr and al»s(dvini!iccs all Mciii'ccs. It lists the term neiiliiicnee in its ueneial i:enei'ie sense. To hold that it (joes not eml»l'ace ii'i'oss neiiliii'enee is to inler|iolate into il a (|ualifiealion not made liy the ])arties, :ind wiiieji tends nia- teriallv to im|)aii' and nidlil'\ its foi-ce, forllie parties wil Uni'W that acv-idents were iialije !<» re>nll from the L;ross neiilnicnee (d" (hd'endants' .•'-•enl>. as u( !l as fron> inlei-ior nei>iii>-ence. The conti'ael iclated to the acts (d" third pir- sons, a pnnidialile erinnnally for such neir- liii't'iice. The principal never conid lie so punished. ||i> civil responsihility, t hcitd'oi'e. is di>charir«'d Ity the contract. 'Hiere is no reason why the defendants slionid he re->ponsj- hle foi' the i^ross neiilijrence (d' their an'ciiis. more than for sliiiht ne!)7 Court (if Appciils. As ill )St/iifh'N case,''' the lick', i whose cciiditiiiMs the (Irft'iKliiiits siicccssfully iivaiU'd 1 lioiiisolvos of was a slork pass, and lli(> facts were these: On tlic /ith of Sepleinlx'i', IS,")"), .losiah I^. Bis.-i'll. the luisi)aiid of the; phiiiilitT, took passau'e on the oii a lieket received from tht- (h'feiui- aiits, which read on lis face as ^■()^o\vs : •• Xew Voi'k Central Kailroad. Cattle Di'ah'f's 'I'iekel on l*ass(!ii:"ef Train, (iood for two days ffom date. (.\)ndiie- (of will pass 'I'aylof l'c Hissell. owners of two ears of livo tifock, from Ilnfl'alo lo .Vlhany. [ .\'n/ IrdimJ) rali/i'.'] " If presented liy any other |)erson than the one named herein, liie conductor will lake it up ;ind chai'<:-e the person holdiiiii" the same the reuiihir fare. Sept.;'»th. 1S,')(). I). \j. KUKMYKK. ['/'«/•» (trf'r.1 K. Ci.AKK, jr. .Vircnt." The followiiiij: notice was printed on (he hack: •'The owner of stock recei\iim' this ticket assumes all risks of accident, and ex|)ress|y atock or fi-eiLdit trains." On the same (1;.\ liissell shippeittinn' in the passeu: r or emi- trrant car altailn-d to the freiuhl train which carried the eallle, at Port liyron. in Caytiua eoinily, w liil to pass, (he II' '' '!5 .' 2;)8 THK t()NTKA tli<' jiiiv, >1a1('d totlicui the (liffcrcnt dciirccs of ncirliii'cncc as rccoiiiii/cd liv tlif coninion law, and that tin- defendants could oni\ Ite held lialde for uross nciiliiicncc. 'I'he jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $'),(>()(), which on appeal to the Supi'enic Court was uuani- niouslv atlirnicd, the followiiiif opinion-- licini;- tlcli\('i'ed liy tile judiTcs named : Johnson, .1. : "The jurv have found. Iiv ihcii- \erdicl , that the death of IJissell was occasioned i>v the uross nei:lii;'ence of th<' .-liicnts of the det'eudants at thetiuM' id" t!ie rulli.^ion. UeiniT neii'liirence of ihat <'haractei' which re-ullcd in the deaili of , it wa^ criminal in it> nature, and woidd havi- siilijcctcil the -jiiiltv ai^cnl lo indii-tmcnt and punishrn:'nl under the statute. Neither t'.ie contract nor the ticket can Ite couNirucd to refer lo injuries Iroin such a cause, it would l»e aiiain>l t!ic xttled rules of con- struction to hold that injuries from rriniinai <'auscs were in- (endcil l»\ the partii's. In IIV/A-n /•. .\ ' /'• )'nr/i ('ni/rn/ Jlilhoiiil ( 'iHii jui mj,' it \\a> conceiled li\' the learned judu'c who delivci'cd the opinion, that ncL'Tnicncc >o ( ulpahle as to iinpiv fnmd oi- l»ai;katk)N. 211. 1 scriiK'tl lo him a case of lii'oss iiciilip'iicc, is no mound lor an i'>;i'i'j)iion. Tiif whole (|U('stion wa.s suhiniltcil to (hciu. I do iioi lind auv «'i'ror in the rhafjic or in ihr rfrii-i:d to ciiaiLit', and am of ihr opinion lliai llit- orch'i- rtd'iisinii' a new triiil should l>t' allinni'd." &>TK«»'>i ra>e and the case of W'l/h's r, Xcir York Cfulral linll- iixii/ ('injij)inii/.^ In the laller ease, it was aiimilted hv tlx' parties that the plaintiff took passage at Lyons For Ali)anv on a ])a>seni:er train >enii'er car, a eollisioii occurred lieiueen thai I lain of car- and the cars of a frei^clit oreatlh; train slaiulini:' on the -ame liiickof the (hd'tiidanls' road, wliei<'l>y the liaiiiiai:*' eai* of inc pa>>enii<'r train was driven liaek intotlie car where the plaintiff was scaleervants in cliaiuc' e in explanation of, or in retard to, the .(illision. 'f the neu'liii't'iice thus proved was not a mis- deiiieanor for licii ;in indictment would lie at commou lavv. it was ceilainly as ci:!paole as the neu'iiiTene*' in the picsent ea>e. I'ori unat el\ . ihe con>ei|uences were not so serious: l»ui that makes no dilterence as to theuiade of the netiiiji'i'iK'e. 'I'here is no force in the idea suuiicsted that as ihe parli«'s have not desii;nat»'d the decree of the ne;ili- iiciice, theconri must repird it as simply or«linary nej:li- ffv-nee : for without reference to i lie admi--ion in terms of neM-iiu-.'nee. the frict> atlinitted, unexplained, show sjfross or enlpaliie nei:it:_ mcc. 'I lie defendants wit li one train of curs ran inio ani>fi* i*.; Il;uli. till I is.VS). s^w ;ui() TIIK r()NTHA(TS OF CAUKIKKS. [fll. IX. Si 'M The principle of li:il)ilily in this was, in my opinion, (Miually iil)plir:iltl«' in the (ttiicr ciisc," Smith. .1.: "In (he coMclusion towhii-li my ln'ollii-r .Ioiin- s<>\ has come in this case, and in his reasons in tiic main, I concur, hnt not in the view of my hrotiiei' Sti;(».\(;, that there is no distinction in principK' between this case and tlial of ]\'r//fs r. Xi'ir Ynrli Cciitrdl UtiUmiiil ( 'miijiduif:" It seems to me that the verdict in this ca-<' can he Mistiiined, and Itotli decision> stand top'tlier. It v.j's not intended to l whether tht-e ih'ii-ree> coidd iie (hiiiied w ith sullicient dis- tinctness for any |)ractical purpose, lint however this mav ho, there i- obviously sncli a (h'tiri-e of netiTnicnce as in coinnioii and ie' e. in section,^ <;. l.; itmi lit of artich- I.tith' :.\ chap- ter 1. p;wt A of the Kex ised Statutes,'" in (h'linin;^' man- slauirliter, culpal>h' ne;i'liirence. Tin' llMh scucii killinir is iHit justiliahh- or e.\<-usal!le, oris not in saiil act declared murder or manslauirhter in some oilier deiri-e«', shall he deemed man>launhter in the fourth decree. "' This de duty which ev<'ry man of common sen.-e applies lo hin!>elf and his own affairs oi pro|)cii\. From the < resultiuir frctm ihisdru^iee of ni-jrliijcnce. whether death en- sue or not. no person lan chum exemption liy coutiaii. if the defendant was a natural per>on, and the nc'jTui'cm - was his. as the jury have found this to lie a ca-iccd" i^ro-s nei'uts must necessarily he liahle crim- inally, like all other natui'al persons, tmd civilly for wilful wronjrs. The ease of Welles was put upon the distinction hetween the neirlimnce of the principal and the negliujenee <»f his airents and serv:ints, "The defendants are connnon carriers of [lersons ;ind prop- erty. A connnon carrier is (uie who undertakes for hire or I'cward to transport the persons or ijoods of such as ehooso to employ him from place to place. As the ohlij^ation wiiich the carrier assumes rests upon the basis of contract, express or implied, it would seem that in point of principle he must possess the same rijrht with othei' persons to make his own contracts. Hut this i'ii:ht is clearl\ subject to some restriction. The carrier is deemed to «'.\crcise a t/tuis! pub- lic employment : and for this reason and in this respect, it has lonv: luMMi lu'ld that public policy re(|uires some limita- tion upon this absolute i-i-iht. The defendants are a railroad corpoi'Mtiou and exei'cise a public franchise, and as such are doubtless sul)iec| to Icijrislalive coni I'ol and I'cst riclion in re- V'ard to the maimer of doinir their business, aiul in rejr.'ird to the character and extent of their undertakinjis and obli- •rations with individuals. But as common cai-riers, inde- p«'ndently of particular leijfislatioii, they stand ui)on the same c(Muinon law footinir with natural |)ei's(uis, and the measure of their responsibility is precisely the same. Civ- illy, llu^ defendants, as common carriers of i)ersons for hire or reward, are liable for all injuries resulting: from the ne, carelessness or unskilfulness of their servants and agents, and from all such acts of ne crimin- ally. They clearly i-an not exempt themselves from civil resi)onsibility by contract. Precisely the same obligation k f ? ;)02 TIIK CONTKACTS OK CAKlMKIiS. [(•II. IX. m rests upon llicm. mimI IIm' same i«'sti*icli<)ii upon llicii- ii;j!il to liiiiii llicli- iTspoiisiljilit V l»y roiili'acl ('xi>(s, as woiilii ap- ply to a iiaUiial pcixm in llicir place. *'\Vln'ii raili'oad or oIIkt (•orp(»ratioii>- as>iiiii(' tlif duty and ciuploymciit , as in ihis case, aiid arj riitircly l»y olliccis and auriils, as tln-y necessarily iiiiist, I coneeivc tliat tlie\ eaii iiol eoiitiact I'oi' exemption from re- spoiisiliility for whatever pertains to tlie proprieloi'sliip of the railroiid, nor for the acts of that ehiss of superior ;ijrents who act for and in tiie phiee of the «-or|ioralion, as otiieers, directors (ii- olliei" niana;^in<:- aut'iits, and uho, as such, witiiin the trust confided to them, control and dir<'ct the operations of the corporation, and employ its inferior servants and aji'ents. If a sinjile natm-al person, for in- stance, owned the defenihnits' railroad and its propei'ty, and operated tlu' same for his own henelil, he would be hound to employ and pr(»vide skilful, cai'eful, soher and proper persons us en<:ineers, conductors, hrakenien, switch-tenders and in all other positions, and would he hound to se(> to it that the trai-ks of his railroad, its hrid'res, turn-outs and all other portions of his road, and the locomotives and cars in us«' thereon, and all the appurtenance's of the road, were in a safe and proper condition. He could not stipulate lor immunity from injuri<'s i-csultiuir from neirli- trence in respect to any such paiiiculais, no riiore than he <'ould for had faith or fraud. .Ml «'oiitra<'ts exemptiuL^ him, or seeking:' to exempt him. fi'oin i'espon>il)ility for his per- sonal neirli,ii<'ncc or fraud, would he re|)usolntely void. .\iid the same lule, I think, siiould he applied to corporations. I'uhlic policy forhids the makin (>r ri(»r us ilS rior iii- iiiid uiid •per In-s • 1(» Hits Vfs tll(> liut. irli- inu )cr- »in- tlic oil) on, cx- I'CC ui.- l!i:il lie liimscif \Vii> ficc from nil iiriilijrcncc in tlicir cni- ploynicnt , iliri'('li(Mi oi- ollicrw isc. Nd one lias a ri<:lil to !»•- (|iiir«' a coninKMi carrier to transpoit liini or his propciiv uitliout ('liai'<^c and at liis own risk And I can conceive no |e own ri>l\ in icspect to tiiencirli- ^once of sulxirdinate au'cnts oi" servants in th<>ir appropri- ate sphere. And this is all \\r meant to decide in the case of Welles. No man wh(» |»avs his fare will he likely to make such a <-ontract, or voluntarily to relin(|uisli any sate- ;.fuard for his personal security, "III this ease the plaintiff's husl)and made and sie I i'onceive that there is no lia- hility on the part id" tlu- personal accommodation or pleasure of the latter. 'I he defendants would not !»<• sul)jcct to the rcsponsiliilities of common carriers, hut would l)e lialile simply as Itaih'es, ms in tlu' case of a nakeil depositary without reward, or a man- datary, who are only responsihle for untss or cul[)al)le iiej;- Icct. Ill this view of the defendants' responsil)ili|y, in either aspect of llu' case, I lind no dilliculty in sustaining' the verdict. The jury have found that the case was one of i^ross iu'uiijii'uce, and this jiidss nciilip-nce was the iie^- lij:encc of the principal, in the employment of the wry careless, iiu-oinpeteiit and .»tupid, if not drunken, switch- w t. ao4 TIIK CONTUACTS OK CAIMMKIiS. [(•II. IX. I '} t '»■■ nm miin, wlioso li('(>(ll»'ssn('ss ciiuscd the collision of the IriiiiiH wliicli i)r()(lii('«'(l llic (Icalli of the i>l!iinliff's liiisliaiid. Siicli, doubtless, was or may have been the opinion of tlic juiy and the irrounds of their verdict. On these groumis I think it entirely correct and propc'r. *' In the case of HWA',s /•. Xi'ir Y'^or/c Vfiitral Itiiifrixul Conipnur/,''^ there was no such proof, and no evidence showinj; how the <-ollision happen(>d : nor any evidence th.-it would warrant a jury in tindingthat any particular person, ajxent or servant, whose negliirence caused the injury, was unlit for his place, or that any ne«rlij;ence had heeii conmiitted hy the de- fendants in their seluMiie or direction for the runnin*; of the trains, or in the einployiniMit of any of their agents or ser- vants. It was stipulated in the case hy the attorneys, that the injuries were occasioned hy the carelessness and negli- gence of the servants and agents of the defendants in charge of the two trains at the time of the collision. TIh; express agr<'«'ment of Welles, in that <'ase, extended to, and was oI)vious|y dcsignecl to covei' and embrace, the risks which would iiltend, and the casiiallies which might n'sult from the negligence of just this class of snhoinlinatc ser- vants and agents, and where there was no f.'iult or iiegligcnc*! on the part of the defendants, as pi-o|)rielors of the rail- road, in jiroviding, to the utmost extent of care and dili- gence on their part, to prevent such casually. I'pon this discrimination between the acts of the principal and the agent, I think that th(> case of Welles was rightly decided ; although some expres.sions in the opinion may recpiire (pial- ilication. And that the verdict in this case can be sustainetl without involving any inconsistency Ix'tween the two cases. I coiu'ur, therefore, in the decision that a now trial be (ho- nied." But th(^ judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed by a majority of the judges of the (-onrt of Appeals where the case was taken on appeal. (i()i;i,i), Skldkn, Smith, Daviks and Aij.kn,.IJ., voting for reversal, Dkmo, C. J., «' •2(^ Harlt. 041 (isr/.*). CII. IX. J CONSIDERATION. 30r) .1., Wright iiiid Sutherland, J. J. dissenting, and delivering liic following (H)ini()ns. Gould, .1. : "It is fully concedod that in this court there is n») (juostion thiit the contriict for carrving the cat- tle at reduced rates, in consideration that the owner assume certain risks as to them, is a valid contract. And this <'ourt "-' has this year decided that a contract by a passen- ger to take the risk of injury to his person in consider- ation of riding free, is a valid contract. In the ease before us, the ticket upon which the deceased was riding is a free ticki^t, a pass without paying. And in consideration thereof, the jjassengcr assumed all risks, etc. The same person at the same time made another contract, that in <'onsidcration of the carrying of his cattle at reduced rates, he assumed certain risks in regard to them ; and in that con- tract he provided that tlu^ person ridiiig free to take eare of tlie cattle should assume certain risks. Calling these two <'()ntracts together one contract makes no difference with the reason of the ruling applicable to each of them separ- ately. Do contracts of whi(;h each separately is good become invalid because combined or contained in one instru- ment. Is a passenger's contract to assume risks on one consideration, (riding free) good; but bad when you add the other consideration — that his cattle are carried at a re- duced price? FiM'ther, if he may make a contract by which he shall ride free, may he not by contract say that he is riding free, although he has paid for the transportation of his goods? How has the court any right to alter his con- tract, and say that he is not riding free. Again, if he may by contract assume certain risks, in consideration of riding free, why may he not make a contract to assume the same risks, in consideration of being carried at half price, as he does for his stock? When wc once hold that assuming these risks is within his power as matter of contract, the court has no power to interfere with his contract on the score of «-' Wells V. N.'w York Cent. K.Co,-24 X Y. ISl (1SG2) ; r.'ikiiis v. N'w Y..rkHViit. H. Co.. '.M X. Y. IIH! (18(32). 20 n . f I 306 TUK CONTUA( T8 OF CA!:ilIEU8. [CH. IX. ;i*» ■ :;: rr ^i: :)'i r ■ii ' m t/uautum at consldcnilion, or on anyirrouiid l)ut illcj^'ulity of considrialion. Tlir judfrmciit of the Suprcnic Court should Im' rovcrst'd, and a new trial ordcrod," Skldkn, J. : " Tlu' follo\vin«j positions appear to l»e set- tled in re>raril to the duties and I'espoiisihilities of railroad corporations enjfa<;ed in tin- transportation of pers(tn> and j)roperty in this State : "1. In I'cjj^ard to the transportation of nl)- jeet to the altsolute respoiisihijily whifh rests upon eonMnoii carriers, and an', then'' re, insurers of the safe carriaif' and delivery of the jroods, , \cepl a<;ainst accidents to\vard> the production of which no human a<;ency has <(>ntril)uted. " 2. In t!ie transportation of livinj.' animals, they are re- lieved from responsil)ility for such injuiit-' as occur in c(»n- setjuence of the vitality of the f rciirht , -<> far as such in- jury e(>uld not hy the exercise of dili<.fence and care lu' pn - vented; in other resp«'<'ts, their respon.sihiliiy in re;rard to stock is the same which rests upon them in re«;ard to jrood.^.'"' " 3. In rej;ardtot hi- transportation of passenjzers, they arc n(»t in any respect insuiuM's, hut ar» an»\v«'ral»lc for anv in- juries t(» their passen of the corporation, hut also any defects arisin^j^ from want tif care or skill in the manufacturers of the machinery or materials used in the structure (U* opt'rati(»n of the; road, whcthei- dis- «overal)le liy any exercise of care and skill on tlu' part of the innnediate ajrents of the roatl or not . '■^ " 5. The companies can not limit their resj)onsil»ility I»y anv notice, though expressly hrouirht to the knowled^jfe of those whose persons or whose property tln'V carry ; l)ut they nniy secure such limitation by exprc -> contract with those per- *' ("liu-kc V. lloclicni.Ti^c. It. ('..., 14 N. Y. .">70 ns.-.(l). •■' liowi'ii V. Now Yiiik Cfiit. H. Co.. is \. Y. His (l.s.VS). "■■ IIi'},'fiiiaii V. Wfstcni |{. Cii.. i;t X. Y. ' ( Is.m^. "■ Dorr V. New .Iciscy Slcaiii Nav. Co. 4 .Saiidf. i:{() (IS.V)), iJt rir. IX.] CON8inKHVTION. 307 " (!. Such liinilation nmy lu' iifrivcd upon in rrl.ition to tlie safely of pntpcrty under any cireuiustimres, wliether car- ried ;.M-aluit(tusly or for reward ; and in relation lo (lie >afe(y of persons when they are carried ;rratuitouslv.''' •' 7. In such contracts the cunipanii-s may lawl'iillv in- re- lieved from all responsihility f(tr tlu' MeMli«rcnee or iniscoii- diict of their sulionlinale servants and aiicnts ; the (pu-stion lieintr a> yv{ iinsi'ttled what servants ora'fenis, if anv, are to he reirarded as so directly represi-ntinj; the coni|»any that a contract it'lievin<; the company from re>p()nsil)ilil v foi' their ncirliirencc or misconduct may n(»t law rully he made. " M. AVhenever the conii)anies are authori/.<'d to relieve ihemx'lvcs l»y crmtract from lialtility foi- tiie neiilijrenee of their airenl-^, no distinction is made in retipulate.'^ "The tpiestions which arise in this case are: " 1. I>id the tion, I thinU he must he. I'e- irarih'd as tr.ivelinj; i»y virtue as well of the ticket as of th(^ c(»ntra<'. They wei'c hoth delivered at one time, and to- uetlier (institute the contract. Kach may i)e referred to in arrivinjr at the terms of the whole contract, which was, in effect, liul one and not two. That which is called the ticket was a part of the contract which Bissell mi;.dit or miulit not hav • entered into. The effect of it was to jxive him the privilci/e of riding" on the stock train, or on th(^ passenirer train, at pleasure: and when he made that a part of the contract, he was hound l)y all its terms, as wi'll as the company. Thc^ conditions as to personal risk. . / '••■ W('ll> v. N';'\v Y.irk ('.'111. |{. i'n..-2\ V. Y. ISl (lS(i2) ; fcrkins v. \' w Y..rk Cent. I{. ('.... 24 N. Y. lit? (ISCJ). * Wells V. S.cam Nav. Co.. S N. Y. :',::> (,ls.-.:i). •-■^iS ^H. r i ^Bi * '« ^^3' 1 m ■ , >l». ff : ! r '3i s > ' 1 « ^ i i; '■' ff ' H' t '■ 1 . 3, 1 J H : -,^, ; 'V '■ rh; *, j ii ^ ■;' T 1 U- -:tr M"'"'- ' ■■ M^ « m ' ■ i- i^ V 'p_-w . . L...SI II. 308 THR CONTRACTS OP CAKItlKllS. [CII. IX. uiulcr llio lioad of ' in)ti<'(',' on (liiit fitkct, arc not contint'il to .sncli risk wlirn ridinjjf on tin* pasMrn^ior train, luit fx- t(*n(l to all piM'Honal risks when riy contract relieve tliem- .selves from tht,' nejrliirence of their scrv.ants in the earryinji' of passenircrs when carried irratuitously, I can discover no rule of law oi public policy to prevent their doin;^ it on any en. IX.] C'ONNIDKItATKIN. m) oilier tcnii.N \vlii«'li iii:iy lie Mtrrcc*! ii[i()ii lu-lwriii (hcin atul (lirir passciipTs, Mild \vlii
  • the |(Usscn;r»Ts for llic ri>k wliidi iIicn ;i»uiiu'. '• All tlif )iruiiiii»'iil> \s liicli liiivc hfcii u!j:»'(| a^'iiiiisi tjic pro- piifty 1111(1 .-jilcty of nllowiii^r fai'rlns to niiikf micIi coii- li;u t>, iipply \\illi ii>« mil li foi'fc to cii-i ■^ wliiic p;i>>cii<;fr« MIC liirritMl jirMtuitoiisly ms uhcic iln-y iirc cMirii'd for rc- \\Mi(i. So far M> tlif |iiililit' Mff ciHiii rued, ihr (|ii('>lioii of reward i> one of indifference : and so far as iiu' pai'ties are eoneerned, if liny are allowed to iiiai idrration which will e(»inpen.-ale them for a>>tiniliiL' the ii>l\, whether the whole fare, or half, or an eiuhth or ai.\ other proporlioii, or other c(Mi>idciation. I apprehend it i-> entirely sat'e to lea\t' them to li\ iIk' teiins. I refer, of conr.-e, lo actual eoiilraels, and not to allempled limitation-, of the carriers' respoiisiltility. Iiy iiiean> of iiiilors( inen!> upon lickels, not assented to liy the pas-eiip rs who receive them. If there wa> no liniitalion to the power n[' railroad com- paiiio in iiiakinLT siieli eonlrael.-. (here would l)e ureal dan- irer (d' pijlilie inconvenience in the estal)li>linient cd' sinh rule : Init extn then, after lindiiiir ihe law to lie settled that such eo!ii|ianies c(»ul(l pi'oteei ihemselve> auaiiist lialiilily liy expre'«-< coiitrat't, I should (loiihi the propriety (»f at- leiuplin;,' l(» presi'ril)e, Ity judicial deci>ioii, how ^^reat the eoiisideralion should he to render such contracts valid. "'I'lie leirislaliire. however, ha- not left the matter at larj^e, hut ha- prol»al»ly done all which i> re(|uii'ed for llm protection of the piddic or (d' individuals in this re- spect. h\ ii'iiardin^f tiiein apiiiist the nece>>ily of ne^oliatini? with anv railroad company on this snltjcct. On the offi'r l»v a passeiiLrer of the fare pre-crilied liy law . the <-ompaiiy is hound to transport him. and to as>iiinc all the risks which fall within the appropriately stiin;^eni rules ahove adverted to; and in ca-c nf rcd'iisal. •uch company is made lial)le for all damages resulting- from such r«d"u;-al. Ihil if any one who wisho to travel with ucreater economy than hy payinir ih n i Ml 810 THK CONTHACTS OF CAUKIKKS. [CU. IX. ); ?i tlio f:ire wliicli the lojiishiturc has prcscrihod (or hi the ah- Honco of U'lijishitioii which usairo has cstahlishcd), as the rca- sonahh' coiiipciisatioii for the transportation aiul risk, iiiid prt^fors to pay h-ss or to pay nothiiius and to assume the risk himself, I do not think then' is cither danii;cr or impro- priety in aliowinu,' it to l)c (h)nc ; and tiicrc is no principh' upon which my mind can rest to justify the position that courts siiall recognize such a contract as valid, wiien the eompj'ny, in consideration (»f the passenirer's assuniinjr the ri.^k, a;>;rees to carry su<'h passenc a reasonalih- compensation for the expense of cairyinj; the passeniicr, inchidimr tiie risk imposed by hiw, of iiis (pialitied insurance ajxainsi in- jury. To hold that the defendant and the passt'njrer may lawfully airrcc that the former shall l»c I'clicved from the risk and the latter assume it, ant' then to add that no such Hureenient shall he valid unless the defendant ijrives to the pas,sen^'(!r for assuminuthe risk the full compcnsiition which the law allows it t(t receive feu- risk and transportation uniti^d, would not seem to Ih' rcasoualjlc. I should i-eirard it as far more rational to deny to the parties all power to contract on ilic sulijcct. "Like all contr.icts, to lender such a one valid it is indis- p(Uisiil)l(^ that it have some considcialion which it would not have if tin; passcn^'cr paid the full fare tixcd l>y law. 'IMial is all which the company is allowed l(t icccivc foi' the ser- vice and the risk united, and it can no niorc demand the full (compensation of 'lolh foi- the service alone, than it could demand the fare foi' a hundi'e(l miles for l make compensation for CII. IX.] rONSIDKHATIOH. 311 tliiit rolicf by tlio rcduclion of fjirc or olliorwiso. 'jlic nmouiit of such ('om|)i'iisiili(ni liko tlir coiisidciation for ail iontracts, must lu> left to (lie aj^iTiMiiciit of thf paitics. Tlu' law lias wisely, for the protection of passenjiciv-, truardcd tlieui airaiiist any necessity foi- neirotiatiou on tliis subject. If they clio'xe to do it voluiilaiily, I can discove? no . I entertain no douht, tlierefore, that tiiis con- tract in liiis ea-e was valid. "It appears fiom th«' case that the defendant's superin- tendent testilii'd on the trial that 'the price <»f fare for ♦•attic frciirht was uniform, all our rate.' From this it has heen arjiued hy tin' i)!aintiff's counsel that Hissell was neithei- ' ridin;j: free,' nor at a r<'duccd rate of fare, at the time of the accident. 1 have alreaul as it was not prcseiitfd >o far as the case sh()ws at the form«'r trial. It a f' 819 THE CONTKACTS OF ( AU1UK15S. [(•II. IX. i i I .V.I more (juostioii of iiilcrprctalion of tlic conl/.ict. 'I'hc (|U('s- tion is, wliiil (lid liu' parties iiiti'iul hy (he words which they have used? 'I'hc luiiicip'c l)ciiisenu:ei' may sissuine all risks ai"isinume tin- responsihilily of, and lu' may assume all or any portion of it. This contract in itself exemplilies all this. In icirard to the stock tlu- owner as.-\jmes certain dctined ri>ks, conlined to a vei-y narrow circle, and all the I'isks heyond ' jose are ^till charj^ed upon the company. ( )n the other n ;irsonal injury,' he assunn-s it liy woids as com- |)rehensive as the lan^ruaiic affords, ' from whatever cause ;' •ind he 'expressly airi'cesthat the company shall not he lialtle imder any circumstances, whether of ne, to he lixed l»y puldic noli<'e; and >hall furnish sufiicient accomnnidations for the Iransporta- "'s N. V. a::, (iHM). II. IX.] CONSIDKUATION. •m:\ lion of all such passciiircrs and propci'l y as sliall witliiii a ri'as(tiialilc tiinc iJicvioiis llicri'to lie oft'crcil for traii>|iorta- tioii at llic place of slarliiii!' and the jinx'tions of othci' rail- idads, and al u>nal sloppinir place- e>lal>lished for reeeivinLT and discharLiinu' way p;issenirers and fi'ei;j^^lits for that train ; anti >hall take, transport and discharge >nch passenti'ers and property at, from and to such phices. on the (hie payment of the fi'cijrlit or fare Iciially authorized therefor : aiul >hall he lial)h' to the party airurieved in an action for damaiics for any neiileet or I'cfusal in the premises." 'Ihi' ari:ument hased upon tliis statute if it proves anythiuL',' j roves too nmcli. If that section is applical»le to tliis ease to sustain the po>ition for wiiieh it is <'ited, notwithstanding' the terms of thecontraet umh'r whi not think it was any jtart of that ohject to add to their general '' n -■■ 814 THK CONTUACT8 OF CAUKIBKS. [CH. IX. respoiisihility ns ciirriiTs, or drprivo them of tho power which they possessed prior to its passajje of niiikinir <'oii- traets in rees. the passenj;<'r was ridiiiir on a free ticket. In this case in like mannor, the plaintiff's intestate was ridinir ostensibly also upon a similar free ticket. I do not see nliy this ease is not precisely within the rule estahlislied in those onsos, and why the doctrine of stave decisis does not re(|uire IIS to revers(> the jiid;:'ment in this case. The fact that tho plainti.'^f's intestate was ridinir in defendant's cars, to ac- com])any his stock carried as freijfht, and for which the i'ustomary charjr<'s were paid and received, can not as I see affect the (|iiestion. 'I'lie ticket which liissell received, and which he used as a voucher to show his riirht to ride in a j)assoiiply in this case, l)eeause there was ill fact a consid.era1ion received iiy the defendant for tiie carriaire of the plaintiff's intestate, is not ! !;>; ik sound. It disre which he professedly paid no fare sepai-ately fi'oin the price paid for the transportation of his stoeii. Hut it is undouhl- edly true that he received such free ticket, and it was t" the ticket. In this sense, there would prol)ai!!y seldom if ever he j^iven l»y si railroad company a strictly free ticket. Nor does the lia- l)ility of the carriers depend upon the tpieslion whether he received any actual pecuniary or other consideration for the transportation of a i)erson over their road. Koceiv'fng a passeuirer into their cars for transportation, hinds the <'iir- riers to carry him safely — as nuu-h so with a passenirer who his paid no fare as with one who has ])aid full fare and pur- chased the customary ticket ; and subjects them to an ac- tion for dania^res for any injury result in customary fare, they were bound to < arry such passenucr at theii' own risk in respect to all injuries re- sultiii^f from i\\v negli},a'iiee of tl)e coinpuny, ih iigtMits or .servants. '* It can not \w material us T conceive, whether a person who ree(>ives a free pass u|i(| iifrrees to take his own i-isk of ac- cidents, and to become in effect his own insurer al)y. " In the (h'cision (d' this cax' at the i:enerai term of the Su- prein»' ("onrt, I expressed the opinion thai tiie action coidd lie sustained on the i^roinid that the iie;^lii:('nce of tlie brake- man was the nciiliiicuce (d the corpoiation, for the reason tliat he was impi'opcilv eniph)V«'d. and was unlit for his sta- tion. This \iew, I am >alislie(l. was erioncous. TJic case was not tried upon ihi^ iheorv. 1 think liic jiidL^mcnl sliouhl lie rcNci'scd, and a new Irial irranted, uilh co>ls |(» al»ide the evi-nl." 1)i;m»), ('. J., (hssenlinir: " We liave airea- senirer who is carried jjfratuittiusly in it-- cais.thal it will i!n| i»c res[)ousil)le foi' injuries resnltini: from ihc nc'_diircntale in llic prc-^t nl casi* was hy ajrreemenl t(» lie cairicd, and was in fact c.-irried Itv the defendants, wiioliy willi(tut compcii-alion, liie judj^nieiit rcfeiMcd to is a pi'cccdcnt for the dciision of the appeal now nndi I' consideration, and the judiiinent appcalcti from onL!hi to l)e i-e\cr>.cd. Uut I do not coii^idt r the dtccii-cd in this case to iiavc liccn a free pas^ciiLfci', in an\ proper sen-e, The tii'm (d' wiiich he was m menilier coni racted uilh the company for hi> passau't' hy the wrillcn a;^rcemenl u liicli was iriven in evidence. That aL'reenn'nl cojitainctl mu- tual sti[)ulalions l)\ eacli of ihe cont r.ictinir parlie>. ( )n the pail of Ihe company, the coniiMet wa> t(» tiiili-porl cef. tain live stock lielonuini: to ihe d( ica-cd and his par! iter , :ind also to carry the mcud»ers (d' I lie lirm or such other person-^ a- the liiin sjioidd eniplov to i:ii^( cliari:c (d' llie lock durinL"" the transit, for a specilied ((mipensalion, namely, seventy dollars f(U' each cat load of ihe calllc. which ^um the con- tract ol»liired tiie tirm to p. v : and the coiili-.c! to pa\ that »-ompensalion was the ei|iu\ah'nl for the w lioi e >er\ ice I'l rl-iii- \. NiA ^■"^!. (••iH. I!. C ... 'JIN. V. I»7 (|s of tho pa.ssa<;o of the porson ridinj; to take ciiariic of the stock was cniltraccd in lh(! aniounl to l)o paid liy liu- lirni. It coidd not l)o dctorndnod wiiat i)ortion of the seventy iloihiis per car load of cattle was the e(|uivah'nt for the transportation of tho property, noi' what part (d" it w<'nt to pay for <'arriaj;e of the person in charire ; liut it wouhl l»e entirelv <'lear that llie wlioie of the money paid l»y th(! lii'in was the (•oinp(Misation for ail the >er\ ices whicii the railmad eoni- panv were to peforni. lint the contraet also contained slipnlidions that the owners of the cattle were to take cer- tain I'isks respect injj: I hem npon thoniMi'lvo.s, some of which risks wonid proltahly have otherwise devohcd npon tho company ; Inil with llios<' we have no pre.-ent concern. 'I'liero was, however, a stipnialion in these terms, that 'tho persons ridin;i fi'oo to take charp- of the >tock do so at tln-ir own risk of personal injnrv, from whatever eaus* , and it is stated in the instrument in effect that :i smuiler '(im- pensation was receivc(| l)y the company, on accoiiwt of the lls^4UtMptioM of the risks mentioned, than that Hlii«h \v of the contract which n-- late io llio risks affect its construction Up-'M the point under inimodi:de consideration ; namely, in determininjf what stipulations on th«' part of one of the parties are the consid- oration of tho inidertakinirs of (he otiier party. It iioin»iin8 evident that in consideration of the mionoy which the owners of the stock were to pa\ , the cattle wen- to he lii'aM**- ported to iheii' destination, and the persons ridin;jj 0*1 the train to InKc cai-e of tlu'iii were al>o to hav#' tliHir paiw^«>'«' without any additional pauncni. I'lic clf\ their pas.-aifc in con»ideration of the otiii'i' juovision- <>f the contract, and free from the paynienf of the fare whi- h is I'xactri! of other pa ^sen^jicis. Tb*' per .■»r injuries to the person arisinir out of the u«'i!li^tMicc of tiu- company's aiTcnts. If sucli a stipuhilion is h'i>;al, the pas- .senj/er receivinj; the ticket must lu' deemed to have assenlcij to it as one of the terms of his contract with the companx. *' 'I'hese coiisiih-rations h-ad nu' to the con(lu>ioii that the deceased, when lie received ihi' fatal injury, was not tiavcl- iu*f as a free passeno as to hrinjr the <'ase within the reason of th«' case of /V/'/,///v. The price of his passaj^e was paid for hy the other stipula- tions (if the ajrreemeut. In I'lillaililpliin d' I{iti(Unii lioil- rooi/ Cotti/tiiiii/ V. /h-rfii/'' ami aj;ain in T/ic Xt ir W'oriil \ . A'iiK/'* passenjicrs in the defendants' vehicles who did not jiay anythiuir, hut the conveyance of whom was c(»nsidcrcd inci(h'ntally advautaircous to the proprietors of the line, \,v\v held not to he iriat uitous pas>cnp'rs. It seems to nic, therefoiv, that the condition of the deceased, and the ri^lit of his ivpn'sentativt's to rciovcr dama«r*'>< on account of his death, aix' precisolv th«' same as tliou^rl) li«' iiad paid his fan* in money; and that the defemlanl^ are liahlc in this action, indi'sx the airrecment contained in the contract and repcat«'d on the passeuircr ticket, to a>«um< the risk of in- juries c;tu>cd l»y the neirliir«'uce of the «onipanys" serviuit>, is a lawful and \a!id stipulation. Il uui>l he aduiitled that the owners ol' the cattle were enaliled to conlmct for the services which the coiupanx airreed to reu«)ei-, at a le>s pric(« than they would have heen ohiipd to pay if they had not as- sum.'d the risk> nicnlioni'd ; for it i> ^o exprc^^ly stated in the aii'i'eeuicnt . Hut I am of opinion that the defendants had no iiuht,even hy contract, to exoneuUe tlieinselvo from the '■' 1 1 IIow. HIS IS,-,:)). '* Ki ll<.«. iii!i (iv:.;l). ClI. IX.] CONHIDKUATION. ;M!i (•()iiM(M|U('nc('s of the ncjrlijXt'iicc of their own scnaiits, and to cast those Imrdcns npon passentrers wlio paid a eonipen- salioii for their passafr<'. The maxim, hdxIii.s it mnrt iiliu riiiiiiiit tcijf'iii, is not of uiiivei>al applitalion, Iml is suKject to certain liniitati(»iis in case> where the interests of the piiMie oi' of moliilitv are affertcd l»\ a contract . The gen- eral raih'oad act . the pidvi>ion> of wiiich are Winding upon the (h-feiahmts" corpoiatihall furnish sutlicient accommodation for the traMs|)oi°tation of all such pa>sen<;«'i's and properly, and -hail tran.>porl and dischar<:;e such pM.-.seny the de- fendants. Hut he waived, if it was competent for him to do so, the liability of the defendants t(» I'espond to him in an aition for damages imposed liy this provision and l»y the ji'eneral rules of law; and the ireneral I'ule certainly is that one may at his pleasure r loniice the benetit of a provi- (iilHi inll'oduced into a coii/ract or a law entirely in his own fa\(ir. Milt to this rid(> there i> ;d>o a limitation of th«- same ^n-neral nature as that to which I have just refei-red. The law will not allow pariie> liy their contrai-ts to sul)vert IIh own policy. If llic pulili<- has an intei'(>st that railroad corporations should in all eases be and continue liable foi' injiirh'H (o pa>senji;ers payinjr fare, occasioned by tlu- ncirli- gelittit (if llu'ir servants, anil if the pr*»vision cited from the jfeueral railroad law was enacted in fuill»«ranee of tliat pol- icy, it is not in thepowi r of parties to ehanjre the rule in IimII- vidual eases. The defendants claim a liirht t'. exonipt them- selves from the liability impose.! iiy law. by .^pe!- of pasM-ngers, thai 320" THE rONTIlACTW OF CAKUIKIIH. [ni. IX. to which thr dccniscd in this ciiso h(v which the rcsponsiliilitv for tiir ii(' coun- try to iiiiothcr, hy \arious and complicated contrivances, W here a Very sliirht neiiiect would lie likely to jirove exten- sively fatal to life or limli. The circumstances were well (II. IX. CftNsiUK.IiNTION, ;{'ji talcilliltcd 111 rjill fill' the lii(»>l liiicl'iil |)l'(>visi(t|is (III tlic |(!ili (if llic Ic''is|iil lire ill iddfi' l(» scciirc lli. iitiini»l dcirrcc <»f ciii'c iiiid circuiiioiict'tidii. |{:iil\v:iv> iiic (-(tiLsh ii'IcmI aiiil itlitTMtcd f(tr |»nr|nt>t'.«. of iicciiiiinry iruin. I'lic diiiiiMircs «»!• ri>Mi|)('ii>Mti(iii jiaid til |iiirtii'> iujiii-cd. i-iid hi (lie iciii'cM'iita- li\('s (if .such iis arc killed, run-liiiiic, iiiifdrlmiiihlx , ii ((tii- ••idcnildf didiictidii fi'im ihc jii'dlits of micIi (•iil«'i|)ii.s«'s. 'I'lic li.-iltilit \ (if the ('di'|MirMl idii Id iiiaki >u
  • iii|iciisalinn is t's|;»lilis|i('d liv a |iillilii' law. ( )iif nlijccl df the ciiait- iiit'iil was lid ddiilit Id ciifdiic tiic i-ciidciiiii:' of jiislicc to ■.mil |M'rsdii> a> iiii^lil siillVi' fioi: tlic iiciflcci df llic cor- |idi'ali(iiis (ir ilicir aufciils. If tln^ ucic all, imtsoms ni- uairiiiir |>:issaj.'(' on a railroad ini^lii waive ilicir rij^his li\ a |trds|»e( live ai'raiii;tiiieiil : Iml if ii I Inic, as I lieiieveil Id lie, lliat there was a fiirlliei' iiidiisc -iicli as I have siij;- t^csled, namely, to -emre the Lrr»'iil("-t deirree df peifectidii ill the iiiechaiiiiai anaiii^ciiieiit s, and df skill and eaiilidii ( i the part of the d|)ei'atdi's ediieenie(| in the iiianai>('iiieiit , then the pi-dv i>idii was made in aid df a |iiililie itolicy in which every citi/.eii df the Slate i> interested, and which no diie iKir any minilier of |)ersdii^ liy a private liart:ain with a rail- fdad cdr|tdrat idii, can weaken or siilivert. " It is laid ddwn in all systematic ticatiscs on cdntracts, that sti|Milalidns in violatidii of piiMic |idiicy are Vdid, and the inle is exemplilied liy iiiimcrdiis adjiidicatidiis. The familiar in>taiices in which agreements in rotraint df trade have heeii declared illei:al, fairly e\eiii|ilify the |>rinci|>le. The party lliiis liindiiii:' himself ddcs not therel)y undertake to do aiiy- lliiii".'' wrdiii:- in itself: and it is imt on his accdimt that the cdiitract is cdiisidered invalid. Uiit thepulilicat lari:c have an iiilerot in encdnra«:inir industry and enterprise, and in preveiitiiii: monopdlies. .Mthdutih the princi|)le referred to is a iTciieral diie, it is not dfteii that a cdiirt can he prdperly called upon Id applv it Id a new case. Men's minds may W( II differ as to what may or may not accord with puhlic poThy ill a iiiven case : and whether the performance (d" a particular undertaking- would he hostile in an appreciahle 21 mtii,-rjmi-.^0fMimms.iir .%. ^'^^ iMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 ^1^ ^ Ui Ui 12.2 ^ 1^ 12.0 ■yuu 1.! li ( A 1.25 1'^ III '-6 6" Photographic Sciences Corporation SJ \ \ :\ c^ 23 WEST MAIN STREkT WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) S72-4S03 %' ,4^ 6^ ^ 322 TlIK CONTHAC'TS OF CAKIUKUS. [CH. IX. i I degree to a principle of puhlie law, may |)reseiil a (|Uosti()i) of difKeultv. The laws eiiaeted to enforee eare and atten- tion in the nianaucnienl of railways, and the enjrines and carria<>os by which such innnense nuniI)ersof peoi)leare con- veyed, are intended to sul)servc a policy which looks to the security of the eoiuniunity : and 1 think we can not err in .holding that any contract, the tendency of which is to impair the etHciency of such laws, is illegal within the prin- ciple which has been mentioned, "1 have looked carefully at the cases respecting the ability of common carriers to limit their responsibility by special contract, or by g(!neral notice brought home to the owner of the goods. It was once supposed to be settled in thi.s State that an agreenuMit that the carrier should not l>e nvsponsi- ble according to tlu; connnon law would be void, as being against public policy;'"' but the i)()int was reconsidered and tiie question settled the other way.''' We adhei'c, however, to the rule tiiat the carrier can not avoid liability by giving notice to that effect, even though it be brought home to the party sending forward the goods. Jn thus holding, Ave assume that such contriicts are to a ceilain i^xlent nos- tiie to sound public policy ; for we reject evidence which would be competent to prove an agi'i'ctnent in any other C!t!^o, 15ut these decisions do not relate to carriage on rail- roads, nor do they concern the transportation of jjasscn- gers. As to the ciirriage of |)roperty, the English courts, it must be conceded, do hold that raih'oad companies may by special contract avoid res))onsibility for negligence of tiuMr own .servants, though of the degree called gross nt'gli- gence. It is not necessary to determine whether we should decide in ac"ordaiice with that doctri u- ; for there is a man- ifest distinction between the case of property and that of persons. As to the former the carrier is an insurer again>t ail accidents, exi'cpt in two well knowii cases, and may often be held liable without any actual fault on his own pai't or on ''•• Gould V. Hill, i Hill. dJ:! (isij). ™ Dorr V. Xcw .Iciscy Steam \av. Co.. 1 .Siiiiilf. KK! (18.")tl). M •<• CII. IX.] CONSIDRUATIOX. 323 tliiit of his servants ; while a carrit r of passengers can only I)<' made resj)()nsil)le for actual iieglijjjenee of himself or of those for whose acts and omissions he is resi)onsil)le, 1+ is (|uite consistent to allow one wlio, in the absence of a con- tract, is a jreneral and almost a universal insurer, to (lualifv his liahility by an aureemeiit with the other party, and still to hold that where t'le law for the l)etter protection of life and member has attached a certain conse Bosw. ()!>!»: .<. c. 10 Abb. Pr. 4i;{ (ISCO); Stiasou v. New Yoik Cent. 1{. Co.. IVl N. Y. :m (ISO,")), anil roiiolicr v. New York Cent. 11. Co.. tn X. Y. -HVA (1S7'2). ^^ AntP Cap. III. "'■'Stin^oM V. New York Cent. 1{. Co.. :!-J V. Y. XV.) (isil")). 324 THE CONTKACTS OF CAURIEHf*. [cn IX. § 221 . Pirsun)j)ffO)i frnni Possession of Free J*ass. — One liiiviiiir a free pass in liis possession is prosunicd to be travel- ing; on it even thouirh it was his intention to pay his fare. In an Irish ease of some novelty where this (piestion Avas presented,'*" the ))laintiff lived in a house in Monksiown which he had huiit and in consideration whereof he was i^iven afreet pass hy the defendants from there to I'assau'e and hack, suh- jeot to conditions exempt injr them from liability. With the intention of "ioinu- to (^iieenstown a point l)eyond Monkstowit and of payinii" bis fare between those places, he went on board one of the company's steamers at I*assaj:i'. 1I<' baers were to l)e paid on !»oai"d the steamer, and might l)e paid at any time durinu' the passajre. The intention of the plaintiff to uo on to (^ueiMistown, he eomnnmicated to a compani<;n but not to the defenilants. Befoi-e the steamer reached ]\Ionkstown he accidentally j)laced his foot in a hole in the deck and was injured, in conseciui'nce of which lie did not complete his journey to (Qneenstown but was obliired to get of at Moidvstown. On the trial the plaintiff obtained a verdict for £500 which was rev<'rsed by the coui't of Com- mon Pleas on ap[)eal. I.awsox, fl. : "I think this ease is free from all doubt that this gentlennm, on the day of the acci- dent, used his free pass, and that instead of paying his fare he traveled for nothing. Then, it lias been said that by reason of his having formed an int(>ntion in his mind to go on further, he I)ecame a passenger foi- hire. He altered that intention — he never took a ticket, and got out at ^fonkstown. In my opinion there was nothing to go to the jury to show that he was not traveling on his free pass. 'I'he v<'rdict must be entered up foi" the defendants." MoK- IMS, .1. : " \ am also of opinion that the verdict must be entered up foi" the defendants. I do not offer any opinion "'Ncvilli' v.Cnrki^c. |{. «'.).. it Ir. I,. .1. H.-p. !!!•. 2Ci'iit. I...I.:!(;(; (ls7r.). 1 IX. <1I. IX.] CONSIDKIJATION. 32:> I- Olio avcl- fiirc. II Mils whicli I free , Sllll- II tlH' town l1 oil h:i(l from oil the other (jucslions which niiiiiit arise in the ease — iiainely, as to iicirlijiciice. Jf the phiintiff had siiown that he haa yoiie into the vessel as a uasseiiu'er from I'assajjfe to (^ueenstowii, that iiiii;lit iie sutlicient evidence to show that he was a passenirer for hire ; hut the moment it was dis- ch)sed t'lat lie iiad a free pass or a license, tiie onus was cast upon him to show that althouiih he had a license enablinu' him to lio that portion of the jouriu'v on which this accident happened, and exeni[)tinu- the company from lial)ility for (l.imau'es, he was travelinji- otherwise than in riiiht of that lii'ense. 'i'his accident ha|>peiis while he is hetween Passa<>e and Monkstowii. Now, the onus heino- thrown upon him of >liowin-2't. •1-M. ■117. ■lis. ■1-lU. ■1-M\. •j;fi. •IM. ION. Power of Anient of Owner to Coiitraet Witli CiiiTier. Who are Witliin tliii Rule. Ciinicr N'eed Not Kxaiiiine Authority. ^lotice to Principal. Carriers" Knowledjji' of A;;eiit"s Waiitjof Autliority. Lialiilily of Aj^enl to PriMcii)al. Power of Agent of Carrier to Mak(! ('ontracts. Wlio are Witliin this Hnle. When Carrier Not Bound. Ads of Agent When Not Binding. lOxpress, Forwarding and Dispateh Companies, § 223. Poircr of Affen/ of Ox'iiPr fo Vontvart With Vor- ricr. — It may ho said goiici-ally that authority given to an aociit to ship pi-opcfty carries with it iiiithority to iicccpt Ji i»ill of ladiiiu', or to make a contriiet containing exemptions from liability.' Thus, where the owner of live stock places ' .Moriarly v. Hariiden's Kx.. 1 Daly. Ill (IS(i-J) ; Christerison v. Amer- ican Ex. <'o.. 1.") Minn.-27(t (1S7()) : Shelto'i v. Merchants' Dispatch Trans. ( 'o.. :!(! N. Y. (S. V.) 'yll (1S7:{) ; ,»•. r. W,) N. Y. 2:)S (1874) ; Robinson v. Merchants' Disi)atcli 'I'l'ans. Co.. 15 Iowa. -170 (1S77) ; Meyer v. Ilarn- (len's Kx. Co.. 21 How. Pr. -JiX) (1S(!-J): Bean v. CJreen, PJ Me. 422 (IS!}.')); i'illelirown V. (irand 'I'mnl^ |{. Co.,.V) Me. 4(12 (1S(;7); Levy v. South(!ru i;x. Co.. 4 S. C. 2;t4 (1S72). ••That the pfaintiff herself never read the paper [a liill of lading containing conditions] is of no moment. The arrangen'.'.nt was made l»y her agent, who nnist he i)resumed to have ae- ipiainteil himself with the terms of the engagement whii^li the defend- ant assented to." Steers v Liverpool Steamship Co.. h' N. Y. 1 (1874). •if' 32H THK (;ONTKA(TS OF CAKKIKItH. [CII. X. m »^ tliciii ill the cu.slodv of an aiiciit to lie tlclivcivd hv him to ii railroad coinpaiiy for transportation, llic ajrinit also liavinu- instructions to ^o with tiic stock on tlic train, the au'ciit will have antiiority (o hind his principal as to the terms of tlie transportation, and tlu^ principal will he hound Ity u contract eontiiiniiig conditions haiuh-d to him hy the carrier and hy him signed with tlu^ owner's name.- In \nr Jrrsri/ Slrani N(ivi(jafi(>n dniijiaiti/ i\ Mcrc/Kiiifs' Hank;' Ilarndeii, an expressman, had a contract with the naviuation company _<;ivin -\ ner in- -Siiwirf V. New York Ci'iil. |{. Co.. lis Mm--. -IM) ( lS(i7). 'M; How. :{n (ISIS). * York Coiiipiiiiv V. ('.'iilriil K:iili-nii(l. :{ Wnll. 107 (isc,:,). ■''|{ol)iiis(>ii V. Mi'ii'JiMnis" Dispiitcli 'l'r.m<. <'ci.. iTi Io\\:i. 171' ( is77 1 : (!lirist('iisoii V. Aiiici'icaii lOx. Co.. l.'i Mimi. 270 (IS7()). ''Maviiii;' v. Todcl. 1 Staik. li. I Camp. •_'•_'.') (|sl.-)^ II. X. (11. X.] I'OWKKS OF .\<;KX'I\S. ;i2it trusts the j^oods for dc^livcrv must Ix' rcuiirdocl as liaviuji' autliority to stipulate for the terms of transportation, lly this we do not mean liie porter, or cabman oi' mere servant, but tiu! eonsii^nor of tlie jfctods or any other ajivnt wiio pur- chases or proeni-es Ihem for him." " It has been t'xpressly iiehl in Ahibama that a (h-aynum has no autliority to mai;e a contract t'oi' the eonsiijnor limit iuir the liability of tlie car- rier.'* though a conirary rulinu' is to be found in a later deci- sion in lowi'." In jV>'/.s()ii r. J/m/sfui Hirer /'(li/roatl Cdiii- yKO(//,"' decided liylhe New ^'ork Court of Appi'als in 1.s7l\ A havini:' bouii'hl a laruc mirror from li, directed him to for- wai'd it (»n a desiiiiiated railroad. !> sent the mirroi- by a cai'tman to the railroad depot for shipment . The company re(|uireil the cartman to siiiMi a written contract as aji'ent for the shipper, relieviiiii' them fi'om all liability for breakau'e. The contract also contained a cliuise re(|iiii'inu' any ()l)jection to tin' contract to be notified to the company before the propei'ty was shipp(>(l, in order that a new contract miii'ht be made. The cai'tman also airreed that the mirror should l)e tletained at tin- depot until the next day, and sh )uld l)e then retuiMU'd to the shipper if i'e(|uested. The cartman made known these facts to H, iind nave him a duplicate of the contract. On the next day, no noti«'e of ilissent from the contract havinu" l)een iiiven to the railroad company, the mir- ror was forwai'detl. It nas held that A was bound by the conditions. Hut it was expressly said in this case that the cartman had no authority to make the contract — the sul)se- (|uent ratification of his act In R not expressinu" any objec- tion as to its terms beini;' the ^rouiul on which the decision was placed. In Burhhi ml r.Adatiis Exprt'ss Coiiijxni//,^^ decided !)y the Supreme .ludicial Court of ^lassachusetts in 1><<)7, the plaintiff had I)ou '>•!. •^Southern i'.x. Co. v. AniistiMd. r>(i Al:i. :i.")ll (lS7;i). '■' l{(iliiii-(>ii V. McrcliiUit-i" DUpiitfli Tr:iiis. Co.. to In. 170 . Is77). I" IS \. V. IDS (1S7-J). |".I7 ..Im-^-. 1-JI. ;{;i() TIIK CONTRACTS OF CAWUIKKH. [CII. miiiiufiU'turing compiiny, which wore sent hy express hy the compiiny, the pistols l)ein. Xotici' to Pn'iK-ijxi/. — N(»ticc to the pi'incipal is notice to all his agents.'"' Thus in litihhrin r. T'o/Z/z/.s-,'" it was said : " The counsel insists that as the agent oi- clerk who was charged with packing the goods and shipping them was not aware of the reuulalion of the defendant, his t?Sr '- M«riiirty v. Ilin-iidfirs I'lxprcss. 1 I):ily. l>27 (ISC.-J). '■'Meyer v. Ilanideu's Kxpress ( O.. 24 How. I'r. 211(1 (ls(;2). '< IlliiinisOeiit. |{. ("n. V. .Morris.Mi. \'.> III. i:{(! (IS.-)!). !■■' Miiyliew V. Kiiiiie-. ;( |{. »<: ('. CO]. \ {\ A. V. .i:)() ( Is-J.")). "•9 Koh. -tOS (ISI.-)). •H. .\. (II. X.] I'OWKItS OF AdKNTS. ;{;{i clicMit oujrlit to recover, iiltlioiifrli his employer inijrht . Iiiive known it. Wo think otherwise. If the prineipal was awiire of the rule, Ins client or iiijent l>ein;j: kept ijrnorant of it can not ex<'use him ; and so if the a<.fent knew it and the principal ditl not, still the aation is so far authorized to enlei' into contracts with the cai-rier by whom they arc to be sent that he will be iH-sponsibU for any damaire which they may receive on account of his refusal to deliver them to lh(^ carrier under a contract containinu' reasonable condi- tions in limitation of his resjjonsibility. In lian't1). "* I D.-udy. 17 (Ism). '•' .">!» \. Y. (til (lK7r>) : sec Bancroft v. Mcrcliiints Dispatcli Trans. Co. 17 Iowa. •J«2 (1S77). 3.12 TMK CONTIJACT.H Ol' CAIJIIIKUS. [CH. X. ju'coptcd floods ((» lie Iraiisporlcd Itcyoiul its line, Imt re- fused to deliver tlietn to a eoiiiieetinjr carrifi' at the end of its route, hecause llie latter would only take the iroods uu- (h'r a contrat't liniilin<:' its couinion law liaMlity. 'I'he ex- press company thei'eupou stored the iroods in its wai'ehouse whei'c they were desliMyed l)y lire. The defendant wa> held responsihie for the jdss. lint in (iunlmi r.W'dn//' one \y , residing' in Michigan, oi'dered a l>aie of |(»l»acc(» from (', a nu'rehani in Oiiio. direetiuii" it to lie sent hy rail, and <;i\"nn' as a reason for this thai the railroad <-ompany would bci !ial)Ie for all I'isUs. (J sent the t<»lta('eo l»y rail, hut took from the company a hill td' ladiniz' cxemplini;' them from liahilily for loss l»y lire. The toltacco while in Iransil was licstroyctl iiy lire. In a suit l»y (i for the price ot the to- l»ac('o he was held entitled to recover. This decision is hased upon the irround thai I here was nolhinir' to show that the railroad company was under the ohliiialions altachinu' to common carriers or that it was within the power of the de- fendant to have re(|uircd the shipincnl on any oilier terms than he did. § 22\}. J'inn-r of A(iiiif nf ( '(irrlcr lo Muhi- ('mifrdcfs. — In cases where the liahilily of the carrier has been limited l)y a contract made l»y one represent ini;' himself as his auciit for that purpose, the auth(»rily of such aiicnl is an imma- terial (|uestion, in a suit ajxainst the carrier in which the con- tract is set upas a defense, foi- the reason that the act of the ajrent even if unauthorized may he taken advantai^c of by the carrier l)V a sui)stM|uent ralilication. liut where the airent has attem|)led to hind the cai'ricr to some new or ex- traordinary responsibility oi' to duties not ii'encrally assumed l>y him, th<> powei- of the au'cnl becomes a (piestion of con- siderable importance. As common carriers, especially at the present day, transact the iireatci- pai'l if not all of their business with the public through aiicnts and servants, it is l)lain that the public have a I'iuht to assume that they ai'c iiuthorizetl to do whatcvei- I hey attempt to do. In W/'n/,- -'«i(!Mirii. :t(;o (iscs;. <'H. X. r... X.] POWKKS or AUKNTS. ;<;{;{ 11(1 of >* IJIl- M' ex- llOllNC I ■tVjIs (fni,-" I'OIll and ^(Mll(| ools IVoiii IC 1(1- uii i> V thai IIU' to ic (]«•- ((•nils fi't'hl r. /*a('h-i)ir/f(ni;'^ the (Icfcndaiil l)ciii;r inf'orincd liy (he plaiiiliff's servants tliut his (.roods would he carried at a cerlain rale delivered tiieiii on the faith of this statement to hill). 'I'he printed rates of tiie plaintiff heiii"'' nuieh hiiihci' he hroiiiihl an action for the iaru'cr sum. Lord TkntkudKN, ('. .1., said : " If a person iroes to the otlice of a carrier and asks what a thinu," will he done for, and he is told liv a clerk or servai I who is transactinir the Itusiness that it will he done for a certain sum. the master can charj:c no more." l)citied vessel not its own, hut si'ut them hy another vessel which wit h the i^oods was lost at sea, it was held that the jreneral nature of the company's husiness recjuiriiiii" that the duties jissijrm.d to j, elerk should sometimes he per- formed hy another clerk, the act of the suhstitutcd clerk, if within the •reneral scope (»f his duty, was the act of tiic principal.-'' Where the name of the ii ('. i<: r. :m (18-J7). -'•-' Myail V. Hesteii ^c. U. Co.. 10 X.ll. Vl'l (1S18): Reynolds v. Top- liaii. 1.5 Mass. :570 (I SI ID. !« (Joodrk'h v. Tlii)iiii)s«.i). 1 !{ol). (N. Y.) 7.") (lS<.(i). aHinncd 44 V. Y. .\1\ (1S71); Gi.tlilanl v. MMllory.:)2 Harl). S7 (IS(iS). '^* Haltimorc itc. Stramhoal Co. v. I^rowii, .")4 I'a. St. 77 (1808). "y'^'W^""'^ I i ■A .' I n ZU THE CONTRACTS OF CAUHIEK.S. [CII. X. :*i § 230. Who arc Within, this RhIc—Xw Kiiirlaiul it is held thiit a station atauit may bind the '.arricr by a contract be- yond its U'lial duties and in contlict with its rcirulations ; he may agrci' to carry to a place or at a time other than tlie ruh'8 of the company permit.'-' 'I'he same ruh' is ap])lied in this country. In Wisi'onsin it has been heUl thai tiie sta- tion agent of a railroad company may l)intl the company to a contract to delivi-r goods beyond its line and within a cer- tain time,-" and in a New Ilainpshire case-' where one had agreed to deliver goods by a certain day and the station agent of a railroad company having knowledge of tiiis con- tracted that they should be so delivered, the comi)any was made liable foi- th- (himages <'aused by their non-delivery at that time. It has been ruled, howevei', in the same State in another case that such an agent has no authority t(» bind his princii)al by a contract to carry freight by a passenger train.-'* In J'ennsylvania where at the re(|uest of the <)wnei' of a freight car the agents of a railroad comi>any attached his car to a passenger train contrary to the instructions and rules of the comj)any, he agreeing to run all risks, it was held that the company would still be liable for an injury caused by the negligence of their servants or agents.^' The iigent of a railroad company for the sale of tickets has au- thi)rity to make a contract with a passenger which is at va- riance with tiie printed conditions of the ticket ;'"' but in the absence of evidence the presmnption is that a ticket agent at a way station has no authority to change or modify contracts between the company and its through passengers." § 231. When (htrricv Xot Jinund. — In a Massachusetts case it was decided that a station airent of a railroad com- ^ I'iiknud v. CJraiid .Fniictiiin It. <•<.., 12 M. \ W. 7(!(i (1S44) : Wilson v. York &.<■. H.^Co.. ISKiiiT. L. I'v: K<|. :\:u (tsr.I). '^' Sirolm V. Detroit \c. H. I'o.. -Jl! Wis. |-J(i flSCS). -• Dt'iiiiiifi- V. Grand 'I'rniik ]{. Co.. IS \. II. I .-),-• (ISii'.l). •■« lOlkins v. lioston \r. H. Co.. "J:! N. II. 27.") (iS,-)I). -•' LiK'kawiinnii (S:c. I{. < 'o. v. (Mii'iicwilli, ")_> j'a. St. :!S2 (ISdili. ■■» Hiirnhani v.(;ian(l Trunk 1{. Co.. Cli Mf. .>f)>! (ls7;i;. ■■" McClmv v. I'liiladclpliia iVc. I!. Co.. :'.4 Md. .■):!•.» (1S71). [en. X. CH, X.J rOWKllS or AGICXTS. 835 is held iUt he- ns ; h,. an lli(. >li(Hl in '<■ stii- any 1(» a ccr- <■ had tatioii S COJl- iiy was crv al late ill ' l)iii(| SClloci- ncr of ■d liis IS and if was injury '■' T]w as au- if va- nii in (ickcf odifv pany has no authority to hiiul tlic company as connnon car- vicrs Ifcyond the line of its own road, by siirninir recoii)ts fiirnishod in l)hink ))y the shipper, by thi' terms of whieij tlie eompany uiulertaKes to forward and deliver the uoods to the order of the eonsiirnee at points on a eonnectinu: liiu', wlier(^ it appears that such a<>i'nt aeted without special au- thority and without tlu^ knowledjic of the eoinpany, and that the <)'"cers of the eompany had furnished the agent with blank forms of receipts to be iiiven for goods shipped l)eyond their own line, by which it was provided that incase of loss or damage of the goods the eoinpany only should lie answerable in whose actual custody the goods should be at the time of the loss.''-' In ('. L. If. St>t: IS Jiir. lilt); ■_»;{ L. .1.. ( . 1'. IOC. (lS.-)4). m i ft!.'! I M m > i \'-> H'66 THE CONTRACTS OP CAHHIKIJS. [cn. X. agiiinst the company for tho non-dol ivory of the i)i,irs, (•hari!:in_ir them with haviiijr roci'ivoii thom to he carried for hire, that tlic company was not liable, as there was no evi- dence of any authority from the company to the porter or of his haviniT held himself out as haviiiii' authority to i-e- ceive or contract lor the Citrria_ent had no authority to contract for sendiiii!: them without an a«rroement containinu' the excep- tion apiinst tire.'" § 2/JH. Ex/jt'ess, For ward fur/ oml Dispofr/i Cotiipdin't's. — It has l)een attomi)ted on tho part of exi)ress, forwardiuir and dispalcii comi)ahies to oval" the responsibilities of eoiu- mon carriers, on the <;round that tlu'V are not the owners of the vehicles employed in the trans[)ortatiou ; but this pre- tense has not been pei'initled in tho courts, 'i'he names which they assume are rejrarded as immaterial ; the duties which they undertake beiui; the criterion of their liability. T'loy aiv, therefore, held to tho responsibility of common carriers, both where they are and whei-o they are not in- terested in the convevances by which the iroods are trans- ■-■ I'l'intxMtou Co. V. New York, &.v. \{. ('o..*I04 Miiss, 141 (1870). €11. X.] rOWEIiS OV AdKNTS. 337 ported/'" If an cx])ro- serviee, the railroad (•oin[)aii_v becomes the agent .•«;.. 'I'lioi-c iirrned that they should be held to a rigid fnllil- inent of the pronuse. 'I'iiey can not attain a greater speed than the rail- road or steamboat w liieh conveys tbem. and tb< "e is no proof tbat tliey are in otlier respects more trustworthy. 'J"he oidy advantage wliicli in truth they can offer is the safer custody and more certain delivery of the goods to the consignee wllbont storage. Tliese temptations may induce the public to enijjlov tliem at :>n increased rate, and they have no reason to complain of an exact application ()f the rule of law v.hich enforces tiie responsibility which tliey voluntarily assume. "We should lie re- gardless of the great interests daily coniniitte(l by the public to the ex- press companies with a conlidi'nce induced by their tempting offers if their liability for the s;ite carriage and delivery is not vigorously en- forced. "' StadliecKer V. Combs. !) IJicli. 1!);! (lS,")i;). ••The name or style iindei' which they a>:in('ss hy wliicli tlic carritT was ciialdod to sclccl his own scrviuits and vcliiclcs and to t'xt'ifisc a personal care and ovcrsijjlit over tlicni. ari' wliolly in- appli('al)lc to a contract of carilaj;!' I»y whicli it is understood between the parties thai ihe service is to l)e performed in pait at least hy means of ajjencies over whii-h tin- carrier can exerci>e no management or con- trol whatever. IJiit this ar;;iiment. thouffji sjiecioiis, i.s nnsoimd. Its fallacy consists in the assinnplion that iit common law. in the a1);U'nei' of express slipulaiion. the coiiira''l wiih an ownei- or consi;;nor of y the act of (iod or Ihe public enemy. 'I'hls. indeed, is the wlude contract, wiiether the goods are K, be carried liy land or water, by the carrier inmstdf or hy agents employed by him. The contract does not imply a personal tru>i which can be executed only by the contrai'ting party himself or under his supervision by agents and means of trausi>ortation directly and al>solutely \\ithin his control. Long befoi-e the discovery of steam i)ower a carrier who undertook lo convey mer( handise from one ])oint to another was auihress Co., iJosw. 2;!.") (iStUi) : Swcel V. Barney, 2:$ X. Y. :;;{."> (LSOl) : Verner v. Sweilzer. :')2 I'a. St. 21)8 (LS."»8) : Soutiiern Lxjiress Co. v. Xewby, :i(; (;a. (!:{.") (iMu). "' Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Lx|)ress Co., '.»;{ l". S. 17L 4 Cent. L. .L ;{5 (187(1), reversing «. o.. 1 Coiit. L. J. 4;{(5 (1874) ; Hoskowit/ v. Adams Express Co., 5 Cent. L. J. 58 (1887). s. c, Cent. L. .L:Wit (1879). » 10 Barb. 577 (1855). "ir. X. CH. X.] I'KNVKIIS OV AOKNTS. ;5;}!) (Mij^auocl in forwiirtliiiu' uoods from New York io Ctiliforniii Uy otluTs' bouts iuul vessels, nHcivcd two tniiiUs of uoods to 1)0 tnuispoi'tccl, colli nicting to Ixi lijilde for no loss cx- c't'[)l fntiu the fraiu! or uross neuiiirciu'c of tlicnisclvcs or tlieir servants, ami the ;roods were iniurecl hvltlie siiikinu' of a boat in the Chaures river, and exainined by survi'vors and sold at auetioii The Sui)reine Court of New York held that the ex[)rcssiueii were not liable fordainagi's previous to the sijdiins; of the boat, and were not ijuiltv of "toss ne-eiH'(! in not forwardiiijr the dainaired goods to California, the eaj)tai!i of the; boat as a eomiuon earrier having control of the goods when in his possession. iSo far as this ciise assumes that the defendants were not common carriers it is in couHict with the authorities and has been criticized and condemned in the Sttite where ii was decide('/"' In Head v. Sj)(iiddi)i(j, a subsecjuent New York case,**" a i)erson doing business under the style of " Spaulding's Express Freight Line," reec^ived goods to be forwarded to the [dace named, and in the bill of lading it was provided that all property •• will l)e d(diver(;d at the depots of the company or steam- l)oat landing," and tliat no liability for deticienc}'^ in the packages should exist " if the goods were delivered at tlie depot in good order;" and by the stipulations in regard to freight it api)(>ared that compensation was to be made to the ilefendanl for transportation over the whole line. It was held that such party so contracting was a cronnnon carrier, and not a forwards r merely. kSo in a California ease a re- ceipt given by an express company was in this form: " In no event to be liable beyond our route as lierein receipted. It is further agreed and is part of the consideration of this contract that ^V. F. &, Co. are not to be responsible except as forwarders, nor for any loss or danuige iirising from the dangers of railroad, ocean or river navigation, tire, etc., unless specially insured by theni, and so specitied in this re- s' Place V Union Exi)i('ss Co.. 2 Hilt. 10 (185S) ; Read v. Spaulding. 5 Bosw. im (IS.-)!)). ». c.,:H) N. Y. 6:U) (181U). *' 5 IJosw. ;{!),•) (1S50), atHnued 30 N. Y. (330 (18G4). 340 TIIK C'ONTKACTS OK CAIMUKKS. [ni t; 1 <'('i[)l."* It w,is liolil \\v\l il WMs not the Iriic coiisinictiou of tlic ivci^pl ili;i1 tlio express ((nupjiny should he (liscli;ii''i'('(l from lia'hilily for Ids,- citu.-eti liy ihe nculiu'cncc of the oili- (•(>rs of a ".essel (Miij)loyc(l l)y (he cxpi't'ss conipanv lo Irans- poi't [hv i2oo!is I'.aiiu'ii ill tlie roceijit." Pmt (lie case of lia)ik of Kcnturhi/ v. Ada oik h'.rpiTSK ('ojupdiii/,^'- is a rc- ccnl and coiiclusivo adjudication on lliis i)oin1. The do- feiidauts and tiic SoutluM-ii Express ("oni))any were associated in earryinu' Ity the railroads throuu-h Louisiana and Missis- sippi to Iluniholdl, Tenn., and thence over tlie LouisviUe and Nashville Hailroad to Louisvl'lo, Kv., under a contract l)y which they divided the compensation in proportion to the distance the article was transported by each respect- ive.ly. Between I^umholdt, Tenn. and Louisville, Ky., both companies employed the same messenirer, I)Ut this messen- jjer, south of the northern boundary of the State of Tcn- n(>ssee, was subject entirely to the orders of the Soutliei'n Express Company and north of that boundary was subject entirely to tlie ordei-s of the Adams Express Company. On the l?(ith of July. l-Sl!?, the Southern Express (\)mpany re- ceived from the Louisiana National liank at New ()rl(>ans two packaj»-es, one containin^j: SL'JjO^S.l.') for delivery to the liank of Kentucky at Louisville, and the other containing- $;5()()0 for delivery to the Phmters' National Baidc at Louis- ville. The receipt v.hich i)rovided that its conditions should inure to the benetit of any snccoedinLT carriei" reU^ased the conii)any from liability for any loss or damaixe occasioned by lire. The jjackaires were transjjorted to Ilumltoldt and there delivered to the messenjrcr of the defendants, who placed tliein in an iron safe which Avas deposited in a <■;;)' of the railroad. l>efore reachinir Louisville the train was thrown from the track, tlu; express car caui:ht lire, and tlie money was destroyed. On the trial the circuit jud^e, IVuj.aijd, J., instructed the jury that the 'U'Sli'jrence of liic servants of tlie railroad was not ma- ^| lIocp.T V. Wr]].-. 27 ('ill. 1! (l<-(il). '-'.1.! r. s. 171. I r n;. i.. J. ,:■ n87!). •II. x. (II. X.J roWKKS or AGKNTS. a4i teriiil ; lliiil if llic piK'Uaji'cs uci*' (k'stiovcil l)v lii'*- with- out any raiilt of the di't'ciKlniits* im'.s.>-i'ii;i('r, the case was hroiiohi within tiio exception oi the ))ill of huliii^-, and the defendants were not lialde.'' The Supreme Court of Iho Tnited Slates Ix-fore which thi' case was suhseijuently hrouiiht were of a different oi)iiiion. *' With tliis I'uiinjr," said Mr. .Justice Si itoxc, »• we are untihU' to concur. The railroad company in transportiuu" the messenu'ei" of the de- fendants iind t!ie express matter in his charge, was the agent of soniehody, eillier of the expri'ss compan\' or of tlie siiippers or consijiuecs of the property. That it was the aireut of tlie defendants is (luire clear. Jt was employed by them and paid by them. The service it was called upon to perform was a service for the defendants, a duty incumhiMit u|ion them, and ih-l upon the plaintiffs, 'I'he latter had nothini;; to do with the employujent. It was neither di- rected by them nor had they any control over the railroad com|)any or its eni|)loy«'es. It is true the defendants j^had also no control ovei' ''ie com))auy or its servants; but they were its employers, presumably they paitl for its service, :uid that service was directly and immediately for tluun. Control of the conduct of an auency is not in all cases es- sential to liability for the couseciuences of that conduct. If any one is to be affected by the atts or omissions of pc^rsous em[)Ioyed to do a jiarticular service, surely it must be he who i;:ave the employment. 'Iheir acts become his, beciiusc done in his service and by his direction. Moreover a i-oni- mou carrier wiio uridertakes foi- himself to perform an i-n- tire >-ervice has no authority to ct)nstitute anotlu'r |)erson or corjioration tiie au'iMil of his consignor or consig-nee. He may employ a sul»ordinate agency ; but it must be subordi- nate to him, and not to one who neither emj)l()ys il nor pays it. nor has anv risz'ht to interfce with it."" <' 1 (.'.■111. 1...). j;5i; (i.srt). ;m: IIIK CONTKACTf* OF CAlJIMKIts. [•'It. XI. i^m CHAI'TICK XI. (ONNECTINO CAUUIKKS. SKCTION. 'I'M. Carriiigo Boyonrl ("iirrior's l.'or.tt'. 2;{5. Power to Contnu't to Carry Him, oiul His Hoiitc. :.':iii. IJifilit lo I.imil His HosponsiMilty lo His Own |{«>nic. •jar. Hill Still I,i;il)l(' ill Somo Cases, 'J:18. Wlinl Kvidciii'i' (i| ("outract for 'rhrongli 'rraiispiiii.iiion •Jlii). Tlic Eii-ilisli Hoctriii.-. '2\(). 'I'lic American l)r May bo Sued. 21'J. (.'oiistnictioii ol S|i(>cial Coiiiracls. •2A'.\. When ('oniioctin;;- Currier May Claim Kxeniptions in I'l tract. •Jt). When Kxceinions in <'ontraet With First Carrier do Sv\ Connei'tln the duty ixM-fornicd by only ono carrier. The first c'arri lii\es extend heyond his own to c<)nii)lete the carriaoc which he has coininenced. The line of a railroad company <^xtends from A to li. At IJ another roiid heoins which extends to (\ A shipper at A desires to ha\'e ijoods sent to C and deliveis them to the compapv Avhose line conimences at A. for that purpose. It is obvious that the latter in cntcnMnu" into this contraci may iix-ur two liabilities at its option — it may bind itself to can-y tlie r. XI. €ir. XI.] CONNKrTFNd C.MJKlKrjS. 84.*] snoods to (' «'iii|)l()yin;i' the second (oiiipuny as its ii^ciit to perform llie service from H to (', or it may agree simply lo do wlnit it is hound to d( cany them to H, and at that p(»int, as the agent of the siiipper, (U'liver them to the sec- ontl road to l>e carried to their (h'stination. 'I'here heing then this option it lias heconie a (piestion of much interest and one upon which there has heen consitlerahle discussion, whether under the circumstances of particular cases, a car- rier should l)e held responsihle for the goods intrusted to him during the whole transportation or until they are , I'oii'cr to ( 'oii/riii-/ /i) Cany Jiri/oiid his Jfonfc — A conunon carrier has jjowci- to make a contract to carry lo a i)lace heyond tlu' terminus of his route and to render him- self liahle as such for the whole tlistauce. All comiecting cari'iers in such case become his ajicnts for whose ueuiiirences or oth(!r defaults he is responsihle, and h(' has no more power to evade l)y contract the conse(|uenees of their negli- gence than h«^ ca,ii the results of his own. It is also well settled that the contract of a corporation to carry beyond its own lini^ is not id/ra r//r.s'. It may accept goods to be delivered not only at a i)lace outside the limits within which it is chartered to do business but even outside the State or country of its creation." Such an undertaking may l)e iRcdlit'ld on Carriers §(}l!)()-lf)7; Briccon Ultra Vii-ps ((Jivcirsod). A]*]). III. p. ('.r:^ Tlicn- is so little dissent from tiiis doctrine tiiat I liave tliouf^iit it iinneeessitry tocile tiie eases wliicli declare it. all of wliieli may be found in tlie two text l)o.>ksa1iove. 'l"liesinfi;lo exception to tli)« array of antliority is llie Conneeticnt ease of Hood v. New York «!te. I{. Co. 2'2 Conn. .".02 (1S.">:{) of wliieli M\: Keillield says: -The ease is not at- tempted to !)•■ maintained npon tlie l)asis of antliority lint njion ju.-it principles, slio\vin|ioi(alioM.-' W'liere a carrier has contracted for tlie carr\in,u' of iroods ovi'r another line lievond his route a stipidation that liis ri'sponsi- hility is to tei iiiinate at the end of his own line will he of no effect.' ^ 2i5(!. Itliilil to hi mil }iit< lifftjKiiiHihllilif h) liin nirn Ji'oiifr. — llin the law does luit recniire a coninion cari'i»T to transport Ix'vond his own line, and he niay. thrrefore, stipu- late that he shall not he liaide for any loss or dania;^'e except such as may occur on his own route — in othiT words he may undertake simply to deliver tin- ii'(»ods to the connect iuii' carrier — in which event his liability will eeaso with such delivery, he haxinu' done all either the law or his airreement requires him to do.' -' {{(Mil V. (ileal \V(-l.Tii I!. Co.. W, N. V. .■>•-' f (jsri'. •■ riiicimiaii i'v:c. 1{. Tu. v. Puniiiis. I'.inliid si. -J-Ji (isCii); (•((luiict v. ;i (Is7i); MiiHi-aMV. Illiimi- 1{. ( '(... :i(i Iowa. lS()(|S7;t); IJal)c()ck V. I.akf Slmiv K. Co.. I!) N. Y. litl (1S72); .•>. r. CS llow. I'v. ;!17 (l,s7-i); .Ktna Iii>. ( 'o. v. Wlic.'lcr. Id. CIC, (lS7-_') : .Vniciicaa I^xprcss (^'o. V. Wi'coiid Nalioiial JJaiik. (;!» I'a. SI. :{!l| (IS7I); Iti'cd v. I'liilfit Stales Kxprcss Co.. 48 \. Y. 4(i2 (1S72): I.aiiih v.CaiiKlcii P.. Co., 1(1 1(1.271 (1S71); Hall v.Vorlli Kastcni J{. ( n.. L. U. 10 (i- H. i;i7 ( IK7.-)) : 111. Out. |{.('(). V. FranktMiliiTiLi:. .")! Ill.SS (s70) ; C'iiiciniiali iSic. |{. Co. v. Poiitius. r.»<)liioSl.-J21 (IMI!)); IJnrn.n.ulis v. Norwicli UA .».. KHI Mass. 2(1 (I.SU.S) : llinklfy V. N'l'w York < 'cat. K. C(>..:i 'I', i^i C. ^.-d {ls7l); St. I.oiiis t>;;c. 1{. Co. v. fipt r. i:{ K as. .")().•) (1S7I): Aldriiluc v.Crcat Wcstcni !{.('(... l.'.C. n. (\.S.) .".82 (IsC-l) ; Fowlcsv.Crcal Wesi.Tii R.Co.. 7 Kxcli. (l!i!> (is.")2); Kent V. .Midland |{.Co..L. K. KKi. H. 1 (IS7-I): Martin \ . Anifi lean Ex- press Co.. 1!) Wis. ;{:;(; (1S(m): Oakey v. (Jordon. 7 I.a. Ann. 2:iri (IS.J2) ; Sullivan v. Thompson.!!!) Mass. 2r>!t ( iSdS) ; Wiiheek v. llullaiid..">."> Marl). •14;$ (1870); l'eiKler \c. II. Co. v. Montfort.(J0lll.l7r)(l871): Ma-^hee v.Canulen l{. Co-.L^.N. Y..M4 (1871); St. John v. Express Co.. 1 Woods. (;1."> (1871): nieketi-; v. Halliinore Ac. J{.Co.,4 Lans. 41(;(187I): .v. '..CI IJarl). 18 (1871): Caiiulen I'ie. K.Co. v. M, < II. M. (■ONNKC'lINd CAKKIKUS. Mr> § '2'M . liiil SHU Llahlf In Sninr (Jiisrn. — tiiif iililiou;.'!! wluTc II I'oiiiiiioii earlier rcci'ivcs jioods iiiiilcj' an a;j:rc('iii('ii( which alisolvcs iiiiii from all icspoii^ihilily for iciss or daiii- aiit" occurring' lu'Voiitl tlic ciid of liis own route, the lial»ilitv of the carrier leriiiiiiales wiieii he has delivered the jroods into the custody (d" tlu- next earrieroii the line,'' his liaMlity will not 1m' tei'ininaled tiy |)laciii!j; the i/oods carried in a depot used hy him and a coimewn thai tiny were placed on the platfoi'in of the e()nnectin«.'" company, oi' had heeii in some manner uiveii over to il." lie will still Ix- lialile for iiejiliii'ence for failinj; t<» deli\('r the u(>ors t(t deliver it at its destination, whei'cver that nniy l)e. On the other hand, the acceptance of such a parcel or other propei'ty, so directed, is consid(>re(l to imply nothin,i>: mor(! than an aureement on tin; part of the carrier to trans[)ort it to the end of liis I'oute and there deliver it to a con- Foisylli. (Jl I'a. St. Nl (Isc.'.t): I'cun^ylvaiiia |{. Co. v. S(liwai/.('iil)('r;jcr, •t.') I'a. SI. I'OS (lS(i:{); FarmtTs »V:('. Hank v. ('haniplaiii Trans. Co.. .'llVt. ISi; (1S.->1): Taylorv. I.iltlc JJockt<:('. K. Co.. li'J Ark. :!!>:? (1S77): United Sialcs Ka.Co.v. llaiiii's. c: Ill.l;i7 (lS7;i); lOric U. Co. v. Wilcox, s-l 111. •J:i!) (187(1): (iihsoii V. AMiciican Hy. Co.. 1 llmi.;{87 (1S71). ■Fowli's V. (ircat \Vc>;tcrii U. -_>) ; (/ollia- v. Wry- toj iS:c. |{. Co., 1 II. it \. .")17 (IsriO). and case-t ciKid loitc, s -•>''• "Kent v. Midlarnl U. Co.. L. IJ. 1(» Q. 1$. 1 (1S7!). ' LoaisvilUf ^-c. ]{. Co. v. Caiiiphell, 7 ll«'i). ■^ Indianapolis ^:l'. U. « o. v. Strain. SI 111. .'01 (.l.S7('>}. ;{<() TIIK CONTItAf TS or CAKIMK.KS. [cil. XI. iH>ctii)<; line to <-()iii|i|(<|i> tlii> (■iirri.'i;it>. In support of lln- tivHt (lortrinc it is !ir;;iic(l tli:it a ditTcrcul rule would work <;iTiit iiicoiivniiciH't'. A pcisou (Iclivcriiiji; iiis jioods to w ciirricr lo he st-iil lo a tcriaiii placr will «:('ih'imIIv rely on liini alone to prrt'orni the scrvici*. II*> can not Ix- snpposiMl to know tli(> particulai' portion of liic transit wliirli the liist carrier controls, inucli less the other owners or pro|)i'i(>tors of the continnons line, lie intends to niak(> one contract , l>ut not two or thn'c or half a do/en. When he places his property in the hands of the cai'riei', he at once loses all control over it. If it is not delivered, how is he to dis«'ovei' al what particular portion of the i-oiite it was lost? He would Ix^ fon-ed lo j-ely on the sliitenients of the carriers themselves, who would lie little likely to aid him in Ifis search. If he did succeed in lixin;n' the responsihilily, he mi<.;ht tind himself ohlii^cd to assert his claim against a par- ty hundreds of miles away, and undci- circumstances which mi<(ht well discourait'e a prudent man and induce him to hear his loss i-atherthan incui' the expense and li'(»u!»le of pursuing' ills remedy aijainsl so il'stant a defendant.' The '' •• If llic ;^(M)ils well' III 111- riM'i'ii'il uiily in ilir n.irniw --riisi' ciiiili'iiilt'il fill' ItV tlli^ ili*r(MI(lMlll> llirll if tlir |i|:iri- of ilji-ir i|i'-l ili.iliiill weir lillt lliri'f Miiltv-' lii'vtiiiil I'nv'loM ami llii-y wi'ir ju^i iilf of tin- ruliwiiy tt'rmiims. llic ilrfcmlniii'' iiif iml in lif liiil>li'. Iml tin' plaiiiliff !> to lind iiiit sumclMuly III' iillii'r w liii i- in lie iiiilili' in I't'spccl of tlii' r;ii'- ii;i,Hi'(if tiidsc lliicc mill"!." (Jiiiiii'v. II.. in Mn-i'lianiji v. I, ancii«li'i' <<:(•. H. ('<>..^M.A W. I-Jl (Isil). ••As to till- ca-c wliicli h:\< lircii jiiit a i-nliiciin ml iihxunldiii. Init I ilu mil sec the alisiii'dity. If I \>nnk my placr al lOnsion S(|naii' ami pay In be carrii'd tu Y(irk and am injured by tin' iii';>li;r"'m'i' iiii'alcnlalili- iiii'onvt'nii'm'cs. Ymi hook a iiarccl. and on its hcinj; lost \,- arc told Ihal Ihc ciirricr is i'cspon>il)lc only for one por- tion of the line of idaS('S ill I li.srovcr II. '.•irnci's l.s ill If ilv ji p.-ir- ' wliicli him to llhic o Tl 10 ir car- illll'llllcii il'H' llllt •• of the lint iff i> tl lilt of :i s uiijj;i- itit I ill) I )iiiy to oily Iic- iJivc my k. Hill III Ojlfll I on lis ic pcr- r of the |JVy th<' piihlic. lie is ill coiistunf com- iiiiiirK'iilioii will) his tissocialcs in tiic liiisincss ; ju' iiiis tlicir goixN l>y II ruilNvay ran not l)c >ii|i|io-i>i| in know in llii' caxf of unnillii- iioii-' lini' who iiri' tin- owners of it-' diffcicni itnitioiii. ||i> hai a ri^tlit 1(1 sii|i|ii)si' wlii'ii tin- olllri'i-; (if the coniiiaiiy at one cxtri'iiiity rccdvo )((i(i(|s to he (l»'l\vi'r«>i! at the other extienilty either tliaf llic wlmle line tielcn;,'^ 1(1 them or at all event-^ they sn repre.-ient It and that tliey coii- Iraet on that foolln)f." I.oni Craiiworth. in Direcidr-' of Hrlstol U. V. Collins, 7 II. I., ras. IDI {\s:,H). 'That I lie (lefeiKlaiitM were fdinmoii earrii'i'^' on their own line of railway U not ilis|iiileil nor eoiihl It he: hut It is s:iiil that lieynml the extent of their own line lliey are not xiilijeel to ihe llahiiities of cominoii carrh'iH lieeaiisc they onlyjmdertake to forwanl, not lo carry the •jfooiU, | am of opinion tliat the ;;oo(Im were recciveil hy (ieri'inlaiils to he carried hy tlieni a^ coinnion carriers from I'eiizaiice to Wolvcilianiploii. It witiildhe Inconvenient if we were Id hold that n|ion the con^triictioii of these facts, the plaintiff was in the h'itiiation of a per^dii who did not contract with the defendants heyond tilt' extent of their own line, or who inaile sepanit(> contracts with ii nnmlier of different canieis liciwceii j'en/iiiiee and ^Volvcl•halnl)ton." ('hanneli. it., in Will.y v. West <'onnvall K. Co., -J 11. A \. 707 (IH.VS). ••'I'hense of steam in carryiiiLC ;;o(ids and |iasseni;ei's has produced a ^reat n>volntioii in the whole Inisinees. 'I'he Minoiinl and importance of it liavc of late vastly Increased and are everyday incrcaslnjif. Tlie lar;^(' hnsiiiess between different parls of tlie eoMiitry is ddiie. as in tliis case. Iiy patties who are ass((ii;iicd in hm;; conlimioiis lines receiving;' one fare tlir(iii;:h and dividiii;; it ainon^ themselves hy mutual agreement. They act top'ther for all practical piirpes so fjir as tlieir own interests are concerned as one united and joint association. In niana;;'in;; and controlN in;i,' the business on tlieir line- liny have all the advanl.a^t's that could be in tlie whole roiiie. They nnderlake the business of comiiidn carilc!s and must be nndcrstodd to assume the |e,v;al 11; <-hai 'III ies df that biisiucss. They transact the bnsliie-s itnder a le-e of ciic'imsiaiices; hill the principles ami the , genera I (lolicy of law w idi h as an elementary iiiaNim holds the conimoii carrier II accMeiilai losses musi lie apiilied Id these nielhods of tiaiis- aiiic biisiiies.;; and ihere is c.'riaiiiiy iiolhin^; in the present le commiin tl liable f( actiii;'' ■ Odn'.rnidii of Ihe bi!siii.'>s which calls I'or anv rcla\atioM of the old rule 1/ 'MH rilK CONTKACTS Ol' (AltKI KKS. [cil. Xl, receipts for the pn»i)erly dcliveii'd to llu'iii, iind willi no iii- eouvenieiK'e at all could cliarjic tin; loss to his iieylitfciit M n ^1 'riu' grcal value of llic (•oiniinnlilii'-i traiisimrlcd over llii'si' ('oiiiici';i'i| linos; llie iiicicascd risk of loss and daiiiaj;!' from tlie iiniiiciisc disiaiii-cs (i\(T wliit'li tlicy cai'ry i;'0(i(U; llic fact thai where ^ood^ are unec! in- tnisted to I'arrieis (111 Ilie.-e liiMn' I'oiiles ilii'V are placed lievoiid all con- trol and sii|)ei'visi(iii of ilie owner, are cu;;-eii{ reasons lor lioldlnji' lliosc who associate in these eoniieeled lines to a nili' wiii"h shall ,;;i\(' eJleetual and convenieiil remedy to the owiicr wlio>e ;i;(H.ds lia.xc oeen lost or damaged on any pari of the line. .\u\ nile wiiieli ^hotdd have tlir I'lYcei lo defe.it or einliarrass the owner".- remedy would lie iu dlreci couiliel with 111" |iriiieiplc.- ami whole poliey of the eumuioii l,i\', . What liien is the situation of die owner \\ho-.c i;oo(!> lia\e hn n dain;u.ved or losi on a. conliimons line of three or an\ larpi' nmnlier of a-soii;Hi'd eai-riers. if he can look onl to tliv carrier onwlio>c jiari of 'lir ronie the daina^i" may have h.ippenecr.' In the lirsl ]i|;iee he mu.-l se! al'oui lea;niii';' where his lo-s happened. 'I'liis wduld ofii'ii tie dillicadi and ^omelilne1 iiiipossilile. .'Uippo.-e all in\oiee of llour -hipped in i;'ood order at OU'denslmri!; were found on arrixal ai i'>o>;o'i to li;i\elieeii (i;iiiiai;'ed somew here mi tin- route, or -nppose ;p trunk elieel.ed at Hm.-Iou foi' ( 'hi- cajijo was broken ojien and plundeied hei''aclied ( 'liiea,i;-.i. w hat would the owner's chance he woniiof rmdii;;n' (Ui: inwliai paiiienlai part of the roine the dannijic hap]Hned'r lie would h;'\e no means (U leaniiiii'' himself, and hewdiild not. niile-s of a ver\- eoniidinu' deiiosi- tion. r(dy on .I'ly very zealous aid in his .imicIi from tin' ilifiiu-ent ( .ir- rters assoeialc(l in the connected line. And if he -hoiuii have ihr link to make the diseov(M'y he mij;'ht lie (ilili).!;ed to :i~-e;'i hi- claim foi , om- pcnsation a;r;nnst a distant jiarly. anion^' >i!'an iei-. in <|,-.iiin-taiices such as would disconra/^e a prudent man and induce him to -i; down pa- tiently nnder his loss ratliei' than incur the e;;pen rule of the common la'\. if liie |;acka!re oi- parcel lie lost, lo accoiiu! ioilie owner foi- ii- \aiue. 'I'lie e.iii.raci oi liie >hiiiiii r ;.. with the carrier in wlio,- <■ vJiVc|!ial t'li In-! ur illr ('lYc<-l •i I'ciiiliii lal ihi'ii is li'sl (III :i (■.•irricrs, if I'' ihiiii.-i^" i ii';i;-|iiii';- ■"IllrliDic 1 iikIci- III ' ii liii' ( 'lii- i'il;i". \vii;U pellicula] ' lll>'.-|IIS (.) ii;;' (j.'posi- H'rciil lar- •' 111!' luck I I'm , iiiii- iiiiHiaiicc-. iliiwn |>;i- r I'lii-iiii!- ■ * ■'' A !• -ri'l^s lij "I Inn !•<■- Iilii|ii;i lav. .\. II. :i;;-; ■ lixi'l! < 11 N |r, !':irr|.| ,11' villi'. Ky.. • IIu'V ar<' ■I 1m' lusl, >lu|ijii I- ;. .\">', , I HI ■A'- \ ri:;|i; I" •'•' ilia; '.■H-rty liy I'll. \l.] <'<)\m:(ii\(; caimmki.-s. ;54() iiii'cnl. In sni)i)()ft of liic second do-'trir.c it is simiilv sni- swcrcd tliMt tlic cxtrMordiiiary linliiliVics of coninion carriors lailrnad >li(>iili| uni lir iciniin d in ca^c of ji,-; or ilmiiauc In Icicik for rc- iiiiiiici'alioii Id any olli< r j)!iKiy lliaii ilu' on • \,< w iiii !i Hn'v ddh ■rcu tlic ■fodtls. It would \)v a .^'I't-al liardslii]) iiidcrd to coiiiiicl tlic consiiiiior of !i fcwliiincN of lliuir tltdivcrcd to a railroad in tliis State, miukcd lo N'cw York city and whidi arc lost in tlic tniiisit. to {i'o to New York or io the intcriiicdiaic lines of road and s|icriil days and weeks ji'Mliaps. in endeav- ors to lind out on wlnit i)articiilar road the loss liapiicncd. and liavini;- a.scci'tained ii. on the event of a refusal to adjust the loss, to lirinji' a snit in the oom'ts of New York for liis tlania^-e^. Far more jnst would it lie to liold the einnpany wlio received the jjoods in the lirst instance as the rcsponsilile iiarty. and the inleniicdiate roads its aj^ents to carry and de- liver, and it is tlic most rcasonahle and jnst. for all lailroads have facili- ties not i)o-scssed liy a consi^j'iior of tracing loss(>s of property convey(nl by tlK'iii and all have or can have rnnninj;' connections with each other. Aliove all when it is considered that the rccv'iviiij; comiiany can at llie oulset relieve iiself from its common law liahilily liy a special anil deliiiite ajrreenuMit such a rule can not prejudice tli(>m."' Brcese J., in in Illinois <'cnt. H. Co. v. Frankcntieij;-. ."n 111. SS (1S70). "We feel no di-|iosi!ion to relax ilx' ride of liahilify on the jiarl of railroads now having: almost a monojioiy of tlie traii-portaiiun of all the i)i(iduct.s of the industry as well as arli'dcs of merchandise, of this ijieal and rai'Mlly dc\clopinks of the company originally shipping would sbow it was rec(>ived by the oilier and would he always in tii''ir posses-iou and of ready access, 'i'hus the inconvcni- eiic" to the road would be much less than to the single •hipiier of a par- =t¥T»'W'vw?wr»?«!»w 850 TlIK CONTHACTIS OF CAKKIKHS. [on. XI Ml J ciin not in justice ho extended beyond their own routes, where alone they hrae an ()])i)ortuiiity of ehoosinj; fen- them- selves their servants, and of i>uardinpy Its ne^iliijenee or the neijliii-ence of any oilier eonnnon I'arrier. railroad oi' iran-porlation compjiny to which snch projicrty may he delivered or over whose line snc]i i)roperty may pass, and the eonnnon carrii'r. railr(^ad or transportation conipaiiv i-siiin.if snch rci-eipt or hill of ladiii;; shall he eiititlrul to recover in a |)r(>per ai'tion the amount of any loss, damaji;*' <>r injnry it may he rc- (inired to pay to the owner of snch property from the comin(m carrier, railroad or tran.-p(irtation company thron<;li whose ne;nii^ence the loss, daniiij^e or injnry may i»e sustained." ]{ev. Slat, of .Missonri. (1870) cap. 14. !? TitlS. p. '.)."). 'I'liis provisi(m is eminently just, fi'ivin^ as it does to the shii)per a certain remedy for ihe recovery of his ujoods and entail- in<^ npon the carrier to whom tlie ;;ootls were lirst delivered no hartlsliii) at all. Ill ••The receipt shows noihinji' more than the nale places. The cnsiom of trade and ihe nalure of the hnsiness carric<| on liy ihe plaintifi's in error tended lo explain she ptirpftse of the liailineiii. and accordini;' lo ,h" i'\ideiicc c\hiliiied in Miis lansewcnld. 1 iliiril;. inalvc lliem liable as ctimnion canicrs from New York to Alb, my. ami as forwarders beyond that place, 'i'he (k'fendants ilk error can n'" lui-ini -.-. and ijial the Ontario carrieil frei;j;lit oidy between N'ew York jiid Aiiiaii* . li is not necessary, as sn^ijested by the Sn- preine Conn, that ilie i-cceipt sho\d|><>rlatioii -. tlaina;,'f i.iiciicc ,){ y to wliicii l>r<)|H'riy I '•"iiipaiiv ' li:irclslii|) 1 a Iiox of IS received lou -lu,at s not piC- •poriaiioii lialllle dl" cpiaiii the ed in Miis roiii Xcu efi'iidaiiis ire of ilic lietweeil r the Sii- > Alliany. ises from lied cdii- :iiid such trade. If > rceeivo Itli ordi- oukl uot § 23!). 77k^ L',i;//!s/, lJonce to the place of dcMinalion. The rule es- tablished liy the Supreme t'ourt that the name of a place marked on a i)ox of nierchandi>e im|)lies a efuilract to deliver at such place withoni any reference to the nature and exlcni of th(> business and employment of the carrier is frauicht with i'onse(|uenee.s most alarndnjjf to all who ni'i' en;ja!ies. exposed to famine, to the wintry storms, to wild beasts and savages: and if I'rovidence should protect him through every d.Migei- he return^ after years of suffering a worn out beg- gar to a ruined iiome. Tills maybe considered an extreme easct: yet I conceive it is no more than carrying out the principle to its legitimate and cerlain results. At tlie same lime this receipt was given another re- ceipt was given for a box of mci-chaiidise marked •(;, S. JIubbartl. Chi- cago. Illinois." '!'he same principle wiiicli makes tlie defendants below lialile as common carriers to l.ilile I'alis would extend tin ir liability lo Chicago and even to Oregon and China. If they receive a chest of tea markeiyy- >\r)2 TlIK CONTRACTS OK CAIMMKltS. [ciI. XI. ill DcM-hvsliirc, u place hcvoiul its route, wliirh ended at I'rcston. The earrier was to i)e paid at tlie end of the journey. The pared liavinir l)een h)sl after it was foi- warded from Treston. Koi.ri:, 15., (liani(Ml the jury thai J».!!:.4 5U;;l': »;. its ultiiniUcdcstinalioii would hi- llu' . husincss coiild not !)(' carried on iiiidi-r ilic opcnUiini of such a nilo. If a coiitraiM is to he iiniilk'd incrcly from a iiiaik upon tin' box and willioiit icfcroiicc to the iiatinv of tlii' ciniiloymi'nl or hiislncss of llic parly, then every oannun wlio rooeivts ii marked bale of nierehandlse is in dillicuhies of deliuinj;' by spei'ial con- tract the precise liability which the carrier is to incur for <'ach box or paeka<;e of merchandise which may lind ils way on bo:',i(l his vessel. But upon the principles laid down by the Supreme < 'ouri there can be no necessity of i)ro(!ucin;^ a recei})t in order to tix ihi' liability of the com- mon carrier. (Joods may lie delivered on board a tow-boat lyiiuj.' at .New- York, directed to f ils delivery to;;;'! Ill M. XI. CM. XI ■] CONXrt riN(i (AiMM.'OKS. .^T ittMt lied ii )f 111 s f or- V tllilt IISlllCSS 'oiilnici ff'icncc 1 every liiiij^ei'. xin the :oii will rdesli- IllJIlS- einilor. lie city 1 iiiMiiy ( iiMin- iiii aiiil -ik and -i>ts ill Its iiiid liarae- le lield iiiiiil it lilily is into a ■iiiiseiil at tho if mere epiita- I'lidiii^- (Is are iiiri-ied IS fall 1 Cdll- t(ix or vessel. COIII- I New west; ir ex- I- with led to ulicrc :i coininoii ciiri'icr takes into his (vnn h pan-el directed to a |);iftieiii;!i' place and doc^s not liy positive jiji-fecineiil limit liis resp()iisil)ilit\;t() a part oiilv of the distiuice. it is y>/'/;//'^y<^/c/VM',viilciice ol' an underlakino' on his part to carry ihiit p.'ircel to the phiee to which it is directed, iind thiit the same ride iipplied silthouuii the jjhice was hoyond the liinits within which he in u'cneriil professed to perform the duties of a carri(;r. The jury found for the plaintiff and the case was taken to the Court of lv\clie(|iier, where the direction was iipproved." In Cdl/iiis r. IJn'sfol and ExHi'v Jtalhmii/ (Joiiijinin/," the phiintiff delivei-ed at the station of the (Jreiit Western Railway Com[)any at l>iitli it van lotid of fur- niture to be conveyed to 'ronpitiy. The line of the hitter company eiuleil at Bristol, sit which place that of the de- fendant company I)e_ifaii, hut the goods would have to he delivered to a third company before rc!ichin|iortini;- ihendoilsto Alliany. the exieni of his idiite. e.nd there de]i\-erinii: them to a safe and resi)oiisil)le line of boats on the eauid, linds too late thai his resi)oii>ii)ility extended thronjiii a dozen re-sliijimenl- and eai'fiaii'es l)y land and water for thousands of miles, and is tinally made to jiay for the loss of the floods oeeasioneil hy the dishonesty or earelessne» of some one at a |)oint be- vond the lioekv .Mounlain- 'I'here ai'e manv men in this State who are i^au'ed ;;s eommoii carriers in the transportation of the produce of the eomit'.'\' b\ land One of these men reeeivt load of tloiir on board his wa.u'on for the purpose of (leli\eriiiif it at some iioiiif on the Krie canal, the l)arrels Ix-in;;' marked and directed to a tow n in the interior of the Stale of Maine. The carrier nej^lects to make a special eontraet that tiis liability is to cease, at the point of delivery on the eaiial ; but lie de- livers tli(^ Hour 111 ii'ood order on the canal, and the property is for- wardeil from one line of transportation to anollier until it [lasses into the hands of the last carrier on the route, by whose want of care it is Id under such eirenmstaiices lie ii most severe and liar.«)i lost. It won ride of law which should make the person who tirst undertook the trans- portation of the nrtiele liable for its loss." JJhoades. Senator, in Van Santvoord v. St. .lolin. supra. II S M. & W. -121 (1S41). 'm lOx. "ilO (1850). 23 354 THE CONTRACTS OF CAIUMEHS. [(II. XI. I i llic (ttlicr silk". To l)o .sent to 'l\)n|ii;iy station and (l(li\- ci'cd to II. C Collins, consiuiu'c, or liis airmt.'" One of the conditions cxcinptcd the ('oni|):injj' from liability for loss Ity lire. 'I'lic (Jrcat ^^'('stl•nl Company rcccivt'd the carriai:!' money for tlu' Avhole distaiu'c from Hath to Torcjiiay. On the arrival of tiio iroods at Jiristol tlicy were [)ut on the line of the defendant's, \vlieri> they were destroyed hy tii'e. An action heinu" hronuht aj>ainst them to recover for the loss, it was h(*kl hy the Coui't of Kxche((ner that the contract was with the (Jreat ^^'est"rn Company, ami that the thdV'iidant company was not liahle. This decision was reversed hy tiir Conrt of KxeluMpier Chamher,'' hnt the case heinti" taken to the Ilonse of Lords tin- rnlinji' of the Court of Exche(|ucr was held rijiht. " I think,'" said Lord Ciiki.msi-oki), " thai the contract was entire; was for the whok' journey from liath to Tor<|uay and was made with tl^' (Jreat Western Railway Comi)any alone; that the jjoods were carried on the defendants' railway under the contract, and that the de- fendants are conse(|uently either not lial)le at all, as no agreement was enteretl into with them, or that if the con- tract in any way attaches to them, the exception as to loss hy tire accomi)anios it and exonerates them from liahility." '* In Coxo)i r. (j'tTd/ Wrsfcni llallirdi/ Coiiipaui/,^'' cattle were delivered at the London Station of the Shri'wshurv tS!: Hereford Railway Company to he carried to liirminirham. The line from London to Shrewshury helonjred to that <'om- pany ; from Shrewshury to liirminiiiiam to the defendants. The hill of ladinijf contained this condition : '• For the con- venience of the owner the company will receivt; the char«ivs [)ayahle to other companies for conveyance of such cattle over their lines of railway, l>ut the company will not he .sul)ject to liahility for any loss, delay, default or damaii'c arisiiif^ on suck other railway.'' One sum was charS). ".") II. & \. •>:■{ (l.S(!0). (-11 XI.] rONNKCTINd CAUIMKltS. 355 liirminuiiani on tlio line of the coiwu'ii'iiiir railuav. In an actinn aiiiiinsf this company it was iu-Ul thai llif coatvart for llic entire ciirriai^e was with th(^ Slircwslmrv »Sc lU'rcfoi'il Railway, and that the (h'l'vndanl was not liahU'. KvfrrrinLr to the condition in the l)ill of hidinjj.-, Mijamwki.i., ,1., said: " Th.cy do not say that tlicy will not carry on another rail- way, hut only tiiat they will not lie lial)lc for daniair'c aris- inir on such railway. So that tluM-e is an absolute n-fusal of liahility for damage, hut not a refusal to carr}'." The Knirlish doctrines then is that in the ahscnce of a special con- dition the first carrier is liable to the dostination ; he is ex- clusively liable; for want of i)rivity of contract the con- nectinj2' carriei" can not be sued by the shipper even though his nejiliiience caused the loss."' § 240. Til Amerivan Doctrine. — Although all the argu- ments of 1(1 . . enience as well as justice are in favoi of the English rule, it must he admitted that it does not, excei)t in a few Slates, prevail in this country. The fair result of the American cases limits the liability of the carrier, Avhen no special contract is made, to his own line.'" It is tru(sthat in Illinois,"^ Tennessee,'" Iowa,™ Florida'-' and New Hamj)- I'Cases just cited ami followed in Collins v. Bristol &o. R. Co.. 11 Ex. 700 (IS.-)!;); Scothoiii V. South Staffordshire K. (\>., 8 Ex. lUl (lsr.:J) ; Myttoii V. .Midland \l. Co.. 4 II. & N. Gl.") (18,")<,l) ; Crouch v. Great West- ern \l. Co.. •-' II. A N. 4!)1 (ltC)7) : Great Western K. Co. v. Crouch. :$ II. it X. 1S;{ (lsr)S) ; Wilhy v. West Cornwall H. Co.. :> II. ct N. 70.$ (lsr)S) ; Coxon V. (Jreat Western li. Co.. .■> II. & X. 274 (18tiO). '" Mr. Justice Hunt in Railroad Co. v. Trait, -ll Wall. 123 (1874). '"Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Frankenberj;-. 54 111. 88 (1870); Erie 11. Vo. V. Wilcox, 84 111. 2;i9 (187(1); Illinois Cent. li. Co. v. Copehmd. 24 111. 332 (18G0); Chica},'o Ac. 1?. Co. v. People, m 111. 3(J.") (1870); United States Express Co. v. Haines. ('.7 111. 137 (1873) ; Adains Ex. Co. v. Wil- son. 81 111. 330 (187G) ; Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. Johnson, 34 111. 38i) (18G4); Illinois Cent. It. <'o. v. Cowles. 32 III. IIG (18C3) ; Ohicaj^o &i: It. Co. V. Montfort. GO 111. 17.") (1871); Field v. Chicajro Ac. It. Co., 71 111. 4.")8 (1874) ; Milwaukee »tc. It. Co. v. Smith, 84 111. 23!). w Louisville &.v:. It. Co. v. Cainpl)ell. 7 Ileisk. 253 (1872) ; East Te.uies- see i"ic. R. Co. v. Rogers. G Ileisk. 14;: (1871) ; Western Ac. It. Co. v. McElwee, G Ileisk. 208 (1871)- Carter v. Hough. 4 Sneed, 203 (1850); East Tennessee Ac. It. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Coldw. 272 (18G0). *' Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 3G Iowa. 181 (1873) : Angle v. Mis- sissippi Ac. It. Co.. !) Iowa, 487 (18.")',)). 2' Bennett v. Filyaw. 1 Fla. 403 (1847). ;?.')(; riir, ((>Ni'KA( rs ov cmivavms. [< i\'>ul;,is ;i(IIi!Ti'fi lo. 15ut in Hie oilier Staics il is rcji'iird'.';! ;is tlir .Vnu'ricaii doclriiic ihiii wlicrc a. (.'Ui'niT rcci-ivcs yoo'.l.-^ niarUcil for a particular (h'sliiialion, hcyond tlic routi' for wliirli lie i)rot'('.-s(>s to carrvand hcvoiid liiti (criniiius vS his road, lie is only hoiiiid lo transport and deliver tlieiii aecordinu' to the esta.l)lislied usa/ie of his busi- ness and is -lol liahle for losses Ix-yond his own line.-'^ § 241. H7u'c/i Ciirricr Ma;/ hf Sucil. — It has been note(l that one ( f the eons(>(|uenees of the Kni^lish (loetriii(> lias l)(>(Mi to restrict tli(> riirhl of action ajiiuiist the first carrier, even thouiih the loss or daiiiau'i' may hav(> occurred t!irou<>;li the fault or nea"Ie( I of ihe one souuiil to l)e chariicd,'-'' This portion of the Knii'iish rule has been rej7 (JSliS); ( 'olicil V. Soul lici'll K\. Co.. !.") (ia. I IS (^1S7-J) ; Soinlu'iii Kx. Co. v. .sjica. ;;s <;a. .M'.i ( isiis). -' Biirfoii--lis V. Xonvicli iVr. K. Co.. 100 .Ma-s. -JO (lS(;s): l',ai)rock v. Lake .Slioic i^r. 1{. Co.. ID X. Y. K'l (IS7-J); J{ool v.Crral Wrslcni I{. Co.. I.") N. V. .")2t (1S71); J{>s'il V. riiitcil States lOx. Co.. IS N. V. > 1 1S72) ; Jomii'-ion v. Caiiidoii Ovc. It. Co.. ! Am. I,. ]{i'ji'. '2\'>'> (ls,")(;); l-'.irnii'rs i^ic. Hank v. Clianipliin 'I'rans. Co.. K; Vl. ,VJ (ISII); Cutis v. Hraiii(■.() (IS70) : (.'oiulict v. (Jraiid Trunk I?. Co.. ."I'.t N. Y. rm (lS7:i): St. .lolm v. Van Saiitvoor(l.2."> W.iid.. (Kill (isil ; : .v. ,•. (1 Hill, l.")V (184:!) ; Coiivcr.sc v. Xorwicli ac It. Co.. :'<■'> <'oiiii. IiJi; (ist;,')) ; Lanili V. Cainileii Ac. U. Co.. IC .X. Y. 271 (1S71); Darliu,';- v. IJostoii Ac. I?. Co., 11 Allen. 2:1.") (ISCm) : I'liillips v. Xortli Caroliiia IJ.C.... 7S X. C. 2!)! (1S7S); Hood V. XtMV York Ac. I{.«'o..22 Conn. .■>(»2 (is.-):)); I{ailroad Co. V. Pratt. 22 Wall. 12:$ (1S74) ; IJailroad Co. v. Maniifiiciurinjj; (.'0.. Kl Wall. :ns (1-72); Crawford v. Sonilicrn It. Assn.. ."il .Mass. 222 (1S7.")); Camden Ac. II. Co. v. For>yHi. tJl I'm. St. 81 (isu;)) ; Irish v. Milwaukee, Ac. K. Vv.. 1!) Minn. :!7l5 (1872) : Klmoiv v. \au<;atuck K. Co.. 2:5 Conn. 4.')7 (IS").-)): Haltimore Ac. R. Co. v. Schumacher. 2!l Md. 1(18 (USdS) ; Mc- MiMaii V. Micliij,'aii Ac. 11. Co.. 10 Mich. 7!> (18(17) ; Brinliiall v. Saratoga Av-. K. Co., :!2 Vt. OIJ."! (181)0); Inhabitants v. Hall, (il ."^le. :>\7 (187:1); Sl;inner v. Hall, f'.O Mo. 477 (1872); roiklns v. Portland Ac. J{. Co. 47 Mv. r)7.'{ (18.-)!)) ; Nutting v. Coiuicctletit Ac. li. Co., 1 Cray, .■)()2 (18.-)4). *iA)Ur, § 2:5!'. 2"vlH.e, §240. y^ il. \I. CI! X..] (•<)Nm;(TI.\<; cAi.'kiK 357 Mild Jili il.s oilier Mtion, 'voiid !ll)(l !)iisi- iiofcd llilS irnci', rough ■iic (I. ■-'•■' 'llli.i- (• fol- V the ill ;il- •iillicrii (ISIi.s). I'lii'U V. fill I{. |s.")(i) ; Ills V. Hill, /mill i I road lUlklM! L'oiiii. ; Mo- il toga X7'.i) ; 'o. 17 Wiivs lie ;i'i.ir,.^t \\iv c'li'i'icr in \,1i.im' .'ii.^l when 1 oii\' llie Sj)(r!(il Co/ifn/iis. — Uul even in the Slates in wiiich the Aiiieri;:iii docti'lne is followed, there iire eiises to Ic/ nmiH! in wiiieh cMrriers h:ive been held liiihle for the def;iil!ts of eniineelino' lines. This has lieeii usnallv (III the iie<'ial uiiderlaUinir eviileneed in- the terms of the rei-eiiit or hill of ladinii' iiiveii for the o(„)ds, I^>canii)les of these ure shown helow.-' IJnt this iiia\ ofti-ii -•' 'I'lii' lullowiiii^- iii-iiuiiniiv-wi'i'c li lil to lie tliroii,L;li (•oiitiMcl-' : ■• \i UMoM' ( i.NTUAi, Railway CoweANv, \ r.riM.iNCTON. Sept. i:i. is;;(i. j Kcccivi'ii I'nnii W . K. Ia'wIs. 1 liox. \\oij;lit ;(.■)() *• JIai'U iiiiil iiuiiihcrs. W. 1{. Lewis. IJidoklyii. Ict to the paper iiku'Ii iniporlaiiee is aitaclied to the fact that the hlanks were left iintilled." ( 'lilts V. Uraiiieici. fj N't. ."(Hi (lS7(t). " \e\\ York. Now I!. Is.'i:!. Keceived of .1. II. Schroeder. six hoxes, * '* lo Ik loiv,arded p( i IIiid>on J\iver Jt.iilro.id freij;ht train to Uhi- ciJ.'io."" Sch'iied.r v. liiidstni River li. Co.. TiDiu'r. T).") (lS,"i.")), 'I'lii' tii~i earlier i.axe a reeei|il for cotlon •• to he dtdivered on pi'csent- atioii Ol till- receipt al Cliaries'ion.'" The cottiin reached the terminus of ill" til-! carrier in safety, where it was delivei'cd to a connectinj;' iMi'iier ;o he plat )f declination, ia wIiom' charn'e it was losi. T le Uv<' ca lier W.I- li'ld liahle. Kvie v. Laurens li. Co.. 10 Uieli. (S, C.) :IS-J (ISriV). in a siiii ai^ain--' a railroad company it ap- pi'ared that a licx had been sent iiy the iilaiutilf ami that a receipt was .i;i\('ii for il 1)_\ the C( lupany with the printed Iieadiiiii' '• throii!;!it <'oiitracl.'" Anion;:: the c(niditii;iis atlac'ied wa- the following: •• The responsi'iiliiy of this conipaiiN a>- a common carrier nnder this liill of ^gj^,-^,5gmw'«w7«. 8A8 TIIK CONTHACTS OF rAIJIMKIJM. [C'll. XI. ri'-ir:s m liuHiij; to Icniiiinitf wlicii thf floods arc iiiilnailfil from llic rar- at ilif |)1 ICC of (1( Ihcry." 'I'lic bill of lailiiijj; aNo ■^lipiilatcil tliai llic rcs|poiisl- liilityof tlic company should (case at llic icimimis of lis road. 'I'lic ev- idence showed that tliro\i;^h ficlj;lil wa< iie\e|- unloaded at the lermlmis of the defendant'-' road. I»n! Ilial it was forwarded to the place of de>ti- nalion in the eai in winch it was received. It was lield thai tlie com- pany w;vs liahle for a Io.>s oi-cuiiinj; l)eyond liie ternninis of ii> own road. 'I'oledo &v. U. Co. v. Merriman. .VJ III. \-2:\ (ISC'.i), In the foliowin;;' iustaiiocs the caniers weic held not lialilc foi dcfanli- heyond their lin(>s. When* a siamtt- provided ihat lailroad companies shoidd not l)e liahle for ;L;oods after lliey were delivered to a conncctinjj; carrier, it was held tliat where a railroad company reccised enods I'n a tliroiiijjh rate, payable at the end of tlie route, and jjavc a wrillcn receipt to that effect, tills was not a conlr.'ict liindinj^ tin- company for the whole (INtance. Kasf Tenn. K. Co. v. Monlijomery, 1 1 (ia. i.'7S(|S7l). I'lie |)laintiff delivered a packaec addressed to the con-ii.'.iiec in \ew ^aid (he freight for the whole (li-^tance. ami took a receipt. >i|atiiij; tliai •■ lliis company is to for- ward the same to its atjent nearest or most con\enient to desiinalion only, and then to deliver llie same to oilier parlies, iliey to complete the tr.insporiation; such delivery to terminate all liability of tlie companr for sncli packa;;c.*" 'I'lic company's route i-xlcnded no farther ilcui Lynchlmr;;;, from which point ihe packa^jc wa< carried by the Ailam- Express Coinpan\ to New 'I'oik. niidcr an arraiijifnient by which the two companies sliari'd in tlie trei!;lit i>rii ni/n for the w hol<' distance. 'J'lie jiackago was safel> delivered lo the Adams i;xitrc,«< Company at I,ynchhnraiiy wa.s liahle for the los<. St. .loiiii v. Kxpress Co.. I Woods. Cl-i (ISTI). An express ci^mpany rec<'ived a packa<;;e of money from a bank at '1' to be transmitled lo K. and in its recei|)t it iindi rtdok to forward it to tlie nearest i)lace of desiinalion reached by this company; by the conditions in tli«> receipt tlie com|)any was not to be lialilc '• cxeejjt as forwarders only, or for any tlefanlt or neiilijjcnce of any iiersoii or corporation to whom" the jiackage should be delivered, "at any place off the cvtalilishcd route run by tliis comiiany." and sik h peisoii or corjioiation was to In- taken to be the ajjent of the consi/jjiior. To leacli I, the jiackajic was lo be eariled by three other express eompanies. but tlie consi^invs at K refns<'d to receive it. and directed it to lie iciiiined to T. to wiiicli place it was returned by the same routes. On its arrival tliere and leinrn to the hank, it was found that part of the iiiomy had bei'ii abstracted. The court held that the company receiving' the packii^e under tlie conditions recited w<'re only liable at most as *'airiers to the end of its route, iiud beyond that only as forwarders: ami tlial in an action by ihe bank against the receivinjj company the jury should have bciMi iusiructed ihat if the evidence satisfied IIkmii lliat the loss had ni>t occurred on ihe loiile of the defendant, either in n'oin<;' or lelurninu'. biii on seme nther pan illki; ^ ('II. XI ilt tl|^■ 'pnlisi- I'lli- .-v- • ■niiimi-i if (loli- llC I'Olll- UC!.i|||N ii|iiiiiic- lllfclilljr "II il I j'cct'ipi <• Wlluli' 'III.' for ili(« • In |'(p|-- liniitimi • Ific llll' 'iniiiinr IMII Ills lirli llic istMlicc. piiiiy Ml iiMl I lie ■s ( 'oin- 'iiipjiiiy (1^71). Ik ill T t In lllc iiiilidiis t \{. XI .T 11 Adii viinl crs ilioM lo l>]islMMl lo I it' was lo < at I, 1 place mil to 'J'l liti 10 oils ami o;!iil. lai I I ;-oiit(. I'an •] (;<)NXK( TlXd CAIMMKIIS. ;{;')!» uf llic roiilc. aiiit lliat in llir pfifonnaiu'i' of lis dniics as a forwiinltT. il hail iiscti n'asoiialiii' (lilliij;fiiic in ilic st'lci'lion of proper canieiN. ilie ijefeiiilillll Woillil liol he lialile. In |||i> ease Siiii "Wool i, .1. till: 'IN holil llial a forwaiiler nieiely is hoiiiiil noi merely lo eloar his own sl»iil-. nf iiej,'liu;enee. hiil lo prove when, where ami how. Ilii- loss oi cnrietl. woiiM lie to impose upon him an olilipiiion wliieli attaches only to a ear- lier, ami nol loan onlinary hailee for iilre. A carrier w ho is iioiiiiil. ai all eseiils. to deliver safely. iim»t hiiii^i himself hy positive evidence williiii the exceptions. Not so an ordinary liailce. Ii isenoii;fii forliim lo sali>fy ;i jury. Iiy tlie liesi evidence in iiis power liial he has performed Ids duly with care and lldelily. and llial Ihe loss has nol risen from anv defanll of liimself or Ids servanlH. American Kx. ( 'o. v. Second N'aliomd Hank, tl! !'a. St. :}!tf f i^i"!). Astipulation in llie receipt of an exiiressmaii for a pack:i;.!;e aildrcs^ed to a consi^i-iice al a pariicnlar place in a ceriain city iliat il •• is to lie forwanleil to our ajjem-y lu'arcst or most conveiiienl to d''-iinalion only." /«■/afc delivery of the pa Il his own place of Imsine-s in llial city, and its safe keepiii;,^ lliere upon arii\al. If he liasa>;ciils tin le w iio lialiitiially deliver siicii packapccial addrc»- of cacli. he is lioiinil to deliver llie packai^c as it i« specially addressed accnnj- inj; lo the rcasonalile nsa,y;es of his Imsiness. Snllivan v. 'i'hompson. !»ii Mass. "i.")'.* (l.SiiS). 'I'lie fact thai a company doiii^ Imsiness as common carriers l»et ween particular points have iiitriisied Itiank envelopes. ha\ in;;' their name printed upon tlicm. to a ciisiomer for convenience in "enilin<;' money. do(!s not enaltle him lo charge llieni as common carriers for losses beyond their roiile. Iiy adtliessiii^ the envelope containin;j money lieloii^;in^ to plaintiff, a liiird person, lo a place lieyond the end of the route, ami delivering' il to liieni to he transmitted. So held where tlie receiitt driven hy the carriers lo siicii ciislomer for the i)acka^e. exinessly excliitled liahilily beyond ihe lerminiis. l'emler^a>l v. .Vdiims Kxpress <'(>.. 101 Mass. l-H) (isr.li). The supeiintendent of the defendant, a rail- road company, wrote a letter to il. sayin;; llial tiie company had made arraii;;emeiils for sending- cotton tlinm^h to New York Iiy its ow ii and comiectin^ lines willionl detention, and soliciting;' his l)ii>incss. A showed the letter to B. w ho shipped ceriain cotton to .New York on ile- defendanfs railroad and conncclin^ lines as described in the letter. The conn li<>ld tliat as Ii had not nolilied the defendant that he had shipped the cotton under the terms of llie letter, llie letter did not constitute an i'xpn defendant lialile for delay occmrin^ beyond tiie lermimis of its own line. Kast Tennessee Ac. J{. Co. v. Mont;;omery, 44 Ga, 27>^ (1871). Acoiitract between a c()nsi;;iior and an express company wliich. by its terms, is to terminatt^ upon the delivery of llie packan'e at a lerlaiii point lo aiiotlier <'(inii)any to complete the transportation, and wliicii contains no jirovi- sioii as to llie liability of tlie second company, can have no effect in de- termining siicli lial)ilily in llie absence of any arraniiciiicnt between the two companies for the transportati m- ?■< Im- >li(iu m w illnHil Mil ('\|>n'>-> roiili'Mct Itv t'vidclicr iinlicMl- iiitf till iiih'iilioii (liiit the cMrrijii:!' >lioiil.i orililllliliTi' r\ri'|il :is I'oiwiiriicis only."' 'I'lir linr ul lln' roiii|i.iii\ cinlt'd ill \i'v\ Voi|>. TIm- i'oiii'I IicIiI iliiit ii w.i- iioi ilii' i|iil> ol ilic ('oiii|iiiiiy lo i.tri) ihc pjickii;;!' to |),'ilton. prr-ciit ii to ijir luiiik lor ri'ili'iii|ition. uihI ii'i'civ)' illlll I'cliM'll tllr lirocccd-. or if not rrijii'iiH'iI. to I'cllll'll tJK' pilfKilUi' ; '"I! Iliiit it wii- oiil\ till' (Inly of till' i'oni|i;iiiy to (mi ry it to New 'tiiikjinii jpIiicc it ill till' iliimls of ii colillcrliiiM' r,ilii;i:ill.V. Itccil \. llliti'il Slate K\. Co.. I-' N. Y. HI'J ils7i.'!. WliiTi' rottoii is in Im> tr.iii-|iorii (i from oiii' poll to .iiiotiiri'. pai'tly li\ sii'Miiirr iiiid pai'tl,\ liy railroad, and llic liill of ladiiii^. coxcriii;; llir wliolr lonii' for wliidi an ciuiic fn'i;;iil i> paid, excepts tlie daiiicer of lire, and till' cotioii i« Imiiied liy spaik- from a |o. eomoti\('. tlie owner niii-t liear ilir lo-«, ((akey v. (iordon. 7 I. a. Ann. 'JM.'i (IS-'iL'). And a iK.liee tliat llie earrier will iioi lie ii'-ponsilde for lia^- irajje lieyond Ids own line will he valid a- iiiiain^t tlie pas«eni,ri'i'. alllioii;;li lie reeeives the fare for tl iitire route, liie notice s!;iiii,M' tii^ii III,, carrier acteij as ap'iit of the coniiectiii;; carriers. I'cnn>yl\ania It. ( 'o. v. Sc!iwar/,cnlier;r,'r. I."> I'a. St. "JOS (isi;:!). An e\|ire-- company j^ave a receipt for ;;()ods marked •• .\. Kin;:'. ( 'liftoii lloiisc. \\ iml-or. \. S.. ( '. <). 1).. ii!i:i7il. from 'rmiier's Kxpress. Hostoii. .^I.i-s." |i appeared tli.ii 'riiriier's KN|iress was a conncctiii^j' carrier. I'ainl c\idcncc wa> admit - led to prove tlie i,ieanin;r of ilic mark ■■('.(>. |».." ami thai it meant ■■ collect on delivi ry." 'I'lie defendant offered then to pio\e tliat liy llie custom ami nndersiandin;; of e\pre>s com|>anies and tlie piiMic. this meant tliat llie money menlioiKMl was to he collecied on deli\(r,\ to .\. Kin<;: hut tli iirt liehl that Ihc contract wa> a plain one lo collcet on delivery to Tiiriier's Kxpress romp;iny: tiiat the c. idenee was therefore not admissihle. and llial the defendant wa^ lialilc for not haxiii;;' col- lected the money from 'rnrner's Kxpress ( ump.in^. noiw illisiaiidine; it liad receive(l the ji'oods under a conlract^liinitiii:j its liahilily to dama;;e or loss ((ceiirriii;? \. \. •J(l() (IS7:{). 'I"he follow in;;- instrument was iieid hy the Supreme Court of ('onnee- ticiit not to lie ii throii;ih contract. >• N'f.w V(h;k. Ma\ 7. isiil. •• I{eceivcd from .lolin .M. Pendleton iV ('o..iii ;;dod order, on lioaril the Norwicli and Worcester Boat. Iionnd for Stafford. ('!.. tlie follow in;; jiaeka^lfes : ••Sixtv-two ((!2) Hales Wool. 11.7."><; His. " Marks. ■• A. '• K. .\. ('on\er«e v\^- Son. ('. of H. "Stalford. t'l. Tarker."' 1:1 'II. M. (11. XI (•<»\Ni'.rri\(i cAKifir.itH. ;u;i IIKIIC.-It- ii^ ll\ I'l.'lltl- let fi' <'\rt'|it YoiK. ■:iir\ I lu- ll 'ri'i', !■ !;'■: Inn I <>i'k Mini I Slates i| flnlii I ilii' liill i^ I'iiiil. I'lii .'I III. .M. Ann. fMrlKi-- lllllnl|;iil iirri IT Xiivr :i I. S.. ( '. <'i| lli.'it » .'nlinil- ' nicaiit il liy the |lii\ ihU '> lo A. 'iil'Ct (III •icfdl iilin,:L,^ It i canici' uf llic fr('i;^lil chiirocs fdi' Hie ciilirc (lisdiiitc,'" or uilicr rlicmiiHtiiiiccs rjiisiiiir » -iiiiilur |»r»'suin|)ti(in.-''' .\!nl wIhtcm piirliKTsliip hclwccii a iminltci' of ciirricrs t-xisis hv wliii-h Ihcv arc lo divide the protits and losses of the entire Irallir, aiiv oni- of liie earriei's inav l)i^ lirllni\('il li\ lire uii tlii' afiiMiKniii uf iIh- m\t (la\ , wliirli was SiMuIa.v. 'I'lii'ic wa- a ruiilraci fur the ilnuiij.fli i ariia;;c uf fn iulil lic- Iwi'f'ii ilic (li'fi'mlanl ami a railruail i'uin|iaii,v. 'I'Ik' ilcft'iiilantV line Icr- iiiiiiaii'd at New i.umliMi. wlicii' Ilic railroad tiniM-oinniciicRd. I'lii- de- pot wliei-e llie ifoods were -tored was tlie place (hwiirnaled for llie di'liv- vvy of icli iVc. li. Co., ;t;i »'unn. ICiii (,IMm). '"' Itt-ed V. Saralo;,M\e. i:. (o. l:» Wend. .Mil (Isits^; Si. .lulin v. K\- prt'KS (;o.. 1 Woods. (;12 (1S7I): l'.er;j v. Narrajxan-eit Steani.-liip ("u.. ."> I)aly,:i!il (ISTI) ; Camlee v. t'ennsylvania U. Cu.. -Jl Wis. ."iS-J ( |st;7) : Kailruad Co. v. AndroscoM;;;i,, MJHs. ■>■> Wall. .V,)l (,1S7I). -'•' In ascei'taininjx the rclaiiun existinji; lielwcen eonneeiin^ lines of carriers the parties are iioi contined to what is said in the hill ul' ladin;;'; lint the shipper may introdnce the way hills of the carrier with whom his eontraet was made, the .-laii'iiienlMif llie aiccnts of I he carrier made when (he hill of ladin;: w as i;i\en. or any special contract or nmlcisiandinj; hehveen the parlies al the time the ;:;uuds were shipped. S!..(ohn v. K.spri'ssCo.. I Woods. (;I2 (1S71). Uohinsun v. Merclianis Dispaleli Co., ■iTt Iowa. I7(t(l.s77): Root v. <;reai Wesicin }{. Cu.. ir. N. Y. .VJl (IS71); Uailroad Co. v. I'ralt. J-J Wall. P-M (^1S7I): Hill Manf;,M'u. v. HosKni »lie. K Co.. 104 Mass. t-J-J (IS7(»); (iniinhy v. Vandert)ill. 17 N. V. :?(lli (\s:tS). "' Wliere one railroad company aur<'e- wilh anotlier for a cunijiletn system of interchange of IraHictVum all the siatiuns of one eunijiaiiy, and Itovond its limits t u all |>a ris of the oilier coniiiany and l)eyunipanic- were ainalj;aiiiated, eitliereomiiany .lKii^««n*!»Sl*!ei»>T<*«!>r-f»ra«(>>«-j^ 3()2 THK CONTUACT8 OF (AKIUKKS. [("H. Xl. 3tf .' U- § 24ii. UV/f^n Coniiccd'iH/ (■ttn't'cr Mat/ ( 'hilnt Exemplionx in First Contract. — A bill of huliiijr luiiy |)i-()viik' that its stip- ulations shall cxtciid to and cniin' to tlu^ Ix'ncHt of each and every company or person lo whom the carrier issuiii<>: it may entrust or deliver the jjroperty, in whicii ease its terms will define and limit the lial)ility of every succeedinii' carrier." And in the absence of an expicss provision to this effect a connectinju^ carrier who receives j^oods from aiu)ther to he for- warded to theii' destination is entitled to the I'xcejjtions which the latter has made with the shij)per, in casi' the con- tract with the oriirinal carrier was for the entire route. '- Tiic will Iw held as the aj^ciil of ilic other fur inakiiij;' ('(Hitiaets as lo cairiajie of fieiniitover its load, (illl t. Maiirhesier ^c. |{. Co.. [,. I{.S(^. H. VM\ (1S7I5 1. If two e\|ir('ss coiiipaiiies nimiinu'as cafi'iers over one coiuimioiis route, and divldinij in-olits. employ one inessenirei- who has the ;;oods in chaiue dininj;- the whole tiansil. and who l)y :i:ri»'<'inent lietwceii tin' eoinpanies. is icnafded as the a;;eiil of oni' eompanv oidy np to a eeitaiii point on the liin-. anil as thea^'ent of Ihe othef eonipany fioni thein'e to the end of the line, it wonld >eein that the tiist eompany eonid not feliesc itself from responsihility by ;;i\inj^ a iceeipt to the eonsiiciioi- -tipnlaiing that the liahility of the (dini)any . ' nld cease on deliveiy of the f;i)ods receipted for to another carrier, elaiminn' thai the two eompanies were different, and that the nn-sseii^er (••■aM'd to lie the ajit'iit iit the liist car- rier at the])oinl mentioiH-d.and hecann> theaj;'enl of tliesi-coinl company from that time, and that the los- occurred beyond the point on the liiu' thus a;;r( 3d upon as bein^thc dividing;' point l)etween the two companies. Hchnlter v. Adams ]v\pre>s Co., (I Cent. L. .F. I7"i (1S7S; ami see Wilson V. (.'hesai)euke itc. K. (_'o.. 21 (Jratt. (I.M (1S72); Carter v. IVck.4 Sneed. 2(i;5 (1S.-)G); Mont^'om<"ry itc. J{. Co. v. Moore..")! Ala. :t!i4 (IS74): Ells- worth V. Tartt. -'() Ala. IWW (Is.").")) ; l{riej.s v. Vanderbilt. I'J Harh. •_'2-' (is."),")); Gass v. New York &e. <'o.. '.Ill Mass. -liO (ISCS); Woyland v. Elkiiis. Holt, X. 1'. 227. I Stark. 272 (ISHl); Laiii^her v. I'ainter. .') IJ. & C. .-)47 (1S2(;); Cobb v. Abl)ot. 11 Pick. 2S1I (ls:!;{) : I'attison v. Hlaneh- ard, r)X. Y. IHti (Is.l ) ; Converse v. Norwickitc. Trans. Co.. ;i:{ Coim. Wt (18«5); Cincinnati i^c. I{. Co. v. Spratt. 2 Dnv. 4 (lS(i.")); Hart v. ]{eiis- selaer L<:e. Ji. <'o..S N. Y. :{7 (IS.".;!); Hostwick v. Chamiiion, II Wend. .•>7l (IK54); Champion v. J?ostwick. IS Wend. 17."» (ls:(7); Froniont v. Coiipland.2 Hini--. 170 (IS24). •" I'nitcd States Kxi)ie>s ("o. v. Harris. ."»! Iml. 127 (Is7")): T^evy v. Sonthcrn Express Co.. 4 S. C. 2;{4 ris72). *• Majfhoe v. Camden Ac II. Co.. 45 N. Y. .")I4 (1S71) ; ^Maidiattan Oil Co. V. Camden iV:c. U. Co.. ")! N. Y. \'M h\, lire, collision or dangers of navigation."' Helow and jirinted in red ink. was the fol- lowing coiiditioti : "'riie Kv;<.usville and Crawfordsville llailroad Com- pany will not be liable for loss or tiamage by th'c. from any cause what- t\('r.'" The colton was binned, without the fault of the railroad com- |i;.iiy on which it was carried, liefore it got to the Kvansvilh! and Craw- foidsville Hallway: and it was eonlendc companies. After tlic train left M it was run into by auwther train of the last named company, owing to the negligence of its servants. It was lield that the ticket uiuler which the p.'aiuliff traveled meant that he should be at his own risk during the w lii.le journey, and enured to the beuellL of cither com- jiany. Blackburn. . I. .said: "It is clear that this is the true coiistriic- lion of the ticket: • In I'ousideiatiou of my being carried the whole w.iy free of charge. I agree Ihal 1 shall be traveling Ihe whole way at my own ;i-K." " Mail v. North Ka-lein IJ. Co.. I,. K. 10 (). B. !;57 (kS")). Hut in Kngl.iud the iiucstion can hardly l)e of moment as under Ihe rule of thai eouniiv Ihe right of aeiioii is conliued to ihe lirs! compi.nv in all I'ases. ::v ,^T?!^'r'^'^'"?r"'^'°'"^*r m m ;')(i4 Tin: (ONTKAfTS 0\' CAlMMKIiS. [< n. XI. 1| ii it lit » ^ |>iiiicip:il. V.i\\ iHidilionnl stipiilalion- iiiiuic Ip.dic coiircct- iiiiT •■:ii ricr willi tiic firsi can li;'.\cn() cfTocl ii|k)1! ihc .>-lii|;K;/''' vj I'll. 117/^// IJ.rc(li)iix i II ( 'out riti-l Willi /•'irx/ ( '(trrii-r u'o iKil Eiiin-i'to (' oiiiK'cli iKj ('(fn'icr. — To none ol' ihc ex- ceptions coiitaincu ill llie coiilracl lu-tweeu llie lir.--l cari'ier uiul (lie siiippcr wliicli are iiitciuled solely for lli(> proloetion of I he former luf- the ('oiiiiectinii' earrier any claiin.'' ^^'ill■ll (he carrier has simply coiitrach'd lo IrjMisport over his own line and tluMi deliver lo anolher, llie latter is not eiititK'(! l(; the heiu'tit of (he lirsl contract, nor has the iir-l (••(■• any au(hori(y (o ^•ll(er in(o a s[)ecial cond'act on hehalf of (iie owner with (he coniiec(in<2: carrier limit iiiii' iiis conimon law lial)ili(y.'"' If a hill of ladiiii;' specities certain railroads over which jroods are to he earriecl and the ;:(iods are sent a ]»ait of the way Iw a road not thus mentioned, siu-h road will not he entitled (o its exceptions.''' Followinii" the Aincricaii doctrine as (o notices,''' a common carrier can not, \>\ a gen- eral notice put up in his oHice or distrihuted in hand-liiUs, exonerate himself from his lepil duty ami lialiillly for prop- erty which is delivered lo him for Iranspoi-tadon. or li.\ the amount heyond wliicli lu'will not l)e held respoiisihle in case of injury or loss : alihouiih such propei'ty is dciivercd to hin; hy anotiiei' carrier, (o whom (he notice has heen made kiiov, n, and who I'oceived (he same from (he owner under an ai;r< e- meiit (o carry i( over his own line, and (hen a> iiLicn! of the eonsiirnor, to send it forwaril hy a carrier.''' Vi'iiere uiiod ^ arc 8hii)ped on a throu:^h line under a contract with (he lir>I company, and (hey are lost on a second and conneclii!;: line, :" l,:mi!i v. ('Miii'ii'ii \c. !;. Co.. !'i .\. V. -271 ( IS?! ,. •"'' Haiicrcl'l v. >[>'rcli;iiil> I >is|i;iifli 'i'l'iiiis. { 'o.. (7 luwji. •J(!2 ''Is77). ••'■•' l$:il)c(.ck v. I,alv<' Sii...-.' \r. \{. Co.. I.) \. V. Ilil (!s:j,: .\i:ir;iii v. Anu-riciiii E\. ('>•.. l!i \\'i«;. :i;!(l (ISd.');: (':miilcu i^c. \{. Cm. \. I'mi-mIi, fit Til. .-SI. SI (ISC,:)): M.-rdianH l)i-|iat<'li 'I'raii-. Cm. \ . I^.li(•^<. so 111. .17;i (IS7.")). Jim sec F.aiiiliv.Camil.'iiiV-'. It. ('-... IC \. Y. ■J7I (1S71>: Hiiikicy V. New York Cent. U. Co.. :; '!'. iV: C. jsl (1S7I,. •"■" Mcrcliaiits Disiiaii'ii 'l'raii~. ( 'i>. v. linllc^. su 11!. I7;i ( ls7.">). •" Aiitr Cap. l\ . •■«.hi(lsnn V. W'isicni I!. ('<>. C AUi-n. IS,-) ( ISC.Ii) : Mii'ir:.uai; Cciii. Jv. <'o. v. Half, C. .>[i<'li.2i:i ils.".!i,). '•OlilH'ct- ( 'iirriir til (■ ex- cari'.M'i' liolcclio II ^^■ (I'll 111- own Mill. '(I Ic ;niv of lilr nioii |;i\\ >;i(ls over 111 ;i \n\v\ will ii(i{ Viiicr i'';!n rcii- iii. \i:ir;iii V. ^'> III. (7;i li iiikK y <'<'ii(. j{ (II. M, CONMU Tl.\(i CAIMMKitS. !(!;') i(.' rcccivnm- cohid.miv, nsIktc tlic the coiitnict of tli.' coniiiiuiy rrcvi'. inu" < lie .L'ninl ■; \\',]\ not !.•(• niodiiied In- iiny rules iind I'cHiil.itioiis of the srcoiid coiii- |):iii_v, tlioiii>li such rules imiy Imvc heeii puldi'/l v poslcd in (he s'.iilioii house of tl sliipjx'r li:i)ii>/)iiiii/,^" the plnintii'f shii)[)ed tifty- two iinrrels of [)etrohMini iit Oil City, in the Slate of i''.Min- syivaniii, hy the Atlantic and (Jreat Western Hailway Com- pany, under an ad in the warehouse hy the ])ro[)eller, and notice of that fact was given to the defendant, hut they remained there for eight days because the defendant did not iiave ears i-nough to forward them and the other freight that had accumulated at that point. At the end of that time, the goods were destroyed by fire. It was held that this was not ii through contract, and that the exceptions in the bill of lading did not enure to the IxMielit of the defendant. CJhoveu, ,)., said: "Had the transportation company contracted for the carriage of the llour to Jioston, this ease would )>e <■ 4!i N. Y. cic. (isru). •7X ' :^3i^;^55S5 i)' .•iCS T!IK CONTKACTS OK CAIMMKIiS. [cir. M. •i-ovnuMl In- tlir rn forwanli'd l)v oilier i'lii's to r.osion ; jiiid that the frci^ilit for {\w. I'litirc (■;irriaii<^ should he .*1.1() per hanvl. IIciicc the case citiHl dors not. apply. ' ^ .Mii^'hce V. ( 'luuitt'ii &c. H. Co.. 45 N. Y. 51 1 ( ls7I). i i ClI. XII.] miJUKX OV I'lJOOF. im) CHAPTER XII. TIIK HI HDKN OF IMiOOF. •» 1 ". •JKl. ■> 17 •J IS. :i.V». •j.v_>. •-'.Mi. :>.■>!. ION. JSiirdcn rpon Ciifi'irr to Kx|)laiii Loss. Ami to Slmw IScstriclivi' t'oiilract. IJiifili'ii (111 ('airier to Sliow tliat Loss is Witliiii the Kxi'Pi)tioiis UiiimIcm of I'ripof as to Nci;ii<;-(Mi('(' — 'I'lic Aiiicricaii Doctrine. Hiirtlcn of I'roof as to \c<;]ij;(Miff — ('outran- N'icw. Biinlcii of I'roof ;i- to Xi'LTJijiciu'c — The Jiiilc in Aialjania. Coiiirary ( 'ascs I )i-iiiii;iiis]i('(l. Wlicrc ( 'ari-icr LiaMc in Special Cases. ^^'ilc^e Lxccplioii- arc t'oiulitioiial. I'leadinj''. § 24."). JJiirdf'it Upon Cai'vlci' to Explain Lo,hs. — "When iroocls ill the cu.stodv of :i coniiiioii ctirrier are lost or diuu- iiged, tlu' i)re.suni[)tion of liiw is thtit it Wiis ot'ctisioned hy his default, iuid tlu^ burden is ui)()ii him to prove that it iirosc from ti ciiusc for which he was not responsi])le.' Simi- larly, in the ctirriaoc of passenircrs, the carrier beiiii? under a contrjiet implied l>y law to provide safe mciins of trans- l)ortiition, the ha[)i)ening of an accident is prima facie evi- dence of iie (18."),")); and see vwi^va puxt. § 248. ■■2 Viin\\). 71t (180!)). 21 :< ■«' V 1. ^ k "I * 1 ■;■■ '3': • Mi • 370 THE CONTIIACTS OK fAKlMKHS. ICU. XM. ovidoiu'c showed that the injury was caused l)_v the l)reakiiii:- of the axh'-tree of the coacli, upon the to|) of which he was seated. Lord Manskikm) said: " 'I'he phiinliff has ina(h' a ))vi))i<^. H. 717 (ISII) ; Skinner v. l.nndnu &.V. li. Co.. 2 K. I., it K. ;{(i(l. .S-. /■. :. Kxrh. 7N7 (ls:)(l) ; IJnyct' v. ( 'alifurnia Sta<;«' ("<).. 2.") C'jil. K)!) (ISCJ); 'I'raiisiM.riMtion Co. v. Downer. 11 Wall. 120 (ISVO); Farish v. Kei<,'le. 11 (Jiatl. (!'.I7 (isnt); Hrelmi v. (ireat West- ern K. Co., :{4 Harh. -J.V! (ISdl): MeKiniiey v. Neil, 1 McLean, ."iio (is:{!»): Stoeklon v. Frey. J (;ill. lOii (Ink;): Sioke,- v. Salionsiali. l;{ IVt. ISl (ls;V.)): I.y«(o v. NVwlioid. !> Kxeii. ;i(»2 (is.Vtj: (urlls v. Ko- cliester ite. \\. Co.. IS X. Y. 'M (IS.V.l). Afler referrinj;- lo the lanj,'naiit must ;^o so iniieli fmtlier as to.-liow lliat he suffered from sueli aeeidenl. or from such otlier eatise as may with reason.-ible ])rohal)ilily lie altriliuti'd lo the neixliy;enee of ilie defendant, 'i'hus far the inms \< nw liie plainiiff. l?nt then it sliifts. and the ilefendant mu.-t prove an atisenee of m'i;li- fToneo or of default on his part. And if the plaintiff has made out his ptinni facii' ea>e. and the evidence offered in defense leaves it micert.ain whether there was nej^lijijenee or not. the plaintiff must prevail." This does not seem to he (piite clear. The autlior says that if it tippoars from all the evidence offered both hy j)iaintiff and dcfoudHUt tnal it is doulit- II. XII. icll he iff has cojicli. »\V lies coacli (li'ivcr Mil lll(' sailors 1 1 was ' In ssil»|(' I wlicii (I, IH'!^-- al\va\ s iiiidcd, lit that i(h'rs a cs- cir. X II.] lU KDK.V OI' I'KOOF 371 § 21(!. Ami to Shorn J/fsfrirfirr Coiifnicf. — Upon the carrier who allcucs it and who seeks to avoid iial»ilitv throiiiih its proxisions, rests the ltiirlateinent of the rule liy Mr. Parsons, for we can not understand him as saying tliat the reasons for a decision should not he drawn from all the evidence intro- duced, whether it come from the side of the iilainlil'f alone or from both parties. MVe.-tern Trans. Co. v. Xewhall.-Jt 111. -KiO (iSiiU) : (iaines v. L'nioii Trans. Co.. -JS Ohio St. tlS (lS7('i) ; and see eases post. § 248. •'-JJoskowitz V. Adams K\. Co.. .') Cent. L. J. ."iS (1S77). « Adams Kx. Co. v. Guthrie. !l Hush. 78 (1S72); Somhern lOx. Co. v. Unpihart. Tfl (Ja. Hi (1871); Louisville c^ic. K. Co. v. Iledjjer, !> Bush. CI.") (187:5). -'J Bush. 78 (1872). /./ ^'>.\ «S«,«T.j!»-gi5f!»!M^5:.fli(ir.i!^^^ I a i \^ 372 TIIK CONI'ltAC IS or CAlililKlIS. [C'll. XII. that (lie s|ii'(i;il ('()iilr;icl relied upon hv the (h'l'eiHhml to limit its liiiliilily had l>eeii Jieeepted, unle>s tin y hclievcd that the phiisit iff or hi.-. a_ueiits had read tlic receipt or that some one oi" iheiti fidly uiHh-rstood and aji'i'eed to its (eiins, and that the otnis was on the (hd'emlant. 'I'his was hehl to he error, the Supreme ( 'ourl sjiyinu': "In oui- opinion it is only neei's>ary that tlie earriei- shall satisfactorily ])rove that a si)eci;.d contract was made under circumstance.- indicatinji' fairness and jiood faith, and that it is then incnmhent upon tile shipper to .show that the conti'act ouu'ht not for the I'ea- sons above iiKiieated [duress, imposture or delusion] to he enforced against him." I'nder tho English statutes the hurden of showin::' t hat a condition was "just and rea.-ona- hlo '" is on liie carrier.^ § 247. Burih'ti 1)11 ( '(irrli'i- fo Slmir (hat Loss is Within .]:}xi'iiij)ti(>iiH. — And the hurden of |)roof is upon the eari'ier not only to show that a liniiterlainty and not rest upon conjecture or possihility, for if upon the whole case it is douhtful whelh(>r the loss arose from an excepted cause or tln-ouirh the neuliu'cnec or want of skill of tiu' carrier, the latter will have to licar it.'" § 24S. liinulcn of Pvoof as (o yci/fi(f('r.r'' — Thr Ameri- can Jhicti-iiK'. — The law of this country heiiig as before stated tliat an exception in the contract of a eomnioii carrier will not, on j^'rounds of [)ul)lic policy, be alloweil to include •*lVok V. Xorlli Stafforil.-^liiiv 1{. Co.. 10 11. L. C'as. 17:! (l.S():i). »Tii.' riv.'doin. I.. j{. :! r. c. wx\. -.n i.. t. (N. s.) i.vi dsri) : Vcmcr V. Swt'it/cr, ;i2 Til. St. -JOS (^l.s:)S): Hennclt v. Iwlyaw. 1 Kia. Idlt (ISIT): Aldcii V. rear.-oii. :{ (Jray. '.\\i (is,*),')) : and sec cases ;)(i.v^ <; -.MS. "'Tilt' Live Vaiikci'. ] l).'a;iiir};e()n. 28 Mo. :W;! (IsVii)). Although it may l)e shown that tlie hoal of a carrier is not seawortliy, lie may still sliow that the loss was not ot;- cisioned l)y its iMis(>awoi'thiness. l)iit t)y one of tlie perils excepted in the bill of lading. .Smith v. Whitman. \\\ Mo. WWl (ls."iO). I. Ml. Mill to licvcd r tliat Iciiiis, Id 1(> II it is :' thiit •;it inn- upon ' rcii- to he the -ollM- \' till in .•iiricr !<' I»iit cptcd li rcii- )ilitv. los.> '(' or UPl'l- 'forc irrici' ■ludc crnor 1M7): iiiifjcr- [il and Hill V. f llOilt lot ()('- ill till- (11. XII. lUKDKN or I'KOOl' ;{ his n(\uIi,L:''iii'(' or tlif iiciilijvciici- oF Ids iiuciit'^ and scrvaiils, the (|Ucsti()ii cai'ly arose wlictiici- where llic defciis' is that the loss resiilied from an excepted ri>k il will.hc siiiHeieiil tor the t-ai-rier to itrin;:- the case within the exception to prove dial it proccecK'd from the caii^' therein iiieii;ioiied, or whether he i> to l»c called upon to lio fnrther and to prove that he was i;'iiilty of no nei^'liiiciice conlril»iitin<;' to the ( x- ccpled loss, rpon this (|iieslion three dilTereiit views have liecii taken. The lir>t which is the rule in I'"iii:'laiid" and which is supported hy a iimltiltidc of cases in this coiiiitrv, answers t he (jiK'stion in favoi' of the carrier, and refiisinn' to prcstiinc neuliu-encc where none is shown, considi'i's I he car- rier as excused upon his showinu" tlu'.t the loss arose from a <'ause for which according' to the terms of his contract he was not to lie held rcsponsilile. The htirdi'ii of proviiiij,' nei:TiL>-ence thereupon devc'ves upon {\w ship|)er. This, so far as the preponderan<-e of authoritv is conceniod, mav he well c;dle(l ihe Aiiiericiiii octrine.'-' Oliilc.ft' V. r.iiscail. F.. I!. 1 1'. (". •Jlii. 12 .liir. (\. S). C L. .1. 1'. c. i;;;. i.^) \v. k. -nvi. \ i l. t. (N. s.) s;;}. i Mmoiv. i'. v.v. (\. s.) 7(1; .s. <•.. siili num. 'I'lic llcl.'iic. U. it T.. I-J'.! (ISiiC); CV.i'cii v. Cciicral Steam Xaviualioii V».. 1.. U. :! (". I'. 1 1. :i7 I.. .1. C. I'. :{. K; W. IJ. l:i(). 17 r.. T. (\. S.) -JK; (1S(;7): irirjiani^ou v. Sowcll. 2 Siiiilli. ((^ H.) 20.") (is(i:.). '-' Allien V. I'.'aivcin. ;! (Jr.iy. ;il2 dsri,")); Anu'rican Ex. Co. v. Sand-. :>."> I*a. Si. 11(1 (!si;7): 'I'lic AiiKiiin'ila ('.. ."> JJcn. .".(it (,lsr2); Ualii- incrc tSic. I{. Cii. V. IJrady. :i2 Md. WX) (iSi'.H); IJa/.in v. Sti'ain.-liip Co.. :» Willi. .Ir. -J-Jli (IS.')7): Mcar-o V. I{i)pc>. 1 Spra.iriic. ;i:{l ilS,")(i): Boinclt V. Kilyaw. 1 I"l i. KKi (ls|7): I5iaii.M- v. 'riic AlinnntT. 1>! La. Ann. 'im (lS(i(!): Caivv V. Alkin<. Il IJ.-n. ."iil2 ;ls7;i): ( 'liul)h v. Iirna\id. 2(i Law Kcp. 4:12 (is(il): (Miirk v. Maniwdl. 12 Mow. 272 (IS.-.l): Clark v. St. I.iinis l^:(•. |{. (•()..(!! Mo. ! Id (1S77) ; ( 'oltim v. Cleveland itc J{. Co., (;7 I'a. Si. 211 (1S7(I): Dedekani v. Vuse. ;! Mlaleli!". -t-l (lS."i:i): 'I'iie Delhi, i r..'n. I!!.". (Is7(n: Kniise-li v. Wade. ;i 111. 2S.-> (ls|(l): ivhvards v. I'lie ( 'aliaw ba. 1 I l.a. Ann. 121 ( lS,")'.i) ; 'I'lie Kniily v. Carney. 5 i\as. (IJ.") (lsi',1): Tiie l^ninia .lolni-nn. 1 Spi-ajiiie. ,*i27 (ISCd): [''arnliani v. Cam- den iVic. i;. Co.. Ann. 27:> (Isdii) : l-'reneli v. Hiit'lalo A.e. \t. Co.. l Keves. Ids. .v. c 2 Ahh. I'a. Si. .");! ("18(17): I''raidi v. Adam< Kx. Co.. IS l.a. :<:• (, \\\\i. Dee. 1!M! (IS(IS); Hays v. Milier. 77 Pa. Sr. 2:{S (1^71): nm v, Stnr;i-eon.2S >!o. ;{2;l (isr»'i): Hooper v. ItaMihone. Tan. Dee.,"dli (IS.'iS); lluhhard V. ilanidiai's K\. Co.. id 1{. !. 2.">1 (ls72) : Hiinnewell v. 'I'alior. 2 Sjii-.i.nne. 1 (ls:il;: Hiiii; v. 'I'lie Cleveland. (I McLean. 7'.1 (ls:i;!): if3«™i«wi»»rn-^.T™ir!(ijira»7?w..,.- 37[ TIIK (ONTItACrs OK CAUKIKUS. [(II. XII. 1: 1- § 'J\\K /ii(n/iu of l*f()(tj' OH tit \ri/fii/i)irr — ('itiitrtir;/ Vli'ir. — 111 (ircciiU'iif on Hvidciicr it is siiiil : " And if llif Jitreplaiu'c of (he piod.s \»ii.s spfciid, tlu- Imrdcn of i)ro(>f is Till- liivinrll)|c, I F.nwcll. ■.'•_>:> (isils); .roller V. \VmIK«t. ."> Y,'i..ii. 'J I l,ii. Ann. Kitl (j.s;--') : 'I'hc Ki'oknk. I \\\-<. .VJJ ( \>W,) ; Kansas |':;c. |{. ( i,. v. |{i\ nold .. s K:i-. (;-.!;( (IsVI): Kiiii;' v. Slicjilicrtl. :< Sloiy. :!!!> (IMl): KiiU v. I'nI-nni. iM !,!i. Ann. r.St (Is7l): 'I'h.- I.aily I'ikf. •_' \\U-. Ill (IsC!!); I.imili v. Can;- tlcn iV:i'. |{. ('(... K; N. V. -JTl (ISTI): l.anili v. raikniiin. 1 S|iia;:nc. :U:t (ls."i7): I.awicnrc v. Niw YoikAf. |{. Co.. oil ((.nn. (ill (1> ; Maj;!!!!! V. Dinsniciic. C. .1. \ .s. -JMl (1.S7I): Milflicll v. I'. S. V.\ Id Iowa. •Jll (ls77); 'I'll!' Mcillif MuIiI.t. -J Hi -. .•().-. (Is71): M. . i:\an-. II I$arl). .')■_> I (Is.VJ): New .It'ix'V Sicani \av. ("n. v. MiTrhani- I'.ank. H How. :MI(1S|8): \f\v Oilcan-; ln«. Co. v. Xcw ((rlcans \c. \{. Co.. -JO l/i. Ann. :i(f2 (ISC.Sj; 'I'nc Nia;;ara v. Corilo. 'Jl How. 7 {ls.")S); 'riic Oii'aii \Vav(>. ;i I5i«-.:tl7 (ls7J;: 'I'lic ollnis. :t Il.ri. lis (isf.in; 'i'lc' (iiil!ani- nic. 1 Siwy. 17(1 ( lS7n) ; Paii.T-nn v. Ciydi'. (;7 I'.i. Si. ."lOlt i ls71 ) ; riici' V. fricl. Kt l.a. Ann. Ii:! (is.-i.'.); jiich v. I,anil."ri. TJ How. :!I7 (is.-.j): Tin- li'M-kft. 1 Hi— :;.VI (IMKM; Sini!ii v. Noilli Carolina l{.Co..(il N. C. 'IVt (l.s7(>): Snniicrlanil v. \V<'-i(un. 1 Swi-niy. JDU. |i) How. I'r. ■ ICS flS7il); Tlinnias v. 'I'lir .Morninn' Clory. lit l.a. .\nn. -JliU (is.'.S): 'riiinsiioriniioii Co. v. Downi-r. II Wall. 121t (ls7(»); 'I'lirncr v. 'I'lir Ulack \\anior. ! .McAll. isi (is.V.); 'i'miicy v. Wil-on. 7 Y-t;;. '.HO (ls:!.">); Tysi-n V. Mooic. ."i(i IJail). II'J (ls7(i): Van Scliaack v. Nortlii'vn Tians. Co.. :n{i-^s. :!!l| (ls7:!): The Vivid. I Urn. ;!l!t (ls7(»;. I'liH.' -lass was sliippt'd nndcr ii hill of l.nlinir i'Ncin|iiin<; llaltilily for ilaniap' liy "lucak- aui'." ^Vll('n it arrived it was Inokcn. Ililil, thai tlif liiirilcn of jii'ov- in,:j; nt';;li;;('ni'" was on tlir sliipinf. Tin' I'd'ciif. s lien. Itol (ls7,")). (.'asks of will!' wtTi' slii|)|it'il nndiT a Ml! of ladinj; with a condiiion '• not liable for leakage or hreakaiV"'.'" S'lme w ere inipiy on llieirarrival. olliers p.'inially so. Proof of ilie inferior fpialily of Hie easks liavinj;: been ;;iven. il was held llial the linrden of -li(>\\ ini^ neL'liji'eni'e was on tli'-shipjier. Six Hnndred and'l'hirty ( 'a^ks. ] i Hladhf. .")17 (,ls7s>. Nol- wilhslandiiii;' !i hill of ladiii'j; eonl.iin- a provi-ion Hiat the vesel shall not he iU'conniahle "for leakap'. Ineakane. or rn-i." ilii' vessel is iievei'theiess I'csponsihle for ne^ljijcnce or w ant of skill orcaic in her ladiiijU,'. slorau;e or delivei'y of ear;;o. r,ni -ncli ne;;li;4eMee, want of skill <>!• ejirc. inn-1 he allinnaiively -hown hy ilie jiaily iiPe^iin^- it. The Invilleihl(^ 1 I,ow<11.l'2.") ( ISils;. WIe're scver.d harrel- of aearjo of pe- troleinn w 're d.'iivered eniply. and the l)iit of ladiii'j;' provided that freiuhl should he •• p:'- idile on I'.ieh and e'.'ery harrel delivei-ed fidl. uol fidl oi' empty." 7/'''/. iliat the hnrden of proof was n|)on the party see!. inn' to ehari'.e tie' e.n-.ier lo -liow ilia! the le:ilxa;;i' wasih<' re^idi of neL;lii;en('e. Forhev \. I)all"ll.'.t riiila. ."»!.") (1S7J;. Where jjood- are sliiiiped nndri- a conlrael ')y Ahi'h the •■on.-lguor as-unies all ri'Us of the carria;;*'. and S' II. XII. <'II, xir.] mUDKN OF I'KOOr. 375 iilniii/ if the I'dof is still on the carrier to sliow not only that the cans*' of the Idss was within thr Ifiiiis of tlie i-xccptioii Imt also that It aplii'ius lliiil llu'V wcic lt)>l llirimii Oil Ci... (;;i I'n. Si. Il (Isc.'.t;. •• n |||<> .anicr i»i()vc ijiiil lilt' Injury or loss Wils ucc;i, Inlicil liy one of tliosi' oci'liricliccs wllicli lilt' Icriiii'il ilii- iii'l- of {'t'iiiii|iaiiy •i'avc tlif ('on-l^^nor on rc- ci'lpl of a paiUa;;!' of money iiotiif tliat their llaliilily was "as forward- ers only." It was cairied hyilieinlo the end of their ronle and then' delivered to a eonneiMlii;;; larrier. The eonsi;' lee of the pa('Uay:e re- fused to reeelse it. and orileled it lo he returned to (he eily wheie (iist leceiM'd hy ihe eNpre-- eoiiipaiiy. and on il» arrival there a pari nt ilie money hail lieen ah>lraeied. The hurdeii was not upon the company lo prove when, where, or hy wh"-i' lie^H;^eiiee the paeKa;4e was lost. .\merir;iii Kspri'x Co. V. Si'coiid National Hank. (i'.» I'a. St. It'.M i |s71 ;. •• The defeiidanl was esonoraled from all lialiility as earrier for a loss «'aus('d hyllie deslruetioii of tiie cotloii by lire, hy an express provislcii uf the eonlrai't in puisuaiiee of whieh it transjiorted tlie eotlon. Jielieved of this respon>ihility. il was liahle only in ea-e it was so destrovcd as liuilee for hire; and il is imdispnted that sneh a bailee is liable for the loss of the property only in ea>es wiiere the loss is the result of his ne<;li- •jenee. The i|uestion is whether in rase of loss by a bailee for hire, the bailorein reeover Upon >iinple proof of loss, unless the bailee shall iirovo thai he was freti from all iie;;li;;enee contributin';; to sneh loss, or whether the bailor must yo fiirlher and prove that the loss was caused by the lieirliiicnce of tlie bailee. I believe this to be a fair slateinellt of the (luesiiou between the parlies to ibe present action, and yet so stated no oin'will hardly insi-.| that Ihe bailor can recover without alUrmatively IMiivin;:; that tlie loss was caused by the nej;:lij;enee of the bailee." Lamb V.Camden \c. li. Co.. Ki \. Y. 271 (lS71j. The rule in Missouri is thus stated: In a suli a<;aiust a cariii'r the plaintiff is only boiiiid in the lirst iiistaiice to prove er- vants and employees of the carrier the shipper >\ill always find reluctant witnesses, A','hy force the owner of produce to make them his witnesses and thus indorse their credihility ? In Tennes.-ee the employees and servants of i-ailroads are not allowed to he witnesses in hehalf of the'r employers. Why compel plaintiffs to make them their witnesses and hind theih I>y the truth of their testimony? The more neu- liirent they liave heeii in the discharii-e of their duty, the more ditlicult il will i)e to extort ihe truth from ihem. Could they he expected to swear thai tlie car«ro was hurnt 1)}' their neirliii'ence? To place the anus upon the plaintiff would l)e to deny him all redri'ss, I admit the iieiu-ral lule that he who allcires must prove. Hut it is e(pially well estahlished that the burden of proof shoidd he upon him who hest knows what the facts are. If il he said that the agents and servants may he resorted to I)y the shippei- as '••12 (Jn'ciilf. oil i-:v.. § 2r.t. 'M'.i\i(ls(iii V. (;r:ili:im. -J (Jliio Si. l:tl n>!">;<): <;r:ili;mi v. I>;isis. I Oliin St. :i(!2 (isr.l): liiin-d Stairs Kxprc^s ('«.. v. IJaclimaii. 2 (in. 2:>1 (1872). adiniit'd 2S Oliio SI. \\\ (is;:.): Kiif |{.C... v. I.urkwdixl. 2S Oliio St. ;t.")S (|S7(i) : (Jaiiios v. I'liion 'rraiispi trial inn Co.. Id. lis (ls7(;i ; Whitcsidcs V. Hiisscll. s \\. A S. M (IS4t): llavs v. Kcmi.'dv. II I'a. St. 37S flS(il); riiinii Kxpri'ss Co. v. (iraliain. 2i! Ohio St. .V.i.") (JS7r(): Ui'rry v. Cooper. 2S (Ja. :>V.\ f IS.V.i) ; Swindler v. Iliiiianl. 2 Uicli. (S. C.) 21<-i'- 1 :il\\:i\- prodiicc (lil)ililv? oads arc plovers. sscs and iity, Ihc III tilClll. as liiirni pliiiiiliff cral rule iill.v well |)oii liini that the ippcr as Dfivis. ( J ('ill. 2.")! .wood, -js iNflSrC; »l I'.l. SI. ^) (INT.")): I{i(li. (S. ( 'aillrl'oii Sollllicill well as the carrier, wc have only to repeat tliat tlieir wishes, feelinjis and interests are all on the side of their employers. Let the carrier then prove the loss and the niaiuier of the loss. Policy as well as the safety of all concerned de- mands the estahlishnient of such a rule." In an Alaliania case it is said: "One result of the introduction of steam- Itoats and railroads is that common cari'iers have to a urcat extent taken exclusive possession of the pulilic thorouiih- fares of th(> country, and have it in their power to impose their own terms n|)oii the owners of uoods who indeed have no choice hut to employ them, 'i'he owner accepts the con- ditional hill of ladiiiu' l)ecaus(> he can not well help it. lie must have his iroods carried and he sees that the cai'rierwill refuse to take them unless the pi'escrihcd terms are ae- cepteil. The owner seldom accompanies his property, aiul in case of loss or injury, howevi'r uioss the neivliiivnce may lie, is unal>le to i)rove it without relyinir upon the servants of the carrier — the very persons oeiierally I »y whose iieirli- o'cncc (if there was ncu'liirt'iice ) the iroods have been lost; whose feeliiiiis, wishes and iiiten^ are all auainst the owner, and who are as a oLncral rule only too ready to ex- cul])ate themselves and their employer. Of the manner of the loss the owner is iicnerally entirely i). 378 THE CONTUACTS OF CAUUIEIJS. [ClI. XII. was not acroiint!il)U' for rust or hrt'akiiire. It was lickl that proof of injury to the noods by hroakajjfe iiiadc a prhtia facie caso of iieijjligcut'c of Uie carrier, and that thr otiux was oil him to show duo cure, unless tlie nature of the fi'oods f urnislu'd evidenee of itself that tlue rare and viirilanee eould not have i)revent<'ti the injury.'"* "It is not strictly accurate to say," said Wai-kkk, ,I., in this case " that the onus is on the currier to show not only that the cause of loss was within the exception, hut ulso that he exercised due care. Th(^ correct view is that the loss is not hrouy-ht within the exi-eption, unless it appt'ars to ha.e occurreil without ni'irlijience on t!ie part of lh«' carrier, and as it is for the carrier to hrinjr himself within the exc«'plion he must make at least a prii-ia faclf showinu' that the injury was not caused Iiy his neiilect." in a later case '■' it is said: *' The law of tills State, then, stands as follow.--: The ship- jxr makes a jiriiini f'dcic case; auainst tiie carrier when he shows the ii'odds were not delivereil. This ca>ls the nuns on the carrier to show that the loss occurred from [an ex- cepted cause!, and he must also prove a jirin/a Jarii' euse of diliii'ence on iiis part. This, of course, implies a river- worthy vessel, pro])erly furnished and appointed, competi'nt and sulHciciit olHcers and crew, and care and viirilane-, to prev<'nt damper and to avei-t it when impendinu". Any dt *i- cieiicy in the skill or wateiifulness of the otHeers or crew m the matter of their special function: in the apparatus to extini:uish tire, etc., would fall sh(»rt of proviii AIm. ;{s7 (1S7{!). ■-■" SiMilli Ac. Aliil)aiii:i 1{. Cu. V. Ilciilt-iu. Wl Alit. (lOi* (is;.",); .Muliijc »lv:c. K. ('... V. .I;iil)i>c. It Al:i. lUl (1S70). Kir. XII. CII. XII. J lUUDKN or PROOF 379 soil iiiul public l)()li('y, but they luck, as has boon soon, the suijport of authority."'" § 2.')1. CUnttranj Cases JJif<(iiit/uis/t<^(I. — Acjnkw, J., in J'afferson v. Vh/dc^-^ clistinjruislics the cases wherein it is held that the exception b<'iii occasioned by the sinkinu" of the boat against the stone would seem to <'oine fairly within the exception : but in the former it would be clearly charircable to the master or owner of the l)oat. For instance, if the slone from its position may be readily seen and avoided by tho^e liavini:' the conduct of the boat ; or althoiiLlh not visible yet if its situation be liciierally known, the loss ouiiht to be imputed to the fault of the «!iptain or those havin;.'' the direction of the I)oat. Hut if on the other hand the cinumstance of the stone bein_i>: in the canal was not uenerallv known and unknown to the party ' ■' n ■-' Antr. ;; -ns. --'c: l*:i. SI. :.ni> ( IS7I ). -1(1 wiiiirt. i:;:. (isii,. 380 TIIK CONTHACTS OF CAKlilKKS. [C. I. XI!. W hiivinu' the coiuiiiiiiid of tlic hoat, niid was invisihlc lo llu> coiiiiHoii eve, the loss occasioiuMl l)y ihc hoal strikiitu' on it ou/jjht to !)(' considered as eomiiiu' williiii the ('.\cei)ti()n wliieli einl)raees all danu'ers of navi«ration. S 117/ II- rr ( (iri'ti'i' L 111 hie III Sj)i'<-iii/ ( 'iisi\^ T burden of proof is upon the shipper to show that the los> was from a cause for which l)v the verv terms of the con- tract the cari'ier was to lie lial>h Thus where the lial)ilil\ of a common carrier for loss or damage is limited l>v e\- pi'ess contract to the case of fraud or ;;ross ne<^lii:-enc(> di' himself, his aiicnts oi- his servants, in an action against him the burden of proviui; such fraud or neiiliiicnce is on the plaintiff, who must also show that su<-h fraud or ne_<:li,i:'<'Ucc was the cause of or at least contrihuled to the injury.-' § '2')'.\. W'lii'i'i' h\iriji/in>i.'< iiri' ('mii/i/iDiui/. — AN'hei'e the exceptions are contlitional the carrier umst >how his compli- ance with the conditions, as where iron is shipped, the car- rier not to he liable for rust if the iron is properly stowed, he must show that it was ])roperly stowed.-'' § 2")4. Pli'inliini. — In actions of the kind considered in this treatise, the declai'ation >liould be upon the comnutn law liability of the defendant as a common caiiiei', for if the shipper should declare upon the l)iil of ladint;", he would n>- bo by his pleadiniis (-stopped from I'aisini:' the <|uestion of sent to the exemptions under whiih the carriei- .-eeks to escape liability. If, however, for any I'casons, suit is broULi'ht upon the express contract its excejitions must be >lalcd — at least tl loso uliich "■() to discharufe him entii'clv he |»erson to -^ Adams Kxju'css Co. v. i.ucli. 7 Hii-li. -«!i!i i ls7(>) : I?iiiik,ii(l v. r.:il;i- iiioro ^c. i{. Co.. :M Mil. I'.»7 (1S7II-I: I.mimIsIm'i;; v. Diii-iiiKiv. I |)iily. 4!)0 (iS7;n: St. ■CIS V. I,iv(.'r|in.il \r. SLMin^liip Co.. .■)7 \. Y. 1 (IS7I). To inslriict tlic jury in siidi a tmsc that tiM' liiiiili'ii uf jiioof is on tii(> tlcfoiidaiit is cnor. ami tin" jii(l;;m.'iil will In- ii'Vcim'iI on apiiral. m>t- witlisiamliii;; tlic fart lliai tin- t'viil<'iifi' a- ii -lainl* -iinws m';il:i;cm'r. ('(iclii-aii V. Diii-iiH.i-c. tl) N. Y. -.M'.t (ls7-_'): Cra-iii v. New YnrK \c. ];. Co.. r.l X, Y. lil (lS72j. 2» Kdwaids V. Tin' Caliawlia. I I I.a. Aim. JJI (is.Vi), -'" Fi'fijiisoii V. Capjii'Mii. '.M (is-j.-)) ; I'alrcjiild v. Siofiiiii. I'l Wi'iid. :{2'.( (isii.s); .s. <•. 7 Hill. -J'.iJ (lsi;;j; ( laiU v. St. I.f.nis \r. IJ. Co., (11. XII. J lU KDKN OK I'ltOOF. 381 CU. XI!. • to (li,. iiy on it xcc|)(i()ii llic loss lie coii- li:il)ilil\ I l.v (X- Ll'ciicc oj' iiist him ; on Ihc il'liiicncc V •-'I icrr the <'oinj»li- llic riw- slowt'd, I('I(m1 in I'oninion ", foi- if I' Would m of :i>- cscnix" lit upon Mt least rson to V. J'.Ml.i- . J Daly. 1 (IK7I). s on ilii- i;il. not- ili;;viicf. V A<-. i;. whom the n't'ci))! is nivcii may l)rini>- the action for the joss, altliouu'h the ])roi)('rty may hcloiiu" to aiiollicr, tlio con- Iract I)cin Af. U. Co.. (;:> >I(i. C-J'.t (1S77): Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiulis iicc. |{.('n. v. licimny. Hi liul. .")ls (is.Mij ; 'rii;;^ic V. S!. I.iMiis iSic. I{. Co.. (» lull. ICtii (is;.".). s- NorlluTU I/nii' I'lK-kct Co. v, Sliciiier. ;;i 111. 'XW (l,s7I). •film, i:) . K. Co., w 382 THE CONTKACTS OF CAKKIEHS. [CH. XIII. C'lIAlTKK XIII. iji— -i ■'. I'MUOVOUTEI) CASKS.* SKCTION. '25.'). I'liwuix Insiinoicc Cinnptivii v. Eric oiid ]\'rstrni Tniuxpurtatinn CuiniHtittj. — Power Ki J.iinit I-i.iliility — ]{nl(' in Illinois as to Assent to Conditions — I{i<;iit of Insnrer — I'owci- of (.'anitT to Contract for Hcncllt of In^nraiu'c — Illinois Statntc Construed. — I'liited Stales Distiiet Court. Kastern District of AVisconsin. •2.")(i. liichardu v. JIiihsdi. — Common Carriers by Water — Kxeeptions of ■• Perils of the .Sea." ■• I.eaka;;e, l$re;ika;;<' or Itiist" — Xei;- lij^ence — Hnrden of Proof. — Iniied .S(at<'s (.Jircnit Court. District of Massaelmsetts. •2.")7. HVr^/c-i'iHcr v. I'cininijlvdiiin ItiiUrtntil Cumpanii. — Assent to Con- ditions in iJill of Ladinji — Kxceptionsfrom Loss by •• I'ii'c " — Burden of Proof — Acts of Moli. — Initcd States Circuit Conit. Southern District of Xesv York. 'ITtS. Iht'il V. J'l'UHsulviniin Jt'iilnmil t't)iiipi. — Status of ('arrier After Special Contract — Delay — Destruction of Property by Molt — Kxoeption from Loss '• While in Transit or Depots."- — I'mIiciI States Circuit Coin-t. Kastern District of Pcnn-ylvania. 'J.">!l. (iiilt r. Aihnns Kxprcs)! Ciniijiiiiij/. — Kxpress Company — •• I-'or- warder" — \ej>ii;ceni'e — Condition in Kcceij)! as to N'alui' oi Article — Duly of Shipper. — Supreme Court of the Di.-lrict of ( 'olumliia. 2- iif lunliickij r. Ail-nn.i Kj-prcsx ( 'mil paint. — Kxpress ('om- pany — I/ialiiliiy for Lust-cs ( 'aused l)y \e.- POWER TO I.IMITMABILITY-IM'LKTIX II.LIXOIS AS TO ASSIOXT TOCONDITIONS— i;i(;ilT OF INSri{i;i{— I'OWKR OF CAKHIKR TO ("ONTKACT FOR HFNKFIT OF IXSl'R- AXCK — ii.MNois sTATrTi:((JXsTi{ri:i). I'IKKMX iNSriiANCK ('(IMI'ANV V. VauK AM) WksTKKX TkAXS- I'OH'IATION ( '( ).M I'AN Y . I'nilid Stiitt'x IHstrkt Cnurt. Enstrru Dhtrkt nf Wincmisl)!, Octuhi'r, ISTil. IJt'forc lloii. e'ii.vi{i.K> K. DvKU, District Jiid^^e. n.^iiiirliiliiiit iiois as Id r.'inicr to 'oiisinicd. kViscdiisiii. Xfi'ptidiis f-X.-- iiit ('(lint. It to Con- •■ Fiiv •'— ■lilt Coiiii. •liiT After l).V M(.l.— ■— I'liitfd ia. — •• F..r- \'aliii' oi' >i>llirt of 'ss ( 'oin- !>'uiii-oail delict' of ieiitiicif trans])ortation by a common carrier is entiiKnl after |iayment of the loss to^recover what he has paid, by suit afj;ainst the carrier. -1. A common carrier has an insurable interest in the jjoods he carries and has jiower to make a contract j^iviiiix to himself the benelit of any insurance effected on them by the owner. .">. In the contracts of common carriers, if an exci-pted loss be remotely t-aused l)y the ne< liixeiiee of the carrier, the latter is still liable noi- withstandiiif^ the I'xi-eption. tl. In the case of mari ,e insurance, a loss \vhos(> proximat<' causi' is one of the is'\s emu .crated in the policy is char^i'eable to the under- writers, a.thoii;;li the remote cause may l)e traced to the ncfilijjence of liie master or mariners. 7. Hills of lai'iiii!; iriveii by tile carrier to the shipper jirovided that the former should not be lialile for losses caused by •• dan.n'ci's of navi- iralion." and that in case of loss for which the owner should be lia- lile. he should have the benelii of aii\' insurance effecicd by ilie shipper on the iiropeiiy transported. 'I'lie |)roi)eriy was lost thron;L;li the nenlii.;ence of the carrier. 'I'lu' insurance company liaviiij; paid the lo>s to the >hipper: //'/'/. that the company had no jij^ht of act ion aiiaiibl the carrier. !S. 'i'he Illinois s,atiile forbiddiuii' contracts limitiiiji' the liabilities of car- riers (joes not affect the riirhl of the carrier to contract with the shipper for the bciiclit of insurance. 'I'liis Wits ;i libel to fccovof for llio loss of ccrtttiii slii|)- mcnts of o-fiiin (li'li\ eicd on l)oard the i)ro[)i!lk'r Merchtint, ■ t.;.4tJ.i |a*»»i- JJ84 TIIK roM'KACTs'oi" ("AlilMKItS. [('II. XIII. ii m i^i*' .Tilly '2\ 1S7I, Ml ("liiciiiio. to 1>(' lr!ms|)()rl('(l so far us it wiis to 1)0 i'iirrii'd on tlic Inkcs to Kric, I'm. At the time stMtcil lilu'llMiil wms m corixuMlioli of the State of .New York, Miitliori/cd to tiMiisact a jj^riuTMl lake niid iiilaml iiisiii-ancc hiisiiicss. l{<'s|ioii(l»'iit was a torpor- atioii of tiic State of I'eiiiisylvania authorized to cany on the business of lake transportation, and was tiie prctprictor of a liii' of proi)ellers runninjj; hetwei ii Hrie and hd..'5 4 bushels of corn, coiisiuned to A. M. Wrijiht iSc Co. : NdO bu>hels of corn, coiisiufned to Klniendorf c'»c Co., and i;.s!I.Ol' buslicls of oats and ;57(».;{() bushels of corn, i'orisi<;iicd to (Jilbert Wolcott iSi; Co. liills of ladiiiLT were issued for and on account of tiiese sevci'al sliipnients, t he parts of which a<'knowh'di:'iuii' receipt of the ^rain wei'e as foUows : • "Keceived Chieajio ,1uly I'Mh, of A. .M. V/rioht c^L Co., the followini; packau"e> (contents unknown), in apparent good condition -KK) l)usiicls corn; oi'der A. .M. Wi'iiihl cSc Co., Liverpool, Knir. X(»lifv American Steauisliip Co., PhilMdeli)hia, Ta. Pro Mer«-hant."' «' Received Chicago ,hdy -JWh 1874, of Klmendorf bills of lading ■were as follows : "Anchor Line : I^ake and Kail vi(t Va-'w Jind the Anchor Line Steamers, from all Lake Michiuan .(•11. Xlll. .'IS if wiis 1 of III,. (•I'M I |;ik,. 1 <()i'|i(»r- • •MI'l'V oil ropricior l\i' |)(>l1s. •oats was !•('(•(. iv('(| >llsi,l!ll('(l siiiucd to il .•i70.;{() o. r.ills 1' scvcr.'il >1 of tin- 1 ct Co., !i))|)ai-cii| rri.iiiil cSc lii|) Co., ■f cVi Co., appai-ciif IlK'luloi'f .1. ; 100 s ct Co., Wolcotl ), ill ap- ;{7o.;5o Xolifv ladinir 't'c Kric Iicliii>;iii (11. XIll.] I XltKI'OUTKI) (ASKS. ;w.') ports. Tlio Kiic and Western Transportation Company is the proprietor of the ' Anchor Line," whicii issues tiiis l>ili of hidiiiii", and is a .-ori-oralion of the State of Pennsylvania lia\ inj: a real capital. The ' Anchor Line ' is the authorized and e.vcluslve ajrent of the I'ennsylvania Kailroad Co., for its lake husiness rht the I*Iiil;idel|)hia «t Krie Kailroad and connections. It offers to the puhlic a line of first class pro- pellers between the city of Krie and lake ports. Kesponsi- l)le through hills of lading and the shortest lake and rail lino to the Kast." In the hill of lading issued to Wright & Co., was the olauso, " rates from Chicago to Philadelphia, KIc. per. hush.;" in that issued to Elmendorf it Co., " rates from (Miicago to Bound Hrook and Newark, 17c. per hush. ;" and in that issued to (iill)ert, Wolcott tt Co., was the clause, "rates from Chicago to Tannnpui, Pa., corn 17c. oats lie. hush." Each of these hills contained these further clauses : " That the said Anchor Line and the steaml)(>ats, railroad companies and forwarding lines with which it connects, and which receive said property, shall not he liable * ♦ * for loss or damage by lire, collision or the dangers of navi- gation while on seas, bays, harbors, rivers, lakes or canals. And where grain is shipi)ed in bulk, the said Anchor Line is hereby authorized to deliver the same to the Elevator Coni- l)any at Erie, as the agent of the owner or consignee for trans-shipment (but witliout further charge to such owner or consignee), into the cars of the connecting railroad com- panies or forwarding lines, and when so tranship.ped in bulk, the said Anchor Line iind the said connecting railroad com- pany or carrier .shall be and is, in consideration of so receiv- ing the same for carriage, liere])y exempted and released from all liability for loss either in (piantity or weight, and shall be entitled to all the other exemptions and conditions herein contained. It is further stipulated and agreed, that in case of any loss, detriment or damage done to or sus- tained by any of the property hereby receipted for during such transportution, whereby any legal liability or rcsponsi- 25 it mii !' ■ t V I I 386 TIIR rONTUACTS OK fAUUIKKS. [{•II. XIM. I)ility shall or niuy •»' inciirrod, lliut «(Uiii)iiny aloiu' slmll lii> Ih'M aiiswi'rahlc tlnTcfor in whosi' at'tual custody the sanic may bo at tlic time of the lia|)|K>niii<^ of su<'li loss, dctri- nicnt or daina;j:(>, and the carrier so lialtlc shall have the full heiieHt of any insurance that niav have Iteeii effected uiiuii or on account of said (>, on that to Klmendorf .^c Co., of JAi^O, and on that to (Jilhert, Wolcott c\t Co., of $7(H>. The Merchant laden with the y these hills of ladinjr, left the poi't of Cliica'jfo .Inly 2lth, and i)rocee(l('d on her voya;j:e to Krie. Ilavinjr reached a point ahout ten miles south of Milwaukee, she was on the next day at ahout nine o'clock in the morninjr, sti'anc- tive shipments as and foi- a total loss. Thi' lil)«'l alle<;ed thai these shipments of ;rrain were phu'cd on hoai'd the .M«'rchant, to l»e carried to Krie and there d( livered foi' the shippers for ti'anshipment ; that the loss did not occur hy reason of tire, collision or the daiiiicrs of navijration. hut was occasioue(l hy the unseaworthiness of the vessel, and unskilfidness, carelessness and neirliirence in her conduct and manaircmcnt while on hei' voyaire : and that hy payment of the insin-ance on said shipments, lihel- hint became suhroirated to all the riirhts. intei'csts and rifflits of action of the assured airainst the carriei'. It was aUo alleondent was the company and carrier aloiH! answerable tlwrefor, and, therefore, that by the pro- visions of the bills of ladinjx, respondent became entitled to the full benefit of the insurance on the <:rain : and so, that no action could be maintained by libellant against respond- ent on account of the loss. A furlher defcn <■ interposed was that the court had iio jurisdiction of the snliject-matter of this action: and the irround of this defense was that bv the bills of ladini; the grain in (piestion was to be transported by respondent by boat, railway companii's and forwarding lines to points and places in the States of IVnnsylvania and New Jersey, viz : IMiiladelphia, Taina(iua, Bound Hrook and Newark; that it was understood and iigrced by the parties that part of the transportation should i)e pcifoinied on laml and by means of railroad cars, and that, therefore, thi- alleged causes of action set out in the libel were not causes of admirality jurisdiction. \''(i» I)i/h'i{' Van Z)y/iY' and ^//iHsti()iis in llu> ciisi* . 1. Ila-^ the court jmixliclioii of the suhjccl-niattcr of tins at-tioii. '2. If tlic court has jurisdiction and tlic case is to l>c coii- sidciH'd on its nicrils, was the loss occasioned solely by a peril of navi^ratioii, or l»y the unseaworthiness of the vessel Of the ne<;li^cncc and uiiskilfidness of those in charge of her, eitlier in connection with or in the ahsence of such peril ? 3. Is the respoinh'iit entitled to the henofit of the insui'- unce in this easi*. [The c(mrl decided the fjuestion of juristliction in the attirinative.] « «« ««« •« Sect nut : To what was the standing! of the |»ropeller at- tril)utal)le? Did it arise solely from a peril of navijration. or was there eo-operatiiiir neirliirencc^? [Tpcni a review of the facts which this »iuestion involved, it was lieM l)y the court that there was netioii> l»ar, as >f I his )(' Cdll- y l»y a Vl'SScI irjr<' of )f such ill tli(> h'l- at- may, thcn-fdrc, nciiiitaiii its nction anraii,s| il,,. ,iiiii,.r {\,y the ainounl si. p.iid. iunl the hip- meiits. • \, That the clinises in the hills of ladinu' liinitinir lial>ility, ilicludiiiL'' the provision in <|iiestion, are wholly void hecaiise any made payment to the shii)pers, they, the shippers, had no rijiht of action aiiainst the car- rier: that, therefore, there was no rijiht to which lihellant could lie siihrojrated, and as a conse(|Uence that no action will lie auainst respondent ; in other words that the stipula- tion in (|iiestion displaced or destroyed the riuht which '«'W»>^»l««!mKM9^»|^»)WWW!!?W 8! 10 THK (ONTIIACTS OF fAKHIKUS. [c'll. XIII. l4i^- nii^ilit oth»'rwisi> exist of the iiisurimrc <'oiiipii-.,y on \n\y- iiu'iit of tlu' insurance to proeoeii ajrainst the caiTier for re- inihurseiiient. Witho it Jioiiifj at larir*' into the proofs upon the (piestion it will suffice to say that I think the hills of ladiiiir should he r.'iiarded as the contracts i)et\veen the shipjsers anil the carrii'i' under which the jj^rain was shipped. It is true that the decisions in Illinois enuiu'iate a very stiict rule in I'cla- tion to proof of attirnjative assent to special conditions in such contracts — a rule much stricter than is laid down liy the Supreme Court of this State and other courts. Ihit the [)roofs here aie veiT satisfactory as t(t the shippers' under- standiui; and knowledire of the charay proof. Ihit it is not, I think, necessary to ijjo thus far in order to sustain thoe hills of ladinii' as com racts assented t(» hy the shippers. IJy allirni- ative evidence it is sutliciently shovvn that they were under- .stood and accepted as the contracts under which the ship- ments were made : u.vi \vhat transpired hclwcen tiic ship- pers and the avcd |»y consummated eontray special contract. Since the cases of Xew Jer.siu/ ,Sfi'(im yariifdfioti Ciniijxnn/ r. Mfrr/tants IJatik^ iiiu\ York Cnitijumt/ r. Central Jiai/roml;' the .. sujirn. ■ i:« Wall. ;{t;7 *,1S71). 3JI2 TMK COXIKAC TS OK C \i;i;i KliS. fll. XIII. M.K M ■■«■• • H" the ciiiTicr may not he liiNl in onlci- of tiiiu-, l)iit it is lirst and in'incip.'il in iilliniati' lial)ility. In iTspcd to the owiicr- slii|) of the jjfoods and the risk incident tli-.Tcto. tlic owner and the insurer ai'e considered Iml one peison, iiavini: tn- i:('tlier the henetieial riiriit to the inth'Minity due from the <*arriei' foi' a lireaeli of his contract or for non-pei'forniance of his h'iral (hity. StaiKhn:;' thus, a^ tiic insurer (hies. ]>ra»'tieally in liie position of a surety. sti|tuhitinu" that the •roods shall not he lost or injurehip and the risk inci- dent to it, in effect one person, ha\ iuL' toirethei' the heneti- eial ri;rht to an ind<'mnity provided I»y law for thost- who .>lii the riii.iiicc • Iocs. IMt tllc ■ III.. lli;ii ('..I., owner, ITS the piirtic- ikI tlic! •k iiici- Ih'IU'H- "*«• who n>, the fr OIII !•<' IS ;l w liich is (»iic 'iimily o tllllt ml rc- ' 1 1 III fit •vision H' li.i- -t Mllil (11. XIII •1 rMM'.I'dJtTKI) CASKS. 3!)a |)rinci|)!il, iiiul fliMt of tin- iiisnrcr secondiirv ; not in order of time l»ul ill order of ultiniMte lial>iritv. 'I'lie assured may first apiily to uliieliever of tlioe parties lie pleases — to the railroad eonipaiiy l»y his ri-:lit at law, (u- to the insnr- aiiec ei>m|)any in virtue of his eontraet. IJiit if he fir>t ap- plies til ' railroad eonipany who pays him, he thei-eliv diminishe- his loss i»\ the application (d' a sum arisini; out )f the >ntiieel of lli-' iii-iirai lee, to wit : the liiiildm!:: in- jured, and his claim is for the iialance. And it follows as a necessary conse(|nence that if he tirst applies to the insurer and receives his whole loss, he liolds the claim ajrainst the railroad coni|tany in tru>t for the in>nrers. Where such an (•(luity exists the party holdiiiir the leiral riuiit is conseien- tioiisly hound 1o make an a>si<.fnment in e(|uitv to the per- >on entitled to tin- lienetit : and if he fails to do so, the rrsfid i/tic trust may sue in the name (d' the trustee and his eiplitahle interest will he protected." Now, were it not for the stipulation eontaiiKMl in the hills of ladiiiiT iriviii^ to the carrier the Itcnetit of the insurance, I lier<' would he no (|Uestioii of lihellant's riirht to recover. And tne precise poii»t of imiuirv is what is the effect of that stipulation : The •'p<'rils" in>ured airainst were jrenerally "of the seas." anil after emimeratiiiLT various specilic perils, such as tires, enemies, jettisons, pirates and the like, the policy pi'ovides that the iiisuran<'e coiupany *' takes upon itself all other perils, lossrs and misfortunes that « • • shall come to the hurt, (h-triment or damaire of the said j;oods and mer- chandise or anv part thereof." The (piestion umh-r cimsidei'at ion was to a «rreat extent aririKMJ hy the U*anied coiuisi-l for lilxdlant, upon the theory that to ility for neirlijrenre, the hitter ehiuse may not he held valid. To irive the carrier the henelit of the insurance it must he liahle to the shipper for the loss. Liahilily must exist as a pre-re(|uisite to a claim to the insurance. The ajrreeinent is that if the carrier shall lie liahle for the loss then he shall have tin- hein'tit of the insurance. And if it he coi'r«'ct to say that the validity of the stipulation n-hi- ti\t' to insurance is not di'pi'inh'nt upon the validity of the clause which attempts to limit liahility for the property, or in othi-r words thai the I'tTcct of the sti|)ulation relatinjr to insurance i^ not to defeat the oI>li;j,ation of the carrier to indemnify tiie owiiei- at loss occasioned liy its ncjili- ji('iic«'. tii»-ii it would >e«'m that tin' Illinois statute does not hear upou the ri<.dit of the carrier to contiact with the ship- p<'r for tin*' henelit of the insurance. That statute pidvides : " U'lieiicver iiny propeHy is iceeived hy a common carrier to he tr.iiispoiied from on<' place to another within or with- out this State, it shall not he lawful for such carrier to limit his e transported hy any -lipiilation i>r limitation expressed in the receipt uivi-n for >ucli property." As will he (»h-erved, the prohihition here is ajrainst any limilation of common law liahility safely to deliv<-r the property : and this doe- not iinoUc the riL:lit to stipulate f<^ ,,,. dainaire hy lire, <'ollisioii (»r the dangers of naviiiation while on seas, hays, harhors, rivers, lakes or canals," unless such loss ordamai:e shall he occasioned hy the nc<:Titrcnce of said Anchor IJne, its a isiiranrc ity must tlu" loss LlUl if it >ii rcla- of thr 'i-tv, or iiH'iit or property lu'rchy receipted for (hninj; such transportation, wliereliy any lejjal liability or respousihility shall or niav hi- ineurred, * * * the carrier so liable shall have the full benetit of any insurance that may have been eifected upon or on account (jf said floods. " Admittinjj: then that the loss of the cariro resulted re- motely from the ne^lijrence of the carrier, the (|uestion recurs, can that part of the contract which jfives to the car- rier the benetit of the insurance be enforced as a valid aLncement ? In the altscncc of such agreement, on pay- ment of the whole loss by the insurer, the insured would hold iheir claim aL^iinst the carrier in trust for the insurer. And if the aL'recment be valid, 1 think it follows that on payment of the loss l>y the carriei', the insured would hold their claim apiinst the insurer in trust for the carrier; and furtln-r, with this agreement in fore*' on paynu'iit of the loss by the insui'cr, the insuicd would have no riirlit to jjo .njriiinst the cai-ricr, liecause the loss would lu satistied with moneys to which the carrier, as between it and the insured W(»uld be entitU'd. It is settled i»y coutroUinii' authoiity that a common cari'icr has an insural>le interest in the gooils he eari'ics, and can contract for the benefit of insurance ef- fected l»y the owner." In Sarmir r. Corn J'Jjr/nnn/r Inmir- (iin-c ('iitii/xiii//,'" it was held that a common carrier Iteiiijj: ixiund to make saf«' delivery of jroods at the plac«' of des- tination, such oldipition toircther with his claim for advances and fiu'i<:lit , uive him an insurable interest to the cxti'ut «»f the fair value of the pro|icrty insured. Cominijr then di- ri'ctly to the point in issue, a test of the validity of this stipulation would seem to be, could the i-arrier I'ccovcr for a li>ss liappcniniT confessedly throujih his nculiucnce upon a <-ontract of insurance, insurinj; updnst "perils of the sea?" '■' \HII .\:llt;i V. Mlll.S.c. 111-. Cc... •JSilllilf. I!HI(^IS|;0: Tlia-i' v.W;i-:|l- iii;:t.iri Mill. III-. <'().. !•_' \\:\\\i. ."i!C> (IS.VJ); MfrcMiilili' .Miit. In-. ('<». v. Caii'li-'. 211 N. V. 17;! (IS.V.Ij; -j I'iUM.n- uii In-. -Jiii). '";u; .\. Y. i;.").") i.ls(;7). 3or) TIIK roXTIJACTS OF CAKIMKIfS. [r„. xm. i- ;: I I'poM this (|ii('stion counsel for liltcllimt lav down the pro- posit ion, that nc^ilijiciicc of a carrit-r oi* shi|> owner, if il can he insured airainst at all. must l)e made the sniijeel- matter of express contract, which can not admit of a rca- sonalde dotiltt. Formerly, this was a vexed <|uesli<>n in the courts, hut it is now fully and tii-ndy sett led hyhoth Knjilish and American dt'cisiuns, that a loss whose proximate caii-c is one of the enumerated risks in the policy, is charucalilf to the underwriters, althouuh the remote cause mav he traced to the neirli;:ence of the master and marmers." Ill (rfuici'd/ Mii/ufi/ /iisiinniri' ('ihiijkiiii/ r. S/tfriniDi/,^-' it was held that damaircs decreed liy a coui't of admirality to he a lien on the vessel insured. I»y reason of a col- lision ))r(»duced hy the ncL>lii:-cnce of those who navie recovered under a policy insurinii airainst the usual perils and includinjr harratrv. 'I"he facts were peculiar. 'Vlw plaintiffs in the action were the owneis of a l)rie(|in on the part of the injured vessel, the hriir and her owners were adjudged liahle f(»r the damajri's ami the decree pro- nounced the collision to have occurred in conseipience of the neirliirence. On payment of the decree, the owners of the hrifT sued the insurance company on a time policy, ;ind set up the facts expi'cssly allejrinjr the nejrlilicnce as the reason why tln'V had paid the damaires, and il was held they could not recover. It was, therefore, not the case of the in- surers goiny nejiliji'ence, which .Mr. tlustice CruTissays could not i)e done, hut it was the case of the insuri'd himself lioinir hehind the c«»llision and showinu as the sole reason why Ih' h;id paid the loss, the neLrliir<'iicc of his own servants and airents. " Putupsni Ins. Co. v. Cniiltfr. :\ I'i't. •.»_'■.' ' Is;!(i. ; ( '.ilinnltia In-. <'i.. \ . LawrtMicc. 1(» I't-t. .*i(»7 (ls;t(l): (icnfial Mnt. In«. r.. J Mdi'. 4',V2 (IS II). and (a' 11 ili.w. :i.")i (is.Vj). I'M. xm. (n. XIII.] r\i!i:i'()i;Tr,i) casks. ay? Illf \)V(). '<'!•, if il siiltjcci- )f il rcii- •II ill Die Kiiiiiish Ic <'aii-.i' ir,ii(';il»lc niiiy \)v II lI'DDll ,^- iiii-iililv f !l V{)\- :ivi "•!!)( '(I iiisiiriim "lie filets ' owners 1 niiiriii- I ■('('(I i Ill's ■ owners r«'e |iro- llencc (»f viicrs of iy the default of the niiite in not iissuming the command. This detault must consist either in a want of judgment in perceiving and determining thiit the master had become so inciipacitated iis to authorize Jind recpiire him to iiiterpo.se, or in negligeiice in the performance of hi.s duty, when the case occurred. Such a case may occur in every voyage, and must be consideri'd as one of the eontin- gencit's incident to navigation. It may often present (jues- tions of grejit ditticulty, in iicting on which mistakes on the ])art of the officer second in command may occur. Hut we can not perceive why the duty of the mate wa.s not of a purely ottieiul and professional chanicter, growing out of his powers and the relation in which he .stood as an otHccr, and not dev(dvliig on him a.s the sigeiit of the owners in any '•■'2 Meto. 4:W (ISIl). q^ r-» y. i ..^M K .i^^ s. lii »t(i!p - -'^'. ^ ii it ||j M II ! i .S!»8 n^ i^ i 1 s: THE CONTUACTS OF CAIIUIKKH. [ CM. XIII. otlior >icnsc tliiin that in which pih)ts iiiid all other otKcci-s and mariners are their airents. Thev are veslod with cer- tain powers to he exereisj-d for the use and )>enefit of own- ers, freijrhti'rs, underwriters and all others who an' directly or remotely int«'rest«'d in the vt'ssci and voyajxe. I can not distinjruish the nejriiirencc of the unite in the case supposed from his failure in the pei'forinance of any otln-r duty as a nautical man. Suppose a case of n loss by strandinj;, and it could he satisfactorily proved that if in a particular <'mer^ency sail ha r otKccrs villi ecr- of ouii- (lii'i'ctly *'aii not iippost'd nty as h ill.!,', and M-ticular lior liiid the dis- i i^iinilar •t of the In Itotli ppropri- iiancc of Ix'twccn il)i(«. A itKciilly, It proof, iirasiircs i's, tlicsr .•ii'c iiici- lils that (Mitcd or ■writers. ; to pro- he eoin- •e there <»f the s which iiirainst. at l);ir of the master eiuij^ as stated, it follows that if the ease were tliat of liisuran»-e in favor of the earric'r against perils of the sea, the insurer ••ouid not <;o behind the proxiniat*- cause (tf the loss and de- feat a recovery Ity showinir the neixIiL'ence of the master and crew of the vessel. We have then this state of the case: 'I'he carrier made itself lialde for the loss of the cariro l>v a peril of the sea, if n<'<;li<^ence co-operated in causin loss. The owners of the carjro contracted with the carrier that if loss should occur for which liability arose, the car- rier should have the l»'nelit of any insuranc*' on tln' prop- erty. The shippers then contracted for insurance airainst the usual perils. 'I'here was ii loss for which the carrier was primarily liable to the shippers. Tlu- proximate cause of the loss wiis ji peril of the scii. It was a loss, therefore, which the carrier could directly insure ajraiiist, and the fact that its remote cause was nejjlijrcnce would not relieve the insurer. Why could not the carrier secure by the indirect way of a coutra«'t with the shippers, in case of its lial>ility f(U' a loss, the benefit of their insurance, if it could by di- rect contract with the insurer have obtaineeril insured airainsl, but n'lnotely by its own nciiliircnce? If it bo said that the rijrhts of the insurance company ouirhl not to be affected by a contract between the shipper and the carrier, I think it may be answered that the c<»mpany put itself in privity with such c(Uitract by its conti'ficl of insurance while the prop- erty was in transit, and that it d«'all with the insured prop- erty, sul»ject to the terms of the bills of ladinir, which hv so, llit'ii upon r('<-('iviii'f pavuirnt for tin ir hoses from the iiisurtT, tilt' riLiht (»f the iiisjin-d to piorccd aiiaiiisl ijic «'arrirr was (Ictt'niiiiitMl, and no such i-iods for which the carrier would l»e liahle the hcnelit of any in- suranee to ho offectt'd l»y the owin^r, and that this ahandon- niont to tin* insurer a<;ainst marine perils of goods damajred tluring their transportation under nich a contract, ami pay- ment of the loss, does not give to the insui'cr any right of action against the carrier. This case was much rnce of the ele- ment of negligence the opinion proceeds: "Hut it is enough that the plaintiffs took tin' rights of the owner of the goods subject to all agreements and e«|uities hetween the insured and defendants, and that the contract between them being valid protects the latter against a recovery by the plaintiff." In conclusion I must hold that the provision in the bills of lading giving to the carrier the benetit of insurance on the "Mercantile Mat. Iiis. Co. v. (.'alcbs. Jo N. \'. 17;} (ksr>!)). (11. XIII.] IMJKI'OUTKI) ( ASKH. 401 |)i«)|)crt y Wiis VMliil. jiihI tli:il no riirlit nf >ul)r(»i:;i1i()ii jn- <'ni('(Millliiii (if tin- Ki/lliiliti:< in llic f(ir(';ji>lii;j ca-o, sec ,(»^■. ss -'s. -j:!. ;!i>. :ti. ;t-j. ;i;!. ;ti. :!.-,.:•>(•,. :i7. :?^.:i',i. ki. ii. i-j. i;t, u. i:,. k;, •17. |M. I'.t, :>(). ."ii, :>■>. ."•:(. .'ii. :,:>. .•>(). .■!;, .-.s. ,v.i. m, t;\, v,>, (;;i, di. (i."i, oc, 'i7, lit-.', -Ji I. Ilinn III!' am, ml li|n|i(i«ll|(ili iif lllc .- ill'lliiis. see ((H^^ ^§ US. SS. 101. I'lMiii ilif I hi II I iwul hiiir/h |)ri>|iiisiii.iti< I'f llic .iijIlnhiiH, -cc aiiti\ j TJI. I'lMHi tlic//yV/i. xi/lh ami kii-iiiIIi |ini|ii>ii.>i (if llic sijlliihnu, sec <(i(OF. KiCIIMJDS V. IIWSKN, I'hitiil Sliil CiiUfl, lUslrift nf Mii:•( LriHul- liy wiilcl'. II' ;i- liiiirli iii^iirris of llir j;ipi>iU llii'V lr;lll>iliiirl ;i> ciilillii'iii rani'i'- liy l:illcl. :llil aic -llhji i i ti> llic samo lialiiKilifi. 2. A ciiiTicr i-* mil irlfiwcil linni lialiililN lor il:im:i'^i' In a caiuci liy water wIhti' !i 'piiiMis tiial llic ciHivtrin liiiii of ilic slii|i rciKU-rcil her iin- lii In l!'aii ">it siicli a cai-'iii at llial -ca-mi nf llic yc;'r. anil that Ikt ccilint;- W' rr in^iiHii icni. even llniiiiiii the liill of lailiiij; cx|irc--ly (•\ci'|i|'< il |iciil. ui' tlic seas."" :t. 'I'lic cxiciiiiiiM ill a liill I'l laijiii!,' cf lialiilily fm- •■ jcalva'^c lircaka^c ami ni-l." will c\cii-<' rii-l caii>('(l liy liic >W('al ur nioi^liirc nf llic place w here llic <;ihiiI« are slowid. Unl i! w ill iinl cnciisc i ii-t aris- iiis; fidin llic enlraiice of w;iier llinmirli an iii~iiHicicnt ccilin;; in llie siii|i. I. 'I'lie linnlen cf prnof i- n|iun llic canici u< slmw llial llic Ic-- was wiiliin (iiic nf llic cxcciiicil peril-. Mr. .Iiislicc ('i.ni'oKi) : Carriers of ninnis, if ('oiiiinon cariiirs, conlracl for llic safe custody, due liausport and i'ii.:iit (Iflivcry of tlu- .•-anio, 2U 4(»2 Till-: iONTIIACTS Ol' ( \i:i!li;itH. [( II. Mil. iiikI ill till' iilist'iHc of .'iiiy lr;:i»lMli\»' rr^iiilnlioii prcscriliinjj; a (li!Vri'fiil mil', jnf insurers of ilic piuds, ;iii ;m»l rur<\(i\ ln>> ur ti!iiii!i;j:t', iiiilr>> it liii|i|Mii( d li\ l!ic ;i( I of (iod, or ilic |)iilili(' cii'.'ii.v, or llic r.'uill of llic slii|)|)( r, or liy >oiin' oilier (■!iu>r or iircidtnl « Niirc-.-ly cxci'ph'd ill tli«> l)ili id' hiding'. :iiid witlioiil iiiiy I'iiiiil oi- iit'L;lip'iit'c Oil llic |»;iil (d' llic tiinii I'. ' Slii|t o\\ in is :ind liiiislcrs (d' lilt' >lii|is tiii|ilo\ cil !is i;:ciu'l:il >iii|i-- ill tlu- cojol- iii!^' or roici;iii tradf, or in i;fiiti;d trt'ii:iiliii,u' lnL-^iiicxs. uvo dt'tiiii'd foiiiiiion carriers liy unter, :!iid a> -ik li are as iniicli insurers of llie uctods ihey lrnii>|i(ii( as rdiiniion earrieis ),\ land, iinli'ss il is oilierw ise [tiovided in ilie iy law . is lo [)rovid(' a seaworthy vessel, tijilil and slauneii, and well Ciir- iiislie(l with suitaide lai-kle, sails or oilier motive power, as the ea.-e niav Ite, and t'urnilure iieeessar\ lor tin- vovaj^c. Ve.s!!H'ls so einployetl must also lie proxided with a crew ade- (|uate in niinilier and sutli<-ieiit :iiid eoiii|)elenl to pert'oiin the n'(piired duty, and with a eoiiipetinl and skiit'nl master (d" sound judiiiueiit and discretion. < )w iicis in siii h cases mu>t see to it that ihe inasttr i> well i|ii;diticd I'or his situation, as tliev are tlirectiy ropoiisihie for his iie* well a> to the transportation and delivery of the jroods, and for the pei formaiiee of all those dulii's the ship is liahle as well as tlu' master ami owners.'' (Joods of irreat value, vy, ;M1I (IS It;. (11. sill. 1 r\llKI'lli|»IMt'll( licjolll'l'd |o VMlidll^ |H'|M.||^, ullirh i)[' it^rlf is siilliriciit to >lii>\v lliMi ilic mii^tff iiinl dwiicr- ui ic rmii- iiKHi (Mrrifi's ill tjic .-.Iricioi x-hnc. Sutliiicni mI-o iipiicars to show I li:il lltr l:(i(ii|> u Inn «.|ii|»|ic(l wni' in j^oml order 1111(1 roiKJitioii, :ill(l lli.'il till' covciiiiiit of the liiJI of linliim' is tliMt iIk'V >1i;iII lie (|r|i\( ;•(•([ ill like nood order and r.mdi- tioii. < )iu' llioii^aiid iiiiiidlfs (d" (In- sjiipniciil , >ln\\cd in till" forward pari oi' llir afl lower hold, were hadiv wet with >mII waler to >iie|i .Mil e\teni that when the iimidle> were hoisted Dili to lie delivered, (he water dripped out td' the siiiiic mid appeared iiiinldy witii nist. I )aiiiai:es are elaiincd hy the lihellanls. in the lihel as aineiided, foi' hieaeli of the eoiilrai't to deliver (h*' ptods in the condition spt'cilied in the Itill of l:idiii,u' in the sinii of four thousand dollars, and the evith'iiee sliows (li.il t lie t;(»()ds shipped were injured in the nianiHT chai'iicd to :in ainoiinl even ureatci' than that ailciit'd in the lili«'l. ("oiMpcnsation for the injury is elainied liy the lilicllanls upon llii' foliowinir lirounds : — 1. Ueeaiis*' thf I'vidcncc proves t(» a deniolistl'Mtion tliat the troods were shipped ill i>:ood onh-raiid eoiidilion, and that the respondents liave faih-d to show that lilt' injuries to (he i:oods i-esuitcd from the cxecpti'd perils, or any (d' lliein, or from the fault of Ihe shipper. 2. IJeeanse the steaniei- was iiiiseaworth, in thill she was not of ii I'onstnution snitahle to carry such a earuo on such ii voy- age at ihiil se. ^on of theyear. 'A. Because the ceiliiiudf tiu* steamer was iioi of a suital>h' character nor lit to protect such carji'o from salt wateron the deseriix'd voyaiic 1. That the^ Ud(»(ls injured were not properly stowed or (hmnaued for their protection auaiiist injuries of the kind on such a voy- 'i'wo points are not controverted in arjiumeiit hy the re- spondents : — 1. 'I'iiat tlie ijfoods were in irood order and condition when shipped. 2. That the (pmntity mentioned in the liltel was injured in tiie ccturse of the voya<:e, and that it was not in liootl onh'r and condition wiieii delivered. Conceded or not, the evidence to the effect is satisfactory •yyt i. ! i M ■ tf m 1 ii wx w 'r^ 404 TIM", (ONTI.'AC'TS Ol" C MMMKI.'S. I 1 [cm. XIII. r •'-» l;^ |il|il and cniK'liisivc, hut tlic rcsiioiKlciits cxitlicilly deny every olliev proposition siihniilted Ity the Iil)ellants, and insist as follows : — I . That the hurden of pi'oof is upon the lilx'llants to prove that the injury to the •.•"oods did not I'esiilt from the <'xeepl<'d perils, 'J. 'I'hat the st«'anier was in all respects seaworthy, and of snitahle eonstrnetion and e. They were asked to i:ive the rea-ous lor thai conclu-iou. and an>wcred to t he effci't that in such a const I'uction a^ t liat docrilied the teudencv in roui:h weather would he to till the\\ai>t with w.atei'. and to cans ■ thcv<'s>cl to strain and mil deep and h(-avv. \\'hcn asked what elTcct the strainiui;- of the vessel would h.'ive upon her ceiliuu' in the lowci- hold, the answer was that if the vessel lahoi'cd heavily it would cause her to hlow, that the deeper tin- ship rolls the hii:he. she will hlow the water in her hilire, jjarticularly if her ceilini: is not v,:itei- tii:ht. Sheet-iron, all ati'ree, is ijuitc su^ccptihlc to damaLTc cir. Mil.] tM;i:r(>i;Ti'.i> 'asks. jiff) from l>«'ii)<:- wet, .-Mid -oiiic nl' ilu- rx|)<'il wiinoso i(>iif\- tlmt a (hop <>r >(';i-\v;ilcr will i|:iiii!iL;<' a sheet ol' (he iiMiiiiiKJ ihal it udiild lake vciT liltle watei' lo lio t lin»iii;ii ;i wji.ile pafkaiic of siicli mcreliaiidise. A|iarl from the eoii.Mniclion of llie ^Icamcr. inciiKliiii:- her eeiliim-, no ;ittem|i| is mnde to show that >he \va> U!ilie was coniparaliveiy new, and w.is -tauiich and stronir. Xor is it preleniled tlial the d;imai;-e to t he cariio I'esiilted from anv defect^ in tlie hull (d" tlie\f-how that the \c'ssel when she rolls deep ;ind heavy is more likely to hlow and e.vpose earii'o stowed in her aft lowei-hold to wet. is (piite inuH'cessary, as (he conclusion accords with all e.\i.« lieiice, and is fully e>taldishe(| in this c:is»' l»y the evitlenci', unh'ss the ceiling;" of the >hip is water tiirht. ()wners of vessels of >uch a construction, even though they are seaworthy in the trein'ral sen>e, ure l»ounil to furnish such appliances for (he protection (d" the caiii'o so s(oweuch injury in severe weather.'" Shipowners, liy >uch a hill of ladini:', contract fiU' safe cu4ody. due transport and riiihi delivery of the j^oods in like uooil older ami c(»ndition ;is when thev were >hippei| : and it i> universally admitted that (he contract im- plies that the >hip is reasonably lit and siiitahle f(.r the ser- vice which t he owiiei' enti'ail'e- to perform; that she is and shall continue to he in a conhip of the knid laden in that way mav lie fajriv e\p( cted iu encounter in the contemplated vovane. Safe cii-lody is a pait (d' the contract, and if in con-eipience (d' the peculiar cojisi ruction of the ship, further '^ 'I'Im' (»iii,c|| for the coiisctiiiciiccs.''' Kxplicit »'\- ct'plioiis luiiy excuse imperfections of const ruction or i'ep;iirs. l»ul in tlie al)sence of express words to the contrary, a l)ill of iadini:' in tiie usual form implies .1 uarianty of seaworthi- ness when the voyaii'e hcijins, and ail the exceptions in il must, unless dlherwise expressed, he taken to refer to a jH'riod sul)se(|uent loth*' ssdlintidf the >hip w ith t he cariro on ixiard. As foi- example; \\'heal was shipped at New Y(uk for Scotland, under a hill of ladin;:' exiM-ptini:- peril- of the seas, how(>ver caused. |)urini!" the xnyaiic the wheat was damaued hy sea-waler. In an action l»y the lioldi-rs ut the House of I^ords, on appeal, reverx'd the judi^menl, and held thai as in (irs within the exceptions it nni>l Ix' found that tlic>hip sailed from the port in a >caworthy stale, ;i new trial mii>l he had. it not appcarinji' thai the fact had Iicimi foiniil hy the jury.-'" 'I'wo defects an> suuiicsled in the >teamer. holh of which if they he defects, existed at the time the >liip sailed : — 1. 'Ihat the c(mstruction of the ship, as already explained, remh'red iier unfit to ti-ansporl such a cariid on such a voy- aii'e at that season of the Mar. '2. Thai the ceiliiiL'" of the ship. Ml view of hi r pccidiar con>lru< lion, was nol suliicicnl to prnih a voyaii'e durintr the winter months of ihe year, when roULih weather may reasonalily he expected. '"'riic Manilhnii. |ol,. T. \. S. i IC!. -' SiiM'l V. SiMif l.iiH' SiiMin. ( 11.. :t7 I.. T. ( \ . s. ) :!;t;! : I.mhi v. Mill-. .') Ka-l. I-Js (isoi). I. XIII. ill ■ irllii- iii it • to II <';il"i:(( riU of \s Im'mI \ry< of II' jury iri:<» ill l<'IIC(|, u iicrs, •f|i(ioii i|>l)f:il, ) liriii;:- lie >lii|» (list he l>V the I{olli:ll went her, m- :\\\ cNiicricii.T sli()\v>, iiiMV lif cxiu'cIimI on siicli :i voyjip' in tlic winter ;mi| early -.iM-iiiir nioiitlis of llic year, Inil tlie respoiulciits deny that tlie eoiisirnetion of I lie steamer rendered lier unlit to transport siieli iioods on such a voya-^e. and insist that her erilin;.' \va«i nro|terl\- eon- .''Inielcd and >uilieient to proid such cari>-o in th<' phic- where it was stowed from damage liy ^alt water, and fi-oin evel-y peril witliin the 'onti'act i,[ [Iw ],\\\ >>[ ladiii'/. ^^■hen l)uill the sleaiiier was ceiled with a pei'insnenl ceiiiiiLr up to her deck. It is eiaiined hyihe respondent- tha'. she had u-«tain that thciu-y of fact. Vavw the mas- ter leslitie^ tint •• 'he was ceiled all the way up to the deck,'" hut he say> not hini:' alto jI any >nch additional teni- jiorary ceilinif as that sup|to-ed I'y the re-poiidcnts. Sur- veyors examined the steamer in New ^'ork, and one of them sj)eak-i cd" the \c-.-el ;i-i ceiled to the (h-ck, I)wl inascs no mention of any temporary eeiliu'i' (»f any kiinl. Proof that the steamer had no >uch cciliiiL;' i> nlso derived fnun the stalenu'nt id" the con--ii:nee, w ho testilies that he went <|owii into her hold after -he wa- di>charii'ed, and he statcvs tliiit she was ceiled frcuu the keel-on entirely up to the v orders car- ried a carti'o of wheat which wa- delivered wit hoiit iniurv. I5e\(in1 iiuiu III liic alt lower liold 111(1 it is ctjuallv clcai" thai tlu' water inuH have icaclicd tiic iiuM in iaiiif (|iiaiilili('s to iiavc taiix-d >iitli cxtt-iisiNc daiiiaiii' to oiii- (lioiisaiid ItuiidU's (d" the iron, esliiiiatcd to \V(ii:Ii tirt\- live tons. Carpet stowed in llic same li(d(i aliovc tin- liuii- (llcs (d' sheet iioii eaiiie se^ for the re.-j)(iiideiils ai^ree that there liad heeii lio leaka^'e tliron;:li t!;e hatelies, IVoin whit li it woiihl seem to foHow that the wat«'r inu-l lia\e I'oiiie Croiii hehnv. ( 'oii- tirniation (d* that view of a |)er>uasive eiiaraeter is (h'lived from the tesiimoiiv of Die master, wiio in (hreet t«'rm> at- triltiites tile (hiniaire to tlie hhiwinjr (d' l)il;ie water tlironuh tJK' seams of tile <-<'iiiiii:- in tin- after iiohl wlieii tlie sleamer rolled. Current support to that theoiv i> also derived from the totiliioiiv of the mat*', who expresses the opinion that it was caused hv (he >hip l:d»(>riii_i:' s(» hea\il\ and rollin<>-. Conviueinii' eoiilirmation ed the opinion that it mu.-i have lieeii done l»v what i> ealled "hluw- in_ir."" that is, that the hilire water >washes up when the >hip rolls, and he added thai it is a common tliiiiL: for l»il;:e watei- to l»low up when IIm' ship hihors, as explained, and that it does not take iniieh water to dania,L''e shcel ii-on. Few steamers have their ceilings <-aidked so ;is to he water tiuht, and in all eases where they do not it >eem> that the Idowinir (d' liili^e water through the >eani> of the ceilinj.' i,> a common oeeurreiiee when the ves^el rolls. Sti'aniers, as well as sail >hips. rtdl more or less on e\erv such voyaii-e, \aryiiiir in dciirce with the >late of the wind, the coii:itruetion of the \ e->el, the niame ;• ii)\\i,;(ii sli«' is h)aded, and the nieaii> l»y whicii she is j ,0;. ••.eij, i-'u-.i suppose that cases ma\ arise whc. it won!! !;reptt!\ !>" held that hlowintf is a "peril n\' iia v ii^alioii, uiliri. such an exception in a hill of ladini:-, it is clear thai ueh :i II. XIII. ItlllKJIo l«l ; mid !•' il'iiM iiai^i- Id li liri\- !'• Illlll- ili(i \Ur ICfll III) <'»'lli lo ( 'lii|t :»' w.-ilcr lli.'it it Vvw •I' li,:;lil, 'Iduiiii,'- Olllllldll CM. XIII.] rNUr.i'OKTKI) (Af-KS. 40!) nilr t-aii not !•(' Mpplicd in liiis cmsc us ii aiipciirs ||i:it ihf •rodds niijilit Ii.ivc Itccii prdtt'clcd iVom such daniap- l»\ rras- (tiialilc l'i>ri'-i<,dil, care and priHlciicc, llic mic Ixiii;;' tliat tln' carrier (Ui.ulit to take adcfpiatc measures to jirotect the carp) aufainst a conmion and ordinary occurrence which niiu'ht and ()ll<:hl lo have heeii foi'eseen.'' "l)anuers cd' the seas," said .Indtie Slum, wlielhcr nii(!cr>lo(»d in il> nio^t liiniled sense as import iii'i oniy a io,-s hy the natural ai-ciih'iits pe- cnliar to tliat element . or whether iinderslood in its most extended sense as incliidiiiu' inevitahle a<'cidcnts upon that element, nui.-i still in either case Ix- clcai'ly niuh'rstood to include only such losses as ;ire e fi'din >ncli irresi>tilile i'drce di- sdiiie o\eiwhelmiiii; power wliich can not lie liiianh'd aiiaiiist livtlu' oinlinarx' ex- ertions of hiiinan >kil! and pi'iidenee." Hence it i> liial if the l(»>s occnrre*! Iiy a "peril of the sea" that miiiht lia\(' Iteeii avoided i»y the exercise of any reasonahh! >kill or diliu'c'iiee at the lime when it occurred, it is nol deemed to l»e in llie sense of the phi'ase such a loss l»y the '« perils (tf the sea" as will ex.inpl the carrier from liahilily.-' J?oth parlii's a^i'ree that the >teanier was well liuill.and that in the general sense she was >eaw(trthy when the voyage he^jfaii and when it eiidccl at the poll of destination, ihe only defect alle!.;ei<»wed in her aft lowi-r hold on such a voyaijc (hiring'' I ho wilder and eaily sprin;;' months of the year; and llie court is df the opiniim that the i^rcal wei<:hl id' the evidence fully >u>laiiis thai proposition. It may he that the sleamer would ha\(' lieeii a lit and proper ves>c| to carry sueli cariro on sn
  • sel for the voyage in -' Hears.. V. i?ni.c<. I Spr.iiruc. ;!:)J (H.-jil). " 'I'ln' Kcc-ide. -J Slim. "I'i" (I.>;(7). -' N'iif,'i'iit v. Siiiiili. I,. |l. I ('. p. |»iv. |2:t (isf.'i); Stun on !};iiliiiciii-i. 7tli ''li.. s- ."il-J: :i Kem"- ( niii. i J-Jili cil. i \lil . <» Tin: CONTKACTS or CAIMMKIIS. [cm. Mil. :r; :>■• m (liu'>liini if licr ccilinir IukI Iic«ii walcr liLiIil, or if tlic >Im'c1 iron li;i(l hi'cii st(t\\«'(| Itctwct'ii decks, liiit it is very ch'ar in tlic iti(iiinifiil of the riiiirt. that llic cuii-t nictii»ii and dffcc- ti\<' cfilini!" of the stcanifr, taken in eoiineition with the |ilae«' and manner of >lo\\ai:c, reiwhred her unlit to trans- port such li'oods on such a xoyap'at that ><'as(in <»f the year. Hytiie teinis of tlie hill of Ladiiiir safe custody is as inneh a part of the contract of the carrier as due transport and riiiht in L:ood order and condition. :ind w len delivficd il ua> l)adl\' ihini- aii'cd Ity salt water, the evidence showin;^- to the >atist"at tioii (d' the court tliat the waiei' o!>taiiied access to tlie Liood^ throni:h the seani-- or cre\ Ices in the ccilinir of the steainer. 10\i(h'nce it i- provetl that the cai';.' • stowed aliove th<' iron in the>ainc hold c;, me out (h'y, il -eeins clear aliiio-t to a dciiion-tiation. thai if the ccilin;^- had liccn v.aler-tiL'ht no such damage would lia\<' iiccn occasioned, aixi tliat ihe swashilli:' of I he liiluc-wal cr lielween the sidis of the vessel and the ceiliiiti' would not li.i\e caused it to reach the sheet iron, thoiii:h stowed in the aft lnwer hold. Where j^oods are shipped and the iisijal hill of l.idiiiir liiven promi^ini.f to deliver the same in i^dod order, the daiii^ci's nf the seas ex- (•('pt('(| without more, and liny arc found to lie daimijicd, IIh otiils iii'iifid mil is upon liic (lUjiei-. nf the \ es^i 1 to sIkiW llltll the injury was (iecasi(Hied liy one (d' the excepted perils,^' Kcpoi'ted cases, JKtwever, may lie found where it is held lliaf if an exeeptehifts, anli(iw that it was not occasioned liy t h.il peril luit liy -oinc ne;rli.irein c of the < airier "liich rendered that peril elli'iciit . or co-upcr.itcd with il.or lii'oUL'hl it aliout uithoiil aii\ conucctio!i with the sea peril.' -' < 'iMik V. !'.:irn\v(!l. IJ How. -JT l»">li: .*-'.ii.ry on r.;iiliiiriits fTlli i'«l.) 5- .".2:1: Nelson \. \\ Iiiili. I jthi. I». I."ii; (iMil). ■''•'''rill' ln\iiifi !". 1 f.MW.'ll. JJ.". (Isiis); •j'lic I.(\in'„'li>ii. I! lliiw. :i 1 1 (isis^ < It. Mil. lie >Ii('cf «'lc:ir ill (I |C.III!CI'. "I'll, :iii(| '•i\t' the II' :iliii(i-.| il«'i-li-lit lli.'il llic IC \ (■>>(. I lIlC >ll<(| ■IT liUuds iii^iii'^' III >l'il» cx- il;v(|. till ll"U tilttl pciilH.-' i>l,-ril> exceiijcd, ;ire Ixnnid lo deliver the siime ill lli;it eoiidilioii iiiile» prcM-iileil li\- those peiils, iiiid Mi'c rcspoiisililc I'or any d:iiii:ii:-e to the i^oods occasioiicurvevor.s cxaniined the steamer after her return, and concur in the (iliinion thai she was not lit for siicji a vo\aire at that sea- .-(•11. in view of iier con-lriictioii and con-ei|iienl l( iidt'iicv to roll and produce lilowinn- in a heavy >ea. and niaii\' other uiliie»e> ar^ (d" ihe >aiiie o|Mnioii. Ili'i- inlcrnal cnn-tiaic- tion was >neii tiiat liiliic water coiihl hlou into the liold through the .-.cam- (d* her ceilini:- when >he rolled, it appear- iiii:' that liei- ceiliiiL!- \mis hnilt iijion the liio of the >liip. he- j^inniiiii' at I In- kc I-mh, only foiirtei'ii inches aliovc her ir»»ii hotloiii. iiid Hial il coiitiniii'd all thewavnp to Imi' main <|c('|«, JM'inu'oiily ahuiil fniir iiicin- ;iwa\- fr her iri>ii -idc-, which -how- thai lul'jc water luiL'lit I'ti^li up lictwcen the ceilinir and lui iron -idc- whci,.'\('r the shipped roi'iU-d, a* (here i- no e\ide|ice \u -how that the s<:uil- of tlr ceiliM'.r y\cVi' caiilkeil or pitched hcfoie -he sailc(|, or at aiiv lime (hiriii;/tlic \(iyai:e. |)id"ccisnf the kind mi'j'hl ea-tiv lia\e lieeii reiiicdicd l)cforc iIk' Mixairc liei^an. or al an\ titne dur- ing/ its projj-re-- : Init it iloc- not appear that aiiv altemiil WJI-* iiiimI'' litr«' •'iit.^'i' wiieii Ihe vessel rolled fidiii iilowin;^^ or escajwrnr throiiii'h the sciiiii.x of Ih'' ceilinjjr and rni flowed ill the hold. Snitalne appliances, it i- not douli1»'d, uoiihl have prevented -uch conse(|iiences, and protfcie<| the fi\r>fi> from damai;e. \««lhinir(>f the kind was done of at- tempted, and in view (d' the e\po-ed coiHJitiou of thi' (■ar;rf> *'riic('li:i-r.i. I.. |{. I A.liii. II'",. :\i I,. V. cN, S i '^:is dxT.'). 41: TMK (•(►XTIIACTS OP C MMMKIIM. [ ru. xiii. hii from the cMiisrs shown, (lie (•((iicliisioii imi-t lie tliiit llic |»l;irf wlicrc lilt' sMiiM" \v:is slowfd wms an unlit |tl:irc in llmt stcanitf foi' >to\\ iiiii' siH'li cai'ifo on >ii( li a vovai^c al lliat season of the ycai'. DclVnx'N of various kinds ai'c -rt up in arjfunicnl . of wliiili the two iirincipal onts (ifsrixc to lie >|ir( iaily cx- iiinin'Ml. I. Tliat tlic liill of iadiuL'' <\c(|»t> Icakauc. Iircak- airc and ni-l : tiic lanufuaji;*' of llie ii!>t laiinml iicint;' •' no! answcraldc for lcaUa;ic, hfcakairr oi' iii>t."" _'. 'I'lial llic (laiiiati*' was <-aus»M| Ky tiic '* perils (d' tlic xas," wiiliin llir nicaninir of the l)ill of ladinL^ « I. 'I'wo or niorr answers may lie made lo I he (hd'msc arisinjr from tin- said cxrcplion : — I. It is not adtMpialc to liavf (»c('asion(M| the lo-turf ueh an exception is ade(|uate tocoNer the damayv' in this ease, which arose from the pnd'useh wottinsxaud soakiuLM he sheet iron in salt MIlic water, lilown (hroUiih the seams and crevices of th< eeilimj; on the sides of tlu' phu-^' where ihe iron was slowed. VieUeil in the li;;lil of theai'tnal cireunistanees, it i>i clear that the exception is ni'ither a. Suppose, howv\er. it may have the effect »o shift the linitlen of proof, >lill it does noi follow ihat the defense e. » valid one, as it fidly appear- ihit the e\iden«e intio«luee«l li\ the lihellants is sullicieiil to oven-ome ev*«rv presumption in fa\or of the /arrii'r, and to show that the damairc* was occasioned hy mere want of foresiirht, care anti uppoit the x cond defence. IOvideiic<' to suppoit the defense was introduced in the court helou. consisting IT;i|,- lllli' •• IKil 'li;it liir iliiiii llic ' «lt'l'<'ll>C •'|ll!llc to >uca( <)|- Kttis ail- to Cdv ('!• "f i»i(Mir it liv iii> to COV i'l- >r(»rus,.|v I", lllow II llif -iilcs llir li^'l.l • 'plioii is (IMT ill,. .•l>c. .1. • liiirdi'ii • n valid I l.y III.- in fa\(tr •a>ioii('(i ' sj'foiid I'odllrcd Ik- iiias- -t (il(> caiiv iiiir earL'oe> !is coininon carriers iiiiisl lie lilted to ciicoimier oi'dinaix >ca perils on the voyajrc desci'jlM'd in the c(nilr!icl of shijinieiit. Injuries t(» cariro I'esiillhicf from su. h |.cril~ ;:i\(' the shi|i|ier a liirlil of. action a;jfMins| Ihe carrier, liiil the court hclow, on the evidence then cxhiliiled, found that tlie<;ales were proved to he of exlraordinarv violence, and *iich as woidd have hecn likely to dainai:*' :i seaworlliv shi|), anrn:lit d.imairc Iti Ihi' vessel, Mini Ilic colli riidictory lestiniony introduced hy llic liliellanls since the appial, I he court is of th.dpinion that the \io|eiiccof the j^ales was iiiiich exasjip' rated in the le>.|ini(iliy of the ollicci- as intiddiiccd in the court licjow,'' OppiHi't) In I he tlieoi \ of the respondents that the v\as occasioned li\ the extr;iordinary " peril- of the seas," i' till' lllilli'il le-timony of the sixteen witnox's ^ince intro- dljceil In Ihe respondents. Siillice it to ^ay wit lioni reproduc- ing' their lestiniony, that llie\ are witin^siw .,f j^ical iinillical cvperieiicc, and lli.it t h< \ ;ill tc-i I'y in -ul»l,iiiec .and effect that the weather, e\«'n as descrilied liy llic masler. wa- n»»t more hoislerons than is usually foi Ion that \o\ >;j:eat tlutt ■■'" I'll.' ()(|ii.'inl(i. :{s !.. '!'. I N. S. . |.")l. til 'I'll!': (ONTI.VXCIS (»!• CAIMMKIiS. [t»':iiii('is ('(iiiiiiiji' wt-luiiid (i\ci' llic saiiM' luiilc a> llii' >lcaiiH'i' of llif n'~-|Miii(lfiils, >lartiiiL:- al (lilTficiil liiiifs latt'f, ovfrlook and parsed licr a( variiiii> [Ktiiils (III Ik r cinirsc, and cncoiinlt'ifd lo linic ( >ii tlic utlur liiiid, >t(ann'r> uliicli \v['\ a uccU cailici' than tin- -"Ifanu'r n[ ijic ropiiiidi'iits, cindiinii rc'l ^cmtc and licav v Wfallicr, .-inli its is til lu' i'\|ii< it'll and i-< ii-nall\ f\|ifriinf|i;iiiL;' nnnitlis. Iii(|iiirv \va> made (d" tlic iiia>tri' w lictluT 111" iidl there was anv iinnsiial u ind ur \\ eat her tliirin;^' llu' voyap', and his Mn>\\er was : ••We had \ ery heavy plies, sir, liiit I eiinid imt >ay it was an iiiiii>iial ihin^ji,' to have — e.\i'.'|tl al that sea>iiii — lieinw xi I'ar aiUaiu fd.'' Kxaniiiied in the lii:lil ul' tlie whnh- i \ idciiee, the eoiirt is (if the diiinidii that the I'espiHident s have faih-il to show that the damaj_'e was ((ceasidiied liy tlie '• peiils of (he seas" within the ineanini:' of tlie liiil of ladini:. .Miieli testinidiiy was inlrddiieed liy the respective [>arlie> in lepird td the dunnaiii' df the^heet irmi stdwcd in the hiwcr Imld. '* hiiii- naire" ii->iially ednsisl^ of pieces iif wikmI pia( cd apiiiist (he sides and liiiltiuii ul' the hdid df tiie >hip, tii pnitect the caipd fi'diii iiijnry liy cdiitait with the nc^-cI nr dliier carpi, (ir li\' leaUap'. ( "duliiied td tiiat piirpuse, t lie cdiirt is df the njiiii- idii that tlieweii:ht df t he e\ ideiiee shiiws thai it was siif- liiieiit, iillt if its piirpdse he extended as a iiieail< td pl'dteel the car^'d >t(iwe(l in the liiild fruiii licinu- wet In Itilp- water lihiwn tlirdiii:li ihe -eaiiis and crevices id' a (|efecti\c ceiiinti'. the idiirt is (if the dpiiiiiin that it was clearly insiilH<'i<'iit In affdi'd any >ncli sntiicient prdteciidii. ( 'diiclii-.i\(' prind' is exhiliiled that the eeijini:' was iidt water tii:lit,and all (lie witnesses examined upon tin* siihjeet, exce|il the head stexc- dore and diie of his assistants, had ifiveii evidence tendinis t()edi;\ince thecdiiit that the salt water ohtaiiied access tn the sheet ii'dii t hrdniiii theccilini;. 'restinidiiy to thecdii- (rary eoines chielly ffniil the stevcddic, Imt his staleineiits lire so indetiiii(«', ediitradictiiiy, rash and incdiisideral*'. lliat liev fail to secure the cdlicui'renee of the court ill (heir ac- < II. Mil. 11(1 (M( T >lMr(illi; \!iriiiii> H' oiIk r IIIKT !)( • •!•, MkIi lill.li- tllc <>r the \\(';illi(T \ licavv liiii:' !i) •(i."' • nlil'l i> low tli.-it I' si';|n" >l illMUIV I to tllc Dllll- (ill^t tllc It' r:iii:(» o, or |)\ lit' (tpin- >v;is siil'- |»l(»tcrl •<• u:iicr <'('iliiiii-, •iciit ltc\c- ti'iidiiin' •ccs> lo lie coii- cinciils c, that K'ir ac- ( II. MM. r\i!i:iM»i;ii;i> fAM:>4. n:> rUra<-y. licV'tlul i'ii|itlo\cfsy till' (|illli;i;j'c t(» I he >hcc( iron wasoccMsidiicd l)\ " lili)«iii;:." I.\ which iv mcaiil thai the -iili liilirt' water ('(HiikI !ic. c-> to (he iidn :is >i(iue(l i,, ijic forward |i;il't td" the a ft er lioll. thl'ulli:ii the >e;iiil> and «M'c\iec of the eeiliii;: win n the vc-m I rolled: from whicj, it follows iliMl tin lil»cll:;iit-. ;ire entitled lo rcmv er. Miid llinl the de- cree inil^t lie reversed. Scpiiratc lilidiiii.'s of fjid niid l;i\\ .ire rci|uire(l in ai' adiiiiiidtv Miil in the ( 'irenii Conrl in all ca>c- where I he ainoiinl in eoiilrov crsv, (ni a|i) cal, is siillii i- elit to i;i\e 1 he Siipreiiie ( 'oiirt jlllisdiel ion to re-exiiinilie t he decree reiidei'eil in the Circuit Ciiirt : lnit where the sum or \aliie in dis|)ille docs not exceed the - un or value (d" live thousand didlai-, a inoic ^icncral liiuiiii'j' o!" tlni-e matter^ ill the opinion (d" the ('ircnit ( .>iiil will !•. -iilli( ieiit .-'^ Prior to the liliiii:- (d' le answer the li. clhints tiled an ainendnient to the lihel, iiicreiisini:' the f<»/ /A///(/ lia\ iiiL:' lieen did v allowed, a> othcrw i-c it won hi he allowed ii\ t his fonrt . ( )n dinie HI, l.sTii, the liiic Hants asked lea\ e to tile a second cunnl a> an ainendnient to the lihel, and the court ordered it |daced on tile. rocrviiiL:' the (|iie-tioii (d' it> allowance o|- disallowance to lie decided al the tiiial heariiiL;'. I'iir>naiit to that order the ainendnient as |iro|)(»sed is allowed, liiit the addilional anieiidiiieiit proposed jil the aritti- inciit further iliereasini; the i'eitain the anioiiiit , the court lieiiiLl" satisfied that the |os> exceeds e\c i the aineiideil .-Jir) J l.:ilil, -'•''Hie Wiuiiiiii. 11.') f. s. ciH) i^x^'ii). 1 i 'iu ^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I La 12.8 150 ^^ 2.5 2.2 I ^ iiiii 1.8 — 1— lill'-^ ^ 6" ► 7. Photographic Sciences Corporation \ ^ •SJ [v 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0 (716) 872-4S03 11 ms > ■ V' 416 THE CONTRACTS OF CARUIKIIS. [CH. XIII. The decree of the District Court is reversed and a decree for the lihelh'uts entered for tiie sum of four tlionsand dol- hirs, with costs. NoTK. — Upon the.ft'r.s<])r<>i)o.-:iii()ii()f t]n' !<)/Unhiis in tlic forcfjoinjjf ease see ante. §;? 1. r),14!). Upon the .svco/h/ proijosition of tlie siillnbus see ante, §<) 1152, 1(1."). Upon the third ]>rop(>sition of tiie Kijllahiis ace autc, ^ V.Vl, IS-i. Upon tlie fiiurth proi)osilion of the syllabus see ante. §§ 1215, "240, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251. ,1 , f §257. ASSENT TO CONDITIONS IN IJILL OF LADING — EXEMP- TION FIIOM LOSS BY '-FIIiE — BURDEN OF PKOOF — ACTS OF MOB. Wertiieimeu V. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. United States Circuit C'tiurt, Scntthern Distnct of A^ew Yurk-. Janitanj, ISSO. Before Hon. Wii.I-iam .1. Wam.ack, District Jn(l!j;e. 1. The acceptance of a bill of ladinj;: at the lime of the delivery of th(^ goods constitntcs a conlraci lietwccn tlie parties aci'ordinj; to tlie terms and conditions wliicli a]t])e;ir iipi>n its fai'c. 2. AViiere the contract except-; cerliiin hisses, tlie hnnlen of ])rovin!i: (hat the loss in (picslion arose fiom the ncglij;<'nce of the carrier, is ajxni the shippoi'. ii. Evidence lh;it tin' destriictii)n of the li'oods liy lire (mm I'xcepteil li;i- hilily) was tic act of a nml) cniraitcd in a striiuiih' w ith the anthi>ri- ties of Die Stale. wiilKdil any in'dof thai the carrier was Ixiund from the circiimsiaiiccs to anticipate such a icsiill. is iiisiilliciciit to charge him with ncgligeiice. Ailolph L. Sanger, for pltiinliffs ; Jiohinmn ('|>t«'il li.i- ic niitlioii- iiinii froiM lo cliiir^rc '^criJiHcr, rcccivod )oi'tiili()ii At the ^iTcd to CM. XllI.J IM.'Kl'OUTKD CASKS. 417 plaintiffs ;; bill of hi'liiiii-, \vlH'i'e])y it niiTccd to tniiisport the u'oods, siihjcct to several eonditions, anionu- Avhieli was one llial the eonipany should not he res[)()iisil)le for loss or dama^H'e I)_v lire, unless il t'onld he shown that sueh damage (tf loss oeciiiTed Ihrouuh the nei'Tnieiice or default of the agents of till' eonipany. On the 17ih of .July, the ear eontaining the goods was dispatched hy defeiulaiit fi'oni flersey ('i(y for I'ittshurgh, reaehiug l*ittshurgli ahout 1 o'cloeU a. m., July 2()th, at which time a moh took posse>sion of the defendant's prop- erty, including the car in ipiestion, and held [lossession un- til .luly '1'1(\, when trooi)s ordered hy the (iovernor of the State to aid the sheriff in retaking the property came in conflict with the moh, failed to dispossess the mob, and the nioh tired the pi'operty and thorehy destroyed it. The delivery of the hill of lading hy the defendant, and its acceptance hy the plaintiffs at the time of the delivery of the goods, must he deemed to constitute a contract he- tween the parties, with the conditions contained in the hill of lading.'" Tliese cases all hold that the slii[)per ivho ac- cepts the hill of lading can not he liearil to alleg*' ignorance of its terms. It is inmec'ssary to refer to the cases where from the peculiar circunistaiices aitending the acceplanee of (lie receipt asstiit lo its terms was held not to he implied, as the pre-ciii v'tise is the ordinary oiu' where no peculiar circumstances are slioun. Neiiher are the cases in point which decide that assent on the part of tlieshi|)per will not he implied io any condit ions wliich do not appear on the face of the hill of lading. Smli was the case in Ai/r('!< r. IIV.s-/- t'rn I'mi'spiirliilinn ( 'otii jui iii/,''^ which was decidetl on the au- thoi'itv of lidlii'odil ( 'mil jKi III/ r. Ma nil fi(rl iiri inj ('diiijhiiii/:''- •■" York Co. V. Ci'iilnil ilailroiid. ;> Willi. Id? O"^''"') : I5:nik of K("iii;cky V. Adiiiiis i;\;.n--~ Co.. :!;> V. S. 171. 1 Cent. F, ..>.;!.') (lS7(i) : (!,■) (l>;B j» w^ l! ^ r iW W WP ' Wi f :li r' ' ' 9 '*' 418 THE CONTKACTS OF CAKUIKItS. [CII. XI ir. Tlio c'ifcct of the contract miido hclwocii the jiiirtics was to impose uixm the plaintiffs the l)ur(h'n of i)roving that tht^ h)ss ^of the ii'ooils by lire arose from tlie nouliu'ence of tlie defendant or its a^'ents. Jn Clark r. JJaniirc//,'" Air. flus- tice Nklsox says: " Ahhouuh the injnry may have heen occasioned by one of tlio excepted causes in the hill of ladinsj;-, yet still the owners of the vessel ar(^ responsible if the injury miulit have been avoided by the exei'cise of rcas- ona'oie skill and attention on the part of the pei'sons cm- l)l()yed in tht^ conveyance of the "jfoods. V>n\ the onus proltamll then beiomes shifted u[)on the shippei- to show the neji'liii'ence.'' In Trdiisjx^r/nfidii ('<>iiij>/ r. JJoiriicr,'^ the judu'inent of th<' coiu't l)elow was reversed because the jurv were instructed that it was incumbent u[>on the defend- ant [the cari'ier] to brinir itself within the exceptions by showinu" that it had not been guilty of nealiu-ence. Other authorities to tlu^ sann- point need not be cited, as the cases referred to are conclusive u\nm this <'ourt. 'i'he plaintiffs have not shovi'n neu'liu'ence on the ])ait of the defen" to show that the defendants were bound from the circumstances to anticipate such a result, the defens(> was athrmatively estai)lished. The motion for a new trial is denied. Nol'K. — I'piiii the jif^l |ir(>|io>iti(in af llic siilhtlns ill llir fiil <'i;'iiiin;- c;isc. sec initr. ij^ 1(10. 101. JOJ. JD.i. 101. 11)."). 111. 1 IJ. 1 11!. I If. 1 l.">. 1 hi. lixiii llic t'l'i'diid. ipr()|i(isili()ii of liic t'^illdliiis. SCI' (nifi . f.i, 2l'.i. "J.")0. '2')\. I'poii tlu; Jiird i)r(i[)()silioii irf tlic si/lhtlius. .••ee initc,^ lliS. /in.«if, S '2')S. •'■■1 12 Unw. 272 (18.-)1). '« 11 Willi. 121) (1870). [CH. XTII. rir. XIII.] rXlIKPOllTICI) CASES. 41!> irtics W!is r Ihill the ice of the Mr. .his- liivi! been ic bill of oiisihio if of rcjis- soiis cin- llie o/^(^s- show llio 'cause tli(> ic (Icfciid- 'j)tioiis li\' e. Otiici- tlic cases plaintiffs efeiidaiit. Ive of any hen it aji- l)hiint ills' fanccl in a c, without from the 'fcns(> was (' fiil('j;'(,ii|M . ii.'). iji;. 111. iT.d. IM. ^< i^s. STATUS OF CARUIKU AWKU Sl'HCIAL COXTRACT — l)i:i.AY — I)i;sTRr( l.ON' of I'ltOl'FUTV r.Y M()l{ — F\- IvMI'TlOX FliO.M (.OSS-WillLK IX TKAXSlTOiJ DKl'OTS." Hat,!, v. Pknn-.svia axia liAnj;c>Ai) Company. I'li'did Sliilr.-i (Urniit ('nnrt. F, islciii Dishii't nf ]'ri>iisiiln(iii(i.Jihi(i"rij,\>i^O. Iiirorc iieii. \Vii.i.i.\Ai McIvr.NNAN. Circiiii .Jiiilii-c. 1. A riirric!' docs no] cfus" tn he ;i (•(uniiioii ivu'i'icr hy re-isoii (if ;i ciii!- i.liri liinililiu; lli> ii:ii)i!;ly. luil "■i)lilili:ii's suhjcr! io ;i!l liis li;i!i:!i!i('> iiS i-U'-ii ('vc'pt l' ^-c'i'V;m!s ;url :iiii'ii;>. 2. Wliili' ;i coinmnu carr'iM' (muM iioi cy, use ;i dcliiy by sIkins iii^- tliar it ai'osc from iIk! acts i.l' a uuil), such a delay will iDt wiirrant an iiiipu- lalidii ii'' K'U'li^'ciicc -iinw iiij.'; a cause ef less fer wliicli lie is ex- (ircssly relieved Iruiii lialiiliiy by tiic tcnii-^ e!' Ids contract. |{. A ciiiidilioii ill a bii! w iiich t! was unable to resist and which two day> iii'lerw arils de-lroyed it by lire, Jo/in Fdllnii, for i)iaiii)i!'f, Waiiii''^tac}\'at'en(Iant, a^oul duly !!•. l."'??, I'oinid il^elf un- al)ie 1(> maintain au'aiust the force of a niol), '■ntire possession and eonvrol of its own 'properly, and tlu' propci'ty in its cus!()d_\-, inciudinu' thai of tlie phiintiff, and lo operat(> its road. It then eaUed nixai the pro]ier authorities, inclndiiiii' ihesiieriff of .Mi»"rhei!y county, for assistance and protec- tion ; a re(|uisition was made by said sheriff upon the (Jovernor for the assistance of the mililary power of the Coninionwealtli. In pursuance of siu-h reipiisition, troops were ordered by the (iovernor to aid said sheriff in re-takiu!j: and i ■'-deliverinjjf to the defendant entire possession and con- trol of such projx'rty, and to enable it to o[)erale its road ; and in endeavoring so to do, said troops, on fluly "Jl, 1S77, came into conilict with said mol) and failed to dispossess the same, and innnediat<'ly after said eonllict and finlure the l)ro[)erly in (juestion was destroyed by tire coinniunicated by said mob. 4. The u'oods in (piestion were received by the (icfend- ant on bids of lading of the form of the annexed receipt, "being on;> of what is usually known as the " Ked Star I'nion Ivine fast freight " receipts, with all and singidar the condi- iions therein contaiiu'd. 'ihisbill (d' ladiu'ris numbered No. :.'N')(), and is tiiiis idenliiied and e.\hii)i!eu as part of ilse lind- inu' in tiiis casi'.'''' 'ft]. ri •^"' 'I'iii' liill of hiijiicj,- ciHlaiiicMl, ;iin'iii'j;-t olii;'!-:;. .lie Tulldw in;;- I'lindi- lions: ••'I'ii-U- llic siiiil I'ni'Ui Uiic. ninl llic -t'':iiii'i'i:ils. I'liili'nail cmii- paiiiiv- aiiil I'orw indiiiu' line- w i'.li w l:i 'li it ruiincri;, jiiid w liicli icci'iNr aid iiniiKTiv. -;(if \v('L;-iil. or for condition of lialiii;:'. on liay. Iiciiip ■ >:■ ciition : nor for to,;-; or (ianiaii:*' of any kind on any arliclc whose hulk iC!|iiirc.-' ii U\hi' c.\:'!ii'd on ( p-n cars: nor for daiiiai,(' to pcrishaltlc [cm. XIII. whicli llicv lioods Were 1 ilM'ir 1111- ' |'()ss('s.--i()ii »t'ity ill its OjK'l'illc its •^, iiicliidiiii:- 111(1 protcc- upoii tlic wci- of llic ion, troops ill i'('-l;ikiii!x on ;iii(l con- ic its roiul ; y 21, 1,S77, possess (he fiiihin' tlic uiiic;i|{'(l i»y llic (Icfcnd- ncri.-liiiJili" III. Mil.] I'NKKrOKTKI) CASKS. 421 Tlic t'orcu'oiim- I'acis arc found in pursuance of llic written admission of the parlies tiled in tlie case. It is fnrtlier round : "). If tl'.e transit of i^oods in (|ii(>stioii had not liccn inter- rupted at l*illsl)uruli, ami had lieeii continued in reirular course, the train contaiiiinu' them would have In-en at a con- sideral)le distance from I'illshui-iih (>astward before the time of the occurrence of the lire. (!. AVlicn the train conlaining. said troods reached the depot of the dcfeiidai'.t in I'ittshuruh on ,ialy lil.the hands who had conducted it there left it, and a " strike " of all the rei;-ular train hands of the dereiidant occurred on that day, in conseqiiciice of a refusal hy the defendant to accede to their demand for an increase of wau'e.s, 7. On the I'Jth of July there were .standing' on the track ill the (U'liol yard at I'lttshurji'li a nuinher of cars laden witli petroli'um, aliout one imndred and tifty yards distant from the cars which contained the plaintiff's ooods. They were in the same relative [xisition on tlie day when the tire oc- curred. The oil cars were kept in jilace hy ordinary brakes. The ui'ade of the road was deseendiny; towards the froiffht cars so that the oil cars would run towards the former by their own gravity. At or befon^ the occurrence of the tire the oil cars were caused to move down the grade until tluy came in contact with the freiirht cars, and they were all burned up tou'cther. ■s. On the I'.Uh, 2(ltli, and 21st of July freight trains eon- liiHK'd to be brought into the dc[)ot yard of the defendant at Pitlsburgh, bolli from the east and west, in the regular |>r(>|>ci'!y of iiiiy kiii',1. occa- iuiii'd tiy delays from any cMiisc or liy cliiiiijjt'S of wciitiii'i-: nor for loss or (laiiianc on any arllclt' or proiicrly w liatcvcr, liy lire or (>:iii'r ci'.snaliy w liiic in Irausii orwliik' in depots or places of traii--it, iind were lliri'c slojijicd so that tlicic was an unusual accuniulalion of li-airs at thai point. The court is r('Si)octfully rt'(|uesl('il iiy plaintiff to Iind a^ mattors of law : 1. That defendant's dntv as common carriers was to carry plaintiff's ooods from the several points of shipment to * * Philadeli)hia, the jioint of delivcrv of all, without any unusual or avoidable delay, and apart from the s[)eeial conditions in the hill of ladin;:-, tlefendant is liai)le for l()s> from any cause save the acts of (Jod or a liuhlic enemy. 2. Tliat defendant did not cease to l)e common carriers by reason of the conditions in the l)ill of ladini:', hut con- tinued subject to all liaiiilities of common caniers, except for losses hai)penin,u- for causes enumei'ated in said condi- tions, without default or neii'liii-cnce on the part of defend- ant's servants or employees, while defendant was actually discharii'inii" its duties of carryinu' the uoods from the i)oint of shipment, in the usual and i)ro[)er maimer. 3. That the interruption of the transit by reason of IJie refusal of the servants of defendant, in chtirii-e of thc'r freiffht trains on which plaintiff's iioods were bein;r carried, to perform their duty, was a default on tlu^ i)art of defendant. 3 1-2 That the strike and n^fu^al to perform duty on the part of the men, does not justify or excuse the interruption of the transit of plaintiff's uoods; ami that defendanfs election not to pay the ten per cent, additional wanes de- manded, and in lieu theivof to allow thi^ uoods to I'emain at rittsburg'h, wholly or jjartly in lh(> control of persons who prevented defendant from " operatinji' its road" and per- forming' its contract as common carriers, makes defendant liable for all the consequences, incliidin<>' the destruction and loss of said u'oods durinu' the])eriod that the transit was thus interrupted, and the i)laintiff's j)roperty thus wronufully controlled, without proof of any other negligence or mis- conduct on part of defendant. 4. That allowing or suffering othei's than their own (>m- l)loyee.s to take from def(MuIant the possession or c(nitrol, Leu. XIII. tlicrc wiis \o liliil ;i< 1.^ to fiii'i'v ipincnt lo I, without the s[)('ci:il !(' foi' los> iiciiiy, »i» (■;in-i('rs r. l>iit coi!- t'VS, (>XC('J)i -aid coiKti- of (Icfciul- :!s .'ictnallv 1 the })oi)it !soii of 111,. l;(' of tlicM' iiiir cai-ricd, I'cniaiii at crsons who and jxT- di'ft'iidant •net ion and it was thus \vi'on«rfully <•(' or inis- r own 0111- or contro!, cii. xm.] rXKKI'OltTKI) CASKS. 423 wlicthcrin whoh' or in part, of phiintiff's ooods, and to use that control not fortlie purpose of furthcriii}; or continuin"- the transit I>ut for tlie purpose of suspendiiiir and [)revent- iiiiT it, was a (h-fauU on the part of defenthmt. .'). Tliat however proper it may have been for defendant to eail on the pulilic authorities for protection and assist- ance " in re-lakinu: and delivering- to defendant the entire possession and control of said prop-rty," such act of pro- priety in no way justities the i)revious default in sufferinjj; the |)ossession and control thereof to pass out of their hands. (). That tlu^ various risks (Miuinerated in said conditions, which are assumed hy [)laintiff in relief of defendant's licii- eral lial)ility and more especially the risk " of tire while in transit," are limited to losses occurrinu- while the defendant is enuau'cd in carryin<>' the i^oods in the i)roper discharue of its duties under its contract, and do n(»t include loss hv tiro ocHturrin^' while the transit is suspended, and the ht trains to conu^ into Pittsl)ur facts which the court is recjuestcd by plaintiff to tiiid ineiitioned. H. That it was gross default sind negligence to allow cars loaded with petroleum to continue to stand on the track under all the circumstances and manner and for the period of time in the ! (Vdiii ilioiis of I'ii' pitiiii I'ioiis iii- llic (U>. !i Itrciicli i)iiiiii(irr ill (l.'iiii- cvidciicc lliscd l)y ' <»f the (I fo tlic pl.'iiiitiff wcr of ii >iitaiiiiiii>- I'OIU ()|)(>- slcps to rifics for with llu! 111(1 that (I l)V ail not pro- 'atioii ;is • luiitary riMU'c to xnrcsslv lie train 'd from 1) resist. fir. XIII.] rM!Kl'()I!TKI> TASKS, .{•->:> It can not ln' lii-M ri'>;i:)ii.il»|i' foi' lln' piirpo-ic ol" the. ino'», alllioii.iiii the act of tiic inolt in iiitcrccptinj; llic tran^poiia- t ion of liic ^oods iiiiulit siil»j('iM tlic (Icfciidant lo <'oiiipciisa- tion to the piainlil'f for any loss siistiiincd liy him hv I'casoii of such interrupted transit of his ^•oods. I decline, there- fore, to atlirin this proposition. .''>. This i)ropositioii is ;itiiriiied, with the (|iialilicatioii that I do not say that the del'eiid'iiit was in dcd'ault , otherwise than as iind f(»r the reason stated in the answei' to proposi- tion .'{ 1-1'. (I. I decline to allirin this proposition. The exception in the hill of lading:' is that the ciii'rier shall not he lialile "for loss oi' (laniauc on any article or properly whatever, l)y tiro or other casnalty while in transit or while in depots or places of Iraiis-shipinent .'" The eiiiiia^icnient of the carrier is to as- snnie the custody of the property intrusted to him at tho point of shipment, and to deliver it al the place of destina- tion, and the obvious intent as well, I think, as the clear import of the exception is to pKttecl him airainst the conse- (|uences of tin^ durinii- the continuance of his duty as a cur- rier. His (|ualiti('d lial)ility is co-extensive with this duty, and he forfeits its protection only by some fault of his own in connection with the casualty to which the exception re- fers. Nor can I regard it as will. in the reason of the ex- ception to hold that it is eliminated from the contract when the pro|)erty in the carrier's eharire is wrested from him by a hostile force which he is unable to resist, and it is con- sumed in an incendiary tire, althoiiuh his exclusion from tho possession and control of it may last for two days before it is thus destroyed. 7. J decline to alHrin this |)roposition. 8. 1 decline lo alHrm this proposition for tho roasons that tho petroleum ears were presumably in tho usual and projior place for them in the depot yard : that they were at a safe distance from the cars containinir the plaintiff's iroods, and wore there secured by mechanical appliances usually em- ployed for that pur[)()se ; that they might lawfully I)o kept I I 42(! tin; (■()nti!A( ts of cAitniKus. [cm. jom. i '- tluTo, ami lliiit (licir rt'iiioval into coiiImcI uilli the oIIkm" cars was 1 he act of the iiicciuliai'v iiioh wliicli liiid for two days iR'forc inaiiitaiiic(| a forcible inaslcry of the situation. S>. J (Iccliiic to allinu this proposition. U|)oii liic whoK' case I am of tiic opinion, and so find, tliat the h»ss complained of was caused l»y tire while the plaintiff's "oods wcic in transit hy the defendant within the ineanin7. § J.")!). Kxriii;ss coMi'AN'Y — -KoiMv \i{i)i:ir' — xi:(;i.i- (JHNCK — CONDriloN IN ItKrKII"!' AS TO \AUK Ol' AHTK'I.i: — Dl'l'V (»!•' SIIII'I'KI!. fi; (lAi/r V. Ada.ms Ivxi'KKss Company. Hiiprnnc Cnitrt. nf the Dhlrict of ('uhtinhin, Sei>ti'mhrr. 1>^7!). Hon. l)Avii> 1{. (AiriTKi;. Chief .Insticc. •• Andwkw Wvi.ik. '• AiiTiii It McAiMiii w. '• A. 1$. llAdNKW. '• Wai.tki! S. < 'ox. '• ClIAltl.KS 1'. Ja.MKS. AssociiiU' .Iiistii'c; ]. All express eoinii.Tnyiipoii rcceiviiifj tlirce piicka^es for tiiiiisi)oitiilioii gave the sliipper a rcccipf in which it was staled tliat llic coiniiaiiy were •■ forwarders only :"' Jlrhl. tliat these words were ineffcetiial to restrict its liahility. Tlic law deteniiiiies the character of the occupa- tion of exprcssineii; it assij^ns to them the liahililics of coniinon car- riers, and this stulns is not affected hy an agreenieiil lietwecn the par- ties that thcv arc not carriers hut "forwarders." II. MM I. ImM- Cill'S i\<> (lavs so find, lilc tlit> hill tli<> till! (If- li,tr*'ii('(! isc iiii- i'»'('«)\t'r. the dc- fiirco((iiii_i- oirn:i) camkh. xi:<;i.i- M !•: OK lortalioii '>ini)aiiy 'cIiimI to <)C('lll)il- loii car- tlie par- •J. 'I'lic f(iiili-Mcl III' a I'oiiHiioii caiiitT wliicli >ll|iiilalcs I'l I'iniii rc-|(nn-iliilily for ihc n-iilN (.!' lii* iic;ili;;ciiiM' is vuiil asay,iiii pnlilic |)iilicy. 427 ■inpliiiii 1-1 :(. 'rill- in'ovlsloii 111 a r i|il j^ivcri hy an cxii If-^s coiiiliaiiy Ihal l|ii> hltlc will iKil he iialilc licy I a rcilaiii >iim if liit- jii-l :iiii| ir (lie |iii>|M'ily lie iiui (Icclari'il al llif liini' nf ijn- s| limit llic lialiiliiy (if llic carrier a- an iii-mcr. Ill' \aliii' iif liliiiiciil. 1-i valid "() 4. lllir a (■(HidirKHi of llii- cliaraclci' whirji seeks in ciivfl' llic lie^'li^^eliee (if the cairier is vniij. Ti. 'i'lii- oiiiissidii of one (lealiiii; wi'.li a coiiiiiKm carrier to advi-e liiin as lo llic value (if the ariicic iirescnted for carriaiii . and ilial it- actual Is ;;i'caici' lliaii its aiijiarcnl \alnc. will nut alfcci Id- li^liN. unless ii jiisiilicd the carrier in ado|iiinn' the conr-c of condiicl ilirmiiili which the loss occurred. The fiicts apiicar in tiic ()|)ini()ii. A. »S'. J line Mild iliijiiiiild FnnduU for phlililirf ; IT. />'. Wd)}) i'of (h'f('ii(hmls. flAMKs, ,1., (h'livci't'd Ih" opinion of Ihc coiift : This cause comes hefe on exceptions to tlie ilistnielions y Ihem and so si)ecilied in (his i-eceipl : which insur- ance shall conslilute the limit of ihe liahii'ty of (lie Adams Express Company," That the three r(>ceipts ihiis sii^-ned by the aiitMil of the company were contained in a book furnished by the com- pany to the plaintiffs ; that excepting:' the charire for fi-eiaht the blaidvs therein were tilled uj) oy plaintiffs' bookkeeper l)efore they were siancd : that no (juestion was asked and nothinjr was said by either party as to theconlenls or value of the |)aeka_u-es ; that the ex[)ress comp.iny placed the three paekaires in a car set apart for its use attached to the train of the Haltimoreand Potomac Kailroad Company, for trans- portation to the consignees at New Voi'k and Pniir.delphia ; that while on its Avay to 15aItimore this train collided at Bennin.o's Station with another train, whereupon the express company's car with o.hei-s eau,-:ht lire from the locomotive and was burned, together with the packai^cs in (jUestion and a considerable nuaniity f>f valuable "oods and i iarn'c amount of nioiiey ; that this collision was caused b\ the ncLiiiu'ence of the switch tenders in the emphn ui' the Ualiimoi'c and Potomac Kailroiul Company at Uemiinu's, win, had opened the switch for another train to pass on to the sidinu- and there remain until the ni<:ht expros fi-oiu Washington should l)ass, and had failed to chan^u'e it back: that when tin- en- gineer cau,i>ht sin-ht of the switch-taravt at lienniim's, then only thirty yards distant, the train was runninti' about thirty- live miles an hour, and notwithstanding' his best efforts to check its speed, passed on to the sidinu' with such monuMit- um that it telescoped half the train therv' standing:-, killing the postal clerk and injuring several other persons; that Avithin live iinnutes the train was on lire from end to end, ("11. XIII.] UNKKl'OKTKI) CASKS. 42!) !iii(l !i liiru-(^ jinioiiiit of ii()f)ds in Ihc c'.\[)ivss conipany's car was ill (■()iis(Mni('iic{' (Icstrovtjtl. The |)l!iintiiTs fui'ilu;r iiitroihiccd evidence leiuliiiji- to show that of the packaiics shipped by theWi, one contained silvcv- phite, coin, iSi.c.. anioiinliniL>: in vahie to $()l'!l.;)S, another an amethyst rin<;- worth 81:^, and a third a silver spoon worth $red the silver fiMnid in it to one Hart of Xev,- ()rl(>aiis, who claimed to have shipped i(. The tlefi ndant further offered eviileiice to show thai there was nothinu,' to indicate that lilainliffs' packages wei'c of any special value. It thus appea'-s by evidence oiTercd l»y the (h'fendant, and, therefore, by admission, either that the plaintiffs' jiackim-es were uttei'ly destroyed at tlictime of the collision, and fai'ed bv that reason to reach tlu'lr destination, or th;;t the whole ()!• such part of them as were saved and forwarded were ile- livered to some othei' party. ri)on this evidenc(! the defendant askeil the court to in- struct the jury as follows: 430 TIIK CONTltACTS OF CAI!I!IK1!S. [Cir. XHI. •A L J St. " 'riiiit tlie cxc't'utioii of tlio express receipt ov liill of l:idin<^' of tlie Adiiiiis Ivxjjress C'onipiiiiy ;iiul its iieeeptiince l>y the plaintiffs eoncurrently with the (h-livery ami receipt of the i)ro|)erty, coiislitule a special contract helween the parties for tlu' ciirriaire of iheuoods ; and Ihe riii'hts and liuhilities of the i'es[)ective [)arties are to he pncrned therehv, and the conditions and exemptions therein set forth are to ])e hindinii' on ea<'h." Tliis iiistrnclion was ;:ranted with the followinii" proviso: "• Presided, that iiie jury do r.ot lind that the loss of the packaucs was occasioned l>\' the u'i'oss ne_ii:li;i'ence of t lie del'enuant .'" 2d. *' If the jnry Ix-IIcnc froni the evidence that at the time when the packavi-s in (jneslion wcr(Mlelivered hv |)lain(- iffs to defendant for carriau'e, the said defendant or its servants or au'ents asked of said DlaintilTs the value of said l)aeka_u-es, and that the sai such value and concealed the same, so (hat the said defendant as carriers were ianoi'ani of the value thereof; then the said plaintiffs, if entitled to recover at all, can only recover in this action the sum of lil'ly dolhu's, with interest from tiie time of the said loss."" This insti-uclion was uivcii with the (pialiHcations attached to the first. ;5d. "That it was thedutyof the plaintiffs, at the time of the delivery of the packau'es in (jucstion (o the Adams Express Companv under the terms of the contraci. to state the ^ahie of said packaji-es, if tlicy desired '-i 'ase of loss to recover a sum exceedinu' iifty (1mI1:ii's."" This instruction was o-iven with tlie ijualilicalion alreament limitir the liabilities of the con)i)an\ to the sum of Iifty dollars, li was inciiml)ent upon the plaintiffs to dis- close the value in view of the fact that the packajre con- tained articles of ii,-re:!t value, sucji as silver, etc."' This instruction was also li'iven with (he same tjualilieation. By their vertliet for an anminit lai^iclv exceedini>- tln^ jr. xiri. CU. XIII.] I' \ U K I'OIIT I : I ) C.S SKS . 431 r l)ill of I'cccipt ■cell tlic its ;iii(l lH'r('I)\-. 1 iirc to wilh tlic i<«i lind ic l!l'()ss liinil proijosod in the Itill of ladiim', tlu' jury uoccssiu'ih^ foiiiul that the loss was occasioned hy the m' OSS neyliuence of the defendant. We do not |)i()j)os(' to at'opt the mechanical method of (onsiderinjf these insti nctioiis and exceptions xr^riafihi, since the issnes raised hy them can better he disposed of l)y a statement, of the general principles on which this court has aii'HH'd. rndoul)tedIy a written inslrnment sitrned only by ( )ne iiili" party does not become tecimically a i)art\" to tl party, but accepted and acted upon by the other, may fur- nish (he terms of a nuitual contract. Although the accept- le writing, he assents to its terms as th<' terms of his unwritten agreenu'iit, and thus the same terms are agreed upon by both. Jn this way the plaintiffs and the defendant actually entered into a s|)i>cial contract upon the terms of the bill of lading given by (he latter, liut it does not follow that all of the terms thus actually agreed upon aVe lawful. If any of them constitute an agnienu'nt which such pai'ties are not permitted by the law to mak(% they are sim[)ly yoid and do not goxei'u the rights or obligations of those parties. In applying this priiiciule, avc observe in the lirst place that 1 le recei pt iiefore us ;ti|)ulates that the Adams Expre; ('om|)any are fonrnrili rs only. I'ut it is to be gathered from the e\ idence .-et out in the i)ill of exceptic'is and from the vei'dict tlsat they were found to be actually carriers, using as their ins!rumen1:dit y of transportation tin' I'oads and servants and trains of the Ilaltimore and Potomac Kail- road Company. 'i"he law determines the chiU'acter of this business and occupation, and it assigns t(^ the Adams Kx- p;'ess company the slahis of conunon carriers, and we hold that this sidlxs is not affected by an agreement of parties that they are not carriers but only forwarders. In the next place the bill of lading jirovides that the ex- l)ress company " are not to be lu'ld liable or res[)()nsil)lc for any loss or danuiges "' to the property received by them " from any cause whatever, unless in every ease the same m 432 TIIK CONTRACTS OF CAKUIKIJS. [ciI. XIII. be })r()\('art of it which sjxaks of value is not to ascertain and adjust the value of property, but to limit the damages, the peiialtv to which the law would hav(> subjected the carrier on ac- count of his fault. Iiy tendering .-uch a condition the car- I'ier substanliallv says to the shipper. " I am awai'elhat the law would hold nw r(>s|)onsibIe for the actual value of ll'.i^ article, althoiigii ii()t disclosed to mv, in case it should Ix' lost or destioyed by im'ans of my gi'oss negligence ; Itut I propose to exempt myself from so much of that liabilit\- as ma}' exceed fifty dolh-rs, by assuming that the actual dam- age to you occasioned by my fault is only lift v dollars ; and this I i)roposetodo Ity assuming that the article is worth only fifty dollars." This is not in good faith a valuation of property. Its legal effect, and. therefore, its legal intent, is to restrict the measure of damages i-ecovei-abie in^case of negligence, ami thus to ext-mpt the wrong-doer from a part [(•!!. XIII. (11. XIII.] IMfKl'OlITKI) CASKS. 4;i; OSS iic^li- : ■■ Mild il <'()in|)iiiiy !• (lillll.'lLlC he li()i( (>d. rpri'latioii condition ir daiiiaiic lliat ])ai'f nd adjiis! ic penally <•!• on ae- 1 liie eai- •cdiat ll:e ic of (hi- dioiild l)e •«>: hut I ialiility as iial dani- • dollars: I- is worlli uali(»n of inteiii, is U'case of )ni a part of his rcs[)()nsil)ilit;y ; and as a matter of intcrprctatioii, the meaning of the chiuse which operates only in this way is not to he ehangi'd liy giving to it an arhitrary name. Jt may he added that hy its terms the clause in ((uestion is to he ap- plied as well in cases of losses hy the fraud of the company as in cases of losses hy its gross negligence ; and that the rule of interpretation must, therefore, he uniform in hoth cases. It would certainly he a very remarkahh; inter- pretation which should hold that this clause only meant in good faith to provide an ascertainment of the value of the proiiertv, in case it should he inaue .vay with hy the fraud of the caiTier. We hold, then, that the intei t and operation of this coji- dition is merely to exempt the express company from a part of its ohligations as a common carrier, in case the damage done to the shipper hy its fault shall exceed the amount of fifty dollars. If we are right in this conclusion, we have next to consider whether a common carrier can stipulate for a partial exemption from his full liahility in eases of gross negligence. We are aware that in some of the States, notahly in some whit'h possess or perhajis arc possessed hy vast railroad c(H- porations, tlu^ loctrine of exemption has heen carried to extremes ; hut if this court wer»' disposed to follow such a lead, it is ))rohihited to do so l)y the rulings of its sui)erl()r, the Suiireine (^ourt of the United States. In Railroad (Jompanif v. Locktvood,'^'' that court, after the most exhaus- tive examination of American and English authorities, have laid down the princii)le hy which wo must he guided ; namely, that a common carrier, whether of goods or passengers, can not stijiulate for exemption from responsihility for the neg- ligence of himself or his servants. It is true the (|uestion immediately hefore the court related to the carriage of pas- sengers : l)ut it iiievitalilv involved the discussion and deter- mination of principles of puhlic policy and of hiw which apply eoinpletcly to the husiness of common carriert? of •""I? Willi. :w (18-:$). 28 4;i4 THK ('»)\TKA(TS OF (AHUIICIJS. [CH. XIII. 1 1 goods, cspcciiiUy of common curriers bv niilway. \Vc would have held and enforced that doctrine without such superior authority. We now feel disposed as well as bound U> iipply th(^ principle on which that case turned in all the fullness of its spirit. We hold, then, that tlu; principle of law which for considerations of public welfare forbids :i common carrier to barjiain in particular cases for comj)letf exemption from responsil)ilily for a violation of his dutio. forbids him to inifjair his obligations to the (!ommunity liy I»ai'giiining' in particular cases for an (exemption from a con- siderable part of that responsibility. The liround on which the nde is based, that even llu' shipper's perfect (;onsent can !:()t wholly reliev(! the carrier, is that the object which ae midertakes to rej^ulatc by contract is not his own but a pub- lic ri<2,ht. Practically every kind of common carrier !)ccomes an agency whi(h the rest of the community are comix'lled to cm})l()y, and with little in(|uiry as to his peculiar titness. in other words, he ac(iuires in some deirree the position of a monopoly. And if tiiis be •< sutlicient reason for im|)osin<>- peculiar duties and exactions upon ordinary common car- ricr«, it ap[)lies with incomi)arably li'natcr force to railroads and to earrier.s who l)y employiuir thosi- roads as instrumen- talities of their transj)ortati(>M make those instrumentalities their own. They are universally authorized to appropriate privale jiroixuly on the very uround that such appropriation i's for the pul)lic use. And if they are understood, in con- templation of law, to be occu[)ied in usinir and manauin^ property for public welfare, their business of transportation, which is the only use to which they apply the property >o ;ipi)r<)priated, must be understood to be carried on for the public welfare. Their obligation to exercise not onlv a rea- sonable but a very high degree of care in that business, l)e- comes, therefore, a duty to the public, and can neitlu^r bt; put uside nor imi)aired by the consent of individual meml>er> of the community. No single person is allowed to agree* that such a carrier, or that any carrier who owes a public duty, may with impunity be negligent in his case, for tin; reason CH. xm. <|[. XIIl.j UNUKI'OUTKl) CASKS . 485 !iy. We out sufli as hoiiml II ill! the iicipic of foil)i(ls ;i (•OlllJ)l(.'t(' is (liiti('>, 1 unity l»y )ni a I'oii- on wliicli uscnt cMii which '.R' ut ii pul)- • !)(('onu's ipcllcd to ncss. Ill it ion of a iniposinji' nion car- railroads istrumcn- KMitalitics i|)roprial(' •o[)riation J, in con- luanaii'ihii' )<)rtat,ion, opcrty >o » for the ilv a rca- incss, he- Kir Ix; put inl)('r> of ixrcii that )lic duty. Ii(! rca>^on that the carrier is there1)y invited to omit his duty in other <'ases, and thus injure the whole community. Can it he pos- sihlethat these consideratioi\s on which the rule against total <'Xcm])tion is hased, lost? their force when the carrier is in- vited to violate his puhlic duty hy an ajrrecment that he mav violate it at half price? The principle of the rule is that wny agreement which operates to interfere with the puhlie right touching the care and good faith of common carriers, ill an agreement against pul)lic policy and welfare, and is, therefore, void ; and as \x\^ ;mreement that his uejrlijrcnc'e shall h • cheap must operate in this Avay, it necessarily falls within that principle. We arc of opinion, therefore, that the court instructed the jury correctly, in allowing them to find for the full value of i)laiiitiff's projierty, notwithstanding the condi- tions of the hill of lading, if they shou'd find that the loss was occasioned hy the gross negligence of the defend- !Ult. As to the duty of a shipper to advise the carrier that the actual was greater than the apparent value of tiie article sliipi)ed, we hold that his omission to give such information does not affect his rights, unless it justifies the carrier in adopting the course of conduct hy which the loss occurred. A carrier who is allowed to suppose that an article may he handled in a i)!:rticular mannei" is not responslhle for so hand- ling it, and the shipper has to suhujit to the natural effect of his own omissions to give projjer information. But that case is not l)efore us. It can hardly he imagined, that the omission of the i)laintiffs to disclose the exceptional value of their shipment tempted the defendant to wreck and hurn its train. NoTK.— Upon tilt' first proposition «)f the Ki/llalius in tlic forego! iii;' iMSc, sec ante. «}§ 1, 10!», 2;t:{. I'poii tlie spronil ])roposition of tlie si/lhilinK. see ante §S "iS. 132. Upon tlie third proposition of tlie sylldbuK, see ante, ^ 88. Upon tlie fourth proposition of the syUahns, see ante, ij VX). Upon thoHfth proposition of the siillahua. see ante. f Kriitvrk'/.Jnlii, 1S74. Hcforc Hon. Hi.AM* Uam.akp, Disti'ict .liiii^e. 1. Where a hank, thioii^jh its teller, jjives paekiifjes of money to iin ex- press eoniiiany to ti'ansport to another eiiv. and in sodoinjj the tel- ler tills lint th(> hlanks In the express company's ordinary printed reeeipt. and pives it to the a«;ent of the company to sijrn. and th«^ receipt contains a printed stipulation exempting; the express i-oni- pany from liahility foi" loss or damage occasiored hy tire. It is no objection to the validity of this stipulation that 'he attention of the oHieers of the hank was not called toil: aiui it: is not ernu' to instruct the jury in such a case that the hank would he hound hy it, whether it was known to them , does not stand in the relation of njjent oi- servant to the express company. The plaintiff sued the dofciidiuit for diiniit r to insliiu't il. wiiotluT > cairy from liability in f snch i)ack- 1(1 JUTldcnt. •r its afTcnts slination in n a railroad < of thcrail- )any nor its 1 I'j.s", docs rv lo IS lost f'll n- the in- t for the h'ci/, for I" def(Mid- inent iov the defendiint. At the trial the counsel i( r th pliiintiff took sevend exceptions to the rnlin <'arry at the lower rati!, and in the margin the i)rinted blank for the rate at which thev would insure. Ilavinii' received a letter from the plaintiff directiuir the forwardin<; by express of the sum of $\l\,iy2HAr), the j)ank, by its teller, tilled the blanks in that i)art of the bill of ladiuir which contained the conditions and exceptions, and presented it to the Souther;. Express Company for its siirnature and delivered the pack- a«ife of money adcJressed to tlu; [jlaintiff without statiiijr who WHS the owner. The bill of iadinj; was siirned and re-de- livered to the teller of the Louisana National Hank, and for- warded by him to the plaintiff at Louisville. It does not a])pear that the receipt avus read at the time of its delivery, or that the attention of the otHcers of the Louisiana National Hank was called specially to the exceptions contained in it, but, as before stated, the bank was aware of these excep- tions and of the stipulations for the lesser rate of coini)en- sation. This package was carried by 'the Southern Express Com- (ir. xu;. to Louis- llic coin- is traiis- Ullll)o|(lt, tlic saiiu' ■11 liouiid- to the li of that aiiis Kx- \'ix'u\l inodifv , and of oiisil)ility of these ; rcct-ipts ions and rtake to led hhiiik c'ceivod a V express tilled tin- allied the Soul her,' , he pack- tiiijr who id re-de- aiid for- does not delivery. National od in it, a oxcep- coiiipen- ss Com- (11. XIII.] INKKI'OIiTKI) CAHKS. 431) pany fnnii New Orleans t(t Iluniltoldt, 'reiin., and Ihero delivered to the joint iiiessen-icr of the Southern and Adams Kxprcss coinpanies. While it was in the custody of this inesseneiiji:-cr who had charge of the package. So much of the rccci[)l as is material to the present c.m- troversv is as follows : " SoiTIIKliN Kxi'liKSS ("o.MI'ANY. '• /'j\rp)'i'.s,s forirardcvH. •' No. 1'. — $i;'.,:t2.s.l."). ,]vhY, 2<5, 18GU. "Keceived from the Louisiana National IJaiik one pack- ag» , sealed and said to contain $l;),."»L^S.l,'», addressed ' Jiank of Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky.' " I'poii the special acceptance and agreement that this company is to forward the same to its agent nearest or most convenient to destination only, and there (h'liver the same to other parlies to complete the transaction, such delivery to terminate all liability of this coiii[)aiiy for such damage ; ami also that this coni[)any are not to he liable in any man- ner (U' to any extent for any loss or damage * • » j)f such package or of its contents * * * oeeasioned * * * hy tire or steam. The shipper and owner hereby several!}' agree tliat all the sti[)ulatioiis and conditions in this rec(Mpt contained shall exti-nd to and inure to the benefit of eaeh and every company or [)erson to whom the Southern Express ("ompaiiy may intrust or deliver the above described prop- erty for transportation, and shall define and limit the lia- l>ility therefor of such other com[)any or person." Tpon tli(>se faets the court charged the jury : First — That the Southern Hxpress Company and the Ad- ams Express r()mi)any are common carriers. (to TIIK CoNTIlAfTS OF CAHItlKltS. [ (11. \m. Si'cond — 'I'liiil llic Adams Kxprcss Coiiipnny i« lial)I(' for tlic loss of pacUiijjfcs (IcIivtTctl to tlii> joint iiu'sscii^rcr of tlic two coinpaiiics at Iluiiil)ol(lt , 'rciiii., altliou<;li tlio loss occur south <»f the soiillicni hoimdary of tlic Stale of 'I'ciiiu'ssi'c. 'I'hinl — 'I'liat if Ilic jury hclicvc tlic facts alxivr (h-taih-d in rohilion to tiu^ execution of the receipt, then it thii> sijiiiod and (h-livercd constitutes the contract , and all the ex- ceptions in it arc a part of the contract, no matter whether each or all of them \v<'re known to thi' Louisiana National Haidv or not ; ami the plaintiff is hound l)y this contract, whether il expressly authorized the Louisiana National IJank to make it or no*. Fourth — " If the hill of ladinir contained no exception ii is clear that the defend:uit would not he excused i)ecaU'e the .iceideut occurred without its fault. It wouhl he the in- surer, and, th(;ref.)rc, acc()untal)le. Hut the hill of lading;' ainon^i' other exceptions contained this : ' That tho company arc not to he liahlo in any manner or to any extent for any loHs or damafife * * of such i)ackafC!lll«C !>•■ the iii- of IjidiiiM- coMipMiiy t for any contents »n hcjicvc iii(lic:ilc(|, nt'sscniTcr ^vilhin tlic not in;it(- Ihc w:i!)l nd N;i-!i- tro\»4'ti'(| ' nic..>cn- rlinir tlic H.-iili'o.KJ itrol and ■i rcspoii- ('V occui- 'njrin'itli- out, therefore, decidin;j; whether or not the evidence ad- duced in the case tends to establish any want of reasoiiahic or (U-dinai-y care on the part of the liouisville and Nashville Ivaili'oad Company. I instruct you that such evidence is ir- reh^vaiit ami incompetent, and that you should disreifard it — that is, irive no more effect to it than if it had not heen adduced." The liist and second instruetions were not excepted to, luit the tliiril and f6ui1h were. At the ti'ial the plaiiil iff insisted that it was not hound liy the terms of the receipt, hecause it was not shown that the attention of the Louisiana National Hank was called to th<>m at the time or that it expr<'ssly assentetl to them, l)iit I am of opinion that then; was no eiror in this [)ortion of the cliarnc The Louisiana National Uank was aware that the receipt contained some excei)tions and conditions. It accepted the I'cceiiii without i'cmonstranc(> or objection, and both authority ami reason demonstrate that the receipt must under these circumstances ))e rejjfai'ded as constitutinu' the contract of the parties.'" It is now everywhere a (IS:):5); Ciruce v. Adams. 100 Mass. 50:. (1S08); llolford v. Adanis.-J Diht. (71 (185:i); Y()rk<'(i. v. Cciitral Kail- ri xpress the d received :)iitract be- lli articles iKi coiidi- aiui. He K^ risk as- )ri(ies hold ss contract (•onditions indertaken to cliarire, pon all the t delivered ion of hi.s eeipt with- le contract in the iv- was taken he express l>e respon- ioh should 1 hy tire ; ot respon- iolated hy ■oad Coin- rt' or was •e, that if ' the con- rii. xiii.] l^VKKPOItTEI) CASES. 443 The contract, however, does not attempt to exempt, nor could it have exempted, the exjjress comi)anv from loss oc- casioned 1)V the neglect of itself or its serv.uiis. but when it is sought to char_i)-e the company with nejjlect it must be such ne.")7 {\XT.\). , K m 444 TIIK CONTKACTS OF CAKIUKHS. [en. xin. 'Mi and responsihlc only for losses iiiul injuries oceasioned by negligence or want of ordinary care. The defendant did by special contract limit its responsibility, and neither it nor its servant, the messenger, is chargeable with any neglect or Avant of care. The loss of the package was occasioned by fire. The contract i)rovides that the defendant should n<)», be liable for a loss so occasioned, and as neither the de- fendant nor defendant's servant was wanting in care it fol- lows that it is not resi)onsiblc for the loss. Suppose the package had been lawfully intrusted by the Louisiana National IJank to a }»rivate person to be carried for hire and delivered to the plaintiff, and it was contem- plated by the ])arties that such jx'rson would trans})ort the package and himself by the railroads which it was contem- plated the defendant would use, and the package had l)een lost under the sanu' circumstances that the package deliv- ered to the deft'udant was lost. Mould it for a moment be contended that such private person would be rcsponsil)le? Suppose again that a person should deliver to his friend, who contemi)lated coming from New Orleans to Louisville by the ordinary modes of travel, a watch, to be carried and delivered at the latter city, ai\d that while such ])rivate car- rier without i-(>ward was proceeding on his way in one of the cars of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, the car should by gross carelessness of those haviim- charg*- of it be thi'own from the track, and the wiitch in charge of the cari'ier, without any neglect on his part, destroyed. Is il conceivable that such carrier would be resi»onsible for the loss? To hold that he would be responsil)le would not only violate the i)lainest principles of law but would shock the connnon sense of mankind, and yet not oidy the private carrier f(M- hire i»ut the private carrier without reward is respoMsii)le for the loss of a package intrusted to him under the circumstances supposed if the defendant is responsible for the loss oF the package ejainu'd in this case. The private carrier for hire is responsible for losses and injuries occasioned by want of ordinary care on his part or t M. XIII. iioncd by itlaiit did icr it nor neglect eeasioned it .should M- the d«'- ire it fol- d l)y the earried eonteni- sport the eontem- had heen ii'e deli\- onient he nsihh'? is friend, iOtiisviMe irried and ivate ear- n one of 'oni])any, 111" <'harii(' •haru'e of \ved. Is e f<»r the not only hoek the ' private (■ward is ini under 'ponsihle sses and part or CM. XIII.] IMtKIM )I{TKI) TASKS. 44') on the part of his servants ; and a private carrier witliout any pay is responsible, if not for want of ordinary care, certaiidy for j>ross lu^nlect. It can not he maintained with the least show of reason that the Lonisville and Nashville Railroad was any more the servant of the defendant in transporting the package sued for in this case than it is the servant of the carrier for hire and the carrier without iiire in the cases su[)posed, and if these last are not respon- sil)l(! for the: neglect of the servants o^ the railroad e(uii- pany it is impossible to conceive that the (h'fendaut is re- sponsible for such neglect. The counsel for the plaintiff attem[)t to escai)e this con- clusion by insisting that though the defendant limited its responsi!)iIity it still remains a eommon ea'rier, and that such carrier is responsible not oidy for any want of negli- irenee of himself and his servants, but for the neulitrence of aiiv agency which he may employ in his business. This proposition is misleading. It is not strietly correct to say that a common earrier is res[)onsible for the negli- gence of any agency in his business, or even for his own negligenee or that of his servants, in the sense in which his responsibility is distinguished from the responsibility of an- other [)erson. A common carrier is bound to deliver goods intrusted to him uidess prevented by the owner, the aet of (lod or the i)ublic enemy, lie is as the law terms him an insurer for the safe carriage and delivery of goods, subject oidy to the exeeptions above mentioned. If he does not deliver goods intrusted to him he is responsible, not because the goods were lost by his neglect or by the neglect of a servant, or bv the neglect of some agency which he em- pl(»yed, but because he insured their delivery. His respon- sibility is wholly indei)endent of the neglect of any one. If g(»(>ds delivered to him to be carried are lost while in his or his servants custody, or while in the custody of some other i)erson who is not hi ^ servant, he is ecpially responsi- ble, not because he is liai)le upon any i)riiuiple of law for the negligence of any person who is not his servant, but l)e- '•' -'.I ^.i-'-firmm^' 44(1 THE CONTKACT.S OF CAKHIKHS. [CH. XIU. n. cause he is Ijound by liiw to eurry and deliver safe all goods delivered to him unless prevented as before stated hy the owner, the aet of (lod or the publie enemy. If he has lim- ited his responsibility by sptn-ial eontraet, and the loss has been oeeasioned by the cause excepted in (he contract, then the owner in order to c'-nrge him must show that thouj^h the loss arose directly from the cause excepted that cause itself was occasioned i)v the neglect of the carrier. But when a public or i)rivate carrier is sought to l)e charged with loss occasioned by his neglect, when n»'glect is the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, I am not aware that he is liable for any negligence excei)i upon tlie same [)rinciples and under the same circumstances that any other person is liable. I am not aware that he more than any one else can be made responsible for the negligence of jx'i'sons who are not his servants. rndoubtedly the defendant did, notwithstanding its con- tract, continue; to be a common carrier, l)ut its rcs|)()nsibil!ty was limited to that of an ordinary bailee for hire. Now, an ordinary bailee for hire is i-esponsible for only ordinary care, and liable for the neglect of himself or his own ser- vants, and not for the neglect of persons over whom he h;is no control. Consequently he is not rcsponsil)l(; for a loss occurring under the '•ircums(anc«'s presented in this case. If it be admitted that the common carrier has by his con- tract limited his responsiljility to that of an ordinary bailee for hire, then it can not be consistently insisted upon that he shall be held lial)le as a common carrier who has unule no exi)ress contract. To admit the contract and to deny any effect to it is too much for one proposition. The [uop- osition of counsel, reduced to its essence, is simply this: That though the defendant has by special contract limited its responsibility to that of a i)rivate bailee for hire it is still responsible as a common carrii'r. A proposition in- volving so obvious a contradiction can not recpiire further exposure. But o))vious as the fallacv ami error contained in thecoun- [CH. xiir. CH. Xlll.] V S llE VO KT H U ( ■ Ah K.S . 447 all goods xl by the 5 has lini- loss lias ■act, then it thoujiii lat caiisc KM-. IJlJt ciiargcd 1 is til,. that lie n'inc'iplcs person is ' else can who arc •■ its con- oiisi))i|it\- Now, ordinary own st'i- m he lias ()!• a htss his case, his con- rv l)aiiee pon that las made to deny 'he prop- )h' this : : limited ire it is ition in- fui-ther he coun- ,sers proposition appear t) me, the proposition itself seems to he supported i)y tlie decision of the Supreme Court of California in thv ease of Jloopey i\ WelLs ;''■' hy t.he Supremo Court of Minnesota in the case of Chrifitcnxoii v. AnKwican Express C'ompan>/,^' and hy the learned editor of the Ameri- can Law Register in his note to liie fornu'r case.^' In the first case the carrier made a contract stipulatinii' that he would not be responsible exce^jt as forwaide" The court construed the contract as limiting the responsildlity of the carrier to that of a forwarder — that is, of an ordinary bailee for hire — l)ut they held the carrier responsible for a loss occurring on a tug or a lighter which [jiied between the -hoi'e and n ocean steamer, occasioned by the negligence of the managers of the tug, although they were not subject to the control oi' orders of the I'xpress company. In resjjcct to the res[)onsibility of forwarders, the court say: " Thev are not insurers like carriers, but they are lial)le for losses of goods while in their custody, resulting from negligence of themselves, and those they em[)loy in their business of forwarders." The correctness of the Hrst i)art of this pro- position can not Ix; disputed, nor do 1 cjuestion the correctness of the latter part, if ly *' those whom they eni[)l()y in their business of forwarders," the court mean those who are the Forwarders " servants, and subject to their control and orders, Tin- court further say, the respoiisii)ility of a forwarder is tlu' sanu' as that of a waivhouscnian, and " if a warehouse- man, instead of using his own warehouse and employing his own subordinates, should for a stipulated sum paid to the owner use in his business the warehouse of another per- .son who em[)loys and controls the subordinates, there can l)e no doul>t that he would be liable for a loss of the goods Intruste'd to his care, occurring while in his possession and resulting from the negligence of such subordinates, although not uiuler his control." If l)y the Mords "intrusted to his • "J -J'/ Cal. 11 (1S(U). *' i.") Minn. -270 (1S71I). ' Am. Law llcji-. Nov. ISO."), p. :}(». i m UH TiiK coxTnArTs or cai!I!Ii:k>. 5 ri 'I ■'I 'i.'j :i v^ [ Ctl. MM, ciirc," llio court moan to siiiTiiost a ca.si' where the warehouse- man has a contract to keep the uoods in his own warehouse, 1 entirely concur in th(! proposition stated. Hut if they mean that a warehousennm who viohitcs no contract l>y rtnnoviiiij: tlie yoods of his customer fron> his own warehouse into that of another prudent warehouseman, is responsihle for a loss of the jroods residtiuir from the n<'('nce of the subordinate of such other warehouseman, I can not assent to it. Supi)ose a warehousenuin's warehouse should he desti'oy«'d by tiro, it would bo his duty to riMuovc sucii of the iroods of his I'ustomors as were saved to the warehouse of some other prudent person, aiul it OiUi not bo insisted that he would be responsible for tlu^ loss of jifoods occurrini!: there, resulting from th(^ neirliirence of servants of tite latter warehouse- nnm. If a warehouseman contract to keep jroods in his own warehouse, and he should remove tJK'm — in violation of his contract — to anotiu'r warehouse, I suppose he would be liable for all losses there oecui'rinir, just as a bailee who hires a horse to vas contemplated I»y l)oth the plaintiff and defendants that the defendants would not use their own ve- hielos, but the conveyances of others not at all subject to their control or management, and that in the use of those uiltv of no want of care in selectinii' the **.lulia" to transport the goods, but. on the way, the <- New .Icist'V .Stciim Xiiv. Co. v. :M('ivli:Mits Bunk. () Wnv. D-4-1 (IStS) "2H 450 TlIK rONTKACTS OK CAIMMKKS. [ (;n. xiK. ".luliii" was, tlirouiili tho ('iin'l('s.snc.s.s of its officers and iiiaiiajrors, run a«xaiiist a snajj: and sunk, whcivhv tlu> "oods T' ii.i K wore damaged. The court say that the carrier is not (>.\enii)t from the loss by reason of the stii)uhition in its hill of ladinir that •• it is not to he held liahle for any loss or daniaj^e except as forwarders," lu'cause, they say : " In our opinion * * the effect claimed for this clause of the receipt hy tiie defendants is iiu'onsistent with and repugnant to the scope and intent of the result, vicnved as a whole, and in connec- tion with the fact showing the defendants' real character and mode of doing husness." In otiier words, the ciuu-t held that the defendants were conniion carriers, and that this <'lausc of their receipt did not modify their liahilit}' at nil. If the court was correct in this, it i> indisputable that this clause did not exempt the carrier from responsibility for the loss elainuid. In respect to tlu^ other exceptions, "perils of navigation and transportation," the court say : "The exception does not excuse the carrier for negligently running into perils of the kind mentioned. The pi'oper consti'uction [of •^ueli words] is analogous to that which is put upon the words ' p«'rils of the sea " in bills of lading. While thus it would seem very proper to hold that a snag in one of oui' weslerii rivers is a peril of navigation, as ajjpears to have been duiw. in Tennessee, if a v tlie li(^ Slope 1 t'oimcf- «'li!iracl(>r ho fnlllt Ulmt tiiis ty at ;ill. limt this ty for t lie liivigatidii tioii docs perils (tf [of s 11 ell he >vor' r part of »n a .siiasr ' peril of )ii though l)oat. It aviuation CM. xm.] UNKKPOUTKD CASKS. 451 when it results from aeeldeut and without fault, and that it is not a peril of navigation when it results from luxdi'MMiee. When go(Mls are lost by reason of such peril, oecasioned hy the negligence of the carrier, the carrier is responsiltle, not Itecause the goods are lost hy an excei)ted peril, hut l)eeause lie has brought about the peril througli his own carelessness or negligence. He is made responsibh; for his negligence, not because he is a common carrier, but because he is <>uiltv of negligence and has occasioned loss therel)v. In the lK)oks which treat of common carriers, only those carriers are treatetl of who use their own conveyances ; hcnee it is we often tind it stated that the exception " perils of the sea," or " |)erils of the river," included in the car- rier's bill of lading, does not include losses arising from what would l)e generally understood to be " i)erils of tiie sea," when occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the carrier. In such i-ase, tlie carrier being the owner of the vessel in which the goods arc carried, and i)eing responsible for its careful navigation, it is not material in effect whether it is held that a loss arising from an excejited i)eril brought about by his negligence, is not a [)i'ril of navigation within the meaning of the bill of lading, or that the carrier is resp()nsii)Ie for a loss occasioned by the negligence of his s(!rvants, but it is better and mort' correct to place the lia- bility in such case on the latter ground, because to place it on the former is misleading. Certaiidy, as the court say: "The exception does not excuse th<' carrier for negligently running into perils, ' * * * nor shall he be heard to set n\) his own negli- genci> to excuse him from responsibility." lUit in the case before the court, no negligence "liis im[)uted to the carrier. lie did not attempt to set up his own negligence to excuse himself from r(>sponsibility. He set u[) that by the con- tract h(! was not to be liable for losses arising from the per- ils of navigation, and Ik; showed that the loss did arise from a peril of navigation, without any fault on his part. He was not responsil)le for the negligence of the nuuiJigers of '° i '^n y f!i.-" ^ 452 Tin: CONTKACTS (11- CAIMMKIJS. [CII. XIII, the boat, as I have hcfoiv sliow ii, hccaiisc \\{> had no ('(Uilrol or authority over llu'iii, and as he (-(Uild he hchi icsponsiMc in the case only for iic^liiicnc*', it woiihl sccin he was not liable at all. 1 think that the eonrt was misled by the def- inition of "perils of na\ i (•;!<(> \\;is siil)s('(iii(Mitiy rcvri'st'd liy tlif SiiiMciiii' Cimil of tlic I'liiti'd Slates, aiul is iiiscrlcd hero a« sui illiistfalimi ef a doelrim; now olisdlete. See aiili'. Cap, X. ji '2X\. Tlie following!' dooisioii const in in;; liie IlliMois Statute flxin;; tiie liiil)il- ity of ooinnioii can'icrs rcceivinj^ projierty for Iransporlation. has boeii rendered since the tith' to tliis tliapter was printed. 'J'lie statnte in (|ueR- tion Is a.s fellows : •• Th.-it wlicnevtM- any property is received by a eoin- mon carrier to be transported from one ]ilaee to another within or with- out this Stale, it shall not he lawful for such carrier to limit his conunon law liability safely to d«'liver such properly at the place to whicli the CM. XIII. (II. XIII.] I'XIiKI'OlJTKI) CASKS. 46a <> <(mtr()l q)()iisili|t. was not ' the (Icf- kI ill [\h- itioii " (ir H' iiii^'iicy to tlctliic <»f ii col- 's vessel the fault lie would lisioii, (»f (liii^f dial iiij:' from and yt'f. UU' to tUc (' Ic.irncd llial they •that they ions, and [IW. I'liif C'uiiil ii ilorlriiu; sillH' i-i I., !).• tr;lll>lM.|tfil. I,y ;iMy -llplil.ilinil •!' lilllilulioll cxim-ssca ill tin' ivf.'ipl ^Ivcii fdr^iicli |in>|)..ity." K. S. 111. (ISSO). Cup. 27. ii 1. p. ■n\:\. tlic liiihil- 1. liiis liccii to ill (pit;s- by !i ('(tin- iii or willi- is coiiiinon wliicli tht' MxTiiKii V. .\Mi-.itif \N KxntKss Company. Initeil Sloli.i fir,, lit Cmrt, .Viirlln-rn DMi-Wt •iil)s|ancc ilial a pa('l;lveii to tlie cdiisij^nor staled •• vahie asiicd. hut not jiivcn."" The packaj^e was lost after arriviiii; In this city, by theft, hy reason of Its not liavinj;' Iteen treated as a valnahle packajj;e. and placed in tiie safe where it would liav(' been placed if its tiaie \alne had lieen tnaiked upon it. Snil is lironj^ht by the plaintiff, and the (|nestion is as to the extent of the recovery to wiilch he is entitled. Tlie defendant admits that it is llal)le to the anioiint of s."i(). there lieiim'ii provision in tiie receipt j^iveii for lliis paekai^e. that where the value of a packaije N not slateil oi- dls- closed to tlie company, the liability should be limited to .*!.")ti. The plaintiff insists tliat the ease comes witliin tiie provisions of the act of |s7'J. of tlie I,e,>;'islatnre of Illinois, which indlilblls any common carrier from limitin.i;- its liabiliiy. 1 do not tliiiik. inthellrst plac(-. that tiilscase comes witiiin this provision. lie( anse this was a conlract of cnrriajijt! made in the State of (Jeoriila. ainl the jiarties conid make any contract wiileli the laws of the State of (ieorj;ia iiermitted them to make, and tlio laws of tiiat State alhiweil a carrier to limit liis liability. Wallace v. Mattiu^ws, :l<> |)i' pri-si-nli il. ami tlic valnc is a^ki'il ami IIm^ <-. |.> liiiiit it" lialillily to a tlxni >iiiii|itioii tiial it i> imt wdiili iivir a ri'itain .xiiiii. It x't'iiis lu III)' roinpctiMit for a coininnii ranirr , niiil llliii- iiois statu!)', t)) n>)|iiii'(' a ^iiipiMT of <; Is to >tat)> tlii' value w lii)'li Im' puts upon tlii'in. aii)l to stipiilat)' that in )'a.s(> of loss tin- lialillit> ot tin' cairiiT sli.ill iDit )>x)')'(')l til)' annmnt sollx)'il; ami if this can Id- tloiii'. I can >)'(' ID) ;;'oo)l D'asmi wiiv tli)' iMri'i)'r may not say tlial \\ licri tlii' lMiMi)| iMit )'xc I a )'i'flain anioiiiit. This i« )-i|nival<'nt to a «p)')'ial ajiD-i'im-nt lictwccn the parti)'s tliat for tin' piirpiis)'s of ijic cmiliacl ))f cai'iia;;)'. lli)> valm' i>i till' r!''tO, Till' facts in this ca-i' >lio\\ tliat tin- sj-mlcr ot til)' pa)'ka;ii' was in ilic iialiil of sJiippinu- packa;;c> liy tin' Sonlhi'iii Kxpicss ('(iinpany. ami thi- clause rcstii)'iinj;- lialillily t.i >i')0 wIiiti' IIh' valiD' was not ilis)'los)'il. was in all tiM'ir i)'<')'i|ils t liav)' liccn kimw nlo him. TId' )'iinti'acl \vlii)'ii wasi^ivi-nto liiiii l>y tin- ajjcnl -taD'il tiial llic valni' was ask)'(l liiil imi ^iv)'ii. It is triM' that tin' packay,)' was niaik)'il •• watclii's." lail the valiii'- nj \\a!i'li)'s vary sn widely thai no picsinnpliun ihat the valiii' of die -.hiii- ineiit ex)i')'d)M| .Sr>() i> rai-cd liy tic >iaiciiiciit of it- coiiiiMii-. I inii«i, tli)'r)'fiii'c. assnmi' that tin' con-iuiior was conicni Hi aei I'pt ih)' sum u| •S.")(). a- til)' I'nuivalcnt of iId' content- of thi- packan'.- if it was lost in transit. 'I'nie. tli)' proof ^hows iiti' havi- ln'cii woilh more ihaii that. Imi it als)» shows tliat the I'har;;')'- of Ih ■ cani)'r wi're re;::ilaled by the value- .•iml that lliire wa-- a iliffi'n'iic)' in the care iak)'ii of jiackap's when the \alm' was slated and tiio-e on wliii-h im \alm' was -taii'il; and ii M'l'iiis to III)' 'o rca-oiialile thai a carrier slniiiid lieeiitilliil to kimw liie valiD' of |iropert.\ which it iimh-riaki'- to iiaiispori. tint 1 can not Id'Hcm' the I.)';;'is!alMre of Illinois intendeil to prohihil tlii' liinilaliini of Iialiility iiiailc hy this cinlrtici wId'Ii the consi;'nor ri'fiised to di^clo-)' the value. Tlie i^siie is found for til)' plaintiff, ami "laniaec-, ,|— i.^-cd at *."iO. and plaintiff iiiiist recovi-r )')ist.s. .as tiii- -nil nri;;;inali'd in the siat)- court and was remove)) to lliis court In ih'femlaiu. i u •M. Xlll. ( I'. Mil. INItKI'OUTKI) ( ASK.s. 455 iliMiiiitnl : 1* icki'il it SCflll. llltTtilKc .1 fflMlliii llic llliii- whii'li In- ly III 111, >i' tlolic. I ■ «liii)|iir 'I cxi't'i'd ln'lw cch Millie oj I'llilri' III Sdiilliri II " lllTC III, l,Uf« l.iki II ii'l wliii'li (I lint iim PASSKNCKIIS- ri<'Ki;rs-((»NI)rn(»Nsi'|{INTKI>TIIKItK. IN -NOTICi:. Ill liKI': \. Sol TIIKASTKItN 1{.('(). A'(/;/(('»7( ///';//' ('"lift I'/ ./iintii-i . r, 11,11111,11 I'/in.i t/liixi,,,,, \,,n,,il„',-. !.s71». |{l;;lii IImm. I,oi!I» Cui.KHiiKir. I.uni Cliii'l .lii>iic('. Sir Wii.i.i \M Ji'oiUKT <;iiovi;. Km., j linn. (;i;ul!i,|, jlKNMAN. ! Sir Nai II \Mi;i, l.isni.KK Km.. i 'I""';.'"'-. •• llKNin ('. l,iM'4.-. Km.. J Wiicn- a lickcl. I"i;i'i| liy ii r:riliii;ii| iiimpiiny in IviizImikI fur ji juiinicv fl l-nlldnn III |*;lli.. \\i|~ in llir jiil'in III M .|ll:ill liimk ill' I'ii|||hi||s. • •licju-il'd ill ;i |i;i|)i'r I'UVIM'. illlil lln' |);i|HT loViT ciillliiilicil jirililccl iiiiilicr: II, III. iliiii ilii' iMiiiiiMfl \v;i- (■.■ii:aiiici| in ijh' wiiolr Ijimk iii- .liKliiiy: llii' ciiviT. ami lliMl ilii' Kiiy;li-li (•iiiii|iaiiy wi-rc pnilccliMi l»y iii'iimlilinii I ni 111 I'll mi iln'in^iiltMirji.auciwddr ihr ruvi'r. ami i'xi'iii|il- Mi;; lliciii iruin lialiijiiy I'm- ijaimiiir iinairi'i'il oii lln' j^'rciicli i lilioad. .ililiiiiij;|i ilii' |ia"i'iiuvr liail m>l read ni' imlii'i'ij ijic ciimliliiiii. Motion fur jiKluniriil . TIic iictiuii \v;is tried ill .liii!ii;il\ , 1N7'.', Iicfdrc ( '(»( ijii i;.\, ('. .1.. aiid ;i >|ii'ci;il jin'\ , uiiil \\a> liroiiulil l»y the |)l:iiiitift' ;i'jfjiiii-l tlir (icI'iiKlaiit^ 111 I'ccovrr (liiiiiap's for |»(i'.-(i!ial iii- jiii'ii'- •.(istaiiicd ill a railway accident oii the (ireat Nortlieni Ivailway of I-'iMiice. wliile the plaiiititT \va- retiirniiii:' from I'arix l»y \iriiic (»(' a reliini ticket i->iicil to liiiii \)\ iheth-- 1'eiidaiits. Tlie ticket is-ih"i to tile piaiiitirt" \va^ not an ordinary rail- way ticket, iiiit wa~ a little liook oF a do/en paii'es coiitaiii- iiiif. witiiiii a paper cover, coupons to lie torn out and ii:iveii up at the usual >(aite- of the journey. ( )ii the outside of the cover was printed "No. 7. ;)r>l . Southeastern liailway. ( heap return ticket. London to I'aris and hack. Second c|a->. AxailaMelty niuht service only. Thisticket isavail- al»le for fourteen day-, including' the day of issue and expiry. * ■' * Availalile for the I'cturn journey by the Southeast- ern, or London. Chathain. and Dover Kailways." On the iii>idi' of thecoxcr. that is. on pap' two. the foUowinji' among' !!l IT)*; TIIK CONTKACTS OF CAIMMKI.'S. [.-... Mil. I , « IS vj..^i" - (ttli(!i' ^lalciMciils, were prinlcd : — •' Tlu" covor without tlic coupons, or llic coupons williout the cover, arc of no value. * * * lOach company incurs no responsihilitv of am Ivind l)eyoii(l what arises in connection with its own ti-aiii> and hoats, in conse(|;ience of pa>sennch tlirouiiii Imi()I<- inu' l)«'inii' only for the co.ivenieiicc of passenii'crs." At tlie trial the i)Iainlift' .-wore that his attention w.is not aid to the iur\ : " They (the defendants) have a perrelipulatc that thev ^ha!l not he responsihie for the neuliii'eiicc of the other conipain . hut they must take care that they hrini: liiat condition jioiiie t(f the knowleflii'e rca- s()nal)ly sutlicieiit on the part cd" the company to hi'in;:- to the knowledire ( I' the peix'ii takini:' the ticket that there arc some conditions tliere a ffect i nti' his ordinary ri^'ht as a pM>- senji«'r, which it would Ik- incumhent upon lite companv to take care to l»rin:>' to his notice." 'I'he jury found that tliei'c was not sutlicieiit notice iiixcn hy the company, and a veidici was thereupon directed for the |)Iaintitf for the airreecl .-urn. leaving- him to move to enter judiiuicnt . M<- 1 III, /,■<■, (J. ^',,and l!(tni(inl, for the plaintiff, now moved aecordiniiiy, an. Ii'. --'Sc. A l.Mv. 17(1 (IS7.")). '•II. Mil. I II. XIII.] r.NKKI'OliTKI) CASKS. 457 H»Ut llic K) value. :iny kind liii- Mild <• li'avci .\t liii- I'M U II 1,1 iidc ihc ."-^ir //. >S. a !{}',, rii l)r(»uu'Iit I)v the iilaiiitiiT apiiiist tlic S(»iitln'asti'rii IJailway ("onipany lo n-covcr damages for licr.-oiiai iiijiirio wliicii iiappciicd to liim in Fi-ancc \vliil>t l)('iii<:- cai'iicd l)y a Frcncli railway coinpany under a llirouiiii lickol i>sii('d hy tlic (Icfciidants. \\v have hcfort' us ;i copv of (lie ticket wliicli tlic dcfciidaiils issued, and it appears tiiat it 'vas ill t lie followiiiii' form. [Tlic learned judii-e then reaii the printed matter wliidi appeared u[>on the outside of the ticket . 1 'I'lierc that pajj>c end.-. 'I'hcii on the first pane inside are a mimiicr of teriiiN rclatiiiii' to various parts of the coiiti'ijct, .1 li'ood deal of it rcfcrrini:' lo luuii'aii'c, amon<.''>t otiier conditions a condition that the Kiieni:i'rs lieiiii.'- Iiooke a proba- ble (U- an improbabli' sujiposition. 'I'heii comes the (pies- lioii, does thai affortl any answer lo the defendanrs plea ? -ri !■ i * 458 TIIK rONTKACT!^ OF f'AKIMKKS. CU. XI'l I 11 iin^ o\)\ nioii it affords iioiio. Tlu' coiilnut, as I uiulcr- Ei> \ hi If •' 11" lill stand it, is simply this little book f)r ticket, and the whole of this little hook. This is the eontraet, and the terms ((.n- tained in it are the terms ui)on which the defendants aurccd to take the plaintiff to Paris and hack : and in an ordinary case that would he a matter heyond dispute. Hut it is sup- posed that with reference to this peculiar sul)jecl-matti r, with reference, that is, to dis'putes helwcen passengers and railway comi)anies, some distinction has heen introduced li\ decisions of the hii>hesl tribunals. Now, it is of coui-c oh vu)us that llf'nilprsi))} r. Stcrrnsiui,^^ decided in the House of Lords, 1)inds this court, and that we must obey it , and an :ittenipl has Itceii made to assimilate this case to the case of Jlciiih'ixd}! r. .Sti'rciixo)). In that case the fa1h)W that it was not in the eon- teiuplation of the parties when the contract was entered i^ tf, I am of opini<»n, thci'cfore. ac<'epting fioiKf fide the »i".' eel ion of th,' Ilou- • of Lords iu Ifi'itdi'i-M-ni r, Stfi'di- si>, where the facts arc similar, that this ease, is not within the authority of that «lecision. I decide it accordingly, without casting the shadow of a doul)t on the authority of that ease. What we are virtually asked to do is to deciih; in favor of the plaintiff because on the lirst page of the ticket-book there is not printed in large letters, " Read the lU'xt page."' That leally is what the argument on liehalf of the plaintiff amounts to. Judgment must be entered for the defendants. LiNDI-KV, .1. : 1 am of the same opinion. The (pieslion is, what con- tract was entered into? 'i'he plaintiff paid his money for a journey to Paris and l)ack, and received a l)ook of tickets. I 1^ 460 THK CONTKACTS OF CARRIERS. [CII. XIII. Avhich was tlic iigvooineiit botwcon the parties, but the find- ing of the jury does not show what the eontraet was. The jury found that tlie phiintiff had not suttieient notiee of this eondition. Tliat leaves open the (juestion what was the eontraet. Can the plaintiff make out a eontraet without that eondition? I think not. If the jury had found that the eontraet was what was printed on the eoyer, or on some one page of the hook of coupons, that would, I think, have I)een so manifestly against the weight of evidence that the verdict could not have stood. The only answer to the (|ues- tion what is the conti'act, is: "Here, in this little hook, is the contract.'' We ai"e pressed to apply lI>'n(h'vnoii v. •Steveusfni to this case, hut the facts are not the same. The House of Lords split the ticket in two as it were, hy holding that one side contained the contract entered into by the parties, and that the condition printed on the reverse side, but un"eferred to on the contract side, was no pai't of the contract. The ticket in this case is of a different kind, and we can not deal with il as the ticket in Jhudi'vsou r. Slevi'iisiiit, because we can not say that the tirst page of the ])ook contains the whole contract, and reject the remain- ing pages. The physical form of tiie book does not admit of this trealnicnt. '{"he defendants ai'c entitled to our judg- ment. .ludguicnl for the defendants. N'OTK. — Sec rase aiiil ilic aiitliority citcil in the jii(li;iiiriii i- \oiv till'', aiid i|iiil(' <1<'- M'i\c> ilic luilowiiiii' crilifi^in w liirji ilic ca-i' ici-civcd in a laic iiiimbcr ol' till' /,"/'• ./i)iir,iliado\\ nf a donht " 11)1(111 its a'llli.iriiy. ici-iii'iaiiy proct i'd< to do witliii iliat w Idcii I.iird.Fiisiicf Itiaiii- \v<'ll univ dfclaicd lo )>.■ iii'scr very dillicidi 10 a li';^al iidiid — lo di-- tiiii;iiisli it. All illiistratlnii of tlii-: iiiu'iiuinciinii may li>' I'niiMd in ||ii> jiidjiiiKMii (if l.iinl ( 'ulcridjr'' and Mr. .Instirc i,inili<'y in Diirlvi' v. Suiilli- ea-lfiii IJailw ay ( 'ninpany. the hiiidin;.;aiitiiniiiy lo wliirli tjic dis!in,u;iii>l.- iiiu; iiidi-cssliait to lioajiplicil. In'inii' tlu' well-Know n di'ci.~ioii of ilic JI(ni-.c of Lord- ill llciidcrson v. SIcmmi-oii willi rc;i;ard li ndiiioiis indoi>cd oil raihvay ticluM-. In IJiiri^i' v. Soiitlicasifrn Hallway ('oinpany Ilic plaiiitilf had lalvcn a rcliiin (icKct from ( 'liariii;; Cio^-i Stalioii to I'ai is ^■^- (■II. XIII. J rxuKrouTEi) casks. 4«1 Tlu and back, part of whifli journey Inul. of conisf. to U- ricrfonneil o\n a Kirni'h line of railway. Must people know that these tickets aro made ui) in the form of little 1 ks. einuaininjj:. besides a vai'iety of printed matter, six conpons. which the i)a-sen;:er is re.inired to detach and de- liver ni> at llie various sta-i'es of his compo.-ite journey. On the outside of the i)lainliffs ticket-hook was primed the name of the defendant com- pany, the words • London to I'aris and hack." and a notice as to the time for which the ticket would he available. Inside, on the lirst pa<>-e. at the end of a somewhat len^iMliy jiarajiraph relatin^i; lo Inggajje, was to be found a condition declarin<>- tliat the company would not be liable for any mischance or ne;i;liM-ence. «'xcei)l on their own line of railway. With this ticket the lii>ht-hearted excursionis; — relyiu!;-. as maybe assnmiMl for tlie purposes of argument /» l.unn,. ou the decision in Henderson v. Stevenson — proceeded on his journey: and Ihouj^h it might liave l)ecn supposed tliatthe tedium oi a -ec(uid-class railway carriage would have induced him to makr tlie most of h].- resunrces. it appeared that the little ))ook. with wldcli the foicthouinht of the company had jn-ovided him remained unread in his waistcoat pockei. It was not to be expected lliat lie would read it in Paris; and. on his way back, two or three French trains ran into each other at a station named \oyelles. and his attention was caded to its cmitems. as he swort;. for he first lime. liavin"', o( course, no contract witli the French railway company, he sued the Sonth- (■astern Company for damafres for the personal injuries tlms sustained; and was met with the condition relieving them from liability, which has l)een referred to. Now. in Ilenderscm v. Stevenson, the plaintiff had, received a ticket, in the ordinary cardl)oard form, from a steam-packet comiiany. on the back of which was a notice that the comi)any were not to be liable for loss(>s of any kind or from any cause. Tlie plaintiff lost his luggage through the negligence of the company's servants; and the House of Ijords held that, inasmuch as the ticket bore on its face only the naine of the company and the words • Dublin to Whiteliaven,' with, nothing to direct tlie plaintiffs attention to what was written on the back,, the condition on whicli the defendants relied formed no part of the con- tract. In Htirke v. Southeastern Railway Company, the jury found, irt answer to the Lord Chief .histice"s (juestion. that the defcndiint oompaiiy had not done all that they were reasonably bound to do togive the plaint- iff notice of the ('(uidition on which they relied. It will be seen, the.e- fore. that tlie task undertaken by the Common Pleas Division in the lat- ter case — of tleferriiig to and yet distinguishing the decision of the House of Lords in IIenilers(ui v. Sleveiison — was one of considerable delicacy. The dilliculty was overcome, as we understand the decision, in the following way. In Henderson v. Stevenson, there wis what jiur- ported to be a complete contract ii])on the face of the ticket. In th > case under discussion the whole of the tick<'t-))ook. .ind not merely its outside covei". formed the contract lictweeii the parties: a cnip;\ny. slioiild — on the ltael< of a cardboard ticket — pnrport lo l)e a complete conlract. and put the passenger upon no further impiiry. wliilst snlistanlially llie same in'inted matter uiion tlie outside of a pai)er Ixtoli is to lie taken as rt'fcrring him do all that isinside it. ridesssnch a paper l)ool< is signed liy the passen- ger accepting it. it is. of course, nolliing more than evidence of the oral contract which he must be taken as having made wilii the issning clerk: and tin; argmnent drawn from the situation of the couiions inside the kinding appears to u.s to have but little weight. If the tieket had been in tiie form of a pocket-book or pouch, with ivory counli'rs instead of coupons — a perfe(?tly conccivalth" hypothesis — could it have been con- lended that the passenger was iionnd liy any piinled matter which the company chose to put upon tin' lining^ There is ;i pluin dis.inction be- tween a written C(Mitract and a vnueher given by one of twn ]iarlies to ttie other as a means (,f satisfying ihe servants ot the tir-l that he ha- entered into .some contract. If the vnucber is signed. oi- otherwise ex- pressly assentcnl to by the jierson aeeeplinv; it. it in effeel liecomes the contract, but not otherwise; and we enn'i"! help ibinking that the next time a (piestion of this nature ariiies at AV.sf" I'l-iii.". the presiding judge, if be desires not to oast-ashadow of u doubt" upon I'iiber Henderson v. Stevenson or Burke v. .Southeastern itailway Company, will have a deli- cate task to perform." I'U •'«wr''sw^P?«-v«.'-"«?s*T!ri?55»'^ [Cll. XIII. the eininciil nf I'l'iisouillfi' IIIOIIIK'CIUCIlt -on the l)at'k and put the ■Miiio iiriiited cftTiiiif; him \ llic psisseii- (' of the oral ;siiiii<^ ck'rk; IS inside liic kct liiid been ■s instt'iid ol vt' Iji'cn con- ■r wiiicli the s, 'Miction 1)1'- (I pai'lifs In iliat ho ha> hcrwise cx- hi't'onics tin' liat tho next iny- judge, if IciidiM'son V. have a deli- INDEX. A. AKAXDOXMKNT OF COXTKACT. lialiilily of cariicr for. pp. 1'.M)-1!)l>. ••AC('1I)I:N TAK DELAYS.'- ("ouslruriion of this |)lnasi' in l)ill.s of lading, p. "JK!. A( riox. will lie a!j;;nu>t carrier for refiisuig to carry except under special agreeni-'nl. \). 270. may he hi'ouu'ht hy person to whom receipt is given, p. 381. A. (!. 7. earlier excused for loss arising from, p. 5. what is williin the term. p. ", eailh(nuil not caused by lightning, p. 0. (iitstructions in navigation, p. 10. shifting of Imoy . p. 10. discordant decisions, p. 9. must be exclusive to excuse carrier, p. 10. negligence and act of God concurring, p. 11. loss by, after delay, p. 12. loss by, after deviation, pp. 12. Vi. y staletiieiit of ajieiit tluit ^oods will be sent for less, j). H?. notice that goods will not he sent after certain hour waived by rei'eii)t of them after that li<>iir, p. It7. notice that vainc nuist hi' spet illed in icccijit waived by uct'cpt- anee of goods by agent wit'i knowledge of their valiu-, p. !»7. notice to princii)al is notice to all his ngenls. p. ;i;t(). power of agent of ownei' to conti-acl wiili carrier. ]ip. ;{27-;?;J2. authority given to sliip cariics aiilhoriiy to nial\e contract, p. 327. whi) is an *• agent '" for this purpose, pp. ;{2S-;i;{0. consignor is agent of con>ignee. p. ;t2S. vendor is agent of vendee, p. '.\2S. cartrnan or ])oi-ter not witliin the rnle. p. ;{2!). carrier need not examine aiilhnrily of agent. :t;JO. carrier's knowledge of ageiil"> want of autliorily. j). '.V.U. lial)ility of agent to princii)al. p. ;i;;i. power of agent of carrier to make contracts, pp. ;i;{2-;Ul. agent of carrit-r presumed to have authority to make contracts, |)p. ;i:{2-:{;i:?. when carrier boinul by acts of agents, j). ;i;i4. when carrier not bound by acts of agents, pp. 3;?4-;j:i(!. express, forwarding and dispatch companies liable for dcfatilts of agencies which they employ, pp. ;J;JiJ-;541. "AGKEES," construction of this word in bills of lading, p. 217. ALABAMA, carrier may limit his common law liability by contract, p. 153. bill not for negligence, p. 33. nor by notice, p. 34. rule as to burden of proof as lo negligence, pp. 377-:57!). " AT.L HAIL,"" construction of this phrase in bills of lailing. p. 217. ARKANSAS, power of carrier to limit liis liability not decided, p. 31. exeei)t as to losses on his own line. p. 3-1. "ARTICLE."" construction of this iilnasc in bills of lading, pp. 217, 218. ASSENT. to conditions in bills of hiding or express recciptshow evidenced, pp. 107-112. t tliiit ;;(Knls • waived by by iU'ccpt- iiio, i>. !)". coiitnict. p. i;}i. ! iH)ntriic'ts» clffaults of ^ W.]. leneed. pj). INDEX. B. 465 " BAGGAGE." couHtnictioii of this plinise In notices, p. •J1!», BAGGAGE ClIECIvS. notices in. do not bind passenger from ueeeptiinec without dissent, PI). \l^-\-H'>. BAUGE OWNEltS. arc oonimon carriers, p. ',\, BILLS OF LADING, conditions in. bind carrier by acceptance without dissent, pp. 103-112. alitcr in Illinois, j). 111. cases showing evidence of assent, pp. 107-112. conditions altaclicd to. do not bind owner by accept;'.'\ce, pp. 113-llG. dcllnitiou of bill of lading, p. I'M. bill of lading t)otli a receipt and a contract, p. 132. receipt jnirt may be varied by parol, p. 132. but contract i)art can not be contradicted, pp. 132. 133. ccdlaterul agreement nniy be shown, p. 130. so also may snpi)lementary contract, pp. 130, 137. fraud may be shown, pp. 137-140. duress nniy be siiown, pp. 1 1)7-140. mistake may be shown, pp. i37-140. antecedent negotiations are merged in bill of lading, p. 133. sul)se(iuent delivery of bill of lading does not alter contract, p. 134. nor delivery of bill of lading after occurrence of loss, pp. 135, 13G. terms in insurance policies and bills of lading construed differently, pp. 211 -21 (i. examples of modern bills oi' lading, pp. 221-228. •' BIIE.VKAGE." See '• Lkakagk and Bue.vkaoe." BUKDEN OF I'llOOF, on carrier. i)p. 3()'J-372. to sliow necessity for deviation, p. 13. to sliow tiiat loss arose from cause for which he was not respon- slble, pp. 3(;!». 370. to prove contract limiting liability, 371. to sliow that receipt containing exemptions was accepted in good faith, pp. 371-372. to show that loss is witliin exceptions in contract, pp. 372-401. to" sliow negligence where loss is within an accepted peril, pp. 374-377. the rule in Alabama, pp. 377-37'.t. to show compliance with condition wlien exemption is condi- tional, p. 3S0. on shipper, pp. 372-381. " to sliow negligence when loss falls witliin an excepted peril, pp. 372, 373, 410. %\ \w^ 466 INDEX. BUKDEN OF PROOF-Contimiod. to sliow that loss was from cause for w liiili i unicr was to hi- sjiechiUy liiible, p. IWO. c. CALIFORNIA. tt'lc^'iaitli coinpauics arc coniinon carriers, ji. :t. power of carrier to limit liis liatiiliiy not docidcil. pp. ;il. ;t."). CANADA. carrier may limit liis lial)iiity l»y contract, p. :n. evfn for ^jross nej,'il;roncc ami fraiiil, p. M. CANAL IJOATMKX, are common carriers, p. ;{. CARHIKKS OF ANIMALS. not common carriers in En^ri;,|,(l and Alichij^an. p. 17. alilir in most of tlie States, p. 17. "just and rcasonahic '" conditions in contracts for carria;-e nf li\,. stocii under the Kii<,'lish statute. i)p. 1 10-1 1 1, earlier may jirescrilic rcfjuialions in the cairiaije of live >tock. pi, MS- !.-,((. iicj^liijence in llie carria^'c of live stock, p. I7<;-17S. CARRIERS OF PASSFNOKKS. ,SV.' also Fm-i; I'ass: St.m k Pass. not ciimmon carriers, p. lO. must provide safe vehicles and means of tiansportalion. p. Id. notice v:iven hy carrier as to goods applies as well to ha,;,';^!!^''' of pa.ssenjiers as to ijoods otherwise carried, pp. !)S. !)!i. passenjfci- l»y hoat not bound liy posted ref,nilations. pp. 102. l();f. notice at one door of ferry not bindinji; on one enleiini; at another door. p. !()•_•. passenj^er payinj,' fare on train not hound hv notice posted at depot p. 102. that liasseii^r,.,- iiiis seen notice in car. as to smoking, does not raise presumption that lie has .seen notice as to baggage, tliougli l)olh in same |)lacard, p. 102. conditions in railroad and steamboat tickets or l)agg!ige checks do not bind passenger by at.'ceptance wiiliout dissent, pp. 1I(;-12(;. carriers of i.assengeis can not linut liability for negligence, p. 27;?. aliler in Englaml. p. 27;{. duly of carrier to i)assenger riding free. pp. 27;i. 27."). can not limit Ids liability for his negligence, p. 27."j. alitrr in England and Ireland, p. 27."). wluit is a gratinlous passenger, pp. 27.")-27S. happeiung of accident priina fade evidence of negligence. |tp. :i(i',). :{70. CHARACTER OF (JOODS. See Vai.ii:. " C. O. D. • construction of tlicse letters in bills of lading, iip. 21!). 220. INDIA. 4(57 COLLISION. ii •« ilaii;;!'!' nf iiiivi;;iiti\\ utM'>. p. Ii. iMiiiil Ixiiiliiicn. p. ;t. (•xjircss ( ipimii'-. pp. 2. I'iil. fcrrynii'ii. p. ;i. iiorsc riiilroml-. li. '-. iioyimii. p. ;i. li^litiiifii. p. ;!. onuiilms jiiii's. p. 1. niilroud ciiiiiiniiiit's. p. 2. (ihlpowniTs, p. KM. Stii;;"' cnilclli'-. p. -. stt'iiinboiils. p. ;(. ti'iimslcrs. p. I!. t()\v-lio:ils. p. ;{. Wiin'oiicrs. I'l. who arc not. pp. I'-l. slcc))iii,- tiiat owner lias collected indemnity from insi.rance compiuiy docs not release carrier from liability, pp. l.')l, 1.V2. „.nnsin insurance policies and bills of ladin- oonstnied dif- ferent Iv. pl). •.ill--2H5-'^'''- . . insurer after payment of loss ciititlcd to recovery over a-a.nst lllin!.irstiuue"does not prevent carrier from contracti.ig with sliii.pcr for beneli; of iiiMirance, !>. liSU. exceptions to carrier's liability as insurer, p. 4. :ict of (iod. p. ."). what witliin the term. ii. 7. 40H INDKX. 111^4 Common caimmku^ cmhIi ti. NVllUt Mill Wiillill till- ICIill. |l|>. '.). III. miiil 111- llic cxrliivivf fiiiisc. pp. Id, 11. in';jli;;('iit'(' ('(mciiniii;; with. p. II. Ins.- I>y. llfliT (lclu\ . p. IJ. loriH liy, afli'i' (lc\ liitioii, pp. I'J. i:t. (Inly I'f ciinii'i' 1(1 pirst'i'vc j;o(nl>* ihunii^cil liy. th«! piililit' t'liciiiy, p. I I. who iU'c witliiii tills liM'iii. pp. II, 1.'). will) iiri- 111)1 witliiii this ici'in. p. I.'), inhci-fiit ih'fccis ill ;c(>o(ls canH-d. p. I.'). illustration of (Ills fxn-piloii, p. 15. ^('l/iin' of ;fiMi(ls under prnccss. p. IS. (Ii-rliar;i:'"' f.niicr \\licii. pp. l.s, 11). (lisconlant tlfflslon-^. p. I!), nofjlccl or oiiijsslini of owner, pp. 1!). "20. ii, fiaiiil of owiHT. pp. 20. ■>]. foiii'Ciilincni of valiii' or ((iiality of ^footls. p|). : owinT MnilcrlaKiiii,' jiart of canicr's dnlii's, pp. 22, power of caniiM's to liniii tlicir coinnion law lial)iliiy. pp. power foniH'ily. not ailniilled, \). 2.'i. rififor of the aiirieiit rule relaxed, j). 2."). regrets at the aliaiidoiiinent of the aneieiit rule, p. 27. th(! Kiifjlish staliites. pp. 2S, 2!), M). tliu rule in .Viiieriea. pp. HI- 127. ill the Federal ("oiirts. pp. ;{2, ;{S;{. in Alahania. p. ',V.\. in Arkansas, ji. ;\\. ill California, pp. Iti. It.'i. in Colorado. Ud. in Coiineelieut, p. Ilti. in Delaware, p. ;{(!. in Florida, p. :tii. in (Jeor^iia, pp. ;it'i in Illinois, p. :{S, iCi. ill Indiana, p. :t!). ill Iowa. p. )i). in Kansas, p. (I. ill Keniueky. |). II. in liOiiisiana. p|). II. 12. in Maine, p. 12. in Marylaiiil. p. 12. IIJ. in Mas~aehusetls. p. 1:1. in Mi<-hi<;'an. ]>. 1 1. in Minnesota, p. 14. in .Mississippi, p. l."». in Missouri, pp. 4."). Hi. in \(0>i:iska, p. 47. P.M. 2(1. 21. , 2:«. 2I-.-.7. :i.s. ■^^1^":^ INDKX. •1t)!» p. II. !(>. -21. ii-:i7. COMMON CAUIMKKS-CuiitliiiK'.l. ill N'fViula, p. 17. ill \f\v llaiiili-^iiiri'. p. 17, ill Now Jcrsi-y. p. is. ill Xt'w Yolk. jip. IS. 111. ill Ndi'IIi Ciiniiiiia. pp. 50, 'il. in Oliin. j.p. .-.l. .V2. ill ()r(';j;cin. p. .'•J. ill Pciiii-ylviinla. pp. .V.'. .");(. ill Kliodc Isiaiui, |). ■')!. ill Soiitii ('ari)iiiiu. p. •')!. ill 'rciiiii'sscc. p. .")l. ill Texas, p. .">.">. in Vcriiiniil, p. .">.'). in Viij^iiiia. p. .">."). ill West Virj;inia. p. .">•">. ill Wis('(ni»iii. p. .")(;. policy of iillow iii;^ a HiiiIiimI lialiility. p. ■")>!. ri'usoiis aj^aiiist liic (loctiim'. pp. .V.i. (Id. views of till- I'Diirts ;»ro ami ('««, pp. (iO-SO. notices by euirieis wiieii alloweil, pp. SI. Hi. lis to value ami cliaracler of jjooils, p. S2. eiiriy peiniitted in Kii^riaiul, \)\u S2-.S7. ciitieisin on tiie piactiee. i)p. SO. S7. valid ill .Viiieiiea. pp. S7. SS. 80. (piestionalile in Illinois, p. SO. unreiisonalile eliaiifjes not allowed, p. 00. niiist not lie aniliifjiioiis or eoiillii'tiiiji. pp. 01, 0-J. when severable from notices as to liabilily, p. 01. witlionl iioiiee no duly to state value, p. 0;{. ,ior when- earlier lias otlier information, pp. iCJ. 0"). notici' iini complied willi no recovery at all, pp. 0'). '•'•;■ except ions to this rule. p. 00. notice iiniy lie waived by carrier, pp. 00. 07. as by special eoiitracl different from teriiis of notice,. p. 01!. ii>,'lit to set up owner's failure to comply with terms of "lotice not preeliided by liaviiij? paid former loss, pp. 00. 07. waiver may be by ajient. p. 07. lirinted rates of carrier waived by stateineiit of agent that ^'oods will be sent for less. p. ',•7. notice that <;(>oils will not be received after certain time waived by receipt of them after tliat time, p. 07. notice that value must be specitied in receipt waived by aet'ci.iaiu'e of goods by agent with knowledge of their value. !>. 07. extent of notice, pi). 08. 00. 1:; ''i ¥ 470 IXUEX. COMMON CARHIKHS— Coin imu'd. notice foiu'iMiiiiij:' ;;;i)()(ls from A to 15 ai)|;lies to goods i-ar- rit'tl from H to A. p. !»S. notice applies t6 property of passengers as well as to goods earried. p. !»S. li!». iioliees suspended at termini liavo no effeet at intermed- iate plaees. p. !)S. stii)idation in sioek pass eovers not only transit, but risks ineident lo reaeliing and departing from depot. {>. It!), modes of giving notiee, p. !)!). advertisements, p. '.ill. notices printed in newspapers not favored, pp. (Ml. 101. no presumption that person taking newspaper reads all its contents, p. lOO. placards, pp. li)l-l(i:t. noticts liy placard not favored, p. 101. pas.-enger hy l)nat not iioinid liy posted regulations, pp., 102. 1(11!. notice at one door of ferry not liinding on one eniering at another door. p. 10:2. passenger paying fare on tiaiii not itound by notice posted at depot, p. 102. that passenger has seen notice in car as lo smoking, etc.. does Mot raisr pre.-umpiion that he has seen notice as lo baggage, though i)olh in the same placard, j). 102. receipts, pp. |(»;>-l ()."). notices in icceipts do not affect liai)ility of larriei, when. pp. l(i:!-ll(i. railroad and sicamboat tickets, pp. lli;-12;{. notices iu do nol bind passenger when, pp. llti-12;f. baggage .-heeks. |>p. 12:;-12i:. notices in do not liind piis^^enger when, pp. 12;i-12i!. necessity of priming notices in large type. jip. 120. 127. notices prescribing regulations, pp. Ul-1.")0. valid if reasonable, pp. 1 ll-i 17. void if unreasiiuable. jip. 1 I7-1")(I. earlier may pre-cribe time within wliich claims must be made, pp. 1 H-1 IS. carrier may lue.-ciibe regidations iu the transpoit of live stock, pp. ! |,s-i:i(i. means of carrying out couditions nm^t be provided by car- rier, p. I.")l. limiting liability by ctrntrail. p. Itl.'>. may be by parol, p. l;!l. notices only propo-^als for contracts. \\. Id.'i. uml unless assented to do not make contraci«. p. 100. how assent nia\ lie evidenced, pp. Hl7 112. ussent fnmi accepting papei^ 'ti v I'liiwumiiMinyiii " %\ INDEX. 471 goods ciir- s to goods iutennod- , but risks 2>. !i'J. '. ()!t. 101. r reads all at ions, pp., e ciili-riiig by notifc )kiii<;', t'tf.. 11 iidticc as lid. p. 102. •t carriei. (;-ij:i. :i-\M. J. 117. IS must he K)rl (if live L'd bv car- C-UMMOX CAKHIKHS— Coiitiiui.d. ..bills of lading. i»p. 107-10!i. aeccptani'c df bill of lading binds owner to conditions eontaini'd in it. pp. 1()7.41(). rule ill lllinitis. i))). 111. liS:). but not to conditions attacbed to it and not part thereof PI). IKt-llil. bill of lading hotli a reeeipt and a contract, pp. V,\i. as a receipt ii 'iiay be eoiilracted by inirol. p. 1H2. t)iit I'ontract put can not be varied by parol, pp. VM, VXi. collali'ial agrccnient may lie show n. p. V.W. so aNo may siii»plementary contiaet. pp. VM. K57. fraud ma> li^' sliown, pji. IIST-IIO. duress may lie sliowii. ]>]>. 1I'.7-14(). mistake may lie sliown. (ip. I'.u-l-lO. antecedent agrcemeuis liecome merged in writing, p. VXi. sub'2. but it must be ircneral. iea-1- !•"• but no; lo eiuitradicl it. pl". 1")-1, 155. negligence as aiTeciiug contraci> of carriers. i>p. 1.")S-1S0. the degree- oi negligence. 15S. 1. V.I. r.'asoiis for the division, pp. l"iii. li'>"- nol proper in ease of common carriers, pp. l.V.l-HiS. the Kngli^li doctrine. \\\>. li'J-liW. the American docliinc Kir. 1(!S. discordaiii deci-ioiis. ICO-KiJ. power to coniract a-aiiiM n.'gligcnce. pi). ICS-li;'..'. ill Knglanil such power exi-t-. pl>. -.'tl. 27. h>>^. l'">'''- but not ill Anu'i-ica. pp. :>1. :t2. Hi!'. except in New York. pii. I>*. 171-17*!. l;,iuire<.f owner to slate value or .•outents doe.- not excuse neg- ligence (.1' carrier. pl>. bH'-'Tl. I"2T. _^ nulc- amounting t.. conuibinory negligence, pp. 1<1. l.- II 1 1 ). 1(17-127. I \, 472 INDEX. ; ii ■'' \^:l "! COMMON CARRIEHS—Coiitiiuicil. negligeiK-e in tlici-airiage of live stoolv, pp. 17()-17S. evldcuoe of iicgligonce, wliat is. i)p. 17S-18(). that goods never icaoli destination, p. 178. aooident unaecounted for, p. 178. want of suitable vehiiles, p. 170. oeeurrence of lire no proof of negligence, ii. 17!). destnu'tion of goods by nn)b. |). -111;, deviation as affeeting contracts, p. 181-l8t). by deviating from manner of eariiage. carrier looses benefit of exemptions, pp. 181, 182-181. contracting to send by sailing vessel and shipping by steam. p. 182. agreeing to carry •• all rail " and transporting by sea, p. 182, contract to forward l)y particular vessel must be followed. p. I8:i. effect of deviation by connecting carrier. i>p. 184-18.'). consent of shipper, p. 18(i. failure of carrier to conform to publi*; regnlations. p. 180. delay as affecting contracts, p. 18(>-1!)2. effect of delay on exenii)tions in contract, p. 187. delay caused by ads of mob. p. ll!t. contracts concerning delay consirued, |>. 1>8. contract to deliver in specified time, p. 181). abandonment of contract: malfeasance, pp. I!)()-l!r2. construction of contracts limiting lialiility. pp. Ili7-2(i!». exceptions in contract construed -trictly. i)p. li)7, 108. general words following particular exemjjtions include only those of similar cbaractti', p. r.t8. carrier's receipt must be taken altogetlic:. j). 1!»8. construction of maxii.i cj-prrn.sin imiiis f>!uiaiu'e policies and l)ills of lading ci>n.strued differently, pp. 211-21(1. interpretation of words and phrases, pp. 21(i-2ti!). ••accidental delays." p. 2l..' p. 21'.!. 2-20. " common carrier." p. 2. r'»/>r''5ww»¥ INDEX. 4Y3 COMMOX CAIJHIEHS— Coiiliimca. •• contents iniknown,"" pp. •iiil. -H'lT). •• (liiniaiic." ]). 22(). " diingcrs iiii'idcnt to the niivifiation of the river." p. 'i21. ••* (liinj;i'rs of n!iviu;iition." ])]). •221-212. •• (liiuficrs of tlie lake." p. 221. '• <.lan>i('vs of \\\i' river." p. 221. " (lan.^ers of llie roads." \). 242. ''dangers of the seas," p. 221. •■ detieiency in iiiianlity." p. 2i;{. •Mhday." p. 12. •• depot." p. 2i;5. •■ deviation." i)i>. 12. i;i. •' errors." p. 2i;{. •• eseapes." p. 21'.!. •■extraordinary nnirine risk." p. 214. •• feed, water and take proper eare of." r. •'44. ••tire," 244-24(1. "forward."' pp. 240. 42(j. '• free/ii!{i." ]». 247. •• from whati'ver eanse.'" p. '247. •• good order and eondiiion."' j). '248, ••heat, suffocation and the other ill effeets of being crowded," p. 2411. ••inevitable aeeidents." p. 2:i. •' on lakes or rivers." p. 2.V). •• (tn the train." i». 2.-)(i. •• package," pp. 217. 21S. •• perils of the lake." p. 221. •• perils of the river." p. 221. •• perils of the sea<." lip. 221. 401. •• pi>ri-lialile properly." p. 2.')(). •• i)ilot. nni-ter or mariners." p. 2r>7. •• place of destination." p. 257. •• port of discharge." p. 2r.s. •• privilege of reshipi)ing." p. 2."iS. •• puhlic enemy." l". 14. ••quantity guaranteed." p. 2V.I. ••restraints of princes." p. 2.V.I. •• rust," p. 401. '• robbers," p. 2(;0. ••suffocation," p. 200. '■^/- ■ } . t h , } 1 : p; J 1" 'th 474 INDEX. COMMON CAHRIKHS— Contiiuietl. •■ tliiovos," p. '200. " throiigli witliout traiissfer," |>. •Jtll. •• t(»\v iuul assist vessels," p. 2('>1. •■ uiiiiv()i(lal)le aceidi'iits." pp. -H'd. ■JIJ;?. ••value and contents unknown," pp. JCil. it!."!. •■ vieioiisni'ss." p. •J(>(i. •' \vat(M'ecl and feil," p. -Jiiil. •• weatiier, injiu'ies occasioned by." p. "Jdi). conllict of laws as affect inj;; conlracls of carriers, p. 'JtJO-'ifin. consideration necessary to snp))Mri conlraci limiting liability, pp. 270-27-J. ajii'eenient to carry not siillicient. p. 271. but reduced conipensatii'U snllicient. ]), 272. fi'ce pass snllicient. p. 272. l)ower of aj;'ei>t of owner to make contracts, pj). ;i2s-;{;{0. autlioriiy given to shi|) canies antlKtiity to nnike contracts, p. :{27. who is an •• agent " for tlii< purpose, pj). ;)2S-I>:'>(). consignor is agent of ciuh-ignre. p|). :i2S. vendor is agent of vendee, p. ;{2S. cartinan or porti-r not w itliin the rule, ]>. :i21i. carrier uccmI not examine authority of agent, p. :tl>(). carrie\'"s knowledge of agent's want of authority. |). \V,U. liability of agent to princi)i;il. p. :t:il. power of agent of carrier to make contracts. p|>. ;i;{2-;{n. agent of carrit'r presumed to have antlKuity to make contrat't.-. pp. :i:52-:5:<:{. when carrier bound by acts of agents, j). :{:{|. when carrier not liound by acts of agi'iits. ;!;{ I-Ii:?(i. connecting carriers. i)p. ;{(2-:{((S. carrier may contract to carry beyond his route, pp. :m;!. ;mi. or may limit his resi)on-ibility to his o\\ n route, p. ;tl4. but still lialili' in sonii' ca-es. p. ;il.-|. what is evidence of conlraci for through transjtortation. j), ;i I."), in I'.ngland receipt of parcel marked to point is evidence of through colli r;'.;i. ;> I! I.">. rule othorwi-e in Ameiic a. p)). :!."i;. :{."(7. which carrier may be sued. p. ;{."i(I. when coniu'ctiiig carrier may claim exemjuions in tlrst contrai'l. pp. :i()2. :Hi4. when exemptions in contract with tlrst carrier do noi enure to C(Uiiiectiiig carrier, pp. liiil. litis. burden of proof in actions again>^t, pp. liiUi-lisi, on carrier, jip. l!(l!>-:!72. to show necessity for deviation, p. lit. to show that loss aro^e from cause for which he was not re- sponsible, pp. ;{(i!i-;i7((. i¥^ BH?; INDEX. 475 l>p. COMMON CAKIMKIiS-C.iuimu'a. to itrovr conlnu't limilinj; lialiility. p. 871. to sliow that icfeii)t contaiiiiiif,' t-xemplions was accppted in good faith, pp. :{71-:i7-_>. to show tliat loss is witlilii cxfinptions in coutnu't, nn :172 -101 . 11- to show u('-,'ligen.H> when lo. COXNKCTINt; CAUIMKHS. effci't of deviation by connecting carrier, [ip. lt<4. IS."). carrier may contract to carry beyond his loute. jip. ',]\',t. '.Ui. or uuiy limit his responsibilii\ to his own route, p. IU4. but still liable in some cases, p. li-t.'i. what is eviiitMh'c of contract for through transportation, p. lUo. in Kngland receipt of parcel marked lo point is evidence of through coiiti'act. i>p. 'M't. It.Vi. rule otherwise in America, pp. I?."'!', itri". construction of special ccmtracts. pp. I{.">7-3G1. which carrier may be sued. p. Moti. when connecting carrier may claim exemptions in lirst contract, pp. MVI-MH. when exceptions in contract with first carrier do not enure to con- necting carrier, pp. l{(!4-lt(;s. CONMDEKATION. necessarv to support cmitract limiting liability, |»p. 270-27'J. agreement to carry not sullicient. p. 271. but reducfd compensation sullicient, p. 272. : ■'•I »: Intkhi-kkta- TION. COX'raXTS. .SV(. Vauk and ("ontknts. "COXTKXTS rXKXOWN." ,sVf ■Vai.ii; am» Contknt;* Unknown." COXTKACTS. powtT of ciinicr to limit liis liability liy roiitract. j). H-'u. may do so except for iit'^lijiciu-c. p|>. 2l-(ir. 1 >■. 1(1!). power formcil ;. not admitleil, p. 2."). ri^jor of tlio ancient iido lehi: ed. p. 2."). ie. '.W. in (;eory:ia, pp. ;{(», ,i7. ;{,s. in Illinois, ])p. :ts, ;{•). ill I.uliana, p. :{!). in Iowa, p. 40. ill Kansas, p. ll. ill Konliicky. p. Jl. in F.oiiisiana, pp. !I, (2. in Maine. \). 42. ill Maryland, pp. 42. V.i. in Massaclinsetls. ]>. 4;{. ill Micliiyan. p. 44. in Minnesoia.rp. 44. ill Mississippi, p. 4;,. in Missouri, pp. I.'). 4(!. in Xeliraska. |». 47. in Xevada. p. 47. in Xew llanipsliire. p.*47. in Xew .Jersey, p. 4S. ill Xew York. pp.j4S/4ii. ill Xortli ( arolina. p|>. .">(», ."»|. in oliio. pp. .*ii. :>•>. Ill < ►re^iMI. p. ."(2. ill I'eniisylvauia. pp. .*i2, ill IMiode |s|,.||„|.'|,. 54. in South ( arolina. ji. 54. .-);{. INDKX. 477 •ki{I'I{p:ta- S KNOWN." CONTRACTS— Coiituuicd. in 'IVniK'ssoc. ]> 'A. ill Toxii.-;. p. 55. in Veniiotit. \>. 55. in Viijiiuiii. p. 55. in West Vii';iiiii!i. p. 55. in AVisconsiii. p. 5(i. policy of iillowiii;^ ;i limited lialiilily. p. 5K. rciisons iijiiiiiist tlie diu'lriiic. pj). 5'.i. (10. views of the jiulf^es //)•« :md ran. pp. (iO-80. notioo niiiy he waived liy spceial e(iiiir;vct with different tcrnis, p. 110. notices only proposals for contracts, p. 1(15. iinil unless assented to do not make contracts, p. 106. how assent may be evidenced, p. 107-1 12. asaeii' from accept in;;- paper- coiitaiiiin^- conditions, pp. 107-127. hills of ladiii}?. lip. 107-10!>. acceptance of hill of Indinjj hinds owner. to conditions con- tained therein, pp. 107, 416. rnle in Illinois, pp. 111. 1!S;{. hut not lo conditions attached to it and not, part thereof, pp. ii:i-iiii. hill of ladiiiL; lioth a receipt and a contract. p.'ia2. receipt part may lie varied hy parol, i). 1112. hiit contract jiartcan not he contradicted, jip. 132, 13;i. cnllaUTal airreeineiii may lie shown, p. 1116. so alMi may snpplementary contract, pp. 1116-137. fraud ni,.y he shown, pp. l;i7-l 10. duress n. ress receipts, pp. 10!'. 110. acceptance of express receipt binds ownor to conditions in it, i>p. lO'.l. 110. 113, lid. hut not to tlios(« attached to it and not part thereof, pp. 101). 110. 113. lit], rnle in Illinois, p. ill. <'liaracter of emiiloyment not ehangcd hy .ontract, pp. 128,M2!). 130. 4111. except in special citses. p. 131. contract limiting liahility may lie hy parol.'p- 131. larrier may contract for heiictit of insurance effected hy owner on goods, p. 151. ahan(h>nnient of contract, pp. r.iO-102. constniotion of contracts limiting liability, pp. l!i7-2«!). 31 11 !t II II 11 r ..g!-,U!M.'l.l->.W*'»JHff 478 INDKX. ;■;'.: I ■J CONTKA(TS-C(.iitihiuMl. i'X('oi)li"ii« ill (•(iiiiiMci riiiislnu'd sirii'tly. pp. l!t7,llW. jjciuTiil woiils f()lli)\viiii; piirtie'iiliir cxciiilitioiis iiieliidoonly tliu-ic oi •iniilar chiiriiclcr. p. I'.is. i-anirr's n ciipi mi'U bf taki'ii altoj^etlier, p. I'.is. I'liii^triiclinii of till' iiiaxiiii vx/irffiKio nniits fut i.rrlusiintUfrius, (1(1 cxiin'-i-i cxccptioiis exclude implied ones. pp. 200. (ipinioii "f HiiTcldw. C. J., in (ia;^!' v. Tirrcll. i>p. '20S. '-Ml. ti'iiu-' iirm^uraiici- policit'-; and hills of ladiiij;- (•((iHtnicd dlffor- oiilly. pi>. -Jl l-Jltl. iiiterpi't'taiioii of woi^ls and piirasi^s in ('(Hiirai'ts, 21ii-'iii'.>. ••accidciilal delays." ]•. 211). •• act of (IikI." p. ."). >-a;:n'f>."' p. 217. '•all rail." \>. 217. ••arlirlc." pp. 217. 21S. '•biifjfiaf-v." p. 21S. ••hill of ladiii!,'." p. 1;<1- •• l»ri"akaj;c."" pp. 2.")(). 2.">2. -C. «). 1).." p. 2111. 220. " cuiiiiiiun ( anicr." p. 2. '•conlt'iils niikiiowii." pp. 2ill. 2t!.'). •• daiua;;!'." p. 220. '* duii;;tMs im'idi'iit to llic iiavi-jatioii of the livt'i." p. 221. •• daiijr«'i> of iiavi;;atioii." i)p. 221-212. " duiijJCfis of the lake." p. 221. "dangers of llic river. "" p. 221. *' diinjicrs of the roads." p. 212. "danfjer- of the >eas." p. 221. ••detUdeney in (iiianiity." p. 2i;>. |k "d(day.'" p. 12. ••depot." p. 21;'.. '• deviation." ii|). 12, V.). ••errors." p. 2i:!. »• escapes," p. 21.1. ••extraordinary iiiarine risk," p. 214. •• feed, water and take projier care of." p. 241. ••lire," 21 1-2 Hi. ••forward," pp. 21i!. 42lJ. *• fr(!e/.in>j." p. 217. •• from whatever cause." p. 247. *• iifood onU'r and co'iditinii."' p. 248. ••heat, snffiicaiion .md the other ill effects of beinj; crowded," p. 24'.». '•inevitable accidents," p. -202. IS. t iiK'l lido only IS. •luniiKilterius, IR'S. pp. 'JOO. irll. pp. '20S. tnit'd (lift'cr- i(;-2i;;). 1.. -JJI. '^ crowded," INDEX. ■OONTIiACTS— (Joiiliniicd. "just and ica-onalilc,"" j))). MO-in. •• inluTciit dcli'iioi'iiiion."' p. •>:>(). "Icakiijifc iiiid liicukajjc."' pp. 2.")0-2r)2. '■ loud and iinlnaii,"' pp. 252, 2.');(. '• Ids •.'" p. 2."):?. " OUT it's risk." p. 2.");i. *• oil lakes or rivers," p. 2.");'). " on ilic irain." p. 2r)(i. " packa^jf." pp. 217. 21S. •• perils of the lake," ji. 221. " i»erils of the river," p. 221. " jicrils of the seas." pp. 221. 401. " jieiishalile property." p. 2.")(i. »• pilot, master oi- niaiiiiers." p. 257. '> place of destiiialioii," ]i. 257. " port of diseharjre." p. 25S. " inivilejje of reshippinj;," p. 25S. ♦' pnlilie enemy." p. II. "i|iiaiitity f^iiaiaiitec'd," p. 25!). "restraints of j)riiu'L's," p. 250. " nisi," p. 101. '• rohhers," p. 2(;(). "suffocation." p. 2(i(). " thieves." p. 2i!(t. " throiijih without transfer," p. 201. '• tow and assist vessels," p. 2(51. " iinavoidahle accidents," pp. 2()2, 2I!:{. " value and contents niiknown," pp. 204, 205. " vlcioiisness," p. 20(1. "watered and fed." p. 200. " weather, liijiuies occasioned by," J). 20(5, •ooiitllct of laws a: iffeoti-g contfictf* of carriers, j). 200-200. consideration necessary to iippo-*^ contract limiting liability, pp. 270-272. agreement to cai.y not siillicieut, p. 271. hilt reduced compensation sniHcient. p. 272. free pass siillicient. p. 272. ixiwer of agent of owner to make contracts, pp. ;J2S-:j:}0. authority given to ship carries authority to make contracts*, p. :!27. who is an " agent " for this purpose, pj). ;528-:$:50. consignor is agent of consignee, pp. ;528. vendor is agent of vendee, p. 1528. cartman or porter not within the rule. p. 320. carrier need not examine authority of agent, p. ;5;5(). carrier's knowledge of agent's want of authority, p. ;!;51. liahility of agent to priiicitial, p. :5:51. .M' m P 480 INDKX. « ONTMACTS— roiitliiiUMl. powiT of nf,'t'nt of ciUTicr to make coiifriicts. j)|). :J:i2-;Ul. iijjciit of I'liirior piosuiiii'il to liavc iiiUlioilly lo iiiakti foutnu'ls. pp. :J:w-n:»;{. wln'ii farrier boiiiid liy acts of aj,'<'iils, p. :t:W. when carrier not hound )»y acts of a>;ciits. :{;||-IIH(>. cimiicctinjj carrier-;, pp. HPJ-Htls, carrier may contract to carry licyoini iiis roiile. pp. :. in Kn;;land receipt of. parcel marked to point is evidence of llnon^li contr.icl. j). ;H.'). rule otlierwise in .Knu-rica. pp. U.">t!. :i.">". which carrier nuiy he sued. p. H.")(>. when connecting carrier may claim exemptions in first contract. p|). M>-2. Ktil. when exemptions in contract w ith tirsl carrier do not enur!i-:tSI. on carrier, pp. H(!!t-;J72. to show neie-isity for deviation, p. \'.\. to show that loss arose from cause for which he was nt)t re- sponsible. |>p. :{(>l>-;t7(). to prove contract limititi}; liability, p. ;{7I. to show that receipt containiuf;; csemj)tions was acce|)ted in good faith, pj). ;{"l-;t72. to -how that loss is within exemptions in contract, pp. 'A72, 401 to sliow iie>;li<;ence wlien loss falls w ilhin an excepted peril. :{74-:{77. the rule in .Mabama. pj). ;{77-:i7'.l. to show coniplianct; with conditions when exemption is con- ditio;ial. p. :{S(). ■ m shipj)er. jtp. :{7'J-IJS1. to show negli;;ence when loss falls within an excejited i)eril. :!72-:«7:<. 4i(i. to show that loss was from cause for whiiii carrier was to hi- si)ecially liable, j). ;{W). pleading ;tS(l-:tMl. .\MA(JK," construction of this word in hills of lading, p. 2"iO. ; INDKX. 481 " DANOKHS INCIDKNTTO THK NAVIGATION OF TlIK IIIVEU.- Sci- '• l)AN(;i:US (»K N.WKIATION." •• DANMJIOKS OK NAVKiATION," plinistw •• iHMils of the scus." •• pi'ills of tlie rlviT," " perils of tlic lakf."" •• (liiii;;('rs of the sens." •• dtiiifjiTs of the liver." •• tliiiiKers of llie lake." •• nii!ivoi(liil)l<' (laii;;crs of tlh- river." •• (iiui;cers in- fideiit to tlie n;ivii,Mtioii of tlie river." •• iiievitiil)lr lu cidents " 1111(1 " iiiiiivdi ' ilile aceideiit!*." lire !