BOOK 
 
 Co/ 
 
 LAW BMKS 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW
 
 A TREATISE 
 
 ON THE LAW OF 
 
 CVRI^IERS 
 
 BV THE 
 
 EDITORIAL STAFF OF THE MICHIE COMPANY 
 
 UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF 
 
 THOMAS JOHNSON MICHIE 
 
 Volume I 
 
 The Michie Company, Law Publishers 
 
 Charlottesville, \'a. 
 
 1915
 
 lA5e^'l c- 
 
 Copyright, 1915 
 
 BY 
 
 The Michie Company
 
 Table of Contents 
 
 
 VOLUME I 
 
 PART I 
 CARRIERS GENERALLY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Who Are Carrikks. 
 
 I. Common Carriers Defined, § 1. 
 II. Common Carriers and Private Carriers Distint,'uished, § 2. 
 II. Persons and Corporations Who Are Common Carriers, §§ 3-1! 
 
 A. Railroad Companies, § 3. 
 
 B. Owners of Spur Lines or Switches, § 4. 
 
 C. Sleeping Car Companies, § 5. 
 
 D. Street Railways, § 6. 
 
 E. Express Companies, § 7. 
 
 F. Transportation and Forwarding Companies, § 8. 
 
 G. Proprietors of Stage Coaches, § 9. 
 
 H. Proprietors of Omnibuses and Baggage Wagons, S 10. 
 I. Draymen and Truckmen, § 11. 
 J. Telegraph and Messenger Companies, § 12. 
 K. Transfer and Storage Companies, § 13. 
 L. Livery Stable Keepers, § 14. 
 M. Mail Contractors, § 15. 
 
 N. Owners of Ships Carrying Goods for Hire, § It). 
 O. Ferrymen, § 17. 
 P. Boats Engaged in Towing, § 18. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Control -vnd Regulation. 
 
 I. Power to Control and Regulate in General, §§ 19-24. 
 
 A. Carriers in General, § 19. 
 
 B. Railroad Companies, § 20. 
 
 C. Express Companies, § 21. 
 
 D. Delegation of Power. §§ 22-24. 
 
 a. In General, § 22. 
 
 b. To Municipal Corporations, § 23. 
 
 c. To Commissions, § 24. 
 
 II. Companies, Persons, or Instrumentalities Affected by Regulations, §§ 25-28. 
 A. In General, § 25. 
 
 6GV611
 
 Yy tablK of contents. 
 
 B. Railroad Companies, § 2G. 
 
 C. Street Railroad Companies, § 27. 
 
 D. Express Companies, § 28. 
 
 III. Licenses and Taxes, § 29. 
 
 IV. Reports and Statements. § 30. 
 
 V. Conduct of Business in General. §§ 31-34. 
 
 A. Common Carriers in General. § 31. 
 
 B. Railroad Companies, § 32. 
 
 C. Business of Transmitting Money to Foreign Countries, § 33. 
 
 D. Hackman and Draymen, § 34. 
 \"L Charges, §§ 35-95. 
 
 A. In General, §§ 35-84. 
 
 a. Power to Regulate, §§ 35-79. 
 
 (1) In General, § 35. 
 
 (2) Delegation of Power. §§ 36-37. 
 
 (a) To a Commission, § 36. 
 
 (b) To a Municipal Corporation, § 37. 
 
 (3) Classification of Railroads for Purposes of Regulations, §§ 38-39. 
 
 (a) Right to Classify, § 38. 
 
 (b) Mode of Classification, § 39. 
 
 (4) Limitation of Power, §§ 40-72. 
 
 (a) Reasonableness of Regulations, §§ 40-67. 
 aa. Regulations Must Be Reasonable, § 40. 
 bb. Mode of Determining Reasonableness, §§ 41-67. 
 
 (aa; That Carrier Has Performed Services for Rate Fixed Not Sole 
 
 Criterion, § 41. 
 (bb) Carrier Entitled to Fair Return on Investment, §§ 42-49. 
 aaa. In General, § 42. 
 
 bbb. Mode of Determining Value of Property or Investment, §§ 
 43-49. 
 (aaa) In General, § 43. 
 
 (bbb) Fictitious Capitalization or Excessive Bonded Debt, § 44. 
 (ccc) Sworn Return of Value of Property Made for Purposes of 
 
 Taxation, § 45. 
 (ddd) Value of Franchise, § 46. 
 (eee) Consolidated Corporation — Value of Assets of Constituent 
 
 Corporations, § 47. 
 (fff) Part of Railroad within State to Be Regarded in Its Rela- 
 tion to Part without State, § 48. 
 (ggg) Road Purchased at Foreclosure Sale and Reorganized, § 49. 
 (cc) Carrier Entitled to Earn Interest upon a Valid Bonded Debt, § 50. 
 (dd) Ascertaining Cost of Doing Business or of Operating Road, § 51. 
 (ee) Consideration of Net Earnings in Determining Reasonableness of 
 Rates Prescribed, §§ 52-54. 
 aaa. Net Earnings Must Be Sufficient to Pay Fair Return on Invest- 
 ment, § 52. 
 bbb. Mode of Computing Net Earnings and What They Include, § 53 
 ccc. Earnings of Entire Road to Be Regarded, § 54. 
 (ff) Interstate Business to Be Disregarded, § 55. 
 (gg) Economic Factors and Natural Advantages of Localities May Be 
 
 Considered, § 56. 
 (hh) Equality of Rates for Like Service, § 57. 
 (ii) Adoption of Rates Given by Carrier to Certain Shippers, § 58. 
 (jj) Accessibility of a Place to High Seas as Aflfecting Rates, § 59. 
 (kk) Betterments and Replacements Should Be Considered, § 60.
 
 TABLE OF COXTKNTS. V 
 
 (11) Passenger Traffic Considered as Separate and Independent from 
 Freight Traffic, § <J1. 
 (nun) Ivevcnue 'I'hat Has Been Derived from Rate under Consideration, 
 
 (nn) ICi'fcct of Several Sovereignties Being Interested, § 03. 
 (oo) Apportioning Value of Property and Expenses, §§ 04-65. 
 
 aaa. Necessity for Apportionment, § 04. 
 
 bbb. Method of Apportionment. § 05. 
 (pp) Line of Railroad Operated in Connection with Other Lines, § 06. 
 (qq) Mode of Arriving at Effect of Statutes Reducing Rates. § 07. 
 
 (b) Due Process of Law, § 08. 
 
 (c) Equal Protection of Laws, § 09. 
 
 (d) Taking Private Property without Just Compensation. § 70. 
 
 (e) Discrimination against Carrier in I-'avor of Certain Individuals, § 71. 
 (f) Limitations u]ion Power of a Municipality to Reduce Street Railroad 
 
 Fares, § 7:3. 
 
 (5) Exemption from Regulation l)y Charter or Statute. §§ 73-78. 
 
 (a) In General, § 73. 
 
 (b) Necessity for Positive and Clear Words of Exemption. §§ 74-75. 
 aa. Doctrine Stated, § 74. 
 
 bb. Doctrine Illustrated, § 75. 
 
 (c) Succession to Rights of Company Entitled to Exemption, §§ 70-78. 
 aa. Purchase, § 70. 
 
 bl). Lease, § 77. 
 
 cc. Consolidation, § 78. 
 
 (6) Loss of Power by Abandonment or Nonuser, § 79. 
 b. Scope and Effect of Regulations, §§ 80-84. 
 
 (1) To Whom or to What Business or Route Regulations Are Applicable, § 80. 
 
 (2) Obligations Imposed on Carriers, § 81. 
 
 (3) Measure of Compensation Allowed, § 82. 
 
 (4) Regulations Will Not Be Construed to Be Retroactive, § 83. 
 
 (5) When a Statute Will Be Construed as Impliedly Repealing a Prior Stat- 
 
 ute, § 84. 
 
 B. Posting Schedules at Stations, § 85. 
 
 C. Local and Through Rates. § 86. 
 
 D. Long and Short Hauls, § 87. 
 
 E. Joint Tariff between Two or More Roads. § 88. 
 
 F. Transfers to Connecting Lines of Same Company, § 89. 
 
 G. Conditions in Grant of Franchise and Agreements with Municipalities, §§ 90-95. 
 
 a. Authority to Impose Conditions or to Make Agreements, § 90. 
 
 b. Change of Rates of Fare Fixed l)y Franchise or Agreement, § 91. 
 
 c. Effect of Acceptance by Carrier of Location Granted by Municipality, § 92. 
 
 d. Conditions and Agreements Contrued, § 93. 
 
 e. Waiver of Right to Charge More than Amount Stipulated in Franchise. § 94. 
 f. Acquisition by Sale or Consolidation of a Railway Company Having a Con- . 
 
 tract with a Municipality, § 95. 
 VII. Preferences and Discriminations, §§ 90-lOS. 
 
 A. The Common-Law Doctrine, § 90. 
 
 B. Standard Measure of Uniformity in Rates. § 97. 
 
 C. Power to Prohibit Preferences and Discriminations. § 98. 
 
 D. Power of Legislature to Permit Discrimination, § 99. 
 
 E. Construction of Constitutional and Statutory Enactments and Commission 
 
 Orders Forbidding Preferences or Discriminations, § 100. 
 
 F. Who Are Common Carriers within the Rule Prohibiting Discrimination. § 101. 
 
 G. What Constitutes an Unlawful Preference or 'Discrimination. § 102. 
 H. What Circumstances Will Justify Discrimination. §§ 103-lOS.
 
 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 a. Business of Carrier Unusually or Unexpectedly Heavy, § 103. 
 
 b. Difference in Conditions under Which Shipment Is Made, § 104. 
 
 c. Through Rates and Local Rates, § 105. 
 
 d. Competition with Other Carriers, § 106. 
 
 e. Unusual Traffic Conditions Attending upon a General Coal Strike, § 107. 
 
 f. Cost of Mining Coal to Company in Whose Favor Discrimination Is Made, 
 
 § 108. 
 \TII. Places of Stoppage, § 109. 
 
 IX. Receipt and Transportation of Freight and Passengers, § 110. 
 X. Exclusive Privileges. §§ 111-114. 
 
 A. To Express Companies, § 111. 
 
 B. To Corporations or Individuals Engaged in Transporting Passengers and 
 
 Baggage to and from Railroad Depots, § 112. 
 
 C. To Ships Using a Wharf of Dock Constructed by a Railroad Company, § 113. 
 
 D. To the Use of a Switch Track, § 114. 
 
 XI. Connections with and Facilities to Other Carriers, §§ 115-129. 
 
 A. In General, § 115. 
 
 B. Joint Running Arrangements, § 116. 
 
 C. Connection between Roads or Trains, §§ 117-118. 
 
 a. Power to Require, § 117. 
 
 b. Character of Requirements, § 118. 
 
 D. Use of Terminals, § 119. 
 
 E. Reception, Transportation and Delivery of Cars, Passengers and Freight, §§ 
 
 120-123. 
 
 a. Rule at Common Law, § 120. 
 
 b. Power to Require, § 121. 
 
 c. Construction of Requirements, § 122. 
 
 d. Excuses for Refusal or Neglect to Perform Duty. § 123. 
 
 F. Moving or Switching Cars from a Connecting Line, § 124. 
 
 G. Facilities and Accommodations to be Furnished by Railroad Companies to Ex- 
 
 press Companies, § 125. 
 H. Discrimination in Favor of One of Several Connecting Carriers, §§ 126-128. 
 
 a. Duty to Give Like Through Rates to All Connecting Carriers, § 126. 
 
 b. Discrimination as to Interchange of Business, § 127. 
 
 c. Discrimination as to Prepayment of Freight Charges, § 128. 
 I. Transfers between Street Railroad Companies, § 129. 
 
 XII. Use of Carrier's Premises and of Street or Premises Adjacent Thereto, §§ 130-132. 
 
 A. Exclusion of Persons in General, § 130. 
 
 B. Regulations for Conduct of Persons, § 131. 
 
 C. Rights of and Restrictions upon Individuals or Corporations Engaged in Trans- 
 
 porting Passengers or Baggage, § 132. 
 
 XIII. Free Transportation to Police Officers, § 133. 
 
 XIV. Combinations of Carriers, § 134. 
 
 XV. Proceedings to Enforce or to Prevent Enforcement of Regulations, §§ 135-173. 
 
 A. Right of vState to Insist on Compliance with Regulations, § 135. 
 
 B. Judicial Supervision and Remedies in General, §§ 136-159. 
 
 a. Scope of Judicial Supervision, §§ 136-137. 
 
 (1) In General, § 136. 
 
 (2) As to Rates, § 137. 
 
 b. Right to and Mode of Obtaining Relief, §§ 138-141. 
 
 (1) In General, § 138. 
 
 (2) Relief against Unreasonable Rates, §§ 139-141. 
 (a) Relief to Carrier, §§ 139-140. 
 
 aa. Rates Fixed by Legislature, § 139. 
 bb. Rates Fixed by Commission. § 140.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. VII 
 
 (h) Relief to Public. § 141. 
 
 c. Scope of Inquiry, § 142. 
 
 d. What Commission Orders Will Be Enforced, § 143. 
 €. Revival of Causes of Action, § 144. 
 
 f. Procedure and Evidence, §§ 14.5-159. 
 
 (1) Procedure in General, § 145. 
 
 (2) Jurisdiction, § 14G. 
 
 (3) Parties, §§ 147-148. 
 
 (a) By Whom Suit May Be Brought, § 147. 
 
 (b) Who Are Proper Parties, § 148. 
 
 (4) Intervention, § 149. 
 
 (5) Pleading, §§ 150-152. 
 
 (a) Petition, § 150. 
 
 (b) Demurrer, § 151. 
 
 (c) When Pleadings Make the Taking of Testimony Unnecessary, § 152. 
 
 (6) Evidence, § 153-157. 
 
 (a) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 153-156. 
 aa. In General, § IS.']. 
 
 bb. As to Rates, §§ 154-155. 
 
 (aa) Rule Stated, § 154. 
 
 (bb) How Presumption May Be Overcome, § 155. 
 cc. In Proceedings against a Carrier for Contempt, § 156. 
 
 (b) Admissibility, § 157. 
 
 (7) Judgment, § 158. 
 
 (8) Procedure upon Review of Orders or Decisions of a Commisssion, § 159. 
 C. Injunction, §§ 160-173. 
 
 a. When and against Whom Injunction Will Lie. §§ 160-166. 
 
 (1) Injunction against Action by a State Commission, § 160. 
 
 (2) Injunction to Restrain Wrongful and Discriminatory Acts by a Carrier, 
 
 § 161. 
 
 (3) Injunction to Restrain a Carrier from Charging Unlawful Rates, § 162. 
 
 (4) Injunction to Compel Transportation at Rate Fixed by Law, § 163. 
 
 (5) Injunction to Compel Carrier to Furnish Impartial Service, § 164. 
 
 (6) Injunction to Compel Carrier to Stand Cars in Front of a Shipper's 
 
 Property, § 165. 
 
 (7) Injunction to Restrain Persons from Soliciting Business in or Near a 
 
 Railroad Station, § 166. 
 
 b. Procedure and Evidence, §§ 167-173. 
 
 (1) Jurisdiction, § 1G7. 
 
 (2) Parties, § 168. 
 
 (3) Pleading— Petition. Complaint, or Information. § 169. 
 
 (4) Evidence — Presumptions and Burden of Proof. § 170. 
 
 (5) Reference to a Master, § 171. 
 
 (6) Laches, § 172. 
 
 (7) Decree, § 173. 
 
 X\'I. Damages for Violations of Regulations, §§ 174-lSO. 
 
 A. Power of Legislature. § 174. 
 
 B. When an Action Will Lie. §§ 175-177. 
 a. In General, § 175. 
 
 1). Failure to Stop at Station. § 176. 
 c. Overcharge or Discrimination. § 177. 
 
 C. Measure of Damages, § 178. 
 
 D. Limitation of Actions, § 179. 
 
 E. Petition or Complaint. § 180. 
 
 X\'II. Penalties for \iolations of Regulations. §§ 181-275.
 
 VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 A. In General, § ISl. 
 
 B. Overcharge and Discrimination, §§ lS2-19(i. 
 
 a. Power to Impose Penalty, § 182. 
 
 b. Construction of Statutes Imposing Penalties, § 183. 
 
 c. Repeal of Statutes Imposing Penalties, § 184. 
 
 d. Conditions Precedent to Right of Action for Penalty, § 185. 
 
 e. Who May Recover Penalty, § 186. 
 
 f. For What Acts Penalty Is Imposed, § 187. 
 
 g. Unit of Measurement in Determining What Is an Overcharge, § 188. 
 h. Number of Penalties Recoverable, § 189. 
 i. Amount of Penalty, § 190. 
 
 j. What Questions May Be Raised in Action for Penalty, § 191. 
 k. Defenses, §§ 192-195. 
 
 (1) Rates Charged No Higher than Those Fixed by Railroad Commission, 
 
 § 192. 
 
 (2) Mistake, § 193. 
 
 (3) Facts Not Constituting a Defense, § 194. 
 
 (4) Estoppel to Set Up Defense, § 195. 
 
 1. Two Penalties — Effect of Enforcement of One, § 196. 
 
 C. Refusal to Transport Passengers, § 197. 
 
 D. Refusal to Sell Mileage Tickets at Reduced Rates, § 198. 
 
 E. Refusal to Furnish Passenger Tickets Granting Stop-Over Privileges, § 199. 
 
 F. Refusal to Give a Transfer, § 200. 
 
 G. Refusal to Sell Passenger Tickets of a Connecting Carrier, § 201. 
 
 H. Failure to Affix Check to Baggage and to Deliver Duplicate to Passenger, § 202. 
 I. Refusal to Redeem Unused Passenger Tickets, § 203. 
 J. Failure to Post Schedules of Rates, § 204. 
 K. Failure or Refusal to Receive or Transport Freight, §§ 205-210. 
 
 a. Statute Imposing Penalty Does Not Limit Carrier's Common-Law Liability, 
 
 § 205. 
 
 b. Who May Recover Penalty, § 206. 
 
 c. When Penalty Will Be Imposed, § 207. 
 
 d. Number of Penalties Recoverable, § 208. 
 
 e. Tender and Refusal, § 209. 
 
 f. Defenses, § 210. 
 
 L. Refusal to Give Shipper a Proper Bill of Lading, § 211. 
 
 M. Delay in Shipment or Transportation of Freight, §§ 212-220. 
 
 a. Power to Impose Penalty, § 212. 
 
 b. Who May Recover Penalty, § 213. 
 
 c. In What Cases Penalty Is Imposed, § 214. 
 
 d. Time within Which Freight Must Be Transported, § 215. 
 
 e. When Transportation Terminates, § 216. 
 f. Defenses, § 217-220. 
 
 (1) Failure to Prepay Charges, § 217. 
 
 (2) Notice to Shippers of Conditions Causing Delay, § 218. 
 
 (3) Sunday Laws, § 219. 
 
 (4) Estoppel to Set Up Defense, § 220. 
 
 N. Failure to Give Notice of Arrival of Freight to Consignee, § 221. 
 
 O. Refusal to Deliver Freight or Express Matter to Consignee, §§ 222-226. 
 
 a. Constitutionality of Statute Imposing Penalty, § 222. 
 
 b. Statute Imposing Penalty Not Merely in Aid of Common Law, § 223. 
 
 c. Where Delivery Must Be Made, § 224. 
 
 d. Conditions Precedent to Recovery of Penalty, § 225. 
 
 e. Number of Penalties Recoverable, § 226. 
 
 P. Failure of Consignee to Unload Cars within a Prescribed Time, § 227.
 
 TARLR OP CONTENTS. IX 
 
 O. Failure to Stop at Station, § 228. 
 
 R. Failure to Furnish or Delay in Furnishing Cars, § 229-234. 
 
 a. Constitutionality of Statutes Imposing Penalties, § 229. 
 
 b. Statutes Imposing Penalties Strictly Construed. § 230. 
 
 c. Powers and Duties of Railroad Commissions, § 231. 
 
 d. Application for Cars, § 232. 
 
 e. Places at Which Cars Must Be Furnished, § 233. 
 f. Defenses, § 234. 
 
 S. Failure to Pay or .A.djust Claims, §§ 235-247. 
 
 a. Power to Impose Penalty, § 235. 
 
 b. Existence of Statutory Conditions Essential to Imposition of Penalty, § 236. 
 
 c. Who May Recover Penalty, § 237. 
 
 d. Where and When Cause of Action .Arises, § 238. 
 
 e. Necessity of Filing Claim, and witli Whom It May Be Filed, § 239. 
 
 f. Sufficiency of Claim, § 240. 
 
 g. Place of Payment of Claim, § 241. 
 h. Who Is Liable for Penalty, § 242. 
 
 i. Immaterial in What Alanner Loss Was Caused, § 243. 
 j. Amount of Penalty, § 244. 
 
 k. What One Claiming Penalty Must Show, § 245. 
 1. Defenses, §§ 246-247. 
 
 (1) Amount Recoverable by Claimant as Affecting Right to Penalty, § 246. 
 
 (2) Efifect of Voluntary Payment of Claim after Time Limited, § 247. 
 T. Failure to Make Annual Reports. § 248. 
 
 U. Procedure and Evidence, §§ 249-275. 
 
 a. Venue, § 249. 
 
 b. Time within W'hich Action Must Be Brought, § 250. 
 
 c. Parties— By Wliom .'\ction May Be Brought, § 251. 
 
 d. Pleading, §§ 252-263. 
 
 (1) Declaration, Petition, or Complaint, §§ 252-259. 
 
 (a) In General, § 252. 
 
 (b) Necessary Allegations, §§ 253-258. 
 
 aa. In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, §§ 25:'-254. 
 (aa) Overcharge in Passenger Rates, § 253. 
 (bb) Overcharge in Freight Rates, § 254. 
 bb. In actions for Penalty for Unjust Discrimination between Shippers, 
 
 § 255. 
 cc. In Actions for Penalty for Refusal to Receive or Transport Freight. 
 
 § 256. 
 dd. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight, § 257. 
 ee. In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Double Decked Cars 
 for Sheep, § 258. •» 
 
 (c) Unnecessary Allegations May Be Rejected as Surplusage, § 259. 
 
 (2) Answer— Sufficiency. §§ 260-263. 
 
 (a) In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, § 260. 
 
 (b) In Actions for Penalty for Unlawful Discrimination in Rates. § 261. 
 
 (c) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. § 262. 
 
 (d) In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Cars. § 163. 
 
 e. Evidence. § 264-272. 
 
 (1) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 264-267. 
 (a) In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge. § 264. 
 (h) In .\ctions for Penalty for Discrimination in Rates, § 265. 
 
 (c) In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Receive and Transport Freight, 
 
 § 266. 
 
 (d) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. § 267.
 
 X TABLi; OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 (2) Admissibility, § 26S-271. 
 
 (a) In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, § 268. 
 
 (b) In Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Rates, § 269. 
 
 (c) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight, § 270. 
 
 (d) In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Cars, § 271. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency, § 272. 
 
 f. Questions of Law and Fact, §§ 273-274. 
 
 (1) In Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Freight Rates, § 273. 
 
 (2) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight, § 274. 
 
 g. Instructions, § 275. 
 
 XVIII. Offenses by Carriers or Their Agents, §§ 276-292. 
 
 A. In General, § 276. 
 
 B. Overcharge or Discrimination, § 277. 
 
 C. Carrying More than a Prescribed Number of Passengers, § 278. 
 
 D. Failure to Deliver Express Matter to Consignee, § 279. 
 
 E. Negligence Causing Death or Injury, §§ 280-282. 
 
 a. In General, § 280. 
 
 b. Who May Be Prosecuted, § 281. 
 
 c. Defenses, § 282. 
 
 F. Indictment, §§ 283-286. 
 
 a. Conditions Precedent to Indictment, § 283. 
 
 b. Necessary Allegations, § 284. 
 
 c. Effect of Unnecessary Allegations, § 285. 
 
 d. Offenses Covered by Indictment, § 286. 
 
 G. Trial, §§ 287-292. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction, § 287. 
 
 b. Evidence, §§ 288-290. 
 
 (1) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 288. 
 
 (2) Admissibility, § 289. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency, § 290. 
 
 c. Questions of Law and Fact, § 291. 
 
 d. Charge, § 292. 
 
 XIX. Offenses by Persons Dealing with Carriers or LTsing Their Conveyances, §§ 
 
 293-298. 
 
 A. In General, § 293. 
 
 B. Sale of Passenger Tickets by Brokers, § 294. 
 
 C. Acceptance and Use of a Pass, § 295. 
 
 D. Stealing or Attempting to Steal a Ride on Railroad Trains, § 296. 
 
 E. Obstructing Train and Endangering Safety of Passengers, § 297. 
 
 F. Indictment, Accusation, or Complaint, § 298. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Rules and Regulations of Carriers. 
 
 I. Scope of Treatment, § 299. 
 II. Carriers of Goods, §§ 300-306. 
 
 A. General Statement, § 300. 
 
 B. Particular Rules and Regulations, § 301. 
 
 C. Changing or Modifying, § 302. 
 
 D. Operation and Effect as to Carrier, § 303. 
 
 E. Duty of Agents to Enforce, § 304. 
 
 F. Waiver of Regulations, § 305. 
 
 G. Proof of Regulations, § 306.
 
 TAHLK OP COXTliXTS. XI 
 
 III. Carriers of Passengers, §§ 307-332. 
 
 A. Right to Make and Enforce Rules and Regulations, §§ 307-318. 
 
 a. In General, §§ 307-311. 
 
 (1) General Rule. § 307. 
 
 (2) Soliciting Business in Cars, § 308. 
 
 (3) Use of Station Premises by Local Carriers and Others, § 309. 
 
 (4) Tickets and Fares, § 310. 
 
 (5) Enforcement of Rules and Regulations, § 311. 
 
 b. Must Be Reasonable, § 312. 
 
 c. Must Not Be Contrary to Law, § 313. 
 
 d. Must Not Discriminate, § 314. 
 
 e. Their Reasonableness as Question of Law, § 315. 
 
 f. Their Reasonableness as Mixed Question of Law and Fact, § 31G. 
 
 g. Their Reasonableness Question for Jury, § 317. 
 h. Their Sufficiency Is Question for Jury, § 318. 
 
 B. Notice of Rules and Regulations, §§ 319-323. 
 
 a. Passenger's Contract Rights Not Affected by Rules of Which He Was Not 
 
 Cheargeable with Notice, § 319. 
 
 b. Duty of Passenger to Inform Himself of Existence of Rules, § 320. 
 
 c. Sufficiency of Publication or Notice, § 321. 
 
 d. Bound by Rules of Which He Was in Ignorance, § 322. 
 
 e. Rules for Conduct of Carrier's Employees, § 323. 
 
 C. Enforcement of Rules and Regulations, §§ 324-326. 
 
 a. Enforcement Must Be Reasonable, § 324. 
 
 b. Ejection of Passengers, § 325. 
 
 c. Enforcement l)y Punishing Prior Breach, § 326. 
 
 D. Waiver of Rules and Regulations, §§ 327-328. 
 
 a. Habitual Failure to Enforce, § 327. 
 
 b. Passenger's Duty to Conform to Rules as Affected Ijy Lack of Fidelity in 
 
 Enforcing, § 328. 
 
 E. Contributory Negligence of Passenger in Note Conforming to Rules and Reg- 
 
 ulations, § 329. 
 
 F. Carrier Bound by Its Own Rules. §§ 330-332. 
 
 a. In General, § 330. 
 
 b. Rules Not Required by Law, § 331. 
 
 c. Rules Requiring More of Carrier than Law. § 332. 
 
 PART II 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS 
 
 CHAPTER I\'. 
 
 Duty to Ri-:ceivi-: and Carry. 
 
 I. General Statement and Explanation of Rule, § 333. 
 II. Duty to Furnish Shipping Facilities and Means of Transportation, §§ 334-341. 
 
 A. In General, § 334. 
 
 B. Notice to Carrier, §§ 335-338. 
 
 a. Time of Notice, § 335.
 
 XII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 b. Requisites and Sufficiency of Demand. § 336. 
 
 c. To Whom Given, § 337. 
 
 d. Specifying Condition and Danger of Goods, § 338. 
 
 C. Place of Furnishing Cars, § 339. 
 
 D. Goods Ready for Shipment, § 340. 
 
 E. Adequacy of Facilities, § 341. 
 III. Discrimination. §§ 342-355. 
 
 A. Right to Discriminate Generally, § 342. 
 
 B. Discrimination in Facilities and Cars, §§ 343-348. 
 
 a. In General. § 343. 
 
 b. Discrimination in Favor of One of Several Connecting Carriers, § 344. 
 
 c. Preference in Delivery and Distribution of Cars. § 345. 
 
 d. With Respect to Use of Tracks, §§ 346-347. 
 (1) In General. § 346. 
 
 (3) With Respect to Spur Tracks. Switches and Belt Lines. § 347. 
 
 e. Discrimination in Switch and Trackage Charges, § 348. 
 
 C. Preference to Shipper in Order of Forwarding Goods, §§ 349-350. 
 
 a. In General, § 349. 
 
 b. Booking Freight, § 350. 
 
 D. Remedies for Discrimination, §§ 351-355. 
 
 a. Form of Action, §§ 351-353. 
 
 (1) Injunction and Mandamus, § 351. 
 
 (2) Quo Warranto. § 352. 
 
 (3) Action at Law. § 353. 
 
 b. Evidence, § 354. 
 
 c. Damages, § 355. 
 
 IV. Tender and Refusal. §§ 356-359. 
 
 A. In General, § 356. 
 
 B. Authority to Tender, § 357. 
 
 C. Authority to Receive Freight and Make Contracts, § 358. 
 
 D. Place and Time of Offer for Transportation. § 359. 
 V. Payment or Tender of Charges. § 360. 
 
 \'I. Time and Order of Shipment. § 361. 
 \'II. Character of Goods Tendered for Shipment, § 362. 
 \III. Condition and Prepartion of Goods Tendered, § 363. 
 IX. Private Owned Trains or Cars, § 364. 
 
 X. Shipment C. O. D., § 365. 
 XI. E.xceptional Causes Justifying Failure or Refusal. §§ 366-374. 
 
 A. General Statement, § 366. 
 
 B. Absence of Requisite Conveniences or Capacity, § 367. 
 
 C. Unusual Press of Business, §§ 368-371. 
 
 a. In General, § 368. 
 
 b. Discrimination or Granting Privileges, § 369. 
 
 c. Duty to Advise Shipper of Delay, § 370. 
 
 d. Carriers "Embargo," § 371. 
 
 D. Causes beyond Carrier's Control, § 372. 
 
 E. Failure of Shipper to Insure, § 373. 
 
 F. Customs and Habits of Dealing. § 374. 
 
 XII. Right to Discontinue Service to Shipper, § 375. 
 
 XIII. Destination of Goods as Affecting Duty, § 376. 
 
 XIV. Duty as to Express Companies, § 377. 
 XV. Enforcement of Duty. §§ 378-379. 
 
 A. By Injunction, § 378. 
 
 B. By Mandamus, § 379. 
 XVI. Action for Refusal, §§ 380-382.
 
 TAIiLK OF COXTKXTS. XIII 
 
 A. Right of Action, § 380. 
 
 B. Procedure, § 381. 
 
 C. Damages, § 382. 
 
 X\'II. I'cnaltiis Inr Wr(jii-l'ul Refusal, § 383. 
 
 chai"i'i:r \'. 
 
 Wlfl'.X LlAlWI.lTV Co.MMKNCES. 
 
 I. In General, § 384. 
 II. Necessity for and Effect of Delivery and Acceptance, § 385. 
 
 III. What Constitutes Delivery and Acceptance, §§ 38G-407. 
 
 A. In General, § 386. 
 
 B. Ordinary Course of Business as Common Carrier, § 387. 
 
 C. Place and Time of Delivery, § 388. 
 
 D. Notice of Deposit and Acceptance, §§ 389-392. 
 
 a. In General, § 389. 
 
 b. Actual and Contructive Notice and Acceptance, §§ 390-392. 
 
 (1) In General, § 390. 
 
 (2) Constructive Notice and Acceptance — Custom or Agreement, § 391. 
 
 (3) Goods Loaded on Cars. § 392. 
 
 E. Authority of Agent to Receive Goods, §§ 393-398. 
 a. In General, § 393. 
 
 h. Officers and Agents in General, § 394. 
 
 c. Authority of Third Persons — Special Agents, §§ 395-397. 
 
 (1) In General, § 395. 
 
 (2) Delivery to Lighterman to Be Carried to Ship. § 396. 
 
 (3) Delivery of Cotton to Compress Company, § 397. 
 
 d. Proof of Authority, § 398. 
 
 F. Complete Delivery for Immediate Sliipmcnt. §§ 399-406. 
 
 a. In General, § 399. 
 
 b. Exclusive Possession and Control, § 400. 
 
 c. Delivery for Immediate Sliipment or Storage, §§ 401-406. 
 
 (1) In General, § 401. 
 
 (2) Something to Be Done Prior to Transportation, §§ 402-40(). 
 
 (a) In General. § 402. 
 
 (b) Absence of Directions as to Sliipment. § 403. 
 
 (c) Payment of Charges, § 404. 
 
 (d) Deposit Subject to Shipper's Order, § 405. 
 
 (e) Necessity for Loading on Cars, § 406. 
 
 G. Necessity for and Effect of Bill of Lading, § 407. 
 
 IV. Evidence of Delivery, §§ 408-411. 
 
 A. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 408. 
 
 B. Admissibility of Evidence to Show Delivery. § 409. 
 
 C. Sufficiency of Evidence of Delivery, §§ 410-411. 
 a. In General, § 410. 
 
 I). Bill of Lading or Receipt as Evidence, § 411. 
 \'. Question of Law or Fact, § 412.
 
 XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Bills of Lading. 
 
 I. Definition and Nature Generally. § 413. 
 II. Form and Contents, §§ 414-424. 
 
 A. In General, § 414. 
 
 B. Writing, § 415. 
 
 C. Signature, § 416. 
 
 D. Name of Consignee, § 417. 
 
 E. Statement of \'alue of Goods. § 418. 
 
 F. Notations and Marginal Memoranda, § 419. 
 
 G. The Law, § 420. 
 
 H. Published Tariffs, § 421. 
 I. Expense Account of Carrier, § 422. 
 J. Recitals of Fact, § 423. 
 
 K. Special Conditions and Limitations, § 424. 
 III. Issuance and Acceptance, §§ 425-450. 
 
 A. Necessity for Issuance, § 425. 
 
 B. Authority to Issue, §§ 426-442. 
 
 a. Agents and Employees, §§ 426-428. 
 
 (1) Agents and Employees Who May Issue, §§ 426-427. 
 
 (a) Master of Vessel and Other Employees, § 426. 
 
 (b) Agents and Employees of Railroads, § 427. 
 
 (2) Proof or Estoppel to Deny Authority of Agent, § 428. 
 
 b. Receipt of Goods as Prerequisite to Issuance, §§ 429-442. 
 
 (1) Necessity, §§ 429-438. 
 
 (a) In General, § 429. 
 
 (b) Authority of Agents or Employees, § 430. 
 
 (c) As against Bona Fide Consignee or Transferee, §§ 431-437. 
 aa. Doctrine Prevailing in Most Jurisdictions, § 431. 
 
 bb. Doctrine in New York, Pennsylvania and Certain Other States, § 432. 
 cc. Conflict of Laws, § 433. 
 
 dd. Effect of Custom or Course of Business, § 434. 
 ee. Negligence of Carrier, § 435. 
 f¥. Fraudulent Bills of Lading, § 436. 
 gg. Effect of State Statutes, § 437. 
 
 (d) Due Bills Promising to Issue a Bill of Lading, § 438. 
 
 (2) Subsequent Delivery to Carrier as Validating Bill, §§ 439-442. 
 
 (a) In General, § 439. 
 
 (b) Where Statute Prohibits Issuance before Receipt of Goods, § 440. 
 
 (3) Presumption as to Receipt of Goods, § 441. 
 
 (4) Proof of Nonreceipt of Goods, § 442. 
 
 C. Duty to Issue, § 443. 
 
 D. Issuance in Duplicate, § 444. 
 
 E. Acceptance and Assent to Provisions, §§ 445-450. 
 
 a. In General, § 445. 
 
 b. Assent to and Acceptance by Consignor, §§ 446-450. 
 
 (1) Effect of Acceptance, § 446. 
 
 (2) Presumptions of Absent from Acceptance, §§ 447-450. 
 
 (a) In General, § 447. 
 
 (b) Rebuttal of Presumption, §§ 448-450. 
 
 aa. Failure of Shipper to Sign Bill, § 448. 
 
 bb. Failure to Read or Examine Bill, §§ 449-450. 
 
 (aa) In General, § 449. 
 
 (bb) Bill Received after Goods Shipped, § 450.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV 
 
 IV. Validity. §§ 451-454. 
 
 A. Fraud or Mistake, § 451. 
 
 B. Forfc'ery, § 452. 
 
 C. No Goods Delivered to Carrier, § 45:j. 
 
 D. Partial Invalidity, § 454. 
 
 V. Construction, Operation and ICffect, §§ 455-513 
 
 A. General Rules of Construction, § 455. 
 
 B. Construction of Words and Phrases, § 456. 
 
 C. Notice of Contents, § 457. 
 
 D. Blanks and Unintelligible Characters, § 458. 
 H. Conditions on Back of Bill, § 459. 
 
 F. Usage and Custom, § 460. 
 
 G. Conflict of Laws, § 461. 
 H. Foreign Laws, § 462. 
 
 I. Fraudulent Bills of Lading. § 463. 
 
 J. Partial Invalidity, § 464. 
 
 K. When Bill of Lading Part of Contract, § 465. 
 
 L. Dual Character as Contract and as Receipt, §§ 466-479. 
 
 a. In General, § 466. 
 
 b. As Contract Generally, § 467. 
 
 c. As a Receipt in General, § 468. 
 
 d. Parol Evidence to Vary or Contradict Bill, §§ 469-479. 
 
 (1) As a Contract, §§ 469-470. 
 
 (a) Between the Parties, § 469. 
 
 (b) Between Consignor and Consignee, § 470. 
 
 (2) Merger of Oral Negotiations and Prior Verbal Agreements, § 471. 
 
 (3) To Explain Ambiguities and Technical Terms. § 472. 
 
 (4) Parol Evidence to Alter or Contradict Receipt Clauses of Bill. §§ 473-476. 
 
 (a) In General, § 473. 
 
 (b) Recital of Fact of Receipt and Quantity of Goods, § 474. 
 
 (c) Recital as to Quality or Condition of Goods. § 475. 
 
 (d) Recital as to Ownership of Goods, § 476. 
 
 (5) Recitals as to Rate and Receipt of Freight, § 477. 
 
 (6) Destination or Place of Delivery, § 478. 
 
 (7) Terminus of Road, § 479. 
 
 M. As Contract of Carriage, §§ 480-481. 
 
 a. As Imposing Liability of Common Carrier, § 480. 
 
 b. As Contracts to Carry Specified Thing, § 481. 
 
 N. As Evidence of Fact and Time of Receipt and .Acceptance of Shipment, §§ 
 482-483. 
 
 A. As Evidence of Fact of Receipt and .Acceptance of Shipment, § 482. 
 
 b. Time of Receipt of Shipment, § 483. 
 O. Destination or Place of Delivery, § 484. 
 P. Person to Whom Delivery Authorized. §§ 485-487. 
 
 a. In General, § 485. 
 
 b. Open and Closed Shipments, § 486. 
 
 c. Direction to Notify a Named Person. § 487. 
 
 Q. As Warranty or Evidence of Quantity, Quality or Condition of Goods. §§ 
 488-494. 
 
 a. Effect as Warranty of Quantity, etc.. §§ 488-491. 
 
 (1) In General, § 488. 
 
 (2) Recital That Contents L'nknown. § 489. 
 
 (3) Recital That Goods in "Good Order." etc.. § 490. 
 
 (4) Recital That "Contents L^nknown and in Apparent Good Order." § 491. 
 
 b. As Evidence of Quantity. Quality or Condition of Goods, §§ 492-494.
 
 XVI TABLE OF CONTKNTS. 
 
 (1) As Evidence of Quality or Condition of Goods, § 492. 
 
 (2) As Evidence of Quantity or Weight of Goods, §§ 493-494. 
 
 (a) In General, § 493. 
 
 (b) Bill Made Exclusive Evidence of Quantity l)y Agreement, § 494. 
 R. Effect of Understanding Quantity, § 495. 
 
 S. As Evidence or Warranty of Title or Ownership, §§ 496-498. 
 
 a. In General, § 496. 
 
 b. As Warranty of Title of Shipper, § 497. 
 
 c. Shipment Fraudulently Procured by Person Not Owner of Goods, § 498. 
 T. Effect as \'esting Property in Consignee, §§ 499-510. 
 
 a. When Property Vests in Consignee, §§ 499-503. 
 
 (1) In General, § 499. 
 
 (2) Stoppage in Transitu, § 500. 
 
 (3) Consignment to Enemy or Neutral, § 501. 
 
 (4) Consignee Making Advances on Faith of Bill, § 502. 
 
 (5) Removal of Goods by Unauthorized Person, § 503. 
 
 b. When Property Does Not Vest in Consignee, §§ 504-510. 
 
 (1) In General, § 504. 
 
 (2) Bill Not Delivered to Consignee, § 505. 
 
 (3) Consignment to Be Sold on Commission, § 506. 
 
 (4) Goods Billed to Shipper's Order, §§ 507-508. 
 
 (a) In General, § 507. 
 
 (b) Bill with Draft Attached to Be Delivered to Purchaser of Goods, § 508. 
 
 (5) Bill to Another than Purchaser, § 509. 
 
 (6) Bill to A. for Use of B., § 510. 
 U. Stipulations as to Value, § 511. 
 
 V. Freight and Demurrage, § 512. 
 W. As Evidence of Carrier's Liability as Warehouseman, § 513. 
 VI. Transfer, §§ 514-589. 
 
 A. Negotiability, §§ 514-518. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 514. 
 
 b. Distinguished from Commercial Paper, § 515. 
 
 c. Effect of Statutes Making Bills of Lading Negotiable, § 516. 
 
 d. Bills Marked "Not Negotiable," § 517. 
 
 e. When Carrier Incurs Liability of Warehousemen, § 518. 
 
 B. Transferability or Assignability, § 519. 
 
 C. Mode of Transfer, §§ 520-536. 
 
 a. In General, § 520. 
 
 b. Delivery of Bill, §§ 521-531. 
 
 (1) In General, § 521. 
 
 (2) Intention to Pass Title, § 522. 
 
 (3) Necessity for Acceptance of Possession, § 523. 
 
 (4) Possession of Bill of Lading as Evidence of Title in Holder, §§ 524-525. 
 
 (a) In General, § 524. 
 
 (b) Rebuttal of Presumption, § 525. 
 
 (5) Exception in Favor of Stoppage in Transitu, § 526. 
 
 (6) Right of Disposal Retained by Consignor, §§ 527-528. 
 aa. In General, § 527. 
 
 bb. Consignor Indebted to Consignee, § 528. 
 
 (7) Necessity for Indorsement to Enable Holder to Sue, § 529. 
 
 (8) Necessity for Shipper's Order, § 530. 
 
 (9) Bill of Lading Signed in Blank, § 531. 
 
 c. Transfer by Indorsement and Delivery, §§ 532-534. 
 
 (1) In General, § 532. 
 
 (2) Necessity and Sufticiency of Indorsement or Assignment, § 533.
 
 TAUKl-: (Jl- COXTKXTS. XVII 
 
 CA) Necessity for Delivery of Bill, § y.ii. 
 
 d. Sale or Payment of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached, § 535. 
 
 e. Attachment of Bill of Lading, § oifti. 
 
 D. Persons Who Make Transfer, §§ 5:J7-5;}y. 
 a. In General, § 537. 
 
 \). Consignee, § 538. 
 
 c. Consignor or Agent, § 539. 
 
 E. Consideration, § 540. 
 
 F. KfTect of Transfer, §§ 5U-57(i. 
 a. In General, § 541. 
 
 1). As Transfer of Contract between Consignor and Consignee, § 542. 
 
 c. Operation as Constructive Delivery of Goods, § 543. 
 
 d. Rights and Title of Holder Generally, §§ 544-570. 
 
 (1) In General, § 544. 
 
 (2) No Goods Delivered to Carrier, §§ 545-54(). 
 (a) In General, § 545. 
 
 (1)) Title to Goods Not Shipped or Included in liill, § 540. 
 
 (3) Goods Shipped Without Authority of Owner, § 547. 
 
 (4) .\ssignment Made After Arrival of Goods, § 548. 
 
 (5) Bona Fide Holders, §§ 549-552. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 549. 
 
 (b) EfTect of Statutes Making Bills of Lading Negotiable. § 5.50. 
 
 (c) Estoppel of Carrier to Deny Conditions and Representations in Bill, 
 
 § 551. 
 
 (d) Duplicate or Triplicate Bill, § 552. 
 
 (0) Holder with Knowledge of Defects in Transferrer's Title, § 553. 
 
 (7) Holder of Lost or Stolon Bill of Lading, § 554. 
 
 (8) Holder of Forged Bill of Lading, § 555. 
 
 (9) Rights and Liabilities as to Carriers, §§ 550-505. 
 
 (a) As to Delivery of Goods, §§ 556-502. 
 aa. Duty to Deliver to Transferee, § 556. 
 
 bb. Production and Cancellation of Bill of Lading, § 557. 
 
 cc. Payment of Freight and Charges as Condition Precedent, § 558. 
 
 dd. Demand of Delivery, § 559. 
 
 ee. Lial)ility for Misdelivery or Delay, § 500. 
 
 ff. Waiver or Rights to Indorsement of Bill, § 501. 
 
 gg. Duplicate and Triplicate Bills, § 502. 
 
 (b) Efifect of Custom of Carrier, § 503. 
 
 (c) Explanation of Alteration in Bill, § 564. 
 
 (d) Liability for Freight and Demurrage, § 505. 
 
 (10) Rights and Liabilities as to Consignor, §§ 506-568. 
 
 (a) In General, § 500. 
 
 (b) As Defeating Stoppage in Transitu, § 567. 
 (,c) Liability for Price of Goods. § 568. 
 
 (11) Rights and Liabilities as to Consignee, §§ 509-571. 
 
 (a) In General, § 569. 
 
 (b) Claim for Advances to Consignor, § 570. 
 
 (c) Liability to Consignee on Contract of Consignor, § 571. 
 
 (12) Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons, §§ 572-576. 
 
 (a) Claims of Third Person against Transferrers. § 572. 
 
 (b) Against Vendor of Consignor, § 573. 
 
 (c) Against Subsequent Purchaser of Goods, § 574. 
 
 (d) Subsequent Liens, §§ 575-570. 
 aa. In General, § 575. 
 
 bb. Subsequent .\ttachments, § 570. 
 G. I'lodgc, Mortgage or Collateral Security, § 577. 
 
 1 Car— h
 
 XVIII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 H. Purchase or Discount of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached, §§ 578-587. 
 
 a. Recording Papers, § 578. 
 
 b. Rights and Title of Purchaser, §§ 579-584. 
 
 (1) As to Consignor and Consignee, §§ 579-582. 
 
 (a) In General, § 579. 
 
 (b) Notice That Payment to Drawer Unauthorized, § 580. 
 
 (c) Drawer Indebted to Drawee or Consignee, § 581. 
 
 (d) Right to Sue for Purchase Price or for Conversion of Goods, § 582. 
 
 (2) Rights against Carrier, § 583. 
 
 (3) Rights against Third Persons, § 584. 
 
 c. Liability of Purchaser for Shortage or Inferiority of Shipment, § 585. 
 
 d. Effect of Consignee's Accepting and Paying Draft, § 586. 
 
 e. Charging Unpaid Draft to Drawer's Account, § 587. 
 
 I. Deposit of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached for Collection, § 588. 
 J. Duplicate and Triplicate Bills, ?^ 589. 
 
 VII. Effect As Binding Intermediate and Terminal Carrier, § 590. 
 
 VIII. Modification or Rescission, § 59L 
 
 IX. Surrender, Discharge or Release, § 592. 
 
 X. Actions. §§ 593-002. 
 
 A. Rights of Action and Defenses, § 593. 
 
 B. Parties, §§ 594-595. 
 
 a. Plaintiffs, § 594. 
 
 b. Defendants, § 595. 
 
 C. Pleading, §§ 596-597. 
 
 a. Bill, Petition, or Complaint, § 596. 
 
 b. Answer, § 597. 
 
 D. Production of Bill of Lading or Proof of Contents, § 598. 
 
 E. Proof of Execution of Bill, § 599. 
 
 F. Province of Court, § 600. 
 
 G. Instructions, § 601. 
 
 H. Directing Verdict, § 602. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Shipping Receipts. 
 
 I. Issuance, Form and Requisites, § 603. 
 II. Construction and Operation, §§ 604-617. 
 
 A. As Contract of Parties, §§ 604-607. 
 
 a. In General, § 604. 
 
 b. Effect of Acceptance, § 605. 
 
 c. Receipt Filled Out by Shipper, § 606. 
 
 d. Conditions on Back, § 607. 
 
 B. As Contract of Bailment or Mere Receipt for Goods, § 608. 
 
 C. As to Initial or Connecting Carrier, § 609. 
 
 D. As Agreement to Carry to Destination, § 610. 
 
 E. As to Rate of Freight, § 611. 
 
 F. Effect of Recitals as to Receipt, and Quantity of Goods, § 612. 
 
 G. Effect of Admission That Goods in "Good Order," § 613. 
 H. Reference to Bill of Lading to Be Thereafter Issued, § 614. 
 I. Effect Where Bill of Lading Subsequently Issued, § 615. 
 
 J. Receipt Accepted after Shipment Received, § 616. 
 
 K. Parol Evidence to Alter, Explain or Contradict, § 617.
 
 TAIJIvK OF CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Si'F.CIAL C0NTR.\CTS. 
 
 I. Contracts for Transportation of Goods, §§ 618-711. 
 
 A. Power to Contract, §§ 618-621. 
 
 a. Power to Contract as Private Carrier, § (318. 
 
 b. Power to Contract Jointly or Severally, § CIO. 
 
 c. Power to Contract to Carry beyond Terminus, § 020. 
 
 d. Contracts with Connecting Carrier, § G21. 
 
 B. Authority to Make Contract, §§ 622-637. 
 
 a. Agents of Road, §§ 622-634. 
 
 (1) In General, § 622. 
 
 (2) Local or Station Agent, §§ 623-631. 
 
 (a) Business at His Own Station, §§ 623-624. 
 aa. In General, § 623. 
 
 bb. Presumption as to and Proof of Want of Authority, § 624. 
 
 (b) As to Station Other than His Own, § 625. 
 
 (c) Shipments to His Station from Another, § 626. 
 
 (d) Respecting Trains in Which Shipment to Be Made, § 627. 
 
 (e) Point Where Railroad Has No Oiifice or Agent, § 628. 
 
 (f) Contract to Carry beyond Carrier's Own Line, § 629. 
 
 (g) Not to Deliver without Surrender of Bill of Lading, § 630. 
 (h) Notice of Special Damages, § 631. 
 
 (3) Traveling Freight Agent, 632. 
 
 (4) Live Stock Agent, § 633. 
 {')) Express Drivers, § 634. 
 
 b. Receiver of Road, § 635. 
 
 c. Power of Consignor to Bind Consignee, § 636. 
 
 d. Agent of Owner or Shipper, § 637. 
 
 C. Form, Requisites, and Validity, §§ 638-656. 
 
 a. In General, § 638. 
 
 b. Consideration, § 639. 
 
 c. Ofifer and Acceptance — What Constitutes Contract, § 640. 
 
 d. Mutuality and Meeting of Minds, § 641. 
 
 e. Writing — Validity of Verbal Contract, §§ 642-643. 
 
 (1) In General, § 642. 
 
 (2) Authority of Agent, § 643. 
 
 f. Failure or Inability of Shipper to Read Contract, § 644. 
 
 g. Signing, § 645. 
 h. Fraud, § 646. 
 
 i. Mistake, §§ 647-648. 
 
 (1) As to Rate, § 647. 
 
 (2) Misclassification of Goods, § 648. 
 j. Discrimination and Overcharge, § 649. 
 
 k. Necessity for Actual Receipt of Goods, § 650. 
 1. Effect of Partial Invalidity, § 651. 
 
 m. Conformity to Rates, Rules and Classification of State Corporation Com- 
 mission, § 652. 
 n. Evidence as to Contract, § 653-656. 
 
 (1) Parol Evidence, § 653. 
 
 (2) Bill of Lading or Receipt, §§ 654-655. 
 
 (a) In General, § 654. 
 
 (b) Whole Document in Evidence, § 655. 
 
 (3) Freight Account or Bill, § 656.
 
 XX TAliLl-: OF CONTKNTS. 
 
 D. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ (iST-GS!). 
 
 a. In General, § l3oT. 
 
 b. Rules of Construction. § (Jo8-663. 
 (1) In General, § GoS. 
 
 (^2) Practical Construction Given by Parties, § 659. 
 
 (3) Separable or Entire Contract, § 6G0. 
 
 (4) Alternative Conditions, § GGl. 
 
 (5) Contracts Partly Written and Partly Printed, § G62. 
 
 (6) Clerical Ei-rors, § GG3. 
 
 c. Laws Governing, § GG4. 
 
 d. Course of Dealing, Usage and Custom, § 665. 
 
 e. Persons Bound, § 666. 
 
 f. Persons Entitled to Benefit, § GGT. 
 
 g. When Liability Accrues, § 668. 
 
 h. Duties and Obligations of Carrier and Shipper, § 669-687. 
 
 (1) Obligation as Fixed by Law^, § 669. 
 
 (2) Special Contract as Superseding Common-Law Liability, § 670. 
 
 (3) Effect of Acceptance of Rate Offered. § 671. 
 
 (4) Obligation of Carrier to Receive, Transport and Deliver, §§ G72-675. 
 
 (a) In General, § 672. 
 
 (b) Continuing Offer to Carry, § 673. 
 
 (c) Goods to Be Carried beyond Terminus of Carrier's Line, § 674. 
 
 (d) Transportation "at Owner's Risk," § 675. 
 
 (5) Obligation of Shipper to Furnish Freight, § 676. 
 
 (6) Point Where Goods to Be Received, § 677. 
 
 (7) Destination, § 678. 
 
 (8) Property Concerning Which Parties Negotiating, § 679. 
 
 (9) Quantity to Be Shipped or Carried, § 680. 
 
 (10) Option as to Mode of Shipment, § 681. 
 
 (11) Route, § 682. 
 
 (12) Stop-Over Privilege, § 683. 
 
 (13) Loading and Unloading, § 684. 
 
 (14) Time of Delivery to Carrier, § 685. 
 
 (15) Time to Be Consumed in Transportation, § 686. 
 
 (16) Agreements for Liquidated Damages, § 687. 
 i. Liability as Bailee, § 688. 
 
 j. Liability as Warehouseman, § 689. 
 
 E. Transfer or Assignment, § 690. 
 
 F. Performance or Breach, §§ 691-710. 
 
 a. What Constitutes a Breach, §§ 691-692. 
 
 (1) When Special Effort to Perform Required, § 691. 
 
 (2) Shipment of Bonded Goods on Unljondcd Vessel, § 692. 
 
 b. Demand of Performance, § 693. 
 
 c. Tender of Property, § 694. 
 
 d. Excuses for Breach or Nonperformance. §§ 695-709. 
 
 (1) Act of God, § 695. 
 
 (2) "Perils of River," Navigation and Fire, § 696 
 
 (3) Mobs and Strikes, § 697. 
 
 (4) Military Occupation, § 698. 
 
 (5) Nonpayment of Freight, § 699. 
 
 (6) Merchandise Not Branded as Required l^y Statute, § 700. 
 
 (7) Nondelivery by Shipper, § 701. 
 
 (8) Change of Legal Rate, § 702. 
 
 (9) Particular Stipulations or Contracts, §§ 703-709. 
 
 (a) Time Contracts, § 703. 
 
 (b) Contracts to Carry by Particular Train or Vessel, § 704.
 
 T.XlilJ-: or CONTKXTS. XXI 
 
 (c) Contract to Carry rcrishablcs, § 705. 
 
 (d) Stipulation as to Destination at Which Carrier Has No Agency, § 706. 
 
 (e) Contract to Carry Beyond Terminus, § 707. 
 
 (f) Contract for Future Transportation, § 708. 
 
 (g) Contract to Carry Specific Quantity or Number, § 709. 
 e. Waiver of Breach, § 710. 
 
 G. Modification or Rescission, § 711. 
 
 II. Contracts for Cars or Other Means of Transportation, §§ 712-755. 
 
 A. Requisites and Validity, §§ 712-730. 
 
 a. Capacity to Contract, §§ 712-714. 
 
 (1) In General, § 712. 
 
 (2) Contract to Furnish Cars of Another Road, § 713. 
 
 (3) Contract to Furnish Cars on Line of Connecting Road, § 714. 
 
 b. Authority of Agent, §§ 715-723. 
 (1) Necessity, § 715. 
 
 (.2) Authority of Station AL;cnt, §§ 716-720. 
 
 (a) In General, § 71(). 
 
 (b) Proof of Authority, § 717. 
 
 (c) Time When Cars to Be Furnished, § 718. 
 
 (d) Station or Place Where Cars to Be Furnished, § 719. 
 
 (e) Verbal Contract, § 720. 
 
 (3) Traveling Agent, § 721. 
 
 (4) General Freight Agent, § 722. 
 
 (5) Conductor, § 723. 
 
 c. Certainty and Definiteness, § 724. 
 
 d. Consideration, § 725. 
 
 e. Date of Contract, § 726. 
 
 f. Mutuality, § 727. 
 
 g. Oflfer and Acceptance, § 728. 
 h. Writing, § 729. 
 
 i. Efifect of Partial Invalidity, § 730. 
 
 B. Construction and Operation, §§ 731-736. 
 a. In General. S 731. 
 
 I). Persons Bound and Persons Entitled to Benefit, § 732. 
 
 c. Time When Cars to Be Furnished, § 733. 
 
 d. Contract with Owner of Private Railroad, § 734. 
 
 e. Contract for Track Facilities, § 735. 
 
 f. Agreement to Haul Defective Car, § 736. 
 
 C. Performance or Breach, §§ 737-755. 
 
 a. What Constitutes a Breach, §§ 737-740. 
 
 (1) Refusal to Permit Use of Cars, § 737. 
 
 (2) Failure to Tender Cars in Time, § 738. 
 
 (3) Furnishing Defective Cars, § 739. 
 
 (4) Requisition Essential Where Contract to Furnish as Ordered, § 740. 
 1). Liability of Carrier for Breach, §§ 741-753. 
 
 O) In General, § 741. 
 
 (2) Effect of Statute .MKnving Recovery of Penalty. § 742. 
 
 (3) Tender of Property for Tran.sportation, § 743. 
 
 (4) Road Not Owning Cars, § 744. 
 
 (5) Road Not Equipped with Cars of Character to Be Furnislied, § 745. 
 (.6) Failure to Furnish Refrigerator Cars, § 746. 
 
 (7) Effort to Procure Foreign Cars. § 747. 
 
 (8) Excuses for Breach or Nonperformance, §§ 748-753. 
 
 (a) In General, § 748. 
 
 (b) Act of God, § 749. 
 
 (c) Unavoidable Accident or Casualties, § 750. 
 
 (d) Storms, § 751.
 
 XXII TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 (e) Wrecks, § 752. 
 
 (f) Unprecedented Traffic, § 753. 
 
 c. Liability of Shipper for Breach, § 754. 
 
 d. Waiver of Cause of Action Against Carrier, § 755. 
 
 III. Merger, §§ 756-760. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 756. 
 
 B. Contract Executed after Carriage Begun, §§ 757-758. 
 
 a. In General, § 757. 
 
 b. Ratification or Adoption by Negotiation of Bill of Lading, § 758. 
 
 C. Written Contract Executed after Breach of Parol Contract, § 759. 
 
 D. Receipt for Freight Accepted after Shipment Received, § 760. 
 
 IV. Modification and Rescission, § 761. 
 
 V. Actions against Carrier for Breach of Contract, §§ 762-786. 
 
 A. Nature and Form of Remedy, § 762. 
 
 B. Limitation, in Contract, of Time for Bringing Action, § 763. 
 
 C. Demand, § 764. 
 
 D. Persons Who May Sue, §§ 765-767. 
 
 a. Shipper, § 765. 
 
 b. Forwarding Agent, § 766. 
 
 c. Consignee, § 767. 
 
 E. Pleading, §§ 768-773. 
 
 a. Complaint, Declaration or Petition, §§ 768-772. 
 
 (1) Where Contract Distributive as to Time, § 768. 
 
 (2) Necessary Allegations, § 769. 
 
 (3) Sufficiency of Allegation, § 770. 
 
 (4) Theories of Case, § 771. 
 
 (5) Aider by Subsequent Pleadings and Verdict, § 772. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer, § 773. 
 
 F. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 774. 
 
 G. Questions for Jury, § 775. 
 H. Evidence, §§ 776-784. 
 
 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 776. 
 
 b. Admissibility, §§ 777-782. 
 
 (1) Relevancy and Competency, § 777. 
 
 (2) Parol Evidence, § 778. 
 
 (3) Best and Secondary Evidence, § 779. 
 
 (4) Custom, § 780. 
 
 (5) Necessity for Production of Bill of Lading, § 781. 
 
 (6) Evidence as to Net Profits, § 782. 
 
 c. Reception of Evidence, § 783. 
 
 d. Sufficiency of Evidence, § 784. 
 I. Instructions, § 785. 
 
 J. Verdict, § 786. 
 
 VI. Damages, §§ 787-798. 
 
 A. Liability, §§ 787-788. 
 
 a. In General, § 787. 
 
 b. Breach of Contract Other than That Sued on, § 788. 
 
 B. Duty of Shipper to Mitigate Damages, § 789. 
 
 C. Elements of Damage, §§ 790-793. 
 
 a. Loss of Profits, § 790. 
 
 b. Expense of Renotifying and Reshipping, § 791. 
 
 c. Increased Freight and Extra Charges, § 792. 
 
 d. Breach of Particular Contracts, § 793. 
 
 D. Measure of Damages, §§ 794-795.
 
 TAllLK OF CONTKNTS. XXIII 
 
 a. Breach by Carrier, § 794. 
 Ij. Breach by Sliipper, § 795. 
 
 E. Special Damages, § 796. 
 
 F. Proof of Damages, § 797. 
 
 G. Release of Damages, § 798. 
 
 VII. Interference by One Carrier with Contract of Another, § 799. 
 
 VIII. Contracts to Knrnish Freight, § 800. 
 
 IX. Contracts for Drayage or Hauling, § 801. 
 
 X. Contracts ]%nlarging Carrier's Liability, § 802. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 TiTLii, Custody and Control of Goods. 
 
 I. Title and Ris-'hts of Consignor in General, § 803. 
 II. Title and Rights of Consignee in General, § 804. 
 
 III. Title and Rights of Carrier in General, § 805. 
 
 IV. Change of Destination, § 806. 
 
 V. Seizure under Legal Process, § 807. 
 VI. Actions by and against Carriers, §§ 808-811. 
 
 A. Right of Carrier to Maintain Action, § 808. 
 
 B. Right to Maintain Action against Carrier, §§ 809-811. 
 
 a. In General, § 809. 
 
 b. Right of Consignor, § 810. 
 
 c. Right of Consignee, § 811. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Transportation and Delivery by Carrier. 
 I. Duties as to Transportation in General. § 812. 
 II. Route and Deviation Therefrom, §§ 813-834. 
 A. Selection by Shipper, §§ 813-826. 
 
 a. Right to Select, § 813. 
 
 b. Requisites, Construction and Proof of Agreement, §§ 814-815. 
 
 (1) Requisites and Construction, § 814. 
 
 (2) Evidence, § 815. 
 
 c. Deviation by Carrier, §§ 816-821. 
 
 (1) In General, § 816. 
 
 (2) Losses for Which Carrier Is Liable, §§ 817-819. 
 
 (a) In General, § 817. 
 
 (b) Loss Caused by Inevitable Casualties, § 818. 
 
 (c) Transportation by Connecting Carriers, § 819. 
 
 (3) Necessity for and Justification of Deviation or Forwarding by Another 
 
 Carrier, § 820. 
 
 (4) Damages, § 821. 
 
 d. Refusal to Route Cars as Directed by Shipper, § 822. 
 
 e. Shipment over Route Contrary to Express Direction of Shipper, § 823. 
 
 f. Forwarding by Different Boat or Conveyance than That Stipulated, § 824, 
 
 g. Carrier Fraudulently Inducing Shipment over Longer Route, § 825. 
 h. Diversion by Order of Shipper or Consignee, § 826.
 
 XXIV TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 B. Selection by Carrier, §§ 827-834. 
 
 a. Right to Select in General, § 827. 
 
 b. Regard for Rights of Shipper, § 828. 
 
 c. Degree of Care Required, § 829. 
 
 d. Duty to Select Safe and Direct Route, § 830. 
 
 e. Duty to Pursue Usual and Customary Route and Deviation Therefrom, §§ 
 
 831-834. 
 
 (1) In General. § 831. 
 
 (2) Deviation, §§ 832-834. 
 
 (a) What Constitutes, § 832. 
 
 (b) Necessity and Justification, § 833. 
 
 (c) Losses for Which Carrier Is Liable and Nature of Liability, § 834. 
 
 III. Duty and Necessity of Delivery, §§ 835-841. 
 
 A. Duty to Deliver, § 835. 
 
 B. Liability for Failure or Refusal to Deliver, § 836-841. 
 
 a. In General, § 836. 
 
 b. Excuse for Nondelivery in General, § 837. 
 
 c. Right to Require Receipt before Delivery. § 83?» 
 
 d. Requiring Proof of Right to Goods, § 839. 
 
 e. Requiring Production and Surrender of Bill of Lading, § 840. 
 
 f. Detention for Debt or Charges. § 841. 
 
 IV. Mode and Sufficiency of Delivery in General, §§ 842-846. 
 
 A. In General, § 842. 
 
 B. What Constitutes Delivery, § 843. 
 
 C. Carrier by Water, § 844. 
 
 D. Duties in Making Delivery. § 845. 
 
 E. Effect of Custom or Usage, § 846. 
 
 V. Time of Delivery, § 847. 
 VI. Necessity for Personal Delivery, § 848. 
 'VII. Place of Delivery, §§ 849-853. 
 
 A. In General, § 849. 
 
 B. Usual Place at Destination, § 850. 
 
 C. Specified Place, § 851. 
 
 D. Intermediate Point, § 852. 
 
 E. Shipments in Carload Lots, § 853. 
 
 VIII. To Whom Delivery May Be Made, §§ 854-857. 
 
 A. Consignee or Agent, § 854. 
 
 B. Consignor or Agent, § 855. 
 
 C. Actual Owner, § 856. 
 
 D. Holder of Bill of Lading, § 857. 
 
 IX. Misdelivery. §§ 858-866. 
 
 A. Liability in General, § 858. 
 
 B. Fraudulent Consignee, § 859. 
 
 C. Delivery without Production of Bill of Lading, §§ 860-865. 
 
 a. In General, § 860. 
 
 b. Liability to Bona Fide Holder, § 861. 
 
 c. Laches of Holder of Bill, § 862. 
 
 d. Bill Attached to Draft, § 863. 
 
 e. Duplicate Bills, § 864. 
 
 f. Direction in Bill to Notify Third Person, § 865. 
 
 D. Defenses, § 866.
 
 TAIiLI-: OF COXTKXTS. XXV 
 
 X. Duty of Consignee to Remove Goods, § 8G7. 
 XI. I'"ailure or Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods, § 868. 
 XII. Goods Shipped C. O. D., § 869. 
 
 XIII. Goods S'eized under Legal Process, §§ 870-874. 
 
 A. Liability of Carrier, § 870. 
 
 B. Duties of Carrier, § 871. 
 
 C. Seizure under Police Regulations, § 872. 
 
 D. Garnishment of Carrier, § 87.3. 
 
 E. Rights of Attaching Officer, § 874. 
 
 XIV. Actions for I-aihire to Deliver or Misdelivery, §§ 875-1)0:!. 
 
 A. Conditions Precedent, § 875. 
 
 B. Form of .\ction, § 876. 
 
 C. Joinder of .\ctions, § 877. 
 
 D. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 878. 
 
 E. Parties, § 879. 
 
 F. Pleading, §§ 880-882. 
 
 a. Declaration, Complaint or Petition, §§ 880-881 
 
 (1) In General, § 880. 
 
 (2) Necessary .\llegations, § 881. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer, § 882. 
 
 G. Issue, Proof, and Variance, § 883. 
 H. Evidence, §§ 884-887. 
 
 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 884. 
 
 b. Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading, § 885. 
 
 c. Admissibility of Evidence, § 886. 
 
 d. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 887. 
 I. Damages, §§ 888-900. 
 
 a. Nominal Damages, § 888. 
 
 b. Exemplary Damages, § 889. 
 
 c. Compensatory Damages, §§ 890-900. 
 
 (1) Failure or Refusal to Deliver, § 890-893. 
 
 (a) Actual Loss Proximately Resulting, § 890 
 
 (b) Measure and Elements in General, § 891 
 
 (c) Goods Having no Market Value, § 892. 
 
 (d) Computation of Damages, § 893. 
 
 (2) Misdelivery, § 894. 
 
 (3) Delaying Notice of Arrival of Goods, § 895. 
 
 (4) Delaying Notice of Refusal of Goods, § 896. 
 
 (5) Mitigation of Damages, § 897. 
 
 (6) Evidence, §§ 898-899. 
 
 (a) In General, § 898. 
 
 (b) Evidence as to Value, § 899. 
 
 (7) Inadequacy of Damages, § 900. 
 J. Trial and Judgment, §§ 901-903. 
 
 a. Questions for Jury, § 901. 
 
 b. Instructions, § 902. 
 
 c. Verdict and Judgment, § 903. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Dklay IX Tr.\xsport.\tiox or Delivery 
 
 I. In General, § 904. 
 II. Diligence Required of Carrier. § 90,i.
 
 XXM TABU-: OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 III. What Constitutes Reasonable Diligence, § 906. 
 
 IV. Perishable Goods, § 907. 
 
 V. Excuses for Delay, §§ 908-922. 
 
 A. In General, § 908. 
 
 B. Delay Caused by Act of God, Public Enemy, etc., § 909. 
 
 C. Delay Caused by Seizure under Judicial Process, § 910. 
 
 D. Delay Caused by Unusual Rush of Business, §§ 911-914. 
 
 a. In General, § 911. 
 
 b. Duty to Provide Proper Facilities, § 912. 
 
 c. Where Carrier Could Have Avoided Delay, § 913. 
 
 d. Notice to Shipper, § 914. 
 
 E. Delay Caused by Act of Consignor or Consignee, § 915. 
 
 F. Delay Caused by Rule of Carrier, § 916. 
 
 G. Delay Caused by Misdirection of Goods, § 917. 
 H. Delay Caused by Strikes and Riots, § 918. 
 
 I. Where Goods Are Perishable, § 919. 
 J. Delay under Time Contract, §§ 920-921. 
 
 a. In General, § 920. 
 
 b. Power of Agent to Alake Contract, § 921. 
 
 K. Duty of Carrier after Excusing Cause Removed, § 922. 
 
 VI. Duty of Consignor and Consignee to Avert or Mitigate Injury, § 923. 
 VII. Duty of Consignee to Accept Goods, § 924. 
 VIII. Delay Caused by Connecting Carrier, § 925. 
 IX. Damages, §§ 926-954. 
 
 A. In General, § 926. 
 
 B. Arising Proximately from Delay, § 927. 
 
 C. Arising at Time of Delivery, § 928. 
 
 D. Nominal Damages, § 929. 
 
 E. Stipulated Damages, § 930. 
 
 F. Special Damages, §§ 931-939. 
 
 a. In General, § 931. 
 
 b. Within Contemplation of Parties, § 932. 
 
 c. Notice of Special Circumstances, §§ 933-938. 
 (i; Necessity of Notice, § 933. 
 
 (2) Sufficiency of Notice, § 934. 
 
 (3) Time Notice Given, § 935. 
 
 (4) Notice to Agent, § 936. 
 
 (5) Implied Notice, § 937. 
 
 (6) Evidence to Prove Notice, § 938. 
 
 d. Where Cause of Delay Known to Shipper, § 939. 
 G. Exemplary Damages, § 940. 
 H. Measure and Elements of Damages, §§ 941-947. 
 
 a. In General, § 941. 
 
 b. Decrease in Market Value, § 942. 
 
 c. Loss of Profits, § 943. 
 
 d. Expenses Occasioned by Delay, § 944. 
 
 e. Interest on Value of Goods, § 945. 
 
 f. Mental and Physical Suffering, § 946. 
 
 g. Liability as for Conversion, § 947. 
 I. Mitigation of Damages, § 948. 
 
 J. Goods Intended for Use of Consignee, §§ 949-951. 
 
 a. In General, § 949. 
 
 b. Measure and Elements of Damages, § 950.
 
 TAULli OF CCKNTKNTS. XXVII 
 
 c. Particular Goods, § 951. 
 K. Goods Intended for Sale, § 952. 
 L. Goods Intended to Be Repaired, § 953. 
 M. Time of Reporting Claim for Damages, § 954. 
 
 X. Actions for Delay, §§ 955-974. 
 
 A. Nature of Action, § 955. 
 
 B. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 95G. 
 
 C. Joinder of Causes of Action, § 957. 
 
 D. Parties, § 958. 
 
 E. Limitation of Actions, § 959. 
 
 F. Prerequisites to Bringing Action, § 9G0. 
 
 G. Pleading, §§ 961-9G4. 
 
 a. Plaintiff's Pleadings, §§ 961-963. 
 
 (1) In General, § 961. 
 
 (2) Particular Allegations, § 962. 
 
 (3) Amendments, § 963. 
 
 b. Defendant's Pleading, § 964. 
 
 H. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 965. 
 
 I. Dismissal and Nonsuit, § 966. 
 
 J. Burden of Proof and Presumptions, § 967. 
 K. Evidence, §§ 968-969. 
 
 a. Admissibility of Evidence, § 968. 
 
 b. Weight and Sufificiency of Evidence, § 969. 
 L. Instructions, §§ 970-972. 
 
 a. Province of Court and Jury, § 970. 
 
 b. Necessity and Propriety of Instructions, § 971. 
 
 c. Form, Requisites and Sufificiency, § 972. 
 M. Verdict, § 973. 
 
 N. Judgment, § 974. 
 
 XI. Demurrage, and Liability of Consignee or Owner for Delay, §§ 975-985. 
 
 A. In General, § 975. 
 
 B. Right of Carrier to Charge, § 976. 
 
 C. Rules and Regulations of Carrier, §§ 977-979. 
 
 a. In General, § 977. 
 
 b. By Whom Promulgated, § 978. 
 
 c. Notice, § 979. 
 
 D. Time and Amount of Charge, § 980. 
 
 E. Arrival and Continuance at Destination and Nature Thereof, § 981 
 
 F. Persons Liable for Demurrage, § 982. 
 
 G. Lien for Demurrage, § 983. 
 
 H. Remedies and Defenses, §§ 984-985. 
 
 a. Of Carrier, § 984. 
 
 b. Of Consignee, § 985. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 Loss OR Injury to Goods. 
 
 I. What Law Governs, § 986. 
 
 II. Nature and Validity of Contract of Transportation, § 987. 
 
 III. Care Required of Carrier, §§ 988-1010. 
 
 A. In General, § 9s». 
 
 B. Liability as Insurer, §§ 989-1010. 
 a. General Rule, § 989.
 
 XXMII T.\r,LE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 b. Exceptions and Excuses, §§ 990-1004. 
 (1) Act of God, §§ 990-994. 
 
 (a) In General, § 990. 
 
 (b) What Constitutes Act of God, § 991. 
 
 (c) Negligence Concurring with Act of God, § 992. 
 
 (d) Where Danger Should Have Been Anticipated, § 993. 
 
 (e) Duty to Prevent Act of God from Causing Injury, § 994. 
 (2) Act of Public Enemy, §§ 995-997. 
 
 (a) In General, § 995. 
 
 (b) Thieves and Robbers, § 996. 
 
 (c) Strikers. Rioters, Mobs and Insurrectionists, § 997. 
 
 (3) Fault of Shipper or Owner, §§ 998-1002. 
 
 (a) In General, § 998. 
 
 (b) Goods Improperly Marked, § 999. 
 
 (c) Goods Improperly Packed, § 1000. 
 
 (d) Goods Improperly Loaded, § 1001. 
 
 (e) Misrepresentation or Concealment of Nature or Value of Goods, § 1002. 
 
 (4) Inherent Infirmities of Goods, § 1003. 
 
 (5) Act or Mandate of Public Authority, § 1004. 
 
 c. Carriers to Which Rule Applicable, §§ 1005-1009. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1005. 
 
 (2) Carriers Not Owning Means of Transportation, § 1006. 
 
 (3) Carriers of Money, § 1007. 
 
 (4) Persons Occasionally Carrying, § 1008. 
 
 (5) Forwarders, § 1009. 
 
 d. Commencement and Termination of Liability, § 1010. 
 
 IV. Goods Shipped on Chartered or Private Cars, § 1011. 
 V. Acts or Omissions Rendering Carrier Liable in General, §§ 1012-1016. 
 
 A. In General, § 1012. 
 
 B. Proximate Cause of Loss or Injury, § 1013. 
 
 C. Negligence of Agents or Servants, § 1014. 
 
 D. Negligence or Misconduct of Third Person, § 1015. 
 E. Deviation or Delay, § 1016. 
 
 VI. Mode or Means of Transportation, §§ 1017-1021. 
 
 A. In General, § 1017. 
 
 B. Means of Transportation in General, § 1018. 
 
 C. Duty as to Perishable Goods, § 1019. 
 
 D. Carrying Goods on Open Cars, § 1020. 
 
 E. Means for Loading and Unloading, § 1021. 
 
 VII. Duties after Injury, § 1022. 
 VIII. ElYect of Insurance, §§ 1023-1029. 
 
 A. In General, § 1023. 
 
 B. Contract for Benefit of Insurance, §§ 1024-1029. 
 
 a. Power to Stipulate and Validity, § 1024. 
 
 b. Operation and Effect, §§ 1025-1028. 
 
 (1) Right of Shipper to Recover from Carrier, § 1025. 
 
 (2) Right of Carrier to Recover from Insurer, § 1026. 
 
 (3) Effect as Defeating Insurer's Right of Subrogation, § 1027. 
 
 (4) Inconsistent Stipulations in Contract and Policy, § 1028. 
 
 c. Suits against Carrier, § 1029. 
 
 IX. Claims for Damages, § 1030. 
 X. Extent of Lial)ility, § 1031.
 
 TAIilJ-: OF COXTKNTS. XXIX 
 
 XI. Actions for Loss or Injury, §§ 10:52-1089. 
 
 A. Nature and Form, § 10:i2. 
 
 B. Right of Action and Defenses, §§ 103:!-10:i5. 
 
 a. In General, § 10:53. 
 
 b. Conditions Precedent, § 10:i4. 
 
 c. Defenses, § 10:55. 
 
 C. Jurisdiction and Venue. § 10:5(5. 
 
 D. Parties. § 10:]7. 
 
 I-. I 'leading, §§ 10:5S-lo:.l. 
 a. Declaration, Complaint, Petition or P.ill, §§ 10:58-1049. 
 
 (1) In General, § 10:i8. 
 
 (2) Necessity and Sufficiency of Allegations, §§ 10:i9-104T. 
 
 (a) Plaintiff's Title or Interest, § 10:59. 
 
 (b) That Defendant a Common Carrier. § 1040. 
 
 (c) As to Consideration, § 1041. 
 
 (d) Delivery to and Acceptance by Carrier, § 1042. 
 
 (e) As to Contract of Carriage, § 104:5. 
 
 (f) Negligence of Defendant, § 1044. 
 (g) Description of Property. § 1045. 
 
 (h) Damage and Value of Goods, § 1040. 
 (i) Special Statutory Proceeding, § 1047. 
 
 (3) Amendments, § 1048. 
 
 (4) Aider by Answer, § 1049. 
 
 b. Plea or .Answer, § 1050. 
 
 c. Admissions in Pleadings. § 1051. 
 
 F. Issues, Proof and Variance, §§ 1052-1055. 
 
 a. In General, § 1052. 
 
 b. Evidence Admissible under Pleadings, § 1053. 
 
 c. Matters to Be Proved, § 1054. 
 
 d. Variance, § 1055. 
 
 G. Evidence, §§ 1056-1067. 
 
 a. Presumptions and liurden of Proof, §§ 105G-1060. 
 
 (1) Plaintifif's Burden of Proof in General, § 1056. 
 
 (2) Defendant's Burden of Proof in General, § 1057. 
 
 (3) Condition of Goods When Received by Carrier. § 1058. 
 
 (4) Shipment Composed of Several Classes of Goods, § 1059. 
 
 (5) Where Transportation under Special Contract, § 1060. 
 
 b. Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading, § 1061. 
 
 c. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 1062-1066. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1062. 
 
 (2) Declarations and Admissions. § 1063. 
 
 (3) Opinion Evidence, § 1064. 
 
 (4) Documentary Evidence, § 10C)5. 
 
 (5) Parol Evidence. § 1066. 
 
 d. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence. § 1067. 
 H. Damages, §§ 1068-1085. 
 
 a. Extent of Liability. Measure and Elements of Damages, 5;$ U)6S-10S0. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1068. 
 
 (2) Loss of Goods, § 1069. 
 
 ("3) Injury to Goods, §§ 1070-1072. 
 
 (a) In General. § 1070. 
 
 (b) Right to Abandon Goods. § 1071. 
 
 (c) W iKMi Damaged Goods Sold. § 1072. 
 
 (4) Freight, .Allowance and Deduction. § 107:5. 
 
 (5) Interest. § 1074. 
 
 (6) Expenses of Owner. § 1075.
 
 XXX 
 
 TAI'.LE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (7) Goods Shipped under Contract of Sale, § 1076. 
 
 (8) Goods Having No Market Value, § 1077. 
 
 (9) Profits, § 1078. 
 
 (10) Special Damages, § 1079. 
 
 (11) Exemplary Damages, § 1080. 
 
 b. Duty of Owner to Mitigate or Avert, § 1081. 
 
 c. Evidence as to Value or Damage. §§ 1082-1084. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1082. 
 
 (2) Admissibility, § 1083. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency, § 1084. 
 
 d. Recovery as Afifected by Allegation of Damages, § 1085. 
 I. Province of Court and Jury, §§ 1086-1087. 
 
 a. Tn General, § 1086. 
 
 b. Particular Questions of Law or Fact, § 1087. 
 J. Instructions, § 1088. 
 
 K. Verdict, § 1089. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Carrier as Warehouseman. 
 
 I. When Liability Begins or Ends, §§ 1090-1097. 
 
 A. Goods Awaiting Transportation, § 1090. 
 
 B. Goods Being Transported, § 1091. 
 
 C. Goods Awaiting Delivery to Consignee, §§ 1092-1097. 
 
 a. In General, § 1092. 
 
 b. Express Companies and General Carriers by Water, § 1093. 
 
 c. Railroads and Carriers by Water Having Fixed Schedule, § 1094. 
 d. Necessity for Notice of Arrival of Goods, § 1095. 
 
 e. What Is Reasonable Time, § 1096. 
 
 f. How Long Liability Continues, § 1097. 
 
 11. Duties and Liabilities, §§ 1098-1100. 
 
 A. In General, § 1098. 
 
 B. Degree of Care, § 1099. 
 
 C. Acts or Omissions Rendering Carrier Liable, § 1100. 
 
 III. Actions against Carrier as Warehouseman, §§ 1101-1104. 
 
 A. In General— Pleading, § 1101. 
 
 B. Evidence, § 1102. 
 
 C. Instructions, § 1103. 
 
 D. Finding, § 1104. 
 
 VOLUME II. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Limitation of Liability. 
 
 Power of Carrier and Nature of Right, §§ 1105-112L 
 
 A. In General, § 1105. 
 
 B. Effect of Charter Provisions, § 1106. 
 
 C. Effect of Statutory and Constitutional Provisions of the States. §§ 1107-11 IL 
 
 a. Georgia, § 1107. 
 
 b. Illinois, § 1108.
 
 TABI.E OF CONTENTS. XXXI 
 
 c. Nebraska, § 1109. 
 
 d. Texas, § 1110. 
 
 e. Virginia, § 1111. 
 
 D. Interstate Shipments, §§ 1112-11 IG. 
 
 a. In General, § 1112. 
 
 b. Effect of Interstate Commerce Act, § 1113. 
 
 c. Effect of State Statutes, §§ 1111-1110. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1114. 
 
 (2) Statutes of Texas, § 1115. 
 
 (3) Conflict of Laws, § lllG. 
 
 E. What Law Governs, §§ 1117-1120. 
 
 a. Validity and Enforcement, § 1117. 
 
 b. Construction, § 1118. 
 
 c. Right of Carrier Incorporated in a State to Contract under Laws of An- 
 
 other State, § 1119. 
 
 d. Stipulations as to What Law Governs, § 1120. 
 
 F. Property Carrier Not Required to Transport, § 1121. 
 
 II. Liabilities Subject to Limitation, §§ 1122-1153. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 1122. 
 
 B. Liabilit}' for Loss Arising from Carrier's Own Negligence, §§ 1123-1132. 
 a. Power to Limit in General, § 1123. 
 
 ■b. Effect of State Statutory and Constitutional Provisions, § 1124. 
 
 c. Effect of Interstate Commerce Act, § 1125. 
 
 d. Effect of Harter Act, § 1126. " 
 
 e. Effect of Exemption from Special Causes, § 1127. 
 
 f. As to Interstate Commerce, § 1128. 
 
 g. Contracts for Transportation Over Connecting Roads, § 1129. 
 
 h. Property Placed on Right of Way by Owner for His Own Convenience, 
 
 § 1130. 
 i. Carrier under No Legal Duty to Move Train as Agreed, § 1131. 
 j. Release of Damages from Prior Negligence, § 1132. 
 
 C. Loss by Act of God, § 1133. 
 
 D. Loss Due to Inevitable Accident or Casualty, § 1134. 
 
 E. Loss Due to Public Enemy, § 1135. 
 
 F. Loss Caused by Thieves or Rol)bcrs, § 1136. 
 
 G. Loss by Mistake or Accident, § 1137. 
 
 H. Regulations as to Delivery and Entry of Packages, § 1138. 
 
 I. Stipulations against Lialiilitj' for Loss of Valuables unless Value Disclosed, 
 § 1139. 
 
 J. Failure to Furnish Suitable Cars, § 1140. 
 K. Risk of Loading and Unloading, § 1141. 
 L. Loss by Breakage, § 1142. 
 M. Delay or Failure to Transport. §§ 1143-1145. 
 
 a. In General, § 1143. 
 
 b. Delay Caused by Mol)s and Stiikes, § 1144. 
 
 c. Loss of Market. § 1145. 
 
 N. Decaj' or Injurj- to Perishables, § 1146. 
 
 O. Loss by Rust, § 1147. 
 
 P. Loss by Fire, § 1148. 
 
 Q. Damages from Conduct or Running of Trains, § 1149. 
 
 R. Notice of Arrival, § 1150. 
 
 S. Safety of Goods after Arrival, § 1151. 
 
 T. Liability as Warehouseman, § 1152. 
 
 U. Release of Damages Accrued before Execution of Written Contract. § 1153. 
 
 III. Manner of Limiting Liability. §§ 1154-1247. 
 A. Special Contract. §§ 1154-1234.
 
 XXXII TAIUJ-. OF COXTF.XTS. 
 
 a. In General, § 1154. 
 
 b. Express or Implied Contract, §§ llo.")-ll.J7. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1155. 
 
 (2) Necessity tor Express Contract, § 1156. 
 
 (3) Implied Contract, § 1157. 
 
 c. Form of Limitation, §§ 1158-1183. 
 
 (1) Necessity for Written Contract. § 1158. 
 
 (2) Instruments in Which Stipulation Incorporated, §§ 1 159-1 1G3. 
 
 (a) Bill of Lading, § 1159. 
 
 (b) Freight Receipts, § 1160. 
 
 (c) Express Receipts, § llGl. 
 
 (d) Receipts of Compress Company, § 1162. 
 
 (e) Tickets. Entry of Notice on. § 1163. 
 
 (3) Requisites of Stipulation, §§ 1164-1183. 
 
 (a) Stipulation Must Be in Body of Instrument, §§ 1164-1169. 
 aa. In General, § 1164. 
 
 bb. Provisions Stamped or \\ritten on Face of Receipt or Bill of Lad- 
 ing, § 1165. 
 cc. Stipulations on Margin of Contract, § 1166. 
 dd. Printing Appended to Contract, § 1167. 
 ee. Memorandum on Freight Card or Ticket, § 1168. 
 ff. Notice on Back of Receipt or Bill of Lading, § 1169. 
 {h) Stipulation Must Be Legible and Intelligil)le. §§ 1170-1171. 
 aa. In General, § 1170. 
 
 bb. Inconspicuous Conditions and Type, § 1171. 
 (c) Must Be in Express and Unequivocal Terms, §§ 1172-1183. 
 aa. In General, § 1172. 
 bb. Use of General \\'ords. § 1173. 
 
 cc. What Constitutes an Express Contract under Georgia Statute, 
 §§ 1174-1183. 
 (aa) In General, § 1174. 
 (bb) Parties Who May Make, § 1175. 
 (cc) Assent of Parties, §§ 1176-1183. 
 aaa. In General, § 1176. 
 
 bbb. Necessity for Shipper's Assent, § 1177. 
 ccc. What Constitutes Assent of Shipper, §§ 1178-1183. 
 (aaa) Acceptance of Bill of Lading, § 1178. 
 (bbb) Acceptance of Ticket or Pass, § 1179. 
 (ccc) Acceptance of Express or Freight Receipt, § 1180. 
 (ddd) Signing Bill of Lading, § 1181. • 
 (eee) Contract Prepared by Shipper, § 1182. 
 (fff) Duress or Compulsion, § 1183. 
 
 d. Consideration, §§ 1184-1194. 
 
 (1) Necessity, §§ 1184-1185. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1184. 
 
 (b) Instances, § 1185. 
 
 (2) Sufficiency, §§ 1186-1194. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1186. 
 
 (b) Reduced Rates, §§ 1187-1192. 
 aa. In General, § 1187. 
 
 bb. Reasonableness of Rates, § 1188. 
 cc. Choice of Rates, § 1189. 
 
 dd. Recital That Reduced Rate Given, §§ 1190-1191. 
 (aa) Necessity, § 1190. 
 (bb) Falsity of Recitals, § 1191. 
 ee. Contracts Exacted after Carriage Commenced, § 1192.
 
 TAIUJ-: OF COXTKNTS. XXXIII 
 
 (c) Shipper's and Kmploycr's Passes, § il'J'S. 
 
 (d) Agreement to Transport Over Own and Cfjnnecting Lines, § ll'J4. 
 
 e. Reasonableness of Limitation, § 1195. 
 
 f. Fairness, Fraud or Duress, § 11 'JG. 
 
 g. Choice between Full and Limited Liability, § 1197. 
 h. Meeting of Minds of Parties, § 1198. 
 
 i. Knowledge and Assent of Shipper, §§ 1199-1229. 
 
 (1) Necessity in General, § 1J99. 
 
 (2) Doctrine Requiring Express Assent, §§ 1200-1201. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1200. 
 
 (b) Duty of Carrier to Call Sliipper's Attention to Stipulation, § 1201. 
 (:{) Doctrine of Iniijlied Assent, §§ 1202-1219. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1202. 
 
 (])) intention of Parties, § 120:{. 
 
 ( c) Constructive Notice Generally, § 1204. 
 ((!) Duty of Shipper to Read Contract, § 1205. 
 
 (e) What Constitutes Acceptance or Assent, §§ 120G-1217. 
 
 aa. Acceptance of Freight Receipt or Bill of Lading, §§ 1206-1208. 
 (aa) In General, § 1206. 
 
 (bb) Necessity for Signature of Consignor, § 1207. 
 (cc) EfTect of Consignor's Signing P>ill of Lading, § 1208. 
 bb. Receipt Prepared by Shipper, § 1209. 
 
 cc. Receipt Referring to Ilill of Lading Containing Limitations, §§ 
 1210-1211. 
 (aa) Receipt Prepared by Shipper, § 1210. 
 (bb) Receipt Prepared by Carrier, § 1211. 
 dd. Acceptance of Express Receipt, § 1212. 
 
 ee. Acceptance of Dray Ticket and Checks of Local Carrier, § 121.3. 
 ff. Fact of Shipment under Limited Liability Rate. § 1214. 
 gg. Previous Shipments under Limited Liability Contract, § 1215. 
 hh. Customary Use of Printed Form of Receipt, § 1216. 
 ii. Failure to Dissent witliin Reasonable Time. § 1217. 
 
 (f) Proof of Non- Assent, § 1218. 
 
 (g) Question for Jury, § 1219. 
 
 (4) Persons Who May Give Assent, §§ 1220-1229. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1220. 
 
 (b) Possession of Goods, § 1221. 
 
 (c) Authority of Consignor to Bind Consignee, §§ 1222-1225. 
 aa. In General, § 1222. 
 
 bb. Eflfect of Interstate Commerce Act and Elkins Act, § 1223. 
 
 cc. Instances Where Consignee Bound, § 1224. 
 
 dd. Instances Where Consignee Not Bound, § 1225. 
 
 (d) Agent of Consignor, § 1226. 
 
 (e) Person Only Authorized to Deliver to Carrier, §§ 1227-1228. 
 aa. In General, § 1227. 
 
 bl). Cartmen or Truckmen, § 1228. 
 
 (f) Initial Carrier. § 1229. 
 
 j. Time of Agreement, §§ 12:!0-12:'>2. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1230. 
 
 (2) Issuance of Bill of Lading or Receipt after Shipment. §§ 1231-1232. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1231. 
 
 (b) Issuance after Loss, § 1232. 
 
 k. Subsequent Written Agreement Contemplated liy Parties. §§ 1233-1234. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1233. 
 
 (2) Knowledge of Rule Requiring Written Contract, § 1234. 
 B. Notice or Advertisements, §§ 1235-1242. 
 
 1 Car—
 
 XXXIV TABI.I-; OF CONTENTS. 
 
 a. General Notice or Advertisements, §§ 1235-1236. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1235. 
 
 (2) Notice Brought to Attention of Shipper, § 1236. 
 
 b. Special Notice to Owner of Goods, § 1237. 
 
 c. Form and Sufficiency of Notice, § 1238. 
 
 d. Reasonableness of Regulations, § 1239. 
 
 e. Assent of Shipper, §§ 1240-1241. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1240. 
 
 (2) Express Assent Not Essential, § 1241. 
 
 f. Notice to Agent of Shipper, § 1242. 
 
 C. Custom and Usage, § 1243. 
 
 D. Ratification of Contract of Another Carrier, § 1244. 
 
 E. Instructions to Carrier's Agent, § 1245. 
 
 F. Arrangement between Express and Railroad Companies, § 1246. 
 
 G. Depositing Freight in Warehouse at End of Route, § 1247. 
 
 IV. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 1248-1278. 
 
 A. Construction Question for Court, § 1248. 
 
 B. Rules of Construction and Application Thereof, §§ 1249-1252. 
 
 a. Construed against Carrier, § 1249. 
 
 b. Specific as Prevailing over General Clauses, § 1250. 
 
 c. Conflicting Agreements, § 1251. 
 
 d. Construction of Words and Phrases, § 1252. 
 
 C. Written Instrument as Complete Contract, §§ 1253-1259. 
 
 a. Parol Evidence to Vary or Contradict Generally, § 1253. 
 
 b. Merger of Prior Parol Negotiations, §§ 1254-1255. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1254. 
 
 (2) Bill of Lading Issued Subsequent to Contract, § 1255. 
 
 c. Parol Evidence to Show Meaning of Words and Phrases. § 1256. 
 
 d. Only Part of Contract Contained in Written Agreement, § 1257. 
 
 e. Effect of Waybill, § 1258. 
 
 f. Parol Agreement Substituted for Written Contract, § 1259. 
 
 D. Effect as Measure of Liability Generally, § 1260. 
 
 E. Persons Bound and Carriers Benefited, § 1261. 
 
 F. Property to Which Applicable, § 1262. 
 
 G. Losses Covered, §§ 1263-1277. 
 
 a. Losses Arising from Negligence, § 1263. 
 
 b. Particular Limitations, §§ 1264-1277. 
 
 (1) Loss from Causes beyond Carrier's Control, § 1264. 
 
 (2) Unavoidable Dangers, § 1265. 
 
 (3) Dangers of Navigation, § 1266. 
 
 (4) Dangers of the River, § 1267. 
 
 (5) Shipment "Released" or at "Owner's Risk," § 1268. 
 
 (6) Stipulation as to Disclosure of Value of Property, § 1269. 
 
 (7) Loss from Delay, § 1270. 
 
 (8) Breakage or Leakage, § 1271. 
 
 (9) Loading and Unloading, § 1272. 
 
 (10) Defect in Cars, § 1273. 
 
 (11) Loss by "Fire and Floods," § 1274. 
 
 (12) Loss "in Transit" or "in Depot or Place of Transshipment," § 1275. 
 
 (13) Default of Subcarrier, § 1276. 
 
 (14) Release of Claim for Accrued Damages, § 1277. 
 H. Estoppel of Sliipper, § 1278. 
 
 V. Performance. Discharge or Breach, § 1279. 
 VI. Enforcement. §§ 1280-1327. 
 A. Pleading, §§ 1280-1290.
 
 TAliLK Ol" CONTENTS. XXXV 
 
 a. Pclilioii, Declaration or Cinnplaint, §§ 1280-1281. 
 (1) Necessary Allegations, § 1280. 
 
 (3) Sufficiency of Allegations, § 1281. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer and Affidavit of Defense, §§ 1282-1289. 
 
 (1) Necessity for Special Plea, §§ 1282-128:}. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1282. 
 
 (b) Demurrer, § 1283. 
 
 (2) Allegations, §§ 1284-1287. 
 
 (a) Allegation of Reasonableness, § 1284. 
 
 (b) Validity under Foreign Laws, § 1285. 
 
 (c) Negativing Carrier's Negligence, § 1286. 
 
 (d) Shipping Order, § 1287. 
 
 (3) Afifidavit of Defense, § 1288. 
 
 (4) Demurrer to Plea, § 1289. 
 
 c. Reply, § 1290. 
 
 B. Presumption and Burden of Proof, §§ 1291-1307. 
 
 a. Existence and Validity of Contract, §§ 1291-1300. 
 
 (1) Presumptions Generally, § 1291. 
 
 (2) Burden of Proof Generally. § 1292. 
 
 (3) Requisites of Contract, §§ 1293-1298. 
 
 (a) Reasonableness, § 1293. 
 
 (b) Delivery, § 1294. 
 
 (c) Consideration, § 1295. 
 
 (d) Knowledge of Contract and Assent of Shipper, §§ 1296-1298. 
 aa. Jurisdictions Requiring Express Assent, §§ 1296-1297. 
 
 (aa) Presumption, § 1296. 
 (bb) Burden of Proof, § 1297. 
 bb. Jurisdictions in Which Assent Presumed from Acceptance, § 1298. 
 
 (4) Authority of Shipper's Agent, § 1299. 
 
 (5) Misrepresentation of Value or Contents of Package, § 1300. , 
 
 b. Showing Loss within Exemption, §§ 1301-1306. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1301. 
 
 (2) Showing Negligence Vel Non, §§ 1302-1303. 
 
 (a) Rule Placing Burden on Shipper, § 1302. 
 
 (b) Rule Placing Burden on Carrier, § 1303. 
 
 (3) Particular Stipulations. §§ 1304-1306. 
 
 (a) Perils of Navigation, § 1304. 
 
 (b) Loss by Fire, § 1305. 
 
 (c) Mobs, Riots, Robbery and Strikes. § 1306. 
 
 c. Performance of Conditions Precedent to Recover, § 1307. 
 
 C. Admissibility of Evidence. §§ 1308-1313. 
 
 a. Existence and Terms of Contract, § 1308. 
 
 b. Signing, § 1309. 
 
 c. Consideration, § 1310. 
 
 d. Knowledge and Assent of Shipper, § 1311. 
 
 e. Fairness or Fraud, § 1312. 
 
 f. Merger of Parol and Subsequent Written Contract, § 1313. 
 
 D. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, §§ 1314-1321. 
 
 a. Fact of and Terms of Contract, § 1314. 
 
 b. Requisites and Validity of Contract, §§ 1315-1320. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1315. 
 
 (2) Reasonableness. § 1316. 
 
 (3) Consideration, § 1317. 
 
 (4) Delivery, § 1318. 
 
 (5) Knowledge of Contents and Assent of Shipper, §§ 1319-1320. 
 (a") Express Assent Required, § 1319.
 
 XXXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (b) Proof of Express Assent Not Required, § lo20. 
 c. Proof of Negligence Vel Non, § 1321. 
 
 E. Variance, § 1322. 
 
 F. Questions for Court, § 1323. 
 
 G. Questions for Jury, §§ 1324-1325. 
 
 a. As to the Contract, § 1324. 
 
 b. As to the Loss, § 1325. 
 H. Instructions. § 1326. 
 
 I. Direction of Verdict, § 1327. 
 
 VII. Limitation of Amount of Lial)ility. §§ 1328-1383. 
 
 A. Power to Limit and Validity, §§ 1328-1330. 
 
 a. Effect of State Statutes and Constitutional Provisions, § i:;2H 
 
 b. Under Interstate Commerce Act, § 1329. 
 
 c. What Law Governs, § 1330. 
 
 B. Methods of Limiting, §§ 1331-1344. 
 
 a. Agreed Valuation of Shipment, §§ 1331-1342. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1331. 
 
 (2) Public Policy, § 1332. 
 
 (3) Method of Valuation, §§ 1333-1339. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1333. 
 
 (b) Declaration of Shipper, § 1334. 
 
 (c) Arbitrary Preadjustment of Value, §§ 1335-1338. 
 aa. In General, § 1335. 
 
 bb. What Constitutes, § 1336. 
 cc. Burden of Proof, § 1337. 
 dd. Questions for Jury, § 1338. 
 
 (d) Misrepresentation of Value by Shipper, § 1339. 
 
 (4) Carriers of Baggage, § 1340. 
 
 (5) Carriers of Express, § 1341. 
 
 (6) Connecting Carriers, § 1342. 
 
 1). Stipulation Prescribing Measure of Damages, § 1343. 
 c. Requiring Declaration of Value by Shipper, § 1344. 
 
 C. Form and Requisites of Agreement, §§ 1345-1364. 
 
 a. In General, § 1345. 
 
 b. Express Contract, §§ 1346-1347. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 1346. 
 
 (2) Signature of Shipper, § 1347. 
 
 c. Use of Printed Forms Containing Arbitrary Value. § 1348. 
 
 d. Certainty and Definiteness, § 1349. 
 
 e. Consideration, § 1350. 
 
 f. Fairness, Justness and Reasonableness, §§ 1351-1352. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 1351. 
 
 (2) Fraud or Duress, § 1352. 
 
 g. Choice of Full or Limited Liability, § 1353. 
 
 h. Knowledge and Assent of Sliipper, §§ 1354-i:i63. 
 
 (1) Necessity, §§ 1354-1355. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1354. 
 
 (b) Illegible, Unintelligil)le and Unexplained Terms, § 1355. 
 
 (2) What Constitutes, §§ 1356-1362. 
 
 (a) Acceptance of Bill of Lading, § 1356. 
 
 (b) Acceptance of Freight or Shipping Receipt, §§ 1357-1358. 
 aa. In General, § 1357. 
 
 bb. Express Receipts, § 1358. 
 
 (c) Acceptance of Coupon Receipts of Local Carriers, § 1359. 
 
 (d) Knowledge of Shipper That Rates Based on Value of Goods, § 1360.
 
 TABU-: OF CONTENTS. XXXVII 
 
 (e) Misrepresentation of Value by Shipper, § i:jGl. 
 
 (f) Authority of Agent or Consignor, § i:5G2. 
 (3) Question for Jury, § 13G:{. 
 
 i. Notice to Carriers of Character of Goods, § 1304. 
 
 D. Operation and Effect, §§ 1365-1381. 
 
 a. As Dependent upon Form of Stipulation, §§ 13G5-13G7. 
 
 (1) Agreed Valuation Placed on Shipment, § 1365. 
 
 (2) Stipulation Fixing Measure of Damages, §§ 136G-1367. 
 
 (a) In General, § 136G. 
 
 (b) Value at Time and Place of Shipment, § 1367. 
 
 b. Losses Covered, §§ 1368-1377. 
 
 (1) Limitation of Liability for Negligence, §§ 1368-1371. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1368. 
 
 (b) Rule That Carrier Not Liable, § 1369. 
 
 (c) Ruk- 'I'liat Carrier Liable, § 1370. 
 
 (d) Burden of Proof of Negligence, § 1371. 
 
 (2) Losses Not Involving Negligence, §§ 1372-1377. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1372. 
 
 (b) Delay in Transportation, § 1373. 
 
 (c) Change of Route, § 1374. 
 
 (d) Delivery to Wrong Person, § 1375. 
 
 (e) Embezzlement of Goods by Employee of Carrier, § 1376. 
 
 (f) Conversion by Carrier, § 1377. 
 
 c. Goods Included, § 1378. 
 
 d. Computing Amount of Recovery, § 1379. 
 
 e. Measure of Damages Where Stipulation Void, § 1380. 
 
 f. Partial Loss, § 1381. 
 
 E. Waiver of Stipulation, § 1382. 
 
 F. Pleading and Proof, § 1383. 
 
 VIII. Requirement of Notice of Loss and Presentation of Claim, §§ 1384-1470. 
 
 A. Power to Stipulate and Validity, §§ 1384-1387. 
 
 a. In General, § 1384. 
 
 b. Effect of Federal Statutes, § 1385. 
 
 c. Effect of State Statutes, § 1386. 
 
 d. Laws Governing and Foreign Laws, § 1387. 
 
 B. Reasonableness of Stipulations, §§ 1388-1403. 
 
 a. General Jvlule, § 1388. 
 
 b. Interstate and Foreign Sliipments, § 1389. 
 
 c. Reasonableness of Time Allowed, §§ 1390-1393. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 1390. 
 
 (2) What Constitutes, § 1391. 
 
 (3) Power of State Court to Determine. § 1392. 
 
 (4) Under Texas Statute. § 1393. 
 
 d. Notice before Removal from Destination, § 1394. 
 
 e. Amount of Damages, etc., on Reshipment, § 1395. 
 
 f. Statement of Full Amount of Claim, § 1396. 
 
 g. Notice to Delivering Carrier, § 1397. 
 
 h. Statement of Nature and Place of Injury. § 1398. 
 i. Respecting Officer or Agent to Be Notified. § 1399. 
 j. Pleading and Proof of Reasonableness, §§ 1400-1402. 
 
 (1) In General. § 1400. 
 
 (2) Admissibility of Evidence. § 1401. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 1402. 
 k. Questions for Jury, § 1403. 
 
 C. Losses Arising from Carrier's Negligence, § 1404. 
 
 D. Form and Requisites of Stipulation. §§ 1405-1410.
 
 XXXVIH TABLK OF COXTltXlS. 
 
 a. Instruments in W'liich Contained, § 1403. 
 
 b. Stipulation Placed on Margin, § 1406. 
 
 c. Certainty and Definiteness, § 1407. 
 
 d. Consideration, § 1408. 
 
 e. Assent of Shipper, § 1409. 
 
 f. Signature of Consignor or Consignee, § 1410. 
 
 E. Construction, §§ 1411-1413. 
 
 a. In General. § 1411. 
 
 b. "Removal," § 1412. 
 
 F. Operation and Eflfect. §§ 1413-1431. 
 
 a. In General, § 1413. 
 
 b. Strict Enforcement, § 1414. 
 
 c. Limiting Liability, § 1415. 
 
 d. Limiting Liability for Negligence, § 1416. 
 
 e. Limitation of Right to Sue, § 1417. 
 
 f. Limitation of Time within Which Action May Be Brought, § 1418. 
 
 g. Carriers Entitled to Beneht, § 1419. 
 
 h. Shipments to \\'hich Applicable, § 1420. 
 i. Losses to Which Applicable, §§ 1421-1430. 
 
 (1) Claims Accruing before Execution of Contract, § 1421. 
 
 (2) Delay in Furnishing Cars, § 1422. 
 
 (3) Special Damages from Delay, §§ 1423-1424. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1423. 
 
 (b) Loss of Market or Decline in Value, § 1424. 
 
 (4) Loss by Misdelivery, § 1425. 
 
 (5) Nondelivery, § 142G. 
 
 (6) Unauthorized Diversion, § 1427. 
 
 (7) Carrier's Conduct as Warehouseman. § 1428. 
 
 (8) Failure to Return Freight Refused by Consignee, § 1429. 
 
 (9) Failure to Collect for C. O. D. Parcel or Return Same, § 1430. 
 j. Right to Require Carrier to Trace Shipment, § 1431. 
 
 G. What Constitutes and Sufficiency of Notice, §§ 1432-1439. 
 
 a. Necessity for Actual Notice, § 1432. 
 
 b. Writing, § 1433. 
 
 c. Verification or Affidavit, § 1434. 
 
 d. Complaint by Letter, § 1435. 
 
 e. Inquiry Requesting Property to Be Traced, § 1436. 
 f. Filing Suit and Service of Citation, § 1437. 
 
 g. Copy of Telegraph Message to Consignor, § 1438. 
 h. Officer to Whom Given, § 1439. 
 H. Effect of Failure to Give Notice, §§ 1440-1442. 
 
 a. In General, § 1440. 
 
 b. Failure without Fault or Negligence of Shipper, § 1441. 
 
 c. Where Extent of Damages Cannot Be Ascertained Until after Expiration 
 
 of Time Limit, § 1442. 
 I. Computing Time within Which Notice Must Be Given, § 1443. 
 
 J. Duty to Present Claim witliin ReasonaI)le Time Although Stipulation Un- 
 reasonable, § 1444. 
 
 K. Facts Excusing Failure to Give Notice, §§ 1445-1450. 
 
 a. Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods, § 1445. 
 
 b. Carrier Having Knowledge of Loss or Injury and Oi^portunity to Investi- 
 
 gate, § 1446. 
 
 c. Carrier Having Examined Goods at Destination, § 1447. 
 
 d. vShipment Burned in Yards witli Carrier's Knowledge, § 1448. 
 
 e. Destruction of Shipment While in Carrier's Possession, § 1449. 
 
 f. Failure to Give Notice Induced by Conduct of Carrier or Its Agent, § 1450.
 
 TABLI-: OF CONTEXTS. . XXXIX 
 
 L. Waiver of Notice or Defects Therein, §§ 1451-1466. 
 
 a. Right to Waive, § 1451. 
 
 b. Effect of Waiver, § 1452. 
 
 c. What Constitutes a Waiver, §§ 1453-1465. 
 
 (1) Conduct Inconsistent with Intent to Enforce Stipulation, § 1453. 
 
 (2) Notice Received in Time vi'ithout Objection to Sufficiency, § 1454. 
 
 (3) Custom to Accept Verbal Notice, § 1455. 
 
 (4) Request for Further Information, § 1456. 
 
 (5) Mere Denial of Liability, § 1457. 
 
 (6) Denial of Liability on Other Grounds than Defect of Notice, § 1458. 
 
 (7) Treating- UnveriTied Claim as Pending for Adjustment, § 1459. 
 
 (8) Notice Received after Expir:;tion of Time Limit, §§ 1460-1465. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1460. 
 
 (b) Returning Notice to Claimant for Correction, § 1461. 
 
 (c) Refusal to Pay on Other Grounds than Failure to Notify in Time, 
 
 § 1462. 
 
 (d) Request for InforniatidU and Promise to Adjust Claim, § 1463. 
 
 (e) Attempt to Trace or Find Shipment, § 1464. 
 (f) Attempt to Lessen Shipper's Loss. § 1465. 
 
 d. Proof of Waiver, § 1466. 
 
 M. Pleading and Proof of Breach, §§ 1467-1469. 
 
 a. Burden, § 1467. 
 
 b. S'ufficiency of Plea or .\nswer, § 14G8. 
 
 c. Sufficiency of Evidence, § 1469. 
 N. Instructions, § 1470. 
 
 IX. Contracts for Benefit of Insurance, § 1471. 
 
 X. Limiting Liability to That of Forwarder or Warehouseman, § 1472. 
 
 XI. Stipulations Limiting Time within Which Suit Must Be Brought. §§ 1473-1497. 
 
 A. Power and Validity, §§ 147,1-1479. 
 
 a. In General, § 1473. 
 
 b. Under State Statutes, §§ 1474-1479. 
 
 (1) Statutes Prohibiting Limitation of Common-Law Liability, § 1474. 
 
 (2) Statute Prohibiting Limitation of Time of Bringing Suit, §§ 1475-1478. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1475. 
 
 (b) Montana, § 1476. 
 
 (c) Oklahoma, § 1477. 
 
 (d) Texas, § 1478. 
 
 (3) Conflict of Laws, § 1479. 
 
 B. Form and Requisites, §§ 1480-1483. 
 
 a. Reasonableness, § 1480. 
 
 b. Assent of Shipper, § 1481. 
 ■c. Consideration, § 1482. 
 
 d. Stipulations on Back of Contract, § 1483. 
 
 C. Operation and Effect, §§ 1484-1496. 
 
 a. .\s Limiting Common-Law Liability of Carrier, § 1484. 
 
 b. As Bar to Action Brought after Expiration of Time, §§ 1485-1490. 
 
 (1) General Rule, § 1485. 
 
 (2) When Cause of Action .Accrues, § 1486. 
 
 (3) Necessity for Knowledge of Loss, § 1487. 
 
 (4) Time Consumed in Correspondence. § 1488. 
 
 (5) What Constitutes Commencement of .Action, § 1489. 
 
 (6) Removal of Bar, § 1490. 
 
 c. Losses or Injuries to Which .\pplicable, § 1491. 
 
 d. Waiver or Estoppel to Rely upon Stii)ulation, §§ 1492-1496. 
 (\) .Authority of Agent, § 1492.
 
 XL 
 
 TAULi: OF COXTKNTS. 
 
 (2) Effect of Fraud or Misrepresentations of Carrier, § 1493. 
 
 (3) What Constitutes Waiver, § 1494. 
 
 (4) Pleading and Proof, § 1495. 
 
 (5) Proof of Waiver, § 1496. 
 D. Instructions, § 1497. 
 
 XII. Stipulations as to Time of Service of Process, § 1498. 
 
 XIII. Stipulations Abrogating Rules of Evidence, § 1499. 
 
 XIV. Stipulations Requiring Adjustment of Claims, § 1500. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 Charges axd LiExs. 
 
 I. Definition, § 1501. 
 
 II. Rate or Amount of Freight, §§ 1502-1519. 
 
 A. Reasonableness of Charge, § 1502. 
 
 B. Right of Carrier to Fix Rate, §§ 1503-1504. 
 
 a. Charter Regulations, § 1503. 
 
 b. Duty to Consult Shippers and Consignees, § 1504. 
 
 C. Standards for Fixing Charge, §§ 1505-1506. 
 
 a. Measure or Weight, § 1505. 
 
 b. Value or Risk Assumed, § 1506. 
 
 D. Special Contracts as to Amount of Charge, §§ 1507-1515. 
 
 a. Capacity, § 1507. 
 
 b. Requisites, §§ 1508-1509. 
 
 (1) Meeting of Minds, § 1508. 
 
 (2) Consideration, § 1509. 
 
 c. Validity, §§ 1510-1511. 
 
 (1) Value as Basis of Charge. § 1510. 
 
 (2) Conformity to Published Tariffs, § 1511. 
 
 d. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 1512-1513. 
 
 (1) As to Rate, § 1512. 
 
 (2) As to Valuation and Weight, § 1513. 
 
 e. Duration, § 1514. 
 
 f. Breach, § 1515. 
 
 E. Undervaluation, § 151G. 
 
 F. Misclassification, § 1517. 
 
 G. Illegal Rate Charged, § 1518. 
 
 H. Misrepresentation of Rate, § 1519. 
 
 III. Right to and Payment of Freight, §§ 1520-1541. 
 
 A. Right to Demand Prepayment, § 1520. 
 
 B. Effect of Failure to Demand Prepayment, § 1521. 
 
 C. Time of Payment, § 1522. 
 
 D. Place of Payment, § 1523. 
 
 E. Tender of Payment, § 1524. 
 
 F. Demand, § 1525. 
 
 G. Accrual of Right to Payment, §§ 1526-1532. 
 
 a. Deliver Goods, §§ 1526-1527. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1526. 
 
 (2) Part Performance, § 1527. 
 
 b. Opportunity to Examine Goods, § 1528. 
 
 c. Where Consignee Can Not Be Found, § 1529. 
 
 d. Failure to Deliver Not Due to Fault of Either Party, § 1530. 
 
 e. Erroneous Recital in P.ill of Lading as to Amount of Shipment. § 1531.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XLI 
 
 f. Conversion of Part of Goods by Carrier, § 15,'i2. 
 H. Right of Carrier to Karn Freight for Entire Distance, § 1533. 
 I. Dead Freight, § 1534. 
 J. Partial or Pro Rata Freiglit, §§ 1530-1537. 
 
 a. In General. § 1535. 
 
 b. Part of Cargo Delivered, § 1536. 
 
 c. Cargo Accepted at Intermediate Point, § 1537. 
 
 K. Intent to Evade Blockade or Revenue Laws, § 1538. 
 
 L. Stranding, § 1539. 
 
 M. Vessel Condemned Ijy Foreign Tribunal — Fraud of Owner, § 1540. 
 
 N. Bond to Secure Freight, § 1541. 
 
 IV. Rights of Connecting Carrier, §§ 1542-154G. 
 
 A. Power of Initial to Bind Succeeding Carrier, § 1542. 
 
 B. When Freight Due or Demandable, § 1543. 
 
 C. Right to Divide Through Freight, § 1544. 
 
 D. Combination as to Rates, § 1545. 
 
 E. Advances for Charges and Expenses, § 1546. 
 
 V. Persons Liable for Charges, §§ 1547-1548. 
 
 A. Consignor, § 1547. 
 
 B. Consignee, § 1548. 
 
 VI. Compensation for Stoppage in Transit for Inspection, etc.. § 1549. 
 VII. Demurrage. § 1550. 
 VIII. Storage Charges, § 1551. 
 
 IX. Reshipmcnt and Rcconsignmcnt Charges, § 1552. 
 X. Lien for Charges, §§ 1553-1595. 
 
 A. Right to Lien, §§ 1553-1555. 
 
 a. In General, § 1553. 
 
 b. Connecting Carriers, § 1554. 
 
 c. Transfer Companies, § 1555. 
 
 B. Operation and Effect, §§ 1556-1573. 
 
 a. In General, § 1556. 
 
 b. Property Covered, §§ 1557-1562. 
 
 (1) Property of the Government, § 1557. 
 
 (2) Property Carried without Authority, § 1558. 
 
 (3) Missent Goods, § 1559. 
 
 (4) Property Included by Mistake in Bill of Lading, § 1560. 
 
 (5) Agent Violating Instructions in Shipping Goods. § 1561. 
 
 (6) Shipment Obtained by Misrepresentation of Carrier, § 1562. 
 
 c. Extent of Lien, §§ 1563-1568. 
 
 (1) Amount Shown by Bill of Lading, § 1563. 
 
 (2) Charges Secured, §§ 1564-1568. 
 
 (a) Charges Not Connected with Carriage, § 1564. 
 
 (b) Charges for Continuous Transit on Successive Lines. §§ 1565-1568. 
 aa. In General, § 1565. 
 
 bb. Advances for Back Charges, § 1566. 
 cc. Feeding and Caring for Stock, § 1567. 
 dd. Duties Paid by Prior Carrier, § 1568. 
 
 d. Goods Missent, § 1569. 
 
 e. Priorities, §§ 1570-1572. 
 
 (1) Assignment for Benetit of Creditors. § 1570. 
 
 (2) Stoppage in Transitu. § 1571. 
 
 (3) Bona Fide Purchasers, § 1572. 
 
 f. Rights of Owner of Goods against Wrongdoer, § 1573.
 
 XLII TABLK OF CONTKNTS. 
 
 C. Waiver or Discharge, §§ 1,")T4-1582. 
 
 a. Express Waiver, § 1574. 
 
 b. Delivery of Goods by Carrier, § 1575. 
 
 c. Goods Taken from Carrier's Possession by Operation of Law, § 1576. 
 
 d. Delivery to Assignee for Creditors, § 1577. 
 
 e. Goods Wrongfully Taken from Carrier. § 1578. 
 
 f. Delivery of Part of Shipment. § 1579. 
 
 g. Refusal to Deliver on Other Grounds, § 1580. 
 
 h. Injury to Goods by Fault of Carrier, § 1581. • 
 
 i. Damage to Consignee by Delay, § 1582. 
 
 D. Preservation of Lien, §§ 1583-1584. 
 
 a. Storing Goods in Warehouse, § 1583. 
 
 b. Delivery to Consignee as Agent of Carrier, § 1584. 
 
 E. Subrogation or Substitution, § 1585. 
 
 F. Enforcement, §§ 1586-1594. 
 
 a. Sale, §§ 1586-159:!. 
 
 (1) At Common Law, § 1586. 
 
 (2) Under Statute, § 1587. 
 
 (3) Manner of Sale, § 1588. 
 
 (4) Notice, § 1589. 
 
 (5) Advertisement and Description of Goods, § 1590. 
 
 (6) Retention of Freight, § 1591. 
 
 (7) Right to Overplus, § 1592. 
 
 (8) Damages for Wrongful Sale, § 1593. 
 
 b. Suit, § 1594. 
 
 G. Remedy for Wrongful Assertion of Lien, § 1595. 
 
 XL Actions for Charges, §§ 1596-1600. 
 
 A. Right of Action, § 1596. 
 
 B. Jurisdiction, § 1597. 
 
 C. Form of Action, § 1598. 
 
 D. Set-Off and Recoupment, § 1599. 
 
 E. Amount of Recovery or Damages, § 1600. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Discrimination in Rates and Overcharge. 
 
 L Discrimination in Rates, §§ 1601-1632. 
 
 A. Right to Discriminate, §§ 1601-1603. 
 
 a. At Common Law, § 1601. 
 
 b. Effect of Statutes Generally, § 1602.' 
 
 c. Authority of Station Agent, § 1603. 
 
 B. Unjust or Unreasonable Discrimination, §§ 1604-1622. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 1604. 
 
 b. What Constitutes Unjust Discriniiiuition, §§ 1605-1609. 
 
 (1) General Rule, § 1605. 
 
 (2) Questions of Law or Fact, § 1606. 
 
 (3) Conformity to Published Rates, § 1607. 
 
 (4) Grant of Exclusive Advantage or Monopoly, § 1608. 
 
 (5) Rebates and Drawbacks, § 1609. 
 
 c. Grounds for and Elements of Discriminations, §§ 1610-1622. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1610. 
 
 (2) Particular Grounds of Discrimination, §§ 1611-1622. 
 
 (a) Character of Shipment, § 1611. 
 
 (b) Condition or Character of Shipper, §§ 1612-1613 
 aa. In General, § 1612.
 
 TABLE OF CONTKNTS. X I.I 11 
 
 bb. Dealers and Manufacturers, § 1G13. 
 
 (c) Place of Production and Ownership, § 1614. 
 
 (d) Time and Quantity, § IGIT). 
 
 (e) Distance and Direction, §§ HilO-lGlS. 
 aa. In General, § 161G. 
 
 bb. Long and Short Hauls, § 1G17. 
 
 cc. Difference as to Other Parts of Road, § 1618. 
 
 (f) Large and Small Shipments, § 1610. 
 
 (g) Rates Offered to Meet Competition or Secure Customers, § 1620. 
 (h) Shipper from Spur Track, § 1G21. 
 
 (i) Carriage to Point on Belt Line, 1622. 
 C. Remedies for Discrimination in Rates, §§ 1623-1632. 
 
 a. Injunction and Mandamus. § 1G23. 
 
 b. Quo Warranto, § 1624. 
 
 c. Action at Law, §§ 1G25-1G31. 
 
 (1) Right of Action, § 1625. 
 
 (2) Jurisdiction, § 1626. 
 
 (3) Limitations, § 1627. 
 
 (4) Petition or Complaint, § 1628. 
 
 (5) Evidence, §§ 1629-1631. 
 
 (a) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 1629. 
 
 (b) Admissibility, § 1630. 
 
 (c) Weight and Sufficiency, § 1631. 
 
 d. Damages, § 1632. 
 
 II. Excessive Charges, §§ 16o:)-3 6.'5o. 
 
 A. Right to Make, § 1633. 
 
 B. What Constitutes an Overcharge and Effect, § 1634. 
 
 C. Recovery Back of Overcharge, §§ 1635-165.5. 
 
 a. Right to Recover, §§ 1635-1G3G. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1635. 
 
 (2) Necessity for Protest — Voluntarj- Payment, § 1636. 
 
 b. Carriers and Persons Liable, §§ 1637-1638. 
 
 (1) Overcharge Exacted by- Connecting Carrier, § 1637. 
 
 (2) Favored Shipper to Whom Excess Charges Paid, § 1638. 
 
 c. Form of Action, §§ 1639-1640. 
 
 (1) Action for Money Had and Received, § 1639. 
 
 (2) Statutory Redress as Al^rogating Common-Law Remedy, § 1640. 
 
 d. Jurisdiction, § 1641. 
 
 e. Limitations and Lapse of Time. § 1642. 
 
 f. Demand of Repayment, § 1643. 
 
 g. Persons Entitled to Recover, § 1644. 
 h. Declaration or Complaint, § 1645. 
 
 i. Issues and Proof. § IGIG. 
 j. Reference, § 1647. 
 k. Judicial Notice, § 1648. 
 1. Examination of Witnesses, § 1G49. 
 m. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 1650. 
 n. Admissibility of Evidence, § 1651. 
 o. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence. § 1G52. 
 p. Questions for Jury, § 1653. 
 q. Charge of Court, § 1654. 
 r. Amount of Recovery, § 1655.
 
 XLIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Stoppage in Transitu. 
 I. Scope of Treatment, § 1656. 
 
 II. Nature of Right in General. §§ 1657-1660. 
 
 A. Definition of and Nature of Right in General, § 1657. 
 
 B. Origin and Status of Doctrine, § 1658. 
 
 C. Must Be in Transitu, § 1659. 
 
 D. Insolvenc}^ Essential to Existence of Right, § 1660. 
 
 III. Property Subject to Right, § 1661. 
 
 IV. Sale on Credit and Nonpayment of Price, §§ 1662-1668. 
 
 A. Nonpayment of Price, §§ 1662-1665. 
 
 a. In General, § 1662. 
 
 b. Goods Shipped in Payment of Antecedent Debt, § 1663. 
 
 c. Vendor Indebted to Vendee. § 1664. 
 
 d. Consignor Indebted to Consignee, § 1665. 
 
 B. Part Payment, § 1666. 
 
 C. Acceptance of Bills or Notes, § 1667. 
 
 D. Credit, § 1668. 
 
 V. Insolvency of Vendee, §§ 1669-1671. 
 
 A. Right Based on Insolvency of Vendee, § 1669. 
 
 B. Nature of and Existence of Insolvency, § 1670. 
 
 C. Time ©f Existence of and of Notice of Insolvency, § 1671. 
 
 VI. Persons Entitled to Exercise Right, §§ 1672-1683. 
 
 A. Privity of Contract, § 1672. 
 
 B. Vendor or Quasi Vendor, § 1673. 
 
 C. Transferee of Bill of Lading, § 1674. 
 
 D. Principal against Factor, § 1675. 
 
 E. Factor against Principal, § 1676. 
 
 F. Agent against Vendee of Principal, § 1677. 
 
 G. Part Owner, § 1678. 
 
 H. Holder of Lien, § 1679. 
 
 I. Surety, § 1680. 
 
 J. Consignee, § 1681. 
 
 K. May Be Exercised through Agent, § 1682. 
 L. General Power of Consignor to Stop Delivery to Consignee, § 1683. 
 
 VII. Efifect of Attachment, Execution, or Otlier Lien against Vendee, § 1684. 
 
 VIII. Whether Right May Be Defeated by Transfer of Bill of Lading or by At- 
 
 tempted Transfer of Title to Goods, §§ 1685-1691. 
 
 A. Transfer of Bill of Lading, § 1685. 
 
 B. Transfer of Duplicate of Bill of Lading, § 1686. 
 
 C. Transfer for Antecedent Debt, § 1687. 
 
 D. Pledge of Bill of Lading, § 1688. 
 
 E. Subpurchasers of Goods, § 1689. 
 
 F. Pledge or Mortgage of Goods, § 1690. 
 
 G. Assignment for Benefit of Creditors, § 1691. 
 
 IX. Duration and Termination of Transit, §§ 1692-1710. 
 
 A. Beginning of Transit, § 1692. 
 
 B. Terminates with Delivery to Vendee, § 1693. 
 
 C. What Constitutes Delivery, § 1694. 
 
 D. Delivery of Part, § 1695. 
 
 E. Possession of Goods by Carrier after Arrival at Destination in General, § 1696.
 
 TAliLI-: 01* COXTKXTS. XLV 
 
 F. Possession of Carrier as Af^cnt of Consijjnce or as Warehouseman, § l'J97. 
 
 G. Delivery by Carrier to Third I'erson in General, § 1698. 
 
 H. Delivery by Carrier to A^cnt, or Local Carrier for Transmission to X'cndee, 
 § 1699. 
 
 I. Delivery to Local Carrier Selected by Consignee, § 1700. 
 
 J. Deposited by Carrier at Intermediate Point, § 1701. 
 K. Agent, or Local Carrier, Converted into Special Agent for Vendee, 1702. 
 L. Seizure under Attachment or Execution, § no:i. 
 
 M. Intercepted at Intermediate Point l)y Vendee, or His Agent, § 1704. 
 N. Delivery to Ship Owned or Hired by Buyer, § 1705. 
 O. Delivery to Carrier for Shipment to Third Person, § 1706. 
 P. Refusal of Buyer to Receive Goods and Reconveyance to Seller, §§ 1707-1708. 
 
 a. Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods, § 1707. 
 
 b. Reshipment to Vendee after Refusal of Consignor to Resume Possession. 
 
 § 1708. 
 Q. Reshipment by Buyer, § 1709. 
 R. Entry of Goods in Custom House and Retention in Bonded Warehouse, § 1710. 
 
 X. Waiver or Loss of Right. § 1711. 
 
 XI. Manner of Exercise of Right, § 1712. 
 
 XII. Rights and Liability of Carrier, §§ 1713-1719. 
 
 A. Right of Carrier to Investigate and Require Indemnity, § 1713. 
 
 B. Right to Bring Goods into Court, § 1714. 
 
 C. Right of Carrier to Retain Goods for Charges Due by Consignee, § 1715. 
 
 D. Liability of Carrier for Refusal or l-'ailure to Stop Goods in Transitu, § 1716. 
 
 E. Lial)ility for Misdeli\cry, § 1717. 
 
 F. Liability of Carrier to Consignee or Purchase from Consignee, § 1718. 
 
 G. Actions against Carrier, § 1719. 
 
 CTLAPTKR XVITT. 
 
 Dkad BoDiits. 
 
 I. Rights, Duties and Liabilities of Carrier, § 1720. 
 II. Actions, §§ 1721-1732. 
 
 A. I'orni of Action. § 1721. 
 
 B. Who May Maintain Action, § 1722. 
 
 C. Pleading and Proof, § 1723. 
 
 D. Evidence, §§ 1724-1725. 
 
 a. Admissibility, § 1724. 
 
 b. Weight and Sufficiency, § 1725. 
 
 E. Damages, §§ 1720-1729. 
 
 a. Nominal Damages, § 1726. 
 
 b. Expenses, § 1727. 
 
 c. Mental Suffering, 1728. 
 
 d. Excessive Verdict, § 1729. 
 
 F. Recoupment of Damages in Action for Transportation Charges, § 1730. 
 
 G. Instructions, § 1731. 
 
 H. Questions for Jury, § 1732.
 
 XLVI TABLK OF COXTKXTS. 
 
 PART III 
 CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Rights, Duties and Liabilities. 
 I. Nature of Liability, § 1733. 
 II. Duty to Receive and Carry, § 1734. 
 
 III. Duties in Respect to Transportation, §§ 1735-1758. 
 
 A. Degree of Care Required, §§ 1735-1739. 
 a. In General, § 1735. 
 
 h. Management of Train, § 1736. 
 
 c. Sprinkling Hogs, § 1737. 
 
 d. Degree of Care Measurable by Character of Property, § 1738. 
 
 e. Care during Delay in Transportation, § 1739. 
 
 B. Duty as to Cars, §§ 1740-1746. 
 
 a. Duty to Furnish Cars in General, § 1740. 
 
 b. Sufficient Number of Cars, § 1741. 
 
 c. Cars Must Be Suitable, §§ 1742-1744. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1742. 
 
 (2) Bedding, § 1743. 
 
 (3) Using Cars the Property of Others than Carrier, § 1744. 
 
 d. Cars Must Be Furnished within Reasonable Time, § 1745. 
 
 e. Duty to Place in Particular Position in Train, § 1746. 
 
 C. Duty to Provide Stock Pens, §§ 1747-1749. 
 
 a. In General, § 1747. 
 
 b. Character of Yards or Pens Required. § 1748. 
 
 c. Extra Charge for Use of Stockyards, § 1749. 
 
 D. Duty as to Loading and Unloading, §§ 1750-1752. 
 
 a. In General, § 1750. 
 
 b. Duty to Designate Proper Cars for Loading, § 1751. 
 
 c. Duty to Furnish Safe and Suitable Facilities, § 1752. 
 
 E. Duty to Ship by Particular Route, § 1753. 
 
 F. Duty to Feed, Water and Rest, §§ 1754-1758. 
 
 a. In General, § 1754. 
 
 b. Where Shipper Has Assumed Duty, §§ 1755-1758. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1755. 
 
 (2) Notice of Desire to Feed and Water, § 1756. 
 
 (3) Duty to Provide S'uitable Places and Facilities for Feeding and Water- 
 
 ing, § 1757. 
 
 (4) Duty to Furnish Water, § 1758. 
 
 IV. Special Contracts for Transportation, §§ 1759-1770. 
 
 A. In General, § 1759. 
 
 B. Validity of Special Contracts, §§ 1760-1763. 
 
 a. In General, § 1760. 
 
 b. Fraud, § 1761. 
 
 c. Terms and Mode of Transportation, § 1762. 
 
 d. Partial Invalidity, § 1763. 
 
 C. Authority of Agents to Make Special Contracts, §§ 1764-1706. 
 
 a. In General, § 1764. 
 
 b. To Furnish Cars at Specified Time and Place, § ]7()5.
 
 TABLli OF CONTENTS. XLVII 
 
 c. For Rates, § 1706. 
 
 D. Modification -or Merger, §§ 1767-1769. 
 
 a. In General, § 1767. 
 
 b. Duress, § 1768. 
 
 c. Want of Time to Read Contract, § 1769. 
 
 E. Construction of Contract, § 1770. 
 V. When Liability Commences, § 1771. 
 
 VI. Delivery by Carrier, §§ 1772-1781. 
 
 A. In General, § 1772. 
 
 B. Time of Delivery, § 1773. 
 
 C. Necessity for Personal Delivery, § 1774. 
 
 D. Notice to Consignee, § 1775. 
 L. Place of Delivery, § 177G. 
 
 F. To Whom Delivery May Be Made, § 1777. 
 
 G. Care of Stock Where Consignee Is Absent, § 1778. 
 H. Misdelivery, § 1779. 
 
 I. Goods Shipped C. O. D., § 1780. 
 J. Damages for Wrongful Deliver}'. § 1781. 
 VII. Delay in Transportation or Delivery, §§ 1782-1826. 
 
 A. In General, § 1782. 
 
 B. Diligence Required of Carrier, § 178.3. 
 
 C. What Constitutes Reasonable Diligence, § 1784. 
 
 D. Excuses for Delaj^ §§ 1785-1794. 
 
 a. In General, § 1785. 
 
 b. Delay Caused by Act of God, Public Enemy, etc., § 1786. 
 
 c. Delays Incident to Course of Business, § 1787. 
 
 d. Unusual Rush of Business or ^^'ant of Facilities, § 1788. 
 
 e. Inherent Vices, § 1789. 
 
 f. Stops for Food, Water and Rest. § 1790. 
 
 g. Delay Caused by Operation of Law, § 1791. 
 h. Acts of Owner, § 1792. 
 
 i. Delay Caused by Strikes, § 1793. 
 
 j. Duty of Carrier on Happening of Excusing Cause, § 1794. 
 
 E. Delay under Special Contract, § 1795. 
 
 F. Damages for Delay in Transportation and Delivery, §§ 1796-1826. 
 
 a. Liability for Damages, §§ 1796-1803. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1796. 
 
 (2) Failure to Furnish Cars for Shipment, § 1797. 
 
 (3) Loss Occurring after Cattle Out of Carrier's Hands, § 1798. 
 
 (4) Special Damages, §§ 1799-1801. 
 
 (a) Notice of Special Circumstances, §§ 1799-1800. 
 aa. Necessity for Notice of Circumstances, § 1799. 
 bb. What Constitutes Notice. § 1800. 
 
 (b) What Constitutes Special Damages, § 1801. 
 
 (5) Remote or Speculative Damages, § 1802. 
 
 (6) Waiver of Damages, § 1803. 
 
 b. Elements, §§ 1804-1810. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1804. 
 
 (2) Decline in Market, § 1805. 
 
 (3) Expenditures for Keep of Animals, § 1806. 
 
 (4) Expenses of Shipment to Another Market, § 1807. 
 
 (5) Slirinkage in Weight, § 1808. 
 
 (6) Loss of Services of Animals, § 1809. 
 
 (7) Death of Anim.als, § 1810. 
 
 c. Measure and Amount. §§ 1811-1818. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1811. 
 
 (2) Diflference in Market \'alue at Destination as Measure, § 1812.
 
 XLVIII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (3) Shipper under Contract to Deliver at Specified Time, § 1813. 
 
 (4) Refusal to Receive Shipment, § 1814. 
 
 (5) Breach of Agreement to Furnish Cars, § 1815. 
 
 (6) Shipment for Pasturage, § 1816. 
 
 (7) Subsequent Shipment to Another Market, § 1817. 
 
 (8) Interest, § 1818. 
 
 d. Mitigation and Discharge of Damage, § 1819. 
 
 e. Pleading, § 1820. 
 
 f. Issues and Proof, § 1821. 
 
 g. Evidence, §§ 1822-1823. 
 
 (1) Admissibility, § 1822. 
 
 (2) Weight and Sufficiency, § 1823. 
 h. Instructions, § 1824. 
 
 i. Judgment, §§ 1825-1826. 
 
 (1) Measured in United States Money on Shipment to Mexico, § 1825. 
 
 (2) Excessive Damages, § 1826. 
 
 VIII. Liability of Carrier for Loss or Injury, §§ 1827-1871. 
 
 A. In General, § 1827. 
 
 B. Liability as for Carriage of Goods, § 1828. 
 
 C. Liability as Insurer, § 1829. 
 
 D. Liability for Negligence, § 1830. 
 
 E. Proximate Cause, § 1831. 
 
 F. Time Liability Arises, § 1832. 
 
 G. Liability for Negligence of Agent, § 1833. 
 
 H. Liability in Particular Instances, §§ 1834-1843. 
 
 a. Furnishing and Repairing Cars, § 1834. 
 
 b. Careless Moving of Cars, § 1835. 
 
 c. Carriage beyond Destination, § 1836. 
 
 d. Exposing Stock to Fire, Weather or Disease, § 1837. 
 
 e. Negligent Delivery, § 1838. 
 
 f. Liability for Delay, § 1839. 
 
 g. Liability for Deviation, § 1840. 
 
 h. Liability for Injury to Cattle in Yards, § 1841. 
 i. Liability for Loss after Delivery to Consignee, § 1842. 
 j. Liability for Loss on Connecting Carrier. § 1843. 
 I. Circumstances Exempting from Liability as Insurer, §§ 1844-1852. 
 
 a. In General, § 1844. 
 
 b. Loss Arising from Act of God, §§ 1845-1846. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1845. 
 
 (2) Where Carrier's Negligence Concurs, § 1846. 
 
 c. Inherent Vice of Animals, §§ 1847-1848. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1847. 
 
 (2) Where Carrier's Negligence Concurs, § 1848. 
 
 d. Loss or Injury Caused by Shipper, § 1849. 
 
 e. Waiver of Liability by Shipper, § 1850. 
 
 f. Where Shipper Accompanies Live Stock, § 1851. 
 
 g. Duty of Carrier after Excusing Cause Ceases, § 1852. 
 J. Damages, §§ 1853-1871. 
 
 a. Elements of Damages, §§ 1853-1858. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1853. 
 
 (2) Interest, § 1854. 
 
 (3) Slirinkage in Weight, § 1855. 
 
 (4) Freight, § 1856. 
 
 (5) Expenses, § 1857. 
 
 (6) Feed for Cattle, § 1858. 
 
 b. Measure of Damages, §§ 1859-1860. 
 (1) Total Loss, § 1859.
 
 TAI5LI-: OF CONTENTS. XLIX 
 
 (2) Partial Loss, § 18G0. 
 
 c. Special Damages, § 18G1. 
 
 d. Speculative or Remote Damages, § 1862. 
 
 e. Mitigation of Damages, § 18G3. 
 
 f. Evidence of Damages, §§ 1864-1869. 
 
 (1) Admissibility, §§ 1864-1868. 
 
 (a) Evidence of Market Value, § 1864. 
 
 (b) Evidence of Actual Value, § 1865. 
 
 (c) Evidence of Cost and Selling Price, § 1866. 
 
 (d) Evidence of Nature and Pedigree, § 1867. 
 
 (e) Evidence as to Damages Per Head, § 1868. 
 
 (2) Weight and Sufificiency, § 1869. 
 g. Instructions as to Damages, § 1870. 
 
 h. Payment of Freight as Prerequisite to Recovery, § 1871. 
 IX. Limitation of Liability of Carriers of Live Stock, §§ 1872-2054. 
 A. Limitation of Common-Law Liability as Insurer, §§ 1872-1968. 
 
 a. Power to Limit and Validity, §§ 1872-1875. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1872. 
 
 (2) Effect of Statutory and Constitutional Provisions, §§ 1873-1874. 
 
 (a) Federal Statutes, § 1873. 
 
 (b) State Statutes, § 1874. 
 
 (3) Conflict of Laws, § 1875. 
 
 b. Extent of Limitation Generally. § 1876. 
 
 c. Duties and Losses Which May P>e Limited or Restricted, §§ 1877-1905. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1877. 
 
 (2) Negligence of Carrier, §§ 1878-1881. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1878. 
 
 (b) Injury Caused by Fraud or Gross Negligence, §§ 1879-1881. 
 aa. In General, § 1879. 
 
 bl). Jurisdiction Allowing Exemption, § 1880. 
 cc. Conflict of Laws, § 1881. 
 
 (3) Requiring Shipper to Load and Unload Stock, §§ 1882-1886. 
 
 (a) In General. § 1882. 
 
 (b) Under Federal Statutes, §§ 1883-1885. 
 aa. Hepburn Act, § 1883. 
 
 bb. Liability for Overloading, § 1884. 
 
 cc. I'nloading for Food, Rest and Water, § 1885. 
 
 (c) Loss by Negligence of Carrier, § 1886. 
 
 (4) Requiring Shipper to Accompany and Care for Stock, §§ 1887-1891. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1887. 
 
 (b) Under Constitutional and Statutory Provisions, § 1888. 
 
 (c) Loss by Negligence, § 1889. 
 
 (d) Watering and Feeding, § 1890. 
 
 (e) Estoppel of S'hipper to Deny Validity, § 1891. 
 
 (5) Requiring Shipper to Select or Inspect Cars, § 1892. 
 
 (6") Loss from Size and Mode of Construction of Cars. § 1893. 
 
 (7) Loss Resulting from Defective Cars, § 1894. 
 
 (8) Loss from Failure to Provide Suitable Yards and Chutes, § 1895. 
 
 (9) Limitation to Loss Caused by Collision or Derailment. § 1896. 
 
 (10) Injury Resulting from Inherent Vice, Propensities or Defect of Animals, 
 
 §§ 1897-1899. 
 
 (a) In General. § 1897. 
 
 (b) Injuries Caused by Freight. § 1898. 
 
 (c) Loss b}' Tumping from Cars, § 1899. 
 
 (11) Failure to Drench Hogs. § 1900. 
 
 (12) Loss by Suffocation, § 1001. 
 
 1 Car— d
 
 TAHLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (13) Loss by Mobs and Strikers, § 1902. 
 
 (14) Stipulation against Loss b}' Delay, § 1903. 
 
 (15) Nondelivery, § 1904. 
 
 (16) Loss Occurring Prior to Execution of Contract, § 1905. 
 
 d. Mode, Form and Requisites, §§ 1906-1913. 
 
 (1) Express Contract, § 1906. 
 
 (2) Custom, § 1907. 
 
 (3) Fairness and Reasonableness, § 1908. 
 
 (4) Knowledge and Assent of Shipper, § 1909. 
 
 (5) Power of Agent to Bind Shipper, § 1910. 
 
 (6) Choice between Full and Limited Liabilit}' Contracts, § 1911. 
 
 (7) Consideration, § 1912. 
 
 (8) Fraud, Misrepresentation and Duress, § 1913. 
 
 e. Construction, Operation and Efifect, §§ 1914-1942. 
 
 (1) Rules of Construction, § 1914. 
 
 (2) Duties Restricted and Losses and Injuries Covered, §§ 1915-1942. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1915. 
 
 (b) Loss from Negligence of Carrier Generally, § 191G. 
 
 (c) Injuries from Inherent Vice or Defect of Animals, § 1917. 
 
 (d) Requiring Shipper to Load and Unload Stock, §§ 1918-1921. 
 aa. In General, § 1918. 
 
 bb. Failure to Furnish Cars in Reasonable Time, § 1919. 
 
 cc. Failure to Furnish Proper Facilities for Unloading, § 1920. 
 
 dd. Carrier's Unloading without Notice to Shipper, § 1921. 
 
 (e) Requiring Shipper to Accompany and Care for Stock, §§ 1922-1930. 
 aa. Operation and Effect in General, § 1922. 
 
 bb. Injury by Negligence of Carrier, § 1923. 
 
 cc. Escape of Stock, § 1924. 
 
 dd. Watering and Feeding, § 1925. 
 
 ee. Failure to Drench Hogs, § 1926. 
 
 ff. Care of Stock While in Stockyards, § 1927. 
 
 gg. Duty to Care for Stock after Unloading, § 1928. 
 
 hh. Carriers Allowing Shipper to Ride on Passenger Train, § 1929. 
 
 ii. Failure to Deliver, § 1930. 
 
 (f) Loss While in Cars, § 1931. 
 
 (g) Requiring Shipper to Inspect Cars and Stockyards, § 1932. 
 (h) Injury from Use of Defective or Unsuitable Cars, § 1933. 
 (i) Arbitrary Deviation from Route, § 1934. 
 
 (j) Refusal to Allow Shipper to Feed and Water Stock, § 1935. 
 
 (k) Collisions, § 1936. 
 
 (1) Derailment, § 1937. 
 
 (m) "P>reaking" and "Chafing," § 1938. 
 
 (n) Loss by Suffocation, § 1939. 
 
 (o) Loss by Strikers, § 1940. 
 
 (p) Stipulation against Loss by Delay, § 1941. 
 
 (q) Injuries Occurring Prior to Execution of Contract, § 1942. 
 
 f. Failure of Shipper to Comply with Contract, §§ 1943-1947. 
 
 (1) Shipper Required to Load and Unload Stock, § 1943. 
 
 (2) Failure of Shipper to Accompany and Care for Stock, §§ 1944-1947. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1944. 
 
 (b) Duty of Carrier, § 1945. 
 
 (c) Cars Stopped En Route by Carrier, § 1946. 
 
 (d) Injuries from Defect in Cars Unknown to Shipj^cr, § 1947. 
 
 g. Breach or Refusal of Carrier to Perform Contract, §§ 1948-1949. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1948. 
 
 (2) Shipper Required to Load and Unload Stock, § 1949. 
 h. Waiver or Estoppel to Rely on Exemption, § 1950.
 
 TAULli OF CONTENTS. M 
 
 i. Enforcement, §§ \'.)',\-\dG8. 
 
 (1) Pleading, §§ 1951-1952. 
 
 (a) Petition or Complaint, § 1951. 
 
 (b) Plea or Answer, § 1952. 
 
 (2) Issues, Proof and Variance, § 1953. 
 
 (3) Evidence, §§ 1953-1966. 
 
 (a) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 1954-1959. 
 aa. As to the Contract, § 1954. 
 
 bb. As to the Loss or Injury, §§ 1955-1959. 
 (aa) Cause of Loss, § 1955. 
 (bb) Showing Loss within Exception, § 1950. 
 (cc) Negligence of Carrier, § 1957. 
 (dd) Shipper Required to Inspect Car, § 1958. 
 (ee) Shipper Required to Care for Stock. § 1959. 
 
 (b) Admissibility and Competency, §§ 19G0-1965. 
 aa. Contract Itself, § 1960. 
 
 bb. Custom. § 1961. 
 cc. Carrier's Course of Business, § 1962. 
 
 dd. Choice between Full and Limited Liability Contract. § 1963. 
 ee. Fraud, § 1964. 
 ff. Negligence, § 1965. 
 
 (c) Weight and Sufficiency, § 1966. 
 
 (4) Question for Jury, § 1967. 
 
 (5) Instructions, § 1968. 
 
 B. Limitation of Amount of Liability and Agreed Valuation, §§ 1969-1998. 
 
 a. Power to Limit, §§ 1969-1974. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1969. 
 
 (2) Effect of Statutory and Constitutional Provisions, §§ 1970-1972. 
 
 (a) Federal Statutes, § 1970. 
 
 (b) State S'tatutes, §§ 1971-1972. 
 
 aa. Application to Interstate Commerce. § 1971. 
 bb. Statutes of Particular States, § 1972. 
 
 (3) Loss by Negligence of Carrier, § 1973. 
 
 (4) Loss by Gross Negligence. § 1974. 
 
 b. Form, Requisites and Validity, §§ 1975-1987. 
 
 (1) Form and What Constitutes, § 1975. 
 
 (2) Consideration, § 1976. 
 
 (3) Reasonableness — Undervaluation, § 1977. 
 
 (4) Arbitrary Valuation, § 1978. 
 
 (5) Assent of Shipper. §§ 1979-1981. 
 
 (a) Necessity. § 1979. 
 
 (b) Acceptance of Bill of Lading, § 19S0. 
 
 (c) Authority of Person Shipping to Bind Owner, § 1981. 
 
 (6) Choice of Full and Limited Liability Contracts. § 1982. 
 
 (7) Fraud or Duress, § 1983. 
 
 (8) Fairness and Good Faith, § 1984. 
 
 (9) Permission of Railroad Commissions, § 1985. 
 
 (10) Partial Invalidity, § 19S6. 
 
 (11) Estoppel by Receiving Benefit of Reduced Rate, § 19S7. 
 
 c. Construction. Operation and Eflfect. §§ 19SS-1991. 
 
 (1) Construction of Terms. § 1988. 
 
 (2) As Measure of Rights and Obligations of Parties. §§ 1989-1990. 
 
 (a) In General. § 1989. 
 
 (b) As Determining Amount of Recovery. § 1990. 
 
 (3) Losses Covered, § 1991. 
 
 d. Modification and Rescission, § 1992. 
 
 e. Enforcement. §§ 1993-1997.
 
 Lil TABLE OF CONTE;nTS. 
 
 (1) Pleading, § 1993. 
 
 (2) Burden of Proof, § 1994. 
 
 (3) Admissibility and Competency of Evidence, § 1995. 
 
 (4) Weight and Sufficiency, § 1996. 
 
 (5) Questions for Jury, § 1997. 
 f. Damages, § 199S. 
 
 C. Stipulation for Notice of Loss. §§ 1999-2051. 
 
 a. Power and Validity, §§ 1999-2004. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1999. 
 
 (2) Public Policy, § 2000. 
 
 (3) Eflfect of Constitutional and Statutory Provisions, §§ 2001-2003. 
 
 (a) Provision Prohibiting Stipulation, § 2001. 
 
 (b) Under Texas Statute, §§ 2002-2003. 
 aa. In General, § 2002. 
 
 bb. Conflict of Laws, § 2003. 
 
 (4) Effect of Custom, § 2004. 
 
 b. Reasonableness, §§ 2005-2012. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 2005. 
 
 (2) What Constitutes, §§ 2006-2008. 
 
 (a) In General. § 2006. 
 
 (b) Respecting Officer or Agent to Be Notified. § 2007. 
 
 (c) Particular Stipulations Considered, § 2008. 
 
 (3) Pleading and Proof of Reasonableness, §§ 2009-2011. 
 
 (a) Presumption and Burden, § 2009. 
 
 (b) Admissibility of Evidence, § 2010. 
 
 (c) Weight of Evidence, § 2011. 
 
 (4) Questions for Court or Jury, § 2012. 
 
 c. Form and Requisites, §§ 2013-2015. 
 
 (1) Certainty and Definiteness, § 2013. 
 
 (2) Name of Agent to Be Notified, § 2014. 
 
 (3) Consideration, § 2015. 
 
 d. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 2016-2031. 
 
 (1) Rules of Construction, § 2016. 
 
 (2) Construction of Phrase "Removal from Place of Destination," §§ 2017-2015 
 
 (a) "Place of Destination," § 2017. 
 
 (b) What Constitutes a Removal, § 2018. 
 
 (3) Losses of Which Notice Must Be Given, §§ 2019-2031. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2019. 
 
 (b) Resulting from Negligence Generally, § 2020. 
 
 (c) Delay in Furnishing Cars, § 2021. 
 
 (d) Loss by Delay, § 2022. 
 
 (e) Death of Animals in Transit or before Removal, § 2023. 
 
 (f) Statutory Penalty for Failure to Feed and Water, § 2024. 
 
 (g) Nondelivery, § 2025. 
 
 (h) Stock Removed before Arrival at Destination, § 2026. 
 
 (i) Shrinkage from Shunting or Bumping Cars, § 2037. 
 
 (j) Injuries Accruing after Unloading, § 2028. 
 
 (k) Injuries Not Discoverable within Stipulated Time, §§ 2029-2030. 
 
 aa. In General, § 2029. 
 
 bb. Right to Give Additional Notice, § 2030. 
 (1) Claims Accruing Prior to Contract. § 2031. 
 
 e. Sufficiency of Notice, §§ 2032-2035. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2032. 
 
 (2) Time of Presentation, § 2033. 
 
 (3) Agent Notified, § 2034. 
 
 "" (4) Claims Covered by Notice, § 2035. 
 
 f. Effect of Failure to Give Notice, § 2036.
 
 TAHLK or CONTENTS. LjII 
 
 ^ Facts Relieving from Necessity for Notice, §§ 2037-2042. 
 
 (1) Carrier Having Notice and Opportunity to Investigate, § 2037. 
 
 (2) Waiver, §§ 2038-2042. 
 
 (a) Power to Waive, § 2038. 
 
 (b) Authority of Agent, § 2039. 
 
 (c) What Constitutes, §§ 2040-2042. 
 
 aa. Waiving Written by Acting on Verbal Notice, § 2040. 
 bb. Want of Verification, § 2041. 
 cc. Delay in Filing Notice, § 2042. 
 h. Enforcement, §§ 2043-2051. 
 
 (1) Form of Action, § 2043. 
 
 (2) Pleading, §§ 2044-2046. 
 
 (a) Petition or Declaration, § 2044. 
 
 (b) Plea or Answer, § 2045. 
 
 (c) Replication or Reply, § 2046. 
 
 (3) Burden of Proof, § 2047. 
 
 (4) Admissibility and Competency, § 2048. 
 
 (5) Weight and Sufficiency, § 2049. 
 
 (6) Question for Jury, § 2050. 
 
 (7) Appeal and Error, § 2051. 
 
 D. Time When Suit Must Be Brought. § 2052. 
 
 E. Limiting Loss to Carrier's Own Line. § 2053. 
 
 F. Limiting Liability to That of Forwarder, § 2054. 
 
 CILAPTER XX.' 
 
 Actions. 
 
 L Nature and Form of Action, §§ 2055-2058. 
 
 A. Right of Plaintifif to Sue Either Ex Contractu or Ex Delicto, § 2055. 
 
 B. Action for Conversion, § 205C. 
 
 C. Actions Ex Delicto, § 2057. 
 
 D. Actions Ex Contractu, § 2058. 
 IL Rights of Action, §§ 2059-2062. 
 
 A. In General, § 2059. 
 
 B. Right of Action of Owner, § 2060. 
 
 C. Right of .'Xction of Party in Whose Name Stock Shipped, § 2061. 
 
 D. Right of Action in Consignee, § 2062. 
 in. Time to Sue and Limitations, § 2063. 
 IV. Parties PlaintifT, §§ 2064-2066. 
 
 A. Owner. § 2064. 
 
 B. Consignor, § 2065. 
 
 C. Consignee, § 2066. 
 V. Pleading. §§ 2067-2075. 
 
 A. Declaration, Petition, or Complaint, §§ 2067-2074. 
 
 a. Stating Cause of Action. § 2067. 
 
 b. Averments as to Damages Sustained, § 2068. 
 
 c. Matters More Properly Coming from Defense, § 2069. 
 
 d. Allegations as to Contracts, §§ 2070-2072. 
 
 (1) Necessity for Setting Out Terms of Contract, § 2070. 
 
 (2) Necessity for Alleging .A.uthority of Carrier's Agent, § 2071. 
 
 (3) Allegations as to Consideration oi Contract, § 2072. 
 
 e. .^.negations as to Negligence, § 2073. 
 
 f. Amendments, § 2074. 
 
 B. Answer, § 2075. 
 
 VI. Issues Raised by Pleading, § 2076. 
 VII. Proof. § 2077.
 
 LIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 VIII. Variance. § 2078. 
 
 IX. Evidence, §§ 2079-2103. 
 
 A. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 2079-2086. 
 
 a. In General. § 2079. 
 
 b. Contracts and Relation Created between Parties, § 2080. 
 
 c. Loss of or Injury to Live Stock and Cause Thereof, §§ 2081-2086. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2081. 
 
 (2) Time of Injury, § 2082. 
 
 (3) Negligence. §§ 2083-2086. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2083. 
 
 (b) Burden on Carrier to Prove That Tt Was Not Negligent, § 2084. 
 
 (c) Burden of Proving Negligence on Shipper Accompanying Stock, § 2085. 
 
 (d) Burden on Carrier to Excuse Delay, § 2086. 
 
 B. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 2087-2094. 
 
 a. In General. § 2087. 
 
 b. Admissibility under Pleadings, § 2088. 
 
 c. Secondary Evidence, § 2089. 
 
 d. Opinion Evidence, § 2090. 
 
 e. Delay in Transportation, § 2091. 
 
 f. Evidence Admissible to Show Damages Sustained, § 2092. 
 
 g. Nature. Condition and Character of Animal Injured. § 2093. 
 h. Evidence as to Negligence, § 2094. 
 
 C. Weight and Sufficiency, §§ 2095-2103. 
 
 a. Degree of Proof Required, § 2095. 
 
 b. Contracts, § 2096. 
 
 c. Delay in Transportation, § 2097. 
 
 d. Damages Sustained, § 2098. 
 
 e. Negligence, §§ 2099-2101. 
 
 (1) Making Prima Facie Case against Carrier, § 2099. 
 
 (2) Sufficiency of Proof of Negligence, § 2100. 
 
 (3) Gross, Willful, or Wanton Negligence, § 2101. 
 
 f. Showing Proximate Cause of Injury, § 2102. 
 
 g. Failure to Unload, Feed, and Water Live Stock. § 2103. 
 
 X. Damages, § 2104. 
 
 XL Questions for Jury, §§ 2105-2113. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 2105. 
 
 B. Contracts, § 2106. 
 
 C. Estoppel and Waiver, § 2107. 
 
 D. Cause of Injury, § 2108. 
 
 E. Negligence, §§ 2109-2111. 
 
 a. While Awaiting Transportation or Delivery, § 2109. 
 
 b. While in Transit, § 2110. 
 
 c. Contributory Negligence, § 2111. 
 
 F. Delay. § 2112. 
 
 G. Extent of Injury and Damages, § 2113. 
 XII. Instructions to the Jury, § 2114. 
 
 XIII. Verdict and Findings, § 2115.
 
 TAULI-: OF CONTEXTS. LV 
 
 PART IV 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS 
 
 CIlArTI'.R XXI. 
 Ri;lati()x of Carrikk and Passenger. 
 
 I. Who Are Carriers of Passengers, § 2116. 
 II. What Law Governs Relationship, § 2117. 
 
 III. Duty to Receive and Carry, §§ 2118-2121. 
 
 A. In General, § 2118. 
 
 B. Offer for Transportation, § 2119. 
 
 C. Grounds for Refusal Considered, § 2120. 
 
 D. Enforcement of Duty — Mandamus, § 2121. 
 
 IV. Creation of Relation, §§ 2122-2125. 
 
 A. Who May Become Passenger, § 2122. 
 
 B. Relation Created by Contract, § 2123. 
 
 C. Notice of Intention Essential, § 2124. 
 
 D. Acceptance by Carrier Essential, § 2125. 
 
 V. When Relation of Carrier and Passenger Commences, §§ 2126-2136. 
 
 A. In General, § 2126. 
 
 B. Before Reaching Carrier's Premises, § 2127. 
 
 C. While at Station in Waiting Room, etc., § 2128. 
 
 D. Approaching Train to Board, § 2129. 
 
 E. After Signalling Street Car, § 2130. 
 
 F. Before Entering Vehicle, § 2131. 
 
 G. .Attempting to Board Train or Other Vehicle, § 2132. 
 H. Boarding Train at Improper Place, § 2133. 
 
 I. On Train or Car Before Its Departure. § 2134. 
 J. Before Taking Seat in Vehicle. § 2135. 
 K. Mail Clerks, § 21?.C,. 
 VI. Termination of Relation, §§ 2137-2157. 
 
 A. In General, § 2137. 
 
 B. Leaving Premises Previous to Transportation, § 2138. 
 
 C. Leaving Train or Car Before Reaching Destination, §§ 2139-2143. 
 
 a. With Intention to Return, § 2139. 
 
 b. Without Intention to Return, § 2140. 
 
 c. For Purpose of Transfer, § 2141. 
 
 d. To Avoid Imminent Danger, § 2142. 
 
 e. To Assist with Vehicle, § 2143. 
 
 D. Violation of Rules— .Assuming Dangerous Position, §§ 2144-2145. 
 
 a. In General. § 2144. 
 
 b. Leaving Moving Train or Car. § 2145. 
 
 E. Transferring Prior to Destination. § 2146. 
 
 F. Time and Opportunity to Leave Vehicle at Destination, §§ 2147-2148. 
 
 a. In General, § 2147. 
 
 b. Failure to Alight within a Reasonable Time. § 21 4S. 
 
 G. After Alighting at Destination, §§ 2149-2153. 
 
 a. In General, §§ 2149-2150. 
 
 (1) Rules as to Railroads, § 2149. 
 
 (2) Rules as to Street Cars, § 2150. 
 
 b. On Carrier's Premises after Alighting. § 2151. 
 
 c. After Leaving Carrier's Premises, §§ 2152-2153. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2153. 
 
 (2) Mail Clerks, § 2153.
 
 LVI TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 H. Passenger Continuing Journey Beyond Destination, § 2154. 
 
 T. Carriage Beyond Destination, § 2155. 
 
 1. Ejection of Passenger, § 2156. 
 K. Regaining Status on Train or Car after Ejection, § 2157. 
 
 VII. Relation as .Affected by Character of Vehicle or Position Occupied, §§ 2158-2100. 
 
 A. Vehicle Used for Transportation of Passengers, §§ 2158-2161. 
 
 a. Presumption Arising from Character of Vehicle, § 2158. 
 
 b. Boarding Wrong Train or Car, § 2159. 
 
 c. Persons Boarding Special Train, § 2160. 
 
 d. Boarding Train Not Stopping at Destination, § 2161. 
 
 B. Vehicle Not Designed for Passengers, §§ 2162-2165. 
 
 a. In General, § 2162. 
 
 b. Acceptance or Invitation b}' Trainmen, § 216:;. 
 
 c. Presumption as to Status, § 21C4. 
 
 d. Presumption as to Trainmen's Authority, § 2165. 
 
 C. Relation as Affected by Position Occupied, § 2166. 
 
 VIII. Relation as Affected by Possession of Ticket or Payment of Fare, S§ 2!f)7-2178. 
 .-\. In General— Proper Ticket, § 2167. 
 
 B. Prior to Payment of Fare, § 2168. 
 
 C. Free Transportation, §§ 2169-2173. 
 
 a. In General, § 2169. 
 
 b. Free Transportation to Small Children, § 2170. 
 
 c. Persons Travelling on Pass, §§ 2171-2172. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2171. 
 
 (2) Drover's Pass or under Shipping Contract, § 2172. 
 
 d. Free Transportation by Permission or Invitation of Agent, § 2173. 
 
 D. Refusal to Pay Fare, § 2174. 
 
 E. Evasion of Payment of Fare, § 2175. 
 
 F. Nontransferrable Ticket, § 2176. 
 
 G. Payment of Fare under Collusive Agreement, § 2177. 
 H. Refusal to Accept Fare, Transfer or Ticket. § 2178. 
 
 IX. Particular Classes of Persons Considered, §§ 2179-2192. 
 
 A. Circus Company Employees, § 2179. 
 
 B. Postal Clerks, § 2180. 
 
 C. Express Messengers, § 2181. 
 
 D. Passengers in Sleeping Cars or Express Trains, § 2182. 
 
 E. Sleeping Car Employees — Employees on Private Cars, § 2183. 
 
 F. Carrier's Employees Riding upon Its Vehicle, §§ 2184-2186. 
 
 a. Riding to or from Work, § 2184. 
 
 b. Riding for Purposes Disconnected with ^Vork, Custom to Give Free Trans- 
 
 portation to Carrier's Employees, § 2185. 
 
 c. Right to Transportation Secured by Contract of Employment, § 21S6. 
 
 G. Working Passage under Agreement with Trainmen, § 2187. 
 H. Newsboys on Street Cars, § 2188. 
 
 I. Persons Engaged in Private Business under Contract, § 2189. 
 
 J. Employees of Third Persons, § 2190. 
 K. Persons Travelling on Sunday, § 2191. 
 
 L. Person Forcibly Carried Aboard by Carrier's Agents, § 2192. 
 X. Union Depots, § 2193. 
 
 CHAPTER XX J I. 
 F.\Ri:-, TicKKTs, Special Coxtract.s, Transfers, etc. 
 
 I. Right of Carrier to Compensation, § 2194. 
 II. Amount of Fare, §§ 2195-2201. 
 A. In General, § 2195.
 
 TAIiI.E 01* COiNTKXTS. LvJI 
 
 B. Extra Fare, §§ 2190-2201. 
 
 a. In General, § 2196. 
 
 b. Failure to Procure Ticket, §§ 2197-2201. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2197. 
 
 (2) Reasonable Opportunity to Procure Ticket, §§ 2198-2199. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2198. 
 
 (b) Keeping Ticket Office Open, § 2199. 
 
 (:0 Sufficiency of Attempt to Procure Ticket. § 2200. 
 (4) Waiver of Right to Demand Extra Fare, § 2201. 
 
 III. Payment of Fare, §§ 2202-2206. 
 
 A. Time, Place and Manner of Payment, § 2202. 
 
 B. Necessity for Tender of Exact Fare and Amount for Which Change Must Be 
 
 Made, § 2203. 
 
 C. Medium of Payment, § 2204. 
 
 D. Tender of Fare to Unauthorized Employee, § 2205. 
 
 E. Rectifying Mistake, § 2206. 
 
 IV. Excessive and Unauthorized Charges, §§ 2207-2209. 
 
 A. Recovery Back of Fare, § 2207. 
 
 B. As Authorizing Recovery of Damages, § 2208. 
 
 C. As Authorizing Recovery of Penalty, § 2209. 
 
 V. Acts and Statements of Agents or Employees, §§ 2210-2211. 
 
 A. Of Ticket Agent, § 2210. 
 
 B. Of Conductor, § 2211. 
 
 VI. Sale of Tickets, § 2212. 
 
 VII. Nature and Effect of Ticket in General. §§ 2213-2217. 
 
 A. In General, § 2213. 
 
 B. Construction, § 2214. 
 
 C. Transferability, §§ 2215-2217. 
 
 a. In Absence of Restrictions, § 2215. 
 
 b. Stipulation against Transfer, §§ 2216-2217. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2216. 
 
 (2) Injunction against Sale of Nontransferable Tickets, § 22J7. 
 
 VIII. Conditions and Limitations in Tickets, §§ 2218-2230. 
 
 A. In General, § 2218. 
 
 B. Stipulation as to Continuous Passage, § 2219. 
 
 C. Limitation as to Time for Which Valid, §§ 2220-2221. 
 
 a. In Absence of Limitation, § 2220. 
 
 b. Limitations as to Time, § 2221. 
 
 D. Limitation of Use of Ticket to Particular Train, § 2222. 
 
 E. Prohibition of Transfer, § 2223. 
 
 F. Prohibition as to Detachment of Coupons, § 2224. 
 
 G. Requirement of Identification, Signature and Stamping, § 2225. 
 H. Limitation of Liability, § 2226. 
 
 I. Notice and Acceptance of Conditions, § 2227. 
 
 J. Forfeiture of Tickets, § 2228. 
 
 K. Waiver of Conditions, §§ 2229-2230. 
 
 a. Authority of Agent, § 2229. 
 
 b. What Amounts to Waiver, § 2230. 
 
 IX. Exhibition and Surrender of Tickets, §§ 2231-2233. 
 
 A. Exhibition of Ticket. § 2231. 
 
 B. Surrender of Ticket, § 2232. 
 
 C. Where Ticket Lost or Wrongfully Taken Up, § 2233. 
 
 X. Redemption of Tickets and Repayment of Charges, § 2234. 
 XI. Special Contracts for Transportation, §§ 2235-2238. 
 
 A. In General, § 2235. 
 
 B. Contract for Free Carriage, § 2236. 
 
 C. Contracts Relating to Excursions, § 2237. 
 
 D. Ratification of Contract and Waiver of Conditions, § 2238.
 
 LVIII TARLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 XII. Transportation by Connecting Carriers, § 3239. 
 XIII. Passes, §§ 2240-2241. 
 
 A. In General, § 2240. 
 
 B. Revocation, § 2241. 
 \IV. Transfers. §§ 2242-2250. 
 
 A. Power of Municipality as to Transfers, § 2242. 
 
 B. Duty of Carrier to Give and Honor Transfers, § 2243. 
 
 C. Right of Carrier to Require Transfers, § 2244. 
 
 D. Rules of Carrier, § 2245. 
 
 E. Conditions in Transfers, § 2246. 
 
 F. Wrong or Defective Transfer, §§ 2247-2250. 
 
 a. Liability of Carrier, § 2247. 
 
 b. Examination of Transfer by Passenger, § 2248. 
 
 c. Care Required in Asking for and Using Transfer, § 2249. 
 
 d. Conductor's Duty with Respect to Explanation of Passenger, § 2250. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 Rights, Duties and Liabilities as to Transportation. 
 
 I. Duties as to Transportation in General, §§ 2251-2255. 
 
 A. General Statement as to Nature of Undertaking, § 2251. 
 
 B. Duty to Inform, Direct and Escort Passengers, § 2252. 
 
 C. Liability of Carrier for Misinformation, § 2253. 
 
 D. Duty of Passenger to Inform Himself, § 2254. 
 
 E. Mistakes and Delays in Furnishing Tickets, § 2255. 
 
 [J. Route, Time and Means of Transportation, §§ 2256-2275. 
 
 A. Right and Duty to Ride on Particular Train or Car, §§ 2256-2262. 
 
 a. In General, § 2256. 
 
 b. Round Trip Ticket, § 2257. 
 
 c. Ticket Calling for Particular Train, § 2258. 
 
 d. Ticket Requiring Change of Trains. § 2259. 
 
 e. Trains Not Stopping at Passenger's Destination, § 2260. 
 
 f. Vehicles Not Designated for Passengers, § 2261. 
 
 g. Several Carriers Using Same Road, § 2262. 
 
 B. Route, § 2263. 
 
 C. Failure or Delay in Transportation, §§ 2264-2275. 
 
 a. Failure to Fully Perform Contract, § 2264. 
 
 b. Delay in Transportation, §§ 2265-2275. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2265. 
 
 (2) Published Schedule and Connections, §§ 22C6-2273. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2266. 
 
 (b) Duty to Conform to Timetable, § 2267. 
 
 (c) Right to Change Schedule, § 2268. 
 
 (d) Liability Based on Negligence, §§ 2269-2273. 
 aa. In General, § 2269. 
 
 bb. Willful Delay, § 2270. 
 cc. Fault or Neglect of Agents, § 2271. 
 dd. Interference by Third Persons, § 2272. 
 ee. Duty to Furnish Other Transportation, § 2273. 
 
 (3) Special Contracts as to Time, § 2274. 
 
 (4) Affect as to Limited Tickets, § 2275. 
 
 [II. Nature of Liability and Degree of Care Required, §§ 2276-2350. 
 
 A. Nature of Liability in General, § 2276. 
 
 B. Liability of Act of God or Public Enemy, § 2277.
 
 TAHLK OP COXTKXTS. LiX 
 
 •C. IJaljiliiy as Insurer, §§ 227S-2279. 
 
 a. In General, § 2278. 
 
 b. Lial)ility Based on Negligence, § 2279. 
 
 D. Liability for Negligence — Assumed Risk, §§ 2280-2288. 
 
 a. In General, § 2280. 
 
 b. Proximate and Remote Cause, §§ 2281-2288. 
 
 (1) General Statement of Rules, § 2281. 
 
 (2) Stations and Stopping Places, § 2282. 
 
 (3) Roadbed and Track, § 228:5. 
 
 (4) Vehicles, § 2284. 
 
 (5) Receiving and Discharging Passengers, § 2285. 
 
 (6) Accommodations rnd Duties during Tran^jiortation, § 2286. 
 
 (7) Control and Management of Conveyance, § 2287. 
 
 (8) Protection of Passengers, § 2288. 
 
 E. What Constitutes Negligence, § 2289. 
 
 F. Degree of Care Required, §§ 2290-2::42. 
 
 a. In General, § 2290. 
 
 b. Statements of the Rule. §§ 2291-2:528. 
 
 (1) In General. § 2291. 
 
 (2) Statements Requiring "Extraordinary," "Great," "Extreme," or "Strict," 
 
 Care, § 2292. 
 
 (3) Statements Requiring an Extremely High Degree of Care, §§ 2293-2310. 
 
 (a) In General, § 229:!. 
 
 (b) Statements Requiring the "Utmost" Care, etc., § 2294. 
 
 (c) Statements Requiring the "Most Exact" Care, etc., § 229.5. 
 
 (d) Statements Requiring the "Highest" or "Greatest" Care, etc., § 2296. 
 
 (e) Statements Requiring the "Highest Possible" or "Greatest Possible" 
 
 Care, etc., § 2297. 
 
 (f) Statements Wliicli, in Effect, Require the Greatest Human Care, etc., 
 
 § 2298. 
 
 (g) The Correctness of the Statements. §§ 2299-2:;i0. 
 aa. In General, § 2299. 
 
 bb. Cases Upholding the Statements, §§ 2:i00-2:;03. 
 (aa) In General, § 2.100. 
 
 (bb) Instructions Exacting the Utmost Care Upheld. § 2301. 
 (cc) Instructions Exacting the Highest Care Upheld, § 2302. 
 (dd) Instructions in Effect Exacting the Greatest Human Care Up- 
 held, § 2303. 
 cc. Cases Declaring the Statements Erroneous. §§ 2:504-2308. 
 (aa) In General, § 2304. 
 
 (bb) Instructions Exacting the Utmost Care Declared Erroneous. § 230,"). 
 (cc) Instructions Exacting the ' Highest Care Declared Erroneous. § 
 
 230 f). 
 (dd) Instructions in Eft'ect Exacting the Greatest Human Care Er- 
 roneous, § 2307. 
 (ee) Instructions in Effect, Exacting the Greatest Human Care De- 
 clared Erroneous, § 2308. 
 dd. Conflict of Authority in Texas. § 2309. 
 
 ee. Sufficiency of the Statements W^hen Properly Limited or Explained. 
 § 2:; 10. 
 
 (4) Statement Ivoquiring the Highest Care Consistent with the Possibility 
 
 of Injury, § 2311. 
 
 (5) Statements Requiring the Care Exercised by Other Similar Carrier, § 2312. 
 
 (6) Statement Requiring the Care L^sually Exercised liy the Particular Car- 
 
 rier. § 2313. 
 
 (7) Statements Making the Care of Prudent Men the Standard, §§ 2314-2322. 
 (a) In General, § 2314.
 
 I.X 
 
 TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 (b) Statements Requiring the Highest Care of Prudent, or Very Prudent, 
 
 Men, § 2315. 
 
 (c) Statements Limiting the Care by the Circumstances, §§ 2316-2319. 
 aa. In General, § 2316. 
 
 bb. Statements Requiring the Highest Care of Prudent Men under the 
 Circumstances, § 2317. 
 
 cc. Statements Requiring the Care of Very Prudent Men under the Cir- 
 cumstances, § 2318. 
 
 dd. Statements Requiring the Utmost Care of Very Prudent Men under 
 the Circumstances, § 3319. 
 
 (d) Statements Requiring the Utmost Caution, or the Caution Charac- 
 
 teristic of Prudent Men, § 2320. 
 
 (e) Statements Requiring the Highest Care of Prudent and ST<iIlfuI Rail- 
 
 road Men, § 2321. 
 (tj Statement Requiring the Highest Care of Prudent Men in the Same 
 Business, § 2322. 
 
 (8) Statement Requiring the Highest or Utmost Practical Care, § 2323. 
 
 (9) Statements Requiring the Highest Practical Care of Capable and Faith- 
 
 ful Railroad Men, § 2324. 
 
 (10) Statements Requiring the Highest Reasonable Care, § 2325. 
 
 (11) Approved Statements of the Rule, § 2326. 
 
 (12) Statutory Rule in California and Other States, § 2327. 
 
 (13) Statutory Rule in Georgia, § 2328. 
 c. Application of the Rule, §§ 2329-2342. 
 
 (1) Mode of Conveyance Immaterial, §§ 2329-2334. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2329. 
 
 (b) Stage and Hackney Coaches, § 2330. 
 
 (c) Railroad, § 2331. 
 
 (d) Street Railways, § 2332. 
 
 (e) Carriers by Water, § 2333. 
 
 (f) Elevators, § 2334. 
 
 (2) When Passengers Are Carried on Freight Trains, §§ 2335-2337. 
 
 (a) Assumption of Risk by Passengers, § 2335. 
 
 (b) Degree of Care Exacted of the Carrier, § 2336. 
 
 (c) Statutory Rule in Mississippi, § 2337. 
 
 (3) When Passengers Are Carried on Freight Elevators, § 2338. 
 
 (4) When Passengers Are Carried Free, §§ 2339-2342. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 2339. 
 
 (b) Kansas Decisions, § 2340. 
 
 (c) Montana Statute, § 2341. 
 
 (d) Care Varying with Conditions and Circumstances, § 2342. 
 G. Liability as Afifected by Statutes, §§ 2343-2349. 
 
 a. In General, § 2343. 
 
 b. Texas Statute Expressly Adopting the Common Law, § 2344. 
 
 c. Nebraska Statute Making Railroads Liable as Insurers, §§ 2345-2349. 
 (1) Provisions of the Statute, § 2345. 
 
 (3) Constitutionality of the Statute, § 2346. 
 
 (3) Effect of the Statute, § 2347. 
 
 (4) Application of the Statute. § 2348. 
 
 (5) Enforcement of the Statute by Other than Nebraska Courts, § 2349. 
 H. Exercise of Proper Care Question for Jury, § 2350. 
 
 IV. As to Stations and Stopping Places, §§ 2351-2385. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 2351. 
 
 B. Railroads, §§ 2352-2381. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 2352. 
 
 b. Duty to Provide Station Houses and Platforms, § 2353.
 
 TAIiLK OF COXTEXTS. LXI 
 
 c. Duty as to Stoppin^^ Places Unprovided with Platforms and Station Houses, 
 
 § 2354. 
 
 d. Duties as to Safety of Station Houses, Platforms, and Grounds. §§ 2355-2376. 
 (1) General Rule, § 2355. 
 
 (2)' Approaches to Stations, §§ 2356-2357. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 2356. 
 
 (b) More than One Way, § 2357. 
 
 (3) Station Houses, § 2358. 
 
 (4) Station Platforms and Alighting Places, §§ 2359-2369. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 2359. 
 
 (b) Defects in Floor, § 2360. 
 
 tc) Length, Width and Elevation, § 2361. 
 
 (d) Proximity of Platform to Track, § 2362. 
 
 (e) Ingress to and Egress from Platform, § 2363. • 
 
 (f) Obstructions on Platform, § 2364. 
 
 (g) Snow and Ice on Platform, § 2365. 
 
 (h) Injury by Objects Thrown on Platform. §§ 2366-2368. 
 
 aa. In General, § 2366. 
 
 bb. Sparks Flying from Passing Engine, § 2367. 
 
 cc. Mail Pouches Thrown on Platform. § 2368. 
 (i) Runaway Horse on Platform. § 2369. 
 
 (5) Platform Facilities on Only One Side of Track, § 2370. 
 
 (6) Safe Place to Board or Alight and Intervening Tracks, etc., §§ 2371-2372. 
 
 (a) In General. § 2371. 
 
 (b) Running Trains on Intervening Tracks. § 2372. 
 
 (7) Ways to and from Eating Houses, § 2373. 
 
 (8) Transfer Accommodations, § 2374. 
 
 (9) Premises Contiguous to. Though Not Strictly Part of. S'tation Grounds, 
 
 § 2375. 
 
 (10) Crowds at Stations. § 2376. 
 
 e. Box or Stool in Lieu of Platform, § 2377. 
 
 f. Lighting Station Houses, Platforms, and Grounds, § 2378. 
 
 g. When Passengers Are Carried on Freight Trains, § 2379. 
 
 h. Duty to Inform Passengers as to Movements of Trains. § 2:^80 
 i. Duty as to Opening Waiting Rooms, § 2381. 
 C. Street Railways, §§ 2382-2385. ^ <, 
 
 a. In General, § 2382. 
 
 b. When Carrier Has No Control Over Street. § 2383. 
 
 c. When Carrier Responsible for Conditions. § 2384. 
 
 d. Transfer Accommodations. § 2385. 
 V. As to Roadbed and Track. §§ 2386-2402. 
 
 A. In General. § 2380. 
 
 B. Roadbed. §§ 2387-2388. 
 
 a. Railroad Companies, § 2387. 
 
 b. Street Railways, § 2388. 
 
 C. Tracks and Appliances, §§ 2389-2402. 
 a. Railroad Companies, §§ 2389-2397. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2389. 
 
 (2) Rails, Ties, etc., § 2390. 
 
 (3) Switches. § 2391. 
 
 (4) Obstructions. §§ 2392-2397. 
 
 (a) In General. § 2392. 
 
 (b) Cattle on Track, § 2393. 
 
 (c) Cars on Side Tracks, § 2394. 
 
 (d) Structures Alongside the Track. § 2395. 
 
 (e) Overhead Structures. § 2396. 
 
 (f) Obstructions Caused by Third Persons. § 2397.
 
 LXII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 b. Street Railways. §§ 2398-2401. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2398. 
 
 (2) Obstructions, §§ 2399-2401. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2399. 
 
 (b) Structures Alongside the Track, § 2400. 
 
 (c) Adjustment of Parallel Tracks, § 2401. 
 
 c. Liability of Carrier Using Track of Another Company, § 24(i2 
 
 VI. As to Vehicles. §§ 2403-2425. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 2403. 
 
 B. Railroads and Street Railways. §§ 2403-2422. 
 
 a. Safe Means of Ingress or Egress, § 2404. 
 
 b. Cars, Engines, Couplings, Bell-Ropes, etc., § 2405. 
 
 c. Brakes, § 2406. 
 
 d. Interior of Railroad Coaches, § 2407. 
 e Light, Heat and Water, § 2408. 
 
 f. Window Guards, § 2409. 
 
 g. Platform Guards and Entrance Doors, § 2410. 
 
 h. Platforms and Steps of Cars, § 2411. 
 
 i. Projecting Bolts, etc., Catching Clothing of Passengers, § 2412. 
 
 j. Projection of Wheel Guard from Floor of Street Car, § 2413. 
 
 k. Construction of Steps of Street Cars, § 2414. 
 
 1. Wheel Guards, § 2415. 
 
 m. Motive Power of Street and Cable Cars, § 2416. 
 
 n. Formation of Train, § 2417. 
 
 o. Attaching Improperly Loaded Car, or Car of Wrong Gauge, to Train, § 2418. 
 
 p. Precautions against Fires and Explosions, § 2419. 
 
 q. Mixed Trains, § 2420. 
 
 r. Vestibule Trains, § 2421. 
 
 s. Palace or Sleeping Cars Forming Part of Train, § 2422. 
 
 C. Stage and Hackney Coaches, § 2423. 
 
 D. Carriers by Water, § 2424. 
 
 E. Elevators, § 2425. 
 
 VII. As to Means of Conveyance, §§ 2426-2434. 
 
 A. Scope Note, § 2426. 
 
 B. Inspection and Repair, §§ 2427-2432. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 2427. 
 
 b. Sufficiency of the Inspection, §§ 2428-2431. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2428. 
 
 (2) Inspection by Employees in Charge of Train or Car. § 2429. 
 
 (3) Inspection of Road after Extraordinary Floods or Storms, § 2430. 
 
 (4) Sufficiency of Inspection a Question of Fact. § 2431. 
 
 c. Excuses for Failure to Repair, § 2432. 
 
 C. Liability for Latent Defects, § 2433. 
 
 D. Liability for Negligence of Manufacturer or Builder, § 2434. 
 VIII. Receiving and Discharging Passengers, §§ 2435-2489. 
 
 A. Regulations as to Time and Place of Receiving, § 2435. 
 
 B. Rules and Regulations as to Entering Trains, § 2436. 
 
 C. Duty to Stop and Take Up, §§ 2437-2438. 
 
 a. In General, § 2437. 
 
 b. Flag Stations, § 2438. 
 
 D. Duty to Carry to and Stop at Destination, §§ 2439-2449. 
 
 a. In General, § 2439. 
 
 b. Putting Passenger Off at Wrong Station, § 2440. 
 
 c. Failure to S'top at Destination, §§ 2441-2449. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2441. 
 
 (2) Flag Stations, § 2442. 
 
 (3) Station at Which Train Docs Not Stop, §§ 2443-2448.
 
 t.\i:li-; of contents. LXin 
 
 (a) In General, § 2443. 
 
 (b) Statutory Regulations, § 2444. 
 
 (c) Contract with Reference to Usage, § 244.5. 
 
 (d) Misrepresentation or Inducement, § 2446. 
 
 (e) Acceptance of Ticket or Fare as Contract, § 2447. 
 
 (f) Promises of Conductor, § 2448. 
 
 (4) Excuses for Failure to Stop at Destination. § 2449. 
 E. Duties and Liabilities in Taking on and Letting Ofif Passengers, §§ 2450-2489. 
 
 a. Scope of Treatment, § 24.00. 
 
 b. General Rule — Reasonable Opportunity, § 2451. 
 
 c. Duty to Receive and Discharge Passengers at Usual Place. §§ 2452-2457. 
 
 (1) General Rule, § 2452. 
 
 (2) Failure to Stop Train at Station, § 2453. 
 
 (3) Failure to Stop Train Alongside Station Platform, § 2454. 
 
 (4) When Passengers Are Carried on Freight or Mi.xcd Trains, § 2455. 
 
 (5) Street Railways, § 2456. 
 
 (6) Waiver by Passenger of Right to Be Set Down at Usual Place, § 2457. 
 
 d. Duties When Passengers Are Received at Other than Usual Place, § 2458. 
 
 e. Management of Train in Drawing Up to Platform or Stopping Place, § 2459. 
 
 f. Duty to Stop Train or Street Car, § 2460. 
 
 g. Allowing Reasonable Time to Get on or OfT, §§ 2461-2471. 
 
 (1) General Rule, § 2461. 
 
 (2) When the Train or S'treet Car Is Merely Slowed Up, § 2462. 
 
 (3) When the Train or Street Car Is Stopped. §§ 2463-2469. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 2463. 
 
 (b) Allowing Time to Board Railroad Train, § 2464. 
 
 (c) Allowing Time to Alight from Railroad Train, § 2465. 
 
 (d) Allowing Time to Board Street Car, § 2466. 
 
 (e) Allowing Time to Alight from Street Car, § 2467. 
 
 (f) Allowing Time to Reach Place of Safety, §§ 2468-2469. 
 aa. In General, § 2468. 
 
 bb. Time to Secure Seat, § 2469. 
 
 (4) What Constitutes a Reasonable Time, § 2470. 
 
 (5) Starting of Vehicle at Signal of Unauthorized Person, § 2471. 
 
 h. Duty to See Whether Passengers Have Gotten on or Ofif. §§ 2472-2474. 
 
 (1) Difiference between Obligation of Railroad and Street Railway Companies. 
 
 § 2472. 
 
 (2) Duty of Railroad Companies. § 2473. 
 
 (3) Duty of Street Railway Companies. § 2474. 
 
 i. Announcement of Stations or Stopping Places, § 2475. 
 j. Awaking Sleeping Passengers, § 2476. 
 k. Assisting Passengers to Board or Alight, § 2477. 
 1. Notifying Passengers of Starting of Train, § 2478. 
 m. Directions as to Boarding Trains, § 2479. 
 n. Liability for Act of Fellow Passenger, § 2480. 
 o. Misleading Invitations to Alight, §§ 2481-2487. 
 
 (1) In General. § 2481. 
 
 (2) Announcing Name of Station, § 2482. 
 
 (3) Stopping Train, § 2483. 
 
 (4) Announcing Station and Stopping Train. §§ 2484-2486. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 2484. 
 
 (b) Injury to Passenger in Consequence of Dangerous Character of Stop- 
 
 ping Place, § 2485. 
 
 (c) Injury to Passenger by Movement of Train, § 2486. 
 
 (5) Announcing Station and Stopping Train, as Required by Law, at Cross- 
 ing, § 2487. 
 
 p. Duty to W'arn Passengers of Danger, § 2488. 
 
 q. Misdirection as to Arrival or Departure of Train. § 2489.
 
 LXIV TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 VOLUME III. 
 
 CHAPTER XXUI— {Continued.) 
 Rights, Duties, axd Liabilities, as to Transportation. 
 
 IX. Accommodations and Duties during Transit. §§ 2490-2524. 
 
 A. Scope Note, § 2490. 
 
 B. Rules and Regulations, § 2491. 
 
 C. Accommodations in General, § 2492. 
 
 D. Particular Accommodations, §§ 2493-2497. 
 
 a. In General, § 2493. 
 
 b. Railroads and Street Railway Companies, §§ 2494-2496. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2494. 
 
 (2) Chair Cars, § 2495. 
 
 (3) \\'hen Passengers Are Carried on Freight Trains, § 2496. 
 
 c. Carriers by Water, § 2497. 
 
 E. Providing Accommodation Inferior to Those Agreed Upon, § 2498. 
 
 F. Classification and Separation of Passengers, §§ 2499-2508. 
 
 a. In General, § 2499. 
 
 b. Separation of Male and Female Passengers, § 2500. 
 
 c. Separation of White and Colored Passengers, §§ 2501-2506. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2501. 
 
 (2) By Regulations of the Carrier, § 2502. 
 
 (3) Statutes Requiring the Separation, § 2503. 
 
 (4) Statutes Prohibiting the S'eparation, §§ 2504-2505. 
 
 (a) State Laws, § 2504. 
 
 (b) Acts of Congress, § 2505. 
 
 (5) Degree of Care and Liability Incurred. § 2506. 
 
 d. Exclusion of Passenger from Car because of Bad Moral Character, § 2507. 
 
 e. Equality of Accommodations, § 2508. 
 
 G. Particular Rights and Duties in Transit, §§ 2509-2522. 
 
 a. Overloading Conveyance, § 2509. 
 
 b. Rights and Duties as to Providing Seats, § 2510. 
 
 c. Allowing or Compelling Passengers to Expose Themselves to Danger. 
 
 §§ 2511-2514. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2511. 
 
 (2) Warning Passengers of Danger, § 2512. 
 
 (3) Removal of Passenger from Place of Danger by Force, § 2513. 
 
 (4) Preventing Passenger Leaving Moving Train, § 2514. 
 
 d. Allowing Passenger to Alight Temporarily at Intermediate Station, § 2515. 
 
 e. Duties to Drover Alighting at Intermediate Stations to Care for Stock, § 2516. 
 
 f. Announcement of Station and Change of Cars, § 2517. 
 
 g. Transfer of Passengers, § 2518. 
 
 h. Opening and Closing of Car Doors, § 2519. 
 
 i. Rescue of Passenger Falling from Train, § 2520. 
 
 j. Duty to Care for Sick or Injured Passengers. § 2521. 
 
 k. Opportunity to Procure "Food, § 2522. 
 H. Stopping Over at Intermediate Stations, § 2523. 
 I. Duty as to Passenger Boarding Wrong Train, § 2524. 
 X. Management of Conveyance, §§ 2525-2552. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 2525. 
 
 B. Crowded Trains or Cars, § 2526. 
 
 C. Running Trains or Cars in a Manner Calculated to Alarm Passengers, § 2527. 
 
 D. Avoiding Dangers Encountered during the Journey, § 2528. 
 
 E. In Passing through Tunnels. § 2529.
 
 TARLK OF CONTENTS. LXV 
 
 F. In Running Trains or Cars on Wrong Track, § 2530. 
 
 G. In Approaching Switch Apparently Misplaced, § 2531. 
 H. Omission of Signals Required by S'tatute, § 2532. 
 
 I. Moving Disabled Trolley Car, § 2533. 
 
 j. Absence of Driver or Motorman from Post of Duty, § 2534. 
 
 K. Speed of Trains or Cars, § 2535. 
 
 L. Jerks and Jolts of Trains or Cars. §§ 2536-2539. 
 
 a. Management of Train in General, § 2536. 
 
 b. In Making Up Trains, § 2537. 
 
 c. In Starting, Stopping, and Running Trains, § 2538. 
 
 d. In Recoupling Trains Which Break Apart, § 2539. 
 M. Negligent Handling of Engine, § 2540. 
 
 N. Collisions. §§ 2541-2550. 
 
 a. In General, § 2541. 
 
 b. Collisions between Trains or Cars Operated on the Same Track, § 2542. 
 
 c. Collisions of Trains v^^ith Cattle and Other Obstructions, § 2543. 
 
 d. Collisions of Street Cars with Road Vehicles, § 2544. 
 
 e. Collisions with Structures Alongside the Track, § 2545. 
 
 f. Collisions with Cars on Parallel or Side Tracks, § 2546. 
 
 g. Collisions between Vehicles of Different Carriers, §§ 2547-2549. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2547. 
 
 (2) Collisions between Trains of Intersecting Railroads, § 2548. 
 
 (3) Collisions between Street Cars and Trains or Cars of Intersecting Rail- 
 
 road, or Street Railway, Companies, § 2549. 
 h. Collision between Automobile Carrier and Other Vehicle, § 2550. 
 O. Upsetting Coach, § 2551. 
 
 P. Care Required as to Telegraph Lines, Operators, etc., § 2552. 
 XI. Duty to Protect Passengers, §§ 2553-256G. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 2553. 
 
 B. Knowledge of the Commission of the \\'rong, § 2554. 
 
 C. Knowledge, or Duty to Know, of Passenger's Peril, § 2555. 
 
 D. Reason to Apprehend Passenger's Peril, §§ 2556-2562. 
 
 a. In General, § 2556. 
 
 b. Presence of Dangerous Persons on Vehicle or Vessel, § 2557. 
 
 c. Disorder among Passengers, § 2558. 
 
 d. Intermingling of White and Colored Passengers, § 2559. 
 
 e. Negligence of Passengers in Getting on or Oflf the Vehicle, § 2560. 
 
 f. Scuffling of Hackmen Near Station, § 2561. 
 
 g. Servants of Express Companies, etc., at Station. § 2562. 
 
 E. Limitation of Carrier's Liability, §§ 2563-2566. 
 
 a. In General, § 2563. 
 
 b. Absence of Knowledge, etc., of Passenger's Peril, § 2564 
 
 c. Performance of Duty, or Inability, to Protect, § 2565. 
 
 d. Acts for Which Carrier Liable, § 2566. 
 
 KTI. Liability for Acts and Omissions of Servants, §§ 2567-2629. 
 
 A. In General, § 2567. 
 
 B. Negligence of Servants, § .2568. 
 
 C. Wilful Acts of Servants, §§ 2569-2601. 
 
 a. In General, § 2569. 
 
 b. Assaults upon Passengers, §§ 2570-2592. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2570. 
 
 (2) Assaults within the Scope of the Employment, § 2571. 
 
 (3) Assault Outside the Scope of the Employment, §§ 2572-2584. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2572. 
 
 (b) Minority Rule. § 2573. 
 
 (c) Prevailing Rule, §§ 2574-2576. 
 aa. In General, § 2574. 
 
 1 Car — e
 
 LXVI TARLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 bb. Limitation of the Rule, § 2575. 
 cc. Application of the Rule, § 2576. 
 
 (d) Acts Which Are or Are Not within Scope of Employment, §§ 2577-2583. 
 aa. In General, § 2577. 
 
 bb. Acts Done in Connection with Collection of Tickets and Fares, § 2578. 
 
 cc. Assaults by Steward and Waiters on Steamboat, § 2579. 
 
 dd. Assault by Baggage Master, § 2580. 
 
 ee. Assaults Committed after the Relation of Carrier and Passenger Is 
 
 Determined, § 2581. 
 ff. Assault by Conductor upon Passenger Who Has Alighted from Street 
 
 Car, § 2582. 
 gg. Accidental Blow by Servants Engaged in Playful Scuffle, § 2583. 
 
 (e) Presumption as to Scope of Duty, § 2584. 
 
 (4) Justifiable Assaults, §§ 2585-2590. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2585. 
 
 (b) Acts Done in Self-Defense, §§ 2585-2589. 
 aa. In General, § 2586. 
 
 bb. What Constitutes Self-Defense, §§ 2587-2589. 
 (aa) In General, § 2587. 
 
 (bb) Circumstances Justifying the Act, § 2588. 
 (cc) Degree of Force Permissible, § 2589. 
 
 (c) Forcible Expulsion of Passengers, § 2590. 
 
 (5) Assaults Provoked by the Passenger, § 2591. 
 
 (6) Failure of Agent to Comply with Law as to Uniform, § 2592. 
 
 c. Insult to Passenger, § 2593. 
 
 d. False Imprisonment and Arrest, §§ 2594-2600. 
 
 (1) General Rule, § 2594. 
 
 (2) What Constitutes False Imprisonment, §§ 2595-2600. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2595. 
 
 (b) The Detention or Restraint, § 2596. 
 
 (c) The Unlawfulness of the Detention or Restraint, §§ 2597-2600. 
 aa. In General, § 2597. 
 
 bb. Detention to Enforce Payment of Fare, § 2598. 
 
 cc. Arrest without Warrant, § 2599. 
 
 dd. What Constitutes Probable Cause. § 2600. 
 
 e. Communication of Disease by Employee to Passenger, § 2601. 
 D. Scope of Employment, §§ 2602-2616. 
 
 a. In General, § 2602. 
 
 b. Inviting or Directing Passenger to Alight at Dangerous Place, § 2603. 
 
 c. Assisting Passenger on or Off Train or Car, § 2604. 
 
 d. Pushing or Pulling Passenger Ofif Train or Car, § 2605. 
 
 e. Directing or Permitting Passenger to Alight from Moving Train, § 2606. 
 
 f. Giving Information to, or Instructing, Passengers, § 2607. 
 
 g. Acts Calculated, or Intended, to Alarm Passengers, § 2608-. 
 h. Unintentional Assaults upon Passengers, § 2609. 
 
 i. Falling against, or Jostling, Passengers, § 2610. 
 j. Directing Passenger to Render Assistance, .§ 2611. 
 Icn Refusing Passenger Entrance to Car, § 2612. 
 
 1, Causing Unnecessary Delay in Transportation, § 2613. 
 m. Making Overcharge for Ticket, § 2614. 
 n. Assaults upon Passengers, § 2615. 
 o. False Imprisonment of Passengers, § 2616. 
 E. Who Are Servants, §§ 2617-2629. 
 
 a. In General, § 2617. 
 
 b. Independent Contractors, § 2618. 
 ■c. Construction Companies, § 2619. 
 
 d. Persons in Charge of Sleeping, or Palace, Cars, § 2620.
 
 TAHLI-: OF CONTENTS. LXVIl 
 
 e. Servants Invested with Autliority of Peace Officers, § 2621. 
 
 f. Assistants Engaged by Servants, § 2622. 
 g. Servants Employed Jointly by Several Masters, § 2623. 
 h. Servants of Lessors or Lessees, § 2624. 
 
 i. Servants of Receivers, § 2625. 
 
 j. Pilots, § 2626. 
 
 k. Postal Agents, § 2627. 
 
 1. Surgeon Employed by Carrier, § 2628. 
 m. Employees Oflf Duty, § 2629. 
 XIIL Companies and Persons Liable, §§ 2630-2667. 
 
 A. In General, §§ 2630-2636. 
 
 a. Delegation of Duties by Carrier, § 2630. 
 
 b. Liability for Negligence in Operation of Trains of Another Carrier, § 2631 
 
 c. Liability of Carrier for Injury to Passengers of Another Carrier, § 2632. 
 
 d. Liability of Employee of Carrier, § 2633. 
 
 e. Liability of Electric Company Furnishing Power, § 2634. 
 
 f. Carrier Transporting Soldiers for Government, § 2635. 
 
 g. Liability of Seller of Ticket, § 2636. 
 
 B. Injury Due to Concurrent Negligence, §§ 2637-2641. 
 
 a. In General, §§ 2637-2638. 
 
 (1) Negligent Carriers Liable, § 2637. 
 
 (2) Negligence of Other Carrier Xo Defense, § 2638. 
 
 b. Collision Resulting from Concurrent Negligence of Two Carriers, §§ 2639- 
 
 2641. 
 
 (1) Negligent Carriers Liable, § 2639. 
 
 (2) Negligence of Other Carrier No Defense, § 2640. 
 
 (3) Presumption of Negligence, § 2641. 
 
 C. Stations and Approaches, §§ 2642-2646. 
 
 a. In General, § 2642. 
 
 b. Stations Used by Several Carriers. §§ 2643-2646. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2643. 
 
 (2) Duties as to Passengers of Other Carrier, § 2644. 
 
 (3) Duty to Protect Passengers from Negligence of Other Carrier, § 2645. 
 
 (4) Station Owned by Independent Company, § 2646. 
 
 D. Liability of Carrier Operating Trains Over -A.nother's Lines, §§ 2647-2651. 
 
 a. In General. § 2647. 
 
 b. Liability for Negligence of Owner of Road, § 2648. 
 
 c. Liability for Injury to Passengers of Another Lessee of Tracks, § 2649. 
 
 d. Effect of Illegality of Contract between Companies, § 2650. 
 
 e. As Affected by Compensation Received, § 2651. 
 
 E. Liability of Lessor, §§ 2652-2658. 
 
 a. In General, § 2652. 
 
 b. Lessor Liable for Negligence of Lessee, § 2653. 
 
 c. Liability for Indignities of Fellow Passengers, § 2654. 
 
 d. Lessor's Liability to Its Own Passengers, § 2655. 
 
 e. Lease Illegal or Ultra Vires, § 2656. 
 
 f. Leases under Statutory Authority, § 2657. 
 
 g. Liability of Lessor of Steamboat, § 2658. 
 
 F. Liability When Railroad Operated by Trustee, §§ 2659-2660. 
 
 a. Liability of Trustee, § 2659. 
 
 b. Liability of Railroad Operated by Trustee, § 2660. 
 
 G. Railroads in Hands of Receiver, §§ 2661-2665. 
 
 a. Liability of Receiver, §§ 2661-2662. 
 
 (1) In Official Capacity, § 2661. 
 
 (2) Personal Liability of Receiver, §. 2662. 
 
 b. Liability of Railroad, §§ 2663-2664. 
 (1) In General, § 2663.
 
 LXVIII TABLE OF CONTE^NTS. 
 
 (2) After Discharge of Receiver, § 2664. 
 c. Liability of Profits and Income, § 2665. 
 H. Who Liable for Injuries Occurring on Chartered Conveyances, § 2666. 
 I. Liability for Injuries on Consolidated Lines, § 2667. 
 XIV. Limitation of Liability, §§ 2668-2693. 
 
 A. Pov^-er to Limit Liability as to Passengers for Hire, §§ 2668-2671. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 2668. 
 
 b. Contractual Exemption from Statutory Penalty, § 2669. 
 
 c. Statutory Power to Limit Liability, § 2670. 
 
 d. Passengers Received on Freight Trains, § 2671. 
 
 B. Power to Limit Liability as to Persons Carried Free or at Reduced Rates, §§ 
 
 2672-2677. 
 
 a. Limitation of Liability in Pass Given as Mere Gratuity, §§ 2672-2676. 
 
 1. In General, § 2672. 
 
 2. Degrees of Negligence, § 2673. 
 
 3. Pass Issued in Violation of Law, § 2674. 
 
 4. Under Statutory Provisions, § 2675. 
 
 5. Using Nontransferable Pass of Another, § 2676. 
 
 b. Reduced Rates or Passes Based upon Some Consideration, § 2677. 
 
 C. Power to Limit Liability in Drover's Pass, §§ 2678-2683. 
 
 a. Drover as Passenger for Hire, § 2678. 
 
 b. Carrier Cannot Limit Liability in Drover's Pass, §§ 2679-2681. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2679. 
 
 (2) Drover's Return Pass, § 2680. 
 
 (3) Degrees of Negligence, § 2681. 
 
 c. Stipulation That Drover Is Employee of Carrier, § 2682. 
 
 d. Reasonable Regulations Binding, § 2683. 
 
 D. Power to Limit Liability as to Persons Engaged in Certain Employments, §§ 
 
 2684-2689. 
 
 a. Limitation of Liability in Pass Given Employee, § 2684. 
 
 b. Express Messengers, § 2685. 
 
 c. Mail Clerks, § 2686. 
 
 d. News Agents, § 2687. 
 
 e. Circus Employees, § 2688. 
 
 f. Employees of Pullman Car Companies, § 2689. 
 
 E. Sufficiency of Assent of Passenger to Limitation of Carrier's Liability, 
 
 §§ 2690-2691. 
 
 a. Passenger for Hire, § 2690. 
 
 b. Persons Carried Gratuitously, § 2691. 
 
 F. Authority of Master to Limit Liability of Carrier for Injury to Servant, § 2692. 
 
 G. Construction of Contracts Limiting Liability of Carrier, § 2693. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 Contributory Negligence: 
 
 I. Substantive Law, §§ 2694-2828. 
 A. In General, §§ 2694-2704. 
 
 a. Application of the Doctrine to Carriers, § 2694. 
 
 b. Care Required of Passengers in General, § 2695. 
 
 c. Care Required of Children and Others undci Disability. §§ 2696-2699. 
 
 (1) Children, § 2696. 
 
 (2) Intoxicated Persons, § 2G97. 
 
 (3) Blind Persons, § 2698. 
 
 (4) Persons in Feeble Health, § 2699. 
 
 d. Disobedience of Rules or Regulations of Carrier, § 2700.
 
 TARLR OF CONTEXTS. LXIX 
 
 e. Violation of CoiHlitioiis in Contract of Carriage, § 2701. 
 
 f. Disregarding Directions or Warning of Carrier's Employees, § 2702. 
 
 g. Acts by Permission or Direction of Carrier's Employees, § 2703. 
 h. Acts in Emergencies, § 2704. 
 
 B. Awaiting and Seeking Transportation, §§ 2705-27 lf>. 
 
 a. In (icncral, § 2705. 
 
 b. Seeking Entrance to Depot Which Is Obstructed by Train, § 2700. 
 
 c. Passing Down Steps Leading to Station, § 2707. 
 
 d. Awaiting Train at Station, §§ 2708-271 1. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2708. 
 
 (2) On Platform, § 2709. 
 
 (3) Walking on Track, § 2710. 
 
 (4) Standing Near Track, § 2711. 
 
 e. Using Passageway to Train Shed at Station, § 2712. 
 
 f. Crossing Tracks to Reach Station, Train, or Car, § 2713. 
 
 g. Passing Along Track or Right of Way to Reach Train or Car, § 2714 
 h. Flagging or Signaling Train, § 2715. 
 
 i. Standing within Reach of Street Car, § 2716. 
 
 C. Entering Conveyance, §§ 2717-2738. 
 
 a. In General, § 2717. 
 
 b. Time of Entering Car, § 2718. 
 
 c. Place of Entering Car, § 2719. 
 
 d. Manner of Entering Car, § 2720. 
 
 e. Entering Particular Car. § 2721. 
 
 f. Entering Elevator, § 2722. 
 
 g. Negligence of Particular Passengers, § 2723. 
 h. Boarding Moving Conveyance, §§ 2724-2738. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2724. 
 
 (2) Speed Car Moving, §§ 2725-2726. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2725. 
 
 (b) Speed Suddenly Accelerated. § 2726. 
 
 (3) Before and after Stopping and Starting, § 2727. 
 
 (4) Length of Time Car Stops, § 2728. 
 
 (5) Signaling Car to Stop, § 2729. 
 
 (6) By Invitation of Carrier, § 2730. 
 
 (7) Injured by Act of Operative, § 2731. 
 
 (8) Injured by Defective Platforqi, § 2732. 
 
 (9) Injured by Objects Passed, § 2733. 
 
 (10) Injury to Person Carrying Bundles, § 2734. 
 
 (11) Injury to Children, Women and Invalids, § 2735. 
 
 (12) Transferring from One Car to Another, § 2736. 
 
 (13) Where Carrier Could Have Avoided Injury, § 2737. 
 
 (14) Entering Moving Elevator, § 2738. 
 
 D. In Transit. §§ 2739-2784. 
 
 a. Conduct in General, § 2739. 
 
 b. Dangerous Position, §§ 2740-2781. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2740. 
 
 (2) Sitting Negligently in Seat, § 2741. 
 
 (3) Standing in Car, § 2742. 
 
 (4) Riding on Platform, §§ 2743-2756. 
 
 (a) In General. § 2743. 
 
 (b) Rules and Regulations of Carrier, § 2744. 
 
 (c) Direction or Request of Employee, § 2745. 
 
 (d) Custom and Usage, § 2740. 
 
 (e) Causes Justifying Riding on Platform, §§ 2747-2750. 
 aa. Interior Crowded, § 2747.
 
 LXX TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 bb. Interior Uncomfortable, § 2748. 
 cc. Door to Interior Closed, § 2749. 
 dd. Escaping Danger, § 2750. 
 
 (f) Injury from Particular Causes, § 2751. 
 
 (g) Particular Acts of Negligence, § 2752. 
 (h) Platform of Particular Car, § 2753. 
 
 (i) Where Riding in Interior Would Have Avoided Injury, § 2754. 
 (j) Where Carrier Could Have Avoided Injury, § 2755. 
 (k) Children and Intoxicated Persons, § 2756. 
 
 (5) Riding on Step or Footboard, §§ 2757-2763. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2757. 
 
 (b) Where Car Crowded, § 2758. 
 
 (c) Where Running Board Crowded, § 2759. 
 
 (d) Injury from Particular Causes, § 2760. 
 
 (e) Injury from Particular Acts of Negligence, § 2761. 
 (f) Step of Particular Car. § 2762. 
 
 (g) Children, § 2763. 
 
 (6) Limb or Other Part of Person Protruding from Car, §§ 2764-2771. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2764. 
 
 (b) Hand or Arm on Window Sill, § 2765. 
 
 (c) Hand or Arm Out of Window, § 2766. 
 
 (d) Hand on Railing of Platform, § 2767. 
 
 (e) Arm Around Post, § 2768. 
 
 (f) Head Out of Window or Door, § 2769. 
 
 (g) Body Protruding from Train, § 2770. 
 (h) Feet and Legs Protruding, § 2771. 
 
 (7) Riding in Car Not Intended for Passengers, §§ 2772-2781. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2772. 
 
 (b) Riding on Engine, § 2773. 
 
 (c) Riding in Car in Front of Engine, § 2774. 
 
 (d) Riding in Freight Car, § 2775. 
 
 (e) Riding in Baggage, Express or Mail Car, § 2776. 
 
 (f) Riding in Car Intended for Colored Persons, § 2777. 
 
 (g) Riding on Hand Car, § 2778. 
 (h) Riding on Top of Car, § 2779. 
 
 (i) Passenger Accompanying Live Stock. § 2780. 
 (j) Passenger Accompanying Property, § 2781. 
 c. Changing Position. §§ 2782-2784. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2782. 
 
 (2) Going on Platform, § 2783. 
 
 (3) Passing from One Car to Another, § 2784. 
 E. Leaving Conveyance, §§ 2785-2828. 
 
 a. In General, §§ 2785-2799. 
 
 (1) Care Required of Passengers in General, § 2785. 
 
 (2) Due Diligence in Leaving Car, § 2786. 
 
 (3) On Invitation or Direction of Carrier's Employees, §§ 2787-2789. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2787. 
 
 (b) Facts Justifying Assumption of Invitation to Alight, §§ 2788-2789. 
 aa. Stopping Cars. § 2788. 
 
 bb. Announcing Station, § 2789. 
 
 (4) Using Means Afiforded for .^lighting, § 2790. 
 
 (5) Unnecessary Exposure to Danger, § 2791. 
 
 (6) Place of Alighting, §§ 2792-2795. 
 
 (a) Right to Assume Place Safe, § 2792. 
 
 (b) Duty to Look before Alighting, § 2793. 
 
 (c) Knowledge of Character of Place, § 2794.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. LXXI 
 
 (d) Customary Stupping Place, § 2795. 
 
 (7) Children and Others under Di.sal)ility, §§ 2790-2797. 
 
 (a) In General, § 279(5. 
 
 (b) Intoxicated Passengers, § 2797. 
 
 (8) Alighting from Train in Emergency, § 2798. 
 
 (9) Negligence as to Incidental Dangers, § 2799. 
 
 b. Preparing to Leave Conveyance before It Stops, §§ 2800-2801. 
 
 (1) Standing in Aisle or Seat, § 2800. 
 
 (2) Going on Platform or Steps before Train Stops, § 2801. 
 
 c. Alighting at Place Other than Station or Platform, §§ 2802-2800. 
 (1) In General, § 2802. 
 
 (3) By Direction, Invitation or Acquiescence of Carrier, § 2803-2805. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2803. 
 
 (b) Stop after Calling Station as Invitation, § 2804. 
 
 (c) Slowing Up for Railroad Crossing — Custom, § 2805. 
 
 (d) On Advice of Fellow Passenger, § 2805^. 
 
 (3j Running Past or Stopping Short of Destination, § 2806. 
 
 d. Alighting at Wrong End or Part of Car or on Wrong Side of Train, §§ 2807- 
 
 2810. 
 
 (1) Wrong End of Car, § 2807. 
 
 (2) Wrong Side of Car, §§ 2808-2809. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2808. 
 
 (b) On Invitation or Acquiescence of Carrier, § 2809. 
 
 (3) Side Door of Baggage Car, § 2810. 
 
 e. Alighting from Moving Train or Car in General, §§ 2811-2819. 
 
 (1) General Rule, § 2811. 
 
 (2) Where Danger Obvious, § 2812. 
 
 (3) Manner of Alighting, § 2813. 
 
 (4) Children and Others under Disability, § 2814. 
 
 (5) Justification or Excuse, §§ 2815-2819. 
 
 (a) Direction or Invitation of Carrier, §§ 2815-2818. 
 aa. In General, § 2815. 
 
 bb. Slowing Up for Station as Invitation to Alight, § 2816. 
 cc. Announcing Station as Invitation, § 2817. 
 dd. After Boarding Wrong Train, § 2818. 
 
 (b) Acts in Emergencies, § 2819. 
 
 f. Alighting from Moving Car on Failure to Stop at Station, §§ 2820-2S21. 
 
 (1) In Geneial, § 2820. 
 
 (2) By Direction or Invitation of Carrier, § 2821. 
 
 g. Alighting from Moving Car on Failure to Stop for Sufficient Time. § 2822. 
 h. Defective or Unlighted Platform and Obstructions Thereon, § 2823. 
 
 i. Leaving Premises by Improper Course, § 2824. 
 j. Crossing Other Tracks, §§ 2825-2828. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2825. 
 
 (2) Application to Passengers of Requirement to Stop, Look, and Listen. 
 
 § 2820. 
 
 (3) Passenger Alighting from Train or Car before It Stops, § 2827. 
 
 (4) Attempting to Crawl between Cars of Freight Train, § 2828. 
 ff. Procedure. §§ 2829-2968. 
 
 A. Pleading, §§ 2829-2835. 
 
 a. Petition or Complaint. § 2829. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer, §§ 2830-2834. 
 
 (1) Proof under General Denial. § 2830. 
 
 (2) Special Plea of Contributory Negligence. §§ 2831-2832. 
 (a) Necessity, § 2831. 
 
 (h) Sufficiency of Plea of Contrilnitory Negligence. § 2832.
 
 IvXXII TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 (3) Plea of Assumption of Risk. § 2833. 
 
 (4) Construction, Operation and liffect, § 2S34. 
 C. Repl}', § 2835. 
 
 B. Issues, Proof and X'ariancc, § 2836. 
 
 C. Presumption and Burden of I'roof, §§ 2837-2853. 
 
 a. Doctrine Placing Burden on Plaintiff, § 2837. 
 
 b. Doctrine Placing Burden on Carrier, §§ 283S-2853. 
 (1) In General, § 2838. 
 
 (3) Boarding and Alighting from Train or Street Car, §§ 2839-2842. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2839. 
 
 (b) Train or Car Prematurely Started, § 2840. 
 
 (c) Jumping from Train, Car or Coach, § 2841. 
 
 (d) Obeying Order or Direction of Conductor, § 2842. 
 
 (3) Riding in Wrong Car or Place Not Intended for Passengers, §§ 2843-2844. 
 
 (a) Railway Trains, § 2843. 
 
 (b) Riding on Platform of Street Car, § 2844. 
 
 (4) Standing in Car, § 2845. 
 
 (5) Elbow Resting on Rail at Side of Street Car, § 2846. 
 
 (6) Violation of Carrier's Rules, § 2847. 
 
 (7) Resisting Ejection, § 2848. 
 
 (8) Incapacity to Appreciate Danger, § 2849. 
 
 (9) Assumption of Risk, § 2850. 
 
 (10) Waiver of Provision in Stock Pass, § 2851. 
 
 (11) Imputed Negligence, § 2852. 
 
 (12) Last Clear Chance, § 2853. 
 
 D. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 2854-2880. 
 
 a. In General, § 2854. 
 
 b. Surroundings of Place of Injury, § 2855. 
 
 c. Res Gestae, § 2856. 
 
 d. Opinion Evidence, § 2857. 
 
 e. General Custom or Usage, § 2858. 
 
 f. Habits or Customs of Injured Passenger, § 2859. 
 g. Character for Negligence or Prudence, § 2860. 
 
 h. Previous Experience in Traveling on Trains or Cars, § 2861. 
 i. Injuries to Other Passengers, § 2862. 
 j. Rules of Carrier and Violation Thereof, § 2863. 
 k. Ordinances, § 2864. 
 1. Evidence as to Specific Acts of Negligence, §§ 2865-2872. 
 
 (1) Acts Unconnected with Injury, § 2865. 
 
 (2) Drunkenness, § 2866. 
 
 (3) Boarding Moving Train, § 2867. 
 
 (4) Standing in Train, § 2868. 
 
 (5) Riding on Platform, § 2869. 
 
 (6) Riding on Running Board, § 2870. 
 
 (7) Putting Head or Arms Out of Car. § 2871. 
 
 (8) Alighting from Moving Train or Car, § 2872. 
 
 m. Evidence Disproving or Excusing Contributory Negligence, §§ 2873-2880.. 
 
 (1) Evidence of Absence of Negligence, § 2873. 
 
 (2) Reason for Injured Person's Actions, § 2874. 
 
 (3) Following Directions of Conductor or Trainmen, § 2875. 
 
 (4) Failure to Warn Passenger of Danger, § 2876. 
 
 (5) Construction and Equipment of Car, § 2877. 
 
 (6) Absence of Conductor, § 2878. 
 
 (7) Mode of Handling Trains at Point in Question, § 2879. 
 
 (8) Similar Negligence of Other Persons, § 2880. 
 E. Sufificiency of Evidence, §§ 2881-2904.
 
 TAIilJ-. OF CO XT li NTS. LXXIII 
 
 a. In General, § 2SS1. 
 
 b. Entering Car or Conveyance, §§ 2882-2«S(i. 
 
 (1) Disregarding Carrier's Provisions for Safety, § 288<. 
 
 (2) Injury on or Near Station IMatform, § 2883. 
 
 (3) Boarding Moving Train or Car, § 2884. 
 
 (4) Injury by Automatic Car Doors, § 2885. 
 
 (5) Elevators, § 28.SG. 
 
 c. In Transit, §§ 2887-2895. 
 
 (1) Knowledge of Dangerous Position. Jj 2887. 
 
 (2) Riding on Freight Train, § 2888. 
 
 (3) Riding on Crowded Street Car, § 2889. 
 
 (4) Riding on Platform of Train, § 2890. 
 
 (5) Riding on Platform vStcps or Running Board of Street Car, § 2891. 
 
 (6) Putting Head or Arms Out of Car, § 2892. 
 
 (7) Burning Out of Fuse, § 2893. 
 
 (8) Passenger Driving Stage Coach, § 2894. 
 
 (9) Crossing in Front of Moving Train to Reboard Train on Side Track, 
 
 § 2895. 
 
 d. Leaving Conveyance, §§ 2890-2901. 
 
 (1) In General, § 289(). 
 
 (2) Falling, § 2897. 
 
 (3) Alighting from Moving Train or Car, § 2898. 
 
 (4) Injury Caused by Sudden Movement of Train or Car, § 2899. 
 
 (5) Alighting from Car between Stations, § 2900. 
 
 (6) Passenger Struck by Car on Parallel Track, § 2901. 
 
 e. Leaving Depot or Station, § 2902. 
 
 f. Willfulness or Wantonness of Carrier's Servants, § 2903. 
 
 g. Last Clear Chance, § 2904. 
 
 F. Questions for Jury, §§ 2905-2921. 
 
 a. In General, § 2905. 
 
 b. Care Required of or in Respect to Children and Others under Disability, 
 
 § 2906. 
 
 c. Awaiting and Seeking Transportation, § 2907. 
 
 d. Entering Conveyance in General, § 2908. 
 
 e. Boarding Moving Conveyance, § 2909. 
 
 f. Conduct While in Transit in General, § 2910. 
 
 g. Riding on Platform, § 2911. 
 
 h. Riding on Steps, P'ootboard or Projection from X'estibule, § 2912. 
 
 i. Leaving Conveyance in General, § 2913. 
 
 j. Preparing to Leave Conveyance before It Stops, § 2914. 
 
 k. Alighting from Moving Conveyance, § 2915. 
 
 1. Alighting from Conveyance at Place Other Than Station or Platform. § 2916. 
 
 m. Crossing or Walking on Track after Alighting from Car, § 2917. 
 
 n. Acts by Permission or Direction of Carrier's Employees, § 2918. 
 
 o. Acts in Emergencies, § 2919. 
 
 p. Question of Last Clear Chance, § 2920. 
 
 q. Wanton Conduct Excusing Contributory Xogligence. § 29f21. 
 
 G. Instructions, §§ 2922-2967. 
 
 a. General Consideration, §§ 2922-2953. 
 
 (1) Duty of Court Generally, § 2922. 
 
 (2) Necessity for Requests. § 2923. 
 
 (3) Correct Declaration of Law, § 2924. 
 
 (4) Terminology — Technical Language, § 2925. 
 
 (5) Clearness and Definitcness. § 2926. 
 
 (6) Conformity to Pleadings and Issues, §§ 2927-2934. 
 (a) In General. § 2927.
 
 i,XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (b) Must Be Germane to Issue, § 2928. 
 
 (c) Applicability to Evidence, § 2929. 
 
 (d) Assuming Facts or Matters in Issue, § 2930. 
 
 (e) Sufficiency of Evidence, § 2931. 
 
 (f) Party by Whom Contributory Negligence Proved, § 2932. 
 
 (g) Pretermitting or Ignoring Proof, § 2933. 
 (h) Sufficiency of Pleadings, § 2934. 
 
 (7) Explanation or Definition of Contributory Negligence, § 2935. 
 
 (8) Degree of Care Required of Passenger, § 2936. 
 
 (9) Must Postulate Negligence of Passenger's Act, § 2937. 
 
 (10) Must Hypothesize State of Facts .\uthorizing Conclusion of Contribu- 
 
 tory Negligence, § 2938. 
 
 (11) Proximate and Contributory Cause of Injury, §§ 2939-2944. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2939. 
 
 (b) Must Hypothesize Negligent Act of Passenger as Pro.ximate Cause, 
 
 § 2940. 
 
 (c) Requiring Plaintiff's Negligence to Be Sole Cause, § 2941. 
 
 (d) Requiring Plaintiff's Negligence Alone to Be Proximate Cause, § 2942. 
 
 (e) Requiring Passenger's Negligence to Contribute to Injury, § 2943. 
 
 (f) Concurring Negligence of Plaintiff and Defendant, § 2944. 
 
 (12) Omitting One of Two Acts of Contributory Negligence, § 2945. 
 
 (13) Ignoring Negligence of Defendant, § 2946. 
 
 (14) Enunciating Theories of Case, § 2947. 
 
 (15) Conflicting and Inconsistent Instructions, § 2948. 
 
 (16) Misleading Instructions, § 2949. 
 
 (17) Instruction Invading Province of Jury, § 2950. 
 
 (18) Repetition of Instructions, § 2951. 
 
 (19) Objections Obviated by Other Instructions, § 2952 
 
 (20) Harmless Error, § 2953. 
 
 b. Law of State Where Injury Occurred, § 2954. 
 
 c. Assumption of Risk, § 2955. 
 
 d. Care Required of Children and Others under Disability, § 2956. 
 
 e. Awaiting and Seeking Transportation, § 2957. 
 
 f. Entering Conveyance, § 2958. 
 
 g. Conduct in Transit, § 2959. 
 
 h. Leaving Conveyance in General, § 2960. 
 i. Alighting from Moving Conveyance, § 2961. 
 i. Disobedience of Rules of Carrier, § 2962. 
 
 k. Acts by Permission or Direction of Carrier's Employees, § 2963. 
 1. Acts in Emergencies, § 2964. 
 m. Injury Avoidable by Cafe of Carrier, § 2965. 
 n. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 2966. 
 o. Comparative Negligence Rule Lender Georgia Statute, § 2967. 
 H. Verdict and Findings, § 2968. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 Ejection of Passengers. 
 
 Rights and Liabilities of Carrier in General, §§ 2969-2973: 
 
 A. In General, § 2969. 
 
 B. Liability for Acts of Employees, §§ 2970-2972. 
 
 a. In General, § 2970. 
 
 b. L^nauthorized Ejection, § 2971. 
 
 c. Wrongful Acts During Ejection. § 2972. 
 
 C. Proximate Cause of Injury, § 2973.
 
 TABLI-: OF CONTEXTS. LXXV 
 
 II. Grounds for Injection, §§ 2974-3012. 
 
 A. In General, § 2974. 
 
 B. Persons Objectional^le as Passengers and Uisorderly Conduct, §§ 2975-2976. 
 
 a. In General, § 2975. 
 
 b. Disorderly Conduct — Drunkenness, § 2970. 
 
 C. Disobedience of Carrier's Rules, §§ 2977-2978. 
 
 a. In General, § 2977. 
 
 b. Particular Rules, § 2978. 
 
 D. Failure to Procure Ticket or Pay Fare, §§ 2979-3012. 
 
 a. Rights and Liabilities of Carrier in General, §§ 2979-2986. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2979. 
 
 (2) Allowing Time to Procure Fare or Produce Ticket, § 2980. 
 
 (3) Duty to Ascertain as to Purchase of Ticket, § 2981. 
 
 (4) Where Ticket Lost, § 2982. 
 
 (5) Failure .of Carrier to Furnish Kvidence of Right to Continue Journey, 
 
 § 2983. 
 
 (6) Refusal to Pay Excessive or Second Fare, § 2984. 
 
 (7) Nonpayment of Fare of Child, § 2985. 
 
 (8) Nonpayment of Past Fare, § 2986. 
 
 b. Requiring. Ticket as Condition Precedent to Right of Carriage, §§ 2987-2988. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2987. 
 
 (2) Carriage on Freight Trains, § 2988. 
 
 c. Defective or Invalid Ticket. §§ 2989-3005. 
 
 (1) In General, § 2989. 
 
 (2) Failure to Comply with jC^onditions of Ticket, §§ 3990-2994. 
 
 (a) In General, § 2990. 
 
 (b) Conditions against Transfer, § 2991. 
 
 (c) Conditions as to Detachment of Coupons, § 2992. 
 
 (d) Conditions as to Identification, Signature and Stamping, § 2993. 
 
 (e) Conditions as to Use of Mileage Book, § 2994. 
 
 (3) Time Limit of Ticket Expired, § 2995. 
 
 (4) Passenger on Wrong Train, or Route, or Carried Past Destination, 
 
 §§ 2996-3001. 
 
 (a) Passenger on Wrong Train, §§ 2996-2997. 
 aa. In General, § 2996. 
 
 bb. Train Not Stopping at Passenger's Destination, § 2997. 
 
 (b) Passenger on Wrong Route, § 2998. 
 
 (c) Passenger on Wrong Road, § 2999. 
 
 (d) Passenger on Wrong Part of Road, § 3000. 
 
 (e) Passenger Carried Past Destination, § 3001. 
 
 (5) Effect of Mistake of Employee Issuing Ticket, § 3002. 
 
 (6) Effect of Mistake of First Conductor, § 3003. 
 
 (7) Eflfect of Collateral Agreement with Ticket Agent, § 3004. 
 
 (8) Conclusiveness of Ticket or Transfer as between Passenger and Con- 
 
 ductor, § 3005. 
 
 d. Ejection through Mistake of Holder of \alid Ticket, § 3006. 
 €. Extra Fares or Charges, §§ 3007-3008. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3007. 
 
 (2) Failure to Procure Ticket, § 3008. 
 
 f. Tender or Payment of Fare to Avoid Ejection. §§ 3009-3012. 
 
 (1) Duty to Pay Fare to Avoid Ejection, § 3009. 
 
 (2) Effect of Tender of Fare, §§ 3010-3012. 
 
 (a) Before Ejection. § 3010. 
 
 (b) After Ejection Commenced, § 3011. 
 
 (c) Effect as Waiver of Rights under Ticket, § 3012. 
 TIT. What Constitutes Ejection, § 3013.
 
 LXXVI lABLE OF COXTIJNTS. 
 
 lY. Place of Ejection, §§ 3014-o015. 
 
 A. In General, § 3014. 
 
 B. Statutory Regulation, § 3015. 
 V. Manner of Ejection, §§ 3016-3018. 
 
 A. In General, § 3016. 
 
 B. Use of Force, § 3017. 
 
 C. Ejection from Moving Train or Car, § 3018. 
 \'I. Right of Passenger to Resist Ejection, § 3019. 
 
 \"II. Ejection of Passenger under Disability, §§ 3020-3021. 
 
 A. In General. § 3020. 
 
 B. Drunken Passenger, § 3021. 
 
 \'III. Repayment of Fare or Return of Ticket, § 3022. 
 
 IX. Readmission after Ejection, §§ 3023-3024. 
 
 A. Right to Readmission, § 3023. 
 
 B. Effect of Readmission, § 3024. 
 
 X. Companies and Persons Liable, §§ 3025-3027. 
 
 A. In General, § 3025. 
 
 B. Connecting and Co-Operating Carriers, § 3026. 
 
 C. Carrier's Employees, § 3027. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 LicENSEiii,, Trespassers, Intruders, Etc. 
 
 I. Duties as to Safety of Station Houses, Platforms and Grounds, §§ 3028-3041. 
 
 A. In General, § 3028. 
 
 B. Approaches, Passageways and Platforms, § 3029. 
 
 C. Operation of Trains, § 3030. 
 
 D. Duty Owed to Particular Classes of Persons, §§ 3031-3041. 
 
 a. Duty Owed to Public at Large, § 3031. 
 
 b. Duty Owed to Trespassers, Spectators, Loiterers and Bare Licensees, § 3032. 
 
 c. Persons Having Business with Express Company or Other Carrier, § 3033. 
 
 d. Persons Posting Mail or Receiving Mail, § 3034. 
 
 e. Persons Having Business with Passengers, § 3035. 
 
 f. Hackman, § 3036. 
 
 g. Person Patronizing Restaurant on Premises of Railroad Company, § 3037. 
 h. Policeman, § 3038. 
 
 i. Person Crossing Station Grounds, § 3039. 
 j. Persons Deviating from Passageways, § 3040. 
 k. Persons Meeting Incoming or Speeding Departing Passengers, § 3041. 
 
 II. Persons at Station to Assist or Take Leave of Departing Passengers, or to Meet 
 
 Incoming Passengers, §§ 3042-3056. 
 
 A. Right to Enter Premises, § 3042. 
 
 B. Degree of Care Required, §§ 3043-3047. 
 
 a. In General, § 3043. 
 
 b. As to Station, Approaches, Platforms, etc., §§ 3044-3047. 
 
 (1) Duty in General, § 3044. 
 
 (2) Defects in Platform, § 3045. 
 
 (3) Failure to Sufficiently Light Premises, § 3046. 
 
 (4) Negligence in Handling Baggage, § 3047. 
 
 C. Entering Train or Cars, § 3048. 
 
 D. Affording Opportunity to Leave Train or Cars, §§ 3049-3056. 
 
 a. In General, § 3049. 
 
 b. Duty to Give Notice of Starting, § 3050. 
 
 c. Assumption That Persons Boarding Train Are Passengers, § 3051. 
 d. Duty as Affected by Knowledge of Intention of Person Boarding Train, § 3052.
 
 TAHl.l-: OF COXTKX'IS. . LXXV'II 
 
 e. Right to Assume That Train Will Stop for Usual Lenj^nh of Time, § 3053. 
 f. Notice of Purpose in Boardinj^ Train, 5J§ 3054-:5055. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 3054. 
 
 (2) Sufificiency of Notice, § 3055. 
 
 g. Right to Rely on Information hy Employee as to Time of Stop, § 3056. 
 
 III. Duties and Liabilities as to Persons on Trains, Cars, etc., §§ 3057-3063. 
 
 A. Trespassers, §§ 3057-305S. 
 
 a. Duty Owed in General, § 3057. 
 
 b. Trespassing Children, § 305S. 
 
 B. Invitees and Licensees, §§ 3059-30G3. 
 
 a. In General, § 3059. 
 
 b. Persons on Train in Violation of Rules of Carrier, § 3000. 
 
 c. Children Entering Trains, Cars, etc., § 30G1. 
 
 d. Traffic Policeman, § 3062. 
 
 e. X'olunteer, § 3063. 
 
 IV. Acts and Omissions of Servants and Third Persons for Which Carriers Liable, 
 
 §§ 3064-3068. 
 
 A. Acts of Employees, §§ 3064-3066. 
 
 a. Lessee of Privilege as Servant, § 3064. 
 
 b. Proximate Cause of Injury, § 3065. 
 
 c. Scope of Employment, § 3066. 
 
 B. Acts of Third Persons, §§ 3067-3068. 
 
 a. In General, § 3067. 
 
 b. Acts of Postal Employees in Throwing Mail Bags from Train, § 3068. 
 
 V. Ejection, §§ 3069-3072. 
 
 A. In General, § 3069. 
 
 B. From Railroad Stations, § 3070. 
 
 C. From Railroad Trains, § 3071. 
 
 D. From Street Cars, § 3072. 
 
 VI. Contributory Negligence of Person Injured, §§ 3073-3082. 
 
 A. In General, § 3073. 
 
 B. Of Postal Clerks, § 3074. 
 
 C. Of Carrier's Employees, § 3075. 
 
 D. Of Former Passenger Boarding Train to Secure Return of Money Due Him, 
 
 § 3076. 
 
 E. Of Persons Going to Station or Train to Assist or Meet Passengers, § 3077. 
 
 F. Of Persons Boarding Train. Car, or Boat to See or Assist Passengers, § 3078. 
 
 G. Of Persons on Train or Car l)y Invitation or Permission of Carrier's Employ- 
 
 ees, § 3079. 
 H. Of Persons Going to Railroad Depot on Business, § 3080. 
 I. Of Persons on Station Platform Who Have No Business There, § 3081. 
 J. Of Trespassers, § 3082. 
 
 VII. Actions, §§ 3083-3091. 
 
 A. Pleading, §§ 3083-3085. 
 
 a. Petition, § 3083. 
 
 b. Answer or Pica, § 30S4. 
 
 c. Variance, § 3085. 
 
 B. Evidence, §§ 3086-3088. 
 
 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 3086. 
 
 b. Admissibility, § 3087. 
 
 c. Weight and Sufficiency, § 3088. 
 
 C. Questions for Jury, § 3089. 
 
 D. Instructions, § 3090. 
 
 E. Verdict, § 3091.
 
 I^XXVIII TABL1-: OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIL 
 
 Actions. 
 
 I. Scope of Chapter, § 3093. 
 II. Right of Action, § 3093. 
 III. Nature and Form of Action, § 3094. 
 VI. Parties, § 3095. 
 V. Pleading, §§ 3096-3143. 
 A. Declaration or Complaint, §§ 309G-3138. 
 
 a. In General, § 3096. 
 
 b. Actions for Failure to Perform Contract or Duty in General, §§ 3097-3103. 
 
 (1) Refusal to Receive and Carry, § 3097. 
 
 (2) Fraud, Mistake, or Negligence as to Ticket or Transfers, § 3098. 
 
 (3) Misinformation or Incorrect Informations, § 3099. 
 
 (4) Failure to Stop and Receive, § 3100. 
 
 (5) Putting Passenger on Wrong Train, § 3101. 
 
 (6) Separation of Passengers, § 3102. 
 
 (7) Failure to Set Down at Destination, § 3103. 
 
 c. Actions for Personal Injuries, §§ 3104-3129. 
 
 (1) Pleading in General, § 3104. 
 
 (2) Allegations as to Contract or Relation, § 3105. 
 
 (3) Allegations as to Time, Place and Vehicle, § 3106. 
 
 (4) Allegations as to Negligence and Cause of Injury, §§ 3107-3125. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3107. 
 
 (b) Specific Averment of Negligence, § 3108. 
 
 (c) General Averment of Negligence, § 3109. 
 
 (d) Restriction of General Averment by Other Averment, § 3110. 
 
 (e) Averment of Basis or Bases for Negligence, §§ 3111-3122. 
 aa. In General, § 3111. 
 
 l)b. As to Stations and Stopping Places, § 3112. 
 
 cc. As to Roadbed and Track, § 3113. 
 
 dd. As to Vehicle, § 3114. 
 
 ee. Receiving and Discharging Passengers, § 3115. 
 
 fif. Accommodations and, Duties in Transit, § 3116. 
 
 gg. Assisting Passenger, § 3117. 
 
 hh. Carriage beyond Destination, § 3118. 
 
 ii. Alighting at Intermediate Station, § 3119. 
 
 jj. Management of Conveyance, § 3120. 
 
 kk. Protection of Passenger, § 3121. 
 
 11. Assaults and Insults by Servants, § 3122. 
 
 (f) Alleging Act to Be That of Carrier, § 3123. 
 
 (g) Allegations as to Agent or Servant at Fault, § 3124. 
 (h) Violation of Statute or Ordinance, § 3125. 
 
 (5) Connection between Negligence and Cause of Injury, § 3126. 
 
 (6) Allegations as to Injury Sustained, § 3127. 
 
 (7) Negativing Assumed Risks, § 3128. 
 
 (8) Negativing Contributory Negligence, § 3129. 
 d. Actions for Ejectment, §§ 3130-3136. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3130. 
 
 (2) Allegations as to Breach of Duty. §§ 3131-3133. 
 
 (a) Unauthorized and Wrongful Ejectment, § 3131. 
 
 (b) Use of Unnecessary Force. § 3132. 
 
 (c) Ejection at Improper Place, § 3133. 
 
 (3) Allegations as to Servant at Fault, § 3134. 
 
 (4) Connection between Ejection and Injury, § 3135. 
 
 (5) Negativing Contributory Negligence, § 3136.
 
 TABLE OF CONTliNTS. LXXIX 
 
 e. Pleading Damages, §§ 3137-3138. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3137. 
 
 (2) Punitive Damages, § 3138. 
 
 B. Plea or Answer, § 3139. 
 
 C. Replication, § 3140. 
 
 D. Special Demurrer, iixceptions or Motion, § 3141. 
 
 E. Amendment, § 3142. 
 
 F. Aider by Subsequent I'kadings and Cure of Error, § :j143. 
 
 VI. Issues, Proof and Variance, §§ 3144-3102. 
 
 A. Issues. §§ 3144-3148. 
 
 a. In General, § 3144. 
 
 b. Issues as Affected by Plea or Answer, § 3145. 
 
 c. Additional Issues by Subsequent Pleadings, § 3140. 
 
 d. Under Amended Petition, § 3147. 
 
 e. Elimination of Issues by Dismissal, § 3148. 
 
 B. Proof, §§ 3149-3151. 
 
 a. Matters to Be Proven, § 3149. 
 
 b. Failure of Proof, § 3150. 
 
 c. Sufficiency of Proof, § 3151. 
 
 C. Variance, §§ 3152-3102. 
 
 a. In General, § 3152. 
 
 b. Tort and Contract, § 3153. 
 
 c. As to Contract of Carriage, § 3154. 
 
 d. As to Status of Plaintiff, § 3155. 
 
 e. As to Negligence or Cause of Injury, §§ 3156-3159. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3156. 
 
 (2) Negligence Averred Generally or Specifically, § 315J'. 
 
 (3) Active or Passive Negligence, § 3158. 
 
 (4) Wilful or Wanton Negligence or Delay, § 3159. 
 
 f. As to Persons Liable, § 3160. 
 
 g. As to Injury or Damages, § 3161. 
 
 h. Amendment to Conform to Proof, § 3162. 
 
 VII. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 3163-3193. 
 
 A. In Action for P'ailure to Perform Contract, § 3163. 
 
 B. In Actions for Ejection, § 3164. 
 
 C. In Actions for Personal Injury, §§ 3165-3193. 
 
 a. As to Relation of Carrier and Passenger, § 3165. 
 
 b. As to Injury, § 3166. 
 
 c. As to Negligence or Cause of Injury, §§ 3107-3193. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3167. 
 
 (2) Connection between Negligence and Injury, § 3168. 
 
 (3) Presumption Arising from Evidence, §§ 3109-3174. 
 
 (a) General Rule— Prima Facie Case, §§ 3169-3173. 
 aa. Negligence Generally Pleaded, § 3169. 
 
 bb. Both General and Specific Negligence Alleged, § 3170. 
 cc. Specific Negligence Alleged. § 3171. 
 
 dd. Assumption of Unnecessary Burden by Plaintiff, § 3172. 
 ee. Effect of Attempted Explanation, § 3173. 
 
 (b) Operation and Effect of Presumption, § 3174. 
 
 (4) Rules Applied in Particular Cases, §§ 3175-3189. 
 
 (a) Stations and Stopping Places, § 3175. 
 
 (b) As to Roadbed and Track, § 3170. 
 
 (c) As to \'ehicle, § 3177. 
 
 (d) Receiving and Discharging Passengers, §§ 3178-3181. 
 aa. In General, § 3178. 
 
 bb. Carriage beyond Destination, § 3179.
 
 LXXX TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 cc. Putting Off at Wrong Destination, § 3180. 
 
 (e) Duties and Accommodation in Transit, § 3181. 
 
 (f) Management of Vehicle, §§ 3182-3189. 
 aa. Jerks and Jolts, § 3182. 
 
 bb. Breaking Down or Overturning of Coach, § 3183. 
 cc. Injury from Animals Drawing Coach, § 3184. 
 dd. Derailment, § 3185. 
 ee. Collision, § 3186. 
 
 ff. Assaults, Insults, etc., by Carrier's Servants, § 3187. 
 gg. Duty to Protect Passengers from Third Persons, § 3188. 
 hh. Injury Resulting from Effort to Escape Danger, § 3189. 
 
 (5) Willfulness or Wantonness, § 3190. 
 
 (6) Passengers on Freight Trains, § 3191. 
 
 (7) Passengers without Reward, § 3192. 
 
 (8) Contract Assuming Risk or Releasing Liability, § 3193. 
 VUl. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 3194-3237. 
 
 A. Failure to Perform Contract or Duty in General, §§ 3194-3199. 
 
 a. Evidence to Establish Contract, § 3194. 
 
 b. Failure or Refusal to Receive and Carry, § 3195. 
 
 c. Failure or Refusal to Honor Ticket, Mileage, etc., § 3196. 
 
 d. Failure or Refusal to Put Off at Destination, § 3197. 
 
 e. Protection and Accommodations, § 3198. 
 
 f. Delay, Failure to Make Schedule, Connections, etc., § 3199. 
 
 B. In Actions for Ejectment, §§ 3200-3208. 
 
 a. Relevancy and Materiality in General, § 3200. 
 
 b. As to Contract or Relation, § 3201. 
 
 c. Ejection for Failure to Produce Ticket, § 3202. 
 
 d. Ejection for Refusal to Pay Fare, § 3203. 
 
 e. Violation of Statutes, Rules, and Regulations, § 3204. 
 
 f. Time, Place, etc., of Ejection, § 3205. 
 
 g. General Character and Disposition of Employee. § 3206. 
 h. Evidence as to Authority to Eject, § 3207. 
 i. Ratification of Conductor's Act, § 3208. 
 
 C. In Suits for Personal Injury, §§ 3209-3237. 
 
 a. Relation of Carrier and Passenger, § 3209. 
 
 b. As to Negligence or Cause of Injury, §§ 3210-3231. 
 
 (1) In General, §§ 3210-3218. 
 
 (a) Relevancy and Materiality, § 3210. 
 
 (b) Degree of Care, § 3211. 
 
 (c) Facts Constituting Transaction, § 3212. 
 
 (d) Statements and Declarations, § 3213. 
 
 (e) Matter to Show Notice to Carrier, § 3214. 
 (f) Rules of Carrier, § 3215. 
 
 (g) Habit or Custom, § 3216. 
 
 (h) Evidence of Other Accidents, Transactions, etc., § 3217 
 
 (i) Character of Parties, § 3218. 
 
 (2) Stations and Stopping Places, § 3219. 
 
 (3) Condition of Track or Roadbed, § 3220. 
 
 (4) Condition of Vehicle and Appliances, § 3221. 
 
 (5) Receiving and Discharging Passengers, §§ 3222-3223 
 
 (a) In General, § 3222. 
 
 (b) Time to Board or Alight— Sudden Starting, § 32P3 
 
 (6) Carriage beyond Destination, § 3224. 
 
 (7) Accommodation and Duties in Transit, § 3225. 
 
 (8) Management of Conveyance, §§ 3226-3229. 
 (a) In General, § 3226.
 
 TA15LE OF CONTENTS. LXXXI 
 
 (b) Under Allegation of Derailment, § 3227. 
 
 (c) Under Allegation of Collision, § 3228. 
 
 (d) EfTort to Escape Danger, § 3229. 
 
 (9) Competency of Employees or Care in Selecting Them, § 3229^2- 
 
 (10) Failure to Protect from Third Persons, § 3230. 
 
 (11) Assaults, Insults, etc., l)y Servants, § 3231. 
 
 c. As to Injury, §§ 3232-3233. 
 
 (1) Evidence as to Existence of Injury, § 3232. 
 
 (2) Nature and Extent of Injury, § 3233. 
 
 d. As to Damages, §§ 3234-3237. 
 
 (1) Damages for Breach of Contract, § 32;-.4. 
 
 (2) In Actions for Ejectment, § 3235. 
 
 (3) In Action for Personal Injury, § 3236. 
 
 (4) Punitive Damages, § 3237. 
 
 IX. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, §§ 3238-3287. 
 
 A. In General, § 3238. 
 
 B. As to Negligent Acts of I-'.niployees, §§ 3239-3248. 
 
 a. In General, § 3239. 
 
 b. Ejecting Passenger, § 3240. 
 
 c. Assaulting Passenger, § 3241. 
 
 d. Escorting Passenger Across Track, § 3242. 
 
 e. Controlling Conduct of Other Passengers, § 3243. 
 
 f. Aiding in Making Arrests, § 3244. 
 g. Negligently Closing Door, § 3245. 
 
 h. Inviting Passenger on Engine, § 3240. 
 i. Putting up Berth, § 3247. 
 j. Injury to Passenger in Custody of Employee, § 3248. 
 
 C. As to Negligence in Respect to Condition of Carrier's Premises, § 3249. 
 
 D. As to Negligence in Respect to Condition of Means of Transportation, § 3250. 
 
 E. As to Negligence in Management of Conveyances in General, § 3251. 
 
 F. As to Negligence Causing Passenger to Fall from Vehicle, §§ 3252-3256. 
 
 a. In General, § 3252. 
 
 b. Defective Means and Instrumentalities, § 3253. 
 
 c. Negligent Management of Conveyance, § 3254. 
 
 d. Negligent Pushing Passenger from Car, § 3255. 
 
 e. Negligence after Passenger Has Fallen, § 3256. 
 
 G. As to Cause of Derailment, § 3257. 
 
 H. As to Negligence Causing Collision, § 3258. 
 I. As to Negligence in Taking up Passengers in General, §§ 3259-3269. 
 
 a. In General, § 3259. 
 
 b. Place of Taking up Passengers. § 3260. 
 
 c. Passenger Boarding Moving Train, § 3261. 
 
 d. Passenger Bearding Car on Wrong Side, § 3262. 
 c. Negligent Starting Car, § 3263. 
 
 1. Negligent Backing Car, § 3264. 
 
 g. Negligent Coupling Cars, § 3265. 
 
 h. Negligent Pushing of Passenger from Train. § 3266. 
 
 i. Negligent Shutting of Gate on Passenger, § 3267. 
 
 j. Passenger Injured by Brake Handle, § 3268. 
 k. Failure to Control Conduct of Other Passengers, § 3269. 
 J. As to Negligence in Setting Down Passengers, §§ 3270-3277. 
 
 a. In General, § 3270. 
 
 b. Defective Instrumentalities or Premises, § 3271. 
 
 c. Passenger Alighting from Moving Train, § 3272. 
 
 d. Negligent Stopping of Car, § 3273. 
 
 1 Car— f
 
 LXXXII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 e. Negligent Starting of Car, § 3274. 
 
 f. Negligent Backing of Car, § 3275. 
 
 g. Carrying Passenger Past Station, § 3276. 
 
 h. Passenger Injured after Alighting, § 3277. 
 K. As to Companies or Persons Liable for Injuries, § 3278. 
 L. Limitation of Liability, § 3279. 
 M. Passenger in Elevators, § 3280. 
 
 N. Evidence to Rebut Presumption of Negligence Arising from Injury, §§ 32S1 
 3287. 
 
 a. In General, § 3281. 
 
 b. Injury Caused by Defective Means of Transportation, § 3282. 
 
 c. Injury Caused by Negligent Management of Conveyance, § 3283. 
 
 d. Injury Caused by Negligent Setting Down Passengers, § 3284. 
 
 e. Injury Caused by Derailment, § 3285. 
 
 f. Injury Caused by Collision, § 3286. 
 
 g. Injury Caused by Another Passenger, § 3287. 
 X. Questions for Court or Jury, §§ 3288-3320. 
 
 A. Actions for Breach of Contract in General, § 3288. 
 
 B. Actions for Wrongful Ejection, §§ 3289-3292. 
 
 a. In General, § 3289. 
 
 b. Whether" Plaintiff Was Passenger, § 3290. 
 
 c. Questions as to Carrier's Regulations, § 3291. 
 
 d. Place and Manner of Ejection, § 3292. 
 
 C. Actions for Personal Injuries, §§ 3293-3320. 
 
 a. In General, § 3293. 
 
 b. Existence of Relation of Carrier and Passenger, § 3294. 
 
 c. Care as to Passengers under Disability, § 3295. 
 
 d. Acts of Carrier's Employees, § 3296. 
 
 e. Number and Efficiency of Employees, § 3297. 
 
 f. Acts of Fellow Passengers or Other Third Persons, § 3298. 
 g. Condition and Use of Carrier's Premises, § 3299. 
 h. Taking Up Passengers, §§ 3300-3301. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3300. 
 
 (2) Starting or Moving Car While Passenger Is Boarding Same, § 3301. 
 
 i. Operation of Trains at Places Where Passengers Are Being Received or 
 
 Discharged, § 3302. 
 j. Railroad Cars, § 3303. 
 
 k. Cars and Equipment of Street Railroads, § 3304. 
 1. Tracks and Roadbeds. § 3305. 
 m. Condition of Elevators, § 3306. 
 n. Management of Conveyances, §§ 3307-3314. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3307. 
 
 (2) Overloading or Crowding Cars, § 3308. 
 
 (3) Rate of Speed, § 3309. 
 
 (4) Sudden Lurches, Jerks, or Jolts, § 3310. 
 
 (5) Passing Other Vehicle or Objects, § 3311. 
 
 (6) Collision, § 3312. 
 
 (7) Derailment of Cars. § 3313. 
 
 (8) Management of Elevators, § 3314. 
 
 o. Protection of Passengers from Incidental Dangers, § 3315. 
 p. Setting Down Passengers, §§ 3316-3318. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3316. 
 
 (2) Starting or Moving Car While Passenger Is Alighting, § 3317. 
 
 (3) Providing Safe Place or Means for Alighting, § 3318. 
 q. Proximate Cause of Injury, § 3319. 
 
 r. Companies Liable, § 3320.
 
 TABLli OF CONTENTS. LXXXIII 
 
 XL Instructions, §§ 3321-3368. 
 
 A. Actions for Personal Injuries, §§ 3321-33(32. 
 
 a. General Consideration, §§ 3321-333G. 
 
 (1) Right to and Propriety of Instructions GL-nerally, § 3321. 
 
 (2) Form and Requisites, §§ 3322-332«. 
 
 (a) Correct, Full and Fair Statement of Law, § 3322. 
 (1)) Language and Terminology, § 3323. 
 (cj Clearness and Definiteness, § 3324. 
 
 (d) Argumentativeness, § 3325. 
 
 (e) Misleading Instructions, § 332G. 
 
 (3) Requests for Instructions, § 3327. 
 
 (4) Duty to Explain Issues, § 3328. 
 
 (5) Conformity to Pleadings and Issues, § 3329. 
 
 (6) Applicability to Evidence, §§ 3330-3332. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3330. 
 
 (b) Ignoring Evidence or Facts in Case, § 3331. 
 
 (c) Assuming Facts, § 3332. 
 
 (7) Invading Province of Jury, § 3333. 
 
 (8) Harmless Error, § 3334. 
 (.9) Curing Error, §§ 3335-333G. 
 
 (a) Obviating Error by Other Instructions, § 3335. 
 (h) Subsequent Explanation of Charge, § 333G. 
 
 b. Existence of Relation of Carrier and Passenger, § 3337. 
 
 c. Detinition or Explanation of What Constitutes Negligence, § 3338. 
 
 d. Degree of Care Required, § 3339. 
 
 e. Acts of Carrier's Servants, Fellow-Passengers, or Third Persons, § 3340. 
 
 f. Condition of Carrier's Premises, § 3341. 
 
 g. Taking Up Passengers, § 3342. 
 
 h. Starting or Moving Car While Passenger Boarding Same, § 3343. 
 i. Sufficiency and Safety of Means of Transportation, § 3344. 
 j. Alanagement of Conveyances, § 3345. 
 
 k. Causing Passengers to Fall from Train or Car, § 334G. 
 1. Sudden Jerks, Lurches or Jolts, § 3347. 
 m. Collisions, § 3348. 
 n. Derailment, § 3349. 
 o. Elevators, §§ 3350-3351. 
 
 (1) Safety and Sufficiency, § 3350. 
 
 (2) Management, § 3351. 
 
 p. Setting Down Passengers in General, § 3352. 
 q. Starting or Moving Train While Passenger Alighting, § 3353. 
 r. Providing Safe Place or Means for Alighting, § 3354. 
 s. Care as to Persons .Accompanying Passengers, § 3355. 
 t. Liability to Persons Accompanying Stock, § 335G. 
 u. Proximate Cause, § 3357. 
 V. Companies or Persons ■ Liable, § 3358. 
 w. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 3359. 
 X. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 3360. 
 y. Credibility of Witnesses, § 33G1. 
 z. Damages, § 3362. 
 
 B. Actions for Breach of Contract of Carriage. §§ 33G3-3365. 
 
 a. Form, Requisites and Sufficiency in General. § 3363. 
 
 b. Acts Constituting Breach and Excuses Therefor, § 3364. 
 
 c. Damages, § 3365. 
 
 C. Actions for Ejectment, §§ 3366-3368. 
 
 a. Form, Requisites and Sufficiency' in General, § 3366.
 
 LXXXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 b. Right to Eject, § 33G7. 
 
 c. Damages, § 33G8. 
 
 XII. Verdict and Finding, § 3369. 
 XIII. Appeal and Error, § 3370. 
 XI\'. Costs, § 3371. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 Damages. 
 
 I. For Breach of Contract of Transportation, §§ 3372-3399. 
 
 A. Elements and Aleasure of Damages in General, §§ 3372-3389. 
 
 a. In General, § 3372. 
 
 b. Breach of Contract to Furnish Cars for an Excursion, § 3373. 
 
 c. Breach of Contract to Carry to a Certain Place and Return, § 3374. 
 
 d. Breach of Contract to Issue Annual Passes, § 3375. 
 
 e. Breach of Contract Contained in Mileage Book to Issue an Exchange Ticket, 
 
 § 3376. 
 
 f. Breach of Contract to Reserve Drawing Room in Sleeping Car, § 3377. 
 
 g. Breach of Contract to Hold Train, § 3378. 
 h. Change of Schedule of Trains, § 3379. 
 
 i. Refusal to Sell Ticket to One Applying for Transportation, § 3380. 
 
 j. Refusal of Transportation, § 3381. 
 
 k. Failure to Stop for Person Desiring to Take Passage, § 3382. 
 
 I. Failure to Stop According to Previous Notice at a Particular Place at a Time 
 
 Specified, § 3383. 
 m. Failure to Stop a Sufficient Time to Allow Passenger to Get on or Off Train, 
 § 3384. 
 
 II. Failure to Return to Passenger That Part of His Ticket Entitling Him to 
 
 Transportation by a Connecting Carrier, § 3385. 
 o. Delay in Transportation, § 3386. 
 p. Getting Off at Wrong Station or Place by Direction of Carrier's Employees, 
 
 § 3387. 
 q. Failure to Carry to Destination, § 3388. 
 r. Carrying beyond Destination, § 3389. 
 
 B. Mental Suffering, § 3390. 
 
 C. Special Damage Dependent on Knowledge of Circumstances, § 3391. 
 
 D. Exemplary or Punitive Damages, §§ 3392-3399. 
 
 a. In General, § 3392. 
 
 b. Failure to Stop Train or Car at Station or Where Proper Signal Is Given, 
 
 § 3393. 
 
 c. Refusal of 1 ransportation, § 3394. 
 
 d. Delay in Transportation, § 3395. 
 
 e. Failure to Carry to Destination, § 3396. 
 
 f. Carrying beyond Destination, §§ 3397-3398. 
 
 (1) When Exemplary or Punitive Damages Are Recoverable, § 3397. 
 
 (2) What May Be Considered in Assessing Damages, § 3398. 
 
 E. Excessive Damages, § 3399. 
 
 II. For Personal Injuries, §§ 3400-3407. 
 
 A. Elements and Measure of Damages in General, § 3400. 
 
 B. Elements and Measure of Damages for Assault, Threats, Insult or Abuse, 
 
 § 3401. 
 
 C. Damages Recoverable for Humiliation Suffered as Result of an Unlawful Ar- 
 
 rest, § 3402. 
 
 D. Exemplary or Punitive Damages, §§ 3403-3405. 
 a. In General, § 3403.
 
 TABU-: OF CONTF.NTS. LXXXV 
 
 b. For Assault, Threats, Insult or Abuse, § 3404. 
 
 c. For Wrongful Arrest, § 3405. 
 
 E. Aggravation and Mitigation of Damages, § 340G. 
 
 F. Excessive Damages, § 3407. 
 III. For Ejection, §§ 3408-3423. 
 
 A. Elements and Measure of Damages in General, § 3408. 
 
 B. Mental Suffering, §§ 3409-3410. 
 
 a. Ejection from a Railroad Train or Street Car, § 3409. 
 
 b. Ejection from a Ferryboat, § 3410. 
 
 C. Exemplary or Punitive Damages, §§ 3411-3421. 
 a. In Actions against Carriers, §§ 3411-3420. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3411. 
 
 (2) Ejection for Refusal to Pay Fare, § 3412. 
 
 (3) Ejection of Passenger Presenting Ticket Xot Good on the Railroad or 
 
 on the Particular Train, § 3413. 
 
 (4) Ejection of Passenger Who Has a Ticket to a Station at Which the Train 
 
 Does Not Stop, § 3414. 
 
 (5) Ejection under Mistaken Belief That Passenger's Ticket Is Xot Good, 
 
 § 3415. 
 
 (6) Ejection of Passenger Presenting Ticket the Time Limit of Which Has 
 
 Expired, § 3416. 
 
 (7) Ejection of Passenger Presenting an Improper Ticket or One Wrongly 
 
 Made Out, § 3417. 
 
 (8) Ejection from a Moving Train or Street Car, § 3418. 
 
 (9) Ejection of Passenger in Consequence of Repudiation of Tickets by Gen- 
 
 eral Passenger Agent, § 3419. 
 
 (10) Passenger Entering Train or Violating Rule of Carrier for Purpose of 
 
 Being Ejected and Suing Therefor, § 3420. 
 b. In an Action against the Conductor of a Railroad Train, § 3421. 
 
 D. Aggravation and Mitigation of Damages. § 3422. 
 
 E. Excessive Damages, § 3423. 
 
 VOLUME IV 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 P.ASSEXGERS' Effects. 
 
 I. Duty of Carrier to Transport, §§ 3424-3425. 
 
 A. In General. § 3424. 
 
 B. Eflfects in Custody of Passenger, § 3425. 
 II. Rules of Carrier, §§ 3426-3428. 
 
 A. In General, § 3426. 
 
 B.. Rules as to Carrying Particular Property into Passenger Cars, § 342 
 
 C. Rule as to Place for Delivery of Baggage, § 3428. 
 III. What Constitutes Baggage, §§ 3429-3445. 
 
 A. In General, § 3429. 
 
 B. Effects of Immigrants, § 3430. 
 
 C. Property of Others. §§ 3431-3432. 
 
 a. In General, § 3431. 
 
 b. Property of Members of Family, § 3432. 
 
 D. Particular Kinds of Property. §§ 3433-3444. 
 
 a. Commercial Travelers' Samples. § 3433. 
 
 b. Dogs, § 3434.
 
 LXXXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 c. Household Goods, § 3435. 
 
 d. Jewelry for Personal Use, § 3436. 
 
 e. Merchandise. § 3437. 
 
 f. Money. § 3438. 
 
 g. Perishable Property, § 3439. 
 
 h. Property to Be Used for Recreation, § 3440. 
 i. Tools, and Professional Instruments and Documents, § 3441. 
 j. Watches, § 3442. 
 k. Wearing Apparel, § 3443. 
 1. Weapons, § 3444. 
 E. Questions for Court or Jury, § 3445. 
 IV. Extra Baggage and Special Contracts, §§ 3446-3447. 
 
 A. In General, § 3446. 
 
 B. Authority of Carrier's Agents, § 3447. 
 
 V. Delivery to Carrier and Commencement of Liability, §§ 3448-3457. 
 
 A. In General, § 3448. 
 
 B. Necessity of Delivery, § 3449. 
 
 C. Time of Delivery, § 3450. 
 
 D. Liability before Purchase of Ticket or Demand for Check, § 3451. 
 
 E. Place of Delivery, § 3452. 
 
 F. Notice to Carrier, § 3453. 
 
 G. What Constitutes Delivery in General, § 3454. 
 H. To Whom Delivery May Be Made. § 3455. 
 
 I. Carrier's Duty to Take Charge of Baggage, § 3456. 
 J. Goods Awaiting Transportation, § 3457. 
 
 VI. Checks and Receipts, and Checking Baggage, §§ 3458-3461. 
 
 A. Nature and Functions of Checks and Receipts, § 3458. 
 
 B. Duties and Liabilities of Carrier, § 3459. 
 
 C. Baggage Company Receiving Railroad Check, § 3460. 
 
 D. Surrender of Check, § 3461. 
 
 VII. Loss or Injury, §§ 3462-3482. 
 
 A. Personal Baggage in General, §§ 3462-3473. 
 
 a. What Law Governs, § 3462. 
 
 b. Liability as Insurer, §§ 3463-3469. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3463. 
 
 (2) Exceptions and Excuses, §§ 3464-3469. # 
 (a) Act of God, § 3464. 
 
 (b; Act of Public Enemy, § 3465. 
 
 (c) Act of Civil Authorities, § 3466. 
 
 (d) Spontaneous Combustion of Other Baggage, § 3467. 
 
 (e) Contributory Negligence of Passenger, § 3468. 
 
 (f) Loss by Theft, § 3469. 
 
 c. Liability for Negligence, § 3470. 
 
 d. Effect of Nonpayment of Compensation, § 3471. 
 
 e. Where Passenger Does Not Accompany Baggage, § 3472. 
 
 f. Baggage Not Carried as Incident to Transportation of Passenger, § 3473. 
 
 B. Property under Control of Passenger, § 3474. 
 
 C. Property Other than Personal Baggage, §§ 3475-3481. 
 
 a. Effect of Acceptance with Knowledge of Nature of Property, § 3475. 
 
 b. Effect of Acceptance without Knowledge of Nature of Property, § 3476. 
 
 c. Duty to Disclose Nature and Value and Effect of Concealment, § 3477. 
 
 d. Right and Duty of Carrier to Investigate, § 3478. 
 
 e. Sufficiency of Notice to Carrier of Nature of Property, § 3479. 
 
 f. Money Intrusted for Safe-Keeping to Carrier or Its Servants, § 3480. 
 
 g. Effect of Regulations Known to Passenger, § 3481. 
 
 D. Contributory Negligence of Passenger, § 3482.
 
 TABLI-: OF CONTENTS. LXXXVll 
 
 VIII. Baggage of I-'.jected Passenger, § 3483. 
 
 IX. Transportation and Delivery to Passenger and Termination of Liability, 
 §§ 3484-3492. 
 
 A. When Baggage Must Be Carried, § 3484. 
 
 B. Packing and Conveyance, § 3485. 
 
 C. Notice of Arrival at Destination, § 3486. 
 
 D. Time, Place and Manner of Delivery, § 3487. 
 
 E. Delivery to Wrong Person, § 3488. 
 
 F. Time for Removal of Baggage by Passenger, § 3489. 
 
 G. Duty to Care for Baggage until Reasonable Time for Removal. § 3490. 
 H. Termination of Lialjility, § 3491. 
 
 I. Carriers' -Agents, § 3492. 
 
 X. Limitation of Liability, §§ 3493-349G. 
 
 A. Power to Limit Liability, § 3493. 
 
 B. Manner of Limiting Liability, § 3494. 
 
 C. Necessity for Consideration, § 3495. 
 
 D. Construction and Operation of Limitation, § 3496. 
 
 XI. Charges and Liens, §§ 3497-3498. 
 
 A. Charges, § 3497. 
 
 B. Liens, § 3498. 
 
 XII. Carrier as Warehouseman, §§ 3499-3505. 
 
 A. Baggage Awaiting Transportation, § 3499. 
 
 B. Baggage Awaiting Delivery to Passenger, §§ 3500-3502. 
 
 a. In General, § 3500. 
 
 b. What Constitutes Reasonable Time for Removal of Baggage, § 3501. 
 
 c. Special Contract for Storage, § 3502. 
 
 C. Baggage Awaiting Delivery to or by Connecting Carrier, § 3503. 
 
 D. Duties and Liabilities, §§ 3504-3505. 
 
 a. In General, § 3504. 
 
 b. Liability Dependent upon Existence of Negligence, § 3505. 
 
 XIII. Connecting Carriers, §§ 3506-3514. 
 
 A. Liability of Initial Carrier. §§ 3506-3511. 
 
 a. In General, § 3506. 
 
 b. Sale of Through Ticket or Collection of Fare for Entire Route. §§ 3507-3508. 
 
 (1) Holding That Initial Carrier Liable for Losses on Other Lines, § 3507. 
 
 (2) Holding That Initial Carrier Not Liable for Losses on Other Lines. § 3508. 
 
 c. Power to Limit Liability to Own Line, § 3509. 
 
 d. Effect of Release of Connecting Carrier, § 3510. 
 
 e. Liability as Warehouseman, § 3511. 
 
 B. Liability of Intermediate or Last Carrier, § 3512. 
 
 C. Effect of .Agreements between Connecting Lines and Joint Liability, § 3513. 
 
 D. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 3514. 
 
 XIV. Palace and Sleeping Car Companies, § 3515. 
 XV. Actions, §§ 3516-3530. 
 
 A. In General, § 3516. 
 
 B. Right of Action and Parties, § 3517. 
 
 C. Pleading and Proof. §§ 3518-3519. 
 
 a. Necessity and Sufificiency of Allegations, § 3518. 
 
 b. Evidence Admissible under Pleadings, § 3519. 
 
 D. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 3520-3522. 
 
 a. In General, § 3520. 
 
 b. Plaintiff's Burden of Proof, § 3521. 
 
 c. Defendant's Burden of Proof, § 3522. 
 
 E. Witnesses. § 3523. 
 
 F. Admissibility of Evidence, § 3524. 
 
 G. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 3525.
 
 LXXXVIII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 H. Questions for Court or Jury, § 3526. 
 I. Instructions, § 3527. 
 J. Damages. §§ 3528-3530. 
 
 a. Nominal Damages, § 3528. 
 
 b. Punitive or Exemplary Damages, § 3529. 
 
 c. Compensatory Damages, § 3530. 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 Palace Cars and Sleeping Car Companies. 
 
 I. Nature of Liability in General. § 3531. 
 II. Statutory Regulations as to Empty Berths, § 3532. 
 
 III. Duty to Receive Passengers, §§ 3533-3535. 
 
 A. In General, § 3533. 
 
 B. Right to Demand Compensation, § 3534. 
 
 C. Regulations as to Tickets, § 3535. 
 
 IV. Contracts for Accommodations, §§ 3536-3544. 
 
 A. In General, § 3536. 
 
 B. Operation and Effect in General, § 3537. 
 
 C. Breach of Contract to Reserve Berth, § 3538. 
 
 D. Contract for Use of Berth in Daytime, § 3539. 
 
 E. Failure of Railroad Company to Haul Sleeper, § 3540. 
 
 F. Voluntary Abandonment of Contract Rights, § 3541. 
 
 G. Right of Husband and Wife to Occupy Same Berth, § 3542. 
 H. Condition Precedent to Rescission of Contract, § 3543. 
 
 I. Implied Agreement of Passenger, § 3544. 
 
 V. Duties and Liabilities as to Person of Passenger, §§ 3545-3548. 
 
 A. In General, § 3545. 
 
 B. Assaults, Insults, etc., § 3546. 
 
 C. Duty as to Discharging Passengers, § 3547. 
 
 D. Contributory Negligence of Passenger, § 3548. 
 
 VI. Ejection of Passengers, §§ 3549-3557. 
 
 A. Right to Eject, § 3549. 
 
 B. Liability for Wrongful Ejection, §§ 3550-3551. 
 
 a. In General, § 3550. 
 
 b. Ejection by Railway Company, § 3551. 
 
 C. Grounds for Ejection, §§ 3552-3555. 
 
 a. Failure to Pay Fare, § 3552. 
 
 b. Failure to Procure Proper Railroad Ticket, § 3553. 
 
 c. Loss of Ticket, § 3554. 
 
 d. Bringing Improper Articles into Car, § 3555. 
 
 D. What Constitutes Ejection, § 3556. 
 
 E. Manner of Ejection, § 3557. 
 
 VII. Duties and Liabilities as to Property of Passengers, §§ 355S-3573. 
 
 A. Nature of Liability, § 3558. 
 
 B. Duty to Protect Property, §§ 3559-3564. 
 
 a. In General, § 3559. 
 
 b. While Passengers Are Asleep, § 3560. 
 
 c. While Passengers Are in Toilet Room, § 3561. 
 
 d. Passenger Sleeping in Smoker, § 3562. 
 
 e. Duty to Anticipate Presence of Thief, § 35^3. 
 
 f. Duty of Ticket Agent to Remove Thief, § 3564. 
 
 C. Property Left in Car, § 3565. 
 
 D. Thefts by Fellow Passengers, § 3566.
 
 TAI5LI-: OF CONTENTS. LXXXIX, 
 
 E. Thefts by employees, § 3567. 
 
 F. Nature and Amount of Property as Affecting Liability, § 3568. 
 
 G. Custody of Property as Affecting Liability, § 3569. 
 H. Limitation of Lialjility, § 3570. 
 
 L Contributory NeftliRence, §§ 3571-3573. 
 
 a. In General, § 3571. 
 
 b. What Constitutes Contributory Negligence, § 3572. 
 
 c. Where Property Stolen by Employees, § 3573. 
 Vin. Liability of Railway Company, § 3574. 
 
 IX. Joint Liability of Sleeping Car and Railway Companies, § 3575. 
 X. Actions, §§ 3576-3587. 
 
 A. Nature of Action, § 3576. 
 
 B. Parties, § 3577. 
 
 C. Pleading, §§ 3578-3579. 
 
 a. Declaration or Complaint, § 3578. 
 
 b. Necessity for Pleading Contributory Negligence, § 3579. 
 
 D. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 3580. 
 
 E. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 3581. 
 
 F. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 3582-3584. 
 
 a. In General, § 3582. 
 
 b. In Actions for Wrongful Ejection, § 3583. 
 
 c. In Actions for Loss of Property, § 3584. 
 
 G. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 35S5. 
 H. Instructions, § 3586. 
 
 I. Questions for Court or Jury, § 3587. 
 XL Damages, §§ 3588-3595. 
 
 A. Nominal Damages, § 3588. 
 
 B. Punitive Damages, § 3589. 
 
 C. Compensatory Damages, §§ 3590-3594. 
 
 a. In General, § 3590. 
 
 b. Mental Suffering. § 3591. 
 
 c. Physical Suffering, § 3592. 
 
 d. Remote Damages, § 3593. 
 
 e. Damages in Contemplation of Parties. § 3594. 
 
 D. Excessiveness of Damages, § 3595. 
 
 PART V. 
 CONNECTING CARRIERS 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 Rights, Duties and Liabilities. 
 
 I. Who Are Connecting Carriers, § 3596. 
 II. Rights, Duties and Liabilities in General, § 3597. 
 III. Carriers of Goods and Live Stock, §§ 3598-3672. 
 
 A. Who Is the Initial Carrier, § 3598. 
 
 B. Traffic Arrangements between Carriers, §§ 3599-3600. 
 
 a. Validity, § 3599. 
 
 b. Construction, § 3600. 
 
 C. Transportation beyond Carrier's Line, §§ 3601-3613. 
 a. Duty to Receive and Transport, § 3601.
 
 XC TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 b. Contracts for Through Transportation, §§ 3G02-3605. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3602. 
 
 (2) Power to Contract, § 3603. 
 
 (3) What Constitutes a Contract for Through Transportation, § 3G04. 
 
 (4) Effect of Contract and Liability for Breach Thereof, § 3605. 
 
 c. Delivery to Succeeding Carrier, §§ 3606-3612. 
 
 (1) Duty to Deliver to or Notify Succeeding Carrier, § 3606. 
 
 (2) Mode and Sufficiency of Delivery, § 3607. 
 
 (3) Time of Delivery, § 3608. 
 
 (4) Capacity in Which Carrier Acts in Making Delivery, § 3609. 
 
 (5) Right to Determine to What Connecting Line Delivery Shall Be Made, 
 
 § 3610. 
 
 (6) Duty of Initial Carrier Where Succeeding Carrier Refuses to Receive 
 
 Goods, or Delivery to It Is Impracticable, § 3611. 
 
 (7) Waiver of Delivery by Succeeding Carrier, § 3612. 
 
 d. Transmission to Succeeding Carrier of Consignor's Instructions, § 3613. 
 
 D. Duty to Receive and Transport Cars and Freight Delivered by a Connecting 
 
 Carrier, § 3614. 
 
 E. Duty of a Forwarding Consignee, § 3615. 
 
 F. Capacity in Which Connecting Carrier Acts and How It Is Affected by Initial 
 
 Carrier's Contract with Shipper, § 3616. 
 
 G. Dtliver> lo Consignee, § 3617. 
 
 H. Use by Carrier of Connecting Carrier's Cars, § 3618. 
 1. Delay in Transportation or Delivery, §§ 3619-3633. 
 
 a. Liability in General, § 3619. 
 
 b. Liability of Initial Carrier, §§ 3620-3628. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3620. 
 
 (2) Delay Resulting from Failure to Conform to Shipper's Directions or to 
 
 Give Proper Notice to Succeeding Carrier, § 3621. 
 
 (3) Delay Caused by Carrier's Failure to Feed and Water Stock, § 3622. 
 
 (4) Delay of the Succeeding, or of a Subsequent, Carrier, §§ 3623-3628. 
 
 (a) Liability in Absence of Statute, Contract, or Traffic Agreement, § 3623. 
 
 (b) Liability Imposed by Statute, § 3624. 
 
 (c) Liability under Contract, § 3625. 
 
 (5) Delay Resulting from Succeeding Carrier's Inability to Receive or 
 
 Forward Goods, § 3626. 
 
 (6) Liability Where Connecting Carrier Refuses to Receive Goods, § 3627. 
 
 (7) Defenses in Actions for Delay, § 3628. 
 
 c. Liability of Intermediate or Last Carrier, §§ 3629-3632. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3629. 
 
 (2) Delay Caused by Preceding or Subsequent Carrier, § 3630. 
 
 (3) Liability of Second Carrier to First Carrier for Delay in Receiving Goods, 
 
 § 3031. 
 
 (4) Insufficient Excuses for. Delay, § 3632. 
 
 d. Effect of Traffic Arrangements between Carriers, § 3633. 
 
 J. Loss of or Injury to Cars, Goods, or Live Stock, §§ 3634-3672. 
 
 a. Loss of or Injury to Cars, § 3634. 
 
 b. Loss of or Injury to Goods or Live Stock, §§ 3635-3672. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3635. 
 
 (2) Liability of Initial Carrier, §§ 3636-3645. 
 
 (a) For Loss or Injury on Its Own Line or before Delivery to Succeeding 
 Carrier, § 3636. 
 
 (h) Liability of a Forwarder, § 3637. 
 
 (c) Liability for Loss Occasioned by Failure to Transmit Consignor's In- 
 structions to Succeeding Carrier, § 3638.
 
 TAHLli OF CONTENTS. XCI 
 
 ((I) Effect of Failure to Give Name of Consignor to Connecting Carrier, 
 
 (e) Lial)ility for Loss Caused by Delay in Furnishing Cars, § :iG40. 
 (f) Liability for Loss or Injury by the Succeeding or by a Subsequent Car- 
 rier, §§ 3041 -3045. 
 aa. In General, § 3041. 
 
 bb. Statutory Exemption from Liability, § 3042. 
 cc. Liability Imposed by Statute, § 3643. 
 dd. Lialnlity under Contract, § 3644. 
 ee. Diversion of Freight from Route Stipulated, § 3645. 
 
 (3) Liability of Intermediate or Last Carrier, §§ 3640-3059. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3040. 
 
 (b) Where Initial Carrier Contracts for Through Transportation, § 3647. 
 
 (c) When Liability Commences and Terminates, § 3648. 
 
 (d) Liability for Injury Occurring after Delivery by Intermediate Carrier 
 
 to Shipper, § 3049. 
 
 (e) Lialnlity for Loss of or Injuiy to Property Transported in Cars of a 
 
 Preceding Carrier, § 3650. 
 
 (f) Liability for Failure to Give Live Stock Rest, Water, and Food, § 3651. 
 
 (g) Liability of a Carrier Diverting Shipment from Route Stipulated, § 3652. 
 (h) Liability for Loss or Injury by a Preceding or Subsequent Carrier, 
 
 §§ 3053-3057. 
 aa. In General, § 30^3. 
 
 bb. Liability Imposed by Statute, § 3654. 
 cc. Liability under Contract, § 3655. 
 dd. Effect of Failure to Examine Goods or to Inspect Manner of Loading, 
 
 § 3056. 
 ee. Effect of Refusal to Deliver Goods until tlie Whole Freight Is Paid. 
 § 3657. 
 (i) Recovery Over Ijy Initial Carrier from a Subsequent Carrier, § 3658. 
 (j) Facts Not Relieving Carrier from Liability. § 3659. 
 
 (4) Effect of Agreements between Connecting Carriers and Joint Liability. 
 
 §§ 3600-3072. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3060. 
 
 (b) Agreement by Carriers, under a Certain Name, to Carry between Dis- 
 
 tant Points, § 3661. 
 
 (c) Carriers under One Management or Holding Themselves Out as a Line 
 
 for Through Transportation, § 3602. 
 
 (d) Joint Association for Transmission of Through Freight, § 3663. 
 
 (e) Establishment of Joint or Through Tariffs of Rates, § 36()4. 
 
 (f) Arrangement as to Payment and Collection of Freight Charges, § 3005. 
 (g) Contracts of Shipment Made with Joint Agent of Carriers, § 3666. 
 (h) Liability for Negligence of Joint .A.gent, § 3667. 
 (i) Damages to Freight Resulting from Violation of Traffic Agreement, 
 
 § 3068. 
 (j) Agreements Not Exempting Carrier from Lialiility to Owner of Goods, 
 
 § 3009. 
 (k) Contract Making Payment of Freight Charges or Indorsement of Guar- 
 antee on Waybill Essential to Deliver}', § 3670. 
 (1) Diversion by First Two Carriers and Receipt by Third without Suffi- 
 cient Shipping Instructions. § 3071. 
 (m) Injuries to Live Stock from Failure to ProperK' Feed Them, § 3672. 
 IV. Carriers of Passengers, §§ 3073-3090. 
 
 A. Traffic Arrangements between Carriers. § 3073. 
 
 B. System of Dominant and Subordinate Carriers, § 3074. 
 
 C. Transportation beyond Carrier's Line. §§ 3675-3678.
 
 XCII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 a. Duty to Transport, § 3675. 
 
 b. Contracts for Through Transportation, §§ 3676-3678. 
 
 (1) Power to Contract, § 3676. 
 
 (2) What Constitutes a Contract for Through Transportation — Effect of Con- 
 
 tract, § 3677. 
 
 (3) Liability for Acts of Agent Making the Contract. § 3678. 
 
 D. Obligation of Carrier to Honor Tickets Issued by Another Carrier, § 3679. 
 
 E. On What Trains Passengers Received from a Connecting Carrier Must Be 
 
 Transported, § 3680. 
 
 F. Through Tickets Limited as to Time, § 3681. 
 
 G. Injuries to Passengers. §§ 3682-3690. 
 
 a. In General, § 3682. 
 
 b. Liability of Initial Carrier, §§ 3683-3689. 
 
 (1) Injury on Wharf Connecting Carrier's Line with Steamboat, § 3683. 
 
 (2) Injuries on the Line of the Succeeding or a Subsequent Carrier, §§ 3684- 
 
 3689. 
 
 (a) Injuries Resulting from Misrepresentation of Initial Carrier's Agent as 
 
 to the Best Route, § 3684. 
 
 (b) Injuries Resulting from Negligence of a Subordinate Carrier, § 3685. 
 
 (c) Liability under Contract, §§ 3686-3689. 
 aa. In General, § 3686. 
 
 bb. Effect of Sale of Coupon Ticket, § 3687. 
 
 cc. Liability for Accident Happening on a Special Excursion Train, § 3688. 
 dd. Liability for Assault by Employee of a Connecting Carrier, § 3689. 
 c. Effect of Agreements between Connecting Carriers and Joint Liability, § 3690. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 Limitation of Liability. 
 
 1. Carriers of Goods and Live Stock, §§ 3691-3767. 
 
 A. Limitations to Carrier's Own Line or to Carrier Having Custody of Property, 
 §§ 3691-3755. 
 a. Power to Limit and Validity, §§ 3691-3720. 
 
 (1) Carrier Receiving Consignment to Point Beyond Its Own Line, §§ 3691- 
 
 3693. 
 
 (a) Power to Limit in General, § 3691. 
 
 (b) American Rule as to Effect of Receipt of Goods, § 3692. 
 
 (c) English Rule as to Effect of Receipt of Goods, § 3693. 
 
 (2) Carrier Contracting to Carry Beyond Its Own Line, §§ 3694-3711. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3694. 
 
 (b) Effect of Federal Statutes, §§ 3695-3696. 
 aa. Prior to Hepburn Act, § 3695. 
 
 bb. Under Hepburn Act, § 3696. 
 
 (c) Effect of State Statutes, §§ 3697-3705. 
 aa. In General, § 3697. 
 
 bb. Georgia, § 3698. 
 cc. Illinois, § 3699. 
 dd. Iowa, § 3700. 
 ee. Missouri, § 3701. 
 
 ff. Nebraska, § 3702. 
 
 gg. South Carolina, § 3703. 
 
 hh. Texas, § 3704. 
 
 ii. Virginia, § 3705. 
 
 (d) What Amounts to Contract to Carry Beyond Carrier's Own Line, §§ 
 
 3706-3711.
 
 TAI5L1-: OF CONTENTS. XCIII 
 
 aa. In General, § 3706. 
 
 bb. Collection of Charge for Entire Distance, §§ 3707-3708. 
 (aa) By Initial Carrier, § 3707. 
 (hb) By Succeeding Carrier, § 3708. 
 cc. Agreement to Forward Car to Destination, § 3709. 
 
 dd. Car Forwarded Over Connecting Line by Order of Consignee, § 3710. 
 ee. Effect of Through Waybill, § 3711. 
 (3) Losses Which May Be Limited, § 3712. 
 (4; Carriers Which May Contract, §§ 3713-3720. 
 
 (a) Connecting Carriers Which Are Partners, § 37i:t. 
 
 (b) Initial Carrier Lessee of Connecting Road, § 3714. 
 
 (c) Kiyht of Initial Carrier to Stipulate on Behalf of Succeeding Carrier, 
 
 § 3715. 
 (6) Power of Initial Carrier to Make Contract Limiting Liability of Suc- 
 ceeding Carrier, §§ 3716-3717. 
 aa. In General, § 3716. 
 bb. Driver of Local Transfer Company. § 3717. 
 
 (e) Intermediate or Terminal Carrier, § 3718. 
 
 (f) Power of Intermediate Forwarder to Bind Initial Carrier, § 3719. 
 
 (g) Express Company, § 3720. 
 
 b. Manner of Limiting, §§ 3721-3724. 
 
 (1) General Notice, § 3721. 
 
 (2) Usage or Custom, § 3722. 
 
 (3) Stipulation in Bill of Lading or Receipt, § 3723. 
 
 (4) Express Contract, § 3724. 
 
 c. Form and Requisites, Contents and Legibility, §§ 3725-3730. 
 
 (1) Legibility, § 3725. 
 
 (2) Reasonal)leness, § 3726. 
 
 (3) Consideration, § 3727. 
 
 (4) Time of Contract, § 3728. 
 
 (5) Choice l)etween Full and Limited Lialjility Contract. § 3729. 
 
 (6) Knowledge and Assent of Shipper, § 3730. 
 
 d. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 3731-3743. 
 
 (1) Construction of Words and Phrases, § 3731. 
 
 (2) What Law Governs, § 3732. 
 
 (3) Effect of Stipulation as to Character of Train Service, § 3733. 
 
 (4) Carriers Entitled to Benefit, §§ 3734-3736. 
 
 (a) Liability Limited to Carrier's Own Line, § 3734. 
 
 (b) Liability Limited to Line Having Custody of Goods, § 3735. 
 
 (c) Enurement to Benefit of Subsequent Carrier, § 3736. 
 
 (5) Losses Covered, § 3737. 
 
 (6) Effect of Specific Exceptions to General Exemptions, § 3738. 
 
 (7) Liability of Succeeding Carrier, § 3739. 
 
 (8) Termination of Liability of Initial or Prior Carrier, §§ 3740-3743. 
 
 (a) Delivery to Succeeding Carrier, § 3740. 
 
 (b) Refusal of Succeeding Carrier to Receive Shipment, § 3741. 
 
 (c) Delivering Stock to Stockyard Company, § 3742. 
 
 (d) Duty to Notify Shipper of Inability to Deliver, § 3743. 
 
 e. Breach of Contract by Initial Carrier, § 3744. 
 
 f. Modification or Rescission, § 3745. 
 
 g. Merger of \"erbal Contract by Subsequent Written Agreement, § 3746. 
 h. Parol Evidence to Explain Ambiguity, § 3747. 
 
 i. Waiver and Estoppel, § 3748. 
 j. Enforcement, §§ 3749-3754. 
 
 (1) Plea or Answer. § 3749. 
 
 (2) Nonsuit. § 3750.
 
 ^Civ TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (3) Presumption and Burden of Proof, § 3751. 
 
 (4) Weight and Sufficiency, § 3752. 
 
 (5) Questions for Jury, § 3753. 
 
 (6) Instructions, § 3754. 
 k. Damages, § 3755. 
 
 B. Limiting Liability to That of Forwarder or Warehouseman, §§ 3756-3760. 
 
 a. Power to Limit and \alidity. §§ 3756-3757. 
 
 (1) In General. § 375G. 
 
 (2) Carriers Which May Limit, § 3757. 
 
 b. What Constitutes an Agreement "to Forward." § 3758. 
 
 c. Nature and Extent of Liability as Forwarder, § 3750 
 
 d. Termination of Liability, § 3760. 
 
 C. Goods Carried at Owner's Risk, § 3761. 
 
 D. Exemption from Loss by Delay, § 3762. 
 
 E. Exemption from Liability for Insufficient or Defective Car, § 3763. 
 
 F. Stipulation against Loss by Suffocation, § 3764. 
 
 G. Limiting Amount of Liability, § 3765. 
 
 H. Condition as to Filing Claims or Giving Notice of Loss, § 3766, 
 I. Conditions as to Time of Bringing Suit, § 3767. 
 
 II. Carriers of Passengers, §§ 3768-3777. 
 
 A. Power to Limit, §§ 3768-3770. 
 
 a. In General, § 3768. 
 
 b. Lines under One Management, § 3769. 
 
 c. Ticket Agent Acting as Agent for Connecting Carrier, § 3770. 
 
 B. Mode, Form and Requisites, § 3771. 
 
 C. Operation and Effect, §§ 3772-3775. 
 
 a. In General, § 3772. 
 
 b. Injuries Covered, §§ 3773-3774. 
 
 (1) Injuries to Persons, § 3773. 
 
 (2) Injuries to Baggage, § 3774. 
 
 c. Termination of Liability, § 3775. 
 
 D. Modification or Rescission, § 3776. 
 
 E. Enforcement, § 3777. 
 
 III. Right of Subsequent Carrier to Benefit of Limitations by First Carrier, §§ 3778- 
 
 3786. 
 
 A. Contract for Through Shipment, §§ 3778-3785. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 3778. 
 
 b. What Law Governs, § 3779. • 
 
 c. Contract on Behalf of Connecting Line, § 3780. 
 
 d. Invalidity of Condition Apparent on Its Face, § 3781. 
 
 e. What Constitutes a Through Contract, Form and Requisites, § 3782. 
 f. Instances of Particular Limitations, § 3783. 
 
 g. Refusal of Subsequent Carrier to Perform Contract, § 3784. 
 h. Pleading and Proof, § 3785. 
 
 B. Contract Not for Through Shipment, § 3786. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIII. 
 
 Action. 
 
 I. Rights of Action, § 3787. 
 II. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 3788. 
 III. Parties, §§ 3789-3791. 
 
 A. By Whom or in Whose Name Action May Be Brought, § 3789. 
 
 B. Against Whom Action May Be Brought — Joinder, § 3790. 
 
 C. Necessary Parties, § 3791.
 
 TAIiLK OF CONTEXTS. XCV 
 
 IV. Pleading, §§ 3792-3797. 
 
 A. Declaration, Petition, or Complaint, §§ 3792-3795. 
 
 a. Essential Averments, § 3792. 
 
 b. Alternative Averments, § 3793. 
 
 c. Correspondence between Allegations and Proof, § 3794. 
 
 d. Amendment, § 3795. 
 
 B. Plea or Answer, §§ 379G-3797. 
 
 a. Sufficiency, § 3796. 
 
 b. Effect of Failure to Deny a Partnership Alleged in Petition, § 3797. 
 
 V. Evidence, §§ 3798-3805. 
 
 A. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 3798-3801. 
 
 a. In General, § 3798. 
 
 b. As to Line on Which Delay Occurred, § 3799. 
 
 c. As to Notification of Connecting Carriers by Initial Carrier as to Condi- 
 
 tions of Shipping Contract, § 3800. 
 
 d. As to Line on Which Injury or Loss Occurred and the Responsibility 
 
 Therefor, § 3801. 
 
 B. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 3802-3804. 
 
 a. In Action against Initial Carrier, § 3802. 
 
 b. In Action against Intermediate or Last Carrier, § 3803. 
 
 c. In Action against Initial and Connecting Carriers, § 3804. 
 
 C. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 3805. 
 VI. Measure of Damages, §§ 3806-3807. 
 
 A. In Action against Initial Carrier, § 3806. 
 
 B. In Action against Intermediate or Last Carrier, § 3807. 
 VII. Instructions, § 3808. 
 
 VIJI. Province of Court and Jury, § 3809. 
 IX. Verdio^ § 3810. 
 X. Judgment, § 3811. 
 
 PART VI 
 INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 Interstate Commerce: in Gkneral. 
 
 I. In General, § 3812. 
 II. Statutory Provisions, § 3813. 
 III. Articles of Commerce, § 3814. 
 TV. Means and Instruments of Commerce, §§ 3815-3828. 
 
 A. In General. § 3815. 
 
 B. Railroads, § 3816. 
 
 C. Express Companies, § 3817. 
 
 D. Dining Cars. § 3818. 
 
 E. Terminal Companies and Stockyards, § 3819. 
 
 F. Warehouses and Elevators, § 3820. 
 
 G. Pipe Lines, § 3821. 
 H. Bridges, § 3822. 
 
 I. Ferries, § 3823. 
 
 J. Ports, Harbors and Wharves, § 3824. 
 
 K. Connecting Carriers. § 3825. 
 
 L. Soliciting Agents. § 3826. 
 
 M. Steamboats. § 3827. 
 
 N. Determining Whether Commerce Is Intrastate or Interstate. 5 3828.
 
 N^cvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXV. 
 
 Regulation and Control. 
 
 I. Power of Congress, §§ 3829-3859. 
 
 A. In General, § 3829. 
 
 B. As to Charges, § 3830. 
 
 C. As to Transportation of Live Stock, § 3831. 
 
 D. As to Transportation of Goods Manufactured by Carrier, § 3832. 
 
 E. As to Limitation of Liability by Carrier, § 3833. 
 
 F. Subjects of Regulation, §§ 3834-3859. 
 a. In General, § 3834. 
 
 -b. Corporations in General, § 3835. 
 
 c. Railroads, §§ 3836-3851. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3836. 
 
 (2) Power of Congress to Construct Railroad, § 3837. 
 
 (3) Safety of Persons and Property, §§ 3838-3846. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3838. 
 
 (b) Rolling Stock and Equipment, §§ 3839-3846. 
 aa. In General, § 3839. 
 
 bb. Safety Appliance Act, §§ 3840-3844. 
 
 (aa) In General, § 3840. 
 
 (bb) Construction of Act, § 3841. 
 
 (cc) Carriers Subject to Act, § 3842. 
 
 (dd) Appliances Required by Act, § 3843. 
 
 (ee) Enforcement of Act, § 3844. 
 cc. Train Crew, § 3845. 
 dd. Hours of Labor, § 3846. 
 
 (4) Protection of Lives and Limbs of Employees, §§ 3847-3848. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3847. 
 
 (b) Employers' Liability Act, § 3848. 
 
 (5) Qualifications, Duties and Liabilities of Employees, § 3849 
 
 (6) Arbitration between Railroad and Employees, § 3850. 
 
 (7) Conspiracy to Obstruct Transportation, § 3851. 
 
 d. Express Companies, § 3852. 
 
 e. Ships, § 3853. 
 
 f. Wharves, § 3854. 
 
 g. Bridges, § 3855. 
 
 h. Navigable Waters, § 3856. 
 i. Packing Houses, § 3857. 
 j. Terminals and Stockyards, § 3858. 
 k. Connecting Carriers, § 3859. 
 II. Power of State, §§ 3860-3937. 
 
 A. In General, § 3860. 
 
 B. Corporations, § 3861. 
 
 C. Bridges, § 3862. 
 
 D. Ferries, §§ 3863-3864. 
 
 a. In General, § 3863. 
 
 b. Granting of Franchises and Control, § 3864. 
 
 E. Ships, § 3865. 
 
 F. Railroads, §§ 3866-3879. 
 
 a. In General, § 3866. 
 
 b. Location and Plan of Construction of Railroad, § 3867. 
 
 c. Purchase of or Consolidation with Competing Lines, § 3868. 
 
 d. Requiring Recordation of Lease, § 3869. 
 
 e. Requiring Railroad to Afford Transportation, § 3870. 
 
 f. Regulation of Charges for Transportation, §§ 3871-3880.
 
 TABLE OF COXTENTS. XCVIl 
 
 (1) In General, § 3871. 
 
 (2) Prohibiting Discriminations, § 3872. 
 
 (3) Prohibiting Greater Charge for Shorter than Longer Haul, § 3873. 
 
 (4) Posting Schedule of Rates, § 3874. 
 
 (5) Sale and Redemption of Tickets, § 3875. 
 (C) Commutation Tickets, § 387G. 
 
 (7) Mileage Tickets, § 3877. 
 
 (8) Limitation of Charges to Amount Specified in Bill of Lading, § 3878. 
 
 (9) Ferriage Charges, § 3879. 
 (10) Demurrage Charges, § 3880. 
 
 g. Regulations to Prevent Injuries to Passengers, § 3881. 
 h. Regulating Relation of Master and Servant, §§ 3882-3887. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3882. 
 
 (2) Number and Character of Employees, § 3883. 
 
 (3) Safety Appliance Acts, § 3884. 
 
 (4) Employers' Liability Act, § 3885. 
 
 (5) Hours of Service, § 3886. 
 
 (6) Fellow Servant Doctrine. § 3887. 
 
 i. Regulating Rights and Privileges of Passengers, § 3888. 
 
 j. Regulating Speed of Running Trains, § 3889. 
 
 k. Running Trains on Sunday, § 3890. 
 
 1. Heating of Passenger Cars, § 3891. 
 m. Requiring Trains to Stop at Certain Stations, § 3892. 
 
 n. Regulating Duty to Accept Goods, § 3893. 
 
 o. Regulating Time, Place and Manner of Delivery, ^§ 3894. 
 
 p. Care for Live Stock, § 3895. 
 
 q. Routing Goods, § 3896. 
 
 r. Cartage and Drayage, § 3897. 
 
 s. Compelling Railroad to Elevate Bridge, § 3898. 
 
 t. Collection of Purchase Price for Consignor, § 3899. 
 
 u. Regulations with Respect to Limitation of Liability of Carriers, § 3900. 
 
 V. Regulating Liability for Delay, § 3901. 
 
 w. System of Bookkeeping, § 3902. 
 
 X. Reports, § 3903. 
 
 y. Regulations as to Crossing, § 3904. 
 
 z. As to Liability of Officers and Agents, § 3905. 
 G. Street and Electric Railways, § 3906. 
 H. Express Companies, § 3907. 
 T. Sleeping Cars, § 3908. 
 J. Warehouses and Elevators. § 3909. 
 K. Packing Houses, § 3910. 
 L. Wharves, § 3911. 
 M. Pipe Lines, § 3912. 
 N. Levees, § 3913. 
 
 O. Terminals and Stockyards. § 3914. 
 P. Navigable Waters, § 3915. 
 Q. Connecting Carriers, § 3916. 
 R. Particular Articles of Commerce, § 3917. 
 S. Particular Regulations, §§ 3918-3923. 
 
 a. Charges, § 3918. 
 
 b. Discrimination, § 3919. 
 
 c. Bills of Lading, § 3920. 
 
 d. Description of Goods, § 3921. 
 
 e. Disposal of Freight Refused by Consignee. § 3922. 
 
 f. Reshipment of Goods, § 3923. 
 
 1 Car — g
 
 XCVIII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 T. Regulation of Relation of Consignor and Consignee, § 3924. 
 U. As to Remedies, §§ 3925-3937. 
 
 a. Prerequisites to Bringing Suit, § 3925. 
 
 b. Jurisdiction and Venue of Suits, § 3926. 
 
 c. Parties to Suits, § 3927. 
 
 d. Summons and Process, § 3928. 
 
 e. Evidence, § 3929. 
 
 f. Proceeding by Attachment and Garnishment, § 3930. 
 g. Removal of Cause to Federal Court, § 3931. 
 
 h. Equitable Remedies, § 3932. 
 
 i. Requiring Claim for Damages to Be Made in Prescribed Time, § 3933. 
 
 j. Requiring Payment of Damages in Prescribed Time, § 393-1. 
 k. Lien on Vessel for Services and Material, § 3935. 
 
 I. Seizure for Taxes, § 3936. 
 m. Entry of Satisfaction of Mortgage. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 Taxation, 
 
 A. Power to Tax, § 3938. 
 
 B. Taxation Amounting to Regulation of Commerce, §§ 3939-3981. 
 
 a. In General, § 3939. 
 
 b. Tax on Corporations Engaged in Interstate Commerce, §§ 3940-3947. 
 
 (1) In General, § 3940. 
 
 (2) Tax on Gross Receipts, § 3941. 
 
 (3) Tax on Franchise or Privilege, § 3942. 
 
 (4) Tax on Capital Stock, § 3943. 
 
 (5) Tax on Transfer of Corporate Stock, § 3944. 
 
 (6) Tax on Right of Corporations to Consolidate, § 3945. 
 
 (7) Tax on Property Outside of State, § 3946. 
 
 (8) Tax on Property of Foreign Corporation, § 3947. 
 
 c. Tax on Gross Receipts, § 3948. 
 
 d. Tax on Passengers and Freight, §§ 3949-3950. 
 
 (1) Passengers, § 3949. 
 
 (2) Freight, § 3950. 
 
 e. Tax on Privilege and Occupation, § 3951. 
 
 f. Tax on Tolls, § 3952. 
 
 g. Tax on Means and Instruments of Commerce, §§ 3953-3979 
 
 (1) In General, § 3953. 
 
 (2) Tax on Railroads, §§ 3954-3959. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3954. 
 
 (b) Tax on Franchise, Privilege and Occupation, § 3955. 
 
 (c) Tax on Capital Stock, § 3956. 
 
 (d) Tax on Rolling Stock, § 3957. 
 
 (e) Tax on Gross Earnings, § 3958. 
 
 (f) Payment of Bonus to State, § 3959. 
 
 (3) Tax on Street Railroads, § 3960. 
 
 (4) Tax on Express Companies, § 3961. 
 
 (5) Tax on Sleeping Cars, § 3962. 
 
 (6) Tax on Refrigerator Cars, § 3963. 
 
 (7) Tax on Ships, §§ 3964-3972. 
 
 (a) In General, § 3964. 
 
 (b) Tax on Gross Receipts, § 3965. 
 
 (c) Tax on Interest of Citizen in Vessel, § 3966. 
 
 (d) Tax on Persons Residing on Ships, § 3967.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS, XCIX 
 
 (e) Tax on Agents, I'ilots, etc., § 3968. 
 
 (f) Registered under Laws of United States, § 3909. 
 
 (g) Registered in Another State, § 3970. 
 (h) Tax on Particular Ships, § 3971. 
 
 (i) Wharfage Fees, § 3972. 
 
 (8) Tax on Ferries, § 3973. 
 
 (9) Tax on Bridges, § 3974. 
 
 (10) Tax on Automobiles, § 3975. 
 
 (11) Tax on Draymen, § 3976. 
 
 (12) Tax on Pipe Lines, § 3977. 
 
 (13) Tax on Warehouses and Elevators, § 3978. 
 
 (14) Tax on Packing Houses, § 3979. 
 h. The Unit Rule, § 3980. 
 
 i. Stamp Duty on Bills of Lading, § 3981. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 Interst.\te Commerce Act. 
 
 1. Statutory Provisions, §§ 3982-3989. 
 
 A. Purpose and Object, § 3982. 
 
 B. History of Act, § 3983. 
 
 C. Constitutionality of Act, § 3984. 
 
 D. Construction of Act, § 3985. 
 
 E. Operation and Effect, § 3986. 
 
 F. Time of Taking Eflfect, § 3987. 
 
 G. Repeal, § 3988. 
 IL Definitions, § 3989. 
 
 in. Carriers Subject to Act, §§ 3990-3991. 
 
 A. In General, § 3990. 
 
 B. Particular Carriers, § 3991. 
 
 IV. Duties Imposed upon Carrier, §§ 3992-4015. 
 
 A. Transportation, § 3992. 
 
 B. To Establish Through Routes, § 3993. 
 
 C. Continuous Carriage, § 3994. 
 
 D. Facilities, §§ 3995-3997. 
 
 a. In General, § 3995. 
 
 b. Switches, § 3996. 
 
 c. As to Connecting Carriers, § 3997. 
 
 E. Just and Reasonable Rates, § 3998. 
 
 F. Printing and Publishing Schedules of Rates, § 3999. 
 
 G. Reports to Commission, § 4000. 
 
 H. Unloading, Feeding and Watering Stock, §§ 4001-4014. 
 
 a. Statutory Provision, § 4001. 
 
 b. Carriers Liable for Penalty, § 4002. 
 
 c. Knowingly and Willfully, § 4003. 
 
 d. Separate Oflfenses, § 4004. 
 
 e. Negligence of Servant, § 4005. 
 
 f. Preparation and Facilities, § 4006. 
 
 g. Shipment Through Foreign Country, § 4007. 
 h. Shipment under Agreement, § 4008. 
 
 i. Where Stock Confined by Another Carrier, § 4009. 
 j. Where Penalty Exacted from Another Carrier. § 4010. 
 k. Excuses for Failure to Unload, etc., § 4011. 
 1. Cars Provided for Food, Water and Rest, § 4012.
 
 C TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 m. Damages, § 4013. 
 n. Proceedings, § 4014. 
 I. Icing Perishable Goods, § 4015. 
 \'. Prohibitions upon Carriers, §§ 401G-4049. 
 
 A. Discrimination and Preferences, §§ 4016-4044. 
 
 a. In General, § 4016. 
 
 b. Undue and Unreasonable, § 4017. 
 
 c. Similar Service and Circumstances, § 4018. 
 
 d. Persons Discriminated against, § 4019. 
 
 e. Determining Discrimination or Preference, § 4020. 
 f. In Charges, § 4021. 
 
 g. In Facilities, § 4022. 
 
 h. In Distribution of Cars, §§ 4023-4035. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4023. 
 
 (2) Between Mining Companies, §§ 4024-4033. 
 
 (a) In General, § 4024. 
 
 (b) Ownership of Cars, § 4025. 
 
 (c) Fuel Cars, § 4026. 
 
 (d) Cars Used in Intrastate Commerce Only, § 4027. 
 
 (e) Determining Mining Company's Share of Cars, §§ 4028-4033. 
 aa. In General, § 4028. 
 
 bb. Facts Considered, §§ 4029-4033. 
 (aa) Agreement of Parties, § 4029. 
 (bb) Rule of Carrier, § 4030. 
 (cc) Capacity and Output of Mine, § 4031. 
 (dd) Unfulfilled Contract of Mining Company, § 4032. 
 (ee) Prompt Return of Cars by Mining Company, § 4033. 
 
 (3) Between Mining Companies on Main and Branch Lines, § 4034. 
 
 (4) Between Warehousemen, § 4035. 
 
 i. In Acceptance and Delivery of Freight, § 4036. 
 j. In Taking on and Letting Off Passengers, § 4037. 
 k. In Manner of Shipment, § 4038. 
 1. In Time of Transportation, § 4039. 
 m. In Reshipping Privileges, § 4040. 
 n. In Allowances to Shipper, § 4041. 
 o. Remedies, §§ 4042-4044. 
 
 (1) Burden of Proof, § 4042. 
 
 (2) Mandamus, § 4043. 
 
 (3) Summary Remedy, § 4044. 
 
 B. Combinations and Monopolies, § 4045. 
 
 C. Pooling Agreements, § 4046. 
 
 D. Transportation of Goods Manufactured by Carrier, §§ 4047 4048. 
 
 a. In General, § 4047. 
 
 b. Manufactured from Wood, § 4048. 
 
 E. Limiting Liability, § 4049. 
 
 VI. Connecting Carriers, §§ 4050-4057. 
 
 A. Discriminations, § 4050. 
 
 B. Facilities, §§ 4051-4052. 
 
 a. In General, § 4051.' 
 
 b. Use of Tracks, § 4052. 
 
 C. Joint Through Routes, § 4053. 
 
 D. Rates, § 4054. 
 
 E. Liability of Initial Carrier, §§ 4055-4057. 
 
 a. In General, § 4055. 
 
 b. Limiting Liability, § 4056. 
 
 c. Recovery over against Other Carrier, § 4057.
 
 TAHUv OF CONTENTS. CI 
 
 VII. Rates and Charges, §§ 40o8-4l49. 
 
 A. In General, § 4058. 
 
 B. Just and Reasonable, § 4()5'J. 
 
 C. Established by Carrier, § 40G0. 
 
 D. Established by Commission, §§ 4001-4005. 
 
 a. Under Original Act, § 4001. 
 
 b. Under Amendment of 1900, § 4002. 
 
 c. Prerequisites to Establishing, § 40G3. 
 
 d. Form and Requisites of Order, § 4004. 
 
 e. Review of Courts, § 4005. 
 
 E. Established by Court, § 4000. 
 
 F. Determination of Reasonableness of Rate, §§ 4007-4074. 
 a. In General, § 4067. 
 
 1). Judicial Act, § 4008. 
 
 c. Question of Fact, § 4069. 
 
 d. Facts Considered, § 4070. 
 
 e. Mode of Determination, § 4071. 
 f. Burden of Proof, § 4072. 
 
 g. Evidence, § 4073. 
 
 h. Review of Determination, § 4074. 
 
 G. Discrimination and Preference, §§ 4075-4090. 
 
 a. In General, § 4075. 
 
 b. Like and Contemporaneous Service, § 4070. 
 
 c. Persons Discriminated against, § 4077. 
 
 d. Determining Discrimination and Preference, §§ 4078-4083. 
 
 (1) Competition, § 4078. 
 
 (2) Quantity of Goods Shipped, § 4079. 
 
 (3) Long and Short Haul, § 4080. 
 
 (4) Disparity between Through and Local Rates, § 4081. 
 
 (5) Disparity in Rates between Different Localities. § 4082. 
 
 (0) Division of Freight by Connecting Carriers, § 4083. 
 
 e. Special Rates, § 4084. 
 
 f. Free Transportation, § 4085. 
 
 g. Reduced Rates, § 4080. 
 h. Rebates, §§ 4087-4090. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4087. 
 
 (2) What Amounts to Rebate, § 40S8. 
 
 (3) Effect of Granting Rebate, § 4089. 
 
 (4) Criminal Liability, § 4090. 
 i. Payment of Charges, § 4091. 
 j. Demurrage Charges, § 4092. 
 
 k. Purchase and Sale of Goods, § 4093. 
 1. Justified Discrimination, § 4094. 
 m. Effect of Discrimination, § 4095. 
 n. Remedies, § 4090. 
 H. Long and Short Haul, §§ 4097-4110. 
 
 a. Statutory Provision, § 4097. 
 
 b. Similar Circumstances and Conditions, § 4098 
 
 c. Competition, § 4099. 
 
 d. Shipments Over Same Line, § 4100. 
 
 e. Through and Local Rates, § 4101. 
 f. Group Rates, § 4102. 
 
 g. Cartage Charges, § 4103. 
 
 h. Shipment Through Foreign Country, § 4104. 
 
 i. Interest of General Public, § 4105. 
 
 j. Destination of Shipment, § 4100.
 
 CII 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 k. Consent of Commission to Charge, § 4107. 
 1. Determining Right to Different Charge, § 4108. 
 m. Establishing Zones, § 4109. 
 n. Remedies, § 4110. 
 I. Pooling Freights, § 4111. 
 J. Mileage Tickets, § 4112. 
 K. Party-Rate Tickets, § 4113. 
 L. Excursion Tickets, § 4114. 
 M. Terminal Charges, § 4115. 
 N. Industrial Track Service, § 4116. 
 O. Demurrage Charges, § 4117. 
 P. Charges for Reconsignment of Goods, § 4118. 
 Q. Through Rates, § 4119. 
 R. Allowance for Service of Shipper, §§ 4120-4124. 
 
 a. In General, § 4120. 
 
 b. For Elevation of Grain, § 4121. 
 
 c. For Construction of Grain Doors for Cars, § 4122. 
 
 d. For Cartage, § 4123. 
 
 e. For Lighterage, § 4124. 
 
 S. Printing and Publishing Schedules, §§ 4125-4145. 
 
 a. In General, § 4125. 
 
 b. Statutory Provision, § 4126. 
 
 c. Shipment Over Connecting Carrier, § 4127. 
 
 d. Shipment Through Foreign Country, § 4128. 
 
 e. Form, Requisites and Validity, §§ 4129-4131. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4129. 
 
 (2) Printed, § 4130. 
 
 (3) Validity, § 4131. 
 f. Contents, § 4132. 
 
 g. Publishing, § 4133. 
 h. Posting, § 4134. 
 
 i. Filing with Commission, § 4135. 
 
 j. Distributing in Offices of Agents, § 4136. 
 k. Construction of Schedule, § 4137. 
 
 1. Operation and Effect of Schedules, §§ 4138-4145. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4138. 
 
 (2) As Standard Charge, §§ 4139-4141. 
 
 (a) In General, § 4139. 
 
 (b) Contractual Rate, § 4140. 
 
 (c) Presumed Legal Rate, § 4141. 
 
 (3) As Constructive Notice to Shipper, § 4142. 
 
 (4) As to Joint Rates, § 4143. 
 
 (5) As to Privileges and Facilities, § 4144. 
 
 (6) As to Contract for Exemption from Liability, § 4145. 
 T. Change of Rates, § 4146. 
 
 U. Payment of Charges for Transportation, § 4147. 
 V. Enjoining Enforcement of Rates, § 4148. 
 W. Charges of Connecting Carriers, § 4149. 
 VIII. Interstate Commerce Commission, §§ 4150-4154. 
 
 A. In General, § 4150. 
 
 B. Salaries and Expenses, § 4151. 
 
 C. Rules, § 4152. 
 
 D. Powers and Duties, §§ 4153-4154. 
 
 a. In General, § 4153. 
 
 b. Particular Powers, § 4154.
 
 TAl'.LI-: OF CONTENTS. CIII 
 
 IX. Civil Proceedings against Carrier, §§ 4155-4219. 
 A. Proceedings before Commission, §§ 4155-4190. 
 
 a. In General, § 4155. 
 
 b. l-lxclusive Jurisdiction, § 415(5. 
 
 c. Summons and Process, § 4157. 
 
 d. Parties, § 4158. 
 
 e. Limitation and Laclics, § 4159. 
 f. Pleadings, § 41(Jt). 
 
 g. Burden of Proof and Presumptions, § 4101. 
 h. Evidence, §§ 4102-41(35. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4102. 
 
 (2) Incriminating Testimony, § 4103. 
 
 (3) Power to Compel Witnesses to Attend, § 4104. 
 
 (4) Production of Books and Papers, § 4105. 
 i. Hearing and Determination, §§ 4160-4181. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 4100. 
 
 (2) Extent of Hearing, § 4167. 
 
 (3) Judgment or Order, §§ 4168-4181. 
 
 (a) Contents, § 4168. 
 
 (b) Service on Carrier, § 4169. 
 
 (c) Operation and Effect, § 4170. 
 
 (d) Enforcing, Enjoining and Annulling, §§ 4171-4181. 
 aa. In General. § 4171. 
 
 bh. Necessity for Lawful Order, § 4172. 
 cc. Nature of Proceeding, § 4173. 
 dd. Jurisdiction and \'enue, § 4174 
 ee. Parties, § 4175. 
 flf. Pleadings, § 4170. 
 gg. Evidence, §§ 4177-4178. 
 (aa) Admissibility, § 4177. 
 (bb) Weight and Sufficiency, § 4178. 
 hli. Hearing and Determination, §§ 4179-4180. 
 (aa) In General, § 4179. 
 
 (bb) Particular Orders of Commission, § 4180. 
 ii. Injunction, § 4181. 
 j. Rehearing, § 4182. 
 k. Review, §§ 4183-4189. 
 
 (1) Right of Review, § 4183. 
 
 (2) Presumptions on Appeal, § 4184. 
 
 (3) Harmless Error, § 4185. 
 
 (4) Scope of Review, § 4186. 
 
 (5) Modification of Decree of Court, § 4187. 
 
 (6) Remand to Commission, § 4188. 
 
 (7) Supersedeas Pending Appeal, § 4189. 
 
 1. Effect of Repeal of Statute on Pending Proceeding's, § 4190. 
 B. Proceedings in Federal Courts, §§ 4191-4211. 
 
 a. In General, § 4191. 
 
 b. Statutory Provision, § 4192. 
 
 c. Jurisdiction and X'enue, §§ 4193-4200. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4193. 
 
 (2) Before Hearing by Commission, § 4194. 
 
 (3) After Hearing by Commission, § 4195. 
 
 (4) Offenses Arising in Several Districts, § 4190. 
 
 (5) Mandamus, § 4197. 
 
 (6) Injunction, § 4198. 
 
 (7) In Particular Instances, § 4199.
 
 CIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (8) Equity Jurisdiction, § 4200. 
 
 d. Proceedings at Law or in Equity, § 4201. 
 
 e. Parties. § 4202. 
 
 f. Limitation and Laches, § 4203. 
 
 g. Pleadings, § 4204. 
 
 h. Issues, Proof and \'ariaiice, § 4205. 
 
 i. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 420G. 
 
 j. Evidence, § 4207. 
 k. Reference, § 4208. 
 
 1. Judgment and Orders, § 4209. 
 m. Costs, § 4210. 
 n. Stipulation of Parties, § 4211. 
 
 C. Proceedings in Commerce Court, §§ 4212-4217. 
 
 a. Statutory Provision, § 4212. 
 
 b. Jurisdiction in General, § 4213. 
 
 c. Power to Enforce or Enjoin Orders of Commission, § 4214. 
 
 d. Power to Enforce or Enjoin Particular Orders of Commission, § 4215, 
 
 e. Power to Review Order of Commission, § 4216. 
 f. Procedure, § 4217. 
 
 D. Proceedings in State Courts, § 4218. 
 
 E. Election of Remedies, § 4219. 
 
 X. Criminal Liability of Carrier, §§ 4220-4237. 
 
 A. In General, § 4220. 
 
 B. Discrimination and Undue Preference, § 4221. 
 
 C. Rebates, § 4222. 
 
 D. Failure to File and Publish Rates, § 4223. 
 
 E. Departure from Publishing Rates, § 4224. 
 
 F. False Billing of Goods, § 4225. 
 
 G. Liability for Act of Agent, § 4226. 
 
 H. Criminal Proceedings against Carrier, §§ 4227-4237. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 4227. 
 
 b. Initiation of Proceedings, § 4228. 
 
 c. Parties, § 4229. 
 
 d. Indictment, §§ 4230-4234. 
 
 (1) For Failure to File Rates, § 4230. 
 
 (2) For Departure from Published Rate, § 4231. 
 
 (3) For Discrimination and Preference, § 4232. 
 
 (4) For Granting Rebate or Concession, § 4233. 
 
 (5) Indictment against Express Company, § 4234. 
 
 e. Burden of Proof, § 4235. 
 
 f. Evidence, § 4236. 
 
 g. Instructions, § 4237. 
 
 XI. Criminal Liability of Officers and Agents, § 4238. 
 XII. Criminal Liability of Shipper, §§ 4239-4244. 
 
 A. Inducing Carrier to Discriminate, § 4239. 
 
 B. Receiving Rebates, § 4240. 
 
 C. False Billing of Goods, § 4241. 
 
 D. Indictment, § 4242. 
 
 E. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 4243. 
 
 F. Evidence, § 4244.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. CV 
 
 PART VII. 
 CARRIERS BY WATER. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVIII. 
 
 Cakriagk of Property. 
 
 I. General Considerations, § 4245. 
 II. Contracts of Affreightment, §§ 424G-4265. 
 
 A. Defined, Classified and Distinguished, § 424G. 
 
 B. Persons Who May Make, § 4247. 
 
 C. Contents, Form and Requisites, §§ 4248-4249. 
 
 a. In General, § 4248. 
 
 b. Requisites of Contract, § 4249. 
 
 D. Interpretation, Operation and Effect, §§ 4250-4260. 
 
 a. Rules of Construction, §§ 4250-4256. 
 
 (1) General Rules, § 4250. 
 
 (2) What Law Governs, § 4251. 
 
 (3) Qualifications Imposed by Law, § 4252. 
 
 (4) Knowledge of Course of Trade, § 4253. 
 
 (5) Aids to Construction, §§ 4254-4255. 
 
 (a) Admissibility of Parol Evidence, § 4254. 
 
 (b) Opinion Evidence, § 4255. 
 
 (6) Construction of Particular Words, Phrases, etc., § 4256. 
 
 b. Conditions Precedent and Independent Covenants, Representations and War- 
 
 ranties, §§ 4257-4260. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4257. 
 
 (2) Stipulations as to Time and Place of Shipment, § 4258. 
 
 (3) Stipulations as to Tonnage or Measurement, § 4259. 
 
 (4) Warranty of Seaworthiness, § 4260. 
 
 E. Cancellation, Modification and Release, § 4261. 
 
 F. Performance, Discharge or Breach, §§ 4262-4263. 
 
 a. In General, § 4262. 
 
 b. Who Liable on Contract, § 4263. 
 
 G. Abandonment of Contract, § 4264. 
 H. Assignment of Contract, § 4265. 
 
 III. Bill of Lading, §§ 4266-4275. 
 
 A. Definition, § 4266. 
 
 B. Form and Contents, § 4267. 
 
 C. Issuance and Acceptance, § 4268. 
 
 D. Validity of Bills of Lading, § 4269. 
 
 E. Construction, Operation and Effect, § 4270. 
 
 F. Transfer, § 4271. 
 
 G. Effect on Connecting Carrier, § 4272. 
 H. Modification or Rescission, § 4273. 
 
 I. Surrender, Discharge or Release, § 4274. 
 J. Actions on Bills of Lading, § 4275. 
 
 IV. Transportation and Delivery, §§ 4276-4337. 
 A. General Consideration, §§ 4276-4277. 
 
 a. Title, Custody and Control of Goods, § 4276. 
 
 b. Liability as Warehouseman, § 4277.
 
 ^,yj TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 B. Duties and Liabilities as to Transportation and Delivery, §§ 4278-4288. 
 
 a. In General, § 4278. 
 
 b. Loading Goods, § 4279. 
 
 c. Deviation and Delay, §§ 4280-4281. 
 
 (1) Deviation, § 4280. 
 
 (2) Delay, § 4281. 
 
 d. Failure or Refusal to Deliver, §§ 4282-4283. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4282. 
 
 (2) Short Delivery, § 4283. 
 
 e. Notice of Arrival of Goods, § 4284. 
 
 f. Mode and Sufificiency of Delivery, § 4285. 
 g. To Whom Delivery May Be Made— Misdelivery, § 4286. 
 h. Failure or Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods, § 4287. 
 
 i. Transshipping and Forwarding, § 4288. 
 C. Loss or Injury, §§ 4289-4311. 
 
 a. Liability as Insurer, §§ 4289-4296. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4289. 
 
 (2) Exceptions and Excuses, §§ 4290-4296. 
 
 (a) Act of God or Public Enemy, § 4290. 
 
 (b) Jettison, § 4291. 
 
 (c) Humidity and Dampness of Ship, § 4292. 
 
 (d) Seizure under Legal Process, § 4293. 
 
 (e) Fault of Shipper or Owner, § 4294. 
 
 (f) Inherent Infirmities of Property, § 4295. 
 
 (3) Commencement and Termination of Liability, § 4296. 
 
 b. Losses during Deviation or Delay, § 4297. 
 
 c. Losses during Loading of Goods, § 4298. 
 
 d. Stowage of Goods, §§ 4299-4301. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4299. 
 
 (2) Stowage on Deck, § 4300. 
 
 (3) Dunnage, § 4301. 
 
 e. Unseaworthiness or Unfitness of Vessel, §§ 4302-4304. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4302. 
 
 (2) Improper Stowage or Overloading,- § 4303. 
 
 (3) Incompetency or Insufficiency of Crew, § 4304. 
 
 f. Navigation of Vessel, § 4305.- 
 
 g. Negligence in Discharging or in Caring for Goods after Discharge, § 4306. 
 h. Acts of Employees or Third Persons, § 4307. 
 
 i. Duties after Injury or Disaster, § 4308. 
 j. Effect of Insurance, § 4309. 
 
 k. Estoppel to Deny Liability to Deliver in Good Order, § 4310. 
 1. Persons and Vessels Liable, § 4311. 
 D. Actions, §§ 4312-4327. 
 
 a. By Carrier, § 4312. 
 
 b. Against Carrier, §§ 4313-4327. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4313. 
 
 (2) Pleading, § 4314. 
 
 (3) Issues, Proof and Variance. § 4315. 
 
 (4) Evidence, §§ 4316-4326. 
 
 (a) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 4316-4319. 
 aa. In General, § 4316. 
 
 bb. Cause of Loss or Injury to Goods, § 4317. 
 
 cc. Stowage of Goods, § 4318. 
 
 dd. Seaworthiness or Fitness of Vessel. § 4319. 
 
 (b) Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading. § 4320. 
 
 (c) Admissibility of Evidence, § 4321.
 
 TAiiLl-: 01-- CONTEXTS. CVIl 
 
 (d) Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, §§ 4322-4326. 
 aa. In General, § 4322. 
 bb. Delivery to Carrier, § 4323. 
 cc. Condition of Vessel, § 4324. 
 dd. Evidence as to Sea Perils, § 4325. 
 ee. Short Delivery, § 4320, 
 (5) Trial, § 4327. 
 
 E. Damages, §§ *4328-4336. 
 
 a. Failure to Receive and Carry According to Contract, § 4328. 
 
 b. Failure to Deliver or Misdelivery, § 4329. 
 
 c. Delay in Transportation or Delivery, § 4330. 
 
 d. Loss or Injury, §§ 4331-4336. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4331. 
 
 (2) Measure and Elements of Damage, § 4332. 
 
 (3) Determination of Damages, § 4333. 
 
 (4) Apportionment of Damages, § 4334. 
 
 (5) Deductions, § 4335. 
 
 (6) Evidence as to Value or Damage, § 4330. 
 
 F. Lien of Shipper against \'essel, § 4337. 
 Freight, Lighterage and Demurrage, §§ 4338-4378. 
 
 A. Freight, §§ 4338-4354. 
 
 a. In General, § 4338. 
 
 b. Persons Entitled to Collect Freight, § 4339. 
 
 c. Persons Lial)le for Payment of Freight, § 4340. 
 
 d. When Freight Earned, §§ 4341-4343. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4341. 
 
 (2) Freight Pro Rata Itineris. § 4342. 
 
 (3) Goods Lost or Abandoned, § 4343. 
 
 e. Amount Recoverable, § 4344. 
 
 f. Deductions and Offsets, § 4345. 
 
 g. Change of Rates, § 4346. 
 
 h. Lien for Freight, §§ 4347-4352. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4347. 
 
 (2) Time Lien Attaches, § 4348. 
 
 (3) Property Subject to Lien, § 4349. 
 
 (4) Displacement and Waiver of Lien, § 4350. 
 
 (5) Preserving and I-Znforcing Lien. § 43,jl. 
 
 (6) Subrogation to Lien, § 4352. 
 
 i. Actions to Recover Freight, § 4353. 
 j. Recovery Back of Freight, § 4354. 
 
 B. Lighterage, § 4355. 
 
 C. Demurrage, §§ 4356-4378. 
 
 a. In General, § 4356. 
 
 b. Charter Party Provisions, § 4357. 
 
 c. Right of Vessel to Charge in General, § 4358. 
 
 d. Delay Fault of Vessel or Owner. § 4359. 
 
 e. Delay Caused by Act of God, § 4360. 
 
 f. Negligence or Wrongful Acts of Third Persons, § 4361. 
 g. Liability of Charterer of Ship, § 4362. 
 h. Liability of Consignee, § 4363. 
 i. Liability of Purchaser of Cargo, § 4364. 
 j. Delay in Loading or Sailing, § 4365. 
 k. Delay during \'oyage. § 4366. 
 1. Delay in Unloading, § 4367. 
 m. Effect of Custom and L'sage, § 4368. 
 n. Demand for Demurrage, § 4369.
 
 CVIII TABI^i; OF CONTENTS. 
 
 o. Rate and Amount, § 4370. 
 
 p. Lay Days, § 4371. 
 
 q. Indemnity, § 4372. 
 
 r. Waiver and Release of Deiiuirrage, § 4373. 
 
 s. Lien, § 4374. 
 
 t. Actions, §§ 4375-4378. 
 
 (1) Libel, § 4375. 
 
 (2) Defenses, § 4376. 
 
 (3) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 4377. 
 
 (4) Limitations and Laches, § 4378. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIX. 
 
 Carriage of Passengers. 
 
 I. Nature of Liability of \'essel. § 4379. 
 IL What Law Governs, § 43S0. 
 III. Statutory Regulation in General, § 4381. 
 IV. Regulation as to Steam Vessels, § 43S2. 
 
 V. Regulations as to Dangerous Articles, § 4383. 
 VI. Regulations as to Immigrants and Other Passengers from Foreign Ports, § 4384. 
 
 VII. Contracts, Fares, Passage and Tickets, §§ 4385-4390. 
 
 A. In General, § 4385. 
 
 B. What Constitutes Contract and Consideration, § 4386. 
 
 C. Operation and Effect, § 4387. 
 
 D. Performance or Breach of Contract, § 4388. 
 
 E. Rescission, § 4389. 
 
 F. Actions, § 4390. 
 
 VIII. Accommodations on Vessel, §§ 4391-4398. 
 
 A. In General, § 4391. 
 
 B. Stateroom, Berth and Bedding, § 4392. 
 
 C. Food and Water, § 4393. 
 
 D. Effect of Quarantine, § 4394. 
 
 E. Delivery of Telegram, § 4395. 
 
 F. Liability for Personal Injuries, § 4396. 
 
 G. Actions, § 4397. 
 H. Damages, § 4398. 
 
 IX. Voyage and Discharge at Destination, §§ 4399-4401. 
 
 A. Duties and Liabilities, § 4399. 
 
 B. Actions, § 4400. 
 
 C. Damages and Recovery of Passage Money, § 4401. 
 
 X. Personal Injuries, §§ 4402-4428. 
 
 A. Care Required and Liability, §§ 4402-4416. 
 
 a. In General, § 4402. 
 
 b. Consequences Not Reasonably Anticipated from Act, § 4403. 
 
 c. With Respect to Machinery, Appurtenances and Crew, § 4404. 
 
 d. Care of Docks and Passage Ways, § 4405. 
 
 e. Personal Injuries from Want of Proper Accommodations, § 4406. 
 
 f. Acts of Other Passengers, § 4407. 
 
 g. Negligence or Misconduct of Third Party Contributing Cause, § 4408. 
 h. Persons to Whom Duty to Use Care Owed, § 4409. 
 
 i. Officers and Employees for Whose Negligence Liability Attaches, § 4410.- 
 j. Intoxicated Passenger, § 4411. 
 k. Medical Attention, § 4412. 
 1. Acts in Emergency, § 4413.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. CIX 
 
 m. Klection to Continue \'oyage against Advice of Pilot, § 4414. 
 n. Landing or Discharge of Passengers, § 4415. 
 o. Care Required of Tenant of Wharf, § 4416, 
 
 B. Release of Right of Action, § 4417. 
 
 C. Limitation of Liability, § 4418. 
 
 D. Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk, § 4419. 
 
 E. Procedure, §§ 4420-442G. 
 
 a. Pleading. § 4420. 
 
 b. Evidence, §§ 4421-4423. 
 
 (1) Presumption and Burden of Proof, § 4421. 
 
 (2) Admissibility and Competency. § 4422. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency, § 4423. 
 
 c. Questions of Eact, § 4424. 
 
 d. Instructions, § 4425. 
 
 e. Special Verdict, § 4426. 
 
 F. Liens, § 4427. 
 
 G. Damages, § 4428. 
 
 XL Ejection of Passengers, § 4429. 
 XIL Passenger's Eflfects, §§ 4430-4442. 
 
 A. Liability as Inn Keeper or Insurer, § 4430. 
 
 B. Delivery to and Acceptance by Carrier, § 4431. 
 
 C. Duty to Provide Watchman, § 4432. 
 
 D. Duty to Provide State Room Door with Bolts and Locks, § 4433. 
 
 E. Particular Losses for Which Vessel Liable, § 4434. 
 
 F. Passengers Entitled to Recover, § 4435. 
 
 G. Eflfects for Which Recovery Allowed, § 4436. 
 
 H. Contributory Negligence of Person Complaining, § 4437. 
 I. Baggage Detained by Customs' Officers, § 443S. 
 J. Evidence, § 4439. 
 K. Liens, § 4440. 
 L. Damages, § 4441. 
 M. Limitation of Liability, § 4442. 
 
 XIII. Penalties and Forfeitures for Violations of Regulations, § 4443. 
 
 XIV. Oflfenses Incident to Carriage of Passengers. §§ 4444-4447. 
 
 A. What Constitutes and Elements, § 4444. 
 
 B. Defenses, § 4445. 
 
 C. Indictment, § 4446. 
 
 D. Evidence, § 4447. 
 
 CHAPTER XL. 
 , LniiT-VTioNS OF Liability. 
 
 I. Limitation by Exceptions in Contract, §§ 4448-4493. 
 
 A. Implied Exceptions, § 4448. 
 
 B. Express Exceptions in Bill of Lading or Shipping Contract, §§ 4449-4480. 
 
 a. Power and Validity Generally, §§ 4449-4450. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4449. 
 
 (2) What Law Governs, § 4450. 
 
 b. Construction Generally, § 4451. 
 
 c. Operation and Effect Generally, §§ 4452-4455. 
 
 (1) General Rule. § 4452. 
 
 (2) Partial Invalidity, § 4453. 
 
 (3) Right of Assignees, § 4454. 
 
 (4) Loss from Negligence of Carrier or Servant?. § 4455. 
 
 d. Particular Exceptions, §§ 4456-4479.
 
 ex 
 
 TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 II. 
 
 (1) Perils of Sea, Xavigation. Lakes, Rivers, etc , §§ 4450-4403. 
 
 (a) In General, § 4456. 
 
 (b) Damage by Sea Water — Leakage, § 4457. 
 
 (c) Collisions, Stranding, Obstructions of Navigation, § 4458. 
 
 (d) Explosions, § 4459. 
 
 (e) Fire. § 4460. 
 
 (f) Jettison, § 4461. 
 
 (g) Storms, § 4462. 
 
 (h) Negligence of Carrier or Servants, § 4463. 
 
 (2) Exceptions as to Warranty of Seaworthiness. § 4464. 
 
 (3) Exceptions of Loss or Damage Resulting from Negligence of Carrier, 
 
 § 4465. 
 
 (4) Fire, § 4466. 
 
 (5) Stowage on Deck, § 4467. 
 
 (6) Loss Through Leakage, § 4468. 
 
 (7) Risk of Due Refrigeration, § 4469. 
 
 (8) Risk of Mortality or Accident. § 4470. 
 
 (9) Loss from "Sweating, Natural Decay or Sea Water," § 4471. 
 
 (10) Loss from Heat or Heating, § 4472. 
 
 (11) Theft, § 4473. 
 
 (12) Delay in Delivery. § 4474. 
 
 (13) Strikes or Stoppage of Labor, § 4475. 
 
 (14) Limitation of Amount of Damages, § 4476. 
 
 (15) Benefit of Insurance Clause, § 4477. 
 
 (16) Exception of Restraints of Princes, Rulers, or People, § 4478. 
 
 (17) Requirements as to Notice of Loss and Time to Sue, § 4479. 
 e. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 4480. 
 
 C. Provisions in Passenger Tickets, §§ 4481-4493. 
 
 a. Liability for Personal Injuries to Passenger, § 4481. 
 
 b. Liability for Passenger's Efifects, §§ 4482-4493. 
 
 (1) Validity, Form and Requisites, §§ 4482-4487. 
 
 (a) Stipulation That Landing Not Part of Voyage, § 4482. 
 
 (b) Stipulation Limiting Liability to Stated Sum, §§ 4483-4487. 
 ■ aa. Validity Generally, § 4483. 
 
 bb. Form and Requisites, §§ 4484-4487. 
 
 (aa) Meeting of Minds of Parties Generally, § 4484. 
 
 (bb) Knowledge and Acceptance, § 4485. 
 
 (cc) Type or Printing, § 4486. 
 
 (dd) Conditions Printed on Margin on Back of Ticket, § 4487. 
 
 (2) Interpretation, § 4488. 
 
 (3) Operation and Effect, §§ 4489-4492. 
 
 (a) Stipulation That Landing Not Part of \'oyage, § 4489. 
 
 (b) Stipulation Limiting Liability to Stated Sum, §§ 4490-4492. 
 aa. Losses Covered, § 4490. 
 
 bb. Baggage to Which Applicable, § 4491. 
 cc. Tickets as Evidence, § 4492. 
 
 (4) Compliance with Stipulation for Notice of Loss, § 4493. 
 Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability by Acts of Congress, §§ 4494-4576. 
 
 A. Limited Liability Act, §§ 4494-4530. 
 
 a. General Consideration, §§ 4494-4497. 
 
 (1) History and Object, § 4494. 
 
 (2) Constitutionality, § 4495. 
 
 (3) Part of Maritime Law, § 4496. 
 
 (4) Eflfect of Subsequent Acts, § 4497. 
 
 b. Construction, § 4498. 
 
 c. Losses Covered, §§ 4499-4505.
 
 TABLlv OF CONTENTS. CXI 
 
 (1) Loss or Damage to Jewelry, Precious Metals, Moneys, etc., § 4499. 
 
 (2) Loss or Damage by Fire, § 4500. 
 
 (3) Loss or Damage for Which Liability Limited to Value of Vessel and 
 
 Pending Freight, §§ 4501-450.-,.* 
 
 (a) Maritime and Nonmaritime Torts Generally, § 4501. 
 
 (b) Obligations ICx Contractu, § 4502. 
 
 (c) Collision, § 4503. 
 
 (d) Personal Injuries and Death by Wrongful Act, § 4504. 
 
 (e) Salvage Claim, § 4505. 
 
 d. Condition Precedent to Right to Limit Liability, §§ 4506-4514. 
 
 (1) Seaworthiness and Sufficiency of Equipment, § 4506. 
 
 (2) Want of Privity or Knowledge of Owner of Negligence or Defect, § 4507. 
 
 (3) Surrender of Vessel and Pending Freight or Interest Therein, §§ 4508-4514. 
 
 (a) In General, § 4508. 
 
 (b) Particular \'esscls and Parts Thereof Which Must Be Surrendered, 
 
 § 4509. 
 
 (c) Transfer of Interest to Trustee or Appraisement and Payment into 
 
 Court of Value, § 4510. 
 
 (d) Bond for Payment into Court, § 4511. 
 
 (e) Abandonment to Underwriters, § 4512. 
 
 (f) Total Loss of Vessel, § 4513. 
 
 (g) EfTect of Failure to Surrender Pending Freight, § 4514. 
 
 e. What Constitutes X'alue of Ship and Freight, §§ 4515-4524. 
 
 (1) Point of Time at Which Value Taken, § 4515. 
 
 (2) Freight and Passenger Money Estimated, § 4516. 
 
 (3) What Constitutes Earnings of Voyage, § 4517. 
 
 (4) Ship Subsidy Money, § 4518. 
 
 (5) Freight Earned by Other Vessels on Through Shipment, § 4519. 
 
 (6) Damages for Loss of Vessel in Collision, § 4520. 
 
 (7) Insurance, § 4521. 
 
 (8) Deduction for Expenses of Voyage, § 4522. 
 
 (9) Expenses of Salvage and Allowance for Risk of Undertaking, § 4523. 
 (10) Substitution of Another Vessel, § 4524. 
 
 f. Waters, Vessels and Interests to Which Applicable, § 4525. 
 
 g. Proceedings against Which Available, § 4526. 
 h. Freighters Entitled to Participate, § 4527. 
 
 i. EfTect of Stipulation in Bill of Lading, § 4528. 
 j. Remedies Reserved, § 4529. 
 k. Waiver of Right, § 4530. 
 B. Harter Act, §§ 4531-4547. 
 
 a. Purpose, § 4531. 
 
 b. Construction, § 4532. 
 
 c. Effect of Clauses in Bills of Lading Relieving from Liability. § 4533. 
 
 d. EfTect on Stipulations in Passenger Tickets, § 4534. 
 
 e. Loss or Damage to Which Applicable, §§ 4535-4547. 
 
 (1) Losses for Which Carriers Liable Generally, § 4535. 
 
 (2) Loss from Latent Defects, Fault or Error in Navigation or Management 
 
 of Ship, §§ 4536-4539. 
 
 (a) In General. § 4536. 
 
 (b) Seaworthiness as Condition Precedent, § 4537. 
 
 (c) Instances of Fault or Error in Navigation or Management of Vessel, 
 
 § 4538. 
 
 (d) Loss before Commencement of Voyage, § 4539. 
 
 (3) Loss from Negligent Loading and Stowage or Unloading, § 4540. 
 
 (4) Loss of Tow and Cargo by Tug, § 4541. 
 
 (5) Collision, § 4542.
 
 CXII TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 (6) Personal Injuries and Death by Wrongful Act, § 4543. 
 
 (7) Liability for Passengers' Eflfects, § 4544. 
 
 (8) Right to General Average Contribution, § 4545. 
 
 (9) Duty of Master of Stranded Vessel, § 4546. 
 (10) Application to Foreign Vessels, § 4547. 
 
 C. Proceedings to Limit Liability, §§ 4548-4576. 
 
 a. Nature of Proceedings, § 4548. 
 
 b. Forms and Rules of Procedure, § 4549. 
 
 c. Jurisdiction, Venue and Courts, § 4550. 
 
 d. Time of Taking Proceedings and Laches, § 4551. 
 
 e. Time for Filing Claims, § 4552. 
 
 f. Modes in Which Limited Liability May Be Claimed, § 4553. 
 
 g. Scope of Remedy, §§ 4554-4556. 
 
 (1) Ascertainment of Co-Existing Claims, § 4554. 
 
 (2) Contesting All Liability, § 4555. 
 
 (3) Claims Provable in Proceedings to Limit, § 4556. 
 h. Process to Bring Vessel into Court, § 4557. 
 
 i. Power of Court to Shape Course of Proceedings, § 4558. 
 
 j. Consolidation of Suits, § 4559. 
 
 k. Eflfect of Institution of Proceedings, §§ 4560-4565. 
 
 (1) Superseding Other Actions, § 4560. 
 
 (2) Duty of Other Courts to Suspend Proceedings, § 4561. 
 
 (3) Staying or Restraining Proceedings in Other Courts, § 4562. 
 
 (4) Bar to Subsequent Suit, § 4563. 
 
 (5) Application of Doctrine of Res Adjudicata, § 4564. 
 
 (6) Eflfect on Course of Appeal, § 4565. 
 1. Pleading, § 4566. 
 
 m. Evidence, §§ 4567-4570. 
 
 (1) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 4567. 
 
 (2) Admissibility of Evidence, § 4568. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency. § 4569. 
 
 (4) Cross Examination of Petitioner, § 4570. 
 n. Decree, §§ 4571-4574. 
 
 (1) In General, § 4571. 
 
 (2) Reopening Decree to Permit Other Claimants to Come in, § 4572. 
 
 (3) Allowing Interest on Appraised Value, § 4573. 
 
 (4) Res Adjudicata, § 4574. 
 
 o. Apportionment or Distribution of Proceeds, § 4575. 
 p. Costs and Expenses of Administration, § 4576.
 
 Table of Cases 
 
 Aaron v. Arlains I'.xp. Co., p. 571. 
 
 V. Jackson, pp. 211, 771. 
 
 I'. Southern Railway, pp. 2623, 
 
 2660. 
 
 Aaronson f. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 917, 918. 
 Abbazia, The. 
 Abbe V. Eaton, pp. 338, 339, 347, 
 
 3884. 
 Abbey "■. New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2126, 2265. 
 Abbot, Rlodgctt r. 
 
 ■ Tolman '■. 
 
 Abbott f. Hradstrect, pp. 3145, 3148. 
 
 -■. Hicks, p. 194r). 
 
 f. Johnson R. Co., p. 1500. 
 
 •'. Oregon R. Co., pp. 2132. 
 
 2873. 
 
 Western, etc., Railroad v. 
 
 Abbott Gin Co. v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 729, 734, 750. 
 Abeel, Fisher '•. 
 Abel -i\ Northampton Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2347, 2766. 
 Abell, Memphis, etc., Packet Co. t'. 
 
 f. Western Maryland R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1538, 1564, 1565, 1582, 1760. 
 
 Abels, Chicago, etc., R'. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Abeles & Co., Long v. 
 
 Abelson f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2235. 
 Abercrombie -■. Stillman, p. 1028. 
 Aberdeen Coal, etc., Co., Bassett f. 
 Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., Ray f. 
 
 Strothcr z'. 
 
 Abilene Cotton Oil Co., Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 r. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 1134, 
 
 3812. 
 
 Able, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 Abney v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1773, 1798, 1800. 
 Abrahams v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 
 . p. 165. 
 Abram v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1614, 1627, 1628, 1632, 2443. 
 Abrams v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1076, 1364, 1381, 1400. 
 
 V. Piatt, pp. 280, 283, 816. 
 
 Acheson -■. New York Cent., etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 222. 
 .'Vckerland, Schoies f. 
 Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., p. 3067. 
 Ackerstadt v. Chicago City K. Co., 
 
 p. 2887. 
 Ackley, Ciiicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 r. Kellogg, p. 3290. 
 
 Acme Paper I'ox Factory f. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., p. 69(). 
 
 Acres, Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Actieselskabet Barfod !■. Hilton, etc.. 
 Lumber Co., p. 3954. 
 
 Adairs, L^nited States -•. 
 
 z: LTnited States, p. 3450. 
 
 Adams, Adams Exp. Co. ?•. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 -■. Rissell, p. 494. 
 
 f. Blankenstcin, pp. 547, 553. 
 
 f. Brig Pilgrim, pp. 305, 318, 
 
 339, 355, 370. 
 
 Brown z\ 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2023, 2419, 2425, 2528, 2849. 
 
 z: Clark, pp. 520, 581, 582, 
 
 1142, 1160, 1171. 
 
 ■;•. Colorado, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1123, 1129, 1364, 1368. 1375. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. -'. 
 
 {>race '•. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. ^o. ■:•. 
 
 Hernsticld v. 
 
 Hersfield z-. 
 
 z: Homeyer, pp. 38b4, 3938. 
 
 1 Car— h 
 
 .\danis, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 82 Ky. 603, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 686— 
 p. 2406. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R". Co., 
 
 134 Ky. 620, 121 S. W. 419, 21 
 .\m. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 321 — pp. 
 2028, 2339, 2885. 
 
 -■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1703, 1872, 1873, 2065, 2364. 
 f. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 9 Misc. Rep. 25, 29 N. Y. S. 
 
 56, 59 N. Y. St. Rep. 720— p. 
 
 3146. 
 
 V. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 
 369, 34 L. R. A. 682, 56 Am. 
 St. Rep. 616— pp. 728, 733, 749, 
 3125, 4008. 
 
 Newstadt v. 
 
 z: New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 2S23. 
 
 Noble z: 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 "'. O'Connor, p. 404.. 
 
 ■ Orient Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), 130 S. W. 48— pp. 2642, 
 2643. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. W. 
 
 437— p. 1714. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Scott, pp. 573, 579. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 z: The Pilgrim, p. 487. 
 
 z: Union R. Co., 80 N. Y. S. 
 
 264, 80 App. Div. 136, 12 N. Y. 
 .\nn. Cas. 386— p. 2694. 
 
 f. Union R. Co., 21 R. I. 
 
 134, 42 Atl. 515. 44 L. R. A. 
 273— pp. 78, 82, 2563. 
 
 f. Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2181, 2343, 2884. 
 
 • • Waydell v. 
 
 Adams & Co. v. Haught, pp. 1143, 
 
 1144, 1145, 3894, 3941. 
 Adams Exp. Co., Aaron z'. 
 z: Adams, pp. 961, 1029. 
 
 Alcorn z'. 
 
 Allison V. 
 
 Bank -•. 
 
 Bernard f. 
 
 -■. Berry, etc., Co., p. 1080. 
 
 Blackburn z: 
 
 Bland z: 
 
 z: Bleich, p. 489. 
 
 Boscouritz "•. 
 
 z: Bratton, pp. 1045, 1457. 
 
 Brown z\ 
 
 Buckland -'. 
 
 Burlingame f. 
 
 Burr f. 
 
 z: Byers, pp. 1058, 1062, 1063, 
 
 3377. 
 
 z: Carnahan, pp. 409, 978, 
 
 986, 989, 992, 994, 1012, 1013, 
 1064, 1070. 
 
 z: Chamberlin-Johnson-Du Bose 
 
 Co., pp. 800, 1053, 1057, 1068. 
 
 I'. Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 
 
 p. 3525. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 — — Cohn f. 
 
 f. Commonwealth, 92 S. W. 
 
 935, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 230. 5 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 630— p. 245. 
 
 .\dams Exp. Co. v. Commonwealth, 
 33 Ky. L. Rep. 967. 112 S. W. 
 577, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 1182— 
 p. 30. 
 
 z: Commonwealth, 206 U. S. 
 
 129, 51 L. Ed. 987, 27 S. Ct. 
 606— p. 3538. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, 214 U S 
 
 218, 53 L. Ed. 972, 29 S. Ct 
 633— p. 3427. 
 
 Crawford v. 
 
 z: Crawford, p. 815. 
 
 z: Cressap, p. 529. 
 
 V. Croninger. pp. 731. 3521, 
 
 3762. 
 
 D'Aray z: 
 
 z: Darnell, pp. 535, 727, 890, 
 
 911 
 
 Davidson z'. 
 
 De Wolff V. 
 
 Elzy V. 
 
 Farr z'. 
 
 F'erris z: 
 
 Fielder z: 
 
 Fitzgerald v. 
 
 Frank i'. 
 
 Gait z: 
 
 Ginsburg z: 
 
 z: Gordon, pp. 589, 602, 795. 
 
 Graves z'. 
 
 z: Green, pp. 303, 722, 724, 
 
 760, 761, 762, 936, 940, 1051. 
 1054, 1059. 
 
 C^.rogan v. 
 
 Gulliver f. 
 
 Harlan z: 
 
 z: Harris, pp. 1075, 1166, 
 
 3383. 
 
 Hayes z'. 
 
 z: Haynes. pp. 981. 988. 1049. 
 
 z: Hibbard, pp. 613, 698, 1253. 
 
 1258. 
 
 High Co. z: 
 
 Hill z: 
 
 Historical Pub. Co. z: 
 
 Hoeing v. 
 
 z: Hoeing. 88 Ky. 373. 11 S. 
 
 W. 205, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 999— 
 
 p. 1075. 
 
 f. Hoeing, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 814 
 
 —pp. 857, 858. 
 
 f. Holmes, pp. 588, 815, 822, 
 
 828, 1074. 
 
 z: Hundley, pp. 1455. 1456. 
 
 1470, 1479. 
 
 Illinois Custom Tailoring Co. 
 
 Ingalls z\ 
 
 z: Jackson, pp. 506, 734, 745, 
 
 750, 1268. 1334. 
 
 Jacobson f. 
 
 Jacobson & Co. i: 
 
 I'. Jones, p. 604. 
 
 Kelly z: 
 
 z: Kentucky, pp. 3556, 3592. 
 
 f. King, p. 1033. 
 
 Kirby z-. 
 
 Lachner Bros, z: 
 
 z\ Lexington, p. 28. 
 
 z: McConnell, p. 567. 
 
 z: McDonald, pp. 512, 848. 
 
 Z-. McDonough, p. 492. 
 
 :•. Mellichamp, pp. 937, 1068. 
 
 Micheals z\ 
 
 f. Nock, pp. 209, 212, 320, 323, 
 
 978, 979. 986, 1070. 
 
 Nonotuck z: 
 
 Nonotuck Silk Co. z: 
 
 Norton f. 
 
 z'. Ohio State Auditor, pp. 
 
 3552, 3556, 3571, 3591, 3592, 
 3594. 
 
 Orndorff & Co. -•. 
 
 Ornduff & Co. z: 
 
 Pendergast f. 
 
 Porteous z:
 
 CXIV 
 
 Adams Express Co., Railroad 
 
 z: Reagan, pp. 10S7, 1088. 
 
 . Regan v. 
 
 Saunders f. 
 
 . Schutter i: .^go 
 
 i: Scott, pp. l-'lJ- l-5-^^' ^iyl' 
 
 -,.. Sharpkss & Sons, pp. 770, 
 
 958. 
 Snider z'. 
 
 Soloman f. 
 
 Zn^^'taie, pp. 143, 168. 170, 
 3526. ^ .- 
 
 r. State, p. 28. 
 
 ,• Stattaners, pp. 818, 8.^:1, »-/. 
 
 1033, 1038, 1049, lO/o. 
 
 3Z ?!°Ten'"Winkel, pp. 5.9, 570 
 f. Tingle, 7 Ky. L-^-^^^P" ^^^ 
 
 —pp. 564, 899, 904, 90/. , 
 
 %:. Tingle, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 358 
 
 "^pp. 493, 802, 896, 910, 916, 
 
 919. 
 
 IZ: y'wafker,%p. 821, 823, 939, 
 "7^28; lYl9, 1361, 1362, 1396, 1454, 
 
 Walker-Edmond Lo. <-'. 
 
 " ^- Wentworth, pp. 551, 1212, 
 
 1214, 1245, 1249, 1250. 
 . !■. Williams, p. 617. 
 
 Wilson 'c'. 
 
 V. Wilson, p. 3291. 
 
 • Windolph V. 
 
 Wright V. 
 
 Zahloot V. P 
 
 Adams Mach. Co., Southern R. Co. 
 
 Adamson '.■. 4,300 Tons Pyrites Ore, 
 
 ^' 1. ^ Norfolk, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 pp. 2314, 2400. „ p „, 
 
 Adcock, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. .. 
 
 Adcox, St. Louis, etc , R. Co . . 
 
 Addison, International, etc., K. >^o. 
 
 '- San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v 
 
 3424, 3441, 3467. 
 Adel Lumber Co., Self v. 
 Aden, Yazoo, etc., R. \o. v. 
 Adger V. Blue Ridge R- Co., pp. 
 
 3142, 3144, 3145, 3157. 
 Adirondack Co., Catlin r. 
 Adix V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 908, 909, 910, 916. 
 Adkins, Midland Valley R. Co. v. 
 Adler v. Galbraith, etc., Co., p. 
 
 -ii^z'. Weir, pp. 565, 889, 909. 
 
 Adoue, Moritz v. 
 
 V. Seehgson & Co., pp. 307, 
 
 309 356, 357, 365, 371, 384, 386, 
 
 387, 389. ^ ,,r I , T? 
 
 Adrian Knitting Co. v. Wabash R. 
 
 Co., p. 548. 
 Aetna Ins. Co., Ripley y. _ 
 V. Wheeler (N. \.), J Lans 
 
 480— pp. 3341, 3342 
 f. Wheeler, 49 N. Y. 616, 3 
 
 Am. R. Rep. 390— pp. 3265, 
 
 3286, 3302, 3341, 3384. 
 
 . Wilson V. ,,.,,, 
 
 Aetna Life Ins. Co. f. Middleport, 
 
 Aetna Nat. Bank v. Lnion, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 1222. 
 
 V. Water Power Co., p. 294. 
 
 Agee & Co. v. Louisville, etc., K. 
 
 Co., pp. 4, 89. 
 Aggi, The. ^ 
 
 Aenew v. Steamer Contra Costa, pp. 
 
 ^726, 727, 730, 732. 748 820 
 
 Aguirre v. Parmelee, pp. 1219, 1A5/. 
 Agulino V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2729. „ _ 
 
 Ahern v. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2525, 2549, 2943. 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ahern v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1557, 2750, 2777. 
 ■Vhlbeck t. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3139, 3140. 
 Ahnapee, etc., R. Co., Goldberg r 
 '\igen T'. Boston, etc.. Railroad 
 
 pp. 869, 3311. 
 \iken v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 273, 292, 3329. 
 
 Leathers, v. ■ 
 
 Quachita, etc.. Packet Co. v 
 
 • Ragan v. 
 
 •;■. Southern R. Co., pp. 1612 
 
 1615, 1640, 2562. 
 Aikin r. Frankford, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2182. 
 Ainis V. Ayers, p. 1211. 
 Airey '•. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 2074, 3047, 3227. 
 Akers, North Missouri K. Co. •r. 
 Akersloot v. Second Ave. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1892, 2818. 
 Alabama, Nashville, etc., K. Co. v- 
 
 Smith V. T-.j 1 
 
 Alabama & T. R. R. Co. v. Kidd. 
 
 p. 589. ^ , . 
 
 Alabama Cent. R. Co. ''. Humphries, 
 
 p. 2582. ,, ^ 
 
 Alabama City, Nashville, etc., K. 
 
 Co. V. ^ T, J 
 
 Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Brady, 
 
 pp. 639, 663, 695. 
 Alabama Great Southern R. Co. r. 
 
 McCleskey, p. 1051. 
 Alabama' Mid. R. Co. v. Darby, 
 
 pp 292, 303, 587, 900. 
 _L r.. Guilford, p. 1491. 
 
 T. Hatcher, p. 2940. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Conim. v. 
 
 McLaren v. 
 
 Scarbrough '■. 
 
 V. Thompson, p. 590. 
 
 Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mobile, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 558. 
 Alabama State Board, Western 
 
 Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Alabama Steel, etc., Co., Osborne 
 
 Ala'bama, etc., R. Co. i: Arnold, 
 
 80 Ala. 600, 2 So. 337— pp. 2148, 
 
 2873, 2913. 
 z: Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 4 So. 
 
 359, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 466, 
 
 5 Am. St. Rep. 354— pp. 1797, 
 
 1799, 2548. 
 V. Bates, 149 Ala. 48/, 43 
 
 So. 98— pp. 2400, 2665, 2947. 
 z' Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 
 
 So. 776— pp. 2864, 2949. 
 
 z\ Beardsley, p. 2002. 
 
 V. Bell, pp. 2782, 3106. 
 
 V. Bessemer, p. 3574. 
 
 Blackburn v. 
 
 V. Brady, pp. 1256, 
 
 1259, 2652, 2847. 
 
 z: Bullard, pp. 2922, 2924 
 
 Burnham z'. 
 
 Burns v. „^„ 
 
 V. Carmichael, pp. 1863, 1968. 
 
 ■;■. Cassell Drug Co., p. 3398. 
 
 V. Coggins, pp. 1526, 1792, 
 
 1964, 2863. 
 
 V. Collier, p. 2577. 
 
 ■ Collins V. 
 
 V. Commonwealth Cotton Mfg. 
 
 — ^'w.'^Cox, pp. 1524, 1868, 2580, 
 2601, 2904. 
 
 v. Davis, p. 3037. 
 
 V. Dear, pp. 2947, 2948. 
 
 V. Drummond, p. 1942. 
 
 Easley v. 
 
 — z\ Eichofer, p. 601. 
 
 — V. Ellott & Son, pp. 741, 
 743. 
 
 — Faison v. 
 
 — Fore V. 
 Forsee x-', 
 
 — V. Frazier, pp. 2484, 2530, 
 
 2711. ^ ,^^, 
 
 — V. Gewin & Son, p. 1461. 
 
 — V. Gibbs, p. 3100. ^^^^ 
 
 — V. Gilbert, pp. 2602, 2606, 
 2690. 
 
 1257, 
 
 Mabama, etc., R. Co. t'. Godfrey, 
 pp. 1773, 1793, 1794, 1795, 
 2068,' 2592. 
 
 z: Goforth, p. 842. 
 
 V. Grabfelder, pp. 663, 814, 
 
 895. 
 
 V. Guilford, pp. 1689, 1692. 
 
 Gulf Compress Co. v. 
 
 7'. Hanes, p. 2625. 
 
 z: Hawk, pp. 1983, 2122, 
 
 2176, 2177. 
 
 ■ V. Heddleston, pp. 2573, 2622, 
 
 3046. 
 
 v. Hill, 90 Ala. 71, 8 So. 90, 
 
 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 441, 9 
 L. R. A. 442, 24 Am. St. Rep. 
 764— p. 1812. 
 
 f. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 9 So. 
 
 722, 30 Am. St. Rep. 65, 47 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 501— pp. 
 1717, 1718, 1721, 2693, 2734, 
 2930, 3069. 
 
 V. Holmes, pp. 2463, 2464, 
 
 2495. 
 
 Hooks T. 
 
 Jackson v. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 v. Tones, p. 2254. 
 
 ■ v. kidd, 29 Ala. 221— p. 531. 
 
 f . Kidd, 35 Ala. 209— pp. 
 
 550, 895, 898, 914, 960. 
 
 t'. Kuhn, p. 2061. 
 
 z\ Lamkin, p. 3311. 
 
 V. Little, pp 820, 823, 1035, 
 
 1038, 1073. 
 
 z'. McKenna, p. 644. 
 
 V. McKenzie, pp. 508, 567, 
 
 588, 691. 
 
 V. Mississippi R. Comm., pp. 
 
 55, 56, 72. 
 
 •:■. Morris, p. 424. 
 
 Mt. Vernon v. 
 
 r. , Mount Vernon Co., pp. 
 
 3300, 3302, 3338, 3391. 
 
 Mt. Vernon Co. v. 
 
 Newman v. 
 
 Neyman '■. 
 
 z'. Norris, p. 331. 
 
 V. Organ Power Co., pp. 559, 
 
 v. Pouncey, pp. 2608, 2769. 
 
 f. Purnell, pp. 1676, 3053. . 
 
 z'. Ouarles, pp. 619, 741, 743. 
 
 v. Railroad Comm., pp. 82, 
 
 83, 84. 91. ^„,^ 
 
 V. Sampley, pp. 1742, 2016, 
 
 2040, 2047, 2578, 2769, 2922. 
 
 Searles v. 
 
 V. Searles, p. 782. 
 
 ■ V. Sellers, pp. 1867, 1869, 
 
 1872, 2650, 3015, 3058. 
 
 v. Siniard, pp. 2036, 2816. 
 
 V. Sparks, p. 1382. 
 
 V. Stacey, p. 1772. 
 
 V. Tapia, p. 2711. 
 
 V. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343, 3 So. 
 
 802— pp. 1364, 1434, 3359, 3391. 
 
 V. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294, 7 So. 
 
 762, 18 Am. St. Rep. 119— pp. 
 326, 819, 3359, 3360, 3361. 
 
 V. Tirelli, pp. 516, 620. 
 
 V. Ventress, pp. 2288, 2292, 
 
 2385. 
 
 Walter v. 
 
 Wells V. 
 
 V. Wilkinson, p. 3062 
 
 . V. Yarbrough, p. 1550. 
 
 Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1074, 1396, 1397. 
 Alaska Steamship Co., Marks v. 
 Alaska, etc.. Steamship Co., Guf- 
 
 fcy V. 
 Albany Railway, Dowd v. 
 Albany, etc., R. Co., Fink v. 
 
 V. Merchants', etc.. Bank, pp. 
 
 328, 366, 378, 407, 582, 595, 596. 
 
 People V. 
 
 Albatross v. Wayne, p. 538. _ 
 
 Albemarle, etc., R. Co., Wein- 
 berg V. 
 
 Alber, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Albers Comm. Co., Kansas, etc., 
 R. Co. v.
 
 TABLR OF CASES. 
 
 CXV 
 
 Albin 
 
 1512 
 
 1859, 
 
 R 
 
 730, 
 
 782, 
 
 etc., 
 
 Albert Dumois, The. 
 .Mbcrti, Calvcston, etc., R. Co. v 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 1517, isr.i. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp 
 2454. 
 Albion Lumber Co. -'. DcXobra, p 
 
 1487. 
 All)rtcht 7-. New York, etc 
 
 Co., p. 2137. 
 Albright V. Peiin, pp. 11, 
 
 750. 753, 757. 765, 768, 
 
 1685, 1689, 1691. 
 Albritton & Co. r. Atlantic, 
 
 R. Co., p. 16.5. 
 Albuquerque Tract. Co., Corco- 
 ran V. 
 Alcorn v. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 1253, 125S, 1257, 3403, 3411. 
 Alden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1682, 1687, 1845. 
 
 V. Pearson, p]). 456, 491, 
 
 797, 798, 821, 1036. 
 
 Alden & Co. v. Carver, p. 1167. 
 Alderctc, El Paso Elect. R. Co. v. 
 Alderman v. Eastern K. Co., pp. 
 
 364, 560. 
 Alderson v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 594, 595, 847. 
 Aldrcdgc, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Aldrich v. Cargo of 246 5/20 Tons 
 
 of Egg Coal, p. 3943. 
 
 ?•. Southern R. Co., p. 3750. 
 
 Aldrich, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co., p. 545. 
 
 Alexander v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 153, 172, 176, 252. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 House '•. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ V. McGaffey, p. 2613. 
 
 I'. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 2035. 
 
 Paris Trans. Co. '■. 
 
 T'. Pennsylvania R. Co 
 
 1476. 1479." 
 
 Pensacola Elect. Co. v. 
 
 f. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 59 
 
 Hun 616, 12 N. Y. S. 685, 35 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 701— p. 2894. 
 
 I'. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 
 
 128 N. Y. 13, 27 N. E- 950, 48 
 Am. & ICng. R. Cas. 46— p. 
 2006. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Alexandria, etc., R. Co. v. Hern- 
 don, pp. 1767. 1773, 1798, 1911, 
 1912, 1913, 2747. 
 
 Alfalfa Products Co., Hawkins v. 
 Alford, Campbell i'. 
 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2267. 
 
 McHenry v. 
 
 Alger f. Lowell, p. 2300. 
 
 Aline, The. 
 
 Allam v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 
 
 Pa. 174, 38 Atl. 709, 39 L. R. A., 
 
 N. S., 535— p. 534. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 5 
 
 Pa. Dist. R. 54— pp. 899, 903. 
 
 r. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 
 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 325— p. 910. 
 
 Allan V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 899. 
 
 V. State Steamship Co., p. 
 
 2078. 
 
 Allan Line Steamship Co., Lar- 
 
 sen V. 
 Allard, Wynn z: 
 Allardt v. People, p. 184. 
 Allbritton, New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 AUcorn, Gulf, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 Allegheny R. Co., O'Donnell v. 
 Allegheny Tract. Co., Goorin v. 
 
 Holmes "'. 
 
 AUcghenv Valley R. Co., Duflf v. 
 
 -•. McLain, p. 2411. 
 
 O'Donnell -•. 
 
 Ruppel z>. 
 
 Scott -'. 
 
 Allen, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., 82 
 655, 23 
 
 R. 
 
 .Mien, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Camden, etc.. Ferry Co., p. 
 3086. 
 
 -'. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 
 
 I)p. 230, 233, 234. 
 
 • :■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 
 
 Minn. 119, 133 N. W. 462— pp. 
 
 1598, 1601. 
 
 — V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Neb. 726, 118 N. W. 
 
 L. R. A., N. S., 278— pp. 1275 
 
 1479. 
 — — Coleman v. 
 
 Colorado Springs, etc., 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 Crooks V. 
 
 V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., pj). 
 
 1843, 2724, 2739. 
 
 Fordyce v. 
 
 ■:■. Galveston City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1730, 1731, 1732, 2069, 2937. 
 
 Harding Paper Co. f. 
 
 Hart V. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1494. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • McDongal r. 
 
 -'. Maine, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1246, 1248, 1249. 
 
 r. Mercier, p. 1220. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2669, 2689, 2857. 
 
 V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 98 
 
 Fed. 16— pp. 3637, 3661, 3680, 
 3691, 3693, 3718, 3719, 3826, 
 3828. 
 
 f. Oregon R., etc., Co., 106 
 
 Fed. 265— p. 3693. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z\ Pullman's Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3550, 3570, 3579, 3580. 
 
 Richmond Passenger, etc., Co. 
 
 z: Sackrider, p. 771. 
 
 • -'. St. Louis Nat. Bank, pp. 
 
 358, 359, 369. 
 
 z'. St. Louis Transit Co., pp. 
 
 2279, 2280, 2284, 2285, 2346, 
 2893. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sewall V. 
 
 z'. Sewall (N. Y.), 2 Wend. 
 
 327— pp. 10, 722, 728, 749, 762. 
 
 V. Sewall (N. Y.), 6 Wend. 
 
 327— p. 236. 
 
 V. Sewall (N. Y.), 6 Wend. 
 
 335— p. 239. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Texas, etc., R. Co., 100 
 
 Tex. 525, 101 S. W. 792, 11 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 981, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 618 — pp. 158, 
 171, 174, 230, 261. 
 
 z: Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 943— p. 
 2120. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. ■:•. 
 
 V. United Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2684. 
 
 Vose V. 
 
 V. Williams, pp. 350, 351, 
 
 362, 363, 364. 
 
 z'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3093. 
 
 Allen Co. f. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1474. 
 Allen-Fleming Co. v. Southern 
 
 R. Co., p. 3393. 
 Allen, etc., Co. v. Canadian Pac. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 966, 3294, 3347, 
 
 3348. 
 r. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank. 
 
 pp. 353, 356, 366, 370, 376, 403, 
 
 404. 
 Allender z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 37 Iowa 264, 8 Am. R. Rep. 
 
 115— pp. 1510, 1512, 1513, 1517, 
 
 1571. 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 
 
 Iowa 276— pp. 1875. 1913, 2066. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Allenza z: Erie R. Co., p. 2878. 
 Aller, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Allerton z'. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1539. 
 Alley z'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., p. 2465. 
 AUgood, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Alliance Co., Chase r. 
 .Mliance Ins. Co., Fay f. 
 Allin z: Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2650, 2654. 
 .Ailing V. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3121, 3122, 3124, 3151, 3153, 
 
 3192. 
 
 Sherlock v. 
 
 Allis f. Voight, p. 771. 
 
 Allison z'. Georgia R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2425, 2621. 
 G. H. & H. R. Co. V. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1752, 1755, 1757, 2677. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Allowance for Lining and Heat- 
 ing Cars, In re. 
 
 Allowances to Elevators, In re. 
 Allyn & Co., Halflf, etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Willis & Bro., pp. 1212, 
 
 1219, 1220, 1244, 1245. 
 
 Almand, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 894, 898, 900, 917, 3406. 
 
 Almy f. California, p. 3594. 
 
 -Alnwick, The. 
 
 Alpin, The. 
 
 Alsberg, etc., Co. v. Latta, pp. 
 
 1228, 1232, 1233. 
 Alslop V. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 213, 214, 233. 
 Alston, Campbell v. 
 .Altland f. Atchison, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 939. 
 .Altcmeier v. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1501, 1503, 1504, 1515. 
 Alten v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1903. 
 .Alton R., etc., Co. v. Webb, p. 
 
 2343. 
 Alton, etc.. Tract. Co. z: Oliver, 
 
 pp. 2365, 2757, 2887. 
 
 z: Oiler, pp. 2365, 2671, 
 
 2757, 2887. 
 
 ■ Redin z\ 
 
 .Altoona, etc.. Elect. Co., Thomas v. 
 Altschuler v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3830. 
 Altwein '■. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2288, 2351, 2649, 2654. 
 
 2640. 
 Alumbaugh, Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Alvah, The. 
 Alvena, The. 
 .\Ivin, Brulard -■. 
 Alvord, Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 
 
 AnVbach z: B. & O. R. Co., p. 
 1076. 
 
 f. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 947, 949, 953, 1363. 
 
 T. & O. C. R. Co. f. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R'. Co. r. 
 
 Ambrosini v. United States, p. 
 
 3539. 
 
 America, The. 
 
 American Agricultural Chemical 
 Co., Farrow -'. 
 
 American Baggage, etc., Co.. At- 
 lanta Terminal Co. v. 
 
 American Banana Co. ;•. United 
 Fruit Co., p. 3636. 
 
 American Book Co. z-. Kansas, p. 
 3557. 
 
 State f. 
 
 American Brewing Ass'n v. Tal- 
 bot, p. 619. 
 
 American Contract Co. i: Cross, 
 pp. 3114, 3123, 3129. 
 
 American Cotton Oil Co. z: Kirk, 
 p. 3867. 
 
 American Exch. Bank, Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co. Z-. 
 
 American Exp. Co., Bagley Eleva- 
 tor Co. -■. 
 
 Baldwin f.
 
 CXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 American Exp. Co. ■:■. Baldwin, pp. 
 511. 890, 911, 916. 
 
 Bank z: 
 
 Bardwcll "'. 
 
 Bennett z: 
 
 • Boorman z: 
 
 Rrockway •;•. 
 
 Brooks f. 
 
 Bullard f. 
 
 f. Burke, p. 651. 
 
 Christenson z: 
 
 Clark z: 
 
 Conti V. 
 
 Conway Bank v. 
 
 Cox f. 
 
 T'. Crawley, p. 136. 
 
 Diirgin z-. 
 
 Edwards z\ 
 
 !■. Epply. V- 571. 
 
 T-. Fletcher, pp. 554, 555. 
 
 Gerry z\ 
 
 Cowling z\ 
 
 — — T'. Greenhaigh, pp. 543, 572. 
 
 z\ Haggard, p. 525. 
 
 Hardy c'. 
 
 Hasse '■. 
 
 Hendricks z'. 
 
 V. Hockett, pp. 529, 767, 
 
 770, 773, 890, 908. 
 
 Howard v. 
 
 ■ ■ Indiana z\ 
 
 z: Indiana, pp. 3591, 3594. 
 
 v. Iowa, p. 3539. 
 
 James z\ 
 
 • z\ Jennings, pp. 637, 651, 
 
 653, 666, 681, 859. 
 ■ • Jordan ?■. 
 
 Kimball '•. 
 
 Klauber t, 
 
 Leavens z\ 
 
 • Lefebure "■. 
 
 z: Lesem, pp. 412, 570. 
 
 • McKahan f. 
 
 McMillan v. 
 
 Marshall z: 
 
 Martin !■. 
 
 Mather z: 
 
 Merrill j'. 
 
 V. Miller, p. 3434. 
 
 z: Mullins, p. 577. 
 
 z: Ogles, pp. 1567, 1568, 
 
 1579, 2091. 
 
 Pastore ?•. 
 
 — ■ — Perkins "'. 
 
 f. Perkins, p. 764. 
 
 Perkins Co. z'. 
 
 <■. Risley, p. 875. 
 
 r. Sands, pp. 822, 828, 946, 
 
 1074. 
 
 f. Second Nat. Bank, pp. 
 
 728, 771, 3257, 3289. 
 
 Smith z: 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 608, 619, 620, 
 
 738, 753, 765, 766. 
 
 z: Southern Indiana Exp. 
 
 Co., p. 3526. 
 
 V. Spellman, pp. 996, 997, 
 
 998. 
 
 z: Stack, p. 549. 
 
 z: State, p. 3526. 
 
 r. State Board, p. 3578. 
 
 Swiney v. 
 
 Taft Co. V. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 r. United States, pp. 3420, 
 
 3614, 3684, 3686, 3695, 3696. 
 
 Wells z: 
 
 z: Wettstein, p. 572. 
 
 Winn V. 
 
 Wolf z: 
 
 American Fire Ins., Karnes v. 
 American Forwarding Co., Bare v. 
 American Grocery Co. v. Staten 
 
 Island, etc., R. Co., p. 1087. 
 American Hay Co. z'. Bath, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 3358. 
 American Lead Pencil Co. v. 
 
 Nashville, etc.. Railway, pp. 277, 
 
 286, 289, 753, 754, 885. 
 American Merchants' Union Exp. 
 
 Co., Gibson v. 
 
 Ketchum z\ 
 
 v. Milk, pp. 545, 553. 
 
 z: Phillips, pp. 210, 243, 1286. 
 
 .\merican Merchants' Union Ex- 
 press Co. z\ Scheir, p. 1049. 
 
 -•. Wolf, pp. 535, 565, 567, 
 
 570, 572. 
 
 American Nat. Bank v. Georgia R. 
 Co., pp. 311, 374. 
 
 z: Henderson, pp. 391, 398. 
 
 '•. Lee, p. 366. 
 
 American Oil Works, Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. z\ 
 
 American R. Co., Aldrich, etc., 
 Mfg. Co. '•. 
 
 American Refrigerator Trans. Co., 
 Hall z: 
 
 z: Hall, pp. 3549, 3552. 3556, 
 
 3557. 3572, 3591, 3593, 3594. 
 
 American Roofing Co. z\ Mem- 
 phis, etc.. Packet Co.. pp. 490, 
 491, 956, 964, 981, 997, 999, 
 1013, 1015, 1032. 
 
 American Silk Dyeing, etc., Co. -■. 
 Fuller's Exp. Co., p. 990. 
 
 American Silver Mfg. Co. z'. Wa- 
 bash R. Co., p. 3521. 
 
 iVmerican Standard Jewelry Co ?■. 
 Witherington, pp. 890, 902. 
 
 American Steamship Co. z'. Bryan, 
 pp. 3146, 3147, 3156, 3195. 
 
 American Steel, etc., Co. z'. Speed, 
 p. 3517. 
 
 American Storage, etc., Co. ?■. Wa- 
 bash R. Co., pp. 331, 549. 
 
 American Sugar Refin. Co. z\ Del- 
 aware, etc., R. Co., pp. 3608, 
 3734, 3769, 3787. 
 
 I'. Delaware, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3673, 3700, 3750, 3768. 
 
 v. McGhee, pp. 546, 565, 567, 
 
 889. 
 
 z\ Maddock, pp. 306, 308, 
 
 339, 3879, 3893. 
 
 ;■. Rickinson, pp. 4062, 4083. 
 
 American Thresherman z\ De 
 
 Tamble Motors Co., p. 384. 
 .\merican Tobacco Co., Pittsburg, 
 
 etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 American Trading Co., Northern 
 
 Pac. R. Co. v. 
 American Transp. Co., Moore ''. 
 
 z: Moore, pp. 869, 1007, 
 
 3161. 
 
 American Union Coal Co. z'. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., pp. 3674, 3828. 
 
 American Union Exp. Co. z'. Rob- 
 inson, p. 535. 
 
 T'. St. Joseph, p. 3578. 
 
 American, etc., Exp. Co., Cra- 
 mer -'. 
 
 Ela V. 
 
 V. Phillips, p. 467. 
 
 American, etc., Ins. Co. z'. Lan- 
 
 dreth, p. 1838. 
 
 American, etc.. Lumber Co., Har- 
 rington V. 
 
 American, etc.. Marine Ins. Co., 
 Duplan Silk Co. v. 
 
 .\merican, etc., Timber Co. z'. Kan- 
 sas, etc., R. Co., pp. 3639, 3687, 
 3749. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 .\mericus, etc., R. Co. "■. Luckie, 
 
 pp. 2118, 2404. 
 Ames 7'. Astor, p. 728. 
 
 Champion -'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 z: Fargo, pp. 1270, 1292, 
 
 1348. 
 
 7'. First Div., etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 485, 803, 831. 
 
 z\ New York Union Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 1118. 
 
 V. Palmer, pp. 481, 520, 1153, 
 
 1157, 1164. 
 
 • 7'. Reed, p. 595. 
 
 Smyth 7'. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., p. 2441. 
 
 v. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 52, 
 
 3607. 
 
 United States 7'. 
 
 Ames Mercantile Co. 7'. Kimball 
 Steamship Co., p. 3913. 
 
 Ammon 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 477, 479, 480, 821, 824. 
 Ammons 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 2420, 2435, 2467, 2468, 2469. 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 3077, 
 
 3078, 3079, 3083, 3086, 3091. 
 Amory 7'. Wabash R. Co., pp. 3124, 
 
 3149, 3152, 3154, 3193. 
 Amory Mfg. Co. 7'. Gulf, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 282, 1013, 1024, 1025. 
 Amos, Ann Arbor R. Co. 'v. 
 Amos D. Carver, The. 
 Amoskeag Mfg. Co., Donnell 7'. 
 Amsden 7'. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 460. 
 .^nacostia, etc., R. Co. 7'. Klein, 
 
 p. 2876. 
 Anaheim Lighter Co., Mendelsohn 
 
 Anchor Line 7'. Dater, pp. 989, 
 1049, 3182. 
 
 Ganguzza 7'. 
 
 7'. Knowles, pp. 1032, 1033. 
 
 Lancer 7'. 
 
 Anchoria, The. 
 
 Anderson 7'. Atchison, etc., R'. Co., 
 pp. 821, 1037. 
 
 Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2904. 
 
 Birmingham R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 Boyce z\ 
 
 7'. Canadian Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3164^ 
 
 Carolina Portland Cement 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. "•. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 131 
 
 Mo. App. 580, 110 S. W. 650— 
 
 p. 2658. 
 — 7'. Chicago. 
 Neb. 430, 129 
 
 R. Co., 88 
 W. 1008— p. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 
 Citizens' St. 
 
 1901. 
 
 City, etc., R. Co., pp. 1819, 
 2200, 2894, 2972. 
 
 Hammond 7'. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 ■ Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1087. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 62 Fed. 46— pp. 1945, 1946. 
 
 '■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 134 Ky. 343, 120 S. W. 298, 
 34 R. R. R. 220, 57 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 220, 20 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. '920 — pp. 2425, 
 2429, 2472. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Ky.), 120 S. W. 301— p. 2717. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Miss.), 15 So. 795— p. 637. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2235, 2638. 
 
 • 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 2865. 
 2946. 
 
 7'. Mobile, etc., R. Co. 
 
 267. 271, 284. 
 
 7'. Moore & Co., p. 3950. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 - — V. North Eastern R. Co., p. 
 849. 
 
 Palmer Transfer Co. z-. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railroad Co. -■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 z: Scholey, pp. 1711, 1837, 
 
 1838, 2161, 2692, 2757. 
 
 7'. Seattle-Tacoma, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2849. 
 
 7'. South Carolina, etc., 
 
 Co., 77 S. C. 434. 58 S. E. 
 —p. 2669. 
 
 7'. South Carolina, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 61 S. E. 1096, 81 S. C. 1 
 
 pp. 
 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 149
 
 —pp. 193i3, 1937, 2022, 2028, 
 
 2916, 2944. 
 Anderson. Soutlurn Pac. Co. r. 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. r. 
 
 Texarkana, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. United States, pp. 3418, 
 
 3504. 
 
 I'. Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3197. 
 
 Whitehead ?'. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. x'. 
 
 Anderson Art Co. v. Greenburg, 
 
 P- 1488. 
 Anderson Steamboat Co., McKay 
 
 .\n(lis, Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. 
 .\ndre\vs '.■. Capitol, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2182. 
 
 •■•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1981, 1986, 1987, 2888, 2889, 
 2945. 
 
 Delaware v. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. ?'. 
 
 V. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3120. 
 
 V. Metr()i)nlitaii St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2829. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wall, p. 4076. 
 
 T'. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co., !>. 1513. 
 
 .\ndrist ~r. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1707, 1964, 1965. 
 
 .\ndroscoggin Mills, Evansvdle, 
 
 etc., R. Co. t\ 
 
 Railroad Co. '■. 
 
 .\ndrus v. Columbia, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co., p. 3270. 
 
 Angl, La Matte v. 
 
 .\ngle V. Mississippi, etc., R. Co.. 
 pp. 550, 815, 821, 895. 
 
 .\ngle & Co. V. Mississippi, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 531, 546, 591, 773, 
 3176, 3329. 
 
 Anglo-American Oil Co., Jay ^\ ai 
 Nam '■. 
 
 .\nglo-California I'.atik f. Tolerton, 
 etc., Co. I'. 
 
 Anglo-Egyptian Nav. Co., Dracachi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 .\ppeal, Pennsylvania R. Co's. 
 .\ppeal of Cumberland \'al. R. Co., 
 
 p. 67. 
 Appeal of C.reat Xorlhern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 122, 127. 
 .\ppleby r. St. Paul City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1638, 1647, 2432. 
 ■ 7'. South Carolina, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1865, 1884, 2831, 3066. 
 .\pplewhite, Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 .\p()omattox R. Co., Powhatan 
 
 Steamboat Co. :■. 
 .\rayo v. Currel, p. 1489. 
 .\rbuckle, Dowgate Steamship 
 
 Co. V. 
 > V. Thompson, pp. 493, 541, 
 
 682. 
 .\rcher v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1829, 2180. 
 
 Gait V. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 106 N. Y. 589, 13 N. E. 318— p. 
 1783. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 19 Wkly. Dig. 10— 
 
 p. 2550. 
 .\rctic Uird, The. 
 .\rdison i'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 249 111. 300. 94 N. E. 501 — p. 
 
 2359. 
 
 •;•. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 155 
 
 App. 274, 277— pp. 1770, 
 
 111. 
 
 2357. 
 .\rend 
 
 ship 
 .\rents 
 .\rey, 
 .\rgo Steamship Co 
 
 Anjou 
 
 Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 
 Ann .\rbor R. Co. f. Amos, pp. 
 1615, 2412, 2460, 2559, 3088. 
 
 ■;■. Michigan R. Comm., p. 41. 
 
 Nelson Grain Co. z\ 
 
 Railroad Comm. r. 
 
 Serviss '■. 
 
 Stolze '•. 
 
 Weaver f. 
 
 Ann .A.rbor, etc., R. Co., Wallace 
 
 Annas t'. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2002, 2095, 2096. 
 Annie Faxon, The. 
 Annie L. N'ansciver, The. 
 .\nniston, Douglass ■:■. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co., p. 3574. 
 
 .\nniston Foundry, etc., Co., 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 Anniston Transfer Co. i: Gurlcy, 
 
 pp. 526, 3135. 
 Anniston, etc., R. Co. 7: Ledbetter, 
 
 pp. 895, 905. 
 Anoka Nat. Bank, Pennsylvania R. 
 
 Co. t'. 
 Ansell f. Waterhouse, p. 2565. 
 Anshen r. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1784, 2733. 
 Ansteth r. I'.uffalo R. Co., p. 2519. 
 .•\nthony, Dillingham t'. 
 Hanover function, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 -■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1812, 1846. 
 
 .\ntonia, Hammond, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Antoon. Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Aplington f. Pullman Co., pp. 
 
 1631, i2i2. 3240. 
 .Vpollon, The. 
 Appeal, Cumberland N'alkv R. 
 
 Co's. 
 
 Steam- 
 
 ?'. Liverpool, etc., 
 Co., p. 1036. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Seago, pp 
 820. 3921. 
 .\rjona. United States 
 Arkadelphia Mill. Co. 
 Merchandise Co 
 525, 602, 768, 
 896, 3286. 
 .\rkansas, Chicago 
 
 pp. 
 772, 
 
 Smoker 
 3, 8, 267. 
 779, 846, 
 
 etc. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 .Vrkansas Cent. R. Co. v. Bennett, 
 
 pp. 1525. 2816, 2966. 
 V. Janson, pp. 1682, 1742, 
 
 1755, n 
 
 1821, 2779, 
 
 ■. L^nited 
 Canman, 
 
 r'. Canman, 
 1835. 
 Bank, pp. 
 
 1752, 
 2807. 
 
 Wallace 7'. 
 
 Arkansas Fertilizer Co. 
 
 States, PI). 3776, 3836. 
 Arkansas Mid. R'. Co. r 
 pp. 1716. 1723. 
 
 V. Griffith, p. 2695. 
 
 r. Rambo. p. 2693. 
 
 7: Robinson, pp. 2305, 2874. 
 
 .Arkansas Rate Cases, In re. 
 .Arkansas River Packet Co. t'. 
 
 Hobbs, p. 4004. 
 Arkansas Southern R. Co. f. Ger- 
 man Nat. Bank, p. 512. 
 
 -'. Murphy, p. 1023. 
 
 Arkansas, etc.. Grain Co., St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. 
 pp. 1745, 1812, 1834, 
 
 f. German Nat. 
 
 355. 356, 365, 370, 376, 377, 519, 
 548, 566. 3540. 
 
 f. Griffith, pp 
 
 -■. Harris, p. 
 
 Loewenberg i 
 
 7'. Robinson, 
 
 1795. 
 
 7'. Sain, pp 
 
 2544. 
 
 7'. Wirgfield, p. 1756. 
 
 -Arlington Heights Fruit Co. v. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co., pp. 3674, 
 
 3820, 3821. 
 Armentrout 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 378, 379, 744, 1228, 
 
 3274. 
 Amies, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 Armijo, Seligman 7'. 
 Armistead 7'. Shreveport, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 860. 
 Armistead Lumber Co. :■. Louis 
 
 ville, etc.. R. Co., p. 524. 
 
 CXVII 
 
 I 
 
 Armour i: Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 310, 350 3879 
 .\rmour Car Lines, Williams 7'. 
 .Armour Packing Co., Lacy 7'. 
 
 7'. United States, 82 C. C. A. 
 
 135, 153 Fed. I, 14 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 400— pp. 3700, 3705, 3740, 
 3753, 3757, 3843, 3845, 3847, 
 3850. 
 
 V. United States, 209 U. S. 
 
 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28 S. Ct. 
 428— pp. 3443, 3603, 3613, 3631, 
 3665, 3684, 3736, 3737, 3750, 
 3753, 3842, 3847, 3848. 3851, 
 3852, 3853, 3854, 3855, 3857. 
 
 Armour & Co. v. City Council, p. 
 
 3528. 
 Arms, Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Armsby Co., Commercial Bank v. 
 Armstead, Southern Exp. Co. 
 Armstrong, Baltimore Consol. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Minn. 85, 47 N. W. 459 
 
 1548, 1549. 
 148. 
 
 pp. 
 2507, 
 
 1773, 1779, 
 2509, 2510, 
 
 R. 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 422— j). 896. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 
 
 Minn. 183, 54 N. W. 1059— pp. 
 1087, 1103. 
 
 Die Elbinger 7'. 
 
 7'. Fargo, p. 408. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 V. Galveston, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 937, 938, 1093. 
 
 z: Grand Trunk R. Co., p 
 
 959. 
 
 International, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 48 N. Y. S. 597. 23 App. Div 
 137— p. 2804. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 55 N. Y. S. 498, 36 App. Div 
 525- p. 2687. 
 
 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 1321. 
 
 f. Montgomery St. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 197, 198, 2123. 2356, 2602 
 2608, 2629, 2641, 2869. 
 
 -: Portland R. Co., pp. 1963, 
 
 2248, 2822, 2825. 
 
 Receivers 7'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 870. 
 
 Armstrong, etc., Co. f. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co., pp. 777, 825, 842. 
 Arnett. Southern Pac. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Arnol, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Arnold, Alabama, etc., R. Co. t\ 
 
 7'. Atchison, etc., R'. Co., 81 
 
 Kan. 400, 105 Pac. 541— pp. 
 2447, 2471, 3078, 3079. 
 
 z: .Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 106 
 
 Pac. 42. 81 Kan. 530— p. 2117. 
 
 7'. Delano, p. 1227. 
 
 7'. Haleiibake. p. 11. 
 
 7. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1595. 2094. 
 
 7'. Tores, pp. 322. 333. 335, 
 
 336, 729, 731, 733, 750, 933. 
 
 Lake Eric, etc., I?. ^Co. 7-. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 I'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1412, 1427 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1544, 1560. 2448. 2853, 2855. 
 
 z: Rhode Island Co., pp. 205, 
 
 1644, 2465. 2471. 3101. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Arnott z: Redfern, p. 1490. 
 Aronson 7'. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 814. 
 Arpin 7'. Owens, p. 396. 
 Arrington 7'. Texas, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1712. 
 
 f. Wilmington, etc.. K. Co., 
 
 pp. 564. 598. 
 
 Arrowsmith 7'. Nashville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1575. 
 Arthur 7'. Pullman Co., p. 3238. 
 
 7'. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 526, 896.
 
 CXVIIl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Arthur z-. Texas, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 281, 282, 307, 739, 780, 869, 
 
 958, 970, 980. 
 Arthur B., The. 
 Artisans' Bank, Hotchkiss f. 
 Asbell, Columbus R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Kansas, p. 3560. 
 
 Asbury v. Charlotte Elect. R., etc., 
 Co., pp. 1890, 2164, 2659. 
 
 Ascher v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 pp. 1246, 1247. 
 
 Ashby, Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashcraft, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ashden f London B. & S. C. R. 
 Co., p. 790. 
 
 Asheboro, etc., Mfg. Co. r. South- 
 ern R. Co., pp. 476, 478, 486, 
 488, 495, 642, 674. 
 
 Asher v. East St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., p. 1743. 
 
 v'. Texas, pp. 3472, 3550. 
 
 Asheville, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Asheville St. R. Co., Cawfield i: 
 Ashford, Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Ashley, Black v. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 z: Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 955. 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Ryan. pp. 3472, 3484, 3556. 
 
 Ashmead, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Ashmore f. Pennsylvania Steam- 
 Towing, etc., Co., pp. 946, 948. 
 
 Ashtabula Rapid Transit Co., 
 Holmes '■. 
 
 r. Holmes, pp. 1679, 1714, 
 
 1891, 1962. 
 
 Ashton V. Detroit City R. Co., p. 
 
 2368. 
 Ashville St. R. Co., Cawfield f. 
 Asiatic Prince, The. 
 Ask, The. 
 Askew V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1039, 3344, 3374. 3375. 
 Askew & Co. '•. Southern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 369, 374, 403. 
 Asmore, Georgia, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Aspasia, The. 
 
 Aspell, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Ass'n, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Assyria, The. 
 Aston V. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2686. 
 Astor, Ames v. 
 
 Aymar '•. 
 
 Astoria Veneer Mills, Gass v. 
 Astsrup V. Lewy, pp. 3896, 3910. 
 Atchinson. etc., R. Co., Bibb 
 Broom Corn Co. v. 
 
 Blevins v. 
 
 7'. Ditmars, p. 1270. 
 
 Fentiman f. 
 
 Henry v. 
 
 f. Washburn, p. 740. 
 
 Weyand r 
 
 Atchison v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 490, 815. 
 
 De Baun v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Atch., Topeka & Santa Fe, Dun- 
 can 7'. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. .\lk-n, 
 pp. 1289, 1290, 1781. 
 
 Altland v. 
 
 .'\ltschuler v. 
 
 Anderson v. 
 
 Arnold v. 
 
 Avey V. 
 
 -•. Baldwin, pp. 1123, 1412, 
 
 1431, 1432, 1445, 1449, 1468. 
 
 '■. Bell, p. 3756. 
 
 Berg 7'. 
 
 Bibb Broom Corn Co. v. 
 
 V. Bilinsky, p. 1034. 
 
 Blevins '■. 
 
 V. Brewer, pp. 3139, 3180, 
 
 3186. 
 
 V. Bryan CTex. Civ. App.), 
 
 28 S. W. 98— pp. 943, 1027, 
 1315. 
 
 V. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 37 S. W. 234— pp. 822, 1295, 
 1440. 
 \tchison. Burgess v. 
 
 7'. Calhoun, 89 Pac. 207, 18 
 
 Okla. 75, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 681 — pp. 1697, 1720, 1785, 
 1798. 1821, 1881, 1884, 1906, 
 2777. 
 
 v. Calhoun, 29 S. Ct. 321, 
 
 213 U. S. 1— p. 1700. 
 
 — — 7'. Cameron, pp. 1608, 3316. 
 
 7'. Campbell, p. 3496. 
 
 Carder 7'. 
 
 7'. Chamberlain, p. 3068. 
 
 Chase '■. 
 
 Church f. 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 7'. Cochran, p. 2085. 
 
 ■ 7'. Coffin, pp. 1410, 1430. 
 
 f. Cogswell, pp. 2505, 2507. 
 
 7'. Collins, p. 1423. 
 
 7'. Consolidated Cattle Co., p. 
 
 391. 
 
 Coon I'. 
 
 Cornelius v. 
 
 Craycroft v. 
 
 7'. Crittenden, pp. 427, 1087, 
 
 1117. 
 
 Crow 7'. 
 
 Dangerfield 7'. 
 
 Darling v. 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 7'. Dawson, p. 841. 
 
 Decker 7'. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. 7". 
 
 V. Denver, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 82, 85, 102, 109, 110, 208, 222, 
 240, 1134, 3258, 3267, 3268, 
 3648, 3729. 
 
 7'. Dickerson, pp. 195, 2468, 
 
 2470. 
 
 7'. Dill, pp. 973, 974, 978, 979, 
 
 986. 
 
 Dorsey 7'. 
 
 7'. Dwelle, pp. 1598, 1600, 
 
 2468, 2473. 
 
 7'. Elder, 149 111. 173, 36 N. 
 
 E. 565— p. 1815. 
 
 7'. Elder, 50 111. .\pp. 276— 
 
 p. 2673, 
 
 — — z: Elder, 57 Kan. 312. 46 
 Pac. 310— p. 2694. 
 
 Empire State Cattle Co. 7-. 
 
 7'. Flinn, p. 1687. 
 
 - V. Foster Lumber Co., pp. 522, 
 3811. 
 
 Frazier 7'. 
 
 • Freeman v. 
 
 7'. Frier, pp. 1730, 1884. 
 
 z: Gants, pp. 198, 1545, 1663, 
 
 1666, 1860, 2453, 2454, 2471, 
 2486, 2533. 
 
 Gault Lumber Co. z'. 
 
 Glover v. 
 
 7'. Grant, pp. 325, 451, 452, 
 
 453. 950, 971, 998, 1104, 1106. 
 1110, 1352, 1468, 3366, 3392. 
 
 Hanson 7'. 
 
 7'. Headland, pp. 1542, 1551, 
 
 1553, 1554. 
 
 z\ Henry, 55 Kan. 715, 41 
 
 Pac. 952, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 N. S. 418, 29 L. R. A. 465— pp. 
 2043, 2059, 2070, 3074. 
 
 z: Henry, 78 Kan. 490; 97 
 
 Pac. 465, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 177 
 —p. 744. 
 
 7'. Hinsdell, p. 1164. 
 
 • V. Hogue, pp. 1598, 2468, 
 
 3100. 
 
 v. Holloway, pp. 1509, 1512, 
 
 1518, 2151, 2152. 
 
 7'. Holmes, p. 3760. 
 
 7'. Hughes, pp. 1878, 2115. 
 
 2249. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 V. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 182 Fed. 189— pp. 3820, 3821. 
 
 7'. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 188 Fed. 229— pp. 536, 3728, 
 3744, 3793. 
 
 7'. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 190 Fed. 591- pp. 3670, 3672. 
 
 Atchison, Joerg z\ 
 V. Johns, p. 2539. 
 
 V. Johnson, pp. 1548, 1551, 
 
 2209, 2354. 
 
 z\ Jordon Stock Food Co., 
 
 p. 480. 
 
 Tustis V. 
 
 "Kiff V. 
 
 z: Lambert, pp. 1387, 1460. 
 
 7'. Lawler, p. 848. 
 
 Leslie "■. 
 
 z'. Lindley, p. 2525. 
 
 V. Loewe, pp. 2361, 2820. 
 
 Love 7'. 
 
 z: Love, 174 Fed. 59— p. 130. 
 
 ■ V. Love, 23 Okla. 192, 99 
 
 Pac. 1081— p. 128. 
 
 Lusby z'. 
 
 McCabe v. 
 
 McCahe 7'. 
 
 7'. MacVeagh '■. 
 
 7'. Madden, etc., Co., pp. 746, 
 
 834, 843. 
 
 V. Mason, p. 973. 
 
 Mathews v. 
 
 7'. Means, pp. 1483, 1484. 
 
 Mendenhall v. 
 
 Merritt Creamery Co. v. 
 
 7'. Miller, p. 1007. 
 
 Moore z\ 
 
 7'. Moore, p. 3761. 
 
 Moorman v. 
 
 V. Morris, pp. 1087, 1098. 
 
 V. Nation, pp. 1338, 1339. 
 
 Noble 7'. 
 
 V. O'Connor, p. 3555. 
 
 Oklahoma 7'. 
 
 Paddock v. 
 
 — Palmer v. 
 
 — V. Parry, p. 2866. 
 
 — Peck 7'. 
 
 — V. People, p. 215. 
 
 — V. Poole, pp. 1097, 1102, 
 1419. 
 
 — • Prescott, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 — • V. Richardson, p. 819. 
 
 — Roach z\ 
 
 — v. Roach, pp. 3175. 3176, 
 3180, 3181, 3182, 3315, 3316, 
 3323. 
 
 — V. Roberts, p. 303. 
 
 — V. Robinson, pp. 3761, 3762, 
 3840. 
 
 — 7'. Rodgers, pp. 1051, 1368, 
 1388, 3333. 
 
 — Rolfs z: 
 
 — Rutherford, p. 3394. 
 
 — Sachrowitz v. 
 
 — Sauter 7'. 
 
 — Schloss 7'. 
 
 — '■. Schriver, pp. 477, 482, 
 514, 517, 580. 
 — • Sewell 7'. 
 
 — f. Shean, pp. 1740, }792, 
 1793, 1964, 2272, 2273, 2275. 
 
 — Smith 7'. 
 
 — V. Smythe, pp. 858, 1025, 
 1059, 3520. 
 
 — Star Grain, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 — State 7'. 
 
 — V. State, 23 Okla. 210, 100 
 Pac. 11— pp. 24, 125. 
 
 — 7'. State, 26 Okla. 166, 109 
 Pac. 218— pp. 127, 141. 
 
 — z: State, 28 Okla. 12, 115 
 Pac. 1101— p. 118. 
 
 — 7'. State, 31 Okla. 767, 123 
 Pac. 1065— p. 3502. 
 
 — ■ V. State, 33 Okla. 371, 125 
 Pac. 721— p. 182. 
 
 Stevens 7'. 
 
 — 7'. Stewart, p. 3068. 
 
 — 7'. Superior Refin. Co., p. 
 3774. 
 
 — • V. Temple, pp. 1107, 1423, 
 1426. 
 
 Linited States 7'. 
 
 7'. United States, 101 C. C. 
 
 A. 140, 718 Fed. 12— pp. 3623, 
 3624, 3629, 3630. 
 
 — V. United States, 191 Fed. 
 856— pp. 3675, 3699, 3722. 
 
 — V. United States, 203 Fed. 
 56— pp. 3665, 3677.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXIX 
 
 1498, 
 
 1885, 
 
 Atchison v. United States, 232 U. 
 S 199. .34 S. Ct. 291— pp. 3630, 
 3631, 3666, 3670. 3764. 
 
 V. Veale & Co., p. 1354. 
 
 Voslnirg r. 
 
 V. Washlnirn, pp. 945, 1361, 
 
 1448, 1449, 1466. 
 
 '.: Weber, pp. 1497, 
 
 2419. 2420. 
 
 Wichita Sav. Bank v. 
 
 V. Wilkinson, p. 3184. 
 
 Wills V. 
 
 r. Wood, p. 2417. 
 
 7'. Worlcy, pp. 1730, 
 
 1967. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 1419, 1426. 
 
 Aten, International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Athanasaw :•. United States, p. 
 
 3441. 
 Athon, Kvansville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Atkeson :•. Tackson, p. 1488. 
 Atkins V. Colbv. pp. 1210, 1211, 
 
 1212, 1228. 1229, 1232. 
 
 Little R'ock. etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Atkins &• Co., Steamboat Co. v. 
 Atkins Crocerv, etc., Co.. Veitch v. 
 .A.tkinson :•. Mercer, p. 2846. 
 
 -•. New York Transfer Co., 
 
 pp. 948. 950. 1054. 1065, 1069. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3458, 3510. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 1626, 
 
 24SS. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co.. p. 1357. 
 
 Atkinson Tmprov. Co., Sweedcn v. 
 Atkisson V. Steamboat Castle Gar- 
 den, pp. 563. 595, 596. 
 
 Atlanta. Old Colony Trust Co. v. 
 
 •;■. Old Colony Trust Co., p. 
 
 76. 
 
 Atlanta Baggage, etc.. Co.. Kates r. 
 
 V. Mizo, pp. 512, 3139, 3140, 
 
 3141. 
 
 Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bates, pD. 1524, 2277, 2297, 
 
 2389, 2638, 2732. 
 ■ rt Hardage, pp. 2775 
 
 3097. 
 
 7'. Keenv, pp 
 
 3025, 3030, 3088. 
 
 White 7'. 
 
 Atlanta Nat. Bank, Southern R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., Southern 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Atlanta Stove Works, Southern R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Atlanta St. Railroad, Holly v. _ 
 Atlanta Terminal Co. v. American 
 
 Baggage, etc., Co., p. 100. 
 Atlanta, etc.. Railroad. Stiles f. 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co., Branan v. 
 Brannon v. 
 
 Britton 7'. 
 
 V. Broome, pp. 431. 721, 808, 
 
 839, 948, 950, 1036. 1038. 
 
 7'. Bryant, p. 2940. 
 
 Brown "'. 
 
 Cole -■. 
 
 V. Condor, pp. 2040, 2057, 
 
 3070, 3076. 
 
 7-. Crosby, p. 2392. 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 7'. Dickerson, pp. 1883, 1917 
 
 Kvans 7'. 
 
 Franklin 7'. 
 
 7'. r.ar.lner, pp. 2369, 2370. 
 
 Gasway 7-. 
 
 Haralson, pp. 2065. 
 
 2125, 2227. 
 
 7-. Holcombe, pp 
 
 7-'. Holcombe & Co., pp. 220, 
 
 Horn^. . . 
 
 Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., pp 
 
 e. pp 
 s" PI 
 724, 739, 741, 752 
 826, 876. 952, 1365 
 
 7'. Jarrett 7'. 
 
 Jenkins v. 
 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co., Kenny v. 
 
 Kenny Co. t'. 
 
 McCord V. 
 
 McKcrall v. 
 
 Miller V. 
 
 Morrow "'. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 National Bank v. 
 
 Ohlcn V. 
 
 Parris v. 
 
 V. Potts, p. 3095. 
 
 Purvis 7'. 
 
 ;- Sappington v. 
 
 '- Sumrell Z'. 
 
 Tenhct v. 
 
 V. Texas Grate Co., pp. 483, 
 
 653, 865, 3253, 3279. 
 
 Turley v. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 7'. Wyly, p. 2940. 
 
 \tlanta, etc.. Railway v. Wheeler, 
 
 pp. 2285, 2349, 2374, 2380, 2911. 
 .Atlantic, Westphalen,- etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Atlantic & N. Car. R. Co.. Foard r. 
 .\tlantic .Ave. R. Co., Cassidy v. 
 
 Morris 7-. 
 
 Walker f. 
 
 Watkins v. 
 
 ■ Whitbeck v. ^ 
 
 .\tlantic City v. Brown, 71 N. J. 
 
 L. 81, 58 Atl. 110— p. 1518. 
 V. Brown, 72 N. J. L. 207, 
 
 62 Atl. 428— pp. 46, 84. 
 
 7'. Fonsler, pn. 43, 85. 
 
 .\tlantic City R. Co. v. Clegg, pp. 
 
 1525, 2135, 2326, 2878. 2879. 
 
 V. Goodin, pp. 2246, 2275, 
 
 2276. 
 
 V. Kiefcr, p. 2864. 
 
 Laughlin 7'. 
 
 Rogers 7'. 
 
 .\tlantic Coast Line, National Lum- 
 ber Dealers v. 
 
 .Atlantic Coast Line Co., Prentis v. 
 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, Rich- 
 ardson 7'. ^ r, ■ 
 
 .Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Bain- 
 bridge Grocery Co. v. 
 
 Boss 7'. 
 
 Bowden v. 
 
 Charles v. 
 
 Jenkins v. 
 
 Lowry 7'. 
 
 Mazursky v. 
 
 Parnell v. 
 
 Penny v. 
 
 V. Rice, p. 1269. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Von Lehe v. 
 
 • Watson V. 
 
 Winslow Bros. & Co. v. 
 
 Atlantic Compress Co. 7'. Central 
 
 etc.. R'. Co.. p. 963. 
 Atlantic Consol. St. R. Co. 7' 
 
 Kccnv, p. 2481. 
 .Atlantic Exp. Co., Seaboard, etc.. 
 
 Railway 7'. 
 
 7'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 108. 
 
 .Atlantic Ins. Co., Conard '■■ 
 Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. McLoon. 
 
 p. 211. 
 Atlantic Nav. Co. 7. Johnson, pp. 
 
 528. 531, 538, 539, 561. 903. 
 .Atlantic Railway. Berrv 7'. 
 .\tlantic, etc.. Elect. R. Co., Oak- 
 
 .Atlantic, etc.. Railroad. Caldwell 7'. 
 Hopkins 7'. 
 
 King V. 
 
 Moore 7'. 
 
 Stiles %: 
 
 Wall V. 
 
 Wesner, etc.. Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 .Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., Acme Paper 
 
 Box Factory 7'. 
 
 . . . .Abritton & Co. f. 
 
 805, 825, Alexander 7'. 
 
 - .Anderson 7'. 
 
 - 7'. .Anderson, p. 2148. 
 
 - Attorney General 7. 
 
 3083, 
 
 1604, 2428, 
 
 1076, 
 
 1797. 2725. 
 
 1139, 3744. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., Baker v. 
 
 Basnight v. 
 
 • Bedsole v. 
 
 Bing V. 
 
 Black V. 
 
 Bowden v. 
 
 Bowdon V. 
 
 Box V. 
 
 Brick V. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Brunson v. . 
 
 V. Bryan, pp. 1090, llOi. 
 
 1106, 1114, 1115. 
 
 v. Bryant, p. 2857. 
 
 Bullock V. 
 
 Burckhalter v. 
 
 P.urress v. ,,r i . -. 
 
 California Powder Works v. 
 
 Charles v. .„ 
 
 ,.. Coachman, pp. 161, Wjy, 
 
 1292 13.50, 1400, 1402, 1432, 
 1456! 1460. 
 
 ZZ .?Sn''& Co., pp. 333, 337. 
 
 338. 339, 341, 346. 
 Colleton Mercantile, etc.. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 Commins v. 
 
 -Commonwealth v. 
 
 -;. Commonwealth, pp. ^J. 
 
 118. 3501. 
 ■ Cooper 7'. 
 
 ?°'' c'rosby, pp. 2173, 2176. 
 
 -~;^38- 2381,^616, 2629, 2640. 
 
 2676, 2722. 
 
 . Cummins 7'. _ 
 
 7'. Dahlberg Brokerage Co.. 
 
 pp. 343, 555, 570, 571, 586, 388. 
 
 Darden 7'. 
 
 — — ■ Davis %: 
 . • Deans 7-. 
 
 DeLorme f. 
 
 Deschamps v. 
 
 ZZ. -!?" Dexter, pp. 341, 986, 1397. 
 
 1^57. , . ,,,_ 
 7'. Dickinson, p. m>i- 
 
 Dorsett f. 
 
 V. Dothan Mule Co., pp. 
 
 1362, 1376. 
 
 Drawdy 7'. 
 
 • DuBose V. 
 
 Dunie 7'. 
 
 Elliott V. 
 
 Ellis V. 
 
 7-. Ellis, pp. 116, 124. 
 
 Farmers' etc.. Cotton Lo. .. 
 
 Farrell 7'. 
 
 Florida R. Comm rs v. 
 
 Foard v. 
 
 Ford 7'. 
 
 Fulghum 7'. 
 
 Fuller 7'. 
 
 FuUerton 7. 
 
 Garrett 7'. 
 
 = ? G^aty, pp. 219. 220. 
 
 — Gibson v. „, .,, .„, 
 _ V. Goodwin, pp. 93, 53l, 383. 
 595, 597. 
 
 — Green Co. 7'. 
 
 — Griffin 7'. 
 ■ — Grimsley f. 
 — ■ Guthrie 7'. 
 
 — Harvey 7'. ,,-.. 
 
 7'. Henderson, pp. 968, 3233. 
 
 3284. 3350, 3400. 
 
 — Herring 7'. 
 
 — Hiers 7'. 
 
 — Huggins 7'. ^ , „ 
 
 — 7'. Howard Supply Co., pp. 
 319. 553, 595, 596. 600. 
 
 — Hunter 7'. ^ 
 7. Interstate Commerce 
 
 Comm.. pp. 3791, 3792. 
 
 !•. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., pp. 
 
 757. 759. 
 
 — Jenkins 7-. 
 
 Johnson 7'. 
 
 7'. Johnson, pp. 2118, 2383. 
 
 Jones 7'. 
 
 Jones-Lane Co. v.
 
 cxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., Kahn i: 
 
 King Lumber, etc., Co. i-. 
 
 Knowles v. 
 
 Floridienne, etc., Co., So- 
 
 ciete Anonvme r. 
 
 r. Laird', 58 Fed. 760, 7 C. 
 
 C. A. 489— p. 2570. 
 
 r. Laird, 17 S. Ct. 120, 164 
 
 U. S. 393, 41 L. Ed. 485— p. 
 2571. 
 
 Levan v. 
 
 Lipman t'. 
 
 Lupe 7-. 
 
 McCord z: 
 
 McCullom f. 
 
 McCutchen z: 
 
 McKerall v. 
 
 McLarin f. 
 
 McLean <■. 
 
 McNeill f. 
 
 Macon Grocery Co. "'. 
 
 z: Macon Grocery Co., pp. 
 
 3766, 3822, 3840. 
 
 McRackan f. 
 
 Mazursky i'. 
 
 z: Mazursky, pp. 3523, 3545. 
 
 Meeks '•. 
 
 z: Meinhard, etc., Co., p. 491. 
 
 Meyer ;■. 
 
 Milhous V. 
 
 Mills V. 
 
 Moore z'. 
 
 Nelson v. 
 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm. 
 
 V. North Carolina Corp. Coram., 
 
 pp. 34, 38, 58, 103, 104. 
 
 Owens V. 
 
 z: Owens, p. 2509. 
 
 Parker z: 
 
 Parker Buggy Corp. z: 
 
 Parrott z\ 
 
 z: Partridge, p. 489. 
 
 Peele z: 
 
 Pelot V. 
 
 Penny v. 
 
 Perrv z: 
 
 Philips z: 
 
 Phillips f. 
 
 Pincus V. 
 
 z: Pipkin, p. 2673. 
 
 Post v. 
 
 V. Potts, p. 3010. 
 
 v. Powell, pp. 1828, 1938, 
 
 1939, 2020, 2160, 2600,. 2601, 
 2632, 2633. 
 
 Rabon v. 
 
 Railroad Comm'rs v. 
 
 z: Rice. pp. 208, 244, 757, 
 
 820, 826, 1345. 
 
 -•. Richardson, p. 3364. 
 
 Riverside Mills v. 
 
 z: Riverside Mills, pp. 731, 
 
 3444, 3464, 3469, 3470, 3603, 
 3604. 
 
 Roberts v. 
 
 Robertson v. 
 
 Roundtree v. 
 
 Rountree v. 
 
 Ruffin v. 
 
 Sanders f. 
 
 -■. Schirmer & Sons, p. 3286. 
 
 Scull & Co. V. 
 
 Sellers v. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 Southerland v. 
 
 Spires V. 
 
 z: Spires, pp. 348, 349, 552, 
 
 588. 
 
 State V. 
 
 v. State, p. 3506. 
 
 Stone & Co. v. 
 
 Strange v. 
 
 Stuckey v. 
 
 Sumrell v. 
 
 Sumter Pine, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Taylor v. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Towles V. 
 
 Tuten V. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 Vassor z\ 
 
 Venning v. 
 
 .\tlantic. etc.. R. Co., Virginia- 
 Carolina Peanut Co. Z'. 
 • \"on Lehe v. 
 
 Wagner z\ 
 
 z: Ward. pp. 1083, 1092, 3469. 
 
 Watson >'. 
 
 Webb z: 
 
 Weinberg v. 
 
 .\tlantic, etc., R. Co. z: Wells, pp. 
 437, 632. 
 
 Westphalen z'. 
 
 Whaley v. 
 
 '■. Wharton, pp. 3514, 3516. 
 
 Wilkins V. 
 
 Williams f. 
 
 Wilson ''. 
 
 Winslow Bros. & Co. v. 
 
 Wright z\ 
 
 Atlantic, etc.. Steamship Co. •:■. 
 Guggenheim, 123 Fed. 330 — pp. 
 3953, 3973. 
 
 . ■ Z-. Guggenheim, 147 Fed. 103, 
 
 77 C. C. A. 329— pp. 3957, 3973. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., Supply Co., Southern 
 R. Co. z: • 
 
 Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co. z: Philadel- 
 phia, pp. 3552, 3553, 3559, 3572. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 .\tlas. The. 
 
 Atlas Portland Cement Co. ■;-'. 
 
 Dougherty, p. 3908. 
 Atlas Steamship Co., Calderon z: 
 
 Wamsley v. 
 
 Attorney General f. .Atlantic, etc., 
 K. Co., pp. 59, 61. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 66, 131, 134, 1197. 
 
 ■ V. Delaware, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 3651, 3652, 3653, 3654. 
 
 v. Electric Storage Battery 
 
 Co., p. 3558. 
 
 z: Hobart, p. 3342. 
 
 ?■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3817. 
 
 ■ •;•. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3539. 
 
 z: Old Colony R. Co., pp. 22. 
 
 61, 3500. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3539. 
 
 T'. The Mid-Kent Railway Co., 
 
 p. 3658. 
 
 V. Union Stock Vard, etc., 
 
 Co.. pp. 3469, 3612, 3613, 3616, 
 3690, 3817, 3827, 3835. 
 
 Atwater z\ Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, 1492, 1500. 
 .\twell z: Miller, p. 337. 
 .Atwood v. Mohler, pp. 3114, 3115, 
 
 3127, 3130. 
 
 V. Reliance Transp. Co., pp 
 
 3161, 3166. 
 
 ■;■. Washington Water Power 
 
 Co., p. 2329. 
 
 Auburn, etc.. Elect. R. Co., Dwyer 
 
 Weeks z'. 
 
 Auburn, etc., R. Co., Dwyer '■. 
 
 .Vuchincloss, Gans z\ 
 
 .\udenried v. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 220, 1179. 
 Auditor General, Fargo v. 
 Auerbach z: New York, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 1624. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1625. 
 
 Aufdenberg z: St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1961, 2125, 2127. 
 Augusta, Cosgrove v. 
 .\ugusta-Aiken R. Co., Ussery zk 
 .\ugusta Brokerage Co., Central, 
 
 etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 84, 136, 138. 
 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3541. 
 
 .\ugusta R. Co. z\ Glover, pp. 
 
 1803, 1804, 1829, 2298. 
 Augusta R., etc., Co. z: Lyle, p. 
 
 1993. 
 
 z: Smith, p. 2857. 
 
 Augusta, etc., R. Co., Christian z'. 
 
 City Council '•. 
 
 Funderburg v. 
 
 .\ugusta, etc., R. Co., Funer- 
 burg z\ 
 
 Mcintosh z: 
 
 Mitchell v. 
 
 Patterson z\ 
 
 z: Randall, 79 Ga. 304, 4 S. 
 
 E. 674 — pp. 2676. 
 
 z: Randall, 85 Ga. 297, 11 S. 
 
 E. 706— p. 2766. 
 
 ?'. Renz, p. 2173. 
 
 • Richardson f. 
 
 Seals z\ 
 
 v. Snider, pp. 2173, 2174, 
 
 2175, 2218, 2249, 2250, 2252, 
 2342. 2357. 
 
 Tompkins '■. 
 
 \'lasservitch "'. 
 
 z\ Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3613. 3707. 
 
 .\ugustus z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1721, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2072, 
 2659. 
 
 Auld z: Southern R. Co., pp. 2220, 
 2221, 2296, 2339. 
 
 Ault V. Cowan, p. 2674. 
 
 .Quitman Engine, etc., Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., pp. 640, 3278. 
 
 Aultman, etc.. Machinery Co., 
 Standefer v. 
 
 Aurora, E. & C. R. Co., Ruch '.'. 
 
 .\urora, etc., R. Co., Moore v. 
 
 • Ruch z: 
 
 z: Ruch, pp. 1562, 1745, 1986. 
 
 Ausk v. Great Northern R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1449, 1460. 
 .\ustin, Chesapeake, etc., K. Co. 
 
 z: Great Western R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, 1566, 1577. 
 
 Griggs '•. 
 
 Low z: 
 
 Parmelee Z'. 
 
 Robinson 7'. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 749, 770, 783. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 
 1526. 1530, 1689, 1735, 
 9, 1870, 2609, 2613. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co.. v. 
 
 '■. State, p. 3428. 
 
 z: Talk, pp. 344, 1173. 
 
 V. Tennessee, pp. 3427, 3428, 
 
 3528. 3539. 
 
 Travelers' Ins. Co. v. 
 
 ■:•. Washington Water Power 
 
 Co.. pp. 1743, 2912. 
 
 .\ustin-.Stephenson Co. v. Southern 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 1083, 1087, 1100, 
 
 1101, 1412. 
 .\ustin, etc., R. Co. '•. Slator, pp. 
 
 442, 448, 1273, 1276. 
 .\ustro-.\mericana Line, Haaga z: 
 .\ustro- American Steamship Co., 
 
 Ramjak z\ 
 
 Smith z'. 
 
 .\uthur V. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 952, 953. 
 .\utomatic Merchandising Co. v. 
 
 Delaware, etc., Co., 46 Pa. Super. 
 
 Ct. 648— p. 574. 
 
 z'. Delaware, etc., Co., 233 
 
 Pa. 581, 82 .\tl. 939— pp. 573, 
 574. 
 
 .Vutrey f. Georgia, etc., Co., p. 
 
 865. 
 Avant. Central R., etc., Co. z: 
 Averill z: McCook, pp. 2089. 2090. 
 .\verv z\ New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp.' 191, 196, 1636, 1637. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 .\vey z'. Atchison, etc., K. Co.. p. 
 
 2621. 
 .\vey 7'. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2287, 2619. 
 .\vinger v. South Carolina R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, 221, 237, 265, 868, 1175, 
 
 1180, 1188. 
 .\vis, Missouri, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 .■\von, etc., R. Co., Curtis r. 
 .Axtell, Reed 7'. 
 
 .\ydlett, etc., Co., Treadwell v. 
 .\yers. Ainis 7'. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 pn. 
 
 pp. 
 178
 
 TAI5LE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXI 
 
 Co 
 
 ■ 71 
 Am. 
 741, 
 
 Avers V. Rochester R. Co., pp. 
 
 1688, 2893. 
 Aylward f. Smith, p. 709. 
 Aymar r. .\stor, p. 768. 
 Ayres, Bcebe r. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Wis 372, n N. W. -43 
 St. RVp. 226— pp. 211. 
 1271, 1307, 1322, 1451. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 
 
 Wis. 215, 43 N. W. 1122-pp. 
 1322, 1480. ^, ^ 
 
 %'. Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2790. . . „ „ 
 
 Mississippi, etc., K. Lo. .. 
 
 . Morris, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Texas Trunk R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Western R. Corp., pp. 963, 
 
 1007. 3161. 
 
 Ayres etc , Co. v. Dorscy Produce 
 Co.,' pp. 366. 369. 
 T'. 
 Babcock, Calahan :•. _ 
 
 V. Herbert, pp. H, /68 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 43 How. Prac. 31/ — 
 p. 3383. „ _ 
 
 1_ V. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 49 N. Y. 491— pp. 429, 3252, 
 3345, 3383, 3384. 
 
 V. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2176. 2193, 2355. 
 
 May "'. 
 
 V. May. pp. 328, 331, 333. 
 
 7'. Orbison, p. 302. 
 
 People V. 
 
 Ulman, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Bachant v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 530, 537. ^ . , ^. 
 
 Bacharach v. Chester Freight Line, 
 
 pp. 516, 636. ^ , . ^ 
 
 Bachman v. Clyde Steamship Lo., 
 
 pp. 4032, 4033. I 
 
 Backer v. Flagg, p. 511. 
 Backhaus v. Chicago, etc., K. <^o., 
 
 pp. 529, 531, 897, 905. 
 Backhouse v. Snced. p. 728. 
 Backman v. Charlestown, p. 634. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. ?■. 
 
 Backus, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Indiarapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Bacon r. Casco Bay Steamboat Co., 
 
 P- 3994. ^ ^ 
 
 r. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 607, 608, 618, 690, 1049. 
 
 V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2150. 
 
 ;■. Ennis, p. 3968. 
 
 V. Pullman Co., pp. 3221, 
 
 i222, 3228, 3242. 
 
 Badcock v. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 
 
 p. 2234. ^ ^ 
 
 Baddeley, Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 T. W. & W. R. Co. r. 
 
 Baden. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Badcnhoop, Savannah IClect Co. f. 
 Bader '■. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 3104. „ 
 
 Bading v. Milwaukee Elect. R.. 
 
 etc.. Co., p. 2908. 
 
 Badovinac v. Northern Pac. K 
 
 Co., p. 2616. 
 
 Baer, Baltimore City Pass. R. Co 
 
 Bagwell, Texas, etc., R. Co r. 
 Bahn Diamond, etc., Co., Mallory 
 
 Steamship Co. r. 
 Bahn, etc.. Optical Co., Mallory 
 
 Steamship Co. v. 
 Bahr, Vogil v. r> r ~ 
 
 Baier, Missouri Pac. K. *-o. . . 
 Bailey v. Cincinnati, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 2151. „ „ 
 V. Hudson River R. Co., p. 
 
 547. „ ^ 
 r. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2031. ^ ^ 
 
 Midland \'alley R. Co. i'. 
 
 San .Antonio, etc., R. Co. v- 
 
 r. Seattle, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2280. 
 V. Shaw, pp. 480, 481. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. ?•. 
 
 . r. Tacoma Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2000, 2343. ,^^^ 
 
 V. The Sonora, P- 1940. 
 
 Bainbridge v. Union Tract. <-o., 
 
 pp. 2192, 2195. 
 Bainbridge Grocery Co. 7' Atlantic 
 
 Coast Line R. Co., p. 277. 
 Baines, Darby f. 
 
 Baird, Birmingham R., etc., Co. .. 
 V. Erie R. Co., p. 1203. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 Den 
 
 York, etc.. 
 
 Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. 
 ver, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Denver, etc., R. Co., 200 
 
 Fed. 614— p. 3671. 
 
 T. Denver, etc., 
 
 U. S. 479, 34 S. 
 3660, 3785. 
 
 Baer & Co., New 
 
 Transp. Line i'. 
 Bacrmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2825. 2835. 
 Bagard, Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. 
 Bagbv, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Bacgage Transp. Co., Garrison z: 
 liacectt T'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2431. 2450. 2459. 2462. 
 Baglcv. Central, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Baglev Elevator Co. r. .\mcncan 
 
 Exp. Co., p. 916. 
 
 Baker v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 989 
 J.. Boston, etc., R. Co., PP 
 
 5 219 2092. 2093, 2104. 
 
 - i: Brinson, pp. 1036, 1039. 
 
 V. Brooklyn Union Elev. K. 
 
 Co., p. 2054. ■ 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 93 
 
 Iowa 163, 63 N. W. 667— p. 
 
 2615. T, n as 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 98 
 
 Iowa 438, 67 N. W. 376— p. 
 
 600. ^. „ n_ 
 
 ■ V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 9/ 
 
 N. W. 650, 91 Minn. 118— p. 
 1475 
 f. Clark, pp. 1785, 2872. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. i: 
 
 Gittings r. 
 
 r. Intcrurban St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2904. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. .. 
 
 T. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 7, 729. 1267, 1269. 
 
 r. Maher, p. 7. 
 
 r. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 
 1890, 2219. 
 
 r. Michigan, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 324, 997, 1049. 
 
 ;.. Missouri Pac. R, Co., pp. 
 
 ifOO, 3343. 
 
 ■ Munn f. 
 
 . z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2790. 
 
 Omaha St. R. Co. f. 
 
 Paducah Tract. Co. r. 
 
 Robinson ''• 
 
 St. Louis, etc., K. Co. r. 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 215, 621, 622. 
 
 Wabash River Tract Co. f. 
 
 Wait r. ,_„ 
 
 Baker Co. f. Brown, pp. 329, 3340. 
 Baker & Co. v. New \ork etc., 
 
 R. Co., 162 Fed. 496— p. 3913. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 168 Fed. 248— p. 3920. 
 
 Baker Wire Co. r. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co.. p. 137. 
 Baldauf, Camden, etc., R. Co. ■: 
 Baldoni, Georgia. R. Co. r. 
 Baldosta St. R. Co. r. Fenn. p. 
 
 2885. 
 Baldraff r. Camden, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 p. 3129. 
 Baldwin, American Exp. Co. z: 
 
 z: American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 523, 534. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. '••^„, 
 
 z: Collins, pp. 759, 7o3, 1003, 
 
 1005, 1007, 1008. 
 
 Baldwin Dixon f. 
 
 f. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 
 
 P- 2026. ^ , Tz. n 
 
 Baldwin v. Grand Tru"k R. Co., 
 87 N. W. 380, 128 Mich. 417— 
 
 -L-ffcrand Trunk R. Co. 64 
 
 N. H. 596, 15 Atl. 411— p. 2479. 
 i< Great Northern K. Co., 
 
 pp. 620, 3278. 
 LL -, Liverpool, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., 'pp. 1137, 1140, 1142 
 r. New York, etc., Co., p. 
 
 630. ^ ^ 
 
 People's R. Co. f. 
 
 7. People's R. Co., pp. 1694, 
 
 1736, 1741, 1981, 2034, 2772. 
 7. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 
 
 pp. 2060, 2061, 2494 
 — — 7'. Sullivan Timber Co., p. 
 
 612. 
 Vinton 7'. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R- Co. f. 
 
 Baldwin, etc.. Land Co. r Colum- 
 bia, etc., R. Co., pp. 1200 373I. 
 
 Bales, Pullman Palace Car Co. c: 
 Balfour, Oregon R., etc., Co. z: 
 Balfour, etc., Co. v. Poi:*'^"^. etc 
 
 Steamship Co.. pp. 3869, 387,J, 
 
 3874. 
 Balk, Harris z-. 
 Ball, Galveston, etc., R- co. t. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R- Co. v. 
 
 - z: Mabry, pp. 1749. 1732, 
 1755, 1756, 1757, 1989. 
 
 Mills 7'. ^ „ 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7. Mobile, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1566, 2892. ^ u » <-„ 
 -. New Tersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 267, 273, 277, 280, 285. 
 — — New York, etc., R. Co z: 
 7.. Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 1546. „ - 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R- CO. . . 
 
 7' Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1381, 1468. 
 Ballantine, Daniels r. 
 Ballard z: Cincinnati, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 1851, 2846. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R- Co. 7. 
 
 Ballentine z: ^'o^th , ^^'^^^i"" , j^" 
 
 Co., pp. 211, 236, 242, 246, 
 Vs2 621, 733, 738, 1320, 1321. 
 
 Ballou 7'. Earle, pp. 987, 1074. 
 
 Baltimore, Gunther 7'. 
 
 Guy z'. 
 
 P. C. St. L. R. Co. z: 
 
 The. „ 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. K. 
 
 Baer, pp. 2876, 28/7. 
 
 7'. Kemp, p. 2303. 
 
 7'. Nugent, pp. 1/40, 2922, 
 
 7.' Wilkinson, pp. 197. 199, 
 
 203, 2122, 2123, 2147, 2245. 
 
 Baltimore Consol. R. Co. 7". Arm- 
 strong, p. 2373. 
 
 7.. Rifcowitz, pp. 2333, 2334. 
 
 Baltimore Ins. Co., Caze z: 
 
 Baltimore R. Co., Stewart z: 
 
 Baltimore Steam _Packet Co. z: 
 Patterson, p. 3877. 
 
 7'. Smith, pp. 3120, 3121, 
 
 3129. 3183, 3184. 
 
 Tall z: ^ , 
 
 Baltimore Tract Co., Cooke z: 
 
 7'. Helms, p. 227/. 
 
 7'. State, pp. 1520 2138. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. Barge Co '"• f-^st- 
 
 ern Coal Co., pp. ^046 40/0. 
 Baltimore, etc.. Co. z: O Donnell, 
 P- 654. 
 
 7'. Rathbone. p. 814. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. Exp. Co. f. Cooper, 
 
 pp. 1097, 1102. . I, , 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co.. Ambach z: 
 
 Baggett 7-. 
 
 7'. Bambrey, pp. 
 
 3080. 3084. 
 
 Bankard 7'. 
 
 7'. Barger, pp. 2048, 
 
 2064, 2770. 3071. 
 
 Co. 
 
 2461. 3078. 
 
 2055,
 
 CXXIl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., Barlick v. 
 
 Barnum i\ 
 
 Beasley z-. 
 
 ■ Bevis 7-. 
 
 f. Blocher, p. 2122. 
 
 Boggctt r. 
 
 Boseley z: 
 
 Bosley z\ 
 
 Bostwick z\ 
 
 Bowie z\ 
 
 z: Bradv, pp. 945, 982, 1003, 
 
 1006, 1007, 1036. 
 
 •;•. Breinig, pp. 1501, 1711. 
 
 Burch f. 
 
 z: Burris, p. 2090. 
 
 z: Cain, p. 2063. 
 
 z: Campbell, pp. 326, 1612, 
 
 3162. 3163, 3164, 3175, 3176, 
 3177. 3178, 3181, 3192. 
 
 Canfield r. 
 
 Carpenter v. 
 
 z: Carr, pp. 190, 200, 1636, 
 
 1851. 
 
 ■ ■:■. Chambers, p. 1792. 
 
 Z-. Christie, p. 836. 
 
 •;•. Clift, pp. 1286, 1330, 1451, 
 
 3273. 3284, 3301, 3400, 3408. 
 
 Cornette <:•. 
 
 f. Co.x, p. 2521. 
 
 Coyle f. 
 
 Croft '■. 
 
 Cully '•. 
 
 z'. Davis, 44 Ind. App. 375, 
 
 89 X. E. 403— pp. 1662, 203S, 
 2046, 2054. 
 
 v. Davis (Pa.), 9 Sad. 147, 
 
 12 Atl. 335— p. 1251. 
 
 z: Dever, pp. 1330. 1333, 
 
 1477. 
 
 f. Diamond Coal Co., pp. 89, 
 
 1184, 1188. 
 
 Doyle v. 
 
 '•. Doyle, pp. 960, 965, 966, 
 
 982, 1004, 1007, 1049. 
 
 Duggan V. 
 
 z: Duke, pp. 2101, 2104, 
 
 2105. 
 
 ''. Evans, pp. 1616, 1618, 
 
 1632. 1633, 2442. 
 
 Fadley z\ 
 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Farris v. 
 
 V. Fisher, pp. 700, 701, 704, 
 
 706, 707, 708, 709, 711, 717, 
 782. 
 
 Flanagan z'. 
 
 Flannery '■. 
 
 '•. Fox. pp. 821, 828, 1329, 
 
 1365. 1456, 1457. 
 
 Gledhill-Wall Paper Co. z: 
 
 Goodwin i'. 
 
 Green z\ 
 
 v. Green, pp. 536, 896, 900, 
 
 903. 
 
 v. Hamburger, p. 3763. 
 
 v. Harbin, p. 2603. 
 
 Hart v. 
 
 z: Hauer, pp. 1794. 1969. 
 
 V. Hausman, p. 2975. 
 
 Hess V. 
 
 Hostetter z\ 
 
 '■. Hubbard, 1 O. C. C, X. 
 
 S., 611, 12-25 O. C. D. 477— pp. 
 947, 949, 1076, 1090. 
 
 V. Hubbard, 72 O. St. 302, 
 
 74 X. E. 214, 16 R. R. R. 71, 
 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 71— pp. 1054, 1107, 1422. 
 
 t'. Hudson, 117 Ky. 995, 25 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 2154, 80 S. W. 
 454 — pp. 1628, 1629. 1630, 3013. 
 
 z: Hudson, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 298, 92 S. W. 947— p. 3059. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 — T'. Interstate Commerce 
 Comm., pp. 3430, 3457, 3458, 
 3459, 3460, 3461, 3464. 
 
 — -'. Jean, pp. 2362, 2905. 
 
 Tones V. 
 
 z: Kane, 69 Md. 11, 13 Atl. 
 
 387, 9 Am. St. Rep. 387— pp. 
 2150, 2152. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z: Kane B 
 (Md.), 17 Atl. 1032— p. 2375. 
 
 Kean z'. 
 
 z: Keedy, pp. 844, 871. 
 
 Keller v. 
 
 Kent f. 
 
 f. Kent, p. 2441. 
 
 z: Kirby, 88 Md. 409, 41 Atl. 
 
 777— pp. 2851, 3027. 
 
 z: Kirby, 46 Atl. 975, 91 Md. 
 
 313— p. 2713. 
 
 f. Kleespies, p. 2083. 
 
 z: La Due, 112 X. Y. S. 964, 
 
 128 App. Div. 594- pp. 3753, 
 3811. 
 
 f. La Due, 108 X. Y. S. 
 
 659, 57 Misc. Rep. 614 — pp. 
 3752, 3761, 3777. 
 
 ■;'. Leapley, p. 1870. 
 
 z: Lee, p. 2187. 
 
 McCann v. 
 
 z'. McDonald, pp. 2417, 2426. 
 
 McGraw f. 
 
 McKain v. 
 
 - z\ McKenzie, pp. 1577, 2128, 
 2261, 2289. 
 
 - •;■. McLaughlin, pp. 2092, 
 2098. 
 
 - z: Mahone, p. 1514. 
 
 - Marye z: 
 
 - z: Maryland, p. 3575. 
 — - Maslin v. 
 
 - Mills -.'. 
 
 - Modern Match Co. v. 
 
 - r. Moon, p. 4003. 
 
 - Moore z\ 
 
 - z: Morehead, pp. 499, 500, 
 512, 529, 533, 593, 729, 734. 
 745, 750, 765, 804, 822, 825. 
 826, 887, 889, 897, 899, 910, 912, 
 1039. 
 
 — • v. Mullen, 217 111. 203, 75 
 X. E. 474, 2 L. R. A., X. S., 
 115. 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 1015— pp. 2126, 2256. 
 
 — - ■;•. Mullen, 120 111. App. 88— 
 p. 1919 
 
 Xational Bank •:■. 
 
 Xational Tube Works Co. z'. 
 
 z\ Xew Albany Bo-x, etc., Co.. 
 
 pp. 3753, 3759. 
 
 r. Xoell, pp. 1718, 1721, 
 
 1726, 1810, 1821, 2673, 2694. 
 
 r. Xorris, pp. 1544, 1546, 
 
 2429, 2473. 
 • v. Xugent, pp. 1684. 1687. 
 
 1712, 1722, 1846. 
 
 z: O'Donnell, pp. 500, 514, 
 
 517, 533, 573, 574, 577, 578, 
 579, 580, 584, 596, 626, 630, 
 634, 650, 660, 782. 
 
 O'Xeil z: 
 
 z'. Oriental Oil Co., pp. 836, 
 
 861, 1040, 1059. 
 
 People z'. 
 
 — — Pitcairn Coal Co. z'. 
 • T'. Pitcairn Coal Co. 
 
 3764, 3769, 3804, 3805. 
 3817. 
 
 r. Pixley, pp. 1854, 
 
 3103. 
 
 z\ Pumphrey, pp. 518 
 
 594, 595, 848. 
 
 Quarrier '•. 
 
 ?■. Ragsdale, pp. 814, 
 
 1405, 1443. 
 
 V. Rambo, pp. 2085. 2087. 
 
 V. Rathbone, pp. 327. 337 
 
 434, 723. 805, 806, 812, 987, 949 
 1054, 1075. 
 
 Ricketts v. 
 
 Robinson v. 
 
 Roderick v. 
 
 v. Rose, p. 2504. 
 
 V. Ross, pp. 1084, 1087. 
 
 Ruddell V. 
 
 v. Rudv, pp. 2583, 2584. 
 
 2606, 2767, 2961. 
 
 z\ Samuels, p. 712. 
 
 Sandusky-Portland Cement 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 altimore, etc., R. Co., v. Schu- 
 macher, pp. 816, 841, 842, 910, 
 911. 3286, 3289, 3300, 3360. 
 
 - — z\ Schwinding, p. 2503. 
 
 - ■;'. Sheridan, p. 1696. 
 
 - Shore & Bro. v. 
 
 — ■ z: Skeels, pp. 814, 946, 1054. 
 
 Smith z: 
 
 z: Sperber & Co., p. 659. 
 
 V. State', 60 Md. 449, 12 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 149— pp. 1531, 
 1746, 1792, 2273, 2275. 
 
 V. State, 63 Md. 135 — pp. 
 
 2136, 2673. 
 
 V. State, 72 Md. 36, 18 Atl. 
 
 1107, 6 L. R. A. 706, 20 Am. 
 St. Rep. 454— pp. 1953, 2212. 
 
 z: State, 81 Md. 371, 32 Atl. 
 
 201— pp. 2275, 2732. 
 
 Stewart v. 
 
 v. Swann, pp. 1746, 1755, 
 
 1826, 2673. 
 
 z: Thornton, pp. 194, 195, 
 
 2411, 2412, 2464, 2565. 
 
 V. Trader, pp. 2348, 2375, 
 
 2376, 2378, 2383, 2384, 2969. 
 
 Trexler v. 
 
 United States' ■;■. 
 
 - z'. United States, p. 3735. 
 • Voight ?'. 
 
 •;■. Voight, pp. 214, 930, 947, 
 
 977, 1575, 1578, 1579, 2105. 
 
 ■ Waring & Co. v. 
 
 Warner z\ 
 
 Washington z\ 
 
 v. White, p. 2899. 
 
 -,,, Whitehill, pp. 217, 
 
 1303, 1321, 1406, 
 1462, 1463, 1468, 
 1481, 1482. 
 Whittington, p. 2569. 
 Wightman, pp. 1715, 
 1726, 1821, 2673. 
 Wilkens, pp. 294, 
 305, 306, 307, 
 
 243. 
 
 1459, 
 
 1480, 
 
 1722 
 
 228, 
 1458, 
 1471, 
 
 1721, 
 
 308, 
 356, 
 
 301, 
 310, 
 370, 
 
 etc.. Lumber 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1450, 
 
 1687, 
 
 pp. 
 3810, 
 
 3060, 
 
 519, 
 
 1087, 
 
 302, 
 
 315, 331, 338, 339 
 3312. 
 Williams z\ 
 
 Williamsport, 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 Winters z\ 
 
 -^— Wood V. 
 
 V. Wood & Co 
 
 3314. 
 
 Woodford z'. 
 
 V. Worthington, 
 
 1711, 1726, 1813, 2695. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. Railway, Bank v. 
 Baltimore, etc.. Steamboat Co. v. 
 Brown, pp. 337, 417, 3255. 
 
 Merchants' Xat. Bank v. 
 
 Scott V. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Road z: 
 Boone, pp. 69, 1598, 3090, 3091. 
 
 z'. Cason, pp. 2122, 2123, 
 
 2177, 2801. 
 
 V. Leonhardt. pp. 1722, 1817, 
 
 1819, 2218. 2353, 2673. 
 
 B. & B. Turnpike, People z: 
 B. & O. R. Co., Ambach v. 
 
 z'. Dougherty, p. 2334. 
 
 .Johnson v. 
 
 Maslin z'. 
 
 V. Reed. pp. 2417, 2418 
 
 Bamberg v. International R. 
 
 p. 2700. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co 
 
 854, 1329. 
 
 Bambrey, Baltimore, etc., 
 
 Co. z: 
 Bancroft v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 p. 2273. 
 
 Co., 
 
 , PP- 
 
 R. 
 
 1166. 
 Merchants' De- 
 Co., pp. 3264, 
 
 Peters, p 
 Bancroft & Co. 
 
 spatch Transp., 
 
 3301. 3377. 
 Bancroft-Whitney 
 
 Coast Steamship Co. z-. 
 Pacific Coast, etc., Co 
 
 Co., Pacific
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXIII 
 
 Bandy, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Bangor, etc., R. Co., Colbath v. 
 
 Pamroy -'. 
 
 Bangs, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Lowber v. 
 
 V. Lowler, p. 3865. 
 
 Merchant's Xat. Bank v 
 
 Bank v. Adams Kxp. Co., pp- 3, 
 
 7, 499, 726, 731, 739, 769, ";9, 
 781, 930, 931, 947, 952, 9.';3, 
 9S4, 958, 959, 962, 977, 1011, 
 1024, 3880, 3448. 
 
 V. American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 .477, 492, 590, 591, 592. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., Rail>".-av, 
 
 p. 555. 
 
 Bast V. 
 
 V. Brown, p. 10. 
 
 V. Cooper, p. 3872. 
 
 V. Doyle, p. 914. 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 Goetz V. 
 
 t». Jones, pp. 350, 353, 363. 
 
 369. 
 
 V. Tones Cotton Co., pp. 394, 
 
 395, 396. 
 
 Means v. 
 
 New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. New YorK, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 310. 313, 343, 360, 3879. 
 
 Phillips V. 
 
 Second Nat. Bank v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. Southern Exp. Co., p. 867. 
 
 Bankard v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1037, 1389. 
 Banker, Field v. 
 Banks v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1285. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co.. pp. 
 
 839, 1115. 
 
 Banner, Ex parte. 
 
 Banner Grain Co. v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., pp. 220, 541. 
 
 Bannerman, Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 TJanning, Wingard v. 
 
 Bansenier v. Toledo, etc.. R. Co., 
 pp. 534, 536, 727, 732, 748. 894, 
 899, 3170. 
 
 Bante f. Metropolitan St. R'. Co., 
 p. 2820. 
 
 Baralong, The. 
 
 Barber v. Brace, pp. 333. 3905, 
 3906. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2100. 
 
 Meyerstein v. 
 
 Lazarus '■. 
 
 Minnesota v. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Vlasto, p. 3888. 
 
 Western Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Barber & Co. v. Wheeler, p. 3312. 
 Barbour. Jensen -■. 
 
 Melendy v. 
 
 T'. South Eastern R. Co.. pp. 
 
 753 757. 
 
 Barclay v.' Clyde, p. 892. 
 
 Coosa River Steamboat 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Hammonds -■. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Bard T'. Pennsylvania Tract. Co.. 
 
 p. 2173. 
 Barden v. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2353. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Bardwell -•. American Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 1087, 1103. 
 
 V. Mobile, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 2256. 
 
 Bare f. American Forwarding Co.. 
 
 p. 7. 
 Barfield. Georgia, etc.. R. Co. '•. 
 
 Southern R'. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Barger. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. ■z'. 
 
 Baring v. Clark, p. 6n. 
 
 Bark Edwin, The. 
 Barker v. Brown, p. 714. 
 
 V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 196, 199, 1603, 2428. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 243 
 
 111. 482. 35 R. R. R. 470, 58 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 470, 
 90 N. E. 1057, 26 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1058— p. 1576. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 149 
 
 111. App. 520— pp. 1575, 2697. 
 
 V. Coflin. pp. 1620, 1622, 
 
 1624, 1973, 2447. 
 
 V. Havens, pp. 1148. 1149, 
 
 1150. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R'. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1968. 1969, 2351. 
 
 -'. Ohio River R. Co., p. 
 
 2132. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 Rex V. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 — — V. The Swallow, p. 3910. 
 Barker & Co. v. Glascow, pp. 633, 
 
 682. 
 Barker-Bond Lumber Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., pp. 3892, 3973. 
 Barkhouse, Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. f. . . 
 Barklcy, Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Barkman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2080, 2081. 
 Barksdale, Virgiilia Mid. R. Co. v. 
 Barlett :>. The Philadelphia, pp. 
 
 533, 534. 
 Barlick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1687. 2016. 2027, 2029, 2034, 
 
 2666, 2675, 2786. 
 Barlow v. Jersey Citv. etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1521. 1556, 2147. 
 — — • Southern R. Co. t'. 
 Barnaby, Brittan 7\ 
 
 V. State, p. 3583. 
 
 Barnard v. Campbell, p. 1225. 
 Goddard "'. 
 
 • '•. Kobhe. p. 573. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. R'. Co. -■. 
 
 • Pojiham -•. 
 
 Barnes. Brown v. 
 
 V. Danville St. R.. etc.. Co., 
 
 pp. 1682, 1742, 2166, 2340, 
 2671. 2674. 2764, 2885. 
 
 Evansville, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 T'. Hewitt, p. 1695. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co., 84 N. 
 
 F. 1108, 191 N. Y. 528— p. 1051. 
 
 '■. Long Island R. Co., 93 N. 
 
 Y. S. 616, 47 Misc. Rep. 318— 
 p. 3349. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Mail Co. v. 
 
 Macon Consol. St. R. Co. f. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 T-. Marshall, p. 233. 
 
 M. P. R. Co. f. 
 
 T-. New York, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2680. 
 
 Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 — — Southern Exp. Co. r. 
 
 Wiltse V. 
 
 Barnes & Co., M. P. R. Co. r. 
 Barnet, Gaither f. 
 Barnett, Bush f. 
 
 f. Central Line of Boats, p. 
 
 474. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • V. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2249, 2262, 2263. 
 — — Galveston, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. 
 
 Kansas, etc, R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Barnev, Cardot v. 
 
 i: D. R. Martin, p. 2423. 
 
 V. Oyster Bay, etc., Steam- 
 boat Co., pn 192, 1499, 1500. 
 
 Barnev v. Prentiss, p. 1007. 
 
 Sweet V. 
 
 Weed '■■ 
 
 Barnum v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2563, 2564, 2621, 2622. 
 
 Pettigrcw v. 
 
 Barnum Grain Co. v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., pp. 360, 556. 
 
 Barnwell, Clark v. 
 
 Baron f. New York City R. Co., 
 p. 1853. 
 
 Baron, etc., Co., Cincinnati Tract. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Barr, South Covington, etc., St. 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 Barracouta, Cumming v. 
 
 Barre v. Reading City Pass. R. 
 Co., pp. 2534, 2535. 
 
 Barre, etc.. Power Co., Montpe- 
 lier -'. 
 
 Barreda, Masters v. 
 
 V. Silsbee, p. 326. 
 
 Barrett, Birmingham R., etc., 
 Co. V. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. •:■. 
 
 Greenwald v. 
 
 Hale V. 
 
 V. Market St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 193, 1603, 2428. 
 
 ■ x: New York, 183 Fed. 793— 
 
 pp. 3468, 3526. 
 
 f. New York, 189 Fed. 268 
 
 — ])p. 3526, 3576, 3579. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V Rogers, pp. 345, 3884. 
 
 V. Third Ave. R. Co., pp 
 
 1719, 1999, 2013. 
 
 Barringer, Maine Bank of Buf 
 falo V. 
 
 Maine Nat. Bank v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2315, 2676, 2993, 2994. 
 
 Barris v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 135, 1192. 
 Barron f. Eldredge. pp. 283, 882 
 
 884, 894, 899, 913. 
 
 V. Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 816, 820. 946. 
 
 Barron-Boyle Co., Cleveland, etc.. 
 
 Railway f. 
 Barron, etc., Co. v. C. C, & St. 
 
 L. Co., p. 724. 
 Barrons, Starbird v. 
 Barrott v. Pullman's Palace Car 
 
 Co., pp. 3217, 3221, 3222, 3223. 
 Barrow, Ex parte. 
 
 V. Philleo, pp. 801, 817, 838. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Barrow Steamship Co. f. Kane. 
 
 pp. 2073. 2079, 3992. 
 Barry, Biggs r. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2399, 2988. 
 
 Tweedie Trading Co. ■:•. 
 
 V. Union R. Co.. p. 2548. 
 
 f. Union Tract. Co., p.^ 1995. 
 
 Bartelt v. Oregon R., etc.. Co., p. 
 
 1458. 
 Bartemever v. Iowa, p. 3539. 
 Barter & Co. f. Wheeler, pp. 289. 
 
 884. 1012. 1023, 3180. 32o9. 
 
 3286, 3299, 3302, 3382. 
 Barth z: Kansas, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1518. 2874. 2877. 
 Bartholomaus f. Milwaukee Elect. 
 
 R., etc., Co., p. 2812. 
 Bartholomew v. New York, etc , 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 1884, 1921, 225). 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 3160, 3168, 3169. 
 
 Bartine, Southern Pac. Co. '<■. 
 Bartle r. Houghton County St. 
 Co.. pp. 2830. 2831. 
 
 V. New \ork, etc., R. Co., 
 
 193 N. Y. 362, 85 N. E. 1091— 
 pp. 2360. 2904. 
 
 ■ V New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 105 N. Y. S. 522. 121 App. Div. 
 72— p. 2260. 
 
 pp. 
 
 R.
 
 CXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Rartlet <: Oregon R., etc.. Co., pp. 
 
 1363. 1365, 1367, 1375, 1379, 
 
 1387. 
 Bartlett, Blodgett r. 
 
 Boston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 London, etc., R. Co. <•. 
 
 f. New York, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 1563. 
 
 f. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 586, 945, 1383, 1386. 
 
 r. The Philadelphia, p. 527. 
 
 Bartley v. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1992. 2ii37, 2688, 2893. 
 Bartnik z: Erie R. Co., pp. 2674, 
 
 2841. 
 Barton, Beardmore ;•. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2203. 
 
 Third Ave. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bartow ;■. Erie R. Co., p. 659. 
 Bartram, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Baruth r. Poughkecpsie, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2723, 2738. 
 Basing. Butler ■:■. 
 Baskett r. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2328, 2342. 
 Basler r. Sacramento, etc.. Elect. 
 
 Co., pp. 1999, 2234. 
 Basnight v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 286, 289, 290, 884. 914. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3981. 
 
 Bason, Charleston, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co. z: 
 
 Bass f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 197, 200, 201, 1943, 1944, 1955, 
 2123, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2485 
 2607. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 
 
 Wis. 636— p. 3104. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 
 
 Wis. 654, 24 Am. Rep. 437 — pp. 
 1943, 1955, 3066, 3104. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1533. 
 
 V. Concord St. Railway, pp. 
 
 1928, 2231, 2239, 2821. 
 
 z: Glover, pp. 302, 367, 378, 
 
 518, 519, 542, 3274. 
 
 Bassett z: Aberdeen Coal, etc., Co., 
 pp. 222, 3862, 3931. 
 
 z: Connecticut River R. Co., 
 
 p. 894. 
 
 v. Los Angeles Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2671. 
 
 V. Spofford, p. 480. 
 
 Bast z: Bank, p. 3871. 
 Bastard v. Bastard, p. 233. 
 Hasting r. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 2825. 
 Batavia Bank 7'. New York, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 356. 
 Batchis, Jacksonville Elect. Co. v. 
 Eatchler, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bates, Alabama, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 .Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Bigby, p. 581. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 
 
 Wis. 296, 19 N. W. 72, 50 Am. 
 
 Rep. 369, 14 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 Cas. 700 — pp. 576, 579. 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 
 
 Wis. 235, 122 N. W. 745— pp. 
 
 908, 918, 1771, 2292, 2872, 2873. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 576. 
 
 V. Old Colony R. Co., pp. 
 
 1577. 1578, 2100, 2101. 
 
 O'Rouke z: 
 
 Pittsburg, etc.. Coal Co. v. 
 
 z: Stanton, pp. 516, 573. 
 
 V. Todd, pp. 337, 338, 339. 
 
 V. Weir, pp. 480, 992, 1071. 
 
 Bates Mach. Co., Elgin, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Bath, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Houston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 344, 345, 817. 
 
 jessel V. 
 
 Uessel v. 
 
 Bath, etc., R. Co., -Xnurican Hay 
 
 Co. z: 
 15atson v. Donovan, p. 233. 
 Batte, Gulf, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 Battis z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2973. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 Battle z\ Columbia, etc.. Railroad, 
 pp. 278, 3123, 3125, 3137, 3138, 
 3189, 3190. 
 
 f. Georgia R., etc., Co., 48 
 
 S. E. 337, 120 Ga. 992— p. 2573. 
 
 v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 48 
 
 S. E. 338, 120 Ga. 994— p. 2573. 
 
 z: Mobile, p. 3582. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Wells, Fargo & Co. z: 
 
 Batton z'. South, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2029, 2033. 
 Baty, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Bauer, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. z: 
 
 Baugh, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: McDaniel, pp. 3285, 3291. 
 
 Baughman j-. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1075. 
 Baum, Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Long Island R. Co., d. 
 
 1058. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2683. 
 
 Baumann z'. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 636. • 
 
 Baumback z'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 515, 636, 663, 664, 700, 702, 
 
 703, 706, 708, 852, 1152. 
 Baumstein z\ New York City R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2042, 2661. 
 Baunwall, etc., Co. z\ Furness, p. 
 
 3864. 
 Baur, North Chicago St. R. Co. z\ 
 Bausch, Camden, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Baxendale, Black z: 
 
 v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 221 
 
 Hadley z: 
 
 - Hart z: 
 
 z: Railway Co., p. 1181. 
 
 Baxley z'. Tallahassee, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 444, 445, 449, 460, 472 
 Baxter, Edminson z: 
 
 v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1087, 1410. 
 
 z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3035. 
 
 Norton z\ 
 
 Bay, Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. 
 Bay Cities Consol. R. Co., Tunni- 
 
 cliffe v. 
 Bay City Tract., etc., Co., Burke 
 
 Niedzinski z\ 
 
 Bay City Tract., etc.. Elect Co., 
 Fortin z\ 
 
 Bay City, etc.. Elect. Co., Nied- 
 zinski Z'. 
 
 Bay Shore Lumber Co., Mobile, 
 etc.. R. Co. -■. 
 
 Bay State Steamboat Co., Mudgett 
 
 Nevins z'. 
 
 Bayer, Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 Bayles, Kansas Pac. R. Co. z'. 
 
 ■ • z'. Kansas Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 221, 1180. 
 Bayley, Pickard ?•. 
 Baylor, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 Haynie '■. 
 
 Baylor County z\ Craig, pp. 3392, 
 
 3417. 
 Baynes, Hand z.'. 
 Bayonne Knife Co. ?■. Umbcn- 
 
 hauer, pp. 1209, 1211, 1214, 
 
 1219. 
 Bays. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Beach, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 lieaconsfield. The. 
 Beadell z\ H^astern Counties R. 
 
 Co., p. 192. 
 
 Beadle "'. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 48 
 
 Kan. 379, 29 Pac. 696— p. 1198. 
 • i'. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 51 
 
 Kan. 248, 32 Pac. 910— p. 1198. 
 Beal V. Lowell, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2174, 2185, 2767. 
 Z-. South Devon R. Co., p. 
 
 3067. 
 Bcall, Cobb -•. 
 Beals, Lake^ Erie, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 The Galena z'. 
 
 Beam v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1254, 1258. 
 Bean, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Green, 12 Me. 199— p. 
 
 3163. 
 
 V. Green, 12 Me. 422— pp. 
 
 1011, 3165. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 ''. Sturtevant, p. 277. 
 
 Bear, Webster v. 
 
 Beard v. Connecticut, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1785, 2500. 
 — ■ — Cross z\ 
 ■ z'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 724, 765, 782, 786, 812, 3309, 
 
 3394, 3395. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 786, 3258, 3307. 
 
 Bearden v. Madison, p. 22. 
 Beardmore z\ Barton, p. 3076. 
 Beardsley, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E 488— 
 pp 38, 146. 
 
 z'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 44 N. Y. S. 75, 15 App. Div. 
 251— p. 3500. 
 
 Beardwell, Union Pac. R. Co. 
 
 Beams, In re. 
 Bearse, Hodges z'. 
 
 V. Ropes, p. 4030. 
 
 Beasley z'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 611, 691, 695, 1153. 1154, 
 
 1159. 
 Beasley, etc., Co., Chesapeake, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Beatie, Georgia R. Co. z'. 
 Beattie z\ Boston Elevated R. Co , 
 
 pp. 1682, 1719, 2313, 2684. 
 
 "•. Citizens', etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2253. 
 
 7'. Detroit L^nited Railway, 
 
 pp. 1737, 1892. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Beatty, Chicago, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 • V. Metropolitan, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2671, 2672. 
 • South Covington, etc., R. Co, 
 
 Beauchamp, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 J'. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1614, 1858, 1860, 2453, 2707. 
 
 Beaulieu v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 pp. 1256, 1257. 
 
 Beaumont j'. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 Co.. pp. 529, 530. 
 
 Beaumont Land, etc., Co., Walker 
 
 Beave z\ St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 pp. 2653, 2659, 2881, 2883, 2934. 
 
 Beaver, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Beaver Valley Tract. Co., Goeh- 
 
 ring z: 
 Beck z\ Johnson, p. 3977. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ,■. Ouincv, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2472, 2474. ' 
 
 Becker v. Buffalo, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 p. 2725. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Equi Valley Marble Co. v. 
 
 '•. Great Eastern R. Co., p. 
 
 3120. 
 
 z: Hallgarten, pp. 1222, 1243.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXV 
 
 Co. V. 
 , Olanta Coal 
 
 Min. , Co., p. 
 
 R. Co., 161 
 E. 899, 12 
 
 Becker :■. Lincoln Real Estate, etc., 
 
 Co., 174 Mo. 24(., 73 S. W. 
 
 581 — |)j). 2117, 2648. 
 ^ T. Lincoln Real Estate, etc., 
 
 Co., 118 Mo. App. 74, 93 S. W. 
 
 291— p. 1704. 
 I'. Pennsylvania R. Co., jip. 
 
 753, 901, 909, 911. 
 
 Tuttle r. 
 
 JJeckett, Cleviland, etc., R. Co. I'. 
 
 JJeckford, Wliitney v. 
 
 Heckham :: Shouse, pp. 728, 753, 
 
 749, 769. 
 Becknian v. Meadville, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2073, 2080, 2088. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 3619. 
 
 Beckwith v. Chesliire R. Co., pp. 
 1571, 2434. 
 
 Locklin z\ 
 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 lieckworth, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bedell, Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 320, 323, 451, 464. 
 
 Bedford v. Terliune, p. 3877. 
 Bedford Belt R. Co., Menaugh v. 
 liedford-ltowling Green Stone Co. 
 
 ;■. Owman, p. 232. 
 Bedford, etc., R. Co. v. Rainbolt, 
 
 pp. 1712, 1740, 1810, 2681. 
 Bedsole v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2768, 3011. 
 Bee Bldg. Co., Quimhy 7\ 
 Beebe v. Ayres, pp. 1620, 1973, 
 
 1977, 2439. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Beech Creek R. Co. 
 
 Min. C6. V. 
 
 f. Olanta Coal 
 
 239. 
 
 Beecher, Fordyce v. 
 
 V. Long Island 
 
 N. Y. 222, 55 N 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 295 
 
 —pp. 1792, 2138. 
 
 — — f. Long Island R. Co., 55 N. 
 Y. S. 23, 35 App. Div. 292— 
 p. 2327. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Bcede f. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3396, 3409. 
 Beedy v. Pacey, pp. 565, 3932. 
 Beekman v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, 213, 1492. 
 Beer v. Massachusetts, p. 
 Beers i'. Boston, etc., R 
 
 3110, 3144 
 
 Dalton r. 
 
 f. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 6, 213, 251, 760, 3823. 
 
 Beery v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1987, 2778, 2934. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Beeson f. Chicago, etc., R 
 
 pp. 1499, 3082. 
 
 Missouri Pac. K. Co. r. 
 
 Beets, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Beezlcy, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Beggs, Toledo, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Beglcy I'. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2330. 
 Behen 7: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2377. 
 7'. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2921. 
 Behlmer, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■:•. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 71 Fed. 835— pp. 3714. 3718. 
 3774. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 28 C. C. A. 229, 83 Fed. 898— 
 pp. 3775, 3793. 
 
 Behm •:•. Cincinnati, etc.. Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 2385. 
 Behr v. Erie R. Co., p. 2473. 
 Behrens, Franklin Printing, etc., 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 Franlclin, etc.. Publishing Co. 
 
 3539. 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co. 
 W. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 767, 
 
 Behrens t. The Furnessia, p. 1959. 
 IJeideiman, Dow f. 
 
 Union R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 United R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Beidler v. Branshaw, p. 2165. 
 Beiser v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2339, 2884. 
 liekins, dates ',•. 
 IJekins Household Shipping Co., '•. 
 
 ('.rand Trunk R. System, p. 1033. 
 Belcher, Missouri, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 I'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 
 
 Tex. 593. 598. 50 S. W. 559— pp. 
 625, 636, 637, 647. 696. 698, 
 755, 826. 
 
 f. Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. 
 
 1020— p. 696. 
 Beldcn, Chandler f. 
 • f. Pullman Palace Car 
 
 pp. 3201, 3202, 3215, 3233. 
 Belfast, Boon & Co. v. 
 
 The. 
 
 Belfast, etc., R. Co. r. Keys, 
 
 3125, 3149. 
 Bclgenland, The. 
 Helger 7'. Dinsmore, pp. 321, 
 
 946, 987, 4032. 
 Belknap, Camden, etc.. R'. Co. v. 
 • Camden, etc.. Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Bell, Alabama, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Atchison etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 — — 7'. Central Elect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1874, 1878, 1891, 1902, 2688. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Drew, pp. 3123, 3124. 
 
 • Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 • Mobile, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Morgan z\ 
 
 7'. Moss, pp. 1207, 1211, 1218, 
 
 1227. 1246, 1247. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Railroad -'. 
 
 7'. Reed, pp. 743. 815, 822. 
 
 3907, 3908, 3911. 
 • 7'. Reynolds, p. 659. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 894, 899. 
 
 SchoHield 7'. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., p. 
 
 7'. Southern Railway, p. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Webster 7. 
 
 • Wells Fargo & Co. 7'. 
 
 - 7'. Wood, pp. 3914, 3917. 
 Bell Bros. 7'. Western, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 432, 3359, 3367. 
 Bellaire, etc., R. Co., Interstate 
 
 Commerce Comm. f. 
 Bellefontaine R. Co., Burns 7'. 
 Belleville, Ivast St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Bellman 7-. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1530. 
 Bellows Falls, etc., St. R. Co., Rut- 
 land R. Co. 7'. 
 Bellsdyke. etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 ish R. Co., p. 1181. 
 Belt Elect. Line Co. 7'. Tomlin, pp. 
 
 2228, 2657. 
 Belton Oil Co., Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — — r. Gulf, etc., R. Co., p. 1140. 
 
 Belvidere. The. 
 
 Belvidere Bldg. Co. 7'. Bryan, pp. 
 
 2868, 2869. 
 Bemis, Wordcn 7'. 
 
 Wordin 7'. 
 
 Beniiss 7'. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 2223. 
 Bcnadum, Indiana Union Tract. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Benbow 7\ North Carolina R. Co., 
 
 p. 537. 
 Bendekovich 7'. Omaha, etc.. St. 
 
 R. Co.. p. 2356. 
 Bender, Southern Pac. Co. 7'. 
 Bender & Co. 7'. Bowman, pp. 1213. 
 
 1215, 1220, 1229, 1233. 
 
 1785. 
 795. 
 
 R. 
 
 North Brit- 
 
 Co., p. 
 R. Co., 
 
 Co.. 
 
 1207, 
 1212. 
 
 Co. 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Bendon 7'. Union Tract. 
 
 2235. 
 Kenedict v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 pp. 858, 862, 868. 
 Kelly 7'. 
 
 7'. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 1953, 2200, 2205, 2206. 
 
 7'. Schaettle, pp. 1206, 
 
 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 
 1213. 1214, 1215, 1220. 
 
 Scheu 7'. 
 
 Benefactor, The. 
 
 Benhan, Liverpool, etc., Co. 
 
 Benjamin, Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 7'. Levy, p. 477. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. k'. Co., 
 
 151 S. W. 91. 245 Mo. 598— 
 pp. 1518, 1744, 1894, 258(T, 2878, 
 2951. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 84 N. Y. S. 458— pp. 2328, 2875. 
 
 The E. 
 
 Benner j'. Equitable Safety Ins. 
 Co., p. 3949. 
 
 Lambert v. 
 
 Benner Livery, etc., Co. ': Busson, 
 
 p. 2260. 
 Bennett r. .\merican Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 573, 574. 578, 815, 821. 
 
 .Arkansas Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Brien r. 
 
 7'. Byram & Co., pp. 509, 511, 
 
 540, 634, 728. 
 
 Cantu -■. 
 
 7'. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 1747, 1971, 2038, 2045. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. 7. 
 
 7'. Chicago etc., R. Co., 
 
 488. 490. 
 
 '■■ Drew. p. 858. 
 
 7'. Dutton, pp. 211, 222, 1007, 
 
 1492. 
 
 7-. Filyaw, pp. 804, 3176. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7' Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1767, 1776. 
 ^'ew York, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 57 Conn. 422, 18 Atl. 668— p. 
 2272. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 5 Hun. 599— p. :M56. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 69 N. Y. 594, 35 Am. Rep. 250— 
 p. 1668. 
 
 7'. Northern Pac. Exp. 
 
 pp. 731, 835, 1111, 1113. 
 
 z: Railroad Co., p. 1637. 
 
 Savannah Elect. Co. 7' 
 
 7'. Seattle Elect. Co., 
 
 2784, 3028. 
 
 X'allette 7'. 
 
 7'. United States. 194 Fed. 
 
 630. 114 C. C. A. 402— p. 3441. 
 
 z: United States. 227 V. S. 
 
 333, 33 S. Ct. 288— p. 3441. 
 
 Bennington, etc.. R. Co.. Bvars z: 
 Bennitt 7' Missouri Pac. R. Co , 
 
 pp. 3341, 3342. 
 Bensley, Chicago, 
 Benson, Decuir 7'. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 7'. Gray, pp. , 
 
 z: Manhattan R. Co.. p. 
 
 — — Memphis, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 7'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 
 
 8. 832, 931. 961. 977. 982. 
 
 Richmond, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Taconia R".. etc.. Co.. 
 
 2866. 2867. 
 
 7'. VYilmington City 
 
 pp. 1682, 1687. 1718. 18 
 1895. 2231. 2778. 2825, 
 
 Benson & Co., Ex parte. 
 
 Richmond etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Bent, Fergusson 7'. 
 
 Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Bent & Co.. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Co. 
 
 pp. 
 
 etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 1280. 
 
 3882. 
 
 2788. 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 R. Co., 
 88. 1889, 
 2903.
 
 CXXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Bente f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 Bentley i'. Bustard, pp. 3899, 3900. 
 
 Jacobs i\ 
 
 "Southwestern R. Co. f. 
 
 Bentson f. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2307. 
 B<mvega z: United States Surety 
 
 Co., p. 33. 
 Berchfield, Te.xas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Berdan & Co., Cincinnati, etc., K. 
 
 Berden"& Co., Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Berea ' College f. Commonwealth, 
 
 p. 3847. 
 
 Berengere, The. t. r- 
 
 Berg z: Atchison, etc., k. Lo., p. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2769. „ ^ 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. -J. 
 
 f Xarragansett Steamship 
 
 Co.. 'pp. 3252, 3289, 3294. 
 f. St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 
 3071. ,, „ ^ 
 
 Berean z: Central Vermont K. Co., 
 
 pp. 1549, 1554, 1555, 2780. 
 Bergeman v. Indianapolis, etc., K.. 
 
 Co., p. 352. 
 Bergen z: Chicago, etc., K. ^o., 
 
 p. 1049. ^ ^ 
 
 Bergen County Tract. Co. v. De- 
 
 marest, p. 2694. 
 
 Scott V. 
 
 Berger v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2726, 2770. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z. State, p. 352. 
 
 Bergin z. Missouri, etc., K. *-o., 
 
 pp. 499, 3763. 
 Bergman v. Indianapolis, etc., K. 
 Co., pp. 1207, 1226, 1231. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Bergner v. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 492, 894, 899. 
 Bergstrom w. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3132, 3133. 
 Berje v. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 516, 727. ^^„ 
 
 Berkelhamer v. Jolune, p. 2437. 
 Berkley v. Watling, p. 337. 
 
 V. Whitling„ p. 294. 
 
 Berkley St. R. Co. v. Simpson, 
 
 p. 2827. 
 Berkowit, Chicago Terminal Trans- 
 fer R. Co. V. 
 
 z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1589. 
 
 Berkshire St. R. Co., Liversidge v. 
 
 Vine z. 
 
 Berley z. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 164, 846. 
 
 z. Newton, p. 873. 
 
 '.,•. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 
 
 pp. 3049, 3052. 
 
 Bermuda, The. 
 Bernadon v. Nolte, p. 798. 
 Bernard z. Adams ICxp. Co., p. 
 1051. 
 
 Coggs V. 
 
 Bcrnston z. Strang, pp. 1209, 
 
 1210. 
 
 Bernhardt z. West Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1786, 2686. 
 
 Bernheim, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Bernheimer, Rosenbush v. 
 Bernstein v. Dry Docks, etc., R. 
 Co., p. 2314. 
 
 V. Weir, p. 987. 
 
 Bernstine v. Express Co., p. 495. 
 Berry z. Atlantic Railway, pp. 
 
 2806, 2865. 
 
 z. Carolina, etc.. Railway, pp. 
 
 2417, 2419. 
 
 z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1272, 1321, 1365, 1368, 1399, 
 1432, 1478, 1481. 
 
 Cooper V. 
 
 Berrv z. Cooper, pp. 948, 961, 
 1038, 1040. 
 
 De Witt z. 
 
 • Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2509, 2511, 2512, 2514. 
 
 z. Missouri Pac. K. Co., pp. 
 
 1953, 2209, 2520, 2523, 2808. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 z. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2876. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 286, 
 
 287, 289, 292, 295, 304, 882. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z. Utica, etc., St. R. Co., 73 
 
 X. E. 970, 181 N. Y. 198— p. 
 2157. 
 
 ■;•. Utica, etc., St. R. Co., /8 
 
 N Y. S. 542, 76 App. Div. 490 
 —pp. 2321, 2860. 
 
 z. West Virginia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 529, 564, 872, 890, 897, 
 899, 904, 907, 910, 946, 949, 970. 
 
 Berry, etc., Co., Adams Exp. Co. 
 
 Berryhill, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t-. 
 Berryman, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 
 BeVtellote v. Part of Cargo of 
 
 Brimstone, p. 532. 
 Bertonneau v. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 p. 721. 
 Bertram v. People's R. Co., pp. 
 
 1888, 1894, 1896. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Berwind-White Coal Min. Co. v. 
 
 Metropolitan Steamship Co., p. 
 
 3346. 
 Berwind. etc., Min. Co., Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z. 
 Besecker v. Delaware, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 1793, 2833. 
 Bessemer, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bessemer, etc., R. Co., Hall z. 
 Bc^senger v. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2906. 
 Bessling & Co. v. Houston, etc., Iv. 
 
 Co., pp. 326, 335, 454, 502, 508, 
 
 509, 979, 1016. 
 Best, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 V. Seaboard, etc., Railway, p. 
 
 166. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Bethea z. Northeastern R- Co., 
 
 pp. 984, 1629, 1632. 
 Bethmann z. Old Colony R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1785, 2349. 
 Bettis z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2480. 
 
 Moss V. 
 
 Betts z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 92 
 
 Iowa 343, 60 N. W. 623, 26 L. 
 R. A. 248, 54 Am. St. Rep. 
 558— p. 1273. 
 
 z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1^0 
 
 Iowa 252. 129 N. W. 962— pp. 
 1395, 1441. 
 
 z. Fanners' Loan, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1343, 1370. 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., p. 
 
 2138. 
 
 V. Wilmington City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2357. 
 
 Betz, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Rhode Island Co., p. 2345. 
 
 Beuris, Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bevard z. Lincoln Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1707. 
 Beverley v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2727, 2875, 2914. 
 Bevis V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3230, 3232, 3233. 
 Beyer z. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 ' 2213. 
 
 Bibb z. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 724, 822, 881. 
 Bibb Brown Corn Co. z. Atchin- 
 
 son, etc., R. Co., pp. 606, 619, 
 
 742, 743. 
 Bibolet, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z. 
 Bickford z. Metropolitan Steam- 
 ship Co., pp. 564, 565, 3902. 
 Bickley, Seddon v. 
 Bickley, etc., Co., Southern R. 
 
 Co. c'. 
 Biddle, Hestonville, etc., R. Co. z. 
 ■;■. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2524, 2531. 
 
 Kentucky Cent. R. Co. z. 
 
 Bidgood, Northern Alabama R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Bienville Water Supply Co. z. Mo- 
 bile, p. 2641. 
 
 Bierce v. Red Bluff Hotel Co., pp. 
 1246, 1249. 
 
 Biessel, Mephams z. 
 
 Bigbee, etc., Packet Co. •;•. Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co., p. 3752. 
 
 Bigby, Bates z 
 
 Bigelow z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 423, 437, 468. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 z. Heaton, p. 1164. 
 
 Rowley z. 
 
 z. West End, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1804. 
 
 Bigger, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z. 
 Biggie z. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1781. 
 Biggs V. Barry, p. 1236. 
 Bigham, Texas, etc., R. Co. z. 
 Biglcy, Varble z. 
 Big Sandy, etc., R. Co. f. Blanken- 
 
 ship (Ky.), 118 S. W. 315— p. 
 
 2261." 
 
 V. Blankenship, 133 Ky. 438, 
 
 118 S. W. 316, 23 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 345, 19 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 264 — pp. 2083, 2088, 2127. 
 
 ■ Hurley J'. 
 
 Jennings z. 
 
 Bigwood V. Boston, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2675, 2780, 2885. 
 Bilbv, St. Louis, etc., R. Co z. 
 Bilinsk-y, Atchison, etc., R. Co. z. 
 Bill. Cooper z. 
 Billinger z. Clyde Steamship Co., 
 
 pp., 1942, 1943, 1955. 
 Billings, Sherley v. 
 Billingsley, St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z. 
 Billington, Illinois Cent. R. Co. z. 
 Bills, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 'z. 
 
 Ingalls ■:■. 
 
 z. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1290, 1358, 1383, 1477. 
 
 Bilotta V. Media, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1706. 
 Binder, West Chicago St. K. 
 
 Bjng V. Atlantic, etc., K. Co. p. 
 
 27u4. 
 Biiigemann v. International R >..o.,- 
 
 p, 1647. 
 Bingenheimer, Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z. 
 Bingham, Harmony v. 
 
 z. Lamping, pp. 575. 576. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 z. Rogers, pp. 3161, 3166. 
 
 z. San Pedro, etc., R. Co.^ 
 
 pp. 1372, 1399, 1401. 1402. 
 
 Binghamton R. Co., Townsend z^ 
 Birchard, Mann z. 
 
 Sargent v. 
 
 Birchfield, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Birckhead z. Chesapeake, etc., R- 
 
 Co., pp. 2588, 2605. 
 Bird z. Brown, p. 12_18. 
 
 z. Cromwell, p. 788. 
 
 z. Georgia Railroad, PP- 
 
 1 513, 582, 3414.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXVII 
 
 Bird V. Railroads, pp. 949, 1147, 
 
 3261, 3330, 3331, 3352, 3363, 
 
 3377, 3378, 3381. _ 
 Bird of Paradise, The. 
 Birdwell, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Itirge-Korbes Co., St. Louis, etc., 
 
 K. Co. V. 
 Birley v. Gladstone, p. 714. 
 Birmingham v. Rochester City, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 1811. 
 
 z'. Rochester, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1850. 
 
 Birmingham Elect. R. Co. v. Clay, 
 pp. 2151, 2815. 
 
 Birmingliam Ore, etc., Co. v. 
 Grover, p. 2589. 
 
 Birmingham R. Co. v. Anderson, 
 p. 1850. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Ad- 
 ams, p. 2585. 
 
 V. Anderson, 163 Ala. 72, 
 
 50 So. 1021— p. 2238. 
 
 7'. Anderson, 3 Ala. App. 
 
 424, 57 So. 103— pp. 1491, 2571. 
 
 V. Baird, pp. 2058, 2059, 
 
 3075. 
 
 V. Barrett, 4 Ala. App. 347, 
 
 58 So. 760— pp. 1728, 2582, 
 
 2602. 
 
 V. Barrett (Ala.), 60 So. 
 
 262— p. 2235. 
 
 V. Baylor, p. 264L 
 
 '■. Bennett, p. 2582. 
 
 Bowie V. 
 
 V. Brannon, pp. 2148, 2333, 
 
 2655. 
 
 V. Butler, pp. 1709, 2620. 
 
 V. Bynum, pp. 1558, 2347, 
 
 ■ 2743, 2881. 
 
 V. Chastain, p. 2609. 
 
 z: Clay, p. 2648. 
 
 V. Coleman, pp. 2771, 3008, 
 
 3071. 
 
 Cutcliff V. 
 
 V. Dickerson, p. 2282. 
 
 V. Ellard, pp. 2750, 2929. 
 
 V. Enslen, p. 2751. 
 
 V. Fisher, pp. 2582, 2583, 
 
 2613, 2862. 3000. 
 
 z: Girod, pp. 2283, 2344, 
 
 2358, 2938. 
 
 V. Glenn, pp. 2017, 2058, 
 
 2599, 2649, 2862, 2868, . 3064* 
 3065. 
 
 V. Glover, pp. 2585. 2597. 
 
 V. Goldstein, p. 2608. 
 
 V. Gonzalez, pp. 2281, 2590. 
 
 V. Haggard, pp. 2585, 2647. 
 
 V. Handy, pp. 2348, 2596. 
 
 V. Harden, pp. 2351, 2357, 
 
 2361, 2395, 2609. 
 
 V. Hawkins, pp. 1894, 2968. 
 
 f. Hunnicutt, pp. 2578, 2583, 
 
 2602, 2757. 
 
 V. James, pp. 2114, 2175, 
 
 2235, 2255, 2380, 2989, 2991. 
 
 JefTerson f. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 V. Jordan, pp. 2583, 2589, 
 
 2636. 
 
 V. Jung, pp. 1898, 1899, 1903, 
 
 1904, 2064, 2306, 2318, 2333, 
 2369; 2584, 2939. 
 
 Kennedy z'. 
 
 f. King; pp. 2597, 2920. 
 
 V. Landrum, pp. 1805, 2273, 
 
 2275, 2364, 2732, 2998, 2999. 
 
 V. Lee, 153 Ala. 79. 45 So. 
 
 292— pp. 1899, 1904, 2281, 2332, 
 2581, 2745, 2967. 
 
 V. Lee, 153 Ala. 386, 45 So. 
 
 164 — pp. 2475, 3031. 
 
 V. Lide, pp. 2319, 2395, 2649, 
 
 2912. 
 
 V. McCurdv, pp. 2585, 2598, 
 
 2664. 
 
 z: McDaniel, p. 2574. 
 
 V. McDonough, pp. 190, 196, 
 
 200, 1595, 2466, 2630. 2854. 
 
 V. McGinty, pp. 1889, 1901, 
 
 2596, 2658, 2906. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Mason, 
 j4 So. 207, 137 Ala. 342— pp. 
 2526, 2610. 
 
 V. Mason, 144 Ala. 387, 39 
 
 So. 590— p. 2916. 
 
 V. Mayo, p. 2974. 
 
 Melton V 
 
 V. Mindk-r, pp. 2281, 2282. 
 
 v. Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 
 
 So. 1024— pp. 2578, 2579, 2584, 
 2636, 2697, 3001. 
 
 - :■. Aloore, 151 Ala. 327, 43 
 So. 841— pp. 2575, 2583, 2721. 
 
 I'. Moore, 163 Ala. 43, 50 
 
 So. 115— pp. 2862, 2989. 
 
 v. Nolan, pp. 3057, 3058. 
 
 V. Norris, pp. 1518, 1899, 
 
 2635. 
 
 V. Oden, p. 2584. 
 
 V. Oldham, pp. 2277, 2278. 
 
 z: Parker, 156 Ala. 251, 47 
 
 So. 138— pp. 2589, 2599. 
 
 z: Parker, 161 Ala. 248, SO 
 
 So. 55— pp. 2017, 2047, 2606, 
 2607. 
 
 z: Pritchett, p. 2903. 
 
 V. Rutledge, p. 2763. 
 
 V. Sawyer, pp. 1580, 1720, 
 
 2521, 2642. 
 
 z\ Seaborn, pp. 1532, 1541, 
 
 1853, 1868, 2754. 
 
 v. Selhorst, pp. 2743, 2862. 
 
 Smith -'. 
 
 V. Stallings, pp. 1595, 2122, 
 
 2420, 2'466. 
 
 V. Stanfield, p. 2652. 
 
 Sweet I'. 
 
 Tannchill v. 
 
 V. Tate, pp. 2620, 2623, 2624. 
 
 z: Taylor, 152 Ala. 105, 14 
 
 So. 580- p. 2751. 
 
 V. Taylor, 60 So. 979, 6 Ala. 
 
 App. 661— pp. 2608, 2862. 
 
 — — -•. Turner, pp. 1650, 2622, 
 2663, 3078, 3079, 3080, 3106. 
 
 Watkins z\ 
 
 V. Weathers, pp. 2580, 2589. 
 
 V. Wilco.\, pp. 2580, 2589, 
 
 2590. 
 
 z: Willis, p. 2357. 
 
 V. Wise, pp. 1516, 2582. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 2581, 2584, 
 
 2611, 2631. 
 
 v. Yates, pp. 1988, 2220, 
 
 2281, 2583, 2608, 2653, 2890. 
 
 z: Yielding, pp. 190, 1595, 
 
 2122, 2466, 2483, 2622, 2625, 
 2630. 
 
 Birmingham, St. R. Co., Rick- 
 
 ctts v. 
 Birmingham L'nion R. Co. -'. Hale, 
 
 pp. 2688, 3004. 
 
 Hill -•. 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 1899, 1901, 
 
 1903, 2936. 
 
 Birmingham, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Holmes I'. 
 
 Jcmison -'. 
 
 Birney, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 211, 471. 
 
 Bisch, Louisville, etc., R. Co. Z'. 
 Bischoff z'. People's R. Co., pp. 
 
 1737, 2128, 2261. 
 Bishop z\ Bishop, p. 2785. 
 
 Central Pass. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Empire Transp. Co., 33 N. 
 
 Y. Super. Ct. 99— p. 723. 
 
 V. Empire Transporting Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 48 How. Prac. 119— 
 p. 321. 
 
 V. Hlinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2361, 2512, 2513, 2515, 2547, 
 2890. 
 
 P. & L. E. R. Co. z: 
 
 z: St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1697, 1708, 1823, 1986. 
 
 Stockton 7'. 
 
 V. Stockton, p. 2036. 
 
 V. Union R. Co., p. 2518. 
 
 Bishopp, People v. 
 
 Bissel z: Campbell, p. 347. 
 
 r. Price, pp. 337, 1161, 3285, 
 
 3286, 3294, 3304. 
 
 Bissell, Adams f. 
 
 t. Michigan, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 417, 1509, 2091. 
 
 — — ^f. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (N. v.), 29 Barb. 602— p. 2099 
 
 — — V New York Cent. k. Co.'. 
 
 •^■- ?i:J^-' «^ -^"'- '^^-c. 369 
 — PD. 1368, 1850, 3161. 
 
 Sturgess v. 
 
 Bissett, Pensacola Elect. Co. v 
 Bitterman, Louisville, etc R. 
 
 Co. i\ ' 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co 
 
 pp. 1616, 1617, 1618, 3726 
 
 jivens, Michigan, etc.. R. Co. v 
 Bivings, Southern R. Co v 
 Bixby v. Deemar, p. 3915 
 
 15. J. Williard, The. 
 
 7^*5 7-4 'H*^'!"*''- PP- 526, 728, 
 Vii, 749, 7:>i, 765, 896 3327 
 3328, 3330, 4038. ' ' 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co nn 
 
 191. 949 1075, 1857. 1858, 3049; 
 3030, 3164, 3166, 3197 
 
 V. Baxendale. p. 660 
 
 ~^r. Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 
 "1^88-, ^2ir3"^2"8i?'^ ^- ^°- PP- 
 
 ~^.^'8^r'^' "*=■• ^---^p- Co.. 
 
 ''■• CarroIIton R. Co., p. 2036. 
 
 z: Charleston, etc., R , Co 
 
 pp. 3056, 1681. ' ' 
 
 ~r:„''- Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 /28, 733, 738, 746, 747 
 
 Dallas, etc., St. R. Co. v. 
 
 — V. Goodrich Transp. Co., dd 
 815 822, 823, 949, 1076, 3166! 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co j' 
 
 ~7T7'"'-c'^^^V°P°'''^" St. R. Co.. 
 117 S W J J ^2, 217 Mo. 672— 
 p. 2924. 
 
 z\ Metropolitan St. ' R 
 
 162 Mo. App. 90, 144 S 
 131— p. 2583. 
 
 V. New York, etc., 
 
 pp. 2121, 2860. 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. V 
 
 ~T&26. ^"°"^ •■^'*^- ^- C°- P- 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — — r. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 943 1084, 1085. 1392, 1408, 
 1413. 
 
 f. Wilmington, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 305, 306, 309, 337, 338. 
 
 Black Diamond Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 ^ Railroad Comm., p, 227. 
 Black Warrior, Turner z: 
 Blackburn v. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 •■• Alabama, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3047. *^ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Blackman i\ Pierce, pp. 1162. 
 
 1219, 1237. 
 
 United States E^p. Co. v. 
 
 Blaclcmer, etc., Pipe Co. z: Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co., pp 
 1099, 1110, 1113, 3331, 
 3335, 3342. 
 
 Blackmon, Nashville, etc., 
 way V. 
 
 Blackmore z\ Missouri Pac. 
 Co., p. 3169. 
 
 V. Toronto St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1588. 
 
 v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1577. 
 
 Blackstock z: New York, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 246, 608, 627, 628. 
 Blackwell v. Metropolitan, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1830. 
 
 f. O'Gorman Co., pp. 2160, 
 
 2333, 2901, 2902. 
 
 f. Southern Pac- Co., p. 
 
 1055. 
 
 Co.. 
 W. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 796, 
 3334, 
 
 Rail- 
 
 R.
 
 CXXVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 1577, 
 
 581. 
 Rail- 
 
 Co., 
 pp. 
 
 Co. 
 
 83, 
 
 109 
 
 26, 
 
 pp. 
 
 1348. 
 3415, 
 
 Blades v. Des Moines City R. Co 
 (loxva). 113 N. W. 922— pp 
 2332, 2875. ^. ^ ^ 
 
 V. Des Moines City R. Co. 
 
 146 Iowa 580. 123 N. W. IOj/ 
 —p. 2386. , „ 
 
 Blaidsell Co. 7: C_itizens_ JSat 
 Bank, pp. 374, 377, 39o, 396 
 397. 404. ^ „ ^ 
 
 Blaikston v. Davies, Turner ic Co. 
 p. 3369. ^. „ 
 
 r.lair i: Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., p 
 1898. 
 
 r. Erie R. Co., pp. 
 
 1578. 2105. 
 
 Evans 7: ., , -in 
 
 r. Teffries, pp. 3l4, 320, 
 
 T. Lewiston, etc., St. 
 
 wav, pp. 2175. 2321, 2342. 
 
 'Louisville, etc., R. Co. x 
 
 T. Milwaukee, etc., K. 
 
 p. 2682. ^ 
 
 r. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 
 
 1502, 1889. 
 
 r. Sioux, etc., R. 
 
 (Iowa), 73 N. W. 1053— pp. 
 86, 91. ^ ^ 
 
 V. Sioux, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Iowa 369, 80 X. W. 673— pp 
 136, 167. 
 
 r. Wells Fargo & Co 
 
 856, 948, 950, 1272, 1345, 
 
 1400, 1475, 1478, 3303, 
 
 3763. . „. „ 
 
 Blaisdell r. Connecticut River K. 
 Co., p. 895. 
 
 z: Long Island R. Co. 
 
 (Sup.), 131 N. Y. S. 14— p. 
 2527. 
 
 ■:• Long Island R. Co., 136 
 
 X Y. S. 768, 152 App. Div. 
 
 218— pp. 2527, 2701. 
 Blaisdell & Co. v. White & Co., pp. 
 
 395, 396. 404. 
 Blake f. Burlington, etc, R-^^o., 
 
 78 Iowa 57, 42 N. W. 580— p. 
 
 2218. ^, „ 
 
 V. Burlington, etc., K. Co., 
 
 89 Iowa 8, 56 N. W. 405, 21 L. 
 R. A. 559— pp. 1953, 2218. 
 
 ■;•. Camden Interstate R. Co., 
 
 p. 3003. 
 
 v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 2039, 2497. 
 
 . Mahon v. 
 
 ■ Winona, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Blakelv. Mobile, etc., R. Co. 
 
 VValsh r. 
 
 Blakemore, P. C. & St. L. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Blakiston v. Davies, Turner S 
 
 Co., pp. 3, 479. 
 Blakney v. Seattle Elect. Co., p 
 
 2251. 
 P.lalack, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v 
 Blanchard v. Isaacs, pp. 268, 269 
 
 277, 285. 
 
 f. Page, pp. 333, 337, 354 
 
 370, 411, 490, 1148, 1149, 1150 
 1 151. 
 
 I!lanchette z: Holyoke St. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1708, 2003, 2762, 3034. 
 Bland f. Adams Exp. Co., pp 
 
 727, 750. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 55 
 
 Cal. 570, 36 Am. Kep. 50— p. 
 2492. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 65 
 
 Cal. 626, 4 Pac. 672— p. 30^0. 
 
 Blank z: Illinois Cent. R. Co., 182 
 
 111. 332, 55 N. E. 332— pp. 1578, 
 
 2100, 2105. 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 111. .\pp. 475— p. 99. 
 Blankenship, Big Sandy, etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 Blanktnstein, .\dams Z'. 
 Blanton, etc., Co., I & G. X. 
 
 Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co 
 
 Blatcher z\ Philadelphia, etc.. 
 
 pp. 
 
 R 
 
 Co., pp. 1367, 1368, 2880, 3290. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co. 
 
 . P- 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 pp. 
 
 Co. 
 
 573, 
 
 36 
 576, 
 
 Bleecker z'. Colorado, etc 
 
 pp. 2040, 3064, 3065. 
 Bleich, Adams Exp. Co. 
 Bleier z'. Bushwick R. 
 
 2349. 
 Bleiwise t'. Pennsylvania 
 
 p. 1842. 
 Blevins t'. Atchison, etc. 
 
 pp. 2113, 2243. 
 P)Iew z\ Philadelphia Rapid Trans 
 
 Co., p. 2700. 
 Bliss, The A. M. 
 r.litch z\ Central Railroad. 
 
 2188, 2220, 2237. 
 Blitz z'. L^nion Steamboat Co. 
 
 436, 3871. 
 Bliven z\ Hudson River R. 
 
 (X. Y.), 35 Barb. 188— pp. 
 
 574. 
 
 f. Hudson River R. Co 
 
 X. Y. 403— pp. 547, 574, 
 577, 579. 
 
 Bloch, Merchants' Despatch 
 
 Transp. Co. t'. 
 
 Merchants', etc., Co. '•. 
 
 Merchants', etc., Transp. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Bloch Bros., Merchants' Transp. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Blocher, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Block z: Fitchburg R. Co., p. 3311. 
 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 1268. 
 
 v. Third Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 2723. 
 
 '■. Trent, p. 3190. 
 
 '■. LTnited States Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 580. 
 
 Blocker '■. Whittenburg, ]ip. 745, 
 
 747. 
 Blodgett z: Abbot, pp. 616, 617, 
 
 633, 634, 681, 3415. 
 
 c'. Bartlett. pp. 1876, 2172. 
 
 Blomsness v. Puget Sound Elect. 
 
 Railway, pp. 1529, 2044. 
 Blondel z: St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 
 2223. 
 Blood, Schmidt z\ 
 Bloom z: Richards, p. 1861. 
 
 7'. Sioux City Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1701, 1805, 2274. 
 
 Texas, etc., K. Co. z\ 
 
 Bloomer, Graff z\ 
 
 Pittsburgh R. Co. z'. 
 
 Blooniingdale 7'. Durell, p. 843. 
 
 ''. Wilsons, etc., Line, pp. 
 
 3875, 3933. 
 
 Bloomingdale, etc., Co. v. Mem- 
 phis, etc., R. Co., pp. 1212, 1213, 
 1222, 1229, 1246, 1247, 1249, 
 1250. 
 
 Bloomington, P. & J. Electric R. 
 Co., Cleary z'. 
 
 Bloomington, etc.. Railway z'. Zim- 
 merman, p. 2357. 
 
 Blossom z'. Champion, pp. 480, 
 532. 
 
 v. Dodd, pp. 324, 931, 946, 
 
 965, 966, 991, 1003, 1004, 1007, 
 1018, 3163, 3164. 
 
 z: Griffin, pp. 285, 286, 287, 
 
 772, 882, 3369, 3370. 
 
 Blount ''. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 3353. 
 Blowers & Co. z/. Canadian Pac. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 551, 563, 581. 
 Blue z'. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2354. 
 Blue Grass Tract. Co. ?•. Skillman, 
 
 p. 1963. 
 Blue Hill St. R. Co., Dugan t-. 
 Blue Ridge Collection Agency v. 
 
 Southern R. Co., p. 155. 
 Blue Ridge Light, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Price, p. 2876. 
 Blue Ridge R., Co., Adger v. 
 
 Davis Bros. z'. 
 
 Blumenthal & Co., Mullin z: 
 Blum, Bonner r. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. v. 
 
 — — 7'. Monahan, p. 821. 
 
 Blum '■. Southern Pullman Palace 
 Car Co., pp. 3201, 3202, 3215, 
 3217, 3218, 3221. 
 
 7'. The Caddo, pp. 477, 488. 
 
 494. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Blum & Co. 7'. Marks, pp. 1214. 
 
 1215,^ 1219. 
 Blum Co., Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 P.lumantle 7'. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 
 
 3133, 3150. 
 r>lumentlial 7'. Brainerd, pp. 6, 355, 
 
 488, 729, 850, 855, 897, 901. 
 
 905. 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1008, 
 
 1009. 
 
 7'. Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3124, 3151, 3152, 3193. 
 
 Xew York, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. LTnion Elect. Co., p. 2766. 
 
 Blunt, Sarjeant 7'. 
 
 Blumenthal 7'. Southern R. Co.. 
 
 p. 23'). 
 lilyth, Oregon, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Blythe 7'. Denver, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 732, 738. 
 Boal, Cincinnati, etc.. Mail Line 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Board z\ Christie Grain, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 1617. 
 
 7'. Cralle, pp. 1696, 2076. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Xew York, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Public Service R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. Spalding, p. 3586. 
 
 United States Fidelity, etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Board of Corp. Comm'rs, Mat- 
 thews 7'. 
 
 Boardman, Marshall 7'. 
 
 Boatmen's Sav. Bank 7'. Western, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 378, 387, 555, 
 558, 3274. 
 
 Boatmen's Sav. Inst., Fontaine v. 
 
 Boaz 7'. Central R., etc., Co., pp. 
 797, 1287, 1365, 1367, 1378, 1284, 
 1430. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Bobbink 7. Erie R. Co., pp. 896, 
 
 1021. 
 Bobbitt 7'. United R. Co., p. 2595. 
 Bobolink, The. 
 Bock, Hauterman 7'. 
 Bockelcamp z'. Lackawanna, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1884, 1900. 
 Boddy, Street Railroad 7'. 
 Boden 7'. Boston Elevated R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1515, 2305. 
 Bodley, Ottawa v. 
 Boehl 7'. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 816, 818, 821. 828, 1074, 1362, 
 
 1363, 1388, 1389, 1457. 
 Boehm 7'. Duluth, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1544, 1547, 1858, 2454, 2480, 
 
 3021, 3079. 
 Boer, El Paso Elect. R. Co. 7'. 
 Boering 7'. Chesapeake Beach R. 
 
 Co., 20 App. D. C. 500- pp. 
 
 2094, 2103, 2837. 
 
 7'. Chesapeake Beach R. Co., 
 
 24 S. Ct. 515, 193 U. S. 442, 48 
 L. Ed. 742— pp. 2103, 2105. 
 
 Boesen, Omaha St. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 v. Omaha St. R. Co., p. 2164. 
 
 Boetgen 7'. New York, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 2324. 
 
 Bogard, Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1491, 1492, 1495, 1497, 2018, 
 2030 
 
 Bogardus v. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2631. 
 Bogart 7'. State, p. 3569. 
 Boger, Chicago, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 Boggess V. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1544, 1548, 2314, 2486, 
 
 2619, 2625. 
 Boggett V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1638. 
 Boggs, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 TAIlI.lv OF CASES. 
 
 CXXIX 
 
 I'.ogg f. Martin (Ky,.), 13 I!. M(jn. 
 239— p. 1164. 
 
 V. Martin (Ky.), 13 I!. Mon. 
 
 243— p. 1153. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 I'.oRk-. Mobile, etc., R. Co. r. 
 lioiiannan t. Hammond, pp. 727, 
 
 732. 748, 752. 
 P.ohannon, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. ;•. 
 -•. Southern R. Co., pp. 2490, 
 
 3018. 
 I'ohn, East Saginaw City R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 r.oice V. Dcs Moines City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1893. 28 ir,. 
 ■ T'. Iliulson River R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1624, 1625, 1634. 
 
 '•. Ulster, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2880. 
 
 r.oies :■. Hartford, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 820, 917. 
 I'.oikens v. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1889. 
 T.oland, Hastings -•. 
 Ilolenian, Texas, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 r.olen '•. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 
 
 p. 163. 
 Roles, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 - Oklahoma R. Co. v. 
 r.olgiano, K\ Paso Elect. R'. Co. v. 
 I'.olin V. HutTnagle, p. 1241. 
 lioiing -'. St. Eouis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1612, 1013, 1622, 1623, 1632, 
 
 3085. 
 liollam, State r. 
 r.ollcs f. Kansas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2425. 
 
 - 7'. Lehigh Valley K. Co., pp. 
 773, 962, 1022. 
 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 Boiling, Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2475, 2476, 3319. 
 Boiling & Bro., Pine BlufT Iron 
 
 Works ?'. 
 r.ollman, Skilling ,■. 
 i!. lister, Wilkie t. 
 Bolton. Cliicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 J-. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1228, 1232, 1234, 1242. 
 
 Mclntire R. Co. v. 
 
 T'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2105, 2217, 2640, 2999. 
 
 Bolton Steam Shipping Co. v. 
 
 Crossnian, p. 3893. 
 Bomar f. Maxwell, pp. 3109, 3114, 
 
 3115, 3116, 3118, 3124, 3125, 
 
 3126. 3129, 3131, 3142, 3167. 
 liommarius ?■. New Orleans R., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1902. 
 lionar r. Mcrcliants' Co., p. 608. 
 I'-onasera ?'. I'uffalo, etc.. Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 1974. 
 r.onaud. Savannah, etc., R. Co. ,■. 
 lionce f. IHibuque St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1716, 1737, 1749. 
 Bond 7: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 110 
 
 Mo. App. 131, 84 S. W. 124— 
 
 p. 2655. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 122 
 
 Mo. App. 207, 99 S. W. 30— 
 p. 2359. 
 
 Cowan V. 
 
 Reber v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 r. Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 91. 
 
 Bonds-Foster Lumber Co. :■. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 3(il, 
 
 367, 542. 
 
 Bone, St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. 
 
 St. I,ouis, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Boner :■. Merchants' Steamboat 
 
 Co., p. 728. 
 Bonliglio -•. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 816, 1036, 1457. 
 Bonilied, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Bonneau f. North Shore R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1720, 2696, 2980, 2981. 
 
 1 Car— i 
 
 Bonner f. Blum, \>]>. 3115, 3132, 
 
 3153. 
 
 f. l)e Mendoza, p. 3156. 
 
 — ■ V. Glenn, pp. 1953, 2172, 
 
 2174. 
 — • - -'. (■rumbach, pp. 753, 2287, 
 
 2694, 3146, 3147. 3155, 3156. 
 
 Hale f. 
 
 -■. Wingate. pp. 1701, 1811. 
 
 Bonney f. Buchwicke R. Co., p. 
 
 2833. 
 I'.onstead, Morgan Envelope Co. i: 
 Borsteel t. \'anderbilt, p. 2651. 
 i'.ook I'. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 2457. 
 r.ooker. Van Casteel r. 
 IJooks, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Boon & Co. V. Belfast, pp. 751, 
 
 1017. 
 
 The Belfast r. 
 
 I'oone. Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike 
 
 Road f. 
 7'. Oakland Transit Co., pp. 
 
 22S8, 2743. 
 I '.Done Suburban R. Co., Cotant v. 
 lioornian v. American Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 987, 1007, 1030, 1034, 1044, 
 
 1076, 1118. 
 Ilooth, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Lloyd, p. 3585. 
 
 Lowe t'. 
 
 f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 505. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. '■. 
 
 Smith 7\ 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. '■. 
 
 r. Spuytcn, etc.. Mill Co., p. 
 
 3052. 
 
 The G. R. 
 
 lioothe, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 liooton, Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 I'oozer, Houston, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 l'>orches, Radel Co. v. 
 Borda !■. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1176, 1177, 1183. 
 I'lOrdeaux t'. Erie R'. Co., pp. 1599, 
 
 1601, 2468. 
 liordcn, Galveston, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Gilbert Transp. Co. !■. 
 
 jiorders, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Boren. Texas, etc., R. Co. %•. 
 
 The G. B. 
 
 I'oring, Montgomery, etc., R. Co. 
 
 l!oVk, New York, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 liorn, Texas, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Born Steel Range Co., Southern 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 Bornstein f. Lans, p. 1140. 
 
 Ilorough. Simpson-Crawford Co. '■. 
 
 Borough of Norwood "'. Western- 
 Union Tel. Co., p. 3550. 
 
 I'loscowitz '■. .\dams Exp. Co., pp. 
 779. 834, 981, 996, 1033, 1046, 
 1049. 
 
 Boshear, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Bosley f. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 822, 1075, 1363, 1459, 1479. 
 
 Bosqui 7'. Sutro R. Co., pp. 1737, 
 2(,75, 2761, 2868, 2954. 
 
 Boss :■. ^Vtlantic Coast Line R. 
 Co., pp. 3396, 3408. 
 
 7'. Providence, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1736, 1924. 
 
 Boster 7'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 191, 194, 195, 200, 2123, 
 2468. 2563, 2564, 3099. 
 
 Bostock, Seaboard, etc.. Railway 7'. 
 
 Boston, Coast Line R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Peverly 7'. 
 
 Rosen 7'. 
 
 Townsend 7'. 
 
 Boston & .\. R. Co. 7'. Boston & 
 
 L. R'. Co., p. 3610. 
 Boston & L. R. Co.. Boston & 
 
 A. R. Co. 7'. 
 Boston & Maine R. R., McLoon 
 
 Boston Dist. Messenger Co., 
 kell 7'. 
 
 Has- 
 
 Boston Elev. R. Co., Ahem 7'. 
 
 Anjou f. 
 
 Anshen z: 
 
 Beattie z'. 
 
 Bentson f. 
 
 Beverley i: 
 
 Black z: 
 
 — — P.odcn v. 
 — ■ — • Brisbin v. 
 Burns v. 
 
 Bursteen z\ 
 
 Burus 7', 
 
 — — Carroll r. 
 Cohen V. 
 
 Conroy ''. 
 
 Coy V. 
 
 Craft V. 
 
 — ■ — Craig 7'. 
 
 Crowley 7'. 
 
 Cutts z: 
 
 Donahoe v. 
 
 Uuchemin v. 
 
 EI dredge z: 
 
 Eldridge v. 
 
 Farrington '■. 
 
 Gagnon 7'. 
 
 Gardner 7'. 
 
 Garland 7'. 
 
 Glennen 7'. 
 
 Hamilton 7'. 
 
 Hannon z'. 
 
 Heshion v. 
 
 Hillman 7'. 
 
 nines 7'. 
 
 Hogner 7'. 
 
 Ilolliday 7'. 
 
 H organ v. 
 
 Hotenbrink 7'. 
 
 Hunt 7'. 
 
 James 7'. 
 
 Jameson z\ 
 
 Kelley 7'. 
 
 Kilduflf 7'. 
 
 Krock 7'. 
 
 Lanci 7'. 
 
 Larson 7'. 
 
 • Lauchtamacher z'. 
 
 Lockwood 7'. 
 
 ■ Lyons 7'. 
 
 McCIinchy f. 
 
 McCumbcr 7'. 
 
 McDermott v. 
 
 McDonough 7'. 
 
 McGann 7'. 
 
 McGarry 7'. 
 
 McLaren 7'. 
 
 Marshall '■. 
 
 Martin 7'. 
 
 Meade 7'. 
 
 Millniore 7'. 
 
 Minihan 7'I' 
 
 Mullin I'."*" 
 
 Niland 7'. > 
 
 Pickford # 
 
 Pike 7'. 
 
 Plummer 7". 
 
 • Rand z: 
 
 Sanderson v. 
 
 Scale 7'. 
 
 7'. Smith, pp. 1893, 1993. 
 
 Stevens 7'. 
 
 Steverman 7'. 
 
 McCarthy 7'. 
 
 Sullivan 7'. 
 
 Tlionias 7'. 
 
 Tompkins 7'. 
 
 T upper 7'. 
 
 Twiss 7'. 
 
 Weeks 7'. 
 
 Welch 7'. 
 
 Work 7'. 
 
 Yancey z: 
 
 'S'ancy 7'. 
 
 Zaniore 7'. 
 
 Boston Marine Ins. Co. 7". Metro- 
 l)olitan Redwood Lumber Co., pp. 
 4084. 4085. 
 
 Richelieu, etc.. Nav. Co. f. 
 
 Boston Railroad. State 7'. 
 lioston Steamship Co.. Scott 7'. 
 Boston, etc., Corp., Watts 7'. 
 Boston, etc.. Railroad. Aigen 7'. 
 
 Bachant 7-.
 
 cxxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Boston, etc.. Railroad, Boucher v. 
 
 Bradford v. 
 
 Brooks f. 
 
 Bullard v. 
 
 Clement v. 
 
 Collins i\ 
 
 Commonwealth ''. 
 
 Converse v. 
 
 Duntlej' V. 
 
 Eaton V. 
 
 Elkins f. 
 
 Emerson *'. 
 
 Emery v. 
 
 Faulkner v. 
 
 Fisher v. 
 
 Flaherty v. 
 
 Fletcher v. 
 
 Flint V. 
 
 Floytrup v. 
 
 Gilman v. 
 
 Goodwin v. 
 
 • Gray v. 
 
 Hackett v. 
 
 Hett V. 
 
 Hooker v. 
 
 r. Hooker, pp. 3607, 3617, 
 
 3743, 3750, 3762, 3763. 
 
 Hull V. 
 
 Kambour v. 
 
 Keefe "'. 
 
 Kellogg f. 
 
 Lessard v. 
 
 Little V. 
 
 McDonald v. 
 
 Marr v. 
 
 Mayall v. 
 
 Mayo V. 
 
 Moriarty v. 
 
 Moses V. 
 
 Nealand v. 
 
 Norway Plains Co. v. 
 
 Nugent c'. 
 
 Nute V. 
 
 O'Laughlin '•. 
 
 V. Ordway, p. 3182. 
 
 Parker v. 
 
 Piper V. 
 
 Pudor c'. 
 
 Savageau 'J. 
 
 Shapiro v. 
 
 Silva V. 
 
 Smith ''. 
 
 Spofford V. 
 
 ■ Spotford V. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Stevens v. 
 
 Washburn-Crosby Co. v. 
 
 Wells V. 
 
 Weston V. 
 
 Whittemore i\ 
 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., Allerton v. 
 
 Ailing V. 
 
 Baker v. 
 
 Barden v. 
 
 Barry v. 
 
 V. Bartlett, pp. 1670, 1672. 
 
 Beers -'. 
 
 Bigwood V. 
 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Briggs V. 
 
 Brooks 
 
 V. Brown 
 
 223— p. 1167. 
 Brown, 
 
 (Mass.), 15 Gray 
 
 177 Mass. 65, 58 
 52 L. R. A. 418— 
 
 E. 189, 
 100. 
 
 Carpenter v. 
 Carroll v. 
 Carter v. 
 Cass v. 
 Cheney v. 
 
 V. Chipman, p. 1627. 
 Claflin V. 
 Commonwealth v. 
 Dawson v. 
 Dewire v. 
 Doherty v. 
 Doyle 'd. 
 Dunham v. 
 Duntley v. 
 Eaton V. 
 Elkins V. 
 ■ England v. 
 
 , R. Co., Farnon v. 
 
 - Fisher v. 
 
 - Forbes f. 
 
 - Forsyth v. 
 
 - Foss v. 
 
 - Fox V. 
 
 - Fuller V. 
 
 - Gaffman v. 
 
 - Gould V. 
 
 Green v. 
 
 Heinlien v. 
 
 Hendrick v. 
 
 Heyward v. 
 
 Hickey f. 
 
 Hill V. 
 
 Inness v. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Jones V. 
 
 June 'J. 
 
 Keefe v. 
 
 — — Keeley v. 
 
 Kuhlen r. 
 
 Lane v. 
 
 Latham v. 
 
 Lichtenhein v. 
 
 McDonough v. 
 
 McNamara v. 
 
 Marshall v. 
 
 Massell v. 
 
 ■ Merrill -.'. 
 
 ■ V. Miller, pp. 2642, 2921. 
 
 Mohr V. 
 
 Moreland v. 
 
 Moses V. 
 
 Murdock v. 
 
 Najac V. 
 
 O'Brien v. 
 
 O'Dougherty v. 
 
 Peebles v. 
 
 People V. 
 
 Planz V. 
 
 Pomeroy v. 
 
 Powers '•. 
 
 • '.'. Proctor, pp. 1624, 1858. 
 
 Quimby v. 
 
 Ramsden v. 
 
 Redigan v. 
 
 Reynolds v. 
 
 • Robertson v. 
 
 Sargent t'. 
 
 School Dist. V. 
 
 r. Shanly, pp. 222, 236, 238. 
 
 Shannon v. 
 
 Snowden z\ 
 
 Somer v. 
 
 Sonier v. 
 
 Stewart v. 
 
 '•. Stockwell, pp. 2338, 2880, 
 
 2884. 
 
 V. Sullivan, p. 100. 
 
 Swetland '•. 
 
 Thompkins f. 
 
 Torrev '■. 
 
 V. Trafton, p. 1625. 
 
 Twiss V. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 ■ Wadsworth v. 
 
 z\ Warrior Mower Co., pp. 
 
 495, 681. 
 
 Washburn-Crosby Co. v. 
 
 Welch V. 
 
 Wheelwright z'. 
 
 — — Whicher v. 
 
 V. Whitcher, p. 1151. 
 
 White v. 
 
 Wiggin V. 
 
 Winslow f. 
 
 Wright f. 
 
 Young ?■. 
 
 Boston, etc., R'. Corp., Bancroft v. 
 
 Caswell V. 
 
 Chaffee z: 
 
 Commonwealth "■. 
 
 Darling z>. 
 
 r)unbar v. 
 
 Hall r. 
 
 Hill Mfg. Co. V. 
 
 Malone z'. 
 
 Newcomb v. 
 
 Rice V. 
 
 Sargent v. 
 
 Boston, etc., ,R. Corp., Schopman 
 
 Stevens v. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Treat v. 
 
 Watts z: 
 
 Western R. Corp., p. 114. 
 
 Boston, etc.. Railway, Foley v. 
 Boston, etc.. Steamship Co., But- 
 ler z: 
 
 Crozier z'. 
 
 Dodge z>. 
 
 Boston, etc., St. R. Co., Bigwood t'. 
 
 V. Carter v. 
 
 Cunningham v. 
 
 Foley z'. 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 
 Jones '■. 
 
 Kuhlen z\ 
 
 Marshall v. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 Mason z: 
 
 Rose V. 
 
 Bostvidck v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. Y.) 55 Barb. 137— pp. 
 321, 323, 451. 
 
 z'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 45 
 
 N. Y. 712— pp. 325, 743, 997, 
 3881. 
 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Boswell z'. Hudson River R. Co., 
 
 p. 946. 
 Bosworth v. Carr, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 522, 523, 888, 3259. 
 
 Chicago, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3286. 
 
 Huntting Elevator Co. z: 
 
 Rau V. 
 
 V. Walker, p. 2486. 
 
 Botany Worsted Mills, Knott v. 
 ■ z'. Knott, 76 Fed. 582— p. 
 
 4059. 
 
 z: Knott, 82 Fed. 471, 27 C. 
 
 C. A. 326— pp. 4018, 4058, 4069. 
 
 z: Knott, 21 S. Ct. 30, 179 
 
 U. S. 69, 45 L. Ed. 90— pp. 
 4069, 4071. 
 
 Bothlingk v. Inglis, p. 1246. 
 Botsford, Law v. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Bottorff, Louisville, etc., Packet 
 
 Co. -.'. 
 Botts, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Bottum V. Charleston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 760, 761, 763, 832. 
 Boucher z: Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1683, 2682, 2792. 
 Boudrou, Thirteenth, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Bough z'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2631. 
 Boughman ?'. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 485. 
 Boughton, Wright v. 
 Bouker z\ Long Island K. Co., pp. 
 
 246, 621. 
 Bouknight, Washington-Virginia R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Boulfrois z: United Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2116, 2153, 2249. 
 Boulton, White z\ 
 Bourgo z'. White, p. 1840. 
 Bourgogne, La f. 
 Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 639, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 
 
 648. 
 Bourne v. CatlifF, p. 892. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Bowden v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2019, 2786. 
 
 V. Fargo, pp. 821, 823. 
 
 Bowdle V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1832, 2961. 
 Bowdon V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 517, 833, 895. 
 Bowen, Lee z: 
 
 z\ New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1725. 
 
 -•. Sirer, pp. 3955, 3966, 3968. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., p. 2280.
 
 TAliLK OF CASES. 
 
 CXXXI 
 
 Bowers V. Kansas, etc., R. Co., p 
 3095. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, etc., Railroad 
 
 pp. 1627, 1636. 
 
 V. R'ichinond, etc., R. Co., p, 
 
 2568. 
 
 Mowers Dredging Co., McRae v. 
 
 Kowie V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 1 MacArthur (8 D. C.) 94— pp 
 273, 274, 276, 288, 1281. 
 
 V. IJaitimore, etc., R. Co., 1 
 
 MacArthur (8 D. C), 609— pp 
 1332, 1377. 
 
 V. Hirmingliam R., etc., Co. 
 
 pp. 1944, 1945, 2650. 
 
 f. Bufifaio, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 898. 
 
 Gallagher i'. 
 
 V. Greenville St. R. Co., p 
 
 2617. 
 
 Bowker, Kelley v. 
 
 Wilmshurst r. 
 
 Bowlby, Brandt -■. 
 
 Howlds, Louisville, etc., R., Co. v. 
 Bowler, etc., Co., Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3125, 3141, 3149. 
 
 Bowles, Missouri, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 Richmond R'., etc., Co. '■. 
 
 7'. Rome, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2813. 
 
 Bowlin ■: Xye, pp. 456, 796, 875. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f.^ 
 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2694. 
 
 Bowling Green R. Co., Lewis v. 
 
 Bowman, Bender & Co. r. 
 
 ■ -■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3418, 3419, 3420, 3421, 3427, 
 3429, 3439, 3440, 3448, 3450, 
 3480, 3494, 3538, 3539, 3549, 
 3566, 3568. 
 
 i: Hilton, pp. 733, 749, 772, 
 
 77i, 822, 1154, 1157, 1161, 3901, 
 3914. 
 
 Kirkland f. 
 
 Kirkman ?■. 
 
 • -•. Teall, pp. 634, 635, 798. 
 
 Whitmore f. 
 
 Bowne, Continental Coal Co. v. 
 
 Mclntyre '■. 
 
 Bowring -•. Wabash R. Co., pp. 
 
 1050, 1407. 
 I?owring & Co., National Board v. 
 Howsher f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2470. 
 Box -■. -Vtlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 J(i55. 
 Boyce v. .\nderson, pp. 730, 1501, 
 
 1684, 1714. 
 
 V. California Stage Co., p. 
 
 2692. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 t. Manhattan R'. Co., p. 1783. 
 
 Boyd, Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hopkins f. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Michigan R'. Co. r. 
 
 V. Moselv, pp. 1221, 1227. 
 
 z: Moses', pp. 243, 244. 
 
 Xorth Chicago St. R. Co. t'. 
 
 Rock Creek Steamboat Co. t. 
 
 '•. Spencer, pp. 1612, 1613, 
 
 1622, 1626, 1631, 2092, 2093, 
 2446. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Boyer, K.x parte. 
 
 — - — Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 L'nited States -■. 
 
 Bovlan r. Hot Springs R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1(.27. 1632. 1634. 1635. 2444. 
 Bovli- r. Bush Terminal R. Co.. pp. 
 
 321. 1074. 
 
 -■. McLaughlin, pp. 728, 733, 
 
 734. 741, 749. 
 
 f. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 67. 
 
 T'. Reeder. p. 654. 
 
 Savannah, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Boyles, Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Boyles f. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1687, 1730, 1956. 
 Bozarth, Chicago, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 IJrabbzson, St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Brabley v. Dunipace, p. 333. 
 Bracco f. Merchants' Despatch 
 
 Transp. Co., pp. 654, 658. 
 Brace, Barber f. 
 
 Bracket f. McNair, pp. 470, 653. 
 Brackett f. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1770, 1939, 2328. 
 Brackney t. Public Service Corp., 
 
 pp. 1714, 2165, 2896. 
 Bradburn -•. Whatcom County R., 
 
 etc.. Co., p. 1565. 
 Bradford v. Boston, etc., Railroad, 
 
 p. 2503. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Cunard Steamship Co., p. 
 
 865. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1945, 2420, 2421. 
 
 South Carolina R. Co. :■. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 3176, 3310, 3313, 3413. 
 
 V. Taylor, p. 2642. 
 
 Bradley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 147 Hi. App. 397— p. 3174. 
 
 -■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 
 
 Wis. 44, 68 N. W. 410— p. 647. 
 
 r. Denton, p. 473. 
 
 J'. Fort Wayne, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1992, 2354. 
 
 Fuller r. 
 
 -'. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 '- V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 145 
 
 Fed. 569— p. 3911. 
 
 '■. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 
 
 Fed. 350, 82 C. C. A. 426— pp, 
 790, 792, 4065, 4066. 
 
 V. Northwestern R. Co., p 
 
 816. 
 
 — — Seaboard Air Line Railway v. 
 
 Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. 
 
 Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Seaver f. 
 
 V. Second Ave. R. Co., 54 N 
 
 Y. S. 256, 34 App. Div. 284— pp 
 2343, 2692, 2893. 
 
 v. Second Ave. R. Co., 90 
 
 Hun 419, 35 N. Y. S. 918, 70 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 622— p. 2185. 
 
 Bradncy f. Philadelphia Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., p. 2150. 
 Bradshaw '•. Irish North-Western 
 
 R. Co., p. 898. 
 
 V. South Boston R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1650, 1977. 2431, 2459, 2572. 
 
 Trinity, etc.. R. Co. i". 
 
 Bradstreet. Abbott v. 
 
 -■. Heran, p. 530. 
 
 Brady, Alabama City, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 'c. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2077, 2085, 2086. 
 
 Lang -'. 
 
 i\ Manhattan R. Co 
 
 V. Old Colony R. 
 
 2834. 
 
 -'. Springfield Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1734, 1738, 1888, 1892, 1894, 
 
 2585, 2595, 2598. ' 
 
 f. State, p. 178. 
 
 Braflfett f. Brooklyn, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 26. 27. 
 Bragg V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2640, 2764. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1533, 1585, 1763, 
 2491. 2624. 
 
 • St. Louis, etc., 
 
 Brainard, Cutts 7'. 
 
 Merrick -•. 
 
 7'. Nassau Fleet. 
 
 2193, 2194. 2691. 
 
 Brainerd, Blume^lthal %•. 
 Converse r. 
 
 Morse v. 
 
 Braker v. Jarvis Co., p. 3908. 
 Hrame, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. f 
 
 p. 2730. 
 Co., p. 
 
 2457, 2488, 
 R-. Co. f. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 
 Bramley v. Ulster, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 373, 378. 
 Branan r. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 370, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 
 
 1210, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1225, 
 
 1228, 1229. 
 
 -■. Southern R. Co., pp. 2339, 
 
 2617. 
 
 Branch, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 77 N. C. 347— p. 612. 
 
 7'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 88 N. C. 570— p. 154. 
 
 Brancroft-Whitney Co., Pacific 
 
 Coast, etc., Co. -•. 
 Brand v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 667, 668, 670, 341 1. 
 
 V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 905, 911. 
 
 7'. Weir, I). 853. 
 
 Brandenburg, Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Brandon. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Brandstetter Co.. Felix v. 
 I'.randt f. Bowlby, p. 849. 
 I'ranner, Dunn -■. 
 
 Brannon v. .\tlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 948, 960, 1282, 1283. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Branshaw, Beidler 7'. 
 
 Branson, Williams 7'. 
 Brantford City. The. 
 Brantley Co. v. Ocean Steamship 
 
 Co.. p. 3840. 
 Bras z: McConnell, p. 103. 
 Brashaw 7'. Denver, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 544. 
 Brashear -•. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1879. 
 Brasher, Tennessee Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Brass, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Stoeser, pp. 3432, 3527, 
 
 3528. 
 
 New York Cent., etc., 
 pp. 1792, 2134, 2137, 
 
 Brassell ; 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 2138. 
 Bratcher, 
 
 Texas, etc.. 
 
 Co. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 2694. 
 
 Co., 1 
 77 Atl. 
 
 R. 
 
 Bratton, Adams Exp. Co. 7'. 
 Braucr. Compania De Navigacion 
 La Flecha '■. 
 
 Compania. etc.. La FIccha v. 
 
 -•. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 
 
 pp. 1317. 1474. 3932. 
 
 Braun 7'. Northern Pac. 
 pp. 2434. 2492. 
 
 7'. L'nion R. Co., p. 
 
 7'. Webb, p. 3206. 
 
 Braunstein 7'. People's R. 
 
 Boyce's (24 Del.) 310, 
 
 738— pp. 2576, 2593, 2594, 2595, 
 
 2602. 
 
 7'. People's Co., 2 Bovce's (25 
 
 Del.) 55, 78 Atl. 609— pp. 1682, 
 1741, 1978. 2653. 2667. 2668, 
 2671. 2693. 
 
 Braunton 7'. Southern Pac. Co.. p. 
 
 871. 
 Braus 7'. Manhattan Delivery Co., 
 
 p. 1067. 
 Brauss. City. etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 Bravard, Cincinnati, etc.. R. 
 Brawley 7'. United States, p. 
 Brav. Pennsylvania Co. i-. 
 
 '- V. State, p. 43. 
 
 Bravmer 7. Seattle, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1640, 1853, 1854, 1855. 2425, 
 
 2717. 
 Brazil. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7-. 
 Brazzell 7'. State, p. 185. 
 Breakwater Co.. (Commonwealth v. 
 Breckinridge. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Breed 7. Mitchell, pp. 568. 581. 
 
 788. 
 Breeden 7'. Seattle, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2348. 2(.49. 2906. 
 Breedii-g. Missouri Pac. R. Co. f. 
 Brcen 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2682. 
 
 7'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2710, 2726. 
 
 Stumore 7-. 
 
 Co. V. 
 3873.
 
 CXXXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Breen :■. Texas, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1621, 1976, 2425, 2426, 2482, 
 
 2483. 
 Breese r. Trenton Horse R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2584. 2596. 
 Breese-Trenton Mining Co. i: Wa- 
 bash R. Co., p. 3668. 
 Brehm f. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 p. 2681. 
 Brchme z: Dinsmore, pp. 588, 
 
 984, 986, 1006, 1060, 1067. 
 Brehonv ;•. Pottsville Union Tract. 
 
 Co.. 'p. 2786. 
 Brcinig. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. :. 
 Breithaupt, McLean v. 
 B. R". Elect. Co., Southern E-xp. 
 
 Co. T. 
 Brelsford, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Bremer v. Pleiss, pp. 2149, 2150. 
 
 Stewart f. 
 
 Bremncr f. Williams, pp. 1681, 
 
 1845. 
 Brenan z: Shelton, p. 806. 
 Breniman, Colorado, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brennan f. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2167, 2803. 
 
 V. Fairhaven, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1879, 2519, 2635. 
 
 f. Shelton. p. 800. 
 
 r. Titusville, pp. 3440. 3570. 
 
 Brenner v. Jonesboro, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3086. 
 Brenni.sen z: Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 100 Minn. 102, 110 X. W. 362, 
 363. 10 Am. & Eng. .\nn. Cas. 
 169— pp. 786, 839. 
 
 -■. Pennsylvania R. Co., 101 
 
 Minn. 120, 'ill X. W. 945— pp. 
 821, 824, 843. 
 
 Brent, Fergusson v. 
 
 Bresk>' i'. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3454, 3455, 3456. 
 Brethauer, Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Bretherton f. Wood, p. 211. 
 Brett, Wilson z: 
 Brettncr i: Westchester Elect. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2321, 2860. 
 Brevig v. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 1551. 
 Brewer, Atchison, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 Central R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3713, 3715, 3716, 3723. 
 
 Edwards v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1577, 1578, 2104, 2105. 
 
 Xorthern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 i: St. Louis Transit Co., p. 
 
 2188. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Brewer Lumber Co. v. Boston, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1211, 1229, 1232, 
 
 1233. 1234, 1245. 
 Brewers', etc., Mach. Co., Seitz v. 
 Brewster, Dwight '•. 
 
 c'. Interborough Rapid Transit 
 
 Co.. pp. 2039, 2046, 2075, 2771. 
 
 Miller V. 
 
 t: Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 967. 
 
 Brezewitz i: St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1938. 
 Brian v. Oregon, etc, R. Co., pp. 
 
 1623, 2661, 2711, 2784, 3100, 
 
 3317, 3318, 3319. 
 Briant -'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 531, 537, 896, 904. 
 Bribble, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brice Z-. South Covington, etc., St. 
 
 R. Co., p. 2814. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1972, 2177, 2342, 2806, 2866, 
 3007. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 3123, 3125, 3141, 3151, 
 
 Bridges z: Tackson Elect. R.. etc., 
 Co., pp. 2194, 2198, 2311. 
 
 {■. North London R. Co., p. 
 
 1926. 
 
 f. North London, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1924. 
 
 Walpole f. 
 
 Bridgeton, Green z'. 
 
 Bridgeton, etc.. Tract. Co.. Paynter 
 
 Bridgman z\ The Emily, p. 471. 
 
 Bricd -•. Mitchell, p. 828. 
 
 Bricn z\ Bennett, pp. 1515, 1517. 
 
 Grove ''. 
 
 Brierly v. Union R. Co., p. 2974. 
 
 Brig Collenber, The. 
 
 Brig James Gray z\ Ship John 
 
 Fraser. p. 3478. 
 Brig Pilgrim, Adams •;■. 
 Briggs z\ Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1154, 1155, 1156, 1161, 1168, 
 
 1170, 3269. 
 
 Camden, etc., R. Co. ?'. 
 
 Camden, etc., Transp. Co. -'. 
 
 — — V. Durham Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1680, 1683, 1744, 1827, 2001, 
 2678, 2698, 2860. 
 
 z: Xew York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 636, 663. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 z: Union St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2151, 2152, 2159. 
 
 Brigham, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 
 "•. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 2714. 
 
 Taylor f. 
 
 Brigham & Co. ?■ 
 Brigham, etc., Co 
 Bright, Houston, etc., R. Co 
 Brightman z\ Reeves, p. 400. 
 
 Terry z\ 
 
 • V. Union St. R. Co 
 
 2518, 2541. 
 Brightwood R. Co. z\ Carter, pp 
 2172, 2196. 
 
 Harten v. 
 
 Brigman, Hinote f. 
 
 Brignoli ?■. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2695. 
 Brill V. Eddy, p. 2075. 
 Brilliant, The. 
 Brimmer f. Illinois Cent 
 
 Carlisle, p. 659. 
 Phillips z>. 
 
 pp. 
 
 R'. Co., 
 ComniL-rce 
 
 Brick ■• 
 3120 
 3184. 
 
 Bricker 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1502, 1537. 
 
 Bridge, James Music Co. v. 
 
 Bridger, Central R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 p. 2671. 
 Brimson, Interstate 
 
 Comm. -'. 
 Brinck z\ North German Lloyd 
 
 Steamship Co., pp. 4033, 4035. 
 Brinegcr ■»■. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2172. 
 Brinkmeier z\ Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 Co., p. 3457. 
 Brinley, I^ouisville, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 Brinson, Baker z: 
 
 Central Railroad z\ 
 
 Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Brintnall v. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3183, 3407. 
 Brisbane, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brisbin z'. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2142, 2330, 2910. 
 Briscoe zj. Metropolitan St. R. Co , 
 
 pp. 2671, 2691, 2975. 
 Bristoe v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 546, 583. 
 Bristol, etc., R. Co., Baxendale v. 
 
 Garton ?•. 
 
 Britain Steamship Co., Smith z\ 
 
 Britannia, The. 
 
 British King, The. 
 
 British, etc., Ins. Co. v. Gulf, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 729, 775, 790, 791, 
 
 792, 793, 794, 934, 935. 
 British, etc.. Marine Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., p. 790. 
 
 f. Portland Flouring Mills 
 
 Co., pp. 3939, 3940, 3942. 
 
 British, etc.. Packet Co., Smith v. 
 British, etc.. Steam Packet Co., 
 
 Caruana z\ 
 Brittan v. Barnaby, pp. 511, 542, 
 
 566, 1134, 1135, 1143, 1144, 1167, 
 
 3939, 3940, 3941, 3947. 
 
 Britton -■. .\tlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2019. 
 
 Cooper Grocer Co. z'. 
 
 Lexington R. Co. t'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 ■ St. Louis, etc., R. Co. J'. 
 
 z: Street R. Co., pp. 1890, 
 
 1901, 2226, 2936. 
 Broadhurst, Dallas, etc., St. R. Co. 
 
 Broadie f. Howard, p. 3866. 
 Broadway '■. San Antonio Gas. Co., 
 
 p. 2679. 
 Broadway R. Co., Vail t'. 
 Broadway, etc., R. Co., McSwyny 
 
 Morrison v. 
 
 New York v. 
 
 Poulin V. 
 
 Putnam z\ 
 
 • Valentine v. 
 
 Weymouth v. 
 
 Wilson v. 
 
 Broadwell v. Butler, p. 907. 
 Broadwood v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 585, 756, 757. 
 Brock V. Gale, pp. 637, 3127, 3130, 
 
 3131. 
 
 McCall -.'. 
 
 z\ St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2521, 2546. 
 
 Brockett z\ Fair Haven, etc., R. 
 Co., p. 2812. 
 
 New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. 
 
 Brockton St. R. Co., Common- 
 wealth T. 
 
 Brockton Transp. Co., Clifford z\ 
 Brockwav v. American Exp. Co., 
 
 168 Mass. 257, 47 N. E. 87— 
 
 p. 1284. 
 
 V. American Exp. Co., 171 
 
 Mass. 158, 50 N. E. 626— pp. 
 
 939, 944, 1294, 1640. 
 
 Brocton Transp. Co., Clifford v. 
 Brod V. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2595, 2684. 
 Brodhcad, Randall v. 
 Brodie z\ Carolina, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1767, 1913, 2229, 2394, 2936. 
 Broeck v. The Barge John M. 
 
 Welch, p. 3586. 
 Brogden, People's Nat. Bank z\ 
 Bromberg, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bromley, Midland R. Co. v. 
 V. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 2211, 2212, 2223. 
 Bromschwig Tailors' Trimming Co. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 490, 
 
 493. 
 Bronson v. Oakes, pp. 1835. 1836, 
 
 2339, 2884. 
 
 Richmond ''. 
 
 Brooke 7'. Grand Trunk R. 
 
 p. 1622. 
 
 ■ V. Louisville, etc., 
 
 pp. 800, 801. 
 
 z\ Nashville, etc., 
 
 p. 800. 
 
 V. New York, etc., 
 
 pp. 311, 3879. 
 
 V. Pickwick, pp. 3123, 3129. 
 
 Brooke Iron Co. v. O'Brien, pp. 
 
 1221, 1236, 1243. 
 Brookficld, Jonesboro, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Thorp '■. 
 
 Brookhaven Mach. Co., Illinois 
 
 Cent. R. Co. z: 
 lirooklyn City R. Co., Black r. 
 
 Bruno '•. 
 
 Davenport v. 
 
 Day ;■. 
 
 Fleming v. 
 
 Gaffney f. 
 
 Ganley v. 
 
 Hitchcock -'. 
 
 Hourney z\ 
 
 Mulhado ••. 
 
 Paulson z\ 
 
 Saltzman z'. 
 
 Seidlinger v. 
 
 Spooner z\ 
 
 Van Winkle v. 
 
 Wood z\ 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 Co.,
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXXIII 
 
 IJrooklyn City, etc., R. Co., Dale 
 
 Dixon f. 
 
 Paris f. 
 
 Brooklyn Crosstown R. Co., Cod- 
 dington_ v. 
 
 McGlynn "'. 
 
 Brooklyn Heights R'. Co., Basting 
 
 Rrennan :■. 
 
 I! nice -: 
 
 Cassio V. 
 
 Catterson v. 
 
 Clnistensen •'. 
 
 Clinton j'. 
 
 Coady I'. 
 
 Cohen V. 
 
 Colvin I'. 
 
 Cramer 7'. 
 
 Daniel "•. 
 
 Dittmar -■. 
 
 Dochterniann i'. 
 
 Dorff -■. 
 
 Ha.st -•. 
 
 Elliott 7'. 
 
 Ericius r. 
 
 I'oden !•. 
 
 Friedel v. 
 
 German '■. 
 
 Gillespie f. 
 
 Gilmore i'. 
 
 Giltman f. 
 
 Grogan f. 
 
 Grunfelder -•. 
 
 Tenkins v. 
 
 Johnson -•. 
 
 Hanley i'. 
 
 Hu"t '''■ 
 
 Kiefer i: 
 
 Koch V. 
 
 Kramer v. 
 
 Leonard J'. 
 
 Link 7: 
 
 Maercker f. 
 
 Maurcr v. 
 
 Miller r. 
 
 Morrow '•. 
 
 Moskowitz -•. 
 
 — — Nicholson v. 
 
 O'Brien v. 
 
 O'Connor z: 
 
 O'Reilly r. 
 
 People V. 
 
 Rosenblum i\ 
 
 Rothstein -'. 
 
 Rowe V. 
 
 Schncier f. 
 
 Sheppard i'. 
 
 Sickles V. 
 
 Stutsky I'. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 
 Taft V. 
 
 Tooker v. 
 
 Tucker v. 
 
 Wise '■. 
 
 Woolsey v. 
 
 Brooklyn Lumber Co., Conkling :■. 
 Brooklyn St. R. Co. v. Kelley, pp. 
 
 1714, 1715. 
 Brooklyn Union Elev. R. Co., 
 
 Baker 
 Brooklyn, 
 
 etc. 
 
 Brooklyn, etc 
 Braffett f. 
 
 Brown -'. 
 
 Clyde f. 
 
 Cohen -•. 
 
 Connaughton 
 
 Craighead f. 
 
 Dixon -'. 
 
 Kppendorf "'. 
 
 Paris v. 
 
 Feldheim -•. 
 
 Hirschberg t 
 
 Levine f. 
 
 McGrath f. 
 
 McVay t'. 
 
 Meschncck "' 
 
 Mulhado f. 
 
 Nolan -■. 
 
 Pollock r. 
 
 Reidman v. 
 
 Ferry Co., Ilamel 
 R. Co., Blair f. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 V. 
 
 St. 
 
 Y. 
 
 St. 
 
 P- 
 
 478. 
 
 718 
 R. 
 
 Co.. 
 
 Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., Sheridan :■ 
 
 Stewart f. 
 
 Strutt '.■. 
 
 Waldman v. 
 
 Weber z'. 
 
 Brookover, Lincoln Tract Co. v. 
 Brooks :■. American Exp. Co., p 
 
 57-1. 
 1'. Boston, etc., R'. 
 
 1923, 2259. 
 
 f. Delaware, etc., 
 
 p. 585. 
 
 f. Dinsmore, 3 N 
 
 Rep. 587— pp. 821, 828. 
 
 <■. Dinsmore, 6 N. 
 
 Rep. 281— pp. 817, 828. 
 
 Elmore f. 
 
 V. Friend Paper Co. 
 
 Ingalls ?•. 
 
 Levi f. 
 
 z: Minturn, pp. 708 
 
 :'. New York, etc., 
 
 pp. 2134. 2733. 
 
 Z'. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3157, 3198. 
 
 - z: Old Colony R. Co., p. 
 1788. 
 
 People f. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1906, 2860. 
 
 Southern R. Co. "•. 
 
 ''. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 3439, 3441. 3461. 3462. 
 
 The John. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Brooks Mfg. Co. v. Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 153, 154, 537, 541. 
 Brookstone z\ Wescott Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 603. 
 Broom, Slark "•. 
 Broome, .\tlanta, etc., K. Co. i'. 
 Broomhead, Donath f. 
 Brophy, Germantown Pass. R. Co. 
 
 Brosius, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Hrosseau & Co. ;■. The Hudson, 
 
 pp. 735, 736. 
 Brouty f. Five Thousand Two 
 
 Hundred and Fifty-Six Bundles 
 
 of Elm Staves, p. 338. 
 Browarsky, Miller z'. 
 Brower z: Peabody, p. 372. 
 1'. Public Service Corp., p. 
 
 2860. 
 
 V. Water Witch, p. 292. 
 
 Brown V. Adams, pp. 658, 662, 
 
 663, 672, 674. 686, 964, 1086, 
 1093. 1095. 1099. 
 
 f. -Adams F,xp. Co., pp. 946, 
 
 1003, 1004. 1008, 1038. 1039. 
 
 f. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 272, 284. 
 
 Atlantic City f. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 161 
 
 N. C. 573, 77 S. E. 777— p. 
 2867. 
 
 f. Atlantic, etc.. R'. Co.. 64 
 
 S. E. 1012, 83 S. C. 53— p. 
 2669. 
 
 -•. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 87 
 
 S. C. 314, 69 S. E. 510— p. 2994. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 91 
 
 S. C. 377, 74 S. E. 754— pp. 162, 
 376. 
 
 Baker Co. f. 
 
 Baltimore Steamboat Co. ?■. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. Steamboat 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Bank z: 
 
 Barker z\ 
 
 z: Barnes, p. 2258. 
 
 Bird z: 
 
 Boston, etc., R. Co. :•. 
 
 z: Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2565. 
 
 z: Camden, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 1490. 
 
 -•. Canadian Pac. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3169^ 3172. 
 
 Capital Tract. Co. z\ 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Central, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2469. 
 
 z: Chester Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2889. 
 
 Brown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 
 Iowa 235, 1 N. W. 487 — pp. 
 2476, 2477, 2480. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 
 
 Wis. 342, 11 N. W. 356, 41 Am. 
 Rep. 41— pp. 2563. 3045. 
 
 :■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 
 
 Wis. 162, 49 X. W. 807— p. 
 2264. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 J". Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 549. 
 
 Cobb z: 
 
 z'. Congress, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1992. 
 
 Danville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dibble v. 
 
 z: Eastern R. Co., pp. 324, 
 
 1673, 3166, 3187, 3196. 
 
 '■. Ivlvira Harbeck, p. 3144. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 V. Floersheim Mercantile Co., 
 
 pp. 370, 377. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2573, 3042, 3043, 3047. 
 
 z: Grand Trunk Railway, pp. 
 
 910, 912. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. -. 
 
 -■. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2485, 3097. 
 
 Hardee v. 
 
 z: Harris, pp. 1605, 3949. 
 
 — — f. Houston, p. 3549. 
 
 • Houston, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 HIinois Cent. R'. Co. v. 
 
 7'. HIinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1085, 1361, 1408. 
 
 V. Interborough Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., p. 2050. 
 
 Jenkyns v. 
 
 z: Kansas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 190, 196, 2436, 2716. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 ■'. Louisville R. Co., pp. 
 
 1716, 2371. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 -'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 36 HI. App. 140— pp. 958. 1023. 
 
 -'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 44 
 
 S. W. 648, 19 Ky. L. Rep 1873, 
 103 Ky. 211— pp. 2488, 2491. 
 
 Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. 
 
 z: Manhattan R'. Co., p. 2677. 
 
 -. Marvland, pp. 3418, 3439. 
 
 3440, 3549. 3568. 
 
 f. Memphis, etc.. R. Co.. 4 
 
 Fed. 37— pp. 197, 2572. 
 
 "'. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 5 
 
 Fed. 499— pp. 1499, 1943. 
 
 z: Memphis, etc., R. Co., 7 
 
 Fed. 51, 1 .Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 247— pp. 197. 1499. 1949. 2487. 
 
 -•. Slinneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2483. 3101. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. t-. 
 
 f. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 83 
 
 Kan. 574, 112 Pac. 147— pp. 346. 
 842. 
 
 f. Missouri, etc.. R. Co.. 64 
 
 Mo. 536- p. 3092. 
 
 f. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 31 Barb. 385— p. 2895. 
 
 f. New York C^nt. R. Co.. 
 
 32 N. Y. 597, 88 Am. Dea 353 
 —p. 2128. 
 
 z: New York Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 34 N. Y. 404 — pp. 1722, 1814. 
 1986, 2004. 
 
 f. New York, etc.. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 2248. 2286. 
 
 North Chicago St. Rt, Co. 
 
 z: Northwestern Railroad, pp. 
 
 849, 855. 
 
 Ohio. etc.. R. Co. :•. 
 
 Orange County Bank -'. 
 
 f. Oregon, etc.. R. Nav. Co., 
 
 pp. 273. 1267. 
 
 Ostrander :■. 
 
 z: Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co , 
 
 p. 3274.
 
 CXXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 h.. 
 
 Brown, Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Pontiac, etc., K. Co., p. 
 
 1300. 
 
 -: Powell Coal Co., p. 308. 
 
 Railroad Co. f. 
 
 t . Ralston. 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 
 
 SOA — pp. 1143. 1144, 3971. 
 
 f. Ralston, 36 Va. (9 Leigh) 
 
 532— pp. 703, 1143, 3963. 
 
 f. Rapid R. Co., 120 Mich. 
 
 483. 90 X. W. 290— p. 2462. 
 
 f. Rapid R. Co.. 134 Mich. 
 
 591. 96 X. W. 925— pp. 2462, 
 3078. 3079. 
 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. r. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R'. Co. r. 
 
 Roland, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Rudolf V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Savannah Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 pp. 1118, 1119. 
 
 f. Scarboro, pp. 1502, 1507 
 
 1522, 1527. 1558, 2208. 
 
 t . Seattle City R. Co., pp 
 
 1718. 1725, 1750, 2361, 2402. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Southern Railway 
 
 f. Springtield Tract. 
 
 2598. 
 
 f. Sullivan, p. 465. 
 
 Texas Mid. Railroad v. 
 
 Texas Mid. R. Co. z: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 The J. W. 
 
 ■ Tuckerman 7'. 
 
 r. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2778. 
 
 -r. \"andalia K. Co., p. 564. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. 
 
 ;■. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 209, 249. 
 
 V. Walker, pp. 3779, 3780. 
 
 Washington, etc., R. Co. t. 
 
 I'. Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2152. 
 
 f. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2694. 
 
 Brown & Co. v. Mott & Bros., pp. 
 
 540, 772, 3304. 
 Brown, etc., Coal Co. r. Grand 
 
 Trunk R. System, pp. 89, 91. 
 Brown, etc., Co. v. Clayton, pp. 10, 
 
 765. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania Co., pp. 504, 
 
 525, 3298. 
 
 Browne, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hare '■. 
 
 f. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1872, 1873, 1899, 1900, 2155. 
 
 Brownell, Swift v. 
 Brownfield, Louisville St. R. Co. v. 
 Brownirg v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 
 pp. 822, 1036, 3365. 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 529, 901. 
 
 Brownlee, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Brownsville Livery, etc., Co., Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Brownsville, etc.. Live Stock Co., 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Broyles z: Central, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2516, 1562, 1574, 2542, 2577, 
 2581, 2718, 2719. 
 
 Bruce i'. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 p. 2802. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. t/. 
 
 Bauce & Co., Cox, Patterson & Co. 
 
 Bruff V. Illinois CeJit. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2141, 2675. 
 Bruhl V. Coleman, pp. 551, 552. 
 
 '•. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 540, 542, 544. 
 
 Brulard v. -Mvin, p. 1855. 
 Brumbcrger z: Joline, p. 2842. 
 Brumley, East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Brundred v. Rice, pp. 1184, 1197. 
 Bruning f. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 1087. 
 Brunk z: Ohio, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 801, 3347, 3351. 
 Brunnchow v. Rhode Island Co., 
 
 p. 2619. 
 
 Bost- 
 
 1537, 
 
 544. 
 748. 
 Co. 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 Bruno z: Brooklyn City R. Co., p. 
 
 2193. 
 Brunson f. .\tlantic, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 897, 908, 910, 912. 
 
 Central R. Co. z: 
 
 Brunswick & Co. z: United States 
 
 Exp. Co., pp. 547, 555. 
 
 Brunswick Grocery Co. z: Bruns- 
 wick, etc., R. Co., p. 912. 
 
 Brunswick Tract Co., Foley v. 
 
 Hayter f. 
 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 wick, pp. 2414, 2485, 2528 
 
 Brunswick Grocery Co. 
 
 ^ z: Gale, pp. 1747, 2839. 
 
 V. Moore, pp. 1S24, 
 
 2038, 2040, 2045. 
 
 Peeplcs z\ 
 
 ■ z: Rothchild & Co.. p 
 
 z: Smith, pp. 732, 741 
 
 Brusch z: St. Paul, etc., R 
 
 p. 1951. 
 Bruswitz z: Xethcrlands, etc., Nav. 
 
 Co., p. 2858. 
 Cruty z: Grand Trunk K. Co., pp. 
 
 3128, 3130. 
 Bruyere, Great Northern R. Co. -'. 
 I5ryan, American Steamship Co. z\ 
 
 .Atchison, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Belvidere Bldg. Co. v. 
 
 — — Chicago, etc., P.. Co 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 894, 910. 
 
 z\ Memphis, etc., R. 
 
 3255, 3294, 3295. 
 
 z\ Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 2095. 
 
 Savannah St., etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Brvan Fruit Co., St. Louis, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z'. 
 Bryant, Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 .Atlantic, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Central R. Co. z\ 
 
 ■ Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 ■;■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1542, 1543. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 903. 
 
 - V. Rich, pp. 2035, 2049. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 San Antonio Tract. Co. v. 
 
 • San Antonio, etc., Co. z'. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z\ 
 
 Southwestern Railroad f. 
 
 7'. Southwestern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1286, 1365, 1367, 1377, 1378, 
 1384, 3309. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Bryant Lumber Co., Fourche River 
 
 Lumber Co. v. 
 Bryce, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 125 Fed. 
 
 958— pp. 2080, 2569. 
 
 -•. Southern R. Co., 129 
 
 Fed. 966— p. 2604. 
 
 P.'Shears, Railway Co. v. 
 
 Buccola V. Shrcveport Tract. Co., 
 
 p. 2316. 
 Buchanan, Gordon z\ 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., Co. z'. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Bucher 7'. Cheshire R. Co., p. 2162. 
 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co., p. 2162. 
 
 z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1878, 2066, 2265. 
 
 Buchwicke R. Co. Bonney v. 
 Buck, Dunbar z: 
 
 Kahnweiler ?'. 
 
 z\ Manhattan R. Co., 2 N. 
 
 Y. S. 718, 9 N. Y. St. Rep. 908, 
 15 Daly 48— p. 2871. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., 10 N. 
 
 Y. S. 107, 32 X. Y. St. Rep. 51, 
 15 Daly 550— p. 2745. 
 
 V. Oregon, R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1380, 1476, 1477. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 822, 828, 946, 1037. 
 
 Buck z: People's St. R.. etc., Co., 
 108 Mo. 179. 18 S. W. 1090— 
 pp. 1697, 1760, 2524, 2658. 
 
 z: People's St. R., etc., Co., 
 
 46 Mo. App. 555— pp. 1559, 
 1564, 2255, 2956. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Webb, p. 3213. 
 
 Buck Mountain Coal Co., ITazcl- 
 
 ton Coal Co. z\ 
 Buckalow, Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Buckbee z: Third .\vc. R. Co., p. 
 
 2881. 
 Buckelew, Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Buckeye, Louis z'. 
 Buckeye Nat. Bank z: Huff, p. 
 
 385. 
 ■Buckingham, Lamphear z\ 
 
 ■ Scooner Freeman z'. 
 
 Buckland z: Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 767, 768, 770, 945, 995. 
 
 z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1847. 
 
 Buckler, Kennedy, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Buckley, Devereaux '•. 
 
 V. Furniss, pp. 1210, 1219, 
 
 1220, 1227, 1231, 1232, 1237, 
 1238. 
 
 z: Great Western R. Co., pp. 
 
 896, 900. 
 
 z'. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2320. 
 
 7'. Old Colony R. Co., p. 
 
 1529. 
 
 Buckman v. Levi, p. 3136. 
 Buckmaster v. Great Eastern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1670, 1671, 1673. 
 Buckner, Mcllroy 7'. 
 
 Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. 7'. 
 
 Bucksport, etc., R. Co. 7'. Edin- 
 burgh, etc.. Redwood Co., p. 26. 
 
 Buckworth, Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Budd V. New York, pp. 1136, 
 3432, 3527, 3528. 
 
 v. United Carriage Co., pp. 
 
 2161, 2368, 2693. 
 
 Buddenberg 7'. Chouteau Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 3985. 
 Buddy 7'. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 536, 828, 894, 899. 
 Budner 7-. Public Service Corp., p. 
 
 2877. 
 Buehler 7-. Union Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2008. 
 Buel 7'. New York Cent. R., Co., 
 
 pp. 2184, 2261. 
 Buenemann z\ St. Paul, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1773, 1798, 2305. 
 Buffalo, The. 
 
 Buffalo Office Bldg. Co., McGrell 7'. 
 Buffalo R. Co., Ansteth v. 
 
 Montgomery v. 
 
 Pfeffer 7-. 
 
 Tucker v. 
 
 Buffalo, etc., R. Co., Bowie v. 
 
 Burtis v. 
 
 Cattaraugus Cutlery Co. v. 
 
 Fenner v. 
 
 French r. 
 
 Inman 7'. 
 
 LafFlin v. 
 
 Metz V. 
 
 7'. O'llara, p. 2095. 
 
 Penn 7'. 
 
 Roth 7'. 
 
 Schlemmer v. 
 
 Wilkes V. 
 
 Willetts 7'. 
 
 Buffalo, etc., Tract. Co., Becker z 
 
 Bonasera 7'. 
 
 Donnelly 7'. 
 
 Buffett 7'. Troy, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 417, 1509. 
 Buffington v. Curtis, pp. 351, 363: 
 
 366. 
 Buffum, Moniter Mut. Fire Ins 
 
 Co. V. 
 Buford, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bugge V. Seattle Elect. Co., pp 
 
 1532, 1970, 2367, 2863. 
 Buie, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 3416. 
 
 Building, etc., Ass'n v. Griffin, pp 
 940, 949, 977, 1063, 1077.
 
 TADLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXXV 
 
 Hulah Shaft ^ Coal Co., Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. f. 
 Bulkley v. Naumkcag Steam Cot- 
 ton Co., pp. 281, 286, 291, 
 3879, 3936, 3937, 3945. 
 Bull, Fretz V. 
 
 . -•. New York City U. Co., 
 
 pp. 146, 1645. 
 Billiard, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 270, 536. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., Railroad, pp. 
 2730. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1871, 
 3606! 
 
 pp. 
 
 N. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Atl. 
 2251, 
 
 .. Young, pp. 581, 582. 
 Bullcn, North German Lloyd 
 
 Steamship Co. -•. 
 Bullitt, Lohdell r. 
 
 f. Louisville R. Co., 
 
 1884, 1912, 2768. 
 
 Bullitt & Co., Marsden Co. t 
 Bullock T'. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 1532, 2452, 2479. 
 V. Butler Exch. Co., 46 
 
 273. 22 R. L 105— pp. 
 
 2596. 
 
 r. Butler Exch. Co., 24 R. 
 
 L 50, 52 Atl. 122— pp. 2307, 
 2838, 2931, 2982, 2984. 
 
 f. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 165, 636, 654, 837. 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. 
 V. Delaware, etc., R. Co.. 60 
 
 T. L. 24, 36 Atl. 773, 37 L. 
 
 A. 417— pp. 3110, 3114. 
 V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 61 
 
 J. L. 550, 40 Atl. 650— p. 
 3072. 
 
 z\ Delaware, etc., R. Co., 21 
 
 Super. Ct. 583— pp. 3114, 3120. 
 3121, 3124. 
 
 ?'. Haverhill, etc.. Dispatch 
 
 Co., pp. 3394, 3397, 3409. 
 
 '•. Houston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1527, 1532, 2511, 2545. 
 
 V. White Star Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 3046, 3985, 3986. 
 
 Bulte Mining Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. R., p. 3679. 
 P.umbcar -•. United Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2193. 2894. 
 Bumford, Hoffbert 7-. 
 Rump, Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 Bunch V. Charleston, etc., 
 
 pp. 1721, 2671, 2881. 
 
 V. Great Western R. Co., p. 
 
 3146. 
 
 United States i'. 
 
 Western R. Co. v. 
 
 Rundick, Savannah, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Rundy, Chicago City R. Co. -•. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Bunker v. Pacific Mail Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 3566. 
 Runn, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Bunnell, Potter -•. 
 
 Southern R'. Co. -'. 
 
 Rurbank -■. Illinois Cent. 
 
 p. 2503. 
 
 McLean ■;■. 
 
 Burch 7'. Baltimore 
 
 p. 2477. 
 Rurchard, Thayer ?•. 
 Rurckhalter r. Atlantic, 
 
 Co., p. 2704. 
 Rurdettc v. Chicago Auditorium 
 
 .\ss'n, p. 2674. 
 Burdge. Indiana, etc., 
 Sewell z: 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 1604, 2428, 2854. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Burger v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2319, 2329, 2401, 2619, 2876, 
 2912. 
 Burgess ?■. .Atchison, 
 p. 2471. 
 
 Choctaw, etc., 
 
 Lake St., etc.. _ 
 
 Lake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Lee c'. 
 
 Southern Kan 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 etc., R. Co., 
 
 etc. 
 
 Rurdick, 
 Burge ■: 
 
 1603. 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. 
 R. Co. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 Burgess, Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 '.: Stowe, pp. 2149, 2330. 
 
 2902, 2983. 
 
 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 p. 1028. 
 
 Burgess Co., Southern Kansas R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Burgevin v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3160, 3169, 3172. 
 Burgher f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1016, 1367. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co., pp. 971, 
 
 973, 976, 1099. 
 
 P.urgin V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2263. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Iturgoine v. Chicago, etc., Co., p. 
 
 2696. 
 Burgoype v. Chicago City R. Co., 
 
 167 111. App. 59— pp. 1743, 2809. 
 V. Chicago City R. Co., 187 
 
 111. Ai)p. 59— p. 1679. 
 Burke, .Xmerican Exp. Co. t'. 
 
 -•. Bay City Tract., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1890, 2268, 2359. 
 
 Camden, etc., Transp. Co. f. 
 
 — - — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2619. 
 
 V. Clarke, pp. 595, 848, 858. 
 
 v. Erie R. Co., pp. 319, 1019, 
 
 1021, 1028. 1041. 
 
 Houston, R. Co. j'. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Loveland v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 198, 202, 1544, 1547, 2292, 2423. 
 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. State, pp. 2673, 2682. 
 
 f. LTnited States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 740, 821, 1339, 1456, 1457, 
 1470. 
 
 Burke & Co., In re 
 
 Burkett r. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3155. 
 
 Burkhardt, Cincinnati, etc., Rail- 
 way ''. 
 
 National Bank z\ 
 
 Burlingame v. .\dams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 608. 
 l>urlington. Cramer -•. 
 
 :•. Unterkircher, pp. 28, 29. 
 
 Burlington Lumber Co., Southern 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., pp. 148, 
 
 151, 172, 3517. 
 
 Burlington Tract. Co., Strong v. 
 Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Arms, 
 pp. 515, 896. 
 
 Blake f. 
 
 ;•. Chicago Lumber Co., p. 
 
 714. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Clements z\ 
 
 -'. Dev, 82 Iowa 312, 48 N. 
 
 W. 98, 31 .\m. St. Rep. 477, 12 
 L. R. .A. 436— pp. 75. 105, 124, 
 125, 133, 143, 144, 1192. 
 
 — f. Dey, 89 Iowa 13, 56 N. 
 W. 267— p. 133. 
 
 — Doolcy :•. 
 
 — Garvik f. 
 
 — Gregory f. 
 
 — Heiserman f. 
 
 — Herriman v. 
 
 — Higley f. 
 
 — Independence Mills Co. ;■. 
 
 — Lucas 1'. 
 
 LUCUS 7'. 
 
 — McCune r. 
 - — Matthioson f. 
 
 — Neimeycr Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Northwestern Fuel Co. v. 
 
 z: Northwestern Fuel Co. 
 
 pp. 427. 1179, 3691. 
 
 — Player z: 
 
 Ratzer z\ 
 
 Ravmond z: 
 
 f. Rose. pp. 2435, 2436. 
 
 Ryder z: 
 
 Warner z: 
 
 Whittlesey z: 
 
 Burnell v. New York Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 773, 3160, 3169, 3171, 3174, 
 
 3175, 3179, 3186, 3189. 
 Burnett, Marine Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 -'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1489, 1490. 
 
 Quarman v. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Burnham v. .Mabama, etc. 
 
 pp. 635, 821, 867, 1040. 
 
 z: Detroit, etc., R. 
 
 2433, 3101. 
 
 -■. Grand Trunk R. 
 
 1614, 2492, 2713. 
 
 z: Wabash, etc., R. 
 
 1537, 1767, 1790. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Winsor, pp. 1210, 1243. 
 
 Burn Line v. United States, etc.. 
 
 Steamship Co., 150 Fed. 423— p. 
 3949. 
 
 z: United States, etc. 
 
 .-.hip Co., 162 Fed. 
 3939, 3949. 
 
 Burns v. Alabama, etc., R. 
 2848, 3059. 
 
 z: Bellefontaine R. 
 
 R. Co., 
 Co.. pp. 
 Co., pp. 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Steam- 
 298— pp. 
 
 Co. 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 2174. 
 
 Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 Boston 
 2177, 2178. 
 
 f. Burns, p. 3966. 
 
 f. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 
 
 pp. 1622. 1623, 1639. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 
 App.) 132 S. W. 1— p. 969. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 
 
 N. W. 927, 104 Wis. 646 — pp. 
 1310. 1346, 1378, 3629. 
 
 Clark z: 
 
 Collins z: 
 
 z: Cork, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1850. 
 
 Great Western 
 
 Houston, etc 
 
 R. Co. V 
 R. Co. I 
 Pass. R. 
 
 Co., 
 Co.. 
 
 pp. 
 
 . . Tohnstown 
 pp. 2192. 2197. 
 
 -'. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 582, 801. 
 
 McClelland z: 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 z\ Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 1824, 2339, 2674, 2885. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 South Covington, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Rurnsed, Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Burnside :■. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 p. 634. 
 
 f. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2363. 
 
 f. Union Steamboat Co., p. 
 
 789. 
 
 Burnside, etc., R. Co. f. Tupman, 
 pp. 1440, 1460, 3297, 3402. 
 
 Burr V. .\dams Exp. Co., pp. 512, 
 531, 535, 602. 
 
 Pennsylvania R 
 
 f. Pennsylvania 
 
 1957, 1991, 1992, 
 
 Burrell, Hewlett z: 
 Burress :■. Atlantic, 
 
 pp. 873, 3307. 
 Burrctt, Mallory f. 
 Burrill, Crossman z: 
 
 z: Crossman, 65 Fed. 104 
 
 P- "13- 
 
 ■:• Crossman, 91 Fed. 
 
 C. A. 663— pp. 3954, 
 
 Crossman, 130 Fed. 
 C. A. 189— p. 3954. 
 
 .. North, pp. 278, 279 
 
 Burris, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 : . Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp 
 
 493, 495. 
 
 Burritt z: Rench, pp. 494, 726. 
 Burritt Co. f. New \ork. etc.. K 
 
 Co.. p. 562. 
 Burroughs v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 
 
 pp. 909, 3378. ^ ^ 
 
 z: Norwich, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3259, 3327. 3339. ^ ^ . 
 
 Shepard, etc.. Lumber Co. v 
 
 33 C. 
 65 C. 
 
 . Co. r. 
 R. Co., pp. 
 2218, 2691. 
 
 etc., R. Co.. 
 
 543, 
 
 3963. 
 
 763.
 
 ex XXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Burrow & Co., St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Burrijwes v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 83 Xeb. 497, 35 R. R. R. 373, 
 58 Am. & Eng. R- Cas., N- S., 
 373, 123 X. W. 1028— pp. 284, 
 285. 288. 289. 
 
 f. Chicago. etc., R. .„Co., 
 
 87 Neb. 142. 37 R. R. R- 4o0. 60 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. X S.. 4.-.0, 
 126 X. W. 1084— p. 28 J. 
 
 Burrows. Clvde Steamship Co. z: 
 
 r. Lownsdale. p. 3994. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. ~<: 
 
 Burrton State Bank r. Peasemoore 
 
 Mil n^ — ^92, 393. 
 
 Marlborough, pp. 
 
 Bu 
 
 Mill. Co.. pp. 392, 393. 
 rslev T'. The M " 
 3899', 3900. 
 
 . Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 
 829, 830. 
 
 Interborough 
 Co., pp. 2562, 
 
 Rapid 
 
 2567, 
 
 Bursteen f. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3145. 3147, 3148. 
 Burt f. Douglas County, etc., K. 
 
 Co., pp. 1833, 2222. 
 
 Highland, Ave., etc., R. Co. 
 
 Burtis r. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 417, 418, 3295. 
 Burton, Central, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Galveston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2074. 
 
 z: Larkin, p. 2360. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2019. 
 
 ;•. Strachan, p. 3939. 
 
 z: West Jersey Ferry Co., 
 
 pp. 1951, 19'55, 1956. 
 
 z: Wichita R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2251. 
 
 V. Wilkinson, pp. 573, 576. 
 
 Burus f. Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 
 2122. 
 Burwell 
 
 pp. 7! 
 Busch 
 
 Trans 
 
 2568. 
 Bush z: Barnctt, p. 2692. 
 
 z: Campbell, p. 2569. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 f. Romcr, p. 553. 
 
 Bush z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 553, 940. 
 Bush Co. z: Central R. Co., pp. 
 
 3908, 3909. 
 Bush Terminal R. Co., Boyle v. 
 Bushnell z: Wabash R. Co., pp. 
 
 1037, 1479, 3335. 
 Bushwick R. Co., Bleier z: 
 Bussell z: Quincy, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 1752, 1755, 2691. 
 Bussey z\ Charleston, etc., 
 
 way, pp. 2621, 2705, 3318. 
 
 z: Memphis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 246, 622, 623. 
 
 Busson, Bcnner Livery, etc., Co. v. 
 Bustard, Bentley v. 
 Buston z: Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 116 Fed. 235— p. 3411. 
 
 :■. Pennsylvania R. Co., 119 
 
 Fed. 808, 56 C. C. A. 320— pp. 
 3264, 3269. 
 
 Buswell V. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 32. 
 Butcher, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. London, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3126, 3194. 
 
 Butchers', etc.. Stock Yards Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 92, 
 
 145, 212, 221. 
 Butler z: Basing, pp. 269, 284. 
 
 Birmingham R. etc., Co. v. 
 
 f. Boston. etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 4036, 4037, 4039, 4040, 
 4042, 4053, 4054, 4071, 4072. 
 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080. 
 
 Broadwell z: 
 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3032. 
 
 z'. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 542, 543, 544, 894, 901, 
 902. 
 
 V. Glens Falls, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co., 121 N. Y. 112, 24 N. E. 
 187— p. 2153. 
 
 Co., 
 Rail- 
 
 Butler z: Glens Falls, etc., St. R. 
 Co., 49 Hun 610, 2 X. V. S. 
 72, 17 X. V. St. Rep. 565— p. 
 2307. 
 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Hudson River R. Co., pp. 
 
 3141, 3149. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Merwin v. 
 
 z: New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 2336. 
 
 z: Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 18 
 
 Ind. App. 656, 46 N. E. 92— p. 
 477. 
 
 z: Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 139 Pa. 195, 21 Atl. 500— pp. 
 1818. 2206. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 r. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2263. 
 
 '•. Smith, pp. 477, 480. 
 
 Southern Kansas R'. Co. Z'. 
 
 z: Stcinwav R. Co., p. 2422. 
 
 - z: The Arrow, p. 428. 
 
 z: The Steamboat Arrow, p. 
 
 333. 
 
 White Water R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Wilmington City R. Co., 
 
 pp 1682. 1739, 1866, 1888, 1889, 
 2561, 2667. 2686. 2779. 
 
 Butler County R. Co., United 
 
 States V. 
 Butler Exch. Co., Bullock ?'. 
 Butler Marble, etc., Co., Central, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Butler, etc., Granite Co., Central, 
 
 etc., R'. Co. z'. 
 Butte Elect. R. Co., Emerson z\ 
 
 Knuckey v. 
 
 • Lehane v. 
 
 Previsich v. 
 
 Rand z: 
 
 Shane z'. 
 
 Butterick Pub. Co. z: Gulf, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 3355. 
 Buttfield z: Stranahan, p. 3441. 
 Button, Davis v. 
 Butts '•. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2187. 
 
 Selma, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Buzbv r. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 
 
 p. '2278. 
 Byars t'. Bennington, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 79. 
 Byers, Adams Exp. Co. z'.^ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Tiis z: 
 
 P.ycrs Bros., Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 I5yington -'. Simpson, p. 1150. 
 r.ynum, Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 I'yram & Co., Bennett v. 
 Byrant, Central R. Co. v. 
 Byrd, Missouri, etc., R. Co. ?'. 
 
 '■. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2148. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Byrley, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Byrne v. Fargo, pp. 889, 911. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Weeks, p. 310. 
 
 Byrnes v. Fuller, p. 1246. 
 
 Parker v. 
 
 Byron v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1829, 1994, 1995, 2310, 2804. 
 Byrum, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 C 
 
 Cabeen z\ Campbell, pp. 1219, 
 
 1220, 1237, 1239, 1240. 
 Cable V. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 2904, 3046. 
 Cabot, Denny v. 
 Cadmus, Earle v. 
 Cadwallder z: Grand Trunk R. 
 
 Co., pp. -3116, 3125, 3127, 3128. 
 Cafiero v. Welsh, pp. 337, 832. 
 Cage Cattle Co., Ft. Worth, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Cahawba, Edwards v. 
 Caher v. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 2479, 3081. 
 
 Cahill. Denver, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 z'. London, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Eng.), 10 C. B. N. S. 154, 7 
 Tur. N. S. 1164, 30 L. J. C. P. 
 "289, 9 W. R. 653, 4 L. T. N. S. 
 246— pp. 3125, 3149, 3152, 3153. 
 
 -'. London, etc., R. Co., 
 
 (Eng.), 13 C. B. N. S. 818, 8 
 Tur. N. S. 1063, 31 L. J. C. 
 "P. 271, 10 W. R. 321— p. 3117. 
 
 Cahn z: Manhattan R. Co., p. 
 2793. 
 
 z\ Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 531, 532, 536, 538. 894. 
 
 7'. Pockett's Bristol Channel 
 
 S. P. Co., p. 1222. 
 
 Cain, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 ?'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1854. 
 
 v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2414. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. t'. 
 
 Calahan v. Babcock, pp. 525, 1208, 
 
 1219 1220, 1228, 1329, 1232, 
 
 1233, 1234, 1236, 1244. 
 Calais Steamboat Co. ■:■. Scudder, 
 
 p. 3886. 
 Calder '■. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 2088, 3209, 3217, 3218, 3225, 
 
 3228, 3240, 3241. 
 Calderon -'. Atlas Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 986, 1081. 
 
 V. Atlas Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 947, 952, 1073, 4057, 4058, 
 
 North Birmingham 
 
 4059, 4060 
 
 Calderwood, 
 St. R. Co. z: 
 
 Caldwell V. Atlantic, etc.. Rail- 
 road, p. 3043. 
 
 v. Erie Transfer Co., p. 828. 
 
 Express Co. z\ 
 
 z: Felton. p. 1297. 
 
 Fleischman z'. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co., f. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1858, 1859, 2454. 
 
 z'. New Jersev Steamboat Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 56 Barb. 425- p. 2684. 
 
 z\ New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 47 N. Y. 282— pp. 1041, 1722, 
 
 1839, 1843, 1850, 2671, 2684, 
 2841. 
 
 V. North Carolina, p. 3551. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 105 Pac. 625, 56 Wash. 223— 
 pp. 2868, 2961, 3063, 3077. 
 
 v. Northern Pac. K. Co., 113 
 
 Pac. 1099, 62 Wash. 420— p. 
 2934. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 4, 5, 1855, 1884, 2562, 2570, 
 2578. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Southern Exp. Co., p. 
 
 750. 
 
 z'. United States Exp. Co., p. 
 
 763. 
 
 Wright V. 
 
 Calebs, Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
 Calcdonai, The. 
 Caledonia, The. 
 Caledonian R. Co., Hozier v. 
 Calender- Vanderhoof Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., pp. 574, 724. 
 Calhoun, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Pullman Co., pp. 3202, 
 
 3225. 
 
 z'. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3201, 3203, 3212, 3213, 3229. 
 
 California, Almy z\ 
 
 z: Central Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3449, 3552, 3554, 3574. 
 
 Ilooper Z'. 
 
 McCall z'. 
 
 The. 
 
 California Cent. R. Co., Wilson v. 
 
 Wright 7'. 
 
 California Ins. Co. z: Union Com- 
 press Co., pp. 283, 947, 953.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXXXVII 
 
 California Nav., etc., Co., Do- 
 
 hcrty r. 
 In re. 
 
 Stockton Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Stockton Milling Co. f. 
 
 r. Stockton Mill. Co., pp. 
 
 3905, 3914, 4025. 
 
 Trailing v. 
 
 California Pac. R. Co., Drcsbach r. 
 
 California Powder Works t. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 214, 238, 
 944, 945. 
 
 California U. Co., Procter -.'. 
 
 Wartllaw :■. 
 
 California Stage Co., Boyce z: 
 
 Fairchild v. 
 
 Thome v. 
 
 California St. Cable R. Co., Sam- 
 uels 1'. 
 California St. Co., Spearman r. 
 California St. R. Co., Spearman -'. 
 California, etc., R. Co., Fraser v. 
 
 German Fruit Co. -'. 
 
 Metz -'. 
 
 Nagle 7'. 
 
 Call, Joliet St. R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Portsmouth, etc., Railway 
 
 p. 2145. 
 
 Call Pub. Ct., Western Union Tel 
 
 Co. '.: 
 Callahan. Missouri Pac. R. Co. r. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Callaway v. Southern R. Co., 55 
 
 S. K. 22, 126 Ga. 192— p. 563. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 126 Ga. 
 
 1 55 S. E. 23— pp. 835, 861. 
 
 Callendar, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Callender, Te.xas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Callender, etc., Co. v. Short, p. 
 
 342. 
 Calloway r. Mellett , pp. 1613, 
 
 2449, 2458. 
 Calumet Elect. R. Co., South 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 Calumet Stock Farm, Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Calumet, etc., R. Co., Keck -•. 
 Calvert, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Cambols v. Phila., etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 417. 
 Camden Interstate R. Co., Blake 
 
 De Board f. 
 
 V. Frazier, pp. 3079, 3083, 
 
 3084. 
 
 Mannor ': 
 
 Nichols 7\ 
 
 Camden Iron Works, United 
 
 States •:■. 
 Camden, etc., Ferry Co., .\llon z\ 
 
 Dudley r. 
 
 Camden, etc.. Railroad, BaldratT •:•. 
 Camden, etc., R'. Co. -•. Baldauf, 
 
 pp. 1008, 3152, 3153, 3165, 3186, 
 3189. 
 
 V. Bausch, p. 2097. 
 
 V. Briggs, pp. 66, 1136. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Chapman ?•._ 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 Decry -'. 
 
 Farnham v. 
 
 ■ 7'. Forsyth Bros., & Co., pp. 
 
 3372, 3380. 
 ,.. Hoosey, pp. 1954, 1955. 
 
 Lamb f. 
 
 Morgan V. 
 
 V. Rice, pp. 2348, 2635. 
 
 Shay "'. 
 
 Williams -■. 
 
 Camden, etc., Transp. Co. f. Bel- 
 knap, pp. 733, 749, 1007, 3136, 
 3163. 
 
 Black r. 
 
 f. Briggs, p. 66. 
 
 V. Burke, pp. 211, 1003. 1687, 
 
 3142. 
 
 Edsall r. 
 
 Tenneson -'. 
 
 Lamb -'. 
 
 Maghee -'. 
 
 Manhattan Oil Co. f. 
 
 Cameron, .Vtchison, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Cameron f. Citizens' Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2656. 
 V. Lewiston, ct:., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1818, 1819, 1820, 2339, 2894. 
 r. Rich, p. 1036. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. :•. 
 
 V. Union Trunk Line, pp. i 
 
 1888, 1969, 2140. 
 
 Wall :•. 
 
 Camors, Watts '.-. 
 
 Camji t. Hartford, etc.. Steamboat 
 Co., pp. 805, 814, 930, 945. 
 
 Kentucky Hotel Co. -'. 
 
 Western, etc.. Railroad v. 
 
 Campbell r. Alford, pp. 349, 356, 
 362, 371, 383, 386. 387, 388, 389. 
 
 r. Alston, pp. 1766, 1913, 
 
 2744. 
 
 .\tchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Baltimore, etc., R. Co. i\ 
 
 liariiard i'. 
 
 Bissel r. 
 
 Bush I'. 
 
 Cabeen j". 
 
 Ca|>e Girardeau J'. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 149 
 
 111. .\pp. 1^0— p. 3455. 
 r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 86 
 
 Iowa 587. 53 N. W. 351, 17 L. 
 
 R. A. 443— p. 120. 
 
 r. Cornelius, p. 1731. 
 
 • '.■. Duluth, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1743, 1745, 1755, 2722. 
 
 Dunkirk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Fisher, p. 2627. 
 
 Green -•. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc, R. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. Jones, p. 1249. 
 
 — ■ — Levy V. 
 
 V. Los Angeles R. Co., pp. 
 
 2124. 2257. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Marietta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 26, 73, 1135, 1136. 
 
 T. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3161, 3168, 3171, 3186. 
 
 Moore r. 
 
 V. Morse, pp. 729, 733. 743. 
 
 749. 
 
 Nebraska City v. 
 
 New Albany, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 New Haven, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Oregon R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 ■ ;■. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3208. 3210, 3241, 3242. 
 Rio Grande, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Seaboard, etc., Railway, pp. 
 
 3056, 3226, 3227. 
 
 Selma, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Strraino T. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. 7'. 
 
 State 7'. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. 7'. 
 
 — — 7'. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2324. 
 Campe f. Weir, pp. 821. 823. 
 Campion i: Canadian Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 775. 
 Canaday v. United R. Co., pp. 
 
 1501, 1662, 1682, 1688, 2563, 
 
 2651. 
 Canadian Northern R. Co., Shel- 
 
 ton :■. 
 Canadian Pac. R. Co., .Mien, etc., 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 .\ndcrson 7'. 
 
 Blowers r. 
 
 Blowers & Co. f. 
 
 Brown *'. 
 
 Campion '■. 
 
 Dionne i: 
 
 DonncU v. 
 
 Dresser 7: 
 
 Morse ••. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. 7'. 
 
 7-. North Chicago St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 2357. 
 
 Pouilin 7'. 
 
 Poulin 7'. 
 
 Canadian Pac. R. Co., Richard- 
 son 7'. 
 — — Waldron i\ 
 
 White v. 
 
 — ■ — Worden 7\ 
 
 Canadian, etc.. R. Co., Ilayman v. 
 
 Canal Boat Montgomery -■. Kent, 
 pp. 257, 269, 500, 728, 733, 749. 
 765. 
 
 Canal Co., Clarke 7\ 
 
 Canal, etc., R. Co., Jones 7-. 
 
 Canandaigua Nat. Bank 7-. South- 
 ern R. Co., p. 393. 
 
 Candee t. Hayward, p. 1198. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 752, 1346, 1365. 
 
 -'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 3176, 3180, 3316, 3321. 
 
 CandiflF 7-. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1548, 1552. 
 
 Cane Belt R. Co. i: Peden, Iron & 
 Steel Co., p. 548. 
 
 Cane Hill, etc., Co. 7: San .An- 
 tonio, etc., R. Co., pp. 812, 813, 
 833, 881, 3337. 
 
 Canfield 7'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 238 — 
 p. 816. 
 
 7'. Baltimore, etc., R'. Co., 75 
 
 N. Y. 144— p. 842. 
 
 7'. Baltimore, etc., 
 
 N. Y. 532, 16 .\m. 
 
 R 
 
 & 
 Rep. 
 
 Co.. 93 
 Eng. R. 
 268— pp. 
 
 etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Co. 7-. 
 
 Co., p. 
 pp. 3528, 
 
 516, 721, 
 
 Co. 
 490. 
 
 Cas. 152, 45 .\m. 
 821. 823. 1037. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. i'. 
 
 Walcott 7'. 
 
 Canham 7\ Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 2731, 2732. 
 Canman, .\rkansas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 .\rkansas, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Cannington, St. Louis, 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Cannon, Central, etc., R. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 7-. Mid-Gt. W. Ry. 
 
 1 796. 
 
 -'. New Orleans, 
 
 3529, 3530, 3531. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cannon & Son, St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Cantling v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3111, 3122. 
 Canton, etc., R. Co., Fast 7'. 
 Cantrell. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 255. 
 
 Cantu 7'. Bennett, pp. 
 
 723, 751. 943. 
 Cantwcll, Choctaw, etc.. 
 
 7'. Pacific Exp. Co.. 
 
 Cape Charles, The. 
 Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Mt. Peasant Mfg^ 
 
 Cape Girardeau 
 
 3586. 
 Capehart f. Granite 
 591, 592, 595, 596. 
 
 7'. Seaboard, etc., 
 
 1087, 1089. 1091. 
 
 Caperton, Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Capital Compress Co., Missoun, 
 etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Capital Tract. Co. 7\ Brown, 29 
 App. D. C. 473, 12 L. R. .\.. N- 
 S., 831— pp. 2174. 217'>. 2343. 
 
 Chapman 7-. 
 
 Hart 7'. 
 
 Hutchinson 7'. 
 
 Jaquette 7'. 
 
 Kohner 7'. 
 
 Shortsleeves f. 
 
 Sullivan t'. 
 
 7. Wathen. p. 2911. 
 
 Capitol, etc., R. Co., .-\ndrews 7-. 
 Caples 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 862. 
 Ca"peau, Ferpiison -•. 
 Capoel, Erie R". Co. 7'. 
 Canper, Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 Capps 7'. Leachman. pp. 1121, 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Capt. Jack, The. 
 Caracas, The. 
 
 .Mien V. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Campbell, 
 Mills. 
 
 P- 
 pp. 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1122.
 
 CXXXVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Carbon Slate Co. r. Ennis, p. 3968. 
 Carder f. Atchison, etc., K. *-0., 
 
 p 1212. 
 Cardot r. Barney, p. 2090. 
 Cardwell z: Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 151, 152. 173. 
 Careb Prince. The. 
 Carew r. Rutherford, p. 119d. 
 Carev, Commonwealth r. 
 Car<^i!l Co. '.■■ Minnesota, pp. o^i^, 
 
 3527. 3528. 3590. 
 
 Railroad, etc., Comm. r. 
 
 Cargo. The. 
 
 Watt r. 
 
 Cargo of Brimstone, In re. 
 Cargo of Cyrenian, Wilhscroft v. 
 Carso of Tava Sugar, Mencke v. 
 Cargo of Lumber, Eaton v. 
 
 Hagan z-. 
 
 Watt V 
 
 Cargo of 3,408 Tons of Poca- 
 hontas Coal, In re. 
 
 Ross V. ^ f T- 
 
 Cargo of 246 5/20 Tons of Egg 
 
 Coal. Aldrich -.■. 
 
 Carhick, Chicago City R. Co. '•. 
 
 Carib Prince, The. 
 
 Carl, Kansas, etc., R. Co^ v. 
 
 Carleton. Central, etc., R. <-o. f. 
 
 f. Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1948, 2859. 
 
 7' New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p '1012, 1062, 1081, 1082. 
 
 r. Rockland, etc., St. Rail- 
 way, p. 2733. 
 
 'r. Three Hundred Si.xty- 
 
 Seven Tons of Coal, p. 3958. 
 
 f Union Transfer, etc., Co., 
 
 DP 823, 1012, 1082. 
 
 —L ,.. Yadkin K. Co., PP- 2087, 
 2568. . 
 
 Carlile, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 Carlinville, Chicago, etc., K. Lo. v. 
 
 Carlisle, Brigham & Co. z'. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Koekuk, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 p. 1442. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Carlos F. Roses, The. 
 
 Carlson z: Oceanic Steam ^av. 
 
 Co.. p. 3123. 
 Carlton, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Carlton Hall, The. 
 
 Carlton Produce Co. v. \ elasco, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3662, 3663. 
 Carman, Gilmore v. _ ,. „ „ 
 Carmantv v. Mexican Gulf K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2583, 2590. 
 Carmichael, Alabama, etc., K. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Carmody v. St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 p. 1739. 
 Carnahan, Adams Exp. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3198. 
 
 Carnegie z: Morrison, p. 1489^ 
 Carney v. Cincinnati St. R. Co., 
 p. 1515. 
 
 Emily V. ^ ^ 
 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co., Gvvyn Har- 
 per Mfg. Co. V. 
 
 Holmes v. 
 
 Means f. 
 
 Mitchell V. 
 
 Xance z'. 
 
 Phifer v. 
 
 Uoseman f. 
 
 Seawell v. 
 
 Sloan z'. 
 
 Carolina Mid. R. Co., Brodie v. 
 Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. 
 
 Anderson, pp. 3923, 3943. 
 Carolina, etc., Co., General Fire 
 
 Extinguisher Co. v. 
 Carolina, etc., R. Co., Brodie z: 
 
 Cottrell V. 
 
 General Fire Extinguisher 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Wampum Cotton Mills v. 
 
 Williams f. 
 
 Carolina, etc.. Railway, Berry v. 
 
 Carolina, etc.. Railway z: Clinch 
 
 Valley Lumber Co., p. 86. 
 Caroline, Whitmore z: 
 Carothers, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 961, 
 pp. 
 
 R. Co.. 
 345 — pp. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 — — z: Pittsburg R. Co., p. 1683. 
 Carpenter '•. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 724, 727, 735, 736, 752, 
 
 757, 765, 766, 851, 960, "'' 
 
 966. 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Co 
 
 1720, 1787, 2078. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Eastern R. Co., pp. 1087, 
 
 1410. 
 
 z: Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 1976. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 14 Daly 457— p. 3239. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 124 N. Y. 53, 26 N. E. 277. 11 
 L. R. A. 759, 21 Am. St. Rep. 
 644, 47 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 421— pp. 3125. 3145, 3208, 3215, 
 3217, 3218, 3219,,' 3223, 3230. 
 3238. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 10 
 
 X. Y. St. Rep. 712— pp. 3201, 
 3214. 3216, 3230, 3232. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 13 N. Y. St. Rep. 718— pp. 3218, 
 3234. 
 
 f. New^ York, etc., 
 
 15 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 3217, 3230. 3239. 
 
 z: Trinity, etc., R. 
 
 2058. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 944. 1051, 1063, 1067. 
 
 z\ Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 3 Mackey (14 D. C.) 225— pp. 
 2457, 2458. 
 
 z'. Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 121 U. S. 474, 30 L. Ed. 1015. 
 7 S. Ct. 1002— pp. 2034, 2054, 
 2409. 
 
 Carper. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 Carr, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 :'. Delaware, etc., R. Co 
 
 695, 696. 
 
 z\ Eel River, etc., 
 
 pp. 1880,^ 1883, 2263. 
 
 Hrebrik z\ 
 
 Manheim '•. 
 
 !■. Pennsylvania R'. 
 
 482. 
 
 V. Schafer, p. 784. 
 
 V. Toledo Tract. Co.. 
 
 Carr, etc.. Co., Bosworth z. 
 Carrick, Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 Carrico ?■. West Virginia Cent., 
 
 etc.. R. Co., pp. 1814, 1816, 
 2073. 2115. 
 
 V. West Virginia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1712, 1715, 1816, 2116, 
 2200, 2201, 2541, 2673, 2682, 
 2941. 
 
 Carrier z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1190. 
 Carrier Cos., Insurance Cos. z-. 
 Carrizzo -'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 567, 709, 710. 
 Carroll z\ Boston Elcv. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2678, 2679, 2980. 
 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2172, 2787. 
 
 z'. Central Railroad, 
 
 v. Charleston, etc., 
 
 pp. 2117, 2118, 2857. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Zf. Hoi way, pp. 3961, 3963. 
 
 V. Interstate Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., pp. 1958, 2199, 2206. 
 
 Knoxville Tract. Co. z'. 
 
 z'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1567, 1580, 2097, 2098. 
 
 z\ Southern Exp. Co., p. 525. 
 
 V. Staten Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 211, 1538, 1589, 1682, 1684, 
 1720, 1839, 1846. 
 
 Carrollton Furniture Mfg. Co., 
 Mail Line Co. v. 
 
 pp. 
 R. Co., 
 
 Co. 
 
 P- 
 
 1650. 
 
 CarroFlton Furniture Mfg. Co., 
 United States Mail Line Co. v. 
 Carrollton R. Co., Black v. 
 Carrow. Michigan Cent. R. Co. ■:'. 
 Carruth, Snow z'. 
 Carson. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Electric R. Co. z-. 
 
 7'. Harris, p. 3305. 
 
 z: Leathers, p. 1854. 
 
 Schuster z'. 
 
 Carstcn z'. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 pp. 1616, 3079, 3083, 3084. 
 
 Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern 
 Pac. Co.. pp. 1424, 1426, 1464, 
 1467, 1470. 
 
 f. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1361, 1364, 1365, 1396. 
 
 Carswell z'. Macon, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1582, 2898. 
 Carter v. IBoston, etc.. St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1515, 1516, 2142, 2329, 2863. 
 
 2881, 2885. 
 
 Brightwood R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Charleston, etc.. R'. Co., p. 
 
 2517. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3276, 3277, 3278, 3405. 
 
 Denison, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Diamond Joe Line v. 
 
 7'. Graves, pp. 488. 490, 796, 
 
 804. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2627. 
 
 7'. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 569, 596, 600, 855, 865. 
 
 7'. Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1846, 2673, 2743. 
 
 z: McDermott, p. 1694. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3827. 
 
 7'. Peck, pp. 3176. 3316, 3321. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 1476. 
 
 7'. Rockford, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1536, 1776, 1806. 
 
 7'. Southern K. Co., pp. 481, 
 
 482. 490. 
 
 7'. Southern Railway, p. 3048. 
 
 7'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 126 N. C. 437, 36 S. E. 14— 
 p. 149. 
 
 7'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 129 N. C. 213, 39 S. E. 827— 
 p. 149. 
 
 Carter & Co. v. Southern R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 431, 721, 977, 1036, 1038. 
 
 1112. 
 Cartledge, Georgia, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Cartwright v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1871, 2244, 2348. 
 
 V. Wilmerding, p. 1244. 
 
 Caruana 7'. British, etc.. Steam 
 
 Packet Co., p. 528. 
 Caruth 7'. Texas, etc., R, 
 
 p. 2903. 
 R. Co., 
 
 Ill/ . 
 Caruthers, Ft. Worth, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 
 R. Co. 
 
 Carver, Alden & Co. 7'. 
 
 v. Minncapolfs, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2527. .^ ^ 
 
 Carvey v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2712. 
 Gary 7'. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pn. 3158, 3160, 3168. 3174. 3175. 
 
 V. Los Angeles R. Co., pp. 
 
 1706, 1897, 2995. 
 
 Arnstine z'. 
 
 Caryl, People 7'. 
 
 Casazza. Chicago, etc., K. Co. 7'. 
 Casco Bay Steamboat Co., Bacon 
 
 Case, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7-. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1087. 
 
 7'. Delaware, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1869, 1906, 2905. 
 
 Petersen v. 
 
 Case of the State Freight Tax, 
 
 pp. 3418. 3419, 3420, 3421, 3427, 
 
 3447, 3480, 3549, 3550, 3553, 
 
 3563, 3564, 3566, 3567, 3568, 
 3594.
 
 TAIil.E fJF CASKS. 
 
 CXXXIX 
 
 Atlantic Avt 
 
 R. Co., 
 R. Co., 
 
 Caseday, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Casey, Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. j'. 
 
 Nasliville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Nashville, etc.. Railway i'. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2791. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1279. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Cash t'. Wabash R. Co., pp. 462, 
 
 1268, 1456. 
 Ca.«h Grain Co., St. Louis, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Cashin, McGhec v. 
 Cashman v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1971. 
 Cason, Baltimore, etc., Turnpike 
 
 Road V. 
 Casper v. New Orleans R., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2666. 
 Casper & Co. f. Dry Dock, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 2196. 
 Cass J'. Roston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 815, 821, 867, 910, 917, 918. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3184, 3185. 
 
 Cassady z'. Old Colony St. R. Co., 
 pp. 2672, 2796, 3005. 
 
 1'. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1776, 2132. 
 
 Cassally, McNaughter v. 
 
 Cassasa "■. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 3238. 
 Cassaway, Walker -•. 
 Casseday, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 v. 
 Cassedy z'. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 p. 3210. 
 Cassell, Southern R. Co. "■. 
 Cassell Drug Co., Alabama, etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Cassiano "•. Galveston, etc 
 
 p. 1622. 
 Cassidy z' 
 
 p. 2185. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Cassidy, etc., Comm. Co., St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Cassilav f. Young & Co., pp. 511, 
 
 619, '734, 743, 853, 3902. 
 Cassio V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2158. 
 Castanola v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1223. 
 Castelano f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2671. 
 Castelli z'. Jereissati, p. 477. 
 Castello, Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Castellucci z\ Lehigh X'allcy R'. 
 
 Co., p. 828. 
 Caster, Michigan, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Castle, Missouri Pac. R. Co. z\ 
 Castopulon, Macon R., etc., Co. v. 
 Caswell '■. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 pp. 1813, 2127, 2131. 
 
 Sumner z'. 
 
 Catalanotto z'. Coney Island, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 2889. 
 Catanzaro z\ Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 p. 3414. 
 Catawissa, etc., R. Co., Sandford 
 
 Cate, Sommer -■. 
 
 Caterham R. Co. v. London R., 
 
 p. 1780. 
 Cates, Evansville. etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cathey J'. St. Louis, etc., R". Co., 
 
 pp. 2424, 2771. 
 Catlett -'. Charleston, etc., Railwav, 
 p. 512. 
 
 Columbian Ins. Co. z'. 
 
 Catlettsburg. Packet Co. z: 
 CatlitT, Bourne ?■. 
 
 Catlin f. -Adirondack Co., p. 796. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 Catron, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Catskill Mountain R. Co., Lucas 
 
 Root f. 
 
 Cattano z\ Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 pp. 2186, 2887, 2888. 
 
 Cattaraugus Cutlery Co. z: Buffalo, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3120, 3121. 
 
 Catterlin, Padley z: 
 
 Catterson 7'. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 Co., p. 2592. 
 
 Cau J'. Texas, etc., R. Co., j). 1040. 
 
 f. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 930, 947, 958, 959, 970, 972, 974. 
 977, 980, 986, 1035, 1036. 
 
 Cauhle, Waco, etc.. Water Co. v. 
 Caughell J'. Indianapolis Tract., 
 
 etc., Co., p. 1901. 
 Causler, Gad.sden, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Cauthen, Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cavallaro :■. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 ^ pp. 529. 896, 914, 3274. 
 CaVanaugh i'. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3543. 
 Cavender, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Cavenesse, Little Rock, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Caveny z'. Ncely, p. 1837. 
 Cavin, Southern Pac. Co. •; . 
 Cawfield r. Asheville St. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1890, 1891, 1901, 2116, 2230, 
 
 2394. 
 Cayce, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Cave z: Pool, pp. 8, 1153. 1157, 
 
 1164, 1165. 
 Caylor, Southern Kansas R. Co. 
 
 v. 
 Cayuga, The. 
 
 Cayuga, etc., R. Co., Davis v. 
 Cavwood -■. Seattle Elect. Co., p 
 ^ 1830. 
 Caze z: Baltimore Ins. Co., pp 
 
 3939, 3941. 
 Cazneau :•. Fitchburg R. Co., p 
 
 1773. 
 C, C, & St. L. Co., Barron, etc. 
 
 Co. z: 
 C. C. C. & St. L. R'. Co. z'. Simon 
 
 p. 949. 
 C. D. & M. R. Co., Walter v. 
 Ceballos <•. Warren Adams, pp. 
 
 820, 828, 1037. 
 Cecil Erie, etc.. Despatch v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cedar Rapids, etc.. Light Co. z: 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 3639. 
 Cedar Rapids, etc, R. Co., Hoff- 
 man J'. 
 
 Huber z'. 
 
 Ilutcheis V. 
 
 Johnson z: 
 
 Johnston z\ 
 
 Centennial, The. 
 
 Central .\merican Steamship Co. r. 
 Mobile, etc.. R. Co., pp. 488, 
 490. 3341, 3342. 
 
 Central Branch, etc., R. Co., Mc- 
 Queen -•. 
 
 Central City Railway, Mowrey v. 
 
 Central Crosstown R. Co., Hast- 
 ings T-. 
 
 McGill r. 
 
 Schaefer z'. 
 
 \'ogler z: 
 
 Central Elect. R. Co., Bell z: 
 
 Rattan f. 
 
 Central Iowa R. Co., Raben z: 
 
 Winter f. 
 
 Central Kentuckv Tract. Co. z: 
 Chapman, pp. 'l904,- 1905, 2752, 
 2992. 
 
 z: Combs, pp. 1901, 2371. 
 
 z: May, p. 2860. 
 
 Central Line of Boats, Barnett v. 
 
 Central Mercantile Co. v. Oklahoma 
 
 State Bank, pp. 394, 396. 397. 
 
 398. 
 
 Central Nat. Bank, Wilson Grain 
 
 Co. 
 
 Central Pac. R. Co., Newhall v. 
 
 I'. People, pp. 3553. 3591. 
 
 Pereira v. 
 
 Plister z: 
 
 Quiglcy f. 
 
 Tarbell z: 
 
 Central Park R. Co., Flynn v. 
 Central Park, etc., Co., Solomon 
 
 I'. 
 Central Park, etc., R. Co., Barker 
 
 Z'. 
 
 Maher f. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Solomon -•. 
 
 Twomley r. 
 
 Ward z: 
 
 Wynn t". 
 
 Central Pass. R. Co. z: Bishop, 
 pp. 2671, 2699. 
 
 z: Kuhn, pp. 2009. 2013, 2699. 
 
 V. Rose. 14 Ky. L- Rep. 204 
 
 —p. 2333. 
 
 z: Rose, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 209, 
 
 22 S. W. 745— pp. 2152, 2154. 
 
 f. Stevens, p. 2381. 
 
 Winnegar -•. 
 
 Central Railroad, Blitch v. 
 
 ;■. Brinson, p. 2676. 
 
 Carroll z: 
 
 z: Combs, pp. 3045, 3046. 
 
 Davis f. 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 Hite V. 
 
 Logan & Co. V. 
 
 Perry f. 
 
 — '■ — J'. Rogers & Sons, p. 863. 
 
 z: Smith, p. 1800. 
 
 Sorrell z: 
 
 I'. Thompson, pp. 1768, 1774, 
 
 1789, 1791. 1920. 
 
 York Co. 
 
 Central R. Co. 
 2071. 
 
 2840. 
 2840! 
 
 Brinson, 
 Brinson, 
 
 Brewer, pp. 2063, 
 64 Ga. 475— p. 
 70 Ga. 207— p. 
 
 Central Pac. Co., 
 Central Pac. R. 
 Cody z'. 
 
 Craven z\ 
 
 l")rew T'. 
 
 Hirshfield z 
 
 Kline ;■. 
 
 Lundv ■:■. 
 
 McQuilken ; 
 
 McQuilken f. 
 Co., California "•. 
 
 f. Brunson, pp. 831, 832. 
 
 z: Bryant, pp. 961, 962, 1005. 
 
 1267, 1269, 1365, 1367, 1378, 
 1384, 3377. 
 
 Bush Co. -■. 
 
 V. Combs, pp. 3316, 3318, 
 
 3374. 
 
 Daly z: 
 
 Dobson z: 
 
 V. Dwight Mfg. Co.. pp. 962. 
 
 967. 968. 996, 999, 3278. 3350. 
 
 Exton f. 
 
 Frank Bros. & Co. z: 
 
 V. Freeman, pp. 1848, 2673. 
 
 V. Glass, p. 2488. 
 
 z: Gleason, p. 2045. 
 
 — Hanlon z: 
 
 V. Hasselkus, pp. 962. 968. 
 
 981. 
 
 Haver z: 
 
 z: Hearne. pp. 1137. 1202. 
 
 z: Henderson, pp. 1582, 1584. 
 
 V. Hite, pp. 708, 3814. 
 
 Jacobs f. 
 
 Kinney z\ 
 
 Kuttner z-. 
 
 Lamed -•. 
 
 Lehman, etc., Co. z: 
 
 z: Logan & Co., pp. 3272, 
 
 3389, 3404. 
 
 z: McCartney, pp. 1148, 1151, 
 
 1193. 
 
 McDonald z: 
 
 z: Mackcy, p. 2490. 
 
 f. Mauser, p. 3754. 
 
 Means z: 
 
 Mearns f. 
 
 :-. Peacock, pp. 2043, 2049. 
 
 z: Pickett, p. 813. 
 
 Redhing z: 
 
 z\ Rogers & Sons, pp. 3307, 
 
 3395. 3396, 3397. 
 
 Runyan z: 
 
 Salceby z-. 
 
 z: Sanders, pp. 2693, 2807, 
 
 2840.
 
 CXL 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Central K. Co. z: Senn, p. 2775. 
 
 r. Smith, 69 Ga. 268— p. 
 
 2256. „ , 
 
 z: Smith. 76 Ga. 209, 2 Am. 
 
 St. Rep. 31— pp. 1752, 1755, 
 1757, 1872. 1940, 1989, 2404. 
 
 V. Smith. 74 Md. 212, 21 
 
 A.tl. 706, 48 Am. & Eng. R. 
 eas. 60— pp. 1888, 2113, 2116, 
 2118. 2667. 
 
 Staines v. 
 
 i: State Board, p. 3573. 
 
 f. Thompson, p^. 1689, 2118, 
 
 2239. 2942, 2951, 2985. 
 
 Uptegrove v. 
 
 r. Van Horn, pp. 1877, 1925, 
 
 2114, 2587. 
 V. Whitehead, pp. 1524, 1679, 
 
 1885, 1910, 1912, 2085, 2990. 
 
 Wiegand f. 
 
 W'illiams f. 
 
 Wolff r. 
 
 -,.. Wolff, 
 
 3192. 
 
 Wright t 
 
 York Co 
 
 Central R 
 
 pp. 
 
 2712, 3191, 
 
 J. c . 
 
 •to., Co. t'. Anderson, 
 
 Central Stock Yards Co. ■:■. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 192 U. S. 508, 
 48 L. Ed. 565, 24 S. Ct. 339— 
 pp. 107, 1300, 3617, 3631, 3647, 
 3648, 3656. 
 
 Central Transp. Co. v. Pullmans 
 Palace Car Co., pp. 10, 2092. 
 
 Central Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 90, 166-, 172, 175. 
 
 f. Denver, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2077. 
 
 V. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 515, 796, 948. 
 
 -•. Georgia Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3410. 
 
 Malott ?■. 
 
 r. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3616. 
 
 V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 641. 
 
 Townsend Brick, etc., Co. r. 
 
 ■;'. Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3148. 
 
 Central Vermont R. Co., Bergan 
 
 3394, 3397, 
 
 3379, 3380, 
 
 pp. 276, 532, 774, 894, 898, 1019 
 — -- V. Avant, pp. 603, 697, 877, 
 3330, 3347, 3354. 
 
 f. Baver, pp. 
 
 3409. 
 
 Boaz V. 
 
 ;•. Bridger, pp 
 
 3383, 3385. 
 
 r. Bryant, p. 1361. 
 
 Coles c'. 
 
 '■. Cooper, p. 877. 
 
 r. Gamble, p. 2807. 
 
 V. Georgia Fruit, etc., E-xch., 
 
 pp. 336, 533, 607, 627, 629, 766, 
 3250, 3255, 3257, 3260, 3278, 
 3291, 3401. 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 V. Hasselkus, pp. 320, 322, 
 
 323, 336, 533, 607, 689, 820, 
 821, 824, 825, 1099, 3255, 3350, 
 3380. 
 
 Henry z: 
 
 f. Hines, etc., Co., p. 727. 
 
 i: Lampley, pp. 581, 582, 
 
 796. 
 
 Lehman, etc., Co. v. 
 
 X'. Letcher, p. 2540. 
 
 V. Logan, pp. 210, 438. 
 
 Lv^tspeich f. 
 
 r. Miles, p. 1883. 
 
 Paterson v. 
 
 T. Perry. pp. 1517, 1518, 
 
 1767, 1768, 1791, 1916, 1917, 
 1918, 1936, 2085, 3319. 
 
 v. Phillips, pp. 2120, 2254. 
 
 r. Phinazee, pp. 2087, 2121. 
 
 V. Pickett, pp. 1364, 1421. 
 
 v. Roberts, pp. 1626, 1665, 
 
 2455, 2475, 2564, 3077. 
 
 ?•. Rogers' Sons, pp. 3397. 
 
 Skellie V. 
 
 z: Skellie, pp. 502, 533, 607, 
 
 659, 693, 3257, 3263, 3276, 3277, 
 3280, 3291, 3413. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 z: Smith, 78 Ga. 694, 3 S. 
 
 E. 397— p. 2940. 
 
 V. Smith, 80 Ga. 526, 5 S. E. 
 
 772— pp. 1494, 1801. 
 
 z: Smitha, pp. 819, 1379. 
 
 Stevens r. 
 
 V. Strickland, pp. 190, 193, 
 
 1597, 1599, 1600, 1601, 2469, 
 3079, 3086, 3098. 
 
 Central Railway, Curtis v. 
 
 Central Stock Yard, etc., Co., 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Central Stock Yards Co., Louis- 
 ville, etc., R". Co. Z-. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co., 118 
 
 Fed. 113, 55 C. C. A. 63, 63 
 L. R. A. 213— pp. 3263, 3536, 
 3655. 
 
 Central, ttc. R. Co. z: Dorsey,. 
 116 Ga. 719, 42 S. E. 1024— 
 pp. 3047, 3049, 3052, 3053. 
 
 z\ Dothan Mule Co., pp. 
 
 3395, 3412. 
 
 Eichberg v. 
 
 Ethridge v. 
 
 Felton z'. 
 
 •?■. Felton, pp. 466, 3393. 
 
 Findlev z\ 
 
 - v. Floyd, p. 1798. 
 
 z: Forehand, pp. 2174, 2338. 
 
 z\ Gaston, p. 3554. 
 
 v. Geopp, pp. 2646, 2696. 
 
 7'. Goodman, p. 2875. 
 
 J.. Gortatowsky, pp. 426, 427. 
 
 z: Groesbeck, pp. 3471, 3487. 
 
 'c'. Hall, pp. 3, 741, 825, 962, 
 
 963, 1005, 1055, 1057, 1268, 
 1468, 1477. 
 
 Hasselkus, pp. 1016, 1017, 
 
 1038. 
 
 Cox z: 
 
 Hyman z\ 
 
 Johnson & Co. ■;•. 
 
 Newton v. 
 
 North British, etc., Ins. Co. 
 
 • R'osenfeld f. 
 
 Rutland R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 r. Soper, pp. 1087, 1088, 
 
 1118. 1123, 1125. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Worthington v. 
 
 Central Yellow Pine Ass'n '■. \'. & 
 
 P. R. Co., p. 3704. 
 Central, "etc., Co., Pickett z: 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Almand, 
 
 pp. 2441, 2775, 3031. 
 
 Ashley v. 
 
 i: Ashley, pp. 1967, 1968, 
 
 2569, 3060. 
 
 Atlantic Compress Co. z'. 
 
 Augusta Brokerage Co. v. 
 
 V. Augusta Brokerage Co., 
 
 pp. 88, 93. 
 
 z: Bagley, pp. 1560. 2443, 
 
 2477, 2487, 2624, 2717, 2852, 
 2855, 3026. 
 
 Bennett z\ 
 
 Brewer v. 
 
 Brown z'. 
 
 V. Brown, 165 Ala. 493. 51 
 
 So. 565— pp. 2064. 2342, 2638, 
 2659, 2670, 2692, 2880. 
 
 z: Brown, 113 Ga. 414, 38 
 
 S E. 989, 84 Am. St. Rep. 250 
 —pp. 2040, 2042, 2045. 
 
 z: Brown, 138 Ga. 107, 74 S. 
 
 E. 839— pp. 2722, 2915, 2917. 
 
 Broyles z'. 
 
 z: Burton, pp. 867, 900, 903, 
 
 906, 1019, 1021, 1038. 
 
 V. Butler Marble, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 271, 800, 1020, 1055, 1056, 
 1057. 
 
 Cannon, pp. 1628, 1629, 
 
 2443, 2444, 2663. 
 
 Carleton z'. 
 
 z: Carleton, pp. 1948, 2221, 
 
 2576. 
 
 V. Carlisle, nn. 1906, 1911, 
 
 1915. 
 
 V. Chicago Portrait Co., pp. 
 
 583, 595, 597, 1081. 
 
 z: Chicago Varnish Co., pp. 
 
 782, 783, 784, 3284, 3352, 3394. 
 
 V. City Mills Co., pp. 961, 
 
 962, 963, 968, 990, 1005, 1048. 
 
 z'. Cook, pp. 244, 305, 317, 
 
 333, 337, 338. 
 
 Coweta County v. 
 
 Davis z\ 
 
 Devi no Z'. 
 
 Dixon V. 
 
 Dorsey v. 
 
 V. Dorsey, 32 S. E. 873, 106 
 
 Ga. 826— pp. 1637, 1857. 
 
 li 
 
 .. Henderson, p. 1431. 
 
 V. Hines, etc., Co., pp. 270, 
 
 V. Hoard, pp. 1906, 1907. 
 
 V. Holloway, pp. 1881, 1894,. 
 
 .. Holmes, pp. 2676, 2840. 
 
 z: I-Iunter, pp. 2499, 2543. 
 
 V. Hurst, pp. 1018, 1434. 
 
 v. Tames, pp. 1460. 1461. 
 
 V. "Johnston, pp. 1895, 2915,, 
 
 2943, 2971. 
 
 V. Jones, ISO, Ala. 379, 43 
 
 So. 575, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 1240 
 —pp. 3160, 3168, 3169, 3186. 
 
 z: Tones, 7 Ga. App. 165, 66 
 
 S. E. 492— pp. 760, 797, 845. 
 
 . V. Joseph, p. 3132. 
 
 V. Kavanaugh, pp. 939, 942, 
 
 969, _ 3351. 
 
 Kellow '■. 
 
 King z: 
 
 Kiscr Co. I'. \ 
 
 z: Knight, pp. 3979, 3981. 
 
 3984. 
 
 z: K;uhn, p. 1742. 
 
 V. Lippman, pp. 3, 727, 732, 
 
 748, 754, 765, 981, 1003, 1684, 
 1748, 1752, 1755, 1756, 1757, 
 1989, 2092, 2093, 2094, 2098,. 
 2892, 3141. 
 
 McCall v. 
 
 McElvane v. 
 
 V. McKinney, pp. 1896, 2113,. 
 
 2638, 2750, 2857, 2940. 
 
 V. McNab, pp. 1899, 2654, 
 
 2749, 2750, 2753. 
 
 T'..Madden, pp. 1747, 1911, 
 
 1913, 1966. 
 
 z: Manchester Mfg. Co., pp. 
 
 724, 842, 875. 
 
 ^.. Mercantile Claim Co., pp. 
 
 819, 828, .S39. 
 'c'. Merrill & Co., pp. 895, 
 
 904, 90r,. 907, 948, 3351. 
 
 z'. Milledgeville R. Co., p. 
 
 3284. 
 
 •;■. Montmollen, pp. 540, 585, 
 
 663, 664, 852. 
 
 Moore z\ 
 
 V. Morgan, pp. 3047, 3062. 
 
 z: Morris, pp. 228, 234, 260, 
 
 264. 
 
 V. Motes, pp. 190, 194, 196. 
 
 z: Murphey, 113 Ga. 514, 38- 
 
 S. E. 970, 53 L. R. A. 720— pp. 
 947 948, 952, 953 958, 1055, 
 1065, 1073, 3293. 
 
 V. Murphey, 116 Ga. 863, 43 
 
 S E. 265. 60 L. R. A. 817— pp. 
 36, 501, 3250, 3257, 3291, 3330, 
 3347, 3388, 3535. 
 
 z: Murphey, 196 U. S. 194, 
 
 49 L. Ed. 444, 25 S. Ct. 218— 
 pp. 3523, 3537. 
 
 Pilchcr z: 
 
 . r. Price, pp. 2077, 3047. 
 
 Raben z'. 
 
 Railroad Comm. ■;■. 
 
 — ■ — V. Railroad Comm., p. 130. 
 
 zK Ricks, pp. 2092, 2093, 
 
 2446.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXLI 
 
 1526. 
 
 1527, 
 
 2328. 
 
 of Mahogany, p. 
 Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 "Central, etc., R. Co. t. Rogers, pp 
 1018, 1365, 1367, 1384. 
 
 V. Rose, p. 1880. 
 
 Rushin v. 
 
 Shellnut V. 
 
 V. Sigma Lumber Co., \>\) 
 
 258, 285. 439, 722. 741, 778. 
 
 V. Sims, pp. 3332, 3654. 
 
 V. Smitha, p. 1073. 
 
 Stephens i'. 
 
 Stewart i'. 
 
 T. Storrs, i)p 
 
 2743, 2880. 
 
 Tucker v. 
 
 Waldrup V. 
 
 7'. White, p 
 
 Wilensky ■■. 
 
 Williams 7'. 
 
 Williamson v. 
 
 Winncgar v. 
 
 T. Wood, p. 3061. 
 
 Young V. 
 
 Century lildg. Co., Euckel f. 
 
 Orcutt V. 
 
 Century Realty Co., Cooper v. 
 
 Copper V. 
 
 Century Throwing Co. i'. Muller 
 
 p. 351. 
 Cerre, Valle v. 
 Certain Logs 
 
 3864. 
 Chadbourne t. 
 
 Co., p. 2873. 
 Cliadwick -'. Five Hundred and 
 
 Seventv-Six Granite Blocks, pp. 
 
 3938, 3944. 
 Lane j'. 
 
 T'. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2971. 
 
 CliafTc 7'. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 482. 
 Chaffee v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 pp. 2136, 2326. 
 
 <: Consolidated R. Co., pp. 
 
 1743, 2083, 2088, 2696, 2834, 
 2895. 
 
 Dickson f. 
 
 7: Old Colony R. Co., p. 
 
 _ 2135. 
 
 Cliaffin, Union Steamboat Co. f. 
 Chalk & Co. V. Charlotte, etc., R. 
 _ Co., pp. 779, 901, 904. 
 Chalmers z: United R. Co., p. 
 
 1996. 
 Chamberlain, Atchison, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 r. Chandler, p. 1940. 
 
 Edward llines Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Hines Lumber Co. f. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R". Co., 
 
 pp. 69. 3098. 
 
 V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2127. 
 
 J'. Pierson, pp. 1760, 2095, 
 
 2104, 2105. 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co.. 
 
 p. 3224. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 ?■. Torgorm, p. 484. 
 
 T'. \yest, p. 681. 
 
 Chamberlin-Johnson-Uu Bose Co., 
 
 .\danis E-xp. Co. -'. 
 Chamber of Commerce f. United 
 
 States, p. 3836. 
 Chambers, Baltimore, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 ;■. Kupper-Benson Hotel Co., 
 
 pp. 1509, 1719, 1750, 2S.iS. 
 
 Champane 7'. La Crosse City R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2397. 2825. 
 Champion j-. Ames. p. 3468. 
 
 Blossom '■. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Champlain Transp. Co., Dougan i'. 
 
 -; Farmers', etc.. Bank :•. 
 
 Chancellor. Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Chancv, Fordvce -•. 
 
 Chandjer v. Belden. pp. 373, 521. 
 
 Chamberlain '•. 
 
 7'. Fulton, pp. 369, 371, 375, 
 
 380. 381. 580, 1208, 1212, 1213, 
 1218. 1219, 1220, 1222. 1224. 
 1225, 1227, 1229. 1230, 1232, 
 
 1233, 1234, 1235. 1238. 123V, 
 1240. 1246. 
 Chandler ?■. Sanger, p. 1195. 
 
 7'. Sprague. pp. 337, 342, 
 
 364, 365, 369, 391. 
 
 Chandler Cotton Oil Co., Ft. 
 
 Smith, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Chancy 7'. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1953, 2213. 
 Chanslor, Lemon i'. 
 Chapin 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p|). 332. 337. 338, 1456, 1480. 
 
 Cioold 7". 
 
 Trowbridge v. 
 
 Chaplain Transp. Co.. Farmer's, 
 
 etc.. liank 7'. 
 Chapman 7'. Camden, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 799. 
 
 7'. Capital Tract. Co., 37 
 
 App. D. C. 470— p. 2739. 
 
 7'. Capital Tract. Co., 37 
 
 App^ D. C. 479— pp. 2202. 2894. 
 
 Central Kentucky Tract. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R'. Co.. pp. 
 
 849, 855. 
 
 7'. Erie R. Co., p. 2731. 
 
 Fish V. 
 
 7'. Great Western R. Co., p. 
 
 898. 
 
 Irish 7'. 
 
 Minnesota Min. Co. v. 
 
 "■. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp., 588, 818, 821. 
 
 Sultana t. 
 
 — Washington, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Chapman, etc.. Lumber Co. v. 
 Tonesboro, etc., R. Co.. pp. 39, 
 44, 1194, 3488, 3489, 3495. 
 
 Chappcl 7'. Comfort, pp. 701, 713. 
 
 Chappell, Jacksonville St. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Western Railway, pp. 774, 
 
 1640. 
 
 York Silk Mfg. Co., 
 R. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 Charavay 7 
 
 p. 351. 
 Charbonneau 7'. Nassau Elect. 
 
 Co., pp. 1646, 2411. 2560. 
 
 Charge to Grand Jury, In re. 
 Charles 7'. Atlantic Cfoast Line R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3396, 3404, 3523, 3545. 
 
 3546. 
 
 7'. United R., etc.. 
 
 2668. 
 
 Charles Nelson. The. 
 Charles River Bridge Co. 
 
 ren Bridge, p. 1501. 
 Charles Schlesinger & 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co 
 Charleston, Clyde Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Postal Telegraph Cable Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Charleston, etc., Co., Price 7'. 
 Charleston, etc., R. Co., Black i'. 
 Bottum 7'. 
 
 War- 
 
 Sons V. 
 ., p. 545. 
 
 Boyd. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Bullock 7'. 
 Bunch 7'. 
 Carroll 7'. 
 Carter v. 
 Creech 7'. 
 nilleshaw 7'. 
 7'. Duckworth 
 Dunbar 7'. 
 Frasicr z\ 
 Glover 7'. 
 Ilartcr 7'. 
 Jarrell 7'. 
 Lavton & 
 Moo 
 
 2579, 
 
 pp. 805, 808. 
 
 Sons 7'. 
 p. 760. 
 
 Muckenfuss Mfg. Co. 
 
 Netherland 7'. 
 
 Porter 7'. 
 
 Sullivan 7'. 
 
 Talbert 7-. 
 
 7-. Thompson, p. 3697. 
 
 Trakas 7'. 
 
 Traynham 7". 
 
 Trowbridge 7'. 
 
 VVhite Laundry Co. 7'. 
 
 Wilson f. 
 
 Charleston, etc.. Railway, Bussey 
 
 Catlctt T. 
 
 Kirkland 7'. 
 
 McGrath Bros. -■. 
 
 Charleston, etc.. Steamboat Co. 7'. 
 
 Bason, pp. 729, 745, 746, 747, 
 
 749, 3915. 
 
 Charleston, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 Ross i\ 
 
 Charlestown, Backman v. 
 
 Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co., Palmer 
 
 Charlotte Flrct. R., etc., Co., As- 
 bury 7'. 
 
 -Morrison 7'. 
 
 -^ Overcash 7'. 
 
 Charlotte Trouser Co. 7-. Sea- 
 board, etc., R. Co., pp. 3149, 
 3150, 3151, 3160, 3169, 3173, 
 3174. 
 
 Charlotte, etc.. R. Co., Chalk 7-. 
 
 Chalk & Co. 7'. 
 
 V. Gibbes, pp. 35, 39, 58, 
 
 60, 3591. 
 
 Griffith 7'. 
 
 Johns 7'. 
 
 Lipford i: 
 
 McLean 7'. 
 
 Palmer 7'. 
 
 Pinni.x r. 
 
 Sumner 7'. 
 
 Thomas 7'. 
 
 7'. Wootcn. pp. 820. 823, 848. 
 
 Charlottesville Woolen Mills, Ad- 
 ams h.\p. Co. V. 
 
 Charnock 7-. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 51 C. C. A. 78, 113 Fed. 92— pp. 
 983, 1040. 
 
 V. Texas, etc.. R. Co.. 194 
 
 U. S. 432. 48 L. Ed. 1057. 24 
 S. Ct. 671— pp. 777. 930. 958. 
 959. 970. 980. 986. 1035. 1036. 
 1037. 
 
 Chartrand 7'. Southern Railway, 
 
 pp. 508. 511. 3336. 3400. 
 Chase 7'. .Alliance Co.. p. 3949. 
 
 7'. .Atchison, etc.. R. Co.. 70 
 
 Kan. 546. 79 Pac. 153— p. 3623. 
 
 7'. .Atchison, etc., R. Co., 134 
 
 Mo. App. 655. 114 S. W. 1141 — 
 pp. 1769. 2499. 2506. 
 
 Gardner 7'. 
 
 f. Jamestown St. R". Co.. pp. 
 
 2233, 2742, 2881. 
 
 Larson t. 
 
 Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. New York Cent. R. Co„ 
 
 pp. 1599, 1605, 2468. 
 
 The Mercantile, etc.. Co. i: 
 
 Chase, etc.. Co.. Ilammctt 7'. 
 
 Roney 7'. 
 
 Chastain, Birmingham R., etc.. 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Chastine. Memphis, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Chatficld. Snow 7-. 
 
 Chattahoochee. The. 
 
 Chattanooga Board of Trade i: 
 Southern R. Co.. p. 3'>79. 
 
 Chattanooga Rapid Transit Co. 7'. 
 \'epable. pp. 1569. 1570. 1582, 
 15S3. 
 
 Chattanooga Southern R. Co. v. 
 Thompson, pp. 215, 444, 449, 
 470. 471. 848. 
 
 Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. 7-. Hug- 
 gins, pp. 1508. 1561, 1563, 1748, 
 1758. 1990, 2129. 2320. 2335. 
 2401. 2603. 2618. 
 
 7'. Liddell. pp. 2073. 2079. 
 
 7-. Lyon, pp. 1856, 3061. 
 
 Chautauqua Tract. Co.. Perkins i: 
 Chave 7'. New York. etc.. R'. Co.. 
 
 p. 2518. 
 Cluatham. Houston, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 Check 7\ Little Miami R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3139, 3181. 
 Check, Illinois Cent. R'. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Merchants' Nat. Bank, p. 
 
 3830. 
 
 Cheetham 7'. Union R. Co., pp. 
 
 2(.94. 2S44. 
 Chenewith. Lackawanna, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. 7'.
 
 CXLII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Southern 
 36, 3445, 
 
 Hilson, p. 
 
 Chenev f. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. '1858, 1974,' 1975. 
 
 Hall f. 
 
 Samuel v. 
 
 Chenie, Hemphill v. 
 Cheny. Hall r. 
 Cherokee Nation v. 
 
 Kansas R. Co., pp 
 
 3447, 3449. 
 Cherokee Packet Co. v 
 
 2507. 
 Cherokee R. Co., Higgins z: 
 Cheronea Steamship Co., Xiver 
 
 Coal Co. T'. 
 Cherow, etc.. R. Co., Edwards v. 
 Cherrj- -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1618, 1621. 1639, 3319. 
 
 V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1526, 1975. 
 
 z: Kansas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2496. 
 
 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. -•. La- 
 vin, p. 545. 
 
 Chesapeake Beach R. Co., Boer- 
 ing '■. 
 
 Chesapeake Ins. Co., Marcardier v. 
 
 Chesapeake Steamship Co. v. Mer- 
 chants' Xat. Bank, p. 556. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co. v. 
 Hill, p. 326. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Ameri- 
 can Exch. Bank, pp. 949, 1346, 
 1471, 3618, 3628. 
 
 V. Anderson, p. 2531. 
 
 '■. Austin, pp. 1881, 1948, 
 
 1949, 1955, 1956, 2768. 
 
 T. Barger, pp. 2656, 2727, 
 
 2859. 
 
 z\ Beaslev, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 729, 734, 75'0. 1051, 1057, 1078, 
 3161, 3169, 3170, 3172. 
 
 Birckhead z: 
 
 Boggess z: 
 
 f. Borders, p. 1882. 
 
 Boster z'. 
 
 Boston -'. 
 
 z: Bradford, pp. 452. 461. 
 
 -•. Burke, pp. 1682, 1689, 
 
 1721. 2860. 
 
 Carnahan v. 
 
 Claiborne r. 
 
 '•. Clowes, 
 
 2221. 
 
 Cole Z'. 
 
 f. Collinsworth 
 
 Commonwealth 
 
 c'. Commonwealth, p 
 
 ' Connell v. 
 
 — z: Crank, 
 
 2419, 3030. 
 
 Davis f. 
 
 Downey v. 
 
 Duty V. 
 
 Felbin v. 
 
 Flood z: 
 
 z: Fortune, 
 
 V. Friel, p. 
 
 z\ Gregston 
 
 Grogan z'. 
 
 Hale z: 
 
 z: Hall, pp. 239, 727, 732, 
 
 749, 751, 760, 764, 3125, 3126. 
 
 v. Hanmer, p. 2566. 
 
 Harden v. 
 
 z: Harlan, p. 3074. 
 
 z: Harris, pp. 2126, 2239, 
 
 2246, 2821. 
 
 Herring <■. 
 
 Howard <•. 
 
 V. Howard, 14 App. D. C. 
 
 262— pp. 2085, 2086, 2088, 2900, 
 2913. 
 
 z: Howard, 178 U. S. 153, 
 
 156, 44 L. Ed. 1015, 20 S. Ct. 
 880— pp. 1821, 1837, 2085, 2086, 
 2087, 2088. 
 
 Howard Supply Co. f. 
 
 z: Hunter, p. 2587. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 Jenkins v. 
 
 V. Jordan, pp. 1953, 2212, 
 
 2892. 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1985, 1986, 
 
 p. 2652. 
 
 3511. 
 
 2417, 2418, 
 
 pp. 2510, 
 2241. 
 pp. 2127, 
 
 2545. 
 
 2257. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., Kennedy 
 
 z\ Kentucky, p. 3511. 
 
 z: King, pp. 1534, 1537, 1792, 
 
 2273, 2864, 2878, 2879. 
 
 Korn T. 
 
 z: Lang, pp. 1953, 2183, 
 
 2392. 
 
 f. Lavin, p. 853. 
 
 Layne ■:■. 
 
 Lewis ;■. 
 
 z: Lynch, pp. 2706, 2846, 
 
 3048, 3062. 
 
 Magowan, pp. 1268, 1356, 
 
 1468, 1470. 
 
 z: Mathews, pp. 1774, 2963, 
 
 3000. 
 
 z: Maysville Brick Co., p. 94. 
 
 z: Meyer, pp. 1774, 2508, 
 
 2999. 
 
 z: Miller, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 f. Morgan '■. 
 
 z: Morgan, pp. 1842, 1846, 
 
 1850, 2642, 2777. 
 
 V. Morton, p. 1204. 
 
 V. O'Gara, etc., Co.. pp. 249, 
 
 3247, 3258, 3267, 3279, 3280. 
 
 z: Paris, 107 Va. 408, 59 S. 
 
 E. 398— pp. 2508, 2509, 2510, 
 2514, 2540. 
 
 V. Paris. Ill Va. 41. 68 S. E. 
 
 398— pp. 2511, 2512, 2540. 
 
 V. Pew, pp. 729, 936, 1396. 
 
 Plummer v. 
 
 Price z\ 
 
 z: Radbournc, pp. 815, 821, 
 
 824, 828. 
 
 Raines v. 
 
 v. Reeves, pp. 2268, 2753. 
 
 Ricketts z\ 
 
 V. Robinett, pp. 2417, 2425, 
 
 2784. 
 
 7'. Robinson, 135 Ky. 850, 
 
 123 S. W. 308— op. 1798, 1799. 
 1884, 1908, 2119, 2226, 2357, 
 2359. 
 
 f. Robinson. 149 Ky. 258, 
 
 147 S. W. 886— p. 2357. 
 
 Roy z: 
 
 Ryiand z\ 
 
 z: Saulsberrv, 112 Ky. 91o, 
 
 66 S. W. 1051, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
 2341, 56 L. R. A. 580— pp. 2411, 
 2417. 
 
 z: Saulsberrv, 126 Ky. 179, 
 
 31 Ky. L. Rep'. 624, 103 S. W. 
 254, 12 L. R. A., N. S., 431— pp. 
 566. 568, 569, 607, 614, 636. 
 
 Selsor 7'. 
 
 V. Selsor, pp. 1493, 1497, 
 
 2419. 
 
 Sha'^non z\ 
 
 z: Smith, p. 2244. 
 
 z'. Star.dard Lumber Co., p. 
 
 3698. 
 
 Starbuck z'. 
 
 z: Stock & Sons. pp. 802, 805, 
 
 849, 853, 855, 1082, 3285, 3313, 
 3390. 
 
 Styles z: 
 
 V. Topping, p. 2234. 
 
 Trice z\ 
 
 z: Webb, pp. 595, 596. 598. 
 
 -.■. Wells, pp. 1944, 1945. 
 
 White z: 
 
 z: Wills, p. 2260. 
 
 Wilson v. 
 
 Woolwine f. 
 
 Zouch V. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., Railway -'. Rob- 
 inett, pp. 2425, 2482, 2484, 2486, 
 3064, 3070. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., Steamship Co.. 
 Morris <'. 
 
 Cheshire Railroad v. Foster, p. 483. 
 
 Cheshire R. Co., Beckwith r. 
 
 Bucher v. 
 
 Harris z-. 
 
 Chester, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Chester Freight Line. Bacharach v.- 
 Chester Tract. Co., Brown z: 
 
 Gaines f. 
 
 Mullen z: 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 Chester, etc., R. Co., Grote v. 
 Chestnut Bros., Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Chestnut & Bro, Louisville, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Chevaillier z: Patton. pp. 782, 788. 
 Chevallier z\ Straham, pp. 9, 
 
 729, 730, 731, 736, 739, 740, 
 
 742, 750, 751, 752, 753, 768, 
 
 771, 933. 
 Cheyenne v. O'Connell, p. 28. 
 Chicago. ."Xyres, etc., R. Co., z: 
 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. v.^ 
 
 Chicago, etc., K. Co. z\ 
 
 Escanaba, etc., Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Harman '•. 
 
 Harmon z\ 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. z'. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Powers, p. 2737. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co., Gilchrist v.- 
 
 c'. Noble, pp. 1789, 2232. 
 
 v. Walker, p. 1802. 
 
 Chicago, & J. E. Ry. Co. z: Lloyd,. 
 
 p. 2249. 
 Chicajgo Auditorium .Ass'n, Bur- 
 
 dette z: 
 Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., Burns 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. A"kerstadt 
 
 — — V. Bennett, p. 2895. 
 
 • z: Bundy, p. 2751. 
 
 • Burgoyne v. 
 
 !■. Carhick, pp. 2655. 2658. 
 
 • '•. Carroll, pp. 1517, 2645, 
 
 2681, 2836, 3004. 
 z'. Casey, p. 2015. 
 
 v. Catlin, p. 2686. 
 
 z\ Cooper, p. 2050. 
 
 Crauf 7'. 
 
 v. Crauf, pp. 1742, 1890, 
 
 1901. 
 
 v. Delcourt, p. 2306. 
 
 Devine r. 
 
 z: Dinsmore, 162 111. 658, 44 
 
 X. E. 887— pp. 2119, 2226, 2688. 
 
 V. Dinsmore, 62 111. App. 
 
 473— p. 2821. 
 
 Donnelly z\ 
 
 Ebsery v. 
 
 Elwood z\ 
 
 '■. Engel, p. 2699. 
 
 FeitI '■. 
 
 z'. Flynn, p. 1744. 
 
 V. Foster, 80 N. E. 762, 226- 
 
 111. 288— p. 2649. 
 
 — V. Foster, 128 111. App. 571 
 —p. 2954. 
 
 — Fuhry z\ 
 
 — f. Uatcs, p. 2654. 
 
 — V. Gregg, p. 2251. 
 
 — Greinke f. 
 
 — V. Greinke, pp. 2697, 2698. 
 
 — Healy v. 
 
 — V. Henry, 62 111. 142— p. 
 3104. 
 
 — z: Henry, 75 N. E. 758, 218 
 111. 92— p. 2859. 
 
 — Hickey v. 
 
 — Hill z: 
 
 — Jones Z'. 
 
 Kiley z\ 
 
 — Lazer z\ 
 
 — z: Lowitz, 119 111. App. 360— 
 pp. 2232, 2752. 
 
 — V. Lowitz, 75 N. E. 755, 218 
 111. 24— pp. 2752, 2753. 
 
 V. Lundberg, p. 2357. 
 
 z: McCaughna, 117 III. .'\pp. 
 
 538— p. 2126. 
 
 V. McCaughna, 216 111. 202, 
 
 74 N. E. 819— pp. 2344, 2365. 
 
 v. McClain, pp. 2656, 2895. 
 
 McMahon z\ 
 
 Math z: 
 
 v. Mead, p. 2695. 
 
 V. Morse, 197 111. 327, 64 N. 
 
 E. 304, 4 R. R. R. 215, 27 Am.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXLIII 
 
 & Kng. R. Cas., N. S., 215— •) 
 pp. ly/rf, JSyi. 
 Chicago City R. Co. r. Morse, 98 
 111. App. 662— p. 2671. 
 
 V. Mumford, p. 2249. 
 
 V. O'Donncll, p. 2548. 
 
 V. Pelictier, 134 111. 120, 24 
 
 N. E. 770— pp. 2419, 3024. 
 
 V. Pelletier, 33 111. App. 455— 
 
 p. 2485. 
 
 Pope V. 
 
 Potts r. 
 
 V. Pural, 79 N. E. 686, 224 
 
 111. 324— pp. 1740, 2605, 2811, 
 2861. 
 
 V. Pural, 127 111. App. 652— 
 
 pp. 2606, 2697, 2975. 
 
 Ratner v. 
 
 V. Robinson, p. 2277. 
 
 — — T'. Rood, 45 N. E. 238, 163 
 111. 477, 54 Am. St. Rep. 478— 
 p. 2670. 
 
 I'. Rood, 62 111. App. 550— p. 
 
 2204. 
 
 Schmidt r. 
 
 z: Schmidt, 75 X. E. 383, 
 
 217 111. 396— p. 2174. 
 
 V. Schmidt, 117 111. App. 213 
 
 —pp. 2116, 2206. 
 
 Sedoff V. 
 
 V. Shaw, pp. 1709, 2764. 
 
 f. Shreve, 226 111. 530, SO N. 
 
 E. 1049— pp. 1742, 2895. 
 
 V. Shreve, 128 111. App. 462 
 
 —pp. 1720, 1999. 
 
 Smaoska v. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 z: Smith, 80 N. E. 716, 226 
 
 111. 178— pp. 2952, 2976. 
 
 r. Smith, 124 111. App. 627— 
 
 p. 2340. 
 
 Szczech V. 
 
 Van Deventer f. 
 
 Ward z: 
 
 Wendling v. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 Wyckoff f. 
 
 :■. Wyckoff, p. 2796. 
 
 Z'. Young, p. 2806. 
 
 Chicago Consol. Tract. Co. v. Ma- 
 honey, pp. 3025, 3030, 3031. 
 
 Peterson f. 
 
 V. Schritter, 78 N. E. 820, 
 
 222 111. 364— pp. 1750, 2113, 
 2347, 2915, 2916. 
 
 f. Sehritter, 124 111. App. 578 
 
 —pp. 1742, 2342. 
 
 Wojczynska f. 
 
 Chicago Deposit Vault Co. t: Mc- 
 Nulta, p. 3252. 
 
 Chicago Elect. V'ehicle Co., Michi- 
 gan Cent. R. Co. "'. 
 
 Chicago Exch. Bldg. Co. v. Nelson, 
 64 N. E. 369, 197 111. 334— pp. 
 1488, 2232, 2353, 2902. 
 
 V. Nelson, 98 111. App. 189— 
 
 pp. 2149, 2227. 
 
 Chicago General R. Co., Dean_ r. 
 Chicago Junction R. Co., United 
 
 States f. 
 Chicago Junction R., etc., Co., 
 
 Willoughby t'. 
 Chicago Junction, etc.. Stock Yards 
 
 Co., Willoughby z'. 
 Chicago Lumber Co., Burlington, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Chicago Packing, etc., Co., Hobbs 
 
 V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 557, 558. 
 
 Chicago Portrait Co., Central, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Chicago R. Co., Commercial Club 
 
 of Omaha "'. 
 
 McDonnell f. 
 
 z: Scurr, pp. 3053. 3054, 3057. 
 
 Chicago Terminal R. Co. v. 
 
 Schmclling, p. 1532. 
 Chicago Terminal Transfer R'. Co. 
 z: Berkswitz, p. 1689. 
 
 •:■. Young, p. 2608. 
 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. z: Breth- 
 auer, 223 III. 521, 79 N. E. 287 
 —pp. 2646, 2713, 2714, 2849. 
 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Breth; 
 auer, 125 111. App. 204— pp. 2408, 
 2487, 2564, 3106. 
 
 V. Chicago, 199 111. 484, 65 
 
 N. E. 451, 59 L. R. A. 631— 
 pp. 27, 35, 43, 76, 77, 79, 126. 
 
 V. Chicago, 199 III. 579, 65 
 
 N. E. 470— pp. 59, 125, 175. 
 1643. 
 
 z: Duckstein, p. 2804. 
 
 V. Hampe, p. 2653. 
 
 z: Hanthorn, pp. 2394, 2925. 
 
 z: Kallberg, p. 2297. 
 
 V. Lawrence, p. 2173. 
 
 V. Leonard, p. 267 1._ 
 
 V. Lowenroscn, 78 N. Iv. 813 
 
 222 III. 506— p. 2928. 
 
 V. Lowenrosen, 125 III. .\pp 
 
 194— p. 2647. 
 
 z: Lundahl, pp. 2151, 2152 
 
 2719, 2814. 
 
 z: McClevy, pp. 2411, 2428 
 
 V. May, p. 2860. 
 
 z: Mee, 75 N. E. 800, 218 
 
 III. 9, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 725 
 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 71— pp 
 2678, 2978. 
 
 z: Mee, 136 111. App. 98— 
 
 pp. 1742, 2605. 
 
 — V. Mommsen, pp. 2671, 2692. 
 
 — v. Ncwmiller, 74 N. E. 410, 
 215 III. 383— pp. 2386, 2684. 
 
 '. iNcwmiller, 116 III. App. 
 
 625— pp. 2130, 2684. 
 
 7'. O'Brien, pp. 1520, 1537, 
 
 2932, 2933. 
 
 V. Olsen, pp. 2332. 2357. 
 
 V. Roberts, p. 2649. 
 
 V. Rosenthal, pp. 1536, 2864. 
 
 z: itraud, p. 2690. 
 
 Chicago Varnish Co., Central, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Chicago, etc., Coal Co., Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Chicago, etc., Co. v. Clements, p. 
 
 3840. 
 
 Eckerd v. 
 
 German z\ 
 
 Holland z: 
 
 Murray z\ 
 
 Peniston "'. 
 
 Walsh V. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Abels, 
 pp. 765, 821, 1075, 1397, 1418, 
 1427, 1456. 
 
 z'. Ackley, pp. 34, 36, 46, 
 
 116, 3493. 
 
 Adams V. 
 
 f. Adams, p. 2434. 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., p. 236. 
 
 z: Addizoat, pp. 3159, 3168, 
 
 3170. 
 
 Adix f. 
 
 Aiken -•. 
 
 z'. Alber, p. 948. 
 
 Albin -•. 
 
 Alford z: 
 
 Allen z: 
 
 Allender z: 
 
 v. Ames, pp. 553, 854. 
 
 Anderson f. 
 
 V. Anderson, p. 74. 
 
 Andrews f. 
 
 v. Arkansas, pp. 3447, 3450, 
 
 3457, 3503. 3508. 
 
 z: Armes, pp. 1883. 1886, 
 
 2232. 
 
 Armstrong z\ 
 
 v. Armstrong, p. 111. 
 
 -•. Arnol, pp. 1723. 1744, 
 
 1755. 1877. 1920. 1992. 2618. 
 
 Atchison v. 
 
 Attorney General z\ 
 
 Augustus z\ 
 
 Aultman Engine, etc., Co. f. 
 
 .\yers z: 
 
 Ayres t'. 
 
 Backhaus z: 
 
 Baermann z: 
 
 Baker z: 
 
 Baker Wire Co. f. 
 
 Banks -•. 
 
 ■:■. Bannerman, pp. 1573, 2442 
 
 Barber f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co.. Barker z: 
 
 z: Barnett, p. 514. 
 
 v. Barrett, 16 111. App. 1 — p. 
 
 1533. 
 
 V. Barrett, 16 111. App. 17 — 
 
 p. 2485. 
 
 V. Barrett, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 366, 80 S. W. 660— pp. 1770, 
 1779, 1821, 2874. 
 
 Barris v. 
 
 Bass z\ 
 
 Bates z\ 
 
 Battis V. 
 
 V. Baugh, pp. 188. 1282. 
 
 V. Beatty, 27 Okla. 844, 116 
 
 Pac. 171— pp. 753, 871. 
 
 V. Beatty, 34 Okla. 321. 118 
 
 Pac. 367, 126 Pac. 736. 42 L. 
 R. A.. N. S., 984— p. 3487 
 
 z: Becker, 32 Fed. 849— p. 
 
 z: Becker, 35 Fed. 883— p. 
 
 45. 
 
 Beery v. 
 
 Beeson v. ^, ., 
 
 V. Bell, 70 111. 102— p. 2121. 
 
 V. Bell, 1 Kan. App. 71. 41 
 
 Pac. 209— pp. 1705, 2923, 2927. 
 
 Benedict v. 
 
 v. Benjamin, pp. 402, 817. 
 
 Bennett z\ 
 
 V. Bensley, pp. 529, 893. 
 
 Berg v. 
 
 Bergen f. 
 
 Berger z: 
 
 Bergner z: 
 
 Bergstrom v. 
 
 Berkowitz ^•. 
 
 Berry z-. 
 
 v. Bcrwind, etc., Min. Co., p. 
 
 3747. 
 
 Bettis z: 
 
 Betts r. 
 
 Bigelow z'. 
 
 - Biggie I'. .„, _ 
 
 - v. Bills, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E- 
 611— pp. 1545, 2453, 2454, 2483, 
 2484, 2623. ^„ ^^ 
 
 - V Bills, 118 Ind. 221, 20 N. 
 E. 775— pp. 1862, 1863. 2484, 
 2768. 
 
 - T'. Bingenheimer, p. 2686. 
 
 - Black z: 
 
 - Boehl v. 
 
 - z: Boger, pp. 1636, ISaO, 
 2494. 
 
 - V. Boggs, p. 492. 
 
 - f. Bolton, p. 2247. 
 
 - Bond f. 
 
 - z: Bonified, p. 2249. 
 
 - Book t . 
 
 - Bosworth z: 
 
 z: Bosworth, pp. 522, 523, 
 
 888, 3259. 
 
 - Bowman v. 
 
 - Bowsher f. 
 
 z: Boyce, pp. 3114, 3113, 
 
 3116, 3118, 3119, 3168, 3170, 
 3171. 
 
 - z: Boyles, pp. 1532, 1762, 
 1908. 
 
 z: Bozarth, 91 111. App. 68 — 
 
 p. 1087. 
 
 :•. Bozarth, 94 III. App. 69— 
 
 p. 978. 
 
 - Bradley v. 
 
 Brady z: 
 
 z: Brandon, pp. 2694, 2842. 
 
 Brevig y. 
 
 Brignoli Z'. 
 
 z: Brisbane, pp. 1597. 1599, 
 
 1600. 2467. 2482. 
 
 Brown z: 
 
 Bryan :•. 
 
 z: Bryan, pp. 210, 2472, 3022, 
 
 3088. 
 
 Bryant z\ 
 
 z'. Brvant, p. 1569. 
 
 Buie 'f. 
 
 f. Buie, pp. 1749, 1755, 1991, 
 
 2170. 
 
 Bulte Milling Co. z: 
 
 Burgher z\ 
 
 Burgoine z\
 
 cxuv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Burke z\ ^ 
 
 '<.: Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 254, 255, 3658, 3823. 
 
 Burns t. 
 
 V. Burns, p. 1641. 
 
 Burrowes v. 
 
 z: Bvrum, 153 111. 131. 38 N. 
 
 E. 578— pp. 1684, 1745. 1884, 
 2249. 
 
 z: Byrum, 48 111. App. 41— 
 
 p. 2361. 
 
 -■. Cain, pp. 1981, 2734. 2806. 
 
 Calender-\'anderhoof Co. t: 
 
 T-. Calumet Stock Farm, 194 
 
 111. 9, 1 R. R. R. 162, 24 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 162, 61 
 N. E. 1095— pp. 981, 1032. 1033, 
 1049, 1351, 1353, 1466, 1472. 
 
 V. Calumet Stock Farm, 96 
 
 111. App. 337, pp. 1331, 1364, 
 1371. 
 
 f. Calvert, pp. 851, 859, 862. 
 
 Campbell v. 
 
 i'. Carlinville, p. 3512. 
 
 -'. Carpenter, pp. 1733, 1757, 
 
 1816, 2214, 2295, 2296, 3000. 
 
 Carrier i: 
 
 V. Carroll, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 359, 81 S. W. 1020— p. 3366. 
 
 z: Carroll (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 151 S. W. 1116— pp. 2495, 2851. 
 
 Carter z: 
 
 Cartwright f. 
 
 f. Casazza, p. 2564. 
 
 f. Casey, p. 1569. 
 
 Castelano z'. 
 
 Cavanaugh r. 
 
 Cedar Rapids, etc.. Light Co. 
 
 Central Trust Co. f. 
 
 T'. Chancellor, p. 1514. 
 
 Chapin z: 
 
 Chapman f. 
 
 z: Chapman, pp. 945, 951, 958, 
 
 1075, 3330. 
 
 Cherry v. 
 
 r. Chestnut Bros., pp. 1436, 
 
 1437, 1438, 3273, 3300. 
 
 z: Chicago, p. 58. 
 
 z\ Chicago, etc.. Coal Co., 
 
 pp. 85, 1180, 1195. 
 
 Childers v. 
 
 Chinn v. 
 
 z\ Chisholm, pp. 1574, 1615, 
 
 2712, 3020, 3084, 3085, 3098. 
 
 Christie f. 
 
 - Church V. 
 
 z'. Church, p. 3333. 
 
 Churchill z: 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 z: Claunts, pp. 1858, 2266. 
 
 z: Clayton, pp. 3139, 3140. 
 
 T'. Clements, p. 1275. 
 
 Cleve v. 
 
 Clute V. 
 
 Coates V. 
 
 — ■ — Coats I'. 
 Coine V. 
 
 z: Colbv, pp. 187, 188, 189. 
 
 z: Collier, pp. 2092, 2093. 
 
 f. Collins, pp. 3116, 3.o0. 
 
 Colsch V. 
 
 Commerce Comm. v. 
 
 Commercial Bank v. 
 
 Condran v. 
 
 Congar v. 
 
 Conheim z'. 
 
 V. Conklin, pp. 3133, 3144, 
 
 3149, 3150, 3185. 
 
 z: Conley, p. 2465. 
 
 Conroy v. 
 
 z: Conway, pp. 1408, 1425, 
 
 1432. 
 
 Cook z: 
 
 Corbett v. 
 
 Cornell Z'. 
 
 z: Cotton, pp. 3257, 3258, 
 
 3291, 3348, 3349. 
 
 Craker z\ 
 
 Cram f. 
 
 V. Cram, p. 135. 
 
 Cramblet v. 
 
 Cramer v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Cramer, 
 p. 3762. 
 
 Cream City R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Croaker z\ 
 
 Croom z'. 
 
 Crow z: 
 
 Curl z: 
 
 Curtis r. 
 
 z: Curtis, pp. 241, 3270. 
 
 Daley v. 
 
 ■ z: Dane, pp. 423, 3868. 
 
 Daoust V. 
 
 Daube v. 
 
 Daugherty v. 
 
 Davis z'. 
 
 z: Davis, 159 111. 53, 42 N. 
 
 E. 382, 50 Am. St. Rep. 143— 
 pp. 784, 981, 1033. 
 
 f. Davis, 54 III. App. 130— 
 
 pp. 784, 854. 
 
 Dawson z'. 
 
 Dean v. 
 
 Decker z: 
 
 DeKay z\ 
 
 Denman z; 
 
 Denny v. 
 
 Denton z\ 
 
 Deskins v. 
 
 Devine v. 
 
 z: Dewey, p. 2137. 
 
 v. Dey, p. 41. 
 
 •;■. Dickinson, pp. 816, 817, 
 
 848. 
 
 V. Dickson, pp. 2215, 2933. 
 
 Dieckmann v. 
 
 Dillnian v. 
 
 v. Dingman, p. 2244. 
 
 v. Dinsmore, p. 1895. 
 
 V. Doan, p. 2876. 
 
 Dobney z\ 
 
 Dodge v. 
 
 z: Dodson, pp. 429, 1201. 
 
 Dorn z\ 
 
 Dorr Cattle Co. z: 
 
 Dougherty z-. 
 
 • Dowd z\ 
 
 V. Drainage Comm'rs p. 58 
 
 z: Drake, p. 2817. 
 
 Dudley v. 
 
 Duell z: 
 
 V. Dumser, pp. 1951, 2180, 
 
 3322. 
 
 Dunlap z'. 
 
 z: Durand, p. 1936. 
 
 Dye V. 
 
 z: Eaton, p. 1686. 
 
 Eckerd v. 
 
 Ecton V. 
 
 Edgerton v. 
 
 Eickhof t'. 
 
 Eidem v. 
 
 Ellsworth z\ 
 
 Emery v. 
 
 z: Erickson, pp. 239, 1313, 
 
 1323. 
 
 Everett z'. 
 
 Faber v. 
 
 z: Fahey, pp. 3179, 3180. 
 
 v. Fairclough, pp. 3160, 3168, 
 
 3169. 
 
 Farmington Mercantile Co. 
 
 Faust z\ 
 
 V. Feintuch, pp. 3749, 3752, 
 
 3788 3794. 
 
 Fcldschneider v. 
 
 Felton V. 
 
 V. relton, p. 1981. 
 
 f. Ferguson, p. 2166. 
 
 Fick v. 
 
 Field I'. 
 
 z: Field, pp. 1548, 1549, 1556, 
 
 1557, 1936, 2651. 
 
 V. Fifth Nat. Bank, p. 1102. 
 
 z'. Filson, p. 24. 
 
 Finnegan z\ 
 
 V. Fisher, 66 111. 152— pp. 
 
 1852, 1854, 1855, 3044. 
 
 V. Fisher, 141 111. 614, 31 N. 
 
 E. 406— pp. 1953, 2175, 2180, 
 2345, 2940. 
 
 z: Fisher, 31 111. App. 36- 
 
 pp. 1937, 2755. 
 
 1684, 1715, 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Fitzgerald v. 
 
 Fitzgibbon t'. 
 
 '•. Flagg, pp. 190. 1599, 2468, 
 
 2479, 3083, 3084, 3085. 
 
 z: Flaherty, 66 N. E. 1083, 
 
 202 111. 151— p. 2746. 
 
 v. Flaherty, 96 111. App. 563 
 
 —p. 2331. 
 
 Flavin z: 
 
 Flexman, pp. 1540, 2042, 
 
 2055. 
 
 V. Flynn, p. 1682. 
 
 Forbes v. 
 
 Ford z\ 
 
 Fowler Comm. Co. z'. 
 
 Fox z\ , 
 
 Foy f. 
 
 V. Frazcr, pp. 1532, 1533, 
 
 1552, 1755, 1772. 
 
 Fuller v. 
 
 Furman z: 
 
 Galliers z: 
 
 Galloway ■;■. 
 
 Gamble-Robinson Comm. Co. 
 
 Gann f. 
 
 Gannon v. 
 
 z: Gardiner, pp. 932, 940. 
 
 z\ Gardner, pp. 3746, 3751. 
 
 Z-. Gasaway, pp. 210, 238. 
 
 Gates V. 
 
 z: Gates, p. 2085. 
 
 Gatton z\ 
 
 George z\ 
 
 z: George, pp. 
 
 2002. 
 
 German v. 
 
 Gilbert z: 
 
 Gilbert Bros. v. 
 
 ■ z: Gillett, pp. 608, 609, 690. 
 
 Glass z'. 
 
 V. Gore, pp. 2126, 2302, 2303, 
 
 2746. 
 
 Gould '■. 
 
 Gradert ?'. 
 
 V. Gragg, p. 1706. 
 
 Graham ■:■. 
 
 z: Graham, pp. 1596, 1597, 
 
 1599, 1601, 2467, 2468. 
 
 Graham Ice Co. f. 
 
 Green z\ 
 
 - Green Bay Lumber Co. z'. 
 Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. v. 
 
 Gregory z'. 
 
 v. Griffin, pp. 2431, 2462, 
 
 2475, 3106. 
 
 ^- V. Grimes, pp. 1111, 1112. 
 
 r. Grimm, pp. 1702, 1732, 
 
 1740, 1834, 2693, 2813, 2897. 
 
 Griswold z'. 
 
 ■:■. Groner, p. 1777. 
 
 V. Gruss, p. 2864. 
 
 v. Gustin, p. 521. 
 
 Habeck c'. 
 
 Hague V. 
 
 z: Hague, pp. 1764, 2240, 
 
 2673. 
 
 Haines v. 
 
 V. Hale, 83 111. 3(.n. 25 Am. 
 
 Rep. 403— pp. 1356, 1357. 
 
 v. Hale, 2 111. App. 150— p. 
 
 1012. 
 
 Haley v. 
 
 •;•. Halsell, 98 Tex. 244, 83 
 
 S. VV. 15— pp. 1462, 1463. 
 
 z: Halsell, 80 S. W. 140, 35 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 126— pp. 1463, 
 3248, 3310, 3404. 
 
 V. Halsell (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 81 S. W. 1241— pp. 1322, 1323. 
 
 ■ v. Halsell, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 522, 81 S. W. 1243— pp. 1002, 
 1003, 3i27, 3365. 
 
 V. Hambel, p. 2092. 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 
 :■. Hamler, pp. 2102, 2103. 
 
 Hancock z\ 
 
 Hanley v. 
 
 Ilannestead v. 
 
 Hanson z\ 
 
 Harden v. 
 
 z: Hardie, p. 2764.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXLV 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Hardin v. 
 
 Harding r. 
 
 Hard wick Tarmcrs Iviev. Co. 
 
 Farmers' F.lcv. 
 
 pp. 1007. 
 p. 1534. 
 
 1075, 
 
 pp. 
 pp. 
 
 P- 
 
 . App. 
 . .\pii. 
 
 2113. 
 1196. 
 
 327— 
 322— 
 
 pp. 
 
 2425, 2437, 
 
 pp. 
 
 2424. 3083. 
 
 1568. 
 
 f. Hardwick 
 
 Co., p. 3488. 
 
 Harklcss V. 
 
 T. Harmon, 
 
 1341. 
 ;■. Harrison, 
 
 Hart r. 
 
 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 
 
 Hartwig V. 
 
 Harvey v. 
 
 Hawrigan v. 
 
 Haverlund "'. 
 
 liawk V. 
 
 r. Hawk. 3< 
 
 2096. 221(.. 
 
 :•. Hawk, 4. 
 
 2215. 
 Hazard v. 
 Hazel r. 
 
 Hazzard v. 
 
 . V. Hazzard, 
 
 . llecker f. 
 
 Heitman v. 
 
 Heller v. 
 
 , Hemmingway r. 
 
 Hempstead v. 
 
 V. Henderson, p 
 
 Hendrick f. 
 
 Herman v. 
 
 Herndon v. 
 
 ',: Herring 
 
 2483. 
 
 Hewes v. 
 
 Hewett V. 
 
 Hillis r. 
 
 Hinckley v. 
 
 iloeger '•. 
 
 Hoehn v. 
 
 V. Holdridge 
 
 Holland v. 
 
 V. Hollis, p. 3002. 
 
 Hooper i: 
 
 f. lloover, p. 2337. 
 
 Hopkins f. 
 
 Hospes V. 
 
 f. Hosteller, pp. 1269 
 
 House r. 
 
 —. — Howard '<■. 
 
 Howe f. 
 
 Hoyt V. 
 
 V. Hubbell. p 
 
 Hughes -'. 
 
 Hull v. 
 
 Hutchinson f 
 
 V. Hvatt. pp 
 
 J.. Ig'o, pp. 1033, 1044. 
 
 Hlinois Match Co. t'. 
 
 Imhoff V. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 11 7. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 171 Fed. 680— pp. 3671, 3682, 
 3801. ^ ^ 
 
 -. Interstate Commerce Lomm., 
 
 173 Fed. 930— pp. 3643, 3644, 
 3804. 
 
 Iowa V. ,, ,., 4 1 
 
 V. Iowa, pp. 34, 36, 37 43. 
 
 44, 60, 64, 65, 1134, 1136, 1179, 
 3492, 3493, 3497. 
 
 V. Jaber, p. 800. 
 
 V. James (Kan.), 100 Pac. 
 
 641 — p. 1994. 
 
 r. Tames, 81 Kan. 180. 105 
 
 Pac. 4'0— pp. 1124, 1956, 2857. 
 
 Jeffries f. 
 
 Jenkins v. _ 
 
 V. Jenkins, pp. "14. /15i 
 
 894, 1160. 
 
 V. Jennings, pp. 1504, 150S, 
 
 1509, 2647. 
 
 Jerolman v. 
 
 Johnson "'. 
 
 Johnston v. 
 
 V. Johnston. pp. 293, 296 
 
 341. 
 
 Jolley V. 
 
 Jones V. 
 
 1 Car— j 
 
 3752. 
 
 1764, 2269. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. K. Co. r. Jones, pp. 
 
 35. 1134, 1135. 1136, 1192. 
 Junod V. „ 
 
 r. Kansas City, etc., K. Co., 
 
 - f. Kapp, pp. 608, 609. 693, 
 695. 
 
 r. Katzenbach, p. 793. 
 
 Kelly V. 
 
 :. Kelly, p. 2501. 
 
 V. Kelm. p. 772. 
 
 :•. Kendall, pp. 899.^ 916 
 
 r. King. pp. 499. 511. 645. 
 
 646. 648. 
 
 Kinnick v. 
 
 ZH r.'KTrby, pp. 499. 502'. 511. 
 533, 1315. 3631, 3648. 
 
 Kirk V. 
 
 Kiser V. 
 
 Kleszewski v. 
 
 Knowlton v. _ . /- 
 
 Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. 
 
 — ll t'. Koehler, p. 2150. 
 
 V. Koerner. pp. 1180, 1183, 
 
 1189. 
 
 Kreuziger v. 
 
 Kronshage v. 
 
 Krueger f. 
 
 Krug V. 
 
 Kyle V. 
 
 V. Kyle. p. 135. 
 
 Lackland v. 
 
 V. Lagerkrans, pp. 
 
 2325. 
 
 - Lamb ;■. 
 
 Lammert '•. 
 
 I'. Lampman, pp. 195 
 
 1885. 1899, 1911. 2226, 
 2313. 2351, 2724, 2743, 2749. 
 
 -■. Landauer. 36 Neb. 642. 54 
 
 N. W. 976. 54 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 640— pp. 1884, 2119, 2252, 
 2824. 
 
 V. Landauer. 39 Neb. 803, 58 
 
 N. W. 434— pp. 2259. 2673. 
 
 Larkin v. 
 
 Larson v. 
 
 Latta V. 
 
 f. Latta. 184 Fed. 987. 106 
 
 C. C. A. 664— p. 731. 
 
 V. Latta, 33 S. Ct. 155, 226 
 
 U. S. 519. 57 L. Ed. 328— pp. 
 731. 3521. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. f. McDon- 
 
 ough, p. 2722. 
 r. McElroy. p. 139. 
 
 McFadden v. 
 
 McGee v. 
 
 McGrew t'. 
 
 McGuire v. 
 
 r. McGuire. pp. 3457, 3464, 
 
 3465. 
 
 McKcon V. 
 
 McKinley v. 
 
 McKinstrey i'. 
 
 V. McLallen, pp. 190, 196, 
 
 197. 
 
 — McLean f. 
 
 — McManus v. 
 
 — McMillan v. 
 
 — Madl -.'. 
 
 — Manhattan Rubber Shoe Co. 
 
 2134, 
 
 205, 
 2248, 
 
 245, 44 
 P- 
 
 61, 41 
 60, 22 N. 
 Rep. 17— 
 
 Despatch Transp. 
 569, 570. 
 
 pp 
 
 p. 1908. 
 pp. 1501, 
 
 , p. 20. 
 1561, 2104, 
 
 217. 
 
 Laub V. 
 
 ■ Laughlin v. 
 
 Lawson v. 
 
 Lay V. 
 
 Leavenworth County Com- 
 missioners V. 
 
 V. Ledbetter 
 
 r. Lee, pp. 
 
 Leland v. 
 
 Lemke v. 
 
 V. Lena Lumber Co., p. 1198. 
 
 Lennon r. 
 
 Lenord v. 
 
 Leonard v. 
 
 V. Lewis, pp. 1745, 1812, 
 
 1813, 1840, 1985, 2843, 2951. 
 
 Leyser v. 
 
 Lincoln Grain Co. v. 
 
 f. Lindahl. pp. 1951, 2342. 
 
 Lindsay v. 
 
 Lindsley v. 
 
 Loeser f. 
 
 f. Logan, etc., Co., pp. 82j 
 
 839. 
 
 Long V. 
 
 V. Lowell. 
 
 1792. 2124. 
 
 2274, 2746. 
 
 Lucy v. 
 
 Mc.Mistcr v. 
 
 McCarthy v. 
 
 McComb V. 
 
 McCorkle f. 
 
 McDanicl r. 
 
 McDermott r. 
 
 f. McOermott, 
 
 McDonald v. 
 
 pp. 201, 1791, 
 2134, 2246, 2273, 
 
 144. 
 
 - V. Mann, pp. 1548, 2094. 
 
 - V. Manning, pp. 728, 742, 
 743, 745, 746, 747. 
 
 Marion v. 
 
 Marquette f. 
 
 Marshall Medicine Co. v. 
 
 :•. Martelle, p. 2264. 
 
 f. Martin, 53 Pac. 461, 59 
 
 Kan. 437, 12 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 4— pp. 1708, 2078, 
 2098, 2099. 
 
 V. Martin, 178 U. S. 
 
 L. Ed. 1055, 20 S. Ct. 
 2098. 
 
 Masterson v. 
 
 Mayne f. 
 
 V. Means, p. 2354. 
 
 f. Mehlsack, 131 111. 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 E. 812, 19 Am. St. 
 pp. 1572, 1722, 2516, 2929. 
 
 V. Mehlsack, 44 111. App. 
 
 124— pp. 2516, 2929. 
 
 Meloche v. 
 
 Menzell v. 
 
 Merchants' 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 V. Merrill, 
 
 Slerryman 
 
 Merz f. 
 
 Meuer v. 
 
 Meyer v. 
 
 ■:■. Meyer, 
 
 :•. Michie, 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. 
 
 f. Miles, pp. 1309. 
 
 1321. 1322. 3333. 
 
 f. Mill Elevator, etc 
 
 pp. 647. 654. 
 
 Miller z: 
 
 r. Miller, p. 3521. 
 
 T-. Mills, pp. 1889. 1891. 
 
 Milne V. 
 
 - Milroy -•. 
 
 Miltimorc f. 
 
 Milwaukee Malt Extract Co. 
 
 — ll Milwaukee Mirror, etc.. 
 
 Works v. 
 
 V. Minnesota, pp. 34, 36, 39, 
 
 40. 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, lla, 116. 
 119, 3668. 
 
 Minor ;•. 
 
 Minter f. 
 
 Mitchell V. 
 
 :. Mitchell, pp. 1291, 1483. 
 
 f. Mock, p. 2801. 
 
 [ V. Mohaupt, p. 2166. 
 
 I M6hr V. _,„„ ,„,„ 
 
 f. Montfort, pp. 988. 1049. 
 
 3291. 3326. 
 
 Moore r. 
 
 J-. Moran. pp. 1303, 2/82. 
 
 ZZ ?.^°M^rris. pp. 1304, 1305. 
 1333, 1341, 1344, 1466, 146/. 
 
 -2^v. itlL pp. 788, 1039, 1040. 
 1075. 
 
 .xote V. 
 
 Mueller v. 
 
 ;•. Mulford, pp. 3314. 331/. 
 
 1572. 
 
 1316, 
 Co.,
 
 CXLVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 etc., 
 
 3079. 
 
 "2 N. 
 
 2343, 
 
 App. 263 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. -•. Mumford 
 pp. 1889. 1901, 
 
 r. Murphy, pp. 2894, 2954. 
 
 Murray z: 
 
 Muster ?■. 
 
 ■ Myers ': 
 
 V, Myers, pp. 2122, 2218. 
 
 Mykleby '■. 
 
 National Bank f. 
 
 National Elevator, etc., Co. v. 
 
 J'. National Elevator, 
 
 Co., p. 541. 
 
 National Pole Co. '•. 
 
 Nebraska Transfer Co. 
 
 Neice ''. 
 
 V. Neimann, p. 779. 
 
 Nelson v. 
 
 Nevius f. 
 
 '■. Newburn, pj). 2441, 
 
 Newbv '■. 
 
 r. Ne'well, 212 111. 332, 
 
 E. 416— pp. 1953, 2087, 
 2757, 2888. 
 
 V. Newell, 113 111 
 
 —p. 2342. 
 
 Newman 7\ 
 
 ' i'. Newhouse Mill, etc., Co.. 
 
 p-i. 642, 653, 675. 
 
 Nichols V. 
 
 f. Noble, p. 1866. 
 
 z: Northern Line Packet Co., 
 
 pp. 3182, 3308, 3346. 
 
 7". Nuesch, p. 663. 
 
 O'Brien f. 
 
 i: O'Brien, p. 1578. 
 
 O'Donnell v. 
 
 z: Oglesby, p. 3485. 
 
 Oklahoma z'. 
 
 Oliver & Son •;■. 
 
 z: Olsen, p. 2494. 
 
 Olson z: 
 
 O'Rourke v. 
 
 Orr z: 
 
 Osborne z: 
 
 z: Osborne, ,.j.. , 
 
 3717, 3718, 3719, 3766, 3767, 
 
 Otto f. 
 
 z: Otto, p. 2937, 
 
 z: Owen, p. 1279. 
 
 Owens Bros. i\ 
 
 Page V. 
 
 Paine z\ 
 
 Painter z: 
 
 V. Painter, pp. 1219, 1220. 
 
 Palmer v. 
 
 V. Parkinson, pp. 2504, 2525, 
 
 2549. 
 
 pp. 
 1599, 
 
 2080, 2083, 
 
 pp. 3610, 3681, 
 
 1187, 1596, 
 2467, 2468, 
 
 ;•. Parks, 
 1597, 1598, 
 2479. 
 
 Parsons v. 
 
 Patee z: 
 
 Paterson v. 
 
 Patry z: 
 
 Pattee z\ 
 
 Patten z: 
 
 z'. Peacock, pp. 2479, 2564. 
 
 Peat V. 
 
 Peck V. 
 
 Peet v. 
 
 Peik z: 
 
 v. Pendergast, p. 1633. 
 
 People V. 
 
 V. People, 56 III. 365, 8 Am. 
 
 Rep. 690— pp. 221, 255, 541, 
 542, 727, 732, 748. 
 
 V. People, 69 111. 11, 16 Am. 
 
 Rep. 599— pp. 83, 97, 222. 
 
 V. People, 77 111. 443— p. ^39. 
 
 Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Peoria, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3303. ^ 
 
 Perkins v. 
 
 Pershing v. 
 
 Peterson v. 
 
 Petuson V. 
 
 V. Pfeifer & Bro., pp. 549, 
 
 566, 636, 663, 682, 3407 
 
 Pike r. 
 
 V. Pillsbury (111.), 8 N. E 
 
 803— p. 1499. 
 
 V. PilLsbury, 123 III. 9 14 
 
 N. E. ^2, 26 Am & Eng. R. 
 
 Cas. 241, 31 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 24, 5 Am. St. Rep. 483 — 
 pp. 1492, 1499, 1684. 1724, 2021 
 2032. 
 
 Pine Bros. z\ 
 
 Pioria, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 '■. Planters' Gin, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 421, 610, 635, 641. 642, 646, 
 650, 653, 662, 663, 669, 670, 672, 
 673. 
 
 Pledger f. 
 
 Plott z: 
 
 z: Pollock, pp. 433, 1281, 
 
 1475, 1479. 
 
 — — z: Pondrom, p, 2200. 
 
 z: Poore, p, 2001. 
 
 Porter ;-. 
 
 Post V. 
 
 z'. Posten, pp. 
 
 2098. 
 
 Potter z: 
 
 Powers 7'. 
 
 z\ Powers, pp. 284, 28 S, 
 
 1336. 
 
 Pratt c', 
 
 T'. Pratt, pp. 1300, 1313. 
 
 z: Provine, pp. 587, 816, 817. 
 
 "'• Pullman, etc., Car Co., 
 
 pp. 1837, 1936. 3447. 
 
 Quackenbush z\ 
 
 Quaife f. 
 
 z: Radford, p. 2479, 
 
 V. Railroad Comm,, 173 Ind. 
 
 469, 87 N. E. 1030, 90 N F 
 1011 — pp. 119, 3489. 
 
 z: Railroad Comm., 175 Ind. 
 
 630, 95 N. E. 364— pp. 65, 108, 
 117, 118, 133. 
 
 V. Railroad Comm., 132 
 
 Wis. 654. 140 N. W. 296— pp 
 3485, 3515. 
 
 Ralph 7', 
 
 7'. Ralston, p. 1756. 
 
 Randell 7'. 
 
 7'. Randolph, pp, 1838. 1839, 
 
 7'. Ransom, pp. 1999, 2011. 
 
 Ray 7'. 
 
 7'. Kayburn, p. 2365, 
 
 Reading 7'. 
 
 Redmon v. 
 
 Reed 7'. 
 
 Reeves v. 
 
 7'. Reyman, pp. 787, 895. 899. 
 
 Reynolds 7'. 
 
 7'. Rhodes, p. 2081. 
 
 Rice 7'. 
 
 Richardson 7'. 
 
 z: Rielly, pp. 2122, 2190. 
 
 Riley 7'. 
 
 z: R'iley, pp. 3081, 3098. 
 
 Robert 7'. 
 
 7'. Roberts, pp. 2479, 3082. 
 
 Robinson 7'. 
 
 7'. Robinson, p, 1803. 
 
 Rohrig 7'. 
 
 Rosenbaum Grain Co, 7'. 
 
 Ross 7'. 
 
 z: Ross, pp. 2034, 2607. 
 
 7'. Rowell, pp. 2085, 2086 
 
 2087, 2088, 2658, 2722, 2759 
 3067. > 'o^, 
 
 Rudiger zi. 
 
 Russell I'. 
 
 — — 7'. Ryan, 165 111. 88, 46 N, 
 
 E. 208— p. 1792. 
 ; V. Ryan, 62 111. App. 264— p. 
 
 2501. ' 
 
 St. Clair 7'. 
 
 Sanders v. 
 
 Sattler v. 
 
 — - 7'. Sattler, pp. 1526, 1528, 
 2240. 
 
 Saunders 7'. 
 
 Sawyer t. 
 
 7'. Sawyer, pp. 727, 894, 899 
 
 ZK Scales, pp. 2155, 2158. 
 
 Schaller 7'. 
 
 Scheiber 7'. 
 
 Schlag v. 
 
 Schlichting 7'. 
 
 ~7; 'I'- ?^i^i"elling, pp. 1537, 1701. 
 2272, 22/3. 
 
 Schmidt z: 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Schroeder 
 Lumber Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Schuldt, p. 1367. 
 
 Schumacher 7'. 
 
 7'. Scott, 42 III. 132— pp. 894 
 
 899, 910, 911. ' ' 
 
 S. W. 294 — p. 825, 
 
 Scott Bros. 7'. 
 
 Seigfried 7'. 
 
 Seymour 7'. 
 
 Shanahan 7'. 
 
 7'. Shannon, p, 1785. 
 
 Shaw 7'. 
 
 Shea 7'. 
 
 7' Shea, pp. 727, 760, 761. 
 
 bhepard 7'. 
 
 Sherlock 7'. 
 
 Sherman 7'. 
 
 Sherwood 7'. 
 
 Siemonsma 7'. 
 
 7'. Simms, p. 1087. 
 
 ~H)49' 3257"' ^^' ^^^" ^°°"*' '°'^'^' 
 
 Simpson 7'. 
 
 t'. Simpson, pp. 1833, 1836. 
 
 Skinner 7'. 
 
 Sleepy Eye Milling Co. 7' 
 
 ~7ToV Slattery, pp. 1329, 1331, 
 1384, 1454, 1470, 3629. 
 
 v.- Slaughter, pp. 3362, 3405. 
 
 Smith 7'. 
 
 — — 7'. Smith, 110 Fed. 473— p. 
 
 7'. Smith, 59 111. App 24^— 
 
 p. 1786. ' 
 
 7'. Smith, 81 III. App. 364— 
 
 p. 3326. 
 
 7'. Smith, 124 III. App. 627— 
 
 pp. 2011, 2340. 
 
 Snider 7'. 
 
 Solan z\ 
 
 7'. Solan, pp. 937, 947, 950, 
 
 955, 1073, 2092, 2098, 3480, 3481, 
 
 3302, 3504, 3505, 3507, 3513 
 3519, 3522, 4058. 
 
 Spalding 7'. 
 
 Spannagle 7'. 
 
 7'. Spears, pp, 1417, 1420, 
 
 1421, 1422. 
 
 Spencer 7'. 
 
 Spicer 7'. 
 
 Spirk 7'. 
 
 7'. Spirk, pp. 2415, 2455, 
 
 2621, 2852. 
 
 7'. Stanbro, pp. 341, 598. 
 
 Starr 7'. 
 
 State 7', 
 
 z: State, 86 Ark. 412, 111 S 
 
 W. 456— pp. 3425, 3303, 3308, 
 
 ——7', State, 51 N, E, 924, 153 
 Ind, 134— p. 3537. 
 
 v. State, 23 Okla. 94, 99 Pac 
 
 901— pp. 31, 92. 
 
 7'. State (Okla.), 128 Pac. 
 
 908— p. 125. 
 
 State Nat. Bank 7-. 
 
 7'. Steamboat W. G. Wood- 
 sides, p. 1148. 
 
 V. Steear, p, 3139. 
 
 ——7'. Stepp, pp. 1511, 1514, 
 
 2084, 2325, 2363. 
 z'. Stewart, p. 2150. 
 
 7'. Stibbs, p. 1719. 
 
 Stone 7'. 
 
 7^ Stonecipher, p. 1873. 
 
 Stoner 7'. 
 
 7'. Storment, p. 2268. 
 
 Strand z'. 
 
 7'. Stratton, p. 2834. 
 
 7'. Streeter 7'. 
 
 Stutz 7'. 
 
 7'. Suffern, pp. 210, 212. 
 
 Sunderland Bros. Co. 7'. 
 
 Sutton 7'. 
 
 z\ Swangcr, p. 3514. 
 
 Swedish-American Nat. Bank 
 
 7'. Swindlchurst, p. 3554. 
 
 7'. Sykes, p. 1773. 
 
 Szczepanski v.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXLVII 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., Taenzer & 
 Co. V. 
 
 Tallman t'. 
 
 Tcrre Haute, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 7\ Territory, p. 35. 
 
 Thomas ;\ 
 
 r. Thompkins, |)|). 34, 39, 52, 
 
 58, 115, 124, 129, 134. 
 
 Thompson *'. 
 
 V. Thompson, 19 111. 578 — pp. 
 
 5, 210, 236, 239, 240, 760, 767, 
 770, 3151. 
 
 V. Thompson, 100 Tex. 185, 
 
 97 S. W. 459— p. 940. 
 
 f. Thompson, 41 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 459, 93 S. W. 702— pp. 
 943, 1120. 
 
 J'. Thurlow, pp. 1501, 1524, 
 
 1536, 1539, 1558, 2292. 
 
 Tiller -. 
 
 V. Todd, p. 1323. 
 
 7'. Traccy, ]). 1537. 
 
 Tracy ?•. 
 
 - Tradewell -■. 
 
 Traffic Bureau Merchants' 
 
 Exch. V. 
 
 Trezona v. 
 
 V. Trotter, 60 Miss. 442 — p. 
 
 2681. 
 
 V. Trotter, 61 Miss 417 — p. 
 
 2966. 
 
 V. Troyer, 70 Neb. 287, 97 
 
 N. W. 308— p. 1568. 
 
 V. Troyer, 70 Neb. 293, 103 
 
 ... W. 680— pp. 1548, 2308, 2777, 
 2860. 
 
 Trust Co. r. 
 
 Tuley '•. 
 
 Tuttle V. 
 
 Uber -•. 
 
 ■ Ullman ;'. 
 
 Unionville Produce Co. ?•. 
 
 — — United States v. 
 
 r. United States, 156 Fed. 
 
 558, 84 C. C. A. 324. 26 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 551— p. 3731. 
 
 r. United States, 157 Fed. 
 
 830— pp. 3738, 3744, 3850. 
 
 V. United States, 162 Fed. 
 
 835— p. 3845. 
 
 V. United States, 91 C. C. 
 
 A. 373, 165 Fed. 423, 20 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 473— p. 3455. 
 
 V. United States, 194 Fed. 
 
 342— pp. 3621, 3626, 3627. 
 
 V. United States, 195 Fed. 
 
 241— p. 3621. 
 
 V. United States. 209 U. S. 
 
 90, 52 L. Kd. 698, 28 S. Ct. 
 439— pp. 3443, 3613, 3736, 3737, 
 3842, 3848, 3852, 3853, 3854, 
 3855, 3857. 
 
 V. United States, 212 U. S. 
 
 563, S3 L. Ed. 653, 29 S. Ct. 
 689— p. 3731. 
 
 V. United States, 219 U. S. 
 
 486, 55 L. Kd. 305, 31 S. Ct. 
 272— pp. 3495, 3605, 3765. 
 
 -^ V. United States, 220 U. S. 
 
 559, 55 L. Kd. 582, 31 S. Ct. 
 612— pp. 3450, 3452, 3456. 
 
 Usher 7'. 
 
 -'. Yan Dresar, p. 1 387. 
 
 Van Cilder ?•. 
 
 Van Patten f. 
 
 Vimont -■. 
 
 \'incent -'. 
 
 X'oelker t'. 
 
 ^'oorhees f. 
 
 — — Wakefield v. 
 ■ Waldron ?'. 
 
 ■ -: Walker, 18 R. R. R. 596, 
 
 41 Am. & Kng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 596, 217 111. 605, 75 N. E. 520— 
 pp. 1509, 1511, 2503. 
 
 • V. Walker. 29 Okla. 856, 119 
 
 Pac. 993— p. 3291. 
 
 f. Wallace, pp. 214. 236, 244. 
 
 Walter 7: 
 
 Walters f. 
 
 Walthers '■. 
 
 Ward ?•. 
 
 Wardwell t'. 
 
 7'. Warren, pn. 511. 526. 9lfi. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R". Co., Washburn v. 
 
 Waterbury z'. 
 
 Way -■. 
 
 - Welier V. 
 • Weber Co V. 
 
 Weeks f. 
 
 - x: Weeks, p. 3038. 
 
 :•. WehriTian, pp. 946, 9ol, 
 
 9(,9, 977, 978, 1348, 1397, 1398. 
 
 Weida J'. 
 
 Wcllman v. 
 
 V. Wellman, pp. 34, 46, 58, 
 
 60, 115, 116. 
 
 Wente v. 
 
 Wentz V. 
 
 Werner f. 
 
 — — Western Sash, etc.,^ Co. v. 
 
 V. Western, etc.. Grain Co., 
 
 p. 3340. 
 
 Wetzell V. 
 
 • Whitaker v. 
 
 White Live Stock Comm. Co. 
 
 3115, 
 3131, 
 
 436, 
 
 207, 
 1567, 
 
 Whitham f. 
 
 Whitnack v. 
 
 — - Whitney v. 
 
 V. Whitten, pp. 3113, 
 
 3116, 3117, 3119, 3130, 
 3197, 3199. 
 
 Wiggins Ferry Co. -'. 
 
 Wightman ,'. 
 
 Wilcox -'. 
 
 f. Wilcox, p. 2655. 
 
 Willard I'. 
 
 r. Willard, p. 2429. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 V. Williams, 101 Ark. 
 
 142 S. W. 826— p. 1084. 
 
 V. Williams, 200 Fed. 
 
 118 C. C. A. 393— pp. 
 2098. 
 
 v. Williams, 55 III. 185, 8 
 
 Am. Rej). 641— pp. 190. 191, 193, 
 196, 1943. 1944, 1950, 3050. 
 
 v. Williams, 85 N. W. 832, 
 
 61 Neb. 0O8. 55 L. R. A. 289— 
 pp. 1272. 1344, 1384. 
 
 r. Wilson, 63 III. 167— p. 
 
 3074. 
 
 -•. Wilson, 23 III. App. 63— 
 
 p. 2486. 
 
 V. Wimmcr, pp. 2909, 3035. 
 
 V. Winfrey, pp. 2119, 2249, 
 
 2267, 2319, 2671, 2777. 
 
 Winscott f. 
 
 Winsor Coal Co. f. 
 
 V. Winters, pp. 1531. 1537, 
 
 1567, 1793, 2125, 2911. 
 
 Wisecarver v. 
 
 V. Witty, pp. 1075, 1362, 
 
 1363. 
 
 V. Wolcott, pp. 210, 222, 224, 
 
 234, 235, 253, 254, 258, 260, 
 1142, 1194, 1195, 1196. 
 
 Wolf 7'. 
 
 v. Wolfe, pp. 659, 1764, 1765. 
 
 2671. 
 
 Wood 7'. 
 
 7'. Wood, pp. 1536, 1537. 
 
 7'. Woodward, pp. 727, 1292, 
 
 1329, 1351, 1454, 1456, 1473, 
 1474, 3251, 3258, 3268. 
 
 Wooley 7'. 
 
 7". Woolner Distilling Co., p. 
 
 711. 
 
 7'. Wool ridge, p. 2131. 
 
 - Woolsey 7'. 
 
 Wright V. 
 
 - York 7'. 
 
 Young 7'. 
 
 7'. Young. 102 Ark. 590, 145 
 
 S. W. 203— pp. 143, 144, 174. 
 
 7'. Young. 58 Neb. 678. 79 N. 
 
 W. 556, 14 .\in. & Kng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 343— pp. 1764, 1766, 2604. 
 
 7'. Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 107 S. W. 127— pp. 1299, 1322, 
 1336. 
 
 7'. Zernecke, 59 Neb. 689, 82 
 
 N. W. 26, 17 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 76, 55 L. R. A. 
 ,,10— pp. 1764, 1766, 2676. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. Zernecke, 
 183 U. S. 582, 46 L. Ed. 339, 
 22 S. Ct. 229— pp. 730, 731, 1686. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. Steamship Co. v. 
 Lynch, pp. 4000, 4002. 
 
 Chicago, etc., Tract. Co., Garner 
 
 Schlauder v. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. Transfer Co. i'. Kot- 
 
 oski, p. 2864. 
 Chickering v. Fowler, pp. 536, 
 
 540, 566. 
 Chiert 7'. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2465. 
 Childers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1033. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Childress, Craig i\ 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Childs 7'. Little Miami R. Co., p. 
 
 818 
 Chiles 7'. Southern R. Co., p. 2848. 
 Chillicothe v. Raynard, p. 3161. 
 Chilton 7'. London, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2062. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 196, 1944, 1945, 2854. 
 
 Cliilvers v. People, p. 3587. 
 China Mfg. Co., Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Chinn 7-. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1479. 
 Chinski, Gulf, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Chipman, Boston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chippewa \'alley Elect. R. Co., 
 
 \Vanzer 7'. 
 Chippewa, etc. , Elect. R. Co., 
 
 Wanzer '•. 
 Chisholm, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chittenden, Roberts 7'. 
 
 Robinson 7'. 
 
 Chittim, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chittv 7-. St. Louis, etc.. R". Co., 
 
 pp.' 2128, 2129, 2130, 2262. 2656. 
 Chlanda 7-. St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 pp. 2666, 2697. 
 Choate 7'. Crowninshield. pp. 752, 
 
 765, 820, 828. 
 
 7'. Missouri Pac. R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1558, 1953, 2342. 
 
 — — San .Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1766, 1990, 1992, 2220, 2222, 
 2892. 
 
 Choctaw, etc., R. 
 
 7'. Burgess. 
 
 — — 7'. Cantwell. 
 
 Crutcher 7'. 
 
 Harp 7'. 
 
 7'. Ilickcy, 
 
 2966. 
 
 7'. Hill. pp. 
 
 Co., Bourland v. 
 p. 1880. 
 p. 3053. 
 
 pp. 
 
 2916. 2944, 
 
 2493, 3017. 3032, 
 3079, 3080. "3084, 3088, 3102. 
 
 Lane 7'. 
 
 Rodgers x: 
 
 7'. Rolfe, pp. 259, 458. 459. 
 
 474. 
 
 V. Stanford, p. 2728. 
 
 V. State, pp. 92, 142. 
 
 r. Walker, p. 645. 
 
 7-. Zwirtz, pp. 3110. 3iM. 
 
 3115, 3124. 
 
 Chollette, Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Omaha, etc.. R. Co.. 26 
 
 159. 41 N. W. 1106. t L. 
 
 135— pp. 1/64. 3315. 3317, 
 
 Neb. 
 R. A. 
 
 33 
 
 Omaha, etc., 
 143. 49 N. 
 
 R. 
 W. 
 
 Co.. 33 
 1114 — p. 
 
 Neb. 
 
 1764. 
 Chorn 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2157. 
 Chouteau 7'. St. .-Xnthony, p. 110. 
 
 7'. Steamboat St. Anthony, 
 
 pp. 239. 277. 
 
 7'. The St. .\nthony. pp. 770, 
 
 771. 
 
 f. L^nion R.. etc.. Co.. pp. 
 
 116. 422. 
 
 Chouteau Transp. Co., Buddenberg
 
 CXLVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Chouteaux f. Leech, p. 770. 
 
 f. Leech & Co., pp. 788, 
 
 1008. 
 
 Chovin. State t'. 
 
 Chowning. Willis r. 
 
 Chretien -•. New Orleans R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2127, 2129, 2262. 
 Christall, I'lint v. ,, . ^ „ 
 
 Cnristensen f. Brooklyn Heights K. 
 
 Co., p. 2149. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2205. 
 
 z: Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1683, 1690, 1719, 2171, 2669, 
 2673, 2841. 
 
 Christenson v. American Exp. Co., 
 pp 320, 323, 728, 733, 749, 768, 
 986. 3369, 3371, 3911. 
 
 Christian r. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2814, 2848. 
 
 f. First Division, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 518. 
 
 Tones v. 
 
 Lombard, etc.. Pass. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Christie, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2500. 
 
 z: Davis Coal, etc., Co., p. 
 
 3940. 
 
 z: Galveston City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1767, 1880, 2637, 2656. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. K. Co., p. 
 
 1180- 
 Christie Grain, etc., Co., Board 
 
 ChVistl v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3750, 3761. 
 Christmas, Yazoo, etc., R. Co. i\ 
 Christopher, etc., R. Co., Kummer 
 
 Chudnovski v. Eckels, p. 1502. 
 Chunn z: City, etc.. Railway, 23 
 App. D. C. 551— pp. 2878, 2879. 
 
 z: City, etc.. Railway, 207 U. 
 
 S. 302, 52 L. Ed. 219, 28 S. 
 Ct. 63, 12 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 595— p. 2116. 
 
 Church V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3305. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 
 
 Neb. 615, 116 N W. 520- pp. 
 1268, 1454, 1456. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 6 S. 
 
 Dak. 235, 60 N. W. 854, 26 L. 
 R. A. 616, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 !<;, s., 1— pp. 1668, 1968, 2456. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc, R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3753. 
 
 Churchill z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1973. 
 
 Dantzler Lumber Co. z'. 
 
 In re. 
 
 Churchman, Wilson z'. 
 
 Chy Lung v. Freeman, p. 3564. 
 C. H. & D. R. Co., Ferrell v. 
 
 Howe V. 
 
 Shaffer & Co. z: 
 
 Smith z'. 
 
 Wittman z'. 
 
 Cicero, etc., R. Co., Kane v. 
 
 f. Meixncr, p. 2151. 
 
 Cincinnati Chronicle Co. r. White 
 
 Line Cent. Transit Co., pp. 847, 
 
 856. 
 Cincinanti Grain Co. v. Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 288. 
 Cincinnati Northern R. Co., Mercer 
 
 Cincinnati Northern Tract. Co. v. 
 
 R'osnagle, p. 3085. ■ 
 Cincinnati St. R. Co., Carney v. 
 
 z: Fullbright, pp. 1714, 2615, 
 
 2618. 
 
 Hollingsworth v. 
 
 V. Kelsey, pp. 1714, 2694, 
 
 2697, 2844. 
 
 McBee v. 
 
 V. Snell, pp. 2278, 2319. 
 
 Cincinnati Tract. Co. z: Baron, 
 etc., Co., pp. 1714, 1821. 
 
 Dougherty z\ 
 
 Goodwin z-. 
 
 Hamburger t-. 
 
 I'. Hamburger, p. 1824. 
 
 Holzenkamp z\ 
 
 z\ Holzenkamp, 74 O. St. 
 
 379, 78 N. E. 529, 6 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 800, 113 Am. St. Rep. 
 980— pp. 1503, 2685. 
 
 V. Holzenkamp, 3 N. P.. X. 
 
 S., 537, 539, 16 O. D. N. P. 
 673— pp. 1508, 1516. 
 
 f. Leach, p. 2187. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc.. Mail Line Co. •:■. 
 
 Boal, pp. 771, 809, 3898. 
 Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. f. 
 
 Bay, p. 3422. 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. z\ Aller, 
 
 p. 2528. 
 
 .Mtemeier z\ 
 
 Bailev 
 
 Ballard z: 
 
 z: Barklev, 
 
 2774. 
 
 Beiser f. 
 
 z'. Berdan 
 
 956, 959, 989 
 
 pp. 
 
 2425, 2634, 
 
 948, 
 
 & Co., pp 
 --, .__ 990, 1032. 
 .. Brandenburg, p. 2529. 
 
 V. Bravard, pp. 2693, 2779. 
 
 z: Brown, pp. 1714, 2682, 
 
 2697, 2844. 
 
 z: Carper, pp. 1544, 2126, 
 
 2127, 2227, 2607. 
 
 V. Carson, pp. 2447, 2459, 
 
 2462, 2664, 3078, 3079, 3080, 
 3083, 3098. 
 
 v. Case, pp. 1303, 1305, 1442. 
 
 V. Chester, p. 2604. 
 
 z: Cole, p. 3096. 
 
 z: Cook, p. 168. 
 
 z: Cooper, pp. 1707, 1971, 
 
 1972, 1991, 2121, 2997, 3008. 
 
 Corry ?'. 
 
 Coursel 
 
 Crawford ? 
 V. Dagner, 
 z!. Disbro\ 
 
 p. 1789. 
 
 & Co., pp. 1048, 
 1361, 1365, 1367, 1384. 
 ,■. Dufrain, p. 2248. 
 
 V. Eaton, pp. 2565, 2773. 
 
 Fairbanks & Co. z'. 
 
 ■;•. Fairbanks & Co., pp. 726, 
 
 782, 783, 3289, 3341. 
 
 Farley v. 
 
 Fatman z'. 
 
 Fatman & Co. z\ 
 
 ?•. Giboney, p. 1773. 
 
 Glascock 7'. 
 
 f. Graves, p. 1397. 
 
 Gray z: 
 
 z: Green, pp. 1346, 1481, 
 
 1482. 
 
 ?■. Greening, pp. 1454, 1456, 
 
 3284, 3327, 3388, 3416. 
 
 r. Gregg, pp. 1439, 3304. 
 
 t'. Grover, ])p. 1457, 1467. 
 
 Gwyn V. 
 
 f. n.ansford & Son, pp. 721. 
 
 848, 858. 
 
 z: Harris pp. 1612, lol.^, 
 
 2038, 2056, 2777, 3076. 
 
 . z'. Holcomb, p. 2374. 
 
 Hollingsworth i\ 
 
 Howe '■. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 V. 
 
 v. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. 
 Ed. 9^5, 16 S. Ct. 700, 4 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 223— pp. 
 3609, 3610, 3632, 3633, 3667, 
 3668, 3669, 3676, 3709, 3712, 
 3723, 3730, 3737, 3767, 3770, 
 3785, 3786, 3806, 3831. 
 
 z'. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. 
 Ed. 243, 17 S. Ct. 896— p. 3709. 
 
 z>. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, 206 U. S. 142. 51 L. 
 Ed. 995, 27 S. Ct. 648— pp. 3634, 
 3783, 3785, 3786, 3797, 3799. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. '■. Jackson, 
 p. 2703. 
 
 Jones c'. 
 
 z\ Kassen, p. 1972. 
 
 z: Kern, pp. 1454, 1458. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Logan, pp. 1462, 1463, 
 
 1464, 1465. 
 
 z: Lohe, 68 O. St. 101, 8 R. 
 
 R. R. 447, 31 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 447, 67 N. E. 161, 
 67 L. R. A. 637— pp. 2122, 2123, 
 2184, 2189, 2190. 
 
 V. Lohe, 48 W. L. Bull., 507 
 
 —p. 2128. 
 
 V. Lorton, pp. 1841, 2336, 
 
 2969. 
 
 McClain, p. 2354. 
 
 z: McCool, pp. 894, 899, 910. 
 
 z: Marcus, pp. 760, 3117, 
 
 3119, 3125, 3126, 3152, 3153. 
 
 . Mercer i'. 
 
 z: Miles & Son, p. 3309. 
 
 Mitchell I'. 
 
 v. Morley, pp. 1694, 1726, 
 
 1822, 1937, 2113, 2213, 2521, 
 2523. 
 
 7'. Mounts, p. 1777. 
 
 Muller 7-. 
 
 Murnahan 7'. 
 
 7'. Murray, pp. 2009, 2014. 
 
 Mussellam 7'. 
 
 7'. Paine, p. 3044. 
 
 7'. Parrott, p. 341. 
 
 7'. Pendleton, pp. 1334, 1473, 
 
 1474, 3267, 3410. 
 
 7'. Peters, pp. 1772, 2232, 
 
 2615. 
 
 7'. Pontius, pp. 319, 321, 322, 
 
 323, 333, 949, 953, 989, 3251, 
 3254 3342 
 
 '■. Kain'e, pp. 1968, 2074. 
 
 Reibel 7'. 
 
 Revalee, pp. 2268, 2655. 
 
 7'. Richardson, pp. 3046, 
 
 3047, 3049, 3065, 3066, 3074. 
 
 7'. Sanders, p. 1367. 
 
 — — Shrum 7'. 
 
 7'. Skillman, pp. 1596, 1597. 
 
 1598, 1599, 1602, 2467, 2473, 
 2476. 
 
 7'. Sleeper, pp. 2087, 2088, 
 
 2568, 2627. 
 
 7'. Spratt, pp. 792. 848, 853. 
 
 State 7'. 
 
 7'. Steele, pp. 352, 402, 598. 
 
 7'. Strosnider, pp. 3071, 3076. 
 
 7'. Stout, p. 3299. 
 
 7'. Taylor, pp. 2870, 3077. 
 
 7'. Troy, p. 20. 
 
 Tuttle 7'. 
 
 7'. Vivion, p. 2955. 
 
 ■ 7'. Webb, pp. 727, 732. 734, 
 
 746. 1309. 
 
 White 7'. 
 
 Woodburn 7'. 
 
 7'. Worthington, pp. 1705, 
 
 2596, 2602. 
 
 Zagelmeyer 7'. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc.. Railway 7'. Burk- 
 
 hardt, p. 2617. 
 Cincinnati, etc., St. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Lohe, pp. 2189, 2190, 2309, 2320. 
 
 Schwartz 7'. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., Tract. Co., Behm 
 
 713. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., Railway, p. 
 
 V. Rosnagle, pp. 2409, 2428. 
 
 Cisco Oil Mill, Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Citizens' Bank, Haas v. 
 
 7'. Nantucket Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 292, 770, 818, 1135. 
 
 St Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Citizens' Elect. St. R. Co., Sau- 
 van 7'. 
 
 Williams 7'. 
 
 Citizens' Nat. Bank, Blaidsell Co. 
 
 P. Fv. Co.,
 
 TAliLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXLIX 
 
 Citizens' Nat. Bank, National 
 
 Hank V. 
 Citizens' R. Co. f. Craig, pp. 1712, 
 
 1732. 
 
 V. Farliy, p. 1697. 
 
 V. Hall, pp. 1903, 2870. 
 
 Ihiclscnkanip f. 
 
 McKeon -•. 
 
 Olscn J'. 
 
 Seymour t'. 
 
 V. Sinclair, pp. 1812, 1817, 
 
 1821, 1822, 1978. 
 
 V. Wade, pp. 1827, 1987. 
 
 Wyatt ?■. 
 
 Citizens' Steamboat Co., Rathbun 
 
 V. 
 
 Citizens' St. R. Co., Anderson v. 
 
 V. Clark, pp. 2464, 2483, 
 
 2834. 
 
 Conner v. 
 
 Dresslar "•. 
 
 Furgason v. 
 
 V. HofTbauer, pp. 1960, 1961, 
 
 1982, 2297. 
 
 V. I-Iuflfer, pp. 2618, 2645. 
 
 V. Jolly, pp. 1519, 1522, 2143, 
 
 2293, 2330, 2586, 2925, 2926. 
 
 f. Merl, 134 Ind. 609, 33 N. 
 
 E. 1014— pp. 1711, 1740, 1969, 
 2617. 
 
 f. Merl, 26 Ind. App. 284, 
 
 59 N. E. 491— pp. 1518. 1880, 
 1901, 2143, 2516, 2517, 2551. 
 
 O'Roukc -■. 
 
 Prothero J'. 
 
 V. Shepherd, pp. 2066, 2595. 
 
 V. Spahr, pp. 1880, 2618. 
 
 V. Stockdell, p. 2835. 
 
 V. Twiname, pp. 1721, 1749, 
 
 2630. 
 
 Udell V. 
 
 V. Wagner, p. 2615. 
 
 V. Willoeby, 134 Ind. 563, 33 
 
 N. E. 627— pp. 2483, 3029, 3095. 
 
 V. Willoeby, 15 Ind. App. 
 
 312, 43 N. E. 1058, 58 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 485— p. 2042. 
 
 Citizens' Tract. Co., Cameron -.•. 
 
 Wrasse i\ 
 
 Citizens', etc.. Bank v. Southern 
 
 R. Co., pp. 353, 393, 872, 901. 
 Citizens', etc., R. Co., Beattie v. 
 
 Farrell r. 
 
 V. Twiname, p. 1817. 
 
 Citta Di Messina, The. 
 Citta Di Palermo, The. 
 
 City Bank v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 378, 3274. 
 City Council, Armour & Co. r. 
 
 V. Augusta, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3589. 
 
 ■:•. Shoemaker, p. 28. 
 
 City Elect. Co., McDonald ?■. 
 
 Turner f. 
 
 City Elect. R'. Co., Keeley v. 
 
 Mabry .'. 
 
 McDonald v. 
 
 Salmon j'. 
 
 -•. Shropshire, pp. 2053, 2482, 
 
 2534. 
 
 Turner r. 
 
 City Mills Co., Central, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7\ 
 
 City of Boston, The. 
 
 City of Kingston, The. 
 
 Citv of Portsmouth, The. 
 
 City Passenger R. Co., Ilealey v. 
 
 City Properties Co. f. Jordan, p. 
 
 3554. 
 City R. Co. V. Lee, pp. 1957, 2198. 
 City Transfer Co. f. Draper, pp. 
 
 3110, 3141. 
 City Waterworks f. White, p. 
 
 2642. 
 City, etc., R. Co., Anderson f. 
 
 ;■. Brauss, pp. 2564, 3054. 
 
 3089, 3091. 
 
 Harris t. 
 
 V. Svedborg, 20 App. D. C. 
 
 5..3_pp. 2320, 2687, 2909, 2938, 
 2984. 
 
 ■;•. Svedborg, 194 U. S. 201, 
 
 48 L. Ed. 935, 24 S. Ct. 656— 
 p. 2320. 
 
 P- 
 
 2313. 
 ., pp. 
 
 pp. 
 pp. 
 
 City, etc., R. Co., Wenzel v. 
 
 Wynn i'. 
 
 City, etc.. Railway, Cliunn v. 
 
 ;•. Findley, pp. 1748, 1749, 
 
 2826. 
 
 Civil Rights Cases, pp. 1945, 1948. 
 Claflin r. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 551, 728. 
 Claiborne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2060. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2116, 2208, 2519. 
 
 Clancy r. Dutton, p. 3943 
 
 -■. Vonkers R. Co., . 
 
 Claiiton V. Southern R. C 
 
 1836, 2172, 2225, 2884. 
 Clapp V. Minneapolis, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2737. 
 Clapp Bros. & Co. v. Peck, pp. 
 
 1211, 1228, 1229, 1232, 1233, 
 
 1234. 
 
 7'. Sohmer & Co., pp. 1211, 
 
 1225, 1226. 
 
 Clare v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co., 
 p. 2852. 
 
 Providence, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 T. Providence, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 1988. 
 
 Clariday, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Clark, .Adams i'. 
 
 T. .American Exp. Co., 
 
 137, 514, 515, 580, 640. ^ 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 2237, 2650, 2760. 
 
 Baker ?■. 
 
 Baring f. 
 
 f. Barnwell, pp. 332, 336, 339, 
 
 343, 732, 748, 752, 1035, 1036, 
 1037, 3884, 3891, 3896, 3897, 
 3900, 3901, 3903, 3921, 4017, 
 4019, 4023, 4030, 4031. 
 
 V. Burns, p. 3145. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 15 
 
 Fed. 588, 4 McCrary 360— p. 
 .2585. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 127 
 
 Mo. 197, 29 S. W. 1013, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 307— pp. 
 
 1723, 1738, 1999, 2011, 2015, 
 
 2694, 2699. 
 -^ Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Clyde Steamship Co., 
 
 3879. 
 
 r. Colorado, etc., R. Co., 
 
 1569. 
 
 Crawford v. 
 
 V. Durham Tract 
 
 1519. 
 
 V. Eastern R. Co., pp. 72.->, 
 
 726, 3174. 
 
 r. Eighth -Ave. R. 
 
 1718, 1719, 2182, 2193 
 
 V. Faxton, p. 3165. 
 
 Finn 7: 
 
 Fish f. 
 
 V. Geer, p. 2106. 
 
 ;•. Great Northern R. Co.. 72 
 
 Pac. 477, 31 Wash. 658— p. 2715. 
 
 V. Great Northern R'. Co., 79 
 
 Pac. 1108, 37 Wash. 537— pp. 
 2529, 2532. 
 
 Green v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Hagar f. 
 
 V. Harrisburg Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2489. 
 
 V. Hiles, p. 2678. 
 
 T'. Howard, p. 2504. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Israel v. 
 
 J-. lonesboro, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1595, 1596. 
 
 — ;•. Kansas City, p. 3775. 
 
 Lehigh \alley R. Co. !•. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • X'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 101 Ky. 34, 39 S. W. 840, 18 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 1082, 36 L. R. -A. 123 
 —p. 2202. 
 
 -'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 49 S. W. 1120, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1839— p. 2029^ 
 
 P- 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co., pp. 
 2286. 
 
 Clark V. Lowell, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1157. 
 
 V. Lynch, pp. 1219, 1220. 
 
 McDonald f. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., p. 2731. 
 
 r. .Martin, p. 1058. 
 
 Clark f. .Masters, pp. 530, 531. 
 
 V. Mauran, p. 1210. 
 
 V. Merchants', etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 1198. 
 
 ..iissouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3982. 
 
 Oil Creek, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 !■. Pacific R. Co., pp. 745, 
 
 746, 749, 750. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. i'. 
 
 !■. Richards. pp. 727. 732, 
 
 748, 752, 768, 3907, 3914. 
 
 T. Russell, pp. 1764, 1765, 
 
 1766. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 820, 1370, 1457. 
 
 f. Scandinavian - American 
 
 Bank, p. 2984. 
 
 Sharp f. 
 
 r. Smith, p. 2751. 
 
 Southern Kansas R'. Co. v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 — — '■. Ulster, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1292, 1294, 1295, 1297. 
 
 7'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2429. 
 
 r. Zarniko, p. 2119. 
 
 Clarke, Burk i'. 
 
 t'. Canal Co., p. 256. 
 
 i: Crabtree, p. 1170. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 '■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1587. 
 
 c'. Needles, pp. 286, 744, 882, 
 
 884. 
 
 7'. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3564. 
 
 7'. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 740, 1351. 
 
 Waring z-. 
 
 Clarke-Lawrence Co. z-. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co., pp. 551, 564, 
 580, 596, 597, 598, 599, 645, 
 668, 855, 1080. 
 
 Clarkson, Felton 7'. 
 
 Clastrier 7'. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., p. 
 
 3928. 
 Claunts, Chicago, etc.. R. Co.^ 7'. 
 Clay, Birmingham Elect. R". Co. v. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. 7-. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Claybrook 7'. Hannibal, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1665, 3089. 
 Clav Gin Co., St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7-. 
 Clay St. Hill R. Co., Cook :. 
 Clay Street R. Co., Tompkins v. 
 Clayton, Brown, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. Z'. 
 
 z: Smith, p. 1593. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Wallace 7'. 
 
 Clearv 7'. Bloomington, P. & J. 
 Electric Ry. Co., pp. 1745. 2000. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Cleburne Ice, etc., Co., Gulf, etc., 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Cleere, St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Clegg, -Atlantic City R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3694. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., p. 797. 
 
 Clement 7'. Boston, etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 2351. 2909. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 3674. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 513. 517. 
 
 7'. Phoenix Ins. Co.. p. 3792. 
 
 Clements 7'. Burlington, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., p. 600.
 
 Ch 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Clements, Chicago, etc., Co. f. 
 Clenientson i: Grand Trunk R. 
 
 Co., p. 1247. 
 Clemmens v. Washington Park 
 
 Steamboat Co., pp. 2666, 2913. 
 Clemmons, Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Clemston z: Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 p. 1221. 
 Clendaniel f. Tuckerman, pp. 564, 
 
 565. 
 Clerc f. Morgan's, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2117. 2118, 2119, 2336. 
 Cleve V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 
 
 N. W. 982, 77 Neb. 166, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. Am. Cas. 13 — pp. 1306, 
 
 1457. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 
 
 Neb. 158, 120 N. W. 959— p. 
 1338. 
 
 Cleveland, Cleveland City R. 
 Co. f. 
 
 t: Cleveland City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 78, 79. 
 
 f. Cleveland Elect. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 78, 79. 
 
 JefFersonville R. Co. f. 
 
 V. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co. (N. Y.), 5 Hun 523— p. 
 2756. 
 
 z\ New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 68 N. Y. 3"06— pp. 1561, 1563. 
 
 V. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co., 125 N. Y. 299, 26 N. E. 
 327— pp. 1688, 2029. 
 
 V. New Jersey Steamship 
 
 Co.. p. 2320. 
 
 Cleveland, C, C. & St. Ry. Co., 
 Huff V. 
 
 Cleveland City R. Co. v. Cleve- 
 land, pp. 78, 79. 
 
 r. Conner, pp. 1650, 2458, 
 
 2459, 2464, 3077, 3078. 
 
 r. Osborn, pp. 1687, 1995, 
 
 2006, 2667, 2668. 
 
 r. Roebuck, p. 2485. 
 
 Cleveland Elect. R. Co., Cleve- 
 land r. 
 
 f. Wadsworth. p. 2113. 
 
 Cleveland Iron Min. Co., Saw- 
 yer V. 
 
 Cleveland R. Co., Baeon <■. 
 Cleveland, etc., K. Co., Aronson -'. 
 
 z'. Backus, pp. 3552, 3571, 
 
 3572, 3591, 3592, 3594. 
 
 Bacon z\ 
 
 z: Bartram, pp. 191, 211, 
 
 1492, 1493, 1559, 1564, 1602, 
 1605, 1612, 1619, 1620, 1667, 
 1858, 1937, 1974, 2425, 3140. 
 
 Bass v. 
 
 Beam v. 
 
 V. Beckett, pp. 2468, 2470. 
 
 z: Best, p. 1502. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Butts V. 
 
 Cary v. 
 
 Case t'. 
 
 Clingan v. 
 
 z: Closser, pp. 113, 220, 222, 
 
 422, 1176, 1178, 1179, 1180, 
 1181, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1187, 
 1188. 
 
 T'. Colson, p. 2585. 
 
 Colton z'. 
 
 v. Curran, pp. 949, 1567, 
 
 1568, 2092, 2098, 2099. 
 
 Davis v. 
 
 V. Druien, pp. 939, 941. 
 
 Etter V. 
 
 Foster z\ 
 
 '•. Freiberg, p. 501. 
 
 Frieberg v. 
 
 r. Hadley, pp. 2117, 2118, 
 
 2682, 2683, 2791, 2925, 2970. 
 
 v. Harvey, pp. 1799, 2593. 
 
 z: Hayes, p. 3660. 
 
 z: Heath, pp. 745, 746, 1305, 
 
 1361. 1363. 
 
 Hen nigh z'. 
 
 V. Henry, 170 HI. 94, 83 N. 
 
 E. 710, 712— pp. 2, 214, 215, 
 244, 245, 417. 727, 732, 748. 
 951, 1720, 2102. 
 
 '. Henry 
 636 — pp. 
 
 3481 
 3503, 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ind. App.), 80 N. E 
 2092, 2104. 
 
 z: Hirsch, 3705. 
 
 V. Holden, pp. 700, 714. 
 
 z: Hollowell, p. 1372. 
 
 Hoyt r. 
 
 z: Illinois, pp. 35, 72. 97, 98, 
 
 3512, 3513, 3514, 3515, 3516, 
 3519, 3523, 3539, 3480, 
 3484, 3491, 3497, 3498, 
 3504, 3505. 
 
 I'. Jones, p. 1714. 
 
 V. Kennedy, pp. 1361, 
 
 I'. Ketcham, pp. 1564, 
 
 1566, 1760, 1761, 2206. 
 
 V. Kinsley, p. 1615. 
 
 Knecht z'. 
 
 — z'. Lamm, p. 700. 
 
 — V. La Tourette, pp. 322 
 956, 960, 981, 1003^ 1016. 
 
 — Leonard Seed Co. z: 
 
 — V. Louisville, etc.. Stove Co 
 pp. 782, 783, 784. 
 
 — McClurg ■;•. 
 
 — ■;•. McNutt, pp. 1033, 
 
 ■;•. Manson, pp. 1712, 
 
 1715, 1762, 2113, 2120, 
 2220, 2221. 
 
 — Manville z'. 
 — ■ z: Maxwell, p. 1873. 
 
 Moline Plow Co., pp. 
 
 1363. 
 15bS, 
 
 333, 
 
 R. 
 
 1045. 
 1714, 
 2126, 
 
 477, 
 
 479, 588. 
 
 Monevhun, p. 2167. 
 
 z: Newefl, 75 Ind. 542, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 377— pp. 
 1812, 1987, 2681. 
 
 7'. Newell, 104 Ind. 264, 3 N. 
 
 E. 836, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. 
 492, 54 Am. Rep. 312 — pp. 1740, 
 2843. 
 
 z: Newlin, p. 1413. 
 
 V. Offutt, p. 3069. 
 
 Parrill z'. 
 
 T. Patterson, p. 1365. 
 
 z: Patton, 203 111. 376, 67 N. 
 
 E. 804— pp. 1360, 1387. 
 
 z: Patton, 104 111. App. 550, 
 
 555— pp. 1292, 1353. 
 
 Penfield z: 
 
 i'. Perishow, p. 1361. 
 
 T'. Perkins, p. 1462. 
 
 V. Potts & Co., pp. 435, 588, 
 
 986, 990, 996, 997, 1087, 1102, 
 1110. 
 
 z: Rudy, pp. 798, 1339, 1353, 
 
 1408, 1429, 1430. 
 
 -•. Sargent, pp. 540, 541, 564, 
 
 773, 1217. 
 
 z: Schaefer, pp. 1027, 3396. 
 
 Schmidt "■. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., Railway z: Sites, 
 
 p. 2797. 
 Cleveland, etc.. Tract. Co. z: 
 
 Ward, pp. 1695, 1848, 2740. 
 Clifford z: Brocton Transp. Co., 
 
 pp. 573, 767. 
 Clift, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Clifton, Missouri, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Clinch Valley Lumber Co., Caro- 
 lina, etc.. Railway z\ 
 Cline z: Pittsburg R. Co., pp. 2667, 
 
 2690, 2886. 
 Clines V. Frisbee, p. 854. 
 Clingan z: Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 430. 
 Clinton V. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 2332. 
 
 z'. Root, pp. 2126 
 
 f. Worcester, etc 
 
 Co., p. 81. 
 
 Clippenger, Texas, etc., 
 
 Clisbee, Fisher v. 
 
 Cloes, Lake Erie, etc., _R. Co. z: 
 
 Close z'. Cooper, p. 1955. 
 
 Closser, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Clothworthy z'. Hannibal, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1884, 1899. 
 Cloud, Denver Tramway Co. ■;■. 
 Clough i'. Grand Trunk, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 955, 1575. 
 
 Packet Co. ■:•. 
 
 Clow z\ Pittsburg Tract. Co., p 
 
 2692. 
 Clowes, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v 
 Cluck • " , r, .^. _ 
 
 2853. 
 Clukey 
 
 2954. 
 
 Williamsport, etc., R. Co 
 
 2127. 
 St. 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 ■. Seattle Elect. Co., p. 
 
 pp. 
 
 p. 
 
 Scott 
 
 z: Scott, 
 
 2322. 
 
 Sellers z\ 
 
 Shoot I'. 
 
 Sisson V. 
 
 Smith v. 
 
 Starkey z 
 
 Stewart ?■ 
 
 V. Stewart. . 
 
 ''. Sutherland, 
 
 Tebbs V. 
 
 Voss z'. 
 
 z: Wal wrath, 6 O. Dec. 718 
 
 —p. 3234. 
 
 z: Walrath, 38 
 
 43 Am. Rep. 433, 
 R. Cas. 371— pp. 
 3225, 3226, 3231. 
 
 Warren v. 
 
 ,.. Wells, 61 O. St. 268, 55 
 
 N. E. "827— p. 69. 
 
 v. Wells, 65 O. St 
 
 N. E. 332, 58 L. R. 
 p. 143. 
 
 z: Wilson, pp. 285, 292, 997 
 
 1000. 
 
 z: Wright, p. 553. 
 
 Cleveland, etc.. Railway 
 
 ron-Boyle Co., p. 3307. 
 
 Knepfle v. 
 
 1561, 1562, 
 
 2611. 
 p. 2300. 
 
 O. St. 461, 
 
 i Am. & Eng. 
 
 1837, 2074, 
 
 313, 62 
 A. 651 — 
 
 P.ar- 
 
 Clunn 
 
 p. 1524. 
 Clute V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 496, 637, 681, 682. 
 Clutzbeher z\ Union Passenger R. 
 
 Co., p. 2541. 
 Clyde, Barclay z'. 
 
 7'. Brooklyn, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 1775. 
 
 z\ Graves, p. 831. 
 
 z: Hubbard, p. 3261. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 z: Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1701. 
 
 Clyde Coal Co. z: Pittsburg, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 469. 
 Clyde Steamship Co., Bachman v. 
 
 Billipger v. 
 
 7'. Burrows, p. 727. 
 
 V. Charleston, p. 3582. 
 
 Clark "■. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 Jennings "■. 
 
 — — Sea Coast Lumber Co. 7'. 
 
 Stone 7'. 
 
 C. N. Q. & T. P. R. Co., Citizens' 
 Nat. Bank 7'. 
 
 7'. Graves, p. 1454. 
 
 Coachman, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Coady V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2795. 
 Coal, Two Thousand Tons of. 
 Coal Co. z'. Estievenard, p. 2190. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Coal, etc., R. Co. 7'. Conley, pp. 
 
 44, 48, 49, 53, 66, 69, 119, 123, 
 
 134, 178. 
 
 Teel 7'. 
 
 Coal, etc.. Supply Co., Neilson v. 
 Coast Line R. Co. 7'. Boston, p. 
 
 2829. 
 
 Green z'. 
 
 Coatcs 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 114. 
 
 Cooper 7'. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 3290, 3312. 
 
 Coats 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 87 
 N E. 929, 239 111. 154— pp. 431, 
 988, 1033, 1045, 3250, 3257, 3330, 
 3347, 3357. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 134
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CU 
 
 111. App. 217— pp. 539, 932, 1026, 
 
 1046. 
 Cobb V. Beall, pp. 349, 478, 479. 
 ^.. UroVn, pp. 332, 3273, 3300. 
 
 V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2043. 
 
 Dows V. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 494. 
 
 f. Lindell R. Co., pp. 2597, 
 
 2905. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1810, 1844. 
 
 Cobb, etc., Co., Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 
 
 Iowa 601— pp. 210, 231, 250, 253, 
 261, 270, 277, 753, 871, 848, 
 854 
 
 f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 
 
 111. 394— pp. 246, 626. 
 
 Cobban r. Uoune, p. 280. 
 Coburn, Commonwealth •:■. 
 
 v. Moline. etc., R. Co., 90 N. 
 
 !•:. 741, 243 III. 448— pp. 2121, 
 2177. 
 
 V. Moline, etc.. R. Co., 149 
 
 111. App. 132— pp. 1559, 2178, 
 2780. 
 
 V. Morgan's, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1623, 1631. 
 
 f. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2229. 
 
 Cochran, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Dinsmore, p. 1037. 
 
 Cochran, etc., Co., Landauer & 
 
 Rro. V. 
 Cock, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Cocke V. Des Moines City R. Co 
 
 p. 2897. 
 Cockerel, Louisville, etc., R. Cc 
 
 pp. 
 Co. 
 
 Cockermouth & Worthington 
 
 Co., Harris -■. 
 Cockrell, Francis v. 
 :•. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 2293. 2308. 
 Cocrehani, Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Coddington v. Brooklyn Crosstown 
 R. Co., pp. 1721, 1722. 
 
 Ogdcn f. 
 
 Cody V. Central Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 1573, 1617. 
 
 V. Duluth St. R-. Co., pp. 
 
 2370, 2371, 2395. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. -<.•. 
 
 V. Market St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2688, 3000, 3007. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 T'. New York. etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1953, 2128, 2211, 2261. 
 
 Coe r. Errol, p. 3431. 
 
 Frink & Co. v. 
 
 Holliday i: 
 
 V. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 3 
 
 Fed. 775, 782— p. 3823. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 25 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1679, 78 S. W. 439 
 —p. 2280 
 
 Coeur D'Alene. etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co.. pp. 3665, 
 
 3668, 3681, 3719, 3756, 3766, 
 
 3767. 
 Coeur D'Alene. etc., Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Ferrell, pp. 86, 102. 
 Coey, Johnson '•. 
 Cofer. Southern R. Co. -'. 
 Coflfee V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3111, 3135. 
 Coffev f. Atlantic, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 161'. 
 
 V. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 79 Neb. 286. 112 N. W. 589— 
 pp. 2347. 2860. 
 
 Coffin, Atchison, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Coffin V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 p. 611. 
 
 Stout :•. 
 
 Coflin, Barker v. 
 
 Coger V. Northwestern, etc.. Packet 
 
 Co., p. 1950. 
 Coggin, Texas, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 Coggins, .Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Coggins Co., Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Coggs V. Bernard, pp. 729, 731, 
 
 734, 7pO, 752, 1759. 
 Coggswell V. Weir, pp. 1044, 1049. 
 Cogswell, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Strawn v. 
 
 V. West St., etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1559, 1561, 1750, 1817, 1827, 
 
 1841, 1988, 2004, 2073, 2080. 
 
 2194, 2636, 2920, 2956. 
 
 Cohen r. Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 2318. 
 
 V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2657, 2824. 
 
 V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., \>. 
 
 2785. 
 
 f. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2654, 2678, 2679, 2740. 
 
 x: Fro.st, p. 3145. 
 
 V. Hume, pp. 284, 1682. 
 
 V. Morris, etc., Exp. Co. 
 
 (App. Div.), 132 N. Y. S. 347— 
 pp. 1067, 1070. 
 
 -■. Morris, etc., Exp. Co., 136 
 
 N. Y. S. 489, 151 App Div. 672 
 —pp. 1067, 1072. 
 
 ■ V. New York, etc., R". Co., 
 
 pp. 3220, 3233. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., p. 1898. 
 
 V. Rome R. Co., p. 587. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3160, 3168. 
 
 -■. Sioux City Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1891, 2823, 2922. 
 
 '•. Southern Exp. Co., 45 Ga. 
 
 14S_p,,. 3257, 3291, 3295,_ 3300. 
 
 V. Southern Exp. Co., 53 Ga. 
 
 128— pp. 135, 586, 820, 3281. 
 
 '■. United States Exp. Co., p. 
 
 1049. 
 
 f. West Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1888. 
 
 Cohen Bros. v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co.. pp. 331, iU. 333. 337, 338, 
 339, 341. 585, 799, 808. 
 
 Cohn -■. -Adams Exp. Co., p. 939. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Piatt, p. 1282. 
 
 -•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 181 
 
 Mo. 30. 79 S. W. 961— pp. 94, 
 136, 137. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 151 Mo. App. 661, 133 S. W. 
 59, 131 S. W. 881— p. 75. 
 
 Cohn-Goodman Co. v. Wells-Fargo 
 
 Exp. Co., p. 1068. 
 Cohn & Co.. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Cohoes R'. Co. :•. Public Service 
 
 Comm., p. 70. 
 Coine z\ Chicago, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2711, 3084. 
 Colbath -'. Bangor, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 781, 3305, 3396, 3399. 
 Colbeck t'. Sampsell, p. 1542. 
 Colburn v. Oberlin BIdg., etc., 
 
 Ass'n, pp. 267, 294, 296. 
 Colby, .Atkins v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Colder, Laing v. 
 
 Cole -•. -Atlanta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 2016, 2040, 2041, 2057. 
 
 -■. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1997, 2820. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Georgia R.. etc., Co. -■. 
 
 V. Goodwin, pp. 1003, 1004. 
 
 1008, 3158, 3163, 3165. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. :•. 
 
 Cole V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1774. 
 
 f. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1054, 1074, 1454. 1456, 1458, 
 1470. 
 
 Persse :•. 
 
 V. Rankin, pp. 803, 810, 849. 
 
 864. 
 
 V. Rowen, pp. Ill, 112, 192. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. The -Atlantic, p. 3937. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 580. 
 
 Cole & Co., Georgia R. Co. v. 
 Coleman v. Allen, p. 2775. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Bruhl v. 
 
 f. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2249, 2511, 2512, 2514, 2540. 
 
 J e neks v. 
 
 '■. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2655. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1977, 2483, 2530, 2855, 3019, 
 3030. 
 
 V. Pullman Co., pp. 3472, 
 
 3581. 
 
 V. Riches, pp. 306, 308. 
 
 V. Second Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 2196. 
 
 Southern R'. Co. v. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co., pp. 1611. 
 
 1612, 1665, 1670, 1673, 1677, 
 3042, 3044, 3045. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 -'. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 p. 3550. 
 
 -'. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2051. 
 
 Coles V. Central R., etc., Co., 82 
 Ga. 149, 9 S. E. 127— p. 3386. 
 
 V. Central R., etc., Co., 86 
 
 Ga. 251, 12 S. E. 749— pp. 3250. 
 3257, 3263, 3291. 
 
 f. Illinois, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 p. 989. 
 
 t'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 320, 323, 727, 1012, 1087, 1096, 
 3326. 
 
 Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. v. 
 Southern Pac. Co. (Cal.), 46 
 Pac. 668— pp. 3276, 3296, 3352, 
 3361, 3394. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co.. 50 Pac. 
 
 775, 118 Cal. 648, 40 L. R. A. 
 78— p. 3257. 
 
 Colgate f. Pennsylvania Co. (N. 
 Y.), 31 Hun 297— p. 558. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania Co.. 102 N. 
 
 Y. 120, 6 N. E. 114— p. 557. 
 
 Colima. The. 
 
 Coll, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. :. 
 
 Collard i: S. E. Railway Co., p. 
 
 653. 
 Collenberg, The. 
 Collender ;■. Dinsmore, pp. 333, 
 
 409, 412, 532, 591. 
 Colleton Mercantile, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., p. 3546. 
 Collett f. London, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1575. 
 
 f. Railroad Co., p. 1578. 
 
 Collier. -Mabama, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. r. 
 
 -•. Swinnev, pp. 438, 630. 
 
 Tavlor & 'Co. f. 
 
 r. 'Valentine, pp. 3907, 3908, 
 
 3911, 3912. 
 
 Collins f. .Alabama, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 895, 900, 917, 1152. 
 
 .\tchison. etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 Baldwin :•. 
 
 ;•. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p. 
 
 3124. 
 
 :. Burns, pp. 562, 914. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r.
 
 CLIl 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Collins f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2385. . _ , 
 Masonic Fraternity lemple 
 
 Ass'n V. 
 
 Pharr 7: 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co., p. 1876. 
 
 r Texas, etc., R. Co., pp- 
 
 2033, 2091. ^ ^ 
 
 V Toledo, etc., R. Co., PP- 
 
 2500, 2544, 2733. 
 
 Witzler f. ^ _ 
 
 Collins Park, etc., R. Co., Free- 
 man >'. _ 
 
 Collinsworth, Chesapeake, etc., K. 
 
 Collison' f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1988, 2719. 
 CoUman z: Collins, pp. 11 38, lls9. 
 Colly, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Colombia, The. 
 Colombo, The. 
 
 Colorado Cent. R. Co., White v. 
 Colorado Fuel, etc., Co., Southern 
 
 Pac. Co. i: 
 Colorado Mid. R. Co. f. McGarry, 
 
 pp. 2761, 2762, 2980. 
 
 Morris v. 
 
 Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Allen, p. 1745. 
 
 Farrier v. 
 
 Montgomery z: 
 
 ,.. Petit, pp. 1517, 2680, 2836. 
 
 Snyder v. 
 
 Colorado, etc., R. Co., Adams v. 
 
 Bleecker v. 
 
 z\ Breniman, p. 1278. 
 
 Clark z: 
 
 Consumers' League v. 
 
 V. McGeorge, pp. 1728, 1742. 
 
 ',.. Manatt, pp. 948, 972, 1055, 
 
 1070. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 Colsch z: Chicago, etc., K. Co., 149 
 Iowa 176, 127 N. W. 198 34 
 L R A., N. S., 1013, Ann. Cas. 
 1912 C. 915— p. 1270. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Iowa), 117 N. W. 281— pp. 
 1333, 1347, 1353, 1354, 1363, 
 1366, 1377, 1454, 1456, 1466, 
 1467. „ ^ 
 
 Colson, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Colt zj. McMechen, pp. 728, /33, 
 
 737, 749, 821. 
 Colton V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1037. 
 
 v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1633. 
 
 Columbia Elect. St. R., etc., Co., 
 Dennis v. 
 
 Harrell z: 
 
 Wade V. 
 
 Columbia Elect., etc., Co. Wade i;. 
 Columbia Grocery Co. v. L. & IN. 
 
 R., p. 3679. 
 Columbia R., etc., Co., Wise v. 
 Columbia River, etc., R. Co., Gray 
 
 Columbia Southern R. Co., Radley 
 
 Columbia St. R., etc., Co., Norton 
 
 Columbia Transfer Co. Model 
 
 Clothing Co. 1'. 
 Columbia, etc.. Elect. R. Co., 
 
 White V. 
 Columbia, etc.. Power Co., Wade 
 
 V. 
 
 Columbia, etc.. Railroad, Battle v. 
 
 Dickerson v. 
 
 Columbia, etc., R. Co., Abrahams 
 
 V. 
 
 Baldwin, etc.. Land Co. v. 
 
 Berley v. 
 
 Cobb V. 
 
 Comer v. 
 
 Faulk V. 
 
 Felder z\ 
 
 Fischer v. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 Columbia, etc., R. Co. f. Means, 
 p. 2914. 
 
 Moore z\ 
 
 Oliver z: 
 
 Pate z: 
 
 Piedmont Mfg. Co. f. 
 
 Pool z: 
 
 Radley z: 
 
 Wallingford ?'. 
 
 Columbia, etc.. Steamboat Co., An- 
 
 drus z\ 
 
 Columbian Ins. Co. z: Catlett, pp. 
 3944, 3946. 
 
 Columbian Nat. Bank z: White p. 
 396. 
 
 Columbus Iron, etc., Co. z\ Kan- 
 awha, etc., R. Co., p. 3820. 
 
 Columbus R. Co. v. Asbell, pp. 
 1535, 2303, 2319, 2860, 2882. 
 
 Holland z: 
 
 Columbus R., etc., Co., Judge v. 
 Columbus RoUing-Mill, Minneapolis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Columbus, etc., K. Co., Cox z: 
 
 V. Farrell, pp. 1780, 1924. 
 
 v. Flournoy, pp. 533, 611, 
 
 Kennedy, pp- 
 1454, 1456. 
 Ludden, pp. 8 
 
 820, 
 95, 900, 
 1544, 
 
 824, 
 905, 
 1593, 
 
 Powell, pp 
 
 2528, 2607. 
 
 T'. Tillman, p. 3412. 
 
 V. Wright, p. 3591. 
 
 Colver, Griffin v. 
 
 Colvin V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2830. 
 Colwell z'. Manhattan R. Co., p, 
 
 2354. 
 Combes, 
 Combs, 
 
 Co. v. 
 
 Central Railroad z'. 
 
 Central R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Lakewood, p. 29. 
 
 Combs & Co., Stadhecker z'. 
 Comer ■;■. Columbia, etc., R. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. ■ 
 Central Kentucky 
 
 Tract. 
 
 Co., 
 1634, 
 
 pp. 1366, 1475, 1478, 3304. 
 
 z: Foley, pp. 1616, 1617, 
 
 2664, 3099, 3319. 
 
 Stewart t'. 
 
 V. Stewart, pp. 1289, 1365^ 
 
 1367, 1377. 
 
 Comerford z'. New York, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 2358, 2931. 
 Comfort, Chappell z'. 
 Comly V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1509, 1515. 
 Commander-in-Chief, pp. 3890, 3897, 
 
 3898, 3899. 
 Commander-in-Chief, The. 
 Commerce, The. 
 Commerce Comm. z'. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 3634. 
 Commercen, The. 
 Commercial Bank v. Armsby Co., 
 
 pp. 361, 390. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 548. 
 
 North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pfeiffer, p. 382. 
 
 v. Hurt, pp. 356, 369. 
 
 Commercial Club of Omaha z\ Chi- 
 cago R'. Co., p. 3679. 
 
 Commercial Guano Co., Savannah, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Commercial Nat. Bank f. Heil- 
 
 bronner, p. 352. 
 
 North Pennsylvania R. Co. z\ 
 
 Commercial State Bank, Ladd, etc., 
 
 Bank v. 
 Commercial Union Ins. Co., St 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Commins z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 681, 684. 
 Commissioners of Taxes and As 
 
 sessments, People v. 
 Commonwealth, Adams Exp. Co. v 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 38. 
 
 Commonwealth, Berea College v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p. 
 
 181. 
 
 • V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 65 
 
 Mass. (11 Cush.) 512— p. 179. 
 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Corp., 134 
 
 Mass. 211— p. 179. 
 
 Z'. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1517, 1531. 
 
 f. Breakwater Co., pp. 3505, 
 
 3506. 
 
 z: Brockton St. R. Co., p. 
 
 20()9. 
 
 ?'. Carey, p. 111. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 101 Ky. 159, 40 S. W. 250, 19 
 Ky. L. Rep. 329— p. 3484. 
 
 z\ Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1886, 72 S. W. 
 360— p. 180. 
 
 v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1887, 72 S. W. 
 758— p. 180. 
 
 I'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1888, 72 S. W. 
 361— pp. 178, 180. 
 
 z: Coburn, pp. 179, 181. 
 
 V. Connecticut R. Co., p. 147. 
 
 V. Connecticut N'alley St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 68, 69. 
 
 z'. Corey, p. 257. 
 
 Crigler z: 
 
 Delaware, etc.. Canal Co. z'. 
 
 z: Eastern R. Co.. 71 Mass. 
 
 (5 Gray) 473— p. 180. 
 
 V. Eastern K. Co., 103 Mass. 
 
 254, 4 Am. Rep. 555— pp. 255, 
 1857. 
 
 ?■. Erie R. Co., pp. 3566, 
 
 3567. 
 
 ■;•. Fitchburg R. Co., p. 183. 
 
 Henderson Bridge Co. z'. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Tones, pp. 183, 1646. 
 
 z: "Keary, p. 3499. 
 
 V. Killian, p. 185. 
 
 z\ Lehigh Valley R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3551, 3560. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. •;•. 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 20 
 
 Kv. L. Rep. 491, 46 S. W. 700— 
 p." 84. 
 
 - z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 112 
 Ky. 75, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1382. 
 65 S. W. 158— p. 180. 
 
 - 7'. McGinn, p. 2424. 
 
 - z: Mansfield, p. 2422. 
 
 - z'. Marcum, p. 2417. 
 
 - V. Mobile, etc., R. Co., p. 
 3472. 
 
 - New York, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 - z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3573. 
 
 — • Norfolk, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 - z\ Old Dominion Steamship 
 Co. z: 
 
 - Pennsylvania R. Co. 7'. 
 
 - 7'. People's Exp. Co., pp. 546, 
 3434. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., Steamship 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Power, pp. Ill, 191, 201, 
 
 2420, 2423, 25.28. 
 
 Robertson 7'. 
 
 Ryinan Steamboat Line Co. 
 
 z: Sandford, p. 180. 
 
 z: Selliger, p. 3590. 
 
 7'. Smith, p. 3577. 
 
 Southern Railway 7'. 
 
 Southern Ry. Co. ?'. 
 
 7'. Vermont, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 179, 182, 1586. 
 
 United States Fidelity, etc., 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 \'irginia Passenger, etc., Co. 
 
 Washington Southern R. Co.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLIII 
 
 Mfg. Co., 
 
 Pullman's 
 
 I'ullman's 
 
 Cie, De 
 
 I'tc, Vapeur 
 
 etc 
 
 Comnionwcaltli, Washington, etc., 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 WinchcstcT, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Worcester, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 141. 
 
 Commonwealth Cotton 
 
 .Mabania, etc., R. Co. 
 Commonwealth, Xo. 1, 
 
 I'alace Car Co. '•. 
 Commonwealth, No. 2, 
 
 I'alace Car Co. -•. 
 Compagnie Francaise, 
 
 I'elice 7'. 
 Compagnie Francaise, 
 
 V. Louisiana State Board, p. 3441. 
 Compania, etc.. La Flecha v. 
 
 Brauer, pp. 947, 950. 952, 960, 
 
 1012, 3911, 4018, 4020, 4022, 
 
 4023, 4024, 4026. 
 Compania, etc., Navegacion v. 
 
 Spanish-.Vmerican Light, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 381.5, 38(.7, _38(.8. 
 Compagnie Generale Transatlanti- 
 
 quc Donovan v. 
 
 People r. 
 
 Weinberger v. 
 
 Companhia Ue Moagens De Barre- 
 
 iro, London Assur. v. 
 Compta, The. 
 Compton, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 1675. 
 
 Southern, etc., Tract. Co. v. 
 
 V. Van V'olkenburgh, pp. 2422, 
 
 2847. 
 
 V. Western Stage Co., p. 
 
 3249. 
 
 Comptoir d'Escompt de Paris, 
 
 Rodger v. 
 Comstock, In re v. 
 
 Shannon '■. 
 
 Conard v. .Atlantic Ins. Co., pp. 
 
 364, 367, 369, i7i, 378, 383, 542, 
 
 3274. 
 Conatser, Little Rock, etc., R 
 
 Co. 
 
 Concord Railroad, Osgood f. 
 
 Welch V. 
 
 Concord R. Corp., Johnson v. 
 
 Murch f. 
 
 Thorp V. 
 
 Concord St. Railway, Bass v. 
 Concord, etc.. Railroad, Cutler v. 
 
 T. Forsaith, pp. 1181, 1182, 
 
 1188. 
 
 Conder, Gulf, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Condict '•. ("jrand Trunk R'. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 4 Lans 106— p. 3259. 
 
 f. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 
 
 N. Y. 500— pp. 628. 742. 
 
 Condict & Co. V. Rosenfield & 
 Son, pp. 1220, 1227, 1229, 1233, 
 1248, 1249. 
 
 Condon, Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 -'. Marquette, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 885, 886, 3264, 3287, 3301. 
 
 Condor, .Atlanta, etc.. Railroad f. 
 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Condran v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1572. 
 Cone V. Southern Railway, pp. 273, 
 
 286, 3134, 3135, 3139. 
 Conestoga Tract. Co., Gensemer f. 
 Coneton j'. Old Colony St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1905, 2825. 
 Coney Island Co 
 
 Dennan, p. 
 Co., Catal- 
 
 4002. 
 Coney Island, etc., R. 
 anotto '■. 
 
 Cross ?'. 
 
 Lansing v. 
 
 Murphy -■. 
 
 Sheeron '■. 
 
 Congar v. Chicago, etc 
 
 pp. 562, 753, 756. 
 
 T'. Galena, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 364, 478, 479, 484, 869, 
 3298. 
 
 Conger v. Hudson River R. 
 pp. 628. 654, 728. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 9.72, 
 
 Conger v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2785. 
 Congress, etc., R. Co., Brown r. 
 Conheim v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 674, 3157, 3198. 
 Conkey V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 885, 887, 3284, 3302. 
 Conklin, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 — — -'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2501. 
 Conkling v. Brooklyn Lumber Co., 
 
 p. 3963. 
 Conley, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Coal, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Forty Second St., etc., R'. 
 
 Co., p. 2249. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2587. 
 
 V. Sherman, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 151. 
 
 White V. 
 
 Conly, Sherman, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Connaughton v. Brooklyn, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2787. 
 Connecticut Co., De Cecco v. 
 
 Kebbe V. 
 
 Kruck V. 
 
 Moffit V. 
 
 Powers f. 
 
 Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie 
 R. Co., p. 793. 
 
 Connecticut R. Co., Common- 
 wealth V. 
 
 Connecticut R., etc., Co., El- 
 wood '■. 
 
 Connecticut River R. Co., Bas- 
 sett V. 
 
 Blaisdell v. 
 
 Morse v. 
 
 Nutting V. 
 
 Stimson f. 
 
 Connecticut River Steamboat 
 
 Co., Hall V. 
 
 Connecticut N'alley St. R. Co., 
 Commonwealth v. 
 
 Sawin '■. 
 
 Connecting Terminal R. Co. v. 
 Miller, 70 N. E. 472, 178 N. Y. 
 194 — p. 3563. 
 
 r. Miller, 82 N. Y. S. 582, 
 
 84 App. Div. 174 — p. 3590. 
 
 Connecticut, etc., R'. Co., Beard f. 
 
 Harvey v. 
 
 Connell f. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1692, 1715, 1723, 1735, 
 2016, 2031, 2671, 3209. 
 
 Hestonville Passenger R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 -'. Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1872, 1873. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2035. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. "'. 
 
 V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2954, 2977 
 
 Connelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 60 
 Hun. 495, 39 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 561, 15 N. Y. S. 176— p. 1680. 
 
 ;•. Manhattan R. Co., 142 N. 
 
 Y. i77, 37 N. E. 462— pp. 1982, 
 2000. 
 
 Conner f. Citizens' St. R. Co.. 
 105 Ind. 62. 4 N. E. 441, 26 
 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 210. 55 \m. 
 Rep. 177— pp. 1880, 2152. 
 
 :•. Citizens' St. R. Co., 45 X. 
 
 E. 662, 146 Ind. 430— pp. 1861, 
 2370 
 
 Cleveland City R. Co. t-. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2866. 
 
 Connolly. Lawson v. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2276. 
 
 T'. Warren, pp. 3115, 3119, 
 
 3123, 3131. 
 
 Connor v. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 p. 2830. 
 
 R. Co.. Poole V. 
 
 Connors v. Cunard Steamship Co.. 
 p. 3976. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3849. 
 
 Conolly s". Crescent City R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2488. 
 
 Conqueror, The. 
 
 Conrad v. De Montcourt, p. 3943. 
 
 Conrad Schoop Fruit Co. v. Pitts- 
 burg, etc., R. Co., pp. 873, 1113. 
 
 Conroy v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 p. 1535. 
 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1527, 1772, 1962, 1970, 2166. 
 2406, 2918. 
 
 V. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 pp. 2688, 2799. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2113. 
 
 Consolidated Cattle Co., Atchison, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Consolidated Coal Co., St. Louis v. 
 Consolidated Klevator Co., \'cga 
 
 Steamship Co. v. 
 Consolidated li. Co., Chaffee r. 
 
 Cosgrove v. 
 
 Lebov V. 
 
 Norton -■. 
 
 Sperry v. 
 
 Consolidated St. 
 
 Consolidated Tobacco Co., Ikel- 
 
 heinier ;•. 
 Consolidated Tract. Co.. Flynn v. 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 Friedman -'. 
 
 Sowash f. 
 
 V. Taborn, pp. 1647, 2432. 
 
 2475. 
 
 V. Thalheimer. pp. 2234. 
 
 2688. 
 
 Whalen t'. 
 
 Constable v. Xational Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 251, 510, 528, 529. 531, 
 
 539, 739, 891, 892, 902, 930, 
 
 947, 958, 959, 4024. 4025, 4054. 
 Constantine, Louisville, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Consumers' Ice Co., Mott v. 
 Consumers' League v. Colorado, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 23, 40. 
 Contt v. American Exp. Co., p. 
 
 3398. 
 Continental Coal Co. ;. Bowne. p. 
 
 39(i4. 
 Continental Furniture Co., Rhodes, 
 
 etc., Co. V. 
 Continental Ins. Co., Craig v. 
 Contra Costa, Agnew -•. 
 Contra Costa Steam Xav. Co.. 
 
 Yoemans i'. 
 Contreras, Galveston. etc., R. 
 
 Co. :•. 
 
 V. San Antonio Tract. Co.. p. 
 
 1730. 
 
 Converse v. Boston, etc.. Rail- 
 road, p. 562. 
 
 V. Braincrd, p. 775. 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Xorwich, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 pp. 3249. 3266, 3286, 3302, 3313. 
 
 J'. Railroad Co., pp. 2413, 
 
 2419. 
 
 Convoy's Wheat, The. 
 
 Conway. Chicago, etc., R. Co f. 
 
 -•. Lewiston, etc.. R. Co.. 87 
 
 Me. 283, 32 Atl. 901, 2 .\m. & 
 Kng. R. Cas., N. S.,' 339— p. 
 1803. 
 
 :•. Lewiston, etc., R. Co.. 38 
 
 .\tl. 110, 90 Me. 199— pp. 1702, 
 1805. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1516. 2597. 
 
 -•. Xew Orleans, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 4(. La. Ann. 1429, 16 So. 362— 
 
 p. 1889. ^ 
 
 — f. New 
 Co., 24 So. 
 14t.— p. 2137. 
 
 V. Tavlor, 
 
 3478, 3586. 
 
 Orleans, 
 780, 51 
 
 etc.. R. 
 La. Ann. 
 
 3476. 3477.
 
 CLIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Go., p. 
 
 Co.. pp. 
 
 7. 211S, 
 
 Conwav Bank >•. American F.xp 
 
 Co. '(Mass.), 8 Allen 512— pp 
 
 895, 911. 
 Conwell z: Tri-City 
 
 303o. 
 Conwill V. Gulf, etc.. R. 
 
 1(>84, 1875, 2114, 211 
 
 2373, 2937. 2986. 
 Convers '■. Ennis, p. 1228. 
 Cook, Central, etc., K. Co. •:■. 
 
 T'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 
 
 Iowa 551, 46 N W. 1080, 9 L. 
 R. A. 164, 25 Am. St. Rep. 512 
 —pp. 220, 1135. 1178. 1183, 
 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 
 1196. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 136 
 
 Iowa 497, 113 N. W. 1079— pp. 
 147, 1638. 
 
 ?•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 78 
 
 Neb. 64, 23 R. R. R. 606, 46 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 606, 
 110 X. W. 718— pp. 1085, 1408, 
 1409. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 i: Clay St. Hill R. Co., p. 
 
 2007. 
 
 Eaton V. 
 
 f. Erie K. Co., p. 871. 
 
 z'. Gourdin, pp. 729, 733. 
 
 V. Houston, etc., Nav. Co., 
 
 pp. 1502, 2525, 2544, 2548, 2549, 
 2629. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. t'. 
 
 Mahony v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 
 North Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 z: Pennsylvania, pp. 3439, 
 
 3564, 3568. 
 
 Plant Inv. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 4043, 4056. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., pp. 2S75, 
 
 3056. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Tilley v. 
 
 Cook Brewing Co., Louisville, etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Cooke i'. Baltimore Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2334. 
 
 z: Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1279. 
 
 -•. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1098. 
 
 Z'. Springfield Tract Co., pp. 
 
 1721, 1880. 
 
 Union Pac, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cooley V. Minnesota Transfer R. 
 
 Co., pp. 573, 579. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 3044, 3052. 
 
 Coolidge z'. La Crosse City R'. Co., 
 p. 2800. 
 
 Oregon R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Coon f. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2277, 2326. 
 Cooney z'. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3113, 3123, 3125, 3129, 3130, 
 
 3201, 3218, 3222, 3241. 
 Coons, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cooper T'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 69 S. C. 479, 48 S. E. 458— pp. 
 
 2617, 2509, 2512, 2547. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 78 
 
 S. C.» 562, 59 S. E. 704— pp. 
 2331, 2358. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Bank v. 
 
 Berry z\ 
 
 Z'. Berry, pp. 435, 727, 796, 
 
 961, 1009. 
 
 '•. Bill, p. 1228. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. r. 
 
 v. Century Realty Co., pp. 
 
 1488, 2659, 2667, 2673, 2935, 
 2939. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. z\ 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Close V. 
 
 Cooper c'. Coates, p. 301 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 Galveston, etc., 
 
 f. Georgia Pac, 
 
 841. 
 
 f. Georgia, etc. 
 
 S. C. 91, 34 S. E. 
 2127, 2265, 2280. 
 
 z'. Georgia, etc. 
 
 S. C. 345. 39 S. E. 543, 16 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 12— pp. 
 2066, 2115, 2671, 2885, 2904, 
 2906. 
 
 Greenwood Z'. 
 
 Indianapolis Union R. Co. z'. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Kane, p. 615. 
 
 Lenahart i\ 
 
 R-. Co. z: 
 . R. Co., 
 
 R. Co., 56 
 
 16— pp. 2126, 
 
 R, Co., 61 
 
 Leuckhart 
 Z-. London, 
 
 etc. 
 
 221. 
 
 etc.. 
 
 , R. Co. 
 R. Co. z' 
 
 P- 
 
 Louisvi 
 
 f. McKcnna, p. 2629. 
 
 V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 727, 732. 740, 748, 820, 948, 
 972, 1018, 1267, 1268, 1269, 
 1337, 1339, 1361, 1364, 1365, 
 1367, 1372, 1384, 1389, 1390, 
 1433, 1454, 1456, 1470, 1476. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Paul City R'. Co., p. 
 
 1890. 
 
 z'. Seaboard Air Line Rail- 
 way, p. 3396. 
 
 Tran.sportation Line z'. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Young, pp. 595, 596, 597, 
 
 638, 653, 660, 670, 672. 
 
 Cooper Grocer Co. v. Britton, p. 
 693. 
 
 Co-Operative Ass'n, Jones z'. 
 
 Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., Hun- 
 ter Z'. 
 
 Hunter z'. 
 
 Coopwood, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Coos Bay, etc., Nav. Co. z'. Siglin, 
 p. 576. 
 
 Coosa River Steamboat Co. z'. Bar- 
 clay, pp. 302, 428. 
 
 Cope z'. Cordova, p. 536. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Copeland, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2137. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., K. Co. z'. 
 
 z". Southern Railway, p. 868. 
 
 Copley, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Copp z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3839. 
 
 Century Realty Co., p. 
 
 Corey, Commonwealth z'. 
 
 Cork Distilleries Co. z\ Great 
 
 Southern R. Co., p. 1239. 
 Cork, etc., R. Co. Burns Z'. 
 Corley z'. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 2444, 2463. 
 Corlin z'. West End St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2156. 
 Corliss, Nassau Elect. R. Co. z'. 
 Cormack v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 608, 1669, 1675, 1676. 
 Cornelius z'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1097, 1102, 1419. 
 Campbell z'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. Z'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Cornell z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1612, 2650. 
 
 Friedlander & Co. z\ 
 
 Tardine z\ 
 
 "Nebraska Tel. Co. z'. 
 
 Cornette z'. Baltimore, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 2821. 
 Cornforth, Merchants' Dispatch & 
 Transp. Co. z'. 
 
 Transp. 
 
 Lumber 
 
 etc. 
 
 Edgar 
 
 Peoria, etc., R. 
 
 Wil- 
 
 'St. R. Co., Will- 
 
 Co., 
 
 ■. Long Island R. 
 New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 Copper z\ 
 2585. 
 
 Coppock 
 
 ^ p. 2105. 
 
 Copson z'. 
 p. 2302. 
 
 Coquillard Wagon Works' Assign- 
 ees, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Corbett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1315. 
 
 Labbe z\ 
 
 z: Twenty-Third St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1605, 2412. 
 
 Corbin, Wandell z: 
 Corcoran z: Albuquerque Tract. 
 Co., p. 2741. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 3499. 
 
 z'. New York, etc., R. Co.; 
 
 pp. 2501, 2546. 
 
 Cordes, Niagara v. 
 
 Propeller Niagara v. 
 
 Cordiner z: Los Angeles Tract 
 
 Co., pp. 2082, 2084. 
 Cordova, Cape z'. 
 Core, South Covington, etc., St 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 Merchants', 
 Co. Z'. 
 Cornie Stave Co. 
 
 Co. v. 
 Corning & Co. z'. 
 
 Co., p. 267. 
 Cornish, Robinson z\ 
 Cornwall, Missouri Pac. R. Co. z'. 
 Cornwall, etc., R. Co., Rhoades v. 
 Cornwell, Missouri Pac. R. Co. z'. 
 Corporation Comm. z'. Southern R. 
 
 Co., p. 3483. 
 Corrigan Conso!. St. R. Co. 
 kerson Z' 
 
 Willmot z: 
 
 Willmott 
 
 Corrigan, etc., 
 
 mott z\ 
 Corrinth, Moer v. 
 Corry f. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 191, 2444, 2483. 
 Corsar "■. Spreckels & Bros. Co., 
 pp. 3898, 3900, 3910, 3928, 4068. 
 Corse v. Peck, p. 3871. 
 Corso z: New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 845, 852, 3271. 
 Corson, State z'. 
 
 Cortland, etc.. Tract. Co., Kay z-. 
 Corvallis, etc., R. Co., State Z'. 
 Cory V. Thames Iron Works, p. 
 
 633. 
 Cosgrove v. Augusta, p. 112. 
 
 z'. Consolidated R. Co., p. 
 
 2259. 
 
 Cosmos Cotton Co. z'. First ^at. 
 
 Bank, pp. 356, 373, 383, 391, 
 
 394, 395, 396, 397. 
 Cossitt z'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1803, 2239, 2272. 
 Costello z: St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 p. 2146. 
 Costigan z: Michael Transp. Co., 
 
 p. 728. 
 
 z: Warren, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 174 Mass. 553, 55 N. E. 317— 
 pp. 1978, 2585. 
 
 Cotant V. Boone Suburban R. Co., 
 
 p. 2350. 
 Cotchett Z'. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1826, 2174, 2221, 2223. 
 Cote z'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3394, 3396. 
 Cotesworth, Ford z'. 
 Cottengim, Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. Z'. 
 Cotter, Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 Cotting V. Godard, pp. 3432, 3533 
 
 3534. 
 
 z'. Kansas City Stockyards 
 
 Co., 79 Fed. 679— p. 3534. 
 
 z\ Kansas Citv Stockyards 
 
 Co., 82 Fed. 839— pp. 3432, 
 3533, 3534. 
 
 • z' Kansas Citv Stockvards 
 
 Co.. 82 Fed. 850— pp. 3432, 3533, 
 3534.
 
 TABLE OF CASF.S., 
 
 CLV 
 
 Cotting V. Kansas City Stockyards 
 Co., 183 U. S. 79, 46 h. Kd. 92, 
 22 S. Ct. 30— p. 35. 
 
 Cotton, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 TelTcrsonvillc R. Co. v. 
 
 i.akc Rrif, etc., R". Co. v. 
 
 Lane I'. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. ^ f . 
 
 CottrcU V. Carolina, etc., R. Co., 
 
 141 N. C. 383, 54 S. Iv. 288— p. 
 143. 
 
 i: Pawtuckct St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2170. 
 
 Coudy V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2603, 2691. 
 Couglitry, Kemp v. 
 Coulahan r. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2699. 
 Coulson, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Coultas, Rockford, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Coulter, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kuykendall r. 
 
 Coulter f. Weir, p. 3578. 
 
 Council 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1347. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Council P.luffs f. Kansas, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3421. 
 Counselman f. Hitchcock, pp. 3779, 
 
 3782. 
 County of Cook, Tilley f. 
 County of Mobile ■:■. Kimball, pp. 
 
 3418, 3419, 3420, 3421, 3439, 
 
 3445, 3446. 
 Coup f. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 189, 214, 244. 774, 3271. 
 Coupland v. Ilousatonic R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1006, 1073, 1288, 1339, 1381, 
 
 1475, 1480. 
 Coursel ?■. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2801. 
 Coursey, Southern R. Co. r. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2249, 2258. 2291, 2358, 2689. 
 
 Courteen v. Kanawha Dispatch, p. 
 3356. 
 
 Courtney, Gulf, etc., R. Co. t: 
 
 Courts V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1606, 3042. 
 
 Cousar Mercantile Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., pp. 153, 165. 
 
 Cousineau f. Muskegon Tract., 
 etc., Co., 145 Mich. 314, 318, 
 108 N. W. 720— pp. 1796, 2134, 
 2875. 
 
 V. Muskegon Tract., etc., Co., 
 
 115 N. W. 987, 152 Mich. 48— 
 pp. 2027, 2328. 
 
 Cousins i\ Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2152, 2267. 
 Coutourie, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Covcll V. Hill, p. 302. 
 
 ?■. Hitchcock. pp. 1219, 
 
 1220, 1229, 1232, 1238. 
 
 Coventry f. Gladstone, pp. 1224. 
 
 1228. 1234. 1235. 
 Covetts, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Covington, Covington, etc., Rridge 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 V. Pullman Co., p. 3581. 
 
 South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2249, 2373. 
 
 Covington Stock Yards Co. -■. 
 
 Keith, pp. 219, 1267, 1269, 1278, 
 
 1279, 1280, 1299, 1301, 3647, 
 
 3648, 3728. 
 Zovington. etc.. Bridge Co. z\ 
 
 Covington, p. 3588. 
 
 -■. Kentucky, pp. 34, 3418. 
 
 3421, 3433, 3473. 3474. 3475, 
 3477. 3491. 3493. 3497. 3527, 
 3552, 3571. 
 
 Covington, etc.. R. Co.. Reinenian 
 
 & Co. f. 
 Covington, etc.. St. R. Co.. Wise v. 
 Covington, etc.. Turnpike Road 
 
 Co. r. Sandford. pp. 34. 58. 60. 
 
 115. 119. 3664. 367o. 3678. 
 Cowan, Ault v. 
 
 Cowan V. Bond, p. 3697. 
 
 Denver City Tramway Co. f. 
 
 r. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 p. 641. 
 
 Cowan, etc., Co. v. East Tennes- 
 see, etc., R. Co., pp. 1182. 1187. 
 1191. 
 
 Ccjward j'. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 726, 949, 3114, 3116, 
 3123, 3124, 3129, 3161, 3162, 
 3166, 3176, 3178, 3180. 
 
 Cowden v. Pacific Coast, etc., Co., 
 94 Cal. 470, 29 Pac. 873. 18 L. 
 R. A. 221, 28 Am. St. Rep. 142 
 —pp. 1176, 1178, 1181, 1190, 
 1191, 1204. 
 
 Cowen, Winters ?'. 
 
 '.: Winters, p. 3318. 
 
 Coweta County v. Central, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 238, 243, 752, 755, 757, 
 
 765, 815, 830. 
 Cowham, Haskell i'. 
 Cowherd, Louisville, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 653, 679. 
 Cowing V. Snow, pp. 3944. 3945. 
 Cowles, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 Cowley V. Davidson, pp. 438, 472, 
 
 855. 
 
 Litt V. 
 
 r. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3605, 3694. 
 
 Cownie Glove Co. v. Merchants' 
 Dispatch Transp. Co., pp. 3, 727, 
 732, 748, 753, 765, 773, 818, 821. 
 
 Cox. Alabama, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 T-. -American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 1296, 1467, 1474, 1477. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 149. 150. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 7'. Central \'ermont R 
 
 pp. 986. 1040. 1087, 1088, 
 1118, 1123, 1124. 
 
 f. Columbus, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 245. 585. 
 
 r. Foscue, pp. 3888, 3897. 
 
 -■. High Point, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2860, 2900. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. Los Angeles Terminal R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2425. 2426. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 159. 
 
 Pecos, etc.. R. Co. ;•. 
 
 -■. Pennsylvania R'. Co., p. 96. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. United States, p. 1490. 
 
 Waring z\ 
 
 Western Gravel Road Co. v. 
 
 Cox & Co.. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Cox, Patterson & Co. -■. Bruce Co., 
 
 p. 308. 
 Cox. etc.. Co., McClure & Co. v. 
 
 V. Peterson, pp. 333, 337, 
 
 512, 540. 
 
 Winston ;•. 
 
 Cox. etc.. Grocery Co. z: National 
 
 Bank, p. 385. 
 Coxe f. Ileisley, p. 759. 
 Coxon -'. North Eastern R. Co., 4 
 
 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 284— p. 907. 
 Coy z\ Boston Elev. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2017, 2741. 
 
 z: Detroit, etc.. Railway, pp. 
 
 80. 195, 1598. 
 
 Cove z: People's R. Co., p. 2225. 
 Coyer. Pennsylvania Co. z: 
 Coyle Z-. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 
 p. 2116. 
 
 People's R. Co.. pp. 
 1867, 1874. 1881, 
 2290. 2653. 2686. 
 Southern R. Co.. pp, 
 
 1597. 1601. 1616. 
 2434, 2466. 2468. 2483. 
 Western R. Corp., pp. 292 
 293, 883. 
 Coyne z: United R. Co.. p. 2653. 
 Cozine, Lexington R. Co. v. 
 
 Co., 
 1095, 
 
 1741. 
 1919. 
 
 1596. 
 2408. 
 
 1682. 
 1888. 
 
 190. 
 1634. 
 
 Crabtree. Clarke :. 
 
 I. Washington County R. V-o.. 
 
 pp. 1614, 1621. 
 
 Craddock & Co. r. Wells-Fargo 
 
 Co.'s Exp., p. 245. 
 Crady, Illinois Cent. R. Co. i: 
 Craft z: Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 
 2779. 
 
 Southern Kxp. Co. v. 
 
 Cragin z: New York Cent. R- Co.. 
 
 51 N Y. 61, 10 Am. Rep. 559— 
 
 pp. 728, 733, 749, 1340. 
 ■ ,. New York Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 51 N. Y. 63— p. 292. 
 Craig, Baylor County v. 
 
 V. Boston Elev. R. Co.. p. 
 
 1993 
 
 V. Childress, p. 11. 729. 733. 
 
 737. 750, 822. 1011. 1020. 
 
 Citizens' R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Continental Ins. Co., pp. 
 
 4036, 4038. 4042, 4045. 4046, 
 4049, 4054, 4055, 4056. 
 
 Denison, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Kinloch r. , „ /- 
 
 Lake Shore Elevated R. Co. 
 
 -^ z: Marx. pp. 349, 1207. 1208. 
 
 Omaha St. R". Co. v. 
 
 Railroad "'. 
 
 Tweedie Trading Co. z: 
 
 z: Wabash R. Co., pp. 1866. 
 
 '250. 
 
 Craighead v. Brooklyn, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1821, 1957. 
 Grain. General Oil Co. z-. 
 Craker z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p- 
 
 3076. 
 Crallc. Board z: .., , ^ 
 
 Crall. Western Union Tel. t-O. f. 
 Cram. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 84 
 
 Neb. 607. 122 N. W. 31. 26 L. 
 R. A.. N. S.. 1022— pp. 21, 134. 
 
 135. 155. T, r- «? 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 
 
 Neb. 586, 123 N. W. 1043. 26 
 L R A.. N. S., 1022— pp. 133, 
 167, 168. _. _ 
 
 Cramblet z: Chicago, etc.. K. Co.. 
 
 p. 2677. 
 Cramer z: American, etc.. txp. 
 
 Co., pp. 894. 899, 3289. 
 r. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1817, 2172. 2894. 
 
 z: Burlington, p. 2300. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. pp- 
 
 3521, 3702, 3741. 3748. 3749. 
 
 z: Springfield Tract. Co.. pp. 
 
 1997. 2595. . , „ r 
 
 Crandall z: International K. Lo.. 
 pp. 1647, 1648. 
 
 z: Minneapolis, etc.. 
 
 p. 2777. 
 
 z: Nevada, pp. 3549 
 
 3564. 3594. 
 
 Crane. Whitesell r. . . , „ 
 Crane Iron Works z: L nited States. 
 
 p. 3661. 
 Crangle, Moorehouse z: 
 Crank. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. t . 
 Crarwell z: The Fanny Fosdick. p. 
 
 727. 
 Crarv z: Lehigh Valley R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2097. 2704. 
 Craucher. Ohio. etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Crauf, Chicago City R. Co. :•. 
 
 f. Chicago City R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1742. 1890, 1901. 
 
 Craven z: Central Pac. R. Co.. 
 pp. 2297. 2370. 
 
 :. International R- C.>.. p. 
 
 2878. 
 
 f. Ryder, p. 1225. 
 
 f. State, p. 177. 
 
 Cravens. Little Rock. etc.. R. Co. 
 
 z: Rogers, p. 101. 
 
 Crawford. Adams Exp. Co. r. 
 
 R. Co.. 
 3563.
 
 CLVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Crawford f. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 191, 1637, 1638, 2122, 
 2420, 2425, 2430, 2467. 
 
 V. Clark, pp. 528, 539. 891, 
 
 893. 
 
 Oavis 7-. 
 
 c'. Georgia Railroad, p. 1748. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1984. 
 
 I'. Maine Cent. Railroad, pp. 
 
 2790, 2872. 
 
 z: Mellor, p. 355. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 San Antonio Tract. Co. v. 
 
 f. Southern R'. Ass'n, pp. 
 
 3256, 3258. 3289, 3294. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co.. pp. 1036, 
 
 1366, 1458. 3518. 
 
 f. Williams, p. 1145. 
 
 Crawlcigh z: Galveston, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1550, 2517, 2780. 
 Crawley, American Exp. Co. z\ 
 Crawshay f. Eades, ". 1232. 
 Craj' z\ Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 1118. 
 Craybill, Scioto \'alley Tract. Co. 
 
 Craycraft, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Craj'croft »•. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 320, 945, 994, 995. 
 Crayton, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cream City R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 799, 1013, 3166. 
 Creamer v. West End St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1535. 
 Creason ''. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1824, 2296. 
 Crcath, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Creditors, Markwald, etc., Co. z\ 
 Credle z'. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1773. 
 Creech z: Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1520, 2152, 2600. 
 Creed z\ Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 ^ 2210. 
 
 Creedcn, State v. 
 Creenan z\ International R. Co., 
 
 p. 1807. 
 Crcery z'. Holly, p. 333. 
 Creety, Georgia Railroad f. 
 Crenshaw, Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 Crenshawc z\ Pearce, p. 338. 
 Crescent City R. Co., Conolly v. 
 
 Cronan '•. 
 
 Ober v. 
 
 Summers f. 
 
 Crescent Coal Co, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 225, 251, 264, 1190. 
 Crescent Liquor Co. 
 
 245. 
 Cressap, Adams Exp. Co. '■. 
 Cresson r. Philadelphia, etc 
 
 Co., pp. 1638, 2430. 
 Crews, Pecos, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 V. Richmond & D. R. Co., p. 
 
 3704. 
 
 — — Terra Haute, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Crickett, McManus '•. 
 Crider, Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Crier, Galveston, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Crigler z: Commonwealth, 87 S. 
 
 W. 280, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 927— 
 
 p. 3427. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, 120 Ky. 
 
 512, 87 S. W. 276, 27 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 918— p. 3427. 
 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.), 87 
 
 S. W. 281— p. 3427. 
 
 Crilly, Jackson v. 
 
 Crine '•. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1752, 1753, 1757, 1989. 
 
 Crippen, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Crisham, Davis f. 
 
 Crisp f. United States, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 3961. 
 
 Crispi, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Crissey z\ Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1961. 
 
 Criswell, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, 
 220, 222, 224, 
 
 Piatt, 
 
 R. 
 
 Crittenden, Atchison, etc., K. Co. 
 
 — ^ z: Wilson, p. U9S. 
 Critzer, Pacific Exp. Co. t. 
 Croaker z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2038, 2042, 2047. 
 Crocker, First Nat. Bank z: 
 
 -'. New London, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1601, 2413, 2466, 24o9, 2486, 
 2493, 2494. 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 Crockett z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3334. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 CrofF z: Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 p. 1443. 
 Croft T'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3176, 3177, 3181. 
 
 z\ Northwestern Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 3992, 3997, 3998. 
 
 Crofts Z'. Waterhouse, p. 1687. 
 Croll z\ Pullman Co., pp. 3223, 
 
 3231. 
 Crommelin '•. NVw York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 700. 714, 715. 
 Cromwell, Bird v. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Cronan z\ Crescent City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1705, 1961. 
 
 t'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 215, 247, 249, 261. 
 
 Crone, Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z\ 
 
 Cronin z\ Highland St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1645. 
 Croninger, Adams Exp. Co. ?■. 
 Cronk z: Wabash R. Co., pp. 2694, 
 
 2736, 2918, 3004. 
 Cronkite v. Wells, p. 280. 
 Crook, Southern Exp. Co. t'. 
 Crooks V. Allen, p. ^S81. 
 
 v. The Fanny Skolfield, pp. 
 
 3904, 3906. 
 
 Croom V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1495, 1496. 
 Crosby. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Fitch, pp. 10, 510, 3889, 
 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 1614. 
 Pere Marquette R. Co., p. 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 
 pp. 2581, 2821, 2824. 
 Cross, American Contract Co. z\ 
 
 ■:•. Beard, pp. 699, 717. 
 
 z'. Coney Island, etc.. It. Co.. 
 
 p. 2820. 
 
 z'. Detroit Citizens' St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2025, 2885. 
 
 r. Graves, pp. 335, 340, 442, 
 
 941, 960, 975, 1043, 1101, 1317. 
 
 Hadley v. 
 
 z\ Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1561, 2436. 
 
 ■;■. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1773, 1776. 
 
 v. McFaden, pp. 246, 441. 446, 
 
 447, 448, 450, 621, 1272, 1293. 
 
 ■ Rio (jrande R. Co. z\ 
 
 Crossan z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 777, 1155, 1156, 1157, 3390. 
 Crossley & Co., Georgia R., etc., 
 
 Co. r. 
 Grossman, Bolton Steam Shipping 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Burrill '■. 
 
 V. Burrill, p. 3868. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 v. Lurman, p. 3482. 
 
 Crosstown St. R. Co., Does z: 
 
 Masterson z\ 
 
 Croswell z: Va. Bibber, pp. 361, 
 
 362. 
 Crotzer v. Freeport R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 1891. 
 CrouCii t'. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, 221. 
 
 '■. London, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 211. 221. 
 
 Croucher r. Wilder, p. 3895. 
 Crow z\ Atchison, etc., K. Co.. 
 3539. 
 
 c'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 971, 1061, 1062, 1099, 1457. 
 
 Galveston, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. i 
 
 ■<■. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 2907. 
 
 Omaha, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Crowder, St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Steamboat 
 
 Cb. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Crowe, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Crowell, Flood '■. 
 
 z'. Union oil Co., p. 3922. 
 
 ■ Van Winkle v. 
 
 Crowell Lumber, etc., Co., Missouri 
 
 Pac. R. Co. •;■. 
 Crowley z'. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1830, 1993, 2741. 
 • z'. Fitchburg, etc., K. Co., pp. 
 
 1646, 1647, 1649, 2425, 2431. 
 
 •;■. Hurd, pp. 3956, 3960. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1470, 1457. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Crown Coal Co., Louisville, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Crowninshield, Choate ;■ 
 Croxton, Louisville, etc., 
 Crozier v. Boston, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 3146, 3148. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Crudup, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Crull, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Crum, Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. 
 Crumbacker ?•. Tucker, pp. 480, 
 
 481. 
 Crump z'. Davis, pp. 2228, 2357. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. 
 
 Crunk, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cruse, Illinois Cent. K. Co. ■:'. 
 
 Sabine, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Cruseturner, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Z'. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1766, 1967, 2884. 
 
 Crutcher v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 642, 645. 
 
 z: Kentucky, pp. 3427, 3429, 
 
 3472, 3481, 3503, 3504, 3550, 
 3570, 3571. 
 
 South Covington, etc., St. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Crystal Palace z\ X'anderpool, 
 
 3145. 
 Cubbage z: Estate, p. 2319. 
 
 Jacksonville Elect. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Youngerman, pp. 1743,. 
 
 1750, 2869, 2883, 2901. 
 
 Cudahy Packing Co. z'. Dorsey, pp. 
 
 479, 495. 
 Cuddy v. Horn, pp. 2083, 2091. 
 Culberson v. Empire Coal Co., pp. 
 
 1682, 2015, 2019, 2035, 2039, 
 
 2050, 2051, 2578, 2606. 
 Culbreth '■. Philadelphia, 
 
 Co., pp. 524, 727, 752, 
 Cullar z'. Missouri, etc., 
 
 p. 2826. 
 Cullen, Pennewill z\ 
 
 z'. Seaboard, etc., R. 
 
 1194, 1197, 1198, 1201. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z'. 
 
 Walsh z'. 
 
 Culliford Z'. Goniila, pp 
 Cullison, Ohio, etc., I 
 Cully V. Baltimore, t 
 
 p. 1948. 
 Culton, Pattison z\ 
 Culver, Gibson v. 
 
 z: Lester, p. 729. 
 
 Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Niles z\ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cumberland Tel., etc., Co. v. Mor 
 
 gan's, etc., R. Co., p. 256. 
 
 z\ Texas, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 257. 
 
 R. 
 
 P- 
 
 R. 
 
 etc 
 757. 
 R. Co 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 3868, 3873. 
 Co. z: 
 c, R. Co.,
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLVII 
 
 Cumberland \allcy R. Co., Appeal 
 of. 
 
 Hoffman i: 
 
 V. Maugans, pp. 2255, 2333, 
 
 2334. 
 
 V. Myers, p. 1530. 
 
 Ryan v. 
 
 Shutt V. 
 
 Cumberland \'alley R. Co.'s .Ap- 
 peal, p. 222. 
 Cumberland, etc., R. Co., State v. 
 
 V. State, p. 3590. 
 
 V. Thompson, p. 1705. 
 
 Cumbie, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 105 
 
 Ark. 406, 151 S. W. 237— pp. 
 1090, 1109. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 (Ark.), 151 S. W. 240— pp. 247, 
 446, 448, 449. 
 
 Cuinhy Mercantile, etc., Co., Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Cumiiiing f. I'.arracouta, p. 820. 
 
 Cumniings f. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, p. 2989. 
 
 — — Graham ?■. 
 
 Wichita R., etc., Co. :•. 
 
 V. Worcester, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2189, 2197. 
 
 Cummins v. -Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 695. 
 V. Dayton, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3282. 
 Cunard Steamship Co., 15radford f. 
 
 Connors '■. 
 
 — — l^ggermont ': 
 
 Fonseca i'. 
 
 Glovinsky v. 
 
 Kelley v. 
 
 r. Kelley, pp. 283, 294, 306, 
 
 338, 829, 3928, 3932, 4059. 
 
 Levensohn f. 
 
 Mountford 7\ 
 
 O'Brien ■:■. 
 
 O'Regan -,\ 
 
 Rabinowitz z'. 
 
 Rinlamaki z'. 
 
 Vitelli '•. 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 Zabron -•. 
 
 Cunning, Tittabawassec Boom 
 
 Co. 
 
 St. 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 40 
 834, 
 
 Cunningham z-. Boston, etc., 
 K. Co., p. 77. 
 
 f. Great Northern R. 
 
 p. 757. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 V. International R. Co., 
 
 2074, 2113, 2162. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 Pa. Super.' Ct. 212— pp. 
 835. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 50 
 
 Pa. Super Ct. 609— p. 1021. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 r Seattle Fleet. R., etc.. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2059, 2060, 2411, 3104. 
 
 Southern R'. Co. f. 
 
 T'. Wabash R. Co., pp. 1313, 
 
 1339, 1454. 1470. 
 
 Curl '■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2429, 2851. 3104. 
 Curran. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Curray. Porter z-. 
 Currel, .\rayo f. 
 Currell f. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 457, 459. 1298. 
 Curric z: Mendenhall, p. 2906. 
 
 V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3484. 
 
 , Seaboard, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 753. 765, 879. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 The M. C. 
 Currv '•. Georgia, etc. 
 1882. 1883. 
 
 Hot Springs f. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Co. z: 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 
 
 Curry -•. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 58 
 Kan. 6, 48 Pac. 579— p. 3695. 
 
 f. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 60 
 
 Pac. 325, 61 Kan. 541— p. 3041. 
 
 Mulford Co. V. 
 
 :■. Roulstone, p. 1222. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. j'. 
 
 Curtis r. Avon, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3173. 
 Buffington i'. 
 
 -•. Central Railway, p. 2009. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 455, 819. 832. 
 
 z\ Delaware, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1489, 3116, 3120, 3129, 3141, 
 3184. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2300. 
 
 V. Lcavitt, p. 1489. 
 
 v. Louisville City R. Co., 94 
 
 Ky. 573, 23 S. W. 363, 21 L. R. 
 A. 649, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 351 — 
 pp. 1603, 2433. 
 
 f. Louisville City R. Co., 14 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 272— p. 1603. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. «'. 
 
 -'. Rochester, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1684, 1687, 1720, 1823, 1847, 
 2667, 2673. 
 
 f. Sioux, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3083 
 
 v. Southern R. Co., p. 2697. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. z: 
 
 Curtis Bros., Southern Kansas R. 
 Co. z: 
 
 Southern, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Cushing -■. Wells, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 594, 595, 596, 855. 
 Cushman, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Cushney, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cusick -'. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 p. 2311. 
 
 Leavenworth Elect. R. Co. r. 
 
 Custer, Pullman Co. -■. 
 
 Cutcliff t'. Birmingham R"., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2169. 
 Cutler Z'. Concord, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 p. 2756. 
 
 z\ Lennox, p. 3865. 
 
 z: Winsor, pp. 3865, 3916. 
 
 Cutter, Kansas Pac. R'. Co. z: 
 
 Wells Fargo & Co. -■. 
 
 f. Wells Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 846, 1059. 
 
 Cutting z'. Florida- R., etc., Co., 
 p. 3664. 
 
 f. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 638, 653, 1167. 
 
 '■. Miner, p. 659. 
 
 Cutts r. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 2123, 2343, 2759, 2802. 2892. 
 
 •:•. Brainard, p. 3256. 
 
 Cuyler -•. Decker, p. 2128. 
 Cynthia. Giles z: 
 
 D 
 Dacus, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 Dages, Toledo, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Daggett, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — ^ z: North Tersev St. R. Co.. 
 p. 2914. 
 
 z: Shaw, pp. 728, 733. 749, 
 
 753. 765. 768. 
 
 Spencer '•. 
 
 Dagnall z\ Southern R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1631, 2712. 
 Dagner, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Dahlberg ;■. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1718. 2008, 2201. 
 Dahlberg Brokerage Co.. .\tlantic, 
 
 etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Dahrooge f. Pere Marquette R. 
 
 Co.. p. 3154. 
 Dakota Cent. R. Co.. Oviatt z: 
 Dalby. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Dalby & Co. z: Mexican Cent. R. 
 
 Co., p. 488. 
 Dale z: Brooklyn City, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2145. 
 Daley z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1572, 2529, 2530, 2531. 
 
 -•. Port Jervis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2876. 
 
 V. K'edburn, p. 2649. 
 
 Dalhi, etc., R. Co., Hoffbauer z: 
 Dallas, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 149L 2248, 2906. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dallas Consol. Elect. St. R. Co. i. 
 
 Ison, pp. 1687, 1710. 
 
 V. Pettit, p. 2807. 
 
 Dallas Consol. Tract. R. Co. :. 
 
 Ranflolph, pp. 1685, lo93, 1731, 
 
 1732, 1737. 
 Dallas Rajiid Transit Co. z: Payne. 
 
 98 Tex. 211, 82 S. W. 649, 15 R. 
 
 R. R. 25, 38 Am. & Eng. K. 
 
 Cas., N. S., 25 — pp. 1556, 1562. 
 1563, 1879, 2151, 2319, 2359. 
 
 2940. 
 
 z: Payne (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 78 S. W. 1085— p. 1879. 
 
 Dallas, etc., Nav. Co., Sievers -■. 
 Dallas, etc., R. Co. z: Reeman. 
 p. 1791. 
 
 z: Spickcr, p. 2289. 
 
 Dallas, etc., St. R. Co. z: Black, 
 p. 2594. 
 
 z: Broadhurst, pp. 1842, 1978, 
 
 2684. 
 
 V. Gilmore, pp. 1721, 2039. 
 
 I'. Lasch, p. 2251. 
 
 z: Pettit, pp. 2051, 2052. 
 
 Dallenbach z: Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 216. 
 Dalton -•. Beers, p. 3096. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 -'. Kansas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2848, 3037, 3047. 
 
 Daly z: Central R. Co.. 49 N. Y. 
 S. 901, 26 App. Div. 200— p. 
 2907. 
 
 i: Central R. Co.. 57 N. Y. 
 
 S. 44, 38 App. Div. 632— p. 
 2828. 
 
 Dalzell z: Saxon, pp. 732. 738. 
 Daniont f. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 2263. 
 Dampman -•. Pennsylvania R'. Co.. 
 
 p. 2673. 
 Dan, The. 
 Dana f. Fiedler, p. 653. 
 
 The. 
 
 Danbech, New Jersey Tract. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Danbury. Hinckley -•. 
 
 Danciger '•. Wells. Fargo & Co., 
 
 pp. 245, 3814. 3823. 
 Dancy, Louisville, etc.. R. Co. -■. 
 Dandridge, Pennsylvania, etc.. Nav. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Dane. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r-. 
 Danforth, Northern Texas Tract. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Dangerfield -•. Atchison, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1628. 1636. 
 Daniel z-. Brooklyn Heights R. Co.. 
 ' pp. 1574, 2448. 2487. 
 
 North .Mabama Tract. Co. z: 
 
 V. North Tersev St. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 196. 1500. 3112. 
 
 :•. Petersburg R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2045. 2046, 2049. 
 
 Daniel Ball. The. 
 
 Daniels ■•. Ballantine, pp. 744. 847. 
 
 -•. Florida, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1632. 2057. 2663. 2850. 2851. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. -•. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Stephan f. 
 
 :•. Western, etc.. R'. Co.. pp. 
 
 1768. 1884. 1912. 1915. 
 
 D'.Vnjou :•. Deaglc. p. 485. 
 Danshank. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. r.
 
 CLVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Dant & Co. .^ Northwestern Un- 
 ion Packet Co.. pp. 512. 596. 
 
 Dantzlcr Lumber Co. z: Church.il, 
 p. 3968. „ 
 
 Danville St. Car Co. r. Payne, p. 
 
 Dam^He St. R.. etc., Co., Barnes r. 
 Danville, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, p. 
 
 Da'nvUie, etc.. Road Co. r. Stew- 
 art DO 2082, 2083. „ ., 
 
 Danziger f. Interborough Rapid 
 Transit Co., p. 20o4 
 
 Daoust f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 Da Ponte v. New Orleans Trans- 
 fer Co., p. 3141 
 Darbv. Alabama ^'^ R., Co. z. 
 T'. Baines, pp. 3863. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V 
 
 D'Arcais, Southern Pac. R- Co. .. 
 D'Arcy v. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 i067. . „ ^„ 
 
 Darden '•. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1921. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 Dare, St. Louis etc., R. Co. v 
 
 Dargan r. Pullman Palace Car 
 
 Co pp. 3201, 3202, 3215, 3216, 
 
 3230. 3238. _, ^ 
 
 Darling i: Atchison, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 1477. „ _ 
 
 ■ _ r. Boston, etc., R. Corp., pp. 
 
 3259, 3313. 
 
 1- Westmoreland, p. 2/38. 
 
 Darlington, Missouri, etc., K. 
 
 't/ Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 700, 701, 702, 714, 718. 
 
 Darlington Lumber Co f. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 116 ?• W. 
 530, 216 Mo. 658— pp. 21o, 700. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. ^o. 
 
 (Mo.), 147 S. W. 1052— pp. 87, 
 122, 138. ^ . _ 
 
 Darnana v. La Compagnie Gener- 
 ale Transatlantique, p. Wii. 
 
 Darnell, Adams Exp. Co. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R 
 
 3790. 
 
 V. Indiana, p. 353/. 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. V. 
 
 V. State, pp. 3557. 3367. 
 
 Darnell Bros., Pacific Exp. Co. v. 
 Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co., p. 3794. 
 Darting Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dater, .Xnchor Line z: 
 
 Erie, etc., Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Daube z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 677. 
 Dauchy z: Silliman, p. /23^ 
 Daughdrill, Southern R. Co z: 
 Daugherty z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1553, 1569. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. State, p. 185. „ „ 
 
 Daughty v. Northwestern R. Co., 
 
 p. 3307. ^ ,. 
 
 Dave z: Morgan's, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 1855 1867 
 Davenport v. Brooklyn City K. 
 
 Co., p. 2137. 
 
 Fowler v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Powers V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 . Sinnot V. , • t. 
 
 Davenport Co. v. Pennsylvania K. 
 
 Co., p. 785. 
 Davenport Nat. Bank v. Homeyer, 
 
 pp. 355, 359, 363, 365, 366, 404. 
 Davey '•• Mason, p. 3136. 
 David, Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 David & Carolina, The 
 Davidson v. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 3521. 
 
 Cowley V. 
 
 Fay V. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Davidson, Galveston, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 V. Graham, pp. 728, 730, 731, 
 
 733, 739, 740, 749, 751, 752, 
 814 822, 946, 947, 949, 956, 
 960, 981, 1003, 1007, 1019, 1032, 
 1036. 3161. 
 
 • Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 McCauley v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Oregon, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 V. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2923. 
 
 Texas Pac. R. Co. f. 
 
 Weide f. 
 
 Davidson Development Co. '•. 
 
 Southern R. Co., pp. 626, 638, 
 654, 662, "673. 
 
 Davidson Steamship Co., Ohio 
 Transp. Co. z\ 
 
 7.. 119.254 Bushels of Flax- 
 seed, p. 3947. 
 
 Davies z: Eastern Steamboat Co., 
 p. 3983. 
 
 z: Michigan Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 530. 
 
 Davies, Turner & Co., Rlakiston z: 
 Davis, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1667, 2094. 
 
 V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2354, 2913. 
 
 -c'. Atlantic etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 612, 613, 614. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. •;•. 
 
 z: Button, p. 1487. 
 
 z\ Camden, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2234. 
 
 - V. Cayuga, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 3115, 3118, 3127, 3130, 3139. 
 
 - V. Central Railroad, p. 2666. 
 
 - z: Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 319, 321, 323, 333, 337, 354, 
 744, 914, 958, 959, 987. 
 
 - V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1577, 1578, 2101. 
 
 - Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 - •;•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4.t 
 Fed. 543— pp. 1569, 1585. 
 
 - z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 
 Iowa 744, 49 N. W. 77— pp. 
 3163, 3187. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 93 
 
 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. 16, 1132, 
 33 L. R. A. 654, 57 Am. St. 
 Rep. 935, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 X S., 622— pp. 1696, 1715, 2092, 
 2098, 3001, 3034. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 146 Fed. 403— p. 3543. 
 
 f. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 217 U. S. 157, 54 L- Ed. 708, 
 30 S. Ct. 463, 27 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 823, 18 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 907— p. 3544. 
 
 V. Crawford, p. 474. 
 
 z: Crisham, pp 10, 1489. 
 
 Crump z'. 
 
 Ft. North, etc., R'. Co. :■. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1731, 2694, 2843. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. t'. 
 
 V. Georgia R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2962. 
 
 Ilayden z'. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 23 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 8, 59 S. W. 844 
 —pp. 3373, 3375, 3376. 
 
 V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 29 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 42, 68 S. W. 
 733— pp. 1768, 1771, 1796, 2788. 
 
 Ho watt z\ 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 2334. 
 
 V Jacksonville Southeastern 
 
 Line, pp. 436, 804, 3294. 
 
 Johnston '■. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Davis V. Kansas, etc., R'. Co., 86 
 S. W. 995, 75 Ark. 165— pp. 
 2242, 2906. 
 
 V. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 53 
 
 Mo. 317, 14 Am. Rep. 457 — pp. 
 1955, 2427, 2434. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2366. 
 
 Lovell z: 
 
 V. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 20 
 
 111. 412— pp. 894, 899. 
 
 - '■. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 22 
 III. 278, 74 Am. Dec. 151— pp. 
 3126, 3130, 3151, 3180, 3189, 
 3190. 
 
 - Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 - V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2645. 
 
 - Mobile, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Mobile, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1200. 
 
 - V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 70 Minn. 37, 72 N. W. 823— p. 
 3355. 
 
 - v. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 1 Hilt. 543— p. 848. 
 
 - z'. Oregon, etc., K. Co., p. 
 2121. 
 
 z'. Paducah R., etc.. Co., pp. 
 
 1697, 2392, 2673, 3006. 
 
 Reeve f. 
 
 z: Russell, p. 1224. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 San Antonio Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Scruggs z'. 
 
 z: Seaboard .\ir Line Rail- 
 way, pp. 501, 1104, 3402. 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway, p. 
 2547. 
 
 Z-. Smokeless Fuel Co., pp. 
 
 3951, 3974. 
 
 '•. South Carolina, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1616, 1618, 2442. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 -'. Southern R. Co., pp. 151, 
 
 152. 176, 3423. 
 
 Stiles v. 
 
 z: Taff Vale R. Co., p. 221. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Texas, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1276, 1277, 1473, 1479. 
 
 Wabash R. Co., p. 1363. 
 
 r. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 89^ 
 
 Mo. i40, 1 S. W. 327— pp. 728, 
 730, 733, 734, 742, 746, 749, 
 825. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 13 
 
 Mo. App. 449— pp. 828, 848. 
 
 . ■ V. Wakelee, p. 3830. 
 
 z: Wallace, p. 699. 
 
 z'. Western Union Tel. Co.,. 
 
 p. 1119. 
 
 z\ Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p- 
 
 2848. 
 
 Davis Bros. v. Blue Ridge R. Co., 
 pp. 1039, 1353, 1381, 1392, 1473, 
 1475. 
 
 V. Vandalia R. Co.. p. 1033. 
 
 Davis Coal, etc., Co., Christie v. 
 Davis-Fowler Co., Texas, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Davis & Co., Graham & Co. z: 
 
 Morrison r. 
 
 Davison v. Von Lingen, pp. 3872', 
 
 3873. 
 Dawkins, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dawley v. Wagner Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3145, 3215, 3223, 3239. 
 Dawson, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1881, 2146, 2155, 2300, 2749. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 246, 247, 607, 621, 622, 1020, 
 1021, 3279. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 4 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 731— p. 2862. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 4 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 801, 11 -Vm. & Eng.
 
 TAULE (jF casks. 
 
 CUX 
 
 R. Cas. 134— pp. 1870, 1884, 
 1906, 2846, 30.S8. 
 J)awson V. I.ouisvilk-, etc., K. Co., 
 6 Ky. L. Rc-p. 068— pp. 3043, 
 3050. 3058. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co, pp. 
 
 1087, 1413, 1477. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Dawson Bros., Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Day V. Brooklyn City R. Co., p. 
 2524. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 O'Neal -: 
 
 V. Owen, pp. 190, 194, 195, 
 
 196, 197, 1950, 2571. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Shoninger f. 
 
 Smith r. 
 
 Taylor r. 
 
 Day, etc., Co. ■:■. Ridley, pp. 
 
 485, 729, 734, 816, 817, 822. 
 
 Dayton v. Parke, p. 713. 
 
 J'. Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2839. 
 
 The L. P. 
 
 Dayton, etc., U. Co., Cummins :•. 
 Dayton, etc.. Tract. Co., Filer :•. 
 Deagle, D'.\njou r. 
 Deakc f. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 1331, 1465. 
 Deakins, Southern R. Co. r. 
 Dean v. Chicago General R. Co., 
 
 p. 1487. 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 849. 
 
 f. King, pp. 267, 283, 294, 
 
 296, 306, 307, 309, 337, 338, 
 339, 341, 411, 3893. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. t'. 
 
 Texas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 United R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Vaccaro, p. 527, 542, 544, 
 
 545, 596, 849, 892, 894, 901, 903. 
 
 Deane, United R., etc., Co. v. 
 Deans '•. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1108. 
 Dear, .Alabama, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Dearborn, First Nat. Rank f. 
 Dearden v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2677, 2697, 2809, 2895. 
 Deason, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Deaver-Jeter Co. v. Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 493, 1084, 1110. 
 De Barnales, Shepard v. 
 De Baun v. Atchison, p. 3896. 
 Debbins v. Old Colony R. Co., p. 
 
 2136. 
 De Blois T. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 p. 2506. 
 De Board v. Camden Interstate R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1648, 2103, 2453, 2465, 
 
 3097. 
 Debes, In re. 
 Decan v. Shipper, pp. 369, 373 
 
 374, 375, 377. 
 De Castillo, Galveston, etc., R 
 
 Co. z'. 
 
 ?'. Galveston, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2822. 
 
 De Cecco i\ Connecticut Co., p 
 
 1841. 
 Decker f. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 191, 2420, 2421. 
 
 ?'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1575, 2880. 2911. 
 
 Cuyler r. ' 
 
 Prentice v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 De Coursey. United States -■. 
 
 Decuir i\ Benson, p]). 190, 195, 
 1947. 
 
 ■ Hall -•. 
 
 Dedham, etc., St. R. Co., West- 
 wood f. 
 
 Deemar, Bixby '•. 
 
 Deen v. Wheeler, p. 807. 
 
 Deep River Logging Co., Harvey f, 
 
 Deer Creek Lumber Co.. New 
 
 York Cent. & H. R. Co. v. 
 Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland, p. 
 
 3541. 
 Deery v. Camden, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2247. 
 De Felice V. Compagnie Francaise, 
 
 etc., Cie, p. 4009. 
 Deford r. Seinour, p. 484. 
 iJefrier f. Nicaragua, pp. 1941, 
 
 3145. 4009. 
 Defries, F^agle Packet Co. v. 
 Degado -. Wilbur, p. 359. 
 De Glopper -■. Nashville R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 1491, 1492. 
 DeGrau '.: Wilson, 17 Fed. 698— p. 
 
 916. 
 -•. Wilson, 22 Fed. 560— p. 
 
 893. 
 Dehsoy v. Milwaukee Elect. R. 
 
 etc., Co., p. 2955. 
 Deierling ?■. Wabash R. Co., pp. 
 
 1027. 1030. 1292. 
 Deininger. In re. 
 Deitch, Western, etc 
 DeKay 
 
 pp. 1526, 
 Delamatyr 
 
 Co., pp. 
 De Land, 
 Delaney v. 
 
 pp. 608 
 
 R. Co. f. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 1963, 1964, 2139, 2140. 
 V. Milwaukee, etc., R. 
 2229, 2263, 2348. 
 etc., R. Co., King, r. 
 United States Exp. Co., 
 
 ,,^ , 645, 686, 1080, 3277. 
 
 Delaney, etc.. Iron Co. v. Iroquois 
 
 Transp. Co., p. 3546. 
 Delano, Arnold i'. 
 Delaware f. .Andrews, p 
 
 -'. Oregon Iron Co. 
 
 1017. 
 
 The. 
 
 Delaware Bank r. Smith, p. 
 Delaware Mvit. Safety Ins. 
 
 Insurance Co. i". 
 Delaware Mut., etc., Ins. Co 
 
 surance Co. v. 
 Delaware Railroad Tax, pp. 
 3552, 3553, 3558, 3572, 
 3591, 3593. 
 
 Canal Co 
 3558. 
 
 1861. 
 pp. 1016, 
 
 796. 
 Co., 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. i: Frank, 
 pp. 1616, 1617, 1618. 
 
 Gable -■. 
 
 Gale z: 
 
 Gamble-Robinson Comm. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Goble V. 
 
 Harris f. 
 
 Henly v. 
 
 Hickenbottom -■. 
 
 Hoffbauer z\ 
 
 Hoffman v. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm 
 
 V. 
 
 z: Interstate Commerce Com 
 
 mission, 166 Fed. 498 — pp. 3657 
 3688. 
 
 v. Interstate Commerce Com 
 
 mission, 169 Fed. 894— p. 3791 
 
 Irvine !■. 
 
 Kingsley - 
 
 f. Kuttcr, 
 
 3636, 3668. 
 
 Lester z: 
 
 Lync I'. 
 
 Martin z: 
 
 Mettler z: 
 
 pp. 
 
 3632, 3633, 
 
 Co, 
 
 Napheys, p. 2687. 
 National Newark Banking 
 
 Delaware, etc 
 monwcalth, p. 
 
 Draper f. 
 
 '■. English 
 
 Ham V. 
 
 Hope r. 
 
 Lewis z: 
 
 Menner f. 
 
 Palmer -•. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 
 f. Webster, 
 
 Williams 
 
 Delaware, etc., 
 
 eral v. 
 
 Automatic 
 
 In- 
 
 3549, 
 3590, 
 
 Com- 
 
 T'. 
 
 pp. 2126, 2255. 
 Co.. Attorney Gen- 
 Merchandising Co. 
 
 Losie '•. 
 
 z: United States i: 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., American 
 
 Sugar Refin. Co. z-. 
 
 z: Ashley, pp. 1723, 1745, 
 
 1752, 1754, 1757, 2003, 2097, 
 2098, 2099, 2215, 2860. 
 
 Atwater -•. 
 
 .Ayres f. 
 
 Bacon -•. 
 
 Besecker z\ 
 
 Brooks f. 
 
 Bullock r. 
 
 r. Bullock, p. 3113. 
 
 Carr :•. 
 
 Case z: 
 
 f. Central Stock Yard, etc., 
 
 Co., 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 82, 
 43 N. J. Eq. 71, 10 Atl. 490— p. 
 242. 
 
 -•. Central Stock Yard, 
 
 Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 605. i: 
 374. 13 Atl. 615— p. 254. 
 
 Colton -•. 
 
 -'. Converse, p. 3792. 
 
 Curtis ;■. 
 
 Earne.'^t z\ 
 
 Eaton z: 
 
 Fcinbcrg t'. 
 
 Field f. 
 
 Forepaugh z: 
 
 etc.. 
 Atl. 
 
 Pease z'. 
 
 Poole z: 
 
 State z: 
 
 I'. Stevens, p. 3485. 
 
 Taber z: 
 
 v. Trautwein, pp. 209, 1492, 
 
 1589, 1590, 1767, 1775. 
 
 United States z: 
 
 z: United States, pp. 3652. 
 
 3654. 
 
 \'osler J". 
 
 z: Walsh, p. 3084. 
 
 Wood 7'. 
 
 Woodbridge z\ 
 
 Delcourt, Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 De Leon ;■. McKernan, p. 3052. 
 Delhi, etc., R. Co., Hoffbauer t. 
 Delk, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 J-. St. Louis, etc., R.. Co., 
 
 pp. 3452, 3455. 
 
 Dellwood Park Co., O'Callaghan v. 
 
 Delmonte z-. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 2563. 
 
 Del Norte, The. 
 
 Deloney. Hot Springs R. Co. z: 
 
 De Lorme f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 842. 3285, 3545. 
 
 Delta Bag Co. z\ Frederick Ley- 
 land & Co.. p. 3905. 
 
 f. Kearns, pp. 1225, 1228. 
 
 De Lucas :•. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1646. 1647, 2438. 
 
 Del \'alle z: Richmond, p. 3145. 
 
 De Mahy -•. Morgan's, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 1699. 
 
 Demann v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 
 pp. 2354. 2834. 
 
 Demarest, Bergen Countv Tract. 
 Co. z: 
 
 Demars, Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 Deniby, Hot Springs f. 
 
 De Mendoza, Bonner :•. 
 
 Dement. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 De Milley, Texas, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 -■. Texas, etc.. R. Co., p. 1625. 
 
 Deming f. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 630. 631, o33. 634. 667, 668, 
 669. 678. 
 
 f. Merchants' Cotton-Press. 
 
 etc., Co.. pp. 7, 282, 778. 822, 
 913, 931, 946. 949. 958, 972, 
 1012. 1013. 1022, 1023, 3326. 
 3348, 3349. 
 
 ;•. Norfolk, etc., R. Co.. 21 
 
 Fed. 25, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 232— p. 3376. 
 
 z: Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. (Pa.), 
 
 17 Phila. 540— p. 3286. 
 
 De Montcourt. Conrad ;•.
 
 CLX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 De Mott V. Laraway, pp. 511, 72S, 
 
 788. 
 Dempsey, Fordycc z\ 
 
 Gillingham z: 
 
 Dempster z\ Oregon, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2698. 
 Denaby Main Colliery Co. f. 
 
 Manchester, S. & L. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3685. 
 Denham r. Washington Water 
 
 Power Co., p. 2919. 
 Denison, Kingman & Co. ■:■. 
 
 f. Carter, 98 Tex. 196, 82 S. 
 
 W. 782, 107 Am. St. Rep. 626— 
 pp. 2299, 2302, 2524. 
 
 V. Carter (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 
 
 S. W, 320— pp. 2191, 2322. 
 
 i: Craig, p. 2143. 
 
 Fuller z\ 
 
 f, Tohnson, pp. 1532, 1562, 
 
 2656, '2657. 
 
 z: Randell, pp. 2415, 2853. 
 
 Denman '■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1438. 
 Denmark, The. 
 Denmcad, Slaughter z: 
 Dennan, Coney Island Co. f. 
 Dennie, Naylor z\ 
 
 Way z\ 
 
 Dennis f. Columbia Elect. St. R., 
 etc., Co., p. 3021. 
 
 z: Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1951, 1953, 2690. 
 
 V. Slyfield. pp. 3867, 3868, 
 
 3871, 3872, 3925. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Dennison, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Seattle, etc., R. Co., pp. 27, 
 
 81. 
 
 Denny v. Cabot, p. 3916. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1573, 2811. 
 
 z: Manhattan Co. (N. Y.), 2 
 
 Denio 115— p. 628. 
 
 z: Manhattan Co. (N. Y.), 5 
 
 Denio 639— p. 628. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 744. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1977, 2439. 
 
 V. North Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 2122, 2176, 2264. 
 
 V. The New York Central & 
 
 Hudson R. R., p. 1974. 
 
 De Nobra, Albion Lumber Co. v. 
 Densmore Comm. Co. z'. Duluth, 
 
 etc., Railway, p. 784. 
 Denton, Bradley v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 818, 1040. 
 
 z: Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1670, 1672, 1675. 
 
 Denver, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Denver City Tramway Co. f. 
 
 Cowan, pp. 2725, 2726, 2928, 
 
 2932. 
 
 -'. Hills, pp. 1536, 1834, 
 
 2675, 2687, 2740. 
 
 Denver Consol. Tramway Co., 
 Griffith z: 
 
 Posten z\ 
 
 z: Rush, p. 2688. 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. Cloud, pp. 
 2565, 3089. 
 
 v. Owens, p. 1889. 
 
 V. Reed, pp. 2411, 2710, 3027. 
 
 V. Reid, 22 Colo. 349, 45 
 
 Pac. 378— p. 2192. 
 
 z: Reid, 4 Colo. App. S3, 35 
 
 Pac. 269— pp. 1718, 1749, 1833, 
 2684. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. z\ Andrews, 
 p. 1680. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3247. 
 
 Ti^er Bros. Mercantile Co. v. 
 
 T'. P-aer Bros. Mercantile Co., 
 
 p. 3773. 
 
 z: Bedell pp. 1711. 
 
 Blythe v. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co., Brashaw ;•. 
 
 f. Cahill, pp. 1442, 1449. 
 
 Central Trust Co. ■;•. 
 
 z: Church, p. 3574. 
 
 •:•. Derrv, pp. 1495. 1490, 
 
 1531, 1532, 1579, 2121, 2322, 
 2866, 3211, 3226, 3227. 
 
 z: De Witt, p. 538. 
 
 Estes z\ 
 
 Felt f. 
 
 ■;■. Frame, pp. 481, 486, 490, 
 
 858. 
 
 z\ Gunning, pp. 2569, 2777. 
 
 z: Harris, p. 1054. 
 
 z: Hill, pp. 1153, 1155. 
 
 V. Hodgson, pp. 1740. 1792. 
 
 2833. 
 
 Hopper V. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 pp. 3609, 3739. 
 
 f. Tohnson, pp. 3113, 3116. 
 
 3152, '3155, 3156, 3187. 
 
 Oppenheimer z\ 
 
 V. Peterson, pp. 839, 840, 905, 
 
 907. 
 
 z: Pickard, p. 2150, 
 
 7'. Pilgrim, pp. 1702. 1834. 
 
 Price 7'. 
 
 z: Roberts, p. 3139. 
 
 z: Roller, p. 2088. 
 
 z: Spencer, pp. 2509, 2539, 
 
 2546, 2859. 
 
 z'. Whan, pp. 105, 1597. 2102, 
 
 2106. 
 
 Whittle V. 
 
 z\ Woodward, p. 2693. 
 
 Denver, etc.. Transit Co. t'. Dwyer, 
 
 pp. 2197, 2625. 
 De Palos, Hooker v. 
 Ue Pascale, Mahoning Valley R. 
 
 Co. '■. 
 Depew V. New York City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2187, 2310, 2890. 
 Depp, Louisville, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2597. 
 
 Derby, Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 De Rochemont '•. New York, etc.. 
 
 Railroad, p. 3543. 
 De Rosear, Mexican Cent. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Derosia f. Winona, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 896, 899, 904, 907, 910, 914, 
 
 915, 918. 
 De Rozas z\ Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2876. 
 Derry, Denver, etc., R. Co. Z'. 
 
 v. Flitner, p. 638. 
 
 Dcrwort z'. Loomer, pp. 1003, 1004, 
 
 1007, 1741, 2856. 
 De Saussure, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Dcschamps v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 82 S. C. 26, 64 S. E. 144— p. 
 
 897. 
 
 f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 66 
 
 S. E. 414, 84 S. C. 358— p. 1072. 
 
 Deshler, Rawls z\ 
 
 Oeshong, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Deskins t. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1789, 1801, 1870, 1911. 
 Dcslions V. La Compagnie Gencrale 
 
 Transatlantiquc, pp. 3979. 4012. 
 Des Moines City R. Co.. Blades 
 
 Boice v. 
 
 Cocke z\ 
 
 • Mitchell z: 
 
 Parker z'. 
 
 Root f. 
 
 Des Moines R. Co., Root t'. 
 
 Des Moines Val. R. Co., Rose v. 
 
 Des Moines, etc., R. Co., Hiatt 
 
 V. 
 
 Des Moines, etc., R. Co., Moore i. 
 
 De Sola f. Pomares, p. 3885. 
 
 De Soucey v. Manhattan R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1993, 2169. 
 Despatch Line ?'. Glcnny & Co., 
 
 pp. 283, 759, 760, 7<<2. 
 Des Portes v. Southern Railway, 
 
 p. 1619. 
 Dessau, Rosenthal z\ 
 Desso, Houston City, etc., R. Co. 
 
 De Tamble Motors Co., American 
 Thresherman v. 
 
 Detchett z\ Spuyten Duvvil, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 2300. 
 Detmold z'. Engle, p. 3567. 
 Detrich z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2582, 2583. 
 
 '■. Detroit Citizens' St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 34, 63, 64, 77, 78, 79. 
 
 J'. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1611. 
 
 Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co., Cross 
 
 Detroit '■. 
 
 Detroit City R. Co., Ashton v. 
 
 Heffron z'. 
 
 Kirchner v. 
 
 Lacas '■. 
 
 Upham z\ 
 
 Wormsdorf z\ 
 
 Detroit City Railway, McCahill v. 
 
 Mahoney v. 
 
 Detroit Elect. Railway, Keen v. 
 
 Nieboer Z'. 
 
 Detroit Railway, Selby z'. 
 Detroit St. R. Co., Bowdle v. 
 
 Gardner t'. 
 
 Detroit United R. Co., Thurston 
 
 Walters -■. 
 
 Detroit United Railway, Beattie v. 
 
 Conroy v. 
 
 Cummings 7'. 
 
 Formiller v. 
 
 Gerlach 7'. 
 
 Goodfellow V. 
 
 Kalis 7'. 
 
 K rouse z\ 
 
 Malinowski 7'. 
 
 Miller 7'. 
 
 Ottinger v. 
 
 People 7'. 
 
 Plefka 7'. 
 
 Reese 7'. 
 
 Rouston 7'. 
 
 Sewell 7'. 
 
 Sloan 7". 
 
 Smith 7'. 
 
 West Bloomfield Tp. 7'. 
 
 Wilson z: 
 
 T)etroit. etc., Ferry Co., Meisner 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. 7'. -\dams, 
 pp. 883, 1000, 1001. 
 
 ■ Bowdle 7'. 
 
 Burnham 7'. 
 
 Butler 7'. 
 
 Carvey 7'. 
 
 Curtis 7'. 
 
 7'. Curtis, pp. 1881, 1918. 
 
 Farmers', etc.. Bank "'. 
 
 7'. Farmers', etc.. Bank, pp. 
 
 946, 1036, 3327, 3339. 
 
 Freeman 7'. 
 
 French 7'. 
 
 Gates 7'. 
 
 Gaukler v.' 
 
 Greenfield 7'. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 — ■ — 7'. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 pp. 3430, 3608, 3634, 3635, 3637. 
 
 '3713, 3716, 3720. 
 3790. 
 
 Keating 7'. 
 
 Konieczny 7'. 
 
 Light v. 
 
 7'. McKenzie, pp. 
 
 3721, 3789, 
 
 3258, 3275.
 
 TADLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXI 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co., McLaren v. 
 
 V. Michigan R. tomm., VV- 
 
 41 46, 47, 50, 83. 121, 124, 
 125. 
 
 Minock V. 
 
 Pingree r. 
 
 Reason v. 
 
 Rice V. 
 
 Sm alley r. 
 
 r. State, p. 3508. 
 
 Stoody V. 
 
 Strohn ■:■. 
 
 — — Sturges V. 
 
 Sturgis f. 
 
 N'andercook f. 
 
 Walker v. 
 
 Detroit, etc., Railway, Coy v. 
 Dolbec f. 
 
 Kherts V. 
 
 Johnson r. 
 
 Kissanc r. 
 
 Richard 7'. 
 
 V. State, p. 3454. 
 
 Vining v. 
 
 Deutschmann 7\ 'I'hird .\ve. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2752. 
 Devainey, Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Devainy, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 De Vane f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1501. 1506. 
 Dcvcr, Raltiniore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Devereaux f. Buckley, pp. 638, 
 
 640, 654, 656. 
 De Villers f. Schooner John Bell, 
 
 pp. 727, 3256, 3898. 
 Devin, Woods v. 
 Devine v. Chicago City R. Co., 
 
 86 N. E. 689, 237 111. 278— 
 
 p. 3022. 
 
 r. Chicago City R. Co., 141 
 
 111. App. 583— pp. 2485, 2486, 
 2487. 
 
 t'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 162 
 
 111. App. 243— pp. 1050, 1506, 
 1556. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 
 
 Iowa 692, 69 N. W. 1042— 
 pp. 1877, 2990. 
 
 Dcvino v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2587, 2588. 
 Devroe z: Portland R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2777, 2859. 
 Dewar t-. Mowinckel, pp. 3955, 
 
 3966, 3971. 
 Dewey, Chicago, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 l)ev\-in, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Dewire -'. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1521, 2181. 
 De Witt r. Berry, p. 3871. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. ■:'. 
 
 Hallenbcck z'. 
 
 De Wolff ;■. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 320. 323, 1063, 1064, 1075. 
 Dexter, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ?'. Seaboard, etc., Railway, p. 
 
 1450. 
 
 -•. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3114, 3119, 3120, 3129. 
 
 Dextcrville Mfg., etc., Co., In re. 
 Dey, Burlington, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Deyo V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1684, 1687, 1711, 1712, 1720, 
 
 1726, 2285, 2667. 
 De Yoe f. Seattle Elect. Co., pp. 
 
 2671, 2690, 2893. 
 Diadem, The. 
 Diamond Block Coal Co. v. Ed- 
 
 mondson, p. 2605. 
 Diamond Coal Co., Baltimore, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 Diamond Glue Co. ■; 
 
 Clue Co., p. 3424. 
 Diamond Toe Line z\ 
 
 914. 
 
 ^[yres ;■. 
 
 Diamond Roller Mill 
 
 tional, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 United States 
 ;•. Carter, p. 
 
 Dibble :■. Brown, pp. 727, 732, 748, 
 3109, 3114, 3115, 3116. 3117. 
 3119. 3121, 3124. 312o. 3129. 
 3131, 3132, 3141, 3142. 3143. 
 3151, 3187, 3189. 3190. 
 
 Morgan z'. 
 
 V. Morgan, pp. 530. 531, 736. 
 
 741. 
 
 Di Benedetto v. Milwaukee Elect. 
 
 R., etc.. Co.. p. 3087. 
 Dice z\ Willamette Transp.. etc.. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1528. 1965. 
 
 Dick. Reed v. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. ?. 
 
 Dickens f. New York Cent. R. 
 
 Co.. p. 2228. 
 
 Dickerman r. St. Paul LTnion De- 
 pot Co., pp. 1636, 1851. 
 
 Dickerson, Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 .\tlanta, etc., R 
 Birmingham R 
 
 Co. 
 etc.. 
 
 Co. 
 
 etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co. 
 R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., 
 236. 
 
 Tnterna- 
 
 Columbia, 
 2860. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R'. 
 :■. Louisville, etc., 
 3756, 3776. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 
 V. Seelve. pn. 310. 338. 
 
 Dickert z: Salt Lake Citv R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1717, 1735, 1894, 2950, 2974. 
 Dickinson. .Xtlanta, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 
 .Xtlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Dodds, p. 3868. 
 
 7'. Haslet, p. 3949. 
 
 z: Port Huron, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1815, 2365. 
 
 T. West End St. R. Co., 
 
 1584. 1760. 
 
 Dickman z'. Williams, p. 1219. 
 Dickson t'. Chaffee, n. 575. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. rv 
 
 Z-. r.t. Northern R'y. Co 
 
 211. 
 
 7'. Merchant's Elevator 
 
 p. 365. 
 
 z\ Northern R. Co.. pp 
 
 243. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. 7'. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 Dicckmann 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Iowa). 105 N. W. 526— pp. 
 
 2138, 2786. 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 145 
 
 Iowa 250. 121 N. W. 676. 31 
 
 L. R. A.. N. S.. 338. 32 R. R. 
 
 R. 346, 55 Am. &• Eng. R. Cas.. 
 
 N. S., 346— pp. 1509, 1512. 1513, 
 
 1768, 1791, 1792, 2126. 2127, 
 
 2140. 2326, 2673, 2860. 
 Die Elbinger 7'. Armstrong, p. 653. 
 Diefcnbach, Texas, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 Diehl, Woodruff, etc.. Coach Co. v. 
 Diem -■. Koblitz. pp. 1206, 1209, 
 
 1210, 1211. 1212. 1213,^ 1214, 
 
 1245. 
 Diepenbrock 7'. Wove Realty Co.. 
 
 pp. 2740, 2837. 
 Dicrig 7'. South Covington, etc., 
 
 St. R. Co.. p. 2571. 
 I'ies. Louisville, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 Railroad 7. 
 
 Dii'tcrich 7'. Fargo, p. 238. 
 Diither, Grand Rapids, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Dietrich 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1529. 1612. l"862, 1974. 1975. 
 
 Difcndaffer. New York, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Diffenbaugh. Interstate Commerce 
 
 Comm. 7'. 
 Diffendal, Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Diggs 7'. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 156 Fed. 564. 84 C. C. .\. 330. 
 
 14 L. R. A.. N. S., 1029— p. 
 
 1923. 
 
 2751, 
 
 Co. 
 2249. 
 
 Diggs 7'. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 158 Fed. 97. 85 C. C. A. 565— p. 
 
 1923. 
 
 Di Giorgio. Importing, etc.. Co. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 216. 
 
 217. 249. 258. 261. 
 
 Dilburn. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc.. R'. Co., 156 
 
 Ala. 228. 47 So. 210— pp. 1884. 
 2249. 2252. 2361, 2744. 
 2909. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc.. K. 
 
 (Ala.). 59 So. 438— pp. 
 2258. 
 
 Dill. Atchison, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 7'. South Carolina R. Co.. 
 
 no. 3139. 3142, 3198. 
 
 Dillard Bros, z: Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 931, 946, 972. 977. 979. 
 
 087. 3161. 3162. 3166. 3330. 
 Dillender 7'. St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 249. 262. 
 Dille'haw z: Charleston, etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. np. 1770. 1771. 
 Dillineham 7'. .\nthony. pp. 
 
 2046. 
 
 Fordyce 7' 
 
 7'. Hodges, 
 
 z: Labatt, 
 
 7', Pierce. 
 
 7'. Russell. 
 
 2018. 
 
 z: Teeling. 
 
 2505. 
 
 7'. Wood. np. 1729. 1731, 
 
 Dillman 7-. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 nn. 1858. 1859. 
 
 p. 1938. 
 p. 1193. 
 p. 2514. 
 pp. 2016. 
 
 2042. 
 
 20i; 
 
 pp. 1779. 1793. 
 
 1755. 
 Co.. 
 
 Dillon 
 3500. 
 
 Erie R. 
 
 Co.. 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 64 
 
 .Vpp. 
 Anp. 
 
 Co.. pp. 
 Co.. In- 
 
 Co. 
 Co., 
 
 Lindell T<. Co., 64 Mo. 
 41 g — n. 2444. 
 
 Lindell R. Co.. 71 Mo. 
 631— pp. 1662. 1663. 
 Dills. Kentncky Cent. R. Co. z: 
 Dilworth. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Dimmev z: Wheeling, etc., R. Co., 
 
 nn. 2261, 2766. 
 Di-^mick z: Milwaukee, etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 910. 913. 
 Dimmitt. Gulf. etc.. R. Co 7'. 
 
 t: Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2260. 2701. 2844. 
 
 7'. Kansas, etc.. R. 
 
 3292, 3343. 
 
 Dimmit County Pasture 
 tcrrational, etc.. R. Co. 
 Dimock. The IT. F. 
 rtimond. Hall 7'. 
 Dingman. Chicago, etc.. R 
 
 f. Duluth, etc., R". 
 
 101. 
 
 Dininnv 7'. New York. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 nn. 3169, 3170. 3171, 
 Dinnigan 7'. Peterson, pp. 19.-9. 
 
 2693. 
 Dinsmark. Lendsberg v. 
 Dinsmore. Belger 7-. 
 
 Brehmc 7'. 
 
 Brooks 7'. 
 
 Chicago City 
 
 Chicago, etc 
 
 Cochran 7-. 
 
 CoUender 7'. 
 
 Cihormley z: 
 
 Gott 7'. 
 
 Hirschberg 7'. 
 
 Huntington 7'. 
 
 Kirkland 7-. 
 
 Landsberg 7'. 
 
 Lansberg 7'. 
 
 7-. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 108. 
 
 Magnin 7-. 
 
 Peck 7'. 
 
 Rosebrooks z: 
 
 Smith f. 
 
 Trammel 7'. 
 
 Wetzell z: 
 
 Dinwiddie, Gulf, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 R. Co. :■ 
 . R. Co. 
 
 1 Car— k
 
 CLXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Dionne v. Canadian Pac. R., p. 
 
 959. 
 Disbrow & Co., Cincinnati, etc., 
 
 R. Co. f. 
 Dishman, Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Dismukes, Mobile, etc., R. Co. •:'. 
 Disnev '•. Furness, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 3869, 3874, 3875. 
 Dissen, Fort Produce Co. f. 
 Dista V. Westchester Elect. K. Co., 
 
 p. 2835. 
 Distler v. Long Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 1879, 1998, 2126, 2153. 
 Ditchfield V. Philadelphia, etc.. 
 
 Tract. Co., p. 2819. 
 Ditmars, Atchinson, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dittey, Ohio River, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Dittman, etc.. Shoe Co. r. Keokuk, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3170, 3172, 
 3195. 
 
 I'. Mixon, p. 3547. 
 
 Dittmar z: Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 1796. 
 Ditto, Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Di.xey, Murrell r. 
 
 r. Philadelphia Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2691. 
 
 Dixie Cigar Co. z: Southern Exp. 
 
 Co., pp. 977, 1087, 1089. 
 Dixie Tobacco Co., Norfolk, etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Dixon V. Baldwin, p. 1240. 
 
 '•. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1805, 1812, 2147. 
 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 285, 288, 289, 433, 520, 699, 700, 
 701, 895, 910. 
 
 I'. Great Falls, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1512, 1866, 2875. 
 
 r. Mobile, etc., R'.' Co., p. 
 
 2387. 
 
 ■;•. New England Railroad, pp. 
 
 1620, 1976, 1977, 2629. 
 
 V. Richelieu Nav. Co., p. 
 
 3149. 
 
 z: Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3183, 3399. 
 
 z: Yates, p. 1225. 
 
 Dlabola z-. Manhattan R. Co., p. 
 
 2895. 
 Doan, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 728, 817, 828, 1281, 1456. 
 
 Doane, New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Russell, p. 1168. 
 
 Dobbin v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 543. 
 Dobbins, Little Rock R'., etc., Co. 
 
 -•. Little Rock R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2421, 2476, 3027. 
 
 f. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 215, 247, 248. 
 
 Dobiecki z: Sharp, pp. 1783, 2133. 
 Dobnev ■;•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 225, 248. 
 Dobson z: Central R. Co., p. 987. 
 
 Knoxville Iron Co. v. 
 
 z: New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1582. 
 
 v. Receivers, pp. 1884, 2226, 
 
 2357, 3066, 3070. 
 
 Dochtermann -'. Brooklyn Heights 
 
 R. Co., p. 2692. 
 Dodd, Blossom v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dodd, etc., Exp. Co., Florman v. 
 Dodds, Dickinson z'. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z'. 
 
 Dodds & Co., Little Miami, etc., 
 
 K. Co. V. 
 Dodge "'. Boston, etc.. Steamship 
 Co., pp. 1504, 1505, 1506, 1528, 
 1537, 1715, 1723, 1746, 1750, 
 1964. 1965, 2125, 2950, 4004. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3330, 3536. 
 
 V. Hall, pp. 1518, 1542, 1561. 
 
 Kennedy z'. 
 
 z: Meyer, p. 486. 
 
 Tempel v. 
 
 Dodge, United States v. 
 Dodson, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 ■ St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Doe, Richards z: 
 
 Does f. Crosstown St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2700. 
 Doggett f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2208. 
 Doherr z: Houston, 123 Fed. 334— 
 
 pp. 3903, 3905. 
 
 '•. Houston, 128 Fed. 594, 64 
 
 C. C. A. 102— pp. 3922, 3926. 
 
 • '■. The Etona, p. 4071. 
 
 Doherty f. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1709, 1744, 2811, 2895. 
 
 J'. California Nav., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 3993, 4001. 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 191, 196, 200, 1595, 2122, 2427, 
 2847, 3204, 3213. 
 
 Dohn, Indianapolis L'nion R. Co. 
 
 Dolan, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dolbee v. Detroit, etc., Railway, p. 
 
 2653. 
 Dolphin '■. Worcester Consol. St. 
 
 R. Co., p. 2950. 
 Domenico z\ El Paso Elect. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2664, 2778. 
 Donahoe z\ Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2954. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Donahue, Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Trumbull z\ 
 
 Donald, Scott f. 
 
 Donaldson, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — — z\ Perry Co., pp. 3925, 4059. 
 
 Pomeroy "•. 
 
 z'. Severn River Glass Sand 
 
 Co., 138 Fed. 691— p. 3962. 
 
 -'. Severn River Glass Sand 
 
 Co.. 138 Fed. 694— p. 3962. 
 
 The J. P. 
 
 Donalson z'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1639. 
 Donath z\ Broomhead, pp. 1211, 
 
 1229, 1235, 1244. 
 Donlon Bros. f. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 pp. 948, 952. 1064, 1079, 1137, 
 
 1138, 1140, 1398. 
 Donnegan v. Erhardt, p. 1815. 
 Donnell v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., pp. 
 
 3950, 3965. 
 
 V. Canadian Pac. E.'. Co., p. 
 
 846. 
 
 • Sproat ?'. 
 
 Donnelly v. Buffalo, etc., Tract. 
 Co., p. 1889. 
 
 z\ Chicago City R. Co., p. 
 
 2332. 
 
 Donnovan z'. Pennsylvania Co., pp. 
 
 99, 111, 132. 
 Donohue v. Public Service R. Co., 
 
 p. 2883. 
 Donovan, Batson z\ 
 
 z\ Compagnie Generale Trans- 
 
 atlantique, p. 723. 
 
 • z'. Greenfield, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2855. 
 
 v. Hartford St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1507, 2669. 
 
 Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. 
 
 f. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1808. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. z\ 
 
 -'. Pennsylvania Co., 57 C. C. 
 
 A. 362, 120 Fed. 215, 61 L. R. 
 A. 140— pp. 99, 132. 
 
 z\ Pennsylvania Co., 199 U. 
 
 S. 279, 50 L. Ed. 192, 26 S. Ct. 
 91— pp. 99, 111. 
 
 — Reading z\ 
 
 Rucker -'. 
 
 z'. Standard Oil Co., pp. 330, 
 
 992, 993. 
 
 — — -'. Texas, etc., R. Co., jjp. 30, 
 
 189, 190, 537. 
 Doolan, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Dooley z\ Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2713. 
 Doolin V. Omnibus Cable Co., p. 
 
 2898. 
 Doolittle V. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 1697, 1911, 1921, 2113, 2114, 
 
 2115, 2174, 2361, 2861, 2892. 
 Doremeyer, Indiana, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Dorff '•. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2882. 
 Dorman, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Dorn ''. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1821, 1842, 2319, 2671. 
 
 Borough, Kansas, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Dorr v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., p. 
 1992. 
 
 z'. New Jersey Steam Nav. 
 
 Co., pp. 946, 1003, 1004, 1007. 
 
 Dorr Cattle Co. z\ Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1333, 1340, 1446, 
 
 1466, 1477. 
 Dorrah v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1906, 3057. 
 Dorrance z\ Michigan United R'. 
 
 Co., pp. 2742, 2859, 2883. 
 Dorrance & Co. •;■. International, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 235. 
 Dorsett V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2445, 2716, 3090. 
 Dorsey z\ Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1760. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ c'. Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2774, 3049. 
 
 Cudahy Packing Co. z\ 
 
 Florida R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Packwood, p. 3867. 
 
 v. Smith, p. 3905. 
 
 v. State, p. 3480. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. z'. 
 
 Dorsey Fuel Co., Railway Co. 
 Dorsey Produce Co., Ayres, 
 
 Co. V. 
 Doss z\ Missouri, etc., R. Co 
 
 2357, 2512. 2514. 
 Dothan Mule Co., Atlantic, 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 Central, etc., R'. Co. z\ 
 
 Dotson v. Erie R. Co., pp. 2131, 
 
 2133. 
 
 Houston, etc, R. Co. z\ 
 
 Dotterer, Williams & Co. z'. 
 Doty z: Strong, pp. 208, 209, 211, 
 
 212, 222, 246, 820. 
 Doublin Whiskey Distillery Co. z'. 
 
 Midland, etc., R. Co.. p. 254. 
 Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 
 
 pp. 1687, 1838. 
 Dougherty, B. & O. R. Co. '■. 
 
 c". Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2262. 
 
 V. Cincinnati Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1515. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Missouri R. Co., 81 
 
 325. 51 Am. Rep. 239, 21 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 497— pp. 1894, 
 
 2691, 2692. 
 
 ?■. Missouri R. Co., 97 Mo. 
 
 647, 8 S. W. 900, 11 S. W. 251, 
 ^7 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 206— 
 pp. 1728, 1894, 2392, 2759. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh R. Co., p. 2685. 
 
 ■?'. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2223, 2365. 
 
 Dougherty Co., Atlas Portland Ce- 
 ment Co. V. 
 
 Doughitt V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2842. 
 
 Doughty, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Douglas, Goodwyn, etc., Co. Z'. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. z 
 
 z\ People's Bank, pp. 
 
 360, 364, 372, 387, 388, 
 547. 
 
 V. Sioux City St. R. Co 
 
 2013, 2897, 2950. 
 Douglas Co. V. Minnesota Transfer 
 
 R. Co., pp. 760, 1074. 
 Douglas County St. R. Co., Burt 
 
 etc.. 
 
 , pp. 
 etc.. 
 
 Mo. 
 .\m. 
 
 356, 
 389, 
 
 pp.
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 ci.xiri 
 
 Douglas County, etc., R. Co., Burt 
 
 Z'. 
 
 Douglas Sons, Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 Co. V. . , ^ 
 
 Douglas & Sons, Missouri Pac. K. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Douglas, etc., R. Co. v. Swintlle, 
 
 pp. 1763, 1990, 2576, 2614. 
 Douglass I'. Annistong, p. 29. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1303, 1320. 
 
 Louisville, etc., K. Co. ?■. 
 
 z\ Montgomery, etc., K. Co. 
 
 pp. 3189, 3190. 
 
 Douthilt V. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 1747. 
 Douyette v. Nashua St. Railway 
 
 p. 2926. 
 Uow V. Beidelman, pp. 34, 36, 38 
 
 39, 43, 44, 51, 58, 60, 01, 64 
 
 115, 116, 124, 1136. 
 
 V. Portland Steam Packet Co. 
 
 pp. 821, 1456. 
 
 z: Syracuse, etc., Railway, p 
 
 2103. 
 
 Dowd f. Albany Railway, pp. 196 
 2854, 3112. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1568, 2509. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2370, 2379. 
 
 DowdcU r. United States i)ist 
 
 Court, p. 4083. 
 Dowgate Steamship Co. '■■ Ar 
 
 buckle p. 3903. 
 Dowgiallo, St. Louis, .etc., K'. Co 
 
 Downc, Cobban v. 
 Downer, People l'. 
 
 Pickett V. 
 
 The. 
 
 Transportation Co. r. 
 
 Downey f. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 203, 204, 2114, 2116, 
 2123, 2208. 
 
 V. Hendrie, pp. 2188, 2858. 
 
 r. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2013. 
 
 V. Pittsburg R. Co., p. 2898. 
 
 Downing, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 r. Outerbridge, p. 517. 
 
 Downman, Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Downs, Flower -■. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. t'. 
 
 ■:•. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2225. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1638, 2430. 
 
 Dows v. Cobb, pp. 480, 485, 490. 
 
 V. Greene, 24 N. Y. 638— p. 
 
 364. „ , 
 
 V. Greene (N. Y.), 32 Barb. 
 
 490— pp. 1222, 1223. 
 
 Iluntly 7'. 
 
 -•. National Kxch. Bank, 
 
 352, 353, 364. 369, 373, 
 390, 392, 396, 403, 3274. 
 
 f. Perrin, pp. 372, 1221. 
 
 Doyl, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 Doyle, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 '— V. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 963, 965. 
 
 Bank r. 
 
 I'. Boston, etc., I\ 
 
 2036, 2929, 2968. 
 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co.. 162 
 
 Mass. 66, 37 N. E. 770, 25 L. 
 R A. 157, 44 .\m. St. Rep. 335 
 —pp. 1584, 2092, 2093. 
 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co.. 166 Mass. 
 
 492, 44 N. E. 611, 33 L. R. A. 
 844, 55 .\m. St. Rep. 417— pp. 
 1582, 1584, 2092. 
 
 V. Riser, pp. 3123, 3125, 3126. 
 
 3127, 3129, 3148, 3149, 3151. 
 3189, 3191, 4008. 
 
 Little Rock R., etc.. Co. :■. 
 
 f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2682. 
 
 V. Roth Mfg. Co., p. 352. 
 
 pp. 
 378, 
 
 Co.. 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Co., pp. 2621, 
 Ohio, etc., R. 
 
 Dracachi :'. -Anglo- Kgyption Nav. 
 
 Co., p. 365. 
 Drainage Conim'rs, Chicago, etc., 
 
 K. Co. V. 
 Drake, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 ■ T. Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1291, 1333, 1342. 
 
 V. Nashville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 230, 1109, 3267, 3268, 3298, 
 3314, 3ii2. 
 
 Oakford v. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 199, 202, 1788, 2122, 2246. 
 
 Draper, City Transfer Co. v. 
 
 !■. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 
 pp. 889, 896. 
 
 T. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1802, 2610. 
 
 Drawdy :•. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2327. 
 Dresbach v. California Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 537. 
 Dresser v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1609, 3316. 
 
 Meyer v. 
 
 ■ %'. West Virginia Transp. Co., 
 
 pp. 512, 581, 877. _ 
 Dresslar v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1702, 2263, 2670. 
 Drcssner -•. Manhattan Delivery 
 
 Co., pp. 478, 479. 
 Drew, Bell r. 
 
 Bennett i'. 
 
 :•. Central Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1529, 1973. 
 
 Pardee v. 
 
 z: Si.xth Ave. R. Co., 26 N. 
 
 Y. 49— p. 2065. 
 
 V. Si.xth Ave. R. Co., 42 N. 
 
 Y. (3 Keyes) 429, 1 Abb. Dec. 
 556— p. 2065. 
 
 z' Wabash R. 
 
 2852. 
 
 Drew Glass Co. z 
 
 Co., p. 3343. 
 Drey, etc.. Glass Co. v. Missouri 
 
 Pac. R. Co., p. 991. 
 Dreyer t'. Illinois, p. 23. 
 Dreyfus z: Mayer, pp. 1219. 1221. 
 — — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dreyfus-Weil Co., Nashville, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Driess z'. Fricderick, p. 1762. 
 Drinkwater, Herman -■. 
 Driscoll -■. Nidiols, p. 456. 
 Drisdale, McGhee z-. 
 Drishell, Texas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Driven, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f 
 D. R. Martin, Barney z: 
 Droymund f. Metropolitan St. R 
 
 Co., p. 1569. 
 Drolshagen -■. L^nion Depot R. Co. 
 
 p. 2534. 
 Drought & Co., International, etc. 
 
 R. Co. -■. 
 Drummond, .Mabama. etc., R. Co 
 
 — — Quanah, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 -'. Southern Pac. Co., pp 
 
 1573, 1616, 1632, 1634. 
 
 Drummy i'. Minneapolis, etc., R 
 Co., pp. 1777, 1780. 2325. 2873. 
 
 Dryden '•. St. Louis Transit Co. 
 p. 1666. 
 
 Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., -Mien -•. 
 
 Bernstein z: 
 
 Casper & Co. -'. 
 
 nines f. 
 
 Kleffmann ;■. 
 
 Lewyt -■. 
 
 Littmann '•. 
 
 O'Neill ;■. 
 
 • Rosen z: 
 
 Saffer z: 
 
 Schmitt -'. 
 
 Seitz ;•. 
 
 Taylor -'. 
 
 Tregear -•. 
 
 Walker -•. 
 
 Dryden, Yoakum ;•. 
 Drysdalc. Western, 
 
 V. 
 Duane, Pearson z: 
 
 i?tc.. Railroad 
 
 Dublin, etc., R. Co., McCook v. 
 Dubnow r. New York City R. Co., 
 
 p. 1980. 
 Du Bose V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1524, 1788. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1552, 1610. 
 
 Dubuque, Keckevoet I'. 
 Dubuque St. R'. Co., Bonce i'. 
 Dubuque, etc., Co., Bonce v. 
 Dubuque, etc., R. Co., .■\m>iden v. 
 
 Bonce v. 
 
 Francis z: 
 
 Nichols z\ 
 
 Duchemin v. Boston KIcvatcd R. 
 
 Co., p. 1516. 
 Duchess, etc., R. Co., People v. 
 Duck, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1937, 2707. 
 
 Duckstein, Chicago Union Tract 
 
 Co. z: 
 Duckworth, Charleston, etc., R. Co 
 
 Dudley f. Camden, etc.. Ferry Co. 
 pp. 725, 726. 
 
 I'. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 268, 501, 551, 552, 553, 569 
 796, 909. 
 
 Eastern z\ 
 
 Easton f. 
 
 - . Front St. Cable R. Co., 
 
 p. 1900. 
 
 Dudzik, West Chicago St. R. Co. 
 
 Ducll f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2646, 2822, 3033. 
 DuflF -•. Allegheny \alley R. Co., 
 
 p. 1588. 
 
 Holtzclaw I'. 
 
 Duflfy, Gleason ;•. 
 
 z'. Thompson, pp. 3114, 3125, 
 
 3129. 
 
 Dufolt f. Gorman, p. 1157. 
 Dufour, Simpson i'. 
 Dufrain, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dufresnc, South Chicago City R. 
 Co. f. 
 
 South Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Dugan z: Blue Hill St. R. Co., 
 pp. 1585. 2100, 2866. 
 
 ■:■. State, p. 3480. 
 
 Duggan -■. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2060, 2061. 
 
 -'. New Jersey, etc.. Ferry 
 
 Co., pp. 1682. 1742, 4002. 
 
 Duhme i'. Hamburg- .-Xmerican Packet 
 
 Co., pp. 3992, 3999. 
 Duke, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 Dulaney f. Philadelphia, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 311, 313. 
 
 f. L'nited R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 99. 
 
 Dulany, Sawyer z\ 
 
 Du Laurans z: First Division, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1596, 1599, 1601, 
 
 l(i02, 2467, 2468, 2469. 2470. 
 
 2492, 3079. 3080, 3083, 3098. 
 Duling -•. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1667. 
 Duluth St. R. Co., Cody ;•. 
 
 Fosnes z-. 
 
 Jarmy -•. 
 
 Swanson -•. 
 
 Duluth-Superior Mill. Co. z: North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co., pp. 3435, 3436, 
 3489. 
 
 Duluth. etc.. Railway. Densmore 
 
 Conim. Co. z: 
 Duluth, etc.. R. Co., Boehm :■. 
 
 Campbell -•. 
 
 Dingman z: 
 
 Reed :■. 
 
 Dumas, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 1692. 
 
 Oregon R.. etc.. Co. z: 
 
 Oregon, etc., Co. z: 
 
 Dumphy ;. Frie R. Co., p. 1502. 
 Duniser, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 CLXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Dun f. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2200, 2202. 
 Dunbar f. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 P- 554. , ,„_^ 
 
 —— z: Buck, pp. 114x 38/6. 
 
 r. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 987, 990, 3354. 
 
 Evans f. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Ohio. etc.. R. Co. '•. 
 
 t'. Port Roval, etc. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 457, 458, 451, 3327. 
 Dunbar, etc., Co. f. Port Royal, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 805. , „ „ ^ 
 Duncan v. Atch., Topeka & banta 
 
 Fe, p. 3666. 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 t' Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 728. 730, 733, 749, 753, 765. 
 842, 867. 
 
 International, etc.. K. *.-0. t'. 
 
 Louis%nlle, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Maine Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2094. 2096. 
 
 Morse V. 
 
 r. Railroad Co., p. 3681. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. r. 
 
 Thompson '<: 
 
 v. Wyatt Park K. Co.. p. 
 
 2249. 
 
 Dunham z: Boston, etc., R. Co., 70 
 Me. 164, 35 Am. Rep. 314 — p. 
 3282. 
 
 z: Boston, etc.. R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 46 Hun 245, 11 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. 472— pp. 722, 901, 906. 
 
 Greve & Co. v. 
 
 v. Public Service Corp.. p. 
 
 2619. „ „ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. to. ■_ 
 
 Dunie v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 587. 
 Dunipace, Brabley v. 
 Dunkirk, etc., R. Co. t-. Campbell, 
 
 p. 3573. 
 Dunlap r. Chicago, etc., K. to , 
 
 p. 2792. 
 
 V International Steamboat Co , 
 
 pp. 3119, 3120, 3124, 3125, 3126. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1635. 
 
 z: Steamboat Reliance, p. 
 
 1684. 
 
 Dunlop V. Edinburgh, etc., K. to., 
 
 p. 1670. ^ ^ 
 
 Dunman. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. '•. 
 Dunn r. Branner, pp. 428. 3133. 
 
 Durchman v. 
 
 Durchmann '•. 
 
 r. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 1545, 1550, 1752, 1755. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., po. 
 
 855, 1087, 1091, 1099, 1392, 1417, 
 3261, 3302. 
 
 z: New Haven Steamboat Co., 
 
 p. 3196. 
 
 z'. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2354. 
 
 Riddick v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Self V. 
 
 Yoakum v. r, r^ 
 
 Dunne r. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2510, 2515. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 679, 3754. 
 
 Dunnigan, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 uunning v. Lake Erie, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 2269. 
 DunniuKton & Co. r. Louisville, 
 
 etc R. Co.. pp. 318, 885. 
 Dunphy r. Erie R. Co., pp. 1976, 
 
 2439. 
 Dunseth v. Wade, p. 3297 
 Dunson v. New York Cent. K. 
 
 Co , pp. 742, 743, 750, 885, 886, 
 
 3262, 3286. 
 Duntley v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 650, 1074, 1137. 
 ,Dunwody v. The Campbell, p. 3972. 
 
 Duplan Silk Co. f. American, etc.. 
 
 Marine Ins. Co.. p. 3854 
 Dupont, Lehigh N'alley R. Co. •:■. 
 Dupont, etc.. Co. v. V ance, pp. 
 
 3894, 3899. 3908, 3909, 3919, 
 
 3945, 3946, 4021. 4022. 
 Dupre, Mann Boudoir Car Co. v. 
 Dupree, Texas Exp. Co. 7: 
 Dupree Comm. Co., Texas btcam- 
 
 sliip Co. 7'. 
 Dupuis V. Saginaw Valley Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 2860. 
 Durand, Chicago, etc.. R. Co v 
 Durchman f. Dunn, 101 Fed. 606 i 
 
 —pp. 3959, 3972. 
 r Dunn, 106 Fed. 950, 46 C. 
 
 C. A. 62— p. 3957. 
 Durden v. Southern R. Co., p. 
 
 3042. 
 Durell, Bloomingdale z\ 
 Durfee f. Tohnstown, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2088. " 
 
 v. Union Pac. R. Co.. p. 
 
 3100. 
 
 Durgin i: American Exp. Lo., pp. 
 
 320. 323, 945, 986. _ . 
 
 Durgy Cement, etc., Co. v. O Brien, 
 
 pp 1218, 1219, 1229, 1232. 
 Durham z'. Louisville, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2600, 2615. 
 Durham Tract. Co., Briggs z: 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 Morarity ''. 
 
 Thorp r. 
 
 Durham, etc., R. Co., McNeill f. 
 
 Povthress ?■. 
 
 Durkin, Toledo, etc., R. Co. ".'. 
 Durrence, Georgia, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Durvee t'. New York, p. 855. 
 Dusar z: Murgatroyd, pp. 850. 
 
 3934. 
 Dusenberry, Highland Ave., etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 
 — Little ?■. 
 
 Dusenbury 7: North Hudson County 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1817, 2901. 
 Dutchess. Tompkins v. 
 Dutton, Bennett v. 
 
 Clancv z'. 
 
 v. Str'ong, pp. 3248, 3529. 
 
 Duty V. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1882, 1891. 2598, 2859. 
 Duval V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 
 
 n. 3206. 
 Duvenick r. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 945, 973, 974, 1287, 1288. 
 Duvernet v. Morgan's Louisiana, 
 
 etc., Co., p. 2272. 
 Dwelle, Atchison, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 Dwight V. Brewster, pp. 283, 762, 
 
 769. 770. , ^ ^ 
 
 Dwight Mfg. Co., Centra! R. Co. 
 
 Dykes, San .\ntonio, etc., R. Co 
 
 Dvkstra z: Grand Rapids, etc., R 
 
 'Co., pp. 2405, 2637, 2638. 
 Dymock z: Midland Nat. Bank, pp 
 
 1221, 1224. 
 z: Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 360, 361, 1221, 1224. 
 Dysart z\ Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1544, 1550, 1553. 
 Dyson, Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 Rice z'. 
 
 Dwinellc v. New York. etc.. K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2038, 2045, 2047, 2075, 2567. 
 D'Wolf z: Harris, p. 478. 
 Dwyer v. Auburn, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2258, 2823. 
 
 Denver, etc.. Trans. Co. z: 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 v. Gulf. etc.. R. Co., pp. 156, 
 
 328. 331, 518, 519. 
 
 Houston, etc., Nav. Co. ?■. 
 
 z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2272. 
 
 Dye z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1923. 
 ■ Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Virginia Mid. R. Co., p. 
 
 1969. 
 
 Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. pp. 
 522. 581, 683, 1154, 1167, 1171, 
 1172. „ ^ 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., p 
 
 542. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 
 v. National Steamship Co., p 
 
 3933. 
 
 Dyke z: Fric, K. Co., pp. 1489 
 1490, 1491. 
 
 Fades, Crawshay z\ 
 
 Fads z: Metropolitan R. Co., p. 
 
 2418. 
 Eagen '•. Jersey City, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2277. 
 Eager -■ Tonesboro, etc., Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 578." 
 
 Stanton ''. 
 
 Eagle, The. 
 
 -... White, pp. 211, 523, 728, 
 
 733, 749, 898. 
 
 Eagle Ins. Co.. Wolcott z'. 
 Eagle Packet Co. ■;'. ' Defries, p. 
 2683. 
 
 St. Louis z'. 
 
 Eagle White Lead Co. z\ Inter- 
 state Commerce Comm., pp. 3678, 
 3798. 
 
 Eaglesfield, Ex parte. 
 
 Eakin, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Fames z: Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1766. 1814. 
 
 Earl, Tones <•. 
 
 Earle,' Ballou z: 
 
 V. Cadmus, pp. 1082, 3166. 
 
 Merritt z: 
 
 Packard r. 
 
 Philips "'. 
 
 Phillips V. 
 
 Early-Clement Grain Co., Missouri, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Earnest z\ Delaware, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 480. 
 
 z'. Express Co., p. 760. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Earn-Line Steamship Co., Northern 
 
 Steamship Co. v. 
 Earnwood, The. 
 
 Earwood, Western, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 Easier v. Southern R. Co., p. 2381. 
 Easley z: Alabama, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2842. 
 East V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 183. 
 East .\labama R. Co., Young -■. 
 East Boston Ferry Co., Le Barron 
 
 Eastburn, Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 East Carolina R. Co., Norman z'. 
 East Coast Transp. Co., Indian 
 River Steamboat Co. z'. 
 
 East Line, etc., R. Co. z: Hall, 
 pp. 268. 274, 286, 288, 292, 293, 
 294, 331, 425, 478, 479, 487, 488, 
 794. 795, 835. 
 
 Hull V. 
 
 z: Lee, pp. 2087, 2497, 310j. 
 
 East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Rushing, 
 
 pp. 1762. 1866, 1885, 1887, 1928, 
 2001, 2862. 
 
 z: Smith, pp. 1825, 1834, 
 
 2211. 
 
 Fast Louisiana R. Co., Ford z'. 
 Eastman, Gale z'. 
 
 r. Maine Cent. Railroad, p. 
 
 1*533. ^ , , 
 
 East Omaha St. R. Co. z'. Godola, 
 
 pp. 1487, 1715, 1750, 1986, 2174. 
 Fast River Ferry Co., Fash z: 
 East Saginaw City R. Co. z: Bohn, 
 
 pp. 1956. 1962, 2163, 2167, 
 
 2191, 2524. 
 East St. Louis, Wiggins Ferry 
 
 Co. z: ^ ^ 
 
 East St. Louis Connecting R. Co. 
 
 z: Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 2383. 
 East St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Asher 
 
 Belleville, p. 46.
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 CLXV 
 
 East St. Eouis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 806. 
 
 r. Zink, pp. 2323, 2720, 2733, 
 
 2946. 
 
 East Side Packing Co. v. X'anda- 
 
 lia k'. Co., pp. 40, 70. 
 East Tennessee R. Co., Miller v. 
 East Tennessee, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 Moses V. 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., Bar- 
 
 nett V. 
 
 T'. Brumley. pp. 321, 323, 987, 
 
 3326, 3330, 3340, 3349, 3350. 
 
 Butler f. 
 
 Central Trust Co. v. 
 
 V. Conner, pp. 1919, 2126 
 
 2256. 
 
 Cowan, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Coward v. 
 
 Crine v. 
 
 V. Fleetwood, pp. 2040, 2045, 
 
 2055, 205(., 2919, 2959, 3071, 
 307.S. 
 
 Gibson v. 
 
 V. Green, pp. 1748, 1989, 
 
 2160, 2171, 2840. 
 
 V. Hale, pp. 7, 677, 862, 
 
 1321, 1327. 
 
 Heck ;. 
 
 V. Herrman, pp. 1283, 1353, 
 
 1357, 1481. 
 
 V. Holmes p. 2253. 
 
 V. Hughes, 92 Ga. 388, 17 S. 
 
 E. 949— pp. 2120, 2126, 2266. 
 
 V. Hughes, 22 S. E. 397, 97 
 
 Ga. 330 — p. 2777. 
 
 V. Hunt, pp. 709. 714. 1143. 
 
 V. Hyde, pp. 2784, 3075. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 East, etc., R. Co. V. VV'aldrop, p. 
 
 2373. 
 Easter v. New York, etc., Exp. 
 
 Co., p. 485. 
 Eastern Coal Co., Baltimore, etc., 
 
 Barge Co. •■. 
 Eastern Cos. R. Co., Piggott v. 
 Eastern Counties R'. Co., Bcadell 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, 39 C. C. A. 413, 99 Fed. 
 52— pp. 3669, 3708. 
 
 T'. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, 181 U. S. 1, 45 L. Ed. 
 719. 21 S. Ct. 516— pp. 3687, 
 3699, 3713, 3714, 3716, 3721, 
 3722, 3767, 3798, 3807, 3832. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 V. Johnson, pp. 653, 658, 665, 
 
 693, 854, 3257, 3281, 3282, 3291. 
 
 V. Johnston, pp. 726, 848, 
 
 1038, 1040, 1273, 1274, 1^75 
 1364, 1391. 
 
 Jones T'. 
 
 V. Kelley, 91 Tenn. 699, 20 
 
 S. W. 312, 17 L. R. A. 691, 30 
 Am. St. Rep. 902, 55 Am. \ 
 Eng. R. Cas. 621— pp. 515, 849, 
 890, 894. 
 
 V. Kelly, 91 Tenn. 708, 20 
 
 S. W. 314— pp. 515, 890, 894, 
 913. 
 
 7'. King, pp. 1638, 2432. 
 
 Lane v. 
 
 V. Lee, pp. 3009, 3068. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Lockhart, pp. 2771, 3047, 
 
 3048, 3051. 
 
 Lowe V. 
 
 '■. Masscngill, pp. 2248, 2260, 
 
 2616. 
 
 Miller V. 
 
 ?•. Miller, pp. 1727, 1748 
 
 2840, 2955. 
 
 V. Mitchell, p. 2667. 
 
 V. Montgomery, pp. 423 
 
 3296, 3339. 
 
 V. Nelson, pp. 211, 246, 479, 
 
 488, 489, 490, 493, 533, 611, 621, 
 622. 3262, 3275, 3280. 
 
 Nicoll V. 
 
 V. Rogers, pp. 3257, 3280, 
 
 3291. 
 
 Trotlinger r. 
 
 L'nitcd States -■. 
 
 V. Watson, p. 1794. 
 
 V. Whittle, pp. 4. 5, 752, 
 
 758, 774. 
 
 Witt r. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 1046. 3305. 
 
 East & West Indian Dock Co., 
 
 Glyn Miller, etc., Co. -■. 
 
 Motteran :•. 
 
 Eastern Exp. Co., Grindle v. 
 
 Morley r. 
 
 Eastern Kentucky R. Co. v. IIol- 
 
 brook, p. 252. 
 Eastern R. Co., Alderman v. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Carpenter i'. 
 
 Clark r. 
 
 Commonwealth :•. 
 
 7'. Ellis, p. 3509. 
 
 Ilartan v. 
 
 Harvey j'. 
 
 Hinton i>. 
 
 Krulevitz v. 
 
 .Merrill z: 
 
 Pressed Steel Car Co. v. 
 
 Sears -■. 
 
 Snow V. 
 
 Stevenot v. 
 
 — Wentworth ?■. 
 
 Ijastern Steamboat Co., Davies v. 
 Eastern Steamship Co., Hix v. 
 Eastern Wisconsin, R., etc Co 
 
 Hirte r. 
 Eastern, etc., R. Co., Jones v. 
 
 Ransome f. 
 
 Eastin, Red River, etc., R. Co :• 
 - — Texas, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 Easton -'. Dudley, pp. 419 441 
 
 442. 443, 1296, 1443, 1469. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Houston, etc., R. Co., n. 
 
 1179. ' '^ 
 
 Insurance Co. f. 
 
 V. Waters, pp. 1598, 2467, 
 
 2470. 
 
 Easton, etc., Transp. Co., Insur- 
 ance Co. V. 
 Eaton, Abbe f. 
 ~~^9s' ^°^*°"' ^*'=- rvailroad, p. 
 
 f. Boston, etc., R. Co., dd. 
 
 1741, 1999, 2002. 
 
 -: Cargo of Lumber, pp. 
 
 3950, 3971. *^ 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -: Cook. pp. 1211, 1215, 1226, 
 
 1242, 1243. 
 
 V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1549, 1553, 1569. 
 
 v. Mclntire. p. 1627. 
 
 '■. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 894, 899. ^ 
 
 v. Wilmington City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1682, 1687. 1689, 1696, 1741 
 1817, 1818, 1825, 1840. 1987 
 2291, 2696. 
 
 Ebaugh, Ft. Clark St. Railroad v. 
 Ebert V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1958, 1990, 1992, 2115, 2891. 
 Eberts t. Detroit, etc.. Railway, pp. 
 
 1585, 2100. 2835. 
 Ebling T . Second Ave. R. Co , n. 
 
 2306. ^ 
 
 Ebsery i: Chicago City R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 3032. 3034, 3035. 3036. 
 Eby, New York Cent, etc., R'. 
 
 Co. -■. 
 
 — Schumacher !■. 
 
 Echols, Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.! 
 
 pp. 595. 596. 599. 848. 
 
 Eckel V. Murphey. p. 654. 
 
 Eckels. Chudnovski ;•. 
 
 Eckerd -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1782. 1871, 2244. 
 Eckert ;•. Pcnnsvlvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1087, 1111, 1408. 1433. 3263. 
 
 3290. 
 
 Reading City Pass. Co. -: 
 
 Eckford. International. etc.. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Eckles V. Missouri Pac. R Co 
 
 72 Mo. App. 296— p. 3335. 
 "7" v., -^''^^""'■i Pac. R. Co.. 87 
 
 S. W. 99. 112 Mo. App. 240— 
 
 pp. 421. 3331, 3354. 
 — — V. Norfolk, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2569, 2647. 
 Eckman, Purington-Kimball Brick 
 
 C o. i>. 
 Eclipse Towboat Co., New Or- 
 leans f. 
 
 I'. Pontchartrain R. Co., p. 
 
 Ecton V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1303, 1305. 1308, 1312 
 Eddins, Gulf, etc., K'. Co. v 
 Eddy, Brill v. 
 
 ■: Elliott, p. 2427. 
 
 ——]■■ Harris, pp. 1609, 1666, 
 
 V. Letcher, p. 2001. 
 
 AfcCann v. 
 
 Nichols V. 
 
 — —'■. Rider, pp. 30. 187. 19L 
 
 193, 1494, 1596, 1599, 2436 
 
 V. Rowell, p. 2435. 
 
 f. Searcy, pp. 1666, 3060. 
 
 V. Still, pp. 1798, 2873. 
 
 — — V. Syracuse Rapid Transit R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1650, 2475. 
 
 The. 
 
 — —I'. Wallace, pp. 1754, 1872. 
 
 18/8. 2066, 2125, 2126. 2256 
 
 2440. 
 Edelman r. Interurban St. R Co 
 
 p. 2655. 
 Edelstein, Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Edgar Lumber Co. v. Comic Stave 
 
 Co.. pp. 220, 1183. 
 
 Edgerly v. Union St. R. Co., pn. 
 
 2419, 2491. ^^ 
 
 Edgerton v. Chicago, etc.. R Co. 
 
 240 111. 311, 88 N. E. 808— pp.' 
 
 484. 486, 916. 
 — — t. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 146 
 
 111. .\pp. 199— p. 492. 
 — — V. V^^' ^'oi'lf' etc.. R. Co., 
 
 39 N. Y. 227— p. 1755. 
 f. New York. etc.. R. Co. 
 
 (N. \.), 35 Barb. 193— p. 2209 
 Edinburgh, etc.. R'. Co.. Dunlop v. 
 Edinburgh. etc.. Redwood Co., 
 
 Bucksport. etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Edins. Texas, etc.. R. Co. :. 
 Edison V. Pennsylvania Co.. do 
 
 741. 770. ^*^ 
 
 Edison Elect. Illuminating Co., 
 
 Moore f. 
 Ediing. Missouri, etc., R. Co t- 
 Edioflf, Gulf. etc.. R. Co. i. 
 Edlund f. St. Paul. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1813. 1817. 2900. 
 Edminson -•. Baxter, p. 849. 
 Edmond. Texas, etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 Edmonds. Montgomery, etc., R 
 
 Co. -■. 
 Edmondson, Diamond Block Coal 
 Co. V. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Edmunds ;■. Merchants' Despatch 
 
 Transp. Co.. pp. 554. 555. 
 
 f. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 p. 3208. 
 
 Southern R. Co. r. 
 
 Edncy. Oppenheimcr j. 
 
 Edsall f. Camden, etc.. Transp. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1012. 3383. 
 Edson :. Southern Pac. Co.. n. 
 120. *^ 
 
 f. Western, p. 573. 
 
 Edward Frohlich Glass Co. f 
 
 Pennsylvania Co.. p. 784. 
 Edward Mines Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Chamberlain, p. 3875. 
 Edward T. Stotesbury. The. 
 Edwards f. American Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 508. 1283. 
 
 V. Brewer, p. 1211. 
 
 :■. Caliawba, p. 1036.
 
 CLXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Edwards v. Cheraw, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 523. 
 
 f. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1627, 1628, 2443. 
 
 T. Lee, p. 1301. 
 
 f. Manufacturers' Bldg. Co., 
 
 p. 1488. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. r. 
 
 Z-. New Jersey, etc., Ferry 
 
 Co., p. 1959.' 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Sherratt. p. 284. 
 
 f. Smith, p. 340. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., pp. 2649 
 
 3079, 3084. 
 
 r. The Robert F. Stockton 
 
 p. 3937. 
 
 T-. White Line Transit Co. 
 
 pp. 574, 575. 
 
 Edwards & Co., Texas Mid. Rail 
 road z: 
 
 i: Texas Mid. R. Co. (Tex 
 
 Civ. App.), 81 S. VV. 800— p 
 283. 
 
 z: Texas Mid. R. Co. (Tex 
 
 Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1097— p 
 779. 
 
 Edwin I. Morrison, The. 
 Edye, People z: 
 
 z: Robertson, 18 Fed. 135, 21 
 
 Blatchf. 460 — p. 3566. 
 
 '■. Robertson, 112 U. S. 580, 
 
 28 L. Ed. 798, 5 S. Ct. 247— p. 
 3566. 
 
 Eel River, etc., R. Co., Carr v. 
 Eells Z-. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 958. 
 Efland z'. Southern R. Co., p. 164. 
 Efron, Galveston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 ■;•. Wagner Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3216, 3219, 3223. 
 
 Egan z\ Old Colony St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2347, 2694, 1750. 
 Ege, First Nat. Bank v. 
 Eggermont z'. Cunard Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 4034. 
 Egner v. United R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2815. 
 E. H. Pray, The. 
 Ehrhard f. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2804. 
 Ehrhardt, Prairie Oil, etc., Co. v. 
 Ehrlich, Ocean Steamship Co. r. 
 Ehrman, Pullman's Palace Car 
 
 Co. z: 
 Eichberg z: Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1082. 
 
 Merchants', etc., Transp. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Eichengrecn z'. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2060, 2061, 2071. 
 Eichofcr, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Eichhorn '•. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1767, 1773, 2145. 
 Eickhof V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2684. 
 Eidem v. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 1586. 
 Eidson V. Southern R. Co., p. 
 
 2488. 
 Eight Hundred and Sixty-Nine 
 
 Cedar Logs, Peterson v. 
 Eight Ave. R. Co., Clark v. 
 
 Demann z: 
 
 Loudoun z\ 
 
 Maverick v. 
 
 Sanford z'. 
 
 Eiklcbcrry, Walker v. 
 
 Eikrem z'. New England Briquette 
 
 Coal Co., p. 3973. 
 Eisen, Seigel v. 
 Eiswald v. Southern Exp. Co., p. 
 
 640. 
 Ela V. American, etc., Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 547. 
 Elam v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 744. 
 Elben, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Elberta Peach Co. z: Georgia, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 445. 
 Elder, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. International R. Co., pp. 
 
 1603, 2420, 2424. 
 
 Elder, Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 ■ Savannah, etc., R. Co. "■. 
 
 — — Summeril z\ 
 
 Elder Dempster Shipping, Poup- 
 
 pirt z\ 
 
 '■. Pouppirt, pp. 3995, 3996. 
 
 Elder, etc., Co. z: St. Louis, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 402. 
 Eldredge, Barron z\ 
 
 ?■. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2196, 2347, 2860. 
 
 Eldridge v. Long Island K. Co., 
 p. 2620. 
 
 z\ Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2898. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 Electric R. Co. z'. Carson, p. 2676. 
 Electric Storage Battery Co., At- 
 torney General z'. 
 
 Elein City R. Co. z\ Wilson, p. 
 
 1986. 
 Elgin Condensed Milk Co., St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Elgin, etc., R. Co. v. Bates Mach. 
 
 Co., 200 111. 636, 66 N. E. 326, 
 
 93 Am. St. Rep. 218— p. 3296. 
 
 v. Bates Mach. Co., 98 111. 
 
 .\pp. 311— pp. 244, 981, 1033, 
 1045, 3257, 3291, 3330, 3331. 
 
 Elgin, etc.. Tract. Co. z'. Hench, 
 p. 1817. 
 
 Keeshan v. 
 
 Petersen v. 
 
 v. Wilson, 75 N. E. 436, 217 
 
 111. 47— pp. 1711, 2696, 2757, 
 2897. 
 
 z: Wilson, 120 111. App. 371 
 
 — pp. 1985, 2765. 
 Elias, Homesly v. 
 Eliason z'. Henshaw, p. 3867. 
 Eliza, The. 
 Eliza Lines, The. 
 Elkhart, Platter v. 
 Elkins z: Boston, etc.. Railroad 
 
 p. 486. 
 
 z'. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 1 
 
 5, 209, 769, 3155, 3156. 
 
 • I'. Empire Transp. Co., p 
 
 1074. 
 
 • Ward's Cent., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Elkins & Co. z'. New York, etc. 
 
 Steamship Co., p. 861. 
 Ellard, Birmingham R., etc., Co. '■ 
 Eller V. Dayton, etc.. Tract, Co., 
 
 p. 2189. 
 Ellerd, Texas, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Ellershaw z'. Magniac, p. 352. 
 Ellet z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co 
 
 745, 746, 1680, 1809, 19 
 Ellinger v. Philadelphia, etc. 
 
 Co., p. 2033. 
 Eliot, Eddy z\ 
 Elliott '■. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 3520. 
 
 z'. Brooklyn Heights R 
 
 p. 2700. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z'. James Robb, p. 1461. 
 
 Elliott z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1991. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 v. Newport St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1745, 1819, 1820, 1957, 2125, 
 2197. 
 
 ''. New York, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 2442. 
 
 Peters -•. 
 
 • • z: Rossell, pp. 3898, 3930. 
 
 7'. Seattle, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2349, 2581. 
 
 • v. Southern Pac. Co., 145 
 
 Cal. 441, 79 Pac. 420, 68 L. R. A. 
 393— pp. 1623, 1624, 1626, 1634, 
 2492, 2784. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co., 155 N. 
 
 C. 235, 71 S. E. 339— p. 152. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 pp. 
 1. 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Elliott r. Western, etc., R. Co.. p, 
 3100. 
 
 V. Wilmington City R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1682, 1687, 1714, 1866, 1874! 
 1888, 1919, 2119, 2225, 2288, 
 2290, 2686. 
 
 Elliott & Son, Alabama, etc., R 
 
 Co. f. 
 Ellis, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 223. 
 
 ^ — Eastern R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 z'. Houston, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 200, 203, 1607, 2783. 
 
 z'. LIunt, p. 1228. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 V. New York City R. Co., p 
 
 2005. 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway z\ 
 
 z: Willard, pp. 338, 3384. 
 
 Ellison V. Adams Exp. Co., p. 945 
 
 Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Krudler z\ 
 
 Texas Mid. Railroad z: 
 
 Ellsworth V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1560, 1609, 1610, 2449, 2458 
 2463, 2475. 
 
 '■. Pennsylvania Co., pp 
 
 1615, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1636. 
 
 ■:•. Tartt, pp. 3181, 3323. 
 
 z: Wild Hunter, p. 527. 
 
 Ellwood Z'. Connecticut R., etc. 
 
 Co., p. 2906. 
 Elmira Shepherd, The. 
 Elmira, etc., R. Co., Gregory z\ 
 
 Parker v. 
 
 Webster z\ 
 
 Elmore z\ Brooks, p. 513. 
 
 ■!'. Naugatuck R. Co., 
 
 1161, 3254, 3258. 
 
 V. Sands, pp. 1612, 
 
 2447. 
 
 Elmslie, Hagar ?■. 
 El Paso Elect. R. Co. z'. Alderete 
 pp. 2418, 2662. 
 
 v. Boer, pp. 1524, 1532 
 
 1996. 
 
 I'. Bolgiano, p. 2912. 
 
 Domenico v. 
 
 z: Kitt, p. 2290. 
 
 Z'. R'uckman, p. 1891. 
 
 El Paso, etc., R. C^o. z\ Gutierrez 
 pp. 3463, 3465. 
 
 z>. Harry, pp. 1524, 1679 
 
 1731. 2643, 2649. 
 
 z: Kitt, p. 2199. 
 
 T'. Landon, p. 2661. 
 
 ■ Sawyer t'. 
 
 Elphicke z'. Iroquois Furnace Co. 
 p. 3972. 
 
 The C. W. 
 
 Elrod, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Elvira Harbeck, Brown z'. 
 
 The. 
 
 Elvis, Houston Elect. St. R. Co. v. 
 Elwood v. Chicago City R. Co., p 
 2670. 
 
 z'. Connecticut R., etc., Co. 
 
 pp. 2259, 2820. 
 
 Elwood Grain Co. ?•. St. Joseph 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3733, 3734. 
 
 Ely, Hathorn z\ 
 
 z>. New Haven Steamboat Co. 
 
 p. 892. 
 
 — ■ — z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp 
 1809, 2925, 2964. 
 
 V. Southwest Missouri R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1903, 1991, 1993, 1996. 1997, 
 1998. 
 
 Elzy V. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 641, 
 
 644, 670, 672. 
 Embry, Kansas City Southern R, 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Emerson v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 88, 1642, 1643. 
 
 -■. Butte Elect. R'. Co., pp. 
 
 2568, 2677, 2806. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1624,
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXVII 
 
 ICmcrson v. McNeil, p. 112. 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. V. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 170. 
 
 Emerson Co. v. Reunis, p. 3902. 
 
 Emerson, etc., Co., In re. 
 
 Emert v. Missouri, pp. 3539, 3550, 
 
 3552, 3572. 
 Emery v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1884, 2908. 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2539. 
 
 z: Hcrsey. pp. 727, 732, 749. 
 
 Emery's Sons r. Irving Nat. Hank, 
 
 pp. 334, 349, 351, 353, 358, i(,2, 
 
 3(,i, 367, 368, 371, 371, 380, 392, 
 
 476, 477, 479. 
 Emigh f. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2564. 
 Emily V. Carney, p. 850. 
 
 The. 
 
 Emison f. Ohio, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 295, 838. 
 Emmerson, Indianapolis Southern 
 R. Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Emmett, Southern Kansas R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 E. M. Norton, The. 
 
 Empey ?'. Grand Ave. Cable Co., 
 
 p. 2833. 
 Empire Brick, etc., Co., Washburn 
 
 Empire Coal Co., Culberson f. 
 
 Empire Rubber Mfg. Co., Indiana, 
 etc., R'. Co. V. 
 
 Empire State Cattle Co. f. Atchi- 
 son, etc., R. Co., 129 Fed. 480— 
 p. 458. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 135 
 
 Fed. 135— pp. 744, 1338, 3304. 
 
 f. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 210 
 
 U. S. 1, 52 L. Ed. 931, 28 S. 
 Ct. 607, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 70— p. 1283. 
 
 Empire State Chemical Co., Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. 
 Empire '1 ransp. Co., Bishop v. 
 
 Elkins v. 
 
 Parsons "•. 
 
 i: Philadelphia, etc.. Iron Co., 
 
 pp. 3955, 3960, 3961, 3973. 
 
 :•. Wallace, p. 631. 
 
 f. Wamsutta Oil Refin., etc., 
 
 Co.. pp. 783. 822, 827, 870, 871. 
 
 Employers' Liability Cases, pp. 
 
 3439. 3441, 3459, 3461, 3463, 
 
 3463, 34()5. 
 Eni])loyers' Liability Cases, The. 
 Emporium Department Store Co., 
 
 Perrault 7'. 
 Emrich, Ohio, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Emslie, Hagar -■. 
 Enches, New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2822. 
 
 Engel, Chicago City R. Co. f. 
 Engesether ?■. Great Northern R. 
 
 Co., p. 1410. 
 England v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1920, 1921, 2238, 2248, 2256, 
 
 2258, 2259. 
 
 '•. International, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1626, 2451. 
 
 Engle. Detmold v. 
 
 Englehaupt -: Erie R. Co., p. 2820. 
 
 Englert v. New Orleans R., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2082. 
 English r. Delaware, etc.. Canal 
 
 Co., 66 N. Y. 454. 23 .\m. Rep. 
 
 69— p. 2487. 
 
 V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 4 Hun 683— p. 2709. 
 
 Ezell f. 
 
 V. Ocean Steam Nav. Co., p. 
 
 758. 
 
 Ennis, Bacon i'. 
 
 Carbon Slate Co. "'. 
 
 Convers r. 
 
 Enos, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 ICnos, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Rhode Island, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1585, 2698. 
 ICnrich, (Jhio, etc., R. Co. i: 
 ICnsch, McNulta :•. 
 Ivnslen, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 Ensley, Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. f. 
 
 luitzminger -'. Seaboard, etc.. Rail- 
 way, p. 3057. 
 
 Ivi)hland v. Missouri Pac. R'. Co., 
 ].. 1697. 
 
 f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2068. 
 
 Eppendorf v. Brooklyn, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1880, 2153, 2297. 
 Eppes f. Tucker, p. 1146. 
 I'-Pply. American Exp. Co. t. 
 Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. f. St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 99 Ark. 497, 
 
 138 S. W. 964— pp. 549, 552, 
 
 553, 601. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Ark.), 150 S. W. 1028— pp. 542, 
 544. 
 
 Iviuitable Safety Ins. Co., Benner 
 
 Equi N'alley Marble Co. v. Becker, 
 
 pp. 3877, 3883. 
 Erastus Corning, The. 
 Erb V. Great Western Ry. Co., 
 
 pp. 305, 308, 306, 314, 339. 
 
 V. Koekuk Packet Co., p. 835. 
 
 v. Morasch, pp. 3481, 3503. 
 
 E. Reboulin Fils & Co., In re. 
 Ivrhardt, Donnegan v. 
 
 Ericius T. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2819. 
 Erickson, Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Trumbull f. 
 
 Erie, The. 
 
 Erie Boatman's Transp. Co., Spann 
 
 Erie Dispatch v. Johnson, pp. 552, 
 
 596. 
 Erie R. Co., .\ckerson z: 
 
 Allenza v. 
 
 Baird v. 
 
 Bartnik z: 
 
 Bartow i: 
 
 Behr r. 
 
 Blair '■. 
 
 Bobbink r. 
 
 Bordeaux -■. 
 
 Burke i'. 
 
 V. Cappel, p. 3285. 
 
 Chapman '•. 
 
 Commonwealth z: 
 
 Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. z'. 
 
 Cook f. 
 
 • Dillon ;■. 
 
 Dotson Z-. 
 
 Dumphy z-. 
 
 • Dunphy z\ 
 
 Dyke z: 
 
 I^nglchaupt -■. 
 
 z: Erie, etc., Transp. Co., p. 
 
 4043. 
 
 Euston & Co. V. 
 
 Falkenberg z: 
 
 Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank f. 
 
 Galloway z\ 
 
 Gill z: 
 
 Giovanelli ''. 
 
 Harper z: 
 
 Horton :•. 
 
 Isham Z-. 
 
 Knowlton f. 
 
 Kulman ■■. 
 
 z: Littell, pp. 2458, 3080. 
 
 ;•. Lockwood & Son, pp. 848, 
 
 853, 855. 946. 1039, 1041, 3300. 
 
 McElwain z\ 
 
 McGregor ;■. 
 
 Mason -•. 
 
 Morrison ;■. 
 
 z: Pennsylvania, pp. 3590, 
 
 3591, 3593. 
 
 People I'. 
 
 Erie R. Co. i. Pond Creek Mill, 
 etc., Co., pp. 431, 432. 
 
 Purdy V. 
 
 !■. Purdy, p. 34. 
 
 Rogers, etc., Mach. Works r. 
 
 Russell f. 
 
 Scheu r. 
 
 Schwartz & Co. t. 
 
 Shelton z. 
 
 Spencer v. 
 
 Spiess f. 
 
 I'. Star, etc.. Mill. Co., p. 
 
 3371. 
 
 :■. State, p. 3565. 
 
 Steiger V. 
 
 Stoneman v. 
 
 Traphagen v. 
 
 Truesdell '■. 
 
 Truex z: 
 
 Union Locomotive, etc., Co. 
 
 United States f. 
 
 z: United States, p. 3628. 
 
 \alk z: 
 
 V. Waite, pp. 701, 702, 704. 
 
 Walker j'. 
 
 -•. Wanaque Lumber Co., pp. 
 
 525, 539, 3761, 3770. 
 
 Wentz z: 
 
 Whitworth f. 
 
 Wigg z: 
 
 :■. Wilcox, pp. 752, 931, 981, 
 
 988, 989, 1004, 3372. 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 Youghiogheny, etc.. Coal Co. 
 
 Erie Railway, Phillips. Co. f. ^ 
 
 Erie Transfer Co., Caldwell v. 
 Erie, etc., Co. z: Winter, p. 2713. 
 Erie, etc.. Despatch r. Cecil, p. 
 
 1180. 
 Erie, etc., R. Co., Millcreek v. 
 Erie, etc., Transp. Co. v. Dater, 
 
 pp. 981, 1033, 1045. 
 
 Eric R. Co. z: 
 
 McCoy z\ 
 
 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart f. 
 
 Errol, Coe v. 
 
 Erskine z: Steamboat Thames, p. 
 580. 
 
 Ervin, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Erwin z: Kansas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2703. 
 
 Escanaba, etc., Transp. Co. t . Chi- 
 cago, p. 3468. 
 
 Eskew, Georgia R., etc., Co. i'. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. :. 
 
 Esler f. Southern Pac. Co., p. 2471. 
 E. Sondheimer Co. v. Illinois Cent. 
 
 R. Co., p. 3679. 
 Espenscheid, Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. i: 
 
 z: Thames, p. 891. 
 
 Estate, Cubbage i. 
 
 Estes V. Denver, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 960, 1012, 1030, 1362, 1392. 
 1419, 1458. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. R. C«., pp. 
 
 1710, 2605, 2697. 2772. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. t. 
 
 J.. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3141. 
 Estey ;. Truxel, pp. 1219, 1220. 
 Estievenard, Coal Co. f. 
 Estill, New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1357, 1470, 1472. 
 
 Ethridgc z: Central, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 231. 
 
 Etson ;■. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co.. 
 110 Mich. 494, 68 N. W. 298— 
 pp. 1992, 1993, 1996, 2823. 
 
 :•. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co., 
 
 114 Mich. 605, 72 N. W. 598— 
 
 p. 2890. 
 Ettcr z: Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 86. 
 Eubank, Louis%ille, etc., R. Co. :.
 
 CLXVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Eubanks, Little Rock, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 Eubaugh, Ft. Clark St. Railroad 
 
 Eufaula Grocery Co. v. Missouri 
 
 Nat. Bank, p. 396. 
 Eugene, The. 
 Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Tira- 
 
 mons, pp. 1487, 1732, 2693, 2946. 
 Europeon, The. 
 European, etc., R. Co., Hanson v. 
 
 Stevens f. 
 
 Euston & Co. V. Erie R. Co., pp. 
 
 653, 678, 694. 
 Eva D. Rose, The. 
 Evans f. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 402, 3307, 3394, 3395, 3397, 
 
 3398, 3403, 3408. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Blair, pp. 3951, 3964. 
 
 V. Dunbar, p. 1439. 
 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 728, 
 
 733, 740, 749, 765, 766, 1341, 
 1456. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Evans V. Interstate, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1881, 1896, 2964. 
 
 Judd r. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2440. 
 
 v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 190, 2435, 2466, 2468. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., K. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1442, 1445. 
 
 Moore f. 
 
 V. New York, etc., Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 3887. 
 
 V. Rudy, pp. 847, 856. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1625, 1699. 
 
 Schneider v. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., p. 2326. 
 
 Lnion Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Werner v. 
 
 Evans, etc.. Cultivator Co. v. Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co., p. 1215. 
 
 Evansich, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Evans-Snyder-Buel Co., Pecos, etc., 
 R. Co. f. 
 
 Evansville Elect. R. Co. r. Lerch, 
 p. 2777. 
 
 Evansville St. R. Co. v. Meadows, 
 p. 1983. 
 
 Evansville, etc., Packet Co. v. Reh- 
 koph, p. 3931. 
 
 Evansville, etc., K. Co. v. Andros- 
 coggin Mills, pp. 3253, 3376, 
 3380, 3381. 
 
 V. Athon, pp. 1720, 1878, 
 
 2066, 2248, 2546, 2617. 
 
 V. Barnes, p. 1581. 
 
 t'. Baum, p. 2483. 
 
 V. Gates, p. 2458. 
 
 V. Darting, p. 2020. 
 
 Draper f. 
 
 V. Duncan, pp. 253, 1801, 
 
 1870, 2242, 2394, 2575, 2578, 
 2944. 
 
 V. Gilmore, pp. 1596, 2467. 
 
 V. Keith, pp. 273, 274, 753, 
 
 798. 
 
 V. Kevekordes, 35 Ind. App. 
 
 706, 72 X. E. 1135— p. 433. 
 
 V. Kevekordes (Ind. App.), 
 
 69 N. E. 1022— pp. 969, 978, 
 984, 986, 1016, 1294. 
 
 Kyte, pp. 1855, 1867, 2562, 
 
 V. Marsh, pp. 521, 581. 
 
 r. Mills, pp. 2216, 2656, 2691. 
 
 Reid V. 
 
 Romine f. 
 
 Sage V. 
 
 f. Weikle, p. 2618. 
 
 White V. 
 
 V. Wilson, pp. 1666, 2573. 
 
 V. Young, p. 1007. 
 
 Evansville, etc., Steam Packet Co. 
 
 z\ Wildman, p. 2607. 
 Evart f. The Loundes, p. 585. 
 Evcleth, Johnson v. 
 ICvening Star, Moore v. 
 Evens, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Everets, Stewart v. 
 Everett v. Chicago, etc, R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1600, 1601, 2467, 2468. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 National Bank v. 
 
 f. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 pp. 
 1550, 
 
 pp. 
 
 R. 
 
 ■;'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 
 
 1544, 1545, 1547, 1548, 
 2517. 
 
 Saltus z'. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. i>. 
 
 "'. Southern Exp. Co., 
 
 759, 760. 
 
 — — V. Vendryes, p. 1489. 
 Everhart v. Terre Haute, etc 
 
 Co., pp. 2525, 2526. 
 Evcrleigh v. Svlvester, pp. 729, 
 
 768. 
 Evers V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 92 
 
 S. W. 118, 116 Mo. App. 130— 
 
 pp. 3996, 3998. 
 
 V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 105 S. 
 
 W. 306, 127 Mo. App. 236— 
 pp. 4004, 4005. 
 
 Evershed v. London & N. W. R. 
 Co., p. 3685. 
 
 V. London & Northwestern R. 
 
 Co., p. 3692. 
 
 Ewan V. Tredegar Co., p. 3960. 
 Ewart V. Kerr, pp. 522, 581, 683. 
 
 V. Street (S. C), 2 Bailey 
 
 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131— pp. 729, 
 730, 733, 734, 736, 745, 746, 750, 
 788, 815. 
 
 V. Street (S. C), 2 Bailey 
 
 421— p. 822. 
 
 Ewing, Leavenworth f. 
 
 V. Leavenworth, p. 3579. 
 
 Excelsior Coal Co., In re. 
 Exchequer Chamber, p. 3153. 
 Ex parte Banner, p. 352. 
 
 Ex parte Barrow, pp. 1228, 1234. 
 Ex parte Battes, p. 34. 
 Ex parte Benson, p. 221. 
 Ex parte Benson & Co., pp 
 
 1177, 1178, 1179. 
 Ex parte Boyer, p. 4054. 
 
 Brown, pp. 2089, 2090. 
 
 Ex parte Cooper, pp. 1228, 1231, 
 
 1232, 1234. 
 Ex parte Eaglesfield, p. 3566. 
 Ex parte Easton, p. 3939. 
 Ex parte Falke, p. 1246. 
 Ex parte Fritz, p. 3428. 
 Ex parte Insley, p. 3585. 
 Ex parte Koehler, 25 Fed. 72 — p. 
 
 74. 
 Ex parte Koehler, 30 Fed. 867— 
 
 pp. 3610, 3611. 
 Ex parte Koehler, 31 Fed. 315, 12 
 
 Sawy. 446— pp. 3696, 3713, 3714. 
 Ex parte Lorenzen, p. 1643. 
 Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., pp. 4038, 
 
 4039, 4073, 4074, 4075, 4077. 
 Ex parte Plessy, p. 1945. 
 Ex parte Slayton, pp. 4072 
 
 4074. 
 
 Ex parte Terry, p. 3467. 
 Ex parte Vance, i). 34. 
 Ex parte Watkins, p. 3467. 
 Ex parte Yarbrough, p. 3467. 
 Ex parte Young, p. 1 29. 
 Exposition Cotton Mills, Western, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 808, 3305, 3391. 
 
 Express Cases, pp. 4, 253, 3668, 
 
 3669. 
 Express Co., Bernstine z 
 
 V. Caldwell, pp. 9, 
 
 948, 961, 977. 
 
 Earnest v. 
 
 V. Jackson, p. 7. 
 
 1175, 
 
 4073, 
 
 930, 947, 
 
 Express Co. "'. Kountze Bros., pp. 
 500, 503, 947, 953. 
 
 Rosenfield '■. 
 
 '•. Schwab, p. 949. 
 
 Weil z: 
 
 Exton V. Central R. Co., 62 N. J. 
 
 L. 7, 42 Atl. 486, 14 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. Cas., N. S., 240— pp. 1510, 
 
 1512, 1513, 1514, 1518, 2027. 
 V. Central R. Co., 63 N. J. 
 
 L. 356, 46 Atl. 1099, 56 L. R. 
 
 A. 508— pp. 2323, 2726, 2871. 
 Ezell V. English, p. 496. 
 
 Midland Valley R. Co. v. 
 
 Ezzell, Robinson v. 
 
 Faber v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 200, 1602, 2424. 
 Fadley z'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2247. 
 Fagan, Missouri Pac. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Rhode Island Co., pp. 2700 
 
 2765. 
 
 Fahey, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fahr v. Manhattan R. Co., pp 
 
 2611, 2612. 
 Fain v. Southern R. Co., p. 828. 
 Fairbairn, St. Louis, etc., R. Co 
 
 V. 
 
 Fairbank v. United States, pp. 3439 
 
 3571, 3572, 3594. 
 Fairbanks, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co 
 
 V, 
 
 Fairbanks & Co., Cincinnati, etc. 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 i'. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 3376. 
 
 Fairchild v. California Stage Co. 
 pp. 1684, 2692. 
 
 Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Oregon R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. z\ 
 
 c'. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 944, 3277, 3382. 
 
 Slocum "■. 
 
 V. Slocum, p. 814. 
 
 Fairclough, Chicago, etc., Iv. Co. 
 
 Fairfax v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 67 N. Y. 11— pp. 821, 3160, 
 
 3168, 3169, 3194. 
 V. New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 73 N. Y. 167, 29 .'\m. Rep. 119— 
 
 pp. 3115, 3116, 3125, 3132, 3181, 
 
 3198. 
 Fairfield z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1627. 
 Fairford Lumber Co. z\ Tombigbee 
 
 Valley R. Co., p. 1200. 
 Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., Baldwin 
 
 Brennan z'. 
 
 Brockett v. 
 
 Fairmont Coal Co., Merchants' 
 
 Coal Co. z'. 
 Fairmount, etc., R. Co. z\ Stutler, 
 
 pp. 1865, 1890. 
 Faison -'. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3399. 
 Faithorn, Patten v. 
 Falcon, The. 
 Faler, New Orleans, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Fales, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Falina v. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1036. 
 Falk, Kemp v. 
 
 v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1767, 1871. 
 
 Falke, E-x parte. 
 Falkenan v. Fargo, p. 408. 
 Falkenberg v. Erie R. Co., p. 1112. 
 Falkner v Ohio, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2436. 
 Fall River Ironworks, Taylor -'. 
 Fall River R. Co., Jordan '■. 
 Falls v. San Francisco, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1786.
 
 tablk; of cases. 
 
 CLXIX 
 
 Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. f. 
 Pullman -Palace <^ar Co- PP- 
 3?01 3202, 3214, 3216. 3218, 
 3219, 3230. . „ ., , , 
 
 Falvev v. Georgia Railroad, pp. 3, 
 210, 3176, 3257, 3291, 3300. 
 
 Metropolitan R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Northern Transp. Co., pp. 
 
 994, 1036. „ „ 
 
 Fambro, St. Loiiis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Fa'mbrough, Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Fane r. Philadelphia Rapid 1 rans. 
 
 Co., p. 27o5. 
 Fanizzi f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 P- ^^'l- - 517- 
 
 Fanning ?•. Grcgorie, pp. 34/4, 347.->, 
 
 3476, 3477. ^ ^, 
 v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1524, 1532, 1906. 
 Fanny, The. 
 Fanshaw v. Norfolk, etc.. Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 1898, 1902, 2409, 2418, 
 
 2827. 
 Fant Fish Co., Southern hxp. Co. 
 
 Farber r. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2516. 
 Fargo, Ames v. 
 
 Armstrong z: 
 
 1'. Auditor General, p. 3537. 
 
 Bowden v. 
 
 Byrne v. 
 
 Dietcrich r. 
 
 Falkenan v. 
 
 Giles i: 
 
 Gorham Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Grossman '<■. 
 
 Harris r. _ 
 
 V. Hart, pp. 3556, 3562, 3o/2, 
 
 3590, 3594. 
 
 Houseman r. 
 
 V. Ledger-Standard Co., p. 
 
 30. 
 
 Little V. 
 
 i.^cMurray v. 
 
 V. Michigan, pp. 3422, 3447, 
 
 3475, 3491, 3497, 3553, 3554, 
 3555, 3558, 3659, 3566, 3573, 
 3579, 3602. 
 
 Ncbcnzahl r. 
 
 Oderkirk r. 
 
 Richer v. 
 
 Rowden 'c. 
 
 Shwartz v. 
 
 Sutro V. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 — — Waldron v. 
 
 Westcott r. 
 
 Fargo & Co., Cutter v. 
 
 Faris V. Brooklyn, etc., R. <-o., 
 
 pp. 2196, 2814. 
 Parish & Co. V. Reigle, pp. /29, 
 
 1685, 1715, 1726, 1735, 1821, 
 
 1837, 1841, 2015, 2693. 
 Farley v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1501, 1502, 1521, 1523. 
 
 Citizens' R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 V. Lavary, pp. 8, 727, 732, 
 
 749, 753, 765. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2127, 2257, 2267, 2988. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Tract. Co.. 6 
 
 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 347— p. 2161. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 132 
 
 Pa. 58, 18 Atl. 1090— pp. 1833, 
 2686. .-„,,. 
 
 r. R. & D. R. Co., 81 \a. 
 
 783 — p. 2116. 
 Farlow V. Kcllv. pp. 1813, 1813, 
 
 21(.3, 2200, 2201. 
 Farmen v. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 843. 917. 
 Farmer, Spivcy '\ 
 
 Farmers' Fertilizer Co., Reid Phos- 
 phate Co. V. 
 Farmers' Ins. Co.. Patrick t\ 
 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. f. 
 Henning, p. 255. 
 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., p. 2095. 
 
 Betts V. 
 
 Cohen V. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 83 
 
 Fed. 249— p. 3668. 
 
 — — V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 57 
 C. C. A. 533. 120 Fed. 873— 
 pp. 451, 453, 3254, 3280, 3364, 
 33(j5. 
 
 t . Oregon R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 915. 
 
 Reagan v. 
 
 Stale V. 
 
 Stone V. 
 
 Farmers' Union Gin Co., Si. L'juis, 
 
 etc., R. Co., V. 
 Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Chaplain 
 
 Transp. Co., 16 Vt. 52, 42 Am. 
 
 Dec. 491— p. 903. 
 :•. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 
 
 Vt. 131— p. 1010. 
 
 '■. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 
 
 \'t. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68 — pp. 
 240, 278, 537, 602, 770, 1004, 
 1007, 1008, 3346. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 723. 
 
 Farmers', etc., Comm. Firm, Louis- 
 ville, etc., k. Co. V. 
 
 Farmers', etc.. Cotton Co. I-. At- 
 lantic, etc.. R. Co.. p. 3278. 
 
 Farmers', etc.. Ins. Co.. Wagner 
 
 Bank. Allen 
 
 Farmers', etc., Nat 
 etc., Co. V. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., 12 N. Y. 188 
 
 —p. 310. 
 
 T'. Hanks, 104 Tex. 320. 137 
 
 S. W. 1120— p. 1751. 
 
 V. Hanks (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 128 S. W. 147— p. 1751. 
 
 V. Hazeltine, pp. 373. 375. 
 
 Heiskell :■. 
 
 Hieskell v. 
 
 t'. Logan, pp. 352, 309. 
 
 Farmers', etc.. Trust. Co. v. North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co., 83 Fed. 249— 
 pp. 3787, 3788, 3791. 3795. 
 
 — — 7'. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 112 
 Fed. 829— p. 3891. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Co., 57 C. C. 
 
 A. 533. 120 Fed. 873— pp. -«96, 
 997. 1000. 
 
 Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., p. 3394. 
 
 Farnham r. Camden, etc.. R. Co.. 
 pp. 917. 946. 949. 958. 988. 1018, 
 1037. 1042, 1047, 1074, 3161. 
 
 Farnon v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1960. 2120, 2168, 2891. 
 
 Farnsworth r. National Exp. Co., 
 pp. 70 1, 962, 997. 
 
 — — V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3356. 
 
 Ulmer v. 
 
 Farr v. Adams Exp. Co., p. 818. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Smith V. . 
 
 Farr, etc.. Mfg. Co.. Internatioral 
 
 NaV. Co. '-■. r^ nt 
 
 V. International Nav. Co.. 94 
 
 Ped. 675— p. 4061. 4083. 
 
 V. International Nav. Co.. 98 
 
 Fed. 636. 39 C. C. A. 197— pp. 
 4062. 4063. 
 
 Farrell r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. 
 p. 167. 
 
 — :•. Citizens', etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1903. 2909. 
 
 — Columbus, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 — !•. Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 1721. 2117. 2239. 2240. 2242. 
 
 — ;•. Houston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 2219. 2303. 2805. 
 
 — V. Richmond, etc.. R. Co.. 
 pp. 1162. 1163. 1212. 1214. 1215. 
 1220. 1229. 1232. 1235. 1248, 
 1249! 
 
 Farrell & Co. v. Great Northern R. 
 
 Co.. p. 217. 
 Farrier v. Colorado Springs, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 2016, 2021, 2857, 
 2858, 2859, 2870. 
 Farrington v. Boston Elevated R. 
 Co.. pp. 1803. 1804. 2820, 2821, 
 2833. 
 Farris '•. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 555. 
 Farrow v. .-Xmerican Agricultural 
 
 Chemical Co., p. 3960. 
 Farwell, Gibbons v. 
 Farwell Farmers' Warehouse Ass'n 
 V. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 85. 
 Fash -■. East River Ferry Co., p. 
 
 2779. 
 Fassett V. Ruark, p. 762. 
 Fast I'. Canton, etc., Iv. Co., p. 
 
 1439. 
 Easy f. International Nav. Co., pp. 
 
 296. 819, 837. 
 Faiman 4i: Co. :■. Cincinnati, etc., 
 R. Co.. pp. 503, 504, 505, 822, 
 1039, 3251, 3356. 
 Faucher r. Wilson, pp. 726, 765, 
 
 766, 771. 
 Faul v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2798. 
 Faulk V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 982, 1025, 1005, 1071, 1400, 
 1403. 
 Faulkner v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 pp. 2674, 2791, 2792. 
 
 V. Hart. 82 N. Y. 413. 11 
 
 Am. Rep. 574— pp. 722. 888, 896, 
 901. 
 
 V. Hart. 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 
 471— p. 709. 
 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. "■. 
 
 O'Toolc I'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -'. South Pac. Railroad, pp. 
 
 246, 621. 
 
 f. Wright, pp. 10. 768. 
 
 Fauntleroy, Giles v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1040. 1455. 1456. 1458, 1467. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 573, 574. 
 
 -'. Southern R. Co.. pp. 1246, 
 
 1247. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Favre v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2201. 
 Faxton, Clark v. 
 Fay V. .-Mliance Ins. Co.^ p. 3940. 
 
 -•. Davidson, p. 2776. 
 
 Galena, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2877. 
 
 V. New World, p. 725. 
 
 Fav. etc., Co., Midland Valley R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Faylor, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Feagin v. Gulf, etc.. R'. Co., p. 
 
 2650. 
 Fearn v. West Jersey Ferry Co., 
 
 p. 2686. 
 Fearn. etc., Co. v. Richardson, pp. 
 
 294, 305. 306. 308. 338. 
 Fears :•. State, p. 239. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 Feary v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1986, 2594, 2644. 3001. 3003. 
 Febo. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Federal St.. etc.. R. Co. r. Gibson, 
 
 p. 2700. 
 Federal Sugar Refin. Co.. Milburn 
 
 Federal, etc.. R. Co.. McMillan v. 
 Feelv. New York. etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Feig'e f. Michigan, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 896. 931. 986. 1012. 
 Feil f. West Jersey, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1770. 2666. 
 Fein f. Weir. pp. 488. 7/9. 836, 
 
 841.
 
 CLXX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 R. Co. 
 Elect. 
 
 pp. 
 Rail- 
 
 Co. 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 P- 
 
 Feinberg v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1270, 1278. 
 Feintuch, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Feise z: Wray. pp. 1211, 1215, 
 
 1216. 
 Feital v. Middlesex K. Co., pp. 
 
 417, 1746, 2086, 2694, 3175. 
 Feitl V. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2668, 2671. 
 Feld r. Piatt, p. 1059. 
 Felder f. Columbia, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3176, 3181, 3182, 3185. 
 
 Southwestern R. Co. i' 
 
 Feldheim f. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2181, 2672. 
 Fcldman, Northern Alabama R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Feldschneider f. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2098, 2683, 2895. 
 Felix '.: Brandstetter Co., p. 1228. 
 
 The. 
 
 Felker, First Nat. Bank -■. 
 
 i: First Nat. Bank, pp. 395, 
 
 396. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Fellows, Fenkhausen z-. 
 
 z: Powell, pp. 305, 306, 308. 
 
 Vedder v. 
 
 Felt, f. Denver, etc. 
 
 3453, 3455. 
 
 Puget Sound 
 
 way f. 
 
 Felton, Caldwell z: 
 
 Central, etc., R 
 
 V. Central, etc., 
 
 3291. 
 
 Chicago, etc., K. Co. z: 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 2029. 
 
 f. Clarkson, p. 1340. 
 
 z: Holbrook," pp. 2694, 2942. 
 
 z: Horner, pp. 1715, 1752, 
 
 1755, 2170. 
 
 z: McCreary-McClellan Live 
 
 Stock Co., p. 3275. 
 
 Fenig '■. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2909. 
 Fenkhausen z: Fellows, p. 1215. 
 Fenley, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Fenn, Baldosta St. R. Co. ?-. 
 
 z\ Timpson, p. 1306. 
 
 X'aldosta St. R. Co. -■. 
 
 Fennell, Missouri Pac. Co. i>. 
 Fenner z: Buffalo, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 
 y.), 46 Barb. 103— pp. 3287, 
 3301. 
 
 z: Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 44 N. 
 
 Y. 505, 4 Am. Rep. 709— pp. 
 889, 901. 
 
 Fentiman v. .Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 734, 738, 742, 744, 753, 765, 
 815, 822, 870, 873. 
 
 Fenwick, Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Ferguson v. Cappeau, pp. 797, 804, 
 805, 814. 
 
 — — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ft. Worth St. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Herring, p. 1244. 
 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. 
 
 pp. 2429, 2473. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co 
 
 2475, 2663, 2664. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Plessy V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 z'. Southern Railway, pp. 733, 
 
 742, 745, 825, 869. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Truax, 132 Wis. 478, 110 
 
 N. W. 395, 111 N. W. 657, 112 
 N. W. 513, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 
 350, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 1092— pp. 1502, 1507, 2742, 2983. 
 
 ?■. Truax, 136 Wis. 637, 118 
 
 N. W. 251— pp. 2320, 2883. 
 
 Ferguson-McKinney Dry Goods 
 Co., Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Fergusson z-. Brent, pp. 728, 734, 
 736, 737, 742. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 Fern, Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Fernandez ?■. Silva, pp. 516, 580. 
 Ferree, Werner Sawmill Co. v. 
 Ferrell z: C, H. & D. R. Co., pp. 
 1683, 1789, 2016, 2032. 
 
 Coeur d'Alene, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Ferrell & Co. z: Great Northern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 465, 3639. 
 
 Ferris z: Adams Exp. Co., p. 3346. 
 
 Ferrv z\ Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 1890, 1897. 2827, 2995. 
 
 Ferry Co., St. Louis '•. 
 
 Fertilizer, Two Hundred & Sixteen 
 Loads & Six Hundred & Sev- 
 enty-Eight Barrels of. 
 
 Fewings z'. Mendenhall, 83 Minn. 
 237, 86 N. W. 96, 55 L. R. A. 
 713— p. 2029. 
 
 z: Mendenhall, 88 Minn. 336, 
 
 93 N. W. 127. 60 L. R. A. 601, 
 97 -Am. St. Rep. 519— p. 1678, 
 2781. 
 
 Fewson, Young 7'. 
 Fibel v. Livingston, pp. 984, 987, 
 106(), 1068. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 2076. 
 
 z: Shelby Countv Taxing 
 p. 3474. 
 
 Taxing Dist., pp. 3552, 
 3553, 3559, 3560, 3570, 3372. 
 Ficklin z\ Wabash R. Co., pp. 818, 
 
 1479, 1268. 
 
 Fidelity Lumber Co. '■. Great 
 
 Northern R. Co., pp. 3764, 3787. 
 
 Fidelity Storage, etc., Co., Lee t'. 
 
 Fieber' ■;■. Manhattan Dist. Tel. 
 
 Co., p. 571. 
 Field v. Banker, p. 3878. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 945, 1008, 1049, 3326, 3330, 
 3347, 3359. 
 
 z'. Delaware, etc., K. Co., p. 
 
 2893. 
 
 z: French, pp. 1488, 2883. 
 
 -•. Mills, p. 3877. 
 
 z: New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 2724. 
 
 Northey 7'. 
 
 7'. Spokane, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2083. 
 
 V. The Lovett Peacock, p. 
 
 531. 
 
 Winhein z\ 
 
 Fielder z\ Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 850, 1052, 1053. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 
 
 Tex. 176, 179, 46 S. W. 633— 
 pp. 85, 512. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 362 
 —p. 3469. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2769. 
 
 Fielders z: North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1806, 2911. 
 Fielding, Pullman's Palace Car 
 
 Co. v. 
 Fielder, Dana z\ 
 
 Fifth Ave. Coach Co., Sturgis v. 
 Fifth Ave. Transp. Co., Frobisher 
 
 Fifth Nat. Bank, Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. v. 
 Figlia Maggiore, The. 
 Filbin 7'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1809. 
 File V. Wilmington City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1878. 1890, 2142, 2290, 
 
 2637, 2687. 
 Filer z: New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 49 N. Y. 47. 10 Am. Rep. 327— 
 
 pp. 1878, 2066, 2249. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R'. Co., 
 
 59 N. Y. 351— pp. 2126, 2258. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 68 N. Y. 124— pp. 1879, 2265. 
 
 Files V. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1549, 1556, 1569, ^207, 2238. 
 Filebrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 727, 995, 1003, 1007, 1008, 
 
 1036. 
 Filley 7'. Pope, p. 3872. 
 Fillingham 7'. Michigan United 
 
 Railways, p. 2(i60. 
 
 7'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2238, 2592. 
 
 Fillo 7'. Jones, p. 2745. 
 Filson, Chicago, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 Filyaw, Bennett 7'. 
 Finch 7'. Gregg, pp. 392, 394, 395, 
 390. 
 
 7'. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3101. 
 
 Pier 7'. 
 
 Findley v. Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2657. 
 
 City, etc.. Railway f. 
 
 Smith 7'. 
 
 State 7'. 
 
 Fine 7'. Interurban St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1699, 2817. 
 Fine & Bro. 7'. Southern Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 761, 854. 
 Finger 7'. Wichita R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2358. 
 Fink 7'. .\lbany, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2454. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 Harrison 7'. 
 
 Finkeldey 7'. Omnibus Cable Co., 
 pp. 1833, 1879, 2153, 2882, 2913. 
 Finley z\ Lewis, p. 603. 
 
 Pullman Co. 7'. 
 
 St. I^ouis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Finn v. Clark (Mass.), 10 Allen 
 479— pp. 1148, 1150, 1151. 
 
 7'. Clark (Mass.), 12 Allen 
 
 522— pp. 1148, 1150, 1151. 
 
 7'. N'alley, etc., R. Co., i>. 
 
 1893. 
 
 7'. Western R. Corp., 102 
 
 Mass. 283— pp. 500, 518. 519, 
 1148, 1150, 1151. 
 
 7'. Western R. Corp., 112 
 
 Mass. 524, 17 x\m. Rep. 128— 
 pp. 478, 490, 491, 681. 1148, 
 1150, 1151. 
 
 Finnegan 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1515. 1875. 
 Finney Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Finseth t'. Suburban R. Co., p. 
 
 2963. 
 Fire Ass'n 7'. Leob, 25 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 508, 84 S. W. 663— p. 
 
 822. 
 
 -■. Loeb, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 24, 59 S. W. 617— pp. 843, 1047, 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Firebaugh 7'. Seattle Elect. Co., 
 
 pp. 2684, 2702, 2882. 
 First Div., etc., R. Co., Ames v. 
 
 Christian 7'. 
 
 Du Laurans v. 
 
 Pinney 7'. 
 
 First Nat. Bank, Cosmos Cotton 
 Co. V. 
 
 7'. Crocker, pp. 353, 3(^2. 
 
 7'. Dearborn, pp. 353, 362, 
 
 363, 378, 3274. 
 
 7'. Ege, pp. 349, 382, 401. 
 
 Felker z'. 
 
 z: Felker, pp. 393, 400. 
 
 7'. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., p. 
 
 326. 
 
 7'. Kelly, p. 353. 
 
 Kessler 7'. 
 
 Livingston County 7'. 
 
 7'. McSwain, pp. 355, 371, 
 
 391, 479. 
 
 v. Marietta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1714, 3109, 3120, 3125, 3126. 
 3129, 3146, 3147. 
 
 7'. Mineral Wells, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 394. 395, 396. 
 
 v. Mt. Pleasant Mill Co., p. 
 
 359. 
 
 Nebraska, etc.. Grain Co. z.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXI 
 
 First Nat. liank v. New Vork, etc., 
 K. Co., pp. 550, 557, 559. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 555. 
 
 V. Northern Railroad, p. 558. 
 
 Petitt & Co. f. 
 
 V. Pettit, p. 1224. 
 
 V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 77 S. W. 410, 97 Tex. 201— pp. 
 387, 390, 519, 580. 
 
 V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 
 1033— pp. 390, 403. 
 
 V. Schmidt, pp. 1221, 1224. 
 
 V. Shaw, pp. 350, 430. 
 
 Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Stewart, p. 3864. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 United States ;•. 
 
 Walsh, etc., Co. '-. 
 
 V. Walsh, etc., Co., p. 391. 
 
 v. Wilkesbarre Lace Mfg. 
 
 Co., pp. 371, 395. 
 
 First Trust, etc.. Rank v. South- 
 ern Indiana R. Co., p. 3700. 
 
 Fischer v. Columbia, etc., Co., pp. 
 1549, 1557, 1743. 
 
 Klien I'. 
 
 V. New Vork City R. Co., p. 
 
 1648. 
 
 Fish V. Chapman, pp. 1, 2, 4, 8, 
 
 10, 246, 257, 727, 732, 735, 736, 
 737, 748, 765, 771, 1003, 1007, 
 1069, 3153. 
 
 i: Clark (N. Y.), 2 Lans. 
 
 176— p. 211. 
 
 V. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122, pp. 
 
 11, 771. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Fisher r. Abeel, p. 699. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Birmingham R'., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 2730, 2873. 
 
 Fisher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 3268, 3269, 3287. 
 
 Campbell '■. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Clisbee, p. 1682. 
 
 V. Geddes, pp. 277, 3158. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3442, 3719, 3720, 3753. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 855. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 140, 143, 1197. 
 
 f. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 889, 897. 
 
 Parmelee v. 
 
 V. Paxon, p. 1909. 
 
 People V. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Scharadin, p. 3792. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1720, 1755, 2942. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R". Co. f. 
 
 V. West Virginia, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., 39 W. Va. 366, 19 S. E- 
 578, 58 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 337, 23 L. R. A. 758— pp. 1715, 
 1718, 1719, 1723, 2191. 
 
 f. West \'irginia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 42 W. Va. 183, 24 S. E. 
 570, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 86, 33 L. R. A. 69— pp. 
 1962. 2114, 2125, 2163, 2172, 
 2179. 
 
 Fisher Bros., Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fishkill, etc.. Road Co., People f. 
 Fisk V. Newton, pp. 534, 566. 
 Fitch, Crosby f. 
 
 ^■. Mason, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 89 N. W. 33, 116 Iowa 716— p. 
 2759. 
 
 r. Mason, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 100 N. W. 618, 124 Iowa 665— 
 pp. 2205, 2671, 2692, 2739, 3004, 
 3006. 
 
 Newberry, pp. 230, 
 1142, 1155, 1156, 
 
 Block V. 
 
 93, 220, 1179, 
 
 Fitch '■. Newberry, pp. 230, 233, 
 24(., 1142, 1155, 1156, 1158, 
 1 1 59. 
 
 Filclilnirg R. Co 
 
 IJlumantle i: 
 
 Buchcr -'. 
 
 Cazneau 7'. 
 
 Commonwealth 
 
 Doyle !■. 
 
 Evans -■. 
 
 i: Gage, pp 
 
 1181, 1186. 
 
 Graves v. 
 
 Harlow i: 
 
 JetTris v. 
 
 Kidder •:•. 
 
 Leary -■. 
 
 Leonard -■. 
 
 Littleticid I'. 
 
 I.ittlejohn -'. 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Co. '.: 
 
 v. Nichols, pp 
 
 1761, 2105. 
 
 ■ Northern R. Co. 
 
 Percy "■. 
 
 Snow '■. 
 
 Swift River Co. ; 
 
 \"ermont, etc., R'. 
 
 Warren r. 
 
 Webster r. 
 
 White f. 
 
 Fitchburg R. Corp., Moore v. 
 Fitchburg, etc., R. Co. f. Hanna, 
 
 pp. 285, 287, 291, 1173. 
 Fitchburg, etc., St. R. Co., Or- 
 
 mandroyd f. 
 Fite, Kansas, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 Fitzgerald f. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 210, 243, 244, 411, 816, 81" 
 
 Loan, 
 1752, 
 
 Co., 
 
 etc., 
 
 1757, 
 
 Chicago, 
 3089. 
 
 — Kessenger r. 
 
 Kissenger v. 
 
 . Fitzgerald 
 
 p. 3753. 
 . Grand Trunk 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 etc. 
 
 R. 
 
 1675. 
 
 Constr. 
 Co., p. 
 Midland R. Co., pp. 1670, 
 Co.. pp. 
 
 Flaherty, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2083. 
 
 T. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2914, 2967. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Flake, Nashville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Great Northern R 
 
 Z-. Southern Pac 
 
 2340. 2970, 3317. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Fitzgerald, etc., Constr. Co., Fitz- 
 gerald 7'. 
 
 Fitzgibbon -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 108 Iowa 614, 14 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 270. 79 N. W. 477 
 —pp. 1543, 1544, 2652. 
 
 '•. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 119 
 
 Iowa 261. 6 R. R. R. 680, 29 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 680, 
 93 N. W. 276— p. 1545. 
 
 Fitzhugh. The Genesee Chief r. 
 
 -•. Wiman, pp. 333, 337. 
 
 Fitzmaurice r. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1573. 
 Fitzpatrick, Montgomerv Tract. 
 Co. f. 
 
 7: New Albanv, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1582. 
 
 Fitzsimmons -•. Joslin, p. 1212. 
 
 -■. Milwaukee, etc., R". Co., p. 
 
 2037. 
 
 -'. Southern Exp. Co., p. 546. 
 
 Five Hundreil and Seventy-Six 
 
 Granite Blocks. Chadwick 7\ 
 Five Thousand Two Hundred and 
 
 Fifty-Six Bundles of Elm 
 
 Staves, Brouty -•. 
 Fix, Gretschmann f. 
 
 Lake Erie, etc., Co., "•. 
 
 Lake Erie, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Flagg. Backer f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Jean, etc., Co. ;-. 
 
 -'. Manhattan R. Co., p. 2873. 
 
 Parker -•. 
 
 Flaherty 7\ Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 pp. 1705. 2510. 2540. 
 
 l-'lakne 
 
 p. 1303. 
 Flanagan v. Baltimore, etc., 
 
 p. 2943. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. 
 
 2828. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., 
 
 pp. 2273. 2276. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. :. 
 
 Flanary & Co., Old Dominion 
 
 Steamship Co. 7: 
 Flanigan. Southern R. Co. -■. 
 Flannagan. Louisville, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Flannery -■. 
 
 pp. 2020. 
 Flasli, etc.. 
 
 etc., 
 Flautt 
 Flavin 
 
 3106. 
 
 Fleck -'. Union R. Co., p. 2356. 
 Fleetwood, East Tennessee, etc.. 
 
 Co., 
 R. Co., 
 Co., p. 
 R-. Co.. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 3072. 
 
 etc., Co. f. New Orleans, 
 R. Co.. p. 410. 
 ;■. Lashley, p. 11. 
 Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 :■. Caldwell, p. 184. 
 etc., Co. 7'. Southern 
 pp. 3138. 3149, 3168, 
 3186, 3189. 
 Fleming 7'. Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 pp. 1588, 2525. 
 
 f. Hammond, pp. 270, 271. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 -•. Kansas, etc., R". Co., p. 
 
 1982. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 McLean i'. 
 
 r. Mills, p. 409. 
 
 J'. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2669. 
 
 Fletcher, .\merican Exp. Co. -•- 
 
 '•. Boston, etc.. Railroad 
 
 (Mass.). 1 Allen 9, 79 Am. Dec. 
 695— p. 2080. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 73 
 
 N. E. 552, 187 Mass. 463. 105 
 Am. St. Rep. 414 — p. 2238. 
 
 Urann -•. 
 
 Fletcher Land Co.. Hart ■:■. 
 Flexman. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. -. 
 Flinn, Atchison, etc.. R. Co. -•. 
 
 7: Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1567, 1708, 1741, 2092, 2103. 
 
 Flint v. Boston, etc., Railroad, pp. 
 1278, 1474. 
 
 f. Christall, pp. 947, 4056. 
 
 f. Norwich. etc., Transp. 
 
 Co.. 6 BlatchL 158. Fed. Caa. 
 No. 4.873— p. 2024. 
 
 -'. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 34 Conn. 554— p. 2024. 
 
 Sulakowski f. 
 
 Flint, etc., R. Co., Haggerty t. 
 
 Hansen ■:■. 
 
 Hanson 7: 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7: 
 
 Hengstler f. 
 
 Jacobs f. 
 
 Lentz 7: 
 
 Lewis -•. 
 
 7: Stark. pp. 1883. 1918. 
 
 2585. 2647. 2648. 
 
 7: Weir, pp. 1760. 3144. 
 
 3184. 
 
 Flintham. Harmon f. 
 
 Flintshire. Ullman f. 
 
 Flitner. Derry f. 
 
 Floersheim Mercantile Co.. Brown 
 
 Floershein Mercantile Co.. Brown 
 
 Flood T'. Chesapeake, etc., K. Co., 
 p. 2426. 
 
 7: Crowell. p. 3969.
 
 CLXXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Flood, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Floody -'. Great Northern A. Co., 
 
 p. 2580. 
 Florence, Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Florence, etc., R. Co. f. Jensen, 
 
 pp. 361, 362, 370, 548, 588. 
 
 V. Radetsky, p. 575. 
 
 Florida, Osborne i: 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3223, 3224. 
 
 Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. '.•. 
 Berry, pp. 533, 561, 62/. 
 
 ',: Lucas, pp. !/•>-. !'■*'' 
 
 1749 
 
 Florida Fruit Exch., Savannah, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Florida R. Co. V. Dorsey, pp. 
 
 1679 1682, 1744, 1880, 2268, 
 
 2909, 2993, 2994. 
 Florida R. Comra'rs f._ Atlantic, 
 
 etc.. R. Co., pp. 23, Sa, 6/. 
 Florida R., etc., Co., Cutting r- 
 V. Webster, pp. 1757, 1812, 
 
 Florida So. R. Co. t^ Hirst, pp. 
 
 193, 201, 202, 203, 204 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, p. 
 
 895. 
 
 Daniels v. __ 
 
 V. Geiger pp. 239o, 2388. 
 
 Gillman v. 
 
 f. Hirst, pp. l/l3. 2122, 
 
 2211, 2292. 
 
 V. Katz, pp. 1854. 1856. 
 
 z-. Lucas, pp. 2676, 2840, 
 
 2945, 2954. 
 
 Mclver v. 
 
 Railroad Comm'rs v. 
 
 ,.. Rudulph, pp. 2839, 2840, 
 
 2843, 2858. 
 
 i: Southern Supply Co., p. 
 
 659. ^^,, 
 
 V. Sullivan, p. 2213. 
 
 Susong V. 
 
 Taylor v. ^ , 
 
 f. United States, 200 Fed. 
 
 797— pp. 3681, 3803. 
 V. United States, 234 U. S. 
 
 167, 34 S. Ct. 867— p. 3673. 
 
 r. Wade. pp. 1696, l/Oa. 
 
 Florida, etc.. Tobacco Co., Georgia, 
 
 etc., R. Co. f. 
 Florman z: Dodd, etc., E-xp. Co., 
 
 pp. 1034, 1067. 
 Florshein Bros, z: Howell, p. 1219. 
 Flory, San Antonio Tract. Co. w. 
 
 V. San Antonio Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 1910, 1913 
 
 Flournoy, Columbus, etc., K. Co, 
 
 — — Nashville, etc.. Railway v. 
 Flower '<■. Downs, p. 296. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2526. ^ ^ 
 
 Flovd, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Flo'vtrup -■. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1877, 2238, 2297, 2748. 
 Flucks V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1988. 
 Fluker -■. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 190, 192, 205, 2525, 2527, 2528. 
 Flushing, etc., R. Co., Terry v. 
 Flynn f. Central Park R. Co., p. 
 
 2851. 
 "Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Consolidated Tract. Co., 
 
 45 Atl. 799, 64 N. J. L. 375— 
 p. 2204. 
 
 v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 52 
 
 Atl. 369, 67 N. J. L. 546— pp. 
 1703, 2204. 
 
 V. Interborough Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., pp. 2687, 2690. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1036, 1037, 3394. 
 
 Foard V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 499, 642, 654, 673, 3370, 
 Fockcns V. United States Exp, Co., 
 
 pp. 821, 824, 843, 880. 
 
 etc. 
 
 R. 
 
 etc., R. 
 Railroad, 
 R. Co., 
 pp. 
 
 R. 
 
 Foden z: Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1900, 1904, 2687. 
 Fogel f. San Francisco, 
 
 Co., p. 2298. 
 Foggan z\ Lake Shore, 
 
 Co., pp. 556, 1249. 
 Foley z'. Boston, etc., 
 
 pp. 1993, 1994, 2169. 
 
 z: Boston, etc., St. 
 
 pp. 204, 205, 1742, 2035.^ 
 
 V. Brunswick Tract. Co., 
 
 1684, 1687, 2997. 
 
 Comer z\ 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. ■;', 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. z\ 
 
 FoUiard, International, etc., 
 
 Co. z: 
 Folmina, The. 
 Folsoni, Kirk !■. 
 
 Folts, International, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Fonda z: St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2326, 2878, 2879, 3009. 
 Fonda, etc., R. Co., Goller z\ 
 Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 3141, 3164. 
 Fonsler, Atlantic City v. 
 Fontaine z'. Boatmen's Sav. Inst., 
 
 p. 340. 
 Fookes, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Foot, In re. 
 Forbes z'. Boston, etc., R'. Co 
 
 370, 378, 389, 551, 553, 
 
 595, 596, 597, 3274. 
 
 "■. Chicago etc., R. 
 
 1540, 1541, 2355, 2374. 
 
 McGuinn z: 
 
 ■ V. Merchants' Exp., etc 
 
 p. 3924. 
 Ford v. Atlantic, etc 
 3142, 3143. 
 Chicago, etc. 
 
 I pp. 
 556, 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Co., 
 
 3141, 
 3750.' 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 - f. Cotesworth, p. 355. 
 
 - z'. East Louisiana R. Co., 
 1500, 2471, 2472. 
 
 Ft. Smith, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 - Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 
 
 3064. 
 
 '.'. Mitchell, p. 279. 
 
 z\ Paducah City Railway, 
 
 559. 
 
 Railway, 
 
 7'. Southern 
 
 2650. 
 
 Springer t'. 
 
 Fordyce v. Allen, p. 2263. 
 
 z: Beecher, pp. 1542, 1562, 
 
 1563, 2428, 2473, 2483, 2493. 
 
 V. Chancy, pp. 1729, 1731, 
 
 2778. 
 
 z'. Dempsey, p. 483. 
 
 V. Dillingham, pp. 1868, 1883. 
 
 Fullerton v. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1577, 1814, 
 
 pp. 156, 157 
 pp. 726, 
 
 pp. 
 
 1596, 
 
 740, 
 1599, 
 
 1689, 
 
 v. Jackson, 
 
 2004. 
 
 z: Johnson, 
 
 V. McFlynn, 
 
 1268, 1281. 
 
 v. Manuel, 
 
 2468, 3103. 
 
 V. Merrill, p. 1797. 
 
 V. Moore, p. 2583. 
 
 V. Nix, pp. 2565, 3062. 
 
 V. Withers, pp. 1683, 
 
 1691, 1729, 1731, 1738, 2669. 
 
 Fore V. Alabama, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2322. 
 Forehand, Central, ect,. R. Co. v. 
 Foreman, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Tex.), 46 S. W. 834— p. 1966. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 4 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 54, 23 S. W. 
 422— pp. 1966, 2602. 
 
 z'. Norfolk, etc., Co, 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 1576. 
 
 Forepaugh ?■. Delaware, 
 
 Co., p. 940. 
 Formes, Indianapolis Tract., etc. 
 
 Co, V. 
 
 p. 1536. 
 Co., p. 
 
 Formiller -■. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, pp. 1888, 1892, 2653, 2656, 
 2721, 2967. 
 
 Forrest, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Forrester, Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 ■;'. Georgia R., etc., Co., 92 
 
 Ga. 699, 19 S. E. 811— pp. 615, 
 017, 732, 741, 748, 765, 766, 
 767, 3306, 3307, 3394, 3395, 3397, 
 3405. 
 
 z'. Georgia R., etc., Co., 96 
 
 Ga. 428, 23 S. E. 416— p. 3306. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2598, 2656. 
 
 Forrester & Co. '•. Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 782, 783, 785. 
 Forsaith, Concord, etc., Railroad 
 
 Forsee z\ Alabama, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1596, 1599, 1605, 2467, 2468, 
 2469, 3091. 
 
 Forster, O'Conner v. 
 
 Forsyth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2272. 
 
 McCall V. 
 
 Forsyth Bros. & Co., Camden, etc., 
 
 R. Co. v. 
 Forsythe, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 ■;'. Kimball, p. 3871. 
 
 z'. Los Angeles R. Co., p. 
 
 2005. 
 
 V. Walker, pp. 756, 3370. 
 
 Fort ;■. Saunders, p. 862. 
 
 z\ Southern Railroad, p. 3056. 
 
 Texas, etc.. Railroad z\ 
 
 Ft. Clark St. Railroad v. Ebaugh, 
 
 pp. 2420, 2421, 2422. 
 Fort Dodge, etc., R. Co., Ileggen 
 
 Sandquist v. 
 
 Fort Grain Co. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Fort Pitt Tract. Co., Gray r. 
 Fort Produce Co. v. Dissen, pp. 
 
 329, 478, 479. 
 Ft. Scott, etc., R. Co. z\ Sparks, 
 
 p. 2217. 
 Fort Smith Light., etc., Co., Oliver 
 
 Z'. 
 
 Ft. Smith, etc., R. Co. v. Chandler 
 Cotton Oil Co., pp. 1200, 3669. 
 
 v. Ford, pp. 1856, 1867. 
 
 z'. Williams, pp. 659, 676. / 
 
 Fort. Wayne Elect. Co., Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. zi Harden- 
 
 dorf, pp. 197, 200, 2123, 2193, 
 
 2194, 2867, 2893. 
 Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., Archer 
 
 Bradley v. 
 
 Detroit z: 
 
 Etson 7'. 
 
 Kingston 7'. 
 
 ■ Werbowlsky 7'. 
 
 Ft. Wayne, etc., Tract. Co. v. 
 Olingcr, pp. 1901, 1903, 2599. 
 
 Ft. Worth St. R. Co. V. Ferguson, 
 pp. 2087, 2088, 2604. 
 
 Ft. Worth Transfer Co. 7'. Isaacs, 
 pp. 601, 871. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z\ Alex- 
 ander, p. 1342. 
 
 Andrews v. 
 
 7'. Beauchamp, pp. 238, 695. 
 
 ■ z\ Bribble, p. 2425. 
 
 V. Cage Cattle Co., p. 1279. 
 
 7'. Caruthers, pp. 479, 483. 
 
 V. Cushman, p. 1639. 
 
 z: Daggett, pp. 1285, 1287, 
 
 1289, 1343, 3357. 
 
 Davis, pp. 1518, 1770,, 
 
 etc. 
 
 R. 
 
 1785. 
 
 3345. 
 1338.' 
 
 Day, pp. 2813, 2845, 289S. 
 Enos, pp. 1730, 2869. 
 
 Fuller, pp. 3311, 3337, 
 
 Gallon, pp. 208, 243, 1279,.
 
 TAI5LE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXIII 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., K. Co., Garlington 
 
 V. Garrison, p. 839. 
 
 v. Grcathouse, pp. 474, 693, 
 
 855 977, 1054, 1063, 1073, 1076, 
 1077 1078, 1085, 1086, 1095, 
 1096, 1116, 1117, 1122, 1304, 
 1317, 1318, 1320, 1322, 1323, 
 1327, 1341, 1350, 1398, 1414, 
 1415, 1453, 1470, 1480, 1481, 
 3368. 
 
 V. Gribhlc, pp. 2434, 2480. 
 
 V. TIamin, p. 1327. 
 
 Hardin 7\ 
 
 '.: Hardin, p. 1524. 
 
 V. Harlan, pp. 831, 835, 837. 
 
 V. Harrold, p. 1441. 
 
 V. Hyatt, pp. 1938, 1939. 
 
 V. James, pp. 1316, 1331, 
 
 1332. 
 
 Tones i'. 
 
 V. Jones, pp. 1630, 2444. 
 
 V. Kennedy, pp. 1524, 1740. 
 
 V. Lock, p. 1270. 
 
 V. McAnulty, pp. 796, 1336, 
 
 3289. 
 
 -,'. McCarty, p. 3140. 
 
 Martin t. 
 
 V. Martin, pp. 273, 274, 275, 
 
 286, 292, 293, 295. 
 
 7: Mastcrson, pp. 3271, 3272. 
 
 V. Richards, p. 1326. 
 
 r. Riley, pp. 268, 272, 273. 
 
 :■. Rogers, 21 Tex. Civ. .■\pn. 
 
 605, 53 S. W. 366— pp. 947, 950, 
 2093, 2772. 
 
 r. Rogers, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 382. 60 S. W. 61— pp. 1729, 
 1753, 1755, 2094, 2172, 2345. 
 
 v. Rosenthal Millinery Co., 
 
 pp. 3122. 3149. 
 
 r. Shanley, pp. 822, 3396. 
 
 r. Spear, pp. 1766, 1910, 
 
 1911, 2904. 
 
 T'. Stewart, p. 2023. 
 
 V. Stingle, pp. 1694, 2772. 
 
 V. Stone, p. 1730. 
 
 Sturdivant ?■. 
 
 V. Underwood, pp. 452, 453, 
 
 461. 
 
 -c'. Viney, pp. 1884, 1885. 
 
 V. Waggoner Nat. Bark, pp 
 
 276, 1279, 1336, 1340, 1479. 
 
 r. Walker, pp. 2288, 2777. 
 
 V. White, pp. 1988, 1991, 
 
 2760. 
 
 V. Wilkerson, p. 2913. 
 
 r. Williams, pp. 3311, 3331, 
 
 3337, 3367. 
 
 r. Wilson, p. 1105. 
 
 Woolridge & Sons r. 
 
 V Word. np. 753. 758, 1347. 
 
 r. Work. pp. 1701, 1782, 
 
 1797, 1910. 1913. 2873. 2875, 
 2876. 
 
 V. Wright (Tex.), 58 S. W. 
 
 846— p. 1043. 
 
 V. Wright, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 291, 58 S. W. 846— pp. 971, 978, 
 984, 1002. 1016, 1048, 1374, 1393, 
 1394, 3337, 3365. 
 
 r. Wright, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 198. 64 S. W. 1001— p. 1043. 
 
 ;■ Wright, 30 Tex Civ. App, 
 
 234. 70 S. W. 335— pp. 424, 451 
 
 Fortier f. Pennsylvania Co., p 
 
 997. 
 Fortin -■. T-av Citv Tract., etc. 
 
 Fleet. Co., p. 2934. 
 Fortlage, Harrison v. 
 Fortune, Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co 
 
 Forty Second St., etc., R. Co., 
 Howard '■. 
 
 I.a.v :. 
 
 Plait V. 
 
 Rott V. 
 
 Unger v. , ^ , 
 
 Forty-Second, etc.. R. Co., Frank- 
 
 Foscue, Cox f. 
 
 Fosnes v. Duluth St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2252. 
 Foss r. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1867, 1912, 2122. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Foster. Cheshire Railroad r. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3648. 
 
 V. Davenport, pp. 3478, 3569. 
 
 7'. Frampton, pp. 1231, 1235. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. ',■. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 I.add r. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 V. Old Coloncy St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2313. 2795. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Seattle Fleet. Co., pp. 
 
 1504, 1505, 1519, 1521, 2154. 
 2942, 2965. 
 
 Thurston v. 
 
 V. Union Tract. Co., p. 2393. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. :•. 
 
 Foster Lumber Co., Atchison, etc., 
 
 R. Co. f. 
 
 P'oulks, Illinois Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 Fourchc River Lumber Co. •:'. Bry- 
 ant Lumber Co.. p. 3701. 
 
 450 Tons of Kainit. West Hartle- 
 nool Steam Nav. Co. f. 
 
 Fourteenth St. R. Co., Wilson v. 
 
 4 885 Baes of Linseed, pp. 3936. 
 3939. 3944. 3945, 3946, 3947. 
 
 4,300 Tops Pyrites Ore, .Adamson 
 
 V. Southern R. Co. 
 
 Forty Second St. 
 Conley "•. 
 
 Garner 
 
 Hayes 
 
 2507. 
 etc., R. Co., 
 
 n'oust r. Lee. p. 1339. 
 
 Foward r. Pitlard, pp. 729, 734. 
 
 750, 752. 
 Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 3998. 
 Fowle r. Pitt. n. 3288. 
 Fowler, Chickering v. 
 
 7'. Davenport, pp. 735, 808, 
 
 810. 849, 850, 853. 855. 1014. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R". Co. 7". 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 7'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 
 7'. Sterling, p. 337. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Fowler Comm. Co. v. Chicago, etc.. 
 
 R. Co.. p. 245. 
 Fowlks 7'. Southern R. Co.. p. 3045. 
 Fox. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7' Boston, etc.. R. Co., pn. 
 
 617, 638. 653. 658, 3276. 3410. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2912. 
 
 GuK. etc.. R. Co. 7. 
 
 V. Holt. pp. 520. 1170. 3865. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 -.. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2825. 
 
 7'. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2116. 21<)1. 2322. 
 
 So"thern Kxn. Co. ?■. 
 
 Fox &• Bro. 7'. Willis & Bro.. pp. 
 
 '212. 1244. 
 1-nv River Valky, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 Z'mmer 7'. 
 Fov 7-. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 3274. 
 
 7'. Trov. etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 3257. ■ .^ _, 
 
 Fraam v. Grand Ranids, etc.. K. 
 
 Co.. pp. 3172. 3174. 
 Frahm v. Siegel-Cooper Co.. p. 
 
 1751. 
 
 Frair, Johnson 7'. 
 
 FralofT, New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 — — 7. New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 p. 3197. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 Frame, Denver, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 7'. Oregon Liquor Co., pp. 
 
 1212, 1219, 1220, 1229, 1237, 
 1246. 
 
 Frampton, Foster v. 
 Francis -.: Cockrell, p. 1849. 
 
 7-. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 894, 899. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. New York Steam Co., p. 
 
 2202. 
 
 Francis Wright, The. ^ „ ,„ 
 Francisco 7'. Troy, etc., K. Co., 78 
 
 Hun 13, 29 N. Y. S. 247. 60 
 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 797— p. 2194. 
 :■ Trov, etc., R. Co., 88 Hun 
 
 464, 34 N. Y. S. 859, 68 N. Y. 
 
 St. Rep. 792— pp. 1986, 2178, 
 
 ''889. 
 Frank v. Adams Exp. Co.. p. 783. 
 
 Delaware, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7' Grand Tower, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp 529, 900, 903, 907. 
 
 — l!- V. Ingalls, pp. 1610, 1612. 
 1616. 
 
 7'. Keith, p. 750. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1699. 2896. 
 
 Frank Bird Transfer Co. v. Krug. 
 p ''231. 
 
 Frank"Br'os. & Co. i: Central R. 
 Co.. pi). 577. 897. 906. 916. 91/. 
 
 Frank Co.. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. ?•- 
 
 Frank Simpson Fruit Co. 7'. South- 
 ern Pac. Co.. p. 329. 
 
 Frank Waterhouse & Co.. Sweeney 
 
 Frank oc Co.. Southern R. Co. 7^^ 
 Frankenberg. Hlinois Cent. K. Co. 
 
 Fr'ankford. etc.. R. Co.. .-\ikin 7'. 
 
 Randall '.: 
 
 Frankfort, etc.. R. Co.. Thomas 
 
 Frankfort, etc.. Tract. Co.. Mar- 
 shall ': 
 
 7'. Marshall, p. 18.-'3. 
 
 Frankfurt ■: Weir. p. 494. 
 
 Franklin r. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co.. 
 p. 2088. , „ „ 
 
 7.. Fortv-Second. etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2811. ' 
 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 647. 651. 659. 660. 662. 679. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 7. 
 
 ,.. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 ''244. 
 II -•' Southern California Motor 
 
 Road Co.. p. 1868. 
 7-. Visalia Elect. R. Co.. p. 
 
 2753. „ 
 
 Franklin Printing, etc.. Co. .. 
 
 Behrcns. p. 2837. „..,,,,- 
 Franklin Trust Co. f. Philadelphia. 
 
 etc.. R. Co.. 222 Pa. 96. /O 
 
 -\tl 949. 22 L. R. A.. N. S.. 
 
 828— PP. 311. 315. 337. 356. 360. 
 
 372. 380. _. - 
 7'. Philadelphia, etc., R-..C"- 
 
 237 Pa. 519. 85 Ml 83?— P- 
 
 407. , ,. , . ^ 
 
 Franklin, etc.. Publishing Co. >. 
 
 Behrens. p. 2689. „ n ,. 
 
 Franks. St. Louis, etc.. R- Co t . 
 Fraser f. California, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 -lll^^.-'H'arplVHouseCo.. p. 1751. 
 
 7'. Witt. p. 1211. 
 
 Frasier 7'. Charleston etc . R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 811. 1376. 1383. 1483. 
 Fravwick f. Southern Railway, p. 
 
 642. . r. r„ -. 
 
 Frazar. St. Lou.s. etc.. »• ^o. . . _ 
 Frazee, Louisville, etc.. R- Co. ..
 
 CLXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Frazer, Chicago, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 f. Marsh, p. 3864. 
 
 f. Smith, p. 659. 
 
 Frazer & Co. r. Milliard, p. 1239. 
 Frazier, Alabama, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Atchison, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 517. 
 
 Camden Interstate R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Kansas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 232, 273. 284. 
 
 z: New York, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2085, 2086. 
 
 Sanderson "■. 
 
 Young :■. 
 
 Frederich '•. X. Y.. X. H. & H. 
 
 R. R., 3668. 
 Frederick '■. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 818, 890, 917. 
 
 V. Marquette, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1649, 2462. 
 
 Frederick Leyland & Co., Delta 
 Bag Co. f. 
 
 Fredericks f. Xorthern Cent. Rail- 
 road, pp. 1687, 1723, 2031, 2961. 
 
 Freeback f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 p. 2517. 
 
 Freed. Memphis, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 
 Freedon f. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1498. 
 
 Freeman v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1622, 1623, 1631, 1632. 
 
 f. Bank, pp. 383, 393. 
 
 Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Chy Lung ',: 
 
 'c: Collins Park, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3006. 
 
 v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 
 
 p. 2910. 
 
 z: Detroit, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 158. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 i'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3282, 3388. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1936. 
 
 !■. Xewton, p. 3140. 
 
 f. New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 1644. 
 
 V. Fere Marquette R. Co., p. 
 
 2168. 
 
 i: Puckett, pp. 1867, 1869, 
 
 2721, 2750, 2753. 
 
 f. Quebedeaux, p. 779. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — — - v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1025, 1031. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc.. Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 1687, 1695, 1742, 1890, 
 1996, 2234, 2290, 2653, 2687, 
 2858. 
 
 Ziegler v. 
 
 Freeman & Sons Mfg. Co., Pratt 
 
 Freeport R., etc., Co., Crotzer v. 
 Freiberg, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Freidenrich f. Baltimore, etc., R'. 
 Co., pp. 1633, 2442. 
 
 Fremont v. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2816. 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. French. 
 
 pp. 1501, 1764, 2839. 
 
 Heumphreus v. 
 
 v. Hagblad, pp. 1501, 1512, 
 
 1513, 1524, 1537, 2580, 2590. 
 
 V. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3330, 3347. 
 
 r. Root, pp. 2211, 2653, 2851. 
 
 Shellenberg v. 
 
 State z: 
 
 V. Waters, pp. 211, 1493, 
 
 3262, 3289. 
 
 French v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 931, 1018, 1037. 
 
 z: Detroit, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2141. 
 
 Field V. 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Merchants', etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 1631, 3162, 3166. 
 
 French, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t: 
 
 V. Star Union Transp. Co., 
 
 p. 573. 
 
 Frere f. Von Schoeler, p. 3585. 
 Fresno City R. Co., Maxwell -•. 
 
 Renfro z\ 
 
 Fretwell z: Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 
 
 p. 2516. 
 Fretz r. Bull, p. 4054. 
 Freudenstein, Pullman Palace Car 
 
 Co. v. 
 Frcy Z-. New York Cent., etc., R'. 
 
 Co., p. 617. 
 Stockton Z-. 
 
 Texas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 The. 
 
 Fri, The. 
 
 Friar, Johnson v. 
 
 v. Orange, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2042, 2052. 
 
 Friear, Johnson v. 
 
 Fricberg '■. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 567, 872. 
 Fried v. Wells Fargo & Co., p. 
 
 1046. 
 Friedel z\ BrookJvn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 2860. 
 Friederick, Driess v. 
 Friedlander v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 306, 308, 317, 356, 357, 371, 
 
 373, 376, 389. 
 Friedlander & Co. z: Cornell, p. 
 
 279. 
 Friedman z'. Consolidated Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 2910. 
 
 ■;■. Metropolitan, etc., Co., p. 
 
 528. 
 
 Seaboard .\ir Line Railway 
 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Friel, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Friend, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Woods, pp. 729, 736, 737. 
 
 Friend Paper Co., Brooks z'. 
 Friendschaft, The. 
 
 Frier, Atchison, etc., R. Co. <■. 
 Fries, Pennsylvania R'. Co. '■. 
 Friesland, The. 
 Frink '•. Potter, p. 2127. 
 
 Woodbury z\ 
 
 Frink & Co. v. Coe, pp. 1726, 1749, 
 
 1837, 3069. 
 Frisbee, Clines r. 
 Frisby, St. Louis, etc._,_ R. Co. z\ 
 
 z\ Sheridan, p. 551. 
 
 Fritz, Ex parte. 
 
 '•. Southern R. Co., p. 2871. 
 
 Frizzell v. Omaha St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 204, 2723. 
 Frobisher -•. Fifth Ave. Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 1833, 1838. 
 Frogley, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Frohlic'h Glass Co. v. Pennsylvania 
 
 Co., pp. 432, 992, 993. 
 Frohriep z: Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1844. 
 Eromme. Gulf, etc., R. Co. z-. 
 Front St. Cable R. Co., Dudley 
 
 Front St., etc., R. Co., Hawkins 
 
 Frost, Cohen '■. 
 
 v. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 1922, 1964, 2163. 
 
 f. Los Angeles R. Co., p. 
 
 2882. 
 
 Williams -■. 
 
 Frothingham f. Jenkins, pji. 1153, 
 
 1 1 66. 
 Fruit Dispatch Co., Kemendo z\ 
 Fry V. Mercantile Bank, p. 713. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. <■. 
 
 V. St. Louis Transit Co., p. 
 
 1703. 
 
 State z'. 
 
 Fuhry v. Chicago City R. Co., p. 
 
 2004. 
 ^'ulbright z: Wabash R. Co., p. 
 
 1479. 
 Fulgham, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Fulghum V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1784, 2128. 
 Fulks f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2125, 2152, 2373, 2620, 2876. 
 Fullbright, Cincinnati St. R. Co. 
 
 Fuller '■. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1476. 
 •;•. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2285. 
 
 z: Bradley, pp. 3, 209, 602. 
 
 Byrnes v. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 142, 173, 1197. 
 
 z'. Denison, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1712, 2302. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. c'. 
 
 z\ Jamestown St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2744. 
 • T'. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 978. 
 
 •;■. Madison Mut. Ins. Co., 
 
 pp. 323, 984. 
 
 z: Naugatuck R. Co., pp. 210, 
 
 2570, 2666, 2751. 
 
 Railroad Co. z\ 
 
 Toledo Consol. St. R. Co. •:•. 
 
 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. 
 
 Fuller's Exp. Co., .American Silk 
 
 Dyeing, etc., Co. v. 
 Fullerton z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 152. 
 
 z: Fordyce, pp. 1781, 2089, 
 
 2269. 
 
 State f. 
 
 Fulmer, Jenks z\ 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., p. 1598. 
 
 Fulton. Chandler '•. 
 
 Mad River, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Merriman f. 
 
 Fulton,' etc.. Co., Merriman '■. 
 
 z: Thompson, p. 1209. 
 
 Fulton, etc.. Cotton Mills z: 
 
 son Xav. Co., p. 553. 
 Fults z\ Metropolitan St. R'. 
 
 pp. 2157, 2746. 
 Funderburg z: .\ugusta, etc. 
 
 Co., pp. 191, 194, 199, 
 
 1936, 2428. 
 Funderburk, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Funk, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Funsten Dried Fruit, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co., pp. 765, 
 
 870, 872, 3342. 
 Fuqua, Gulf, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Furgason v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1911, 1912, 1918, 2026. 
 Furlow, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Furman z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 57 Iowa 42, 10 X. W. 272— 
 
 p. 577. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 62 
 
 Iowa 395, 17 X. W. 598, 6 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 280 — pp. 575, 
 576. 
 
 z\ Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 Iowa 540, 46 X. W. 
 577. 
 
 -'. Union Pac. R. 
 
 361, 378, 561, 3274. 
 
 Furnam, Putnam z\ 
 
 Furness, Baunwall, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Furness, etc., Co., Disney z: 
 
 Johnstone z\ 
 
 f. Leyland Shipping Co., p. 
 
 3957. 
 
 Swift & Co. V. 
 
 Furnish z\ Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 102 Mo. 438, 44 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 322, 13 S. W. 1044, 22 .Am. 
 St. Rep. 781— pp. 1716, 1732, 
 1740, 1812, 1842, 2694, 3005. 
 
 •;■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 
 
 Mo. 669, IS S. W. 315, 22 Am. 
 St. Rep. 800— p. 2694. 
 
 Furniss, Bucklry z: 
 Furstenheim r. Memphis, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 3176, 3179. 
 
 Hud- 
 Co., 
 
 , R. 
 
 1604, 
 
 81 
 1049— p. 
 
 Co., pp.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXV 
 
 Furthman, Merchants' IJcspatcli 
 
 Transp. Co. v. 
 Merchants' Dispatch Transp. 
 
 Co. r. , ^. 
 
 Furthmann, Merchants Dispatch 
 
 Transp. Co. v. 
 
 FusstU, St. I.ouis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Gabbert f. llackett, pp. 1559, l.-ifo. 
 Gable r. Delaware, . etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2164, 2165. ^, ,^ 
 
 Gabler v. McChcsney, 70 N. Y. 
 
 S. 191, 60 App. Div. 583— pp. 
 
 3956, 3961. 
 V. McChcsney, 70 N. \. S. 
 
 195, 60 App. Div. 590— p. 3964. 
 Gaborron r. Kreeft, pp. 352, 353. 
 Gabriel ': Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1894. 
 Caddie, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gadsden, etc., R. Co. v. Causler, 
 
 pp. 1736, 1739, 1869, 1883, 217d, 
 
 2242. 
 
 Boston, etc., R 
 
 Gafifman : 
 
 p. 3167. 
 Gaffney v. 
 
 p. 2816. 
 — — r. St. Paul City R. Co, 
 1517, 1519, 1522, 
 
 Brooklyn City K. 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 , PP- 
 2859, 
 
 733, 
 Co., 
 
 I>P- 
 
 1515, 
 2863. 
 
 V. Union Tract. Co., p. 2195. 
 
 Gage, Fitchburg R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 1914. 
 
 f. Jaqueth, p. 302. 
 
 Machine Co. f. 
 
 V. Morse, pp. 355, 701, 714. 
 
 f. St. Louis Transit Co.. pp. 
 
 1958, 2166, 2337, 2738, 2882, 
 2893. 
 
 Tirrell v. 
 
 V. Tirrell, pp. 10, 728, 
 
 749, 750. 
 
 Gagnon v. Boston Elevated R 
 
 p. 1830. 
 Gail, Smith v. 
 Gaines v. Chester Tract. Co 
 
 1689, 2810. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pullman Southern Car Co. '■. 
 
 V. Union, etc., Ins. Co., pp. 
 
 322 325, 326, 781, 813, 897, 
 946. 956, 981, 988, 996, 1000, 
 1007, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1039, 
 3880. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 Gainesville Mid. Railway f. 
 
 son, pp. 1881, 1892, 1893. 
 Gaither v. Barnet, p. 734. 
 Galam, The. 
 Galaviz v. International, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1552. 
 Galbraith, etc., Co., .\dler r. 
 Gale, Brock :•. 
 
 Brunswick, etc.. R. Co. ■ 
 
 r. Delaware, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 1973. 
 
 V. Eastman, p. 1490. 
 
 Levois v. 
 
 Galehouse v. Minneapolis, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1524. 
 Galena, etc., R. Co.. Congar 
 f. Fay. pp. 1684, 1721, 
 
 21 U, 2119, 2220, 2294, 
 
 2377, 2400, 2951. 
 
 f. R-ae, pp. 208, 210, 
 
 228, 229. 233, 234, 246 
 253, 607. 621. 653. 1153. 
 
 V. Yarwood. 15 111. 468~pp. 
 
 210, 1738. 2220. 
 
 r. Yarwood, 17 111. 509. 63 
 
 Am. Dec. 682— pp. 2260. 2u72,. 
 
 Hailinan, p. 789 
 
 lack- 
 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 1727. 
 2368. 
 
 216. 
 247, 
 
 Galgate Ship Co., Starr & Co. 
 
 Gallagher '■. Bowie, pp. 1728. 1729. 
 
 1749. 1984. 2034, 2037. 2942. 
 liedding f. 
 
 Gallagher, Merrick v. 
 
 Texas Mex. R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. West End St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2154, 2383. 
 
 West Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Gallahcr, New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Galiegly V. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2417, 3021. 
 Gallena v. Hot Springs Railroad, 
 
 pp. 2480, 2483, 2485. 
 Galliers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1447, 1448. 
 Galligan -•. Old Colony St. R. Co., 
 
 1). 2956. 
 Galliher, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Galloway v. Chicago, etc.. Iv. Co., 
 
 87 Iowa 458, 54 X. W. 447, 58 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 245— pp. 
 
 1712, 2258, 2367, 2514. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 56 
 
 Minn. 346, 57 N. W. 1058, 23 
 L. R. A. 442, 45 .\m. St. Rep. 
 468— pp. 2507, 2527. 
 
 f. Erie R. Co., 95 X. Y. S. 
 
 17, 107 App. Div. 210, 17 X. Y. 
 Ann. Cas. 209— p. 1286. 
 
 T. Erie R. Co., 102 N. Y. S. 
 
 25, 116 App. Div. 777 — pp. 1012, 
 1383. 
 
 V. Hughes, pp. 531, 538. 
 
 Gait V. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 731, 
 
 763, 767, 768. 
 
 -•. Archer, pp. 1145, 1172, 
 
 1173. 
 
 Gallon, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Galveston Chamber of Commerce, 
 Railroad Comm. v. 
 
 ?■. Railroad Comm., p. 124. 
 
 Galveston City R. Co., Allen v. 
 
 Christie v. 
 
 V. Hewitt, pp. 1731, 1978. 
 
 Galve.ston, etc., R. Co. v. Alberti, 
 
 p. 1886. 
 
 Allen f. 
 
 V. Allison, pp. 946, 3342. 
 
 3357. 
 
 Armstrong v. 
 
 V. Armstrong, p. 3545. 
 
 ^^ V.^lLlI,' pp. 822, 847, 849, 
 853, 854, 855, 861, 949, 950, 
 954, 1055. 1069, 1073, 1077, 1079, 
 1099, 1102, nil. 
 
 V. Barnett, pp. 490, 682, 802. 
 
 V. Bean, pp. 2046, 2095. 
 
 r. Bell. pp. 851, 860. 
 
 r. Berry, p. 1885. 
 
 V. Boothe, pp. 1087, 1095, 
 
 1414, 1415. 
 
 :■. Borden, pp. 583, 1302. 
 
 -•. Botts, 22 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 
 609, 55 S. W. 514— pp. 451, 996, 
 1297, 3336. 
 
 ;■. Botts (Tex. Civ. App.). 70 
 
 S. W. 113— pp. 1318. 1352. 
 
 Burton v. 
 
 Cassiano v. 
 
 Christie v. 
 
 r. Contreras. pp. 2o03. 2604. 
 
 V. Cooper, 70 Tex. 67, 8 S. 
 
 W. 68— pp. 1916, 1964. 
 
 f. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 42 20 S. W. 990— pp. 1527, 
 1885, 1916. 1964, 1965. 
 
 Crawleigh f. 
 
 :•. Crier, pp. 738, 742, 1680, 
 
 1691, 2844. 
 
 V. Crippen, p. 1077. 
 
 Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Crispi, 
 
 pp. 1869, 1875, 1885, 1887. 
 — — f. Crow, pp. 522, 3469. 3604, 
 3661, 3840. 
 
 r. Davidson, pp. 2113, 2171. 
 
 Davis f. 
 
 r. Davis, p. 2300. 
 
 De Castillo f. 
 
 . ;. 1/c Castillo, p. 2264. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Donahoe, 
 p. 2059. 
 
 V. Douglass, pp. 652, 660, 
 
 679. 
 
 V. Efron, pp. 815, 849, SSa, 
 
 865, 1027, 1036, 1041. 
 
 V. Fales. pp. 937, 3114. 3123, 
 
 3132, 3536. 
 
 :•. Febo, p. 1073. 
 
 V. Fink, pp. 1502, 1503, 1882. 
 
 2329, 2570. 
 
 f. Freeman, p. 1440. 
 
 -.■. Garcia, pp. 2589, 2604. 
 
 f. Gildca, p. 695. 
 
 V. Giles, p. 864. 
 
 Good I'. 
 
 f. Goodwin, p. 2734. 
 
 f. Green, p. 2694. 
 
 V. Harman, p. 1408. 
 
 Henderson v. 
 
 Herring v. 
 
 V. Herring, 102 Tex. 100, 
 
 113 S. W. 521— pp. 1694, 2113. 
 
 - V. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 24 S. W. 939— p. 3358. 
 
 - f. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 28 S. W. 580— p. 1355. 
 
 - V. Herring (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 36 S. W. 129, 130— pp. 1120, 
 1303, 1311, 1337, 2583. 
 
 - Hicks f. 
 
 - V. Home, pp. 815, 822, 1027, 
 1130. 
 
 - V. House, pp. 335, 1127, 
 1129, 1199, 1202, 1203, 1204. 
 
 - !•. Houston, p. 3344. 
 
 - V. Hubbard, p. 1886. 
 
 - f. Hunt, pp. 700, 712, 897. 
 901. 
 
 - V. Ivey, p. 3358. 
 
 - V. Jackson, pp. 286, 287, 
 1279, 1332, 1335. 
 
 - V. Jessee. pp. 643, 659, 666, 
 667, 668, 669, 672, 673, 683. 
 
 Johnson v. „ ,,, 
 
 f. Johnson (Tex.7, 19 S. W. 
 
 867— pp. 834, 855, 856, 1321, 
 1350. 1353. 
 
 V. lohnson (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 
 
 29 S. "W. 428— p. 1353. 
 
 V. Karrer, pp. 1313, 1319. 
 
 13 '3 
 
 ~'J. Kellev, pp. 854, 1127, 
 
 1128, 1351. 
 
 V. Kinnebrew. pp. 1613, 1633. 
 
 i: Krenek. p. 2249. 
 
 V. La Prelle, pp. 2051, 2053, 
 
 2055, 2064, 2771. 
 
 V. Le Gierse, pp. 2113, 2114, 
 
 2143. 2151. 2156, 2319. 
 
 Liefert v. 
 
 -•. Long, pp. 1689. 1692, 
 
 2028. 2030. 2417, 2418, 2419. 
 
 Lytle :•. 
 
 McCartv v. 
 
 :•. McMonigal. pp. 2042. 
 
 2046. 2705. 
 
 McXeil V. 
 
 V. Mathes, pp. 1526. 1S8/, 
 
 2269. 
 
 f. Matula. p. 3398. 
 
 V. Matzdorf. p. 2508. 
 
 ;. Morris, 94 Tex. 505, 61 S. 
 
 W. 709— pp. 1953, 2114, 2151, 
 2172. 
 
 !•. Morris, pp. 1956. 2221. 
 
 2283, 2292. 
 
 f. Morrison, p. 1766. 
 
 Mullen : . 
 
 V. Xoelke, p. 1336. 
 
 Norton r. 
 
 Norwood "■. 
 
 J-. Parsley, pp. 1689. 1691, 
 
 1694, 2211, 2589, 2683, 2697. 
 
 f. Patillo, pp. 1694, 1985. 
 
 2220. 
 
 '.-. Patterson, pp. 1605. 1606. 
 
 ;•. Piper Co.. pp. 3604, 3661, 
 
 3662, 3663. 3840. 
 
 V. Powers, p. 1337.
 
 CLXXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. Ouilhot 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 200 
 —p. 807. 
 
 v. Quilhot (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 134 S. \V. 261— pp. 760, 763, 
 764, 845. 
 
 Ratteree ''. 
 
 7: Roemer, pp. 796, 2566. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. -•. Sanchez, 
 
 p. 2251. 
 
 ?-. Schafermeyer, p. 3398. 
 
 f. Schmidt, p. 215. 
 
 f. Scott, 44 S. W. 589. 18 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 321 — pp. 2078. 
 2772. 
 
 r. Scott, 79 S. W. 642. 34 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 501 — p. 2428. 
 
 •:•. Short, pp. 507. 1094. 1140. 
 
 1411. 3331. 
 
 f. Silegman, pp. 333, 334, 
 
 335, 337, 607, 637, 851, 864, 
 865. 956. 1118 1122, 1123 11^7 
 1128, 1272, 1360. ' ' ' 
 
 7: Smith, 59 Tex. 406— pp. 
 
 2151, 2249. 2263, 2319. 
 
 '<: Smith, 81 Tex. 479, 482, 
 
 17 S. W. 133— pp. 919, 2570, 
 3160. 3161, 3169, 3174. 
 
 7'. Smith, 2 Tex. App. Civ. 
 
 Cas.. § 138— pp. 639, 758, 778, 
 880. 
 
 !■. Smith (Tex. Civ. Anp.'), 
 
 24 S. W. 668— pp. 3160. 3161, 
 3169. 
 
 — — T'. Snead. pp. 1562, 1565, 
 1808. 1985. 
 
 State T. 
 
 f. Stovall. pp. 471, 1,^14. 
 
 1351. 
 
 r. Texas, pp. 3551. 3552 
 
 3559. 3560, 3561, 3562. 
 
 7'. Thompson (Tex. Civ 
 
 App.), 23 S. W. 930— pp. 1086, 
 1096, 1107, 1415. 
 
 7: Thompson (Tex. Civ 
 
 App.). 44 S. W. 8— pp. 441. 443 
 1295, 1325 
 
 7: Thompson (Tex. Civ 
 
 App.). 44 S. W. 810— p. 442. 
 
 7: Thorn.sberrv. pp. 1767 
 
 1798. 1878, 2357, 2570. 2639" 
 2906, 2984. 
 
 -— f Tuckett (Tex. Civ. .App.). 
 
 ?L,^- ■ ^-■''^— PP- 863. 881, 
 1307, 1327, 1351, 1359. 
 
 — — 7'. Tuckctt (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 
 25 S. W. 670— p. 856. ' 
 
 T-. Turner, p. 2473. 
 
 r. Waldo, p. 1808. 
 
 7: Walker, pp. 2733, 2734 
 
 f. Wallace (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 117 S. W. 169— pp. 3445, 3602, 
 3661, 3662. 
 
 — — 7% Wallace, 223 U. S. 481, 56 
 r.. Ed. 516, 32 S. Ct. 205— pp. 
 3444, 3469, 3470. 
 
 7'. Warnken. pp. 1303, 1312 
 
 1327. 
 
 7: Watson, pp. 637. 643, 664. 
 
 666. 
 
 Williams 7'. 
 
 7'. Williams (Tex. Civ. App ) 
 
 25 S. W. 311— pp. 1092, 1093, 
 1096. 
 
 7: Williams (Tex. Civ. App), 
 
 25 S. W. 1019- pp. 864. 1085, 
 1086. 1095, 1359, 1415, 1431. 
 
 7\ Wiseman, p. 1664. 
 
 7'. Wood, etc.. Cattle Co., p. 
 
 1203. ^ 
 
 7'. Word, p. 262. 
 
 7: Young, pp. 1841, 1999, 
 
 2683, 2793. 
 
 7'. Zantzinger, p. 2482. 
 
 Galvin, Warehouse, etc., Supply 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Gamble. Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 Gamble-Robinson (Zomm. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 3632, 
 
 3706. 
 
 Gamble-Robinson Comm. Co. v. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 430. 
 
 7'. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 107 Minn. 187, 119 N. W. 1068 
 —p. 690. 
 
 7'. Northern Pac. R. Co., 119 
 
 Min. 40, 137 N. W. 19— pp. 
 1113, 1115. 
 
 Gammage, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 Gammett, Holland 7'. 
 Ganguzza 7'. Anchor Line, p. 3989. 
 Ganiard v. Rochester, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 2149, 2817. 
 Ganlev 7'. Brooklvn Citv R. Co., 
 
 p. 2803. 
 Gann 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 65 
 
 Mo. App. 670— p. 465. 
 
 7: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 
 
 Mo. .App. 34— pp. 1297, 1315. 
 
 Georgia R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gannon 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1526, 1965, 2075, 2305. 2306, 
 2366. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2886. 
 
 Gans 7'. -Xuchincloss, p. 3951. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 r,ans Steamship Line, Holman 7'. 
 Gants, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gantt, Pollock & Co. 7'. 
 
 Garber 7'. Joline, p. 2810. 
 Garberson 7'. Transcontinental 
 
 Freight Co., p. 772. 
 Garcia. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Mexican Nat. R'. Co. -■. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Garden Grove Bank ?•. Humeston. 
 
 etc.. R. Co., pp. 338, 356, 360, 
 369, 378, 3274. 
 
 Gardiner, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 Gardiner 7'. New York. etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1075, 3163, 3164. 3166. 
 Gardner, Atlanta, etc., R. Co 
 
 7'. Boston Elevated R. 
 
 pp. 1743, 2952. 
 
 T. Chase, p. 333. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Detroit St. R. Co., 
 
 1890, 3005. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 122 S. W. 389, 223 Mo. 389, 1 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1166 — 
 PP. 1737, 1818, 2337. 2654. 2700. 
 2738. 
 
 • V. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 167 Mo. App. 605, 152 S. W. 98 
 —pp. 1891. 2241. 
 
 7\ New Haven, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1502. 1506, 1537. 1543. 
 
 New Jersey Tract. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. New Orleans, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 821, 829, 867. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 7'. 
 
 Shaw 7'. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 ■ 7'. Southern R. Co., p. 969. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Wavcross, etc.. R. Co.. 94 
 
 Ga. 538, 19 S. E. 757— pp. 1990, 
 2575. 
 
 V. "^^''avcross, etc.. R. Co.. 97 
 
 Ga. 482. 25 S. E. 334. 54 Am. 
 St. Ren. 435 — np. 1561, 1715. 
 1718. 1989, 2334, 2335, 2839, 
 2840. 
 
 Gardner, etc., St. R. Co., Thomp- 
 son 7'. 
 
 Garey ?■. Meagher & Co.. n. 771. 
 
 Garfield, etc.. Coal Co.. Morgan v. 
 
 Garland t. Boston Flev. R. Co., 
 pp. 2358, 2908. 
 
 '■- Southern R. Co.. pp. 1755. 
 
 1989, 1991. 
 
 Garlington 7'. Fort Worth, e'c, R. 
 
 Co., pp. 654, 657, 693. 695. 
 Garner t. Chicago, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2678, 2679. 
 
 V. Fortv-Second St., etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 1996. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., K. Co. 7'. 
 
 Co. 
 
 pp. 
 Co.. 
 
 Garner v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 285, 292. 
 Garnett, In re. 
 Garrett 7'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p, 
 
 1539. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. r 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Missouri, etc, R. Co. 7'. 
 
 O'Neill 7'. 
 
 7'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2410. 2534. 
 
 Garrison 7'. Baggage Transp. Co. 
 94 Mo. 130, 6 S. W. 701— p 
 456. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 7'. Memphis Ins. Co., p. 4021 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 138 
 
 150, 178, 3517. 
 
 7'. United R., etc., Co. 7'., pp 
 
 77. 1649. 2447, 2473, 2572. 
 
 Garthright, Richmond R., etc., Co 
 
 Garton 7'. Bristol, etc., R. Co., pp 
 211, 213, 221, 225. 1181. 
 
 Heme 7'. 
 
 Zambctti 7'. 
 
 Garvan 7'. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 484, 486, 867, 1954, 3379. 
 Garvey 7'. Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 1516, 2141. 
 Garvik 7'. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 124 Iowa 691, 100 N. W. 498— 
 
 pp. 2646, 2868. 
 
 7'. Burlington, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 131 Iowa 415, 108 N. W. 327, 
 117 Am. St. Rep. 432— pp. 2341, 
 2785. 
 
 Gary 7'. Gulf, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 1683, 1801, 1870, 2744. 
 
 7'. Wells, Fargo & Go's Exp., 
 
 pp. 512, 594. 
 
 Gasaway, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 C^as Co. 7'. Glass Co., p. 659. 
 Gascogne, La. 
 Gascoigne 7'. Metropolitan, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2872. 
 Gashweiler v. Wabash, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 T-n. 894, 899, 902. 
 Gaskins 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 478, 488. 
 Gass V. Astoria Veneer Mills, pp. 
 
 332, 349, 360, 361, 365, 371, 
 
 374, 381, 382. 542, 543. 546. 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 285, 3301, 3312. 
 
 7'. Southern Pac. Co.. p. 382. 
 
 Gastka North Chicago City R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Gaston, Central, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Gasway 7-. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2038. 2040, 2041, 2045, 2064, 
 
 3064, 3073. 
 Gate City St. R. Co., Houston 7: 
 Gates 7'. Bekins. p. 581. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 361, 369, 371, 378, 544, 547, 
 556, 3274. 
 
 7'. Detroit, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 538. 
 
 7'. Ouincy, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1562, 2473, 2474. 
 
 • 7'. Ryan, pp. 712, 1511. 
 
 Gatewood, Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 7:. 
 
 Gathright, Pacific Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Pacific Exp. Co., pp. 418 
 
 420, 465. 
 
 Gathwright, Pacific Exp. Co. 7'. 
 Gattman, Hamburg-American Pac 
 
 ket Co. 7'. 
 Gatton V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 3494, 3606. 
 7'. United States Exp. Co., p 
 
 989. 
 Gaukler v. Detroit, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 pp. 2478. 2489, 2854. 
 Gault Lumber Co. 7\ Atchison, etc. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 715, 716. 
 Gaunce 7'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2172, 2174, 2221, 2222, 2891.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXVII 
 
 Cavett T. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2248. 
 Gavin, Pullman Palace Car Co. z: 
 Gay 1'. Milwaukee Elect. R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2684, 2841, 3033. 
 . Thomas t'. 
 
 Ware -•. 
 
 Gaylord, Pullman Palace Car Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Gaynor x'. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1722, 1776, 1780. 
 Gazelle, The. 
 G. C. & S. F. R. Co. r. Ilolliihy, 
 
 p. 1350. 
 
 V. Levy, p. 796. 
 
 t'. McGowan, * pp. 4, 5, 933, 
 
 2092, 2095. 
 
 V. Moctze, p. 935. 
 
 Murray Hro. r. 
 
 V. Wilhelm, p. 956. 
 
 Gebus V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2858. 
 Geddes, Fisher t. 
 
 -'. Metropolitan R. Co., pp. 
 
 2878, 2887. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 Gee 1'. Lancashire, etc., R. Co. 
 (Kng.), 6 Hurl. & X. 211— pp. 
 637, 653, 674. 
 
 T. Lancashire, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Eng.), 6 Hurl. & N. 217— p. 
 646. 
 
 Geer, Clark r. 
 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 145, 1672. 
 
 Geiger, Florida, etc., K. Co. t. 
 
 -•. Pittsburg R. Co., pp. 1519, 
 
 2947, 2959. 
 
 Geis, South Covington, etc., St. 
 
 R. Co. %: 
 Geiser, The. 
 •Geismer z'. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 619. 
 <ici*z -•. Milwaukee City R. Co., p. 
 
 2197. 
 General Elect. Co., New York, 
 
 etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 I'. Southern Railway, p. 561. 
 
 General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. 
 
 Carolina, etc.. Co., pn. 739, 744. 
 
 •General Iron Screw Collier Co., 
 Grill r. 
 
 General Mut. Ins. Co. i'. Sher- 
 wood, pp. 4021, 4022. 
 
 General Oil Co. t'. Crain. p. 3568. 
 
 General Smith, The. 
 
 General Transatlantic Co., Guil- 
 laume t'. 
 
 ■Geneva, etc., Tract. Co., Paine v. 
 
 Gensemer r. Conestoga Tract Co., 
 p. 2903. 
 
 ■Gent, JctTersonvillc, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gentleman, The. 
 
 Gentry, Wells Fargo & Co's E-xp. 
 
 Geogagn z>. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2247. 
 Geopp, Central, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 George, Chicago, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 '•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 
 
 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479— p. 818. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 214 
 
 Mo. 551, 113 S. W. 1099— pp. 
 66, 1274, 1372, 1373, 1408. 1417. 
 
 T'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 57 
 
 Mo. .\pp. 358— pp. 815, 818, 
 823, 1457. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. ;■. 
 
 Tones ?■. 
 
 "Midland \'alley R. Co. f. 
 
 7: St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1722, 1812, 2693 
 
 7'. Skivington, p. 1849. 
 
 George W. Garlick, The. 
 George W. Roby, The. 
 
 George & Co. <•. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 519, 557. 
 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 •Georgetown, etc.. R. Co. v. Smith, 
 
 pp. 2204. 2337. 2893. 
 
 1 Car— 1 
 
 p. 1073. 
 2702. 
 pp. 1505, 1521, 
 
 Georgia, Ilennington v. 
 
 <".eorgia l-ruit, etc., ICxch., Central 
 
 R., etc., Co. V. 
 Georgia (iranite R. Co., Gregory -•. 
 Georgia Home Ins. Co., Yazoo, 
 
 etc., K'. Co. 7-. 
 Georgia Pac. R. Co., Central 
 
 Trust Co. T. 
 
 Cooper I'. 
 
 Head V. 
 
 V. Hughart, 
 
 -'. Love, p. 
 
 f. Robinson 
 
 1522. 
 
 Smith -•. 
 
 -'. Underwood, p. 2202. 
 
 Watson T'. 
 
 (Jeorgia Railroad, Bird i'. 
 
 Crawford j'. 
 
 f. Creety, pp. 3760, 3840. 
 
 I'"alvey ?■. 
 
 Xunn -■. 
 
 - artee "•. 
 
 '•. Richards, p. 601. 
 
 V. Spears, pp. 727. 732, 740, 
 
 748, 961, 962, 967, 968, 972, 981, 
 1005, 1267, 1269, 1361, 1364, 
 1369, 1372, 3379. 
 
 Georgia R. Co., American Nat. 
 
 liank r. 
 • -■. Baldoni, pp. 1631, 2409, 
 
 2450, 2482, 3100. 
 • V. Beatie, pp. 727, 732, 748, 
 
 959, 961, 962, 967, 968, 1005, 
 
 1018, 1267, 1361, 1364. 
 
 r. Cole & Co., pp. 503, 3297. 
 
 v. Gann, pp. 947, 961, 962, 
 
 967, 968, 1003, 1007, 1019, 3306, 
 
 3397. 
 
 r. Hayden, pp. 3040, 3052. 
 
 7'. Homer, pp. 1748, 2408, 
 
 2409, 2432, 2481, 2775, 3090, 
 3091, 3096. 
 
 Home-Andrews Comm. Co. i: 
 
 f. Johnson, p. 765, 3172. 
 
 Kerr 7'. 
 
 ;■. Maddox, p. 3247. 
 
 Mitchell 7'. 
 
 7'. Newsome, p. 2045. 
 
 -■. Olds, pp. 1612, 2457, 2458, 
 
 2481, 3092. 
 
 Peavy 7'. 
 
 ■ V. Smith, pp. 22, 23, 35, 62. 
 
 63. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. f. Adams, 
 
 pp. 1783, 2133, 2591, 3006. 
 
 .Mlison t'. 
 
 -Almand "■. 
 
 7'. Baker, 120 Ga. 991, 48 S. 
 
 E. 355— pp. 3083, 3084. 
 • 7'. Baker, 125 Ga. 562, 54 S. 
 
 E. 639, 20 R. R. R. 789, 43 .\m. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 789, 7 
 
 L. R. A., N. S, 103, 114 Am. St. 
 
 R'ep. 246, 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 
 Cas. 484— pp. 1613. 1644, 1648, 
 
 1651, 2458, 2464, 3064. 
 
 7'. Baker, 58 S. E. 88, 1 Ga. 
 
 .\pp. 832— pp. 1949, 2058, 2075, 
 2770. 
 
 7'. Baldoni, p. 2528. 
 
 Battle 7'. 
 
 Burge 7'. 
 
 7'. Clarke, p. 1615. 
 
 — — -•. Cole, pp. 1506, 1508, 1509. 
 1517. 1518. 1747. 2777. 
 
 Coleman 7'. 
 
 7'. Crossley & Co.. p. 1199. 
 
 Havis 7'. 
 
 z: Davis, pp. 2474. 2777. 
 
 7'. Dougherty, pp. 1610. 2459. 
 
 2460, 3093. 
 7'. Eskew, pp. 2409. 2432. 
 
 2464. 2475. 2485, 3078. 3079. 
 
 3080. 3081, 3082, 3083. 
 Fluker 7'. 
 
 Forrester 7'. 
 
 f. Forrester, p. 3397. 
 
 V. Gillcland, pp. 1747, 2127. 
 
 2128. 2367, 2400, 2839. 2899. 
 
 Georgia R.. etc.. Co. v. Greer, pp. 
 1492. 1493. 1494. 
 
 z: Haas, p. 480. 
 
 Ham :■. 
 
 Hardwick f. 
 
 Ilillman v. 
 
 Hornesby j'. 
 
 z: Hopkins, pp. 2055. 2056. 
 
 Jackson v. 
 
 i: Jctt. p. 3061. 
 
 Johnson z\ 
 
 Joseph J'. 
 
 z: Keating, pp. 1884. 1885. 
 
 z: Keener, pp. 820, 823, 947, 
 
 948, 1038, 1055, 1056, 1065, 
 1075, 1079, 1080. 
 
 Killian v. 
 
 r- V. Lloyd, pp. 1790, 2591, 
 
 2592. 
 Lyndon ?•. 
 
 z: Mc.Mlistcr. pp. 1705, 2129, 
 
 2689, 3045, 3063. 
 
 McBride f. 
 
 z: McCurdy, pp. 1864, 1878. 
 
 V. Maddox, p. 233. 
 
 Miller z: 
 
 Morris z: 
 
 7'. Murden, 83 Ga. 753, 10 
 
 S. E. 364— pp. 1596, 1597. 2633. 
 
 z: Murden. 86 Ga. 434, 12 
 
 S. E. 630— pp. 200, 1596, 1597. 
 1599. 1600. 2469. 
 
 V. Murrah. p. 3285. 
 
 z: Norris, p. 2913. 
 
 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. 
 
 Phillips 7-. 
 
 Phillips, 
 3159, 3169. 
 
 Pickens z\ 
 
 — Pierce v. 
 
 — Poole z: 
 Reeves, 
 
 pp. 1538, 3158, 
 
 3006. 
 
 1364, 
 1390, 
 
 pp. 
 
 2634, 2688. 
 
 2056, 
 2911! 
 
 Reid, pp. 972, 1270 
 1365, 1367, 1372. 
 1407, 1434. 
 
 Rich, p. 2069. 
 
 Richmond, pp 
 
 2526. 
 
 Rives, pp. 
 
 1361. 
 1384. 
 
 2040, 
 
 1525, 
 1912, 
 626, 10 S. 
 
 2601, 
 
 S. 174, 32 
 47— pp. 36, 
 
 894, 898. 
 
 1767. 1768. 
 
 Railroau. Mc- 
 
 7'. Smith. 83 Ga. 
 
 E. 2-35— p. 3249. 
 
 z: Smith, 128 U. 
 
 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. Ct. 
 61, 62. 63. 64. 
 
 "■. Thompson, pp. 
 
 919. 3174. 3194. 
 
 7'. Tice, pp. 2777, 2918. 
 
 7'. Usry, pp. 
 
 2350. 
 
 Walker 7'. 
 
 Wolfe 7. 
 
 Wood 7'. 
 
 Wright 7'. 
 
 Wynn 7. 
 
 Georgia Southern 
 
 Caffrey 7'. 
 
 McCaffrey & Co. 7-. 
 
 Georgia Southern R. Co. 
 
 son. etc.. Co.. p. 724. 
 Georgia Southern, etc.. 
 Hicks 7-. 
 
 7'. Murray, p. 1876. 
 
 Georgia, etc., Co., Autrey 7'. 
 Georgia, etc.. R. Co. f. Asmore. 
 
 pp. 1596, 1597, 1599, 1603, 2468. 
 2473, 2493. 
 
 z: Barfield, pp. 736, 813, 834. 
 
 874. 
 
 7'. Bigelow, pp. 1625, 2415. 
 
 3089. 3103. 
 
 Brown 7'. 
 
 -•. Brown, p. 1615. 
 
 7'. Cartlcdge, p. 2721. 
 
 Cooper 7'. 
 
 Curry v. 
 
 "•. Durrencc, p. 444. 
 
 Elbcrta Peach Co. z-. 
 
 7'. Elliott, pp. 626. 796. 
 
 z: Eskew. p. 1638. 
 
 R. 
 
 John- 
 Co..
 
 CLXXVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. z: Florida, 
 etc.. Tobacco Co., p. 406. 
 
 V. George, pp. 2840, 2491. 
 
 T-. Greer, pp. 1031, 1271, 
 
 1361. 1364, 1389, 1390. 
 
 Hicks r. 
 
 pp. 
 etc., 
 
 Co., 
 
 2820. 
 pp. 
 
 954. 1020, 103S, 1040, 1056, 
 1071, 1081, 1137. 
 
 Jones r. 
 
 V. Knight, p. 574. 
 
 f. Marchman, pp. 269. 434. 
 
 z: Murray, pp. 1922, 2240. 
 
 Pattison, pp. 894, 898, 899, 
 
 Pound, pp. 894, 898, 899, 
 919. 
 Ricks r. 
 
 -•. Sizer & Co., p. 289. 
 
 '■. Smith, p. 34. 
 
 Suber -■. 
 
 '■. Underwood, p. 1816. 
 
 '-. Watkins, pp. 1895, 2120. 
 
 Whelan '■. 
 
 Geppert, Trinity, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 Geraldon, Te.xas Mid. R. Co. t'. 
 Gerrdy '•. Louisville, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1671, 1676, 1678. 
 Geratv, .Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 V. .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 211 
 
 Fed. 227— pp. 3666, 3670. 3816. 
 
 -■. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 81 
 
 S. C. 367, 62 S. E. 444 — p. 1020. 
 
 Gerber z\ Wabash R. Co., p. 3751. 
 Gerhard '•. Xeese, pp. 565, 608, 
 
 609, 610, 638, 677, 1144, 1146. 
 Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co. v. 
 
 Merchants* Exp. Co., p. 500. 
 Gerlach r. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 pp. 1826, 2721, 2777, 2881. 
 German v. Brooklyn Heights R'. 
 
 Co., pp. 2684, 2882. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., Co., 150 111. 
 
 App. 149— p. 2684. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 
 
 Iowa 127— pp. 996, 997, 1374. 
 
 T'. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 442. 
 
 German Fruit Co. v. California, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 435. 
 German Nat. Bank, .\rkansas 
 
 Southern R. Co. '■. 
 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 German Security Bank, Holmes, 
 
 etc., Co. r. 
 
 Germania Fire Ins. Co. t-. Mem- 
 phis, etc., R. Co., pp 319, 321, 
 325, 333, 335, 958, 987, 996, 3880, 
 3881. 
 
 Germania Ins. Co. '■. La Crosse, 
 etc.. Packet Co., p. 891. 
 
 Germanic, The. 
 
 Germann z\ Great Northern R. Co., 
 pp. 2786, 3075. 
 
 Gcrmantown Pass. R. Co. t. Bro- 
 phy, pp. 1820, 2200. 
 
 V. Walling, pp. 2178, 2193, 
 
 2343, 2344, 2347. 
 
 Germany, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Gernon, Missouri Pac. R. Co. t'. 
 Gerreiss, Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Gerren, Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Gerry v. American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 1004, 1006. 
 Gerson, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gerstle f. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1953. 
 Getman, Packard t. 
 Getz, Stewart Taxi S?rvice Co. v. 
 Gewin, & Son, Alabama, etc., R. 
 
 Co. J.'. 
 Geyer v. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 944. 1273. 
 Ghazee, The. 
 G. H. & H. R. Co. V. Allison, pp. 
 
 503, 504, 508. 
 
 G. H. & H. R. Co. V. Moore, p. 
 
 2120. 
 G. H. & S. A. R. Co. f. Stovall, 
 
 p. 1321. 
 ■ — ■ — - V. \"an Winkle & Co., pp. 
 
 405, 830, 852. 
 
 f. Watson, p. 858. 
 
 Ghio i'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1903, 2252. 
 Ghormley v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 
 
 Super. Ct. 196— p. 1108. 
 
 f. Dinsmore, 53 N. V. Super. 
 
 Ct. 36— p. 1010. 
 
 Gibbes, Charlotte, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Gibbons 7\ Karwell, pp. 551, 573. 
 574, 579. 
 
 V. Ogden pp. 3418, 3419, 3420, 
 
 ' 3439, 3440, 3474, 3476, 3477, 
 
 3478, 3549, 3569, 3571, 3581. 
 
 V. Robinson, pp. 337, 338. 
 
 — — f. Wade, pp. 948, 1007. 
 Gibbs, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 T'. \'an Buren, p. 3895. 
 
 Giblin 7'. National Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 1456, 1476. 
 Giboney, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gibson v. American Merchants' 
 
 L'nion E-xp. Co., pp. 3328, 3371. 
 
 r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 095, 697, 1116. 
 
 r. Culver, pp. 534, 903. 
 
 7-. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2476. 
 
 Federal St., etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 'r. International Trust Co., 
 
 177 Mass. 100, 58 N. E- 278, 52 
 L. R. A. 928— pp. 1488, 1690, 
 2678, 2902. 
 
 z'. Internationa! Trust Co., 72 
 
 N. E. 70, 186 Mass. 45^ — p. 
 1696. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc.. Railway ■;■. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 ■:■. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 785, 3395. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. x'. 
 
 i'. Stevens, p. 383. 
 
 \'alpy ?■. 
 
 Gibson Line, Levy's Son & Co. ■:'. 
 Gidley, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Giesen, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Gilbert, .Mabama, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 I'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1284, 1306. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 • International, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Richards v. 
 
 Waite V. 
 
 i: West End St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1723. 
 
 Gilbert Bros. i\ Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 727, 732, 7o5, 1268, 
 
 1470. 
 Gilbert Transp. Co. -■. Borden, p. 
 
 39()5. 
 Gilbert, etc., Co., Railroad -■. 
 Giibreath, St. Louis, etc.. Railway 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gilchrist v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1453, 1456. 
 
 Lumberman's Min. Co. '■. 
 
 O'Brien v. 
 
 btimpson f. 
 
 Gilcher t'. Seattle Elect. Co., pp. 
 
 2876, 2921. 
 Gildea, Galveston, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 Giles z'. Cynthia, p. 1J70. 
 
 V. Fargo, pp. 785, 987. 
 
 V. Fauntlcroy, pp. 3116, 3123, 
 
 3130. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Great Western R. Co., p. 
 
 _ 1498. 
 
 Gilhooly %'. New York, etc., Nav. 
 
 Co., p. 2846. 
 Gilkinson '. The Scotland, p. 588. 
 Gill z: Erie R. Co., pp. 209^ 2100, 
 
 3694. 
 
 Gill, McGregor z: 
 
 Mississippi, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 t'. Rochester, etc., R. Co., p, 
 
 2489. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Williams z'. 
 
 Gilleland, Georgia R., etc., Co. z' 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 - 1447. 
 
 Gillen t. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 3102. 
 Gillenwater z\ Madison, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 1582, 1749, 1760, 2036 
 
 2037. 
 Gillespie '■. Brooklyn Heights R, 
 
 Co. pp. 2568, 3064, 3065. 
 
 international Text-Book Co 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1309. 
 
 Gillett, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. pp 
 
 SCO, 785. 
 
 Gilliland 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 p. 142. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Mail Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Soutliern R. Co., pp. 954 
 
 1012, 1290, 1388, 1427, 1475. 
 
 Gillingham 7'. Dempsey, pp. 848 
 850. 
 
 7'. Ohio River R. Co., pp 
 
 1487, 1492, 1542, 2038, 2059 
 2075. 
 
 Gillis 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp 
 
 2502, 2508. 
 Gillman 7'. Florida, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 3054. 
 Gillshannon 7'. Stonv Brook R 
 
 Corp., p. 1581. 
 Gillum 7'. New York, etc.. Steam 
 
 ship Co., pp. 2287, 2288, 3995 
 
 4003. 
 Gilly 7' New Orleans, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2311. 
 Gilnian 7'. Boston, etc., Railroad 
 
 pp. 1831, 2349, 2794. 
 
 7'. Philadelphia, pp. 3439, 3440 
 
 356b. 
 
 Gilmer, Higley 7'. 
 
 7'. Highley, pp. 1571, 2719. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Kennon 7'. 
 
 Kermon 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. Z'. 
 
 Ryan 7'. 
 
 Schafer 7'. 
 
 Gilmore 7'. Brooklyn Heights R, 
 Co., p. 2683. 
 
 7'. Carman, pp. 728, 739. 
 
 Dallas, etc., St. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Houston Elect. Co., pp, 
 
 1732, 1737. 
 
 7'. Milford, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1825. 
 
 7'. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1774, 2073. 
 
 7\ Seattle, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2928. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Gilson 7'. Gwinn, p. 1158. 
 
 7'. lackson County Horse R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1684, 1685. 
 
 Giltman 7'. Brooklyn Heights R, 
 Co., 113 N. Y. S.' 1046, 129 App 
 Div. 654— p. 2809. 
 
 7'. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. 
 
 113 N. Y. S. 1048, 129 .\pp 
 Div. 919— p. 2809. 
 
 Gilvin, Toledo, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 Ciiiin 7'. Ogdensburg Transit Co. 
 pp. 1118, 1119, 1123, 4028. 
 
 z\ Pennsylvania R. Co., pp 
 
 2673, 2674, 2781. 2800. 
 
 Ginna z\ Second .\ve. R. Co., pp 
 
 2180, 2186. 
 Girncll-Collins Co. 7'. Illinois Cent 
 
 R. Co., pp. 484, 495. 
 Ginnochio-jones Fruit Co. 7'. Mis 
 
 Eouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 551, 569
 
 TAIU.F, OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXIX 
 
 Ginsburg -■. Adams Kxp. Co., pp. 
 
 430. 1067. 
 Giovanelli v. ICrie R. Co., pp. 1881, 
 
 2877. 
 Girardeau -■. Soutlicrn JJxp. Co., 
 
 pp. 587, 590. 
 Girod, 15irminghain R., etc., Co. v. 
 Girton v. J^ehigh \ailey R. Co., 
 
 p. 2363. 
 Gisieson -•. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3101. 
 
 Gist, Missouri, ttc, K'. Co. v. 
 
 Gittings <■. Hakcr, p. 511. 
 
 Gladson v. Minnesota, pp. 97, 98 
 
 103, 3481, 3482, 3483, 3503, 
 
 3504, 3513, 3514, 351o. 
 
 State -■. 
 
 Gladstone, Hirley v. 
 
 Coventry v. 
 
 Mercantile & IC.xcliange Hank 
 
 Gladys, The. 
 
 Glasco V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3109, 3157, 3180, 3187, 3191, 
 
 3192. 
 Glascock V. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 ^ Co., pp. 2259, 2315, 2719. 
 Glascovv, IJarker & Co. ■:■. 
 Glasgow, Ivouisvillc, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Glasgow Steam Shipping Co. f. 
 
 Tweedle Trading Co., pp. 3892, 
 
 3893. 
 Glass, Central R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2653, 2655. 
 
 > V. Goldsmith, pp. 272, 290, 
 
 in, 338, 339, 346. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Glassberg v. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2892. 
 Glass Co., Gas Co. v. 
 Gleadell v. Thomson, p. 892. 
 Gieason, Central R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Duffy, pi>. 4056, 4073, 
 
 4074, 4079. 
 
 V. Goodrich Transp. Co., pp. 
 
 274, 278, 3111, 311S, 3116, 3122, 
 3125, 3128, 3137, 3146, 3148, 
 3156, 3157, 3164, 3165. 
 
 V. Willamette \'alley, pp. 
 
 1940, 1941. 
 
 Gledhill Wall Paper Co. v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., p. 641. 
 
 Gleeson v. Virginia Mid. R. Co., 
 pp 1575, 1680, 1807, 1808, 1809, 
 1810, 2670, 3005. 
 
 Glencoe Land etc., Co. v. Hudson 
 I5ros. Comm. Co., p. 455. 
 
 Glenk, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Glenn, Birmingham R'., etc., Co. 
 
 Bonner v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. %\ 
 
 V. Southern Kxp. Co., pp. 
 
 1087, 1090, 1091, 1107. 
 
 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 p. 2576. 
 
 Glennen v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 pp. 1682, 1727, 2016, 2020, 2021, 
 2026, 2727, 2860. 
 
 Glenny, Great Western l)esi)atch, 
 etc.. Shore Line i'. 
 
 Glenny \- Co.. Despatch Line v. 
 
 Glens Fall, etc., R. Co., Wright 
 
 Glens Falls, etc., St. R. Co., Reg- 
 ner v. 
 
 Butler V. 
 
 Glidden v. New York Cent., etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2218, 2892. 
 Glidcwell, Little Rock, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Glinn -•. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 1824. 
 Globe Nav. Co., Revett v. 
 
 V. Russ Lumber, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 3888, 3889, 3902. 
 
 Globe Transfer, etc., Co. Ketten- 
 
 hofen I'. 
 Glossup, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 R. Co.. 
 
 Co. V. 
 \< <'o.. 
 
 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 vania, pp. 3418, 3419, 3420, 
 3421, 3423, 3429. 3433, 3445, 
 3446, 3447, 3471, 3472, 3474, 
 3475, 3476, 3477, 3478, 3479. 
 3552, 3556, 3564, 3566, 3568. 
 3572. 3581, 3584, 3587. 
 
 Glover V. Atchison, etc 
 p. 2855. 
 
 .Augusta R. Co. :■. 
 
 Bass "■. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc 
 
 "'. Charlestiiii, ■ i.- 
 
 p. 3066. 
 
 Hepp V. 
 
 Iluse "'. 
 
 -; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship 
 
 Co., 4 Mi.sc. Rep. 266, 24 N. Y. 
 
 S. 136— pp. 3118, 3129. 
 
 V. Cunard Steamship Co., 6 
 
 Misc. Rep. 388, 26 N. Y. S. 
 751— p. 3149. 
 
 Glyn Miller, etc., Co. v. East & 
 West Indian Dock Co., p. 401. 
 
 (). X. R. Co., Martin v. 
 
 (ioben, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Goble ■■. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 I)p. 1725, 2696. 
 
 Godair, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Godair Comm. Co., Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. -■. 
 
 Godard, Cotting <■. 
 
 Godbout V. St. Paul L'nion Depot 
 
 ^ Co.. pp. 99, 101. 
 
 Goddard v. Barnard, p. 638. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk Railway, pp. 
 
 1722, 2041, 2042, 3072. 
 
 -; Richardson v. 
 
 Godfrey, .Mabaina, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 The T. \. 
 
 V. Meridian R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1852, 2704, 3011, 3016. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 2551. 
 
 V. Ohio, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2078, 2090, 2453, 2460. 
 
 V. Pullman Co., pp. 3115, 
 
 3116, 3123, 3125, 3152, 3215, 
 3221, 3236, 3239, 3240. 
 
 Godkin, Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Godman, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Godola, East Omaha St. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Gody v. Lyon, j). 346. 
 Goehring v. Beaver X'alley Tract. 
 Co., pp. 1585, 1587, 2342, 2865. 
 Goerner, Little Rock R., etc., Co. 
 
 Goetchins, Pennsylvania R'. Co. i'. 
 Goetz V. Bank, p. 396. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1615. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 ^ 2731. 
 
 Goforth, .Mabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Goggin -•. Kansas Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 931, 948, 1087, 1408. 1425. 
 Goins V. Western Railroad, pp. 
 
 3042, 3056. 
 
 -; V. Western R. Co., p. 3059. 
 
 Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 286, 729, 3134, 3195. 
 
 V. Interurban, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1695. 
 
 f. Kcw York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1793. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Gold Hunter, The. 
 
 Goldbowitz V. Metropolitan Exp. 
 
 Co., ]). 514. 
 Golden -■. Pittsburg R. Co., dd. 
 
 2452, 24o0. 
 Goldey t. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 ^ pp. 742. 1380. 1381, 1567. 
 Golding. Gulf, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 Goldman. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Goldsmith, Glass f. 
 V. Holland Bldg. Co., pp. 
 
 1488. 2982. 
 
 f. Tower Hill Steamship Co.. 
 
 pp. 1314, 1315. 
 
 Goldstein, Birmingham R.. etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 International, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. p. 
 
 2655. 
 
 V. Sherman, etc.. R. Co.. \>. 
 
 3338. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp. 162. 
 
 163. 
 
 Goldstein Bros., Southern R. Co. 
 
 Goller V. Fonda, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 2337. 
 Gomez -■. New York City R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1889. 
 Gomila. Culliford v. 
 Gomm V. Oregon R.. etc.. Co.. pp. 
 
 3166. 3175, 3176, 3177, 3178. 
 Gonihier v. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3155. 3158. 
 Gonzales t. New York, etc., R". Co., 
 
 38 N. Y. 440. 98 Am. Dec. 58— 
 
 pp. 2247. 2278. 
 
 V. New York. etc.. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 39 How. Prac. 407— 
 p. 2116. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 50 How. Prac. 126— 
 p. 2247. 
 
 Gonzalez, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 Gooch I'. Stephenson, p. 1198. 
 
 Good f. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 840, 1093, 1094, 1095. 1305, 
 1410. 1473. 
 
 Good Hope, The. 
 
 Goodbar -•. Wabash R. Co., p. 285. 
 
 Coodfellow T. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, p. 2036. 
 
 Goodtield V. Piatt, pp. 607, 670, 
 1067. 
 
 Goodholm, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 Goodin, Atlantic City R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., pp. 653, 
 
 660, 668. 
 
 Goodkind -■. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2700, 2859. 
 Goodloe V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2045. 2050. 2069. 
 
 V. -Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2008. 2698. 
 
 Goodman. Central, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Great Western R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. v. 
 
 Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Oregon R.. etc., Co., pp. 
 
 753, 757, 817, 838. 879. 3304. 
 3412. 
 
 V. Simonds. 19 Mo. 106 — p. 
 
 381. 
 
 V. Simonds (U. S.), 20 How. 
 
 343. 15 L. Ed. 934— pp. 358. 
 375. 
 
 f. Stewart, pp. 1153. 1154. 
 
 Goodrich. Hermann v. 
 
 1-. Norris. pp. ill, 337. 
 
 V. Thompson. 44 N. Y. 324 — 
 
 pp. 501. 789. 3267. 
 
 f. Thompson. 27 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 75— pp. 771. 3289. 3297. 
 
 Goodrich Trans. Co.. Interstate 
 Commerce Comm. -•. 
 
 f. Interstate Commerce Comm.. 
 
 pp. 3612. 3615. 
 
 Goodrich Transp. Co., Black v. 
 
 Browning :■. 
 
 Cileason f. 
 
 -^; V\hite :■. 
 
 Goodridge. Union Pac. R. Co. f. 
 Goodsell r. Tavlor, pp. 1722. 1750, 
 
 1839. 1841. 2685. 
 Goodspeed %-. Ithaca St. R. Co.. 
 
 184 N. Y. 351. n N. E. 392— 
 
 p. 144. 
 
 f. Ithaca St. R. Co.. 88 .Xpp. 
 
 Div. 147, 84 N. Y. S. 383, 14 
 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 6 — p. 144. 
 
 Goodwin. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 :■. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 50 
 
 N. Y. 154. 10 Am. Rep. 457— 
 pp. 527, 531, 564.
 
 CLXXX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Goodwin -■. P.altimore. etc., R. Co. 
 (N. Y.). 58 Barb. -95— pp. 893, 
 907. 
 
 f. Boston, etc., Railroad, p. 
 
 2183. 
 
 r. Cincinnati Tract. Co.. pp. 
 
 2043, 2867. 
 
 Cole f. 
 
 Galveston, etc.. R. Co. :•. 
 
 Keeler -■. 
 
 Western, etc.. Railroad f. 
 
 Goodwvn, etc., Co. •:•. Douglas, p. 
 
 769. 
 Goodvear. Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Goold r. Chapin (N. Y.), 10 Barb. 
 
 612— p. 887. 
 
 r. Chapin, 20 X. Y. 259. 75 
 
 Am. Dec. 398— pp. 523, 88(i, 887, 
 888. 3265, 3360. 
 
 Goold. State v. 
 
 Goorin v. Allegheny Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2895. 
 Gorbett, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gordon, Adams Exp. Co. r. 
 
 Z-. Buchanan, pp. 11, 768, 
 
 822, 1020. 
 
 -•. Grand St., etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1511, 1512, 1517. 
 
 r. Hutchinson, pp. 8, 252, 
 
 768, 771. 
 
 ■:•. Little, pp. 729, 946. 
 
 ?•. Manchester, etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 1612, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673, 
 1674. 
 
 7-. Nassau Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 2906. 
 
 r. West End St. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1518, 2332. 
 
 Gordon Campbell. The. 
 Gore, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ f. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 pp. 3146. 3148. 
 
 Southern R. Co. "'. 
 
 Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo (N. 
 
 Y.), 45 How. Prac. 90— pp. 762, 
 763. 
 
 T. Fargo, 35 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 434— p. 763. 
 
 Gorman. Dufolt ''. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 r. New York, etc., R. Co , 
 
 pp. 2739, 2810. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Z'. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2595. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 3083, 3084. 
 
 Gormer, Tooker t. 
 
 Gormley, Lake Street, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Gortatowsky, Central, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Gortikov, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 Gortikow, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Gortikoy, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Gorton. Miles ■<■. 
 Gosnell, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Goss -■. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 2777, 2841. 
 
 Richardson r. 
 
 Smith r. 
 
 State v. 
 
 dossier V. Schepeler, p. 1216. 
 
 Gott V. Dinsmore, pp. 725, 966, 
 
 1001, 1003, 1004, 1007. 
 Gottlieb, Western Union Tel. Co. 
 
 Gottlob V. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2861. 
 Gould z: Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2791. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2472, 2473. 
 
 z: Hill. p. 739. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co , p, 
 
 2799. 
 
 Co., 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 Gould, Tri-City R. Co. r. 
 
 Gourdin, Cook z\ 
 
 Governor Carey, The. 
 
 Cowling f. American Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 969. 
 Grabenstcin '■. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2302, 2910. 
 Grabfelder, Alabama, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Grabler z: New York, etc., Ferry 
 
 Co., p. 2318. 
 Grace ■;■•. Adams, pp. 320, 323, 
 
 337, 958, 984, 986, 1044, 3880. 
 
 V. St. Louis R. Co., pp. 1734, 
 
 2910, 2934, 2989, 2990, 2991, 
 2996. 
 
 Grace & Co., Wright v. 
 
 Gracie z\ Marine Ins. Co., p. 510. 
 
 v. Palmer, pp. 3, 3866, 3873, 
 
 3944. 
 
 Gracy, Stewart z: 
 
 Graddy, Southern Railway z 
 
 Gradert z: Chicago, etc., R 
 
 pp. 1530, 1544, 1545. 
 Gradin z: St. Paul, etc. 
 
 pp. 1760, 2519. 
 Grady, Irvine -•. 
 
 z'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2746, 2750. 
 
 Graefe z\ St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 2088, 2160, 2925. 
 Graeff v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2034. 
 Graff z: Bloomer, pp. 511, 540. 
 Grafton, The. 
 
 Gragg, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Graham, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 131 
 
 Iowa 741, 107 N. W. 595, 7 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 603, 17 Am. St. 
 Rep. 445— p. 2517 
 
 — z: Chicago, etc 
 Wis. 473, 10 N 
 1197. 
 
 — z'. Cummings, p. 3154. 
 
 — Davidson z'. 
 
 — z'. McNeill, pp 
 2173, 2180, 2343. 
 
 — Macon, etc., R. Co. r. 
 — I z'. Macon, etc., R. Co., p 
 3251. 
 
 — z: Manhattan R. Co., 149 N 
 Y. 336, 43 N. E. 917— pp. 1797 
 1951, 1952, 1953, 2069. 
 
 — V. Manhattan R. Co., 8 Misc 
 305, 28 N. Y. S. 739— p. 
 
 Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. - 
 
 ■. Die- 
 
 ther, pp. 703, 1142, 1143. 
 
 
 ■ Dykstra f. 
 
 
 V. Ellison, pp. 2010, 
 
 2036, 
 
 2161, 2867. 
 
 
 Fraam ?■. 
 
 
 ■ Hutford z: 
 
 
 •;■. Huntley, pp. 1684, 
 
 1687, 
 
 1734, 1823, 1848, 1985, 
 
 2667, 
 
 2736, 2758. 
 
 
 v. Martin, pp. 2500, 2. 
 
 41. 
 
 Rickerson Roller-Mill 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Starks Co. ■;■. 
 
 
 ■;'. United States, pp. 
 
 3844, 
 
 3851. 
 
 
 — White z: 
 
 
 Grand Rapids, etc.. Railway 
 
 , Wolf 
 
 R. Co.. 53 
 W. 609— p. 
 
 1951, 1953, 
 
 Rep. 
 2186. 
 
 2465. 
 
 New York City R. Co., p 
 Pacific R. Co., pp. 1580 
 Co., pp 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 1779, 2269. 
 
 z'. Planters' Com'iircss Co 
 
 pp. 3956, 3963. 
 
 Roberts '■. 
 
 Union Exp. Co. z\ 
 
 Graham & Co. z'. Davis & Co., po. 
 
 730, 731, 739, 751, 752, 822, 
 
 946. 948. 951. 956, 982, 1019. 
 
 1032, 1036. 1039, 3898, 3921. 
 Graham Ice Co. v. Chicago etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 35, 44. 
 Grahn z\ International, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 1549, 2780. 
 Gramling, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. •:■ 
 Gran Canaria, The. 
 Grand z: Livingston, 158 N. Y 
 
 688, S3 N. E. 1125— p. 939. 
 
 V. Livingston, 4 App. Div 
 
 589, 34 N. Y. S. 490, 73 N. Y 
 St. Rep. 646, 158 N. Y. 688 
 53 N. E. 1125— pp. 942, 1013. 
 
 Grand Ave. Cable Co., Empey f 
 
 Tackson -'. 
 
 Taylor z: 
 
 Grand Junction R. Co., Palmer v 
 
 Pickford z: 
 
 Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. z: Boyd 
 p. 3034. 
 
 Grand St., etc., R. Co., Gordon v. 
 
 ■ Piatt z: 
 
 Grand Tower Mfg., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Ullman, pp. 273, 274, 285, 286, 
 
 288. 
 Grand Tower, etc., R. Co., Frank 
 
 Grand Trunk R. Co., Armstrong v. 
 
 -Vscher z'. 
 
 Baldwin z'. 
 
 Brooke f. 
 
 Bruty c'. 
 
 Burnham z\ 
 
 Burnside z'. 
 
 Burroughs Z'. 
 
 Cadwallder z\ 
 
 Caher '■. 
 
 Carpenter -■. 
 
 Clementson c". 
 
 Clemston z'. 
 
 Condict 7'. 
 
 Cutting Z'. 
 
 Deming z\ 
 
 Dunn V. 
 
 Dyer -'. 
 
 Fillebrown z\ 
 
 Fitzgerald v. 
 
 Frost i'. 
 
 Gurney v. 
 
 Hale z: 
 
 Hall z: 
 
 Harris z'. 
 
 Harvey z'. 
 
 Hecht z\ 
 
 Heineman v. 
 
 Holyoke j'. 
 
 Horseman z'. 
 
 Howell V. 
 
 z\ Ives, p. 2116. 
 
 Jennings z'. 
 
 Johnson z'. 
 
 Joslyn V. 
 
 Keeney v. 
 
 Kerr v. 
 
 Lee z\ 
 
 Maine v. 
 
 z'. Michigan R. Comm., 198 
 
 Fed. 1009— pp. 24, 98, 3517. 
 
 z\ Michigan R. Comm . 231 
 
 U. S. 457, 34 S. Ct. 152— p. 
 3616. 
 
 Puellftte z\ 
 
 V. Parks, p. 2082. 
 
 Penton ?■. 
 
 Pratt r. 
 
 Rainey ■;■. 
 
 Renders 7'. 
 
 Shaw z'. 
 
 ■ Stapleton v. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Stearns z\ 
 
 z\ Stevens, p. 1566. 
 
 Taylor -■. 
 
 r. United States, p. 3' 23. 
 
 ~Van Dusan z\ 
 
 Vineburg z'. 
 
 z: Walker, p. 2015. 
 
 Wheeler z\ 
 
 Willis z: 
 
 ■ — - — Woodward r. 
 
 Worthcn Z'. 
 
 Grand Trunk Railway, Brown z>. 
 
 Goddard z:
 
 TAi:i,r: OF CASF.S. 
 
 CLXXXI 
 
 Grand Trunk Railway, Ilelliwcll v. 
 
 International ICxp. Co. f. 
 
 Jewell V. 
 
 Regan r. 
 
 Wilson V. 
 
 Grand Trunk R. System, liekins 
 Household Shipping Co. v. 
 
 lirown. etc.. Coal Co. v. 
 
 Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 
 
 Kelley v. 
 
 .i^undquist v. 
 
 Minahan v. 
 
 Williamson f. 
 
 Grand Trunk, etc., K'. Co., Clough 
 
 V. 
 
 Kelley v. 
 
 Grand Western R. Co.. Hawkins v. 
 Granger, Merchant's etc., Tran?p. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Granier v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1630, 2663. 
 Granite Mills, Capehart ;•. 
 Grant, Atchison, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2699. 
 
 Grant v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 
 p. 1902. 
 
 t: Newton, pp. 3114, 3126, 
 
 3131. 
 
 V. Norway, pp. 291, 294, 305, 
 
 306, 308. 
 
 Grant v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1813, 1815, 2734. 
 
 V. Spokane Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 ,,035, 3036. 
 
 Taxicab Co. v. 
 
 Poinaski t'. 
 
 Washington, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams f. 
 
 ,.. Wood, pp. 1148, 1149, 
 
 1150, 1151. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Grant Bros. Consti 
 
 Fe, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Grant St. Fleet. R'. Co., Henry 
 
 Vasele r. 
 
 Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v 
 
 souri, etc., R. Co., pp. 361 
 486, 490, 742, 1062, 1063, 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 814, 908. 
 
 Graven v. MacLeod, pp. 1792, 
 
 2247, 2273, 2275. 
 Graves v. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 982, 986, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1074. 
 
 Carter f. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Clyde V. 
 
 C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. 
 
 Cross V. 
 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co., p. 3160. 
 
 V. Hartford, etc.. Steamboat 
 
 Co., pp. 511, 891, 896, 897. 
 
 t'. ' Ilarwood, p. 339. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 337, 1074. 
 
 Memphis St. R. Co. 7: 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. t'. 
 
 v. Norfolk, etc. R. Co., p. 
 
 2320. 
 
 Receivers, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 San .\ntonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Gray, Benson -•. 
 
 r. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 1774, 2037. 2069. 
 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 190, 1949, 1950. 
 
 7: Columbia River, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1588, 2178. 
 
 Fitchburg R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Fort Pitt Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2277. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. T'. 
 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co. 7\ 
 
 7: Tackson & Co.. pp. 431, 
 
 3285, "3327. 
 
 McLendon, p. 23. 
 
 7\ Metropolitan, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2069, 2887, 2888. 
 
 Co., Santa 
 
 Mis- 
 
 , 370, 
 
 1074. 
 
 Co., 
 
 2514, 2532, 
 
 Gray v. Minneapolis, etc., R". Co., 
 
 p. 3501. 
 ,.. Missouri River Packet 
 
 Co., pp. 725, 853. 854, 855. 
 7-. .Moore, p. 455. 
 
 Morison J'. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co._ 7'. 
 
 — — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 7: St Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 679, 859. 
 
 Spring -'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. The Reveille, p. 808. 
 
 r. Wabash R. Co., p. 249. 
 
 (irayson, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 Grayson County Nat. Bank, Nash- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 v. Nashville, etc.. Railway, 
 
 pp. 327, 328, 353, 357, 389, 402, 
 549, 555, 591, 597, 1101, 1102, 
 3382. 
 
 Greason v. St. Louis, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 429. 
 Great Eastern R., Prevost v. 
 Great Eastern R. Co., Becker 7: 
 
 Buckmaster 7'. 
 
 Schulze I'. 
 
 Great Falls St. R. Co., Hamilton v. 
 Great Falls, etc., R. Co., Dixon v. 
 
 7: Hill, pp. 2294, 2295, 2731. 
 
 Pierce r. 
 
 Great Lakes Towing Co. 7: Mill 
 Transp. Co., pp. 4037, 4040. 
 
 Great Northern Exp. Co., Spokane 
 Grain Co. f. 
 
 Great Northern R. Co., Appeal of. 
 
 Ausk I. 
 
 Baldwin 7\ 
 
 Banner Grain Co. i'. 
 
 Barnum Grain Co. 7\ 
 
 Beaulieu ?•. 
 
 V. Bruyere, pp. 
 
 2548. 
 
 Clark v. 
 
 Croff 7: 
 
 Crouch 7\ 
 
 Cunningham z'. 
 
 Dc Blois 7: 
 
 Denton t'. 
 
 Dickson v. 
 
 Drake 7: 
 
 Duncan i'. 
 
 Dyer ;•. 
 
 Engescther 7'. 
 
 Farrell f. 
 
 Ferrell & Co. v. 
 
 Fidelity Lumber Co. -■. 
 
 Fisher v. 
 
 Flakne v. 
 
 Floody V. 
 
 Germann 7: 
 
 Haluptzok 7: 
 
 Hamlin r. 
 
 Hanson '■. 
 
 Harris '■. 
 
 -■. Harrison, p. 1574. 
 
 7: Hawcroft, pp. Iii65, U 
 
 1673. 
 
 Herrman '•. 
 
 Holden v. 
 
 Janny 7: 
 
 Tarrett v. 
 
 Jennings f. 
 
 Johnson ?'. 
 
 — : — v. Kalispell Lumber Co., 
 3074. 
 
 Klcven v. 
 
 Lamson 7: 
 
 Lemcry v. 
 
 Lindh 7'. 
 
 f. Loonan Lumber Co., 
 
 3712, 3811, 3812. 
 
 McGuire f. 
 
 McKiblin 5'. 
 
 McNamara f. 
 
 Mageau f. 
 
 Martin '•. 
 
 Mathews :•. 
 
 Melo'dy 7: 
 
 Merriman t'. 
 
 Great Northern R. Co., Nelson r. 
 
 Newbury v. 
 
 O'Connor i'. 
 
 I'. O'Connor, pp. 3750. 37 52. 
 
 3762. 
 
 O'Malley v. 
 
 Page V. 
 
 7: Railroad Comm. (Wash.). 
 
 92 Pac. 457— p. 43. 
 
 7: Railroad Comm., 52 Wash. 
 
 33, 100 Pac. 184— p. 23. 
 
 Reed 7: 
 
 Reynolds v. 
 
 Roasted f. 
 
 Rolette 7: 
 
 Rosted 7: 
 
 Ryan 7: 
 
 Schlosser v. 
 
 r. Shcpcrd (Eng.). 8 Exch. 
 
 30, 30 Railw. Cas. 310, 21 L. J- 
 Exch. 286— pp.' 3133, 3149. 
 
 7: Shepherd, 9 Eng. L. & 
 
 Eq. Rep. 477— p. 3125. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 Starr :■. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Steenerson 7\ 
 
 Sultan R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Turner f. 
 
 United States 7: 
 
 7: United States, pp. 3606. 
 
 3842. 
 
 N'ance "'. 
 
 Wahle 7: 
 
 W'ells :•. 
 
 Wenzel 7: 
 
 Zalk 7: 
 
 Zetterberg 7: 
 
 Great Southern R. Co., Cork Dis- 
 tilleries Co. 7: 
 
 Great Western, The. 
 
 Great Western Despatch, Mack, 
 etc., Co. 7: 
 
 Great Western Despatch Co., St. 
 Paul Roller Mill Co. v. 
 
 Great Western Despatch, etc., 
 Shore Line f. Glenny. p. 811. 
 
 Great Western Dispatch, Lcsinsky 
 
 Great Western R. Co., Austin r. 
 
 Brchm 7-. 
 
 Buckley f. 
 
 Bunch f. 
 
 v. Burns, pp. 222, 236, 3279. 
 
 Chapman :•. 
 
 Erb T. 
 
 — — Giles f. 
 
 Goodman, p. 3140. 
 
 - 7: Hawkins, 
 
 - Hay f. 
 
 - Hurst 7: 
 
 - Lewis 7\ 
 
 - Longmore 7\ 
 
 - 7: McComas, 
 74. 
 
 - 7: McDonald. 
 
 - Macrow :■. 
 
 - ;■. Miller, pp. 
 
 pp. 1: 
 
 482. 
 3394, 
 2411. 
 
 144(1. 
 
 486. 
 3408. 
 2412, 
 
 2476, 2480. 2607. 
 
 Moffatt 7: 
 
 O'Hanlan 7: 
 
 O'Neill :■. 
 
 Parker :•. 
 
 Patscheider 7: 
 
 Root 7: 
 
 Sloman :•. 
 
 Stallard 7: 
 
 7: Sutton, pp. 1181, 368.-«. 
 
 Talley ;. 
 
 Webb :•. 
 
 7: Wheeler, p. 890. 
 
 White f. 
 
 Williams 7: 
 
 Woodgate 7-. 
 
 Greathouse, Ft. Worth , etc.. R. 
 
 Co. 7: 
 Greb ;•. Pennsvlvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2048. 
 Greek-.\merican Produce Co. f. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co.. pp. 528, 
 
 530, 900.
 
 CLXXXII 
 
 Greek-American Sponge Co. v. 
 
 Richardson Drug Co., p. 3420. 
 Green. .Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 ■:■. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 pp. 495, 556. 
 
 Bean f. 
 
 f. Boston, etc R. Co., pp. 
 
 763, 842, 858. 
 
 f. Bridgeton, p. 1944. 
 
 V. Campbell, p. 520. 
 
 J'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 137 
 
 S W. 611, 156 Mo. App. 259 — 
 p. 1339. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 
 
 Xeb. 379— p. 356. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Clark (X. Y.),'13 Barb. 
 
 57_pp. 493, 494. 
 
 r. Clark (X. Y.), 5 Denio 
 
 497_pp. 484, 488. 
 
 r. Clark, 12 X. Y. 343— pp. 
 
 487, 681. 
 
 7'. Coast Line R. Co., p. 2091. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 990. 
 1059, 
 
 311, 
 
 1051, 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7: Houston Electric Co., p. 
 
 1518. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 I-. Indianopolis, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 826. 
 
 Lawrence f. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1778. 
 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R- Co., 
 
 pp. 1903, 2358, 2656. 
 
 7: Middlesex Valley R. Co., 
 
 p. 2873. 
 
 V. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 38 Iowa 100— pp. 274, 3136, 
 3187. 
 
 7: Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 41 Iowa 410— pp. 267, 3135, 
 3137, 3138, 3194. 
 
 7: Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1669, 1755, 2563. 
 
 7: Xew York R. Co., p. 3183. 
 
 v. Pacific Exp. Co., p. 1103. 
 
 f. Pacific Lumber Co., pp. 
 
 1755, 2368, 2656, 2696, 2930. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. 7\^ 
 
 7: Pennsylvania R. Co., p 
 
 1773. 
 
 People's Pass. R. Co. 7: 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ 7\ Pittsburg, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2858. 
 
 Pullman Co. r. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7\ 
 
 State V. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 United States t. 
 
 7-. Van Buskirk, p. 3556. 
 
 Walker f. 
 
 Ward r. 
 
 Green Bay Lumber Co. z: Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 106. 
 Green Bay Tract. Co., Sigl r. 
 Green Bay, etc., R. Co., Leasum r 
 
 Skow '•. 
 
 V. Union Steamboat Co., p 
 
 3251. 
 
 Green Co. 7: Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 642. 
 Green, etc., Xav. Co. v. Marshall 
 
 pp. 500, 512. 
 Greenburg, Arderson Art. Co. v 
 Greene, Dows v. 
 
 i: St. John, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 211, 240. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Greenfield '•. Detriot, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 190, 201, 202, 203, 204, 1494, 
 1550, 2898, 2900, 2946, 2948. 
 
 T. Wells Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 1082, 1083. 
 
 Greenfield Bank v. Leavitt. p. 856. 
 Greenville Lumber Co. i: Xational 
 Pressed Brick Co., p. 380. 
 
 Greenfield, etc., St. R. Co., Don- 
 ovan 7-. 
 Greenfield's Estate, In re. 
 Grcenhalgh, .American Exp. Co. 7\ 
 Greenham, Isham ?•. ^ ^ 
 
 Greening, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co., 
 Robcrson 7\ 
 
 Greensboro, etc., Coal Co., South- 
 ern R'. Co. 1'. 
 
 Greenthal, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Greenville St. R. Co., Bowie v. 
 Greenville Tract. Co., McCartcr v. 
 
 McKittrick v. 
 
 Moore 7'. 
 
 Greenville, etc., R. Co., Wilming 
 
 ton, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 Greenwald r. Barrett, pp. 
 1051, 1052, 1054, 1055, 
 1060, 1066. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 7: Weir, 115 X. Y. S 
 
 130 App. Div. 696— pp. 
 1054, 1055, 1071, 3332. 
 
 7: Weir, 111 X. Y. S. 235 
 
 59 Misc. Rep. 431— pp. 948, 1053 
 3444, 3604. 
 
 Greenway, Rowland v. 
 
 Greenway Bro. & Co., Seawell v. 
 
 Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. ?'. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., pp. 619, 741, 
 743. 
 
 Greenwich Ins. Co. f. Memphis, 
 etc.. Packet Co., pp. 3109, 3121, 
 3124, 3149, 3150. 
 
 Greenwood v. Cooper, pp. 287, 
 291, 861. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Xorth Coast Lighterage Co. v. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Greenwood Grocery Co., Yazoo, 
 
 etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Greer, Georgia K., etc., Co. 7\ 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 7\ Union St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2748, 2751. 
 
 Warden 7\ 
 
 Gregg, Chicago City R. Co. •;'. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 Finch ?■. 
 
 7\ Illinois Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 567, 779, 894, 1153, 1164. 1167. 
 
 V. Xorthern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1513, 1515, 2139. 
 
 Gregorie, Fanning v. 
 
 Gregorio 7'. Xew York City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2688. 
 Gregory v. Burlington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1573, 2444. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 196, 197, 2420, 2422, 2492, 3112 
 
 7: Elmira, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1957, 2172. 
 
 7: Georgia Grarite R. Co., p. 
 
 1559, 1583, 1584, 1589. 
 
 GulL etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 -■. Sturgis Nat. Bank, pp. 
 
 375 399. 
 
 r. Wabash R. Co., pp. 882, 
 
 884. 
 
 V. Webb, p. 3136. 
 
 Gregston, Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Greif & Bro. v. Seligman, p. 478. 
 Greinke, Chicago City R. Co. 7\ 
 
 v. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2575, 2605, 2796. 
 
 Greismer f. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 607, 608, 620, 627, 628, 
 
 629, 634. 
 Gresham, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 Greso, Penrsylvania Co. f. 
 
 Gress V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 ^249, 2252. 
 Gretschmann f. Fix, pp. 3995, 3997. 
 
 Gretzncr f. Xew Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2829. 
 Greve & Co. v. Dunham, pp. 1219, 
 
 1220, 1229, 1232, 1242. 
 Grev, Hestonville Passenger K. 
 
 Co. 7: 
 
 f. Mobile Trade Co., pp. 828, 
 
 945,^ 1035, 1038. 
 
 Sharp f. 
 
 Gribble, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Grieff r. Switzer, p. 821. 
 
 Grier v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 818. 
 Grieve 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 326, 330, 427, 821, 828, 1085, 
 
 1366, 1390, 1448, 1456, 1457, 
 
 1458. 
 I'. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 901, 910, 911, 916. 
 Griffen r. Manice, 77 X. Y. S. 
 
 626, 74 App. Div. 371— p. 2668. 
 
 v. Manice, 73 X. Y. S. 559, 
 
 36 Misc. Rep. 364— p. 2668. 
 
 Griffen v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 288, 874. 
 
 Blossom 7\ 
 
 Building, etc., Ass'n v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 r. Colver, pp. o38, 653, 659, 
 
 667, 669, 678. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Interurban St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 146. 147. 
 
 Tames '•. 
 
 "Xashville St. R. Co. z: 
 
 Xashville St. Railway f. 
 
 7: Pacific Elect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2234, 2688. 
 
 Roy V. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., p. 3066. 
 
 c\ Utica, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3318. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co., pp. 14o6, 
 
 1945, 3746, 3763. 
 
 Griffing Florida Orchard Co., 
 
 Hasler Co. f. 
 Griffith, .Arkansas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1254. 
 
 I', Denver Consol. '1 ramway 
 
 Co., p. 2857. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 7: Ingledew, pp. 493, 682. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. •;'. 
 
 Ladue f. 
 
 ;■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1703, 1873, 2065, 2126, 2241, 
 2576, 3073. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Scovill 7'. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 V. Utica, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2168. 
 
 Griggs 7-. Austin, p. 3949. 
 
 Texas Mid. Railroad v. 
 
 Grigsby, Houston, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 622. ^ , 
 
 Grill 7'. General Iron Screw Col- 
 lier Co., p. 3067. 
 Grimes, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 443. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1640. 
 
 z\ Pennsylvania Co.. pp. 
 
 pp. 1510, 1512, 1513, 1797. 
 
 Grimes Dry Goods Co., Scott 
 
 Bros. f. 
 Grimm. Chicago, etc., U. Co. •:■. 
 Grimshaw r. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1548. 
 Grimsley 7: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2020, 2021, 2022, 2420, 2871. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 Grindle f. Eastern Exp. Co., p 
 
 594.
 
 TABLI- OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXXIII 
 
 GrinncU, I.akcnian i: 
 Merrill v. 
 
 V. Wisconsin Cent. Co., p. 
 
 796. 
 
 Grisim -.: Milwaukee City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2744. 
 Grismore, Pacific Steam Whaling 
 
 Co. J'. 
 Grissinger v. International R. Co., 
 
 p. 1803. 
 Criswold i'. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 2511. 
 V. New York Ins. Lo., p. 
 
 1150. 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1566, 2094,^ 2102. 
 
 Telegraph Co. v. 
 
 f. Wehb, pp. 192, 193. 
 
 Griton v. Lehigh \alley R. Co., 
 
 p. 2274. 
 Grizzle, Southern R. Co. f. 
 Groat, Satterlee "■. 
 Groce, Missouri, etc., Iv. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Groesbeck, Central, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Grogan t. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 815, 822, 1074. 
 
 T. Urooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2870. 
 
 f. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1624, 2447. 
 
 Groll f. Prospect Park, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2873. 
 Grom, Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Groner, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Groot t'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1284, 1285, 1304, 1351, 1464. 
 Groseclose, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Groshong r. United R. Co., pp. 
 
 1716, 1902. 
 Gross, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 Grossman ?■. l-argo, pp. 572, 908. 
 Grosvenor v. New York Cent. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 268, 269, 272, 277, 284, 
 
 286, 292, 3137. 
 Grotarian, Guaranty Trust Co. f. 
 Grote V. Chester, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1850. 
 Groton, etc., St. R. Co., Thorson r. 
 Grotsch V. Steinway R. Co., pp. 
 
 2168, 2890. 
 Grout r Hill, p. 1242. 
 Grove r. 15ricn, pp. 349, 351, 354. 
 
 3883. 
 Grover, Birmingham Ore., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Groves, Houston, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Grubbs, Houston, etc.. R. Co. ■:■. 
 Grubi an i: The Ontario, pp. 3929, 
 
 3930. 
 Grunibach, I5onner ;■. 
 Grummond. EatTrey '•. 
 Grund i'. Pendergast. pp. 21 U 468. 
 Grundy. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Grunfelder f. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co.. p. 1979. 
 Grush. Toledo, etc., K. Co. f. 
 Gruss. Chicago, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 Grzywacz j. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3127, 3128. 
 Guadeloupe. The. 
 Gualala, The. 
 Guance r. Gulf. etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 1991. 
 Guarantv Trust Co. 
 
 p. 399. 
 
 Ilannay f. 
 
 Guardian. The. 
 
 Gude r. Pennsvlvania 
 
 3390. 3398. 
 Guenther v. Metropolitan R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2368, 2725. 
 Guess, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Guess V. Southern Railway, pp 
 
 642, 677. 
 
 <".uffey r. Alaska, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 3937. 
 (iulTey Petroleum Co., Unique 
 
 Shipping Co. ;■. 
 
 • niggtnheim, .\tlantic, etc.. Steam- 
 
 shij) Co. f. 
 
 Harris i\ 
 
 • juiding Star, The. 
 
 Western Mfg. Co. r. 
 
 Cuiblhall, The. 
 
 C.uilfortl, Alabama Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 .Mabama, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Smith, pp. 1229. 1232, 
 
 1235. 1243. 
 Guillaume ?•. General Transatlantic 
 
 Co., pp. 325, 550, 998. 
 (luinan, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 :■. Weaver Coal, etc., Co., p. 
 
 3970. 
 
 Gulf City Constr. Co. z: Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co.. pp. 564, 707, 1152. 
 
 Gulf Compress Co. f. .Mabama, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 225, 232. 
 
 I'. Jones Cotton Co., p. 491. 
 
 Gulf Line R. Co., Payton v. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., Abram f. 
 
 V. Adams, pp. 2016, 2418, 
 
 2ti2(>. 2639. 
 
 .\lbin V. 
 
 .\lderson v. 
 
 r. Allcorn, pp. 879, 3353, 
 
 3368. 
 
 .\lley f. 
 
 .\llin '•. 
 
 Amory Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Askew V. 
 
 -•. Bagby (Tex. Civ. A pp.), 
 
 115 S. W. 858— pp. 1906, 1908. 
 
 • t. Bagby (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 127 S. W. 254— p. 1907. 
 
 '■. Baird, pp. 1269, 1339, 2496, 
 
 3'294, 3298, 3299, 3310, 3311, 
 3331, 3337, 3344, 3366, 3375, 
 3377. 
 
 V. Barnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 34 S. W. 449— pp. 2409, 2433. 
 
 -■. Barnett, 47 S. W. 1039, 
 
 19 Tex. Civ. App. 626^pp. 1799, 
 1800, 2873, 2874. 
 
 V. Batte (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 
 
 S. W. 813— pp. 1326. 1350. 
 
 v. Batle (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 94 S. W. 345— p. 1474. 
 
 r. Batte (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 107 S. W. 632— p. 426. 
 
 - r. Baugh. pp. 533. 539, 1303. 
 
 Baumbach -•. 
 
 Baumback f. 
 
 Beattie, p. 1304. 
 
 :. Bell, 93 Tex. 632. 57 S. 
 
 1766, 2170, 2319, 
 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Browne, pp. 
 520, 729, 822, 843, 1154, 1169. 
 
 V. Buford, p. 2576. 
 
 i: Bunn, pp. 1560, 2429, 
 
 2493, 2529. 
 
 ;•. Butcher, pp. 1518, 1731. 
 
 1770. 
 
 I'. Butler, pp. 1340, 1352, 
 
 1358. 
 
 Butterick Pub. Co. t . 
 
 r. Campbell, pp. 1549. 1550, 
 
 ISSl, 1572, 2114. 2208. 
 
 V. Chinski, pp. 639. 640. 
 
 697. 
 
 i: Clark, pp. 522. 533. 539. 
 
 549. 762, 849, 857. 858. 
 
 z: Clarke, pp. 1118. 1121. 
 
 1122. 1126, 3326. 
 
 V. Cleburne Ice, etc.. Co.. pp. 
 
 590. 596, 599, 603. 
 
 I-. Cole, 101 Miss. 411, 58 
 
 So. 208— p. 2821. 
 
 f. Cole, 4 Texas .\pp. Civ. 
 
 Cas., § 97. 16 S. W. 176— p. 
 686. 
 
 z: Cole. 8 Tex. Civ. .App. 635. 
 
 28 S. W. 391— pp. 1293. 1296, 
 2496, 3374. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: Combes, pp. 
 426, 1296. 
 
 z: Compton (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 
 
 38 S. W. 220. 221— pp. 286. 
 620. 667. 668. 671. 672, 738. 
 
 z: Compton (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 
 
 38 S. W. 1007— pp. 292. 293. 
 
 z: Conder, pp. 2016. 2060, 
 
 2414. 
 
 Conwill 7'. 
 
 ■'• Coopwood, p. 1763. 
 
 Copeland, pp. 1610, 1613. 
 
 Grotarian, 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 
 
 W. 939— pp. 
 2335. 2369. 
 
 I'. Bell, 24 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 W. 614— pp. 1681, 
 
 579. 58 S 
 2603. 2635. 
 
 - Belton Oil Co. z: 
 
 z: Belton Oil Co.. pp. 573, 
 
 767, 838. 
 
 - -.-. Bolton, p. 2133. 
 
 I'. Booth. pp. 1886, 1916, 
 
 1917, 2287. 2288. 
 
 z\ Booton. 4 Texas .\pp. Civ. 
 
 Cas., § 67, 1-5 S. W. 502— pp. 
 663. 849. 850. 852. 
 
 z: Booton, 4 Tex. .\pp. Civ. 
 
 Cas., 8 230. 15 S. W. 909— pp. 
 586, 1051, 1078, 1079. 
 
 z: Booton. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 103, 15 S. W. 502— p. 526. 
 
 z: Boyce, pp. 735, 746. 873. 
 
 British, etc.. Ins. Co. z-. 
 
 British, etc.. Marine Ins. Co. 
 
 - z: Brown, 99 Tex. 349. 89 
 S. W. 971— pp. 419, 1295, 3289. 
 
 -■. Brown. 4 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 435. 23 S. W. 618— pp. 348. 403. 
 2126, 2255. 
 
 z: Brown. 16 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 93. 40 S. W. 608— pp. 1732. 
 2003, 2589, 263o. 
 
 2709. 
 
 1287. 
 3413. 
 
 744. 
 
 Coulter, p. 857. 
 Courtney, p. 919. 
 Grossman, p. 3337 
 Cunningham, pp. 
 
 1275, 
 
 Cushney, pp. 3395. 3396, 
 2448. 
 665, 
 
 Daniels, pp. 1614. 
 Danshank. p. 2203. 
 Darby, pp. 584, 663, 
 
 .. Davidson, p. 1971. 
 
 z: Daw kins, pp. 1553. 1554. 
 
 z: Dawson, pp. 1138, 1193. 
 
 f. Dennison. 22 Tex. Civ. 
 
 .\pp. 89, 58 S. W. 834— p. 475. 
 
 z: Dennison, 25 Tex. Civ. 
 
 .\pp. 127, 60 S. W. 281— pp. 
 475, 503. 
 
 z: Dimmitt. p. 464. 
 
 z: Dinwiddie, pp. 419. 441. 
 
 443. 1296. 
 
 Donalson f. 
 
 f. Downman. p. 2185. 
 
 :•. Dunman. pp. 953. 1274. 
 
 z: Dunn, pp. 1287, 1291. 
 
 Dwyer :•. 
 
 z: Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572. 12 S. 
 
 W. 1001. 7 L. R. A. 478. 16 
 .\m. St. Rep. 926— pp. 15t.. 157. 
 254. 937, 938, 1120, 3311. 3403. 
 
 z: Dwyer, 84 Tex. 194. 19 
 
 S. W. 470— p. 157. 
 
 z: Dyer. pp. 1597, 1599. 1600. 
 
 2432, 2487. 
 
 Ebert z: 
 
 r. Eddins. pp. 851. 937. 938. 
 
 950. 954. 978. 1092. 1093. 1119. 
 1120. 1121, 1122, 1302. 1356, 
 1363. 3342. 3363. 3368 
 
 z: Edloff. 89 Tex. 454. 34 S. 
 
 W. 414. 35 S. W. 144— pp. 3309. 
 3344. 3392. 3396. 3409. 3417. 
 
 ;•. Edloff (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 
 
 34 S. W. 410— p. 3358. 
 
 r. Elliott, pp. 1129. 1130. 
 
 z: Ellis, pp. 58, 60. 
 
 z: Ellison. pp. 729, 1270, 
 
 1462. 1466, 1467.
 
 CLXXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. Evansich, p. 
 2300. 
 
 -•. Everett, pp. 515, 568, 664, 
 
 796, 852. 
 
 Feagin f. 
 
 ■:■. Ferguson-^IcKinney Dry 
 
 Goods Co., pp. 872, 900, 907, 
 916. 
 
 z: Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 72 S. W. 419— p. 172. 
 
 z: Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 73 S. W. 845— p. 172. 
 
 V. Fowler, pp. 518, 549, 553, 
 
 1299. 
 
 z: Fox, pp. 1600, 1782, 1883, 
 
 2116, 2150, 2373. 
 
 z: Frank Co., pp. 539, 837. 
 
 z: Franklin, p. 2790. 
 
 z: Freeman, p. 519. 
 
 f. Fromme, p. 442. 
 
 f. Funk, p. 451. 
 
 ■:•. Fuqua, pp. 900, 903. 
 
 '•. Gann, pp. 1284, 1287, 1290, 
 
 1409. 
 
 Gary z: 
 
 z: Gatewood, pp. 618, 629, 
 
 631, 731, 752, 930, 957, 1021, 
 
 1118, 1121, 1122 1124, 1128, 
 1313, 3331. 
 
 Gaunce v. 
 
 z: Gilbert, pp. 643, 645, 646, 
 
 647, 659, 666, 667, 668, 674, 
 686, 860. 
 
 v. Glenk, pp. 1540, 1774, 
 
 1775, 1780, 2504. 
 
 V. Godair, pp. 847, 1355. 
 
 V. Golding, pp. 1109, 1131, 
 
 3331. 
 
 z'. Gorman, p. 2577. 
 
 z: Gray, pp. 1126, 1420, 3618. 
 
 V. Gregory, p. 604. 
 
 '•. Griffith, p. 3338. 
 
 r. Gross, p. 1770. 
 
 z'. Guess, p. 2515. 
 
 z: Halbrook, pp. 1613, 2449, 
 
 2463. 
 
 V. Harris, pp. 551, 3355. 
 
 Hassler !■. 
 
 V. Head, pp. 1869, 1875, 
 
 2243, 2668, 2689. 
 
 z: Hefley, pp. 1159, 3448, 
 
 3498, 3499, 3500, 3668, 3735, 
 3741, 3745, 3748, 3750, 3751, 
 3753, 3754, 3755, 3760, 3764. 
 
 V. Henry, pp. 1620, 1621, 
 
 1635, 1974. 
 
 V. Higby, p. 1729. 
 
 V. Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 543, 30 S. W. 829— pp. 264, 419, 
 427, 441, 443, 446, 450, 457, 
 468, 471, 1296. 
 
 V. Hodge (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 39 S. W. 986— p. 472. 
 
 z\ Hodges, 76 Tex. 90, 13 S. 
 
 W. 64 — p. 1978. 
 
 z: Hodges (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 24 S. W. 563, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 574— pp. 1775, 
 1784. 
 
 V. Holder, pp. 344, 345, 829. 
 
 V. Holliday, p. 474. 
 
 V. Holt, pp. 1699, 2083. 
 
 V. House, pp. 454, 463, 1318, 
 
 1335, 1345. 
 
 V. Hughes, pp. 1326, 1327. 
 
 V. Hume Bros., 87 Tex. 211, 
 
 221, 27 S. W. 110— pp. 211, 425, 
 442, 443, 444, 450, 451, 657, 
 1118, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 
 1129, 1130, 1295, 1324, 1452. 
 
 V. Hume Bros., 6 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 653, 657, 24 S. W. 915— 
 pp. 419, 441, 442, 450, 621, 624, 
 1121, 1130, 1320, 1321, 1355. 
 
 v. Humphries, pp. 485, 487, 
 
 493, 513, 549, 553, 596, 602, 
 604, 1440. 
 
 r. Hurley, pp. 2626, 2775. 
 
 — — Johnson v. 
 
 iulf, etc., R. Co., Jordan z: 
 
 !■. Insurance Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 28 S. W. 237— pp. 400, 
 776. 
 
 V. Ions, pp. 2496, 3374, 337b. 
 
 V. Irvine, pp. 424, 442, 443, 
 
 500, 502, 503, 508, 509, 1334, 
 1473. 
 
 z: Jackson, 99 Tex. 343, 89 
 
 S. W. 968— pp. 419, 420, 426, 
 442, 443, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1327, 
 3251, 3289. 
 
 z: lackson, 4 Texas App. Civ. 
 
 Cas., ■§ 47, 15 S. W. 128— pp. 
 663, 852, 3160, 3169. 
 
 z\ Jackson (Tex. Civ App.), 
 
 86 S. W. 47— pp. 452, 1293, 
 1294, 1295. 
 
 V. Johnson, p. 2639. 
 
 z: Jones, p. 3394. 
 
 z'. Jordan, p. 1875. 
 
 Kaase ''. 
 
 r. Kemp, pp. 854, 1351. 
 
 z: Key, p. 1404. 
 
 r' Killebrew, pp. 1684, 1738, 
 
 2201. 
 
 Kimble^ pp. 1289, 1378, 
 
 1810, 
 3353'. 
 
 , P- 
 
 464, 
 
 W. 
 
 752, 
 
 .. Kirkbride, pp. 2533, 2717. 
 
 v. Kuenhle, pp. 1634, 2441, 
 
 2855. 
 
 - Laurel Cotton Mills ?•. 
 
 - z: Laurel Cotton Mills 
 3757. 
 
 ?'. LeatherwQJod, pR. 
 
 1139, 1202, 1203. 
 
 — ■ v. Lee, pp. 1329, 1350. 
 
 Leeke z'. 
 
 'V. Levi (Tex.:), 12 S. 
 
 677— pp. 729, 733, 750, 751, 
 753, 765, 935. 
 
 , Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. 
 191, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 
 18 Am. St. Rep. 45— pp. 
 608, 609, 617, 618, 628, 
 629,' 630, 729, 738, 739, 751, 752, 
 765, 847, 957, 1307. 
 
 - z\ Lewine, p. 544. 
 
 - -'. Looney, pp. 1625, 3316, 
 3331, 3367, 3374, 3375. 
 
 - v. Loonie, 82 Tex. 323, 18 
 S. W. 221, 27 Am. St. Rep. 
 891— p. 647. 
 
 V. Loonie, 84 Tex. 259, 263, 
 
 19 S. W. 385— pp. 169, 172, 
 596. 
 
 Lovett z\ 
 
 z: Luther, pp. 2040, 2057. 
 
 ■:■. McAulay, pp. 1311, 1327. 
 
 v. McCampbell, p. 3337. 
 
 McCardcll z: 
 
 McCartv f. 
 
 V. McCarty, pp. 286, 289, 
 
 291, 419, 450, 451, 473, 474, 654, 
 855, 960, 970, 971, 973, 976, 
 1097, 1101, 1126, 1318, 13121, 
 1322, 1350. 
 
 z: McCord, p. 451. 
 
 f. McCormick, p. 2430. 
 
 f. .McCorquodale, pp. 248, 
 
 268, 286, 294, 446, 448, 463, 594, 
 621, 624, 638, 654, 729, 734, 744, 
 1272, 1309, 1311, 1460, 1464. 
 
 z: McCown, pp. 32_8, 519. 
 
 ■:■. McGowan, p. 2721. 
 
 z\ McGown, pp. 1513, 1558, 
 
 1564, 1642, 1760, 2037. 
 
 McLean z\ 
 
 V. McLean, p. 275. 
 
 V. McWhirtcr, p. 2082. 
 
 V. Maetze, pp. 562, 568, 627, 
 
 657, 665, 666, 672, 673, 696, 756, 
 1085. 
 
 V. Malone, p. 3359. 
 
 z: Martin, pp. 472, 1323, 
 
 1324. 
 
 V. Mathews, p. 1359. 
 
 r. Miami Steamship Co., 30 
 
 C. C. A. 142, 86 Fed. 407— p. 
 3656. 
 
 ;ulf, etc., R. Co. Z'. Miami Steam- 
 ship Co., 86 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. 
 A. 289— p. 3659. 
 
 Mississippi R. Comm. v. 
 
 V. Moody, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 622, 22 S. W. J009— pp. 191, 
 198, 200, 2418, 2420, 2422. 
 
 v. Moody (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 30 S. W. 574— p. 3157. 
 
 z: Moore, 98 Tex. 302, 83 S, 
 
 VV. 362— pp. 1859, 2455, 3839. 
 
 f. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 80 S. W. 426— p. 3648. 
 
 z- Moorman, pp. 1607, 1608- 
 
 z: Morgan, pp. 1792, 1793, 
 
 1986, 2327. 
 
 Murray v. 
 
 V. Nelson, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 345, 23 S. W. 732— p. 3729. 
 
 z\ Nelson (Tex. Civ. App), 
 
 139 S. W. 81— pp. 431, 649, 3344, 
 3405. 
 
 V. North Texas Grain Co., 
 
 pp. 399, 400, 520, 568, 744, 911, 
 1154, 1168, 1169. 
 
 V. Overton, 110 S. W. 73',, 
 
 101 Tex. 583, 19 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 500— p. 1712. 
 
 7'. Overton (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 107 S. W. 71— p. 2832. 
 
 Parks z'. 
 
 Patterson & Co. z\ 
 
 z: Patterson & Co., p. 490. 
 
 '■. Pendery, pp. 2289, 2340. 
 
 V. Pepperell Mfg. Co., pp. 
 
 1024, 1025. 
 
 V. Pettit, pp. 643, 645, 650, 
 
 654, 666, 683. 
 
 'c'. Phillips, pp. 2336, 2738, 
 
 2883. 
 
 z: Pickens, pp. 595, 638, 859, 
 
 860. 
 
 •;•. Pitts & Son, pp. 797, 852, 
 
 3395. 
 
 V. Pomeroy, p. 746. 
 
 '■. Pool, pp. 274, 275, 2S4, 
 
 286, 289, 290, 291. 
 
 ■;•. Porter, pp. 1303, 1310. 
 
 7'. Powers, pp. 1893, 1894. 
 
 Prokop z<. 
 
 I'. Railroad Comm., pp. 54, 
 
 lis, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128. 
 
 V. Rather, pp. 1544, 1613, 
 
 2064, 2444, 2456, 2458. 
 
 V. Redeker, pp. 1706, 17o3, 
 
 2565, 2566. 
 
 ?■. Riney, pp. 1624, 1632, 2434, 
 
 2447. 
 
 z: Roberts, pp. 729, 734, 740, 
 
 750, 815, 849, 862, 865, 881. 
 
 ■;■. Rotter Bros., pp. 478, 517, 
 
 1250. 
 
 7'. Roundtree, p. 1965. 
 
 z: Rowland, 82 Tex. 166, IS 
 
 S. W. 96— pp. 2300, 2751.. 
 
 z'. Rowland, 90 Tex. 365. 38 
 
 S. W. 756— pp. 1895, 2151, 2268, 
 2371, 2923. 
 
 V. Ryan, 69 Tex. 665, 7 S. 
 
 W. 83— pp. 1825, 2163. 
 
 v. Ryan, 4 Tex. App. Civ. 
 
 Cas., § 305, 18 S. W. 866— p. 
 1857. 
 
 • St. John V. 
 
 V. St. John, pp. 2444, 2445, 
 
 2458, 2496, 3375. 
 
 V. Scott, p. 2583. 
 
 Selman v. 
 
 f. Shelton, 72 S. W. 165. 96 
 
 Tex. 301— p. 2077. 
 
 V. Shelton, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 72, 69 S. W. 653— pp. 1783, 19o9, 
 2067, 2126, 2227, 2251, 2255, 
 2265, 2303. 
 
 z: Shelton (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 70 S. W. 359— pp. 2067, 2126, 
 2227, 2255, 2265, 2303. 
 
 • r. Shieder, pp. 2287, 2288, 
 
 2289, 2666. 
 
 z: Shields, pp. 1692. 1728, 
 
 I 2022, 2028, 2030, 2037, 2857.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLXXXV 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Short, pp. 
 419, 3336, 3337, 3338. 
 
 7'. Simmons, pp. i350, 1352. 
 
 V. Smith, 74 Tex. 276, 11 S. 
 
 W. 1104— pp. 1812, 2585, 2589, 
 2604, 2638, 2669, 2694, 2760. 
 
 i: Smith, 87 Tex. 348, 28 S. 
 
 W. 520— p. 1730. 
 
 I'. Smith, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 338, 30 S. VV. 361— pp. 1823, 
 1828, 1846. 
 
 ' -'. Somt-rvillc Mercantile 
 
 Agency, pp. 568, 664. 
 
 V. Southwick, pp. 1797, 2723. 
 
 V. Sparger, pp. 1599, 2468, 
 
 2469. 
 
 i: Stanley, 80 Tex. 42, 33 S. 
 
 W. 109— p. 1032. 
 
 V. Stanley, 89 Tex. 42, 44, 
 
 33 S. W. 109, 2 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 480— pp. 451, 490, 
 851, 971, 973, 1086, 1087, 1089. 
 10<;|6, 1120, 1123. 1129, 1322, 
 1325, 1353. 1355, 1414, 1422, 
 1440. 
 
 State V. 
 
 r. State, pp. 937, 1203. 
 
 f. Staton, pp. 1339, 1342, 
 
 1360. 
 
 V. Stewart, p. 851. 
 
 f. Stricklin, p. 1728. 
 
 v. Taliaferro, p. 1345. 
 
 V. Taylor, p. 484. 
 
 V. Tennant, p. 3357. 
 
 Terry v. 
 
 -■. Terry, pp. 1354, 3336. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Texas, pp. 3422, 3425, 
 
 3492. 
 
 V. Texas Star Flour Mills, 
 
 pp. 742, 746, 845. 
 
 t'. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 107. 
 
 f. Thomjjson, p. 3331. 
 
 V. Trawick, 68 Tex. 314, 4 
 
 S. W. 567, 2 .\m. St. Rep. 494, 
 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 49, 49 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 171— pp. 4, 
 294, 729, 734, 750, 753, 765, 931, 
 932, 933, 934, 935, 951, 971, 
 977, 1083, 1085, 1087, 1088, 
 1118, 1119, 1121, 1122, 1124, 
 
 1127, 1129, 1268, 1269, 1330, 
 1339, 1361, 1398. 
 
 '.: Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 
 
 S. W. 568, 18 S. W. 948— pp. 
 268, 286, 287, 293, 294, 822, 
 883. 934, 971, 1124, 1125, 1127, 
 
 1128, 1129, 1278, 1332. 
 
 Trout '■. 
 
 f. Turner, p. 1778. 
 
 -c'. Rowland, pp. 2115, 2117, 
 
 2118, 2250. 
 
 V. N'aughn, pp. 951, 1413, 
 
 3331, 3340. 3342. 
 
 V. Vinson, pp. 1913, 2245. 
 
 V. Wagley, p. 2546. 
 
 V. Wallen, pp. 1689, 1692, 
 
 2129, 2314. 
 
 V. Walters, pp. 2287, 2616. 
 
 f. Ware, p. 1322. 
 
 x: Warlick. pp. 1749, 1782. 
 
 f. Wells, p. 1771. 
 
 Wells-Fargo Kxp. Co., p. 
 
 1643. 
 
 1120, 
 
 3344. 
 1415, 
 
 V. White, pp. 1118, 
 
 1125. 
 
 - V. Wilbanks, pp. 1125, 
 
 - V. Wilhelm, pp. 1272, 
 1443. 
 
 z: Williams, 70 Tex. 159, 8 
 
 S. W. 78— pp. 1885, 1886, 1916, 
 1917, 2114, 2289. 2606, 2821, 
 2827. 
 
 -•. Williams, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 294. 23 S. W. 626— pp. 
 1124, 1126, 1127. 
 
 r. Williams, 21 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 469. 51 S. W. 653— pp. 
 1800, 2507. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wilm, p. 1351. 
 
 r. Wilson, pp. 1502, 1504, 
 
 1558, 1564, 1575, 1577, 1814, 
 2004, 2212, 2589, 2603, 2604, 
 3344. 
 
 v. Wiltnebert, pp. 757, 758, 
 
 759, 3308. 
 
 I'. Wolston, pp. 484, 487. 
 
 I'. Wood, pp. 935, 971, 997, 
 
 1345, 1478. 
 
 v. Wortham, p. 552. 
 
 t: Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 402, 21 S. W. 80— pp. 419, 450, 
 4S2, 960, 976, 1099, 1412. 
 
 V. Wright, 2 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 
 463, 21 S. W. 399— pp. 969, 
 1086, 1096, 1607, 1610, 1623, 
 1624, 1625, 1626, 2450, 2464, 
 2706, 3373, 3374, 3375. 
 
 Wright, 10 Tex. Civ. .Xpp. 
 30 S. W. 294 — pp. 1623, 
 
 179, 
 1624. 
 
 1358. 
 
 Yates, pp. 1408, 1409. 
 York, pp. 1110, 1352, 
 
 Younger, p. 2583. 
 
 I'. Zimmerman & Co., pp. 
 
 775, 789, 790, 791, 792, 795, 822, 
 824, 1041. 
 
 Gulf, etc., Tel. Co. V. Richardson, 
 
 p. 663. 
 Gulick, Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Gulliver f. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 425, 428, 727, 732, 748, 768, 770, 
 
 3298. 
 Gulzoni -•. Tyler, pp. 2089, 2377. 
 Gunn f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2825. 
 Gunning, Denver, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Gunter, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Guntcrman, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Gunther ;■. Baltimore, p. 3582. 
 Guntzer i\ Yonkers R., Co., p. 
 
 2907. 
 Gurley, Anniston Transfer Co. :•. 
 
 V. Springfield St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2146, 2341, 2721. 
 
 Gurney ?■. Grand Trunk R. 
 
 pp. 3119, 3120, 3121, 3151. 
 Gurwitz :■. Weir. p. 492. 
 Gustin, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 Gustine f. Phillips, p. 1209. 
 Gutenfels, The. 
 Guthier ■:•. Minneapolis, etc, 
 
 Co., p. 3062. 
 Gutierrez, El Paso. etc.. R. Co. i'. 
 Guthrie v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 805. 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1848. 
 Guy -•. Baltimore, pp. 3440, 3529, 
 
 3530, 3531. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 f. Xew York, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 2472, 2491. 
 
 7-. P., C. C. & St. R 
 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 pp. 
 
 2429, 2474. 2483, 2533. 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 Guyton, Louisville, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Gwinn, Gilson t'. 
 
 Gwyn V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1695. 
 
 Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. t: Caro- 
 lina Cent. R. Co., pp. 978, 1091, 
 3394. 3400, 3402. 
 
 Gwyn Real Estate Trust, etc., 
 Co. f. 
 
 Gwyn, etc., Co. -■. Richmond, e c, 
 R. Co.. p. 1217. 
 
 Gyle I'. Jolinc. p. 1507. 
 
 Gyles -'. Southern Railwav. pp. 
 2331, 2358. 2777. 
 
 II 
 Haaga ?•. .\ustro-.\mericana Line, 
 p. 4010. 
 
 ;■. Citizens' Rank, pp. 308, 
 
 355, 369. 3^(.. 
 
 Georgia R.. etc.. Co. -■. 
 
 f. Kansas Citv. etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 356. 360, 371, 403, 487. 495 
 628, 629. 
 
 Mtr- 
 Co. 
 
 Co 
 
 Haaga i: St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 
 Ill Mo. App. 706, 90 S. W. 
 1155— p. 2697. 
 
 t. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., \2i 
 
 Mo. App. 79, 106 S. W. 599— 
 p. 1832. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Wichita R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2142, 2145, 2328. 
 
 Haase i: Oregon R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2145, 2148. 
 Haase & Sons Fish Co. v. 
 
 chant's Despatch Transp. 
 
 pp. 620, 689, 694, 1021. 
 Habeck v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 2480, 2489. 
 Haber, Missouri, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Haberzettle f. Trinity, etc. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 638, 645, 650, 654, 660, 668. 
 Hahil, The. 
 Hackett T. Boston etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 636, 848, 851. 
 
 Gabbert i'. 
 
 Hadd V. United States, etc., Exp. 
 
 Co., pp. 426, 3259, 3286, 3289. 
 Haddow f. Perry, p. 3884. 
 Hadencamp i: Second Ave. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2181. 
 Haderlein v. St. Louis R. Co., jyp. 
 
 2319, 2671. 
 Hadfield v. Jameson, p. 1146. 
 
 642. 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 1685, 
 
 R. Co. 
 etc., R. 
 
 1717, 
 
 ' Co., 
 
 Co.. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 Hadley v. Baxcndale, pp. 637 
 645, 651, 652, 668. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., 
 
 f. Cross, pp. 
 
 1720, 1846. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., 
 
 Hafer v. St. Louis, 
 
 pp. 1119, 1123, 1124. 
 Haff f. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 
 p. 1487. 
 Hagan i: Cargo of Lumber, 
 
 3948, 3957, 3958, 3962. 
 
 Meigs I'. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 p. 2263. 
 
 -•. Providence, etc., R. 
 
 p. 3087. 
 
 ': Tucker, p. 3952. 
 
 Hagar !•. Clark, pp. 3864, 3865. 
 
 z: Elmslie, pp. 3970, 3972. 
 
 Holland Gulf Steamshipping 
 
 Co. :•. 
 
 Uren f. 
 
 Hagblad, Fremont, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Hagerman z\ Xorton, pp. 709, 
 
 3964, 3970. 
 Ilagestrom v. West Chicago St 
 
 Co., p. 2517. 
 Haggard, .\merican Exp. Co. z: 
 
 Birmingham R.. etc., Co. i: 
 
 Ilaggerty t. Flint, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2495. 
 
 -•. Palmer, p. 1222. 
 
 Hague, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f 
 Hahl -■. Laux, pp. 1154, 1158, 1164 
 
 1165. 
 Hahn z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1019. 
 Haight, Pullman Co. f. 
 
 -'. Turner, p. 3008. 
 
 Haile z: Texas, etc., R. 
 
 1707. 
 Hailcy, Louisville, etc., R 
 
 Railroad ;. 
 
 Haille z: Smith, p. 350. 
 Hailman. (lales ;•. 
 
 Haines f. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. pp 
 3124. 3149. 3151. 3153. 3188. 
 
 L'nited States Exp. Co. ;. 
 
 Haislup, Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. : 
 Ilalbrook. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 Halbustro, People f. 
 Hale z: Barrett, pp. 522 
 
 11 (.4. 11 (i5. 
 
 Birmingham Union R. 
 
 f. Bonner, pp. 663, 
 
 1256. 
 
 f. Chesapeake, etc.. R 
 
 pp. 2025, 2026. 
 
 Co.. p. 
 Co. :•. 
 
 1159. 
 
 Co. 
 12 
 
 4, 
 
 Co.,
 
 CLXXXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Hale, Chicago, etc., R. Co. !■. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 2504. 
 
 -•. Henkel, pp. 3447, 3778, 
 
 3779, 3781. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. '•. 
 
 Midland \'alley R. Co. f. 
 
 z\ Milwaukee Dock Co., p 
 
 355. 
 
 -■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 1444. 
 
 I'. New Jersey Steam Xav 
 
 Co., pp. 10, '430, 727, 732. 748 
 768, 1003, 1004. 1007, 1490. 
 
 Halenbake. Arnold r. 
 
 Hales V. The London & N. W. R 
 
 VV. Co., p. 253. 
 Haley z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2490. 2491. 
 f. St. Louis Transit Co., pp 
 
 1703, 1855. 
 Halff, etc., Co. v. Allyn & Co., pp 
 
 1217, 1229, 1230, 1232, 1233 
 
 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239. 
 Hall, American Refrigerator Trans. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 f. American Refrigerator 
 
 Trans. Co., pp. 3575, 3581. 
 
 v. Bessemer, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 1537, 1799. 
 
 f. Boston, etc., R. Corp 
 
 549, 894, 914. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. •;•. 
 
 z: Cheney, pp. 804, 821, 945, 
 
 1036. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Citizens' R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Connecticut River Steam- 
 boat Co., pp. 1684, 1741, 2723, 
 2776. 
 
 z: Dccuir, pp. 1492, 1496, 
 
 1936, 1937, 1947, 3511, 3513, 
 3515. 
 
 z: Dimond, pp. 1229, 1235. 
 
 Dodge '■. 
 
 East Line, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 898. 
 
 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Keller, pp. 394, 396. 
 
 '•. Mayo, pp. 339, 3884. 
 
 z: Memphis, etc., R'. Co., 9 
 
 Fed. 585— pp. 2437, 2486. 
 
 V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 15 
 
 Fed. 57— pp. 2448, 2486. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Z'. Morrisons' Adm'r, p. 843 
 
 z: Murdock, p. 1759. 
 
 V. Nashville, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 Co. 
 
 pp. 
 
 493. 
 
 141.'' 
 
 2860.' 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. 
 Northern Pac. 
 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 Co. 
 
 z'. Penn.sylvania Co., p. 586 
 
 z'l Pennsylvania R. Co., p 
 
 1023. 
 
 Plantation No. 4 z\ 
 
 V. Power, pp. Ill, 192, 2528 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. z 
 
 V. Railroad Cos., p. 730. 
 
 ' z\ Richardson, p. 1210. 
 
 Ryder v. 
 
 Skinner z'. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2469, 2716. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. f. 
 
 z: Southern Railway, p. 2138. 
 
 v. State, p. 1802. 
 
 V. Terre Haute Elect. Co., p. 
 
 2319. 
 
 ■ Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Union Pac. R. Co., p. 256. 
 
 Hall & Co. z: Renfro, pp. 11, 727, 
 
 732, 749, 765, 768, 872, 1340. 
 
 Hall Grain Co. <•. Louisville, etc , 
 
 R. Co., pp. 626, 627, 689, 696. 
 Hall, etc., Mach. Co., St. Louis. 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Hallenbcck z: DeWitt, pp. 323. 
 
 9S4. 
 Hallgartcn, Becker '■. 
 Hailiday z\ Haniihon, pp. 317, 318. 
 
 349, 350. 
 
 '•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3180, 3377. 
 
 Hailiday Mill. Co. z\ Louisiara, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 1200, 1202. 
 Ilallock, Merchants' Dispatch 
 
 Transp. Co. f. 
 Halloren, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Halsell, Chicago, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 Halscy z: Warden, pp.^ 378, 3274. 
 Haluptzok z\ Great Northern R. 
 
 Co., p. 2076. 
 iialverson z'. Seattle Elect. Co., p. 
 
 2174. 
 Ham z'. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 
 pp. 1544, 1560, 2472. 
 
 f. Georgia R., etc., Co. 
 
 1688, 1979. 
 
 Haman v. Omaha Horse R. Co 
 
 •2055, 2483. 
 Hambel, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 Hambrick, St. Louis, etc., 
 
 Co. '■. 
 Hamburg-.American Packet 
 
 Duhme z\ 
 
 ■;•. Gattman, pp., 876, 
 
 3124, 3152, 3187. 
 
 Higgins z\ 
 
 Tarowski 7'. 
 
 Koeningshein "'. 
 
 Moses 7'. 
 
 Hamburg- Amerikanische, etc., 
 
 sellschaft. United States v. 
 Hamburg, etc., Gesellschaft, Nt 
 
 York Millinery, etc., Co. 7\ 
 Hamburg, etc.. Packet Co., Klein 
 
 pp. 
 pp. 
 
 , "r. 
 
 Co., 
 3119, 
 
 Ge 
 
 Hamburger, Baltimore, etc. 
 Co. '•. 
 
 Cincinnati Tract. Co. f. 
 
 '". Cincinnati Tract. Co 
 
 1824. 
 
 Hamburgh American 
 Hirschsohn v. 
 
 Hurwitz z\ 
 
 Hamel Z'. Brooklyn, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2059. 
 
 V. New York, etc.. 
 
 R 
 
 Packet Co, 
 
 Hami 
 779. 
 Hamilton 
 
 Ferry 
 Co., p 
 R. Co. 
 
 Boston Elev 
 pp. 2319, 2332, 2876. 
 
 - z: Boston, etc., St. R. Co. 
 pp. 2307, 2878. 
 
 - f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 10; 
 Iowa 325, 72 N. W. 536— pp 
 517, 562, 576, 592. 
 
 i'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., IIS 
 
 Iowa 650. 93 N. W. 594— pp 
 2529, 2530. 
 
 - V. Great Falls St. R. Co., pp 
 1736, 2696, 2955. 
 
 Hailiday z'. 
 
 7'. Kankakee Elect. R. Co. 
 
 p. 1901. 
 
 Midland Valley R. Co. t'. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2586, 2643, 2671. 
 
 z\ New York Cent. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1973, 1974. 
 
 z: Nickerson, p. 484. 
 
 v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2491. 
 
 z: Pittsburgh, p. 256. 
 
 z'. Southern Pac. Co. "'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2508. 
 
 The. 
 
 7. Third .\ve. R. Co., 53 N. 
 
 Y. 25— p. 3091. 
 
 z: Third Ave. R. Co., 13 
 
 Abb. Prac, N. S., 318, 44 How. 
 
 Prac. 294. 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 118— p. 2413. 
 Hamilton, Toledo, etc., R'. Co.. p. 
 
 7'. West-End St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2007. 
 
 7'. Western, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1316, 1321. 
 
 Wilson 7'. 
 
 Hamlen & Sons Co. 7'. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co., pp. 3740, 3754. 
 3762. 
 
 Ilamler, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hamlin 7'. Great Northern R. Co., 
 p. 1<)70. 
 
 Hamm, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. '.■. 
 
 Hammer, Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Co. '■. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Wiggins Ferry Co., p. 
 
 3550. 
 
 Hammett '■. Chase, etc., Co., p- 
 3956. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Wabash R. Co., p. 588. 
 
 Hammond 7'. Anderson, p. 1208. 
 
 Bohannan 7'. 
 
 Fleming 7'. 
 
 McClures 7'. 
 
 7'. Northeastern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1503. 1575. 
 
 Thorp 7'. 
 
 Toledo, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hammond, etc., R. Co. 7'. Antonia, 
 
 p. 2612. 
 
 7'. Spvzchalski, pp. 2015, 
 
 2605. 
 
 Hammonds 7'. Barclay, p. 1164. 
 Hampe, Chicago L^nion Tract. Co. 
 
 Hampton, Houston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Occidental, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 4004. 
 
 Oostanaula, etc.. Steamboat 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3215, 3217, 3221, 3232. 
 Plamrick Bros. & Co. 7'. Southern 
 
 R. Co.. p. 176. 
 Hanaw, Southern Exp. Co. 7'. 
 Hance 7'. Pacific Exp. Co., 48 Mo. 
 
 .\pp. 179— pp. 209, 249, 1037, 
 
 1047, 1456. 
 
 7'. Pacific Exp. Co., 66 Mo. 
 
 App. 486— p. 1456. 
 
 r. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 56 
 
 Mo. App. 476— pp. 945, 970, 
 3348. 
 
 7'. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 62 
 
 Mo. .-Vpp. 60— p. 492. 
 
 Hancock v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1372, 1373, 1423. 
 
 Heilbroner 7'. 
 
 Interurban R., etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 Lew-is 7'. 
 
 <■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2454. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 76 N. E. 1096, 184 N. V. 540— 
 pp. 2363, 2910. 
 
 7'. New York, etc.. R. Co., 91 
 
 N. Y. S. 601, 100 App. Div. 161 
 —V. 2350. 
 
 Hand 7-. Baynes, pp. 502, 505, 
 848, 3888, 3889, 3890, 3902. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Simpson 7'. 
 
 L^nion Pac. R. Co. '•. 
 
 Handley 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2516 
 Handy, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7,'. 
 
 Hanes, .Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ilankerson, Southwestern R. Co. 
 
 Hanks, Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank 
 
 7-. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3734, 3768.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CLX XXVII 
 
 Ilanlov V. Itrooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 96 N Y. S. 249, 110 App. Div. 
 429— pp. 2850, 2852. 
 
 V. IJrooklyn IKights R. 
 
 Ill N. Y. S. 575, 127 App. 
 355— p. 2005. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 1283, 1339, 1457, 1458, I4r,0 
 
 V. Kansas, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 129, 3421, 3422, 3423, 3491. 
 
 Lfmmon •'. 
 
 United States r. 
 
 Ilanlon v. Central R. Co. 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 1607, 1623, 1624, 1632 
 
 Co., 
 Div. 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 p. 2066. 
 Co..* pp. 
 1636. 
 
 ITaninuT, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ilanna, Vitchhurg, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Irterralional, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ;•. Nassau, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1665, 2492. 
 
 V. Pitt, p. 754. 
 
 Hannay v. Guaranty Trust Co., p. 
 
 399. 
 Hanrav-Frerichs & Co., Texas 
 
 Cent'. R. Co. V. 
 Ilannestad v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 132 Iowa 232, 109 N. VV. 718— 
 
 p. 2820. 
 
 Chicago, 
 
 etc.. 
 
 R. 
 
 (Iowa), 118 N. W. 38— p. 
 
 Co. 
 
 2315. 
 
 Hannibal, etc., R. Co., Brown v. 
 
 Cantling ■•. 
 
 Clayhrook '■. 
 
 Clothworthy r. 
 
 Currell v. 
 
 Diinmitt v. 
 
 Douglass V. 
 
 Dunn V. 
 
 Cioetz <•. 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 Hicks r. 
 
 Higgins '•. 
 
 Holt '■. 
 
 Kelly V. 
 
 I.ogan <■. 
 
 i: Martin, 11 111. App. 386— 
 
 pp. 1522, 2085. 
 
 ■:■. Martin, 111 111. 219— pp. 
 
 2224, 2930. 
 
 Miller f. 
 
 Missouri Coal, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Pruitt f. 
 
 Sawyer <■. 
 
 Sherman '■. 
 
 Snyder 7'. 
 
 Spooner 7'. 
 
 V. Swift, pp. 210, 267, 285, 
 
 726, 731, 755, 759, 782, 1502, 
 1679, 3I13> 3115, 3116, 3118, 
 3124, 3127, 3128, 3141. 3142, 
 3148. 3152, 3157, 3158. 
 
 Swigert V. 
 
 Waller 7'. 
 
 Ilanriford, Little Rock, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Ilanning, Railroad Co. 7'. 
 Plannon 7-. Boston Kiev. R. Co., p. 
 
 1971. 
 
 V. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2656. 
 
 Hanover Tunction, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 .\nthony. pp. 2126, 2164. 
 Hanralian 7'. Manhattan R. Co., 
 
 p. 2144. 
 Ilansberger 7'. Sedalia Klect. R., 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 2333, 2637, 2657. 
 Hansen 7'. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 64 N. J. L. f'86, 46 .\tl. 718— 
 
 pp. 1712, 1715, 1951. 
 
 7'. North lersev St. R. Co. 
 
 (N. J.), 43 Atl. 663— p. 2806. 
 
 7-. Third Ave. R. Co., p. 2818. 
 
 Hansford & Son, Cincinnati, etc., 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Hanslev 7'. Jamesville, etc., R. Co., 
 115 N. C. 602, 20 S. E. 528, 32 
 L. R. -\. 543, 44 .\ni. St. Rep. 
 474— pp. 1510, 3054. 
 
 Hansley v. Jamesville, etc., R. Co., 
 117 N. C. S(.S, 2i S. E. 443. ii 
 L. R. .\. 543, 53 .\m. St. Rep. 
 600— pp. 1(.74, 3054. 
 
 Hanson v. .Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1286. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., j). 
 
 2906. 
 
 7'. European, etc., R. Co., |)p. 
 
 2042, 2052, 3074. 
 
 7'. Flint, etc.. R. Co., pp. 305, 
 
 m, 334, 410. 3255. 
 
 V. r.reat Northern R. Co., pp. 
 
 431, 948, 952, 978. 1056, 1063. 
 
 ••. Haywood Bros., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 4068. 
 
 v. Mansfield R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2207. 
 
 May 7'. 
 
 7'. Urbana, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2770. 
 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. 
 
 Harthorn, Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Ilapgood Plow Co. V. Wabash R'. 
 
 Co., p. 912. 
 Haralson, .\tlarta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 7'. San .\ntonio Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2357._ 2648. 2659. 
 Harbeck, Keyser ■-. 
 Harber, New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Harbin, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 Harbison 7'. Metropolitan R. Co., 
 
 p. 2172. 
 Harbor Master 7-. Sutherland, p. 
 
 3433. 
 Harby 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 608, 
 
 3377, 3382. 
 Hardage, .\tlanta Consol. St. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Hardaway 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1195, 1200, 1202, 3750. 
 Hardee 7'. Brown, p. 3579. 
 Harden, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 7'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1267, 1271, 1289, 1339, 1341, 
 1402, 1471. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2335, 2891. 
 
 Hardeiibergh' 7'. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co., 39 Minn. 3, 34 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 359. 38 N. W. 625, 12 
 .\m. St. Rep. 6]0— pp. 1571, 
 1953, 1954. 1955. 2427, 2476. 
 
 7'. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 41 
 
 Minn. 200, 42 N. W. 933— p. 
 3099. 
 
 Hardendorf, Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. 
 
 Harder, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hardesty. L'nited R., etc., Co. 7'. 
 Hardie. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. '■. 
 
 Hardie & Co. 7'. Vicksburg, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 359, 360. 
 Hardin 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1990. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7' Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., 33 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 448. 77 S. W. 
 431_pp. 1524. 1525, 1526, 1527, 
 1749, 1752, 1979. 
 
 7'. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 
 
 49 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 184, 108 S. 
 W. 490— p. 2725. 
 
 7'. Fort Worth, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 995 
 -pp. 1991, 2209, 2891. 
 
 Leisy 7'. 
 
 Savannah, etc.. R. Co. '•. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hardin Grain Co. 7'. Missouri Pac. 
 
 R. Co., pp. «.40, 653. 1109, 
 3334. 
 Harding 7-. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2650. 
 
 Harding r. .New York, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3083. 
 
 7'. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co.. p. 2192. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 Harding Paper Co. v. Allen, p. 
 
 1233. 
 Hardman 7'. Montana L'nion R. 
 
 Co., pp. 910, 913. 
 Hardway, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hardwick v. Georgia R.. etc., Co., 
 pp. 1690, 1881, 1971, 1995. 
 
 Richardson v. 
 
 Hardwick Farmers' Elevator Co., 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 3501. 
 
 Hardy v. .\merican Exp. Co., pp. 
 572, 601, 874. 
 
 V. Milwaukee St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2985. 
 
 7'. North Carolina Cent. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2587. 
 
 Parsons 7'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. i: 
 
 South Covington, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Hare v. Browne, p. 352. 
 
 Haring, New York, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Harkey 7'. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 17 80-. 
 Harkins v. Seattle Elect. Co., pp. 
 
 2860, 2965. 
 Harkless 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1541. 2435, 3084. 
 Harkress v. Kansas, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2904. 
 Harkow 7'. New York City R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1648. 
 Harlan 7'. .\dams Exp. Co.. p. 209. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. 7. 
 
 Harlow 7. Fitchburg R. Co., p. 
 
 3191. 
 Harman v. Chicago, pp. 3479, 3569. 
 3585. 
 
 Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. R. Co._ 7_. 
 
 Harmon 7'. Chicago, p. 3585. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 7'. Flintham, pp. 1796. 2878. 
 
 7'. Jensen, pp. 1573, 1631. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Richardson 7'. 
 
 Robinson 7'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. United R. Co.. pp. 2289, 
 
 2617. 
 
 Washington, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Washirgton. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2319, 2357. 
 
 Harmonson, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 Harmonv 7-. Bingham, pp. 437, 630, 
 
 633, 1195. 
 Ham. Houston, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 Harnden Exp. Co., Hubbard & Co. 
 
 Harnden's Exp. Co., Meyer :. 
 
 Moriata v. 
 
 Harned, Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1087, 1088, 1107. nil. 1114. 
 1421. 
 
 Harnett 7-. Westcott pp. 829. 836. 
 Harp 7'. Choctaw, etc.. R. Co.. 118 
 Fed. 169— pp. 30, 96. 
 
 7'. Choctaw, etc.. R. Co.. 61 
 
 C C. .\. 405. 125 Fed. 445— 
 pp. 89. 187, 188. 189. 
 
 7. Southern R. Co.. pp. 2425. 
 
 2430. 2444. 
 
 Harper -•. Erie R. Co.. p. 2114. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. :. 
 
 Little Rock. etc.. R Co. 7'. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. :•.
 
 CLXXXVIII 
 
 TAHI.K OF CASES. 
 
 Harper :■. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2135, 2324, 2777. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Southern Transp. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Harper Bros., Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 Harper Furniture Co. z: Southern 
 Exp. Co., 144 X. C. 639, 57 S. 
 E. 458, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 924 — pp. 493, t>90. 
 
 f. Southern Exp. Co., 148 
 
 X. C. 87, 62 S. E 145, 30 L. 
 R. A.. X. S.. 483, 128 Am. St. 
 Rep. 588— pp. 638, 641, 642, 649, 
 650, 654, 657, 658, 666, 667, 
 668, 671, 674, 695. 
 
 Harper House Co., Fraser z'. 
 Harrell z: Columbia Elect. St. R., 
 etc., Co., pp. 2117, 2816. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Owens, pp. 211, 728, 733, 
 
 749. 
 
 f. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 278. 
 
 Harrill Uros. f. Southern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 157, 531, 3499. 
 Harriman, Interstate Commerce 
 
 Comm. f. 
 
 z: Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 pp. 3600, 3767, 3780. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 I'. Reading, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2694, 2898, 2946. 
 
 The. 
 
 Harrington f. American, etc.. Lum- 
 ber Co., p. 3958. 
 
 z: King, p. 681. 
 
 z: Lvles, pp. 729, 749, 768. 
 
 z: McShane, pp. 11, 728, 730, 
 
 733, 749. 
 
 I'. Manchester St. Railway, p. 
 
 2910. 
 
 Pecos River R. Co. '■. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z\ 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co., pp. 764, 
 
 3267. 
 
 Harris, Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Balk, p. 577. 
 
 Brown -■. 
 
 Carson z: 
 
 z: Central R. R., p. 2547. 
 
 z: Central, R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 706. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Cheshire R. Co., p. 846. 
 
 Circinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. City, etc., R. Co., p. 1582. 
 
 V. Cockermouth & Worthing- 
 
 ton R. Co., p. 3692. 
 
 v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 77 
 
 X. J. L. 278, 72 Atl. 50— pp. 
 •loio, 1633, 3065. 
 
 z: Delaware, etc., R. Co., 61 
 
 X. Y. 656— pp. 848, 855. 
 
 ' Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 D'Wolf V. 
 
 Eddy V. 
 
 V. Fargo, p. 649. 
 
 v. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 3257, 3289, 3338. 
 
 V. Great Xorthern R. Co., p. 
 
 1001. 
 
 Z'. Guggenheim, p. 2902. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 37 
 
 Mo. 307— p. 814. 
 
 z: Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 89 
 
 Mo. 233, 1 S. W. 325, 58 Am. 
 Rep. Ill— pp. 2120, 2170. 
 
 v. Hart, pp. 1227, 1229, 1232, 
 
 1237, 1240, 1243. 
 
 V. Howe, pp. 2092, 2496, 
 
 3315, 3331, 3373, 3375. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 Knoxvijle, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kurfees f. 
 
 Lafaye v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Harris z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 529, 564, 565. 890. 
 
 f. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3357. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Moody, 30 X. Y. 266, 86 
 
 Am. Dec. 375— p. 818. 
 
 f. Moody, 17 X. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 210— p. 818. 
 
 T'. Xew Jersey Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 185. 
 
 v. Xorthern Indiana R. Co., 
 
 pp. 753. 827, 1288, 1273. 
 
 Z-. Packwood, p. 1037. 
 
 V. Panama R. Co., 58 X. Y. 
 
 660— p. 1464. 
 
 V. Panama R. Co., 16 X. Y. 
 
 Super. Ct. 7— pp. 857, 862. 
 
 V. Panama R. Co., 18 X. Y. 
 
 Super. Ct. 312— p. 848. 
 
 Pecos \'alley, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2249, 2912. 
 
 V. Pratt, pp. 381, 382, 1227, 
 
 1237, 1238, 1239. 
 
 V. Puget Sound Elect. Rail- 
 way, pp. 1585, 1586, 2004, 2100, 
 2645, 2697, 2720, 2762. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 z\ Rayner, p. 265 1. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1535, 1536, 1537, 1806, 2934. 
 
 V. Stevens, pp. 192, 197, 1513, 
 
 1637, 1802, 2122, 2631. 
 
 r. Story, pp. 323, 984. 
 
 Tallulah Falls R. Co. v. 
 
 Ten Eyck z\ 
 
 ■ z: Tenney, pp. 1206, 1219, 
 
 1220, 1221, 1229, 1236, 1237, 
 1238. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. -'. 
 
 • f. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1816. 
 
 - V. Union R. Co., p. 2268. 
 United States v. 
 
 U^nited States Exp. Co. :■. 
 
 Harris & Co., Wabash R. Co. z\ 
 Harrisburg, The. 
 
 Ilarrisburg Tract. Co., Clark ''. 
 
 Xeff V. 
 
 ■ Redington -■. 
 
 Ilarrisburg, etc., R. Co., Light x. 
 Harrison, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — — V. Fink, pp. 2055, 2058, 2466, 
 2473, 2474, 2481. 
 
 V. Fortlage, p. 3896. 
 
 Great 'Xorthern R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Hixson, pp. 813, 837, 838. 
 
 Mississippi, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 449, 453, 1018, 1044. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1779. 
 
 Xew Orleans, etc.. R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 V. Xew Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 469, 470. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2564. 
 
 V. Roy, p. 8. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Shepherd f. 
 
 V. Smith, p. 709. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Stewart, pp. 456, 3888. 
 
 V. Sutter St. R. Co., p. 2699. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3441. 
 
 V. Weir, 69 X. Y. S. 957, 34 
 
 Misc. Rep. 519— pp. 1298. 1333. 
 
 V. Weir, 75 X. Y. S. 909, 
 
 71 App. Div. 248— p. 1348. 
 
 Harrison Granite Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., p. 261. 
 Harrold, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 z\ Winona, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2928. 
 Harry, HI Pa?o, etc., R. Co. "■. 
 
 Harry, Wilson f. 
 
 Harry & Bros., Houston, etc., R 
 
 Co. '■. 
 Harsliman v. Little Miami R 
 
 p. 3251. 
 z>. Little Miami, etc., 
 
 ways, pp. 504, 851. 
 
 Hart 
 
 Allen, pp. 728, 745, 
 
 1()7, 1( 
 
 Co., 
 Rail- 
 
 749, 
 , PP- 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co. 
 
 pp. 
 pp. 
 
 St. 
 72 
 
 R. Co., 
 X. Y. S. 
 
 St. R. 
 28 Misc. 
 
 Co.. 
 Rep. 
 
 Co., 
 Rei). 
 
 Co., 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co 
 69, 1199. 
 Baxendale, p. 243. 
 
 V. Capital Tract. Co., 
 
 2i78, 2179, 2292. 
 
 '■. Chicago, etc., R 
 
 727, 753, 755, 774. 
 
 Fargo T-. 
 
 Faulkner v. 
 
 t'.' Metcher Land 
 
 1840. 
 
 Harris f. 
 
 V. Metropolitan 
 
 65 .\pp. Div. 493, 
 797— p. 2567. 
 
 v. Metropolitan 
 
 58 X. Y. S. 1087, 
 7()6— p. 2829. 
 
 <■. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 69 X. Y. S. 906, 34 Misc. 
 521— pp. 1521, 2486. 
 
 z\ Xew Orleans, etc., R 
 
 p. 2641. 
 
 v. Xorth German Lloyd Steam- 
 ship Co., 95 X. Y. S. 733, 108 
 App. Div. 279— pp. 4009, 4010. 
 
 V. Xorth German Lloyd 
 
 Steamship Co., 92 X. Y. S. 338, 
 46 Misc. Rep. 426— n. 4008, 
 4011. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 930, 947, 953, 958, 1073, 10/6, 
 1083, 1137, 1151, 1406. 
 
 V. Railroad, p. 359. 
 
 -■. Rensslaer, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3160, 3169, 3175, 3179. 
 
 Rice V. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., r 
 
 2667. 
 
 V. Spalding, p. 848. 
 
 7'. State, p. 3511. 
 
 TexarKana St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Western Railway v. 
 
 Hartan v. Eastern R. Co., pp. 3317 
 
 3322, 3323. 
 Harten v. Brightwood R. Co., ]) 
 
 2277. 
 Harter ' 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 Cr 
 
 Charleston, etc., R. 
 846, 3399, 3557. 
 Hartford City, Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Hartford Deposit Co. v. Pederson, 
 
 p. 2883. 
 r. Sollitt, pp. 1750, 2739. 
 
 2756, 2984. 
 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. z\ Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 9, 947, 1277. 
 
 Cray z\ 
 
 First Xat. Bank ?•. 
 
 Hartford Ins. Co., Riddl< barger v. 
 Hartford Steamboat Co., Camp v. 
 Hartford St. R. Co., Donovan v. 
 Hartford, etc., R. Co., Boies v. 
 
 Havens z'. 
 
 V. Jackson, pp. 1137, 1138. 
 
 — — Mcrriam v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Hartford, etc.. 
 
 Camp V. 
 
 Graves "■. 
 
 Hartford, etc.. Tramway Co., 
 
 Wheeler v. 
 Hartford, etc., Transp. Co., Pisai>ia 
 
 Hartley f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co . 
 
 pp. 3248, 3262, 3329, 3330, 3331. 
 
 3334, 3406. 
 Hartman, Louisville R'. Co. '•. 
 Hartmann z\ Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 430, 886, 894, 943. 
 Hartshorn, Price v. 
 Ilartshorne f. Johnson, p. 1160. 
 
 Steamboat Co.,
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 CLXXXIX 
 
 Ilartung, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 Ilartwcll, Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 482, 802. 
 
 Hartford, The City of. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 989. 1085. 
 
 Hartwell R. Co. r. Kidd, pp. 808, 
 
 828. 
 Hartwig f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1873, 2140, 2727. 
 Harty i: New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2890. 
 Ilartzig !•. Lehigh Valley R. Co , 
 
 p. 2367. 
 Harvard College, Stewart v. 
 Harvey v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. ir.l9, 2471. 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2124. 22.S7. 2385, 2929. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Connecticut, etc., R'. Co.. 
 
 pp. 434, 469, 471, 638, 653, 659, 
 1140. 
 
 V. Deep River Logging Co., 
 
 pp. 2209, 2334, 2836. 
 
 r. Eastern R. Co.. p. 2151. 
 
 r. Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 47L 
 
 7'. Louisiana Western R. Co., 
 
 p. 2504. 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. t. 
 
 7'. Rose, pp. 11, 768. 
 
 SchiefFelin f. 
 
 T. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 485, 1037. 
 
 The D. 
 
 TTarville, Michigan Cent. R. Co. f. 
 Harvv r. Pike, p. 404. 
 Harwell. Western R. Co. f. 
 Harwood, Graves v. 
 Harzburg & Co. r. Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3142. 3143, 3144, 3196. 
 Hasbrouck ?■. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 95 N. E. 808, 202 X. Y. 
 
 363, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 537, 
 
 Ann. Cas. 1912 D, 1150— pp. 
 
 1912, 1913, 3109, 3115, 3116. 
 
 3117, 3123, 3124, 3125, 3145. 
 
 3146, 3148, 3156, 3186. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 122 N. Y. S. 123, 137 .\pp. Div. 
 532— pp. 3142, 3144. 
 
 Haselton -•. Portsmouth, etc.. Rail- 
 wav. pp. 1516, 1518, 1535, 2788. 
 2874. 
 
 Haskell v. Boston Dist. Messenger 
 Co.. p. 9. 
 
 T. Cowham, pp. 3532, 3533. 
 
 Hunt r. 
 
 Kansas Natural Gas Co. r. 
 
 7'. Manchester St. Railway, 
 
 p. 2728. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2358. 
 
 Spring 7'. 
 
 Haskins 7-. Lake Shore, etc., K. 
 Co., pp. 1863, 2437, 2455. 
 
 fnited Steamship Co. -•. 
 
 Hasler Co. 7'. Grifling Florida Or- 
 chard Co.. p. 569. 
 
 TTaslet. Dickinson '•. 
 Hassard, Philadelphia City Pas'^. 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hasse 7'. .American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 572, 573, 889. 891. 
 Hasselkus, Central R., etc., Co. 
 
 Hasscll, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hasseltine 7'. Southern Railway, p. 
 
 1678. 
 Hassen 7'. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2194. 
 TIassler r. Gulf, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 645, 646. 
 Hastings 7'. Poland, p. 2989. 
 
 Hastings v. Central Crosstown R. 
 Co., pp. 2174, 2696, 2899. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211. 262. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1938, 2340. 
 
 7'. Pepper, pp. 10, 337, 728, 
 
 733, 749, 753, 764, 3862. 
 
 Hatch, Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1412, 1417, 1418, 1431. 
 
 Pullman Sleeping Car Co. v. 
 
 7'. Pullman Sleeping Car Co., 
 
 p. 3237. 
 
 Railroad Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Reardon, p. 3556. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Willamette Iron Bridge Co. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hatchard. Hathaway 7'. 
 
 Hatchell, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hatcher, Alabama Mid. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 — ■ — Law 7'. 
 
 Hatchkiss, L. S. & M. S. R. Co. 
 
 Hathaway 7'. Hatchard. p. 2629. 
 Hathorn 7'. EIv, pn. 893, 910. 
 Hatten 7'. Railroad Co., pp. 1493, 
 
 1529, 1612, 1621. 1974. 
 Hatter & Son, Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 Hattie Palmer, The. 
 Hatton, Ohio, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 Hauer, Baltimore, ctc_, R. Co. z'. 
 Haugh, etc.. Transfer Co., Lloyd 
 
 Haught, .Adams & Co. 7'. 
 Haughton 7'. The Memphis, p. 
 
 3899. 
 Hauk 7'. New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2505. 
 Haurigan 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 87. 
 Hause & Son 7'. Tudson, pp. 1209, 
 
 1210, 1219, 1220. 
 Hausman. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 Haussman, Pensacola. etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hauterman 7'. Bock, pp. 1206, 1243. 
 Haven, Ringgold f. 
 Havens, Barker 7'. 
 
 7'. Hartford, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 2420, 2423. 
 
 Haver 7'. Central R. Co.. 62 N. T. 
 L 282, 41 Atl. 916. 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 261. 72 Am. 
 St. Ren. 647. 43 L. R. A. 84— 
 p. 2045. 
 
 7'. Central R. Co., 45 Atl. 
 
 593. 64 N. J. L. 312— p. 2485. 
 
 Haverhill, etc.. Dispatch Co., Bul- 
 lock ;■. 
 Haverhill, etc., St. R. Co.. Tozier 
 
 Haverlitnd 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3035. 
 Havcrstick, Indianapolis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Hawcroyt, Great Northern R. Co. 
 
 TTawes 7\ Southern R. Co., p. 163. 
 Hawgood T. One Thousand Three 
 
 Hu-dred and Ten Tons of Coal. 
 
 n. 701. 
 Hawk. Alabama, etc.. R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1755, 1993. 2703. 
 
 Hawkhurst Steamship Co. 7. Key- 
 
 «er, p. 3955. 
 Hawkins 7. .Mfalfa Products Co., 
 
 pp. 369, 396, 398, 493. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc.. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Front St. etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2164. 2667. 2673. 
 
 Great Western R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hawkins v. Great Western R. Co., 
 pp. 1374, 1380. 
 
 V. Hoffman, pp. 79(), 3114, 
 
 3115, 3117, 3121, 3123, 3124. 
 3127, 3129, 3130, 3141. 3142. 
 3145. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hawkinsville, etc.. R. Co. v. Liv- 
 ingston, p. 1200. 
 
 Hawlcy, Louisville, etc.. >R. Co. 7'. 
 
 f. Screven, pp. 3176, 3177, 
 
 3179. 
 
 Western Transp. Co. 7. 
 
 Hay 7'. Great Western R. Co., p. 
 
 1827. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. -<.■. 
 
 Molby V. 
 
 Mollory v. 
 
 Robertson i'. 
 
 Hayden 7'. Davis, pp. 573, 3892. 
 
 Georgia R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Hayes 7'. Adams Exp. Co., 73 N. 
 
 J. L. 105, 62 Atl. 284— pp. 1065. 
 1069. 
 
 7'. Adams Exp. Co.. 74 N. 1. 
 
 L. 537. 65 Atl. 1044. 23 R. R. 
 R. 506. 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 506— pp. 1067, 1070. 
 
 Cleveland, etc, R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Forty-Second St., etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1993. 1996. 2804. 
 
 Mis.'ouri, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 r. Missouri, etc . R. Co., pp. 
 
 1292, 1419, 1420. 'l421. 
 
 7'. New York. etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2429. 
 
 Ormund 7'. 
 
 7'. St. Louis R. Co.. pp. 2770. 
 
 2771. 
 
 7-. Wabash R. Co., pp. 1607. 
 
 3052. 
 
 7'. Wells Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 760, 764. 
 
 Hayman v. Canadian, etc., R'. Co.. 
 p. 563. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1720, 2671, 2674, 2675, 2686. 
 
 7-. Philadelphia R. Co., pp 
 
 1339, 1451, 1457. 
 
 Haynes. .Adams Exp. Co. 7-. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 7'. Wabash R. Co., p. 753 
 
 Havnes & Co., Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Haynie 7'. Baylor, p. 771. 
 Hays 7'. Houston, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 3086. 
 
 7'. Kennedy (Pa.), 3 Grant. 
 
 351— pp. 822. 828. 
 
 7'. Kennedy, 41 Pa. 378. 80 
 
 Am. Dec. 627— pp. 728. 733, 736. 
 737, 749. 751, 752, 825. 
 
 Mouille 7'. 
 
 7'. Mouille, pp. 1163, 1208. 
 
 1'14 1220, 1229, 1230, 1232. 
 1237, 1238. 1240. 1243, 1245. 
 
 7 . Pacific Mail Steamship Co , 
 
 pp. 3478, 3581, 3583. 3584. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Ryan 7'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc . R'. Co. t: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Third Nat. Bank 7'. 
 
 7'. Wabash R. Co., p. 2708. 
 
 W'illiams 7'. 
 
 Hays Co. r. Pennsylvania Co. 
 
 pp. 1179. 3691. 
 Hayter 7'. Brunswick Tract. Co., 
 
 p. 2483. 
 Hay ward, Candee 7-. 
 
 7-. Middlcton, pp. IMS. ll.-O. 
 
 1151. 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. 7'. 
 
 Havwood Bros., etc., Hanson 7'.
 
 cxc 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Hazard -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1720, 1752, 1754. 
 
 Jordan -■. 
 
 Hazel -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 939. 940, 941, 945. 
 Hazeltine, Farmers, etc., Nat. Bank 
 
 Hazelton Coal Co. f. Buck Moun- 
 tain Coal Co., p. 447. 
 Hazen, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Hazlett, Missouri, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 \"an Studdilord i: 
 
 Hazman f. Hoboken Land, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1750. 
 Hazzard, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1550. 
 
 Head z: Georgia Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 1628, 1629, 2408, 2444, 2566. 
 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Z-. Pacific Exp. Co., pp. 760, 
 
 762, 763, 815. 
 
 Head Money Cases, pp. 3531, 3564. 
 Headland, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Healey z-. City Passenger R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2414, 2483, 2485, 2548, 
 
 28515. 
 Healy v. Chicago Citv R. Co., p. 
 
 2742. 
 
 Sun Co. f. 
 
 Heard, Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: State, p. 177. 
 
 Hearne, Central R. Co. z\ 
 
 Heath, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc.. Railway v. 
 
 Heath z: South Bound R. Co., p. 
 
 722. 
 Heathdene, The. 
 Heaton, Bigelow -■. 
 
 !■. Morgan's, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 933, 957, 958. 
 
 Heazle z: Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2693, 2953. 
 Htbblethwaite z: Old Colony St 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2670, 2860. 
 Hebert v. Portland R. Co., pp 
 
 1585, 1586. 
 Hecht V. Grand Trunk R. Co., p 
 
 869. 
 Heck z\ East Tennessee, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 3614, 3640. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 823. 
 
 Hecker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co,, p 
 
 2249. 
 Hecksher, Pottinger v. 
 Hedding z: Gallagher, 69 N. H 
 
 650, 45 Atl. 96, 76 Am. St. Rep 
 
 204 — p. 3158. 
 
 V. Gallagher, 72 N. H. 377, 
 
 57 Atl. 225, 64 L. R. A. 811— 
 p. 100. 
 
 Heddleston, Alabama, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hedge, St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hedger, Louisville, etc., R. Co., v. 
 Hedges z: Hudson River R. Co., 
 
 49 X. Y. 223, 3 Am.' R. Rep. 
 
 346— pp. 896, 901, 907. 
 
 v. Hudson River R. Co., 29 
 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 119— pp. 564', 
 896, 901. 
 
 I'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2735. 
 
 Heenrich v. Pullman Palace Car 
 
 Co., pp. 2037, 2627. 
 Heff, Matter of. 
 Heffron v. Detroit City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1649, 1650, 2448. 
 
 V. Michigan, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 213, 432. 
 
 z: Pollard, p. 490. • 
 
 Hefley, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hegeman v. Western R. Corp. (N. 
 
 Y.), 16 Barb. 353— pp. 2673, 
 2695, 2743. 
 
 z: Western R. Corp., 13 N. 
 
 Y. 9, 64 Am. Dec. 517— po. 
 1682, 1720, 1823, 1848, 1850. 
 
 Heger, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Heggen z\ Fort Dodge, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2051, 2075. 
 Heggie, Nashville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Hcide, Hubener •;■. 
 Heidenlieimer z\ Johnston, p. 1350. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. z-. 
 
 Heidenheinier & Co. z\ Schlett, p. 
 
 597. 
 Heighway z: \'oorhees, p. 2161. 
 Heike z: L'nited States, p. 3778. 
 Heil t'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 851, 1037, 1047, 3343. 
 Heilbroner v. Hancock, pp. 1172, 
 
 1173. 
 Heilbronner, Commercial Xat. 
 
 Bank v. 
 Heilprin & Co., Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Heineman t'. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 4, 749. 
 Heinken, Shenhard •;•. 
 Heinlien z\ Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1510. 
 Heins f. Savannah, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2087. 
 Heinz z: Railroad Transfer Co., p. 
 
 1211. 
 Heinze f. Interurban R. Co., pp. 
 
 1901, 1998, 2357. 
 Heirn z'. McCaughan, pp. 1670, 
 
 1851, 2565, 2566, 2567, 3043. 
 Heiserman f. Burlington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 67, 1194. 1195, 1196, 
 
 1198. 
 Heiskell '■. Farmers', etc., Xat. 
 
 Bank', pp. 378, 402, 403, 404. 
 Heisley, Coxe v. 
 Ilcitman z\ Chicago, etc.. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1318, 1340, 1349, 1440, 1466. 
 
 1480, 1482. 
 Heittner, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Helena, Nelson f. 
 Helena-Glendale Steam Ferry 
 
 Co. z\ State, p. 3587. 
 Helena St. R. Co..^ Wall z: 
 Helena, etc., R. Co., Robinson v. 
 Helene, The. 
 Heller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 728, 1268, 1341. 1454. 
 
 Lincoln Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Petrie v. 
 
 Hellivvell z\ Grand Trunk Railway, 
 pp. 246, 621, 623, 767, 3279. 
 
 Hellman z: Holladay, pp. 3120, 
 3148, 3150. 
 
 Helm V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 1296. 
 
 Helms, Baltimore Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Ileltzen '•. Union R. Co., p. 2829. 
 
 Ilemmingway z\ Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 67 Wis. 668, 31 X. W. 268, 
 28 .'\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 216 — pp. 
 1872, 1877. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 
 
 Wis. 42, 37 N. W. 804, 33 Am. 
 & Eng. K. Cas. 511, 7 .Am. St. 
 Rep. 823— pp. 1878, 2255, 2952, 
 2987. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Hemphill v. Chenie, pp. 536, 3272. 
 Hempstead v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 241, 252. 
 
 z: New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 532, 589, 3389. 
 
 Henadale z: Weed, p. 1172. 
 Ilench, Elgin, etc.. Tract. Co. r. 
 Henderson, American Nat. Bank f. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. 'Co. v. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 1136 
 
 Co. 
 
 V. Galveston, etc., 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W 
 —pp. 1949. 1950. 
 
 z'. Galveston, etc. 
 
 fTex. Civ. -App.), 42 S. W. 1030 
 —pp. 1937, 1950, 2773. 
 
 Henderson Bridge Co. z\ 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Henderson z-. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 397, 
 20 Fed. 430— p. 3145. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 llo La. 1047, 41 So. 252, 114 
 Am. St. Rep. 582— pp. 308, 311, 
 312, 313, 315. 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 123 U. S. 61, 8 S. Ct. 60, 31 
 L. Ed. 92— p. 3148. 
 
 ''. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2575. 
 
 V. Maid of Orleans, pp. 851, 
 
 852, 861. 
 
 f. Nassau Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 2347. 
 
 v. New York, pp. 3418, 3420, 
 
 3564. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Henderson Bridge Co. z'. Com- 
 monwealth, 99 Ky. 623, 17 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 389, 31 S. W. 486— p. 
 3587. 
 
 !■. Commonwealth, 17 S. Ct. 
 
 532, 166 U. S. 150, 41 L. Ed. 
 953— p. 3588. 
 
 • •;•. Henderson, 141 U. S. 679, 
 
 35 L. Ed. 900, 12 S. Ct. 114— 
 p. 3587. 
 
 '•. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592. 
 
 43 L. Ed. 823, 19 S. Ct. 553— 
 pp. 116, 3473. 
 
 z: Henderson, 173 U. S. 624, 
 
 43 L. Ed. 835, 19 S. Ct. 877— 
 p. 3473. 
 
 z: Kentucky, p. 3498. 
 
 Henderson Elevator Co., Illinois 
 
 Cent. R. Co. z: 
 Hendrick z\ Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1043, 1286, 1465, 1466, 1477. 
 z\ Chicago, etc., K. Co., p. 
 
 1534. 
 
 Jefifersonville R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Walton, pp. 932, 950. 
 
 Hendrick z'. American Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 663, 681. 
 
 Jeffersonville R. Co., v. 
 
 Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hendrickson, Leonard f. 
 Hendrie, Downey ?■. 
 
 Hendri.x z\ Wabash R. Co., p. 1351. 
 liengstler v. Flint, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 984, 986, 1292. 
 Henkel, Hale v. 
 
 Henlein, South, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Henly v. Deleware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2439. 
 Hennessey, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Hennessy v. Muskegon Tract., 
 
 etc., Co., p. 2903. 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2977. 
 Hennick, Stoutenburgh v. 
 Hennigh v. Cleveland, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 1033. 
 
 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Henning, Farmers' Loan & Trust 
 
 Co. '.■. 
 
 z: Louisville R. Co., p. 2993. 
 
 Ilenningsen z\ Watkins, p. 397). 
 Hennington v. Georgia, pp. 34, 
 
 1946, 3466, 3478, 3481, 3482, 
 3498, 3499, 3504, 3505, 3512. 
 
 Henrotin, Wilcke v. 
 
 Henry v. Atchinson, etc., R, Co., 
 p. 743. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 v. Central R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 828, 847, 848, 3397. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Grant St. Elect. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1804, 2241, 2402, 2986. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.' 
 
 ■ — — KeoKuk Packet Co. v.
 
 TABI.K OF CASES. 
 
 CXCI 
 
 Henry, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Moore & Son f. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sangamon, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Henry H. Hyde, Montague -: 
 
 The. 
 
 Henshaw, Eliason f. 
 
 Quimit V. 
 
 V. Rowland, p. 526. 
 
 Hcnsler v. Stix, pp. 1488, 2645, 
 
 2901. 
 Hentz & Co., Lovell v. 
 
 V. Lovell, p. 362. 
 
 Hepburn, Wariicld f. 
 
 Hepner, Union I'ac. R. Co. f. 
 
 Hepp r. Glover, pp. 1211, 12-9, 
 
 1220, 1229. 
 Ileran, Hradstreet v. 
 Herbert, I'.abcock v. 
 
 Lucas V. 
 
 V. Portland R. Co., p. 2604 
 
 r. St. Paul City R. Co., pp 
 
 1830, 1840. 
 
 Herbich v. North Jersey St. R 
 
 Co., pp. 1893, 1894. 
 Herbst V. The Asiatic Prince, pp 
 
 557, 3895. 
 Herdnian v. New York, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 2252. 
 Herf, etc.. Chemical Co. v. Lack 
 
 awanna Line, 70 Mo. App. 274 — 
 
 pp. 501, 513, 899. 
 
 V. Lackawanna Line, 100 Mo. 
 
 App. 164, 73 S. W. 346— pp. 
 899, 903, 939. 
 
 Herman v. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 pp. 2314, 2315. 
 
 V. Drink water, p. 3189. 
 
 Hermann v. (loodrich, p. 901. 
 
 r. St. Joseph R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1495, 2777. 
 
 Herndon, Alexander, etc., R. Co. 
 
 -Alexandria, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3514. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Heme v. Carton, pp. 236, 238. 
 Hernsfield v. Adams, p. 3297. 
 Hernsheim v. Newport News, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 743, 778. 
 Herold, Western Maryland R. 
 Co. ■;■. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Herr v. Tweedic Trading Co., pp. 
 
 3872, 3949. 
 Herrick f. Gallagher, p. 571. 
 
 Lakeshore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Maysville, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 Herriman -■. Hurlington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 145. 
 Herring -'. -Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 331, 1076. 3522. 
 
 f. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 619, 729, 734, 738, 744, 750, 
 1267. 1338, 3260. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ferguson f. 
 
 Galveston, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 102 Tex. 100, 113 S. W. 521 — 
 p. 2288. 
 
 J'. Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 108 S. W. 
 977— pp. 1694, 1752. 1755, 1978. 
 1979, 2113, 2288, 2289, 2308. 
 
 Lexington R. Co. i'. 
 
 f. I'tley. pp. 209, 211, 768. 
 
 i\ Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2300. 
 
 Herrman, East Tennessee, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 f. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2085, 3001. 
 
 Hersev, Emerv r. 
 
 Hersfield r. -\dams. pp. 771. 3369. 
 
 Hersh ',-. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 68, 86, 1179. 
 Herstine f. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 
 
 p. 2690. 
 Hertel, United R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 Hertzberg, Pacific Exp. Co. z: 
 Heshion v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2192. 
 Hess V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2333. 
 
 :•. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 nil, 1114. 
 
 Pac. R. Co. r. 
 Service R. Co., p. 
 
 etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 Co.. 
 
 Co. 
 
 R. 
 
 Northern 
 
 V. Public 
 
 2597. 
 
 V. South Dakota Cent. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 478, 493, 764, 831. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. ;■. 
 
 Hesse v. Meriden, etc.. Tramway 
 
 Co.. pp. 2196, 2301. 
 Hessler, International, 
 
 Co. V. 
 Hester Houston, etc., R. 
 
 V. Savannah Elect. 
 
 2225. 
 
 Hestonville Passenger R. 
 Connell, p. 2518. 
 
 7'. Grey, p. 2548. 
 
 Biddle 
 
 p. 2535 
 
 Biddle, 
 
 Crissey •'. 
 
 Keller v. 
 
 Sandford 
 
 Smedley v. 
 
 Hett V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 521, 573, 575. 
 Ileucke v. Milwaukee City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1720, 1724, 1999, 2007, 2896. 
 Heulc, North German Lloyd v. 
 Ileumphries v. Fremont, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 753, 2217. 
 Hewes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 75 
 
 N. E. 515, 217 111. 500— p. 2206. 
 r. Chicago, etc., R". Co., 119 
 
 111. App. 393— p. 2206. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2662. 
 
 Hewett V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 614, 732, 734, 743, 3289, 
 3402. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hewitt, Barnes t'. 
 
 . Galveston City R. Co. v. 
 
 Hewlett V. Burrell, p. 3895. 
 Heyde v. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2694, 2900. 
 Hcyer, Mottram t'. 
 Heyl i: Inman Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 7.43, 821. 
 Heyman, Southern R. Co. r- 
 J.. Southern R. Co., p. 573. 
 
 '•. Stryker, p. 512. 
 
 Heyser, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hey ward f. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1752, 2798. 
 Hiatt i: Des Moines, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1797, 2963. 
 Ilibbard, -\dams Exp. Co. r. 
 
 -■. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1612, 1637, 1638, 1542, 2411, 
 2413, 2420, 2424, 2431, 2473, 
 -474. 
 
 Hibbitts, Missouri, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 Hibernia Ins. Co. f. St. Louis. 
 
 etc., Transp. Co., pp. 1037, 4021. 
 Ilibler r. McCarthy, pp. 776, 1017. 
 Hickenbottom v. Delaware, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 1881. 
 Hickey v. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2179, 2238. 
 
 r. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1559, 1574. 
 
 Choctaw, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Washington, etc.. R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Hickman r. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 189(., 2232. 
 
 Hickory Marble, etc.. Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., p. 153. 
 
 Hickox r. Naugatuck R. Co.. pp. 
 285. 3125, 3126, 3135, 3139, 
 3140. 
 
 Hicks, -Abbott r. 
 
 r. Galvesto;!, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2(o6. 
 
 f. Georgia Southern, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2113. 2220. 2237. 
 
 Hicks V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., p. 
 3089. 
 
 -•. Pacific R. Co., pp. 2501, 
 
 2503, 2536, 254L 
 
 f. Wabash K. Co., pp. 894, 
 
 899, 3145. 
 
 Hiers f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2831. 
 Hieskell f. Farmers', etc., Nat. 
 
 Jiank, p. 3274. 
 Higby, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Higdon, Kansas City, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Higgins f. Cherokee R. Co., pp. 
 
 1569, 1689, 1826, 2541, 2775. 
 
 'v. Hamburg-.American Packet 
 
 Co.. p. 3913. 
 
 r. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1953. 
 
 J'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3062. 
 
 V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2102. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co.. pp. 2411, 
 
 2482. 2528. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 515. 568. 611, 638. 663, 
 667. 668. 680, 695, 982. 
 
 f. United States Mail, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 336, 337. 
 
 -■. Watervliet, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2411, 2483. 
 
 Higgs, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Topeka City R'. Co. v. 
 
 High I'. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 High Co. r. -Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 881. 
 High Point, etc., R. Co., Cox v. 
 Highland -Ave., etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Burt, pp. 1899, 1900, 1903. 
 
 Daniel f. 
 
 V. Donovan, pp. 1953, 2173, 
 
 2180. 
 
 I'. Dusenberry, p. 2641. 
 
 Mc Daniel "'. 
 
 '■. Robinson, pp. 2532, 2543. 
 
 ■:■. Winn, p. 2660. 
 
 Higliland St. R. Co., Cronin v. 
 Iliglev f. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp.' 1196, 1198, 1199. 
 
 Gilmer i'. 
 
 Highnote, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 V. Gilmer, pp. 1501, 1504, 
 
 1505, 1559, 2516, 2725, 2726. 
 
 Hildcbrand, Porter r. 
 
 Hiles, Clark ;•. 
 
 Hill r. -Adams Exp. Co., 78 N. J. 
 
 L. 333, 74 -Atl. 674— pp. 486, 
 
 1034, 1066. 
 
 f. -Adams Exp. Co., 80 N. 
 
 T. L. 604, 77 -Atl. 1073— p. 987. 
 
 -^— r. Adams Exp. Co., 82 N. J. 
 L. 373. 81 -Atl. 859— pp. 1029, 
 1030. 1066, 1068. 
 
 — -Alabama, etc.. R. Co. ;•. 
 
 — r. Birmingham L'nion R. Co., 
 p. 2224. 
 
 — V. Boston, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 986, 994, 995, 1074, 1401, 1403. 
 
 — Chesapeake, etc.. Canal Co. t: 
 
 — V. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 2640, 2693. 
 
 — Choctaw, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 — Covell f. 
 
 — Denner, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 — r. Georgia, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 811, 3327, 3347. 
 
 — Gould V. 
 
 — Great Falls, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — Grout f. 
 
 — Houston, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 — f. Humphreys, pp. 534, 602. 
 
 f. Illinois, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 1209 
 
 r. Leadbetter. pp. 114j, 11/2, 
 
 r. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2115, 2357, 2511. 
 
 Lvons f.
 
 CXCII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Hill, McNeil r. ^ ^ ^ 
 
 t . Minneapolis St. R. to., 
 
 pp. 1737, 1742. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3343. „ ^ 
 
 V. New Orleans, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 3065, 3068. 
 
 — — i: Ninth Ave. R. Co., p. 200o. 
 
 V. P. & R. K. Co., p. 2738. 
 
 f. Pullman Co.. pp. 3209, 
 
 3215. 3217, 3232, 3234. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 :■. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 67 
 
 Ark. 402, 55 S. VV. 21(>— o. 3273. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 109 
 
 S. W. 523. 85 Ark. 529, 28 R. 
 R. R. 753, 51 .Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas.. N. S., 753— pp. 1524. 1534, 
 1537, 1897, 2351, 2906, 2909. 
 
 -•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 75 S. W, 874 
 —pp. 88, 226. 
 
 V. Scott, p. 729. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Starin, pp. 4000, 4001, 
 
 4003. 
 
 V. Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 323— pp. 
 
 728. 730, 745, 746, 778, 821. 
 
 f. Sturgeon, 35 Mo. 212. 86 
 
 Am. Dec. 149— pp. 778, 1040. 
 
 r. Syracuse, etc., R. Co.. 63 
 
 N. Y. 101— pp. 1624, 1636, 2447, 
 2745. 
 
 f. Svracuse. etc., R. Co., 73 
 
 N. Y. '351. 29 .\m. Rep. 163— 
 pp. 321, 325. 333, 335. 984, 987. 
 
 Virginia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Z-. Wadlev Southern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 40, 44. '76. 
 
 z: West End St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2351. 
 
 z'. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 on. 1087, 1113. 
 
 Hill Mfg. Co. V. Boston, etc., R. 
 Corp., pp. 892. 417, 3295. 
 
 Providence, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 f. Providence. etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 844. 
 
 Hilliard, Frazer & Co. z\ 
 
 z: Goold, pp. 1597, 2413, 
 
 2467. 
 
 Singleton f. 
 
 Swindler v. 
 
 z\ Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 894, 901. 
 
 Hillis z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3147. 3221. 3222. 3224, 3229, 
 
 3230. 
 Hillman -'. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2505. 
 
 '•. Georgia R., etc.. Co.. pp. 
 
 1945, 2017, 2417, 2418, 2961, 
 2962. 
 
 Denver City Tramway Co. v. 
 
 Hillsdale Coal, etc., Co. z: Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., p. 228. 
 
 Hillsdale, etc., Turnpike R'oad, 
 
 People z: 
 Hilson, Cherokee Packet Co. v. 
 Hilton, Bowman v. 
 Hilton Lumber Co. v. Atlantic. 
 
 etc.. R. Co.. 136 N. C. 479, 48 
 
 S. E. 813— p. 96. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 141 
 
 X. C. 171, 53 S. E. 823. 6 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 225- pp. 87. 96. 
 
 Hilton, etc.. Lumber Co.. Actiesel- 
 
 skabct Barfod v. 
 Himelright z: Johnson, p. 2537. 
 Hinckley z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3087. 
 
 z: Danbury, pp. 1742, 1959. 
 
 z: New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 333. 3297. 3298. 
 
 z\ Wilson Lumber Co., p. 
 
 3960. 
 
 Hindoo, Unnevehr v. 
 
 Hinds. Nashville, etc.. Railway v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hindsdell, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hindsman. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hine. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Pennsvlvania Co. f. 
 
 The. 
 
 Hines z: Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 pp. 1690, 1971. 
 
 V. Dry Docke, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2567. 
 
 z\ Wilmington, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 86, 138. 
 
 Hines Lumber Co. v. Chamber- 
 lain, p. 3941. 
 
 Hines, etc., Co., Central R., etc., 
 Co. z: 
 
 Hingham, etc.. Turnpike Corp. '■. 
 Norfolk, p. 114. 
 
 Hinkle -'. Southern K. Co., pp. 
 822, 1039, 1107, 1389, 1427. 
 
 Hinkley z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3346. 
 
 Hinote z: Brigman. p. 2921. 
 
 Hinsdale, Southern Kansas R. Co. 
 
 Hinshaw z\ Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1868. 
 Hinson v. Lott, p. 3551. 
 Hinton v. Eastern R. Co., pp. 
 
 724. 821. 1036, 1038. 
 Hiort z: London, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 849. 
 Hipp I'. Southern R. Co., pp. 816, 
 
 869, 873, 897. 
 Hipsley z\ Kansas, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2694, 2735. 
 Hiram, The. 
 Hiram Blow & Co., Louisville, etc 
 
 K. Co. z: 
 Hirsch, Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. '.•. 
 
 Z'. Hudson River Line, pp- 
 
 816, 817. 
 
 V. Leathers, p. 3295. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. "■. 
 
 v. New England Nav. Co., 
 
 93 N. E. 524, 200 N. Y. 263— p. 
 417. 
 
 7'. New England Nav. Co.. 
 
 113 N. Y. S. 395, 129 App. Div. 
 178 — p. 3616. 
 
 z: Steamboat Quaker City, 
 
 pp. 893, 901, 902, 910. 
 
 z: Union R. Co., p. 2799. 
 
 Hirschberg z'. Brooklyn, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2877. 
 
 z\ Dinsmore, p. 1087. 
 
 Hirschsohn v. Hamburgh .Ameri- 
 can Packet Co., p. 3119. 
 
 Hirshfield v. Central Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 896, 900. 
 Hirst, Florida So. R. Co. v. 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 Hirte z'. Eastern Wisconsin, R., 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 2485, 2784. 
 His Creditors, Lalande ?■. 
 Historical Pub. Co. v. Adams Exp. 
 
 Co., p. 3343. 
 Hitchcock z'. Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 
 44 Hun 627, 8 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 
 848— p. 2683. 
 
 V. Brooklyn City R. Co., SO 
 
 Hun 606, 3 N. Y. S. 218, 21 N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 945— p. 2821. 
 
 Counselman z\ 
 
 Covell v. 
 
 Hite z: Central Railroad, pp. 708, 
 716. 
 
 Central R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1687, 1984, 1992, 2673, 2674. 
 Hix V. Eastern Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 931, 945, 983. 
 Hixson, Harrison v. 
 Hoadley z'. Northern Transp. Co , 
 
 pp. 320. 744, 958, 1034. 
 lloagland, Pennsylvani? C">. v. 
 Hoar z: Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1505, 1760. 
 Hoard, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hobart, Attorney General z: 
 
 Lake Shore Elect. Railway v. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hobart -■. Norton, p. 3902. 
 
 Hobart & Co. z: Littlefield Bros., 
 
 pp. 352, 368. 
 Hobbs, Arkansas River Packet Co. 
 
 z: Chicago Packing, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 551. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 z'. Memphis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2579. 
 
 — — Southern R'. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 203. 2423, 2476, 2478. 
 
 Hobensack, Mershon f. 
 
 Hoblit :■. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2319, 2986. 
 Hoboken Land, etc., Co., Hazman 
 
 Hochstim, Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Hocker, Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 Hockett, .American Exp. Co. Z'. 
 
 Indianapolis St. R. Co. f. 
 
 Hockfield v. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 700, 3426, 3495. 
 Hocking Valley R. Co., Johnson 
 
 Coal Min. Co. z: 
 Klunk I'. 
 
 Railroad Commission '■. 
 
 L'nited States "■. 
 
 z: United States, pp. 3604, 
 
 3633, 3706, 3846. 
 
 Hocking Valley Railway -'. Rail- 
 road Comm., pp. 1594, 1595. 
 
 Hodapp, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 z\ 
 
 Hodde, Houston, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Hodgdon '•. New York, etc., K. 
 Co., p. 709. 
 
 Hodge, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Hodges z\ I'earse, p. 2726. 
 
 Dillingham '■. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. T. 
 
 ■;■. New Hanover Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 1799, 2143. 
 
 z\ Peacock, p. 1168. 
 
 Savannah Elect. Co. •:•. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., 120 N. 
 
 C. 555, 27 S. E. 128. 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 46— pp. 
 1880, 2906. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co., 122 N. 
 
 C. 992, 29 S. E. 939— p. 2256. 
 
 Williams z'. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2562. 
 
 Hodgson. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Loy, pp. 1210, 1228. 
 
 Hodkinson z\ London & N. W. R. 
 
 Co., p. 3173. 
 Hoeffner. Springfield Consol. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Hoeflich, Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hoeger v. Chicago, etc., R. Co , 
 pp. 3149, 3161, 3169, 3174. 
 
 Hoehn f. Chicago etc., R'. Co., p. 
 2248. 
 
 Hoeing, Adams Exp. Co. -•. 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 477, 
 
 489. 
 
 Hoelljes 7'. Interurban St. R. Co.. 
 pp. 1650, 2425. 
 
 Hoerr, Peoria, etc.. Terminal Rail- 
 way V. 
 
 Hoifard 7'. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 p. 3174. 
 
 Hoffbauer, Citizens' St. R. Co. z\ 
 
 J'. Delhi, etc., R. Co., pn. 
 
 196. 1596. 1597, 2429, 2467. 
 2473. 
 
 Hoffbcrt V. Bumford, pp. 822, 828. 
 Tloffecker. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hoffekl z'. United States, pp. 4048, 
 
 4053. 
 Hoffman -•. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2723, 2918, 2932, 2943, 
 
 2951. 
 
 f. Cumberland \'alley R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3289, 3327.
 
 TAHI.F. OF CASES. 
 
 CXCIII 
 
 Hoffman v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 508, 511, (j07, 1112, 3355. 
 Hawkins t. 
 
 Indiana K. Co. r. 
 
 V. Lako Shore, etc., R. di., 
 
 p. 494. 
 
 V. National City Hank, pp 
 
 396, 397. 
 
 T. New York, etc., R. Co., 87 
 
 N. Y. 25, 41 Am. Rep. 337— pp. 
 2529, 2530, 2533. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1— pp. 2548, 
 2664. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 46 
 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 526— pp. 2414, 
 2548. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1616, 2711. 
 
 r. Third Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2669, 2672, 2691, 2695. 
 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3289, 3323, 3348. 
 
 Western Union 'I'el. Co. Z'. 
 
 Hoffman Co., Midland Valley Co. 
 
 Hoffman Coal Co., Midland Valley 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Hoffman, etc.. Stave Co. v. St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R'. Co., pp. 218, 261. 
 HolTmans, The. 
 Hoffmayer, Savannah, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Hogan V. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 1596. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2313. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. t. 
 
 N'incent -•. 
 
 Hogg, Houston, etc., R. Co. i: 
 Hogner z: Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1501, 1505, 1507. 2853. 
 Ilogue. .\tchison. etc., R. Co. z: 
 Hohl f. Norddeutscher Lloyd, p. 
 
 4027. 
 Hoke r. United States, p. 3441. 
 Holbrook, Eastern Kentucky R. 
 
 Co. I'. 
 
 Felton f. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Utica. etc.. R. Co.. pp. 2667, 
 
 2673. 
 
 r. Vose, pp. 1211. 1225. 
 
 Hoick. Landa z\ 
 
 Holcomb, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 I'. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Ilolcombe, .Atlanta, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Southern R'. Co., pp. 1513, 
 
 1538, 2501, 2903. 
 
 Ilolcombe & Co., .\tlanta, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Holden, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2331, 2357. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 
 Z-. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3402. 
 
 V. Rutland R. Co., p. 2625. 
 
 Holder, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Holderman, Pennsylvania Co. z: 
 Holuridgc, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Utica, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3159, 3171. 
 
 Holladay. Ilellnian z-. 
 
 z\ Kennard, pp. 725, 72b, 
 
 74(.. 748. 751. 
 
 Hollahan f. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2679, 2899. 
 Holland z: Chicago, etc.. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 694, 936, 955. 975. 1100. 
 
 1308, 1311. 
 
 -'. Columbus R. Co., pp. 2043. 
 
 2048, 20(i4. 
 
 -■. Gammett, p. 3920. 
 
 House z\ 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z\ Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 ■ p. 2235. 
 
 Muser z: 
 
 1 Car — m 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 etc., 
 2319, 
 
 1687, 
 
 749, 
 3143, 
 
 Co., 
 
 IluUand, Rawson ;■. 
 
 :■. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2694. 
 
 V. 725 Tons of Coal, p. 3891. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 t. West End St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1995, 2191, 2801. 
 Williams z\ 
 
 Witheck Z'. 
 
 Holland Hldg. Co., Goldsmith z: 
 Holland Gulf Steamshipping Co. v. 
 
 Ilagar, pp. 3959, 3967. 
 Iloleman v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2888. 
 Holley z: Jamestown, etc.. Ferry 
 
 Co.. p. 2785. 
 Holliday z\ Boston Elev 
 
 pp. 2339, 2859. 
 
 z: Coe, p. 1143. 
 
 G. C. & S. F. R. Co. z: 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Longmeid "•. 
 
 • United States z\ 
 
 llollingsworth z\ Cincinnati, 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2161, 2198, 
 2346. 
 
 V. Napier, p. 1227. 
 
 I'. Skelding, pp. 1683, 
 
 2810. 
 
 Hollis, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 Hollistcr z: Nowlen, pp. 733, 
 
 1003, 1007, 3141, 3142, 
 
 3163. 3165. 
 Ilollman !■. Houston, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 1689, 2115. 
 Ilollocher -'. Hollocher, p. 340. 
 Holloway, Atchison, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 • Central, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Memphis, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. Pasadena, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2347, 2891. 
 
 Selway r. 
 
 Hollowell, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. •:•. 
 
 Holly z\ .Atlanta St. Railroad, pp. 
 1748, 2016, 2024, 2606, 2940. 
 
 Creery "'. 
 
 z'. Huggeford, p. 1164. 
 
 Louisiana R., etc., Co. -■. 
 
 -•. Southern R'. Co., p. 3163. 
 
 Holman z\ Gans Steamship Line, 
 
 pp. 3963, 3965, 3969, 3970. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Union St. R. Co., p. 2869. 
 
 Holmes, Adams Exp. Co. t'. 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 f. .Allegheny Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1712, 1892, 2147, 2721, 2867. 
 
 • .Ashtabula R.apid Transit Co. 
 
 -'. .Ashtabula Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., pp. 1714, 1716, 2113, 2249, 
 2319. 
 
 .Atchison, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 "'. Birmingham, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1567. 
 
 z'. Carolina Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 3054. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Manter f. 
 
 -■. North German Lloyd Steam- 
 ship Co.. pp. 4035. 
 
 z: North, etc.. Steamship Co., 
 
 . p. 3167. 
 
 7'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2288. 
 
 f. Pennsvlvania R. Co., p. 
 
 573. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Wakel^eld, p. 2413. 
 
 Holmes, etc., Co. z\ German Se- 
 curity Bank, p. 363. 
 
 Holohan -•. Washington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2116. 
 Holsapple, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hoist z: Pownall, p. 1232. 
 
 Robinson -■. 
 
 Holt, Fox z: 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 -. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 74 
 
 S. W. 631, 174 Mo. 524— pp. 
 2474, 2663, 2715. 
 
 -J. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 87 
 
 Mo. -App. 203— pp. 1562, 2715. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. t. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wahl -■. 
 
 z: Westcott. pp. 1148, 1149 
 
 1150. 
 
 Holtzclaw I-. Duff, pp. 894, 899. 
 
 Hoi way, Carroll -'. 
 
 Holyoke z\ Grand Trunk R. C'j., 
 
 pp. 2736, 2741. 
 Holyoke St. R. Co., Blanchette : 
 
 McGarry v. 
 
 Holzab f. New Orleans, etc., K 
 
 Co., pp. 2127, 2260. 
 Holzenkamp, Cincinnati Tract. Co. 
 
 I'. 
 
 f. Cincinnati Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1504, 1508, 1509, 1517. 
 
 Home Industry Iron Works. Ras- 
 
 mussen -■. 
 Home Ins. Co.. Minneapolis, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 ?•. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 855. 
 
 Homer, Georgia R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Oregon, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 946, 3162, 3810, 3814. 
 
 Ilomesly z'. Elias, p. 538. 
 Homeyer, .Adams r. 
 
 Davenport Nat. Bank r. 
 
 Homiston z: Long Island R. Co., 
 
 p. 2432. 
 Honea. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Honevman -■. Oregon, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp.' 211. 236. 242, 243, 3122. 
 
 3155, 3165. 
 Hood, Malott z: 
 
 z: New York etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 3175. 3321. 3327. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. Z-. 
 
 Hood Rubber Co. z\ Rutland Trans. 
 
 Co.. pp. 3863, 3876. 
 Hooe Z-. Mason, p. 1145. 
 Hook. St. Louis, etc.. R'. Co. r. 
 Hooker, Boston, etc.. Railroad z: 
 
 7'. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 3163, 3165. 
 
 f. De Palos, p. 1861. 
 
 7'. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 pp. 3678, 3798. 
 
 Jacobs 7'. 
 
 -■. Knapp, p. 3835. 
 
 McCotter 7'. 
 
 Hooks 7'. .Alabama, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1920, 1922, 2906. 
 Hooks Smelting Co. 7.'. Plante-s" 
 
 Compress Co.. p. 642. 
 Hooper '•. California, pp. 3445. 
 
 3471. 
 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. pP 
 
 490. 885. 3286. 3401. 
 
 7'. London R. Co.. p. 3180. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1701. 
 
 Northern Texas Tract. Co. 7-. 
 
 z: Wells, Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 727. 732. 748. 966, 967. 1012. 
 1013. 3289. 3360, 3370, 3371. 
 
 Hooper & Co., Steamship Wellesley 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Hoosey, Camden, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 Hoosier Stone Co. 7'. Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 448. 
 Hoover. Chicago, etc., R. Co. z-. 
 
 Manning 7-. 
 
 7'. Pennsvlvania R. Co.. pp. 
 
 92, 95. U<.. 1177. 1179, 1181. 
 1183. 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 
 1188, 1192. 
 
 7'. Tibbits p. 1239. 
 
 Hope 7'. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 p. 3372. 
 
 Mierson z\ 
 
 Hopkins 7'. .Atlantic, etc.. Railroad, 
 p. 30(.8.
 
 CXCIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 Hopkins r. Boyd, p. 2543. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 2657. 
 
 Georgia R., etc.. Co. t. 
 
 Medburv f. 
 
 f. Michigan Tract. Co.. p. 
 
 2617. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 333. 
 
 L'nited States z: 
 
 f. United States, pp. 3418, 
 
 3419, 3421, 3432, 3435, 3445. 
 
 f. Westcott. pp. 986, 991, 
 
 1006, 3115, 3127, 3128, 3166. 
 
 Hopkinsville Canning Co., Illinois 
 
 Cent. R. Co. r. 
 Hopper f. Denver, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2696. 
 Hopperton v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1865. 
 Horan v. Rockwell, pp. 1698, 2193. 
 Horgan r. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2051. 
 Horn, Cuddy v. 
 
 f. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 p. 3998. 
 
 Horn Silver Min. Co. f. State, 
 
 p. 3471. 
 Hornbeck, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hornberger, Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Home. Atlanta, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Marsh f. 
 
 Riley r. 
 
 West Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Home- -Andrews Comm. Co. v. 
 
 Georgia R. Co., pp. 272, 284. 
 Horner, Felton 7'. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Hornesby v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1646, 1649, 2438. 
 
 Hornstein v. United Railways, p. 
 2668. 
 
 Hornthal v. Roanoke, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co., pp. 917, 918. 
 
 Horseman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 p. 339. 
 
 Horst, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Horton f. Erie R'. Co., pp. 1619, 
 
 1620. 
 Horton V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2128, 2809. 
 
 f. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3431. 
 
 Southern R. Co. '■. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., p. 114. 
 
 Hosapple v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1019, 1022. 
 Hosea v. McCrory, pp. 277, 280, 
 
 723, 771. 
 Hosking, Western Transit Co. v. 
 Hoskins, Merchants' Dispatch 
 
 Transp. Co. v. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 464, 1044. 
 
 f. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1575, 1576, 1577, 1985, 2585, 
 2588. 
 
 T. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 3137, 3139. 
 
 Hosmer t'. Old Colony R. Co., pp. 
 
 1577, 2101, 2106. 
 Hospes V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1760. 
 Hossfeld South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Hostetter v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 333, 454. 
 
 Chicago etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Park, pp. 328, 510, 1020, 
 
 3889, 4021. 
 
 Hot Springs v. Curry, p. 112. 
 
 -l\ Demby, p. 111. 
 
 Hot Springs Railroad, Gallena v. 
 Hot Springs R. Co., Boyla'i v. 
 
 V. Deloney, pp. 2458, 3051. 
 
 Hot Springs R. Co. '.■• Iludgins. 
 pp. 585, 587. 
 
 z: Trippe & Co., pp. 328ii, 
 
 312. 
 
 Hotchkiss f. Artisans' Bar.k, p. 
 544. 
 
 Kirtland z\ 
 
 Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hotel Stevens Co., Wheeler z: 
 Hotenbrink f. Boston Elevated R. 
 
 Co., p. 1830. 
 Houck z: Southern Pac. R. Co , 
 
 pp. 1944, 1949. 
 Hough, Jones z\ 
 
 Lynde z'. 
 
 Wolf z: 
 
 Houghton z: Louisville R. Co., pp. 
 2820, 2956. 
 
 z: Market St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2699. 
 
 Houghton County St. R. Co., Bar- 
 tie z: 
 Houlder, Steamship Rutherglen Co. 
 
 Hourney z: Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2181, 2810, 2895. 
 Housatonic R. Co., Coupland v. 
 
 Sanford z\ 
 
 Tucker v. • 
 
 House !■. Alexander, p. 1166. 
 
 ■;■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3118, 3123, 3127, 3128, 3177. 
 
 Galveston, etc. R. Co. f. 
 
 Gulf etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Holland, pp. 331, 3i2, 333, 
 
 337 
 
 'z: Metcalf, p. 2738. 
 
 -^ — z: Soder, pp. 565, 753, 889, 
 
 1144, 1146. 
 Houseman z: Fargo, pp. 3745, 3749. 
 Houston, Brown z\ 
 
 Doherr v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Gate City St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2545. 
 
 Schurr v. 
 
 Shurr z: 
 
 Houston City, etc., R. Co. f. Desso, 
 p. 1694. 
 
 z: Ross, p. 1694. 
 
 z: Wheeler, p. 1694. 
 
 Houston Coal, etc., Co. v. Nor- 
 folk, etc., R. Co. p. 3819. 
 
 Houston Direct Nav. Co., Cook -■. 
 
 z'. Insurance Co., pp. 935, 
 
 937. 
 
 Markham z\ 
 
 Houston Elect. Co., Gilmore '•. 
 
 Green ;. 
 
 Lewis 7'. 
 
 c'. Nelson, p. 1731. 
 
 z: Park, p. 2052. 
 
 Townsend ". 
 
 Houston Elect. St. R. Co. -.■. Elvis, 
 
 p. 2128. 
 Houston Transfer, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Whitcomb, pp. 857, 858. 
 Houston, etc., Nav. Co., Cook z'. 
 
 '.'. Dwyer, pp. 729, 733, 750, 
 
 768, 3899. 
 
 I'. Insurance Co., p. 3331. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 
 pp. 7, 512, 539, 549, 550. 551, 
 552, 553, 563, 897, 901. 
 
 z\ Anderson, p. 3138. 
 
 - z: Arey, pp. 1627, 1630, 2443, 
 2458. 
 
 V. Baker, p. 1028. 
 
 v. Barden, p. 809. 
 
 -— v. Batchlcr, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 14, 73 S. W. 981— pp. 1537, 2055. 
 
 z: Batchler, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 116, 83 S. W. 902— pp. 2046, 
 2055, 2607. 
 
 Bath z\ 
 
 z: Bath, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 697, 711, 44 S. W. 595— pp. 739, 
 835, 959, 1039, 1041, 1042. 
 
 •:•. Bath, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 270. 90 S. W. 55— pp. 345, 837, 
 838. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, pp. 
 2437, 2716. 
 
 Bessling & Co. -■. 
 
 z\ Boiling, pp. 1553, 2522. 
 
 Boozer, p. 1978. 
 
 Brashcar z\ 
 
 z. Bright, p. 3509. 
 
 z: Brown, 33 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 237, 238, 76 S. W. 580— pp. 860, 
 1316, 1317, 1327. 
 
 z: Brown, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 595, 85 S. W. 44— p. 1276. 
 
 z: Bryant, pp. 1956, 2179. 
 
 • !•. Buchanan, 38 Te.x. Civ. 
 
 App. 165, 84 S. W. 1073— p. 
 
 1474. 
 . V. Buchanan, 42 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 620, 625, 94 S. W. 199— 
 
 pp. 158, 507, 508, 1293. 
 . Bullock z\ 
 
 v. Burke, pp. 729, 759, 858. 
 
 862, 933, 934. 
 
 z: Burns, pp. 1300, 1343. 
 
 •;■. Bush, 104 Tex. 26, 133 S 
 
 W. 245, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1201— p. 2046. 
 
 z: Bush (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 123 S. W. 201— p. 2048. 
 
 z: Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 
 
 561, 45 S. W. 2, 42 L. R. A. 
 225— pp. 136, 157, 158, 159, 160, 
 161, 174, 230, 265, 421. 1276. 
 
 z'. Campbell (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 40 S. W. 431— p. 472. 
 
 z: Cheatham, pp. 1985, 2694, 
 
 2898, 2900. 
 
 7'. Clemmons, pp. 2116, 2163, 
 
 2210. 
 
 Cluck T. 
 
 v. Cohn, pp. 1532, 1906, 1908. 
 
 1909, 2410. 
 
 - z: Copley, pp. 1881, 1882. 
 
 ■;'. Crone, p. 2439. 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 z: Davis, 88 Tex. 593, 32 S. 
 
 W. 510— pp. 809, 1092, 1095, 
 1122, 1414, 1415, 1431. 
 
 z: Davis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 24 31 S. W. 308— pp. 959, 1079, 
 1086, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 
 1107, 1116, 1117, 1409, 1414, 
 1421, 1423. 
 
 z\ Davis, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 74, 109 S. W. 422— p. 1105. 
 
 V. Devainy, pp. 2234, 2452, 
 
 2477. 
 
 v. Dotson, pp. 1518, 1866, 
 
 1884, 1920. 
 
 7'. Dumas, pp. 3753, 3754. 
 
 Easton v. 
 
 7'. Easton, p. 1532. 
 
 Ellis z: 
 
 V. Lverett, 99 Tex. 269, 89 
 
 S. W. 761— pp. 507, 3297, 3299. 
 3300, 3311, 3398. 
 
 — V. Everett (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 86 S. W. 17— p. 3487. 
 
 — Farrell v. 
 
 — z: Faulkner (Tex. Civ. .'\pp.), 
 56 S. W. 253— p. 2782. 
 
 — z: Faulkner (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 63 S. W. 655— p. 2467. 
 
 — '■. Ford, pp. 1610, 1627, 2438. 
 
 — z'. Foster, pp. 608, 654, 657. 
 
 — 7'. George, pp. 1694, 1729, 
 1978. 
 
 — V. Goodyear, pp. 1895, 1907. 
 
 — V. Gorbett, np. 2037, 2065, 
 2113, 2117, 2118, 2119. 
 
 — V. Gray, p. 1477. 
 
 z\ Greer, pp. 1685, 1719, 
 
 1731, 1732, 1846, 2881. 
 
 — '■. Grigsby, p. 2531. 
 
 — z: Groves, pp. 809, 3337, 
 334? 
 
 — z'. Grubbs, p. 1796. 
 
 — ^. Hampton, pp. 1575, 2205. 
 
 — V. Harn. pp. 517, 809, 852. 
 
 — V. Harris, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 
 179, 70 S. W. 335— pp. 1885, 
 1886.
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 CXCV 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. :. Harris 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), liO S. W. 550 
 —p. 1989. 
 
 V. Harry & Uros., pp. 21, 22, 
 
 38, 1^6, 512. 
 
 Hays V. 
 
 r. Hester, p. 1104. 
 
 V. Hill, 63 Tex. 381, 51 Am. 
 
 Rep. 642— pp. 417, 659, 1641, 
 3 '51 
 
 r'. Hill, 70 Tex. 51, 7 S. W. 
 
 659— pp. 136, 1641. 
 
 V. Hodde, pp. 268, 271, 272, 
 
 273, 275, 276, 296. 
 
 V. Hogg, pp. 546, 678. 
 
 H oilman v. 
 
 Horton v. 
 
 V. Houx, pp. 509, 693. 
 
 V. Hubbard, pp. 2597, 2598. 
 
 r. Jackson. 62 Tex. 209, 213, 
 
 21 Am. &. Kng. R. Cas. 126— 
 pp. 639, 662, 851, 853, 855, 856, 
 1350. 
 
 V. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 61 S. W. 440— pp. 202, 2437, 
 2849. 
 
 V. Taphet & Co., p. 839. 
 
 V. Johnson, pp. 2172, 2176, 
 
 2184, 2220, 2354. 
 
 V. Keeling, 102 Tex. 521, 120 
 
 S. W. 847— pp. 1730, 1731. 
 
 V. Keeling, 51 Tex. Civ. App 
 
 386, 112 S. W. 808— p. 1727. 
 
 V. Keeling (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 142 S. W. 108— p. 1738. 
 
 Lamline 
 
 — V. Lee, pp 
 
 1691 
 
 2807. 
 
 
 — f. Leslie, 
 
 pp. 
 
 2113, 
 
 2114, 
 
 2116, 2117, 
 
 2118, 
 
 2119, 
 
 2127, 
 
 2257, 2263. 
 
 
 
 
 V. Lewis, pp. 
 
 360J 
 
 3662. 
 
 1781. 
 
 3311. 
 
 Lindsey, p. 2844 
 McCarty r. 
 McCarty, pp 
 
 1779, 
 
 MjCullough, pp. 
 McFadden, pp. 1039, 
 
 3661, 
 
 1780, 
 1575, 
 1041, 
 
 McGIossom, pp. 818, 864. 
 
 V. Mayes, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 31, 97 S. W. 318— pp. 451, 453, 
 1092, 1094, 1105, 1106, 1275, 
 1286, 1414, 3336, 3348. 
 
 J'. Mayes, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 621, 99 S. W. 1166— p. 1276. 
 
 V. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, SO 
 
 L. Ed. 772, 26 S. Ct. 491— pp. 
 3480,- 3481, 3485, 3486, 3487, 
 3503, 3504, 3515, 3516, 3517, 
 3523. 
 
 Metropolitian Trust Co. r. 
 
 V. Miller, p. 1766. 
 
 f. Moore, pp. 4, 30, 187, 188, 
 
 190, 191, 194, 198, 202, 1537, 
 1544, 1550, 1553, 1554, 2122, 
 2163, 2665. 
 
 V. Moss. pp. 1884, 2639. 
 
 V. Ney, pp. 858, 3395, 3396. 
 
 r. Norris, pp. 202, 1808, 
 
 2398, 2720. 
 
 Oxslier V. 
 
 f. Park, pp. 931. 938, 946, 
 
 949, 3289, 3326, 3331. 
 
 J'. Perkins, pp. 2017, 2018. 
 
 3228, 3229. 
 
 f. Peters, p. 3518. 
 
 f. Phillio, pp. 1510, 1513, 
 
 2018, 2020, 2028, 2499, 2510, 
 2527. 
 
 Poole "■. 
 
 V. Poole pp. 1209, 1212. 
 
 1215. 
 
 Railroad Comm. v. 
 
 •:•. Raud, pp. 1852. 2037. 
 
 f. Reason, pp. 1783, 1798. 
 
 f. Richards, 59 Tex. 373, 377 
 
 —p. 2163. 
 
 7: Richards, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 203, 49 S. W. 687— pp. 1689. 
 1808, 1846. 
 
 I'. Ritter, pp. 2482, 2483. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co., Robin.oi v. 
 
 V. Robinson, pp. 479, 486, 
 
 488, 490, 491. 
 
 V. Rogers, pp. 1678. 1822, 
 
 2905. 
 
 V. Rowcll, pp. 1991, 2643. 
 
 Runnels '•-. 
 
 r. Runnels, p. 1879. 
 
 r. Rust, pp. 82, 83, 220, 1180. 
 
 1183. 
 
 J'. Schuttee, p. 2153. 
 
 V. Scott, pp. 507, 3412. 
 
 V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R'. Cas. 421 — pp. 
 208, 211, 221, 222, 235, 246, 
 247, 248, 262, 263, 264, 499, 
 635, 657, 1493. 
 
 V. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 32 S. W. 710, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 177— p. 1868. 
 
 V. Smith, 44 '1 ex. Civ. App. 
 
 299, 97 S. W. 836— pp. 984. 
 1002, 1374, 3337. 
 
 r. Stell, pp. 203, 2122, 2437. 
 
 r. Stewart, 37 S. W. 770. 14 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 703— p. 2249. 
 
 V. Stewart, 21 Tex. Civ. -App. 
 
 33, 50 S. W. 580— pp. 1687, 
 1882, 1896, 2818. 
 
 -'. Storey, pp. 41, 52. 
 
 V. Summers, 92 Tex. 621, 51 
 
 S. W. 324— pp. 181 3,_ 2638, 2734. 
 
 V. Summers (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 49 S. W. 1106— pp. 1814, 
 1847, 2589, 2638, 2657. 
 
 r. Swancey, pp. 1822, 1841. 
 
 Thweatt v. 
 
 ■:•. Trammel!, pp. 533, 1278, 
 
 1279, 1299, 1335. 
 
 V. United States, 94 C. C. A. 
 
 307, 168 Fed. 895— p. 3629. 
 
 V. United States, 205 Fed. 
 
 391— p. 3605. 
 
 f. United States, 234 U. S. 
 
 342, 34 S. Ct. 833— p. 3709. 
 
 r. Waller, p. 2300. 
 
 v. Washington, pp. 1563, 
 
 2035, 2046. 
 
 r. White, pp. 202, 2437. 
 
 2849. 
 
 -'. Wilkcrson Bros., pp. 787, 
 
 881 
 
 r. Wilkms, pp. 1752, 1990. 
 
 7-. Williams, pp. 940, 1053, 
 
 1079, 1352, 1358, 1359. 
 
 Houtz f. Union Pac. R. Co., pp 
 1298, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364. 
 1370, 1418, 1419. 
 
 Houx, Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Ilouze f. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1476, 1477. 
 
 Hovey, McDonald 7\ 
 
 V. The Sarah E. Brown, p. 
 
 483. 
 
 Howard -•. American Exp. Co.. pp 
 796, 949. 1069. 
 
 Broadie t'. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 f. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2088, 3258, 3373. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p;i. 
 
 1614, 1624, 2441. 
 
 -•. Clark r. 
 
 f. Forty Second St., etc., R- 
 
 Co., pp. 1889. 2306. 
 
 f. Hlinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3439, 3441. 34(.l. 3462. 
 
 r. Louisville R. Co., pp. 1888. 
 
 1894. 2372. 2816. 
 
 Nashville Railroad f. 
 
 f. Old Dominion Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 550, 566. 
 
 Peyroux 7: 
 
 T. Scarritt Estate Co., p. 
 
 1735. 
 
 Southern R'. Co. "■. 
 
 f. State, p. 3582. 
 
 The. 
 
 Tison f. 
 
 f. Union Tract. Co., p. 2082. 
 
 Howard & Co's Exp.. Xewbcrger x' 
 Howard Exp. Co. ;. Wile. p. 916. 
 Howard Supplv Co., .\tlantic. etc., 
 
 R. Co. T. 
 
 Howard Supply Co. v. Chesapeake, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3815, 3824. 
 
 Howatt V. Davis, pp. 1207, 1209, 
 1210, 1212, 1213, 1249. 
 
 Howe v. C. IL & D. R. Co., pp. 
 
 477, 478. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 478, 803. 
 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1209. 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213. 
 1214, 1248, 1249, 1250. 
 
 Harris -■. 
 
 f. Lexington, p. 903. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2697. 
 
 V. Oswego, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 728, 730, 733, 749, 779, 781, 798. 
 
 I. Parker, p. 3792. 
 
 Howell, Florshein Bros. v. 
 
 I'. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 3143, 4010. 
 
 I'. Lansing City Elect. R- 
 
 Co., pp. •2118, 2260, 2400, 2869, 
 2882. 
 
 Linklater i'. 
 
 v. Morlan, p. 482. 
 
 V. St. Charles St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Southern R. Co. :•. 
 
 f. Union Tract. Co., p. 2821. 
 
 United States r. 
 
 Howells, Langdon f. 
 
 Howerton, Indianapolis, etc., R'. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Howland v. Greenway, pp. 3894, 
 3897, 3898, 3901, 4017. 4019. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2997. 
 
 f. Oakland Consol. St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2764. 
 
 f. The Henrj- Hood, p. 527. 
 
 Howze I'. New (Jrleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 1129. 
 Hove z: Pennsvlvania R. Co., 191 
 N. Y. 101, 83' N. E. 586, 17 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 641, 14 Am. & Eng. 
 .Ann. Cas. 414— pp. 1014. 1116. 
 
 7-. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 100 
 
 N. Y. S. 190. 114 App. Div. 821 
 —pp. 410. 874, 3406. 
 
 Hoyle, Pullman Co. f. 
 
 Hovlman 7: Kanawha, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p'p. 2248. 2289, 2290. 
 Hoyt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p 
 
 541. 
 
 7: Cleveland, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 157. 
 
 7: Nevada Countv, etc.. R 
 
 Co., p. 917. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2235. 
 
 v. Sixth Ave. R'. Co.. p. 65 
 
 7: Thompson, p. 1489. 
 
 Western Transp. Co. f. 
 
 Hozier •:'. Caledonian R. Co.. p 
 
 1181. 
 Hozzard f. Illinois, etc.. R. Co.. p 
 
 316. 
 Hrebrik f. Carr. pp. 1526, 1528 
 
 1964. 1965. 
 Hubbard. Baltimore, etc., Co. 7-. 
 
 Clyde 7: 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 7: Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1489, 3116, 3131, 3141. 3142. 
 3143. 3149. 3150. 
 
 Hubbard Bros. & Co., Southern R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Hubbard & Co. f. Harnden Exp. 
 
 Co., pp. 749, 751. 
 Hubbell, Chicago, etc., R. Co. T-. 
 Hubbersty f. Ward. pp. 306. 308. 
 Hubbs, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Hiibener 7: Heide. 70 X. Y. S. 
 1115. 62 App. Div. 368— p. 2837. 
 
 t . Heide. 76 X. Y. S. 758. 
 
 72 App. Div. 200— p. 2837. 
 
 Huber 7: Cedar Rapids, etc.. R- 
 Co.. p. 2206. 
 
 ;. United, etc.. German Con- 
 gregation, p. 1861.
 
 CXCVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Huchel I-. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2410. 
 Huchings v. Ladd. p. 3410. 
 Huchingson f. Texas Cent. K. Co., 
 
 p. 2510. ^ . „ 
 
 Huddleston 7'. St. Louis, etc., K. 
 
 Co., pp. 1787, 2680. 
 Hudelson, Indiana Cent. R. Co. :•. 
 Hudgins. Hot Springs R- Co. r. 
 
 Louisville City R. Co. f. 
 
 Hudman, Te.xas, etc., R. Co t'. 
 Hudson, Baltimore, etc., R; Co. f. 
 
 r. Lvnn, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2419, 2425, 24S9. 
 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co. :■. 
 
 t-. Midland R. Co.. p. 3117. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 653, 1112. 1113, 1321. 
 
 Hudson Bros. Comm. Co., Glencoe 
 
 Land, etc., Co. t'. 
 Hudson Nav. Co., Fulton, etc., 
 
 Cotton Mills v. 
 Hudson R. Co., Johnscm f. 
 Hudson River Lighterage Co. r. 
 
 Wheeler Condenser, etc., Co , 
 
 pp. 820, 823. 
 Hudson River Line, Hirsch -: 
 Hudson River R. Co., Bailey -■. 
 
 Bliven -'. 
 
 Boice "'. 
 
 Boswell J'. 
 
 Butler V. 
 
 Conger r. 
 
 Hedges f. 
 
 Kent V. 
 
 V. Lounsberry, p. 483. 
 
 McCormick .•. 
 
 Nelson -■. 
 
 Russell i: 
 
 Schroeder i'. 
 
 Sherman f. 
 
 Spade '•. 
 
 ■ \'an Schaick z\ 
 
 Webster z\ 
 
 Hudson N'alley R. Co., Powell r. 
 Hudson, etc., R. Co. r. State 
 
 Board, 96 N. E. 435, 203 N. Y. 
 119— p. 3576. 
 
 f. State Board, 127 N. Y. S. 
 
 918, 143 App. Div. 26 — n. 3553. 
 
 Huelscnkamp z: Citizens' R. Co., 
 34 Mo. 45— p. 2399. 
 
 V. Citizens' R. Co., 37 Mo. 
 
 537, 90 Am. Dec. 399— pp. 1684, 
 1715, 1720, 1721. 
 
 Huerstel z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2422. 
 Huff, Buckeye Nat. Bank -: 
 
 z: Cleveland, C. C. & St. Ry. 
 
 Co., p. 1745. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Turner z'. 
 
 Huffer, Citizens' St. K. Co. z: 
 Huffman, Lake Erie,, etc., R. Co 
 
 ^ South, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Huffnagle, Bolin z: 
 
 Hufford z: Grand Rapids, etc., R 
 Co., 53 Mich. 113, 18 N. W. 
 580— p. 2462. 
 
 V. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 
 
 64 Mich. 631, 31 N. W. 544. 8 
 Am. St. Rep. 859— pp. 200, 
 1649, 2462, 2713. 
 
 v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1922, 1997. 
 
 Hugen, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Huggeford, Holly z: 
 Huggins f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1454, 1456, 3407. 
 
 Chattanooga, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Hughart, Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Hughes, .Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 
 
 Iowa 232, 129 N. W. 956— pp. 
 2322, 2389. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 127 
 
 Mo. 447, 30 S. W. 127, 2 Am. 
 & Fng. R. Cas., N. S., 284— 
 p. 1787. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. C". 
 
 Hughes, Galloway r. 
 
 ?■. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2664. 
 
 Pecos, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. r. 
 
 Z-. Pennsylvania K. Co., pp. 
 
 940, 3520. 
 
 z: Pullman's Palace Car Co., 
 
 p. 3243. 
 
 Smith :■. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z\ Western Railroad, pp. 
 
 3050, 3056, 3059. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Hughlett z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co . 
 
 p. 2252. 
 Hughson 7'. Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1579, 1580. 
 
 7'. Winthrop Steamboat Co., 
 
 p. 3979. 
 
 Huguelet v. Warfield, pp. 1' 4 
 
 1081. 
 Huide Koper, McAfee t'. 
 Ilulbert 7'. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1794. 
 Hull 7'. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 190, 2016, 2035, 2412, 2422, 3112. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 821, 945, 1036, 1038, 1456. 
 
 7'. East Line, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 279, 1127, 1859, 1864, 1866, 
 1881. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7". Minneapolis, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1760, 2331. 
 
 Owings 7'. 
 
 7'. Seaboard Air l,we Rail- 
 way, p. 2949. 
 
 Hull & Co. 7'. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., pp. 569, 894, 910. 
 
 Humble, Texas, etc., R. Co. '.-. 
 
 Humboldt, The. 
 
 Humboldt Steamship Co., Inter- 
 state Commerce Comm. 7'. 
 
 Hume, Cohen 7'. 
 
 Hume Bros., Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Humeston, etc., R. Co., Garden 
 Grove Bank f. 
 
 Humphrey z: Michigan U' ited R. 
 Co., pp. 2058, 3065, 3076. 
 
 Tucker 7'. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Humphreys, Hill 7'. 
 
 • V. Perry, pp. 3125, 3151. 
 
 3152, 3153, 3154. 
 
 Porterfield 7'. 
 
 7'. Reed, pp. 869, 1167. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v 
 
 Humphreysville Copper Co. 7' 
 
 Vermont Copper Min. Co., p 
 668. 
 Humphries, Alabama Cent. R. Co 
 
 Hunt ',•. Missisi^ippi Cent. R. Co 
 pp. 294, 305, 306, 308, 315, 332 
 333, 337, 338. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R'. Co., p 
 
 712. 
 
 7'. Morris (La.), 6 Mart., O 
 
 S. 676, 12 Am. Dec. 489— pp. 727 
 737, 739. 
 
 7'. Morris, 12 N. T. L. 175, 22 
 
 Am. Dec. 300— p. 821. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 93 
 
 N. E. 787, 212 Mass. 102— p. 
 1590. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 (N. Y.), 1 Hilt. 228— pp. 3285. 
 3307. 
 
 r. Nutt, np. 782, 783, 3354, 
 
 3355. 
 
 '•. Old Colony St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2326. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 1558. 
 
 1561. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hunt Bros. 7'. Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 744. 
 Hunter 7'. .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2224. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., 
 
 112 N. Y. 371, 19 N. E. 820, 8 
 Am. St Rep. 752, 2 L. R. A. 
 832— p. 2127. 
 
 i\ Cooperstown, etc., R. Co., 
 
 126 N. Y. 18, 26 N. E. 958, 12 
 L. R. A. 429— p. 2124. 
 
 7'. Coopertown, etc., R. C'j., 
 
 p. 2373. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2253, 2282. 
 
 7'. New York, etc.. Salt Co., 
 
 p. 3869. 
 
 7'. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2595. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 419, 3747, 3749, 3760. 
 
 -'. Southern Pac. R'. Co., pp. 
 
 3289, 3327, 3331. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Southern Railway, 
 
 1662, 2661, 3044. 
 
 Hunter & Co., Texas Cent. R 
 
 Tract. 
 
 pp. 
 Co. 
 Co., 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. K. Co., p. 
 
 1861. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hundley, .Adams Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hungerford, State 7'. 
 
 7'. Winnebago, etc., Transp 
 
 Co., p. 522. 
 
 Hunnicutt, Birmingham R., etc , 
 Co. v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hunt 7'. Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 2797. 
 
 V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 1646. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Ellis v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 v. Haskell, p. 1145, 1168, 
 
 1170. 
 
 V. Mctcalf, p. 3865. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2698. 
 
 7'. Michigan, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3394, 3407. 
 
 '. Bos- 
 3259. 
 
 Hunterson 7'. L^nion 
 
 pp. 2153, 2290. 
 Huntington z>. Dinsmore, p. 408. 
 Huntley, Grand Rapids, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Iluntly V. Dows, p. 701. 
 Huntress, The. 
 Huntting Elevator Co. 
 
 worth, pp. 522, 523, 8i 
 Hurd, Crowley 7'. 
 Hurlbut, Jackson Architectural 
 
 Iron Works z'. 
 Hurley 7'. Big Sandy, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 87. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1902, 1997, 2268, 2269. 
 
 Huron Barge Co. i\ Turncy, p. 
 
 3966. 
 Hurley & Son 7'. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 564, 729, 878, 889, 897, 
 
 910. 
 Hurry 7'. Hurry, p. 3866. 
 Hurst, Central, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 7'. Great Western R. Co., p. 
 
 1671. 
 
 Monongahcla R'iver Consol. 
 
 Coal, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Railroad Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hurt, Commercial Bank v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp 
 
 2155, 2922.
 
 TABLE OF CASF.S. 
 
 cxcvir 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1344, 1369, 1391. 
 
 Hurt V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1896. 
 
 ■ Union Dray Lint- Co. v. 
 
 Ilurwitz z'. Hanil)urgh-Amcrican 
 
 Packet Co., pp. 3119, 3121, 3159. 
 IIus V. Kempf, p. 3942. 
 1 1 use V. Glover, pp. 3479, 3528, 
 
 3529, 3530, 3531, 3569. 
 Ilusen, Railroad Co. v. 
 Ilussey i: Saragossa, pp. 1455, 
 
 1456. 
 Huston V. Peters, p. 813. 
 Huston Bros, i: Wabash R. Co., 
 
 p. 217. 
 llutcheis r. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2384, 2403. 
 llutclieson 7: Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 74, 136, 939. 
 Ilutcliings V. Ladd, pp. 3251, 3270. 
 JIutcliings & Co. r. Western, etc., 
 
 K. Co., pp. 3109. 3114, 3124, 
 
 3125, 3126,' 3167, 3168. 
 Hutchingson, Texas Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Ilutchins, Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Macoinbcr, p. 2227. 
 
 V. Penobscot Hay, etc.. 
 
 Steamboat Co., p. 2508. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 3163, 3177. 
 
 Schoolher v. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co. f. 
 
 Hutchinson '•. Capital Traction 
 
 Co., p. 1963. 
 
 '•. Chicago, 
 
 320, 323, 986 
 
 Gordon v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Stump z\ 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 535, 564, 729, 734, 735. 750, 
 751, 752, 772. 773, 891, 910. 
 
 Hutchison z: Southern R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1857. 1859. 3057. 
 Hutchison Lumber, etc., Co., 
 
 Tyron Co. z\ 
 Hutkoflf I'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 822, 823. 
 Hutti, Louisville R. Co. z\ 
 Hutto z: Southern Railway, p. 
 
 3163. 
 Hyades, The. 
 
 Hvatt. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. ?•. 
 — ' — Ft. Worth, etc., R'. Co. z: 
 Hyde, East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. New York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 760. 
 
 V. Seattle Elect. Co.. p. 2810. 
 
 Hvdraulic Engineering Co. z-. Mc- 
 
 "Haffie. p. 638. 
 Hyett. Moulthrop z'. 
 Hyman -'. Central X'erniont R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3179, 3183. 
 Hynes, International, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 H."& T. C. R. Co. -•. Smith. | p. 
 82. 216. 
 
 z: State, p. 166. 
 
 z: Stewart & Co.. pp. 486. 
 
 490, 596. 
 
 Ickenroth '■. St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 p. 2483. 
 
 Idaho. Tlie. 
 
 Igo. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. -■. 
 
 Ikelheimer -■. Consolidate<l To- 
 bacco Co., p. 1165. 
 
 Hlinois, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dreyer '•. 
 
 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Keokuk, etc.. Bridge Co. v. 
 
 Munn I'. 
 
 Ruggles V. 
 
 The. 
 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. r. .\ble. pp. 
 
 2262. 2267. 
 
 z: Adams, pp 74o, 12S7, 
 
 1288, 1379. 
 
 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. v. Alexander, 
 pp. 714, 894. 
 
 V. Allen, pp. 195, 1496. 
 
 Ammon v. 
 
 V. Anderson, pp. 2098, 2099. 
 
 V. Antoon, p. 3124. 
 
 Ardison i'. 
 
 Armstrong -•. 
 
 Armstrong, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Arnold ?'. 
 
 V. Aslimead, pp. 250, 271, 
 
 273, 285, 287, 288, 438, 745. 
 
 r. Ball, p. 1893. 
 
 z: Bauer, pp. 1597, 1601, 
 
 2473, 2474. 
 
 Beard -•. 
 
 z: Beebe, 174 111. 13, 50 N. 
 
 E. 1019, 43 L. R. A. 210, 66 
 Am. St. Rep. 253, 11 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 163 — pp. 
 429, 1489. 1490. 1757, 1992, 2097, 
 2098, 2099, 2216. 
 
 r. Beebe, 69 HI. App. 363— 
 
 pp. 2092, 2093, 2671. 
 
 z: Billington, p. 1592. 
 
 Bishop "'. 
 
 z: Black, p. 2664. 
 
 Blank f. 
 
 Bogard t. 
 
 7'. Bogard, pp. 1110, 1111, 
 
 1114, 1429. 
 
 z: Boles, p. 2824. 
 
 Brand z: 
 
 r. Brelsford, p. 1339. 
 
 . Brimmer z\ 
 
 z\ Brookhaven Mach. Co., 
 
 pp. 521. 594, 666. 
 
 Brown -■. 
 
 z: Brown, 54 S. W. 159, 21 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1089— p. 1440. 
 
 z'. Brown, 77 Miss. 338, 28 
 
 So. 949— pp. 2117, 2210, 2213. 
 
 Bruff r. 
 
 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. z: Bundy. pp. 
 
 217. 1480. 
 • Burbank z\ 
 
 z'. Byrne, pp. 447. 676. 
 
 Carter f. 
 
 z: Carter. 46 X. E. 374. 165 
 
 HI. 570, 36 L. R. A. 527— pp. 
 565, 981, 1033, 3295, 3351. 
 
 z: Carter, 62 111. App. 618— 
 
 pp. 551. 891, 902, 903. 
 
 z: Chambers, pp. 1855, 2262. 
 
 Chadbourne z\ 
 
 V. Cheek, p. 2148. 
 
 Cobb z: 
 
 V. Cobb, 72 111. 148— p. 854. 
 
 579. 
 
 z: Cobb, 72 III. 148— p. 854. 
 
 Cobb, etc., Co. T'. 
 
 z: Cobb, etc., Co., pp. 250, 
 
 253, 438, 494, 622, 688. 
 
 Collins z: 
 
 Collison -■. 
 
 V. CoUey, pp. 2777, 2890, 
 
 2971. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 23 Ky. L. 
 
 Rep. 544, 63 S. W. 448— pp. 73, 
 180. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 23 Ky. L. 
 
 Rep. 1159, 64 S. W. 975— p. 180. 
 z\ Commonwealth. 28 Ky. L. 
 
 Rep. 802, 90 S. W. 602— pp. 177, 
 
 181, 183. 
 
 z: Copeland, pp. 3109, 3125, 
 
 3126, 3131, 3139, 3176, 3177, 
 3185, 3189. 3190, 3315. 
 
 -•. Cotter, p. 1520. 
 
 -•. Cowles, pp. 411, 3180, 
 
 3300, 3399. 
 
 z: Crady, p. 2341. 
 
 z: Crudup, p. 2101. 
 
 z: Cruse, p. 2963. 
 
 z\ Cunningham, 67 HI. 316 — 
 
 pp. 2468. 3102. 
 
 f. Cunningham, 102 III. App. 
 
 206— p. 2248. 
 
 -■. Currv, pn. 1353. 1450. 
 
 3273, 3284. 3387. 3388. 34161 
 3417. 3623. 
 
 z: Dacus, p. 3076. 
 
 Dallas z: 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. r. Dallas, pp. 
 1502, 1739, 1866, 1885, 1925, 
 1996, 2119. 2228, 2777. 
 
 Dallenbach r. 
 
 z: Daniels, pp. 1773, 2117, 
 
 2135, 2325, 2326. 
 
 Darnell z: 
 
 V. Davenport, pp. 2485, 2643, 
 
 2646, 2713, 3023, 3027, 3038. 
 
 V. Davidson, 64 Fed. 301, 12 
 
 C. C. A. 118— p. 2230. 
 
 V. Davidson, 22 C. C. A. 306. 
 
 76 Fed. 517— pp. 1739, 1782, 
 2296, 2963. 
 
 -■. Demars, pp. 1641, 3041. 
 
 r. Dodds. p. 3054. 
 
 Doggett ;■. 
 
 z: Doughty, pp. 316, 317. 
 
 V. Downs, p. 2724. 
 
 z\ Dunnigan, p. 1594. 
 
 V. Elben, p. 1377. 
 
 E. Sondheimer Co. f. 
 
 z: Fleming, pp. 1612. 2705, 
 
 3013, 3050, 3063. 3076, 3757. 
 
 z: Foley, p. 1795. 
 
 -■. Foulks, 191 111. 57, 60 N. 
 
 E. 890— p. 3314. 
 
 z: Foulks, 92 III. App. 391 — 
 
 p. 3249. 
 
 V. Frankenberg, pp. 1, 208, 
 
 233, 727, 732. 748, 894, 1003, 
 1007, 1049, 3291, 3326, 3341, 
 3359. 
 
 z: Friend, pp. 536, 894. 
 
 Gage z: 
 
 Gilliland v. 
 
 f. Glover, p. 2332. 
 
 z: Gortikov. pp. 1619, 2409, 
 
 2449, 2459, 3095. 
 
 — Greek-American Produce Co. 
 
 2243. 
 
 1776, 2323, 
 
 3220, 3221, 
 
 z: Green, p. 
 
 Gregg z: 
 
 Grieve ;•. 
 
 -'. Griffin, pp. 
 
 2872. 
 
 Grinnell-Collins Co. z\ 
 
 V. Gross, pp. 814. 845. 
 
 z: Gunterman. pp. 1711. 2017. 
 
 2019. 2068. 2959. 
 
 '•- Hall. p. 1377. 
 
 Ilamlen & Sons Co. z: 
 
 r. Hammer, pp. 2501, 2503. 
 
 z: Handy, pp. 3125, 3126, 
 
 3145. 3216, 3218, 
 3224. 3228. 
 
 Hanlon '■. 
 
 f. Harper. pp. 
 
 2409, 2456. 2463. 
 
 z: Harris, 56 X. E. 316, 184 
 
 III. 57. 48 L. R. -V. 175— pp. 
 1274, 1473. 
 
 z: Harris. 81 Miss. 208. 32 
 
 So. 309. 59 L. R. A. 742, 95 Am. 
 St. Rep. 466— p. 1626. 
 
 z: Haynes, 63 Miss. 
 
 1273. 
 
 V. Haynes. 64 Miss. 
 
 So. 765— p. 662. 
 
 z: Head, pp. 1673. 3044, 3045, 
 
 3052. 
 
 f. Henderson Elevator Co., 
 
 138 Ky. 220, 127 S. W. 779— 
 pp. 3747, 3750. 
 
 f. Henderson Elevator Co.. 
 
 33 S. Ct. 176. 226 U. S. 441. 
 57 L. Ed. 290— pp. 3745. 3754. 
 
 z: Hobbs. pp. 1458. 1459. 
 
 z\ Holman, p. 3706. 
 
 z: Holt, pp. 1271, 1303. 1321. 
 
 1343. 1353, 1375, 1376, 1378. 
 3289. 
 
 7'. Ilopkinsville Carn-ng Co., 
 
 123 Kv. 783. 97 S. W. 426. 30 
 Kv. L.' Rep. 78— pp. 671. 675. 
 
 z: Hopkinsville Canning Co . 
 
 132 Kv. 578, 116 S. W. T'S— 
 pp. 495, 642, 644, 645. 646. 659, 
 660, 903, 3277. 
 
 f. Hornberger, p. 250. 
 
 Howard z: 
 
 Humphries f. 
 
 Hurt z: 
 
 z: Hurt. pp. 2820, 2S22. 
 
 1663. 
 
 485— p. 
 604. 1
 
 CXCVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: Hutchinson, 
 
 _!^ i'.'lilinois, 108 U. S. 541. 27 
 L. Ed. 818. 2 S. Ct. 839— pp. 
 34, 35, 43, 44, 63. 
 
 V. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142 41 
 
 L. Ed. 107. 16 S. Ct. 1096— 
 pp. 97. 3448, 3450, 3d13, 3314, 
 3515. 3516. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 ll ',- Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 pp. 3038. 3668. 3669, 3676, 3677. 
 3712 3713, 3715, 3761, 3/70, 
 3772, 3777! 3785, 3786, 3799, 
 
 3803. -,,-r, OirO ' 
 
 f. Jackson, pp. 24d9, 2462, , 
 
 R R'R. is, 43 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 Cas.. X. S.. 15, 75 N E. 45/ — 
 
 pp. 1567, 2293, 2365. 
 V. Jennings, 82 N. E. 403, 229 
 
 111 608— pp. 2207, 2666, 2787. 
 __ f. Johnson, 34 111. 389-p. 
 
 1 'S. Johnson, 67 111. 312— pp 
 
 1599, 2468, 3102. 
 r. Johnson, 123 111. App. 300 
 
 no "1793. 2241. 
 
 r. Johnson, 94 S. W. 600, 116 
 
 Tenn " 624 — p. 515. 
 — -"" Jolly, pp. 2237, 2353, 2393. 
 
 V. Jones, p. 3405. 
 
 f. Jonte, p. 945. 
 
 Jurkiewicz r. 
 
 t'. Kecgan, pp. 2130, 2872. 
 
 f. Kerl, p. 1333. 
 
 -,■. Kerr, 125 111. App. 363 — 
 
 pp. 1695, 1696. 
 — — f Kerr, 68 Miss. 14, 8 So. 
 330— p. 3260. 
 
 ZII r."Kuhn, pp. 1680, 1714, 
 17?0 1724, 1808, 1810, 1812, 
 182l' 2604. 2694, 2695. 
 
 Lake Shore Nitro-Glycenne 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 V. Lancashire Ins. Co., pp. 
 
 973, 975, 978. 
 
 f. Langdon, p. 1469. 
 
 V. Latimer, 128 111. 163, 21 
 
 K. E. 7— p. 2487. 
 
 f. Latimer, 28 111. App. 552 
 
 —p. 2479. 
 
 Law z\ 
 
 z: Lence, p. 3009. 
 
 Lennon i\ 
 
 T. Louthan, pp. 1636, 2424. 
 
 V. Lutz, p. 2262. 
 
 f. McClellan, pp. 250, 438, 
 
 516, 614, 615, 617, 624, 727, 732, 
 748, 752, 765. 
 
 McDonald v. 
 
 McMelon r. 
 
 McMichael v. 
 
 V. McMillion, pp. 1505, 1506, 
 
 1537. 
 
 McXaughton v. 
 
 Majestic Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Marbury v. 
 
 V. Marlett, pp. 1622, 1623, 
 
 2447. 
 
 V. Massey, pp. 1921, 1963, 
 
 2250. 
 
 z: Matthews, pp. 3114, 3119, 
 
 3121, 3150, 3151, 3152, 3153, 
 3154, 3155, 3184. 
 
 T. Meacham, pp. 1502, 1550, 
 
 1569. 
 
 v. Miller, p. 484. 
 
 V. Minor, pp. 2020, 2951, 
 
 2952. 
 
 Mississippi R. Comm. v. 
 
 f. Mississippi R. Comm., p. 
 
 3516. 
 
 T'. Mitchell, pp. 886, 3262, 
 
 3286, 3301. 
 
 V. Moore, p. 3053. 
 
 Morris <■. 
 
 z: Morrison, pp. 945, 1364, 
 
 1377. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mossbai 
 ger, pp. 650, 676, 677, 839. 
 
 Mulberry Hill Coal Co. v. 
 
 Mulberry, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mulligan 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co 
 p. 2909. 
 
 - MuUins f. 
 
 Nelson f. 
 
 V. Nelson, 
 
 2435. 
 
 r. Nelson, 
 
 59 III. 
 
 110— p. 
 
 30 Kv. L. Rep. 
 
 Souders, 
 pp. 365, 
 
 114, "97 S. W. 757— pp. 341, 642, 
 645, 647, 650, 651, 653, 677. 
 
 Newbergcr Cotton Co. ■:■. 
 
 f. O'ConncU, pp. 1743. 1832. 
 
 r. O'Keefc, 154 111. 508. 39 
 
 N. E. 606— p. 2174. 
 
 z' O'Keefe, 168 111. 115, 43 
 
 N. E. 294, 39 L. R. A. 149, 61 
 .\m. St. Rep. 68— pp. 1555, 1561. 
 
 V. O'Keefe. 63 111. App. 102 
 
 —pp. 1502, 2096. 
 
 V. O'Keefe (III.), 9 .\m. & 
 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 611— pp. 
 1520, 1521. 
 
 7: Owens, p. 1382. 
 
 - Ozanne z'. 
 
 - Painkinsky z: 
 
 - z: Parks, p. 581. 
 
 - Patterson v. 
 
 - Payne i'. 
 
 - z: Pearson, pp. 1677, 3056. 
 
 - Pennington r. 
 
 - People r. 
 
 - V. People, 121 111. 304, 12 N. 
 E. 670— pp. 97, 142. 
 
 - V. People, 143 111. 434, 33 N. 
 E. 173, 19 L. K. A. 119— p. 98. 
 
 - z: People, 19 111. App. 141 — 
 p. 215. 
 
 - ?■. Peterson, p. 1286. 
 
 - Phelps V. 
 
 - V. Phelps, p. 250. 
 
 - Pierson v. 
 
 - z: Porter, pp. 1575, 2678, 
 2694, 2806. 
 
 - Pressley Co. v. 
 
 v. Proctor, 18 R. R. R- 531, 
 
 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 531, 122 Ky. 92, 89 S. W. 714, 
 28 Ky. L. Rep. 598— pp. 1514. 
 1517, 2134, 2136, 2137, 2138. 
 2141. 2319, 2878. 
 
 V. Proctor, 102 S. W. 826, 
 
 31 Ky. L. Rep. 494— p, 2731. 
 
 Ouinn 7'. 
 
 r. Radiord, pp. 1085, 1397, 
 
 1408. 
 
 V. Read, p. 2095. 
 
 V. Reid, p. 3093. 
 
 Rice z'. 
 
 7'. River, etc.. Coke Co., pp. 
 
 216, 247, 264. 
 
 z: Roberts, pp. 2705, 3013, 
 
 3050, 3757. 
 
 7'. Rothschild, pp. 1567, 2809. 
 
 Royston 7'. 
 
 7'. Sandusky, pp. 2220, 2900, 
 
 3074. 
 
 7'. Schwartz, 11 111. -^pp. 482 
 
 —p. 482. 
 
 z: Schwartz, 13 111. .\pp. 490 
 
 —pp. 490, 491, 1016. 
 
 Scorenson v. 
 
 ■ 7\ Scruggs, p. 1339. 
 
 7'. Segarl & Co., p. 3752. 
 
 z: Seilz, pp. 1141, 1171. 
 
 Shackt 7'. 
 
 r. Siddons, pp. 1852, 2626. 
 
 Siler -■. 
 
 z: Simmons, 38 111. 242— pp. 
 
 2615, 2620. 
 
 z: Simmons, 49 III. App. 443 
 
 —p. 1315. 
 
 r. Simpson, p. 544. 
 
 v. Slatton, p. 2268. 
 
 z: Smith. 37 So. 643. 85 
 
 Mi=s. 349, 70 L. R. A. 642, 107 
 Am. St. Rep. 293— pp. 1496, 
 3042. 
 
 z: Smith (Miss.), 59 So. 87— 
 
 p. 3066. 
 V. Smyser, pp. 267,. 270, 273, 
 
 277, 285, 288, 292, 425. 
 
 Sorenson v. 
 
 Southern IJank, 
 558, 561. 
 
 7'. Southern Seating, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 642, 643, 647, 650, 652, 678, 
 679, 699, 816, 3355. 
 
 State 7'. 
 
 Steever v. 
 
 z: Stevens, pp. 3407, 3415. 
 
 Stone z: 
 
 7'. Strauss, p. 2230. 
 
 7'. Sutton, 42 111. 438, 92 Am. 
 
 Dec. 81— pp. 2468, 2479. 
 
 7'. Sutton, S3 111. 397— p. 
 
 3103. 
 
 7'. Swanson, pp. 420, 588. 
 
 Tate 7'. 
 
 7'. Taylor, 24 111. 323— pp. 
 
 3189, 3190. 
 
 V. Taylor, 46 III. App. 141 — 
 
 p. 2826. 
 
 7'. Taylor, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 1169, 70 S. W. 825— p. 2317. 
 
 7'. Teams, pp. 1456, 1474. 
 
 Thacker z\ 
 
 z: Trail, p. 2265. 
 
 7'. Treat, pp. 1514, 1783, 
 
 1796, 2730. 
 
 7'. Troustine, pp. 285, 723, 
 
 3135. 3137. 
 
 Udell f. 
 
 V. Mnson, pp. 2925, 2926. 
 
 Wade 7'. 
 
 7'. Walker, p. 1857. 
 
 z\ Wall, p. 2503. 
 
 7'. Warren, pp. 1921, 2166. 
 
 7'. Waters, pp. 1306, 1307, 
 
 1315. 
 
 z: Watkins, p. 839. 
 
 White 7'. 
 
 7'. White, p. 1758. 
 
 J.. Wliittaker. p. 2361. 
 
 7'. Whittemore, pp. 188, 196, 
 
 1637, 2122, 2479, 2854. 
 
 Wilkc 7'. 
 
 7'. Williams, pp. 1629, 1630, 
 
 2-.20, 3083. 
 
 Winne 7'. 
 
 7'. Winslow, p. 2868. 
 
 Woodward z\ 
 
 7'. Word, pp. 1455. 1456. 
 
 1457, 1467, 1471. 
 
 Illinois Custom Tailoring Co. v. 
 
 .\dams Exp. Co., p. 1033. 
 Illinois Match Co. 7'. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 330, 331. 988, 1029, 
 
 1032, 1034, 3258, 3330, 3347, 
 
 3351, 3412. 
 Illinois' So. 'R. Co., Sparta Gas, 
 
 etc., Co. 7'. 
 Illinois Terminal R. Co., L nited 
 
 States 7'. 
 Illinois, etc., R. Co., Beard v. 
 
 Coles 7'. 
 
 7'. Davidson, p. 1788. 
 
 Dorrah 7'. 
 
 Grieve 7'. 
 
 Hill z: 
 
 Hozzard z'. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 7'. King. p. 2077. 
 
 Il.sley z: Stubbs, pp. 1210. 1211, 
 1215, 1216, 1217, 1225, 1241. 
 
 Ilwaco R. etc., Co., Oregon, etc , 
 R. Co. 7'. ^ ^. 
 
 v. Oregon, etc., K. Co., p. 
 
 3656. 
 
 Imhoff 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 20 
 Wis. 362— pp. 1533, 1780. 2949. 
 
 7. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 22 
 
 Wis. 649— p. 2520. 
 
 Independence Mills Co. 7'. Burling- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., pp. 803, 807, 
 880, 888, 895. 
 
 India, The. 
 
 Indian River Steamboat Co. v. East 
 Coast Transp. Co., p. 102. 
 
 Indiana, American Exp. Co. v. 
 
 7'. American Exp. Co., p. 
 
 3578. 
 
 Darnell 7*. 
 
 V. Pullman Car Co., p. 3580.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CXCIX 
 
 Indiana Cent. R. Co. z: Gulick, 
 
 pp. 3189, 3191. 
 ;. Hufklson, pp. 1504. 1506. 
 
 t . Mundy, pp.^ 2094, 2096. 
 
 Indiana Natural Gas., etc., Co., 
 
 Manufacturers' Gas, etc., Co. v. 
 Indiana K. Co. v. IIofTman, p. 81. 
 r. .Maurcr. pp. 2129, 2406, 
 
 2922, 2923, 2926, 2932. 
 Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Bcna- 
 
 dum, p. 1280. 
 
 V. Jacobs, pp. 2230, 2591. 
 
 r. "Kfiter, pp. 1742, 2228, 
 
 2289, 2348. 
 
 !■. I.anglcy, p. 1582. 
 
 J'. Love, p. 1984. 
 
 :■. McKinney, pp. 2586, 2694. 
 
 V. Mahcr, pp. 2696, 2979. 
 
 J'. Ohne, p. 2004. 
 
 V. Scribncr, pp. 1841, 3998, 
 
 4000, 4005. 4006. 
 
 V. Swafford, np. 2359, 2585. 
 
 Indiana, etc., R. Co. r. Burdge, 
 
 pp. 2615, 2617, 2660. 
 
 f. Ditto, pp. 2475, 2485. 
 
 f. Dorcmi-ycr, pp. 573, 575. 
 
 '.: Empire Rubber Mfg. Co., 
 
 p. 434. 
 
 '•. James, pp. 1476, 1477. 
 
 %'. Masterson, pp. 1752, 1755, 
 
 1991. 
 
 Snnw J'. 
 
 r. Zilly, pp. 3141, 3158, 3174. 
 
 Indianapolis r. Navin, p. 35. 
 Indianapolis .\l)attoir Co. •:•. Neid- 
 
 lingcr, ]). 1584. 
 Indianapolis iMcight Bureau f. P. 
 
 R. Co., p. 3679. 
 Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Emmerson, p. 1742. 
 
 f. Tucker, pp. 1524, 1742, 
 
 1755, 2589, 2590, 2605, 2615. 
 
 f. Wall, p. 2635. 
 
 Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Hockett. 
 
 159 Ind. 677, 66 N. E. 39— pp. 
 2267, 2358, 2991, 3000. 
 
 V. Hockett, 67 N. E. 106, 166 
 
 Ind. 196— pp. 2535. 2536, 2548. 
 
 I'. Lawn, p. 2834. 
 
 V. Ray, p. 2634. 
 
 T. Robinson, p. 2390. 
 
 r. Schmidt, pp. 2604, 2609, 
 
 2613, 2671. 
 
 Smith f. 
 
 V. Tenner, p. 1535. 
 
 r. Whitaker, p. 2372. 
 
 r. Wilson, pp. 1651, 2458, 
 
 2464. 
 
 Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co., 
 Caugliell f. 
 
 z\ Formes, p. 2609. 
 
 V. Lawson, pp. 1564, 3003. 
 
 f. Lockman, pp. 2417, 2425, 
 
 2487, 2494. 
 
 V. Miller, p. 1889. 
 
 V. Pressell, pp. 2230, 2591, 
 
 2612. 
 
 V. Richey, p. 2346. 
 
 f. Romans, pp. 1583, 2013. 
 
 Indianapolis Union R. Co. v. 
 
 Cooper, pp. 2045, 2658. 
 
 r. Dohn, p. 100. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. Andis, 
 
 p. 1580. 
 
 f. Klentchy, np. 1564, 1565. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. f. .Mien, 
 
 p. 1363. 
 
 r. Backus, pp. 3575, 3591. 
 
 f. Barnes, pp. 1703, 2289, 
 
 2609. 
 
 '•. Beaver, p. 1567. 
 
 Bergman '■. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., Berg- 
 man '■. 
 
 -■. Birnev, pp. 1673, 3042, 
 
 3043, 3044. ■ 
 
 V. Cox, pp. 1007, 3162, 3163, 
 
 3164. 
 
 ?'. Emmerson, pp. 1712, 2602. 
 
 r. Ervin, 118 111. 250, 8 N. 
 
 E. 862, 59 Am. Rep. 369— p. 89 
 
 '■. Ervin (111.), 27 .\ni. & 
 
 Eng. R. Cas. 8— p. 1180. 
 
 In '.ianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. For- 
 ythe. pp. 797, 945, 1040. 
 
 Green •■. 
 
 I. Hall, p. 1984. 
 
 V. Haverstick, p. 2193. 
 
 Meazle T. 
 
 V. Herndon, p. 561. 
 
 r. Ilorst, pp. 1550, 1558, 
 
 15(7, 1694, 1714, 1715, 1721, 
 1724, 1742, 1755, 1756, 1757, 
 1958, 2034, 2286, 2304. 
 
 f. Howerton, p. 3099. 
 
 Interstate Stockyards Co. v. 
 
 V. Jurey, p. 1341. 
 
 Keep T. 
 
 r. Kennedy, pp. 2436, 2784. 
 
 McCollom V. 
 
 V. Miliigan, pp. 2775, 3102. 
 
 V. Murray, pp. 532, 3288. 
 
 Ober V. 
 
 V. Pitzer, p. 2516. 
 
 f. Remmy, pp. 333, 805. 
 
 Rice f. 
 
 V. Rinard, pp. 210, 1492, 
 
 1596, 24(j8, 2470. 
 
 f. Rutherford, pp. 1828, 1961, 
 
 2202, 2279. 
 
 v. State, p. 255. 
 
 f. Strain, ]). 3357^ 
 
 Union Mut. Ins. Co. f. 
 
 r. Wall, pp. 2583, 2S85,_ 2753. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc.. Rapid Transit 
 
 Co. J'. VValsh, p. ?.22S. 
 Indianapolis, etc.. Trans. Co. f. 
 
 Walsh, p. 2600. 
 Iiidrani, The. 
 Indrapura, The. 
 Inferior Court, Powers f. 
 Ing, International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ingalls -. .\dams Iv.xp. Co., p. 
 
 2505. 
 
 V. Bills, pp. 1684, 1687, 1691, 
 
 1722, 1837, 1842, 1846, 1848, 
 2127, 22()0. 
 
 f. Brooks, p. 3298. 
 
 Frank r. 
 
 Libby r. 
 
 Ingledew, Griffith ;•. 
 
 f. Northern Railroad, pp. 638, 
 
 653, 832. 
 Ingles z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2659. 
 
 • f. Usherwood, pp. 1215, 1216. 
 
 liiglis. Bothlingk v. 
 Ingrafia f. Samuels, p. 2838. 
 Ingraham f. Pullman Co., p. 3243. 
 Ingram f. Weir, pp. 1119, 1123. 
 Inhabitants of Norfolk, Inhabitants 
 
 of Wrenthan -•. 
 Inhabitants of Wrcntham z\ In- 
 habitants of Norfolk, p. 114. 
 Inland, etc., Coasting Co. f. Tol- 
 
 son, pp. 21 1(), 2b70. 
 Inman z-. ButTalo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 898. 
 f. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 208, 251, 789, 790, 791, 792, 795, 
 
 930. 947. 1035. 
 Inman Steamship Co., Heyl v. 
 Sherman !■. 
 
 z\ Tinker, p. 3530. 
 
 Inman & Co. f. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 252, 263, 2o4, 472. 
 (.57, 1323. 
 
 I'. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 187, 208, 257, 726, 948, 953, 954, 
 9(.2, 963, 964, 975, 978, 985, 988, 
 1003, 1026, 1027, 1030, 1048, 
 1063, 1090. 
 
 Inness z: Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1516, 28(>4. 
 In re .Mlowance for Lining and 
 
 Heating Cars. p. 3630. 
 In re .MIowances to Elevators (V. 
 
 S.), 12 Interst. Com. K. 85, 88 
 
 —p. 3732. 
 In re Allowances to Elevators (L^. 
 
 S.), 14 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 
 
 315, 316— p. 3732. 
 In re Arkansas K. Rates, 163 Fed. 
 
 141— p. 54. 
 In re Arkansas R. Cases, 187 
 
 Fed. 290— pp. 34, 35, 39, 44, 
 
 45, 47, 49, 53, 57, 3490. 
 
 In re Beams, pp. 1231, 1243. 
 
 In re Burke & Co., pp. 1237, 1238. 
 
 In re California Xav., etc., Co., 
 
 110 Fed. 670— pp. 1566, 1760, 
 
 3998. 
 In re California Nav., etc., Co., 
 
 110 Fed. 678— p. 4070. 
 In re Cargo of Brimstone, p. 3946. 
 In re Cargo of 3,408 Tons of Poc- 
 ahontas Coal, p. 3965. 
 In re Charge to Grand Jury, p. 
 
 3697. 
 In re Churchill, p. 3907. 
 In re Comstock, p. 1216. 
 In re Debs, pp. 3440, 3443, 344 , 
 
 3448, 34'. 1, 3467, 3468. 
 In re Deininger, p. 3428. 
 In re Dexterville Mfg., etc., Co, 
 
 p. 2091. 
 In re Lmerson, etc., Co., 117 C. 
 
 C. A. 635, 199 Fed. 95— p. 8. 
 In re Emerson, etc., Co.. 117 C. 
 
 C. A. 639. 199 Fed. 99— p. 8. 
 In re E. Reboulin Fils & Co., pp. 
 
 362, 363. 
 In re Excelsior Coal Co., pp. 4046, 
 
 4085. 
 In re Foot, pp. 1239, 1240. 
 In re Garnett, pp. 4036, 4053. 
 
 4054. 
 In re Greenfield's Estate, pp. 323. 
 
 984. 
 In re Jeremiah Smith & Sons, p. 
 
 4045. 
 In re Kimball Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 3992, 3997. 4046. 
 In re Lakeland Transp. Co., pp. 
 
 4028, 4049.^ 
 In re Lenn'on, pp. 3617, 3809, 
 
 3818. 
 In re Levin, pn. 361, 362. 
 In re Meyer, p. 4037. 
 In re Michigan Steamship Co., pp. 
 , 4055, 4081. 
 In re Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3. 
 In re Morrison, pp. 4036, 4049, 
 
 4071, 4072, 4073. 
 In re New Orleans, etc., R. Co, 
 
 p. 1372. 
 In re New York, etc.. Goods Co.. 
 
 pp. 1208. 1219. 1228. 1232, 1233. 
 In re 948 Pieces of Lumber, p. 
 
 1170. 
 In re Opinion of the Justices, p. 
 
 1593. 
 In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 4043. 4044. 
 In re Paterson Co.. pp. 1228. 1243. 
 In re Petitions of Peterson 
 
 625, 3301. 3302. 
 In re Pooling Freights, pp. 3724, 
 
 3852. 
 In re Rahrer, pp. 3418, 3420, 3429, 
 
 3538, 3539. 
 In re Ross. 196 Fed. 921— p. 4054. 
 In re Ross, 204 Fed. 248. 122 C. 
 
 C. .\. 516— pp. 4046. 4079. 
 In re Southern Wisconsin Power 
 
 Co., 140 Wis. 245. 122 N. W. 
 
 801— pp. 3468, 3535. 
 In re Southern Wisconsin Power 
 
 Co.. 140 Wis. 265. 122 N. W. 
 
 809— pp. 3468. 3535. 
 In re Swan, p. 3467. 
 In re Talbot, pp. 1243. 1244. 
 In re 2.098 Tons of Coal. p. 709. 
 In re L'nion Tank Line Co., p. 
 
 3575. 
 In re Westznthins, p. 1224. 
 In re Winbourn. p. 2089. 
 Inslee z\ Lane, pp. 1213, 
 
 1220, 1229. 1232, 1233, 
 
 1242. 
 Insley, Ex narte. 
 Insurance Co. r. Delaware Mut.. 
 
 etc., Ins. Co., pp. 723, 3705. 
 
 f. Easton, pp. 790. 794. 
 
 T'. Easton. etc., Transp. pp. 
 
 3921. 4031. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co^ f. 
 
 Houston Direct Nav. Co. f. 
 
 Houston, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1219. 
 1234,
 
 cc 
 
 Insurance Co. f. Lake Er-.e. etc., I 
 R. Co., pp. //'b, 846. 
 
 V. Leyland '& Co., p. 3921. 
 
 Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. 
 
 Merchants", etc.. Storage Co. 
 
 Morgan v. 
 
 Nord-Deutscher Lloyd v. 
 
 !•. North German Lloyd Co., 
 
 pp. 3882, 3924, 3930, 4024, 4058, 
 4062. 
 
 f. Railroad Co., pp. 960, 
 
 3258. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 854. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 t: Thwing, p. 3906. 
 
 f. Young, p. 3367. 
 
 Insurance Cos. r. Carrier Cos., p. 
 
 1182. 
 Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 
 Brewster i: 
 
 I5ro\vn v. 
 
 Busch i: 
 
 Danziger z: 
 
 Flynn -•. 
 
 Kaplowitz V. 
 
 Kohm f. 
 
 Lang i: 
 
 McCormack f. 
 
 McGuire z: 
 
 McMahon t\ 
 
 Maillefert z: 
 
 Olopp T-. 
 
 O'Rourke v. 
 
 Rubin f. 
 
 Scholtz z: 
 
 Schwartz z: 
 
 Segelman z'. 
 
 \'ictorson f. 
 
 Wachser z: 
 
 Wertheimer v. 
 
 Windels z\ 
 
 International Coal Min. Co., Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. V. 
 
 International Exp. Co. '•. Grand 
 Trunk Railway, p. 109. 
 
 International Marine Ins. Co., Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. 
 
 International Mercantile Marine 
 Co., Kohn V. 
 
 '.■. Smith, pp. 3988, 4002. 
 
 International Nav. Co., Farr, etc., 
 
 Mfg. Co. z: 
 
 v. Farr, etc., Mfg. Co., pp. 
 
 3907, 3908, 3909, 4061, 4062, 
 4063, 4065, 4066. 
 
 Fasy z: 
 
 Kahaner f. 
 
 International R. Co., Bamberg v. 
 
 Bingemann r. 
 
 Crandall v. 
 
 Craven v. 
 
 Creenan z\ 
 
 Cunningham v. 
 
 Elder z: 
 
 Grissinger v. 
 
 Miller z: 
 
 Speck V. 
 
 Tietz V. 
 
 Ward V. 
 
 International Steamboat Co., Dun- 
 lap f. 
 
 International Steamship Co., Mur- 
 ray v. 
 
 International Text-Book Co. v. 
 Gillespie, p. 3557. 
 
 International Trust Co., Gibson v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z-. x\d- 
 dison, 97 S. W. 1037, 100 Tex. 
 241, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 880— p. 
 2369. 
 
 z'. Addison fTex. Civ. App.), 
 
 93 S. W. 1081— p. 2774. 
 
 V. Anderson, 82 Tex. 516, 17 
 
 S. W. 1039, 27 .\m. St. Rep. 902 
 —pp. 2412, 2529, 2665. 
 
 V. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 8, 21 S. W. 691— pp. 246, 
 621, 624, 1311, 1397, 3344, 3345, 
 3368. 
 
 v. Anderson, 15 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 180, 53 S. W. 606— pp. 
 1916, 2047, 2066. 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 nternational, etc., R. Co. z: An- 
 thony, pp. 1808, 1828, 19d6, 
 '585. 
 
 — z: Armstrong, pp. 2036, 2067. 
 
 — z: Aten, pp. 863, 3354. 
 
 — Bcauchamp z: _ 
 
 — '■. Bergman, pp. /29, 738, 
 744, 747, 750. . ^^^^ 
 
 — z: Best, pp. 1610, 1635, 3322. 
 
 — z: Bibolet, pp. 1813, 2583. 
 
 — Z-. Blanton, etc., Co., p. 344. 
 
 — z: Bohannon, pp. 2480, 2782. 
 
 — f. Caldwell, p. 1078. 
 
 — z: Campbell, pp. 460, 2496, 
 3342, 3375. 
 
 — Carter ?'. 
 
 — - Causler, p. 2242. 
 Clark (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 71 S. W. 587— pp. 2592, 2729 
 ^' Clark, 36 Tex. Civ > 
 
 _ , . -^PP- 
 
 195, 81 S. W. 821— pp. 1683, 
 
 z: Cock (Tex.), 14 S. W. 
 
 242— pp. 1826, 2685. 
 
 t.. (lock, 68 Tex. 713, 5 S. 
 
 W. 635, 2 Am. St. Rep. 521 — 
 pp. 1554, 1679, 1753, 2522, 2665, 
 2936. 
 
 Z'. Cooper, p. 2526. 
 
 V. Copeland, pp. 1716, 1893, 
 
 2169. 
 
 Cruseturner z\ _ 
 
 z: Cruseturner, pp. l/o3, 
 
 1758, 1979, 2754, 2755, 2911. 
 
 r. Davis, pp. 1575, 1938, 
 
 1939. 
 
 z\ Diamond Roller Mills, p. 
 
 402. 
 
 z: Dimmit County Pasture 
 
 Co., pp. 217, 268, 286, 289, 291, 
 292, 293, 294, 295, 448, 851, 855, 
 863, 1332, 1350, 1354. 
 
 v. Doolan, pp. 1663, 
 
 1778. 
 
 Dorrance & Co. r. 
 
 z\ Downing, pp.* 1885, 
 
 1967, 2578, 2579, 2588, 
 2613, 2748. 
 
 f. Drought & Co., pp 
 
 1777, 
 
 1920, 
 2601, 
 
 758, 
 
 International, etc., R. Co., Hig'i v. 
 
 z: lUibbs, pp. 1823, 2880 
 
 z: Hugen, pp. 1732, 1737, 
 
 2035, 2066, 2639, 2649, 2660. 
 
 r. Hynes, pp. 617, 618, 619, 
 
 629, 734, 1307, 1309, 1314, 1330. 
 
 V. Ing, pp. 1613, 1616, 2465, 
 
 2642. 
 
 z: Irvine, pp. 1547, 1735, 
 
 1756. 
 
 V. Johnson, 1 Texas .\pp. 
 
 Civ. Cas., § 354— p. 1611. 
 
 z: Johnson, 43 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 147, 95 S. W. 595— p. 1778. 
 
 z: Jones, pp. 1440, 1441. 
 
 v. Kentle, pp. 2017, 2042. 
 
 ■;•. Kilgo, p. 2845. 
 
 z: Lane, p. 2037. 
 
 V. Leake, pp. 2482, 2483. 
 
 Lee 7'. 
 
 z: Lewis, pp. 621, 624, 
 
 1271, 1285, 1311, 1326. 
 
 z: Lister, p. 1600. 
 
 McCarn z\ 
 
 v. McCown, pp. 3115, 
 
 3125, 3132. 
 
 v. McCullough, pp. 
 
 1346. 
 
 z: McRea, pp. 1285, 3628. 
 
 z: Mahula, pp. 3377, 3381. 
 
 v. Miller, pp. 2020, 2414. 
 
 r. Moody, pp. 934, 959, 1028, 
 
 3378. 
 
 z: Mulliken, pp. 1518, 1712, 
 
 1870, 2065, 2066. 
 
 z: Nefif, p. 2128. 
 
 z: Nicholson, pp. 853, 854, 
 
 857, 858, 864. 
 
 V. Nowaski, pp. 1330, 1342. 
 
 r. Ormond, 62 Tex. 274— p. 
 
 2937. 
 
 -.. Ormond, 64 Tex. 485— pp. 
 
 1953, 2213. 
 
 z: Parish, pp. 849, 932, 1355, 
 
 1384, 1396. 
 
 r. Pcvey, pp. 1768, 1778, 
 
 1779. 
 
 855, 
 
 3116, 
 1278, 
 
 3368. 
 
 Duncan, p. 2028. 
 Earnest, pp. 1351, 
 
 pp. 
 
 1766, 
 
 3355, 
 1767, 
 
 1702, 
 
 1086, 
 1121, 
 
 2067, 
 
 Eckford, 
 1923. 
 
 England z'. 
 
 '•. Evans, p. .2704. 
 
 V. Folliard, pp. 278, 
 
 1895, 2114, 2265, 3137. 3138. 
 
 r. Folts, pp. 1076, 1398, 3162 
 
 3179, 3183, 3396, 3398. 
 
 -,.. Foster, p. 2727. 
 
 Galaviz z'. 
 
 Garrett, pp. 950, 954, 
 
 1095, 1096, 1099, 1118, 
 1416. 
 
 V. Giesen, p. 2022. 
 
 V. Gilbert, pp. 1544, 
 
 2452, 2478, 3103. 
 
 V. Gilmer, pp. 1912, 2065. 
 
 z: Goldstein, pp. 1637, 1851, 
 
 2424, 2435. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. f. Gor- 
 man, p. 2159. 
 
 Grahn z\ 
 
 z: Griffith, p. 334, 335, 1018. 
 
 z: Halloren, pp. 729, 733, 
 
 736, 745, 746, 1680, 1683, 1684, 
 1712, 1731, 1738, 1807, 1808, 
 1809, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1822, 
 1841, 1845, 1982, 2034, 2037, 
 2970. 
 
 V. Hanna, p. 1554. 
 
 V. Harder, pp. 1669, 1673, 
 
 1674, 1676, 2662. 
 
 V. Hass-ell, pp. 1562, 2117, 
 
 2118, 2455, 2485, 2707. 
 
 r. Halchell, pp. 686, 1316, 
 
 1317, 1327. 
 
 z: Ilayncs, p. 765. 
 
 Z'. Heittrcr. pp. 1092, 1105, 
 
 1106, 1115, 3353. 
 
 :•. Henderson, p. 2017. 
 
 V. Hessler, p. 2608. 
 
 3199. 
 
 Philips, 
 
 pp. 
 
 654, 
 
 z: Phillips, pp. 1825, 2792. 
 
 z: Pool, pp. 1272, 1347. 
 
 Prirce '•. 
 
 -,; Prirce, pp. 1553, 1826, 
 
 2522, 2685. 
 
 T'. Railroad Comm., p. 107. 
 
 r. Rhoades, p. 2287. 
 
 z: Ritchie, pp. 635, 1314. 
 
 ■ Kozwadosfskie z: 
 
 ■;■. Sammon, p. 2626. 
 
 V. Sampson, pp. 1867, 2821. 
 
 V. Satterwhite, 38 S. W. 401, 
 
 15 Tex. Civ. App. 102— pp. 2249, 
 2511, 2514, 2545, 2546. 
 
 v. Satterwhite, 19 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 170, 47 S. W. 41— pp. 2301, 
 2515. 
 
 tr. Server, pp. 607, 608, 609, 
 
 629, 630, 637, 957. 
 
 z: Shands, p. 344. 
 
 v. Smith z: 
 
 z: Smith (Tex.), 1 S. W. 
 
 565— pp. 2452, 3103. 
 
 z'. Smith (Tex.), 14 S. W. 
 
 642, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas 324 
 —pp. 17(,y, 1870, 1922, 2065, 
 2126. 
 
 V. Smith, 40 Tex. Civ. Arp. 
 
 432, 90 S. W. 709— p. 2455. 
 
 z'. Startz, 97 Tex. 167, 77 S. 
 
 W. 1— pp. 3331, 3367. 
 
 z\ Startz (Tex. Civ. .\p".), 
 
 33 S. W. 575— pp. 472, 1323, 
 1324, 1326. 
 
 Stewart ?■. 
 
 V. Tasby, pp. 1712, 1732, 
 
 1737. 
 
 z: Terry, p. 3048. 
 
 z\ Thompson, pp. 1813, 1814, 
 
 2694. 
 
 I,. Thornton, pp. 3326. 3331. 
 
 ■:■. Tisdale, pp. 607. 608. 62S. 
 
 629, 638, 1396, 2642, 2643. 3180, 
 3284, 3310, 3366, 3392, 3417.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCI 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. True, 
 
 pp. 443, 449, 971, 1274. 
 — Ll V. Underwood, (>2 Tex. 21, 
 21 .\m. & Kng. R. Cas. 143— 
 
 pp. 1104. 1110, 1111. 
 —— V. Underwood, 64 Tex. 463, 
 
 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 240— pp. 
 1685, 2953. 
 
 V. Underwood, 67 Tex. 589, 4 
 
 S. W. 216— pp. 2088, 2578, 2579. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 f. X'andfvcntcr, pp. 932, 
 
 938, 940, 943, 948, 949, 954, 
 1063, 1077, 3377. 
 
 V. Washington, p. 2052. 
 
 V. Watt, pp. 4.36, 941, 987. 
 
 Weed V. 
 
 V. Welbourne, pp. 786, 3326, 
 
 r'. Welch, 86 Tex. 203, 204, 
 
 24 S. W. 390, 58 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 70. 40 .\ni. St. Kip. 829— 
 pp. 1683, 1684, 1729, 1731, 1766, 
 1822, 2037. ^ , ^ 
 
 •;•. Welsh (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 . 24 S. W. 854— pp. 2172, 2174. 
 
 r. Wentworth, 87 Tex. 311, 
 
 28 S. W. 277— pp. 423, 475, 632. 
 
 ?■. Wentworth, 8 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 5, 14, 27 S. W. 680— pp. 
 475, 502, 505, SiO. 511, 631, 633, 
 729, 734, 750, 1330, 1334. 
 
 f. Wilbourne, pp. 3661, 3663. 
 
 V. Wilkes, pp. 2429, 3105. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 V. Williams, pp. 1710, 1951, 
 
 1953, 1956, 2028, 2182, 2601. 
 
 V. Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 28 S. W. 819— p. 449. 
 
 V. Young (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 72 S. W. 68— pp. 608, 609, 1304, 
 1318, 1339, 1359, 3368. 
 
 Interstate Car Transfer Co., St. 
 Clair County v. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. I'. Ala- 
 bama Mid. R. Co., 69 Fed. 227— 
 p. 3667. 
 
 — — f. Alabama Mid. R. Co., 21 
 C. C. A. 51, 74 Fed. 715— pp. 
 3668, 3681. 
 
 -'. Alabama Mid. R. Co., 168 
 
 U. S. 144, 42 L. Ed. 414, 18 
 S. Ct. 45— pp. 3631, 3633, 3637, 
 3664, 3667, 3668, 3669, 3676, 
 3683, 3684, 3687, 3688, 3690, 
 3711, 3712, 3713, 3714, 3715, 
 3716, 3721, 3722, 3723, 3725, 
 3748, 3749, 3773, 3783, 3785, 
 3786, 3798, 3800, 3803, 3806, 
 3825, 3831. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 !'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 50 
 
 Fed. 295— pp. 3714, 3721, 3794. 
 
 V. .\tchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 149 U. S. 264, 37 L. Ed. 727, 13 
 S. Ct. 837— p. 3770. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 234 
 
 U. S. 294, 34 S. Ct. 814— pp. 
 3635, 3676, 3690, 3728. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. IJaird, pp. 3775, 377». 
 
 3779, 3780, 3783. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 43 
 
 Fed. 37— pp. 3605. 3631, 3725. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 8 
 
 R'. & C. L. J. 343— p. 1179. 
 
 I'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 145 U S. 263, 36 L. Kd. 699, 12 
 S. Ct. 844— pp. 3448, 3600, 3601, 
 3602, 3609,' 3631, 3632, 3633, 
 
 3664 " 
 
 3(>88 
 
 3607, 3609, 3617, 3631. 3650, 
 3664, 3683, 3711, 3724, 3735, 
 3741, 3748, 3752. 3764, 3767, 
 3768, 3769, 3770, 3779, 3780, 
 3781, 3782, 3817. 3819. 3841. 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. v. 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., p. 3765. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 
 
 Fed. 272— pp. 3796, 3799, 3835. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 98 
 
 Fed. 173— p. 3727. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 
 
 C. C. A. 209, 103 Fed. 249— p. 
 3667. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 141 
 
 Fed. 1003— pp. 3601, 3605, 3632, 
 3637, 3665, 3676, 3678, 3679, 
 3682, 3813. 
 
 -■. Chicago, etc., R. *^o., 186 
 
 U. S. 320, 46 L. Ed. 1182,, 22 
 S. Ct. 824— pp. 3667, 3675, 3727, 
 3728, 3741, 3742, 3798, 3803. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 209 
 
 U. S. 108, 52 L. Ed. 705, 28 S. 
 Ct. 493— pp. 3633, 3667, 3670, 
 3676, 3678, 3682, 3699, 3764. 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 215 
 
 U. S. 479, 54 L. Ed. 291, 30 S. 
 Ct. 163— pp. 3447, 3450, 3641, 
 643, 3644. 
 
 ;■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 218 
 
 U. S. 88, 54 L. Ed. 946, 30 S. 
 Ct. 651— pp. 3670, 3671, 3674, 
 3676, 3677, 3682, 3684, 3775, 
 3797, 3799, 3802, 3804, 3805. 
 
 ;■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 218 
 
 U. S. 113, 54 L. Ed. 959, 30 S. 
 Ct. 660— pp. 3797, 3799. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. t'. _ 
 
 v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 56 
 
 Fed. 925, 54 .\m & Eng. R. Cas. 
 365— pp. 1148, 3612, 3680, 3714, 
 3717, 3718, 3796. 
 
 T. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 64 Fed. 981— pp. 3792. 3801. 
 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 76 
 
 Fed. 183— p. 3667. 
 
 T. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 124 Fed. 624— p. 3o38. 
 
 f. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 146 Fed. 559— pp. 3635, 3685. 
 
 T. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. Ed. 243, 17 
 S. Ct. 896— pp. 3631, 3664, 3668 
 
 3667. 3683, 
 3696, 3697, 
 
 3636, 3637 
 3686, 3687. 
 3708, 3711, 3717 
 3770. 
 
 — i: Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 225 U. S. 326, 56 L. Ed. 1107, 
 32 S. Ct. 742, Ann. Cas. 1914.\ 
 504— pp. 3689, 3823, 3833. 3836 
 3837. 
 
 — -■. Bellaire, etc. 
 3425. 
 
 — V. Bri'Ti«on. "ti 
 3440. 3445. 3447 
 
 3725, 3726, 
 Co., 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 34 '8. 3439, 
 3603, 3604, 
 
 3669, 3675, 3676, 3684, 3709, 
 3711, 3724, 3729, 3735, 3737, 
 3747, 3748, 3749, 3764, 3767, 
 3768, 3769, 3770, 3777, 3784, 
 3785, 3817. 
 
 :■. Clyde Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 3687, 3713, 3716, 3721, 3722, 
 3798, 3807. 
 
 - — Delaware, etc., R. Co. ;•. 
 
 V. Delaware, etc., R'. Co., 64 
 
 Fed. 723— pp. 0-08, 3801. 
 
 !■. Delaware, etc.. R. Co., 216 
 
 U. S. 531, 54 L. Ed. 605, 30 S. 
 Ct. 415— pp. 3618, 3776. 
 
 f. Delaware, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 220 U. S. 235, 55 L. Ed. 448, 31 
 S. Ct. 392— pp. 3685, 3689, 3690, 
 3797, 3805. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 57 
 
 Fed. 1005— pp. 3713, 3721, 3775. 
 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 167 
 
 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 S. 
 Ct. 986— "o. 3430, 3610. 3637, 
 3711, 3720, 3735, 3741, 3743, 
 3744. 
 
 f. Diffenbaugh, pp. 3679, 
 
 3730, 3731, 3732. 3733. 3734. 
 
 Eagle White Lead Co. : . 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 r. 
 
 -'. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3668. 3680, 3712, 3716, 
 3721, 3798. 3815. 
 
 Goodrich Trans. Co. '■■ 
 
 7'. Goodrich Trans. Co.. pp. 
 
 3441. 3612. 3bl5. 3771. 3772. 
 
 nterstate Commerce Comm.. Har- 
 riman i: 
 
 J'. Harriman, p. 3784. 
 
 Hooker !■. 
 
 z: Humboldt Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 3612, 3670, 3675. 3767. 3773, 
 3803, 3837. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. i: 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. Dp. 
 
 3447. 3450. 3639, 3640. 3641. 
 3643, 3644, 3670, 3671, 3676, 
 3684, 3797, 3802, 3803. 3804. 
 3805, 3833. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 134 Fed. 942— p. 3796. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 202 U. Si 613, 50 L. Ed. 1171, 
 26 S. Ct. 766— p. 3668. 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 49 
 
 Fed. 177— pp. 3787, 3801. 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 74 
 
 Fed. 784— p. 3681. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Railroad v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 73 
 
 Fed. 409— pp. 3691, 3692, 3763, 
 3789. 
 
 -■. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 101 
 
 Fed. 146— p. 3808. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 102 Fed. 709— pp. 3785, 3799, 
 3800. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 118 Fed. 613— pp. 3669, 3670, 
 3678, 3681, 3707, 3708, 3730, 
 3784. 3786. 3790. 3792. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 190 U. S. 273. 47 L. Ed. 1047. 
 23 S. Ct. 687— pp. 3637, 3687. 
 3711, 3714, 3715, 3720, 3722. 
 3805. 3806. 3832. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Nashville, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3634, 3666. 3682. 
 
 z: New York, etc., K. Co. ;■. 
 
 -'. Northeastern R. Co., p. 
 
 3668. 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3660, 3670, 3671, 3678, 3803, 
 3805. 
 
 Omaha, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Omaha, etc., St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Philadelphia, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 3778. 3782. 
 
 V. Reichmann, pp. 3442. 
 
 3700. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. f. 
 
 z: Southern Pac. Co., 74 
 
 Fed. 42— p. 3790. 
 
 z: Southern Pac. Co., 123 
 
 Fed. 597— pp. 3800. 3788. 3790. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co.. 132 
 
 Fed. 829— pp. 3725. 3763, 3796. 
 
 z: Southern Pac. Co., 137 
 
 Fed. 606— p. 3808. 
 
 z: Southern Pac. Co., 234 U. 
 
 S. 315, 34 S. Ct. 820— pp. 3635. 
 3676, 3o90, 3728. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. z-. 
 
 Southern Pac. Terminal Co. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co.. 105 Fed. 
 
 703— pp. 3679. 
 
 >•. Southern 
 
 741 — pp. 3(>77. 
 3715. 3767. 
 
 Stickney :■. 
 
 -•. Stickney. 
 
 Texas, etc 
 
 380/ 
 
 R. Co.. 117 Fed. 
 
 3681. 3691. 3713. 
 
 Fed. 
 3790. 
 
 p. 3727. 
 
 R. Co. :•. 
 Texas, etc.. R'. Co.. 52 
 187— pp. 3691. 3692, 3699. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co.. 57 
 Fed. 948. 6 C. C. A. 653— pp. 
 3o99. 3790. 3799. 
 
 :•. Union Pac. R. Co.. np. 
 
 3(i70. 3673. 3675, 3682. 3778. 
 3797. 3799. 3802. 3803. 3805. 
 3833. 
 
 United States i'. 
 
 I'. Western New York etc , 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 3775. .v-95.
 
 ecu 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. r. 
 Western, etc., R. Co., 88 Fed. 
 1S6 — pp. 3692, 3711, 3712, 3713, 
 3716, 3729. 
 
 z: Western, etc., R. Co., 35 
 
 C. C. A. 217. 93 Fed. 83— pp. 
 3666, 3714. 3716. 
 
 Interstate R. Co., Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 Interstate' Rapid Transit Co., Car- 
 roll f. 
 
 Interstate Rapid Trans. R. Co., 
 Evans f. 
 
 Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. In- 
 dianapolis, etc., R. Co., pp. 3430, 
 3605, 3o39, 3825, 3826. 
 
 Interstate, etc., R". Co., Evans v. 
 
 Interstate, etc.. Transfer Co., St. 
 Clair f. 
 
 Interurban R. Co., Heinze v. 
 
 McGovern j'. 
 
 Interurban R., etc.. Co. f. Han- 
 cock, pp. 1719, 1744, 2113, 2117, 
 2201, 2202. 
 
 Interurban St. R. Co., Baker v. 
 
 Chiert r. 
 
 Cusick f. 
 
 Edelman f. 
 
 Fine z: 
 
 Glassberg f. 
 
 Griffin z: 
 
 Hoelljes v. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Klein v. 
 
 ■ Laverty z\ 
 
 Meyerowitz f. 
 
 Moon Z'. 
 
 Moritz '■. 
 
 Mullarkey z\ 
 
 Munzer f. 
 
 Murphy z-. 
 
 Stappcrs f. 
 
 Swigelsky v. 
 
 Wainwright z'. 
 
 • Walsh z: 
 
 Winter v. 
 
 Interurban, etc., R. Co., Goldberg 
 
 Lynch v. 
 
 Intoxicating Liquors, State v. 
 Ionia Transp. Co., Lehigh Valley 
 
 Coal Co. V. 
 
 z\ Two Thousand Ninety- 
 Eight Tons of Coal, pp. 3953, 
 3961, 3968. 
 
 Ionic, The. 
 
 lonnone v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1581, 1582. 
 Ions, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Iowa, American Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Bartemeyer v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,- p. 
 
 3659. 
 
 Monroe r. 
 
 Rhodes v. 
 
 Iowa Cent. R. Co., Davis v. 
 
 McElroy v. 
 
 Mosteller v. 
 
 Newlin v. 
 
 Willard '■. 
 
 Ireland t'. Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3253, 3331. 
 Irelson -•. Southern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1843. 1846. 
 Irish V. Chapman, p. 237. 
 
 f. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 827, 885, 3302. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 2126. 
 
 Irish North-Western R. Co., Brad- 
 
 shaw v. 
 Iron Co., New Buffalo z'. 
 Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Memphis, 
 
 p. 3496. 
 Iron R. Co. v. Lawrence Furnac: 
 
 Co., p. 143. 
 
 V. Mowery, pp. 2113, 2128, 
 
 2674, 2685, 2697, 2844. 
 
 Irons, Richmond v. 
 Iroquois, The. 
 
 Iroquois Furnace Co., Elphicke v. 
 Iroquois Transp. Co., Delaney, etc., 
 Iron Co. V. 
 
 Irrawaddy, The. 
 
 Irvin, Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. '■. 
 
 z\ Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1785, 1786. 
 
 z\ Nashville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3249. 
 
 Irvine f. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1719, 2667, 2674, 2923, 2924. 
 
 z: Grady, p. 420. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ;- Norfolk, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Irving z\ Pullman Co., p. 3233. 
 Irving Nat. Hank, Emery's Sons 
 
 Irwin z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1683, 1698, 1821, 1822, 1841, 
 2020, 2027, 2029. 
 
 f. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3311, 3354. 
 
 Irzo z\ Perkins, pp. 532, 712. 
 Isaacs, Blanchard z\ 
 
 Ft. Worth Transfer Co. z'. 
 
 Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Third Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2040, 2045. 
 
 Isaacson z'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3139, 3175. 
 Isbell '■. Pittsfield Elect. St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2113, 2953. 
 Iseman v. South Carolina, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1542, 2853. 
 Tsenhower, Texas, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 Isham -■. Erie K. Co., pp. 1114, 
 
 3280, 3355. 
 
 z'. Greenham, pp. 521, 1142, 
 
 1143, 1144, 1154, 1159, 1160, 
 1171. 
 
 Island City Boating, etc., Ass'n, 
 New York, etc.. Steamship Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Island City Mercantile, etc., Co., 
 
 Williams z'. 
 Isola Di Procida, The. 
 Ison, Dallas Consol. Elect. St. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Israel '•. Clark, p. 1845. 
 Italia, The. 
 
 Ithaca St. R. Co., Goodspeed -•. 
 Ives, Grand Trunk R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Polak, pp. 1222, 1223, 
 
 1227. 
 
 •:■. Smith, p. 3724. 
 
 Ivej', Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ivy, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Izlar V. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2507. 
 I. & G. N. R. Co., Beauchamp v. 
 
 V. Blanton, etc.. Co., p. 817. 
 
 v. Ormond, p. 2370. 
 
 V. Richard, p. 1194. 
 
 V. Server, p. 1020. 
 
 I., etc., R. Co. V. Juntzen, p. 629. 
 
 J 
 
 .Tabcr, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Jackson, v. 
 
 .\dams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2855. 
 
 Atkeson v. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 -■. Crilly, p. 2188. 
 
 Express Co. f. 
 
 Fordyce v. 
 
 Gainesville Mid. Railway v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2369, 2370. 
 
 V. Grand Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1487, 1727, 1736, 1750, 1890, 
 1891, 1905, 2241, 2932, 2933. 
 2991. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Hartford, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Metropolitan Railway v. 
 
 Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Jackson Mott z-. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. •:■. 
 
 Z-. Natchez, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2183. 
 
 f. Nichol (Eng.), 5 Bing. N 
 
 Cas. 508— p. 1162. 
 
 <•. Nichol (Eng.), 5 Bing. N 
 
 C. 510, 35 E. C. L. 202— pp 
 1228, 1232, 1234, 1239, 1240 
 1248. 
 
 v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1582. 
 
 t'. Old Colonv St. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2026, 2045, 2049, 2054, 2293 
 2629, 3073. 
 
 z\ Pennsylvania R. Co., p 
 
 139. 
 
 z\ PhiladLi])hia Tract. Co. 
 
 p. 2170, 
 
 '■. Rogers, p. 211. 
 
 T'. Sacramento \'al. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 727, 732, 748, 773, 820, 825, 
 896, 900, 910, 917. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 28 
 
 So. 241, 52 La. Ann. 1706— p. 
 2533. 
 
 v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 87 
 
 Mo. 422, 56 Am. Rep. 460, 25 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 327 — pp. 
 2038, 2072. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 29 
 
 Mo. App. 495— p. 2249. 
 
 v. St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1556, 1962. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 '■. Second Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2483, 2665. 
 
 '•. State, pp. 177, 182. 
 
 Stimson z\ 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 '■. The Magnolia, p. 4054. 
 
 Walker '■. 
 
 Western L^nion Tel. Co. v. 
 
 Jackson & Co., Gray '■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Jackson & Son v. New York Cent., 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 564, 899. 
 
 Tackson Architectural Iron Works 
 '•. Hurlbut, pp. 8, 9, 726, 728, 
 871. 
 
 Jackson County Horse R. Co., Gil- 
 son zi. 
 
 Jackson Elect. R., etc., Co., Bridges 
 
 7'. Lowrv, pp. 201, 1850, 1866, 
 
 1874, 1875, 2056, 3055. 
 
 Tackson Mnegar Co., Yazoo, etc., 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Jackson, etc.. Tract. Co., Leslie z\ 
 Jacksonville Elect. Co. v. Batchis, 
 
 p. 2597. 
 
 7'. Cubbage, pp. 2657, 2955. 
 
 Jacksonville Southeastern Line, 
 
 Davis '■. 
 Jacksonville St. R. Co. v. Chappell, 
 
 pp. 2113, 2118, 2667, 2817, 2936. 
 Jacksonville Terminal Co., State 7'. 
 Jacksonville, etc., R. Co. 7'. Neff, 
 
 p. 2921. 
 — - — 7'. Southwortli, pp. 2734, 
 
 2761, 2949. 
 
 State 7'. 
 
 Jacob V. Flint, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2263. 
 
 Nanson z'. 
 
 Jacobs V. Bentlev, pp. 1228, 1232. 
 
 '■ V. Central R. Co., 208 Pa. 
 
 535, 57 .\tl. 982, 11 R. R. R. 
 562, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 562— pp. 3162, 3164. 
 
 V. Central R. Co., 19 Pa. 
 
 Super. Ct. 13— p. 3120. 
 
 V. Hooker, p. 3285. 
 
 Indiana L^nion Tract. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. Third Ave. R. Co., po. 
 
 2061, 2070, 2409, 2458, 2459, 
 2460, 2496. 
 
 v. Tutt, pp. 3121, 3148, 3149, 
 
 3170, 3171. 
 
 V. West End St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1980, 2722.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCIII 
 
 Jacobs' I'hariiiacy Co., Atlanta, 
 
 etc., U. Co. V. 
 
 .Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Jacobson v. St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 p. 2657. 
 
 Wisconsin, etc.. Railroad f. 
 
 V. Wisconsin, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3535. 
 
 Jacobson & Co. r. Adams Ivxp. Co., 
 pp. 431, 721, 763, 949, 1033, 
 1039, 1061, 1076. 
 
 V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 945, 1564, 1570, 1760, 1953, 2095, 
 2114. 
 
 Unitid Stales .Metals Retiii. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Jacoby, Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Laussatt, p. 480. 
 
 Tagger v. I'eojjle's St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2358. 
 Jaggernian, Wabash, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Tabn, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 lakobsen v. Springer, pp. 4006, 
 
 4043. 
 James v. .\merican Kxp. Co., p. 
 
 691. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Boston Kiev. R. Co., 87 N. 
 
 E. 474, 201 -Mass. 263— p. 2809. 
 
 z: Boston IClev. R. Co., 90 
 
 N. E. 513, 204 Mass. 158— p. 
 3008. 
 
 Central, etc., R". Co. %•. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7-. Griffin, pp. 1228, 1234. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Indiana, etc., R. Co. ;■. 
 
 V. James, p. 1028. 
 
 Jordan, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2785. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1781, 2549. 2550. 
 
 f. Oakland Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1988. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -<-. 
 
 V. Standard Oil Co., 189 Fed. 
 
 719— p. 3893. 
 
 V. Standard Oil Co., 191 Ftd. 
 
 827— p. 3944. 
 
 Texas Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Western l^nion Tel Co. f. 
 
 James Baird, The. 
 
 James ISfartin, The. 
 
 James Music Co. v. Bridge, p. 
 
 1229. 
 Tames Robb, KHiott -■. 
 Jameson v. Boston F.lev. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2893. 
 Hadfield i: 
 
 V. Sweeney, 61 N. Y. S. 494, 
 
 29 Misc. Rep. 584— p. 3953. 
 
 V. Sweeney, 66 N. Y. S. 494, 
 
 32 Misc. Rep. 645— p. 3974. 
 
 Jamestown St. R. Co., Chase r. 
 
 Fuller V. 
 
 Jamestown, etc., Kerry Co.. Ilol'ey 
 
 Janiesville, etc., R. Co.. Ilanslcy 
 
 Tamieson, St. Louis, etc., li. Co. v. 
 Jamison f. San Tose, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1735, 1810,' 1970, 2270. 
 Tane Grey, The. 
 Tannett, Miller r. 
 Janncy -•. Tudor Co., nn. 765, 3892. 
 Tannin v. State, n. 184. 
 Tanny v. Great Northern R. Co , 
 
 pp. 1548, 1552. 
 Tansen v. Minneapoji*^, t-tc, R. 
 
 Co., p. 2016. 
 Janson, .Arkansas Cent. R. Co. "• 
 Tapbet & Co., Houston, etc., U. 
 
 Co. '•. 
 Jaques f. Sioux Citv Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2148. 2876. 
 Tacqueth, Gage t-. 
 Jaquette v. Capital Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2586. 
 Jarboe, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v 
 
 Jardine f. Cornell, pp. 2414, 2415, 
 
 2483. 
 Jarmy z\ Duluth St. R'. Co., p. 
 
 1911. 
 Jarowski t. Ilamburg-.American 
 
 Packet Co., p. 4003. 
 Jarrard, Missouri I'ac. R. Co. v. 
 Jarrell -'. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2611, 2ol2, 2616. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Jarrett v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2252. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 488, 579, 804. 
 
 Main v. 
 
 Jarvis Co., Braker v. 
 
 jarvis, etc.. Cold Storage Co., 
 
 Lembeck v. 
 Jason, The. 
 Jasper Trust Co. v. Kansas City, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 308, 316, 356, 
 
 358, 359, 366, 367, 369, 371, 
 
 374. 
 Jay Wai Nam ;•. .\nglo-.American 
 
 Oil Co., p. 4067. 
 Jean, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jean Webre z'. Kendall, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 825, 826. 
 Jean, etc., Co. :■. Flagg, pp. 816, 
 
 829. 
 Jefferson -•. Birmingham R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2518, 2542. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 The. 
 
 Jefferson Ave. R'. Co., Sullivan 
 
 Jefferson P>ank, Smith v. 
 leffersonville R'. Co. v. Cleveland, 
 pp. 896. 898, 899, 907. 
 
 V. Cotton, p. 515. 
 
 V. Hendricks, pp. 1720, 1911, 
 
 2117, 2118, 2263, 2615. 
 
 V. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1, 92 Am. 
 
 Dec. 276— pp. 1594, 1596, 1599, 
 2468, 2476, 2565, 3078. 
 
 V. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 
 
 Am. Rep. 103— pp. 2468, 2471, 
 2565, 3092. 
 
 V. Swift, .pp. 2256, 2263. 
 
 — — V. White, p. 513. 
 leffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Ens- 
 ley, pp. 1450, 1452. 
 
 V. Gent, p. 583. 
 
 V. Hendricks, p. 2618. 
 
 V. Irvin, pp. 556, 584. 
 
 ivIcEwen V. 
 
 V. Parmalee, p. 1537. 
 
 r. Riley, p. 1787. 
 
 r. Worland, pp. 1450, 1452. 
 
 Jeffray, Lindsay z'. 
 
 Jeffries, Blair v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 607, 614, 1288, 1310, 1363, 1481. 
 
 Jeffris t'. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 
 
 1213, 1229, 1231, 1232, 1234. 
 Tellett '•. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 552, 570, 595, 596, 599, 848. 
 Tellison, Wabash R. Co. ?•. 
 Jemison v. Birmingham, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 296, 316. 
 Tencks -■. Coleman, pp. 191, 210, 
 
 1488, 1492, 1499, 1500, 2122. 
 Jenkins f. Atlantic Coast Line R. 
 
 Co., 66 S. E. 416, 84 S. C. 360— 
 
 p. 3396. 
 
 J'. Atlantic Coast Line R". 
 
 Co., t36 S. E. 415, 84 S. C. 361 
 —p. 3396. 
 
 V. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 65 
 
 S. E. 636, 83 S. C. 473— p. 795. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 84 
 
 S. C. 343, 66 S. E. 409— p. 165. 
 
 7'. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 84 
 
 S. C. 520, 66 S. E. 407— pp. 761, 
 762, 810, 854, 872, .-(75. 
 
 ;■. Brooklvn Heia;hts R. Co.. 
 
 29 .\pp. niv.' 8. 51 N. Y. S. 216. 
 
 5 N. Y. .\nn. Cas. 315— pp. 193. 
 2775. 
 
 f. Brooklvn Heights R. Co., 
 
 51 N. Y. S'. 868, 30 .\pp. Div. 
 (i22— p.^ 1649. 
 
 -■. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2560, 2651, 3011. 3012. 
 
 Jenkins, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 :•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 753, 1505. 
 
 Frothingham !■. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co , 
 
 pp. 1837, i2i7. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. .Motlow, pp. 726, 3155. 
 
 Nobel's Explosives Co. v. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2789, 
 
 V. Pickett, p. 280. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., pp. 153, 
 
 154, 172, 170. 
 
 Jenks I'. Fulmer, p. 1242. 
 Jenkyns v. Brown, p. 352. 
 
 :•. Usborne, p. 1217. 
 
 Jenneson -•. Camden, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 813. 
 Jennings, .American Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. Big Sandy, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3488, 3491. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Clyde Steamship Co., p. 
 
 3893 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 127 
 
 N. Y. 438, 28 N. E. 394. 40 N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 318, 49 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 98 — pp. 967, 1013, 1020, 
 1101, 1087, 1090, 3258. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 52 
 
 Hun 227, 5 N Y. S. 140, 2i N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 15— pp. 421, 433, 
 974, 994, 995, 1000, 3372. 
 
 T. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 
 
 Ont. -App. 477 — p. 1577. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 204, 205. • 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. -•. 
 
 Oakland Cotton Mfg. Co. i: 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 978, 986, 1396, 
 
 1402. 
 
 V. Union Tract. Co., p. 2237. 
 
 Jensen v. Barbour, pp. 1960, 2073, 
 
 2076. 
 
 Florence, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Harmon f. 
 
 Jereissati, Castelli -•. 
 
 Jeremiah Smith & Sons, In re. 
 
 Jerolman :•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2378. 
 Terome v. Smith, pp. 2430, 2640. 
 
 f. United R. Co., p. 1892. 
 
 Jersey City, etc., R. Co., Barlow 
 
 V. 
 
 f. Morgan, pp. 1604, 2428. 
 
 Xirk T. 
 
 Jersey City, etc., St. R. Co., Eagen 
 
 Jersey, etc., R. Co., Barlow :■. 
 Jersey, etc., St. R. Co., Quagliana 
 
 lessee, Galveston, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Jesse French Piano, etc., Co., San- 
 ger f. 
 Tessel i\ Rath, pp. 308, 365, 
 lesson "•. Soly, p. 355. 
 Jester, Tippecanoe Loan, etc., Co. 
 
 Tesup. Neilson f. 
 
 Tett, Georgia R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 Tevons T-. I'nion Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1618, 2450. 
 Tewell J'. Grand Trunk Railwav. 
 
 pp. 564. 896. 
 
 '■. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2879. 
 
 Tewctt, Klein v. 
 
 ■ ?'. Klein, pp. 2137, 2138. 
 
 Loomis -■. 
 
 McKinney -•. 
 
 -■. Olscn. pp. i7i. 577. 
 
 Slater f. 
 
 Terry t. 
 
 Jillson, People :•. 
 
 lirachek -•. Milwaukee Elect. R'., 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 1891, 2936, 3033. 
 Joerg ;•. -Atchison, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 765. 
 Joestin" Merchants' Despatch 
 
 Transp. Co. v. 
 Johannes v. Phoenix Ins. Co., p. 
 
 2560.
 
 CCIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Tohanson f. Sondheim, 2 Alaska 
 556— p. 3877. . ^ , ,,„ 
 
 r. Sondheim, 143 Fed. 620, 
 
 76 C. C. A. 310— p. 3892. 
 
 Tohn, Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 87 88, 95, 1740, 1762,. 2096, 
 2560, 2673, 2703. . 
 
 John Anda Co., Pennsylvania K. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Tohn H. Pearson. The. 
 Tohn H. Starin, The. 
 Tohn L. Stephens, Morrison z: 
 Tohns, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 '- V. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 Tohnsen z: Oakland, etc., R. Co., 
 ■ pp. 1986, 2912. 
 
 Johnson z: Alabama, etc., K. Co, 
 ■^ pp. 1036, 1363, 1364, 1388, 1482, 
 1483. „ ^ 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Atlantic Nav. Co. z: 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2315. 
 
 Beck z: 
 
 z: Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 p. 2589. 
 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 — — z\ Brooklyn Heights R. Co. 
 
 p. 1695. 
 — — z: B. & O. R. Co., p. 2116. 
 
 z: Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 1789. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 
 
 Iowa 25, 50 X. W. 543— p. 2528 
 
 z: Chicago, ttc, R. Co., 58 
 
 Iowa 348, 12 N. W. 329— p 
 2488. „ . 
 
 V. Coey, pp. 1708, 2013. 
 
 V. Concord R. Corp., pp. 191 
 
 193, 1612, 1622, 1858, 1974 
 1975. 
 
 Denison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Detroit, etc.. Railway, p. 
 
 3023. „. ^ 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., K. Co. 
 
 '- V. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 209, 607, 608, 609, 1492, 
 3281. 
 
 Erie Dispatch v. 
 
 z: Eveleth, pp. 1229, 1230, 
 
 1231, 1232. 
 
 Fordyce z'. 
 
 V Friar, pp. U, 768, 869, 
 
 931, 946, 949, 1020. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Galveston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2583, 2637. 
 
 Georgia R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Georgia R.. etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1593, 1594, 1597, 1599, 1601. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 576. 
 
 V. Great Xortliern R. Co., p. 
 
 3455. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 82 Miss. 
 
 452, 34 So. 357— p. 483. 
 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 2 Tex. 
 
 Civ. App. 139, 21 S. W. 274— 
 p. 1822. 
 
 Hartshorne zj. 
 
 Himelright v. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Hudson R. Co., p. 70. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Interurban St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2690. 
 
 Lexington R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Loper, p. 3586. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2488. 
 
 v. McClung, p. 2560. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Mathews, p. 638. 
 
 Johnson z: Michigan United R. 
 ■ Co., pp. I(i62, 2o61. 2705. 
 
 z: Midland R. Co. (Eng.), 4 
 
 Exch. 327— p. 221. 
 
 z: Midland K. Co. (Eng.), 6 
 
 Raihv. Cas. 61, 1 Ry. & C. Y. 
 Cas. 16— pp. 211, 231, 236, 237, 
 246. 
 
 Miles '•. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. f. 
 
 z'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3352. 
 
 Moss "•. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. z>. 
 
 f. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 508, 3267, 3268, 3298, 3361. 
 
 V. New York, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 3631, 3648. 
 
 J'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2425. 
 
 Patten z: 
 
 z\ Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1, 4, 220, 221, 1135, 1175, 
 1176, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 
 1184, 1187, 1191. 
 
 Z'. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1529, 2451. 
 
 ■ "f. Richmond, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 949. 
 
 Roberts z\ 
 
 V. St. Joseph R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1735, 1890, 1963, 2151, 2267. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 '■. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2644, 2807. 
 
 z: Seaboard, etc., Railway, 
 
 p. 148. 
 
 -'. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 3431, 3450, 3461, 3464. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. z: 
 
 Southern R. Co. '■. 
 
 ■:■. Southern R. Co., pp. 2509, 
 
 2512, 2513, 2639. 
 
 ■ Steamboat John Owen z-. 
 
 V. Stoddard, pp. 303, 3878. 
 
 z: Stone, pp. 3115, 3124, 
 
 3125, 3142, 3186, 3189, 3190. 
 
 V. Strader, pp. 581, 582. 
 
 z\ Texas Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1518, 7766, 1966, 2872. 
 
 Texas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas Trunk R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Three-Hundred and Eight- 
 een and One-Half Tons of Coal, 
 pp. 187, 188, 210, 213, 214. 
 
 z: Toledo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 320, 3297, 3415. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Union Pac. R. Co.. 29 R. 
 
 I. 80, 69 Atl 298— p. 3544. 
 
 r. Union Pac. R. Co., 100 
 
 Pac. 390, 35 Utah. 285— p. 2761. 
 
 V. Washington Water Power 
 
 Co., pp. 1536, 2867, 2960, 3033. 
 
 z: West Chester, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3180. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 
 v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1041, 1042. 
 
 V. Winona, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1722, 2229, 2831. 
 
 v. Yazoo, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 2189. 
 
 V. Yonkers R. Co., p. 2225. 
 
 Johnson & Co. v. Central Vermont 
 
 R. Co., pp. 366, 689, 691, 902, 
 3391. 
 
 Johnson-Brinkman Comm. Co. v. 
 Wabash R. Co., pp. 656, 657. 
 
 Johnson Coal Min. Co. z\ Hock- 
 ing Valley R. Co., pp. 220, 254, 
 255, 257. 
 
 Johnson R. Co., Abbott v. 
 
 Johnson, etc., Co., Georgia South- 
 ern R. Co. V. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Johnston z'. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1866, 2923. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1250, 1301, 1306. 
 
 V. Davis, p. 581. 
 
 Johnston, East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. z: 
 
 Heidenheimer z: 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 '■. New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 1888. 
 
 z- St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1835, 1836. 
 
 L'nion Pac. R. Co. z-. 
 
 Johnstone v. Furness, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 3927. 
 
 ;■ Richmond, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 321. 323, 822, 984, 987, 1036, 
 1039, 1074, 1389. 
 
 '■. Seattle, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2766. 
 
 Johnstown Pass. R. Co., Bums 
 
 Johnstown, etc., R. Co., Durfee 
 
 Joiner, Wrightsville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Joint Traffic Ass'n, United States 
 
 Joiiet St. R. Co. V. Call, pp. 2725, 
 
 2760. 
 Joiiet, etc., R. Co., Pell v. 
 Joliffe, Steamship Co. t'. 
 Joline, Berkelhamer v. 
 ' J?rumberger z'. 
 
 Garber v. 
 
 Gyle r. 
 
 Kaliniak ''. 
 
 Knaisch '■. 
 
 Reiss c'. 
 
 Stevenson ■;■. 
 
 Tolley f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 148. 
 Tolliffe z\ Northern Pac. R. C')., 
 ' pp. 949, 1388, 1389, 1473, 1480. 
 Jolly, Citizens' St. R. Co. z\ 
 '- Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 '■. Young, p. 3865. 
 
 Jonas z\ Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 2(i90. 
 Tonasen ''. Keyser, p. 3954. 
 Jonasson '•. Weir, p. 1067. 
 Jones, -Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 '- .Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Arnold v. 
 
 f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1452, 1453, 1470. 
 
 r. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 4 
 
 App. D. C. 158— p. 2366. 
 
 -'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 10 
 
 Mackey (21 D. C.) 34(.— pp. 
 2125, 2255, 2731. 
 
 Bank z: 
 
 z\ Boston, etc., R. Co., 163 
 
 Mass. 245, 39 N. E. 1019— pp. 
 1505, 1506, 1519, 1520, 1521, 
 2155. 
 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Co.. 205 
 
 Mass. 108, 90 N. E. 1152— pp 
 2092, 2093, 2299, 2718. 
 
 Campbell v. 
 
 z'. Canal, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2251. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. <■. 
 
 v. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1994, 1995. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R'. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co . 42 
 
 Minn. 183, 43 N. W. 1114— p. 
 1878. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 43 
 
 Minn. 279, 45 N. W. 444— pp. 
 202, 2211. 
 
 z: Christian, pp. 1207. 1210. 
 
 z: Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 320, 323, 324, 983, 984, 985, 
 3349, 3377. 
 
 Cleveland, etc. R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Commonwealth v. 
 
 7.. Co-Operative Ass'n, pp. 
 
 2034, 2767, 2869. 
 
 z: Earl, pp. 1247, 1249 
 
 • z: Eastern, etc., R. Co , p. 
 
 1181. 
 v. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2548. 
 
 Fillo z: 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z\
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 ccv 
 
 Co. 
 
 Tones v. Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 2666. 
 
 V. George, p. ')3o. 
 
 . V. Georgia, etc., R 
 
 2254. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. :■• 
 
 . i\ Hough, p. 3881. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co r. 
 
 International, etc., K. <-o- »' 
 
 V. Jones, pp. 1231, 1232 
 
 1239. 
 
 LengsfieUl t-. 
 
 I.ittlejohn ;■. 
 
 Louisville, etc 
 
 147. 
 
 „... ,„.. R. Co. r. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 
 726, 
 
 V. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co., 
 pp. 3932, 1482, 1483. 
 
 Metropolitan R. Co. r. 
 
 ',■. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 733, 742, 821, 825, 1331, 
 
 f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2028. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. New Kngland, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 878. 
 
 V. New York Cent., etc , R 
 
 Co., 156 N. Y. 187. 50 N. E. 
 856, 41 L. R. A- 490— pp. 1321, 
 1883, 1998. 2814. 
 
 Z-. New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co., 61 N. Y. S. 721, 46 App. 
 Div. 470— p. 2144. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 653. _ „ 
 
 V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 pp. 3159, 3168,' 3170, 3171. 
 
 Pacific Kxp. Co. r. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. t\ 
 
 V. Pennsylvania K. Co 
 
 2089, 3322. 
 
 f. Pitcher & Co., pp. 
 
 732, 734, 736, 748, 768, 804 _ 
 
 V. Priester, pp. 3U4, 3113, 
 
 3126, 3130, 3131, 3132. 
 
 Railroad Co. r. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 -J, St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 125 Mo. 666, 28 S. W. 883. 26 
 I R A. 718, 46 Am. St. Rep. 
 514— pp. 1580, 2092. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 89 
 
 Mo. App. 653— p. 3340 
 
 ■ V. Sims (Ala.), 6 Port 138 
 
 —pp. 477, 479. 
 
 V. Sims, 9 Port. 236, Zi Am. 
 
 Dec. 313— p. 3916. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 '■. Springfield Tract. Co.. pp. 
 
 1890, 1902. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1884. 
 
 V. United R., etc., Co.. pp. 
 
 2160, 2289, 2293, 2333, 2334. 
 
 V. Voorhees, pp. 8. 948, 960, 
 
 1003, 1008, 1019, 3114, 3113. 
 3123, 3125, 3129, 3152, 3153, 
 3165, 3167. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R." Co., pp. 
 
 1547, 2435. 
 
 V. Walker, pp. 11, 296, 729, 
 
 733, 750. 
 
 V. Wells, Fargo & Co., p. 512. 
 
 J.. Western W-rmont R. Co., 
 
 p. 211. 
 
 Wood r. 
 
 Jones Bros. r. Southern R. Co., p. 
 
 25. 
 Jones Cotton Co., Pank v. 
 Gulf Compress Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Tones-Lane Co. r. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 ■ Co pp. 1060, 1062, 1063, 1064, 
 
 1412, 1418, 1454, 1456, 1470. 
 Tonesbora, etc., Exp. Co. Eager i-. 
 Tonesboro, etc., R. Co., Brenner f. 
 ■ Rrookfield, p. 1593. 
 
 Chapman, etc.. Land Co. z-. 
 
 Chapman, etc.. Lumber Co. 
 
 lonesville Mfg. Co. v. Southern 
 " Railway, pp. 817, 3292, 3537. 
 tonte, Illinois Cent. R. ^o. v. 
 lop.s. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. 
 ioplin, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 'oplin, etc., R. Co., Tempfer v. 
 lordan t'. .\nurican Exp. Co., pp. 
 ■ 766, 778. 
 
 I'.irmingham R., etc., Co^ f. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 City Properties Co. t. 
 
 J.. Fall River R. Co., pp. 
 
 210 236, 239, 240, 277, 287, 
 3125, 3126, 3138. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1439, 1440, 1454, 1456, 1481. 
 
 r. Hazard, p. 804. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1776. 
 
 Old Colony St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1743, 
 2895! 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 , . Patterson, p. 646. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania Co., p. 363. 
 
 r. Seattle, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2700, 2701. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Jordan, etc., Co. r. James, pp. 328, 
 
 333. 367, 517, 1154, 1160, 1207, 
 
 1209, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1222. 
 
 1225. 1229. 1235, 1239, 1248. 
 Jorden z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pn. 2658, 2683. 
 Jordon Stock Food Co., .\tchison, 
 
 etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Toseph, Central, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 ■ T-. Georgia Tv., etc., Co., p. 
 
 3307. 
 
 McCormick f. 
 
 Toseph Grant, The. 
 
 Joscy, San Antonio, etc., .R. Co. v. 
 
 Joshua Barker, The. 
 
 Joslin. Fitzsimmons f. 
 
 '- Sawyer <■. 
 
 Ward V. 
 
 Joslyn z: Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 560. 
 Joyce I'. Los .\ngeles R. Co.. pp. 
 2195, 2248, 2688. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1769, 2370. 2383, 2391, 2728, 
 2875, 2951. 
 
 z: St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 
 2828. 
 
 f. Swan, p. 354. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. f. 
 
 Tovnes z'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 83 
 " Atl. 318, 234 Pa. 321— n. 1203^ 
 . z\ Pennsylvania R. Co.. 235 
 
 Pa. 232, 83 Atl. 1016, Ann. Cas. 
 19131), 964— pp. 607. 610, 622, 
 624, 696. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania R. Co., 239 
 
 Pa. 93, 86 Atl. 653— p. 871. 
 
 Tudah z: Kemp, p. 513. 
 
 Tudd z- Evans, p. 615. 
 
 ■ f. New York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., 117 Fed. 206, 54 C. C. A. 
 
 238— pp. 908, 912, 913. 
 
 7'. New York, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., 130 Fed. 991— p. 918. 
 
 Opsahl z: 
 
 Judge z: Columbus R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1603, 2428. 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 722. 
 
 Judice z: Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 3046, 3058. 
 Judson, Ilause & Son f. 
 
 7'. Western R. Corp. (Mass.), 
 
 4 .Allen 520, 81 .\m. Dec. 718— 
 pp. 288, 885, 3259, 3286. 
 
 z: Western R. Corp. (Mass.), 
 
 6 -Mien 486. 83 .\m. Dec. 646— 
 pp. 958, 1003. 1005, 1006, 1007. 
 3347. 
 
 Tump Co.. Murray 7'. 
 
 lumper, Texas Mid. R. Co. z: 
 
 Tune 7'. Boston, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 1509. „ 
 
 Jung. Birmingham R.. etc., Co. 7v 
 Junker, Watkins 7'. 
 
 Junod z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. pp 
 
 3711, 3719, 3721. 
 Juntzen, I., etc., R. Co. r. 
 Jurey, Indianapolis, etc., K. ^o. i. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Jurkiewicz 7'. Illinois Cent. K. Lo.. 
 
 p. 2268. 
 Turvelius, Keyser & Co. 7. 
 justis 7'. Atchinson, etc., K. V.O., 
 
 p. 1612. 
 
 Kaase v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1533, 2482. 
 Kahaner'7'. International Nav. Co., 
 
 V- 3986. „ _ 
 
 Kahn v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3174, 3188, 3195. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. 
 
 Co. '•• . r, n . 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co . . 
 
 Kahnweiler z: Buck. p. 1242. 
 Kain z: Kansas City, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 Kaiser, Missouri Pac. R. Co. -.■. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co, p. 
 
 2141. ^ 
 
 Kalamazoo Hack, etc., Co. v. 
 Sootsma, pp. 101. 106. 190. 192. 
 196 
 
 Kalen z: United States p. 3441. 
 
 Kalina z: Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 1042. 1432. 
 
 Kaliniak 7'. Joline. p. 2897. 
 
 Kalis 7. Detroit United Railway, 
 pp. 1820, 1952, 2926. 
 
 Kalispell Lumber Co.. Great North- 
 ern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Kallaher, Union R., etc., ^o. .■■ 
 
 Kallberg. Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Ka^lmJn 7'. ^'nited States Exp 
 
 Co., pp. 945, 948, 9^6 986 1006. 
 
 1036, 1066, 1067, 3369, 33/0. 
 Kambour 7'. Boston, ftc. Railroad. 
 
 pp 2116. 2120, 2254. 2361. 2'503. 
 Kanawha Dispatch, Courteen 7. 
 Kanawha, etc.. R.. Co.. Columbus 
 
 Iron, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 floylman 7'. 
 
 Norvell 7'. 
 
 Kane, Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Barrow Steamship Co. 7'. 
 
 r. Cicero, etc., R. Co., PP- 
 
 1502. 1519, 1538. 
 
 Cooper 7'. 
 
 Schwabacher z: 
 
 z: State, pp. 3588, 3389. 
 
 United States r. „ -i 
 
 Kankakee Elect. R. Co., Hamil- 
 ton 7'. . T1 1 /- -. 
 
 Kansas. American Book Co. •.. 
 
 Asbell 7-. 
 
 Mugler 7'. 
 
 Smilev 7'. 
 
 The. 
 
 Thomas 7'. 
 
 Kansas City. Clark 7j. 
 
 Kansas City Cable R. Co., Carter 
 
 Ridenhour z: 
 
 Sharp 7-. 
 
 Sweeney 7'. 
 
 Weber 7'. „.,, 
 
 Kansas City Distillery Co., lUl- 
 
 Kantas'city Elev. R. Co.. Raw- 
 son 7'. 
 
 Stevens 7'. 
 
 Van N'ranken 7'. 
 
 Kansas City Southern R. <-o. z: 
 
 Embry. p. 3399. 
 Kansas City Stock-yards Co.. «-ot- 
 
 Kan"ls'city St. R. Co Ross r. 
 Kansas Citv Termiral R. Co., Ka« 
 
 Vallev Drainage Dist. 7'. 
 Kansas Citv Transfer Co. z: Neis- 
 
 wanger. pp. 894. 899 _ 
 
 Kansas City. etc.. R. Co.. Blake c. 
 
 Brown 7-.
 
 CCVI 
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 Co., Bayles 
 p. 221. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co., Carter :•. 
 
 Cherry f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Cooke T. 
 
 Cross f. 
 
 Donovan z: 
 
 Haas f. 
 
 f. Heard, p. 1388. 
 
 -•. Heigdon, pp. 3111, 3122. 
 
 f. Holland, p. 1381. 
 
 . Jasper Trust Co. f. 
 
 Kain f. 
 
 Kirkpatrick -■. 
 
 f. Lilly, pp. 272, 878. 
 
 McDonald ;■. 
 
 ■: McGahey, pp. 3115, 3148, 
 
 3154, 3160. 3168, 3171, 3174. 
 
 Marshall, etc.. Grain Co. v. 
 
 Marshall, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Mayes, p. 2264. 
 
 -•. Morrison, pp. 587, 689, 
 
 900. 
 
 O'Donnell r. 
 
 Owens f. 
 
 f. Pace, p. 1386. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Pat- 
 ten, pp. 727, 3168, 3174. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 Rivers f. 
 
 St. Clair v. 
 
 Seawell z: 
 
 z: Sharp, pp. 3345, 3381. 
 
 f. Simpson, pp. 948, 1074, 
 
 1397, 1400. 
 
 f. Spann. p. 804. 
 
 ■:•. VVilliford, p. 2207. 
 
 Yarnell v. 
 
 Kansas Natural Gas Co. v. Has- 
 kell, p. 3533. 
 -; — West f. 
 Kansas Pac. R 
 
 !•'. Bayles, 
 
 J-. Cutter, p. 3070 
 
 Goggin r. 
 
 z: Kessler, p. 3093. 
 
 f. Kunkel, p. 2568. 
 
 f. McCann, p. 700. 
 
 z: Miller, p. 2681. 
 
 f. Montelle, p. 3191. 
 
 V. Nichols, etc., Co., pp. 727, 
 
 732, 740, 748, 1267. 
 
 z: Remolds, 8 Kan. 623— 
 
 pp. 727, 740, 1036, 1362. 
 
 z: Reynolds, 17 Kan. 251 — 
 
 pp. 945, 976. 
 
 z: Salmon, pp. 1580, 1581. 
 
 T. Searle, p. 811. 
 
 Travers z'. 
 
 Kansas Pac. Railway, Rice v. 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Albers 
 
 Comm. Co.. 79 Kan. 59, 99 Pac. 
 
 819— pp. 1195, 1196, 1201. 
 
 f. -Albers Comm. Co., pp. 
 
 1195, 3738, 3739, 3745, 3746, 
 3747, 3756, 3766, 3853. 
 
 .American, etc., Timber Co. v. 
 
 z: Ayers, pp. 1307, 1412, 
 
 1413, 1420. 
 
 z: Barnett, pp. 285, 288, 726, 
 
 732, 748, 1357, 1482. 
 
 Barth f. 
 
 Beadle z: 
 
 z: Belknap, p. 2749. 
 
 z: Berry, pp. 1761, 2520. 
 
 Blake z. 
 
 z: Board, p. 3423. 
 
 Belles V. 
 
 Bowers z'. 
 
 Brown z: 
 
 z: Butler, p. 2604. 
 
 z: Carl, 91 Ark. 97, 121 S. 
 
 W. 932— pp. 950, 3332, 3396. 
 
 z: Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 S. 
 
 Ct. 391— pp. 3752, 3762. 
 
 Cherry v. 
 
 Council Bluffs v. 
 
 Curry z'. 
 
 V. Curry, p. 3041. 
 
 v. Dalton, p. 3049. 
 
 Davis J'. 
 
 V. Davis, pp. 1919, 2120, 
 
 2121, 2233, 2380, 2676, 2689. 
 
 Dimmitt v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. z: Domugh, 
 pp. 2090, 2114, 2126, 2250, 23>I, 
 2966. 
 
 f. Enibry, p. 3313. 
 
 Erwin z: 
 
 v. File, p. 3057. 
 
 1 leming ■:•. 
 
 I'. Florence, p. 2772. 
 
 z: Foster, pp. 2416, 2459, 
 
 2462, 2495, 2572, 3080, 3083. 
 
 Frazier v. 
 
 Gallegly z: 
 
 Hanley x'. 
 
 Harkness v. 
 
 Hipsley v. 
 
 z. Holaen, pp. 2472, 2478. 
 
 Kellerman f. 
 
 Kellerman & Son '■. 
 
 z\ Kirksey, p. 2502. 
 
 V. Little, pp. 1862, 3085. 
 
 Live Stock Co. v. 
 
 r. Love, 23 Okla. 224, 100 
 
 Pac. 22— pp. 127, 128. 
 
 Marshall v. 
 
 Marshall, etc., Grain Co. v. 
 
 Martindale v. 
 
 '•. Matthews, pp. 2282, 2359, 
 
 2361, 2380, 2585, 2586, 2612, 
 2657, 2859. 
 
 z: Morrison, pp. 3127, 3128, 
 
 3130, 31ji. 3132. 
 
 One Hundred and One Live 
 
 Stock Co. z: 
 
 Patterson 7\ 
 
 7'. Railroad Comm., p. 131. 
 
 — ?■. Riley, pp. 2461, 2463. 
 
 — Rivers '•. 
 
 — v. Rodchaugh, pp. 3162, 3163. 
 
 — V. Rosebrook-Tosey Grain 
 Co., pp. 276, 331, 796, 814. 
 
 — St. Clair V. 
 
 — z: Sanders, pp. 2000, 2636. 
 
 — '■. Scott, p. 2058. 
 
 — z\ Skinner, pp. 3113, 3114, 
 3115, 3116, 3117, 3119. 
 
 — V. Smith, p. 2740. 
 
 — V. State, pp. 178, 3121. 
 
 — z: Stoner, 1 C. C. .A. 231, 49 
 Fed. 209— pp. 2009. 2084, 2975. 
 
 — z'. Stoner, 2 C. C. A. 437, 51 
 Fed. 649, 52 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 462— p. 2010. 
 
 — Straus -'. 
 
 — v. Thomas, p. 3174. 
 — ■ z. Tonn, pp. 1139 
 
 Kates V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3215, 3217, 3220, 3221, 3223, 
 
 3224, 3231, 3237. 
 Kates Transfer, etc., Co. v. Klas- 
 
 sen, pp. 834, 856, 857, 861. 
 Katz, Florida, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Katzenbach, Chicago, etc., K. Co. 
 
 Katzenbcrger 
 
 Co. r. 
 Kauffman 
 Kauffman 
 
 R. Co. 
 Kaufman 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 ■. Robey, p. 420. 
 & Co., Louisville 
 
 etc., 
 Rail- 
 
 1204. 
 
 1198, 
 3771, 
 
 z. L'nited States, pp. 
 
 3772, 3773, 3826, 3833. 
 
 »■. Washington, p. 3176. 
 
 i: Watson, pp. 2085, 2131, 
 
 2324. 
 
 z'. West, p. 1314. 
 
 z: White, p. 2190. 
 
 z: Worthington, pp. 1702, 
 
 1867, 1874, 1880, 2264, 2356, 
 2360. 
 
 z: Young, pp. 2618, 2744. 
 
 Kantner v. Philadelphia, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 2858. 
 Kaplan v. Midland R. Terminal 
 
 Co., p. 1330. 
 Kaplowitz ''. Interborough Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., p. 1786. 
 Kapp, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Karnes v. American Fire Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 1119. 
 Karr z'. Milwaukee Light, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 1515, 2134, 2135, 2137, 
 
 2138, 2141, 2326, 2883. 
 Karrer, Galveston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, 
 
 p. 1172. 
 Kaskcll, North Baltimore Pass. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Kaspers, North Chicago St. R. Co. 
 
 North Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kassen, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railroad Co, z: 
 
 Kates :•. .Atlanta Baggage, etc., 
 Co., pp. 99, 100. 190, 192, 193, 
 220, 221, 257, 1768. 
 
 -'. Atlanta, etc.. Cab Co., pp. 
 
 3110, 3140. 
 
 '. Seaboard, etc., 
 way, pp. 486, 519. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. ;■. 
 
 Kaul Lumber Co., Lawrence v. 
 Kavanaugh, Central, etc., R. Co. v- 
 Kavanaugh & Co. z. Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 939, 967, 981, 3333, 
 
 3523. 
 Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. v. 
 
 Kansas City Terminal R. Co., p. 
 
 3519. 
 Kay z. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 57 
 
 N. E. 751, 163 N. V. 447— pp. 
 
 2679, 2731. 
 
 ?•. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 51 N. Y. S. 724, 29 .\pp. Div. 
 466— p. 2697. 
 
 Kean z. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2121. 
 
 z. West Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2186. 
 
 Kearney z. Oregon R., etc., Co., 
 pp. 2338, 2884. 
 
 z'. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1743, 1755, 1890, 1928, 2114, 
 2226, 2245, 2315, 2825. 
 
 Kearney Mill, etc., Co. v. Union 
 
 Pac. R. Co., p. 1224. 
 Kearns, Delta Bag Co. v. 
 Keary, Commonwealth v. 
 Keating z. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1834, 1841, 1986, 2757, 2859. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. t'. 
 
 z'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 49 N. Y. 673— p. 1917. 
 
 z. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 3 Lans 469— p. 2130. 
 
 Keator z. Scranton Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1517. 
 Kebbe 7'. Connecticut Co., pp. 
 
 1682, 1741, 1951, 1980, 2168, 
 
 2881, 2888. 
 Kechnie, Powell v. 
 Keck Z'. Calumet, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2777. 
 Keckevoet v. Dubuque, p. 3586. 
 Keedy, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Keefe, z. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1767, 1779, 1798, 2271, 2873. 
 
 r. Lexington, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 77, 79. 
 
 Keefer, Louisville, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Keegan, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Third Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 2896. 
 
 Keel, Rome R., etc., Co. v. 
 Keeler v. Goodwin, p._ 1208. 
 
 Southern Etp. Co. t'. 
 
 Keeley v. Bostoi., etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1635, 2453. 
 
 V. City Elect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1682, 1892, 2935. 
 
 Keeling, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Keen v. Detroit Elect. Railway, pp. 
 2462, 2463, 2572. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2042, 2048. 
 
 Keenan, Walker v. 
 Keene '•. Lizardi, pp. 2038, 2056. 
 Keener, Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 Keeney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 47 N. Y. 525- p. 1385. 
 
 z. Grand Trunk R'. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 59 Barb. 104— p. 222. 
 
 Keeny, Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. 
 
 Atlantic Consol. St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Keep z. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2073, 2080.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCVlI 
 
 Keep -vlfg. Co. v. Moore, pp. 1164, 
 
 Il(>7, 1220, 1221. 
 Kceshan -■. Elgin, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2415, 2(.24. 
 Kcc'tcr I'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pi). 154, 612. 
 Kciauver ?•. Philadelphia, etc, R. 
 
 Co., p. 2668. 
 Kehn, Mc-rchants' Despatch Transp. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Kehrcr :■. Stewart, pp. 3577. 3593. 
 Keifner ;■. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1511, 1512, 1>92, 2134, 2137, 
 
 2138, 2325. 
 Keiter, Indiana Union Tract. Co. 
 
 Union Tract. Co. '•. 
 
 Keith, Covington Stockyards Co. v. 
 
 livansviile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Frank v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3123, 3142, 3143. 3184. 3189. 
 
 Keitt. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Kelliain v. Steamship Kensington, 
 
 p. 1037. 
 Kellar. Sprowl -'. 
 Keller -■. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3328. 
 
 Hal! V. 
 
 v. Ilestonville, etc., R, Co., 
 
 p. 1833. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 f. Siou.x, etc., 1\. Co., pp. 
 
 1895, 1899. 
 
 V. Wove Realty Co., pp. 2740, 
 
 2837. 
 
 Kellerman r. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 426, 969, 970, 986, 989, 1061, 
 
 10(.2, 1399. 
 Kellerman & Son -'. Kansas, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 978, 1012. 
 Kelley ;•. 15oston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2026, 2027, 2730. 
 
 f. Howker, pp. 306, 339, 1144, 
 
 3884. 
 
 •P>rooklyn St. R. Co. f. 
 
 Cunard Steamship Co. 7\ 
 
 v. Cunard Steamsliip Co., p. 
 
 3928. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2102. 2667. 2640. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., p 1713. 
 
 Kellogg. Ackley r. 
 
 f. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p. 
 
 2880. 
 
 V. Smith, p. 2239. 
 
 z'. Suffolk, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 149. 232. 
 
 Kellow V. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1715, 1720, 1722, 1999, 2011, 
 2183. 
 
 Kelly -.: Adams Exp. Co., p. 1269. 
 
 f. Benedict, pp. 806, 807. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R'. Co. -■. 
 
 7\ Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 2684. 
 
 Cunard Steamship Co. f. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Farlow v. 
 
 First Nat. Bank v. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2263. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. .ualott, pp. 1578. 2105. 
 
 V. New York Citv R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1645. 1646. 1668.' 
 
 "'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1687, 1833, 2794. 
 
 Pullman Co. ■:•. 
 
 f. Railway Co., pp. 2519. 
 
 2524. 
 
 ?'. Southern Railway, pp. 819. 
 
 1072. 1111, 1116. 
 
 7'. Southern, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2737. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Torrey '•. 
 
 Transfer Co. ?■. 
 
 W. & A. R. Co. f. 
 
 Kelm, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. i'. 
 
 Kelsey. Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1977, 2447. 
 
 Kember f. Southern Exp. Co., p. 
 
 1070. 
 Kemendo i'. Fruit Dispatch Co., 
 
 pp. (>92, 820, 826, 33i3, 3661, 
 
 3662, 3663. 
 Kemp, Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 V. Coughtry, p. 728. 
 
 V. Falk, p. 1224. 
 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 — — Tudah T. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2306. 
 
 Kempf. Hus -'. 
 
 Kempton, Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kendall. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Marshall, p. 1240. 
 
 Kendall, etc.. Co.. Jean Wcbre ■:■. 
 Kendrick, Missouri, etc., K. Co. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Staub '•. 
 
 Kennard, IloIIaday z: 
 
 New Jersey R. Co. v. 
 
 f. New Jersey, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2113. 
 
 Kennard Glass, etc., Co., Pennsyl- 
 vania Co. '■. 
 
 ■ Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Kennebec Steamboat Co., Rogers 
 
 Kennedy v. Birmingham R., etc., 
 Co., pp. 2466, 2469. 
 
 r. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1683, 1719, 1720, 1756, 1757, 
 2657. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Dodge, p. 527. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Hays f. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2594. 2654. 
 
 Mississippi Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Moore f. 
 
 7'. Morgan, p. 2587. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 2021. 2789. 
 
 Robertson & Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Roman, p. 891. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 2280, 
 
 2284. 
 
 — — W^adley Southern R. Co. v. 
 Kennedy Bros. 7'. Mobile, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 895. 900. 
 Kennedv. etc.. R. Co. 7'. Buckler, 
 
 p. 2318. 
 Kennelly, West Chicago St. R. Co. 
 
 Kenney 7'. New York, etc., K. Co., 
 125 N. Y. 422, 26 N. E. 626— 
 pp. 1579, 1580, 2105. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 54 Hun 143, 7 N. Y. S. 225. 
 26 N. Y. St. Rep. 636— pp. 2104. 
 2105. 
 
 Kennon 7'. Gilmer, S Mont. 257, 
 5 Pac. 847. 51 Am. Rep. 45— 
 pp. 1684. 1732. 1737. 
 
 7'. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, 33 
 
 L. Ed. 110. 9 S. Ct. 696— pp. 
 1837. 2742. 3063. 
 
 Kenny Co. 7. .Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 _ pp. 525. 544. 912. 
 Kensington. The. 
 Kent. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Baltimore. etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1619. 1631. 1633. 1636. 3165. 
 
 Canal Boat Montgomery 7'. 
 
 7". Hudson River R. Co., pp. 
 
 653, 1321. 
 
 7'. Lincoln, p. 2737. 
 
 -■. Mason, p. 2479. 
 
 7'. Midland R. Co., p. 3183. 
 
 Kent, Silver v. 
 
 7'. Wadley, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 262. 
 
 Kcntle, International, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 t'. 
 Kentucky, .\dams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Covington, etc., Bridge Co. :■. 
 
 Crutcher 7'. 
 
 Henderson Bridge Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. f. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Kentucky Cent. R. Co. z: Diddle, 
 
 pp. 3012, 3049. 
 
 V. Dills, pp. 2113, 2116, 3066. 
 
 3068, 3069. 
 
 V. Fern, p. 3012. 
 
 Gerrciss, pp. 2080, 2667. 
 
 Z'. Jacoby, p. 2201. 
 
 V. McMurtry, pp. 2580, 2638, 
 
 3073. 
 
 . Parks 7'. 
 
 z: Thomas, pp. 1953, 1958. 
 
 2210, 2211. 
 
 Kentucky Hotel Co. z\ Camp, pp. 
 
 1739. 1750. 1978, 2983. 
 Kentucky Wagon ^'^- Co. 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 700. 
 
 7'. Ohio, etc., R. Co., pp. 114. 
 
 700. 701. 703, 704. 705, 70(,, 
 707, 709, 714, 716. 717. 
 
 Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. z: 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 5, 
 6. 3650. 3657. 3659. 3718. 3738, 
 3787, 3789. 3795. 
 
 7'. McKinney, pp. 1788, 234 J. 
 
 2617. 
 
 z: Quinkert. pp. 1720, 1877. 
 
 1970. 1995, 2673, 2828. 
 
 Kentucky, etc.. Fire Ins. Co. z: 
 Western, etc., R. Co., pp. 3265. 
 3286. 
 
 Kentuckv, etc., R. Co. z: Shrader. 
 p. 2820. 
 
 Smoot 7'. 
 
 Kenwood Bridge Co., Pennsylvania 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Keokuk 7'. Keokuk Northern Line 
 Packet Co., p. 3586. 
 
 Packet Co. 7'. 
 
 ■ The. 
 
 Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 
 Keokuk 7'. 
 
 7'. True. p. 2117. 
 
 Williams f. 
 
 Keokuk Packet Co. 7'. Henry, pp. 
 1543, 2512. 2541. 
 
 Keokuk, etc._. Bridge Co. :•. Illi- 
 nois, p. 3588. 
 
 Keokuk, etc.. Packet Co., Loeffler 
 
 —11 7-. True. p. 1740. 
 
 Yerkes 7'. 
 
 Keokuk, etc.. K. Co., Dittman, itc. 
 Shoe Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Missouri, p. 3484. 
 
 Kepper, Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Kerl, Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 Kermit, Van Horn 7'. 
 
 Kermon z: Gilmer, pp. 2281, 2_S6. 
 
 2287, 2291. 
 Kern, Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. 7. 
 Kerr. Ewart :■. 
 
 7'. Georgia R. Co.. p. 330/. 
 
 z: Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 268. 272. 3136. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 McConnochie 7'. 
 
 7'. Norman, pp. 820. 828. 
 
 ^— 7. Schwaner, pp. 3969, 3970, 
 
 3971. 
 Kerrigan z\ Southern Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3374. 
 Kerrv 7'. Pacific Marine Co., p. 
 
 4040. 
 Kessenger z: Fitzgerald, p. 38j6. 
 Kessler 7. First Nati Bank, p. 3366. 
 
 Kansas Pac R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 3175. 3181. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R Co.. 
 
 p. 3182. 
 
 Ketchani, Cleveland, etc.. R. Lo.
 
 CCVIIl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ketcham, Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ketcheson r. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 pp. 1630, 1634, 2441. 
 Ketchum f. American Merchants 
 
 Union Exp. Co., pp. 821, 823, 
 
 1007. 
 
 f. New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 1648. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ketrow. Toledo R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 Kcttell, Sutton r. 
 
 Kettenhofen r. Globe Transfer, etc, 
 
 Co.. pp. 10, 846. 
 Kevekordes, Evansville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. !■. 
 Key. Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Keves. Northern Pac. R. Co. f. 
 Keves-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 80 S. 
 
 W. 53, 105 Mo. App. 556 — pp. 
 
 1267, 1477. 
 
 %: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 113 
 
 Mo. App. 144, 87 S. W. 553— 
 p. 1407. 
 
 Keys, Belfast, etc., R. Co. t: 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 N'andalia R. Co. v. 
 
 Keyser f. Ilarbeck, p. 3879. 
 
 Hawkhurst Steamship Co. f- 
 
 Jonasen v. 
 
 Schmidt z: 
 
 Skantze v. 
 
 Sorensen f. 
 
 Wold V. 
 
 Wood r. 
 
 Keyser & Co. v. Jurvelius, pp. 
 
 3959, 3967. 
 Keystone, The. 
 Keystone Lumber Co., Yazoo, etc., 
 
 K. Co. V. 
 Kevstone Lumber Yard v. Yazoo. 
 
 e'tc, R. Co., 94 Miss. 192, 47 
 
 So. 803— p. 170. 
 
 f. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 97 
 
 Miss. 433, 53 So. 8— p. 613. 
 
 Kibby f. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3331, 3355. 
 Kibler v. Southern Railroad, 64 S. 
 
 C. 242, 41 S. E. 977— p. 2571. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, 62 S. 
 
 C. 252, 40 S. E. 556— pp. 69, 
 3090, 3091. 
 
 Kichler, Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kickler, Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kidd, Alabama & T. R. R. Co. 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hartwell R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 -.'. Pearson, pp. 3418, 3419, 
 
 3420, 3421, 3424, 3440, 3539. 
 
 Kidder v. Fitchburg R'. Co., p. 
 
 109. 
 Kiefer, Atlantic City R. Co. i: 
 
 I'. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2172, 2187, 2797. 
 
 Kiff V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 3377, 3380. 
 
 V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 574, 575, 579. 
 
 Kight V. Metropolitan R. Co., pp. 
 2129, 2887. 
 
 V. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 889, 894, 898, 900, 910. 
 
 Kilberry, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ki'lduff !•. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 p. 1581. 
 Kiley v. Chicago City R. Co., 189 
 
 111. 384, 59 N. E. 794, 52 L. 
 
 R. A. 626, 82 Am. St. Rep. 460 
 
 —pp. 2462, 2487, 2572, 3081. 
 
 V. Chicago City R. Co., 90 
 
 111 App. 275— pp. 2459, 3081, 
 3090. 
 
 Kilgo, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Kilgore, McGregor & Co. v. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Killam v. Wellcsley, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2689, 2827. 
 Killebrew, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Killian, Commonwealth v. 
 
 Killian r. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1S84, 1895, 1896, 2676, 2750, 
 
 2753, 2909. 
 Killmer z: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1135, 1179, 1193. 
 Killmeyer z: Wheeling Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2126, 2127. 
 Kilpatrick z: Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 p. 2258. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kimbal, United States z\ 
 Kimball z: American Exp. Co., p. 
 
 1333. 
 
 County of Mobile v. 
 
 Forsythe v. 
 
 z: Pa'lmer, p. 2214. 
 
 f. Rutland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 4 211, 243, 741, 797, 868, 946, 
 1003, 1004, 1008, 1368. 
 
 The. 
 
 •:■. Tucker, p. 3866. 
 
 -.;. Western R. Co., p. 780. 
 
 Kimball Co., Kirk z: 
 
 Kimball Steamship Co., Ames Mer- 
 cantile Co. V. 
 
 In re. 
 
 Wcisshaar z'. 
 
 Kimber z: Metropolitan, etc., K'. 
 
 Co., p. 2152. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Kimble, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Kimbro, Little Rock Tract., etc., 
 
 Co. z: 
 Kimbrough, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Kime z\ Southern R. Co., 69 S. 
 E. 264, 153 N. C. 398— pp. 1412, 
 1413, 1426. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., 156 N. 
 
 C. 451, 72 S. E. 485— pp. 1426, 
 1482. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 160 N. 
 
 C. 457, 76 S. E. 509, 43 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 617— pp. 948, 960, 
 1005, 1426, 3303, 3372. 
 
 Kimic z\ San Jose-Los Gatos, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 2083, 2700, 2809, 
 2895. 
 
 Kinchen, Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Kindellan -■. Mt. Washington R. 
 Co., p. 1582. 
 
 King, Adams Exp. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 161, 162, 163. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 z\ Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1525. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc. R. Co. z'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Dean v. 
 
 z: De Land, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 538, 931. 
 
 • East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Harrington z\ 
 
 z: Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2075. 
 
 Illinois, etc., R. Co. 7'.^ 
 
 r. Macon, 'etc., R.i Co.. p. 
 
 3294. 
 
 v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 213, 432. 
 
 Miles V. 
 
 Miller v. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Nassau Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 1645. 
 
 v. New Brunswick, etc , 
 
 Steamboat Co., pp. 896, 901, 911. 
 
 V. Ohio, etc.. R. Co., p. 2023. 
 
 v. People's Bank, p. 2641. 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 V. Richards, pp. 547, 1158. 
 
 V. Shepherd, p. 734. 
 
 Z'. Sherwood, p. 851. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., pp. 2050, 
 
 2566, 2578, 2831, 
 
 Steamboat Lynx z'. 
 
 ■ bteamboat New World z\ 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Wiggins z: 
 
 King z\ Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2586, 2587, 2588. 
 
 f. Woodbridge, pp. 321, 333, 
 
 1016. 
 
 z: Woodridge, p. 3880. 
 
 z\ Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 23i)6. 
 
 King County v. Northern Pac. R 
 
 Co., p. 3554. 
 King Lumber, etc.. Co. z\ Atlan 
 
 tic, etc., R. Co., pp. 20, 3488. 
 Kingman, Louisville, etc., K. Co 
 
 z\ Lvnn, etc., R. Co., p. 2704 
 
 Kingman '& Co. z\ Denison, pp 
 
 1227. 1229. 
 Kingsbury, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 Z'. 
 
 • Shoemaker z\ 
 
 Kings County, etc., R. Co., Voor- 
 
 bees ?■. 
 Kingsley z\ Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2794. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. z: 
 
 King's Mountain R. Co., Smith 
 
 Kingston >'. Fort Wayne, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 70 N. W. 315. 112 Mich. 
 
 40, 40 L. R. A. 131— p. 2120. 
 ,.. Fort Wayne, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Mich.), 74 N. W. 230— p. 2120. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kingston City R. Co., Smith -■. 
 Kingwood Coal Co., West Virginia. 
 
 etc., K. Co. z\ 
 Kinloch z'. Craig, p. 1216. 
 Kinnavey r. Terminal R. Ass'n, p. 
 
 3710. 
 Kinnebrew, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Kinner -■. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1618. 
 Kinney z: Central R. Co., 32 N. T. 
 
 L. 407, 90 Am. Dec. 675— pp. 
 
 948, 2095. 
 ■ z'. Central R. Co., 34 N. J. 
 
 L. 513, 3 .\m. Rep. 265— p. 2095. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2033. 
 
 O'Bryan t'. 
 
 7'. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1867. 
 
 Yonge Z-. 
 
 Kinnick z\ Chicago, etc., ^;.. Co., 
 
 pp. 1281, 1314. 
 Kinsley, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 
 ?■. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3145, 3147, 3225, 3226, 3234. 
 
 Pendleton z\ 
 
 Kinyoun ?'. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1890, 1904, 2656. 
 Kirby z\ Adams Exp. Co., pp. 767, 
 
 815, 818, 821, 945, 986. 
 • Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 242 
 
 111. 418, 90 N. E. 252— pp. 421. 
 1298, 1315, 1393, 1468, 3708. 
 3758. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 146 
 
 111. App. 31— p. 1033. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1884, 2598. 
 
 7'. L'nion Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1617. 
 
 Kirchner 7'. Detroit City R. Co., 
 pp. 1889, 2396, 2995. 
 
 7'. Oil City, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2167, 2174. 
 
 Kird V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2336, 2680. 
 Kirk, American Cotton Oil Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 896, 898. 
 
 z: Folsom, pp. 818, 821, 825, 
 
 1037, 1457. 
 
 7'. Kimball Co., p. 3373. 
 
 7'. Seattle Elect. Co., pp. 191, 
 
 1542 1644 2122, 2422, 2425. 
 2466,' 2472, 2473, 2484. 
 
 7'. State Board, p. 3525. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCIX 
 
 Kirkbridc, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Salter v. 
 
 Kirkendall v. Union Pac. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 2097, 2098, 2673, 2696. 
 Kirkham, Missouri, (.'tc., R. Co. v 
 Kirkland v. Charleston, etc.. Rail 
 
 way. pp. 2466, 2494, 2850. 
 
 V. Dinsmore, pp. 321, 325 
 
 931, 984, 987, 988, 990. 
 
 f. Texas, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1721. 
 
 Kirkman v. Bowman, |)p. 304, 305 
 
 306, 307. 337. 
 
 ;■. Shawcross, p. 615. 
 
 Kirkpatrick v. Kansas City, etc. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 365, 487, 494. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co 
 
 109 S. W. 682, 211 Mo. 68— 
 pp. 1741, 2659. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 143 S. W. 865, 161 Mo. App 
 515— pp. 1558, 2671. 
 
 Monteith v. 
 
 Kirksey, Kansas, etc., R. Co. r.^ 
 Kirkwood. Marquette, etc., R. Co 
 
 V. 
 
 Robinson <•. 
 
 Kirst T'. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 822, 824. 
 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, p. 3549. 
 
 V. Montgomery, pp. 726, 770 
 
 Kiser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1468. 
 
 Doyle V. 
 
 Kiser Co. v. Central, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 p. 3820. 
 Kissane v. Detroit, etc.. Railway 
 
 p. 80. 
 Kissenger v. Fitzgerald, pp. 948 
 
 1356, 3520. 
 Kitchell V. \'anadar, p. 481. 
 Kitchen, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -• 
 
 V. Spear, pp. 1219, 1220, 
 
 1229. 1232. 1233. 
 
 Kitt, El Paso Elect. K. Co. v. 
 —, — El Paso, etc.. R'. Co. r. 
 Kizer r. Texarkana, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3694. 
 Klair v. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 724, 732. 1293, 1339, 1350, 
 
 1353. 1387, 1432, 1433, 1436, 
 
 1437. 1451. 1475. 3395. 
 
 -■. Wilmington Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 727, 730, 732, 748. 765. 1331. 
 3901. 
 
 Klass V. Metropolitan St. R. Co . 
 
 p. 2649. 
 Klass Comm. Co. v. Wabash R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 537, 539. 1097. 
 Klassen. Kates Transfer, etc.. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Klauber t'. American Exp. Co.. pp. 
 
 729. 734. 735, 736, 745, 750. 753. 
 _ 756. 757. 
 
 Kleespies. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Kleffmann v. Dry Dock, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2164, 2321, 2860. 
 Kleiber t'. People's R. Co., pp. 
 
 1981, 2009, 2014, 2128, 2261. 
 Klein, Anacostia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Hamburg, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 p. 3169. 
 
 - J'. Interurban St. R. Co., p. 
 2818. 
 
 Jewett V. 
 
 V. Tewett, pp. 2089, 2137. 
 
 Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Klenk v. Oregon, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2531. 3021. 
 Klentschy, Indianapolis, etc., Co. v. 
 Klepper. Texas, etc.. R'. Co. v. 
 Kleszewski v. Chicago. etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2002. 2003. 
 Kleven v. Great Northern R. Co.. 
 
 Xi. 3099. 
 Klien v. Fischer, p. 1226. 
 Kline r. Central Pac. R. Co. 27 
 
 Cal. 400. 99 Am. Dec. 282— pp. 
 
 2411, 2412, 2533. 
 
 V. Central Pac. R. Co., 39 
 
 Cal. 587— p. 2533. 
 
 1 Car — n 
 
 Kline v. Milwaukee Elect. R., etc. 
 Co., pp. 1711, 2022, 2023. 2028 
 2786. 
 
 V. Santa Barbara Consol. R 
 
 Co., p. 1747. 
 
 Klinger v. L'nited Tract. Co., p 
 
 2694. 
 Klitch, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Klunk V. Hocking V'alley R. Co. 
 
 p. 816. 
 Klyman, Louisville, etc., R. Co. r 
 Knaisch :•. Joline, pp. 1706. 2800 
 Knapp, Hooker -■. 
 
 ?•. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 p. 3817; 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 2784. 
 
 Union Steamboat Co. v. 
 
 V. Wells, Fargo & Co., pp 
 
 321, 409. 
 
 Knapp, etc., Co. v. McCaffrey, p 
 1153. 
 
 Knecht v. Cleveland, etc., R'. Co., 
 p. 1616. 
 
 Knell V. L'nited States, etc.. 
 Steamship Co., p. 1007. 
 
 Knepfle v. Cleveland, etc.. Rail- 
 way, p. 1972. 
 
 Kniceley v. West X'irginia Mid. R. 
 Co.. p. 1582. 
 
 Knieriem v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 3125. 3142. 3145. 
 
 Knight. Central, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pacific Coast Stage Co.. p 
 
 2795. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Pontchartrain R. Co.. p 
 
 2150. 
 
 V. Portland, etc.. R. Co.. pp 
 
 1531. 1746, 1794, 3181, 3316 
 3317, 3320. 
 
 V. Providence, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1142. 1143. 1144, 1147, 1154 
 U6I. 3289. 3308. 
 
 V. Quincy. etc.. R. Co.. pp 
 
 209. 249. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. -•. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc.. R'. Co.. pp 
 
 487. 722. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp 
 
 847, 897, 899, 905, 907. 
 
 Knight Co., United States v. 
 Knight & Co. v. Southern Pac. R 
 
 Co.. p. 66. 
 Knoll r V. Pacific Creosoting Co. 
 
 pp. 3904, 3905, 3910. 
 Knopf <'. Richmond, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1642. 2852. 
 Knorr v. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 p. 756. 
 Knott, Botany Worsted Mills -■. 
 
 V. Bdtany Worsted Mills 
 
 pp. 947. 4018, 4056, 4057, 4059 
 4060. 4061. 
 
 -'. Raleigh, etc.. R. Co.. pp 
 
 3305. 3395. 3402. 
 
 Knowles. --\nchor Line <•. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. p 
 
 912. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2622. 2623. 2634. 
 
 Knowlton r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 
 pp. 1453, 1469. 
 
 f. Erie R. Co.. pp. 949. 2092 
 
 2098. 
 
 V. Milwaukee Citv R. Co. 
 
 po. 1589, 1890, 2942.' 2943. 
 
 Knox '■. Xinetta. p. 3937. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Rives, etc., Co.. pp. 2, 726 
 
 732. 748, 874. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co., p 
 
 67. 
 
 -; — Tiedeman v. 
 
 Knoxville Iron Co. -■. Dobson, p 
 
 1848. 
 Knoxville Tract. Co. v. Carroll, p 
 
 2395. 
 
 V. Lane, pp. 2038. 2040 
 
 2056, 3064. 3072. 
 
 V. Wilkerson, pp. 191, 1593 
 
 1602, 1603, 1604. 2428. 
 
 Knoxville. etc.. R. Co. v. Harris, 
 
 p. 3590. 
 Knuckey v. Butte Elect. R. Co.. 
 
 41 \lont. 314, 109 Pac. 979— pp. 
 
 2597, 2600, 2647, 2686. 2822. 
 
 V. Butte Elect. R. Co.. 45 
 
 Mont. 106, 122 Pac. 280— pp 
 2319, 2825, 2906. 
 
 Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. p. 3742. 
 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3741, 3742, 3743, 3830. 
 
 Kobbe, Barnard v. 
 Koblitz, I>iem v. 
 
 Koch -■. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 p. 2870. 
 
 V. New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 1647. 
 
 — — Wichita, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Koehler, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 Roberts i\ 
 
 Koehne v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 58 N. E. 1089, 165 N. Y. 603— 
 p. 2956. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 32 App. Div. 419, 52 N. Y. S. 
 1088— p^ 1715. 
 
 Koekuk Packet Co., Erb i'. 
 Koekuk, etc.. Packet Co., Carlisle 
 
 Loeffler v. 
 
 Koenig v. St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 , 2816. 
 
 Koenigheim, Osborn v. 
 Koeningsheim v. Hamburg Amer- 
 ican Packet Co., p. 1036. 
 Koerner, Chicago, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Koetter f. Manhattan R. Co., p. 
 
 _ 2036. 
 Kohler v. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2134. 
 - — V. West Side R. Co.. p. 3035. 
 Kohm f. Interborough Rap'd 
 
 Trans. Co.. p. 2887. 
 Kohn '■. International Mercantile 
 
 Marine Co., p. 3988. 
 
 V. Nassau Electric R. Co., p 
 
 1559. 
 
 V. Packard, pp. 528. 536. 891. 
 
 t'. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 574, 576, 1216. 
 
 Kohn Bros. f. Washer, p. 1864. 
 Kohner v. Capital Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2701, 2867. 
 Kohr r. Metropolitan St. R. Co , 
 
 p. 2689. 
 Kolb, Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 
 v. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 642. 644. 645. 
 
 Kolp. Texas, etc.. R. Co. -•. 
 
 Konieczny z-. Detroit, etc.. R. Co.. 
 i p. 2668. 
 < Konigin Luise. The. 
 
 Konkle -•. St. Paul Citv R. Co.. p. 
 2716. 
 
 Koontz. Wheeling, etc.. R. Co. •■. 
 
 V. Wheeling. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1208. 1212. 1222. 1225. 1226. 
 
 I 1229. 1232. 1233, 1234. 1236, 
 
 1239, 1244, 1251. 
 ' Koran -'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 ' pp. 1531, 1970. 2820. 
 I Korbe, Louisville, etc.. Tract. Co. 
 
 ' Korn T'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 ' pp. 2411. 2489. 
 
 I Korzib f. Netherlands-American 
 
 ; Steam Nav. Co., p. 4001. 
 
 I Kotoski, Chicago, etc.. Transfer 
 
 I ^Co. f. 
 
 Koues -'. 
 p. 2906. 
 
 Kountze Bros. 
 
 Kowalski, Metropolitan R. 
 I Kozminsky v. Oregon, etc., 
 I p. 2446. 
 [ Krackcr v. Philadelphia 
 
 Transit Co.. p. 2192. 
 I Kramer ;•. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 I Co., 190 N. Y. 310. 83 N. E. 35 
 —p. 2347. 
 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co . 
 
 Express Co. 
 
 Co. f. 
 R. Co.. 
 
 Rapid
 
 ccx 
 
 TABLE OF' CASES. 
 
 Kramer f. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 Co., 100 N. Y. S. 276, 114 App. 
 Div. 804— pp. 1817, 2172, 2894. 
 
 -•. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2830. 
 
 Krauss, Pullman Co. v. 
 
 Kreeft, Gaborron -•. 
 
 Kreis f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 2141. 
 Kremer -•. Southern Exp. Co., pp 
 
 565, 567, 572, 889, 912. _ 
 Krender f. Wolcott, pp. 756, 33^0 
 Krenek, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v 
 Kreuziger '•. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2847. 
 Kriedcrmacher r. Union R. Co., p 
 
 2154. 
 Krieg v. Lehigh Vallev R. Co., p 
 
 2162. 
 Krock V. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp 
 
 2358, 2396, 2922. 
 Kroeger v. Seattle Elect. Co., pp 
 
 1519, 2147. 
 Krohn v. Oechs, pp. 850, 3934. 
 Kromshinsky, West Chicago St. R 
 
 Co. '•. 
 Kronshage r. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 909, 910. 
 Krouse f. Detroit United Railway 
 
 p. 2820. 
 
 ■ Pittsburgh, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Kruck -■. Connecticut Co., pp. 2130 
 
 2285, 2280, 2319, 2667, 2814. 
 Krudler v. Ellison, pp. 364, 477 
 
 478, 488. 
 Krueger '•. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1623, 2449, 2464. 
 Krug V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2805. 
 
 Frank Bird Transfer Co. v 
 
 Kruger v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 1963. 
 Krulevitz '■. Eastern R. Co., 140 
 Mass. 573, 5 N. E. 500, 26 Am 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 118— pp. 2063 
 2070. 
 
 t'. Eastern R. Co., 143 Mass 
 
 228, 9 N. E. 613— pp. 2063 
 2070. 
 
 Krumm v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2170. 
 Kruse v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1543, 1546, 1551, 1554, 1569 
 
 1572, 2521. 
 Kucnhle, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kuhlen v. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1743, 2026, 2328, 2820, 2869 
 
 2727. 
 Kuhn, Alabama, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Central Passenger R. Co. v 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. -'. 
 
 Kulman v. Erie R. Co., pp. 2339 
 
 2877. 
 Kummer 7'. Christopher, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 2710. 
 Kunkel, Kansas Pac. R. Co. z\ 
 Kunzmann v. New York, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 2835. 
 Kupper, Louisville R. Co. v. 
 Kuppcr-Benson Hotel Co., Cham 
 
 hers V. 
 Kurfees v. Harris, p. 1701. 
 Kurzmann v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2834. 
 Kuteman, Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Kuter -'. Michigan Cent. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 236, 239, 240, 770, 3153. 
 Kutter, Delaware, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Kuttner z'. Central R. Co., pp. 
 
 2698, 2880. 
 Kuykcndall v. Coulter, p. 3417. 
 Kyle, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 
 
 C. C. A. 151, 182 F(d. 613— pp. 
 1666, 1857. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 84 
 
 Neb. 621, 122 N. W. 37— p. 135. 
 
 V. Laurens R. Co., pp. 849, 
 
 850, 855, 3255, 3295. 
 
 Kyser, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kyte, Evansville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 K. & D. M. R. Co.. McCoy v. 
 K. & N. Turnpike, People v. 
 
 Labor f. Tabcr, pp. 524, 546, 
 
 888. 
 La Barge 7'. Union Elect, Co., pp. 
 
 1820, 1980, 2199, 2337. 
 Labatt, Dillingham 7'. 
 Labbc 7-. Corbett, p. 420. 
 La Bourgogne, 117 Fed. 261 — pp. 
 
 4044, 4051, 4052. 
 
 La Bourgogne, 139 Fed. 433, 71 
 C. C. A. 489— pp. 4042, 40.S1, 
 4052. 
 
 La Bourgogne. 144 Fed. 781, 75 
 C. C. A. 647— pp. 3979, 4012, 
 4031, 4033, 4035, 4046, 4049, 
 4051, 4052, 4072, 4081, 4082. 
 
 La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. 
 Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664— pp. 4035. 
 4036, 4037, 4040, 4042, 4044, 
 
 4045, 4049, 4050, 4051, 4052, 
 4054, 4055, 4073, 4076. 
 
 Lacas c'. Detroit City R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1889, 2226. 
 Lacey 7'. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2337, 2860. 
 
 7'. Oregon R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 728, 7ii, 749, 753, 765, 972, 
 977, 978, 1027, 1030. 3299, 3389, 
 3395, 3396, 3407. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 La Chapella, St. Marc 7'. 
 Lachner Bros. 7'. Adams Exp. Co., 
 
 p. 1477. 
 Lackawanna Line, Herf, etc.. 
 
 Chemical Co. 7'. 
 Lackawanna, etc., R. Co., Bockul- 
 
 camp 7'. 
 
 7'. Chenewith, pp. 1550, 1814, 
 
 2037, 2092, 2106, 2173. 
 
 Weisenberg v. 
 
 Yersack -•. 
 
 Lackland 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 287, 1335. 
 Lackman 7'. Union, etc., R. Co , 
 
 p. 2424. 
 La Conipagnie Generale Trans- 
 
 atlantique, Darnana 7'. 
 
 Deslions 7'. 
 
 Rundell 7'. 
 
 Sterling Amusement Co. 7'. 
 
 La Conner, etc., Transp. Co., Lam- 
 bert V. 
 
 V. Widmer, p. 3890. 
 
 Lacour t'. Springfield St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1888. 
 Lacroix, Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 La Crosse City R. Co., Champane 
 
 Coolidge 7'. 
 
 La Crosse, etc.. Packet Co., Ger- 
 
 mania Ins. Co. 7'. 
 Lacy 7'. Armour Packing Co., p 
 
 3590. 
 Lacy, etc., Co., Wolfe 7'. 
 Ladd 7'. Foster, p. 1740. 
 
 Hutchings z'. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Ladd, etc, Bank 7-. Commerca' 
 
 State Bank, pp. 362, 384. 
 Ladshaw 7'. Southern Railway, p. 
 
 2860. 
 La Due, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. <• 
 Ladue 7'. Griffith, pp. 730, 772 
 
 885, 3369, 3370. 
 Lady Franklin, The. 
 Lady Pike, The. 
 I,afayc z\ Harris, p. 258. 
 Lafayette v. Wells Fargo & 'o. 
 
 Exp., p. 801. 
 Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Pattison. 
 
 p. 1195. 
 
 V. Sims, pp. 2125, 2165. 
 
 Lafifitte V. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2056, 2059, 2071. 
 Lafflin V. Buffalo, etc., R'. Co., pp 
 
 1783, 1910, 2229. 
 Laffrey 7'. Grummond, p. 3174. 
 La Floridienne "'. Seaboard, etc.. 
 
 Railway, pp. 121, 137. 
 La Floridienne, etc., Co., Soc'et 
 
 Anonvme z'. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1198, 1202. 
 
 La Gascogne, op. 4006, 4007. 
 Lagerkrans, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Laing V. Colder, pp. 1684, 1720. 
 2299, 2671, 2673, 3161, 3162, 
 3165. 
 
 V. Rigney, p. 3792 
 
 Laird, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Pittsburg Pract. Co., pp. 
 
 1650, 2450. 
 
 R. Co. 7'. Acres,. 
 
 015, 2020, 
 
 pp 
 
 1884, 
 2585, 
 
 969, 
 1445, 
 
 1899,. 
 2590,. 
 
 3085.. 
 
 975, 
 1446,. 
 
 1720, li 
 
 2623, 
 1602. 
 
 Lake, Wood 
 Lake Erie, etc. 
 p. 2565. 
 
 7'. Arnold, 
 
 2580, 2606, 2615 
 
 • V. Beals, pp. 
 
 1900, 1902, 1911, 
 2632. 
 
 V. Cloes, p. 2470. 
 
 ■ 7'. Condon, p. 583. 
 
 V. Cotton, p. 1740. 
 
 Dunning 7'. 
 
 • 7'. Fix, pp. 2461, 2565 
 
 German 7'. 
 
 Grimes v. 
 
 V. Hatch. 6 O. C. C. 230, 3 
 
 O. C. D. 430— pp. 897, 906. 
 
 V. Hatch, 52 O. St. 408, 39 
 
 N. E. 1042, 61 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 293— p. 901. 
 
 V. Holland, pp. 
 
 1368, 1385, 1430, 
 1450. 
 
 7'. Huffman, pp. 
 
 2357, 2583. 
 
 Insurance Co. z\ 
 
 7'. James, pp. 1252, 1253 
 
 7'. Lucas, p. 2621. 
 
 7'. Matthews, pp. 2543 
 
 2625, 2715. 
 
 • 7'. Mayo, pp. 1601, 
 
 2467, 2468, 2480. 
 • • 7'. Morain, p. 2744. 
 
 z: Oakes, p. 3394. 
 
 • V. Quisenberry, pp. 1598, 
 
 2467. 
 
 • V. Zoffinger, p. 2300. 
 
 Lakeland Transp. Co., In re. 
 Lakeman 7'. Grinnell, pp. 292, 850, 
 
 855, 3934. 
 Lake Roland, etc., R. Co., State 7'. 
 Lake Rowland, etc., R. Co., State 
 
 Lake Shore Elect. Railway 7'. Ho- 
 
 bart, p. 2694. 
 Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerine Co. 7'. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 829. 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., Allen v.- 
 
 Anderson 7'. 
 
 7'. Anderson, p. 1276. 
 
 • Babcock v. 
 
 7'. Bangs, p 
 
 7'. Bennett, 
 
 Ronfiglio 7'. 
 
 Bradley 7'. 
 
 7'. Brown, 
 
 1960, 1978, 1992, 
 2399, 2400, 2635. 
 
 Caldwell 7'. 
 
 • Chamberlain 7'. 
 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R, 
 
 20. 
 
 Cole V. 
 
 Cousins V. 
 
 Cross 7'. 
 
 7'. Davis, pp. 982, 1043, 1046, 
 
 1049. 
 
 Edwards v. 
 
 Evans z'. 
 
 Fisher v. 
 
 Foggan 7'. 
 
 V. Foster, pp. 200, 201, 277, 
 
 285, 3111, 3132, 3135. 
 
 Frohriep 7'. 
 
 Fuller V. 
 
 Geismer 7'. 
 
 V. Gibson, jip. 826, 949, 1271, 
 
 1369. 
 
 Graves 7'. 
 
 7'. Greenwood, pp. 198, 202,. 
 
 2435, 2436. 
 
 Greismer 7'. 
 
 Grimsliaw 7'. 
 
 Haskins v. 
 
 2263. 
 pp. 628, 629. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1558, 
 2037, 
 
 1757, 
 2383, 
 
 Co.
 
 TAIU.n OF CASKS. 
 
 CCXI 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Her- 
 rick, \>. \T)1. 
 
 V. Hobart, p. 2581. 
 
 V. lli.chstim, p. 3148. 
 
 — ■!■. llodapp, pp. 562, 756. 
 
 Ilolfnian -■. 
 
 V. Ilotchkiss, pp. 757, 1568, 
 
 1712, 1714, 1766. 1792. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 '- V. Kelscy, 180 111. 530, 54 N. 
 
 E. 608— pp. 199, 1953, 2122, 
 2123, 2206, 2345. 
 
 V. Kelsey, 76 111. App. 613— 
 
 p. 2167. 
 
 Kinner v. 
 
 Kinsley v. 
 
 Knapp V. 
 
 V. Luce, p. 554. 
 
 Luken -'. 
 
 McCasIin ;■. 
 
 McWilliams f. 
 
 Morgan v. 
 
 V. Mortal, pp. 191, 1612, 
 
 1633, 2409, 2451, 2458. 
 
 V. National Live Stock 
 
 178 111. 506, 53 N. Iv. 326— pp. 
 294, 295, 308, 477, 478, 483, 484, 
 1016, 1215. 
 
 V. National Live Stock I'.ank, 
 
 59 111. App. 451— pp. 555, 1245. 
 
 V. Ohio, pp. 34, 97, 
 
 3481, 3497, 3502, 3511, 
 3513, 3515, 3519, 3523. 
 
 Ohio Dairy Co. v. 
 
 V. Orndorft", pp. 2420 
 
 2492. 
 
 Percgo V. 
 
 V. Perkins, pp. 210, 236, 237 
 
 238, 242, 243, 244, 931, 1018 
 1451, 1459, 1460. 
 
 V. Peterson, pp. 2531, 2552. 
 
 2664. 
 
 PfafFenback v. 
 
 V. Pierce, pp. 203, 1666, 1861, 
 
 1862, 2455, 2482. 
 
 Pitcher v. 
 
 V. Prentice, pp. 2034, 2413, 
 
 3073, 3087. 
 
 Robinson v. 
 
 Rolfe V. 
 
 V. Rosenzweig, pp. 198, 199, 
 
 1544, 1560, 2122, 2477, 2503. 
 
 V. Salznian, pp. 1959, 1972. 
 
 Scholield 
 
 1631, 
 Bank, 
 
 3447, 
 3512, 
 
 2434, 
 
 pp. 1188, 1190, 
 
 34, 38, 46, 
 3513, 3668. 
 
 74 N. E. 
 
 Scotielil '■ 
 
 V. Scolield 
 
 1192. 
 
 Shelton V. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 22, 
 
 58, 59, 60, 61, 115, 
 
 Spavin i'. 
 
 Spears v. 
 
 Stevens v. 
 
 ■ V. Teeters (Ind.) 
 
 1014— p. 2292. 
 
 V. Teeters, 166 Ind. 335, 24 
 
 R. R. R. 36, 47 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 36, n N. E. 
 599, 5 L. R'. A., N. S., 425— 
 pp. 1567, 1936, 2098, 2216, 2651. 
 
 Van Orman v. 
 
 Wallace v. 
 
 V. Ward, 135 
 
 N. E. 520- pp. 17(. 
 
 V. Ward, 35 111 
 
 pp. 1852, 2723. 
 
 V. Warren, p. 3198. 
 
 Wood V. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc.. Railway 
 
 son, p. 1347. 
 Lake St. Elevated R. Co. 
 p. 2268. 
 
 Sandy v. 
 
 V. Sandy, p. 1680. 
 
 Lake St., etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 pp. 1518, 1519, 2874. 
 
 V. Gormley, p. 1539. 
 
 t'. Shaw, pp. 2655, 2656. 
 
 Lake, etc., R. Co. r. Burgess, p 
 
 2145. 
 
 Spears i'. 
 
 ni. 
 
 26 
 
 2732. 
 .\pp. 
 
 423- 
 
 . Gib- 
 Craig, 
 
 Burgess, 
 
 Lakewood, Combs v. 
 Lakin v. Oregon Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 2036, 2038, 2076, 2163, 2739. 
 
 V. South Side Elevated R. 
 
 Co., p. 1743. 
 
 V. Willamette, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2074. 
 
 La Kroma, The. 
 
 Lalande v. His Creditors, p. 359. 
 Lamar v. New York, etc., Nav. 
 Co., p. 233. 
 
 Sawyer "•. 
 
 La Matte f. Angl, p. 1173. 
 
 Lamb "'. Camden, etc., Transp. Co. 
 (N. v.), 2 Daly 454— pp. 211, 
 775. 896, 897, 898, 907, 996, 
 1000, 1001, 3299, 3345, 3346, 
 
 V. Camden, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 46 N. Y. 271, 7 Am. Rep. 327— 
 pp. 1037, 1041, 1047, 3345, 3377. 
 
 ■ V. Camden, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 325. 
 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 822, 855, 3415. 
 
 V. Parknian, p. 765. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Western R. Corp., p. 917. 
 
 Lambert, .\tchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Benner, p. 825. 
 
 • V. La Conner, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 3992. 
 
 Natchez, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Rich V. 
 
 V. Robinson, p. 2629. 
 
 Lambert-Murry Co. -•. Southern 
 
 Exj). Co., pp. 656, 658. 
 Lamberton, Sanderson v. 
 Lambeth v. North Carolina R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1715, 2126, 2255, 2256, 2673. 
 Lambkin, San Antonio Tract. Co. 
 
 Lamkin, .Alabama, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 Lamline v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2869, 2967. 
 Lamm, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lammert r. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 2522, 2542. 
 Lamont & Co. v. Nashville, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 503, 619, 744, 745, 
 
 746, 747, 750, 871, 3902. 
 Lamphear -'. Buckingham, p. 2089. 
 Lampkin v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2043, 2045. 2578, 2608, 2609. 
 Lampkins v. Vicksburg, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2664. 
 Lamping, Bingham -'. 
 Lampley, .Mabania, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Lampman, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lanison f. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1883, 2821, 2845, 2868. 
 
 Lanata v. The Henry Grinnell, p. 
 520. 
 
 Lancashire & Y. Ry. Co., Nichol- 
 son V. 
 
 Lancashire Ins. Co., Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 Lancashire, etc., R. Co., Bolton 
 
 Gee V. 
 
 — ^ — Lees V. 
 
 Mitchell V. 
 
 Nicholson v. 
 
 Lancaster "■. Southern R'ailwav, p. 
 3066. 
 
 Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' Cot- 
 ton-Press Co., pp. 481, 777, 894, 
 958, 1023, 1030. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Lancaster R. Co., Muschamp v. 
 Lancaster, etc., St. R. Co., Moss 
 
 Lancer ;■. Anchor Line, p. 3462. 
 
 Lanci -■. Boston Elev. R. Co., p. 
 2S()2. 
 
 Lancon v. Morgan's, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co.. pp. 1721, 2219, 2800. 
 
 Land V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 149. 
 Landa f. Hoick, pp. 573. 579. 
 
 V. Lattin. pp. 357. 3"0. 371, 
 
 374, in, 381, 395, 396, 397, 400. 
 
 Landa. Mercantile Banking Co. v. 
 
 Smith :■. 
 
 Landauer, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Landauir & Bro. f. Cochran, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1219. 
 Lander. Ohio N'alley R. Co. v. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Landers Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Staten Island R'. Co., p. 
 
 1589. 
 
 Landes v. Pacific Railroad, pp. 
 
 292, 410, 488. 
 Landis, Western Maryland R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Landon, El Paso, etc., R. Co. t-. 
 
 V. Proctor, p. 278. 
 
 Landreth. American, etc., Ins. Co. 
 
 Landrigan v. State, pp. 190, 192. 
 Landrum, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Landsberg v. Dinsmore, pp. 767, 
 
 889, 891. 946, 987. 
 Lane v. Boston, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 586, 831, 894. 908, 910. 918. 
 
 -'. Chadwick, p. 572. 
 
 V. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1936, 1951, 1953, 1954, 2211, 
 2334, 2630, 2888. 
 
 V. Cotton, p. 211. 
 
 — '■ — V. East Tennessee, etc.. R. 
 Co.. pp. 1602, 2435, 2436, 2468. 
 
 Inslee "•. 
 
 International, etc.. R. Co. -•. 
 
 Knoxville Tract. Co. v. 
 
 V. Newdigat, p. 3658. 
 
 V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1166. 
 
 -'. Penniman, np. 3944. 3945. 
 
 Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Robinson, p. 1239. 
 
 -'. Spokane. Falls, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1990, 2335. 2891. 
 
 Lang V. Brady, p. 806. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Interborough R^id Transit 
 
 Co., pp. 1902, 2290. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 735. 
 
 Langan. Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Langbehn, Texas & P. Ry. Co. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Langdon v. Howells, p. 1573. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. -■. 
 
 -'. New York, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 1198. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 186 
 
 Fed. 237— pp. 3809, 3813. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 194 
 
 Fed. 486— pp. 3649, 3688. 3826. 
 
 Lange v. Metropolitan St. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2312. 
 Langford, The. 
 Langin ■:■. New York, p. 2872. 
 Langley, Indiana Union Tract. Co. 
 
 -'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2691. 
 
 Langlois, Montana L'nion R. Co. 
 
 La'ngstaff v. Stix. pp. 1234. 1235. 
 Langton. Marquette '.-. 
 Langworthy v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 770. 
 Lanning, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Lannum, Wabash R. Co. v. 
 Lans, Bornstcin ?•. 
 Lansberg v. Dinsmore. p. 3283. 
 Lansing :•. Conev Island, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2892. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1066. 
 
 Potter V. 
 
 Lansing City Elect. R. Co.. Howell 
 
 Lantz. Michigan Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 Michigan, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 Lanin -•. Northwestern Elevated R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1510, 1770.
 
 CCXII 
 
 TABLE OK CASES. 
 
 Lapointe v. Middlesex R. Co., pp. 
 
 2392, 2403. 
 Laporte i'. Wells Fargo & Co. s 
 
 Exp., pp. 907, 908, 913. 
 La Prelle, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 LaVabee Flour Mills Co., Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. r. 
 
 ;•. Missouri Pac. R'. Co., pp. 
 
 22. 89. 251, 252, 256, 257, 3470, 
 3485. 3540. 
 
 Laraway, De Mott v. 
 Lardner, Murray t'. 
 Larkin, Burton -•. 
 
 :•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2765, 2895, 2953. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Larned v. Central R. Co., pp. 3144, 
 
 3171. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Larsen 7: Allan Line Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 3997, 3983, 4031. 
 
 V. Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 946, 977, 978, 1052. 1070, 1081 
 
 Larson r. Boston Elev. R. Co 
 pp. 1971, 2353, 2758. 
 
 V. Chase, pp. 1254. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2150, 2157, 2365, 2917. 
 
 V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co 
 
 pp. 1927. 2362, 2906. 
 
 Lasch, Dallas, etc., St. R. Cb 
 
 Lashinsky v. Russian Co., p. 466 
 
 Lashley, Falutt 7\ 
 
 Lasker f. Third Ave. R. Co., p 
 
 1595. 
 Lasky V. Southern Exp. 
 
 1088, 1112, 1121, 1123 
 Latham v. Boston, etc. 
 
 p. 2091. 
 
 Pecos River R. Co 
 
 f. Spragins, pp 
 
 398. 
 
 Latimer, Illinois Cent. R. Co. z' 
 
 7: Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 2603. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1695, 1702. 1801, 2908. 
 
 Latour ?'. Southern Railway, pp 
 1609, 1669, 1673, 1674, 1677. 
 
 La Tourette, Cleveland, etc., R 
 Co. f. 
 
 Latta, .Msberg, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 432, 731, 1395. 
 
 V. New Orleans, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp 
 1128. 
 R. Co. 
 
 385, 392 
 
 Co., pp. 779, 846. 
 
 Latta Martin Pump Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., p. 175. 
 
 Lattin. Landa v. 
 
 Lau, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Laub f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1707. 
 
 Laubheim v. Netherland Steamship 
 Co., p. 2078. 
 
 Lauchtamacher v. Boston Elev. R. 
 Co., pp. 2365, 2858. 
 
 Lauderbach, People's Pass. R. Co. 
 
 Laughlin v. Atlantic City R'. Co., 
 p. 2083. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2395, 3183. 
 
 Laughlin Bros. Co. v. Philadelphia. 
 
 etc., R. Co., p 754. 
 Laughton. Watkinson f. 
 Laura, The. 
 Laurel Cotton Mills, Gulf, etc., R. 
 
 Co. t: 
 
 '■. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 463, 
 
 3632, 3633, 3686, 3701, 3704, 
 3758. 
 
 Laurel Mercantile Co. <■. ^.lobile, 
 etc., R. Co., p. 1477. 
 
 Laurel, etc., R. Co. r. West Vir- 
 ginia Transp. Co., pp. 4, 35, 36, 
 38, 62. 
 
 Laurence, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Laurens R. Co., Kyle v. 
 
 Laurent v. Vaughn, pp. 473, 59o, 
 
 849, 855. 
 Lauricella, Mexican Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Lausatt, Jacoby ?■. 
 
 Lautercr 7\ Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 
 1700. 2150, 2157. 
 Laux, Hahl <•. 
 Lavarrello, United States v. 
 Lavary, Farley v. 
 Laveille. Louisiana Nat. Bank 7>. 
 Laverty v. Interurban St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1996. 
 Lavin. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 7\ 
 
 Lavis T'. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2219, 2585, 2691. 
 Law v. Botsford, p. 3884. 
 
 '■. Hatcher, pp. 364, 485. 
 
 f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2485. 
 
 ■;■. New York City R. Co., 
 
 p. 1996. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Simmons v. 
 
 Lawler, .\tchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Lawn, Indianapolis St. R. Co. i'. 
 Lawrence, Chicago Union Tract. 
 Co. f. 
 
 r. Green, pp. 2128. 2693. 
 
 7'. Kaul Lumber Co.. pp. 
 
 1545. 1548. 1558. 15C4, 1752, 
 2629. 
 
 7'. I,ieutenant Admiral 
 
 omberg. pp. 765, 766. 
 
 T'. McGregor, pp. 
 
 333. 510. 511, 728, 
 3888, 3902. 3914. 
 
 7'. Milwaukee, etc. 
 
 pp. 211, 242. 
 
 v. Minturn, pp. 349, 351., 
 
 364. 477, 743, 3899, 3900. 3903. 
 3905, 3906, 3918, 3919, 4021. 
 4022. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. .986, 1006. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 7'. 
 
 r. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 
 
 p. 3213. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 V. Winona, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 885, 886, 3264, 3287, 3289. 
 
 Lawrence Furnace, Iron R. Co. 7'- 
 Lawrenceburgh, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Montgomery, p. 2125. 
 Lawshe 7'. "Tacoma R., etc., Co.. 
 
 pp. 1650, 1853, 2457, 2459. 
 Lawson 7'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2217, 2388. 
 
 V. Conolly, p. 8. 
 
 Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. 
 
 Call- 
 
 303, 328, 
 781, 871, 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 Ass'n V. 
 etc., R. 
 
 v. Seattle, etc., R 
 2389. 
 
 Southern Bldg., etc. 
 
 Lax V. Forty Second St 
 
 Co., p. 2352. 
 Lay V. Chicago, etc., K. Co., pp. 
 1303, 1312. 
 
 Hodgson 7'. 
 
 Layne t. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 67 S. E. 1103. 66 W. Va. 607— 
 pp. 2035. 2039. 2054, 2075. 2960. 
 
 7'. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 68 W. \'a. 213. 69 S. E. 700. 31 
 L. R. A., N. S., 414, 39 
 R. R. R. 143, 62 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 143— pp. 1524, 
 1526, 1527, 1529, 1533, 1537, 
 1538, 1539, 2770, 2865. 
 
 Layton & Sons z'. Charleston, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 564, 899, 903. 
 
 Lazard 7'. Merchants', etc., Transp. 
 Co., pp. 339, 430. 
 
 Lazarus 7'. Barber, 124 Fed. 1007 
 —p. 3904. 
 
 V. Barber. 136 Fed. 534. 69 
 
 C. C. A. 310— pp. 3922, 3927. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Lazer 7'. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1762. 2699. 
 Leach. Cincinnati Tract. Co. v. 
 
 V. New York. etc.. K. Co., 
 
 pp. 235, 439. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1757. 
 
 Leachman, Capps 7'. 
 Leadbetter, Hill 7'. 
 Leader 7'. Northern R. Co., p. 
 
 849. 
 Leaf, Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. 
 
 Leake, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Leakey, Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Leamons, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Leapley, Baltimore, etc., R.^ Co. 7'. 
 Leary 7'. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 
 2317, 2670. 
 
 7'. United States, pp. 3864. 
 
 3865. 
 
 Leas 7'. Ouincy. etc.. R. Co.. pp 
 
 948, 973. 1062. 
 Leask V. Scott, pp. 1221, 1224. 
 Leasum 7'. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2126, 2216. 
 Leathers 7'. Aiken, p. 3586. 
 
 Carson z'. 
 
 Hirsch 7". 
 
 Richmond, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Strieker 7'. 
 
 Work v. 
 
 Leathcrwood, Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Leavens 7'. American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 319, 957. 
 Leavenworth, Ewing 7'. 
 ■ v. Ewing. pp. 3549, 3550. 
 
 3551, 3577. 
 Leavenworth County Coram'rs 7'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 3484. 
 Leavenworth Elect. R. Co. v. Cus- 
 
 ick, pp. 1721, 1898., 1899, 1901, 
 
 2076. 2077. 
 Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. Maris, 
 
 pp. 530, 531, 896, 900, 902, 905, 
 
 907, 910. 
 Leavitt, Curtis 7'. 
 
 Greenfield Bank -'. 
 
 Le Barron 7'. East Boston Ferry 
 
 Co., pp. 11, 1750, 1838. 
 
 Thomas 7'. 
 
 Leberman z'. New Orleans, etc , 
 
 Co., p. 492. 
 Le Blanc v. Sweet, pp. 2671, 3994. 
 
 3998. 
 Le Blanche 7'. London, etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1670, 1673, 1674. 
 Lebov z'. Consolidated R. Co.. p. 
 
 2518. 
 Leclaire v. Tacoma R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1529, 1678, 3060. 
 Lecocq, Piatt 7'. 
 Le Coteur 7'. Lor don & S. W. R. 
 
 Co., p. 3147. 
 Ledbetter, Anniston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 ■ Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Le Deau v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1809, 2675. 
 Leder Bros. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ledger-Standard Co., Fargo v. 
 Le Due V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1789, 1801, 1870, 1874. 
 Lee, American Nat. Bank 7'. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Birmingham R.. etc.. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. Bowen, pp. 378, 3274. 
 
 7'. Burgess, pn. 236, 239, 240, 
 
 770. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 City R. Co. 7'. 
 
 East Line, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 • East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 Edwards 7'. 
 
 7'. Fidelity Storage, etc., Co.. 
 
 pp. 7. 499, 521. 601. 603. 
 
 Faust 7'.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCXIII 
 
 Co., p 
 
 Kxp. Co. 
 
 p. 3S70. 
 R. Co. f 
 
 Lee V. Grand Trunk K. Jo., p. 
 
 3125. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1766, 2288. 
 
 f. Kimball, pp. 1221, 1224. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Marsh, pp. 946, 1299, 1349. 
 
 V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1946, 1947, 2662. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co..^'. 
 
 V. Publishers, etc., Co.. 137 
 
 Mo. 385, 38 S. W. 1107, p. 
 2883. 
 
 f. Publishers, etc., Co., 56 S. 
 
 W. 458, 155 Mo. 610— pp. 2869, 
 2883. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. i'. 
 
 V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 753, 946, 1344. 
 
 V. Rhode Island Co.,_ p. 2154. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. St. Louis, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 654. 
 
 r. Salter, p. 1161. 
 
 Smith i'. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 Texas, t-tc, R. Co. f. 
 
 The R. E. 
 
 f. Wabash R. Co., pp. 1298 
 
 3335. 
 
 Leech, Chouteaux f. 
 
 2'. New York, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 569. 
 
 Leech & Co., Chouteaux v. 
 
 Leek r. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp 
 
 2409, 3080. 
 Leeke f. (iulf, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2888, 2897. 
 Lees V. Lancashire, etc., R 
 
 221. 
 Lefebure ?•. American 
 
 pp. 319. 323, 324. 
 Leffingwell ;■. Warren, 
 Leflar, St. Louis, etc., 
 Leftwich, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z 
 
 Wickham ?■. 
 
 Legge -'. New York, etc., Iv. Co. 
 
 pp. 1538, 1789. 
 Leggett I'. Western New York 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 1884, 2268. 
 Le Gierse, Galveston, etc., R. Co 
 
 Lehane v. Hutte Elect. R. Co., pp 
 
 1890, 2820, 2821. 
 Lehberger f. Public Service R 
 
 Co., p. 1980. 
 Lehigh \'alley Coal Co. r. Ionia 
 
 Transp. Co., p. 3960. 
 Lehigh \'alley Railroad, Pavitt v. 
 Lehigh X'alley R. Co., Betts v. 
 
 Bolles V. 
 
 Bradley v. 
 
 Castellucci >•. 
 
 r. Clarke, pp. 3789, 3793. 
 
 Commonwealth i\ 
 
 Crary v. 
 
 Dorr -•. 
 
 -'. Dupont pp. 2125, 2133, 
 
 2390, 2874, 3314, 3315, 3320. 
 
 Girton v. 
 
 Griton v. 
 
 Hartzig v. 
 
 Herstine v. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 •"- Krieg v. 
 
 Long V. 
 
 Loomis t'. 
 
 McGeehan "'. 
 
 Meeker f. 
 
 V. Meeker, pp. 
 
 3826. 
 
 Merritt :■. 
 
 Minor f. 
 
 Murray f. 
 
 Naylor & Co. f. 
 
 Nelson f. 
 
 Neustadt f. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania, pp. 
 
 3421, 3422, 3439, 3491, 
 4036, 4054. 
 
 3683. 377(1, 
 
 3418, 
 3560, 
 
 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Rainc-y, 
 
 p. 3685. 
 Stewart v. 
 
 United States f. 
 
 V. United States, 110 C. C. 
 
 A. 513, 188 Fed. 879— pp. 3744. 
 3761, 3774. 
 
 r. United States, 204 Fed. 
 
 986— p. 3802. 
 
 Lehigh X'alley Transp. Co. v. Pills- 
 bury- Washburn Flour Mills Co., 
 pp. 3257, 3331. 
 
 V. Post Sugar Co., 228 III. 
 
 121, 81 N. E. 819— p. 3288. 
 
 V. Post Sugar Co., 128 111. 
 
 App. 600— p. 326. 
 
 Lehigh, etc., R. Co., Redner v. 
 Lehman 7\ Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1884. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Lehman, etc., Co. f. Central R., 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 315, 355. 
 
 -■. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 739, 821, 825. 
 
 Young V. 
 
 Lehmer f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 p. 2657. 
 
 T'. Pittsburgh R. Co., pp. 
 
 2128, 2262, 2304, 2313. 
 
 Lehr f. Steinway, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1951, 2183, 2887. 
 Leibengood v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3512. 
 Leibold, Missouri, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 Leibs Bros. & Co., Schneider . 
 Leigh, St. Louis, etc., R. (^o. ;'. 
 
 ■:•. Smith, p. 3136. 
 
 Leigh X'alley R. Co., Long t. 
 Lcisy v. Hardin, pp. 3418, 3427, 
 
 3429, 3440, 3538, 3539. 
 Leitch V. L^nion R^ Transp. Co , 
 
 pp. 320, 323, 945, 986, 9o4, 966, 
 
 1 066. 
 Leiter, Northwestern Transp. Co. 
 
 Leland f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 910, 917. 
 
 Nelson <•. 
 
 Leloup c'. Mobile, pp. 3472. j5S0, 
 
 3552, 3555, 3571, 3572, 3590. 
 Lemay -'. Sprir.gtield St. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2637. 
 Lembeck ■:■. Jarvis, etc.. Cold 
 
 Storage Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 492, 
 
 59 Atl. 360— p. 1165. 
 
 v. Tarvis, etc.. Cold Storage 
 
 Co., 69 N. J. Eq. 781, 63 Atl. 
 257— p. 1165. 
 
 Lenicke, Meyer '■. _ 
 
 Lcmery -■. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1526, 1527, 1528. 
 Lemke r. Chicago, etc., R. Co , 
 
 pp. 897, 901, 905, 907. 
 Lemmon -•. Ilanley, p. 2696. 
 Lemon '■. Chanslor, pp. 1564, 1749, 
 
 1760, 2692. 
 
 ''. Pullman Palace Car Co , 
 
 pp. 3201, 3204, 3205, 3240. 
 
 Lemont v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 573, 577. 
 
 f. Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1497, 2419. 
 
 Lenahart v. Cooper, p. 1217. 
 
 Lena Lumber Co., Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co. f. 
 Lence, Illinois Cent. R. Co. -•. 
 Lendsberg v. Dinsmark, p. 565. 
 Lengelsen ;■. McGregor, p. 2634. 
 Lengstield v. Jones, pp. 799, 829. 
 
 840. 
 Lenhart, Pennsylvania Co. r. 
 Leni.x ?■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2278. 
 Lennon f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2361. 
 
 f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 267, 270, 271, 3136. 
 
 In re. 
 
 Lennox, Cutler -•. 
 
 The. 
 
 Lenord '■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1102. 
 
 Lent -. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 120 N. Y. 467, 24 N. E. 653. 44 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 373 — pp. 
 1768, 2224. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317, 8 N.. 
 Y. St. Rep. 93— p. 2884. 
 
 Lentz V. Flint, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1227. 
 Leo V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., i p. 
 
 843, 3394, 3398. 
 Leob, Fire Ass'n f. 
 Leonard i'. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1686, 1844. 
 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 
 
 Mo. App. 293— pp. 451, 728. 
 1315, 1420. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 57 
 
 Mo. App. 366— p. 1315. 
 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co., p. 1464. 
 
 V. Ilendrickson, pp. 728, 825. 
 
 I'. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2417. 
 
 f. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 2735. 
 
 f. Whitcomb, 7 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. Cas., N. S., 520— p. 211. 
 
 -. Whitcomb, 70 N. W. 817. 
 
 95 Wis. 646—1). 1368. 
 
 Leonard Seed Co. f. Cleveland, 
 etc., R. Co., p. 688. 
 
 Leonhardt, Baltimore, etc., Tun.- 
 pike Road f. 
 
 Leovy V. United States, p. 3419. 
 
 Lerch, Evansville Elect. R. Co. v. 
 
 Lerner v. Public Service R. Co., 
 pp. 2534, 2548. 
 
 Leroy, Wade "'. 
 
 Lesassier v. Southwestern, pp. 381, 
 1216, 1225. 
 
 Lesem, American Exp. Co. '■. 
 
 Lesinsky f. Great Western Dis- 
 patch, p. 798. 
 
 Leslie i'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2100, 2124, 2319. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. t: 
 
 V. Tackson, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 p. 2900. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc, R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1733, 1877, 2249. 
 
 Lessard v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 p. 3163. 
 Lesser, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 St Louis, etc.. Railway i-. 
 
 Lester, Culver -■. 
 
 "■. Delaware, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 546, 552, 501. 564, 580. 
 
 '■. McDowell, p. 480. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 Steel -■. 
 
 Letcher, Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Eddy V. 
 
 Letts -■. Wabash R. Co., pp. 1282., 
 1372, 1412, 1413, 1421, 1424, 
 1427. 
 
 Lette-Spencer Grocery Co. z: Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., pp. 573. 
 1206, 1207, 1212, 1219, 1232, 
 1233. 
 
 Leu f. St. Louis Trans. Co., 106 
 Mo. App. 329, 80 S. W. 273— 
 p. 2333. 
 
 -'. St. Louis Trans. Co., 110 
 
 Mo. App. 458, 85 S. W. 137— 
 p. 2333. 
 
 Leuckhart t'. Cooper, p. 1248. 
 Levan z\ .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2456, 2775, 2852, 3026, 3032. 
 Levensohn f. Cunard Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 4009. 
 Leveret z\ Shreveport Belt R. Co, 
 
 pp. 2126, 2227. 2o80. 
 Levering i'. Union Transp., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 962. 979, 986. 
 Levey & Co., Louisville, etc.. Mail 
 
 Co. z: 
 Levi -•. Brooks, p. 2629. 
 
 Buckman z: 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 L. N. R. Co. T. 
 
 -•. Lynn, etc., R. Co., p. 769. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. z:
 
 CCXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Levi V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 3173. 3174. 
 
 Steamboat Baltimore r. 
 
 Levidow x-. Starin, pp. 3999, 4001. 
 Levien r. Webb, pp. 3208, 3239. 
 Levin, In re. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2674, 2S5S. 
 
 Levine r. Brooklyn, etc.. R. Co., 
 p. 2699. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Levins f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3126, 3145, 3147. 
 Levinson -•. Texas, etc., R. Co., 17 
 Tex. Civ. App. 617, 43 S. W. 
 901— pp. 1616, 1633, 1639. 
 
 f. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 
 
 43 S. W. 1032— p. 1633. 
 
 Levinston, Omaha, etc., Bridge 
 
 Co. r. 
 Levois r. Gale, pp. 759, 763. 
 Lew, Benjamin z. 
 '-. Campbell (Tex.), 19 S. W. 
 
 438— pp. 1712, 1740, 1812, 1821, 
 
 1841. 1978. 
 
 V. Campbell (Tex.), 20 S. W. 
 
 196— p. 2772. 
 
 G.. C. & S. F. R. Co. 7. 
 
 '•. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 511. 
 
 -•. New York City R. Co., p. 
 
 2814. 
 
 V. Providence, etc., Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 4006. 
 
 T'. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 946, 958, 1008, 3377, 3382. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Toledo, etc.j R'. Co. ■<■. 
 
 z: Weir, po. 488. 492, 568. 
 
 Levy's Son & Co. "'. Gibson Line, 
 
 p. 4066. 
 Lewark v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 642, 675, 848, 859. 
 Lewellen Bros., Missouri, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. i: 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Lewine, Gulf, etc., R. Co. "■. 
 Lewis '■. Bowling Green R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1590. 
 
 T'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 284, 970. 1015. 3287, 3301, 
 3362. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 '•. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 
 pp. 2065, 2249, 2906. 
 
 Finley 7'. 
 
 ?•. Flint, etc., R. Co., p. 170 •. 
 
 7'. Great Western R. Co.. ii 
 
 1118. 
 
 z: Hancock, pp. 3938, 3944 
 
 3945. 
 
 '■. Houston Electric Co., pp. 
 
 1515, 2288, 2289. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 z: London, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1926. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R" Co. '•. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 727, 732, 749, 765, 872, 896, 904, 
 959. 
 
 V. M'Kee, p. 365. 
 
 V. Mason, p. 1211. 
 
 Montgomery St. R. Co. v. 
 
 -.'. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1604, 2428. 
 
 z: New York Sleeping Car 
 
 Co., pp. 3215, 3216, 3217, 3218, 
 3221j 3223, 3232, 3238. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 59 
 
 Atl. 1117, 71 N. J. L. 339— pp. 
 1311, 1339, 1365, 1455. 
 
 z\ Pennsvlvania R. Co.. 69 
 
 Atl. 821, 22'0 Pa. 317, 18 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 279, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 1142— p. 1580. 
 
 v. Portland R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2938. 
 
 Reed Lumber Co. <•. 
 
 z: Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 521. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t. 
 
 Lewis z: Salena, etc., R. Co., p. 
 482. 
 
 z: Sharvcy. pp. 1237. 1243. 
 
 Smith f. 
 
 z: Smith, pp. 281, S33, 1331, 
 
 3926. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1755. 
 
 v. The Success, p. 848. 
 
 z: Western R. Corp., pp. 
 
 530, 788. 
 
 i'. Western, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1622, 2446. 
 
 Lewis & Co. T'. Ludwick, pp. 721, 
 
 733, 735, 750, 751, 752. 
 Lewis, etc., Co. zr. Louisville, olc , 
 
 R. Co., pp. 908, 909, 915. 
 
 z: Small & Co., pp. 394, 393. 
 
 396, 397. 
 
 Lewisohn ?•. National Stcamshii) 
 
 Co., p. 940. 
 Lewiston, etc., R. Co., Cameron r. 
 Conway z: 
 
 - White z: 
 
 Lewiston, etc.. Railway, White t'. 
 Lewiston, etc., St. R. Co., Cam- 
 eron ?'. 
 
 Lewiston, etc., St. Railway. Blair 
 
 • Cameron v. 
 
 Stone '■. 
 
 Lewy, Aststrup '■. 
 
 Lewyt z'. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1574. 
 Lexington, .\dams Exp. Co. v. 
 Howe V. 
 Lexington Grocery Co. v. Southern 
 
 R. Co., pp. 151, 155. 
 Lexington R. Co. v. Britton, p. 
 
 1893. 
 
 v. Cozine, p. 3070. 
 
 <•. Herring, pp. 1516, 1518, 
 
 2297, 2332, 2357, 2752. 
 
 z: Johnson, pp. 2950, 3068. 
 
 z: Lowe, pp. 1884, 2225. 
 
 2926. 
 
 z: O'Brien, p. 3031. 
 
 Sandlin z\ 
 
 Lexington, etc., R. Co. z\ Lyons, 
 
 pp. 2459, 2462, 2713, 3083, 3106. 
 Lexington, etc., St. R. Co., Keefe 
 
 Leyland & Co., Insurance Co. z'. 
 Leyland Shipping Co., Furness, 
 
 etc., Co. v. 
 Leyser ?■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1613, 2447, 2481, 2483. 
 Leysor, Merchants' Despatcli 
 
 Transp. Co. '■. 
 Lezinsky ?'. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2059, 2071. 
 Libby v. Ingalls, p. 571. 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1575, 1680, 1684, 1723, 1746, 
 1810, 1842, 1844. 
 
 z>. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 948, 1099, 1303, 1318, 1320. 
 1329. 
 
 License Cases, pp. 3418, 3427, 
 
 3429, 3538, 3539. 
 Lichtenthaler, Lockhart Z'. 
 Lichtenhein z\ Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 920. 
 Lickbarrow z.'. Mason (Eng.), 6 
 
 East. 21— p. 371. 
 
 V. Mason (Eng.), 2 T. R. 63 
 
 —p. 1221. 
 
 z: Mason, 27 T. R. (Eng.), 
 
 177— pp. 306, 308. 
 
 Liddell, Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Liddicoat, North Birmingham St. 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Lide, Birmingham R., etc., Co. z' 
 Liefert f. Galveston, etc., R. Co , 
 
 pp. 521, 1158, 1159. 
 Lieserowitz, We.st Chicago St. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Lieurance, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 I V. 
 
 I Lieutenant Admiral Callomberg, 
 ' Lawrence v. 
 
 Lifeware, Nichols -•. 
 Light z'. Detroit, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2433, 2849, 3104. 
 
 :■. Harrisburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2855. 
 
 Lightburne z'. Taxing Dist., pp. 
 
 3569, 3583. 
 Lightcap, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Lightfoot Missouri, etc.. Railway 
 
 Lightfoot & Son z\ St. Louis, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 744. 
 Lignante ?'. Panama R. Co., pp. 
 
 3982, 3984. 
 Ligon z'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 642, 643, 645, 646, 647, 667, 
 
 675. 
 Lillie, Nashville, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 Lillis z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2479, 2482, 2529. 
 Lilly, Kansas City, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 3055. 
 
 Lilly Co. z: Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1190, 1191. 
 Limburger <■. Westcott, pp. 962, 
 
 964, 1007. 
 Lin V. Terre Haute, etc., Railroad, 
 
 pp. 3160, 3168, 3183. 
 Lin Sing z'. Washburn, p. 3566. 
 Linam, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Linch z\ Pittsburgh Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1880. 
 I Lincoln, Kent z\ 
 
 J'. New York, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 4010. 
 
 The City of. 
 
 Lincoln Grain Co. f. Chicago, etc , 
 
 R. Co., pp. 575, 597. 
 
 Lincoln Rapid Transit Co., Spell- 
 man z\ 
 
 Lincoln Real Estate, etc., Co., 
 Becker z\ 
 
 Lincoln St. R. Co. v. McClellan, 
 pp. 1746, 1750, 1766, 2403,^ 2(.71. 
 
 Lincoln Tent, etc., Co. z\ Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., pp. 402, 418. 
 
 Lincoln Tract. Co., Bevard v. 
 
 z'. Brookover, p. 2687. 
 
 V. Heller, pp. 1487, 2668, 
 
 2669, 2671. 
 
 '■. McCarty. p. 2859. 
 
 • z: Shepherd, pp. 2673, 2842. 
 
 Zyrell ?'. 
 
 V. Webb, pp. 1487, 2664. 
 
 2667, 2668, 2838. 
 Lincoln, etc., Bldg. Co., Becker v. 
 Lind, Stnomvart Maatschaffy Ned- 
 
 erlandsche Lloyd "'. 
 
 r. United States, p. 3882. 
 
 Lindahl, Chicago, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 Lindblom, Northern Commercial 
 
 Lindcll R. Co., Cobb r. 
 
 Dillon 7'. 
 
 Lindenbaum z'. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2083, 2700, 2812, 2977. 
 Linden Oil Co., Smith <■. 
 Lindh T. Great Northern R. Co!, 
 
 pp. 1254, 1257. 
 Lindley, Atchison, etc., R'. Co. ?•. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3395. 
 
 z'. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1857, 1860. 
 
 Lindsay z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2235. 
 
 V. Jeffray, p. 2642. 
 
 ?'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2412, 2620, 2622, 2784, 3083, 
 3085. 
 
 Railroad Co. ?■. 
 
 - — - 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 2184. 
 
 2251 2262. 
 
 7'! Wabash R. Co., p. 2626. 
 
 Lindsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen, pp. 
 
 3418, 3419, 3420, 3479, 3528, 
 3530, 3547. 
 Lindsey, Houston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 T. Maine Steamship Co., p. 
 
 4034.
 
 TAIJLF, OF CASES. 
 
 CCXV 
 
 Lindsay '■. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1575. 1939 
 r. Wabash K. Co., pp. 24S3. 
 
 2849. ,, „ 
 
 Lindslev i'. Chicago, etc., K. «-o., 
 
 pp 728, 740. 821, 1036, 1330. 
 
 1339, 1388, 1456. 
 Linhoff V. Seattle, etc.. R. Co., p 
 
 Link v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2300. 
 Linkc, Pullman Co. v. 
 Linklatcr r. Howell, p. 3930. 
 Linseed, 4,885 Bags of. 
 Linton, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. " 
 
 Lipford r. Charlotte, etc., R 
 
 pp. 747, 776. 
 Lipman %: .Atlantic, etc., K 
 
 pp. 3090, 3670. 
 Lippnian, Central, etc., R- >o- '^'- 
 
 f. Pennsylvania R. Co., P- 
 
 632. „ „ 
 
 Lipscoml), Norfolk, etc., R- .Co. v. 
 
 Liquid Carbonic Co. f. Norfolk, 
 etc., R-. Co., pp. 931, 936, 949, 
 1084, 1085, 1090, 1098, 1100, 
 1106. . , 
 
 Lister, International, etc., K 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 Co 
 
 pp. 
 
 Listic, The. 
 
 Litt V. Cowley, p. 1246. 
 
 Littell. Krie R. Co. v. 
 
 Little, .Mabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r Boston, etc., Railroad, pp. 
 
 815, 817, 818, 821, 827, 848. 
 
 V. Dusenberry, p. 2089. 
 
 V. Fargo, p. 1009. 
 
 Gordon v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. ''. 
 
 V. Semple, p. 539. 
 
 Te.xas Mid. Railroad f. 
 
 Western R. Co. v. 
 
 Littlefield v. Fitchburg R. Co., pp 
 
 41. 169. 
 Littlefield Bros., Ilobart & Co. 
 Littlejohn v. Fitchburg R. Co 
 
 1760, 2086. 
 
 V. Jones, p. 768. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2853. 
 
 Little Miami R. Co., Check f. 
 
 Childs V. 
 
 r. Dodds & Co.. pp. 296, 365 
 
 367, 369, 370, 306, 309, 318. 
 
 Ilarshman :■. 
 
 ?•. Washburn, pp. 3269, 
 
 3288. 
 
 J.. Wetmore, pp. 2043, 
 
 2049. 
 Little Rock R.. etc.. Co. v. 
 
 bins, pp. 2784, 3027, 3088, 
 
 f Doyle, p. 1880. 
 
 V. Goerner, pp. 3018, 3094 
 
 Sloan V. 
 
 Little Rock Tract., etc.. Co. 
 
 Kimbro. pp. 2401. 2402. 
 
 V. Nelson, op. 2120 
 
 2544, 2550, 2295. 
 
 V. Walker, p. 2070. 
 
 T'. Winn. p. 3094. 
 
 Little Rock, etc.. Co., Dobbins v. 
 Little Rock, etc, R. Co. v. .\tkins, 
 p. 2249. 
 
 T. Bruce, p. 530. 
 
 f. Cavencsse, p. 2936. 
 
 V. Clark, p. 144. 
 
 V. Conatser, pp. 228, 263. 
 
 r. Corcoran, pp. 1036, 1040. 
 
 r. Cravens, pp. 973, 974. 
 
 r. Daniels, p. 1194. 
 
 r. Dean. pp. 1625. 1976. 
 
 V. F.ast Tennessee, etc 
 
 Co.. pp. 3655. 3809. 3841. 
 
 f. Eubanks, p. 974. 
 
 Gibson -'. 
 
 V. Glidewell, pp. 549, 
 
 636, 767. 
 
 V. Hanniford, p. 141. 
 
 V. Harper, pp. 103h, 1040. 
 
 V. Harrell, p. 2810. 
 
 V. Hunter, pp. 285, 288, 884, 
 
 3168, 3174. 
 
 Little Rock. etc.. R. Co. v. .Miles, I 
 pp. 1567, 1725. 1761. 
 
 J.. Miller Coal Co., p. 598. 
 
 r. Odom, pp. 3261, 3358. 
 
 z\ Oppenheimer. p. 96. 
 
 V. Record, pp. 3116, 3127, 
 
 3130, 3163. 3176, 3196. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 41 
 
 Fed. 559— pp. 3659, 3718. 
 
 T. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 59 
 
 Fed. 400— pp. 3656, 3660. 
 
 -•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 63 
 
 Fed. 775, 11 C. C. A. 417, 26 
 L. R. A. 192— pp. 3656, 3659. 
 
 V. Talbot, pp. 725, 726, 732, 
 
 '748, 765. 
 
 ;■. Talbot & Co., pp. 958, 1036, 
 
 1040, 1047. 
 
 Taylor Co. v. 
 
 Taylor & Co. t. 
 
 - Taylor, etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Trainer, p. 3013. 
 
 Littmann v Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2196. 
 Liveright, Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Liverpool Dock, Turner v. 
 Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Benhan, p. 
 
 1490. 
 
 V. Phoenix Ins. Co., p. 1490. 
 
 i: Saitta, pp. 893, 911. 
 
 -;— V. Suitter, p. 893. 
 Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. In- 
 surance Co., p. 10, 793. 
 
 Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. Phe- 
 nix Ins. Co., pp. 1, 2. 4, 10, 
 721, 790. 793, 795, 930. 931, 932, 
 942, 947, 950, 955, 956, 1073, 
 1151,1 3869, 3870, 3897, 3898^ 
 3917, -4017, 4018, 4021. 4023, 
 4024, 4031, 4057. 
 
 Liverpool, etc.. Steamboat 
 
 Steamship 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 3270. 
 2044, 
 
 Dob- 
 3102. 
 
 2518, 
 
 First Xat. 
 
 Texas, etc. 
 
 R. 
 
 562, 
 
 Redmond 
 Liverpool, etc. 
 Arend f. 
 
 Baldwin v. 
 
 Redmond v. 
 
 Steers v. 
 
 Liversidge "•. Berkshire St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2421. 
 Livery v. Philadelphia, p. 742. 
 Live Stock Co. V. Kansas, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 640. 
 Livczay, Wall 7'. 
 Livingston, Fibel v. 
 Grand i\ 
 
 Hawkinsville, etc., R. Co. -.■. 
 
 ■:•. Miller, pp. 484. 573. 574. 
 
 • r. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3286, 3299. 
 
 • Russell f. 
 
 Livingston County t 
 
 Bank, p. 3484. 
 Lizardi, Keene v. 
 Llano Live Stock Co 
 
 K. Co. f. 
 Lloyd, Booth f. 
 
 Chicago & J. E. Ry. Co. r. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 I'. Haugh, etc.. Transfer Co., 
 
 pp. 1, 10, 485, 722. 800, 822, 
 845, 857. 
 
 Rau,ch 7\ 
 
 Lobb V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2701. 
 Lobdell r. Bullitt, p. 1839. 
 Lobner r. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1980, 2309, 2344, 2887. 
 Lock, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Locke, Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Lockhart. East Tennessee, etc., R 
 
 Co. f. 
 f. Lichtenthaler, p. 1580. 
 
 MoUison f. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Western, etc., R'. Co.. pp 
 
 481, 482, 487. 490. 
 
 Locklin r. Bcckwith, p. 2560. 
 Locknian. Indianapolis Tract. Co. 
 
 — — Indianapolis Tract., etc.. Co. 
 
 Lockport, The. 
 
 Lockwood V Boston Elevated R. 
 Co.. pp. 1508. 1515, 1516, 1522. 
 1523. 1709. 1892, 2143, 2328, 
 2946. 
 
 New York Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 New York, etc.. R. Co. t. 
 
 Railroad Co. t'. 
 
 Lockwood Mfg. Co.. Southern K. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Lockwood & Son, Erie R. Co. v. 
 Loeb, Fire Ass'n v. 
 V. Peters, pp. 380. 381. 382. 
 
 387. 391. 1214. 1221, 1225. 
 
 i: Wabash R. Co., pp. 537. 
 
 539. „ , . 
 
 Loeffler v. Keokuk, etc.. Packet 
 
 Co., pp. 513, 595. 
 Locscher, Nordcmeyer i-. 
 Loeser v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1375, 1476. 
 Loewe, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Loewenberg v. .Arkansas, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 521. . 
 
 Loftis, Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Loftus r. Metropolitan St. K. Co., 
 
 '- V. Union Fecry Co., p. 1687. 
 
 Logan, Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank i. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1612, 1862. 2454, 2639. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2694, 2736, 2968, 2981. 
 
 V. Pontchartrain R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1007, 3157, 3158, 3163, 3165. 
 
 V. Smith, p. 381. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. United R. Co., p. 1710. 
 
 Logan & Co. r. Central Railroad. 
 
 pp 5 222 257. 3247, 3271. 3386. 
 —11 Central R. Co. f. . 
 
 Logan Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania K. 
 
 Co.. pp. 3641, 3642, 3643. 
 Logan, etc, Co.. Chicago, etc.. K. 
 
 Co. V. _ 
 
 Logwood V. Memphis, etc., K. t_o.. 
 
 pp. 1944. 1949. ^ ^ n 
 
 Lohe, Cincinnati, etc., St. K. *-0. 
 
 Lollar, Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Lomas v. New York City R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2691. 
 Lombard, Lowenstein v. 
 Lombard, etc., Co., Lowenstein z: 
 Lombard, etc.. Pass. R. Co. -■. 
 
 Christian, p. 2637. 
 London & N. W. R. Co., Evershed 
 
 Hodkinson v. 
 
 London & S. W. R. Co.. Le Coteur 
 
 — ^ Tyler v. ^ ... rx 
 
 London Assur. v. Companhia De 
 Moagens Do Barreiro, pp. 3.6, 
 
 London B. & S. C. R. Co., Ash- 
 den V. 
 
 Richards f. 
 
 London R., Caterham R. Co. v. 
 London R. Co., Butcher :■. 
 
 Hooper r. ^. . ^ , 
 
 London, etc.. Fire Ins. t-o. y 
 
 Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. \. 
 200, 39 N. E. 79, 43 Am. St. 
 Rep. 752— pp. 285, 287, 289. 291. 
 
 — V. Rome, etc., R. Co.. 68 
 Hun 598, 13 X. Y. S. 231. 32 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 581— pp. 83o. 
 1010, 1021. 
 
 London, etc., R. 
 p. 1239. 
 
 Butcher v. 
 
 Cahill V. 
 
 Chilton V. 
 
 Collett z: 
 
 Cooper ;. 
 
 Crouch V. 
 
 Hiort :. 
 
 LeBlanche f 
 
 Lewis V. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Bartlett.
 
 rex VI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 London, etc., R. Co., Lovell f. 
 
 Marriott f. 
 
 Painter f. 
 
 Palmer "'. 
 
 — — Phelps f. 
 
 Richards f. 
 
 Simpson v. 
 
 Weller v. 
 
 West i: 
 
 London, etc.. Railway, Maddox v. 
 Londoner, Union, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Lone Star Salt Co. z: Texas, etc., 
 
 R. Co., 90 S. W. 863, 99 Tex. 
 
 434, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 828— 
 
 p. 475. 
 
 r. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), 86 S. VV. 355— p. 
 474. 
 
 Long f. Abeles & Co., p. 642. 
 
 i: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 48 
 
 Kan. 28, 28 Pac. 977, 53 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 45. 15 L. R. 
 A. 319, 30 Am. St. Rep. 271 — 
 pp. 2018, 2030. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 15 
 
 Okla. 512, 86 Pac. 289, 6 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 8^, 6 Am. & E. g. 
 Ann. Cas. 1005— p. 1256. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 -c: Leigh \'alley R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1578, 2105, 2106. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 pp. 728, 73i, 766, 776, 1152. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 581, 582. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 323, 333, 335, 451, 984, 1016 
 1017, 3880, 3881. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R, Co., ip 
 
 733, 738, 3186. 
 
 V. Red River, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2748, 2903. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. '•. 
 
 Longfellow, The. 
 
 Long Island R. Co., Barnes f. 
 
 Baum f. 
 
 Beecher v. 
 
 Blaisdell v. 
 
 Bouker 7: 
 
 Brownirg z'. 
 
 Bruning v. 
 
 Compton V. 
 
 CoppocR' V. 
 
 Distler '•. 
 
 Eldridge v. 
 
 Ilogan f. 
 
 Homiston i\ 
 
 Jonas V. 
 
 McDonald V. 
 
 Moffatt V. 
 
 Mott v. 
 
 Mullin V. 
 
 Nelson v. 
 
 Rogers v. 
 
 Root V. 
 
 Stoddard 7'. 
 
 Strong V. 
 
 Tingley v. 
 
 Valentine v. 
 
 Werle v. 
 
 Willis V. 
 
 Long & Son, Nashville, etc.. Rail- 
 way t'. 
 
 Longley, Maine Stage Co. v. 
 
 Longmeid v. Holliday, p. 1849. 
 
 Longmore v. Great Western R. Co., 
 pp. 1775, 1785. 
 
 Loomer, Derwort -•. 
 
 Loomis V. Jewett, p. 2479. 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley JR. Co., 208 
 
 )1 N. 
 
 907— 
 
 132 
 Div. 
 
 N. Y. 312, 10 
 pp. 782, 3734. 
 
 — V. Lehigh Valley R. Co 
 N. Y. S. 138, 147 App. 
 195— p. 3743. 
 
 I'. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 417, 581. 
 
 — Wallace v. 
 
 Loon, The. 
 
 Loonan Lumber Co., Great North- 
 ern R'. Co. c'. 
 
 Looney, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Loonie, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Loper, Johnson v. 
 
 Loraine r. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 255, 256. 
 
 Lord V. Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 277, 279, 292, 652, 653, 672. 
 
 I'. Manchester St. Railway, 
 
 pp. 2312, 2796. 
 
 V. Midland R. Co., p. 1671. 
 
 V. Pueblo, etc., Rctin. Co., p. 
 
 2858. 
 
 V. Steamship Co., pp. 3418, 
 
 3420, 4036, 4054.^ 
 
 Lord, etc., Co. !■. Texas, etc., K. 
 
 Co., pp. 430, 503, 3334. 
 Lord Byron, Robinson v. 
 Lorenzen, Kx parte. 
 Loria, Sucsskind-Schatz Co. v. 
 Loring, Taggard v. 
 Lorton, Cincinnati, etc., K. Co. v. 
 Los Angeles Pac. Co., Morgan v. 
 Los Angeles R. Co., Campbell r. 
 
 Cary v. 
 
 • Forsjthe f. 
 
 ■ trobt T. 
 
 Joyce V. ^ 
 
 Los Angeles Terminal R. Co., Cox 
 
 — ^ Raub z: 
 
 Los Angeles Tract. Co., Babc^ck 
 
 Badcock z\ 
 
 Bassett v. 
 
 Cordiner v. 
 
 Osgood V. 
 
 Losie V. Delaware, etc., Co., p. 
 
 2669. 
 Lothrop, Pacific Exp. Co. v. 
 Lotspeich z\ Central R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 3250. 
 Lott, Hinson v. 
 
 More, etc., Co. v. 
 
 z\ New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2535. 
 
 Lottawanna, The. 
 
 Lottery Case, pp. 3428, 3441. 
 
 Lotz, North Chicago St. K. Co. 
 
 Loudoun !■. Eighth Ave. R. Co , 
 
 pp. 1687, 2009, 2671, 2764, 2'J7^, 
 
 2979. 
 Lough z'. Outerbridge, pp. 220, 222, 
 
 1135, 1175, 1175, 1179, 1180, 
 1181, 1185, 1188, 1189, 11^0, 
 
 1193, 1194. 
 Loughin z'. McCaulley, p. 4075. 
 Louis z'. Buckeye, p. 84d. 
 Louisiana, Morgan z\ 
 Nathan v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. Coal Co. v. 
 
 v. Texas, pp. 3441, 34oS. 
 
 Louisiana Board, Morgan'^, etc.. 
 
 Steamship Co. v. 
 Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Laveilie, 
 
 p. 309. 
 Louisiana R., etc., Co. v. II' lly, 
 
 pp. 3665, 3754. 
 
 Oxendine v. 
 
 ■ Stothard ''. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 Louisiana State Board, Comiiagnie 
 
 Francaise, etc., \'apeur v. 
 Louisiana Western R. Co., Hai vey 
 
 V. 
 
 — — Marx z'. 
 
 Louisiana, etc., R. Co., Al)ney v. 
 
 Chancy v.- 
 
 ■ Granier v. 
 
 Holliday Mill Co. z: 
 
 Lehman ^'. 
 
 Marsalis i'. 
 
 Marx z\ 
 
 V. Railroad Comm., pp. 45, 
 
 47, 49. 
 
 v. Rider, pp. 1854, 3011, 
 
 3015, 3060. 
 
 .1888, 1901. 
 
 2883, 2888. 
 2903. 
 
 Louisiana, etc., R. Co., United 
 States z\ 
 
 z\ United States, pp. 3651, 
 
 3661, 3728, 3784, 3802, 3804, 
 3805. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. z: Walksr. 
 
 p. 74. 
 Louisville City R. Co., Curtis v. 
 
 V. Hudgins, p. 2278. 
 
 f. Mercer, p. 2480. 
 
 V. Wcams, pp. 1728, 1737. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. z: Blum, p. 2083. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 • Bullitt z\ 
 
 z\ Goodman, p. 2083. 
 
 Henning z\ 
 
 Houghton 7'. 
 
 Howard v. 
 
 t'. Hutti, p. 2427. 
 
 z: Kupper, pp. 2035, 2060. 
 
 t'. Meglemery, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 1587, 78 S. W. 217— pp. 1535, 
 1536, 2272, 2381. 
 
 r." Meglemery, 79 S. W. 287, 
 
 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2062— p. 2989. 
 
 c'. Mitchell, pp. 1524, 2115, 
 
 21 111, 2278, 2364, 2878. 
 
 Nussbaum v. 
 
 •:•. Owens, pp. 2862, 2992. 
 
 -■. Park, pp. 1712, 1715, 1739, 
 
 1749, 1830. 
 
 • z\ Pulliam, pp. 
 
 Sacrey v. 
 
 Samuels z\ 
 
 z\ Sheehan, pp. 
 
 z\ Steubing, p. 
 
 Stringfield z'. 
 
 Sweet V. 
 
 z: Wellington, p. 2962. 
 
 z: Wilder^ pp. 1888, 1893, 
 
 2878. 
 
 v. Williams, p. 2891. 
 
 I'. Worley, p. 2777. 
 
 Louisville St. R. Co. z\ Brown- 
 field, pp. 2695, 2861. 
 
 Louisville Union Benev. ^Ass'n, 
 Sayre f. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Ferry Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth, 57 S. W. 624, 22 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 446, 1O8 Ky. 717 — 
 p. 3587. 
 
 z'. Commonwealth, 57 S. W. 
 
 626, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 480, 24 
 L. Rep. 1339— p. 3587. 
 
 z'. Kentucky, pp. 3475, 3478, 
 
 3552, 3581, 3584, 3587. 
 
 z: Nolan, pp. 1750, 2793. 
 
 Louisiana, etc., Lumber Co., St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc.. Mail Co. v. Barn.'S, 
 
 pp. 1698, 4004. 
 
 V. Gilliland, pp. 4000, 4002. 
 
 ■ z: Levey & Co., pp. 3284. 
 
 3294. 
 Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. v. B nt- 
 orff, p. 650. 
 
 Long z: 
 
 z: Mulligan, p. 4002. 
 
 z: Rogers, pp. 3872, 3876. 
 
 3878, 3882, 3888, 3897, 390?. 
 
 ■ v. Smith, pp. 823, 3912. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Railroad r. liter- 
 state Commerce Comm., pp. 2666, 
 3668, 36/3, 3675, 3676, 3678, 
 3679, 3680, 3681, 3682, 3683, 
 3764, 3799, 3802. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., Adams z'. 
 
 Agee & Co. z\ 
 
 i: Allen, pp. 3745, 3752. 
 
 V. Allgood, pp. 484, 581. 
 
 z: Alumbaugh, p. 2709. 
 
 Anderson z'. 
 
 Anthony v. 
 
 Armistead Lumber Co. ''. 
 
 Arnold -'. 
 
 V. Arnold, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 199, 56 S. W. 809— p. 1302. 
 
 • V. Arnold, 102 S. W. 322. 31 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 414— pp. 2814, 2965, 
 
 Attorney General f. 
 
 Bailey v.
 
 taiu.k of cases. 
 
 CCXVII 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., Baker v. 
 
 V. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307, 3 S. 
 
 W. 530, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 7, 7 .\m. 
 St. Rep. 600— pp. 2057, 2768, 
 3011, 3065, 3071. 
 
 r. Ballard, 88 Ky. 159, 10 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 735, 10 S. W. 429, 
 2 L. R-. A. (i94— p. 3062. 
 
 J'. Barkhouse, p. 548. 
 
 Baughman r. 
 
 Baxter v. 
 
 V. Bays. p. 1537. 
 
 V. Bean, p. 2249. 
 
 Behlmer f. 
 
 — z'. Behlmer, 
 
 169 U. S. 644. 
 
 42 L. ICd. 889, 
 
 18 S. Ct. 502— 
 
 p. 3808. 
 
 
 — 7'. Behlmer, 
 
 175 U. S. 648, 
 
 44 L. lul. 309, 
 
 20 S. Ct. 209— 
 
 pp. 3602, 3610, 3638, 3664, 3713, 
 3714, 3715, 3716, 3721, 3722. 
 3730, 3785, 3786, 3798, 3806, 
 3807. 
 
 V. Bell, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 393— 
 
 pp. 628, 1419. 
 
 V. Bell, lot) Ky. 203, 18 Ky. 
 
 L. Rep. 735, 8 Am. & Kng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 413, 38 S. W. 3— 
 pp. 1567, 2092, 2093, 2302, 2756. 
 
 Bennett z: 
 
 V. Bennett, pp. 3277, 3407. 
 
 V. Berg. pp. 1737, 2223 
 
 V. Beriiheim, pp. 537, 602. 
 
 Berry r. 
 
 V. Berry, pp. 200, 1593. 
 
 7'. Betz, p. 1446. 
 
 Beyer '■. 
 
 V. Bigger, pp. 733, 749, 765, 
 
 1339, 1472. 
 
 7'. Bisch, pp. 1752, 1961, 2126, 
 
 2179, 2189. 
 
 Bitterman '•. 
 
 z'. Bitterman, p. 1616. 
 
 V. Bizzell, pp. 2628, 3019, 
 
 3031. 
 
 V. Blair, pp. 2443, 2445, 3097. 
 
 V. Board, p. 2861. 
 
 Boughman f. 
 
 V. Bourne, 15 Kv. L. Rep. 
 
 445— pp. 821, 3267. "3326, 3372. 
 
 z\ Bourne, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 825, 29 S. W. 975— pp. 3262, 
 3344. 
 
 V. Bowlds, p. 2760. 
 
 V. Breckinridge, pp. 2456, 
 
 2459, 2474, 2493, 3098. 
 
 V. Brewer, pp. 1497, 2029. 
 
 Briant z'. 
 
 Brinegcr z\ 
 
 z: Brinley, p. 130o. 
 
 z: Britton, 39 So. 585, 145 
 
 Ala. 645— pp. 580, 591, 592, 602. 
 
 f. Britton, 149 Ala. 552, 43 
 
 50. IDS- pp. 590, 592, 601. 
 
 Brooke -'. 
 
 Brown !■. 
 
 z: Brown, 123 Fed. 946— pp. 
 
 51, 57. 
 
 V. Brown, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 772, 90 S. W. 567— pp. 1454, 
 1456, 1457. 
 
 v. Brownlee, pp. 320, 908, 
 
 910, 958, 986, 988, 1023. 
 
 Bryant v. 
 
 Burns z\ 
 
 Butchers' Stock Yards Co. v. 
 
 Butchers', etc., Stock V'ards 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 7'. Byrley, pp. 3065, 3073. 
 
 Cain f. 
 
 z: Campbell (Ky.), 122 S. \V. 
 
 848— p. 2208. 
 
 z\ Campbell, 54 Tenn. (7 
 
 Heisk.) 253— pp. 515, 3257, 3291, 
 3329. 3330, 3360, 3364. 
 
 CandifF z\ 
 
 f. Cannon, pp. 1663, 2647. 
 
 Caples -■. 
 
 ?■. Carothers, pp. 2721, 2772. 
 
 V. Castello, p. 1897. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. i'. Catron, 
 p. 1947. 
 
 V. Cayce, pp. 1865, 2575. 
 
 v. Cecil, 145 Ky. 271, 140 
 
 Ky. 186— pp. 1312, 1313, 1329, 
 1455. 
 
 V. Cecil, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 402— 
 
 pp. 2127, 2260. 
 
 Central Stockyards Co. z\ 
 
 I'. Central Stock Yards Co , 
 
 30 Ky. L. Rep. 18, 97 S. W. 
 778— pp. 82, 83, 94, 107, 108, 
 131, 3247, 3262, 3275, 3518, 
 3535. 
 
 V. Central Stock Yards Co., 
 
 212 U. S. 132, 133, S3 L. Ed. 
 441, 29 S. Ct. 246— pp. 98, 106, 
 224. 
 
 7'. Champiorj, pp. 2663, 3094. 
 
 7'. Chestnut & Bro., p. 3354. 
 
 7'. Church, pp. 1739, 2585, 
 
 2917, 2939, 3225, 3226. 
 
 Cincinnati Grain Co. v. 
 
 Clark z'. 
 
 Clarke v. 
 
 Clement 7'. 
 
 V. Coal Co., p. 247. 
 
 V. Cockerel, p. 1831. 
 
 v. Cody, pp. 805, 1443, 1445. 
 
 Coe 7'. 
 
 Coffee 7'. 
 
 Coles z'. 
 
 <•. Collier, pp. 1906, 2264. 
 
 Commonwealth 7'. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 132, 
 
 18 Ky. L. Rep. 42, 35 S. W. 
 129, 33 L. R. A. 209, 59 Am. 
 St. Rep. 457— p. 35. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 663, 
 
 37 S. W. 79— p. 1949. ^ 
 
 '•. Commonwealth (Ky.), 46 
 
 S. W. 702— pp. 85, 86, 180. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 
 
 226, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1102, 1380, 
 46 S. W. 707, 47 S. W. 210, 
 598, 43 L. R. A. 541— pp. 74, 
 118, 180. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 105 Ky. 
 
 179, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1099, 48 
 S. W. 416, 43 L. R. A. 550— 
 pp. 178, 180. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 
 
 633, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 232, 51 S. 
 W. 164, 1012, 90 Am. St. Rep. 
 236— pp. 74, 1187. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 108. Ky. 
 
 628, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 328, 57 S. 
 W. 508— pp. 96, 178. 
 
 -■. Commonwealth, 114 Ky. 
 
 787, 24 Kv. L. Rep. 1593, 1779, 
 71 S. W. 910— p. 180. 
 
 7'. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. 
 
 Rep. 239, 51 S. W. 167— p. 182. 
 
 7'. Constantine, pp. 2248, 3069, 
 
 3073. 
 
 V. Cook, pp. 1854, 1867, 1906, 
 
 1922. 
 
 7'. Cook Brewing Co., 96 C. 
 
 C. A. 322, 172 Fed. 117. 40 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 798— pp. 257, 
 3538. 
 
 7'. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U. 
 
 S. 70, 56 L. Ed. 355, 32 S. Ct. 
 189— pp. 3427, 3809, 3810, 3814. 
 
 7'. Coons, p. 2397. 
 
 7'. Cooper, 142 Ky. 533, 134 
 
 S. W. 920— p. 1479. 
 
 7'. Cooper, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 496— pp. 3284, 3327, 3347. 
 
 7'. (iooper, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 1152, 42 S. VV. 1134— p. 3289. 
 
 V. Cooper, 56 S. W. 144, 21 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1644— pp. 1297, 
 3297. 
 
 Copp 7'. , , , 
 
 7'. Coquillard \\'agon \\ orks 
 
 .\ssignees, p. 3757. 
 
 Corcoran '■. 
 
 7'. Cornelius, pp. 2667, 2668. 
 
 7'. Cottengim, p. 1571, 1604, 
 
 2474, 2532, 2715, 2717. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R'. Co. z: Cotton- 
 gim, pp. 2474, 3088, 3105. 
 
 Courts 7'. 
 
 V. Covetts, p. 3061. 
 
 V. Cowherd, pp. 726. 7.'2. 
 
 748. 773, 820. 1035, 3349. 
 
 Crawford -■. 
 
 V. Craycraft, p. 453. 
 
 z'. Crayton, p. 2705. 
 
 Crescent Coal Co. v. 
 
 7'. Crowe, p. 3694. 
 
 Crowley v. 
 
 V. Crown Coal Co., p. 91. 
 
 V. Croxton, pp. 2915. 2924. 
 
 7'. Crozier, pp. 945, 1362, 
 
 3284, 3414. 
 
 V. Crunk, pp. 2249. 2406, 
 
 2510, 2513, 2586, 2588, 2992» 
 2994. 
 
 7'. Cunningham, p. 869. 
 
 V. Dancy, pp. 1867. 1869. 
 
 7'. Daugherty, pp. 1775. 2130. 
 
 2859. 
 
 Davis 7'. 
 
 Dawson -'. 
 
 v. Deason, pp. 1880. 2120, 
 
 2233. 2351, 2828, 2906, 2927, 
 2974. 
 
 Depp 7'. 
 
 I'. Depp, p. 2253. 
 
 Dickerson 7'. 
 
 7'. Dickerson, pp. 3738, 3755, 
 
 3777. 
 
 v. Dies, p. 1837. 
 
 Diggs 7'. 
 
 Dilburn 7'. 
 
 7'. Dilburn, pp. 1720, 1884, 
 
 1899, 2294, 2319, 2379, 2380. 
 
 Dillard Bros. v. 
 
 Dinsmore 7'. 
 
 7'. Donaldson, p. 2661. 
 
 Doughitt 7'. 
 
 7'. Douglass, p. 2068. 
 
 Douthitt 7'. 
 
 Du Bose 7'. 
 
 7'. Du Bose, p. 1494. 
 
 v. Duncan, pp. 3280. 3391. 
 
 7'. Dunlap. pp. 831. 1042. 
 
 Dunnington & Co. 7'. 
 
 Durham 7'. 
 
 v. Dyer. pp. 2150. 2723. 
 
 7'. Eakin. pp. 2361, 2989. 
 
 2993. 
 
 Echols 7'. 
 
 7'. Echols, p. 816. 
 
 7'. Edmondson, pp. 2114. 
 
 2155. 2267. 
 
 Eichengreen 7'. 
 
 v. Ellis, p. 2489. 
 
 7'. Empire State Chemical Co., 
 
 p. 718. 
 
 7'. Espenscheid, p. 2511. 
 
 7'. Eubank, pp. 74, 3480, 3491. 
 
 3493, 3497, 3498, 3540. 
 
 Fairfield 7'. 
 
 7'. Farmers', etc., Comm. 
 
 Firm, pp. 3269, 3280, 3343. 
 
 Favre 7'. 
 
 7'. Faylor, pp. 1564, 
 
 2001, 2098, 2696, 2698. 
 
 7'. Ferrell, pp. 2532, 
 
 3030, 3066, 3069. 
 
 7'. Fish, pp. 2440, 3100. 
 
 7'. Fisher, pp. 1694, 3206. 
 
 7'. Flannagan, pp. 210, 229. 
 
 231. 268, 448, 468, 635, 1176, 
 1180. 
 
 f. Fleming, pp. 196, 
 
 1612, 1637, 1638, 1972, 
 2425, 2430, 2431, 3081, 
 3092. 
 
 7'. Forrest, pp. 1503, 1718, 
 
 2040, 2480, 2483, 2776. 
 
 7'. Fort Wavne Elect. Co., pp- 
 
 477, 492, 493. 554. 
 
 - z: Foster, pp. 417. 3289. 3294. 
 
 7'. Fowler, pp. 3026, 3082. 
 
 3089. ,.,, 
 
 7'. Fox, pp. 1697, 2/33. 2/36. 
 
 2920. 
 
 Franklin 7'. 
 
 1566, 
 
 3022. 
 
 1495. 
 2415. 
 3090.
 
 CCXVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. f. Frazee. 
 pp. 986, 1072, 1400. 
 
 Frederick f. 
 
 Freeman f. 
 
 7-. Fulgham. pp. 94, 332. 333. 
 
 V. Caddie, pp. 2754, 3047. 
 
 r. Gaines. 99 Ky. 411, 36 S. 
 
 W. 174. IS Kv. L. Rep. 387. 59 
 Am. St. Rep. 465— pp. 2449. 
 2459. 
 
 z: Gaines, 152 Kv. 255, 153 
 
 S. W. 216— p. 2878. 
 
 '•. Garrett, pp. 1503, 2429, 
 
 2472. 3092. 
 
 r. Gatewood, pp. 2477, 2533. 
 
 George & Co. v. 
 
 Gerardv i'. 
 
 r. Gerson, pp. 725, 804. 
 
 r. Gidley, pp. 741. 876, 908, 
 
 1038. 
 
 Gilleland v. 
 
 Gillespie v. 
 
 f. Gilmer, pp. 530, 563, 848. 
 
 r. Glasgow, pp. 1512, 1739. 
 
 2134, 2577, 2593, 2864. 
 
 r. Goben, pp. 2433, 2484, 
 
 2625. 
 
 V. Godman, pp. 210, 229, 287, 
 
 1281, 1442, 1449. 
 
 z\ Gormlev, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 188, 109 S. W. 346, 111 S. W. 
 289— pp. 1317, 1318, 1344, 1349, 
 1351, 1353, 1357, 1480. 
 
 z: Gormley (Ky.), 121 S. \V. 
 
 965— p. 1283. 
 
 r. Grant, pp. 1364, 3415. 
 
 Green z\ 
 
 z: Gregory, pp. 1828, 1837, 
 
 2794. 
 
 z: Grimes, pp. 1938, 2319, 
 
 2862, 2912. 
 
 z\ Grundy, p. 3054. 
 
 z: Guinan, pp. 1596, 1598, 
 
 2716, 3068, 3091. 
 
 Gulf City Constr. Co. v. 
 
 Guthrie v. 
 
 z: Guy, p. 3062. 
 
 z: Guyton, p. 2921. 
 
 r. Hailey, pp. 1544, 1549. 
 
 r. Hale, pp. 1893, 1894. 
 
 Hall Grain Co. z'. 
 
 V. Harmon, pp. 1491, 1895, 
 
 1900, 2387. 
 
 z: Harned, pp. 1390, 1477. 
 
 Harris z'. 
 
 z: Harris, pp. 1542, 1627,< 
 
 2442, 2473. 
 
 z\ Hartman, p. 2364. 
 
 Hartmann '■. 
 
 Hartwell f. 
 
 V. Hartwell, pp. 477, 598, 
 
 1250. 
 
 z: Hawley, pp. 1458, 1459. 
 
 V. Head, p. 2338. 
 
 V. Hedger, pp. 819, 1363, 
 
 1457. 
 
 z'. Heilprin & Co., pp. 567, 
 
 636. 
 
 Henderson v. 
 
 V. Hendricks, pp. 1815, 2671, 
 
 2682. 
 
 V. Henry, p. 2729. 
 
 z: Higdon, pp. 225, 231. 237, 
 
 251, 263, 537, 538, 1184, 3471. 
 
 Higgins z: 
 
 Hill V. 
 
 V. Hine, pp. 2436, 2437, 2494, 
 
 3078, 3079, 3083, 3085. 
 
 V. Hiram Blow & Co., p. 
 
 599. 
 
 Z'. Hirsch, p. 1774. 
 
 z: Holsapple, pp. 1705, 1923. 
 
 Hoosier Stone Co. v. 
 
 Hopperton z'. 
 
 z'. Hughes, p. 3505. 
 
 Hughlett V. 
 
 z: Hull, pp. 1256, 1257. 
 
 Hunter v. 
 
 Hutcheson v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., Interstate 
 Commerce Comm. v. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 108 Fed. 988, 46 C. C. A. 685— 
 p. 3715. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 184 Fed. 118— pp. 3671, 3672, 
 3774, 3801, 3809. 
 
 7'. Interstate R. Co., p. 104. 
 
 Irwin z: 
 
 V. Jackson, p. 3057. 
 
 Jenkins v. 
 
 V. Jenkins, pp. 1854, 3060. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 V. Johnson, 92 Ala. 204, 9 So. 
 
 269, 25 Am. St. Rep. 35- pp. 
 2425, 2489. 
 
 ^— z: Johnson, 108 Ala. 62, 19 
 So. 51, 31 L. R. A. 372— pp. 
 2488, 2489. 
 
 z\ Johnson, 33 So. 661, 135 
 
 Ala. 232— pp. 900. 
 
 z: Johnson, 44 111. App. 56 — 
 
 p. 2248. 
 
 z: Johnston, pp. 1870, 2i)60. 
 
 Jones V. 
 
 z: Jones, 83 Ala. 376, 3 So. 
 
 902— pp. 2636, 2778. 
 
 z: Jones, 108 Ind. 551, 9 N. 
 
 E. 476, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 170— pp. 1813, 1987, 2693, 2758, 
 2807, 2888, 3008. 
 
 V. Jones, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 494 
 
 —pp. 531, 896. 
 
 V. Joplin, pp. 2468,. 3092, 
 
 3103. 
 
 V. Jordan, pp. 2476, 3101. 
 
 V. kahn, pp. 1152, 1153. 
 
 V. Katzenberger, pp. 729, 733. 
 
 750, 1268, 3142, 3143, 3166, 
 3226, 3228. 
 
 v. KaufFman & Co., p. 392. 
 
 — ■ z\ Keefer, pp. 214, 253, 254, 
 
 1578, 2092, 2093, 2100, 2105, 
 2106. 
 
 V. Keith, p. 2243. 
 
 -■. Keller, pp. 1533, 3055, 
 
 3063. 
 
 -■. Kelly, pp. 2037, 20(.9, 
 
 2222. 
 
 !■. Kelsey, pp. 848, 1344, 
 
 1405. 
 
 '■. Kemp, pp. 1739, 2890. 
 
 z: Kendall, p. 2609. 
 
 V. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 
 
 696, 40 L. Ed. 849, 16 S. Ct. 
 714— pp. 34, 39, 3481, 3484. 
 
 V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 
 
 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 S. Ct. 95— 
 pp. 26, 35, 36, 58, 59, 63, 73, 
 3497, 3498. 
 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 
 Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. 
 
 3029. 
 
 1575, 3068. 
 
 1620, 1622. 
 
 - V. Kimbrough, p. 
 
 - Z'. Kingman, pp. 
 — ■ Kinney v. 
 
 V. Klyman, pp. 
 
 1973, 2440. 
 
 - Lampkin z'. 
 
 - V. Landers, pp. 462, 1107, 
 1422, 1425. 
 
 - V. Lawler, p. 2149. 
 
 V. Lawson, 88 Ky. 496, 11 
 
 S. W. 511- pp. 513, 585. 
 
 z'. Lawson, 9 Ky. L. R'cp. 
 
 681— pp. 515, 594, 595. 
 
 Z'. Lazarus, pp. 1427, 1428, 
 
 1458, 1459. 
 
 V. Lee, pp. 1910, 2066, 2721, 
 
 2932. 
 
 Levy Z'. 
 
 Lewis f. 
 
 7'. Lewis, p. 3021. 
 
 Lewis, etc., Co. v. 
 
 f. Linton, pp. 2085, 2087. 
 
 V. Logan, pp. 2419, 2488, 
 
 2490. 
 
 r. Long, pp. 2001, 2146. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. ■:■. Lucas, 
 pp. 1739, 1767, 1779, 1797. 
 
 Lunsford "'. 
 
 McCampbell v. 
 
 McCarthy z\ 
 
 z: McCarty, p. 1454. 
 
 iucChord '■. 
 
 z: McClaiH, p. 3068. 
 
 McClelland i: 
 
 f. McClintock, pp. 1454, 1456, 
 
 14()2. 
 
 z: McCool, p. 585. 
 
 ■;■. McCoy, p. 2949. 
 
 McDonald ■;•. 
 
 McDowell ?■. 
 
 v. McKwan, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 406, 31 S. W. 465, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 438— 
 pp. 2025, 2027, 2768. 
 
 z: McEwan, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 487, 51 S. W. 619— pp. 2025, 
 2027. 
 
 • '■. McGuire & Co., pp. 515, 
 
 517, 799, 895, 900. 
 
 z: McKenna, pp. 1720, 1808. 
 
 1814, 1821, 1825, 1827. 
 
 z\ McKcnzie, pp. 738, 953. 
 
 955. 
 
 McKinley v. 
 
 McMurtray v. 
 
 McMurtrv v. 
 
 • f. McNafly, PP- l-<98, 1507, 
 
 3095. 
 
 7'. Magnvis Co., p. 1151. 
 
 r. Mahan, pp. 3160, 3168, 
 
 3170, 3172, 3174. 
 
 Malcomb -■. 
 
 V. Manchester Mills, pp. 487, 
 
 833, 1037, 1041. 
 Manning z'. 
 
 z: Marshall, p. 2809. 
 
 Martin, pp. 1285, 1457, 
 
 Mask, pp. 1869, 1870, 1886, 
 
 Mason, 4 Ala. App. 353. 
 58 So. 963— pp. 2429, 2631, 2664. 
 
 -.. Mason, 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 
 
 116, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 241— pp. 849, 865, 1352, 1355. 
 
 z: Massie, p. 2321. 
 
 V. Maybin, pp. 2426, 2442, 
 
 3088. 
 
 Melbourne z\ 
 
 v. Meyer, pp. 324, 325, 798. 
 
 986, 996, 999, 1004, 3349, 3350. 
 
 z: Miles, pp. 190, 198, 1858. 
 
 r. Miller, pp. 1813, 1986, 
 
 2405, 2673, 2839. 
 
 V. Mink, pp. 305, 641, 643, 
 
 645, 648, 671, 674, 680. 
 
 v. Minogue, pp. 1737, 2002. 
 
 z\ Mississippi, pp. 34, 1946, 
 
 1947, 3497, 3498, 3511. 
 
 z: Moore, ISO S. W. 849, 150 
 
 Ky. 692— pp. 2256, 2319. 
 
 z: Moore (Ky.), 121 S. W. 
 
 666— p. 2845. 
 
 Morningstar Z'. 
 
 v. Morris, p. 2185. 
 
 Moses z'. 
 
 z>. Moss, p. 2533. 
 
 z\ Mothershed, p. 2641. 
 
 Mottlcy z: 
 
 z: Mottley, 133 Ky. 652, 118 
 
 S. W. 982— pp. 1643, 3694, 3695. 
 
 '■. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467. 
 
 55 L. Ed. 297, 31 S. Ct. 265, 
 34 L. R. A., N. S., 671— 
 pp. 3464, 3631, 3664, 3665, 3684. 
 3686, 3694, 3696, 3750, ^753, 
 3765, 3766. 
 
 Mount z: 
 
 ;.. Mount, pp. 2347, 2375, 
 
 2638, 2728, 2730, 2780. 
 
 Mouton V. 
 
 V. Mulder, pp. 1684, 2036, 
 
 2342, 2344, 2885. 
 
 7'. Newman, p. 2566.
 
 TAIir.K OF CASKS. 
 
 CCXIX 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. N'icholai, 
 pp. 121, 7G5, 1632. 
 
 V. Oden, p. 900. 
 
 O'Donncll v. 
 
 7'. Ohio \'alley Tic Co., p. 
 
 3435. 
 
 Olivier r. 
 
 OrfltT V. 
 
 Owen V. 
 
 V. Owen, p. 1283. 
 
 V. Owens, pp. 1075, 1397. 
 
 Page V. 
 
 Parsons-Applcgate Co. v. 
 
 Patterson -•. 
 
 V. Patterson, pp. 1953, 1954 
 
 V. Payne, 133 Kv. 539, 118 
 
 S. W. 352, 19 Am. & Kng. Ann. 
 Cas. 294— pp. 1798. 2729. 2744. 
 
 f. Payne, 104 S. W. 752, 31 
 
 Kv. L. Rep. 1173— pp. 2245, 
 2904. 
 
 V Pedigo, 108 Ind. 481, 8 N. 
 
 R. 627, 27 Am. & ICng. R. Cas. 
 310— pp. 1717, 1723, 1740. 1986, 
 2638. 
 
 r. Pedigo. 108 Ind. 481, 8 N. 
 
 S. W. 116— p. 1268. 
 
 Pence v. 
 
 V. Perkins, 144 Ala. 325, 39 
 
 So. 305— pp. 2622, 2784, 2849, 
 3022. 
 
 V. Perkins, -52 .Via. 133, 44 
 
 So. 602— pp. 2581, 2660. 
 
 V. Pferdmenges, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 311. 
 
 V. Pittsburg, etc.. Coal Co., 
 
 pp. 102, 132. 
 
 v. Plummcr, p. 830. 
 
 V. Plunkett, p. 2546. 
 
 V. Popp, pp. 2517, 2974. 
 
 V. Price, pp. 584. 590, 602. 
 
 7'. Queen City Coal Co.. 99 
 
 Ky. 217, 18 Kv. L. Rep. 126, 
 35 S. W. 626— p. 216. 
 
 V. Queen City Coal Co., 13 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 832— pr>. 208, 210, 
 216, 242. 257, 263, 264. 
 
 V. Quick, p. 3051. 
 
 Qtiinn ;■. 
 
 V. Quinn, 145 Ala. 657, 39 
 
 So. 616— pp. 2476, 2935. 
 
 V. Ouinn, 146 Ala. 330, 39 
 
 So. 756- pp. 2649, 2706. 
 
 V. Railroad Conim., 19 Fed 
 
 679— p. 20. 
 
 V. Railroad Comm., 191 Fed. 
 
 757— pi). 3470. 3471. 
 
 V. Railroad Comm.. 196 Fed. 
 
 800— pp. 35. 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 
 54, 56. 
 
 Railroad Conim'rs v. 
 
 V. Railroad Conim'rs, p. 31. 
 
 V. Rash & Co., p. 1348. 
 
 Rawitzky v. 
 
 V. Ray, pp. 2057. 2066. 2074, 
 
 2805. 2957, 2972, 3075, 3226. 
 
 R'earv -■. 
 
 Reed r. 
 
 V. Renfro. np. 1949. 2025, 
 
 2026, 2030, 2755. 
 
 J'. Rcnicker. p. 2648. 
 
 V. Revnolds. pp. 2131, 2680. 
 
 2902. 
 
 Rhodes 7'. 
 
 7'. Richeson. p. 3074. 
 
 7'. Richmond, p. 2001. 
 
 V. Ricketts, 93 Kv. 116, 19 
 
 S. W. 182— p. 1788. 
 
 7'. Ricketts. 96 Ky. 44. 27 S. 
 
 W. 860, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 281. 6 
 Am. & Kng. R. Cas., N. S.. 186 
 —pp. 1788, 2245, 2246, 2271. 
 
 V. Ricketts, 18 Kv. L. Rep. 
 
 687, 37 S. W. 952— pp. 1788, 
 1798, 1883. 
 
 V. Ricketts, 52 S. W. 939. 21 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 662— pp. 2271, 2965. 
 
 Rilev V. 
 
 V. Ritchcl, pp. 1949, 3014, 
 
 3050, 3059. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ritti-r, 
 85 Ky. 368, 3 S. W. 591, 9 
 Ky. L. Rep. 22, 28 Am. & Kng. 
 K. Cas. 167— pp. 1684, 1723, 
 1814, 2671. 2673, 2839. 
 
 V. Ritter, 2 Ky. L. Rep. 385 
 
 —pp. 2694, 3068. 
 
 7'. Ritter, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 44 
 
 —p. 2671. 
 
 Robertson 7'. 
 
 r. Robinson, pp. 1303, 1318, 
 
 1320. 
 
 V. Rommele, p. 2880. 
 
 V. Roncy, pp. 2820, 3052, 
 
 3053, 3062. 
 
 Rose 7'. 
 
 St. Louis Drayage Co. '<•. 
 
 V. Sandlin, p. 2637. 
 
 7'. ScalL pp. 2162, 2754, 2796. 
 
 7'. Scott, 108 Ky. 392, 22 Ky. 
 
 L. Rep. 30, 56 S. W. 674, 50 
 L. R. A. 381— pp. 1570, 1582, 
 1584. 
 
 7'. Scott, 133 Ky. 724, 118 S. 
 
 W. 990, 19 Am. & Rng. Ann. 
 Cas. 392— pp. 3444, 3773. 
 
 ■■. Scott, 141 Kv. 538, 133 
 
 S. W. 800, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 
 547, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 206— 
 pp. 1607, 1860. 3086, 3090. 
 
 7'. Scott. 219 U. S. 209, 55 
 
 L. Ed. 183, 31 S. Ct. 171 — 
 pp. 3444, 3469, 3603. 
 
 Schoenfeld v. 
 
 V. Scale, 160 Ala. 584, 49 So. 
 
 323— pp. 1856. 2706, 2845. 3014. 
 
 7'. Scale, 172 .Ma. 480, 55 So. 
 
 237— pp. 2341, 2651, 2753, 2846. 
 2847, 2986. 
 
 Sears v. 
 
 V. Setser. 13S Ky. 476, 128 
 
 S. W. 341— pp. 2418, 2420, 2477, 
 2784. 
 
 7-. Setser, 149 Kv. 162. 147 
 
 S. W. 956— pp. 26231 2624. 
 
 Shcffer 7'. 
 
 Shelbyville R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Shclton 7'. 
 
 7'. Sherrod, pp. 1063, 1073. 
 
 Shinkle, etc.. Co. v. 
 
 Shumate v. 
 
 7'. Sickings, p. 2202. 
 
 Siler 7'. 
 
 7'. Siler, p. 3494. 
 
 Sinnott 7'. 
 
 Smith 7'. 
 
 V. Smith, 135 Ky. 462. 122 S 
 
 W. 806— pp. 2402, 2500, 2507, 
 2538. 2872. 
 
 7'. Smith fKy.). 2 Duv. 556— 
 
 pp. 2694, 2778, 3070. 
 
 V. Smith, 10 Kv. L. Rep. 497 
 
 —p. 1937. 
 
 V. Smith, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 974 
 
 —pp. 2126, 2178, 2242. 
 
 7'. Smith, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 814 
 
 —pp. 1303, 1321, 1419, 1458. 
 
 ■ — — 7'. Smith, 123 Tenn. 678, 134 
 S. \V. 866- pp. 1269. 1371. 1393. 
 1399, 1471, 3522. 
 
 Smiths -■. 
 
 7'. Smitha, pp. 1284, 1329. 
 
 1362, 1384, 1454, 1456. 1458. 
 1473, 1479. 1481, 1482, 1483. 
 
 V. Snead. p. 2643. 
 
 V. Snider, pp. 1711, 1713, 
 
 1715, 1739, 1810, 1840. J847, 
 2371. 2671, 2673. 
 
 7'. Southern Flour, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 326, 327. 336. 
 
 7-. Sowell. pp. 1008, 1075, 
 
 1387, 1395. 1397, 1404. 
 
 7'. Spalding, p. 494. 
 
 7'. Spalding. etc.. Co., pp. 
 
 1270, 1454, 1457. 1458. 
 
 7'. Spaulding, p. 576. 
 
 7'. Sninke, pp. 2562. 30!*1. 
 
 V. Stacker, pp. 2267, 2268, 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., Stalcup v. 
 
 Starnes v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 V. State, p. 1946. 
 
 V. Steele, pp. 1107, 1422. 
 
 V. Steenberger, po. 2060. 
 
 2958. 
 
 7'. Stephen, p. 1625. 
 
 Stiles -■. 
 
 7'. Stiles, pp. 285, 287, 899. 
 
 1284, 1332, 1336. 
 
 V. Stillwell, pp. 2356. 2386, 
 
 2985. 
 
 Stony Fork Coal Co. v. 
 
 V. Storms, pp. 2562. 3094. 
 
 Strull 7'. 
 
 V. Stuber, p. 1580. 
 
 7'. Sullivan, pp. 2488. 2490. 
 
 V. Summers, pp. 2773, 3089. 
 
 -'. Sumner, p. 635. 
 
 Swan V. 
 
 Tanner z\ 
 
 7'. Tarter, p. 3353. 
 
 Tecumsch Mills v. 
 
 7'. Tennessee Brewing Co., 
 
 pp. 3305, 3395, 3396. 3403. 
 
 7'. Tharpe, pp. 1056, 1057. 
 
 V. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 8 
 
 N. E. 18, 9 N. E. 357, 57 Am. 
 Rep. 120, 27 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 88— pp. 1542, 1543. 1715. 
 1739, 1740, 1810, 1844. 1981. 
 2613, 2673. 
 
 7'. Thompson, 144 Ky. 765. 
 
 139 S. W. 939— pp. 1279. 1353. 
 1460, 1471. 
 
 V. Thompson, etc., Co., 13 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 973— pp. 1038, 1386, 
 1389. 1448. 
 
 7'. Thompson, 64 Miss. 584. 1 
 
 So. 840, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 541- p. 1790. 
 
 -'. Thornton, p. 2523. 
 
 7'. Tilleson, p. 3030. 
 
 7'. Touart, pp. 246, 499, 603. 
 
 802, 1038, 1041, 3349. 
 
 7'. Treadway, pp. 1773. 1797. 
 
 1799. 
 
 7'. Trent, p. 1284. 
 
 Troutman 7'. 
 
 7'. Tuggle, p. 2480. 
 
 V. Turner, 137 Ky. 730, 12-. 
 
 S. W. 372— pp. 1795, 1796. 1939. 
 
 7'. Turner, 100 Tenn. (16 
 
 Pickle) 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 
 S. W. 223, 43 L. R. A. 140— 
 pp. 191, 195, 196, 198. 200. 203. 
 1622. 1631. 1632. 1633. 3094. 
 
 United States 7'. 
 
 V. L'nitcd States. 108 C. C. 
 
 A. 326. 186 Fed. 280— p. 3454. 
 
 f. United States. 197 Fed. 5S 
 
 —pp. 3649. 3679. 3836. 
 
 V. United States (U. S.). 39 
 
 Ct. CI. 405— p. 884. 
 
 V. United States Fidelity, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 556. 559. 
 
 f. \'ancleave. p. 75. 3425. 
 
 7'. Vcnable. pp. 1071. 1075. 
 
 7'. Vincent, pp. 2025, 2030. 
 
 A'irginia Coal. etc.. Co. v. 
 
 \'irginia. etc.. Iron Co. '■. 
 
 Wald 7'. 
 
 Walker 7-. 
 
 7'. Walker. 177 Ind. 38, 97 
 
 N. E. 151— pp. 1789. 1806. 
 
 7'. Walker. 110 Kv. 061. 23 
 
 Kv. L. Rep. 453. 63 S. W. 209— 
 p.' 137. 
 
 Warficid 7-. 
 
 7. Wartield. 129 Ga. 473, 59 
 
 S. E. 234— pp. 727. -i2, 748. 
 752. 765. 800. 806. 807. 
 
 7'. Warfield. 3 Ga. App. 187. 
 
 59 S. E. 604— p. 806. 
 
 7'. Warfield. 6 Ga. App. 550. 
 
 65 S. E. 308— pp. 1056. 1412. 
 1420. 
 
 7-. Warfield, pp. 1338. 1453. 
 
 1464. 1471.
 
 ccxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 L. Rep. 
 
 L. Rep. 
 L. R. A. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. Wathen, 
 21 Ky. L. Rep. 82, 49 S. VV. 185 
 —pp. 1436, 1438, 1439, 1450, 
 1455. 
 
 V. Wathen, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 2128, 66 S. W. 714 — pp. 1473, 
 1479. 
 
 Watson -'. 
 
 f. Weathers, p. 2601. 
 
 V. Weaver, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 30, 50 L. R. -V 381— p. 1834. 
 
 -■. Weaver. 77 Tenn. (9 Lea). 
 
 38, 42 Am. Rep. 654, 16 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 218- pp. 3139, 
 3175, 3176, 3177, 3178, 3180, 
 3182, 3257, 3291. 
 
 Weightman v. 
 
 !•. Welsh, p. 2710. 
 
 West Coast Naval Stores Co. 
 
 f. West Coast Xaval Stores 
 
 Co., pp. 3248, 3258. 3268, 3729. 
 
 V. White, p. 3065. 
 
 V. Whitman, p. 2485. 
 
 Wicks 1-. 
 
 1-. Widman, p. 1087. 
 
 Williams f. 
 
 V. Williams, 5 -Ma. .\pp. 615, 
 
 56 So. 865— p. 3363. 
 
 f. Williams. 95 Ky. 199. 15 
 
 Ky. L. Kep. 548, 24 S. W. 1, 
 44 .\m. St. Rep. 214 — p. 108. 
 
 Wilsev V. 
 
 V. Wilsev, 9 Ky. 
 
 1008— p. 3085. 
 
 V. Wilsey, 1 1 Ky. 
 
 419, 12 S. W. 275. 5 
 855— pp. 2468, 3083, 3101. 
 
 Wilson '•. 
 
 f. Wilson, 123 Ga. 62, 51 S. 
 
 E. 24, 3 .\m. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 128— p. 1254. 
 
 V. Wilson, 119 Ind. 352, 21 
 
 N. E. 341, 40 \m. & Eng. K. 
 Cas. 85 — pp. 333, 335. 
 
 V. Wilson, 124 Ky. 846, 30 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1055, 100 S. W. 
 290, 8 L. R. A., X. S., 1020— 
 pp. 2515, 2539. 
 
 Wilson Sewing Mach. Co. v. 
 
 '•. Wolfe, 128 Ind. 347, 27 
 
 X. E. 606, 25 Am. St. Rep. 436 
 —pp. 2420, 3081, 3088. 
 
 f. Wolfe, 80 Ky. 82, 3 Ky. 
 
 L. Rep. 576— pp. 2281, 2501. 
 
 Wood V. 
 
 V. Wood, pp. 1884, 2066, 
 
 2126, 2581, 2607, 2609. 
 
 Woolery v. 
 
 I'. Wright, pp. 1613. 1628. 
 
 Wyler-Ackerland & Co. v. 
 
 Wyler, etc.. Co. v. 
 
 f. Wvnn, pp. 740. 750, 822, 
 
 828. 1075, 1076, 1080, 1268, 
 1406, 1454, 1456, 1457. 
 
 V. Yowell, p. 2171. 
 
 V. Yudelson, pp. 347, 406, 
 
 833, 837. 
 
 Zimmern's Coal Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Stove Co., Cleve- 
 land, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Tract. Co. v. 
 Korbe, 175 Ind. 450, 93 N. E- 
 5, 94 N. E. 768— pp. 1682, 1721, 
 2599, 2992. 
 
 V. Korbe (Ind. -A pp.), 90 N. 
 
 E. 483— pp. 1901, 1903, 2599. 
 
 V. Leaf, p. 1890. 
 
 r. Snead, p. 2659. 
 
 V. Walker, pp. 1750, 2350, 
 
 3035, 3037. 
 
 V. Worrell, pp. 1709, 2701, 
 
 2702. 
 
 Lounsberry, Hudson River R. Co. 
 
 Louthan, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Love, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 123, 130. 
 
 Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Love, Indiana Union Tract. Co. r. 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Ross, etc., Co., p. 1138. 
 
 Lovejov, Spencer r. 
 
 Lovelady, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Loveland r. Burke, pp. 755, 788. 
 Lovell V. Davis, p. 3873. 
 
 Hentz & Co. v. 
 
 V. Hentz & Co., p. 362. 
 
 V. London, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 286, 3134, 3135. 
 
 V. Newman & Son, p. 362. 
 
 Lovely, Western Union Tel. Co. 
 
 etc., Co. 
 
 Travis, p. 
 R. Co., p. 
 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co. '■. 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 Loverin, 
 
 3425. 
 Lovett f. Gulf, etc 
 
 2164. 
 
 '■. Salem, etc., 
 
 2535. 
 
 Loving, Texas, etc.. R 
 Lovings V. Xorfolk 
 
 1638, 2431. 
 Low r. Austin, p. 3549. 
 Lowber, Bangs r. 
 
 V. Bangs, pp. 3868, 3869, 
 
 3872, 3873. 
 
 Lowe V. Booth, p. 946. 
 
 'C. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 611. 
 
 Lexington R'. Co. v. 
 
 V. Moss, pp. 634, 635. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, p. 
 
 3518. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Lowell, Alger i'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Lowell Wire Fence Co. v. Sargent, 
 
 p. 3256. 
 Lowell, etc., R. Co., Clark r. 
 Lowell, etc., St. R. Co., Deal v. 
 Lowenrosen, Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Lowenstein v. Loinbard, etc., Co., 
 
 pp 454, 1000, 1006, 1017, 4027. 
 
 i: Wabash R. Co., pp. 1289, 
 
 1290. 
 
 Lowenthal v. Vicksburg, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1847. 
 Low^ery, Mt. .Adams, etc., K. Co 
 Lowitz, Chicago City R. Co. f. 
 
 Parmelee ''. 
 
 Lownsdale, Burrows '■. 
 
 Lowry V. Atlantic Coast Line 
 
 Co., p. 3396. 
 
 Jackson Elect. R., etc., Co. 
 
 Montague & Co. v. 
 
 Loy, Hodgson v. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1542, 2459, 2463, 2473, 2486. 
 
 Loyal, The. 
 
 Loyd, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 L. S. & M. S. R. Co V Hatchkiss, 
 p. 2098. 
 
 V. Salzman, p. 1972. 
 
 Lucas V. Burlington, etc., R 
 
 p. 1395. 
 
 V. Catskill Mountain R, 
 
 p. 2149. 
 
 Florida Cent, etc., R. Co. i\ 
 
 — Florida, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 — V. Herbert, pp. 112, 192. 
 
 — Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — V. Marquette, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2349. 
 
 — f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 1986. 
 
 — V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 2412, 2414, 2433, 3084, 3088_ 
 
 — V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1547, 1550. 2149, 2720. 
 
 — v. New Bedford, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2248, 2263, 2264, 2286. 2=;i0 
 2512, 2540, 2544. 
 
 — ''. Pennsylvania Co., iip 
 1779, 2084. 
 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 Luce, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. z-. 
 Lucesco Oil Co. t'. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co., pp. 848, 855, 870. 
 Luck, Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Luckel V. Century Bldg. Co., pp. 
 
 2234, 2902. 
 Luckie, -Kmericus, etc.. Railroad v. 
 
 .\mericus, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Lucus v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1402. 
 Lucy V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2021, 3077. 
 Ludden, Columbus, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Luddy V. Old Colony St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2885. 
 Ludeman v. Third .\vc. R. Co., p. 
 
 2829. 
 Ludgate Hill Steamship Co., Ru- 
 bens V. 
 Ludinsky v. New York City R. Co , 
 
 p. 2808. 
 Ludlam, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ludvig Ilalberg, The._ 
 Ludwick, Lewis & Co. v. 
 Ludwig T'. Meyre, pp. 580, 596. 
 Lugner ?■. Milwaukee Elect. R., 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 1509, 1561, 1562. 
 
 1572, 2413, 2415. 
 Luken V. Lake Shore, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 3435, 3508, 3509. 
 Lukens, Washington, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Lumberman's Min. Co. ■:•. Gil- 
 christ, p. 470. 
 Lund, Stubbs v. 
 Lundahl, Chicago Union Tract. Co. 
 
 Lundoerg, Chicago City R. Co. ■;•. 
 Lundquist ?•. Grand Trunk West- 
 ern R. Co., p. 3689. 
 Lundy r. Central Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1625. 
 Lunsford v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2237. 
 Lupe T'. .Atlantic, etc., K. Co., pp. 
 
 728, 740, 818. 
 Lupin V. Marie, p. 1229. 
 Lurman, Grossman v. 
 Lu.sby V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1735, 1754, 2205, 2778. 
 Luse V. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1884, 1895, 1897, 1900. 
 Lustig V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2728. 
 Lutcher, etc.. Lumber Co., Wade 
 
 Luther, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lutz, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Pullman Co. '■. 
 
 Luxton -■. North River Bridge Co . 
 
 pp. 3445, 3446, 3449. 
 Lycett V. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 
 2323, 2872. 
 Lydian Monarch, The. 
 Lydon v. Robert Smith Ale Brew. 
 
 Co., p. 2642. 
 Lyle, .Augusta R., etc., Co. ■;■. 
 Lyles, Harrington v. 
 Lynch, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc.. Steamship Co. 
 
 '- Clark V. 
 
 V. Interurban, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2248. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2684. 
 
 V. Metropolitan, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2062, 2070. 
 
 Randall ?■. 
 
 V. St. Louis Transit Co., p. 
 
 1703. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Union Refrigerator Trans. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 Western Maryland R. Co. v. 
 
 Lynch, etc., R. Co., Byron v. 
 Lynchburg, etc., R. Co., Ti.lett v. 
 Lynde v. Hough, p. 3877. 
 Lvndon v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 
 
 'p. 1952.
 
 TABLE OF CASF.S. 
 
 CCXXI 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 Michigan, pp. 3538. 3539. 
 Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 1952, 1953, 1980, 1986, 
 
 Lyne r 
 
 3709. 
 Lyng t 
 Lynn ', 
 
 1951, 
 
 2125. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Lynn, etc., R. Co., Byron :■. 
 
 Hudson '<■. 
 
 Kingman v. 
 
 Levi 7'. 
 
 Mecsel 1'. 
 
 Mesel V. 
 
 Nichols V. 
 
 O'Neil V. 
 
 O'Neill V. 
 
 Spade V. 
 
 Spicer V. 
 
 Sweetland v. 
 
 Wilde V. 
 
 Wills V. 
 
 Lyon, Chattanooga, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Gody r. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 f. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1827. 
 
 Lyon & Co., Southern Pac. K. Co. 
 
 Lyons '■. Boston Elevated R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1824, 1832. 
 V. Hill, p. 571. 
 
 Lexington, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 J'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 119 N. Y. S. 703— pp. 561, 902, 
 916. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 120 N. Y. S. 1132, 136 App. 
 Div. 903— p. 917. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. i'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2711, 2718. 
 
 Lytle T'. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 100 Tex. 292. 99 S. W. 396— 
 pp. 1617, 1618. 
 
 V. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 
 199— p. 1618. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 796. 
 
 801. 
 
 L. & N. K., Columbia Grocery Co. 
 
 — — Dillard Bros. v. 
 
 V. Levi, p. 850. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mabry, Ball v. 
 
 ?•. City Elect. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2409, 3083, 3084. 
 
 Mc.\bsher ?■. Richmond, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 452. 
 McAfee r. Huide Koper, p. 2221. 
 McAIan ?•. New York, etc., Bridge, 
 
 p. 2249. 
 Mc.Mister v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 241, 574, 578, 1285, 1357. 
 McAllister, Georgia R.. etc., Co. t- 
 
 V. People's R. Co., pp. 2637, 
 
 2656. 
 
 r. Southern Pac. Co., p. 3912. 
 
 Mc.Mnin, Ocean Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Tlie Ocean Steamship Co. v. 
 
 McAndrew -•. Whitlock. 52 N. Y. 
 
 40, 11 Am. Rep. 657— pp. 527, 
 531, 536, 545, 776, 896. 
 
 r. Whitlock, 32 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 623— p. 892. 
 
 McAnellia, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 McAnulty, Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 McArthur, Mobile, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 f. New York Citv K. Co., 
 
 p. 2724. 
 
 f. Sears, pp. 728, 730. 737, 
 
 749, 768. 
 
 McArthur Bros. Co. r. 622, 714 
 
 Feet of Lumber, p. 3953. 
 McAulay, Gulf, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 McBeath v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 820, 1087, 1457. 
 McBee r. Cincinnati St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2113. 
 McBride f. Georgia R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 2947. 
 
 V. Milwaukee Elect. R., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2863. 
 
 r. St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 
 3009. 
 
 Woodworth v. 
 
 McBrier, Pioneer Fuel Co. i'. 
 McBurnie v. Stelsly, p. 4. 
 McCabe v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 530. 
 McCafFerty v. Penn^vlvania R. Co., 
 pp. 1812, 2681, 290.^. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. r. 
 
 McCaffery 7: St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2658, 2990. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. ?'. 
 
 McCaffrey & Co. r. Georgia South- 
 ern Railroad, pp. 542, 543, 875, 
 3284. 
 
 McCahan Sugar R'efin. Co. -■. 
 
 Steamship Wildcroft, p. 3927. 
 McCahc -■. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 653. 
 McCabill V. Detroit City Railway, 
 
 p. 2535. 
 McCall V. Brock, pp. 729, 730, 733, 
 
 740, 749, 815, 822. 
 
 V. California, pp. 3418, 3419, 
 
 3420, 3421, 3435, 3471, 3473, 
 3550, 3551, 3570, 3573. 
 
 T. Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3387. 
 
 V. Forsyth, p. 2660. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. "•. 
 
 McCampbell, Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1337, 1338, 1339, 1450, 1457. 
 
 McCann v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 773. 
 
 V. Fddy, p. 3334. 
 
 Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Newark, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 r. Sixth Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 2549. 
 
 McCants, Savannah Elect. Co. f. 
 McCardell r. Gulf, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2018, 2019. 
 McCarn !■. International, etc., R. 
 
 Co.,. pp. 3331, 3337. 3377. 
 McCarter v. Greenville Tract. Co.. 
 
 p. 1545. 
 McCarthv v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 23'06, 2816. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2426. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Hibler v. 
 
 •:'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 741, 752. 755, 758, 759, 824, 
 1038, 3308. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railway Co. :•. 
 
 McCartney, Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Hibler f. 
 
 McCarty, Ft. Worth, etc.. R' 
 
 V. 
 
 Co. 
 Co., 
 
 7'. Galveston, etc., 
 
 p. 3331. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 z: Gulf, etc., R. Co.. pp. l.=;8. 
 
 166, 418, 419, 441, 442, 443. 
 448, 456, 466, 1118, 1121, 1122. 
 1124, 1126. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Houston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1729. 
 
 Lincoln Tract. Co. '•. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 
 7'. New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 897, 899. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co , 
 
 p. 2683. 
 
 McCasIand, Wabash, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 McCaslin ?■. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1884, 2065, 2126, 2255, 
 
 2595. 
 McCaughan, Heirn f. 
 McCaughn r. Milliot, p. 3940. 
 McCaughna, Chicago City Iv. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 McCauley r. Davidson, 10 Minn. 
 418, Gil. 335— pp. 422, 806, 807. 
 
 V. Davidson, Gil. 150, 13 
 
 Minn. 162— p. 477. 
 
 7'. Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 2613, 2617. 
 
 V. Springfield St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1994. 
 
 V. Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1543, 1544, 2122, 2177. 
 
 McCaulley, Loughin f. 
 
 McCherry 7'. Snare, etc., Co., p. 
 
 2000. 
 McChesney, Gabler v. 
 McChord 7'. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 34, 39, 129. 
 McClain, Chicago, City R. Co. :■• 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. t: 
 
 McClanahan, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1781, 2668. 
 McClary, Northern Transp. Co. i'. 
 
 V. Sioux City, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1673, 1674, 1765. 
 
 McCleave, South Covington, etc., 
 
 St. R. Co. V. 
 McClellan, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Lincoln St. R. Co. v. 
 
 McClelland z: Burns, p. 2957. 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., -p. 
 
 2490. 
 
 McCleskey, Alabama Great South- 
 ern R. Co. 7'. 
 McCIevy, Chicago Union Tract. Co 
 
 McClinchy 7\ Boston Elevated R. 
 Co., pp. 1885, 2906. 
 
 O'Brien 7'. 
 
 McClintock, Louisville, etc.. R 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., p 
 
 2248. 
 
 Welch 7'. 
 
 McCloskey, Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 McCluer 7-. Manchester, etc.. Rail- 
 road, pp. 840, 3313. 
 
 McClung, Johnson 7-. 
 
 McCIure 7'. Philadelphia, etc.. R 
 Co., pp. 1529. 1973. 2476. 
 
 7'. Richardson, p. 278. 
 
 McClure & Co. 7'. Cox, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 1017. 
 McClures 7'. Hammond, pp. 729, 
 
 768. 
 McCIurg 7-. Cleveland, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1802. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 McCollin 7'. Railroad Co., p. 2131 
 McCollom 7'. Indianapolis, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., p. 1482. 
 
 7'. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 547. 
 
 McCollum 7'. Southern Pac. Co . 
 
 pp. 1612, 2340, 3317. 
 McComas, Great Western R. Co. 
 
 McComb 7. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 247. 
 
 R 
 
 McCombs f. North Carolina 
 
 Co.. p. 912. 
 McConnclI. Adams Exp. Co. 7. 
 
 Bras 7. 
 
 7'. Norfolk, etc., R. Co.. p 
 
 3289. 
 
 7'. Pedigo, p. 101. 
 
 McConnell Bros. f. Southern R 
 
 Co., pp. 787, 872. 873, 947. 948 
 
 1076. 
 McConnochie 7-. Kerr, p. 3854. 
 McCook. Averill r.
 
 CCXXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Co., 
 
 McCook r. Dublin, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1596, 1597, 2467. 
 
 V. Northup, pp. 2466, 2478. 
 
 Turner f. 
 
 McCool, Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. v. 
 
 McCord z: Atlanta, etc., R. C?., 
 
 pp. 1682. 2203. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 822. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 -•. State, p. 3440. 
 
 f. Western L'nion Tel 
 
 pp. 309, 313. 
 
 McCorkle z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2158. 
 McCormack z: Interborough Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., pp. 1770, 2685. 
 
 State z: 
 
 McCormick. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Hudson River R. Co., pp. I 
 
 3123, 3129, 3179, 3182. 
 
 z'. Joseph, p. 352. I 
 
 Newport News, etc.. Elect. 
 
 Co. z: •■ 
 
 v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., I 
 
 49 N. Y. 303— p. 596. 
 
 v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 
 
 80 N. Y. 353— pp. 733, 3144, ] 
 3197. „ 
 
 V. Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., ' 
 
 99 N. Y. 65, 1 N. E. 99, 52 
 Am. Rep. 6— p. 3194. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Seattle Elect. Co., p. 2881. 
 
 McCotter z: Hooker, p. 428. 
 McCown, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McCoy z: Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 p. 945. 
 — — t: Keokuk & D. M. R. Co., 
 pp. 727. 740, 821. 828, 945, 1329, 
 1339, 1456. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Millville Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2488, 2490, 2491, 2855. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 McCranie z: Wood, p. 749. 
 McCrary v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 285, 1303. 
 McCready v. Thorn, p. 3865. 
 McCreary-McClellan Live Stock Co., 
 
 Felton V. 
 McCrory, Hosea z: 
 McCue z: Northern Pac. K. Co., 
 
 pp. 38, 49. 
 McCullen v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2482, 2485. 
 McCulloch z: McDonald, p. 562. 
 McCullom z: .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2355, 2908. 
 McCullough, Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 i: Wabash, etc., Co., p. 1383. 
 
 McCumber -■. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1951, 1980, 2767. 
 McCune t. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1075, 1357, 1396. 
 McCurdy, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 McCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 pp. 1720, 2338, 2890. 
 McCutchen v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3425. 
 McCutcheon, Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 McDade v. Norfolk, etc.. R'. Co., 
 pp. 1524, 1537, 1538, 2054. 3066. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., p. 2182. 
 
 McDaniel, Baugh v. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 430, 939, 943. 1275, 1490. 
 
 McDaniel z\ Highland -Ave., 
 R. Co.. pp. 1584, 2224. 
 
 Mc Daniels, Wabash R. Co. '• 
 
 McDermon f. Southern Pac. 
 p. 2102. 
 
 McDermott f. Boston Elev. R. 
 pp. 2316, 2825. 
 
 Carter z-. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 1767, 1914. 2372. 
 
 McDonald, .Adams Exp. Co. t 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. ; 
 
 Boston, 
 
 Co., 
 Co., 
 
 etc. 
 
 2266. 
 
 , Railroad, p. 
 Co., pp. 1862. 
 
 V. Central 
 
 3317. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 
 
 Iowa 124, 96 Am. Dec. 114— 
 pp. 1767, 1773, 1776, 1780, 1784. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 29 
 
 Iowa 170 — pp. 1776, 1784, 2733. 
 
 v. City Elect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2396, 2986. 
 
 z: Clark, p. 2914. 
 
 Great Western R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Hovey, p. 3631. 
 
 z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1782, 1871, 1928, 2244. 
 
 z\ Kansas Citv, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2065, 2275. 
 
 . c'. Long Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 1884, 2226. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2083. 
 
 McCulloch V. 
 
 f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1698, 2590, 2694, 2911. 
 
 z\ Montgomery St. Railway, 
 
 pp. 2185, 2745, 2752. 2957. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. z\ 
 
 • Reinhart v. 
 
 z'. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1572, 2851. 
 
 V. Savannah Elect. Co., p. 
 
 2903. 
 
 Schubach '■. 
 
 • Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Unaka Timber Co., p. o52. 
 
 V. Western R. Corp., pp. 885. 
 
 901, 3263, 3264, 3301, 3302. 
 
 McDonald Brick Co.'s Assignee, 
 Newport News, etc., Co. v. 
 
 McDongal '.-. Allen, p. 3123. 
 
 McDonnell v. Chicago R. Co., p. 
 2685. 
 
 McDonough, .Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Birmingham R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 r. Boston Elev. K. Co., 191 
 
 Mass. 509, 20 R. R. R. 641, 43 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 641, 
 78 N. E. 141— pp. 199, 200, 202. 
 2122, 2176, 2178, 2310, 2906. 
 
 V. Boston Elev. R. Co., 208 
 
 Mass. 436, 94 N. E. 809— pp. 
 2677, 2684. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ -'. Metropolitan R. Co., pp. 
 
 1518, 2152, 2332. 
 
 Michigan, etc., 
 
 Toledo, etc., R 
 
 McDowell, Lester v. 
 ■ z\ Louisville, etc., 
 
 1451, 1454. 
 McDuffee z. Portland 
 
 road, pp. 220, 222, 
 
 1180, 1182, 1183. 
 McDuffie V. Seaboard. 
 
 way, 145 N. C. 397, 
 
 122— p. 159. 
 
 zf. Seaboard, etc., 
 
 145 N. C. 399, 59 S. 
 p. 159. 
 
 McDurmitt Grain Co., 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Mace V. Reed, p. 3066. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 1608. 
 
 2451, 2456. 
 
 McEacheran z'. Michigan Cent. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3327, 3341, 3358. 
 McElree, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McElroy, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Iowa Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3110, 3121. 
 
 z\ Nashua, etc., R. Corp., pp. 
 
 1720, 1813, 2077. 
 
 v. Railroad Co., p. 2631. 
 
 McElvain ?'. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 954, 971, 977, 980, 1029, 
 
 1084. 
 McElvane z\ Central, etc., R. Co, 
 
 pp. 1704, 1917, 2510, 2543. 
 McElveen '■. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 320, 333, 335, 337, 962, 968, 
 
 1016,^ 31277, 3293, 3331, 3347, 
 
 3401. 
 McElvev. Savannah Elect. Co. z'. 
 McEIwain z: Erie R. Co., p. 2704. 
 
 • Spurgeon z\ 
 
 McElwee, West Chester, etc., R'. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Western, etc.. Railroad v. 
 
 McEntee z'. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co.. p. 513. 
 Macer f. Third Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 1704. 
 McEwan, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Co. z: 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 
 etc.. 
 1176, 
 
 etc. 
 59 
 
 Rail- 
 
 1178. 
 
 Rail- 
 
 S. E. 
 
 Railway 
 E. 123— 
 
 St. Louis. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co.. 
 
 . pp. 
 451. 
 1 333. 
 
 pp. 
 
 McKinnon zf. 
 
 McEwen v. Teffersonville, etc., 
 
 Co.. pp. 560, 1150. 
 McFadden v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 pp. 1770, 2671. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 7'. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 pp. 1696, 1721, 2083, 2604. 
 ■ Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co 
 
 320, 334, 337, 340, 426, 
 806. 975, 1043, 1061, 1074, 
 1375. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Morrison f. 
 
 '■. Steamboat Niargara, 
 
 3125. 3126. 
 
 McFaden. Cross z\ 
 
 McFall, Toledo, etc.. Tract. Co. 
 
 — — z: Wabash R. Co., pp. 818, 
 
 821, 1454, 1456. 
 McFarland z: Parr & Co., pp. 1143, 
 
 1147. 
 
 v. Wheeler, p. 1104. 
 
 Mac Feat v. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co. (Del.), 5 Pen. 52, 62 Atl. 
 
 898— pp. 2289, 2860. 
 v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 
 
 rDel.), 6 Pen. 513, 30 R. R. 
 
 R. 254, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 
 N. S., 254, 69 
 
 1505, 1508, 1517, 
 McFee v. Vicksburg 
 
 p. 1812. 
 McFetridge, etc., Co 
 
 1228, 1232, 1234. 
 McFlynn, Fordyce z\ 
 McGaffey, .Alexander v. 
 McGahey, Kansas City, etc., R. Co. 
 
 McGann v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1988, 1997, 2805. 
 McGarry v. Boston Elevated R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1903, 2348. 
 
 Colorado Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ 7'. Holyoke St. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1592, 2482, 2782. 
 McGearty z'. Manhatton R. Co., pp. 
 
 1797, 2731, 2874. 
 McGee ?•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 700, 701, 714. 
 
 -•. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 197, 198, 1544, 1547, 1752, 1755, 
 1874, 1928, 2126, 2228, 2747. 
 
 McGeehan -'. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 
 
 p. 2134. 
 McGeorge, Colorado, etc., R. Co. 
 
 McGhee, .American Sugar Refin. 
 Co. z: 
 
 z: Cashin, 130 Ala. 561, 30 
 
 So. 367— pp. 2621, 2647. 
 
 z: Cashin (.Ala.). 40 <=o. 63— 
 
 pp. 2470, 2710, 2713, 3083. 
 
 Atl. 744 — pp. 
 1561, 2732. 
 etc., R. Co., 
 
 V. Piper, pp.
 
 TABUC OF CASES. 
 
 CCXXIII 
 
 McGhec V. Drisdale, p. 24A(>. 
 
 V. Reynol.ls, 117 Ala. 413. 23 
 
 So. 68—1.1). 2443. 24(.2, 2572. 
 
 V. Reynolds, 129 Ala. 540. 29 
 
 So. 961— pp. 2622, 2633. 
 McGill r. Central Crosstown R. 
 
 Co., p. 2817. 
 
 V. Michigan Steamship Co., 
 
 pp. 4055, 4081. 
 
 f. R'owand, pp. 3118, 3123, 
 
 3127. 3129, 3144. 3188. 3189, 
 3190. 
 
 McGilvary, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. West Knd St. K. Co., pp. 
 
 2043, 2050. 
 
 Mc(jinn, Commonwealth v. 
 
 T. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 2676. 
 
 McGinnis f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3100. 
 McGinty, liirmingham R., etc.. Co. 
 
 Z', 
 
 McGivney, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 McGlossom, Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 McGlynn r. Brooklyn Crosstown R. 
 Co., p. 1970. 
 
 V. Nassau Elect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2876, 2878. 
 
 McGovcrn r. Interurban R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1807. 2239. 2350. 2387. 2987, 
 
 2997. 
 McGowan. G.. C. &• S. F. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. New York City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1647, 1648. 
 
 r. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 500. 
 
 McGowcn f. Morgan's, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., pp. 1597, 1598, 1602, 
 2467, 2468. 
 
 Rutherford r. 
 
 McGown, G. C. & S. F. R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 McGranc v. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2654. 
 McGrath v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2193. 
 
 -•. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2594. 
 
 McGrath Bros. f. Charleston, etc.. 
 
 Railway, p. 797. 
 McGraw r. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 499, 512, 533, 614, 617, 729, 
 
 734, 735, 736, 741, 742, 744, 750, 
 
 753, 765. 
 ,.. Southern R. Co., pp. 1556, 
 
 1557. , ^, 
 
 McGregor v. Erie R. Co.. 35 N. 
 
 J. L. 89— pp. 1136, 1137, 1194, 
 
 1195. 
 
 r. Erie R. Co.. 35 N. J. 
 
 L. 115— pp. 145, 1136. 
 
 V. Gill. pp. 3. 4. 10. 
 
 Lawrence %'. 
 
 Lengelsen f. 
 
 V. Oregon R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 809, 872. 897. 901. 906, 961. 
 1000, 1001. 1003. 1027. 1030. 
 1044. 
 
 St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. 
 
 Thompson Towing, etc.. .'\ss'n 
 
 McGregor & Co. z: Kilgore. pp. 
 
 728. 773. 788. 848, 887. 3901. 
 McGrell V. Buffalo Office Bldg Co., 
 
 p. 1751. 
 McGrew v. Cliicago. etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2693. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 109 
 
 Mo. 582, 19 S. W. 53— pp. 447, 
 467. 
 
 r. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 114 
 
 Mo. 210. 21 S. W. 463— p. 169. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 177 
 
 Mo. 533. 76 S. W. 995— p. 71 
 
 McGrew f. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 230 Mo. 496, 132 S. W. 1076— 
 
 pp. 73, 75, 120. 220, 1180, 1183, 
 
 1193. 
 McGucken f. Western, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1558. 
 McGugan. Philadelphia, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. z\ 
 Mcf)uinn v. Forbes, p. 1950. 
 Mcfiuirc V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3480. 
 
 I'. Great Northern R. Co., 153 
 
 Fed. 434— p. 3329. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co.. 118 
 
 N. W. 556. 106 Minn. 192— 
 p. 2777. 
 
 I'. Interborough Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 2874. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McGuirc & Co.. Louisville, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. '.: 
 McHaffie. Hydraulic Engineering 
 
 Co. f. 
 McHenrv -•. Alford. p. 3559. 
 . V. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 529. 896. 910. 
 
 Wallen v. 
 
 Machine Co. v. Gage. pp. 3529, 
 
 3564. 3568. 
 Machlin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 p. 2880. 
 McHugh z: St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 pp. 2903. 2987. 
 Mcllroy z: Buckner. pp. 323. 984. 
 Mclntee v. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co.. p. 518. 
 Mclntire. Eaton v. 
 Mclntire R. Co. f. Bolton, p 1530. 
 Mcintosh z: Augusta, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3198. 
 
 V. Oregon R., etc.. Co.. pp. 
 
 208, 213, 236, 824, 931, 946, 
 948. 969, 971, 975, 977, 1030, 
 1043. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Sinclair, p. 709. 
 
 Mclntyre z: Bowne. p. 3864. 
 
 z'. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2222. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Mclntyre Bros. & Co. v. South 
 
 Atlantic Steamship Line, p. 3879. 
 Mclver v. Florida, etc.. R. Co., 
 p. 2485. 
 
 Parker v. 
 
 Mclwen ?•. Smith, p. 1225. 
 Mcjimpsey z: Southern Railway, p. 
 
 2860. 
 Mack v. Savannah, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2186, 2575. 
 
 -•. State, pp. 184, 185. 
 
 Mack, etc., Co. z: Great Western 
 
 Despatch, pp. 956, 960. 981. 989, 
 
 991, 1003, 1032. 
 McKahan z'. .\mcrican Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 1026, 1353, 1356, 1405. 
 McKain z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2075. 
 McKay t'. .Anderson Steamboat 
 
 Co.. p. 4000. 
 
 z: Ohio River R. Co., pp. 
 
 2425. 2457. 2458. 2463. 2564. 
 2566. 
 
 People V. 
 
 McKee. Lewis z\ 
 
 z: Owen. pp. 3145. 3146, 
 
 3147. 
 
 z: St. Louis Transit Co., p. 
 
 2152. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. z: 
 
 Wright z\ 
 
 McKenna, Alabama, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Cooper ?'. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. North Hudson County R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1889. 2877. 
 
 McKenzie, Alaliama, etc., R. C o. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 McKenzie, Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 :•. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1288. 1303. 1307. 
 
 Northwestern Transp. Co. f. 
 
 Pine Bluff, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., K. Co. r. 
 
 McKeon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1720, 1909, 1910, 3211. 
 
 V. Citizens' R. Co., pp. 2116, 
 
 2191. 
 
 -•. New York, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2530, 2532, 2533. 
 
 McKerall z\ .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 526, 642, 645, 647, 654, 660. 
 McKcrnan, I)c Leon v. 
 
 f. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 
 2420, 2851. 
 
 Mackey, Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 McKibbin z: Great Northern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3121, 3122, 3124. 3185, 
 3194. 
 
 7'. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 3145. 
 
 Mackic, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 McKimble z: Boston, etc.. Rail- 
 road, pp. 1573. 1788. 2911. 
 
 z: Boston, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1535, 1537, 1805. 
 
 McKinlay z: Morrish, pp. 3901, 
 
 3918, 3919. 
 McKinlcy z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 200, 2042, 2043, 3064. 
 
 Z-. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2425, 2456, 2457, 2477, 2481, 
 2483. 
 
 McKinney, Central, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. 
 
 z: Jewett, pp. 515. 728, 896. 
 
 Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. 
 
 z: Neil, pp. 1749, 1837. 2692. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 McKinnon v. McEwan, p. 642. 
 McKinstrey f. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1084, 1087. 
 McKinstry z: St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 p. 2597. 
 McKittrick v. Greenville Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 2669, 2673, 2678, 2688. 
 
 2862. 
 Macklin r. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co., p. 3146. 
 McKnight, Philanthropic Bldg. 
 
 Ass'n I'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 McKoy z: Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1736, 2117. 
 McLain, Allegheny \"alley R. Co. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1936, 1954. 
 
 McLallcn, Chicago, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 McLanahan f. Universal Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 3907. 
 McLane, Texas, etc., R. Co. i\ 
 McLaren z\ Alabama Mid. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2158. 
 
 z\ Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1769, 2872. 
 
 f. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 624, 3250. 
 
 z: Standard Oil Co.. p. 3893. 
 
 McLarin -■. -Vtlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2249, 2540. 
 McLaughlin, Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. z: 
 
 Boyle z: 
 
 Martin f. 
 
 z: Martin, p. 492. 
 
 • Missouri, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 Peixotti J". 
 
 f. Svracuse Rapid Trans. Co.. 
 
 p. 2818.' 
 
 McLean z: .\tlantic. etc., R. Co.. 
 pp. 2117. 2164. 2214. 2308, 2374. 
 2702, 2777. 
 
 z: Breithaupt. pp. 1218. 1219. 
 
 1228, 1232, 1242.
 
 CCXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 McLean -•. Burbank, 11 Minn. 277, 
 Gil. 189— p. 2693. 
 
 '-. Burbank. 12 Minn. 530. 
 
 Gil. 438— pp. 2561, 2608. 
 
 T. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 141. 
 
 t Chicago, etc., R". Co., p. 
 
 3102. 
 
 V. Fleming, p. 308. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 f. Gulf, etc., R. Co.. p. 786. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. '■• 
 
 Toohy z: 
 
 McLendon, Gray r. 
 
 t . Wabash R. Co., pp. 3334. 
 
 3335. 3354. 
 
 MacLeod, Graven v. 
 
 f. Graven, p. 2276. 
 
 McLiney, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 McLoon, Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 V. Boston & Maine R. R.. p 
 
 3666. 
 
 McMahon -•. Chicago City R. Co., 
 88 N. E. 223, 239 111. 334— 
 pp. 2056. 2958. 
 
 -c'. Chicago Citv R. Co., 143 
 
 111. App. 608— p 2057. 
 
 7-. Interborough Rapid Tran- 
 sit Co., p. 2022. 
 
 t: Macy, pp. 321, 987. 
 
 I'. New Orleans K., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1986, 2166, 2177. 
 
 V. New York Elev. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2789. 
 
 V. Third Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 1665. 
 
 McManus -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 138 Iowa 150. 115 N. W. 919, 
 128 Am. St. Rep. 180— pp. 1201, 
 1203, 1453, 1357, 3326, 3365, 
 3416. 
 
 t'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 156 
 
 Iowa 359, 136 N. W. 769— pp. 
 419, 1201, 1321, 1355, 1462, 3251, 
 3406, 3752. 
 
 V. Crickett, p. 2041. 
 
 V. Thing, pp. 3036, 3037. 
 
 McMasters '•. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 531, 532, 960. 
 McMechen, Colt '•. 
 McMeekin r. Southern Railway, 82 
 
 S. C. 468, 64 S. E. 413— pp. 341, 
 
 365, 379, 645, 675. 
 
 z\ Southern Railway, 85 S. 
 
 C. 381, 67 S. E. 745— pp. 164, 
 3327, 3393. 
 
 McMelon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2240. 
 McMichael v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2253, 2258. 
 McMillan v. American Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 27, 1009, 1391, 1409. 
 
 i: Chicago, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 690, 1377, 1378, 3264, 3270, 3271, 
 3406. 
 
 z: Federal, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 201, 2420, 2422, 2482. 
 
 z: Michigan, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 213, 301, 320, 323, 337, 432 
 896, 900, 913, 945, 979, 983, 
 984, 986, 1003, 1004, 1007, 1009, 
 1010. 1036, 3377, 3378, 3380. 
 
 McMillion, Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 McMonigal, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 McMurray v. Fargo, p. 1439. 
 
 z'. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 
 
 p. 3230. 
 
 McMurtry, Kentucky Cent. R. Co 
 
 V. 
 
 v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2156, 2158, 2159, 2856, 2857. 
 
 McNab, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McXair, Bracket z\ 
 McNairy, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McNally, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. 
 
 p. 2243. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 McNamara v. Boston, etc., R'. Co., 
 p. 2702. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1548, 1552. 
 
 f. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 3071, 3075. 
 
 z\ Washington Terminal Co., 
 
 pp. 3449, 3469. 
 
 McNamare, St. Louis, etc., R. Co 
 
 McNaughter v. Cassally, p. 3875. 
 tIcNaughton v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Co., p. 1769. 
 McNealy z: State, p. 182. 
 McXear, Marshall v. 
 IcXeeley, Southern R. Co. f. 
 McNeil, Emerson v. 
 
 V. Galveston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 451, 452. 
 
 Graham z\ 
 
 V. Hill, pp. 312, 369. 
 
 — — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McNeill Z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 424, 3348, 3392. 
 
 V. Durham, etc., R. Co., 130 
 
 N. C. 256, 41 S. E. 383— p. 
 2644. 
 
 f. Durham, etc., R. Co., 135 
 
 N. C. 682, 47 S. E. 765, 67 L. R 
 A. 227— pp. 1503, 1564, 2096. 
 
 Graham f. 
 
 Southern R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Z-. Southern R. Co., pp. 129, 
 
 3423, 3481, 3491, 3517, 3518. 
 
 McXichol !■. Pacific Exp. Co., p. 
 
 245. 
 McXulta, Chicago Deposit \'ault 
 
 Co. -•. 
 
 V. Ensch, pp. 1877, 2089. 
 
 McXulty, Parmelee v. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1582, 1585. 
 
 West Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McNutt Cleveland, etc., R. Co. t' 
 Macomber, Hutchins v. 
 
 Macon v. Southern Railway, pp 
 
 152, 153. 
 Macon Consolidated St. R. Co. "■ 
 
 Barnes, pp. 1747, 1748, 1749 
 
 1817, 2955, 3001, 3007. 
 Macon Grocery Co., Atlantic, etc. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 V Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 163 
 
 Fed. 738— p. 3819. 
 
 v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 215 
 
 U. S. 501, 54 L. Ed. 300, 30 S. 
 Ct. 184— p. 3818. 
 
 Macon R., etc., Co. f. Castopulon, 
 pp. 2357, 2860. 
 
 Myrick z\ 
 
 Primus i'. 
 
 v. Vining, p. 2997. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. -■. Anderson, 
 pp. 2285, 2404, 2998. 
 
 z: Barnes, p. 1986. 
 
 Carswell z'. 
 
 Graham v. 
 
 V. Graham, p. 102. 
 
 V. Holt, p. 1686. 
 
 - — - V. Johnson, pp. 190, 198, 199, 
 1684, 2173, 2723. 
 
 King z>. 
 
 V. Mayes, p. 2087. 
 
 f. Meador Bros., pp. 1228. 
 
 1229, 1232, 1235. 
 
 V. Moore, 99 Ga. 229, 23 S. 
 
 E. 460— pp. 1989, 2404, 2974. 
 
 V. Moore, 108 Ga. 84, 3i S- 
 
 E. 889— pp. 1748, 1749, 1757, 
 1768, 1894, 1895, 1989, 2118, 
 2169. 
 
 V. Moore, 125 Ga. 810, 54 S. 
 
 E. 700— pp. 2491, 2624. 
 
 Owens z'. 
 
 V. Walton, pp. 681, 684, 685. 
 
 Withers -•. 
 
 Yesbik z'. 
 
 Macon, etc., St. R. Co., Master- 
 son 7'. 
 
 McPadden '•. New York Cent. R 
 Co. (N. Y), 47 Barb. 247— p 
 2900. 
 
 McPadden v. New York Cent. R. 
 
 Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 Am. Rep. 
 
 70S— pp. 1682, 1684, 1687, 1715, 
 
 1845, 2790. 
 McPeak z'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2068, 2126, 2256, 2868. 
 McQueen v. Central Branch, etc , 
 
 R. Co., p. 1581. 
 McQuerry z'. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2420, 2421, 2483. 
 McQucsten z\ Sanford, pp. 267, 
 
 3183, 3188. 
 McQuilken z\ Central Pac. Co., p. 
 
 2245. 
 
 Z-. Central Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2320. 
 
 McRackan v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 148, 149. 
 McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co., 
 
 Co., p. 3585. 
 International, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2585, 2o83. 
 
 v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 191, 193, 1607, 1(.14, 1626. 
 McRea, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Macrow z\ Great Western R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3115, 3116, 3117, 3119, 3123. 
 
 3127, 3129, 3149. 
 McShane, Harrington i\ 
 McSloop z\ Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1883, 1895, 2267. 
 McSwain, First Nat. Bank i'. 
 McSwegan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 p. 563. 
 McSwyny z\ Broadway, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2859. 
 McTeer z'. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 3523, 3545. 
 Mactier z\ Wirgman, p. 3865. 
 
 Steele v. 
 
 McVay v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1710. 
 Mac\'eagh z'. Atchison, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 573, 577, 578, 744, 887, 
 
 895. 
 McVeety v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1550, 1572. 
 McVeigh, Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 McWhirter, Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McWilliams z'. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2021, 2871. 
 Macy, McMahon v. 
 
 z'. New Bedford., etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2889. 
 
 Parker z'. 
 
 Madan .'. Sherard, pp. 991, 1050, 
 
 3163, 3164, 3196. 
 Madara z\ Shamokin, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2698. 
 Maday z'. United States, p. 3967. 
 Madden, Central, etc., R. Co. z-. 
 
 v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2653, 2673. 
 
 r. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 35 S. E. 381, 14 S. E. 713, 23 
 Am. St. Rep. 855, 52 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 286— pp. 1767, 
 1867, 2596. 
 
 v. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 41 S. C. 440, 19 S. E. 951, 20 S. 
 E. 65, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 384— pp. 1767, 1867, 1911. 
 
 Madden, etc., Co., Atchison, etc , 
 
 R. Co. v. 
 Maddock, American Sugar Refin. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Maddox, Georgia R. Co. z'. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. z/. 
 
 -■. London, etc., Railwav, p. 
 
 1971. 
 
 Southern R. Co. •:•. 
 
 Maddox & Co., Southern Pac. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Maddry, St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. -'. 
 Madigan i'. St. Louis Trans. Co , 
 
 p. 2853. 
 Madison, Bearden Z'. 
 Madison Elect. R. Co., Vassau '■. 
 Madison Mut. Ins. Co.. Fuller z'.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCXXV 
 
 Madison, etc., R. Co., Gillcnwatci' 
 A77, 488, 
 
 po. 
 
 f. WhitescI 
 
 491, 493, 494. 
 
 Madl r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1745. 1762, 1981. 
 Mad River, etc., R. Co. -■. Fulton, 
 
 pp. 3125, 3189, 3190. 
 Madsen v. Utah, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2777. 
 Maeller, Young v. 
 Maercker f. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2192, 2285. 
 Maetze, G. C. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Magdeburg Ins. Co. v. Paulson, p. 
 
 853. 
 Mageau v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 113 N. W. 1016, 102 Minn. 399 
 —p. 2777. 
 
 V. Great Northern R". Co., 
 
 119 N. W. 200, 106 Minn. 375 
 —p. 2777. 
 
 Magee v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1743, 2026, 2860. 
 Maggie Hammond, The. 
 Maghee v. Camden, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 3361, 3380. 
 Magill -•. Seaboard, etc.. Railway 
 
 pp. 1491, 2717, 3028. 
 Magniac, Ellershaw f. 
 Magnin '■. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35 
 
 50 How. Prac. 457, 20 Am. Rep 
 
 442— pp. 753, 759, 764, 857. 
 
 f. Dinsmore, 70 N. V. 410 
 
 26 Am. Rep. 608— pp. 514, 582. 
 663. 
 
 V. Dinsmore, 38 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 248— pp. 759, 1047. 
 
 Magnus -■. Piatt, pp. 421, 1074. 
 
 1110, 1186. 
 Magnus Co., Louisville, etc.. R 
 
 Co. V. 
 Magoffin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co , 
 
 p. 1576. 
 Magowan, Chesapeake, etc.. R. C'l. 
 
 V. 
 
 Magrane v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 
 pp. 2172. 2697. 2931, 2973. 
 
 Magrath, Patten -•. 
 
 Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co.. pp. 
 1953, 2121, 2174. 
 
 Mahaffey v. Wisconsin Cent. R. 
 Co., p. 431. 
 
 Mahan. Louisville, etc., R'. Co. i' 
 
 Mahattan Delivery Co., Braus v. 
 
 Maher, Baker v. 
 
 V. Central Park, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 67 N. Y. 52— pp. 1888. 2190. 
 
 V. Central Park, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 155- p. 
 2146. 
 
 Indiana Union Tract. Co. f. 
 
 T. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2678. 
 
 Mahnke v. New Orleans, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2274. 
 Mahogany. Certain Logs of. 
 Mahon ■'. Blake, pp. 534. 545. 
 
 f. Oliver IJranch, pp. 1457. 
 
 821. 
 
 Mahone, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Mahoney, Chicago Consol. Tract. 
 Co. :•. 
 
 V. Detroit City RaiUvav, pp 
 
 1647, 2425, 2431. 
 
 I'. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 2820. 
 
 Mahoning \'allev R. Co. -■. De 
 Pascale. p. 3096. 
 
 r. O'Hara. p. 2903. 
 
 Mahony v. Cook, p. 1589. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mahula. International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Maid of Orleans, Henderson -•. 
 Maignan -•. New Orleans, etc.. R'. 
 
 Co.. pp. 531. 896. 900. 
 Maillefert :•. Interbrough Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., p. 1707. 
 
 1 Car — o 
 
 Mail Line Co. v. Carrollton Fur 
 
 niture Mfg. Co., p. 803. 
 Main v. Jarrett, p. 302. 
 
 Seaboard .Air Line R. Co. v, 
 
 Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 3551, 3559, 3561, 3591, 3593. 
 
 The. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Maine Bank of Buffalo v. Barrin' 
 
 ger, p. 367. 
 .Maine Cent. Railroad, Crawford f, 
 
 Eastman -■. 
 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., Blumenthal v. 
 
 Crosby v. 
 
 Duncan v. 
 
 Hoar r. 
 
 Libby V. 
 
 Lord V. 
 
 New England IC.xp. Co. v. 
 
 Rodick V. 
 
 Sayles v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Taylor f. 
 
 Wood 7'. 
 
 Woodbury -•. 
 
 Maine Nat. Bank v. 
 
 392. 
 Maine Stage Co. v. 
 
 483. 
 Maine Steamship Co 
 
 Wells -■. 
 
 Maine, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Libby f. 
 
 Palmer r. 
 
 Mairs f. Manhattan 
 
 .\ss'n, p. 855. 
 Majestic, Potter v. 
 
 The. 
 
 Majestic Coal, etc., Co. ■ 
 
 Cent. R-. Co.. p. 3644. 
 Major V. Oregon, etc., R 
 
 1734, 2918. 2951. 
 Malarin. Perry i\ 
 Malcom -'. Richmond, etc 
 
 pp. 1917, 2176, 2187. 
 Malcomb v. Louisville, 
 
 Co., p. 2563. 
 Malecck v. Tower Grove, etc 
 
 Co., p. 2769. 
 Malinowski '•. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, pp. 2825, 3005. 
 Mallard, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mallette, Montgomery, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Mallory '■. Burrett. pp. 1161. 3294. 
 
 V. Tioga R. Co., pp. 222, 728, 
 
 749, 775, 3283. 
 
 Mallory Steamsliip Co. r. Bahn 
 
 Diamond, etc., Co., pp. 3920, 
 
 3923, 3929, 3932. 4060. 
 Mallory, etc., Co., Shidlovsky v. 
 Malloy V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2645. 
 Malone f. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 pp. 1673, 3161, 3163, 3184, 3187. 
 
 3196. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R'. Co. -'. 
 
 — — -•. Metropolitan E.xp. Co., 
 pp. 1006, 1068. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2410, 3081. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 — — -'. Te.xas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2295. 
 Maloney v. Metropolitan 
 
 Co.. p. 2314. 
 Malott V. Central Trust 
 
 1575. 
 -■. Hood, p. 3430. 
 
 Kelly -•. 
 
 v. Sample, p. 2594. 
 
 ;•. Weston, p. 2094. 
 
 Mamie. The. 
 
 Manatt, Colorado, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Manchester Liners v. Virginia-Car- 
 olina Chemical Co., p. 3869. 
 
 Manchester Mfg. Co., Central, 
 etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Manchester Mills, Louisville, etc , 
 R. Co. :•. 
 
 Barringer, p. 
 
 Longley, p 
 
 , Lindsay v. 
 Allen -•. 
 
 Real Estate 
 
 Illinois 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Co., 
 R. 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 etc.. 
 
 St. 
 Co.. 
 
 Manchester Mills. Railway Co. f 
 Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. v 
 Brown, g. 958. 
 
 Denaby Main Colliery Co. x 
 
 Manchester St. Railway, Harring- 
 ton V. 
 
 Haskell V. 
 
 Lord V. 
 
 Manchester, etc. 
 
 Railroad, Gordon 
 
 McCluer v. 
 
 Manchester, etc., R. Co. Gavett f. 
 
 Izlar i\ 
 
 Manchester, etc.. Railway, Swan v. 
 Mangum v. North Carolina, U 
 Co.. pp. 1769, 1786. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Manhattan Co., Denny f. 
 Manhattan Delivery Co., Dressner 
 
 T'. 
 
 Manhattan Dist. Tel. Co., Tieber 
 
 Manhattan Oil Co. v. Camden, etc.. 
 Transp. Co. (N. Y.J, 52 Barb. 
 72. 5 Alb. Prac, N. S., 289— pp. 
 2i77, 3380, 3381. 
 
 ,'. Camden, etc., Transp. Co , 
 
 54 N. Y. 197— pp. 3377, 3381. 
 
 Manhattan R. Co., Baker v. 
 
 Benson v. 
 
 Boyce v. 
 
 Brady v. 
 
 Brown -■. 
 
 Buck V. 
 
 Cahn V. 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 Colwell J'. 
 
 Connelly v. 
 
 De Soucey v. 
 
 Dlabola v. 
 
 Fahr r. 
 
 Ferry -'. 
 
 Flagg f. 
 
 Graham v. 
 
 Hanrahan v. 
 
 Kelley v. 
 
 Koetter v. 
 
 Lauterer i-. 
 
 Lycett V. 
 
 McGcarty v. 
 
 McKernan v. 
 
 Merwin v. 
 
 Oppenheimer v. 
 
 Palmeri f. 
 
 Robinson v. 
 
 Rusk r. 
 
 Ryan f. 
 
 Schestauber v. 
 
 Shea V. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 — — - Solomon v. 
 
 Spaeth -■. 
 
 Stein f. 
 
 Thomson "'. 
 
 Timpson v. 
 
 Manhattan Real Estate Ass'n. 
 
 Mairo v. 
 Manhattan Rubber Shoe Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 565, 
 
 567. 
 Manheim f. Carr, p. 526. 
 Manice, Griffen "•. 
 Manistee River Imp. Co.. Sands :■. 
 Manistee, etc., R. Co., Perkett :. 
 
 Starks Co. :•. 
 
 Manitoba. The. 
 Manitou, The. 
 
 Manitowoc "•. Manitowoc, etc.. 
 
 Tract. Co., p. 77. 
 Manitowoc, etc.. Tract. Co.. Mani 
 
 towoc "'. 
 Mann v. Birchard, pp. 818, 822 
 
 1008. 3414. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Tract. Co., p 
 
 2188. 
 
 Nann Boudoir Car Co. v. Dupre 
 pp. 3080, 3206. 
 
 Searles -'. 
 
 .Mannheim Ins. Co. f. Erie, etc. 
 Transp. Co., p. 3736.
 
 CCXXVl 
 
 Manning, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 t: Hoover, pp. 816, 818. 
 
 r. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2434. „ _ 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 
 r. West End St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2238. _ 
 
 Mannon z: Camden Interstate K. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2367, 2793. 
 Mansfield, Commonwealth r. 
 
 Miller f. 
 
 Mansfield R., etc., Co.. Hanson z: 
 Manson. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f . 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 709, 717. 
 Mantcr f. Holmes, p. 394o. 
 Manuel, Fordyce '•. 
 Manufacturers' Bldg. Co., t.cl 
 
 wards f. . i ^ 
 
 Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. 
 
 Rochester R. Co., 117 N. Y. S. 
 
 989-pp. 389, 390 
 
 :•. Rochester R. Co., 126 .\. 
 
 Y. S. 1051, 142 App. Div. 249— 
 pp. 388. 389. 
 
 Manufacturers' Gas, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Indiana Natural Gas, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 3428. 
 Manufacturing Co., Railroad Co. i'. 
 Manville r. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1583, 1714. 
 Maples r. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2429. 
 Marable f. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1683, 1687, 1752. 
 Marande z: Texas, etc., R. Co., 42 
 
 C C \. 317, 102 Fed. 246— 
 
 pp. 843, 873, 1040. ^ 
 _- '.■. Texas, etc., R. Co., 184 
 
 U. S. 173, 46 L. Ed. 487, 22 S. 
 
 Ct. 340— pp. 510, 869, 872, 873, 
 
 953. ^ ^ 
 
 Marbourge v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1997, 2359. 
 Marbury v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2886. 
 Marcardier v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 3864. 
 March v. Union Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 520. 
 Marchman, Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Marcott v. Minneapolis St., etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1939, 3233. 
 Marcum, Commonwealth v. 
 Marcus, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f New Haven Steamboat 
 
 Co., p. 1103. 
 
 V. Omaha, etc., Bridge Co., 
 
 p. 3932. 
 
 Marcy v. Warner, p. 798. 
 Marechal Suchet, The. 
 Margaret, The. 
 Margo v. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 2752, 2821. 
 Marie, Lupin f. 
 Marietta, etc., R. Co., Campbell v. 
 
 First Nat. Bank '<.: 
 
 Peters, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Marigold, United States v. 
 
 Marin, Sullivan -■. 
 
 Marine Bank v. Wright, pp. 353, 
 
 363. 
 Marine Fire Ins. Co. v. Burnett, 
 
 p. 3911. 
 Marine Ins. Co., Gracie v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 246, 282. 
 
 Marine Nat. Bank v. Barringer, 
 
 pp. 361, 362, 371. 
 Marinovich, Northern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 T.\BLE OF CASES. 
 
 Marker, Mitchell f. 
 
 r. Mitchell, pp. 1722, l/aO. 
 
 Market St. R. Co., Barrett r. 
 
 Cody r. 
 
 Houghton f. 
 
 Seller r. . 
 
 Markham f. Houston Distnc. 
 
 Nav. Co., pp. 2081, 2083. 
 Marks z: .Maska Stcam.ship Co.. 
 pp. 2043, 3991. 
 
 Blum & Co. v. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. r. 
 
 Marks, etc., Co., Southern Exp. 
 
 Co. '•• ^ J. 
 
 Markwald, etc., Co. z: Creditors. 
 
 pp. 1237, 1240. 
 
 Marlborough St. R. Co., Savage 
 
 Marion v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 59 Iowa 428, 13 N. W. 415, 44 
 Am. Rep. 687— pp. 2529, 2530. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 
 
 Iowa 568, 21 N. W. 86— p. 2718. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 
 Marion St. R. Co. v. ShaflFer, p. 
 
 2180. 
 
 Sirk f. 
 
 Maris, Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Marlett, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Vicksburg R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 Marlow v. Southern Pac. Co., pp 
 
 1629, 2445. 
 Marmonstein v. Pennsylvania K 
 
 Co., pp. 3161, 3181. 
 Maroney v. Old Colony, etc , R 
 
 Co., pp. 197, 2453, 2714. 
 Marquette z: Chicago, etc., K. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1953, 2856. 
 
 ■;•. Langton, pp. 817, 832, 
 
 851, 853. 
 
 Marquette, etc., R. Co., Condon z\ 
 
 Frederick f. 
 
 z\ Kirkwood, pp. 816, 817, 
 
 3249, 3267, 3274, 3395, 3397. 
 
 Lucas z'. 
 
 Marr v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 1798, 2026. 
 
 v. Western Union Tel. Co , 
 
 pp. 9, 979. 
 
 Marriott f. London, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 193, 194. 
 Marrs, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Marsalis z: Louisiana, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2262, 2676. 
 Marsden Co. z: Bullitt & Co., pp. 
 
 853, 3919. 
 Marsh, Evansville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Frazer ''. 
 
 . z: Home, p. 1037. 
 
 Lee z\ 
 
 Price V. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. z\ 
 
 7'. Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 2395, 2750. 
 
 V. Union Pac. K. Co., pp. 
 
 1156, 1166. 
 Marshall '■. American Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 533, 534, 565, 566. 
 
 Barnes z\ 
 
 z: Boardman, p. 3865. 
 
 z'. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 p. 1515. 
 
 — z'. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 3018. 
 
 — Z'. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 
 2969. 
 
 — Green, etc., Nav. Co. z\ 
 
 — V. Kansas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 3335. 
 
 — Kendall v. 
 
 — Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 — z'. McNear, p. 3954. 
 
 — V. Nashville R., etc., Co.. p. 
 1641. „ ^ 
 
 — V. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 45 Barb. 502— pp. 236, 
 543, 851. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 48 N. Y. 660— p. 615. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Pennsylvania R'. Co. ?'. 
 
 z: Pontiac, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3145. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2573, 2575, 3061. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Southwestern R. Co., p. 
 
 2320. 
 
 Marshall, Staten Island Rapid 
 Transit Co. <•. 
 
 ■;'. Staten Island Rapid Tran- 
 sit R. Co. z: 
 
 Western Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Marshall Field & Co., Steiskal v. 
 Marshall Medicine Co. v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 3335. 
 Marshall, etc.. Grain Co. v. Kansas 
 
 Citv, etc., R. Co., pp. 590, 3274, 
 
 3334, 3335, 3340. 
 Marshall, etc., R. Co. f. Kansas 
 
 City, etc., K. Co., p. 342. 
 Marston, Union Pac. R. Co. z: 
 Martelle, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Martha, The. 
 Martin ?■. American Exp. Co., pp 
 
 797, 807, 3377, 3382. 
 
 Boggs z\ 
 
 z: Boston Elev. R. Co., pp 
 
 2798, 2877. 
 
 z\ Boston, etc., St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 2702. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Clark z: 
 
 z\ Columbia, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3043, 3049. 
 
 - v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., p 
 856. 
 
 - Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 - z: Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., 
 pp 270, 274, 286, 292, 293, 805. 
 
 - z'. G. N. R. Co., p. 1780. 
 
 - Grand Rapids, etc., R. Cu. 
 
 - V. Great Northern R. Co., p. 
 247. 
 
 - Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Hannibal, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McLaughlin z'. 
 
 7' McLaughlin, p. 484. 
 
 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1721, 2787. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2452. 
 
 7'. Old Colonv St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1834, 2313, 2740. 
 
 Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Oregon R.. etc., Co., p. 
 
 3487. 
 
 P. C. & St. L. R. Co V 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1576, 3507. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. z: 
 
 7'. Rhode Island Co., pp. 1602, 
 
 1603. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 55 
 
 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314, 56 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 112— pp. 283, 
 294, 296, 308, 315. 
 
 v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 56 S. W. 1011 
 —pp. 1712, 1884. 
 
 7'. Second Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2228, 2688. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 1522. 
 
 2251, 2853. 
 
 7'. Southern Railway, 77 S.- 
 
 C. 370, 58 S. E. 3— pp. 1867, 
 1884, 1911, 2862, 2913. 
 
 7'. Southern Railway, 89 S. 
 
 C. 32, 71 S. E. 236— pp. 2575, 
 2626, 2627, 2773, 3016, 3051, 
 3052. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 The D. R. 
 
 United States z: 
 
 7'. West, p. 3480. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Martindale v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1861. 
 Martino, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Martyn, State 7'. 
 Marx, Craig 7'. 
 
 7' Louisiana Western K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2409, 2448, 3100. 
 
 7'. The Britannia, p. 3906. 
 
 Marve z\ Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 3552, 3556, 3557, 3571, 3572.
 
 TAHLK (;F CASF.S. 
 
 ccxxvir 
 
 Maryland, IJaltimorc, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Rrown z>. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 V. Railroad Co., p- 3871. 
 
 Ward V. 
 
 Maryland Ins. Co. v. Ruden, pp. 
 336, 340, 348. 
 
 Maryland, etc.. Railroad 7: Tucker, 
 pp. 2484, 2850, 2852, 2855, 3028, 
 3029, 3030, 3031, 3032, 3088. 
 
 Marysvillc, etc., St. R. Co., Nye 
 
 V. 
 
 Mary Washington, 'I'lic. 
 
 Mashen, etc., R. Co., Smith f. 
 
 Mask, Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Maslin v. Haltimore, etc., R. Co , 
 pp. 5, 734, 741, 750, 815, 949, 
 1038, 1039, 1054, 1075, 1209, 
 1338, 1567, 1568, 2098. 
 
 Mason, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. lioston, etc., St. R. Co , 
 
 pp. 1820, 2346. 
 
 Davey v. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., p. 2997. 
 
 Hooe V. 
 
 Kent V. 
 
 Lewis V. 
 
 I.ickbarrow 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp 
 
 287, 1279. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R'. Co., p 
 
 2300. 
 
 — r^ Montgomery St. R. Co. r. 
 — — Montgomery St. Railway :'. 
 
 v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2055, 2959. 
 
 V. Nelson Cotton Co., pp. 
 
 391, 392, 394, 395, 396, 397. 
 
 7-. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2655. 
 
 V. Seaboard -Xir Line Rail- 
 way, p. 2445. 
 
 V. Wilson, p. 1219. 
 
 Mason City, etc.. Tract. Co., Titch 
 
 Mason, etc., Co., Fitch v. 
 Mason, etc.. Tract. Co., Fitch 7\ ^ 
 Masonic Fraternity Temple .\ss'n 
 f. Collins, pp. 2353, 2901, 2983. 
 Massachusetts, Heer f. 
 
 Plumlcy 7\ 
 
 Thurlow r. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 pp. 3551, 3552, 3572, 3591. 
 
 Massachusetts Loan, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 595, 597. 
 Massell f. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 I)p. 2517, 2535. 
 .Masscngill, East Tennessee, etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Massey, Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 Massie, Louisville, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 Masters 7\ Rarreda, p. 351. 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 Masterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2480, 3099. 
 V. Crosstown St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1888. 1890, 2687, 2908. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Indiana, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. Macon, etc., St. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2252, 2253. 
 
 Mateer, Ohio Cent. Tract. Co. ;•. 
 Math 7: Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1750, 2192, 2193, 2895. 
 Mather 7'. -Xmerican Exp. Co., p. 
 
 858. 
 Mather-McDowell Lumber Co. 
 
 Southern R. Co., f. 
 Mathes, Galveston, etc.. R. Co. '■. 
 Matheson ?■. Southern R. Co.. pp. 
 
 488, 491, 496, 640, 641, 677, 859, 
 
 860, 1063. 1072. 
 Mathew, Wabash R. Co. 7'. 
 
 r. Wabash Fv. Co., p. 1495. 
 
 Mathews f. .Vtchison, etc., R. Co, 
 
 p. 2081. 
 
 Mathews, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 z'. Great Northern R. Co., p. 
 
 2319. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Johnson r. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1520, 1712, 1713, 2152. 
 
 Mathias v. O'Neill, p. 2714. 
 Mathis V. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 2970. 
 
 v. Southern R. Co., jjp. 219, 
 
 440, 449. 
 
 f. Thomas, p. 1166. 
 
 Weston, etc.. Railroad ?•. 
 
 Matilda A. Lewis, The. 
 
 Matter of Heff, p. 3539. 
 
 Matteson ?■. New York Cent. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2900. 
 
 1'. New York, etc., R. Cn. 
 
 pp. 3140, 3160, 3170, 3188, 3H4. 
 
 Matthews v. Board of Corp. 
 Comm'rs, p. 72. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2133. 
 
 f. Poythress, pp. 358, _ 375. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. :•. 
 
 Wallace f. 
 
 Matthieson f. Burlington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2131, 2132, 2379, 23.0. 
 Mattison v. New York Cent. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3160. 3169. 
 Matula, Galveston, etc.. R. Co. i: 
 Matz '•. St. Paul. etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1830. 2174. 2187. 
 Matzdorf. Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Man & Co., Stuart 7\ 
 
 Mauch Chunk, The. 
 
 Maugans, Cumberland X'alley R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 Cumberland, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 Maughon, Texas, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Mauldin -'. Seaboard Air Line Rail- 
 
 w.TV, pp. 265, 499. 
 •Maumce Valley R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Montgomery, p. 2088. 
 Mauran, Clark -•. 
 .Maurer 7'. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 2830. 
 
 Indiana R. Co. •:■. 
 
 Mauritz 7\ New York. etc.. R. Co., 
 pp. 1631. 3116. 3119, 3123, 3128, 
 3129, 3130, 3131, 3163, 3165. 
 3177, 3178, 3179. 
 
 Mauro, Walker ;•. 
 
 Maury f. Talmadge, pp. 1749. 
 1951, 2757. 
 
 Mauser, Central R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Maverick f. Eighth Ave. R. Co . 
 pp. 1726, 1735. 1804. 
 
 Maxson ?•. Pennsvlvania R. Co.. 
 pp. 2447, 2462. 
 
 Ma.xwell, Bomar v. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Fresno City R. Co., pp 
 
 1720, 2347. 2860. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. -i'. 
 
 Pecos, etc.. R'. Co. f. 
 
 May. Babcock '■. 
 
 '■. Babcock. p. 337. 
 
 Central Kentucky Tract. Co. 
 
 Chicago Union Tract. C^o. -• 
 
 f. Harson, pp. II, 7(i8. 1682 
 
 1750, 2288. 
 
 f. Ontario, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1581. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co^ f. 
 
 f. Shreveport Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2017. 2058. 
 
 May Queen, Merriman f. 
 
 Mayall f. Boston, etc.. Railroad 
 
 pp. 277, 1011. 
 Maybin. T<ouisville. etc.. R. Co. '■. 
 
 ■;•. South Carolina R. Co., p. 
 
 3272. 
 
 Mayer. Dreyfus 7: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Mayer Bros., Co., St. Louis, etc., 
 
 R. Co. i: 
 Mayes, Houston, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., K'. Co. 7: 
 
 Mayfield f. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1454, 1455. 1470. 1471. 3408. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Maynard v. (Jregon R., etc.. Co , 
 
 p. 2925. 
 Mayne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1699. 
 Mayo, Birmingham R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p. 
 
 2274. 
 
 Hall :. 
 
 Lake Erie R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 Mays, Texas, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 Mays,ville Brick Co., Chesapeak •, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Maysville, etc., R'. Co. i: Her- 
 
 rick, p. 3068. 
 Mazursky 7'. Atlantic Coast Lint- 
 
 R. Co., pp. 3396, 3397, 3404, 
 
 3523, 3545, 3546. 
 
 .Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mazzie, Missouri, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Mazzie & Co., Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Meacham, Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7: 
 
 Railroad r. 
 
 Mead, Chicago City R. Co. r. 
 Meade v. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2351, 2352, 2907. 
 Meador v. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2694. 
 Meador Bros., Macon, etc.. K'. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Meadors & Co., Southern Pac. Co. 
 
 Meadows, Evansville St. R. Co. 7-. 
 Meadville, etc., St. R. Co., Beck- 
 man r. 
 Meagher & Co., Garey f. 
 Means, Atchison, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Bank, pp. 369, 373, 383. 
 
 387. 
 
 ?'. Carolina Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2756. 
 
 r. Central R. Co., 139 Fed. 
 
 543, 71 C. C. A. 331— p. 2259. 
 
 r. Central R. Co.. 48 N. Y. 
 
 S. 366, 23 App. Div. 298— p 
 2259. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. :. 
 
 Columbia, etc., R. Co. 7: 
 
 Mearns '■. Central R. Co., p. 2360. 
 Mears r. New York. etc.. R. d.. 
 
 pp. 345. 411. 799. 817. 820. 
 823. 828. 829. 832. 834. 835. 
 969. 973. 986. 1035. 1038. 1045. 
 3345, 3379. 
 
 Taillon '■. 
 
 Mcch.i'nics' Bank f. New York. 
 
 etc.. R. Co.. p. 372. 
 Medbery f. Sweet, p. 473. 
 Medbury f. Hopkins, p. 1489. 
 
 7-. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 653. 
 
 Medea, The. 
 
 Media, etc.. Elect. R. Co.. Ria 
 
 Media, etc.. R. Co.. Bilotta t. 
 Mee. Chicago L'nion Tract. Co. f. 
 Meek t. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 p. 2721. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. x'. 
 
 Meeker. Lehigh Valley R. Co. r. 
 
 :•. Lehigh Vallev R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3650. ibt.S. 3815. 3816. 
 
 Meeking. Union, etc.. R'. Co. 7'. 
 Mecks :•. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2155. 2150. 2331. 
 Meesel t. Lynn. etc.. R. Co., p- 
 
 1951. 
 Meglemery. Louisville R. Co. 7: 
 Mehalek f. Minneapolis, etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. p. 155^ 
 Mehlsack, Chicago, etc., R. Co.
 
 CCX XVIII 
 
 TABI.K OF CASES. 
 
 Meier z: Pennsylvania R. Co., pi). 
 
 1682, 1684, 1687, 1720, 1823, 
 
 1846, 2671. 2673. 
 Meigs f. Hagan, p. 494. 
 Meinhard, etc., Co., Atlantic, etc , 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Meirson f. Hope, p. 573. 
 Meisner z: Detroit, etc.. Ferry Co., 
 
 pp. 12, 1491, 1499. 
 Mei.xner, Cicero, etc., R. Co. i: 
 Melbourne f. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 524, 531, 539, 3276. 
 Melendy v. Barbour, p. 801. 
 Melford f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2638. 
 Mellen, United States i'. 
 Mellett, Calloway -■. 
 Mellichamp, Adams Exp. Co. r. 
 Mellier f. St. Louis, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 437. 
 Mellor, Crawford i: 
 
 f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1575, 1580. 
 
 Meloche f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 285, 287, 292, 303. 
 Melodv f. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3750, 3759, 3760. 
 Melton V. Birmingham R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 1536, 1868, 2317. 
 
 Southern R. Co. <•. 
 
 Memphis, Iron Mountain R. Co. 
 
 Memphis Ins. Co., Garrison v. 
 
 Memphis News Pub. Co. ?■. South- 
 ern R. Co., pp. 208, 210, 222, 
 223, 224. 
 
 Memphis St. R. Co. v. Graves, pp. 
 1650, 2458. 2460. 
 
 f. Norris, p. 2978. 
 
 r. Shaw, pp. 1763. 1884, 1887, 
 
 2017, 2042, 2056, 2722, 2777. 
 
 Memphis, etc., Packet Co. v. Abell, 
 p. 1302. 
 
 American Roofing Co. -'. 
 
 V. Buckner, pp. 1567, 4003. 
 
 Greenwich In.s. Co. v. 
 
 Jone!^ '•. 
 
 z: McCool, pp. 2673. 2742. 
 
 f. Xagel, IS Ky. L. Rep. 742 
 
 —pp. 3047, 3051, 3057, 3058. 
 
 z: Nagel, 97 Ky. 9, 16 Ky. 
 
 L. Rep. 748. 29 S. W. 743— pp. 
 3057, 3058. 
 
 V. Overman Carriage Co., pp. 
 
 3912, 3993. 
 
 Rankin t'. 
 
 Sugg V. 
 
 Whittenton Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Bc-sf^n, 
 
 pp. 203, 1943, 1954, 1955, 2427, 
 2481, 2712. 
 
 Bloomingdale, etc., Co. -•. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Bryan z: 
 
 Bussey "•. 
 
 z: Chastine, p. 2438. 
 
 V. Copeland, p. 2279. 
 
 Evans v. 
 
 V. Freed, pp. 477, 478, 1215. 
 
 Furstenheim z\ 
 
 German Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Germania Fire Ins. Co. f. 
 
 Goodloe V. 
 
 z: Green, p. 3053. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 Hobbs V. 
 
 V. Holloway, pp. 1087, 11 0''. 
 
 1108, 3183, 3298, 3299, 3330, 
 3377, 3383, 3395, 3396. 
 
 Logwood Z'. 
 
 z: Nolan, 14 Fed. 532— p. 
 
 3579. 
 
 z: Nolan. 27 Alb. L. T 217, 
 
 4 Ky. L. Rep. 840— p. 3579. 
 
 z: Reeves, pp. 422, 737, 743, 
 
 744, 747, 748, 825, 1037, 1047. 
 
 Robinson z'. 
 
 Robinson, etc., Co. z\ 
 
 z: Salinger, p. 2190. 
 
 v. Southern Exp. Co., p. 103. ' 
 
 V. State, p. 29. 
 
 Memphis, etc., R'. Co. z\ Stockard, 
 pp. 3257, 3258. 
 
 !■. Stringfellow, pp. 1925, 
 
 1926. 
 
 Watson v. 
 
 z'. Whitfield, pp. 1872, 1912, 
 
 1913, 2681. 
 
 Menacho v. Ward, pp. 220, 1179. 
 Menaugh v. Bedford Belt R. Co., 
 
 pp 1551, 1569. 
 Mencke z: Cargo of Java Sugar, 
 
 p. 3949. 
 Mendel!, Newport News, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Mendelsohn z: Anaheim Lighter 
 
 Co., pp. 847, 860. 
 Mendenhall t'. Atchison, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1551, 1552. 
 
 Currie z\ 
 
 Fe wings z\ 
 
 Mendoza z: Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2571. 
 Menner z\ Delaware, etc., Canal 
 
 Co., pp. 822, 826, 872. 
 Mensing z: Michigan, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1790, 2126, 2230. 
 Menzell -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1012. 
 Mephams -■. Biessel, pp. 3901, 3903. 
 Mepoter, The. 
 Mercantile Bank, Fry z\ 
 Mercantile Banking Co. v. Landa. 
 
 pp. 328, 370, 384, 387. 
 
 Mercantile Claim Co., Central, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. '■. Calebs, 
 
 p. 790. 
 
 V. Chase, pp. 770, 946. 
 
 Mercantile Trust Co., Reagan v. 
 Mercantile & Exchange Bank -•. 
 
 Gladstone, p. 1248. 
 Mercer, .Atkinson z\ 
 ■ z\ Cincinnati, etc., R. ,Co., 
 
 pp. 1912, 2352. 
 
 Louisville City R. Co. z\ 
 
 X'ewport News, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Merchants' Bank, New Jersey 
 Steam Nav. Co. !■. 
 
 V. Union R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 359, 370, 487. 
 
 Merchants' Coal Co. v. Fairmont 
 
 Coal Co., p. 3841. 
 Merchants' Co., Bonar v. 
 Merchants' Cotton-Press Co., Lan- 
 caster Mills z'. 
 Merchants' Cotton Press, etc., Co., 
 
 Deming z'. 
 Merchants' Despatch z\ Smith, p. 
 
 841. 
 Merchants' Despatch Co. !■. Smith, 
 
 pp. 736, 739. 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 
 
 Bancroft & Co. z: 
 z: Bloch, pp. 7, 321, 322, 770. 
 
 782, 822, 828. 949, 953, 987, 
 
 1025. 3291, 3330, 3369. 
 
 Block z: 
 
 z: Bollcs, pp. 762, 763, 3379. 
 
 Bracco '■. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 727. 
 
 Edmunds ?•. 
 
 r. Furthmann. pp. 430, 965 
 
 981, 996, 997, 1033. 
 
 V. Joesting, pp. 987, 994, 
 
 1033. 
 
 V. Kahn, pp. 732, 742, 748. 
 
 770, 773, 3297. 
 
 z'. Leysor, pp. 945, 1032. 
 
 Robinson Bros. f. 
 
 Struebing Co. zk 
 
 Talbott V. 
 
 V. Theilbar, pp. 980, 1049. 
 
 Merchants' Despatch, etc.. Co. z'. 
 
 Merriam, np. 534, 555, 559, 894, 
 908, 910, 911, 914. 
 
 Wilde V. 
 
 Merchants' Dispatch Trai sp. Co . 
 Cownie Glove Co. z'. 
 
 Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Furthmann. pp. 320, 321, 324, 
 325, 328, 331, 332, 337, 409, 411, 
 451, 452, 996. 999. 
 
 Haasc & Sons Fish Co. v. 
 
 z'. Hallock, pp. 536, 894, 900. 
 
 z: Iloskins, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 927— p. 909. 
 
 z\ Hoskins, 19 Ky. L. R'ep. 
 
 799, 41 S. W. 31, 44 S. W. 
 362— p. 813. 
 
 Rand z: 
 
 Shelton z\ 
 
 Singer V. 
 
 Merchants' Dispatch, etc.. Co. z'. 
 Cornforth, pp. 770, 784, 786, 
 945. 
 
 -'. Moore, p. 538. 
 
 Merchant's Elevator Co., Dickson 
 
 Merchants' Exp. Co., Gerhard 
 
 Mennen Chemical Co. v. 
 Merchants' Exp., etc., Co., Foibts 
 
 Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. i\ La- 
 
 croix, p. 1118. 
 Merchants' Nat. Bank z-. Baltimore. 
 
 etc.. Steamboat Co., p. 556. 
 
 r. Bangs, pp. 352, 362. 
 
 Chesapeake Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Cheek z\ 
 
 National Bank z\ 
 
 Shaw 7'. 
 
 Merchants' Steamboat Co., Boner 
 
 .-\ss'n, v. Word, 
 
 Bank, Albany, 
 
 Co., Lancaster 
 
 Storage Co. v. 
 pp. 3705, 3708. 
 Transp. Co., 
 
 Mercha'-ts', etc., 
 
 p. 744. 
 Merchants', etc. 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Merchants', etc. 
 
 Mills r. 
 Merchants', etc., 
 
 Insurance Co., 
 Merchants', etc., 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 z: Eichberg, pp. 330, 802. 
 
 1029, 1072, 1114, 1130. 
 
 French '■. 
 
 7'. Granger, pp. 131, 3863. 
 
 Lazard ''. 
 
 '■. Moore, pp. 714, 894, 1045. 
 
 3349, 3350. 
 
 T'. Moore & Co., pp. 551, SS3, 
 
 562, 1081, 1102. 
 
 X'orth z: 
 
 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. 
 
 z: Story, pp. 911, 915, 918. 
 
 L'nited States z-. 
 
 Weil z: 
 
 Mercher <■. Texas Mid. R. Co., 
 
 pp._ 1526, 2251. 
 Mercier. Allen z\ 
 Meredith '•. Seaboard, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 613, 3276, 3277, 3393. 
 Merida, The. 
 Meriden, etc.. Tramway Co., Hesse 
 
 V. 
 
 Meridan R., etc., Co., Godfrey v. 
 Mering v. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1064, 1071, 1389. 
 Meriwether z\ Ouincy, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1294, 129.1, 1296, 1315, 1423, 
 
 1425. 
 Merl, Citizens' St. R. Co. z'. 
 Merriam -•. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 267, 271, 273, 274, 285, 3136. 
 
 Merchants' Despatch, etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Merrick z: Brainard, pp. 483, 789. 
 
 V. Webster, p. 503. 
 
 Merrielees v. Wabash R. Co., pp. 
 
 2642, 2800, 2808. 
 Merrill z'. American Exp. Co.. pp 
 986, nil, 1113, 3369, 3370. 
 
 f. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 42. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Eastern R. Co., 139 Mass. 
 
 238, 1 N. E. 548, 52 Am. Rfp. 
 705— p. 1521. 
 
 z: Eastern R. Co., 139 Mass. 
 
 252, 29 N. E. 666— p. 2749.
 
 TAiu.i-: or CASES. 
 
 CCXXIX 
 
 Alcrrill, I'ordyce v. 
 
 V. Grinnell, pp. 728, 3118 
 
 3125, 3126, 3129, 3130, 3131 
 3132, 3I4I. 
 
 - — - V. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 2759. 
 — — V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp 
 
 1511, 1770, 2724. 
 
 V. Pacific Transfer Co., pp 
 
 • 983, 984, 1050, 3192. 
 
 Sommerville v. 
 
 Merrill & Co., Central, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Merrimack, The. 
 
 Merriman i'. Fulton, etc., Co., pp. 
 1295, 1864. 
 
 r. Great Northern Exp. Co.. 
 
 p. 578. 
 
 V. May Oueen, pp. 960, 964, 
 
 980, 982, 994, 1003, 1004, 1008. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 115, 
 
 86 Am. Dec. 292— pp. 736, 737, 
 742, 749. 
 
 r. Earle (X. Y.), 31 Barb. 
 
 38— pp. 728, 730, 733, 734, 736, 
 812, 815, 822. 
 
 V. Lehigh X'alley R. Co., p. 
 
 3151. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1884, 2259. 
 
 V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 285. 287, 291, 780. 
 
 Southern R. Co. !■. 
 
 Merritt Creamery Co. v. Atchison, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 733, 749. 
 Merritt, etc.. Wrecking Co. v. 
 Vogeman, 127 Fed. 770— p. 3972. 
 
 V. X'ogeman, 143 Fed. 142 — 
 
 p. 3957. 
 
 Merry, Slimmer r. 
 
 Merryman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1767, 1798, 1914, 2744, 2873. 
 Mer.shon Z'. Hobensack, pp. 1, 209, 
 
 211, 728, 730, 733, 737, 749, 781, 
 
 796, 804, 3914. 
 Merton v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1825. 
 Merwin v. Butler, p. 517. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., 113 N. 
 
 Y. 659, 21 N. E. 415— pp. 1952, 
 1953. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., 48 Hun 
 
 608, 1 N. Y. S. 267, 16 N. Y. 
 St. Rep. 20— pp. 1952. 2186. 
 
 Merz r. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 481, 574, 577. 
 Meschneck -•. Brooklyn, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2664, 2673. 
 Mesel ''. Lynn, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2173. 
 Messenger r: Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 36 N. J. L. 407. 13 Am. Rep. 
 
 457— pp. 220, 1135, 1180, 1181, 
 
 1184. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 
 
 N. J. L. 531, 18 Am. Rep 754— 
 pp. 211, 212, 220, 221, 222, 1147, 
 1184, 1185, 1189. 
 
 V. \"alley, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1522, 1523, 1561. 1779, 1798. 
 
 Messino, N. & C. R. Co. f. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. :•. 
 
 Metcalf, House t'. 
 
 Hunt f. 
 
 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2133, 2283, 2284. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512. 
 
 Metropolitan Exp. Co., Goldbowitz 
 
 V. 
 
 Malone v. 
 
 Metropolitan R. Co., Eads v. 
 
 z: Falvey, p. 2881. 
 
 Geddes v. 
 
 Guenther z\ 
 
 Harbison z\ 
 
 T'. Jones, p. 2748. 
 
 Right f. 
 
 i: Kowalski, p. 2889. 
 
 Metropolitan R. Co., McDonough z: 
 
 I'. Quincy R. Co., p. 114. 
 
 Snashall -•. 
 
 r. Snashall, pp. 2115, 2180, 
 
 2190. 
 
 Metropolitan Railway -■. Jackson, 
 p. 1971. 
 
 Richardson z'. 
 
 Metropolitan Redwood Lumber Co., 
 
 Boston .Marine Ins. Co. v. 
 Metropolitan Steamship Co., Ber- 
 windwhite Coal Min. Co. v. 
 
 Hickford J'. 
 
 .\Ietr()i)olitan St. R. Co., Alten v. 
 
 .Mtwcin 7-. 
 
 • .\nderson v. 
 
 .Andrews v. 
 
 .Armstrong v. 
 
 Bante v. 
 
 Itartley v. 
 
 Baskett z: 
 
 Behen z>. 
 
 Benjamin v. 
 
 Bente z: 
 
 Bessenger v. 
 
 Black V. 
 
 Bogardus v. 
 
 Hough f. 
 
 Bragg V. 
 
 Cattano v. 
 
 Cattans z: 
 
 Christensen v. 
 
 Coleman v. 
 
 Connor v. 
 
 Conway v. 
 
 Copeland v. 
 
 Coulahan v. 
 
 Crow z: 
 
 ■ Dc Rozas V. 
 
 Detrich Z'. 
 
 Dowd V. 
 
 Doyle f. 
 
 Drogmund v. 
 
 Ehrhard v. 
 
 Elliott V. 
 
 Fay v. 
 
 Feary z'. 
 
 Forrester v. 
 
 Fox 7'. 
 
 Frank z'. 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 Fremont v. 
 
 ■ Fults z: 
 
 Gabriel 7.'. 
 
 Gardner z: 
 
 Ghio 7'. 
 
 Goetz z'. 
 
 Goldstein 7'. 
 
 Goodkind z'. 
 
 Goodloe '•. 
 
 Grabenstein v. 
 
 Grant 7'. 
 
 Green 7'. 
 
 Gunn v. 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 
 Hart V. 
 
 Haskell v. 
 
 Henderson v. 
 
 Hite V. 
 
 Hogan V. 
 
 Hollahan z'. 
 
 Holland z: 
 
 ■ Hooper 7'. 
 
 ■ 7'. Hudson, p. 2926. 
 
 Hufford z: 
 
 Hunt 7'. 
 
 • Hurley V. 
 
 Ingles z: 
 
 James v. 
 
 Joyce 7'. 
 
 Kay 7'. 
 
 Kennedy -'. 
 
 Kinyoun v. 
 
 Kirkpatrick v. 
 
 Klass 7'. 
 
 Kohr 7". 
 
 Koran 7,'. 
 
 Koues V. 
 
 Kramer v. 
 
 Lange 7-. 
 
 Langley z: 
 
 pp. 1571, 1760. 
 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co., Latimer :■. 
 
 Lehner 7. 
 
 Leginsky 7. 
 
 Lobner 7'. 
 
 Loftus 7'. 
 
 Logan V. 
 
 Lucas 7'. 
 
 Lynch 7'. 
 
 McDonold z: 
 
 McFaddcn v. 
 
 McNally v. 
 
 McQuerry '•. 
 
 McRae 7'. 
 
 Maher v. 
 
 Maloney v. 
 
 Mathews Z'. 
 
 Meek z: 
 
 Mendoza z: 
 
 Merrill z: 
 
 MichelKon v. 
 
 Miller v. 
 
 Monroe 7'. 
 
 Moore ''. 
 
 -'. Moore, 
 
 1984. 
 
 Muller V. 
 
 Mulligan v. 
 
 Munroe z: 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Neuer z\ 
 
 Ormond z'. 
 
 Parker z'. 
 
 Percy v. 
 
 Peterson v. 
 
 Pierce 7'. 
 
 Price 7'. 
 
 Ouinn 7'. 
 
 Raming -•. 
 
 Ramson 7'. 
 
 Redmon z: 
 
 Reidy '•. 
 
 Richardson 
 
 Roedecker ■ 
 
 Roscoe V. 
 
 V. Ryan, p. 
 
 Scott V. 
 
 Scroggins 7 
 
 Seelig z: 
 
 Setzler v. 
 
 Sexton 7'. 
 
 Shelby z: 
 
 Smith 7'. 
 
 Spaulding z 
 
 Stauffer z: 
 
 Steinle v. 
 
 Sternfels z: 
 
 Sterrett 7-. 
 
 Suse v. 
 
 Thompson ; 
 
 V'essels v. 
 
 Walker 7'. 
 
 Ward 7'. 
 
 Warren, 
 
 2885. 
 
 Wellman 
 
 Wible z: 
 
 Wilder 7'. 
 
 Willis 7'. 
 
 Witters v 
 
 Wolf 7'. 
 
 Wood V. 
 
 Woods 7'. 
 
 Metropolitan Trust 
 
 2277. 
 
 pp. 
 
 2359, 2860, 
 
 ton, etc., 
 58, 60. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 R. Co., pp. 35, 
 
 Hous- 
 50, 56. 
 
 Metropolitan West 
 Co., Plutschow 7', 
 
 7'. Sutherland, 
 
 Metropolitan, etc., 
 
 Side Elcv. R. 
 
 p. 1544. 
 
 Co., Friedman 
 
 Metropolitan, etc.. R. Co.. Beatty 
 
 Blackwell 7. 
 
 Gascoigne 7'. 
 
 Cray -•. 
 
 Kimber 7'. 
 
 Lynch ?•. 
 
 Moore 7'. 
 
 Mettler 7'. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2585.
 
 ccxxx 
 
 TABI.I-: OF CASES. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Mettlestadt v. Ninth Ave. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2249. 
 Metz :. Huffalo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2090. 
 
 i: California, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3109, 3114, 3115, 3116, 3119, 
 3120. 
 
 Meuer r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 430. 431, 2099. 
 Mexican Cent. K. Co., Dalby & Co. 
 
 '- r. De Rosear, pp. 3115, 3123, 
 
 3125, 3129. 3142. 
 
 f. Goodman (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 43 S. W. 580— pp. 1606, 
 1614, 2441. 2572, 2623, 3721. 
 
 r. Goodman, 20 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 109, 48 S. W. 778— p. 
 2444. 
 
 f. Goodman (Tex. Civ. 
 
 .\pp.). 55 S. W. 372— p. 2438. 
 
 - r. Lauricella, 87 Tex. 277, 
 
 28 S. \V. 277, 47 -Am. St. R p- 
 103— pp. 1815. 2004. 2589, 2b6(., 
 2679. 2694, 2843, 3004. 
 
 f. Lauricella (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 26 S. W. 301, 303— pp. 
 1694, 1741, 1755, 1756, 2809. 
 
 r. Locke, p. 840. 
 
 r. Mitten, pp. 1589, 2633. 
 
 • Pvman Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Mexican Qulf R. Co., Carmanty r. 
 Mexican Nat. R. Co. c'. Crum, pp. 
 1762. 2523. 2544. 
 
 z: Garcia, pp. 1326, 1328, 
 
 1350. 
 
 f. Tackson, p. 2103. 
 
 V. Savage, pp. 1280, 3344. 
 
 r. Ware, pp. 937, 1491, 3114. 
 
 3115, 3123. 
 
 Mexican Prince, The. 
 Mevcr T. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 3186. 3188. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., 
 
 515. 
 
 Dodge V. 
 
 V. Dresser, p. 308. 
 
 r. Harnden's Exp. 
 
 931. 994, 1018. 
 
 In re. 
 
 '•. Lemcke, p. 570. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 • Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ V. Pacific R. Co., p. 2856. 
 
 V. Peck, pp. 313, 337, 338 
 
 339. 347, 3884. 
 
 Pecos, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 ?•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. pp 
 
 1496. 1497, 1737, 2022, 3201 
 3202. 3212. 
 
 Scharff v. 
 
 '•. Second Ave 
 
 2414. 2853. 2856. 
 
 -■. \'icksburg. etc., R. 
 
 pp. 270, 273, 274, 778, 852. 
 
 T-. Wells, Fargo & Co., 
 
 3562. 3578. 
 
 Witherbee t. 
 
 Meyor Co., Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Meyer-Schmid Grocer Co., St 
 Nicholas Hotel Co. v. 
 
 Wheless r. 
 
 Meyere <•. Nashville, etc.. Railway 
 
 pp. 2172. 2179, 2182. 
 Meyerle. Rothermel t'. 
 Meyerovvitz f. Interurban 
 
 Co., p. 2816. 
 Meyers -•. Missouri, etc., 
 
 pp. 1031. 1043, 1062. 
 
 7-. Pullman Co., pp. 3217 
 
 3218, 3219, 3220. 3221, 3224 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Wabash, etc., R. 
 
 1379. 
 
 Wolfe V. 
 
 Meverstein v. P.arber, 
 
 3274. 
 Meyre, Ludwig v. 
 Meyers, Michigan, etc., K 
 
 R. 
 Co. r 
 R. Co 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 St. R. 
 R. Co., 
 
 Co., 
 
 Miami Powder Co. f. Port Royal, 
 etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. 
 E. 339, 21 L. R. A. 123, 55 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 688— pp. 522, 
 581, 683, 697, 798, 854. 
 
 v. Port Roval, etc., R. Co., 
 
 47 S. C. 324, 25 S. E. 153— p. 
 798. 
 
 Miami Steamship Co., Gulf. etc.. 
 
 R. Co. 7. 
 Michael Transp. Co., Costigan -■ 
 Michaels z: New York Cent. K. 
 
 Co., pp. 619, 728, 734, 742, 743, 
 
 744, 775, 3282. 
 Michalitschke v. Wells, Fargo & 
 
 Co., pp. 986, 1072. 
 Micheals t. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 1047. 
 Michelson f. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2876. 
 Michie, Chicago, etc, R. Co. t'. 
 7'. New York, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 3706. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 Michigan, Fargo 7\ 
 
 Lyng r. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co., Armour v. 
 
 V. Boyd, pp. 325, 430, 996. 
 
 z: Burrows, pp. 236, 246, 611. 
 
 616, 621, 663, 734, 739, 744. 
 3276, 3277, 3410. 
 
 Cahn V. 
 
 z: Carrow, pp. 3121, 3123, 
 
 3124, 3149, 3152, 3153, 3154. 
 
 '•. Chicago Elect. Vehicle Co., 
 
 pp. 3326, 3330. 
 
 c'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 579. 
 
 z: Coleman, pp. 1712, 1727. 
 
 1734, 1899, 1900, 2145, 2146. 
 
 z: Curtis, pp. 734, 741, 770, 
 
 3281. 
 
 — Davies v. 
 
 — Dobbin f. 
 
 — Ferguson v. 
 
 — Fox z\ 
 
 — Geer f. 
 
 — z: Hale, pp. 433, 898. 932, 
 945, 962, 974, 1007, 1008. 
 
 — 7'. Harville, p. 567. 
 
 — Kelsey v. 
 
 — Kibby z'. 
 
 — Kirby z: 
 
 — Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co 
 
 pp. 
 
 378, 
 
 pp. 
 
 124. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Michigan R. Comm., (".rand Trunk 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Michigan Cent. K'. Co., p. 
 
 3535. 
 
 Michigan R. Co. z: Boyd, p. 1489. 
 Michigan Southern, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Baker •;•. 
 Michigan Steamship Co., In re. 
 
 McGill z: 
 
 Michigan Tract. Co., Hopkins v. 
 
 Snyder z\ 
 
 Michigan United R. Co., Dorrance 
 
 Humphrey z'. 
 
 Johnson ,■. 
 
 Ross Tp. 7'. 
 
 Schultz 7'. 
 
 Michigan United Railway, Filling- 
 ham V. 
 Michigan, etc., R. Co., Baker 7'. 
 
 Bissell 7'. 
 
 7'. Bivens, pp. 536, 852. 
 
 Buffett 7'. 
 
 7'. Caster, p. 471. 
 
 7'. Coleman, p. 1788. 
 
 Davis 7'. 
 
 7'. Day, pp. 614, 3276. 
 
 Feige 7'. 
 
 Heffron "'. 
 
 Hunt 7'. 
 
 King 7'. 
 
 z: Lantz, pp. 2615, 2618. 
 
 V. McDonough, pp. 210, 
 
 243, 247, 267, 285, 944, 
 1272, 1307, 1361. 
 
 McMillan z: 
 
 Mensing 7'. 
 
 7'. Meyers, pp. 
 
 7'. Oehm, pp. 
 
 3152. 
 
 Richards 7'. 
 
 z'. Shelton, p. 
 
 v. Shurtz, pp. 
 
 912. 
 
 Whippel V. 
 
 Midd 7'. Wells, 
 
 Michigan R 
 
 Mills z: 
 
 z: Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 
 
 pp. 417, 883, 885, 965, 982, 986, 
 1007, 1015, 1066, 1067, 3161, 
 3326, 3327, 3329. 
 
 Moore 7'. 
 
 z: Murphy, pp. 131, 134. 
 
 Myrick 7'. 
 
 O'Dca 7'. 
 
 7'. Phillips, pp. 353, 361. 
 
 Pingrec 7-. 
 
 Rothschild zi. 
 
 Sclutlte 7'. 
 
 Smith -■. 
 
 z: Smithson, p. 241. 
 
 Tubbs V. 
 
 United States 7'. 
 
 Van Camp v. 
 
 v. Ward, pp. 536, 900. 
 
 Whipple '■. 
 
 Michigan Comm., Michigan Cent. 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Michigan R. Comm., Ann Arbor 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 242, 
 121.8. 
 
 267, 3188. 
 3118, 3124. 
 
 3023. 
 285, 291, 
 
 586. 
 
 884. 
 
 Middleport, .Fitna Life Ins. Co 
 Middlesex, The. 
 Middlesex R. Co 
 
 7'. Lapointe 
 
 Maguire z: 
 
 Vinton 7'. 
 
 Wilton 7'. 
 
 Middlesex Valley 
 Middlesex, etc 
 
 son 7'. 
 
 Rairitan River R 
 
 Middleton, Hayward 7' 
 Mid. Great W. Ry. Co 
 
 Feital 
 
 R. Co., Green v 
 Tract. Co., Peter- 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Cannon 
 
 Midland Great Western R, Co., 
 
 Wallen 7'. 
 Midland Nat. Bank, Dymock v. 
 
 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 343, 356, 377, 378, 380, 384, 390. 
 532, 560, 561, 3274. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 1 
 
 Mo. App. 417, 62 Mo. App. 531 
 —p. 558. 
 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 62 
 
 Mo. .App.' 531, 1 Mo. App. Rep'r 
 417— p. 359. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Midland R 
 3182. 
 
 Fitgzerald 7'. 
 
 Hudson 7'. 
 
 Tohnson 7'. 
 
 Kent z: 
 
 Lord V. 
 
 Mutton 7'. 
 
 Mylton V. 
 
 Readhead v. 
 
 Runney v. 
 
 Shepherd "'. 
 
 Thompson z\ 
 
 Midland R'. Terminal Co 
 
 Bromley, p. 
 
 Kaplan 
 
 Midland Valley R. Co. 7'. Adkins, 
 np. 3288, 3291. 
 
 r. Bailey, p. 2511. 
 
 V. Ezell, pp. 1409, 1430.
 
 TAUI.K OF CASES. 
 
 CCXXXI 
 
 1998, 2121, 
 216, 
 
 Doublin 
 
 Midland Valley R'. Co. :■. Fay, etc., 
 Co.. pp. 559, 562. 
 
 V. r.oorge, p. 781. 
 
 r. Half, p. 3395 
 
 T. Hamilton, pp 
 
 2687, 2973. 
 
 . !■. Hoffman Coal Co., pp 
 
 463, 464, 468, 469, 3840. 
 
 V. Page, pp. 1885, 2908. 
 
 V. Pugh, pp. 1348, 1439. 
 
 ■ V. State, 24 Okla. 817, 104 
 
 Pac. 1086— p. 128. 
 
 r. State, 35 Okla. 672. 130 
 
 Pac. 803— pp. 31, 41. 
 
 Stratford v. 
 
 Midland, etc., R. Co . 
 
 Whiskey Distillery Co. v. 
 Midvale Steel Co., Pennsylvania R 
 
 Co. V. , , 
 
 Mierson v. Hope (N- Y.), 
 
 Sweeney 56— p. 903. 
 
 V. Hope, 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 
 561— p. 773. 
 
 Mieuli .'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2778. 
 Miko, Southern R. Co. r. 
 Milam v. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1385, 1478, 3396, 3413, 3415. 
 Milburn v. Federal Sugar Refin. 
 
 Co., p. 3891. 
 Mileham, West Chicago St. R 
 
 Co. r. 
 Miles, Central R., etc., Co. r. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 7.: Gorton, p. 1211. 
 
 V. Johnson, p. 1682. 
 
 V. King, p. 2892. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ',: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2294, 2388, 2687, 2876, 2968. 
 
 . West Chester, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Miles & Son, Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Miletus, Westray '■. 
 Miley v. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 158, 2097. 
 Milford, etc., St. R. Co., Gilmore 
 
 MiVhous f. .vtlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 642. 
 
 I'. Southern Railway, p. 2626. 
 
 Milhouse v. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1856, 3013. 3043, 3055. 
 Milk, American Merchants' Union 
 
 Exp. Co. r. 
 Millar f. St. Louis 
 
 pp. 2656, 2825. 
 Millard t. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3124, 3149. 
 
 r. Webster, p. 1247. 
 
 Mill Bay, The. 
 
 Mill Elevator, etc., Co., Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. i: 
 Mill Transp. Co., Great Lakts 
 
 Touring Co. -■. 
 Millcrcek r. Erie, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 133. 
 Milledgcville R. Co., Central, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Miller, .\mcrican Exp. Co. r. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 143 
 
 N. C. 115, 55 S. E. 439— pp. 
 2319, 2940, 2976. 
 
 r. .Atlanta, etc., R. Co.. 57 
 
 S. E. 345, 144 N. C. 545— p. 
 2160 
 
 Idler V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 123 
 
 X. W. 449, 85 Neb. 458— pp. 
 
 1363, 3605. 
 t. Chicago, etc., R. Co., Ua 
 
 N. W. 794, 135 Wis. 247. 17 L. 
 
 R. A., N. S.. 158— p. 2190. 
 
 t: Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., p- 
 
 992. 
 
 Connecting Terminal Co. v. 
 
 Connecting Terminal R. Co. 
 
 T. Detroit United 
 
 2550. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., 
 
 Railway, 
 R. Co. 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Trans. Co.. 
 
 Atwell i: 
 Boston, etc., 
 V. Brewster, 
 Brooklyn 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 p. 2883. 
 TIeights 
 
 Co., 
 Div. 
 
 R. 
 
 108 N. Y. S. 960. 124 Am). 
 S37_pp. 1527, 2042. 2049. 
 
 r. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 Ill N. Y. S. 47, 127 App. Div. 
 197— p. 2482. 
 
 '.: Browarsky, p. 3886. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., K'. Co. f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 62 
 
 Mo. App. 252— pp. 449, 450. 
 
 . East Tennessee, etc., 
 pp. 1920, 1925, 2906. 
 
 V. Georgia R'., etc., Co., pp 
 
 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705. 
 708, 709, 711, 714. 
 
 Great Western R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 305, 331, 345. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co 
 
 r. International R. Co., p 
 
 2731. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. lannctt, p. 862. 
 
 Kansas Pac. R. Co. f. 
 
 T. King, 1<>6 N. Y. 394, 59 
 
 N. E. 1114— pp. 3017, 3025, 
 3032. 
 
 r. King, 84 Hun 308, 32 N. 
 
 Y. S. 332, 65 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 490— p. 2567. 
 
 r. King, 53 N. Y. S. 123, 32 
 
 App. Div. 389— p. 2773. 
 
 Livingston 7'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 V. Mansfield, pp. 700, 701, 
 
 702, 714, 717. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1892, 1894, 1904, 2688. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 t'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3330, 3335, 3343. 
 
 T. New Jersey Steamboat Co.. 
 
 p. 1937. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Norfolk, etc., Tract. Co. f. 
 
 O'Brien i: 
 
 I'. Ocean Steamship Co.. 118 
 
 N. Y. 199, 23 N. E. 462— pp. 
 1847, 2955. 
 
 ■:•. Ocean Steamship Co., 43 
 
 Hun 640, 6 N. Y. St. Rep. 664— 
 p. 2682. 
 
 Ohio Tract. Co. r. 
 
 -'. Pendleton, pp. 833, 1331, 
 
 3926. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. '■. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 2817. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Plotz f. 
 
 St Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 T'. St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1518, 1894, 2877. 
 
 Seward & Co. t. 
 
 -•. South Carolina R. Co., p. 
 
 3292. 
 
 -'. South Covington, etc., R'. 
 
 Co., p. 2908. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., pp. 1670, 
 
 1673, 1674, 2845, 3044, 3056. 
 
 V. Steam Nav. Co., pp. 52-'. 
 
 728. 730, 733, 739, 740, 749, 
 887, 888, 891, 896. 
 
 f. Sullivan & Co.. p. 476. 
 
 Te-xas Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. ;•. 
 
 :■. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3311, 3342. 3390. 
 
 Trice r. 
 
 V. United R. Co., p. 2697. 
 
 United States i'. 
 
 Miller r. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2593. 
 Miller Coal Co., Little Rock, etc , 
 
 R. Co. -: ^. , 
 
 Miller Grain, etc., Co. v. Lni.n 
 
 Pac. R. Co., pp. 455, 3292. 3336. 
 Miller Levee Dist. No. 2, St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Millett f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1532, 1794. 
 Milligan, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 V. Texas, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2637. 
 Milliman f. New York. etc.. R. 
 Co.. 66 N. Y. 642— pp. 1498, 
 2121. ^ ^ 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 4 Hun 409, 6 Thomp. 
 & C. 585— p. 2121. 
 
 Milliot, McCaughn r. 
 
 Millmore i-. Boston Elevated R. 
 
 Co., p. 1902. 
 Mills f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1721. 
 
 - r. Ball, p. 1247. 
 
 - r. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 3315. 3318. 
 
 - Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Field V. 
 
 Fleming v. 
 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 886, 896, 901, 3262, 3267. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 i: Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1493, 1596, 1599, 1600, 1602» 
 1766, 2114. 2151. 2250. f225l, 
 2301, 2319, 2331, 2467, 2468, 
 2750, 2866, 2912, 2941. 
 
 r. National Steamship Co., p. 
 
 852. 
 
 Powell '■■ 
 
 V. Seattle, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1665, 2482, 2483. 2485. 2534. 
 2855. 
 
 Railway, 82 S. 
 E. 238— pp. 152, 
 
 Railway, 90 S. 
 E. 772— pp. 642. 
 
 Southern 
 C. 242, 64 S. 
 610. 
 
 V. Southern 
 
 C. 366, 73 S. 
 645. 860. 
 
 Summers z: 
 
 Thomas "■. 
 
 X'andewater f. 
 
 :•. Weir, pp. 984. 987, 3349. 
 
 Millsaps, Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Millville Gas Light Co. r. Sweeten 
 
 p. 2584. 
 Millville Tract. Co., McCoy v. 
 ^Iiln, New York f. 
 
 Rowland f. 
 
 Milne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. pp 
 278. 333, 338, 341. 
 
 Ross !•. 
 
 .Milnor v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 3175. 3177. 3182. 331^ 
 Chicago, etc 
 
 R. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. 
 58. 
 Milwaukee Elect. 
 
 Citv R. Co., Geitz f. 
 
 Milroy r. 
 
 p. 432. 
 Miltimore ' 
 
 pp. 753, 
 Milwaukee, 
 
 etc., Co. 
 
 Yates 
 
 Milwaukee 
 
 Grisim f. 
 
 Heucke v. 
 
 Knowlton f. 
 
 Schoenfeld v. 
 
 White t . 
 
 Milwaukee Dock Co., Hale :■ 
 Milwaukee Elect. R. etc.. Co. 
 ing -■. 
 
 Bartholomaus :•. 
 
 Dehsov '•. 
 
 Di Benedetto f. 
 
 Gay f. 
 
 Tirachek v. 
 
 Kline f. 
 
 Luger V. 
 
 Lugner ?'. 
 
 McBride i: 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co.. 
 
 Co.. 
 
 R.. 
 
 Bad-
 
 CCXXXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Milwaukee Elect. R., etc., Co. f. 
 Milwaukee, p. 62. 
 
 Sure f. 
 
 Milwaukee Light, etc., Co., Karr 
 
 Milwaukee Malt Extract Co. t'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 238, 
 
 257. 
 
 Milwaukee Mirror, etc.. Works v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 3122, 
 
 3172, 3173. 
 
 Milwaukee Northern R. Co., Otto 
 
 Milwaukee St. R. Co., Hardy t. 
 
 Schmitt f. 
 
 Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., .\brans 
 
 3063, 3067. 
 
 907. 
 
 Trans. Co., Unud 
 
 2696. 
 
 Railway, 
 
 Annas v. 
 
 f. Arms, pp 
 
 Blair z: 
 
 Chamberlain v. 
 
 Conkey v. 
 
 Delamatyr ■•. 
 
 Dimmick '■. 
 
 r. Fairchild, pp. _897 
 
 !■. Finney, p. 1677. 
 
 Fitzsimmons '■. 
 
 Green "■. 
 
 Irish f. 
 
 Kirst r. 
 
 Lawrence v. 
 
 Lucas V. 
 
 Parker i'. 
 
 Pierce v. 
 
 v. Smith, pp. 430, 3329. 
 
 Spencer f. 
 
 Stimson r. 
 
 Wood v. 
 
 Yorton t'. 
 
 Milwaukee, etc.. 
 
 States r. 
 Mims V. Mitchell, p. 
 
 f. Seaboard, etc., 
 
 pp. 1502, 2846. 
 
 Minahan z: Grand Trunk Western 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2693, 2898. 
 Mindler, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Minds V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 88, 97, 136, 139. 
 
 Miner, Cutting v. 
 
 Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., Michi- 
 gan Cent. R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Mineral Wells, etc., R. Co., Fi st 
 Nat. Bank '■. 
 
 Miners' Co-op. .Ass'n i\ The Mon- 
 arch, pp. 3933, 3936, 3937, 3945. 
 
 Minihan '•. Boston Elev. R. Co , 
 197 Mass. 367, 83 N. E. 871 — 
 p. 2982. 
 
 V. Boston Elev. R. Co.. 91 
 
 N. E. 414, 205 Mass. 402— p. 
 2806. 
 
 Mink, Louisville, etc., K. Co. f. 
 Minneapolis St. R. Co., .\hern ;■. 
 
 Dahlberg v. 
 
 Ford V. 
 
 Hill V. 
 
 Hoblit V. 
 
 Lacey v. 
 
 Morrill v. 
 
 V. Odegaard, pp. 1709, 2008, 
 
 2677. 
 
 Piper V. 
 
 Rhea v. 
 
 Minneapolis St., etc., R. Co., Mar- 
 
 cott I'. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beck- 
 
 with, pp. 58, 60. 
 
 Benedict v. 
 
 Bresky ?•. 
 
 Brown f. 
 
 Burnside v. 
 
 Cain i: 
 
 Carver v. 
 
 Church '•. 
 
 Clapp V. 
 
 Cole V. 
 
 V. Columbus Rolling-Mill, p. 
 
 3867. 
 
 Crandall z-. 
 
 Drummy v. 
 
 Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co.. Il'.d.idge 
 
 Farwell Farmers' Wareho.se 
 
 Ass'n z\ 
 
 Galehouse z\ 
 
 Gcbus :'. 
 
 Gillen V. 
 
 Gisleson z: 
 
 Gray z'. 
 
 Grimes i'. 
 
 Guthier z: 
 
 Haff z: 
 
 Harris f. 
 
 Hatch z: 
 
 z\ Home Ins. Co., p. 333. 
 
 Hull z: 
 
 In re. 
 
 Jansen f. 
 
 Jones f. 
 
 Larson z: 
 
 McCollom V. 
 
 Marcott z'. 
 
 Mehalek z'. 
 
 ■;■. Minnesota, J 34 U. S. 46", 
 
 33 L. Ed. 985, 10 S. Ct. 473- 
 pp. 63, 64. 
 
 Z'. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 
 
 264, 46 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 
 900— pp. 34, 39, 46, 50, 52, 53 
 55, 58, 72, 75, 76, 120, 124, 126, 
 3486, 3647, 3669, 3674. 
 
 Mitchelson z: 
 
 Morris c'. 
 
 Morse 7'. 
 
 ■ Ortt V. 
 
 Patzke z: 
 
 '■. Railroad Commr., pp. 44. 
 
 48, 114. 119, 125, 126. 
 
 Ramm z\ 
 
 Sever v. 
 
 Shea z'. 
 
 Southard f. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Steidl V. 
 
 Sullivan z'. 
 
 Symonds •:'. 
 
 Wehmann v. 
 
 White r. 
 
 Minnesota z\ Barber, p. 3529. 
 
 Cargill Co. f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Gladson j'. 
 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. •;•. 
 
 L^nited States Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 Minnesota Min. Co. z: Chapman, 
 
 pp. 728, 739, 888, 1145, 1146. 
 Minnesota Transfer R. Co., Cooley 
 
 Douglas Co. z'. 
 
 Minnetonka, The. 
 Minnie E. Kelton, The. 
 
 Minnish v. Southern R'. Co., p. 
 
 1253. 
 Minock v.- Detroit, etc., R. C >., 
 
 pp. 1920, 1926. 
 Minogue, Louisville, etc., R. Co 
 
 Minor ,■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 3172, 3174. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. -•. 
 
 Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ — — v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., p 
 
 2912. 
 Minot V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Fed. Cas. No. 9, 645, 2 Abb. 
 
 U. S. 323, 7 Phila. 555— p. 3574. 
 
 '■. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (U. S.), 18 Wall. 206, 21 L. 
 Ed. 888— p. 3593. 
 
 Roulo z'. 
 
 Minter z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co , 
 p. 1306. 
 
 V. Pacific Railroad, pp. 277, 
 
 280, 3133, 3136, 3149. 
 
 Minter Bros. v. Southern Kansas 
 
 R. Co., pp. 3347, 3348. 
 Minturn, Brooks z'. 
 
 Lawrence z\ 
 
 Z-. Warren Ins. Co., p. 3949. 
 
 Mires z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 975, 1031, 1045, 1074, 3745, 
 3761. 
 
 29, 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., 
 
 2988. 
 
 Han- 
 
 Co. V. Fennell, p. 
 R. Co., Adams z'. 
 
 Missimer -'. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1829, 2579. 
 Mississippi, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — — MobiK-, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 The. 
 
 Mississippi Cent. R. Co., Hunt v. 
 
 z\ Kennedy, pp. 3115, 3116, 
 
 3119, 3124, 3199. 
 
 Mississippi Mills ?•. Union, etc.. 
 
 Bank, pp. 1212, 1219, 1220, 1229. 
 Mississippi R. Comm., Alabama, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 62. 
 
 • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 '•. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 129, 3513, 3514, 3515, 3516. 
 
 Mississippi River, etc., R. 
 
 Steffen z'. 
 Mississippi Southern Exp. Co. 
 
 Moon, pp. 1033, 1036. 
 Mississippi, etc., R. Co., -Vngle 
 
 .Angle S: Co. '•. 
 
 z'. .\vres, pp. 1715, 17.55. 
 
 ■ Chaffe z: 
 
 •:■. Gill, p. 3057. 
 
 z\ Harrison, pp. 1897, 
 
 Missouri, Emert v. 
 
 Keokuk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Webb, pp. 337, 339 
 
 Welton z\ 
 
 Missouri Coal, etc., R. Co. z' 
 
 nibal, etc., R. Co., p. 283. 
 
 Missouri Nat. Bank, Eufaula Gro- 
 cery Co. v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. 
 344. 
 
 Missouri Pac. 
 
 Anderson z\ 
 
 .Armstrong v. 
 
 Attorney General t'. 
 
 z'. Baden, p. 3334. 
 
 z\ Baier, pp. 1764, 1765. 
 
 Baker z: 
 
 V. Beeson, pp. 324, 452, 1049, 
 
 3881. 
 
 Bennitt z\ 
 
 Berry z\ 
 
 Blackmore z\ 
 
 -■. Boiling, p. 175. 
 
 Bolton z\ 
 
 z\ Brazil, p. 3070. 
 
 z: Breeding, pp. 817, 819, 828, 
 
 840, 851, 860. 
 
 Brinkmeier Z'. 
 
 Bryan z'. 
 
 Burke '•. 
 
 Burriss "'. 
 
 •;■. Callahan, pp. 1816, 2145, 
 
 2217, 2302, 2033, 2738. 
 
 Campbell v. 
 
 Carroll ''. 
 
 Castanola 
 
 -■. Castle, 
 
 3510. 
 
 V. Castle, 
 
 L. Ed. 875, 
 3507. 
 
 z: Childers (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 29 S. W. 559, 560,— pp. 1106, 
 1116, 1117. 
 
 -■. Childers, 1 Tex. Civ 
 
 302, 21 S. W. 76— pp. 
 10»6, 1093, 1094, 1095, 
 1097, 1107, 1411, 1415, 1416 
 
 '•. China Mfg. Co., pp. 815, 
 
 822, 843, 937, 959, 1027, 1041, 
 1048, 1130. 
 
 Choate -'. 
 
 Christie Z'. 
 
 Christl Z'. 
 
 V. Collier, p. 2736. 
 
 v. Cornwall, pp. 951, 1087, 
 
 1097, 1268, 1339, 1361, 1480. 
 1481, 1410. 
 
 z: Creath, pp. 805, 3331. 
 
 V. Crowell Lumber, etc., Co.. 
 
 pp. 1141, 3261. 
 
 — — z: Curtis, p. 1640. 
 
 Darlington Z'. 
 
 Darlington I,umber Cc. Z'. 
 
 \72 Fed. 841— p. 
 
 224 U. S. 541, 56 
 32 S. Ct. 606— p. 
 
 .\pp. 
 1053, 
 10961,
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 ccxxxiir 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglas 
 & Sons, pp. 282, 293. 295, 816, 
 818, 847. 
 
 Drey, etc.. Glass Co. v. 
 
 Duvenick r. 
 
 E c k 1 e s T ' . 
 
 r. Edwards, 75 Tex. 334. 12 
 
 S. W. 853— pp. 1083, 1405. 
 
 V. Edwards, 78 Tex. 307, 14 
 
 S. W. 607— pp. 457, 1077, 1336, 
 1346, 1349, 1396, 1443, 1469, 
 1477, 1480. 
 
 Ephland v. 
 
 Estes V. 
 
 7'. Evans, p. 1763. 
 
 V. Fagan, 72 Tex. 127, 9 S. 
 
 W. 749, 2 L. R. A. 75, 13 Am. 
 St. Rep. 776— pp 213, 328, 654, 
 693, 740, 741, 833, 849, 932, 979, 
 1009, 1010, 1086, 1093, 1094, 
 1095, 1107, 1122, 1284, 1304, 
 1322, 1339, 1340, 1353, 1355, 
 1370, 1391, 1398, 1409, 1415, 
 1416, 3368. 
 
 -•. Fagan (Tex. Civ. .App.), 
 
 27 S. W. 887, 888 12/1, 
 
 1357. 
 
 f. Fagan (Tex. Civ. App. ), 
 
 29 S. W. 1110— p. 1341. 
 
 Farber ?'. 
 
 Ferguson v. 
 
 Foreman i\ 
 
 v. Foreman, 73 Tex. 311, 11 
 
 S. W. 326, 15 Am. St. Rep. 
 785- pp. 1929, 1966, 2287, 228;. 
 
 v. Foreman (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 46 S. W. 834— pp. 1879, 1882, 
 1885, 1978, 1988, 2290, 2633. 
 
 Freeback "'. 
 
 Furnish f. 
 
 -'. Gernon, jip. 836, 863. 
 
 V. Goodliolm, p. 683. 
 
 V. Graves, pp. 292, 293, 424, 
 
 1267, 1269, 1274, 1347, 1446. 
 
 dress '•. 
 
 Griffith V. 
 
 V. Grocsbeck, p. 3241. 
 
 Hale f. 
 
 r. Hall, pp. 611, 1479, 1481. 
 
 1482. 
 
 Handley v. 
 
 Hanks v. 
 
 Hardin Grain Co. v. 
 
 f. Harmonson, pp. 448, 1276. 
 
 Harned v. 
 
 V. Harper Bros., pp. 426, 856. 
 
 V. Harris, 67 Tex. 166, 2 S. 
 
 W. 574— pp. 4, 741, 809, 933, 
 937, 938, 940, 950, 951, 854, 
 977. 978. 1027, 1063, 1078, 
 
 1086, 
 1096, 
 1267, 
 1410, 
 1432, 
 
 1097, 
 1268, 
 1411, 
 33r,8. 
 ■. Harris, 
 1257— pp. 
 
 1093, 
 1107, 
 1330, 
 
 1413, 
 
 1094, 
 1121, 
 1339, 
 
 1415, 
 
 1085, 
 1095, 
 1122, 
 1409, 
 1431, 
 
 1 Tex. Civ. Cas., 
 210, 237, 238, 
 729, 769, 993, 934, 937, 938, 940, 
 946, 957, 1053, 1267, 1409. 
 
 Harrison r. 
 
 ■!■. Haynes, pp. 512, 533, 537, 
 
 897, 901, 1299. 
 
 V. Heath, pp. 819, 1472. 
 
 Heck r. 
 
 V. Heidenheimcr, pp. 349, 
 
 355, 356, 357, 361, 365, 369, 
 370, 371, 380, 381, 387, 389, 401. 
 513, 516, 549, 551, 553, 580, 
 1222, 1224. 
 
 Helm f. 
 
 f. Hennessey, pp. 2583, 2589, 
 
 2683, 2721. 
 
 Hess f. 
 
 r. Hcwett, pp. 849, 855, 858. 
 
 Hickman -■. 
 
 Hill r. 
 
 -'. Holcomb, pp. 1746, 1755. 
 
 Hoskins f. 
 
 Hull & Co. V. 
 
 •!'. International Marine Ins. 
 
 Co., pp. 790, 791, 793, 794, 937, 
 938, 993. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., Irvin -■. 
 
 V. Irvin, p. 2357. 
 
 V. Ivy, 71 Tex. 409, 9 S. W. 
 
 346, 1 h. R. A. 500, 10 Am. 
 St. Rep. 758— pp. 1567, 1578, 
 2092, 2098, 2099. 
 
 V. Ivy, 79 Tex. 444, 15 S. 
 
 W. 692— pp. 344, 1468, 3618. 
 
 James v. 
 
 r. Jarrard, p. 1808. 
 
 7: Johnson, pp. 1680, U.84, 
 
 1689, 1690, 1691, 1725, 1808, 
 1812, 2735, 3068, 30f.9. 
 
 I'. Kaiser, p. 3085. 
 
 f. Kingsbury, pp. 1272, 1284. 
 
 Kreis -•. 
 
 Larabee Flour Mills Co. f. 
 
 V. Larabee Flour Mills Co., 
 
 p. 26. 
 
 V. Lau, pp. 478, 479. 
 
 Lenix J'. 
 
 Letts-Spencer Grocer Co. i'. 
 
 ?■. Levi, pp. 628, 629, 630. 
 
 Ligon V. 
 
 Lincoln Tent, etc., Co. v. 
 
 r. Long, pp. 1730, 1766, 1783, 
 
 1927, 2230, 2934. 
 
 V. McCIanahan, pp. 1600, 2468, 
 
 2469. 
 
 McFadden v. 
 
 7: McFadden, pp. 267, 2S1. 
 
 283, 284, 293, 306, 307, 308, 314, 
 331, 356, 357, 371, 373, 389. 
 3879. 
 
 McGee v. 
 
 McGinnis t. 
 
 McGrew i'. 
 
 • 7'. Mackey, p. 2034. 
 
 Mackoy -•. 
 
 f. McLiney, p. 365. 
 
 McPeak f. 
 
 Madden v. 
 
 Magoffin i'. 
 
 Martin ',: 
 
 V. Martino, pp. 2444, 3075. 
 
 • Mason r. 
 
 Mellor i: 
 
 Midland Nat. Bank -'. 
 
 V. Mitchell, pp. 1680, 1808, 
 
 1812, 3069. 
 
 Moore v. 
 
 Morrow f. 
 
 Nathan f. 
 
 V. Nebraska, pp. 34, 61. 
 
 v. Neiswanger, pp. 1773, 
 
 1798, 2730. 
 
 z: Nevill, pp. 726, 751, 752, 
 
 896, 900. 
 
 T'. Nevin, p. 811. 
 
 -r. Newberger, pp. 920, 896. 
 
 f. Nicholson, pp. 405, 406, 
 
 424, 464, 829, 1027, 1272, 1303. 
 
 Otis Co. -'. 
 
 Paddock -•. 
 
 V. Paine, pp. 1035, 10S9. 
 
 1094, 1095, 1096, 1107, 1309, 
 1411, 1414, 1415, 1416. 
 
 Partello t: 
 
 Patterson -'. 
 
 f. Peru Van-Zandt Imp. Co., 
 
 pp. 495, 521, 597, 641, 654. 678. 
 679, 681, 682, 683, 1153. 1154. 
 1166, 1167. 
 
 Pinkerton ?'. 
 
 Z-. Railroad Comm'rs, pp. 
 
 3484, 3486. 
 
 V. Rclf, p. 1187. 
 
 Richmond -•. 
 
 i: Riggs, pp. 285, 288, 884, 
 
 918. 
 
 Roark r. 
 
 Rodgcrs V. 
 
 Rucker v. 
 
 V. Rushin, pp. 802, 860. 
 
 r. Russell (Tex.), 15 S. W. 
 
 206— p. 14(.9. 
 
 '•. Russell (Tex), 18 S. \V. 
 
 594— pp. 1328. 1329. 1469. 
 
 V. Ryan, pp. 1051, 1078, 1079. 
 
 3289. 
 
 Sanderson i'. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., Saxton -■. 
 
 -■. Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. .Apn. 
 
 76. 26 S. W. 239— pp. 491. 8!5, 
 822, 1441, 1457. 
 
 T'. Scott, 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 
 Cas., I 324— pp. 1111. 1115. 
 1428. 
 
 Shelby v. 
 
 V. Sherwood, pp. 861, 8(.4, 
 
 935, 936, 937, 938. 939. 958, 
 959. 1409. 
 
 v. Shuford. pp. 1688, ,Vi(,<». 
 
 3070. 
 
 V. Slater, p. 3181. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 V. Smith, 60 Ark. 221, 29 S. 
 
 W. 752— pp. 140, 144, 170. 171. 
 175. 
 
 V. Smith (Tex.), 16 S. W. 
 
 803— p. 954. 
 
 -c'. Smith, 84 Tex. 348, 19 S- 
 
 W. 509— pp. 485, 490, 802, 810. 
 831, 1441, 1460. 
 
 Spohn -'. 
 
 Sprague f. 
 
 State I'. 
 
 Tate V. 
 
 Taylor f. 
 
 J'. Texas, etc., R. Co.. 31 
 
 Fed. 862— pp. 3712, 3714. 3723. 
 
 -'. Texas, etc., R. Co., 34 
 
 Fed. 92— p. 2150. 
 
 z'. Texas, etc., R. Co., 36 Fed. 
 
 879— p. 2150. 
 
 f. Texas, etc., R. Co., 41 
 
 Fed. 913, 18 .\m. & Eng. R 
 Cas., N. S., 412— pp. 1456. 3624. 
 
 Thero "■. 
 
 Tibby -■. 
 
 '■. Tietken, pp. 2098, 2099.. 
 
 2365. 
 
 Todd -•. 
 
 Tucker f. 
 
 -•. Twiss, p. 3294. 
 
 United States -■. 
 
 f. United States, 47 Ct. CI. 
 
 266— p. 738. 
 
 V. United States, 189 U. S. 
 
 274, 47 L. Ed. 811. 23 S. Ct. 
 507— pp. 1134, 3769, 3808. 
 
 7: V'andeventer, pp. 1085,. 
 
 1408. 
 
 Wagner v. 
 
 Walter -•. 
 
 Walters f. 
 
 Ward ;■. 
 
 r. Watson. 
 
 2148, 2630. 
 
 -: Weil, p. 
 
 -■. Weissman, pp. 520, 625. 
 
 White -■. 
 
 f. Wichita Wholesale Grocery 
 
 Co., pp. 530, 531, 769, 896, 898. 
 3282, 3283, 3299. 
 
 Willcox f. 
 
 Wilson ;■. 
 
 Wolfe -•. 
 
 7'. Wortham, pp. 1771, 1779, 
 
 1797, 1910, 1914, 2386, 2821, 
 2985. 
 
 z: Wright, p. 174. 
 
 :•. York, p. 759, 3114. 3115. 
 
 3116, 3125, 3126, 3130. 3131,. 
 3132. 
 
 Young -'. 
 
 ',-. Young, p. 839. 
 
 Zuendt '•. 
 
 Missouri R. Co., Carroll f. 
 
 Dougherty '•. 
 
 Missouri River Packet Co., Gray Z'. 
 Missouri, etc., Railroad. Perkins "'. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., .\bbott Gin 
 Co. :•. 
 
 .Adams !•. 
 
 r. Allen, 39 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 236. 239, 87 S. W. 168- pp. 
 1352. 1356, 1409. 
 
 -. .Mien. 53 Tex. Civ. App 
 
 433, 115 S. W. 1179— p. 2819 
 
 f. .Wis, 100 Tex. 33, 93 S . 
 
 W. 424— pp. 2284, 2292, 2630. 
 
 pp. 1773, 
 546.
 
 CCXXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. -■. Avis, 4' 
 Tex. Civ. App. 72, 91 S. W. 877 
 —pp. 2164, 2207, 2215, 2725. 
 
 V. Ball, pp. 1942, 2028, 2649. 
 
 V. Beard, pp. 275, 286, 287. 
 
 288, 289. 290, 292, 293, 845, 
 866, 875, 880. 
 
 Belcher v. 
 
 -•. Belcher, 88 Tex. 549, il 
 
 S. W. 518— pp. 419, 420, 443, 
 859, 1296. 
 
 f. Belcher, 89 Tex. 428, 430, 
 
 35 S. VV. 6— pp. 641, 646, 647, 
 648, 649, 676, 1316. 
 
 f. Belcher (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 
 41 S. W. 706— p. 1347. 
 
 Bergin i'. 
 
 Bibb V. 
 
 -•. Blalack, p. 1577. 
 
 Booth V. 
 
 V. Bowles, pp. 3425. 3751, 
 
 3760. 
 
 Bromschwig Tailors' Trim- 
 ming Co. I'. 
 
 Brown f. 
 
 V. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 39 S. W. 326— p. 2172. 
 
 t'. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 156 S. W. 519— p. 2853. 
 
 V. Buchanan, pp. 1771, 1910, 
 
 1911, 1913. 
 
 V. Bvrd, pp. 1522, 1938. 
 
 T. Byrne, 40 C. C. A. 402, 
 
 100 Fed. 359— p. 1335. 
 
 V. Byrne, 3 Ind. T. 740, 49 
 
 S. \V. 41. 13 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 17— pp. 287, 1436, 
 1438. 
 
 V. Capital Compress Co., p. 
 
 701. 
 
 V. Carpenter, pp. 654, 657. 
 
 3661, 3662, 3663, 3664. 
 
 V. Carter, 95 Tex. 461, 68 S. 
 
 W. 159— pp. 932, 934, 935. 
 
 f. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 677, 690, 29 S. W. 565- pp. 207, 
 208, 232, 253, 405, 424, 425, 
 451, 453, 474, 937, 970, 971, 
 973, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 
 996, 1030, 1034, 1092, 1093, 
 1095, 1096, 1120. 
 
 V. Chilton, p. 2090. 
 
 V. Chittim (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 40 S. W. 23— pp. 1354, 1359. 
 
 V. Chittim, 60 S. W. 284, 24 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 599— p. 1337. 
 
 Chorn '■. 
 
 Claiborne <■. 
 
 f. Clark, pp. 1285, 1288. 
 
 V. Clayton, pp. 863, 875, 3395. 
 
 V. Clifton, p. 674. 
 
 V. Cobb, p. 1323. 
 
 V. Cocreham, pp. 405, 943, 
 
 1028, 1120, 1121. 
 
 Cohen Bros. v. 
 
 V. Cook, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 376, 27 S. W. 769— pp. 849, 
 1352, 1688. 
 
 V. Cook, 12 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 203, 33 S. W. 669— pp. 1959, 
 1967, 2116, 2725. 
 
 Cox V. 
 
 V. Cox & Co., pp. 569, 596. 
 
 V. Criswell, pp. 1784, 2988. 
 
 Cullar V. 
 
 V. Cumby Mercantile, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 841. 
 
 V. Darlington (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 30 S. W. 251— p. 1323. 
 
 V. Darlington (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 40 S. W. 550— p. 474. 
 
 V. Davidson, pp. 745, 862, 
 
 866. 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 V. Davis, pp. 1126, 1418. 
 
 V. Dawson, pp. 1593, 1858, 
 
 1859, 2478. 
 
 V. Dowson Bros., p. 856. 
 
 V. Dement, pp. 674, 807, 831. 
 
 849, 857. 
 
 V. Dill, pp. 1766, 2866. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. -■. Dilworth, 
 
 95 Tex. il7, 67 S. VV. 88— p. 
 1359. 
 
 •:'. Dilworth (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 65 S. W. 502— p. 3281. 
 
 Doss V. 
 
 Dumas v. 
 
 V. Dunbar, 49 Tex. Civ. ^\pp. 
 
 12, 108 S. W. 500— pp. 1770, 
 2729, 2730, 2733. 
 
 V. Dunbar, 57 Tex. Civ. .-\pp. 
 
 411, 122 S. W. 574— p. 2733. 
 
 Dymock v. 
 
 Dysart v. 
 
 -'. Early-Clement Grain Co.. 
 
 p. 622. 
 
 v.^ Edling, p. 2003. 
 
 Eichhorn i\ 
 
 I'. Elliott, pp. iiil. 3338. 
 
 • V. Enos, pp. 1730, 1766, 
 
 2869. 
 
 Ephland '■. 
 
 7'. Evans, p. 2121. 
 
 Evans, etc.. Cultivator Co. ■;■. 
 
 f. Faulkner, p. 649. 
 
 Fielder z'. 
 
 i\ Flood, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 197, 79 S. W. 1106— pp. 1812, 
 1821, 1826, 1842, 2095, 2167. 
 
 f. Flood (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 70 S. W. 331— p. 2095. 
 
 V. Fookes, pp. 1639, 3499. 
 
 V. Foster, 97 Tex. 618, 80 S. 
 
 W. 1197— pp. 3322, 3375, 3401. 
 
 V. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 87 S. W. 879— pp. 2630, 3401. 
 
 V. Frogley, p. 1420. 
 
 V. Fry, pp. 1321, 1325, 1355, 
 
 1419. 
 
 V. Garrett, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 246, 87 S. W. 172— pp. 1474, 
 1477. 
 
 v. Garrett (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 
 96 S. W. 53— p. 1359. 
 
 V. Gerren, pp. 2016, 2039. 
 
 Gillett V. 
 
 Ginnochio-Jones Fruit Co. ?■. 
 
 V. Gist, p. 1600. 
 
 i: Glass, pp. 1614, 1679, 1856. 
 
 V. Godair Comm. Co., pp. 
 
 943, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1129. 
 
 Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v. 
 
 Green '■. 
 
 V. Groce, p. 568. 
 
 V. Haber, pp. 
 
 3482, 3504, 3505, 
 3542. 
 
 V. Hancock, 26 
 
 109 Pac. 220— pp. 
 1123, 1395, 1397. 
 
 -'. Hancock, 26 
 
 109 Pac. 223— p. 1408. 
 
 Harned r. 
 
 z'. Harriman, pp. 3521 
 
 3752, 3762, 3827. 
 
 V. Harris, p. 851. 
 
 Harrison v. 
 
 '•. Harrison, 97 Tex. 611. 80 
 
 S. W. 1139— pp. 3322, 3375, 
 3401. 
 
 -'. Harrison, 56 Tux. Civ. 
 
 App. 17, 120 S. W. 254— p. 
 1700. 
 
 V. Harrison (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 77 S. W. 1036— pp. 2081, 2082. 
 
 V. Hawkins, pp. 1254, 1256. 
 
 V. Hay, pp. 1687, 1688. 
 
 Hayes -•. 
 
 V. riaycs, p. 1333. 
 
 V. Hazlett, pp. 660, 670, 672. 
 
 V. Hibbitts, pp. 2064, 2510. 
 
 V. Hopkins, p. 639. 
 
 V. Huff, 98 Tex. 110, 13 R. 
 
 R. R. 344, 36 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 344, 81 S. W. 
 525- pp. 1547, 1549, 1552, 1555, 
 2665, 2720, 2780, 2783, 2865, 
 2948. 
 
 V. Huff (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 
 
 S. W. 249— pp. 202, 1555. 
 
 Hunt -•. 
 
 Hunt Bros. v. 
 
 3448, 
 3513, 
 
 Okla. 
 1119, 
 
 3481, 
 3514, 
 
 254, 
 1121, 
 
 Okla. 256, 
 
 3545, 
 
 pp. 504, 1096, 
 
 1269. 
 
 1255. 
 51, 56. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate 
 Commerce Commissioner, pp. 
 3677, 3684, 3788, 3790, 379i., 
 3797. 
 
 V. Tahn, p. 1990. 
 
 f. Jarrell, pp. 851, 863. 
 
 V. Jenkens, pp. 565, 567, 599, 
 
 602, 603. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Tones r. 
 
 V. Kahn, p. 809. 
 
 V. Kendrick, pp. 1768, 1906, 
 
 1908, 1909, 2034, 2058, 3211. 
 
 V. Kirkham, pp. 1408, 14^8. 
 
 V. Kyser, 87 S. W. 389, 3? 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 355 — pp. 441, 
 1293, 1294, 1355. 
 
 V. Kyser, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 322, 95 S. W. 747— pp. 608, 1269, 
 1304, 1345. 
 
 Leibengood 
 
 7'. Leibold, 
 
 1288, 1334. 
 
 Levi i\ 
 
 V. Levine, p. 572. 
 
 t'. Lewellin Bros., p 
 
 V. Linton, pp. 1254, 
 
 — — V. Love, pp. 46, 47, 
 
 57, 130. 
 
 V. McCann, pp. 3292, 
 
 3523, 3536. 
 
 McCrary i\ 
 
 V. McCutcheon, p. 177G 
 
 V. McElree, pp. 1884, 
 
 2598. 
 
 V. McFadden, 89 Tex 
 
 33 S. W. 853— pp. 525 
 1022. 
 
 V. McFadden (Tex. 
 
 App.), 32 S. W. 18— p. 780. 
 
 ■;'. McLaughlin, pp. 972, 1062 
 
 '■. McLean, pp. 574, 784, 786 
 
 813, 845, 846, 859, 861. 
 
 McPeak v. 
 
 Mason v. 
 
 V. Maxwell, pp. 
 
 "'. Mazzie, pp. 
 
 3396. 
 
 Meador •:■. 
 
 V. Meek, pp. 3109, 
 
 3114, 3115, 3116. 3117 
 3128, 3130, 3131, 3132. 
 
 Melford v. 
 
 -■. Meyer, p. 3558. 
 
 Meyers i'. 
 
 Midland Nat. Bank v. 
 
 Millard v. 
 
 Miller v. 
 
 7'. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 241, 27 S. W. 905— pp. 1768, 
 2512, 2514. 
 
 7'. Miller, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 428. 39 S. W. 583— pp. 2509. 
 
 3293. 
 
 2252. 
 
 138, 
 775, 
 
 Civ. 
 
 3226, 3227. 
 3342, 3395, 
 
 3113, 
 3127, 
 
 2515. 
 
 20 Tex. Civ. Anp. 
 W. 168— pp. 1907, 
 
 7'. Miller, 
 
 570, 50 S. 
 1909, 2846. 
 
 Mills V. 
 
 7'. Mills, p. 1563. 
 
 V. Mitchell, 79 S. W. 94, 34 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 394— pp. 1730. 
 1770, 1822, 1842, 2841. 
 
 V. Mitchell, 47 Tex. Civ. Apn 
 
 307, 105 S. W. 827— pp. 2449 
 2458. 
 
 V. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 
 
 87 S. W. 841— p. 1999. 
 
 V. Moody, p. 2603. 
 
 V. Moore, pp. 831, 834, 852. 
 
 V. Morgan, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 212, 108 S. W. 724— pp. 1908, 
 2289, 2706. 
 
 V. Morgan (Tex. Civ. .'\pp.). 
 
 138 S. W. 216— p. 2481. 
 
 7'. Murphy, pp. 1614, 1623. 
 
 1631, 1632. 
 
 Navin v. 
 
 V. New Era Milling Co., 79 
 
 Kan. 435, 100 Pac. 273— pp. 220, 
 1183, 1197.
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 CCXXXV 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. ?■. Xcw Kra 
 Millini? Co., 80 Kan. 141, 101 
 Pac. 1011— pp. 3434, 3537. 
 
 Och V. 
 
 V. Ovcrficld, pp. 1525, 1526, 
 
 1527, 1924, 1964, 2162, 2599, 
 2613. 
 
 Patrick :■. 
 
 V. Patrick, p. 995. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 V. Perry, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 78, 27 S. W. 496— np. 1524, 
 1532, 1679, 1906, 1909, 2036, 
 2067. 
 
 J'. Perry (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 95 S. W. 42— p. 1825. 
 
 r. Pope, pp. 1541, 2058, 2064. 
 
 V. Price, pp. 1525, 1526, 
 
 1964, 1966, 2064. 
 
 V. Pullen, pp. 539, 1289, 
 
 1386, 1418. 
 
 V. Ouinn. p. 1328. 
 
 V. Kaney, i.p. 2063, 2064. 
 
 V. Redus, pp. 2648, 2654. 
 
 RigGcins V. 
 
 J'. Rines & Co., pp. 520, 569, 
 
 596, 1154. 
 
 7'. Rodgcrs, p. 2319. 
 
 Rogers V. 
 
 Ross V. 
 
 • Russell -i\ 
 
 V. Russell, 8 Tex. Civ. .\pn. 
 
 578. 28 S. W. 1042— PI). 1524, 
 1738, 1865, 1866, 1918, 2018, 
 
 2024. 
 
 114, 
 1269, 
 
 1732. 
 
 Russell, 40 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 
 88 S. W. 379— pp. 1268. 
 1330, 1339. 
 Sadler, p. 3509. 
 
 Scarborough, pp. 1713, 
 
 pp. 1752, 1755. 
 
 V. Schroedcr 
 
 Schwartz '■. 
 
 Sealy v. 
 
 V. Sealy, pp. 311. 313. 329. 
 
 V. S<-lev. pp. 551. 562. 
 
 7'. Slierrill. pp. 1797, 2911. 
 
 Sickles V. 
 
 7'. Simmons, pp. 1561, 1562, 
 
 1596, 1707. 
 7'. Simonson, pp. 589, 3540. 
 
 7'. Smith, 81 C. C. A. 598, 
 
 152 Fed. 608. 10 Am. & Frg. 
 Ann. Cas. 939— pp. 1542. 2425, 
 2429, 2472, 2473, 2474. 3079. 
 
 7'. Smith, 6 Tnd. T, 99, 89 S. 
 
 W. 668— pp. 3079, 3080, 3083, 
 3104. 
 
 7'. Smith (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 
 
 133 S. W. 695— p. 1711. 
 
 7'. Snced, pp. 247. 1311. 1370. 
 
 7'. Sproles, pp. 686, 687. 
 
 Spry 7'. 
 
 Spurlock 7'. 
 
 V. Stanfield Bros., p. 1306. 
 
 7'. Stark Grain Co., pp, 618, 
 
 624, 625, 690, 1005, 3281, 3661. 
 
 V. State, p. 128. 
 
 Steckdaub 7'. 
 
 7'. Stoncr, pp. 207, 11. V5. 
 
 3755. 
 
 V. Farwater, p. 3084. 
 
 7'. Thompson, pp. 320, 502, 
 
 506. 
 
 7'. Trinity County Lumber 
 
 Co., pp. 1139, 1141, '1176, 3753. 
 3755. 
 
 7'. Tripis. pp. 754, 787, 811, 
 
 870. 871, 872. 
 
 Truel ;•. 
 
 7'. Truskett, 44 C. C. .\. 179, 
 
 104 Fed. 728— p. 662. 
 
 7'. Truskett. 2 Ind. T 
 
 53 S. VV. 444— pp. 1,^21. 
 1351. 
 
 7'. Truskett (Incl. 
 
 App.), 17 Am. & Kng. R. 
 N. S.. 273— p. 620. 
 
 7'. Truskett, 22 S. Ct 
 
 186 V. S. 480, 46 L. Ed. 1259— 
 pp. 1308, 1326. 3411. 
 
 633. 
 1331, 
 
 Torr. 
 Ca-.. 
 
 943, 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. 7'. Turley, 
 85 Fed. 369, 29 C. C. A. 196— 
 p. 2132. 
 
 V. Turley. 1 Ind. T. 275, i7 
 
 S. W. 52— pp. 2324, 2390. 
 
 V. Turner, p. 3509. 
 
 V. Union Ins. Co., pp. 274, 
 
 282, 338, 339. 
 
 V. United States, pp. 3623, 
 
 3624, 3626, 3629, 3630. 
 
 V. Vance, pp. 2583, 2637, 
 
 2721. 
 
 7'. Vandiver, pp. 1255, 1257. 
 
 Waggoner v. 
 
 7'. Walden, p. 1081. 
 
 Watkins Merchandise Co. v. 
 
 V. Watkins Merchandise Co., 
 
 p. 868. 
 
 V. Weaver, p. 3104. 
 
 V. Webb. pp. 209, 643, 644, 
 
 654, 849, 851, 1305, 1316, 1323, 
 1326, 3410. 
 
 7'. Welch, p. 3051. 
 
 V. Wells, pp. 1358, 1392, 
 
 3311. 
 
 V. White, pp. 1771, 1797, 
 
 1913, 2065. 
 
 7'. Williams, 91 Tex. 255. 
 
 257, 42 S. W. 855— pp. 1502, 
 1556, 1562, 1596, 2543, 2665. 
 
 7'. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 40 S. W. 350— pp. 1542, 1557. 
 
 • Winfrey 7'. 
 
 Withers v. 
 
 7'. Withers, pp. 424, 425, 
 
 451, 457, 937, 969, 996, 997, 
 1120, 1394, 1445. 
 
 7'. Witherspoon, 18 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 615, 45 S. W. 424— pp. 
 264, 472. 
 
 7'. Witherspoon (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 38 S. W. 833— p. 472. 
 
 V. Wolf. pp. 1711, 1866. 
 
 7'. Woods (Tex. Civ. App), 
 
 31 S. W. 237— p. 1279. 
 
 7'. Woods (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 117 S. W. 196— p. 1308. 
 
 7'. Wright, pp. 2772, 2778. 
 
 7'. Wylie (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 26 S. W. 85— p. 2250. 
 
 Wyrick 7'. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'ailwav v. Light- 
 foot, p. 2458. 
 
 Mitchell 7'. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1509. 1511, 1512. 
 
 Breed 7-. 
 
 Bried 7'. 
 
 7'. Carolina Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 822, 1039, 1388. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 138 
 
 Iowa 283. 114 N. W. 622— pp. 
 2696, 2763, 2895. 2896, 2897. 
 
 ?■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 51 
 
 Mich. 236, 16 N. W. 388, 47 
 .\m. Rep. 566, 18 .\m. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 176— pp. 1687, 1927, 
 2119, 2667, 2673. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 132 
 
 Mo. App. 143, 112 S. W. 291— 
 pp. 1755, 2703, 2800. 
 
 7'. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1642. 
 
 V. Des Moines City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2866, 2906, 2996. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., K. Co. 
 
 Ford 7'. 
 
 7'. Georgia R. Co., pp. 1364, 
 
 1431. 1436, 1447. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7. 
 
 -■. Lancashire, etc., R., Co., 
 
 p. 892. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Marker 7'. 
 
 7'. Marker, pp. 1733, 1750. 
 
 Minis 7'. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Mi.=souri, etc., R. Co. 7". 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2163. 
 
 Mitchell, Xoble v. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Puget Sound Elect. Railway 
 
 7'. 
 
 Railroad v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 7'. Southern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1986, 2184, 2294, 2295, 2695, 
 2766. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 2447, 
 
 2463. 
 
 V. Steelman, p. 3565. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. United R. Co., p. 2054. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 821, 825, 1036, 1047. 
 
 V. Weir, p. 596. 
 
 Wells Fargo & Co's Exp. 7-. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1686, 1916, 1965, 2666, 2667, 
 2788. 
 
 White V. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Mitchell Coal, etc., Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., 181 Fed. 403— 
 pp. 3687, 3701, 3709, 3710, 3732. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 183 
 
 Fed. 908— pp. 3773, 3812. 
 
 V. Pennsvlvania R'. Co., 33 S. 
 
 Ct. 916, 230 U. S. 247. 57 L. 
 
 Ed. 1472— pp. 3734. 3813. 381S. 
 Mitchell Crittenden Tie Co., St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 Mitchelson 7'. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 501. 
 
 Mitsui V. St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. 
 Co., p. 3940. 
 
 Mittleman 7'. Philadelphia Rapid 
 Transit Co., pp. 2164. 2365. 
 
 Mitten, Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mixon, Dittman, etc.. Shoe Co. v. 
 
 Mizo, Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co. 7-. 
 
 M. K. & T. R. Co., Rvan & Co. v. 
 
 M. M. Chase. The. 
 
 Moakes '■. Nicholson, p. 352. 
 
 Moakler 7'. Willamette \'al. R. Co.. 
 p. 2201. 
 
 Moates. Small 7'. 
 
 Moberly, Northern Texas Tract 
 
 Co. V. 
 Mobile, Battle 7'. 
 
 Bienville Water Supply Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 Leloup 7'. 
 
 Osborne 7'. 
 
 Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. :. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 Mobile County, Ware, etc., Co. '•. 
 Mobile St. R. Co. 7'. Walters, pp. 
 
 2628, 2709, 3020, 3023. 
 Mobile Trade Co., Grey v. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co., Alabama Nat. 
 
 Bank 7'. 
 
 Allen Co. 7'. 
 
 Anderson 7'. 
 
 7'. .Ashcraft, 48 -Ma. 15 — pp. 
 
 2294, 2726, 3068. 3069. 3070. 
 
 7'. Ashcraft, 49 -Ala. 305— p. 
 
 2739. 
 
 Ball 7'. 
 
 ?•. Barber, p. 2636. 
 
 Bardwell 7'. 
 
 Barron 7'. 
 
 7'. Bay Shore Lumber 
 
 pp. 555. 562. 593. 
 
 7'. Bell, p. 2611. 
 
 Bigbee, etc.. Packet Co. 
 
 Blackmcr, etc.. Pipe Co 
 
 7'. Blakely, p. 1738. 
 
 7'. Bogle, pp. 1556, 
 
 2207. 
 
 7'. Brandon, p. 165. 
 
 7'. Bromber. p. 3430. 
 
 7'. Brownsville, etc.. 
 
 Stock Co., pp. 946, 972. 
 1412. 
 
 Co.. 
 
 1557 
 
 Live 
 977.
 
 CCXXXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co., Central .\mer- 
 ican Steamship Co. t . 
 
 Commonwealth f. 
 
 ConncU f. 
 
 i: Copeland, p. 3291. 
 
 Davis f. 
 
 r. Davis, p. 2090. 
 
 v. Dismukes. pp. 1159, 1160. 
 
 3654, 3853. 
 
 Dixon ;•. 
 
 ?■. Francis, pp. 1481_. 3356. 
 
 z: Greenwald, p. 3546. 
 
 Grey r. 
 
 -•. Hopkins, pp. 945, 3160, 
 
 3163. 3176, 3195. 
 
 Hubbard f. 
 
 Ireland -•. 
 
 '•. Jackson, pp. 2784, 3028. 
 
 r. Tarboe, pp. 1007, 1015. 
 
 z: Turey, pp. 326, 332, 334, 
 
 422, 4"24, 848, 854, 1353, 3866, 
 3872. 
 
 Kennedy Bros. t-. 
 
 V. Klein, p. 2127. 
 
 Laurel Mercantile Co. v. 
 
 Long z: 
 
 f. McArthur. p. 1855. 
 
 f. Mississippi, pp. 3484, 3485. 
 
 z: Mullins, p. 1477. 
 
 — — z: Phillips & Co., pp. 759. 
 
 762. 
 
 848. 
 
 Prewitt, pp. 210, 773, 
 
 Reeves, 
 Robbins 
 
 pp. 2814, 3043. 
 Cotton Co., p. 
 
 Russell z: 
 
 T'. Sessions, p. 41. 
 
 State ;■. 
 
 z: State, pp. 3484, 3485. 
 
 f. Steiner, etc., Co., pp. 67. 
 
 1195, 1197. 
 
 ^•. Tupelo Turniture Mfg. 
 
 Co., pp. 1036, 3394. 
 
 z: United States, p. 3624. 
 
 z: Walsh, 146 Ala. 290, 40 
 
 So. 559— pp. 2348, 2906. 
 
 V. Walsh, 146 Ala. 295, 40 
 
 So. 560— pp. 2125, 2228, 2238, 
 2243, 2728, 2997. 
 
 V. Wciner, pp. 728, 733, 749, 
 
 945, 981, 1003, 1004, 1007. ' 
 
 V. Williams, 52 Ala. 278— p. 
 
 p. 876. 
 
 V. Williams, 54 Ala. 168 — pp. 
 
 493, 531, 589, 
 
 V. Wisdom, p. 1604. 
 
 Wooten f. 
 
 — Zackery z: 
 
 Zeigler BroP. ■■. 
 
 Mock. Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Model Clothing Co. v. Columbia 
 
 Transfer Co., p. 8. 
 Modern Match Co. z: Baltimore. 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 843, 869. 
 Modesitt -;. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1473. 
 Moeller v. United R. Co., 242 Mo. 
 
 721, 147 S. W. 1009— p. 2874. 
 
 v. United R". Co., 133 Mo. 
 
 App. 68, 112 S. W. 714— pp. 
 1865, 1998, 2599. 
 
 V. United R. Co. (Mo. App.), 
 
 147 S. W. 1009— pp. 1880, 2359. 
 
 Young v. 
 
 Moer V. Corrinth, p. 1172. 
 Moffatt V. Great Western R. Co., 
 p. 287. 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 3157. 
 
 Moffatt Comm. Co. z'. Union Pac. 
 
 R. Co., p. 744. 
 Moffitt z'. Connecticut Co., pp. 
 
 2142, 2144, 2747. 
 Mogi, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Mohaupt, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Mohawk, Propeller. 
 Mohler, Atwood '•. 
 Mohns V. Netherlands-American 
 
 Steam Nav. Co., p. 3990. 
 Mohr Z-. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1228, 1229, 1239, 1245. 
 
 Mohr '•. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., |ip. 
 
 894, 899. 
 Molby -■. Hay, p. 1215. 
 Moline Plow Co., Cleveland, i"C., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Moline, etc., R. Co., Coburn z\ 
 Moll. Padgitt r. 
 Moliie Mohler, The. 
 Mollison '■. Lockhart, p. 1243. 
 Molloy z: Hay, p. 1234. 
 
 "'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2531. 
 
 Pioneer Fuel Co. Z'. 
 
 Moltrum, South Chicago Citv R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Mommsen, Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Co. '•. 
 Monarch Fruit Co., Scheuermann 
 
 Monday '■. St. Toseph R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2583, 260'5. 
 Mondou z'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3421, 3441, 3447, 3450, 3462, 
 
 3463, 3464, 3465, 3466, 3506, 
 
 3507. 
 Monell v. Northern Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 16 Hun 585- p. 799. 
 
 V. Northern Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 67 Barb. 531— p. 3295. 
 
 Moneyhun, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Mongahela St. R. Co. 
 
 Muhlhause 
 Co. z: 
 
 Moniter Mut. Fire Ins 
 
 Buffum, p. 986. 
 Monmouthshire R., etc., Co., Peg- 
 
 ler z: 
 Monongahela Bridge Co., United 
 
 States ;■. 
 Monongahela Xav. Co. z\ L^r. ited 
 
 States, pp. 3441, 3445, 3479. 
 Monongahela River Consol. Coal, 
 
 etc., Co. ''. Hurst, pp. 4056, 
 
 4080. 
 Monongahela St. R. Co., Muhl- 
 
 hause z'. 
 Monongahela, etc., R. Co., Muhl- 
 
 hause z-. 
 Monahan, Blum z\ 
 Monatt, Colorado, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Monro v. The Baltic, p. 798. 
 Monroe t'. low'a. p. 940. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2877. 
 
 z: United R. Co., pp. 1890, 
 
 1903, 1919, 2228. 
 
 Monroe Nat. Bank, ^'arney ?'. 
 Monroe Progressive League z\ St. 
 
 L., etc., Ry., p. 3679. 
 Monta, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Montague v. Henry B. Hyde, p. 
 
 963. 
 
 T'. The Isaac Reed, pp. 3905, 
 
 3922. 
 
 Montague & Co. z\ Lowry, p. 3421. 
 Montana Cent. R. Co. z\ United 
 
 States, pp. 3619, 3623. 
 Montana Union R. Co., Ilardman 
 
 z'. Langlois, p. 101. 
 
 Montana, etc., K. Co. v. Morlev, 
 
 pp. 46, 50, 56, 247. 
 Monteath, Parsons '•. 
 Montegudo v. Silva, p. 3892. 
 Monteith v. Kirkpatrick, i)p. 1161, 
 
 1162. 
 Montelle, Kansas Pac. R. Co. z'. 
 Montello, The. 
 
 Montford, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Montfort, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Montgomery v. Buffalo R. Co., 165 
 
 N. Y. 139, 58 N. K. 770— p. 
 
 2854. 
 
 T. Buffalo R. Co.. 48 N. Y. 
 
 S. 849, 24 App. ])iv. 454— p. 
 2422. 
 
 ■ ■ z'. Colorado Springs, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1901, 2115, 2117, 2233. 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Kirtland v. 
 
 Montgomery, Lawrenceburgh. etc., 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 Maumee \'allcy R., etc., Co. 
 
 • St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Tavlor, etc., R. Co. j'. 
 
 T. 'B. & H. R. Co. V. 
 
 Montgomery St. R. Co., Armstrong 
 
 2976. 
 
 Lewis, 
 
 pp. 
 
 2812, 
 
 ■;•. Mason, pp. 2230, 2282, 
 
 2591. 
 
 Montgomery St. Railway, McDon- 
 ald r. 
 
 Montgomery Tract. Co. 7'. Fitz- 
 patrick, pp. 2563, 2572, 2624. 
 
 '•. Whatlev, pp. 2015, 2016, 
 
 2020, 2023, 2871. 
 
 Montgomery, etc., R. Co. i'. Bor- 
 ing, pp. 1965, 2941, 3040. 
 
 z: Culver, p. 3183. 
 
 Doughlass z\ 
 
 ''. Edmonds, pp. 583, 831. 
 
 833, 834, 837. 
 
 -'. Kolb, pp. 271. 27 i. 274. 
 
 275, 277, 292, 303, 425. 845. 
 
 V. Mallette, pp. 1739, 2843, 
 
 2957. 
 
 z: Moore, pp. 828, 3285. 
 
 z\ Stewart, pp. 1899, 1900,,. 
 
 2125, 2364, 2745. 
 
 <■. Thompson, pp. 1590, 2271, 
 
 2499, 2502, 2507, 2509. 
 
 Montmollen, Central, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Monton ?■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 820. 
 Montpelier z'. Barre, etc.. Power 
 
 Co., p. 80. 
 Montpelier, etc.. Railroad -'. United 
 
 States, p. 3073. 
 Mooar Lumber Co., Pittsburgh, 
 
 etc.. Railway '■. 
 Mood f. Western L^nion Tel. Co., 
 
 p. 643. 
 Moody, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z'. 
 
 c'. Southern R. Co.. np. 164, 
 
 636. 827, 874, 3336, 3353, 3354, 
 3359. 
 
 ■:•. Springfield St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2198, 2303, 2739. 
 
 State v. 
 
 Moon, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 v. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1650, 2460. 
 
 ■ Mississippi Southern Exp. Co.. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 Mooney f. Seattle, etc.. Railway, 
 
 p. 1983. 
 Moor, Veazie z'. 
 Moore, American Transp. Co. z'. 
 
 z'. American Transp. Co., pp, 
 
 4036, 4038, 4039, 4040, 4054. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 <■. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2484, 2493. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 487, 642. 
 
 V. Aurora, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2268. 
 
 z'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 518, 552, 553, 1272, 1276, 
 1277, 1313, 1449. 
 
 Birmingham z\ 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. zr. 
 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 ■:•. Campbell, p. 112. 
 
 I'. Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1613, 1615, 2461, 2564. 
 
 Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1347, 1456. 
 
 Z'. Columbia, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1571, 2043, 2051, 2052, 2467, 
 
 2476, 2482.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCXXXVII 
 
 Moore V. Des Moine'i. etc., R'. Co.. 
 pp. 1717, 1721. 2918. 
 
 V. Edison Elect. Illuminatinf? 
 
 Co., p. 2204. 
 
 V. Evans (N. Y.), 14 I'.arb. 
 
 38— p. 822. 
 
 V. Evans (K. Y.). 14 liail) 
 
 524— pp. 94r,, 3161. 
 
 V. Evening Star, p. 3134. 
 
 7'. Fitchburg R. Corp.. pp 
 
 2411, 3024. 
 
 Fordycc v. 
 
 r... H. & H. R. Co. V. 
 
 Cray v.' 
 
 7'. Greenville Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2674, 2702. 
 
 Ciilf, etc., K". Co. -•. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. •<-. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. :■. 
 
 Keep Mfg. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Kennedy, p. 328. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Merchants' Dispatch, etc., Co 
 
 Merchants', etc.. Transp. Co. 
 
 Metropolitan St. R. Co. ;■. 
 
 7-. Metropolitan, etc., R. Co , 
 
 pp. ISCS, 2603. 
 
 7'. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 3 
 
 Mich. 23— p. 3287. 
 
 7'. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 3 
 
 Mich. 371— p. 540. 
 
 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2637. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. -,-. 
 
 Montgomery, etc., R' Co. 7'. 
 
 -■. Nashville, etc., Railroad, 
 
 pp. 2483. 2709. 2628, 2635. 
 
 Nashville, etc.. Railway f. 
 
 New Orlea-is. etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. New York. etc.. R. Cr>., 
 
 173 Mass. 335, 53 N. E. 816. 53 
 N. E. 816, 73 .\ni. St. Rep. 298 
 —p. 3182. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 126 N. Y. 671, 27 N. E. 791, 
 4 Silvernail Ct. App. 485 — p. 
 855. 
 
 V. Northern Texas Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1730, 2184, 2345, 2758. 
 
 Oakes v. 
 
 7'. Ohio River R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1615. 1643, 2437. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 7'. Saginaw, etc., R. Co.. 115 
 
 Mich. 103, 72 N. W. 1112— np. 
 1684, 1687, 1754, 2209, 2883, 
 2951. 
 
 V. Saginaw, etc.. R'. Co., 78 
 
 N. W. 666, 119 Mich. 613— pp. 
 2144, 2169, 2891. 
 
 "■. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2494. 
 
 7'. Shcridiiie, p. 488. 
 
 Southern I'"xp. Co. 7'. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Tysen 7'. 
 
 ?'. Woonsocket St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2747. 
 
 Moore & Co., .Anderso" -'. 
 
 Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. 
 
 7'. Ignited States, p. 3965. 
 
 Moore &• Son 7'. Ilenrv. pp. 417, 
 
 418, 538. 
 Moorehousc 7'. Crangle. p. 2537. 
 Mooresvilie Cotton Mills, Southern 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Moorman 7'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2912. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Moorshead 7'. United R. Co.. p. 
 
 2088. 
 Moose. Shcnandoaii \'alley R. Co. 
 
 Morain. Lake Erie, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Moran, Chicago, etc.. R'. Co. 7. 
 
 .\loran 7'. New Orleans, pp. 3478, ' 
 3549, 3555. 3581. 3584. 
 
 7'. Portland Steam Packet Co., 
 
 p. 486. 
 
 7'. Struges. p. 4078. 
 
 -■. \'ersailles Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1895, 2322. 
 Moran Rros. Co. 7'. Northern Pac. 
 
 R. Co.. p. 683. 
 Moraritv 7'. Durham Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1912, 2904. 
 Morasch, Erb -•. 
 Moravian, The. 
 More, etc., Co. v. Lott. pp. 1214, 
 
 1219, 1220, 1229. 1242. 
 Morehead, Haltimore. etc., R. Co 
 
 Morehouse 7'. Texas Trunk R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 445, 465. 
 Morel 7'. Roe, p. 3911. 
 Moreland v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1717, 1728. 
 Morey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2043, 2785. 
 Morgan 7'. P.ell, p. 855. 
 
 7'. Camden, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2247. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1841, 1850, 2683. 
 
 Dibble 7'. 
 
 7'. Pibbl". pp. 5n. "=12, 527 
 
 533. 743, 870. 1299. 3893. 3994, 
 3895. 
 
 7'. Garfield, etc.. Coal Co., 
 
 p. 3950. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R'. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Insurance Co., pp. 718. 
 
 3939. 
 
 Jersey City, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Kennedy 7'. 
 
 7'. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1953, 2181. 2612. 
 
 7'. Los Angeles Pac. Co.. pp. 
 
 1829, 2310. 
 
 7'. Louisiana, pp. 63. 64. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Oregon Short Lire R'. 
 
 Co., p. 2782. 
 
 7'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2516, 2517. 
 
 V. Parham. pp. 3474. 3571. 
 
 3581, 3584. 
 
 Peete 7'. 
 
 ■ St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Saks. pp. 1488. 2330. 
 
 7'. Southern Pac. Co.. p. 2352. 
 
 Stockard '•. 
 
 The Styria 7'. 
 
 Williams & Sons 7'. 
 
 7'. Woolverton, 96 N. E. 3 = 4. 
 
 203 N. Y. 52. 36 L. R. A.. N. 
 S., 640— p. 1058. 
 
 7'. Woolverton, 120 N. Y. S. 
 
 1008, 136 .\pp. Div. 351 — pp. 
 1050, 1068. 
 
 Morgan Envelope Co. 7'. Bonstead. 
 
 p. 1219. 
 Morgan. etc., Co. 7'. Railroad 
 
 Comm., pp. 119, 124. 
 Morgan's Louisiana, etc., Co., Duv- 
 
 ernet 7'. 
 
 Lehman, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 Morgan's, etc., R. Co., Clerc 7'. 
 - — — • Coburn 7-. 
 
 Cumberland Tel., etc., Co. -•. 
 
 Morgan's, etc., Steamship Co , 
 
 Dave 7'. 
 
 DeMahy 7'. 
 
 Ileaton 7'. 
 
 Lancon 7-. 
 
 Lehman, etc.. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Louisiana Board, pp. 3528. 
 
 3529, 3530. 
 
 McGowen 7'. 
 
 7'. Railroad Comm., pp. 45, 
 
 47. 49, 54. 
 
 Morganton Mfg. Co. 7'. Ohio, etc , 
 R'. Co., pp. Z27, 777, 1016, 3395. 
 3399. 
 
 Morgolofski, People's Bank 7'. 
 Moriarty 7. Boston, etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 1786. 2874. 
 Moriata '■. Harnden's Exp. Co.. 
 
 pp. 992, 994, 995. 
 Morison v. Gray, p. 1216. 
 Merit V. Adoue, pp. 376, 405. 
 
 V. Intcrurban St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2658. 
 
 Morlan, Howell f. 
 
 Morley, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Eastern Exp. Co., pp. 824, 
 
 842. 
 
 Montana, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Morning Glory, Thomas v. 
 
 Morning Light, The. 
 
 Morningstar 7. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 2448. 
 Morrill 7'. Minneapolis St. R". Co., 
 
 pp. 1649. 1650. 1651, 1853, 2475. 
 
 2564, 3078, 3081. 
 Morris, Alabama, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Atlantic Ave. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2711, 2854. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Chesapeake, etc., Steamshii 
 
 Co.. 125 Fed. 62— pp. 3871, 3873. 
 3877. 
 
 7'. Chesapeake, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., 148 Fed. 11. 78 C. C. A. 
 179— pp. 3871. 3872. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Colorado Mid. R. Co., p. 
 
 3044. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 v. Georgia R., etc., Co.. pp. 
 
 1546. 1553, 1570. 
 
 Hunt f. 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp 
 
 1921, 1962, 2820. 
 
 Louisville, etc., K". Co. v. 
 
 V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 816, 817, 842, 867. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1687. 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. Terminal Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 7'. O'Brien, p. 2638. 
 
 Prcscott, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Richmond, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7-. Shryock. pp. 1219, 1242. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7. Third Ave. R. Co.. p. 3159. 
 
 7'. Wier, p. 822. 
 
 7'. Wilson Sons & Co., p. 
 
 3918. 
 
 Morris Bldg., Ass'n, Russo v. 
 Morris County Tract. Co., Trus- 
 
 sell 7-. 
 Morris-Scarboro-Moffit Co. 7'. Sout!'.- 
 
 ern Exp. Co., p. 3546. 
 Morris, etc., Exp. Co.. Cohen :• 
 Morris, etc., R'. Co. 7'. Ayres, pp 
 
 534, 891, 896. 899. 2848. 
 
 7'. Sussex R. Co.. pp. 1147 
 
 1189. 
 
 Morrisdale Coal Co. 7'. Pennsyl 
 vania R. Co.. 176 Fed. 748— pp 
 3770. 3774. 
 
 7'. Pennsvlvania R. Co., 10'> 
 
 C. C. A. 269, 183 Fid. 929— 
 pp. 3774, 3813. 
 
 7'. Pennsvlvania 
 
 U. S. 304." ii S 
 3811, 3813. 
 
 Morrish, McKinlay 7'. 
 Morrison t-. Broadway, etc., R 
 Co., pp. 1880, 2153. 
 
 Carnegie 7'. 
 
 7'. Charlotte Elect. R.. etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 1890. 2348. 
 
 7-. Davis & Co.. pp. 733. 734 
 
 738, 744. 1014. 
 
 7'. Erie R. Co 
 
 2250. 2255. 
 
 ('.alveston. etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 In re. 
 
 7'. John L. Stephens, n. 2444 
 
 Kansas City. etc.. R. Co. 7. 
 
 R. Co.. 2in 
 Ct. 938— pp. 
 
 pp. 1953.
 
 ccxxxvin 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Morrison f. McFadden, pp. 73S, 
 746. 747, 778. 782. 
 
 North American Transp., etc., 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 ;■. Xorth American Transp.. 
 
 etc.. Co.. p. 3040. 
 
 I'. Phillips, etc.. Constr. Co., 
 
 pp. 322, 323, 946. 984, 985, 98^ 
 1044, 1274, 1370, 1393, 3161. 
 
 r. Seattle Elect. Co., p. 2934 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 !•. The Tohn L. Stephens, p 
 
 1941. 
 
 Morrison's Adm'r, Hall "'. 
 Morrison's Faust Co., Texas, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Morrissev v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 
 
 pp. 1715, '2116. 
 Morro Castle, The. 
 Morrow -•. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2509, 2512, 2540, 2547. 
 
 r. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2643, 2878. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 640, 641, 642, 649, 670, 671, 
 680, 681, 1080, 1101. 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3205. 3214. 3217, 3219, 3223, 
 3224, 3225, 3237, 3238, 3239. 
 
 Morse :■. Brainerd, pp. 417, 3260, 
 3294, 3327, 3328. 
 
 Campbell f. 
 
 t'. Canadian Pac. R. Co., pp 
 
 1375, 1376. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 i'. Connecticut River R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3191. 
 
 7\ Duncan, p. 1852. 
 
 Gage f. 
 
 z\ Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2737, 2738. 
 
 V. Newton St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2858. 
 
 t'. Southern K. Co., pp. 2443, 
 
 2564. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Thomas z\ 
 
 Waring v. 
 
 Wellman i'. 
 
 Morse Ironworks, etc., Co., Price 
 
 Morsman, United States v. 
 
 Mortal, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mortland v. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3169. 
 Morton, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ ?•. Tibbett, p. 211. 
 
 Moseley, United States f. 
 Mosely, Boyd f. 
 
 Wayland f. 
 
 AiOses ■:: Boston, etc., R. Co., 24 
 N. PL 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222— pp 
 270, 273, 274, 287, 289, 728 
 882, 883, 884, 1004, 1005, 3309 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 32 N 
 
 H. 523, 64 Am. Dec. 381— pp 
 511, 896, 900, 901, 904, 906 
 1003, 1004, 1007. 
 
 Boyd V. 
 
 z\ East Tennessee, etc.. Rail- 
 road, pp. 1628, 1629, 2443, 3317. 
 
 V. Hamburg- .American Packet 
 
 Co., p. 4031. 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1509, 1795, 1798. 
 
 V. Norris, pp. 582, 728, 733, 
 
 749, 753, 796. 
 
 V. Port Townsend, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1477. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Moses Taylor, The. 
 
 Mosher t-. St. Loui=. etc., R. Co., 
 23 Fed. 326— p. 2462. 
 
 v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 127 
 
 U. S. 390, 32 L. Ed. 249. S 
 S. Ct. 1324— pp. 1616, 1627, 
 1628, 2496. 
 
 Mosher & Co. -<■. Southern Ivxp. 
 
 Co., pp. 531. 550. 551. 574. 961, 
 
 962, 981, 3176, 3257, 3291, 3295, 
 
 3350, 3351. 
 Moskowit v. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 2194. 
 Moss, Bell r. 
 
 r. Bettis, pp. 1, 2, 8, 11, 768, 
 
 771, 951, 1020. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Johnson, p. 2208. 
 
 r. Lancaster, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3321. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Lowe ?'. 
 
 I'. North Carolina R. Co., 
 
 p. 2655. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. T'. 
 
 Mossbarger, Illinois Cent. R'. Co. 
 
 Mosteler v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1454, 1456, 1457, 1458. 
 Mote V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3156,- 3tl60, 3168, 3170, 3173, 
 
 3174. 
 Motes, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mother, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mothershed, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Motlow, Jenkins ?•. 
 Mott V. Consumers' Ice Co., p. 
 2041. 
 
 %■. Jackson, p. 458. 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 539. 
 
 Mott & Bros., Brown & Co. x'. 
 
 Mott & Co., Brown v. 
 
 Motteran v. Eastern Counties R. 
 
 Co., p. 199. 
 Mottley, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 z'. Louisville, < 
 
 3695. 
 
 Mottram z'. Heyer, pp. 1243, 1244, 
 
 1246, 1247. 
 Mouille, Hays z'. 
 
 r. Hays, pp. 1220, 1245. 
 
 Moulthrop v. Hyett, pp. 659, 671. 
 Moulton V. St. Paul. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 728, 740, 948, 1074, 1363, 
 
 1400. 
 Mounot, Taylor •;•. 
 Mount, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1365, 1367. 
 
 Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co. z'. Isaacs, 
 pp. 1821, 1829, 2666. 
 
 V. Lowery, p. 2007. 
 
 z: Reul, pp. 1688, 1951. 
 
 Mountford z: Cunard Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 4007. 
 Mt. Pleasant Mfg. Co. z: Cape 
 
 Fear, etc., R. Co., pp. 234, 1194, 
 
 1195. 
 Mt. Pleasant Mill Co., First Nat. 
 
 Bank z: 
 Mount Vernon Co., .Mabama, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 84 
 
 Ala. 173, 4 So. 356- p. 3286. 
 
 V. .Alabama, etc., R. Co., 92 
 
 Ala. 296, 8 So. 687— pp. 285, 
 3265, 3286, 3302. 
 
 Mt. Washington R. Co., Kind llan 
 
 V. 
 
 Mounts, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Mouton v. Louisville, etc., R. C"., 
 pp. 815, 866, 972, 986, 988. <^89, 
 992, 1018, 1035, 1038, 3349. 
 
 Mowery. Iron R. Co. ''. 
 
 What Cheer Sav. Bank -'. 
 
 Mowinckel, Dewar z'. 
 
 Mowrev v. Central City Railway, 
 
 p. 2i50. 
 Moyer z'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 897, 910, 917. 3174. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Moylan f. Second Ave. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2006. 
 
 Mozely, West, End, etc., St. R. 
 Co. z: 
 
 M. P. R. Co. f. Barnes & Co., 
 np. 724, 734, 735, 739, 742, 753. 
 765, 766, 767, 811, 815, 825, 849 
 854, 855, 1051, 1072, 1078, 10;9 
 
 f. Ryan, p. 3373. 
 
 Mrar z\ Western Union Tel. Co.. 
 p. 949. 
 
 Muckenfuss Mfg. Co. '•. Charles- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., p. 152. 
 
 Muckle z\ Rochester R. Co., pp. 
 1650, 2449, 2458, 2462. 
 
 Mudford, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Mudgett z\ Bay State Steamboat 
 
 Co., p. 3146. 
 .Muehlhauser z'. St. Louis R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1559, 1564, 1760. 1829. 2120. 
 
 2233. 2802, 2889, 2969. 
 Mueller z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1633. 
 
 v. Washington Water Power 
 
 Co., pp. 1743, 2595, 2657. 
 
 MuTg, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mugler V. Kansas, pp. 3538, 3539. 
 Muhlhause f. Mongahela St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1796, 1986, 2875, 2878. 
 Muhling, Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mulberry Hill Coal Co. z'. Illinois 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 257 111. 80, ICO 
 
 N. E. 151— p. 3488. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., I6l 
 
 111. App. 272— pp. 215, 229, 231, 
 247, 261. 
 
 Mulder, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v- 
 
 Muldoon z: Seattle City R. Co., 
 
 7 Wash. 528, 35 Pac. 422, 38 
 
 Am. St. Rep. 901, 22 L. R. 
 
 A. 794— pp. 2095, 2103, 2174. 
 
 V. Seattle City R. Co., 10 
 
 Wash. 311, 38 Pac. 995, 45 Am. 
 St. Rep. 787— pp. 2095, 2103. 
 
 Muldowney z'. Pittsburg, etc.. 
 
 Tract. Co., pp. 191, 196, 1603, 
 
 2428, 2467, 2473. 
 Mulford, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mulford Co. V. Curry, p. 3554. 
 Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1890, 2228, 2245, 2910. 
 Mullan V. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2031. 
 
 New York City R. Co., 
 
 •'. Interban St. R. Co., 
 W. & B. R. Co., p. 
 
 p. 
 
 Mullane 
 
 p. 2195. 
 Mullarkey 
 
 p. 2816. 
 '■. P. 
 
 3285. 
 Mullen, Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 V. Chester Tract. Co.. 
 
 2081. 
 
 z: Galveston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1752, 1755. 
 
 Lindsay, etc., Co. ■:■. 
 
 Muller, Century Throwing Co. z\ 
 - — — z\ Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 424. 
 
 ?'. Metroiiolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2829. 
 
 V. Second .\vc. R. 
 
 2803. 
 
 Mulligan z\ Illinois Cent, 
 pp. 320, 321, 323, 984, 
 3261, 3349. 
 
 z'. Louisville, etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 f. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 pp. 2154, 2815. 
 
 Z'. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2072. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 565, 889. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., pp. 1669, 
 
 2662, 2708, 2845, 2848, 3011, 
 3014. 
 
 Mulliken, International, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. z\ 
 Mullin I'. Bluementlial S: Co., p. 
 
 2576. 
 ?•. Boston Elcv. R. Co.. 
 
 2765, 2814. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 B6, 3257, 
 
 Packet 
 Co., 
 
 pp.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCXXXIX 
 
 Mullin V. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 2462. 
 
 State ■■. 
 
 Mullins, American Exp. Co. v. 
 
 r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2473. 2474. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas Trunk R. Co. r. 
 
 Mumford. Chicago City R. Co. -•. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mundy, Indiana Cent.^ R. Co. v. 
 Munford, Telegraph Co. f. 
 Munn V. Maker, p. 1014. 
 
 V. Illinois, pp. 34, 37, 38, .=^9, 
 
 60, 1136, 3432, 3492, 3493. 
 3527, 3668. 
 
 Munoz Successors, Rio Crande R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Munro V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1769, 1781, 2617. 
 Munroe i'. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2154. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Warehouse 
 
 Co., p. 3886. 
 
 V. Third Ave. R. Co.. p 
 
 2249. 
 
 Munsey r. Webb, pp. 1751, 2911 
 Mumson Steamship Line v. Stcigcr 
 
 & Co.. p. 4022. 
 Munster '■. Southeastern R. Co. 
 
 pp. 3129, 3130. 
 Munzer -■. Interurban St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 2700. 
 Murch V. Concord R. Corp., pp 
 
 1487, 1548, 2140. 
 Murden, Georgia R., etc., Co. f. 
 .Murdock v. IJoston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 133 Mass. 15, 43 Am. Rep. 480 
 
 —p. 3042. 
 
 T. Boston, etc., K. Co.. 137 
 
 Mass. 293, 50 .\m. Rep. 307— 
 pp. 1977, 2459, 2713. 
 
 Hall r. 
 
 Murgatroyd, Dusar -■. 
 
 Murnahan -'. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2591. 
 Murphey, Central, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Eckel :■. 
 
 Murphy, Arkansas Southern R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 I'. Atlanta, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1687, 1689, 1970, 2669, 2840. 
 
 V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2413. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2694. 
 
 V. Holbrook, pp. 2089, 20 0. 
 
 V. Interurban St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2892. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1903, 1904. 1997, 2635. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. '■. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2735. 
 
 V. New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2784. 
 
 f. North Tcrsev St. R. Co., 
 
 58 Atl. 1018," 71 N. 1. L. 5— p. 
 2151. 
 
 f. North Jersey St. R. Co.. 
 
 80 Atl. 331. 81 N. J. L. 706, 35 
 L. R. A., N. S., 592— pp. 1830, 
 1831, 2795, 2884. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1521. 
 
 I'. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1694, 1720. 2697. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp. 8^7, 
 
 899, 911. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. LTnion R. Co., pp. 1497, 
 
 2419, 2856. 
 
 V. Wells-Fargo & Co. Exp., 
 
 pp. 931. 982, 1064. 
 
 J'. Western. etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 1944. 2020, 2417. 
 
 Murphv Hardware Co. ;■. Southern 
 R. Co., p. 150. 
 
 Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, pp. 
 
 499. 512, 533, 729. 730, 734. 
 
 750, 753, 815, 822, 825, 826. 
 Murrah, Georgia R., etc., Co. i'. 
 Murray i'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3494, 3665, 3840. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Georgia Southern, etc., R. 
 
 "f. Gulf, etc., R. Co., p. 70. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. y. 
 
 V. International Steamship 
 
 Co.. pp. 285, 287, 3135, 3174, 
 3188, 4008. 
 
 7: Jump Co., pp. 3891, 3948, 
 
 3953, 3962. 
 
 V. Lardner, pp. 358, 375. 
 
 V. Lehigh \al. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1746, 1749, 1939, 2077. 
 
 V. Pawtuxet \'alley St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2841. 
 
 V. Postal Tel., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 9, 418, 549. 
 
 z: Rhode Island Co.. p. 2315. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 <■. Seattle Elect. Co., pp. 
 
 1779, 2231, 2350, 2911. 
 
 The D. C. 
 
 z: Warner, pp. 486, 570._ 
 
 Wynantskill Knitting Co. f. 
 
 Murray & Bros, z: G.. C. & S. F. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 138, 1198. 
 Murrell v. Dixey, p. 854. 
 
 z: Pacific Exp. Co., pp. 637. 
 
 642, 653, 660, 677. 
 
 The. 
 
 Murtishaw, Texas, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 Mupchamp '•. Lancaster R. Co., p. 
 
 3176. 
 Musco r. I'nittil Surety Co.. p. i3. 
 Muscogee R. Co., Redd z\ 
 Muser z: Holland, p. 945. 
 Musgrove, St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Mushrush, New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Musick, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 v. United R. Co., pp. 1996, 
 
 2658. 
 
 Muskegon Booming Co. z: V: der- 
 
 hill, p. 1238. 
 Muskegon Tract., etc., Co., Cou- 
 
 sineau -'. 
 
 Henncssy z\ 
 
 Musselcrag. The. 
 
 Mussellam z'. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 341, 837, 839, 3404, 
 
 3415. 
 Muster z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2078. 
 Muth, San Antonio St. R. Co. ;•. 
 
 San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Mutton z: Midland R. Co., p. 3129. 
 Mutual Trans. Co. z: United 
 
 States, p. 3730. 
 Myer, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Myers, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 92, 137. 
 
 Cumberland \'alley R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Powell z: 
 
 " Pullman Co., p. 3237. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 1182. 
 
 z: Southern Railroad, pp. 
 
 2848. 3011. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z: 
 
 Myerson Z'. Woolverton, p. 3394. 
 Mvkleby z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 ■p. 2653. 
 Mylton z: >rid'a"d R. Co.. p. 3180 
 Mynard z: Sviacuse. etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 740. 1329. 
 Mynott. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. :. 
 Myres z: Diamond Joe Line, pp 
 
 438. 440. 
 Myrick z: Macon R.. etc.. Co., p. 
 
 2175. 
 
 T'. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 Fed. Cas. No. 10, 001, 9 Biss. 
 44_pp. 1278, 3302. 
 
 Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 107 U. S. 102, 106, 27 L. Ed. 
 
 325, 1 S. Ct. 425— pp. 208, 424. 
 
 726, 1267, 3177, 3179, 3250. 
 
 3251, 3252, 3258, 3260, 3262. 
 
 3273, 3285. 3296, 3327, 3414. 
 Myrtle, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Myzell, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. :. 
 
 N 
 Nagel, Memphis, etc.. Packet Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 r. United R. Co., pp. 2636. 
 
 2699. 
 Nagle T'. California, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1684, 1735, 2241. 
 Nail City, The. 
 Nailson, Southern R. Co. i: 
 Naive, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Najac V. Boston, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3136. 3175. 3176. 
 Nance r. Carolina Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2226. 
 Nanson :•. Jacobs, pp. 543, 545, 
 
 547, 555, 3247. 
 Nantucket Steamboat Co., Citizens 
 
 Bank z\ 
 Napheys, Delaware, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Napier. Ilollingsworth f. 
 Najiolitan Prince, The. 
 Nappier, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Naranja, The. 
 Narragansett Pier R. Co., Podrat 
 
 V. 
 
 Narragansett Steamship Co., Berg 
 
 Standish ■:■. 
 
 Nash f. Towne, p. 326. 
 
 z: Yonkers R. Co., p. 2899. 
 
 Nashau Lock Co. v. Worcester. 
 
 etc.. R. Co., p. 3311. 
 Nashau St. Railway. Douyette z: 
 Nashua, etc.. Railroad. Smith v. 
 Nashua, etc.. R. Corp. McElroy v 
 Nashville Grain Exch. z: L nited 
 
 State.s, pp. 3791, 3800. 
 Nashville Railroad z: Howard, pp. 
 
 1811, 1817, 2163, 2737, 2952. 
 
 2970. 
 Nashville St. R. Co. v. Griffin, pp. 
 
 200, 201, 1595, 2466, 2470, 2480. 
 
 3105. , .,, 
 
 Nashville, etc.. Railroad, Moore f. 
 Nashville, etc.. R. Co. z: Alabama. 
 
 134 Ala. 414, 32 So. 731— pp. 
 
 29, 3574. 
 
 f. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, 32 
 
 L. Ed. 352, 9 S. Ct. 28— pp. 
 3466, 3480, 3481, 3502, 3504. 
 3505. 
 
 Arrowsmith f. 
 
 z: Bates, p. 2628. 
 
 Brooke i\ 
 
 z: Casey, pp. 1895, 1896. 
 
 z: Codv. p. 462. 
 
 z: David, pp. 729, 733, /4/. 
 
 — De Glopper z'. 
 
 — Drake ;■. 
 
 — z: Dreyfuss-Weil Co., pp. 567, 
 3433. 
 
 — f. Elliott, pp. 1683. 1693, 
 1714, 1721, 1848. 
 
 — v. Estes, 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 
 622, 24 .\m. Rep. 289— pp. 750, 
 751, 752. 767. 
 
 — z: Estes, 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 
 749, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 210 
 — pp. 574. 767. 
 
 — z: Flake, p. 2024. 
 
 — z: Grayson County Nat. 
 Bank. 93 S. W. 431. 100 Tex. 
 17— pp. 342, 478. 542, 546, 036. 
 3274. _. 
 
 — z: Gravson County >at. 
 Bank (Te'x. Civ. App.L 91 S. W. 
 110(,_pp. 361. 371, 519, 558. 
 
 — Hall z: ,^,„ 
 
 — r. Heggie. pp. 1-88. 3628, 
 3629. ^ ^ 
 
 Interstate Commerce l.omm.
 
 CCXI. 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co.. Irvin r. 
 
 V. Tackson, pp. 7, 618, / 29. 
 
 750, 931. 946. 949, 954, 1020. 
 
 ;•. Johnson, p. 2736. 
 
 V. Jones, pp. 1821, 1848. 
 
 f. King, pp. 733, 746. 
 
 Lament & Co. f. 
 
 7-. Lillie, pp. 729, 733, 750, 
 
 3146, 3147, 3201, 
 
 31 Tt-nn. 
 
 1985. 
 
 33 Tcnn. 
 
 n42, 3143 
 3202, 3226. 
 
 Marshall "'. 
 
 - Mason f. 
 
 - z'. Messino, 
 Sneed) 220— p 
 
 z: Messino, 
 
 Sneed) 220— p. 1561. 
 
 Moore f. 
 
 z: Parker, pp. 820, 
 
 1285, 1438, 1445, 1446, 
 1483. 
 
 Parks z'. 
 
 Payne J'. 
 
 Peoria Packing Co. -•. 
 
 !■. Price, pp. 3212, 
 
 1035, 
 1459, 
 
 3226, 
 
 !22 
 
 /. 
 
 r. Sprayberry, 56 Tenn. (9 
 Heisk.) 852— pp. 3175, 3177, 
 3181, 3182, 3315, 3316, 3323. 
 
 "'. Sprayberrv, 67 Tenn. (8 
 
 Baxt.) 341, 35' Am. Rep. 705— 
 pp. 3176, 3177. 3315, 3316. 3321. 
 
 '•. Stone, pp. 729, 733, 750, 
 
 822. 973, 984, 1392, 1393, 1406, 
 3348, 3362. 
 
 Townsend "■. 
 
 z: Walley, p. 482. 
 
 Washburn -•. 
 
 Woodruff f. 
 
 Xashville, etc., Railway, American 
 Lead Pencil Co. z'. 
 
 ■ '■. Blackmon, p. 2862. 
 
 z: Casey, p. 2282. 
 
 z\ Flournoy, p. 313. 
 
 Grayson County Nat. Bank 
 
 V. 
 
 z: Hinds, pp. 945, 948. 
 
 -•. Long & Son, pp. 1087, 
 
 1091. 
 
 Meyere -'. 
 
 Moore "•. 
 
 f. Moore, pp. 2417, 2418, 
 
 2419. 3020, 3022, 3023, 3028. 
 
 Thompson f. 
 
 Nassau Elect. R. Co., Brainad f 
 
 Charbonneau '■. 
 
 f. Corliss, p. 2747. 
 
 Gordon f. 
 
 Ilassen z\ 
 
 Henderson z'. 
 
 King V. 
 
 Kohn z\ 
 
 McGlynn v. 
 
 ■ McGrane -•. 
 
 Poulscn z\ 
 
 Robson I'. 
 
 Sheehan z^. 
 
 Snediker t. 
 
 Stanbridge z'. 
 
 Toylor z\ 
 
 Walsh z: 
 
 Nassau, etc., R. Co., Hanna z\ 
 
 Natchez, The. 
 
 Natchez, etc.. R. Co., Jackson z: 
 
 v. Lambert, pp. 1695, 1869. 
 
 Snyder z'. 
 
 Stone T. 
 
 Nathan z\ Louisiana, pp. 3549, 
 3581. 
 
 z\ Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 492. 
 
 V. Shivers, p. 1169. 
 
 Nation, Atchison, etc., R. Co. f 
 Natioral Bank v. -Atlanta, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 356, 378, 547, 559, 560, 
 561, 588, 600, 601, 3274. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 329, 330, 360, 361, 363, 372, 380. 
 393, 1221, 1222. 
 
 f. Burkhardt, p. 245. 
 
 National Bank z: Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co pp. 294, 305, 306, 308, 309. 
 310, 313, 314, 337, 33S, 358, 373, 
 516, 547. 
 
 r. Citizens' Nat. Bank, pp. 
 
 356, 365, 388. 
 
 Cox, etc.. Grocery Co. r. 
 
 r. Everett, p. 385. 
 
 z: Merchants' Nat. Bank, pp. 
 
 355, 391, 3883. 
 
 7'. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 559. 
 
 :■. Southern R. Co., p. 528^ 
 
 National Board 7\ Bovvring & Co.. 
 
 p. 3939. 
 National City, San Diego Land, 
 etc., Co. T'. 
 
 The. 
 
 National City Bank, Hoffman :\ 
 National Elevator, etc., Co., Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 542. 
 
 National Exch. Bank, Dows z\ 
 National Exp. Co., Farnsworth z\ 
 
 Soumet z'. 
 
 Winchell v. 
 
 National Life Ass'n, Wells -'. 
 
 National Line Steamship Co. '■. 
 Smart, pp. 889, 897, 899, 3160. 
 3169, 3172, 3174, 3188. 
 
 National Live Stock Bank, Lake- 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. T. 
 
 National Lumber Dealers Associa- 
 tion V. Atlantic Coast Line, p. 
 3630. 
 
 National Newark Banking Co. -■. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., pp. 372, 
 376, 377. 
 
 National Pole Co. "■. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 200 Fed. 185— p. 3841. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 211 
 
 Fed. 65— pp. 3812, 3826, 3841. 
 
 National Pressed Brick Co., Green- 
 ville Lumber Co. »'. 
 
 National Rice Mill Co. v. New Or- 
 leans, etc., R'. Co., pp. 746, 747, 
 825, 843. 
 
 National Steam Nav. Co., Tolano 
 
 National Steamship Co., Constable- 
 
 — ^ Dyer z: 
 
 Gibbin z\ 
 
 Lewisohn v. 
 
 Mills '•. 
 
 Robertson ?■. 
 
 V. Tugman, pp. 1194, 1199, 
 
 1201. 
 
 National Tube Works Co. t'. T>al- 
 
 timore, etc., R. Co., p. 68. 
 Naugatuck R. Co., Elmore v. 
 
 Fuller V. 
 
 Hickox V. 
 
 ■:■. Waterbury Button Co., p. 
 
 3254. 
 
 Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., Bul- 
 
 kley V. 
 Nave V. Pacific Exp. Co., pp. 819, 
 
 821, 828. 
 Navin, Indianapolis z'. 
 • V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1109. 
 Naylor v. Dennie, pp. 381, 382, 
 
 1229, 1232, 1242. 
 
 Shepherd t'. 
 
 Naylor & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. 
 Co., p. 3789. 
 
 N. Castle, etc., R. Co., Wilson 7'. 
 
 Neal z\ Pender-Hicyman Hard- 
 ware Co., pp. 642, 654, 669, 675. 
 
 Rathbone. 
 
 — — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Saunderson, pp. 728, 733, 
 
 735, 750, 811. 
 
 T. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1802, 2162, 2328, 2872. 
 
 Neal & Co. z'. Wilmington, etc., R'. 
 
 Co., pp. 894, 901, 909, 911. 
 Nealand v. Boston, etc.. Railrrad 
 
 pp. 3160, 3168, 3174, 3195. 
 
 Neale f. Springfield St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2141. 
 Neberzahl -■. Fargo, p. 545. 
 Nebraska, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Nebraska City z: Campbell, p. 
 
 3063. 
 Nebraska Meal Mills r. St. Lou:s. 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 557, 559. 
 Nebraska Tel. Co. z: Cornell, p. 
 
 71. 
 Nebraska Transfer Co. v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 717. 
 Nebraska, etc.. Grain Co. z\ First 
 
 Nat. Bank, p. 399. 
 Nederland, The. 
 Needham, Pacific Exp. Co. z: 
 Needles, Clarke z\ 
 Needy z\ Western Maryland R. 
 
 Co.. p. 1457. 
 Neel, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Neely, Caveny z\ 
 • Norfolk, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. I'. 
 
 Neese, Gerhard -'. 
 
 Neff z: Harrisburg Tract. Co., p. 
 2396. 
 
 International, etc., R'. Co. z\ 
 
 Jacksonville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Neice v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1549. 
 Neidlinger, Indianapolis Abattoir 
 
 Co. V. 
 Neil, McKinney z\ 
 
 Peck z: 
 
 • State z: 
 
 Neill z<. Rogers Bros. Produce Co., 
 
 pp. 391, 573. 
 Neilson '■. Coal, etc.. Supply Co., 
 
 pp. 3907, 3909, 3928. 
 
 z: Jesup. pp. 712, 713, 11.51. 
 
 Neimann, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Neimeyer Lumber Co. 7'. Burling- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., pp. 1208, 1209, 
 1215. 
 
 Neiswanger, Kansas City Transfer 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Nellie Floyd, The. 
 
 Nellis 7'. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 pp. 168, 1599, 1601, 2466. 
 
 Nelson 7'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2263. 
 
 ■ Chicago Exch. Bldg. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 78 
 
 Neb. 57, 23 R. R'. R. 613, 46 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S„ 613, 
 110 N. W. 741— pp. 285, 287, 
 1304, 1307, 1332, 1448, 1458. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 
 
 N. W. 933, 130 Wis. 214— pp. 
 1908, 2323, 2912, 2913. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 
 619, 745, 1036, 1113, 1404, 1436, 
 1437, 1438, 1441, 1445, 1456, 
 1465. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 V. Helena, pp. 2285, 2286. 
 
 2288. 
 ■ Houston Elect. Co. 7'. 
 
 z: Hudson River R. Co., p. 
 
 994. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3208, 3225, 3226, 3228. 
 
 V. Lehigh Valley R. Co., p. 
 
 2893. 
 
 7'. Leland, p. 4054. 
 
 Little Rock Tract., etc., Co. 
 
 , 7'. Long Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 1542, 2444, 2449, 2493. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 7'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Southern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1816, 1959, 2296. 
 
 7'. Stephenson, pp. 753, 7:^7. 
 
 ■ Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 L^nion Pac. R. Co. 7-. 
 
 7-. I'nion R. Co., p. 2737.
 
 -i.\i;i,i-: 01' CASES. 
 
 ccxu 
 
 Nelson V. Woodruff, Ked. Cas. No. 
 
 10, 117— pp- 741, 765, 766. 
 f. Woodruff (U. S.), I 
 
 Black 156, 17 L. Ed. 97— pp. 
 
 336, 344, 1035, 3921. 
 Nelson Cotton Co., Mason v. 
 Nelson Grain Co. v. Ann. Arbor 
 
 R. Co., pp. 543, 557. 
 Nenno v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3328, 3334. 
 Neslie V. Second, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1767, 1805, 1831. 
 Nestor, Northern Commercial Co. 
 
 V, 
 
 Netherland -•. Charleston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 165. 
 Netherland Steamship Co., Laub- 
 
 heim v. 
 Netherlands- .American Steam Nav. 
 
 Co.. Korzil) I'. 
 
 Mohns -■. 
 
 Netherlands, etc., Xav. Co., I'.rus- 
 
 witz 2\ 
 Nettie Quill. The. 
 Nettles -'. South Carolina R. Co., 
 
 pp. 607, 611, 636, 654, 660. 
 Neuer v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2042, 2054, 2772. 
 Newmann f. St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 p. 2802. 
 Neustadt r. Lehigh Valky R. Co., 
 
 p. 3787. 
 Nevada, Crandall v. 
 Nevada County, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Hoyt ■:: 
 Nevill. Missouri Pac. R. Co. r. 
 Neville f. Pennsylvania, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 3943. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2214. 
 
 Nevin, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3203, 3207, 3208, 3212, 3228. 
 
 Nevins r. Bay State Steamboat Co., 
 pp. 3117, 3118, 3159, 3169, 3170. 
 
 Nevius V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 1475. 
 
 New Albany Box, etc., Co., I'.alti- 
 more. etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 New Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Camp- 
 bell, pp. 524, 773, 894. 
 
 Fitzpatrick r. 
 
 Newark, etc., R. Co. v. McCann, 
 
 p. 2167. 
 New Bedford, etc., R. Co., Lucas 
 
 V. 
 
 Macy r. 
 
 New Bedford, etc.. Steamboat Co., 
 
 Simmons v. 
 Newberger v. Howard & Co's Exp., 
 
 p. 321. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Newberger Cotton Co. v. Illinois 
 
 Cent. R. Co., pp. 1039, 1041. 
 Newberger & Bro., Missouri Pac. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Newberry, Fitch '■. 
 New Brunswick Steamboat, itc. 
 
 r. Tiers, pp. 285, 728, 733, 734, 
 
 735. 736, 739, 742, 745. 749. 
 New Brunswick, etc., R. Re. 
 New Brunswick, etc.. Steamboat 
 
 Co., King f. 
 New Buffalo r. Iron Co., p. 3484. 
 Newburn, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Newburv r. Great Northern R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2820. 
 
 V. Seaboard .-Vir Line R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3133. 
 
 Newburyport, etc., R. Co.. Quested 
 
 Newby r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1281. 
 
 Southern E.xp. Co. ;'. 
 
 Newcomb -•. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 p. 486. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 169 Mo. 409, 69 S. W. 348— pp. 
 
 2113, 2251, 2729, 2741, 2874. 
 
 1 Car — p 
 
 Newcomb V. New York, etc., R. 
 Co., 81 S. W. 1069, 182 Mo. 687 
 —pp. 1698, 2361, 2382, 2729, 
 2925, 2938, 2959, 2965. 
 
 Newfligat, Lane v. 
 
 Newell, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 'i'. Nixon, p. 589. 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 855, 2089, 3294. 
 
 New England, Porter v. 
 
 New England Briquette Coal Co., 
 
 ICikrcm '■. 
 New England Exp. Co. f. Maine 
 
 Cent. R. Co., pp. 109, 220, 222. 
 
 1135. 
 New ICngland Mfg. Co. v. Stann, 
 
 p. 463. 
 N\w luigland Nav. Co., Ilirsch v. 
 
 New luigland Railroad, Dixon v. 
 New Iviland R. Co., Dixon v. 
 New iCngland, etc.. Steamship Co., 
 Jones '•. 
 
 v. Paige, pp. 1337, 1365, 1367, 
 
 1390, 4023. 
 
 New Era Milling Co., Missouri, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Newhall v. Central Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 551. 1221. 
 
 Rhodes f. 
 
 Slieppard f. 
 
 r. Vargas, 13 Me. 93, 29 
 
 Am. Dec. 489— pp. 1210, 1211, 
 1215, 1216, 1218, 1219, 1229, 
 1241, 1245, 1247. 
 
 V. Vargas, 15 Me. 314. 3' 
 
 Am. Dec. 617— p. 1165. 
 
 — — Western Transp. Co. •»■. 
 New Hanover Transit Co., Hodges 
 
 V. 
 
 New Haven Rolling Mill Co., R'el- 
 
 yea 7'. 
 New Haven Steamboat Co., Dunn 
 
 V. 
 
 Ely V. 
 
 Marcus -'. 
 
 Russell Mfg. Co. f. 
 
 New Haven, etc., Co. v. Campbell, 
 
 pp. 1153, 1166. 
 
 Gardner v. 
 
 State v. 
 
 T'. State, p. 1857. 
 
 New Haven, etc., R. Co., Shepanl 
 
 Smith r. 
 
 Newhouse Mill, etc., Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co. v. 
 New Jersey Cent. R. Co., Harris v. 
 New Jersey R. Co. ■;•. Kennard, p. 
 
 1829. 
 
 V. Palmer, p. 3074. 
 
 New Jersey R., etc., Co., Kennard 
 
 V. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 -"2 240, 1029, 3283, 3284. 
 
 ;■. Pollard, pp. 1733, 2673. 
 
 ■ Ripley r. 
 
 New Jersey Steamboat Co., .\dams 
 
 — — Ball -: 
 
 Brand r. 
 
 f. Brockctt, pp. 
 
 2039, 2043, 2045, 
 2123, 2124. 3023. 
 
 Caldwell f. 
 
 Cleveland v. 
 
 Horn V. 
 
 McEntee v. 
 
 Macklin v. 
 
 Miller i: 
 
 Ontario Bank f. 
 
 Swartliout i'. 
 
 Way f. 
 
 Withers f. 
 
 Zinn V. 
 
 New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., Dorr 
 
 -1^ Hale ;•. 
 
 New Jersey Nav. Co. v. Mer- 
 chants' Bank, pp. 208, 210, 213, 
 485, 726, 731, 739, 740, 930, 
 945, 947, 953, 958, 960, 961, 964, 
 980, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 
 1035, 1037, 1153, 3906, 3917, 
 3919, 3937, 4024, 4025. 
 
 New Jersey Steamship Co., Clevc- 
 lancf 7'. 
 
 New Jersey Tract. Co. v. Dam- 
 bech, p. 2524. 
 
 f. (Gardner, 58 N. J. L. 176, 
 
 31 Atl. 893— p. 1684. 
 
 V. Gardner, 38 Atl. 669, 60 
 
 N. J. L. 571— p. 2249. 
 
 New Jersey, etc.. Ferry Co., Dug- 
 gan T. 
 
 Edwards i-. 
 
 New Jersey, etc., R. Co., Stevens 
 
 N'ewlin, Cleveland, etc., R*. Co. v. 
 
 V. Iowa Cent. R. Co., p. 2315. 
 
 New London, etc., R. Co., Crocker 
 
 V. 
 
 Newman v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1812, 2808. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2320, 2322, 2860. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2062, 2063. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 San .\ntonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Newman & Co. r. Smoker, p. 995. 
 Newman & Son, Lovell v. 
 Newmark i: New York, etc., R- 
 
 Co., p. 1666. 
 Xcwmeyer, Pennsylvania Co. f. 
 Newmiller, Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Co. r. 
 New Orleans, Cannon z\ 
 
 V. Eclipse Tow-Boat Co., p. 
 
 3585. 
 
 Moran z'. 
 
 The. 
 
 New Orleans Anchor Line, Prick- 
 
 ett V. 
 New Orleans City R. Co., Wardle 
 
 New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. z: New 
 Orleans, etc., R. Co., pp. 958, 
 1007. 1037. 
 
 New Orleans R. Co., Chretien z: 
 
 New Orleans R., etc., Co., -Alex- 
 ander z\ 
 
 ■ Bommarius z\ 
 
 Casper f. 
 
 Englert z: 
 
 Grant f. 
 
 McGinn ;■. 
 
 McMahon v. 
 
 Perkins f. 
 
 Pitard v. 
 
 Trenchard f. 
 
 New Orleans Transfer Co., Da 
 
 Ponte ?•. 
 New Orleans, etc., Co., Leberman 
 
 201 5r 2034, 
 2053, 2122, 
 
 New Orleans, etc. 
 
 neider z\ 
 New Orleans, etc. 
 
 britton, p. 2697. 
 
 Bates v. 
 
 Bemiss z: 
 
 Boikens f. 
 
 '. Burke, pp. 
 
 Byrd f. 
 
 Carter r. 
 
 Chapman z: 
 Conway z: 
 Corso z: 
 Damont r. 
 lie Lucas f. 
 Dobson f. 
 z\ Faler, p 
 Flash, etc., 
 Gardner z: 
 :•. George 
 
 706, 707 
 
 Railroad, 
 R. Co. r 
 
 2020. 3072. 
 
 Sch- 
 
 a:i- 
 
 705. 
 
 787. 
 Co. z: 
 
 c Co.. pp. 
 708. 715. 
 
 700. 
 
 Gilly f. 
 Gonthier z:
 
 CCXLII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 1868, 2568, 
 
 pp. 2015. 
 2050, 2051, 
 
 2016, 
 2052, 
 
 ill6, 
 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co., Grctz- 
 ner v. 
 
 Harrison v. 
 
 f. Harrison, p. 2526. 
 
 Hart -•. 
 
 Higgins V. 
 
 Hill z: 
 
 Holzab V. 
 
 Houze z: 
 
 Howze T'. 
 
 z: Hurst, pp. 
 
 3058, 3062. 
 
 In re. 
 
 z'. Topes, 
 
 2034, " 2045, 
 
 2053. 2054, 2417, 2418. 
 
 Kird z: 
 
 Laffitte z: 
 
 Latta z: 
 
 Lee z: 
 
 Lott z: 
 
 Malinke z\ 
 
 Maigman z\ 
 
 z: Moore, pp. 3115, 
 
 3151, 3186. 
 
 National Rice Mill Co. v. 
 
 New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 Peters v. 
 
 Randall v. 
 
 Reems v. 
 
 Rutledge -•. 
 
 Santhur ?•. 
 
 V. Schneider, pp. 1818, 1829, 
 
 2894. 
 
 V. Shackelford, pp. 3121, 
 
 3149. 
 
 Shamblin v. 
 
 Simms & Sons v. 
 
 Smith J'. 
 
 Smith Bros. &, Co. v. 
 
 z: Statham, pp. 1495, 1496, 
 
 1899, 1910. 1911, 1914, 1972. 
 
 Stone c'. 
 
 z: Thomas, pp. 2214, 2215. 
 
 Thompson '■. 
 
 Threefoot '•. 
 
 v. Tyson, p. 598. 
 
 — Weber -■. 
 
 Weeks v. 
 
 Wilson z\ 
 
 Newport Dock Company v. Wilson, 
 
 p. 645. 
 Newport News, etc., Co., Hern- 
 
 shcim V. 
 
 V. McDonald Brick Co.'s As- 
 signee, pp. 439, 473. 
 
 r. Thomas, p. 3078. 
 
 z: United States, p. 3626. 
 
 Newport News, etc., Elect. Co. v. 
 
 McCormick, pp. 2249, 2264, 
 2357. 
 Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mendell, p. 3407. 
 
 z: Mercer, pp. 210, 242, 446, 
 
 450, 467, 650, 1321, 1351. 
 
 V. Nixon, p. 485. 
 
 — — V. Reed, pp. 420, 621. 
 Newport, etc., R'. Co., Elliott v. 
 New Quay Co., Sheridan v. 
 New Ruperra Steamship Co. v. 
 
 2,000 Tons of Coal, pp. 3955, 
 
 3960, 3969. 
 Newsom ''. Thornton, pp. 1216, 
 
 1221. 
 Newsome, Georgia R. Co. v. 
 Newstadt z'. Adams, p. 1036. 
 Newton, Berley v. 
 
 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2353, 2354, 2890. 
 
 Fisk z: 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 Grant z\ 
 
 Pearce v. 
 
 V. People's R. Co., p. 2587. 
 
 Seymour v. 
 
 Van Etten v. 
 
 Newton St. R. Co., Morse v. 
 
 Nolan f. 
 
 Newton, etc., Co., Wabash R. Co. 
 
 Newton, etc., St. R. Co., Partelow 
 
 Quinlan '•. 
 
 New World, Fav v. 
 
 The. 
 
 New York, Barrett f. 
 
 z: Broadway, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 27. 
 
 New 
 
 Budd z\ 
 Duryee v. 
 Henderson r. 
 Langin z'. 
 Miln, p. 3427. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Philadelphia Fire Ass'n ?•. 
 v. Roberts, pp. 3471, 3555. 
 z: Starin, p. 768. 
 The. 
 Weill V. 
 Workman 
 York Cent. 
 
 & H. Iv. Co. 
 
 Deer Creek Lumber Co., p. 421. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., .'Mdcn v. 
 
 Avery ?'. 
 
 ■ Barker z'. 
 
 Bills z: 
 
 Bissell z'. 
 
 Bowen z\ 
 
 Briggs 7'. 
 
 ■ Brown ?■. 
 
 Buel z: 
 
 Burnell z\ 
 
 ■ — ■ — Chase ?'. 
 
 Coffin V. 
 
 Cragin v. 
 
 ■ Denny ''. 
 
 Deyo V. 
 
 Dickens v. 
 
 Downs z'. 
 
 ■ Dunson z\ 
 
 Filer z'. 
 
 ■ ■ Glasco ''. 
 
 Grosvenor z'. 
 
 Hamilton z\ 
 
 Hempstead v. 
 
 Holden v. 
 
 ■ Hulbert v. 
 
 Irwin z'. 
 
 Jackson & Son v. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Keith V. 
 
 • Kessler v. 
 
 — — • Lewis V. 
 
 7'. Lockwood, pp. 790. 7^i, 
 
 945, 947, 948, 1567, 1711, 1714. 
 
 • Long V. 
 
 Mclntyre v. 
 
 ■ McPadden v. 
 
 Marshall v. 
 
 Matteson z\ 
 
 ■ Mattison z'. 
 
 Michaels 7'. 
 
 Murphy '■. 
 
 Nellis z: 
 
 Odell V. 
 
 Page z'. 
 
 Pemberton Co. v. 
 
 People 7'. 
 
 Perkins 7'. 
 
 ■ Porter 7'. 
 
 Reed z'. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 Sprague v. 
 
 Squire 7'. 
 
 Thyll V. 
 
 Ward v. 
 
 Wells V. 
 
 New York Cent., etc., Co., Root 7'. 
 New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 
 Abbey 
 
 Acheson z'. 
 New York Cent 
 Bank, p. 553. 
 
 Brassell 7'. 
 
 7'. Eby, pp. 
 
 Fisher v. 
 
 Frey z'. 
 
 Glidden z'. 
 
 Hinckley z'. 
 
 Jackson & 
 
 • Jones V. 
 
 etc., R. Co. 
 
 822, 867. 
 
 Son 
 
 New York Cent.., etc., R. Co., Rin- 
 toul 7'. 
 
 Robinson z'. 
 
 Sinsheimer z'. 
 
 Wells V. 
 
 Winchell v. 
 
 Wolford T. 
 
 New York City R. Co., -Adams v. 
 
 Baron z'. 
 
 Baumstein 7'. 
 
 Bull 7'. 
 
 Butler 7'. 
 
 Depew 7'. 
 
 Dubnow 7'. 
 
 Ellis 7'. 
 
 Field 7'. 
 
 Fisher z'. 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 Gomez V. 
 
 Graham v. 
 
 Gregorio z'. 
 
 ■ Harker 7'. 
 
 Johnston 7'. 
 
 "Kelly 7'. 
 
 ■ Ketchuni 7'. 
 
 Koch 7'. 
 
 Law 7'. 
 
 Levy 7'. 
 
 Lomas 7'. 
 
 Ludinsky 7\ 
 
 Mc.\rthur 7'. 
 
 McGowan 7'. 
 
 Mullane 7'. 
 
 Schwartz 7'. 
 
 Senior 7'. 
 
 Sheppard v. 
 
 Silber 7'. 
 
 • Tauger <■. 
 
 Wagner 7'. 
 
 ■ Wasserman z'. 
 
 Weiller 7'. 
 
 Wells 7'. 
 
 New York Elev. R. Co., McMa- 
 
 hon z'. 
 New York Ins. Co., Griswold 7". 
 New York Mail Steamship Co., 
 
 Spaids V. 
 New York Millinery, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 Hamburg, etc., Gesellschaft, p. 
 
 344. 
 New York R. Co., Green 7'. 
 New York Sleeping Car Co., Lewis 
 
 V. 
 
 New York Steam Co., Franc's 7'. 
 New York Transfer Co., Atkinson 
 
 V. 
 
 New York Union Ins., Co., Ames 
 
 V. 
 
 New York & E. K. Co., Harmon 7'. 
 New York, etc.. Bridge, McAlan v. 
 
 Rogers 7'. 
 
 New York, etc., Co., Hamil 7'. 
 
 Robinson 7'. 
 
 V. Weiss, pp. 292, 296, 600. 
 
 New York, etc., Exp. Co., Easter 
 
 Goods Co., 
 , Nav. Co. 
 
 Grab- 
 In re. 
 
 Gil- 
 
 Railroad, De 
 
 New York, etc., Ferry Co. 
 
 bier z'. 
 New York, etc. 
 New York, etc., 
 
 hooly V. 
 
 • 7'. Lamar 7'. 
 
 New York, etc 
 
 Rochemont v. 
 
 Johnson 7'. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co., Abbey v 
 
 Agulino V. 
 
 Allbrecht v. 
 
 Alden 7'. 
 
 Archer 7'. 
 
 Auerback v. 
 
 .Avery z'. 
 
 Baker v. 
 
 Baker & Co. 7'. 
 
 Baldwin 7'. 
 
 v. Ball, pp. 
 
 1957, 2212. 
 
 Bank v. 
 
 Barnes v. 
 
 Bartholomew 
 
 Bartle v. 
 
 211, 1712, 1953.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCXLIII 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co., ISatavia i Xew 
 Bank V. 
 
 Baum 7'. 
 
 Baumann v. 
 
 Baxter v. 
 
 Beardsley v. 
 
 Bellman v. 
 
 Bennett ?•. 
 
 f. Bennett, pp. 1632, 2462, 
 
 2481, 3319. 
 
 Bisscll v. 
 
 Black ?'. 
 
 ■ Blackstock "•. 
 
 • -'. Blumenthal, pp. 1567, 
 
 17SS, 1757, 1827, 2673. 
 
 V. Board, 74 N. J. h. 367, 
 
 65 Atl. 860— p. 3474. 
 
 V. Board, 76 X. J. L. 664, 74 
 
 Atl. 954, 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 858— p. 3474. 
 
 V. Board, 227 U. S. 248, 33 
 
 S. Ct. 209— p. 3501. 
 
 Boetgen v. 
 
 ?•. Bork, p. 112. 
 
 Brassell f. 
 
 Breen v. 
 
 Brewer v. 
 
 Brewster v. 
 
 Bromley v. 
 
 Brooke i\ 
 
 Brooks f. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Bucher r. 
 
 Buckland r. 
 
 Buckley t'. 
 
 Burgevin v. 
 
 Burkett V. 
 
 z: Burns, pp. 1582, 1585, 
 
 1954. 
 
 Burritt Co. v. 
 
 Burton v. 
 
 V. Callahan, pp. 2584, 2604, 
 
 2605, 2645. 
 
 Candee -•. 
 
 Carleton v. 
 
 Carpenter v. 
 
 Carrizzo v. 
 
 Casey f. 
 
 Cashman v. 
 
 Cass r. 
 
 Cassasa r. 
 
 Charles Schlesinger & Sons ;■. 
 
 Chave i: 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 Clement v. 
 
 Cody V. 
 
 Cohen v. 
 
 Coleman ■:■. 
 
 — — Comcrford '•. 
 
 Commonwealth "'. 
 
 i'. Commonwealtii, p. 3498. 
 
 Conklin v. 
 
 813, 
 
 Connell t. 
 
 Connolly v. 
 
 7: Cooper, p. 2009. 
 
 Copson V. 
 
 Corcoran v. 
 
 Cormack r. 
 
 Cote f. 
 
 Crocker '•. 
 
 Crommelin -■. 
 
 Cromwell, pp. 219. 
 
 Crossan -■. 
 
 j\ Daughtrtv, 
 
 1982, 2695. 
 
 Davis >•. 
 
 Denny r. 
 
 r. Difendaffer 
 
 Dininny f. 
 
 f. Doane, pp. 1755, 1772. 
 
 1873, 1913. 
 
 Downs -'. 
 
 Dunne f. 
 
 Dwindle v. 
 
 ■ Dwyer ■;■. 
 
 Edgerton 7: 
 
 Elliott f. 
 
 Enches r. 
 
 V. Enches, pp. 2248, 2377. 
 
 Estill '■. 
 
 Estill, pp 
 
 . 785. 
 1721. 
 
 2104. 
 
 Co. r. 
 167, lo8. 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 York, etc., R. Co., Fairfax 
 Falk r. 
 
 — Fanizzi v. 
 
 — Farnsworth i'. 
 
 — v. Feely, pp. 1593, 1635. 
 
 — First Nat. Bank v. 
 
 — Fitzmaurice v. 
 
 — Flanagan v. 
 
 — V. F'lynn, p. 2645. 
 
 — FralofF v. 
 
 — V. Fraloff, p. 1073. 
 
 — Frazier v. 
 
 — Freedon -'. 
 
 — -■. F'remont, etc., R. 
 
 — V. Gallahcr, pp. 91, 
 173,^ 176. 
 
 — Gannon z'. 
 
 — Gardiner v. 
 
 — Garvan v. 
 
 — Gass V. 
 
 — T'. General Elect. 
 3608, 3732, 3742. 
 
 — Geogagn v. 
 
 — Godfrey v. 
 
 — Goldberg v. 
 
 — Gonzales v. 
 
 — Gorman v. 
 
 — Gould V. 
 
 — Grieve v. 
 
 — Griswold v. 
 
 — Grzywacz v. 
 
 — Guy V. 
 
 — Hancock v. 
 
 — V. Ilarbcr, p. 2113. 
 
 — Harding v. 
 
 — V. Haring, pp. 2412, 2413. 
 — • Harty v. 
 
 — Hasbrouck v. 
 
 — Hastings v. 
 
 — Hauk V. 
 
 — Hays V. 
 
 — Herdman t'. 
 
 — Hibt)ard v. 
 
 — Hinkley i'. 
 
 — Hodgdon v. 
 
 — Hoflfard v. 
 
 — Hoffman v. 
 
 — Hood V. 
 
 — Howland v. 
 
 — Hoyt V. 
 
 — Huerstel v. 
 
 — Hughes V. 
 
 — Hunt T'. 
 
 — ■ ;•. Interstate Commerce Com 
 mission, 168 Fed. 131 — pp. 3672 
 3673, 3709, 3710, 3777. 
 
 — V. Interstate Commerce Com 
 mission, 200 U. S. 361, 50 L 
 Ed. 515, 26 S. Ct. 272— pp 
 3601, 3602, 3604, 3605, 3606 
 
 3685, 3686, 3698 
 3753, 3754, 3758 
 3786, 3818, 3821 
 
 662, 848, 
 SS5, 875, 1349, 1353, 1356, 
 
 854. 
 1463. 
 
 3631, 3684, 
 3707, 3750, 
 3759, 3765, 
 
 - lonnone 
 
 Isaacson z: 
 
 Jewell V. 
 
 Johnson t'. 
 
 Jordan -•. 
 
 Keating v. 
 
 Kelly V. 
 
 - Kemp -■. 
 — • Kenncy f. 
 
 Kessler v. 
 
 '■. Kctchum, 
 
 Killmer f. 
 
 Knieriem v. 
 
 - Koehne v. 
 
 Kohne -•. 
 
 Kunzniann - 
 
 - — Kurzmann *■ 
 — ■ Langdon v. 
 
 Langworthy 
 
 Lansing f. 
 
 Lawrence "•. 
 
 Leach f. 
 
 Leech -'. 
 
 Legge :■. 
 
 Lcmont f. 
 
 Lent V. 
 
 Levins T'. 
 
 L,indenbaum 
 
 Livingston v 
 
 Xew York, etc., R. Co. v. Lock- 
 wood, pp. 1694, 2045. 
 
 Lustig V. 
 
 Lyons t. 
 
 McCarty f. 
 
 — — McCullen V. 
 
 McKeon I'. 
 
 McPadden v. 
 
 Magee v. 
 
 Manson f. 
 
 Maples v. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 Matteson v. 
 
 ■ — — Mawitz z'. 
 
 Mears v. 
 
 Mechanics' Bank ?•. 
 
 V. Medbury v. 
 
 Merritt i*. 
 
 Michie f. 
 
 Mieuli f. 
 
 -•. Miller, 88 N. Y. S. 373, 
 
 94 App. Div. 587— p. 3563. 
 
 !■. Miller, 26 S. Ct. 714, ^02 U. 
 
 S. 584. 50 L. Ed. 1155— p. 3555. 
 
 Millett V. 
 
 Milliman v. 
 
 Milnor -■. 
 
 Mitchell V. 
 
 Molloy z\ 
 
 Mondou z\ 
 
 v. Moore z>. 
 
 Morris r. 
 
 Mulligan v. 
 
 Murphy -•. 
 
 T'. Mushrush, pp. 2507, 2509, 
 
 2543, 2729. 
 
 Xewcomb '•. 
 
 Newman v. 
 
 Newmark z'. 
 
 V. New York, pp. 1946, 3481, 
 
 3503, 3513. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3657, 3658, 3660, 3777, 3792. 
 
 Nicholas v. 
 
 Nolan z\ 
 
 Norfolk Hardwood Co. z\ 
 
 O'Brien v. 
 
 Odell V. 
 
 O'Gorman v. 
 
 Olds z: 
 
 O'Neil v. 
 
 O'Neill z: 
 
 Parsons v. 
 
 Paulitsch z\ 
 
 Peck z: 
 
 Peerless Mfg. Co. i'. 
 
 Pemberton Co. z\ 
 
 V. Pennsylvania, pp. 3549. 
 
 3551, 3552, 3553, 3559, 3560, 
 3571, 3572, 3573, 3592. 
 
 People Z-. 
 
 v. People, p. 255. 
 
 Perley z: 
 
 Piper f. 
 
 Porter v. 
 
 Potts z: 
 
 Poucher '■. 
 
 Rathbone f. 
 
 Reed ; . 
 
 z: Reilley, p. 2084. 
 
 — Reimcr f. 
 
 Renaud -■. 
 
 Reynolds -•. 
 
 Rich V. 
 
 Richardson r. 
 
 Robastelli i'. 
 
 V. Robbins, p 
 
 Roberts v. 
 
 Robertson f. 
 
 Robinson f. 
 
 — — Rowland f. 
 Saltsman ;■. 
 
 Sayles z\ 
 
 V. Sayles, pp. 
 
 Schiff V. 
 
 Schreiner Z'. 
 
 f. Scovill, p. 99. 
 
 Scully f. 
 
 v. Seiberling & Co., pp. 
 
 704. 707. 
 
 Sessions -'. 
 
 Sevbolt z\ 
 
 2605. 
 
 964, 1007.
 
 CCXLIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 New York. etc.. R. Co., Sheldon f. 
 
 Simpson -'. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 Squire f. . ,. , 
 
 f. Standard Oil Co. (N. \.). 
 
 20 Hun 39— p. 436. 
 
 f. Standard Oil Co., 87 N. 
 
 Y. 486— p. 530. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Stowe V. 
 
 Straiten ■:•. 
 
 Strough f. 
 
 Tanner v. 
 
 Taylor v. 
 
 Thorp f. 
 
 Thorpe v. 
 
 Thyll i: 
 
 Tierney v. 
 
 Townsend v. 
 
 Tracy ?. 
 
 Trieber r. 
 
 Trimble r. 
 
 Tweedie Trading Co. v. 
 
 . Ulrich z: 
 
 United States z: 
 
 :. United States, 165 Fed. 
 
 833, 91 C. C. A. 519— pp. 3622, 
 3629. ^ , 
 
 r. United States, 203 Fed. 
 
 953_pp. 3620, 3625, 3626. 
 
 z: United States. 212 U. S. 
 
 481, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 S. Ct. 
 304— pp. 3603. 3604. 3684. 3701, 
 3843, 3846, 3847, 3849, 3852. 
 
 r. United States, 212 U. S. 
 
 500, 53 L. Ed. 624, 29 S. Ct. 
 309— pp. 3604, 3664, 3665, 3701. 
 3705. 3754, 3849. 
 
 \'an Ostran v. 
 
 \'aughn V. 
 
 T'. X'ict, p. 1586. 
 
 \'rcden burgh v. 
 
 Ward f. 
 
 • Waterbury v. 
 
 Watkins ■;•. 
 
 Watson V. 
 
 Weeks f. 
 
 Weinschenk '■. 
 
 West v. 
 
 Weston I'. 
 
 Whitney v. 
 
 Wibert v. 
 
 Wickwire Steel Co. f. 
 
 7-. Williams, 199 N. Y. 108, 
 
 92 N. E. 404— p. 3507. 
 
 V. Williams, 120 N. Y. S. 
 
 1137, 136 App. Div. 904— p. 3507. 
 
 V. Williams, 118 N. Y. S. 
 
 785, 64 Misc. Rep. 15— p. 3507 
 
 New York, etc., Transp. Co., Hart- 
 lett i: 
 
 United I'ruit Co. -'. 
 
 New York. etc.. Transp. Line f. 
 
 Raer & Co.. pp. 840, 3388, 3396. 
 
 3405. 3415. 
 Ney, Houston, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 Neyman v. Alabama, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1572. 
 Niagara v. Cordes, pp. 302, 332. 
 
 333, 724, 726, 7i2, 748. 752, 
 
 768. 1142. 
 
 The. 
 
 Nicaragua. Defrier v. 
 
 Tho.^ 
 
 Niceto, The. 
 Nichol, Jackson ?•. 
 
 Nicholai, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Nicholas z\ New York. etc. 
 
 , R. Co., 
 
 p. 896. 
 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. 
 
 
 Nichols I'. Camden Intei 
 
 ?tate R. 
 
 Co., p. 3038. 
 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 90 
 
 Mich. 203, 51 N. W. 
 
 361, 52 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 
 304— pp. 
 
 1788. 1886, 1906, 1909. 
 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 94 
 
 Iowa 202, 62 N. W. 
 
 7r,9 — p. 
 
 Willing, 
 2533. 
 
 - Wing V. 
 
 - — Winship ''. 
 
 'i'. Winter, 
 
 1614, 1622, 
 2409, 2487. 
 
 Wood -•. 
 
 f. Woods, 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 1977, 
 
 2454, 2474, 
 
 1529, 
 2054, 
 
 1608, 
 2408, 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 274 
 
 277 
 
 P- 
 
 1616 
 
 Co 
 
 , P 
 
 R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Pac. R 
 
 etc. 
 
 1917. 
 Co., 
 
 r. York 
 
 3756. 
 
 Young ?•. 
 
 Zimmer t'. 
 
 New York, etc.. Salt Co. 
 
 pj). 3753, 
 
 Hunter 
 
 New York, etc.. Steamship Co., El- 
 kins & Co. '■. 
 
 Evans V. 
 Gillum V. 
 Hyde v. 
 V. Island 
 
 City Boating, etc., 
 
 Ass'n, p. 812. 
 
 - Judd :-. 
 
 Lincoln v. 
 
 Ralli r. 
 
 Robinson v. 
 
 Savage v. 
 
 L'nion Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Viner z\ 
 
 Waltham Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 V. Weiss, pp. 410. 862, 
 
 v. Wright, pp. 3348, Z2G7 . 
 
 1432. _ 
 
 Driscoll V. 
 
 V. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1782, 2249, 2729, 2750. 
 
 V. i.ddy, p. 1257. 
 
 Fitchburg R'. Co. ■;•. 
 
 V. Lifeware, p. 382. 
 
 t'. Lynn, etc., R. 
 
 2745, 2908. 
 
 z\ Oregon, etc., R. 
 
 441, 448. 449. 
 
 V. Sixth Ave. R. 
 
 1880, 2357, 2803. 
 '■. Smith, pp. 6, 272, 
 
 841, 918. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 Southern R. Co. "'. 
 
 v. bnion Pac. R. 
 
 2480. 
 
 V. Washington, etc., 
 
 pp. 1775, 1776. 
 
 Nichols, etc., Co., Kansas 
 
 Co. -■. 
 Nichols, etc.. Lumber Co. -'. Uniti d 
 
 States, pp. 3700, 3844, 3851. 
 
 3855. 
 Nicholson z\ P>rookIvn Heights R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 2450. 2458. 2462. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Lancashire & Y. Ry. Co., 
 
 pp. 1780, 1790. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R'. Co. v. 
 
 Moakes t. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 782. 1021. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Nickerson. Hamilton "'. 
 
 Nickev -•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 -. 574. 
 Nickles v. Seaboard Air Line Ra'l- 
 
 way. pp. 2097. 2722. 
 Nickless, Ohio, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Ohio. etc.. R. Co. V. 
 
 Nicolette Lumber Co. v. People's 
 
 Coal Co.. pp. 714. 715, 1160. 
 Nicoll V. East Tennessee, etc., R, 
 
 Co., pp. 1430, 1436. 1437. 
 Nieboer v. Detroit Elect. Railway, 
 
 p. 2125. 
 Niedzinski %!. Bay City Tract., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2980. 2898. 
 Niemann, Russell v. 
 Xies V. Brooklvn Heights R. Co , 
 
 pp. 2637, 2893. 
 Nightingale 7'. Union Colliery Co., 
 
 D. 1 567. 
 Niland '■. Boston Elcv. R. Co.. 208 
 
 Mass. 476, 94 N. E. 703— pp. 
 
 2006, 2007. 
 r. Boston Kiev. R. Co., 100 
 
 N. E. 554, 213 Mass. 522— p. 
 
 2898. 
 
 Niles r. Culver, pp. 333, 335, 412. 
 Nilson V. Oakland Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1515, 1720, 1880, 2306, 2596, 
 
 2657. 
 948 Pieces of Lumber. In re. 
 Nines '•. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3343. 
 Ninetta. Knox ■:•. 
 Ninfa, The. 
 Ninth Ave. R. Co., Hill v. 
 
 Mettlestadt v. 
 
 Niolon, Smyrl v. 
 
 Nirk V. Jersey City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1957, 1994, 2172, 2957. 
 Nith, The. 
 Nitro-Glycerine Case, pp. 236, 238. 
 
 The. 
 
 Nittany, etc., R. Co., Bald Eagle, 
 etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Niver Coal Co. v. Cheronea Steam- 
 ship Co., pp. 3955, 3960, 3969. 
 
 Nix, Fordyce t'. 
 
 South Carolina R. Co. v. 
 
 Nixon, Newell -'. 
 
 Newport News, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jenkins, 
 
 p. 3874. 
 Noble z\ Adams, p. 1241. 
 
 '■. Atchison, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 198, 1857, 1858, 1862, 2454, 
 2651. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. r. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Mitchell, p. 3570. 
 
 Robinson z\ 
 
 V. St. Joseph, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1817, 1833, 2114, 2175. 2743. 
 
 Nocita z>. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1995, 2332. 
 Nock, Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 Noelke, Galveston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Noell, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Nolan, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 ?'. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1953. 2174. 
 
 • Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. 
 
 • Memphis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 t'. Newton St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1992, 2759, 2797. 
 
 "'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2451. 
 
 z'. Ohio, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3189, 3190. 
 
 Pullman Southern Car Co. 
 
 Nolte, Bernadon v. 
 
 Nolton z'. Western R'. Corp., pp. 
 
 1564, 1578, 1759. 
 Nonotuck Silk Co. z\ Adams Exp. 
 
 Co., 256 111. 66, 99 N. E. 893— 
 
 pp. 477. 993, 1053. 
 
 ?'. Adams Exp. Co., 256 III. 
 
 76, 99 N. E. 897— pp. 477, 993. 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., 166 111. 
 
 App. 519— pp. 821, 1053. 
 
 z'. .\dams Exp. Co., 166 111. 
 
 App. 525— p. 1053. 
 
 Nonpariel, The. 
 
 Noonan z\ Wells-Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 983, 1064. 
 Norddeutscher Lloyd, Hohl t'. 
 
 7'. Insurance Co., pp. 3908, 
 
 4063. 
 
 Nordemeyer v. Loescher, pp. 3114. 
 
 3168. 
 Norfolk, Ilingham, etc.. Turnpike 
 
 Corp. V. 
 Norfolk Hardwood Co. z'. New 
 
 York, etc., R. Co.. p. 1243. 
 Norfolk R., etc., Co., Northington 
 
 Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. 
 Barnes, pp. 484. 1163. 
 
 Norfolk- Virginia Peanut Co.. Pe- 
 tersburg, etc.. Steamboat Line v. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., Co.. Foreman v. 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. Railroad, Snipes v. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. z\ .\dams, 
 pp. 700, 701, 702, 704. 717.
 
 TAI'.I.r. <il" CASKS. 
 
 CCXLV 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 
 pp. 1629, 2445, 3091, 3101. 
 
 Rasnight r. 
 
 ;■. IJirchficl.!. pp. 2016, 2962. 
 
 Bragg I'. 
 
 V. Hranu-, pp. 2042, 20^2, 
 
 2054, 2482, 2483, 2484, 2485. 
 
 V. Burge, p. 2116. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, 114 Pa. 
 
 256, 6 Atl. 45— p. 3574. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, 103 \'a. 
 
 289, 49 S. K. 39— pp. 42, 45, 
 125. 
 
 Crcdle r. 
 
 f. Crull, pp. 485, 1440, 3417. 
 
 Doming v. 
 
 V. Dixie Tobacco Co., p 
 
 3445. 
 
 Kcklcs i: 
 
 Everett v. 
 
 Farley v. 
 
 f. Ferguson, pp. 1985, 216/, 
 
 2210, 2756. 
 
 V. Galliher, pp. 211, 1492, 
 
 1501, 1510, 1517, 1561, 2059. 
 
 Graves v. 
 
 t-. Groseclose, pp. 1561, 1562, 
 
 1881, 2723. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 r. Ilarman, 91 Va. 601, 22 
 
 S K 490, 44 L. R. A. 289, 50 
 Am. St. Rep. 855— pp. 287, 949, 
 1280, 3290. 
 
 V. Harman, 104 \'a. 501. 52 
 
 S. E. 368— pp. 327, 328, 1065. 
 
 Houston Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Hurley & Son v. 
 
 i'. Irvine, 84 \'a. 553, .t b. 
 
 E. 532- p. 3111. „ 
 
 V. Irvine, 85 Va. 21/, / S. 
 
 E. 233, 1 L. R. A. 110— pp. 
 3011, 3111, 3196. 
 
 Knowles v. 
 
 V. Langdon, pp. 319, 327. 
 
 Lewark z'. 
 
 V. Lipscomb, pp. 1673, 3054. 
 
 3060. 
 
 Liquid Carbonic Co. v. 
 
 Lovings '<■. 
 
 McConnell v. 
 
 McDade r. 
 
 V. Marshall, p. 1680. 
 
 V. Neely, pp. 3030, 3079, 
 
 3080, 3084, 3100. 
 
 Norton Board t'. 
 
 V. Old Dominion Baggage 
 
 Co., p. 102. 
 
 V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 
 
 673, 39 L. Ed. 574, 15 S. Ct. 
 413— pp. 34, 63, 64, 65. 
 
 r. Pendleton, 86 Va. 1004, 11 
 
 S. E. 1062— pp. 35, 62, 168. 
 
 T'. Pennsylvania, pp. 3430, 
 
 3434, 3471, 3472, 3473, 3550. 
 3569, 3574. 
 
 f. Pinnacle Coal Co., p. 71. 
 
 V. Potter, pp. 521, 658. 
 
 V. Prinnell, pp. 2354, 1865. 
 
 1884. 
 
 V. Read, pp. 797, 3300. 
 
 z: Reeves, pp. 750. 822, 1088. 
 
 1094, 1395, 1417, 2627, 3338, 
 3368. 
 
 V. Rhodes, pp. 1683, 
 
 1984, 2587, 2666, 2694, 
 2798. 
 
 V. Shipper's Compress 
 
 pp. 440, 632, 637. 
 
 V. Shott, p. 1575. 
 
 I'. Sims, pp. 3539, 3570 
 
 Smith T'. 
 
 Spencc i\ 
 
 V. Stevens, p. 1816. 
 
 I'. Stone, pp. 3014. 
 
 3050. 
 
 Story V. 
 
 V. Stuarts' Draft Mill. Co., 
 
 pp. 897, 901, 905. 
 
 V. Sutherland. 89 Va. 703, 17 
 
 S. E. 127— p. 3290. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., K. Co. v. Suther- 
 land, 105 Va. 545, 54 S. E. 465 
 —pp. 455, 1284, 1442, 3389. 
 
 I'. Tanner, pp. 1566, 1722, 
 
 2095, 2096. 
 
 Thackcr Coal, etc., Co. J'. 
 
 Tiilett i: 
 
 United States v. 
 
 f. United States, 101 C. C. 
 
 A. 249, 177 Fed. 623— p. 3454. 
 
 V. United States, 195 Fed. 
 
 953— pp. 3680, 3777, 3798. 
 
 Wall r. 
 
 White V. 
 
 — . — V. Wilkinson, pp. 655, 661, 
 
 (.78. 690. 691, 3393. 
 
 ■ V. Williams, pp. 1717, 1718. 
 
 V. Wood, p. 2502. 
 
 V. Wysor, pp. 191, 194, 195, 
 
 196, 198, 1627, 2442. 
 
 .\orfolk, etc., Railway, Cincinnati, 
 Co. V. 
 Steamboat Co., Rag- 
 
 etc. Tract. 
 Norfolk, etc., 
 
 land V. 
 Norfolk, etc 
 
 1719. 
 2777, 
 
 Co. 
 
 3016, 
 
 Terminal Co. v. 
 Morris, pp. 1518, 1902. 
 
 f. Rotolo, 179 Fed. 639, 103 
 
 C. C. A. 197— p. 2654. 
 
 V. Rotolo, 112 C. C. A. 583, 
 
 191 Fed. 4— pp. 2115, 2156, 2320, 
 2587, 2858. 
 
 V. Rotolo, 115 C. C. A. 183, 
 
 195 Fed. 231— pp. 2115, 2160, 
 2295. 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. Tract. Co., .\damson 
 
 V. 
 
 Fanshaw r. 
 
 r. Miller, p. 2627. 
 
 V. Rephan, p. 2587. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 Norman v. East Carolina R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2458, 2459. 
 
 Kerr v. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 1631, 
 
 2852. 
 
 • Weir z: 
 
 Norman Prince, The. 
 
 Normile f. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 252, 523, 528, 754, 776, 872. 
 
 902. 
 
 f. Oregon R'., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1363, 1376, 1397, 1450, 1477. 
 
 r. Wheeling Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2319. 
 
 Norrington v. Wright, pp. 3872, 
 
 3873, 
 Norris. .Mabama, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co.^ v. 
 
 Birmingham, etc., R. Co. •:•. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 Goodrich f. 
 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Memphis St. R. Co. i: 
 
 Moses -■. 
 
 '■. St. Joseph, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 489. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1808, 2671. 
 
 V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 620, 625, 653. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, p. 2028. 
 
 Norris, etc.. Co., O'Brien r. 
 North, Burrill f. 
 
 V. Merchants'. etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 378, 3274. 
 
 North .Mabama Tract. Co. f. Dan- 
 iel, 158 Ala. 414, 48 So. 50— 
 p. 3061. 
 
 V. Daniel, 3 Ala. App. 428, 5/ 
 
 So. 120— p. 2770. 
 
 Northam, The C. II. 
 
 North American Transp. Co., 
 
 Smith f. 
 North .American Transp., etc., Co.. 
 
 Morrison -■. 
 
 V. Morrison, p. 3052. 
 
 Ransberry f. 
 
 Sloan -■. 
 
 Smith i\ 
 
 North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. f. 
 Kaskell. pp. 2200, 2204, 2699. 
 
 North Beach, etc., R. Co., Turner 
 
 V. 
 
 Wheaton f. 
 
 North ISirmingham St. R. Co. v. 
 Caldcrwood, pp. 1889, 2655. 
 
 • ■■. Liddicoat, pp. 1772, 1876, 
 
 2600. 
 North British R. Co., Bellsdyke, 
 
 etc., Co. ?•. 
 North British, etc., Ins. Co. v. 
 Central N'ermont R. Co., pp. 
 1118, 1123. 
 .North Carolina, Caldwell z: 
 North Carolina Cent. R. Co., 
 
 Hardy z. 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm., -At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 V. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 103, 104. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co. (N. C), 
 
 61 S. E. 271— p. 118. _ 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., lal N. 
 
 C. 447, 66 S. E. 427— pp.- 3487, 
 3517. 
 
 North Carolina R. Co.. Bcnbow 
 
 Denny v. 
 
 Lambeth -'. 
 
 McCombs 7'. 
 
 Mangum v. 
 
 Moss 7'. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 Phillips V. 
 
 Smith J'. 
 
 Zachary v. 
 
 f. Zachary, p. 3613. 
 
 North Chicago City R. Co. r. 
 
 Gastka. p. 2534. 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. r. Bauer, 
 
 53 N. E. 568, 179 111. 126, 45 
 
 L. R. A. 108— p. 2174. 
 i: Bauer, 79 111. App. 121 — 
 
 pp. 2186. 2236. 
 — — r. Boyd, pp. 2698. 2811. 
 
 V. Brown, p. 2387. 
 
 Cantield z: 
 
 z: Canfield, p. 1702. 
 
 V. Cook, pp. 1746, 1888, 
 
 1898, 1901. 
 
 Cotton, pp 
 
 2698, 2762. 
 Eldridge," " pp. 2240, 2320. 
 
 V. Raspers, 186 111. 246, 57 
 
 N. E. 849— pp. 2304. 2746. 
 
 ^.. Kaspers, 85 III. App. 316 
 
 —p. 2333. 
 t'. Lotz. p. 2313. 
 
 z: O'Donnell. p. 1710. 
 
 z: Polkey. pp. 2885, 2921. 
 
 Schaefer '■. 
 
 Schneider f. 
 
 z: Schwartz, pp. 2594. 2692. 
 
 Strong z: 
 
 z: Thurston, p. 2525. 
 
 z: Williams, pp. 1521. 1819, 
 
 ?158, 2385, 2391, 2950. 2957. 
 
 z: Wiswell. p. 2152. 
 
 Z-. Wrixon. p. 2156. 
 
 North Coast Lighterage Co. v- 
 Greenwood, p. 3984. 
 
 !•. Sullivan, p. 3984. 
 
 North Eastern R. Co.. .\nderson 
 
 Bethea :■. 
 Coxon -■. 
 Hammond z: 
 Interstate Commerce 
 
 Comm. 
 
 McCartan : . 
 
 Oxlade f. 
 
 Porcher z: 
 
 Pounder z: 
 
 Robson f. 
 
 Rumsey z\ 
 
 State z: 
 
 Northern z: Williams, etc.. Co., 
 
 P- 527. 
 Northern Alabama R. Co. z: Bnl- 
 
 good, p. 1269. 
 
 z: Feldman. p. 488. 
 
 Northern Belle, The.
 
 CCXLVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Northern Cent. Railroad, Freder- 
 
 icl's t'. 
 Northern Cent. R. Co., Ilersh v. 
 
 Monell V. 
 
 z: Newman, pp. 3071, 3072. 
 
 f. O'Connor, pp. 190, 193, 
 
 200. 1636, 1850, 1851. 
 
 Orem, etc.. Produce Co. v. 
 
 Seibels r. 
 
 !• State, pp. 2115, 2116, 2118. 
 
 farbell f. 
 
 Tilburg V. 
 
 Northern Commercial Co. r. Lind- 
 blom, pp. 3911, 3918, 3925, 3933, 
 3934, 3978. 
 
 t. Nestor, pp. 3991, 3993. 
 
 Northern Eastern R. Co., Oxlade 
 
 Northern Indiana R. Co., Harris 
 
 Northern Indiana, ntc, R. Co., 
 Priestly v. 
 
 Northern Line Packet Co., Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. 1'. 
 
 f. Shearer, p. 490. 
 
 Northern Nav. Co., Van Anda v. 
 Northern Pac. Co., Farmers', etc., 
 
 Trust Co. V. 
 Northern Pac. E-xp. Co., Bennett 
 
 Hartwell f. 
 
 Pratt f. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. i: Adams, 
 116 Fed. 324, 54 C. C. A. 196, 3 
 K R. R. 734, 26 .\m. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 734— pp. 1936, 
 
 — ^V. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 48 
 L. Ed. 513, 24 S. Ct. 408— pp. 
 1565, 2092, 2094, 2096. 
 
 Alair z: 
 
 Allen i: 
 
 f. American Trading Co., pp. 
 
 451, 453, 607, 621, 1000, 3251, 
 3252. 3254, 3255, 3258, 3280, 
 3365, 3891, 4028. 
 
 .Atkinson z: 
 
 :: .\tkinson, pp. 3458, 3460. 
 
 Badovinac <■. 
 
 z\ Barnes, 2 N. Dak. 310, 51 
 
 N. W. 386— p. 3572. 
 
 z: Barnes, 2 N. Dak. 395, 51 
 
 N. W. 786— p. 3572. 
 
 Bonds-Foster Lumber Co. z: 
 
 Braun ?■. 
 
 V. Brewer, p. 3572. 
 
 Brooks '■. 
 
 Bullard v. 
 
 Caldwell Z'.' 
 
 Carsten z'. 
 
 Carstens Packing Co. v. 
 
 Cooke i'. 
 
 Cowley I'. 
 
 Doherty v. 
 
 Duluth-Supcrior Mill. Co. v. 
 
 Dunlap z\ 
 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Farmers', etc.. Trust Co. v. 
 
 First Nat. Bank z: 
 
 Fisher f. 
 
 Flaherty z\ 
 
 Finch V. 
 
 Gamble Robinson Coram. Co. 
 
 Goss z\ 
 
 Gregg V. 
 
 Hall i: 
 
 Hastings v. 
 
 V. Hess, pp. 1828, 2289, 2293, 
 
 2788. 
 
 Hoffman z: 
 
 Hoskins v. 
 
 Howe z: 
 
 Hudson z'. 
 
 interstate Commerce Coram. 
 
 V. 
 
 Irish v. 
 
 Jenkins v. 
 
 John V. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., JoIifTe v. 
 
 Judge z: 
 
 Kaiser f. 
 
 z\ Kempton, p. 1121. 
 
 Z-. Kcyes, pp. 47, 54. 
 
 King County t'. 
 
 Knapp z\ 
 
 Le Deau v. 
 
 f. Lee, pp. 47, 48, 3490. 
 
 Leek V. 
 
 z: Lewis, p. 488. 
 
 Lilly Co. ■;•. 
 
 Loy z'. 
 
 McCue V. 
 
 z: Marinovich, pp. 2719, 2865. 
 
 Miley v. 
 
 Moran Bros. Co. v. 
 
 Mulligan f. 
 
 Normile z\ 
 
 North Vakima Brewing, etc., 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Oakes v. 
 
 Ohage z\ 
 
 Olson c'. 
 
 Northern Steamship Co. 
 Line Steamship Co., p. 
 
 f. Eain- 
 3959. 
 Dan- 
 
 Co. 
 
 Orcutt 
 Oregon 
 
 Short Line, 
 etc., R. Co. 
 
 R. 
 
 Northern Texas Tract. Co. 
 forth, p. 1721. 
 
 z: Hooper, p. 2846. 
 
 z: Moberly, p. 1990. 
 
 Moore v. 
 
 V. Roye, pp. 1823, 1825, 2120, 
 
 2867. 
 
 Northern Transp. Co., Falvey z: 
 
 Hoadley v. 
 
 v. McClary, pp. 259, 
 
 595, 596, 848, 854, 3306. 
 
 309, 
 
 z: Sellick, p. 
 
 Van Schaach 
 Schaack 
 Schaak, ■ 
 etc., Co. 
 ■. Field, 
 
 521. 
 
 Van 
 
 Van 
 
 Northern, etc., Co., Bennett v. 
 
 Northey z: Field, p. 1228. 
 
 North German Lloyd z: Heule, p. 
 
 1151. 
 North German Lloyd Co., Insur- 
 ance Co. T'. 
 
 North German Lloyd Steamship 
 Co., Brinck ?■. 
 p. 
 
 4008. 
 
 Oregon, 
 
 Ostroot v. 
 
 T. Pacific Coast Lumber, ^ tc , 
 
 Ass'n, pp. 3820, 3821. 
 
 z\ Pauson, pp. 1630, 2444. 
 
 ■ Fhettiplace J-. 
 
 Pierson f. 
 
 Poole T'. 
 
 z\ Railroad Comm., 52 Wash 
 
 440, 100 Pac. 987 — p. 43. 
 
 z: Railroad Comm., 57 Wash 
 
 134, 106 Pac. 611— p. 125. 
 
 Raworth x'. 
 
 z'. Raymond, p. 3572. 
 
 Rhodes z'. 
 
 Richey, etc., Co. z'. 
 
 Rose 'c\ 
 
 Rothchild Bros. z\ 
 
 Roy z: 
 
 Sager v. 
 
 Sanden »■. 
 
 Serwe z\ 
 
 Shaw 7'. 
 
 Shepard v. 
 
 Shumaker v. 
 
 Southern Flour, etc., Co. j' 
 
 Speck ■;■. 
 
 State z: 
 
 f. Strong, 
 
 Switzler f. 
 
 Taugher v 
 
 Treleven i 
 
 V. Trcssler 
 
 Tudor V. 
 
 Valentine i'. 
 
 Walch r. 
 
 Wells, Fargo & 
 
 Whitlock V. 
 
 Wile V. 
 
 Wiles V. 
 
 Willison z: 
 
 Willson z: 
 
 Wilson '•. 
 
 Windrailler v. 
 
 Wunsch r. 
 
 Wyman "•. 
 
 Yegen v. 
 
 Northern Pac. 
 
 United States '■. 
 
 z: United States, p. 3621 
 
 Northern Railroad, First Nat. Bank 
 
 V. 
 
 Ingledew v. 
 
 Northern R. Co., Dickson z\ 
 
 z: Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 3270, 
 
 3290. 
 
 Ingledew v. 
 
 Leader r. 
 
 V. Page, pp. 1637, 2425. 
 
 Wylde V. 
 
 Northern Securities Co. v. United 
 States, pp. 34, 3418, 3419, 3421, 
 3424, 3441, 3445, 3.447, 3481, 
 3484. 
 
 V. Bullen, 
 
 Hart z: 
 
 Holmes z'. 
 
 ■ Parker z\ 
 
 Pratt V. 
 
 • Smith z'. 
 
 Tewes ?■. 
 
 White z: 
 
 v. Wood, p. 3980. 
 
 Northhampton St. R. Co., Robin- 
 son Z-. 
 
 Northampton Tract. Co., Abel v. 
 
 Northampton, etc., R. Co., Wright 
 
 North Hudson 
 Dusenbury z\ 
 
 McKenna 
 
 North Hudson 
 Northington v. 
 Co., p. 2814. 
 North Jersey St. 
 
 County R. Co., 
 
 R'. Co., Rochat v. 
 Norfolk R., etc., 
 
 R. Co., Daggett 
 
 3572. 
 
 p. 3572. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Terminal Co. 
 
 Daniel ?'. 
 
 Faul V. 
 
 Fenig v. 
 
 Fielders '■. 
 
 Gottlob '■. 
 
 Hansen ;■. 
 
 Herbich v. 
 
 Murphey z'. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Olsofrom v. 
 
 Pascell z'. 
 
 T. Purdy, pp. 
 
 Rodman f. 
 
 Schmidt i'. 
 
 Walsh '■. 
 
 North London, etc.- 
 
 V. 
 
 North Missouri R 
 pp. 1352, 1480. 
 
 Ballentine ''. 
 
 North Park St. 
 
 2670, 2858. 
 
 , R. Co., Bridges 
 . Co. ".'. Akers, 
 
 R. Co., Rouser 
 
 North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Commercial Bank, pp. 267, 355, 
 371, 373, 377, 389, 511, 512, 
 542, 543, 547, 558, 559, 561, 
 566, 1267, 1269, 2199, 1302, 
 3258, 3273. 
 
 North River Bridge Co., Luxton 
 
 V. 
 
 Northrop v. Richmond, p. 1594. 
 
 V. Syracuse, etc., R'. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 3 Abb. Dec. 386— p. 901. _ 
 
 V. Syracuse, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 425— p. 
 901. 
 
 Northrup z'. Railway, etc., Afsur. 
 
 Co., p. 1514. 
 North Shore R. Co., Bonneau z: 
 North Staffordshire R. Co., Peck 
 
 V. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 North Star, The.
 
 TABLR OF CASKS. 
 
 CCXLVII 
 
 North Texas Grain Co.. Gulf, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Northup, McCook i'- ^ ^ . . 
 Northwestern Elev. R. Co., Lapin 
 
 . Vischcr r. 
 
 Northwestern Fuel Co., Burlington, 
 
 etc., Co. V. 
 
 ■ Burlington, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 I,, Turlington, etc. , K. Co., 
 
 pp. 228, 448. 
 Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Phoenix, 
 
 etc., Co., p. 1118. 
 Northwestern Pac. R. Co., Clare 
 
 V. 
 
 Northwestern Railroad, Brown :■. 
 Northwestern R. Co., Bradley r. 
 
 Daughty r. , . „ r (, 
 
 Northwestern Steamship Co., Crott 
 
 V. 
 
 V. Ransom, p. 3984. , 
 
 Northwestern Transp. Co. v. Lei- 
 
 ter, pp. 4020, 4023. 
 
 V. McKenzie, p. 325. 
 
 Northwestern Union Packet Co., 
 
 Dant & Co. v. 
 Northwestern Warehouse Co. z'. 
 Oregon R.. etc., Co., 159 Fed. 
 975!%. 188. 189, 3602. 3631, 
 3632, 3633, 3639, 3647. 
 
 r. Oregon R., etc., Co., 32 
 
 Wash. 218, 73 Pac. 388— p. 88. 
 
 Northwestern, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 Coger V. _ 
 
 North Yakima Brewing, etc.. Co. 
 
 r. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 901. 
 
 904. 905. 
 North, etc., Steamship Co., Holmes 
 
 North, etc., St. R. Co., Outen v. 
 Norton f. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 1080. . ,,. 
 
 r. Baxter, pp. 333. iis, ii', 
 
 339 
 
 -c'. Columbia St. R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 2251. 
 
 V. Consolidated R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1651, 2425, 2459, 2462. 2471. 
 2486. 
 
 V. Galveston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1813, 2640, 2653, 2696. 
 
 Hagerman v. 
 
 Hoart V. 
 
 Pullman Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2702. 
 
 The E. M. 
 
 V. The Richard Winslow, p. 
 
 893. 
 
 ■:■. Third Ave. R. Co., n. 2223. 
 
 V. Union R. Co., p. 1676. 
 
 Winslow V. 
 
 Norton Board v. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 105, 106. 
 Norvcll V. Kanawha, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1683, 1952. 1953, 2172, 2182, 
 
 2192, 2194, 2342, 2800. 
 Norway, Grand v. 
 
 Grant v. 
 
 Norway Plains Co. v. Boston, etc., 
 Railroad, pp. 700, 773, 894, 899, 
 910. 3160. 3168. 
 
 Norwich. The City of. 
 
 Norwich Co. v. Wright, pp. 4036, 
 41038. 4039. 4040. 4048, 4049, 
 4050, 4052, 4053, 4071, 4072, 
 4073. 4075. 4084. 
 
 Norwich, etc.. R. Co., Burroughs 
 1'. 
 
 Norwich, etc.. Steamboat Co., Sim- 
 kins V. 
 
 Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., Con- 
 verse i'. 
 
 Flint V. 
 
 Gore %\ 
 
 Jones '■. ^ 
 
 Norwood ■■. Galveston, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1950. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. K'. Co. v. 
 
 Nourse v. Snow, pp. 438. 471. 
 Nowaski. International, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Nowlen. Ilollister v. 
 
 Nowlin. Southern R. Co. :-. 
 
 Noyes, Woodruff v. 
 
 Noyes & Co. V. Rutland, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 211, 417. 
 Nudd V. Wells, pp. 499. 596, 632. 
 Nuesch, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Nugent, Baltimore City Pass. R. 
 
 Co. r. „ ^ 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p. 
 
 1820. 
 
 r. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 27— 
 
 p. 209. 
 
 — !- r. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 423— 
 
 p. 729. 
 Nunn V. Georgia Railroad, pp 
 
 190, 1899. 1908. 1909, 1910. 
 Nunnelee ?'. St. Louis, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 755. 
 Nussbaum v. Louisville R. Co., p 
 
 2534. 
 Nuswanger, Missouri Pac. R. Co 
 
 Nute r. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp 
 
 2368, 2767, 2870. 
 Nutt, Hunt V. 
 
 Secomb, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Nutter V. Southern Railway, p 
 
 2430. ^,^„ 
 
 V. Sydenstricker. p. 2360. 
 
 Nutting V. Connecticut River R 
 
 Co.. p. 3259. 
 Nuzum, Pittsburgh, etc.. K. Co 
 
 V. 
 
 Nye. Bowlin r. 
 
 V. Marysville. etc., St. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1603. 2420. 2424. 
 
 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., Fred- 
 
 erich v. 
 N. & C. R. Co. V. Mcssino. pp. 3, 
 
 4, 1808, 1821. 
 
 O 
 
 Oakerson v. .\tlantic, etc.. Elect. 
 
 K. Co., p. 2906. 
 Oakes, Bronson v. 
 
 Lake Eric, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Moore, p. 1164. 
 
 I-, Northern Pac. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 728, 730, 733. 749, 3114. 3124. 
 3128. 3132, 3149, 3150. 
 
 Oakey v. Russell, pp. 798. 851. 
 
 Oakford v. Drake, pp. 1215, 1216. 
 
 Oakland Consol. St. R. Co., How- 
 land V. 
 
 Oakland Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Jenn- 
 ings, p. 3864. 
 
 Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Wolf 
 Co.. p. 3830. 
 
 Oakland Tract. Co.. James f. 
 
 Nilson V. 
 
 Oakland Trans. Co.. Boone f. 
 Oakland, etc.. Elect. Railway, 
 
 Siemsen f. 
 Oakland, etc., R. Co.. Redfield v. 
 Oaklund, etc., R. Co.. Johnsen v. 
 Oak Ties. Ten Thousand & Eighty 
 
 Two. 
 O'Bannon v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 273. 285. 
 Ober V. Cresent City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1807, 2617. 
 
 f. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 P- 1228. ^ „ 
 
 Oberlin Bldg., etc., Ass n, Colburn 
 
 Oberndorfer f. Pabst, p. 2767. 
 O'Brien v. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 138 Mass. 387. 52 .\m. Rep. 279 
 
 —p. 1581. 
 
 ;■. Boston. etc.. R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.). 15 Gray 20, 77 \m. 
 Dec. 347— pp. 1542, 2473. 2474. 
 2493. 
 
 — Brooke Iron Co. f. 
 
 — V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 p. h(>7. 
 
 — Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. 
 
 — Chicago, etc.. R. Co. :'.^ 
 
 — V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 2101. 
 
 — r. Cunard Steamship Co.. pp. 
 2078, 4000. 
 
 O'Brien, Durgy Cement, etc., Co. 
 
 . ^''- V. Gilchrist, pp. 331. 334, 337, 
 338, 339, 345, 346. 
 
 Lexington R. Co. v. 
 
 V. McClinchy, p. 744. 
 
 V. Miller, pp. 3894, 3917. 
 
 4047, 4048, 4050,. 4051, 4052, 
 4053. 
 
 Morris v. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2472. 
 
 V. Norris, etc., Co., pp. 381. 
 
 382 1210, 1211, 1212, 1214. 
 1219, 1221, 1246, 1249. 
 
 V. St. Louis Trans. Co.. 84 S. 
 
 W 939, 185 Mo. 263, 105 Am. 
 St. Rep. 592— p. 2959. 
 
 V. St. Louis Trans. Co., 110 
 
 5 W. 705, 212 Mo. 59, 15 .\m. 
 
 6 Eng. Ann. Cas. 86— p. 2054. 
 
 Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 O'Bryan r. Kinney, pp. 320, 333. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 O'Callaghan -.■. Uellwood Park Co.. 
 
 89 N E. 1005, 242 111. 336, 26 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1054, 17 Am. 
 & Eng. Cas. 407— p. 2672. 
 
 V. Dell wood Park Co., 149 
 
 III. App. 34— p. 1488. 
 
 Occidental, etc., Steamship Co., 
 
 Hampton v. , , ^ 
 
 Ocean Ins. Co.. Sun Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 Ocean Steam Nav. Co., English r. 
 Ocean Steamship Co., Brantley Co. 
 
 — ^ V. Ehrlich, pp. 1223. 1225. 
 1226. 1228, 1231. 
 
 V. McAlpin, p. 1047. 
 
 Miller V. 
 
 V. Savannah, etc.. Supply Co., 
 
 pp 212. 226. 227, 3862, 3863. 
 
 ... Way, p. 764. 
 
 ;•. Wilder, pp. 513. 816. 
 
 Oceana. The. 
 
 Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.. Brauer 
 
 Carlson v. 
 
 Wheeler v. 
 
 Och f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2684. 
 Ochs V. Price, p. 478. 
 O'Clair v. Rhode Island Co., p. 
 
 2697. 
 O'Connell, Cheyenne v. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. f. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1684. 1735. 
 
 O'Connell Lumber Co.. Security 
 
 State Bank v. 
 O'Conner, .Adams f._ 
 
 ■:•. Forster. p. 471. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Scranton Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2861. 
 
 O'Connor. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1645. 1646. 
 
 Great Northern R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 118 
 
 Minn, m, 136 N. W. 743. 41 
 L. R. A.. N. S.. 391— pp. 762. 
 1049. 3522. 
 
 V Great Northern R. Co.. 120 
 
 Minn. 359. 139 N. W. 618— 
 p. 3520. 
 
 Ocracoke. The. 
 
 Oddy r. West End St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1905. 2317. 
 O'Dea f. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2268, 2907. 
 Odcgaard, Minneapolis St. R. Co. 
 
 Odell f. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1573. 1574. 
 — — -•. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2865. 
 Oden. Birmingham R.. etc.. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. "■■ 
 
 Oderkirk f. Fargo, 58 Hun 347. 
 
 11 N. Y S. 871. 34 N. \. St. 
 
 Rep. 166— pp. 523. bOl.
 
 CCXLVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Oderkirk v. Fargo, 61 Hun 418, 16 
 X. V. S. 220, 41 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 9— p. 549. 
 
 Odgen, Gibbons f. 
 
 Odil. Railroad v. ^ ^ 
 
 Odom, Little Rock, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — — f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2227. 
 O'Donnell v. Allegheny R. Co.. p. 
 
 2719. 
 
 V. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1570, 1582, 1812. 2126, 2210. 
 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 X'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1501, 1504, 1505, 2863. 
 
 V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1587. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2167. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. z: 
 
 Railroad Co. f. 
 
 O' Dougherty v. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 522. 
 Oechs, Krohn v. 
 
 Oehm, Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Oflfutt, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 O'Field f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2325, 2873. 
 O'Gara v. St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 1699, 1736, 2694, 2901, 2981. 
 O'Gara, etc., Co., Chesapeake, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Ogden f. Coddington, p. 495. 
 
 Gibbons v. 
 
 'c\ Parsons, p. 3869. 
 
 Ogdensburg Trans. Co., Ginn v. 
 • Rudell t: 
 
 Ogdensburg, etc., R. Co.. Pratt ?■. 
 
 V. Pratt, pp. 417, 783, 3289, 
 
 3294, 3295, 3297, 3340, 3413. 
 
 Ogg v. Shuter, pp. 352, 353. 
 Ogles, American Exp; Co. v. 
 Oglesby, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 O'Gorman -•. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 196, 3112. 
 O'Gorman Co., Blackwell v. 
 Ohage r. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1607, 1666, 1667, 1671. 1936. 
 O'llanlan v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 p. 849. 
 O'Hara, Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mahoning \'alley R. Co. v. 
 
 Ohio, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Shields z: 
 
 Ohio Cent. Tract. Co. r. Mateer, 
 
 p. 2151. 
 
 Ohio Dairy Co. ■:■. Lake Shore, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 227. 
 Ohio Oil Co., United States v. 
 Ohio River R. Co., Barker v. 
 Gillingham i\ 
 
 McKay z'. 
 
 Moore v. 
 
 Poling V. 
 
 Sheets v. 
 
 Ohio River, etc., R. Co. v. Dittey, 
 
 p. 3558. 
 
 Morgantown Mfg. Co. ?■. 
 
 Ohio State Auditor, Adams Exp. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Ohio Tract. Co. v. Miller, p. 2810. 
 Ohio Transp. Co. z: Davidson 
 
 Steamship Co., p. 4048. 
 Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Lander, p. 
 
 3511. 
 
 -'. Watson, pp. 1753, 1755, 
 
 1812, 2736. 
 
 Ohio Valley Tie Co., Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Ohio V'alley Trust Co. v. Wernke, 
 
 pp. 1488, 2617. 
 Ohio Valley, etc., Co., Western, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Ohio, etc., Co. V. Nickless, p. 1567. 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. z: Allender p. 
 
 2189. 
 
 V. Applewhite, pp. 1858, 1860. 
 
 V. Beuris, pp. 2635, 2637, 
 
 2760, 2761. 
 
 V. Brown, p. 1872. 
 
 Brunk z: 
 
 V. Cope, p. 2461. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. ■;■. Crauchcr, p. 
 2622. 
 
 z: Gullison, p. 2711. 
 
 z\ Dickerson, p. 1550. 
 
 . Drew Glass Co. "'. 
 
 z\ Dunbar, pp. 607, 608, 758. 
 
 765, 774, 1350. 
 
 Emison z\ 
 
 z: Emrich, pp. 490, 491, 3291. 
 
 Falkner f. 
 
 Godfrey v. 
 
 r. Ilatton, pp. 203, 1803. 
 
 2575. 
 
 — , — Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. '•. 
 
 King z: 
 
 z: Lander, pp. 1944, 1945, 
 
 1946. 
 
 z: McCarthy, p. 1171. 
 
 • Morganton Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 z: Muhling, pp. 1561, 1564, 
 
 1755, 1760, 1761. 
 
 z\ Nickless, pp. 798, 1447, 
 
 1460. 
 
 Nolan z\ 
 
 V. People, p. 1865. 
 
 V. Schiebe, pp. 2124, 2258. 
 
 z: Selby, pp. 1567, 1760, 1761, 
 
 1987, 2098, 2586, 2593, 2632, 
 2666, 2721, 2726. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, p. 
 1884. 
 
 z: Stansberry, pp. 2118, 2269, 
 
 2378. 
 
 v. Stratton, p. 2248. 
 
 • z: Swarthout, pp. 1858, 2575. 
 
 V. Tabor, pp. 821, 1390, 1408, 
 
 1456. 
 
 z: Voight, p. 3005. 
 
 V. Yohe, pp. 573. 574, 577, 
 
 583, 732, 748. 
 
 Ohleman, IJnion Exp. Co. v. 
 Ohlen z: Atlanta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 727, 730, 732, 748, 752, 765, 
 
 800, 828, 867. 
 Ohne, Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. 
 Oil Citv, etc., R. Co., Kirchncr v. 
 Oil Creek R. Co., Tanner z: 
 Oil Creek, etc., R. Co. z: Clark, 
 
 pp. 1529, 1974. 
 O'Keefe, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Oklahoma v. Atchison, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 37. 
 
 z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 37. 
 
 z'. Oklahoma R. Co., p. 87. 
 
 Oklahoma City R. Co., Stephens 
 
 Oklahoma R. Co. v. Boles, p. 2357. 
 
 Oklahoma z\ 
 
 ?•. Powell, p. 76. 
 
 z\ St. Joseph's Parochial 
 
 School, p. 68. 
 
 Oklahoma State Bank, Central 
 Mercantile Co. z-. 
 
 Olanta Coal Min. Co. v. Beech 
 Creek R. Co., p. 239. 
 
 O'Laughlin v. Boston, etc.. Rail- 
 road, p. 2417. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. -■. 
 
 Olcott V. Supervisors, p. 36. 
 Old Colony R. Co., .\ttorncy Gen- 
 eral z\ 
 
 Bates z: 
 
 Bethmann v. 
 
 Brady v. 
 
 Brooks z'. 
 
 Chaffee z: 
 
 Debbins z'. 
 
 Hosmer Z'. 
 
 Robertson v. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 
 V. Tripp, pp. 101. Ill, 192. 
 
 Old Colony St. R. Co., Cassady 
 
 Old Colony St. R. Co., Martin v. 
 
 Pitcher -•. 
 
 Powers V. 
 
 Spooner v. 
 
 Thayer z\ 
 
 Timms z'. 
 
 Webber -•. 
 
 Old Colony St. Railway, Sullivan 
 
 V. 
 
 Old Colony Trust Co., .Atlanta v. 
 
 ?'. .\tlanta, pp. 43. 76, 79. 
 
 Old Colony, etc., R. Co., Buckley 
 
 Gaynor v. 
 
 Kiff z: 
 
 Lane v. 
 
 Maroney v. 
 
 Merritt v. 
 
 Todd V. 
 
 Old Dominion Baggage Co., Nor- 
 folk, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Old Dominion Steamship Co. Z'. 
 Commonwealth, p. 3583. 
 
 v. Flanary & Co., pp. 1090, 
 
 1106, 1108, 1115, 3663. 
 
 Howard v. 
 
 Patterson z'. 
 
 z'. X'irginia, pp. 3572, 3583, 
 
 3584. 
 
 Oldham, Birmingham R., etc., Co. z'. 
 Olds, Georgia R. Co. t'. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 172 Mass. 73. 51 N. E. 450— 
 pp. 1746, 1752. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 94 N. Y. S. 924, 107 App. Div. 
 26— pp. 1269, 1393, 1437, 1476. 
 
 Olfermann v. Union Depot R'. Co., 
 pp. 1888, 2390, 2397, 3005. 
 
 Olinger, Ft. Wayne, etc.. Tract. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Olive, Receivers v. 
 
 Oliver, Alton, etc.. Tract. Co. v. 
 
 T'. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 55 
 
 S. C. 541, 33 S. E. 584— p. 1909. 
 
 ■;•. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 43 
 
 S. E. 307, 65 S. C. 1— pp. 2755, 
 2909, 3067, 3376. 
 
 — z'. Fort Smith Light, etc., 
 Co., pp. 1682, 1742, 2113, 2195. 
 
 Coneton v. 
 Egan V. 
 Foster z'. 
 Galligan t'. 
 Ilebblethwaite v. 
 Hunt V. 
 Jackson v. 
 Jordan r. 
 Luddy :•. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Iv. Co. ?■. 
 
 United States, etc., Pump Co. 
 
 w. 
 
 Oliver Branch, Mahon v. 
 
 Oliver & Son z: Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 158, 247. 
 
 Olivier ■;■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1980, 2126, 2178. 
 
 Oiler, .'\lton, etc.. Tract. Co. '■. 
 
 Olopp ■;'. Interborough Rapid Tran- 
 sit Co., p. 1717. 
 
 O'Loughlin, Texas Cent. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Olsen, Chicago Union Tract. Co. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 z'. Citizens' R. Co.. pp. 1687, 
 
 1739, 1999, 2007, 2099, 2765. 
 
 Jewett V. 
 
 Z'. Smith, p. 3532. 
 
 Olsofrom z'. North Krsey St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 1744. 
 Olson 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2244, 2248, 2351. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 191, 2122, 2437, 2459, 2460, 2784, 
 3082, 3098. 
 
 z: St. Paul, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2126. 
 
 Oluf, The. 
 
 Olund z'. Worcester Consol. St. K. 
 
 Co, pp. 1523, 1957, 2345, 2889, 
 
 2890. 
 Olympia, The. 
 
 Omaha Elevator Co., State z'. 
 Omalia Horse R. Co., Haman v. 
 Omaha R. Co., Haman v. 
 Omaha St. R. Co. v. Baker, p. 
 
 2819. 
 
 Boesen z\ 
 
 V. Boesen, pp. 2678, 2842. 
 
 z: Craig, pp. 1712, 2249. 
 
 Frizzell v.
 
 TARLE) OF CASKS. 
 
 CCXLIX 
 
 Levin- 
 
 Omaha St. R. Co., Pray t 
 Omaha, etc., Bridge Co. t 
 ston, pp. 1890, 1901. 
 
 Marcus v. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Omaha, etc., K. Co., Burger r. 
 
 Chollctte f. 
 
 V. Chollettc. 33 Neb, 143, 
 
 49 N W. 1114— pp. 1('80, 2119. 
 
 r. Chollette, 41 Neb. 578, 59 
 
 jsl w 921 — pp. 1764, 1766, 2173. 
 
 : f. Crow, 47 Nfb. 84, 66 N. 
 
 W. 21— pp. 1568, 2215. 
 V. Crow, 54 Neb. 747, 74 N. 
 
 W 1066, 69 .\m. St. Rep. 741 — 
 
 pp. 2327, 3316. 
 V Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 pp. 3604, 3612. 
 
 V. Martin, pp. If 
 
 2152, 
 
 2158. 
 
 Shuler V. 
 
 Wait r. 
 
 VVillfong -•. 
 
 Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., P.ende 
 
 kovich V. 
 
 Burger v. 
 
 Coffey -c. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 179 Fed. 243— p. 3614. 
 
 r. Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 222 U. S. 582, 56 L. Kd. 324. 
 
 32 S. Ct. 833— p. 3808. 
 T\ Interstate Commerce Comm., 
 
 33 S. Ct. 890, 230 U. S. 324, 
 57 L. Kd. 1501, 46 L. R. A., 
 
 ■ N. S., 385— p. 3614. 
 
 Kruger 7'. 
 
 Nocita '■. 
 
 O'Malley v. Great Northern R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1044, 1407. 
 O'Mara f. St. Louis Transit Co.. 
 
 pp. 1501, 1515, 1516, 1517, 2333. 
 Omnibus Cable Co., Doolin <■. 
 
 Finkeldey v. 
 
 Tobin :■. 
 
 O'Neal r. Day, p. 889. 
 119,254 Bushels of Flaxseed, Dav- 
 idson Steamship Co. v. 
 
 One Hundred and One Live bt-ock 
 
 Co. f. Kansas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1113. , , 
 
 One Hundred and Twelve Sticks 
 
 of Timber, p. 713. 
 Oneida, The. 
 O'Neil -'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1884, 2044, 2543, 2588. 
 
 V. Lynn, etc., R'. Co., p. 2827. 
 
 ■;•. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1683. 
 
 r. X'ermont, p. 3539. 
 
 O'Neill V. Dry-Dock, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2007. 
 — — V. Garrett, pp. 1219, 1238. 
 
 v. Great Western R. Co., p 
 
 898 
 
 v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2297, 2298. 
 
 Mathias f. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 285, 289, 884. 
 
 Perishable Freight 'I ransp. 
 
 One Thousand Three Hundred and 
 Ten Tons of Coal, Ilawgood v. 
 Ontario, The. 
 Ontario Bank r. New Jersey 
 
 Steamboat Co., p. 545. 
 Ontario Steamboat Co., Rice r. 
 Ontario, etc., R. Co., May t\ 
 Oostanaula, etc.. Steamboat Co. f. 
 
 Hampton, p. 839. 
 Ophir Silver Min. Co., Perkins t. 
 Opinion of the Justices, In re. 
 Oppenheim v. Russell, pp. 233. 
 
 1248. 
 Oppenheimer r. Denver, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 2712. 
 
 V. Kdney, p. 863. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 
 2060. 2486. 
 
 Oppenheimer & Co. v. United 
 
 States Kxp. Co., pp. 760, 943, 
 
 1007, 1009. 
 Opsahl V. Judd, p. 1589. 
 O'Ouin, Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Orange County Bank v. Brown, 
 
 pp. 3123, 3125, 3126. 
 Orange, etc., R. Co., Frair v. 
 
 • Wright r. 
 
 Oranmore, The. 
 
 Orbison, Babcock v. 
 
 Orcadian, The. 
 
 Orcutt V. Century Bldg. Co., 99 
 
 S W. 1062, 201 Mo. 424, 8 L. 
 
 R. A., N. S., 929— pp. 1502, 
 
 1503, 2677, 2983. 
 
 V. Century Bldg. Co., 112 S. 
 
 W 532, 214 Mo. 35— pp. 2685, 
 2741, 2837. 
 
 ?'. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1539, 2521. 
 
 Order r. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3467. 
 Ordway, Boston, etc.. Railroad v. 
 O'Regan T. Cunard Steamship Co.. 
 
 pp. 939, 1639, 2092. 
 Oregon, The. 
 Oregon Co. r. Roe, pp. 2331, 2742, 
 
 2883. „ . , 
 
 Oregon Coal, etc., Co., Pettyjohn 
 
 Oregon Iron Co., Delaware v. 
 Oregon Liquor Co., Frame v. 
 Oregon Pac. R. Co., Lakin i\ 
 Oregon R. Co., Abbott '<: 
 
 Rathbone v. 
 
 ■ Simmons f. 
 
 Oregon R., etc., Co., Allen r. 
 
 ■ V. Balfour, 90 Fed. 293, 32 
 
 C. C. A. 57— pp. 4076, 4084, 
 4085. „ „ ,. 
 
 ;■. Balfour, .179 U. S. 33, 43 
 
 L. Kd. 82, 21 S. Ct. 28— pp. 
 4036, 4071, 4072. 
 
 Bartlet 7'. 
 
 Buck r. , „.^ 
 
 f. Campbell, 173 Fed. 937- 
 
 p. 3489. 
 
 — — V. Campbell, 177 Fed. 318— 
 
 p. 65. 
 V. Coolidge, p. 3811. 
 
 f. Dumas, pp. 92, 450. 459. 
 
 z: Fairchild, pp. 103, 104, 
 
 3810. 
 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Gomm V. 
 
 Goodman v. 
 
 Haase v. 
 
 Kearney v. 
 
 Lacey v. 
 
 McGregor f. 
 
 Mcintosh r. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 Maynard v. 
 
 Normile v. 
 
 Northwestern Warehouse Co 
 
 Peabody r. 
 
 Prettyman v. 
 
 Sheblc f. 
 
 Smith Meat Co. v. 
 
 Sullivan r. 
 
 Taffe f. 
 
 f. Thisler, p. 3749. 
 
 United States r. 
 
 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. 
 
 Wells, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Oregon Short Line R. Co., Brian 
 
 Morgan f. 
 
 Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 241, 253. 
 Oregon-Washington R., etc., ^-o.. 
 
 Brown r. 
 7. United States, pp. 3621, 
 
 3627, 3629. 
 Oregon, etc., Ass'n. Union Pac. R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Oregon, etc., R. Co., Benson v. 
 
 V. Blyth, pp. 729, 734, />0, 
 
 779, 810, 845, 949. 
 
 Brian r. 
 
 Christensen :■. 
 
 Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. Davidson, 
 pp. 99, 101, 112. 
 
 Davis i: 
 
 Dempster v. 
 
 Everett v. 
 
 Groot I'. 
 
 Holmes v. 
 
 Homer v. 
 
 Honeyman v. 
 
 Ilwaco R'., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Ilwaco R., etc.. Co., p- 
 
 3656. 
 
 Klenk v. 
 
 Kozminsky r. 
 
 Larsen i'. 
 
 Lindsay i'. 
 
 Major f. 
 
 Morgan t'. 
 
 Nichols V. „ ^ -1 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co._. 3l 
 
 Fed. 465— pp. 3318, 3648, 3636. 
 
 J.. Northern Pac. R. Co., 9 
 
 C C .\. 409, 61 Fed. 158— pp. 
 lio, 3657, 3775. 
 
 Skottowe t'. 
 
 Blatter r. 
 
 Tarr r. 
 
 United States f. 
 
 Wells f. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 Oregon, etc., R. Nav. Co., Brown 
 
 O'Reilly r. Brooklyn , Heights R- 
 Co., 179 N. Y. 450. 72 N. E. 3 1/ 
 
 ■ '"f'v. Brooklyn Heights .R-,,Co.. 
 95 App. Div. 253, 89 N. \. S. 
 41— pp. 110, 147. 
 
 Orem, etc., Produce Co. t^. North- 
 ern Cent. R. Co., pp. /8/, 82/. 
 
 Pennsvlvania R. Co. f. 
 
 Organ Power Co., Alabama, etc.. 
 R. Co. r. 
 
 Oriental Oil Co., Baltimore, etc.. 
 
 Orient MuV. Ins. Co. :■. Adams, p. 
 
 4021. 
 Oriflammc, The. 
 Ormandroyd v. Fitchburg. etc.. 
 
 St. R. Co., p. 2029. 
 Ormond f. Hayes, p. 133/. 
 
 I. & G. N. R. Co. f. 
 
 International, etc„ R. Co. .. 
 
 r Metropolitan St. R. «-"■• 
 
 p. 2826. „ „ „ 
 
 Ormsbv v. Union Pac. R. ^o., 
 "pT614, 848, 945, 963, 964, 1003. 
 
 1007, 1087, 1107, 1311, 1413. 
 
 1422. _ ^ 
 
 Orndorflf, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 OrndorfT & Co. r. .\dams Ex". 
 
 Co., pp. 1008, 1075. 
 Ornstine f. Cary. p. 348_4_. 
 O'Rouke f. Bates P- '''• 
 f. Citizens' St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2458, 2464. , .„ 
 :•. Two Hundred '.nd rwc-n'y- 
 
 One Tons of Coal, p. 332. 
 O'Rourkc V. Chicago, etc., R. Cc, 
 
 pp. 
 
 252. 756. 
 
 " Interborough Rapid 1 >&ns. 
 
 _l°k Vreet'- R. Co.. PP..i602. 
 
 1612. 1613. 1648. 1649, \6r,0. 
 Orr V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p 
 
 3343 
 i r". Planters' Phosphate, ct*- 
 
 Co., pp. 361, 362. 365. 370. JSO. 
 
 398. „ , 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. :. 
 
 Orser, Sturtevant :. 
 
 Orth i: Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 1892 2153, 2333 27(.0. J81| 
 Orthwcin's Sons v. V^.lchlta Mill. 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 349, 4/8. 
 Ortf -: Minneapolis, etc.. R- Co.. 
 
 pp. 3258. 3279, 3289, 3294. 332/. 
 
 3-»02. . . . ... 
 
 Osborn v. Koenigheim, pp. •»-■"'• 
 
 365. .„ ^ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Thomas z:
 
 CCL 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Osborn f. Wabash R. Co., 123 
 Mich. 669, 82 N. W. 526— p. 
 3489. 
 
 f. Wabash R. Co., 126 Mich. 
 
 113, 85 N. W. 466 — p. 54. 
 
 Osborne v. Alabama Steel, etc., 
 Co., p. 2281. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3712, 3719, 3720, 3723. 
 
 V. Florida, pp. 3570, 3571, 
 
 3579. 
 
 r. Mobile, 44 Ala. 493— p. 
 
 3577. 
 
 V. Mobile (U. S.), 16 Wall. 
 
 479, 21 h. Ed. 470— pp. 3549, 
 3561, 3566, 3571. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 x: State, p. 28. 
 
 V. L^nion Ferry Co., p. 1780. 
 
 Osceola, The. 
 
 Osgood f. Concord Railroad, pp. 
 74, 145. 
 
 I'. Los Angeles Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2696, 2979. 
 
 Oskamp V. Southern Exp. Co., 1 1 
 O. C. C. 543, 5 O. C. ». 145— p. 
 553. 
 
 V. Southern Exp. Co., 61 O. 
 
 St. 341, 56 N. E. 13— pp. 511, 
 539, 542, 549, 551, 553. 554. 
 
 Oskamp, etc., Co., Southern Exp. 
 
 Co. -■. 
 Oslen f. Citizens' R. Co.. p. 1709. 
 Osterhoudt v. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 pp. 1108, 1109, 1117. 
 Ostrander v. I5rown, p. 527. 
 Ostroot V. Northern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 p. 1063. 
 Oswego St. R. Co., Watson v. 
 Oswego, etc., R. Co., Howe i-. 
 
 Price V. 
 
 Otis, State V. 
 
 Otis Co. V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 779, 780, 844, 1037. 
 O'Toole v. Faulkner, p. 2089. 
 
 f. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2161, 2248. 
 
 Otrich V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 154 Mo. App. 420, 134 S. W. 
 665 — p. 1305. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 164 Mo. App. 444, 144 S. W 
 1199— pp. 1267, 1304. 
 
 Ottawa V. Bodley, p. 111. 
 Ottinger f. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, pp. 1893, 1993. 
 Otto, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1742, 1757, 1928, 2362. 
 
 — — V. Milwaukee Northern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1902, 1994, 2510, 2512, 
 
 2536, 2539. 
 Otts V. Shreveport Tract. Co. o 
 
 2778. ' ■ 
 
 Ouachita Packet Co. -•. Aiken, nn 
 3528, 3529, 3530, 3531, 3532. 
 
 Ouachita, etc.. Packet Co. v. Aiken, 
 p. 3586. 
 
 Ouellette v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1922, 2240. 
 Onilhot, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ouimit V. Henshaw. pp. 278, 897 
 
 901, 3130, 3135, 3138, 3158, 3159! 
 
 3160, 3161, 3169, 3170, 3173, 
 
 3178. 
 
 Outen f. North, etc., St. K. Co. 
 p. 2262. 
 
 Outerbridge, Downing v. 
 
 Lough V. 
 
 Outland v. Seaboard, etc., R. Co 
 
 pp. 445, 446, 447, 449, 467, 368* 
 470. 
 
 Overall, Texas, etc., R. Co. v 
 Ovcrcash v. Charlotte Elect. R 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 2761, 2981. 
 Overfield, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Overman Carriage Co., Memphis 
 
 etc.. Packet Co. r. 
 Overton, Gulf, etc., R. Co v 
 
 State V. 
 
 Oviatt V. Dakota Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1548, 1723, 1743, 1752, 1755, 
 
 1827. 
 Owen, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Day V. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1110, nil, 1408, 1428, 1448, 
 1477. 
 
 McKee v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 142, 700, 701. 
 
 Selma St., etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 V. Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2349. 2904. 
 
 Owens, .\rpin x\ 
 
 .Atlantic, etc., R. Co. •;■. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 147 
 
 N. C. 357, 61 S. E. 198— pp. 
 2265, 2575, 2577, 2661. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 67 
 
 S. E. 993, 152 N. C. 439— pp. 
 2126, 2862. 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. v. 
 
 Harrell v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 ;■. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2066, 2993. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. •;■. 
 
 ■:•. Macon, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1497. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wabash R'. Co., p. 2243. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2061. 
 
 Owens Bros. v. Chicago, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 1436, 1437, 1476. 
 Owings V. Hull, p. 3870. 
 Owman, Bedford-Bowling Green 
 
 Stone Co. V. 
 Oxanna Land Co., Watson v. 
 Oxen dine v. Louisiana R., etc , 
 
 p. 2777. 
 Oxlade V. Northeastern R. Co., 9 
 
 W. R. 272, 3 L. T. 671— p. 211. 
 
 V. Northeastern R. Co., 1 C 
 
 B., N. S., 454, 3 Jur., N. S., 
 637, 26 L. J. C. P. 129— p. 242. 
 
 V. Northeastern R. Co. (Eng.), 
 
 15 C. B., N. S., 680, 109 E. C. 
 L. 680— pp. 211, 241, 242, 253. 
 
 V. Northern Eastern R. Co., 
 
 1 Nev. & McN. Ry. Cas. 72— 
 p. 1181. 
 
 Oxley 7: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 945, 1386. 
 Oxsher v. Houston, etc., R. Co., n 
 
 2511. ' 
 
 Oyster Bay, etc., Co., Barney v. 
 Oyster Bay, etc.. Steamboat Co., 
 
 Barney v. 
 Ozanne '■. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1822, 1837. 
 Ozier, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pacific Coast Stage Co., Knight v. 
 
 Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Ban- 
 croft-Whitney Co., pp. 852, 1087, 
 1091, 1101, 3907, 3910, 3921, 
 3923, 3929, 4028. 
 
 Fowden v. 
 
 Pacific Coast, etc., Co., Cowdcn 
 
 V. 
 
 Pacific Creosoting Co., Knohr v. 
 Pacific Elect. R. Co., Griffin v. 
 
 Reynolds v. 
 
 Wyatt V. 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. V. Black, pp. 278, 
 279, 293, 295, 648, 663. 
 
 Cantwell v. 
 
 V. Critzer, p. 553. 
 
 V. Darnell, pp. 666, 670, 674, 
 
 687, 937, 938, 950, 954, 1088. 
 1091, 1121. 
 
 V. Darnell Bros., pp. 638, 
 
 642, 643, 686, 1086, 1096. 
 
 V. Emerson, p. 1480. 
 
 •;■. Foley, pp. 409, 1074. 
 
 Gathright v. 
 
 V. Gathwright, pp. 418, 465, 
 
 1252, 1255. 
 
 Green v. 
 
 Hance f. 
 
 Head '■. 
 
 ?'. Hertzberg, pp. 553, 
 
 555, 729, 849, 932, 933, 
 1055, 1076, 1078, 1080. 
 
 V. Jones, ])p. 643, 645, 
 
 690, 856, 859, 860. 
 
 V. Lothrop, pp. 1359, 1360. 
 
 McNichol V. 
 
 Murrell v. 
 
 Nave V. 
 
 • V. Needham, 37 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 129, 83 S. W. 22— pp. 419, 
 420, 457, 467, 470. 
 
 V. Needham (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 94 S. W. 1070— pp. 692, 694. 
 
 V. Pitman, pp. 759, 760, 933. 
 
 937, 940, 941, 1060. 
 
 Pittman %■. 
 
 Plaff V. 
 
 V. Redman, pp. 647. 651. 
 
 Rudman, pp. 991, 1029, 
 
 554, 
 1054. 
 
 648, 
 
 Pabst, Oberndorfer z\ 
 
 Pabst Brewing Co., State r. 
 
 Pace, Kansas City, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Pace Mule Co. ?■. Seaboard, etc., 
 
 R. Co., 160 N. C. 252, 75 S. E. 
 
 994— p. .1477. 
 V. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 160 
 
 N. C. 215, 76 S. E. 513— pp. 331, 
 
 948, 1076, 3522. 
 Pacey, Beedy -•. 
 Pacific, Queen of the. 
 
 Seller r. 
 
 Pacific Aviation Co. r. Wells Fargo 
 
 & Co., pp. 349, 572. 
 Pacific Clipper Line, Union Feed 
 
 Co. V. 
 Pacific Coast Co. v. Reynolds, pp. 
 
 4050, 4051, 4053. 
 
 V. Yukon Independent Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 3880, 3882, 3889, 4027, 
 4028, 4029, 4030. 
 
 Pacific Coast Lumber, etc., Ass'n, 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pacific Coast R. Co. v. United 
 States, p. 3451. 
 
 Seibert, 44 Fed. 310— p. 
 
 V. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 35 
 
 L. Ed. 1035, 12 S. Ct. 250— pp. 
 3551, 3577, 3578. 
 
 Shearer v. 
 
 c'. Shearer, p. 555. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 ;- V. Wallace, p. 945. 
 
 Pacific Lumber Co., Green '■. 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Co., Bunker 
 
 V. 
 
 • Hays v. 
 
 In re. 
 
 Spiegel V. 
 
 • Swift V. 
 
 ;- Yonge -■. 
 
 Pacific Marine Co., Kerry v. 
 Pacific Railroad, Landes v. 
 
 Minter f. 
 
 Rankin -'. 
 
 Thomson "'. 
 
 Vail v. 
 
 Pacific R. Co., Clark v. 
 
 Graham v. 
 
 Hicks I'. 
 
 Meyer v. 
 
 Tucker v. 
 
 Pacific R. Removal Cases, p. 3449. 
 Pacific Steam Whaling Co. v. Gris- 
 
 more, pp. 3980, 3981. 
 Pacific Transfer Co., Merrill v. 
 Pacific, etc., Nav. Co., United 
 
 States V. 
 Packard v. Earle, pp. 532, 538. 
 
 V. Getman (N. Y.), 6 Cow. 
 
 757, 16 Am. Dec. 475— pp. 268, 
 271, 292, 581, 582. 
 
 V. Getman (N. Y.), 4 Wend. 
 
 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166— pp. 551, 
 553, 581, 582. 
 
 Kohn V.
 
 TAIII.I". OF CASES. 
 
 ecu 
 
 Packard v. Taylor, etc.. Co., pp. 
 726, 732, 748, 3179, 3284. 
 
 V. The Louisa, p. 3937. 
 
 Packer, The E. A. 
 
 Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, i)p. 
 3474, 3528. 3529, 3530. 3531. 
 
 -Ji^v. Clough, pp. 1564, 3994 
 
 r. Keokuk, pp. 3474, 3^29, 
 
 3530, 3531. ,,^, ,.„ 
 
 r St. Louis, pp. 3474, 3^28, 
 
 3529, 3530, 3531. 
 
 Packwood, Dorsey i: 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 Paddock r. Atchison, etc.. R. Lo.. 
 pp. 2416, 2488, 2497, 3212. 
 
 f Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 153 
 Mo. 524, 56 S. W. 453— pp. 1391. 
 1452. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 1 
 
 Mo. App. 87, 60 Mo. App. 328— 
 P- 973. „ ^ 
 
 _— - V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 956. 
 Padgitt r. Moll. p. 1587. _ 
 Padlcy V. Cattirhn. p. 853. 
 Paducah City Railway, Eord r. 
 
 Wynn ;•. 
 
 Paducah R.. etc.. Co., Davis r. 
 Paducah St. R. Co. :■. Walsh, p. 
 
 2268. 
 Paducah Tract. Co. v. P.aker, pp. 
 
 2590, 2672, 2688. 
 Paducah. etc.. Ferry Co.. Rtasor 
 
 Paducah, etc., R. Co.. Sncllhakev 
 
 Page. Blanchard r. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 3414. ^ ^. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., p. 
 
 221- ,, ,, 
 
 i: Louisville, etc.. K. Lo., p. 
 
 2610. 
 
 Midland Valley K. Co. r. 
 
 r New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1968, 2451. 
 
 Northern R. Co. r. 
 
 Page & Co. 7'. Sandusky, etc., R. 
 
 Co pp. 267, 283, 331, 337. 355. 
 367. 370. 373, 380, 381, 384, 
 403. 457. 
 Paige. New England, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co. I'. 
 
 f. Smith, pp. 6. 760. 
 
 Paine r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1605, 3092. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Geneva, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 1825, 2368, 2684. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Painkinsky r. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 328. 965. 
 Painter, Chicago, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2668, 2858. 
 
 V. London, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 • 192. 
 
 Palfrey r. United R. Co., p. 1320. 
 Palmas, The. 
 Palmer, Ames ■:■. 
 
 J'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 619, 721, 3279. 
 
 . r. Charlotte, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1638. 2432. 
 
 ■:•. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3263. 3286, 3314. 
 
 f. Delaware, etc., Canal Co.. 
 
 pp. 1715, 1720, 1826, 1844. 1847. 
 1850. 
 
 Gracie -r. 
 
 V. Grand Tunction R. Co., p. 
 
 211. 
 
 Haggerty r. 
 
 Kimball f. 
 
 — ■ — r. London,. etc.. iR. <-o. 
 
 (Eng.). L. R. 1 C. P. 588. 35 
 L. J. C. P. 289— p. 221. 
 
 ■>•. London. etc.. R. Co. 
 
 (Eng.-t. L. R. 6 C. P. 194. 40 
 L. T. C. P. 133— p. 221. 
 
 . v. Maine, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2061. 20(i3, 2070. 
 
 Palmer, New Jersey R. Co. f. 
 
 Pennsylvania R". Co. v. 
 
 r Pennsylvania R. Co.. pp. 
 
 U,84, 1687, 1831. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. r. 
 
 f. Utah, etc.. R. Co., p. 2079. 
 
 r. Warren St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2698, 2701, 2897. 
 
 f. Winona R., etc., Co., p 
 
 2667. . , 
 
 Palmer Transfer Co. v. Anderson 
 
 p. 100. 
 — — -•. Smith, p. 2718. 
 Palmeri v. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 
 2056, 2059, 2071. 
 Palsey t. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2336. 
 Panama, The City of. 
 Panama R. Co., Hams f. 
 
 Lignante f. 
 
 Sanbern '■. 
 
 Schwartz f. 
 
 Weed V. 
 
 Panther Lumber Co., Sanderson 
 
 Pape, St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 Para, The City of. 
 
 Paramore z: Western R. Co., pp. 
 
 244, 3306, 3309, 3394, 3398. 
 Pardee v. Drew, pp. 3114, 3124 
 Pares 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2291. 
 Parham, Morgan v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 Woodruff v. 
 
 Paris. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Paris Trans. Co. v. Alexander, p. 
 2657. 
 
 Paris, etc., R. Co. z: Robinson, 
 pp. 1493, 1497, 1498, 2666, 2667, 
 2669. . , „ „ 
 
 Parish, International, etc., R. >-o. 
 
 '- V. Ulster, etc., R. Co., 192 
 
 N Y. 353, 85 N. E. 153— pp. 
 59, 1620, 2442. 
 
 r. Ulster, etc., R. Co.. 90 N. 
 
 Y. S. 1000, 99 App. Div. 10— 
 pp. 2462, 2463. 
 
 Parish & Co. i'. Yazoo, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 249. 
 Park, Hostetter v. 
 
 Houston Elect. Co. f. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Preston, pp. 433. 728. 822, 
 
 1000, 1001, 1030. 3880. 
 
 r. Southern Railway, pp. 268, 
 
 3134, 3139, 3140. 3185, 3301. 
 
 Parke, Dayton r. 
 Parker v. .Atlantic, etc.. K. Co., 
 pp. 148, 822, 1040. 
 
 Hirmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 1683, 1736, 1762, 2695, 2760, 
 2761, 2898, 2930, 2980. 
 
 — f. I'.yrnes. p. 1245. 
 
 — ■;■ Des Moines City R. Co.. 
 pp 2012, 2561, 2763. 2895. 2976. 
 
 — V. Elmira. etc., R. Co., pp. 
 72, 144. 
 
 — V. Flagg, pp. 727, 732, 739. 
 749. , „ ,. 
 
 — V. Great Western R. Co.. p. 
 292. 
 
 — Howe V. ,, , 
 
 — r. Mclver. pp. 1229. 1232. 
 1237. 1241. 
 
 — i: Macv. p. 3300. 
 
 f Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1750. „ „ 
 
 r. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 531, 892, 897, 906. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 t'. North German Lloyd 
 
 Steamship Co., p. 4010. 
 
 V. Railroad Co.. p. 148. 
 
 T.\ St. Louis Transit Co.. p. 
 
 1710. 
 
 Schulz V. _„, 
 
 f. United R. Co.. pp. 1903. 
 
 2248. 2614. ^ „ 
 
 V. Washington, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2867. 
 
 Parker r. Winlow, p. 709. 
 
 Parker Buggy Corp r. At'ant'^- 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 478, 493, 494. 
 Parkersburg, Parkersburg, etc., 
 
 Transp. Co. i. 
 
 Transportation Co. v. 
 
 Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v- 
 
 Parkersburg. p. 3433. 
 Parkinson. Chicago, etc., R. Co. t. 
 Parkman, Lamb v. 
 Parks, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Grand Trunk R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 436, 
 
 467, 634. „ ^ 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Kentucky Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2512, 2539, 2540. 
 
 V Nashville, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1906, 1938. ^ . „ 
 t' St. Louis Transit Co., p. 
 
 1891. „ _ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2113 2197, 2279, 2280, 2283, 
 2416, 2884, 2940, 2971. 
 
 f. San .\ntonio Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2114, 2381, 2382. 
 
 Parlicr :■. Southern R. Co.. pp- 
 
 1884, 2908. 
 Pdrmalee, JefTersonville, etc., K. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Parmelee, Aguirre v. 
 
 r. Austin, p. 3189. 
 
 r. Fisher, pp. 3113. 3114. 
 
 3115. 3118. 3127. 3129. 3130. 
 
 f. Lowitz. p. 8. 
 
 V. McNulty, pp. 3189, 3190. 
 
 V. Western Transp. Co., p. 
 
 Parmelee Co. v. Wheelock, pp 
 
 2010, 2950, 2953. 
 Parmer, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Parnell r. Atlantic Coast Line R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3396, 3398, 3414, 3416. 
 Parr & Co., McFarland r. 
 Parramore, Southern R. Co. f. 
 Parrent v. Rhode Island Co., p. 
 
 2697. , „ „ 
 
 Parrill v. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1087. 1117. 
 Parris v. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2174, 2186. 
 Parrish '■. Pensacola, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 P- 2921. . „ „ 
 
 Parrott V. Atlantic, etc.. K. *-o., 
 
 pp. 2714, 2715, 2853. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Parry, .\tchison. etc.. R. Co. ?'. 
 
 Pcnnsvlvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Walker -•. 
 
 Parshley. State v. 
 
 Parsley. Galveston, etc., R. Co. .-. 
 
 Parsons r. Chicago, etc^ ?- S-^" 
 11 C C. A. 489, 63 Fed. 903— 
 pp. 3680, 3719. 
 
 - ■ f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 
 TT s 447 42 L. Ed. 231. 17 S. 
 Ct 887— pp. 3631. 3684. 3708. 
 3711. 3718. 3719. 3735 3/41. 
 3748. 3775. 3827. 3829. 3830. 
 
 — V. Empire Transp. Co.. pp. 
 4044 4045. 4046. 4062. 
 
 — v. Hardv. pp. 541. 607. 609. 
 618, 619, 628, 634, 635, 728. 
 
 V. Montcath, p. 740. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.). 37 Hun 128-p. 22/8. 
 
 f. New York. etc.. R. Co., 
 
 113 N. Y. 355. 21 N. E. 143. 3 
 L R A 68?. 10 Am. St. Rep. 
 450— pp. 1526, 1964, 2275. 
 
 Ogden V. 
 
 r. United States Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 796, 851, 852. . 
 
 Parsons- Applegate Co. -■•„Louis- 
 
 ville, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 6.-;8. 698. 
 Parsons-Willis Lumber Co. f. 
 
 Stuart, p. 3471. 
 Part of Cargo of Breinstone. Ber- 
 
 tellote f. T, -1 J „^ 
 
 Partee v. Georgia Railroad, pp. 
 
 66, 1494. . or-. 
 
 Partello r. Missouri Pac. K. Co., 
 
 p. 2671.
 
 CCLIl 
 
 'lABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Partelow f. Xewton, etc.. St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1994, 2758, 2889, 2949. 
 
 Partridge, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v- 
 
 V. Woodland Steamboat Co., 
 
 p. 2024. 
 
 Pasadena, etc., R. Co., Hollowaj' v. 
 Pascell f. North Tersev St. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2690. 
 Passaic, The. 
 Passenger Cases, pp. 3421, 3474, 
 
 3564, 3565, 3566, 3571, 3581. 
 Passenger Railway f. Young, pp. 
 
 2038, 2064, 2411. 
 Pastore :■. American Exp. Co., p. 
 
 1071. 
 Pate T. Columbia, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3683, 2694, 2899. 
 
 t'. Tar Heel Steamboat Co., 
 
 p. 4004. 
 
 Paterson z: Central R., etc., Co., 
 pp. 2185, 2250, 2259. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 817, 843, 851. 
 
 v. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 2690. 
 
 Paterson Co., In re. 
 Patillo, Galveston, etc., R. Co. i-. 
 Patria, The. 
 
 Patrick '■. Farmer's Ins. Co., pp. 
 1113, 1118. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 424, 426. 
 
 Shackelford v. 
 
 Patrick Henry, The. 
 
 Patridge v. Woodland Steamboat 
 
 Co., p. 2927. 
 Patron v. Silva, p. 516. 
 Patry v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 77 
 
 Wis. 218, 46 N. W. 56— p. 3092 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8^ 
 
 Wis. 408, 52 N. W. 312— p 
 2478. 
 
 Patscheider v. Great Western R 
 
 Co., p. 3169. 
 Pattee v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1812, 1813, 2734, 2736, 2918 
 
 2942. 
 Patten v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1780. 
 
 V. Faithorn, p. 3509. 
 
 f. Johnson, p. 3159. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1155, 1156. 
 
 Patterson v. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2562. 
 
 Baltimore Steam-Packet Co. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Clyde, pp. 1037, 1047. 
 
 Patterson, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 645, 671, 677. 
 
 Jordan f. 
 
 V. Kansas, etc., R'. Co., pp. 
 
 320, 323, 984, 986. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2164. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3422, 3482, 3487. 
 
 f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 822, 1385, 1420. 
 
 V. Moore, p. 517. 
 
 V. North Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 728, 749, 750. 
 
 V. Old Dominion Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 1611, 3981. 
 
 f. Omaha, etc.. Bridge Co. 
 
 pp. 1891, 1996. 
 
 z: San Francisco, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 2839. 3003. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. f. 
 
 i'. Southern Pac. Co., p. 2850 
 
 Southern R. Co. z-. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1813, 2086. 
 
 Washington, etc., R'. Co. v 
 
 Patterson Tobacco Co., Richmond. 
 
 etc., R. Co. f. 
 Patterson & Co., Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 
 etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 
 Richmond 
 
 z: Gulf, 
 
 831, 832. 
 
 Patterson, etc., Co., 
 
 etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Pattison z'. Culton, pp. 3.-)5, 1225. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. T'. 
 
 • Lafayette, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Patton, Chevaillier t'. 
 
 Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Magrath, pp. 729, 73:», 
 
 768, 1008. 
 
 z: Pickles, p. 2oS0. 
 
 ■;•. Texas, etc., R'. Co., ii. 
 
 2670. 
 Patzke 7-. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co , 
 
 p. 2820. 
 Paul, Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., ]). 
 
 1076. 
 
 V. Salt Lake Citv R. Co., 8,5 
 
 Pac. 563, 30 Utah 41— pp. 2395, 
 2688. 
 
 V. Salt Lake City R. Co., 34 
 
 Utah 1, 95 Pac. 363— pp. 2671. 
 2687. 
 
 z\ \'irginia, pp. 3440, 3447. 
 
 Paul Citv R. Co., Pine '•. 
 Paul, etc., R. Co., Smith v. 
 Paulitsch z\ New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1665, 1881. 
 Faulk, Southwestern R. Co. '•. 
 Paulsen z\ United States, p. 3441. 
 Paulson V. Brooklyn City R. Co, 
 
 p. 2815. 
 Paulson, Magdeburg Ins. Co. '■. 
 Pauson, Northern Pac. R. Co. ■:■. 
 Pavey, Southern Kansas R. Co. z\ 
 Pavitt V. Lehigh \'aney Railroad, 
 
 p. 1420. 
 Pawtucket St. R. Co., Cottrcll ?■. 
 
 Pawtuxet Valley St. R. Co., Mur- 
 ray Z'. 
 Paxon, Fisher v. 
 
 Sharer z-. 
 
 Paxson Bros. v. Warfield, pp. 393, 
 
 391. 
 Payne, Dallas Rapid Transit Co. 
 
 Danville St. Car Co. ■;■. 
 
 z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 1539. 
 
 • Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 T'. Nashville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1921, 2188, 2923, 2987. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sleade z'. 
 
 c'. Spokane St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1716, 1750, 2950. 
 
 I'. Springfield St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1520, 2333, 2928, 2948. 
 
 Terre Haute Tract., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 z'. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2094. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Paynter z\ Bridgeton, etc., Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 2672. 
 Payton r. Gulf Line R. Co., pp. 
 
 1851, 2566. 
 P., C, C. & St. R. Co., Guy T'. 
 P., C. & St. L. R. Co. T'. lilake- 
 
 more, pp. 322, 455, 981. 
 
 z: Martin, pp. 1537, 1714, 
 
 Peabody, Brower -<•. 
 
 V. Oregon R. etc., Co., p. 
 
 2663. 
 
 Peacock, Central R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. i. 
 
 Hodges z\ 
 
 Peale, Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pearce, Crenshawe z\ 
 
 V. Newton, pp. 731, 746. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. 
 
 Pearl, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pearson, Alden v. 
 
 v. Duane, pp. 210, 1492 
 
 1496, 1497, 2416, 2419, 3083 
 3097, 3978. 
 
 Pearson, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kidd z: 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Pease ?'. Delaware, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 11 Daly 350— p. 2474. 
 
 i'. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 101 
 
 N. Y. 367, 5 N. E. 37, 54 Am. 
 Rep. 699— p. 2473. 
 
 ?'. Sloahee, p. 1223. 
 
 Peasemoore Mill. Co., Burrton 
 
 State Bank ?■. 
 Peat -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 
 2778. 
 Peavey & Co. ■:■. Union Pac. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 3(.79, 3732, 3733. 3734, 
 
 3791, 3798. 
 Peavy ?•. Georgia R. Co., pp. 2055, 
 
 2417, 2418, 2482. 
 Peck V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1938, 2859. 
 
 Carter z: 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1285, 1298, 1362, 1363, 1477, 
 1478. 
 
 Clapp Bros. & Co. ■:'. 
 
 Corse i: 
 
 ■;■. Dinsmore, pp. 308. 333. 
 
 337, 838, 840. 
 
 Meyer "'. 
 
 z: Neil, pp. 1749, 1999. 2036. 
 
 z'. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 8 Hun 286— pp. 2412, 
 2413. 
 
 z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 70 N. Y. 587— pp. 191, 1943, 
 2485. 
 
 I'. North Staffordshire R. 
 
 Co., p. 790. 
 
 ■ 7'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2384, 2403. 2687, 2985. 2990. 
 
 ■;•. Springfield Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 1996, 2657. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3888. 
 
 7'. Weeks, pp. 614, 746, 806, 
 
 1003, 1007. 
 
 Pecos River R. Co. 7'. Harrington, 
 p. 507. 
 
 z: Latham, pp, 443, 448, 454, 
 
 462, 1319, 1342. 
 
 Pecos Valley, etc., R. Co. 7'. Har- 
 ris, p. 3753. 
 
 Pecos, etc., R. Co. 7'. Cox, pp. 418, 
 1441. 
 
 v. Crews, p. 3332. 
 
 z.: Evans-Snyder-Buel Co.. 100 
 
 Tex. 190, 97 S. W. 466— pp. 
 757, 758, 947, 1099, 1101, 1102, 
 1417, 1420. 
 
 7'. Evans-Snider-Buel Co., 42 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 60, 93 S. W. 
 1024— pp. 447. 464, 971, 1277, 
 1290, 1305, 1318. 
 
 z: Hughes, pp. 503. 940, 947, 
 
 1078, 1080, 1363, 1381. 
 
 7'. Maxwell, pp. 645, 696. 
 
 7'. Meyer, p. 487. 
 
 7'. Porter, pp. 521, 589, 598, 
 
 3729, 3750. 
 
 Runnells 7. 
 
 7'. Trower, pp. 1737. 1755. 
 
 Twichell 7'. 
 
 7'. Twichell, pp. 1730, 2033. 
 
 Wallace 7'. 
 
 7'. Williams, p. 1762. 
 
 Pedon, Iron & Steel Co., Ca-e 
 
 Belt R-. Co. 7'. 
 Pederson, Hartford Deposit Co. v. 
 
 7'. Seattle Consol. St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2261. 
 
 Pedigo, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z. 
 
 McConnell 7'. 
 
 Peebles z\ Boston, etc., R. Co.. p-i. 
 
 348, 580, 590, 595, 596, 1142, 
 
 1171. 
 Peele 7'. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 337, 338, 346, 501, 587. 
 Peeples z'. Brunswick, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2038, 2040, 2045, 2049, 2605, 
 
 2610. 
 Peerless Mfg. Co. z: New York. 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 779, 833, 843. 
 Peet 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 
 
 Wis. 118— p. 3253.
 
 TAIiM". OF CASES. 
 
 CCI.III 
 
 Peet V. Chicago, clc. K. Co.. 20 
 Wis 594, 91 Am. Ucc. 446— pp. 
 236' 253. '.07, (.08. 610, 611, 615, 
 618! (.54, 3258, 3401. 
 
 Pette V. Morgan, pp. 3330 33»l. 
 
 Pegler r. Monmouthshire K., etc, 
 
 Peik v.''' Chicago, etc R. Co.. pp. 
 
 34. 36. i7, 46, 63. 116. 122. 
 
 3492, 3493, 3497, 3668. 
 Peirce, lilaekman v. 
 Peixotti r. McLaughlin, pp. 314_, 
 
 Pell -y. Joliet, etc.. R. Co.. 238 111. 
 
 510, 87 N. K. 542— pp. 1742, 
 
 2079, 2311, 2641, 2882, 2894. 
 V. Joliet, etc., R. Co., 142 
 
 111. App. 362-pp. 2079, 2337. 
 relU-titr, Chicago Lity K. to. -.■. 
 Pelot V. Atlantic, ttc, R. to. pp. 
 
 1735, 2039, 2575, 2580, 2o06 
 Pclton 7'. Rensselaer, etc., K. Lo., 
 
 pp. 896, 901, 902 
 Pcmherton Co. v. New \ ork, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 782, 958 
 Pembina Consol., etc.. Mill. Co 
 
 Pennsylvania, pp. 58. (.U 
 
 3473, '3570. 
 Pence t. Louisville, etc., 
 
 P. 1857. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. - 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co.. 
 
 2127, 2150. 2227, 2399. 
 Pendegast. Whitin v. 
 Pender f. Robbins. p. U- 
 Pendergast v. Adams Iv-xp. Co., pp. 
 
 3254. 3353. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Grund r. 
 
 V. Union R. Co., p. 2174. 
 
 Pender-lleyman Hardware Co.. 
 
 PenderyV Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Pendleton, Cincinnati, etc., K. (^o. 
 
 1684, 1693, 
 
 3472, 
 , R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2126, 
 
 PP 
 
 pp 
 
 V. Kinsley, PP 
 
 1750, 2045, 2047. 
 
 . Miller v. 
 
 . Norfolk, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Pleasants v. 
 
 z: Richmond, etc., R. t.o., 
 
 pp. 1509, 2114. 2117, 2131, 2136. 
 
 Pwitield V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2077, 2422. 2494. 
 Peninsular R. Co., W hite t'. 
 Peninsula, etc., Co. r. Shand, p. 
 
 1490. „ 
 
 Peniston r. Chicago, etc., to., 
 
 1767, 1793, 1798, 1964. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 Penn, Albright r. 
 
 . V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 
 
 436, 728, 1269, 1280 137x 
 Penn Clothing Co. v. United States 
 
 Exp. Co., pp. 946, 1029. 
 Penn Collieries Co., Sheridan v. 
 Penn R. Co., New Jersey R., etc.. 
 
 Penn Refin. Co.. Western New 
 
 York, etc., R. Co. '.: 
 f. Western, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3730. 3731. ^ ^ ,, 
 
 Pennewill z: Cullen PP- 2, 4 11, 
 
 209, 727, 732, 748, 732, 8(.8. 
 Penniman, Lane z\ 
 
 Tinslcy v. . r o 
 
 Pennington v. ^'I'VP'S, Cent. K. 
 
 Co., pp. \(^2i. 1(.24. 1634. 2447. 
 
 X' Philadelphia Co., etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1624, 2447. 
 
 Sehncideau & Co. 
 
 Pennock. Pennsylvania 
 Pennock. Pullman Co. c. 
 Pennsylvania, Cook v. 
 
 Erie R. Co. T. 
 
 Gloucester Ferry Co. r. 
 
 Lehigh N'alley R. Co. v. 
 
 New York, etc., R'. Co., ■:■. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Pembina Consol., etc.. Mill. 
 
 Co. -■. ^ , • 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co. '■. , ^ 
 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 R. Co. t 
 
 Pennsylvania, Reading Railroad v. 
 
 Schmidt "■. 
 
 SchoUenberger v. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. f. 
 
 V. Wheeling, etc.. Bridge Co., 
 
 p. 3477. 
 
 Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., Mc- 
 Cormick v. 
 
 V. Schwarzenberger, pp. 3165, 
 
 3178, 3373, 3375. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. r. Bray, pp. 1635, 
 2461, 2463, 2470, 2471, 2708, 
 3025. 
 
 Brown, etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 501, 730. 
 
 V. Chicago, p. 100. 
 
 V. Clark, pp. 1306, 1442. 
 
 Colgate V. 
 
 - V. Coyer, p. 2703. 
 
 - V. Dickson, p. 3289. 
 
 - Donnovan v. 
 
 - Donovan v. 
 
 - V. Donovan, pp. 99, 132. 
 
 Edison V. 
 
 - Edward Frohlich Glass Co. v. 
 
 Ellsworth V. 
 
 r. Fairchild, pp. 1489, 1490, 
 
 3400. 
 
 Fortier v. 
 
 Frohlich :•. 
 
 Frohlich Glass Co. r. 
 
 Graham v. 
 
 r. Greso, 79 111. App. 127- 
 
 pp. 2092, 2093. 
 
 - V. Greso, 102 111. App. 2^2- 
 pp. 1502, 1567. 
 
 Grimes v. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 Hays & Co. V. 
 
 r. lline, pp. 1625, 2425, 2437, 
 
 2447. 
 
 V. Hoagland, p. 1854. 
 
 r. Ilolderman, pp. o83, 384. 
 
 Jordan v. 
 
 V. Kenwood Bridge Co., pp. 
 
 291, 752, 754, 758, 830. 
 
 V. Kcnnard Glass, etc., Co., 
 
 -J^ ^T^^Lenhart, pp. 2446, 2468, 
 
 2709, 2718. „,, ^^, 
 r. Liveright, pp. 8l3, 821, 
 
 3168, 3169. ^ ^„„ _^ 
 V. Loftis, 72 O. St. 288, /4 
 
 N E 179, 106 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 597_pp. 3317, 3322. 
 V. Loftis, 72 O. St. 300, 74 
 
 N. E. 182— pp. 3317, 3322. 
 
 Lucas V. .. . 
 
 V. McCaffrey, 173 111. 169, 
 
 SO N. E. 713— pp. 1537. 2246, 
 2275, 2746, 2747, 2857, 2879. 
 
 r. McCaffrey, 68 111. App. 
 
 635— p. 2247. 
 
 V Marion, 104 Ind. 239, 3 
 
 N. E. 874— p. 2577. . 
 
 V. Marion, 123 Ind. 4l3, 23 
 
 N E 973, 18 Am. St. Rep. 330. 
 7 "l. R. A. 687— pp. 1767, 1779, 
 2296. I 
 
 f. Miller, pp. 3117, 3121. 
 
 3124. 3142. 3151. 3153. 3154. 
 3174. 
 
 V. Newmeyer. pp. 1753, 1/37, 
 
 1987, 2767, 2888. 
 
 V. O'Connell, p. 166. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. f. Paul, pp. 1953. 
 
 2343, 2974. 
 
 Pierce f. 
 
 V. Poor, pp. 477, 479. 489. 
 
 492. 682. ^^^^ 
 
 I'. Purvis, pp. 2093. 2696. 
 
 V. Roy, pp. 1714, 1718. 1719. 
 
 1722. 1735. 1738. 1821. 1837. 
 2776, 3225. 
 
 Scofield V. 
 
 V. Scofield. p. 2484. 
 
 V. Sheares, pp. 1083, 1084. 
 
 1087. 1090. 
 
 Siynfy r. 
 
 Stoner v. 
 
 Struble v. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co., Taylor v. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 i: Toomey, p. 2530. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3654. 
 
 !•. Walker, p. 1450. 
 
 V. Wentz, pp. 1857. I838. 
 
 1861, 2455. 
 
 V. Witte. p. 2605. 
 
 V. Yoder, pp. 822, 947, 949. 
 
 1076. ^ . , 
 
 Pennsylvania Miller State Ass n r. 
 
 P. & Q. Ry. Co., p. 700. 
 Pennsylvania Railroad, Tobin v. 
 
 Weil V. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., Aaronson v. 
 
 Alexander r. 
 
 Allam :•. ., , 
 
 V American Oil Works, pp. 
 
 1162, 1163, 1248, 1249. 
 
 American Union Coal Co. r. 
 
 V. Anoka Nat. Bank, pp. 827, 
 
 828 
 
 -i^'^Ji: pp. 1722. 2.13, 
 2263. 
 
 Banks v. 
 
 Barker-Bond Lumber Co. :•. 
 
 Becker v. 
 
 Begley v. 
 
 r. Bell. p. 2133. 
 
 V. Berry, pp. 3251, 3232. 
 
 Bleiwise v. 
 
 Blount v. 
 
 Blue V. „ ,..„ 
 
 V. Board, pp. 24, 31, 88, 3300. 
 
 V. Brooks, pp. 1542, 2665, 
 
 2676, 2762. 
 
 Brakman v. 
 
 Brennisen :'. 
 
 Buck V. ^ , ^ 
 
 r. Bulah Shaft Coal Co., p. 
 
 706. 
 
 Burnett v. 
 
 Burns v. 
 
 Burr V. 
 
 V. Burr, pp. 790, /92. 
 
 Buston V. 
 
 Camdec v. 
 
 Carr v. 
 
 Carter v. 
 
 Catanzaro v. 
 
 r. Clark, pp. 614, 690. 
 
 V. Coggins Co., pp. 
 
 3488. 
 
 Comly V. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, p. 3363. 
 
 f. Connell. 112 111. 295 34 
 
 Am. Rep. 238-pp. 2462, 2482. 
 ^487 2495, 2496, 3079, 3080. 
 
 -1- r. Connell, 127 111. 419. 20 
 E. 89— pp. 2856, 3079, 3080. 
 3083. 
 
 V. Connell. 26 111. App. 594 
 
 —pp. 2855, 3105. 
 
 Conroy "'. 
 
 Cooley f. 
 
 Cox t'. 
 
 Creed r. 
 
 Cunningham z-. 
 
 Dampman v. 
 
 Davenport Co. v. 
 
 Dietrich v. 
 
 Di Giorgio, Importing, etc. 
 
 3426, 
 
 Co. 
 
 Donovan "•. 
 Drake J'. 
 Dunn V. 
 Eckert f. 
 Flower f. 
 Foreman i". 
 V. Fries, p. 
 Gillis x: 
 
 ■ Ginn ■:■. 
 • Glinn r. 
 
 ■ V. Goetchius, 
 
 - Cioldey t'. 
 
 - Greb v. 
 
 - Green r. 
 
 - ;-. Green, 
 
 - Gude f. 
 
 - Hall v. 
 
 - Harrison f. 
 
 - Harrison Granite Co. 
 
 - Hart r. 
 
 745. 
 
 pp. 765, 766. 
 
 pp. 1767, 2871.
 
 CCLIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 1073. 3443, 
 3504. 3519, 
 
 Coal Mill. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., Hayman f. 
 
 i: Henderson, pp. i567, 2098, 
 
 2131. 
 
 Hillsdale Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Holmes f. 
 
 Home Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Hoover i: 
 
 Hove T'. 
 
 Hughes f. 
 
 f. Hughes, pp. 
 
 3481, 3482, 3502, 
 3600, 3650. 
 
 . Hutchins v. 
 
 Hutkoff r. 
 
 V. International 
 
 Co 97 C. C. A. 383, 173 Fed 
 1— pp. 3688, 3700, 3709, 3710, 
 3738. ^ , ,.. 
 
 z: International Coal Mm. 
 
 Co , 230 U. S. 184, 35 S. Ct. 
 893— p. 3814. 
 
 Tackson v. 
 
 'z: Tohn Anda Co., pp. 962, 
 
 981. 
 
 Tones f. 
 
 z: Tones, pp. 2087, 2089, 3252, 
 
 3258. " 
 
 Toynes f. 
 
 v. Kennard Glass, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 939, 1036. 
 
 Kennedy '■. 
 
 . z: Kilgore, p. 1884. 
 
 Kilpatrick v. 
 
 V. Knight 58 N. T. L. 287. 
 
 33 Atl. 845— pp. 3119, 3120, 
 3185. 
 
 v. Knight, 192 U. S. 21, 48 
 
 L. Ed. 325, 24 S. Ct. 202— pp. 
 3572, 3589. 
 
 Kohler z: 
 
 Lang z: 
 
 Langdon v. 
 
 f. Langdon, p. 2211. 
 
 Le\vis z\ 
 
 Lindsey r. 
 
 Lippmann '•. 
 
 Logan Coal Co. v. 
 
 Long z: 
 
 Lucesco Oil Co. v. 
 
 V. Lyons, pp. 1884, 1895, 
 
 2267. 
 
 McCafferty v. 
 
 V. McCaffrey, pp. 2667, 2858. 
 
 McClintock z\ 
 
 z: McCloskey, pp. 2127, 2217. 
 
 Machlin v. 
 
 z\ MacKinney, pp. 2669, 2781. 
 
 McMasters v. 
 
 McXulty z: 
 
 McSwegan v. 
 
 Margo v. 
 
 Marmonstein z'. 
 
 V. Marshall, p. 699. 
 
 • Matthews v. 
 
 Maxson v. 
 
 Meier v. 
 
 Messenger '■. 
 
 z: Midvale Steel Co., pp. 700, 
 
 707, 708, 716, 717, 718, 1137. 
 
 V. Miller, 87 Pa. 395- p. 
 
 1038. 
 
 V. Miller, 87 Pa. 577, 1 3 Atl. 
 
 324, 4 Am. St. Rep. 670— p. 822. 
 
 Minds V. 
 
 Mitchell Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Mogi, pp. 3753, 3758. 
 
 Morrisdale Coal Co. v. 
 
 Moyer v. 
 
 ■ V. Naive, pp. 534, 565, 611, 
 
 612, 822, 894, 901, 903. 
 
 New Jersey R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 v. Orem, etc., Produce Co., 
 
 pp. 835, 861, 3297. 
 
 Palmer v. 
 
 V. Palmer, p. 3105. 
 
 V. Parry, pp. 1612, 1620. 
 
 Paul V. 
 
 V. Pennock, p. 576. 
 
 V. Peoples, pp. 1789, 1881 
 
 2562. 
 
 Perry v. 
 
 z: Peters, pp. 1884, 2360. 
 
 Petrie v. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. z: Philadel- 
 phia' County, pp. 35. 44, 48, 5(i, 
 62, 124. 
 
 Powell z: 
 
 Price f. 
 
 z: Price, pp. 1502, 1537, 1576, 
 
 2102. 
 
 ■ Puritan Coal Min. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Quinn z\ 
 
 Rager ''. 
 
 z'. Raiordon, pp. 816, 820. 827, 
 
 1037, 1389, 1456. 
 
 Rathgebe f. 
 
 Rawson f. 
 
 Reed z: 
 
 z: Reed, pp. 2065, 2157. 
 
 Reese v. 
 
 ■ R'idgway Grain Co. i'. 
 
 Ritz v. 
 
 • Rivers v. 
 
 Roberts z\ 
 
 Rothstein z'. 
 
 Rowdin v. 
 
 Rowland v. 
 
 ■ Runyon v. 
 
 z: Russ, p. 1787. 
 
 • Ryer z\ 
 
 ■ Salberg r. 
 
 v. Samuel, pp. 708, 712. 
 
 Schofield z\ 
 
 V. Scroggins Co., p. 3501. 
 
 Sherman z\ 
 
 Shipper '•. 
 
 Shockley i'. 
 
 Sleeper -'. 
 
 z: Smith, p. 804. 
 
 z\ Spiker, p. 1622. 
 
 . Spofford t'. 
 
 ■ Staake z\ 
 
 z'. Stern, 
 
 pp.__369, 371, 378, 
 1796, 
 
 532, 547, 556, 3274 
 
 z\ Stockton, pp. 1779 
 
 2817, 2874, 2875. 
 
 • Sutton c'. 
 
 • Taylor z\ 
 
 Thomas z'. 
 
 Trace ?•. 
 
 Tucker ?'. 
 
 Tuesco Oil Co. "'. 
 
 Tyler z: 
 
 United States v. 
 
 v. Vandiver, pp. 2413, 2490. 
 
 X'ankirk -'. 
 
 i\ Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1627, 2497. 
 
 Walnut Coal Co. v. 
 
 Walthour v. 
 
 Watkins v. 
 
 Weaver v. 
 
 z: Weiller, p. 1074. 
 
 i'. Wemple, 65 Hun 252, 20 
 
 N. Y. S. 287— p. 3573. 
 
 z: Wemple, 138 N. Y. 1, 33 
 
 N. E. 720, 19 L. R. A. 694— p. 
 3573. 
 
 Wertheimer ?•. 
 
 v. White, p. 2275. 
 
 Willock z: 
 
 • '•. Wilson, p. 809. 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 Wright z: 
 
 Young Z'. 
 
 ■ r. Zebe, 33 Pa. 318— pp. 
 
 2113, 2246. 
 
 z: Zebe, 37 Pa. 420— p. 2246. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Go's. Appeal, p. 
 
 3886. 
 Pennsylvania Steam Towing, etc., 
 
 Co., Ashmore v. 
 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia 
 
 R., etc., Co., pp. 1248, 1249. 
 Pennsylvania Tract. Co., I^ard c'. 
 Pennsylvania, etc., Co., Neville z'. 
 Pennsylvania, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 
 Dandridge, p. 769. 
 Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co., Dayton 
 
 '- V. Waltman, pp. 897, 898. 
 
 V. Woodworth, pp. 1577, 1578. 
 
 Penny z>. Atlantic Coast Line R. 
 
 Co., p. 2657. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1711, 1927, 2020, 2079, 2234. 
 
 Penobscot Ray, etc., Steamboat Co., 
 
 Hutchins z\ 
 Pensacola Elect. Co. z\ Alexander, 
 
 pp. 2777, 2860, 3003. 
 
 r. Bissett, p. 28()1. 
 
 Pensacola Tel. Co. '■. Western 
 
 Union Tel. Co., pp. 3418, 3446, 
 3447, 3471. 
 Pensacola, etc., Co., Williams Co. 
 
 Pensacola, etc., R. Co. z: Haufs- 
 man, pp. 2921, 2929. 
 
 Johnson z'. 
 
 ■ Parrish z'. 
 
 State z'. 
 
 • '■. State, pp. 61, 124, 1192. 
 
 Storrs 7'. 
 
 ■ Wilkinson z\ 
 
 Penton z<. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 p. 3169. 
 People T'. Albany, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 255. 
 
 AUardt v. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■;•. Babcock, pp. 211, 236, 239. 
 
 z\ Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 172. 
 
 ■:•. Bishopp, 94 N. Y. S. 773, 
 
 106 App. Div. 266— p. 3541. 
 
 V. Bishopp, 89 N. Y. S. 709, 
 
 44 Misc. R'ep. 12 — p. 354K 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 255. 
 
 ''. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 70. 
 
 V. Brooks, p. 3582. 
 
 ■:■. B. & B. Turnpike, p. 1501. 
 
 V. Caryl, pp. 2417, 2418. 
 
 Central Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 
 
 111. 95, 8 Am. Rep. 631— pp. 
 541, 542. 
 
 ■ z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 223 
 
 111. 581, 79 N. E. 144, 7 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1— p. 3524. 
 
 Chilvers z\ 
 
 z'. Commissioners of Taxes 
 
 and Assessments, p. 3582. 
 
 ■ 7'. Compagnie Generale Trans- 
 
 atlantique, pp. 3564, 3565. 
 
 V. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 154 Mich. 514, 118 N. W. 9, 32 
 R. R. R. 158, 55 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 158— pp. 1646, 1647. 
 
 7'. Detroit LTnited Railway, 
 
 162 Mich. 460, 127 N. W. 748— 
 p. 81. 
 
 . 7'. Downer, p. 3565. 
 
 z: Duchess, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 255. 
 
 7'. Edye, p. 3565. 
 
 7'. Erie R. Co., 198 N. Y. 
 
 369, 91 N. E. 849, 29 L. R. A., 
 N S., 240, 18 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 811— pp. 3426, 3458. 
 
 7'. Erie R. Co., 119 N. Y. S. 
 
 873, 135 App. Div. 767— pp. 3457, 
 3458. 
 
 V. Fisher, p. 3421. 
 
 V. Fishkill, etc.. Road Co., p. 
 
 1501. 
 
 v. Halbustro, p. 2562. 
 
 7'. Hillsdale, etc.. Turnpike 
 
 Road. p. 1501. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 7,'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 32. 
 
 . ' Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Tillson, p. 2473. 
 
 z'. k. & N. Turnpike, p. 1501. 
 
 V. McKay, p. 1499. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1501. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 22 Hun 533- p. 264. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N Y.), 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 
 I, 28 Hun 543, 2 Civ. Proc. R. 
 
 II, 2 McCarty Civ. Proc. 345— 
 pp. 211, 212, 251, 255, 256, 257, 
 1500, 1501.
 
 TAIU.K OF CASKS. 
 
 CCLV 
 
 People r. New York etc., K Co 
 104 N. Y. 58, 9 N. h. 836. 58 
 Am. Rep. 484— p. 117. 
 
 r New York, etc.. R. Co., 5 
 
 N. Y. S. 945_p. 1835 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 8 
 
 IM Y S. 672, 55 Ilun 409, 608— 
 
 . Ohio, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Prillen, p. 3583. 
 
 . V. Roberts, p. 3586. 
 
 . V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 255. , ,^,, 
 V State Hoard, p. i^si- 
 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Walcott V. 
 
 Walling r. 
 
 V. Weaver, p. 3570. 
 
 Wilcox V. 
 
 Peoples, Pennsylvania R. Co. t. 
 People's Hank, Douglas v. 
 
 V. Morgolofski, p. 1750. 
 
 People's Coal Co., Nicolette Lum- 
 ber Co. I'. , , 
 
 People's Exp. Co., Commonwealth 
 
 People's Nat. Bank v. Brogden, 98 
 Tex. 360, 83 S. W. 1098— p. 400. 
 
 r. Rrogden (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 84 S. W. 601, 602— p. 400. 
 
 People's Passenger R. Co. v. Green, 
 
 pp. 1530, 1905, 2116, 2191. 
 —11 V. Lauderbach, pp. 2203, 2913. 
 
 Baldwin 
 
 Pcrc Marquette R. Co., United 
 
 States I'. 
 
 Withcy V. 
 
 Perishable Freight fransp. Co. 2: 
 
 O'Neill, p. 872. 
 Perishaw, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Baldwin, pp. 
 
 1695. 
 
 Bertram v. 
 
 Bischoff y. 
 
 Braunstein v. 
 
 Coye V. 
 
 Coyle V. 
 
 Kleiber v. 
 
 McAllister v. 
 
 Newton v. 
 
 People's Sav. Rank 
 
 etc.. Transit Co., p 
 People's Steamboat 
 
 Steamboat Co. ■:•. 
 People's St. R. Co., Jager 
 
 Pitcher %: 
 
 People's St. R., etc., 
 
 V. 
 
 Van Natta r. 
 
 People's, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 1827. 
 Peoria Packing Co. v 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 981, 
 
 1682, 1694, 
 
 Waterloo 
 659. 
 Co., Weems 
 
 Co., Buck 
 
 '. Weiller, 
 
 Nashville, 
 1046. 
 R. Co., Chicago, etc.. 
 
 Peoria, etc 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 209 210, 236. 240, 1493, 3271, 
 3282, 3283, 3304. 
 
 Corning & Co. f. 
 
 V. Lane, p. 2210. 
 
 V. Reynolds, p. 2693. 
 
 Rosenfeld v. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 «. United States, etc., Co., 
 
 pp 727, 732, 748, 819, 916, 3282, 
 3283. 
 
 Peoria, etc.. Terminal Railway r. 
 
 Hoerr, p. 2425. I 
 
 Pepper, Hastings '■. \ 
 
 Pepperell Mfg. Co., Gulf, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Pequeno ?■. Taylor, p. 1241. 
 Percy v. Fitcliburg R. Co., p. 2504. 
 
 r. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1646, 1(.47. 2442. 
 
 Union Sul'iluir L o. -■_. 
 
 V. Union Sulphur Co., pp. 
 
 3952. 3968. 
 
 Perego v. Lake Shore, etc., K. t-o., 
 
 pp. 1775. 2272. 
 Pereira v. Central Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 337, 412, 1017, 3278, 
 Pere Marquette R. Co., Crosby v. 
 
 Dahrooge v. 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 Pere Marquette R. Co. f. Strange. 
 
 pp. 1508. 1512. 1514, 1713, 1768, 
 1797, 1799, 1800, 1918, 2137. 
 2873. 
 
 Perkett v. Manistee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 483 489.. ^ r ., 
 
 Perkins, American F;xp. Lo. .'. 
 
 f. Chautauqua Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 516, 517. 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1758. ,„ ^ 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Irzo t'. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Missouri. etc., Railroad, 
 
 pp. 2474, 2715, 2718. 
 
 T New Orleans R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 1905. 
 
 f New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1759, 2095, 2096. 
 
 V. Ophir Silver Min. Co., p. 
 
 436. „ ^ 
 
 V. Portland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 417, 418, 848, 3295, 3410. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 3161, 3167. 
 
 Perkins Co. v. American Rxp. Co., 
 
 pp 421, 440, 441, 456, 83I, 
 
 1049. „ ^ 
 
 Perley v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3149, 3150. 
 Perrault ?■. Emporium Department 
 
 Store Co., pp. 1488, 2331, 2901. 
 Perrin, Dows v. 
 
 1: United States hxp. Co.. 
 
 p. 990. 
 
 Perry v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1619, 2446. 
 
 V. Central Railroad, pp. I3l4. 
 
 1791, 1916, 1917, 2966. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 Haddow v. 
 
 Humphreys v. 
 
 V. Malarin, p. 1985. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. •c'. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2418. 
 
 r. Philadelphia, etc., R'. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1578. 2105. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1603, 2434. 
 
 7.. Spreckles' Sugar-Refin. Co., 
 
 •p. 3963. „ ^ 
 
 — — V. Thompson, pp. 324, 966. 
 996. 
 
 V. Torrence, p. 3581. 
 
 Westcall V. 
 
 Wood r. 
 
 Perry Co., Donaldson f. 
 
 Pershing r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1723, 1734, 1743, 1810, 2695, 
 2841. 
 
 Persiana, The. 
 
 Person, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Persse r. Cole, p. 594. 
 
 PeruA'an Zandt Imp. Co., Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. 
 
 Peters. Bancroft r. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Elliott, p, 1224. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Huston V. 
 
 Loeb 7'. T^ /- 
 
 f New Orleans, etc., K. Co.. 
 
 p. 1273. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Rylands, pp. 1721, 2086. 
 
 Peters, etc., Co. v. Marietta, etc^, 
 
 Co., pp. 26, 1135, 1136, 1193, 
 
 1196. 
 Petersburg R. Co., Daniel f. 
 Petersburg, etc.. Steamboat Line f. 
 
 Norfolk-Virginia Peanut Co., p. 
 
 3936. 
 Petersen v. Case, p. J2/9. 
 
 T.Elgin, etc.. Tract. Co.. 8/ 
 
 N E. 345, 238 HI. 403— pp. 1^07, 
 
 V. Elgin, etc.. Tract. Co.. 142 
 
 HI. App. 34— pp. 1559, 1958, 
 2319, 2334, 2947. 
 
 Peterson v. Chicago Consol. Tract. 
 Co., pp. 2356. 2388, 2906 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., KU 
 
 Iowa 92, 45 N. W. 573— pp. 3178. 
 3179, 3193. „ ^, 
 
 !. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 19 
 
 S Dak. 122, 102 N. W. 593, 18 
 R R. R. 48, 41 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 48— pp. 818. 1451. 
 1453. 1467, 1471, 1472. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 95 
 
 N W 532, 119 Wis. 197, 100 
 Am. St. Rep. 879— p. 2100. 
 
 Cox, etc., Co. '.■. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Dinnigan v. 
 
 z: Eight Hundred and Sixty- 
 Nine Cedar Logs, p. 3942. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 2596, 2751, 2924. 
 
 V. Middlesex, etc., Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2771, 3087. 
 
 v. Schultzc-Berge, p. 3913. 
 
 V. Seattle Tract. Co., p. 2100. 
 
 V. State, p. 3512. 
 
 V. Tacoma, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 81. 
 
 Petit, Colorado Springs, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. -.■. 
 Petitions of Patersen, In re. 
 Petitt & Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 
 
 p. 388. 
 Petrie v. Heller, p. 3891. 
 
 ?■. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1529, 2440. 
 
 Petties, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t. 
 Pettigrew ■<■. Barnum, pp. 3114. 
 
 3119, 3123. 3124. 3129. 
 Pettit, Dallas, etc., St. R. Co. :. 
 
 First Nat. Bank :. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Scott V. 
 
 Petty f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2479. 
 Pettyjohn v. Oregon Coal, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 4023. 
 Pctuson -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1578. 
 Peverly r. Boston, p. 1838. 
 Pevey, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Peyroux v. Howard, p. 3584. 
 
 Pevtavin, Williams :•. 
 
 Pe'vton V. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1826, 1986. 
 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Peytona, The. 
 
 Pfaelzer z: Pullman Palace Car 
 
 Co., pp. 3221, 3222. 
 Pfaffenback f. Lake Shore, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 2931. 
 PfeflFer v. Buffalo R. Co., p. 2146. 
 Pfeifer & Bro., Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. v. 
 Pfeiffer. Commercial Bank f. 
 Pferdmenges. etc.. R. Co.. Louis- 
 vile, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Pfister f. Central Pac. R. Co.. pn. 
 
 108, 210, 236, 237, 238, 2.'9. 
 
 240 244, 1593, 3110, 3113. 3124. 
 
 3126. 
 Pharos, The. 
 
 Pharr r. Collins, pp. 320, 1160. 
 Phelps, Illinois Cent. R'. Co. z: 
 
 f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp 
 
 230. 250. 
 
 z: London, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3126. 3128. ^ ^ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. Railway z_. 
 
 7- Windsor Steamboat Co.. 
 
 p. 2089. 
 Phenix Ins. Co., Ex parte. 
 Phenix Ins. Co.. In re. 
 
 Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. V. 
 
 Phettiplacc f. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1598, 2468. 2469. 2480. 
 Phifer z: Carolina Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 987. 3348 -r 1 r« 
 
 Philadelphia. Atlantic, etc.. Tel. Co. 
 
 Gilman ;■.
 
 CCLVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Philadelphia. Livery r. 
 
 r- Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., ■ 224 Pa. 544, 34 R. R. R. 
 
 590, 57 Am. & Eng. K. Cas . 
 
 N S 590. 73 .Ml. 923— p. 1<>44. 
 •£. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., 228 Pa. 325, 77 Atl. 501— 
 
 p. 78. 
 
 Sharpless v. 
 
 Wilcox f. ^ ^ 
 
 Philadelphia City Pass. R. Co. z: 
 
 Hassard. pp. 2120, 2741. . 
 
 Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co. I-. ^ , „ 
 
 Philadelphia Fire Ass nr v. iNew 
 
 York. pp. 3447, 3472 
 Philadelphia R. Co., Hayman v. 
 Philadelphia Rapid Trans. Co., 
 
 Blair z: 
 
 Blew V. 
 
 Bradney '■. 
 
 Cohen z\ 
 
 Fane z: 
 
 Harding v. 
 
 Kracker v. 
 
 McDade z: 
 
 Mahonev v. 
 
 Miller r. 
 
 Mittleman f. 
 
 Paterson -'. 
 
 Philadelphia f. 
 
 Ouinn v. 
 
 Rice f. 
 
 Rist '.•. 
 
 Sanson f. 
 
 Scanlon v. 
 
 Sligo V. 
 
 Snowden v. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Thorne v. 
 
 Tilton V. 
 
 White V. 
 
 Widener f. 
 
 Wright f. 
 
 Philadelphia Steam Propeller Co , 
 
 Shank f. 
 Philadelphia Tract. Co., Buzhy '■. 
 
 Dixey v. 
 
 Farley v. 
 
 Jackson v. 
 
 Mann v. 
 
 Reddington v. 
 
 Walters v. 
 
 Philadelphia Warehouse Co., Mun- 
 roe V. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. Iron Co., Em- 
 pire Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., Co., Blair v. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. f. Allen, 
 pp. 2583, 2584, 2585. 
 
 z: Alvord, p. 2819. 
 
 Andenried v. 
 
 f. .Anderson, 72 Md. 519, 20 
 
 Alt. 2, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 345, 20 Am. St. Rep. 483, 8 L. 
 R. A. 673— pp. 1746, 1923, 2680. 
 
 z: Anderson, 94 Pa. 351, 39 
 
 .\m. Rep. 787, 6 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 407— pp. 1809, 1834, 1850, 
 2671, 2681. 
 
 V. Barnard, p. 1151. 
 
 Beaumont v. 
 
 Z'. Beck, p. 3298. 
 
 Blatcher v. 
 
 Borda z\ 
 
 r. Boyer, pp. 1715, 2009, 
 
 2014. 
 
 Boyle V. 
 
 Bricker v. 
 
 Brooks V. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Cambols v. 
 
 Clarke z: 
 
 Colburn v. 
 
 i: Crawford, pp. 1509, 2044, 
 
 2960, 3064. 
 
 Cressen v. 
 
 Cresson v. 
 
 Culbreth z: 
 
 z: Derby, pp. 1502, 1565, 
 
 1694, 1714, 1722, 1727, 1759, 
 1813, 1815, 2036, 2037, 2039, 
 2045, 2519, 2567. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. z: Diff- 
 endal, pp. 753, 766, 3303, 3396, 
 3406, 3411. 
 
 Downey v. 
 
 Dulaney v. 
 
 Duling z: 
 
 z: Edelstein, p. 1925. 
 
 Ellinger z: 
 
 Fairchild ': 
 
 Flanagan ■:•. 
 
 Flinn v. 
 
 Franklin Trust Co. v. 
 
 Gilmore v. 
 
 Graeff z: 
 
 V. Green, pp. 1511, l3l2, 
 
 2609, 2770, 2607. 
 
 Hagan v. 
 
 V. Hand, p. 2394. 
 
 V. Harper, pp. 749, 3139, 
 
 3183. 
 
 Z-. Hassard, p. 2254. 
 
 Hewes v. 
 
 r. Hoeflich, pp. 2434, 3071, 
 
 3087, 3090. 
 
 Hunter v. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 7'. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, pp. 3687, 3788. 
 
 Johnson '■. 
 
 Kantner v. 
 
 Kefauver z: 
 
 Klair z\ 
 
 Knorr "•. 
 
 v. Larkin, p. 2483. 
 
 Laughlin Bros. Co. v. 
 
 r. Lehman, pp. 210, 233, 242, 
 
 1316, 3282. 
 
 Levin 7'. 
 
 McClure '.'. 
 
 V. McCormick, p. 1925. 
 
 McFeat 
 
 pp. 
 
 2327, 2872. 
 
 3891, 
 
 Tow- 
 
 V. McGugan 
 
 McHenry t. 
 
 Minot v. 
 
 Missimer i\ 
 
 Mortland z'. 
 
 National Bank v. 
 
 • V. Peale, pp. 3890 
 
 3942. 
 
 Pennington z\ 
 
 Perry v. 
 
 i\ Philadelphia, etc. 
 
 boat Co., p. 1589. 
 
 Powell i: 
 
 Proud z\ 
 
 • V. Ramsey, p. 3413. 
 
 V. Rice, pp. 2461, 3089. 
 
 r. Schubert, pp. 3464, 3465. 
 
 Seibert v. 
 
 Shive z\ 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 Spear v. 
 
 ■ Sullivan v. 
 
 Swift V. 
 
 Reed v. 
 
 Ritter V. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Truax z\ 
 
 United States v. 
 
 f. Venable Bros., p. 805. 
 
 Walters r'. 
 
 Wcisman "'. 
 
 Wernvvag "'. 
 
 Winkler v. 
 
 v. Wireman, pp. 476, 481 
 
 1218, 1228. 
 
 Wood V. 
 
 Yates V. 
 
 T'. Young, 
 
 2131, 2902. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. Steamboat Co., 
 
 Solomon z'. 
 Philadelphia, etc.. Steamship Co. z: 
 
 Commonwealth, p. 3582. 
 
 v. Pennsylvania, pp. 3423, 
 
 3427, 3446, 3471, 3473, 3480. 
 3551, 3553, 3555, 3559, 3560, 
 3562, 3582. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., Towboat Co., 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 Ditchfield v. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1787, 1826, 
 
 Philanthropic Bldg. Ass'n v. Mc- 
 
 Knight, p. 1195. 
 Philippine Trading Co. z\ United 
 
 States, pp. 3950, 3951. 
 Philips V. Earle, p. 270. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Philipson, Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Philleo, Barrow ;■. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Sanford, pp. 729, 730, 745, 
 
 746, 768, 782, 788. 
 
 Phillips, American Merchants' Un- 
 ion Exp. Co. V. 
 
 American, etc., Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 201, 2493. 
 
 V. Bank, pp. 362, 363. 
 
 • f. Brigham, etc., Co., p. 511. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Earle, pp. 759, 763, 800, 
 
 3136. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. 7\ 
 
 v. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1619, 2092, 2093. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Gustine i-. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. North Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 417, 3254, 3259, 331 L 
 
 'l\ Raynes, p. 3567. 
 
 1-. Rensellaer, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2158. 
 
 r. St. Charles St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1970, 2238. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway v. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 114 Ga. 
 
 284, 40 S. E. 268— pp. 90, 1596, 
 1597, 1599, 2466, 3468. 
 
 z\ Southern R. Co., 124 N. 
 
 C. 123, 32 S. E. 388, 45 L. R. 
 A. 163— pp. 1513, 1561, 1802. 
 
 Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 7'. Western Union Tel. Co . 
 
 p. 1105. 
 
 Phillips & Co., Mobile, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Phiilipsburg Horse Car R. Co. z: 
 
 State Board, p. 3576. 
 Phillips Co. z: Erie Railway, pp. 
 
 706, 716. 
 
 v. Pruitt, 82 S. W. 628, 26 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 831— pp. 2330, 2902. 
 
 Z-. Pruitt, 83 S. W. 114, 26 
 
 Ky. L. Kep. 1105— p. 2902. 
 
 Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., Mor- 
 rison z\ 
 
 Phillipson, Southern Pac. Co. z. 
 
 Phillsbury, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Phinazee, Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Phoenicia, The. 
 
 Phcenix Cotton Oil Co., St. Louis, 
 etc., K. Co. z\ 
 
 Phoenix Ins. Co., Clement v. 
 
 ■ ■ V. Erie, etc., Transp. Co.. 
 
 Fed. Cas. No. 11, 112, 10 Diss. 
 18— pp. 790, 79i. 
 
 V. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 117 U. S. 312, 29 L. Ed. 873, 6 
 S. Ct. 750, 1176— pp. 481, 790. 
 791, 793, 930, 947, 953, 956, 958, 
 1083, 4025. 
 
 Johannes •;■. 
 
 Liverpool, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Liverpool, etc., Steam Co. 7-. 
 
 Phoenix Pot-Works v. Pittsburgh. 
 
 etc., pp. 822, 844, 869. 
 Phoenix Powder Mfg. Co. z. Wa- 
 bash R. Co., 101 Mo. App. 442. 
 74 S. W. 492— pp. 870, 976. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co., 120 Mo. 
 
 App. 566, 97 S. W. 256— pp. 975, 
 1062. 
 
 Phoenix, etc., Co., North Western 
 
 Ins. Co. V. 
 Phoenix, etc.. Oil Co., St. Louis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Physioc, South Covington, etc., St. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Piburn, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Picard z\ Ridge Ave., etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1880.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCLVIl 
 
 !113, 
 
 1881. 
 
 Pichard, I & G. N. R. Co. v. 
 Pickard t. Bayley, pP- 439, 723. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. Pullman Southern Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3471, 3474, 3552, 3555, 3563. 
 3564, 3579, 3594. 
 
 Pickens v. Georgia R., etc., Co. 
 pp. 2562, 2578. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 %■. Richmond, etc., It. Co., pp 
 
 2473, 2474, 2493. 
 
 V. South Carolina, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2774, 2835, 2847. 
 
 Pickering f. Weld, i)p. 1010, 3914. 
 Pickett, Central R. Co. -■. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Central, etc., Co., pp 
 
 2747. 
 
 7-. Howncr, p. 512. 
 
 Jenkins "'. 
 
 '•. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 3068. 
 
 Pickford v. Boston Ivlev. R. Co.. 
 p. 2877. 
 
 V. Grand Turction R. Co. 
 
 (Eng.), 8 M. & VV. 372, 9 D. P. 
 C. 766, 2 Railw. Cas. 592, 5 Tur. 
 731— p. 234. 
 
 V. Grand Junction R. Co., 12 
 
 M. & W. (Eng. E-xch.) 766— p. 
 631. 
 
 Raphal v. 
 
 Rowe f. 
 
 VVyld f. 
 
 Pickles, Patton "'. 
 Pickleseimer, Richmond, etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 Pickwick, Brooke v. 
 Pidgeon i\ United R'. Co., p. 2645. 
 Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 209, 211, 238, 
 
 302, 997, 3259. 
 Piedmont R.' Co. v. Reidsvillc, p. 
 
 ■3574. 
 Pier r. Finch, pp. 1612, 1625. 
 Pierce, Hlackman f. 
 — ■■ — Dillingham v. 
 
 V. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2250, 2253, 2688. 
 
 f. Great Falls, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1982, 2635, 2694. 2809. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2830. 
 
 V. Milwaukee, etc., 
 
 pp. 725, 726. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania Co 
 
 -'. Southern Pac. 
 
 781, '1015, 1072. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. <■. 
 
 Pierce Co. f. Wells Fargo & Co., 
 
 pp. 951. 1061, 1066, 3846. 
 Pierson, Chamberlain v. 
 
 '•. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2709, 3079. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 52 
 
 Wash. 595, 100 Pac. 999— pp. 
 1284, 1287, 1476, 1477. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R'. Co., 61 
 
 Wash. 450, 112 Pac. 509— pp 
 
 1371, 1402, 1403, 1420, 
 
 R. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 p. 1974. 
 Co., pp. 
 
 1361, 
 1422. 
 
 Piggott 
 2738. 
 
 Pike V 
 
 Eastern Cos. R. Co., p. 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Boston Elev. R. 
 
 2122, 2190. 
 '■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 909, 910, 3169, 3174. 
 — ; — Harvy v. 
 
 Pilburn, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pilcher v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 647. 652, 656, 684. 
 Pilgrim, Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pillow, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pillsbury, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pillsbury- Washburn Flour Mills 
 
 Co., Lehigh X'alley Transp. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Pilot Boy. The. 
 
 Pirn 7'. St. Louis Transit Co., p 
 
 2235. 
 Pincus V. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1505, 1514. 1517, 1518. 
 
 1 Car — q 
 
 Pindell 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 34 Mo. App. 675— p. 899. 
 
 i: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 
 
 Mo. App. 84— pp. 894, 895, 899. 
 
 Pine 7'. St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1644, 3089. 
 Pine BlulT Iron Works v. Bolting 
 
 & Bro., p. 642. 
 Pine Bluff, etc., R. Co. v. McKen- 
 
 zie, pp. 276, 292. 
 Pine Bros. 7'. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1310. 
 Pine Grove, Talcott 7'. 
 Pine River Logging Co. v. United 
 
 States, p. 3873. 
 Pingree 7'. Detroit, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 573, 578, 1158. 
 
 v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., p 
 
 38. 
 
 Pinkerton 7'. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 742, 870. 
 Pinnacle Coal Co., Norfolk, etc. 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 Pinney v. First Division, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 896, 899, 904-. 
 Pinnix v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co 
 
 p. 476. 
 Pioche, etc., Co., Robinson v. 
 Pioneer Fuel Co. 7'. McBrier 
 
 710, 715, 3962, 3972. 
 
 - V. Molloy, p. 3547. 
 
 Piper 7'. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p 
 
 1589. 
 ■ Galveston, etc., Co. v. 
 
 McFetridge, etc., Co. v. 
 
 -■. Minneapolis St. R'. Co., p. 
 
 1890. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 89 
 
 Hun. 75, 34 N. Y. S. 1072, 68 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 835— p. 2219. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 50 
 
 N. E. 851, 156 N. Y. 224, 41 L. 
 R. A. 724, 66 Am. St. Rep. 560 
 —pp. 2119, 3211. 
 
 — — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 — — West, Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Piper Co., Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Pipkin, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Pisapia 7'. Hartford, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 343, 360. 
 Pitard <•. New Orleans R.. etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 187.5. 2152, 2281. 
 Pitcairn Coal Co., Baltimore, etc., 
 
 R. Co. 7'. 
 
 '■. lialtimore, etc.. R'. Co., 
 
 154 Fed. 108— pp. 3642, 3643, 
 3645, 3646. 
 
 7'. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 165 Fed. 113— pp. 3607, 3617, 
 3631, 3633. 3637, 3640, 3641, 
 3642. 3643, 3645, 3646, 3649, 
 3650, 3777. 
 
 Pitcher 7'. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.. 
 55 Hun 604. 8 N. Y. S. 389. 28 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 647— p. 1567. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 61 Hun 623, 16 N. Y. S. 62, 40 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 896— p. 2147. 
 
 f. Old Colony St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1743, 1824, 2756, 2885. 
 
 7'. People's St. R. Co., 154 
 
 Pa. 560, 26 Atl. 559— pp. 1905, 
 2518. 
 
 - 7'. People's St. R. Co.. 174 
 Pa. 402, 34 Atl. 567— p. 1905. 
 
 Pitcher & Co., Jones 7". 
 
 I'itch Pine Lumber Co., Tweedie 
 
 Trading Co. 7'. 
 ?itcock, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pitlock 7'. Welk, etc., Co., pp. 267, 
 
 268, 285, 434. 
 Pitman, Pacific Exp. Co. 7'. 
 Pitt, Fowle 7'. 
 
 Ilanna 7'. 
 
 Pittman <•. Pacific Exp. Co., pp; 
 931, 937, 940, 941. 1053, 1056, 
 3536. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pitts & Son. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Pittsburg, C. & St. L. K'y. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hennigh, p. 1638. 
 Pittsburg R. Co., Carothers '•. 
 
 Pittsburg R. Co., Cline v. 
 
 Downey 7'. 
 
 Geiger 7'. 
 
 Golden v. 
 
 Lehner v. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 Pittsburg Tract. Co., Laird 7'. 
 Pittsburg, etc.. Coal Co. 7'. Bates, 
 p. 3440. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., Railroad, Bowers v. 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Aldridge, 
 
 pp. 1831, 2245. 2670. 
 
 V. American Tobacco Co., pp. 
 
 270, 274, 275, 285, 295, 305, 
 338, 841. 
 
 7'. Andrews, pp. 2200, 2201, 
 
 2202, 2204, 2336. 
 
 V. Barrett, pp. 286, 287, 289. 
 
 733, 749, 765, 882, 883, 884, 
 885. 946, 956, 966, 967, 981, 
 1009, 1032, 1039, 1045. 
 
 V. Bingham, pp. 208, 209, 
 
 210, 1492, 1493. 2502, 2528. 
 
 V. Brown, pp. 584, 1438. 
 
 1568, 2098, 2100, 2863. 
 
 r. Bryant, pp. 409, 411, 3327. 
 
 3330. 
 
 Central Trust Co. 7-. 
 
 7-. Chicago, pp. 487, 483, 727, 
 
 732, 741, 743, 748, 752, 3270. 
 
 Clyde Coal Co. v. 
 
 Conrad Schoop Fruit Co. v. 
 
 Dennis v. 
 
 7'. Donahue, pp. 2413, 2519. 
 
 Emigh V. 
 
 7'. Gray, pp. 1531, 1532, 1540. 
 
 7-. Grom, pp. 1491, 2669, 
 
 2679. 2698, 2915. 
 
 Hamilton v. 
 
 Harper v. 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 7'. Hennigh, p. 3099. 
 
 V. Higgs, p. 2643. 
 
 -■. Hollowell, pp. 727, 732, 
 
 748, 751, 752. 
 
 Keifner 7'. 
 
 Loraine r. 
 
 7'. McCIurg, pp. 1828, 2202. 
 
 Martin 7'. 
 
 V. Martin, pp. 1524, 1922. 
 
 7'. Miller, p. 2259. 
 
 V. Mitchell, pp. 821. 825, 
 
 973. 978, 1051, 3255, 3327, 34>9, 
 3604, 3688, 3840. 
 
 7'. Morton, pp. 207, 210, 231, 
 
 247, 252, 253, 258, 263, 765, 
 766, 3258. 
 
 7'. Nash, pp. 538, 539. 894. 
 
 899. 
 
 O'Toole 7'. 
 
 Phoenix Pot-Works 7-. 
 
 7'. Pillow, p. 1497. 
 
 Powell 7'. 
 
 Robb 7'. 
 
 V. Ross, p. 2594. 
 
 7'. Russ, pp. 2413, 1631, 
 
 2564, 3024, 3025, 3087. 
 
 V. Sheppard, p. 1142. 
 
 V. Slusscr, p. 3022. 
 
 Smith T. 
 
 7'. Thompson, pp. 1745. 2693. 
 
 Tucker 7'. 
 
 7'. Viers, pp. 3343, 3387. 
 
 Wald 7'. 
 
 Welsh V. 
 
 7'. Williams, pp. 1812. 2693. 
 
 2844. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., St. R. Co.. Green 
 
 Pittsburg, etc.. Tract. Co.. Mul- 
 downey 7'. 
 
 Reber 7'. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Hamilton 7'. 
 
 Pittsburgh R. Co. 7-. Bloomer, p. 
 
 2825. 
 
 Dougherty f. 
 
 Golden 7'. 
 
 Lehner 7'. 
 
 Pittsburgh Tract. Co., Clow 7-. 
 
 Laird f. 
 
 Linch T-.
 
 CCLVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. Coal Co. v. Louis- 
 iana, p. 3482. 
 Pittsburgh, etc., Railroad, Bowers 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. r. Backus, 
 133 Ind. 625, 33 N. E. 432— p. 
 
 -V. Backus, 134 U. S. 421, 38 
 
 L. Ed. 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1114 — pp. 
 3552, 3575, 3591, 3592, 3593. 
 
 Bartlett z: 
 
 f. Berrvman, p. 1668. 
 
 f. Blakcmore. pp. 1033, 1035. 
 
 f. Board, pp. 3473, 3588. 
 
 f. Brigham, p. 1769. 
 
 Butler f. 
 
 ■: Caldwell, p. 1962. 
 
 -•. Coll, pp. 1628, 1629, 1630. 
 
 V. Dewin, p. 2434. 
 
 Fleming v. 
 
 r. Gray (Ind. App.), 59 N. 
 
 E;. 1000— pp. 2610, 2645, 2824. 
 
 f. Gray, 28 Ind. App. 588, 
 
 64 N. E. 39, 4 R. R. R. 120, 27 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 120 
 —pp. 2065. 2066, 2249. 
 
 r. Haislup, pp. 2621, 2622, 
 
 2623. 
 
 V. Hartford City, p. 3524. 
 
 7'. Hays, p. 457. 
 
 r. Hazen, pp. 627, 628, 629. 
 
 r. Hennigh, p. 2432. 
 
 f. Higgs, -pp. 2092, 2097, 
 
 2630, 2844, 2845. 
 
 i: Hinds, pp. 1687, 2024, 
 
 2033. 
 
 r. Hollowell, pp. 250, 608, 
 
 617, 627, 628, 629. 
 
 Huchel '■. 
 
 T. Hunt, pp. 3535, 3659. 
 
 V. Klitch, p. 2847. 
 
 v. Knox, pp. 607, 653, 683, 
 
 685, 695. 
 
 V. Krouse, pp. 1534. 2113, 
 
 2127, 2257. 2303, 2520, 2537, 
 2545, 2549. 
 
 T. Lightcap, pp. 1666, 2451, 
 
 2453, 2457. 
 
 V. Lvon, pp. 193, 196, 197, 
 
 3113, 3197. 
 
 z: Mahony, pp. 214, 2105. 
 
 Malone z-. 
 
 z: Moore, p. 143. 
 
 1: Nuzum, 50 Ind. 141, 19 
 
 Am. Rep. 703— pp. 204, 205, 
 1663, 1667, 1677, 1858, 3013. 
 
 -•. Kuzum, 60 Ind. 533 — p. 
 
 1608. 
 
 Perry v. 
 
 Phoenix Pot-Works z'. 
 
 z: Pillow, pp. 200, 2024, 2845. 
 
 z: Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209, 31 
 
 N. E. 853— pp. 246, 445, 821, 
 1038, 1444. 
 
 z: Racer, 10 Ind. App. 503, 
 
 37 N. E. 280— p. 454. 
 
 Reynolds z\ 
 
 z: Reynolds, pp. 2451, 2458. 
 
 -■. Richardson, pp. 2022, 2602, 
 
 2610. 
 
 z: Russ, pp. 2487, 3080, 3096. 
 
 Russell V. 
 
 f. Schenman, 171 Ind. 71. 84 
 
 N. E. 988— pp. 1702. 1835, 
 2594, 2880. 
 
 V. Schepman (Ind. App.), 82 
 
 N. E. 998— p. 1834. 
 
 z'. Sheppard, pp. 949, 1363, 
 
 1368, 1461, 1462, 1465. 
 
 V. Spencer, p. 2813. 
 
 z: State, pp. 3481, 3483, 
 
 3508. 
 
 f. Street, pp. 2444, 2445, 
 
 2468. 
 
 Tucker z\ 
 
 United States z'. 
 
 Z'. Vandync, pp. 1497, 1498, 
 
 1602, 1636. 
 
 V. Van Houten, p. 2427. 
 
 Wald V. 
 
 Welsh V. 
 
 -'. Wiegel, p. 2873. 
 
 z: Wood, pp. 253, 259, 260, 
 
 653, 660, 661, 3840. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. Railway z\ Mooar 
 
 Lumber Co., p. 714. 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. Tract. Co., Mul- 
 
 downey z\ 
 
 Schenkel '■. 
 
 Pittsfield Elect. St. R. Co., Isbill 
 
 — — Tobin r. 
 
 Pittsfield, etc., K. Co., Ryan '. 
 
 Pitzer, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Pixley, Baltimore, etc., U. Co. •:■. 
 
 z: Third Ave. R. Co., p. 2805. 
 
 Place z: Union Exp. Co., pp. 607, 
 
 615, 617, 618, 632, 770, 816. 
 Plaff V. Pacific Exp. Co., 251 HI. 
 243, 95 N. E. 1089— pp. 848, 
 993, 1033. 
 
 r. Pacific Exp. Co.. 159 111. 
 
 App. 493— pp. 493, 848, 865, 
 3541. 
 
 Plant Inv. Co. z: Cook. p. 3993. 
 Plantation No. 4 z: Hall, p. 325(i. 
 Planter, The. 
 Planters' Compress Co., Graham v. 
 
 Hooks Smelting Co. -'. 
 
 Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. Co. r. 
 
 Elder, pp. 338, 339, 346, 3893, 
 
 3920, 3942. 
 Planters' Gin, etc., Co., Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. i'. 
 Planters' Phosphate, etc., Co., Orr 
 
 etc., Co. 
 
 Planz V. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 253'2, 2541. 
 Piatt, Abrams z: 
 
 Cohn ;■. 
 
 Crescent Liquor Co. v. 
 
 Feld z: 
 
 z\ Forty Second St., etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2245. 
 
 Goodfield V. 
 
 V. Grand St., etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1535. 
 
 V. LeCocg. 150 Fed. 391 — 
 
 pp. 7, 25, 26. 
 
 V. Lecocg, 85 C. C. A. 621, 
 
 158 Fed. 723, 15 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 558— pp. 30, 33. 93, 187, 232, 
 233. 
 
 Magnus f. 
 
 z\ Richmond. etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 791, 793, 958, 1041. 
 
 \^igouroux z'. 
 
 z\ Wells, p. 363. 
 
 Wilson Z-. 
 
 Platte, etc., R. Co., Wheat v. 
 
 Platter z: Elkhart, p. 1166. 
 
 PJattor z: Seattle Elect. Co., p. 
 
 2860. 
 Player z'. Burlington, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2216. 
 Pleasants z\ Pendleton, pp. 1208, 
 
 1212. 
 Pledger ?■. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2332. 
 Plefka .'. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 p. 1826. 
 Pleiss, Bremer z'. 
 Plessy, Ex parte. 
 
 z\ Ferguson, pp. 1945, 1946, 
 
 3511. 
 
 Plimpton, \'an Camp Hardware, 
 
 etc., Co. r'. 
 Plott z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 191, 1857. 1859. 
 Plotz V. Miller, p. 801. 
 Plumley v. Massachusetts, pp. 3481, 
 
 3504. 
 Plummer z: Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1784, 2142, 2324, 2860, 2875, 
 
 2876, 2932, 2941, 2966. 
 
 '■. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3473. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. ■?■. 
 
 Plunkctt, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Plutschow V. Metropolitan West 
 Side Elevated R. Co., p. 2155. 
 
 Pockett's Bristol Channel, S. P. 
 Co., Cahn v. 
 
 Podrat V. Narragansett River R. 
 Co., pp. 3372, 3397. _ 
 
 Poe, Sanford z'. 
 
 Pohle V. Second Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 2304. 
 Pokanoket, The. 
 Polak, Ives '■. 
 Poling -■. Ohio River R. Co., p. 
 
 2078. 
 Polkey, North Chicago St. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 North Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Pollard, Heffron z\ 
 
 New Jersey R. 
 
 Railroad Co. '■. 
 
 z\ Reardon, pp. 335, 3886. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ \'inton, pp. 267, 293, 301, 
 
 304, 305, 306, 307, 308. 331, 
 355, 356, 357, 371, 373, 388, 
 3879, 3936, 3937. 
 
 Pollock V. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2807. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 • Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Pollock & Co. z: Gantt, p. 659. 
 Pomares, De Sola z'. 
 Pomaski v. Grant, p. 2193. 
 Pomeroy z\ Boston, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2346, 2894. 
 
 V. Donaldson, p. 768. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Pomeroy, etc., Co. z\ Will, pp. 357, 
 
 362, 367, 368. 
 
 Pomroy v. Bangor, etc., K. Co., 
 pp. 1742, 2119, 2316. 2777. 
 
 Pond Creek Mill, etc.. Co., Erie 
 R. Co. ■?'. 
 
 Pond-Decker Lumber Co. z\ Spen- 
 cer, pp. 1141, 3410, 3754. 
 
 Pondrom, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pontchartrain R. Co., Eclipse Tow- 
 boat Co. z'. 
 
 Knight z'. 
 
 Logan z\ 
 
 Pontiac, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Marshall ■;■. 
 
 Soper ?'. 
 
 Pontius. Cincinnati, 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 etc., R. Co. 
 
 Pool, Caye ?■. 
 
 V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 482, 593. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. zj. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. '•. 
 
 Pool Shipping Co. z: Samuel, p. 
 
 3961. 
 Poole, Atchison, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Consolidated St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1789. 
 
 V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3323. 
 
 f. Georgia K'., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1881, 1970. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 ■;■. Houston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1239, 1240, 1247. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1397, 1399, 1602, 2467, 2468. 
 
 Pooling Freights, In re. 
 Poor, Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Poore, Chicago, etc.. R. Co z: 
 Pope z: Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2150, 2131. 
 . Filley z: 
 
 Missouri, etc., R, Co. ■;•. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. ■;•. 
 
 7'. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 217, 444, 446, 462. 
 
 Popham z'. Barnard, pp. 1087, 1088. 
 1090, 1107. 3340, 3354. ^ 
 
 Popp, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Poppe, Zerega v. 
 
 Popper, United States z: 
 
 Porcher z\ Northeastern R. Co., 
 pp. 729, 733, 749. 
 
 Portage County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 
 z: West, p. 1118. 
 
 Port Blakely Mill Co. z: Sharkey, 
 p. 1317. 
 
 Port Huron, etc., R. Co., Dickin- 
 son V. ^ T^ , 
 
 Port Jervis, etc., R. Co., Daley
 
 TAni.K OF CASKS. 
 
 ccux 
 
 Port Royal, etc., R. Co., Dunbar 
 
 V. 
 
 Dunbar, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Madden v. 
 
 Miami Powder Co. v. 
 
 Port Townsend, etc., R. Co., Moses 
 
 V. 
 
 Porteous v. Adam.s Exp. Co., 112 
 Minn. 31, 127 N. W. 429— pp. 
 764, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1074, 
 1075. 
 
 V 
 
 Adams 
 
 ^vT: 
 
 Co., 
 
 115 Minn. 
 
 281, 
 
 132 
 
 N. 
 
 296— 
 
 -pp. 
 
 1034, 
 
 1059 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Porter 
 
 ?'. 
 
 Char 
 
 leston 
 
 , etc 
 
 , R. 
 
 Co., 
 
 p. 3 
 
 545. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ch 
 
 cage 
 
 , etc 
 
 ., R 
 
 Co 
 
 , 20 
 
 III. 
 
 407, 
 
 71 
 
 Am. 
 
 1 )ec. 
 
 280 
 
 —pp. 
 
 3118, 
 
 566, 727, 730, 732, 739, 748, 
 894, 895, 899, 3170. 
 
 '■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 
 
 Iowa 73— pp. 799, 878. 879, 3168. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 
 
 Mich. 156, 44 X. W. 1054, 20 
 Am, Si, Hop. 511— pp, 1828, 
 1914. 
 
 V. Currav. pp. 848, 853, 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 T'. llildebrand, pp. 3116, 
 
 3127, 3128. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co, 
 
 V. New England, p. 
 
 V. New York Cent. 
 
 1599, 1600, 2468. 
 
 V. New York, etc., 
 
 2104, 
 
 Pecos, etc, R, Co, 
 
 7'. Raleigh, etc., R. 
 
 etc, R 
 
 pp. 
 
 p. 
 
 186: 
 R. 
 
 R. 
 
 Co.. 
 Co., 
 
 E.xp. 
 
 Co., 
 
 , Co.. 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 3944. 
 Brit- 
 
 1102. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Union Pac. R, Co, v. 
 
 Voorhees -■, 
 
 Porterfield -■. Mumiihreys, 
 
 1268, 1270, 
 Porteus ?', Watney, p. 713. 
 Portland Bank -'. Stubl)s, p. 
 Portland Flouring Mills Co., 
 
 ish, etc., Marine Ins, Co, v. 
 — — • t'. Portland, etc. Steamship 
 
 Co,, pp, 3945, 3946, 3948, 
 Portland R, Co,, Armstrong ■:■. 
 
 Hebert ,■. 
 
 Herbert v. 
 
 Raymond v. 
 
 Portland R., etc., Co.. Devroe v. 
 
 Lewis 7'. 
 
 V. Railroad 
 
 Comm,, 56 O'c. 
 
 468, 105 Pac. 
 
 709, 109 Pac, 273 
 
 —pp. 62, 84, 
 
 88, 90, 95, 113. 
 
 178. 
 
 
 V. Railroad 
 
 Comm,, 57 Ore, 
 
 126, 105 Pac. 
 
 715— p, 90, 
 
 Portland Steam 
 
 Packet Co,, Dow 
 
 V. 
 
 Moran -•. 
 
 
 Portland, etc.. 
 
 Railroad, McDuffeu 
 
 Portland, etc, R. Co., Knight x-, 
 
 Perkins ;■. 
 
 Railroad Comm'rs, f. 
 
 Tobin '•. 
 
 Watson f. 
 
 Portland, etc.. Steamship Co., Bal- 
 four, etc., Co. -■. 
 
 Portland Flouring Mills Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Portsmouth, The. 
 
 Willey V. 
 
 Portsmouth, etc., 
 Portsmouth, etc. 
 
 Haselton f 
 
 Portsmouth, etc. 
 
 p. 729. 
 
 Portwardens, Steamship Co. f. 
 Posch -■. Southern Elect. R. Co,, 
 
 p. 2332. 
 Post f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1084, 1086, 1097, 1110, 1113. 
 
 <•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1573. 1616, 2442. 
 
 R', Co,, Sager v. 
 Railway, Call v. 
 
 Steanipackct Co,. 
 
 Post V. Southern R. Co., pp. 503, 
 1135, 1147, 3248, 3250, 3268, 
 
 V. Texas, etc, R. Co. , p. 
 
 2505. 
 
 Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. 
 Adams, pp. 3472, 3551, 3552, 
 3553, 3571, 3572, 3591, 3803. 
 
 V. Charleston, pp. 3473, 3474, 
 
 3552, 3572. 
 
 V. Mobile, p. 3550, 
 
 Murray v. 
 
 Murray Co. "'. 
 
 Postal Tel., etc., Co., White v. 
 Posten, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Denver Consol. Tramway 
 
 Co., p. 2358. 
 
 St. Eouis, etc., R, Co. -■, 
 
 Post Sugar Co,, Lehigh X'alley 
 
 Transp, Co, ?', 
 Poteet -', Western Llnion Tel, Co., 
 
 p. 643. 
 Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Spokane 
 
 Falls, etc.. R. Co., p. 3819. 
 Potomac Ferry Co., Stewart v. 
 Potter v.^ Bunnell, p. 2089. ^ 
 
 -■, Chicago, etc, R. Co., pii. 
 
 2615^, 2619. 
 
 • Frink v. 
 
 -■. Lansing, p. 490. 
 
 -■. Majestic, p. 963. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. 
 
 -■, Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1790. 
 
 Pottinger v. Hccksher, pp. 1236, 
 
 1237, 1243. 
 Potts, .\tlanta, etc, R, Co. v. 
 
 '■. Chicago Citv R. Co., p. 
 
 2810. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 T. New York, etc, R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1153, 1154, 1162, 1163, 1166, 
 1248. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 209, 249, 782, 931, 945, 946. 
 
 Potts & Co., Cleveland, etc., R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Pottstown & R. St. R. Co.. Ram- 
 say V. 
 
 Pottsville Union Tract. Co., Bre 
 hony ?■. 
 
 Poucher v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1567, 2099. 
 
 Poughkeepsie, etc., R. Co., Baruth 
 
 Pouilin <■. Canadian Pac. R'. Co , 
 
 p, 2564, 
 Poulin V. Broadway, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2233. 
 
 T'. Canadian Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2440, 2453,_ 2462. 
 
 Poulsen V. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2882. 
 Pouncey, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pound, Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pounder v. Northeastern R. Co., 
 
 p. 2032. 
 Pouppirt, Elder Dempster Shipping 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Elder Dempster Shipping, 
 
 pp. 3976. 3988, 3996, 3998, 4001. 
 
 Powell, .\tlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Fellows i\ 
 
 '■. Hudson N'allev R. Co., pp. 
 
 2656, 2658, 2685. 
 
 V. Kechnie, pp. 1228, 1232, 
 
 1233 1234. 
 
 -J. ifills, pp. 728, 7ii. 749, 
 
 769. 
 
 f. Myers, pp. 3159, 3160, 
 
 3165, 3169. 3170, 
 
 Oklahoma Ry, Co, '•, 
 
 •■. Pennsylvania R, Co,, pp. 
 
 1275, 1380. 
 
 • -■. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp, 1508, 1509, 1524, 1533, 1534, 
 1537, 1774, 
 
 ;■, Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co.. 5 
 
 O. Dec. 89, 2 \m. L. Rec. 403— 
 pp. 1593, 2447. 2631. 2632. 
 
 V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 25 
 
 O. St. 70— p. 1624. • 
 
 Price ;■. 
 
 Powell V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1562, 2661, 2715, 2849, 2853. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 United States -■. 
 
 Powell Coal Co., Brown f. 
 Powelson v. United Tract, Co., p. 
 
 2777. 
 Power, Commonwealth -•. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Powers J'. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2520, 2521. 
 
 Chicago r. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 
 
 Iowa 615, 105 N. W. 345— pp. 
 828, 1367, 1456, 3395, 3408. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 108 
 
 Minn. 319, 121 N. W. 897— p. 
 2858. 
 
 -'. Connecticut Co., p. 1535. 
 
 V. Davenport, pp. 509, 510, 
 
 511, 727, 732, 748, 3888. 
 
 Galveston, etc., K. Co. ?'. 
 
 ■ ■ Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 f. Irtferior Court, pp. 209. 
 
 1493. 
 
 V. Old Colony St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1806, 2341, 2755, 2872. 
 
 Richmond, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 • Wisconsin, etc.. R. Co, 
 
 Powers Mercantile Co. f. 
 
 Fargo & Co.. pp. 821, 939 
 Powhatan Steamsboat Co. v. 
 
 mattox R. Co., pp. 3258 
 
 3308. 
 Pownall, Hoist v. 
 Poythress -•. Durham, etc, R. Co., 
 
 pp. 528, 896, 901, 904, 907. 
 
 Matthews ■:•. 
 
 Pozzi V. Shipton, p. 
 Prairie Oil, etc., Co 
 
 p. 3589. 
 
 V. United States, p. 361. ■>. 
 
 Pratt, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2011. 
 
 V. Freeman & Sons Mfg. Co. 
 
 pp. 1206, 1212. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co.. pp 
 
 267, 269, 275, 285, 286, 291. 
 
 Harris -•. 
 
 V. North German Lloyd Steam 
 
 ship Co., p. 3990. 
 
 . V. Grand Trunk 
 
 3259, 3265, 3286, 
 3302. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. Exp 
 
 495. 
 
 — — Ogdensburg, etc., R. 
 
 V. Ogdensburg. etc.. 
 
 pp. 753. 783. 3311. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 San .\ntonio, etc, R. Co, f 
 
 Wabash, etc, R. Co. f. 
 
 Pray r. Omaha St. R. Co.. pp 
 
 1487. 1746, 1750, 1951, 1952 
 1953, 2181, 2888. 
 
 The E. H. 
 
 P. R. Co. Indianapolis Freight Bu 
 
 reau v. 
 Prendergast v. Williamson, pp. 349 
 
 356, 362, 383. 
 i Prentice v. Decker, pp. 991. 1007 
 
 3163, 3164. 3165. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 • -■. United States, etc.. Steam 
 
 ship Co., p. 3865. 
 Prentis -•. .\tlantic Coast Line Co. 
 
 pp. 13. 119, 128. 129. 
 Prentiss. Barney v. 
 
 V. Savage, p. 1489. 
 
 Prescott. etc.. R. Co. t 
 
 etc.. R. Co.. p. 3660. 
 
 V. Morris, pp. 1978 
 
 Wells 
 
 .Appo- 
 3266. 
 
 2565. 
 v. Ehrhardt, 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 
 3287, 3300, 
 
 . Co., p. 
 
 Co. '•. 
 R, Co.. 
 
 .\tchison. 
 1999. 
 pp. 2344. 2345. 
 Ins. 
 
 2314. 2368. 
 
 T'. Smith. 
 
 President. The 
 
 President, etc., Ins. Co. _?-. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co.. p. 787. 
 Presley Co. f. Illinois Cent. 
 
 Co..' pp. 833. 843. 
 Presque Isle. The.
 
 CCLX 
 
 TAHLE OF CASES. 
 
 Pressed Steel Car Co. f. Eastern 
 
 R. Co., p. 612. 
 Pressell, Indianapolis Tract., etc., 
 
 Co. -.'. 
 Pressley v. State, pp. 184, 2425. 
 Pressley Co. z: Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 824, 3406. 
 Preston, Park v. 
 Brethrow v. West Jersey, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 2895. 
 Prettyinan '•. Oregon R., etc., Co , 
 
 p. 848. 
 Previsich f. Butte Elect. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2343, 2345, 2649, 2667. 
 Prevost ;■. Great Eastern R., pp. 
 
 1671, 1672. 
 Prewitt, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Price, Bissel v. 
 
 Blue Ridge Light, etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Charleston, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 162, 165. 
 
 V. Chcsaneake, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1637, 2425. 
 
 V. Denver, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1155. 
 
 V. Hartshorn, pp. 630, 734, 
 
 736, 3899. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Marsh, p. 633. 
 
 ■ T. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2671, 2677, 2697, 2763, 2809, 
 2915, 2920, 3002. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Morse Ironworks, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 3952. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Ochs z: 
 
 z: Oswego, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 553. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Pensylvania R. Co., \>. 
 
 1576. 
 
 z'. Powell, pp. 477, 479, 488, 
 
 493, 511, 531, 892, 901. 
 
 I'. St. Louis Transit Co., p. 
 
 1824. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 88 
 
 S. VV. 575, 75 Ark. 479, 112 
 Am. St. Rep. 79— pp. 1498, 2121, 
 2322, 2670, 2866. 
 
 I'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 72 
 
 Mo. 414, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 365— pp. 1878, 2263. 
 
 Sams z\ 
 
 Walker z: 
 
 Price, etc., Co. f. The L'riel, pp. 
 
 821, 848, 1037, 1457. 
 Prickett z: New Orleans Anchor 
 
 Line, p. 1537. 
 Priddy, Wabash R. Co. v. 
 Pridgeon, United States v. 
 Priester, Jones z: 
 Priestly v. Northern Indiana, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 653, 657, 659, 666, 
 
 670. 
 Prillen, People v. 
 Primrose v. Western Union Tel. 
 
 Co., pp. 9, 732, 748, 848, 854, 
 
 930, 947, 1073, 2092. 
 Primus v. Macon R., etc., Co.. 
 
 p. 2575. 
 Prince, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 "'. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 279, 1542, 1549, 1554, 1558, 
 1564, 1565, 1572, 1760. 
 
 Stannard f. 
 
 Prince .Albert, The. 
 
 Prinnell, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Prinzess Irene, The. 
 
 Priscilla, The. 
 
 Pritchard, Savannah Elect. Co. z\ 
 
 Pritchard, etc., Co., Savannali 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Pritchett, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 California R. Co., p. 
 
 V. 
 
 Proctor 
 
 3086. 
 Proctor, etc., Co. v. United States 
 
 188 Fed. 221— pp. 3728, 3800. 
 
 3834, 3835. 
 
 Proctor, etc., Co. f. United States. 
 
 225 U. S. 282, 56 L. Ed. 1091. 
 
 32 S. Ct. 761— pp. 3770, 3795, 
 . 3797, 3810, 3811, 3833, 3834, 
 
 3835, 3836, 3837. 
 Proctor, Boston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 ■ Illinois Cent. R. Co. '•. 
 
 Landon f. 
 
 • z\ Southern California R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3078, 3079, 3080. 
 
 Southern R. Co. t-. 
 
 Prokop I'. Oulf. etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 1700, 1800, 202S, 2029. 
 
 Propeller Burlington, The. 
 
 Propeller Commerce, The. 
 
 Propeller Mohawk, pp. 1020, 3941, 
 4021, 4023. 
 
 Propeller Niargara z\ Cordes, pp. 
 1, 10, 208, 1019, 1035, 3888, 
 3889, 3890, 3896, 3897, 3903, 
 3904, 3905, 3906, 3908, 3911, 
 3914, 3915, 4017, 4019, 4.020, 
 4042, 4054. 
 
 Propst Lumber Co., Railway Co. z\ 
 
 Prospect Park, etc., R. Co., Groll 
 
 Prosper! z'. Rhode Island Subur- 
 ban R. Co., p. 2036. 
 
 Protection, The. 
 
 Prothero f. Citizens' St. R. Co , 
 pp. 1721, 2377. 
 
 Proud ;•. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1832, 1843.^ 
 
 Providence Ins. Co., Wagner z\ 
 
 Providence, etc., R. Co., Boss ''. 
 
 Hagan z\ 
 
 Knight z\ 
 
 • Randall z: 
 
 X'aughan 
 
 Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. ?■. 
 
 Providence, etc., Steamshi[) Co., 
 
 V. Ciare, pp. 2810, 2857, 2913. 
 
 Hill Mfg. Co. z: 
 
 z: Hill Mfg. Co., pp. 4036, 
 
 4037, 4038, 4045, 4049, 40S3. 
 4071, 4072, 4073, 4075, 4077, 
 4078, 4079, 4083. 
 
 Levy Z-. 
 
 Province, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Provine, Chicago, etc., R. Co 
 Pruitt c'. Hannibal, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 230, 277, 278, 287, 742, 
 
 1304. 
 
 Phillips Co. '•. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 -•. San Pedro, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 2173, 2342, 2356. 
 
 Prussia, The. 
 
 Public Service Comm., Cohoes R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 -■. Westchester St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 77. 131. 
 
 Public Service Corp., I'.rackney z'. 
 
 Brower z\ 
 
 Budner z'. 
 
 Dunham v. 
 
 Whilt z: 
 
 Public Service R. Co. z\ Board 
 p. 87. 
 
 Donohue v . 
 
 Hess -■. 
 
 Lehberger j'. 
 
 Lerncr z\ 
 
 Publisher, etc., Co., Lee z-. 
 Puckett, Freeman -•. 
 
 St. Louis,, etc., R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., i)p. 2458 
 
 2460. 
 
 Pudor V. Boston, etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 3189, 3190. 
 Pueblo, etc., Refin. Co., Lord v. 
 Puet Sound Elect. Railway, Bloms- 
 
 ness V. 
 
 V. Felt, pp. 2250, 2360. 
 
 • Harris '•. 
 
 '•. Mitchell, p. 128. 
 
 -•. Railroad Comm., pp. 45, 
 
 48, 56. 94, 117, 127. 
 
 Pugh, Midland Valley R. Co. z: 
 Sheriffs -.•. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 Pullen, Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Pulliam, Louisville R. Co. v. 
 
 3205, 3213, 
 
 Co., 
 
 1303, 
 
 Co. 
 
 3123, 
 
 3215, 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 3238, 3239. 
 pp. 2613, 3210, 
 
 Pullman Car Co., Indiana v 
 
 Stearn z-. 
 
 Pullman Co., Aplington v. 
 
 Applington z\ 
 
 Arthur •;■. 
 
 Bacon z\ 
 
 Calhoun z\ 
 
 Coleman Z'. 
 
 Covington '■. 
 
 Croll V. 
 
 -'. Custer, pp. 
 
 3214, 3236. 
 
 z\ Czintz, ]). 3237 
 
 z'. Finley, p. 3211 
 
 Godfrey z 
 
 — ■ — z'. Green, 
 
 3219, 3221. 
 
 z\ Haight. 
 
 Hill z: 
 
 z\ Hovle, 
 
 3229, 3240. 
 
 Ingraham z\ 
 
 Irving z\ 
 
 z: Kelly, pp. 3201, 3208, 3210. 
 
 V. Krauss, pp. 3203, 3204, 
 
 3207, 3239, 3240. 
 
 T'. Linke, p. 3544. 
 
 V. Lutz, pp. 1909, 3203, 3210 
 
 3240, 3243. 
 
 ■ Meyers Z'. 
 
 • Myers z: 
 
 r. Norton, pp. 
 
 3226, 3228, 3231. 
 
 f. Pennock, p. 3243. 
 
 V. Riley, pp. 3203, 3205, 3206, 
 
 3210, 3229. 3230. 
 
 Z!. Schaffner, pp. 3123, 
 
 3222, 3231. 
 
 t'. Schober, pp. 3232, 
 
 3237, 3239. 
 
 Smith z: 
 
 Springer ''. 
 
 ?'. Stern, p. 3209. 
 
 7'. Vandcrhoeven, pp. 
 
 3124, 3127, 3129, 3221, 
 3225. 3229, 3232, 3233, 
 
 Weingart 7". 
 
 Wilkirs '•. 
 
 7'. Willett, pp. 3041, 
 
 3242, 3243. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 7'. Adams, 
 120 Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 45 L. 
 R. A. 767, 74 Am. St. Rep. 
 53— pp. 3201, 3202, 3214, 3217, 
 3218, 3219, 3220, 3222, 3224, 
 3225, 3229, 3'3^ 3235. .■S?36. 
 
 7'. Adams, 30 So. 757, 78 Miss. 
 
 814, 84 Am. St. Rep. 647 — p. 
 3580. 
 
 Airey z\ 
 
 7-. Arents, pp. 3217, 3230, 
 
 3234. 
 
 z: Bales, 80 Tex. 211 
 
 W. 785— p. 3210. 
 
 7'. Bales (Tex.), 14 
 
 855— p. 3207. 
 
 3208, 3209, 
 
 3215, 
 3235, 
 
 3123, 
 3222, 
 3234. 
 
 1203, 
 
 Barker, 
 
 3242. 
 
 Beldcn 7'. 
 
 7'. Booth, 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1495 
 
 15 S. 
 
 S. W. 
 
 1496, 
 
 2563. 3206, 
 
 3212, 3228, 323!. 3232, 3243. 
 
 7'. Cain, pp. 3205, 3206, 3214, 
 
 3232. 
 
 Calhoun 7'. 
 
 Campbell 7'. 
 
 — • Cassedy 7-. 
 
 Chamberlain 7'. 
 
 Cooney 7'. 
 
 Dargan 7'. 
 
 Edmundson 7'. 
 
 Falls River, etc., Mach. Co. 
 
 Florida 7'. 
 
 z: Fowler, pp. 3206, 3240, 
 
 3242. 
 
 7'. Freundenstein, p. 3231. 
 
 7'. Gardner, pp. 3217. 3218. 
 
 7'. Gavin, pp. 3202, 3215, 
 
 3218, 3220, 3228. 
 
 • z: Gavlord, 6 Kv. L. Rep. 
 
 279— p. 3216. 
 
 V. Gaylord, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 58- pp. 3201. 3202. 3215. 3217, 
 
 3219. 3221. 3222. 3224. 3230.
 
 TAIW.K OF CASKS. 
 
 CCLXI 
 
 Co., llainp- 
 
 3207, 3212, 
 3235, 3236, 
 
 Pulliiian Palacu Cai 
 ton V. 
 
 Heenrich v. 
 
 V. 1 locker, pp. 
 
 3214, 3226, 3228, 
 3242, 3243. 
 
 V. Hunter, pp. 3222, 3238. 
 
 v. Lawrence, pp. 3201, 3202, 
 
 3203, 3210. 
 
 V. Lee, pp. 3204, 3212. 
 
 Lemon v. 
 
 Lowe, pp. 3202, 3215, 
 
 3223. 
 
 3229. 
 
 McDonald, pp. 3241, 3242. 
 Marsh, pp. 3204, 3207. 
 Martin, pp. 3215, 3217, 
 
 Matthews, pp. 3201, 3202, 
 3218, 3220, 3224, 3225, 
 
 3215 
 3235 
 Morrow v. 
 
 f. Nelson, pp. 3206, 3231, 
 
 3243. 
 
 Nevin f. 
 
 Pfaelzer -.'. 
 
 V. Pollock, pp. 3146, 3147, 
 
 3201, 3215. 3218, 3221, 3230. 
 
 V. Keed, pp. 3098, 3204, 3213, 
 
 3241, 3243. 
 
 Scaling f. 
 
 V. Smith, 73 111. 360, 24 Am. 
 
 Rep. 258— pp. 3201, 3202, 3214, 
 3215, 3216. 
 
 V. Smith, 79 Tex. 468, 14 S. 
 
 W. 993, 23 Am. St. Rep. 356, 
 13 L. R. A. 215— pp. 1910, 3211, 
 3230, 3231. 
 
 Stevenson f. 
 
 V. Taylor, p. 3205. 
 
 Tracy v. 
 
 Welch V. 
 
 Whitney v. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 V. Woods, p. 3233. 
 
 Pullman Sleeping Car Co 
 
 Hatch, pp. 3215, 3216, 3235 
 Pullman Southern Car Co. 
 Gaines, p. 3580. 
 
 :■. Nolan, p. 3580. 
 
 Pickard i: 
 
 Tennessee v. 
 
 Simms r. 
 
 Pullman, etc., Car Co., 
 
 etc., R. Co. f. 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co 
 
 Harrott r. 
 
 Central Transp. Co. ?■. 
 
 f. Commonwealth, Xo. 1. 107 
 
 Pa. 148— p. 3580. 
 
 i: Commonwealth, Xo. 2, 107 
 
 Pa. 156 — p. 3580. 
 
 Duval f. 
 
 r. Ehrman, "p. 3214. 
 
 V. Fielding, p. 3208. 
 
 i: Hall. pp. 3201. 3202. 3214, 
 
 3215, 3216. 3217. 
 
 i: Harvey, pp. 3215, 3220, 
 
 Hatch f. 
 
 r. Hayward, pp. 3556, 3680. 
 
 Hughes J'. 
 
 Kates f. 
 
 f. King, pp. 3202. 3203, 3212, 
 
 3238. 3241. 
 
 Lawrence T'. 
 
 McMurray t'. 
 
 V. Martin, pp. 3220, 3221. 
 
 — 77rV Pennsylvania, pp. 3551, 
 
 3552, 3333, 3556, 3557, 3559, 
 35/1, 3572. 3580. 3584. 3590, 
 
 Purcell r. Southern Kxp. Co., pp 
 412, 587, 775. 818, 820, 945, 948 
 1003, 1026, 1043. 
 
 Purdy, Erie R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., p. 3500. 
 
 North Jersey St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Purifoy, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 PuringtonKimball J!rick Co. v. 
 
 Eckman, p. 2346. 
 Purinion, Van liuskirk t. 
 I'uritan Coal Min. Co. !•. Pennsyl- 
 vania K. Co., pp. 225, 228, 3637, 
 
 3645, 3840. 
 Purnell, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v 
 Purple V. Union Pac. R. Co., pn. 
 
 1543, 1546, 1551, 1553, 1534. 
 
 1569. 
 Purtell V. Ridge .\ve. Pass. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2255. 
 Purvis !■. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2652, 3021. 3022. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. i: 
 
 Putnam v. IJroadway. etc.. K. Co , 
 
 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 195— pp. 
 2417, 2420. 
 — — - V. Hroadway, etc., R. Co., 55 
 N. Y. 108, 15 Abb. Prac, X S 
 383. 14 Am. Rep. 190— pn 1497 
 1498, 2030. 
 
 f. Furnani, p. 3W7 . 
 
 i: Tillotson, p. 304. 
 
 V'icksburg, etc., K. Co. f 
 
 Pym, Sweet v. 
 
 Pyman Steamship Co. v. Mexican 
 Cent. R. Co., 164 Fed. 441 — d 
 3954. ^' 
 
 — — r. Mexican Cent. R. Co.. 169 
 Fed. 281, 94 C. C. A. 557-p. 
 
 P. W. & B. R. Co., Mullarkey v. 
 
 P. & L. E. R. Co. V. Bishop, pp. 
 
 1490, 1576. I' IP- 
 
 ^\,-^: ^-^V, ^^y- ^"°-' Ptnnsylvan a 
 
 Millers State Ass'n v. 
 P. & R. R. Co., Hill z: 
 
 Chicago, 
 Allen I'. 
 
 Rohrback :■. 
 
 Pumphrey, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Pural, Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 Purcell r. Richmond, etc., R Co 
 
 pp. 1851, 1852. 25o2, 2565, 30i4' 
 
 3055. 
 
 — — :•• St. Paul City K. Co., pp. 
 1697, 1981. ^^ 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 O 
 
 Quackenbush z: Chicago, etc K 
 
 Co., pp. 1755, 1990. 2168. 
 Quagliana r. Jersey, etc., St R 
 
 Co., p. 2814. 
 Ouaife z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. on 
 1798. 1871. ^^ 
 
 Quanah. etc., R. Co. v. Drum- 
 
 mond, p. 700. 
 Quantz z'. Southern R. Co , no 
 
 1538, 1539. 2506. 
 Ouarles, Alabama, etc., R. Co. z: 
 (Juarman v. Burnett, p. 2076. 
 Quarrier v. Baltimore, etc., R Co 
 
 pp. 278, 839. 849. 
 Quayle, Washington, etc., R. Co v 
 Ouebedeaux, Freeman v. 
 <jULen, The. 
 yueen City Coal Co., Louisville. 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Queen of the Pacific, pp. 326 790 
 852, 930, 945, 1012, 1013, '1073,' 
 
 Queen of the Pacific. The. 
 Querini Stamphalia, The. 
 Quested r. Xewburyport, etc R 
 Co., p. 2089. 
 
 Quick, Louisville, etc., R Co v 
 
 Quigley f. Central Pac. K' " Co 
 
 Fed. Cas. No. 11, 510, 5 Sawy.' 
 
 107— p. 1610. 
 
 z: Central Pac. R. Co., 11 
 
 Nev. 350, 21 Am. Rep. 757— pp. 
 
 2409, 2429, 2430, 3078, 3079, 
 3083, 3084. 
 
 Quilhot, Galveston, etc., R. Co v. 
 Quimby :■. Bee BIdg. Co., po 17C>? 
 1750. 2165. 2983. 
 
 f. Boston, etc., R. Co., 69 
 
 Me. 340— p. 2680. 
 
 — — z: Boston, etc.. R. Co.. 150 
 Mass. 3o5. 23 N. E. 205, 40 Am 
 &• Eng. R. Cas. 693, 5 L. R. .\. 
 846— pp. 986, 1642, 2095. 2104. 
 
 z: Vanderbilt, pp. 1612, 3160, 
 
 3168, 3315, 3987. 
 
 Quinby t. Union Pac. R. Co., v. 
 1340. ' 
 
 Quincy R. Co., Metropolitan R. C... 
 v. 
 
 Quincy, etc., R. Co., Beck ;. 
 
 Bussell V. 
 
 Gates J'. 
 
 Knight V. 
 
 Leas V. 
 
 Meriwether v. 
 
 Ratcliflf V. 
 
 Ratliff z: 
 
 Ratliff Bros. v. 
 
 Richmond v. 
 
 Shohoney -■. 
 
 Thompson f. 
 
 \'an Buskirk z\ 
 
 X'encill f. 
 
 Quincy, etc., St. R. Co., Spauld- 
 ing z: 
 
 Quinkert, Kentucky, etc.. Bridge 
 Co. z\ 
 
 Quinlan z: Newton, etc.. St R 
 Co.. p. 2230. 
 
 f. Utica, p. 2737. 
 
 Quinn r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., d 
 2182. ' 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co.. do. 
 
 2025. 2030. 
 
 z: -Metropolitan St. R. Co 
 
 pp. 2143, 2311, 2391. 2393, 2954. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R'. Co. z: 
 
 v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. pp 
 
 1448, 1461. '^' 
 
 z: Philadelphia Rapid Tran- 
 sit Co.. p. 2153. 
 
 z: Shamokin, etc., R. Co.. dd. 
 
 2128, 2261. 
 
 r. South Carolina R. Co., n 
 
 2203. 
 
 South Covington, etc., R. Co 
 
 V. 
 
 Quisenberry, Lake Erie, etc., R. 
 
 Co. v. 
 Quo, Savannah, etc.. R. Co. i'. 
 
 R 
 
 Raben z: Central Iowa R. Co . 73 
 
 Iowa 579, 35 N. W. 645, 33 Am. 
 
 &• Eng. R-. Cas. 520, 5 Am. St. 
 
 Rep. 708 — pp. 1899, 1911. 
 z\ Central Iowa R. Co.. 74 
 
 Iowa 732, 34 N. W. 621— pp. 
 
 2249, 2284, 2367. 
 Rabinowitz z: Cunard Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 3979, 3980. 
 Rabon z: Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. p 
 
 166. ^ 
 
 Racer. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Racine Boat Co., Reed z: 
 Rackusin, Texas, etc., R'. Co. :. 
 Radbourne, Chesapeake, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Radel Co. z: Borches. p. 2161. 
 Radetsky, Florence, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Radford. Chicago, etc., R. Co. :. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z-. 
 
 Radley -•. Columbia Southern R. 
 Co.. pp. 1502. 1510, 1512. 1513, 
 
 1555, 1530, 1557. 1558, 2207. 
 Rae. Galena, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Ragan z: Aiken, pp. 74, 1136, 
 
 1180, 1183, 1189. 
 Rager z: Pennsylvania R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2125, 2179. 
 Ragland f. Norfolk, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co.. pp. 3991, 4006. 
 Ragsdale. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. t. 
 
 Railroad Co. -•. 
 
 Railway :■. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co., 46 S. E. 
 
 832, 119 Ga. 627— p. 1474. 
 
 f. Southern R. Co.. 69 S. C. 
 
 429, 48 S. E. 466— p. 832. 
 
 t. Southern R. Co., 51 S. E. 
 
 540, 72 S. C. 120— p. 836. 
 
 V'icksburg, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Rahilly z: St. Paul, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1617, 2438, 2492. 
 Rahrer, In re.
 
 CCLXII 
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 Railey Bros.. Southern R. Co. v. 
 Railroad f. Bell, p. 630. 
 
 z: Craig, pp. 931, 946, 949, 
 
 977, 979, 997. ^„, ^^, 
 
 X- Dies, pp 782, 783, 953, 
 
 1021, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1276. 
 
 V. Gilbert, etc., Co., pp. 931, 
 
 946 949, 970, 972, 973, 978, 979, 
 
 980. ,. „ ,.,, 
 
 V. Hailev, pp. 1569, 2.i21. 
 
 Hart r. 
 
 f. Meacham, p. 2521. 
 
 f. Mitchell, 58 Tenn. (U 
 
 Heisk.) 400— pp. 822, 1684, 1687, 
 2666. , ^., ,, 
 
 f. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. 27. 31, 
 
 40 S. W. 72— pp. 1763, 1887, 
 1895, 1896, 1972. 
 
 t: Odil, pp. 501. 503. sOj, 
 
 506. 3298. 
 
 State -•. 
 
 z: Stockard. p. 3329. 
 
 Warfield z: 
 
 Railroad Comm. z\ Adams Exp. 
 
 Co.. pp. 156, 535, 536. 
 
 .Mahama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Ann Arbor R. Co., p. 699. 
 
 Black Diamond Coal, etc., Co. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co.. 159 
 
 Ala. 550, 49 So. 237— p. 92. 
 
 z: Central, etc., R. Co., 9.t 
 
 C. C. A. 117, 170 Fed. 225— p. 
 130. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R'. Co. z: 
 
 Galveston Chamber of Com- 
 merce V. 
 
 r. Galveston Chamber of 
 
 Commerce, pp. 56, 115, 124. 
 
 Great Northern R. Co. z\ 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Hucking Valley R. Co., 79 
 
 O. St. 419, 87 N. E. 548— pp. 
 127, 128. 
 
 z: Hucking Valley R. Co., 82 
 
 O. St. 25, 91 N. E. 865— pp. 91, 
 125. 
 
 Hocking \'alley Railway v. 
 
 z: Houston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 21, 24, 25, 121. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Louisiana R., etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 Louisiana, etc., R'. Co. ■c'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Morgan, etc., Co. •;■. 
 
 ivlorgan's, etc., Steamship Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Portland R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 Puget Sound Elect. Railway 
 
 z: Rosenbaum Grain Co., pp. 
 
 129, 3498. 
 
 Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Indiana R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. '■. 
 
 State z\ 
 
 Texas, etc., R'. Co. z'. 
 
 '■. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 829— pp. 
 23, 3524. 
 
 ' z: Texas, etc., R. Co., 229 U 
 
 S. 336, 33 S. Ct. 837— p. 3740 
 
 Thompson z'. 
 
 Vandalia R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Weld, 96 Tex. 394, 73 S. 
 
 W. 529— pp. 45, 83, 227, 228. 
 
 '■. Weld (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 
 
 S. W. 1117— pp. 45, 120. 
 
 Western Railway v. 
 
 Z-. Worthington, pp. 3491, 
 
 3492. 3495, 3740. 
 
 Railroad Comm. Cases, pp. 3480, 
 
 3481, 3482, 3491, 3497, 3498, 
 
 3503, 3511. 
 Railroad Commissioner z'. Hocking 
 
 Valley R. Co., p. 3643. 
 Railroad Comm'rs '■. .Atlantic, etc.. 
 
 R. Co.. 56 Fla. 525, 47 So. 870 
 
 —p. 138. 
 
 Railroad Comm'rs z: Atlantic, etc.. 
 R. Co., 59 Fla. 612, 52 So. 4— 
 pp. 31, 67, 82, 501. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 61 
 
 Fla. 799, 54 So. 900— pp. 23, 33, 
 123, 3485. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Fla.), 60 So. 186— p. 126. 
 
 v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 54 
 
 S. E. 224, 74 S. C. 80— pp. 3514, 
 3516. 
 
 z: Florida, etc., R. to., )/ 
 
 Fla. 522, 49 So. 43— pp. 20, 30, 
 104. 
 
 ■ •:•. Florida, etc., R. Co., 58 
 
 Fla. 524, SO So. 425— pp. 104, 
 117, 121, 123, 127, 219. 
 
 z: Florida, etc.. R. Co., 64 
 
 Fla. 112, 59 So. 385— pp. 42, 85, 
 86, 126. 
 
 z\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 57 
 
 Fla. 526, 49 So. 39— pp. 23, 29. 
 
 z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 62 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175— pp. 31, 
 32. 33, 57, 124, 3503. 
 
 •;■. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Fla.). 57 So. 673— pp. 32, 123, 
 3502. 
 
 Missouri Pac. K. Co. v. 
 
 ■;■. Portland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 98, 210. 
 
 Railroad Co. z\ ,\nderson, pp. 1683, 
 1726, 1769, 1799. 
 
 z: -Androscoggins Mills, pp. 
 
 739, 1014. 
 
 Railroad Co. z: Riclunond (U. S.), 
 19 Wall. 584, 22 L. Ed. 173— p. 
 3448. 
 
 z: Richmond. 96 U. S. 521, 
 
 24 L. Ed. 734— pp. 34, 59. 60, 
 3481, 3503. 
 
 Shaw ?'. 
 
 z: Skillman, pp. 1135, 2420, 
 
 2425, 2429, 2533. 
 
 I-. Smith, p. 2516. 
 
 z: \-arnell. pp. 726, 7i2, 748, 
 
 752. 
 
 z: Walbrath, p. 2685. 
 
 z: Wisner, p. 981. 
 
 Railroad Cos., Hall z\ 
 
 Railroad Transfer Co., Heinz z\ 
 
 Railroad, etc., Comm. •:■. Cargill 
 
 Co., p. 3590. 
 
 Railway Transfer Co. t'. 
 
 Railroads, Bird z\ 
 Railway, Waller v. 
 
 Watson z\ 
 
 Webber z\ 
 
 Railway Co., Baxendale v. 
 
 z: B'Shears, p. 98. 
 
 z: Dorsey Fuel Co., p. 700. 
 
 Kelly z: 
 
 z: McCarthy, pp. 3251, 3294, 
 
 3297, 3830. 
 
 z\ Manchester Mills, pp. 972, 
 
 977, 979, 1684, 1687. 
 
 Propst Lumber Co., p. 
 
 , 195. 
 3123, 
 3153, 
 
 3418, 
 3493, 
 
 3480, 
 
 Bennett z'. 
 
 z: Brown, p. 1948. 
 
 Collett z: 
 
 Converse Z'. 
 
 Duncan ?•. 
 
 V. Fraloff, pp. 190, 193 
 
 197, 3113, 3115, 3116, 
 3129, 3130, 3132, 3152, 
 3161, 3162, 3167. 
 
 z: Fuller, pp. 35, 72, 
 
 3419, 3420, 3445, 3448, 
 3498, 3499, 3500. 
 
 V. Hanning, p. 2506. 
 
 V. Harris, p. 2091. 
 
 z: Hatch, p. 902. 
 
 Hatten z: 
 
 z: Hurst, p. 767. 
 
 z: Husen, pp. 3420, 
 
 3564. 
 
 • Insurance Co. z'. 
 
 z: Jones, pp. 1682, 2163, 
 
 2208. 
 
 z: Kassen, pp. 2113, 2116, 
 
 2117. 
 
 r. Lindsay, pp. 3871, 3948. 
 
 J'. Lockwood, pp. 1. 2, 4, 
 
 214 238, 244, 930, 931, 930, 
 952, 953, 977, 1089, 1756, 1757, 
 1761, 2092, 2098, 4024, 4057. 
 
 • Longmire v. 
 
 McColIin z'. 
 
 McElroy ?'. 
 
 V. Manufacturing Co., pp. 
 
 208, 930. 958, 960, 961, 964, 965, 
 1003, 1004, 1035, 3258, 3262, 
 3264, 3286, 4025. 
 
 Maryland v. 
 
 z: Maryland (U. S.). 20 
 
 Wall. 643, 22 L. Ed. 446— p. 
 3871. 
 
 z: Maryland (U. S.). 21 
 
 Wall. 456, 22 L. Ed. 678— pp. 
 34, 36, 120, 3484, 3497, 3563. 
 
 v. Michie, p. 1572. 
 
 V. O'Donnell, pp. 610, 624, 
 
 728, 733, 749, 753, 766. 
 
 Parker z'. 
 
 z'. Peniston, pp. 37, 3553. 
 
 . Peters, etc., Co. z'. 
 
 z'. Pollard, pp. 1722, 2353, 
 
 2670. 
 
 v. Pratt, pp. 782, 783, 784, 
 
 930 947, 952, 953, 960, 961, 
 3251, 3252, 3253, 3258, 3260, 
 3262. 
 
 V. Ragsdalc, pp. 653, 666, 
 
 950. 
 
 z: Ray, p. 2932. 
 
 V. Reeves, p. 732. 
 
 700. 
 
 1076. 
 
 1043, 
 1083. 
 
 Sheppard, p. 1076. 
 
 Simon, pp. 759, 760, 762, 
 
 Sowell, pp. 949. 974, 979, 
 1062, 10()3, 1064, 1065, 
 
 Stevens, np. 947, 952, 953. 
 2092, 2097, 2100. 
 
 z: Vallely. i.p. 2417, 2420, 
 
 2480, 2489, 2533. 
 
 Walling T'. 
 
 z'. Wilson, p. 1569. 
 
 v. Wynn, pp. 7, 949. 
 
 Railway Comm'rs, Southeastern R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Railway Gross Receipts, State Tax 
 
 on. 
 Railway Transfer Co. z\ Railroad, 
 
 etc., Comm., p. 120. 
 Railway, etc., Assur. Co., North- 
 
 rup z'. 
 Rainbolt, Bedford, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Raine, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Raines z\ Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1522, 1876. 
 Raincy '■. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2689, 2816. 
 
 Lehigh Valley R. Co. z\ 
 
 Seaboard .\ir Line Railway v. 
 
 LTnion Pac. R. Co. ■;'. 
 
 Zimmerman z\ 
 
 Rainier Mill, etc., Co., Washirg- 
 
 ton Marine Co. ?•. 
 R'aiordon, Pennsvlvania R. Co. j'. 
 Raleigh Iron Works z'. Southern 
 
 R. Co., pp. 3495, 3545. 
 Raleigh, etc., R. Co., Browne v. 
 
 I'urwfell z'. 
 
 Cooper 7'. 
 
 Currie z\ 
 
 Grant Z'. 
 
 Hinshaw '■. 
 
 Knott ?'. 
 
 Lee 7'. 
 
 7'. Lowe, pp. 356. 357, 360, 
 
 371, 376, 548. 
 
 pp. 3699, 3752. 
 
 etc.. Steam- 
 4052, 4053, 
 
 Porter 
 
 7'. Swanson 
 
 Vaughan 7'. 
 
 Washington 7'. 
 
 Watkins 7'. 
 
 Ralli 7'. New York, 
 
 ship Co.. pp. 3935 
 4068. 
 
 7'. Troon, pp. 4021, 4022. 
 
 Ralph 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 489. 
 Ralston, Brown 7'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Rambo, Arkansas Mid. R'. Co. t 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 TAULB OI^ CASi:S. 
 
 CCLXIII 
 
 Ramey, Southern Rxp. Co. v. 
 
 Tallulah Falls R. Co. v. 
 
 Raining r. Metropolitan St. R- Co> 
 
 pp 1504, 1587, 1588, 2164, 2535, 
 
 2536, 2648. . 
 
 Ramiak r. Austro-.Xmerican bteam- 
 
 ship Co.. pp. 1722. 1822 3990. 
 Rainni v. Minneapolis, etc., K. V-O., 
 
 pp. 1510, 2863. ^ c T> 
 
 Ramsay v. Pottstown & R. St. K. 
 
 Co.. p. 2192. 
 Ramsden v. Roston, etc., K. Lc, 
 
 pp. 2043, 2048, 2049, 2064. 
 Ramsey, Philadelphia, etc., U. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 United States f. 
 
 Ramson r. Metropolitan St. K. Co., 
 
 p. 2165. 
 Ranchau r. Rutland R. Co., pp. 
 
 3164. 3185. 
 Rand v. Boston KUvated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1888, 1892, 2329, 2816, 2878. 
 !_ r Butte Klect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2770, 2867, 2914, 3010. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. r. ^ 
 
 •:•. Merchant's Dispatch 1 rans- 
 
 portation Co., p. 958. 
 
 Shattuck V. 
 
 Randall, .\ugusta, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Brodhead, p. 3967. 
 
 r. Frankford, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2026. 
 
 V. Lynch, p. 717. 
 
 r New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1626, 1634, 2444, 2451. 
 
 r. Providence, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2799. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 233, 234, 3272. 
 
 V. Sprague, p. 709. 
 
 V. Sterling, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2677. „ ^ 
 
 Kandell 7: Chicago, etc.. R. Co 
 pp. 1559, 2472, 2484, 26^3, 2855, 
 2856. 
 
 Denison, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Randle, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Randolph, Chicago, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 Dallas Consol. Tract. R. Co. 
 
 V. Wiley, p. 3966. 
 
 Ranev, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rangcnier v. Seattle Elect. Co., 
 
 pp. 2121, 2233, 2384. 
 Rankin, Cole v. „ , /^ 
 
 V. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 pp. 569, 889, 1151. 1154. 1168, 
 
 V. Pacific Railroad, pp. 894, 
 
 899. 
 
 Ranney v. St. Johnsbury, etc., K. 
 
 Co., pp. 2294, 2295, 2728. 
 Ranous v. Seattle Elect. Co., pp. 
 
 1996, 1998, 2355. 
 Ransberry ■:■. North .-\merican 
 
 Transp., etc., Co., pp. 3045, 
 
 3046. 
 Ransom, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Northwestern Steamship Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 Ransome v. Eastern, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1181. 
 Raphal v. Pickford, p. 614. 
 Rapid R. Co.. Brown '•. 
 Rapid Tran-. R. Co. ;•. Smith, pp. 
 
 2604, 2(.14. 
 
 V. Strong, pp. 1866, 1904, 
 
 1978. 1979, 1997, 2857. 
 
 Rapp, Relf V. 
 
 Rappahannock, The. 
 
 Rappaport v. Whites' Exp. Co.. pp. 
 
 1019, 1067. 
 Raritan River R. Co. r. Middlesex. 
 
 etc.. Tract. Co.. pp. 113. 115. 
 
 116. ^ ^ 
 
 Rash & Co., Louisville, etc., K. Co. 
 
 Rasnuissen -•. Home Industry Iron 
 
 Works, p. 3950. 
 Rathbone, Baltimore, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Xcal, pp. 607, 848. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 956, 1020. 
 
 Rathbone v. fJregon R. Co., p. 
 1553. 
 
 V. Union R. Co., pp. 1880, 
 
 1891. 
 
 Rathbun r. Citizens' Steamboat Co. 
 (N. Y.), 1 City Ct. R. 107— p. 
 571. ^ 
 
 V. Citizens' Steamboat Co., 
 
 76 N. Y. 376, 32 Am. Rep. 321— 
 p. 571. 
 
 Rather. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Vincent v. 
 
 Rathgebe v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 p. 2324. 
 Ratliff V. Quincy. etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1304, 1305, 1308, 3335. 
 Ratliflf Bros. v. Quincy, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1301. 
 Ratley, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ratner v. Chicago City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2895, 2924. 
 Rattan v. Central Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 2682. 
 Rattcree v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1534, 1695, 2646. 
 Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. 
 
 Co., pp. 3551, 3559, 3566, 3567, 
 
 3568. „ ^ 
 
 Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 309, 355, 373, i77, 378, 379, 
 
 3273, 3275. 
 Ran V. Bosworth, pp. 522, 523, 
 
 888, 3259. , ^ 
 
 Raub V. Los Angeles 1 ermtnal R. 
 
 Co., p. 1883. 
 Ranch r. Lloyd, p. 2607. 
 R'avensdale, The. 
 Rawitzkv v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1623, 1628, 2447. 
 Rawlings v. Wabash R. Co., pp. 
 
 1855, 1864, 2848. 2913. 
 Rawls T. Deshler, p. 1222. 
 Raworth ?■. Northern Pacific R. 
 
 Co., p. 3679. 
 Rawson r. Holland (N. Y.), 47 
 
 How. Prac. 292, 5 Daly 155— p. 
 
 500. 
 
 ,,. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611. 17 
 
 Am. Rep. 394— pp. 886, 896, 
 
 901, 3345. 
 
 V. Kansas City Elev. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2593. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 2 Abb. Prac, N. S., 220— 
 p. 3132. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 
 
 N Y. 212,' 8 Am. Rep. 543— 
 pp. 1007, 1612, 3163, .-165. 
 
 Ray V. Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2363. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1695, 1993. 
 
 7\ Cortland, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2460, 2475. 
 
 Indianapolis St. R. Co. i'. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., v. 
 
 Railroad Co. t'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. V. 
 
 -•. Southern R. Co., p. 165. 
 
 State J'. 
 
 V. United Tract. Co., pp. 196, 
 
 2620, 3112. 
 
 Ray Bros., Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rayburn, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ravmcr, South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Ravmond v. Biylington, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1718, 2285. 
 
 Northern Pac. K. Co. v. 
 
 V. Portland R. Co.. p. 2956. 
 
 Schwinger -'. 
 
 V. Tvson, pp. 3866, 3868, 
 
 3944, 3946. 3947. 
 
 Raynard, Chillicothe r. 
 
 Rayner, Harris v. 
 
 Raynes, Phillips v. 
 
 Raynor v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2630. 
 Rea f. Media, etc.. Elect. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2329, 2828. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 Rea V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 pp. 281, 627. 728, 733, 734, 742, 
 746, 749, 828, 844, 1036, 1037, 
 
 V. Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630, 
 
 86 Am. Dec. 426— pp. 619," 733, 
 742, 743. 749, 775. 
 
 V. Spaulding. 18 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 395— pp. 738, 767. 
 
 Readhead v. Midland R. Co., pp. 
 
 1682, 1845. 
 Reading v. Chicago, etc., K. Co.. 
 
 p. 1335. 
 
 V. Donovan, pp. 469, 470. 
 
 V. United Tract. Co., p. 78. 
 
 Reading City Pass. R. Co.. Barre 
 
 '- V. Eckert, p. 2694. 
 
 Reading Railroad v. Pennsylvania. 
 
 p. 3561. ^ „ . 
 
 Reading, etc., St. R. Co., Harriman 
 
 Ready v. Steamboat Highland 
 
 Mary, p. 3912. 
 Reagan, .\dams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 
 
 154 U. S. 362. 38 L. Ed. 1014. 
 14 S. Ct. 1047— pp. 34, 39, 46, 
 48. 58. 60, 61, 115, 116, 119. 
 121 122, 124, 129, 130, 133, 
 3668. , ^ ^ - 
 
 V. Farmers Loan, etc., Co.. 
 
 154 U. S. 420. 38 L. Ed. 1031. 
 14 S. Ct. 1062— pp. 34, 38, 39, 
 119, 124, 129, 133. 
 
 V. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 
 
 U. S. 413. 38 L. Ed. 1028. 14 
 S. Ct. 1060— pp. 119, 129. 3497, 
 3591. 
 
 V Mercantile Trust Co., 134 
 
 U. S. 418, 38 L. Ed. -030. 14 
 S. Ct. 1062— pp. 34, 37, 39, 119, 
 124, 129, 130, 133. 
 
 V. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp. 
 
 2928, 2996. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Real Estate Trust, etc., Co. r. 
 
 Gwyn. p. 2266. 
 Realm, Wentworth v. 
 Rearden v. St. Louis, etc.. R- Co. 
 
 (Mo.). 114 S. W. 961— pp. 1830, 
 
 1866, 1928, 2245. 
 ^• St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 2l3 
 
 Mo. 105, 114 S. W. 961— pp. 
 
 2321, 2350, 2915, 2987, 2996. 
 Reardon, Hatch v. 
 
 Pollard V. 
 
 Reary i\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp 1548, 1552, 1981, 2502, 2520, 
 2541. . „ ^ 
 
 Reason v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 852, 881. 3284, 3285, 3394. 
 3414. „ ^ 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Reasor i: Peducah. etc., Ft-JO' Co.. 
 
 pp. 10, 1498, 1500, 2475, 2709. 
 
 3078. ,.,„ .,, 
 
 Reaves v. Waterman, pp. /-V, '•'•>• 
 Rebecca, The. 
 Reber v. Bond. p. 1758. 
 
 V. Pittsburg, etc.. Tract. Co . 
 
 pp. 1987, 2126, 2179. 2888. 2889. 
 
 Receivers v. Armstrong, pp. 12/7. 
 1967. 1990. 2217. 
 
 Dobson V. 
 
 V. Olive, p. 1314. 
 
 r. Wright, p. 1281. 
 
 Receivers, etc., R. Co. v. Graves, 
 
 p. 448. ^. ^ 
 
 Record, Little Rock, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Rector. Waliash, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Red Bluff Hotel Co., Bierce v. 
 Red River. The. c .•„ 
 
 Red River, etc., R. Co. f. Eastin. 
 p. 228. 
 
 Long V. 
 
 Redburn. Daley f. 
 
 Redd f. Muscogee R. Co.. p 2360. 
 Redding f. South Carolina K. Co.. 
 pp. 2037, 2038. 2665. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 
 Reddington r. Philadelphia Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 2158.
 
 CCLXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Redeker, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Redeny, Spalding v. 
 Redfern, Arnott v. 
 Redfield f. Oakland, etc., R. Co. 
 p.. 1984. 
 
 VValrath v. 
 
 Redhing f. Central R. Co., pp 
 
 2325, 2879. 
 Redigan v. Boston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2505, 2506. 
 Redin v. Alton, etc.. Tract. Co. 
 
 p. 2752. 
 Redington v. Ilarrisburg Tract 
 
 Co., p. 2875. 
 Redman, Pacific Exp. Co. v. 
 Redmon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 796, 3340. 
 
 V. Aletropolitan St. K. Co. 
 
 pp. 1487, 2003, 2691, 2692, 2975 
 
 State f. 
 
 Redmond v. Liverpool, etc., Steam 
 
 boat Co., pp. 527, 566. 
 Redmond v. Liverpool, etc., Steam 
 
 ship Co., pp. 536, 545. 
 Redner i-. Lehigh, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1514. 
 Redus, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Reed, Ames v. 
 
 v. .\xtell, p. 2270. 
 
 B. & O. R. Co. V. 
 
 Bell f. 
 
 ■;■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1643, 1667. 
 
 Denver Tramway Co. f. 
 
 V. Dick, p. 541. 
 
 V. Duluth, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1870. 
 
 V. Great Northern K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2436, 2849. 
 
 Humphreys v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1972. 
 
 Mace v. 
 
 Newport News, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2735. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2051. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2157. 
 
 t. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 234, 284, 285, 288, 424, 752, 
 755, 776. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 v. Racine Boat Co., pp. 352, 
 
 372. 
 
 V. Richardson, pp. 
 
 i'. Rome, etc., Iv 
 
 1349, 1353, 1463. 
 
 Segura v. 
 
 State t. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., 
 
 1628, 1034, 2441. 
 
 1/. Trenton, pp. 66, 110. 
 
 V. United states, pp. 731, 
 
 736, 3865, 3877, 3898, 3939, 
 4017. 
 
 V. United States Exp. Co., n. 
 
 3359. 
 
 V. Weld, p. 712. 
 
 V. Wilmington Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 727, 732, 748, 752, 765. 
 
 V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2114, 2117, 2299. 
 
 Reed Lumber Co. v. Lewis, d. 
 671. ^ 
 
 Reeder, Boyle v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wells Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 1058, 1071, 1083. 
 
 Reem v. St. Paul City R. Co., 77 
 Minn. 503, 80 N. vV. 638— pp. 
 1712, 1952. 
 
 V. St. Paul City R. Co., b4 
 
 N. W. 652, 82 .Minn. 98— p. 
 3009. ^ 
 
 Reeman, Dallas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Reems v. New Orkans, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 2694, 2842. 
 Reese v. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 p. 2890. 
 
 532, 538. 
 Co., pp. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 
 Reese '■. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 191. 1597, 1598, 2467, 2468. 
 Reeside, The. 
 Reeve r. Davis, p. 3865. 
 Reeves, Brightman z\ 
 
 Chesapeake, ttc, R. Co. 'j. 
 
 V. Cliicago, etc., R'. Co.. pp. 
 
 1708, 26^-4, 2697, 2762. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 .Nicmpliis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 .\lobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Nortolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 f. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1664, 2777. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 2774, 
 
 3016. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 851, 1119, 1359. 
 
 Regan v. Adams Exp. Co., p. 1290. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk Railway, p. 
 
 3304. 
 
 V. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2688. 
 
 Rrgner v. Glens Falls, etc., St. 
 
 K. Co., pp. 2408, 2421, 2/u8. 
 Rehkoph, J:,vansville, etc., Packet 
 
 Co. V. 
 Reibel f. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2202, 2612. 
 Reich, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rcichmann Interstate Commerce 
 
 L.omm. c'. 
 Reid, Denver Tramway Co. v. 
 
 V. ivvansville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 7i2, 748, 753. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. < . 
 
 • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 bledge V. . 
 
 boutnern R. Co. t. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 149 N. 
 
 C. 423, 03 S. E. 112— pp. 148, 
 di2, o30, 3517. 
 
 z\ Southern R. Co., 150 N. 
 
 C. 753, 04 tj. L. 874 — pp. 1j1, 
 3d17. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 153 N. 
 
 C. 490, 09 S. E. 618— pp. 207, 
 3259, 3517, 3603, 3745. 
 
 lexas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Vazoo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 22i0, 2380. 
 
 Reidman v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2836. 
 Reid Phosphate Co. v. Farmeis' 
 
 Fertilizer Co., p. 334. 
 Reidsville, Piedmont R. Co. v. 
 Reidy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2815. 
 Reigle, Farish & Co. v. 
 ReiUey, Aew York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Reimer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2789. 
 Reineman & Co. v. Covington, etc., 
 
 R. .Co., p. 1104. 
 Reinliart v. McDonald, p. 3575. 
 Reisenleiter v. United R. Co., p. 
 
 2835. 
 Reiss V. Joline, p. 2798. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 98 
 
 Fed. 533, i9 C. C. A. 149— 
 pp. 540, 3361. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 99 Fed. 
 
 1006, 39 C. C. A. 008— p. 3361. 
 
 V. Wilmington City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1683, 1874, 1888, 1889, 2248, 
 2667, 2668, 2778. 
 
 Relt, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Rapp, pp. 759, 703. 
 
 Reliance Transp. Co., Atwood v. 
 Relyea v. New Haven Rolling Mill 
 
 Co., pp. 305. 311, 337, 3879, 
 3884, 3943. 
 
 Remmy, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 v. 
 
 Renaud v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 201 Mass. 553, 38 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 689, 44 R. R. R. 632, 
 67 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 
 632, 97 N. E. 98— pp. 190, 197, 
 2293. 
 Renaud f. New York, etc., R. C'n . 
 92 N. E. "10, 206 Mass. 557— 
 pp. 2781, 2878. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co , 
 
 210 Mass. 553, 97 N. E. 98, 38 
 L. R. A., N. S., 689, 67 Am 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 632. 44 
 R. R. R. 632— pp. 1495, 1531. 
 1742, 2122, 2123, 2163, 2172, 
 2421. 
 
 Rench, Burritt v. 
 
 Renders v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 p. 2897. 
 Re New Brunsw-ick, etc., R., p. 
 
 255. 
 Renfro ''. Fresno City R. Co., p. 
 
 2688. 
 Hall & Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Texas Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 1853. 
 
 Renfroe, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Renicker, Louisville, etc., R. Cci. 
 
 R'enneker v. South Carolina R 
 Co., pp. 1684, 2113, 2378. 
 
 Renney v. Webster, M., B. & F. 
 City St. Ry. Co., p. 1764. 
 
 Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., Brist e 
 
 Pelton -'. 
 
 Phillips V. 
 
 Rensslaer, etc., R. Co., Hart v. 
 Rentz, Seaboard Air Line Railway 
 
 Renz, Augusta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rephan, Norfolk, etc., Tract. Co. 
 
 Republic, The. 
 
 Reschke '■. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2727, 2869. 2875. 
 Reul, Mt. .Vdams, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Reunis, Emerson Co. •:'. 
 Revalee, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Revett V. Globe Nav. Co., pp. 3876, 
 
 3877, 3933. 
 Rex V. Barker, p. 255. 
 
 v. Severn, etc.. R'. Co., pp. 
 
 255, 256. 
 
 Rexroad, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Reyman, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Reynolds, Bell v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 121 
 
 Mass. 291— p. 3409. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 43 
 
 N. H. 580— pp. 1214, 1218, 1229, 
 1230, 1232, 1234, 1235, 1246, 
 1247, 1248, 1249. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 145, 170. 
 
 — • — V. Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 1110, 1300, 1366, 1376, 1424, 
 1425, 1430, 1444. 
 
 Kansas Pac. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 McGhee f. 
 
 v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 593. 
 
 Pacific Coast Co. '■. 
 
 V. Pacific Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 1644. 
 
 Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2455. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1687, 1720, 2159, 2669. 
 
 Robertson v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1539, 2084. 
 
 V. Scott, p. 352. 
 
 V. Seaboard Air Line Rail- 
 way, p. 1197. 
 
 Reynolds Bros., Western Union 
 Tel. Co. V. 
 
 Rhea v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 
 pp. 2672, 2858. 
 
 Rhoades, International, etc., R. Co.
 
 TAHIJC OF CASKS. 
 
 CCLXV 
 
 Rhoads r. Cornwall, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1509, 1524, 2860. 
 
 South Florida R. Co. v. 
 
 Rhode- Island Co., Arnold v. 
 
 I'.etz V. 
 
 Brunnchow v. 
 
 Canhani i. 
 
 Fagan '.■. 
 
 Garvey v. 
 
 Lee V. 
 
 McCauley v. 
 
 Marsh v. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 Murray v. 
 
 O'Clair v. 
 
 Parrcnt v. 
 
 Riley v. 
 
 Simone v. 
 
 Tildcn V. 
 
 Tucker v. 
 
 Wilbour V. 
 
 Wilbur V. 
 
 Wilcox 7' 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Enos V. 
 
 Prospcrt 
 
 X'errone 
 
 Rhode Island, 
 
 V. 
 
 Suburban R. Co., 
 
 etc., R. Co., Enos 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 R'. Co., pp. 
 
 203i2, 2588, 
 
 323, 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 1428, 
 
 Staples z\ 
 
 Rhodes, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Iowa, pp. 2423, 3538, 3539. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 945, 1377. 
 
 f. Ncwhall, pp. 338, 339, 347, 
 
 3884. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. ■;•. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 160. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Rhodes, etc., Co. v. Continental 
 
 Furniture Co., pp. 302, 477. 
 Rice, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., pp. 
 
 806, 894, 895, 899. 
 
 Brundred r. 
 
 Camden, etc., R 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., 
 
 1683, 1737, 1814, _-. 
 2668, 2672, 2681, 2839, 2841 
 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 80, 1611. 
 
 V. Dwight Mfg. Co., pp. 
 
 984. 
 
 V. Hart, pp. 894, 899. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co, 
 
 3144. 
 
 T. Indianapolis, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 819, 821, 848. 
 
 z'. Kansas Pac. Railway, 
 
 nil, 1112, 1113, 1413. 
 1429. 
 
 :-. Ontario Steamboat Co., pp. 
 
 598, 848, 853. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., pp. 2192, 2195. 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. ■;'. 
 
 Stone V. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co., pp. 969, 
 
 1398, 1407. 
 
 Rich, Bryant v. 
 
 Cameron v. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 r. Lambert, pp. 1035. 3896, 
 
 3903, 3921, 4019, 4023. 4031. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2567. 
 
 Richardson v. 
 
 Richard ;•. Detroit, etc.. Railway, 
 
 p. 3323. 
 Richards. Bloom v. 
 
 Clark -c'. 
 
 !'. Doe. p. 337. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Georgia Railroad v. 
 
 r. Gi'lbert, pp. 727. 768. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 King T. 
 
 •:•. London, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 211, 3125. 3147, 3148. 
 
 V. Michigan, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 894. 899. 900. 
 
 pp. 
 
 R. Co., 149 
 t Am. 
 3— pp. 
 
 1110, 1119, 
 
 R. Co., 62 
 
 531, 
 891. 
 
 Richards v. Westcott, pp. 759, 764. 
 Richardson, Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 '- V. Atlantic Coast Line Rail- 
 road, p. 3090. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Augusta, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2875. 
 
 V. Canadian Pac. R. Co 
 
 892, 898, 901. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc.. 
 
 Mo. 311, 50 S. W. 782, 13 Am 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 170— pp. 
 
 969, 1013, 1061. " 
 
 1403, 1426. 
 
 7'. Chicago, etc., 
 
 App. 1 — pp. 1---. 
 .'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 
 Wis. 596, 21 N. W. 49— p. 1444. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ieain, etc., Co. .. 
 
 V. Goddard, pp. 527, 
 
 534. 536, 539, 540, 566, 
 3894, 3895. 
 
 V. Goss, p. 1234. 
 
 Gulf, etc., Tel. Co. v. 
 
 Hall r. 
 
 i: Hard wick, p. 3867. 
 
 V. Harmon, pp. 4036, 4037. 
 
 4039. 4040. 4042, 4077. 
 
 McClurc V. 
 
 V. Metropolitan Railway, p. 
 
 1971. 
 
 v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1739. 1740. 
 
 — — V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 954, 1097, 1117. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., K'. Co. z\ 
 
 Reed 7. 
 
 V. Rich, pp. 1154, 1160, 1171. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 7'. Whiting, pp. 3938, 3944, 
 
 3945. 
 
 Richardson Drug Co., Greek-.\mer- 
 
 ican Sponge Co. 7-. 
 Richardson Fueling Co. f 
 
 mour, p. 4040. 
 Richelieu, Senecal 7'. 
 Richelieu Nav. Co., Dixon i 
 Richelieu, etc., Nav. Co. 7 
 
 ton Marine Ins. Co., pp 
 
 3909. 
 Riches, Coleman v. 
 
 7'. Fargo, p. 600. 
 
 Richeson, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Kichey, Indianapolis Tract., etc., 
 
 Co. z: 
 Richey, etc., Co. z\ Northern Pac. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 218, 229, 264. 
 Richmond v. Bronson, pp. 596, 
 
 599. 
 
 Del Valle v. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 7'. Irons, p. 4075. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1989. 
 
 Northrop 7'. 
 
 7'. Quincy, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2249. 
 
 Railroad Co. z'. 
 
 7'. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1550, 2094, 2097. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 The. 
 
 V. Union Steamboat Co., 8 
 
 Abb. N. C. 66— p. 540. 
 
 7'. Union Steamboat Co., 8" 
 
 N. Y. 240— pp. 532. 598. 
 
 Richmond & D. R. Co., Crews 7'. 
 Richmond City R. Co. 7'. Scitt, 
 
 pp. 1718, 1798, 1804, 1805, 1914. 
 
 2576. 
 Richmond Passenger, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Allen, p. 2294. 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. v. Bowles, 
 
 p. 2743. 
 
 7'. Brown, p. 1645. 
 
 i: Garthwright, p. 1952. 
 
 1798. 1884. 
 
 Co., 
 
 3303, 
 
 3S. 
 
 Sey- 
 
 Bos- 
 3907. 
 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. v. West, pp. 
 
 2569, 2635, 2647, 2655, 2721. 
 
 2795. 
 Richnuiid Tract. Co. v. Wilkinson,. 
 
 p. 2535. 
 
 -■. Williams, pp. 1865, 2268. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. .•. Ashby. 
 
 pp. 1613, 1857, 1862. 1971. 1975, 
 
 1093. 
 
 Bedell z: 
 
 z: Bedell, p. 684. 
 
 z: Benson, pp. 406, 513, 515, 
 
 734, 741, 743, 856. 
 
 Bowers V. 
 
 - - 7'. Brown, p. 80. 
 
 Burgin v. 
 
 V. Burnscd, p. 1568. 
 
 C>'idwell V. 
 
 r. Childress, pp. 1990. 2780. 
 
 Clyde V. 
 
 Conley v. 
 
 Dixon 7'. 
 
 Farrell t'. 
 
 V. Greenwood, pp. 1721. 2010, 
 
 3069. 
 
 Gwyn, etc., Co. z\ 
 
 Ilughson V. 
 
 7'. Jefferson, pp. 2017, 2018. 
 
 2020, 3077. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Johnstone v. 
 
 Knopf 7'. 
 
 Kohn 7'. 
 
 7'. Leathers, p. 2919. 
 
 Lewis -•. 
 
 Lindley v. 
 
 Littlejohn v. 
 
 Mc.Vbsher v. 
 
 McSloop V. 
 
 Malcom v. 
 
 7'. Morris, pp. 
 
 2254. 
 
 z: Patterson Tobacco, 
 
 pp. 3292, 3293, 3504, 
 3513, 3523, 3536. 
 
 V. Patterson, etc.. Co.. , 
 
 7'. Payne, pp. 931, 946, 94J, 
 
 1054, 1075. 
 
 Pendleton 7'. 
 
 Pickens 7'. 
 
 z'. Pickleseimer, p. 2159. 
 
 v. Picklesimer, p. 2159. 
 
 Piatt 7'. 
 
 — - 7'. Powers, 149 U. S. 43. 37 
 L. Ed. 642, 13 S. Ct. 748— pp. 
 2134, 2136, 2274. 2858. 2859. 
 
 V. Powers. 149 U. S. 209. 14 
 
 S. Ct. 281, 38 L. Ed. 131— p. 
 1792. 
 
 Purcell V. 
 
 Randall 7. 
 
 Reynolds 7'. 
 
 -•. Richardson, 43 S. W. 465, 
 
 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1495— p. 3279. 
 
 V. Richardson, 23 Ky. L- 
 
 Rep. 2234, 66 S. W. 1035— p. 
 3350. 
 
 Rudd V. 
 
 Samuels v. 
 
 7'. Scott, 86 Va. 902, 11 S. 
 
 E. 404, 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 418— p. 1928. ^ ^ 
 
 V. Scott, 88 Va. 958, 14 S. E. 
 
 763. 16 L. R. .A. 91— pp. 2200, 
 2312, 2616, 2797. 
 
 v. Shomo. pp. 320, 323. 333, 
 
 335, 3250, 3326, 3347, 3354. 
 
 Smith 7'. 
 
 z: Smith, pp. 1922, 2242. 
 
 Spellman z\ 
 
 7'. Trousdale & Sons, pp. 820. 
 
 1311, 1457, 1459. 
 
 Turner i'. 
 
 7'. Vance, pp. 2636, 3069, 
 
 3070. 
 
 N^an Lindley 7'. 
 
 Walsh 7'. 
 
 Waters v. _ 
 
 f. White, pp. 724. 730. /34. 
 
 739, 741, 743. 745. 747. 748, 
 818. 820. 825. 826, 871. 876. 8//, 
 894. 898, 900. 903, 1038. 
 
 Whitney Mfg. Co. z: 
 
 Willcox 7.
 
 CCLXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co., Wood '■. 
 Richter '■. United R. Co., p. 2778. 
 Rick V. Wells Fargo Co., pp, 1330, 
 
 1456, 1476. 1483, 1484. 
 Rickerson Roller-Mill Co. -■. 
 
 Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3261, 3289, 3296, ii27 . 
 Kickert -•. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 2257, 2517. 
 Ricketts ;■. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (X. v.), 61 Barb. 18, 4 Lans. 
 
 446 — pp. 3359, 3377. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 59 N. 
 
 Y. 637 — p. 3254. 
 
 f. Birmingham St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2079, 2255. 
 
 i'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 3066. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Rickinson, American Sugar Refin. 
 
 Co. '.: 
 Ricks, Central, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 f. Georgia, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 2156. 
 
 Riddick v. Dunn, p. 3894. 
 Riddlebarger f. Hartford Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 1118. 
 Ridenhour f. Kansas City Cable R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1890, 1896, 2120, 2236, 
 
 2322, 2916, 2994. 
 Rider, Eddy v. 
 
 Louisiana, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3149. 
 
 Ridge Ave. Pass. R'. Co., Purtell 
 
 Stager v. 
 
 Ridge Ave., etc., R. Co., Picard v. 
 R'idgeway Grain Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., pp. 589, 1102. 
 Ridley, Day Catlin & Co. ■;•. 
 
 Day, etc., Co. c'. 
 
 Riedel v. Wilmington City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2587. 
 Riegel & Co., Union R., etc., Co. 
 
 Riegler, South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Rielly, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rifcowitz, Baltimore Consol. R'. 
 
 Co. 7. 
 Riggins T. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 423 
 Riiri,s, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7 . 
 Rigney, Laing 'o. 
 Riley, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 i". Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1568. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R'. Co. ?•. 
 
 V. Home, p. 729. 
 
 Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1189. 
 
 Pullman Co. v. 
 
 i'. Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 1831, 1832, 2225. 
 
 Roberts f. 
 
 United R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Vallcjo-Fcrry Co., p. 1509. 
 
 T. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1621, 2579, 2593, 2610, 3389. 
 
 Rinard, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Rines & Co., Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 R'iney, Gulf, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 Ringgold V. Haven, pp. 816, 818, 
 
 819, 848, 3933. 
 Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co., pp. 
 
 728, 733, 749, 3188. 
 Rintamaki v. Cunard Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 3925, 3926. 
 Rintoul V. New York Cent., etc., 
 
 R. Co., 21 Blatchf. 439, 17 Fed. 
 
 905— pp. 790, 791, 824. 
 
 V. New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co., 20 Fed. 313— p. 793. 
 
 Rio Grande R. Co. v. Cross, 5 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 454, 456, 23 S. W. 529 
 — pp. 33, 855, 856, 935, 3384. 
 
 V. Cross (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 23 S. W. 1004— p. 856. 
 
 Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 740, 
 
 Rio Grande R. Co. v. Munoz Suc- 
 cessors, p. 856. 
 
 — — Woodhouse "'. 
 
 Rio Grande, etc., R. Co. v. Camp- 
 bell, pp. 2726, 3454. 
 
 i\ R'ubenstein, p. 2693. 
 
 • Rudy V. 
 
 Ripley f. ' Aetna Ins. Co., p. 1118. 
 
 V. New Jersey R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 1638. ^ 
 
 Rippy & Co. V. Southern Railway, 
 
 p. 165. 
 Rislcy, .American Exp. Co. f. 
 Rist V. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., pp. 2668, 2679. 
 Ritchel, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ritchey, Texas Mid. Railroad v. 
 Ritchie, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Ritter, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 '•. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 p. 1597. 
 
 Ritz V. Pennsylvania R. Co 
 
 1267, 1281. 
 River, etc.. Coke Co., Illinois Cent. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 R'ivers v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2467, 2468, 2849. 
 
 T'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 80 N. 
 
 .1. L. 217, 76 .\tl. 455- pp. 1744, 
 1830, 1836. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 83 
 
 N. J. L. 513, 83 Atl. 883— pp. 
 1744, 1835, 1836, 2180, 2884. 
 
 Riverside Mills, Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 T. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3604, 3832. 
 
 Rives, Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 Rives, etc., Co., Knox ■<'. 
 Rixford -■. Smith, pp. 728 
 
 753, 757, 758, 765, 766. 
 Roach, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 3514. 
 
 • Southern R. Co. 
 
 \'irginia, etc., R 
 
 • Wood V. 
 
 Roane, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Roanoke R., etc., Co. v. Sterrett, 
 
 108 Va. 533, 62 S. E. 385, 19 
 
 L. R. A., N. S., 316— pp. 2671, 
 
 3003. 
 V. Sterrett, 111 Va. 293, 68 
 
 S. E. 998— pp. 2667, 2673, 2838, 
 
 2970. 
 Roanoke, etc.. Steamboat Co., 
 
 Hornthal v. 
 Roark v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1938, 1939. 
 Roasted i\ Great Northern R'. Co., 
 
 p. 1669. 
 Robb V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 191, 1637, 2446. 
 Robbins, New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pender v. 
 
 — — • St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Shelby County Taxing 
 
 Dist., pp. 3455, 3471, 3555. 
 
 Robbins Cotton Co., Mobile, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Roberson z<. Greenleaf Johnson 
 
 Lumber Co., p. 1583. 
 Robert V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 979, 1489, 1491, 3166, 3522. 
 Robert Dollar, The. 
 Robert Smith Ale Brew. Co., Ly- 
 
 don V. 
 Roberts, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1510, 1769, 1785, 1882, 2151, 
 2332, 2365, 2369, 2876. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2693. 
 
 v. Chittenden, p. 587. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. %'. 
 
 V. Graham, pp. 2625, 2626. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Johnson, p. 2803. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Roberts v. Koehler, p. 1973. 
 
 New York f. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2138, 2140. 
 
 -'. Pennsylvania R'. Co., p. 
 
 2349. 
 
 People "'. 
 
 V. Riley, pp. 425, 428, 820, 
 
 821, 945, 1007. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 139, 169. 
 
 V. Sierra R 
 
 Co., pp. 
 2309, 2677, 
 
 1746, 
 2806, 
 
 1758, 2165 
 2920, 2982. 
 
 V. Smith, p. 2850. 
 
 ■ V. Southern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1557. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Tousey V. 
 
 V. Turner, p. 11. 
 
 7'. Union Line Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 546, 891, 901, 902, 905, 912. 
 
 Van Buskirk v. 
 
 ■;•. Wabash R. Co., p. 2077. 
 
 ?'. Yarboro, pp. 549, 553. 
 
 Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 
 Robertson v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 152, 172, 582. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1505, 1506. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, p. 3582. 
 
 Edye V. 
 
 "■. Hay, p. 3886. 
 
 ■ V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1663, 1969, 2774, 3012. 
 
 V. National Steamship Co., 
 
 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 132, 17 N. 
 Y. S. 459, 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 694— pp. 847, 851, 853, 856. 
 
 V. National Steamship Co., 1 
 
 App. Div. 61, 37 N. Y. S. 69, 
 72 N. Y. St. Rep. 223— pp. 430, 
 431. 
 
 T'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1558, 1572, 2665. 
 
 V. Old Colony R. Co., pp. 
 
 214, 244, 1574, 1575. 
 
 V. Reynolds, p. 396. 
 
 • ?'. Southern R. Co., p. 954. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 ?'. Wabash R. Co., pp. 2874, 
 
 2930. 
 
 i\ West Jersey, etc., Co., p 
 
 1535. 
 
 Robertson & Co. v. Kennedy, pp 
 
 8, 727. 
 Robertson, etc., Co., Voss & Co. v. 
 Robey, Kauffman ?■. 
 Robinett, Chesapeake, etc., R'. Co 
 
 V. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc.. Railway v. 
 
 Robinson, American Union Exp 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Arkansas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • f. Austin, pp. 580, 681. 
 
 V. Baker, pp. 1142, 1155, 
 
 1156, 1158, 1159. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 64 
 
 C. C. A. 281, 129 Fed. 753— pp. 
 187, 188, 189. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 222 U. S. 506, 56 L. Ed. 288, Z2 
 S. Ct. 114— pp. 3785, 3810. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 64 
 
 W. Va. 406, 63 S. E. 323— pp. 
 1194, 1198, 1201, 3824. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ Chicago, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2804, 3228. 
 
 '■. Chittenden, p. 892. 
 
 -■. Cornish, pp. 728, 749. 
 
 r. Ezzell, p. 1195. 
 
 Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gibbons f. 
 
 V. Harmon, p. 36. 
 
 V. Helena, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1519, 1803, 1866, 1889, 2649. 
 
 Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Ilolst, p. 3889. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 TAIUJC OK CASES. 
 
 CCLXVII 
 
 Robinson r. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 479, -iHi,. 493. 
 
 Indianapolis St.* R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Kirkwood, p. 2089. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 465. 
 
 Lambert -■. 
 
 Lane 7'. 
 
 V. Lord liyron, p. 3658. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., p. 2156. 
 
 V. .Memphis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 305, 306, 308, 314, 317, 573, 
 575, 577. 
 
 V. New York Cent., etc., K'. 
 
 Co., p. 1843. 
 
 V. New York, etc., Co., p. 
 
 3377. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 203 N. Y. 627, 97 N. E. 1115— 
 p. 3141. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 129 N. Y. S. 1030, 145 App. 
 Div. 391— pp. 3150, 3174. 
 
 V. New York, etc., Steamship 
 
 Co., 69 N. E. 1130, 177 N. Y. 
 565- p. 3409. 
 
 V. New York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., 63 App. Div. 211, 71 N. Y. 
 S. 424— pp. 1036, 3384. 
 
 V. New York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., 74 N. Y. S. 384, 36 Misc. 
 Rep. 705— p. 4025. 
 
 r. Noble, pp. 1171, 3942. 
 
 J'. Northhampton St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1907. 
 
 Paris, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Piochc, etc., Co.. p. 1498. 
 
 V. Rockland St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2418. 
 
 V. St. Tohnsbury, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2104, "2105. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 
 
 Mo. 494— p. 424. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 103 Mo. App. 110, 77 S. W. 493 
 —p. 2697. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Shelden r. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. f. 
 
 i\ Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 195, 1976. 
 
 V. Superior Rapid Trans. R'. 
 
 Co., p. 3087. 
 
 r. United States, p. 328. 
 
 Verrall f. 
 
 Robinson Bros. v. Merchants' Des- 
 patch Transp. Co., pp. 320, 429, 
 431, 432, 848, 854, 992, 1013, 
 1034. 
 
 Robinson, etc., Co. ■?■. Memphis, 
 etc., R. Co., 9 Fed. 129— pp. 
 293, 486, 3879. 
 
 V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 16 
 
 Fed. 57— pp. 293, 3879. 
 
 Robostelli T. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1574, 1767, 1789. 
 Robson '•. Nassau Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 2884. 
 
 ■;■. North Eastern R. Co., p. 
 
 1871. 
 
 The Northern Hclle v. 
 
 Rochat f. North Hudson R'. Co., 
 
 p. 1995. 
 
 Rochester City, etc., R. Co., Birm- 
 ingham '■. 
 
 Rochester R. Co., Ayers -'. 
 
 Manufacturers' Commercial 
 
 Co. z'. 
 
 Muckle V. 
 
 Sias V. 
 
 Rochester, etc., R. Co., Alexander 
 
 Birmingham f. 
 
 Clarke v. 
 
 Curtis V. 
 
 Ganiard v. 
 
 Gill I'. 
 
 People V. 
 
 Weber -•. 
 
 Rock Creek Steamboat Co. r. Boyd, 
 p. 3017. 
 
 Rock Island, etc., R. Co. v. Stev- 
 ens, pp. 1856, 1857. 
 
 R. Co., Tibbits 
 Carter v. 
 
 Rock Island, etc., 
 & Son r. 
 
 Rockford, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 V. Coultas, p. 2220. 
 
 Rockland St. R. Co., Robinson r. 
 
 Rockland, etc., St. Railway, Carle- 
 ton z: 
 
 Rockwell, Horan z'. 
 
 Rocky Mt. Mills z: Wilmington, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 641, 642, 654, 
 660, 662, 670, 675, 698. 3277, 
 3282. 
 
 K'odebaugh, Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Roderick z'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 753, 1344. 
 
 Roilgcr I'. Comptoird' Escompt dc 
 Paris, p. 1224. 
 
 Rodgers, Atchison, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2369. 
 
 z'. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 619, 744. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Rodick -•. Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1769, 1773, 1786. 
 Rodman v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2898. 
 Rodocanachi, Soule v. 
 Roe, Morel i'. 
 
 • Oregon Co. v. 
 
 Roebuck, Cleveland City R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. "■. 
 
 Roedecker :•. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 1710. 
 Roemer, Galveston, etc., R'. Co. i'. 
 Roeser, Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Rogan r. Wabash R. Co., p. 679. 
 Rogers 7'. -Atlantic City R. Co., pp. 
 
 1637, 1638. 
 • Barrett "'. 
 
 Bingham ?■. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ • Cravens v. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R.^ Co. z: 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 • Jackson '•. 
 
 JefFersonville R'. Co. Z'. 
 
 z'. Kennebec Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 2094, 2103. 
 
 -•. Long Island R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 38 How. Prac. 289— p. 278. 
 
 v. Long Island R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.). 2 Lans. 269— p. 3138. _ 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. "'. 
 
 z'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3326, 3331. 
 
 7'. New York, etc.. Bridge, p. 
 
 2730. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Schneider, pp. 1228, 1232, 
 
 1233, 1234. 
 
 Zerrill 7-. 
 
 • 7'. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1304, 1306, 1308, 1309. 
 
 7'. Thomas, pp. 1207, 1214, 
 
 1221. 
 
 T. 
 
 & P. R. Co. 7 
 
 7'. Weir, p. 573. 
 
 7'. West, p. 1143. 
 
 ■ 7'. Western Union 
 
 p. 643. 
 
 7'. Wheeler, 43 N. 
 
 p. 769. 
 
 7'. Wheeler, 52 N. 
 
 pp. 278, 287, 884, 3286 
 
 Whitney 7'. 
 
 Rogers Bros. Produce Co. 
 
 Tel. Co., 
 Y. 598- 
 Y. 262— 
 
 Neill 
 
 Rogers' Sons, Central R., etc., Co. 
 
 Rogers & Sons, Central Railroad z: 
 
 Central R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Rogers, etc., Mach. Works z'. Erie 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 66, 132, 211, 212, 
 
 240, 254, 255, 1136, 1190. 
 Rohrback 7'. Pullman's Palace Car 
 
 Co., pp. 2039, 3210. 
 Rohrig 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 147. 
 Rokeby, The. 
 
 Co., 32 Ga. 
 
 3109, 3159, 
 3175, 3183, 
 
 Keel, pp. 
 
 Fire Ins. Co. z\ 
 
 Roland, etc., Co. v. Brown, pp. 
 
 401, 402. 
 Rolette 7'. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2125, 2182, 2309, 2343. 
 Rolfe, Chotaw, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3397, 3408. 
 
 R'olfs V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2463. 
 Roller, Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rollins v. Seaboard, etc., Railroad, 
 
 pp. 151, 152, 154, 173. 
 Roman, Kennedy 7'. 
 Romans, Indianapolis Tract., etc., 
 
 Co. z'. 
 Rome R. Co. z'. Sloan, pp. 595, 
 
 3303, 3397, 3414. 
 
 7'. Sullivan, etc., Co., 14 Ga. 
 
 277— pp. 514, 539, 551, 553, 580, 
 894, 898, 1003, 1007. 
 
 7'. Sullivan, etc., Co., 25 Ga. 
 
 228— pp. 533, 546, 607, 3250, 
 3251. 3257, 3272, 3275, 3277, 
 3278, 3279. 
 
 7'. Sullivan, etc., 
 
 400— p. 3291. 
 
 7'. Wimberly, pp. 
 
 3160, 3168, 3174, 
 3186, 3189, 3193. 
 
 Rome R., etc., Co. i 
 
 1879, 2332, 2589, 2602. 
 Rome, etc., R'. Co., Bowles 7'. 
 
 City Bank 7'. 
 
 Hosapple 7'. 
 
 London, etc. 
 
 ■ Reed z: 
 
 ■ Simpson r. 
 
 Webster v. 
 
 Romer, Bush 7'. 
 
 Romine 7'. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1979, 2902. 
 Rommele, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 Roney z\ Chase, etc., Co., pp. 3961, 
 
 3964. 
 
 ■ Louisville, etc., R. Co. z-. 
 
 Rood, Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 Root 7'. Catskill Mountain R. Co., 
 
 p. 2691. 
 
 Clinton 7'. 
 
 v. Des Moines City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2301, 2357, 2823, 3000. 
 
 7'. Des Moines R. Co., pp. 
 
 2115, 2380, 2903. 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Great Western R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 65 Barb. 619, 1 Thomp. & 
 C. 10— p. 3401. 
 
 7-. Great Western R. Co., 45 
 
 N. Y. 524— pp. 417, 3289, 3294. 
 
 7'. Great Western R. Co., 55 
 
 N. Y. 636— p. 3302. 
 
 • 7'. Long Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 220, 1135, 1179, 1183, 1184, 1185, 
 1188, 1193. 
 
 7'. New York Cent, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 3214, 3216, 3219, 3220, 3221. 
 3223, 3224, 3225, 3230. 
 
 J. opes, Bearsc -•. 
 
 Roscoe 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 pp. 2637, 2882, 2883, 2886, 2938. 
 Rose, Baltimore, etc., R? Co. Z'. 
 
 7'. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1803. 
 
 Burlington, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Central Pass. R. Co. 7. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Des Moines \'al. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1760, 2092, 2095, 2096. 
 
 Harvey z: 
 
 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3029. 
 
 7'. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3161. 3164. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 Thompson "•. 
 
 7-. West Philadelphia R. Co., 
 
 p. 2388. 
 
 7'. Wilmington, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 2057. 24S1. 
 
 Rosebrook-Josey Grain Co., Kan- 
 sas, etc., R. Co. -■.
 
 CCLXVUI 
 
 table: of cases. 
 
 Rosebrooks z: Dinsniore, p. 814. 
 
 Rose Co., Southern E-xp. Co. f. 
 
 Rosedale, The. 
 
 Rose Innes, The. 
 
 Roseman v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2489. 
 Rosen v. Boston, p. 2781. 
 
 -•. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2196. 
 
 Rosenbaum v. St. Paul, etc., R'. 
 
 Co., pp. 1555, 1752. 
 Rosenbaum Grain Co. t'. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 129, 3498. 
 
 Railroad Comm. v. 
 
 Rosenberg v. Third Ave. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1541. 
 Rosenberry, St. Louis, etc., K. Co. 
 
 Rosenblum v. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 Co., p. 2007. 
 
 V. Weir, p. 779. 
 
 Rosenbush z: Bernheimer, p. 3545. 
 Rosencranz v. Swofford Bros. Dry 
 
 Goods Co'., p. 476. 
 Rosenfeld v. Central Vermont R. 
 Co., pp. 420, 592. 
 
 z\ Peoria, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1012, 1061, 1065, 1075. 
 
 Rosenfield z: Express Co., pp. 517, 
 
 547, 573, 594. 
 Rosenfield & Son, Condict & Co. z\ 
 Rosenheim & Sons, Southern R'. 
 
 Co. i: 
 Rosenkovitz z\ United R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1587, 2044, 2666, 3018, 3019, 
 
 3020. 
 Rosenstein v. Vogemann, pp. 3887, 
 
 3893, 3913, 3926. 
 Rosenthal, Chicago Union Tract. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 v. Dessau, p. 1226. 
 
 • Wallace v. 
 
 z: Weir, 170 N. Y. 148, 63 
 
 X. E. 65, 57 L. R. A. 527— pp. 
 582, 987. 
 
 V. Weir, 66 N. Y. b. 841, 54 
 
 App. Div. 275— pp. 1249, 1251. 
 
 Rosenthal Millinery Co., Ft. 
 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 RQSenzweig, Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Rosik, United R'., etc., Co. ■:•. 
 Rosnagle, Cincinnati Northern 
 
 Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc.. Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Ross, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Cargo of 3,408 Tons of 
 
 Pocahontas Coal, pp. 3951, 3967 
 
 Ross V.' Charleston, etc., Transp 
 Co., pp. 3864, 3865. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 T. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 490, 899. 
 
 Houston City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 In re. 
 
 z'. Kansas City St. R. Co., p 
 
 70. 
 
 V. Milne, p. 2560. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3124, 3149, 3160, 3168. 
 
 State V. 
 
 V. Tw)y, etc., R. Co., pp. 753, 
 
 758. 
 
 Water v. 
 
 Ross Tp. V. Michigan United R. 
 
 Co., p. 80. 
 Ross, etc., Co., Love v. 
 Rossell, Elliott !•. 
 Rossier v. Wabash R. Co., pp. 3149, 
 
 3174. 
 Rested V. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 p. 1969. 
 Roth V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 907, 3160, 3169, 3170, 3171, 3174. 
 Roth Mfg. Co., Doyle v. 
 Rothchild Bros. v. Northern Pac. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 766, 772, 773, 779. 
 Rothchild & Co., Brunswick, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Rothermel v. Meyerle, p. 3567. 
 Rothschild, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 894, 899. 
 
 Rothstcin '■. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 Co., p. 2565. 
 
 ■:■. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 2253, 22o3. 
 
 Rotolo, Norfolk, etc., Terminal Co. 
 
 Rott z: Fortv Second St., etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 2513. 
 Rotter Bros., Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Roulo V. Minot, pp. 2353, 2901. 
 Roulstone, Curry •;•. 
 Roundtree, Gulf, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 Rountree v. -Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 135, 2776. 
 
 Weir V. 
 
 Rouser z: North Park St. R. Co., 
 pp. 1627, 1650. 
 
 T-. Washington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2229. 
 
 Rousseau, Winona, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 R'ouston V. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, pp. 1842, 2002, 2895, 2896, 
 2897. 
 
 Rowan z-. Wells Fargo & Co., pp. 
 789, 1041. 
 
 Rowand, McGill v. 
 
 Rowden z\ Fargo, p. 1036. 
 
 Ro»din I'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 pp. 1567, 2704. 
 
 Rowe z: Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 71 App. Div. 474, 75 N. Y. S. 
 893— pp. 191, 194. 
 
 V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 81 N. Y. S. 106, 80 App. Div. 
 477— pp. 2424, 2425. 
 
 . z: Pickford, p. 1234. 
 
 Rowell, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Eddy z: 
 
 Houston, etc., R'. Co. z\ 
 
 Rovven, Cole v. 
 
 Rowland, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 • Henshaw v. 
 
 V. Miln, pp. 531, 892. 
 
 ■;■. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1138, 1160. 
 
 Z'. Pennsylvania R. Co., p 
 
 67. 
 
 Rowley v. Bigelow, pp. 317, 355 
 
 369, 372, 1207, 1215, 1241, 1242 
 
 3878. 
 Roxborough, etc., R. Co., Wood 
 
 roffe V. 
 Roy z\ Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 424, 3252, 3258, 3259, 3327 
 
 v. Griffin, pp. 286, 292. 
 
 Harrison v. 
 
 z\ Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 306, 309, 315. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. z\ 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Royal Exch. Sliipping Co., Tarbel! 
 
 V. 
 
 Royal Sceptre, The. 
 
 Roye, Northern Texas Tract. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Royston v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2020, 2962. 
 Rozwadosfskie v. International, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 1539, 1763, 
 
 1798, 1799. 
 Ruark, Fassett z'. 
 Rubens v. Ludgate Hill Steamship 
 
 Co., 49 Hun 608, 2 N. Y. S. 
 
 30, 21 Abb. N. C. 464, 17 N. 
 
 Y. St. Rep. 17— p. 806. 
 
 V. Ludgate Hill Sceamship 
 
 Co., 65 Hun 625, 20 N. Y. S. 
 481, 48 N. Y. St. Rep. /32— pp. 
 292, 722, 1010. 
 
 Rubenstein, Rio Grande, etc,. R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Rubin V. Interborough Rapid Tran- 
 sit Co., p. 1971. 
 
 z: Wells Fargo Exp. Co., p. 
 
 567. 
 
 Ruch, Aurora, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Aurora, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1562, 1745, 1986, 2344, 2602. 
 
 Rucker v. Donovan, pp. 579, 1219, 
 1246, 1247, 1248. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R'. Co., pp. 
 
 1551, 2163. 
 
 Rucker z: State, p. 1637. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Ruckman, El" Paso ICkct. R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Rudd z\ Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2116. 
 Ruddell f. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 765. 
 Rudell T. Ogdensburg Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 452, 997, 1000. 
 Ruden, Maryland Ins. Co. z'. 
 Rudiger z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2772. 
 Rudnian, Pacific Exp. Co. ■;■. 
 Rudolf -'. Brown, p. 4040. 
 Rudulph, Florida, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Rudy, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Evans z\ 
 
 ■:'. Rio Grande,, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2450, 2476. 
 
 R'uebsam z: St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 p. 2632. 
 Ruffin z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2370, 2911, 2963, 2964. 
 Rugee, Sherman v. 
 Ruggles I'. Illinois, pp. 34, 43, 44, 
 
 63, 124, 3493, 3497. 
 Rumbell, the. J. E. 
 Rumfield, St. Louis, etc. 
 
 Northeastern 
 
 R. Co. 
 R. Co., 
 
 Rumsey z\ 
 
 p. 3161. 
 Rundell ?■. La Campagnie Generale 
 
 Transatlantique, p. 3977. 
 R'unnells z\ Pecos, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2164. 
 Runnels, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■;■. Houston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1989, 1990. 
 
 Runney z\ Midland R. Co., p. 
 
 1577. 
 Runyan z: Central R. Co., 41 Atl. 
 
 367, 61 N. J. L. 537, 43 L. R. 
 
 A. 284, 68 Am. St. Rep. 711— 
 
 pp. 2705, 3110, 3112, 3115, 3116, 
 
 3123, 3124. 
 
 V. Central R. Co., 64 N. J. 
 
 L. 67, 44 Atl. 985, 48 L. R. A. 
 744— pp. 3112, 3113. 
 
 7'. Central R. Co., 65 N. J. 
 
 L. 228 47 Atl. 422— pp. 3064, 
 
 3111, 3112. 
 Runyon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 p. 2455. 
 Ruppell T'. Allegheny Vallev R. Co., 
 
 p. 848. 
 Rush, Denver Consol. Tramway 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 ■ United States Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Rushin f. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2562, 2563, 2566. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Rushing, East Line, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Rusk -'. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 
 2686, 2788. 
 
 Tootle V. 
 
 Russ, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. The War Eagle, pp. 1724, 
 
 1750. 
 
 Russ Lumber, etc., Co., Globe Nav. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Russel v. Smith Grain Co., p. 397. 
 
 Russell V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 501, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1445, 
 1462, 1464, 1469, 1476, 1479. 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 Dilingham v. 
 
 Doane v. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., pp. 931, 946, 
 
 994, 996, 1070. 
 
 -'. Hudson River R. Co., p. 
 
 1586. 
 
 V. Livingston (N. Y.), 19 
 
 Barb. 346— pp. 1, 209. 
 
 z: Livingston, 16 N. Y. 515 
 
 —p. 546. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R". Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 TAIILK OF CASKS. 
 
 CCLXIX 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 Russell T. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2443. 
 
 z: Mobile, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 3397. 
 
 f. Niemann, p. 713. 
 
 Oakey '•■. 
 
 Oppenheim '■■ 
 
 ■ V. Pittsburgh, etc . 
 
 pp. 1760, 1761, 2102. 210(.. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., K. Co. r. 
 
 V. Seattle, etc., R. 
 
 2602, 2697. 
 
 Terrell 7: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Wbitesides r. 
 
 Russell Grain Co. v. Wabash R. 
 
 Co., pp. 537, 539. 
 Russell Mfg. Co. v. New Ilayen 
 
 Steamboat Co., 50 N. \. 121 — 
 
 pp. 531. 825, 891, 902, 917, 919. 
 ■;• New Haven Steamboat Co., 
 
 52 N. Y. 657— pp. 891, 902. 
 Russian Co., Lashinsky f. ^ 
 
 Russo r. .Morris IJUlg., etc.. Ass n, 
 
 p. 2838. 
 Rust. Houston, etc., R. Co. ,. 
 Ruth r. St. Louis Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2428. ,. „ 
 
 Ruth & Son, Southern Lxp. ^_o. 
 
 Rut'herfonl, .\tchison. 
 
 etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ryland v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 515, 580, 664, 665. | 
 
 Kylands, Peters r. | 
 
 Ryman Steamboat LJne Co. r. | 
 Commonwealth, p. 3542. 
 
 K. & JJ. R. Co., Farley i: 
 
 Sabine Tram Co., Texarkana, etc., 
 R. Co. •: 
 
 f. Texarkana, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 175. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Sabine, etc., R. Co. v. Cruse, pp. 
 
 140, 169, 172. 
 Sabioncello, The. 
 Sachrowitz f. Atchison, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2655. 
 Sackrider, Allen v. 
 Sacramento Valley R. Co., Jackson 
 
 Sacramento, etc., Elect. Co., Eas- 
 ier V. 
 Sacremento Valley R. Co., Jackson 
 
 Sacremento, etc.. Elect. Co., Has- 
 
 ler r. 
 Sacrey :. Louisville R. Co., p. 
 
 2911. 
 Sadler, Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Saeger t: Wabash R. Co., pp. 2656, 
 
 Carew f. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. McGowen, p. 1682. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1625, 1626, 2705. 
 
 r. Shreveport, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1812. 
 
 Rutland f. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 643. 654, 658. 
 Rutland R. Co. v. Bellows I'alls, 
 
 etc., St. R. Co., p. 106 
 J'. Central N'ermont K. v-o., 
 
 pp. 3558, 3559. 
 
 Ilolden V. 
 
 Ranchau t. 
 
 Sargent v. 
 
 Sprigg T'. 
 
 Wiley V. 
 
 Rutland Trans. Co., Hood Rubber 
 
 Rutland,' etc., R. Co., Kimball f. 
 
 Noyes & Co. ?■. 
 
 Rutledgf, Uirmiiigham R., etc., 
 
 'r."New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2358. 
 Ryan, Ashley r. 
 
 Chicago, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 V. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 
 
 p. 1581. 
 
 Gates ' . 
 
 f. Gilmer, pp. 1742, 2693., 
 
 f. (ireat Northern R. Co., 
 
 p. 483. 
 
 — — Gulf, etc., R. Co. ': 
 
 z: Hays. p. 2090. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., p. 
 
 Metroijolitan St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 M. P. R. Co. f. 
 
 ■:■. Pittsfield, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 2329. 2877. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Ryan & Co. z: M. K. & T. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 303, 321, 324, 430, 791, 815, 
 822, 823, 825, 934, 937, 943, 
 966, 985, 987, 988, 992, 993, 
 1003, 1006, 1008, 1027, 1039, 
 1041, 1042. 1130, 1154, 1158. 
 
 Ryberg f. Snell, pp. 1213, 1228. 
 
 Ryder r. I'.urlington, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 544. 
 
 Craven j'. 
 
 f. Hall. p. 339. 
 
 Ryer J-. I'ennsylvania R. Co.. 34 
 N. Y. S. 583, 25 Misc. Rep. 
 289— p. 1249. 
 
 i: Pennsylvania R. Co., 26 
 
 Misc. Rep. 715, 56 N. Y. S. 
 1083— p. 996. 
 
 2825. 
 Saffel, Standard Forging Co. z: 
 Saffer v. Dry-Uock, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2744. 
 Safford, San Antonio, etc., R'. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Sage f. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1596. 1597, 1599, 1602, 2467, 
 2468, 2711, 2715. 
 
 Sageman ?■. Weir, p. 1067. 
 
 Sager z: Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 pp. 245, 2102, 2104. 
 
 Z-. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 727, 733, 749, 781, 782, 1003, 
 1007, 1008. 1037, 1038, 1040. 
 1380. 
 
 Saginaw \'al!ey Tract. Co.. Dupuis 
 
 — ^ Orth z: 
 
 Spangler z: 
 
 Saginaw, etc., R. Co., Moore z: 
 Sahlgaard z: St. Paul City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1880. 1888. 2152. 2154. 
 Saiko i: St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 
 2198. 
 Sain, Arkansas, etc., R. Co. z\- 
 St. Anthony, Chouteau f. 
 St. Bernard, The. 
 St. Charles St. R. Co.. Howell 
 
 Phillips z: 
 
 St. Clair f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 P- 821. 
 
 V. Interstate, etc.. Transfer 
 
 Co.. pp. 3475, 3476, 3477, 3478. 
 
 Z-. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 76 Miss. 473, 24 So. 904, 71 
 Am St. Rep. 534— pp. 1673, 
 1677. ^ ^ 
 
 f. Kansas City, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 28 So. 957, 77 Miss. 789— pp. 
 1632, 3316. 
 
 St. Clair County z: Interstate Car 
 
 Transfer Co.. p. 3587. 
 St. Cuthbcrt, The. 
 St. Georg. The. 
 St. Hubert. The. 
 St. John. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Gulf. etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1683, 2288. 2291. 
 
 •:•. Southern Exp. Co.. p. 726. 
 
 \'an Santvoord z-. 
 
 z: \'an Santvoord. pp. 1007, 
 
 3347. 
 
 St. John, etc.. R. Co.. Greene v. 
 St. Johnsbury. etc.. R. Co.. Ranney 
 
 Robinson z\ 
 
 Wilder '•. 
 
 St Joseph. American Union Exp. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 St. Joseph R.. etc.. Co.. Hermann 
 
 Johnson z\ 
 
 Monday v. 
 
 Willis V. 
 
 St. Joseph Stock Yards Co., LTnited 
 States V. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3620. 
 
 St. Joseph, etc., R. Co., Elwood 
 Grain Co. z: 
 
 V. Hedge, pp. 17^4, 2128, 
 
 2289, 2293. 
 
 Modesitt f. 
 
 Noble f. 
 
 Norris ■■. 
 
 i: Wheeler, pp. 1548, 1552, 
 
 1761, 2523. 
 
 St. Joseph's Parochial School, 
 
 Oklahoma R. Co. y. 
 St. Joze Indiano, The. 
 St. Laurent. The. 
 St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. z: Bone 
 
 p. 772. 
 St. L., etc., Ry., Monroe Progress 
 
 ive League v. 
 St. Louis V. Consolidated Coal Co. 
 
 p. 3585. 
 
 r. Eagle Packet Co., p. 3479 
 
 V. Ferry Co., pp. 3475, 3584 
 
 Packet Co. i'. 
 
 V. St. Louis R-. Co., p. 178 
 
 z'. Western Union Tel. Co. 
 
 p. 3550. 
 
 St. Louis Drayage Co. v. Louis 
 ville, etc., R. Co., p. 3659. 
 
 St. Louis Hay, etc., Co., Southern 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 St. Louis Ins. Co. z: St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co., pp. 930, 3249, 3260, 
 3288, 3311, 3327. 
 
 St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Ter- 
 minal R. Co. z\ Tassey, p. 1303. 
 
 St. Louis Nat. Bank, .Mien f. 
 
 St. Louis R. Co.. Grace f. 
 
 Haderlein z: 
 
 Hayes ;■. 
 
 •:■. Kennedy, p. 1885. 
 
 Muehlhausen f. 
 
 St. Louis z'. 
 
 St. Louis Transit Co.. .\Ilen z: 
 • .Xston I'. 
 
 Heave z: 
 
 Behen z\ 
 
 Berry f. 
 
 Breen v. 
 
 Brewer z\ 
 
 Brock !■. 
 
 Brod z: 
 
 Carmody z'. 
 
 Chadwick ;■. 
 
 Chlanda z\ 
 
 ■ Costello z: 
 
 Davidson v. 
 
 Dryden v. 
 
 Fillingham z: 
 
 Flaherty f. 
 
 Fry V. 
 
 Gage f. 
 
 Garrett J'. 
 
 Gorman v. 
 
 Grady f. 
 
 Graefe ?■. 
 
 Haley v. 
 
 Hannon f. 
 
 Heyde z: 
 
 Ickenroth f. 
 
 Jacobson z\ 
 
 Leonard v. 
 
 Leu f. 
 
 Lynch f. 
 
 • Madigan f. 
 
 McGrath z: 
 
 McHugh f. 
 
 McKee z: 
 
 McKinstry f. 
 
 ^IcNamara z: 
 
 Millar T. 
 
 Neumann z: 
 
 O'Brien z: 
 
 O'Gara z\ 
 
 O'Mara z: 
 
 Parker f. 
 
 Parks f.
 
 CCLXX 
 
 table: of cases. 
 
 Co., Austin '■. 
 Grain Co., South- 
 
 St. Louis Trans. Co., Peck 
 
 Pirn z: 
 
 Price r. 
 
 Reagan v. 
 
 Regan z: 
 
 Ruebsam i: 
 
 Ruth r. 
 
 Scamell f. 
 
 Schloemer v. 
 
 Schmitt '•. 
 
 Shanahan i'. 
 
 Sliareman '•. 
 
 Sinionton <■. 
 
 Smith f. 
 
 Suininertield '■. 
 
 T-. Thompson, p. 2991. 
 
 \'an Horn r. 
 
 Wegeschiede z: 
 
 W'ellmeyer z\ 
 
 Westervelt z\ 
 
 Williamson '■. 
 
 • — — Woas -'. 
 St. Louis, etc. 
 
 Doan '•. 
 
 St. Louis, etc. 
 
 ern R. Co. '■. 
 
 <•. Southern R. Co., pp. 3666, 
 
 3692, 3729, 3799. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. Packet Co., -Austin 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., .\belson 
 
 Adams f. 
 
 z: Adams, pp. 311, 312. 
 
 f. Adcock, pT). 190. 19o, 1862. 
 
 -•. Allen, 181 Fed. 710— p. 
 
 3518. 
 
 z: Allen, 31 Okla. 248, 120 
 
 Pac. 1090, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 
 309— pp. 486, 488. 
 
 Allison V. 
 
 V. Anderson, p. 1882. 
 
 v. Arkansas, "pp. 3486. 3488. 
 
 z\ Arkansas, etc.. Grain Co., 
 
 pp. 568, 569, 589, 3541. 
 
 • Armentrout z\ 
 
 z\ Atchison, p. 1863. 
 
 Attorney General ?'. 
 
 Aufdenberg f. 
 
 Baker z: 
 
 z: Baker, pp. 1914, 2125, 
 
 2126, 2227, 2352, 2387. 
 
 z: Ball, pp. 1731, 1971, 2172, 
 
 2342, 2344. 
 
 z: Barnes, p. 1292. 
 
 z: Barnett, pp. 1781, 3001. 
 
 Barringer ■;'. 
 
 • Bartholomew '■. 
 
 Barton ?•. 
 
 z\ Battle, pp. 1797, 2084, 
 
 2270. 
 
 z: Baty, pp. 2458, 3095, 3099. 
 
 V. Beach, p. 839. 
 
 Beard v. 
 
 z: Beecher, pp. 1538, 1539. 
 
 z\ Beets, pp. 1125, 1335. 
 
 Bell 7'. 
 
 V. Berger, pp. 2052, 2053, 
 
 2701, 2868. 
 
 V. Berry, 60 Ark. 433, 30 S. 
 
 W. 764, 28 L. R. A. 501, 46 
 Am. St. Rep. 212— pp. 3116, 
 3125, 3126, 3132, 3133, 3148, 
 3150. 
 
 z: Berry, 4 Tex. App. Civ. 
 
 Cas., § 166, 15 S. W. 48— p. 
 1673. 
 
 V. Berry, 42 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 470, 93 S. W. 1107— p. 805. 
 
 V. Berryhill, p. 1853. 
 
 V. Bilby, p. 428. 
 
 V. Billingsley, pp. 2336, 2800. 
 
 V. Birdwcll, pp. 820, 3395. 
 
 V. Birge-Forbes Co., p. 3490. 
 
 V. Blackburn, p. 3010. 
 
 z: Bland, pp. 511, 745, 746, 
 
 747. 
 
 Boling z\ 
 
 Boiling V. 
 
 V. Bone, pp. 958. 1040. 
 
 V. Boshear, 102 Tex. 76, 113 
 
 S. W. 6— pp. 444, 466, 1459, 
 1475, 3251. 
 
 789, 
 
 1870, 
 
 1030, 
 1339, 
 
 35 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. Z'. Boshear 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 1032 
 —pp. 1099, 1116, 1373, 1432, 
 1453, 3542. 
 
 z'. Boyer, pp. 1812, 1979. 
 
 Z-. Brabbzson, pp. 1755, 2352, 
 
 2820, 2890. 
 
 Bradford '■. 
 
 '■. Bragg, pp. 3051. 3103. 
 
 T'. Branch, 45 Ark. 524 — pp. 
 
 2478, 3082. 
 
 z: Branch, 10(. .\rk. 2(,9, 153 
 
 S. W. 118— p. 3083. 
 
 v. Brass, pp. 779, 780 
 
 809. 
 
 Brezewitz ,■. 
 
 ■;■. Briggs, pp. 1797, 
 
 2727, 2824, 2991, 2994. 
 
 z: Britton, p. 2807. 
 
 !■. Brosius, pp. 973, 
 
 1039, 1062, 1268, 1274, 
 1373, 1388, 1470. 
 
 z'. Brown, 62 Ark. 254, 
 
 S. W. 225- p. 2710. 
 
 f. Brown, 93 Ark. 35, 123 
 
 S. W. 763— p. 2446. 
 
 r. Brown, 97 Ark. 505, 134 
 
 S. W. 1194— pp. 3080, 3083. 
 
 z\ Bryan Fruit Co., p. 1105. 
 
 r. Brvant (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 92 S. W. 813— p. 1532. 
 
 •;■. Bryant, 46 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 
 601, 103 S. W. 237— pp. 1693, 
 1704, 2254. 
 
 V. Brvce, pp. 943, 1035, 1120, 
 
 1414, 1415. 
 
 V. Burgin, pp. 956, 1123, 
 
 1383. 
 
 ?'. Burke, p. 2778. 
 
 ?'. Burns, 71 Tex. 479, 9 S. 
 
 W. 467— pp. 1896, 2666, 2668, 
 2689, 2831. 
 
 z: Burns (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 80 S. W. 104— pp. 1352, 1354. 
 
 z\ Burrow & Co., pp. 285, 
 
 292, 833, 836, 846. 
 
 ?'. Burrows, pp. 2336, 2670. 
 
 Buch T'. 
 
 r. Butkr, pp. 1124, 1376. 
 
 z: Byers, pp. 1885, 1886. 
 
 T. Byrne, pp. 2316, 2825. 
 
 '■. Caldwell, 89 Ark. 218, 116 
 
 S. W. 210— pp. 504, 975. 3356. 
 
 z\ Caldwell, 93 Ark. 286, 124 
 
 S. W. 1034— pp. 1773, 1774, 
 1776, 2085, 2350. 
 
 V. Campbell, pp. 1731, 1861, 
 
 1938, 1956. 
 
 •:•. Cannington, pp. 445, 1298. 
 
 z: Cannon, pp. 2114, 2116. 
 
 ■::■. Cannon & Son, pp. 121, 
 
 127. 
 
 Cantrell ?'. 
 
 •:■. Cantrell, pp. 1878, 2125, 
 
 2255 
 
 V. Carlile, pi). 3289. 3396. 
 
 v. Carlisle, pp. 693, 1312. 
 
 V. Caseday, pp. 1700, 1780. 
 
 Casey Z'. 
 
 z'. Cash Grain Co., pp. 427, 
 
 687. 
 
 z: Casseday, 92 Tex. 525, 50 
 
 S. W. 125— pp. 2114, 2386, 2391. 
 
 v. Casseday (Tex. Civ. -\pp.), 
 
 48 S. W. 6— p. 1792. 
 7-. Cassidy, etc., Comm. Co., 
 
 p. 1358. 
 • f. Gates, 87 Ark. 162, 112 
 
 S. W. 202— p. 3043. 
 
 V. Gates, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 135, 38 S. W. 648— pp. 405, 664, 
 678. 
 
 ■ Cathey f. 
 
 z: Cavcnder, pp. 285, 288, 
 
 290, 291, 779, 780, 1012, 1025, 
 1278, 1384, 1387, 1388, 1436, 
 1438, 1445, 1446, 1452, 1477. 
 
 • Chilton '•. 
 
 Chitty z: 
 
 z'. Citizens' Bank, pp. 302, 
 
 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 317, 
 331, 332, 333, 336, 337, 359, 379, 
 403, 882, 884. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Clark 7'. 
 
 7'. Clark, pp. 869, 879, 1049, 
 
 1393, 1480, 1481, 1482. 
 
 7'. Clay Gin Co., pp. 88, 93, 
 
 95. 
 
 • -'. Cleary, pp. 320, 333, 985, 
 
 1361, 1460. 
 
 f. Cleere, pp. 2363, 2537, 
 
 2551, 2984, 2998. 
 
 Clegg V. 
 
 Cobb z: 
 
 ■ 7'. Cobb, pp. 1742, 1752. 1755. 
 
 Cohen ?'. 
 
 7'. Cohen, 11]). 3355, 3367, 
 
 3395^ 
 
 Cohn 7'. 
 
 7'. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 
 
 pp. 283, 293, 294, 296, 306, 307, 
 308, 318. 
 
 7'. Coolidge, pp. 615, 617, 
 
 640, 653, 658, 820, 969, 3267, 
 3277, 3394. 
 
 7'. Copeland, pp. 1289, 1298, 
 
 1362, 1364, 1421. 
 • Cossitt f. 
 
 Coudy 7'. 
 
 7'. Coulson, p. 1525. 
 
 Council 7'. 
 
 Cowherd 7'. 
 
 7'. Cox, 60 Ark. 106, 29 S. 
 
 W. 38— p. 2271. 
 
 7'. Cox, 2(, Okla. 331, 109 
 
 Pac. 511— p. 1997. 
 
 7'. Crawford, p. 544. 
 
 Creason v. 
 
 Crockett v. 
 
 Cronan 7'. 
 
 7'. Crowder, pp. 1449, 1462, 
 
 1464, 1466, 1477. 
 
 f. Culver, p. 1664. 
 
 Cumbie 7'. 
 
 7'. Cumbie, pp. 657, 663, 683, 
 
 1027, 1105, 1116, 1117. 
 
 '•. Cunningham, pp. 2509, 2515, 
 
 2551, 2552. 
 
 7''. Dalbv, pp. 1596, 1599, 
 
 2467, 2468, 2497, 2564. 
 
 7'. Dallas, pp. 2488, 2491, 
 
 2784. 
 
 7'. Dare, p. 3042. 
 
 7'. Davenport, p. 1312. 
 
 7'. Davis, 56 Ark. SI, 19 S. 
 
 W. 107— p. 3088. 
 
 7'. Davis, 132 Fed. 629— p. 
 
 3592. 
 
 Dawson 7'. 
 
 7'. Day, pp. 3020, 3105. 
 
 Delk 7'. 
 
 7'. Delk, p. 3456. 
 
 7'. Deshong, p. 3410. 
 
 7'. IMckerson, p. 3198. 
 
 Dillender 7'. 
 
 Doan 7'. 
 
 — 7'. Dodd, p. 913. 
 
 — 7'. Dodson, p. 1469. 
 
 — 7'. Dolan (Tex. Civ. .\pp. ), 
 77 S. W. 415— p. 1478. 
 
 — 7'. Dolan (Tex. Civ. A])]).), 84 
 S. W. 393— p. 1350. 
 
 — 7'. Dorman, pp. 210, 242, 704, 
 1272. 
 
 — v. Dowgiallo, p. 2042. 
 
 — z'. Dreyfus, pp. 568, 569. 
 
 — Duck 7'. 
 
 — 7'. Duck, pp. 1706, 1938. 
 — - V. Dunham, jip. 513, 581, 
 857. 
 
 — '■. Dunn, ])i). 1395, 1410, 
 1411, 1417. 
 
 — Dunne 7'. 
 
 — rCaton 7'. 
 
 — 7'. Edwards, 94 Ark. 394, 127 
 S. W. 713— pp. 155, 3501. 
 
 — 7'. Edwards, 78 Fed. 745, 24 
 C. C. A. 300— p. 3278. 
 
 — 7'. Edwards, 227 U. S. 265, 
 33 S. Ct. 262— p. 3501. 
 
 — Eells 7'. 
 
 — El am z'. 
 
 — Elder, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 — V. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 
 175 111. 557, 51 N. E. 911, 67 
 Am. St. Rep. 238— pp. 320, 334, 
 336, 452, 454, 462.
 
 TAHLIC OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXI 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V Klgin 
 Condensed .Milk Co., 74 111. App. 
 019, 13 Am. & Kng. R. Cas., I^.. 
 s/']12_pp. 452, 454, 462, 997. 
 3272, 3365. 
 
 Kllet r. 
 
 V. Elrod, p. 2635. 
 
 I-ly r. 
 
 Emerson 7'. 
 
 Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. 
 
 - 5'' Evans, 94 Ark. 324, 126 
 S. W. 1058-pp. 3048, 3062 
 
 -— V. Evans, 99 Ark. 69, 137 S. 
 
 W 568— pp. 2224, 2375, 2400. 
 
 2760, 2777. ,^ ,^„ ,^ „ 
 V. Evans. 78 Tex. 369, 14 S. 
 
 W. 798— p. 465. 
 
 V. Evens, p. 3068. 
 
 V. Fairbairn, pp. 2500. 2503. 
 
 V. Fambro, pp. |2357, 2676. 
 
 Fanning v. n- r 
 
 V. Farmers' Union Oin Co., 
 
 DP 607, 642, 647, 650, 659. 667. 
 
 - V. Farr, p. 2242. 
 
 V. Faulkner, p. 3761. 
 
 V. Fenley, p. 3664. 
 
 V. Ferguson, p. 1702. 
 
 Fielder "■. 
 
 r. Finley, PP. 1729, 1732, 
 
 1762, 1766, 17(>7, 1863, 1866, 
 1911. 2114, 2117. 2118, 2378. 
 
 V. Fire .Ass'n, pp. 274, 7o4. 
 
 Flucks V. 
 
 Flynn v. ^ ^ ^ 
 
 V. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 89 S. W. 450— pp. 857, 1351, 
 1352. 
 
 V. Foster, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 517. 103 S. W. 194— pp. 2118, 
 2234. 2753. 2832, 2847. 
 
 V. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 112 S. W. 797— pp. 1524, 1531. 
 1532. 
 
 V. Fowler, pp. 1558, 2861, 
 
 2863. 
 
 Franklin v. _ 
 
 V. Franklin, pp. 1510, laU, 
 
 2037. 2040, 2059. 
 
 V. Franks, p. 2846. 
 
 T. Frazar, p. 3331. 
 
 Freeman v. 
 
 V. Freeman, p. 140. 
 
 V. French, p. 1256. 
 
 V. Frisby, pp. 140, 143. 
 
 Fulks V. , „„ 
 
 V Furlow. 81 Ark. 496, 99 
 
 S. W. 689— pp. 2448. 3100. 
 
 V. Furlow. 89 Ark. 404, 117 
 
 S W. 517— pp. 972. 1090, 1097, 
 1099, 1104. ,,,, 
 
 V. Fussell, pp. l--'62, 1371, 
 
 2057, 2429, 2529. 
 
 V. Gammage. p. 2630. 
 
 V. Cans, p. 578. 
 
 Garner -'. 
 
 V. Garner, pp. 1853, 3055. 
 
 George "'. 
 
 V. Germany, pp. 1883. 1966. 
 
 V. Gibson, p. 141. 
 
 V. Gilbreath, 87 -Vrk. 572, 113 
 
 S. W. 200— pp. 1991, 2288. 2293, 
 2335. ^ . ^ 
 
 V. Gilbreath (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 144 S. W. 1051— pp. 557, 558. 
 
 r. Gill, 54 Ark. 101, 15 S. 
 
 W. 18, 11 L. R. A. 452— pp. 140, 
 144. 
 
 ■:■ Gill, 156 U. S. 649. 39 L. 
 
 Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484— pp. 34. 
 46, 53, 58, oO, 64, 115, liv, 
 3668. _ , 
 
 V. Glossup, pp. 21 (.2. 2242. 
 
 %'. Gorman, pp. 1372, 1393. 
 
 I'. Gosnell, pp. 1756. 1993. 
 
 V. Gramling, pp. 3272, 3442. 
 
 Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v. 
 
 Gray v. 
 
 V. Gravson, pp. 1427. 1430, 
 
 3332, 3840. 
 
 Greason v. 
 
 St Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Green, St 
 85 Ark. 117, 107 S. W. .168, 14 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1148— pp. 1720, 
 
 V. Green, 99 Ark. 572. 139 S. 
 
 W. 307— p. 2410. 
 
 T. Green, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 13, 97 S. W. 531— p. 3149. 
 
 V. Greenthal, p. 2022. 
 
 V. Gresham, p. 1830. 
 
 Grier v. , 
 
 V. Griffith, pp. 1513, 1331, 
 
 2047, 3373. 
 
 V. Grimsley, pp. 1776, 2280, 
 
 2323, 2508. 
 
 V. Grocc, pp. 3042. 3051. 
 
 V. Gunter, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 129, 86 S. W. 938— pp. 1303, 
 1320, 1325. 
 
 V. Gunter, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 480, 99 S. W. 152— pp. 1306, 
 1310. 
 
 Haas V. 
 
 V. Hadley. pp. 38. 46, 48, 49. 
 
 57. 3490. 
 
 Ilafer v. 
 
 Hahn v. 
 
 r. Hall. etc.. Mach. Co., pp. 
 
 556, 563, 593, 603. 
 
 Holliday v. 
 
 V. Hambrick. pp. 940, 943, 
 
 1053, 1120, 1409. 
 
 t'. llammett, !>p. 1563, 1636, 
 
 2468, 3083. , ^, 
 
 r. Hardwav, pp. 3114. 3123, 
 
 3160, 3168. ^^„, 
 
 V. Hardy, PP. 1940, 3204, 
 
 3212, 3239. 
 
 v. Harmon, pp. 1580, 2168. 
 
 V. Harper, pp. 1532, 1546, 
 
 2478, 3102. 
 
 r Harrison, 89 S. W. 53, 76 
 
 Ark. 430— p. 2768. 
 f. Harrison, i2 Tex. Civ. 
 
 Ad-.. 368, 72, S. W. 38— pp. 1683, 
 
 1712, 1731. 
 
 Hart V. 
 
 Hartley v. 
 
 V. Hartung. pp. 1/33, 1/56, 
 
 2142, 2329, 2336. 
 
 V. Hatch, pp. 3208. 3209, 
 
 3234, 3236. 
 
 ■;. Hawkins, p. 3139. 
 
 V. Haynes, p. 1887. 
 
 I'. Hays, pp. 1035, 1088, 1092, 
 
 1095, 1116, 1117. 
 
 Heil '■. 
 
 V. Henderson, pp. 1472. j308, 
 
 V. Hendricks, pp. 2717, 2718. 
 
 Hcnnessy v. 
 
 V. Henry, pp. 851, 852. 
 
 V. Heyser, pp. 1106.3469. 
 
 ■:■. Highnote, p. 2265. 
 
 Hill V. 
 
 ; f. Hill, 14 HI. .\pp. 579— pp. 
 
 89, 235. 
 
 V Hill, 97 Tex. 506, 80 S. 
 
 W. 368— p. 88. 
 
 r. Hill (Tex. Civ. App.), 103 
 
 S. W. 227— pp. 1506, 1643. 
 
 V. Hindsman, p. 666. 
 
 Hoffman, etc.. Stave Co. f. 
 
 Holland v. 
 
 V. Holmes, pp. 1991, 2319, 
 
 2892. 
 
 V. Honea, pp. 1092, 1117, 
 
 1358. 
 
 r. Hook, pp. 1699, 1777. 
 
 Hopkins v. 
 
 Huddleston v. 
 
 f. Humphreys, pp. 1526, 1964, 
 
 196(., 1978, 1988. 
 
 V. Hunt, pp. 1303, 1305, 1358. 
 
 Hunter v. 
 
 V. Hurst, pp. 1030, 1107. 
 
 Hurt r. - 
 
 V. Hutchinson, pp. T 5 14, 1792, 
 
 2135, 2136, 2286, 2325. 
 
 Inman & Co. f. 
 
 Insurance Co. f. 
 
 Jackson v. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 
 pp. 1757. 2860. 2928. 
 
 - V. Jackson & Co., pp. 782, 
 787, 844. 
 
 - V. Jacobs, pp. nil. 1112. 
 1428. 
 
 - V. James, pp. 1119, 1427, 
 1475. 
 
 - V. Jamieson, pp. 344, 3399. 
 
 - Johnson v. 
 
 - V. Johnson, 53 Ark. 282, 13 
 S. W. 1096— p. 156. 
 
 - V. Johnson, 59 -Vrk. 122, 26 
 S. W. 593— pp. 1792. 2272, 2274. 
 
 - V. Johnson, 25 Okla. 833, 108 
 Pac. 378, 36 R. R. R. 165, 59 
 Am. & Eng. R'. Cas., N. 5., 
 165— pp. 191, 1623, 2420, 2447. 
 
 V. Johnson, 100 Tex. 237, 97 
 
 S. W. 1039— pp. 1766, 1779, 
 1780. 1797, 2654, 2913. 2941. 
 
 V. Johnson. 29 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 184. 68 S. W. 58— pp. \<-'J, 
 2042, 2051, 2484. 
 
 Johnston v. 
 
 Jones V. 
 
 V. Jones, 93 Ark. 537. 123 S. 
 
 W. 1025— pp. 335, 94S. 970, 
 1271, 1303, 1365. 1376. 
 
 V. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 29 S. W. 695— pp. 505, 1314. 
 
 Jorden v. 
 
 Keen v. ^,. 
 
 t. Keitt. pp. 1701, 1826, 22'3. 
 
 f. Keller, pp. 1083, 1084, 
 
 1098, 1100. 
 
 T. Kennedy, pp. 1712, 1911. 
 
 1913, 2592, 2595. 
 
 Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 ;. Keys, pp. 1476, 1477. 3393. 
 
 7\ Kilberry, pp. 539. 1462, 
 
 1463, 1464, 3284, 3352. 
 
 f. Kilpatrick (Ark.). 17 Am. 
 
 & Kng. R. Cas., N. S., 212— 
 p. 1563. 
 
 f. Kilpatrick, 67 Ark. 4/, 34 
 
 S -w, 971— pp. 2412, 2414, 2486. 
 2530. 
 
 Kirby v. 
 
 V. Kitchen, pp. 1588. 
 
 2935. 
 
 Knight V. 
 
 f. Knight, 81 Ark. 429, 
 
 W. 684— pp. 3038. 3047, 
 
 -J^l:. Knight, 122 U. S. 79. 30 
 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Gl. 1132— 
 pp. 267. 281. 282, 284, 285. 288. 
 290 305. 306, 307, 308. 331, 
 339, 343, 344, 811. 814, 878. 
 919. 
 
 Krumm f. 
 
 Kruse %•. . , , , 
 
 r. Ladd, pp. 1371. 1413, 1416. 
 
 1427, 1475. 
 
 f. Lamb, p. 673. _ 
 
 ■:■. Larned, pp. 309. 539. 360. 
 
 Latimer i'. 
 
 f. Laurence, p. 26ol. 
 
 — V. Law, pp. 752. 1087, 1345. 
 1419. 
 
 — I'. Lawrence, pp. 1492. 2865. 
 
 — Leach f. 
 
 — V. Leamons. pp. 2364, 2366, 
 
 2824, 2905, 2988. 
 
 V Lcder Bros.. 79 .\rk. 59. 
 
 95 S. \V. 170— p. 95 
 
 — r. Leder Bros.. 87 Ark. 298, 
 112 S. W. 744— pp. 229, 2l.4. 
 
 — Le Due :■. 
 
 — Lee f. 
 
 — V. Lee. p. 259. 
 
 f. Leflar, pp. 184.. 
 
 2693, 2808. 2919. 
 
 :. Leftwich, pp. 2163, 
 
 2338. 
 
 — V. Leigh, pp. 1953. 
 2427. 
 
 r. Lesser, pp. 1399, 
 
 3377. 
 
 liil 
 
 99 S. 
 3048. 
 
 2673, 
 2172. 
 1955. 
 1404,
 
 CCLXXII 
 
 TAHLH OF CASKS. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lewellen 
 Bros., 192 Fed. 540, 113 C. C. 
 A. 414— p. 3745. 
 
 V. Lewellen ■ Bros. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 .\pp.), 116 S. W. 116— p. 1337. 
 
 V. Lewis, pp. 1869, 1875, 
 
 2476, 2478. 
 
 - Libby V. 
 
 V. Lieurance, p. 3410. 
 
 Lightfoot & Son v. 
 
 Lillis f. 
 
 Lilly i: 
 
 r. Linam, p. 2495. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 f. Louisiana, etc.. Lumber 
 
 Co.. pp. 503, 506. 
 
 r. Lovelady, p. 1482. 
 
 '■. Lowe, pp. 1778, 2561. 
 
 V. Loyd, pp. 1567, 2320, 
 
 2685. 
 
 r. McAnellia, pp. 2034, 2037, 
 
 2410, 2413, 2783. 
 
 McCaffery '■. 
 
 McCarty v. 
 
 McClanahan v. 
 
 f. McCullough (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 2i S. W. 285— pp. 1907, 
 1908, 1915, 1970. ■ 
 
 V. McCullough, 18 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 534, 45 S. \V. 324— pp. 
 1666, 1683, 1685, 1738, 1908, 
 1969, 2706. 
 
 McDonald v. 
 
 f. McDurmitt Grain Co., p. 
 
 861. 
 
 McElvain v. 
 
 —^ '■. McGivney, pp. 3259, 3292, 
 3387, 3394. 
 
 V. Mclntyre, pp. 822, 836, 
 
 940, 954, 977, 980, 994, 1039, 
 1053, 1056, 1062, 1063, 1065, 
 1077, 1079, 1398. 
 
 r-. McKee, p. 156. 
 
 V. Mackie, pp. 1609. 1613, 
 
 1942, 2017, 2033. 
 
 f. McKnight, pp. 3387, 3388. 
 
 McLain v. 
 
 V. McXamarc, p. 3483. 
 
 - i: McNeil, p. 1419. 
 T. McVVhirter, p. 3510. 
 
 f. Maddry, pp. 2122, 2129. 
 
 Magrane v. 
 
 V. Mallard, p. 3074. 
 
 Malloy v. 
 
 '■. Malone, pp. 1881, 2824. 
 
 Marine Ins. Co. v. 
 
 f. Marrs, p. 3263. 
 
 Marshall v. 
 
 V. Marshall, 81 Pac. 169, 71 
 
 Kan. 866 — p. 2964. 
 
 '•. Marshall, 74 .\rk. 597, 86 
 
 S. VV. 802— pp. 782, 783, 3290. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 f. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 35 S. W. 28— pp. 270, 917. 
 
 z\ Martin, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 231, 63 S. W. 1089— pp. 1532, 
 1533, 2287. 
 
 V. Martin (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 
 
 87 S. W. 387— p. 1712. 
 
 Mason v. 
 
 V. Massey, p. 2267. 
 
 V. May, pp. 595, 646. 
 
 '■. Mayer Bros. Co., p. 558. 
 
 Metcalf f. 
 
 Meyer v. 
 
 Miles '.■. 
 
 v. Miller, pp. 1139, 1141, 
 
 1182, 3148, 3151, 3155. 
 
 f. Miller Levee Dist. No. 2, 
 
 p. 3533. 
 
 Mires v. 
 
 V. Mitchell (Ark.), 43 R. R. 
 
 R. 673, 66 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 673— p. 287. 
 
 V. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418, 21 
 
 S. W. 883— pp. 694, 1738, 1740, 
 1840, 2693. 
 
 V. Mitchell, 101 Ark. 289, 142 
 
 S. W. 168, 37 L. R. A., N. S., 
 546— pp. 1285, 1290, 1311, 1332, 
 1361, 1362, 1366. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell 
 Crittenden Tie Co., pp. 1642, 
 1643. 
 
 — ■ — - V. Montgomery, pp. 285, 288, 
 291, 884. 
 
 V. Moon, pp. 940, 954, 1053, 
 
 1062, 1072, 1075, 1349, 1409, 
 3382, 3542. 
 
 Moore f. 
 
 -•. Morgan, pp. 1554, 2164, 
 
 2334. 
 
 Mosher z\ 
 
 -'. Moss, p. 218. 
 
 V. Mudford, 44 Ark. 439— p. 
 
 636. 
 
 t'. Mudford, 48 Ark. 502, 3 
 
 S. W. 814— pp. 642, 645, 053, 
 658. 
 
 Munro v. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 V. Murphy, pp. 271, 276, 285, 
 
 288, 292. 
 
 ■ -■. Murray, pp. 2129, 2294. 
 
 c'. Musgrove, pp. 817, 842. 
 
 V. Musick, pp. 131(), 1324, 
 
 1326, 1394. 
 
 V. Myer, p. 3303. 
 
 Myers v. 
 
 V. Mynott, pp. 2410, 3106. 
 
 z\ Myrtle, pp. 2435, 3101. 
 
 V. Myzell, p. 3068. 
 
 V. Neal, pp. 1872, 3038. 
 
 Nebraska Meal Mills v. 
 
 V. Neel, pp. 262, 263, 285, 
 
 292, 661, 778, 3249, 3313. 
 
 v. Neely, pp. 2219, 2860. 
 
 - f. Nelson, pp. 2098, 2099. 
 
 Nenno v. 
 
 Neville v. 
 
 Nicholson j'. 
 
 Nickey i\ 
 
 Nines v. 
 
 Norris "■. 
 
 Norton v. 
 
 V. Norwood, pp. 3554, 3571. 
 
 Nunnelee v. 
 
 O'Connell ir. 
 
 Odom V. 
 
 O'Field V. 
 
 V. Oliver, pp. 1835, 1836, 
 
 2225, 2884. 
 
 z: Osborn, pp. 2421, 2484, 
 
 3082. 
 
 V. Osborne, p. , 2696. 
 
 Otrich z'. 
 
 Owen z'. 
 
 Oxley '-. 
 
 v. Ozier, pp. 229, 231, 1351. 
 
 Palsey z'. 
 
 z: Pape, pp. 826, 1052. 
 
 Fares 7'. 
 
 V. Parks', 76 S. W. 740, 97 
 
 Tex. 131— pp. 1822, 1826, 2289, 
 2666, 2678, 2694, 3008. 
 
 z: Parks (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 73 S. W. 439— pp. 1822, 2643. 
 
 V. Parks, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 480, 90 S. W. 343— pp. 1713, 
 1826, 2684. 
 
 V. Parmer, p. 1455. 
 
 V. Pearcc, 159 Ala. 141, 49 
 
 So. 249— p. 2582. 
 
 • z: Pearce, 82 Ark. 339, 101 
 
 S. W. 763— pp. 1123, 1124. 
 
 V. Pearce, 82 Ark. 353, 101 
 
 S. W. 760, 12 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 125— pp. 607, 969, 970, 
 974, 1413, 1432, 3394, 3395. 
 
 V. Pearson, pp. 3045, 3056. 
 
 ■ z'. Person, pp. 1883, 2125, 
 
 2255, 2374. 
 
 z'. Pcttics, p. 1956. 
 
 Petty 7'. 
 
 z: Phelps, pp. 645, 653, 658, 
 
 662. 
 
 V. Phillips, pp. 931, 946, 1084, 
 
 1087, 1096, 1410, 1412, 1425. 
 
 V. Phoenix, etc., Oil Co., pp. 
 
 851, 622, 973. 
 
 z: Piburn, pp. 1354, 1473, 
 
 3623. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Pindell v. 
 
 V. Piper, pp. 3257, 3343. 
 
 z: Pitcock, pp. 2095, 2096. 
 
 z'. Pollock, pp. 1697, 2220, 
 
 2338, 2890, 2933. 
 
 Porter z\ 
 
 z: Postcn, p. 2o95. 
 
 Powell c'. 
 
 z: Power, pp. 2773, 2776. 
 
 President, etc.. Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Price V. 
 
 z: Pruitt, 80 S. W. 72, 97 
 
 Tex. 487— pp. 1978, 3014. 
 
 z\ Pruitt (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 
 79 S. VV. 598— pp. 1544, 1977. 
 1978, 2452. 
 
 z'. Puckctt, pp. 1419, 1425. 
 
 z\ Pumphrey, p. 687. 
 
 f. Purifoy, pp. 1744, 1745. 
 
 ;■. Randle, pp. 3287, 3297. 
 
 z\ Ratley, p. 2357. 
 
 ■ z\ Ray, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 628, 35 b. W. 951— p. 3157. 
 
 r. Ray (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 
 
 S. W. 281— pp. 762, 3661, 3662. 
 
 Read z\ 
 
 7'. Reagan, pp. 2485, 2532. 
 
 Rearden 7'. 
 
 7'. Renfroe, pp. 219, 784, 785, 
 
 3396. 
 
 v. Rexroad, p. 1971. 
 
 Reynolds 7'. 
 
 7'. Rice, pp. 1816, 2164, 2213, 
 
 2214. 
 
 7'. Richardson, 87 Ark. 101, 
 
 112 S. W. 212— pp. 2338, 2892. 
 7'. Richardson, 87 Ark. 602, 
 
 113 S. W. 794— pp. 2933, 2954. 
 
 V. Ricketts, 96 Tex. 68, 70 
 
 S. W. 315— pp. 2117, 2118, 2234, 
 2319, 2341, 3053. 
 
 V. Ricketts, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 515, 54 S. W. 1090— pp. 1532, 
 1541, 1908. 
 
 pp. 
 
 2495, 
 
 3090, 
 
 Roane 
 
 3104. 
 
 7'. Robbins, pp. 1073, 10"6, 
 
 1078. 
 
 Roberts 7'. 
 
 Robinson 7'. 
 
 7'. Rogers, pp. 430, 1062, 
 
 1053. 
 
 7'. I-'osc, 20 III. App. 670— 
 
 pp. 539. 551. 
 
 :• Rose (Tex. Civ. App.). 9S 
 
 S. W. ::05— p. 1887. 
 
 Ro'-.er'baum v. 
 
 7'. Rosenberry, 45 Ark. z;56^ 
 
 I'P 2266, 2706. 
 7'. Rosenberry (.\rk.), 11 S. 
 
 W. 21k— p. 2252. 
 7'. Pumtield, p. 1778. 
 
 7'. Rush, 86 Ark. 325, 111 S. 
 
 W. 263— pp. 2331, 2357, 2375. 
 
 7'. Rush, 93 Ark. 631, 123 
 
 S. W. 804— pp. 2316, 2397. 
 
 7'. Russell, p. 2820. 
 
 Rutherford v. 
 
 7'. Ryan, p. 2070. 
 
 St. Louis Ins. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Samuels & Co., p. 3784. 
 
 '■. Sanderson, pp. 1562, 2015, 
 
 2864. 
 
 • 7'. Sandiage, p. 694. 
 
 Sarger.t 7'. 
 
 7'. Savage, pp. 1985, 2694, 
 
 2758, 2761. 
 
 Schaefer 7'. 
 
 Scott County Milling Co. v. 
 
 Segal 7'. 
 
 ■ Senf z: 
 
 Seyfarth 7'. 
 
 7'. Sharrock, p. 1403. 
 
 7'. Shaw, pp. 1698, 2027, 2376, 
 
 2958. 
 
 Shclton 7'. 
 
 - 7'. Sherlock, pp. 727, 1402. 
 • Shoptaugh 7'. 
 
 Short 7'. 
 
 Sliular 7'. 
 
 Silverman 7'. 
 
 Simmons Hardware Co. v.
 
 TAHLE) OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXriI 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., Skilcs v. 
 
 Sloan & Co. "'. 
 
 Smcltzcr T. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 • V. Smith, 11 Te.x. Civ. App. 
 
 550. 32 S. W. 828— p. 851. 
 
 T. Smith, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 451, 49 S. W. 627— p. 1299. 
 
 • V. Smith, a Tl-x. Civ. App. 
 
 520, 77 S. W. 28— p. 1349. 
 • V. Smitli, 34 'I'cx. Civ. App. 
 
 612, 79 S. W. 340— p. 2301. 
 
 T. Smith, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 507, 86 S. W. 943— p. 2171. 
 
 '•. Smiick, pp. 945, 978, 1012, 
 
 1013, 3166. 
 
 V. Snecd, p. 1419. 
 
 V. Snt-ll, p. 2883. 
 
 V. Sommcriand, p. 2004. 
 
 V. South, pp. 1596, 1600, 
 
 2467, 2468. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. -•. 
 
 V. Spann, pp. 1372, 3378. 
 
 -•. Si)ring River Stone Co., 
 
 p. 3754. 
 
 Sproulc V. 
 
 '•. State, 84 Ark. 150. 104 S. 
 
 W. llOo— pp. 30, 149, 150, 216, 
 607. 
 
 r. State, 85 Ark. 284, 107 S. 
 
 W. 989— p. 3516. 
 
 V. State. 85 Ark. 311. 107 S. 
 
 W. 1180, 122 Am. St. Rep. 33— 
 pp. 161, 3486, 3488. 
 
 v. State, 87 Ark. 562, 113 S. 
 
 W. 203— p. 3423. 
 
 V. State, 97 Ark. 473, 134 S. 
 
 W. 970— p. 3483. 
 
 V. State, 99 Ark. 1, 136 S. 
 
 W. 938— pp. 20, 23, 3483. 
 
 • r. State, 24 Okla. 805, 105 
 
 Pac. 351— pp. 118, 128. 
 
 V. State, 26 Okla. 62. 107 
 
 Pac. 929, 30 L. R. A.. N. S., 
 137— pp. 3482, 3502, 3517. 
 
 V. State, 26 Okla. 764, 110 
 
 Pac. 759— p. 127. 
 
 V. State, 27 Okla. 426, 112 
 
 Pac. 1121— p. 84. 
 
 f. Stell, p. 2688. 
 
 Sterling v. 
 
 V. Stevenson, 54 Ark. 116, 15 
 
 S. W. 22— p. 70. 
 
 V. Stevenson, 156 U. S. 667, 
 
 39 L. Ed. 573, 15 S. Ct. 491 — 
 pp. 34, 53, 144. 
 
 V. Stewart, pp. 1986, 2004. 
 
 V. Stokes, pp. 3355, 3368. 
 
 V. Stone, 78 Ark. 318, 95 S. 
 
 W. 470— pp. 3139, 3196. 
 
 ■ V. Stone, 78 Kan. 510, 104 
 
 Pac. 1067— p. 491. 
 ■ V. Stonecypher, p. 457. 
 
 Sturgeon v. 
 
 Sutton V. 
 
 V. Sweet, 57 Ark. 287, 21 S. 
 
 W. 587— pp. 1728, 1754. 
 
 f. Sweet, 60 Ark. 550, 31 S. 
 
 W. 571— pp. 1719, 1727, 1732. 
 
 V. Sweet, 40 S. W. 463, 63 
 
 Ark. 563— p. 2926. 
 
 Tarrant v. 
 
 V. Taylor, 84 S. W. 1035. 74 
 
 Ark. 31— p. 2777. 
 
 V. Taylor, 87 Ark. 331, 112 
 
 S. W. 745— pp. 257, 1294, 1295, 
 1433. 
 
 ■ V. Taylor. 210 U. S. 281, 52 
 
 L. Ed. 1061, 28 S. Ct. 616— 
 pp. 3450. 3452, 3456. 
 
 Thayer -■. 
 
 T'. Thomas, pp. 1495, 2571. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 V. Thompson, pp. 608, 609, 
 
 696. 
 
 Tickell V. 
 
 Tinkle -■. 
 
 -C-. Tittle, pp. 1789, 1866, 
 
 1956. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tomlin- 
 son, pp. 2501, 2537, 2538, 2546, 
 2550, 2551. 
 
 V. Townes, p. 688. 
 
 V. Townsend, p. 1860. 
 
 r. Trihbey, pp. 1298, 1402. 
 
 Trigg V. 
 
 r. Trimble, p. 3086. 
 
 V. Trotter, p. 1880. 
 
 V. Tucker, pp. 1643, 2440. 
 
 Tuggle V. 
 
 Turner i'. 
 
 V. Turner, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 625, 20 S. W. 1008— pp. 684, 
 
 1096, 1313, 1329, 1411, 1414, 
 1416. 
 
 '•. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 84 S. W. 1094— pp. 1885, 1886, 
 2825. 
 
 f. Tyler Coffin Co., pp. 515, 
 
 580, 664, 665. 
 
 United States f. 
 
 V. United States, 94 C. C. A. 
 
 437, 169 Fed. 69— p. 3621. 
 
 V. United States, 209 Fed 
 
 600— pp. 3621, 3625. 
 
 Van Clevc v. 
 
 V. Vaughan,- 84 Ark. 311, 105 
 
 S. W. 573— pp. 1304. 1460. 1461. 
 
 V. \'aughan. 88 Ark. 238, 113 
 
 S. VV. 1035— pp. 1272, 1307. 
 1308, 1332, 1382, 1408. 
 
 V. Waggoner, pp. 1585, 1760. 
 
 1308, 1332, 1382, 1408. 
 
 f. VVainwright, p. 2876. 
 
 V. Waldert Grocery Co., p. 
 
 863. 
 
 '■. Waldrup, p. 144. 
 
 f. Walker, p. 2860. 
 
 — — V. Wallace. 90 Ark. 138. 118 
 S. W. 412. 22 L. R. A., N. S., 
 379— pp. 694, 947, 948, 3294. 
 
 V. Wallace, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 312, 74 S. W. 581— pp. 1537, 
 1700, 1778. 
 
 c'. Warren, p. 970. 
 
 r. Waters, pp. 2411, 2412, 
 
 2419, 3027. 
 
 V. Watkins. pp. 402, 836, 837, 
 
 838, 840. 
 
 V. Watson, pp. 2294, 2857. 
 
 Wayne r. 
 
 ■ r. Weakly, pp. 320, 323, 819, 
 
 945, 986, 988, 1073, 1399, 1457, 
 3377. 
 
 V. Wells, pp. 975, 1372. 
 
 Wernick '■. 
 
 West V. 
 
 -■. Wester, p. 3542. 
 
 Wheeler v. 
 
 White v. 
 
 V. White, 48 Ark. 495, 4 S. 
 
 W. 52, 30 .^m. & Eng. R. Ca--. 
 545— p. 1797. 
 
 f. White. 99 Tex. 359. 89 S. 
 
 W. 746, 2 L. R. A.. N. S., 110. 
 122 Am. St. Rep 631— pp. 1608, 
 1668, 3320. 
 
 1-. White (Tex. Civ. Apn.), 
 
 34 S. W. 1042— pp. 1544, 1549, 
 1551. 
 
 r. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 86 S. W. 71— p. 2573. 
 
 -■. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 103 S. W. 673— pp. 614, 638. 
 
 Whitehead -■. 
 
 V. Whittle, p. 2140. 
 
 f Wiggati, pp. 1580, 2536. 
 
 Wilburi. -■. 
 
 f. Wilhelm, pp. 1318, 1320. 
 
 I-. Williams, 100 Ark. ?56, 
 
 140 S. W. 141— pp. 2416, 3029, 
 
 3082. 
 
 T-. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 il S. W. 225. 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 541— p. 1120. 
 
 T'. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 37 S. W. 992— p. 2490. 
 
 Williamson z\ 
 
 Wilson f. 
 
 Grocery Co., p. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. Wilson, 
 70 Ark. 136, 66 S. W. 661, 91 
 Am. St. Rep. 74 — pp. 2027, 2033. 
 2961, 2964, 3010. 
 
 V. Wilson, 85 Ark. 257, 107 
 
 S. W. 978— pp. 1386. 1436, 1437, 
 1444, 1452. 
 
 Winter v. 
 
 Witting V. 
 
 ■ -■. Woldert 
 
 v. Wolf. pp. 1139. 3754, 3758. 
 
 V. Woodruff, pp. 2416. 2488. 
 
 2495. 
 
 V. Woodruff Mills, pp. 317, 
 
 318. 
 
 V. Woods. pp. 1768. 2889. 
 
 2932. 
 
 T. Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150 
 
 S. W. 706— pp. 1881, 2579, 2878. 
 
 r. Wright, 75 S. W. 565, 33 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 80— pp. 2606. 
 2607, 2701. 
 
 i'. Wynne Hoop. etc.. Co.. 
 
 pp. 216, 217. 247, 259, 260, 263, 
 265. 
 
 r. Young. pp. 1412, 1413, 
 
 1423. 
 
 r. Yount. pp. 2568. 3084. 
 
 3085. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Railway r. Gil- 
 breath, pp. 321, 485. 
 
 t. Heath, pp. 614, 690. 
 
 V. Lesser, pp. 726, 732. 740. 
 
 748, 1035. 
 
 i: Phelps, p. 854. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., Transp. Co., Hib- 
 
 ernia Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Mellier -•. 
 
 St. Marc V. La Chapella, p. 595. 
 St. Nicholas Hotel Co. f. Meyer- 
 
 Schmid Grocer Co., p. 1229. 
 St. Patrick, The. 
 St. Paul City R. Co., Appleby :■. 
 
 Berg -■. 
 
 Bishop 1'. 
 
 Blondel v. 
 
 Cooper '•. 
 
 Edlund V. 
 
 Fonda z\ 
 
 ■ Gaffney v. 
 
 Herbert v. 
 
 Jackson f. 
 
 Joyce f. 
 
 Koenig v. 
 
 Konkle z'. 
 
 McBride v. 
 
 Miller f. 
 
 Pine I'. 
 
 Purcell V. 
 
 Reem r. 
 
 Sahlgaard 7\ 
 
 Saiko '■. 
 
 Schacherl '■. 
 
 Schmeltzer f. 
 
 Smith ;■. 
 
 Steeg V. 
 
 Wick f. 
 
 Willard z: 
 
 Winchell f. 
 
 St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. f. Mc- 
 Gregor, p. 1129. 
 
 Mitsui f. 
 
 St. Paul Roller Mill Co. z: Great 
 Western Despatch Co., pp. 353. 
 1221, 1223, 1224. 
 
 St. Paul L^nion Depot Co.. Dick- 
 erman z\ 
 
 Godbout z\ 
 
 St. Paul, etc., R. Co., Ahlbeck :. 
 
 .\rthur f. 
 
 Bishop Z-. 
 
 Brusch ;•. 
 
 Buenemann f. 
 
 Butler z. 
 
 Conger i'. 
 
 Edlund z: 
 
 Estes -•. 
 
 Gradin z-. 
 
 Hardenbergh i'. 
 
 Jackson i-. 
 
 1 Car— r
 
 CCLXXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 St. Paul, etc., R. Co., Jacobus v. 
 
 Jellett f. 
 
 Leo '■. 
 
 McVeety z: 
 
 Matz -•. 
 
 Moulton V. 
 
 Olson V. 
 
 Purcell z: 
 
 Rahilly r. 
 
 Rosenbaum v. 
 
 Sccord '■. 
 
 Smith z: 
 
 Watson f. 
 
 St. Qucntin, The. 
 
 Saitta, Liverpool, etc., Co. v. 
 Saks, Morgan z'. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Salbcrg f. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 593. 
 Saleeby v. Central R. Co., 184 X. 
 V. 597, 77 N. K. 1196— pp. 3167, 
 3186. 
 
 f. Central R. Co., 90 N. Y. 
 
 S. 1042, 99 App. Div. 163, 15 
 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 353— pp. 3149. 
 3150. 
 
 Salem, etc., R. Co., Lovett v. 
 Salena, etc., R. Co., Lewis v. 
 Sales Z-. Western Stage Co., pp. 
 
 1715, 1724, 1837. 
 Salinger, Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -'. Simmons, pp. 268, 272, 
 
 292, 525, 537, 566, 568. 
 
 Sallcy f. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 
 
 pp. 155, 3278. 
 Sallv Magee, The. 
 Salmon z: City Elect. R. Co., p. 
 
 2177. 
 
 Kansas Pac. R. Co. z'. 
 
 Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. The 
 
 Tangier, Fed. Cas. No. 12, 266, 
 1 Cliff. 396— pp. 527, 892. 
 
 z\ The Tangier, Fed. Cas. 12, 
 
 267, 3 Ware 110— pp. 527, 892, 
 893. 
 
 Salt Lake City K. Co., Paul v. 
 Salter v. Kirkbride, p. 626. 
 
 Lee 7\ 
 
 Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, p. 358. 
 Saltonstall v. Stockton, pp. 210, 
 1492, 2562, 2692. 
 
 Stokes 7'. 
 
 Saltsman -■. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 838. 
 Saltzman v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2888. 
 Salzman, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 '- L. S. & M. R. Co. 7. 
 
 Saltus V. Everett, pp. 361, 371, 
 
 373. 
 Sambuck z'. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 2696. 
 Sammon, International 
 
 Co. z: 
 Samms v. Stewart, pp. 2, 4, 208, 
 
 233, 726, 731, 771. 
 Sample, Malott v. 
 Samples, Southern Kansas R. Co. 
 
 Sampley, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sampsell, Colbeck z'. 
 
 Sampson, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Sams V. Price, p. 2568. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Samuel ?'. Cheney, pp. 553, 554. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Pool Shipping Co. v. 
 
 Samuel E. Spring, The. 
 Samuel F. Houseman, The. 
 Samuels, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. California St. Cable R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1986, 2638, 2802. 
 
 Ingrafia v. 
 
 V. Louisville R. Co., pp. 
 
 1888, 2876, 2931. 
 
 Z'. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1867, 3058. 
 
 Wells Fargo Exp. Co. v. 
 
 etc., R. 
 
 Samuels & Co., St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. :•. 
 Samuelson '■. State, p. 21. 
 San Antonio Gas Co., Broadway v. 
 San Antonio St. R. Co. z: Muth, 
 
 pp. 7, 1978, 1979, 2584, 2589. 
 San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Bryant, 
 
 pp. 1556, 1808, 1811, 1812, 1819. 
 San Antonio Tract. Co., Contreras 
 
 — ~ V. Crawford, p. 2056. 
 
 z: Davis, pp. 2039, 2057, 
 
 2059, 2768, 2769, 2771. 
 
 Flory V. 
 
 z: Flory, pp. 1766, 1830, 
 
 1913, 1928, 2749, 2904. 
 
 Haralson v. 
 
 z: Lambkin, pp. 2056, 2057, 
 
 2059, 2768. 2769. 
 
 Parks '•. 
 
 V. Williams, pp. 2588, 2634. 
 
 Necker c". 
 
 San Antonio, etc., Co. z'. Bryant, 
 p. 2174. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Ad- 
 ams, pp. 1577, 2614. 
 
 V. Addison, p. 855. 
 
 V. Bailey, p. 158. 
 
 z: Barnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 27 S. W. 676— p. 1309. 
 
 v. Barnett, 12 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 321, 322, 34 S. W. 139— 
 pp. 960, 970, 972, 1318. 
 
 ■ z: Barnett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 498, 66 S. W. 474— pp. 451, 453, 
 454, 1018, 1296, 3342, 3366. 
 
 V. Botts, p. 1050. 
 
 Cane Hill Cold Storage, etc., 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Cane Hill, etc., Co. ?'. 
 
 Cane Hill, etc.. Orchard Co. 
 
 Choate V. 
 
 z'. Choate (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 35 S. W. 180— p. 2801. 
 
 V. Choate, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 618, 619, 56 S. W. 214— pp. 1991, 
 1992, 2222, 2804, 2890. 
 
 z: Dolan, pp. 814, 978, 1394. 
 
 z: Dykes, pp. 1614, 1856, 
 
 1878, 1885, 2662. 
 
 • First Nat. Bank v. 
 
 z'. Fisher, p. 1361. 
 
 z'. Graves, pp. 6871. 3387. 
 
 V. Griffin, p. 3416. 
 
 z: Griffith, p. 688. 
 
 z\ Tackson, pp. 2287, 2618. 
 
 V. Josey, pp. 607, 637, 660, 
 
 693. 
 
 • V. Lester, p. 2381. 
 
 V. Long, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 497, 22 S. W. 499— p. 1767. 
 
 V. Long (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 26 S. W. 114, 116— pp. 1694, 
 1744. 
 
 V. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 40 S. W. 631— pp. 1544, 1550, 
 1554, 1569, 2720. 
 
 V. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 55 S. W. 517— pp. 202, 1680, 
 1684, 1738, 1810, 2090, 2299, 
 2335, 2665, 2720. 
 
 V. Muth, pp. 1812, 1817, 
 
 1821. 
 
 • V. Newman, pp. 1632, 2444, 
 
 2465. 
 
 V. Pratt, 89 Tyx. 310, 34 S. 
 
 W. 445— pp. 1321, 1323. 
 
 • V. Pratt (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 
 
 S. W. 705, 706— p. 1323. 
 
 V. Robinson, 73 Tex. 277, 
 
 285, 11 S. W. 327— pp. 2669, 
 2679, 2758. 
 
 V. Robinson, 79 Tex. 608, 15 
 
 S. W. 584— pp. 1752, 1766. - 
 
 V. Safford, pp. 1852, 2573. 
 
 Sanchez v. 
 
 z: Stribling, p. 142. 
 
 Swank v. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Thomp- 
 son, pp. 616, 655, 657, 3355. 
 
 z\ Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 47, 99 S. W. 418— pp. 216, 217, 
 418, 424, 425, 426, 442, 444, 
 1295, 1318, 1320. 
 
 f. Timon (Tex. Civ. 
 
 110 S. W. 82— pp. 1294, 
 
 -'. Trigo (Tex. Civ. 
 
 101 S. W. 254— p. 2159. 
 
 c'. Trigo, 108 S. W. 1193, 49 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 523— p. 1966. 
 
 f. Turner, pp. 232, 608, 1304, 
 
 1310, 1354, 3336, 3337. 
 
 ?'. Turney, pp. 1518, 
 
 1771, 2327, 2873. 
 
 V. Wallace, p. 2163. 
 
 ■ Wilcox z'. 
 
 • z'. Williams, pp. 419, 
 
 425, 451, 1002, 1003, 3337. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 451, 851, 971, 
 
 984, 997, 1373, 3348, 3365. 
 
 Sanbern z\ Panama R. Co., pp. 
 3927, 3935. 
 
 App.), 
 1318. 
 App.), 
 
 1770, 
 
 424, 
 
 etc.. Lighterage 
 
 3918, 3923, 4065. 
 V. Southern Pac. 
 
 z\ Wright, 
 
 Co., pp. 3909. 
 
 San Bernardino 
 
 Co., p. 3568. 
 Sanchez, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 88 Tex. 117, 30 S. W. 431— p. 
 2276. 
 
 V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 3 Tex. Civ. App. 89, 22 S. W. 
 242— pp. 1792, 2318. 
 
 z'. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 922 
 —p. 1526. 
 
 Sanden v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 pp. 1613, 1621, 1631, 1632, 1634, 
 2439. 
 
 Sanders z\ .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1462, 1477, 1479. 
 
 Central R. Co. z\ 
 
 z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2199. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 1884, 
 
 2126, 2250, 2252, 2253, 2257, 
 2403, 2676, 2924. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp. 864, 
 
 878. 
 
 Wallace v. 
 
 V. Young, pp. 11, 768, 1750, 
 
 1839. 
 
 Sanderson v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 ■ pp. 1687, 1994, 2892. 
 
 V. Frazier, pp. 1735, 1749, 
 
 2204, 2288, 
 
 1838, 
 2757. 
 
 2249. 
 
 Lamberton, p. 
 Missouri Pac. 
 
 2289, 2692, 
 
 3387. 
 R. Co. 
 
 Panther Lumber Co., 
 1582, 1585. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sandfield, The. 
 
 Sandford v. Catawissa, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 213, 220, 222. 
 
 Commonwealth v. 
 
 Covington, etc.. 
 
 Road Co. t'. 
 
 V. Hestonvillc, etc., 
 
 136 Pa. 84, 20 Atl. 
 1958, 1960, 2805. 
 
 v. Hestonville, etc., 
 
 153 Pa. 300, 25 Atl 
 2785. 
 
 z'. Seaboard, etc., 
 
 pp. 155, 173, 176, 341, 348. 
 
 Sandhoval, The Willie D. 
 
 Sandiagc, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 San Diego Land, etc., Co. v. Na- 
 tional City, p. 116. 
 
 Sandlin z'. Lexington R. Co., pp. 
 1879, 2353, 2357, 2359. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Sandquist f. Fort Dodge, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2875. 
 Sands, American Exp. Co. 
 
 Turnpike 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 799— pp. 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 , 833— p. 
 
 Railway,
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXV 
 
 Sands, Elmore v. 
 
 V. Manistee River Imp. Co., 
 
 p. 3479. 
 
 Sandusky, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Sandusky-Portland Cement Co. v. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 3812. 
 Sandusky, etc., R. Co., Page & 
 
 Co. V. 
 Sandy, Lake St. Elev. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Lake St. Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1680, 1743, 2809, 2933. 
 
 Sanford, Covington, etc.. Turnpike 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 23 N. 
 
 Y. 343, 80 Am. Dec. 286— pp. 
 2414, 2483. 
 
 V. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 20 
 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 122— p. 2487. 
 
 V. Ilousatonic K. Co., pp. 
 
 ■ 484, 488, 1087, 1089, 1097, 1098. 
 
 McQuestcn v. 
 
 Philleo V. 
 
 V. Poe, p. 3576. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. 
 
 San Francisco, etc., R. Co., Falls 
 
 V. 
 
 Fogel f. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 Wheeler r. 
 
 Sangamon, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 
 
 p. 653. 
 Sanger, Chandler v. 
 
 f. Jesse French Piano, etc , 
 
 Co., pp. 940, 1063. 
 
 Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Sanitary Dist., Strecter -•. 
 
 San Jose-Los Gatos, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Kimic V. 
 San Jose, etc., R. Co., Jamison v. 
 San Paulo, The. 
 San Pedro, The. 
 San Pedro, etc., R. Co., Bingham 
 
 Dearden v. 
 
 Pruitt V. 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 V. Thomas, p. 2386. 
 
 San Rafael, The. 
 Sansom v. Southern R. 
 
 1836. 
 Sanson v. Philadelphia 
 
 Trans. Co., pp. 2691, 2861 
 Santa Barbara Consol. R. Co., 
 
 Kline v. 
 Santa Clara v. Southern Pac. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 58, 60. 
 Santa Fe, etc., R. Co. v. Grant 
 
 Bros. Constr. Co., 13 Ariz. 186, 
 
 108 Pac. 467— pp. 2, 4, 5, 434, 
 
 723, 870, 945, 969, 1038, 1040. 
 
 V. Grant Bros. Constr. Co., 
 
 33 S. Ct. 474, 228 U. S. 177, 46 
 L. R. A., N. S., 148— pp. 440, 
 3846. 
 
 Santee, The. 
 
 Santhur v. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 753. 
 Santissima Trinidad, The. 
 Sappington -■. .\tlanta, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 3046, 3047, 3051. 
 Saragossa, Ilusscy -■. 
 Saratoga, etc., R. Co., Bcekman ;-. 
 
 Brintnall v. 
 
 Weed r. 
 
 Sargent v. Birchard, p. 815. 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., pp. 
 
 109, 253, 1179, 1182. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Dowell Wire Fence Co. v. 
 
 V. Rutland R. Co., pp. 3470. 
 
 3501. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc 
 
 1785, 1798, 1799, 
 2270, 2271. 
 
 Sarjeant v. Blunt, p. 
 Satterlee r. Groat, p. 
 Satterwhitc, International, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Sattler, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2313. 
 
 Co., p. 
 Rapid 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 
 2130. 2269. 
 
 1169. 
 771. 
 
 Sauer, Sawyer v. 
 
 Saul, United States v. 
 
 Saulsbcrry, Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Saunders v. Adams Exp. Co., 76 
 
 N. J. L. 228, 69 At). 206— p. 
 
 1054. 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., 78 N. J. 
 
 L. 441, 74 At). 670— pp. 417, 
 440. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2691. 
 
 Fort v. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1567, 1816, 2098. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 726, 
 
 981, 3114, 3115, 3124, 3128, 
 3148, 3152. 3161, 3162, 3166. 
 
 z\ Southern Railway, p. 754. 
 
 Saunderson, Neal v. 
 
 Sauter v. .Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 632, 732. 
 Sauvan v. Citizens' Elect. St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 1894. 
 Savage v. Marlborough St. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2697. 
 
 Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. 
 
 %'. New York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 3990. 
 
 — ■ — • Prentiss v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. 
 
 Savagcau v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1769, 2132, 2680, 2873. 
 Savannah Elect. Co. v. Badenhoop, 
 
 p. 2708. 
 V. Bennett, p. 2919. 
 
 Hester v. 
 
 r. Hodges, pp. 2039, 2045. 
 
 V. McCants, pp. 1524, 2047, 
 
 2048, 2868. 
 
 McDonald v. 
 
 V. McElvey, pp. 2751, 3010 
 
 V. Pritchard, pp 
 
 V. Wheeler, pp. 
 
 2607. 
 
 Savannah Mut. Ins. Co., Brown v. 
 
 Savannah St., etc., R. Co. v. Bry- 
 an, pp. 2040, 2047, 3075. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. '<■. Austin, 
 pp. 3293, 3354. 
 
 V. Bonaud, pp. 1670, 
 
 1673, 3042, 3044. 
 
 V. Boyle, pp. 1577, 
 
 2022, 2031. 
 
 V. Bundick, p. 1160. 
 
 Central Trust Co. v. 
 
 Chicago Packing, etc., Co. v. 
 
 f. Coleman, p. 544. 
 
 V. Collins, pp. 412, 760, 761, 
 
 861, 880, 3251, 3366. 
 
 V. Commercial Guano Co., 
 
 pp. 492, 681, 732, 741, 742, 745, 
 825, 3248, 3252, 3257, 3291, 
 3296. 
 
 Cotchctt V. 
 
 !■. Elder, pp. 501, 3402. ■ 
 
 7-. Flaherty, pp. 2145, 2323, 
 
 2676. 
 
 V. Florida Fruit Exch.,> pp. 
 
 3631, 3664. 3667, 3668, 3669, 
 3675, 3684, 3711, 3724, 3729, 
 3735, 3747, 3748, 3764, 
 3769, 3770, 3777, 3784. 
 3817. 
 
 r. Godkin, p. 2046. 
 
 ■:'. Hardiji, p. 3389. 
 
 V. Harris, pp. 816, 820, 828 
 
 3394, 3395. 
 
 Heins v. 
 
 V. Hoffmayer, pp. 819, 863 
 
 1035, 3399. 
 
 V. Mcintosh, pp. 3139, 3179 
 
 Mack V. 
 
 Norris v. 
 
 f. Pritchard, etc., Co., pp 
 
 406, 637, 638, 642, 653, 660 
 674, 677, 680, 3278, 3410. 
 
 f. Quo, pp. 2040, 2041, 2047 
 
 Sellers f. 
 
 2923, 2924. 
 1750, 2042, 
 
 1671, 
 2016, 
 
 3767, 
 3785, 
 
 Savannah, etc., R'. Co. v. Sloat, pp. 
 551, 948, 1079, 1080, 1364. 
 
 Smoak i\ 
 
 V. Steininger, p. 839. 
 
 V. Talbot, pp. 521, 547, 1157. 
 
 V. Wall, pp. 1696, 2067, 2258, 
 
 2608. 
 
 Wenz V. 
 
 f. Wilcox, etc., Co., pp. 573, 
 
 574, 576, 577, 578, 727, 748. 
 
 Savannah, etc.. Supply Co., Ocean 
 
 Steamship Co. v. 
 Sawin -'. Connecticut X'alley St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1742, 1817. 
 Sawyer, Birmingham R'., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 550. 
 
 V. Cleveland Iron Min. Co., 
 
 p. 347. 
 
 V. Dulany, pp. 1698, 2034. 
 
 t. El Paso, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2562, 2563. 
 
 Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1687, 1724, 1727, 1738, 
 
 — V. 
 
 1681, 
 1981. 
 
 Joslin, pp. 1229, 1230. 
 
 T. Lamar, p. 3069. 
 
 -■. Sauer, pp. 1726, 2115. 
 
 Saxon, Dalzell v. 
 
 Watts & Co. y. 
 
 Saxton ■:■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 pp. 2511, 2542, 2547, 2552. 
 
 Sayers, Virginia, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Sayles v. Maine Cent. R. Co., p. 
 2777. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. •:■. 
 
 t'. New York, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1049. 
 
 Sayre v. Louisville Union Benev. 
 
 Ass'n, p. 113. 
 Sayward, Stevens v. 
 
 V. Stevens, p. 854. 
 
 Scalf, Louisville, etc., R. Co. -..•. 
 Scaling V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 pp. 3201, 3215, 3217. 
 Scamell ''. St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 1704, 2316. 
 Scammon v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 
 
 pp. 516, 748, 760. 
 Scandinavian-American Bank, Clark 
 
 Scanlan, X'icksburg, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Scanlon v. Philadelphia Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., p. 2238. 
 Scarboro, Brown v. 
 Scarborough, Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Scarbrough x: Alabama Mid. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2074. 
 Scarritt Estate Co., Howard r. 
 Scales, Chicago, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Schacherl v. St. Paul City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2152. 
 Schaefer v. Central Crosstown R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2229, 2909. 
 
 Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. North Chicago St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2484. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1501, 1505, 1506, 2152, 2372, 
 2686. 
 
 f. Union R. Co., pp. 1933, 
 
 2347. 
 
 Schaeflfer v. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1036, 1387, 1454. 
 . Schaettle, Benedict t: 
 Schafer, Carr v. 
 
 V. Gilmer, pp. 2312, 3005, 
 
 3074. 
 
 Schafermeyer, Galveston, etc., K. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Schaffner, Pullman Co. v. 
 Schaller :■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 970. 987. 1030, 1031. 1046. 
 bchalscha v. Third Ave. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2877, 3144. 
 Scharadin, Fisher f.
 
 CCLXXVI 
 
 TAr-LK OF CASES. 
 
 Scharbauer, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Scharff -•. Mever. pp. 349. 351, 3:>2, 
 
 362, 363, 365, 367, 368, 387. 
 Scharnagl, Tolchcster Beach Imp. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Schartz, Illinois Cent. R. Co. ■:•. 
 Schaufler, South, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Schaiin, Western Maryland R. Co. 
 
 Scheiber f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2356. 
 Scheir, American Merchants' L nton 
 
 Exp. Co. f. 
 Schenberger f. Union Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3754. 
 Schenkel f. Pittsburgh, etc., I ract. 
 
 Co., pp. 1983, 2886. 
 Schepeler, Gossler v. 
 Schepers f. Union Depot R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1501, 1520, 2151. 
 Schepman, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Schestauber v. Manhattan R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2144, 2806. 
 Scheu '■. Benedict, pp. 564, 799. 
 
 f. Erie K. Co.. p. 553. _ 
 
 T. Union R. Co., p. 2654. 
 
 Scheuermann v. Monarch Fruit 
 
 Co., pp. 369, 387. 
 Schiebe. Ohio, etc., R. Co. 'c'. 
 Schieffelin -■. Harvey, pp. 728, 73 1. 
 Schiff Z-. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 452, 3353, 3377. 
 Schilling r. Union R. Co., p. 2908. 
 
 7. Winona, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1740, 1752, 1755. 
 
 Schilling & Co., United Steamship 
 
 Co. f. 
 Schindler r. Smith, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 477, 478. 
 Schirmer, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 Schlag V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2739. 
 Schlauder i: Chicago, etc.. Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 1709, 2083, 2654, 2897. 
 Schlemmer -'. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3461. 
 Schlett, Heidenheimer &: Co. ■:■. 
 Schley f. Susquelianna, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1532, 1533. 
 Schlichting v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 ])p. 519, 558. 
 Schlittler, Southern R. Co. t'. 
 Schloemer '•. St. Louis Transit 
 
 Co., pp. 6, 1736, 2860. 
 Schloss f. Atchison, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 138, 156, 158, 331. 
 
 -.•. Wood, pp. 209, 868. 
 
 Schlosser v. (^rcat Northern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 485, 1401. 
 Schmelling, Chicago Terminal R. 
 Co. f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Schmeltzer v. St. Paul City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2819. 
 Schmidt r. Blood, pp. 714, 822. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Chicago City R. Co., 239 
 
 111. 494, 88 N. E. 275— pp. 2083, 
 2764, 2779. 
 
 r. Chicago City R. Co., 144 
 
 111. App. 512— pp. 2012, 2897. 
 
 ' v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 286, 289, 884. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1664, 2446, 3041. 
 
 First Nat. Bank z'. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. 
 
 t. Kcyscr, p. 3955. 
 
 T. North Jersey St. K. Co., 
 
 66 N. T. L. 424, 49 Atl. 438— 
 pp. 1520, 1880, 2157, 2875. 
 
 V. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 (N. J.), 58 Atl. 72— pp. 2152, 
 2153, 2157. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania, p. 1226. 
 
 The. 
 
 Schmitt z: Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2756. 
 
 Schmitt z: Milwaukee St. R. Co.. 
 pp. 3082, 3086. 
 
 7'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp 
 
 2816, 2818. 
 
 Schneider 7'. Evans, pi). 1147. 1154 
 1155, 1156, 1157, IK.l, 3341. 
 
 7-. Leibs Bros. & Co., pp 
 
 1226, 1236. 
 
 7'. New Orleans, etc., Rail 
 
 road, p. 2200. 
 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co. 7' 
 
 Rogers 7'. I 
 
 7'. North Chicago St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2322. 
 
 7'. Second .Ave. R. Co., 133 
 
 N. Y. 583, 30 N. E. 752, 4 Sil- 
 vernail Ct. App. 232— pp. 2009, 
 2011. 
 
 7'. Second -\ve. R. Co., 15 
 
 N. Y. S. 556, 39 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 370, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 536— 
 pp. 2083, 2896. 
 
 T. & P. R. Co. 7. 
 
 Texas, etc., R'. Co. z\ 
 
 Schneier 7'. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2664, 2673. 
 Schober, Pullman Co. 7'. 
 Schoenfeld f. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1331. 
 
 7'. Milwaukee City R. Co., p. 
 
 2197. 
 
 Schoer, Southern Pac. Co. 7'. 
 Schofield 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 p. 1638. 
 Scholes 7'. Ackerland, pp. 589, 592. 
 Scholey, Anderson 7'. 
 Scholfield 7'. Bell, p. 1242. 
 Schollenberger 7'. Pennsylva-na, pp. 
 
 3427, 3428, 3440, 3445, 3539. 
 Sclioltz 7'. Interborough Rap d 
 
 Trans. Co., p. 2680. 
 School Dist. 7'. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 806. 
 Schoolher 7'. Hutchins, p. 862. 
 Schooner Freeman 7'. Buckingham, 
 
 pp. 3866, 3873, 3879, 3917, 3936, 
 
 3937, 3945. 
 
 The. 
 
 Schooner John Bell, De X'llkrs 
 
 Schopman z: Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 
 pp. 1560, 2080, 3180, 3323. 
 Schotten, Symns 7'. 
 Schottler, Spring Valley Water 
 
 Works 7'. 
 Schreiner 7'. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2322. 
 Schritter, Chicago Consol. Tract. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Schriver, Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 7'. 
 
 Schroeder 7'. Hudson River R. Co., 
 pp. 417, 534, 580, 587. 
 
 Missouri, etc., K. Co. 7'. 
 
 Schroeder Lumber Co. 7-. Chicago. 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 1268, 1274, 
 
 1475. 
 Schubach 7'. McDonald, pp. 1616, 
 
 1617, 1634. 
 Schubert, Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Schuldt, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7;. 
 Schulte 7'. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2898. 
 Schultz f. Michigan United R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1997, 2353, 2603. 
 
 V. Second Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 1704. 
 
 7'. Southern Pacific, p. 3o30. 
 
 Springer 7'. 
 
 7'. Third Ave. R. Co., 89 N. 
 
 Y. 242— p. 3105. 
 
 z: Third Ave. R. Co., 46 N. 
 
 Y. Super. Ct. 211— p. 2414. 
 
 Schultzc-Berge, Peterson 7'. 
 
 Schulz V. Parker, p. 21. 
 
 Schuize 7'. Great Eastern R. Co., 
 
 p. 665. 
 Schumacher, Baltimore, ^ etc., R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 Schumacher z: Chicago, etc., R 
 Co., pp. 700, 707, 714, 715. 894 
 
 - 7'. Eby, pp. 353, 373, 1222 
 Schurr 7-. Houston, pp. 1504, 2266 
 Schurtz, Michigan, etc., Co. 7'. 
 Schuster 7'. Carson, pp. 1212, 1219 
 Schutte 7'. Weir, pp. 1051. 1053. 
 ochuttee, Houston, etc., R. Co. 7' 
 Schutter 7'. .\dams Exp. Co., pp 
 
 836, 1036. 
 Schuyler, Southern Pac. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1502, 1503, 1575, 2649, 2652, 
 2665, 2863, 3695, 3696. 
 
 Witbcck 7'. 
 
 Schuylkill Valley Tract. Co., Skean 
 
 Schwab, Express Co. z\ 
 Schwabacher 7'. Kane, pp. 1214, 
 
 1247. 
 Schwaner, Kerr 7'. 
 Schwartz 7'. Cincinnati, etc.. St. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2197, 2198. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Interborough Rai)id Transit 
 
 Co., p. 2567. 
 
 ■ z!. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2094, 2416. 
 
 7'. New York Citv R. Co., 
 
 p. 1889. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. 7'._ 
 
 7'. Panama R. Co., pp. 3251, 
 
 3260, 3333. 
 
 Schwartz & Co. 7'. Erie R. Co., 
 
 pp. 765, 785. 
 Schwarzenberger, Pcnnsylva-ia 
 
 Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 Schweitzer, White 7'. 
 Schwinding, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Schwinger 7'. Raymond, pp. 781. 
 799. 
 
 Scioto Valley Tract. Co. 7'. Cray- 
 bill, pp. 2419, 2481. 
 
 Scofield, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 — — z: Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.. 
 pp 5, 20, 221, 227, 1181, 1184, 
 1188, 1189, 3819. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania Co., pp. 
 
 1975, 2259, 2432. 
 Scopman 7'. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Corp., p. 1508. 
 Scorenson 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1510. 
 Scotland, The. 
 Scott, Adams 7'. 
 
 .Adams Exp. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Allegheny Val. R. Co., pp. 
 
 779, 958, 1022. 
 
 7'. Baltimore, etc., Stcaml)oa- 
 
 Co., pp. 744, 778. 
 
 -.. Bergen County Tract. Co., 
 
 63 N. T. L. 407, 43 Atl. 1060— 
 
 pp. 17l"5, 1957, 1991. 
 ^. Bergen County Tract. Co., 
 
 48 Atl. 1118, 64 N. J. L. 326— 
 
 pp. 2174, 2344, 2688. 
 
 V. Boston Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 638, 653. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2077, 2476, 2496, 2574. 
 
 7'. Donald, pp. 3538, 3539. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Gulf, etc., K. Co. 7'. 
 
 Hill v. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Leask v. 
 
 ^ouisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 ,r Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1504, 1701, 2144, 2577. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Pettit, p. 1234. 
 
 Reynolds 7'.
 
 TAIII^R OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXVII 
 
 Scott, Richmond City R. Co. v. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. !■. 
 
 Texas Rxp. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, l-Ic, R. Co. ?•. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3869. 
 
 Scott Bros. f. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 520. 
 V. Grimci Dry Goods Co., 
 
 pp. 1237, 1238. 
 Scott & Co., Te.Nas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Scott County Milling Co. r. St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 970, 1110. 
 Scotthorn r. South StafTodshirc 
 ^ R. Co.,^ p. 1217. 
 Scovcll, Tanni-r f. 
 Scovill ;■. Griffith, pp. 515, 591, 
 
 036, 638, b(<i. . 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Scrammon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 
 
 pp. 727, 732. 
 Scranton v. VVhcclcr, pp. 3420, 
 
 3440, 3441. 
 
 Scranton Tract. Co., Keator v. 
 
 O'Conncr -•. 
 
 Thane f. 
 
 -; Thaync -'. 
 
 Screven, Ilawley 7'. 
 
 Scribner, Indiana Union Tract. Co. 
 
 Scritter, Chicago Consol. Tract. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Scrivener, Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Scroggins v. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., p. 2252. 
 
 Scroggins Co., Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 
 Scruggs -'. Davis, p. 1501. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. i'. 
 
 Scudder, Calais Steamboat Co. ■:•. 
 Scull & Co. 7: Atlantic, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 141. 
 Scully r. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2263. 
 Scurr, Chicago R. Co. v. 
 Scutt, Thomas v. 
 Seaboard, The. 
 Seaboard .\ir Line R. Co. v. Main, 
 
 p. 2104. 
 
 Newbury f. 
 
 f. Railroad Comm., pp.' 46, 
 
 54, 58. 
 
 Seaboard Air Line Railway, Bald- 
 win t'. 
 
 f. r.radley, pp. 2511, 2512, 
 
 2513, 2546, 2917. 
 
 Cooper f. 
 
 Davis ?■. 
 
 f. Friedman, pp. 810, 1332, 
 
 3265, 3267. 
 
 Hull f. 
 
 Mason -•. 
 
 Nickles t'. 
 
 *•. Raincy 
 
 I'. Rentz, 
 
 685, 688, 1448. 
 
 Reynolds f. 
 
 Simmons 7\ 
 
 Skipper v. 
 
 f. Smith, p. 2625. 
 
 Seaboard R. Co., L^nited 
 
 Co., p. 
 Atlantic 
 
 40, 47, 52, 53, 
 
 Seaboard, etc., R. Co. -<■. Scarbor- 
 ough, pp. 2429, 2621, 2851, 3025. 
 
 Smith T. 
 
 Taylor t. 
 
 I'. Thompson, p. 2676. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. 
 
 3249. 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway :■. 
 Exp. Co., pp. 961, 963. 
 
 iialdwin f. 
 
 ISerley i: 
 
 Best V. 
 
 Bolen T. 
 
 ?■. Bostock, pp. 2369, 2370 
 
 Campbell I'. 
 
 Crosby f. 
 
 Dexter v. 
 
 V. Ellis, pp 
 
 54, 55, 124, 126. 
 
 Entzminger t. 
 
 Fretwell z: 
 
 Johnson f. 
 
 Kaufman 7'. 
 
 La Floridienne 
 
 Lowe I'. 
 
 McDuffie r. 
 
 Magill V. 
 
 Mauldin v. 
 
 Mims 7'. 
 
 ■ Nickles t'. 
 
 V. Phillips, pp. 
 
 588, 591, 600. 
 
 Salley v. 
 
 Sandford v. 
 
 Sanford f. 
 
 Singletary v. 
 
 r. Smith, pp. 1789, 2490. 
 
 State -: 
 
 Summerlin f. 
 
 -; Taber ■:■. 
 
 Seaborn, Birmingham R., etc 
 
 556, 583, 
 
 ., Co. 
 Clyd2 
 
 R. Co., 
 Co. ;•. 
 K. Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 pp. 
 
 1907, 1909. 
 608, 609, 621 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. 
 Seaboard, etc.. 
 
 Railroad, 
 R. 
 
 States 
 Rollins 
 
 Co., Capehart 
 1018, 1378, 
 
 z'. Cauthen, pp 
 
 1384. 1433, 2950. 
 
 Charlotte Trouser Co. - 
 
 Cullen 7'. 
 
 Currie "•. 
 
 Dun 7'. 
 
 Horton 7'. 
 
 Inman & Co. v. 
 
 Kearney 7'. 
 
 Meredith 7'. 
 
 7. O'Quin, 
 
 2417, 3089. 
 
 Outland 7'. 
 
 -: Pace Mule Co. r. 
 
 Reeves 7-. 
 
 pp. 
 
 408, 2409, 
 
 Sea Coast Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Steamship Co., j). 3893. 
 Seago, Argo Steamship Co. 
 Seagraves, State '■. 
 Seale 7'. Boston Elev. 
 
 2749. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R 
 
 7'. State, p. 3512. 
 
 Seals i: Augusta, etc., 
 
 2566. 
 Sealy, Missouri, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 304, 317, 358, 359, 364. 
 Searcy, Eddy 7'. 
 Searle 7'. Kanawha, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1715, 1719, 1726, 2586, 2588. 
 
 Kansas Pac. R. Co. z: 
 
 Searles, Alabama, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 ''■ Alabama, etc., R. Co., n 
 
 827. 
 
 ' 7'. Mann Boudoir Car Co., 
 
 p. 3203. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Sears v. Eastern R. Co., pp. 1670, 
 
 1671, 1672. 
 ~'- Louisville, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1667. 
 Mc.\rthur z: 
 
 7'. Seattle Consol. St. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1725, 1732, 1999, 200(). 
 
 Teall 7'. 
 
 7'. Wills, p. 1162. 
 
 7'. Wingate. pj). 305, 306, 309, 
 
 337, 3884. 
 
 Seasongood z: Tennessee, 
 Transp. Co., pp. 213, 214 
 277, 279, 283, 3248, 3249, 
 3862, 3863. 
 
 Seattle 7'. Seattle 
 68, 81. 
 
 Co 
 
 Seattle Elect. Co., Clukev 7' 
 
 De Yoe 7'. 
 
 Firebaugh -•. 
 
 Foster 7'. 
 
 Gilchcr v. 
 
 lialverson r. 
 
 Harkins v. 
 
 Hyde 7. 
 
 Kirk 7'. 
 
 Kroeger 7'. 
 
 McCormick v, 
 
 Morrison z: 
 
 Murray v. 
 
 Plattor r. 
 
 Rangenier v. 
 
 Ranous v. 
 
 Seattle z: 
 
 Sullivan z: 
 
 Weir z: 
 
 Seattle Elect. R., etc.. Co.. Cun- 
 ningham 7'. 
 
 Woo Dan 7'. 
 
 Seattle-Tacoma, etc., R. Co., An- 
 derson J'. 
 
 Seattle Tract. Co., Peterson ;•. 
 Seattle, etc., Nav. Co., White 7. 
 Seattle, etc., R. Co., Bailey v. 
 
 Braymer v. 
 
 Breeden z: 
 
 Connell 7'. 
 
 Conner 7'. 
 
 Dennison 7'. 
 
 Elliott f. 
 
 Gilmore r. 
 
 Harris z'. 
 
 Johnstone v. 
 
 Jordan v. 
 
 Lawson 7'. 
 
 Lir.hoff 7'. 
 
 Lobb z: 
 
 Marbourg 7". 
 
 Mills r. 
 
 Russell 7'. 
 
 Walters 7'. 
 
 Seattle, etc.. Railway, Mooney z 
 Seaver 7'. Bradley, p. 1488. 
 Seawell 7-. Carolina Cent. R. Co 
 pp. 1514, 2871. 
 
 7'. Greenway Bro. & 
 
 3114. 
 
 Kansas City, etc.. 
 
 Co., p 
 R. Co. 
 
 Seattle City R 
 
 Muldoon 
 
 Seattle Consol, 
 
 son 7'. 
 
 Sears 7'. 
 
 Seattle Elect. 
 
 Blakney ; 
 
 Bugge 7'. 
 
 Caywood 
 
 St. 
 
 Elect 
 , Brown 
 K. Co., 
 
 Co., 
 
 etc., 
 231. 
 
 3262, 
 
 pp. 
 
 Pcde 
 
 etc., 
 1231 
 Ave. 
 
 Black ; 
 
 Bradley 7'. 
 
 Coleman 7'. 
 
 Ebling 7'. 
 
 Ginna 7'. 
 
 Hadercamp 7'. 
 
 Jackson 7'. 
 
 Martin 7'. 
 
 Meyer 7'. 
 
 Movlan 7'. 
 
 Muiler 7'. 
 
 Pohle 7'. 
 
 Schneider -•. 
 
 Schultz 7'. 
 
 Second Ave. Tract, 
 
 Co. z: Nutt, pp. 1213 
 1232, 1234. 1240. 
 R. Co., Akersloot -■ 
 
 Co., Willis 
 Bank, American Exp. 
 398. 
 
 Co.. Bennett 7'. 
 
 Second Nat. 
 Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Bank, p 
 
 Sutherland 7'. 
 
 7'. Walbridge. p. 370. 
 
 Second, etc.. R. Co., Neslie ;•. 
 Secor 7'. Toledo, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 2248. 
 Secord 7'. St. Paul, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1547. 1561. 2078. 
 Security State Bank 7'. O'Connell 
 
 Lumber Co., p. 352. 
 Security Trust Co. 7-. Wells. Fargo 
 
 & Co.'s Exp., pp. 549, 551. 554. 
 
 Sedalia Elect. R., etc., Co.. Hans- 
 
 berger 7-. 
 Seddon 7'. Bicklcy. pp. 1838. 2686. 
 Sedoff 7'. Chicago Citv R. Co., 
 
 p. 2697. 
 Seefahrer. The.
 
 CCLXXVIII 
 
 TABI^E OF CASES. 
 
 Seelig -•. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1986. 
 Seeligson & Co., Adove f. 
 Seelye, Dickerson i: 
 Segal f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2025, 2031, 2871. 
 Segari & Co., Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Segelman z\ Interborough Rapid 
 
 Trans. R. Co., p. 2792. 
 Segura z: Reed, pp. 527, 531, 896. 
 Sehneideau & Co. z\ Pennington, 
 
 p. 587. 
 Seibels f. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3544. 
 Seiberling & Co., New York, etc., 
 
 R. Co. f. 
 Seibert, Pacific Exp. Co. ■:■. 
 f. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 553. 
 Seide, Southern Exp. Co. f. 
 Seiders, Te.xas, Tel., etc., Co. f. 
 Seidlinger r. Brooklyn City R. 
 
 Co., p. 2895. 
 Seigel z: Eisen, pp. 2204, 2811, 
 
 2894. 
 Seigfried z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 341, 1213. 
 Seinour, Deford f. 
 Seitz f. Brewers', etc., Mach. Co., 
 
 p. 3871. 
 
 z\ Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2307. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Sejalon v. Woolverton, p. 822. 
 belby z\ Detroit Railway, p. 2241 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1273, 1408, 1412. 
 
 Seley, Missouri, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 Self '■. Adel Lumber Co., p. 1489 
 
 '■. Dunn, p. 768. 
 
 Selhorst, Birmingham R., eta. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Seligman v. Armijo, pp. 578, 751 
 
 Greif & Bro. z'. 
 
 Seller v. Market St. R. Co., pp 
 2322, 2894. 
 
 z: Pacific, pp. 411, 818, 829 
 
 945, 997, 998, 1007, 1033. 
 
 Sellers, -Mabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p> 
 
 1628. 
 
 -•. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1858, 1863. 
 
 z. Savannah, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 301, 518, 519, 553, 603. 
 
 Sellick, Northern Transp. Co. v 
 Selliger, Commonwealth v. 
 Sellman, Steele v. 
 Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen 
 
 pp. 2014, 2127, 2129, 2234, 2260 
 
 2261, 2262, 2606. 
 Selma, etc., R. Co. v. Butts, pp 
 
 210, 726, 732, 748, 3270, 3302 
 
 z: Campbell, pp. 2582, 2598 
 
 Selman v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2287, 2288, 2289, 2348. 
 Selsor, Chesapeake, etc. 
 
 R. 
 R. 
 
 Co 
 Co. 
 
 z: Chesapeake, etc 
 
 p. 3090. 
 
 Selway !■. Holloway, p. 3136. 
 
 Semple, Little Z'. 
 
 Seneca, The. 
 
 Senecal v. Richelieu, p. 3136. 
 
 Senf v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2649, 2657. 
 Senior v. New York City R. Co., 
 
 187 N. Y. 559, 80 N. E. 1120— 
 
 p. 68. 
 
 -■. New York City R. Co., 
 
 Ill .App. Div. 39, 97 N. Y. S. 
 645— p. 27. 
 
 Senn, Central R. Co. v. 
 S. E. Railway Co., Collard <■. 
 Serrains z: Campbell, 1 Q. B. 283 
 —p. 713. 
 
 z: Campbell, 25 Q. B. Div. 
 
 501— p. 713. 
 
 Server, I. & G. N. R. Co. v. 
 
 etc., R. Co.^ 
 
 759, 763, 770, 
 
 364, 
 
 Server, International, etc., R. Co 
 
 Serviss v. Ann Arbor R. Co., pp 
 1526, 1789, 1880, 2686, 2858. 
 
 Serwe v. Northern Pac. R. Co., p 
 3081. 
 
 Sessions, Mobile, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 3214, 3216. 
 
 v. Southern Pac. Co., pp 
 
 1572, 2810. 
 
 — — z: Western R. Corp., pp. 602 
 872, 894, 907. 
 
 Setser, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 betzler -•. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 pp. 2356, 2759, 2798, 2937. 
 
 Seven Bros. No. 1, The. 
 
 725 Tons of Coal, Holland v. 
 
 Sever v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 ^ p. 2691. 
 
 Severn River Glass Sand Co., Don- 
 aldson V. 
 
 Severn, etc., R. Co., Rex v. 
 
 Sevier z\ Southern Railway, pp. 
 2357, 2359. 
 
 z'. \'icksburg, 
 
 pp. 1909, 1912. 
 
 Sewall, Allen f. 
 f. Allen, pp 
 
 3145. 
 
 Wood V. 
 
 Seward, Smith z'. 
 
 Seward & Co. z>. Miller, pp 
 
 372, 377, 385, 390. 
 Sewell v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1579. 
 
 V. Burdick, L. R. 10 App. 74 
 
 —p. 365. 
 
 V. Burdick, 10 App. Cas. 79, 
 
 105— p. 3881. 
 
 V. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 pp. 2679, 2696, 2979. 
 
 Sexton V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2152, 2876. 
 Seybolt -•. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1575, 1576, 2101. 
 Seyfarth v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 830. 
 Seymour z: Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1741, 1786, 2113, 2226 
 V. Citizens' R. Co., pp. 
 
 2008, 2126, 2127, 2192, 
 
 2894. 
 
 V. Newton, pp. 1215, 
 
 1219, 1229, 1232. 
 
 Richardson Fueling Co. v. 
 
 Shackelford f. Patrick, p. 861. 
 Shackleford, New Orleans, etc., R 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Wilcox, p. 3905. 
 
 Shacklet, Union R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Shackt z: Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp 
 
 759, 760. 
 Shaffer, Marion St. R. Co. -•. 
 Shaffer & Co. v. C. H. & D. R 
 
 Co., p. 336. 
 Shamblin v. New Orleans, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 2308. 
 Shamokin, etc., R. Co., Madara z\ 
 
 ■ Quinn V. 
 
 Shanahan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2999. 
 "'. St. Louis Trans. Co., pp 
 
 2332, 2590. 
 Shane v. Butte Elect. R. Co., p 
 
 2976. 
 Sliand, Peninsula, etc., Co. z\ 
 
 The. 
 
 Shands, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Shanley, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Shanly, Boston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Shannon v. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 
 pp. 1512, 1776. 
 
 V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1578, 2101. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Comstock, p. 653. 
 
 Kaskaskia Bridge Co. z\ 
 
 Shapiro -■. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 p. 3406. 
 
 1819, 
 2197, 
 
 1218, 
 
 Shareman z\ St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 
 p. 2657. 
 Sharkey, Port Blakely Mill Co. v. 
 Sharp r. Clark, pp. 436, 461, 531, 
 
 540, 1452. 
 
 • Dobiecki v. 
 
 • z: Grey, pp. 1681, 1682, 1845. 
 
 z'. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1834, 2683, 2945. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sharpe z'. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 642, 654, 673, 689. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Sharpless z\ Philadelphia, p. 213. 
 Sharpless & Sons, Adams Exp. Co. 
 
 Sharer v. Paxson, pp. 1521, 2066, 
 2157. 
 
 Sharrock, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Sharvey, Lewis ■:■. 
 Shattuck r. Rand, p. 1684. 
 Shaw, Bailey z'. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 173 
 
 111. App. 107— pp. 2695, 2843. 
 
 z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Iowa), 113 N. W. 478— p. 1639. 
 
 Daggett z'. 
 
 First Nat. Bank f. 
 
 V. Gardner, pp. 335, 540. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 3125. 
 
 Lake St., etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Memphis St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Merchants' Nat. Bank, p. 
 
 233. 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3138. 
 
 z\ Railroad Co., pp. 355, 356, 
 
 358, 359, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 
 389, 3877, 3886. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 ?'. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 663; 849, 850. 
 
 The John K. 
 
 z\ United States, p. 3864. 
 
 Wilson f. 
 
 Shawcross, Kirknian v. 
 
 z'. Camden, etc.-, R. Co., pp. 
 
 2699, 2978. 
 
 Shea, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3302. 
 
 — — v. Manhattan R. Co., p. 2059. 
 
 f. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1038. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 United States z'. 
 
 Shealey v. South Carolina, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2382. 
 Shean, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Shearer, Northern Line Packet Co 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. V. 
 
 V. Pacific Exp. Co., p. 554. 
 
 Sheares, Pennsylvania Co. z'. 
 Sheble Z'. Oregon R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 3182, 3395. 
 Sheboygan, etc., R. Co., Tolleman 
 
 Shedd 7'. Troy, etc., R. Co., 
 
 1620, 1632, 1973. 
 Sheehan, Louisville R. Co. '■. 
 V. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 
 
 2156, 2819. 
 Sheeks, Terre Haute, etc., R. 
 
 Shecron v. Coney Island, etc. 
 
 Co., pp. 2193, 2890. 
 Sheets V. Ohio River R. Co., p 
 
 2465. 
 Sheffer v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 1894. 
 Shelby -•. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 
 
 p. 2045. 
 -■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p 
 
 439. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Shelby County Taxing Dist., Fick 
 
 len V.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXIX 
 
 Shelby County Taxing Dist., Rob- 
 bins V. ^ r, 1. 
 
 Shelby Ice, etc., Co. v. Southern 
 
 R. Co., 147 N. C. 61, 60 S. E- 
 
 723— pp. 176, 3422. 
 r. Southern R. Co., 147 N. 
 
 C. 66, 60 S. E. 721— p. 176. 
 Shelbyville R. Co. v. Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 102, 105. 
 Shelden r. Robinson, pp. 588, 821, 
 
 823, 832. 
 Sheldon V. New York, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 379, 1102. 
 _11 r. The I'ncle Sam. p. 2563. 
 
 r. Wabash R. Co., p. 3539. 
 
 Shcllenberg v. Fremont, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 513. 
 Shellnut v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 208, 236, 482, 547. 
 Shelton, lirenan v. 
 
 Urennan v. 
 
 f Canadian Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp 1081, 1082, 1489, 2094, 2790. 
 —11 V Erie R. Co., pp. 38, 2447, 
 2450, 2459, 2462, 2463. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 r. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 7 O Dec. 161, 1 W. L. Bull. 190 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co„ 
 
 29 O. St. 214— pp. 1638, 2423, 
 2431. „ „ 
 
 r. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2205. ^. ^ ^ 
 
 V. Merchants Dispatch Trans- 
 portation Co., 59 N. Y 258 48 
 How. Prac, 257— pp. 286, 432, 
 776, 958, 992, 993. 
 
 V Merchants' Dispatch Trans- 
 portation Co., 36 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 527-pp. 292, 425. 
 
 Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1372, 1413. ^ ., 
 
 7. Southern Railway, PP- 
 
 2673, 2761, 2912, 2981. 
 
 Shenandoah \"alley R. Co. v- 
 Moose, p. 2935. 
 
 Shenk v. Philadelphia Steam Pro- 
 peller Co., pp. 545, 897, 899 
 
 Shepard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 3031. 
 
 V. De Barnales, p. 
 
 f. Heinken, p. 519. 
 
 V. New Haven, etc 
 
 p. 2655. „ ,, 
 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 3489, 3490, 3491, 3693. 
 
 Simpson v. 
 
 Shepard, etc.. Lumber Co., r. 
 
 Burroughs, pp. 1221, 1223. 1224, 
 1226, 1229. ^ „ 
 
 Sheperd, Great Northern R. Co. r. 
 
 Shepherd, Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gieat Northern R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Harrison, p. 352. 
 
 King V. 
 
 Lincoln Tract. Co. v. 
 
 V. Midland R. Co., p. 1786 
 
 V. Naylor, pp. 306, 337, 338, 
 
 339, 3882, 3884. 3885 
 Sheppard r. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 1714. ^ ^ 
 r New York City R. Co., 
 
 P- 2036. , , ,^„ 
 
 - - ,.. Newhall. 47 I-ed. 468— p. 
 1222 
 
 T Newhall, 54 Fed. 306, 4 
 
 C. C. A. 352— pp. 1226, 1244. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. •:'. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Railway Co. v. 
 
 V. State, p. 3519. 
 
 Sherard. Madan f. 
 Sherbert, Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 Sheridan, Baltimore, etc., K 
 
 1148. 
 R. Co., 
 
 Sheridan v. Penn Collieries Co., p. 
 
 3963. 
 Sheridine, Moore v. 
 Sheriffs V. Pugh, p. 3864 
 Sherley v. Billings, pp. 1739. 2048, 
 
 '049, 2064, 3070. 
 Sherlock V. Ailing, pp. 2078. 3445, 
 
 3482, 3504, 3505, 3551. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3133, 3149. ^ ^ 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 Sherman v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 pp. 1636, 1977. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 200, 1507, 1559, 1564, 1760, 
 1953. 2036. 2069, 2178, 2209, 
 2526. „ ^ 
 
 r Hudson River R. Co., pp. 
 
 511, 901, 902, 3275, 3281, 3406. 
 
 ■:•. Inman Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 847, 854. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 627. 
 
 r. Rugae, pp. 1219. 1220. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1740. 2583. 2603. 2694, 2842, 
 2861. 
 
 V. Wells, pp. 595. 596. 728. 
 
 733, 749, 767, 770, 848, 855. 
 
 Sherman, etc., R. Co., Conley v. 
 
 V. Conly, p. 151. 
 
 Goldstein v. 
 
 Sherrad, Woodruff v. 
 
 Shcrrard, Woodruff v. 
 
 Sherratt, Edwards v. 
 
 Sherrill, Missouri, etc., R. Co. •:■. 
 
 Sherrod, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sherwood v. Chicago, etc , R- Co., 
 
 82 Mich. 374, 46 N. W. 773, 44 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 337— pp. 
 1876, 1877, 2405. „ „ „„ 
 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 88 
 
 Mich. 108, 50 N. W. 101— p. 
 2750. 
 
 General Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
 
 King V. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Shidlovsky r. Mallory, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 665, 936. 
 Shicder, Gulf, etc., R. Co. i: 
 
 r Southern Railway, p. 64b. 
 
 Shields, Gulf, etc., R. Co r. 
 
 V. Ohio, pp. 34, 63, 3484. 
 
 V. State, pp. 35, 1857. 
 
 Shinkle, etc., Co. '■■ Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 3801. 
 Ship Howard, The. 
 
 f. Wissman, p. 3901. 
 
 Ship John Eraser, Brig James 
 
 Gray v. 
 Shipman, Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Shipper, Dccan r. 
 r. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp- 
 
 220, 1179, 1186. ^- r 11 
 
 Shippers' Compress Co., Nortolk. 
 
 etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Shipton, Pozzi r. 
 Shirk, Western Maryland K. Co. 
 
 Shore & Bro. v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3544. 
 Shores Lumber Co. v. Starke, pp. 
 
 459, 472. 
 Short, Callender, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1560, 2474, 2852, 2853. 
 
 V. Simpson, p. 365. 
 
 Shorlsleeves v. Capital Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 1648, 2442, 2493, 2708. 
 Shott, Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. t. 
 Shoulder, Wahl r. 
 Shouse, Beckham v. 
 Shrader, Kentucky, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Shreve, Chicago City R. Co. v. 
 Shreveport Belt R. Co., Leveret v. 
 Shreveport Tract. Co.. Buccola v- 
 
 May V. 
 
 Otts V. 
 
 Spurlock V. 
 
 Shreveport. etc., R. Co.. Armistead 
 
 Co. 
 
 - V Brooklyn, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 1495, 1698, 1951, 1961, 202o, 
 2118. 
 
 Frisby f. ,_ 
 
 I-. New Quay Co., p. 5/3. 
 
 Shive V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 ShiveU Texarkana, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Shivers, Nathan v. 
 
 Western Maryland K. Co. -. 
 
 Shockley v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3259, 3393, 3415. 
 Shoemaker, City Council r 
 r. Kingsbury, pp. 4, 1492, 
 
 1714, 1717, 1718, 1740. 
 Shohoney f. Quincy, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 3483. 
 Shomo. Richmond, etc.. K. Co. .. 
 Shoninger v. Day, p.^ 889. 
 Shoop, Union Exp. Co. ;■. 
 Shoot f. Cleveland, etc.. K. Co., 
 
 pp. 607, 608, 690. 
 Shoptaugh V. St. Louis etc . K. 
 
 Co., pp. 247. 258, 260, 262. 
 
 Rutherford v. 
 
 Shriver, Atchison, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 757. 821, 945, 1036, 1038. 
 3183, 3396. ^ _ 
 
 Shropshire. City Elect. R. Co v. 
 Shrum V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2174, 2611. 
 Shryock, Morris v. _, „ 
 
 Shuford, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v- 
 Shular V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2425. 
 Shuler f. Omaha, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2604. _ ^. 
 
 Shumaker v. Northern Pac. K. 
 
 Co., p. 1433. 
 Shumate v. Louisville, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 2173. 
 Shurr -.■. Houston, pp. 1545. 1546. 
 Shurtz. Michigan, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Shuter, Ogg v 
 Shutt V. Cumberland \ alley K. 
 
 Co., p. 2386. 
 Shwartz v. Fargo, p. 1068. 
 Sias V. Rochester R. Co., p. 2189. 
 Siceloff, Union Tract. Co. f. 
 Sickings, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Sickles f. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 
 Co., p. 1595. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1706. 2128. 2220. 2221. 2224. 
 2296. „ _ 
 
 Siddons, Illinois Cent. R. Co. t'. 
 Sidekum f. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2736. 
 Sidonian, The. 
 
 Siegel-Cooper Co.. Frahm v. 
 Siemonsma v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1303. 1361. 1370. 1468. 
 Siemsen r. Oakland, etc.. Elect. 
 
 Railway, p. 1850. 
 Sierra R. Co., Roberts v. 
 
 X'alente '■. 
 
 N'alenti^ v. 
 
 Sieveking, Smith t. 
 
 Sicvers f. Dallas, etc., Nav. Co., 
 
 pp. 3061, 3987. 
 Siffken r. Wray, p. 1217. 
 Sigl V. Green Bay Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2155. 
 Siglin, Coos Bay, etc., Nav. Co. f. 
 Sigma Lumber Co., Central, etc., 
 
 R. Co. ;•. 
 Sikh, The. , , ^. ry r 
 
 Silber v. New York City R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2877. _, _ 
 
 Silegman. Galveston, etc.. K. Co. t . 
 Siler r. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. p. 
 
 42. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 42. 
 Silliman, Dauchy f. 
 Silsbee, Barreda r. 
 Silva V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 1717, 2348. 2885. 
 
 Fernandez v.
 
 CCLXXX 
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 Silva. Montegudo -■. 
 
 Patron f. 
 
 Silver i: Kent, pp. 586, 594, 653, 
 666. 
 
 ;■. Tobin, p. 3586. 
 
 Silverman v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 789, 816, 817, 821, 851, 
 852. 
 
 z: Weir, p. 3654. 
 
 Silvia, The. 
 
 Simkins v. Norwich, etc., Steam- 
 boat Co., p. 3268. 
 Simmonds, The Ship Freedom v- 
 Simmons, Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R'. Co. v. 
 
 r. Law, 4 Abb. Dec. 241. 42 
 
 X. Y. 217— p. 3257. 
 
 I'. Law, 21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 
 (8 Bosw.) 213— pp. 726, 887. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Xew Bedford, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co.. 97 Mass. 361, 93 Am. 
 Dec. 99— pp. 1723, 1746, 1839, 
 3988, 3989, 3991, 3999, 4002, 
 4003. 
 
 V. New Bedford, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co., 100 Mass. 34 — pp. 
 2740, 4005. 
 
 f. Oregon R. Co., pp. 1548, 
 
 1561, 1584, 1585, 2743. 
 
 Salinger v. 
 
 f. Seaboard Air-Line Rail- 
 way, pp. 218, 2115, 2357, 3047. 
 
 The Huron v. 
 
 Simmons Hardware Co. v. St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 330, 969, 
 
 3335, 3338, 3348. 
 Simms, Chicago, etc., R. Co. t. 
 
 V. Pullman, etc., Car Co., pp. 
 
 2629, 3206. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co.. 26 
 
 S. C. 490, 2 S. E. 486— p. 2280. 
 
 ;■. South Carolina R. Co., 27 
 
 S. C. 268, 3 S. E. 301, 30 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 571 — pp. 1815, 
 1910, 1913. 
 
 Simms & Sons v. Xew Orleans, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 1372, 1375. 
 Simon, C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Railway Co. v. 
 
 V. Steamship Fung Shuev, p. 
 
 945. 
 
 Thompson-Houston Elect. Co. 
 
 Simonds, Goodman ?■. 
 
 Simone z: Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 2698, 2861. 
 Simonson, Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Simonton v. St. Louis Trans. Co., 
 p. 2393. 
 
 Winter v. 
 
 Simpson, Berkley St. R. Co. v. 
 — Byington f. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 21, 38. 
 
 r. Dufour, pp. 576, 727. 
 
 z: Hand, p. 728. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. London, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 653. 
 
 z: Xew York, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 3121, 3124. 
 
 V. Rome, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2826. 
 
 V. Shepard, p. 3693. 
 
 Sliort V. 
 
 Simpson-Crawford Co. f. Borough, 
 
 p. 3589. 
 
 Sims, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Jones z: 
 
 Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Xorfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — — • Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Sinclair, Citizens' R. Co. v. 
 
 Mcintosh v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Singer '<■. Morchai'ts" Despatcli 
 Transp. Co.. pp. 409, 549, 555. 
 
 Singletarv z\ Seaboard, etc., Rail- 
 way, pp. 2347. 2348, 2911, 2926. 
 
 Singleton v. Hilliard, pp. 729, 739, 
 982. 
 
 Southwestern Railroad z\ 
 
 f. Southwestern Railroad, p. 
 
 2087. 
 
 Siniard, Alabama, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Sinking Fund Cases, p. 36. 
 Sinnot V. Davenport, i)p. 3478. 
 
 3569. 
 Sinnott f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1628, 2443. 
 Sinsheimer z\ New York Cent., 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 553. 
 Sioux City Stock Yards Co., L^nitcd 
 
 States '■. 
 Sioux City St. R. Co., Dougla'; ?■. 
 Sioux City Tract. Co., Bloom ?■. 
 
 Cohen z\ 
 
 Jaques f. 
 
 Sioux City, etc., Co. f. First Nat. 
 Bank, pp. 312, 3879. 
 
 Jaques f. 
 
 Sioux City, etc., R. Co., McClary 
 
 V. 
 
 ■ Shriver v. 
 
 State V. • 
 
 Sioux Falls Tract. System, Wright 
 
 Sioux, etc., R. Co., Blair :•. 
 
 Curtis ''. 
 
 Keller z\ 
 
 Sira ''. Wabash R. Co., pp. 2032, 
 
 2454, 2786. 
 Sirk c'. Marion St. R. Co., p. 223u. 
 Sisson z\ Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 633, 638, 653, 655, 656, IjIo, 
 
 1382, 3404. 
 Sites, Cleveland, etc.. Railway ?'. 
 622,714 Feet of Lumber, McArthur 
 
 Bros. Co. z'. 
 
 Co., Drew z\ 
 
 R. 
 
 Sixth .\ve. 
 
 Hoyt 7'. 
 
 McCann i\ 
 
 Nichols z\ 
 
 — — Wolfkiel V. 
 
 Siyufy 7'. Pennsylvania Co. 
 
 Sizer, Bowen 7'. 
 
 Sizer & Co., Georgia, etc.. 
 
 p. 601. 
 R. C... 
 
 Skantze -■. Keyser, p. 3954. 
 Skean z'. Schuylkill Valley Tract. 
 
 Co., p. 2827. 
 Skeels, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Skelding, Hollingsworth 7'. 
 Skellie, Central R. etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 f. Central R., etc., Co.. p. 
 
 633. 
 
 Skiles V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2594. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Skilling V. Bollman, 73 Mo. 665. 
 
 39 Am. Rep. 537— pp. 351, 369, 
 
 380, 381, 387, 401. 
 -v. Bollman, 6 Mo. App. 7ii — 
 
 p. 365. 
 Skillman, Blue Grass Tract. Co. 7'. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Railroad Co. 7'. 
 
 Skinner z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 12 Iowa 191— pp. 518, 585. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 
 
 Tex. 707, 709, 7 S. W. 504— p. 
 518. 
 
 V. Hall, p. 3284. 
 
 • Kansas, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Southern R. Co. 7'. 
 
 v. Wilmington, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 1877, 1970. 
 
 Skipper f. Seaboard Air Line Rail- 
 way, p. 3537. 
 
 Skipwith, Walker ?•. 
 
 Skivington, George 7'. 
 
 Skottowe z'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2143. 
 
 Skow v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co.. 
 pp. 1779, 1798, 2910. 
 
 Skylark, The. 
 
 Slark 7'. Broom, p. 3864. 
 Slater 7'. Jewett, p. 1672. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 729, 733, 737, 749, 1036. 
 
 Slator, Austin, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 Slatter 7'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2784, 3020. 
 Slattery, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Slalton, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Slaugliter, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Denmead, p. 878. 
 
 Slavton, Ex parte. 
 
 Sleade z\ Payne, pp. 511, 527, 531, 
 
 900, 906. 
 Sledge z\ Reid, p. 675. 
 Sleeper, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 1560, 2439. 
 
 Sleepy Eye Milling Co. 7'. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., p. 494. 
 
 Sligo 7'. Philadelphia Rapid Tran- 
 sit Co., p. 1803. 
 
 Slimmer v. Merry, p. 768. 
 
 Sloahce, Pease 7'. 
 
 Sloan '•. Carolina Cent. R. Co., p. 
 396. 
 
 V. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 pp. 2809, 2898. 
 
 7'. Little Rock R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2695, 2843, 2899. 
 
 7'. North American Trar.sp., 
 
 etc., Co., pp. 3015, 3987. 
 
 Rome R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Sloan & Co. 7'. St. Louis, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 782. 
 Sloane 7'. Southern Cal. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1()38, 1715, 1718, 2432, 3027, 
 
 3078, 3082, 3086, 3098. 
 Sloat, Savannaii, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Slocum, Fairchild 7'. 
 
 7'. Fairchild, pp. 946, 1003, 
 
 1007. 
 
 Sloga, The. 
 
 Sloman v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3149, 3150, 3154, 3184. 
 Sloop, Wabash R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Wabash R. Co., 93 Mo. 
 
 App. 605, 67 S. W. 956— p. 1479. 
 
 7'. Wabash R. Co., 117 Mo. 
 
 App. 204, 84 S. W. Ill— pp. 
 969, 1479. 
 
 Slusser, Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Sly 7'. Union Depot R. Co., pp. 
 
 2120, 2159. 
 Slytiekl, Dennis v. 
 Small 7'. Moates, p. 1225. 
 Small & Co., Lewis, etc., Co. v. 
 Smalley v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2186, 2892, 2099. 
 Smaoska -'. Cliicago Citv R. Co., 
 
 p. 2858.^ 
 Smart, National Line Steamship 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Smedley 7'. Ilestonville. etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1715, 1811, 1817. 
 Smeltzcr 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3341, 3604. 
 Smiley v. Kansas, p. 3775. 
 Smissen, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smith 7'. Alabama, pp. 3445, 3466, 
 
 3473, 3478, 3480, 3481, 3482, 
 
 3483, 3502, 3503, 3504, 3505, 
 
 3551, 3570. 
 
 American ICxp. Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. American ICxp. Co., pp. 
 
 986, 1074, 3326. 
 
 7'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1491, 2100. 
 
 — v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2676. 
 
 Augusta R., etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Austro-.\mericaii Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 587. 
 
 Ay 1 ward 7'. 
 
 Baltimore Steam 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc 
 
 846, 870, 880. 
 
 7'. Barker, p. 1209. 
 
 Packet Co. 
 R. Co., pp.
 
 TAl'.LK i)l- CASES. 
 
 CCLXXXI 
 
 Smith :•. I'iriiiingham R., etc., Ci , 
 pp. 2145, 2150, 2158, 2752. 
 
 Birmingham Union R. Co. "■. 
 
 r. lioolh, 110 Fid. 680— p. 
 
 4055. 
 
 V. liooth, 122 Ft<l. 626, 58 
 
 C. C. A. 479— p. 3917. 
 
 Hoston Elev. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Hoston, etc., Railroad, pp. 
 
 3114, 3122, 3124, 3129, 3151, 
 3194. 
 
 V. liritain Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 3887, 3913. 
 
 f. liritish, etc.. Packet Co., 
 
 pp. 1696, 1838. 
 
 IJrunswick, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 lliitler r. 
 
 Central Railroad f. 
 
 Central R. Co. f. 
 
 Central R., etc., Co. 
 
 T. Central R., etc., Co., jip. 
 
 1755, 1874, 2964. 
 
 V. Chamberlain, pp. 1944, 
 
 1950. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ^hicago City R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago City R. Co., p. 
 
 2725. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 
 
 •111. App. 476— p. 2087. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., K'. Co., 55 
 
 Iowa 33, 7 N. W. 398— p. 2538. 
 
 -■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 
 
 Mo. 243, 18 S. W. 971, 52 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 483— pp. 1732. 
 1886, 1991, 2952. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 
 
 Mo. 246, 23 S. W. 784— p. 2886. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 
 
 Wis. 686— pp. 139, 1197. 
 
 V. C. IT. & 1). R. Co., pp. 
 
 3114, 3115, 3124. 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 Clayton ;•. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 609. 
 
 Commonwealth v. 
 
 Cook r. 
 
 f. Day, p. 3992. 
 
 TJfelaware Bank f. 
 
 V. Detroit United Railway, 
 
 pp. 2362, 2909. 
 
 ?'. Dinsmore, p. 1103. 
 
 Dorscy 
 
 etc., R. Co. 
 
 Kast Line, 
 Edwards z\ 
 V. Farr, p. 
 V. Findley, 
 Frazer v. 
 Gail, pp. 
 
 3549. 
 p. 1141. 
 
 .. __.., ,,,.. 1228. 1230. 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Georgetown, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Georgia Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1717, 1922, 1923, 2240, 2253. 
 
 Georgia R'. Co. v. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. r. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Goss, pp. 1218, 1219. 
 
 f. Great Northern U. Co., 92 
 
 Minn. 11, 99 N. \V. 47— pp. 
 1442, 1456. 
 
 -•. Great Northern R. Co., 15 
 
 X. Dak. 195, 107 X. VV. 56— 
 pp. 3749, 3753. 
 
 V. Griffith, p. 852. 
 
 Guilford V. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 H. & T. C. R. Co. t: 
 
 Haille v. 
 
 Harrison f. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Hughes, p. 1068. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Indianapolis St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2663. 
 
 International Mercantile Ma- 
 rine Co. T'. 
 
 International, etc.. R. Co. "'. 
 
 f. International, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1092. 
 
 Smith, Ives !■. 
 
 Jennings -.■. 
 
 r. Jefferson Bank, pp. 375, 
 
 382. 
 
 Jerome t: 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. ;•. 
 
 Kellogg 'c: 
 
 f. King's Mountain R. Co., 
 
 p. 877. 
 
 i\ Kingston City R. Co., p. 
 
 2232. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 T. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 22, 59, 60, 3500. 
 
 ■ V. Danda, pp. 342, 343, 407. 
 
 V. Lee, p. 540. 
 
 — — Leigh V. 
 
 Lewis "'. 
 
 7'. Lewis, pp. 493. 494, 682. 
 
 >•. Linden Oil Co., pp. 478, 
 
 480, 481, 547. 
 
 Logan V. 
 
 ■ Louisville, etc.. Packet Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 124 
 
 Ind. 394, 24 N. E. 753— pp. 1549, 
 1553, 1569, 2577, 2608. 
 
 ■ 7'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 95 
 
 Ky. 11, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 390, 23 
 S. W. 652, 22 L. R. •>. 72— pp. 
 2530, 2532, 2533, 2632. 
 
 Mclwen z'. 
 
 -'. Manhattan R. Co., pp. 201, 
 
 2422. 
 
 X'. Mashen, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 511. 
 
 Merchants' Despatch r. 
 
 Merchants' Despatch Co. f. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. Iv. Co., 
 
 69 X. Y. S. 176, 59 App. Div. 
 OO— p. 2895. 
 
 ■;•. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 86 X. Y. S. 1087, 92 App. Div. 
 213— p. 2809. 
 
 T'. Michigan Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1289, 1451. 
 
 Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. i\ 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 296, 304. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 -■. Xashua, etc., Railroad, pp. 
 
 529, 896, 901, 912. 
 
 • Xewcll V. 
 
 ■;•. Xew Haven, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 728, 733, 740, 1273, 1321, 
 1353. 
 
 -'. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 500. 
 
 f. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 43 Barb. 225— pp. 817, 
 828, 3183, 3304, 3396. 
 
 f. Xew York Cent. R'. Co., 
 
 24 N. Y. 222— pp. 1567, 2098, 
 2099. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 41 N. Y. 620— p. 3394. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 46 N. J. L. 7, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 399— p. 1816. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (X. Y.), 29 Barb. 132— p. 1578. 
 
 -■. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 149 Pa. 249, 24 Atl. 304— pp. 
 112, 192. 
 
 Nichols -'. 
 
 T'. Xorfolk, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2042. 
 
 z\ Xorth American Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 734, 3985, 3986. 
 
 ■:■. Xorth Carolina R. Co., 60 
 
 X. C. 202— p. 3191. 
 
 V. North Carolina R. Co., 64 
 
 N. C. 235— pp. 1008, 1039, 1042. 
 3162, 3163. 
 
 z: North Carolina R. Co., 68 
 
 N. C. 107— p. 833. 
 
 Z-. Xorth Carolina R. Co.. 147 
 
 X. C. 448. 61 S. E. 266, 17 L. 
 R. .\., X. S., 179— pp. 1790. 
 2SoO. 
 
 Smith :■. Xorth Germa \ Lloyd 
 Steamship Co., 142 Fed. 1032-- 
 pp. 4011, 4032. 
 
 -'. Xorth German Lloyd Steam- 
 ship Co., 151 Fed. 222, 80 C. C. 
 A. 574— p. 4033. 
 
 Nugent :•. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Olsen f. 
 
 Paige I. 
 
 Palmer Transfer Co. i 
 
 -•. Paul, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. i'. 
 
 f. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 87 Md. 48, 38 Atl. 1072— p. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., K 
 
 11 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 555 — p. 
 
 i: Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 2470, 3084. 
 
 Prescott. etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. Pullman Co., pp. 
 
 3230, 3241, 3242. 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. 
 
 Railroad Co. f. 
 
 Rapid Trans. R. Co. v. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co. 
 
 2168. 
 
 Rixford v. 
 
 Roberts f. 
 
 -■. St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 1820, 2337. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 647, 132 S. W. 
 
 2117. 
 
 Co.. 
 3072. 
 
 Co.. 
 16;9. 
 
 Co., 
 
 3205, 
 
 pp. 
 
 Ark, 
 
 841. 
 
 96 
 926— p. 
 
 Mo. 
 
 2079. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. 
 418, 55 Am. Rep. 
 
 Co., 85 
 380— p. 
 
 Co., 9 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R'. 
 
 Mo. App. 598— p. 2079. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 181 
 
 U. S. 248, 45 L. Ed. 847, 21 
 S. Ct. 603— p. 3539. 
 
 - z: St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 1515, 1517, 1746, 1749. 1750. 
 2002, 2696, 2697, 2698. 2845. 
 
 - V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2639. 
 
 Seaboard Air Line Railway 
 
 z: Seaboard, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1512, 1513, 2593. 
 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway :•. 
 
 v. Seward, pp. 11, 768, 796. 
 
 z: Sieveking (Eng.), 4 El. & 
 
 Bl. 945— p. 713. 
 
 -•. Sieveking (Eng.), 5 El. & 
 
 B. 589— p. 701. 
 
 — ■ South Covington, etc., St. R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 !■. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 412, 421, 570. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Southern Railway, SO S. 
 
 C. 1, 61 S. E. 205— p. 2251. 
 
 z: Southern Railway, 70 S. 
 
 E. 1057, 88 S. C. 421, 34 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 708— pp. 1606, 1607. 
 1609, 1632, 1634, 2463, 3090. 
 3091. 
 
 Z-. Southern Railway, 88 S. 
 
 C. 541, 71 S. E. 47— p. 1639. 
 
 -•. Southern Railway. 89 S. 
 
 C. 415, 71 S. E. 989, 36 L- R. 
 A., N. S., 230— pp. 165, 311. 
 14t>0, 1461, 3273, 3396, 3403. 
 
 Sprague v. 
 
 Springer Transp. Co. :•. 
 
 f. State, 26 '"enn. (7 
 
 Humph.) 43— p. 2062. 
 
 :■ State, 46 S. W. 566. 100 
 
 Tenn. ( U. Pickle) 494, 41 L- 
 R A. 432— pp. 21, 1945, 1946, 
 1947. 3511. 
 
 z: State (Tex. Cr. App.). 146 
 
 S. W. 900— p. 3508. 
 
 Stephen z: 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 t . Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 250 1, 2503, 2504.
 
 CCLXXXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Smith f. The Wall, p. 861. 
 
 -•. Turner, p. 3565. 
 
 t'. Union Trunk Line, pp. 
 
 1805, 2279. 
 
 Wegener -■. 
 
 Wegner f. 
 
 -•. Western Railway, pp. 732, 
 
 738, 746. 
 
 f. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 83 Ky. 104, 7 Kv. L. Rep. 22, 4 
 Am. St. Rep. 126— p. 1119. 
 
 Z-. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 72 S. C. 116, 51 S. E. 537— p. 
 643. 
 
 -•. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2832. 3049. 
 
 -■. Wrightsville, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 2130. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Young '•. 
 
 Smith Bros. & Co. f. New Orleans, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 3310. 
 Smith Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1210, 1211, 1214, 1229. 
 Smith Grain Co., Russel v. 
 Smith Meat Co. j'. Oregon R., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 1413. 
 Smith & Co. z: Southern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 162, 163. 
 Smith, etc., Co., Schindler r. 
 Smitha, Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1087, 1097, 1098, 1411, 1412, 
 1413. 
 
 Smithers v. Wilmington City R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1744, 1821, 1840, 1865, 
 
 2667. 
 Smithson, Michigan Cent. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Smitson v. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1895, 1921, 1926, 2360, 2907, 
 
 2910, 2987, 2995. 
 Smoak -•. Savannah, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2500, 2508, 2733. 
 Smokeless Fuel Co., Davis -•. 
 Smoat V. Kentucky, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1948. 
 Smurthwaite -•. Wilkins, p. 365. 
 Smyrl f. Xiolon, pp. 729, 733, 737, 
 
 749, 815, 822. 
 Smyser, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Smyth V. Ames, pp. 34, 36, 37, 44, 
 
 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 58, 60, 61, 
 
 115, 116, 129, 130, 3447, 3491, 
 
 3497. 
 Smythe, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smoker, Newman & Co. ;■. 
 Smoker Merchandise Co., Arkadel- 
 
 phia Mill. Co. f. 
 Smuck, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Snap, The. 
 
 Snare, etc., Co., McCherry v. 
 Snasball, Metropolitan R. Co. v. 
 Snashall v. Metropolitan R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2180, 2668. 
 Snead, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Snediker v. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2813. 
 Sneed, Backhouse v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Snell, Cincinnati St. R'. Co. v. 
 
 Ryberg v. 
 
 Wright f. 
 
 Snellbaker v. Paducah, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1600, 2467, 2663, 3096. 
 Snelling v. Yetter, p. 883. 
 Snider v. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 982, 984, 986, 1007, 3326, 3346. 
 
 Augusta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2812. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Snipes V. Norfolk, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1518, 1561, 1902. 
 Snow V. Carruth, pp. 292, 3935. 
 
 V. Chatfield, p. 2629. 
 
 Cowing V. 
 
 Snow v. Eastern R'. Co., p. 3191. 
 
 z: Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 1787, 
 
 2078. 
 
 V. Indiana, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 335, 812, 814, 3268. 
 
 Nourse V. 
 
 f. The Inca, p. 528. 
 
 Snowden z'. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2222. 
 
 f. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 2860. 
 
 Snyder v. Colorado Springs, etc., 
 K. Co., p. 2031. 
 
 f. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1569. 
 
 f. Michigan Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2821. 
 
 V. Natchez, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2506. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 i'. Supreme Ruler, p. 3830. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. L'nion Depot Co., p. 193. 
 
 Societe, The. 
 
 Soder, House v. 
 
 Sohmer & Co., Clapp Bros. & Co. 
 
 Solan, Chicago, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 • f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2098. 
 Sollitt, Hartford Deposit Co. v. 
 Soloman z\ Adams Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 796, 949, 1069. 
 Solomon r. Central Park, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2191, 2199, 2263. 
 
 v. Manhattan R. Co., p. 2155. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co., pp. 891, 892, 896, 901, 
 904. 
 
 Soly, Jesson "'. 
 
 Somer v. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1983. 
 Somerset Tract. Co., Withee "■. 
 Somerville Mercantile Agency, Gulf, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Sommer z'. Gate, p. 723. 
 Sommerland, St. Louis, etc., R'. 
 
 Co. v. 
 Sommerville v.. Merrill, p. 805. 
 Sondheim, Johanson v. 
 Sonia Cotton Oil Co. i'. Steamer 
 
 Red River, pp. 332, 333, 337. 
 
 340, 342, 349, 683, 1016, 1142, 
 
 1153, 1154. 
 Sonier f. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2878, 2879. 
 Sonneborn & Co. z\ Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 742, 3142, 3143, 3144. 
 Sootsma, Kalamazoo Hack, etc., 
 
 Co. z: 
 Soper, Central Vermont R. Co. f. 
 
 v. Pontiac, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1110, nil, 1114! 
 
 V. Tyler, p. 435. 
 
 Sorensen z'. Keyset, p. 3954. 
 Sorenson z'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1762, 1866. 
 Sorrell v. Central Railroad, p. 124. 
 Sottile Bros., Southern Exp. Co. 
 
 v. 
 Souders, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Soule V. Rodocanachi, p. 828. 
 Soumet f. National Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 321, 409, 990, 994, 995. 
 South, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 South Amboy, Susquehanna Coal 
 
 Co. V. 
 South Atlantic Steamship Line, 
 
 Mclntyre Bros. & Co. v. 
 South Bend z'. Turner, p. 2634. 
 South Boston R'. Co., Bradshaw 
 
 Wakefield v. 
 
 South Bound R. Co., Heath -'. 
 South Carolina Ins. Co., Spring 
 
 South Carolina R. Co., Avinger 
 
 Bamberg '■. 
 
 Bradford v. 
 
 z: Bradford, p. 841. 
 
 South V-arolina R. Co., Dill v. 
 
 Faust X'. 
 
 - Hall z: 
 
 Inman v. 
 
 Knox "'. 
 
 Mavbin z\ 
 
 Miller z: 
 
 Nettles V. 
 
 V. Nix, pp. 2411, 2415, 2472, 
 
 2473, 2480, 2482, 2493. 
 
 Quinn z\ 
 
 Redding v. 
 
 Renneker r. 
 
 Shaw V. 
 
 Simms v. 
 
 Slater v. 
 
 \'an Winkle & Co. z. 
 
 Wardlaw z'. 
 
 South Carolina, etc., R. Co., An- 
 derson ■;■. 
 Appleby v. 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 Iseman v. 
 
 Pickens v. 
 
 South Chicago City R. Co. v. Du- 
 fresne, 65 N. E. 1075, 200 111. 
 456— pp. 1702, 2151, 2890, 2966. 
 
 • z\ Dufresne, 102 111. App. 
 
 493— pp. 2295, 2332. 
 
 V. Moltrum, pp. 2577, 2586. 
 
 v. Zerler, pp. 2595, 2632. * 
 
 South Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Calumet Elect. R. Co., p. 113. 
 South Covington, etc., R. 
 Beatty, p. 1536. 
 
 f. Covington, p. 3525. 
 
 v. Hossfeld, p. 2321. 
 
 Miller '•. 
 
 • V. Quinn, pp. 
 
 3060. 
 
 V. Raymer, p. 
 
 z\ Riegler, pp. 
 
 Taylor f. 
 
 i'. Ware, pp. 
 
 White v. 
 
 Wise v. 
 
 South Covington, etc., St. K. Co. 
 V. Barr, pp. 1846, 1988. 
 
 Brice c'. 
 
 Co. 
 
 1644, 1762, 
 
 2967. 
 2950, 2972. 
 
 >127, 2260. 
 
 -'. Burns, p. 
 
 "'. Core, p. 
 
 V. Crutcher, 
 
 2219. 
 
 Dierig ?•. 
 
 7-. Geis, p. 
 
 2784. 
 1904. 
 pp. 2005, 2127, 
 
 2825. 
 
 f. Hardy, pp. 2194, 2300. 
 
 f. McCleave, pp. 1959, 2203. 
 
 z: Physioc, p. 2198. 
 
 z: Smith, pp. 2320, 2684, 
 
 2882, 2956. 
 
 South Dakota Cent. R. Co., Hess 
 
 South Devon R. Co., Beal v. 
 South I''astern R. Co., Barbour 
 
 South Florida R. Co. -•. Rhoads, 
 pp. 193, 194, 196, 2122, 2420, 
 2421, 2423, 2479, 2625, 3106. 
 
 South Orange, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 Wheeler -•. 
 
 South Pac. Railroad, Faulkner z\ 
 
 South Side Elevated R. Co., Lakin 
 
 V. 
 
 South Side Pass. R. Co. v. Trich. 
 p. 3001. 
 
 South Staffodshire R. Co., Scott- 
 horn z\ 
 
 South, etc., R. Co., Batton v. 
 
 V. Henlcin, 52 Ala. 606, 23 
 
 Am. Rep. 578— pp 210, 242, 726, 
 732, 740, 748, 828, 945, 1038, 
 
 1339, 1396, 1399, 1405. 
 Hcnlein, 56 Ala. 368— p. 
 
 1329, 
 1073.' 
 
 HLififman, pp. 1862, 
 
 2255, 
 
 823. 
 
 2067, 
 2126, 
 
 Schaufler, pp. 2114, 
 2257, 2364, 2648. 
 Thompson, p. 2636. 
 Wilson, pp. 663, 810, 820
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXXIII 
 
 South, etc., R. Co. z: Wood, 66 
 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749, 9 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419— pp. 
 530, 536, 537, 726, 732, 748, 819, 
 820, 899, 900, 960. 
 
 V. Wood, 71 Ala. 215, 46 Am. 
 
 Rep. 309, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 267— po. 818, 819. 
 
 V. Wood, 72 Ala. 451, 18 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 634— pp. 494, 
 599, 848. 
 
 Southard •<-. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 325, 958, 9(.9, 970, 996, 
 1032, 1033, 1041, 3312, 3363. 
 
 Southard Exp. Co. v. Moore, pp. 
 969, 970. 
 
 Southeastern R. Co., Munster v. 
 
 7'. Railway Comm'rs, p. 221. 
 
 Southerland v. Atlantic, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 1424, 1462, 1479. 
 
 1'. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1502, 2517, 2696. 
 
 Southern Bank, Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Southern Bldg., etc., Ass'n r. Law- 
 son, pp. 1721, 1751. 
 
 Southern California Motor Road 
 Co., Franklin '■. 
 
 Southern California R. Co., Proc- 
 tor f. 
 
 Sloane v. 
 
 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Mer- 
 chants', etc., Transp. Co., p. 
 3915. 
 Southern Elect. R. Co., Posch i\ 
 Southern Exp. Co., Alslop z'. 
 
 f. Armstead, pp. 493, 535, 
 
 802, 896, 982, 1007, 1010, 1066. 
 
 V. Ashford, pp. 767, 769, 
 
 1332, 1473, 1483. 
 
 V. Railey, pp. 765, 807, 826. 
 
 Bank r. 
 
 f. Bank, pp. 751, 1087, 1091. 
 
 V. Barnes, pp. 945, 962, 963, 
 
 981, 1005, 1043, 3347. 
 
 i: B. R. Elect. Co., p. 582. 
 
 V. Briggs, pp. 354, 653, 658, 
 
 665, 1061. 
 
 Bruhl -•. 
 
 Broadwood -•. 
 
 Caldwell V. 
 
 v. Caldwell, pp. 1083, 1084, 
 
 1087, 1090, 1091, 1100, 1101. 
 
 7'. Caperton, pp. 485, 489, 
 
 982, 1007, 1066, 1067, 1087, 1091. 
 
 Carroll v. 
 
 Cigar Co. v. 
 
 Cohen v. 
 
 V. Craft, pp. 296, 490. 
 
 f. Crook, pp. 582, 767, 769, 
 
 1006, 1007, 1060, 1097. 
 
 z'. Dickson, pp. 335, 542, 543, 
 
 545, 546, 551. 
 
 Dixie Cigar Co. v. 
 
 Eiswald V. 
 
 V. Ensley, p. 3576. 
 
 Everett -■. 
 
 f. Everett, pp. 531, 544, 545, 
 
 547, 550, 759. 
 
 z: Fant Fish Co., pp. 478, 
 
 513, 542, 546, 787, 789. 
 
 Fine & Bro. v. 
 
 Fitzsimmons v. 
 
 z: Fox, pp. 760, 809, 1051, 
 
 1273, 1329, 1331, 1466, 1467. 
 
 r. Gibbs, pp. 431, 1077. 
 
 Girardeau z\ 
 
 r. Glenn, pp. 733, 734, 750, 
 
 955, 956, 1087, 1090, 1106. 
 
 V. Goldberg, p. 3539. 
 
 T. Hanaw, pp. 430, 431, 568, 
 
 652, 653, 655, 660, 664, 680, 940. 
 948, 950, 954, 968, 1052, 1057, 
 1068, 1075. 
 
 Harper Furniture Co. -•. 
 
 z: Hess, pp. 767, 770, 3179. 
 
 3183, 3394, 3395, 3403. 
 
 z: Hill, 81 Ark. 1, 98 S. W. 
 
 371— p. 1062. 
 
 r. Hill, 84 Ark. 362, 368, 105 
 
 S. W. 877— p. 846. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z: Holla: d, pp. 
 535, 889. 
 
 v. Hood, p. 3578. 
 
 z: Hunnicutt, pp. 945, 1087, 
 
 1088, 1099. 
 
 :■. Jacobs, pp. 851. 1462, 
 
 1463, 3410. 
 
 V. Kaufman, pp. 753. 756, 
 
 894. 
 
 z: Keeler, pp. 762, 936, 1051, 
 
 1057, 1059. 
 
 Kember z\ 
 
 Kremer v. 
 
 Lambert-Murry Co. z\ 
 
 Lasky z: 
 
 Levy z\ 
 
 z: Long, p. 3815. 
 
 McTeer Z'. 
 
 :. McX'eigh, pp. 7, 267, 268, 
 
 269, 272, 273, 284, 286, 771, 796, 
 804, 883, 2563. 
 
 z: Marks, etc., Co., p. 3369. 
 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Meyer- Co., pp. 980, 3332. 
 
 V. Mobile, p. 3577. 
 
 V. Moon, pp. 210, 213, 728, 
 
 948, 977, 978, 979, 981, 1039. 
 
 Morris-Scarboro-Moffitt Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Mosher v. 
 
 Mosher & Co. z: 
 
 z: Newby, pp. 7, 269, 270, 
 
 285, 727, 732, 748, 767, 962, 
 968, 969, 1035, 1040, 1061, 3257, 
 3291. 3300. 
 
 O'Bannon -■. 
 
 Oskamp !■. 
 
 V. Oskamp, etc., Co., pp. 539, 
 
 543. 
 
 V. Owens, p. 862. 
 
 z: Palmer, pp. 482. 582, 586, 
 
 727, 962, 1019, 3300, 3377. 
 
 V. Pope, pp. 763, 802. 
 
 Porter z: 
 
 Purcell f. 
 
 z: Purcell, pp. 727, 871, 879, 
 
 948, 961, 962, 967, 981, 1003, 
 1050, 3257, 3291, 3300. 
 
 z: Ramey, pp. 1370, 1454, 
 
 1456. 
 
 -.'. Rose Co., pp. 187, 208, 
 
 236, 239. 
 
 J'. Ruth & Son, pp. 1102, 
 
 1105. 
 
 St. John V. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R'. Co., 10 
 
 Fed. 869— p. 7. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 
 
 Myers Fed. Dec, § 1511— p. 210. 
 
 Z-. Saks, pp. 3305, 3310, 3395, 
 
 3398. 
 
 z: Seide, pp. 821, 1039, 1075. 
 
 f. Shea, pp. 727, 962, 3257, 
 
 3291, 3295, 3300. 
 
 f. Sinclair, pp. 514, 551. 
 
 Smith -■. 
 
 z: Sottile Bros., pp. 578, 579. 
 
 V. State, pp. 7, 239. 
 
 z: Stevenson, pp. 1071, 1105, 
 
 1107. 1108, 1110, 1112. 
 
 Thompson z\ 
 
 V. Thornton, pp. 876, 3299. 
 
 United States Watch Case Co. 
 
 z: Urquhart, pp. 3367, 3393. 
 
 J'. \'an Meter, pp. 554, 3275. 
 
 ■ ' Virginia-Carolina Chemical 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 N'isanska -■. 
 
 z: Williams, p. 544. 
 
 z\ Womack, pp. 729, 750, 751, 
 
 752, 761, 777. 811, 822, 957, 962, 
 992, 1020. 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 z\ Wood, p. 761. 
 
 Southern Flour, etc., Co., Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 ^ 3543. 
 
 Southern Indiana Exp. Co., Amer- 
 ican E.xp. Co. z: 
 
 Southern Indiana Exp. Co. f. 
 
 United States Exp. Co., pp. 27, 
 
 3431, 3614. 
 Southern Indiana R. Co., First 
 
 Trust, etc.. Bank :■. 
 
 Z-. Railroad Comm., pp. 35, 
 
 44, 76. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Bur- 
 gess Co., pp. 950, 954, 1120, 
 1121, 1194, 1284, 1322, 13761, 
 3853. 
 
 V. Butler, p. 2707. 
 
 V. Caylor, p. 1778. 
 
 Cherokee Nation v. 
 
 V. Clark, pp. 3121, 3151. 
 
 z: Cox, 95 S. W. 1124, 43 
 
 Tex. Civ. .App. 79 — pp. 1293, 
 1335, 1343, 1344, 3650. 
 
 z. Cox, 47 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 84. 
 
 103 S. W. 1122— pp. 218, 443. 
 1296. 
 
 z: Crump, pp. 1322, 3405, 
 
 3416, 3417. 
 
 z: Curtis Bros.. pp. 1028, 
 
 1086, 1902, 1096, 1097, 1102. 
 
 v. Emmett, pp. 1706, 1929. 
 
 z: Hinsdale, pp. 198, 199, 
 
 2122, 2435, 2436, 2467, 3085, 
 3086. 
 
 Minter Bros. :■. 
 
 7. Morris, 100 Tex. 611, 612. 
 
 102 S. W. 396— pp. 485, 490, 
 1441. 
 
 z: Morris (Tex. Civ. .App.), 
 
 99 S. W. 433— pp. 450. 1314. 
 
 z: Pavey, pp. 1923, 2239, 
 
 2747. 
 
 z: Rice, pp. 2409, 2411, 2412, 
 
 3078, 3079, 3083, 3085. 3093, 
 3096. 
 
 z: Samples, pp. 248, 1319. 
 
 I'. Sanford, p. 2856. 
 
 V. State, p. 3511. 
 
 v. Wallace, pp. 2478, 2711, 
 
 2849. 
 
 7'. Walsh, pp. 1715, 1813. 
 
 2694. 
 
 I'. Yarbrough, p. 1331. 
 
 Southern Pacific, Schultz z\ 
 Southern Pac. Co., .-Xmes -■. 
 
 V. Anderson, pp. 451, 971, 
 
 978, 997, 1028. 1054, 1055, 1076. 
 1297, 1326, 1350, 1374, 1398. 
 
 .Arlington Heights Fruit Co. 
 
 — ^ 7'. Arnett, 50 C. C. A. 17. Ill 
 Fed. 849— pp. 458, 1353, 1444. 
 1461, 1462, 1465. 
 
 :•. Arnett, 126 Fed. 75, 61 
 
 C. C. A. 131— pp. 1305, 1345. 
 
 Bader 7-. 
 
 7'. Bailey, pp. 1606, 2769, 
 
 2776. 
 
 7-. Bartine, pp. 35, 39. 44. 45. 
 
 48, 50. 
 
 Beckman 7'. 
 
 7'. Bender, p. 2532. 
 
 Bertonneau 7'. 
 
 Blackwell 7'. 
 
 7. Board, 78 Fed. 236— pp. 
 
 26, 44, 47, 52. 
 
 7. Board, 87 Fed. 21— p. 51. 
 
 :■. Booth, p. 50o. 
 
 Braunton z: 
 
 Brigham z: 
 
 Brooks 7'. 
 
 Buswell 7'. 
 
 7'. Campbell, pp. 3536. 3537. 
 
 Carstens Packing Co. 7'. 
 
 -■. Cavin, p. 2(1/0. 
 
 Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. 7-. 
 
 7'. Colorado Fuel, etc., Co.. 
 
 pp. 3668, 3t)74, 3788, 3832. 
 
 7-. Crenshaw, pp. 3332, 3440, 
 
 3u54, 3840. 
 
 Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co. 
 
 Delmonte z: 
 
 Donlon Bros. :•. 
 
 Drummond 7'. 
 
 Edson 7'.
 
 CCLXXXIV 
 
 T.M'.LK OF CASES. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co., Elliott ;■. 
 
 Esler f. 
 
 Evans :. 
 
 Fitzgerald f. 
 
 Frank Simpson Fruit Co. f. 
 
 Gass -■. 
 
 Gorman v. 
 
 f. Hall. p. 2731. 
 
 f. Hamilton, p. 3024. 
 
 '■. Hogan, pp. 1744, 2604, 
 
 2693. 2696, 2945. 
 
 Hoskins f. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm , 
 
 177 Fed. 963— p. 3798. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm , 
 
 188 Fed. 241— pp. 536, 3728, 
 3793. 
 
 f. Interstate Commerce Comm , 
 
 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 
 26 S. Ct. 330— pp. 3258, 3267, 
 3600, 3601, 3604, 3605, 3634, 
 3667, 3724, 3725, 3-729, 3741, 
 3751, 3752, 3757, 3786, 3787, 
 3796. 
 
 V. Interstate Commerce Comm , 
 
 219 U. S. 433, 55 L. Ed. 283, 
 31 S. Ct. 288— pp. 3670, 3671, 
 3672, 3677, 3797, 3799, 3803, 
 3804, 3805. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Judice f. 
 
 ketcheson v. 
 
 Leonard v. 
 
 Lynn v. 
 
 McAllister v. 
 
 McCollum V. 
 
 McCurrie f. 
 
 McDermon v. 
 
 Marlow v. 
 
 Mathis V. 
 
 !■. Meadors & Co., pp. 3606, 
 
 3661, 3663. 
 
 Mering v. 
 
 Morgan v. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Nelson f. 
 
 Nichols '■. 
 
 Osterhoudt v. 
 
 Patterson v. 
 
 V. Patterson, pp. 1605, 2472. 
 
 V. Phillipson, pp. 640, 1078. 
 
 Pierce v. 
 
 V. Pool, p. 3792. 
 
 -. V. Railroad Comm., p. 3496. 
 
 !■. Redding, pp. 1152, 3678. 
 
 3730, 3753, 3755. 
 
 Richmond v. 
 
 Robinson t. 
 
 v. Robinson, p. 146. 
 
 Sambuck v. 
 
 San Bernardino v. 
 
 Saunders v. 
 
 V. Schoer, pp. 745, 746. 
 
 Schuyler v. 
 
 V. Schuyler, p. 3005. 
 
 Sessions v. 
 
 Sherman v. 
 
 ■ Smitson v. 
 
 State <■. 
 
 V. Tarin, pp. 1982, 2899. 
 
 Teale v. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 Tower Co. i'. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 z: United States, pp. 3679, 
 
 3793. 
 
 Walther r. 
 
 Wedckind v. 
 
 Wieland v. 
 
 Woods V. 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co., Bland v. 
 
 f. D'Arcais, p. 763, 828, 849, 
 
 1077, 1079. 
 
 f. Duncan, p. 864. 
 
 Fisher v. 
 
 f. Haas rrex.), 17 S. VV. 
 
 600— p. 1146. 
 
 r. Haas (Tex. Civ. App.), 21 
 
 S. W. 1021— p. 1146. 
 
 1130, 
 
 Southern Pac. R. Co., Ilouck '•. 
 
 Hunter f. 
 
 Irelson f. 
 
 I'. Johnson, pp. 628, 629, 
 
 1314. 
 
 r. Kennedy, p. 2484. 
 
 Kerrigan r. 
 
 ■ Knight & Co. f. 
 
 z: Lyon & Co., 99 Miss. 186, 
 
 54 So. 728, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 
 234. Ann. Cas. 19131), 800— p. 
 3332. 
 
 •;•. Lvon & Co. (Miss.), 54 
 
 So. 784— p. 3332. 
 
 -'. Maddox S: Co., pp. 724, 
 
 763. 863, 931, 954, 1051, 1054, 
 1055, 1069, 1072, 1073, 1076, 
 1077, 1078, 1079, 1137, 1322, 
 1398, 3368. 
 
 z\ Meadors & Co., p. 3302. 
 
 Mitchell r. 
 
 Nelson '■. 
 
 7'. Philipson, pp. 816, 
 
 1131. 
 
 Roberts i'. 
 
 Santa Clara v. 
 
 Saunders v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wilson 7'. 
 
 Southern Pac. Terminal Co. r. In- 
 terstate Commerce Comm., pp. 
 3608, 3638. 3639, 3655, 3740. 
 
 Southern Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 Blum V. 
 
 Southern Railroad, Fort '■. 
 
 Kibler V. 
 
 Myers T'. 
 
 Southern R. Ass'n, Crawford <■. 
 
 Summer v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. ■:•. Adams. 115 Ca. 
 705, 42 S. E. 35— pp. 1408, 1412. 
 
 V. Adams, 52 Ind. App. 322, 
 
 100 N. E. 773— pp. 2585, 2645, 
 2693, 2696. 
 
 V. Adams Mach. Co., pp. 528, 
 
 529, 839, 849, 872, 874, 880, 904, 
 906, 959. 
 
 Aiken v. 
 
 V. Aldredge, pp. 907, 910, 
 
 913, 917, 918, 919, 920. 
 
 Aldrich V. 
 
 Allen-Fleming Co. v. 
 
 f. Allison, pp. 587, 590, 591, 
 
 816. 
 
 Ammons '•. 
 
 Anniston t'. 
 
 • V. Anniston Foundry, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 135. 
 
 Asheboro, etc., Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 z: Asheville, p. 3559. 
 
 Askew & Co. 7'. 
 
 Atkinson t'. 
 
 V. Atlanta Nat. Bank, jjp. 549, 
 
 584. 
 
 '■. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 96, 115, 159, 160, 101, 173. 
 247. 
 
 z'. Atlanta Stove Works, ]>. 
 
 55. 
 
 .\uld z: 
 
 Austin-Stephenson Co. 
 
 I'. Bandy, pp. 2125, 
 
 2255, 2820. 
 
 Barbour ?■. 
 
 i: Barfield, p. 2118. 
 
 V. Barlow, pp. 1628, 
 
 2092, 2093, 2465, 3083. 
 
 Bell V. 
 
 Berry v. 
 
 z'. Bickley, etc., Co., pp. 286, 
 
 3134, 3137, 3301. 
 
 Bird z: 
 
 f. Bivings, pp. 269, 1346. 
 
 Blue Ridge Collection .Agen- 
 cy V. 
 
 Bluthenthal z: 
 
 Bohannon '■. 
 
 V. Born Steel Range Co., p. 
 
 529. 
 
 Bo wen v. 
 
 ■ Branan z\ 
 
 2137, 
 
 1629, 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. Brewer, 32 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 43, 105 S. W. 160— pp. 
 2696, 3069. 
 
 '■. Brewer, 32 Kv. L. Rep. 
 
 1374, 108 S. W. 936— pp. 2673. 
 2702, 3068. 3069. 
 
 z\ ]?rooks, pp. 1683, 
 
 1721, 1992. 
 
 Brooks Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 f. Brown, p. 3543. 
 
 z'. Bryant, pp. 2775, 3047. 
 
 3061. 
 
 — Bryce -'. 
 
 '■. Bunnell, pp. 2410, 2460, 
 
 2709, 2710, 2713. 
 
 z\ Burgess, pp. 1754. 1919, 
 
 1928, 2362, 2570, 2641, 2954. 
 
 Burlington Lumber Co. z\ 
 
 Z-. Burlington Lumber Co., 
 
 pp. 3492, 3494. 
 
 Cable -'. 
 
 Calder f. 
 
 Callaway z\ 
 
 Canandiagua Nat. Bank f. 
 
 Cardwell -'. 
 
 • Carter v. 
 
 Carter & Co. z'. 
 
 t'. Cassell, pp. 1629, 3103. 
 
 Chattanooga Board of 'I'rad.- 
 
 Chiles '■. 
 
 ?'. Christian, p. 2433. 
 
 Citizens', etc., Bank ■:•. 
 
 Clanton z-. 
 
 r. Clariday, pp. 2251, 2357. 
 
 V. Clay, pp. 2544, 2820. 
 
 Clegg z\ 
 
 z\ Cofer, pp. 640, 692, 695. 
 
 Coleman z\ 
 
 c\ Coleman, pp. 652, 661, 667, 
 
 670, 671, 673, 680. 
 
 Collins z'. 
 
 z\ Commonwealth, 33 Ky. L. 
 
 Rep. 430, 110 S. W. 372— pp. 
 177, 181. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, 98 \'a. 
 
 758, 37 S. E. 294— pp. 105, 118, 
 122, 127. 
 
 -'. Commonwealth, 107 \'a. 
 
 771, 60 S. E. 70, 17 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 364— p. 3487. 
 
 Cook V. 
 
 Corporation Comm. ?•. 
 
 Coursey z\ 
 
 -■. Coursey, pp. 2291, 2399. 
 
 Cousar Mercantile Co. z\ 
 
 Coyle z'. 
 
 Crawford z\ 
 
 z: Crone, pp. 2056, 2608, 
 
 2644, 2770. 
 
 -•. Crowder, 130 Ala. 256, 30 
 
 So. 592— p. 1754. 
 
 z: Crowder, 135 Ala. 417, 33 
 
 So. 335— pp. 2602, 2893. 
 
 V. Cullen, 221 HI. 392, 24 R. 
 
 R. R. 195, 47 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 195, 77 N. E. 470— 
 pp. 1503, 1567, 2947. 
 
 V. Cullen, 122 111. App. 293 
 
 —p. 1569. 
 
 V. Cunningham, 152 .\la. 147, 
 
 44 So. 658— pp. 1742, 2975. 
 
 z\ Cunningham, 123 Ga. 90, 
 
 50 S. E. 979— pp. 2118, 2119, 
 2160^, 2378, 2682. 
 
 ■ Curtis z\ 
 
 Dagnall z'. 
 
 v. Daughdrill, pp. 1607, 1669. 
 
 Davidson I)evelo])ment Co. v. 
 
 Davis ?'. 
 
 z: Davis, p. 3009. 
 
 v. Dawson, pp. 2697, 2703. 
 
 z\ Deakins, pp. 489, 494. 
 
 V. Dean, pp. 1866, 1881, 
 
 2777. 
 
 Deaver-Jeter Co. ?■. 
 
 z: Decker, pp. 1760, 2092. 
 
 V. DeSaussure, pp. 1()I8, 
 
 1638. 
 
 Doolittle z'. 
 
 Durden v.
 
 TAHLK OF CASKS. 
 
 CCLXXXV 
 
 Southirn Y<. Co. i: Dyson, pp. 
 2578, 2623. 
 
 KasliT I'. 
 
 r. Edmundson, i)p. 
 
 3188. 
 
 Hd wards v. 
 
 Efland r. 
 
 lvi<lson f. 
 
 Klliott r. 
 
 Fain v. 
 
 Faust r. 
 
 V. Flanigan, pp. 1612, 
 
 1626, 1()'>4, \(,(>0, 2453. 
 
 ,-. hlcming, pp. 1579, 
 
 2467. 
 
 ■:•. Forrist, pp. 1420, 
 
 1447, 1481, 1532. 
 
 Forrester & Co. I'. 
 
 Fortune i'. 
 
 Fowlers 
 
 3186, 
 
 1613, 
 1601, 
 1438, 
 
 & Co., pp. 330, 
 
 pp. 
 
 776, 3390. 
 
 P- 
 
 3359. 
 
 263, JS S. 
 379, .•.3 S. 
 
 2280, 
 1159, 
 
 Frank 
 3356. 
 
 Fritz V. 
 
 Fulmer i'. 
 
 Gardner v. 
 
 r. Gardner 
 
 Garland v. 
 
 Garrison v. 
 
 Gaskins v. 
 
 Gilliland v. 
 
 J-. Goldstein Bros. 
 
 Goodin %\ 
 
 V. Gore, p. 2403. _ 
 
 V. Greene, p. 3554. 
 
 t'. Greensboro, etc., Coal Co., 
 
 p. 3518. 
 
 i: Gresham, .p. 2062. 
 
 Griffin r. 
 
 V. Grizzle, p. 3525. 
 
 Hamrick Bros. & Co. i. 
 
 Harley v. 
 
 Hardaway v. 
 
 r. Hardin, 101 
 
 E. 847— p. 2771 
 
 V. Hardin, 107 
 
 E. 436— p. 2225. 
 
 Harp V. 
 
 Harrill Bros. v. 
 
 V. Harrington, pp. 1503, 1373 
 
 1577, 1938, 1939, 2162, ""°" 
 2536, 2754. 
 
 1'. Harrison, pp. 303, 
 
 3605, 3654, 3752, 3760. 
 
 Harzburg & Co. v. 
 
 r. Hatter & Sons, p. 848. 
 
 Hawes r. 
 
 r. Hawkins, pp. 2447, 2462. 
 
 2652, 2709, 3083, 3094, 3099. 
 
 Heyman r. 
 
 V. Heymann. p. 573. 
 
 Hickey Marble, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Higgins f. 
 
 Hinkle v. 
 
 Hipp '■• . „ 
 
 V Hobbs, 118 Ga. 227, 4.-) S. 
 
 E 23, 63 L. R. A- 68— pp. 1895, 
 1910, 1915, 2706, 3012, 3047. 
 
 ,: Hobbs, 49 S. E. 294, 121 
 
 Ga. 428— p. 2820. 
 
 Hockfield r. 
 
 Hodges T. 
 
 Holcombe v. 
 
 Holly V. 
 
 V. Horner, pp 
 
 1061. 1407. 
 
 Horton '•. 
 
 z: Horton. p. 2995. 
 
 r. Howard, pp. 1872, 2446. 
 
 f. Howell, p. 2641. 
 
 r. Hubbard Bros. Co., p. 
 
 3414. „ ^ 
 
 V. Hubbard Bros. & Co., p. 
 
 V. Humphries, pp. 3047, 3048, 
 
 r". Hundlcv. PP. 2282, 2356, 
 
 2603, 2t>\i:\ 2654. 
 
 Hunt T. 
 
 r. Hunt, pp. 3488. 3489. 
 
 ■:•. Hunter, p. 2531. 
 
 Hutchison v. 
 
 491, 
 
 1720, 
 1899, 
 
 802, 1048, 
 
 Southern R. Co., Interstate Com- 
 merce Comm. "■. 
 
 Jenkins -■. 
 
 Johnson i'. 
 
 r. Johnson, 39 So. 376, 144 
 
 Ala. 361, 113 Am. St. Rep. 48— 
 p. 2815. 
 
 V. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 
 
 S. E. 333— pp. 292, 296, 303, 
 484. 486, 490, 491, 868. 
 
 r. Johnson, 70 S. E. 69, 8 
 
 Ga. App. 654— p. 1611. 
 
 r Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 31 So. 
 
 501— pp. 1399, 2572. 
 
 V. Jones, 8 Ga. App. 225, 68 
 
 S. E. 1011— pp. 1596, 2466. 
 
 V. Jones. 33 Ind. App. 333, 
 
 71 N. E. 275— pp. 2605, 2611. 
 
 Jones Bros. ?•. 
 
 f. Jones Cotton Co., pp 
 
 780. 
 
 - r. Jordan, p. 2634. 
 
 - Kavanaugh & Co. f- 
 
 7'. Kendrick, pp. 1684, 
 
 1868, 1883, 1884, 1885, 
 1906, 1907, 3049, 3053. 
 
 Kennedy v. 
 
 - Kime v. 
 
 r. Kinchen, pp. 563, 570, 586. 
 
 King f. 
 
 f. King, 87 C. C. A. 284, 160 
 
 Fed. 332— p. 3525. . 
 
 r. King, 217 U. S. 524, 54 L. 
 
 Ed. 868, 30 S. Ct. 594— pp. 
 3503, 3524. 
 
 V. Lanning, pp. 3014. 3013, 
 
 3055. 
 
 Latta Martin Pump Co. '■. 
 
 r. Lee, 167 Ala. 268, 52 So. 
 
 648— pp. 2017, 2033, 2651. 
 
 V. Lee, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1360, 
 
 26 R. R. R. 285. 49 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., X. S.. 285. 10 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 837, 101 S. VV. 307— pp. 
 1566, 2780. 
 
 V. Levy, pp. 726, 732, 748, 
 
 752, 815, 996, 998, 3294, 3349, 
 339' 
 
 V. Lewis, pp. 648, 661, 692, 
 
 3950. 
 
 Lexington Grocery Co. v. 
 
 Lindsay v. 
 
 I'. Lockwood Mfg. Co., pp. 
 
 700, 707, 714, 715, 1152. 
 
 V. Lollar. p. 2652. 
 
 z: Lowe, 170 Ala. 598, 54 So. 
 
 51— pp. 71, 1195. 
 
 t:Lowe. 139 Ga. 362, 77 S. 
 
 E. 44— p. 161. 
 
 r. Lynn, pp. 2416, 2629, 2630, 
 
 2710. 
 
 Lytle f. 
 
 McConnell Bros, z: 
 
 Mace z'. 
 
 McElveen z'. 
 
 McGraw z'. 
 
 z: McKenzie, pp. 2443, 2564. 
 
 z: AlcXecley, p. 2582. 
 
 McNeil f. 
 
 V. McNeill, pp. 47. 71. 
 
 v. Maddox, pp. 490, 491. 
 
 Marable z\ 
 
 r. Marshall, pp. 1641, 1673, 
 
 Southern R. Co. :. Miller, 33 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 505, 30 R. R. R. 311, 53 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 311, 
 no S. W. 351— pp. 1674, 1853, 
 3016. 
 
 1674. 3041, 3044; 3060. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 z'. Mather-McDowell Lumber 
 
 Co., p. 218. 
 
 Matheson z\ 
 
 Mathis ;■. 
 
 f. Melton, 
 
 So. 1008— pp 
 
 z: Melton, 133 Ga 
 
 E. 665— pp. 22, 35. 
 3950. 
 
 Memphis News Pub. Co. ;•. 
 
 r. Merritt, pp. 2485, 2784. 
 
 v. Meyers, p. 2676. 
 
 z: Miko. p. 495. 
 
 Milam z\ 
 
 Miller z: 
 
 158 Ala. 404. 47 
 2574, 2650. 
 
 277. 65 S. 
 
 39, 3487, 
 
 z: Miller (Ky.), 120 S. W. 
 
 278— p. 2845. 
 
 Minnish f. 
 
 Mitchell z: 
 
 r. Mitchell, 139 Ala. 629, 37 
 
 So. 85— p. 3588. 
 
 V. Mitchell, 98 Tenn. (14 
 
 Pickle) 27, 40 S. W. 72— pp. 
 1884, 2361. 
 
 z: Montag, pp. 817, 821, 1038. 
 
 Moody f. 
 
 z: Moody, 151 Ala. 374, 44 
 
 So. 94— pp. 663, 664. 
 
 z: Moody, 169 Ala. 292, 53 
 
 So. 1016— p. 665. 
 
 z: Moore, pp. 218, 229, 258. 
 
 J. Moorcsville Cotton Mills, 
 
 pp. 795, 809. 
 
 v. Morgan. 171 Ala. 294, 54 
 
 So. 626— p. 2357. 
 
 z: Morgan (.Ma.), 59 So. 
 
 432— pp. 2379, 2380._ 
 
 f. Morrison, p. 582. 
 
 Morse "•. 
 
 f. Moses, pp. 2561. 3093. 
 
 ■ Mulligan z: 
 
 Murphy Hardware Co. f. 
 
 z\ Myers, p. 3052. 
 
 z: Nailon, p. 828. 
 
 -•. Nappier. pp. 1951. 2175. 
 
 2180, 2181, 2343, 2649, 2887, 
 2921. 3009. 3072. 
 
 National Bank z: 
 
 V. Nicholas. 135 Ga. 11, 68 S. 
 
 E. 789— pp. 2155, 2404. 
 
 z: Nichols, 74 S. E. 268, 137 
 
 Ga. 670— p. 2915. 
 
 Norman -•. 
 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm. 
 
 — — z: Nowlin, pp. 1608, 2068, 
 3059. 
 
 -c'. O'Brvan. 37 S. E. 161, 
 
 112 Ga. 127— pp. 2707, 2767. 
 
 z: O'Brvan. 115 Ga. 659, 42 
 
 S. E. 42— h. 1907. 
 
 z: O'Brvan, 119 Ga. 147, 45 
 
 S. E. 1000— pp. 3009, 3058. 
 
 z: Parham, pp. 2249. 2357. 
 
 2510. 2820. 
 
 Parlier '•. 
 
 f. Parramore, p. 1447. 
 
 z\ Patterson, p. 2513. 
 
 Phillips V. 
 
 Pickett z: 
 
 Post z: 
 
 ;. Proctor. 3 -Ma. .\pp. 413. 
 
 57 So. 513— pp. 479. 488, 1284. 
 
 Puckett ;. 
 
 Ouantz V. 
 
 Ragsdale z: 
 
 i: Railey Bros., p. 1303, 1307. 
 
 - z: Railroad Comm., pp. 3429, 
 3454. 3508, 3509. 
 
 - Raleigh Iron Works z: 
 
 Ray z: 
 
 Reeves f. 
 
 z\ Reeves, pp. 1747. 1768, 
 
 1797. 1910. 1912, 1913, 2904. 
 
 Reid f. 
 
 z: Roid, 222 U. S. 424. 56 L. 
 
 Ed. 257. 32 S. Ct. 140— pp. 
 3492. 3607, 3810. 
 
 z: Reid, 222 U. S. 444. 56 
 
 L. Ed. 263. 32 S. Ct. 145— p. 
 3492. 
 
 z: Rhodes, p. 17S7. 
 
 Rickert :•. 
 
 z: Roach (Ind. App.). 77 N. 
 
 E. 606— p. 2613. 
 
 z: Roach. 78 N. E. 201. 38 
 
 Ind. App. 211— pp. 2590, 2613, 
 2632. 
 
 Robertson z\ 
 
 I'. Roebuck, pp. 2236, 2954.
 
 CCLXXXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. Rosenheim & 
 Sons, pp. 1508. 3110, 3134, 3141, 
 3142, 3143, 3174. 
 
 V. St. Louis Hav, etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 1152, 1217. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. Grain Co. f. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., Grain Co., 
 
 pp. 3680, 3729. 3785, 3793, 3802. 
 
 f. Sams, p. 2404. 
 
 Sanders z'. 
 
 Sansom z: 
 
 Saunders f. 
 
 -•. Schlitter, pp. 1194, 1199. 
 
 Sharpe ;. 
 
 Shelbv Ice, etc., Co. v. 
 
 i: Skinner, pp. 1540, 2996. 
 
 z: Smith. 30 C. C. A. 58, 86 
 
 Fed. 292, 40 L. R. A. 746— pp. 
 1502, 1504, 1505. 
 
 z: Smith, 125 Ky. 656, 31 
 
 Kv. L. Rep. 243, 25 R. R. R. 
 652, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 652, 102 S. W. 232— pp. 287, 
 288, 741, 873, 884. 
 
 -•. Smith, 28 S. E. 173, 95 
 
 Va. 187— pp. 2163, 2187. 
 
 Smith & Co. z: 
 
 '•. Snyder, p. 3453. 
 
 Sonneborn & Co. zr. 
 
 Speaks z\ 
 
 Sprague z: 
 
 Stafsky v. 
 
 Stallings v. 
 
 Stanley v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Steele v. 
 
 Stembridge z'. 
 
 Story Lumber Co. '■. 
 
 z: Strickland, pp. 2220, 2237, 
 
 2309. 
 
 Stringfield z\ 
 
 z\ Strozier, pp. 391, 559. 
 
 • Summers f. 
 
 Suttle z: 
 
 Teague v. 
 
 — — Terry z\ 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 z: Thomas, pp. 1353, 3405. 
 
 f. Thurman, 121 Ky. 716, 28 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 699, 679, 90 S. W. 
 240, 2 L. K. A., N. S., 1108— 
 p. 2410. 
 
 z: Thurman, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 804, 76 S. VV. 499— p. 2574. 
 
 Tift z: 
 
 V. Tift, pp. 3810, 3818, 3824, 
 
 3825, 3831, 3832. 
 
 V. Tollerson, 129 Ga. 647, 
 
 59 S. E. 799— pp. 1412, 1425. 
 
 V. Tollerson, 135 Ga. 74, 68 
 
 S. E. 798— p. 1285. 
 
 Twitty v. 
 
 United States z'. 
 
 V. United States, 193 Fed. 
 
 664 — p. 3836. 
 
 V. United States, 204 Fed. 
 
 465— p. 3693. 
 
 V. United States, 222 U. S. 
 
 20, 56 L. Ed. 72, 32 S. Ct. 2— 
 pp. 3450, 3451, 3452, 3457, 3458. 
 
 v. Vandergriff, pp. 1989, 
 
 1992. 
 
 V. Vaughn, p. 3289. 
 
 Virginia, etc.. Training Ass'n 
 
 Walker v. 
 
 V. Walker, p. 3076. 
 
 Walker liros. v. 
 
 V. Wallace, pp. 1437, 3268, 
 
 3269. 
 
 Wall-Huske Co. v. 
 
 V. Wallis, pp. 1852, 2569, 
 
 2570, 2574, 3059. 
 
 V. Walton, p. 3089. 
 
 V. Waters & Co., pp. 3306, 
 
 3397. 
 
 Watson V. 
 
 V. Watson, pp. 190, 193, 196, 
 
 1612, 1622, 1623, 2092, 2093, 
 2408, 2420, 2446. 
 
 Waxelbaum v. 
 
 Way V. 
 
 139 Ga. 357, 7 
 722, 786, 807 
 
 339, 7 
 
 Southern R. Co., Weaver -•. 
 
 z: Webb. 143 Ala. 304, 39 
 
 So. 262, 111 Am. St. Rep. 45, 
 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 97 — 
 pp. 3027. 1357, 1405, 1421. 
 
 V. Webb. 148 Ala. 661, 41 So. 
 
 420— p. 1302. 
 
 z: Weob, 116 Ga. 152. 42 S. 
 
 E. 395, 59 L. R. A. 109— pp. 
 2082. 2804. 
 
 Weber v. 
 
 Weisinger z'. 
 
 Welborn '■. 
 
 V. West, pp. 1582, 1718, 1840. 
 
 1841. 
 
 z: White, pp. 3176, 3178, 
 
 3192, 3373, 3374. 
 
 Whitley z'. 
 
 ■ z\ Wideman, pp. 2412, 2532, 
 
 3032. 
 
 z'. Wilco.x, p. 423, 437, 458. 
 
 459, 460, 462, 463, 1138, 1139, 
 3758. 3760. 
 
 Willett z: 
 
 ■ Williams z\ 
 
 z\ Williams, 
 
 S. E. 153 — pp. 
 879. 
 
 -'. Williams, 139 Ga. 
 
 S. E. 168— p. 876. 
 
 Withrow V. 
 
 Wood z: 
 
 r. Wood, 114 Ga. 140, 39 S. 
 
 E. 894, 55 L. R. A. 536— pp. 
 1630, 2444, 2561, 3089, 3093. 
 3101. 
 
 V. Wood, 114 Ga. 159, 39 S. 
 
 E. 922, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. 
 N. S., 611— pp. 1941, 1942, 3144. 
 
 z\ Wooley, pp. 2706, 2846, 
 
 2848, 3056. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 1532, 1679, 
 
 1911, 1912. 
 
 Yorke Furniture Co. ?■. 
 
 • • Young V. 
 
 Southern Railway, Aaron z\ 
 
 Bell V. 
 
 Brackett v. 
 
 Brice v. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Calder v. 
 
 Carter v. 
 
 Chartrand "'. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, p. 97. 
 
 Cone z'. 
 
 Copeland v. 
 
 Corley v. 
 
 Des Fortes z'. 
 
 Ferguson '•. 
 
 Fleischman, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Ford V. 
 
 General Elect. Co. :■. 
 
 Goldstein v. 
 
 V. Graddy, pp. 1321, 1353, 
 
 1470. 
 
 Guess V. 
 
 Gyles V. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 Hasseltine v. 
 
 Hunter v. 
 
 Hutto V. 
 
 Jonesville Mfg. Co. v. 
 
 Kelly V. 
 
 Kibler v. 
 
 Knight V. 
 
 Kolb V. 
 
 — — - Ladshaw v. 
 
 Lancaster v. 
 
 Latour v. 
 
 Mcjimpsey v. 
 
 McMeekin v. 
 
 Macon v. 
 
 Martin z\ 
 
 Mayfield v. 
 
 Milhous V. 
 
 Milhouse v. 
 
 Mills z: 
 
 Moody V. 
 
 Mulligan v. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Neal z: 
 
 Norris v. 
 
 Southern Railway, Nutter z'. 
 
 Park V. 
 
 Rippy & Co. z\ 
 
 Rutland v. 
 
 Sanders v. 
 
 ■ Sevier i'. 
 
 Shelton -■. 
 
 Shieder z\ 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 
 Sutton V. 
 
 Tant V. 
 
 Talleson v. 
 
 Trapp z\ 
 
 Traywick z'. 
 
 Turner v. 
 
 Wehman v. 
 
 Whittle z: 
 
 Wilcox 7'. 
 
 ■ ■ Williford V. 
 
 Yarborough z\ 
 
 Southern Railway Co., Moody v. 
 
 Southern Seating, etc., Co., Ill- 
 inois Cent. R'. Co. t'. 
 
 Southern Seating, etc., R. Co., 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Supply Co., Florida, etc., 
 R. Co. '. 
 
 Southern Transp. Co. r. Harper, 
 p. 3989. 
 
 Southern Wisconsin Power Co., In 
 re. 
 
 Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis 
 Bros., pp. 1410, 1420. 
 
 Kelly V. 
 
 V. Walsh, _p. 1744. 
 
 Southern, etc., Tract. Co. v. Comp- 
 
 ton, p. 3088. 
 Southside, The. 
 Southwark, The. 
 Southwest Missouri R. Co., ICly 
 
 V. 
 
 Southwest, etc., Elect. R. Co., Tan- 
 
 ger V. 
 Southwest, etc., R. Co., Wilbur v. 
 Southwestern, Lessassier v. 
 Southwestern Railroad v. Bryant, 
 
 p. 3391. 
 
 Singleton v. 
 
 t'. Singleton, 66 Ga. 252 — 
 
 pp. 1494, 1543, 1546, 2126. 
 
 V. Singleton, 67 Ga. 306 — -pp. 
 
 2125, 2126, 2249, 2257, 2550, 
 2941. 
 
 V. Thornton, pp. 1365, 1367, 
 
 1377, 1378, 1384, 3300. 
 
 Southwestern R. Co. v. Bentley, 
 p. 3170. 
 
 Bryant v. 
 
 V. Felder, pp. 700, 893, 898, 
 
 900. 
 
 V. Hankerson, p. 2300. 
 
 Marshall v. 
 
 z: Paulk, pp. 2127, 2260. 
 
 V. Webb, pp. 210, 267, 271 
 
 274. 
 
 Southwick, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Southworth, Jacksonville, etc., R 
 
 Co. V. 
 Soviero v. Westcott E-xp. Co., p 
 
 3139. 
 Sowash V. Consolidated Tract. Co. 
 
 p. 1804. 
 Sowell, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v 
 
 Railway Co. v. 
 
 Soyo Maru, The. 
 
 Spade V. Hudson River R. Co., pp 
 285, 289, 290, 587. 
 
 V. Lynn, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 1690. 
 
 Spaeth V. Manhattan R. Co., p 
 
 2686. 
 Spahr, Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 Spaids V. New York Mail Steam 
 
 ship Co., pp. 749, 3143. 
 Spalding, Board v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1313, 1437. 
 
 Hart V. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Redeny, p. 1224.
 
 TAI5LIC OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXXVII 
 
 Spalding, etc., Co., LouIsviIIl-, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 Spanlger r. Saginaw Valley Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 1803. 2350. 2820. 
 Spanish-American Light, etc., Co., 
 
 Compania, etc., Navegacion '•■. 
 ^pann v. Krie Hoatman's Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 437, 473, 634. 
 
 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Spannagle i\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1501, 1504, 1505, 1665, 2154. 
 Sparger, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Sparks, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Ft. Scott, .etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 T. The Sonora, p. 1940. 
 
 Sparta Gas, etc., Co. v. Illinois So. 
 
 R. Co., p. 67. 
 Spartansburg, etc., R. Co., Spears 
 
 Spaulding, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2646. 
 
 Read v. 
 
 r. Ouincy, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1905. 
 
 Spavin V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2133. 
 Speaks V. Southern R. Co., p. 3240. 
 Spear, Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kitchen v. 
 
 t. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 119 Pa. 61, 12 Atl. 824— p. 2861. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 3 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 472— p. 2669. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 5 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 393— p. 2684. 
 
 Spearman v. California St. Co., 
 p. 2816. 
 
 V. California St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1901, 1991. 
 
 Spears, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 (jeorgia Railroad v. 
 
 :•. Lake Shore, etc., K. Co., 
 
 pp. 1, 209, 725. 
 
 V. Spartansburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 897, 899. 
 
 Speck V. International R. Co., pp. 
 1803, 1805. 
 
 V. Northern Pac. K. Co., p. 
 
 2271. 
 
 Speed, American Steel, etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Speer v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1902. 
 Spellman. American Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. Lincoln Rapid Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 1487, 1716, 1720, 1750, 1766, 
 2994. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2708, 3094. 
 
 Spence v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1555. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 492. 
 
 Spencer, Boyd ^■. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2675, 2734. 
 
 r. Daggett, p. 768. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., p. 2821. 
 
 V. Lovejoy, pp. 1615, 1616, 
 
 1622, 1976, 3319. 
 
 V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2203. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 Pond-Decker Lumber Co. v. 
 
 V. White, pp. 1148, 1149. 
 
 Wright -•. 
 
 Sperber & Co., Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Sperry v. Consolidated R. Co.. pp. 
 
 3145, 3146, 3147, 3188, 3193. 
 Speyer -•. The Mary Belle Roberts, 
 
 p. 3935. 
 Spicer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3074. 
 
 V. Lynn, etc., R. Co.. p. 2773. 
 
 Spicker, Dallas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Spiegel V. Pacific Mail Steamship 
 
 Co., p. 577. 
 
 Spiess V. Erie R. Co., pp. 2851, 
 
 3374. 
 Spikcr, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Spinks, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Spires, Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2016, 2022. 
 
 Spirk, Chicago, etc., R". Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2852. 
 
 Spivey V. Farmer, p. 1488. 
 Spofford, Bassett v. 
 
 J'. Boston, etc.. Railroad, p. 
 
 93. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 267, 268, 269, 270, 272. 
 
 Spohn V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 87 
 Mo. 74, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 252— pp 2020, 2785. 
 
 Z-. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 
 
 Mo. 417, 14 S. W. 880— pp. 
 2020, 2918, 2945. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 116 
 
 Mo. 617, 22 S. W. 690— p. 2020. 
 
 Spokane Falls, etc., R. Co., Lane 
 
 Potlatch Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Williams 7\ 
 
 Spokane Grain Co. v. Great North- 
 ern K-xp. Co., p. 1314. 
 Spokane St. R. Co., Payne v. 
 
 State z\ 
 
 Washington v. 
 
 Spokane Tract. Co., Grant v. 
 Spokane, etc., R. Co., Field v. 
 
 Taylor v. 
 
 Spooner v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 p. 2193. 
 
 V. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3115, 3116, 3124,, 3127, 3130, 
 3131. 
 
 V. Old Colony St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1994, 2165, 2318. 
 
 Spotford V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 p. 1179. 
 Spragins, Latham f. 
 Snrague, Chandler v. 
 
 r. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1408, 1412. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 896. 901, 3302. 
 
 Randall v. 
 
 V. Smith, pp. 1685, 1719, 
 
 2081, 2082. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 1754, 
 
 2670, 2671, 2890. 
 
 V. West, p. 712. 
 
 Spratt, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Sprayberry, Nashville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Spreckels & Bros. Co., Corsar v. 
 bpreckles' Sugar-Refin. Co., Perry 
 
 Sprigg V. Rutland R. Co., pp. 1294, 
 
 2098. 
 Spring V. Gray, p. 3864. 
 
 V. Haskell, pp. 595, 596, 855. 
 
 V. South Carolina Ins. Co., 
 
 pp. 1225, 1226. 
 
 Spring River Stone Co., St. Louis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Spring V'alley Water Works v. 
 
 Schottler, pp. 59, 60. 
 Springer v. Ford. 189 111. 430, 59 
 
 N. E. 953, 52 L. R. A. 930, 82 
 
 Am. St. Rep. 464— pp. 1488, 
 
 2104, 2685. 2864. 
 
 r. Ford, 88 111. App. 529— p. 
 
 1750. 
 
 Takobsen v. 
 
 \: Pullman Co., pp. 3142, 
 
 3143, 3216. 
 
 V. Schultz, pp. 1488. 2671. 
 
 v. Westcott, pp. 987, 1067. 
 
 Springer Transp. Co. v. Smith, 
 
 pp. 2038. 2046. 3071. 
 Springfield Consol. R. Co. z: HoefT- 
 
 ncr. pp. 2397. 2834. 
 Springfield St. R. Co., Gurley v. 
 
 Lacour z\ 
 
 Lemay z-. 
 
 McCauley f. 
 
 Springfield, St. R. Co., Moody z: 
 
 Neale v. 
 
 Payne z-. 
 
 Springfield Tract. Co., Brady v. 
 
 Brown v. 
 
 Cooke V. 
 
 Cramer v. 
 
 Jones -'. 
 
 Peck V. 
 
 ■ ■ Wolven V. 
 
 Sproat ;■. Donncll, p. 3865. 
 Sproles, Missouri, etc., R. Co. _ v. 
 Sproule V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1575, 1692, 1698. 
 Sprowl r. Kellar, pp. 732, 734. 
 
 735, 747. 
 Spry z: Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2561. 
 Spurgeon v. McElwain, p. 1861. 
 Spurlock f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1170. 
 
 z: Shreveport Tract. Co.. p. 
 
 2683. 
 
 Spuyten Duyvil, etc., R. Co., Det- 
 
 chett V. 
 Spuyten. etc.. Mill Co., Booth v. 
 Spyzchalski, Hammond, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Spyzehalski, Hammond, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Squire z: New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 323, 945, 958, 984. 994. 1074. 
 
 1368, 1369, 1370. 1371, 1397. 
 Staake v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. p. 
 
 514. 
 Staccy, Alabama, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Stack, American Exp. Co. v. 
 Stacker, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Stadhecker Z'. Combs & Co.. pp. 
 
 593, 768, 829, 840, 841, 864. 
 Stafford V. Watson, p. 712. 
 Stafsky z-. Southern R. Co., p. 567. 
 Stager z: Ridge .\ve. Pass. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2152, 2689. 
 Staincliffe, The. 
 Staines z\ Central R. Co., pp. 2364, 
 
 2366. 
 Stakes z: Saltonstall, p. 1722. 
 Stalcup z: Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1549, 1569. 
 Stallard v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 p. 3158. 
 Stallings, Birmingham, etc.. Co. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc.. Co. z\ 
 
 -■. Southern R. Co., p. 140. 
 
 Stanbridge v. Nassau Elect. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2699. 
 Stanbro, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Standard Forging Co. z: Saflfel, 
 
 p. 2602. 
 Standard Lumber Co., Chesapeake, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Standard Milling Co. v. White 
 
 Line Cent. Transit Co.. pp. 429. 
 
 812. 894, 910, 916, 1012, 1015, 
 
 1041. 
 Standard Oil Co., Donovan r. 
 
 James z\ 
 
 McLaren z\ 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Steamship Den ;■. 
 
 United States :■. 
 
 V. United States, pp. 302, 
 
 3762. 
 
 \'an Santcn z\ 
 
 Village Steamship Co. t'. 
 
 Standard, etc., Ins. Co., Suther- 
 land -■. 
 
 Standefer r. Aultman, etc., Ma- 
 chinery Co., p. 693. 
 
 Standish z: Narragansett Steamship 
 Co.. pp. 1637, 1638, 2062. 3979. 
 
 Stanfield, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 Stanfield Bros., Missouri, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Stanford. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stanley, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., pp. 2017, 
 
 2870. 
 
 Western Maryland R. Co. v.
 
 CCLXXXVIII 
 
 TADLE OF CASES. 
 
 Stanley Dollar, The. 
 
 Stannard z: Prince, pp. 32S9, 3369, 
 
 3370. 
 Stansberry, Ohio, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Stanton, Bates f. 
 
 I. Eager, pp. 355, 1227. 
 
 Stanton Tanning Co., ^ aughan 
 
 Macb. Co. '•. 
 Staples V. Rhode Island, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1820. 
 Stapleton 7. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 
 
 285. 288. 885, 888, 3301. 
 
 Stappers f. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1830, 2161, 2882. 
 Star Grain, etc., Co. r. Atchison, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 166. 
 Star of Hope, The. 
 Star Union Transp. Co., French 
 
 Star, etc., Mill. Co., Erie R. Co. 
 
 Starbird f. Barrons, p. 473. 
 Starbuck f. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 619, 3902, 3903. 
 Starin, Hill v. 
 
 Levidow '•. 
 
 New England Mfg. Co. f. 
 
 New York v. 
 
 Stark, Flint, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stark Grain Co., Missouri, etc., 
 
 R. Co. '.'. 
 Starke, Shores Lumber Co. f. 
 Starkev f. Cleveland, etc.. R'. Co.. 
 
 p. 3'544. 
 Starks Co. v. Grand Rapids, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 3675. 
 ■:•. Manistee, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3276. 
 Starnes v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1075. 
 Starr v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2023. 
 
 T-. Great Northern R. Co., p. 
 
 2102. 
 
 Starr & Co., Galgate Ship Co., p. 
 
 3865. 
 Startz, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 State, Adams Exp. Co. r. 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., 171 Ind. 
 
 138, 85 N. E. ii7. 19 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 93— pp. 3433, 3526, 3633, 
 3707. 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., 85 Xeb. 
 
 25, 122 X. W. 691— pp. 117, 
 119, 126. 
 
 V. American Book Co., p. 
 
 3557. 
 
 Ame.rican Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 '•. Atchison, etc., R. Co., pj). 
 
 245, 1153. 
 
 V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 
 
 52 Fla. 578, 40 So. 875— p. 95.^ 
 
 f. -Atlantic Coast Line R'. Co., 
 
 52 Fla. 646, 41 So. 705— p. 95. 
 
 Atlantic, etc, R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 48 
 
 Fla. 146, 27 So. 657— p. 116. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 51 
 
 Fla. 578, 646, 40 So. 875— p. 
 430. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 
 
 Fla. 601, 47 So. 387— p. 170. 
 
 • V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 
 
 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969, 32 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 639— pp. 20, 23, 152, 
 3524. 
 
 Austin -■. 
 
 Baltimore Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 • V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3565. 
 
 Barnaby v. 
 
 • Berger v. 
 
 Bogart V. 
 
 V. Bollam, pp. 1612, 3499. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 75 
 
 X. H. 327, 74 Atl. 542— pp. 114, 
 122, 131, 134. 
 
 ■ '•. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 76 
 
 N. H. 146, 80 Atl. 858— p. 26. 
 
 Mo. 
 
 3485, 
 
 Neb. 
 
 216, 
 
 Co., 68 
 400, 38 
 
 Co., 239 
 785 — pp. 
 
 State, Brady f. 
 
 Bray i\ 
 
 Brazzell z'. 
 
 Burke z\ 
 
 V. Campbell, pp. 1542. 2493. 
 
 V. Central X'ermont R. Co., 
 
 pp. 35, 44. 86, 93, 1175, 1179, 
 1180, 1182, 1183, 1185, 1188. 
 1189, 1191, 1199. 
 
 Chicago, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 86 
 
 Iowa 641, 53 N. W. 323— p. 
 123. 
 
 '•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 
 
 Iowa 594, 58 N. W. 1060— p. 42. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 
 
 Minn. 281, 37 N. W. 782— pp. 
 121, 125, 1191. 
 
 -'. Chicago, etc., R, 
 
 Minn. 381, 71 N. W 
 
 L. R. A. 672, 64 Am. St. Rep 
 
 482— p. 21. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R 
 196, 143 S. W 
 
 3488, 3512. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 
 
 593, 99 N. W. 309— pp. 
 248. 
 
 — -•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 
 Wis. 407, 117 N. W. 686, 19 
 L. R. A., N. S., 326— p. 3510. 
 
 — '•. Chicago, etc., K. Co., 152 
 Wis. 341, 140 N. W. 70— p. 
 3527. 
 
 — ■ Choctaw, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 — z: Chovin, pp. 190, 193, 194, 
 210, 1492, 1596, 1597, 2122, 
 2467. 
 
 — t'. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 117, 220, 235, 782, 1189, 
 1190. 
 
 — '•. Clark, p. 1612. 
 
 — v. Corson, p. 3586. 
 
 — t'. Corvallis, etc., R. 
 35, 36. 
 
 — Craven z\ 
 
 — ''. Creeden, pp. ITi 
 
 — Cumberland, etc., R. Co. z- 
 
 — V. Cumberland, etc., R. Co. 
 p. 3495. 
 
 — Darnell v. 
 
 — Daugherty v. 
 
 — V. Delaware, etc., R 
 N. J. L. 473— p. 3565. 
 
 — c'. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 48 
 N. T. L. 55, 57 Am. Rep. 543— 
 pp. '220, 1184. 
 
 — Detroit, etc., R. Co. ?'. 
 
 — Detroit, etc.. Railway z\ 
 
 — Dorsey v. 
 
 — Dugan V. 
 
 — Erie R'. Co. V. 
 
 — V. Farmer's Loan, etc. 
 p. 38. 
 
 — Fears v. 
 
 — z\ Findley, p. 18 
 
 — V. Fremont, etc.. 
 
 Co., pp. 
 
 895. 
 
 Co., 30 
 
 Co. 
 
 Neb. 
 120. 
 
 Neb. 
 
 1192. 
 
 313, 35 N. 
 
 51. 
 R. 
 W. 
 
 Co., 22 
 118— p. 
 
 Fremont, 
 117, 36 
 
 etc., 
 N. 
 
 R. 
 W. 
 
 Co.. 23 
 305— p. 
 
 V. Fry, p. 1612. 
 
 V. Fullerton, p. 3S63. 
 
 - v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 3560. 
 
 V. Gladson, p. 98. 
 
 V. Goold, pp. 199, 1597, 2425, 
 
 2467. 
 
 V. Goss, p. 238. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 179, 1526, 1964, 1965. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., p. 
 
 3484. 
 
 z>. Green, p. 2837. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 - V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., p. 937. 
 
 H. & T. C. R. Co. V. 
 
 Hall V. 
 
 Hart v. 
 
 V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 255, 1500, 1501. 
 
 State, Heard v. 
 
 Helena-Glendale Steam Ferry 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Horn Silver Min. Co. v. 
 
 Howard -■. 
 
 f. Hungcrfoid, pp. 1596, 
 
 1600, 2467. 
 
 '■. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 124, 1184, 3553, 3563. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Into.xicating Liquors, 83 
 
 Me. 158, 21 Atl. 840— p. 480. 
 
 -■. Intoxicating Liquors, 105 
 
 Me. 138, 76 .Xtl. 265, 29 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 745, 20 .\m. & Erg. 
 Ann. Cas. 668 — p. 525. 
 
 Jackson v. 
 
 z\ lacksonville Terminal Co., 
 
 pp. 105, 117, 3483, 3534. 
 
 ?'. Jacksonville, etc.. R. Co. p. 
 
 116. 
 
 Jannin ' . 
 
 Kane ;■. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 t'. Kimber, p. 1493. 
 
 V. Lake Roland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2122, 2123, 2356. 
 
 Landrigan v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Z-. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 177 
 
 Ind. 553, 96 N. E. 340— p. 3483. 
 
 f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 97 
 
 Miss. 35, 51 So. 918, 53 So. 454, 
 .Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1150— p. 3545. 
 
 McCord v. 
 
 z'. McCormack, p. 258. 
 
 Mack V. 
 
 McXealy 7'. 
 
 -■. Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 179, 182, 183. 
 
 T. Martyn, pp. 83, 184. 
 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 Midland Valley R. Co. v. 
 
 '•. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 40 Minn. 156, 41 X. W. 465— 
 p. 125. 
 
 -'. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60, 89 
 Am. St. Rep. 514— pp. 50, 52, 
 55, 75, 76, 120, 124, 126. 
 
 z'. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 (Mo.), 144 S. W. 863— p. 225. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 71 
 
 Mo. .\pp. 385, 7 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 66— pp. 3113, 
 3115, 3117, 3127. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 64 
 
 Neb. 679, 90 N. W. 877— pp. 
 181, 182. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -'. Mobile, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 120, 123. 
 
 z\ INIoody, p. 3540. 
 
 V. Mullin, p. 478. 
 
 '■. Neil, p. 3565. 
 
 New Haven, etc., Co. v. 
 
 z\ New Haven, etc., Co., i7 
 
 Conn. 153 — p. 255. 
 
 V. New Haven, etc., Co., 43 
 
 Conn. 351- p. 1857. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 3572, 3574. 
 
 z\ Northeastern Y\. Co., p 
 
 255. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 ■ V. Northern Pac. Exp. Co. 
 
 . p. 3577. 
 
 ?■. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp 
 
 124, 126. 
 
 V. Omaha Elevator Co., p 
 
 3528. 
 
 V. Omaha, etc.. Bridge Co 
 
 p. 3525. 
 
 Osborne z\ 
 
 '■. Otis, p. 1288. 
 
 V. Overton, pp. 193, 1529, 
 
 1973, 1974, 1975, 2425, 2427. 
 
 T'. Pabst Brewing Co., p. 
 
 3549. 
 
 V. Pacific Exp. Co., pp. 22, 
 
 131.
 
 TAl'.LE OF CASES. 
 
 CCLXXXIX 
 
 State 7'. Parshlcy, p. 890. 
 
 Pensacola, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 V. Pensacola, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 72, 114. 
 
 Peterson i'. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Pressley t. 
 
 !■. Railroad, p. 2715. 
 
 i: Ray, p. 1612. 
 
 V. Redmon, p. 3203. 
 
 V. Reed, p. 100. 
 
 r. Ross, p. 2483. 
 
 Rucker j'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 Samuelson ?•. 
 
 V. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 4'^ 
 
 Fla. 129, 37 So. 314— pp. 40, 54. 
 
 i: Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 48 
 
 Fla. 150. 37 So. 658— p. 126. 
 
 V. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 48 
 
 Fla. 152, 37 So. 658— pp. 40, 
 54. 
 
 t'. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 56 
 
 Fla. 670, 47 So. 986— p. 170. 
 
 7'. Seagraves, p. 3435. 
 
 Seale f. 
 
 Sheppard i'. 
 
 Shields f. 
 
 V. Sioux City, etc., R.- Co., 
 
 p. 255. 
 
 Smith r. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. r. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 I'. Southern Pac. Co., p. 126. 
 
 -•. Southern R. Co., 119 N. 
 
 C. 814, 25 S. E. 862, 5() Am. 
 St. Rep. 689-p. 3512. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., 122 N. 
 
 C. 1052, 30 S. E. 133, 41 L. 
 R. A. 246— p. 93. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 125 N. 
 
 C. 666, 34 S. E. 527— pp. 180, 
 181. 
 
 V. Spokane St. K. Co., 53 
 
 Pac. 719. 19 Wash. 518. 41 L. 
 R. A. 515, 67 Am. St. Rep. 739 
 —p. 1487. 
 
 -■. Spokane St. R. Co. 
 
 (Wash.), 11 Am. & I'.rg. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 62— p. 255. 
 
 Sternberg v. 
 
 Summitt v. 
 
 f. Sutton, p. 113. 
 
 V. Telegraph Co., p. 3577. 
 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3459, 3510. 
 
 V. Thompson, 20 N. II. 250— 
 
 p. 1637. 
 
 T. Thompson, 84 Pac. 476. 47 
 
 Ore. 492, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 
 480— pp. 1612, 3499. 
 
 Turnpike Co. '•. 
 
 r. Union Depot Co., pp. 100, 
 
 192, 193. 
 
 r. Union Pac. R. Co., 67 
 
 Neb. 141, 93 N. W. 222— pp. 
 181, 182. 
 
 f. Union Pac. R. Co., 87 Xeb. 
 
 29, 126 N. W. 859— pp. 83, 90, 
 95. 
 
 United Exp. Co. ?•. 
 
 i'. United R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2890. 
 
 United States Co. v. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. f. 
 
 f. United States Exp. Co., 81 
 
 Minn. 87, 83 N. W. 4(>5, 50 L. 
 R. A. 667, 83 Am St. Rep. 366— 
 p 29. 
 
 ■!'. United States -Exp. Co., 
 
 114 Minn. 346, 131 N. W. 489. 
 37 L. R. A., N. S., 1127— pp. 
 3526, 3572. 3576, 3578. 
 
 \'aughan v. 
 
 f. Wabash R. Co., p. 3510. 
 
 Wadlev Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Wa'rtield, p. 166. 
 
 I'. Wells, Fargo & Co., 80 
 
 Neb. 838. 115 X. W. 625— p. 22. 
 
 State f. Wells, Fargo & Co., 85 
 Xeb. 42, 122 N. W. 697— pp. 
 119, 126. 
 
 Wells Fargo Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Western Maryland R. Co. v. 
 
 — - — J'. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 I). 3550. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 7'. Western, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3494, 3496. 
 
 - '.: White Oak R. Co., pp. 187, 
 255. 
 
 • -'. Winona, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 138. 
 
 V. Woodruff, etc., Coach Co., 
 
 p. 3580. 
 
 ?•. Wrightsville. etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 25, 3250, 3257, 3291. 
 
 State r>oard, American ICxp. Co. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Horse Car R. 
 
 Pipe Co. V. 
 Chicago, etc., 
 
 Central R. Co. 
 
 Hudson, etc., R 
 
 Kirk V. 
 
 People v. 
 
 Phillipsburg 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 Tide Water 
 
 State Nat. Bank 
 
 R-. Co.. pp. 3334, 3354 
 
 State Freight Tax, Case of the. 
 
 State Railroad Tax Cases, pp. 3556, 
 3573. 3590. 3591, 3593. 
 
 State Steamship Co., Allan '•. 
 
 State Tax on Railway Gross Re- 
 ceipts, pp. 3549, 3552, 3553, 
 3558, 3561, 3567, 3568. 
 
 State Tonnage Tax Cases, pp. 3418, 
 3420, 3445, 3468, 3531, 3549, 
 3569, 3581. 
 
 Staten Island R. Co., Carrol r. 
 
 Carroll f. 
 
 Landers "•. 
 
 Staten Island Rapid Transit Co. r. 
 Marshall, pp. 705, 710. 
 
 Staten Island Rapid Transit R. Co. 
 V. Marshall, pp. 705. 710. 
 
 Staten Island, etc., R. Co.. Ameri- 
 can Grocery Co. '•. 
 
 Whitaker t. 
 
 Statham, New Orleans, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Staton, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Murphy, etc., Co. j-. 
 
 Murphv. etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Staub f. Kendrick. pp. 3122, 3127. 
 Stauffer 7-. Metropolitan St. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 1679, 1683, 2583, 2590, 2895, 
 
 2951, 2953. 
 Steam Nav. Co., Miller v. 
 Steamboat Albatross v. Wayne, p. 
 
 532. 
 Steamboat Baltimore 7'. Levi, p. 
 
 1143. 
 Steamboat Castle Garden, .\tkisson 
 
 V. 
 
 Steamboat Co. 7'. Atkins & Co., 
 
 pp. 487, 490. 
 Steamboat General Pike, Wayne 7'. 
 Steamboat Highland Mary, Ready 
 
 Steamboat John Owen 7'. Johnson, 
 pp. 511, "512. 542, 570. 
 
 Steamboat Jones Powell z: Thomp- 
 son, p. 3251. 
 
 Steamboat Lvnx -•. King, pp. 733. 
 748, 749, 788. 
 
 Steamboat New World -■. King, pp. 
 15(i4, 1711, 1714, 2670. 3067. 
 
 Steamboat Niargara, McFadden z: 
 
 Steamboat Quaker City. Hirsch z: 
 
 Steamboat Reliance, llunlap '•. 
 
 Steamboat St. Anthony, Chouteau 
 
 Steamboat Thames, Erskine ;•. 
 Steamboat W. G. Woodsides, Chi 
 
 cago, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Steamer Contra Costa. Agnew 7'. 
 Steamer Red River. Sonic Cotton 
 
 Oil Co. 7'. 
 Steamer Webb. The. 
 Steamship Co.. Calderon 7'. 
 
 Steamship Co. v. Joliffc, pp. 3418, 
 3420, 3445. 
 
 Lord V. 
 
 z'. Portwardens, pp. 3530. 
 
 3531, 3549. 
 
 Steamship Den 7'. Standard Oil 
 
 Co.. pp. 3941, 3943. 
 Steamship Fung Shuey Simon z\ 
 Steamship Kensington, Kelham f. 
 Steamship Rutherglen Co. z\ Houl- 
 
 der, p. 3962. 
 Steamship Wellcsley Co. v. Hooper 
 
 & Co., pp. 789, 3910, 3923, 3924, 
 
 3933, 4068. 
 Steamship Wildcroft, McCahan 
 
 Sugar Refin. Co. f. 
 Stearn v. Pullman Car Co., p. 
 
 3230. 
 Stearns z\ Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 p. 589. 
 Stearns, etc.. Lumber Co., United 
 
 States 7'. 
 Steckdaub -•■. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 I)p. 3335, 3343. 
 Stecar, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Steeg z: St. Paul City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1888, 1896. 
 Steel V. Lester, p. 3865. 
 Steele, Cincinnati, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ McTyer, pp 734, 737. 771, 
 
 3926. 
 
 V. Sellman, p. 361. 
 
 7'. Southern R. Co., pp. 1754, 
 
 1755, 2697, 2914. 
 
 7'. Townsend, pp. 333, 828, 
 
 834. 986, 1007, 1038. 
 
 Steelman, Mitchell <■. 
 
 Steenberger, Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. v. 
 Steenerson z: Great Northern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 41, 49, SO, 115, 116, 
 
 124. 
 Steers z-. Liverpool, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co., pp. 822, 987, 3163, 3164, 
 
 4032, 4034. 
 Steever 7-. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 140. 
 Steffen z\ Mississippi River, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 423, 469, 679. 
 Steidl 7'. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3268, 3405. 
 Steiger 7'. Erie R. Co., pp. 1300. 
 
 1362, 1370. 
 Steiger & Co., Munson Steamship 
 
 Line V. 
 Stein 7'. Manhattan R'. Co., p. 2791. 
 Steinberger, Western Union Tel. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Steiner, etc., Co., Mobile, etc.. R. 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Steininger, Savannah, ,etc., R. Co. 
 
 Steinle 7'. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2908. 
 Steinman 7'. Wilkins, p. 714. 
 Steinway R. Co., Butler 7'. 
 
 Grotsch 7'. 
 
 Wells 7-. 
 
 Steinway, etc., R. Co.. Lehr 7'. 
 Steinwender z: The Mexican 
 
 Prince, p. 3909. 
 Steiskal 7'. Marshall Field & Co.. 
 
 238 111. 92, 87 N. E. 117— pp. 
 
 1750, 2685. 
 
 7'. Marshall Field & Co.. 142 
 
 111. App. 154— p. 2578. 
 
 Stell, Houston, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Stelsly, McBurnie 7. 
 
 Stembridge 7-. Southern R. Co., p. 
 
 2886. 
 Stephan 7'. Daniels, p. 1195. 
 Stephen, Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 z: Smith, p. 2480. 
 
 Stephens 7'. Central, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 147. 
 
 7'. Oklahoma City R. Co., p. 
 
 1696. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7. 
 
 1 Car — s
 
 ccxc 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 pp. 
 
 P- 
 
 Stephens, etc., Transp. Co., Tuck- 
 erman f. 
 
 -■. Tuckerman, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 340, 433, 1038. 
 
 Stephenson, Gooch ;•. 
 
 Nelson '■. 
 
 i: United States E-xp. Co., p. 
 
 592. 
 
 Stepp. Chicago, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 Sterling, Fowler t'. 
 
 f. St. Louis, elc, R. Co., pp. 
 
 630. 689, 1304, 1313. 
 
 Sterling Amusement Co. z\ La 
 Compagnie Generale Transatlan- 
 tique, pp. 4032, 4033, 4034, 4035. 
 
 Sterling Salt Co., United States *. 
 
 Sterling, etc., R. Co., Randall f. 
 
 t . Wise, p. 2309. 
 
 Stern, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Pullman Co. v. 
 
 V. Westchester Elect. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2681, 2882. 
 
 Sternberg f. State, p. 1611. 
 Sternfels f. Metropolitan St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2082. 
 Sterrett f. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2677, 2927. 
 
 Roanoke R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 Stettaners, Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 Steuart, Texas Cent. R'. Co. v. 
 Steubing, Louisville R. Co. v. 
 Stevenot v. Eastern R. Co., p. 579. 
 Stevens v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2479. 
 
 V. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 2243, 2745, 2820. 
 
 f. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 515. 
 
 v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., pp. 
 
 1154, 1158. 
 
 Central Pass. R. Co. t. 
 
 f. Central R.. etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1517, 1747, 1748, 1767, 1917, 
 1918, 1936. 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 v. European, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2695. 
 
 Gibson z'. 
 
 Grand Trunk R. Co. z'. 
 
 Harris v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. K. Co. v. 
 
 V. Kansas City Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1869, 1890, 1907, 2639. 
 
 V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 322, 1016, 3251, 3331, 3340. 
 
 V. New Jersey, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1708, 2009. 
 
 "Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railway Co. v. 
 
 Rock Island, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Sayward i\ 
 
 V. Sayward (Mass.), 3 Gray 
 
 108— pp. 797, 798, 853. 
 
 V. Sayward (Mass.), 8 Gray 
 
 215— p. 854. 
 
 V. Wheeler, pp. 1212, 1222, 
 
 1229, 1231, 1232, 1234, 1236, 
 1239. 
 
 V. Wichita Valley R. Co., pp. 
 
 1625, 1679. 
 
 Stevenson v. Joline, p. 1892. 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.J, 26 S. W. 112 
 —pp. 3201, 3202, 3215, 3223, 
 3237. 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 335 
 —pp. 1028, 3202, 3215. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. '■. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wells Fargo & Co., 52 O. 
 
 St. 687, 44 N. E. 1148— p. 981. 
 
 V. Wells Fargo & Co. (S. 
 
 Ct.), 33 W. L. Bull. 247— p. 949. 
 
 V. West Seattle Land, etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2705. 
 
 Steverman v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 pp. 1697, 1744, 2129, 2368, 2639. 
 Steward, Harrison v. 
 
 Montgomery, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart v. Baltimore R. Co., pp. 
 1477, 1479. 
 
 f. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1639. 
 
 ■:■. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2222. 
 
 I-. Bremer, p. 438. 
 
 -'. Brooklvn, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2042, 2045, '2567. 
 
 z: Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 773. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 462, 969, 984, 997, 1016. 
 
 Comer Z'. 
 
 v. Comer, pp. 141, 436, 1134, 
 
 1194, 1203. 
 
 Danville, etc.. Road Co. r. 
 
 V. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., pp. 
 
 417, 418, 3248. 
 
 z: Everets, p. 2737. 
 
 First Nat. Bank v. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., K. Co. -■. 
 
 Goodman z\ 
 
 Gracv, pp. 267, 268, 269, 
 
 276, 280, 284, 778. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Harrison .'. 
 
 z\ Harvard College, pp. 2331, 
 
 2864. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1767. 1768. 1770, 1771, 1773, 
 1779, 1780, 1798, 1800, 2593. 
 
 Kehrer -■. 
 
 ''. Lehigh \'alley R. Co., pp. 
 
 1180, 1181. 
 
 Montgomery, etc., R. Co. ?'. 
 
 ?■. Potomac Ferry Co., p. 
 
 1170. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Samms z\ 
 
 z\ Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3284. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., K. Co. z'. 
 
 — Thompson z\ 
 
 Trinity Valley R. Co. -•. 
 
 Stewart & Co., H. & T. C. R. Co. 
 
 Stewart Taxi Service Co. v. Getz, 
 
 pp. 2647, 2810. 
 Stibbs, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Stickney, Interstate Commerce 
 
 Commission v. 
 
 z\ Interstate Commerce Com- 
 
 pp. 
 
 6/^/, 
 
 3728, 3741, 
 
 mission 
 
 3797. 
 
 Stierle v. Union R. Co., p. 1726. 
 Stiles z\ Atlanta, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1747, 1748, 2539, _ 2839, 2941. 
 
 V. Davis, p. 573, 575. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. i. 
 
 i'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 727, 749, 765, 1329. 
 
 Still, Eddy r. 
 
 Stillman, Abercrombie "'. 
 
 Stillwell, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 "'. The J. D. Hall, p. 3935. 
 
 Stimpson v. Gilchrist, p. 460. 
 Stimson -■. Connecticut River R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3117, 3121, 3124, 3151, 
 3182, 3192. 
 
 v. Jackson, pp. 531, 538, 562, 
 
 753, 756. 
 
 V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1824, 2161. 
 
 Tucker z'. 
 
 Stingle, Ft. Worth, etc., K. Co. z: 
 Stix, Hensler v. 
 
 Langstaff v. 
 
 Stock & Sons, Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Stockard, Memphis, etc., R. Co. ?■. 
 
 V. Morgan, pp. 3552, 3560, 
 
 3570. 
 
 Railroad ?■. 
 
 Stockdell, Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 Stocking, N'icksburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stocksdale, Western Maryland R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Stockton, Bishop v. 
 
 f. Bishop, p. 2634. 
 
 z: Frey, pp. 1687, 2693. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. r. 
 
 Saltonstall f. 
 
 Stockton Lumber Co. -'. Califor- 
 nia Nav., etc., Co.. pp. 752, 3914. 
 
 Stockton Mill. Co., California Nav., 
 etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 z\ California Nav., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 3903, 3911, 3914, 3915. 
 
 Stockwell, Boston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Stockyards Terminal Co., United 
 
 States t'. 
 Stockyards Terminal R. Co., United 
 
 States V. 
 Stoddard, Johnson v. 
 
 z\ Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 946. 
 
 Stoeser, Brass z\ 
 
 Stokes, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Saltonstall, pp. 1501, 1684, 
 
 1685, 1687, 1691, 1749, 2128, 
 2670. 
 
 Stotze Z'. Ann Arbor R. Co., pp. 
 3396, 3399, 3408. 
 
 Stone J'. Adams Exp. Co., pp. 611, 
 639, 641, 642, 644, 651, 670, 671, 
 851. 
 
 T'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 
 
 Iowa 82, 17 .'Xm. R. Rep. 461, 
 29 Am. Rep. 458— pp. 1529, 1973, 
 1977, 2425, 2429, 2434, 2439, 
 
 2635. 
 
 149 
 ■pp. 
 
 — -'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 Iowa 240. 128 N. W. 354- 
 1460, 1466. 
 
 — V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 66 
 Mich. 76, 33 N. W. 24, 30 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 600— p. 1884. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8 S. 
 1, 65 N. W. 29— pp. 1318, 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 88 
 98, 59 N. W. 457— p. 2413. 
 Clyde Steamship Co., pp. 
 3914. 
 ['. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 
 pp. 34, 37, 39, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 
 63, 64, 115, 116, 129, 1592. 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 63, 65. 
 
 Johnson z\ 
 
 z\ Lewiston, etc., St. Rail- 
 way, pp. 1820, 2754. 
 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 V. Natchez, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 115, 125. 
 
 z\ New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 63. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Rice, pp. 538, 539. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — — z: Swift, pp. 404, 549. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 305, 356. 
 
 z: Waitt, pp. 524, 540, 546. 
 
 V. Wisconsin, pp. 34, 36, 116. 
 
 Stone & Co. z'. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 98, 152. 
 Stonecipher, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Stonecypher, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Stoneman v. Erie R. Co., 52 N. Y. 
 429— p. 3149, 3150. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.), 1 
 
 Sheld. 286— p. 3132. 
 
 Stoner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 412, 998. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. Z'. 
 
 z'. Pennsylvania Co., p. 2146. 
 
 Stony Brook R. Corp., Gillshan- 
 
 non V. 
 Stony Fork Coal Co. v. Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3688, 3833. 
 Stoody V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1990, 2645, 2703. 
 Stoomvart Maatschaffy Nederland- 
 
 sche Lloyd z: Lind, p. 3958.
 
 TAP.LK OF CASES. 
 
 CCXCI 
 
 Storer, Tracy v. 
 
 Storey, Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Storment, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Storms, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v- 
 Storrs, Central, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., pP- 
 
 122, 124. 
 
 Story, Harris v. 
 
 Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 3051, 3052, 
 
 Southern R. 
 
 Stock 
 Min. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Yard, 
 Co., 
 
 R. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., 
 
 1497, 1499, 3012, 
 305€. 
 
 Story Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Co., pp. 640, 641. 642, 689, 694. 
 Stothard v. Louisiana R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 164. 
 Stout, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 V. Coffin, pp. 812, 814. 
 
 Stoutenburgh v. llennick. p. 3472. 
 Stovall, G., H. & S. A. R. Co. r. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Stovi'e, Burgess -•. 
 
 J'. New York, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 894, 899, 917, 918. 
 
 Strachan, Burton v. 
 btrader, Johnson r. 
 Straham, Chevallier v 
 Strahorn v. LTnion 
 
 etc., Co.. p. 482. 
 Straight Creek Coal 
 
 Straight Creek Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 Straight Creek Coal, etc., Co. r. 
 
 Straight Creek Coal Min. Co., 
 
 pp. 6, 225, 226, 1194. 
 Strain, Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 V. X'icksburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1511, 1785. 
 
 Straiton V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3177, 3181. 
 Stranahan, Buttfield :'. 
 Strand f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2233. 
 Strang, Berndston -•. 
 Strange v. .^tlantic, etc 
 
 pp. 642, 645, 677, 3191 
 
 Ptre Marquette R. 
 
 Stratford v. ^ .dland 
 
 Co., p. 2412. 
 Strathairly, The. 
 Strathdon, The. 
 Stratton, Chicago, 
 
 Ohio, etc., R 
 
 Straud, Chicago L^nion Tract. Co. 
 
 Straus V. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 75 
 Mo. 185, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 384— pp. 1884, 1899, 1900, 2248. 
 
 V. Kansas, etc.. R. Co., 86 
 
 Mo. 421, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 170— pp. 1899, 1900. 
 
 Straus & Bro. f. Wessel & Co., p. 
 
 479. 
 Strauss, Illinois Cent. R. Co. :■. 
 
 V. United R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 2319. 
 
 V. Wilson, p. 916. 
 
 Strawn v. Cogswell, p. 659. 
 Street, Ewart v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Street Railroad v. Boddy, pp. 1514, 
 
 1535. 
 Street R. Co., Britton r. 
 
 O'Rouke V. 
 
 Streeter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 140. 
 
 r. Sanitary Dist., p. 3802. ^ 
 
 Stribling, San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Strieker v. Leathers, p. 594. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Strickland, Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 StricKlin, Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Stringfellow, Memphis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Z'. 
 
 Stringfield f. Louisville R. Co., pp. 
 2418, 2420, 2490. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 948, 
 
 1076. 
 
 etc. 
 Co. 
 
 R. Co., 
 3199. 
 Co. 
 Valley 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 Strohn V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 21 
 Wis. 554, 94 Am. Dec. 564— pp. 
 322, 325, 412, 987, 1044, 3881. 
 
 t. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 
 
 Wis. 126, 99 Am. Dec. 114— pp. 
 631, 632, 634, 729, 734. 
 
 Strong f. Burlington Tract. Co., 
 pp. 2005, 2006, 2895. 2897. 
 
 Doty 7'. 
 
 Dutton V. 
 
 -■. Long Island R. Co.. pp. 
 
 822, 987. 
 
 -'. North Chicago St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2502. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Rapid Transit R. Co. v. 
 
 -. United States, p. 3875. 
 
 Strong, etc., Co., Tweedie Trading 
 
 Co. -■. 
 Strosnider, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Strother v. Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2059, 3073. 
 Strough V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 p. 236. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 248, 262, 617. 
 
 Strouss V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 277, 726, 731, 737, 746. 853, 
 
 3121, 3124, 3132, 3133, 3143, 
 
 3144, 3148, 3149, 3151. 
 Strozier, Southern Iv. Co. i\ 
 Struble V. Pennsylvania Co., pp. 
 
 2131, 2137, 2274, 2326. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Struebing Co. v. Merchants' Des- 
 patch Transp. Co., pp. 822, 823, 
 843. 
 
 Struges, Moran v. 
 
 StruU V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3050. 
 Strutt c'. Brooklyn, etc., R 
 
 p. 3995. 
 Stryker, Heyman v. 
 Stuart f. iMan & Co., pp. 
 
 1213, 1214, 1219, 1220, 
 
 1230. 1231, 1232, 1233, 
 
 1237. 
 
 Parsons-Willis Lumber Co. v. 
 
 Stuart's Draft Mill. Co., Norfolk, 
 
 etc., R. Co. !■. 
 Stubbs, Ilsley v. 
 
 r. Lund. pp. 1210, 1211. 
 
 1241, 1242. 
 
 Portland Bank v. 
 
 Stuber. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Stuckev V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2570. 
 Stumore v. Breen, p. 3879. 
 Stump z\ Hutchinson, p. 814. 
 Stupeck, Union Pac. R. Co. "'. 
 Sturdevant v. Tuttle, pp. 267, 294, 
 
 296. 
 Sturdivant v. Fort Worth, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1823, 1825, 1828, 2172. 
 Sturgeon, Hill v. 
 Sturges -■. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 848, 1318, 1320. 1352. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 420, 542. 559, 3602. 
 
 Sturgess V. Bissell, p. 848. 
 Sturgis f. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1775. 2271. 
 
 f. Fifth Ave. Coach Co.. pp. 
 
 2724, 2725. 
 
 Sturgis Nat. Bank, Gregory v. 
 Sturtevant, Bean i'. 
 
 f. Orser, p. 1242. 
 
 Stutler, Fairmount. etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Stutsky r. Brooklvn Heights R'. 
 
 Co., p. 2870. 
 Stutz f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1874. 3050. 
 Styles -•. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2485. 
 Styria, The. 
 Suber -'. Georgia, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2175, 2249, 2251, 2540. 
 Sublett, Taylor, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Suburban R. Co. Finseth %-. 
 Sue. The. 
 
 Co. 
 
 1212, 
 1229, 
 1235, 
 
 Sue, L'nion Pac. R. Co. :•. 
 Suesskind-Schatz Co. v. Loria, p. 
 
 592. 
 SuflFern, Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Suffolk, etc., R. Co., Kellogg v. 
 Sugg V. Memphis, etc., Packet Co., 
 
 p. 3192. 
 Susri;s. Texas, etc., R. Co. -j. 
 Suittcr, Liverpool, etc., Co. v. 
 Sulakowski v. Flint, p. 770. 
 Sullivan v. Boston Elevated R. 
 
 Co., p. 1495. 
 
 Boston, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 1648. 
 
 Brown V. 
 
 V. Capital Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2672, 2677. 
 
 !■. Charleston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2673. 
 
 f. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 
 pp. 2729, 2872, 4003. 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 v. Jefferson Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1690, 1744. 1750. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Marin, pp. 2331. 2901. 
 
 • V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2508. 
 
 North Coast Lighterage Co. 
 
 — ^ V. Old Colony R. Co., p. 
 2060. 
 
 V. Old Colony St. Railway, 
 
 p. 1494. 
 
 r. Oregon R., etc.. Co., pp. 
 
 2663. 3087. 
 
 r. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. i814. 1986, 2682. 
 
 -■. Seattle Elect. Co., 86 Pac. 
 
 786, 44 Wash. 53— pp. 2121, 
 2867. 
 
 V. Seattle Elect. Co., 97 Pac. 
 
 1109, 51 Wash. 71— p. 2756. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 3140, 3157, 3197. 
 
 r. Thompson, pp. 532, 535. 
 
 V. Union K. Co., p. 2833. 
 
 V. Union Tract. Co. f. 
 
 V. Vicksburg, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 2501. 
 
 Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. v. 
 Watson, p. 2092. 
 
 Sullivan Lumber Co., Baldwin v. 
 
 Sullivan & Co., Miller v. 
 
 Sullivan, etc.. Co.. Rome R. Co. v. 
 
 Sultan R.. etc., Co. v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co.. pp. 71, 95, 435, 465. 
 
 Sullana f. Chapman, pp. 511, 540. 
 
 Summcrfield v. St. Louis Trans. 
 Co., p. 2664. 
 
 Summeril i: Elder, p. 1210. 
 
 Summerlin v. Seaboard, etc., Rail- 
 way, pp. 1267. 1339, 1361. 1375. 
 
 Summerour, Western, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Summers r. Crescent City R. Co.. 
 pp. 1820. 2199. 2202. 
 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co^ v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. :•. 
 
 V. Mills, p. 1207. 
 
 r. Southern R. Co., pp. 25, 
 
 148. 
 
 Summitt v. State, pp. Ill, 191, 
 
 192, 194, 205. 
 Sumner v. Coswell, p. 3862. 
 
 v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 267, 284, 286, 289, 438. 4o4. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Southern R. Ass'n. 
 
 1147, 1158. 
 
 Sumrell f. Atlantic, etc 
 
 pp. 345. 874. 
 Sumter Pine, etc., Co. x 
 
 etc.. R. Co.. p. 162. 
 Sunbeam, The. 
 Sun Co. i: Healy, p. 4067. 
 Sun Mut. Ins. Co., Clastrier v. 
 
 -■. Ocean Ins. Co.. p. 3908. 
 
 Sunday Creek Co., United States 
 
 pp. 
 Co., 
 Atlantic, 
 
 R.
 
 CCXCII 
 
 TADLE or CASES. 
 
 Sunny Creek Co. v. United States, ' 
 
 pp. 3604, 3706, 3846. { 
 
 Sunderland f. Westcott, pp. 526, 
 
 946, 1007. 
 Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 728, 733, 743, 
 
 746, 749, 1203. 
 Superior Court, United Tanners 
 
 Timber Co. f. 
 
 Webster r. 
 
 Superior Rapid Trans. R. Co., 
 
 Robinson f. 
 Superior Refin. Co., Atchison, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Supervisors, Olcott '•. 
 Supreme Ruler, Snyder T. 
 Sure f. Milwaukee Elect, k., etc., 
 
 Co., p. 2028. 
 Suse i\ Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2895. 
 Susong f. Florida, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1348, 1365, 1367, 1384, 1386, 
 
 1451. 1454, 3377, 3397. 
 Susquehanna Coal Co. v. South 
 
 .\mboy, p. 3568. 
 Susquehanna, etc., R. Co., Schley v. 
 Sussex R. Co., Morris, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Sutherland, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Harbor Master t. 
 
 Metropolitan West Side Elev. 
 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Second Nat. Bank, pp. 482, 
 
 576. 
 
 I'. Standard, etc., Ins. Co., 
 
 p. 2173. 
 
 Sutherlin, Underwriters' Agency v. 
 Sutro i: Fargo, pp. 1037, 1041. 
 Sutro R. Co., Bosqui f. 
 Sutter St. R. Co., Harrison v. 
 buttle V. S-outhern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1756, 2120, 2219, 2335. 
 Sutton T. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3292. 
 
 Great Western R. Co. v. 
 
 Illinois Cent R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Kettell, pp. 337, 338. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 J824, 2674, 2686, 2885. 
 
 J'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3751. 
 
 z: Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1743, 2080, 2645, 2673, 2674, 
 3000. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Svedberg, City, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Sverfd, The. 
 
 Swafford, Indiana Union Tract. Co. 
 
 Swan, In re. 
 
 Joyce V. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., K. Co., pp. 
 
 700, 707, 711. 
 
 V. Manchester, etc.. Railway, 
 
 pp. 94, 2467, 2468, 2493. 
 
 z: Wiley, etc., Co., p. 3967. 
 
 Swancey, Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Swanger, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Swank V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 340. 
 Swann, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Swanson z: Duluth St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2833. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Swarthout f. New Jersey Steam- 
 boat Co., p. 1839. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Swedish- American Nat. Bank z-. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 309, 
 
 314. 
 Sweeden v. Atkinson Improvement 
 
 Co., pp. 1751, 2036, 2037. 
 Sweeney v. Frank Waterhouse & 
 
 Co., p. 488. 
 
 Jameson z: 
 
 v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2005, 2006, 2130, 2236, 2401, 
 2402, 2671, 2896. 2927, 2978. 
 
 • V. Union R. Co., p. 2328. 
 
 Sweeney f. Union Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1991. 
 Sweet z: Barney, pp. 522, 541, 542, 
 
 543, 544. 
 
 f. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 
 
 136 Ala. 166, 33 So. 886— pp. 
 2355, 2907. 
 
 z: Birmingham R., etc., Co., 
 
 39 So. 767, 145 Ala. 667— pp. 
 2115, 2250, 2258, 2988, 2990. 
 
 Le Blanc z'. 
 
 V. Louisville R. Co., p. 2911. 
 
 Medberv '■. 
 
 Z'. Pym, p. 1217. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Sweeten, Millville Gas Light Co. f. 
 Sweetland z: Lynn, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 201, 202, 204, 205. 2122, 
 
 2177, 2342, 2344. 
 Sweetzer, West Virginia Transp. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Sweitzer, Verner z: 
 Swetland z\ Boston, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 615, 728, 733, 741. 777, 
 
 3416. 
 Swift V. Brownell, p. 4047. 
 
 Hannibal R. Co. f. 
 
 Hannibal, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Jeffersonville K. Co. z'. 
 
 V Pacific Mail Steamship Co , 
 
 pp. 325, 454, 486, 802, 996, 3251, 
 3313. „ ^ 
 
 z: Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3494, 3665. 
 
 Stone v. 
 
 z: Tatner, pp. 3864, 386o. 
 
 Swift River Co. z: Fitchburg R. 
 
 Co., pp. 638, 642, 647, 651, 660, 
 681. 
 Swift & Co. z: Furness, etc., Co., 
 p. 3888. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3686. 
 
 Swigelsky v. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2843. 
 Swigert 7'. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1881, 1900, 2152. 
 Swindle. Douglas, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 Swindlehurst, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Swindler z: Hilliard. pp. 10, 946, 
 
 1036. 1039. 
 Swiney -•. American Exp. Co.. pp. 
 
 7-:>7 732. 748. 842, 1340, 1443, 
 
 1451, 1434. 1456, 1470, 1481. 
 Swinney, Collier z\ 
 Switzer, Grieff '■. 
 Switzler z: Northern Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1215. 
 Swoflford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 
 
 Rosencranz z'. 
 Sword z: Young, pp. 554, 731. 
 Sybil, The. 
 
 Sydenstricker, Nutter z\ _ 
 Sykes, Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Sylvester, Everleigh z\ 
 
 Tufts V. 
 
 Symns v. Schotten, pp. 1219, 1229, 
 1232, 1233. 
 
 Symonds z'. Minncanolis, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 2333. 2777. 
 
 Symons v. 10,466 Barrels of Ce- 
 ment, pp. 3885, 3945. 
 
 Syracuse Rapid Trans. Co., Mc- 
 Laughlin z: 
 
 Svracuse Rapid Trans. R. Co., 
 'Eddy z: 
 
 Syracuse, etc., R. Co., Dexter z: 
 
 Dobbins v. 
 
 Hill r. 
 
 Mynard v. 
 
 Northrop z'. 
 
 Reschke z\ 
 
 Syracuse, etc.. Railway. Dow z\ 
 Szczech r. Chicago City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2811. 
 Szczepanski 7\ Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1564, 1990. 
 
 Taber z: Delaware, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 4 Hun 765— pp. 2240, 
 2748. 
 
 Taber '■. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 71 
 N. Y. 489— pp. 1876, 1877, 1925, 
 2362. 
 
 Labar z'. 
 
 z\ Seaboard, etc., Railway, 81 
 
 S. C. 317, 62 S. E. 311— pp. 
 1669, 1677, 2662, 2783, 2799, 
 3050, 3226. 
 
 ■:•. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 66 
 
 S. E. 292, 84 S. C. 291, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1132— pp. 
 1669, 2662, 2846, 3226. 
 
 Tabor, Ohio, etc., K. Co. '■. 
 Taborn, Consolidated Tract. Co. 
 
 Tacoma R., etc., Co., Benson v. 
 
 Lawshe t'. 
 
 Leclaire v. 
 
 -■. Turner, p. 3009. 
 
 Tacoma Tract. Co., Bailey z'. 
 Tacoma, etc., R. Co., Peterson z\ 
 Taenzer & Co. z: Chicago, etc.. 
 
 R. Co., 95 C. C. A. 436, 170 
 Fed. 240— pp. 6, 447, 3247. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 191 
 
 Fed. 543— pp. 3753, 3754, 3757, 
 3759, 3830. 
 
 Taffe z'. Oregon R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 3327, 3328, 3329. 
 Taff Vale R. Co., Davis z: 
 Taft V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2184. 
 Taft Co. c'. .\merican Exp. Co., 
 
 pp. 724, 818, 843. 
 Taggard <'. Loring, p. 3864. 
 Taggart, Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 Taillon v. Mears. pp. 1707, 2287, 
 
 2289, 2667, 2860. 
 Talbert z: Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1599, 2322, 2876. 
 Talfjot, American Brewing .\ss'n 
 
 • In re. 
 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Savannah, etc., I\'. Co. "■. 
 
 Tuller z: 
 
 Talbot & Co., Little Rock, etc., 
 
 R. Co. v. 
 Tallbott z: Merchants' Despatch 
 
 Transp. Co., pp. 940, 941. 
 Talcott V. Pine Grove, pp. 255, 
 
 1501. 
 
 z: Wabash R. Co., 159 N. Y. 
 
 461, 54 N. E. 1— p. 3154. 
 
 z: Wabash R. Co., 50 N. Y. 
 
 St. Rep. 423, 66 Hun 456, 21 N. 
 Y. S. 318— pp. 3121, 3152, 3176, 
 3178. 
 
 Taliaferro, Gulf, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Talk, Austin 7'. 
 
 Tall z: I'.altimore Steam-Packet Co., 
 pp. 2032, 2033, 2724. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. z: Wes- 
 tern Railway, 117 Ala. 520, 23 
 So. 139, 67 .-Vm. St. Rep. 179— 
 pp. 332, 333, 1016. 
 
 7'. Western Railway, 128 Ala. 
 
 167, 29 So. 203— pp. 726, 773. 
 905. 
 
 Tallassee, etc., R. Co., Baxley z\ 
 Talley z\ Great Western R. Co., 
 pp. 3146, 3156. 
 
 Texas, etc., T\. Co. 7'. 
 
 Tallman '•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3170, 3172. 
 Talluah Falls R. Co. 7'. Harris, 
 pp. 1885, 2249, 2777. 
 
 -•. Ramey, _ p. 2090. 
 
 Talmadge. Maury z: 
 
 7'. Zanesville, etc.. Road Co., 
 
 pp. 1694. 1714. 
 
 Tampico, The. 
 
 '1 anger 7'. Southwest, etc.. Elect. 
 
 R. Co., p. 2414. 
 Tannehill z'. Birmingham R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2252, 2383, 2640. 
 Tanner z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1738. 
 
 z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 870. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 TAIiLK OF CASKS. 
 
 CCXCIII 
 
 Tanner z: Oil Creek R. Co., p. 903. 
 
 v. Scovell, PI.. 1231. 1232. 
 
 Tant f. Soiitlurn Railway, p. 1606. 
 Tapia, .Mabania, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tapp, Toledo, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Tarbell r. Central Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp 210, 1491, 1559, 1604, 2428, 
 2571, 3061. ^ ^ 
 
 z: Korthern Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1529. 2440. ^ . . 
 
 V. Royal F.xch. Shipping Co., 
 
 110 N. Y. 170, 17 N. K. 721, (. 
 Am. St. Rep. 350— pp. 904, 91 3. 
 
 V. Royal Kxch. Shipping Co., 
 
 53 N. V. Super. Ct. 190— p. 904. 
 
 Tarbox t' F.astern Steamboat Co., 
 pp. 281. 337, 815, 816, 817. 829. 
 
 Tardos r. Toulon, pp. 821, 823. 
 828. 
 
 Tar Heel Steamboat Co., Pate v. 
 
 Tarin. Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 
 Tarkington, Texas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Tarr f. Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 147, 2427. 
 
 Woostcr f. 
 
 Tarrant r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2425. 
 Tarter. Louisville, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Tartt, Ellsworth i\ 
 Tarvin t. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3144. 
 Tarwater, Missouri, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Tasby, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Tasscy, St. Louis Merchants' Bridge 
 
 Terminal R. Co. z\ 
 Tate. Birmingham R., etc.. Co. v. 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2870 
 1033 
 
 t'. Missouri Pac. K. t( 
 
 Wabash R. Co.. p. 2635. 
 , V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 267, 277. 284. 285, 303. 
 Tatner, Swift f. 
 Tauger r. New York City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2777. 
 Taugher v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 514. 577, 586, 600, 842. 
 Taxicab Co. v. Grant, pp. 1669, 
 
 2628, 2(>31. 
 Taxing Dist., Ficklen ■:■. 
 
 Lightburne z-. 
 
 Tayloe, Willard v. 
 
 Taylor f. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 
 pp. 1537, 2019, 2831. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc.. Co 
 
 Bradford f. 
 
 V. Brigham, p. 3916. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Conway z: 
 
 Co., 
 
 Day, p. 27. 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 J'. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co 
 
 2253. 2304. 
 
 z: Fall River Ironworks 
 
 3956, 3972. 
 
 z: Florida, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 30. 222. 223. 
 
 Goodsell V. 
 
 z: Grand Ave. R. Co., 137 
 
 Mo. 363, 39 S. \V. 88— p. 2083. 
 
 :■. Grand -Ave. R. Co., 185 
 
 Mo. 239. 84 S. W. 873— p. 2656. 
 
 i: Grand Trunk R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1716, 1720, 1725, 1735, 1736, 
 1812. 
 
 . Gulf, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 f. Maine Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 818, 32(>0. 3327. 
 
 r. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 76 
 
 Kan. 467. 92 Pac. 606— pp. 3484, 
 3486. 3511. 
 
 z: Missouri Pac. R. Co., 26 
 
 Mo. App. 33o— p. 2249. 
 
 z: Mounot, p. 3125. 
 
 T'. Nassau Elect. R'. 
 
 1649, 1678. 
 
 f. New York, etc., 
 
 p. 2731. 
 
 Co. 
 R. 
 
 pp. 
 Co.. 
 
 Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., pp. 
 1796, 2820. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 953, 977. 
 
 Pequeno z\ 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 i: Seaboard, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1634. 
 
 I'. South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2542. 
 
 V. Spokane, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2776. 
 
 f. Taylor, p. 420. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. The Robert Campbell, p. 
 
 440. 
 
 Tindall -■. 
 
 — — Trindall "'. 
 \'an Hern v. 
 
 -.■. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.), 38 
 
 S. W. 304, 42 L. R. A. 110— pp. 
 1938, 2340, 2886. 
 
 z: Wabash R Co., 130 Mo. 
 
 App. 582, 109 S. W. 1059— pp. 
 3212, 3228, 3229. 
 
 r. Weir, p. 1067. 
 
 Taylor & Co. f. Collier, pp. 595, 
 
 596, 848, 853. 
 
 z: Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 970. 3377. 3383. 
 
 Taylor, etc.. Co.. Little Rock. etc.. 
 R. Co. z: pp. 945, 3330. 
 
 Packard v. 
 
 laylor. etc., R. Co. z: Sublett. p. 
 
 1397. 
 T B. & H. R. Co. V. Montgomery. 
 
 pp. 849. 1079, 1270, 1397. 
 Teague z: Southern R. Co.. pp. 
 
 594, 599. 
 Teal V. walker, p. 947. 
 Teale v. Southern Pac. Co.. p. 
 
 2270. 
 Teaii. Bowman v. 
 
 i: Sears, p. 3370. 
 
 Teams. Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 Tcbbs z\ Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 436. 459. 477, 478. 
 Tecumsch Mills z\ Louisville, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 941, 944. 
 Teel v. Coal, etc., R. Co., pp. 20^3, 
 
 2054. 2868, 2959. 
 Teeling, Dillingham f. 
 Teeters, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co 
 
 Telegraph' Co. z: Griswold, pp. 9, 
 949. 
 
 t. Munford, pp. 9, 3330, 3340. 
 
 949. 
 
 otatc v. 
 
 v. Texas, pp. 3447, 3471, 
 
 3549, 3550, 3552, 3564, 3566, 
 3568, 3572. 
 
 Tempel z: Dodge, p. 1028 
 Tempfer v. Joplin, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2117, 2384. 
 Temple, x\tchison, etc., K. Co. v. 
 Templeton, \'an Horn z: 
 Terns, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tencdos, The. 
 
 Ten Eyck z\ Harris, p. 588. 
 Tenhet z\ .\tlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 869. 
 Tennant. Gulf, etc., R. Co. i: 
 Tenner, Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. 
 Tennessee, .\ustin z-. 
 
 z: Pullman Southern Car Co., 
 
 p. 3579. 
 
 lennessee Brewing Co., Louisville, 
 
 etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Tennessee Cent. R. Co. z: Brasher. 
 
 pp. 1854, 2820, 3045, 3050, 3054. 
 Tennessee, etc., R. Co., McCauley 
 
 Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co., Sea- 
 
 songood '■. 
 Tenney. Harris z\ 
 Ten Thousand & Eighty-Two Oak 
 
 Ties, pp. 3965, 3971. 
 10,466 Barrels of Cement, Symons 
 
 Ten Winkel, -Adams ICxp. Co. z: 
 Terhune, Bedford r. 
 Terminal R. .\ss'n Kinnavey J. 
 Terre Haute Elect. Co.. Hall z: 
 Terre Haute Tract., etc.. Co. i'. 
 
 Payne, pp. 1721, 1901. 1922, 
 
 2599. 
 Terre Haute, etc., Railroad, Lin 
 
 V. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. z\ Buck, 
 
 pp. 1715, 1922, 2243. 2831. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3283. 
 
 z: Crews, p. 782. 
 
 Everhart v. 
 
 z: Fitzgerald, pp. 1619, 2411, 
 
 2457. 
 
 Harvey v. 
 
 V. Jackson, pp. 2037, 2068. 
 
 V. Ketcham, p. 22. 
 
 Payne z\ 
 
 z; Peoria, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 IDS. 
 
 z: Sheeks. pp. 1813. 2126. 
 
 2604, 2644, 2673, 2808. 
 
 z: Sherwood, pp. 1036. 1361, 
 
 1362, 1380, 1386. 
 
 Stewart f. 
 
 V. Struble. p. 1301. 
 
 z: \anatta, pp. 2437, 3096. 
 
 Terrell f. Russell, p. 3416. 
 Terril z: Rogers, p. 1164. 
 Territory, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Terry z'. Brightman, p. 38''iS. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 V. Flushing, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1529, 1973. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Gulf. etc.. R. Co.. p. 1359. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 z: Jewett, pp. 1792, 1986. 
 
 2138. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., p. 959. 
 
 Texas Mid. R. Co. v. 
 
 Tewes v. North German Lloyd 
 
 Steamship Co., 186 N. Y. 151. 
 78 N. E. 864, 8 L. R- A.. N. 
 S., 199— pp. 4032, 4033. 4035. 
 
 Z-. Aorth German Lloyd Steam- 
 ship Co., 78 N. E. 1113, 186 N. 
 Y. 525— pp. 4033, 4035. 
 
 Texarkana St. R. Co. v. Hart, p. 
 1983. 
 
 Texarkana. etc.. R. Co. z: Ander- 
 son, p. 3046. 
 
 Kizer z: 
 
 Sabine Tram Co. v. 
 
 z: Sabine Tram Co., pp. 175, 
 
 3491. 
 
 z: Shivel, pp. 857. 3542. 
 
 Texas. Asher v. 
 
 Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Louisiana z: 
 
 Telegraph Co. z\ 
 
 The. 
 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. z: 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. f. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. t'. Burnett. 
 
 pp. 1721, 1729, 2669, 3008. 
 
 f. Cameron, pp. 1737. 2036. 
 
 V. Dorsev, pp. 353, 461, 500, 
 
 787, 803, 879. 
 
 f. Fisher, p. 971. 
 
 V. Flanarv (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 45 S. W. 214— p. 912. 
 
 z: Flanarv (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 
 50 S. W. 726— pp. 844, 908. 910. 
 912. 915. 
 
 — v. Fowler, pp. 405, 406. 
 
 — Z-. Hannay-Frerichs & Co.. pp. 
 152. 154. 171. 172. 173. 487. 653, 
 662. 
 
 — Huchingson f. 
 
 z: Hunter & Co., pp. 729, 
 
 734. 750. 765. 1269. 1330. 1339. 
 1340, 1349. 1353. 
 
 — f. Hutchingson, p. 2514. 
 
 — lohnson f. 
 
 — 'z: Marrs. pp. 3321, 3388. 
 
 — :■. Miller, pp. 632, 1319, 1321.
 
 CCXCIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. f. Morris, pp. 
 1104, 1408, 1413. 
 
 f. O'Laughlin, pp. 1275, 1347. 
 
 V. O'Loughlin, pp. 3357, 3358, 
 
 3368. 
 
 f. Pittman, p. 1293. 
 
 Renfro z\ 
 
 r. Stewart, pp. 1715, 2120, 
 
 2167. 
 
 f. Watson, pp. 851, 875. 
 
 r. Wheeler, pp. 2744, 2873. 
 
 Texas Exp. Co. v. Dupree, pp. 759, 
 
 760. 933, 935, 1009, 1010, 3331, 
 3337. 
 
 z: Scott, pp. 753, 759, 763, 
 
 933. 
 
 z: Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 65. 
 
 Texas Grate Co., Atlanta, etc., R. 
 
 Co. r. 
 Texas Mex. R. Co. v. Gallagher, 
 pp. 1002. 1003, 1297, 3337. 
 
 z: Willis, p. 3141. 
 
 z\ Wilson, p. 1755. 
 
 Texas Mid. Railroad z: Brown, pp. 
 
 1518, 1781, 1798, 1881, 2729. 
 
 f. Edwards & Co., pp. 281, 
 
 846, 1001. 
 
 f. Ellison, p. 1526. 
 
 z: Griggs, pp. 1510, 1513, 
 
 1721, 1778, 1779. 
 
 z: Little, pp. 1778, 1779. 
 
 Mercher z: 
 
 z: Ritchey, pp. 1886, 2268. 
 
 Texas Mid. K. Co. ■:•. Dean, pp. 
 
 2018. 2019, 2035, 2061. 
 
 Edwards & Co. z: 
 
 z: Frcy. pp. 1773, 1782, 2679. 
 
 i: Geraldon, pp. 2412, 2849. 
 
 v. Johnson, pp. 1823, 2792. 
 
 f. Jumper, pp. 1822, 1826, 
 
 2684. 
 
 Mercher v. 
 
 f. Terry, pp. 1763, 1906, 
 
 1907, 2707, 2832. 
 
 Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Davidson, 
 pp. 1881, 1882, 1883, 2289, 2291, 
 2968. 
 
 V. James, pp. 1858, 1869, 
 
 2425, 2457, 2472, 2483. 
 
 Texas Star Flour Mills, Gulf, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z: 
 Texas Steamship Co. z: Dupree 
 
 Comm. Co., p. 491. 
 Texas Tel., etc., Co. z\ Seiders, 
 
 p. 1117. 
 Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Ayres, p. 
 
 2721. 
 
 f. Johnson, p. 1985. 
 
 Morehouse v. 
 
 'z: Mullins, p. 1966. 
 
 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Langhehn, 
 
 pp. 1120, 1124. 
 Texas, etc., Co. v. Nicholson, p. 
 
 1291. 
 Texas, etc.. Railroad v. Fort, pp. 
 
 3179, 3181. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., Abilene Cotton 
 
 Oil Co. z: 
 
 f. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 
 
 pp. 716, 3470, 3601, 3631, 3664, 
 3674, 3684, 3708, 3709, 3735, 
 3737, 3741, 3747, 3750, 3752, 
 3757, 3760, 3764, 3766, 3769, 
 3770, 3785, 3806, 3809, 3810, 
 3822, 3824, 3840, 3841. 
 
 v. Adams, 78 Tex. 372, 14 S. 
 
 W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56— 
 pp. 1096, 1107, 3331, 3337, 3367, 
 3377, 3395, 3396. 
 
 V. Adams, 72 S. W. 81, 32 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 112— pp. 2163, 
 2170. 
 
 z: Alexander, pp. 1118, 1906, 
 
 1909. 
 
 Allen -.'. 
 
 z: Allen, pp. 171, 230, 261, 
 
 1276. 
 
 '•. American, etc., Timber Co., 
 
 p. 3814. 
 
 V. Andrews, p. 1441. 
 
 V. Armstrong, 51 S. W. 835, 
 
 93 Tex. 31— p. 3050. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z: Armstrong 
 (Tex. Civ. .Vpp.), 41 S. W. 833 
 — pp. 1609, 1664. 
 
 z: Arnett, 88 S. W. 448, 40 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 76 — pp. 445, 457, 
 462. 
 
 z: Arnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 101 S. W. 834— p. 1320. 
 
 f. Arnold, pp. 820, 851, 1355, 
 
 1390, 1470. 
 
 Arrington v. 
 
 xVrthur z: 
 
 V. Atchison, p. 1693. 
 
 Arthur z\ 
 
 V. Avey (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 
 
 S. W. 704— pp. 466, 851, 1355. 
 
 f. Avery, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 235, 46 S. W. 897— pp. 451, 
 4-2, 970. 971, 976, 1031, 1373, 
 1374, 2098, 2099. 
 
 V. Bagwell, p. 2314. 
 
 '■. Barber, pp. 862, 863, 1096, 
 
 1359, 1360, 1416. 
 
 V. Barron, 78 Tex. 421, 14 S. 
 
 W. 698— pp. 1680, 1808, 1809. 
 
 z\ Barron, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 546, 23 S. W. 557— p. 1808. 
 
 - V. Barrow, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 
 611, 77 S. W. 643— pp. 158, 448, 
 1273. 
 
 - z\ Barrow (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 94 S. W. 176— p. 171. 
 
 - z'. Beckworth, pp. 1704, 1886. 
 
 - V. Beezley, p. 2065. 
 
 - v. Bell, pp. 1858, 1860. 
 
 - Z-. Berchfield, p. 851. 
 
 - Berje v. 
 
 - i'. Berry, p. 3337. 
 
 - z'. Best, pp. 2499, 2503, 2507. 
 
 - z: Bigham, 90 Tex. 223, 38 
 S. W. 102— pp. 1332, 1336. 
 
 - V. Bigham (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 47 S. W. 814— pp 3336, 3413. 
 
 - •;•. Bigham (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 67 S. W. 522— p 686. 
 
 - z: Birchfield, p. 3357. 
 
 - -•. Black, 87 Tex. 160, 27 S. 
 W. 118— pp. 1544, 1547, 1549, 
 1551, 1552, 2665, 2702. 
 
 - V. Black, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 
 119, 57 S. W. 330— pp. 2550, 
 2551, 2783. 
 
 r. Bloom, 85 Tex. 279, 20 
 
 S. W. 133— p. 2090. 
 
 - v. Bloom, 164 U. S. 636, 41 
 L. Ed. 580, 17 S. Ct. 216— p. 
 2090. 
 
 - V. Boggs, pp. 1328, 3356. 
 
 V. Boleman, p. 2614. 
 
 f. Bond, pp. 2429, 2473. 
 
 z: Boren, p. 2037. 
 
 V. Born, pp. 1896,_ 1897, 1900. 
 
 V. Bowlin, p. 2075. 
 
 V. Boyd, pp. 2090, 2163, 2164, 
 
 2207. 
 
 Boyles v. 
 
 V. Bratcher, p. 2870. 
 
 Breen v. 
 
 V. Brown, pp. 1780, 1784, 
 
 1798, 2963. 
 
 z: Bryant, p. 1886. 
 
 V. Buckalew, pp. 1729, 1730, 
 
 1826, 1846. 
 
 z\ Buckelew, pp. 1685, 1728, 
 
 1729, 2666, 2667. 
 
 V. Buckworth, p. 1693. 
 
 V. Bump, pp. 1752, 2777. 
 
 V. Byers Bros. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 73 S. W. 427— pp. 1285, 
 1377, 3337, 3338. 
 
 V. Byers Bros. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 84 S. W. 1087— pp. 1002, 
 1289. 
 
 V. Callendar, pp. 3359, 3361. 
 
 V. Callender, pp. 1014, 3262, 
 
 3264, 3266, 3936. 
 
 -•. Capper, pp. 816, 817, 826, 
 
 3385. 
 
 V. Capps, pp. 897, 3114, 3115, 
 
 3121, 3124, 3125, 3149, 3169. 
 
 z: Carlton, pp. 241, 1712. 
 
 Caruth V. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z: Casey, pp 
 2425, 2480, 2529, 2624, 3105. 
 
 Cassadv z\ 
 
 v. Cass'idy, p. 1540. 
 
 • Cau V. 
 
 Cavallaro v. 
 
 Charnock z\ 
 
 V. Cisco Oil Mill, pp 
 
 3746, 3747, 
 
 3735, 
 3757, 
 
 3741, 3745, 
 3824, 3853. 
 
 V. Clark, p. 3753 
 
 -•. Clayton, pp. 886, 
 
 3288, 3361. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Clippenger, 
 pp. 1813, 1986, 2681, 2761, 2900. 
 
 Cockrell v. 
 
 V. Coggin, 90 S. W. 523, 40 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 583— p. 1325. 
 
 V. Coggin, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 423, 99 S. W. 1052— pp. 741, 
 1309, 1338. 
 
 z: Cole, pp. 1978, 2114, 2117. 
 
 Collins z\ 
 
 z: Cook, p. 857. 
 
 z'. Cornelius, pp. 1777, 
 
 f. Coutourie, p. 917. 
 
 '■. Crockett, pp. 2287, 
 
 2545. 
 
 v. Crowley, pp. 692, 1116. 
 
 Cumberland Tel., etc., Co. 
 
 3265, 
 
 1799. 
 
 2302, 
 
 194. 
 
 Currie, 
 1310. 
 Curry, 
 
 pp. 
 64 
 
 31, 187, 189, 
 Tex. 85— p. 
 App. Civ. 
 
 688, 1712, 
 
 Curry, 2 Tex. 
 § 453— p. 596. 
 Davidson, pp. 1 
 1731, 1738. 
 - — Davis V. 
 
 - z: Davis, 93 Tex. 378, 54 S. 
 W. 381, 55 S. W. 562- pp. 487, 
 1441. 
 
 V. Davis, 2 Tex. App. Civ. 
 
 Cas., § 191— pp. 430, 431, 849, 
 931, 937, 940, 941, 942, 946, 
 950, 954, 1385, 3364, 3382. 
 
 — ■ v. Davis-Fowler Co., p. 785. 
 
 z: Dawson, pp. 1341, 1342. 
 
 Demilley z: 
 
 z: De Milley, 60 Tex. 194— 
 
 pp. 1808, 2736, 2941. 
 
 Z'. Demilley (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 41 S. W. 147— pp. 1625, 2447, 
 3099. 
 
 V. Dennis, pp. 1624, 2409, 
 
 2450, 2463. 
 
 V. Dick, pp. 1537, 2019. 
 
 z: Diefenbach, pp. 1571, 2421, 
 
 2482, 2529, 3026. 
 
 V. Dishman, 38 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 277, 85 S. W. 319— pp. 862, 
 1355. 
 
 v. Dishman, 41 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 250, 251, 91 S. W. 828— 
 p 1359. 
 
 Donovan v. 
 
 z'. Dorsey, p. 812. 
 
 V. Driskell, p. 540. 
 
 z: Dye, p. 2496. 
 
 Eames v 
 
 '■. Eastin, pp. 502, 503, 505, 
 
 507, 509, 1283, 1334, 1335, 1337. 
 
 z: Edins, pp. 1347, 1365. 
 
 z: Edmond, p. 2042. 
 
 V Ellerd, pp. 1359, 1360. 
 
 V. Elliott, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 31, 54 S. W. 410— pp. 202, 1610. 
 
 z: Elliott, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 106, 61 S. W. 726— p. 1879. 
 
 V. Fambrough, pp. 1279, 1335, 
 
 1354, 1359. 
 
 v. Felker, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 604, 90 S. W. 530- pp. 621, 624, 
 630, 729, 733, 836, 1272, 1279, 
 1280, 1300, 1311. 
 
 v. Felkei- 99 S. W. 439. 44 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 420— pp. 1278, 
 1300, 1301, 1339, 3364. 
 
 V. Fenwick, pp. 30, 932, 934, 
 
 935, 1502, 1504, 1558, 1575^ 
 1577, 2102.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCXCV 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. Ferguson, 
 pp. 3130, 3175. 3179, 3181. 
 
 I'. First Nat. Bank, pp. 549. 
 
 550. 
 
 V. Fisher, p. 093. 
 
 Friedlander f. 
 
 V. Funderburk, pp. 2509, 
 
 2514. 
 
 V. Gallagher, pp. 426, 443. 
 
 r. Garcia, pp. 1550, 1569, 
 
 1871, 1919, 1920, 1922, 1923, 
 2906. ^^ , 
 
 V. Gardner, pp. 2288, 2291, 
 
 —I- z'. Gilniore, pp. 843, 872, 901. 
 
 V. Goldman, pp. 1526, 1885, 
 
 1887. 
 
 V. Graves, pp. 2051, 3075. 
 
 V. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 
 
 S. W. 316— pp. 1866, 1882. 
 
 V. Gray, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 208, 99 S. W. 1125— pp. 3337, 
 3344, 3366, 3367. 
 
 Grigsby v. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., pp. 107, 
 
 3247, 3271. 
 
 Haite f. 
 
 r. Hall, p. 3412. 
 
 ' Hamilton v. 
 
 V. Hamilton, pp. 1823, 1827, 
 
 1843, 1845, 1985, 2807. 
 
 V. Hamm, pp. 293, 304, 425, 
 
 441, 460, 462, 932, 934, 937, 951, 
 957, 3369. 
 
 V. Hardin, pp. 1808, 1812, 
 
 1846. 
 
 Harkey r. 
 
 V. Harrington, pp. 1972, 1973. 
 
 V. Hassell, pp. 659, 666, 668, 
 
 671, 672, 694. 
 
 V. Hawkins, pp. 1118, 1122, 
 
 3331, 3344. 
 
 V. Hayden, pp. 191, 1^44, 
 
 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 2720. 
 
 V.Hays, pp. 235, 259, 1142. 
 
 Hobbs f. 
 
 V. HoiT«ckcr, pp. 849, 8^3, 
 
 854. 
 
 V. Hornbeck, p. 801. 
 
 V. Hudman, pp. 1771, 1779, 
 
 1780, 1795. 
 
 v. Huffman, p. 1771. 
 
 i: Hughes, 99 Tex. 533, 91 S. 
 
 W. 567— pp. 158, 159, 1276. 
 
 V. Hughes (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 41 S. VV. 821— p. 2017, 
 
 V. Humble, pp. 1776, 2872. 
 
 V. Humphries, pp. 2065, 2066. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 '- V. Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, pp. 3600, 3601, 3602, 
 3607, 3609, 3617, 3631, 3632, 
 3633, 3637, 3638, 3664, 3665, 
 3667, 3668, 3676, 3684, 3686, 
 3687, 3692, 3698, 3711, 3712, 
 3714, 3721, 3722, 3725, 3730, 
 3749, 3767, 3768, 3769, 3770, 
 3773, 3775, 3776, 3783, 3784, 
 3785, 3786, 3790, 3806, 3807, 
 3816, 3841. 
 
 V. Isenhowcr, p. 1278. 
 
 V. Jackson, pp. 1083, 1086, 
 
 1093, 1104, 1105, 1408. 
 
 f. Tames, pp. 3082, 3084. 
 
 V. Johnson, 76 Tex. 421. 13 
 
 S. W. 463, 18 Am. St. Rep. 60— 
 p. 2090. 
 
 V. Johnson, 2 Texas App. 
 
 Civ. Cas., § 185— pp. 1941, 1943, 
 2017. 
 
 Jones r. 
 
 V. Jones, pp. 1504, 1510, 1513, 
 
 2018, 2020, 2033. 
 
 V. Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 47 S. W. 809— p. 2237. 
 
 V. Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 74 S. W. 343— pp. 402. 3338. 
 
 ;•. King, p. 1394. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Kingston, 
 pp. 1938, 1941, 2019, 2033, 2048, 
 2070, 2120, 2707, 2786, 2796. 
 
 V. Kirk, p. 2649. 
 
 Kirkland :•. 
 
 f. Klepper (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 24 S. W. 567— pp. 487, 490. 802, 
 851. 1123, 1347, 1352, 1353, 1441. 
 
 V. Klepper, 29 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 
 590, 69 S. W. 426— pp. 520, 
 1154, 1162, 1169. 
 
 V. Kolp, pp. 624, 661. 
 
 V. Kuteman, pp. 75, 1187. 
 
 V. Lacey, pp. 2091, 2342. 
 
 V. Langbehn, pp. 607, 614, 
 
 617. 1092. 
 
 v. Lawrence, pp. 3125, 3130. 
 
 i\ Leakey, pp. 1825. 
 
 r. Lee, pp. 1798, 1884. 
 
 Levinson v. 
 
 Lewis V. 
 
 Lindley v. 
 
 V. Llano Live Stock Co., p. 
 
 819. 
 
 - V. Logan, pp. 405, 838, 3331. 
 
 Lone Star Co. t. 
 
 Lord, etc., Co. r. 
 
 V. Loving, p. 158. 
 
 V. Ludlam, 52 Fed. 94, 2 C. 
 
 C. A. 633— pp. 3012, 3017. 
 
 V. Ludlam, 57 Fed. 481, 6 C. 
 
 C. A. 454— pp. 1854, 1857, 1858, 
 1860, 1861, 2453. 
 
 V. Lynch. 97 Tex. 25, 75 S. 
 
 W. 486— pp. 3336, 3388, 3392. 
 
 f. Lvnch (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 73 S. W. 65— p. 2464. 
 
 z: Lynch, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 121, 94 S. W. 1093— p. 2458. 
 
 Lyons z\ 
 
 z: Lyons, pp. 2035, 2480. 
 
 t'. McCoy, p. 2115. 
 
 r. McDonald, pp. 1624, 2437, 
 
 2477, 2529. 
 
 V. McGilvary, pp. 1881, 2514. 
 
 V. McKenzie (Tex.), 2 Posey 
 
 307, 308— pp. 1779. 1799, 2790. 
 
 f . McKenzie, 30 Tex. Civ. 
 
 App. 293, 70 S. W. 237— p. 1887. 
 
 r. McLane, pp. 1767, 1768, 
 
 1779. 
 
 f. McNairy, p. 3413. 
 
 Malone v. 
 
 z: Mangum, pp. 1779, 1794. 
 
 Marande v. 
 
 f. Martin, pp. 540, 664, 849, 
 
 - z: Maughon, p. 1738. 
 
 - z: Mayer, pp. 2230, 2270, 
 2341, 2873. 
 
 - f. Mayfield, pp. 1518, 1783, 
 1885, 1917, 1964, 1965, 2162. 
 
 z: Mays, pp. 1768, 1777, 
 
 1778. 
 
 Miller f. 
 
 z: Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 82, Ij 
 
 S. W. 264, 11 L. R. A. 395, 23 
 Am. St. Rep. 308— pp. 7, 1532, 
 1730, 1731, 1737, 1766, 1817, 
 1821, 1865, 1884, 1886, 1910, 
 1913. 2114, 2396, 2569, 2938, 
 2992, 2993. 
 
 r. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.), 88 
 
 S. W. 499— p. 467. 
 
 Milligan V. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. Mitchell, pp. 1885, 1887, 
 
 1917. 
 
 V. Moore, pp. 1700, 1778. 
 
 V. Morrison's Faust Co., pp. 
 
 278, 3115, 3127, 3128. 
 
 f. Morse, pp. 885, 910, 916, 
 
 1047. 
 
 z: Mother, p. 2532. 
 
 V. Mugg, 98 Tex. 352, 83 S. 
 
 W. 800, 107 Am. St. Rep. 632 
 —pp. 1141. 1142. 
 
 ;•. Mugg. 202 U. 8. 242. 50 
 
 L. Ed. 1011, 26 S. Ct. 628— pp. 
 1153, 3668, 3750, 3753, 3754, 
 3755, 3760. 
 
 exas, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, pp. 
 31, 189, 190, 1766, 1767, 2091, 
 2615, 2940. 
 
 -. Murtishaw, pp. 1326, 1350. 
 
 V. Nelson, pp. 630, 1326. 
 
 r. Nicholson, pp. 211, 242, 
 
 268, 286, 292, 293. 294, 304, 
 4i8, 424, 425, 437, 446, 448, 
 449. 450, 654, 655, 656, 657, 
 687, 729, 767, 849. 1318, 1321, 
 1323, 1328. 
 
 V. Orr, pp. 1731. 1738. 
 
 V. Overall, pp. 2114. 2116. 
 
 2117, 2171, 2172. 2290, 2672. 
 
 r. Owens, pp. 932, 934, 935. 
 
 Patton I'. 
 
 V. Payne, 99 Tex. 46, 87 S. 
 
 W. 330, 70 L. R. A. 946, 122 
 Am. St. Rep. 603— p. 2471. 
 
 V. Payne, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 58, 38 S. W. 366— pp. 597, 833, 
 849, 850, 855, 858, 862, 936, 938, 
 959, 1041, 1042. 
 
 V. Payne (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 
 156 S. W. 1126— p. 615. 
 
 V. Pearl, pp. 191. 2065. 2421. 
 
 2484. 
 
 Peyton f. 
 
 V. Pierce, p. 2722. 
 
 V. Pollard, pp. 1704, 1869, 
 
 1906. 
 
 z: Porter, pp. 1871, 2239. 
 
 Post i: 
 
 V. Powell, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 212, 35 S. W. 841— pp. 1623, 
 1625. 
 
 V. Powell, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 575, 79 S. W. 86— pp. 175, 176, 
 1277, 1319. 
 
 V. Rackusin. p. 813. 
 
 Railroad Comm. z-. 
 
 z: Railroad Comm.. 183 Fed. 
 
 1005— p. 3442. 
 
 -■. Railroad Comm.. 112 C. C. 
 
 A. 538. 192 Fed. 280— p. 134. 
 
 V. Railroad Comm. (Tex.). 
 
 150 S. W. 878— pp. 23. 25. 
 
 V. Randle, pp. 1357, 1359, 
 
 1360, 3336. 
 
 V. Ray Bros., pp. 443, 463, 
 
 466, 467. 
 
 -'. Rea, pp. 1954, 2340. 
 
 Reed i: 
 
 V. Reed, p. 2287. 
 
 V. Reeder, 76 Fed. 550, 22 C. 
 
 C. A. 314— p. 2999. 
 
 V. Reeder, 170 U. S. 530, 42 
 
 L. Ed. 1134, 18 S. Ct. 705— p. 
 2124. 
 
 Reeves f. 
 
 z: Reeves, pp. 1116, 1122. 
 
 z: Reich, pp. 1778, 1779, 
 
 1798, 1799, 1800. 
 
 r. Reid, p. 1768. 
 
 Reiss z: ^ 
 
 z: Reiss, 99 Fed. 1006, 39 C. 
 
 C. A. 680— p. 540. 
 
 z: Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 626, 
 
 46 L. Ed. 358, 22 S. Ct. 253— 
 pp. 326, 327, 429, 540, 1014, 
 3258, 3262, 3264, 3266, 3286, 
 3302. 
 
 v. Richardson, pp. 1906, 1907. 
 
 z: Richmond, pp. 866, 869, 
 
 9j7, 938, 941, 949, 954, 959, 
 1039, 1041, 1050. 
 
 V. Robertson, p. 889. 
 
 Rogers f. 
 
 -■. Rucker, p. 1172. 
 
 V. Russell, pp. 3127, 3131. 
 
 -•. Sabine Trans. Co. (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), 121 S. W. 256— p. 
 3426. 
 
 I'. Sabine Tram. Co., 227 L. 
 
 S. Ill, 33 S. Ct. 229— pp. 3490, 
 3740. 
 
 z: Scharbauer. p. 1483. 
 
 z: Schneider, pp. 897, 910. 
 
 z: Scott, pp. 2718, 2863. 
 
 z: Scott & Co., p. 248.
 
 CCXCVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. i: Scrivener, 
 pp. 323, 426, 753, 933, 987, 1327, 
 1408, 3331, 3339. 
 
 I'. Sherbert, p. 3077. 
 
 V. Sherrod, 99 Te.x. 382. 384, 
 
 89 S. W. 956— pp. 1359, 1443. 
 
 V. Sherrod (Te.x. Civ. App.), 
 
 57 S. W. 363— pp. 1355, 1359, 
 1443. 
 
 f. Shipman, pp. 1276, 1324. 
 
 V. Sims, pp. 866, 877, 1352. 
 
 z: Slator, p. 1480. 
 
 V. Smissen, pp. 738, 785, 
 
 1303, 1309, 1326. 
 
 Smith f. 
 
 c'. Smith (Te.x. Civ. App.), 
 
 24 S. VV. 565- p. 3326. 
 
 z: Smith, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 571, 79 S. W. 614— pp. 174, 
 
 1277, 1319, 1459. 
 
 z: Smith, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 4, 84 S. W. 852— pp. 1607, 2425, 
 2428, 2430. 
 
 z: Snyder, pp. 1339, 1352. 
 
 Southerland i'. 
 
 Z-. Southerland Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 113. 
 
 State v. 
 
 z>. Stephens, pp. 1359, 3357. 
 
 z'. Stewart, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 595, 86 S. W. 631— p. 1325. 
 
 f. Stewart, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 399, 96 S. W. 106— pp. 1303, 
 1323. 
 
 !•. Stewart, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 514, 114 S. W. 413— p. 1269. 
 
 V. Stewart, 228 U. S. 357, 33 
 
 5. Ct. 548— pp. 2270, 2341. 
 
 V. Storey, 68 S. W. 534. 29 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 483— pp. 1827, 
 1828, 2031, 2871. 
 
 z: Storey, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 156, 83 S. VV. 852— pp. 1691, 
 2016, 2028. 
 
 z: Stribling, pp. 932, 1285, 
 
 3362, 3628. 
 
 z: Suggs, pp. 1823, 1841, 
 
 1843, 2695. 
 
 V. Talley, p. 844. 
 
 V. Tankersley, p. 849. 
 
 v. Tarkington, pp. 2056, 2057. 
 
 Tarvin z\ 
 
 z: Taylor, 3 Texas App. Civ. 
 
 Cas., § 192— p. 849. 
 
 c'. Taylor (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 
 
 58 S. W. 166— pp. 2398, 2731. 
 
 V. Taylor, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 617, 73 S. W. 1081— p. 2075. 
 
 V. Terns, p. 2849. 
 
 Texas Exp. Co. z-. 
 
 z\ Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 422, 1137, 1139. 
 
 Townsend -•. 
 
 V. Townsend, pp. 784, 865, 
 
 881. 
 
 V. Tracy, p. 1326. 
 
 V. Truesdell, pp. 851, 1322. 
 
 1326, 1328, 1350. 
 
 V. Turner (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 
 
 37 S. W. 643— pp. 729, 730, 
 
 1278, 1330, 1335. 
 
 V. Turner, 43 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 
 608, 97 S. W. 509— p. 493. 
 
 Tyler v. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 V. United States, pp. 3605, 
 
 3693. 
 
 V. Wagley, p. 2879. 
 
 V. Walker, p. 937. 
 
 V. Warner, pp. 837, 3284, 
 
 3290. 
 
 z: Weatherby, p. 3140. 
 
 V. Weisman & Co., p. 3338. 
 
 V. Wever, pp. 889, 915. 
 
 V. Wheat, pp. 268, 293, 295, 
 
 405, 425, 464, 802, 829, 830. 882. 
 
 V. White, 101 Fed. 928, 42 
 
 C. C. A. 86, 62 L. R. A. 90— 
 p. 2891. 
 
 z\ White, 4 Texas Civ. .\pp. 
 
 Cas., § 259, 17 S. W. 419— pp. 
 1545, 1857, 1860. 
 
 pp. 
 
 App. 
 1093, 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 Norfolk, 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z-. White, 35 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 521. 80 S. W. 
 641— pp. 1347. 3410. 
 
 Whitehurst -•. 
 
 z: Whiteley. pp. 1920, 2067, 
 
 2824. 
 
 z: Williams, pp. 2043, 2048. 
 
 Williamson & Co. t . 
 
 z\ Wilson, p. 461. 
 
 "'. VV'ilson Hack Line, 
 
 849, 857, 862, 864, 880. 
 
 f. Wood, p. 303. 
 
 v. Woods, 8 Tex. Civ. 
 
 462, 28 S. W. 416— pp. 
 1695, 1876, 1884, 1919. 
 
 t'. Woods, IS Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 612, 40 S. W. 846— pp. 1684, 
 1769, 1771. 1918, 1920, 2904. 
 
 Wren "■. 
 
 -■. Wright, p. 662. 
 
 ■ z\ Wynn, pp. lOlO, 1663. 
 
 Young 7'. 
 
 Thacker f. Illinois Cent. 
 
 p. 1758. 
 Thacker Coal, etc., Co. z\ 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3669, 3675, 3840. 
 Thalheimer, Consolidated Tract. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Thames, Erskine v. 
 
 The. 
 
 Thames Iron Works, Cory z\ 
 Thane c'. Scranton Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2190. 
 Tharpe, Louisville, etc., R'. Co. v- 
 Thayer z\ Burchard, pp. 216, 246, 
 
 621, 623, 3944. 
 
 V. Old Colony St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2417, 2419, 2755, 2859, 2955. 
 
 z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 945. 
 
 Thayne f. Scranton Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2174. 
 The Abbazia, pp. 3928, 3929. 
 The Aggi, 93 Fed. 484— p. 3924. 
 The Aggi, 107 Fed. 300, 46 C. C. 
 
 A. 276— pp. 3927, 4023. 
 The .\lbert Dumois, pp. 4006, 4041, 
 
 4042, 4043, 4070, 4076. 
 The Aline, pp. 746, 747. 
 The Alnwick, p. 3914. 
 The Alpin, p. 3911. 
 The Alvah, p. 3874. 
 
 The Alvena, 74 Fed. 
 
 -p. 4004. 
 
 The Alvena, 79 Fed. 973, 25 C. C. 
 
 A. 261— p. 4024. 
 The Amos D. Carver, p. 4037. 
 The -V. M. Bliss, p. 3866. 
 The America, p. 3924. 
 The Anchoria, 77 Fed. 994 — p. 
 
 3988. 
 The Anchoria, 83 Fed. 847, 27 C. 
 
 C. A. 650— p. 3989. 
 The Annie Faxon, pp. 4037, 4047. 
 The Annie L. \'ansciver, p. 3989. 
 The .\pollon, p. 701. 
 The .Artie Bird, pp. 997, 1087. 3880, 
 
 3881, 3923, 3933. 
 The .\rgyle z\ Worthington, p. 
 
 1148. 
 The Arrow, Butler ^■. 
 The -Arthur B., pp. 3949, 3987. 
 The Asiatic Prince, 103 Fed. 676 — 
 
 pp. 3921, 3945. 
 The .Asiatic Prince, 108 Fed. 287, 
 
 47 C. C. A. 325- p. 3895. 
 The Asiatic Prince, Herbst f. 
 The Ask, p. 3918. 
 The Apasia, pp. 3904, 3906, 3907. 
 The .\s.syria, pp. 3959, 3969. 
 The -Atlantic, Cole z'. 
 The Atlas, pp. 3917, 4040, 4043. 
 The Baltic, Monro v. 
 The Baltimore, pp. 4040, 4041. 
 The Baralong, p. 3922. 
 The Barge John AI. Welch, 
 
 Hroeck r. 
 The Bark Edwin, p. 291. 
 The Bcaconstield, p. 483. 
 The Belfast, 40 -Ala. 184, 88 -Am. 
 
 Dec. 701— pp. 3882, 3926. 
 
 4048, 
 4073, 
 4080, 
 
 3936, 
 
 The Belfast (U. S.), 7 Wall. 624, 
 19 L. Ed. 266— pp. 3917, 3936, 
 
 4054. 
 
 Boon & Co. z: 
 
 ■;■. Boon & Co., p. 751. 
 
 The Belgenland, p. 4024. 
 The P.elvidere, p. 3903. 
 The Benefactor, pp. 4036, 
 
 4049, 4050, 4071, 4072, 
 
 4074. 4076, 4078, 4079, 
 _ 4082, 4084. 
 The Berengere, p. 3934. 
 The Bermuda, p. 1151. 
 The Bird of Paradise, pp. 
 
 3944, 3945, 3946, 3947, 3949. 
 The B. T. Willard, p. 1170. 
 The Bobolink, pp. 893, 912, 3896. 
 The Brantford City, p. 430. 
 The Brig CoHenberg, p. 3902. 
 The Brilliant, pp. 4021, 40o4. 
 The Britannia, 87 Fed. 495 — p. 
 
 3892. 
 The Britannia, 153 L^. 
 
 L. Ed. 660, 14 S. 
 
 3908. 
 
 Marx z: 
 
 The British King, pp. 
 
 4067. 
 The Buffalo, pp. 4046, 4048. 
 The Caddo, Blum z\ 
 The Caledonia, 43 Fed. ( 
 
 Fed. 567— pp. 335, 451, 3881. 
 The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 39 
 
 D. Ed. 644, 15 S. Ct. 537- 
 
 pp. 637, 1318, 3897, 3907, 
 
 3921, 4017, 4018, 4019, 
 
 4026. 
 The California, p. 829. 
 The Campbell, Dunwody z\ 
 The Cape Charles, p. 4. 
 The Capt. Tack, p. 4046. 
 The Caracas, (3. 3988. 
 The Careb Prince, pp. 4019, 
 The Cargo, pp. 3952, 3971, 3972. 
 The Carib Prince, p. 4058, 4061, 
 
 4071. 
 The Carlos F. Roses, pp. 355, 356. 
 
 371, 373, 388, 479. 
 The Carlton Hall, p. 4023. 
 The Cayuga, pp. 4040, 4041. 
 The Centennial, 7 Fed. 601— p. 
 
 S. 130, 38 
 Ct. 795 — p. 
 
 3909, 3928. 
 
 n, 50 
 
 3908, 
 4023, 
 
 4023. 
 
 31 Fed. 816— pp. 
 
 4042, 
 4006, 
 
 3888, 
 
 3870, 
 
 4030. 
 The Centennial, 
 
 3982, 3984. 
 The Charles Nelson, p. 4012. 
 The Chattahoochee, pp. 4041, 
 
 4043, 4049, 4056, 4061, 
 
 4070, 4071. 
 The C. H. Northam. p. 4055. 
 The Citta Di Messina, pp. 
 
 3890, 3902, 3922. 
 The Citta Di Palermo, pp. 
 
 3880, 3881, 3883, 3944. 
 The City of Boston, p. 3993. 
 The City of Hartford, p. 1037. 
 The City of Kingston, p. 3998. 
 The City of Lincoln, pp. 891, 893, 
 
 908. 
 The City of Norwich, pp. 4036, 
 
 4048, 4049, 4050, 4052, 4053, 
 
 4055, 4072, 4084. 
 The City of Panaina, pp. 1502, 
 
 1685, 1694, 1714, 1821, 1823. 
 The City of Para, p. 3911. 
 The City of Portsmouth, p. 
 The Colima, pp. 3908, 3910. 
 The CoUenberg, p. 3942. 
 The Colombia, p. 3950. 
 The Colombo, p. 829. 
 The Columbia, Williams 7'. 
 The Commander-in-chief, 
 
 499, 522, 726, 768. 
 The Commerce, p. 4054. 
 The Commercen, p. 3938. 
 The Compta, p. 4030. 
 The Concjueror, p. 3950. 
 The Convoy's Wheat, pp. 
 
 3896. 
 The C. W. Elphicke, 117 Fed. 279 
 
 —pp. 3908, 4063, 4080. 
 The C. W. Flphicke, 122 Fed. 439, 
 
 58 C. C. A. 421— pp. 3928, 4061. 
 
 pp. 
 
 3994. 
 
 483. 
 
 3871,
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 CCXCVII 
 
 The Dan, \>. 3862. 
 
 'J tie Dana, pp. 3910, 3914. 
 
 The Daniel r.all, pp. 3429, 3434, 
 3440, 3445, 4054. 
 
 The David & Caroline, pp. 752, 
 757. 
 
 The D. C. Murray, pp. 1941, 3983. 
 
 The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 
 579, 600. 20 L. Ivd. 779— pp. 301, 
 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 318, 
 319, 328. 329. 331, 332, 334. 
 336, 339, 499, 732, 743, 748, 752, 
 930, 386(., 3867. 3878, 3879, 3882, 
 3890, 3893. 3897, 3903. 3904, 
 3905. 390(., 3926, 3936, 3938, 
 
 3945, 4017, 4019. 
 
 The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 40 
 L. Ed. 771, 16 S. Ct. 516— pp. 
 4041, 4056, 4057, 4058, 4070. 
 
 The Del Norte, p. 3546. 
 
 The Denmark, p. 1151. 
 
 The D. Harvey, pp. 3898, 3903. 
 
 The Diadem, p. 3905. 
 
 The Downer, pp. 3992, 3997. 
 
 'Ihe D. R. Martin, p. 1500. 
 
 The Eagle, p. 4054. 
 
 The E. A. Packer, p. 3871. 
 
 The Earnwood, pp. 3903, 3906, 
 3934. 
 
 The E. Renjamin. p. 3937. 
 
 The Eddy, pp. 318, 520, 536, 566, 
 567, 891. 1167, 3917, 3919, 
 3936, 3939, 3941. 3944. •!945, 
 
 3946. 3947. 
 
 The Edward T. Stoteshury. p. 
 
 3971. 
 The Edwin I. Morrison, pp. 948, 
 3897, 3907, 3908, 3909, 3910, 
 3921, 3923, 4017, 4023, 4030, 
 4031, 4065. 
 The E. H. Pray, pp. 1210. 12^?. 
 
 1250. 
 The Eliza, p. 1170. 
 The Eliza Lines, 102 Fed. 184— p. 
 
 3943. 
 The Eliza Lines, 114 Fed. 307. 52 
 
 C. C. O. 195— pp. 3934, 3941. 
 The Eliza Lines. 199 U. S. 119, 
 26 S. Ct. 8, 50 L. Ed. 115, 4 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 406— pp. 
 3876. 3939. 
 The Elmira Shepherd, p. 799. 
 The Elvira Ilarbeck. pp. 1016. 
 
 3167. 
 The Emily, p. 10. 
 
 Bridgman ;■. 
 
 The E. M. Norton, pp. 815, 818, 
 
 3920. 
 The Employers' Liability Cases, p. 
 
 3847. 
 The Erastus Corning, p. 3993. 
 The Erie, p. 3864. 
 The Etona, Doherr v. 
 The Eugene, p. 3979. 
 The European, pp. 3977, 3983. 
 The Eva D. Rose, 151 Fed. 704— 
 
 pp. 3883, 3894. 
 The Eva D. Rose, 153 Fed. 912— 
 
 p. 3892. 
 The Falcon, pp. 587, 817. 
 The Fanny, p. 3938. 
 The Fanny Fostick. Cranwcll r. 
 The Fanny Skolfuld. Crooks r. 
 The Farmer, p. 483. 
 The Felix, p. 365. 
 The Figlia Maggiorc, p. 365. 
 The Folmina, 143 Fed. 636— p. 
 
 4026. 
 The Folmina, 153 Fed. 364, 82 C. 
 
 C. A. 440— pp. 3921, 3929. 
 The Folmina. 212 U. S. 354, 53 
 L. Ed. 546, 29 S. Ct. 363. 15 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 748 — pp. 
 3897, 3898, 3899, 4017, 4020, 
 4021. 4030. 4031. 
 The Francis Wright, pp. 3792. 
 
 3873, 3909. 
 The Frey, 92 Fed. 667— p. 4071. 
 The Frev, 106 Fed. 319. 45 C. C. 
 
 A. 309— pp. 3921, 3930, 3031. 
 The Fri. 140 Fed. 123— p. 4080. 
 The Fri, 154 Fed. 33i. 83 C. C. 
 A. 205— pp. 3862, 3883, 4058. 
 
 The Frien.lschaft, pp. 349, 350. 
 
 The FriesL-irid, pp. 3924, 3929. 
 
 The Furnessia, Itehrens v. 
 
 The Oalam, p. 4076. 
 
 The Galena r. Ikals, p. 808. 
 
 The Gazelle, pp. 1170, 3940. 
 
 The G. 15. Boren, pp. 3910, 3937. 
 
 The Gieser, p. 494. 
 
 The General Smith, p. 3584. 
 
 The Genesee Chief f. Fitzhugh, p. 
 
 ,. ■*°^^- 
 
 The Gentleman, p. 4044. 
 
 The George L. Garlick, p. 4050. 
 The George W. Roby, p. 4049. 
 The Germanic, 107 Fed. 294 — pp. 
 
 4060, 4069. 
 The Germanic, 124 Fed. 1. 59 C. 
 
 C. A. 521— pp. 4056, 4060. 
 The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 599, 
 49 L. Ed. 610, 25 S. Ct. 317— 
 pp. 790, 4057, 4059, 4071. 
 The Ghazee, pp. 3920, 4027. 
 The Gladys, p. 3911. 
 The Gold Hunter, pp. 595, 596. 
 The Good Hope, 190 Fed. 597— p. 
 
 3893. 
 'ihe Good Hope, 197 Fed. 149. 116 
 C. C. A. 573— pp. 3922. 3928, 
 4026. 
 The Gordon Campbell, pp. 3890, 
 
 3928. 
 The Governor Carey, p. 3906. 
 The Grafton, pp. 527, 536, 538. 
 The Gran Canaria, pp. 3900, 3905. 
 The G. R. Booth, 91 Fed. 164, 33 
 
 C. C. A. 430— p. 4019. 
 The G. R. Booth, 19 S. Ct. 9, 171 
 U. S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234— pp. 
 4020. 4021, 4022, 4023, 4030. 
 The Great Western, pp. 947, 4049, 
 
 4050, 4053, 4075. 
 The Guadeloupe, p. 3924. 
 The Gualala, pp. 3898. 3906. 
 The Guardian, p. 3980. 
 The Guiding Star, 53 Fed. 936 — 
 
 pp. 789, 3916. 
 The Guiding Star, 62 Fed. 497— 
 
 p. 337. 
 The Guildhall, 58 Fed. 796— pp. 
 
 1033, 1046. 
 The Guildhall, 12 C. C. A. 445, 
 
 64 Fed. 867— p. 3915. 
 The Gutenfels, p. 3890. 
 The Habil. pp. 3917, 3918, 3919. 
 The Hamilton, 146 Fed. 724, 77 
 C. C. A. 150— pp. 4042, 4043, 
 4080. 
 The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 52 
 L. Ed. 264, 28 S. Ct. 133— pp. 
 4042, 4043. 4070. 4076. 
 The Ilarriman, pp. 3869 , 3875. 
 
 3940. 4017. 
 The Harrisburg. p. 4024. 
 The Hattie Palmer, p. 514. 
 The Hcathdene. p. 3891. 
 The Helene. p. 365. 
 The Henry B. Hyde, 82 Fed. 681— 
 pp. 939. 986, 3870, 3878, 3880, 
 3882, 4017. 
 The Henry B. Hyde, 32 C. C. A. 
 534. 90 Fed. 114— pp. 3921, 3922, 
 4030. 
 The Henry Grinnell, Lanata ■:■. 
 The Henry Hood, Howland f. 
 The H. F. Dimock, pp. 4084, 4085. 
 The I line, p. 4054. 
 The Hiram, pp. 3902. 3936, 3937. 
 The HotTmans, pp. 4037, 4055. 
 The Howard, p. 765. 
 The Hudson. Brosseau & Co. ■;•. 
 The Humbolt. pp. 3145. 4008. 
 The Huntress, pp. 549. 752. 756. 
 The Huron -■. Simmons, p. 3916. 
 The Hvades, 118 Fed. 85— pp. 3929. 
 
 3930. 
 The Hyades, 124 Fed. 58, 59 C. 
 
 C. A. 424— p. 4082. 
 The Idaho, pp. 317. 318, 351, 375. 
 
 376. 516. 547, 573, 3878. 
 The Illinois, p. 3937. 
 
 W'arner -'. 
 
 The Inca, Snow f. 
 
 The India, p. 3864. 
 
 The Indrani, pp. 4066, 4067. 
 
 The Indrapura, 171 Fed. 929 — pp. 
 
 3888, 3889. 3890, 3902. 
 The Indrapura, 178 Fed. 591— pp. 
 
 3907, 3909. 
 The Indrapura. 190 Fed. 711— pp 
 
 3907. 3923, 3929. 
 The Ionic, pp. 3117, 3124, 3153. 
 The Iroquois, p. 3993. 
 The Irrawaddy. pp. 3907, 4024. 
 
 4056, 4057. 4061. 4070. 
 The Isaac Reed, .Montague '■. 
 The I sola Di Procida, pp. 305, 306, 
 
 339, 3879. 
 The Italia, 184 Fed. 366— pp. 3921, 
 
 3929. 
 The Italia, 187 Fed. ,113, 109 C. C. 
 
 A. 33— p. 3913. 
 The James Baird. pp. 3960. 3965. 
 The James Martin, p. 3941. 
 The Tane Grey, pp. 4000, 4044. 
 
 4053. 
 The lason. pp. 4057. 4070. 4071. 
 The J. D. Hall, Stillwell t. 
 The Jefferson, p. 1037. 
 The J. E. Rumbell, p. 4076. 
 The John ]?rooks, pp. 3155. 3156. 
 The John H. Pearson, p. 3871. 
 The lohn II. Starin, pp. 4080. 
 
 4083". 
 The John K. Shaw. p. 352. 
 The John L. Stephens, Morrison z-. 
 The "John M. Welch, p. 3586. 
 The Joseph Grant, p. 336. 
 The Joshua Barker, p. 514. 
 The t. P. Donaldson, pp. 10, 12. 
 The "T. W. Brown, p. 336. 
 The Kansas, p. 3902. 
 The Kate Dale, White '.: 
 The Kensington, 88 Fed. 331 — pp. 
 
 3921, 4018, 4070. 
 The Kensington, 94 Fed. 885. 36 
 
 C. C. A. 533— pp. 4011. 4059. 
 The Kensington. 183 U. S. 263. 
 269, 46 L. Ed. 190, 22 S. Ct. 
 102— pp. 942, 947, 1073. 3162.. 
 3163, 3186, 4018, 4024. 4032, 
 4047. 4058, 4059. 
 The Keokuk, pp. 3936, 3937. 
 The Kevstone, p. 566. 
 The Kimball, pp. 3944, 3946. 3947. 
 
 3949. 
 The Kongin Luise. 173 Fed. 811 — 
 
 p. 3949. 
 The Konigin Luise. 185 Fed. 478, 
 
 107 C. C. A. 578— p. 3922. 
 The Ladv Franklin, pp. 267, 306.. 
 307, 308. 331. 332, 336, 338, 
 3936, 3937, 3945. 
 The Lady Pike pp. 10. 3897. 3898. 
 
 3899. 3901, 3911, 4017. 
 The La Kroma, p. 3920. 
 The Lanashire, etc., R. Co., Wil- 
 son V. 
 The Langfond, p. 3898. 
 The Laura, p. 3977. 
 The Lennox, pp. 3922. 4030. 
 The Listie. pp. 3908. 3923. 
 The Lockport, pp. 3907. 3921. 
 The London & N. W. R. W. Co.. 
 
 Hales '■. 
 The Longfellow, pp. 3928. 3978. 
 The Loon. p. 3879. 
 The Lotlawanna. pp. 4024, 4036. 
 
 4053. 
 The Louisa. Packard :. 
 The Loundes, Evan :•. 
 The Lovett Peacock. Field f. 
 The Loval. 198 Fed. 591— p. 4040. 
 The Loval. 204 Fed. 930. 123 C. 
 
 C. .\.'252— p. 4040. 
 The L. P. Dayton, p. 12. 
 The Ludvig Ilolberg. p. 1037. 
 The Lydian Monarch, p. 4030. 
 The Maggie Hammond, pp. 726. 
 731. 768. 3888. 3890. 3896, 3897.. 
 3908, 3915, 3917, 3936, 3937.. 
 3938. 3945. 394(>. 
 The >iagnolia. Jackson :. 
 The Main t. Williams, pp. 4037.. 
 4045, 4047, 4050.
 
 CCXCVIII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 The Maine, p. 401". 
 
 The Majestic, 56 Fed. 244— p. 
 
 3161. 
 The Majestic, 166 U. S. 375. 41 
 
 L. Ed. 1039, 17 S. Ct. 597— 
 
 pp. 735, 736, 825, 960, 961, 963, 
 
 964. 3162, 3163, 3898, 3921, 4009, 
 
 4017, 4018, 4020. 
 The Mamie, p. 4078. 
 The Manitoba, 104 Fed. 145 — pp. 
 
 3909, 3928, 4063. 
 The Manitoba. 122 U. S. 97, 30 
 
 L. Ed. 1095, 7 S. Ct. 1158— 
 
 p. 4041. 
 The Manitou, 116 Fed. 60 — pp. 
 
 4019, 4063, 4081. 
 The Manitou, 127 Fed. 554, 63 C. 
 
 C. A. 109— p. 3926. 
 The Marechal Siichet, pp. 3929, 
 
 3930. 
 The Margaret, p. 12. 
 The Marlborough, Bursley "•. 
 The Martha, pp. 820, 828, 829. 
 The Mary Ann. White f. 
 The Mary Belie Roberts, Speyer 
 
 The Mary Washington, pp. 530, 
 
 891, 893, 903. 
 The Matilda .A. Lewis, p. 3901. 
 The Mauch Chunk, p. 4085. 
 The M. C. Currie, pp. 3887, 3900, 
 
 3901. 
 The Medea, pp. 3907, 3910, 3921, 
 
 3928, 3929. 
 The Memphis, Haughton v. 
 The Mepoter, p. 365. 
 The Mercantile, etc., Co. v. Chase, 
 
 p. 3879. 
 The Merida, p. 4067. 
 The Merrimack, pp. 1207, 1209. 
 The Mexican Prince, 82 Fed. 484 — 
 
 p. 4067. 
 The Mexican Prince, 91 Fed. 1003, 
 
 34 C. C. A. 168— p. 3909. 
 
 Steinwender v. 
 
 The Middlesex, pp. 527, 892, 3894. 
 The Mid-Kent Railway Co., Attor- 
 ney General v. 
 The Mill Bay, p. 532. 
 The Minnetonka, 132 Fed. 52 — pp. 
 
 4010, 4011, 4032. 
 The Minnetonka, 146 Fed. 509, 77 
 
 C. C. A. 217— pp. 4090, 4033, 
 
 4035, 4038. 
 'i ..e Minnie E. Kelton, p. 3930. 
 The Mississippi, 76 Fed. 375 — p. 
 
 3913. 
 The Mississippi, 120 Fed. 1020, 
 
 56 C. C. A. 525— pp. 3904, 4025, 
 
 4062, 4069. 
 The M. M. Chase, pp. 573, 574, 
 
 576, 577, 746. 
 The Mollie Mohler, p. 3911. 
 The Monarch, Miners' Co-op. Ass'n 
 
 V. 
 
 The Montello, p. 4054. 
 The Moravian, pp. 757, 829. 
 The Morning Light, pp. 3899, 4017. 
 The Morro Castle, pp. 4032, 4033. 
 The Moses Taylor, p. 3979. 
 The Murrell, p. 4069. 
 The Musselcrag, pp. 3905, 3923, 
 3935. 
 
 The Nail City, p. 891. 
 
 The Napolitan Prince, p. 3993. 
 
 The Naranja, pp. 1087, 1089. 
 
 The Natchez, p. 1228. 
 
 The National City, p. 3985. 
 
 The Nederland, pp. 1846, 2667. 
 
 The Nellie Floyd, pp. 3907, 3908, 
 
 3928, 4021, 4025. 
 The Nettie Quill, pp. 3866, 3867. 
 The New Orleans, p. 818. 
 The New York Central & Hudson 
 
 R. R., Denny v. 
 The New World, pp. 1725, 1759, 
 
 3990. 
 The New York, p. 4054. 
 The Niagara, p. 4064. 
 The Nicaragua, p. 3982. 
 
 Defrier v. 
 
 The Niceto, p. 3901. 
 The Ninfa, p. 3923. 
 The Nith, 36 Fed. 86, 13 Sawy. 
 
 368— p. 3933. 
 The Nith, 36 Fed. 383, 13 Sawy. 
 
 481— pp. 3906, 3911. 
 The Nitro-Glycerine Case, p. 766. 
 The Nonpariel, p. 3917. 
 The Norman Prince, pp. 3868, 
 
 3938. 
 The North Star, 169 Fed. 711 — 
 
 pp. 4001, 4006. 
 The North Star, 106 U. S. 17. 27 
 
 L. Ed. 91, 1 S. Ct. 41— pp. 4036, 
 
 4041, 4042, 4049, 4077, 4080. 
 The Northern Belle, pp. 3897, 3907, 
 
 3908, 3909, 3910. 
 
 T'. Robson, p. 782. 
 
 The Ocean Steamship Co. -'. McAl- 
 
 pin, p. 828. 
 The Oceana, p. 3923. 
 The Ocracoke, p. 3994. 
 The Olive Branch, Mahon v. 
 The Oluf, p. 612. 
 The Olympia, pp. 3866, 3872, 3934. 
 The Oneida, pp. 3908, 3923, 3935, 
 
 3936, 4069. 
 The Ontario, pp. 3929, 3930, 4024, 
 
 4067. 
 
 Grubnan v. 
 
 The Oranmore, p. 3870. 
 
 The Orcadian, pp. 3904, 3905. 
 
 The Oregon, 133 Fed. 609, 68 
 
 C. C. A. 603— pp. 3980, 3982, 
 
 3983, 3988, 4031. 
 The Oregon, I Deady, 179 Fed. 
 
 Cas. No. 10,553— pp. 286, 291. 
 The Oriflamme, pp. 1737, 1941. 
 The Osceola, p. 4043. 
 The Palmas, pp. 3908, 4069. 
 The Passaic, 190 Fed. 644— p. 4073. 
 The Passaic, 204 Fed. 266, 122 
 
 C. C. A. 466— p. 4037. 
 The Patria, 118 Fed. 109— p. 
 
 3930. 
 The Patria, 132 Fed. 971, 68 C. C. 
 
 A. 397— pp. 3921, 3922, 4030. 
 The Patrick Henry, p. 598. 
 
 The Persiana, 156 Fed. 1019— p. 
 
 3904. 
 The Persiana, 185 Fed. 396, 107 
 
 C. C. A. 416— pp. 4029, 4060. 
 The Peytona, Fed. Cas. No. 11,058, 
 
 2 Curt. 21— pp. 826, 3878. 
 The Peytona, Fed. Cas. No. 11,059, 
 
 1 Ware 541— p. 3905. 
 The Pharos, p. 3903. 
 The Philadelphia, Bartlett v. 
 The Phoenicia, 90 Fed. 116— p. 
 
 4031. 
 The Phoenicia, 99 Fed. 1005, 40 
 
 C. C. A. 221— pp. Z92Z, 3927. 
 The Pilgrim, Adams v. 
 The Pilot Boy, p. 1839. 
 The Pokanoket, p. 3936. 
 The Portsmouth, Fed. Cas. No. 
 
 11,295, 2 Biss. 56— p. 3900. 
 The Portsmouth (U. S.), 9 Wall 
 
 682, 19 L. Ed. 754— pp. 
 
 3915, 4021, 4022, 4023. 
 The Planter, p. 3937. 
 The President, pp. 1941, 
 
 3985, 3987. 
 The Presque Isle, pp. 3917 
 
 4031. 
 
 The Prince Albert, p. 588. 
 The Prinzess Irene, p. 3988. 
 The Priscilla, p. 4011. 
 The Propeller Burlington, p. 12. 
 The Propeller Commerce, pp. 483, 
 
 3897, 3898, 3899. 
 The Protection, pp. 439, 3934. 
 The Prussia, 88 Fed. 531— pp. 4019, 
 
 4026. 
 The Prussia, 93 Fed. 837, 35 C. 
 
 C. A. 625— pp. 4026, 4059. 
 The Prussia, 100 Fed. 484— pp. 
 
 3877, 3883, 3890. 
 The Queen, pp. 820, 823, 852, 3907, 
 
 3921, 3923, 3929, 4018, 4028, 
 
 4030. 
 
 3912, 
 
 3982 
 
 3921, 
 
 The Queen of the Pacific, pp. 3921, 
 
 o923, 3929, 4028, 4029. 
 The Querini Stamphalia, p. 339. 
 The Rappahannock, 173 Fed. 829 — 
 
 pp. 3907, 3921. 
 The Rappahannock, 184 Fed. 291, 
 
 107 C. C. A. 74— p. 3930. 
 The Ravensdale, pp. 3894. 3947. 
 The Rebecca, pp. 3900, 3905, 3906, 
 
 3937. 
 The Red River, pp. 477, 492, 513, 
 
 566. 
 The Reeside, p. 1009. 
 1 he R. E. Lee, pp. 3145, 3147. 
 The Republic, pp. 4037, 4045. 
 The Reveille, Gray r. 
 The R. G. Winslow, p. 3903. 
 The Richmond, pp. 531, 538. 
 The Richard Winslow, Norton t. 
 The Robert Campbell, Taylor v. 
 The Robert Dollar, p. 3546. 
 The Robert F. Stockton, Edwards 
 
 The Rokeby, p. 3923. 
 
 The Rosedale, p. 4070. 
 
 The Rose Innes, p. 3930. 
 
 The Royal Sceptre, p. 3910. 
 
 The Sabioncello, p. 3903. 
 
 The St. Anthony, Chouteau v. 
 
 The St. Bernard, pp. 711, 3962. 
 
 The St. Cuthbert, p. 3901. 
 
 The St. Georg, p. 3913. 
 
 The St. Hubert, 102 Fed. 362— 
 
 p. 1108. 
 'Ihe St. Hubert, 46 C. C. A. 603, 
 107 Fed. 727— pp. 1087, 1100, 
 1108, 1109, 3897, 4029. 
 The St. Joze Indiano, pp. 352, 
 
 1209, 1210. 
 The St. Laurent, p. 891. 
 The St. Patrick, p. 3903. 
 The St. Ouentin, pp. 4027, 4031. 
 The Sally Magee, pp. 349, 350. 
 The Samuel E. Spring, p. 820. 
 The Samuel F. Houseman, p. 3929. 
 The Sandfield, 79 Fed. 371— pp. 
 
 3921, 3930, 4019, 4021, 4065. 
 The Sandfield, 92 Fed. 663, 34 C. 
 
 C. A. 612— pp. 3924, 4023, 4061, 
 
 4066. 
 The San Paulo, p. 3926. 
 The San Pedro, pp. 4039, 4043, 
 
 4077, 4078, 4079. 
 The San Rafael, p. 4048. 
 The Santee, Fed. Cas. No. 12,328, 
 
 2 Ben. 519— pp. 527, 552, 553. 
 The Santee, Fed. Cas. No. 12,330, 
 
 17 Blatchf. 186— p. 892. 
 The Santissima Trinidad, p. 3874. 
 The Sarah E. Brown, Hovey v. 
 The Schmidt, p. 712. 
 The Schooner Freeman, pp. 304, 
 
 305, 306, 308, 331. 
 The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24. 26 
 
 L. Ed. 1001— pp. 4024, 4036, 
 
 4049, 4050, 4053, 4054, 4071, 
 
 4072, 4073, 4075, 4083. 
 The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507, 30 
 
 L. Ed. 153, 6 S. Ct. 1174— pp. 
 
 4036, 4042, 4049, 4050, 4053, 
 
 4072, 4075. 
 
 Gilkinson v. 
 
 The Seaboard, p. 3937. 
 The Seefahrer, p. 3885. 
 The Seneca, 163 Fed. 591 — p. 
 
 The Seneca, 172 Fed 
 
 C. A. 68— p. 3920. 
 The Seven Bros. No. 
 The Shand, p. 3935. 
 The Ship Freedom i 
 
 p. 365. 
 The Ship Howard, p. 
 The Sidonian, p. 3880. 
 The Sikh, p. 3893. 
 The Silvia, pp. 3907, 3908 
 
 4060, 4061, 4062, 4068, 
 
 4083. 
 The Skylark, p. 3878. 
 The Sloga, p. 4030. 
 The S. L. Watson, p. 3865. 
 The Snap, p. 726. 
 
 3892. 
 370, 97 C. 
 
 1, p. 3917. 
 Simmonds, 
 337. 
 
 3909, 
 4071,
 
 TAIiLK '>!■■" CASKS. 
 
 CCXCIX 
 
 The Socicte, pp. 3941, 3945. 
 The Sonora, Bailey v. 
 
 The Southsidc, p. 3995. 
 The Southwark. 108 Fed. 880. 48 
 C. C. A. 123— pp. 4058, 4065, 
 4081. 
 The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 48 
 L. Ed. 65, 24 S. Ct. 1 — pp. 3907, 
 3923, 3924, 4056, 4057, 4058. 
 4059, 4060, 4061, 4063, 4065, 
 4066. 
 The Soyo Maru, p. 3904. 
 The Staincliffe, p. 820. 
 The Stanley Dollar, p. 3040. 
 The Star of Hope, Fed. Cas. No. 
 
 13,313, 2 Savvy. 15— p. 3926. 
 The Star of Hope (U. S.). 9 Wall. 
 
 203, 19 L. I'd. 638— p. 4022. 
 The Star of Hope (U. S.), 17 
 Wall. 651, 21 L. Kd. 719— pp. 
 3903, 3905. 
 The Steamboat Arrow, Butler v. 
 The Steamer Webb, p. 12. 
 The Strathairly, pp. 3977, 3978. 
 The Strathdon, 89 Fed. 374— pp. 
 
 3891, 3896. 
 The Strathdon, 101 Fed. 600, 41 
 
 C. C. A. 515— p. 3927. 
 The Styria, 93 Fed. 474— pp. 3894, 
 
 3895. 
 The Styria, 95 Fed. 698— p. 3933. 
 The Styria, 101 Fed. 728, 41 C. 
 C. A. 639— pp. 3874, 4027, 4028. 
 
 7'. Morgan, p. 3874. 
 
 The Success, Lewis r. 
 
 The Sue. pp. 1944, 1949. ^ 
 
 The Sunbeam, pp. 4048, 40o4. 
 
 The Svend, p. 4030. 
 
 The Swallow, Barker v. 
 
 The Sybil, p. 3948. 
 
 The T. A. Goddard, pp. 3865, 3916, 
 
 3937. 
 The Tampico, p. 3919. 
 The Tangier, Salmon Falls Mfg. 
 
 Co. r. 
 The Tenedos, 137 Fed< 443— p. 
 
 The Tenedos. 151 Fed. 1022, 82 
 C C A. 671— pp. 4062, 4065. 
 
 The Texas, p. 3978. 
 
 The Thames (U. S.), 14 Wall. 
 98. 20 L. Ed. 804— pp. 319, 333, 
 370, 377. 378, 403, 547, 566, 
 3274, 3867, 3895. 
 
 The Thame?, Fed. Cas. No. 13,Sj9, 
 7 Blatchf. 226— pp. 486, 558, 559 
 
 The Thomas Ewing, Van Syckel 
 
 The Titania, 124 Fed. 975- pp. 893, 
 
 910. 
 The Titania, 65 C. C. A. 215, 131 
 Fed. 229— pp. 295, 3883, 3894. 
 The Titanic, p. 4079. 
 The Tjomo, pp. 3924, 3929. 
 The Tommy, p. 4047. 
 The Tornado, pp. 3939. 3940, 4017. 
 The Toronto, pp. 393C 4019, 4027. 
 The Tribune, p. 3866. 
 The Tusker, np. 338, 339. 
 The Tvbee, p. 527. 
 The Uncle Sam, Sheldon r. 
 The Uriel, Price, etc., Co. v. 
 The Valencia, pp. 3980, 3981, 4031, 
 
 4034. 
 The N'aughan, p. 3933. 
 The Victorio, p. 3906. 
 The Victory, pp. 1037, 3922, 4084. 
 The \'incenzo, p. 817. 
 The Viola, pp. 3963, 3965. 
 The Vueltabajo. pp. 3981, 3984. 
 The Wall, Smith v. 
 The Wanata, pp. 4040, 4042, 4049. 
 The War I-iagle. Russ v. 
 The Water Witch, pp. 3906, 3915, 
 
 3918. 
 The Wellington, pp. 336, 3900. 
 The Western States, 151 Fed. 929 
 
 —pp. 3990, 3991. 
 The Western States, 159 Fed. 334, 
 
 86 C. C. A. 354— p. 4009. 
 
 The Westminister, 102 Fed. 366 — 
 
 pp. 1108, 1109. 
 The Westminister, 116 Fed. 123— 
 
 pp. 1116, 1117. 
 The Westminister, 62 C. C. A. 
 
 406, 127 Fed. 680— pp. 818, 820, 
 
 3920, 3921, 4029, 4030. 
 The Wildcroft, 126 Fed. 229— p. 
 
 820. 
 The Wildcroft, 130 Fed. 521, 6j 
 
 C. C. A. 145— pp. 3927, 4067, 
 
 4081. 
 The Wildcroft, 201 U. S. 378. SO 
 
 L. Ed. 794. 26 S. Ct. 467— pp. 
 
 4061, 4065, 4066, 4080. 
 The Wildenfels, pp. 3862, 3930. 
 The William .Marshall, p. 712. 
 The William Power, p. 3928. 
 The William Taber, pp. 820, 828. 
 The Willie, p. 3908. 
 The Willie D. Sandhoval, pp. 293, 
 
 305, 306, 338, 587, 816. 
 The Winnebago, p. 3546. 
 The Witch Queen, p. 3937. 
 The Zenobia, pp. 726, 741. 
 The Zone, pp. 820, 4030. 
 Theilbar, Merchants' Despatch 
 Transp. Co. r. 
 \ Thero '-. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 1309. 
 Thing, McManus f. 
 Third Ave. R. Co., Barrett v. 
 
 V. Barton, p. 2127. 
 
 Block i: 
 
 Buckbee v. 
 
 Deutschmann t. 
 
 Hamilton f. 
 
 Hansen 
 
 Hoffman v. 
 
 Isaacs V. 
 
 Jacobs V. 
 
 Keegan f. 
 
 Lasker v. 
 
 Ludeman f. 
 
 Maccr I'. 
 
 McMahon v. 
 
 Morris v. 
 
 Munroe r. 
 
 Norton ?■. 
 
 Rixley f. 
 
 Rosenberg f. 
 
 Schalscha t'. 
 
 Schultz V. 
 
 Wallace ■:•. 
 
 Zimmer v. 
 
 Third Nat. Bank v. Hays, pp. 371 
 384, 385, 391. ^ , 
 
 Thirteenth, etc., R. Co. r. Boudrou 
 pp. 2002, 2183. 
 
 Thisler, Oregon R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Thomas, Alabama, etc., R. Co. v 
 
 i: Altoona, etc., Elect. Co. 
 
 P 2876. . ^ „ 
 
 Thomas f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 pp. 311, 313. 331, 488. 
 
 V. Boston Elev. R. Co., p 
 
 2672. ^, ^ 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., pp 
 
 210, 894, 910. 
 
 r. Carlotte, etc., R. Co., pp 
 1878. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2436, 2o32. 
 Frankfort, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 .. Gay, p. 3571. 
 
 - f. Kansas, p. 3539. 
 
 - Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 - Kentucky Cent. R. Co. i._ 
 
 ;•. Lancaster Mills, pp. /44, 
 
 775, 778. 
 
 V. Le Baron, p. 3944. 
 
 Mathis t'. 
 
 f. Mills, p. 2496. 
 
 V. Morning Glory, pp. 727, 
 
 732, 749, 945. 
 
 V. Morse, p. 400. 
 
 New Orleans, etc.. R. Co. f 
 
 Newport News, etc., Co. z: 
 
 r North Staffordshire R. Co. 
 
 pp. 211, 236, 237. 
 
 Thomas :■. Northern Pac. E.tp. Co., 
 p. 579. 
 
 V. Osborn, pp. 3865. 3866. 
 
 3867. 
 
 V. Pacific Exp. Co.. p. 519. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co.. p. 
 
 583. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 2860. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1824, 2674, 2781. 
 
 Rogers v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 San Pedro, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 t'. San Pedro, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2342, 2356. 
 
 f. Scutt, p. 3871. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co.. 122 N. 
 
 C. 1005, 30 S. E. 343— pp. 3042. 
 3043. 3055. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 131 N. 
 
 C. 590. 42 S. E. 964, 6 R. R. 
 R. 860, 29 -Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 860— pp. 728, 730, 749, 
 3186, 3194. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 246. 
 
 Wells V. 
 
 v. Wells-Fargo Exp. Co., p. 
 
 1339. 
 
 Western R". Co. -■. 
 
 Thomas, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wabash, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 853, 854, 855. 
 
 Thompkins f. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 190. 
 
 Thompson, Alabama Mid. R. Co. 
 
 Arbuckle v. 
 
 Central Railroad f. 
 
 Central R. Go. '.: 
 
 — — Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Chattanooga Southern R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 189 
 
 Fed. 723, 111 C. C. A. 261— 
 pp. 2348, 2884. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 
 
 Iowa, appx., 561 — pp. 757, 781. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 22 
 
 Mo. App. 321— pp. 1118, 1119, 
 1122, 1124, 1125. 
 
 Cumberland, etc., R". Co. z: 
 
 V. Darden, p. 3532. 
 
 Duffy f. 
 
 V. Duncan, p. 2372. 
 
 i: Fargo (N. Y.). 4 Thomp. 
 
 & C. 665, 2 Hun 379— pp. 476, 
 477. 
 
 -.■. Fargo, 49 N. Y. 188, 44 
 
 How. Prac. 176, 10 Am. Rep. 
 342— pp. 484, 490. 
 
 V. Fargo, 63 N. Y. 479— p. 
 
 489. 
 
 Fulton, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 t . Gardner, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1803, 1927. 
 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 Goodrich f. 
 
 f. Green, pp. 1736, 2386. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Hoyt I'. 
 
 V. Insurance Co., p. 3871. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1833. 2968. ,^,^ 
 
 _1 t. Midland R. Co., pp. 1670. 
 1672. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Montgomery, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 r. Nashville, etc.. Railway, 
 
 pp. 1569, 2577. 
 
 i: New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 P- 1864. 
 — — z: Norfolk, etc.. Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2357, 2912. 
 
 Perry r. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. z:
 
 ccc 
 
 TA]iLK OF CASES. 
 
 Thompson f. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 624, 1303, 1309. 
 
 f. Railroad Comm., p. 45. 
 
 f. Rose, p. 579. 
 
 St. Louis Trans. Co. ■:•. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2683. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 f. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 423. 457, 458, 463, 1138, 
 1139, 1195. 
 
 Seaboard, etc., K. Co. z\ 
 
 South, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 I. Southern Exp. Co.. p. 1()3. 
 
 z: Soutliern Pac. Co'., p. 3306. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Steamboat Jonas Powell v. 
 
 f. Stewart, p. 1241. 
 
 Sullivan :'. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Travis ;■. 
 
 f. Truesdale, pp. 1636, 2443. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Ward z: 
 
 Winslow z\ 
 
 z: Winslow, 128 Fed. 73— 
 
 p. 3917. 
 
 z: Winslow, 130 Fed. 1001 — 
 
 p. 3966. 
 
 z: Yazoo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1564, 1566, 1828. 
 
 Thompson-Houston Elect. Co. v. 
 
 Simon, p. 211. 
 Thompson Towing, etc., .\ss n z: 
 
 McGregor, pp. 4048. 4082. 
 Thompson, etc., Co., Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co. f. 
 Thomsen & Co., Tweedie Trading 
 
 Co. z: 
 Thomson, Gleadell v- 
 
 'c'. Manhattan R. Co., p. 2030. 
 
 t/ Pacific Railroad, pp. 37, 
 
 3553. 
 
 Thorn, McCready v. 
 Thome v. California Stage Co., p. 
 2835. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
 
 Co., p. 2328. 
 
 Thornsberry, Galveston, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Ti ,- 
 
 Thornton, Baltimore, etc., R. v„o. 
 
 International, etc., R'. Co. z: 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. i . 
 
 Xewsom v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z: 
 
 Southwestern Railroad Z'. 
 
 Western R. Co. v. 
 
 Thorp V. Brookfield, p. 2300. 
 
 v. Concord R. Co., pp. 1636, 
 
 2453. 
 
 V. Durham Tract. Co., pp. 
 
 2357, 2375, 2907. 
 
 z: Hammond, pp. 3865, 3932. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1953, 1955, 2074, 3204, 3213, 
 3226, 3227. 
 
 Thorson f. Groton, etc., St. R. Co., 
 pp. 1682, 1739, 2561, 2562, 2793. 
 
 Threefoot v. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co., p. 3398. 
 
 Three Hundred & Eighteen & One- 
 Half Tons of Coal, Johnson v. 
 
 Three Hundred Sixty-Seven Tons 
 of Coal, Carleton v. 
 
 Thurlkill, Whitesides i'. 
 
 Thurlow, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Massachusetts, p. 3427. 
 
 Thurman, Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Wells, Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 231, 869. 
 
 Thurston z: Detroit United R. Co., 
 pp. 1709, 2666, 2895. 
 
 V. Foster, p. 3875. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1492, 1495, 1498, 1499. 
 
 Thweatt v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2028, 2031. 
 Thwing, Insurance Co. v. 
 
 Thyll X'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 817, 829, 1038. 
 Tibbett, Morton :■. 
 Tibbits, Hoover z: 
 Tibbits & Son z: Rock Island, etc.. 
 
 R. Co., p. 346. 
 Tibbv f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1580, 2092, 2098, 2296. 
 Tice, Georgia R., etc., Co. z\ 
 Tickell z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1752, 1755. 
 Tide Water Pipe Co. z-. State 
 
 Board, p. 3589. 
 Ticdeman !■. Kno.x, pp. 359, 1221. 
 Tierney z\ New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, 236, 615, 616, 744. 
 
 Willard Mfg. Co. f._ 
 
 Tiers, New Brunswick Steamboat, 
 etc., Co. z\ 
 
 New Brunswick, etc., Co. z\ 
 
 Tictken, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Tictz f. International R. Co., p. 
 
 1957. 
 Tift, Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Southern R. Co., 123 Fed. 
 
 789- pp. 3666, 3821, 3841. 
 
 v. Southern R. Co., 138 Fed. 
 
 753— pp. 1190, 1193, 1201, 3674, 
 3792, 3793, 3795, 3797. 
 
 Tiis z\ Byers, p. 717. 
 
 Tilburg V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
 
 217 Pa. 618, 66 Atl. 846, 12 L. 
 
 R. A., N. S., 359— pp. 2852, 
 
 2855, 3078. 
 
 z: Northern Cent. R. Co., 221 
 
 Pa. 245, 70 Atl. 723— p. *2364. 
 
 Tildcn Z-. Rhode Island Co., p. 
 
 2822. 
 Tiller V. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 (Iowa), 24 R. R. R. 581, 47 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 581, 112 
 
 N. W. 631— pp. 821, 1458. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 142 
 
 Iowa 309, 120 N. W. 672— pp. 
 1303, 1304. 1305, 1310, 14o8, 
 1473, 1479. 
 
 Tilleson, Louisville, etc., R. Co._ ■;'. 
 Tillett V. Lynchburg, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2125. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1990, 2169. 
 
 Tilley z\ County of Cook. dd. 24' 
 3867. 
 
 z: Norfolk, etc., R, 
 
 244. 
 
 Tillman, Columbus, etc., R 
 
 Z-. Kansas City Distill 
 
 p. 1233. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. ''. 
 
 Tillotson, Putnam "■. 
 
 Tilton z'. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., pp. 2691, 2893. 
 Timnions, Eureka Springs R. Co. 
 
 Timms V. Old Colony St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1994, 2804. 
 Timon, San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Timpson, Fcnn v. 
 
 V. Manhattan R. Co., p. 1786. 
 
 Tindall V. Taylor, p. 3274. 
 Tingle, Adams Express Co. z\ 
 Tinglcy v. Long Island R. Co., p. 
 
 2096. 
 
 Tinker, Inman Steamship Co. ■;% 
 
 Tinkle z\ St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1502, 1755. 
 
 Tinsley z'. Penniinan, p. 2696. 
 
 Tioga R. Co., Mallory z\ 
 
 Tippecanoe Loan, etc., Co. f. Jes- 
 ter, pp. 1488, 2620, 2982. 
 
 Tipton V. Topeka R. Co., p. 2739. 
 
 Tirrcll, Gage f. 
 
 v. Gage, p. 618. 
 
 Tirelli, Alabama, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 Tisdale, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Tison V. Howard, pp. 355, 356, 
 357, 360, 361, 362, 367, 375. 
 
 Titania, The. 
 
 Tittabawassee Boom Co. v. Cun- 
 ning, p. 3428. 
 
 pp. 
 
 Co., p. 
 
 Co. I', 
 lery Co., 
 
 R. Co., p. 
 
 Co. 
 
 PP 
 
 Co. 
 Dec. 
 
 Tittle, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Titusville, Brennan v. 
 
 Tjomo, The. 
 
 Toberman f. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1033. 
 Tobin '■. Omnibus Cable Co., p. 
 
 2992. 
 
 c'. Pennsylvania Railroad, p. 
 
 2814. 
 
 z: Pittsfield Elect. St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2659, 2898, 2938 
 
 I'. Portland, etc., 
 
 2505. 
 ■ Silver V. 
 
 Vicksburg z'. 
 
 Todd, Bates •:■. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 z'. Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 1995, 2637, 2691. 
 
 z: Old Colony, etc., R. 
 
 (Mass.), 3 Allen 18, 80 Am. _ 
 49— pp. 1564, 1566, 1759, 2201. 
 
 v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Mass.), 7 Allen 207, 83 Am. 
 Dec. 679— pp. 1759, 2203. 
 
 Tolano z'. National Steam Nav. Co., 
 
 p. 3145. 
 Tolchester Beach Imp. Co. v- 
 
 Scharnagl, pp. 2044, 2867. 
 Toledo Consol. St. R. Co. v. 
 
 ler, pp. 1541, 2083, 2699. 
 Toledo R., etc., Co. ■;■. Ketrow, p. 
 
 2657. 
 Toledo Tract. Co., Carr -■. 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. z>. Ambach, pp. 
 
 728, 749, 765, 1039, 3122, 3133, 
 
 3141, 3144, 3184. 
 
 7'. Baddeley, pp. 1718, 
 
 2950, 2993. 
 
 Bansemer z'. 
 
 T'. Beery, p. 1305. 
 
 z\ Beggs, pp. 1572, 
 
 2096, 2097, 2683. 
 
 r'. Boaz, p. 1371. 
 
 Bowler, etc., Co. z'. 
 
 z\ Bowler, etc., Co., 
 
 3109, 3124, 3133, 
 
 1076, 
 
 3150, 3151, 3153, 3155. 
 
 I'. Brooks, 
 
 1550, 1572. 
 
 '•. Broo<s 
 
 1572. 
 
 Collins Z'. 
 
 Dages, 
 
 Ful- 
 
 1719, 
 
 1573. 
 
 pp. 7. 
 3149, 
 
 n 111. 245— pp. 
 51 111. 292— p. 
 
 3149, 
 
 .._-„, pp. 3124, 
 3i50, 3151, 3153, 3154. 
 V. Durkin, p. 1456. 
 T'. Eastburn, p. 1467. 
 V. Elliott, pp. 91, 1180. 
 V. Foss, p. 2637. 
 Funsten Dried Fruit, etc., Co. 
 
 V. Gilvin, pp. 288, 292. 
 z: Crush, pp. 2500, 2501. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1036, 
 3115, 
 
 1291, 
 
 3116, 
 
 Hamilton, 
 1330, 1388. 
 
 z\ Hammond, pp. 
 
 3117, 3125, 3127. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 z: Kichler, p. 864. 
 
 z: Kickler, p. 865. 
 
 v. Levy, pp. 1018, 1460, 
 
 7: Lockhart, pp. 694, 3278, 
 
 3279. 
 
 2461, 
 
 3091 
 
 z\ McDonougli, pp. 
 
 2565, 3103. 
 
 z\ Maine, p. 2501. 
 
 z\ Merriman, p. 3253. 
 
 Paddock v. 
 
 •:■. Patterson, pp. 2435. 
 
 z: Pence, pp. 210, 1492. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 
 
 730, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 307, 
 19 L. R. A. 387— pp. 255, 3819, 
 3823. 
 
 ;■. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 
 
 746, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 293, 
 19 L. R. A. 395— pp. 254, 3658. 
 
 z: Roberts, pp. 455, 458, 474. 
 
 Secor V. 
 
 V. Stevenson, pp. 1767, 1768, 
 
 1800.
 
 TAULE OF CASES. 
 
 CCCI 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. r. Tapp, pp. 1 
 
 727, 732, 748, 752, 821, 3157. 
 J.. Thompson, pp. 1291, 1345. 
 
 Toberman v. 
 
 ,.. Williams, pp. 190, 2420, 
 
 2423 
 ,.; Wingate, pp. 1782, 1878, 
 
 1884, 1911, 2615. 
 
 f. Wren. pp. 224, 227, 228. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 1596, 1597, 
 
 2425, 2467, 2479. 
 
 Toledo, etc., Tract. Co. !■. McFall, 
 pp. 1762, 1763, 1890, 1896. 
 
 Tolcr V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 2909. 
 
 Tolcrton, etc.. Co. r. Anglo-Cali- 
 fornia r.ank, pp. 394, 396, 399. 
 
 Tollcman -•. Sheboygan, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1695, 1958, 1959, 2309, 
 2800. 
 
 Tollerson, Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Tolleson r. Southern Railway, pp. 
 2081. 2949. 
 
 Tolman '.■. Abbot, pp. 3327, 3353. 
 
 Tolson, Inland, etc.. Coasting Co. 
 
 Tombigbec Valley R. Co., Fairford 
 
 I,unil)er Co. v. 
 Tomlin, I5elt Ivlect. Line Co. r. 
 Tomlinson, St. Eouis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 -.. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3089. 
 Tommy, The. 
 Tompkins i'. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2494. 
 
 V. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1528, 1682, 1719, 2122, 2176. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Clay Street R. Co., p. 
 
 2083. 
 
 V. Dutchess, pp. 726, 734, /35, 
 
 736, 741, 768. 
 
 Toncray, White '■. 
 
 Tonn, Kansas, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 Toohy z: McEcan, pp. 1707. 1839, 
 
 2150, 2636. 
 Tooker '<: Brooklyn Heights K. 
 
 Co., p. 2798. 
 
 V. Gormer, pp. 570,^ 3^2. 
 
 Toomey, Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 Tootle V. Rusk, p. 477. 
 
 Topoka City R. Co. 7'. Higgs pp. 
 
 1725, 1749, 1951, 1980, 2009, 
 
 2194. 
 Topeka R. Co., Tipton v. 
 Topp r. United R., etc.. Co., pp. 
 
 2117. 2118, 2228, 2317. 
 Topping Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Torgorm, Chamberlain v. 
 
 Tornado, The. 
 
 Toronto, The. 
 
 Toronto St. R. Co.. Blackmore t. 
 
 Toronto, etc., R. Co., Blackmore 
 
 ToVpe, West Chicago St. R. Co. z: 
 Torpey '■■ Williams, pp. 3123, 
 
 3125, 3126, 3129, 3168. 
 Torrence, Perry f. 
 Torrev v. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2173. 
 
 r. Kelly. pp. 3985. 3986, 
 
 3987. 
 
 Touart, Eouisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Toulon, Tardos v. 
 Tousey v. Roberts, p. 1750. 
 Tower r. Utica, etc., R'. Co.. pp. 
 
 3146, 3148. 
 Tower Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 184 Mass. 472, 69 N. E. 348— 
 
 pp. 3923, 3925. 3932. 
 
 T. Southern Pac. Co., 195 
 
 Mass. 157, 80 N. Iv. 809— pp. 
 3925, 4025. 
 
 Tower Grove, etc.. R. Co., Male- 
 Tower ' Hill Steamship Co., Gold- 
 smith -'. 
 Towles r. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 646. 
 Townc. Nash r. 
 
 Co. 
 R. 
 
 Townes, St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Townsend f. Binghamton R. Co., 
 p. 2183. 
 
 r. Boston, p. 2320. 
 
 1'. Houston Elect. Co., p. 
 
 2589. 
 
 V. Nashville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2260, 2616. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2431, 3086. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Steele i'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. 
 
 J'. Texas, etc., 
 
 2627. 
 
 Townsend Brick, etc., Co. 
 
 tral Trust Co., p. 108. 
 Townsend. etc.. Dry Goods Co. v. 
 
 L'nited States Exp. Co., pp. 431, 
 
 1059, 1074. 
 Tozer, United States i 
 Tozer 
 
 3842. 
 Tozier v. Haverhill, etc., St 
 
 Co., p. 2971. 
 Trabing f. California Nav., etc., 
 
 Co.. 121 Cal. 137, 53 Pac. 644, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas.. N. S., 
 
 095_pp. 2038. 2059. 2070. 
 
 I'. California Nav., etc., Co., 
 
 133 Cal. XX. 65 Pac. 478— pp. 
 3102. 4004. 4007. 
 
 Trace v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. pp. 
 
 827. 1453. 1454. 1455. 1470. 
 Tracey, Chicago, etc.. R'. Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 Co., p. 
 -•. Cen- 
 
 United States", pp. 3719, 
 R. 
 
 Tracy 
 1335. 
 
 IS 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co.. p. 
 Co., 
 
 Pullman Palace Car 
 
 p. 3230. 
 
 ■;•. Storer. p. 517. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Trade Mark Cases, p. 3420. 
 Trader. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Tradewell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 493. 842. 3398. 
 Traffic Bureau Merchants' Exch. 
 
 7\ Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. p. 3734. 
 Trafton, Boston, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Trail. Illinois Cent. R. Co. ',■. 
 Trainer, Little Rock, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Co., 
 
 39, 
 
 Trakas r. Charleston, etc.. R. 
 
 pp. 614, 616. 617. 766, 3398. 
 Trammel r. Dinsmore, pp. 35 
 
 115, 116, 128. 129. 
 Trammell. Houston, etc.. R". Co. i'. 
 Trankersley. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Transcontinental Freight Co.. Gar- 
 
 berson z\ 
 Transfer Co. v. Kelly, pp. 728. 
 
 733. 749, 1684, 2081. 
 Transit Co. r. Vcnable, pp. 203, 
 
 1561, 2697. 
 Trans-Missouri Freight Ass n. 
 
 United States t-. 
 Transportation Co. r. Downer, pp. 
 
 1020. 1037. 3921. 4017, 4020, 
 
 4031. 
 
 -'. Parkersburg. pp. 3468. 
 
 3474, 3528, 3529. 3530. 3531, 
 3532. 
 
 Walker f. 
 
 r. Wheeling, pp. 3474. 3581, 
 
 3583, 3584. 
 
 Transportation Line r. Cooper, p. 
 
 3977. 
 Traphagen r. Erie R. Co.. pp. 1822, 
 
 1823. 
 Trapp f. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1862. 3057. 
 1 raube. Union R.. etc.. Co. -■. 
 Trautwein. Delaware, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 Travelers' Ins. Co. r. .-\ustin, pp. 
 1502. 1581. 1584. 
 
 - ravers -•. Ka-'sas Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2411, 2412, 2414. 
 Travis, Loverin. etc.. Co. ■:■. 
 
 •;■. Thompson. W- !'-''■♦• H^^, 
 
 1158. 
 
 Travis i-. Wells Fargo & Co., ii. 
 
 1051. 
 Trawick, Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Travnham i'. Charleston, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. p. 3524. 
 Traywick v. Southern Railway, p. 
 
 677. 
 Treadway, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 r. ^ 
 
 Treadwell z: Aydlelt, etc.. Co.. pp. 
 
 1228. 1229. 1231, 1242. 1245. 
 
 :■. Whittier. pp. 1488, 1735. 
 
 1750. 1839. 1843, 1845, 1850. 
 
 Treat z: Boston, etc.. R. Corp., pp. 
 1878, 1951, 2360. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R'. Co. f. 
 
 Tredegar Co., Ewan :■. 
 
 Tregear f. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2186. 
 Treleven z: Northern Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 500. 
 Trenchard r. New Orleans R., etc.. 
 
 Co., p. 2810. 
 Trent, Block :■. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R'. Co. v. 
 
 Trent, etc., Nav. Co. z\ Wood, p. 
 
 729. 
 Trenton. Reed t. 
 Trenton Horse R. Co.. Breese z: 
 Trcssler, Northern Pac. R. Co. t . 
 Trexler r. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1343, 1457, 1478. 
 Trezona z: Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1624. 1638. 2446. 2447. 2622. 
 Tribbey. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Tribune, The. 
 Trice z-. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1609, 2449, 2458. 2463. 
 _1 f. Miller, pp. 522, 533, 549, 
 
 552, 1009. ^ _ 
 
 Trich, South Side Pass. K. Co. ;. 
 Tri-City R. Co., Conwell t. 
 
 r. Gould, p. 2952. 
 
 Trieber z'. New York. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 1889. „ „ 
 
 Trigg z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 3048. 3049. 3061. 
 Trigo. San .\ntonio, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Trimble z: New York. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 56 N. E. 532. 162 N. Y. 84. 48 
 
 L R. A. 115— pp. 3111. 3149. 
 
 3150, 3154, 3184. 
 -■ New York. etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 39 App. Div. 403. 57 N. Y. S- 
 
 437— pp. 822. 3149, 3162. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 .Lrimyer, Washington, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Triiidall z: Taylor, pp. 377, 378. 
 
 Trinity County Lumber Co., Mis- 
 souri, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Trinity \'alley R. Co. z: .Stewart, 
 pp. 1588. 1752, 1755, 1/d6, 198.-«. 
 2004, 2208. ^ ^ ^ 
 
 Trinitv, etc., R. Co. z: Bradshaw. 
 p. 2769. 
 
 Carpenter Z'. 
 
 z: Geppcrt. p. 3518. 
 
 Haberzettle ;. 
 
 !■. O'Brien, pp. 1769. 2903. 
 
 Walling ;■. 
 
 Tripis. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Tripp. Old Colony R. Co. :. 
 Trippe & Co. Hot Springs R. Co. 
 
 Troop. Ralli z: 
 
 Trotlinger z: East Tennessee, etc., 
 
 R C'o.. pp. 191, 194. 198. 199. 
 
 203. 1550. 1592. 1858. 1863. 
 Trotter. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. :. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t . 
 
 Trousdale & Sons, Richmond, etc.. 
 
 R- ^°- ''■ ^ r, r- 
 
 Troustine. Illinois Cent. K. Co. z: 
 
 Trout ;■. Gulf, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1304. 13(.8. ^ 
 
 z: Watkins Livery, etc., Co.. 
 
 p. 1489. 
 
 Troutman z: Louisville, etc., K. 
 
 Co.. p. 2860. 
 Trowbridge t. Chapin. pp. 26/. 
 
 279. 285.
 
 CCCII 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Trowbridge t: Charleston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 824. 
 Trowell f. Youmans, pp. 551, 553, 
 
 581. 
 Trower, Pecos, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Troy, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 Wilson i: 
 
 Troy, etc., R. Co., Buffett t. 
 
 Foy V. 
 
 Francisco f. 
 
 Ross -. 
 
 Shedd t . 
 
 Trover, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Truax, Ferguson '■. , 
 
 f. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 246, 267, 277, 284, 285, 727, 
 732, 748, 765, 3265. 
 
 True, International, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Keokuk Northern Line Pack- 
 et Co. r. 
 
 Keokuk, etc.. Packet Co. v. 
 
 Truel f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1612, 1613. 
 Truesdale, Thompson f. 
 Truesdell z: Erie R. Co., 99 X. Y. 
 
 S., 694. 114 App. Div. 34— pp. 
 
 2229, 2231, 2822. 
 
 f. Erie R. Co., 104 X. V. S. 
 
 243, 119 App. Div. 371— pp. 2349, 
 2911. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7-. 
 
 Truex i: Erie R. Co., pp. 2080, 
 
 2171. 
 ■Trumbull T'. Donahue, p. 2758. 
 
 V. Erickson, pp. 1736, 1953, 
 
 1954, 2115, 2120, 2121, 2169, 
 2180. 
 
 Truskett, Missouri, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Trussell t: Morris Countv Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 1744, 2345, 2889. 
 Trust Co. f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 45, 57. 
 Truxel, Estey v. 
 Tryon Co. v. Hutchinson Lumber, 
 
 etc., Co., p. 816. 
 Tubbs V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2504. 
 Tucker v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2005. 
 
 z: Buffalo R. Co., pp. 2199, 
 
 2311. 
 
 z: Central, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2226, 2348, 2394. 
 
 ■ Crumbacker v. 
 
 Eppes v. 
 
 Hagan r. 
 
 V. Housatonic K. Co., p. 514. 
 
 z\ Humphrey, pp. 1215, 1216, 
 
 1232. 
 
 Indianapolis Southern R. Co. 
 
 Kimball f. 
 
 Maryland, etc.. Railroad v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 45, 67. 
 
 V. Pacific R. Co., p. 1311. 
 
 z: Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 777. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2364, 2779, 2860. 
 
 z: Rhode Island Co., p. 1828. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Stimson, p. 3865. 
 
 Tuckerman f. Brown, p. 3916. 
 
 Clendaniel v. 
 
 Z'. Stephens, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 2. 
 
 Tuckerman, etc., Co., Stephens, 
 
 etc., Transp. Co. z'. 
 Tuckett, Galveston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Tudor V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1836. 
 Tudor Co., Janney z\ 
 Tuerk, West Chicago St. R. Co. v. 
 Tuesco Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania R'. 
 
 Co., p. 853. 
 Tufts z: Sylvester, p. 1227. 
 Tuggle, Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1442. 
 
 Tugman, National Steamship Co. 
 
 Tuley f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2215. 
 Tuller r. Talbot, pp. 1723, 1728, 
 
 1744, 1745, 2076. 
 Tunnicliffe z: Bay Cities Consol. 
 
 R. Co., p. 1832. 
 Tupelo Furniture Mfg. Co., Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Tupelo, etc., Mfg. Co., Mobile, 
 
 etc., R. Co. f. 
 Tupman, Burnside, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tupper -•. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1994, 2799. 
 Turley v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2175, 2263, 2264, 2360, 2540. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Turner, Birmingham R., etc., Co. f. 
 
 z: Black Warrior, pp. 820, 
 
 829. 
 
 z: City Elect. K. Co., pp. 
 
 1747, 1803, 1804, 2385, 2404, 
 2996. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1608, 1677, 3044, 3051. 
 
 • Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Haight r. 
 
 z: Huff, pp. 532, 538, 903. 
 
 z'. Liverpool Dock, pp. 1215, 
 
 1216. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 z: McCook, pp. 2454, 2621, 
 
 2647, 2648. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 z: North Beach, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2411, 2414, 3087, 3097. 
 
 z: Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1643. 
 
 Roberts v. 
 
 — ■ — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Z-. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 333, 451. 
 
 • • San Antonio, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Smith i'. 
 
 South Bend -•. 
 
 z\ Southern Railway, p. 3198. 
 
 Tacoma R., etc., Co. z'. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1782, 1892. 
 
 • Western, etc.. Railroad ;■. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Z!. Western, etc.. Railroad, 
 
 pp. 1561, 2040, 2633. 
 
 Turney, Huron Barge Co. v. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wilson, pp. 11, 488, 729, 
 
 730, 731, 733, 737, 750, 768, 822, 
 1009. 1020. 
 
 Turnpike Co. v. State, p. 1501. 
 Turrentine t'. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 894. 
 Tusker, The. 
 Tuten V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1524, 1767. 
 Tuthill, Saltmarsh v. 
 Tutt, Jacobs z\ 
 Tuttle t. Becker, p. 364. 
 
 Z-. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2683. 
 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2488, 2491, 2784. 
 
 Sturdevant z>. 
 
 Tweedie Trading Co. z>. I'.arry, 194 
 Fed. 286— pp. 3967, 3973. 
 
 z: Barry, 205 Fed. 721, 124 
 
 C. C. A. 15— pp. 3967, 3973. 
 
 V. Craig, pp. 3957, 3959. 
 
 Glasgow Steam Shipping Co. 
 
 Herr v. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 166 Fed. 993— pp. 3959, 3973. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 194 Fed. 281— p. 3962. 
 
 Z'. Pitch Pine Lumber Co., 
 
 146 Fed. 612— p. 3953. 
 
 V. Pitch Pine Lumber Co., 
 
 156 Fed. 88— p. 3963. 
 
 Tweedie Trading Co. f. Strong, 
 etc., Co., pp. 3952, 3966, 3967. 
 
 v. Thomsen & Co., pp. 3957, 
 
 3974. 
 
 Twenty-Third St. R. Co., Corbett 
 
 Twichell, Pecos, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 -'. Pecos, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2019. 
 
 Twiname, Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Citizens', etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Twiss Z-. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 204. 1557, 2193, 2195. 
 
 ■ Missouri Pac. R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Twitty '•. Southern R'. Co., p. 149. 
 Two Hundred & Sixteen Loads & 
 
 Six Hundred & Seventy- Eight 
 
 Barrels of Fertilizer, p. 3972. 
 Two Hundred and Twenty-One 
 
 Tons of Coal, O'Rouke -'. 
 Twomley z\ Central Park, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2128, 2766. 
 2,098 Tons of Coal, In re. 
 
 Ionia Transp. Co. -•. 
 
 Two Thousand Tons of Coal, pp. 
 3953, 3961. 
 
 New Ruperra Steamship Co. 
 
 T.'w. & W. R. Co. V. Baddeley, p. 
 
 1884. 
 Tybee, The. 
 Tvler, Guizoni f. 
 -^— f. London & S. W. R. Co., 
 
 p. 573. 
 
 '■. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2834. 
 
 Soper z\ 
 
 — — z: Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1731, 2796. 
 
 z'. Western Union Tel. Co., 
 
 p. 1049. 
 
 Tyler Coffin Co., St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Tyroler f. Warden of City Prison, 
 
 pp. 20, 21, 184. 
 Tyrrell v. Lincoln Tract. Co., p. 
 
 3l. 
 Tysen v. Moore, p. 879. 
 Tyson, JNew Orleans, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Raymond v. 
 
 T. & P. R. Co. z: Rogers, p. 3330. 
 
 V. Schneider, pp. 528, 533, 
 
 935. 
 
 • Williams v. 
 
 U 
 
 Uber z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 593, 602, 754, 779, 822. 
 Udell V. Citizens' St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1556, 2198, 2536. 
 
 z: Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 786, 870. 
 
 Uessel V. Bath, p. 308. 
 Ullman z\ Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 pp. 987, 1066. 
 
 z\ Flintshire, p. 10.57. 
 
 Grand Tower Mfg., etc., Co. 
 
 Ulman, etc., Co. z: Babcock, p. 
 
 1229. 
 Ulmer v. Farnsworth, p. 245. 
 Ulrich V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2095, 2097. 
 Ulster, Clark, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 Ulster, etc., R. Co., Boice f. 
 
 Bramley z'. 
 
 Parish z\ 
 
 Umbenhaucr, Bayonne Knife Co. 
 
 Unaka Timber Co., McDonald z: 
 Underbill, Muskegon Booming Co. 
 
 v. 
 Underwood, Ft. Worth, etc., R. 
 
 Co. v. 
 
 Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 — — ■ International, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Underwriters' Agencv "■. Sutherlin, 
 pp. 798, 799.
 
 TAI5LK OF CASES. 
 
 CCCIII 
 
 Unger v. Forty-Second St., etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1750. 
 Union Bridge Go. v. United States, 
 
 p. 3468. 
 Union Colliery Co., Nightingale r. 
 Union Compress Co., California 
 
 Ins. Co. V. 
 Union Depot Co., Snyder v. 
 
 State V. 
 
 Union Depot R. Co., Drolshagen v. 
 
 Olfermann r. 
 
 Schepers v. 
 
 Sly V. 
 
 Union Dray Line Co. f. Hurt, pp. 
 
 3262, 3264, 3269, 3301. 
 Union KUct. Co., Blumenthal z: 
 
 La Barge v. 
 
 Union Exp. Co. 7\ Graham, 26 O. 
 St. 362— p. 1039. 
 
 f. Graham, 26 O. St. 595— 
 
 pp. 243. 753, 757, 824, 826, 948, 
 953, 1792. 
 
 f. Ohleman, pp. 511, 535, 
 
 891. 
 
 Place f. 
 
 t'. Shoop, p. 521. 
 
 Union Feed Co. -■. Pacific Clipper 
 
 Line, p. 466. 
 Union Ferry Co., Loftus v. 
 
 Asborne v. 
 
 Union Freight R. Co. v. VVinklcy, 
 pp. 1148, 1150. 
 
 Union Ins. Co., Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 Union Line Exp. Co., Roberts i'. 
 
 Union Locomotive, etc., Co. v. 
 Erie R. Co., p. 212. 
 
 Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indianapo- 
 lis, etc., R. Co., pp. 730, 739, 
 822, 9S3, 1007, 1013, 1019, 1039, 
 1041. 
 
 Union Oil Co., Crowell v. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co., Ames r. 
 
 Andrist i'. 
 
 V. Beardwell, pp. 684, 1002. 
 
 V. Botsford, pp. 1837, 2773. 
 
 Bowlin '■. 
 
 Brown '■. 
 
 Coeur D'.Mene, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Cooke, p. 700. 
 
 Durfee .'. 
 
 V. Evans, pp. 1699, 2324, 
 
 2873. 
 
 Falina f. 
 
 Furman i\ 
 
 Gerstle v. 
 
 V. Goodridge, pp. 34, 82, 97, 
 
 135, 145, 171, 3750. 
 
 Hall z: 
 
 f. Hall, p. 255. 
 
 f. Hand, pp. 1726, 2696, 
 
 2734, 2736. 
 
 Harris f. 
 
 v. Harris, pp. 1813, 1815. 
 
 V. Hepner, p. 816. 
 
 Hoffman v. 
 
 Houtz V. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. 
 
 Jevons f. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 f. Johnston, pp. 356, 361, 369, 
 
 370, 377, 378, 384, 547, 556. 
 
 Kalina v. 
 
 Kearney Mill, etc., Co. z: 
 
 Kirby f. 
 
 Kirkcndall z\ 
 
 Z'. Langan, p. 1385. 
 
 V. Luck, p. 2820. 
 
 Lvise f. 
 
 Lyon z'. 
 
 March z\ 
 
 Marsh z: 
 
 z: Marston, pp. 996, 999, 
 
 3351. 
 
 f. Metcalf, p. 489. 
 
 Miller Grain, etc., Co., z\ 
 
 f. Mitchell, p. 2547. 
 
 MofFatt Comm. Co. z\ 
 
 :■. Mover, pp. 515. 914. 918. 
 
 t. Nelson, pp. 1305, 1471. 
 
 f. Nicholas, pp. 1572, 1577. 
 
 Union Pac. R'. Co., Nichols v. 
 
 V. Oregon, etc., Ass'n, pp. 
 
 3820, 3821. 
 
 Ormsby ?■. 
 
 Patten z\ 
 
 r, pp. 1 
 
 — Peavey & Co. v. 
 
 — Purple V. 
 
 — Quinby v. 
 
 — V. Rainey, pp. 752, 1343, 
 1368. 
 
 — z: Roeser, pp. 2199, 2201. 
 
 — Schenberger v. 
 
 — State V, 
 
 — V. Stupeck, 50 Colo. 151, 114 
 Pac. 646— pp. 820, 1035, 1057. 
 
 — V. Stupeck (Colo.), 144 Pac. 
 646— p. 977. 
 
 — V. Sue, pp. 1773, 1779, 2147, 
 2952, 2953. 
 
 — r. Taggart, pp. 97, 135, 145, 
 171. 
 
 — z: Thompson, pp. 1085, 1408, 
 1473, 1479. 
 
 — Thurston v. 
 
 — United States v. 
 
 — V. United States, 59 Fed. 
 813, 8 C. C. A. 282— p. 3814. 
 
 — z: United States, 99 U. S. 
 402, 25 L. Ed. 274, 14 Ct. CI. 
 587— p. 3677. 
 
 — V. United States, 117 U. S. 
 355, 29 L. Ed. 920, 6 S. Ct. 772, 
 21 Ct. CI. 502— pp. 72, 1179. 
 
 — V. Updike Grain Co., 101 C. 
 C. A. 583, 178 Fed. 223— pp. 
 3632, 3733. 3734, 3826. 
 
 — v. Updike Grain Co., 222 U. 
 S. 215, 56 L. Ed. 171. 32 S. Ct. 
 39— pp. 3433, 3607, 3634, 3731, 
 3732, 3733. 
 
 — z'. \'incent, pp. 806, 3247. 
 
 — Webster z'. 
 
 — Wentz-Batcs Mercantile Co. 
 
 z: Whitney, 
 
 V. Wolf, pp 
 
 Union Passenger 
 
 her v. 
 Union R. Co., 
 
 Barry v, 
 
 Bishop V. 
 
 Braun v. 
 
 Brierly -'. 
 
 Cheetham z'. 
 
 Fleck -■. 
 
 Harris '■. 
 
 Heltzen z>. 
 
 Hirsch "■. 
 
 Kriedermacher v. 
 
 Murphy z\ 
 
 Nelson z\ 
 
 Norton z-. 
 
 Pendergast v. 
 
 Rathbone v. 
 
 Schaefer i\ 
 
 Schcu z: 
 
 Schilling V. 
 
 Stierle "'. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 
 Sweeny z'. 
 
 Weir z: 
 
 Wright f. 
 
 Union R. Transp. 
 L'nion R., etc., Co. 
 
 z: Kallaher, 114 
 
 N. E. 77— p. 2077. 
 
 V. Kallaher, 12 HI 
 
 p. 2497. 
 
 Merchants* Bank : 
 
 Riegel & Co., 
 
 p. 2961. 
 
 1596, 1597. 
 R'. Co., Clutzbu 
 
 Adams v. 
 
 Co., Lietch 
 Chouteau -■. 
 111. 325, 
 
 App. 400, 
 
 1018. 
 
 pp. 410, 
 
 Shacklet, pp. 1999, 2000. 
 
 Traube, p. 848. 
 
 Yeager, pp. 305, 317, 524. 
 
 Trans. Co. f. 
 
 149, 44 L. Ed. 
 
 631 — pp. 3556, 
 
 L'nion Refrigerator 
 
 Lvnch. 177 U. S. 
 
 708. 20 S. Ct. 
 
 3557, 3581. 
 z: Lvnch. 55 
 
 Utah 378, 48 L. 
 
 3575. 
 
 Pac. 639. 18 
 R. A. 790— p. 
 
 Union Steamboat Co., Blitz v. 
 
 Burnside z-. 
 
 -■. Chaffin, pp. 4075, 4083. 
 
 Green Bay, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Knapp. p. 528. 
 
 Richmond "'. 
 
 Union Steamship Co. v. New 
 York, etc.. Steamship Co., pp. 
 3899, 4017. 
 
 Union Stock Yard Co. f. West- 
 cott, p. 561. 
 
 Union Stock Yard, etc., Co., At- 
 torney General z-. 
 
 Strahorn z\ 
 
 United States z\ 
 
 Union Stock Yards Co., United 
 
 States V. 
 
 ■ Winnett ''. 
 
 Union Stock Yards, etc., Co., 
 
 United States z\ 
 
 f. Western Land, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 3871. 
 
 L'nion St. R. Co., Briggs v. 
 ■ Brightman v. 
 
 Edgerly z: 
 
 Greer z: 
 
 Holman z: 
 
 Union Sulphur Co., Percy v. 
 
 z: Percy, p. 3967. 
 
 Union Tank Line Co., In re. 
 Union Tract. Co., Bainbridge z: 
 
 Barry v. 
 
 Bendon v. 
 
 Buehler v. 
 
 Foster z\ 
 
 Gaffney z-. 
 
 Howard v. 
 
 Howell z: 
 
 Hunterson v. 
 
 Jennings f. 
 
 z\ Keiter, p. 2285. 
 
 z: Siceloff, p. 2595. 
 
 V. Sullivan, p. 2346. 
 
 Sweeney f. 
 
 Union Transfer, etc., Co., Carle- 
 ton v. 
 
 Union Transp. Co., Gaines z: 
 
 Union Transp., etc., Co., Lever- 
 ing f. 
 
 Union Trunk Line, Cameron z: 
 
 Smith T. 
 
 Union, etc., Bank, Mississippi 
 
 Mills z\ 
 Union, etc., Ins. Co., Gaines v. 
 Union, etc., R. Co., -Etna Nat. 
 
 Bank f . 
 
 Lackman f. 
 
 T. Londoner, pp. 1772, 208^, 
 
 2507. 
 
 z: Meeking, p. 99. 
 
 Unionville Produce Co. z: Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 619, 690, 695. 
 
 Unique Shipping Co. z: Guftey 
 Petroleum Co., p. 4022. 
 
 United Carriage Co., Budd v. 
 
 United Exp. Co. z: State, p. 3^2=. 
 
 United Fruit Co., American Ba- 
 nana Co. J'. _ 
 
 f N'ew York, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 889, 900. 904. 
 
 United R. Co., Bobbitt z: 
 
 Canaday z: 
 
 Chalmers z\ 
 
 Coyne z\ 
 
 Groshong z: 
 
 Harmon i\ 
 
 Jerome '■. 
 
 Logan f. 
 
 Miller f. 
 
 Mitchell f. 
 
 i.Ioeller z: 
 
 Monroe Z'. 
 
 Moorshead f. 
 
 Musick r. 
 
 Nagel z: 
 
 Palfrey z: 
 
 Parker z-. 
 
 Pidgeon z: 
 
 Reisenleiter v. 
 
 Richter v. 
 
 United R., etc.. Co. :•. Beidelman, 
 pp. 2397, 2688, 2830.
 
 CCCIV 
 
 TAIiLIC OF CASES. 
 
 United R., etc., Co.. Charles t: 
 
 z: Dean, p. 2898. 
 
 V. Deane, p. 2023. 
 
 Dulaney '•. 
 
 Egner %■. 
 
 Garrison 7'. 
 
 V. Hardesty, p. 2443. 
 
 z: Hertel, p. 2753. 
 
 Jones f. 
 
 z: Riley, pp. 2113, 2166, 
 
 2376. 
 
 Rosenkovitz -■. 
 
 z: Rosik, pp. 23S7, 2359, 2906. 
 
 2989, 2990. 
 
 State -■. 
 
 Strauss f. 
 
 Topp '■. 
 
 z: VVeir, pp. 2358, 2825. 
 
 f. Woodbridge, pp. 2146, 
 
 2243, 2688. 
 
 United Railroads, Waniorek z\ 
 United Railways, Hornstein -■. 
 United States, .\dair f. 
 
 z: Adair, pp. 3466, 3467. 
 
 Addyston Pipe, etc.. Co. z\ 
 
 Ambrosini z\ 
 
 American Exp. Co. '•. 
 
 V. American Exp. Co., p. 
 
 3614. 
 
 z: Ames, p. 4049. 
 
 Anderson r. 
 
 z: Arjona, pp. 3428, 3439. 
 
 Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. 
 
 Armour Packing Co. z\ 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 z: Atchison, etc., R. Co., 142 
 
 Fed. 176— pp. 3811, 3821, 3825. 
 
 v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 163 
 
 Fed. Ill— pp. 3843, 3844, 3849. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 166 
 
 Fed. 160— pp. 3621, 3622, 3627. 
 
 z'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 185 
 
 Fed. 105— p. 3618. 
 
 z: Atchison, etc., R. Co., 220 
 
 U. S. 37, 55 L. Ed. 361, 31 S. 
 Ct. 362— p. 3459. 
 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 234 
 
 U. S. 476, 34 S. Ct. 986— pp. 
 3711, 3713, 3723, 3837. 
 
 Athanasaw z'. 
 
 z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3623. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 153 Fed. 997— p. 3843. 
 
 z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 159 
 
 Fed. 33, 86 C. C. .\. 223— p. 
 3622. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 170 
 
 Fed. 456— p. 3454. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 225 U. S. 306, 56 L. Ed. 1100, 
 32 S. Ct. 817— pp. 3795, 3800, 
 3801, 3808, 3834, 3836, 3837, 
 3838, 3839. 
 
 z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 231 
 
 U. S. 274, 34 S. Ct. 75— pp. 
 3638, 3731, 3735, 3804. 
 
 Bennett v. 
 
 z: Boston, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 3622. 
 
 Z-. Boyer, p. 3469. 
 
 Brawley -■. 
 
 z: Bunch, p. 3856. 
 
 z'. Butler County R. Co., p. 
 
 3660. 
 
 V. Camden Iron Works, pp. 
 
 3855, 3857, 3858. 
 
 Chamber of Commerce -■. 
 
 V. Chicago Junction R. Co., 
 
 p. 3625. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 
 
 Fed. 783— p. 3424. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 
 
 C. C. A. 465, 127 Fed. 785— p. 
 3726. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 143 
 
 Fed. 353— p. 3430. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 148 Fed. 646 — pp. 3608, 3700, 
 3701, 3702. 
 
 United 
 Co., 
 
 Fed. 
 3850. 
 
 States z: 
 149 Fed. 
 Chicago, etc., 
 84 — pp. 3702, 
 
 z\ Chicago, etc.. 
 
 Fed. 984— p. 3628. 
 
 '•. Chicago, etc.. 
 
 Fed. 770— p. 3627. 
 
 '■. Colorado, etc., R. 
 
 Fed. 321— p. 3425. 
 
 '■. Colorado, etc., R. 
 
 Fed. 342— p. 3434. 
 
 Connors t'. 
 
 Cox f. 
 
 Crane Iron Works f. 
 
 z\ l)e Coursey, pp 
 
 3848, 
 
 3852 
 Fed. 
 
 Delaware, etc., Co., 
 315— pp. 3651, 3652. 
 
 — f. Delaware, etc., Co., 
 U. S. 366, 53 L. Ed. 836, 
 Ct. 527— p. 3443. 
 
 — Delaware, etc., R. Co. ■:• 
 
 — "•. Delaware, etc., R. Co 
 Fed. 101— pp. 3699, 3816. 
 
 — V. Delaware, etc., R. 
 
 213 
 29 S. 
 
 Co., 
 
 152 
 3845 
 
 Fed. 269— pp. 3607, 3610, 
 
 941 
 
 3519. 
 
 '■. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 213 
 
 Fed. 240— pp. 3653, 3654. 
 
 r. Dodge, pp. 1944, 1948. 
 
 V. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3619. 
 
 Erie R. Co. z\ 
 
 - z: Erie R. Co., 166 Fed. 352 
 —pp. 3453, 3454. 
 
 z: Erie R. Co., 191 Fed. 
 
 —p. 3628. 
 
 Fairbank z\ 
 
 T. First l^a.t. Bank, 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Geddes. 131 Fed. 452, 65 
 
 C. C. A. 320— p. 3424. 
 
 - r. Geddes, 180 Fed. 480— p. 
 3453. 
 
 Grand R'apids, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Grand Trunk R. Co. !■. 
 
 Great Northern R. Co. z'. 
 
 '•. Great Northern R. Co., p. 
 
 3430. 
 
 I'. Green, p. 3427. 
 
 V. Hamburg- Amerikanischc.-. 
 
 etc., Gesellschaft, p. 3440. 
 
 z\ Hanley, pp. 3843, 
 
 3850. 
 
 Harris -'. 
 
 z\ Harris, p. 3619. 
 
 - Heike z\ 
 
 Hocking \'alley R. Co. 
 
 r. Hocking \'alley R. 
 
 pp. 3706, 3846, 3848. 
 
 Hoffeld V. 
 
 - Hoke V. 
 
 z: Holliday, pp. 3418, 3420. 
 
 Hopkins V. 
 
 z\ Hopkins, pp. 3432, 3555. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Howell, pp. 3746, 3854. 
 
 I'. Illinois Terminal R. Co., 
 
 3442, 3744, 3845. 
 
 z'. International, etc., R. Co., 
 3451. 
 
 — z\ Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, p. 3773. 
 
 — '•. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 32 C. 
 C. A. 491, 89 Fed. 1020— p. 3724. 
 
 — z.'. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. 
 S. 505, 43 L. Ed. 259, 19 S. Ct. 
 25— pp. 3436, 3440, 3441, 3447. 
 
 — Kalen z: 
 
 — z: Kane, p. 2487. _ 
 
 — Kansas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 — V. Kimbal, pp. 303, 3867. 
 
 — i: Knight Co., pp. 3418, 
 3420, 3421, 3424, 3445. 
 
 — -■. Lavarrello, p. 4013. 
 
 — Leary v. 
 
 — Lehigh Valley R. Co. f. 
 
 — z: Lehigh \'alley R. Co., 115 
 Fed. 373— pp. 3423, 3610. 
 
 3849, 
 
 Co.. 
 
 PP 
 
 P- 
 
 Co., 
 
 United States z\ Lehigh X'alley R. 
 Co., 184 Fed. 546— pp. 3744, 
 
 Lehigh Valley R. Co., 184 
 971— pp. 3620, 3623, 3625. 
 Lehigh Valley R. "Co., 204 
 705, 123 C. C. .\. 9— p. 
 
 f. Lehigh \'allev R. Co.. 220 
 
 U. S. 257, 55 L. Ed. 458, 31 S. 
 Ct. 387— pp. 3651, 3653. 
 
 Leovy T. 
 
 Lind z\ 
 
 Louisiana, etc., R. 
 
 v. Louisiana, etc. 
 
 pp. 3660, 3673. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 -■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3619, 3629, 3630. 
 
 Maday '■. 
 
 z'. Marigold, p. 3445. 
 
 -•. Martin, p. 3697. 
 
 z: Mellen, pp. 3718 
 
 t'. Merchants', etc. 
 
 Co., pp. 3748, 3751. 
 
 z: Michigan Cent. R. Co., 43 
 
 Fed. 26— pp. 3845, 3852. 
 
 v. Michigan Cent. R 
 
 122 Fed. 544— pp. 3815, 
 3827. 
 
 J'. Miller, pp. 3735, 
 
 3747, 3844, 3853. 
 Milwaukee, etc., 
 142 Fed. 247— pp. 
 
 Co. 
 R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 3746, 
 
 Co., 
 3829. 
 
 3852. 
 Transp. 
 
 Co.. 
 
 3825, 
 
 3745, 
 
 Trans. 
 3809. 
 
 Milwaukee, etc.. Trans. 
 Co., 145 Fed. 1007— pp. 3705. 
 3827, 3832, 3855. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. ''. 
 
 ■:■. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3813. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. f. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 7'. Monongahela Bridge Co., 
 
 p. 3468. 
 
 Monongahela Nav. Co. 7'. 
 
 Montana Cent. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 Montpelier, etc.. Railroad 7'. 
 
 Moore it Co. 7'. 
 
 7'. Morsman, pp. 3614, 3851. 
 
 7'. Moseley, p. 3768. 
 
 Mutual Trans. Co. 7'. 
 
 Nashville Grain Exch. v. 
 
 Newport News, etc., Co. 7'. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ?■. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 146 Fed. 298— pp. 3705, 3846, 
 3850. 
 
 7'. New York, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 153 Fed. 630— pp. 3606, 3737, 
 3744, 3848. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 156 Fed. 249— pp. 3619, 3624. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 157 Fed. 293— p. 3844. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 168 Fed. 699, 94 C. C. .\. 76— 
 p. 3622. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 186 Fed. 541- p. 3628. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 191 Fed. 938— pp. 3622, 3628. 
 
 7'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 212 U. S. 509, 53 L. Ed. 629, 29 
 S. Ct. 313— pp. 3420, 3686, 3842, 
 3843. 
 
 Nichols, etc.. Lumber Co. 7-. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 109 
 
 Fed. 831— pp. 3639, 3641, 3642. 
 3643, 3818, 3830. 
 
 7'. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 138 
 
 Fed. 849— p. 3816. 
 
 v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 74 
 
 C. C. A. 406, 143 Fed. 266— pp. 
 3631, 3640, 3816. 
 
 iNorthern Pac. Terminal Co. 
 
 Co., 
 3616. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Northern Pac 
 144 Fed. 861 
 
 Terminal 
 pp. 3432. 
 
 Northern Pac. Terminal 
 81 Fed. 879— p. 3626.
 
 TAULK OF CASKS. 
 
 CCCV 
 
 United States t. Northern Pac 
 Terminal Co., 186 Fed. 947 — pp 
 3619, 3020, 3625. 
 
 Northern Securities Co. j'. 
 
 V. Ohio Oil Co., p. 3615. 
 
 V. Oregon R., etc., Co., p 
 
 3622. 
 
 Oregon-Washington R., etc. 
 
 Co. r. 
 
 I'. Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 3621, 3f.24, 3626, 3627. 
 
 Pacific Coast R. Co. t. 
 
 V. Pacific Kxp. Co., pp. 816 
 
 820. 
 
 z\ Pacific, etc., Nav. Co., p 
 
 3813. 
 
 Paulsen f. 
 
 Peck r. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. 7\ 
 
 r. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 3737, 3750, 3849, 3851. 
 
 I'. Pere Marquette K'. Co., pp. 
 
 3619, 3624. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 184 Fed. 543— pp. 3744, 3761. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 188 Fed. 484— p. 3440. 
 
 Philippine Trading Co. -•. 
 
 Pine River Logging Co. v. 
 
 V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3430. 
 
 r. Popper, pp. 3468, 3857. 
 
 f. Powell, p. 3266. 
 
 Prairie Oil, etc., Co. f. 
 
 V. Prideon, p. 3467. 
 
 Proctor, etc., Co. v. 
 
 V. Pugh, p. 3908. 
 
 f. Ramsey, pp. 1, 5. 
 
 Reed f. 
 
 Robinson -■. 
 
 St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. ■:■. 
 
 V. St. Joseph Stock Yards 
 
 Co., pp. 3469, 3609, 3621. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 107 
 
 Fed. 870— pp. 3622, 3629. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 177 Fed. 205, 101 C. C. A. 375— 
 p. 3623. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 189 
 
 Fed. 954— p. 3460. 
 
 V. Saul, pp. 1835, 3428. 
 
 Scott r. 
 
 7'. Seaboard R. Co., p. 3611. 
 
 Shaw -'. 
 
 r. Shea, pp. 3864, 3866. 
 
 T. Sioux City Stock Yards 
 
 Co., pp. 1, 5, 3619, 3o20, 3622, 
 3625. 
 
 Southern Pac. Co. r. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., 157 
 
 Fed. 459— pp. 3619, 3622, 3626, 
 3630. 
 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., 162 
 
 Fed. 412— pp. 3622, 3623, 3825. 
 
 Southern R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 135 Fed. 
 
 122— p. 3434. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., 164 Fed. 
 
 347— pp. 3439, 3451, 3453. 
 
 Standard OU Co. -•. 
 
 V. Standard On Co., 148 Fed. 
 
 719— pp. 3607, 3700, 3703, 3850, 
 3855. 
 
 f. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 
 
 305— pp. 3434, 3442, 3762, 3854, 
 3855, 385o. 
 
 ■:•. Standard Oil Co., 170 Fed. 
 
 988— pp. 3736, 3855, 3856, 3857. 
 
 f. Standard Oil Co., 183 Fed. 
 
 223— p. 3752. 
 
 V. Standard Oil Co., 192 Fed. 
 
 438— p. 3842. 
 
 ;•. Stearns, etc.. Lumber Co., 
 
 p. 3856. 
 
 V. Sterling Salt Co., p. 3856. 
 
 V. Stockyards Terminal Co., 
 
 172 Fed. 452— p. 3626. 
 
 V. Stockyards Terminal R. 
 
 Co., 178 Fed. 19, 101 C. C. .\. 
 147— pp. 3608, 3620. 
 
 1 Car— t 
 
 213 
 
 160 
 
 United States, Strong ?■. 
 
 Sunday Creek Co. :■. 
 
 T'. Sunday Creek Co., p. 3765. 
 
 Swift & Co. V. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z-. 
 
 J'. Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 712, 
 
 3667, 3752, 3846. 
 
 Tozer V. 
 
 r. Tozer, 37 Fed. 635, 2 L. 
 
 R. A. 444— pp. 3845, 3848, 3852. 
 
 7. Tozer, 39 Fed. 369— pp. 
 
 3634, 3635, 3692, 3698. 
 
 r. Tozer, 39 Fed. 904— pp. 
 
 3685, 3692, 3698. 
 
 ?'. Trans-Missouri Freight 
 
 -Vss'n, pp. 3447, 3600, 3601, 3602, 
 3617, 3650, 3684, 3711, 3724, 
 3735. 
 
 Union Bridge Co. 7'. 
 
 L'nion Pac. R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Union Pac. R. Co., 94 C. 
 
 C. A. 433, 169 Fed. 65— pp. 3621, 
 3627. 
 
 <■. Union Pac. R. Co., 188 
 
 Fed. 102— p. 3659. 
 
 -•. Union Pac. R. Co., 
 
 Fed. 332— pp. 3619, 3623. 
 
 r. Union Pac. R. Co., 
 
 U. S. 1, 40 L. Ed. 319, 16 S. 
 Ct. 190— p. 3449. 
 
 -■. Union Pac. R. Co., 234 U 
 
 S. 495, 34 S. Ct. 995— pp. 3711 
 3713, 3723, 3837. 
 
 f. L'nion Stockvard, etc., Co. 
 
 pp. 3613, 3616, 3631, 3690, 3736 
 3777, 3835. 
 
 f. L'nion Stockyards Co., pp 
 
 3432, 3456. 
 
 United States Shipping Co. zr 
 
 f. X'acuum Oil Co.. 153 Fed 
 
 598— pp. 3756, 3842, 3850, 3852 
 3857. 
 
 f. Vaciuim Oil Co., 158 Fed. 
 
 536— p. 3442. 
 
 \'an Schaick z: 
 
 '■. X'ermilvc, p. 483. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. -•. 
 
 — — ;■. VVabash R. Co., p. 3626. 
 
 f. Washington, p. 1948. 
 
 f. Wells, Fargo Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 3614, 3632, 3636, 3690, 3695, 
 3697. 
 
 West Virginia Northern R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 z: West Virginia Northern R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 3641. 3644, 3645. 
 
 White <•. 
 
 Wight -•. 
 
 T._ Williams, p. 3697. 
 
 Wilson f. 
 
 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Wood, pp. 3433, 3611, 
 
 3703. 3739, 3844, 3855. 
 
 Yturbide z'. 
 
 United States Dist. Court. Dowdell 
 
 United States Exp. Co. -•. 
 p. 3576. 
 
 -Armstrong -•. 
 
 f. Rachman, pp. 822 
 
 953. 956, 960, 982, lOOo 
 1036, 1039, 107(1. 
 
 z\ Hackman. pp. 1, 
 
 770, 947, 107(.. 1792. 
 
 Block ■: 
 
 Brunswick & Co. f. 
 
 Burke -■. 
 
 Caldwell z: 
 
 Carpenter z\ 
 
 Coates "'. 
 
 Cohen z\ 
 
 Z-. Council, pp. 
 
 1439. 
 
 IK-ake j'. 
 
 Delaney ?•. 
 
 Farmen i'. 
 
 Fockens z\ 
 
 Gatton z: 
 
 Geyer z\ 
 
 -■. Haines, pp. 
 
 ;•. Hammer, p. 
 
 Allen, 
 
 948, 
 1032, 
 
 768, 
 
 1332, 1436, 
 
 985, 988. 
 546. 
 
 United States Exp. Co. v. Harris, 
 pp. 1087, 1106. 
 
 J'. Hemmingway, p. 3579. 
 
 Higgins !•. 
 
 V. Hutchins, pp. 727, 732, 748. 
 
 770. 
 
 Hutchinson z'. 
 
 f. Joyce, pp. 1404, 1406. 
 
 Kallman v. 
 
 V. Keefer, pp. 245, 492, 493 
 
 570. 
 
 V. Koerncr, p. 1141. 
 
 z: Minnesota, pp. 3551. 3552. 
 
 3562, 3578. 
 
 Mitchell z: 
 
 Oppenheimer & Co. v. 
 
 Parsons z'. 
 
 Penn Clothing Co. v. 
 
 Perrin -■. 
 
 Reed z: 
 
 z: Rush, pp. 767, 770, 3289. 
 
 Southern Indiana Exp. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 State V. 
 
 z: State, pp. 22, 179. 
 
 Stephenson z\ 
 
 Townsend, etc.. Dry Goods 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 \'icksburg, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Wichcrn i\ 
 
 United States Fidelity, etc., Co 
 V. Board, p. 3792. 
 
 z: Commonwealth, p. 3426. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 United States Glue Co., Diamond 
 
 Glue Co. f. 
 
 United States Mail Line Co. v. 
 Carrollton Furniture Mfir. Co 
 p. 3299. 
 
 United States Mail, etc., Co., Hig- 
 gins z: 
 
 Van Winkle --. 
 
 United States Metals Refin. Co. 
 
 z: Jacobus, p. 3924. 
 United States R. Co., Moeller z: 
 United States Shipping Co. r. 
 
 United States, pp. 3952, 3966. 
 United States Surety Co., Benvega 
 
 Z'. 
 
 United States Watch Case Co. z: 
 
 Southern Exp. Co., pp. 1091, 
 
 1097, 1098, nil. 
 United States, etc., Co., Peoria. 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 United States, etc., Exp. Co., Hadd 
 
 v. 
 United States, etc.. Pump Co. z: 
 
 Oliver, p. 1226. 
 United States, etc.. Steamship Co., 
 
 Burn Line ;■. 
 
 Crisp -■. 
 
 Knell -•. 
 
 Prentice z\ 
 
 United Steamship Co. z: Haskins, 
 pp. 3926. 3934. 
 
 -;— z: Schilling & Co.. p. 3934. 
 
 T'nited Surety Co.. Musco z\ 
 
 L'nited Tanners Timber Co. ;•. Su- 
 perior Court, p. 1181. 
 
 United Tract. Co., Allen z: 
 
 Boulfrois I'. 
 
 Bumbear -■. 
 
 Klinger i'. 
 
 Powelson z: 
 
 Ray z: 
 
 Reading f. 
 
 L'nited, etc., German Congregation, 
 
 Huber i-. 
 L'niversal Ins. Co., McLanahan :• 
 Unnevehr f. Hindoo, pp. 892, 3894 
 Unterkircher, Burling^ton -■. 
 Updike Grain Co., Union Pac. R 
 
 Co. -■. 
 Upham :■. Detroit City R. Co., pp 
 
 2174, 2180. 
 Uptegrove f. Central R. Co., p 
 
 422. 
 Urann z: Fletcher, pp. 3864, 3865 
 L'rbana, etc., St. R. Co., Hanson 
 
 Uren 
 
 Hagar. p. 3959.
 
 CCCVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Urquhart, Southern Exp. Co. f. 
 
 Usborne, Tenkyns f. 
 
 Usher f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1665. 
 Usherwood, Ingles f. 
 Usry, Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 Ussery v. Augusta-Aiken R. Co., 
 
 p. 2848. 
 Usury f. Watkins, pp. 1752, 1994. 
 Utah, etc., K. Co., Madsen f. 
 
 Palmer v. 
 
 Utica, Ouinlan f. 
 
 Utica, etc., R. Co., Griffin t'. 
 
 Holbrook v. 
 
 Holdridge f- 
 
 Tower V. 
 
 Utica, etc., St. R. Co., Berry v. 
 Utley, Herring v. 
 
 Vaccaro, Dean v. 
 
 Vacuum Oil Co., United States 
 
 VaVl V. Broadway R. Co., 147 N. 
 Y. 377, 42 N. E. 4, 30 L. R. A. 
 626— pp. 1953, 2177, 2281. 
 
 f. Broadway R. Co., 6 Misc. 
 
 Rep. 20, 26 N. Y. S. 59, 31 Abb. 
 N. C. 56, 58 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 124 — p. 2859. 
 
 v. Pacific Railroad, pp. 738, 
 
 741. 
 
 Valdosta St. R. Co. f. Fenn, pp. 
 
 1531, 1747, 1762. , 
 \"alencia. The. 
 Valente i: Sierra R. Co., pp. 1822, 
 
 2953, 3002. 
 Valenti v. Sierra R. Co., pp. 1747, 
 
 2916. 
 Valentine v. Broadway, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 2152. 
 
 Collier v. 
 
 z: Long Island R. Co., pp. 
 
 516, 588. 
 
 f. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1743, 1798, 2778, 3239. 
 
 Valk V. Erie R. Co., p. 942. 
 Valle V. Cerre, pp. 359, 363, 365. 
 \ allejo Ferry Co., Riley v. 
 \'alleley. Railway Co. i'. 
 Vallette v. Bennett, p. 895. 
 Valley City St., etc., R. Co., Mess- 
 enger V. 
 Valley, etc., R. Co., Finn v. 
 
 Messenger v. 
 
 Valpy V. Gibson, p. 1231. 
 
 Vanadar, Kitchell v. 
 
 Van Anda v. Northern Nav. Co., 
 
 p. 3996. ^ ^ 
 
 Vanatta, Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Van Buren, Gibbs v. 
 Van Buskirk, Green v. 
 
 V. Purinton, pp. 1158, llo9. 
 
 V. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 131 
 
 Mo. pp. 357, 111 S. W. 832— 
 p. 1441. 
 
 V. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 143 
 
 Mo. App. 707, 128 S. W. 216— 
 pp. 1398, 1399. 
 
 V. Roberts, pp. 1612, 1673, 
 
 1676, 2712, 3044, 3317. 
 
 Van Camp v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 146, 1671. 
 Van Camp Hardware, etc., Co. r. 
 
 Plimpton, p. 579. 
 Van Casteel z: Booker, p. 352. 
 Vance, Dupont de Memours & Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Dupont, etc., Co. v. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., pp. 
 
 2324, 2658, 2874. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Vandercook Co., pp. 3538, 
 
 3539. 
 
 Vancleave, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Van Cleve v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1885. 
 Vandalia R. Co., Brown v. 
 
 \'andalia R. Co., Davis Bros. f. 
 
 East Side Packing Co. f. 
 
 T-. Keys, pp. 2089, 2090. 
 
 z\ Railroad Comm., p. 3506. 
 
 N'anderbilt. Bonsteel v. 
 
 Ouimby z\ 
 
 Whitman :■. 
 
 Williams 
 
 \'andercook z\ 
 
 p. 1708. 
 Vandercook Co., \'ance - 
 \'andergriff, Soutlicrn R^ 
 \'anderhoeven, Pullman Co. ■:•. 
 \'anderpool. Crystal Palace "'. 
 Van de \'enter i'. Chicago City R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1488, 1738, 1741, 1749. 
 
 International, etc. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 \'andewater ■;■. Mills, 
 
 3867, 3936, 3945. 
 \'andiver, Missouri, etc.. 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 
 Co. 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 Co. V. 
 pp. 3864, 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 Van 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. '<■. 
 Dresar, Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Van Dusan z'. Grand Trunk R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1636, 2462, 2463, 3078, 
 
 3079. 
 Vandyne, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 
 ^^andyne, etc., R. Co., Pittsburgh 
 
 Van Etten z: Newton, pp. 319, 331, 
 332, 333, 337, 354, 355. 
 
 A'an Gilder z: Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 285, 288, 3134, 3168, 
 3174. 
 
 Van Hern f. Taylor, p. 727. 
 
 Van Horn, Central R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Kcrmit, pp. 773', 3115, 
 
 3127, 3130, 3146, 3167. 
 
 C-. St. Louis Trans. Co., p. 
 
 2398. 
 
 f. Templeton, pp. 1675, 3044. 
 
 Van Houten, Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Vankirk v. Pennsylvania R'. Co., 
 
 p. 2855. 
 
 White z: 
 
 \'an Lindley i'. Richmond, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3352. 
 Van Meter, Southern Exp. Co. z: 
 \'ann. White v. 
 Van Natta z'. People's St. R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2888, 2889. 
 Van Orman z: Lake Shore, etc., 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 1992, 2010, 2765, 
 
 2809, 2896. 
 \'an Ostran v. New York, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2251. 
 Van Patten z'. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3665, 3751. 
 Van Santen -'. Standard Oil Co., 
 
 pp. 310, 338, 339. 
 Van Santvoord, John v. 
 
 St. John ;■. 
 
 z: St. John, pp. 73-1, 3268, 
 
 3290. 
 
 Van Schaach v. Northern Transp. 
 
 Co., pp. 958, 994, 1037. 
 Van Schaick v. Hudson River R. 
 
 Co., p. 2271. 
 
 f. United States, pp. 4012, 
 
 4013. 
 
 Van Studdiford v. Hazlett, p. 1640. 
 Van Syckel v. The Thomas Ewing, 
 
 p. 3899. 
 Van Volkenburgh, Compton z: 
 Van Vranken z'. Kansas City Elev. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2798, 2989. 
 Van Winkle v. Brooklyn City R. 
 
 Co., p. 1824. 
 
 v. Crowell, p. 3871. 
 
 V. United States Mail, etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 573, 574, 576, 597. 
 
 Van Winkle & Co., G. H. & A. 
 R. Co. V. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 821, 825. 
 
 \'arblc z\ Bigley, pp. 2, 12. 
 N'argas, Newhall z'. 
 Varnell, Railroad Co. v. 
 
 \"arnell, Washington, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Varncy z: Monroe Nat. Bank, p. 
 
 397. 
 Vasele -■ Grant St. Elect. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1804, 2327. 
 \'assau z: Madison Elect. R. Co., 
 
 p. 3087. 
 \'assor z\ Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1587. 
 \'aughan z\ Providence, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1155, 1156. 
 
 z'. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 831. 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 
 v. State, p. 177. 
 
 The. 
 
 Washington, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 \'aughan Mach. Co. z'. Stanton 
 
 Tanning Co., pp. 478, 493. 
 \'aughn. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Laurent ■:•. 
 
 • ■:'. New York, etc., K. Co., 
 
 p. 888. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z'. 
 
 Veale & Co., Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ve'azie v. Moor, pp. 3418, 3420, 
 3445, 3479. 
 
 Vedder z: Fellows, pp. 188, 1637, 
 2854. _ , 
 
 ^'ega Steamship Co. v. Consoli- 
 dated Elevator Co., p. 348. 
 
 \'eitch z'. Atkins Grocery, etc., Co., 
 p. 398. 
 
 Velasco, etc., R. Co., Carlton Pro- 
 duce Co. i'. 
 
 \'enable, Chattanooga Rapid Tran- 
 sit Co. z\ 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Transit Co. v. 
 
 X'enable Bros., Philadelphia, etc., 
 
 R. Co. z'. 
 \^encill z'. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1308, r309. 
 Vendryes, Everett v. 
 N'enning ''. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3284, 3537. 
 Ventress, Alabama, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 \'ermilye v. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 483. 
 
 L'nited States f. 
 
 Vermont, O'Neil z'. 
 
 Vermont Cent. R. Co., Vermont, 
 etc., R. Co. -c'. 
 
 Waterman v. 
 
 Vermont Copper Min. Co., Hum- 
 phreysville Copper Co. f. 
 
 Vermont Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Wil- 
 liams Z'. 
 
 Vermont, etc., Iv. Co., Common- 
 wealth Z'. 
 
 ■;■. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 222, 
 
 3283. 
 
 z\ Vermont Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 3575. 
 
 Winslow c'. 
 
 Winslow, etc., Co. z'. 
 
 Verner z\ Sweitzer, pp. 324, 728, 
 
 730, 733. 749, 1003, 1006, 1008, 
 
 1035, 1036, 1487, 3164, 3165, 
 
 3189. 
 \'errall z\ Robinson, p. 573. 
 \'errone v. Rhode Island Suburban 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2193, 2194, 2195, 
 
 2884. 
 \'ersailks Tract. Co., Moran r. 
 Vessels -'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2860. 
 Vibbard, Ware River R. Co. z\ 
 Vicksburg z: Tobin, pp. 3474, 3529, 
 
 3530. 
 Vicksburg R., etc., Co. v. Marlett, 
 
 p. 3095. 
 
 Waldauer f. 
 
 Vicksburg, etc.. Co. z: United 
 States Exp. Co., pp. 211, 236, 
 244. 
 
 Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., Hardic & 
 Co. Z'. 
 
 Lampkins v. 
 
 Lowenthal z:
 
 TAiii.i'; ')[■• cAsrs. 
 
 cccvir 
 
 Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., McFee v. 
 
 Meyer f. 
 
 V. O'Brien, p. 2773. 
 
 V. Phillips, p. 2547. 
 
 V. Putnam, pp. 1812, 2734, 
 
 2738, 3060. 
 
 V. Ragsdale, pp. 246, 469, 
 
 621, 635, 645, 848. 
 
 J'. Scanlan, p. 2774. 
 
 Sevier ;■. 
 
 V. Stocking, p. 3403. 
 
 Strain f. 
 
 Sullivan v. 
 
 Turner v. 
 
 Walker -.■. 
 
 Vict, New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Victoria, The. 
 
 Victorson f. Interborough Rapiil 
 
 Transit Co., p. 2028. 
 Victory, The. 
 Viers, Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Vigouroux f. Piatt, pp. 1052, 1091. 
 Vigus, Wallace v. 
 
 Village Steamship Co. v. Standard 
 
 Oil Co., p. 3948. 
 Vimont -i'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2256, 2304. 
 \'incent f. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 536, 541, 894, 1180, 1183. 
 
 r. Hogan, p. 3913. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 v. Rather, pp. 657, 775. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 f. Vazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3303. 
 
 X'incenzo, The. 
 
 Vine i: Berkshire St. R. Co., pp. 
 1902, 2228, 2352, 290ii. 
 
 Vineburg t'. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 pp. 3161, 3169, 3170, 3171. 
 
 Viner v. New York, etc., Steam- 
 ship Co., p. 544. 
 
 \'iney, Pt. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 \ining ;■. Detroit, etc.. Railway, 80 
 N. W. 1080, 122 Mich. 248— p. 
 2461. 
 
 i: Detroit, etc., Railway, 133 
 
 Mich. 539, 95 N. W. 542— p. 
 79. 
 
 Macon R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 \'inson, Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 \'inton V. Baldwin, p. 1166. 
 
 r. Middlesex R. Co., pp. 1497, 
 
 1498, 2419. 
 
 Pollard i: 
 
 N'irginia, Old Dominion Steamship 
 Co. T. 
 
 Paul r. 
 
 Webber r. 
 
 N'irginia Bibber, Croswx>ll f. 
 N'irginia-CaroHna Chemical Co., 
 Manchester Liners r. 
 
 r. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 1090, 1098, 1106, 1115. 
 
 West Hartlepool Steam Nav. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 \'irginia-Carolina Peanut Co. v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 155 N. C. 
 148, 71 S. H. 71— p. 669. 
 
 r. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 
 C), 82 S. K. 1— pp. 3749, 3753. 
 
 Virginia Cent. R. Co. f. Sanger, 
 pp. 1715, 1720, 1814, 1816, 2073, 
 2901. 
 
 Virginia Coal, etc., Co. f. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., p. 1197. 
 
 Virginia Mid. R. Co. f. Barksdale, 
 p. 2116. 
 
 Dye V. 
 
 Gleeson v. 
 
 \"irginia Passenger, etc., Co. v. 
 Commonwealth, p. 80. 
 
 \"irginia, etc.. Iron Co. f. Louis- 
 ville, etc., K. Co., pp. 3740, 3755. 
 
 \irginia, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, PP- 
 1609, 2425, 2463, 25o5, 2855, 
 3018, 3019. 
 
 z: Roach, pp. 1544, 1558. 
 
 f. Savers, pp. 765, 949, 1008, 
 
 1363, 1369. 
 
 R. 
 
 Virginia, etc., R. Co. :. White, 
 
 p. 2116. 
 N'irginia, etc.. Training Ass'n v. 
 
 Southern R. Co., p. 1404. 
 \'isalia Elect. R. Co., Franklin f. 
 N'isanska v. Southern Kxp. Co., 
 
 pp. 761, 1082. 
 N'ischcr v. Northwestern Kiev. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2667, 2673. 
 Vitelli z: Cunard Steamship Co., 
 
 p. 3913. 
 \'ivion, Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Vlasservitch f. .\ugusta, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1500, 3112, 3116, 3127, 
 
 3130, 3131, 3198. 
 X'lasto, I5arber r. 
 \'oclker r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3430. 
 \"ogel f. Bahr, p. 2700. 
 Vogeman, Merritt, etc., Wrecking 
 
 Co. V. 
 \'ogemann, Rosenstein z: 
 N'ogler z'. Central Crosstown 
 
 Co., pp. 2172, 2803. 
 N'oight, Allis V. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R'. Co. f. ^ 
 
 f. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1577, 2104, 2105. 
 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Voils, Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 \'on Lehe v. Atlantic Coast Line 
 
 R. Co., pp. 3397, 3404, 3523, 
 
 3545, 3546. 
 Von Linen, Davison v. 
 V'on Schoeler, Prere z: 
 Voorhees z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 634. 
 
 Heighway v. 
 
 Jones V. 
 
 f. Kings County, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2201. 
 
 z\ Porter, p. 2568. 
 
 X'osburg z: Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 158. 
 Vose z: Allen, p. 891. 
 
 Holbrook z\ 
 
 Vosler V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2873. 
 Voss f. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3201, 3214, 3215, 3220, 3223. 
 Voss & Co. z: Robertson, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 355. 
 Vredenburgh v. New York, etc., K. 
 
 Co., p. 2232. 
 V. S. & P. R. Co., Central Y'ellow 
 
 Pine Ass'n z\ 
 X'ueltabajo, The. 
 
 W 
 
 Wabash R. Co., Adrian Knitting 
 Co. V. 
 
 American Silver Mfg. Co. v- 
 
 American Storage, etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Amory z'. 
 
 Atkinson Z'. 
 
 Bowring z. 
 
 Breese-Trenton Mining Co. z\ 
 
 f. Brown, pp. 795, 1111, 
 
 1113. 
 
 Burgher ''. 
 
 Bushnell r. 
 
 t . Campbell, pp. 
 
 1463. 
 
 Cash f. 
 
 Craig f. 
 
 Cronk z'. 
 
 Cunningham -•. 
 
 z: Curtis, pp. 98 
 
 Davis V. 
 
 Deierling v. 
 
 Drew t'. 
 
 Ficklin v. 
 
 V. Foster, pp. 653, 948. 
 
 Fulbright v. 
 
 Gerber v. 
 
 Goodbar %: 
 
 Gray f. 
 
 Gregory v. 
 
 Griffin z: 
 
 Hammett v. 
 
 Wabash R. Co., 
 
 Hapgood Plow Co. 
 & Co., pp. 662, 
 
 z\ Harris 
 
 1033, 3330. 
 
 Hayes z: 
 
 Haynes v. 
 
 Hays V. 
 
 Hendrix v, 
 
 Hicks z: 
 
 Huston Bros 
 
 V. Jellison, 
 
 2667. 
 
 Johnson-Brinkman Comm. Co 
 
 pp. 1524, 1558, 
 
 1353, 1354, 
 
 1, 992, 1031. 
 
 pp. 
 
 1714. 
 
 208, 1153, 
 
 z: Kingsley, pp. 2531, 2532. 
 
 Klass Comm. Co. v. 
 
 V. Lannum, pp. 451, 996, 
 
 1371. 
 
 Lee V. 
 
 Detts V. 
 
 Lindsay v. 
 
 Lindsey v. 
 
 Loeb V. 
 
 Lowenstein v 
 
 7'. McDaniels, 
 
 McFall f. 
 
 Mcl.endon z: 
 
 Mathew f. 
 
 f. Mathew, p. 2971. 
 
 Merrielees v. 
 
 z: Newton, etc., Co., pp. 687, 
 
 688. 
 
 Osborn v. 
 
 Owens V. 
 
 z\ Pearce, pp. 
 
 1160, 1161, 1162. 
 
 Pence v. 
 
 Phoenix Powder Mfg. Co. z: 
 
 r. Priddy, pp. 3494, 3521, 
 
 3756, 3761. 
 
 Rawlings v. 
 
 Rice T. 
 
 Ringwalt v. 
 
 Roberts v. 
 
 Robertson v. 
 
 Rogan z'. 
 
 Rossier f. 
 
 Russell Grain Co. f. 
 
 Saeger f. 
 
 V. Savage, pp. 2045, 2047. 
 
 2412. 
 
 r. Sharpe, pp. 619, 728, 742, 
 
 743. 746, 749, 932. 
 
 ■ Sheldon f. 
 
 Sira !■. 
 
 z: Skiles, p. 1792. 
 
 Sloop f. 
 
 ?•. Sloop, p. 3746. 
 
 State z: 
 
 Talcott z. 
 
 Tate f. 
 
 Tavlor v. 
 
 ;•. Thomas, 222 111. 337. 78 
 
 N. E. 777, 7 L. R. A.. N. S., 
 1041- pp. 981, 1033, 1421, 3257. 
 
 '. Thomas, 122 HI. App. 569 
 
 —p. 1362. 
 
 United States r. 
 
 z: United States, 168 Fed., 1 
 
 —p. 3451. 
 
 -•. United States, 178 Fed. 5, 
 
 101 C. C. A. 133, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 819— pp. 3623. 3624. 
 
 West Side Belt R. Co.. p. 
 
 3483. 
 
 Wise f. 
 
 f. Wright, p. 437. 
 
 Voumans :. 
 
 Vount ;•. 
 
 Wabash River Tract. Co. z: Baker, 
 
 pp. 2356. 295(1. 
 Wabash, etc.. Co.. McCullough z\ 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co., Anderson -•. 
 
 Ball z: 
 
 Beers z: 
 
 Birney f. 
 
 Black z: 
 
 f. Black, 
 
 Bond z: 
 
 Brown z: 
 
 Buddy :■. 
 
 Burnham 
 
 pp. 210, 242, 1413.
 
 CCCVIII 
 
 table: of cases. 
 
 Wabash, etc.. R. Co., Central Trust 
 Co. :•. 
 
 Cole z: 
 
 - — - Coup f. 
 
 Davis f. 
 
 East St. Louis Connecting R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 f. Friedman, p. 2681. 
 
 Gashweiler v. 
 
 Hance f. 
 
 T'. Illinois, pp. 34, 73, 3420. 
 
 3422, 3439, 3440, 3447, 3480, 
 3491, 3493, 3497, 3498, 3511, 
 3513. 3527, 3566, 3567, 3568, 
 3579. 
 
 t'. Jaggerman, pp. 538, 539. 
 
 Jones z: 
 
 Leslie :■. 
 
 Loomis V. 
 
 McBeath r. 
 
 -•. McCasland, p. 1479. 
 
 Meyers z: 
 
 Patterson f. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. z'. 
 
 -. People, p. 90. 
 
 t. Peyton, pp. 945, 2077. 
 
 Potts z: 
 
 ■ ■ z: Pratt, p. 1289. 
 
 z: Rector, pp. 2917, 2938, 
 
 3066. 
 
 Rider z: 
 
 z: Shacklet, p. 2083. 
 
 Sidekum v. 
 
 Stone z'. 
 
 Strouss z: 
 
 Thomas v. 
 
 Thomas, etc., Mfg. Jo. v. 
 
 ■ Walker z: 
 
 Wilt z: 
 
 z: Wolflf, p. 3320. 
 
 Wachser z\ Interborough Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., p. 2023. 
 Wasco, etc., Water Co. f. Ca.ib'-e, 
 
 p. 1352. 
 Wade, Citizens' R. Co. <■. 
 
 z: Columbia Elect. St. R". t.tc, 
 
 Co., pp. 1687, 2128, 2262, 2382. 
 
 Dunseth v. 
 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. ;'. 
 
 • Gibbons f. 
 
 z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 2820. 
 
 '•. Leroy, p. 3063. 
 
 f. Lutcher, etc., Lumber Co., 
 
 p. 1847. 
 V. Wheeler (N. Y.), 3 Lans. 
 
 201— p. 884. 
 z: Wheeler, 47 N. Y. 658— p. 
 
 285. 
 Wadley Southern R. Co., Hill z: 
 
 V. Kennedy, p. 1747. 
 
 z: State, pp. 22, 25, 84, 110, 
 
 138. 
 
 Wadley, etc., R. Co., Kent v. 
 Wadsworth v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 2672. 
 
 Cleveland Elect. R. Co. v. 
 
 Waggoner v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1269. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 Waggoner Xat. Bank, Ft. Worth, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Wagley, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V\agner ?■. .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1798. 2192, 2242, 2342, 
 
 2940, 2944. 
 
 Citizens' St. R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Farmers', etc., Ins. Co., p. 
 
 2689. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1544, 1545, 1561, 1667, 1752, 
 1755, 1953, 2209, 2899. 
 
 z\ New York City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1897. 
 
 V. Providence Ins. Co., p. 
 
 793. 
 
 Welding -■. 
 
 Wagner Palace Car Co., Dowley v. 
 
 Efron V. 
 
 Wahl z: Holt. p. 3255. 
 
 ■;•. Shoulder, pp. 2285. 2615. 
 
 Wahle f. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1048, 1304, 1338, 1349, 1391, 
 1469. 
 Wainwright z\ Interurban St. R. 
 Co., p. 2655. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wait i: Baker, p. 352. 
 
 z: Omaha, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1752, 1992. 
 
 Waite, Eric R. Co. ?■. 
 
 Gilbert, pp. 638, 660. 
 
 Waitt. Stone '■. 
 
 Wakefield z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1313, 3390. 
 
 Holmes f. 
 
 z'. South Boston R. Co., pp. 
 
 1569, 1647. 
 
 Wakelee, Davis z\ 
 
 Walbridge, Second Nat. Bank z\ 
 
 Walcott V. Canfield. p. 2704. 
 
 z: People, p. 3577. 
 
 Wald ■;■. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 896, 3160, 3168, 3173, 3174. 
 
 r. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 
 
 162 111. 545, 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. 
 R. A., 356, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332 
 —pp. 619, 735. 736, 738, 741, 
 743, 746, 770, 3143, 3144. 
 
 z'. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 60 
 
 III. App. 460— p. 3141. 
 
 Waldauer v. \'icksburg R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2409, 2716. 
 Walden, Missouri, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Waldert Grocery Co., St. Louis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Waldman v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2086. 
 Waldo, Galveston, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 Waldron z: Canadian Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 429. 
 ■ '•. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 210, 277, 285, 1492, 3133, 3140, 
 
 3148, 3159. 
 V. Fargo, pp. 728, 733, 749, 
 
 1474, 1478, 1479. 
 Waldrop, East, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 Waldrup V. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2593. 
 Walger z'. Jersey City, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1517, 1969, 2878. 
 Walker, Adams Exp. Co. '■. 
 
 V. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., p. 
 
 2801. 
 
 z'. Beaumont Land, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 2673. 
 
 Bosworth z'. 
 
 Brown z\ 
 
 — — 7'. Cassaway, pp. 520, 1154, 
 1155, 1159. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. z: 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Choctaw, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 f. Detroit, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 370, 384. 579. 
 
 V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1627. 
 
 z: Eikleberry, p. 909. 
 
 r. Erie R. Co., p. 2699. 
 
 Forsythe ?'. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 — ■ — - Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Z'. Georgia R'., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2259, 2264. 
 
 Grand Trunk R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Green, p. 2218. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. r. 
 
 f. Jackson, p. 3154. 
 
 Jones z\ 
 
 z: Keenan, pp. 1301, 3742. 
 
 Little Rock Tract., etc., Co. 
 
 Louisville &■ N. R. Co. r. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 484. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. Tract. Co. v. 
 
 v. Mauro, pp. 359, 364. 
 
 r. Metropolitan St. R. Co., p. 
 
 1988. 
 
 Railroad, p. 
 
 3068, 3069. 
 Co., p. 2286. 
 
 Walker z: Parry, p. 2921. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. '■. 
 
 ■ r. Price, p. 2463. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 v. Skipwith, pp. 1008, 1011. 
 
 3164, 3165. 
 
 Southern R. Co. "■. 
 
 ■;•. Southern R. Co.. pp. 1424, 
 
 1456, 3415. 
 
 Teal z: 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Transportation Co.. pj). 
 
 947, 4036, 4038, 4054. 4055. 
 
 V. Vicksburg, etc., K. Co., p. 
 
 2263. 
 
 -■. Wabash, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1573, 1621. 
 
 Western R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Wilmington Steamboat Co. v. 
 
 Walker Bros. v. Southern R. Co., 
 
 p. 153. 
 Walker-Edmond Co. z\ Adams Exp. 
 
 Co., p. 1070. 
 Wall, Andrews t'. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., 
 
 3198. 
 
 z\ Cameron, pp. 
 
 z: Helena St. R. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Indianapolis Southern R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 v. Livezay, p. 2692. 
 
 ■ V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3543. 
 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Wall-Huske Co. z: Southern R. 
 
 Co., pp. 151, 153, 154, 155, 176. 
 901. 
 Wallace f. Ann Arbor, etc., R'. 
 Co., p. 1642. 
 
 -'. Arkansas Cent. R. Co., p. 
 
 130. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Clayton, pp. 724, 738, 746, 
 
 871. 
 
 Davis z\ 
 
 Eddy z: 
 
 Empire Transp. Co. v. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 821, nil. 1114. 1379, 1429, 
 1477, 1479, 3407. 
 
 z: Loomis, p. 3484. 
 
 z: .Matthews. pp. 208, 
 
 481. 573. 962, 9L.7. 968, 
 1046. 
 
 Pacific Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 z'. Pecos, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 Rosenthal, p. 3269. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 San .\ntonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Sanders, 43 Ga. 486— pp. 
 
 825, 826, 962, 1-048. 1049. 
 
 z: Sanders, 50 Ga. 134— pp. 
 
 825, 841. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. z\ 
 
 Southern R. Co. z\ 
 
 -•. Third -Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 152, 2249, 2307. 
 
 V. Vigus, pp. 837, 848, 850, 
 
 853, 3892. 
 
 r. Western, etc., R'. Co., 98 
 
 N. C. 494, 4 S. E. 503, 34 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 553, 2 .^m. St. 
 Rep. 346— pp. 1752, 1755, 2168. 
 
 z\ Western, etc., R. Co., 101 
 
 N. C. 454, 8 S. E. 166, 37 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 159— pp. 1992, 
 2803. 
 
 z: Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1773, 1774. 
 
 Wallen, Gulf, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 V. McHenry. pp. 1492. 2559. 
 
 Waller v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2249, 2295. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. "'. 
 
 V. Midland Great Western R. 
 
 Co., p. 849. 
 
 z: Railway, p. 859. 
 
 z'. Wilmington City R'. Co., 
 
 pn. 1518. 2150, 2653. 
 
 257, 
 969, 
 
 13-9.
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 CCCIX 
 
 Walley, Xashvillc, etc., R. Co. i: 
 Walling, Gc-rniantown Passenger 
 K. Co. V. 
 
 f. People, pp. 3419, 3421, 
 
 3538, 3539. 
 
 V. Railway Co., p. 2180. 
 
 V. Trinity, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2164, 2184, 2191, 2199, 2293, 
 2741. 
 
 Wallingford f. Columbia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 783, 822, 849, 868, 946, 
 
 1036. 
 Wallis, Southern R. Co. v. 
 Walnut Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania 
 
 R. Co., p. 135. 
 Walpole i: Bridges, pp. 732, 735, 
 
 748. 
 Walrath, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railroad Co. v. 
 
 V. Redfield, p. 855. 
 
 Walsh i'. Adams IC-xp. Co., p. 602. 
 
 V. Blakely, pp. 1209, 1239, 
 
 1240. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., Co., p. 3041. 
 
 V. CuUen, pp. 1583, 1584, 
 
 1750, 2578. 
 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc.. Rapid 
 
 Transit Co. v. 
 
 Indianapolis, etc., Trans. Co. 
 
 V. ^ 
 
 r. Intcrurban St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2196, 2894. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Nassau Klect. 1\. Co., p. 
 
 2654. 
 
 V. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2895, 2931. 
 
 Paducah St. R. Co. f. 
 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2727. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern, etc., R. Co. v. , 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. i\ 
 
 Williams t'. 
 
 V. Wright, pp. 3129, 3141. 
 
 Walsh, etc., Co., First Nat. Bank 
 
 V. 
 
 V. First Nat. Bank, p. 391. 
 
 Walter v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 486, 3309, 3353, 3389, 3395, 
 3412. 
 
 V. C. 1). & M. K. Co., pp. 
 
 2125, 2227. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1441. 
 
 Walters v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2248, 2361, 2909. 
 
 V. Detroit United R. Co., p. 
 
 900. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2366, 2820. 
 
 Philadelphia Tract. Co., p. 
 
 Seattle, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 2004, 2701. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 314. 
 
 Waltham Mfg. Co. v. New York, 
 
 etc.. Steamship Co., p. 3304. 
 Walther -■. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1559, 1565, 2095, 2096, 2097. 
 Walthers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2150. 
 Wallhour v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1866, 1887, 2225. 
 Wailman, Pennsylvania, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Walton, Ilendrick -■. 
 
 Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Iv. Co. '•. 
 
 Wampum Cotton Mills -•. Carolina. 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 150, 151, 175^ 
 Wamsley v. .\tlas Steamship Co., 
 
 168 N. Y. 533. 61 N. F. 896, 85 
 
 Am. St. Rep. 699— pp. 663, 3931. 
 i\ .\tlas Steamship Co., 56 N. 
 
 Y. S. 284, i7 App. Div. 553— 
 
 p. 3931. 
 Wamsutta Oil Refin., etc., Co., 
 
 Empire Transp. Co. r. 
 
 Wanaque Lumber Co., Ijic R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Wanata, The. 
 
 Wandell v. Corbin (N. Y.), 38 
 
 Hun 391— p. 2341. 
 ■ V. Corbin, 49 Hun 608, 1 N. 
 
 Y. S. 795, 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 718 
 
 —pp. 1525, 2163. 
 Waniorek v. United Railroads, pp. 
 
 2303, 2648, 2760. 
 Wanzcr v. Chippewa \'alley Elect. 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 1724, 1727, 1736, 
 
 1745, 2129, 2889, 3034. 
 Ward, .\tlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2187. 
 
 V. Chicago City R. Co., p. 
 
 1890. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 165 
 
 111. 462, 46 N. E. 365— pp. 1922, 
 2577. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 87 
 
 Kan. 824, 126 Pac. 1083— pp. 
 1367, 1369. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 
 
 Wis. 215, 78 N. W. 442— pp. 
 2343, 2405, 2793. 
 
 ■ Cleveland, etc.. Tract. Co. f. 
 
 V. Green, p. 3866. 
 
 Hubbersty v. 
 
 V. International R. Co., pp. 
 
 2114, 2192, 2195, 2346. 
 
 f. Joslin, p. 3792. 
 
 Fake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Maryland, pp. 3549, 3552. 
 
 Menacho v. 
 
 V. -Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2876. 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co.^ v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1084, 1087, 1090, 1097, 1098, 
 1103, 1107, 1116, 3700. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 630, 638, 653. 
 
 v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2435, 3182. 
 
 • V. Thompson, p. 3864. 
 
 Warden v. Greer, p. 849. 
 
 Halsey v. 
 
 Warden of City Prison, Tyroler v. 
 Waidlaw ;■. California R. Co., p. 
 2146. 
 
 V. South Carolina R. Co., pp. 
 
 822, 897, 917. 
 
 Wardle ■■. New Orleans City R. 
 
 Co., p. 1889. 
 Ward's Cent., etc., Co. v. Flkins, 
 
 pp. 262, 263, 471. 
 WardwcU v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1602, 2420, 2467, 2470, 2492. 
 Ware v. Gay, pp. 2586, 2656, 2693. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. 
 
 South Covington, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ware River R. Co. v. Vibbard, p. 
 1106. 
 
 Ware, etc., Co. v. Mobile County, 
 p. 3421. 
 
 VN'archouse, etc.. Supply Co. ■:•. Cal- 
 vin, pp. 1153, 1154, 1170, 3972. 
 
 Warfield i: Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409. 
 57 So. 618— pp. 2577, 267o. 
 2583, 2602. 
 
 Huguelet v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. '<■. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 3024. 
 
 Paxson Bros. v. 
 
 V. Railroad, p. 2434. 
 
 State f. 
 
 Waring f. Clarke, p. 3977. 
 
 V. Cox, p. 1216. 
 
 f. Morse, p. 3905. 
 
 Waring & Co. ;■. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 208, 233, 257, 511, 
 533, 539. 607, o08, 081, 682. 
 
 Warlick, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Warner ?■. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 pp. 1686, 1792, 2134, 2135, 2136 
 
 t'. Burlirtgton, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 3145, 3168. 3173. 3174. 
 
 Warner, Marcy v. 
 
 Murray v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. ?•. 
 
 V. The Illinois, Fed. Cas. No. 
 
 17, 1840— p. 527. 
 
 V. The Illinois (Pa.), 17 
 
 Phila. 549— p. 527. 
 
 V. Western Transp. Co., p. 
 
 759. 
 
 Warnken, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Warren, Chicago, etc., R. Cp. j-. 
 
 V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 723, 1045. 
 
 Connolly v. 
 
 i: Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 1510, 
 
 1512, 1513, 1514, 1518, 1722, 
 1746, 1790, 1792, 2135. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Leffingwell V. 
 
 Metropolitan bt. R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wright, etc., Wirecloth Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Warren Adams, Ceballos i: 
 Warren Bridge, Charles River 
 
 Bridge Co. v. 
 Warren Ins. Co., Minturn v. 
 Warren St. R. Co., Palmer r. 
 Warren, etc., St. R. Co., Costigan 
 
 V. 
 
 Warrior Mower Co., Boston, R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Washburn, Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2710. 
 
 V. Empire Brick, etc., Co., p. 
 
 3964. 
 
 Lin Sing '.■. 
 
 Little Miami R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Nashville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1550, 1570, 1760, 1761, 1953, 
 2213. 
 
 Washburn-Crosby Co. z: Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, pp. 411, 3362. 
 
 Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. f. Prov- 
 idence, etc., R. Co., pp. 3259, 
 3296, 3340. 
 
 Washer, Kohn Bros, z: 
 
 Washington t. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co., p. 2116. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 International, etc.,^ R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 r. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., p, 
 
 3322. 
 
 "j.' Spokane St. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1823, 1826, 1959, 2161. 
 
 United States z: 
 
 Washington County R. Co., Crab- 
 tree f. ^ T, ■ 
 
 Washington Marine Co. z\ Rain- 
 ier Alill, etc., Co., pp. 3951, 3966, 
 39(.8, 3969. 
 
 Washington Park Steamboat Co., 
 Clemmens z\ 
 
 Washington Southern R. Co. z\ 
 Commonwealth, p. 3494. 
 
 Washington Terminal Co.. McMan- 
 ard Z-. 
 
 Washington-Virginia R. Co. z: 
 Bouknight, pp. 2674, 2694. 2861. 
 
 Washington Water Power Co., .\t- 
 wood "'. 
 
 .\ustin I'. 
 
 Dcnham z-. 
 
 — ^ Johnson "'. 
 "Mueller f. 
 
 Washington, etc., R. Co.. .\dams 
 
 Brown f. 
 
 z: Brown, pp. 2087, 2090. 
 
 Carpenter -•. 
 
 z: Chapman, pp. 2235, 2288. 
 
 i\ Commonwealth, p. 125. 
 
 z: Grant, p. 2858. 
 
 Harmon z: 
 
 z: Harmon, pp. 1878. 1889, 
 
 2116. 2236. 3063.
 
 cccx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Washington, etc., R. Co. i\ Ilickey, 
 5 App. D. C. 436— pp. 2127, 
 2260, 2656. 
 
 z: Hickey, 166 U. S. 531, 17 
 
 S. Ct. 661, 41 L. Ed. 1101— pp. 
 1709, 1999. 2012, 265o. 
 
 Holohan r. 
 
 Lemont ;•. 
 
 :. Lukens, p. 2911. 
 
 Nichol l\ 
 
 Owen i'. 
 
 Parker v. 
 
 •:■. Patterson, pp. 1519, 1520. 
 
 1523. 
 
 V. Quayle, p. 2535. 
 
 f. Trimyer, pp. 1735, 2011, 
 
 2764, 2765, 2897, 2976. 
 
 ?•. N'arnell, pp. 1684, 1685, 
 
 1693, 1720. 
 
 I'. \'aughan, pp. 1714, 1722. 
 
 1791, 2271, 2364, 2732. 
 
 Wasserman v. New York City R. 
 
 Co., pp. 16, 48, 2652. 
 Water -•. Ross, p. 1221. 
 Waterbury f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2132. 
 i: New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1553, 1554, 1564, 1565, 1566, 
 
 1760, 1761. 
 Waterbury Button Co., Naugatuck 
 
 R. Co. f. 
 Water Power Co., ^tna Nat. Bank 
 
 Water Witch, Brower i\ 
 Water Witch, The. 
 Waterhouse, Anscll z\ 
 
 Crofts i: 
 
 Waterloo, etc.. Transit Co., Peo- 
 ples' Sav. Bank f. 
 Waterman, Reaves i: 
 
 f. X'ermont Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 459, 460. 
 
 Waters, Easton ?■. 
 
 Fremont, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. -j. 
 
 • f. Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 468. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Waters & Co., Southern R. Co. v. 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, p. 
 
 3472. 
 
 Watervliet, etc., R. Co., Higgins v. 
 
 Wathen, Capital Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Watkins v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 
 pp. 2895, 2896. 
 
 t'. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 
 
 pp. 2185, 2235, 2250, 2282, 2355. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 Georgia, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Henningsen v. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Junker, p. 855. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3168. 
 
 f. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 190, 1625, 1636, 3316, 3322. 
 
 V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2126, 2255. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Usury -•. 
 
 Watkins Livery, etc., Co., Trout v. 
 Watkins Merchandise Co., Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 727, 732, 749, 753, 1118. 
 
 Watkinson i'. Laughton, pp. 850, 
 
 855. 
 Watling, Berkley v. 
 Watney, Portcus v. 
 Watson V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 499, 612, 613, 689, 3277, 
 
 3393. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Georgia Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 2262. 
 
 G. H. & S. A. R. Co. V. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Watson -'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 1612, 1613, 1627, 1628, 1631, 
 1632, 1633, 1635. 
 
 V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 268. 278, 286, 729, 733, 750. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 I'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1620, 1630. 
 
 Ohio Valley R. Co. t. 
 
 V. Oswego St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2856. 
 
 V. Oxanna Land Co., pp. 1794, 
 
 2270. 
 
 V. Portland, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1957, 2172, 2173. 
 
 v. Railway, pp. 3176, 3177. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 V. St Paul, etc, R. Co., p. 
 
 1721. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 -■. Southern R. Co., pp. 2017, 
 
 2784. 
 
 Stafford f. 
 
 Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. -•. 
 
 The S. L. 
 
 Watt z\ Cargo of Lumber, pp. 3878, 
 3958. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Watters, .Mobile St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2362. 
 
 Watts V. Boston, etc., R'. Corp., 
 pp. 285, 288, 884. 
 
 V. Camors, pp. 1170, 38(i9, 
 
 3870, 3873. 
 
 Watts & Co. -'. Saxon, pp. 741, 
 
 742, 745, 747. 779. 
 W'axelbaum -•. Southern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 430, 939, 1033. 
 Way V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 
 
 Iowa 48, 52 .\m. Rep. 431, 19 
 
 N. W. 828— pp. 1572, 1573. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 
 
 Iowa 463, 34 .\m. & Kng. R. 
 Cas. 286, 35 N. W. 525— pp. 
 1572, 2517, 2644. 
 
 ■ V. Dennie, p. 514. 
 
 r. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 p. 3586. 
 
 Ocean Steam^liip Co. ?'. 
 
 V. Southern R. Co., pp. 760, 
 
 3396. 
 
 Waycross, etc., R. Co., Gardner v. 
 Waydell v. Adams, pp. 3884, 3885. 
 Wayland v. Mosely, pp. 331, 332, 
 
 337, 339. 
 Wayne, Albatross v. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 pp. 1743, 2575, 2674. 
 
 Steamboat Albatross t'. 
 
 V. Steamboat General Pike, 
 
 pp. 328, 332, 333. 
 
 Weakly, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wcams, Louisville City R'. Co. v. 
 Weatherby, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Weathers, Birmingham R'., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Weaver v. .\nn .\rbor R. Co., pp. 
 
 1567, 1640, 2097, 2098. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 2142. 
 
 People T. 
 
 7'. Southern R! Co., p. 756. 
 
 Weaver Coal, etc., Co., Guii;an :■. 
 Webb, Alton R., etc., Co. r. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3192, 3197. 
 
 Braun v. 
 
 Buck z\ 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Great Western R. Co., p. 
 
 957. 
 
 Gregory v. 
 
 Griswold v. 
 
 Webb, Levien ?■. 
 
 Lincoln Tract. Co. -•. 
 
 Missouri v. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 Munsey f. 
 
 southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Southwestern R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams f. 
 
 z\ Winter, pp. 477, 480. 
 
 Webber v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1749, 2679, 2691. 
 
 V. Railway, p. 3177. 
 
 i\ Virginia, pp. 3549, 3568. 
 
 Weber, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2418, 2482, 2484. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 489. 
 
 V. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1710, 1988, 2113, 2251, 2833. 
 
 f. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1879, 2689. 
 
 V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1647, 2438, 2458. 
 
 — — V. Southern R. Co., pp. 196, 
 1596, 2709, 2854. 
 
 Wessel & Co. v. 
 
 Weber Co. '■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 92 Iowa 364, 60 N. W. 637— 
 pp. 3112. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 
 
 Iowa 188, 20 Am. & Fng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 464, 84 N. W. 1042— 
 pp. 203, 2122, 3112, 3124, 3155, 
 3162, 3165. 
 
 Webster v. Bear, pp. 371, 372. 
 
 V. Bell, p. 3576. ^ 
 
 Delaware, etc.. Canal Co. -■. 
 
 • V. Elmira, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2694. 
 
 ''. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 1505, 
 
 1506, 1537, 1555. 
 
 — — ■ Florida R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 '■. Hudson River R. Co 
 
 1999. 
 
 Merrick "'. 
 
 Millard • 
 
 — • — V. Rome 
 
 2213, 2860. 
 
 V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 115 N. 
 
 Y. 112, 21 N. E. 725— pp. 1815, 
 2897. 
 
 T. Superior Court, p. 34. 
 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1029, 133^, 1387, 3624. 
 
 Webster, M., B. & F. City St. Ry. 
 
 Co., Renncy ■:'. 
 Wedekind v. Southern Pac. Co., 
 
 p. 2811. 
 Weed z\ Barney, pp. 572, 901. 
 
 Henadale v. 
 
 z\ International, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1332. 
 
 V. Panama R. Co., 17 N. Y. 
 
 362, 72 Am. Dec. 474— pp. 623, 
 2038, 2070. 
 
 V. Panama R. Co., 12 N. Y. 
 
 Super. Ct. 193— pp. 1670, 1673, 
 1676. 
 
 z'. Saratoga, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 805, 3119, 3125, 3126, 3184. 
 
 Weeks v. Auburn, etc.. Elect. R. 
 Co., p. 1956. 
 
 V. Boston Kiev. R. Co., p. 
 
 2169. 
 
 Byrne t'. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z'. Chicago, etc., Iv. Co., p. 
 
 3038. 
 
 Z'. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2134, 2136, 2155. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 9 Hun 669— pp. 3123, 
 3125, 3126, 3145, 3147. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 
 
 N. Y. 50, 28 Am. Rep. 104— 
 pp. 3114, 3147. 
 
 Peck V. 
 
 Weems Steamboat Co. '•. People's 
 
 Steamboat Co., p. 3655. 
 Wegener f. Smith, p. 713. 
 
 p. 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 cccxr 
 
 "Wegeschicde v. St. Louis Transit 
 
 Co., p. 2290. 
 Wcgner v. Smith, p. 355. 
 Wehnian v. Southern Railway, p. 
 
 3185. 
 Wehrmann, Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 969. 970. 971, 1031, 3262, 
 3264, 3287, 3312. 
 
 Weida v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1298. 
 Weidc V. Davidson, p. 838. 
 Wcightinan v. Louisvilk-, etc., R 
 
 Co., pp. 1910, 1912. 
 Weikle, Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Weil V. Express Co., p. 864. 
 
 f. Merchants', etc., Transp. 
 
 Co., p. 3256. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R'. R., p 
 
 3666. 
 
 Weill V. New lork, pp. 3995, 3997. 
 Weillcr V. New York City R. Co., 
 p. 2860. 
 
 Pennsylvania R Co. v. 
 
 People's, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Weinberg ?■. Albemarle, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3327. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 65 
 
 S. E. 634, 83 S. C. 468— p. 864. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 83 
 
 S. C. 470, 65 S. E. 637— p. 
 165. 
 
 Weinberger v. Compagnie Generale 
 Transatlantiquc, pp. 4011, 4032. 
 Weiner, Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Weingart v. Pullman Co., pp. 3230, 
 
 Weinschenk v. New York, etc., R 
 
 Co., p. 1994. 
 Weir, .Xddoms v. 
 
 Adler V. 
 
 Bates V. 
 
 Bernstein v. 
 
 Brand f. 
 
 Campe '■. 
 
 Coggswell !•. 
 
 Coulter -■. 
 
 Fein t\ 
 
 Flint, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Frankfurt i\ 
 
 Greenwald f. 
 
 Gurwitz -'. 
 
 Harrison v. 
 
 Ingram v. 
 
 Jonasson v. 
 
 Levy f. 
 
 Mills r. 
 
 iuitchell V. 
 
 V. Norman, p. 3578. 
 
 Rogers v. 
 
 Rosenblum v. 
 
 Rosenthal f. 
 
 V. Rountree, pp. 2101, 2104, 
 
 2105, 3519. 
 
 Sageman v. 
 
 Schutte V. 
 
 V. Seattle Elect. Co., p. 2887. 
 
 Silverman i'. 
 
 Taylor v. 
 
 7-. Union R. Co., p. 2685. 
 
 United R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 VVliite -■. 
 
 Weisenbcrg v. Lackawanna, etc., 
 
 R. Co.. p. 2276. 
 Weisinger v. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 1282, 1465. 
 Weisman v. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 558. 
 Weisman & Co., Texas, etc., R. 
 
 Co. %: 
 Weiss, New York, etc., Co. v. 
 
 New York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 Weisshaar .v. Kimball Steamship 
 
 Co.. pp. 3992, 3997, 4045. 4046. 
 
 Weissman, Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Welborn f. Southern R. Co., p 
 292. 
 
 Welbourne, International, etc., R 
 
 Co. f. 
 Welch v. Boston Elev. R. Co., n 
 
 2777. ' ' 
 
 V. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 945, 1375. "^ 
 
 V. Concord Railroad, pp. 896, 
 
 901, 905, 909. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 r. McClintock, pp. 3944. 3945. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 I. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 1374. *^ 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 16 Abb. Prac, N. S., 
 352— pp. 3216, 2223, 3224. 
 
 J'. Pullman Palace Car Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), Sheld. 457— p. 3214. 
 —^ The John M. 
 Weld, Pickering f. 
 
 Railroad Comm. v. 
 
 Reed ■: 
 
 Welding v. Wagner, p. 3216. 
 Welkr V. London, etc., R. Co., do. 
 
 1924. 1926. 
 Wellesley. etc., R. Co., Killam v. 
 Wellington, Louisville R. Co. v 
 
 The. 
 
 Wellman, Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 t. Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 38. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1888, 2875. 
 
 V. Morse, p. 3953. 
 
 Wellmeyer f. St. Louis Transit Co., 
 
 pp. 1998, 2184, 2343, 2355. 
 Wells -'. Alabama, etc., K'. Co., 
 pp. 1859, 2706. 
 
 ;■. .American Exp. Co., 44 
 
 Wis. 342— pp. 529, 543. 
 
 V. American Exp. Co.. 55 
 
 Wis. 23, 11 N. W. 537, 12 N. 
 W. 441, 42 Am. Rep. 695— 
 p. 547. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, pp. 
 
 2712. 3031. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 Cronkite v. 
 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 499, 949, 960. 961, 977, 3109, 
 3127, 3128, 3132, 3149, 3162, 
 3166, 3167. 3189. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 J'. Maine Steamship Co., pp. 
 
 573, 574, 577, 578, 579. 
 
 Midd f. 
 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 J'. National Life .\ss'n, p. 
 
 650. 
 
 f. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2095, 2103. 
 
 V. New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1511, 1512. 1518. 
 
 f. New York Citv R. Co., pp. 
 
 1645. 1646. 
 
 Nudd r. 
 
 V. Oregon, etc., R'. Co., p. 
 
 108. 
 
 Piatt -■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Sherman :-. 
 
 V. Steinway R. Co.. p. 2231. 
 
 f. Thomas, pp. 1147, 1156. 
 
 3359. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 268, 272, 273, 304. 
 
 Wells Fargo Co., Hayes v. 
 
 Rick -'. 
 
 Wells Fargo Exp. Co., Cohn-Good 
 
 man Co. f. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 Rubin V. 
 
 V. Samuels, pp. 658, 635, 686, 
 
 687, 692, 695. 
 
 V. State, p. 3428. 
 
 Thomas -■. 
 
 L^nited States ;•. 
 
 r. Williams. pp. 465. 858, 
 
 1139, 1195, 1202. 
 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Battle, pp. 
 638, 643, 644, 646, 674, 686, 689, 
 860. 
 
 V. Bell, p. 810. 
 
 Blair J. 
 
 Cutter f. 
 
 V. Cutter, pp. 846, 1059. 
 
 Danciger v. 
 
 Fried v. 
 
 Greenfield v. 
 
 V. Hanson, pp. 515, 585, 587, 
 
 589, 593, 663, 664, 866. 
 
 Hooper v. 
 
 Jones V. 
 
 Knapp !■. 
 
 Meyer v. 
 
 Michalitschke v. 
 
 Noonan ;■. 
 
 r. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3576. 
 
 i: Oregon R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 379. ^ 
 
 Pacific .Aviation Co. v. 
 
 Pierce Co. v. 
 
 r. Potter, p. 1478. 
 
 Powers Mercantile Co. t. 
 
 Reeder :■. 
 
 Rowan f. 
 
 Scammon j'. 
 
 Scrammon v. 
 
 State f. 
 
 Stevenson v. 
 
 Thurman v. 
 
 Travis v. 
 
 Wertheimer v. 
 
 V. Windham, pp. 543, 549. 
 
 580. 
 
 Wells Fargo & Co. Exp., Lafayette 
 
 V. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 Wells-Fargo Co.'s Exp., Craddock 
 & Co. f. 
 
 V. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 213, 222, 2Z S. W. 412— pp. 322, 
 Zn, 335, 502, 503, 508, 509, 511, 
 1257, 1259. 
 
 f. Fuller, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 610, 35 S. W. 824— pp. 12S3. 
 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257. 
 
 Gary f. 
 
 v. Gentry, pp. 831, 832. 
 
 Laporte v. 
 
 z\ Mitchell, p. 834. 
 
 Murphy f. 
 
 Security Trust Co. f. 
 
 Wells, etc., Co., Gushing v. 
 
 '■■ Oregon R., etc., Co., p. 
 
 108. 
 Pitlock t: 
 
 Ziegler r. 
 
 Welsh, Cafiero f. 
 
 International, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co v. 
 
 V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 211, 243, 728. 733. 749, 822, 948, 
 951, 996, 1363, 1368. 
 
 White t . 
 
 Welton -•. Missouri, pp. 3418, 3419, 
 
 3421, 3445, 3446. 3549, 3568. 
 Wemple, Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Wendling v. Chicago City R. Co., 
 
 p. 2309. 
 
 Wente v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 
 Neb. 175, 112 N. W. 300— p 
 1455. 
 
 I'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 79 
 
 Neb. 179, 115 N. W. 859. 15 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 756— pp. 1301, 1477, 
 1478. 
 
 Wentworth, .Adams Exp. Co. :. 
 
 :•. Eastern R. Co., p. 1798. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Realm, p. 817. 
 
 Wentz f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3697. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., pp. 1623, 
 
 1635. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co. r. 
 
 Wentz-Bates Mercantile Co. v. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co., p. 87.
 
 CCCXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASEIS, 
 
 Wenz t: Savannah, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1628, 2408, 2482, 2528, 3098 
 Wenzel :•. City, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 1984, 2192. 
 
 z: Great Northern R. Co., p 
 
 251. 
 
 Werbowlsky f. Fort Wayne, etc. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 1826, 1833, 1890 
 
 2249. 
 Werle z: Long Island R. Co., pp 
 
 1937, 1951, 1953, 1986, 2181. 
 Werner z: Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2065, 2066, 2229, 2745, 2949 
 
 z\ Evans, pp. 3114, 3115 
 
 3127. 
 
 Werner Sawmill Co. z: Ferree, p 
 
 494. 
 Wernick r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 796. 
 Wernke, Ohio Valley Trust Co. z- 
 
 Ohio Valley, etc., Co. f. 
 
 Wernwag z: Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 549. 
 Wertheimer -•. Interborough Rapid 
 Transit Co., p. 1929. 
 
 c'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 
 
 Fed. 232, 17 Blatchf. 421— pp. 
 320, 323, 1024, 1037, 1042. 
 
 "'. Pennsvlvania R. Co., W. 
 
 N. C. (Pa.), 272— p. 321. 
 
 z: Wells, Fargo & Co., pp. 
 
 477, 479. 
 
 Wescott, Limburger f. 
 
 Sunderland v. 
 
 Wescott Exp. Co., Brookstone f. 
 Wesner, etc., Mfg. Co. f. Atlantic, 
 
 etc.. Railroad, pp. 642, 677. 
 Wessel & Co., Straus & Bro. v. 
 
 f. Weber, p. 479. 
 
 West, Chamberlain f. 
 
 f. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 
 
 pp. 3433, 3533. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 V. London, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 221. 
 
 Martin v. 
 
 v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2865. 
 
 Portage County Mut. Fire 
 
 1:.-?. Co. v. 
 
 Richmond R., etc., Co. z: 
 
 Rogers !■. 
 
 Z-. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2233. 
 
 Southern R. Co. f. 
 
 Sprague v. 
 
 West Asheville, etc., R. Co., Wit- 
 sell z: 
 
 West Bloomfield Tp. v. Detroit 
 United Railway, pp. 1594, 1611. 
 
 Westchester Elect. R. Co., Brettner 
 
 Dista V. 
 
 Stern v. 
 
 Westchester St. R. Co., Public 
 Service Comm. v. 
 
 West Chester, etc., R. Co., John- 
 son V. 
 
 z: McElwee, p. 2857. 
 
 z: Miles, pp. 191, 1943, 1944, 
 
 2417. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. z: Binder, 
 pp. 2156, 2519. 
 
 z: Dudzik, pp. 2151, 2249. 
 
 Hagestrom v. 
 
 z: Johnson, 180 111. 285, 54 
 
 N. E. 334— pp. 1743, 1827, 2125, 
 2933. 
 
 V. Johnson, 77 111. App. 142 
 
 —p. 2160. 
 
 z: Kennelly, p. 2759. 
 
 V. Kromshinsky, p. 1743. 
 
 ■ V. Lieserowitz, pp. 2990, 
 
 3006. 
 
 z: McCafferty, pp. 2398, 2922. 
 
 V. Manning, pp. 1561, 1562, 
 
 2119, 2244. 
 
 V. Marks, 182 111. 15, 55 N. 
 
 E. 67— pp. 1818, 1820, 1959, 
 3002. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. ;■. Marks, 
 82 111. App. 185— pp. 2196, 2883. 
 
 z: Martin, 154 111. 523, 39 N. 
 
 E. 140— p. 2011. 
 
 v. Martin, 47 111. App. 610— 
 
 p. 2696. 
 
 Z-. Mileham, p. 2586. 
 
 z: Piper, p. 2083. 
 
 z\ Torpe, p. 2304. 
 
 z: Tuerke, 193 III. 385, 61 N. 
 
 E. 1087, 1 R. R. R. 1, 24 .\m. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 1— pp. 
 1842, 1843, 1845, 2007, 2897. 
 
 z: Tuerk, 90 111. App. 105— 
 
 pp. 1709, 1842. 
 
 Z'. Walsh, p. 1535. 
 
 V. Williams, p. 2810. 
 
 West Chicago, etc., R. Co., Cohen 
 
 — — z: Home, pp. 2117, 2118. 
 
 Kean '•. 
 
 z: McNulty, p. 3033. 
 
 West Coast Naval Stores Co., 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 102. 
 
 Westcott f. Fargo (N. Y.), 63 
 Barb. 349, 6 Lans. 319— pp. 815, 
 817, 1097, 1098. 
 
 f. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 
 
 Am. Rep. 300— pp. 1116, 3371. 
 
 Harnett z\ 
 
 Holt z: 
 
 Hopkins z\ 
 
 Richards z\ 
 
 Springer -•. 
 
 Sunderland v. 
 
 — '■ — • Lnion Stock Yard Co. '■. 
 Westcott Exp. Co., Soviero z\ 
 West End St. R. Co., Corlin z: 
 
 Creamer f. 
 
 Dickinson f. 
 
 Co., Bigc'low 
 
 West End, etc., St. R. Co. z: 
 
 Mozely, pp. 1889, 2249, 2987. 
 Wester, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Western Gravel Road Co. f. Cox, 
 
 p. 659. 
 Western Land, etc., Co., Union 
 
 Stock Yards, etc., Co. i'. 
 Western Mfg. Co. v. Guiding Star, 
 
 pp. 820, 856. 
 Western Maryland R. Co., Abell 
 
 V. Herold, pp. 
 
 2390. 
 
 n43, 2149, 
 
 z: Landis, p. 3408. 
 
 Z-. Lynch, p. 1642. 
 
 Needy ?•. 
 
 V. Scliaun, p. 2783. 
 
 i: Shirk, p. 1567. 
 
 z: Shivers, pp. 2670, 2695, 
 
 2859, 2898, 2900. 
 
 z: Stanlev, p. 1982. 
 
 v. State, 'pp. 1701, 2262, 2401, 
 
 2703, 2880, 2926, 2969, 3006. 
 
 V. Stocksdale, pp. 1630, 2443, 
 
 2462. 
 
 Western New York, etc., R. Co., 
 Interstate Commerce Comm. v. 
 
 Leggett v. 
 
 V. Penn, pp. 3613, 3654, 3731, 
 
 3776, 3787, 3789, 3791, 3793, 
 3795, 3796, 3797, 3840. 
 
 Western Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 Bernhardt f. 
 Western Railroad, Goins v. 
 
 Hughes '•. 
 
 Chappell V. 
 686, 784, 1028, 
 
 Comm., pp. 45, 
 
 Western R. Co. ;■. Bunch, pp. 284, 
 286. 
 
 Goins "'. 
 
 V. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 8 
 
 So. 649, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 358— pp. 320, 323, 825, 983, 985, 
 986, 1035, 1388, 1389, 1395, 1396, 
 1399, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 
 3377, 3378, 3380, 3383, 3384. 
 
 z: Harwell, 97 Ala. 341, 11 
 
 So. 781, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 3'51— pp. 1073, 1096, 1107, 1395, 
 1396, 1399, 1422, 3380, 3384, 
 3385. 
 
 Kimball '■. 
 
 — — Z-. Little, p. 895. 
 
 Paraniore z\ 
 
 f. Thomas, p. 577. 
 
 f. Thornton, p. 576. 
 
 '•. Walker, p. 1846. 
 
 V. Young, p. 1864. 
 
 Western R. Corp., Ayres v. 
 
 Boston, etc., R. Corp. v. 
 
 Coyle z'. 
 
 Finn v. 
 
 Hegeman v. 
 
 Judson V. 
 
 • Lamb "■. 
 
 McDonald z: 
 
 Nolton '■. 
 
 Sessions '•. 
 
 Western Railway, 
 ■ z\ Hart, pp. 
 
 3309. 
 
 '■. Railroad 
 
 46, 49, 50. 
 
 Smith r. 
 
 Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. z-. 
 
 Western Sash, etc., Co. v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3334, 3536. 
 Western Stage Co., Compton v. 
 
 Sales f. 
 
 Western States, The. 
 
 Western Transit Co. v. Hosking, 
 
 pp. 1033, 1049. 
 Western Transp. Co. f. Barber, 
 
 p. 1167. 
 
 v. Hawley, pp. 537, 1243. 
 
 ■ f. Hoyt, pp. 1145, 1161. 
 
 V. Marshall, pp. 476, 1230. 
 
 V. Newhall, pp. 727, 805, 815, 
 
 888, 965, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 
 1026, 1033, 1036. 
 
 Parmclee z\ 
 
 Warner z: 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. z'. Ala- 
 bama State Board, p. 3559. 
 
 z\ Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., p. 
 
 5. 
 
 V. Bertram, p. 406. 
 
 Borough of Norwood z: 
 
 ■ Burgess z\ 
 
 - 7-. Call Pub. Co., pp. 1180, 
 3441, 3448, 3449, 3602. 
 
 Coleman ''. 
 
 '■. Cooper, p. 663. 
 
 Cowan z\ 
 
 z: Crall, p. 659. 
 
 z\ Crider, p. 613. 
 
 Davis r. 
 
 1'. Eubanks, 
 
 Glenn z\ 
 
 z'. Gottlieb, pp. 3553, 3572, 
 
 3590, 3592. 
 
 -■. Harding, 
 
 Hill z: 
 
 z\ Hoffman, p. 663. 
 
 V. Jackson, p. 1116. 
 
 V. James, pp. 34, 3504. 
 
 z\ Lovely, p. 3366. 
 
 McCord v. 
 
 'v. McCoy, p. 613. 
 
 Marr z\ 
 
 Massachusetts f. 
 
 7'. Massachusetts, pp. 3550, 
 
 3551, 3552, 3553, 3572, 3591. 
 
 Mood z\ 
 
 ■ Pensacola Tel. Co. v. 
 
 t/. Pennsylvania, 128 U. S. 
 
 39, 32 L. Kd. 345, 9 S. Ct. 6— 
 p. 3559. 
 
 p. 1119. 
 pp. 3553, 
 p. 613.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCCXIII 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. j'. Penn- 
 sylvania, 195 U. S. 540, 49 L. 
 Ed. 312. 25 S. Ct. 133— p. 3592. 
 
 Phillips V. 
 
 Poteet ?'. 
 
 Primrose r. 
 
 Rattcrman i'. 
 
 I'. Reynolds Bros., p. 9. 
 
 Rogers f. 
 
 St. Louis V. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 State V. 
 
 f. Steinbergen, p. 613. 
 
 J'. Taggart, pp. 3552, 3553, 
 
 3572, 3590, 3591, 3592, 3593, 
 3594. 
 
 V. Texas, p. 9. 
 
 Tyler ;■. 
 
 f. Wingate, p. 613. 
 
 Wolf r. 
 
 V. Woods, pp. 1488, 1750. 
 
 f. Yopst, p. 1087. 
 
 Western \'ermont R. Co., Jones v. 
 Western, etc., Grain Co., Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Western, etc.. Railroad v. Abbott, 
 
 p. 2840. 
 
 f. Camp, pp. 893, 898, 900, 
 
 910, 912. 
 
 z: Drysdale, p. 2009. 
 
 7'. Goodwin, p. 2257. 
 
 r. McElwee, pp. 3251, 3257, 
 
 3291, 3330. 
 
 Murphy v. 
 
 Turner f. 
 
 V. Turner, pp. 1494, 1544, 
 
 1547, 1550, 2038, 2039, 2042, 
 2043, 2045, 2411, 2481, 2482, 
 2483, 3064, 3087. 
 
 r. Wilson, p. 2125. 
 
 Western, etc., R. Co., Bell Bros, i: 
 
 Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. 
 
 V. Burnham, p. 2917. 
 
 V. Carlton, p. 3. 
 
 Covintgon f. 
 
 Daniels v. 
 
 f. Deitch, p. 2867. 
 
 V. Earwood, pp. 1912, 1915. 
 
 Elliott V. 
 
 Exposition Cotton Mills v. 
 
 f. Exposition Cotton Mills, 
 
 pp. 788, 939, 942. 948. 954, 1490, 
 3304, 3306, 3377, 3390, 3396, 
 3397, 3403. 
 
 Hamilton ;■. 
 
 V. Herold, p. 2123. 
 
 V. Hunt, p. 2666. 
 
 Hutchings J'. 
 
 Interstate Coipmerce Comm. 
 
 Kentucky, etc., Fire Ins. Co. 
 
 I'. Ledbetter, pp. 2429, 3105. 
 
 Lewis i: 
 
 Lockhart v. 
 
 McGucken v. 
 
 Mitchell V. 
 
 V. Ohio \'alley, etc., Co., pp. 
 
 320, 328, 335, 558, 560, 573, 
 575. 
 
 Penn Refin. Co. v. 
 
 Seaboard, etc., K. Co. r. 
 
 State z: 
 
 V. State, p. 2127. 
 
 r. Summerour, pp. 654, 695. 
 
 r. X'oils, pp. 1561, 1562, 1914, 
 
 2065. 
 
 Wallace z'. 
 
 Walters I'. 
 
 Wilkes z: 
 
 Westervelt -■. St. Louis Transit 
 Co., pp. 1890, 2088, 2985. 
 
 Westfall z\ Perry, p. 1352. 
 
 West Hartlepool Steam Nav. Co. v. 
 450 Tons of Kainit, pp. 3955, 
 3956. 
 
 Z-. \'irginia-Carolina Chemi- 
 cal Co., p. 3955. 
 
 West Jersey Ferry Co., Burton v. 
 
 Fearn f. 
 
 West Jersey, etc., Co., Robertson 
 
 V. 
 
 West Jersey, etc., R. Co., Feil v. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Miller z: 
 
 Prcthrow i\ 
 
 Speer f. 
 
 Wilson J'. 
 
 West Memphis Packet Co. v. 
 
 White, pp. 2024, 2057. 
 Westminster, The. 
 Westmoreland, Darling f. 
 Weston I'. Boston, etc.. Railroad. 
 
 pp. 641, 672, 676. 
 F'dson J'. 
 
 Malott V. 
 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1786, 2132. 
 
 Weston, etc., Railroad v. Mathis, 
 p. 865. 
 
 West Pennsylvania R. Co., Bern- 
 hardt r. 
 
 Westphalen v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., pp. 1289, 1348, 1457, 1458, 
 3409. 
 
 West Philadelphia R. Co., Rose v. 
 
 West Philadelphia, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 Gallagher, pp. 1829, 1960, 2126, 
 2174, 2884. 
 
 Whipple J'. 
 
 Westray z\ Miletus, p. 854. 
 
 West Seattle Land, etc., Co., Stev- 
 enson z: 
 
 West Side Belt R. Co., Wabash R. 
 Co. z: 
 
 West Side R. Co.. Kohler -■. 
 
 Westside St. R. Co.. Woodward v. 
 
 West St., etc., R. Co.. Cogswell v. 
 
 West \'irginia Cent., etc., R. Co., 
 Carrico v. 
 
 West X'irginia Mid. R. Co., Knice- 
 ley z\ 
 
 West \'irginia Northern R. Co., 
 United States -•. 
 
 t . United States, pp. 3645, 
 
 3649, 3650. 
 
 West X'irginia Transp. Co., Dres- 
 ser -•. 
 
 Laurel,' etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 z\ Sweetzer, pp. 4, 35, 36, 
 
 38, 62, 1194, 1199. 
 
 West X'irginia, etc., R. Co., Berry 
 
 Carrico v. 
 
 Fisher f. 
 
 z: Kingwood Coal Co., p. 
 
 3826. 
 
 Wcstwood T'. Dedham, etc., St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 77, 82, 131, 132. 
 Wcstznthins, In re. 
 Wetmore. Little Miami K. Co. :•. 
 Wettstein, American Exp. Co. f. 
 Wetzell f. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 786. 
 
 z: Dinsmore. pp. 987, 1082. 
 
 Wever, Texas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Wevand z-. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 350, 363, 364, 369, 376, 377, 
 548, 3274. 
 Weymouth z'. Broadway, etc., R. 
 Co., 142 N. Y. 681, 37 N. E. 825 
 —p. 1953. 
 
 t'. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 2 
 
 Misc. Rep. 506, 22 N. Y. S. 
 1047, 51 N. Y. St. Rep. 612— p. 
 1953. 
 
 Whalen z\ Consolidated Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 1715. 2069. 2674. 2887. 
 Whaley ?■. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 478. 496. 
 Wham, Denver, etc.. R. Co. ;■. 
 Wharton, Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 What Cheer Sav. Bank -•. Mowery, 
 
 pp. 385, 386. 
 Whatcom County R., etc., Co., 
 
 Bradburn -•. 
 Whatley, Montgomery Tract. Co. 
 
 Wheat z: Fiatte, etc., K. Co., p. 
 576. 
 — Texas, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Wheaton f. North Beach, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1889, 2953. 
 Wheeler, Ailna Ins. Co. z\ 
 
 Atlanta, etc.. Railway r. 
 
 Barber & Co. v. 
 
 Barter & Co. i: 
 
 Dean z: 
 
 z\ Grand Trunk R. Co., pp. 
 
 2116, 2212, 2867. 
 
 Great Western R. Co. i: 
 
 z'. Hartford, etc., Tramway 
 
 Co., p. 2087. 
 
 z: Hotel Stevens Co., p. 
 
 2375. 
 
 Houston City, etc, R. Co. i\ 
 
 McFarland z: 
 
 f. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.. 
 
 52 Hun 75. 5 N. Y. S. !01. 22 
 N Y. St. Rep. 590— p. 888. 
 
 "'. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.. 
 
 72 Hun 5, 25 N. Y. S. 578, S5 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 715— p. 4032. 
 
 f. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 
 
 125 N. Y. 155, 26 N. E. 24S, 21 
 Am. St. Rep. 729, Silverniil Ct. 
 App. 276— pp. 822, 3195. 
 
 Rogers -■. 
 
 St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., Iv. Co., p. 
 
 817. 
 
 f. San Francisco, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 210, 221, 1493. 
 
 Savannah Elect Co. f. 
 
 Scranton -'. 
 
 f. South Orange, etc.. Tract. 
 
 Co., pp. 2346, 2894. 
 
 Stevens z\ 
 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wade ;. 
 
 Wheeler Condenser, etc., Co., Hud- 
 son River Lighterage Co. z: 
 Wheeling Transportation Co. z\ 
 
 Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. 
 
 Wheeling Tract. Co., Killmeyer x'. 
 
 Normile f. 
 
 Wheeling, etc.. Bridge Co., Penn- 
 sylvania c'. 
 Wheeling, etc., R. Co., Dimmey z\ 
 
 Koontz '•. 
 
 z: Koontz, 15 O. C. C. 288, 
 
 9 O. C. D. 102— pp. 380, 1224. 
 
 -•. Koontz, 61 O. St. 551, 56 
 
 N. E. 471, 76 Am. St. Rep. 435 
 —pp. 525, 1229, 1232, 1233. 1234. 
 
 Wheeling. etc., Transp. Co. f. 
 
 Wheeling, p. 3581. 
 Wheelock, Parmelee f. 
 
 Parmelee Co. -•. 
 
 Wheelwright f. Boston, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2139. 
 Whelan -■. Georgia, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2260. 
 Wheless z\ Meycr-Schmid Grocer 
 
 Co., p. 1229. 
 Whicher z: Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3216, 3217, 3230. 
 Whilt v. Public Service Corp., 74 
 
 N. T. L. 141, 64 Atl. 972— p. 
 
 1961'. 
 
 f. Public Service Corp., 76 
 
 N. J. L. 729, 72 Atl. 420, 74 
 Atl. 568— pp. 1961, 1969. 
 
 Whippel ;•. Slichigan, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1821, 1840. 
 Whipple z: Michigan Cent. K. Co.. 
 
 90 N. W. 287, 130 Mich. 460— 
 
 p. 2809. 
 
 ;■. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 106 N. W. 690, 143 Mich. 41— 
 p. 2900. 
 
 f. Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 
 
 143 Mich. 47. 106 N. W. 692— 
 pp. 2645. 2900. 
 
 z: West Philadelphia, etc.. R. 
 
 Co.. p 2170. 
 
 Whitaker z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 pp. 815. 821. 
 
 Indianapolis St. R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Staten Island, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 p. 2888.
 
 CCCXIV 
 
 table: of cases. 
 
 Whitbeck t: Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2765. 
 Whitcher, Boston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 VVhitcomb, Houston Transfer, etc., 
 
 Co. f. 
 
 Leonard "■. 
 
 White V. Atlantic Consol. St. R. 
 Co.. p. 2158. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 '•. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1828, 2793. 
 
 -•. Boulton, p. 1694. 
 
 Bowigo r. 
 
 f. Canadian Pac. K. Co., p 
 
 578. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 f. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2469. 
 
 f. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1343, 1345. 
 
 City Waterworks f. 
 
 f. Colorado Cent. R. Co., pp 
 
 910, 915. 
 
 V. Columbia, etc.. Ivlcct. R 
 
 Co., p. 1992. 
 
 Columbian Nat. P>ank f. 
 
 '•. Conley, p. 744. 
 
 Eagle f. 
 
 V. Evansville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 pp. 2454, 2621, 2622, 2623. 
 
 r. Fitchburg R. Co., pp. 1741 
 
 1991, 2079, 2083, 2885. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Goodrich Transp. Co., pp 
 
 286, 287, 883, 1011. 
 
 f. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. 
 
 p. 2433. 
 
 z: Great Western R. Co., p 
 
 957. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. '■. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. "■. 
 
 f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1546, 1549, 1758, 1759. 
 
 Jeffersonville R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 '■. Lewiston, etc., R. Co., p 
 
 2731. 
 
 1-. Lewiston, etc., Railway 
 
 pp. 1536, 1805, 1807. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Milwaukee City R. Co. 
 
 pp. 1986, 2889. 
 
 V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co 
 
 pp. 670, 740, 767. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., pp 
 
 211, 242, 440, 3364. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. z'. 
 
 z: Mitchell, p. 1237. 
 
 V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., pp 
 
 2045, 2091, 3864. 
 
 V. North German Lloyd 
 
 Steamship Co., pp. 610, 3867 
 3868. 
 
 f. Peninsular R. Co., pp 
 
 2125, 2210. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. ■:■. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Trans 
 
 Co., p. 2908. 
 
 V. Postal Tel., etc., Co., p 
 
 10. 
 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3142, 3144. 
 
 V. Schweitzer, pp. 477, 493. 
 
 V. Seattle, etc., Nav. Co., pp. 
 
 3990, 3995. 
 
 t. South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2054, 2701, 3070. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 Spencer z\ 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 z: The Kate Dale, p. 470. 
 
 V. The Mary Ann, p. 12. 
 
 z: Toncray, 36 Va. (9 Leigh) 
 
 347 — p. 435. 
 
 f. Toncray, 46 Va. (5 Gratt.) 
 
 179— pp. 434, 435, 436, 456, 776, 
 3875, 3934. 
 
 Virginia, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 White ^■. United States, p. 3865. _ 
 
 Z-. Van Kirk, pp. 333. 337 
 
 338, 451. 
 
 z: Vann, pp. 1011, 1148. 
 
 '•. Weir. pp. 3377, 3379. 
 
 z: Welsh, pp. 1212, 1214 
 
 1231, 1232. 
 
 f. West End St. K. Co., p 
 
 2248. 
 
 West Memphis Packet Co. v. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 White & Co., Blaisdell & Co. r. 
 White Laundry Co. f. Charleston 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 165. 
 White Line Cent. Transit Co., Cin 
 cinnati Chronicle Co. z\ 
 
 Standard Milling Co. v. 
 
 White Line Transit Co., Edwards 
 
 White Live Stock Comm. Co. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., p. 1365. 
 
 White Oak R. Co., State z: 
 
 White Star Line, Woods z\ 
 
 White Star Steamship Co., Bul- 
 lock f. 
 
 White Water R. Co. v. Butler, pp. 
 1755, 1867, 1872. 
 
 Whites' Exp. Co., Rappaport z'. 
 
 Whitehead z: Anderson, pp. 1228, 
 1231, 1234, 1235, 1239, 1240, 
 1246, 1247. 
 
 Central R. Co. v. 
 
 v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 99 
 
 Mo. 263, 11 S. W. 751, 39 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 410, 6 L. R. A. 
 409— pp. 1547, 1755, 1959, 2003, 
 2522, 2542, 2544, 2579, 2947. 
 
 f. St. Louis, etc., R 
 
 Mo. App. 60— p. 2122. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., 
 
 pp. 321, 323, 983. 
 
 Whitehill, Baltimore, 
 
 Co., 22 
 
 R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 etc., R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. 
 
 etc.. 
 
 Whitehurst v. Texas 
 
 pp. 24, 778, 980. 
 Whiteley, Texas, etc. 
 Whitesel, Madison, etc., R. Co. v 
 Whitesell z: Crane, pp. 3189, 3190. 
 Whitesides -■. Russell, p. 946. 
 
 v. Thurlkill, p. 728. 
 
 Whitefield, Memphis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Whitham v. 
 p. 1668. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. 
 772. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Whitin z: Pendegast, 
 
 Whiting, Richardson v. 
 
 Whitley v. Southern R. Co., pp. 
 
 2509, 2513, 2547. 
 Whitling, Berkley v. 
 Whitlock, Mc.\ndrew z\ 
 
 z: Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2076, 2960, 3075. 
 
 Whitman, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 '- V. Vanderbilt, p. 3.962. 
 
 Whitmore v. Bowman, pp. 11, 768. 
 V. Caroline, pp. 3125, 3126, 
 
 3133, 3155. 
 Whitnack v. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 326, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 
 
 3285. 
 Whitney v. Beckford, pp. 1155, 
 
 1156, 1157, 1159. 
 
 z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 849, 855, 908, 910, 918, 3161, 
 3169. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1585, 2671. 
 
 V. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 p. 3224. 
 
 V. Rogers, pp. 1143, 114o. 
 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 524. 
 
 Whittaker, Illinois Cent. R. Co. y. 
 
 Whittemore v. Boston, etc.. Rail- 
 road, 76 N. H. 388, 83 Atl. 125 
 —p. 2435. 
 
 V. Boston, etc.. Railroad (N. 
 
 H.), 86 Atl. 824— p. 2561. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Whittfii. Cliicag(j. etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whittcnburg, Blocker v. 
 Whittenton Mfg. Co. z\ Memphis, 
 
 etc.. Packet Co., p. 829. 
 Whittier, Treadwell v. 
 Wliittington, Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Whittle z\ Denver, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2001. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 '•. Southern Railway, pp. 683, 
 
 684, 687, 688. 692, 3336. 
 
 Whittlesey z\ Burlington, etc., R'. 
 
 Co., pp. 2735, 3007. 
 Whitworth ■;■. Erie R. Co., pp. 1037, 
 
 1041, 1047, 3282, 3377, 3379, 
 
 3381. 
 Wibert -'. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 36— pp. 246, 
 
 253, 621, 653, 655. 
 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 12 
 
 N. Y. 245- pp. 608, 618. 
 
 Wible V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2831. 
 Wichern z: United States Exp. 
 
 Co., p. 1045. 
 Wichita Mill, etc., Co., Orthwein's 
 
 Sons r. 
 Wichita R., etc., Co., Burton v. 
 ■ v. Cummings, p. 2312. 
 
 Finger v. 
 
 Haas '■. 
 
 Wichita Sav. Bank -■. Atchison, 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 311, 312, 3879. 
 
 Wichita Valley R. Co., Stevens '■. 
 
 Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Wichita, etc.. Grocery Co., Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. 
 
 Wichita, etc., R. Co. v. Koch, 47 
 Kan. 753, 28 Pac. 1013— pp. 
 1411, 1424, 1425. 
 
 z\ Koch, 8 Kan. App. 642, 
 
 56. Pac. 538— pp. 1420, 1426. 
 
 Wic^ V. St. Paul City K. Co., p. 
 2816. 
 
 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 
 2512. 
 :■. Leftwich, pp. 2906, 
 
 Wickert '•. 
 pp. 2511 
 
 Wickham 
 
 2973. 
 Wicks V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1597, 2467. 
 Wickwire Steel Co. v. New York, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 3668, 3820, 
 
 3822. 
 Wideman, Southern R. Co. f. 
 Widener v. Philadelphia Rapid 
 
 Transit Co., p. 2028. 
 Wideman, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Widmer, La Conner, etc., Transp. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Wiegand v. Central R. Co., pp. 
 
 3160, 3163, 3108, 3170, 3171. 
 Wicgel, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wieland v. Southern Pac. Co., pp. 
 
 1667, 1668. 
 Wier, Flint, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Morris z\ 
 
 Wigg z: Erie R. Co., p. 2795. 
 VViggani, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ?■ 
 Wiggin t'. Boston, etc., K. Co., pp. 
 
 348, 517, 580, 590. 
 Wiggins v. King. p. 2462. 
 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 3268. 
 
 V. East St. Louis, 102 III. 
 
 560— p. 3587. 
 
 z: East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 
 
 365, 27 L. Ed. 419, 2 S. Ct. 257 
 —pp. 3474, 3475, 3476, 3477, 
 3581, 3584, 3587. 
 
 Evers -■. 
 
 Hammer z\ 
 
 Morrissey v. 
 
 Wight J'. United States, pii. 
 
 3436, 3437, 3684», 3685, 3687, 
 
 3690, 3694, 3702, 3711, 3712, 
 3741.
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 CCCXV 
 
 Wightman, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 L ,.. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1627, 2443. 
 Wilbanks, Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Wilhour V. Rhode Island Co., p. 
 
 2795. 
 Wilbourne, Iiitcinational, etc., R. 
 
 Co. ?'. 
 Wilbur, Degado v. 
 
 ;•. Rhode Island Co., pp. 
 
 2587, 2590, 2675. 
 
 r. Southwest, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2697. 
 
 Wilburn i: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2608. 
 VVilcke r. Ilenrotin, p. 2121. 
 Wilcox, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R'. Co., 24 
 
 Minn. 269— pp. 545, 592. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 
 
 Mo. App. 193, 115 S. W. 1061 
 —p. 1062. 
 
 Eric R. Co. f. 
 
 V. People, p. 3549. 
 
 V. I'hiladclpliia, p. 3155. 
 
 V. Rhode Island Co., p- 
 
 2785. 
 
 i: San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1549, 2483. 
 
 Shacklcford v. 
 
 Southern R. Co. %•. 
 
 r. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1663, 2846, 2847, 2848. 
 
 Wilco.x, etc., Co., Savannah, etc., 
 
 R. Co. r. 
 Wild Hunter, Ellsworth r. 
 Wililcroft, The. 
 Wilde V. Lynn, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2195. 
 ... Merchants' Despatch 
 
 Transp. Co.. pp. 333, 1000, 1001. 
 Wildcnfels. The. 
 Wilder, Croucher -■. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. "'. 
 
 V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2691, 2737. 
 
 Ocean Steamship Co. r. 
 
 V. St. Tohnsbury, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 211, "229. 
 
 Wildman, Evansvillc, etc., Steam 
 
 Packet Co. v. 
 Wile, Howard Exp. Co. t-. 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2671, 2690. 
 Wilensky v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 72 S. E. 418, 136 Ga. 889, Ann. 
 
 Cas. 1912D. 271— p. 522. 
 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co.. 10 
 
 Ga. App. 8, 72 S. W. 516— p. 
 522. 
 
 Wiles V. Northern Pac. R. Co., p. 
 
 3105. 
 Wiley, Randolph r. 
 
 7: Rutland R. Co., p. 2363. 
 
 Wiley, etc., Co., Swan -'. 
 Wilhelm, G. C. & S. F. R. Co. 
 
 — ^ Gulf, etc.. R. Cn. T'. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Cn. z: 
 
 Wilke 'i: Illinois Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1269. 1457. 
 Wilkens, Baltimore, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Wilkerson, Baltimore City Pass. K. 
 
 Co. r: 
 
 r. Corrigan Consol. St. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1986, 2682. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Knoxville Tract. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Wilkerson Bros., Houston, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Wilkes i: Buffalo, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 1582, 2864. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1768, 1776, 2575. 
 
 Wilkesbarre Lace Mfg. Co., First 
 
 Nat. Bank -•. 
 Wilkie T. Bolster, p. 2684. 
 
 Wilkins z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 568, 1108. 
 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 
 f. Pullman Co., p. 3208. 
 
 Smurthwaitc i\ 
 
 Steinman v. 
 
 Wilkinson, Alabama, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. -r. 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. 
 
 Burton r. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R'. Co. i'. 
 
 T. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2921. 
 
 Richmond Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Will, Pomeroy, etc., Co. f. 
 Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. 
 
 Hatch, p. 3441. 
 Willamette Transp., etc., Co., Dice 
 
 Willamette Valley, Gleason f. 
 Willamette Val. R. Co., Moakler 
 
 Willamette, etc., R. Co., Lakin v. 
 Willard, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1397. 1472. 
 
 Ellis -•. 
 
 r. Towa Cent. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2809, 2863. 
 
 z: St. Paul City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2426, 2487, 2855, 3106. 
 
 f. Tavloe, p. 3871. 
 
 Willard Mfg. Co. f. Tierney, p. 
 
 392. 
 Willcox ?•. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1249. 
 
 z: Richmor.d, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 117. 
 
 Willett, Pullman Co. z: 
 
 f. Southern R'. Co., pp. 3393, 
 
 3397. 
 
 Willetts z\ Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1495. 2426. 
 Willey '•. Portsmouth, p. 2737. 
 W^illfong z: Omaha, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 3524. 
 William Marshall. The. 
 William Power, The. 
 William Taber, The. 
 Williams, Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Allen z: 
 
 ■ z: .\rmour Car Lines, pp. 
 
 248, 263. 
 
 z\ .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 
 
 Fla. 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L. R. 
 A.. N. S.. 134— pp. 642, 643, 
 661, 669, 687. 
 
 z: .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 69 
 
 S. E. 402, 153 N. C. 360— p. 
 2559. 
 
 T. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 806. 
 
 Z-. Branson, p. 10. 
 
 Bremner ?•. 
 
 z: Camden, etc.. R. Co.. p. 
 
 2316. 
 
 T'. Carolina, etc.. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2568, 3042. 3043. 3055. 
 
 ;■. Central R. Co.. p. 1490. 
 
 r: Central, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 1390. 1455. 
 
 Chicaeo. etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Z-. Chicago, etc., K. Co., pp. 
 
 2637, 2695. 
 
 T'. Citizens' Elect. St. K. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2739. 2779. 2791. 
 
 Crawford "'. 
 
 z\ Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 
 pp. 516, 890. 
 
 Dickman -•. 
 
 z: Fears. 110 G.i. 584. 35 S. 
 
 E. 699, 50 L. R. .\. 685— p. 
 3566. 
 
 z: Fears. 179 U. S. 270. 45 
 
 L. Ed. 186, 21 S. Ct. 128— pp. 
 3418, 3419, 3420. 3421. 3435. 
 3566. 3569. 3570. 
 
 Ft. Smith, etc.. R. Co. •: . 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Williams z: Frost, pp. 3189, 3190. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 i: Galveston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2128, 2646, 2906. 
 
 z: Gill, pp. 2046. 2055. 3032. 
 
 V. Grant, pp. 727, 732, 737. 
 
 748. 752. 
 
 z: Great Western R. Co.. pp. 
 
 211, 238. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■:■. Hays, p. 3865. 
 
 :•. Hodges, pp. 1233. 1235. 
 
 T. Holland, pp. 565, 567. 
 
 . Houston, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 International, etc., R'. Co. 7: 
 
 jr. International, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1950, 1951. 1979, 2344, 2755. 
 2888 
 
 v. Island City Mercantile, 
 
 etc., Co., p. 659. 
 
 I'. Keokuk Northern Line 
 
 Packet Co., p. 3145. 
 
 z: Louisiana R., etc., Co.. p. 
 
 2532. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 150 
 
 Ala. 324, 43 So. 576, 10 L. R. 
 A.. X. S.. 413— pp. 2577, 2609. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Ala.). 58 So. 315— p. 332. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 98 
 
 Ky. 247, 32 S. W. 934— p. 2527. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Norfolk, etc.. R'. Co. v. 
 
 North Chicago St. R. Co. r- 
 
 z\ Oregon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1585, 2097. 
 
 Pecos, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z\ Pevtavin, p. 285. 
 
 z: Pittsburg R. Co.. p. 2671. 
 
 Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 z: Pullman Palace Car Co., 
 
 40 La. .Vnn. 87. 3 So. 631. 33 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 407, 8 Am. 
 St. Ren. 512— p. 3210. 
 
 z: Pullman Palace Car Co.. 
 
 40 La. Ann. 417, 4 So. 85, 33 
 \m & Eng. R. Cas. 414. 8 .\m. 
 St. ' Rep. 538— pp. 2042. 2074. 
 3226. 
 
 Richmond Tract. Co. z: 
 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 San -Xntonio Tract. Co. v. 
 
 San .\ntonio. etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z\ 
 
 Southern R. Co. :•. 
 
 f Southern R. Co.. 102 Miss. 
 
 617, 59 So. 850— pp. 1777, 1778, 
 2084. ,. -, 
 
 z: Southern R. Co.. l3.-> N. 
 
 C '60, 42 R. R. R. 105, 65 -Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 105, 71 
 S ,r^ 346— pp. 267, 268, 274. 
 278. 286, 3134, 3135, 3136, 3186, 
 3188. „ _ 
 
 z: Spokane Falls, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2671, 2793. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 
 z: The Columbia, p. 800. 
 
 The Main z: 
 
 Toledo, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 Torpey z: 
 
 z: T. & P. R. Co., p. 2120. 
 
 United States z: , .,,, 
 
 z: Vanderbilt. pp. 1612. 1613. 
 
 1681, 2772. 3046. 
 
 !• Vermont Mut. Fire Ins. 
 
 Co.. p. 1118. 
 
 z: Walsh, p. 3604. 
 
 ,. Webb. 22 Misc. Rep. 513. 
 
 49 N. Y. S. 1111— pp. 3125. 3126, 
 
 -J^^z- Webb, 58 N. Y. S. 300. 27 
 Mi'C. Ren. 508— pp. 3214. 3217. 
 3221. 3222. 
 
 Wells. Ppreo Fvn. Co. t'. 
 
 West Chicago St. R. Co. z:
 
 CCCXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Williams z: Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., p. 294. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1429. 
 
 Williams Co. i-. Pensacola, etc., Co., 
 
 p. 619. 
 Williams & Co. f. Dotterer, pp. 
 
 1206, 1210. 
 Williams & Sons z: Morgan, p. 
 
 779. 
 Williams, etc., Co., Northern v. 
 Williamson -■. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1679, 1747, 1864, 3045, 3055, 
 
 3089. 
 
 f. Grand Trunk Western R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1524, 2772. 
 
 Prendergast z-. 
 
 z: St. Louis Transit Co., pp. 
 
 2181, 2262. 2919, 2920. 
 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2008, 2699. 
 
 Williamson & Co. f. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 319, 513, 516, 729. 
 
 Williamsport, etc., Lumber Co. v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., pp. 493, 
 812. 
 
 Williamsport, etc., R'. Co., Clunn 
 
 V. 
 
 Willie D. Sandhoval, The. 
 Willie, The. 
 
 Willilord, Kansas City, etc., R. 
 Co. V. 
 
 V. Southern Railway, pp. 
 
 1518, 2328, 2673, 2790, 2873. 
 
 Willing, New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Willis, Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 t: Chowning, p. 3398. 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 945. 
 
 z: Long Island R. Co. (N. 
 
 Y.), 32 Barb. 398— p. 2182. 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co., 34 N. 
 
 Y. 670— pp. 1953, 1955, 2004, 
 2181. 
 
 f. Metropolitan St. K. Co., 71 
 
 X. Y. S. 554, 63 App. Div. 332— 
 p. 2907. 
 
 I'. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 78 N. Y. S. 478, 76 App. Div. 
 340, 33 Civ. Proc. R. 199— pp. 
 2656, 2658. 
 
 ■ f. St. Joseph R., etc., Co., 
 
 p. 1710. 
 
 z: Second Ave. Tract. Co., 
 
 pp. 2012, 2261. 
 
 Texas Mex. R. Co. v. 
 
 Willis & Bro., Allyn & Co. v. 
 
 Fox & Bro. f. 
 
 Williscroft z: Cargo of the Cyren- 
 
 ian, pp. 3957, 3962, 3973. 
 Willison z: Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1460, 1466. 
 Willmington Steamboat Co., Klair 
 
 Willmott V. Corrigan Consol. St. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), 16 S. W. 500— 
 pp. 2797, 2802. 
 
 V. Corrigan Consol. St. R. 
 
 Co., 106 Mo. 535, 17 S. W. 490 
 —pp. 1558, 1740, 2372, 2388, 
 2797, 2802, 2916. 
 
 Willock t-. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 
 pp. 729, 733, 749, 779, 782, 790, 
 
 791, 950. 
 Willoeby, Citizens' St. R. Co. z: 
 Willoughby '•. Chicago Junction, 
 
 etc.. Stock Yards Co., pp. 91, 
 
 3703. 
 Wills V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1698, 1708, 1721, 2015. 
 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Lynn, etc., R. Co., p. 2188. 
 
 Sears v. 
 
 Willson V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 3084, 3097. 
 Wilm, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wilmerding, Cartwright z\ 
 Wilmington City R. Co., Benson 
 
 Wilmington City 
 
 Butler z: 
 
 Eaton z'. 
 
 Elliott z: 
 
 File f. 
 
 Reiss z\ 
 
 Riedel v. 
 
 Smithers v. 
 
 Waller v. 
 
 Wilmington Steamboat 
 
 R. Co., Betts 
 
 Co., Klair 
 
 Reed z: 
 
 z: Walker, p. 4002^ 
 
 Wilmington, etc., R. Co., .Mien 
 
 Arrington v. 
 
 Atlantic Exp. Co. v. 
 
 Black z: 
 
 Branch z: 
 
 Carter v. 
 
 Clark V. 
 
 z: Greenville, p. 3272. 
 
 Harrell r. 
 
 Hedges f. 
 
 Herring !■. 
 
 Hiliiard f. 
 
 Hines z\ 
 
 Hodges V. 
 
 Keeter z'. 
 
 King f. 
 
 ■ Lan.l z: 
 
 McGowan z\ 
 
 McRae '•. 
 
 Neal & Co. z: 
 
 Owens t'. 
 
 Potter z\ 
 
 Raynor -■. 
 
 ■ Rocky Mount Mills z\ 
 
 Rose z: 
 
 Selby V. 
 
 ■ ■ Skinner v. 
 
 Smith z'. 
 
 Tomlinson v. 
 
 Turrentine v. 
 
 Wallace z: 
 
 • Wells v. . 
 
 Whitehead v. 
 
 Williams v. 
 
 Young V. 
 
 Zemp c'. 
 
 Wilmington, etc., Tract. Co., Free- 
 man V. 
 Wilmshurst f. Bowker, p. 352. 
 Wilsey, Louisville, etc., R'. Co. v. 
 
 z'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1529, 1597, 1973, 1975, 2432, 
 2467, 2468, 2663. 
 
 Wilson, Adams Exp. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., p. 549. 
 
 z'. .-Etna Ins. Co., p. 1118. 
 
 Z'. Anderson, p. 573. 
 
 V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 267, 270, 284, 288, 603, 610, 654, 
 848, 853. 
 
 ■ z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 129 
 
 Fed. 774— p. 244. 
 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 79 
 
 S. C. 198, 60 S. E. 663— p. 164. 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 
 C), 75 S. E. 1090— p. 846. 
 
 v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 3221, 3224. 
 
 V. Brett, p. 3067. 
 
 V. Broadway, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2764. 
 
 z\ California Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 513, 820, 896, 900, 916, 917. 
 
 V. Charleston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2280. 
 
 V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 946, 997, 1054, 3139, 3142, 
 3145, 3160, 3164, 3165, 3166, 
 3176, 3177, 3178. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 V. Chicago City K. Co., pp. 
 
 2679, 2809, 2810. 
 
 Z-. Churchman, p. 1218. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Crittenden v. 
 
 De Grau v. 
 
 z: Detroit United Railway, 
 
 pp. 1531, 1795, 2278. 
 
 Co. 
 Co 
 R 
 
 956, 
 
 P- 
 
 P- 
 P- 
 
 Wilson, Elgin City R. Co. ■;■. 
 
 Elgin, etc., Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Faucher v. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Fourteenth St. R. Co., p. 
 
 2373. 
 
 Gaines, pp. 63, 64. 
 Grand Trunk Railway, 56 
 60, 96 Am. Dec. 435— pp. 
 3109, 3134, 313S, 3167. 
 Grand Trunk Railway, 57 
 138, 2 Am. Rep. 2o— p. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 V. Hamilton, pp. II, 
 
 740, 755, 763, 764, 768, 
 1267, 1268, 1270, 1271. 
 
 V. Harry, pp. _ 3308, 3359. 
 
 Indianapolis St. R. Co. <■, 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 z: Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 801. 
 
 Mason ;■. 
 
 ?•. Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 1321. 
 
 z'. N. Castle, etc., R. 
 
 653. 
 
 f. New Orleans, etc., 
 
 63 Miss. 352 — pp. 1606, 
 1875, 2068. 
 
 z: New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 
 68 Miss. 9, 8 So. 330— pp. 1869, 
 1875, 2068 
 
 Newport Dock Co.iipany z. 
 
 ■ V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 1722, 2128, 2260, 2682. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 :■. Piatt, p. 987. 
 
 Railway Co. z: 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 
 
 v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1253, 1256, 1258, 1259. 
 
 v. Shaw, pp. 3445, 3446, 3449. 
 
 South, etc., R. Co. z'. ^ 
 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co. 
 
 917, 1040. 
 
 Strauss v. 
 
 Texas Mex. R. Co. '■. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. The Lanashire, 
 
 Co., p. 653. 
 
 z'. Troy, p. 855. 
 
 Turney '•. 
 
 ?'. United States, p. 
 
 Western, etc.. Railroad 
 
 t'. West Jersey, etc., R. 
 
 p. 2463. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. 
 
 v. York, etc., 
 
 634. 
 
 Wilson (jrain Co. v. 
 Bank, p. 393. 
 
 Wilson Hack Line, 
 Co. V. 
 
 Wilson Lumber Co., ^ -- 
 
 Wilson Sewing .Mach. Co. r. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co.. p. 547. 
 
 Wilson Sons & Co., Morris v. 
 
 Wilsons, etc.. Line, Blooniingdale 
 
 Co., 
 
 1852, 
 
 pp. 
 
 pp. 
 
 etc., R. 
 
 3461. 
 
 Co., 
 
 Co. z: 
 Railway, p. 
 
 ;■. Central Nat. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. 
 
 Hinckley 
 
 Wilt z\ Wabash, etc. 
 2430, 2431. 
 
 '. Middlesex 
 108, 9 Am. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 
 
 Wilton z: Middlesex R. Co., 107 
 Mass. 108, 9 Am. Rep. 1 1— p. 
 2521. 
 
 z: Middlesex R. Co., 125 Mass. 
 
 130— pp. 1564, 1571, 2524. 
 
 Wiltse z: "arnes, pp. 571, 572. 
 Wiman, Fitzhugh ■•. 
 Wimberly, Rome R. Co. '•. 
 Wimmer, Chicago, ct'., R. Co. v. 
 Wimpleberg -'. Voiiker.5 R. Co., p. 
 
 2321. 
 Winbourn, In re. 
 Winchell z: National Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 863, 1008. 
 
 V. New York Cent., etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 1998. 
 
 z: St. Paul City R. Co., p. 
 
 2814.
 
 TAHLK OP CASKS. 
 
 cccxvir 
 
 Winchester, etc., R. Co. v. Com- 
 
 inonwt-aUh, p. 23. 
 Windds V. Interborough Rapid 
 
 Trans. Co., p. 2872. 
 Windliam, Wells Fargo & Co. v. 
 Windmillcr v. Northern Pac. R. 
 
 Co.. pp. 1063. 1071. 
 Windolph V. Adams Exp Co., p. 
 
 3520. 
 Windsor Steamboat Co., Phelps v. 
 Winfrey, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ■!'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1695, 2389. 
 
 Wing J'. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 747, 3300. 
 Wingard '•'. UanninR, p. 1164. 
 Wingatc, Bonner v. 
 
 Sears v. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R'. Co. -■. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 
 Winefitld, .\rknnsas, etc.. R. Co. v- 
 Winhein r. Field, p. 2594. 
 Winkler r. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 3431. 
 Winkley, Union Freight R. Co. v. 
 Winlow, Parker r. 
 Winn ?'. .American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 819, 834. 861. 932. 1051, 1052, 
 
 1055, 1447, 1448, 3763. 
 
 Highland -Vve., etc., R. Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Little Rock Tract., etc., Co. 
 
 Winne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 819, 821, 828, 856. 
 Winnebago, The. 
 Winnebago, etc., Transp. Co., Hun- 
 
 gerford v. 
 Winnegar -•. Central Pass. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 210, 1491, 1492, 2042, 2043, 
 
 2044. 
 Winnett v. Union Stock Yards Co., 
 
 pp. 2, 3, 6. 
 Winona R., etc., Co., Palmer v. 
 Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, pp. 
 
 34, 36, 63, 116, 208, 3493, 3497. 
 
 Derosia v. 
 
 Harrold -•. 
 
 Johnson v. 
 
 Lawrence v. 
 
 V. Rousseau, 
 
 pp. 
 
 1762, 1994, 
 I90i;. 2236, 2583. 2585. 2599, 
 2603, 2611, 2615, 2823, 2825. 
 
 Schilling V. 
 
 State -'. 
 
 Winscott f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2507, 2508. 
 Winship '•. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2903. 
 Winslow V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2138. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Norton, pp. 362, 369, 373, 
 
 1221. 
 
 The R. G. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 
 'c. Thompson, 128 Fed. 
 
 p. 3882. 
 
 V. Thompson. 134 Fed. 
 
 67 C. C. A. 470— p. 3882. 
 
 V. X'ermont, etc., R. Co 
 
 897, 901. 
 
 Win.slow Bros. & Co. v. 
 etc., R. Co., 151 N. C 
 S. E. 965— p. 1399 
 
 V. Atlantic, etc., 
 
 S. C. 344, 60 S. 
 1350, 1403. 1406, 
 3537, 3546. 
 
 Wi'isl<-.w, etc.. Co. V. \'ermont. etc., 
 
 R. Co.. pp. 551, 554. 
 Winsor, Burnham r. 
 
 Cutler V. 
 
 Winsor Coal Co. ?■. Chicago, etc.. 
 
 R. Co., pp. 41, 1198. 
 Winston f. Cox, etc.. Co., p. 
 Winter :•. Central Iowa R. 
 
 pp. 1998, 2638 
 
 Erie, etc., Co. v. 
 
 —^ V. Interurban St. R. Co., 
 p. 2685. 
 
 New York. etc.. R. Co. i\ 
 
 7i— 
 
 546. 
 
 . pp. 
 
 Atlantic. 
 250, 65 
 
 Co., 79 
 709 — pp, 
 
 R. 
 E. 
 3396, 3522, 
 
 543. 
 Co., 
 
 Winter -•. St. Louis, etc., K. Co., 
 p. 1855. 
 
 V. Simonton, p. 3865. 
 
 Webb V. 
 
 Winters v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 pp. 2164. 2214, 2292, 2806. 
 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Cowen :■. 
 
 z\ Cowen, p. 3095. 
 
 '■. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., j). 
 
 2200. 
 
 Winthrop Steamboat Co., Hugh- 
 son V. 
 
 Wireman, Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. . 
 
 Wirgman, Macticr v. 
 
 Wisconsin, State v. 
 
 Stone f. 
 
 V. Young, pp. 327, 338. 
 
 Wisconsin Cent. Co., Grinnell v. 
 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., Beede f. 
 
 Lavis -•. 
 
 McKibbin f. 
 
 Mahart'ey v. 
 
 Mullan V. 
 
 Pope T. 
 
 V. United States, p. 3702. 
 
 Wickert v. 
 
 Wisconsin, etc.. Railroad v. Jacob- 
 son, pp. 34, 103, 3486, 3535, 
 3047. 
 
 Wisconsin, etc., R. Co., Jacobson 
 
 V. 
 
 V. Powers, pp. 3592, 3593. 
 
 Wisdom, Mobile, etc., K'. Co. v. 
 Wise, Binninsjhain K. etc., Co. f. 
 
 V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 
 
 p. 2879. 
 
 V. Columbia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 2378, 2391, 2947". 
 
 ■;■. Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2050. 
 
 V. South Covington, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 2050, 2053, 2056. 
 
 Sterling, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wabash R. Co., pp. 1882, 
 
 2144. 
 
 W'isecarvcr f. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1318, 1330, 1349, 13o7, 
 
 3276. 
 Wiseman, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Wisner, Railroad Co. i'. 
 Wissman, Ship Howard v. 
 Wise well. North Chicago 
 
 Co. 7'. 
 Vvitbeck v. Holland (N. 
 
 St. R. 
 
 Y.), 55 
 
 Barb. 443, 38 How. Prac. 273— 
 pp. 535, 890. 
 
 -■. Holland, 45 N. Y. 13— pp. 
 
 286, 535. 
 
 V. Schuyler, pp. 278, 279. 
 
 Witchia R'., etc., Co., Haas v. 
 
 Witch Queen, The. 
 
 Withce -'. Somerset Tract. Co., p. 
 
 1820. 
 Witherbce v. Meyer, p. 659. 
 Witherington, American Standard 
 
 Jewelry Co. v. 
 Withers, Fordyce ?■. 
 
 f. Macon, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1217, 1218. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 453. 
 
 f. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 492. 776, 798. 
 
 Witherspoon, Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 Co. 
 
 Co., 
 pp. 
 R. 
 
 Withey :•. Pere Marquette R 
 
 pp. 3120, 3121, 3123. 
 Withrow V. Southern R. Co., 
 
 (.52. 679. 
 Witsell '•. West Asheville, etc. 
 
 Co., p. 2761. 
 Witt f. East Tennessee, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., pp. 557, 564. 
 
 Fraser -•. 
 
 Witte, Pennsylvania Co. f. 
 Witters -•. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 1084. 
 
 Witting V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 
 101 .Mo. 631. 14 S. W. 743. 20 
 .\m. St. Rep. 636, 10 L. R'. A. 
 602— pp. 844, 1037, 1041, 1047. 
 1061, 1074. 
 
 r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 28 
 
 .Mo. App. 103— pp. 1036. 1037. 
 
 Wittman v. C. H. & D. R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2614. 2697. 
 Wittnebert, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Witty, Chicago, etc., R. Co. i: 
 Witzler :■. Collins, pp. 270, 273. 
 
 274, 306. 317, 337, 338, 810. 
 Woas f. St. Louis Trans. Co., pfi. 
 
 2701, 2767, 2857, 2871. 
 Wojczynska r. Chicago Consol. 
 
 Tract. Co., p. 2696. 
 Wolcott, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -•. Eagle Ins. Co., p. 3943. 
 
 Krendcr -■. 
 
 Wold V. Keyser, p. 3954. 
 
 Woldcrt Grocery Co., St. Louis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Wolf V. American Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 619, 724, 728, 733, 734, 742, 745, 
 
 749, 821, 1036. 
 
 American Merchants' L'nion 
 
 Exp. Co. v. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2363, 2644, 2906. 
 
 V. Grand Rapids, etc.. Rail- 
 way, pp. 277, 3137, 3141, 3142. 
 3143, 3193. 
 
 V. Hough, p. 1156. 
 
 -•. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 p. 2306. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R'. Co. -■. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ■.-. 
 
 z: Third Ave. R. Co., p. ?J"3. 
 
 • Union Pac. R. Co. I'. 
 
 V. Western Union Tel. C'l., 
 
 p. 1087. 
 Wolf Co., Oakland Sugar M'll Co. 
 
 Wolfe, Chicago, etc., R. Co. :•. 
 
 V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 33 
 
 S. E. 239, 124 Ga. 693— p. 2574. 
 
 V. Georgia R.. etc.. Co.. 2 
 
 Ga. App. 499, 58 S. E. 899— pp. 
 1949, 2017, 2042, 2056, 2057, 
 2058. 
 
 r. Lacv, etc.. Co., pp. 849. 
 
 855. 
 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Meyers, pp. 331. 337. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.. p. 
 
 550. 
 
 Wolff. Central R. Co. r. 
 
 r. Central R. Co.. pp. 31/6. 
 
 3179, 3181. 
 
 Wabash, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wolfkiel f. Sixth Ave. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1888. 2859, 2877. 
 Wolford :•. New York Cent., etc.. 
 R. Co., 85 N. E. 1118. 191 N. 
 Y. 554— pp. 1907. 2352. 
 
 V. New York Cent., etc.. R. 
 
 Co., 102 N. Y. S. 1008. 118 App. 
 Div. 553— p. 2348. 
 
 Wolston, Gulf. etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Wolven V. Springfield Tract. Co.. 
 
 pp. 2585. 2604. 
 Womack. Southern Exp. Co. r. 
 Wood V. American Nat. Bank, p. 
 
 2627. 
 
 .Atchison, etc.. R. Co. i-. 
 
 V. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., p. 
 
 528. 
 
 Bell V. 
 
 Bretherton v. 
 
 V. Brooklvn City R. Co., p. 
 
 2199. 
 
 Central, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 V. Chester Traction Co.. pp. 
 
 1690. 2192. 
 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 
 ;•. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 614. 633. (.34. 734. 
 
 V. Crocker, pp. 729, 89/. 901. 
 
 O04. 007.
 
 CCCXVIII 
 
 TAULK OF CASES. 
 
 Wood f. Cunard Steamship Co., pp. 
 4009, 4011. 4032, 4034. 
 
 -■. Delaware, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2850. 
 
 Dillingham f. 
 
 i: Erie R. Co., p. 723. 
 
 z: Fleetwood, p. 410. 
 
 z: Georgia R'., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1938, 285;, 2941. 
 
 Grant f. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 f. Tones, pp. 2113, 2114. 
 
 i: kevser, pp. 3954, 3970. 
 
 ■:•. Lake, p. 1195. 
 
 z: Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1877, 2114, 2236. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Z-. Louisville, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2025, 2030. 
 
 McCranie z-. 
 
 z: Maine Cent. R. Co.. pp. 
 
 727, 749, 3109, 3158, 3167. 
 
 Merchants', etc., Ass'n v. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 181 Mo. 433, 81 S. \V. 152— p. 
 2874. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 107 Mo. App. 372, 81 S. W. 
 1273— p. 2874. 
 
 z: Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 po. 524. 885, 886, 887, 897, 907, 
 3264, 3286. 
 
 z: 'Sew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2200, 2903. 
 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 North German Lloyd Steam- 
 ship Co. f. 
 
 z\ Pennsylvania R. Co., p. 
 
 1787. 
 
 V. Perry, pp. 331, 336, 337, 
 
 339. 
 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1575, 2696. 
 
 -■. Richmond, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2132. 
 
 z: Roach, pp. 1209, 1210. 
 
 Schloss z: 
 
 V. Sewall, pp. 3953, 3959. 
 
 South, etc., K. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. z'. 
 
 f. Southern Exp. Co., pp. 
 
 948, 1056, 1065, 1075. 
 
 Southern R. Co. v. 
 
 i: Southern R. Co., pp. 1412, 
 
 1428. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. -'. 
 
 Trent, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 
 United States v. 
 
 V. Yeatman, pp. 1219, 1239, 
 
 1240. 
 
 Wood & Co., Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. T. 
 
 Wood, etc.. Cattle Co., Galveston, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. 
 Woo Dan z: Seattle Elect. R., etc., 
 
 Co., pp. 2156, 2391, 2746. 
 Woodward, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Woodbridge v. Delaware, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2524. 
 
 King z: 
 
 United R., etc., Co. '■. 
 
 Woodburn z-. Cincinnati, .etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 422, 1014, 3346. 
 Woodbury v. Frink, pp. 587, 817. 
 
 z'. Maine Cent. R'. Co., p. 
 
 2134. 
 
 Woodford v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1303, 1307, 1319, 1363, 
 
 1453, 1459, 1479. 
 Woodgate v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 p. 1670. 
 Woodhouse v. Rio Grande R. Co., 
 
 pp. 33, 139, 140, 142. 
 Woodland Steamboat Co., Patridge 
 
 V. 
 
 Woodridge, King v. 
 
 United R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Woodroffe v. Roxborough, etc., 
 
 R. Co., p. 2196. 
 Woodruff V. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 
 p. 1217. 
 
 Woodruff. Nelson i-. 
 
 z: Noyes, pp. 1219, 1244. 
 
 f. Parham, p. 3594. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 
 z: Sherrad, pp. 982, 1066, 
 
 1067. 
 
 Woodruff Mills, St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co. f. 
 Woodruff Sleeping, etc.. Coach Co. 
 
 ;■. Diehl. pp. 3146, 3215, 3216, 
 
 3217, 3218, 3219. 
 Woodruff, etc.. Coach Co., State ^■. 
 Woods z: Devin, pp. 727, 732, 748, 
 
 3130. 
 
 Friend :'. 
 
 z: Metropolitan St. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1636, 1651, 2462, 2463. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 New York, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. z: 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 v. Southern Pac. Co., p. 
 
 2537. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. f. 
 
 ■:•. White Star Line, p. 1795. 
 
 Woodward, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 
 z: Grand Trunk R. Co., p. 
 
 581. 
 
 v. Illinois Cent. K. Co.. 1 
 
 Biss. 403, Fed. Cas. No. 18006— 
 pp. 848, 854, 3339. 
 
 •;■. Illinois Cent. R. Co., Fed. 
 
 Cas. No. 18007, 1 Biss, 447— 
 pp. 3339, 3376, 3379. 
 
 v. Westside St. R. Co., p- 
 
 2160. 
 
 Woodworth z: McBride, p. 585. 
 
 Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Woolcott, Krender v. 
 
 Wooldridge & Son v. Fort Worth, 
 
 etc., R. Co., pp. 932, 934, 935. 
 Woolery -'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1752, 1755, 2127, 2129, 2261, 
 
 2262, 2702. 
 Wooley z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 540, 710, 717. 
 
 Southern R. Co. "'. 
 
 Woolner Distilling Co., Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Woolridge, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. ?■. 
 Woolsey z: Brooklvn Heights R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1783, 1927, 1928. 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 1503, 1587. 
 
 Woolverton, Morgan z: 
 Myerson v. 
 
 Sejalon z\ 
 
 Woolwine f. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 
 Co., p. 2502. 
 Woonsocket St. R. Co., Moore z: 
 Wooster v. Farr, pp. 354, 1148. 
 
 1150, 1151. 
 Wooten, Charlotte, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Mobile, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2332. 
 
 Worcester Consol. St. R. Co., Dol- 
 phin f. 
 
 Olund z'. 
 
 Worcester, etc., R. Co., Common- 
 wealth z\ 
 
 Nashua Lock Co. z'. 
 
 Worcester, etc., St. R. Co., Clin- 
 ton z: 
 
 Cummings z'. 
 
 Word, Ft. Worth, etc., K. Co. f. 
 
 Galveston, etc.,'R. Co. z\ 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: 
 
 Worden v. Canadian Pac. R'. Co., 
 
 p. 849. 
 Wordin v. Bemis, pp. 528, 699, 702, 
 
 718. 
 Work v. Boston Elev. R. Co., pp. 
 
 1991, 1994, 2797. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 z: Leathers, pp. 3873, 3897, 
 
 3907, 3909, 3923. 
 Workman f. New York, p. 4076. 
 I Worland, Jeffersonville, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. 
 
 Worley, Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Louisville R. Co. f. 
 
 Wormsdorf z\ Detroit City R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1684, 1687, 1827, 1833, 2742, 
 
 2763. 
 Worrell, Louisville, etc., Tract. 
 
 Co. V. 
 Wortham, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. z\ 
 
 Worthen '•. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2171, 2762. 
 Worthington, Baltimore, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 f. Central Vermont K. Co., 
 
 pp. 2183, 2869. 
 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Railroad Comm. ■:•. 
 
 The Arglye z: 
 
 Wove Realty Co., Diepenbrock v. 
 
 Keller z\ 
 
 Wrasse z\ Citizens' Tract. Co., p. 
 
 2518. 
 Wray, Feise ■:'. 
 
 Siffken v. 
 
 Wren v. Texas, etc., R. Co., p. 
 1253. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Wright ;•. Adams Exp. Co., 230 Pa. 
 
 635, 79 Atl. 760— p. 3520. 
 
 z: Adams Exp. Co., 43 Pa. 
 
 Super. Ct. 40— p. 3521. 
 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 -■. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2141. 
 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 ?■. Boston, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2895. 
 
 V. Boughton, pp. 3256, 3327, 
 
 3339. 
 
 V. Caldwell, pp. 267, 271, 
 
 3136, 4008. 
 
 -'. California Cent. R'. Co., 
 
 pp. 197, 1940, 2122, 2427, 2478, 
 2482, 2486, 2492, 2854, 3023, 
 3204, 3239. 
 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2021, 2027. 
 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 
 ■ Faulkner ''. 
 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 z\ Georgia R., etc., Co., pp. 
 
 1684, 1747, 1748, 1840, 1845, 
 2722, 2940. 
 
 z'. Glens Falls, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1610, 2413. 
 
 V. Grace & Co., pp. 3907, 
 
 3908, 3922. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. :>. 
 
 z: McKee, pp. 802, 804, 806. 
 
 Marine Bank v. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. -'. 
 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. '•. 
 
 Nevvf York, etc.. Steamship 
 
 Co. v. 
 
 Norrington z\ 
 
 v. Northampton, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 1581. 
 
 Norwich Co. f. 
 
 Z'. Orange, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 2427. 
 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., pp. 
 
 2673, 2682, 2888. 
 
 Perkins v. 
 
 V. Philadelphia Rapid Trans. 
 
 Co., p. 3068. 
 
 Receivers v. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. z/. 
 
 V. Sioux Falls Tract. Sys- 
 tem, pp. 2669, 2777. 
 
 V. Snell, p. 233. 
 
 Southern R. Co. z'. 
 
 z'. Spencer, p. 1169. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 The Francis. 
 
 Toledo, etc., R'. Co. v.
 
 TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 CCCXIX 
 
 Wright :■. Union R. Co., ]>\>. 2544, 
 2628. 
 
 Wabash R. Co. v. 
 
 Walsh i: 
 
 Wright, etc., Lighterage Co., San- 
 bern f. 
 
 Wright, etc., Wirecloth Co. f. War- 
 ren, p|). 551, 552, 5(>1. 
 
 Wrightsville. etc., R. Co., Augusta, 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 f. Joiner, p. 2924. 
 
 Kight V. 
 
 Riley r. 
 
 Smith V. 
 
 State T. 
 
 Wrixon, North Chicago St. R. Co. 
 
 Northern Pac. R. 
 
 Co., 
 Mo. 
 Mo. 
 
 Wunsch V 
 
 p. 3125. 
 Wyatt 7: Citizens' R. Co., 55 
 
 485— pp. 2249, 2254. 
 
 V. Citizens' R. Co., (>2 
 
 408— pp. 2376, 2377, 2396. 
 
 z: Pacific Elect. R. Co., pp. 
 
 2686, 2687, 2690, 2820. 3007. 
 
 Wyatt Park K. Co.. Duncan z\ 
 Wyckoff, Chicago City R. Co. z: 
 
 V. Chicago, City R. Co., pp. 
 
 2741, 2860. 
 
 Wyland, Deere Plow Co. -'. 
 
 Wyld V. Pickford. p. 23i. 
 
 Wylde !■. Northern R. Co., pp. 
 2354, 283(.. 
 
 Wyler-.Ackerland & Co. z: Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., p. 654. 
 
 Wyler, etc., Co. z'. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., pp. 499, 533, 807. 
 
 Wylie, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wyly, Atlanta, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 Wyman z\ Northern Pac. R. Co. 
 pp. 1571, 1620. 2476. 
 
 Wynantskill Knitting Co. z: Mur 
 ray, pp. 529, 877, 904. 
 
 Wynn z: Allard, p. 2300. 
 
 z\ Central Park, etc., R. Co. 
 
 133 N. V. 575, 30 N. K. 721, 4 
 Silvernail Ct. App. 214 — pp 
 1827, 1844, 2003, 2869. 
 
 z: Central Park, etc., R. Co. 
 
 14 N. Y. S. 172, 38 N. Y. St 
 Rep. 181— p. 2698. 
 
 V. City, etc., R'. Co., pp 
 
 2518, 2519, 2524, 2548. 
 
 r. Georgia R., etc., Co., pp 
 
 1603, 1604. 
 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. -■. 
 
 V. Paducah City Railway, p 
 
 2978. 
 
 Railway Co. v. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wynne Hoop, etc., Co., St. Louis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. z: 
 Wyrick f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 426, 969, 978, 984, 1044, 
 
 1293, 3761. 
 Wysor, Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 W. & A. R. Co. z: Kelly, p. 488. 
 
 Yadkin R. Co., Carleton z\ 
 Yancey ;-. Boston Elevated R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1521, 1556, 1905, 2330, 2861, 
 
 2866, 3007. 
 Yarboro, Roberts z\ 
 Yarborough f. Southern Railway, 
 
 p. 846. 
 Yarbrough, .Mabaina, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 Southern Kansas R. Co. r. 
 
 Yarnell ;■. Kansas City, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 1893, 1911, 1912, 2511, 
 
 2667, 2686. 
 
 Yarwood, Galena, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Yates, Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 
 Dixon z\ 
 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 
 z: Milwaukee, p. 3529. 
 
 !•. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 p. 2732. 
 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. !■. .\den, p. 
 2341. 
 
 V. Anderson, p. 2531. 
 
 .Xndrews v. 
 
 z: Baldwin, pp. 3115, 3116, 
 
 3119, 3120, 3123, 3126, 3127, 
 3129, 3151, 3185. 
 
 z: Beattie, pp. 1880, 2357. 
 
 z: )5ent & Co., pp. 31, 315, 
 
 316, 429, 3540. 
 
 z: Blum, 89 Miss. 242, 42 So. 
 
 282, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 272— pp. 621, 622, 625. 
 
 V. Blum, 102 Miss. 303, 59 
 
 So. 92— pp. 900, 911. 
 
 V. Blum Co., pp. 615, 621. 
 
 Brown r. 
 
 v. Byrd, pp. 2115, 2117, 2175, 
 
 2176, 2180, 2184. 
 
 Campbell z\ 
 
 V. Christmas, pp. 651, 661, 
 
 666, 683, 697. 
 
 Coleman z\ 
 
 Daugherty v. 
 
 Davis i\ 
 
 Dougherty v. 
 
 z: Faust (Miss.), 32 So. 9 
 
 —p. 3055. 
 
 V. Faust (Miss.), 34 So. 356 
 
 —p. 3059. 
 
 z: Fisher Bros., pp. 258, 263. 
 
 z: Fitzgerald, pp. 3071, 3076. 
 
 -■. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 
 
 pp. 3119, 3129. 
 
 z'. Grant, p. 2641. 
 
 f. Greenwood Grocery Co., 
 
 96 Miss. 403, 51 So. 450— p. 
 3501. 
 
 ;■. Greenwood Grocery Co., 
 
 227 U. S. 1, 33 S. Ct. 213— p. 
 3488. 
 
 z: Hardie, pp. 2776, 3057. 
 
 -•. Hatch, p. 2820. 
 
 -•. Hughes, 94 Miss. 242, 47 
 
 So. 662. 22 L. R. A., N. S., 975 
 —p. 3172. 
 
 — — -■. Hughes (Miss.), 50 So. 
 627— p. 3054. 
 
 z: Humphrey, pp. 2301, 2336, 
 
 2641, 2676, 2690, 2861. 
 
 z\ Jackson Vinegar Co., p. 
 
 161. 
 
 Johnson -'. 
 
 -■. Keystone Lumber Co., p. 
 
 25. 
 
 — — • Keystone Lumber Yard f. 
 
 King z: 
 
 Kinncv z\ 
 
 -•. McCall, p. 3180. 
 
 z'. McKay, p. 625. 
 
 Metcalf f. 
 
 V. Millsaps, pp. 739, 744, 
 
 1041. 
 
 -•. Mitchell, pp. 3013, 3015, 
 
 3055. 
 
 Parish & Co. v. 
 
 Reed f. 
 
 Rcid z: 
 
 V. Roberts, pp. 1708, 2144, 
 
 2862. 
 
 f. R'odgers, p. 3092. 
 
 z: Searles, pp. 235, 700, 701, 
 
 705, 706, 716, 717, 718. 
 
 z: Shelby, pp. 2526, 2785. 
 
 V. Smith, 82 Miss. 656, 35 
 
 So. 168— p. 3017. 
 
 V. Smith (Miss.), 60 So. 73— 
 
 p. 1918. 
 
 Tate r. 
 
 Thompson z: 
 
 z: Tillman, p. 2802. 
 
 Tolcr "■. 
 
 \'incent z\ 
 
 z: White, pp. 2848, 3015. 
 
 Williams "•. 
 
 z: Williams, p. 3018. 
 
 f. Wilson, p. 1016. 
 
 Yeager, Union R., etc., Co. '•. 
 Yeatman, Wood "■. 
 
 Yecker -•. San .-Xntonio Tract. Co., 
 p. 2319. 
 
 Yegen r. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 301, 348, 387. 
 Yeomans z'. Contra Costa Steam 
 
 Nav. Co., pp. 1577, 1588. 
 Yerkes v. Keokuk, etc., Packet 
 
 Co., p. 2683. 
 Yersack z\ Lackawanna, etc., R. 
 2277. 
 Macon, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 Co., p. 
 Yesbik z: 
 
 303. 
 
 Yettcr, Snelling Z'. 
 Yielding, Birmingham R., etc., 
 
 Co. 
 
 27U 
 820, 
 
 Yoakum v. Dryden, pp. 268, 
 272, 275, 276. 
 
 z\ Dunn, pp. 663, 671, 
 
 847, 850, 859, 876. 
 
 Yoder, Pennsylvania Co. v. 
 \'ohc, Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Yonge z: Kinney, pp. 2298, 2693. 
 
 V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co.. 
 
 p. 3040. 
 
 Yonkers R. Co., Clancy i: 
 
 Gunter Z'. 
 
 Johnson i'. 
 
 Nash z: 
 
 Wimplcberg -•. 
 
 Zeccardi r. 
 
 Yopst, Western Union Tel Co. :•. 
 York i: Chicago, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 28, 3574. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. ;. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co -•. 
 
 York Co. f. Central Railroad, pp. 
 
 208, 726, 732, 739, 748, 930, 944, 
 
 947, 958, 959, 960, 961, 964, 970, 
 
 1003, 1180. 4025. 
 York Silk Mfg. Co., Charavay z'. 
 York, etc., Co., New York, etc.. 
 
 R'. Co. V. 
 York, etc., Railway, Wilson v. 
 Yorke Furniture Co. z: Southern 
 
 R. Co., pp. 3681, 3753. 
 Yorton -■. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 54 Wis. 234, 11 N. W. 482. 41 
 
 Am. Rep. 23— pp. 1976, 2460. 
 • • ;•. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 
 62 Wis. 3'u, 21 N. W. 516, 23 
 
 N. W. 401— pp. 3078, 3079. 
 Youghiogheny, etc.. Coal Co. v. 
 
 Erie R. C6., p. 255. 
 Youmans. Trowell ■•. 
 
 • -■. Wabash R. Co., p. 1551. 
 
 Young f. Boston, etc., R. Co., pp.. 
 
 2353, 2354, 2797. 
 
 Bullard f. 
 
 Cassilay z-. 
 
 z'. Central, etc., R. Co., p. 
 
 1619. 
 
 Chicago City R. Co. z\ 
 
 • Chicago Terminal Transfer R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 
 Chicago, etc., R'. Co. ■:•. 
 
 f. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., p.. 
 
 2286. 
 
 Cooper :•. 
 
 "■. East Alabama R. Co., p. 
 
 517. 
 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 Ex parte. 
 
 f. Fewson, p. 1941. 
 
 -■. Frazicr. p. 3479. 
 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. ;•. 
 
 Insurance Co. f. 
 
 International, etc., R. Co. z: 
 
 Jolly ;•. 
 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 
 z\ Lehman, etc.. Co., p. 395. 
 
 -•. Maeller, p. 701. 
 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. :•. 
 
 -•. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 93 
 
 Mo App. 267— p. 2233. 
 
 -•. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. 
 
 App.), 84 S. W. 175— pp. 2235. 
 2293. 2666. 2825. 
 
 z\ Moeller. p. 355. 
 
 z: New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 pp. 1514, 1796. 
 
 Passenger Railway f. 
 
 :•. Pennsylvania R. Co.. pp.. 
 
 2495, 3182, '3318.
 
 cccxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Young. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. f. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. :•. 
 
 Sanders f. 
 
 T. Smith, pp. 524. 534, 316S. 
 
 ■:•. Southern R. Co., pp. 830, 
 
 877. 
 
 Sword '•. 
 
 t: Texas, etc., R. Co., pp. 
 
 2485, 2488, 2533. 
 
 Western R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 915, 916. 
 
 Wisconsin v. 
 
 Young & Co., Cassilay v. 
 Younger. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. •:•. 
 Youngerman. Cubbage z: 
 Yount, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 f. Wabash R. Co., p. 530. 
 
 Yowell, Louisville, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Yturbide f. United States, p. 3696. 
 Yudelson, Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Yukon Independent Transp. Co., 
 Pacific Coast Co. f. 
 
 Zabron z-. Cunard Steamship Co., 
 
 p. 3979. 
 Zacharv, Xorth Carolina R. Co. f. 
 z\ Xorth Carolina R. Co., p. 
 
 3431. 
 
 Zackery z: Mobile, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 1495, 1496. 
 
 Zagelmeyer z-. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 69, 1598, 2467, 2470, 
 
 3078. 
 
 Zahloot Z'. Adams Exp. Co., p. 
 
 944. 
 Zalk z: Great Xorthern R. Co., 
 
 pp. 803, 808. 
 
 Zambetti v. Garton, p. 3868. 
 
 Zamore v. Boston Elev. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2176, 2974. 
 
 Zanesville, etc.. Road Co., Tal- 
 
 madge z: 
 
 Zantzinger, Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Zarniko, Clark '•. 
 
 Zebe, Pennsylvania R. Co. z\ 
 
 Zeccardi z'. Yonkers K. Co., pp. 
 
 1525, 1526, 2042, 2051. 
 Zeigler z\ Wells, etc., Co., pp. 807, 
 
 850. 
 Zeigler Bros. -■. Mobile, etc., R. 
 
 Co., pp. 3168, 3170, 3172, 3186, 
 
 3188, 3195. 
 Zemp V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2673, 2856, 2861. 
 Zenobia, The. 
 Zerega z\ Poppe, p. 757. 
 Zerler, South Chicago City R. Co. 
 
 Zernecke, Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Zetterberg r. Great Xorthern R. 
 Co., pp. 217, 218. 
 
 Ziegler ;■. Freeman, pp. 587, 816, 
 
 842. 
 Zilly, Ir.diana, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Zinimer z\ Fox River \'alley, etc., 
 
 R. Co., pp. 2310, 2344, 3000. 
 
 -■. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 137 X. Y. 460, 33 X. E. 642— 
 pp. 984, 987, 1074, 1397, 1403. 
 
 z'. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 16 X. Y. S. 631, 62 Hun 619, 
 42 X. Y. St. Rep. 63— p. 1381. 
 
 r Third Ave. R. Co., p. 1699. 
 
 Zimmerman, Bloomington, etc., 
 
 Railway '•. 
 
 z: Raincy, p. 3948. 
 
 Zimmerman & Co., Gulf, etc., R. 
 
 Co. z: 
 Zimmern's Coal Co. '•. Louisville, 
 
 etc., R. Co., p. 489. 
 Zink, East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 t'. * 
 
 Zinn i'. Xew Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 
 pp. 511, 602, 896, 901, 902. 
 ZofFingcr, Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Zone, The. 
 
 Zouch -•. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 
 pp. 931, 949, 970, 1054, 1071, 
 
 1075, 1363. 
 Zuendt f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 
 pp. 2209, 2899. 
 Zwirtz, Choctaw, etc., R. Co. ■;■.
 
 Cf^RI^TKR^ 
 
 PART I 
 CARRIERS GENERALLY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Who Aric CauriiCrs. 
 
 1. Common Carriers Defined, § 1. 
 II. Common Carriers and Private Carriers Distinguished, § 2. 
 III. Persons and Corporations Who Are Common Carriers, §§ 3-18. 
 
 A. Railroad Companies, § 3. 
 
 B. Owners of Spur Lines or Switches, § 4. 
 
 C. Sleeping Car Companies, § 5. 
 
 D. Street Railways, § 6. 
 
 E. Express Companies, § 7. 
 
 F. Transportation and Forwarding Companies, § 8. 
 . G. Proprietors of Stage Coaches, § 9. 
 
 H. Proprietors of Omnibuses and Baggage Wagons, § 10. 
 
 I. Draymen and Truckmen, § 11. 
 
 J. Telegraph and Messenger Companies. § 12. 
 K. Transfer and Storage Companies, § 13. 
 L. Livery Stable Keepers, § 14. 
 M. Mail Contractors, § 15. 
 
 N. Owners of Ships Carrying Goods for Hire, § 16. 
 O. Ferrymen, § 17. 
 P. Boats Engaged in Towing, § 18. 
 
 § 1. Common Carriers Defined. — A common carrier is one who under- 
 takes for hire to transport the goods of those who may choose to employ him 
 from place to place. ^ The tests whether a carrier is a "common carrier" are: 
 
 1. Common carriers defined. — rutted 
 States. — Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 21 
 How. 7. 22, 1() L. Ed. 41; Liverpool, etc.. 
 Steam Co. z: Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 
 307. 440, 32 L. Ed. 788. 9 S. Ct. 469: Rail- 
 road Co. 7'. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 377. 
 21 L. Ed. 627: United States v. Sioux 
 City Stock Yards Co., 162 Fed. 556, judg- 
 ment affirmed, 167 Fed. 126; United 
 States t'. Ramsey, 116 C. C. A. 568, 197 
 Fed. 144. 
 
 Florida. — Johnson v. Pensacola. etc.. R. 
 Co., 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 731. 
 
 Georgia. — Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 
 46 Am. Dec. 393. 
 
 lUiiiois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frank- 
 enburg. 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92. 
 
 Xezv Haiuf>s!iire. — Elkins v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 23 X. H. 275. 
 
 AVtc York. — Spears v. Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 67 Barb. 513. 
 
 Ohio. — United States Exo. Co. v. Back- 
 man, 28 O. St. 144, affirming 2 Cin. R. 
 251, 13 O. Dec. 885. 
 
 Tennessee. — Moss v. Bettis, 51 Tenn. (4 
 Heisk.). 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1. 
 
 Every person who undertakes to carry 
 for compensation the goods of all per- 
 sons, indifferentlv, is a common carrier. 
 Mershon r. Hoben^ack, 22 N. J. L. 372, 
 affirmed in 23 N. J. L. 580. 
 
 One holding out to the public as 
 ready to undertake for hire the trans- 
 portation of goods and so inviting custom 
 of the pul:ilic is a conmion carrier. 
 Lloyd r. Haugh, etc.. Transfer Co., 223 
 Pa. 148, 72 Atl. 516. See. also, Russell 
 V. Livingston (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 346. 
 
 A person engaged in the business of
 
 § 1 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 First, he must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a pub- 
 lic employee, and so hold himself out ; second, he must undertake to carry goods 
 of the kind to which his business is confined ; third, he must undertake to carry 
 by the methods bv which his business is conducted and over his established roads; 
 fourth, transportation must be for hire: and, fifth, an action must lie against 
 him if" he refused without reason to carry such goods for those willing to com- 
 ply with his terms.- - It is not necessary, to constitute one a common carrier, 
 that a stipulation should be entered into as to the amount of freight to be paid. 
 But, unless a right to compensation exists, the common-law liability of a com- 
 mon carrier is not created, though there may be the responsibility of a manda- 
 tan- incurred.-* Common carriers undertake generally, and not as a casual 
 occupation ; -* but in order to make them such, it is not necessary that this should 
 1)6 their exclusive business, or that they should be continuously or regularly em- 
 nloved in it. They may combine it with another and several avocations, and 
 yet' be common carriers.' and subject to the "extraordinary liabilities which have 
 been imposed upon them in consequence of the public nature of their employ- 
 ment." ^ In determining whether a person or corporation engaged in trans- 
 porting goods for others is a common carrier the mode employed in such trans- 
 
 carrj-ing for others generally, to and 
 from any point, is a common carrier. 
 Pennewill v. CuUen (Del.), 5 Har. 238. 
 
 A common carriet- is one who holds 
 himself out in coinmon. that is, to all 
 people alike, that he is engaged in the 
 business of transporting persons, or cer- 
 tain kinds of property, and is prepared 
 and ready to carry for all who apply, on 
 the same terms. Judgment, 80 N. E. 
 636, reversed. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Henry, 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710. 
 
 Any person or corporation offering its 
 services to all persons similarly situated 
 and performing as its public vocation the 
 services of transporting passengers, 
 freight, or intelligence is a common car- 
 rier in the particular spheres of such em- 
 ployment. Winnett r. Union Stock Yards 
 Co. of Omaha. 81 Neb. 67, 115 N. W. 627. 
 
 When a carrier has a regularly estab- 
 lished business for carrying all or certain 
 articles, and especially if that carrier is 
 a corporation created for the purpose of 
 the carrying trade, and the carriage of 
 the articles is embraced within the scope 
 of its chartered powers, it is a common 
 c'arrier. Liverpool, etc.. Steam Co. v. 
 Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 404, 32 L. 
 Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469; Railroad Co. v. 
 Lockwood (U. S.), 17 Wall. 3.S7, 377. 21 
 L. Ed. 627. 
 
 A common carrier is such by virtue of 
 his occupation, and not by virtue of the 
 responsibilities under which he rests, and 
 therefore the nature of his occupation as 
 a common carrier is not affected by a 
 restriction upon his responsibilities, 
 whether the restriction be by law or by 
 contract. Liverpool, etc., Steam Co. v. 
 Phenix Ins. Co.. 129 U. S. 397, 440, 32 
 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469. 
 
 2. Santa Fe. etc.. R. Co. v. Grant Bros. 
 Constr. Co.. 13 Ariz. 186, 108 Pac. 467. 
 See, also, Varble v. Bigley (Ky.), 14 
 Bush 698, 29 Am. Rep. 435, and Samms 
 
 V. Stewart. 20 O. 69, 55 Am. Dec. 445. 
 Compare Tuckerman v. Stephens, etc., 
 Transp. Co.. 32 N. J. L. 320. 
 
 The two distinguishing characteristics 
 of a common carrier are in respect to his 
 duty, he being obliged to transport goods 
 offered, and in respect to his risk, he be- 
 ing lial)le as an insurer. Varble v. Big- 
 ley (Ky.), 14 Bush 698, 29 Am. Rep. 435. 
 
 To render one a common carrier his 
 undertaking must be general and for all 
 people indifferently. The undertaking 
 may he evidenced by the carrier's own 
 notice or practically by a series of acts, 
 by his known habitual continuance in 
 this line of business. He must assume to 
 be the servant of the public, he must un- 
 dertake for all people. A special under- 
 taking for one man does not render a 
 person a common carrier. One who fol- 
 lows carrying for a livelihood or who 
 gives out to the world in any intelligible 
 way that he will take goods or other 
 commodities for transportation from 
 place to place whether for a year, a sea- 
 son or less time is a common carrier and 
 subject to all the liabilities of such. 
 Fish V. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 
 393. 
 
 3. Knox V. Rives, etc., Co., 14 Ala. 249, 
 48 Am. Dec. 97. 
 
 4. Fish V. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. 
 Dec. 393; Varble v. Bigley (Ky.), 14 
 Bush 698, 29 Am. Rep. 435; Samms v. 
 Stewart, 20 O. 69. 55 Am. Dec. 445; Moss 
 r. Bettis. 51 Tenn. (4 Heisk.) 661, 13 Am. 
 Rep. 1. 
 
 A person whose business is not the 
 carrying of goods, and who does not hold 
 himself out to the world as such, will not 
 be regarded as a common carrier, al- 
 though he may occasionally carry goods 
 for hire. Samms v. Stewart, 20 0. 69, 
 55 Am. Dec. 445. 
 
 5. Moss V. Bettis. 51 Tenn. (4 Heisk.) 
 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1.
 
 3 WHO AKK CAKKIKKS. §§ 1-2 
 
 portation is immaterial/' Xor is it essential to constitute a common carrier that 
 the person or cf)rporation undertaking such service own the means of transpor- 
 tation.' l!ut a carrier who hires his vehicle, or his team, or his servant, for the 
 purposes of transportation, does not assume the liabilities, and acquire the rights 
 of a common carrier.** If a man holds himself forth to the public to carry for 
 hire, he is a common carrier as much in his first trip as in his second, third, or 
 fourth.-' .\ common carrier of goods which transports live stock is as to the 
 latter i)ropcrtv also a common carrier.^*' In some states there are statutes de- 
 fining common carriers, and some of these definitions have been interpreted by 
 the courts." Persons carr\ing on a transportation business under circumstances 
 which, in law, constitute them common carriers, can not devest themselves of 
 that character, nor secure an exemption from its liabilities, by declaring in their 
 bills of lading, etc., that they are not to be deemed common carriers. What they 
 are is to be determined by the nature of their business.^ - 
 
 A common carrier of passengers is one who undertakes, for hire, to carry 
 all persons indilTcrcnil)- who may ai)i)ly for passage. It is not essential that 
 the fare should be paid in advance, or tendered, to establish the relation and 
 reciprocal duties of carrier and passenger; it is enough that it is understood 
 that it is to be paid.^-- 
 
 The State as a Common Carrier. — When the state engages in business as 
 a common carrier it assumes the same obligations and liabilities which are in- 
 cident to that business when it is conducted b\' indixiduals." 
 
 § 2. Common Carriers and Private Carriers Distinguished. — A com- 
 mon carrier is one who ojicnly i)rofesses to carry tor hire the goods of all per- 
 sons who comply with its terms, while a private carrier is one who takes goods 
 
 6. .\rkadelphia Milling Co. z\ Smoker re Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.. 101 Minn. 
 Merchandise Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 132. 112 N. W. 13. 
 
 680. "Any other carrier engaged in the 
 
 7. Cownic Glove Co. '■. Mercliants' Dis- transmission of messages or transporta- 
 patch Transp. Co., 130 Iowa 327. 106 N. tion of passengers or freight for hire," 
 W. 749. 114 Am. St. Rep. 419, 4 L. R. A., as used in the Nebraska statute. Laws 
 N. S., 1060; Blakiston z\ Davies. Turner 1907, p. 320, c. 90, § 4, defining a com- 
 & Co., 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 390. mon carrier to be a corporation, etc., 
 
 8. Gracie v. Palmer (U. S.), 8 Wheat. owning, managing, or controlling a rail- 
 60.5, 5 L. Rd. 696. road, etc., or any express company, car 
 
 9. Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Pa. 120. company, sleeping car companj', and 
 
 10. Central, etc., R. Co. z'. Hall, 124 freight line company, telegraph and tele- 
 Ga. 322, 52 S. E. 679, 4 L. R. A., N. S., phone companies, and any other carrier 
 898, 110 Am. St. Rep. 170. engaged in the transmission of messages 
 
 11. Statutory definitions.— By the or transportation of passengers or freight 
 Georgia statutes, Civil Code, §§ 2263, for h:re, means only such companies as 
 2264. a common carrier is defined to be by their public profession hold them- 
 one who undertakes to transport goods selves out as engaged in transmitting 
 for a compensation and who pursues the messages or transporting passengers or 
 business constantly or continuously for freight for hire, and as willing to per- 
 any period of time or any distance of form such services for any person hav- 
 transportation. These sections of the '"f? occasion to employ them.^ \\ innett 
 Code were taken from the common law. ''■ Unjon Stock \ards Co.. 81 Neb. 67, 115 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Lippman, 110 Ga. ^^- ^^ • ^'27. 
 
 665, 36 S. E. 202, 50 L. R. A. 673. 12. Common carriers can not divest 
 
 Carriers of passengers, do not come themselves of that character by declara- 
 
 within the definition of common carriers tions to the contrary.— B.ink i: Adams 
 
 contained in the Georgia Civil Code, in E.\p. Co., 93 U. S. 174. 23 L. Ed. 872. 
 
 connection with § 2276 thereof. Central. 13. Common carrier of passengers de- 
 
 etc, R. Co. 7'. Lippman, 110 Ga. 665, 36 fined.— N. lS: C. R. Co. z: Mossino. 33 
 
 S. E. 202, 50 L. R. a. 673. Tenn. (1 Sneed), 220; McGregor z: Gill, 
 
 A corporation is none the less a gen- 114 Tenn. 521, 86 S. W. 318, 108 Am. St. 
 
 eral carrier, as defined by the Minnesota Rep. 919. 
 
 statute. Gen. St. 1894, § 379, because its 14. The state as a common carrier.— 
 
 articles do not in terms prescribe that Western, etc., R. Co. f. Carlton, 23 Ga. 
 
 one of its powers is to carry freight. In 180.
 
 i§ 2-3 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 for transportation in a particular case.^'' It is not, every carrying of passengers 
 for hire that constitutes a party a common carrier. A party having the con- 
 veniences for carrying persons may in some, or perhaps many, cases carry pas- 
 sengers for liire. when done at the instance of passengers and for their accom- 
 modation, without incurring the responsibiUties of a common carrier. He would 
 be a private carrier, and held accountable under rules much less stringent.^*^ 
 Railroad contractors who consent to carry a passenger on a construction train 
 for hire are not to be deemed common carriers, but only private carriers for 
 
 hire.''' 
 
 Common Carrier Acting as a Private Carrier. — A common carrier may 
 become a private carrier, or a bailee for hire, when, as a matter of accommo- 
 dation or special engagement, it undertakes to carry something which it is not 
 its business to carry. ^"^ 
 
 §§ 3-18. Persons and Corporations Who Are Common Carriers— 
 § 3. Railroad Companies.- — A railroad company is a common carrier of both 
 persons and property,^'' unless there is something in its charter to relieve it from 
 
 15. Common carriers and private car- 
 riers distinguished. — The Cape Charles, 
 19S Fed. 34(1. See, also, Samms r. Stew- 
 art. 20 O. (39, 55 Am. Dec. 445. 
 
 Those who are engaged in the business 
 of carrying for all who apply, indiscrim- 
 inately, upon a particular route, by what- 
 ever mode of transportation they conduct 
 their business, must be regarded as com- 
 mon carriers; while those who undertake 
 to carry in a single instance, for a par- 
 ticular person, not being engaged in the 
 business as a general employment, even 
 for a portion of the time, must be con- 
 sidered private carriers. Johnson v. Pen- 
 sacola, etc., R. Co., 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am. 
 Rep. 731, 735. 
 
 A private carrier is one who, without 
 being engaged in such business as a pub- 
 lic employment, undertakes to deliver 
 goods in a particular case for hire or re- 
 ward. Pennewill r. Cullen (Del.), 5 Har. 
 238. 
 
 One who is employed to tear down a 
 house for another and deliver the brick 
 and lumber at another place is simply a 
 private carrier for hire. McBurnie i'. 
 Stelsly, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1191, 97 S. W. 42. 
 
 16. X. & C. R. Co. V. Messino, 33 
 Tenn. (1 Sneed), 220; McGregor v. Gill, 
 114 Tenn. 521, 86 S. W. 318, 108 Am. St. 
 Rep. 919. 
 
 17. Shoemaker v. Kingsbury (U. S.), 
 12 Wall. 369, 20 L. Ed. 432. 
 
 18. Common carrier acting as a private 
 carrier. — Railroad Co. v. Lockwood {U. 
 S.), 17 Wall. 357, 377, 21 L. Ed. 627; Liv- 
 erpool, etc., Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. 
 Co., 129 U. S. 397, 440, 32 L. Ed. 788, 9 
 S. Ct. 469; Santa Fe, etc.. R. Co. v. Grant 
 Bros. Constr. Co., 228 U. S. 177, 33 S. 
 Ct. 474, reversing on other grounds, 13 
 Ariz. 186, 108 Pac. 467. 
 
 "For example, if a carrier of produce, 
 running a truck boat between New York 
 City and Norfolk, should be requested to 
 carry a keg of specie, or a load of ex- 
 pensive furniture, which he could justly re- 
 
 fuse to take, such agreement might be 
 made in reference to his taking and car- 
 rying the same as the parties chose to 
 make, not involving any stipulation con- 
 trary to law or pul)lic policy." Railroad 
 Co. V. Lockwood (U. S.), 17 Wall. 357, 
 377, 21 L. Ed. 627. 
 
 19. A railroad company is a common 
 carrier. — United States. — Express Cases, 
 117 U. S. 1, 23, 29 L. Ed. 791, 6 S. Ct. 
 542, 628. 
 
 Georgia. — Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 
 Am. Dec. 393; Caldwell v. Richmond, etc., 
 R. Co., 89 Ga. 550, 15 S. E. 678; East 
 Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 
 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741. 
 
 Xezi' York. — Heineman z'. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 31 How. Prac. 430, 1 
 Sheld. 95. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 
 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98; G., C. & 
 S. F. R. Co. V. McGown, 65 Tex. 640; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 67 Tex. 
 166, 2 S. W. 574; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Tra- 
 wick, 68 Tex. 314, 4 S. W. 567, 2 Am. St. 
 Rep. 494. 
 
 Railroad companies are common car- 
 riers engaged in public employment af- 
 fecting the public interest. Laurel, etc., 
 R. Co. V. West Virginia Transp. Co., 25 
 W. Va. 324; West Virginia Transp. Co. 
 V. Sweetzer, 25 W. Va. 434. 
 
 A railroad company, which serves busi- 
 ness houses located along a spur track 
 by delivering to them cars of freight and 
 cars to be freighted and shipped, is a 
 common carrier with respect to the use 
 it makes of the track. Agee & Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 142 Ala. 344, 37 
 So. 680. 
 
 A railroad company carrying live stock 
 for hire, for such as choose to employ 
 it, is a common carrier; and none the 
 less so that this is not its principal busi- 
 ness. Kimball v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 
 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567. 
 
 Under Georgia statutes. Code of 1882, 
 § 2083, and Acts of 1855, p. 155, railroad
 
 WHO ARE CARRIERS. 
 
 § 3 
 
 tlie lieavy responsibilities of that character.-" A railroad company which charges 
 for the transportation of cattle, but permits the shijjper to travel on a free pass 
 upon the cars to take care of the cattle, is a common carrier for hire, both as to 
 passenger and cattle.-^ A railroad company transpfjrlinj,^ at reduced rates men 
 and supplies required by a construction company in grading an extension is not 
 acting as a common carrier.-- Evidence that twice in two years a railroad com- 
 pany had carried goods in passenger trains does not tend to prove that they 
 intended to hold themselves out as common carriers of goods in passenger 
 trains.--' The character of common carrier imposed upon a railroad company 
 can not be surrendered. It is imposed as the consideration which the public are 
 to receive in return for the grants and privileges under the charter. The com- 
 pany, perhai)s, may abandon its franchise and cease operating its road, but until 
 then, at least, the condition that it shall be a common carrier subsists.-^ 
 
 Terminal Company. — A terminal railroad company owning no cars of its 
 own and transporting only the railroad cars of other companies is a common 
 carrier. ■-''• 
 
 Lessee of Railroad. — The lessee of a railroad is a common carrier over a 
 line leased and controlled by it as much as over its own line, and is responsible 
 in damages in respect to the leased road, as well as its own, to any person who 
 has a ris^ht of action gi\en liini b\- law against railroad companic'-.-'' 
 
 Railroad Company Acquiring by Contract Right to Use Bridge. — \\ here 
 a railroad company, by contract witli a bridge company, acquires the right to 
 use a bridge, with its approaches, for its engines, cars, and trains, the railroad 
 company, and not the bridge company, is, as to all freight transported by the 
 former o\er the bridge, the common carrier.-' 
 
 Receivers. — A receiver of a railroad, operating the same, is a common 
 
 carrier 
 
 28 
 
 companies are common carriers and lia- 
 ble as such in the transportation of 
 freight. Falvey v. Georgia Railroad, 7() 
 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. Rep. 58. 
 
 Under a New Hampshire statute, Pub. 
 St. I'.Hil. c. !(■>(), §S 21-23, providing that 
 ever)' railroad corporation which shall 
 contract for the transportation of milk 
 in large quantities shall establish a tariff 
 for its transportation by the can, it seems 
 that a railroad company becomes a com- 
 mon carrier of milk on entering into a con- 
 tract with a firm to furnish it \vith spe- 
 cial cars for the transportation of milk. 
 Baker v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 X. H. 
 100, 65 .^tl. .ISf). 
 
 A railroad company, organized under 
 the statute of Ohio, is a common carrier, 
 and is subject to judicial control to pre- 
 vent the abuse of its powers and privi- 
 leges. Scofield V. Railway Co., 4,'^ O. St. 
 571. 3 N. E. 907. 
 
 20. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Whit- 
 tle, 27 Ga. 5.35, 73 Am. Dec. 741; Caldwell 
 7'. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 89 Ga. 550, 15 
 S. E. ()78. 
 
 Railroad companies are common car- 
 riers, though this is not stated in their 
 charter. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Thomp- 
 son, 19 Til. 578. 
 
 21. Railroad company charging for car- 
 rying cattle but permitting shipper to 
 travel free. — .Maslin r. luiltinuire, etc., R. 
 Co., 14 W. \a. ISO, 35 .Am. Rep. 748. 
 
 22. Transporting at reduced rates for 
 
 construction company grading extension. 
 — Santa I-'e, etc., R. Co. v. Grant Bros. 
 Constr. Co., 228 U. S. 177, 33 S. Ct. 474, 
 reversing 13 .Ariz. 186, lOS Pac. 467. 
 
 23. Effect of evidence that goods had 
 been carried in passenger trains. —l".lkins 
 V. Boston, etc., R. C^., 23 X. H. 27.'.. 
 
 24. Railroad company can not surren- 
 der its character of common carrier. — 
 \\'estern Union Tel. Co. i\ .\tlantic, etc., 
 Tel. Co.. 1 Wkly. Law Bull. 201, 7 O. 
 Dec. 163. affirmed in 5 O. Dec. 407, 1 
 Wkly. Law Bull. 309. 
 
 A railway company can not, by con- 
 tract, lay down its public character as a 
 carrier of passengers and goods, which 
 the law, as well as the nature of the em- 
 ployment in which it engages, fixes upon 
 it, and become a mere private carrier. 
 G., C. cS: S. F, R. Co. :■. McGown. 65 Tex. 
 ()40. ()45. 
 
 25. Terminal company is a common 
 carrier. — United States i\ Sioux City Stock 
 Yards Co.. 162 Fed. 556, judgment af- 
 firmed in 167 Fed, 126. 
 
 26. Lessee of railroad is a common 
 carrier. — Logan & Co. v. Central Rail- 
 road. 74 Ga^ 684: Caldwell v. Richmond, 
 etc. R. Co., SO Ga, 550. 15 S. F, 67s. 
 
 27. Railroad company acquiring by 
 contract right to use bridge. — Kentucky, 
 etc.. Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 37 Fed. .Mn, 2 L. R, A. 2S0. 
 
 28. Receiver operating railroad is a 
 common carrier. — United States f. Ram-
 
 §§ 4-6 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 § 4. Owners of Spur Lines or Switches. — Corporation Voluntarily 
 Contracting to Switch Cars Over Its Tracks. — \Miere a corporation, which 
 is under no legal ohligalion to do so, voluntarily contracts to switch cars over 
 its tracks, between two or more railways, for which service it collects a certain 
 switching charge for switching the cars, loaded or empty, but charges no traffic 
 rates on the freight transported or transferred in the cars, such corporation, in 
 the performance of such service, assumes none of the responsibilities of a com- 
 mon carrier, but only those of a switchman.-" 
 
 Lumber Company Building a Spur Line. — A spur railway line built by a 
 lumber company on its own land, forming a connecting line between a railroad 
 and its mill, some miles distant, for the purpose of transporting its own products 
 to the railroad for shipment, which had no rolling stock except an engine and 
 logging cars and which neither did, nor held itself out to do, carrying for the 
 public, is not a common carrier.-^*^' 
 
 Mine Owner Constructing a Railroad Switch. — One who constructs a 
 railroad switch, under a statute authorizing the owner of a coal mine within 
 three miles of a railroad to condemn a right of way for a railroad switch to 
 get his product to market, and providing that the owner of such road shall be, 
 so far as they are applicable, governed by the laws relating to other railroads, 
 is not a "common carrier," in contravention of a constitutional enactment, pro- 
 viding that no corporation engaged in the business of common carrier shall own 
 a mine, so that it can either ship or permit to be shipped by the lessees of its 
 mine all products thereof free of charge. ^^ 
 
 § 5. Sleeping Car Companies. — See post, "Palace Cars and Sleeping Cars." 
 
 § 6. Street Railways. — Street railways are common carriers of passengers, 
 with duties and responsibilities similar to those of a railroad company. -^^ 
 
 sey, 116 C. C. A. 568, 197 Fed. 144; Beers 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 244; 
 Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 
 Am. Dec. 349. 350; Paige z: Smith, 99 
 Mass. 395; Nichols r. Smith, 115 Mass. 
 332. 
 
 29. Corporation voluntarily contracting 
 to switch cars over its tracks. — Kentucky, 
 etc.. Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289. 
 
 As to terminal companies, see ante, 
 "Railroad Coni])anies." § ?,. 
 
 Stockyards company transporting 
 freight a common carrier under laws of 
 Nebraska. — A stockj-ards company owned 
 about lliirty-five miles of railway track, 
 including what was known as a transfer 
 track. Several private industries were 
 conducted adjacent to the premises of 
 the company. The transfer track con- 
 nected with the track of several railroads. 
 The stockyards company was engaged in 
 the carrying of freight in car load lots. 
 Cars billed to the stockyards or the in- 
 dustries adjacent thereto were placed on 
 the transfer track by the railroad over 
 whose line shipped, and from there hauled 
 by the stockyards company, with its own 
 engines, to the pens or sheds in the 
 yards, or to the industries which were 
 to receive the freight. Outgoing cars 
 were hauled by the stockyards company 
 to the transfer track, where they were 
 received by a railroad. The railroads for 
 such service were charged $1 per car. 
 
 The stockyards company did not deal 
 with the general public, but only with 
 the railroads and the industries located 
 adjacent to its premises, and with the 
 consignees and consignors of live stock 
 who received shipments or loaded ship- 
 ments in its yards. It transported freight 
 over its own tracks from one industry to 
 another, and was not engaged in the pro- 
 duction of commodities. Its vocation 
 was purely one of service to others, and, 
 with the exception of feeding live stock 
 in transit, the service rendered was the 
 transpor'tation of freight. Held, that the 
 stockyards company was a common car- 
 rier within the constitutional amendment 
 adopted at the general election in 1906, 
 creating a state railway commission, and 
 Laws 1907, p. 320, c. 90, § 4, defining a 
 common carrier to be any corporation, 
 etc., owning, operating, etc., any railroad, 
 etc. Winnett z'. Union Stock Yards Co.. 
 81 Neb. 67, 115 N. W. 627. 
 
 30. Lumber company building a spur 
 line. — Taenzer & Co. z\ Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 95 C. C. A. 436, 170 Fed. 240. 
 
 31. Mine owner constructing a railroad 
 switch. — Straight Creek Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 Straight Creek Coal Min. Co., 135 Ky. 
 536, 122 S. W. 842, construing Const, of 
 Ky., § 210, and Ky. St. 1909, § 815 (Rus- 
 sell's St. § 5352). 
 
 32. Street railways are common car- 
 riers of passengers. — Schlocmcr v. St. 
 Louis Transit Co., 204 Mo. 99, 102 S. W.
 
 WHO ARK CARRIERS. 
 
 !§ 7-8 
 
 § 7. Express Companies. — Ivxprcss conii)anies, engaged in carrying tor 
 hire nujnc\ , g<jo<ls, an>l parcels, from one locality to another, although not 
 using their own vehicles for the purpose of transportation, are common car- 
 riers.^-' and, as such, subject to all the duties and responsibilities of common 
 carriers at common law.-'"* 
 
 An expressman carrying the baggage of a railway passenger from the de- 
 pot to hoU'ls and private houses is a common carrier, and is liable for the loss 
 of baggage while in his care and custody.-*'' 
 
 § 8. Transportation and Forwarding Companies.— A transportation 
 
 company, not ouniiii; or contmlling any niean> of ctjnveyance itself, out cii 
 gaging on its own behalf in the business of transporting goods through the 
 agency and over the lines of other carriers of its own selection and employ- 
 ment, is a common carrier, and subject to all the responsibilities attaching to 
 that character."""' Forwarding companies which undertake for hire to transport 
 bairrasje from its starting ijoint to its final destination, such transaction being 
 
 oo o oi ^ ••1*1 
 
 within the ordinary course of their busmess, are common carriers within the 
 meaning of the law.-'" Even if the expressed purpose of a forwarding com- 
 pany's "business were material, its designation that it was a "forwarder" and 
 "distributor" would be sutificient to estop it from claiming that it was a mere 
 forwarder and not a common carrier.^''' A "forwarding merchant" or "for- 
 warder" is one who ships or sends forward goods for others to their destina- 
 
 565; San Antonio St. R. Co. v. Muth, 7 
 Tex. Civ. App. 443, 27 S. W. 752, af- 
 firmed in 9:5 Tex. 719, no op.; Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 82, 15 S. W. 
 204. 11 L. R. A. 395. 23 Am. St. Rep. 308. 
 
 33. Express companies are common 
 carriers. — Sec post, "Transportation and 
 Forwarding Companies," § 8. 
 
 United States. — Bank v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 872. 
 
 Georgia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. State, 
 107 Ga. 670, 33 S. E. 637, 46 L. R. A. 
 417, 73 Aoi. St. Rep. 146; Southern Exp. 
 Co. z'. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 
 783. 
 
 Tennessee. — Baker v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 304; Railway Co. 
 i: Wynn, 88 Tenn. 319, 333, 14 S. W. 311; 
 Express Co. v. Jackson, 92 Tenn. 32(), 21 
 S. W. 666. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 
 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116. 
 
 I'irginia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Veigh, 61 Va. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 The express business is a branch of 
 the carrying trade. Southern Exp. Co. f. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 10 Fed. 869. 
 
 An express company, that receives and 
 agrees to transport goods from one des- 
 ignated place to anotlier designated 
 place, for a compensation, in tiie ordi- 
 nary means of conveyance, is a common 
 carrier, although not the owner, and hav- 
 ing no interest in the conveyance by 
 which tiie goods are transported. United 
 States Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 O. St. 
 144, affirming 2 Cin. R. 251. 13 O. Dec. 
 885, followed in 14 O. C. D. 435, approved 
 in Toledo, etc.. R. Co. v. Bowler, etc., 
 Co., 63 O. St. 274, 58 N. E. 813. 
 
 Under the South Dakota statute Rev. 
 Civ. Code 1903, § 1577, providing that 
 
 every one who offers to carry persons, 
 propert}', or messages is a common car- 
 rier of whatever he thus offers to carry, 
 an express company offering to carry 
 money for hire is a common carrier 
 thereof. Piatt v. LeCocq. 150 Fed. 391. 
 
 34. Railway Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 319, 
 333. 14 S. W. 311; Merchants', etc., 
 Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. 
 W. 881. 6 Am. St. Rep. 847; Baker v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 
 304; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 
 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 271; East Tennessee, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hale, 85 Tenn. 69, 1 S. 
 W. 620; Express Co. v. Jackson, 92 Tenn. 
 326, 21 S. W. 666. 
 
 An express company is a common car- 
 rier and as such is bound to receive and 
 transport articles and property offered 
 to it for shipment under reasonable rules 
 and regulations. Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 State, 107 Ga. 670, 33 S. E. 637, 46 L. R. 
 A. 417. 73 Am. St. Rep. 146; Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. 
 Dec. 7S3. 
 
 35. Expressman carrying baggage a 
 common carrier. — Baker z\ ^hlhc^ 
 (.Mich.), Ilowcll. X. 1'. ;!9. 
 
 36. A transportation company a com- 
 mon carrier. — See ante. "Express Compa- 
 nies." § 7. 
 
 Deming t. Merchants' Cotton-Press, 
 etc.. Co.,^ 90 Tenn. 306, 17 S. W. 89, 13 
 L. R. A. 518; Merchants.' etc., Transp. 
 Co. z: Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. \V. 881, 
 6 Am. St. Rep. 817. 
 
 37. Forwarding companies are com- 
 mon carriers. Bare f. American For- 
 warding Co., 146 111. App. 388. judgment 
 atfirme'd in 242 111. 298. 89 N. E. 1021. 
 
 38. Lee v. Fidelity Storage, etc.. Co., 
 51 Wash. 208, 98 Pac. 658.
 
 §§ 8-11 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 8 
 
 tion bv the instrumentality of third persons without himself incurring the lia- 
 bility of a carrier to deliver them, and neither includes a consignor shipping 
 goods nor a carrier engaged in transporting them.-'-* 
 
 § 9. Proprietors of Stage Coaches. — Proprietors of stage coaches are 
 
 common carriers.-*" 
 
 § 10. Proprietors of Omnibuses and Baggage Wagons. — The propri- 
 etor of a line of omnibuses and baggage wagons, engaged in the business of 
 carrying for hire passengers and baggage, or either alone, between the hotels 
 and depots of a city, is a common carrier.-*^ 
 
 § 11. Draymen and Truckmen. — Persons who are engaged in the busi- 
 ness of transporting goods from place to place in a city, in drays or transfer 
 wagons, may be common carriers.^- Persons engaged in the business of gen- 
 eral truckmen, making a specialty of moving heavy machinery, who keep a 
 large number of trucks and horses, and employ the necessary help, are com- 
 mon carriers. ■^^ A wagoner who carries goods for hire, is responsible as a com- 
 mon carrier, though transportation is only an occasional and incidental employ- 
 ment.^'* A regular tariff of charges is not essential to create a truckman a 
 
 39. A "forwarding merchant" or "for- 
 warder." — In re Emerson, etc., Co., 117 
 C. C. A. 635, 199 Fed. 95; S. C, 117 C. 
 C. A. 639, 199 Fed. 99. 
 
 40. Proprietors of stage coaches are 
 common carriers. — Jones v. \'oorhees, 10 
 O. 145. 
 
 41. Proprietors of omnibuses and bag- 
 gage wagons. — Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 
 111. ^1C>. 24 Am. Rep. 276. 
 
 When a traveler delivers a trunk to a 
 city baggage expressman, to be trans- 
 ported from depot to hotel for hire, and 
 without taking passage himself, the car- 
 rier is answerable as a carrier of mer- 
 chandise. Parmelee v. Lowitz, 74 111. 116, 
 24 Am. Rep. 276. 
 
 42. Draymen may be common carriers. 
 — Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. vSmoker 
 Merchandise Co.. 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 
 680. See, also, Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 
 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393: Lawson v. Con- 
 nolly (Mich.), 141 N. W. 623. 
 
 Carrying goods by means of ox team 
 and slide. — One carr3'ing goods, for hire, 
 from place to place about town, as a com- 
 mon employment, by means of an ox 
 team and slide, is a common carrier. 
 Robertson v. Kennedy, 32 Ky. (2 Dana) 
 430. 26 .-Xm. Dec. 466. 
 
 One who, under a license so to do, 
 hauls goods within the limits of a city 
 for any person desiring his services, is a 
 common carrier; and, while he can not be 
 compelled to go beyond his territorial 
 limits, yet, if he undertakes to do so, he 
 is liable as a common carrier for the 
 whole distance. Farley v. Lavary, 107 
 Ky. 523, 21 Kv. L. Rep. 1252, 54 vS. W. 
 840. 47 L. R. A. 383. 
 
 A person engaged in the business of 
 carrying freight by wagons from depots 
 to other places, and of delivering pack- 
 ages for all persons who choose to em- 
 ploy him, is a common carrier. Caye v. 
 
 Pool, 108 Ky. 124, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1600, 
 55 S. W. 887, 49 L. R. A. 251, 94 Am. 
 St. Rep. 348. 
 
 A drayman who is directed by a ship- 
 per to take her goods to the depot and 
 ship them is a common carrier (citing 
 Words and Phrases, vol. 2, p. 1317). 
 Benson v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 35 Utah 
 241, 99 Pac. 1072. 
 
 Drayage company transferring goods 
 between railroads. — A drayage and trans- 
 fer company which carried goods be- 
 tween St. Louis and East St. Louis, trans- 
 ferring them between railroads which had 
 no other connection, receiving compen- 
 sation out of the freight collected by the 
 final carrier, was a common carrier of 
 goods, and liable as such. Model Cloth- 
 ing Co. V. Columbia Transfer Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 139 S. W. 242. 
 
 43. General truckmen are common car- 
 riers. — Judgment, 36 N. Y. S. 808, 15 
 Misc. Rep. 93, affirmed. Jackson Archi- 
 tectural Iron Works z>. Hurlbut, 158 N. 
 Y. 34, 52 N. E. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432. 
 
 44. Wagoner a common carrier though 
 transportation is only an occasional em- 
 ployment. — Gordon v. Hutchinson (Pa.), 
 Watts & S. 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464. See, 
 also, Moss V. Bettis, 57 Tenn. (4 Heisk.) 
 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1. 
 
 Where a planter, employing his wag- 
 ons in hauling his cotton crop to mar- 
 ket, and habitually lading them on their 
 return trips with goods to be transported 
 for hire, receives such goods, and exe- 
 cutes his receipt therefor, undertaking to 
 deliver them to the consignee in good 
 order, and without delay, at the custom- 
 ary rate of charges, he will be responsible 
 as a common carrier. Harrison v. Roy, 
 39 Miss. 396. 
 
 Defendants, whose usual business was 
 farming, but who, during the season of 
 hauling, employed a team in transporting
 
 WHO AKF. CAKRIHRS. 
 
 §§ 11-12 
 
 common carrier.*^ 
 
 § 12. Telegraph and Messenger Companies. — Telegraph companies re- 
 semble railroad companies and oilier common carriers, in that they are instru- 
 ments of commerce, and in that they exercise a pubHc employment, and are 
 therefore bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination. They have, 
 doubtless, a duty to the public to receive, to the extent of their capacity, all 
 messages clearly and intelligibly written, and to transmit them upon reasonable 
 terms. But they are not common carriers. Their duties are different, and are per- 
 formed in different ways; and they are not subject to the same liabilities.'*'^ In 
 Massachusetts it has been held that a telegrapii company, furnishing messengers for 
 the delivery of packages, does not assume the liability of a common carrier, but 
 only agrees that the messenger furnished shall be a suitable person for the work.'*'' 
 But in the District of Columbia it has been held that companies engaged in sup- 
 plying messenger service to the public are to a certain extent common carriers, 
 
 goods for hire between two places, were 
 common carriers. Chevallier v. Straham, 
 2 Tex. 115, 47 .Am. Dec. Ci.'iO. 
 
 45. Regular tariff of charges not es- 
 sential to create truckman a common 
 carrier. — Jiidf?mcnt, 'M'> X. Y. S. n(is, 15 
 Misc. Rep. 93, affirmed. Jackson Archi- 
 tectural Iron Works v. Hurlbut, 158 N. 
 Y. 34, 52 N. K. G()5, 70 Am. vSt. Rep. 432. 
 
 46. Status of telegraph companies. — 
 Primrose v. Western Union Tel. Co., 154 
 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 883, 14 S. Ct. 1098; Ex- 
 press Co. z\ Caldwell. 21 Wall. 264, 22 
 L. Ed. 556; Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 1067; 
 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 175 U. S. 91, 44 L. Ed. 84, 20 S. 
 Ct. 33. 
 
 Telegraph companies are not public 
 carriers in the strict sense of the term, 
 yet on account of the public nature of 
 their employment, they have in many 
 cases been held to a very similar re- 
 sponsibility. Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
 Reynolds Bros., 77 \'a. 173, 46 Am. Rep. 
 715'. 
 
 Although a telegraph company is not 
 a common carrier, yet its relation with 
 senders of messages over its lines is of 
 a commercial nature, and contracts that 
 the company shall not be liable for the 
 negligence of its servants are affected, in 
 some degree, by similar considerations. 
 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 175 U. S. 91, 44 L. Ed. 84, 20 S. 
 Ct. 33; Express Co. r. Caldwell. 21 Wall. 
 264, 22 L. Ed. 556; Western Union Tel. 
 Co. V. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 
 1067; Primrose v. Western Union Tel. 
 Co.. 154 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 883, 14 S. Ct. 
 1098. 
 
 Telegraph companies, though not com- 
 mon carriers, are engaged in a business 
 that is in its nature almost, if not quite, 
 as important to the public as is that of 
 carriers. Like common carriers they can 
 not contract witli tlieir employers for ex- 
 emption from lialiility for the conse- 
 quences of their own negligence. But 
 they may. by such contracts, or by their 
 rules and regulations l)rought to the 
 
 knowledge of their employers, limit the 
 measure of their responsibility to a rea- 
 sonable extent. Whether their rules are 
 reasonable or unreasonable must be de- 
 termined with reference to public policy, 
 precisely as in the case of a carrier. E.x- 
 press Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264. 269, 
 22 L. Ed. 556; Primrose v. Western Un- 
 ion Tel. Co., 154 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 883, 
 14 vS. Ct. 1098. 
 
 Although there is much analogy be- 
 tween the common carrier and the tele- 
 graph company, both are in the exer- 
 cise of a quasi public occupation, and 
 both have, by the public, conferred upon 
 them valuable franchises, and both may, 
 and do. invoke the high prerogative of 
 exercising the state right of eminent do- 
 main. Still telegraph companies are not 
 common carriers, nor are they insurers, 
 either of the accurate transmission or the 
 sure and prompt delivery of messages. 
 They are liable, however, for losses con- 
 sequent upon their negligence. Marr v. 
 Western Union Tel. Co., 85 Tenn. 529, 
 536, 3 S. W. 496; Telegraph Co. v. Mun- 
 ford, 87 Tenn. 190, 10 S. W. 318. See, 
 also. Telegraph Co. v. Griswold, 37 O. 
 St. 301, 41 Am. Rep. ."00. 
 
 47. Telegraph companies furnishing 
 messengers. — Murray i\ Poslal Tel., etc., 
 Co.. 210 Mass. 188, 9'6 X. E. 316. 
 
 The knowledge of a messenger com- 
 pany that messengers sent out by it were 
 sometimes employed to carry money does 
 not render the company a common car- 
 rier, where the company exercises no con- 
 trol over the messenger during his em- 
 ployment by a patron. Haskell v. Bos- 
 ton Dist. Messenger Co., 190 Mass. 189, 
 76 N. E. 215, 2 L. R. .-X.. -X. S., 1091, 112 
 Am. St. Rep. 324. 
 
 Where a bill for rent was intrusted to 
 a messenger furnished by a messenger 
 company, and the amount collected by 
 the messenger, the company did not be- 
 come a common carrier and insurer of 
 the bill and the money. Haskell v. Bos- 
 ton Dist. Messenger Co., 100 Mass. 189, 
 76 N. E. 215, 2 L. R. A., X. S., 1091. 112 
 Am. St. Rep. 324.
 
 §§ 12-16 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 10 
 
 must serve impartially all who require their services, are liable on proof of neg- 
 lio-ence ; and under some circumstances, and always by special contract, they 
 mav make themselves insurers."** 
 
 § 13. Transfer and Storage Companies. — A transfer and storage com- 
 pany engaged in a business of warehousing goods and forwarding them for a 
 com'pensatron in car load lots is a common carrier, so as to make it liable as such 
 for the destruction of the goods while in its warehouse.-*"' So a company char- 
 tered to do a general warehouse and storage business, but engaging as well in 
 moving household goods and advertising that business in a way to solicit custom 
 from the general public, is a common carrier, notwithstanding it claims the right 
 to select those whom it will serve, and its custom is to discriminate, accepting 
 some and rejecting others as it may choose.'^" 
 
 § 14. Livery Stable Keepers. — A livery stable keeper, who lets a convey- 
 ance for a special journey, and furnishes a driver therefor, is merely a private 
 carrier for hire, and is bound only to exercise that degree of care and skill in 
 the selection of a vehicle, team, and driver, which a prudent man would bestow 
 in such a matter, an-d is not liable for injuries caused to a person in the vehicle, 
 occasioned by negligent driving.-^* 
 
 § 15. Mail Contractors. — A contractor to carry the mail between a rail- 
 road station and the postofhce in a town is not a common carrier and owes a 
 railroad mail clerk no further duty than the exercise of reasonable care.-''- 
 
 § 16. Owners of Ships Carrying Goods for Hire. — By the settled law, 
 in the absence of some valid agreement to the contrary, the owner of a general 
 ship, carrying goods for hire, whether employed in internal, in coasting or in 
 foreign commerce, is a common carrier. ^^ But it is the business of carrying 
 
 48. White v. Postal Tel., etc., Co., 25 
 App. D. C. 364. 
 
 49. Transfer and storage companies. — 
 Ketteiihofen v. Globe Transfer, etc., Co. 
 (Wash.), 127 Pac. 295. 
 
 50. Lloyd V. Haugh, etc., Transfer Co., 
 223 Pa. 148, 72 Atl. 516. 
 
 51. Livery stable keeper merely a pri- 
 vate carrier. — McGregor v. Gill, 114 Tenn. 
 521, so S. W. 318, 108 Am. St. Rep. 919. 
 
 52. Mail contractors. — Davis v. Cris- 
 ham, 213 Mass. 151, 99 N. E. 959. 
 
 53. Owners of ships carrying goods 
 for hire. — i'liitcd States. — Liverpool, etc.. 
 Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 
 437, 32 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469; Propeller 
 Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 7, 
 
 16 L. Ed. 41; The Lady Pike (U. S.), 21 
 Wall. 1, 22 L. Ed. 499; The J. P. Donald- 
 son, 167 U. S. 599, 603, 42 L. Ed. 292, 
 
 17 S. Ct. 951; Central Transp. Co. t'. 
 Pullman's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 
 51, 35 L. Ed. 55, 11 S. Ct. 478. 
 
 Connecticut. — Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 
 410, 31 Am. Dec. 745. 
 
 Georgia. — Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 
 46 Am. Dec. 393. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Hastings v. Pepper 
 (Mass.), 11 Pick. 41; Gage v. Tirrcll 
 (Mass.), 9 Allen 299. 
 
 North Carolina. — Williams v. Branson, 
 4 N. C. 17, 5 N. C. 417, 1 Car. Law Rep. 
 224, 4 Am. Dec. 562. 
 
 Owners of steamboats carrying freight 
 and parcels for hire are common carriers. 
 
 and subject to their liabilities. Crosby v. 
 Fitch, ^12 Conn. 410, 31 Am. Dec. 745; 
 Hale V. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 
 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398; Brown, etc., 
 Co. V. Clayton, 12 Ga. 564; The Emily, 5 
 Kan. 645; Allen r. Sewall (N. Y.), 2 
 Wend. 327; Bank v. Brown (N. Y.), 3 
 Wend. 158; Swindler r. Hilliard ( S. C), 
 2 Rich. Law 286, 45 Am. Dec. 732. 
 
 A steamboat company, holding itself 
 out to the public as a carrier of passen- 
 gers and freight, is a "common carrier." 
 Reasor v. Paducah, etc.. Ferry Co., 152 
 Ky. 220, 153 S. W. 222. Steamboats on 
 inland rivers are common carriers. 
 Faulkner v. Wright (S. C), 1 Rice 107. 
 
 But a steamboat is not liable as a com- 
 mon carrier, unless the carriage of the 
 goods was undertaken for hire. Chou- 
 teau V. St. Anthony, 16 Mo. 216. 
 
 Goods were shipped by the owner upon 
 a steamer belonging to defendant, along 
 with a large amount of merchandise be- 
 longing to other parties. The steamer 
 performed regular service in the trans- 
 portation of merchandise for hire be- 
 tween the ports of Liverpool and New 
 York. Held, that defendant was liable as 
 a common carrier. Liverpool, etc.. Steam 
 Co. V. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 
 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469; Liverpool, etc.. 
 Steam Co. v. Insurance Co., 129 U. S. 
 464, 32 L. Ed. 800, 9 S. Ct. 480. 
 
 The owner of a canal boat employed 
 in transporting property for hire is a
 
 11 
 
 WHO AKK CAKKIKKS. 
 
 §§ 16-17 
 
 goods for others, not a single act. known to the consignor to be outside the 
 usual employment, which fixes the liability of a common carrier.-'^-* Therefore, 
 where the owner of a vessel keeps it for his own use, the mere fact that he 
 hires it to another bv a special agreement will not make him liable as a common 
 carrier;'"'- and where ihc master of a vessel, engaged chiefly in carrying naval 
 stores takes in charge a box of jewelry, without including it in a bill of lading, 
 and without anv contract as to tlie price for carrying it, he is only liable as an 
 ordinary bailee,' and not as common carrier.-^'" A boat used by its owners for 
 their own purposes, and those of others who agree to pay certain rates for the 
 transportation of ibcir goods from one point to another, and which is not shown 
 to have been held out as a common carrier, cannot be declared to be such, at 
 the instance of one of the agreeing parties.''' He who receives and forwards 
 goods, assuming the expense of transportation, for which he is compensated by 
 the owner, but having no concern in the vessel by which the goods are sent, nor 
 any interest in the freight, is not a common carrier.''"' To make the owner of 
 a vessel liable as a common carrier, it is not necessary that his trips should be 
 regular between the same points, it being suf^cient if he is engaged in carrying 
 for others generally to and from any point.'"" 
 
 § 17. Ferrymen. — A ferryman, occupying a position in a line of public 
 travel, and holding himself out for general" emi)loyment, is a common carrier."" 
 
 common carrier. Arnold 7'. Halcnl^ake 
 (N. Y.), 5 Wend. 33. 
 
 Freighters of cotton and tobacco on 
 flat boats are common carriers. Jones f. 
 Walker, 13 Tenn. (.5 Verg.) 427. 
 
 Conveying goods from one place on 
 a river to another. — One who undertakes, 
 for a rewaril, to convey proGuce, or goods 
 of any sort, from any place upon a river 
 to another, becomes thereby liable as a 
 common carrier. Craig v. Childress. 7 
 Tenn. (Peck) 270. 14 Am. Dec. 751; John- 
 son V. Friar. 12 Tenn. (4 Yerg.) 4S, 26 
 Am. Dec. 215; Gordon i\ Buchanan. 13 
 Tenn. (5 Yerg.) 71, 72; Turney v. Wilson, 
 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 304, 27 Am. Dec. 515; 
 Moss V. Bettis. 51 Tenn. (4 Heisk.) 661, 
 13 Am. Rep. 1. 
 
 Where the owners of a steamboat took 
 produce to be carried and sold by them 
 for a certain freight, and were Ijringiiig 
 back on the same vessel the money which 
 they obtained on the sale, when the ves- 
 sel and money were accidentally con- 
 sumed by fire, under the Ui'age of trade 
 they were acting as common carriers in 
 going, as factors in selling the produce, 
 and as common carriers in bringing back 
 the money, and are liable for its loss, 
 notwithstanding the accident. Harring- 
 ton z: McShane (Pa.), 2 Watts 443, 27 
 Am. Dec. 321. 
 
 54. What fixes liability of a common 
 carrier. -iMsh z: Clark. 4'.i X. V. 122, af- 
 firming; 2 I.ans. 1T<'). 
 
 55. One hiring vessel by special agree- 
 ment not a common carrier. — I'ennewill 
 r. Cullen (Del). 5 Har. 2:!s. 
 
 The owner of a canal l)oat. used gen- 
 erally for transporting his own merchan- 
 dise, who enters into a contract with 
 common carriers to transport a boat 
 load of freight for an agreed price, is 
 
 not a common carrier. Fish v. Clark, 49 
 N. Y. 122. affirm.ing 2 Lans. 176. 
 
 56. Carrying box of jewelry without 
 contract as to price of carriage. — i'ender 
 V. Robbins, :>\ X. C. 207. 
 
 57. Agreement not making owners of 
 boat common carriers. — I'lauu z\ Lashley, 
 36 La. .\nn. 106. 
 
 58. Receiver and forwarder of goods 
 who has no concern in vessel. — Rolierts 
 c'. Turner ( .\. \.). 12 Johns. 232, 7 Am. 
 Dec. 311. 
 
 59. Owner of vessel carrying to and 
 from any point, a common carrier. — Pen- 
 newill 7: Cullen (Del.), :. Har. 238. 
 
 60. Ferrymen are common carriers. — 
 
 .-IrkiVisas. — Harvey 
 Am. Rep. 595. 
 
 California. — May t 
 63 Am. Dec. 135. 
 
 Iowa. — Whitmore 
 4 Greene 14S. 
 
 Kentucky.— HM & Co. z: Renfro, 60 
 K}-. (3 Mete.) 51. 
 
 Ohio. — Wilson z 
 
 H> Ark. 3, 
 Hanson, 5 Cal. 360, 
 •. Bowman (Iowa), 
 
 Hamilton. 4 O. St. 
 
 Pi-nnsyh-ania. — Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa. 
 342. 
 
 Tennessee. — Sanders v. Young, 38 Tenn. 
 (1 Head) 219, 73 Am Dec. 17.s. 
 
 7V.ra,j.— Albright v. Penn. 14 Tex. 290. 
 
 A public ferryman who has given bond 
 as required l)y law. is a common carrier. 
 Babcock z: Herbert. 3 Ala. 392, 37 Am. 
 Dec. 695. 
 
 A ferry company is a common carrier. 
 Le Barron v. I^a'st Boston Ferry Co. 
 (Mass.). H Allen 312. 87 Am. Dec. 717. 
 
 But in Michigan it has been held that 
 a corporation incorporated under Conip. 
 Laws. §§ 6646-6659. to own and operate 
 ferries on a river, which owns and oper- 
 ates an amusement park and steamers
 
 § 18 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 12 
 
 § 18. Boats Engaged in Towing. — A steam tug which engages to tow a 
 vessel into a port, is not a common carrier nor an insurer. '^'^ 
 
 for the transportation of persons to and 
 from the park, is not a common carrier 
 while engaged in transporting such per- 
 sons, and may refuse transportation to 
 any one at its pleasure. Meisner v. De- 
 troit, etc.. Ferrv Co., 154 Mich. 545, 118 
 N. W. 14. 
 
 61. Boats engaged in towing. — The 
 Margaret, 94 U. S. 494, 24 L. Ed. 146; 
 The J. P. Donaldson, 167 U. S. 599, 603, 
 42 L. Ed. 292, 17 S. Ct. 951. Compare 
 White V. The Mary Ann, 6 Cal. 462, 65 
 Am. Dec. 523. 
 
 "An engagement to tow does not im- 
 pose either an obligation to insure, or the 
 liabilit}^ of common carriers. The burden 
 is always upon him who alleges _ the 
 breach of such a contract to show either 
 that there has been no attempt at per- 
 formance, or that there has been negli- 
 gence or unskillfulness to his injury in 
 the performance. Unlike the case of com- 
 mon carriers, damage sustained by the 
 tow does not ordinarily raise a presump- 
 tion that the tug has been in fault. The 
 
 contract requires no more than that he 
 who undertakes to tow shall carry out 
 his undertaking with that degree of cau- 
 tion and skill which prudent navigators 
 usually' employ in similar services." The 
 J. P. Donaldson, 167 U. S. 599, 603, 42 L. 
 Ed. 292; The Steamer Webb (U. S.), 14 
 Wall. 406, 20 L. Ed. 774; The Propeller 
 Burlington, 137 U. S. 386, 34 L. Ed. 731, 11 
 S. Ct. 138; The L. P. Dayton, 120 U. S. 
 337, 30 L. Ed. 669, 7 S. Ct. 568. 
 
 Plaintiffs were engaged in the business 
 of towing boats on the Ohio river and its 
 tributaries, but were not shown to have 
 held themselves out to the public as ready 
 to tow craft for all who might seek their 
 services. They were not shown to have 
 operated on a definite route or between 
 established termini, and there was no 
 evidence that the public looked to them 
 as bound to carry without a special agree- 
 ment, or that they ever intended to un- 
 dertake to do so. Held, that they were 
 not common carriers. Varble r. Bigley 
 (Ky.), 14 Bush 698, 29 Am. Rep. 435.
 
 cnAi'Ti':R II. 
 
 Control and Rkgllation. 
 
 I. Power to Control and Regulate in General, §§ l'J-2-i. 
 
 A. Carriers in General, § 19. 
 
 B. Railroad Companies, § 20. 
 
 C. Express Companies, § 21. 
 
 D. Delegation of Power, §§ 22-24. 
 a. In General, §§ 22. 
 
 1). To Municipal Corporations, § 23. 
 c. To Commissions, § 24. 
 
 II. Companies, Persons, or Instrumentalities Afifectcd by Regulations, §§ 25-28. 
 
 A. In General, § 25. 
 
 B. Railroad Companies, § 26. 
 
 C. Street Railroad Companies, § 27. 
 
 D. Express Companies, § 28. 
 
 III. Licenses and Taxes, § 29. 
 IV. Reports and Statements, § 30. 
 
 V. Conduct of Business in General, §§ 31-34. 
 
 A. Common Carriers in General, § 31. 
 
 B. Railroad Companies, § 32. 
 
 C. Business of Transmitting Money to Foreign Countries, § 33. 
 
 D. Hackmcn and Draymen, § 34. 
 
 VI. Charges, §§ 35-95. 
 
 A. In General, §§ 35-84. 
 
 a. Power to Regulate, §§ 35-79. 
 {1) In General, § 35. 
 
 (2) Delegation of Power, §§ 36-37. 
 
 (a) To a Commission, § 36. 
 
 (b) To a Municipal Corporation, § 37. 
 
 (3) Classification of Railroads for Purposes of Regulation, §§ 38-39. 
 
 (a) Right to Classify, § 38. 
 
 (b) Mode of Classification, § 39. 
 {■i) Limitation of Power, §§ 40-72. 
 
 (a) Reasonableness of Regulations, §§ 40-67. 
 aa. Regulations Must Be Reasonable, § 40. 
 bb. Mode of Determining Reasonableness, §§ 41-67. 
 
 (aa) That Carrier Has Performed Services for Rate Fixed Not Sole 
 
 Criterion, § 41. 
 (bb) Carrier Entitled to Fair Return on Investment. §§ 42-49. 
 aaa. In General, § 42. 
 
 1,1,1). Mode of Determining Value of Property or Investment, §§ 
 43-49. 
 (aaa) In General. § 43. 
 
 (bbb) Fictitious Capitalization or Excessive Bonded Debt, § 44. 
 (ccc) Sworn Return of \'aluc of Property Made for Purposes of 
 
 Taxation, § 45. 
 {(Idd) \'alue of Franchise, § 46. 
 
 (eee) Consolidated Corporation— Value of Assets of Constituent 
 Corporations. § 47.
 
 CARRIERS. 14 
 
 {Hi) Part of Railroad within State to Be Regarded in Its Rela- 
 tion to Part without State. § 48. 
 (goo) Road Purchased at Foreclosure Sale and Reorganized, 
 § 49. 
 (cc) Carrier Entitled to Earn Interest upon a Valid Bonded Debt, § 50. 
 (dd) Ascertaining Cost of Doing Business or of Operating Road, § 51. 
 (ee) Consideration of Net Earnings in Determining Reasonableness of 
 Rates Prescribed, §§ 52-54. 
 aaa. Xet Earnings Must Be Sufficient to Paj- Fair Return on Invest- 
 ment, § 52. 
 bbb. Mode of Computing Xet Earnings and What They Include, § 5.3. 
 ccc. Earnings of Entire Road to Be Regarded, § 54. 
 (ff) Interstate Business to Be Disregarded, § 55. 
 (gg) Economic Factors and Natural Advantages of Localities May Be 
 
 Considered, § 56. 
 (hh) Equality of Rates for Like Service, § 57. 
 (ii) Adoption of Rates Given by Carrier to Certain Shippers, § 58. 
 (jj) Accessibility of a Place to High Seas as Affecting Rates, § 59. 
 (kk) Betterments and Replacements Should Be Considered, § 60. 
 (11) Passenger Traffic Considered as Separate and Independent from 
 Freight Traffic, § 61. 
 (mm) Revenue That Has Been Derived from Rate under Consideration, 
 
 § 62. 
 (nn) Effect of Several Sovereignties Being Interested, § 63. 
 (oo) Apportioning Value of Property and Expenses, §§ 64-65. 
 aaa. Necessity for Apportionment, § 64. ' ' 
 
 bbb. Method of Apportionment, § 65. 
 (pp) Line of Railroad Operated in Connection with Other Lines, § 66. 
 (qq) Mode of Arriving at Effect of Statutes Reducing Rates, § 67. 
 
 (b) Due Process of Law, § 68. 
 
 (c) Equal Protection of Laws, § 69. 
 
 (d) Taking Private Property without Just Compensation, § 70. 
 
 (e) Discrimination against Carrier in Favor of Certain Individuals, § 71. 
 (i) Limitations upon Power of a Municipality to Reduce Street Railroad 
 
 Fares, § 72. 
 
 (5) Exemption from Regulation by Charter or Statute, §§ 73-78. 
 
 (a) In General, § 73. 
 
 (b) Necessity for Positive and Clear Words of Exemption, §§ 74-75. 
 aa. Doctrine Stated, § 74. 
 
 bb. Doctrine Illustrated, § 75. 
 
 (c) Succession to Rights of Company Entitled to Exemption, §§ 76-78. 
 aa. Purchase, § 76. 
 
 bb. Lease, § 77. 
 
 cc. Consolidation, § 78. 
 
 (6) Loss of Power by Abandonment or Nonuser, § 79. 
 b. Scope and Effect of Regulations, §§ 80-84. 
 
 (1) To Whom or to What Business or Route Regulations Are Applicable, § 80. 
 
 (2) Obligations Imposed on Carriers, § 81. 
 
 (3) Measure of Compensation Allowed, § 82. 
 
 (4) Regulations Will Not Be Construed to Be Retroactive, § 83. 
 
 (5) W'hen a Statute Will Be Construed as Impliedly Repealing a Prior Stat- 
 
 ute, § 84. 
 
 B. Posting Schedule at Stations, § 85. 
 
 C. Local and Through Rates, § 86. 
 
 D. Long and Short Hauls, § 87.
 
 15 CONTROL AND RFXULATION. 
 
 E. J flint Tariff between Two or More Roads, § 88. 
 
 F. Transfers to Connecting Lines of Same Company, § 89. 
 
 G. Conditions in Grant of Franchise and Agreements with Municipalities, §§ 90-95. 
 
 a. Authority to Impose Conditions or to Make Agreements, § 90. 
 
 b. Change of Rates of Fare Fixed by Franchise or Agreement, § 91. 
 
 c. Eflfect of Acceptance by Carrier of Location Granted by Municipality, § 92. 
 
 d. Conditions and Agreements Construed. § 93. 
 
 e. Waiver of Right to Charge More than Amount Stipulated in Franchise, § 94. 
 f. Acquisition l)y Sale or Consolidation of a Railway Company Having a Con- 
 tract with a Municipality. § 95. 
 
 VII. Preferences and Discriminations. §§ 96-108. 
 
 A. The Common-Law Doctrine, § 96. 
 
 B. Standard Measure of Uniformity in Rates, § 97. 
 
 C. Power to Prohibit Preferences and Discriminations, § 98. 
 
 D. Power of Legislature to Permit Discrimination, § 99. 
 
 E. Construction of Constitutional and Statutory Enactments and Commission 
 
 Orders Forbidding Preferences or Discriminations, § 100. 
 
 F. Who Are Common Carriers within the Rule Prohibiting Discrimination. § 101. 
 
 G. What Constitutes an Unlawful Preference or Discrimination. § 102. 
 H. What Circumstances Will Justify Discrimination, §§ lO.'i-lOB. 
 
 a. Business of Carrier Unusually or Unexpectedly Heavy, § 103. 
 
 b. Difference in Conditions under Which Shipment Is Made, § 104. 
 
 c. Tlirough Rates and Local Rates, § 105. 
 
 d. Competition with Other Carriers. § 106. 
 
 e. Unusual Traffic Conditions Attending upon a General Coal Strike. § 107. 
 
 f. Cost of Mining Coal to Company in Whose Favor Discrimination Is Made. 
 
 § 108. 
 
 VIU. Places of Stoppage. § 109. 
 
 IX. Receipt and Transportation of Freight and Passengers. § 110. 
 
 X. Exclusive Privileges, §§ 111-114. 
 
 A. To Express Companies, § 111. 
 
 B. To Corporations or Individuals Engaged in Transporting Passengers and 
 
 Baggage to and from Railroad Depots. § 112. 
 
 C. To Ships Using a Wharf of Dock Constructed by a Railroad Company. § 113. 
 
 D. To the Use of a Switch Track. § 114. 
 
 XL Connections with and Facilities to Other Carriers. §§ 115-129. 
 
 A. In General, § 115. 
 
 B. Joint Running Arrangements, § 116. 
 
 C. Connection between Roads or Trains. §§ 117-118. 
 
 a. Power to Require. § 117. 
 
 b. Character of Requirements, § 118. 
 
 D. Use of Terminals. § 119. 
 
 E. Reception. Transportation and Delivery of Cars. Passengers and Freight, §§ 
 
 120-123. 
 
 a. Rule at Common Law, § 120. 
 
 b. Power to Require, § 121. 
 
 c. Construction of Requirements. § 122. 
 
 d. Excuses for Refusal or Neglect to Perform Duty. § 123. 
 
 F. Moving or Switching Cars fr-om a Connecting Line, § 124. 
 
 G. Facilities and Accommodations to Be Furnished by Railroad Companies to 
 
 Express Companies, § 125. 
 H. Discrimination in Favor of One of Several Connecting Carriers, §§ 126-128. 
 a. Duty to Give Like Through Rates to All Connecting Carriers. § 126.
 
 CARRIERS. 16 
 
 b. Discrimination as to Interchange of Business, § 127. 
 
 c. Discrimination as to Prepayment of Freight Charges. § 128. 
 I. Transfers between Street Railroad Companies, § 129. 
 
 XII. Use of Carrier's Premises and of S'treet or Premises Adjacent Thereto, §§ 
 130-132. 
 
 A. Exclusion of Persons in General, § 130. 
 
 B. Regulations for Conduct of Persons, § 131. 
 
 C. Rights of and Restrictions upon Individuals or Corporations Engaged in 
 
 Transporting Passengers or Baggage, § 132. 
 
 XIII. Free Transportation to Police Officers, § 133. 
 XI\'. Combinations of Carriers. § 134. 
 
 X\'. Proceedings to Enforce or to Prevent Enforcement of Regulations, §§ 135-173. 
 
 A. Right of State to Insist on Compliance with Regulations, § 135. 
 
 B. Judicial Supervision and Remedies in General, §§ 136-159. 
 
 a. Scope of Judicial Supervision, §§ 136-137. 
 
 (1) In General, § 136. 
 
 (2) As to Rates, § 137. 
 
 b. Right to and Mode of Obtaining Relief, §§ 138-141. 
 
 (1) In General, § 138. 
 
 (2) Relief against Unreasonable Rates, §§ 139-141. 
 
 (a) Relief to Carrier, §§ 139-140. 
 
 aa. Rates Fixed by Legislature, § 139. 
 bb. Rates Fixed by Commission, § 140. 
 
 (b) Relief to Public, § 141. 
 
 c. Scope of Inquiry, § 142. 
 
 d. What Commission Orders Will Be Enforced, § 143. 
 
 e. Revival of Causes of Action, § 144. 
 
 f. Procedure and Evidence, §§ 145-159. 
 
 (1) Procedure in General, § 145. 
 
 (2) Jurisdiction, § 146. 
 
 (3) Parties, §§ 147-148. 
 
 (a) By Whom Suit May Be Brought. § 147. 
 
 (b) Who Are Proper Parties, § 148. 
 
 (4) Intervention, § 149. 
 
 (5) Pleading, §§ 150-152. 
 
 (a) Petition, § 150. 
 
 (b) Demurrer, § 151. 
 
 (c) When Pleadings Make the Taking of Testimony Unnecessary, § 152. 
 
 (6) Evidence, §§ 153-157. 
 
 (a) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 153-156. 
 aa. In General, § 153. 
 
 bb. As to Rates, §§ 154-155. 
 
 (aa) Rule Stated, § 154. 
 
 (bb) How Presumption May Be Overcome, § 155. 
 cc. In Proceedings against a Carrier for Contempt, § 156. 
 
 (b) Admissibility, § 157. 
 
 (7) Judgment, § 158. 
 
 (8) Procedure upon Review of Orders or Decisions of a Commission, § 159. 
 
 C. Injunction, §§ 160-173. 
 
 a. When and against Whom Injunction Will Lie, §§ 160-166. 
 
 (1) Injunction against Action by a State Commission, § 160. 
 
 (2) Injunction to Restrain W'rongful and Discriminatory Acts by a Carrier, 
 
 § 161. 
 
 (3) Injunction to Restrain a Carrier from Charging Unlawful Rates, § 162.
 
 17 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 (4) Injunction to Compel Transportation at Rate Fixed by Law, § 163. 
 
 (0) Injunction to Compel Carrier to Furnish Impartial Service, § 164. 
 
 (6) Injunction to Compel Carrier to Stand Cars in Front of a Shipper's 
 
 Property, § 165. 
 
 (7) Injunction to Restrain Persons from Soliciting Business in or Near a 
 
 Railroad Station, § 166. 
 b. Procedure and Evidence, §§ 167-173. 
 
 (1) Jurisdiction, § 167. 
 
 (2) Parties, § 168. 
 
 (3) Pleading — Petition, Complaint, or Information, § 169. 
 
 (4) Evidence — Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 170. 
 
 (5) Reference to a Master, § 171. 
 
 (6) Laches, § 172. 
 
 (7) Decree, § 173. 
 
 XVI. Damages for Violations of Regulations, §§ 174-180. 
 
 A. Power of Legislature, § 174. 
 
 B. When an Action Will Lie, §§ 175-177. 
 
 a. In General, § 175. 
 
 b. Failure to Stop at S'tation. § 176. 
 
 c. Overcharge or Discrimination, § 177. 
 
 C. Measure of Damages, § 178. 
 
 D. Limitation of Actions, § 179. 
 
 E. Petition or Complaint, § 180. 
 
 XVII. Penalties for \iolations of Regulations, §§ 181-275. 
 
 A. In General, § 181. 
 
 B. Overcharge and Discrimination, §§ 182-196. 
 
 a. Power to Impose Penalty, § 182. 
 
 b. Construction of Statutes Imposing Penalties, ^ 183. 
 
 c. Repeal of Statutes Imposing Penalties, § 184. 
 
 d. Conditions Precedent to Right of Action for Penalty, § 185. 
 
 e. Who May Recover Penalty, § 186. 
 
 f. For What Acts Penalty Is Imposed, § 187. 
 
 g. Unit of Measurement in Determining What Is an Overcharge, § 188. 
 h. Xumber of Penalties Recoverable. § 189. 
 
 i. Amount of Penalty. § 190. 
 
 j. What Questions May Be Raised in Action for Penalty, § 191. 
 k. Defenses, §§ 192-195. 
 
 (1) Rates Charged Xo Higher than Those Fixed by Railroad Commission, 
 
 § 192. 
 
 (2) Mistake, § 193. 
 
 (3) Facts Xot Constituting a Defense, § 194. 
 
 (4) Estoppel to Set Up Defense, § 195. 
 
 1. Two Penalties — Eflfect of Enforcement of One, § 196. 
 
 C. Refusal to Transport Passengers, § 197. 
 
 D. Refusal to Sell Mileage Tickets at Reduced Rates, § 198. 
 
 E. Refusal to Furnish Passenger Tickets Granting Stop-Over Privileges, § 199. 
 
 F. Refusal to Give a Transfer, § 200. 
 
 G. Refusal to Sell Passenger Tickets of a Connecting Carrier, § 201. 
 
 H. Failure to Affix Check to Baggage and to Deliver Duplicate to Passenger, 
 
 § 202. 
 I. Refusal to Redeem L'nused Passenger Tickets, § 203. 
 J. Failure to Post Schedules of Rates, § 204. 
 K. Failure or Refusal to Receive or Transport Freight, §§ 205-210. 
 
 1 Car— 2
 
 CARRIERS. 18 
 
 a. Statute Imposing Penalty Does Not Limit Carrier's Common-Law Liability. 
 
 § 205. 
 
 b. \\"l;o May Recover Penalty, § 20G. 
 
 c. When Penalty Will Be Imposed, § 207. 
 
 d. Number of Penalties Recoverable, § 208. 
 
 e. Tender and Refusal, § 209. 
 
 f. Defenses, § 210. 
 
 L. Refusal to Give Shipper a Proper Bill of Lading. § 211. 
 M. Delay in Shipment or Transportation of Freight, §§ 212-220. 
 a Power to Impose Penalt3% § 212. 
 
 b. Who May Recover Penalty, § 213. 
 
 c. In What Cases Penalty Is Imposed, § 214. 
 
 d. Time within Which Freight Must Be Transported, § 215. 
 
 e. \\"hen Transportation Terminates, § 21G. 
 
 f. Defenses, §§ 217-220. 
 
 (1) Failure to Prepay Charges, § 217. 
 
 (2) Notice to Shippers of Conditions Causing Delay, § 218. 
 
 (3) Sunday Laws, § 219. 
 
 (4) Estoppel to Set Up Defense, § 220. 
 
 N. Failure to Give Notice of Arrival of Freight to Consignee, § 221. 
 
 O. Refusal to Deliver Freight or Express Matter to Consignee, §§ 222-226. 
 
 a. Constitutionality of Statute Imposing Penalty, § 222. 
 
 b. Statute Imposing Penalty Not Merely in Aid of Common Law, § 223. 
 
 c. Where Delivery Must Be Made, § 224. 
 
 d. Conditions Precedent to Recovery of Penalty, § 225. 
 
 e. Number of Penalties Recoverable, § 226. 
 
 P. Failure of Consignee to LTnload Cars within a Prescriljed Time, § 227. 
 
 Q. Failure to Stop at Station, § 228. 
 
 R. Failure to Furnish or Delay in Furnishing Cars, §§ 229-234. 
 
 a. Constitutionality of Statutes Imposing Penalties, § 229. 
 
 b. Statutes Imposing Penalties Strictly Construed, § 230. 
 
 c. Powers and Duties of Railroad Commissions, § 231. 
 
 d. Application for Cars, § 232. 
 
 e. Places at Which Cars Must Be Furnished, § 233. 
 
 f. Defenses, § 234. 
 
 S. Failure to Pay or Adjust Claims, §§ 235-247. 
 
 a. Power to Impose Penalty, § 235. 
 
 b. Existence of Statutory Conditions Essential to Imposition of Penalty, § 23b, 
 
 c. Who May Recover Penalty, § 237. 
 
 d. Where and When Cause of Action Arises, § 238. 
 
 e. Necessity of Filing Claim, and with Whom It May Be Filed, § 239. 
 
 f. Sufficiency of Claim, § 240. 
 
 g. Place of Payment of Claim, § 241. 
 h. Who Is Liable for Penalty, § 242. 
 
 i. Immaterial in What Manner Loss Was Caused, § 243. 
 j. Amount of Penalty, § 244. 
 k. What One Claiming Penalty Must Show, § 245. 
 1. Defenses, §§ 246-247. 
 
 (1) Amount Recoverable by Claimant as Affecting Right to Penalty, § 246, 
 
 (2) Efifect of Voluntary Payment of Claim after Time Limited, § 247. 
 T. Failure to Make Annual Reports, § 248. 
 
 U. Procedure and Evidence, §§ 249-275. 
 
 a. Venue, § 249. 
 
 b. Time within Which Action Must Be Brought, § 250. 
 
 c. Parties — By Whom Action May Be Brought, § 251. 
 
 d. Pleading, §§ 252-263.
 
 19 CONTROL AND KIXULATION. 
 
 (1) Declaration, Petition, or Complaint, §§ 2.J2-259. 
 
 (a) In General, § 252. 
 
 (b) Necessary Allegations, §§ 25;{-258. 
 
 aa. In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, §§ 2o;i-254. 
 
 (aa) Overcharge in Passenger Rates, § 253, 
 
 (hb) Overcharge in Freight Rates, § 254. 
 l,b. In actions for Penalty for Unjust Discrimination between Shippers, 
 
 § 255. 
 cc. In Actions for Penalty for Refusal to Receive or Tran-port Freight, 
 
 § 3.")f). 
 (Id. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight, § 257. 
 ce. In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Double Decked Cars 
 
 for Sheep, § 258. 
 
 (c) Unnecessary Allegations May Be Rejected as Surplusage, § 259. 
 
 (2) Answer— S'ufficiency, §§ 260-263. 
 
 (a) In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, § 260. 
 
 (b) In Actions for Penalty for Unlawful Discrimination in Rates, § 261. 
 
 (c) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight, § 262. 
 
 (d) in Actions for Penalty for Failure to. Furnish Cars, § 263. 
 
 e. Evidence, §§ 264-272. 
 
 (1) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 264-267. 
 
 (a) In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, § 264. 
 
 (b) In Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Rates, § 265. 
 
 (c) In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Receive and Transport Freight, 
 
 § 266. 
 
 (d) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight, § 267. 
 
 (2) Admissibility, §§ 268-271. 
 
 (a) In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge, § 268. 
 
 (b) In Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Rates, § 269. 
 
 (c) In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. § 270. 
 
 (d) In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Cars, § 271. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency, § 272. 
 
 f. Questions of Law and Fact, §§ 273-274. 
 
 (1) In .Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Freight Rates, § 273. 
 
 (2) In .\ctions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. § 274. 
 
 g. Instructions, § 275. 
 
 XVIII. Offenses by Carriers or Their .Agents, §§ 276-292. 
 
 A. In General, § 276. 
 
 B. Overcharge or Discrimination. § 277. 
 
 C. Carrying More than a Prescribed Number of Passengers, § 278. 
 
 D. Failure to Deliver Express Matter to Consignee. § 279. 
 
 E. Negligence Causing Death or Injury, §§ 280-282. 
 
 a. In General, § 280. 
 
 b. Who May Be Prosecuted, § 281. 
 
 c. Defenses, § 282. 
 
 F. Indictment, §§ 283-286. 
 
 a. Conditions Precedent to Indictment, § 283. 
 
 b. Necessary .Allegations, § 284. 
 
 c. Effect of Unnecessary Allegations, § 285. 
 
 d. Offenses Covered l)y Indictment. § 286. 
 
 G. Trial, §§ 287-292. 
 
 a. Jurisdiction, § 287. 
 
 b. Evidence, §§ 288-290. 
 
 (1) Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 288. 
 
 (2) Admissil)ility, § 289.
 
 SS 19-20 CARRIERS. 20 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficiency, § 290. 
 
 c. Questions of Law and Fact, § 291. 
 
 d. Charge, § 292. ^, . ^ sr 
 XIX. Offenses by Persons Dealing with Carriers or Using Their Conveyances, $?^ 
 
 293-298. 
 
 A. In General, § 293. 
 
 B. Sale of Passenger Tickets by Brokers, § 294. 
 
 C. Acceptance and Use of a Pass, § 295. 
 
 D. Stealing or Attempting to Steal a Ride on Railroad Trains, § 296. 
 
 E. Obstructing Train and Endangering Safety of Passengers, § 297. 
 
 F. Indictment. Accusation, or Complaint, § 298. 
 
 §8 19-24. Power to Control and Regulate in General— § 19. Car- 
 riers in General.— The Legislature has full power to pass laws regulatmg the 
 intra'^tate business of carriers ; and, where not unconstitutional, the laws should 
 be en forced. 1 Under the power accorded by constitutional enactment to regu- 
 late intrastate transportation, the legislature has authority to do anything nec- 
 essary to the effectual exercise of the power conferred.2 Such enactment should 
 not be interpreted so as to render impotent or inoperative, but so as to pre- 
 serve and make effective, the sovereign power of the state to regulate common 
 carriers.3 A constitutional provision giving the legislature full power to cor- 
 rect abuses and prevent unjust discrimination by common carriers, is not a 
 grant of power to the legislature, nor is it a limitation upon the power of the 
 legislature, but an express recognition by the constitution of a power existing 
 in the legislative department of government.-** 
 
 § 20. Railroad Companies. — Railroad companies are common carriers, re- 
 ceiving from the state a delegation of a portion of its sovereign powers for the 
 public good; and being public agents and, in the place and stead of the govern- 
 ment, exercising public duties, they are, therefore, .subject to the legislative and 
 judicial authoritv to correct the abuse of their privileges and powers.^ Within 
 the limits of state and federal constitutional restrictions, they may be required 
 by law to refrain from so using their property as to injure others, and by ap- 
 propriate pains and penalties may be restrained from unjust discrimination and 
 extortionate charges, compelled to observe precautionary measures against acci- 
 dent, and in other ways regulated for the public welfare.'- The State may, by stat- 
 ute, require railroads to perform certain duties to the public and furnish proper 
 and adequate facilities for the transportation of freight and passengers intra- 
 state.' The police power is a fruitful source of legislative regulations of rail- 
 roads for tlie public benefit. « A j^olice regulation of a reasonable and proper 
 
 1. Power of legislature to regulate in- 6. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 trastate business of carriers.— King Lum- Comm., 19 Fed. 679; Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 ber, etc., Co. v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 58 Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 30 O. St. 
 Fla 292, 50 So. 509. See, also, Chicago, 604, affirmed in Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 
 etc., R. Co. V. Ledbctter (Ark.), 153 S. W. v. Troy, 68 O. St. 510, 67 N. E. 1051. 
 801 7. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. State, 99 
 
 2. State V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 Fla. Ark. 1. 136 S. W. 938. 
 
 617, 47 So. 969, construing Const, art. 16, 8. Prohibiting sale of tickets by per- 
 
 § 30. sons not agents of carrier. — The New 
 
 3. State V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 Fla. York statute, Laws 1897, c. 506, § 1, pro- 
 617, 47 So. 969, construing Const., art. 16, hibiting the sale of passenger tickets by 
 § 30. persons not agents of the carrier, is not 
 
 4. Railroad Comm'rs v. Florida, etc., R. valid as a police regulation of carriers as 
 Co 57 Fla. 522, 49 So. 43, construing quasi public corporations. Order 50 N. 
 Const., art. 16, § 30. Y. S. 56, 26 App. Diy. 228 reversed. 
 
 5 Power to control and regulate rail- Tyroler z'. Warden of City Prison, 157 
 
 road companies.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006, 43 L. R. A. 264, 
 
 V. Railroad Comm., 19 Fed. 679; Scofield 68 Am. St. Rep. 763. 
 
 V. Railway Co., 43 O. St. 571, 3 N. E. 907. Nor is such act valid as a police regu-
 
 21 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION, 
 
 § 20 
 
 character can not be attacked on the ground that it imposes unnecessary burdens 
 on the railroads affected by it." An act regulating carriers as to the mode of 
 transportation of the state militia is not an unlawful interference with the car- 
 rier's management of its business. "^ In many of the states the power of the 
 legislature to regulate and control railroad companies is defined and limited by 
 constitutional enactment.' ^ The fact that the legislature has power to repeal 
 the charter, and thus terminate the legal existence of a railroad company, does 
 not validate an act wiiich is neither necessary nor appropriate to carry into ex- 
 ecution any valid power of the state over the conduct of the business of the 
 
 lation of the manner in which the busi- 
 ness of ticket tirokerage may be con- 
 ducted. Order 50 N. Y. S. ofi, 2(> App. 
 Div. 228. reversed. Tyroler v. Warden of 
 City Prison, 157 N. Y. IIG, 51 N. E. lOOG, 
 43 L. R. A. 2f)4, G8 Am. St. Rep. TG.'L 
 
 The sale of a valid passenger ticket by 
 a broker is not a fraud, on either the 
 transportation company or the traveler, 
 calling for protective legislation in the 
 exercise of the police power, as attempted 
 by Laws 1897, c. 50G. Order 50 N. Y. S. 
 5G, 2G App. Div. 228, reversed. Tyroler v. 
 Warden of City Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 51 
 N. E. lOOG, 43 L. R. A. 204, G8 Am. St. 
 Rep. 7G3. 
 
 But in Tennessee, it has been held that 
 Acts 1905, p. H7;5, c. 410, prohibiting per- 
 sons other than the authorized agent of 
 common carriers to sell or deal in pas- 
 senger tickets issued and sold below the 
 standard schedule rate under contract 
 with the original purchaser, entered on 
 the ticket to the cflfect that tlie ticket was 
 nontransferable and should be void in the 
 hands of a person other than the original 
 purchaser, was a valid exercise of the 
 state's police power to prevent fraud and 
 the depreciation of public morals. Sam- 
 uelson V. State, 116 Tenn. 470. 95 S. W. 
 1012, 115 Am. St. Rep. 805. 
 
 Disposition of property not called for 
 by consignee. — The proviso in the Minne- 
 sota statute, § 11, c. 149, Gen. Laws 1895, 
 requiring railroads and transportation 
 companies to turn over to a storage com- 
 pany or pulilic warehouseman all prop- 
 erty which the consignee fails to call for 
 or receive within 30 days after notice of 
 its arrival, is unconstitutional and void, 
 not being a lawful exercise of the police 
 power of the state. State v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 68 Minn. 381, 71 N. W. 400, 38 L. 
 R. A. 672, 64 Am. St. Rep. 482. 
 
 9. Reasonable police regulation not in- 
 valid on ground that it imposes unneces- 
 sary burdens. — Smith -r. State, 100 Tenn. 
 494. 4(; S. W. 566, 41 L. R. .•\. 432. 
 
 10. Regulation of mode of transporta- 
 tion of state militia. — Simpson t'. Ciiicago, 
 etc., R. Co.. i;!7 X. W. 2. lis Minn. 380, 
 137 N. W. 2. 41 L. R. A., X. S.. 524. 
 
 11. Constitutional provisions defining 
 and limiting power of legislature. — In 
 Iowa, the legislature has power to pro- 
 hibit the giving of free passes by common 
 
 carriers for tlie general welfare, lience 
 .'\cts 32d Gen. Assem., c. 112 (Code Supp. 
 1907, §§ 2157f-2157j), forbidding the giv- 
 ing of free passes except to certain em- 
 ployees, is constitutional. Schulz v. 
 Parker (Iowa), 139 X. W. 173. 
 
 The Nebraska Constitution, art. 11, § 4, 
 providing that the liability of railroads as 
 common carriers shall not be limited, 
 does not prohibit the legislature from in- 
 creasing the common-law liability of com- 
 mon carriers, and the statute will not be 
 declared void on complaint of the carrier 
 because in some hypothetical case the law 
 might work to the disadvantage of a ship- 
 per. Cram r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 
 Xeb. G07, 122 X. W. 31. 
 
 The constitution of Texas, art. 10, § 2, 
 confers power upon the legislature to pass 
 laws for the correction of all abuses of 
 railroad franchises and business trans- 
 acted in pursuance thereof, to regulate 
 freight and passenger tariffs, and prevent 
 unjust discrimination and extortion. Rail- 
 TDad Comm. :■. Houston, etc.. R. Co., 90 
 Tex. 340, 351, 38 S. W. 750. See Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Harry & Bros., 63 Tex. 250, 
 259. 
 
 Under this provision it rests with the 
 legislature to determine what constitute 
 abuses and to fix penalties for their pun- 
 ishment. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harry 
 & Bros., 63 Tex. 256, 259. 
 
 The power to correct abuses is not re- 
 stricted to such as are connected with 
 freight and passenger tariffs. Railroad 
 Comm. V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 
 340. 38 S. W. 750. 
 
 The word "abuses" as used in this 
 amendment means "any improper use of 
 a right or a privilege; as, abuse of a fran- 
 chise." The language "the Legislature 
 shall pass laws to correct abuses" is com- 
 petent to express a command to the leg- 
 islative department to pass laws for the 
 correction of all alnises or improper uses 
 of the franchises which had been granted 
 or might be granted to railroads in this 
 state, as well as all abuses connected with 
 or growing out of Inisiness transacted in 
 the exercise of such franchise. Railroad 
 Comm. 7'. Houston, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 
 340, 351. .38 S. W. 750. 
 
 It was left to the legislature's discretion 
 to decide whether the abuse to be cor- 
 rected should be declared a crime and
 
 §§ 20-24 CARRIERS. 22 
 
 railroad company. i- The internal movement of freight is not freed from state 
 control until after it has been finally released by the consignor to the carrier 
 for transportation to a destination fixed beyond the state line, and such control 
 is not lost until after the freight has been billed to its destination. ^^ Xhe sur- 
 render by a railway company of its special charter, to accept a general railroad 
 law, before the state has made any attempt to regulate its tolls, frees the com- 
 pany from all liability to the state under a charter provision that when declared 
 dividends shall aggregate a specified amount the legislature '"may so regulate" 
 the tolls that not more than a fixed percentage shall be divided annually on the 
 capital employed, and the surplus profits shall be paid over to the state treasurer, 
 and that, "if required," the corporation shall furnish the legislature a statement 
 of expenditures : and such liability, therefore, can not be enforced by virtue of 
 subsequent legislation, without impairing the rights of the railroad company 
 under the federal constitution. i-* 
 
 § 21. Express Companies. — Express companies operating over railroads 
 exercising a public franchise in the state are equally subject to state control 
 and regulation with the railroad companies over whose lines they operate wdthin 
 the limited field of business which they occupy. ^^ A carrier by express is sub- 
 ject to legislative control though not organized as a corporation. ^^^ 
 
 §§ 22-24. Delegation of Power — § 22. In General. — The legislature of 
 a state cannot delegate the power to determine the form of the contracts wdiich 
 common carriers of persons or merchandise must make concerning transporta- 
 tion to private persons or corporations.^' 
 
 § 23. To Municipal Corporations. — A municipal ordinance prohibiting per- 
 sons, unconnected with railroad trains, except passengers and other persons in 
 the act of taking passage, from getting off or on engines or cars in the city lim- 
 its, is authorized by a general charter power to pass all laws and ordinances that 
 the mimicipal authorities may consider necessary for the preservation of the 
 health, peace, prosperity and security of the citizens and which are not incon- 
 sistent with the constitution and laws of the state. ^^ 
 
 § 24. To Commissions. -^The legislature of a state may create a state rail- 
 road commission and delegate to it power to regulate railroad companies in their 
 relations with the public.^'' In some states the power to so delegate its authority 
 
 punished as such, or whether a civil in- Fargo & Co., 80 Xeb. 838, 115 N. W. 
 
 jury, and be corrected by a civil action 625. 
 
 given by statute to the person whose 16. United States Exp. Co. v. State, 
 rights had been violated, and allowing 164 Ind. 196, 73 N. E. 101. 
 him to recover a fixed sum as a penalty, 17. Power can not be delegated to pri- 
 or as exemplary damages, far in excess of vate persons or corporations. — Attorney 
 th^ actual damages suffered. Houston, General v. Old Colony R. Co.. 160 Mass. 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Harry & Bros.. 63 Tex. 256. 62, 35 N. E. 252, 22 L. R. A. 112. 
 
 12. Power to repeal charter.— Judg- jg Ordinance regulating the getting 
 ment Smith v. Lake Shore etc., R. Co, ^ ^r on engines or cars.— Bearden v. 
 114 Mich. 460, 72 N. W. 328, reversed. Ar^..HQnn ~-^ Pn isa 
 
 - , ,,, 1 Tt r^ C -iU -.~o T' .XidGlSOn, id (ja. 1^4. 
 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 1(3 L. ^ ... , j ., . ^i 
 
 S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. Ct. 565. . I.t will not be presumed that the mu- 
 
 13. When state loses control over in- '"C'pal authorities will give to such an 
 ternal movement of freight.— Larabee ordinance an unreasonable construction 
 1-lour Mills Co. r. Missouri Pac. R. Co., so as to prevent those having relatives or 
 74 Kan SOS SS Pac 7'' friends arriving or departing on trains 
 
 14. Effect 'of surrender of special char- from entering thereon to see after their 
 
 ter to accept general railroad law. — Judg- 
 
 safetv and comfort. Bearden v. Madison, 
 
 ..lent, 65 X. K. 401, 159 Ind. 438, reversed. "^ Ga. 18-r. 
 
 Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Ketcham, 194 19. Legislature may create and delegate 
 
 U. S. 579, 48 L. Ed. 1124, 24 S. Ct. 767. power to railroad commission.— Georgia 
 
 15. Control and regulation of express R. Co. i. Sinith. 70 Ga. 6'.)4: \\ ayled 
 
 companies.— State v. Pacific Exp. Co.. SO Southern R. Co. v. State, 137 Ga. 497, 73 
 
 Xeb 823. 115 X. \V. 619; State v. Wells, S. E. 741; Southern R. Co. v. Melton,
 
 23 
 
 CONTROL AND KIXUI.ATIOX. 
 
 § 24 
 
 is conferred on the legislature by the constitution. Some of these constitutional 
 provisions have been interpreted by the courts.-" A state constitution, if it sees 
 fit, may unite legislative and judicial powers in a railroad commission. There 
 is nothing in the constitution of the L'nited States which forbids such action.^^ 
 Railroad commissioners are statutory officers, and can exercise only such au- 
 thority as is conferred by law, or by fair implication as incident to that ex- 
 pressly conferred.-- The difficulty of making a specific enumeration of all the 
 powers the legislature confers on railroad commissioners for the regulation of 
 carriers renders it necessary to confer some power in general terms, and gen- 
 eral powers given are intended to confer other powers than those enumerated. ^^ 
 Railroad commissions must exercise the power delegated to them within legal and 
 constitutional Hmitations and in such a way as not to invade the legal and con- 
 stitutional rights of others.-^ Whether other subjects of transportation are 
 regulated by railroad commissioners is immaterial in considering the validity of 
 regulations of particular subjects; the validity of one legislative regulation not 
 being ati'ected by the mere failure to regulate other matters within the legisla- 
 tive power and the choice of subjects of regulation being for the legislature, 
 WMthin its powers.--^ Some of the peculiar provisions of state constitutions and 
 statutes conferring powers on railroad commissions have been interpreted by 
 
 133 Ga. 277, 65 S. E. 665; Gray v. Mc- 
 Lendon, 134 Ga. 224, 67 S. E. 859. 
 
 A state may, by statute, clothe commis- 
 sions and administrative bodies with 
 power to require railroads to perform 
 certain duties to the public and furnish 
 proper and adequate facilities for the 
 transportation of freight and passengers 
 intrastate. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. State, 
 'jy Ark. 1, 13() S. W. 938. 
 
 20. The constitution of Arkansas, 
 Amend. 4, authorizing llic creation of the 
 railroad commission, is not a limitation 
 of the authority that may be vested in it 
 for effecting all the purposes for which it 
 was designed. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State, 99 .Ark. 1, 136 S. W. 938. 
 
 In Colorado, the general assembly had 
 power, under the constitution, to create 
 the state railroad commission, and to au- 
 thorize it to regulate and control the 
 service of common carriers and the rates 
 charged for such service. Consumers' 
 League v. Colorado, etc., R. Co., 53 Colo. 
 54, 125 Pac. 577. 
 
 The Constitution of Washington, art. 
 12, § 18, providing tliat a railroad and 
 transportation commission may be estab- 
 lished, and its powers and duties fully de- 
 lined by law, is merely declaratory of the 
 power of state regulation. Great North- 
 ern R. Co. z: Railroad Comm., 52 Wash.. 
 33, 100 Pac. 184. 
 
 21. Power to unite legislative and ju- 
 dicial authority in commission. Prentis 
 V. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 
 53 L. Ed. 150, 29 S. Ct. 67; Dreyer v. Il- 
 linois, 187 U. S. 71, 84, 47 L. Ed. 79, 23 S. 
 Ct. 28; Winchester, etc., R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth. 10i"> \a. 264, 55 S. E. 174. 
 
 22. Commissioners can exercise only 
 authority conferred. — Railroad Comm'rs 
 ;. Louisville, ore. R. Co., 57 Fla. 526, 49 
 
 So. 39; State r. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 
 Fla. 617, 47 So. 9i'.'.). 
 
 23. General powers confer other pow- 
 ers than those enumerated. — Railroad 
 Comm'rs v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 61 Fla. 
 799, 54 So. 900. 
 
 24. How commission must exercise 
 power. — Georgia R. Co. r. Smith, 70 Ga. 
 694. 
 
 A state corporation commission has no 
 authority to make any rule or regulation 
 in conflict with the federal constitution. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 
 102 \a. 599, 46 S. E. 911. 
 
 A state railroad commission, in pre- 
 scribing a system of bookkeeping lor in- 
 trastate business, does not conflict with 
 the act of congress (.Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 
 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 
 1901, p. 3169]) forbidding railroads to 
 keep any other accounts than those re- 
 quired by the interstate commerce com- 
 mission. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm. (Tex.), 150 S. W. 878, reversing 
 iudgment Railroad Comm. v. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 140 S. W. 829. 
 
 While the Georgia statute, act of Oc- 
 tober 14, 1879, creating the railroad com- 
 mission, is constitutional and the orders 
 of the commissioners in pursuance of the 
 authority there conferred, are valid and 
 binding, their powers are not unlimited 
 or bevond legal control by the proper au- 
 thorit'ies of the state. In case their or- 
 ders violate the chartered rights of the 
 companv. such violation will be restrained 
 and enjoined bv proper order and decree. 
 Georgia R. Co. z: Smith. 70 Ga. 694. 
 
 25. Whether other subjects of trans- 
 portation are regulated immaterial in con- 
 sidering regulation of particular subjects. 
 
 Florida R. CommVs z. Atlaiuic. eic, R. 
 
 Co., 60 Fla. 218, 53 So. 601.
 
 § ^^ 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 24 
 
 the courts.26 The South Dakota statute -' regulating common carriers, apphes 
 to express companies doing business within tlie state, whether incorporated or 
 
 26. The Constitution of Oklahoma, 
 art. 9, § 18 (1), gives the corporation 
 commiss^ion authority to supervise, fegu- 
 late, and control railroad companies in all 
 matters relative to the performance of 
 their public duties and their charges 
 therefor, and to prevent unjust discrimi- 
 nation. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Filson 
 (Okla.), 128 Pac. 298. 
 
 Power to correct abuses irrespective of 
 their connection with subject of tariffs. — 
 The Texas statute, Rev. vSt., art. 45G2, vest- 
 ing in the railroad commission power to 
 regulate freight and passenger tariffs, to 
 correct abuses, and to prevent unjust dis- 
 crimination and extortion in rates; and 
 art. 4579, making it the duty of the com- 
 mission to investigate complaints against 
 railroad companies and to enforce all laws 
 in reference to railroads— are an express 
 delegation to the commission of power to 
 correct abuses defined by the laws regu- 
 lating railroads, irrespective of their con- 
 nection with the subject of tariffs. Rail- 
 road Comm. V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 90 
 Tex. 340, 38 S. W. 750. 
 
 Power to see that proper service is ren- 
 dered. — The constitution of Louisiana, art. 
 284, which authorizes the state railroad 
 commission to govern and regulate rail- 
 road freight and passenger tariffs and 
 service, merely gives the commission 
 power to see that proper service is ren- 
 dered, and does not transfer from the leg- 
 islature to the commission legislative 
 powers. Whitehurst v. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co., 131 La. 139, 59 So. 42. 
 
 Quality and reasonableness of intrastate 
 service and compensation therefor — Mich- 
 igan statute. — Questions relating to the 
 quality and reasonableness of intrastate 
 service and compensation therefor are 
 primarily addressed to the railroad com- 
 mission under Michigan Railroad Coin- 
 mission Act (Pub. Acts 1909, No. 300, as 
 amended by Pub. Acts 1911, No. 139), 
 subject to review by the state courts. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Michigan R. 
 Comm., 198 Fed. 1009. 
 
 A telephone is a facility and conveni- 
 ence within the constitution of Oklahoma, 
 art. 9, § 18 (Bunn's Ed., § 222; Snyder's 
 Ed., p. 238), empowering the corporation 
 commission to require carriers to estab- 
 lish and maintain all such public service 
 "facilities and conveniences" as may be 
 reasonable and just. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. V. State, 23 Okla. 210, 100 Pac. 11. 
 
 An order of the corporation commis- 
 sion requiring a carrier to install a tele- 
 phone in its station in a town will not 
 be disturbed where it appears thata tele- 
 phone exchange is operated in the 
 town, also that there is an exchange in an 
 inland town of about three hundred popu- 
 
 lation, and that the two towns are con- 
 nected with a toll line, with free service 
 to the subscribers of each exchange, and 
 that such inland town receives all its 
 freight by way of the station, and that 
 the telephone would be of great conven- 
 ience to the patrons of the station. Atchi- 
 son, etc., R. Co. V. State, 23 Okla. 210, 
 100 Pac. 11. 
 
 Regulations as to passenger tickets^ 
 New Jersey statute. — An order by the 
 Board of Public Utility Commissioners 
 requiring tickets for intrastate commu- 
 tation service, showing both termini and 
 the same as to special intrastate rates, 
 was within the jurisdiction of the Board 
 under the New Jersey Public Utility Law 
 (P. L. 1911, p. 374), if its determination 
 as to the existence of regulations and 
 practices that are unjust and unreasonable 
 and the subjection of persons and locali- 
 ties to prejudice and disadvantage is sus- 
 tained by proof. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Board, 83 N. J. L. 67, 83 Atl. 945. 
 
 An order of the Board of Public Utility 
 Commissioners requiring tickets showing 
 both termini for intrastate commutation 
 service or where special rates are granted 
 is within the jurisdiction of the board 
 where the companies refuse to sell or 
 quote rates for the commutation or spe- 
 cial rate tickets, except school tickets, to 
 intrastate passengers to their termini, and 
 require the passenger to take tickets read- 
 ing to and from New York City. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. V. Board, 83 N. J. L. 67, 
 83 Atl. 945. 
 
 Reciprocal demurrage, bills of lading, 
 and penalty for delay in shipment. — The 
 Mississippi statute, Ann. Code Miss. 1892, 
 § 4291, provided that the railroad com- 
 mission might fix all charges and super- 
 vise and regulate all persons, etc., who 
 may own or operate express, telegraph, 
 telephone, or sleeping car companies. 
 Acts 1898, p. 97, c. 82, provided that all 
 laws, acts, and parts of acts giving au- 
 thority to the railroad commission to su- 
 pervise common carriers shall also apply 
 to car service associations or other asso- 
 ciations governing or controlling cars or 
 rolling stock and railroads at whatever 
 place they do business in the state, and 
 the same penalty fixed by law for dis- 
 obeying the mandates or orders of the 
 railroad commission shall apply to the 
 car service associations, as well as as- 
 sociations of other characters. The pro- 
 visions of the act of 1898 were incor- 
 porated in Code 1906, § 4843, as _to_ the 
 supervision of car service associations. 
 Held, that the railroad commission had 
 power to make rules as to reciprocal de- 
 murrage, and to make rule 10, adopted 
 
 27. Rev. Pol. Code, 1903, c. 7.
 
 25 
 
 CONTROL AND KKGLLATION. 
 
 § 24 
 
 not, and subjects them to the regulation and control of the state board of rail- 
 road commissioners.-"' 
 
 June 8, 1904, and effective June 18, 1904, 
 providing that, when cars are properly 
 loaded and shipping instructions given, 
 the railroad agent must immediately issue 
 bills of lading therefor, and that if a car 
 or cars are detained or held, and not car- 
 ried within twenty-four hours thereafter, 
 the railroad shall be liable to the shipper 
 for the payment of $1 for each day or a 
 fraction of a day that the car or cars are 
 thus detained or held. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Keystone Lumber Co. (Miss.), 43 So. 
 G05. 
 
 Time of shipment and transit and pen- 
 alties. — The North Carolina statute. Laws 
 1903, p. 999, c. 590, § 3, providing that it 
 shall be unlawful for any lailroad com- 
 pany to omit to transport any goods re- 
 ceived by it for shipment for a longer 
 period than four days after receipt 
 thereof, unless otherwise agreed on be- 
 tween the parties, or unless the same be 
 destroj-ed, or to allow any such goods to 
 remain at any intermediate point more 
 than forty-eight hours, unless otherwise 
 provided by the corporation commission, 
 confers power on the commission to fix 
 the time allowed as free time for inter- 
 mediate points, and to make regulations 
 as to the time of transit, but not to change 
 the time allowed as free time at the point 
 of shipment, nor to alter the penalties. 
 Summers v. Southern R. Co., 138 X. C. 
 29."). .50 S. E. 714. 
 
 Shipment of cotton. — Under the Texas 
 statute, Rev. vSt., art. 4574, declaring it to 
 be an unjust discrimination for any rail- 
 road to give undue or unreasonable pref- 
 erence or advantage to any particular per- 
 son or localitx', or subject any particular 
 description of trat^c to anj- undue or un- 
 reasonable prejudice, delay or disadvan- 
 tage; and art. 45t)2, empowering the rail- 
 road commission to correct al)uses — it is 
 competent for such commission to pre- 
 scribe regulations governing the shipment 
 of cotton and the compressing of cotton 
 in transit. Railroad Comm. z'. Houston, 
 etc., R. Co.. 90 Tex. 340, 38 S. W. 750. 
 
 System of bookkeeping. — Lender the 
 Texas statute. Rev. Si. Ih95, art. 4571 
 (Rev. Civ. St. 1911, art. 6GG7), the state 
 railroad commission can not require an 
 arl)itrar3' division of expenses between 
 freight and passenger traffic, but in pre- 
 scribing a system of bookkeeping can 
 only require the recording of facts. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. Railroad Comm. 
 (Tex.), 150 S. W. S7S. 
 
 Notice and opportunity for hearing. — 
 The Georgia statute. § of the Railroad 
 Commission Act of 1907 (Civil Code 
 (1910), § 2()r)3) contemplates that notice 
 and an opportunity of a hearing be given 
 to persons, railroads, or other corpora- 
 tions interested in the orders issued by 
 
 the commission, and that provision may 
 be made for such notice either by statute 
 or rule of the commission. This section 
 is to be construed to mean that the com- 
 mission shall not issue a special order in 
 a particular case, directed to a person or 
 corporation, without first giving notice 
 and an opportunity for hearing to the 
 person or corporation so to be affected 
 thereby. Wadley Southern R. Co. v. 
 Stale, 137 Ga. 497, 73 S. I',. 741. 
 
 Time when liability as carrier ends.^ 
 The South Carolina statute. Civ. Code 
 1902, § 2094, giving a railroad commission 
 power to prescribe rates for storage of 
 freight, and fixing the time after" its ar- 
 rival when storage charges shall begin, 
 does not delegate to the commission the 
 power to fix the time when the liability 
 of the carrier ends, and that of ware- 
 houseman l)egins. Jones Bros. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 7t; S. C. 07, 5G S. H. GGG. 
 
 Contracts for shipment of goods. — Un- 
 der the Georgia statutes, the state rail- 
 road commission has no power to com- 
 pel a railroad company to contract for 
 the shipment of goods beyond its own 
 line. State v. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 
 104 Ga. 437, 30 S. E. 891. 
 
 28. In South Dakota express companies 
 controlled by railroad commissioners.— 
 rialt z\ LeCocq, l.:u Led. jyi. 
 
 Rev. Civ. Code, S. D. 1903, § 1578, pro- 
 vides that a common carrier, if able to 
 do so, must accept and carry whatever 
 is offered him at a reasonable time and 
 place of a kind that he undertakes or is 
 accustomed to carry; and Pol. Code 1903, 
 c. 7, § 437, prohibits a common carrier 
 from subjecting any particular descrip- 
 tion of trafiic to any prejudice or disad- 
 vantage in any respect whatsoever. Held, 
 that a rule of an express company, pro- 
 viding that shipments of money would be 
 received only during regular office hours 
 if tendered before the departure of the 
 last train on which the shipment could 
 be made, which operated to require ship- 
 ments of currency by a bank to be ten- 
 dered on the day of the shipment before 
 G:30, 7, or 7:45 a. m., w^as unreasonable, 
 and that the board of railroad commission- 
 ers had power to order the express com- 
 pany, so long as it held itself out as a 
 common carrier of money, to receive 
 same for transportation at all reasonable 
 business hours of the day preceding the 
 departure of trains at the hours specified. 
 IMait v. LeCocq, 150 Fed. 391. 
 
 It was no defense to an express com- 
 pany's obligation to comply with the rail- 
 road commissioners' order that shippers 
 of money could use the L'nited States 
 mails, and were therefore not prejudiced 
 by the express company's rule, requiring 
 presentation of money packages for ship-
 
 §§ 25-27 CARRIERS. 26 
 
 §§ 2 5-28. Companies, Persons, or Instrumentalities Affected by Reg- 
 ulations— § 2 5. In General.— Xo one can be compelled to engage in the busi- 
 ness of a common carrier, but if he does so, he becomes subject to the duties 
 imposed on common carriers.-^ In the constitution of California, art. 12, § 22, 
 providing for a railroad commission to regulate the rates to be charged by trans- 
 portation companies, the words "transportation companies'" include individu- 
 als.=^^' 
 
 § 26. Railroad Companies.— A railroad company, accepting its charter 
 subject to a constitutional provision prohibiting greater charges for shorter than 
 for longer hauls, except when permitted by the railroad commission, is as much 
 subject ^o the provisions for exoneration from that prohibition as to the prohi- 
 bition itself, and can not claim that it has any implied contract exemption froni 
 these pro\ isions by virtue of its charter and the consequent right to charge rea- 
 sonable rates for 'its service.^^^ A constitutional provision forbidding an officer 
 of a company to engage in the business of transportation as a common carrier 
 of freight or passengers over the works of the company, does not apply to the 
 act of an officer of a railroad company in causing his own freight to be trans- 
 ported over the company's road.^^ When two railroad companies voluntarily 
 enter into an agreement for joint rates, which covers all stations on their lines 
 in the state, they virtually create a new and independent line, and become sub- 
 ject to the 'law preventing unjust discrimination and unreasonable exaction. ^^ 
 Where the railroad of one company is purchased by another railroad company, 
 in pursuance of a statute authorizing the purchase, in the absence of any pro- 
 vision of law to the contrary, the road passes to the purchasing company sub- 
 ject to the same restrictions and limitations as to rates chargeable for transpor- 
 tation as attached to it in the hands of the vendor.-^-' 
 
 § 2 7. Street Railroad Companies.— Whether a street railroad company 
 is subject to a particular law regulating railroad companies is to be determined 
 by an interpretation of the terms of that law."-^ A railway company whicli per- 
 
 ment at unreasonable hours. Piatt v. Le- 
 Cocq, 150 Fed. 391. 
 
 Where an express company held itself 
 out as a common carrier of money, it was 
 no defense to an order of the board of 
 railroad commissioners, requiring the re- 
 ceipt of money packages for transporta- 
 tion during reasonable business hours of 
 the day preceding actual shipment, that 
 to obey such order would compel the ex- 
 press company to transact the business 
 at a loss. Piatt v. LeCocq, ir.O Fed. 391. 
 
 29. Person engaged in business of com- 
 mon carrier subject to duties imposed.— 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Larabee Flour 
 Mills Co., 211 U. S. 612, 53 L. Ed. 352, 29 
 S. Ct. 214. 
 
 30. In California constitution words 
 "transportation companies" include indi- 
 viduals.— Soulhtrn Pac. Co. r. Board, 78 
 Fed. 230. 
 
 31. Company accepting its charter sub- 
 ject to a constitutional provision. — Judg- 
 ment, 51 S. W. 164, 1012, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 232, 106 Ky. 633, 90 Am. St. Rep. 236. af- 
 firmed. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ken- 
 tucky, 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 
 S. Ct. 95. 
 
 32. Prohibition against officer of com- 
 pany engaging in busines of transporta- 
 tion over works of company.— Bucksport, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Edinburgh, etc., Redwood 
 
 Co.. 16 C. C. A. 74, 6S Fed. 972, constru- 
 ing Const, art. 12, § 1^^. 
 
 33. Companies voluntarily entering into 
 agreement for joint rates. — Blair v. Sioux, 
 etc., R. Co., 109 Iowa 369, SO N. W. 673. 
 
 34. Purchase by railroad company of 
 railroad of another company. — Campbell 
 T. Marietta, etc., R. Co., 23 O. St. 168, fol- 
 lowed in Peters, etc., Co. v. Railroad Co., 
 42 O. St. 275, 283. 
 
 Consolidation of railroad companies by 
 Irase, purchase, or otherwise. — For an in- 
 terpretation of certain New Hampshire 
 statutes, under which a number of rail- 
 road companies were consolidated by 
 lease, purchase, or otherwise with the 
 Boston and Maine Railroao; and which 
 contained restrictions as to increase of 
 rates by the companies so consolidated, 
 see State v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 76 N. 
 H. 146. 80 Atl. 858. 
 
 35. Street railroad companies.— Under 
 Greater New York Charter, § 1538, a cor- 
 poration operating a street railroad is 
 not subject to Railroad Law, § 104. 
 BrafYett v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 204 N. 
 Y 440 97 N. E. 888, afifirming 137 App. 
 Div. 899, 122 N. Y. S. 1122. 
 
 \ street railroad corporation acquir- 
 ing, under General Railroad Law (Laws 
 1890, c. 565)', § 79, the raUroads of two 
 companies, is not within Railroad Law,
 
 27 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION', 
 
 §§ 27-29 
 
 forms the service of an ordinary street railroad in a city under a franchise 
 granted by the city is, as to such service, a street railroad, though it is also an 
 interurban railroad engaging in carrying passengers beyond the limits of the 
 city, and the fact that the State Railroad Commission has assumed jurisdiction 
 over it does not prevent it from being subject to the franchise so far as it oper- 
 ates a system within the city.^" Statutes limiting the fare to be charged by street 
 railroad companies and requiring them to give transfers, have been interpreted 
 by the courts to dclcrniiiic what companies and roads came within the scope of 
 their provisions.''" 
 
 . § 28. Express Companies. — In h.wa. un.kr the express provisions of the 
 Code,'^"^ laws relating to the transportation of propcny by railroad companies 
 are_ai)plical)le to express companies.--' The statute of Indiana prescribing the 
 duties of railroads with reference to intersecting lines ^" relates to the mere 
 physical connection of tlie tracks, and has no application to express companies.-*^ 
 
 § 29. Licenses and Taxes. — The charters of some street railroad com- 
 panies contain a provision requiring them to pay a license fee to the city in 
 which they operate.^- There are statutes in many of the states imposing a li- 
 cense or excise tax on express companies doing business in the state. Some of 
 these statutes have been interpreted by the courts.-*" Power is generallv dele- 
 
 § 101, I)ut within § 104, requiring giving 
 of transfers. Braffett f. Brooklyn, etc., 
 R. Co., 204 N. Y. 440, 97 N. E. 888, af- 
 firming order, 137 App. Div. 899, 122 N. 
 Y. S. 1122. 
 
 36. Dennison f. Seattle, etc., R. Co.. 
 64 Wash. 167, 116 Pac. 638. 
 
 37. Under Railroad Law, Laws 1890, 
 p. 1113, c. 565, § 101, as amended by Laws 
 1897, p. 776, c. 688, relating to street sur- 
 face railroads, and providing that no cor- 
 poration constructing and operating a 
 railroad under the provisions of this ar- 
 ticle, etc., shall charge any passenger 
 more than five cents for one continuous 
 ride from any point on its road, "or on 
 any road, line or branch operated l)y it, 
 or under its control," to any other point 
 thereof, etc., and Railroad Law, Laws 
 1890, p. 1096, c. 565, § 39, imposing a pen- 
 alty on anj- railroad corporation receiv- 
 ing more than the lawful rate of fare, 
 etc., the operation or control of a road 
 within the meaning of such sections 
 means a control of the operation of the 
 road, and not merely a control of the 
 corporation or individuals operating it by 
 reason of the ownership of a majority of 
 the road's capital stock. Senior v. New 
 York City R. Co., Ill App. Div. 39, 97 
 N. Y. S. 645, affirmed in 187 N. Y. 559, 
 80 N. E. 1120. 
 
 Rev. Code Chicago, § 1723, providing 
 that the rate of fare "to be charged" on 
 any street railway for any distance within 
 the city limits shall not exceed five cents, 
 and that at any point where a line of 
 street railway does now or shall here- 
 after join, connect with, cross, or come 
 within a distance of two hundred feet of 
 another line belonging to the same 
 owner, any passenger shall be entitled to 
 a transfer, etc.. applies not only to com- 
 panies existing at the time the section 
 
 was enacted, but to those coming into 
 existence thereafter. Chicago Union 
 Tract. Co. v. Chicago, 199 111. 484, 65 N. 
 E. 451, 59 L. R. A. 631. 
 
 38. Code, § 2165. 
 
 39. Express companies.— McMillan v. 
 American Exp. Co.. 123 Iowa 236, 98 N. 
 W. 629. 
 
 40. 2 Burns' Rev. St. 1849. § 5153; Rev. 
 St. 1881, § 3903. 
 
 41. Decree, 88 Fed. G59, affirmea. 
 Southern Indiana Exp. Co. r. United 
 States Exp. Co.. 35 C. C. A. 172. 92 Fed 
 1022. 
 
 42. Same annual fee as is now paid by 
 other railroads. — The charter of a street- 
 railroad company was made subject "to 
 the payment to the city of the same li- 
 cense fee annually for each car run 
 thereon as is now paid by other city 
 railroads in said city." Two railroads 
 there paid $50. one $20. and three noth- 
 ing. Held, that $50 was payable. New 
 York 7'. Broadwav, etc., R. Co., 97 N. Y. 
 275. 
 
 43. Florida statute imposing license 
 tax on express companies. — A Florida 
 statute. Gen. Revenue Law June 2, 1893, 
 c. 4115, prohibits one from engaging in 
 or managing the pursuits mentioned 
 therein without first taking out a state 
 license, and paying the occupation tax 
 and license prescribed therein, and au- 
 thorizes counties, cities, and towns to 
 impose further taxes. It specifies that 
 express companies shall pay in cities of 
 15,000 inhabitants or more a $200 license 
 tax, in cities of 10,000 to 15,000 $100, in 
 cities of 5.000 to 10.000 $75, in cities of 
 3,000 to 5.000 inhabitants $50. jn cities of 
 1.000 to 3.000 inhabitants $25, in towns 
 of less than 1,000 and more than fifty in- 
 habitants $10. The violation of the act 
 is made a misdemeanor. Held, the act
 
 29 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 28 
 
 gated to counties and municipal corporations to impose taxes on common car- 
 riers doing business in the county or municipality. Some of the statutory pro- 
 visions anil charters delegating such power,-*^ and some of the ordinances en- 
 acted in pursuance of the power so delegated.^-^ have been interpreted by the 
 
 did not tax or regulate or apply to in- 
 terstate commerce as distinguished from 
 state or local commerce carried on by 
 an express company, but applies only to 
 local or state commerce, and a company 
 must pay a license tax and take out a 
 state license before doing business in a 
 city, town, or village having more than 
 fifty inhabitants; and, where there are in 
 one county several cities, towns, or vil- 
 lages, the company must take out a sep- 
 arate state license for each in which it 
 may intend to do business and pay the 
 tax and fee therefor. Osborne v. State, 
 33 Fla. 162, 14 So. 588, 25 L. R. A. 120, 
 39 Am. St. Rep. 99. 
 
 Ohio statute imposing excise tax on 
 express companies. — The amount paid to 
 railroads for transportation of freight, as 
 mentioned in the seventh subdivision of 
 the second section of Act May 14, 1894 
 (91 Laws, 237), imposing an excise tax 
 on express companies, is the amount paid 
 for transportation of freight on business 
 done wholly within Ohio. Adams Exp. 
 Co. V. State, 55 O. St. 69, 44 X. E. 506. 
 
 44. Authority to impose license tax not 
 applicable to foreign express companies. 
 —The Kentucky statute. Act March _ 2, 
 1860, required foreign express companies 
 doing business in the state to pay a li- 
 cense tax. The charter of the city of 
 Lexington authorized the city to collect 
 a license from express companies. Held, 
 not to apply to foreign express compa- 
 nies. Adams Exp. Co. v. Lexington, 83 
 Ky. 657, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 716. 
 
 License taxes on express companies au- 
 thorized by Florida statute. — \ Florida 
 statute. Gen. Revenue Law 1893. c. 4115, 
 § 9, prohil)its any person from engaging 
 in any business without first securing a 
 state license, and paying the occupation 
 tax and license fee; authorizes counties 
 and incorporated towns to impose fur- 
 ther taxes of the same kind, not exceed- 
 ing 50 per cent of the state tax when 
 the business is carried on in such coun- 
 ties or towns; and directs that express 
 companies doing business in the state 
 shall pay in cities and villages of a spec- 
 ified population certain license taxes. 
 Held, that any county may require of 
 each company doing business within its 
 limits to pay for doing business in any 
 city or village in the county a license tax 
 not exceeding 50 per cent of the amount 
 paid the state for doing business in such 
 city or village, and any incorporated city 
 or town may also impose a tax for as 
 much as 50 per cent of the state tax on 
 any company doing business therein. 
 Osborne v. State, 33 Fla. 162, 14 So. 588, 
 25 L. R. .^. 120, 39 Am. St. Rep. 99. 
 
 The authority of a city under its char- 
 ter to collect specific taxes on express 
 companies doing business therein is not 
 taken away as to the Southern Express 
 Company by the provision of aii act In 
 relation to said company declaring "nor 
 shall any municipal corporation levy ariy 
 percentage tax upon the receipts of said 
 company." City Council v. Shoemaker, 
 51 Ala. 114. 
 
 Tax authorized held to be an occupa- 
 tion tax. — A tax authorized by a city 
 charter to be levied on "auctioneers, con- 
 tractors, druggists, * * *^ omnibuses, 
 carts, wagons and other vehicles used in 
 the city for pay," in addition to the usual 
 taxes assessed and collected on all prop- 
 erty, is a tax on the occupation; and the 
 fact that a defendant, who is the owner 
 of a wagon, used it in one or two in- 
 stances for hire will not alone support a 
 conviction for his failure to procure a 
 license for such wagon, but it must be 
 shown that the vehicle is kept for hire or 
 use for pay. Cheyenne v. O'Connell, 6 
 Wyo. 491, 4C, Pac. 1088. 
 
 45. Ordinance not an attempt to im- 
 pose additional tax on depot. — A city of 
 the second class adopted an ordinance 
 imposing an occupation tax "on each 
 railroad corporation or company carrying 
 or transporting freight or passengers to 
 or from any point or place within the 
 limits of this city, and to or from any 
 point or place within the limits of this 
 city and any point or place within the 
 limits of this state, and having a depot or 
 place of business within the limits of this 
 city for receiving or discharging such 
 passengers and receiving and delivering 
 such freight. All interstate traffic com- 
 merce or business of such companies or 
 corporations is hereby excepted and ex- 
 empted from the levy of such tax." Held, 
 that the ordinance was not an attempt to 
 impose a tax on the depot of the com- 
 plaining company, in addition to the tax 
 arising from the general assessment of 
 its property. York v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 56 Neb. 572, 76 N. W. 1065. 
 
 Ordinance held not to include hearses. 
 — An ordinance imposing a license on 
 "each vehicle used for passengers, not 
 having an annual hack license," does not 
 include hearses. Burlington v. Unter- 
 kirchcr, 99 Iowa 401, 6S X. W. 795. 
 
 An ordinance imposing a license for 
 "every vehicle or conveyance" which is 
 "run" for hire or profit does not apply to 
 a conveyance w]iich__ is let without a 
 driver, and is under the personal con- 
 trol of the hirer or his representative. 
 Burlington v. Unterkirchcr, 99 Iowa 401, 
 68 N. W. 795.
 
 29 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 29-30 
 
 courts. A municipal ordinance imposing a license fee on a common carrier 
 must, of course, to be enforceable, be a valid exercise of the delegated power."*" 
 A statute providing that express companies shall pay a privilege tax to the 
 state, and that no company which has paid such tax shall be liable to pa^^' any 
 other tax in the state, precludes a city from levying a license tax on an express 
 company. 4" .V railroad company's liability to pay a license tax required of a 
 company running cars through a city, for transporting freight or passengers to 
 or froni it, is not affected by its not having an agent or office in the city.'** A 
 railroad company which organizes an express company and carries on a regular 
 express business as a part of the business of the railroad company, under the 
 management and control of its officers, and by its own agents, is subject to pay 
 a privilege tax imposed by statute upon express companies.^'* 
 
 § 30. Reports and Statements. — Where a state railroad commission is 
 authorized to see that a railroad company does not charge rates in excess of the 
 limits set by its charter, it is entitled to reports from such company.'^" The 
 United States Express Company being a joint-stock company and possessing the 
 qualities of a partnership, but being a common carrier, a state railroad commis- 
 sion has the legal right to exact from it as a common carrier information as to 
 all of its property and business within the state, for the purpose of fixing its 
 charges or otherwise regulating its business, but not as to its property out of 
 the state, nor as to its interstate business. -"^^ Some of the peculiar provisions 
 of statutes relating to reports and statements required to be made by common 
 carriers have been interpreted l)y the courts. ^'- 
 
 46. Ordinances imposing license fees 
 held valid. — An ordinance of the town- 
 ship of Lakcwood, prescribing that it 
 shall not be lawful to engage in tlic busi- 
 ness of carrying passengers without pay- 
 ing a license fee, and punishing the vio- 
 lation of such provision with a fine, and 
 requiring licensed vehicles to stand at 
 certain designated places, is valid. Combs 
 V. Lakcwood. 08 N. J. L. 582, 53 Atl. 
 t)97. 
 
 Under the Iowa statute, Code, § 463, 
 authorizing cities to regulate, license, and 
 tax all conveyances for hire, an ordi- 
 nance imposing an annual license fee "for 
 each two-horse wagon or team, $(5; for 
 each one-horse wagon, dray, or cart, $4; 
 for each hack, carriage, coach or omni- 
 bus, $10;" and providing that "each ve- 
 hicle used for passengers, not having an 
 annual hack license, shall pzy a license of 
 $1 per day," is reasonable and valid. 
 Burlington r Unterkirclier. '.)'.) I'.wa -ifil. 
 68 N. W. 795. 
 
 An ordinance imposing annual license 
 fees on the owners of conveyances run 
 for hire, "for each two-horse wagon, $8; 
 for each one-horse wagon, $5; * * * 
 for each omnibus, $8; and for each hack 
 or carriage. $10;" and which exempts 
 from its operation vehicles l)ringing pro- 
 duce to market, and those owned by liv- 
 erymen, but not kept on the street or 
 other pul)lic place for hire — is a reasona- 
 lile exercise of the power conferred on 
 cities by the Iowa statute, Code, § 463, to 
 regulate, license, and tax every descrip- 
 tion of convevances for hire. Burlington 
 V. Unterkirchcr, 99 Iowa 401, 68 N. W. 
 795. 
 
 The word "carriage," as used in said 
 ordinance, includes single-horse buggies; 
 and an annual license may therefore be 
 charged for them, not the per diem li- 
 cense provided in the last clause. Bur- 
 lington z'. Unterkircher, 99 Iowa 401, 68 
 X. \V. 795. 
 
 47. Statute precluding city from levy- 
 ing license tax on express company. — 
 Douglass 7'. Anniston, 104 Ala. 2yi, If. 
 So. 133, construing act 1S92-93. 
 
 48. Railroad company liable for license 
 tax though having no agent or office In 
 city. — Xasiivillc. etc.. R. Co. r. Alabama, 
 134 Ala. 414. 32 So. T:!1. 
 
 49. Railroad company carrying on ex- 
 press business. — Memphis, etc., R. Co. f. 
 State, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 218. 42 Am. Rep. 
 673. 
 
 50. Reports and statements. — Missis- 
 sippi R. Conim. 7'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 78 
 Miss. 750. 29 So. 789. 
 
 51. State v. United States Exp. Co., 81 
 Minn. 87. 83 N. \V. 465, 50 L. R. A. 667, 
 h:; Am. St. Rep. 366. 
 
 52. Lender the Florida statute, a rail- 
 road commission has no authority to 
 adopt or enforce a rule requiring rail- 
 roads to report to such commission by 
 telegram, followed by a written report of 
 all wrecks and their causes, and the 
 names and addresses of the persons killed 
 or injured therein. Railro.-\d Comm'rs v. 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 57 Fla. 526. 49 
 So. 39. 
 
 Under the Indiana statute, act of March 
 5. 1855 (Rev. St. 1876. p. 466). "declaring 
 express companies to be common car- 
 riers," etc.. it is the duty of the county 
 recorder to procure the publication of
 
 §§ 31-32 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 30 
 
 §§ 31-34. Conduct of Business in General— § 31. Common Carriers in 
 
 General. It is tlie business of a common carrier to carry persons and property 
 
 for hire.-''"' The carrier has a right to conduct such business according to law, 
 free from the interference of strangers.'-* lUit tliough a discretion is allowed a 
 common carrier in the discharge of its pubhc duties, it must be exercised in 
 good faith, within the limitations of the law, and with reasonable regard for the 
 public welfare, and is subject to review and regulation.^"'' A carrier may pre- 
 scribe reasonable regulations for the delivery to its agents of property for trans- 
 portation, but it can not impose unusual conditions on a shipper, or require him 
 to undergo unusual expense in delivering his goods for transportation.'"* While 
 a common carrier may not be bound by a contract which renders it incapable of 
 performing its duties to the public, yet where the subject-niatter of a contract 
 is not foreign to the purposes of the corporation, but is widiin its authorized 
 power, and is not forbidden by statute, nor otherwise illegal, it will not be nulli- 
 fied bv the courts.''" 
 
 Conduct of Business by Agents. — Agents of common carriers must exer- 
 cise the same kind of judgment in the employer's business as if doing business 
 for themselves, and what would convince them that a certain fact exists is no- 
 tice to the carrier of the existence thereof, so that agents must act on knowledge, 
 probabilities, information, and judgment and infer facts as men generally do 
 in similar matters when acting for themselves.^* 
 
 § 32. Railroad Companies. — In the absence of charter or statutory provi- 
 sions atlecting its right, it is competent for a railroad company to determine for 
 itself within what limits it will act as a common carrier, what business it will 
 engage in, what means and methods of transportation it will employ, what goods 
 it will carrv, and between what points and under what circumstances and con- 
 ditions it will receive the same, subject always to the limitation that it must act 
 in good f-;ith, reasonably, and not arbitrarily or capriciously, and without dis- 
 crimination ; doing for all under like circumstances what it does for any one.^"-^ 
 
 the statement required of any such com- 
 pany by the 2nd section of such act; and 
 the company is liable to the person mak- 
 ing such publication for the value thereof 
 where not made on contract. Fargo v. 
 Ledger-Standard Co., 59 Ind. 496. 
 
 53. Character of business. — Texas, etc , 
 R. Co. V. Fenwick. ,'j4 Tex. Civ. App. 222, 
 226, 78 S. W. 548, affirmed in 98 Tex. 
 635, no op. 
 
 54. Rights of carrier in conduct of busi- 
 ness. — Decree, I.-jO Fed. .^91, reversed. 
 Piatt z: Lecocq, 85 C. C. A. 621, 158 Fed. 
 723, 15 L. R. A., N. S., 558. 
 
 55. How business must be conducted. 
 — Railroad Comm'rs v. Flcjrida, etc., R. 
 Co., .57 Fla. 522, 49 So. 43. 
 
 56. Regulations for delivery of prop- 
 erty for transportation. — St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. State, 84 Ark. 150, 104 S. W. 
 1106. 
 
 57. Contract rendering carrier incapa- 
 ble of performing its duties. — Taylor z-. 
 Florida, etc., R. Co., 54 Fla. 635, 45 So. 
 574. 
 
 58. Conduct of business by agents. — 
 Adams Exp. Co. f. Commonwealtli, 33 
 Ky. L. Rep. 967, 112 S. W. 577, 18 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 1182. 
 
 59. Rights of railroad company in con- 
 duct of its business. — Har[3 v. Choctaw, 
 
 etc., R. Co., 118 Fed. 169, affirmed, 61 C. 
 C. A. 405, 125 Fed. 445. 
 
 Right to make reasonable regulations. 
 — A railroad company, has, unquestiona- 
 bly, the right to make reasonable regula- 
 tions for conducting its business; and 
 parties dealing with it must conform to 
 such regulations. Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98; 
 Eddy V. Rider, 79 Tex. 53, 15 S. W. 113. 
 
 But such regulations can not be made 
 and enforced if violative of the law, with- 
 out liability to a person injured by their 
 enforcement. Eddy v. Rider, 79 Tex. 53, 
 15 S. W. 113. 
 
 That a regulation of a railway coni- 
 pany, that freight and passengers will 
 he carried on its road in separate trains, 
 is a reasonable regulation, can hardly be 
 doubted by any one. Houston, e.tc, R. 
 Co. V. Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98. 
 
 Where railroad regulations are unnec- 
 essary and put shippers to delay and ex- 
 pense, the carrier may be liable. Don- 
 ovan V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 519. 
 
 The Texas statute, art. 4484, Sayles' 
 Civ. Stats., gives to railway corporations 
 "the right to regulate the time and man- 
 ner in which passengers and property 
 shall 1)C transported," but it has never 
 1)een thought that such regulations would 
 be enforced by the courts except where
 
 31 
 
 CONTk(JL AND KF.GULATION. 
 
 § 32 
 
 It is the duty of a railroad company to provide reasonably adequate facilities to 
 meet tlie present and prospective demands for the safety, comfort, and con- 
 venience of the public."" It may, in addition to the facilities and accommoda- 
 tions already furnished, be required to render a ])articular service that it is es- 
 sentiallv its duty to render for the reasonable convenience of its patrons among 
 the public, and to meet the reasonable re<iuirements of the public service un- 
 dertaken."^ Contracts for the carriage of freight by railroad companies are 
 subject to regulation under the law, and when a lawful regulation has been im- 
 posed the carrier can not destroy it by any printed form of contract required to 
 be signed by shippers.''- In all the states there are constitutional provisions or 
 statutes regulating railroad companies in the conduct of their business, or pro- 
 viding for their regulation by commissions appointed for the purpose. Some of 
 the si)ecirtc reguhiticjus with which railroad companies have been required to 
 comply lia\e l)een construed by the courts."-^ 
 
 they were reasonable, and whether or 
 not they are in any case reasonable is a 
 question to be determined according to 
 all the circumstances of such case. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Currie, 33 Tex. 
 Civ. .'Kpp. 277, 76 S. W. 810, affirmed in 
 97 Tox. ti4S, no op. 
 
 Management and running of trains. — 
 Railroad companies may make reasona- 
 l)le regulations of their own lor the man- 
 agement and running of their trains, or 
 they may follow general customs in such 
 management and running; which, when 
 established, known, and acted on by the 
 public, may impose upon the companies 
 duiiis in reference to others, a breach 
 of which, to their injury, might render 
 such companies liable to damages. Tlie 
 facts involved in such regulations and 
 customs, upon which duties would arise, 
 not being matters known to the court, 
 would have to be proved as other facts, 
 where a breach of such duties might be- 
 come the subject matter of a suit for 
 damages. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 
 4(> Tex. 3.")r>. 370, 26 .A.m. Rep. 272. 
 
 60. Duty to provide facilities to meet 
 public demands. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Railroad Comm'rs (Fla.), 58 So. 543. 
 
 It is the duty of the carrier to render 
 a service that is reasonably adequate and 
 of most convenience to the greatest num- 
 ber of the public affected by the service. 
 Railroad Comm'rs v. Louisville, -etc., R. 
 Co.. ()2 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175. 
 
 61. Additional service. — Railroad 
 Comm'rs r. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 62 
 Fla. 315. 57 So. 17 5. 
 
 The dipping of cattle in vats by a rail- 
 road transporting them from points 
 below the quarantine line to points 
 above it. under quarantine regulations 
 prescribed by law, is so involved in the 
 carriage of such cattle as to constitute 
 a part of the railroad's public service. 
 Midland \'alley R. Co. v. State, 35 Okla. 
 672. 130 Pac. S03. 
 
 62. Contracts for carriage of freight. 
 — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Bent & Co. 
 (Miss.), 47 So. 805. 
 
 63. Public service facilities and con- 
 veniences required under constitution of 
 
 Oklahoma. — The provision in the consti- 
 tution of Oklahoma, art. 9, § 18 (Bunn's 
 Kd. § 222j relating to the duties of the 
 corporation commission, and providing 
 that it shall from time to time require 
 transportation companies to maintain all 
 "such public service facilities and con- 
 veniences as may be reasonable and just," 
 means everything incident to the general, 
 prompt, safe, and impartial performance 
 of the duties to the public at large im- 
 posed by the state, in the proper exer- 
 cise of its police power, on transporta- 
 tion companies. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State, 23 Okla. 94. 99 Rac. 901. 
 
 Sale of passenger tickets. — -An order 
 of the Board of l'ul)lic L'tility Commis- 
 sioners of New Jersey held not to re- 
 quire the establishment of a commuta- 
 tion service by railroads, but merely to 
 require that tickets shall be sold for an 
 existing service designating specifically 
 the termini of the journey, and that the 
 rates be quoted and filed. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. V. Board, 83 N. J. L. 67, 83 Atl. 
 945. 
 
 .\n order of the Board of Public Util- 
 it}' Commissioners held not to involve 
 the exercise of the power by the state to 
 compel railroad companies to issue com- 
 mutation or other special forms of tick- 
 ets, but merely the power to end unjust 
 discrimination. Pennsj'lvania R. Co. v. 
 Board, S3 X. J. L. 67, S3 Atl. 945. 
 
 The stopping of lumber in transit for 
 treatment contemplated bj^ Railroad 
 Commissioners' Rule 15 A, prescribing 
 the charge for switching cars of rough 
 lumber consigned to and arriving at the 
 city of Jacksonville from points in the 
 state to any planing mill in the Jackson- 
 ville yards, and thence after lumber is 
 dressed to any point in the same yards, 
 is in the nature of a special privilege, 
 which the carrier may concede, but which 
 the shipper can not demand as a matter 
 of right. Railroad Comm'rs v. Atlantic, 
 etc., K. Co., 59 I'la. 612, 52 So. 4. 
 
 Prohibition against using road for 
 street railroad purposes. — In the Califor- 
 nia statute. Act May 20. 1861, authorizing 
 municipalities to grant to any railroad
 
 § 32 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 32 
 
 Maintenance of Warehouses.— A railroad company has no power, either 
 express or inipHed. to maintain a regular public warehouse as an incident to its 
 duty as public carrier ; ^-^ and it can not be compelled to maintain such a ware- 
 house unless it has the power to act as a public warehouseman.''^ 
 
 When Regulations May Be Enforced Though Service Required Is Un- 
 remunerative. — Even though a particular duty of a railroatl company, if en- 
 forced, would be in itself unremunerative and burdensome, such a result would 
 be an incident to the service voluntarily undertaken, in consideration of the 
 franchises permitted to be used for the public good, and the property rights oi 
 the carrier would not thereby be lawfully invaded, if the particular service is 
 reasonably necessarv for the public convenience, and the burden to the carrier 
 has some' fair relation to the benefits accruing to the public, and the burden of 
 the particular service, considered with reference to the entire business of the 
 carrier, does not in reality amount to a denial to the carrier of a reasonable com- 
 pensation for the service'rendered by it as an entirety.6« If the performance of 
 a particular useful, but nonessential, duty by a common carrier will as a part 
 of a general public service contribute to the public convenience, the fact that 
 the particular service must be rendered at a loss does not, in view of the nature 
 of the duty required, excuse nonperformance; but the loss occasioned by the 
 performance of a particular duty may be considered in determining the rea- 
 sonableness of the order requiring the particular service to be rendered.^' Where 
 it appears that a particular service is a duty vitally necessary to the public, and 
 its performance is essential in adequately rendering a general public service as a 
 common carrier, the fact that the performance of the particular duty will be un- 
 remunerative will not in view of the nature of the duty to the public excuse 
 nonperformance.''^ 
 
 company the use of streets for the pur- 
 pose of reaching an accessible point for 
 a depot, the provision that no company 
 availing itself of the act should use its 
 road "for street railroad purposes, or for 
 the purpose of carrying passengers for a 
 consideration from one point to another 
 in the same city," was inserted to pre- 
 vent competition betweeji railroad com- 
 panies covered by the act and local street 
 railways, and not for the purpose of giv- 
 ing the public at large the right to travel 
 free on such railroad within the city lim- 
 its. Buswell V. Southern Pac. Co., 114 
 Cal. 44.5. 4fi Pac. 291. 
 
 G4. Railroad company has no power 
 to maintain a public warehouse. — People 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 233 111. 378, 84 N. 
 E. 368. 
 
 65. Railroad company can not be com- 
 pelled to maintain a public warehouse. 
 — People V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 233 111. 
 378, 84 N. E. 368. 
 
 Illinois statute does not require main- 
 tenance of warehouses. — The Illinois 
 statute, Hurd's Rev. St. 190,5. c. 114, § 3, 
 requires railroad companies to transport 
 grain in bulk, but there is nothing in the 
 statute requiring _them to maintain regu- 
 lar public warehouses. People v. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co.. 233 111. 378, 84 N. E. 368. 
 
 66. When regulations may be enforced 
 though service required is unremunera- 
 tive.— I^ailroad Comm'rs v. Lou'svillc, 
 etc., R. Co.. 62 Ela. 315, 57 So. 175. 
 
 If particular regulations are reasonably 
 useful and expedient for the just require- 
 
 ments of the public service being per- 
 formed by a common carrier, thereby 
 making it a duty of the carrier to render 
 the service, the regulations, if not illegal, 
 may be enforced, even though the serv- 
 ice required is not remunerative, unless 
 it is made to clearly appear that the par- 
 ticular regulations are so unreasonable 
 and arbitrary that their enforcement will 
 operate to deny to the carrier a reason- 
 able compensation for the entire service 
 rendered by it. Railroad Comm'rs v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 62 Fla. 315, 57 
 So. 175. 
 
 Common carrier held entitled to rea- 
 sonable compensation for service, but not 
 necessarily to full return for values used 
 in rendering the service. Railroad 
 Comm'rs v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Fla.), 
 57 So. 673. 
 
 Prime duty of carrier to render safe 
 and reasonable service held required to 
 be performed when possible, whether 
 profitable or not. Railroad Comm'rs v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Fla.), 57 So. 673. 
 
 The risks and burdens of contingency 
 of producing return for property, man- 
 agement, and labor used by carrier held 
 to be assumed by the carrier in volun- 
 tarily undertaking to render public serv- 
 ice. Railroad Comm'rs v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Fla.), 57 So. 673. 
 
 67. Railroad Comm'rs v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 62 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175. 
 
 68. Railroad Comm'rs v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 62 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175.
 
 33 CONTROL AM) KKciULATIOX. § 34 
 
 Considerations in Determining Whether a Regulation Is Confiscatory. 
 
 — In determining whether the burden of a particular regulation enforced by 
 state authority is confiscatory and unlawful because it prevents a railroad com- 
 pany from receiving a reasonable compensation for the service rendered, taken 
 as an entirety, the fair actual value of all the property and labor and manage- 
 ment rightly used in rendering the service should be considered. The cost of 
 reproduction of the projjerty may be an element to be considered in ascertaining 
 the real value of the jjrcjporty used, but it is not the value that is to be arbitrarily 
 considered in determining; what is a reasonable compensation for the service 
 rendered as a whole 1)\' a common carrier.'"'' 
 
 When Courts and Commissions Should Not Interfere to Modify Es- 
 tablished Rules. — Courts and commissions should not interfere to modify es- 
 lalilishcd rules of transportation com])anies on account of trivial troubles and in- 
 cidental inconveniences, nor unless clear injustice or the imminent threat of it 
 has resulted therefrom.'" 
 
 Discontinuance of a Train. — Though information necessary to determine 
 the question whether a train should be discontinued is inaccessible to the rail- 
 road commissioners except through the railroad company, it does not relieve 
 the commissioners of the duty to regulate trains, nor deprive them of any au- 
 thority they have to acquire the necessary information.'' 
 
 Railroad Companies Can Not Escape Duties by Surrendering Manage- 
 ment and Control of Their Roads. — Kailroad companio \oluntarily assmne 
 duties to the public from wliich they cannot free themselves by surrendering 
 the management and control of their roads to other persons, in the absence of a 
 law permitting them to do so.'- 
 
 § 33. Business of Transmitting Money to Foreign Countries. — A stat- 
 ute requiring all i)ersons. who add to their business of selling steamship or rail- 
 road tickets to or from foreign countries the business of receiving money for 
 transmission to foreign countries, to give a bond, merely regulates the carrying 
 on of the business of transmitting money to foreign countries and restricts the 
 business b\- rccfuiring a bond to prevent fraud and the commission of crime, and 
 is valid as within the ])olice power.'-' 
 
 § 34. Hackmen and Draymen. — A municipal ordinance regulating the 
 business of carrying passengers and freight for hire in hacks and other vehicles 
 on the streets of the municipality must conform to the municipal charter and 
 must not l)e unreasonable.''"* 
 
 69. Considerations in dete'mining hy the sale of bonds, and to secure the 
 whether a regulation is confiscatory. — l)onds by a mortgage of its road, capi- 
 Railroad Comni'rs v. Louisville, etc., R. tal stock, franchises, etc., did not author- 
 Co., 02 Fla. .'Jl.T, 57 So. 175. ize the company to surrender the con- 
 
 70. When courts and commissions trol and management of its road to the 
 should not interfere to modify estab- trustees in such mortgage, and thus re- 
 lished rules. — Decree, 150 Fed. 391, re- lieve itself from its liabilities and duties 
 versed. Piatt z'. Lecocq, 85 C. C. A. 621, to the state and the public. Rio Grande 
 158 Fed. 723. 15 L. R. A.. N. S.. 55S. R. Co. 7'. Cross, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 454, 23 
 
 71. Discontinuance of a train— Effect S. W. 529, afHrmed in 93 Tex. 648, no 
 of inaccessibility of information. — Rail- op., following Woodhonse f. Rio Grande 
 road Conim'rs r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 61 R. Co.. f,7 Tex. 416. a S. W. :!2;i. 
 
 Fla. 799. 54 So. 900. 73. Statute regulating business of trans- 
 
 72. Railroad companies can not escape mitting money to foreign countries. — 
 duties by surrendering management and JudguuMU, Bonvega z\ United States 
 control of their roads. — Woodhouse v. Suretv Co., 115 N. Y. S. 199: Musco v. 
 Rio Grande R. Co., 67 Tex. 416, 3 S. W. United Surety Co., 132 App. Div. 300. 117 
 323; Rio Grande R. Co. v. Cross, 5 Tex. X. V. S. 21, order affirmed, 90 X. E. 171, 
 Civ. App. 454, 456, 23 S. W. 529, affirmed construing Laws 1907. p. 263,^ c. 185. 
 
 in 93 Tex. 648, no op. making it a niisdomcanor to "stop, stand, 
 
 A provision in a railway charter which 74. Ordinance held an invalid exercise 
 
 authorized the company to raise money of power given by charter.— An ordinance 
 
 1 Car— 3
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 34 
 
 § 35 
 
 §§ 35-95. Charges— §§ 35-84. In General— §§ 35-79. Power to 
 Regulate— § 35. In General.— The power to regulate and control tlie rates 
 of carriers is within the poHce power of the state.'^ The legislature of a state 
 has the power to prescribe and regulate the charges of a railroad company for 
 the carriage of persons and merchandise within its limits, in the absence of a 
 contract vesting in the company authority over those matters, subject to the 
 limitation that the carriage is not required without reward, or upon conditions 
 amounting to the taking of property for public use without just compensation; 
 and that what is done does not amount to a regulation of foreign or interstate 
 commerce.'^ The power thus to prescribe and regulate charges is m many of 
 
 or detain" any '"carriage, hack, or vehi- 
 cle" used to carry passengers or freight 
 for hire, on any of certain named streets, 
 or in front of any public hotel in the city, 
 except when actually engaged in receiv- 
 ing or delivering passengers or freight, is 
 an unreasonable and oppressive and in- 
 valid exercise of the power given by a 
 city charter to license, tax, and regulate 
 hackmen, draymen, etc., and to regulate 
 stands for their vehicles, and to prevent 
 the incumbering of the streets with any 
 vehicle whatsoever. Ex parte Battis, 40 
 Tex. Cr. App. 112, 48 S. W. 513, 43 L. R. 
 A. 863. 76 Am. St. Rep. 708. 
 
 Ordinance held not void for unreason- 
 ableness. — Provisions in the city ordi- 
 nance establishing a hack stand which 
 locate such stand across a thoroughfare 
 from a city railroad station, and at a dis- 
 tance of 50 feet from the sidewalk in 
 front thereof, and which require the driv- 
 ers to stay with their vehicles, and for- 
 bid them leaving such vehicles to solicit 
 passengers or to assist customers to the 
 vehicles, and which prohibit runners 
 therefor on the thoroughfare or sidewalk, 
 do not render the ordinance void for un- 
 reasonableness. Ex parte Vance, 42 Tex. 
 Cr. App. 619, 62 S. W. 568. 
 
 75. Power to regulate rates within po- 
 lice power. — In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 
 l.-jT Fed. 290; Webster v. Superior Court, 
 67 Wash. 37, 120 Pac. 861. 
 
 76. Power of state to regulate charges 
 of railroad companies. — United States. — • 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 
 174, 179, 32 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. Ct. 47; Stone 
 V. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 
 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; Dow v. Bei- 
 delman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 
 S. Ct. 1028; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. North 
 Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 1, 51 
 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. 585; Minne- 
 apolis, etc., R. Co. V. Minnesota, 186 
 U. S. 257, 264, 46 L. Ed. 1151, 22 
 S. Ct. 900; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 
 1014. 14 S. Ct. 1047; Wabash, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Illinois. 118 U. S. 557, 30 L. Ed. 244, 7 
 S. Ct. 4; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minne- 
 sota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. 
 Ct. 462, 702; Erie R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U. 
 S. 148, 150, 46 L. Ed. 487, 22 S. Ct. 605; 
 Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299. 41 
 L. Ed. 166, 16 S. Ct. 1086; Western Union 
 
 Tel. Co. V. James, 162 U. S. 650, 40 L. 
 Ed. 1105, 16 S. Ct. 934; Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 43 L. Ed. 
 702, 19 S. Ct. 465; Munn v. Illinois, 94 
 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; Railroad Co. v. 
 Maryland (U. S.), 21 Wall. 456, 22 L. Ed. 
 678: Rugs-les v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 27 
 L. Ed. 8l'2, 2 S. Ct. 832; Railroad Co. v. 
 Richmond, 96 U. S. 521, 24 L. Ed. 734; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. 
 S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 176, 12 S. Ct. 400; Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 
 541, 27 L. Ed. 818, 2 S. Ct. 839; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. 
 Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484; Smyth v. Ames, 
 169 U. S. 466, 523, 42 L. Ed. 819. 18 S. 
 Ct. 418; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Pendle- 
 ton, 156 U. S. 667, 673, 39 L. Ed. 574, 
 15 S. Ct. 413; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 
 319, 24 L. Ed. 357; Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Goodridge, 149 U. S. 680, 37 L. Ed. 986, 
 13 S. Ct. 970; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. 
 Ct. 565; McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 183 U. S. 483, 46 L. Ed. 289, 22 S. 
 Ct. 165; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Tomp- 
 kins, 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. Ed. 417, 20 S. 
 Ct. 336; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Steven- 
 son, 156 U. S. 667, 39 L. Ed. 573, 15 S. 
 Ct. 491; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Iowa, 
 94 U. S. 155. 24 L. Ed. 94; Peik V. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co.. 94 U. S. 164, 24 L. 
 Ed. 97; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ackley, 
 94 U. S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 99; Winona, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Blake, 94 U. -S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 
 99; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181, 24 
 L. Ed. 102; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 696, 40 L. Ed. 
 849, 16 S. Ct. 714; Detroit v. Detroit Citi- 
 zens' St. R. Co.. 184 U. S. 368. 387, 46 L. 
 Ed. 592, 22 S. Ct. 410; Reagan v. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 420, 38 L. Ed. 
 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Reagan v. Mercantile 
 Trust Co., 154 U. S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 
 14 S. Ct. 1062; Wisconsin, etc., Railroad 
 V. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. Ed. 194, 
 21 S. Ct. 115; Northern Securities Co. v. 
 United States, 193 U. S. 197, 378, 48 L. 
 Ed 679, 24 S. Ct. 436; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587, 592, 33 L. 
 Ed. 784, 10 S. Ct. 348; Covington, etc., 
 P,ridge Co. V. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 224, 38 L. 
 Ed 970, 14 S. Ct. 1094; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 41 L. Ed. 
 489, 17 S. Ct. 130; Covington, etc.. Turn- 
 pike Road Co. V. Sandford. 164 U. S. 578.41
 
 35 
 
 COXTK(JL AND RIXULATIOX. 
 
 35 
 
 the states conferred upon the legislature by express constitutional enactment;'" 
 and the legislature must always exercise its i)0\ver within constitutional bounds."^ 
 It is essential to the validity of a statute regulating the rates to be charged by 
 a railroad company that it shall not be ambiguous or uncertain.'*' 
 
 L. Ed. 500, 17 S. Ct. 198; Cotting v. Kan- 
 sas City Stock Yards Co., 1h:{ U. S. 79, 
 4G L. Ed. 92, 33 S. Ct. 30; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 541, 37 L. Ed. 
 818, 3 S. Ct. 839; Charlotte, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Gibbcs, 143 U. S. 38f), 3.'5 L. Ed. 1051, 
 12 S. Ct. 255; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co., 90 Fed. 683; In re 
 .Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 290; 
 Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 
 735; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm., 196 Fed. 800. 
 
 Georgia. — Georgia R. Co. v. Smith, 70 
 Ga. 694. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. 
 Chicago, 199 111. 484, 65 N. E. 451, 59 
 L. R. A. 631. 
 
 Indiana. — Southern Indiana R. Co. v. 
 Railroad Comm., 173 Ind. 113, 87 N. E. 
 966. 
 
 Oregon. — State v. Corvallis, etc., R. Co., 
 59 Ore. 450, 117 Pac. 980. 
 
 Pennsvl'c'ania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Philadelphia County, 320 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 
 676. 
 
 Vermont. — State v. Central Vermont R. 
 Co., 81 Vt. 463, 71 Atl. 194. 
 
 J'irginia. — Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Patterson, etc., Co., 93 Va. 670, 34 S. E. 
 361, 41 L. R. A. 511; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Pendleton, 86 Va. 1004, 11 S. E. 1062, 
 affirmed in 156 U. S. 667, 39 L. Ed. 574, 
 15 S. Ct. 413. 
 
 Jl'est rirgiiiia. — Laurel, etc., R. Co. v. 
 West Virginia Transp. Co., 25 W. Va. 
 334; West Virginia Transp. Co. v. Sweet- 
 zer, 35 W. Va. 434. 
 
 The legislature either directly or by 
 delegation of authority to an appropri- 
 ate agency has power to fix rates to be 
 charged by railroad companies, provided 
 the rates fi.xed are such as to afford rea- 
 sonable compensation for the services 
 rendered. Graham Ice Co. z\ Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 153 Wis. 145, 140 N. W. 1097. 
 
 The state government of Oklahoma 
 has full power to regulate the charges 
 for intrastate freight and passenger traf- 
 fic on intrastate railroads. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Territory, 31 Okla. 334, 97 
 Pac. 367. 
 
 The right of the legislature of Indiana 
 to regulate the fare upon street railroads 
 organized under the act of 1861 does not 
 depend upon the reservation in § 11 of 
 the right to amend or repeal said act, as 
 the power would exist even if the right 
 to amend or repeal the act had not been 
 reserved. Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 
 139, 47 N. K. .-.:?.'., 51 X. E. r^o. 41 L. R. A. 
 337, :!4l. 
 
 Requiring rates to be fixed annually. — 
 Carriers may be required to fix their rates 
 annually for the transportation of pas- 
 
 sengers and freight. Cleveland, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 517, 44 L. 
 Ed. 868, 30 S. Ct. 723; Railroad Co. v. 
 Fuller (U. S.), 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. Ed. 
 710. 
 
 77. Power conferred by express consti- 
 tutional enactment. — Trammel r. Dins- 
 more, 43 C. C. A. 623, 103 Fed. 794, af- 
 firmed in 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. Ill, 22 
 S. Ct. 45; Southern R. Co. v. Melton, 133 
 Ga. 277, 65 S. E. 665. 
 
 Peculiar provisions of constitutions 
 construed —Georgia R. Co. ?'. Smith. 70 
 Ga. (■)94: Sliields z\ State. :36 O. St. m;. 
 
 78. Legislature must exercise power 
 within constitutional bounds. — In re Ar- 
 kansas R-Mv Cases, is: l-.-d. 290. 
 
 Wiiere a railroad is incorporated by a 
 state, it takes its charter subject to the 
 provisions of the state constitution as to 
 regulation of rates by the state. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 
 503, 46 L. Ed. 29S. 22 S. Ct. 95. 
 
 79. Statute void for uncertainty. — Ky. 
 St., § 816, providing that, if any railroad 
 corporation shall charge or collect more 
 than a just and reasonable rate of toll 
 for the transportation of passengers or 
 freight, it shall be guilty of extortion, 
 and fixing a penalty therefor, is void for 
 uncertainty, in that it fails to prescribe 
 a standard as to what is just and rea- 
 sonal)le, l)y which the carrier can regulate 
 its conduct. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 132, 18 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 42, 35 S. W. 129, 33 L. R. A. 209. 
 59 Am. St. Rep. 457. 
 
 Statutes held not void for ambiguity or 
 uncertainty. — Act May 3. lS7o. ^5 1, wliich 
 declares that any railroad company which 
 shall charge or receive more than a fair 
 and reasonable compensation shall be 
 guilty of extortion, is not void for un- 
 certainty in defining the offense, since, 
 when construed in connection with the 
 eighth section, which provides for the 
 making by the railroad and warehouse 
 commissioners of a schedule of reasona- 
 lile maximum rates for each railroad in 
 the state, it furnishes a uniform rule for 
 tlic guidance of the railroads. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Jones. 149 111. 361. 37 N. 
 E. 347, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278, 24 L. R. A. 
 141. 
 
 Comp. Laws. § 6234, subd. 7. provides 
 that in transporting freight by car, loaded 
 by the shipper and unloaded by the con- 
 signee, no railroad shall charge for trans- 
 porting each car more than $8 for any 
 distance not exceeding ten miles, and not 
 more than fifty cents a mile for the sec- 
 ond 10 miles, etc. The maximum and 
 minimum car load of the various classes
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 36 
 
 § 35 
 
 Basis of Power.— The power of a state to regulate railroad rates and charges 
 arises from the fact that railroad companies are engaged in a public employment, 
 affectincr the public interest, and must be held to have accepted their rights, priv- 
 ile<-es and franchises subject to the condition that the government creating them 
 or^he cTovernment within whose limits thev conduct their business, may by leg- 
 islation'' protect the people against unreasonable charges for the services ren- 
 dered bv them.''" . . « , , i c 
 
 Railroads Incorporated under Act of Congress.— in the absence of any- 
 
 of freight was established by experts. 
 Held, in an action to recover an over- 
 charge, that the statute was not aml)igu- 
 ous or uncertain on the ground that it 
 applied to the transportation of cars only, 
 and not freight, nor was it uncertain on 
 the ground that a car load is not a fixed 
 quantitv. since, while the capacity of cars 
 differs,' the load which each could carry 
 was fixed and certain. Robinson z: 
 Harmon, 157 Mich. 266, 117 N. W. 661. 
 80. Reason of existence of power by 
 state to regulate.— rjH/rt/ Statcs.—Smylh 
 V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 545, 42 L. Ed. 819, 
 18 S. Ct. 418; Railroad Co. v. Maryland 
 (U S) 21 Wall. 456, 22 L. Ed. 678; Dow 
 V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 687, 31 L. 
 Ed 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 
 298, 22 S. Ct. 95; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ackley, 94 U. S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 99; Wi- 
 nona, etc., R. Co. V. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 
 24 L. Ed. 99; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. 
 S 181, 24 L. Ed. 102; Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. 
 Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94; 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. vSmith, 128 U. S. 
 174, 32 L. Ed. 377. 9 S. Ct. 47; Peik v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 165. 
 24 L. Ed. 97. 
 
 West Virginia.— Ldiurol. etc. R. Co. v. 
 West Virginia Transp. Co.. 25 W. Va. 
 324; West Virginia Transp. Co. v. vSweet- 
 zer. 25 W. Va. 434. 
 
 Railroad companies are carriers tor 
 hire. They are incorporated as such, and 
 given extraordinary powers, in order that 
 they may better serve the public in that 
 capacity. They are, therefore, engaged 
 in a public employment affecting the pub- 
 lic interest, and are subject to legisla- 
 tive control as to their rates of fare and 
 freight, unless protected by their char- 
 ters. Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 
 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 
 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 vS. Ct. 95; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ackley, 94 U. S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 
 99; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. 
 S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 99; Stone v. Wisconsin, 
 94 U. S. 181, 24 L. Ed. 102; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 
 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702. 
 
 The incorporation of a railroad com- 
 pany by a state and the granting of spe- 
 cial privileges to carry out the object of 
 incorporation, more particularly the au- 
 
 thority to exercise the state's right of 
 eminent domain, and the obligation as- 
 sumed by the acceptance of the charter 
 to transport all persons and merchandise 
 upon like conditions and for reasonable 
 rates affect the property and employ- 
 ment with a public use and thus subject 
 the business of the company to legislative 
 control in the interest of the public. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Murphey, 116 Ga. 
 863, 43 S. E. 265, 60 L. R. A. 817, citing 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 
 174, 32 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. Ct. 47. 
 
 Under the rule that the owner of prop- 
 erty set apart to a public use impliedly 
 agrees to be governed by such reasona- 
 ble regulations as the public may adopt 
 to promote the common convenience and 
 general welfare, the state may enact rea- 
 sonable regulations fixing the rates for 
 transportation of freight and passengers. 
 State V. Corvallis, etc., R. Co., 59 Ore. 
 450, 117 Pac. 980. 
 
 A railroad is a public highway, and 
 none the less so because constructed and 
 maintained through the agency of a cor- 
 poration deriving its existence and pow- 
 ers from the state. Such a corporation 
 was created for public purposes. It per- 
 forms a function of the state. Its au- 
 thority to exercise the right of eminent 
 domain and to charge tolls was given 
 primarily for the benefit of the public. It 
 is under governmental control though 
 such control must be exercised with due 
 regard to the constitutional guarantees 
 for the protection of its property. Olcott 
 V. Supervisors (U. S.), 16 Wall. 678, 21 
 L. Ed. 382; Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. 
 S. 700, 25 L. Ed. 496, 14 S. Ct. 594; Cher- 
 okee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 
 135 U. S. 641, 34 L. Ed. 295, 10 S. Ct. 
 965. It can not, therefore, be admitted 
 that a railroad corporation maintaining 
 a highway under the authority of the 
 state may fix its rates with a view solely 
 to its own interests, and ignore the rights 
 of the public. But the rights of the pub- 
 lic would be ignored if rates for the 
 transportation of persons or property on 
 a railroad are exacted without reference 
 to the fair value of the property used 
 for the public or the fair value of the 
 services rendered, but in order simply 
 that the corporation may meet operating 
 expenses,- pay the interest on its obliga- 
 tions, and declare a dividend to stock- 
 holders. Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 
 544, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418.
 
 Z7 
 
 CONTROL. AXU Rl-GULATIOX. 
 
 § 35 
 
 thing to the contrary in the charter or statute creating a railroad corporation, a 
 state may reasonably regulate its rates and tariffs upon intrastate traffic, al- 
 though it is inc(jr])oratc'(l under ;in art on congress.'**^ 
 
 State Newly Admitted to Union.— W here an act of congress regulating 
 the rates on a railroad in a territory provides that such regulations shall be in 
 force until a state government shall exist in the territory, when such govern- 
 ment shall be authorized to regulate the cost of transportation by the railroaa 
 comi)any, ui)«)n tlie organization of the territory as a state and its admission to 
 the L'nion, ihc rates fixed by the act of congress cease to be of force, and the 
 power to regulate intrastate rates on the railroad jjasses into the control of the 
 state, subject onlv to the constitutional rights of the railroad comi)any.''- 
 
 Railroads Incorporated in Several States.— W here a railroad running 
 throug'i more than one state is incorporated under tlie laws of each state through 
 which it passes, it is, as to the state incorporating it, a domestic corporation, 
 sul)ject to the state laws not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, 
 including state laws regulating freights and fares "for business done exclusively 
 within the state. ^■' 
 
 Consolidated Company, Consisting of Domestic and Foreign Corpo- 
 rations. — Where domestic railroad corporations are consolidated with foreign 
 corporations on terms which, in effect, require the consolidated company, when 
 operating in the state to be subject to its laws, the state may legislate for the 
 company within the state precisely as it could have legislated for its own orig- 
 inal com])anies, if no consolidation had taken place."^"* 
 
 That Income Is Pledged to Secure Debts Does Not Preclude Regula- 
 tion. — The stale may limit the anunnU of charges by railroad companies for 
 fares and freights, unless restrained by some contract in the charter, even though 
 their income may have been pledged as security for the payment of obligations 
 incurred upon the faith of the charter.^'' 
 
 Power to Declare What Shall Be a Reasonable Compensation or to 
 Fix a Maximum Charge. — \\\ the common law carriers or other persons ex- 
 ercising a public employment could not charge more than a reasonable compen- 
 sation for their ser\ices, and it is within the ])ower of the legislature to declare 
 
 81. Railroad created by congress.-- 
 Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co.. 154 U. 
 S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 14 S. Ct. 1062 ; 
 Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 523, 42 
 L. Ed. 819. 18 S. Ct. 418; Thomson v. 
 Pacific Railroad (U. S.), 9 Wall. 579, 19 
 L. Ed. 792; Railroad Co. v. Peniston (U. 
 S.). 18 Wall. 5. 21 L. Ed. 787. 
 
 The provision in the act of Congress 
 of July 1, 1862, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 489. in- 
 corporating the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company, that congress might reduce 
 the rates of fare if unreasonable in 
 amount and might fix and estalilish the 
 same by law whenever the net earnings 
 of the entire road should exceed ten per 
 cent upon its cost, exclusive of the '^wo^ 
 per cent to be paid to the United States, 
 did not affect the right of the several 
 states through which the road passes to 
 regulate the rates within their respective 
 limits. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 
 522. 42 L. Ed. S19, IS S. Ct. 418. 
 
 82. State newly admitted to union. — 
 Oklahoma v. Atcliison. etc.. R. Co.. 220 
 U. S. 277, 55 L. Ed. 465, 31 S. Ct. 434; 
 Oklahoma v. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., 220 
 U. S. 302. 55 L. Ed. 474. 31 S. Ct. 442. 
 affirming 21 Okla. 334, 97 Pac. 267. 
 
 83. Railroads incorporated by several 
 states. — Stone v. Farmers' Loan. etc.. Co., 
 116 U. S. 307. 29 L. Ed. '^^?,^y. 6 S. Ct. 334. 
 
 84. Consolidated company, consisting 
 of domestic and foreign corporations. — 
 Peik V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 
 24 L. Ed. 97. 
 
 85. That income is pledged to secure 
 debts does not preclude regulation. — IVik 
 c'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 94 U. S. 164, 24 
 L. Ed. 97; Munn v. Illinois. 94 U. S. 113, 
 24 L. Ed. 77; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Iowa. 94 U. S. 155. 24 L. Ed. 94. 
 
 The fact that before the power of reg- 
 ulation was exercised, the company 
 pledged its income as security for the 
 payment of dcl)ts incurred, and leased its 
 road to a tenant that relied upon the 
 earnings for the means of paying the 
 stipulated rent, does not affect the va- 
 lidity of the regulation, as the company 
 could neither grant nor pledge more than 
 it had. and its pledgee or tenant took 
 the property subject to the exercise by 
 the state of the same powers of regula- 
 tion which might have been exercised 
 over the company itself. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Iowa. 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94.
 
 § 36 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 38 
 
 what shall be a reasonable compensation for such services, or, perhaps more 
 properly speaking, to fix a maximum beyond wliich any charge made would be 
 unreasonable.'^^' But a state can not compel a railroad company to contract with 
 any individual or class for carriage at a charge less than the established or reg- 
 ular scale of fares.^" In some states the legislature is expressly empowered by 
 the constitution to fix maximum rates for railroad companies ; *^* and some of 
 the peculiar provisions of statutes fixing such maximum rates have been held to 
 be constitutional.^^ Statutes fixing maximum railroad rates are not invalid be- 
 cause they have caused the discharge of many railroad employees.'"^ 
 
 §§ 36-37. Delegation of Power — § 36. To a Commission. — There can 
 be no doubt of the general power of a state to regulate the fares and freights 
 which may be charged and received by railroad or other carriers by means of a 
 commission created for that purpose. '^^ Such a commission is merely an admin- 
 
 86. Power to declare what shall be a 
 reasonable compensation or to fix a max- 
 imum charge. — United States. — Munn v. 
 Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; Dow 
 V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 686, 31 L. 
 Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 
 858, 19 S. Ct. 565, reversing 114 Mich. 
 460, 72 N. W. 328. 
 
 Michigan. — Wellman v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 83 Mich. 592, 47 N. W. 489. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harry 
 & Bros., 63 Tex. 256, 259. 
 
 J'irginia. — Commonwealth v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 106 Va. 61, 55 S. E. 572. 
 
 West Virginia. — Laurel, etc., R. Co. v. 
 West Virginia Transp. Co., 25 W. Va. 
 324; West Virginia Transp. Co. v. Sweet- 
 zer, 25 W. Va. 434. 
 
 To limit the rate of charges for serv- 
 ices rendered in a public employment, or 
 for the use of property in which the pub- 
 lic has an interest, is only changing a 
 regulation which existed before. It es- 
 tablishes no new principle in the law, 
 but only gives a new effect to an old 
 one. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 
 L. Ed. 77; Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 
 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028. 
 
 The legislature has the general power 
 to fix a maximum rate per mile for car- 
 rying passengers on a railroad. Pingree 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 118 Mich. 314, 
 76 N. W. 0.-55, 53 L. R. A. 274. 
 
 87. Class legislation invalid. — Com- 
 monwealth V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 106 
 Va. 61, 07, 55 S. E. 572. 
 
 Statute requiring railroad company to 
 sell mileage tickets at a reduced rate. 
 — The New York statute. Laws 1895, c. 
 1027, § 1, requiring railroad companies to 
 sell 1,000-mile mileage tickets at a re- 
 duced rate, is not a valid exercise of the 
 right of the state to fix maximum rates 
 for transportation, but an arbitrary en- 
 actment in favor of those able or will- 
 ing to purchase the reduced-rate ticket. 
 Judgment, 15 App. Div. 251, 44 N. Y. S. 
 175, reversed. Beardsley v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E. 488. 
 
 Statute fixing charge for carrying mili- 
 tia held constitutional. — The Alinncsota 
 
 statute. Laws 1909, c. 493 (Rev. Laws 
 Supp. 1909, §§ 2007-32, 2007-33), re- 
 quiring railroad companies to carry offi- 
 cers and men of the national guard under 
 military orders at the rate of one cent 
 per mile, held constitutional. Simpson v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Minn. 3.S0, 137 
 N. W. 2, 41 L. R. A., X. S., 524. 
 
 88. Legislature empowered by consti- 
 tution to fix maximum rates. — Under the 
 Constitution of North Dakota, § 142, the 
 legislature can prescribe maximum rates 
 for the transportation by common carri- 
 ers of commodities within the state, if 
 they are reasonable. McCue v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co., 19 N. Dak. 45, 120 N. W. 869. 
 
 The constitution of Texas confers upon 
 the legislature the right to fix railroad 
 maximum rates, and relief from such 
 rates must be obtained from the legis- 
 lature, and not from the courts. State 
 V. P'armers' Loan, etc., Co., 81 Tex. 530, 
 17 S. W. 00. 
 
 89. Statutes fixing maximum rates held 
 constitutional. — The New Jersey statute. 
 Gen. Railroad Law 1903, § 38 (P. L. 1903, 
 p. 665), providing that a railroad may 
 charge such fare as it shall think reason- 
 able, not exceeding three cents per mile, 
 and not exceeding in the case of railroads 
 under special charter three and one-half 
 cents per mile, and providing for the sale 
 of tickets limited as to time for less than 
 the regular fare, is constitutional. Shel- 
 ton V. Erie R. Co., 73 N. J. L. 558, 66 Atl. 
 403, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 727. 
 
 The West Virginia act of 1873, c. 227, 
 esta1)lishing a reasonable maximum rate 
 of charges for the transportation of pas- 
 sengers and freight was constitutional. 
 Laurel, etc., R. Co. v. West Virginia 
 Transp. Co., 25 W. Va. 324; West Vir- 
 ginia Transp. Co. v. Sweetzer, 25 W. Va. 
 434. 
 
 90. Statutes not invalid because they 
 have caused discharge of many railroad 
 employees. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hadlcy. 168 Fed. 317. 
 
 91. Regulation by commission. — Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co. V. North Carolina Corp. 
 Comm., 200 U. S. 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 
 S. Ct. 585; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan,
 
 39 
 
 CONTROL, AND KKCULATION. 
 
 § 30 
 
 istrative board created by the state for carrying into elVect the will of the state, 
 as expressed by its legislation.''- The state may require the railroads of the 
 state to ])ay the salary and cx])eiises of such cunimi^^ion."''' 
 
 Constitutionality of Statutes Creating Commissions.— While an act cre- 
 ating a railroad commission for the purpose of regulating rates is not invalid 
 merely because it delegates such power to the commission,"-*" or because it em- 
 powers the commission to establish joint through rates or tariffs over the lines 
 of indei)endent connecting roads,'^^ all of its provisions must be certain and con- 
 sistent,'"' and it must not attempt to make the rates fixed by the commission con- 
 
 etc, Co., 154 U. S. 302, 32 L. Ed. 1014, 
 14 S. Ct. 1047; S. C, 154 U. S. 420, 
 38 L. Ed. 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Rea- 
 gan z: Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U. 
 S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 14 S. Ct. 1062; 
 McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 183 
 U. S. 483, 46 L. Ed. 289, 22 S. Ct. 165; 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, 
 ISO U. S. 257, 264, 46 L. Ed. 1151, 22 
 S. Ct. 900; Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 
 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 
 44 L. Ed. 417, 20 S. Ct. 336; Stone v. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 
 336, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 
 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702; In re 
 Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 290; 
 Southern Tac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 
 725. 
 
 A state, having the power to regulate 
 commerce within its boundaries, may es- 
 tal)lish a board or commission to which 
 it can intrust the power to fix rates for 
 transportation of passengers and freight 
 on railroads wholly within its borders. 
 Chapman, etc., Lumber Co. v. Jonesboro, 
 etc.. R. Co., 97 Ark. 300, 133 S. W. 1119. 
 
 The provisions of the constitution of 
 Georgia requiring the legislature to pass 
 laws " regulating freight and passenger 
 tariffs within the state, and regiilations 
 adopted by the railroad commission es- 
 tablished by the statutes passed in pur- 
 suance thereof, administered subject to 
 the limitation tbat the carriage can not 
 be required without reward or upon con- 
 ditions amounting to the taking of prop- 
 erty for public use without just compen- 
 sation, do not violate the constitution of 
 the United States, but are within the 
 powers of the state, and have full force 
 as Dublic law. Trammel v. Dinsmorc. 
 42 C C. A. 623. 102 Fed. 794. Affirmed, 
 18.T U. S. 115. 40 L. K(l. m. 22 S. Ct. 45. 
 
 92. Nature of commission. — Reagan z'. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc.. Co., 154 U. S. 302. 
 38 L. Ed. 1014. 14 S. Ct. 1047; S. C. 154 
 U. S. 420. 38 L. Ed. 1031. 14 S. Ct. 1002; 
 Reagan r. Mercantile Trust Co.. 154 U. 
 S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 10:?0. 14 S. Ct. 1062. 
 
 93. Power to make railroads bear ex- 
 penses of commission. — Cliarlotte, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 380, 35 L. Ed. 
 1051, 12 S. Ct. 255; Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Kentucky. 161 U. S. 677. 090. 40 L. Ed. 
 849, 16 S. Ct. 714. 
 
 An act requiring the state railroad cor- 
 porations to pay the salary and expenses 
 of the state railroad commission is not 
 in conflict with the fourteenth amend- 
 ment of the federal constitution. Char- 
 lotte, etc., R. Co. V. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 
 :>,•) L. Ed. 1051, 12 S. Ct. 255. 
 
 94. Statute not invalid because it del- 
 egates power to commission. — Stone v. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 110 U. S. 307, 
 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334. 
 
 "Much litigation has arisen in regard 
 to railroad commissions. At first rail- 
 road companies contested the constitu- 
 tionality of acts creating these commis- 
 sions and conferring upon them the 
 power to fix reasonable rates and to 
 make reasonable rules and regulations. 
 The most common ground of attack v^as 
 that this was a delegation of legislative 
 power. It is now firmly established by 
 the decisions of the courts of this coun- 
 try, both state and federal, that such pow- 
 ers can be conferred without constituting 
 an unconstitutional delegation of legisla- 
 tive power." Southern R. Co. v. Melton, 
 133 Ga. 277. 280, 05 S. E. 005. 
 
 The Mississippi act creating a commis- 
 sion and charging it with the duty of 
 supervising railroads is not unconstitu- 
 tional upon that ground alone. Stone f. 
 Farmers' Loan. etc.. Co., 116 U. S. 307, 
 29 L. Ed. 630, 6 S. Ct. 334. 
 
 95. Power to provide for regulation of 
 joint through tariffs. — The Minnesota act 
 of 1895, creating a railroad and ware- 
 house commission and defining its duties 
 is not invalid because it undertakes to au- 
 thorize the commission to establish joint 
 through rates or tariffs over the lines of 
 independent connecting roads, and to ap- 
 portion and divide the joint earnings. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota. 
 1S<) U. S. 257, 40 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 
 900. 
 
 96. Certainty and consistency essential. 
 — Stone V. Farmers' Loan, etc.. Co.. 116 
 U. S. 307. 29 L. Ed. 636. 6 S. Ct. 334. 
 
 The Mississippi statute creating a com- 
 mission and charging it with the duty of 
 supervising railroads is not void because 
 of the uncertainty or inconsistencj- of its 
 provisions. Stone r. Farmers' Loan, etc., 
 Co., 116 U. S. 307. 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 
 334.
 
 § 36 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 40 
 
 elusive, but must leave the question of their re^isonableness open to judicial in- 
 
 quirv.^' 
 
 Constitutional Provisions and Statutes Delegating Power to Commis- 
 sions Construed. — Sonic of the constitutional i)rovisions and statutes creating 
 railroad commissions and authorizing them to fix and regulate charges for the 
 carriage of passengers and freight by railroad companies operating in the state 
 have been interpreted by the courts.'"^ JuristHction so extensive as to place in 
 
 97. Act must leave question of reason- 
 ableness of rates open to judicial inquiry. 
 
 —The Minnesota act of ^larch 7. 1SS7 
 (General laws of 1887. ch. 10), estalilish- 
 ing a railroad and warehouse commission, 
 as interpreted bj- the supreme court of 
 that state, is unconstitutional in that it 
 makes the rates established by the com- 
 mission conclusive, and does not allow 
 judicial inquiry into their reasonableness. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 
 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702. 
 
 98. Constitutional provisions and stat- 
 utes delegating power to commissions 
 construed. — Colorado. — Under act March 
 22, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 532, 536-538), §§3, 
 12, 13, 14, and 15, state railroad commis- 
 sion held to have power to regulate rates 
 for transportation and prohibit unreason- 
 able rates, even if not discriminatory or 
 preferential. Consumers' League v. Colo- 
 rado, etc., R. Co., 53 Colo. 54, 125 Pac. 
 577. 
 
 Florida. — By a contract between the S. A. 
 L. Ry. Co. and the F. W. S. Ry. Co., tlie 
 former agreed to furnish to the latter an 
 equipment for its line of railway, to be oper- 
 ated by the officers of the former in connec- 
 tion with its own road, the latter com- 
 pany to pay for the use of the equipment 
 the same rentals which the other company 
 charged other lines for the use of similar 
 equipments, the W. S. Co. to assume its 
 portion of the salaries of the officers op- 
 erating such road, the S. A. L. Co. agree- 
 ing to guaranty the payment of certain 
 bonds issued by the other company, and 
 to make good any deficiency in the op- 
 erating expenses and fixed charges. Held, 
 that the S. A. L. Co. controls and operates 
 the other company, within the railroad 
 commission law (Acts 1899, p. 78, c. 4700, 
 §§ 3, 4), prohibiting any railroad from 
 making unjust discrimination in its freight 
 or passenger rates on its tracks, or on 
 any railroad "which it has the right, li- 
 cense, or permission to use, operate, or 
 control," so that the railroad commission- 
 ers had power, under § 6 (page 80) of 
 said law, to make reasonaljle and just 
 rates for freight and passenger tarififs, to 
 be observed in the operation of the road 
 under the terms of the contracts. State 
 V. Seaboard, etc.. Railway. 48 Fla. 129, 
 37 So. 314; S. C, 48 Fla. 152, 37 So. 6.58. 
 Affirmed Seaboard, etc., Railway v. Ellis, 
 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. Ed. 175, 27 S. Ct. 109. 
 
 Georgia. — A "joint rate" within the 
 meaning of Act Oct. 14, 1879 (Acts 1878, 
 p. 125), § 5, as amended by Acts 1889, p. 
 
 131, and Civ. Code 1895, § 2189, declaring 
 that the railroad commissioners shall have 
 power to make just and reasonable joint 
 rates for all connecting railroads as to 
 traffic passing from one road to the other, 
 is a rate charged for the transportation of 
 goods or passengers over connecting lines 
 of two or niore railroads and divided 
 among them for the services rendered by 
 each respectively. Hill v. Wadley South- 
 ern R. Co., 128 Ga. 705, 57 S. E. 795. 
 
 Where the railroad commissioners de- 
 clared that a continuous mileage rate 
 should apply to two connecting railroad 
 companies, the stock and bonds of one 
 of which were owned by the other, though 
 each had its separate directors and was 
 operated separately, applying the rate 
 previously fixed for the owning company, 
 such rate was a joint rate within the 
 meaning of Act Oct. 14, 1879 (Acts of 
 1878, p. 125), § 5, as amended by Acts 
 1889, p. 131, and Civ. Code 1895, § 2189, 
 declaring that the railroad commissioners 
 shall have the power to make just and 
 reasonable joint rates for all connecting 
 railroads, and the action of the commis- 
 sioners was not ipso facto illegal on the 
 ground that it was not a joint rate and 
 not authorized by the statute, if the rate 
 so fixed was reasonable and just. Hill v. 
 Wadley Southern R. Co., 128 Ga. 705, 57 
 S. E. 795. 
 
 A "joint rate" as authorized by Act 
 Oct. 14, 1879 (Acts 1878, p. 125), § 5, as 
 amended by the act of 1889 (Acts 1889, 
 p. 131; Civ. Code 1895, § 2189), declaring 
 that the railroad commissioners shall have 
 power to make just and reasonable joint 
 rates for all connecting railroads as to 
 traffic passing from one road to the other, 
 may be made by deducting some pre- 
 scribed per cent from each of the local 
 rates and adding together the two rates 
 thus reduced, but such method is not ex- 
 clusive. Hill V. Wadley Southern R. Co., 
 128 Ga. 705, 57 S. E. 795. 
 
 Illinois. — Under the act establishing the 
 State Railroad and Warehouse Commis- 
 sion and defining its jurisdiction, it had 
 jurisdiction as to the charges of common 
 carriers for switching cars to industries 
 on their own or other lines, regardless 
 of whether it could compel service with- 
 out compensation, or whether it could 
 compel a carrier to allow its cars to leave 
 its own tracks. East Side Packing Co. v. 
 Vandalia R. Co., 258 111. 397, 101 N. E. 
 600. 
 
 lozi'a.^Act Iowa, April 5, 1888, provides
 
 41 
 
 CONTROL AND RI-XULATION. 
 
 § 36 
 
 the hands of a commission ])0\vcr to make general maximum rates for all com- 
 modities between all points in the state is not to be implied, but must be given 
 
 for the regulation of transportation 
 charges by railroad companies, and for a 
 board of commissioners to fix reasonable 
 charf^es. Section 17 requires said board 
 to make a schedule of maximum rates, 
 which shall be deemed prima facie rea- 
 sonable. Sections 18 and 20 provide that 
 any person may complain that the 
 charges made or published by any com- 
 pany arc higher than those fixed by the 
 schedule, or that the latter are unreasona- 
 bly high, upon which the board shall in- 
 vestif^ate the complaint. The decision 
 made thereon shall set out the maximum 
 rates to be charged thereafter, and nei- 
 ther the decision nor the schedule therein 
 contained shall lie limited to the case 
 complained of, but shall extend to all 
 such rates between points in the state, 
 and to whatever part of the line of said 
 road within the state as may have been 
 fairly within the scope of the investiga- 
 tion. Held, that the power to make a 
 full schedule is not only conferred by § 
 17, but is given also by said other sec- 
 tions, in case a complaint has been made 
 and investigated. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Dey, 38 Fed. 656. 
 
 Massachusetts. — The authority of the 
 board of railroad commissioners under 
 Pub. St., c. 112, §§ 192-194, is not to con- 
 sider the general subject of rates, but to 
 "ascertain at what rates facilities for the 
 carriage of milk under contract or in large 
 quantities are furnished by the railroad 
 corporation," and to compare them with 
 the tariff for the carriage of milk by the 
 can. to fix rates by the can "fairly pro- 
 portionate with such contract or large 
 quantity rates." The order when made is 
 to have the force and efTecc of a criminal 
 statute, which calls for strictness and reg- 
 ularity in proceedings under it. Little- 
 field V. Fitchburg R. Co., 158 Mass. 1, 32 
 N. E. 859. 
 
 Michigan. — The legislature by enacting 
 Pub. .^.cts 1909, No. SOO. permits carriers 
 to charge reasonable and just rates for 
 services performed and confers on the 
 railroad commission the power to ascer- 
 tain whether a rate is reasonable and just. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Michigan R. 
 Comm., 171 Mich. 325, 137 N. \V. 329. 
 
 Pub. Acts 1909. No. 300, regulating car- 
 riers, creating the railroad commission 
 with power as authorized l)y § 8 to pro- 
 mulgate demurrage rules, and declaring in 
 § 3 that tlie act shall apply to the trans- 
 portation of "property between point ; 
 within this state, and to the receiving, 
 switching, delivering, storing, and han- 
 dling of such property and to all charges 
 connected therewith," limits the power of 
 the commission to promulgate demurrage 
 rules to cases where the property has been 
 or is to be transported between points 
 within the state, and demurrage rules 
 
 adopted by the commission are limited to 
 intrastate transportation. Ann .•\rbor R. 
 Co. V. Michigan R. Comm., 163 Mich. 49, 
 127 N. W. 746. 
 
 Minnesota. — Under Gen. Laws 1887, c. 
 10, as amended by Laws 1891, c. 106, the 
 state railroad and warehouse commission, 
 when reducing rates on the complaint of 
 any one that rates between certain points 
 on a certain railroad are too high, may, 
 for the purpose of preventing discriinina- 
 tion by its own acts, reduce the rates on 
 the whole line or system. Steenerson v. 
 Great Northern R. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 
 72 N. W. 713. 
 
 MississipfJt. — Act Miss. March 11, 1884, 
 confers upon the railroad commission the 
 power to control all rates for the trans- 
 portation of goods, wares, and merchan- 
 tlise from points within the state to points 
 without the state, and from points with- 
 out to points within the state. Mobile, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Sessions, 28 Fed. 592. 
 
 Missouri. — In Laws Mo. 1887 (Ex. 
 Sess.), making it the duty of the railroad 
 commissioners to see that schedules of 
 rates are reasonable and just, and provid- 
 ing that they "may," on complaint of any 
 person, or on their own motion, determine 
 whether the schedule of rates adopted by 
 any common carrier is reasonable and 
 just, the word "may" must be construed 
 as "shall," as the statute is intended to 
 be mandatory. Winsor Coal Co. f. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 52 Fed. 716. 
 
 Oklahoma. — The corporation commission 
 has the power, under Const., art. 9, § 18, 
 to fix a reasonable charge to be paid by 
 shippers to the railroad for the dipping 
 of cattle brought above the quarantine 
 line before delivery. Midland \'allev R. 
 Co. V. State, 35 Okla. 672, 130 Pac' 803. 
 
 Texas. — The railroad commission of 
 Texas, under authority from the legisla- 
 ture, has power to fix railroad passenger 
 rates not exceeding a maximum rate of 
 three cents per mile, and may fix difTer- 
 ent rates for different carriers, subject to 
 the constitutional restriction that it can 
 not deny to one carrier the equal protec- 
 tion of the laws by prescribing for it an 
 unreasonably low and confiscatory rate, 
 while other carriers similarly situated are 
 permitted to charge a higher rate. Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Storey, 149 Fed. 499. 
 
 J'irginia. — The constitution of \'irginia, 
 § 156, subsec. "b," declares that the state 
 corporation commission shall have the 
 power of regulating all transportation 
 companies in relation to the performance 
 of their public duties and clrarges there- 
 for, and that the commission shall enforce 
 such rates as may be reasonable. .\ trans- 
 portation company, the business of which 
 consisted of conducting a switch line and 
 handling cars to and from industries with 
 which it had established switching connec-
 
 § 36 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 42 
 
 in language admitting no other reasonable construction.^^ A statute requiring 
 the railroad commissioners to fix tables of maximum charges, is not to be ex- 
 tended by construction to authorize the fixing of such charges to points beyond 
 the limits of the state. ^ 
 
 Regulations by Commission in Excess of Statutory Power. — Where a 
 railroad commission after a hearing on specific complaint as to a rate on a par- 
 ticular commodity makes a general rate tarilT for maximum rates on all commod- 
 ities which is beyond its statutory power, the whole tariff falls, and the rate 
 on the tariff" on the particular commodity will not be separately sustained. - 
 
 Necessary Prerequisites to Regulations. — Where rate regulations of rail- 
 road commissioners are not necessarily proper as a matter of law, or the pro- 
 priety of the regulation may depend on circumstances, there should be an in- 
 vestigation before the regulation is made.^ Some of the statutes authorizing 
 railroad commission to fix or adjust rates require the commission, before doing 
 so. to give notice* Under other statutes the commission is not authorized to 
 adjust rates until a complaint has been made, and their action is limited to the 
 rates complained of.^ 
 
 lions, observed the usual custom of plac- 
 ing cars in position to be weighed on con- 
 signees' or shippers' individual track 
 scales, which scale service was necessary 
 to the due delivery of goods. Held, that 
 the Corporation Commission had author- 
 ity to fix the charges for placing the cars 
 in position on such scales. Norfolk, etc., 
 R. Co. c'. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 289. 49 
 S. E. 39. 
 
 99. Power to make general maximum 
 rates not implied.— Siler -v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 2i:i U. S. 175, 176, 53 L. Ed. 753, 
 29 S. Ct. 451 (construing Kentucky rail- 
 road commission act). 
 
 The fact that the legislature of a state 
 gives to a railroad commission no power 
 to raise rates, but only power to reduce 
 rates found to be exorbitant after hearing 
 on specific complaint, is an argument 
 against construing the statute so as to 
 give the commission power to fix maxi- 
 mum rates on all commodities. Siler t'. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 213 U. S. 175, 53 
 L. Ed. 753, 29 S. Ct. 451. 
 
 Power to make a general schedule of 
 maximum rates for the transportation of 
 all commodities, upon all railroads, to and 
 from all points within the state, upon a 
 general and comprehensive complaint that 
 rates are too high, or upon like informa- 
 tion of the commission itself, is not con- 
 ferred upon the Kentucky railroad com- 
 mission by Act Ky. March 10, 1900 (Acts 
 1900, p. 5, c. 2), authorizing it, upon com- 
 plaint that the rates of any railway com- 
 pany are extortionate, or upon its own 
 information, to fix a reasonable rate if, 
 after hearing, it finds the rates extortion- 
 ate. Siler ^'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 213 
 U. S. 175, 53 L. Ed. 753, 29 S. Ct. 451; 
 Siler V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 213 U. S. 
 199, 53 L. Ed. 760, 29 S. Ct. 458. 
 
 1. No implied power to fix charges to 
 points out of state. — Merrill i: Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 63 X. H. 259, construing St. 
 1883, c. 101. 
 
 2. Regulations by commission in excess 
 of statutory power. — Siler z'. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 213 U. S. 175, 53 L. Ed. 753, 
 29 S. Ct. 451. 
 
 A particular rate on a specific com- 
 modity fixed by the Kentucky railroad 
 commission will not, in order to sustain 
 its validity, be separated from the general 
 order fixing a general schedule of maxi- 
 mum rates for all commodities, upon all 
 railroads, to and from all points within 
 the state, where the specific order was 
 made after a general complaint was filed, 
 and is itself a general order, and was made 
 in the .exercise of the unfounded assump- 
 tion of the power under Act Ky. March 
 10, 1900 (Acts 1900, p. 5, c. 2), to make 
 a general tariff of rates. Siler v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 213 U. S. 175, 53 L. Ed. 
 753, 29 S. Ct. 451. 
 
 3. When investigation necessary before 
 regulation is made. — Railroad Comm'rs Z'. 
 Florida, etc., R. Co., 64 Fla. 112, 59 So. 
 385. 
 
 Before making a railroad rate order, the 
 railroad commissioners should inquire into 
 and consider the interests of all directly 
 and substantially aflfected. Railroad 
 Comm'rs i'. Florida, etc., R. Co., 64 Fla. 
 112, 59 So. 385. 
 
 4. Notice must be given. — Under the 
 Iowa statute, chapter 17, § 3, Acts 1890, 
 authorizing commissioners to establish 
 joint through rates, and providing that 
 they shall be governed therein by the act 
 of 1888, which requires notice in the fix- 
 ing of rates, a joint through rate, adopted 
 without notice, is void. State v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 90 Iowa 594, 58 N. W. 1060. 
 
 5. No power to adjust rates of which 
 no complaint has been made. — Under the 
 Washington statute, § 3 of Act 1905, p. 
 147, c. 81, vesting the railroad commission 
 with power upon complaint made "* * 
 * after a full hearing to make any find- 
 ing declaring any existing rate for the 
 transportation of persons or property to 
 be unreasonable, discriminatory or insuffi-
 
 43 
 
 COXTUOL AND KI-XULATIOX. 
 
 § 39 
 
 § 37. To a Municipal Corporation. — Authority is sometimes conferred by 
 statute or cliarli-r upon nuuncipal i,(»r| (orations to prescribe or regulate the charges 
 of carriers within tlie municipality." An ordinance fixing a rate for hire of hacks, 
 etc., and imjjosini^ fine or imprisonment for refusal to pay such rate, was within 
 the' legislative aiulioriiv of a muuici])alily authorized to regulate such convey- 
 ances." 
 
 §§ 38-3 9. Classification of Railroads for Purposes of Regulation— 
 § 38. Right to Classify.— Since a uniform rate of charges for all railroad com- 
 panies in the state might ojjerate unjustly upon some, it is proper to provide in 
 some way for an adai)tion of the rates to the circumstances of the different roads, 
 and the general assembly may. in the exercise of its legislative discretion, do this 
 by a s\stem of classification."^ 
 
 § 39. Mode of Classification. — Whether the classification shall be accord- 
 ing to the amount of passengers and freight carried, or of gross or net earnings, 
 during a previous vear, or according to the simpler and more constant test of 
 the length of the line of the railroad, is a matter within the discretion of the 
 legislature If the same rule is applied to all railroads of the same class, there 
 is no violation of the constitutional jM-ovision securing to all the equal protection 
 of the laws.'' 
 
 cient, * * * and to declare and order 
 what' shall be a just and reasonable rate 
 * * * to l)e imposed, enforced, or per- 
 formed or followed in the future in the 
 place of that found to be objectionable," 
 the railroad commission has no power, 
 upon complaint as to certain rates, to ad- 
 just rates of which no complaint is made, 
 nor to forl)id railroad companies operat- 
 ing in the state from changing their ex- 
 isting tariffs not theretofore fixed by the 
 commission, without the consent of the 
 commission. Great Northern R. Co. r. 
 Railroad Comm. (Wash.), 92 Pac. 457. 
 
 Since, under such section the commis- 
 sion has no power upon complaint made 
 as to certain rates to adjust rates of which 
 no complaint is made, a complaint, framed 
 under such section, in wliich the commis- 
 sion allege that certain rates are fair, just, 
 and reasonable, raises no issue which the 
 railroad company must answer, and the 
 commission can not adjust such rates. 
 Great Northern R. Co. r. Railroad Comm. 
 (Wash.), 92 Pac. 457. 
 
 An order of the railroad commission, 
 changing commodity freight rates, is void, 
 where no complaint has been made against 
 the existing rates, and no hearing had 
 thereon. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Rail- 
 road Comm., 52 Wash. 440, 100 Pac. 987. 
 
 6. Statutes authorizing limitation of rate 
 to be charged by street railroad compa- 
 nies. — Under the Illinois statute. 1 Starr 
 & C. Ann. St. (2d Ed.), pp. 689-715. art. 
 5. § 1 (City and Village Act April 10. 
 1872), adopted by the city of Chicago as 
 its charter, as well as under former char- 
 ters (Act Fell. 14, 1851, and Act Feb. i:;, 
 1863), authorizing the city to regulate and 
 prescrilie the compensation of hackmen, 
 cabmen, omnilius drivers, and "all others 
 pursuing a like occupation," the city had 
 power to enact Rev. Code Chicago. §§ 
 
 1723, 1725, limiting the rate of fare to be 
 charged by street railway companies, in- 
 asmuch as the phrase "others pursuing a 
 like occupation," when construed ejusdem 
 generis, includes street railway companies. 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Chicago, 199 
 111. 484, 65 N. K. 451, 59 L. R. A. 631. 
 
 Charter provision not authorizing mu- 
 nicipality to fix rates of fare. — A provision 
 in the charter of a city authorizing it to 
 "pass all by-laws concerning carriages, 
 wagons, carts," etc., "and every b)'-law, 
 ordinance and regulation it may deem 
 proper for the peace, health, order or 
 good government of the city," does not 
 authorize it to fix rates of fare. Old Col- 
 ony Trust Co. r. Atlanta, s:i Fed. 39. 
 
 it is within the power of Atlantic City 
 to pass ordinances regulating the business 
 of omnibuses, automobiles, or locomobiles, 
 and fixing the fares to be charged. At- 
 lantic City v. Fonsler, 70 N. J. L. 125, 56 
 Atl. 119. 
 
 7. Ordinance authorized by legislative 
 authority to regulate conveyances. — Bray 
 ■r. State, 140 Ala. 17:2. ;';: So. ;250. 
 
 8. Right to classify roads for purpose ol 
 regulation. — Dow :. Bciildnian. l:.'.') U. S. 
 (kso, ;n L. ]\d. 841, s S. Ct. I02s. 
 
 9. Mode of classification. — Dow v. Beid- 
 elman, 125 U. S. 680. 31 L. Ed. 841, S S. 
 Ct. 1028; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 
 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94; Ruggles V. Illinois, 
 108 U. S. 526, 27 L. Ed. 812. 2 S. Ct. 832; 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: Illinois. 108 U. S. 
 541, 27 L. Ed. 818. 2 S. Ct. 8:59. 
 
 Classification according to amount of 
 business. — The legislature, in the exercise 
 (if its power of regulating fares and 
 freights, may classify the railroads ac- 
 cording to the amount of the business 
 which they have done or appear likely to 
 do and tix their rates accordingly. Dow
 
 40 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 44 
 
 §§ 40-72. Limitation of Power— §§ 40-67. Reasonableness of Reg- 
 ulations — § 4 0. Regulations Must Be Reasonable. — The power ot a state, 
 either through its legislature or a conmiission, to regulate the rates of charge of 
 common carriers on intrastate business, is subject to the limitation that such 
 rates must be reasonable.'"' and afford just and reasonable compensation for the 
 services performed^' and for the use of the property devoted to the business, 
 estimated at its fair \alue.'- The rights of carriers and the public with respect 
 
 V. Beidelman, 135 U. S. 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 
 8 S. Ct. 102S. 
 
 Classification accordiiig to trackage. — A 
 classification In- statute according to the 
 length of the several lines, with different 
 rates for passengers for roads in each 
 class, is valid. Dow v. BeiJelman, 125 L'. 
 S. ti-^^n. ;!i L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028. 
 
 Classification according to gross annual 
 earnings per mile. — The statute of Illi- 
 nois of April 15, 1871 (Illinois Laws of 
 1871, p. 640), which classified the railroads 
 in the state according to their gross an- 
 nual earnings per mile, and puts different 
 limits on the compensation of the differ- 
 ent classes per mile for carrying a pas- 
 senger and his baggage, is constitutional 
 and valid, in restricting to the limit of 
 three cents a mile existing corporations, 
 whose charters gave them power to make 
 all by-laws, rules and regulations not re- 
 pugnant to law, and giving their direct- 
 ors power to establish such rates of toll as 
 they should by their by-laws determine. 
 Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 27 L. 
 Ed. 812, 2 S. Ct. 832; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 541. 27 L. Ed. 818, 2 
 S. Ct. 839; Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 
 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028. 
 
 A statute regulating the rate for the 
 carriage of passengers, by different classes 
 of railroads, according to their gross earn- 
 ings per mile, is not in conflict with art. 
 1, § 4, of the constitution of Iowa, which 
 provides that "all laws of a general nature 
 shall have a uniform operation," and "the 
 general assembly shall riot grant to any 
 citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or 
 immunities which upon the same terms 
 shall not equally belong to all citizens." 
 * * * "The statute divides the railroads of 
 the state into classes, according to busi- 
 ness, and establishes a maximum of rates 
 for each of the classes. It operates uni- 
 formly on each class, this Is all the con- 
 stitution requires." Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94. 
 
 10. Rates prescribed must be reasonable. 
 ■ — Southern I'ac. Co. z\ Bartine, 170 Fed. 
 725; In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 
 290; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm., 196 Fed. 800; Chapman, etc.. Lum- 
 ber Co. V. Jonesboro, etc., R. Co., 97 Ark. 
 300, 133 S. W. 1119; Southern Indiana R. 
 Co. V. Railroad Comm.. 172 Ind. 113, 87 
 N. E. 966; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Phila- 
 delphia County, 220 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 676; 
 Graham Ice Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 153 Wis. 145, 140 N. W. 1097. 
 
 Whether a rate for the carriage of goods 
 
 and passengers by a railroad company 
 fixed by the railroad commissioners is le- 
 gal depends on whether it is reasonable 
 and just or unreasonable and confiscatory. 
 Hill V. Wadley Southern R. Co., 128 Ga. 
 705. 57 S. E. 795. 
 
 A state has no right to fix a rate un- 
 reasonably low, though it may prevent a 
 railroad from fixing one unreasonably 
 high. Southern Pac. Co. v. Board, 78 Fed. 
 236. 
 
 A corporation performing pul)lic serv- 
 ices and the people financially interested 
 in its business and affairs have rights that 
 may not be invaded by legislative enact- 
 ment in disregard of the fundamental 
 guarantees for the protection of property, 
 and regulations of rates to be valid must 
 l)e reasonable. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 526, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 A grant to the legislature in the con- 
 stitution of Nebraska of the power to 
 establish maximuni rates for the transpor- 
 tation of passengers and freight on rail- 
 roads in that state has reference to "rea- 
 sonable" maximum rates. It can not be 
 admitted that the power granted may bo 
 exerted in derogation of rights secured l)y 
 the constitution of the United States, ot 
 that the judiciary may not, when its ju- 
 risdiction is properly invoked, protect 
 those rights. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 526,' 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 11. Rates prescribed must afford just 
 and reasonable compensation for services. 
 — Southern Pac. Co. r. Bartine, 170 Fed. 
 725; State v. Central Vermont R. Co., 81 
 Vt. 463, 71 Atl. 194; Graham Ice Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 153 Wis. 145, 140 N. 
 W. 1097. 
 
 Though the public has an interest in 
 the use of private property devoted to the 
 railroad service, and the legislature may 
 l)y statute limit the charges for such serv- 
 ice, it can not reduce them below the 
 point of fair remuneration. Coal, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Conley, 67 W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 613. 
 
 12. Rates prescribed must afford rea- 
 sonble compensation for use of prop- 
 erty. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 
 Fed. 725. 
 
 Confiscatory orders. — In Wisconsin it 
 has been held that "Confiscatory orders" 
 are ordinarily. Ijut not always, unlawful 
 and unreasonable, and to l)e confiscatory 
 an order of the railroad commission 
 regulating rates, or charges must de- 
 prive the railroad of a fair return upon 
 its property, and not merely reduce former 
 rates or charges. Minneaoolis, etc., R.
 
 45 
 
 COXTR(JL AND RKGULATION. 
 
 § -40 
 
 to rates are reciprocal. The carrier is entitled to ask a fair return on the value 
 of its ])roi)erty it employs for the jjublic convenience, and the public is en- 
 titled to demand that no more he exacted from it for the use of the public high- 
 way than the services rendered are reasonably worth.'-' Statutes fixing rates for 
 transportation by carriers will not be held unconstitutional on the ground that 
 they are unreasonable without the fullest disclosure of all material facts.'-* The 
 reasonableness or unreasonableness of the particular ])rovisions of statutes, com- 
 mission orders and municipal ordinances, prescribing or regulating the rates to 
 be charged 1)\ carriers for ilie carriage of passengers or freight, has, in a num- 
 ber of cases, been delerniined b\ the courts. '•'• 
 
 Co. V. Railroad Coium., 130 Wis. 14G, 110 
 N. W. 'JOo. 
 
 State railroad commissioners can not 
 enforce a schedule of rates for switching 
 cars in a city, which hxes the compensa- 
 tion at less than the actual cost to the 
 company for the work. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Becker, 35 Fed. 883. 
 
 13. Reciprocal rights of carriers and the 
 public, in re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 
 Fed. 2U(). 
 
 While a carrier is entitled to adequate 
 recompense for the service it performs, 
 the individuals are entitled to a rate that 
 they can reasonably afford to pay for the 
 service they require. The company, on 
 the one hand, has the right to derive a fair 
 income from its investment, and the pub- 
 lic, on the other hand, to have no more 
 exacted than the services in themselves 
 are worth. Puget Sound H,lect. Railway 
 V. Railroad Comm.. <),") Wash. 75, 117 Pac. 
 73'.). 
 
 14. Fullest disclosure of all material 
 facts to show unreasonableness essential. 
 — Tucker f. Missouri I'ac. R. Co., S2 Kan. 
 222, 108 Pac. 89. 
 
 15. Statutes held unconstitutional as be- 
 ing confiscatory. — .A.ct .Ma. Vch. 14, l'.)()7 
 (Acts li)07, p. 104), fixing passenger rates, 
 and Act Nov. 23, 1907 (Acts Sp. Sess. 1907. 
 pp. 91-159), knowm as the Eight Group 
 Acts, relating to freight rates, held uncon- 
 stitutional as to complainant railroad com- 
 panies as confiscatory. Western Railway 
 V. Railroad Comm., 197 Fed. 954. 
 
 The passenger rate act of Illinois of 
 May 27, 1907, fixing maximum fares of two 
 cents per mile, held conliscatory and un-- 
 constitutional, as applied to tlic Chicago, 
 Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company of 
 Illinois. Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 199 Fed. 593. 
 
 Evidence insufficient to show statutory 
 rates unconstitutional and confiscatory. — 
 In suits to enjoin the enforcement of Act 
 Nev. March 5, 1907 (St. Nev. 1907, p. 73. 
 c. 44), creating a railroad commission and 
 authorizing it to estal)lish freight rates 
 on intrastate business, not higher than 
 those prescribed in a schedule of maxi- 
 mum rates, evidence considered, and, ex- 
 cept in the case of one complainant, held 
 insufficient to show that such maximum 
 rates, if adopted and enforced would be 
 
 unconstitutional as confiscatory. South- 
 ern l^ac. Co. V. Bartine, 170 Fed. 725. 
 
 Commission order held unreasonable 
 and unjust. R;iilroad commi.-,>ion order 
 Xo. 553 of August 0, 1900, establishing 
 freight rates for the hauling of sugar cane, 
 held, under the evidence, to be unreason- 
 aide and unjust within Const, art. 284, con- 
 ferring on the commission authority to 
 adopt reasonable and just rates. Mor- 
 gan's etc., Steamship Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm., 127 La. 030. 53 So. S90. 
 
 Commission order held unreasonable 
 and confiscatory. — Railroad Commission 
 Order \o. 970, passed February 26, 1909, 
 estal)lishing and reducing the rate on 
 petroleum and its products in less than 
 car load lots, held unreasonable and con- 
 fiscatory. Louisiana, etc., R. Co. i'. Rail- 
 road Comm., 131 La. 3S7, 59 So. S20. 
 
 Rate fixed by commission held reason- 
 able. — The rate fixed h}- tlie corporation 
 commission of twenty-five cents per car 
 for placing cars in position to be weighed 
 on consignee's or shipper's individual track 
 scales is reasonable. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 103 \"a. 2S9, 49 S. 
 E. 39. 
 
 One commission order held reasonable 
 and another unreasonable. — Orders made 
 i)\' the railroad commission of Louisiana, 
 fixing rates on gravel and sand in car 
 loads, considered, and one held reason- 
 able and valid, and another void as un- 
 reasonable. Thompson v. Railroad Comm., 
 19S Fed. 091. 
 
 Evidence not showing rate made by 
 commission unreasonable and unjust. — 
 Plaintiff in an action against the railroad 
 commission does not. as required by the 
 Texas statute. Rev. St. 1895. art. 4506, 
 show that the freight rate on cotton 
 made by it is unreasonable and unjust to 
 him because there is no car rate, and be- 
 cause it is the same amount per one 
 hundred pounds whether pressed to a 
 density of forty pounds to the cubic foot, 
 as shipped by him. or to a density of only 
 twenty and one-half pounds, as shipped 
 by others. Judgment, Railroad Comm. 
 V. Weld (Tex. Civ. App.). OS S. W. 1117, 
 reversed. Railroad Comm. t. Weld, 96 
 Tex. 394. 73 S. W. 529. 
 
 Municipal regulation held unreasonable. 
 — .\ municipal regulation extending tlie 
 five cent fare limit of a street railroad
 
 S 42 CARRIKRS. 46 
 
 Rates May Be Valid as to Some Railroads Though Not Compensatory 
 
 as to Others.— That slate statutes fixing railroad rates are not enforceable as 
 to particular railroads, because the rates as applied to such roads are not com- 
 pensatory, does not render them invalid as to other roads. i** 
 
 Right' of Carrier to Increase Rates to Meet Changed Conditions.— A 
 carrier has the right, if rates have been fixed too low in the past, to meet changed 
 conditions by increasing them if the increase is reasonable, and a state statute, 
 which denies it that right and forces it to continue in force rates which are un- 
 remunerative and confiscatory, is unconstitutional and yoid.^' 
 
 Right to Change Rates Which Have Been Lowered to Meet an Exi- 
 gency. — A railroad company has the right to change rates which to meet an exi- 
 gency have been made so low as to be unrcmunerative when the necessity there- 
 for has ceased to exist, and a statute which prohibits the increase of such rates 
 is unconstitutional as confiscatory. ^^ 
 
 Conclusiveness of Statutory Rate in Action for Freights.— A carrier 
 can not reco\er for the transportation of property more than the maximum fixed 
 by the legislature, by showing that the amount charged was no more than rea- 
 sonable compensation for the services rendered. !•' 
 
 §§ 41-67. Mode of Determining Reasonableness— § 41. That Car- 
 rier Has Performed Services for Rate Fixed Not Sole Criterion.— A 
 
 freitdit rate fixed by a railroad commission with power to establish reasonable 
 and'^just rates, can not be held just and reasonable solely because the carrier has 
 performed services for the fixed rate.-*^ 
 
 §§ 42-49. Carrier Entitled to Fair Return on Investment— § 42. In 
 General. — The basis of all calculations as to the reasonableness of rates to be 
 charged by a corporation maintaining a highway under legislative sanction, must 
 be the fair value of the property being used by it for the convenience of the 
 public. 21 And, having regard to the fair value of the carrier's investment, the 
 rates fixed must admit of its earning a compensation that under all the circum- 
 stances is just to it and to the public.-- A carrier can not be compelled, by the 
 
 held invalid for unreasonableness. East 21. Value of carrier's property proper 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Belleville, 193 basis of calculations as to reasonableness 
 
 Pg'f] f)- ' of rates. — Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Min- 
 
 Ordinance held not unreasonable. — An nesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. 1151, 22 
 
 ordinance permitting an omnibus driver S. Ct. 900; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 
 
 to charge only ten cents for carrying a 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Missouri, etc., 
 
 passenger, irrespective of the distance, is R. Co. v. Love, 177 Fed. 493; Seaboard Air 
 
 not unreasonable. Atlantic City v. Brown, Line R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 155 Fed. 
 
 72 X. J. L. 207, r)2 Atl. 428. 792; Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Michigan R. 
 
 "l6. Rates may be valid as to some rail- Comm., 171 Mich. 325, 137 N. W. 329. 
 roads though not compensatory as to Whether an intrastate freight rate is 
 
 others. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hadley, reasonable or confiscatory depends on the 
 
 Ids Fed. :n7. valuation of the railroad company's prop- 
 
 17 Right of carrier to increase rates to erty. the income derived from the rate, 
 
 meet changed conditions.-Wcstern Rail- and the proportion between the two. 
 
 way r. Railroad Comm., 197 Fed. 954. Montana, etc., R. Co. v. Morley, 198 Fed. 
 
 18. Right to change rates which have '''-^^g ^^^^^^ ^^ investment must be just 
 been lowered to meet an exigency.- ^^ ^^^^j^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ public-Lake Shore, 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., ^.^^__ ^. ^^_ ^^, ^_^^;^j^^ ^.., ^,_ g_ ^^^^ ^3 ^ 
 196 Fed. 800. £j_ g5g^ ;^9 g. Ct. 565; Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 19. Conclusiveness of statutory rates in q^ ^, WeUman, 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 
 action for freights. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. ^--g^ ^o S. Ct. 400; Reagan v. Farmers' 
 V. Ackley. 94 U. S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 99; Peik ^^j^,^ ^^^^ q^^ I54 y. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 -[f,^.^^ ^^ g q_ -^047; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 L. Ed. 97. V, Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. Ed. 567, 15 
 
 20. That carrier has performed serv- S. Ct. 484; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 ices for rate fixed not sole criterion.— Uc- 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 troit, etc., R. Co. v. Michigan R. Comm., What the company is entitled to ask 
 
 171 Mich. 325, 137 N. W. 329. is a fair return upon the value of that
 
 47 
 
 COXTKOL AN'D RKGULATION. 
 
 42 
 
 establislinient of rates by a state commission, to transact its whole business at a 
 loss, as rates which would so operate would be confiscatory.--* And rates for 
 railroad transportation are not unreasonable only when they amount to prac- 
 tical confiscation, nor are they necessarily reasonable when they allow any divi- 
 dend, however small, but a railroad company is entitled to be reimbursed its 
 charges and expenses, and to receive, besides, an adequate return upon the in- 
 vestment.-' r.ut rales charged by a common carrier can go no higher than the 
 
 which is employed for tlic public conven- 
 ience. On the other hand, what the pub- 
 lic is entitled to demand is that no more 
 be exacted from it for the use of a pub- 
 lic highway than the services rendered by 
 it are reasonably worth. Smyth v. Ames, 
 169 U. S. 406, 547, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 
 418. 
 
 Whether railroad rates prescribed by a 
 state commission are reasonable involves 
 a determination of the value of the prop- 
 erty devoted to the public use to which 
 the rates apply, the measure of a reason- 
 able return on that value and whether the 
 rates allowed to be charged arc sufficient 
 to that end. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Love, 
 177 Fed. 493. 
 
 The reasonableness of rates for the in- 
 trastate carriage of freight and passen- 
 gers established by a state, as affecting a 
 particular carrier, can not be determined 
 alone from the kind or amount of business 
 done by such carrier; the fact remaining, 
 which must be considered, that it is en- 
 titled to earn a fair return on its invest- 
 ment, if it can l)e done without making the 
 rates oppressive. In re Arkansas Rate 
 Cases, 1S7 Fed. 290. 
 
 Carrier entitled to reasonable profit on 
 entire intrastate business. — While a rail- 
 road is not entitled to earn a profit on 
 every mile of its road nor on every article 
 carried by it, it is nevertheless entitled to 
 earn a reasonable profit on its entire intra- 
 state lousiness. Southern R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Xeill, 15.5 Fed. 756. 
 
 A rate prescribed by a state railroad 
 commission for the carriage of a particular 
 commodity will nut i)c held to be unrea- 
 sonable, wliere it appears that it is more 
 than the average rate received by the road 
 for the carriage of all freight for the pre- 
 vious year. Seaboard, etc.. Railway v. 
 Ellis, 2015 U. S. 2()1. 51 L. Ed. 175, 27 S. 
 Ct. 109. 
 
 23. Carrier can not be compelled to 
 transact its whole business at a loss. — 
 Louisiana R., etc., Co. v. Railruad Cumni., 
 131 La. 387, 59 So. 820. 
 
 In a suit to enjoin the enforcement of 
 a carrier's schedule prepared l^y the board 
 of railroad commissioners, a table was in- 
 troduced in evidence showing the operat- 
 ing expenses of two of the roads affected 
 for four years, and it appeared that, if the 
 schedule as proposed had been in opera- 
 tion at that time, the business of the roads 
 would have been done at an actual loss, 
 and nothing left for a return on the value 
 of the property. Held, that the rates of 
 
 the commission were unreasonably low. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47. 
 
 The constitution of Louisiana, art. 284, 
 gives authority to the Railroad commis- 
 sion to adopt reasonable and just rates. 
 Held, that the commission is authorized 
 to make rates which are reasonable and 
 just and no other, and no rate can be 
 reasonable and just to a railroad company 
 which is established safely upon the basis 
 of the company's gross revenue, since 
 gross revenue may be insufficient to meet 
 expense and to yield a return upon in- 
 vested capital. Morgan's, etc., Steamship 
 Co. V. Railroad Comm.. 127 La. 030. 53 
 So. 890. 
 
 24. Railroad company entitled to receive 
 an adequate return upon investment. — 
 Soutlicrn Pac. Co. v. Board, 7>> Fc-d. 236. 
 
 If a railroad is not ill conceived, greater 
 in extent than it should be, or unduly ex- 
 pensive in construction, and is operated 
 wisely and economically, rates producing 
 no more than a reasonable return on its 
 fair value would not be unjust to any 
 one. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Love, 177 
 Fed. 493. 
 
 Freight rates established by state au- 
 thority are invalid as unreasonable and 
 confiscating, if so low that a carrier can 
 not earn a fair and reasonable return on 
 the value of the property devoted to the 
 service. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Lee, 199 
 Fed. 621. 
 
 The railroad commission established by 
 the Michigan statute. Pub. Acts 1909. No. 
 300. with power to fix reasonable and just 
 rates, must consider the value of the prop- 
 erty of the carrier employed for the public 
 convenience, and give it a fair return on 
 such value. Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Michi- 
 gan R. Comm.. 171 Mich. 325. 137 N. W. 
 329. 
 
 Under the Wisconsin Statute. Laws 
 1905. pp. 556, 559. c. 362. §§ 12. 14. requir- 
 ing railroads to furnish adequate service, 
 and that the charges and rates be reason- 
 alilc, and permitting the railroad com- 
 mission to fix reasonable rates, and § 16, 
 permitting the railroad or other party 
 in interest to have such orders reviewed 
 in the circuit court, in an action against 
 a commission to vacate an order on the 
 ground that it is unlawful or unreason- 
 able, in determining whether any order is 
 unreasonable, the court must consider 
 that every unnecessary burden imposed 
 upon the railroad impairs its net receipts 
 and diminishes the margin between its 
 gross receipts and the amount sufficient
 
 § ^'- 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 48 
 
 service is reasonably worth to the public, even though charges so limited would 
 fail to produce a fair return to the carrier upon its investment.-'' What consti- 
 tutes a fair return to a carrier on its investment is a mixed question of law and 
 fact.-*^ In determining the question consideration should be given to the profits 
 realized generally on similar investments in the locality of the one under con- 
 sideration,-' and to the legal rate of interest in the state. -'^ That a road was 
 
 to assure a fair return on the value of its 
 propert}', plus the amount of its fixed 
 charges and operating expenses, and that 
 the rights of the public and of the rail- 
 road require that this margin should or- 
 dinarily not be exhausted or impaired by- 
 orders of the commission as fast as it 
 accumulates. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Railroad Comm., 136 Wis. 1 i(3, 116 N. W. 
 905. 
 
 The Missouri statute. Act Feb. 27, 1907 
 (Laws 1907, p. 170), establishing two cent 
 passenger fares on intrastate railroads, 
 and Act March 19, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 
 171), establishing maximum freight rates 
 held confiscatory and unconstitutional on 
 evidence showing that none of the roads 
 doing business thereunder can earn to 
 exceed 3 per cent net income on its state 
 business, while as to some the business 
 must be done at a loss. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. c'. Hadlcy. 1<18 Fed. 317. 
 
 Sufficiency of evidence as to unreason- 
 ableness of rates. — A general averment in 
 a bill that a tariflf, as established, is un- 
 just and unreasonable, is supported by the 
 admitted facts that the road cost far more 
 than the amount of the stock and bonds 
 outstanding; that such stock and bonds 
 represent money invested in its construc- 
 tion; that there has been no waste or mis- 
 management in the construction or opera- 
 tion; that supplies and labor have been 
 purchased at the lowest possible price 
 consistent with the successful operation 
 of the road; that the rates voluntarily fixed 
 by the company have been for 10 years 
 steadily decreasing, until the aggregate 
 decrease has been more than 50 per cent; 
 that, under the rates thus voluntarily es- 
 tablished, the stock, which represents two- 
 fifths of the value, has never received any- 
 thing in the way of dividends, and that 
 for the last three years the earnings above 
 operating expenses have been insufficient 
 to pay the interest on the bonded debt, 
 and that the proposed tariff, as enforced, 
 will so diminish the earnings that they 
 will not be able to pay one-half the inter- 
 est on the bonded debt above the operat- 
 ing expenses; and such an averment, so 
 supported, will, in the absence of any 
 satisfactory showing to the contrary, sus- 
 tain a finding that the proposed tariff is 
 unjust and unreasonable. Reagan v. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 302, 
 38 L. !•>!. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047. 
 
 25. Rates can go no higher than service 
 is reasonably worth to public. — Puget 
 Sound Elect. J^ailway v. Railroad Comm., 
 05 Wash. 75, 117 Pac. 739. 
 
 It does not necessarily follow that a 
 schedule of maximum freight rates is con- 
 fiscatory and unconstitutional because it 
 fails to yield a reasonable return on the 
 investment. Such rates must be reason- 
 able not only to the company but also 
 to the public, and the fact that they do 
 not prove remunerative to a new road 
 built through a sparsely settled country 
 where there is at present little local busi- 
 ness does not require the few people and 
 the small business to pay such rates as 
 will make the road immediately profitable 
 to its stockholders. Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 Bartine, 170 Fed. 725. 
 
 Where the carrying of 25 per cent of 
 the total number of passengers carried 
 by a street railroad company under rates 
 affecting only 10 per cent of the passen- 
 ger revenue at a rate less than what 
 would be an adequate return for the use 
 of its property affords it a profit over the 
 actual costs of moving the passenger and 
 is the only rate the passenger can afford 
 to pay, such a rate is a reasonable rate, 
 both to the company and to the public. 
 Puget Sound Elect. Railway v. Railroad 
 Comm., 65 Wash. 75, 117 Pac. 739. 
 
 26. What constitutes a fair return a 
 mixed question of law and fact. — North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co. V. Lee. 199 Fed. 62L 
 
 27. Ordinarily, the right to the rate of 
 returns, realized generally on similar in- 
 vestments in the locality of the one un- 
 der consideration, is deemed reasonable 
 and fair, if the investor could earn it, and 
 the rate is allowed on the amount ac- 
 tually invested in good faith, fictitious 
 valuations being rejected. Coal, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Conley, 67 W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 613. 
 
 28. Rate of profit allowable. — In de- 
 termining whether passenger rates pre- 
 scribed by the Pennsylvania statute. Act 
 April 5, 1907 (P. L. 59), are unreasonable 
 in so far as a particular carrier is con- 
 cerned, the question is whether such rate 
 will enable the carrier to earn a net in- 
 come not less than the legal rate of in- 
 terest after paying fixed charges and op- 
 crating expenses, maintaining the plant, 
 and providing a suital)le sinking fund for 
 tlie payment of del)ts and a fair profit 
 to the owners of the property. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. V. Philadelphia County, 220 
 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 676. 
 
 Railroads in Alabama are entitled to 
 earn a net profit of 8 per cent on the 
 value of the property employed by thern 
 in intrastate business, so long as the busi- 
 ness is done without discrimination and
 
 49 
 
 CONTROL ANU KKGULATIOX. 
 
 § 43 
 
 built without expectation of an immediate realization of a fair return on the in- 
 vestment does not justify disallowance of such return if it can be earned with- 
 out cxactif^n of uiirc-a.sniiablc rates.-"' 
 
 Rate on a Particular Commodity. — A reduced rate on a particular com- 
 modity is not reasonable, if established without regard to whether it will pay the 
 cost of the service, or yield a fair return to the carrier on the cai)ital invested.^*^ 
 
 §§ 43-49. Mode of Determining Value of Property or Investment— 
 § 43. In General. — In order to ascertain the lair value of the property used 
 by the carrier, the original cost of construction, the amount expended in perma- 
 nent improvements, the amount and market value of its bonds and stock, the 
 present as compared with the original cost of construction, the probable earning 
 capacity of the property under particular rates prescribed by statute, and the 
 sum required to meet operating expenses, are all matters for consideration, and 
 are to be given such weight as may be just and right in each case."^ To ascer- 
 
 at reasoiiaI)lc rates. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Railroad Comni., lOO Fed. 800. 
 
 And a schedule of rates fixed by law 
 which will not permit them to earn such 
 return is confiscatory and unconstitu- 
 tional. Western Railway f. Railroad 
 Comm., 197 Fed. 954. 
 
 Railroad companies in Arkansas held 
 entitled to earn an income of (5 per cent 
 per annum on the value of their property 
 employed in intrastate business, com- 
 puted on the basis of the assessed valua- 
 tion of such property, and from the earn- 
 ings of a prosperous year to reserve a 
 surplus of 1..") per cent in addition; and 
 the rates established by the Arkansas 
 railroad commission and the two-cent 
 passenger law of Fel)ruary 9, 1907 (Acts 
 Ark. 1907, p. 10), held confiscatory as to 
 such companies, and their enforcement 
 enjoined. In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 
 Fed. 290. 
 
 In Minnesota it has l)een held that 
 where the evidence shows that the rates, 
 as reduced by the state railroad and 
 warehouse commission, would produce 
 2^ per cent net income on the cost of 
 reproducing the terminals, and 5 per cent 
 net income on the cost of reproducing the 
 rest of the road, the same is a fairly lil)- 
 eral income. Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 69 Minn. .353, 72 N. W. 713. 
 
 In a case in the United States circuit 
 court in Missouri it was held that railroad 
 property, properly built and managed, is 
 entitled to earn an annual income of 6 
 per cent on its fair valuation, and a stat- 
 ute fixing rates under which it can not 
 make such income is confiscatory and 
 unconstitutional. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Ha.Iley. ics Fed. 317. 
 
 29. Immaterial that immediate realiza- 
 tion of a fair return was not expected. — 
 Coal, etc.. R. Co. V. Conloy. tlT \V. \a. 
 129, 1)7 S. F. (il3. 
 
 30. Rate on a particular commodity. — 
 I.,ouisiana R., etc., Co. v. Railrdail Conini.. 
 J 31 La. 387, 59 So. 820. 
 
 A reduced rate upon a particular com- 
 modity transported by a carrier is not 
 
 1 Car— 4 
 
 reasonable and just within the constitu- 
 tion of Louisiana, art. 284, giving the rail- 
 1 oad commission power to adopt reason- 
 able and just rates when it is established 
 without regard to whether the existing 
 rate is high or low, as compared with 
 rates on other commodities, and without 
 regard to whether it will pay the cost of 
 the services rendered or \ield a fair re- 
 turn to the carrier upon capital invested. 
 Morgan's, etc., Steamship Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm., 127 La. 636, 53 So. 890. 
 
 While a statute of a state requiring a 
 railroad company to transport a particu- 
 lar commodity within the state for less 
 than cost does not involve the taking of 
 property without due process of law, 
 vvithin the prohibition of the fourteenth 
 amendment of the United States consti- 
 tution, so long as the railroad company 
 obtains a fair revenue from the whole of 
 its intrastate business, it does not follow 
 that such a rate, to be unreasonable and 
 rnjust, within Const., art. 284, giving au- 
 thority to the railroad commission to fix 
 reasonable and just rates for railroads, 
 must also be obnoxious to the fourteenth 
 amendment. Morgan's, etc.. Steamship 
 Co. :•. Railroad Comm., 127 La. 636, 53 
 So. 890. 
 
 But it has been held that the proper 
 test as to whether rates fixed for trans- 
 porting coal are reasonable is not whether 
 the rate fixed is sufficiently high to en- 
 able the carrier to earn a fair compensa- 
 t'on, but whether, under such rates, it will be 
 enabled from its total freight receipts on 
 all its intrastate traffic to earn a sum, 
 above operating expenses reasonably nec- 
 essary for such traffic, sufficient to yield 
 a fair and reasonable profit upon its in- 
 vestment. McCue f. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 19 N. Dak. 45. 120 N. W. 869. 
 
 31. Mode of determining value of prop- 
 erty. Smvlli :■. .-Xnu'S. 169 I". S. 466. 42 
 !.. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 In estimating the value of the prop- 
 erty of a railroad companj- for the pur- 
 pose of determining the reasonableness of 
 rates fixed bv a state, neither the market
 
 §45 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 50 
 
 tain the value of a railroad to determine the validity of a rate regulating stat- 
 ute the most reliable test is the cost of reproduction of the road when the stat- 
 ute" was enacted taking the value of the road at that time without regard to what 
 may have been its value when constructed.-'- Courts, in determining whether a 
 rate for frei<^ht charges fixed bv stale authorilv is reasonable, can not assume 
 that the cost'^of reproduction of' a line of railway, or that the present, as com- 
 pared with the original, cost of construction, is the amount of stock and bonds 
 outstanding, or that it is what the road has cost up to the time of the trial.-^^ 
 The assessed valuation of the property of a carrier is entitled to great weight m 
 determining the value of the propertv employed for the establishment of rates.^ 
 The value of a railroad, like that of any other business property, may be a mat- 
 ter of growth : and its location, good will, and established business are elements 
 to be considered in determining such value.-'^' 
 
 § 44, Fictitious Capitalization or Excessive Bonded Debt.— If a rail- 
 road corporation has bonded its property for an amount that exceeds its fair 
 value, or if its capitalization is largely fictitious, it may not impose upon the 
 public the burden of such increased rates as may be required for the purpose 
 of realizing profits upon such excessive valuation or fictitious capitalization; 
 and the apparent value of the property and franchises used by the corporation, 
 as represented by its stocks, bonds and obligations, is not alone to be consid- 
 ered when determining the rates that may be reasonably charged.-'*^ 
 
 § 45. Sworn Return of Value of Property Made for Purposes of Tax- 
 ation.— A sworn return of the value of a line of railroad, made to the state 
 
 value of its stocks and bonds, the cost of 
 construction, nor the cost of reproduction 
 of the property is absolutely controlling, 
 but each should be regarded as a fact 
 tending to show fair value, and, if one 
 only of such facts is shown, it may be 
 assumed that it represents such value. 
 Sotithern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 
 725. 
 
 32. Cost of reproduction most reliable 
 test of value. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Railroad Conim., 196 Fed. 800. Compare 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston, etc., 
 R. Co., 90 Fed. 683. 
 
 In the valuation of the property ot a 
 railroad company for the purpose of de- 
 termining the reasonableness of a state 
 statute regulating rates, as affecting such 
 property, a fundamental and generally con- 
 trolling inquiry is the cost of reproducing 
 the property in its existing condition at 
 the time of the inquiry. Western Rail- 
 way V. Railroad Comm., 197 Fed. 954. 
 
 In Minnesota it has been held that the 
 question whether the rates for transpor- 
 tation fixed by the state railroad and ware- 
 house commission are unreasonable and 
 confiscatory is determined by ascertain- 
 ing what, under all the circumstances, 
 is a reasonable income on the cost of re- 
 producing the road at the present time. 
 Steenerson v. Great Northern R. Co., 69 
 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713. 
 
 33. State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 80 Minn. 191. 83 N. W. 60, 89 Am. 
 St Rep. 514, affirmed Minneapolis, etc., 
 R Co. V. Minnesota, 186 U.' S. 257, 46 L. 
 Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 34. Assessed valuation of property. — 
 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Michigan R. 
 Comm., 171 Mich. 325, 137 N. W. 329. 
 
 Evidence of a greater value than the 
 assessed value must be shown by a car- 
 rier when it attacks rates fixed by the 
 railroad commission created by the Michi- 
 gan statute. Pub. Acts 1909, No. 300. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Michigan R. 
 Comm.. 171 Mich. 325, 137 N. W. 329. 
 
 35. Location, good will, and established 
 business. — Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co.. 90 Fed. 683. 
 
 Circumstances not warranting consid- 
 eration of value as a going concern. — But 
 where a railroad company, owning a 
 monopoly of transportation between cer- 
 tain points, the tonnage of which con- 
 sisted largely of coal transported from 
 the mines to a junction with a transcon- 
 tinental line, had never been able to pay 
 interest on its bonds, had accumulated 
 only a very limited equipment, and had 
 not prospered to any material extent, it 
 was not entitled to an addition to its re- 
 productive value in determining the rea- 
 sonableness of a freight rate for added 
 value as a going concern. Montana, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. Morley, 198 Fed. 991. 
 
 36. Fictitious caoitalization or excess- 
 ive bonded indebtedness. — Smyth v. 
 Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. 
 Ct. 418. 
 
 A bonded debt of a railroad is neither 
 a complete nor accurate criterion of the 
 value of the property for the ascertain- 
 ment of the reasonable or confiscatory 
 character of intrastate freight rates. Mon- 
 tana, etc., R. Co. V. Morley, 198 Fed. 991.
 
 51 
 
 COX'IROL AND RIXULATIOX. 
 
 § 50 
 
 authorities for purposes of taxation by an officer of the comijany, is evidence 
 of the vahie of the property, to be considered in determining the reasonableness 
 of rates or charges fixed by the state for the carriage of passengers or freight, 
 but is not conclusive on the company for the latter ])uri)Ose, and does not estop 
 it to show thai the actual cost of reproducing the i)r(.i)erty would be nuich 
 greater than the value scj given.-'"^ 
 
 § 46. Value of Franchise.— In valuing the properly of a railroad com- 
 pany for the purpose of determining the validity of a state statute regulating 
 rates, the value of the company's franchise is to be included, and. where the state 
 by its tax commission has placed a value on such franchise for taxation pur- 
 poses, it UKiv fairly be taken l)y the court as a basis for its finding.'*^ 
 
 § 47. Consolidated Corporation— Value of Assets of Constituent Cor- 
 porations. — TIk' valuation ])laced by a consolidated street railroad corporation 
 on the assets of the constituent cori)orations will not bind the railway commis- 
 sion in estimating the valuation upon which the corporation should earn an in- 
 come, or in fixing the price the carrier may charge for transporting passengers.'''^ 
 
 § 48. Part of Railroad within State to Be Regarded in Its Relation to 
 Part without State. — In the case of a railroad system extending into or ihr(nigh 
 two or more states, the part within a state, the value of which is to be deter- 
 mined upon an issue as to the reasonableness of rates therein, should be regarded 
 in its relation to the whole, and consideration given to the influence upon that 
 value of property outside the state employed in aid of all its transportation busi- 
 ness.**" 
 
 § 49. Road Purchased at Foreclosure Sale and Reorganized.— Where 
 
 a road was purchased at a foreclosure sale and reorganized, the fact that the 
 rates fixed will not pay a fair return on the original cost of the investment docb 
 not show them to be unreasonable, there being no evidence to show the cost of 
 the investment to the persons purchasing and reorganizing it.-*' 
 
 § 50. Carrier Entitled to Earn Interest upon a Valid Bonded Debt. — 
 
 The interest upon a valid bonded debt of a railroad company, contracted in a 
 
 37. Return of value of property made 
 for purposes of taxation. — l\ouisvillc'. etc., 
 R. Co. f. lirowii. 12:! l'\'(l. 940. 
 
 The return of a valuation of a part of 
 its property to tlic board of equalization 
 docs not estop a railroad company, in a 
 proceeding for placing a valuation on the 
 whole property for the purpose of fixing 
 transportation rates, l)ut is competent 
 evidence. Southern Pac. Co. v. Board, S7 
 Fed. 21. 
 
 38. Value of franchise. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. i<ailr(Kul Conini.. VM\ Fed. SOO. 
 
 39. Consolidated corporation — Value of 
 sets of constituent corporations. — Tyrrell 
 V. Lincoln Tract. Co. (Xeb.), 134 X. W. 
 278. 
 
 40. Part of railroad within state to be 
 regarded in its relation to part without 
 state. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Ltn-e, 177 
 Fed. 4',i:!. 
 
 41. Road purchased at foreclosure sale 
 and reorganized. — Dow v. Heidelnuiu, 12."> 
 U. S. cso. ;u L. Fd. S41. 8 S. Ct. 1028. 
 
 A state statute (Arkansas Act of .A-pril 
 4. 1887) restricting the rate for carrying 
 passengers to three cents a mile is not 
 
 sliowii to l)e invalid because of the un- 
 reasonableness of its provisions, as ap- 
 plied to a railroad bought under a fore- 
 closure sale and reorganized, by the ad- 
 mitted facts that with the same traffic 
 that the road has. and charging for trans- 
 portation at the rate of three cents per 
 mile, the net yearly income will pay less 
 than V/2 per cent on the original cost of 
 the road, and only a little more than 2 
 per cent of the amount of its bonded debt, 
 there being no evidence whatever as to 
 how much money the bonds cost, or as 
 to the amount of the capital stock of 
 the corporation as reorganized, or as to 
 the sum paid for the road at its purchase 
 under the foreclosure. It can not be pre- 
 sumed that the price paid at the sale un- 
 der the decree of foreclosure equalled the 
 original cost of the road, or the amount 
 of outstanding bonded debt, and without 
 any proof of the sum invested by the re- 
 organized corporation the court has no 
 means, even if it would under any cir- 
 cumstances have the power, of determin- 
 ing that the rate of three cents a mile 
 is unreasonable. Dow v. Beidelman. 125 
 U. S. 680. 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 52 
 
 careful economical, and honest administration of its business, constitutes a fixed 
 charge ' which the company is entitled to earn before its net earnmgs above oper- 
 ating expenses can be considered as dividends, which arc sul)ject to regulation or 
 reduction in the discretion of the legislature.-^- 
 
 § 51. Ascertaining* Cost of Doing Business or of Operating Road.— 
 
 As the reasonableness of a schedule of rates for local business of a railroad com- 
 pany must be detemiined bv a comparison between the gross receipts and the cost 
 of doing the business, it can not be determined until the cost of doing the busi- 
 ness is ascertained.-'-" In ascertaining the cost of operating a railroad, with refer- 
 ence to determining the reasonableness of rates, the expenses of operation are 
 not to be strictlv limited to the cost of running trains, excluding all betterments.^^ 
 When estimating the cost of operating a railway per ton of freight per mile of 
 carriage, for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of a tariff of rates 
 fixed by a state railroad and warehouse commission, it is error to take into con- 
 sideration an amount of the earnings which has been appropriated and paid out 
 as dividends on stock shares of such railway.'*"' 
 
 §§ 52-54. Consideration of Net Earnings in Determining Reasonable- 
 ness of Rates Prescribed— § 52. Net Earnings Must Be Sufficient to 
 Pay Fair Return on Investment. ^In fixing the rates of a carrier, regard must 
 be had to the net earnings, and these must be sufficient, under the proposed 
 schedule, to pay a fair return on the carrier's investment.-**' But a schedule of 
 railroad rates established by state authority is not unreasonably low as to a par- 
 ticular road because it will not enable the company to accumulate from its net 
 earnings a sinking fund for the payment of its indebtedness.-*' 
 
 two and the net earnings ascertained. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. Tompkins, 176 
 U. vS. 167, 44 L. Ed. 417, 20 S. Ct. 336. 
 
 The Nebraska statute, Act April 12, 
 1893 (Laws 1893, p. 164, c. 24), prescrib- 
 ing local freight rates on railroads, which 
 reduces such rates 29^^ per cent, is invalid 
 where the rates prescribed are such, as 
 to companies operating roads within the 
 state, and doing an interstate business, 
 that there would be no net earnings from 
 transportation of freight if such rates 
 were applied to all their business. Ames 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., 64 Fed. 165. 
 
 Where the business of a railroad com- 
 pany within a state is efficiently, econom- 
 ically, and honestly conducted, and its 
 operating expenses are no greater than 
 such management requires, and the net 
 earnings of its lines within the state, 
 above operating expenses, both from 
 local and through business, are less than 
 half the amount required to pay the 
 interest on the mortgage debt upon lines 
 within the state, the local earnings at the 
 same time being insufficient to pay half 
 of the proportion of such interest justly 
 chargeable thereon, a state regulation re- 
 ducing the rates it is permitted to charge 
 on local business, the effect of which will 
 be to materially decrease its net earnings, 
 is unreasonable and unjust and a viola- 
 tion of its constitutional rights. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Smith. 110 Fed. 473. 
 
 47. Carrier not entitled to accumu- 
 late sinking fund from net earnings. — 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Storey, 149 
 Fed. 499. 
 
 42. Carrier entitled to earn interest on 
 
 a valid bonded debt. — Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Smith, 110 h'cd. 473. 
 
 43. Necessity of ascertaining cost of 
 doing business. — Decree, 90 Fed. 363, re- 
 versed. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Tomp- 
 kins, 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. Ed. 417, 20 S. 
 Ct. 336. 
 
 44. Mode of ascertaining cost of oper- 
 ating railroad. — Southern Pac. Co. v. 
 Board, 78 Fed. 236. 
 
 45. State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60, 89 Am. St. 
 Rep. 514, affirmed Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Mi4inesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. 
 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 46. Net earnings must be sufficient to 
 pay fair return on investment. — Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 44 
 L. Ed. 417, 20 S. Ct. 336. See, also, Sea- 
 board, etc., Railway v. Ellis, 203 U. S. 
 261, 51 L. Ed. 175, 27 S. Ct. 109. 
 
 Upon a bill to restrain the enforcement 
 of a schedule of rates for the carriage of 
 passengers and freight published by the 
 railroad commission of a state, the court 
 in reaching its conclusion proceeded upon 
 the theory that the comparison of the ac- 
 tual gross receipts of the company from 
 the business within the state with those 
 which it would have received if the rates 
 which it prescribed had been in force was 
 sufficient to determine the question of the 
 reasonableness of the rates. It was held 
 that this was error; that the question of 
 expenses incurred in producing the gross 
 receipts should have been taken into ac- 
 count and a balance struck between the
 
 53 
 
 CONTROL AM) KKCri.ATION'. 
 
 § 53. Mode of Computing Net Earnings and What They Include.— In 
 
 cominUiii<,' llic net im onic of a railroad comi)any, for tlie purpose of determining 
 whether the rates prescrihed by the state are reasonable or confiscatory, the^ in^ 
 trastate business of the company is justly chargeable with its proper proportion 
 of the expense incurred by the company in maintaining agents in various parts 
 of the country to solicit business."*" in making such computation net earnings 
 must be held lo include earnings apphrd to the purchase of additional etjuip- 
 ment and other improvements,-*" and ilic fair rental value of the dining room, 
 saloon, check stand, etc.. privileges in a jiassenger station, although the carrier 
 grants such privileges for a merely nominal rental.''" In computing the net earn- 
 ings, sums paid out by the carrier for injuries to persons may properly be in- 
 cluded in operating expenses.-^'* In com])Uting the net earnings from its intra- 
 state business miscellaneous earnings and expenses, not directly attributable to 
 either intrastate or interstate business, may jjroperly be apportioned between 
 the two on the ])asis of the earnings from each source. '■- 
 
 § 54. Earnings of Entire Road to Be Regarded. — .\ carrier can not claim 
 
 the rif^ht to earn a net profit from every mile, section or other part into which 
 the road mav be divided, nor attack as unjust a regulation which fixes a rate at 
 which some such part would be unremunerative, as it would be practically im- 
 possible to ascertain in what proportion the several parts should share with 
 others in the expenses and receipts in which they particii)ated.''*-' To the extent 
 that the ([uestion of injustice is to be determined by the effects of an act fixing 
 the rate upon the earnings of the company, the earnings of the entire line must 
 be estimated as against all its legitimate expenses under the operation of the 
 act within the limits of the state.'''* A state railroad commission may reduce the 
 freight upon a particular article, provided the company is able to earn a fair 
 profit ui)on its entire business, and the burden of proof is upon it to impeach the 
 action of tlie commission in this particular."'"' 
 
 48. Mode of computing net earnings 
 and what they include. — In re Arkansas 
 Rate Cases, tST Fed. 2'.H). 
 
 49. Coal, etc., R. Co. v. Conley, 07 W. 
 \'a. 129, f)7 v^. E. 613. 
 
 50. In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 
 290. 
 
 51. In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 
 290. 
 
 52. In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 
 290. 
 
 53. Earnings of entire road, and not 
 any particular part, the proper criterion. 
 —St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. iV\\\. \:>C, U. S. 
 649, 39 L. Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Stevenson, 156 U. S. 667. 
 39 L. Ed. 573, 15 S. Ct. 491. 
 
 54. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, ir)6 U. 
 S. 649, 665, 39 L. Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484. 
 
 The reasonableness of a passenger rate 
 of a certain amount per mile fixed by the 
 legislature must in the case of a railroad 
 company be determined by its effect on 
 tlie net earnings of the company on its 
 entire line within the state, and not by its 
 effect on any subdivision, even though it 
 was once a separate road. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. Ed. 567, 
 15 S. Ct. 484, affirming 54 Ark. 101, 15 
 S. W. 18. 
 
 55. Freight may be reduced upon par- 
 ticular article if entire business earns fair 
 profit. — Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co. i\ Min- 
 
 nesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. 1151, 22 
 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 The fact that if rates upon all goods 
 carried were fixed at the amount imposed 
 l)y the commission upon coal in carloads 
 the road would not pay its operating ex- 
 penses does not show that the rate fi.xeci 
 l)y the commission is unreasonable. It 
 may well l)e that the existing rates upon 
 other merchandise, which are not dis- 
 turbed by the commission, may be suffi- 
 cient to earn large profits to the company, 
 though it may earn little or nothing upon 
 coal in carload lots. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. 
 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 .•\ rate fixed by a railroad commission 
 on a certain article can not be held to he 
 unrcasonal)le where there is no evidence 
 from which a reasonalile deduction can be 
 made as to the cost of transporting such 
 commodity, the amount of such commod- 
 ity carried, or the effect which the rate 
 will have on the carrier's income. Sea- 
 board, etc.. Railway v. Ellis, 203 U. S. 
 2C.1. 51 L. 1-.(1. IT.".. 27 S. Ct. 109. 
 
 But in Louisiana it has been held that 
 tliough when the railroad commission es- 
 tal>lishes general rates affecting the en- 
 tire intrastate business of a railroad com- 
 pany, the revenue derived from that busi- 
 ness can be considered in determining 
 whether such rates are reasonable and
 
 § 55 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 54 
 
 § 55. Interstate Business to Be Disregarded.— The reasonableness or 
 unreasonableness of rates prescribed by a state for the transportation of persons 
 and property wholly within its limits must be determined without reference to 
 the interstate business done by the carrier, or to the profits derived from it."'" 
 The state can not justify unreasonably low rates for domestic transportation, con- 
 sidered alone, upon the ground that the carrier is earning large profits on its 
 interstate business, over which, so far as rates are concerned, the state has no 
 control. Xor can the carrier justify unreasonably high rates on domestic busi- 
 ness upon the ground that it will be able only in that way to meet losses on its 
 interstate business. 5' But the carrier's earnings or losses from interstate com- 
 merce may be considered in determining the proportion of the value of the 
 property assignable to local business and for other purposes.^^ 
 
 just within Const., art. 28-4, giving such 
 commission authority to establish just 
 and reasonable rates, yet where the rates 
 are fixed on a particular commodity, the 
 question is whether they produce a reve- 
 nue, in the first place, sufficient to pay 
 the actual cost of the service rendered, 
 and, in the next place, sufficient to yield 
 a fair return in the proportion that the 
 business of handling such commodity 
 bears to the whole intrastate business 
 upon the capital employed, a possible ex- 
 ception existing where the carrier han- 
 dles both the raw and manufactured ma- 
 terial, and the loss on the one haul may 
 be made good by the gain on the other, 
 the whole constituting one and the same 
 business. Morgan's, etc., Steamship Co. 7'. 
 Railroad Comm., 127 La. 636, 53 So. 890. 
 And in Texas it has been held that 
 where a railroad company attacking the 
 reasonableness of the rate on lumber as 
 fixed by the railroad commission showed 
 that the revenue derived from hauling 
 lumber at such rate was not sufficient to 
 pay the cost of transportation, the rate 
 was unreasonable, though a railroad com- 
 pany can not select an unimportant ar- 
 ticle and attack the rate prescribed for 
 that as unreasonable for that reason. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 102 
 Tex. 338, 113 S. W. 741, IIG S. W. 795. 
 
 56. Interstate business and profits de- 
 rived therefrom to be disregarded. — 
 Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 
 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Northern Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Railroad Comm., 196 Fed. 800; In 
 re Arkansas R. Rates, 163 Fed. 141; State 
 V. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 48 Fla. 129, 37 
 So. 314, affirmed in 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. 
 Ed. 175, 27 S. Ct. 109; Morgan's etc., 
 Steamship Co. v. Railroad Comm., 127 
 La. 636, 53 So. 890. 
 
 In determining the reasonableness of 
 local rates, the interstate traffic which 
 orignates or terminates in the state can 
 not be divided upon a mileage basis, and 
 such portion thereof as is done within the 
 state be held subject to state control and 
 considered in fixing rates. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47. 
 
 The basis of all calculations as to rea- 
 sonableness of rates charged by a railroad 
 
 must l)e the fair value of the property, 
 and as to rates for transportation of per- 
 sons and property within the limits of 
 the state, the reasonableness of such rates 
 must be based on the value of the prop- 
 erty devoted to domestic commerce, with- 
 out reference to the value of the property 
 devoted to interstate commerce. Sea- 
 board Air Line R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 
 155 Fed. 792. 
 
 But in Michigan it has been held that 
 under Act No. 90, Pub. Acts 1891, pro- 
 viding for fixing the rates for transpor- 
 tation of passengers on railroads, it is. 
 competent for the railroad commissioner, 
 in fixing such rates, to include in the com- 
 putation the amount of the interstate 
 fares earned by that portion of the road 
 lying within the state. Osborn v. Wa- 
 basli R. Co., 126 Mich. 113, 85 N. W. 466. 
 
 57. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. 
 Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 "So far as rates of transportation are 
 concerned, domestic business should not 
 be made to bear the losses on interstate 
 business, nor the latter the losses on do- 
 mestic business. It is only rates for the 
 transportation of persons and property 
 between points within the state that the 
 state can prescribe; and when it under- 
 takes to prescribe rates not to be ex- 
 ceeded by the carrier, it must do so with 
 reference exclusively to what is just and 
 reasonable, as between the carrier and the 
 pu])lic, in respect of domestic business. 
 The argument that a railroad line is an 
 entirety; that its income goes into, and 
 its expenses are provided for, out of a 
 common fund; and that its capitalization 
 is on its entire line, within and without 
 the state, can have no application where 
 the state is without authority over rates 
 on the entire line, and can only deal with 
 local rates and make such regulations^ as 
 are necessary to give just compensation 
 on local business." Smyth v. Ames, 169 
 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 58. Purposes for which earnings or 
 losses from interstate commerce may be 
 considered. — State v. Seaboard, etc.. Rail- 
 way, 48 Fla. 129, 37 So. 314; S. C, 48 Fla. 
 152, 37 So. 658. Affirmed Seaboard, etc.. 
 Railway v. Ellis, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. Ed. 
 175, 27 S. Ct. 109.
 
 55 CONTKOI, ANIJ KKGULATIOX. § 58 
 
 § 56. Economic Factors and Natural Advantages of Localities May 
 Be Considered. — A railroad commission, in fixing its schedule of rates, may 
 consider an\- ec(jnoniic factor which may intluence freight transportation, and may 
 also consider the natural advantages of localities, and may justify a classifica- 
 tion of commodity rates in localities, excepting rates between designated points 
 from the general classification; and, where such exception is made, the presump- 
 tion is in favor of the reasonableness of the classification, anrl the burden is on 
 the railroad company to prove that it is illegal. •'••• The circumstances of each rail- 
 road and each market or locality must determine the rates of toll jjroperly to be 
 allowed for the stoi)ping of a commodity in transit for treatment, since while the 
 carrier is entitled to receive some compensation beyond the mere cost of such 
 service, the cost thereof may be greater or less in one city than another."" 
 
 § 57. Equality of Rates for Like Service. — The state may require equal- 
 ity of rates where the condiiicjiis are the same, and an order of a railroad com- 
 mission, which, in effect, makes rates equal, is valid.*^^ An order of a railroad 
 commission fixing rates on one road only, is not invalid, where the effect of such 
 order is to equalize rates.*'- But in considering the reasonableness of a rate for 
 the carriage of freight, a railroad commission and the courts are justified in tak- 
 ing into consideration what is known as "commercial necessity," namely, the 
 application of princijiles, when fixing rates, which are forced upon common car- 
 riers by various conditions and circumstances and are in common practice among 
 them — a business policy which actuates and influences the carriers themselves 
 to disregard a rule of strict comparison and strict equality as between bulk, or 
 weight, or \alue. as well as distance of carriage.*"'^ 
 
 § 58. Adoption of Rates Given by Carrier to Certain Shippers. — Even 
 
 if a stale may not compel a railroad company lo do lnisine>> ai a loss and con- 
 ceding that a railroad company may insist, as against the power of the state, upon 
 the right to establish such rates as will aff'ord reasonable compensation for the 
 services rendered, yet when it voluntarily establishes local rates for some ship- 
 pers, it can not resist the power of the state to enforce the same rates for all. 
 The state may insist upon equality as between all its citizens, and that equality 
 can not be defeated in respect to any local shipments by arrangements made with 
 or to favor outside companies.'""* 
 
 59. Economic factors and natural ad- siven a low local rate, the commission is 
 vantages of localities may be considerea. justified in making that rate the rate for 
 — Soutliern R. Co. v. Atlanta Stove all. It is not bound to inquire whether 
 Works, 128 Ga. 207, 57 S. E. 429. it furnishes adequate return to the rail- 
 
 60. Florida R. Comm'rs v. Atlantic, way companj-, for the stale may insist 
 etc.. R. Co., GO Fla. 2 is. ,"■).'] So. GOl. upon equality, to be enforced under the 
 
 61. State may require equality of rates same conditions against all who perform 
 under like conditions. — Seaboard, etc., a pul^lic or quasi public service. Ala- 
 Railway V. Ellis, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. Ed. Ijama. etc., R. Co. v. Mississippi R. Comm., 
 IT.V 27 S. Ct. 109. 203 U. S. 490. 51 L. Ed. 2S9. 27 S. Ct. 163. 
 
 62. Validity of order fixing rates on When voluntarily the \'icksburg com- 
 one road, where rates are thus made equal. panj- estal)lished a local rate of 3VS per 
 — Seaboard, etc.. Railway v. Ellis, 203 U. cent from Vicksburg to Meridian for 
 S. 261, 51 L. Ed. 175, 27 S. Ct. 109. those who had within 90 days made a 
 
 63. "Commercial necessity" may be shipment over the Shreveport road. It 
 considered. — St;uc t. Minneapolis, etc., estopped itself from complaining of an 
 R. Co., 80 Minn. 191. S3 N. W. (50, 89 order making that rate applicable to all 
 Am. St. Rep. 514, affirmed Minneapolis, shipments, no matter whence thej' arose, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Minnesota. 186 U. S. 257, 46 and in favor of all merchants, whether 
 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. tliose transporting over the Shreveport 
 
 64. Adoption by state of rates given road or not. Alabama, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 certain shippers. — .Mabania. etc.. R. Co. Mississippi R. Comm., 203 U. S. 496, 51 
 V. Mississippi R. Comm., 203 U. S. 496, 51 L. Ed. 289, 27 S. Ct. 163. 
 
 L. Ed. 289, 27 S. Ct. 163. The power of a state to enforce an 
 
 Whenever, under the guise or pretense equality of local rates as between all 
 
 of a rebilling rate, some merchants are parties shipping for the same distance
 
 § 64 
 
 CARRIERS. 56 
 
 § 59. Accessibility of a Place to High Seas as Affecting Rates.— Though 
 a shipping center be accessible to the high seas, it should neither be entitled to any 
 favorable' indulgence in the matter of railroad rates, nor the object of adverse 
 discrimination on that account.*'"' 
 
 § 6 0. Betterments and Replacements Should Be Considered.— State 
 
 authorities, in tixing rates to be charged by raihoads, should take into considera- 
 tion betterments and replacements made necessary by the growth of traffic, such 
 as replacing wooden by iron bridges, and similar expenditures beyond ordinary 
 repairs, which must be met from the gross earnings.'''^ 
 
 § 61. Passenger Traffic Considered as Separate and Independent from 
 Freight Traffic. — In determining whether the passenger rates prescribed by 
 statute are unjust as to a particular carrier, the passenger traffic of the road should 
 be considered as a separate and independent subject from the freight traffic.'-' 
 
 § 62. Revenue That Has Been Derived from Rate under Considera- 
 tion. — Where a freight rate has been made for the future and a reasonable 
 time has passed during which it has been applicable, the revenue derived there- 
 from should be regarded in determining whether it is remunerative or confisca- 
 tory.«8 
 
 § 63. Effect of Several Sovereignties Being Interested.— If. by the 
 
 scope of the operations of a railroad company, several sovereignties are inter- 
 ested, the special insistence of the officers of one should not be permitted to cast 
 an undue burden on the others. The factors common to all, affecting the rea- 
 sonableness of rates, should be equitably dealt with and adjusted; and this, 
 though the local rates of a single state are alone in questions.^^'' 
 
 §§ 64-6 5. Apportioning Value of Property and Expenses— § 64. Ne- 
 cessity for Apportionment. — To determine whether a rate regulating statute 
 :s reasonable as to a particular company, it is necessary to ascertain the value of 
 all its property devoted to its business as carrier in the state, and to apportion 
 such value between its interstate and intrastate business." ^ 
 
 over the same road, can not be doubted, in fixing its rates of carriage, but it can 
 
 and it can not be thwarted by any action not make the traffic of a future year bear 
 
 of a railroad company which does not in- all the burdens of the deterioration of 
 
 volve an actual interstate shipment, al- past years, since each year should carry 
 
 though done with a view of promoting the burden of its own wear and tear, so 
 
 the business interests of the company. that, when renewals become necessary, 
 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Mississippi R. the burden is equally borne by all con- 
 
 Comm.. 20,3 U. S. 496, 51 L. Ed. 289, 27 v'^. tributing features. Puget Sound Klect. 
 
 (3t i(Y,>, Railway v. Railroad Comm., 65 Wash. 75, 
 
 65. Effect of accessibility of a place to 117 Pac. 739. 
 
 high seas.— Railroad Comm. v. Galveston 67. Passenger traffic considered as sep- 
 
 Chamljer of Commerce (Tex.), 145 S. W. arate and Independent from freight traf- 
 
 573 fie. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Philadelphia 
 
 Though the existence of water com- County, 220 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 676. 
 
 munication might compel railroads to seek 68. Consideration of revenue derived 
 
 lower rates to a certain point, it would from rate.— Montana, etc., R. Co. v. Mor- 
 
 not entitle that point to demand lower ley, T.is l-ed. 991. 
 
 rates from the railroad. Railroad Comm. 69. Effect of several sovereignties be- 
 
 V. Galveston Chamber of Commerce ing interested.— Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 (Tex.), 14.-. S. W. 57:;. L"ve. ii: Vl-<\. 49:;. 
 
 66. Betterments and replacements.— 70. Necessity for apportionment.— 
 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston, etc., Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 
 R. Co., 90 Fed. 683. 19'5 Fed. 800. 
 
 A railroad company may properly Where the same property, labor, and 
 charge its returns with an annual sum to management are used at the same time by 
 provide for depreciation and replacement, a common carrier in interstate and in- 
 and have such sum allowed in any de- trastate commerce, the value of the prop- 
 termination of what is a proper return crty and labor and management used 
 upon its investment, to be approximated should Ijc properly apportioned in deter-
 
 >7 
 
 COXTkOL AND RlXl-'LATlOX. 
 
 § 66 
 
 § 65. Method of Apportionment. — While the authorities are not entirely 
 in accord as lo the jirDiicr uKlliod of apportioning the value of the property and 
 the expenses of a railroad company engaged in both intrastate and interstate 
 business for the puri)Ose of determining whether rates on intrastate business 
 established bv a stale arc reasonable or confiscatory with respect to such com- 
 pany, the weight of auiliority would seem to support the nde that the revenue 
 or gross earnings basis is the best and most equitable mode of apportionment, 
 making a i)roper allowance for the greater cost of the intrastate business." ^ The 
 revenue train mileage basis used by railroads in apportioning common operating 
 expenses between their freight and passenger business, while concededly only an 
 approximation, would seem to be the most satisfactory for making such appor- 
 tionment for the purpose of determining tbc reascjnableness of a state statute 
 fixing passenger fares." - 
 
 § 66. Line of Railroad Operated in Connection with Other Lines. — The 
 fact that a line of railroad is operated in connection with other lines owned by 
 the same company, but under separate charters, whereby the earnings of such 
 line are increased and its operating expenses reduced, does not prevent its being 
 considered as a separate and independent line for the purpose of determining 
 the reasonableness of rates thereon, fixed by the state; full consideration of the 
 joint oi)eration being given when the road is credited for the increased business 
 and reduced expenses."^'' 
 
 mining the reasonableness of the conipen- 
 sation for service rendered by the carrier 
 in the intrastate business taken sepa- 
 rately and as an entirety, or in connec- 
 tion with the interstate business concur- 
 rently done. Railroad Comm'rs v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., ()2 Fla. 315, 57 So. 175. 
 
 71. Apportionment to determine whether 
 rates on intrastate business are reason- 
 able. — Trust Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 199 Fed. 593; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Love, 177 Fed. 493. 
 
 On an issue as to whether railroad rates 
 on intrastate business established by a 
 state are reasonal)le or confiscatory with 
 respect to a railroad company doing both 
 .intrastate and interstate business, the pro- 
 portion of the entire value of the prop- 
 erty of the company in the state which is 
 devoted to the intrastate business, and on 
 which it is entitled to earn a fair return 
 from such business, may fairly be deter- 
 mined on the l)asis of the earnings, by 
 taking the same proportion of the entire 
 value that the intrastate earnings bear to 
 the entire earnings in the state from both 
 intrastate and interstate business. In re 
 Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 290. 
 
 On an issue as to whether railroad rates 
 on intrastate Inisiness established bj' a 
 state are reasonable or confiscatory with 
 respect to a company- doing both intra- 
 state and interstate business, the expense 
 of doing the intrastate Inisiness can not 
 properly be computed alone on the basis 
 of the earnings from such business as 
 compared with the total earnings from 
 both classes ; but other factors should be 
 taken into consideration, such as the com- 
 parative rates received for and expense of 
 handling each class, the kind of traffic 
 forming the bulk of each, especially where 
 
 tile interstate business is largely in the 
 carriage of grain and similar commodi- 
 ties paying a low rate, which forms but 
 a small part of local shipments and other 
 matters which under the particular cir- 
 cumstances affect the question. In re 
 Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 290. 
 
 In apportioning the cost of maintaining 
 the way and structures of a railroad be- 
 tween its intrastate and interstate busi- 
 ness, on an issue as to the reasonableness 
 of intrastate rates established by a state, 
 there seems no fairer basis than the earn- 
 ings from the two classes of business; 
 while, on the other hand the cost of loco- 
 motive and car maintenance which should 
 be charged to each class of business can 
 be more nearly approximated by using 
 the car mile basis. In re Arkansas Rate 
 Cases, 187 Fed. 290. 
 
 In determining the reasonableness of 
 freight and passenger rates established by 
 a state on intrastate railroad traffic, as 
 applied to a railroad doing both inter- 
 state and intrastate business, the differ- 
 ence in the cost of handling each kind ol 
 business as related to the earnings from 
 each should be considered, and in appor- 
 tioning the total expenses between the 
 two kinds of business the best method is 
 to make the division on the basis of the 
 relative earnings from each class of busi- 
 ness. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hadley, 
 IC.S Fed. 317. 
 
 72. Apportioning operating expenses be- 
 tween freight and passenger business. — 
 
 Trust Co. i\ Chicago, etc.. R. Co., I'.t'.i Fed. 
 593. 
 
 73. Line of railroad operated in connec- 
 tion with other lines. — Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Brown, 123 Fed. 946.
 
 § 68 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 58 
 
 § 67- Mode of Arriving at Effect of Statutes Reducing Rates.— One 
 
 of the most satisfactory modes of arriving at the eti'ect on the rcvennes of cor 
 porations of stattites redncing rates is to take the gross and net income for the 
 preceding years, if it be probable that the business will continue in substantially 
 the same volume and at the same cost, and compare the results of prior years un- 
 der the prior laws and the results which would have been effected if the reduced 
 rates had been applied to such business.'-* To ascertain whether the reduced 
 rates would be harmful or beneficial, the court may, in case of dpubt, order them 
 tested by actual operation; but such experiments are never justifiable where the 
 facts presented show only a moderate income under the former law and a strong 
 probability of scant earnings or deficiency under the reduced rates.' ^ 
 
 § 68. Due Process of Law. — A railroad corporation is a person within the 
 meaning of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States 
 declaring that no state shall deprive any person of property without due process 
 of law.''^ and under pretense of regulating fares and freights, the state can not 
 do that which in law amounts to a taking of private property without due proc- 
 ess of law.'" If the rates are fixed at an insufficient amount," « or without judicial 
 investigation." '• the companv is deprived of the lawful use of its property, and 
 
 74. Mode of arriving at effect of stat- 
 utes reducing rates. — Seaboard Air Line 
 R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 155 Fed. 792. 
 
 75. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Rail- 
 road Conim., 155 Fed. 792. 
 
 76. Railroad corporation a person 
 within fourteenth amendment of federal 
 constitution. — Santa Clara v. Southern 
 Pac. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 30 L. Ed. 118, 
 6 S. Ct. 1132; Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 35 L. Ed. 1051, 12 
 S. Ct. 255; Covington, etc., Turnpike Road 
 Co. V. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 41 L. Ed. 
 560, 17 S. Ct. 198; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. Ed. 666, 17 S. Ct. 
 255; Pembina, etc., Milling Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 31 L. Ed. 650, 8 
 S. Ct. 737; Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 29, 32 L. Ed. 585, 
 9 S. Ct. 207. 
 
 77. Regulation must not take property 
 without due process. — Stone v. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 331, 29 L- 
 Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 657, 39 L. 
 Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484; Dow v. Bei- 
 delman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 
 8 S. Ct. 1028; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 
 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702; Reagan v. Farm- 
 ers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. 
 Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 
 176, 12 S. Ct. 400; Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 
 19 S. Ct. 565; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 
 503, 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 S. Ct. 95; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 41 
 L. Ed. 979, 17 S. Ct. 581; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Tompkins. 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. 
 Ed. 417, 20 S. Ct. 336; Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. 
 Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900; Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co. V. Drainage Comm'rs, 200 U. S. 561, 50 
 L. Ed. 596, 26 S. Ct. 341; Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co. V. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 
 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. 585._ 
 
 As the public power to regulate rail- 
 ways and the private right of ownership 
 of such property coexist and do not the 
 one destroy the other, it has been set- 
 tled that the right of ownership of rail- 
 way property like other property rights 
 finds protection in constitutional guar- 
 antees, and, therefore, wherever the 
 power of regulation is exerted in such an 
 arbitrary and unreasonable' way as _ to 
 cause it to be in effect not a regulation 
 but an infringement upon the right of 
 ownership, such an exertion of power is 
 void because repugnant to the due proc- 
 ess and equal protection clauses of the 
 fourteenth amendment. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 
 U. S. 1, 20. 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. 585. 
 
 78. Insufficient rates. — Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 697, 43 L. 
 Ed. 858, 19 S. Ct. 565; Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 
 176, 12 S. Ct. 400; Reagan v. Farmers 
 Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 
 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Gill. 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. Ed. 567, 
 15 S. Ct. 484; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Metro- 
 politan Trust Co. V. Houston, etc.. R. Co., 
 90 Fed. os:j. 
 
 79. Absence of judicial investigation 
 in fixing rates. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 
 10 S. Ct. 462, 702; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. 
 S. 466, 523, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 
 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 S. Ct. 95. 
 
 Where a railroad commission arbitra- 
 rily fixes rates of fare and freight, in re- 
 spect to which the company is given no 
 opportunity to l)e heard, and which are
 
 59 
 
 CONTROL AN'L) KKGLLATKjN", 
 
 § 68 
 
 thus, in substance and effect, of the property itself, witliout due process of law 
 and in violation of the constitution, lint general statutes regulating the use of 
 railroads in a state, or fixing maximum rates of charges for transportation, when 
 not forbidden by charter contracts, do not necessarily deprive a corjjoration own- 
 ing or operating a railroad within the stale (jf its property without due process 
 of law.^" 
 
 Requiring Sale of Thousand Mile Tickets. — An act re(|uiring carriers to 
 keep on sale at their principal ticket offices thousand mile tickets, and fixing a 
 sum to be charged therefor, and .providing that such tickets shall be good for a 
 certain time after issuance, is invalid as taking property without due process of 
 iaw.**^ The fact thai a railroad company has voluntarily sold one thousand mile 
 
 confiscatory, and amount to depriving it 
 of property without due process of law, 
 the courts may give relief against their 
 enforcement. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kentucky, 183 U. vS. 50;5, 4r, L. l^d. 298, 22 
 vS. Ct. 05. 
 
 80. General statutes fixing maximum 
 charges not necessarily unconstitutional. 
 — -Stone z'. Farmers' L,oan, etc., Co., 110 
 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; 
 Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 
 77; Railroad Co. v. Richmond. 96 U. S. 
 521, 24 h. Ed. 734; Spring Valley Water 
 Works V. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347, 28 L. 
 Ed. 173, 4 S. Ct. 48. 
 
 Mode of determining whether rates pre- 
 scribed are unconstitutional. — Tlu' ques- 
 tion of whether the rules prescribed by 
 a city ordinance limiting the fare to be 
 charged by street railway companies are 
 so low as to constitute a deprivation of 
 property without due process of law can 
 not be determined by a consideration of 
 the earnings of a portion only of the lines 
 of a street railway company, but only by 
 estimating the earnings of the entire line 
 as against the expenses of the entire line. 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Chicago, 199 
 111. 579. 65 X. H. 470. 
 
 81. Requiring sale of thousand mile 
 tickets. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smith. 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. 
 Ct. 565. See, also. Attorney General v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 106 Va. 61. 55 S. E. 
 572. 
 
 "Regulations for maximum rates for 
 present transportation of persons or prop- 
 erty bear no resemblance to those which 
 assume to provide for the purchase of 
 tickets in quantities at a lower than the 
 general rate, and to provide that they shall 
 be good for years to come. This is not 
 fixing maximum rates, nor is it proper 
 regulation. It is an illegal and unjusti- 
 fiable interference with the rights of the 
 company." Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. 
 Ct. 565. 
 
 The act of the Michigan legislature, 
 No. 90 of the year 1S91. amending the 
 general railroad law. provided as follows: 
 "That one thousand mile tickets shall be 
 kept for sale at the principal ticket offices 
 of all railroad companies in this state or 
 carrying on business partly within and 
 
 partly without the limits of the state, at 
 a price not exceeding twenty dollars in 
 the lower Peninsula and twenty-five dol- 
 lars in the upper Peninsula. Such one 
 thousand mile tickets may be made non- 
 transferable, but whenever required by 
 the purchaser they shall l^e issued in the 
 names of the purchaser, his wife and chil- 
 dren, designating the name of each on 
 such ticket, and in case such ticket is pre- 
 sented by any other than the person or 
 persons named thereon, the conductor 
 may take it up and collect fare, and there- 
 upon such one thousand mile ticket shall 
 be forfeited to the railroad company. 
 Each one thousand mile ticket shall be 
 valid for two years only after date of 
 purchase, and in case it is not wholly 
 used within the time, the company is- 
 suing the same shall redeem the unused 
 portion thereof, if presented bj' the pur- 
 chaser for redemption within thirty days 
 after the expiration of such time, and shall 
 on such redemption be entitled to charge 
 three cents per mile for the portion 
 thereof used." It was held that the act 
 was void as taking propertj' without due 
 process of law. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 
 S. Ct. 565. 
 
 The act was held not to be legislation 
 for the convenience of the public, so as 
 to be validated on that ground. Judg- 
 ment, Smith V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 114 Mich. 460, 72 N. W. 328, reversed. 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. 
 S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. Ct. 565. 
 
 In New York it has been held that a 
 statute, Laws 1895, p. 961, c. 1027. as 
 amended by Laws 1896, p. 758. c. 835. 
 Laws 1897, p. 622, c. 484, and Laws 1898. 
 p. 1326, c. 577, providing that any corpo- 
 ration operating a railroad in the state, 
 the lines of which e5cceed 100 miles in 
 length, shall issue mileage tickets for ei- 
 ther 1,000 or 500 miles, which shall en- 
 title the holder thereof, or any member 
 of his family, to travel thereon, was un- 
 constitutional and inoperative as to cor- 
 porations formed prior to the enactment, 
 but constitutional as to corporations or- 
 ganized subsequent thereto. Judgment, 
 113 App. Div. 894, 98 X. Y. S. 1109, re- 
 versed. Parish v. Ulster, etc.. R. Co., 
 192 X. Y. 353, 85 X. E. 153.
 
 § 69 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 60 
 
 tickets, good for a vear from the time of their sale, does not of itself authorize 
 the legislature to require the road so to do. nor furnish a standard hy which 
 to measure the reasonableness of a statute requiring the company to sell one 
 thousand mile tickets at rates less than the regular rates, and to be valid for two 
 years. ■"*- 
 
 § 69. Equal Protection of Laws. — Corporations are persons within the 
 meaning of the fourteenih amendment of the constitution of the United States 
 providing that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
 protection of the laws/^'^ and a regulation of rates which in effect denies a rail- 
 road company the equal protection of the laws is invalid.'^^ A state enactment, 
 or regulations made under the authority of a state enactment, establishing rates 
 for the transportation of persons or property by railroad that will not admit of 
 the carrier earning such compensation as under all the circumstances is just to 
 it and to the public, would deny to it the equal protection of the laws, and would 
 therefore be repugnant to the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. ''■'^ But 
 general statutes regulating the use of railroads in a state or fixing the inctximum 
 rates of charges for transportation, when not forbidden by charter contracts, do 
 not necessarilv take away from the corporation the equal protection of the laws.^*^ 
 
 Requiring Sale of Thousand Mile Tickets. — An act requiring carriers to 
 keep at their principal ticket offices thousand mile tickets, and fixing a sum to 
 be charged therefor, and providing that such tickets shall be good for a certain 
 time after issuance, is invalid as depriving the carrier of the equal protection 
 of the law.''' 
 
 82. Judgment, Smith v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 114 Mich. 460, 72 N. W. 328, 
 reversed. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. 
 Ct. 565. 
 
 83. Corporations persons within four- 
 teenth amendment of federal constitu- 
 tion. — Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 522, 
 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Santa Clara 
 V. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 
 30 L. Ed. 118, 6 S. Ct. 1132; Charlotte, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 35 
 L. Ed. 1051, 12 S. Ct. 255; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. Ed. 666, 
 17 S. Ct. 255; Covington, etc.. Turnpike 
 Road Co. V. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 592, 
 41 L. Ed. 560, 17 S. Ct. 198; Pembina, etc., 
 Milling Co. V. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 
 181, 31 L. Ed. 650, 8 S. Ct. 737; Minneap- 
 olis, etc., R. Co. V. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 
 26. 20, 32 L. Ed. 285, 9 S. Ct. 207. 
 
 84. Regulation of rates denying equal 
 protection of laws is invalid. — Reagan v. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 
 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; Smyth v. 
 Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 
 S. Ct. 418; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 
 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 
 484; Stone v. Farpiers' Loan, etc., Co., 
 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; 
 Dow v. Beidehnan, 125 U. S. 680, 681, 31 
 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 
 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 
 36 L. Ed. 176, 12 S. Ct. 400; Metropoli- 
 tan Trust Co. V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 90 Fed. 683. 
 
 85. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 
 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 In so far as a carrier is thus deprived 
 of its property without judicial investi- 
 gation by denial of the right to charge 
 reasonable rates, while other persons are 
 permitted to receive reasonable profits 
 upon their invested capital, the company 
 is deprived of the equal protection of 
 the laws. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Min- 
 nesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 
 S. Ct. 462, 702. 
 
 86. General statutes fixing maximum 
 rates not necessarily unconstitutional. — 
 Stone V. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. 
 S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; Munn 
 V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; 
 Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521, 
 24 L. Ed. 734; Spring Valley Water 
 Works V. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347, 28 L. 
 Ed. 173, 4 S. Ct. 48. 
 
 Iowa statute held constitutional. — The 
 act of the general assembly of the state 
 of Iowa, entitled "An act to establish 
 reasonable maximum rates of charges 
 for the transportation of freight and pas- 
 sengers on the different roads of this 
 state," approved March 23, 1874, is not 
 in conflict with § 4, art. 1, of the consti- 
 tution of Iowa, which provides that "all 
 laws of a general nature shall have a 
 uniform operation," and that "the gen- 
 eral assemblly shall not grant to any cit- 
 izen, or class of citizens, privileges or 
 immunities which, upon the same terms, 
 sliall not equally belong to all citizens." 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 
 155. 24 L. Ed. 94. 
 
 87. Requiring sale of thousand mile 
 tickets.— Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 7'. Smith, 
 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. Ct. 565. 
 
 While the state may make reasona-
 
 61 
 
 CONTROL AND KKCULATIOX. 
 
 § /I 
 
 § 70. Taking Private Property without Just Compensation.— A reg- 
 ulation of cliarj^c-s whicli aninuiil- lo taking of prixate iM-(.].(,Tly without just 
 compensation is invalid. '^'^ 
 
 Necessity for Adequate Security Where Passengers Are Required to 
 Be Carried before Fares Have Been Paid in Money. — if it be assumed that, 
 under the power to regulate the fares of common carriers of passengers, the 
 Legislature can require the passengers to be carried before the fares have been 
 paid in money, the security for the ultimate payment of the fares in money 
 ought to be as^ certain as that re(|uired when private ])roperty is taken for public 
 uses, and a statute wliicli docs not ])r()vi(le adc(|uate security is unconstitutional.'''^ 
 
 § 71. Discrimination against Carrier in Favor of Certain Individuals 
 
 —In fixing rates, the legislature may not discriminate against a railroad com- 
 pany and in favor of certain individuals, without any reasonable basis therefor.'"^ 
 
 ble reKiil'itions for the ,t,rovernnicnl of 
 pul)lic service corporations, and to that 
 end may fix a reasonable niaxinuim rate 
 for the transportation of passengers, it 
 can not arbitrarily fix a maximum pas- 
 senger rate of two cents a mile on mile- 
 age books of five hundred miles or over 
 and require the carrier always to keep 
 the same on sale to all who apply there- 
 for, and to redeem them at a later pe- 
 riod than they have heretofore redeemed 
 mileage books. Such legislation is class 
 legislation, and it is not for the protec- 
 tion of all the people, but of the fa- 
 vored few. It discriminates in favor of 
 the wholesale buyer, and also invades 
 the right of the carrier to conduct and 
 manage his own affairs. It denies to 
 the carrier the equal protection of the 
 laws, and so is unconstitutional. Attor- 
 ney General v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 106 
 \a. in, 55 S. H. 572. 
 
 88. Taking property without just com- 
 pensation. — Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc.. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 
 14 S. Ct. 1047; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. 
 S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co. z: Minnesota, 134 U. 
 S. 418, 455, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 
 702; Stone v. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 
 116 U.. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; 
 Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. 
 Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Georgia R., etc., 
 Co. V. Smith, 128 U. S. 174. 32 L. Ed. 
 377, 9 S. Ct. 47; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403. 11 L. Ed. 489, 
 17 S. Ct. 130. 
 
 Under pretense of regulating fares and 
 freights, the state can not require a rail- 
 road corporation to carry persons or 
 property without reward; neither can it 
 do that which in law amounts to a tak- 
 ing of private property for public use 
 without just compensation. Stone r. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307. 
 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; Dow v. Bei- 
 delman, 125 U. S. 680. 31 L. Ed. 841, S 
 S. Ct. 1028; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc.. Co., 154 U. S. 362, :58 L. Ed. 1014. 
 14 S. Ct. 1047; Smyth 7'. Ames. lt>9 U. 
 S. 466, 42 L. Ed. SI9'. IS S. Ct. 418; Geor- 
 
 gia R., etc., Co. V. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 
 
 32 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. Ct. 47; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 455, 
 
 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702. 
 
 Under Act June 7, 1887 (Railroad 
 Commission Act), authorizing the rail- 
 road commissioners to prescribe reasona- 
 ble and just rates of freight and passen- 
 ger transportation, the enforcement of a 
 tariff of rates which will not pay the 
 expenses of operating the railroad is an 
 abuse of the discretion given to the com- 
 missioners, and amounts to taking the 
 company's property without just com- 
 pensation. Pensacola, etc., R. Co. z: 
 State. 25 Fla. 310, 5 So. 833, 3 L. R. A. 
 
 6';i. 
 
 Tlie act of Nebraska of 1893, entitled 
 "An act to regulate railroads, to classify 
 freights, to fix reasonable maximum rates 
 to l)e charged for the transportation of 
 freights upon each of the railroads in the 
 state of Nebraska, and to provide penal- 
 ties for the violation of this act." is void 
 as taking private property without due 
 compensation, and its enforcement may 
 be enjoined. Smyth z\ Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466. 42 L. Ed. S19. IS S. Ct. 418. 
 
 89. Necessity for adequate security 
 where passengers are required to be car- 
 ried before fares have been paid in 
 money. — Attorney General :'. Old Col- 
 on v R. Co.. 160 'Mass. 62. 35 N. E. 252, 
 22 'L. R. a. 112. 
 
 90. Discrimination against carrier in 
 favor of certain individuals. — Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 
 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. Ct. 565. 
 
 The power of the legislature to enact 
 general laws regarding a company and 
 its affairs does not include the power to 
 compel it to make an exception in favor 
 of some particular class in the community 
 and to carry the members of that class at 
 a less sum than it has the right to charge 
 for those who are not fortunate enough 
 to be members thereof. This is not a 
 reasonable regulation. Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Smith. 173 U. S. 6S4, 43 L. Ed. 
 858, 19 S. Ct. 565.
 
 § /■ 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 62 
 
 § 72. Limitations upon Power of a Municipality to Reduce Street 
 Railroad Fares. — Tlic i>o\ver of a municipality to reduce street railroad fares 
 is subject to the limitations ( 1) tluit there is reasonable need on the part of the 
 public considering the nature and extent of the service, of lower rates and bet- 
 ter terms than those existing: (2) that the rates and terms fixed by the ordi- 
 nance are not clearly unreasonable, in view of all the conditions."^ 
 
 §§ 73-78. Exemption from Regulation by Charter or Statute— § 73. 
 —In General.— The power of a state to regulate the rates of charges of _ rail- 
 road companies for the transportation of persons and freight within its juris- 
 diction, may. as to a particular railroad company be surrendered or m some 
 manner qualified, by stipulations in the charter of the company, or other legis- 
 lation amounting to a contract.-'- The charter of a municipality, authorizing 
 it to prescribe rates for transportation of passengers or property withm its 
 limits, and a statute providing that the act regulating carriers shall not apply to 
 the transportation of passengers carried solely within the limits of cities by 
 street and other railroads, do not prohibit the state railroad commission from 
 regulating rates on traffic originating or extending beyond the boundaries of the 
 municipality.''-' 
 
 §§ 74-7 5. Necessity for Positive and Clear Words of Exemption 
 — § 74. Doctrine Stated.— The right of a state reasonably to limit the amount 
 of charges by a railroad company fo"r the transportation of persons and property 
 within its jurisdiction, can not be granted away by its legislature unless by words 
 of positive grant or words equivalent in law."-^ It is a salutary rule of interpre- 
 
 91. Limitations upon power of a 
 municipality to reduce street railroad 
 
 fares.— Milwaukee Elect. R., etc., Co. v. 
 Milwaukee. S7 Fed. .tTT. 
 
 92. Power to regulate charges may be 
 surrendered by charter or other legis- 
 lation.— Georgia R., etc., Co. V. Smith, 
 128 U. S. 174, 32 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. Ct. 47; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 
 U. S. 418, 455, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 
 462, 702; Georgia R. Co. v. Smith. 70 Ga. 
 694; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Pendleton, 
 86 Va. 1004, 11 S. E. 1062, affirmed in 
 156 U. S. 667, 39 L. Ed. 574, 15 S. Ct. 
 413. 
 
 A railroad company may charge rates 
 within the limits set by its charter, 
 though they exceed those fixed by the 
 railroad commission; but the commission 
 may see that it keeps witliin the charter 
 rates, and for this purpose is entitled 
 to reports from it. Mississippi R. Comm. 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 78 Miss. 750, 29 So. 
 789. 
 
 Under the constitution, of Pennsyl- 
 vania, prohibiting the legislature from 
 altering or revoking corporate charters 
 in such a manner as to work injustice 
 to the incorporators, an act prescribing 
 maximum passenger rates for railroads 
 lower than the rates the corporation was 
 authorized to charge by its charter may 
 be unconstitutional, though the rates 
 prescribed are not so low as to be con- 
 fiscatory. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Phil- 
 adelphia County, 220 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 
 676. 
 
 But in West Virginia it has been held 
 that a legislature can not, by a charter 
 
 granted to a railroad company, make 
 stipulations as to charges which will be 
 binding on future legislatures. Laurel, 
 etc., R. Co. V. West Virginia Transp. Co., 
 25 W. Va. 324; West Virginia Transp. 
 Co. V. Sweetzer, 25 W. Va. 434. 
 
 Accordingly it has been held that the 
 legislature has a right to establish by 
 general act a maximum schedule of 
 charges for the transportation of_ pas- 
 sengers and freight, and to make it ap- 
 plicable to railroad companies operating 
 under previously granted charters, though 
 such charters empower the railroads to 
 contract "in reference to its business the 
 same as private individuals," or "to de- 
 mand and receive such sums for trans- 
 portation as it deems reasonable," or_ to 
 "carry freight and passengers, charging 
 reasonable terms," or though it is au- 
 thorized to charge a fixed rate declared 
 by its charter to be exempt from legis- 
 lative control, and though no right to. re- 
 peal or alter the charter is reserved to 
 the legislature. Laurel, etc., R. Co. v. 
 West Virginia Transp. Co.. 25 W. Va. 
 324; West Virginia Transp. Co. v. 
 Sweetzer. 25 W. Va. 434. 
 
 93. Municipal charter and statute con- 
 strued.^Portland R., etc., Co. v. Rail- 
 road Comm., 56 Ore. 468, 109 Pac. 273, 
 denying rehearing 105 Pac. 709, con- 
 struing Portland City Charter (Laws 
 190:'., § 73) and Laws 1907, p. 70. § 11. 
 
 94. Necessity for positive and clear 
 words of exemption. — Stone v. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co.. IKi U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 
 6 S. Ct. 49, 88, 91, 334, 348, 1191; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U.
 
 63 
 
 CONTROL AM) KKC.ULATIOX. 
 
 § 75 
 
 tation, founded upon an obvious public pobcy, that such exemptions are in 
 derogation of the sovereign authority and of common right, and therefore are 
 not to Ije extended beyond the exact and express requirements of the grant 
 construed strictissimi juris.'''' If there is reasonable doubt, it must be resolved 
 in fa\(»r of the existence of the jjower.'"' 
 
 § 75. Doctrine Illustrated. — A statute which gives a railroad company the 
 right to lix Muli rates as ii may deem reasonable or proper,''' or which gives the 
 compaiu the right to regulate rales by its by-laws, provided such by-laws are not 
 contrary to the laws of the state,""' or which gives it the right "from time to time 
 
 S. 41«, 45.-., Xi L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 4G2, 
 702; Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minne- 
 sota, i:i4 U. S. 467, 33 L. Ed. 985, 10 S. Ct. 
 473; Gcor^na R., etc., Co. v. Smith, 128 U. 
 S. 174, 32 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. Ct. 47; Ruggles 
 V. Illinois, lOS U. S. 526, 27 L. Ed. 812, 2 
 S. Ct. 832; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 
 108 U. S. 541, 27 L. Ed. 818, 2 S. Ct. 839; 
 Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 
 180, 24 L. Ed. 99; Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 298, 
 22 S. Ct. 95. 
 
 The state has the power to regulate its 
 freight and passenger fare upon railroads, 
 unless that right has been clearly parted 
 with in granting charters to the roads, 
 and where this right is parted with, the 
 words of the charter must amount to a 
 positive contract. Georgia R. Co. v. 
 Smith. 70 Ga. 694. 
 
 95. Grant of exemption construed 
 strictly against company. — Xdrfulk, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 673, 39 
 L. Ed. 574, 15 S. Ct. 413; Morgan v. 
 Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217, 23 L. Ed. 860; 
 Wilson r. Gaines, 103 U. S. 417, 26 L. Ed. 
 401; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 
 114 U. S. 176, 29 L. Ed. 121, 5 S. Ct. 815. 
 
 The exemption must appear by such 
 clear and unmistakable language that it 
 can not be reasonably construed consist- 
 ently with the reservation of the power 
 by the state. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 32 L. Ed. 377, 9 S. 
 Ct. 47; Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. 
 Co., 184 U. S. 368, 46 L. Va\. 592. 22 S. Ct. 
 410. 
 
 96. Doubt resolved in favor of exist- 
 ence of power to regulate. — Stone v. 
 b'armcrs" Loan, etc., Co.. 116 U. S. 307, 
 29 L. Ed. iVM. 6 S. Ct. :!:i4. 
 
 97. Statute giving company right to fix 
 reasonable rates. — Peik z\ Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 L. Ed. 97; Stone 
 r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 116 U. S. 347, 29 
 L. Ed. 650, 6 S. Ct. 348. 
 
 Where the charter of a railroad com- 
 pany authorizes the president and the di- 
 rectors to adopt and establish such a 
 tariff of charges for the transportation of 
 persons and property as they might 
 think proper, and to alter and change the 
 same at pleasure, the state is not deprived 
 of its power to regulate the rates and 
 charges. Stone z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 116 U. S. 347, 29 L. Ed. 650. 6 S. Ct. 348. 
 
 Where a charter of a railroad company 
 provided that the company might receive 
 
 for transportation such tolls and charges 
 as should from time to time be estab- 
 lished, fixed and regulated by its direct- 
 ois, and that the act should l.e liberally 
 and favorably construed so as to favor 
 all the purposes and objects of the same, 
 provided that nothing contained therein 
 should be so construed as to prevent the 
 state regulation of rates for transporta- 
 tion within the state, and provided fur- 
 ther that there should be no discrimina- 
 tion in favor of any road, it was held 
 that the state was not deprived of the 
 power to regulate the rates for transpor- 
 tation within the state. Stone v. New 
 Orleans, etc., R. Co., 116 U. S. 352, 29 L. 
 Ed. 651, 6 S. Ct. 349, 391. 
 
 The Chicago and Northwestern R. Co. 
 was, by its charter, and the charters of 
 other companies consolidated with it, au- 
 thorized "to demand and receive such 
 sum or sums of money for the transpor- 
 tation of persons and property, and for 
 storage of property, as it shall deem rea- 
 sonable." The constitution of Wiscon- 
 sin, in force when the charters were 
 granted, provides that all acts for the 
 creation of corporations within the state 
 "may be altered or repealed by the legis- 
 lature at any time after their passage." 
 Held, that the legislature had power to 
 prescribe a maximum of charges to be 
 made by said company for transporting 
 persons or property within the state, or 
 taken up outside the state and l.rought 
 within it, or taken up inside and carried 
 without. Peik v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 94 U. S. 164. 24 L. Ed. 97. 
 
 98. Act giving company power to fix 
 rates by valid by-laws. — Ruggk-.-^ :•. Illi- 
 nois, 108 U. S. 526, 27 L. Ed. S12. 2 S. Ct. 
 832; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 108 
 U. S. 541, 27 L. Ed. 818. 2 S. Ct. 839. 
 
 The amended charter of a railroad com- 
 pany provided that the board of directors 
 should have power to fix rates by by-laws 
 and to levy and collect the same, while 
 other parts of the charter provided that 
 the by-laws should not be repugnant to 
 the constitution and laws of the United 
 States or of the state. It was held that 
 the state migiit regulate the rates for the 
 charge of carriage over the roads not- 
 withstanding the first provision of the 
 amended charter. Ruggles ?•. Illinois, 108 
 U. S. 526, 27 L. Ed. 812. 2 S. Ct. 832; Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 
 541, 27 L. Ed. 818, 2 S. Ct. 839.
 
 § 77 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 64 
 
 to fix, regulate and receive the tolls and charges by them to be received for traiis- 
 portation," •'■' does not deprive the state of its power, within the limits of its 
 general a'uthoritv. as controlled by the constitution of the United States, to act 
 upon the reasonal)lencss of the tolls and charges so fixed and regulated. On the 
 other h.and, if the charter provides that the charges, which the company may 
 make for its services in the transportation of persons and property, shall be 
 subject only to its own control up to the limit designated, exemption from leg- 
 islative interference within that limit will be maintained. ^ 
 
 §§ 76-78. Succession to Rights of Company Entitled to Exemption 
 
 § 76. Purchase. — A special statutory exemption or privilege, such as a right 
 
 to fix and determine rates of fare, does not accompany the property in its trans- 
 fer to a purchaser, in the absence of express direction to that effect in the statute.^ 
 
 § 77 Lease. — Where a railroad corporation which has the same power as 
 private individuals to make contracts, including the power to make by-laws and 
 make all rules and regulations deemed expedient for the management of its 
 aflfairs, is leased to another corporation, perpetually, the latter is not exempt 
 from reasonable regulations of rates by the state." 
 
 99. Statute giving company power to 
 fix, regulate and receive rates. — Stone v. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 
 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 455, 
 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702. 
 
 A mere grant of power in the charter, 
 to the directors of the company, to make 
 needful rules and regulations touching 
 the rates of toll and the manner or col- 
 lecting the same, cannot properly be in- 
 terpreted as depriving the state of its 
 general authority to regulate, at any 
 time in the future when it might see fit 
 to do so, the rates of toll to be collected 
 by the company. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 455, 33 L. Ed. 
 970, 10 S. Ct. 462, 702; Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467, 33 L. 
 Ed. 985, 10 S. Ct. 473. 
 
 1. Charter fixing limit beyond which 
 state cannot regulate. — (jcorgia Iv., etc., 
 Co. V. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 32 L. Ed. 377, 
 9 S. Ct. 47. See, also, Detroit v. Detroit 
 Citizens' St. R. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 46 L. 
 Ed. 592, 22 S. Ct. 410. 
 
 Although the general purpose of a 
 proviso in a statute is to qualify the oper- 
 ation of the statute, or of some part of 
 it, it is often used in other senses, and is 
 so used in the act of the legislature of 
 Georgia of December 21, 1833, incorpo- 
 rating the Georgia Railroad Company; 
 and that act does not exempt the corpo- 
 ration created by it, or its successors, 
 from the duty of sul)mitting to reason- 
 able requirements concerning transporta- 
 tion rates made by a railroad commission 
 created by the state. Georgia R., etc., 
 Co. V. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 32 L. Ed. 
 377, 9 S. Ct. 47. 
 
 2. Right of purchaser of exempt com- 
 pany to exemption. — St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. v. Gill. l.V) U. S. 649, 39 L. Ed. 567, 
 15 S. Ct. 484; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. 
 S. 217, 23 L. Ed. 860; Wilson v. Gaines, 
 
 103 U. S. 417, 26 L. Ed. 401; Chesapeake, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Miller, 114 U. S. 176, 29 L. 
 Ed. 121, 5 S. Ct. 813; Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 673, 39 
 L. Ed. 574, 15 S. Ct. 413. 
 
 Sale under foreclosure. — Where one 
 company purchases the property and or- 
 dinary franchises of another at a sale un- 
 der foreclosure, it does not succeed to 
 the rights of the latter as to exemption 
 from rate regulation. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 673, 39 
 L. Ed. 574, 15 S. Ct. 413. 
 
 3. Lease. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94; Dow v. 
 Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 
 8 S. Ct. 1028. 
 
 A corporation having a perpetual lease 
 of the railroad of another organized un- 
 der the general corporation law of Iowa 
 of 1851, ch. 43, with the same powers as 
 private individuals to make contracts, as 
 well as the power to establish by-laws 
 and make all rules and regulations deemed 
 expedient for the management of its af- 
 fairs, in accordance with law, was held to 
 he bound by the subsequent statute of 
 Iowa of 1874, ch. 68, entitled "An act to 
 establish reasonable maximum rates of 
 charges for transportation of freight and 
 passengers on the different railroads of 
 this state," by which those railroads were 
 classified according to the gross amount 
 of their earnings per mile for the preced- 
 ing year; and the compensation per mile, 
 which those of each class might receive 
 tor the transportation of a passenger with 
 ordinary baggage, was limited to three 
 cents, three cents and a half, and four 
 cents, respectively. Chicago, etc., R Co. 
 V. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94; Dow 
 V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. Ed. 
 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028. 
 
 .\ foreign corporation leasing a rail- 
 road is subject to the same regulations 
 that the lessor would have been subject
 
 65 
 
 CONTROL AND REGL'LATION. 
 
 §§ 78-80 
 
 § 78. Consolidation. — Where the charter of several railroad corporations 
 provide for cxciii])lion fnjiii rate regulation, and these roads are subsequently 
 acquired by a corporation formed for that i)uri)Ose and which succeeds to their 
 ri'dits "subject to all laws of the commonwealth which apply to raih-oad corpora- 
 tions generally." the stale may regulate the rales of the consolidated company.^ 
 
 § 79. Loss of Power by Abandonment or Nonuser.— A power of govern- 
 ment which actuallv exists is nol 1<.-1 1>\ nouu-er. The fact, therefore, that the 
 power of regulating the maximum rates of fare and freight was not exercised 
 for more than tweiUy years after the incorporation of a railroad company is un- 
 important.' 
 
 §§ 80-84. Scope and Effect of Regulations- § 80. To Whom or to 
 What Business or Route Regulations Are Applicable.— Applicable Only 
 to Intrastate Commerce.— An order of a state railroad commission regulating 
 freight rates should be interjjreted to apply only to intrastate commerce, under 
 the rule that a statute should be so construed if ])Ossible, as to render it not sub- 
 ject to an objeolion that would be fatal to its wilidit}'.'"' 
 
 Statutes Regulating Rates of Railroad Companies Not Applicable to 
 Street Railways or Express Companies. — A >tatuie declaring that railroad 
 companies shall not charge more than three cents a mile for the transportation 
 of a passenger and his ordinary baggage, under a penalty, does not apply to street 
 railroads." Nor does a statute regulating the rates to be charged by railroad 
 companies apply to an express company.^ 
 
 Passenger Rate Regulations Not Applicable to Carriage on Freight 
 Trains.— Regulations as to rates of fare for passengers do not apply to passen- 
 
 lor an order requiring railroads main- 
 taining a physical connection in a city to 
 file reasonable rates for the switching of 
 car load traftic between their lines, an or- 
 der of the commission fixing a tariff per 
 car load for the movement of all com- 
 modities in car loads in the switching 
 service, must be construed as applicable 
 only to intrastate commerce. Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm.. 175 Ind. 
 (•>:5n, <).■) X. H. 3(34. 
 
 7. Regulation not applicable to street 
 railroads. — Hnvt r. Sixth A\c. 1\. Co. 
 (X. \.). 1 Daiy .528. 
 
 8. Regulations not applicable to express 
 companies. — The Texas statute. Rev. St.. 
 arts. 4;>.")(), 4257, provide that nti railroad 
 company shall demand or receive for 
 transporting a passenger exceeding five 
 conts per mile or a fraction thereof; thot 
 railroads companies may charge and re- 
 ceive not exceeding fift\^ cents per one 
 hundred pounds per one hundred miles 
 for transporting freight, but the charges 
 on each class or kind shall l)e uniform, 
 and no unjust discriminations in the rates 
 or charges shall be made against any 
 person or place; provided that, when the 
 distance from the place of shipment to 
 the point of destination is fifty miles or 
 less, a charge not exceeding thirty cents 
 per one hundred pounds may be made. 
 Held not intended to apply to express 
 companies. Texas Hxp. Co. v. Te.xas, 
 etc., R. Co., 4 Woods 370, 6 Fed. 426. 
 
 to iiacl the lease not been made. Stone v. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co.. IIG U. S. 347, 21) L. 
 Hd. 650, 6 S. Ct. 348. 
 
 4. Consolidation. — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 39 L. Ed. 
 574. 15 S. Ct. 413. 
 
 The consolidation, pursuant to the stat- 
 ute of Ohio of April 10, 1856 (4 Curwen 
 2791), of two or more railway companies 
 works their dissolution. All the powers 
 and franchises of the new company which 
 is thereby formed are derived from that 
 statute, and are subject to "be altered, 
 revoked, or repealed by the general as- 
 sembly," under § 2, art. 1. of the consti- 
 tution of that state, which took effect 
 Septeml)er 1, 1851. The general assembly 
 does not, therefore, im-pair the obligation 
 of a contract l)y prescrilnng the rates for 
 the transportation of passengers by the 
 new company, although one of the origi- 
 nal companies was, prior to the adoption 
 of that constitution, organized under a 
 charter which imposed no limitation as 
 to such rates. Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 
 319, 24 L. Ed. 357. 
 
 5. No loss of power by abandonment 
 or nonuser. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94. 
 
 6. Regulations applicable only to intra- 
 state commerce. — Oregon R.. etc., Co. v. 
 Campbell, 177 Feci. 3 18. 
 
 Wlierc tlie petition of shippers filed 
 witli a state railroad commission prayed 
 
 1 Car— 5
 
 §§ 80-81 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 66 
 
 ger carriage on freight trains.^ 
 
 Phrase "Continuous Ride in the Same General Direction," Construed. 
 
 — The phrase, "continuous ride in the same general direction," in an ordinance 
 relating to rates of fare to be charged by a traction company, means a journey 
 over the company's own tracks.^" 
 
 Two Railroads Operating in Connection with One Another Constitute a 
 Single Road. — For the purpose of the West Virginia statutes regulating railroad 
 rates, two railroads operating in connection with one another under a lease or 
 otherwise constitute a single road." 
 
 Other Peculiar Provisions of Rate Regulating Statutes. — The interpre- 
 tation of other peculiar provisions of rate regulating statutes to determine to 
 what railroads or routes they are applicable will be found in the appended note.^^ 
 
 § 81. Obligations Imposed on Carriers. — The franchise of a railroad 
 company granting a portion of the sovereign power of the state, in consideration 
 of the construction of the road and the performance of the duty of common 
 carrier, imposes upon the company the obligation to transport merchandise 
 and passengers on the temis fixed in the grant. ^'"^ Under a statute prohibiting 
 carriers from charging shippers more than the public tariff rates, such rates are 
 compensation for the performance of all the carrier's common-law or statutory 
 duties. 1^ Some of the peculiar provisions of commission rules or orders reg- 
 ulating charges by railroad companies have been interpreted by the courts to 
 determine what service, if any, is tliereby imposed on such companies. ''•'^ 
 
 9. Passenger rate regulations not appli- 
 cable to carriage on freight trains. — Par- 
 tee f. Georgia Railroad, 72 Ga. 347. 
 
 10. Phrase "continuous ride in the same 
 general direction," construed. — Reed v. 
 Trenton, SO X. J. Eq. 503. S5 Atl. 270. 
 
 11. Two railroads operating in connec- 
 tion with one another constitute a single 
 road. — Coal, etc., R. Co. v. Conley, (i7 W. 
 Va. 129, 67 S. E. 613, construing Acts 
 1872-73, ch. 227, and Acts 1907, ch. 41 
 (Code Supp. 1909, §§ 249Gal, 2496a3). 
 
 12. Regulation applicable to whole 
 route. — The sixteenth section of the 
 charter of the Camden & Amboy Rail- 
 road Company, which restricts the rates 
 of tolls and fares, applies to the whole 
 route between the cities of New York 
 and Philadelphia and every mile of it. 
 Camden, etc., Transp. Co. v. Briggs, 22 
 N. J. L. 623. See, also, Camden, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Briggs, 21 N. J. 400. 
 
 Act not applicable to any railroad un- 
 der fifty miles in length. — The proviso in 
 the West Virginia statute. Acts 1907, c. 
 41 (Code Supp. 1909, §§ 2496al-2496a3), 
 that nothing in the act shall apply to any 
 railroad under fifty miles in length and 
 not a part of any other railroad over 
 fifty miles in length, means the same as 
 if it had said nothing in this act shall ap- 
 ply to any railroad under fifty miles in 
 length and not a part of or under tlie 
 control of any other railroad whose en- 
 tire length is over fifty miles. Coal, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Conley. 67 W. \'a. 129, 67 S. 
 E. 613. 
 
 The words "under the control, inan- 
 agement or operation." as used in the 
 proviso of such statute, providing that 
 the act shall not apply to any railroad 
 
 under fifty miles in length under the con- 
 trol, management, or operation of any 
 other road, mean the same as the words 
 "a part of." Coal, etc., R. Co. v. Con- 
 ley, 67 W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 613. 
 
 Regulation applicable to railroad com- 
 pany notwithstanding it had changed its 
 name. — Tlie Wisconsin statute. Laws 
 1K74, c. 273, providing tlie maximum 
 rates to be charged by railroads within 
 Wisconsin included the "Milwaukee & 
 vSt. Paul Railway Company." Just prior 
 to the passing of the act such company 
 changed its name to the "Chicago, Mil- 
 waukee & St. Paul Railway Company," 
 by which name it was sued for a viola- 
 tion of the act. No other company was 
 ever known by the first name. Held, 
 that the provisions of the act applied to 
 the defendant. Attorney General v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 35 Wis. 425. 
 
 The rate for freight to which the South- 
 ern Pacific Railroad Company is limited 
 by its charter has no reference to any 
 road except that which the company is 
 authorized to build and operate in Texas. 
 Knight & Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 
 41 Tex. 406. 
 
 13. Obligation imposed by franchise. — 
 Rogers, etc., Mach. Works v. Erie R. Co., 
 20 N. J. I'"f|. 379. 
 
 14. Public tariff rates compensation for 
 all carrier's duties. — George v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 214 Mo. 551, 113 S. W. 1099, 
 construing Rev. St. 1899. § 1136 (Ann. 
 St. 1906, p. 975). 
 
 15. Commissioner's rule fixing charge 
 for switching held not to compel a serv- 
 ice. — Rule 15A of the railroad commis- 
 sioners of Elorida, fixing the charge for 
 switching cars of rough lumber consigned
 
 67 
 
 CONTROL AND RKr,rr,.\TIf)X. 
 
 § 82 
 
 § 82. Measure of Compensation Allowed. — Where the measure of com- 
 pensation of a carrier is fixed 1j)- statute, no <,aeater.sum can be lawfully de- 
 manded or received, and all evidence that charges higher than those so fixed are 
 reasonable is immaterial and inadmissible.'*' The provisions of rate regulating 
 statutes have been interpreted by the courts to determine the basis rate for local 
 freight/' the distinction l)et\veen "single-line rates" and "douljle-line rates," '*• 
 the rate chargeable for hea\y articles, '•' the cliarge allowaljle for transportation 
 in addition to toll,-" the ri,i;lil of shii)])ers to demand commutation on freight,-' 
 
 to and arriving at the city of Jackson- 
 ville from points in the state to any plan- 
 ing mill in the Jacksonville yards and 
 thence after luniher is dressed to any 
 point in the same yard, merely fixes a 
 rate for switching cars so consigned and 
 arriving and does not seek to compel 
 a service. Florida R. Comm'rs v. Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co.. ()() Fla. 218, 53 So. 00 1. 
 See, also. Railroad Comm'rs v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., ")<» Fla. (112, '^2 So. 4. 
 
 The word "switching," as used in a 
 rule of the railroad and warehouse com- 
 mission of Illinois regulating charges, is 
 synonymous with tlu- word "iranster- 
 ring." The service contemplated by such 
 rule is the movement of loaded cars to 
 or from the junction of another railroad 
 for distances less than three miles, as 
 distinguished from the hauling or trans- 
 porting of them from one station or place 
 to another on the same road. Sparta 
 Gas, etc., Co. v. Illinois So. R. Co., 1.3o 
 111. App. 283, afitirmed 93 N. E. 312. 
 
 Where in the service rendered all of 
 the elements of a regular transportation 
 were found, such as collection of the cars 
 and placing them for loading, the haul 
 after they were loaded, and the loss of 
 use of cars at the end of the haul, the 
 services rendered by the carrier were not 
 a "switch movement" of cars as defined 
 by the rules of the railroad and ware- 
 house commission regulating switching 
 charges. Sparta Gas, etc., Co. v. Illinois 
 So. R. Co., 155 111. App. 283, affirmed in 
 93 N. E. 312. 
 
 16. Carrier limited to measure of com- 
 pensation fixed by statute. — Heiserman 
 V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 03 Iowa 732, 
 18 N. W. 903. 
 
 17. Basis rate for local freight. — The 
 rate on freight "carried over the whole 
 line of its road," which furnishes the 
 basis for the additional 50 per cent al- 
 lowed by the Alabama statute. Acts 1873, 
 p. 62, for the transportation of "local 
 freight," is the rate charged on freight 
 taken on at one terminus and discharged 
 at the other, and not the rate for freight 
 brought from or carried to a point be- 
 yond the termini of the road. The basis 
 rate is the rate prevailing at the time of 
 shipment. Mol>ile, etc., R. Co. v. Steiner, 
 etc., Co., 01 .Ma. 559. 
 
 18. Distinction between "single-line 
 rates" and "double-line rates." — The dis- 
 tinction in the Kansas statute. Laws 1905, 
 c. 353, estai)lishing rates for transporta- 
 
 tion of oil, Ijetween "single-line rates" 
 and "double-line rates" is between rates 
 for shipment over a single line and for 
 shipment over more than one line. 
 Tucker v. Missouri F'ac. K. Co., 82 Kan. 
 222, 108 Pac. 89. 
 
 19. Rate chargeable for heavy articles. 
 — W'herc tlu- chariiT <•' a raiirorMl com- 
 jjany authorized it "to charge for the 
 transportation of passengers at a rate not 
 exceeding seven and orie half cents per 
 1 lile, and for th? transportation of eoods 
 by weight not exceeding fifty cents per 
 one hundred pounds per one hundred 
 miles," held, that for heavy articles the 
 company could only charge, for the ac- 
 tual distance of transportation, the rate 
 allowed by the charter. Knox v. South 
 Carolina R. Co., 5 S. C. 22. 
 
 20. Charge allowable for transportation 
 in addition to toll. — '1 he charter of a rail- 
 road coinijany provided "that the toll on 
 any species of property shall not exceed 
 an average of four cents per ton per mile, 
 nor upon each passenger an average of 
 two cents per mile." Held, that the com- 
 pany might charge for transportation in 
 addition to the toll. Boyle v. Philadel- 
 phia, etc., R. Co., 54 Pa. 310. 
 
 Under the provision of the charter of 
 a railroad company authorizing it to take 
 toll for freight, etc., "not exceeding four 
 cents per ton per mile for toll, and three 
 cents per ton per mile for transporta- 
 tion," held, that the company had author- 
 ity for demanding the aggregate of the 
 sums, viz. seven cents per mile per ton, 
 for private freight in their own cars on 
 their road. Appeal of Cumberland Val. 
 R. Co.. 02 Pa. 2 IS. 
 
 Amount permitted to be charged for 
 toll and freight. — The thirteenth section 
 of the Pennsylvania act of April 3, 1837, 
 incorporating the Pittsburgh & Connells- 
 ville Railroad Company, authorized the 
 company to charge a toll on traffic pass- 
 ing over its road, not exceeding five 
 cents per ton per mile. The fourteenth 
 section authorized the company to charge 
 for freight and toll for goods conveyed 
 
 21. Under a Pennsylvania statute com- 
 muting "local freight," millers buying 
 grain west of Pennsylvania, and ship- 
 ping it to Pittsburg, and thence by rail- 
 road to Philadelphia, could not demand 
 commutation on the freight for the lat- 
 ter transit. Rowland v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 52 Pa. 250.
 
 § 82 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 68 
 
 the mode of ascertaining average charges.-- and what constitutes the operation 
 or control of one railroad by another.--' Statutes and municipal ordinances re- 
 quiring street railroad companies to issue tickets to school children at reduced 
 rates have also received judicial interpretation.--* ]\Iany other of the peculiar 
 
 in its own cars "not exceeding twice the 
 rates granted in the preceding section for 
 tolls alone." The ninth section of the 
 act of April 10, 1846, repealed the thir- 
 teenth section, and provided that the rates 
 of the tolls should not exceed four cents 
 per mile per ton, and two cents per mile 
 for each burden or freight car, every 
 four wheels being computed as a car. 
 Held, that the act. of 18-46 did not amend 
 the act of 1837 so that the company 
 could, under the fourteenth section of 
 the former act, only charge double the 
 rate authorized by the act of 1846, and 
 that it was entitled to charge for toll and 
 freight double the rate authorized by the 
 thirteenth section of the act of 1837, viz, 
 ten cents per ton per mile, notwithstand- 
 ing the repeal thereof. National Tube 
 Works Co. z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 (Pa.), 8 Atl. 6. 
 
 22. Mode of ascertaining average 
 charges. — Under the Pennsylvania stat- 
 ute. Act April 11, 1848, incorporating the 
 D. & P. Ry. Co., as amended by Act 
 April 2, 1850, § 2, providing that "average 
 charges for toll and transportation shall 
 not exceed four cents per ton per mile 
 for freight," the "average charges" are 
 to be ascertained by dividing the entire 
 receipts by the whole quantity of tonage, 
 reduced to a common standard of tons 
 moved one mile. Hersh v. Northern 
 Cent. R. Co., 74 Pa. 181. 
 
 23. What constitutes the operation or 
 control of one railroad by another. — Un- 
 der tlic New York Railroad Law (Laws 
 1890. p. 1113, c. 5C).'), § 101) as amended 
 by Laws 1897, p. 776, c. 688, relating to 
 street surface railroads, and providing 
 that no corporation constructing and op- 
 erating a railroad under the provisions of 
 this article, etc., shall charge any passen- 
 ger more than five cents for one con- 
 tinuous ride from any point on its road, 
 "or on any road, line or branch operated 
 by it, or under its control," to any other 
 ■point thereof, etc., and Railroad Law 
 
 (Laws 1890, p. 1096, c. 565, § 39) impos- 
 ing a penalty on any railroad corpora- 
 tion receiving more than the lawful rate 
 of fare, etc., the operation or control of 
 a road within the meaning of such sec- 
 tions means a control of the operation 
 of the road, and not merely a control of 
 the corporation or individuals operating 
 it by reason of the ownership of a ma- 
 jority of the road's capital stock. Judg- 
 ment, 111 App. Div. 39, 97 N. Y. S. 645, 
 affirmed. Senior v. New York City R. 
 Co., 187 N. Y. 559, 80 N. E. 1120. 
 
 24. "Public schools" held to include 
 parochial school maintained by private 
 benevolence. — Where a street railroad's 
 
 franchise ordinance required the issuance 
 of 20-ride tickets at the rate of two and a 
 half cents each to children under fifteen 
 actually attending the "public schools of 
 the city," such quoted clause included a 
 parochial school maintained l)y private 
 benevolence. Oklahoma R. Co. v. St. 
 Joseph's Parochial School, 33 Okl. 755, 
 127 Pac. 1087. 
 
 Under the Washington statute, Rem. 
 & Bal. Code, §§ 4317, 4333, and 4366, the 
 words "school children" in a franchise 
 granting half fares to school children 
 iield to apply only to those attending 
 the common schools. Seattle v. Seattle 
 Elect. Co., 71 Wash. 213, 128 Pac. 220. 
 
 The word "pupils," as used in the Mas- 
 sachusetts statute Rev. Laws, c. 112, § 72, 
 requiring street railroads to transport the 
 pupils of public schools at half rates, 
 means children and youths attending the 
 public schools, and does not include stu- 
 dents in colleges and professional schools, 
 nor young men or boys attending nau- 
 tical or industrial schools, nor adults at- 
 tending evening schools or evening high 
 schools, nor children attending vacation 
 schools. Commonwealth v. Connecticut 
 Valley St. R. Co., 196 Mass. 309, 82 N. 
 E. 19. 
 
 What schools are "public schools" un- 
 der Massachusetts statute. — The schools 
 referred to in the Massachusetts statute. 
 Rev. Laws, c, 42, §§ 1, 2, requiring cities 
 and towns to maintain certain schools, are 
 open under proper regulations to_ all 
 cliildren of the city or town, as provided 
 by chapter 44, § 3; and all children be- 
 tween the ages of 7 and 14 are obliged 
 to attend such schools, unless they re- 
 ceive equivalent instruction outside of 
 them, as provided by chapter 44, §§ 1, 2. 
 Held, that Rev. Laws, c. 112, § 72, pro- 
 viding that street railway companies 
 shall transport pupils of the "public 
 schools" at half fare, while traveling to 
 and from the schoolhouses in which they 
 attend school, referred to those schools 
 mentioned in chapter 42, §§ 1, 2, which 
 are a part of the system of compulsory 
 education for children, and did not in- 
 clude other schools maintained at public 
 expense, such as industrial schools, nau- 
 tical schools, evening schools, etc., author- 
 ized by §§ 10, 11, 12, 15, 16. Common- 
 wealth V. Connecticut Valley St. R. Co., 
 196 Mass. 309, 82 N. E. 19. 
 
 What schools are "private schools" un- 
 der Massachusetts statute. — 'i'hc Massa- 
 chusetts statute, Rev. Laws, c. 112, § 72, 
 requiring street railroads to transport 
 "pupils of the public schools" at half 
 rates, was amended l)y St. 1906, p. 653, c. 
 479, by the insertion of the words "or
 
 69 
 
 COXTROL AND RKGULATIOX. 
 
 § 82 
 
 provisions of rate regulating statutes or commission orders have been construed 
 by the courts to determine the amount that may be charged by carriers for the 
 
 carriage of passengers or freight. ''^•'' 
 
 private" after the word "public." Held, 
 that the word "private." as so used, in- 
 cluded only such schools as were ejus- 
 dem generis with the public schools 
 previously mentioned, namely, in which 
 instruction was permitted to take the 
 place of the compulsory instruction 
 required in the public schools designated 
 Ijy Rev. Laws, c. 42, §S 1, 2, and hence 
 did not include education in a private 
 business college. Commonwealth v. Con- 
 necticut Valley St. R. Co., 19G Mass. 'MY^, 
 82 N. E. 19. 
 
 25. West Virginia passenger rate regu- 
 lation construed. — Tlic West Virginia 
 statute. Acts l'.)07, c. 41 (Code Supp. 
 I'.iOi), §§ 2496al-2496a.3), divides steam 
 railroads into classes for the purpose of 
 passenger rate regulation, sul)jccting all 
 railroads fifty miles long and over to 
 two cents a mile in the case of adults, 
 and leaving all others subject to the 
 former legislation applicable to them at 
 the date of the passage of the act. Coal, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Conley, 07 W. Va. 129, 
 67 S. E. 613. 
 
 Minimum charge of ten cents for a pas- 
 senger. — The v^outh Carolina statute. Rev. 
 St. isu:}. § 1657, authorizes the railroad 
 commissioners to establish reasonable 
 rates for the transportation of passengers. 
 A circular issued by sucli commissioners, 
 dated April 2, 1896, authorized a charge 
 of ten cents, when the regular fare would 
 be less than that amount. Held, to au- 
 thorize the charge of ten cents where the 
 regular fare for the distance traveled 
 would be only three cents. Kibler v. 
 Southern Railway, 62 S. C. 252, 40 S. E. 
 556. 
 
 Carrier authorized to charge nearest 
 multiple of five whether above or below 
 actual fare. — Under the Oiiio statute, 
 Rev. St., 3374, which provides that rail- 
 roads shall charge not more than three 
 cents per mile for the transportation of 
 passengers, but that the fare may be made 
 that multiple of five nearest reached by 
 multiplying the rate by the distance, the 
 railroad shall charge the nearest mutiple 
 of five, whether it is above or below the 
 actual fare; and, in case the fare is equally 
 distant from the multiple next l)clow and 
 the one next above, it mav charge either. 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wells. 61 O. St. 
 26S, 55 X. E. 827. 
 
 Charge for fraction of a mile.— The 
 Michigan statute. 3 How. Ann. St. § 
 3323, subd. 9, which authorizes railroad 
 companies to regulate the time and man- 
 ner in which passengers and property 
 shall be transported, and the tolls ana 
 compensation to be paid therefor, but 
 provides that such compensation for 
 transporting any passenger and his or 
 
 her ordinary baggage, not exceeding a 
 given weight, shall not exceed two, two 
 and one-half, or three cents per mile, ac- 
 cording to the gross earnings per mile of 
 each road, will not permit a charge for . 
 a fraction of a mile, unless it is so large 
 a fraction as to make the charge of one 
 cent or more not in excess of the rate per 
 mile fixed by the statute. Zagelmeyer v. 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 102 Mich. 214, 
 60 N. W. 436, 47 Am. St. Rep. 514. 
 
 Where the distance between two points 
 was 6.48 miles a railroad had no authority 
 to charge to exceed nineteen cents (the 
 fraction over nineteen cents being less 
 than one-half cent), under Laws 1899, Act 
 Xo. 202, establishing a rate'of fare 3 cents 
 per mile. Chamberlain v. Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co., 122 Mich. 477, si X. W. 339. 
 
 Charges for urban and suburban pas- 
 senger traffic. — The Maryland statute. 
 Act 1860, c. 259, authorized a company to 
 lay down a railway for passenger cars 
 between the city of Baltimore and Tow- 
 sontown, and fixed the rate of fare be- 
 tween those points. Section 8 authorized 
 the company to extend its railway into 
 Baltimore, subject to such restrictions 
 and conditions as the city might prescribe. 
 By an ordinance of the city the rate of 
 fare was fixed at five cents for each pas- 
 senger for all distances wathin the city 
 limits. Act 1865, c. 115, § 1, authorized 
 the company to collect from each pas- 
 senger over its road not more than 
 thirty cents for the distance between the 
 city limits and Towsontown. and not 
 more than 6 cents for each mile or frac- 
 tion thereof for way passengers an any 
 portion of its railroad. Held, that the 
 company had no right to claim from a 
 passenger to the city of Baltimore, from 
 a place on the road distant less than a 
 mile from the city, more than eleven 
 cents; that is, six cents for the fraction 
 of a mile beyond the city limits, and five 
 cents for the route over its road in the 
 city. Baltimore, etc.. Turnpike Road v. 
 Boone. 45 Md. 344. 
 
 Street surface railroad leasing and 
 operating connecting elevated and steam 
 surface roads. — The Xow York statute, 
 Laws ls9(), p. 1113. c. 565. art. 4. entitled 
 "Street Surface Railroads." § 101 provides 
 that "no corporation constructing and 
 operating a railroad under the provisions 
 of this article or of chap. 252. p. 309. of 
 the Laws of 1884" (relating to street sur- 
 face roads) shall charge any passenger 
 more than five cents for one continuous 
 ride from any point on its road, or on 
 any road, line, or branch operated by it, 
 or under its control, to any other point 
 thereof, or any connecting branch thereof 
 within the limits of any incorporated city,
 
 83 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 70 
 
 § 83. Regulations Will Not Be Construed to Be Retroactive. — Statutes, 
 which estabhsh a railroad commission and provide for the regulation of freights 
 and fares, will not be construed to have a retroactive effect, so as to affect pre- 
 
 or more than one fare within the limits 
 of any such city for passage over its main 
 line and any branch or extension thereof, 
 if the right to construct such branch or 
 extension was acquired under the pro- 
 visions of such chapter or this article. 
 Section 10-1 requires the issuance of trans- 
 fers to any point on any railroad operated 
 by it. Held, that a road incorporated 
 as a street surface railroad which leases 
 and operates connecting elevated and 
 steam surface railroads does so under 
 art. 3, § 78, which applies to all railroads, 
 and it may charge more than one fare 
 for a continuous passage over its road 
 and the elevated and steam surface roads, 
 as it operate* such roads under their 
 respective charters, and its right in this 
 respect is not changed by changing its 
 motive power from steam to electricity. 
 People V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 187 
 N. Y. 48, 79 N. E. 838. 
 
 Power of company limited by its charter 
 to increase passenger rate under general^ 
 act. — The New York statute, General' 
 Railroad Act 1850, § 49, conferred all the 
 powders and privileges in the act on cor- 
 porations then existing, whether created 
 by special charter or under the general 
 act of 1848; but no liabilities were im- 
 posed on them, except such as were con- 
 tained in certain sections, and which were 
 not inconsistent with the provisions of 
 their charters. Held that, vvhere an ex- 
 isting corporation was limited by its 
 charter to a rate of fare for passengers 
 less than that prescribed by the act, it 
 was authorized by such act to increase 
 its rate to a sum not exceeding that thus 
 prescribed. Johnson v. Hudson R. Co., 
 49 N. Y. 455, reversing 32 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 298. 
 
 Bridge Toll. — By the act of congress 
 authorizing the construction of a rail- 
 way bridge across the Arkansas river at 
 Ft. Smith, Ark., it is provided that no 
 higher charge shall be made for the 
 transporation of passengers over the 
 bridge than is paid for similar transporta- 
 tion over the railroad leading to the 
 bridge. Act Ark. Leg. April 4, 1887, 
 provides that only three cents per mile 
 shall be charged for carrying passengers. 
 Held, that a charge of seventy cents for 
 eleven miles of travel — thirty cents for 
 transporation ten miles, and forty cents 
 for bridge tool — constituted an over- 
 charge within the meaning of the act. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Stevenson, 54 
 Ark. 116, 15 S. W. 22. 
 
 A street railroad company holding a 
 franchise subject to the railroad law, 
 and succeeding another company having 
 a similar franchise and a contract with 
 a bridge company to use the bridge for 
 
 its cars on the payment of one cent lor 
 each passenger carried, leased its fran- 
 chise to a lessee, who operated -lines over 
 the bridge. The lease did not give any 
 rights to cross the bridge, but a traffic 
 agreement between the street railroad 
 company and the lessee gave to the les- 
 see the privileges the company had by 
 virtue of the contract with the bridge 
 company. Neither the street railroad 
 company nor the bridge company con- 
 ferred on the lessee the right to collect 
 toll for persons carried across the bridge. 
 Held, that Laws 1905, c. 358, providing 
 for a fare not to exceed five cents, ap- 
 plied to the lessee, and prohibited it 
 from charging six cents, though it paid 
 one cent to the bridge company, since 
 such payment was merely a part of the 
 operating expenses, and the collection 
 of the one cent could not be held to be 
 collected as' toll as the agent of the 
 bridge company. Cohoes R. Co. v. Public 
 Service Comm., 143 App. Div. 769, 128 N. 
 Y. S. 384, order affirmed 95 N. E. 1137. 
 
 Switching Charges. — TJnder the Rail- 
 road Commission Act, defining the juris- 
 diction of the state board of railroad 
 commissioners and the meaning of the 
 term "transportation," held, that a carrier 
 could not divide up its charge for switch- 
 ing cars so as to charge, in addition to the 
 regular switching charge, a car rental on 
 cars furnished by it for deliveries to 
 industries on its own or other lines. 
 East Side Packing Co. v. Vandalia R. Co., 
 258 111. 397, 101 N. E. 600. 
 
 Authorizing charge of fifty cents per 
 hundredweight per hundred miles. — Under 
 the Texas statute. Rev. St., art. 4257, 
 authorizing railroads to charge fifty cents 
 per hundredweight per hundred miles, a 
 railroad can charge fifty cents for carry- 
 ing less than a hundredweight that dis- 
 tance. Murray v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 
 Tex. 407, 51 Am. Rep. 650. 
 
 Meaning of term car load. — Where the 
 term "car load," as used in Rev. St. 1879, 
 § 833, providing for the appointment of 
 railroad commissioners, the division of 
 freights into certain classes, and the fix- 
 ing of maximum rates at so much per 
 "car load" for each class, has been con- 
 strued by the commissioners, whose duty 
 it is to enforce the said statute, as mean- 
 ing, in the light of existing usage, ten 
 tons instead of all that a car can safely 
 carry, this construction, being reasonable 
 and just, will be upheld, especially where 
 it has been acted upon long enough to 
 have become a rule. Ross v. Kansas City 
 St. R. Co., Ill Mo. 18, 19 S. W. 541. 
 
 What are "logs and box materials" un- 
 der Alabama statute. — Blocks of wood 
 from six to fifteen inches in diameter and
 
 71 
 
 CONTROL AND RKCULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 83-84 
 
 vionsly existing valid contracts, in the absence of some indication that such was 
 the legislative intent.-*' 
 
 § 84. When a Statute Will Be Construed as Impliedly Repealing a 
 Prior Statute. — A statute regulating passenger or freight rates will not he 
 construed as iniiiliedly repealing a prior statute on the same stibject, unless there 
 is an unreconcilal)le repugnancy, or the new law is intended to supersede the 
 })rior one and comprise in itself a complete system of legislation.-' 
 
 tliirtj'-eiglit to forty-two inches long, 
 sawed from round logs in their natural 
 state, are not classified as "logs and box 
 materials" by the Alabama statute, 110 
 commodities act (Laws 1907, p. 209); 
 and a contract for their transportation, 
 which descril)cs them as cordwood, at tlie 
 rate fixed for cordwood, is binding on 
 the shipper and carrier; and the mere 
 fact tliat the consignee or subsequent 
 buyer may manufacture tlie blocks into 
 barrel heads does not justify the carrier 
 in reclassifying them as logs and box ma- 
 terial, and demanding a higher rate as 
 a condition precedent to a delivery. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Lowe, 170 Ala. 598, 
 54 So. .51. 
 
 26. Regulations will not be construed 
 to be retroactive. — Sultan R.. etc., Co. v. 
 C.roat Xortlicrn R. Co.. 58 Wash. ()04, 
 109 Pac. 1020, denying hearing in banc 
 109 P. 320, construing Law'S 1905, c. 81, 
 Laws 1907, c. 226, and Laws 1909, c. 9!^. 
 
 27. Statute not repealing former laws. 
 — The North Carolina statute. Laws, lUOT. 
 p. 252, c. 217, regulating passenger and 
 freight rates wnthin the state, contains no 
 provision repealing laws in existence at 
 the time so far as the freight rates are 
 concerned and with reference to passenger 
 rates but only contains § 6, which repeals 
 Revisal 1905, § 2618, requiring all railroad 
 companies to furnish first and second 
 class passenger accommodations. Held, 
 that all laws in existence at the time of 
 the passage of the act of 1907. and not 
 inconsistent therewith, were still in force, 
 under the rule stated in the text. South- 
 ern R. Co. V. McXoill. 1.-.,-. i'ed. 756. 
 
 Statute not repealed by statute subse- 
 quently enacted. — The Missouri statute. 
 Rev. St. ISSU, § 2C)29, forbidding any rail- 
 road from charging over any portion of 
 its road a greater compensation than it 
 charges for the transportation of similar 
 quantities of the same class of goods over 
 any other portion of equal distance, 
 which was passed in pursuance of Const., 
 art. 12, § 12, containing much the same 
 language, and requiring the passage of 
 suitable enforcing acts by the legislature, 
 was not repealed by Rev. St. 1889, § 2637, 
 subsequently enacted, and which forbids 
 railroads from charging a greater aggre- 
 gate compensation for the transportation 
 of like property "under similar circum- 
 stances and conditions for a shorter than 
 a longer distance over the same line in 
 the same direction," especially since an- 
 
 other section of the latter act fRev. St. 
 1889, § 2659) expressly provides that it 
 is not intended to repeal any law in force 
 unless in direct conflict therewith; but 
 both sections may stand together, the for- 
 mer regulating freight charges in any di- 
 rection over any part of the road, and the 
 latter in the same direction under like 
 circumstances and conditions. McGrew 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 177 Mo. 533, 76 
 S. W. 995. 
 
 Statute not materially modifying pro- 
 visions of former law. — The Nebraska 
 statute. Act 1893, known as the "Maxi- 
 mum Rate Law" (Sess. Laws, c. 24), fix- 
 ing maximum rates for the transportation 
 by rail of commodities within the state, 
 does not materially modify the provisions 
 of the law enacted in 1887 (Sess. Laws. c. 
 60), defining the duties and powers of 
 the state board of transportation, grant- 
 ing such board the right to reduce freight 
 rates or modify the schedule of com- 
 modities when it seems to them just and 
 reasonable. Judgment 58 Neb. 823, 80 
 N. W. 43, affirmed on rehearing. Ne- 
 braska Tel. Co. v. Cornell, 59 Neb. 737, 
 82 N. W. 1. 
 
 Statute repealing prior statute. — Re- 
 visal N. C. 1905, § 2567, subsec. 9. giving 
 railroads the right to make passenger 
 rates within a limit of five cents a mile, 
 was repealed by Laws 1907, p. 675, c. 469, 
 § 7, extending and enlarging the powers 
 of the corporation commission. South- 
 ern R. Co. V. McNeill, 155 Fed. 756. 
 
 Revisal N. C. 1905, § 2567, subsec. 9, 
 conferring on railroad companies the 
 right to make passenger rates within a 
 maximum of five cents a mile, repealed 
 by implication § 1099, subd. 1, which 
 imposed on the North Carolina railroad 
 commission the duty of making passen- 
 ger rates. Southern R. Co. v McNeill. 
 155 Fed. 756. 
 
 The West Virginia statute, subsections 
 7 and 8, § 82c. c. 54, Code 1891. establish- 
 ing classifications of freight and rates of 
 charges therefor, was repealed by chap- 
 ter 17, Acts 1895, authorizing railway 
 companies to establish such classifications 
 and rates, under certain restrictions. Nor- 
 folk, etc., R. Co. V. Pinnacle Coal Co., 
 44 W. Va. 574, 30 S. E. 196. 41 L. R. A. 
 414. 
 
 Effect of statute upon charter vesting 
 exclusive right to fix rates. — The N<^rth 
 Carolina act oi IS'.)'.) creating a_ state cor- 
 poration commission, and giving it the
 
 §§ 85-86 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 72 
 
 § 85. Posting Schedule at Stations.— Carriers may be required to post a 
 printed copv of their schedule of rates at all their stations,-'^ and in some states 
 are required to do so by statute or commission rule.-^ 
 
 § 86. Local and Through Rates. — A local railway's share of an interstate 
 rate is not a legitimate basis upon which a state railroad commission can establish 
 and enforce a purely local rate.-^" Under a statute which requires a railroad 
 company to transport freight and passengers for the government '"at fair and 
 reasonable rates," the company is not bound to transport local passengers at 
 through rates, if the local rates are "fair and reasonable."'-'^ The mere fact that 
 •a through rate for carriage betw^een two points on connecting roads within the 
 stale, does not exceed the aggregate of the local rates of the two roads for car- 
 riage between the same points, does not show that the througli rate is reasonable.^^ 
 
 right to regulate the rates of railroads, 
 operates as an alteration and repeal, pro 
 tanto. of the charter of any railroad com- 
 pany of the state which vests such com- 
 pany with the exclusive right to fix its 
 rates. Matthews v. Board of Corp. 
 Comm'rs, 97 Fed. 400. 
 The New York statutes, Laws 1890, c. 
 565, § 37, providing that "every" railroad 
 company "may" collect certain rates of 
 fare, repeals a provision of a charter of 
 a railroad company (Laws 1872, c. 591, § 
 5) authorizing it to fix its own rates, since 
 the intent of the legislature was to fix a 
 uniform rule as to railroad fares. Parker 
 V. Elmira, etc., R. Co., 27 App. Div. 383, 
 49 N. Y. S. 1127, judgment affirmed 16.') 
 N. Y. 274, 59 N. E. 81. 
 
 28. Carriers may be required to post 
 copy of rates at all stations. — Cleveland, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Illinois, 177 L'. S. 514, 517, 
 44 L. Ed. 868, 20 S. Ct. 722; Railroad Co. 
 V. Fuller. 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. Ed. 710. 
 
 29. Duties imposed by requirement to 
 post schedules of rates in stations. — Un- 
 der rule 4, adopted by the railroad com- 
 mission of Florida, on September, 23, 1889, 
 requiring each railroad company to "keep 
 posted" in each of its stations copies of 
 rate schedules, and the rules and regula- 
 tions of the board regulating the trans- 
 portation of freight and passengers, it is 
 not sufiTicient for the company to nail up 
 in its stations a pamphlet of eleven 
 printed pages containing the information 
 required, nor is it sufficient to bind the 
 schedules together, and leave them open 
 to the public on a prominent desk in the 
 waiting room of the station. State v. 
 Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 27 Fla. 403, 9 
 So. 89. 
 
 Under a rule of the Florida railroad 
 commission requiring railroad companies 
 to post up in their stations their freight 
 and passenger rates, the schedule may be 
 printed on two cards so posted as to read 
 as one. State v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 
 27 Fla. 403, 9 So. 89. 
 
 Under a rule of the Florida railroad 
 coinmission requiring each railroad com- 
 pany to "post in a conspicuous place, and 
 keep continuously posted in each of its 
 stations," certain rate schedules, it is not 
 
 sufficient for the company to send the 
 schedules to its agents with instructions 
 to post, but it must see that they are con- 
 tinuously kept posted, as required by the 
 rule. State v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 27 
 Fla. 403, 9 So. 89. 
 
 Under a rule of the Florida railroad 
 commission requiring each railroad com- 
 pany to post in its stations copies of the 
 schedule of freight rates prescribed for 
 it by the commission, the company is not 
 required to post special rates which it is 
 authorized to make for temporary use 
 for particular persons and places. State 
 V. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 27 Fla. 403, 9 
 So. 89. 
 
 Under a rule adopted by the Florida 
 railroad commission requiring each rail- 
 road company to post in its stations cop- 
 ies of the schedules of its passenger rates, 
 the company is not required to show in 
 the schedules the rate per mile, nor the 
 distances between stations, in the ab- 
 sence of any law or rule of the commis- 
 sion requiring it. State v. Pensacola, etc., 
 R. Co., 27 Fla. 403, 9 So. 89. 
 
 30. Basing local rate on local carrier's 
 share of intestate rate for same service 
 improper. — Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Mis- 
 sissippi R. Comm., 203 U. S. 496, 51 L. 
 Ed. 289, 27 S. Ct. 163; Union Pac. R. Co. 
 V. United States, 117 U. S. 355, 29 L. Ed. 
 920, 6 S. Ct. 772, 21 Ct. CI. 502. 
 
 Service rendered in transporting a lo- 
 cal passenger between two points is not 
 in law identical with that rendered in 
 transporting a through passenger be- 
 tween the same points as part of the 
 transit over the distance of the whole 
 line. Union Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 
 117 U. S. 355, 29 L. Ed. 920, 6 S. Ct. 772. 
 
 21 Ct. CI. 502. 
 
 31. Carrier not bound to transport lo- 
 cal passengers at through rates. — Union 
 Pac. R. Co. V. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 
 70, affirmed in 117 U. S. 355, 29 L. Ed. 
 920 6, S. Ct. 772, 21 Ct. CI. 502. 
 
 32. Through rate equal to aggregate of 
 local rates. — Minneapjlis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. ,1151, 
 
 22 S. Ct. 900, affirming 80 Minn. 191, 83 
 X. W. 60, 89 Am. St. Rep. 514.
 
 73 
 
 CONTROL AND RICCULAT KJ.V. 
 
 87 
 
 § 87, Long and Short Hauls.— That a railroarl company should fix a greater 
 sum for carriage for a k>s (Hstance than the maximum allowed for a greater 
 distance, is u.nreasonaljlc, as a matter of law.-*- The state may prohibit railroad 
 companies from charging more for a short than for a long haul where the 
 
 carriage is 
 
 wholly within the state,"'^ but when such a provision, as construed 
 
 33. Greater charge for less distance than 
 maximum allowed for greater, unreason- 
 able as matter of law. — Cainphcll r-. Mari- 
 ftta. rtc, Iv. Cn., :.-:; ( ). St. His. 
 
 34. State may prohibit greater charge 
 for short than for long haul.— Waltasli, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 30 
 L. Ed. 244, 7 S. Ct. 4; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Kentucky. 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 
 298, 22 S. Ct. 95. 
 
 A state railroad corporation voluntarily 
 formed can not exempt itself from the 
 control reserved to itself by the state 1)y 
 its constitution, and if not protected by a 
 valid contract, can not sucessfully invoke 
 the interposition of the federal courts, in 
 respect to the long and short haul clause 
 in tiic state constitution, on the ground 
 simply that the railroad is property. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 
 U. S. 503, 513, 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 S. Ct. 95. 
 
 The Constitution of Kentucky, § 218, 
 and Ky. St. § iS2i). proliibiting a common 
 carrier charging more for a short haul 
 than for a long haul, where the shorter 
 distance is included in the longer dis- 
 tance, are not in conflict with the con- 
 stitution of the United States or any act 
 of congress. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 544, 63 S. W. 
 448. 
 
 The Missouri statute. Act April 1, 1872 
 (Laws 1872, p. 69), entitled "An act to 
 prevent unjust discrimination and extor- 
 tion in the rates to be charged by the 
 different railroads in this state for the 
 transportation of freight thereon," by § 
 1 (Rev. St. 1899, § 1126 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 
 971]) prohibits a railroad company in the 
 state from charging for transportation of 
 property for any distance over its road 
 any larger amount as compensation than 
 is charged by it for the transportation or 
 similar quantities of the same class of 
 property over a greater distance over its 
 road; from cliarging different rates for 
 receiving, handling, or delivering freight 
 at different points on its road, or any road 
 used by it in connection therewith; and 
 from charging for transportation of prop- 
 erty over any portion of its road a greater 
 amount as compensation than is charged 
 by it for transportation of similar quanti- 
 ties of the same class of property over 
 any portion of its road of equal distance. 
 The act was taken substantially from the 
 Illinois law (Laws 1871-72, p. 635). In 
 1S7;{, the Illinois law was declared un- 
 constitutional on the ground that the con- 
 stitution restricted tiie power of the leg- 
 islature to prohibit discriminations to 
 those which were unjust and made the 
 
 question of the injustice of any alleged 
 discrimination of a judicial question for 
 the court, and that the legislature had no 
 power to declare anything to be an un- 
 just discrimination. The Missiouri con- 
 stitution of 1865 did not limit the power 
 of the legislature to prohibit discrimina- 
 tions l)y railroads, but Const. 1875. art. 
 12, § 14 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 306), adopted 
 literally from the Illinois constitution 
 (art. 11, § 12), the portion held to have 
 been violated by the Illinois law provid- 
 ing that railroads are public highways, 
 and railroad companies common carriers, 
 and that the general assembly shall pass 
 laws to correct abuses and prevent un- 
 just discrimination and extortion in the 
 rates of freight and passenger traffic on 
 the different railroads in the state, and 
 shall pass laws establishing maximum 
 rates and charges for transportation of 
 passengers and freight on the railroads, 
 and enforce all such laws by adequate 
 penality. The Missiouri constitution, 
 also by art. 12, § 12 (page 306), providing 
 that it shall not be lawful for any rail- 
 road company to charge for transporta- 
 tion of freight or passengers a greater 
 amount for a less distance than the 
 amount charged for a greater distance, 
 and that suitable laws shall be passed to 
 enforce the provision, adopted the very 
 gist of the statute (the so-called "short- 
 haul" rule) extending its provisions to 
 passengers as well as to freight. Held, 
 that the intent in adopting § 12 was to 
 establish the short-haul rule as a part of 
 the fundamental law and to put it in oper- 
 ation, and the provision of § 14, direct- 
 ing the legislature to pass laws to correct 
 abuses and prevent unjust discrimination 
 and extortion in the rates of freight and 
 passenger traffic, does not operate as an 
 implied limitation on the power of the 
 legislature to prevent only such discrimi- 
 nations as are unjust, the use of the word 
 "unjust" not being intended to limit the 
 legislature's power in that regard, but to 
 require the exercise of such power, and 
 to declare what shall be unjust discrimi- 
 nation, and such provision refers to dis- 
 criminations generally, whereas the short 
 haul rule, established by § 12, applies to 
 a particular class of discriminations, spe- 
 cifically established in positive and explicit 
 terms, so that the short-haul provision of 
 .\ct 1872 was not rendered unconstitu- 
 tional by the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion of 1S75. McGrew t-. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. (Mo.), 132 S. \V. 1076. 
 
 The Nebraska statute, Comp. St. 1903, 
 c. 72, art. 5, forbidding railroads to charge
 
 § 87 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 74 
 
 by the state courts, applies to or interferes with interstate commerce, it is invalid.-^-'^ 
 The fact that competition exists at the longer, and not at the shorter, distance 
 point, does not constitute such a dissimilarity of conditions as will authorize the 
 carrier to charge more for the short than for the long haul.'^'^ A statute prohib- 
 iting the charging of more for a shorter than for a longer distance, applies, al- 
 though bv the original contract of carriage the merchandise was to be carried to 
 a station' beyond that at which it was left.^" A statute providing that railroad 
 companies shall not charge more than a certain sum for the transportation of 
 freight of a particular weight or bulk a certain distance, does not compel them 
 to proportion their charges to the distance carried, but fixes a maximum sum 
 within which the companies may charge, subject only to the common-law rule that 
 the same shall be reasonable in each particular case.^'^ The short haul clauses, 
 prohibiting the charging of more for a shorter than for a longer distance, as 
 embodied in the constitutions and rate regulating statutes of the several states, 
 differ somewhat in phraseology. The peculiar provisions of some of these clauses 
 have been interpreted by the courts.^^ The action of the Kentucky Railroad Coni- 
 
 fer transportation for a specific distance 
 a greater sum than they charge for car- 
 riage over a greater distance, was within 
 the legislative discretion. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Anderson, 72 Neb. 856, 101 N. 
 W. 1010. 
 
 35. Provision as to long and short 
 hauls must not interfere with interstate 
 commerce. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eu- 
 bank, 184 U. S. 27, 46 L. Ed. 416, 22 S. 
 Ct. 277. 
 
 36. Effect of competition. — Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 
 633, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 232, 51 S. W. 164, 
 1012, 90 Am. St. Rep. 236, affirmed in 
 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 298, 22 S. W. 95. 
 
 Under the constitution of Kentucky, 
 § 218, providing that "it shall be unlawful 
 for any person or corporation owning or 
 operating a railroad in this state, or any 
 common carrier, to charge or receive any 
 greater compensation in the aggregate 
 for the transportation of passengers or 
 of property of like kind under substan- 
 tially similar circumstances and condi- 
 tions for a shorter than for a longer dis- 
 tance over the same line in the same di- 
 rection, the shorter being included within 
 the longer distance," competition does 
 not justify a carrier in charging more for 
 a shorter than for a longer distance, as 
 the words "substantially similar circum- 
 stances and conditions" relate to the ac- 
 tual cost of transportation. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 
 226, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1102, 1380, 46 S. W. 
 707, 47 S. W. 210, 598, 43 L. R. A. 541; 
 Hutcheson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 108 
 Ky. 615, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 361, 57 S. W. 
 251. 
 
 But in a case in a federal court it was 
 held that notwithstanding the Oregon 
 statute, Act Feb. 20, 1885, § 4 (Sess. 
 Laws, 39), declaring it unlawful for any 
 person engaged in the transportation of 
 property by a railway to charge or re- 
 ceive any greater compensation for a 
 short haul than a longer one in the same 
 direction, a railway corporation may 
 
 charge less for a long haul than a short 
 one in the same direction, when the rate 
 for the long haul is caused by other lines 
 of transportation competing for business 
 at the point from whence the long haul 
 is made; and where the road of such cor- 
 poration forms a part of a line of trans- 
 portation consisting largely of water car- 
 riage, between two principal points, the 
 rate may be made so as to enable it to 
 compete with another road that consti- 
 tutes a part of another line of water and 
 railway trans'^ortation between the same 
 points. Ex parte Koehler, 25 Fed. 73. 
 
 37. Provision in original contract of car- 
 riage not precluding application of short 
 haul clause. — Osgood r. Concord Rail- 
 road, 63 N. H. 255, construing Laws 1879, 
 c. 55. 
 
 38. Prohibiting charge of more than a 
 certain sum for a certain distance. Ra- 
 gan V. Aiken, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 009, 42 
 Am. Rep. 684. 
 
 39. Peculiar Provisions of short haul 
 clauses interpreted. — As § 218 of the con- 
 stitution of Kentucky, does not apply un- 
 less the shorter is included within the 
 longer distance, a carrier does not violate 
 the law where the long haul is altogether 
 on its main line, while the short haul orig- 
 inates on a branch road, as the shipment 
 is- an entirety, and can not be solit into 
 parts to bring it within the law. Louis- 
 ville & N. R. Co. V. Walker, 110 Ky. 961, 
 23 Ky. L. Rep. 453, 63 S. W. 20. 
 
 The Missouri statute, Rev. St. 1899, 
 § 1126 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 971), prohibiting 
 a carrier from charging for transporting 
 goods a larger amount than is charged for 
 the transportation of similar quantities of 
 the same class of goods over a greater 
 distance on the same road, regulates 
 freight charges in any direction on the 
 same road, as applied to shipments of the 
 same class of property in similar quanti- 
 ties, and is not repealed by §§ 1129, 1133, 
 1134 (Ann.' St. 1906, pp. 973-975), prohibit- 
 ing a carrier from charging more for 
 transporting a car of freight, than it
 
 75 
 
 COXTKrjL AND RKGUI.ATKJX. 
 
 §§ 87-88 
 
 mission in exonerating a carrier from the operation of the law prohibiting tiie 
 charging of more for a shorter than for a longer distance is not retrosi)ective, 
 and docs not, therefore, affect the liability which the carrier had previously in- 
 curred to shippers by a violation of the law."*" 
 
 § 88. Joint Tariff between Two or More Roads. — The power of the state 
 to regulate freight charges includes the power to establish joint through rates 
 over separate lines within its borders •'^ Where a joint tariff between two or more 
 
 charges per car for several cars of a like 
 class of freight; proiiibiting rebating; 
 making it unlawful for any carrier to give 
 any undue preference to any person in tlie 
 transportation of goods, and making it 
 unlawful for any carrier to charge any 
 greater compensation in the aggregate for 
 the transportation of like kinds of prop- 
 erty under similar circumstances, for a 
 shorter than a longer distance over the 
 same line, in the same direction. Cohn 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 151 Mo. App. 
 061, 13:5 S. W. 59, transferred from su- 
 preme court 131 S. W. 881. 
 
 Act April 1, 1873 (Laws 1872, p. 69), 
 relating wholly to local discriminations by 
 railroads, contains a short-haul provi- 
 sion, and prohibits a railroad from re- 
 ceiving for transportation of property 
 any greater amount as compensation 
 than is charged for the transportation of 
 the same class of property over a greater 
 distance upon the same road without re- 
 gard to direction, circumstances, or condi- 
 tions. Laws Extra Sess. 1887, p. 17, § 4, 
 (Rev. St. 1899, § 1134 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 
 975]), relating to discriminations under 
 "like circumstances," or "substantially 
 similar circumstances and conditions," 
 embraces a short-haul provision applying to 
 hauls in the same direction under similar 
 circumstances and conditions. The act of 
 1887 provided that it was not intended to 
 repeal any law then in force, unless in 
 direct conflict therewith, but was intended 
 to be supplemental to such laws. Held, 
 that such provision as to repeal furnishes 
 the sole and only test for determining 
 whether the act of 1872 was repealed by 
 the act of 1887, and the two laws merely 
 establishing two systems for preventing 
 discriminatio'n l)y railroad companies, the 
 later act containing some but not all of 
 the things contained in the system cre- 
 ated by the former act and many other 
 things, they are not in direct conflict as 
 to the short-haul clause, and the former 
 act was not repealed l)y the latter one as 
 to such provision. McGrew v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. (Mo.), 132 S. W. 1076. 
 
 That the penalties created by the acts 
 are different, it being necessary in order 
 to enforce the penalty prescribed by the 
 act of 1887 (Laws Extra Sess. 1887. p. 15) 
 for violating its short-haul section, to al- 
 lege and prove that the shorter and 
 longer hauls were made in the same di- 
 rection and under similar circumstances 
 and conditions, while such allegations and 
 
 proof would not Ije necessary to enforce 
 the penalty prescribed by the act of 1872, 
 and that in a proceeding to enforce the 
 latter penalty it would l)e no defense to 
 show the facts making defendant liable 
 to the other penalties, does not operate 
 to work a repeal of the former act by the 
 latter one. McGrew v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), 132 S. W. 1076. 
 
 The Texas statute, Rev. Stat., § 4257, 
 prohil)iting railroad companies from 
 cliarging more for a short than a long 
 haul is not confined to cases where the 
 freight is being transported between the 
 same points. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Kute- 
 man, 79 Tex. 465, 14 S. W. 693. 
 
 40. Action exonerating carrier from op- 
 eration of short-haul clause not retrospec- 
 tive. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Van- 
 cleave, 110 Ky. 968, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 479, 
 63 S. W. 22, construing Const., § 218, and 
 Ky. St., § 820. 
 
 41. State may establish joint through 
 rates over separate lines. — Burlington, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Dcy, S2 Iowa 312, 48 N. 
 W. 98, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477, 12 L. R. A. 
 436. 
 
 Such part of the Minnesota statute. 
 Laws 1895; c. 91, as authorizes the state 
 railroad and warehouse commission to es- 
 tablish by order joint through rates for 
 the transportation of freight over any two 
 or more connecting lines of railway 
 within the state, and to compel ol^edience 
 thereto, does not violate any of the con- 
 stitutional provisions, federal or state. 
 State V. Alinneapolis, etc., R. Co., 80 
 Minn. 191, 83 S. W. 60, 89 Am. St. Rep. 
 511. aftirmed Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 }^Iinnesota. 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. 1151. 
 22 S. Ct. '.HlO. 
 
 Commission order a complete fixing of 
 a continuous mileage rate between two 
 roads. — Circular Xn. 325, of the railmail 
 commission, declaring that continuous 
 mileage rates shall apply to the Central 
 Railroad and the Wadley Southern Rail- 
 way Company for transportation of pas- 
 sengers and freight passing between those 
 railroads or over any portion of either, 
 such rates to be governed by the freight 
 and passenger tariflfs prescribed by the 
 Georgia railroad commission for the Cen- 
 tral of Georgia Railway Company, is a 
 clear and complete fixing of a continuous 
 mileage rate between the two roads, 
 without necessity of resorting, to ascer- 
 tain its meaning, to rule Xo. 1 of the com- 
 mission, declaring that, when two or more
 
 §§ 88-89 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 76 
 
 roads has been agreed upon, such tariff is as much within the control of the legis- 
 lature as if it related only to transportation over a single line.^- A state legislature 
 may authorize its railroad commission to reduce, as unreasonable, a joint through 
 rate agreed upon bv two or more railroads, and apportion the same among the 
 several railroad companies interested.-^-^ Under a statute providing that the rail- 
 road commission shall have power to fix rates for all connecting lines in the state, 
 and if connecting railroads fail to agree on a division of the charges the coin- 
 mission shall fix the pro rata, a joint rate fixed by the commission is not void 
 for failure to divide the rate between the companies.-* •* 
 
 § 89. Transfers to Connecting Lines of Same Company.*" — The power 
 which the legislature of a slate has to require a street railroad company to furnish 
 transfer tickets entitling passengers to ride on a connecting line owned or con- 
 trolled by it without payment of additional fare it may delegate to the corporation 
 commission of the state ■*^' or to the municipality in which the lines of such com- 
 pany are located."*" Some of the peculiar provisions of statutes and municipal 
 ordinances requiring street railroad companies to give such transfers have been 
 interpreted by the courts."*^ 
 
 connecting lines of railroad are operated 
 by one management, or where the major- 
 ity of the stock of each is controlled by one 
 of such companies, the lines of railroads 
 of all shall be considered as constitut- 
 ing but one railroad, and the rates shall 
 be computed on a continuous mileage 
 basis. Hill z\ Wadley Southern R. Co., 
 12S Ga. 70.-). 57 S. E. 795. 
 
 42. Joint tariff agreement within control 
 of legislature. — Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. Ed. 
 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 Granting that a state has no right to 
 interfere with the internal economy of a 
 railroad farther than to secure the safety 
 and comfort of passengers, as, for ex- 
 ample, to fix the wages of employees or 
 control its contracts for construction, or 
 the purchase of supplies, it has a clear 
 right to pass upon the reasonableness of 
 contracts in which the public is inter- 
 ested, whether such contracts be made 
 directly with the patrons of the road, or 
 for a joint action in the transportation 
 of persons or property in which the 
 public is indirectly concerned. Minne- 
 apolis, etc.. R. Co. v. Minnesota. 186 U. .S. 
 257, 40 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 43. Reduction of joint through rate.— 
 Judgment, State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co., 80 Minn. 191, 8:5 N. W. 60, 89 Am. 
 St. Rep. 514, affirmed. Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. 
 Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 44. Joint rate not void for failure to di- 
 vide rate between companies. — Southern 
 Indiana R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 172 
 Ind. 113, 87 N. E. 966, construing Acts 
 1907, p. 458. C. 241. 
 
 45. As to transfers to other lines, see 
 post, "Transfers between Street Railroad 
 Companies," sec. 129. 
 
 46. Order requiring transfers within 
 power of corporation commission. — An 
 order that a street railway company in 
 Oklahoma City give transfers on request, 
 
 held within the power of the comoration 
 commission and to be reasonable and just. 
 Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Powell, 33 Okla. 
 737, 127 Pac. 1080. 
 
 47. Municipality may require transfers 
 under power to limit rate of fare. — The 
 city of Chicago, having power under its 
 charter (1 Starr & C. Ann. St. [2d Ed.] 
 pp. 689-715, art. 5, § 1) to limit the rate of 
 fare to be charged by street railway com- 
 panies, had also, as a necessary incident 
 thereto, power to enact Rev. Code Chi- 
 cago, §§ 1723, 1725, requiring street rail- 
 way companies to furnish transfer tickets 
 entitling passengers to ride on a connect- 
 ing line of the same company without 
 the payment of an additional fare. Chi- 
 cago Union Tract Co. z'. Chicago, 199 
 111. 484, 65 N. E. 451, 59 L. R. A. 631. 
 
 The city of Atlanta, Ga., has no author- 
 ity to impose a compulsory system of 
 passenger transfers upon the Atlanta 
 Consolidated Street-Railway Company, 
 either under the city charter, the charters 
 of the two corporations whose property 
 was purchased by the said consolidated 
 company, the state statutes ratifying and 
 confirming the incorporation of street and 
 surburban railroad compani.es, or under 
 the Constitution of Georgia and the ordi- 
 nance of the city of Atlanta, made in pur- 
 suance thereof, consenting to the occupa- 
 tion of its streets by the said consoli- 
 dated company. Atlanta v. Old Colony 
 Trust Co., 32 C. C. A. 125, 88 Fed. 859, 
 affirming Old Colony Trust Co. v. At- 
 lanta, 83 Fed. 39. 
 
 48. Lessee of intersecting roads re- 
 quired to give transfers. — Wlicre a street 
 surface railroad is operated under the 
 New York railroad law (Laws 1890, p. 
 1082, c. 565, as amended by Laws 1892, 
 p. 1382, c. 676), and leases other roads 
 which intersect with its own road, the 
 lessee must, under section 104, c. 676, p. 
 1406, Laws 1892, carry any passenger de- 
 siring to make one continuous trip to any
 
 77 
 
 C(J\Tk(>L AND Ri:(".L'LAT10.V. 
 
 §§ 89-90 
 
 §§ 90-95. Conditions in Grant of Franchise and Agreements with 
 Municipahties — § 90. Authority to Impose Conditions or to Make Agree- 
 ments. — Municipal corpuratifjus are fre(iuenlly authorized by statute to impose 
 conditions as to the rates of fare to be charged by street railroad companies in 
 granting to such companies the right to use the streets of the municipality, or 
 to enter into agreements with such companies relative to the rates of fare to be 
 charged.'"' A \ illage, in granting a franchise to a street railroad company, may 
 l).'irgain with it with reference to rates of fare between points in the village and 
 outside i^oints ; and the acceptance of the franchise with such a condition makes 
 a valid contract."*" A nuuiicipal contract which secures to the public for a term 
 of years the benefit of a single fare of not more than five cents for a continuous 
 passage over the whole length, or any portion of consolidated and extended street 
 railwav lines does not \iolate the provision of a statute providing that a municipal 
 
 portion of any railroad cmi)racc(l in such 
 contract for a single fare. Judgment, 95 
 App. Div. 2.')3, 89 N. Y. S. 41. affirmed. 
 O'Reilly v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 179 
 N. Y. 4r.o. 72 N. K. 517. 
 
 Corporation required to give transfers 
 to road of which it is the beneficial owner. 
 — Under Rev. Code Chicago, § 1723, pro- 
 viding that at any point where the line 
 of a street railway points, connects, 
 crosses, or comes within a distance of two 
 hundred feet of any other line owned or op- 
 crated by the same company any pas- 
 senger shall l)c entitled to a transfer en- 
 titling him to ride on the connecting line 
 witlmut additional charge, a street rail- 
 way corporation is required to give trans- 
 fers if it is the real Ijcneficial owner of 
 both the connecting lines, though tlic drj' 
 legal title to one of them maj' be in 
 another corporation. Chicago Union 
 Tract. Co. v. Chicago, 199 111. 579, 65 N. 
 E. 470. 
 
 Carrier not prohibited from limiting 
 time within which transfer can be used. — 
 The Maryland statute, Acts 1900, p. 463. 
 c. 3i;j, requiring the street car company 
 of Baltimore City to give, on request, 
 eacli passenger paying a cash fare a trans- 
 fer for a "continuous" ride, does not pro- 
 hibit the company from limiting the time 
 within wliicli a transfer can be used. 
 Garrison v. United R. etc., Co., 97 Md. 
 347, ."..") Atl. :!71, 99 Am. St. Rep. 4."')2. 
 
 49. Statutory authority to impose con- 
 ditions or to make agreements as to rates 
 of fare. — Under the Wisconsin statute, 
 St. 1898, § 1863, as amended i)y Laws 
 1901, c. 425, authorizing an interurban 
 railway company to use the streets of a 
 city, providing its consent is obtained, 
 and providing that such consent may be 
 given on such terms as the common 
 council may prcscrilie, tlic city has the 
 power to refuse consent, and so can im- 
 pose as a condition to consent, that the 
 railway company's fare lietween the cities 
 shall not exceed ten cents. Manitowoc v. 
 Manitowoc, etc.. Tract. Co., 145 Wis. 13, 
 129 X. W. 925. 
 
 Binding agreements relative to rates of 
 fare between a municipality and street 
 railways organized either under the Mich- 
 
 igan tram railway act as amended in 1861, 
 or under the street railway act of 1867, 
 which can not l)e altered without consent 
 of l)Oth parties, were expressly author- 
 ized by § 20 of the latter act, declaring 
 tliat railway rates shall be established 
 Ijy agreement between the company and 
 the corporate authorities, the provisions 
 of which section were by § 29 made ap- 
 plicable to all street railway corporations 
 alread}' organized and in operation. De- 
 troit V. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co., 184 
 U. S. 368, 46 L. Ed. 592, 22 S. Ct. 410. 
 
 Where the selectmen of a town, on 
 granting a street railway location, in- 
 serted a provision fixing the maximum 
 fare to be charged within a locality cov- 
 ering three towns, such provision was a 
 valid exercise of power granted by the 
 Massachusetts statute. Pub. St. 1882, c. 
 113, and was not afTected by St. 1898, c. 
 578, withdrawing such power from local 
 boards, adopted within less than a month 
 after the location became effective. 
 Westwood t'. Dedham. etc.. St. R. Co.. 
 209 Mass. 213, 95 X. E. SI. 
 
 Statute not authorizing municipality to 
 impose a limitation on rates.— Under the 
 Massachusetts statute, Pul). St. 18S2. c. 
 113, § 43 (Rev. Laws, c. 112, § 69), pro- 
 viding that a street railwaj' company may 
 estal)lish the rates of fare, subject to its 
 cliarter and the statutes, and in view of 
 tlie course of legislation (Pub. St. 1882, 
 c. 113, §§ 44, 45; St. 1898, pp. 747, 748, 
 c. 578, §§ 23, 26; St. 1901. p. 113, c. ISO) re- 
 lating to limitations and revision of rates 
 of fare. St. 1898. p. 743. c. 578. § 13, pro- 
 viding that the selectmen of a town, in 
 granting a location to a street railway 
 company, may impose such conditions as 
 the public interest may require, does not 
 authorize them to impose a limitation on 
 tlie rates of fare the company may 
 charge. Keefe v. Lexington, etc.. St. R. 
 Co.. 185 Mass. 183. 70 X. E. 37; Cunning- 
 ham V. Boston, etc., St. R. Co.. ISS Mass. 
 250, 74 X. E. 355. 
 
 50. Authority of village to bargain as 
 to fare to points outside village. — Public 
 Service Comm. v. Westchester St. R. Co., 
 206 N. Y. 209. 99 N. E. 536, affirming 
 order 151 App. Div. 914. 135 N. Y. S. 1138.
 
 ;§ 90-91 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 78 
 
 corporation shall not. during the term of a street railway grant, or renewal 
 thereof, release the grantee from anv obligation or liability thereby imposed, 
 because such contract deprives the municipality of the right to regulate fares 
 over a portion of the consolidated lines, reserved in an ordinance adopted before 
 the consolidation, granting a renewal franchise to the corporation which then 
 owned such portion of the lines.^i Under a statute authorizing towns to make 
 contracts granting franchises to corporations operating street railways, which 
 provides that the charge for service shall not exceed the price charged by the 
 corporation at the time of granting the franchise, a contract which limits the 
 rate of fare to less than that then charged by the corporation is not beyond the 
 town's authority. ^- 
 
 § 91. Change of Rates of Fare Fixed by Franchise or Agreement.— 
 
 Where street railway fares have been established by agreement between a mu- 
 nicipality and a street railway company, the municipality can not reduce such 
 fares while the agreement remains in force ; ^^ nor can the fares so established 
 be changed bv the street railway company.^^ Under statutes conferring power 
 upon municip'alities to determine the conditions of the grant of a franchise to 
 a street railroad company, including the rates of fare to be charged, but no 
 power to thereafter prescribe rates of fare, if a grant by a municipality itself 
 fixes the rate of fare a reserved right of regulation does not authorize the mu- 
 nicipality to thereafter change it during the life of the grant.-^-^ A statute pro- 
 viding that, after a grant or renewal of a grant is made by a municipal cor- 
 poration, it shall not, during the term of such grant or renewal, release the 
 
 51. Effect of statute prohibiting munici- 
 pality from releasing carrier from any ob- 
 ligation imposed by its franchise. — De- 
 cree, Cleveland City R. Co. v. Cleveland, 
 94 Fed. .38.5, affirmed. Cleveland v. Cleve- 
 land City R. Co., 194 U. S. 517, 48 L. Ed. 
 1102, 24 S. Ct. 756; Cleveland v. Cleveland 
 Elect. R. Co., 194 U. S. 538, 48 L. Ed. 
 1109. 24 S. Ct. 764, construing Bates Ann. 
 St. Ohio 1897, § 2502. 
 
 52. Statute held to authorize contract 
 limiting fare to less than was formerly 
 charged. — Adams z'. Union R. Co., 21 R. 
 I. 134, 42 Atl. 515, 44 L. R. A. 273. 
 
 53. No right to reduce street railway 
 fares established by agreement between 
 a city and the railway company subse- 
 quent to the amendment of March 27, 
 1867, to § 34 of the Michigan tram rail- 
 way act, so long as by such reduction 
 rights or franchises already granted were 
 not destroyed or impaired, or the com- 
 pany deprived of granted rights of con- 
 struction and operation, was given such 
 city by the provision of that amendment 
 forbidding municipal authorities from 
 making any regulations or conditions 
 which would have that effect, as such 
 provision, being a general one, does not 
 limit the express authority of the munic- 
 ipality, previously conferred by § 20 of 
 the Alichigan street railway act, to bind 
 itself by an agreement fixing street_ rail- 
 way fares. Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. R. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 46 L. Ed. 592, 22 
 S. Ct. 410. 
 
 No permission to municipal authorities 
 to reduce street railway fares without the 
 consent of the company below the rate 
 
 at which they were fixed in compliance 
 with Michigan Street Railway Act J867, 
 § 20, which declares that such rates shall 
 be established by agreement between the 
 parties, can be implied from the further 
 provision of that section that the rates 
 of fare agreed upon shall not be in- 
 creased without the consent of the city 
 authorities. Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' 
 St. R. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 46 L. Ed. 592, 
 22 S. Ct. 410. 
 
 54. Agreement precluding railway com- 
 pany from abolishing sale of six tickets 
 for twenty-five cents. — Where an ordi- 
 nance is passed granting a street railway 
 company terms for an extension, and pro- 
 viding that the rate of fare shall not ex- 
 ceed five cents per single fare, or six 
 tickets for twenty-five cents, such being 
 the rate of fare before the passage of the 
 ordinance, neither the railway company 
 nor another company to which it has 
 leased its line can abolish the sale of six 
 tickets for twenty-five cents from points 
 on the two lines for which the extension 
 was allowed by the city. Reading v. 
 United Tract. Co., 236 Pa. 197, 84 Atl. 
 666. Compare Philadelphia v. Philadel- 
 phia Rapid Transit Co., 338 Pa. 335, 77 
 Atl. 501. 
 
 55. Reserved right of regulation not 
 authorizing change in rate of fare — Stat- 
 utes construed. — Cleveland City R. Co. v. 
 Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385. Affirmed, Cleve- 
 land V. Cleveland City R. Co., 194 U. S. 
 517, 48 L. Ed. 1102, 24 S. Ct. 756, and 
 Cleveland v. Cleveland Elect. R. Co., 194 
 U. S. 538, 48 L. Ed. 1109, 24 S. Ct. 764.
 
 79 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 91-93 
 
 grantee from any obligation or lialjility imposed by the terms of such grant or 
 renewal, does not prohibit a city making a grant of a franchise to a street-rail- 
 road company, in which it reserves the right to change the rates of fare to be 
 charged, from thereafter modifying such contract on sufficient consideration. •'^•• 
 
 § 92. Effect of Acceptance by Carrier of Location Granted by Mu- 
 nicipality. — 'I'he accei)tance by a street railway company of a location granted 
 by a municipality does not make valid conditions in the grant as to fares, which 
 the town could not legally impose, nor does it make a contract as to fares be- 
 tween the com])any and the municipality.-" 
 
 § 93. Conditions and Agreements Construed. — Many of the peculiar 
 provisions of conditions or reservations in grants of franchises to street rail- 
 road companies and of agreements between municipalities and such companies 
 have been interpreted by the courts. The courts have thus been called upon 
 to determine whether a municipality has reserved to itself the right to fix or 
 to reduce rates of fare,'''* what fare the carrier is authorized to charge,-'"'" the 
 amount that will cnlille a passenger to carriage,''" whether it is the carrier's 
 
 56. Statute not precluding municipal- 
 ity from exercising reserved right to 
 change rates of fare. — Cleveland City R. 
 Co. V. Ck'vclaiul, '.»4 Fed. 385. Affirmed, 
 Cleveland v. Cleveland City R. Co., 194 
 U. S. 517, 48 L. Ed. 1102, 24 S. Ct. 756, 
 and Cleveland r. Cleveland Elect. R. Co., 
 194 U. S. 538, 48 L. Ed. 1109, 24 S. Ct. 
 764, construing Rev. St. Ohio, § 2503. 
 
 57. Effect of acceptance by carrier of 
 location granted by municipality. — Keefe 
 V. Lexiiii^ton, etc., St. R. Co., 185 Mass. 
 183. TO N. l-'. 'M. 
 
 58. Reservation not authorizing mu- 
 nicipality to fix rates of fare. — A reserva- 
 tion in an ordinance <?ranting the use of 
 streets for a street railroad that such road 
 shall be "subject to all the laws and or- 
 dinances now in force, and such as may 
 be hereafter made," does not authorize 
 the city to fix rates of fare, unless it is, 
 either expressly or by necessary impli- 
 cation, thereto authorized by some law 
 of the state. Old Colony Trust Co. r. 
 Atlanta, S3 Fed. 39. 
 
 Reservation not authorizing municipal- 
 ity to reduce rates of fare. — A reserva- 
 tion in an ordinance {^ranting a street 
 railway franchise of the ri^ht from time 
 to time to make such further rules, or- 
 ders, or regulations as to the common 
 council may seem proper, does not in- 
 clude the right on the part of the city 
 at its own pleasure to reduce the rates 
 of fare agreed upon in such ordinance. 
 Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co., 
 184 U. S. 3C.S, 40 L. Ed. 592. 22 S. Ct. 410. 
 
 59. Carrier only authorized to charge 
 single fare for ride in both divisions of 
 city. — Where city ordinances granted the 
 right to operate street railway lines in 
 the South and West divisions of the city, 
 and provided that the rate of fare for 
 any distance should not exceed five cents, 
 the street railway company was not 
 thereby authorized to charge a fare of 
 five cents for a ride in one division, and 
 
 another fare for a ride in the other di- 
 vision, but only to charge a single fare 
 for a ride in both divisions. Chicago 
 Union Tract. Co. v. Chicago, 199 111. 484, 
 65 N. E. 4.-)i. .^)9 L. R. A. ty.n. 
 
 Fare chargeable from point in village 
 out toward another village. — A railroad 
 company operating a road through the 
 village of H. to the village of W., being 
 entitled, under its franchise, to charge 
 one fare of five cents between the limits 
 of the village of H. and the village of W., 
 where a charge of one fare was made 
 through the village of H. to a point 
 therein, another fare could be charged 
 from that point out toward the village 
 of W., without incurring the penalty for 
 charging excessive fares, under Railroad 
 Law, § 39 (Laws 1890, p. 1096, c. 565). 
 Byars v. Bennington, etc., R. Co., 99 App. 
 Div. 34, 90 N. Y. S. 736, affirmed in 184 
 X. Y. 554, 76 X. E. 1090. 
 
 Rates prescribed between certain 
 points binding though points are beyond 
 limits of municipality. — .\ street railway 
 operating its lino tlirough a village under 
 a franchise from such village, which pro- 
 vides for a certain rate of fare per mile 
 between certain points, is bound by such 
 rate, even though the points specified are 
 beyond the limits of the village. Vining 
 V. Detroit, etc.. Railway, 133 Mich. 539, 
 95 X. W. 542. 
 
 60. Right to ride for five cents. — .\ 
 franchise to a street railway from the 
 village of W., situated wholly %vithin the 
 township of X.. providing that the com- 
 pany shall be entitled to charge at the rate 
 of one and a half cents per mile, except as 
 thereinafter provided, for a continuous 
 trip, provided no passenger shall be car- 
 ried for a less fare than five cents for any 
 distance, does not prevent one having the 
 right to ride for five cents between any 
 two points in X. township, though he may 
 pass through the village of W.. or go 
 from a point within it to a point outside
 
 § 93 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 80 
 
 duty to sell tickets at a stipulated price/'^ what obligation the carrier is under 
 in relation to the giving of transfers/'- who may travel at the rate prescribed, '^'^ 
 what institutions of learning art 
 
 included in the word "schools," where a street 
 
 in N. township. Kissane v. Detroit, etc.. 
 Railway. 121 Mich. 175, 79 N. W. 1104. 
 
 Through passenger entitled to ride 
 through township and villages therein at 
 township rate. — In Michigan, where the 
 councils and township boards of several 
 cities, villages, and townships, under 
 whose ordinances and resolutions an elec- 
 tric railway runs, fixed a rate for travel 
 thereon through each city, village, and 
 township respectively, a through passen- 
 ger would be entitled to ride through a 
 township and the villages therein at the 
 township rate, since a village is under the 
 jurisdiction of the township board as to 
 all but village affairs. Coy v. Detroit, etc.. 
 Railway. 125 Mich. G16, 85 N. W. 6. 
 
 Passenger entitled to ride beyond town- 
 ship limits at rate prescribed. — Where a 
 township, in pursuance of the Michigan 
 statute, Comp. Laws 1897, § 6446, on 
 granting consent to an electric railway 
 company to construct and operate its line 
 along the highways of the township, im- 
 posed a condition that the railway com- 
 pany should not charge more than two 
 cents per mile for each passenger carried, 
 provided that no single fare should be less 
 than five cents, a passenger taking a car 
 in the township was entitled to ride over 
 the entire line at the rate of two cents per 
 mile, though it extended beyond the town- 
 ship limits, provided that the total amount 
 paid should not be less than five cents. 
 Ross Tp. V. Michigan United R. Co. 
 (Alich.), 130 X. W. 358. 
 
 61. Franchise requiring sale of five tick- 
 ets for 50 cents. — A street-railway com- 
 pany operating under a franchise requir- 
 ing the sale of five tickets for fifty cents, 
 Avhich sells such tickets in two parts, one 
 of which is good to a named point on the 
 line, and the other part good for the re- 
 mainder of the trip, will not be heard to 
 say, in an action for damages for refusal 
 to sell five tickets to one who had paid 
 his fare on the first part of the line with 
 a stub, intending to pay for the remainder 
 of the trip with a stub from the new tick- 
 ets, that the franchise called only for the 
 acceptance of a through ticket in pay- 
 ment of fare, and hence plaintiff could not 
 recover for defendant's failure to furnish 
 a ticket in two parts, not called for by the 
 franchise. Rice v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 122 Mich. 677, 81 N. W. 927, 48 L. R. 
 A. 84. 
 
 62. Carrier not required to grant trans- 
 fers from lines in one city to those in an- 
 other. — A street railway company per- 
 mitted to construct a railway in a city on 
 condition that the fare for riding in the 
 city be five cents, and that it gives trans- 
 fers to all of its lines, took an assign- 
 ment of all the rights and succeeded to all 
 
 tlie obligations of another street railway 
 companj- which had constructed a line in 
 an adjoining city on the same condition. 
 Held tliat, having been permitted to con- 
 nect the lines without any such condition, 
 it was not required to grant transfers 
 from the lines in one city to those in the 
 other. Montpelier v. Barre, etc.. Power 
 Co.. 76 \'t. 66, 56 Atl. 278. 
 
 Country passengers entitled to same 
 transfer rights as city passengers. — The 
 franchise of a street railway provided 
 that passengers on a line extending into 
 the countrjr should, on arriving in the 
 city at a certain point, be transferred to 
 the cars of another line, and, when so 
 transferred, should have the same rights 
 and privileges as passengers on that line. 
 Passengers on the latter Ihie were en- 
 titled, without additional fare, to one 
 transfer therefrom to any of the com- 
 pany's cars going in the same direction. 
 Held, that passengers on the country ex- 
 tension, on arriving in the city, were en- 
 titled to a transfer to the main line, and 
 thereafter, without additional fare, to a 
 transfer to other cars going in the same 
 direction, as long as the city passengers 
 were entitled thereto; since the franchise 
 entitled country passengers to the same 
 privileges as city passengers, and not 
 merely to the same number of transfers. 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 97 Va. 
 36, 32 S. E. 775. 
 
 Line held an intersecting line within ob- 
 ligation to give transfers to intersecting 
 lines. — Tlie ordinance granting a francliise 
 to a street railroad company provided that 
 it should sell half-fare tickets between 
 certain hours, and give transfers at points 
 where one line intersected with another. 
 The company owned a line which ex- 
 tended from its point of intersection with 
 another line to the city limits, beyond which 
 it was owned by a different corporation, 
 which, however, ran its cars with the 
 same operatives into the city and to the 
 point of intersection. Held, that this line 
 was an intersecting line, to which the 
 provisions as to half-fare tickets and 
 transfers appHed. Virginia Passenger, etc., 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 644, 49 
 vS. E. 995. 
 
 63. Who may travel at the rate pre- 
 scribed. — Where the ordinance of one of 
 several villages, townships, and cities, un- 
 der whose ordinances an electric railway 
 runs, entitled such railway to charge at 
 the rate of one and a half cents a mile 
 for travel on its road between any two 
 points thereon, any member of the public, 
 though not a resident of such village, was 
 entitled to ride at such rate. Coy v. De- 
 troit, etc., Railway, 125 Mich. 616. 85 N. 
 W. 6.
 
 81 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGLLATIOX. 
 
 §§ ^-^3-94 
 
 railway company is required to provide pupils in schools transportation at half 
 price/''* and the effect of annexation of territory by the municipality subsequent 
 to its agreement with the carrier.'''^ A construction of a contract in a franchise 
 to carry school children for half price, acquiesced in Ijy the parties binds their 
 future actions.'''' 
 
 § 94. Waiver of Right to Charge More than Amount Stipulated in 
 Franchise. — Where a town granted a franchise t(j a ■-irL-ci-raihoad conipanN', 
 
 64. The word "schools" is one of broad 
 signilication, aiul .sonictiincs it may appear, 
 by the connection in which it is used, to 
 include higher institutions of learning; 
 but ordinarily, and without something to 
 indicate that a wider meaning was in- 
 tended to be given to the word, it will not 
 be taken to include higher institutions of 
 learning, such as colleges, universities, or 
 institutions for the teaching of trades, 
 professions, or business; and where a 
 street railway was, as a condition to a 
 grant of a location, required to provide 
 to pupils in attendance upon the pul^lic 
 schools, the state normal school of W., 
 or any school in W., transportation at 
 half price while going to and from school, 
 neither a college nor a business institute 
 in W. could fairly come within the lan- 
 guage of the restriction. Clinton v. Wor- 
 cester, etc., St. R. Co., 199 Mass. 279, 
 85 N. K. 507. 
 
 65. Ordinance prescribing rates of fare 
 has eflfect in territory subsequently an- 
 nexed. — An ordinance accei)ce<l In' a street 
 railway company providing that at certain 
 hours during the day the company should 
 charge certain fares over its lines within 
 the city must be construed strictly against 
 the company, and therefore has equal ef- 
 fect in territory subsequently annexed to 
 the city. People v. Detroit United Rail- 
 way, 102 Mich. 460, 127 N. W. 748, affirm- 
 ing judgment 125 N. W. 700, on rehearing. 
 
 .\i\ ordinance was passed providing 
 tliat a street railroad company should 
 furnish workingmen's tickets at a re- 
 duced rate, good over any of its lines in 
 the city, which ordinance was accepted 
 by the railway, and the same ordinance 
 gave the railway a right to extend its 
 tracks to the easterly limits of the city. 
 Subsequently the railway franchise was 
 assigned to a united company, which 
 thereafter purchased a suburl)an line 
 wholly without the limits of the city. 
 The city then extended its limits to cover 
 a portion of the territory in which the 
 purchased railroad was. Held, that since 
 there were two methods of extending a 
 street railway, one by construction, and 
 the other by purchase under Comp. Laws 
 1897, § ()448, the purchase of the suburban 
 railway by the united company was an 
 "extension," and hence the company was 
 bound by the ordinance, regardless of the 
 franchise of the suburban railroad. Peo- 
 ple r. Detroit United Railway, 1()2 Mich. 
 4f)0, 125 N. W. 70n. judgment affirmed on 
 rehearing 1:27 X. W. 74S. 
 
 Held, also that the ordinance covered 
 future extensions of the city limits, since 
 it was reasonably in the contemplation of 
 the original parties that thj limits would 
 be extended; and hence the company was 
 bound to give such reduced fares on its 
 purchased line. People v. Detroit United 
 Railway, 102 Mich. 400, 125 X. W. 700, 
 127 X. W. 748. 
 
 Passengers within territory annexed 
 must be carried at rate prescribed. — A 
 franchise to operate a system of street 
 railroads in a city which provides that the 
 fare shall not exceed five cents between 
 points within the city limits, though a 
 transfer shall be necessary, is applicable 
 to territory subsequently annexed to the 
 city, and passengers within the territory 
 annexed must be carried for five cents. 
 Dennison v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 64 Wash. 
 167, 116 Pac. 638. 
 
 A contract between a city and a street 
 railway operating its lines in the city 
 wliich binds the company to carry pas- 
 sengers within the city for a single fare 
 not exceeding five cents, and to issue 
 transfers to all passengers for a contin- 
 uous trip one way to and from all lines 
 in the city, is binding on the company op- 
 crating a line in territory outside of the 
 city under a county franchise on the ter- 
 ritory being subsequently annexed to the 
 city. Peterson z'. Tacoma, etc.. R. Co., 
 on Wash. 400, ni Pac. .'338. 
 
 Carrier bound to accept transfer to pas- 
 senger's destination in territory annexed. 
 — .\ street railroad operating its lines in 
 a city under a contract to issue transfer 
 tickets free of charge to all passengers re- 
 questing the same, who might board its 
 cars at any point on any of its lines in 
 the city, and whose destination might be 
 to any other point on any other line of 
 the company's road in the limits of the 
 city, is bound to transport a passenger 
 tendering such transfer to his destination 
 on the company's line, though that be in 
 territory annexed to the city after the 
 contract was made, and on its interurban 
 line, on which it had a francliise entitling 
 it to charge an additional fare outside the 
 city as its limits were before the annexa- 
 tion of territory. Indiana R. Co. f. HoflF- 
 man, KU Ind. ."J93. (■)9 X. 1{. :!'.>'.i. 
 
 66. Construction acquiesced in by par- 
 ties binds their future actions. — Seattle 
 f. Seattle l-.lect. Co., 71 Wash. 213, 128 
 Pac. 220. 
 
 1 Car—
 
 §§ 94-96 
 
 CARRir;RS 
 
 the contract stipulating that the fare hetween any two points on its lines should 
 not exceed five cents, the grantee waived its right to charge more as successor 
 of another company whose charter allowed it to charge ten cents, under which 
 charter the grantee' had established a fare of five cents for a continuous ride/'" 
 
 § 95 Acquisition by Sale or Consolidation of a Railway Compan} 
 Having a Contract with a Municipality. — Where a street railway company 
 acquires a locaiion from the selectmen of a town, which provides that no higher 
 than a specified fare rate shall be charged, a subsequent corporation acquiring 
 the assets and franchises of the original company under a general law, author- 
 izing such acquisition by sale or consolidation takes subject to the same obli- 
 gation."^ 
 
 §§ 96-1C8. Preferences and Discriminations — § 96. The Common- 
 Law Doctrine. — Independent of statute, every common carrier must carry for 
 all to the extent of its capacity, without undue or unreasonable discrimination 
 either in charges or facilities. •'''•^ It can not so operate its road or conduct its 
 business as to give an undue advantage to certain individuals, to the exclusion 
 of others."" It is no proper business of a common carrier to foster particular 
 enterprise or to build up new industries, but. deriving its franchise from the 
 legislature, and depending upon the will of the people for its very existence, it 
 is bound to deal fairly with the public, to extend them reasonable facilities for 
 the transportation of their persons and property, and to put all its patrons upon 
 an absolute equality.''^ But it has been held that a common carrier is permitted 
 
 67. Waiver of right to charge more than 
 amount stipulated in franchise. — Adams 
 T. Union R. Co.. 21 R. I. 134, 42 Atl. 515, 
 44 L. R. A. 273. 
 
 68. Acquisition by sale or consolidation 
 of a railway company having a contract 
 with a municipality. — \\\stwood z'. Ded- 
 ham. etc.. St. R. Co.. 209 M;tss. 213. 95 N. 
 E. 81, construing St. 190G, c. 463, pt. 3, 
 §§ 144. 145. 
 
 69. Duty not to discriminate as to 
 charges or facilities. — .\tcliison, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Denver, etc.. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 
 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 
 A railroad company as a common car- 
 rier is required to treat the public with 
 equality and fairness. Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Rust, 58 Tex. 9§. 
 
 Section 6 of the constitution of Col- 
 orado providing that: "All individuals, 
 associations, and corporations shall have 
 equal rights to have persons and property 
 transported over any railroad in this state, 
 and no undue or unreasonable discrimi- 
 nation shall be made in charges or facili- 
 ties for transportation of freight or pas- 
 sengers within the state, and no railroad 
 company, nor any lessee, manager, or 
 employee thereof, shall give any prefer- 
 ence to individuals, associations, or cor- 
 porations in furnishing cars or motive 
 power," imposed no greater obligation 
 upon a railroad company than the com- 
 mon law imposed upon it. Atchison, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 
 667, 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 
 Where a railroad voluntarily estab- 
 lishes as to a certain favored class of 
 shippers a rate so low as to be unremu- 
 nerative, the rate must nevertheless be 
 
 granted to all alike. Alabama, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Railroad Comm., 86 Miss. 667, 38 
 So. 356, affirmed in 203 U. S. 496, 51 L. 
 Ed. 289, 27 S. Ct. 163. 
 
 70. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Central 
 Stock Yards Co., 30 Ky. L. Rep. 18, 97 S. 
 W. 778. 
 
 Carriers may not discriminate between 
 markets or individuals in granting the 
 privilege of milling lumber in transit. 
 Railroad Comm'rs v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 59 Fla. 612, 52 So. 4. 
 
 71. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Goodridge, 
 149 U. S. 680, 37 L. Ed. 986, 13 S. Ct._970 
 (holding that this principle is recognized 
 in the "Colorado act of 1885 prohibiting 
 discriminations in charges). 
 
 Railway companies derive their charter 
 rights from the state and owe an equal 
 duty to every citizen, and they can not 
 exercise their charter rights in such man- 
 ner as to benefit an individual, town or 
 community, to the detriment of another. 
 H. & T. C. R. Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322. 
 
 A "rebilling rate," to receive the sanc- 
 tion of law, must operate uniformly_ and 
 fairly, and can not lawfully be restricted 
 to shippers in a certain locality who pre- 
 viously receive freights over a certain 
 other favored associate carrier. Alabama, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 86 Miss. 
 667, 38 So. 356. Affirmed 203 U. S. 496, 
 51 L. Ed. 289, 27 S. Ct. 163. 
 
 A true rebilling rate is one in which 
 goods received in unbroken car load lots 
 over one line of railway can be rebilled 
 over the same or another line, completing 
 one continuous trip, simply changing the 
 consignee, and altering the destination of
 
 83 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGULATION. 
 
 §§ 96-98 
 
 to discriminate in freight rates, provided the circumstances are not such as to 
 make such (hscrimination unjust and unreasonable, and that one complaining 
 of such disrriniiiiation is refiuired to show that it is unjust and unreasonable.' - 
 
 § 97. Standard Measure of Uniformity in Rates.— To procure uniform- 
 ity in llie rales of carriers, there niu>l lie a standard measurement, and the only 
 standard measure i)ossil)le in order to insure alisolute uniformity is money."-' 
 
 § 98. Power to Prohibit Preferences and Discriminations.— A state 
 
 acting' throuf^li its legislature ma}- prohibit a coninioii ca.rrier from t^ivingjjref- 
 erences and from making discriminations either in its charges or facilities. 
 This is a valid exercise of the police power.'-* Ikit in exercising this power the 
 legislature must act within constitutional limitations,^-'' and the provisions of 
 the prohil)iting statute must be certain."'"' I'ower is frequently conferred upon 
 
 the identical siiipnicnt, without unloading. 
 Alabama, etc.. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm.. 
 8(5 Miss. G67, 38 So. 350, al'tirmed in 20.3 
 U. S. 496, 51 L. Ed. 289, 27 S. Ct. 1G3. 
 
 A so-called "rebilling rate" adopted by 
 a railroad, which is not applied to con- 
 signments arriving over all connecting 
 lines, 1)Ut is only availal)le to those re- 
 ceiving freight over associate lines, and 
 under which freight rcconsigned over the 
 rel)illing road does not complete one con- 
 tinuous trip without rehandling, and is not 
 necessarily the identical shipment origi- 
 nally consigned, there I)eing a custom of 
 granting dealers handling freight over the 
 associate line the privilege within ninety 
 days from the date of their "expense 
 bills," or receipts showing the amount of 
 freight received over such line, of ship- 
 ping an equal amount of freight over the 
 relnlling line at the rate adopted, is not 
 a true rel)illing rate. Alabama, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Railroad Comm., 86 Miss. 667, 38 
 So. 356. affirmed in 203 U. S. 496, 51 L. 
 Ed. 2S9, 27 S. Ct. 163. 
 
 72. Discrimination in freight rates per- 
 missible if not unjust and unreasonable. 
 —Railroad Comm. v. Weld, Uf, Tex. :5',)4, 
 73 S. W. .■')29, rcversiuL; t)S S. W. 1117: 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Rust, ."iS Tex. '.)S. 
 
 73. Only standard measure of uniform- 
 ity possible is money. — State v. Union 
 Pac. R. Co., S7 Xeb. 29, 126 N. W. 859. 
 
 "If a railway company can adopt the 
 principle of barter and receive in return 
 for its service specific articles the value 
 of which may vary from day to day, and 
 often may be uncertain, the magnitude of 
 the task of ascertainment of the value of 
 each article alone would render the reg- 
 ulation of rates, so as to prevent dis- 
 crimination, alisolutely impossible." State 
 V. Union Pac. R. Co., 87 Neb. 29. 126 N. 
 W. 859. 
 
 74. Statute prohibiting discriminations 
 an exercise of police power. Tlu- Ken- 
 tucky statute, St. 1903, S§ 818. 819. pro- 
 hiliiting discriminations by common car- 
 riers and providing penalties therefor, 
 was but a further exercise of the state's 
 police power to regulate carriers and de- 
 signed to provide a means of compelling- 
 obedience to the mandatory provisions o! 
 
 Const., § 213, relating to the same subject. 
 Eouisville, etc., R. Co. v. Central Stock 
 Yards Co.. 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1^, 97 S. W. 
 778. 
 
 Power of legislature to prohibit free 
 transportation. — The Nebraska statute, 
 Laws 1907, p. 342. c. 93, prohibiting the 
 issuance acceptance, and use of free trans- 
 portation, is within the power of the leg- 
 islature to regulate the business of com- 
 mon carriers by preventing unjust dis- 
 crimination. State V. Martyn. 82 Neb. 
 225. 117 N. W. 719. 
 
 Power of legislature to prohibit unjust 
 discriminations in fixing joint rates. — The 
 Iowa statute, .Vets 23(1 Gen. Assem., c. 17, 
 § 1, providing that unjust discriminations 
 made by railroad companies in fixing joint 
 rates shall lie punished under Acts 22d 
 Gen. Assem., c. 28, is constitutional. 
 Blair v. Sioux, etc., R. Co. (Iowa). 73 
 N. W. 1053. 
 
 The state may supervise a carrier's 
 branch roads l)uilt by it for lumbermen, 
 and thereby prevent discrimination. De- 
 troit, etc., R. Co. V. Michigan R. Comm., 
 171 Mirh. 32.'). 137 \. W. 329. 
 
 75. Power of legislature restrained to a 
 prohibition of unjust discriminations.— 
 Tlie Illinois statute, act July 1, 1871, mak- 
 ing any discrimination by railroad com- 
 panies in their charges for freight a penal 
 offense, and providing for a forfeiture of 
 all their franchises for any willful viola- 
 tion of the act, without an}' other penalty 
 for the first offense, violates the provision 
 of Const., art. 11, § 15, that "the general 
 assembly shall pass laws to correct abuses 
 and prevent unjust discrimination and ex- 
 tortion in the rates of freight and passenger 
 tariffs on tlie different roads in the state, and 
 enforce such laws by adequate penalties, 
 to the extent, if necessary for that p.ir- 
 pose. of forfeiture of their property and 
 franchises." The power of the legislature 
 is, liy implication, restrained to a prohi- 
 bition of those discriminations which are 
 unjust. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 
 67 111. 11, 16 km. Rep. 599. 
 
 76. Statute void for uncertainty. — The 
 Kentucky statute, § 818, providing that it 
 shall be unlawful for any corporation to 
 make or give "any undue or unreasonable
 
 § 98 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 84 
 
 corporation or railroad commissions to make and enforce snch regulations as 
 mav be necessary to prexxnt unjust or unreasonable discriminations by carriers, 
 or to correct charges made by a carrier which are unjustly discriminatory." 
 Certain municipal ordinances prohibiting discrimination by carriers have been 
 held valid." ^ 
 
 preference or advantage" to any particular 
 person or locality, or any particular de- 
 scription of traffic, in the transportation 
 of a like kind of traffic, is void for uncer- 
 taintv. Commonwealth v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co.. 20 Ky. L. Rep. 491, 4r, S. W. TOO. 
 77. Power conferred upon corporation 
 or railroad commissions. — The railroad 
 commission of Georgia, under the author- 
 ity given by Civ. Code 1895, § 2189, to 
 make such reasonable rules as may be 
 necessary to prevent unjust discrimination 
 in transportation of freight, has power to 
 promulgate a rule requiring railroad com- 
 panies to afford all persons equal facilities 
 in the transportation of freight, without 
 unjust discrimination. Augusta Broker- 
 age Co. V. Central, etc., R. Co., 121 Ga. 
 48, 48 S. E. 714. 
 
 Under the Railroad Commission Act of 
 1907. the commission held to have au- 
 thority to declare as an unlawful discrimi- 
 nation a course of conduct of a company 
 with relation to connecting lines. Wad- 
 ley Southern R. Co. v. State, 137 Ga. 497, 
 73 S. E. 741. 
 
 The Mississippi statute. — Code 1892, § 
 4297, authorizes the railroad commission 
 to determine all complaints made of any 
 tariff of rates made by any railroad, or 
 fixed or approved by the commission, on 
 the ground that the charges are unjust 
 or discriminatory, and provides _ that 
 when, by investigation, the commission is 
 satisfied of the justice of the complaint, 
 it shall give notice of any change deemed 
 proper, and require compliance with the 
 order. Held, that the commission had 
 power to abolish a condition precedent 
 to the enjoyment of a so-called "rebilling 
 rate," voluntarily established by a rail- 
 road, restricting the rate to the exclusive 
 benefit of those who had received pre- 
 vious and eaual shipments of freight over 
 an associated line connecting at one termi- 
 nus of the road, and to convert the rate 
 into an open or flat rate, so that all deal- 
 ers handling grain in car load lots could 
 enjoy the rate then in force between the 
 termini. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm., 8f) Miss. 6G7, 38 So. 356, affirmed 
 in 203 U. S. 490. 51 L. Ed. 289. 27 S. Ct. 
 103. 
 
 The Constitution of Oklahoma, art. 9, 
 § 18, providing that the state corporation 
 commission shall require carriers to es- 
 tablish and maintain such public facilities 
 as may be reasonable, and from time_ to 
 time shall make and enforce such require- 
 ments and regulations as may be neces- 
 sary to prevent unjust or unreasonable 
 discrimination in favor of any person, lo- 
 cality, etc., in the matter of car service 
 
 or efficiency of transportation, does not 
 give such commission power to require a 
 carrier at its owi\ expense to provide such 
 equal facilities between private persons or 
 corjiorations as to overcome or equalize dis- 
 advantages caused by dissimilarity of lo- 
 cation. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. State, 
 27 Okla. 426, 112 Pac. 1121. 
 
 The Railroad Commission Law of Ore- 
 gon (Laws 1907), p. 70, c. 53, § 11), 
 makes the term "railroad" as used therein 
 include all corporations which operate by 
 electric power any interurban railroad, 
 etc. Section 28 authorizes the railroad 
 commission, upon complaint of any mu- 
 nicipality that fares are unreasonable, or 
 discriminatory, to investigate and order 
 just and reasonable fares, upon finding 
 that those complained of are unreasonable 
 or unjustly discriminatory. Section 48 
 makes it unlawful to charge smaller com- 
 pensation to persons furnishing part of 
 the facilities than to other persons. Sec- 
 tion 49 makes the giving of an unreason- 
 able preference, or the subjecting of any 
 person to an unreasonable prejudice, an 
 unjust discrimination. Section 59 requires 
 the act to be liberally construed to attain 
 the public welfare and substantial justice 
 between passengers and railroads. Sec- 
 tion 61 makes the duties of railroads the 
 same as at common law, and the remedies 
 against them the same, except where 
 otherwise provided, and makes the pro- 
 visions of the act cumulative. Held, in 
 view of § 61, that the railroad commission 
 could correct charges made by an electric 
 railroad company which were unjustly 
 discriminatory as to a locality, upon com- 
 plaint of a town, independent of Laws 
 1909, p. 158, c. 97, making the provisions 
 of the railroad commission law applicable 
 to any locality. Portland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Railroad Comm., 56 Ore. 468, 105 Pac. 
 709, rehearing denied 109 Pac. 273. 
 
 78. The fact that an ordinance requires 
 an omnibus driver to carry any person 
 tendering himself as a passenger, whether 
 the driver desires to carry liim or not, 
 does not render it invalid. Atlantic City 
 V. Brown, 72 N. J. L. 207, 62 Atl. 428. 
 
 An ordinance requiring the driver of 
 an omnibus under all circumstances to ac- 
 cept a person tendering himself as a pas- 
 senger was held not wholly void, but only 
 so far as it imposed the penalty pre- 
 scribed therein against those whose re- 
 fusal to accept a person who offered him- 
 self as a passenger was justified by the 
 circumstances under which the refusal oc- 
 curred. Atlantic City v. Brown, 72 N. J. 
 L. 207, 62 A^\. 428. 
 
 An ordinance making it unlawful for a
 
 85 
 
 COXTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 99-100 
 
 § 99. Power of Legislature to Permit Discrimination. — A .stale con- 
 stitution prohibiting undue or unrcasonahk- di^rriiniiiaiicju in charges or facil- 
 ities for the transportation of passengers within the state takes from the legis- 
 lature the power of abolishing this rule as applied to railroad companies. ^» 
 Hut it has Ijccu hcM that a constitution providing that "transportation of freight 
 and passengers by railroad, steamboat, or other common carrier shall be so 
 rcndated by general law as to prevent unjust discrimination," authorizes the 
 legislature to prescribe other circumstances and conditions than those prescribed 
 in the constitution in which carriers may discriminate in respect to charges for 
 transportation, being a recognition oi tlie justice of authorizing discrimination 
 deemed just.^" 
 
 § 100. Construction of Constitutional and Statutory Enactments 
 and Commission Orders Forbidding Preferences or Discriminations. — 
 
 Many of the peculiar provisions of cejustilulional and statutory enactments and 
 commission (U'ders forbidding preferences or discriminations by carriers have 
 received judicial interpretation. The courts have been called upon to constnie 
 such enactments or orders forbidding unjust discrimination,''^ forbidding un- 
 equal preferences,^- forbidding unjust or unreasonable discriminauons iii 
 charges, •'^^ requiring railroads to give reasonable and equal terms, facilities and 
 
 driver of a puljlic convej-ance to refuse to 
 convey any passenger in Atlantic City is 
 a reasonable exercise of power. Atlantic 
 City V. Fonsler, 70 N. J. L. 125, 56 Atl. 
 119. 
 
 79. Power of legislature to permit dis- 
 crimination. — Atchison, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 674. 28 
 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185 (construing Colo- 
 rado constitution). 
 
 80. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth (Ky.), 46 S. W. 702, construing 
 Constitution of Kentucky, §§ 196, 215. 
 
 81. Statute applicable only to trans- 
 portation "between points within the 
 state." — The Texas statute. Rev. St. is;).'), 
 art. 4575, providing that, if any railroad 
 subject to the act unjustly discriminates 
 against a person, it shall be liable to the 
 one injured thereby for a certain penalty, 
 is not applicable to discriminations as to 
 the delivery of freight shipped from an- 
 other state; art. 4580 providing that the 
 act shall apply to and afifect only the 
 transportation of freight and cars "be- 
 tween points within the state." Judgment 
 (Civ. App.) 42 S. W. 362, affirmed. 
 Fielder v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tex. 
 176. 46 S. W. 633. 
 
 Existing contracts, fairly made, not 
 abrogated. The Illinois statute, .Act July 
 1, is;;i, proiiibiting extortion and unjust 
 discrimination by railroads, was not In- 
 tended to interfere with, or abrogate, ex- 
 isting contracts for the carriage of goods 
 fairly made prior to its passage. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago, etc.. Coal 
 Co.. 79 111. 121. 
 
 Written application by shippers for 
 cars. — The Xehraska statute, Comp. St. 
 1909. c. 72, art. 5, relating to rates and 
 unjust discrimination by carriers, was m- 
 tended to prevent unjust and unlawful 
 discrimination by carriers, and § la 
 thereof, providing that all shippers of 
 
 freight in car load lots shall enter a writ- 
 ten application for cars in a book kept for 
 that purpose subject to public inspection 
 by a person in charge of the carrier's 
 business at a shipping point, stating the 
 number of cars desired, when and where 
 desired, etc., provides a reasonable method 
 of preserving written evidence of the fact 
 that cars were ordered by the shipper Tor 
 the transportation of his goods, the date 
 of his order, and the time when the cars 
 were to be furnished. Anderson f. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 88 Neb. 430. 129 X. W. 
 1008. 
 
 82. Carrier required to build spur to 
 accommodate grain elevator. — Unuer the 
 Minnesota stat.ite, Laws 1887, c. 10, § 2, 
 subd. b, forbidding carriers to give un- 
 equal preferences, a railway company is 
 obliged to give equal facilities for ship- 
 ping grain to all persons who in good 
 faith erect, or desire to erect, ware-houses 
 at any station; and if it refuse a request 
 for an elevator site on a right of way 
 such as it grants to others, and the ware- 
 houseman buys land adjoining, and builds 
 his elevator thereon, the company can 
 not refuse to build a spur on its land to 
 accommodate his business. Farwell 
 Farmers' Warehouse .Ass'n z: Minneapo- 
 lis, etc., R. Co., 5.i Minn. S. 56 X. W. 24S. 
 
 83. Statute only prohibiting such 
 charges as "unjustly" discriminate.— Tiio 
 Florida statute authorizing the Florida 
 railroad commission to fix railroad rates 
 does not prohibit discriminating charges, 
 but only prohibits such as "unjustly" dis- 
 criminate, as well as those that are un- 
 reasonable and unjust. Railroad Comm'rs 
 r. Florida, etc., R. Co., 64 Fla. 112, 59 So. 
 3S5. 
 
 While an unjust discrimmation will not 
 be permitted under such statute, so as to 
 make the service of a carrier remunera- 
 tive, yet, in determining whether a charge
 
 § 100 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 86 
 
 accommodations,^-' prohibiting discrimination in freight charges,^^ requiring 
 
 is unjustly discriminating, the rights ol 
 the carrier are to be considered. Rail- 
 road Comm'rs v. Florida, etc., R. Co., 64 
 Fla. 112. 59 S. W. 3S5. 
 
 Statute not prohibiting competition for 
 passenger business. — The Indiana statute, 
 Acts 1905. p. S3, c. 53, regulating carriers. 
 and prohibiting unjust discrimination m 
 rates, construed, and held not to prohibit 
 a railroad company from competing with 
 another company for passenger business. 
 Etter z: Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 171 Ind. 
 5S1. S() X. E. 1020. 
 
 Prohibition applicable where carriers 
 voluntarily fix joint rates. — The Iowa 
 statute, Acts 22d Gen. Assem., c. 28, pro- 
 hibiting common carriers from making 
 unjust discriminations in their charges, 
 applies where railroad companies volun- 
 tarily fix joint rates. Blair v. Sioux, etc., 
 R. Co. (Iowa). 73 X. W. 1053. 
 
 Commutation tickets permitted to be 
 sold. — Passenger tickets sold by a car- 
 rier at reduced rates, good for a limited 
 time only, held to be comnmtation tick- 
 ets within the Indiana statute. Acts 1905, 
 p. 96, c. 53, § 14, prohibiting unjust dis- 
 crimination in rates, but permitting the 
 sale of commutation tickets. Etter z'. 
 Cleveland, etc.. R. Co., 171 Ind. 581, 86 
 X. E. 1020. 
 
 Tract abutting navigable water on 
 which is a dock, a "facility" for freight 
 and passengers. — A tract of 20 acres ac- 
 quired b}- a railroad under Act Cong. 
 March 3, 1875, abutting a navigable water 
 on which is a dock for receiving and dis- 
 charging freight and passengers and for 
 forwarding through freight and passen- 
 gers, is a "facility" for freight and pas- 
 sengers .within the constitution of Idaho, 
 art. 11, § 6, forbidding undue or unrea- 
 sonable discrimination. Coeur d'Alene, 
 etc., Transp. Co. z'. Ferrell, 22 Idaho 752, 
 128 Pac. 5r)5. 
 
 84. Statute requiring railroads to give 
 reasonable and equal terms, facilities and 
 accommodations. — The N'ermont statute, 
 Acts 1882, p. 47, No. 36 (V. S. 3902-3904), 
 requiring railroads to give all persons 
 "reasonable and equal terms * * * facilities 
 and accommodations" for the transporta- 
 tion of freight, etc., must be construed in 
 the light of Acts 1882, p. 47, No. 37 (V. 
 S. 3896), authorizing a railroad corpora- 
 tion to establish rates, etc., and, when so 
 done, it requires a railroad corporation to 
 make rates reasonable and equal as re- 
 quired by the common law, and it is but 
 declaratory of the common law defining 
 the rights and obligations of carriers; 
 the words "facilities and accommoda- 
 tions" relating to the incidents of trans- 
 portation, the word "terms" signifying 
 rates. State v. Central Vermont R. Co., 
 81 Vt. 463, 71 Atl. 194. 
 
 85. Compensation required to be 
 equal in amount for equal distances. — The 
 
 North Carolina statute, Code, § 1966, 
 makes it unlawful for any railroad cor- 
 poration to charge for the transportation 
 of freight a greater amount "than shall at 
 the same time be charged by it for the 
 transportation of an equal quantity of the 
 same class of freight, transported in the 
 same direction, over any portion of the 
 same railroad of equal distance." Held, 
 to mean that the compensation to be 
 charged shippers respectively for carry- 
 ing an equal quantity of the same class of 
 freight for each, going in the same di- 
 rection, must be equal in amount for 
 equal distances, no matter on what part oi 
 the road, and although the freight of one 
 shipper is to be transported a different 
 and longer distance than that of the other. 
 Hines v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co.. 95 N. 
 C. 434. 59 Am. Rep. 250. 
 
 When charges must be the same. — The 
 requirement of the constitution of Ken- 
 tucky, § 215, that the charges shall be the 
 same for receiving, transporting, and 
 handling freight of the same class from 
 and to the same points, "and upon the 
 same conditions," relates to the receiving, 
 loading, unloading, transporting, hauling, 
 delivering, and handling freight, and re- 
 quires the charges therefor to be the same 
 for all persons alike, except when the 
 freight is transported from and to differ- 
 ent points, or is of different classes, or the 
 cost of transporting, including savings by 
 reason of facilities furnished by the ship- 
 per, is different. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (Ky.). 46 S. W. 702. 
 
 Unlawful to obtain transportation at a 
 less rate than that established. — Under the 
 direct provisions of the Mrginia Code of 
 1904, § 1294c, cl. 7, it is unlawful, after the 
 freight rate of a railroad company has 
 been authorized and published by the 
 state corporation commission, for any 
 person, by contract or other device, to 
 obtain transportation at a less rate, and 
 any contract for such reduced transporta- 
 tion is void. Carolina, etc., Railway v. 
 Clinch Valley Lumber Co., 112 Va. 540, 
 72 S. E. 116. 
 
 A provision in a railroad charter, that 
 "average charges for toll and transpor- 
 tation shall not exceed four cents per ton 
 per mile for freight," construed to permit 
 the company to impose more than four 
 cents per mile on some charges, to dis- 
 criminate in favor of longer distances, and 
 to fix different charges per mile for dif- 
 ferent kinds of freight. The adjustment 
 was to be made between the whole road 
 and the entire public who used it. It need 
 not bear equally on each individual. Hersh 
 V. Xorthern Cent. R. Co., 74 Pa. 181. 
 
 Word "contemporaneous" construed. — 
 The Xorth Carolina statute, Revisal 1905, 
 § 3749, provides that if any carrier shall 
 collect from any person a greater com- 
 pensation for transportation of property
 
 87 
 
 CONTKOL ANL) KIXLLATKJX. 
 
 § 100 
 
 transportation of ire'v^ht of the same class for all persons for the same method 
 of payment,'"' forbidding discrimination in charges as between long and short 
 hauls,'"*" prohibiting discrimination in passenger charges.'^"' prohibiting issuance 
 of passes, or the furnishing of free transportation,^^ prohibiting discrimination 
 
 than it receives from any other for doing 
 a like and conteniporaneons service in the 
 transportation of a like kind of traffic 
 under sul)stantially siniikir circumstances, 
 it shall he liatjle to a fine of a specified 
 sum. Held, that the word "contempo- 
 raneous" means a period of time through 
 which shipments of freight are made by 
 one shipper at one rate, and by other 
 shippers at another rate. Hilton Lumber 
 Co. V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 141 N. C. 171, 
 53 S. K. S3;!, r. L. R. A., X. S., 22r,. 
 
 Discriminatory rate void though agreed 
 to by mistake. — Under the Nebraska 
 statute, Cobl)cy's Ann. St. 1903, § 10,009, 
 a contract between a railroad company 
 and a shipper to transport merchandise 
 for a less rate than regularly charged to 
 others for similar service is void, though 
 the rate was agreed to by mistake; and an 
 action will not lie against the carrier for 
 breach of the contract if it exacts the 
 regular rate. Judgment 113 N. W. 983, 
 reversed on rehearing. Haurigan v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 80 Neb. 139, 117 N. W. 
 100; Wentz-Bates Mercantile Co. v. 
 Union Pac. R. Co., 85 Neb. 584, 123 N. W. 
 1085. 
 
 86. Under the Kentucky constitution, 
 § 215, requiring all railway companies to 
 transport freight of the same class for 
 all persons for the same method of pay- 
 ment, and Ky. St. 1S94. § SIT, declaring 
 one failing to do this guilty of unjust dis- 
 crimination, a contract by a lumber com- 
 pany to carry a party's freight in consid- 
 eration of a former grant of a right of 
 way for a railroad can not be specifically 
 enforced against a railroad company leas- 
 ing the right of way and doing the busi- 
 ness of a common carrier, since the carry- 
 ing of the freight free would be a viola- 
 tion of the constitution and statutes. 
 Hurley v. Big Sandy, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 
 125 S. W. :W2. 
 
 87. The Missouri statute, Rev. St. 1909, 
 § 3173 prohibiting discrimination in trans- 
 portation charges as between long and 
 short hauls of Uie same class of freight 
 on the same road, applies where the trans- 
 portation is over the same road, but not 
 where the two hauls are over different 
 lines operated by difTerent corporations, 
 though they have common officers. Dar- 
 lington Lumber Co. r. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co^ (Mo.). 1 17 S. W. in.V,>. 
 
 88. Statute prohibiting unjust discrimi- 
 nation in passenger charges liberally con- 
 strued. — A statute may he remedial in 
 part and penal in part for purposes of 
 construction, so that the penalty clause of 
 the Montana statute. Rev. Codes. § 4337, 
 making it unlawful for any carrier to 
 transfer a person for a less sum than is 
 
 charged for a similar ticket of the same 
 class, and making any carrier who shall 
 violate the statute guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, and punishable, etc., should be 
 construed according to the fair import of 
 its terms, with a view to aflfectuating its 
 object as required by §8090; but the part 
 prohibiting unjust discrimination in charg- 
 ing for transportation should be liberally 
 construed with a view to carrying out the 
 legislative intention. John v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co., 42 Mont. T<, 111 Pac. 032. 
 
 Statute not abrogating system of three 
 cent fares for school children. — The New 
 Jersey Public Utility Law (P. L. 1911, c. 
 195). § 18, does not abrogate the system 
 of three-cent fares for school children 
 previously maintained by a street railway 
 company; such section applying only to 
 such preferences as are "undue or un- 
 reasonable." Public Service R. Co. z: 
 Board. 81 N. J. L. (52 Vr.), 303, so Atl. 27. 
 89. To whom carrier may furnish trans- 
 portation free. — The constitution of Ok- 
 lahoma, art. 9, § 13, prohibiting railroad or 
 transportation companies from issuing 
 passes, with certain exceptions, does not 
 prohibit a municipal corporation operat- 
 ing a street railway from furnishing 
 transportation free to its policemen, fire- 
 men, and United States mail carriers, and 
 half-rate tickets to school children, and 
 free transportation to children under a 
 certain age while traveling with a parent 
 or guardian. Oklahoma v. Oklahoma R. 
 Co. (Okla.), 93 Pac. 48. 
 
 By such constitutional provision, mu- 
 nicipalities are not prohibited, from grant- 
 ing franchises for street railways with 
 conditions contained there in for the car- 
 rying of policemen, firemen. United States 
 mail carriers, and children under a cer- 
 tain age free, and for the furnishing to 
 school children of transportation at a 
 reduced rate, and when accepted by the 
 grantee of the franchise, such conditions 
 are valid. Oklahoma v. Oklahoma R. Co. 
 (Okla.), 93 Pac. 48. 
 
 In Montana, railroad companies may 
 issue free transportation or sell tickets at 
 reduced rates, as the case may require, to 
 its employees and members of their fam- 
 ilies; to doctors, nurses, and helpers be- 
 ing taken to wrecks; to soldiers and sail- 
 ors going to or coming from institutions 
 wherein they are kept: to ministers or j3er- 
 sons engaged in charitable and religious 
 works; an^d, by the direct provision of 
 Rev. Codes, § 4309. to members and em- 
 ployees of the railroad commission travel- 
 ing on private business. § 4394 prohibitmg 
 employees of the commission or the board 
 of commissioners from accepting or re- 
 questing any pass for themselves or any
 
 § 100 
 
 CARRIERS 
 
 88 
 
 in facilities for transportation of freight,'"' prohibiting the giving to any local- 
 ity any unreasonable preference,^! prohibiting discrimination between passen- 
 gers from different localities as to transfer privileges,^^ requiring goods to be 
 forwarded in the order in which they are received,"^ and requiring the carrier 
 to permit tracks to be connected with its track.^^ 
 
 other person except as herein otlierwise 
 provided. John v. Xorthern Pac. R. Co., 
 42 Mont. 18. Ill Pac. 632. 
 
 Statute not retrospective. — Laws 1909, 
 c. 12i>, § 2, provides that no carrier shall 
 give any free ticket, pass, or transporta- 
 tion for passengers between points within 
 the state except to certain specified per- 
 sons. Section 6 authorized the imposi- 
 tion of fines for violation of the act. De- 
 fendant leased a railroad, agreeing in the 
 lease to transport stockholders of the 
 lessor to and from their animal and spe- 
 cial meetings "free of charge." Plaintiff, 
 a stockholder of the lessor, applied for 
 transportation and was refused. Held, 
 that the issuance of the pass would not 
 be a violation of chapter 126, since it can 
 not be presumed that the legislature in- 
 tended the act to have a retrospective ef- 
 fect, rendering former valid contracts il- 
 legal and void. Emerson v. Boston, etc., 
 Railroad. 75 N. H. 427, 7.5 .\tl. 529. 
 
 90. Commission rule prohibiting dis- 
 crimination against shippers and not 
 against commodities. — The rule promul- 
 gated b}- the railroad commission of 
 Georgia that carriers shall afford all per- 
 sons in the conduct of their interstate 
 business equal facilities in the transpor- 
 tation and delivery of freight, prohibits 
 discrimination against shippers and not 
 against commodities. Central, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Augusta Brokerage Co., 122 Ga. 
 646, 50 S. E. 473, 69 L. R. A. 119. 
 
 A siding connection is a "facility for 
 transportation" within the Pennsylvania 
 statute, -Act June 4, 1883 (P. L. 72), pro- 
 viding that any undue or unreasonable 
 discrimination by a railroad company in 
 facilities for the transportation of freight 
 shall be unlawful. Minds v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 228 Pa. 575, 77 Atl. 909. 
 
 Effect of an unexpected rush of busi- 
 ness. — The Arkansas statute, Kirby's Dig., 
 § 6804, making it unlawful for carriers to 
 make any preference in furnishing cars, 
 and requiring them to furnish without dis- 
 crimination sufficient facilities for the 
 carriage of freight, is but declaratory of 
 the common law, making it the duty of 
 carriers to furnish facilities for the trans- 
 portation of freight offered in the regular 
 course of business, but without requiring 
 them to furnish facilities for an unpre- 
 cedented rush of business, and a carrier 
 unable to furnish cars for all shippers, ])y 
 reason of an unexpected rush of business, 
 must furnish such cars as it has to all 
 shippers, without discrimination. St. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Clay Gin Co., 77 Ark. 
 35 7, 92 S. W. 531. 
 
 91. Statutes forbidding the giving to 
 any locality any unreasonable preference. 
 
 — The Xew Jersey Public Utility Law (P. 
 L. 1911, p. 374) is not merely declaratory 
 of the commutation law, but forbids the 
 giving to any locality any unreasonable 
 preference or the subjection of any local- 
 ity to any prejudice. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. V. Board, 83 X. J. L. 67, 83 Atl. 945. 
 
 92. How commission order may be 
 complied with. — An order of a railroad 
 commission requiring an electric railroad 
 to cease an unlawful discrimination be- 
 tween the passengers from one locality 
 and those from another locality by de- 
 sisting from refusing the latter the same 
 transfer privileges voluntarily accorded to 
 the former may be complied with by giv- 
 ing transfers to all or by desisting en- 
 tirely from giving transfers, and it is not 
 a positive command to give transfers. 
 Portland R., etc., Co. i'. Railroad Comm., 
 56 Ore. 468, 109 Pac. 273, denying rehear- 
 ing 105 Pac. 709. 
 
 93. Phrase "warehouses or depots" 
 embraces entire station. — The Texas stat- 
 ute. Rev. St. 1895, art. 4537, directing rail- 
 roads receiving goods for transportation 
 into their "warehouses or depots" to for- 
 ward them in the order in which they are 
 received, and making them liable for 
 losses occasioned by a failure so to do, re- 
 quires a railroad to forward property re- 
 ceived for shipment in the order in which 
 it is received, though merely received on 
 a platform used for handling that kind of 
 property; the phrase "warehouses or de- 
 pots" embracing the entire station of the 
 road. Hill v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 75 S. W. 874, reversed St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, 97 Tex. 506, 80 
 S. W. 368. 
 
 94. Connection required to be per- 
 mitted only where such privilege had al- 
 ready been granted. — L'ndc-i tlie Wash- 
 ington statute, 1 Ballinger's Ann. Codes 
 & St., § 4322, providing that it shall be 
 unlawful for any railroad to discriminate 
 in charges or facilities for transportation, 
 and that every road permitting any one 
 to connect a track with its track for the 
 accommodation of any elevator, shall ac- 
 cord the same right to every other per- 
 son soliciting it, a railroad cortipany _ is 
 not required to permit a connection with 
 its track, except where it had already 
 granted such privilege. Northwestern 
 Warehouse Co. v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 
 32 Wash. 218, 73 Pac. 388.
 
 89 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGULATION. 
 
 §§ 101-102 
 
 § 101. Who Are Common Carriers within the Rule Prohibiting Dis- 
 crimination.— A railway coniijauy hoMin.i( il-^cll <jui lo lliu \>\\]>\\c as ready V) 
 do switching, which requires it to have its own rails and right of way, and go 
 upon the rails and right of way of another company, with which it has no ex- 
 press contract relating either to compensation for switching or to track rights, 
 is a common carrier, and as such must switch cars without discrimination against 
 a disfavored shipper.'-''- A railroad, which serves business houses located along 
 a spur track by delivering to them cars of freight and cars to be freighted and 
 shipped, is a common carrier with respect to the use it makes of the track, and 
 is, as such, bound lo treat the houses located along the track without discrim- 
 ination, and can not discontinue its service as to one and continue it as to 
 others.^** 
 
 § 102. What Constitutes an Unlawful Preference or Discrimination. 
 
 What is an unlawful preference or discrimination is, in each j)articular case, 
 
 a mixed question of law and fact, and must be ascertained by applying to the 
 facts in the case the principles of the common law, or the peculiar provisions 
 of the constitutional or statutory enactment or commission order governing the 
 case. Guided l)v this basic rule of interpretation the courts have in many cases 
 determined whether an unlawful preference was shown,'-'' or have held that 
 certain facts in evidence constituted,''** or that certain facts did not consti- 
 
 95. Who are common carriers -within 
 the rule prohibiting discrimination. — 
 Larabec Flour Alills Co. v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co., 74 Kan. SOS, S8 Pac. 72. 
 
 96. Agee & Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 142 Ala. 344, 37 So. 6S0. 
 
 97. The act of a carrier in hauling goods 
 for some shippers without prepayment of 
 freight, and not for others engag-cd in 
 the same business, does not constitute a 
 violation of the Michigan statute, Laws 
 1907, No. 312, § 17, making it unlawful 
 for a common carrier to give any prefer- 
 ence to any shipper or subject him to any 
 undue or unreasonable disadvantage or 
 prejudice. Brown, etc., Coal Co. v. Grand 
 Trunk R. System, 159 Mich- 565, 124 N. 
 W. .52S. 
 
 Refusing to furnish cars for loading on 
 station track. — Defendant railroad com- 
 pany, whicli liad previously permitted the 
 loading of cars with coal on its side track 
 at a station, made a regulation by which it 
 withdrew such permission, and it there- 
 after refused to furnish cars to be so 
 loaded to plaintiff or to any other ship- 
 per. During such time, however, certain 
 mine owners, who through agreements 
 with the company had constructed pri- 
 vate spur tracks to their mines, were fur- 
 nished cars, some of which they loaded 
 from wagons while standing on such spur 
 tracks before the development of the 
 mines and the construction of tipples for 
 loading. Held, that the furnishing of 
 cars for such purpose, while refusing to 
 furnish cars for loading on the station 
 track to plaintiff, who had constructed no 
 spur track, did not constitute the giving 
 of an undue preference, either under the 
 common law or the statute of Arkansas 
 (Laws 1899. p. 89), prohibiting the giving 
 of any preference in the furnishing of 
 
 cars. Judgment 118 Fed. 169, affirmed. 
 Harp V. Choctaw, etc., R. Co.. 01 C. C. 
 A. 405, 125 Fed. 44.". 
 
 98. Less charge for shipping to one 
 consignee than to others. — \Vhere a rail- 
 road makes a less cliarge for shipping to 
 a certain consignee tlian to others in the 
 same citj', there is an unjust discrimina- 
 tion. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Hill, 14 
 111. App. 579. 
 
 Contract to repay shipper a portion oi 
 charge paid by him. — A railroad company 
 whose line extends to a point of intersec- 
 tion with a canal of the state can not make 
 a valid contract to repay to a shipper a 
 portion of the freight paid by him, it be- 
 ing the regular rate posted by the com- 
 pany and received from other shippers; 
 such contract being prohibited bj' the 
 Ohio statute, Rev. St., §§ 3366, 3367, to 
 prevent discrimination in rates of car- 
 riage. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Diamond 
 Coal Co., 61 O. St. 242, 55 X. E. 616. 
 
 Special rebate not extended to other 
 shippers. — A contract by a railway com- 
 pany with a shipper, by which he is to 
 ship his grain at the regular rates paid by 
 all shippers, and then receive a special 
 rebate, extended to no other shipper, or 
 to but one other shipper, is contrary to 
 §§ 2, 3 of the Illinois act of 1873. against 
 extortion and unjust discrimination (2 
 Starr & C. Ann. St., c. 114, pars. 146, 147), 
 and is void. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Ervin, 118 111. 250. 8 X. E. 862. 59 Am. 
 Rep. M'.i. 
 
 Discrimination against local purchasers. 
 — Where a connnon carrier allowed the 
 purchasers of hogs to ship them to a cen- 
 tral point of the state and from there to 
 ship them to foreign states, charging them 
 only the interstate rate which was lower 
 than the local rate, and these hogs came
 
 102 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 90 
 
 into competition with those of purchasers 
 making only local shipments, there was 
 an unjust discrimination against the local 
 purchasers within the purview of Iowa 
 statute. Code. §§ 2124, 2125, respectively, 
 providing that no common carrier shall 
 give anj' preference to any particular per- 
 son or persons. Central Trust Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. (Iowa), 135 N. W. 
 721. 
 
 But under these sections it is not a 
 discrimination against local purchasers 
 for a carrier to charge persons purchas- 
 ing hogs for interstate shipment the 
 lower interstate rate, though allowing 
 them to assemble the hogs to a central 
 point and from there reship them to for- 
 eign states; such hogs not coming into 
 competition with local shipments. Cen- 
 tral Trust Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Iowa), 135 X. W. 721. 
 
 Contract to furnish transportation in 
 payment for advertising. — A contract by 
 a railroad company to furnish to the pro- 
 prietors of a newspaper, as requested, 
 transportation at the statutory rate under 
 certain limitations and restrictions not re- 
 quired in ordinary tickets, in payment for 
 advertising to be furnished "at agreed 
 rates," which rates are not specified in 
 the contract, but are to be settled by the 
 parties themselves by another agreement 
 contravenes the intent and purposes of 
 the Nebraska statutes prohibiting unjust 
 discriminations, which seek to preserve to 
 every individual an equal right to the 
 transportation service of carriers, since, if 
 a proprietor of one newspaper maj' be 
 selected by a carrier to receive transpor- 
 tation for advertising services, while the 
 proprietor of another can not avail himself 
 at his own option of the privileges of 
 such a contract, there would be no uni- 
 formity of charge, and is violative of rail- 
 way commission Act (Laws 1907, c. 90), § 
 14, and Cobbey's Ann. St. 1909, § 10,GG2, 
 prohibiting common carriers from charg- 
 ing one person a greater or less compen- 
 sation than another for the same service 
 and from charging other than the rates 
 fixed and established. State v. Union Pac. 
 R. Co., 87 Xeb. 29, 12G X. W. 859. 
 
 Discrimination between passengers in 
 amount of fare. — Under the Georgia stat- 
 ute Civ. Code, § 2188, prohibiting dis- 
 criminations by carriers, a railroad com- 
 pany can not lawfully demand of one pas- 
 senger more fare for his transportation 
 from one station to another on its line 
 than it is in the habit, under like con- 
 ditions and circumstances, of charging 
 others for the same service. Phillips v. 
 Southern R. Co.. 114 Ga. 284, 40 S. E. 2<38. 
 
 Discrimination in charges in favor of 
 certain towns. — The fare charged by an 
 electric railroad company from the city 
 limits of a city having more than 50,000 
 population to certain suburban towns was 
 fifteen cents, without transfer privileges, 
 while that charged upon another division 
 
 to certain other towns, which were a less 
 distance from the city limits, was ten 
 cents, with transfer privileges. Held, 
 that there was an unjust discrimination 
 in charges in favor of the towns on the 
 latter division, which the railroad com- 
 mission properly corrected. Portland 
 R., etc., Co. v. Railroad Comm., 57 Ore. 
 126, 105 Pac. 715. 
 
 Under the Oregon Railroad Commission 
 Law (Laws 1907. p. 82, c. 53, § 28) au- 
 thorizing the Railroad commission, upon 
 finding on investigation upon the com- 
 plaint of any municipality, that fares are 
 unreasonable or discriminatory, to sub- 
 stitute just and reasonable fares therefor, 
 fares may be changed if they are unjustly 
 discriminatory, though not unreasonable 
 for the service performed, so that, where 
 an electric railroad company voluntarily 
 charged five cent fare, with transfer 
 privileges, from the limits of a city of 
 over 50,000 population, within which the 
 fare was limited to five cents by statute, 
 to a certain town, it thereby established 
 the value of similar service on its other 
 lines, and it was an unjust discrimination 
 to charge a ten cent fare on a different 
 line to another town an equal distance 
 from the limits of such city, and that the 
 population outside the city limits on the 
 five cent lines was denser than on the 
 ten cent lines, or that the fares on the 
 former lines were limited to five cents Dy 
 a contract with the company's predeces- 
 sor, or that the physical conditions at 
 the point on one of the five cent lines 
 where it crossed the city limits made 
 it impossible for passengers to leave the 
 cars there, was immaterial. Portland 
 R., etc., Co. V. Railroad Comm., 56 Ore. 
 468, 105 Pac. 709, rehearing denied 109 
 Pac. 273. 
 
 Inequality in charges between points in 
 state and a point in another state. — A 
 charge of a greater sum hy a railroad 
 company for freight to a point in another 
 state from a point in Illinois than from 
 another point in Illinois, more distant, is 
 an unjust discrimination, within the Illi- 
 nois statute. Rev. St. 1874, p. 817, § 87, 
 prohibiting unjust discrimination by rail- 
 road companies in rates or charges for the 
 transportation of passengers or freight on 
 railroads within the state, where it is not 
 shown that such inequality in the charges 
 is all for carriage entirely l)eyon(l the 
 limits of Illinois; the presumption being 
 that the excess in charge for the less dis- 
 tance affects every part of the line of 
 carriage between the more distant point 
 and the state line, proportionally with the 
 balance of the line. Wabash, etc., R. Co. 
 V. People, 105 111. 236. 
 
 One car load of lumber is of "like quan- 
 tity" with another, witliin tlie Texas 
 statute forbidding railroad companies to 
 discriminate in their freight charges, 
 though the two car loads are of differ- 
 ent weight and dimensions. New York,
 
 91 
 
 C(J.NTK(JU AND KKCLLATIOX. 
 
 102 
 
 tute,"" an unlawful discrimination. In determining what constitutes unlawful pref- 
 erence or discrimination courts have been ref|uired to interj^ret peculiar phraseol- 
 
 ctc. R. Co. V. Gallalicr, 79 Te.x. 085, 15 
 
 Rebilling rate. — ICvidcncc that the ef- 
 fect of a rel)illiiig rate adopted by a com- 
 plainant railroad was to enable a dealer 
 in \'icksburg, the terminus of its road 
 reached by an associate line, to ship a 
 barge load of grain received there, over 
 complainant's road, at the rate of three 
 and one-half cents, under the guise of 
 rebilling, while a barge load of grain re- 
 ceived there by a dealer in Meridian, the 
 other terminus of complainant's road, 
 could only be shipped over the same upon 
 payment of the local rate of ten cents 
 per one hundred pounds, showed an un- 
 just discrimination in favor of those re- 
 ceiving freight over the associate line. 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 
 86 Miss. 6(J7, 38 So. 356, affirmed in 203 
 U. S. 400, 51 L. F.d. 2S9. 27 S. Ct. 103. 
 
 Discrimination in joint rates. — A peti- 
 tion alleging tlial two railroad compa- 
 nies voluntaril}' established joint rates, 
 and charged plaintiff a rate in excess of 
 the same joint rates on like shipments, 
 at the same time, which were made to 
 other points, for like distances, over their 
 lines of road, makes a prima facie case, 
 showing that they have violated the Iowa 
 statute, Acts 22d Gen. Assem., c. 28, as 
 to discrimination. Blair v. Sioux, etc., 
 R. Co. (Iowa), 73 N. W. 1053. 
 
 99. Different rates for different kinds 
 of coal. — The fact that a railroad com- 
 pany charges a higher rate for carrying 
 ordinary commercial coal than it does 
 for carrying an inferior quality of coal, 
 which is used by railroads exclusively, is 
 shipped on the cars of other companies, 
 and is mined and shipped during months 
 when there is little demand for ordinary 
 coal, does not show unjust discrimination. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Crown Coal 
 Co.. 43 111. App. 22S. 
 
 Competitive rate less than rate of com- 
 peting carrier. — In proceedings under the 
 Ohid statute, Act April 2, 1900 (98 Ohio 
 Laws, p. 342), regulating carriers and 
 creating a board of railroad commission- 
 ers, competition is an element to be con- 
 sidered in determining whether rates are 
 reasonable and just; and the fact that a 
 competitive rate is less than the rate of 
 the other competing carrier does not con- 
 stitute unreasonable discrimination. Rail- 
 road Comm. V. Hocking \'alley R. Co., 
 82 O. St. 25. 91 X. R. 805. 
 
 Contract to pay back a rebate. — A con- 
 tract by a railroad company in consider- 
 ation of the shipment over its road of a 
 large lot of corn, to pay back a rebate in 
 freight, does not violate the Illinois stat- 
 ute to prevent unjust discriminations in 
 freight charges by railroad carriers, 
 where such contract is to carry the grain 
 
 at the customary rates. Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co. :■. l-:ili<,tt, 70 111. or. 
 
 Agreement not intended as a device to 
 pay a rebate. — The certificate of incorpo- 
 ration of the Chicago Junction Railways 
 & Union Stock-Yards Company author- 
 ized it to hold shares of stock in an Illi- 
 nois corporation, a transit company, 
 which owned stock yards in Chicago, and 
 a belt line which connected all the rail- 
 roads entering the city. The transit 
 company, most of whose stock was 
 owned by the junction company, de- 
 pended on the permanent market for cat- 
 tle created by the presence of slaughter- 
 ing and packing establishments. Some 
 of the packers, known as "nonassociate," 
 contemplated a removal from the vicinity 
 of the stock yards. Other of the pack- 
 ers, known as "associate," purchased a 
 large tract of land at a distance fr^m Chi- 
 cago, and made preparations to remove 
 their plants and establish rtock yards of 
 their own. The junction company en- 
 tered into a contract with the associate 
 packers, by which it was to give them a 
 large amount of interest-bearing income 
 bonds in consideration of a conveyance 
 of the land purchased, and an agreement 
 not to remove their plants, etc. Held, on 
 a bill to restrain the execution of the 
 contract, that trackage charges paid by 
 the railroad companies to the transit 
 company for the use of the latter's tracks 
 were not repaid by the packers to the 
 railroads, and that the agreement was not 
 intended as a device to pay a rebate to 
 the associate packers in violation of the 
 Illinois statute which prohibits discrimi- 
 nation in railroad rates. Willoughb}- v. 
 Chicago Junction, etc.. Stock Yards Co., 
 50 X. J. F.(i. 050, 25 .Xtl. 277. 
 
 Refusal to carry goods without prepay- 
 ment of freight. — Plaintiff, a shipper, 
 upon a showing that a carrier had a 
 credit list consisting of certain custom- 
 ers, some of whom were competitors ot 
 plaintiff, for which it carried goods with- 
 out requiring a prepaj-ment of freight and 
 that it had accorded this privilege to 
 plaintiff over a jear, was not entitled to 
 compel the carrier to haul his goods 
 without prepayment of freight on the 
 ground that refusal to do so constituted 
 discrimination. Brown, etc.. Coal Co. v. 
 Grand Trunk R. System. 159 Mich. 565. 
 124 X. ^V. 52^. 
 
 A failure to furnish cars by a railroad 
 company for the transportation of prop- 
 erty is not such unjust discrimination as 
 is contemplated by the Iowa statute. 
 Acts 17th Gen. Assem., c. 77, § 13. Bond 
 T'. Waliash, etc.. R. Co.. 07 Iowa 712. 25 
 X. W. S92. 
 
 A carrier's special contract to furnish 
 a shipper a specified number of cars at 
 specific times and places is not invalid, as
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 92 
 
 ogy of many constitutional provisions and statutes. Among the enactments that 
 have thus received judicial interpretation are provisions requiring carriers to 
 furnish without discrimination facilities for the trans])ortation of freight/ re- 
 
 contrarj' to public policy and discrimi- 
 natory. Oregon R.. etc.. Co. r. Dumas. 
 104 C. C. A. 641. ISl Fed. 781. 
 
 Refusal to construct side track and 
 furnish cars. — A complaint against a car- 
 rier for unjust discrimination, which 
 merely alleges that defendant refused to 
 lease its land to plaintiff that he niight 
 build a warehouse thereon; that plaintiff 
 afterwards erected warehouses not on its 
 land, but near defendant's side track, and 
 leased them to a co-operative association, 
 to be used for the purpose of handling 
 and shipping grain; that said lessee 
 bought wheat, and put it in the ware- 
 houses for shipment; that thereupon 
 plaintiff demanded of defendant that it 
 construct a side track to said houses, 
 which demand was refused; that he then 
 demanded that cars be furnished in which 
 to ship the grain, which demand was also 
 refused; and that defendant also refused 
 to make and maintain connections with 
 its side track for the purpose of handling 
 and shipping grain therefrom, and has re- 
 fused to recognize plaintiff's houses as 
 grain houses for any purpose, and refused 
 to allow the association to transact its 
 business through plaintiff's houses — does 
 not state a cause of action. Myers v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 50 Minn. 371, 53 
 X. W. 962. 
 
 Refusing to furnish same facilities 
 where conditions are different. — The dif- 
 ference between the business of persons 
 receiving and shipping dead freight over 
 a spur track upon which their premises 
 abut, and that of a company whose prem- 
 ises are forty feet away from the track, 
 and which seeks to receive and ship live 
 stock, is so great that it is not_ unjust 
 discrimination to refuse to furnish the 
 same facilities to the latter as to the 
 former. Butchers', etc., Stock Yards Co. 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 14 C. C. A. 290, 
 67 Fed. y.r,. 
 
 Refusal to construct side track to an 
 elevator located off right of way. — The 
 fact that a railroad permitted the loca- 
 tion of an elevator, maintained by a pri- 
 vate corporation, on the industrial track 
 on the right of way, does not render its 
 refusal to construct, at its own expense, 
 a side track to a competing elevator, lo- 
 cated off the right of way, an unlawful 
 discrimination, within the Constitution of 
 Oklahoma, art. 9, § 18 (Bunn's Ed., § 
 222). Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. State, 23 
 Okla. 94, 99 Pac. 901. 
 
 Furnishing cars to shippers owning 
 spur tracks in preference to those not 
 owning tracks. — Where all shippers in the 
 same situation at a given point on a rail- 
 road are treated alike in the matter of 
 furnishing coal cars, the mere fact that 
 
 shippers who own spur tracks are fur- 
 nished cars in preference to those who 
 do not own tracks, but require the use 
 of the railroad's side tracks, which are 
 needed by the railroad to conduct its 
 general btisiness and serve the public, is 
 not a discrimination, within the constitu- 
 tion of Arkansas, art. 17, § 3, providing 
 that all persons shall have an equal right 
 to transportation on railroads, and for- 
 bidding undue or unreasonable discrim- 
 ination. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. State, 
 73 Ark. 373, 84 S. W. 502, 92 S. W. 26. 
 
 Refusal to pay cost of compressing cot- 
 ton at a certain plant. — A carrier made 
 no distinction in rate between com- 
 pressed and uncompressed cotton, but 
 included in its rate the cost of com- 
 pression, and uncompressed cotton in 
 a designated district was compressed at 
 a distant place at the carrier's expense 
 at a plant in which it was interested. A 
 plant existed in the designated district, 
 but the carrier declined to pay the cost 
 of compression there, though such cost 
 was not greater than that paid at the 
 other plant. It accorded to both places 
 the same privilege as to rebilling and 
 through rating. Held, that the carrier 
 was not guilty of discrimination, in vio- 
 lation of the Alaljama statute. Act Feb. 
 23, 1907 (Laws 1907, pp. 123, 129), §§ 17, 
 32. Railroad Comm. z'. Central, etc., R. 
 Co., 1.59 Ala. 550, 49 So. 237. 
 
 The fact that a railroad company, by 
 agreement with a manufacturing concern, 
 made previous to the latter's organiza- 
 tion, which agreement was an inducement 
 to its organization, charges it less per 
 ton for the transportation from a certain 
 point of coal to be used for manufactur- 
 ing purposes than it charges a dealer in 
 coal for like transportation, does not 
 constitute an "undue or unreasonable dis- 
 crimination," witliin the meaning of the 
 Pennsylvania statute. Act June 4, 1883, 
 prohibiting such discrimination, since the 
 charges are not for a like service from 
 the same place, upon like conditions, and 
 under similar circumstances. Hoover v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 156 Pa. 220, 27 Atl. 
 282, 22 L. R. A. 263, 36 Am. St. Rep. 43. 
 
 1. Number of cars furnished. — On the 
 issue whether a carrier discriminated 
 against plaintiff and in favor of a rival 
 shipper, the evidence showed that the 
 shippers were given substantially the 
 same facilities for transportation; that in 
 one month plaintiff was given five cars 
 and the rival shipper six; that in another 
 month plaintiff received ten cars, while 
 the rival shipper received seven; that in 
 another month each received seventeen 
 cars. It was also shown that from the 
 3d to the 10th of the last month the
 
 93 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION'. 
 
 § 102 
 
 quiring railroad corporations to give to all i)ersons reasonable and equal terms, 
 facilities and accommodations,- providing that no common carrier shall receive 
 from any person any greater compensation than it charges any other person 
 for a like and contcm])oraneous service,'* prohibiting the giving of unreasonable 
 preferences and im])()sing unreasonable disadvantages on any particular person, 
 locality, or any descripti(jn of traffic over any jjerson, or any jjarticular descrip- 
 tion of traffic similarly situated,-* providing that no discrimination in charges 
 or facilities for transportation shall be made between places or persons or in 
 the facilities for the transportation of the same classes of freight or passen- 
 
 plaintiff received only three cars, while 
 his rival received six. Held, insufficient 
 to show a discrimination in violation of 
 the Arkansas statute, Kirby's Dig., § 6804, 
 making it the duty of carriers to furnish 
 without discrimination facilities for the 
 transportation of freight. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Clay Gin Co., 77 .Ark. :i.57, 92 
 S. W. 53L 
 
 Commission rule prohibiting discrimi- 
 nation against shippers not against com- 
 modities. — Tlie rule promulgated l)y tlie 
 railroad commission of Georgia, that car- 
 riers, "in the conduct of their intrastate 
 business, shall afford to all persons equal 
 facilities in the transi)ortation and de- 
 livery of freight," prohibits discrimination 
 against shippers, not against commodities. 
 As to issuing through bills of lading, or 
 furnishing its cars to connecting carriers, 
 in order that shipments may be carried 
 to ultimate destination without reloading 
 at terminal points, a carrier may discrim- 
 inate against cotton seed, provided all 
 shippers of that commodity are treated 
 alike. That such discrimination is dic- 
 tated by the business interests of the car- 
 rier, and really affects but a single 
 shipper, because he is the only person at 
 a terminal point who is engaged in ship- 
 ping cotton seed out of the state, can not 
 alter the matter. Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Augusta Brokerage Co., 122 Ga. 646, 50 
 v^. K. 47:i. (•)'.) L. R. A. liu. 
 
 2. Words "reasonable and equal terms" 
 construed. — .\., a student over twenty 
 years of age, paid to a railroad corpora- 
 tion tlie regular price of a season ticket 
 entitling him to transportation over its 
 road, between two stations, for three 
 months. The directors of the corporation 
 had authorized its president, upon special 
 application and in his discretion, to allow 
 season tickets to be sold to students over 
 twenty years of age, for the same term, 
 between the same stations, for one-half 
 the price .A. paid, and such tickets had 
 been sold. Held, in an action I)y A. to re- 
 cover of the corporation one-half of the 
 amount paid by him, that there was no 
 violation of the Massachusetts statute, St. 
 1874, c. 372, § 138, which requires railroad 
 corporations to give to all persons rea- 
 sonable and equal terms, facilities, and 
 accommodations; that the requirement of 
 this section, which is re-enacted from St. 
 1867, c. 339, is to be construed in the light 
 
 of the decision in Fitchburg R. Co. v. 
 Gage (Mass.), 12 Gray 393, and the 
 words "reasonable and equal terms" 
 arc not to be taken as used in a strict 
 literal sense; and that the action could 
 not be maintained. Spofford v. Boston, 
 etc., Railroad, 128 Mass. 326. 
 
 Carrying coal for a shipper for less than 
 is charged others. — The mere fact tiiat a 
 carrier discriminated in favor of a shipper 
 of coal by carrying coal for it between 
 designated points at fifty cents less per 
 ton "than it granted to any other shipper 
 does not show a violation of the Vermont 
 statute. Acts 1882, p. 47, No. 36 (V. S. 
 3902-3904), requiring carriers to give all 
 persons reasonable and equal terms and 
 accommodations, for the rates charged 
 may have been reasonable and equal 
 within the law, though less in amount. 
 State V. Central Vermont R. Co., 81 Vt. 
 463, 71 Atl. 194. 
 
 3. Issuing passes. — Under the North Car- 
 olina statute. Laws 1891, c. 320, § 4, 
 providing that no common carrier shall 
 receive from any person any greater com- 
 pensation than it charges any other per- 
 son for a like and contemporaneous serv- 
 ice, it is unlawful for a railroad company 
 to issue passes, and transport people 
 thereon free of charge. State v. Southern 
 R. Co.. 122 N. C. 1052. 30 S. E. 133, 41 
 L. R. A. 246. 
 
 4. Refusing to receive packages of 
 money between certain hours. — Tlio Soutli 
 Dakota statute. Rev. Pol. Code S. D., § 
 437, prohibits any common carrier from 
 giving unreasonable preferences and im- 
 posing unreasonable disadvantages on any 
 particular person, locality, or any descrip- 
 tion of traffic over any person, or any 
 particular description of traffic similarly 
 situated. Held, that rules and practice of 
 an express company to refuse to receive 
 packages of money on the day preceding 
 that on which the only trains carrying 
 express matter start from places of ten- 
 der for the destination of the packages 
 between 6:29 and 8 a. m. do not violate 
 the section, where the rules and practice 
 are universal, apply to all cities and towns 
 except certain large cities, and appb' to 
 40 cities and towns in South Dakota. 
 Decree 150 Fed. 39 L reversed. Piatt :■. 
 LeCocq. 85 C. C. A. 621, 158 Fed. 723. 
 15 L. R. A.. N. S.. 55S.
 
 102 
 
 CARRIERS 
 
 94 
 
 gersS' prohibiting railroad companies from making any departure from their 
 published freight rates except to aid in the development of industrial enter- 
 prises in the state,** prohibiting preferential contracts for the receipt, delivery. 
 or transportation of freight," prohibiting discrimination between localities, or 
 charging a greater rate for a shorter haul.*^ providing that rates of fare shall 
 be the same for all persons between the same points,'' and providing that all 
 individuals shall have equal rights to be transported over any railroad in the 
 state, and making it unlawful for any common carrier to charge any person for 
 
 5. Rates prescribed held not to consti- 
 tute an unjust discrimination. — The con- 
 stitution of Washington, art. 12, § 15, 
 which provides that no discrimination in 
 charges or facilities for transportation 
 shall be made by any railroad between 
 places or persons or in the facilities for 
 thi transportation of the same classes of 
 freight or passengers, is not violated by 
 rates, ordered by the railroad commis- 
 sion, which do not charge any persons or 
 classes of persons a greater or less rate 
 for the same service than is charged all 
 other persons similarly situated, and 
 which have a like effect upon all who are 
 similarly situated. To constitute an un- 
 just discrimination, the company would 
 have to receive a greater or less rate from 
 one person than another to whom it 
 furnished a like service under like con- 
 ditions, either directly or indirectly. Puget 
 Sound Elect. Railway z'. Railroad Comm., 
 65 Wash. 75, 117 Pac. 739. 
 
 6. Rebate on coal shipped to a miller. — 
 Under the Alabama statute. Code 1886, § 
 1161. which prohibits railroad companies 
 from making any departure from their 
 published freight rates except to aid in 
 the development of industrial enterprises 
 in the state, an agreement to allow a re- 
 bate on coal shipped to a miller, and used 
 by him in manufacturing corn into meal, 
 is valid. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. Fulg- 
 ham, 91 Ala. 555, 8 So. 803. 
 
 7. A contract by which defendant rail- 
 road company agreed not to establish any 
 other stockyards in a certain city, but to 
 deliver all live stock shipped over its 
 roads and consigned to such city at stock- 
 3'ards controlled by the B. Company, etc., 
 was void, as in violation of the constitu- 
 tion of Kentucky, § 214, prohibitng pref- 
 erential contracts for the receipt, de- 
 livery, or transportation of freight, and 
 as against puljlic policy. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Central Stock Yards Co.. 30 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 18, 97 S. W. 778. 
 
 Contract for transportation of freight 
 at less than regular rate. — The constitu- 
 tion of Kentucky, § 214, provides that no 
 railway shall make any preferential con- 
 tract for the transportation of freight. 
 Ky. St., § 817 (Russell's St.. § 5354), makes 
 it an offense for any railroad company to 
 charge a greater or less compensation 
 for any service rendered to one person in 
 the transportation of passengers or prop- 
 el ty than it charges any other person for 
 
 doing a like service. Held, that a con- 
 tract with a railroad company for the 
 transportation of freight between two 
 points in this state at a rate less than the 
 regular rate of such company is contrary 
 to public policy and void, although the 
 shipper was ignorant of the preference. 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Maysville 
 Brick Co. (Ky.), 116 S. W. 1183. 
 
 8. Discrimination betw^een localities, or 
 charging a greater rate for a shorter 
 haul. — Where a railroad company charges 
 higher rates for carrying freight a less 
 distance than its published rates for car- 
 rying it a greater distance in the same 
 direction over the same road, it violates 
 the Missouri statute. Rev. St. 1899, §§ 
 1133, 1134, prohibiting discrimination be- 
 tween localities, or charging a greater 
 rate for a shorter haul, though it does 
 not actually carry any freight the greater 
 distance. Cohn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 181 Mo. 30, 79 S. W. 961. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped coal over defendant's 
 railroad from C. to K., the rates charged 
 being greater than rates advertised on 
 the same date for shipments of coal oyer 
 defendant's road in the same direction 
 from M. to K., a greater distance. Held, 
 an unlawful discrimination, though no 
 coal was actually shipped from M. to 
 K. on the day on which plaintiff's coal 
 was shipped, since defendant, in adver- 
 tising a certain rate from M., must be 
 deemed to have charged such rate within 
 the Missouri statute. Rev. St., § 2637, 
 making it unlawful for a carrier to 
 "charge" a greater compensation for 
 transportation of like kinds of property, 
 under similar circumstances, for a shorter 
 than a longer distance in the same direc- 
 tion. Seawell v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 119 Mo. 222, 24 S. W. 1002. 
 
 9. Giving passenger purchasing ticket 
 before entering cars a discount from ad- 
 vertised fare. — A regulation of a railroad 
 corporation that a passenger who shall 
 I)urcliase a ticket before entering its cars 
 shall be entitled to a discount from the 
 advertised rates of fare, but, if such ticket 
 is not purchased, the full rate of fare 
 shall be charged, is a reasonable regula- 
 tion, and does not violate a rule pre- 
 scribed by statute that the rates of fare 
 shall be the same for all persons be- 
 tween the same points. Swan v. Man- 
 chester, etc.. Railway, 132 Mass. 116, 42 
 Am. Rep. 432.
 
 95 
 
 CONTROL AND KIXULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 102-103 
 
 any ticket a greater sum than is charged for a similar ticket of the same class. ^'^ 
 Where a railroad company renders services to one corporation so as to enable 
 it to serve the public, and without sufficient excuse refuses to render similar 
 service to another corporation lawfully authorized to serve the public, it is an 
 unjust discrimination, which the railroad commissioners have the power to make 
 just and reasonable rules to prevent.'^ Under a statute providing that a car- 
 rier receiving from any i)erson a greater or less compensation for services ren- 
 dered or to be rendered by it than it receives from any other person for a like 
 service shall be guilty of an unjust discrimination forbidden by the act, a car- 
 rier may not exchange transportation for services or property by way of barter.^- 
 The rule that a contract by a carrier to transport goods for less than the pub- 
 lished rate is illegal has no application, where there is a consideration for the 
 contract, in addition to and independent of the freight rate agreed upon, so that 
 the rate is not necessarily discriminatory. ^^ The fact that a rate imposed by 
 a carrier is per se reasonable does not disprove the charge that it is unlawful, 
 for. where rates are relatively unjust so that undue preference is afforded to one 
 !ocalit\ or undue prejudice results to another, the higher rate is unjust, thougli 
 it is not in itself excessive.'''" When the facts are ascertained, the question of 
 the existence of an "undue or unreasonable discrimination," within the meaning 
 of a statute prohibiting such discrimination, is for the court. ^'' 
 
 §§ 103-108. What Circumstances Will Justify Discrimination — 
 § 103. Business of Carrier Unusually or Unexpectedly Heavy. — An un- 
 precedented demand un a railroad company fur cars is an excuse for failing 
 to provide cars, as required by a statute making it the duty of carriers to 
 furnish, without discrimination, sufficient facilities for the carriage of freight, 
 where the company has sufficient equipment for the ordinary demands.^^ Where 
 
 10. Giving free passes. — The Constitu- 
 tion of Montana, art. 1.5, § 7. provides 
 that all individuals shall have equal rights 
 to be transported over any railroad in the 
 state, provided that exciirsion or commu- 
 tation tickets may be issued and sold at 
 special rates. Rev. Codes, § 4337, makes 
 it unlawful for any common carrier to 
 charge any person for any ticket a greater 
 sum than is charged for a similar ticket 
 of the same class, and § S-JS-t makes everj- 
 railroad corporation which fails to ob- 
 serve any of the duties prescribed by 
 law in reference to railroads subject to 
 a fine, etc. Held, that the giving of all 
 free passes, with certain exceptions rec- 
 ognized by law, was prohil)ited, so that 
 the carriage of a passenger bj^ defendant 
 on a pass issued without compensation to 
 the employee of another railroad com- 
 pany which issued similar free passes 
 for use l)y defendant's employees was 
 illegal. John z\ Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 42 Mont. IS, 111 Pac. 632. 
 
 11. State V. .\tlantic Coast Line R. Co.. 
 51 Fla. .■>78, 40 So. 875; S. C, 52 Fla. 646, 
 41 So. 705. 
 
 12. Exchange of transportation for 
 services or property forbidden. — Slate r. 
 I?nion Pac. R. Co., 87 Neb. 29, 126 X. 
 W. 859. construing Cobbey's Ann. St. 
 l'.»09, § l{).t)t;2. 
 
 13. Consideration for contract to trans- 
 port goods in addition to freight rate. — 
 Sultan R., etc.. Co. :\ Great Xortlicrn R. 
 
 Co., 58 Wash. «<)4, 1()!» Pac. 1020, deny- 
 ing hearing in 10'.) Pac. 320. 
 
 14. A rate may be preferential though 
 not unreasonable. — Portland R., etc., Co. 
 r. Railroad Comm.. 56 Ore. 468, 105 Pac. 
 709, 109 Pac. 273. 
 
 15. Question of existence of discrimi- 
 nation is for court. — Hoover r. Pennsj'l- 
 vania R. Co., 156 Pa. 220. 27 Atl. 282. 22 
 L. R. A. 2()3, 36 Am. St. Rep. 43. 
 
 16. Unprecedented demand for cars. — 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leder Bros., 
 79 Ark. 59. 95 S. W. 170, construing Kir- 
 by's Dig.. § 6804. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to furnish cars for the carriage of 
 freight, the evidence showed that there 
 was a shortage in cars by reason of an 
 extraordinary accumulation of freight, 
 that the carrier had seven cars per mile 
 for each mile of its main line and branches 
 which compared favorably with other 
 carriers in that part of the country; that 
 it in anticipation of new business or- 
 dered 1,500 new freight cars, which it 
 thought would be sufficient to handle the 
 Inisiness. Held, that the carrier was not 
 liable; it being bound only to provide 
 reasonable facilities for the carriage of 
 freight offered in the regular course of 
 Inisiness. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. r. Clay 
 Gin Co., 77 Ark. 357. 92 S. W. 531. 
 
 The refusal of a railroad company to 
 furnish cars to the owner of a coal mine, 
 to be loaded by wagons on its commercial
 
 §§ 103-105 CARRIERS. 96 
 
 there is a press of business, perishable goods, or goods the inherent character of 
 which is such as to render them pecuharly liable to serious injury from delay, 
 have been considered of such exceptional character as to authorize a reasonable 
 preference, as to expedition in hauling them, over freight not of such a char- 
 acter, in absence of express statutory regulations on the subject, but such rule 
 can not be invoked as a cloak for making illegal discriminations for one shipper 
 or class of shippers as against another without real ground for its application. i" 
 That a railroad's line was congested is not an excuse for refusing a siding to 
 a coal propertv, where the railroad afforded siding privileges to other operators, 
 and a reduction of the cars to other operators would have prevented an in- 
 crease of the total traffic.''^ 
 
 § 104. Difference in Conditions under Which Shipment Is Made.— 
 
 Under a constitutional enactment providing that all railroad companies shall 
 haul "freight of the same class for all persons, associations or corporations from 
 and to the same points and upon the same conditions, in the same manner and 
 for the same charges and for the same method of payment," it has been held 
 that a railroad company may charge less for hauling coal used for manufac- 
 turing purposes than it charges for hauling coal used for domestic purposes, 
 as the fact that the company receives the manufactured product for return ship- 
 ment in the one case and not in the other constitutes a dift'erence in conditions 
 which authorizes a difference in charges. i'* But under a statute providing that 
 any carrier charging one person nwre than another for the same service is 
 gu'iltv of discrimination, it has been held that a railroad carrying raw material 
 to factories can not charge a factory which agrees to ship the manufactured 
 product by the same road less for the same service than it charges a factory 
 which will make no such agreement.-" 
 
 § 10 5. Through Rates and Local Rates. — A constitutional enactment 
 providing that all railways shall transport freight of the same class from and 
 to the same points for the same charges, does not prohibit a railway company 
 
 tracks in its yards at a station at a time and property transported over railroads, 
 when the business of the road was un- and no unjust or undue discrimination 
 usually heavy, necessitating the constant shall be made in charges or facilities; and 
 use of such tracks, and its supply of cars that no discrimination in charges or fa- 
 was insufficient to handle its traffic, while cibties for transportation shall be made 
 at the same time it furnished cars to other between transportation coinpanies and 
 mine owners on their own private tracks, individuals, or in favor of either." Little 
 to be loaded by tipple, was not unrea- Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Oppenheimer, 64 
 sonable; nor did it constitute an unlawful Ark. 271, 43 S. W. 150, 44 L._ R. A. 3.53; 
 preference or discrimination, either un- 17. Perference as to expedition in haul- 
 der the common law, or the statutes of ing perishable goods.— Southern R. Co. 
 Arkansas, which prohibit any preference z'. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 35, 
 or discrimination in the furnishing of 08 S. E. 807. 
 
 cars. Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 118 18. Congestion on line no excuse for 
 
 Fed IGO affirmed in 61 C. C. A. 405, 125 refusing a siding.— Cox v. Pennsylvania 
 
 Fed! 445. !<• Co. (I'a.), ,S5 Atl. sr,3. 
 
 Failure to furnish facilities at points 19. Shipping to manufacturer where 
 where there was no competition.— A fail- carrier is to ship manufactured product. 
 urc on the part of a railroad company to —Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Common- 
 furnish facilities for forwarding all cot- wealth, 108 Ky. 628, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 328, 
 ton offered at points on its line wlicre 57 S. W. 508, construing Const. § 215. 
 there was no competition, when it fur- 20. Hilton Lumber Co. v. Atlantic, etc., 
 nished sufficient transportation at com- R. Co., 136 N. C. 479, 48 S. E. 813, con- 
 pcting points, in a year when the sliip- struing Laws 1899, p. 301, c. 164, § 13. 
 ments of cotton were unexpectedly heavy, A carrier may not give one customer 
 is not such unjust discrimination as will a lower rate for the shipment of logs, 
 subject the company to a penalty at the than another, merely because the former 
 suit of a shipper, under Arkansas statute, ships the manufactured product over the 
 Act March 24. 188.7, providing that "all carrier's line. Hilton Lumber Co. ^'- -"^t- 
 individuals, associations, and corporations lantic, etc., R. Co., 141 N. C. 171, 53 S. E. 
 shall have equal rights to have persons 823, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 225.
 
 97 
 
 CONTROL AM) RKGULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 105-109 
 
 from charging a througli rate whicli is less than the sum of the local rates he- 
 tween the two points.-^ 
 
 § 106. Competition with Other Carriers. — The establishment perma- 
 nently of less rates of freight at points of competition with other roads than 
 is fixed at other places for the same distance can not be justified by showing 
 that the rates charged at such other places are reasonably low, and that the rates 
 charged at competing ])oints are unreasonably low. Even if the higher rates 
 are reasonably low, when regarded with reference to the profit upon the capital 
 invested in the road, they are not reasonable in the trtie sense of the term, if 
 no satisfactory reason can be given for charging less rates for the same or 
 greater services to persons at other stations. Railroad corporations should not 
 use their power to benefit particular individuals or build up particular localities 
 by arbitrary discriminations in their favor that must cause injury to other per- 
 sons or places engaged in rival pursuits, or occupying rival position^^.-- 
 
 § 107. Unusual Traffic Conditions Attending upon a General Coal 
 Strike. — L'nusual traffic conditions attending upon a general coal strike do 
 not relieve a railroad company from the duty of furnishing equal transporta- 
 tion facilities to a coal company.--^ 
 
 § 108. Cost of Mining Coal to Company in Whose Favor Discrimi- 
 nation Is Irlade. — A discriminating rate on shipments of coal can not be justi- 
 fied on the ground of the cost of mining coal to the company in whose favor 
 the rate is made.-'* 
 
 § 109. Places of Stoppage.— Subject to the rule that it must not unrea- 
 sonably interfere with interstate commerce.-'^ a state may prescribe the places 
 where'trains shall stop, and require them to stop there. -'^ Thus trains operating 
 entirely within the state may be required to sto]) at every county seat through 
 which thev i)ass.-' and this is true even though such trains are engaged in car- 
 
 21. Through rate less than sum of lo- 
 cal rates. — Southern Railway v. Common- 
 wealth, 116 Ky. 907, 2.} Ky. L. Rep. 1078, 
 77 S. W. r.'n7, constrninii' Const., § 21."). 
 
 22. Competition no justification for dis- 
 crimination. — Chica.L^o, etc., R. Co. v. Peo- 
 ple, r,: ill. 11. k; Am. Rep. :^\)\^. 
 
 The clause of the Illinois statute, ap- 
 proved May 2, 1873, prohil)iting discrim- 
 ination by railroads, which provides that 
 "competition with any other railroad or 
 means of transportation" at the favored 
 point shall be no defense in an action for 
 unjust discrimination, held to mean com- 
 petition in railroad traffic, and not merely 
 competition in the markets and lines of 
 merchandise involved in such discrimi- 
 nation. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 
 121 111. :i(t4, 12 X. K. (570. 
 
 Cut rates made by other railroads at 
 competitive points are no excuse lor un- 
 just discrimination in favor of such 
 points. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 
 121 111. :w\. 12 X. 1".. (mO. 
 
 23. Unusual traffic conditions attending 
 upon a general coal strike. — Minds :. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 22S Pa. o7.j, 77 Atl. 
 
 90'.t. 
 
 2-1. Cost of mining coal to company in 
 whose favor discrimination is made. — 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Goodridge, 14'J U. 
 
 S. 680, 37 L. Ed. 986, 13 S. Ct. 970; Union 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Taggart, 149 U. S. 69X, 37 
 L. Ed. 90,-j, 13 S. Ct. 977. 
 
 25. Stopping must not unreasonably in- 
 terfere with interstate Commerce. — Cleve- 
 land, etc., R. Co. r. Jllinnis, 177 U. S. ol4, 
 518, 44 L. Ed. 868. 20 S. Ct. 722; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois. 163 U. S. 142. 41 
 L. Ed. 107, 16 S. Ct. 1()9C). 
 
 26. Requiring trains to stop at certain 
 places. — Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 
 427. 431, 41 L. Ed. 1064. 17 S. Ct. 627. 
 
 In Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. f. Ohio, 
 173 U. S. 285, 43 L. Ed. 702. 19 S. Ct. 465. 
 a statute of Ohio providing that every 
 railroad company should cause three of 
 its regular trains carrying passengers, if 
 so many are run daily, Sundays excepted, 
 to stop at a station, city or village con- 
 taining over three thousand inhabitants, 
 for a time sufficient to receive and let off 
 passengers, was held to be, in the absence 
 of legislation by congress upon the sub- 
 ject, consistent with tlie constitution of 
 the United States, when applied to trains 
 engaged in interstate commerce through 
 tlie state of Ohio. Clevelantl. etc., R. Co. 
 :■. Illinois. 177 U. S. ">14. 519. 44 L. Ed. 
 S6S. -jlt S. Ct. 722. 
 
 27. Requiring trains to stop at county 
 seats. — Gladson v. Minnesota. 166 U. S. 
 
 1 Car— 7
 
 §§ 109-111 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 98 
 
 rying the mail and also make connection with trains running into another state.^^ 
 
 § 110. Receipt and Transportation of Freight and Passengers.— 
 
 There are statutes in some stales rccjuiring railroad companies to_ receive and 
 transport passengers applying or freight tendered for transportation. ^ Such a 
 requirement is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state.-'^ Some 
 of the peculiar provisions of such statutes have been interpreted by the courts.^^ 
 The duty of a carrier to accept goods tendered at its station does not require 
 it to accept cars offered by competing roads at arbitrary points near its terminus 
 for the purpose of using' its terminal station. A law requiring the carrier so 
 to do is unconstitutional as taking property without due process of law.^^ 
 
 §§ 111-114. Exclusive Privileges— § 111. To Express Companies.— 
 
 Special contracts between express and railroad companies, over whose lines 
 express matter is carried, giving special and exclusive privileges to the former, 
 
 427, 41 L. Ed. 1064, 17 S. Ct. 627; Cleve- 
 land, etc., R. Co. V. Illinois, 177 U. S. 
 514, 44 L. Ed. 868, 20 S. Ct. 722 (holding 
 that a statute requiring trains to stop at 
 county seais was not applicable to a 
 through express train, where the other 
 train service at this point was sufficient 
 for the public need). 
 
 An Illinois statute required all trains 
 to stop at county seats. Upon the con- 
 struction of this statute, see Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. People, 143 111. 434. 33 N. E. 
 173, 19 L. R. A. 119, in which case 
 the Illinois decisions are considered. Sim- 
 ilar statutes have been held valid in Ar- 
 kansas and Minnesota, and mandamuses 
 held to lie to enforce them. State v. 
 Gladson, 57 Minn. 385, 59 N. W. 487, 24 
 L. R. A. 502: Railway Co. v. B'Shears, 59 
 Ark. 237. 27 S. W. 2. The Arkansas stat- 
 ute required trains to stop within the cor- 
 porate limits, upon the application of not 
 less than fifty citizens. 
 
 28. Trains carrying mail or connecting 
 with interstate trains. — Gladson v. Minne- 
 sota, lor, U. S. 427. 41 L. Ed. 1064, 17 S. 
 Ct. 627: Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Illmoi<;. 
 177 U. S. 514, 518, 44 L. Ed. 868, 20 S. Ct. 
 722. 
 
 A state statute requiring every rail- 
 road to stop all its regular passenger 
 tiains running wholly within the state at 
 its stations in all county seats long 
 enough to take on and discharge passen- 
 gers with safety, was held to be a rea- 
 sonable exercise of the police power of 
 the state, even as applied to a train con- 
 necting with a train of the same company 
 running into another state, and carrying 
 some interstate passengers as well as the 
 mail. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 
 177 U. S. 514, 518. 44 L. Ed. 868, 20 S. Ct. 
 722; Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427, 
 41 L. Ed. 1064. 17 S. Ct. 627. 
 
 29. Statute held a legitimate exercise 
 of police power. — The North Carolina 
 statute, Revisal 1905, § 2632, declares that 
 it shall be unlawful for any railroad com- 
 pany to neglect to transport within a rea- 
 sonable time any goods received for ship- 
 
 ment and billed to or from any place in 
 the state, unless otherwise agreed be- 
 tween the parties or unless the same be 
 destroyed, under a penalty. It is further 
 provided that the company shall be 
 deemed to have transported the goods in 
 a reasonable time if it has done so within 
 the ordinary time required for such trans- 
 portation, and that a delay of two days 
 at the initial point, and forty-eigth hours 
 at one intermediate point for each one 
 hundred miles or fraction over which 
 goods are to be tranported, shall be held 
 to be prima facie reasonable, and a fail- 
 ure to transport within such time shall 
 be held prima facie unreasonable. Held, 
 that the statute was a legitimate exercise 
 of the police power of the state, and rea- 
 sonable in its provisions. Stone & Co. v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 144 X. C. 220, 56 
 S. E. 932. 
 
 30. Peculiar provisions of statutes con- 
 strued. — The requirement of the Charter 
 of the Portland & Oxford Cent. R. Co., § 
 8 (Sp. Laws 1857, c. 122, § 8), that the 
 corporation "shall be obliged to receive, 
 at all proper times and places, and con- 
 vey, persons and articles," etc., should be 
 construed to mean that the times and 
 places designated for the purpose named 
 shall be in fact reasonable and consistent 
 with the right of the public to use the 
 road. Railroad Comm'rs v. Portland, etc., 
 R. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208. 
 
 The Michigan Railroad Commission Act 
 fPub. Acts 1909, No. 300, as amended by 
 Pub. Acts 1911, No. 139) held torequire 
 receipt and transportation of freight lo- 
 cally consigned between points in the 
 same city or town, whether from another 
 railroad or not, and such as is offered at 
 any junction or transfer point for deliv- 
 ery on sidings, without reference to 
 where the shipment originated. Grand 
 Trunk R. Co. v. Michigan R. Comm., 198 
 Fed. 100!). 
 
 31. When carrier not required to ac- 
 cept cars offered by competing roads. — 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Central Stock 
 Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 133, 53 L. Ed. 
 441, 29 S. Ct. 246.
 
 99 
 
 CONTROL AND KIXULATION. 
 
 §§ 111-112 
 
 are lawful."- Where a street railway company is authorized to transact ex- 
 press business over its lines, it is entitled to limit such business to a single ex- 
 press company, provided it thereby afifords reasonable express facilities to the 
 public. ^^ 
 
 § 112. To Corporations or Individuals Engaged in Transporting Pas- 
 sengers and Baggage to and from Railroad Depots. — The preponderance 
 of auilKjrity .supports ilic rule that a railroad company may grant to a cor- 
 poration or individual the exclusive right of entering its trains to solicit the 
 transportation of ])assengers and baggage, •^■* or the exclusive privilege of solicit- 
 ing such patronage within its depot. ■''•"' or the exclusive privilege of soliciting 
 business on the dei)ot grounds and of inlying there the business of a carrier of 
 passengers or baggage.'''' It b.as also been h.eld that a union depot company 
 
 32. Exclusive privileges to express com- 
 panies. — Blank i'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 80 
 111. App. 4T.j, aftirnicd in 182 111. 3:52, 55 
 N. E. 332. 
 
 33. Dulaney ;■. United R., etc.. Co., 104 
 Md. 423, {]-, '.\l\. 45. 
 
 34. Entering trains to solicit transpor- 
 tation of passengers and baggage. — Kates 
 V. Atlanta Bajiga.ye, etc.. Co., 107 Ga. 63G, 
 34 S. E. 372, 40 L. R. A. 431; Godbout V. 
 St. Paul Union Depot Co.. 79 Minn. 188, 
 81 N. W. S35. 47 L. R. A. 532. 
 
 35. Soliciting patronage in depot. — Don- 
 ovan 7'. Pennsylvania Co., IIM) L. S. 279, 
 50 L. Ed. 192. 26 S. Ct. 91. affirming 60 C. 
 C. A. 168. 124 Fed. 1016; Godbout v. St. 
 Paul Union Depot Co., 79 Minn. 188, 81 
 N. W. 835, 47 L. R. A. 532. 
 
 A contract entered into by a depot 
 company with a hack company, where 
 such hack company furnishes men to 
 meet all trains coming into the city, to 
 allow passengers opportunity to arrange 
 for the carriage of themselves and bag- 
 gage from the depot, and also furnishes 
 a man at the depot to serve incoming 
 passengers, the rates charged for such 
 services to be reasonable, and not greater 
 than the scale of charges fixed by ordi- 
 nance, in consideration of which such 
 hack company is given the exclusive 
 privilege of soliciting patronage within 
 the depot and on the trains, furnishes a 
 reasonable and proper arrangement, not 
 interfering with the rights of the travel- 
 ing public. Godbout v. St. Paul Union 
 Depot Co.. 79 Minn. 188, 81 N. W. 835, 
 47 L. R. A. 532. 
 
 A railroad company is under no duty, 
 as a common carrier, to permit a hackman 
 to enter its stations for the purpose of 
 soliciting business from its passengers, 
 and therefore its granting of such right 
 to one person or concern does not entitle 
 others to equal privileges on the same 
 terms. Pennsylvania Co. ?'. Donovan. 116 
 Fed. 907; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 
 57 C. C. A. 362. 120 Fed. 215. 61 L- R. --\. 
 140; Donovan t'. Pennsylvania Co.. 60 C. 
 C. A. 168. 124 Fed. 1016. affirmed in 199 
 U. S. 279. 50 L. Kd. 192. 26 S. Ct. 91. 
 
 Entry to depot in pursuance of a con- 
 tract or order. — All hackmen and per- 
 
 sons engaged in the business of convey- 
 ing passengers and baggage for hire have 
 tiie right of entry, without discrimination, 
 to the depots of a common carrier, to de- 
 liver or receive passengers or baggage, in 
 pursuance of a contract or order, subject 
 to proper rules and regulations, for the 
 interest of the traveling public. Godbout 
 V. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 79 Minn. 
 188. SI X. W. S:]5. 47 L. R. A. 532. 
 
 36. Soliciting patronage and plying busi- 
 ness on depot grounds. — A railroad com- 
 panj-'s grant of the exclusive privilege of 
 soliciting business on the depot grounds 
 at a station, and of "plying" there the 
 business of a carrier of passengers or 
 luggage, and forbidding others to do such 
 acts on the grounds, where not inconsis- 
 tent with the reasonable accommodation 
 of passengers, and where the charges are 
 fair, is a reasonable provision, such as the 
 road has a right to make. New York, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Scovill. 71 Conn. 136. 41 
 Atl. 246. 42 L. R. A. 157. 71 Am. St. Rep. 
 159; Godbout v. St. Paul Union Depot 
 Co., 79 Minn. 188. 81 X. W. 835, 47 L. R. 
 A. 532. See. also. Union, etc.. R. Co. z\ 
 Meeking. 42 Colo. 89, 94 Pac. 16, and Ore- 
 gon, etc.. R. Co. f. Davidson. 33 Utah 
 370. 94 Pac. 10. 
 
 A railwa}'^ company which has made an 
 arrangement with a transfer company to 
 furnish at its passenger station all the ve- 
 hicles necessarj' for the accommodation 
 of the passengers arriving there on its 
 trains or on the trains of other railroad 
 companies using the station may legally 
 exclude from the station and depot 
 grounds all other hackman or calmien 
 seeking entrance for the purpose of so- 
 liciting for themselves the custom or 
 patronage of passengers. Decree, Don- 
 novan v. Pennsylvania Co.. 60 C. C. A. 
 168. 124 Fed. 1016. affirmed. Donovan 
 7: Pennsylvania Co., 199 U. S. 279. 50 
 L. Ed. 19"2. 26 S. Ct. 91. 
 
 Job teamsters, though common car- 
 riers, have, in the absence of statutory' 
 authority, or a contract with a railroad 
 company, no right to solicit on its depot 
 grounds the carriage of passengers' bag- 
 gage: all the right in this respect being 
 that of the passengers that they shall be
 
 112 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 100 
 
 may grant to a transfer company tb.e exclusive right to use a designated por- 
 tion of its depot grounds for the standing of hacks and vehicles,=^' and that 
 a railroad company mav rent to a corporation or individual which has been 
 given the exclusive riglit to solicit the transportation of passengers and bag- 
 ^age, a portion of its^ baggage room, and concede to it or him the privileges 
 necessarily incident to the occupancy and use thereof, provided that so domg 
 does not 'interfere with the exercise by an>- other person of any right which he 
 mav lawfullv demand of the company as a common carrier;-^ T.ut it has been 
 
 conveniently and satisfactorily served m 
 the matter of the transfer of their_ bag- 
 gage: and, when such service is furnished, 
 though through an individual to whom 
 the company has granted, for a consid- 
 eration, the exclusive privilege of solicit- 
 ing on the grounds such carriage, others 
 may be excluded from so soliciting. Hed- 
 ding v. Gallagher, 72 N. H. 377, 57 Atl. 
 225, t;4 L. R. A. 811. 
 
 Where a railroad company contracts 
 with a party, giving him exclusive right 
 to enter its grounds to solicit the patron- 
 age of passengers, and notifies another 
 party of such contract, and forbids him 
 from entering to solicit patronage, a sub- 
 sequent entry of such latter person for 
 such purpose is unlawful. Boston, etc., 
 R Co. V. Brown, 177 Mass. 65, 58 N. E. 
 189. 52 L. R. A. 418. 
 
 The fact that he does so under a con- 
 tract with a certain hotel to transport 
 passengers from the station to the hotel 
 will not avoid his liability since notice to 
 the carrier was notice to the hotel. Bos- 
 ton etc.. R. Co. V. Brown, 177 Mass. 65, 
 58 N. E. 189, 52 L. R. A. 418. 
 
 The fact that the person to whom the 
 privilege was sold was not a duly licensed 
 hackman in accordance with the city or- 
 dinance was no defense to a bill by the 
 carrier for an injunction restraining such 
 hackman from entering its premises. Bos- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Sullivan, 177 Mass. 
 2?.o' 58 N. E. 689, 83 Am. St. Rep. 275. 
 But in Indiana it has been held that 
 a depot corporation, under its charter 
 power to make regulations governing its 
 depot, can not discriminate between the 
 owners of public vehicles by allowing one 
 to stand and solicit business before the 
 entrance to its depot, and exclude others. 
 Indianapolis Union R. Co. v. Dohn, 153 
 Ind. 10, 53 X. E. 937, 45 L. R. A. 427, 74 
 Am. St. Rep. 274. 
 
 And in Mississippi it has been held tliat 
 a railroad can not authorize one hackman 
 to drive into its inclosed depot grounds 
 to solicit business to the exclusion of all 
 others, since this would create a monop- 
 oly, prevent competition, and inconven- 
 ience the public. State v. Reed, 76 Miss. 
 211, 24 So. 308, 43 L. R. A. 134, 71 Am. 
 St. Rep. 528. 
 
 In Illinois it has been held that rail- 
 way companies can not grant special 
 privileges beyond the limits of their own 
 lines and make a contract with one which 
 gives him the right to carry passengers 
 
 from their depots l)eyond their own lines, 
 and exclude others from sr-ch privilege of 
 carriage. Pennsylvania Co. z\ Chicago, 
 isl 111. 2S9, 34 N. E. 825, 53 L. R. A. 223. 
 37. Use of portion of depot grounds for 
 standing of hacks and vehicles. — A union 
 depot company organized under the (3hio 
 statute, Rev. St. 1892, §§ 3446-3452, may 
 grant to a transfer company such ex- 
 clusive right, and a rule of such company, 
 excluding therefrom all others engaged 
 in a like business, except for the purpose 
 of delivering passengers or receiving pas- 
 sengers who shall have previously em- 
 ployed them, is reasonable, and may be 
 enforced, so long as the company fur- 
 nishes adequate accommodations in the 
 way of vehicles to meet the needs of the 
 traveling public, and makes no greater 
 charge for carrying passengers and bag- 
 gage from such station than is made by 
 others for like services. State v. Union 
 Deoot Co., 71 O. St. 379, 73 N. E. 633, 
 68 L. R. A. 792. 
 
 But in Kentucky it has been held that 
 a contract l)y which a railroad company 
 gave a transfer company the exclusive 
 use of a part of its depot grounds was 
 void as amounting to a practical monop- 
 oly of the transfer business. Palmer 
 Transfer Co. v. Anderson (Ky.), 115 S. 
 \V. 1.S2, 19 L. R. A., X. S., 7.V,. 
 
 38. Renting portion of baggage room. 
 — Kates V. Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co., 107 
 Ga. 636, 34 S, E. 372, 46 L. R. A. 431. 
 
 Exclusive right to carry on private en- 
 terprise in baggage room. — Where a cor- 
 poration, acting for a common carrier_ in 
 providing a baggage room and receiving 
 and taking baggage, contracts with a sec- 
 ond corporation to allow it the exclusive 
 right to carry on a private enterprise in 
 its baggage room, but complied with its 
 duty to a third corporation as a member 
 of the public generally by receiving and 
 checking such parcels, accompanied by a 
 ticket or other evidence of the right of 
 transportation, and giving such third cor- 
 poration as to such parcels as are attended 
 with tickets the preference over the par- 
 cels tendered by the second corporation 
 to go on storage, the first corporation 
 does not violate any duty to the third, 
 and tlie latter can not challenge the 
 legality of the contract between the first 
 and the second corporations, or enjoin 
 operations thereunder. Atlanta Termi- 
 nal Co. r. American Baggage, etc., Co., 
 125 Ga. 677, 54 S. E. 711.
 
 101 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGULATION, 
 
 112 
 
 held that a railway company can not grant to one hack owner the exclusive right 
 to tise its platform for receiving and discharging passengers.^'-* The peculiar 
 provisions of certain c< institutional enactments and statutes have been construed 
 and have been held uoi in i)reclude a carrier from granting to a corporation or 
 individual the exclusive privilege of soliciting the transportation of passengers 
 or baggage on its trains, or in its dej^ot or dej^ot grounds. •♦" 
 
 39. Exclusive right to use platform for 
 receiving and discharging passengers. — 
 
 McCoiiiK-li z'. VviUii". '■'- Ky. 4r,:,, i:; Ky. 
 L. Rep. 68lt, 18 S. W. 15; Montana Union 
 R. Co. f. Langlois, 9 Mont. 419, 24 Pac. 
 2()s, IS Am. St. Rep. 745, 8 L. R. A. 753. 
 In Michigan it has been held that in- 
 dependently of, as well as under. How. 
 Ann. St., § 3355, providinj^ that "all 
 railroad corporations shall grant equal 
 facilities for the transportation of passen- 
 gers and freights to all persons, com- 
 panies, or corporations," a railroad com- 
 pany can not grant to a hack and bus 
 company exclusive, or even better, facili- 
 ties for delivering and receiving passen- 
 gers to and from the depot than that al- 
 lowed others in the same Inisiness. Kala- 
 mazoo Hack, etc., Co. v. Sootsma, 84 
 Mich. 194, 47 N. W. 667, 22 Am. St. Rep. 
 69:'., 10 L. R. -A. 819. 
 
 In Missouri it has been held that the 
 owner of a bus line, who has made an 
 approach to a depot platform under an 
 oral agreement with the railway com- 
 pany that he should have its exclusive 
 use, can not confine the teams of a rival 
 line to other parts of the platform, at 
 which the chance of getting passengers 
 is not so good, and to which in dry 
 weather vehicles can be driven or backed 
 up with some difficulty, while in wet 
 weather it is very hard to do so; the ex- 
 clusive privilege being against public pol- 
 icy and the spirit of Const., art. 12, § 23, 
 which prohibits •'discrimination in charges 
 or facilities in transportation * * * be- 
 tween transportation companies and in- 
 dividuals, or in favor of either." Cravens 
 7\ Rogers, 101 Mo. 247, 14 S. W. 106. 
 
 40. Constitutional provisions and stat- 
 utes not precluding grant of exclusive 
 privileges. — L'nder the Massachusetts 
 statutes. Tub. St.. c. 112, § 188, providing 
 that "every railroad corporation shall give 
 to all persons or companies reasonable 
 and equal terms, facilities, and accommo- 
 dations for the transportation of them- 
 selves, their agents and servants, and of 
 any merchandise and other property, upon 
 its railroad, and for the use of its depot 
 and other Iniildings and grounds, and, at 
 any point where its railroad connects 
 with another railroad, reasonal)le and 
 cciual terms and facilities of interchange," 
 a railroad company can give to a particu- 
 lar person the exclusive right to come on 
 its premises, and solicit patronage from 
 passengers arriving at or leaving the sta- 
 tion, and maintain trespass against the 
 owner of express teams — a common car- 
 
 rier of passengers and their baggage to 
 and from a railroad station — for using, 
 without the consent of the company, the 
 latter's grounds, buildings, and platforms 
 for the purpose of soliciting the patron- 
 age of passengers. Old Colony K. Co. 
 V. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35, 17 N. E. 89, 9 .Am. 
 St. Rep. 6(11. 
 
 The Michigan statute, Comp. Laws 
 1897, § (;2(i6, requiring all railroad com- 
 panies to grant equal facilities for the 
 transportation of freight and passengers, 
 etc., without discrimination in favor of 
 any individual, company, etc., does not 
 prevent a raiload company from making 
 an agreement with one engaged in trans- 
 ferring baggage and passengers, by which 
 he is permitted to go upon the passenger 
 trains and solicit passengers and ba.ggage 
 to the exclusion of others engaged in the 
 same Inisiness. Dintrman v. Duluth, etc., 
 R. Co.. 164 Mich. :!;.'s. i:50 N. W. 24. 
 
 The Minnesota statute, Gen. St. 1894, 
 § 380, sul)d. 1), providing that a common 
 carrier shall not make or give any unrea- 
 sonable or unequal preference to anj' par- 
 ticular person, firm, or corporation in any 
 respect, or subject the same to any preju- 
 dice, applies only to persons having con- 
 tractual relations with the carrier, and 
 does not forbid the granting of exclusive 
 privileges to a hackman to solicit patron- 
 age within the depot and on the trains 
 of a common carrier. Godbout v. St. 
 Paul Union Depot Co., 79 Minn. 188, 81 
 X. W. 835, 47 L. R. A. 532. 
 
 The constitution of Utah, art. 12. § 12. 
 declaring all railroad and other transpor- 
 tation companies common carriers and 
 su])ject to legislative control, and that 
 such companies shall receive and trans- 
 port each other's passengers and freight 
 without discrimination or unnecessary de- 
 lay, even if applying to drivers of cabs, 
 hacks, and express wagons, does not con- 
 fer on such persons the right to enter on 
 a railroad company's depot grounds to 
 solicit business, or prevent a railroad 
 company inhibiting the soliciting of busi- 
 ness on its .grounds, except by one con- 
 cern operating carriages. Oregon, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Davidson, 33 Utah 370, 94 
 Pac. 10. 
 
 Under the Virginia statute, .Acts 1891- 
 92, ]). 96."). ])rovi(ling that common car- 
 riers shall not give preferences to partic- 
 ular persons in any respect, or subject any- 
 particular person to prejudice, a baggage 
 transfer company could not restrain a 
 railway company from allowing a rival 
 Ijaggage company the exclusive privilege
 
 §§ 113-116 CARRIERS. 102 
 
 § 113. To Ships Using a Wharf or Dock Constructed by a Railroad 
 Company. — A railroad company which has built a wharf connected with its 
 tracks in navigable waters, with a view to facilitating the handling of freight 
 received from or consigned to ships using such waters, is bound to afiford the 
 owners of competing vessels equal privileges with respect to the use of the 
 wharf and its appliances/ ^ and it can not permit its use by such vessels or 
 carrying lines as it may select, and exclude others to the encouragement of a 
 monopolv and the hindrance of competition, but, where such use is permitted 
 by any, it must be open to all on equal terms.'*^ 
 
 Exclusive Right to Receive and Discharge Freight and Passengers at 
 
 Dock. — A contract by a railroad company granting to a steamboat company the 
 exclusive right to receive and discharge freight and passengers at a dock con- 
 nected with its depot grounds is an unreasonable discrimination.'* ^ 
 
 § 114. To the Use of a Switch Track, — A contract whereby a railroad 
 company undertakes to grant to a coal company the exclusive right to the use 
 of a certain switch track for hauling coal, in consideration of the coal company's 
 agreement to permit a part of the track to be constructed over its land, is void, 
 as against public policy, and furnishes no excuse for the railroad company's 
 refusal to haul coal over the track for another coal company.-* ■* 
 
 §§ 115-129. Connections with and Facilities to Other Carriers— 
 § 115. In General. — Rule at Common Law. — At common law a carrier is 
 not bound to carry except on his own line. If he contracts to go beyond, he 
 may, in the absence of statutory regulation to the contrary, determine for him- 
 self what agencies he will employ .^-^ In the absence of statute or contract, one 
 railroad company can not compel another to stop trains at a junction, or compel 
 the other to permit the use of half a mile of its track, etc., or to make rates 
 with it. and haul its cars.^*^ 
 
 § 116. Joint Running Arrangements. — Under a statute providing that 
 any railway corporation may make joint running arrangements, not in conflict 
 with law, 'with any corporation operating any connecting railway, a railway 
 may contract with connecting lines to carry beyond its line, subject only to the 
 
 of entering its grounds to solicit l)ag- nal point of track on dock to steamboat 
 
 g:-ge. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Old Do- company. — A railroad corporation, though 
 
 minion Baggage Co., 99 Va. Ill, 37 S. E. it has the right to erect and maintain 
 
 784, 50 L. R. A. 722. docks as incident to its business, and to 
 
 41. Owners of vessels must be afforded hold or dispose of them, can not, when 
 equal privileges. — Macon, etc., R. Co. v. engaged in the business of common car- 
 Graham, 117 Ga. 555, 43 S. E. 1000. rier, lease the terminal point of its rail- 
 
 42. So held in relation to a wharf built road track on its dock in a navigable 
 by a railroad company, in extension of a stieam to a steamboat company, and 
 street, out into the deep waters of a har- thereby defeat the ingress and egress to 
 bor, where ships from all ports come in and from its track on the part of com- 
 the carrying on of commerce, and where peting steamboat companies. Indian 
 they load and discharge cargoes, on which River Steamboat Co. v. East Coast 
 wharf the company has laid its tracks, Transp. Co., 28 Fla. 387, 10 So. 480, 29 
 making it a quasi terminal for the trans- Am. St. Rep. 258. 
 
 fer of goods between its own line and 44, Contract granting exclusive use of 
 
 vessels owned by other carriers. West switch track void. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 Coast Naval Stores Co. v. Louisville, etc., ^. Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co., Ill Ky. 960, 
 
 R. Co., 57 C. C. A. 671, 121 Fed. 645. o;. Ky. L. Rep. 1318, 64 S. W. 969, 55 L. 
 
 43. Contract held an unreasonable dis- r \ got, 98 Am. St. Rep. 447. 
 crimination.— Coeurd'Alene, etc., Transp. ^g j^^j^ ^^ common law.— Atchison, 
 Co. f. i'crrcll, 22 Idaho 752, 128 Pac. 56o ^ ^.^ ^. p^.^^.^r, etc., R. Co., 110 
 (holdmg that such discrimination is in ^ ^ ^.^ ^8 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 violation of the Constitution of Idaho, ' ... -r, r^ t • -i,^ ^.„ 
 ^j.^ J, § f.) 46. Shelbyville R. Co. z'. Louisville, etc., 
 
 Railroad company can not lease termi- R- Co., 82 Ky. 541, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 611.
 
 103 
 
 CONTROL AXD REGULATION'. 
 
 §§ 116-117 
 
 qualification that under such agreement arbitrary rates can not be fixed which 
 are discriminatory in their nature.^'^ 
 
 §§ 117-118. Connection between Roads or Trains — § 117. Power 
 to Require. — 'I'he slaie ma}- require a raihoad ci>mpan\- to operate iis trains 
 so as to make connection witli trains of other roads,"*^ although the perform- 
 ance of such duty involves a loss by the railroad company.*'-* Thus a carrier 
 may be required to make connection with the trains of another road even thoug'i 
 an additional train is re(|uired for this purpose,-"'" and a state may compel a rail- 
 road company to ac(|uirc the necessary land and make a track connection for the 
 purpose of atifording facilities for the interchange of business with another roaa 
 although in order to carry out the order, the company is required to exercise 
 the power of eminent domain and incur expenses. -"'i But such a requirement 
 must not violate the constitutional prohiijition against taking property without 
 due process of law.''- The places and persons interested, the volume of busi- 
 ness to be afifected, and the saving in time and expense to the shipper, as against 
 the cost and loss to the carrier, must be considered in determining the reason- 
 bleness of, and the i)ul)lic necessity for, an order of a state railroad commission 
 requiring trackage connections at certain points between comi)eting railway com- 
 panies for the interchange of business, which is attacked as taking property with- 
 out due jirocess of law.""'* v'^ome of the peculiar provisions of state statutes 
 
 47. Joint running arrangements. — Bras 
 V. McConncll, 114 Iowa 401, ST X. W. 
 290. construing Code, § 2W\i\. 
 
 48. Requiring trains to connect with 
 trains of other roads.— Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. North CaroHna Corp. Comm., 
 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 
 S. Ct. 585; Wisconsin, etc.. Railroad i'. Ja- 
 cobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. Ed. 194, 21 
 S. Ct. 115. See, also, Gladson v. Minne- 
 sota, 166 U. S. 427, 41 L. Ed. 1064, 17 S. 
 Ct. (>27. 
 
 The Corporation Commission Act of 
 North Carolina (Acts 1899, pp. 291, 304, 
 c. 164, §§ 1, 21), giving the commission 
 power to -require a railroad company to 
 make reasonable and proper connection 
 with the trains of other roads for the 
 convenience of the traveling public, is 
 within the power of the legislature. 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm. v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191, 115 
 Am. St. Rep. 636, affirmed Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co. V. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 
 206 V. S. 1, rn L. l-'.d. 933. 27 S. Ct. r,s5. 
 
 49. Connection may be required though 
 it involves loss. — Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 1, 
 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. 585; Wisconsin, 
 etc.. Railroad v. lacol)son. 179 U. S. 287, 
 45 E. Ed. 194. 21 S. Ct. 115. 
 
 The corporation commission of North 
 Carolina, under the authority given by 
 the Corporation Commission .\ct (.\cts 
 1899, pp. 291, 304, c. 164, §§ 1. 21) may 
 require a railroad company to make con- 
 nection with a train of another railroad, 
 though it costs the railroad company $15 
 a day to do this; its net earnings in the 
 state being nearly $2,000,000 per year, and 
 several thousand passengers a year being 
 thus saved several hours and the incon- 
 venience oi traveling at night. North 
 
 Carolina Corp. Comm. v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191, 115 Am. 
 St. Rep. 636, affirmed Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 
 U. S. 1. 51 L. Ed. 933. 27 S. Ct. 585. 
 
 50. Connection may be required though 
 an additional train is necessary. — Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co. V. North Carolina Corp. 
 Comm., 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. 
 Ct. 585. 
 
 The fact that the running of an extra 
 train by a railroad, in order to comply 
 with an order of a state corporation com- 
 mission requiring it to be run. in order 
 to make connection with through trains 
 of other roads, causes some pecuniary 
 loss to the company, is not sutiicient to 
 show the injustice or unreasonableness 
 of the regulation. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 V. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. 
 S. 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. .-.s.-,. 
 
 51. Acquisition of land necessary in or- 
 der to make track connection. — Wiscon- 
 sin, etc.. Railroad :\ Jacubson, 179 U. S. 
 287. 45 E. Ed. T.I4. 21 "S. Ct. 115. 
 
 52. Due process of law required. — Ore- 
 gon R., etc.. Co. :■. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 
 510, 56 E. I-.d. sc,:!, :;:.> S. Ct. :,:,:,. 
 
 53. Considerations in determining rea- 
 sonableness of and necessity for order re- 
 quiring trackage connections. — ( >regon 
 R.. etc., Co. V. Fairchild. 224 U. S. 510, 
 56 L. Ed. 863, 32 S. Ct. 535. 
 
 No public necessity is shown which will 
 justify, under the due process of law- 
 clause of the federal constitution, an or- 
 der of a state railroad commission re- 
 quiring trackage connections at certain 
 points between competing railwaj- com- 
 panies for the interchange of business, 
 where the commission acted without any 
 evidence of inadequate service, with no 
 proof of public complaint or o\ a public
 
 §§ 11"-118 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 1(H 
 
 conferring upon the railroad or corporation commission of the state power to 
 rec^uire railroad companies to make connections when the i)ublic convenience 
 requires it. or to make regulations in relation to such connections, have been 
 interpreted by the courts.^^ 
 
 § 118. Character of Requirements. — Some of the peculiar provisions of 
 statutes rj([uiring railroad companies to make connections, or to furnish facil- 
 ities for such connections, have been construed by the courts to determine the 
 character of connections or facilities required.""'' 
 
 demand, with no testimony that anj- 
 freight had been offered in the past for 
 shipment between those points, or that 
 an}- such freight would be offered in the 
 future, and with no proof as to the vol- 
 ume of business at any of these points, 
 nor the amount of freight that would be 
 routed over the track connections if they 
 were constructed, and with no testimony 
 as to the probable revenue that would be 
 derived from the use of the track con- 
 nections, or if the saving in freight or 
 otherwise that would result to the ship- 
 pers. Oregon R.. etc.. Co. r. Fairchild, 
 224 U. S. 510, 56 L. Kd. hC,?., 32 S. Ct. 513.5. 
 
 54. Statutes conferring authority on 
 commissions construed. — In Florida the 
 special and general authority given the 
 railroad commissioners to make reason- 
 able regulations requiring carriers to 
 provide necessary facilities and proper 
 schedules to serve the uses and conveni- 
 ence of the public includes authority to 
 make reasonable regulations requiring 
 facilities for making connections between 
 different roads. Railroad Comm'rs v. 
 Florida; etc., R. Co., 58 Fla. 524, 50 So. 
 425. 
 
 The powers given the railroad commis- 
 sioners are ample to authorize them to 
 make just and reasonable regulations of 
 the schedules of railroads with reference 
 to connections, so as to afford reasonable 
 convenience and comfort to the public 
 affected by the service. Railroad 
 Comm'rs v. Florida, etc., R. Co., 57 Fla. 
 522, 49 So. 4.3. 
 
 The North Carolina statute, Code 1883, 
 § 1957 (9), giving railroad companies the 
 right to regulate the time and manner 
 in which passengers and property shall 
 be transported, is modified by the Rail- 
 road Commission Act (Acts 1891, p. 275, 
 c. 320), making the right of the railroad 
 companies to fix the time of running their 
 trains subject to the power of the com- 
 mission to require connections to be 
 made when public convenience requires 
 it and it is reasonable and just, which 
 provision is reenacted in the Corporation 
 Commission Act (Acts 1899, p. 291, c. 
 164). North Carolina Corp. Comm. v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. 
 E. a91, 115 Am. St. Rep. 636, affirmed 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. North Carolina 
 Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 
 27 S. Ct. 585. 
 
 Under the corporation commission act 
 
 (Acts 1899, p. 291, c. 164, § 1), providing 
 that the corporation commission shall 
 have such general control and supervi- 
 sion of railroad companies as is neces- 
 sary to carry into effect the provisions 
 of the the act, and § 21, providing that 
 all common carriers shall afford all rea- 
 sonable, proper, and equal facilities for 
 the interchange of traffic and forwarding 
 freight and passengers, and shall make 
 as close connections as practicable for 
 the convenience of the traveling public, 
 the commission has power to require a 
 railroad company to have a train arrive 
 at a certain station on its road at a per- 
 tain time, so as to connect with a train 
 of another company. North Carolina 
 Corp. Comm. v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 137 
 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191, 115 Am. St. Rep. 
 636, affirmed Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm., 200 U. S. 1, 
 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. 585. 
 
 In Virginia, the state corporation com- 
 mission may, under the powers conferred 
 by § 1294d, subsection 37, of the Code of 
 1904, establish as many connections be- 
 tween two railroads as may be reasonably 
 necessary for the convenient interchange 
 of traffic between such roads, and for the 
 accommodation of said roads and the 
 public. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Inter- 
 state R. Co., 107 Va. 225, 57 S. E. 654. 
 
 55. Connection of trains required. — 
 The North Carolina Corporation Com- 
 mission Act (Acts 1899, p. 304, c. 164, 
 § 21), requiring connecting lines of com- 
 mon carriers to make as close connec- 
 tions as practicable for the convenience 
 of the traveling public, does not mean 
 a simple physical connection of tracks, 
 but a connection of trains. North Caro- 
 lina Corp. Comm. z'. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 
 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191, 115 Am. St. Rep. 
 636, affirmed Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 North Carolina Corp. Comm., 206 U. S. 
 1, 51 L. Ed. 933, 27 S. Ct. 585. 
 
 Statute violated by changing time card 
 so as to discontinue connection. — The 
 Virginia statute. Act March 3, 1«92, § 4, 
 requires common carriers to afford all 
 reasonal)le, proper, and equal facilities 
 for traffic between their respective lines, 
 and for receiving, forwarding, and deliv- 
 ering passengers and property to and 
 from their several lines and connecting 
 lines. Held, that a railroad so changing 
 its time card by which a connection with 
 a connecting road, which is of general
 
 105 
 
 cdXTRftL AND KKGULATION, 
 
 §§ ll'>121 
 
 § 119. Use of Terminals. — In some states there are statutes re(iuiring. or 
 authorizing tlie railroad commission of the state to require, railroad or terminal 
 companies to permit other railroad companies to use their terminals. The 
 charges for such use are generally fixed or regulated by the statute or by an 
 order of the commission. The peculiar i)rovisions of some of these statutes have 
 received judicial inter] )rctati()n."''' 
 
 §§ 120-123. Reception, Transportation and Delivery of Cars, Pas- 
 sengers and Freight— § 12 0, Rule at Common Law. — Tlie common-law 
 ohligaticjns of a raih'oad CMinpany to a cfjnncciiiig line as to reception, transpor- 
 tation, and delivery of freight are the same as those e.xisting between such com- 
 pany and an individual shi])per.''' A railroad company is not a common carrier 
 of the sleeping cars of another, and may impose terms on which it will haul 
 such cars.-""^ 
 
 § 121. Power to Require. — It is competent for the legislature of a state 
 to prescribe that loaded cars shall be transferred from one line to another with- 
 out breaking Indk. unless at the expense of the company unloading them."'-' A 
 provision in the constitution of a state that a carrier must deliver its cars to con- 
 
 convenicncc, is discontinued, in order to 
 furnish better facilities to several towns, 
 was in violation of the statute. South- 
 ern Ry. Co. V. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 
 758, 37 S. E. 294. 
 
 56. To what companies statutes apply. 
 — The power conferred du tlic railroad 
 commissioners by the Florida statute 
 Laws IS!)'.), c. 4700, § 6, with reference 
 to requirint^ the admission into passen- 
 ger terminals of railroad companies de- 
 siring or required by the commissioners 
 to enter, and to fixing reasonable rates 
 of compensation for the uses of such 
 terminals, has no reference to a terminal 
 station owned and used exclusively for 
 its own traffic l)y any common carrier or 
 railroad company, but applies to those 
 passenger terminals owned or operated 
 by a terminal company or individual, or 
 by a railroad company in connection with 
 its main line, when such terminal com- 
 pany, individual, or railroad company 
 undertakes the public business of furnish- 
 ing terminal facilities to railroad common 
 carriers. State v. Jackonsville Terminal 
 Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 So. 22.5. 
 
 The Peoria & Pekin Union Railroad 
 Company is not a union depot company, 
 and' is not bound by the Illinois statutes 
 regulating the charges of union depot 
 companies, or l)ound to let other rail- 
 roads use its tracks and depots on any 
 terms. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Pe- 
 oria, etc., R. Co., 81 111. App. 435, affirmed 
 in 182 111. 501. 55 X. E. :577. 
 
 Railroads owning joint depot not 
 compelled to permit its use by another 
 railroad, — The X'irginia statute. Code 
 l'.i()4, § 7294c (4), provides that trans- 
 portation companies shall afford reason- 
 able facilities for the interchange of 
 traffic lietwcen their respective lines, and 
 for the forwarding and delivery of pas- 
 sengers and property to and from their 
 several lines without discrimination, but 
 
 that the section shall not require any 
 such company to give the use of its track 
 or terminal facilities to another company 
 engaged in the like business. Section 
 1313a (16) provides that the corporation 
 commission shall have authority to re- 
 quire all corporations doing business 
 within the state to discharge any pulilic 
 duty imposed on such corporations by 
 the constitution or by law. Held, that 
 § 1313a (16) did not define or create any 
 public duty to be performed by trans- 
 portation companies, and did not, there- 
 fore, modify or restrict the operation of 
 § 1294c (4), under which the corporation 
 commission had no authority to compel 
 railroads owning and operating a joint 
 depot in a town to permit the use of 
 such depot and its terminal tracks by 
 another railroad company. Norton 
 Board v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co.. ill Va. 
 59, 68 S. E. 351. 
 
 Power of commissioners in relation to 
 fixing rates. — Under the Florida statute, 
 Laws IS'.)'.), c. 4700. {;§ 8. 10, 17. is, 21, 
 ample provision is made to enable the 
 railroad commissioners to ascertain the 
 facts necessary to be known in order to 
 arrive at and fix just and reasonable rates 
 for the uses of passenger terminals and 
 the privileges thereof, which they are by 
 § 6 empowered to prescribe and enforce. 
 State V. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 
 Fla. 377. 27 So. 225. 
 
 57. Common-law obligations same as 
 to an individual shipper. — Shell)yville R. 
 Co. :•. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 82 Ky. 541, 
 )") Ky. L. Rep. tm. 
 
 58. Railroad company not a common 
 carrier of sleeping cars. — Denver, etc.. R. 
 Co. :■. Wlian (Colo.). S'.) Pac. 39. 
 
 59. Transfer of loaded cars without 
 breaking bulk. — Burlin,ij;ton. etc.. R. Co. 
 :. Dev. s2 Iowa 312. 4S X. W. 98, 31 Am. 
 St. Rep. 477, 12 L. R. .\. 436.
 
 §§ 121-122 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 106 
 
 necting carriers without providing adequate protection for their return, or com- 
 pensation for their use, amounts to a taking of property without due process of 
 law within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitu- 
 tion.*^^* And the property of a railway company is taken without due process 
 of law where such company is compelled, upon payment simply for the service 
 of carriage, to accept cars offered to it at an arhitrary connecting point near its 
 terminus, by a competing road, for the purpose of reaching and using the form- 
 er's terminal facilities."'^ 
 
 § 122. Construction of Requirements. — Many of the peculiar provisions 
 of constitutional enactments and statutes relating to the reception, transporta- 
 tion, or delivery of cars, passengers, or freight have been interpreted by the 
 courts. Among the provisions that have received judicial interpretation are 
 enactments requiring every railway corporation to draw over its road the cars 
 of connecting railways :''-' enactments requiring that where railroads cross or 
 connect they shall furnish each other with accommodations in the transportation 
 of passengers and goods ; '^^ enactments requiring railroad companies whose lines 
 connect to receive and transfer each other's passengers, freight, and loaded or 
 empty cars without delay or discrimination ; ^^ enactments requiring all railroad 
 comp'anies to grant equal facilities for the transportation of passengers and 
 freight to all persons, companies, or corporations;*""^ enactments requiring rail- 
 
 60. Requirements constituting taking 
 of property without due process of law. 
 
 — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Central Stock 
 Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 53 L. Ed. 441, 
 29 S. Ct. 246, reversing 30 Ky. L. Rep. 
 18, 97 S. W. 778. (Section 213 of the 
 Constitution of Kentucky held violative 
 of Federal Constitution.) 
 
 61. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Central 
 Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 53 L. Ed. 
 441, 29 S. Ct. 246, reversing 30 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 18, 97 S. W. 778. (Section 213 of 
 the constitution of Kentucky held viola- 
 tive of Federal constitution.) 
 
 62. Construction of enactments relating 
 to reception, transportation, or delivery 
 of cars, passengers, or freight. — Plaintiff 
 shipped lunil;cr to Des Moines over a 
 certain railroad. The cars were delivered 
 to a terminal company, engaged in 
 switching cars, and tendered to defend- 
 ant company to be hauled to points on de- 
 fendant's line. Defendant refused to re- 
 ceive the cars, but offered to take the 
 lumber on its own cars, stating that the 
 first carrier had forlndden it to use its 
 cars. Plaintiff, in a talk with the original 
 carrier's agent after the original contract 
 of shipment was made, obtained from 
 him permission for the use of the first 
 carrier's cars by defendant in the ship- 
 ment of plaintiff's lumber. Held, that 
 an order directing defendant to receive 
 the cars, and the lumber loaded thereon 
 tendered by plaintiff, and transfer it over 
 defendant's railway to the stations set 
 forth in the application, and to receive 
 and transport "all such other and further 
 cars, and lumber loaded thereon, as may 
 be loaded with lumber of plaintiff, and 
 under its direction and control, that plain- 
 tiff may hereafter tender for shipment 
 over defendant's line," was not justified 
 
 by the Iowa statute. Code, § 1292, pro- 
 viding that every railway corporation 
 shall draw over its road the cars of con- 
 necting railways. Green Bay Lumber 
 Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Iowa 292, 
 71 N. W. 406. 
 
 63. Where a company was incorporated 
 to construct and operate a street rail- 
 road for the transportation of persons 
 and property, and with right to occupy 
 so much of the streets and highways on 
 its route as necessary, and power to ac- 
 quire such real estate and rights of way 
 as were necessary to its business, and to 
 exercise the right of eminent domain, and 
 its tracks approach the terminal of an- 
 other road, it is subject to V. S. c. 169, 
 § 3860 et seq., providing that, where rail- 
 roads cross or connect, they shall furnish 
 each other with accommodations in the 
 transportation of passengers and goods, 
 and it is not essential that such road al- 
 ready own any property connecting with 
 the property of the other road. Rutland 
 R. Co. V. Bellows Falls, etc., St. R. Co., 
 73 Vt. 20, 50 Atl. 636. 
 
 64. The Virginia statute so providing 
 Const. § 166 (Code 1904, p. cclxi) does 
 not require railroads maintaining and 
 using a union depot to permit its use by 
 another railroad. Norton Board v. Nor- 
 folk, etc., R. Co., Ill Va. 59, 68 S. E. 351. 
 
 65. The Michigan statute so requiring. 
 How. Ann. St., § 3355, does not relate 
 entirely to the mere carriage in the cars 
 of the road, but includes the receiving 
 of such passengers and freight at its de- 
 pots, and by other "persons, companies, 
 or corporations" at the point upon its 
 road where the carriage ends. Kalamazoo 
 Hack, etc., Co. 7'. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 194, 
 47 N. W. 667, 10 L. R. A. 819, 22 Am. 
 St. Rep. 693.
 
 107 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION, 
 
 §§ 122-123 
 
 road companies to deliver and switch empty or loaded cars coming to or going 
 fiom any other railroad with equal i)romptness and dispatch, and without dis- 
 crimination, and to receive, deliver, and transport all freight from and to any 
 point where there is a physical connection between the tracks of such compa- 
 nies ; ''*' and enactments recjuiring railroad companies to receive all freight and 
 passengers coming to it from a connecting line, and going to points on its line 
 or beyond, and to transport the same to destination or the next connecting lines, 
 and defining connecting railroads as railroads which connect by crossing each 
 other's tracks or otherwise, so as to form a continuous or connecting line from 
 one point in the state to another point in the state. '■' 
 
 § 123. Excuses for Refusal or Neglect to Perform Duty.— The refusal 
 of a common carrier to obey the mandatory ])rovisions of a constitutional en- 
 actment requiring delivery and transfer of freight from and to any point where 
 there is a physical connection between the tracks of such carrier and another 
 road, without discrimination, can not be excused on the ground that to observe 
 such provisions would subject the carrier to inconvenience or increased ex- 
 pense.*^'^ Where a carrier had agreed to perform switching duties imposed by a 
 constitutional requirement and was willing yet to perform such duties for all 
 other railroads, except with reference to live stock consigned to complainant's 
 stockvards. it could not claim to l)e relieved from the duty of switching the stock 
 
 66. The constitution of Kentucky whicli 
 so provided Const.. § 213, made it com- 
 pulsory on every common carrier to use 
 its terminal facilities in receiving, deliv- 
 ering, interchanging, transferring, and 
 transporting freiglit in car loads or less 
 quantities at points of physical connec- 
 tion with other roads, for all alike, when 
 so requested. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. t'. 
 Central Stock Yards Co., 30 Ky. L. Rep. 
 18, 97 S. W. 778. 
 
 Such constitutional provision should 
 not be construed as only requiring the 
 carrier to transfer and deliver to other 
 carriers such cars as it might receive 
 from other carriers, but requires such de- 
 livery of its own cars as well. Louisville, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Central Stock Yards Co., 
 30 Ky. L. Rep. IS. 97 S. \y. 778. 
 
 1 he duty imposed on railway compan- 
 ies b-" such constitutional enactment does 
 not require a railway company maintain- 
 ing a live stock depot as a point of de- 
 livery for cattle having a municipality as 
 their general destination to receive live 
 stock billed to a similar depot at sub- 
 stantially the same point on another rail- 
 way, and to deliver the same to that rail- 
 way at a point of phvsical coMnectmn 
 between the two roads for ultimate deliv- 
 ery there. Decree o.i C. C. A. 63, 118 
 Fed. 113, affirmed. Central Stock Yards 
 Co. V. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. 192 U. S. 
 ,500, 48 L. Kd. 565. 24 S. Ct. 339. 
 
 67. Under the Texas statute so provid- 
 ing Rev. St. art. 4535. 4536, a railroad com- 
 pany is not compelled to switch freight 
 which was not consigned over its lines 
 from the lino of one railroad to that of 
 another in the same city, and is not re- 
 quired to respond in damages for a fail- 
 ure so to do. Tudgment. Te.xas. etc.. R. 
 Co. r. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 App.), 54 S. W. 1031, affirmed. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 93 Tex. 482, 
 56 S. W. 328. 
 
 Railroads which intersect or cross each 
 other either at grade or by an overhead 
 and grade crossing are connecting lines 
 of railroad, within the meaning of the 
 Texas statute. International, etc.. R. Co. 
 r. Railroad Comm. (Tex. Civ. App.). 86 
 S. W. If), judgment affirmed in 89 S. \V. 
 
 A series of railway switches belong- 
 ing jointly to several railroads, and on 
 which it is possible to run cars from the 
 tracks of one road having no interest 
 tlierein to those of another road al)Out 
 iliree-quarters of a mile away, in the same 
 city, is not a connecting line between 
 the two roads under the 1 exas statute. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 54 S. \V. 1031. judg- 
 ment affirmed Gulf, etc;. R. Co. f. Texas. 
 etc.. R. Co., 93 Tex. 482, 56 S. W. 328. 
 
 Since mere switch connections between 
 several railroads in the same city are 
 not connecting lines under the statute, 
 the owners of such switch connections 
 were not obliged to make transfers there- 
 on to and from roads not their own. and 
 by performing such service for some 
 roads did nt)t subject themselves to the 
 performance of a like service for all 
 roads tendering similar business and of- 
 fering like compensation. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 .App.). 54 S. W. 1031. judgment affirmed 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. T'. Texas, etc.. R. Co.. 93 
 Tex. 4s:2. .-f. S. W. 32S. 
 
 68. Inconvenience or increased expense 
 no excuse. — Louisville, etc.. R. Co. t. 
 Central Stock Yards Co.. 30 Ky. L. Rep. 
 IS, 97 S. \V. 778, construing Const., § 
 213.
 
 §§ 1-^3-125 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 108 
 
 on the theory that such switching was an unreasonahle use of its cars/''* A 
 constitutional provision compelHng one railroad company to receive and trans- 
 fer over its line cars of ajiother company is not intended to compel a road to 
 receive cars in a defective or unsafe condition.'" 
 
 § 12 4. Moving or Switching Cars from a Connecting Line. — There are 
 in some states statutes which require carriers to move or switch the cars of a 
 connecting carrier from the tracks of such carrier on to its own tracks," ^ or 
 which authorize the railroad commission to require the i)erformance of such 
 service hy a carrier.' - 
 
 § 12 5. Facilities and Accommodations to Be Furnished by Railroad 
 Companies to Express Companies. — ^The obligations of a railroad company 
 to the public as a common carrier do not require it to furnish express facilities. 
 to all alike who demand them,'-' or to furnish an express company facilities for 
 doing an express business upon its road, the same in all respects as it provides 
 for itself or attords to any other express company.''* A railroad corporation 
 is not bound to furnish an expressman, who seeks to carry on his business over 
 its road, with facilities and accommodations ditiferent in kind from those fur- 
 nished to the general public ; and the fact that it has furnished him with facil- 
 ities for many years, and that he has therel)y ac(|uired a valuable business, is 
 
 69. Switching live stock not an unrea- 
 sonable use of cars. — Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. z'. Central Stock Yards Co., 30 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 18, 97 S. W. 778, construing 
 Const.. § 213. 
 
 70. Carrier not compelled to receive 
 cars in a defective or unsafe condition. 
 — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 95 
 Ky. 199, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 548, 24 S. W. 1, 
 44 Am. St. Rep. 214, construing Const., § 
 213. 
 
 71. Switching charges. — The Ohio stat- 
 ute. Rev. St. I'.tOS, S§ -'''340, 3341, which 
 provide that when the tracks of two rail- 
 way companies connect, and the tracks 
 of one lie contiguous to coal mines, man- 
 ufacturing establishments, etc., it shall be 
 the duty of such company on request to 
 switch the cars of other companies on to 
 such tracks and move the same to such 
 coal mines, etc., to be loaded or unloaded, 
 and fixing maximum rates per car which 
 may be charged to the companies from 
 whom the cars are received for such 
 service within the terminal limits of 
 cities and towns, provided that nothing 
 therein shall require any company to 
 furnish its terminals and facilities at 
 such rates to any other company which 
 shall not afford similar terminals and 
 reciprocal facilities, relate only to the 
 charge which such railway companies 
 may make each other for switching serv- 
 ices in the delivery of incoming freight 
 which one receives from the other, and 
 create no right of action against either 
 of the companies in favor of individual 
 shippers, if the switching charge is in ex- 
 cess of that provided. Townsend Brick, 
 etc., Co. V. Central 1 rust Co., 109 C. C. 
 A. 381. 1^7 Fed. 03. 
 
 72. Authority of railroad commission. 
 — The Indiana statute, Burns' Ann. St. 
 1908, §§ 5206, 5533, 5540, impliedly au- 
 
 thorize the railroad commission to re- 
 quire a carrier to move a car from a con- 
 necting line to its public tracks. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 175 Ind. 
 r)30, 95 N. E. 364. 
 
 73. Railroad companies not required to 
 furnish express facilities to all alike. — 
 
 Ptister V. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 
 11 Pac. 686, 59 Am. Rep. 404. 
 
 74. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Southern 
 Exp. Co., 117 U. S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 791, 6 
 S. Ct. 542, 628, 1190, reversing 10 Fed. 
 210, 869; overruling Dinsmore v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 2 Fed. 465; 2 Flip. 672, 
 1 Ky. L. Rep. 42; Wells, etc., Co. v. Ore- 
 gon R., etc., Co., 18 Fed. 517, 9 Sawy. 
 370; Wells v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. 
 667. 
 
 The North Carolina statute, Acts 1891, 
 c. 320, § 4, provides that it shall be un- 
 lawful for any common carrier to give 
 any unreasonable preference to any par- 
 ticular person, company, or locality, or 
 any particular description of traffic, or to 
 suljject any person, company, or locality, 
 or any particular description of traffic, to 
 any undue disadvantage. Held, that 
 tliis section does not change or enlarge 
 the duty imposed on railroad companies 
 by the common law, under which they 
 are not obliged, because they furnish fa- 
 cilities to one express company, to fur- 
 nish other express companies with fa- 
 cilities for doing an express business on 
 their roads, the same in all respects as 
 they provide for themselves or afford to 
 any particular express company, where 
 such railroad companies have never held 
 themselves out as common carriers of 
 express companies. Atlantic Exp. Co. v. 
 Wilmington, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 463, 
 16 S. E. 393, 18 L. R. A. 393, 32 Am. St. 
 Rep. 805.
 
 lO'J 
 
 CONTROL AND KKdULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 125-126 
 
 immaterial."^ A statute requiring each railroad to give all persons or compa- 
 nies reasonable and equal terms and facilities for transjjortation, does not pre- 
 clude a railroad company from carrying on the exjjress business itself, to the 
 exclusion of all other parties.'" Some of the peculiar provisions ot statutes 
 relating to the facilities and accommodations retjuired to be furnished by rail- 
 road companies to express coiui)anies have been inter])rcted by the courts."" 
 
 §§ 126-128. Discrimination in Favor of One of Several Connecting 
 Carriers— § 12 6. Duty to Give Like Through Rates to All Connecting Car- 
 riers. — 'l"he [provision of a slate constiluliun prohibiling undue or uiirca^onable 
 discrimination in charges or facilities for transportation of freight or passengers 
 within the state, does not require a railroad comi)any to give to one connecting 
 carrier the same through rates that it does to another, unless it is shown that 
 the relative situation of ilic two com])anies, both as to the kind of service and 
 as to the conditions under which it is to be performed, are substantially the 
 same, so that what is reasonable for one must necessarily be reasonable for 
 the other.''* 
 
 75. Railroad company not bound to 
 furnish expressman facilities and accom- 
 modations different from those furnished 
 general public. — Sari^ciU f. Bostdii. etc., 
 R. Corp.. 1 1") Mass. 41Ci. 
 
 76. Railroad company not precluded 
 from carrying on express business to ex- 
 clusion of others. — Sargent v. Boston, 
 Ltc, R. Corp.. 11.") Mass. 4ir), construing 
 St. lS(i7, c. .'.iiii. 
 
 77. Peculiar provisions of statutes con- 
 strued. — The Maine statute, Pub. Laws 
 \'\-]). 2\), 18GS. c. 1 '.»:;, § 1, provides that 
 "all expressmen * * * shall have rea- 
 sonable and equal terms for the trans- 
 portation of themselves," etc., "upon any 
 railroad," etc. Held, that a railroad 
 company which let to a certain express 
 company the exclusive use of a separate 
 apartment in each car of its trains, and 
 a.iATced tliat it would not, during the con- 
 tinuance of the contract, let any space 
 in any of its passenger trains to any 
 other express company, was liable in 
 damages, under such statute, for refus- 
 ing to transport the goods of another ex- 
 press company, where the demand to do 
 so was made l:)efore the expiration of 
 the contract. New England Exp. Co. f. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 188, 2 .\ni. 
 Rep. 31. 
 
 Rev. St., c. 51. § i:U, requiring railroads 
 to extend equal facilities and accommo- 
 dations to all express companies engaged 
 in business within the state, protects 
 foreign express companies as well as do- 
 mestic. International Exp. Co. v. Grand 
 Trunk Railway, 81 Me. 92, 10 Atl. 370. 
 
 To a l)ill in equity to enforce compli- 
 ance with the statute, defendant an- 
 swered that it was doing its own express 
 business. It appeared that when com- 
 plainant demanded accommodations an 
 express company was operating over the 
 road, and defendant refused to permit 
 complainant to do so, alleging that it 
 was inconvenient to accommodate two 
 companies. On the trial defendant pre- 
 
 tended that the express company was 
 then operating over the road as its agent 
 until its facilities could be perfected, but 
 no contract was shown, and the business 
 appeared to be conducted as liefore. 
 Held, that it was but an attempt to evade 
 the statute, and an injunction would be 
 granted. International Exp. Co. v. Grand 
 Trunk Railway, 81 Me. 92, 16 Atl. 370. 
 
 The Massachusetts statute, 1894, c. 
 4()U, § 1, requiring a railroad company to 
 give to "all persons and companies now 
 engaged in only a local express liusiness" 
 terms, facilities, and accommodations for 
 transportation of merchandise reasonable 
 and equal to those furnished other com- 
 l)anies doing business over the railroad, 
 having regard to the amount and char- 
 acter of the service, inures to the benefit 
 of one engaged in the local express busi- 
 ness, who, at the time the act was passed, 
 was having his packages carried on the 
 freight trains of a railroad, as well as to 
 one who was using the passenger trains 
 of the railroad for such purpose. Kidder 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co.. 165 Mass. 398, 43 
 X. E. n.-.. 
 
 78. Duty to give like through rates to 
 all connecting carriers. — Atchison, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 
 067, 681, 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 
 "At common law, a carrier is not bound 
 to carry except on his own line, and we 
 think it quite clear that if he contracts 
 to go beyond he may, in the absence of 
 statutory regulations to the contrary, de- 
 termine for himself what agencies he will 
 employ. His contract is equivalent to an 
 extension of his line for the purposes of 
 the contract, and if he holds himself out 
 as a carrier beyond the line, so that he 
 may be required to carry in that way for 
 all alike, he may nevertheless confine him- 
 self in carrying to the particular route he 
 chooses to use. He puts himself in no 
 worse position, by extending his route 
 with the help of others, than he would 
 occupy if the means of transportation em-
 
 §§ l-'"-130 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 110 
 
 § 127. Discrimination as to Interchange of Business.— A railroad com- 
 pany need not slop at the junction of one railroad and interchange business 
 there, because it has established joint depot accommodations and provided fa- 
 cilities for doing a connecting business with another company at another place, 
 and this is true under a state constitution prohibiting unreasonable discrimina- 
 tion in favor of one against another company seeking to do business on its 
 road."^ 
 
 § 128. Discrimination as to Prepayment of Freight Charges.— By 
 statute in some states railroad companies are precluded from discriminating be- 
 tween connecting carriers as to the prepayment of freight charges.^" 
 
 § 129. Transfers between Street Railroad Companies.— Some of the 
 
 peculiar provisions of statutes and franchises requiring street railroad compa- 
 nies to give transfers to other lines have received judicial interpretation.si 
 Where a traction company contracts with a city by acceptance of an ordinance 
 granting permission to maintain its railroad, conditioned that specified rates 
 of fare^shall be charged, and no words are used indicating that the parties are 
 contracting for any other corporation, its obligation is to carry passengers for 
 the stipulated fares only over its own lines.^- 
 
 §§ 130-132. Use of Carrier's Premises and of Street or Premises 
 Adjacent Thereto— § 130. Exclusion of Persons in General.— A railway 
 company has the right to exclude from its depots and warerooms persons who 
 
 ployed were all his own. He certainly 
 may select his own agencies and his own 
 associates for doing his own work." 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Denver, etc., R. 
 Co., 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 
 18.5. 
 
 79. Discrimination as to interchange of 
 business. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Den- 
 ver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. Ed. 
 291, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 
 The provision of the constitution of 
 Colorado, § 6, prohilMting undue or un- 
 reasonable discrimination to be made 
 in charges or facilities for transportation 
 of freight or passengers within the state, 
 and of § 4 giving every railroad com- 
 pany the right to connect with any other 
 railroad, does not require the railroad 
 company to construct a station or make 
 a regular stopping place at any point at 
 which the other carrier may make a me- 
 chanical union with its tracks. Atchison, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Denver, etc.. R. Co., 110 
 L'. S. 067, 28 L. Ed. 201, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 
 80. Discrimination as to prepayment of 
 freight charges. — Wadley, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State. 1:57 Ga. 497, 73 S. E. 741, constru- 
 ing Railroad Commission Act. 
 
 The charter of the Northern Pacific 
 Railroad Company, Act July 2, 1864, § 5, 
 requiring the company to permit other 
 companies to form running connections 
 with it on fair and equitable terms, in- 
 cludes only arrangements as to the time 
 of arrival and departure of trains and as 
 to stations, platforms, etc., and does not 
 apply to discrimination in the prepayment 
 of freight. Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co., 9 C. C. A. 409, 61 Fed. 
 158, affirming 51 Fed. 465. 
 
 81. Construction of provisions requir- 
 
 ing transfers. — Under the New York stat- 
 ute. Laws 1885, p. 525, c. 305, making it 
 lawful for any street surface railway com- 
 pany to contract with another such com- 
 pany for the use of their respective roads, 
 and Laws 1890, p. 1082, c. 565, and Laws 
 1892, p. 1382, c. 676, continuing the privi- 
 leges of contracting and the obligations 
 incurred thereby, and providing that 
 street railroads entering into such con- 
 tracts shall carry or permit any other 
 party to such contract to carry between 
 any two points on the roads, or portions 
 thereof, embraced in the contract, any 
 passenger desiring to make a continuous 
 trip between such points for one single 
 fare, not higher than the fare lawfully 
 chargeable by either of the parties for 
 an adult passenger, the legislature in- 
 tended, in consideration of the privilege 
 of contracting, to require that the lines so 
 brought together under the contracts 
 should carry passengers for one single 
 fare between any two-points on the lines, 
 to the end that the public convenience 
 may be promoted, as expressed therein. 
 O'Reilly v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 95 
 App. Div. 253, 89 N. Y. S. 41, judgment 
 affirmed in 179 N. Y. 450, 72 N. E_. 517. 
 
 For the cohstruction of the franchise of 
 a street railway company providing for 
 the exchange of transfers with any other 
 company operating street railways which 
 shall give and receive transfers to and 
 from the lines of the company, and stipu- 
 lating for a basis of settlement. See Lin- 
 hoff V. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 62 Wash. 
 544, 114 Pac. 431. 
 
 82. Contract with city not requiring the 
 giving of transfers. — Reed v. Trenton, 80 
 x\. J. luj. 503, 85 Atl. 270.
 
 Ill CONTROL AND REGULATION. ' §§ 130-132 
 
 come there in an intoxicated condition, and who are turbulent and troublesome 
 and disturb and interfere with the agents and employees of the company in the 
 discharge of their work, and may also exclude therefrom those who are reported 
 to be dishonest, and on account of whose past presence in and about its depots 
 and warerooms freight had been removed without the company's consent, and for 
 which it was compelled to pay the consignee the value thereof. ^^ A regulation 
 by a railway company forbidding peddlers and loafers from entering a passen- 
 ger room at a station is valid. '■^' 
 
 § 131. Regulations for Conduct of Persons. — A railroad corporation has 
 authority to make and carry into execution reasonable regulations for the con- 
 duct of all persons using the railroad or resorting to its depots, without pre- 
 scribing such regulations by by-laws ; and the superintendent of a railroad de- 
 pot, appointed by the cori)oration, has the same authority by delegation. ^^ But 
 the superintendent of a railroad depot has not a right to order a person to leave 
 the depot, and not come there any more, and to remove him therefrom by force, 
 if he does come, merely because such person, in the judgment of the superin- 
 tendent, and without proof of the fact, had violated the regulations established 
 by the railroad corporation, or had conducted himself offensively towards the 
 superintendent.*^*' 
 
 § 132. Rights of and Restrictions upon Individuals or Corporations 
 Engaged in Transporting Passengers or Baggage. ''" — A common carrier of 
 passengers and their l)aggage U> and from railroad stations, in the business of 
 soliciting the patronage of passengers at a railroad station, holds no relation 
 with the railroad company as a common carrier, and has no right, without its 
 consent, to use its station grounds and buildings. ^^ But licensed hackmen or 
 cabmen, when not forbidden by valid municipal regulations,^^ may, within rea- 
 sonable limits, use the public sidewalk in front of. adjacent to, or about the main 
 entrance to a railway passenger station- in prosecuting their calling, but are not 
 entitled to congregate upon such sidewalk so as to interfere with the ingress and 
 egress of passengers and employees.'^*' A railroad company has the right to des- 
 ignate the places abutting on the station ])latform where competing hackmen. '^i 
 
 83. Persons carrier may exclude from its entering a passenger room at a station, is 
 depots and warerooms. — Chicago, etc., R. valid; but a hackman with a check for 
 Co. z\ Armstrong, 30 Okla. 134, 120 Pac. baggage may enter the baggage room 
 952. therefor. vSummitt v. State, 76 Tenn. (S 
 
 84. Sunimitt v. State, 76 Tenn. (S Lea) Lea) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637. 
 
 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637. 89. Municipal regulations as to places 
 
 85. Authority to make regulations for at which hackmen may siand.— A citv 
 conduct of persons.— Commonwealth v. regulation, requiring hackmen to occupy 
 Rower, 48 Mass. (7 Mete.) .596, 41 Am. certain designated places at railway de- 
 Dec. 465; Hall v. Power (Mass.), 12 pots, is not invalid. Ottawa v. Bodlev, 
 Mete. 482. 46 Am. Dec. 698. G7 Kan. 178, 72 Pac. 545. 
 
 86. Authority of superintendent of de- ^,^^ ^^^.^^ ^ ^ municipality to regulate 
 ??w. A ''u n' (Mass.). 12 Mete. ^,^^, ^^^^^^ ^^ ^j^j^,^ hackmen may stand 
 
 o'r, A ?^" .V*''^" ' . f 1 • ■ • at a city depot is not afifected bv any con- 
 
 87. As to the grant of exclusue pnvi- ^^^^^ ^ hackman mav make w'ith a pas- 
 leges to corporations or individuals en- ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ,^j,^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^ ^^j^^^ ^^^^^^ 
 gaged in transpor ing passengers or ^,^^- ^^^,■,„,,^^^^ ^,. ^^.^ ^■,1',. ,„arshal. Ot- 
 baggage, see ante. To Corporations or ^^^^..^ ,, g^^„^ g, ^^^^ j-., ., p^^ ^^. 
 Individuals Engaged in transporting -' . 
 
 Passengers and Baggage to and from 90- ^'S}\^ ^° "^e sidewalk adjacent to 
 
 Railroad Depots." § 112. station.— Decree. Donnovan f. Pennsyl- 
 
 88. No right to use station grounds and ^ania Co., 60 C. C. A. 168. 124 Fed. 1016, 
 buildings without carrier's consent.— Old affirmed. Donovan r. Pennsylvania Co.. 
 Colony R. Co. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35. 17 199 ^- ^- 2''-'. -0 h. I-.d. 102. 26 K Ct. 91. 
 N. E. 89. 9 Am. St. Rep. 661; Common- 91. Designation of places where com- 
 wealth V. Carey, 147 Mass. 40, 17 N. peting hackmen shall stand. — Hot Springs 
 E. 97. f. Denil.y. 90 Ark. 574. 119 S. \V. 1126; 
 
 A regulation by a railway company for- Cole z'. Rowen, 88 Mich. 219, 50 X. W, 
 bidding hackmen and expressmen from 138, 13 L. R. A. 848.
 
 132 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 112 
 
 or the owners of competing omnibus lines,-'- shall stand their vehicles while 
 awaiting the arrival and departure of trains and where they shall receive and 
 discharge, passengers and baggage ; and where it adopts regulations assigning 
 such places, and a hack or bus driver refuses to obey them, the station master 
 is not guilty of assault and batter}^ in taking hold of him and ejecting him from 
 the stand assigned to another.'-'^^ A railroad company also has a right to order 
 that hacks shall not stand at a particular place on its premises,^^ and to remove 
 a hackman who willfully disobeys such order, using as much force as may be 
 necessarv.''"^ Prohibiting the soliciting of customers for any hotel on a depot 
 platform while passenger trains are stopping is not an interference with any 
 common right, but a proper exercise of the police power/-**^ ^Municipalities are 
 sometimes empowered to regulate the soliciting of persons arriving on trains/^' 
 The granting by a railroad company to one concern operating carriages the ex- 
 clusive privilege of soliciting business on its depot grounds gives others no right 
 to do so, even if such exclusive privilege be void as creating a monopoly, and 
 though the grantee thereof be not excluded.'-''^ 
 
 92. Designation of places where owners 
 of competing omnibus lines shall stand. 
 
 — Lucas T. Herbert, 148 Ind. 64, 47 X. E. 
 146, 37 L. R. A. 376; Cole v. Rowen, 88 
 Mich. 219, 50 N. W. 138, 13 L. R. A. 848. 
 
 93. Right of station master to enforce 
 regulations assigning stands. — Cole ?'. 
 Rowen, bS Mich. 219, 50 X. W. 138, 13 L. 
 R. A. 848. 
 
 94. Carrier may prohibit hacks standing 
 at a particular place on its premises. — A 
 railroad company has a right to order 
 that hacks shall not stand in front of the 
 entrance to its station. Smith v. New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 149 Pa. 249, 24 Atl. 
 304. 
 
 Where a street ran through and under 
 premises occupied by plaintiff as a rail- 
 way station, and plaintiff claimed the fee 
 in the street, subject only to the ease- 
 ment, defendant had no right, against 
 plaintiff's protest, to take up a stand as 
 a hackman on such street within the line 
 of plaintiff's premises, and plaintiff might 
 maintain trespass. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Bork, 23 R. I. 218, 49 Atl. 96.5. 
 
 95. Right to remove hackman. — Smith 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 149 Pa. 249, 
 24 Atl. 304. 
 
 96. Prohibition against soliciting cus- 
 tomers for hotel on depot platform. — The 
 power conferred on towns by the Arkan- 
 sas statute, Kirby's Dig., § 5438, to regu- 
 late soliciting persons who arrive on trains 
 for hotels, etc., and by § 5454, to regulate 
 omnibuses, drays, etc., and hotels, or an 
 ordinance passed thereunder prohibiting 
 the soliciting of customers for any ho- 
 tel, etc., on a depot platform while 
 passenger trains are stopping, is not an 
 interference with any common right, but 
 a proper exercise of the police power. 
 Emerson v. McXeil, 84 Ark. 552, 106 S. 
 W. 479. ♦ 
 
 Such an ordinance is none the less valid 
 because the platform on which the so- 
 liciting is prohiljited is the property of 
 the railroad company. Emerson v. Islc- 
 Neil, 84 Ark. 552, 106 S. W. 479. 
 
 97. Power of municipalities to regulate 
 soliciting persons arriving on trains. — 
 
 Under the Arkansas statutes, Kirby's 
 Dig., §§ 5438, 5454, a town was empow- 
 ered to pass an ordinance prohibiting the 
 soliciting of customers for any hotel, etc., 
 on a depot platform while passenger 
 trains were stopping. Emerson v. Mc- 
 Xeil, 84 Ark. 552, 106 S. W. 479. 
 
 Under the Arkansas statute, Sand. & H. 
 Dig., § 5132, giving a city authority to 
 regulate the drumming of persons, arriv- 
 ing on trains, for hotels, etc., an ordi- 
 nance providing that every person ob- 
 taining a drummer's license shall, while 
 engaged in the business, wear a badge of 
 a certain character, showing for what he 
 is drumming, is not void as unreasonable. 
 Hot Springs r. Curry, 64 Ark. 152, 41 S. 
 W. 55. 
 
 A city council has not, under the "gen- 
 eral welfare clause" in the charter of the 
 city, tlie power to pass an ordinance ab- 
 solutely prohibiting drummers, runners, 
 hackmen, cabmen, and all other persons 
 from entering, with the owner's consent, 
 a union passenger depot in such city, "to 
 solicit custom or patrons." Cosgrove v. 
 Augusta, 103 Ga. 835, 31 S. E. 445, 42 L. 
 R. A. 711, 68 Am. St. Rep. 149. 
 
 Construction of ordinance prohibiting 
 soliciting for hotels at railroad depots. — 
 An ordinance of the city of Hot Springs 
 made it unlawful for any person to drum 
 or solicit l)usiness for a hotel on the 
 trains or depots of any railroads. Peti- 
 tioner was a hotel keeper, and was con- 
 victed of soliciting patronage for his ho- 
 tel "on the platform" of a railroad station. 
 Held, that the word "depot," in the ordi- 
 nance, included, not only the depot build- 
 ing, but the platform and grounds con- 
 nected therewith, and used by the com- 
 pany for its business with the public. 
 Moore V. Campbell, 85 Ark. 581, 109 S. 
 W. 544. 
 
 98. Effect of granting one concern ex- 
 clusive privilege of soliciting business. — 
 Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. Davidson, 33
 
 113 CONTROL AXD REGULATION. §§ 133-134 
 
 § 133. Free Transportation to Police Officers.— A statute requiring 
 street railway coinpanics to grant free transijurialion to police officers, is a valid 
 exercise of the police power of the state, since policemen are frequently re- 
 quired to he on street cars in the execution of their duties as such.'-'* 
 
 § 134. Combinations of Carriers.— Contract Fixing Fares at a Certain 
 Sum. — A coniract heiween a street railroad coni])any and its predecessor, fix- 
 ing the ivissenger fares on a certain line at a certain sum, will he assumed to be 
 valid until abrogated by law.^ 
 
 Contract Not to Reduce Rates During a Limited Period.— An agree- 
 ment between a railruad company and a competitor that during a limited period 
 the former company will not reduce its present rates, unless required by law, 
 is not contrary to i)nblic ])olic-\-.-' 
 
 Association Agreement Not to Carry Freight for Less than Rate Fixed. 
 — An agreement by the members of an association that none of them shall carry 
 freight for less than the rate fixed by the association, without reference to 
 whether the rate is reasonable or not, is illegal.-^ 
 
 Agreement Not to Cross Competing Company's Tracks at Grade. — An 
 agreement by a street-railway conii)any with a competing company not to cross 
 the latter's tracks at grade in the future, entered into when the parties knew the 
 municipality would not generally permit street-railway crossings except at grade, 
 is against public policy, since it tends to create a monopoly."^' 
 
 Pooling Arrangements. — A pooling arrangement between rival railroad com- 
 panies whereby freight rates are established is prima facie illegal.^ An arrange- 
 ment by which two competing systems of railroads agree to divide their earnings 
 for traffic between given points, for wdiich they were previously competitors, is 
 against pul)lic interest, contrary to public policy, and can not be judicially en- 
 forced.'"' 
 
 Agreement to Share Through Freight Pro Rata with a Connecting 
 Line. — In the absence of any statutory regulations upon the subject, a railway 
 or line of steamboats may agree to share through freight pro rata with a. ^con- 
 necting line, to the exclusion of other lines, without incurring any liability for 
 the loss which mav result to the other lines by reason of such arrangement." 
 
 Uniform Charge for Detention of Cars by Shippers.— A car service as- 
 sociation of railroad comi)anies. organized to make and enforce penalties for the 
 
 Utah 370, 94 Pac. 10. See ante, "To Cor- etc., R. Co. v. Calumet Elect. R. Co., 
 
 porations or Individuals Engaged in 171 111. 3'.)1, 49 X. E. 57(5. , , . , 
 
 Transporting Passengers and Baggage to 5. Pooling arrangement whereby freight 
 
 and from Railroad Depots," § 112. rates are established.— Cleveland, etc., R. 
 
 99. Free Transportation to police offi- Co. v. Closser, iL'ii Ind. 348, 26 X. h. 159, 
 
 cers— State :■. Suttor,, s;! X. J. L. 4(), 84 22 Am. St. Rep. 593, 9 L. R. A. 754. 
 
 \^\ io")7 6. Arrangement by competing roads to 
 
 * 1. Contract fixing fares at a certain divide earnings for traffic between given 
 
 sum.-Portland R., etc., Co. v. Railroad pomts^-lexas etc ^^ ,^^- ,;• ^-'^'^4^" 
 
 <^ -t; r^.-^ jfivi in^ Par 7n'i rp- Pac. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 9<o, o so. oso, 
 
 Comm., 3h Ore. 46h, lOo rac. lUJ, re ^„ » c. o ii- 
 
 1 • , • 1 inn Do ^ o'-T 17 .Ain. St. Kcp. 44a. 
 
 hearing denied 109 Pac. 2 < 3. ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ competing.-Two rail- 
 
 2. Contract not to reduce rates during ^^^.^^j companies, which have each a 
 a Umited period.— Rantaii ku-er k. Lo r. through and separate line of communi- 
 MidiUesex, etc.. 'I ract. to., 70 -\. J. L. ^-^tion between two given points, are 
 7oL', .")S All. :i:'.2. competing companies for all traffic be- 
 
 3. Association agreement not to carry tween such points. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 freight for less than rate fixed. — Sayre v. -. Southern Pac. R. Co.. 41 La. .Ann. 970, 
 Louisville L'niiui l'>enev. Ass'n (Ky.), 1 q 3o. SSS, 17 Am. St. Reji. 44."). 
 
 Duv. 143. s.-, Am. Dec. i>i:'.. 7. Agreement to share through freight 
 
 4. Agreement not to cross competing pro rata with a connecting line. — Eclipse 
 company's tracks at grade.— .hulgment Towhoat Co. :•. Pontchartrain R. Co., 24 
 70 111. .\pp. 254, attirmed. South Chicago, La. .\nn. 1. 
 
 1 Car— 8
 
 §§ 134-137 CARRlIvRS. 
 
 114 
 
 unreasonable detention of cars by shippers, is not rendered invalid by the fact 
 that all the nieml)ers agreed to make a uniform charge for detention.'^ 
 
 Regulation of Freight Association as to Estimated Weight of Tank 
 Cars.^A regulation promulgated and observed by a freight association, consist- 
 ing of numerous railway companies, by which the capacity of tank cars owned by 
 slnppers. and not listed in what is denominated a "Joint Tank Line Circular," 
 showing the actual weight, shall be estimated at a certain number of pounds, 
 will not be declared unreasonable, in the absence of a reliable basis for computa- 
 tion, or anything to show that the gross amount of freight charged and collected 
 thereunder was excessive.^ 
 
 §§ 135-173. Proceedings to Enforce or to Prevent Enforcement of 
 Regulations— § 13 5. Right of State to Insist on Compliance with Regu- 
 lations. — The state may insist on a compliance as to the present and future with 
 a statute, fixing maximum passenger and freight rates, and nothing short of a 
 repeal of the statute can defeat the right of the state.'"' 
 
 §§ 136-159. Judicial Supervision and Remedies in General— §§ 136- 
 137. Scope of Judicial Supervision— § 136. In General.— The courts may 
 compel carriers to jjerform a positive duty imposed b\- law, and may restrain acts 
 in excess of the powers granted. ^^ In the absence of a law or a rule of the rail- 
 road commission of the state prescribing the type to be used in printing schedules 
 of rates to be posted by railroad companies in their stations, the court of last 
 resort in the state can not by mandamus direct in what sized type they shall be 
 printed. 12 Where the railroad commission of a state has ordered a railroad 
 company to furnish certain service to passengers and shippers, under its power 
 to require railroads to furnish adequate service, though the court that reviews 
 such order would not have made it under the circumstances, had it been sitting 
 as a commission, yet if competent and reasonable men might differ as to its pro- 
 priety or reasonableness, and it was therefore within the power of the commis- 
 sion, it will not be declared unreasonable. ^^ In determining the scope of the 
 supen-isory power of the courts over the orders or reports of railroad comniis- 
 sions, consideration must of course be given to any statutory provision affecting 
 the matter.""^' 
 
 § 137. As to Rates. — -The question of the reasonableness of a rate of charge 
 for transportation by a railroad company, involving, as it does, the element of rea- 
 sonableness, both as' regards the company and as regards the public, is eminently 
 a question for judicial investigation, requiring the process of law for its deter- 
 
 8. Uniform charge for detention of sonable. — Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 cars by shippers. — Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Railroad Comm., 136 Wis. 14G, 116 N. 
 Co V Ohio, etc., R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152, 17 W. 905, construing Laws 1905, pp. 556, 
 Ky. L. Rep." 726, '.',2 S. W. 595, 36 L. R. 559, c. 362, §§ 12, 14. 
 
 A. 850, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326. 14. In Massachusetts a report of com- 
 
 9. Regulation of freight association as missioners is not to be treated in all re- 
 to estimated weight of tank cars. — spects like an award of arbitrators. All 
 Coates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8 S. Dak. the powers of the commissioners are de- 
 173, 65 X. W. 1067. rived from judicial appointment, and the 
 
 10. Right of state to insist on compli- court will so far supervise their award as 
 ance with regulations. — State v. Boston, to see that they have acted within the 
 etc., Railroad, 75 X. H. 327, 74 Atl. 542. scope of the authority with which they 
 
 11. Power of courts to compel and re- are invested, and that they have acted 
 strain. — Horton v. Southern R. Co., 173 upon all matters submitted to them. 
 Ala. 231, 55 So. 531. See post, "Injunc- Boston, etc., R. Corp. v.- Western R. 
 tion," §§ 160-178. Corp. (Mass.), 14 Gray 253. See, also 
 
 12. Size of type to be used in printing Hingham, etc., Turnpike Corp. v. Nor- 
 schedule of rates.- State v. Pensacola, folk (Mass.), 6 Allen 353; Metropolitan 
 etc., R. Co., 27 Fla. 403, 9 So. 89. R. Co. v. Quincy R. Co. (Mass.), 12 Al- 
 
 13. When commission order to carrier len 262; Inhabitants of Wrentham v. In- 
 as to service will not be declared unrea- habitants of Norfolk, 114 Mass. 555.
 
 115 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 § 137 
 
 mination.^-"^ and can not be conclusively determined by the legislature. ^'^ It is 
 within the power and is the duty of the courts to inquire whether rates pre- 
 scribed by a state rajlroad commission are unjust and unreasonable and such 
 as to constitute an unconstitutional invasion of i)roperty rights. ^^ But the courts 
 have no general supervisory jurisdiction over the question of freight and pas- 
 senger rates. ^** The extent of judicial interference is protection against unrea- 
 
 15. Reasonableness of a rate a judicial 
 question. — Reagan z\ l-'arniers' Loan, clc, 
 Co., 154 U. S. 3(52, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. 
 Ct. 1047; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minne- 
 sota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. 
 Ct. 4G2; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. VVellman, 
 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 17G, 12 S. Ct. 
 400; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 
 173 U. S. G84, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 S. Ct. 
 565; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. 
 S. 649, 39 L. Ed. 567. 15 S. Ct. 484; Smyth 
 V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 
 S. Ct. 418; Covington, etc.. Turnpike Co. 
 V. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 592, 41 L. Ed. 
 560, 17 S. Ct. 198; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 173, 44 L. Ed. 
 417, 20 S. Ct. 336; Stone v. Fai-mers' 
 Loan, etc., Co. 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 
 636, 6 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191; Dow V. Beid- 
 elman, 125 U. S. 680, 681, 31 L. Ed. 841, 
 8 S. Ct. 1028; Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713; 
 Stone r. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 62 Miss. 
 646. 
 
 There is a remedy in the courts for re- 
 lief against legislation establishing a tar- 
 iff of rates wliicli is so unreasonable 
 as to practically destroy the value of 
 property of companies engaged in the 
 carrying business, and especially may 
 the courts of the United States treat 
 such a question as a judicial one, and 
 hold such acts of legislation to l)e in 
 conflict with the constitution of the 
 United States, as depriving the compa- 
 nies of their property without due proc- 
 ess of law. and as depriving them of the 
 equal protection of the laws. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. 
 Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484; Stone v. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 
 636, 6 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191; Dow z: Beid- 
 elman, 125 U. S. 680. 681, 31 L. Ed. 841, 
 8 S. Ct. 1028; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 
 10 S. Ct. 462; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wellman, 143 U. S. 339. 36 L. Ed. 176, 
 12 S. Ct. 400; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc.. Co.. 154 U. S. 362. 38 L. Ed. 1014, 
 14 S. Ct. 1047; Covington, etc.. Turnpike 
 Co. V. Sandford. 164 U. S. 578. 592, 41 L. 
 Ed. 560, 17 S. Ct. 198; Smyth V. Ames, 
 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Kd. 819. IS S. Ct. 
 418. 
 
 16. Reasonableness of rate can not be 
 conclusively determined by legislature. - 
 Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. 42 L. Ed. 
 819. 18 S. Ct. 418; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Minnesota. 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 
 970, 10 S. Ct. 462. 
 
 While rates for the transportation of 
 persons and property within the limits 
 of a state are primarily for its determi- 
 nation, the question whether they are so 
 unreasonably low as to deprive the car- 
 rier of its property without such compen- 
 sation as the constitution secures, and 
 therefore without due process of law, can 
 not Ije so conclusively determined by the 
 legislature of the state or by regulations 
 adopted under its authority, that the mat- 
 ter may not become the subject of judi- 
 cial inquiry. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 The idea that any legislature, state or 
 federal, can conclusively determine for 
 the people and for the courts that what 
 it enacts in the form of law, or what it 
 authorizes its agents to do, is consistent 
 with the fundamental law, is in opposi- 
 tion to the theory of our institutions. 
 The duty rests upon all courts, federal 
 and state, when their jurisdiction is prop- 
 erly invoked, to see to it that no right 
 secured by the supreme law of the land 
 is impaired or destroyed by legislatinn. 
 This function and duty of the judiciary 
 distinguishes the American system from 
 all other systems of government. The 
 perpetuity of our institutions and the 
 liberty which is enjoyed under them de- 
 pend, in no small degree, upon the power 
 given the judiciary to declare null and 
 void all legislation that is clearly repug- 
 nant to the supreme law- of the land. 
 Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 
 819. 18 S. Ct. 418. 
 
 17. Power of courts over rates pre- 
 scribed by railroad commission. — Tram- 
 mel 7'. Dinsmore. 42 C. C. A. 623. 102 
 Fed. 794. affirmed in 1H3 U. S. 115, 46 
 L. Ed. Ill, 22 S. Ct. 45; Southern R. Co. 
 V. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 35, 
 68 S. E. 807. 
 
 The courts have this power under the 
 1 exas statute. Rev. St. 1895, arts. 4565. 
 4566. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm.. 102 Tex. 338, 116 S. W. 795. re- 
 versing on rehearing 113 S. W. 741. 
 
 18. Courts have no general supervisory 
 jurisdiction over rates. — Ivaruan River R. 
 Co. r. Middlesex, etc.. Tract. Co.. 7i) N. 
 J. L. 732, 58 Atl. 332. 
 
 Under the Texas statute, Rev. St. 
 is'.i."). arts. 4565. 456(>. courts are not en- 
 titled to inquire as to the motives of the 
 railroad commission in fixing rates. Rail- 
 road Comm. V. Galveston Chamber of 
 Commerce (Tex.). 145 S. W. 573.
 
 § 137 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 116 
 
 sonable rates. ^^ and the jiuliciarv ought not to interfere with the collection of 
 rates established under legislative sanction, unless they are so plainly and palpa- 
 bly unreasonable as to make their enforcement equivalent to the taking of prop- 
 erty for Dublic use without such compensation as under all the circumstances is 
 jus't both'to the owner and to the public.-" If the courts decide that rates fixed 
 by the legislature or commission are unreasonable, it is not within their power 
 to prepare a new schedule or provide rates which they may deem reasonable.-^ 
 Xor are the courts concerned whether the rates fixed be unnecessary or merely 
 speculative.-- Under a statute prohibiting a railroad company from discriminat- 
 ing in charges or facilities in the transportation of freight or passengers, a court 
 can not compel a railroad company to allow to a warehouseman or storage com- 
 pany tlie same service at the same rates as the company allows to another ware- 
 houseman, especially where such service and rates are discriminating.-^ A court 
 
 19, Extent of judicial interference is 
 pretection against unreasonable rates. — 
 
 United States. — Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co.. 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 
 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 176, 
 12 S. Ct. 400; Stone v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 
 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 
 970, 10 S. Ct. 462; Smyth v. Ames. 169 
 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; 
 Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. 
 Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Peik v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 L. Ed. 97; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U. 
 S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 99; Winona, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L- Ed. 99; 
 Stone V. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181, 24 L. 
 Ed. 102; San Diego Land, etc., Co. v. 
 National City, 174 U. S. 739, 43 L. Ed. 
 1154, 19 S. Ct. 804. 
 
 Xew Jersey. — Raritan River R. Co. v. 
 Middlesex, etc., Tract. Co., 70 N. J. L. 
 732, 58 Atl. 332. 
 
 On appeal a court can review the acts 
 of a state railroad and warehouse com- 
 mission only so far as to determine 
 whether the rates fixed by it are unrea- 
 sonable and confiscatory, and to what ex- 
 tent. Steenerson v. Great Northern R. 
 Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713. 
 
 20. San Diego Land, etc., Co. v. Na- 
 tional City, 174 U. S. 739, 43 L. Ed. 1J54, 
 l'.> S. Ct. 804; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 176, 
 12 S. Ct. 400; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc.. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 
 14 S. Ct. 1047; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418. See. 
 also, Hendersoti Bridge Co. v. Hoiioer- 
 son, 173 U. S. 592, 43 L. Ed. 823, 19 S. 
 Ct. 553. 
 
 21. Courts can not prepare new sched- 
 ule of rates. — Dow <;•. Beidelman, 125 U. 
 S. 680, -.'A L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 1028; Peik 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 
 L. Ed. 97; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ack- 
 ley, 94 U. S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 99; Winona, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. 
 Ed. 99; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181, 
 24 L. Ed. 102; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 36 L. Ed. 176, 
 12 S. Ct. 400; Stone v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co., 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 
 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191; Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L- 
 Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462; Smyth v. Ames, 
 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 
 418. ■ 
 
 It is not the function of the courts to 
 establish a schedule of rates. It is not, 
 therefore, within the power of courts to 
 prepare a new schedule, or rearrange one 
 already established. The inquiry in such 
 case, is limited to the effect of the tariff 
 as a whole, including therein the rates 
 prescribed for all the several classes of 
 goods, and the decrees must either con- 
 demn or sustain the act of quasi legisla- 
 tion. If a law be adjudged invalid, the 
 court may not, in the decree, attempt to 
 enact a law upon the same subject which 
 shall be obnoxious to no legal objections. 
 It stops with simply passing its judgment 
 on the validity of the act before it. Rea- 
 gan V. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. 
 S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047. 
 
 The courts are not authorized to revise 
 or change the body of rates imposed by 
 a legislature or a commission. They do 
 not determine whether one rate is pref- 
 erable to another, or what, under all cir- 
 cumstances, would be fair and reasonal)le, 
 as between the carriers and the shippers. 
 They do not engage in any mere admin- 
 istrative work. Reagan v. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 
 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; Trammel v. Dins- 
 more, 42 C. C. A. 623, 102 Fed. 794, af- 
 firmed in 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. Ill, 
 22 S. Ct. 45. 
 
 22. Courts not concerned whether rates 
 be unnecessary or merely speculative. — 
 State z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 48 Fla. 146, 
 37 So. 657, affirmed Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Ellis, 203 U. S. 256, 51 L. Ed. 174, 27 
 S. Ct. 108; State v. Jacksonville, etc., R. 
 Co., 48 Fla. 153, 37 So. 658. 
 
 23. Court can not compel carrier to 
 carry at same rate it carriers for another. 
 — Chouteau v. Union, R., etc., Co., 22 Mo. 
 App. 286, construing Rev. St., § 821.
 
 117 
 
 CONTROL ■\Sl) RKGULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 137-138 
 
 of equity should not lioM iuwilid an act of the legislature fixinj^ maximum rates 
 of a carrier until a fair trial has been made of continuing business under the 
 statutes, and the ])ractical result of such rates has been determined ;-■♦ and before 
 such a statute can be held invalid, the receipts and earnings of the carrier must 
 be fully sliown, in order that it may clearly appear that a prudent and honest 
 management within the rates prescribed would not secure to the companv rea- 
 sonable coni]iensatiiin for the usr of its ])r(i|H'rt\- and condncling il- lni-ines<.-'^ 
 Review of Findings of Commission Where Inquiry Calls for Expert Ev- 
 idence. — On (juestions as to the valuation of street railroad projjerty, the esti- 
 mate (jf future earnings, operating expenses, maintenance, depreciation, taxes, 
 and fixed charges and other results reached by the railroad commission in fixing 
 rates, the inquiry calls largely for expert evidence, and the findings made are 
 necessarily of the same nature, and the findings should not be disturbed on re- 
 view unless they bear evidence of having been reached arbitrarilv and without 
 a full consideration of all the controlling facts, but courts may review the ques- 
 tions submitted in so far as they reciuire the ap])lication of legal principles. 2*^ 
 
 §§ 138-141. Right to and Mode of Obtaining Relief— § 138. In Gen- 
 eral. — Duties imposed upon a carrier Ijy statute or by its charter ma}- be enforced 
 by mandamus, quo warranto, or such other summary proceeding as the law may 
 provide.-' lUit a duty ma}- be enforced by mandamus only where it is specific and 
 plainly inq)osed ui)on the carrier.-'^ In seeking relief from orders or rules of a rail- 
 road commission thought to be unduly burdensome or otherwise illegal, a car- 
 rier should apply to the commission for change of modification before resorting 
 to the courts.--' A court will not grant relief in the first instance where relief 
 is within the power of the commission to give on proper application therefor.^" 
 
 24. Practical result of rates must be 
 determined. — State t'. Adams Exp. Co., 
 s:. -Wl). ;.'."., 1 ;-';.' X. W. oui. 
 
 25. Receipts and earnings of carrier 
 must be shown. — Slate z\ Adams l''.xp. 
 Co., s.-) Xeh. :.',-), 1 :.':.' X. W. 691. 
 
 26. Review of findings of commission 
 where inquiry calls for expert evidence. 
 — Pii,^:et Sound F.lect. Railway f. Rail- 
 road C(inim.. (■).") Wash. T."). 117 Pac. TiJU. 
 
 27. Mandamus and other remedies not 
 forbidden by implication. — Under the 
 constitution of Florida Const. 1885, art. 
 1(), § .i(), which, after specifying that the 
 legislature may pass certain laws regu- 
 lating common carriers, "and shall pro- 
 vide for enforcing such laws by adequate 
 penalties and forfeitures, does not, by 
 implication, forbid the use of mandamus 
 and other remedies for enforcing duties 
 imposed by laws passed to accomplish 
 the purposes specified; and the courts may 
 apply such of the ordinary remedies as 
 may be applicable. State z'. Jacksonville 
 Terminal Co., 41 Fla. :>77, 27 S<>. 2'.!'). 
 
 Quo warranto proceedings authorized. 
 — Where a railroad company ii.\es a rate 
 of freight per 100 pounds for carrying 
 petroleum oil in iron tank cars, substan- 
 tially lower than its rate for transport- 
 ing it in barrels in car-load lots, it is 
 exercising "a franchise. Privilege, or 
 right in contravention of law," within 
 the meaning of the Ohio statute, Rev. 
 St., § ()7f)l. cl. 4, authorizing quo war- 
 ranto proceedings against corporations. 
 
 State 7'. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 47 O. 
 St. 130, 23 X. H. 928. 
 
 Summary proceedings to enforce duties 
 imposed on a street railroad company. — 
 As to the power ui the Xcw York public 
 service commission under the Public 
 Service Commission Law (Laws 1907, c. 
 429) §§ 48, 57, to enforce duties imposed 
 on street railroad companies by provi- 
 sions in their charters or by orders of 
 the commission, see Willcox v. Rich- 
 mond, etc., R. Co., 142 App. Div. 44, 128 
 X. Y. S. 26(5, order affirmed in 201 N. Y. 
 577, 95 X. F'.. 1141. 
 
 28. Duty enforceable by mandamus 
 only where specific and plainly imposed. 
 — People z'. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 104 
 X. Y. 58. 9 X. F. S56. 5S Am. Rep. 4S4. 
 
 29. Court will not grant relief in first 
 instance where commission has power to 
 grant it. — Railroad Comm'rs v. Florida, 
 etc.. R. Co., 58 Pla. 524, 50 So. 425. 
 
 30. So held under the Indiana statute. 
 Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 5537c, empower- 
 ing the railroad commission to grant a 
 rehearing in any case in which it has 
 made a final order, or to modify any 
 final order made by it. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Railroad Comm., 175 Ind. 630, 95 
 N. E. 364. 
 
 Such statute provides that the orders 
 of the railroad commission shall take ef- 
 fect not more than thirty days after en- 
 trj' thereof, unless suspended or modified 
 by the commission, and impliedly author- 
 izes the commission to suspend the tak-
 
 138 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 118 
 
 Whether the rules and regulations adopted by a state corporation conimissioii 
 violate anv right of transportation companies can only be properly determined 
 as the cjuestions arise in concrete cases, and -upon the particular facts of each 
 case, and cannot be properly decided on an appeal where only abstract questions 
 are raised.-"^ If any rule or regulation is made by a commission which in its 
 application to the facts of a particular case, violates any right of a defendant 
 protected bv the constitution of the United States, he may have its validity tested 
 by an appeal to the court of last resort in the state.-'- The right of appeal from 
 tlie orders or decisions of a state commission is generally regulated by constitu- 
 tional provision or statute, and therefore the question whether an appeal lies 
 in a particular case is to be determined by a proper construction of such pro- 
 vision or statute. ^^ 
 
 ing effect of any order pending a petition 
 for rehearing or modification tliereof, 
 and a part}' aggrieved by an order of 
 the commission can not resort to the 
 courts merely on the ground that a pe- 
 tition for rehearing will not probably be 
 acted on by the commission before the 
 time fixed by the statute for the taking 
 eflfect of the order unless suspended by 
 the commission. Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Railroad Comm., 175 Ind. 630, 95 X. E. 
 364. 
 
 Proceedings before the railroad com- 
 misioner, provided for by the Virginia 
 statute, Act March 3, 1892, and his in- 
 ability to have the cause or complaint cor- 
 rected, are conditions precedent to the 
 exercise of the jurisdiction conferred 
 upon the circuit courts. Southern R. 
 Co. z: Commonwealth. 98 Va. 758, 37 S. 
 E. 294. 
 
 31. Validity of regulations not properly 
 determinable on appeal where only ab- 
 stract questions are raised. — Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co. z'. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 599, 
 46 S. E. 911. 
 
 32. Appeal where a constitutional right 
 is violated. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Coinnionwtalth, 102 \'a. 599, 46 S. E. 911. 
 
 33. Construction of constitutional pro- 
 visions and statutes. — Under the constitu- 
 tion of Kentucky, § 218, prohibiting com- 
 mon carriers from charging more for a 
 short than for a long haul, ))ut providing 
 that the railroad commission may in 
 "special cases," grant relief from the opera- 
 tion of the section, the action of the com- 
 mission in refusing such relief can not 
 be reviewed by the courts. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 
 226, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1102. 1380, 46 S. W. 
 707. 47 S. W. 210, 598, 43 L. R. A. 541. 
 
 The North Carolina statute. Revisal 
 1905, § 1100, authorizes the corporation 
 commission to make rules governing 
 railroad companies in the unloading of 
 freight, etc. The commission's rule 8, 
 set forth in its circular No. 36, Report 
 1905, provides that, when a railway com- 
 pany fails to deliver freight at the depot 
 within 48 hours after its arrival, the ship- 
 per or consignee shall be paid $1 a day 
 for the delay. Section 1074 provides that, 
 if a company violates a rule of the com- 
 
 mission, and recompense for the injury 
 done thereby to any one as may be 
 directed by the commission is not made, 
 the company shall incur a specified pen- 
 altJ^ Section 1064 authorizes the com- 
 mission to institute investigations to as- 
 certain if their rules, etc., are being com- 
 plied with. On the hearing of a complaint 
 by a consignee that a company had violated 
 the rule the commission found that the 
 company should pay complainant $1, and 
 ordered it paid. Held, that the order was 
 not appealable; the commission not hav- 
 ing power to enforce complainant's right 
 of recove'-v by 'ts own process, section 
 1074 merely authorizing an appeal fro 
 a decision effecting or purporting to ef- 
 fect some right or interest of a party to 
 a controversy, and in some way determi- 
 native of some material questions m- 
 volved, and the end of the commission's 
 investigation being merely to afford it 
 information and enable it to act intel- 
 ligently in determining whether it should 
 sue for the penalty authorized by the 
 statute. North Corolina Corp. Comm. v. 
 Southern R. Co. (N. C), 61 S. E. 271. 
 
 Under the constitution of Oklahoma, 
 art. 9. § 20 (Bunn's Ed., § 231) an ap- 
 peal lies to the su])rf;,ne Court froni the 
 action of the corporation commission 
 prescribing rates, charges, or classifi- 
 cations of traffic or affecting the train 
 schedule, or requiring additional facili- 
 ties, conveniences, or public service, or 
 refusing to approve a suspending bond, 
 or requiring additional security thereon 
 or an increase thereof. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. State, 24 Okla. 805, 105 Pac. 351. 
 
 But the repeal of an administrative or- 
 der by the corporation commision, pro- 
 viding for the enforcement of penalities 
 against passengers who board trains 
 without purchasing tickets, is not appeal- 
 able, under this constitutional provision. 
 .\tchison, etc., R. Co. v. State, 28 Okla. 
 12, 115 Pac. 1101. 
 
 Under the Wisconsin statute, Laws 
 1905, p. 549, c. 362, relating to a review of 
 the orders, etc., of the railroad commii- 
 sion it is not necessary that the orders be 
 confiscatory in character and effect to 
 enable the court to review them, such a 
 construction being negatived by Const.,
 
 119 
 
 CONTROL AXD RRGULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 139-140 
 
 §§ 139-141. Relief against Unreasonable Rates— §§ 139-140. Re- 
 lief to Carrier— § 139. Rates Fixed by Legislature.— Where the legislauire 
 choose lo act directly on the buhject by theiu^elveb establishing a tariff of rates 
 and prescribing penalties, there is no opportiuiity to resort to a compendious 
 remedy, such as a proceeding in equity, because there is no public functionary or 
 commi's'-ion which can Ijc made to respond and therefore, if a carrier is to have 
 any relief, it must be found in a right to raise the question of the reasonableness 
 of the statutory rates by way of defense to an action for the collection of the 
 penalties.^'' 
 
 § 140. Rates Fixed by Commission. — Where the legislature creates com- 
 missions or boards of pubHc works, with power to establish rates for the trans- 
 portation of passengers and freight, the remedy for a tariff alleged to be un- 
 reasonable should be sought in a bill in equity or some equivalent proceeding, 
 wherein the rights of the public as well as those of the company complaining can 
 be protected.^'' Whether a rate fixed by such a commission is confiscatory so 
 as to deprive the carrier of its property without due process of law witiiin the 
 meaning of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the L'nited States 
 depends ui)on the valuation of the property, the income derivable from the rate, 
 and the proportion between the two, which are matters of fact which the car- 
 rier cannot be prevented from trying before a competent tribunal of its own 
 choosing.=^" In many states there are constitutional provisions or statutes pre- 
 scribing the method for bringing the question of the reasonableness of rates 
 prescribed by the railroad commission before the courts for judicial determina- 
 tion.^' 
 
 art. 7, § 8, giving circuit courts appellate 
 jurisdiction of. and supervisory control 
 over, all inferior courts and tribunals. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm., V.if, Wis. 14(), lir, X. W. 905. 
 
 34. Rates fixed by legislature. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 
 39 L. Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484. See, also, 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 
 U. S. 418. 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462. 
 But see Coal, etc., R. Co. v. Conley, 67 
 W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 613. 
 
 Where it reasonably appears from a 
 consideration of all the evidence that the 
 maximum statutory rates allowed to a 
 carrier are not confiscatory, but afford at 
 least some profit, the courts will not in- 
 terfere, but will require the party com- 
 plaining to apply for relief to the rule- 
 making power, or to the tribunal pro- 
 vided by statute with power to increase 
 such rates in case they are found unrea- 
 sonable. State v. Adams Exp. Co., 85 
 K'eb. 25, 122 X. \V. 691; State v. Wells, 
 Fargo & Co., 85 Xeb. 42, 122 X. W. 697. 
 
 35. Rates fixed by commission. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 3 56 U. S. 649, 
 39 L. Ed. 567, 15 S. Ct. 484; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. 
 Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 462: Reagan v. Farm- 
 ers' Loan, etc., Co.. 154 U. S. 362, 38 i^. 
 Ed. 1014. 1047; S. C, 154 U. S. 420, 38 L. 
 Ed. 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Reagan v. Mer- 
 cantile Trust Co.. 154 U. S. !18. 38 L. Ed. 
 1030. 14 S. Ct. 1062; S. C, 154 U. S. 413, 38 
 L. Ed. 1028. 14 S. Ct. 1060; Covington, etc., 
 Turnpike Co. v. Sandford. 164 U. S. 578, 
 592, 41 L. Ed. .■)•■.(), 17 S. Ct. 198. 
 
 36. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 
 211 U. S. 210, 53 L. Ed. 150, 29 S. Ct. 67. 
 
 37. In Indiana a carrier may present 
 any objection to an order of the railroad 
 commission, reducing a rate charged, in 
 an action commenced in the superior 
 court pursuant to Acts 1907, p. 469, c. 
 241, § 6, pioviding that any carrier, etc., 
 dissatisfied with an order of the commis- 
 sion, may within thirty days begin an ac- 
 tion against the commission to suspend 
 or set aside such order. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 173 Ind. 469, 
 87 X. E. 1030. 
 
 Under the constitution of Louisiana, 
 art. 285, any party interested has the 
 right to appeal to the courts upon the 
 question whether a rate established by 
 the railroad commission is reasonable 
 and just. Morgan, etc., Co. v. Railroad- 
 Comm.. 127 La. 636. 53 So. 890. 
 
 A Minnesota statute, Gen. St. 1894, § 
 393, provides for an appeal from the state 
 railroad and warehouse commission to 
 the district court, and that upon such ap- 
 peal the district court shall have jurisdic- 
 tion to and shall examine the whole mat- 
 ter in controversy, including matters o." 
 fact, and that the remedy therein pro- 
 vided for shall be in addition to all ex- 
 isting legal remedies. Held, that where 
 the commission made an order fixing a 
 tariff rate, and the carrier did not appeal 
 from such order on hearing in the dis- 
 trict court, the carrier, in mandamus pro- 
 ceedings, was entitled to an examination 
 of matters of fact, in which evidence 
 might be taken de novo, since the order
 
 ;§ 141-U2 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 120 
 
 § 141. Relief to Public. — The state may fix rates and authorize them to 
 be charged and place them beyond the power of the interference of the courts 
 on the ground that tiiey are extortionate, and such rates, except for some con- 
 stitutional or statutory provision so authorizing, cannot be adjudged by a court 
 to be extortionate.^^ Relief from onerous and burdensome rates of transporta- 
 tion imposed under state authority must be sought in the competition of differ- 
 ent lines, and, perhaps, in the power of congress to estatlish post roads and fa- 
 cilitate military and commercial intercourse between the different parts of the 
 country. ^^ But where a carrier charges a rate which is in violation of a con- 
 stitutional or statutory enactment or commission order relief may be had by an 
 action instituted by an individual who is required to pay such rate or by the com- 
 mission whose order the carrier has violated, the mode of proceeding in such 
 case being generally prescriljed ])y constitutional provision or statute."^" 
 
 § 142. Scope of Inquiry. — Under a statute authorizing an action against 
 the railroad commission by a party dissatisfied with a rate made by it, in which 
 such party must show that the rate is unreasonable and unjust to him, the in- 
 quiry is not limited to whether the rate is so unreasonable and unjust as to 
 amount to the taking of property without due process of law.^^ A court, on 
 
 is not conclusive as to the reasonableness 
 of the tariff in the absence of an appeal 
 therefrom. State v. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co., 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60. 89 Am. 
 St. Rep. 514, affirmed Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co. T. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 
 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 An earlier statute in this state, Gen. 
 Laws 1887, c. 10. creating the railroad 
 and warehouse commission and defining 
 its duties, did not authorize and appeal 
 to the district court from an order of the 
 commission prescribing rates to be 
 charged by common carriers. Railway 
 Transfer Co. v. Railroad, etc., Conim., 39 
 Minn. 231, 39 N. \V. 150. 
 
 38. Courts can not interfere with rates 
 fixed by state. — McGrew v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co.. ;>:;(i Mo. 496, 132 S. W. 1076. 
 
 39. Where relief from rates imposed 
 under state autfiority must be sought. — 
 Railroad Co. v. Maryland (U. S.), 21 
 Wall. 456, 22 L. Ed. 678. 
 
 40. When mandamus is a proper rem- 
 edy. — Where a state Ijoard of transpor- 
 tation has investigated charges of unjust 
 discrimination against a railroad com- 
 pany, and has found such unjust discrim- 
 ination to exist, and ordered such railroad 
 company to reduce its rates to conform 
 to a schedule presented by such l^oard, 
 which order the railroad company neg- 
 lected to comply with, mandamus is a 
 proper remedy to enforce such order. 
 State V. Fremont, etc., R. Co., 22 Neb. 
 313, 35 N. W. 118. 
 
 In Alabama, mandamus is not the proper 
 remedy for excessive charges by a rail- 
 way company; that under Code, § 1698, 
 allowing double damages, etc., being ade- 
 quate. State V. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 59 
 Ala. 321. 
 
 Action by railroad commission to en- 
 force its orders authorized. — On the com- 
 plaint of a shipper, the Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners of Iowa required a rail- 
 
 way company to conform its charges to 
 the schedule of charges prepared by the 
 board, and informed it that the over- 
 charge should be refunded to the com- 
 plainant. The railway company refusing 
 so to do, the board sued to enforce its 
 order. On the trial the board did not de- 
 mand a refunding of the overcharge, nor 
 did the company attempt to show that the 
 schedule charges of the board were un- 
 reasonable. Held, the action by the boara 
 was authorized under Acts 22d. Gen. 
 Assem., c. 28, § 16, providing that actions 
 may be brought to enforce the lawful or- 
 ders of the board. Campbell v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 86 Iowa 587, 53 N. W. 351, 17 
 L. R. A. 443. 
 
 Railroad commission without jurisdic- 
 tion to compel reinstatement of lower 
 competitive rate. — The constitution of 
 California, art. 12, § 20, prohibits a railroad 
 corporation which has reduced its trans- 
 portation rates for the purpose of com- 
 petition from raising such rates without 
 the consent of the authorities vested with 
 the power to regulate such rates. Sec- 
 tion 22, authorizes the railroad commis- 
 sioners to hear and determine complaints 
 against railroads, but provides that 
 nothin.g therein contained shall prevent 
 individuals from maintaining actions 
 against railroad companies, and author- 
 izes the recovery of exemplary damages 
 in suits based on excessive charges. Held, 
 that the railroad commission has no ju- 
 risdiction of judicial proceedings insti- 
 tuted before it to compel a railway com- 
 pany to reinstate a lower competitive 
 rate which it had formerly made. Edson 
 V. Southern Pac. Co., 133 Cal. 25, 65 
 Pac. 15. 
 
 41. Scope of inquiry. — Judgment Rail- 
 road Comm. V. Weld (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 68 S. W. 1117, reversed in 96 Tex. 394, 73 
 S. W. 529, construing Rev. St. 1895, arts. 
 4565, 4566.
 
 121 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGULATION. 
 
 §§ 142-147 
 
 appeal from an order (jf a railroad commission fixing rates, will not enter on 
 an inquiry of the reasonableness of the rates based on a comparison with rates 
 which were canceled by the carrier before the commission made its investiga- 
 tion.-*-2 
 
 § 143. What Commission Orders Will Be Enforced. — All reasonable 
 regulations bv a railroad conimi.s.siun within the authority conferred upon it 
 should be enforced to carry out the express purpose of the law in the interest of 
 the general welfare; but unreasonable regulations are not within the authority 
 conferred, and when unreasonable and violative of constitutional provisions will 
 not be en forced.'' •' 
 
 § 144. Revival of Causes of Action. — An amendatory statute authorizing 
 suits against railroad ccnniianics for violation of regulations of the railroad com- 
 mission to be brought within twelve months after the termination of suits by 
 the commission to enforce their rates, does not revive a cause of action that ac- 
 crued under the amended statute and that had been extinguished by la])se of 
 time prior to the enactment of the amendatory statute. ■*■* 
 
 §§ 145-159. Procedure and Evidence— § 145. Procedure in General. 
 — Proceedings before a corporation commission for contempt for viola- 
 tion of its orders are governed by the same rules as obtain in courts.^''^ 
 
 § 146. Jurisdiction. — Statutes creating railroad commissions or conferring 
 power upon them generall\- prescribe wdiat courts shall have jurisdiction of pro- 
 ceedings to enforce or to prevent enforcement of regulations of the commis- 
 sion. Some of the peculiar provisions of these statutes have been interpreted 
 by the courts.^" 
 
 §§ 147-148. Parties— § 147. By Whom Suit May Be Brought.— A 
 
 railroad cori)oration.''' or the beneficial owner thereof,'^ may in\-oke the aid of 
 
 42. Detroit, etc.. R. Co. r. Michicran R. 
 Conim.. 171 Mich. X'ir>. i::7 X. W. :!^".i. 
 
 43. What commission orders will be en- 
 forced. — Railroad Comm'rs v. Florida, 
 etc., R. Co., 58 Fla. 524, 50 So. 425. 
 
 An order of the railroad commissioners 
 will not be enforced, notwithstanding 
 the carrier failed to apply to the commis- 
 sioners for relief from the order before 
 disregarding it, where it is in effect ad- 
 mitted that its enforcement will be inju- 
 rious to the pul)lic and violate constitu- 
 tional rights of the carrier. Railroad 
 Comm'rs r. I'"lorida, etc., R. Co.. ."jS Fla. 
 524, 50 So. 4:J.-.. 
 
 44. Amendatory statute not reviving 
 cause of action extinguished by lapse of 
 time. — La Flo.ridienne r. Sealioard, etc.. 
 Railway. 59 Fla. 196, 52 So. 298. constru- 
 ing Laws 1907, c. 5624, amending Gen. 
 St. 1906, § 2910. 
 
 45. Proceedings before corporation 
 commission for contempt. — St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. 7'. Cannon & Son, 31 Okla. 
 476. 122 Pac. 231. 
 
 46. Proceedings by mandamus to en- 
 force regulations of commission. — By § 8 
 of the railroad and warehouse commission 
 act of Minnesota (Laws 1887, c. 10) the 
 supreme court is vested (concurrently 
 with the district court) with original ju- 
 risdiction of all proceedings by manda- 
 
 mus, to compel compliance with the regu- 
 lations of the commission with reference 
 to transportation rates, as provided 
 therein. State v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 38 Minn. 281, 37 N. W. 782, reversed in 
 134 U. S. 418, 33 L. Ed. 970, 10 S. Ct. 
 462. 702. 
 
 Jurisdiction of suit to prevent enforce- 
 ment of regulation of commission. — Un- 
 der the Texas statute. Rev. St., arts. 4565, 
 4566, providing that, if any railroad com- 
 pany is dissatisfied with any rule or regu- 
 lation adopted by the railroad commis- 
 sion, it may file a petition in court, stat- 
 ing its objections, on the trial of which 
 the burden shall be on the plaintiff to 
 show that the rule or regulation is un- 
 just and unreasonable, the court in which 
 such petition is filed has jurisdiction to 
 determine whether the regulation is un- 
 reasonal>le and unjust. Railroad Comm, 
 f. Houston, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 340, 38 
 S. W. 750. 
 
 47. Railroad company as complaint. — 
 Reayan :■. l'"arniers' Loan. etc.. Co., 154 
 U. S. :!"-,2. :;s L. l-.d. 1()14, 14 S. Ct. 1047. 
 
 48. Beneficial owner of road as com- 
 plaint. — Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, etc., 
 Co.. 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 
 1047. 
 
 Clearly a citizen of another state, who 
 has. under authority of the laws of the
 
 §§ i-^'-i30 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 122 
 
 the courts by suit in order to determine whether the contract rights created by 
 its charter are violated by acts regulating rates. A statute authorizing the rail- 
 road commission of a state to institute proceedings against railroads for vio- 
 lating or neglecting to comply with any law of the state as to railroads, does not 
 preclude the attorney general from proceeding, of his own motion, whenever he 
 concludes the interests of the public require it.-*» A voluntary unincorporated 
 association is without legal authority to institute in its own behalf and for the 
 benefit of another proceedings before a railroad commission challenging the 
 reasonableness of switching charges. ^"^ 
 
 § 148. Who Are Proper Parties. — To proceedings by the railroad com- 
 missioner of a state to require two railroad companies to make proper connec- 
 tions, one of such companies is a proper party although it has already made the 
 required connection, since all the parties should be before the court, so that all 
 the matters in dispute can be determined, and a judgment binding on both cor- 
 porations be rendered.^^ 
 
 § 149. Intervention. — In proceedings before a railroad commission to regu- 
 late the rates of a common carrier, another carrier, not a party to the proceed- 
 ing, though indirectly affected thereby, cannot intervene as a matter of right.^^ 
 
 §§ 150-152. Pleading-— § 150. Petition. — A railroad company attacking 
 the reasonableness and justice of a prescribed rate being required to show by 
 clear and satisfactory proof that the rate is unjust and unreasonable, the peti- 
 tion must allege fact's and circumstances that would, if true, authorize the court 
 to adjudge the rate unjust and unreasonable as matter of law.-^^ 1,1 ^ petition 
 
 state, become pecuniarily interested in, 
 or the beneficial owner of, the property 
 of the corporation, may invoke the judg- 
 ment of the federal courts as to whether 
 the contract rights created by the charter, 
 and of which it is thus the beneficial 
 owner, are violated by suljsequent acts of 
 the state in limitation of the right to col- 
 lect tolls. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, etc., 
 Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014. 14 S. 
 Ct. 1047. Compare Peik v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 L. Ed. 97. 
 
 49. Authority conferred upon commis- 
 sion not precluding action by attorney 
 general. — State v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 7.j X. H. 327, 74 Atl. 542, construing Pub. 
 St. isin, c. 155, § 15. 
 
 50. Institution of proceedings by vol- 
 untary unincorporated association. — Dar- 
 lington Lumber Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo.), 147 S. W. 1052. 
 
 51. Proper parties to proceedings to re- 
 quire carriers to make connections. — 
 Southern R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 98 
 Va. 758, 37 S. E. 294. 
 
 52. Intervention. — Appeal of Great 
 Northern R. Co., 60 Minn. 461, 62 N. W. 
 826. 
 
 53. What petition attacking reasonable- 
 ness and justice of rate must allege. — 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 102 
 Tex. 338, 113 S. W. 741. 
 
 Petitions held insufficient. — A petition 
 which alleged that the hauling of lumljcr 
 over the portion of the complaining com- 
 pany's road designated in the petition at 
 the rate specified by the railroad com- 
 mision would not yield sufficient revenue 
 
 to pay cost of transportation, but did not 
 state the earnings of the railroad in 
 hauling lumber over the remainder of its 
 road nor the amount of luml^er traffic 
 from points beyond the stations from 
 which the objectionable traffics were pre- 
 scribed, was insufficient, since the com- 
 pany could not select one rate and a par- 
 ticular part of its road for the application 
 of the rate, and establish therefrom that 
 the rate was not reasonable, as the rate, 
 when applied to hauls over the entire 
 road, might afford a profit. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 102 Tex. 338, 
 113 S. W. 741. 
 
 An allegation l)y a railroad company 
 that the rates fixed by the railroad com- 
 missioners for it are unjust and unrea- 
 sonalile when compared with the rates 
 permitted on other lines of railroad in 
 this state, operating under the same con- 
 ditions, does not overthrow the reason- 
 ableness or justice of the rate cotnplained 
 of, as a rate reasonable and just in itself 
 for one road may not be so for another, 
 though they connect with each other. 
 Storrs V. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 29 Fla. 
 617, 11 So. 226. 
 
 Bills held sufficient— A bill, filed by a 
 railroad, charging an absolute loss on 
 the transportation of passengers, occas- 
 ioned by the operation of a statute, and 
 less than a reasonable return for the en- 
 tire service rendered by it, verified by 
 oath and accompanied by statements, 
 showing in detail the gross income, ex- 
 penses and net earnings, sworn to and 
 sustaining tlic allegations of the bill
 
 123 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 150-153 
 
 for a niandanuis to compel a railroad company to accept lawful freight rates, 
 without discrimination, there must be a sufficient allegation to enable the court, 
 upon awarding the writ, to command the company to do a specific act or thing.^^ 
 A petition made to a railroad commission alleging merely that complainant, hav- 
 ing in view the shipment of coal over a certain road, had ai)plied to said road 
 for ground near its tracks for erection of a coal shed to be used when shipping 
 coal, and had been refused, but not alleging the puri)0se for which the shed was 
 desired, or that complainant was, or ever proposed to be. a shipper or dealer in 
 coal, or that there had been discrimination in granting like privilege to others, 
 is insufficient.^'' 
 
 § 151. Demurrer. — Where the petition attacking the reasonableness of a 
 rate fixed bv a railroad commission is demurred to, the court, in determining 
 whether the unreasonableness of the rate is established by clear and satisfactory 
 evidence, must consider the allegations of the petition as facts proved by clear 
 and satisfactory evidence.-"^'' But it has been held that averments of railroad 
 companies as to the adequacy of public service being performed by them and the 
 future effect of an order relative to such service made by state authority, are 
 merely conclusions that are not admitted by a demurrer, in the absence of aver- 
 ments" or specific facts to sustain the conclusions.''" 
 
 § 152. When Pleadings Make the Taking of Testimony Unnecessary. 
 
 Where it clearly appears from the pleadings that a regulation of railroad coui- 
 
 missioners is just, it is unnecessary for the court to take testimony on the sub- 
 ject.'""^ 
 
 §§ 153-157. Evidence— §§ 153-156. Presumptions and Burden of 
 Proof— § 153. In General. — The rules, orders or findings of a state railroad 
 commission are i)resumed to be reasonable and just,''^ and will not be interfered 
 with, unless their invalidity is made to clearly appear.''" 
 
 proper, is sufficient as a 1)111 to invalidate 
 a rate regulating statute. Coal, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Conley, 67 W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 
 613. 
 
 Where within twenty months under a 
 state constitution passenger rates were 
 reduced thirty-three and one-third per 
 cent, and by about a dozen orders of the 
 railroad commission freight rates on 
 about 40 per cent of the intrastate freight 
 business of the railroads were reduced 
 about 40 per cent, a bill is not demur- 
 rable or defective which avers that the 
 passenger rate is confiscatory, and that 
 the effect of the freight rates is to take 
 the property of complainant without just 
 compensation, though the bill contains no 
 averment that each order, taken by it- 
 self, is confiscatory. Love v. Atchison, 
 etc., R. Co., 107 C. C. A. 403, 185 Fed. 
 321. 
 
 54. Petition for mandamus to compel 
 acceptance of lawful freight rates. — State 
 V. Mobile, etc., R. Co.. T)'.! Ala. 321. hold- 
 ing that an allegation that relator ten- 
 dered "bales of lint cotton" to the railroad 
 company, without specifying any number, 
 was fatally indefinite. 
 
 55. Petition in proceedings to compel 
 carrier to permit erection of coal shed. — 
 State i'. Chicagd, etc.. R. d... Sti I<nva <)41, 
 53 N. W. 323. so holding as to a petition 
 made under McClain's Code, § 2061. 
 
 56. Effect of demurrer. — Judgment, 113 
 S. W. 741, reversed on rehearing. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 102 Tex. 
 338, 116 S. W. 795. 
 
 57. Railroad Comm'rs x'. Louisville, etc., 
 R. C.I.. ('.:! Fla. 274, .-,7 So. ("iJ. 
 
 58. When pleadings make the taking 
 of testimony unnecessary. — Railroad 
 Comm'rs v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 61 Fla. 
 799, .")4 So. 900. 
 
 59. Rules, orders, or findings of com- 
 mission presumed reasonable and just. — 
 Railroad Comm'rs z\ Florida, etc., R. Co., 
 58 Fla. 524, 50 So. 425; Railroad Comm'rs 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 63 Fla. 274, 57 
 So. 673. 
 
 60. Railroad Comm'rs r. Louisville, etc., 
 R. C ., 63 Fla. 274, 57 So. 673. 
 
 In determining whether a rate, rule, 
 regulation, or order of the railroad com- 
 mission upon a subject within its author- 
 ity is so unreasonable and arlMtrary as 
 to be illegal and unenforcealile, the court, 
 in deference to the governmental func- 
 tions conferred by law upon the commis- 
 sioners, will not only require the prima 
 facies of reasonableness impressed by the 
 statute upon the rate, rule, regulation, or 
 order to be overcome by admissions or 
 proofs, but will require the admissions or 
 proofs of facts tending to show unrea- 
 sonableness to be clear and convincing, 
 evcrv reasonable doubt being yielded in
 
 154 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 124 
 
 §§ 154-15 5. As to Rates— § 154. Rule Stated.— It is a rule as to 
 which all the authorities are in agreement, and which has in many states been 
 embodied in the constitution or statutes, that rates fixed by the legislature,''^ or 
 by a commission under constitutional or legislative authority, *■'- are prima facie 
 
 favor of the rate, rule, regulation, or or- 
 der. Railroad Comm'rs z: Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Fla.), 57 So. 175. 
 
 Under the Texas statute. Rev. St. 1895. 
 arts. 4665, 4566, the right of courts to set 
 aside a determination of the railroad com- 
 mission held dependent on a clear show- 
 ing of unreasonableness. Railroad Comm. 
 V. Galveston Chamber of Commerce 
 (Tex.), 145 S. W. 573, reversing judg- 
 ment Galveston Chamber of Commerce r. 
 Railroad Comm. (Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. 
 W. 737. 
 
 61. Presumption as to reasonableness of 
 rates fixed by legislature. — Ruggles v. Illi- 
 nois, 108 U. S. 5:26, 27 L. Ed. 812, 2 S. Ct. 
 832. 
 
 The North Dakota statute, Laws 1907, 
 p. 73, c. 51, amending and re-enacting 
 Rev. Codes, 1905, § 4395, prescribing max- 
 imum coal rates, is presumptively valid, 
 and the burden is on the carrier to prove 
 that such rates are clearly unreasonable. 
 State V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 N. Dak. 
 45, 120 N. W. 869. 
 
 While the rates for passenger service 
 prescribed by the Pennsylvania statute. 
 Act April 5, 1907 (P. L. 59). were pre- 
 sumptively reasonable, such presumption 
 was no stronger than the ordinary pre- 
 sumption in favor of the constitutionality 
 of an act of the legislature, and was of no 
 great strength or sanctity, in view of the 
 fact that the act was passed \vithotit 
 investigation in obedience to public agi- 
 tation. Pennsylvania R. Co. z'. Philadel- 
 phia County. 220 Pa. 100, 68 Atl. 676. 
 
 62. Presumption that rates fixed by 
 commission are lawful, just and reason- 
 able. — United States. — Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 46 L. 
 Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900; Dow v. Beidel- 
 man, 125 U. S. 680, 31 L. Ed. 841, 8 S. Ct. 
 1028; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Tompkins, 
 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. Ed. 417, 20 S. Ct. 336; 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway v. Ellis, 203 U. 
 
 •S. 261, 51 L. Ed. 175, 27 S. Ct. 109; At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co. V. Ellis, 203 U. S. 256, 
 51 L. Ed. 174, 27 S. Ct. 108. 
 
 If the rates established by the commis- 
 sion are not conclusive, they are at least 
 prima facie evidence of what is reason- 
 able and just. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 
 S. Ct. 1047; S. C, 154 U. S. 420, 38 L. Ed. 
 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Reagan v. Mercantile 
 Trust Co., 154 U. S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 
 14 S. Ct. 1062. 
 
 Florida.— Th.& effect of the Act of June 
 7, 1887 (Railroad Commission Act), is 
 not to make schedules of rates prescribed 
 by the railroad commission conclusive as 
 against judicial inquiry, but is to provide 
 a new mode of proving the reasonable- 
 
 ness and just character of the rates fixed, 
 and make the schedules competent and 
 adequate evidence of the correctness of 
 the action of the commissioners, in the 
 absence of countervailing proof that they 
 have exceeded their powers, or abused 
 their discretion, and invaded some right 
 of the railroad company. Pensacola, etc., 
 R. Co. V. State, 25 Fla. 310, 5 So. 833, 3 
 L. R. A. 661. 
 
 Where a tariff of freight and passenger 
 rates has been established by the railroad 
 commissioners, and a railroad company and 
 the commissioners differ as to whether 
 such rates, considered as a whole, will 
 prove remunerative to the company, and 
 there is room for a difference of intelli- 
 gent opinion on the subject, the courts 
 can not substitute their judgment for that 
 of the commissioners, but the tariffs as 
 fixed by the commission must, in so far 
 as the courts are concerned, be left to 
 the test -of experiment. Storrs v. Pensa- 
 cola, etc., R. Co:, 29 Fla. 617, 11 So. 226; 
 Pensacola, etc., R. Co. r. State, 25 Fla. 
 310, 5 So. 833, 3 L. R. A. 661. 
 
 Georgia. — Sorrell v. Central Railroad, 
 75 Ga. 509. 
 
 Illinois. — State V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 246 111. 188, 92 N. E. 814. 
 
 Iowa. — Though the last sentence of § 
 3 of the "Joint Rate Act" (23d Gen. 
 Assem. c. 17) is utterly unintelligible, so 
 that, construed by itself, it would enact 
 that the rate fixed by the commissioners 
 should be absolute and conclusive as to 
 its reasonableness, yet it will be con- 
 strued with Acts 22d Gen. Assem., c. 28, 
 of which it is amendatory, and which 
 provides that the rate fixed shall be prima 
 facie evidence only of its reasonableness, 
 and thus construed the whole act is valid, 
 effective, and sensible. Burlington, etc., 
 R Co. V. Dey, 82 Iowa 312, 48 N. W. 98, 
 31 Am. St. Rep. 477, 12 L. R. A. 436. 
 
 Louisiana. — Morgan, etc., Co. v. Rail- 
 road Comm., 127 La. 636, 53 So. 890. 
 
 Mfc/ri^'an.— Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Michigan Comm., 160 Mich. 365, 125 N. 
 W. 549; Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Michi- 
 gan R. Comm., 171 Mich. 335, 137 N. 
 W. 329. 
 
 Minnesota.—Steenerson v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713, 
 construing Gen.* Laws 1887, c. 10, as 
 amended by Laws 1891, c. 106; State v. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 80 Minn. 191, 
 83 N W. 60, 89 Am. St. Rep. 514, con- 
 struing Gen, St. 1894, § 392, subd. 8, and 
 Laws 1895, c. 91, § 3, subd. c, and Id., § 
 381, subd. c, affirmed in 186 U. S. 257, 46 
 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 Under a prior statute Gen. Laws 1887, 
 c. 10, § 8, the determination of the rail-
 
 125 
 
 CONTROL AND RIvGL'LATIf )N. 
 
 §§ 154-155 
 
 presumed to be lawful, just, and reasonable, and the burden of proving the con- 
 trary is on the carrier or other person questioning the fact. And the rate of 
 fare prcscriljcd by a cii\ ordinance limiting the rate of fare to be charged by 
 street railway coniijanies is presumed to be reasonable until its unreasonableness 
 is shown, and the burden of showing the rate to be unreasonable is on the com- 
 panies.''-^ A statute providing that rates fixed by a commission shall be regarded 
 as prima facie reasonal)lc. is valid ; it being com]:»etent for the legislature to pre- 
 scri1)c rules of evidence fcjr all proceedings under the laws.'''* 
 
 § 155. How Presumption May Be Overcome. — The presumption that 
 rates fixed by statute or by a slate railroad coninn>sion are lawful and reasonable 
 can be overcome only by showing by clear and satisfactory evidence that they are 
 unlawful or unreasonable. This rule has in many jurisdictions been given stat- 
 utory sanction.''"" But such presumption may be overcome by admissions in 
 pleadings which clearly show the invalidity of the rate order, or admit that it 
 is unreasonable, and was arbitrarily made, without evidence or due considera- 
 
 road and warehouse commission as to 
 what were usual and reasonal)le fares 
 and rates for the transportation of per- 
 sons and property by a railway company 
 was held to be conclusive; and. in pro- 
 ceedings by mandamus to compel com- 
 pliance with the tariff of rates recom- 
 mended and pul)Iished by them, no issue 
 could be raised or inquiry had on that 
 question. State ::■. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 38 Minn. 281. 37 N. \V. 782; State v. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 40 Minn. l.'jC), 
 41 N. W. 46.5. 
 
 Mississippi. — Stone z\ Natchez, etc., R. 
 Co., 62 Miss. 646. 
 
 Ohio.— Act April 2, 1906 (98 Ohio 
 Laws, p. 342), creating a board of railroad 
 commissioners, section 16, par. "e," giv- 
 ing prima facie effect to determination of 
 commissioners, applies to the determi- 
 nation of facts upon evidence as to un- 
 reasonable rates, but does not counter- 
 vail tlie well-settled rule that in proceed- 
 ings in error the presumi)tion is that the 
 court below applied the law correctly. 
 Railroad Comm. v. Hocking Valley R. 
 Co., 82 O. St. 25, 91 N. H. 86.5. 
 
 O Ida ho ma. —Const., art. 9, § 22 (Bunn's 
 Ed., § 235; Snyder's Ed. p. 259), makes 
 an order of the corporation commission 
 prima facie just and reasonal^le; but such 
 presumption arising in favor of the order, 
 while a strong one, is not conclusive, and 
 may be rebutted. Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 V. State, 23 Okla. 210, 100 Pac. 11. 
 
 Where, on appeal from an order fixing 
 freight rates, both parties appeared and 
 agreed to submit the appeal on the rec- 
 ord, and waived the filing of briefs, the 
 order would be affirmed, in the absence 
 of a showing wherein the rates fixed were 
 unreasonal)le or unjust. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. State (Okla.), 128 Pa-c. 908. 
 
 T<?.t-fl.y,— Judgment, 113 S. W. 741, re- 
 versed on rehearing. Gulf, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Railroad Comm., 102 Tex. 338, 116 S. W. 
 795. construing Rev. St. 1895. arts. 4565, 
 4566. 
 
 I'irgiiiia. — Washington, etc., R. Co. 7\ 
 
 Commonwealth, 112 Va. 515, 71 S. E. 
 539, construing Const. 1902, §§ 156d, 156f 
 (Code 1904, pp. ccliv, cclv). 
 
 L'nder Const., § 156, subsec. "f," pro- 
 viding that the action of the state cor- 
 poration commission shall be regarded as 
 prima facie just and correct, on appeal 
 irom an order fixing the charge which a 
 transportation corporation might make 
 for placing cars to be weighed on con- 
 signees' or shippers' individual track scales 
 the charges fixed were prima facie cor- 
 rect, and the finding entitled to peculiar 
 weight. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth, 103 Va. 289, 49 S. E. 39. 
 
 Il'ashingtoii. — The findings of the rail- 
 road commission in determining a rate 
 for switching cars are presumed to be 
 correct. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Rail- 
 road Comm.. 57 Wash. 134. 106 Pac. 611. 
 
 A rate for switching cars which has 
 l)een continued in force a considerable 
 time is presumed reasonable and remu- 
 nerative. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Rail- 
 road Comm.. 57 Wash. 134, 106 Pac. 611. 
 
 ll^iscinisiii. — Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 z\ Railroad Comm., 136 Wis. 146, 116 N. 
 W. 905, construing Laws 1905. p. 549. c. 
 362. 
 
 63. Presumption that rate prescribed 
 by municipal ordinance is reasonable. — 
 Chicago Union Tract. Co. :•. Chicago, 199 
 111. 579. 65 N. E. 470. 
 
 64. Statute making rates fixed by com- 
 mission prima facie reasonable is valid. — 
 So held ;l^ l«< llic provision in the Iowa 
 statute (23d Gen. .\ssem. c. 17. §§ 3. 4), 
 that the "joint rates," and the division 
 thereof between the different companies, 
 as fixed by the commissioners, shall be 
 regarded as prima facie reasonable. Bur- 
 lington, etc.. R. Co. V. Dey. 82 Iowa 312, 
 48 N. W. 98, 31 .^m. St. Rep. 477. 12 L. R. 
 .\. 436. 
 
 65. How presumption of lawfulness and 
 reasonableness of rates can be overcome. 
 — Michimiii. — Detroit. etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Michigan R. Comm.. 171 Mich. 335. 137 
 X. W. 329: Michigan Cent. R. Co. v.
 
 155-156 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 126 
 
 tion.^^ Speculative suggestions as to what might possibly result, with no show- 
 ing of the actual test, are insufficient to overthrow the findings of a commission. «" 
 Where a statute makes the rates adopted by the railroad commission prima facie 
 evidence that the same are reasonable, and a fair return on the value of the road, 
 evidence that the rates are not a fair return on the amount of the bonded debt, 
 capital stock, and current debts is insufficient to overcome the prima facie rea- 
 sonableness of the rates adopted, unless it is also shown that the value of the 
 road equals such outstanding liabilities."'^ \Miere a carrier's contention that a 
 rate established by a commission is unreasonable is supported by statistics in 
 which it appears that dividends on the stock are calculated as a part of the oper- 
 ating expenses, the carrier does not rebut and overcome the prima facie charac- 
 ter of the tariff established by the commission.'^'' Where a carrier attempts to 
 establish the invalidity of a statute establishing maximum rates, it must make 
 full and complete disclosure of all revenue derived from the business, and the 
 disbursement of the same for all purposes, including salaries i)aid to- all its offi- 
 cers, agents, and employees, so that it may be determined whether such expendi- 
 tures are necessary, as well as reasonable.'" 
 
 § 156. In Proceedings against a Carrier for Contempt. — In proceed- 
 ings against a railway company for contempt for violating an order of the State 
 
 Michigan R. Comm.. 160 Mich. 36.5. 12.5 
 N. \V. 549, holding that the evidence in 
 a suit bj' railroad companies to avoid an 
 order of the railroad commission fixing 
 rates for excess baggage failed to show 
 that the commission did not have before 
 it evidence that the rates theretofore in 
 effect were unreasonable, or that the 
 rates fixed by it, though based on mile- 
 age, instead of on the passenger fare, 
 were unreasonable. 
 
 Xorth Dakota.— State v. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co., 19 X. Dak. 45, 120 N. W. 869. 
 The evidence in this case was held not 
 to overcome the prima facie presumption 
 that rates for transportation of coal in 
 car load lots prescribed by Laws 1907, p. 
 7.3, c. 51. amending and re-enacting Rev. 
 Codes 1905. § 4395. were reasonable. 
 
 Texas.— GuM, etc., R. C.n r, Railroad 
 Comm.. 102 Tex. 338. 116 S. W. 795, re- 
 versing on rehearing 113 S. W. 741. In 
 this case it was held that under the Texas 
 statute, Rev. Stat. 1895, arts. 4565, 4566, 
 a citizen, as well as a railroad company, 
 instituting an action to contest the rea- 
 sonableness of rates, must show by clear 
 and conclusive proof that the rates com- 
 plained of are unreasonable. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Railroad Comm., 136 Wis. 146, 116 X. W. 
 905. holding that the "clear and satisfac- 
 tory" proof required by the Wisconsin 
 statute. Laws 1905, p. 549, ch. 362, is 
 such proof as is necessary to establish 
 fraud or prove mistake in the execution 
 of a written instrument. 
 
 Rule in Florida. — In Florida it has 
 been held that in determining whether a 
 regulation of the railroad commissioners 
 is unenforceable, the courts will not only 
 require the prima facies of reasonable- 
 ness impressed by the statute to be over- 
 come, but will require the admissions or 
 
 proofs to be convincing beyond reason- 
 able doubt. Railroad Comm'rs v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co. (Fla.\ 60 So. 186. 
 
 66. Admissions in pleadings. — Railroad 
 Comm'rs v. Florida, etc., R. Co., 64 Fla. 
 112, 59 So. 385. 
 
 67. Speculative suggestions with no 
 showing of actual test insufficient. — State 
 r. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 48 Fla. 150, 
 152, 37 So. 658, affirmed Seaboard, etc., 
 Railway v. Ellis, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. Ed. 
 175, 27 S. Ct. 109. 
 
 68. Evidence insufficient to overcome 
 prima facie reasonableness of rates. — 
 State V. Southern Pac. Co., 23 Ore. 424, 
 31 Pac. 960. 
 
 69. So held in interpreting the Minne- 
 sota statutes, Gen. St. 1894, § 392, subd. 
 8, and Laws 1895, c. 91, § 3, subd. c, and 
 Id., § 381, subd. c, which provide that the 
 tariff of railroad rates made by the state 
 railroad and warehouse commission shall 
 l)e taken by the courts as prima facie evi- 
 dence that such tariflf was equal and rea- 
 sonable, the burden being on the carriers 
 to show to the contrary. State Z'. Min- 
 neapolis, etc., R. Co., 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. 
 W. 60, 89 Am. St. Rep. 514, affirming Min- 
 neapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Minnesota, 186 U. 
 S. 2.->7. 46 L. Ed. 1151, 22 S. Ct. 900. 
 
 70. What carrier must disclose. — State 
 f. Adams Exp. Co., 85 Neb. 25. 122 N. W. 
 691; State v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 85 Neb. 
 42, 122 N. W. 697. 
 
 In the absence of any showing as to 
 earnings or profits of a street railway 
 company, the court can not pass on the 
 question as to whether an ordinance reg- 
 ulating the rates of fare to be charged 
 by such companies amounts to a depri- 
 vation of property without due process 
 of law. Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, 199 111. 484, 65 N. E. 451, 59 L. 
 R.A. 631.
 
 127 
 
 CONTK(JL AND KliCLLATKJX. 
 
 §§ 156-159 
 
 Corporation Commission, where the railway company admits the act of violation 
 with which it is charged, but attemi)ts to defend against the proceedings upon 
 the ground that it was done through a misapprehension of the order or as a 
 result of a mistake, the burden is upon the company to establish such cause.' ^ 
 
 § 157. Admissibility.— In proceedings before a railroad commission to reg- 
 ulate the rates of a common carrier, the commission, and, on appeal, the court, 
 should be liberal in receiving evidence on the question of what is a reasonable 
 rate, and may hear arguments in behalf of any person or corporation Jnterested 
 in tiie result.'- On a hearing to enforce compliance with any orders of a cor- 
 poration commission against a carrier, the latter must be permitted to introduce 
 evidence to controvert tlie reasonableness of the order complained of.'^ 
 
 § 158. Judgment.— Where a railroad company is cited for contempt for 
 the violation of an order of a corporation commission, a judgment limited in its 
 scope to finding it guilty of a violation of its own tariffs, not based on any charge 
 in the complaint and the citation issued, is erroneous and must on appeal be set 
 aside." ^ A judgment in proceedings under a statute authorizing a court to order 
 connecting railroad lines to make connections, which fixes a schedule for certain 
 connecting trains, to be in efifect if the companies fail to agree on a schedule 
 making a desired connection, is erroneous, unless it provides that the connecting 
 roads may afterwards agree on a new schedule, not in conflict with the law.'^ 
 
 § 159. Procedure upon Review of Orders or Decisions of a Commis- 
 sion. — The procedure upon review of orders or decisions of a commission is 
 governed by constitutional provision or statute. Therefore questions as to the 
 mode of review,'*' the mode of procedure necessary to obtain it.'' what is pre- 
 
 71. Burden of proof in proceedings for 
 contempt. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. ■:■. State, 
 20 Okla. Tti4, 110 Pac. T.')!). 
 
 72. Admissibility of evidence. — Appeal 
 of Great Northern R. Co., 60 Minn. 401, 
 62 N. W. 826. 
 
 On the question of what rate of return 
 upon its investment should be allowed to 
 a street railway, that in the locality where 
 the railway operated the prevailing rate 
 of interest on loans running for a long 
 time and backed by first-class security 
 was 7 per cent, that on ordinary commer- 
 cial paper the rate was 8 per cent, and 
 that the railway appealing from rates or- 
 dered by the railroad commission had it- 
 self loaned to an allied corporation a large 
 sum on its notes at 6 per cent, raising the 
 amount by an issue of bonds, may be 
 taken into consideration on the question 
 of adequate return. Puget Sound Elect. 
 Railway v. Railroad Comm., 65 Wash. 75, 
 117 Pac. 7:59. 
 
 73. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. State, 20 
 Okla. 160. 109 Pac. 218. 
 
 74. Judgment in proceedings for con- 
 tempt. — St. i.nuis. etc.. K. Co. r. Cannon 
 & Sun. :;i Okla. 470. 12:2 Pac. 2:51. 
 
 75. Judgment under statute authorizing 
 court to order railroad connections. — 
 Southern 1\. Co. r. Commonwealth. 9S 
 \'a. 75S. ;;7 S. E. 294. construing .\ct of 
 March 3, 1S92, authorizing the circuit 
 court to order connecting railroad lines to 
 make connections. 
 
 76. Mode of review. — In Florida, rules 
 
 and regulations adopted by a railroad 
 commission are subject to review as ad- 
 ministrative matters, not by appeal or 
 writ of error to correct mere errors or 
 irregularities, but in mandamus and other 
 appropriate proceedings to test their va- 
 liditv. Railroad Comm'rs r. Florida, etc., 
 R. Co., 58 Fla. 524. 50 So. 425. 
 
 77. Mode of procedure to obtain review. 
 —The Ohio statute. Rev. St., §§ 244-16, 
 par. "d," prescribing the mode of proce- 
 dure necessary to obtain a review of a 
 judgment in an action brought under such 
 section before the board of railroad com- 
 missioners because of alleged unlawful 
 discrimination, applies exclusively to a 
 judgment rendered by the court of com- 
 mon pleas in such action. Railroad 
 Comm. c'. Hocking Valley R. Co., 79 O. 
 St. 419, 87 N. E. 548. 
 
 .\t any time within twelve months from 
 the final order of the corporation com- 
 mission on a record certified in accord- 
 ance with the constitution of Oklahoma, 
 art. 9, § 22 (Bunn's Ed., § 234), any party 
 aggrieved may prosecute an appeal from 
 the corporation commission by applica- 
 tion to the chairman thereof to certify 
 all facts on which the case appealed from 
 was based, together with the evidence 
 considered by the commission, as well as 
 such other evidence as the commission 
 may deem proper to certify, also a written 
 statement of the reasons of the action 
 which will constitute the record for re- 
 view. Kansas, etc., R. Co. t: Love, 23 
 Okla. 224, 100 Pac. 22.
 
 §§ 159-160 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 128 
 
 requisite thereto/^ the sufficiency of a petition therefor/^ the time within which 
 an appeal may be taken.*-" whether the tiHng of a bond is essential^^ and the 
 sufficiency of the record on appeal.'^- are to be determined by a proper interpre- 
 tation of the governing constitutional or statutory enactment. 
 
 §§ 160-173. Injunction— §§ 160-166. When and against Whom In- 
 junction Will Lie — § 160, Injunction against Action by a State Commis- 
 sion. — The proceedings of a slate raih'oad commission which are Icgishitive in 
 nature are not proceedings in a court, and are subject to injunctive process, no 
 matter what may be the character of the body in which they take i)kice.'^^ It is 
 within the power and is the duty of the courts to incpire whether rates pre- 
 scribed by such a commission are unjust and unreasonable, such as to constitute 
 an unconstitutional invasion of property rights, and. if so, to enjoin their en- 
 forcement.^-* A bill against a commission to restrain the members from en- 
 forcing such a rate is not bad as an attempt to enjoin legislation or as a suit 
 
 78. In Oklahoma a motion for new trial 
 is not a prerequisite to an appeal to the 
 supreme court from an order of the cor- 
 poration commission. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. v. Love. 23 Okla. 192, 99 Pac. 1081; 
 Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Love, 23 Okla. 224, 
 100 Pac. 22. 
 
 79. Petition. — A Texas statute. Rev. St. 
 1895, art. 4565, provides that a railroad 
 
 based, and, on appeal from such order, 
 certify the facts so found to the supreme 
 court. Midland Valley R. Co. v. State, 
 24 Okla. 817, 104 Pac. 1086; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. State, 24 Okla. 828, 104 Pac. 
 1087; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. State, 24 
 Okla. 832, 104 Pac. 1089. 
 
 Under this provision the facts upon 
 ,'hich the action of the commission ap- 
 
 company dissatisfied with the decision of pealed from was based and which may 
 
 any rate, etc., adopted by the railroad 
 
 commission, may file a petition setting 
 
 forth the particular cause of objection to 
 
 the decision, rate, etc., or to either or all 
 
 of them, in certain courts. Held, that a 
 
 railroad company in such an action is not 
 
 required to attack all the rates prescribed. 
 
 be essential for the proper decision of the 
 appeal, together with such of the evidence 
 iiUroduced before, or considered by, the 
 commission as may be selected or re- 
 quired to be certified by any party in in- 
 terest as well as such other evidence as 
 the commission may deem proper to cer- 
 
 but may attack one rate only. Gulf, etc., tify, and a written statement by the com 
 
 R. Co. V. Railroad Comm., 102 Tex. 338 
 113 S. W. 741. 
 
 80. Time within which appeal may be 
 taken. — In Oklahoma any proper party 
 may appeal to the supreme court from 
 a final order of the corporation commis- 
 sion at any time within one year from 
 the date of the same. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Love, 23 Okla. 192, 99 Pac. 1081. 
 
 Under the Ohio statute. Rev. St., § 
 244-16, par. "d," either party to an action 
 before the railroad commission against 
 a railroad for unjust discrimination may 
 appeal within sixty days after judgment 
 in the court of common pleas, or take the 
 case up on error. Railroad Comm. v. 
 Hocking Valley R. Co., 79 O. St. 419, 87 
 X. R. 548. 
 
 81. Statute requiring compensatory bond 
 mandatory. — Tlie provision in tlie W asli- 
 ington statute. Laws 1909, c. 93, § 3, re- 
 quiring a compensatory bond on an ap- 
 peal from an order sustaining a reduction 
 of passenger rates by the railroad com- 
 mission was mandatory. Puget Sound 
 Elect. Railway v. Mitchell, 60 Wash. 660, 
 111 Pac. 873. 
 
 82. Record on appeal. — Under the con- 
 stitution of Oklahoma, art. 9, § 22 (Bunn's 
 Ed. § 234), the corporation commission, 
 on hearing an order proposed to fix rates 
 to be charged 1)y a railroad company for 
 hauling intrastate freight, must make a 
 finding of fact on which the order is 
 
 ission of the reasons for its action, cer- 
 tified by the chairman of the commission 
 under its seal, constitute the complete rec- 
 ord for an appeal to the supreme court. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. z\ Love, 23 Okla. 
 192, 99 Pac. 1081. 
 
 When the commission, in fixing rates 
 for intrastate freight, fails to make a find- 
 ing of facts and certify the same to the 
 supreme court, on appeal, the court may 
 remand the case, with directions to find 
 the facts and certify them before the ap- 
 peal is determined. Midland Valley R. 
 Co. V. State, 24 (Jkla. S17, 104 Pac. 1086. 
 
 83. Proceedings which are legislative in 
 nature subject to injunctive process. — 
 Prcntis r. AtlaiUic Coast Line Co., 211 U. 
 S. 210, 53 L. Ed. 150, 29 S. Ct. 67. 
 
 The making of a rate by a legislative 
 body, after hearing the interested parties, 
 is not res judicata upon the validity of 
 the rate when questioned by those par- 
 ties in a suit in a court. Litigation does 
 not arise until after legislation; nor can a 
 state make such legislative action res ju- 
 dicata in subsequent litigation. Prentis 
 V. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 
 53 L. Ed. 150, 29 S. Ct. 67. 
 
 84. When enforcement of rates pre- 
 scribed by commission will be enjoined. — 
 Trammel v. Dinsmore, 42 C. C. A. 623, 
 102 Fed. 794. affirmed in 183 U. S. 115, 46 
 L. Ed. Ill, 22 S. Ct. 45.
 
 129 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 § 160 
 
 against a state. ^^'^ P>ut where the duty of fixing and enforcing rates is vested in 
 a state railroad commission, injunction to restrain the commission from pro- 
 ceeding, the illegal ground for equitable interposition being threatened mul- 
 tiplicity of suits and irrci)aral)le injury, will not lie before the rates are fixed 
 at all."^" Proceedings for such an injuiuiioii slmuld not be commencefl in a fed- 
 eral court until the rate has been fixed by the state tribunal having the last 
 word.''' The enforcement of the orders of a state railroad commission may be 
 restrained on the ground that such enforcement would cause complainant irrep- 
 arable injury in its business. ^'^ The enforcement of rates i^rcscriljed by such a 
 commission may l)e enjoined on ground thai they are unjust and unreasonable;^'-' 
 
 85. Prcntis v. .\tlantic Coast Line Co., 
 211 U. S. 210, 53 L. Ed. 150, 29 S. Ct. 67; 
 Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. 
 S. 362, 38 S. Ct. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; Smyth 
 V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 
 18 S. Ct. 418; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tompkins, 176 U. S. 107, 44 L. Ed. 417, 20 
 S. Ct. 336; Hanley v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 
 187 U. S. 617, 47 L. Ed. 333, 23 S. Ct. 214; 
 McNeill V. Southern R. Co., 202 U. S. 543. 
 50 L. Ed. 1142, 26 S. Ct. 722; Mississippi 
 R. Comm. v. Illinois Cent R. Co., 203 U. 
 S. 335, 51 L. Ed. 209, 27 S. Ct. 90; Ex 
 parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 
 
 28 S. Ct. 441. 
 
 86. Injunction will not lie before rates 
 are fixed. — McChord r. Louisville, etc., K. 
 Co., 183 U. S. 483, 46 L. Ed. 289, 22 S. 
 Ct. 165; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, etc., 
 Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. 
 Ct. 1047; S. C, 154 U. S. 420, 38 L. Ed. 
 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Reagan v. Mercan- 
 tile Trust Co., 154 U. S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 
 1030, 14 S. Ct. 1062; S. C, 154 U. S. 413, 
 38 L. Ed. 1028, 14 S. Ct. 1060; Stone r. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc.. Co., 116 L-. S. 307, 
 
 29 L. Ed. 036, 6 S. Ct. 334, 388, 1191. 
 
 87. While a party does not lose his right 
 to complain of action under an unconsti- 
 tutional law by not using diligence to 
 prevent its enactment, on a question of 
 railroad rates, when an appeal to the su- 
 preme court of the state from an order 
 of the state corporation commission fix- 
 ii.g such rates is given by the state con- 
 stitution, it is proper that dissatisfied rail- 
 roads should take this matter to the 
 supreme court of their state before bring- 
 ing a bill in the circuit court of the 
 United States. Under the circumstances 
 of this case action on a bill was sus- 
 pended to await the result of such an 
 appeal. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line 
 Co., 211 U. S. 210, 53 L. Ed. 150, 29 S. 
 Ct. 67. 
 
 88. Irreparable injury — Facts authoriz- 
 ing preliminary injunction. — Complainant 
 owned a large grain elevator at Ft. 
 Worth, Te.x., and was engaged largely in 
 buying grain in other states for shipment 
 and export, shipping the same over the 
 defendant railroad company's lines to Ft. 
 Worth, which was its southern terminus, 
 transferring it there to its elavator for 
 cleaning and grading, and then reship- 
 
 1 Car— 9 
 
 ping, availing itself of the proportional 
 tariff on through shipments put in force 
 by the defendant and other connecting 
 companies. The Te.xas railroad commis- 
 sion, also made defendants, without no- 
 tice to either complainant or the railroad 
 company entered orders requiring the 
 company to cancel its proportional tar- 
 iffs, prohibiting it from permitting grain 
 shipped on export billing to be transferred 
 into complainant's elevator, and requiring 
 it to cancel any contracts it might have 
 with complainant whereby it had under- 
 taken to pay any sum of money for any 
 purpose whatever. It was further re- 
 quired to file a notice of compliance with 
 such orders by a given time, under pen- 
 alty of the institution of "such proceed- 
 ings as may be found proper and ade- 
 quate to enforce compliance" therewith. 
 Complainant alleged in its l)ill that de- 
 fendant railroad company had given no- 
 tice of its intention to obey such orders 
 being moved thereto, as alleged by the 
 fact that it had other interests pending 
 before the commission of great impor- 
 tance to itself. Held, such facts not be- 
 ing controverted, that complainant was 
 entitled to a preliminary injunction re- 
 straining the commission from enforcing 
 its orders until the final hearing, as op- 
 erating to cause complainant irreparable 
 injury in its business. Rosenbaum Grain 
 Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Fed. 46, 
 order affirmed Railroad Comm. z\ Rosen- 
 baum Grain Co., 130 Fed. 110, 64 C. C. A. 
 444. 
 
 89. Injunction on ground that rates are 
 unjust and unreasonable.— Trammel v. 
 Dinsmore, 42 C. C. A. 623, 102 Fed. 794, 
 affirmed in 183 U. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. Ill, 
 22 S. Ct. 45. 
 
 On demurrer to a bill to restrain en- 
 forcement by state railroad commission- 
 ers of a tariff of rates prescribed by them 
 for carriage of goods by a railroad, aver- 
 ring that such tariif was unjust and un- 
 rci'sonalile, it was admitted that the road 
 cost tar more than the amount of the 
 company's stock and bonds outstanding, 
 wh.ich represented money invested in its 
 cc>nsiruction; that there had been no 
 waste or mismanr.genient in the constiuc- 
 tion or operation; that supplies and la- 
 bor had been purchased at the lowest
 
 160 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 130 
 
 that they are confiscatory ; "" or that they amount to the taking of prop- 
 erty without due process of huv or to a denial of the equal protection of the 
 laws.^i But where the statutory remedy in ecpity is prompt a complainant is 
 not. as a matter of law. entitled to enjoin enforcement of a commission order 
 
 possible price consistent with the suc- 
 cessful operation of the road; that the 
 rates voluntarily fixed by the company 
 had been for ten years steadily decreas- 
 ing, until the aggregate decrease had 
 been more than fifty per cent; that un- 
 der the rates thus voluntarily established 
 the stock, which represented two-fifths 
 of the value, had never received anything 
 in the way of dividends, and that for the 
 last three years the earnings above op- 
 erating expenses had been insufficient to 
 pay the interest on the bonded debt; and 
 that the proposed tariflf, as enforced, 
 would so diminish the earnings that they 
 would not pay one-half the interest on 
 the bonded debt above the operating ex- 
 penses. Held that, in the absence of any 
 satisfactory showing to the contrary, this 
 justified a finding that the proposed tariff 
 was unjust and unreasonable, and a de- 
 cree restraining it being put in force. 
 Reagan z'. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 
 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; 
 Reagan f. Mercantile Trust Co., l.")4 U. 
 S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 14 S. Ct. 1002. 
 
 90. Injunction on ground that rates are 
 confiscatory. — .\ court of equity has the 
 power to enjoin a continuous operation 
 of confiscatory fare and rates established 
 by a railroad commission, which had 
 changed a lawful status in existence be- 
 fore they took effect. Love i'. Atchison, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 107 C. C. A. 403, 185 Fed. 
 321. 
 
 In an action to enjoin the enforcement 
 of fares and rates established by a rail- 
 road commission as confiscatory, evi- 
 dence held to show no abuse of discre- 
 tion in granting the prayer of complain- 
 ant. Love f. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 107 
 C. C. A. 403, 185 Fed. 321. 
 
 That a railroad tested the fare and 
 rates established by a railroad commis- 
 sion for several months is no ground for 
 denying injunction against the continued 
 operation of this fare and these rates on 
 the ground that they were confiscatory. 
 Love V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 107 C. C. 
 A. 403, 185 Fed. 321. 
 
 Railroad companies, that will be de- 
 prived of parts of their property devoted 
 to public use without just compensation 
 during a rate-making process by provi- 
 sions of a state constitution, or a state 
 law, or a state commission, prescribing 
 tentative rates and putting them in ef- 
 fect during the rate-making process, may 
 obtain an injunction to the same extent 
 that they may after the process is com- 
 plete. Love V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 107 
 C. C. A. 403, 185 Fed. 321, afifirming or- 
 ders Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Love, 174 
 
 Fed. 59 and Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Love. 
 177 Fed. 493. 
 
 A preliminary injunction is not a mat- 
 ter of strict right, and it is often the 
 duty of a court to refuse such an injunc- 
 toin where it is doubtful what upon the 
 final hearing may be ascertained to be 
 the real facts in the case, and where the 
 rights of the complainants are such that 
 they will suffer no more injury if they 
 finally succeed than would he inflicted 
 upon the defendants if unjustly enjoined. 
 Especially is this true where it is sought 
 to enjoin the operation of a state law 
 fixing railroad rates alleged to be con- 
 fiscatory but which has not yet gone into 
 efifect, when it is probable that a practical 
 test of the law will be required to as- 
 certain the truth, and in such case an in- 
 junction should not be granted on ex 
 parte affidavits alone merely stating 
 opinions. Decree Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Railroad Comm., 161 Fed. 925, reversed. 
 Railroad Comm. z'. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 95 C. C. A. 117, 170 Fed. 225. 
 
 In a suit to enjoin the enforcement of 
 rates fixed by a state law as confiscatory, 
 the fact that bonds may be required from 
 complainants for the protection of pas- 
 sengers and shippers against loss from 
 overcharges if the law shall be finally 
 held valid is not a sufficient ground for 
 granting preliminary injunctions, it be- 
 ing evident that such bonds would not 
 practically give adequate protection to 
 many of such passengers and shippers, 
 where the amount involved was small, 
 Railroad Comm. z\ Central, etc., R. Co., 
 170 Fed. 225, 95 C. C. A. 117. 
 
 91. Taking property without due proc- 
 ess of law or denial of equal protection 
 of laws. — Reagan z'. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 
 14 S. Ct. 1047; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 
 466, 522, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418; 
 Reagan z'. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U. 
 S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 14 S. Ct. 1062. 
 
 A railroad company is entitled to an 
 injunction restraining a state railroad 
 commission from putting in force a pro- 
 posed tariff schedule, where the bill al- 
 leges that the rates estal)lished by such 
 schedule will amount to a taking of com- 
 plainant's property without due process 
 of law, by reducing its earnings far be- 
 low the amount required to pay the op- 
 crating expenses. taxes, and fixed 
 cliarges, and the cause is submitted for 
 a final decision on demurrer to other par- 
 agraphs of the bill and without any de- 
 nial of such allegation. Wallace v. Ar- 
 kansas Cent. R. Co., 55 C. C. A. 192, 118 
 Fed. 422.
 
 131 
 
 Cr).\TKi)I, AND KKGL'I.ATION. 
 
 §§ 160-162 
 
 fixing rates, pending a suit to set aside the order."^ Where a fine imposed by a 
 railroad commission is in the nature of an interlocutory order, an injunction 
 against its collection will not lie if there is an amijle remedy without it."''' 
 
 § 161. Injunction to Restrain Wrongful and Discriminatory Acts by 
 a Carrier. — W Ikit alleged w rongful and di>criniinaling act> oi a carrier are 
 of daily recurrence, and their continuance will cause further and irreparable 
 injury to complainant's business, complainant is entitled to an injunction to pre- 
 vent the wrongs complained of, and to compel the carrier to perform its duty 
 to complainant, without discrimination. '•'■* Injunction lies at the suit of a shipper 
 to restrain a carrier from granting discriminatory favors to other shippers to 
 his prejudice and injury, where the remedy at law is n(jt adequate or effectual.'*'"' 
 
 § 162. Injunction to Restrain a Carrier from Charging Unlawful 
 Rates. — An injunction will lie at the suit of the state to restrain a carrier from 
 charging rates in excess of those i)rescribed by statute : ■"' and in such a suit the 
 court can not consider whether defendant's obe<lience to the law will cause greater 
 public injury than its disobedience."" The purchaser of a part of a street rail- 
 road is subject to an injunction restraining him from charging a 10-cent fare 
 thereon, contrary to the terms of the franchise.-''* An injunction will lie at the 
 suit of the selectment of a town who have granted a street railroad location to 
 restrain the railroad company from enforcing rates in excess of the maximum 
 specified in the location. •'•' 
 
 92. Another remedy as precluding in- 
 junction. — .Micliiuan Cent. R. Co. r. Mur- 
 phy, 156 Mich. 45'J, 120 N. W. 1073, hold- 
 ing that under the Michigan statute. Pub 
 Acts, 1907, p. 428, No. 312, §§ 16, 22, 25, 
 26, complainants were not entitled to 
 enjoin enforcement of an order chang- 
 ing excess baggage rates, pending a suit 
 to set aside the order. 
 
 93. Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad 
 Comm.. 106 La. 583, 31 So. 131. 
 
 94. Injunction to restrain wrongful and 
 discriminatory acts by a carrier. — ^Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards 
 Co.. 30 Ky. L. Rep. 18, 97 S. W. 778, con- 
 struing constitution §§ 213, 214 
 
 Where alleged arbitrary and discrimi- 
 nating acts of a carrier in refusing to 
 switch and deliver stock cars to a con- 
 necting carrier for transportation to com- 
 plainant's stockyards operated to irre- 
 parably injure complainant's business, 
 and such acts were violative of the con- 
 stitutional provision. Const., §§ 213, 214, 
 prohibiting discrimination, the right to 
 sue to restrain such acts was not limited 
 to shippers of live stock and commis- 
 sion merchants, but extended to com- 
 plainant as well. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 f. Central Stock Yards Co., 30 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 18, 97 S. W. 778. 
 
 95. Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. t'. 
 Granger. 132 Ga. 167. 63 S. E. 700. 
 
 96. Injunction to restrain a carrier from 
 charging unlawful rates. — The attorney 
 general may, tm l)chalf of the state, en- 
 join common carriers whose rates are 
 fixed by law from violating the statute 
 and exacting unlawful and excessive rates 
 and charges. State 7'. Pacific Exp. Co.. 
 80 Neb. 823, 115 N. W. 619. 
 
 Equit}' may enjoin a railroad which 
 has taken the franchise to collect tolls 
 and other powers granted to it on trust 
 that it will not charge the public more 
 than the reasonable rates established by 
 the legislature from tliereafter charging 
 rates in excess of those established, inde- 
 pendently of any remedy at law. State 
 f. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 75 N. H. 327, 
 74 Atl. 542. 
 
 The legal remedies provided by the 
 Wisconsin statute, Laws 1874, c. 273, did 
 not prevent relief in a suit by injunction 
 by the state against the railroad com- 
 panies. Attorney General f. Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co., 35 Wis. 425. 
 
 97. Court can not consider injury car- 
 rier's obedience to law will cause. — At- 
 torney General r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 35 Wis. 425. 
 
 98. Purchaser of part of street railroad 
 subject to injunction. — Pul)lic Service 
 Comm. V. Westchester St. R. Co.. 206 N. 
 Y. 209, 99 N. E. 536, affirming order in 
 151 App. Div. 914, 135 X. Y. S. 113S. 
 
 99. Injunction to restrain street rail- 
 road from enforcing rates in excess of 
 limitation in location. — W'estwood f. Ded- 
 ham, etc., St. R. Co., 2U'J Mass. 213, 95 
 N. E. 81. 
 
 Where a street railroad location con- 
 tained a valid provision fixing the maxi- 
 mum fare to be charged for a specified 
 locality, it was no answer to a suit. I)y 
 the selectmen of a town granting the lo- 
 cation, to restrain the railroad company 
 from enforcing rates in excess of the 
 maximum specified, that the management 
 had not acted arbitrarilj-. that the increased 
 fares were reasonable, and that the max- 
 imum rates specified by the location were
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 132 
 
 §§ 163-166 
 
 § 163. Injunction to Compel Transportation at Rate Fixed by Law.— 
 
 An injunction will not lie to compel a common carrier to transport goods at the 
 rate fixed by law.^ 
 
 § 164. Injunction to Compel Carrier to Furnish Impartial Service.— 
 
 A mandatory injunction will lie to compel a railroad company to fulfill its cor- 
 porate obligation to furnish impartial service,- and it is no defense to such an 
 action that the plaintift' has an adequate remedy by an action at law to recover 
 damages for the wrong done.-' 
 
 § 16 5. Injunction to Compel Carrier to Stand Cars in Front of a 
 Shipper's Property. — A mandatory injunction will not lie to compel a rail- 
 road companv to stand freight cars on its track in the center of a street in 
 front of a shipper's property to be loaded, in the absence of express authority 
 from the city to use the street in that way, and of conclusive testimony that it 
 would not be prejudicial to the use of the track by the company's other patrons."^' 
 
 § 166. Injunction to Restrain Persons from Soliciting Business in or 
 Near a Railroad Station.— A railroad company may enjoin persons from 
 entering its station for the purpose of soliciting the custom of incoming pas- 
 sengers*' for cabs, carriages, express w^agons, and hotels.-^ It is also entitled to 
 injunctive relief against the constant, unlawful attempt of hackmen and cabmen 
 to enter its depot grounds to solicit patronage, and their use of the sidewalk in 
 front of the station so as to interfere unduly with the ingress and egress of 
 passengers.'' An injunction is justified in such cases by the inadequacy of any 
 remedv at law." 
 
 insufficient to pay operating expenses, 
 and, if enforced, would result in the cur- 
 tailment of service. Westwood v. Ded- 
 ham, etc., St. R. Co., 209 Mass. 213, 95 
 N. E. 81. 
 
 1. Injunction will not lie to compel 
 transportation at rate fixed by law.— Ro- 
 gers Locomotive, etc.. Works r. Erie R. 
 Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379. 
 
 2. Injunction to compel carrier to fur- 
 nish impartial service. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Pittsburg, etc., Coall Co., Ill 
 Ky. 960, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1318, 64 S. W. 
 969, 55 L. R. A. 601, 98 Am. St. Rep. 447. 
 
 3. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Pittsburg, 
 etc.. Coal Co., Ill Ky. 960, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1318, 64 S. W. 969, 970, 55 L. R. A. 601, 
 98 Am. St. Rep. 447. 
 
 The fact that plaintifif may recover 
 damages in an action at law for defend- 
 ant's refusal to furnish cars for loading 
 coal for shipment furnishes no reason 
 for refusing a mandatory injunction to 
 compel defendant to furnish the cars. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Pittsburg, etc., 
 Coal Co., Ill Ky. 960, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1318, 64 S. W. 969. 55 L. R. A. 601, 98 
 Am. St. Rep. 447. 
 
 4. Injunction to compel carrier to stand 
 cars in front of a shipper's property. — 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Pittsburg, etc., 
 Coal Co., Ill Ky. 960, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1318, 64 S. W. 969, 55 L. R. A. 601, 98 
 Am. St. Rep. 447. 
 
 5. Injunction to restrain persons from 
 entering station. — Pennsylvania Co. i'. 
 Donovan, 116 Fed. 907; Donovan v. 
 
 Pennsylvania Co., 57 C. C. A. 362, 120 
 Fed. 215, 61 L. R. A. 140; Donnovan v. 
 Pennsylvania Co., 60 C. C. A. 168, 124 
 Fed. 1016. Affirmed, 199 U. S. 279, 50 L. 
 Ed. 192, 26 S. Ct. 91. 
 
 6. Injunction to restrain persons from 
 entering depot grounds and using side- 
 walk. — Decree, Donnovan v. Pennsylvania 
 Co., 60 C. C. A. 168, 124 Fed. 1016, af- 
 firmed. Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 
 199 U. S. 279, 50 L. Ed. 192, 26 S. Ct. 91. 
 
 A railroad company has a property 
 right to a free and unobstructed entrance 
 to its stations for its passengers and em- 
 ployees, and is entitled to protection in 
 such right by injunction to restrain hack- 
 men from continuously congregating upon 
 the sidewalk around the doors of a sta- 
 tion, for the purpose of soliciting busi- 
 ness, in such numbers as to interfere 
 with ingress and egress; but such an in- 
 junction should go no further than is 
 necessary to protect complainant's pri- 
 vate right of property, leaving any ob- 
 struction to the use of the street or walk 
 by the public generally to be dealt with 
 by the municipality. Pennsylvania Co. 
 7'. Donovan, 116 Fed. 907; Donovan r. 
 Pennsylvania Co., 57 C. C. A. 362, 120 
 Fed. 215, 61 L. R. A. 140; Donnovan v. 
 Pennsylvania Co., 60 C. C. A. 168, 124 
 Fed. 1016; affirmed in 199 U. S. 279, 50 
 L. Ed. 192, 26 S. Ct. 91. 
 
 7. Injunction justified by inadequacy 
 of any remedy at law. — Donovan v. Penn- 
 sylvania Co., 199 U. S. 279, 50 L. Ed. 192, 
 26 S. Ct. 91, affirming 60 C. C. A. 168, 
 124 Fed. 1016.
 
 133 
 
 CONTROI, AND RKGl'f.ATIOX. 
 
 §§ 167-169 
 
 §§ 167-173. Procedure and Evidence— § 167. Jurisdiction.— A suit 
 to enjoin the enforcement of rates by a corporation commission may be brought 
 in the federal courts, where the proper ground of jnris(Hction exists, as it is not 
 a suit against a state within the eleventh amendment of the federal constitution.* 
 
 § 168. Parties. — Wlierc the supervisors of a township grant to a street 
 railway comi)any the right to lay its tracks on a highway, but stipulate, as a con- 
 dition of tilie grant, that the company shall not charge a fare exceeding a certaiii 
 amount, and the company, after the construction of its road, charges a fare 
 exceeding the amount stipulated, owners of property abutting on the road, who 
 have no contract with the company as to the rate of fare, are not proper parties 
 to a bill by the township authorities to restrain the company from collecting a 
 greater rate of fare than that stipulated in the contract. =' 
 
 § 169. Pleading— Petition, Complaint, or Information.— The question 
 of the sut^ciency of the averments in a petition or complaint in a suit to enjoin 
 •a state commission from fixing or enforcing certain rates has in several cases 
 been passed on by the courts. i" It is no objection to the granting of an injunc- 
 tion at the suit of the state to restrain a railway company from charging rates 
 exceeding those fixed by statute, that the information does not show specific 
 injury to the public. It is sufficient that the facts alleged satisfy the court that 
 
 8. Federal courts have jurisdiction of 
 suit to enjoin enforcement of rates. Rea- 
 gan z: Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. 
 S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047; S. 
 C, 154 U. S. 420, 38 L. Ed. 1031, 14 S. 
 Ct. 1062; Reagan v. Mercantile Trust 
 Co., l.'')4 U. S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 1030, 14 S. 
 Ct. 1062. 
 
 Where an act creating a railroad com- 
 mission (Texas act. April 3, 1891, § 6) 
 provides that suits against it may be 
 brought "in a court of competent juris- 
 diction in" a designated county, the 
 United States circuit, court for that 
 county has jurisdiction of a suit brought 
 against it by a citizen of another state 
 to restrain enforcement of illegal rates. 
 Reagan f. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 
 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047. 
 
 A federal court has jurisdiction to re- 
 strain the illegal acts of a state corpora- 
 tion commission, although the statute un- 
 der which it assumes to act is constitu- 
 tional. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, etc., 
 Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. Ed. 1014. 14 S. 
 Ct. 1047; S. C. 154 U. S. 420, 38 L. Ed. 
 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Reagan v. Mercan- 
 tile Trust Co., 154 U. S. 418, 38 L. Ed. 
 1030, 14 S. Ct. 10()2. 
 
 9. Abutting owners not proper parties 
 to bill by township authorities against 
 railway company. — Millcrcck :. I-".ric, etc., 
 St. R. Co., 2(»".» I 'a. :i(U), 5S .Vtl. oir:. 
 
 10. Averment not charging that rate 
 established is unreasonable. — .-\n aver- 
 mout in a petition to restrain the state 
 railroad commissioners from enforcing 
 an order estaldishing "tlirough joint 
 rates" of freight from points on plain- 
 tiff's line to points on the lines of con- 
 necting carriers, that the order was 
 made without authoritv of law, and in 
 
 excess of the powers of the commission- 
 ers, does not charge that the rate estab- 
 lished is unreasonable. Burlington, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Dcy, S!) Iowa 13, 5(5 X. W. 207. 
 
 Averment an allegation of a conclusion 
 only. — An averment in the petition to en- 
 join the commissioners from fi-xing a 
 joint rate under the Iowa "joint rate act," 
 that "by said acts your petitioner * * * 
 is compelled to enter into involuntary, 
 unreasonable, and unprofitable contracts, 
 * * * compelling the operation of its 
 road at a loss," is not a direct allegation 
 of fact, but of a conclusion only, that the 
 effect of the statute will be to compel the 
 operation of petitioner's road at a loss. 
 Burlington, etc., R. Co. z'. Dey, 82 Iowa 
 312. 4S X. W. 98, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477, 12 
 L. R. .\. r.u\. 
 
 Complaint not objectionable as indefi- 
 nite and uncertain. — A complaint in an 
 action by a railroad company maintain- 
 ing a physical connection with another 
 railroad companj- in a city to enjoin the 
 railroad commission from enforcing an 
 order establishing switching tariffs for 
 the city for the movement of all commod- 
 ities in car load lots from the interchange 
 track to the points of loading and un- 
 loading, which alleges that in construct- 
 ing the facilities at the city the company 
 lias onl}' provided sufficient facilities to 
 accommodate its own business, and that 
 it does not have facilities to handle the 
 btisiness of the other company, is not ob- 
 jectionable as indefinite and as relating 
 merely to the arrangements for handling 
 the business to and from the tracks where 
 freight is to be loaded and unloaded, in 
 the absence of a motion to make the 
 complaint more definite and certain. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Railroad Comm., 
 175 Ind. 630, 95 X. E. 364.
 
 §§ 169-174 CARRIERS. 134 
 
 defendant's disobedience of the law may be ])ro(luctive of pubHc injury.'' 
 
 § 170. Evidence — Presumptions and Burden of Proof.— Rates to be 
 charged bv a railroad company, made by a state railroad commission, charged 
 by law with the duty of fixing just and reasonable rates, are presumptively just 
 and reasonable, although the statute does not expressly make them so, and the 
 burden rests on the railroad company to prove to the contrary before it is 
 entitled to an injunction to restrain their enforcement.''- Since a suit to have a 
 statute regulating railroad rates declared confiscatory in its eft'ect on complain- 
 ant's business interferes with the operation of a legislative act, no bill for that 
 purpose should be entertained, nor any injunction awarded, except on the show- 
 n.g of a strong prima facie case.'-' 
 
 § 171. Reference to a Master. — Upon a bill to enjoin the enforcement of 
 a schedule of rates prescribed by a state railroad commission, the proper practice 
 is to refer the testimony to a competent master to make all needed computations, 
 and fully find the facts, as before the supreme court can be called upon to make 
 an examination of the case, it is entitled to have the benefit of the services of a 
 competent master and an approval of his findings by the trial court.''* 
 
 § 172. Laches. — The right of the state to enjoin a railroaa from contin- 
 uing in the future to charge rates in excess of the maximum fixed by the leg- 
 islature is not aft'ected by the laches of the state. '^ 
 
 § 173. Decree. — A decree, enjoining the enforcement of a rate statute as 
 confiscatory, should contain a clause saving to the defendant the right to pro- 
 ceed at any time in the future, in any appropriate way, to obtain a vacation 
 thereof, if. under altered conditions, it is no longer confiscatory."^ 
 
 §§ 174-180. Damages for Violations of Regulations— § 174. Power 
 of Legislature. — The legislature of a state may provide by general law that a 
 shipper of live stock may recover liquidated damages from a carrier for failure 
 to transport such stock committed to it for transit between stations in the 
 state.'' Fixing the damages for culpable violations of a statute, which impose 
 a limitation of the time for the transportation of live stock by common carriers, 
 at $10 for each car for every hour by which the time of transportation exceeds 
 the statutory limit, is not such a legislative usurpation of judicial functions as 
 renders the statute repugnant to the due process of law clause of the constitu- 
 
 11. Information in suit to restrain car- fiscatory but afiforded some remunera- 
 rier from charging unlawful rates. — At- tion above expenses, the court acted 
 torney General r. Cliicago, etc., R. Co., within its discretion in denying a prelim- 
 35 W is. 42.'<. inary injunction restraining the commis- 
 
 12. Rates made by commission pre- sion from enforcing its order, pending 
 sumptively just and reasonable. — Texas, the suit. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mur- 
 etc. R. Co. :'. Railroad Comm., 112 C. phy, 1.56 Mich. 459, 120 N. W. 1073. 
 
 C. A. y.'jH. ]'.)2 Fed. 280. 13. Injunction on ground that rate 
 
 Discretion of court properly exercised I'catute is confiscatory. — Coal, etc., R. 
 
 in denying preliminary injunction. — The Co. r. Coiiley, ()~ W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 
 
 rates fixed l)y the railroad commission fil3. 
 
 being under the Michigan statute (Pul). 14. Reference to master. — Chicago, etc.. 
 
 Acts 1907, p. 417, No. 312) prima facie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 17G U. S. 167, 44 
 
 lawful and reasonable, and the burden to L. F.fl, 417, 20 S. Ct. 336. 
 
 prove the contrary being on the railroad 15. Right of state to enjoin not affected 
 
 contesting, where railroad companies by laches. — State t'. Boston, etc., Rail- 
 
 whose rates were being inquired into l)y road, 7.) X. H. 327, 74 .\tl. 542. 
 
 the commission were given a full hear- 16. Decree should contain saving clause, 
 
 ing, but offered no testimony and did — Coal, etc., R. Co. z'. Conley, 67 W. Va. 
 
 not appeal to the commission to change 129, 67 S. E. 613. 
 
 the rates, and in a suit in the circuit 17. Power of legislature. — Cram v. Chi- 
 
 court to judicially determine the validity cago, etc., R. Co., S4 Xeb. 607, 122 N. 
 
 of rates fixed by the commission ad- W. 31, 26 L. R. A., X. S., 1022, rehearing 
 
 mitted that the rates fixed were not con- denied 123 N. W. 1045.
 
 135 
 
 CONTKOI. AND KIXULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 174-177 
 
 lion of the L'niled States, where the highest court of the state holds that the 
 statute imposes only conij^ensatory damages, fixing them at a sum certain be- 
 cause of the ditflculty of the ascertainment of the actual damages suffered.' '^ 
 
 §§ 175-177. When an Action WiU Lie^§ 175. In General.— It is a 
 
 general i)rinciple applicable to common carriers that when a duty is imposed on 
 them by law an action may be sustained against them by any person who is 
 specially injured by their failure to perform that duty."^ 
 
 § 176. Failure to Stop at Station. — A statute providing that if any car- 
 rier shall do any act prohibited by the statute or omit to do any act required to 
 be done, it shall be liable to penal damages, does not render a railroad com- 
 pany liable for failure to stop a train at a flag station, as a violation of a stat- 
 ute providing that every railroad company shall cause all its trains to stop on 
 each arrival at a station advertised by such com[jany as a station for receiving 
 passengers.-" 
 
 § 177. Overcharge or Discrimination. — P,y statute in many states carriers 
 are made liable for damages resulting from overcharge or discrimination. The 
 peculiar provisions of some of these statutes have been interj^reted by the 
 courts. -1 Where a carrier has charged more for a short haul than for a long 
 
 18. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cram, 228 
 U. S. 70, 33 S. Ct. 437, affirming judg- 
 ments Cram v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 
 Neb. 607, 122 N. W. 31, 26 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1022; S. C, 85 Neb. 586, 123 N. W. 
 1045, 16 L. R. A., N. S., 1028; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Kj'le, 22S U. S. 85, 33 S. 
 Ct. 440, affirming judgment Kyle v. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co., S4 Xob. r,2i. 123 N. 
 
 W. 37. 
 
 19. Any person specially injured may 
 sue. — Cohen r. Southern H.xp. Co.. 5:5 
 Ga. 12S. 
 
 20. Failure to stop at station — South 
 Carolina statutes construed. — Rountree 
 V. -Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 73 S. C. 268, 53 
 S. E. 424, construing Civ. Code 1902, §§ 
 2134, 2202. 
 
 21. Refusal of a railroad company to 
 permit plaintiff to purchase and use 
 wooden cars on its lines lield not a dis- 
 crimination for which plaintiff was en- 
 titled to recover damages under the 
 Pennsylvania statute. Act lune 4, 1883 
 (P. L. 72). Walnut Coal Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 237 Pa. 410, 8,") .\tl. 440. 
 
 That rate charged was fixed by com- 
 mission no defense. — A railroatl compan)' 
 making an unreasonal)le freight charge 
 is not relieved from liability to the ship- 
 per in treble damages therefore under 
 the Iowa statute, Acts 22d Gen. Assem., 
 c. 28, §§ 2, 9, by the fact that the rate 
 charged was that fixed by the railroad 
 commissioners under § 17, providing that 
 the commissioners shall make a schedule 
 of reasonalile ma.ximum rates, which shall 
 be "prima facie evidence that the rates 
 therein fixed are reasonable." Barris f. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Iowa 375, 71 
 N. W. 339. 63 Am. St. Rep. 449. 
 
 No defense that unadjusted claim for 
 damages was part of consideration for 
 discrimination. — In an action to recover 
 
 triple damages for an unjust discrimina- 
 tion as to charges for transportation of 
 freights under Colorado Act of 1885, it 
 is no defense, that the company claims 
 that part of the consideration for the car- 
 riage for the person in whose favor the 
 discrimination was made, was an unad- 
 justed claim for damages held by him 
 against the company, where the evidence 
 shows that the claim had not been 
 brought forward or pressed. Union Pac. 
 R. Co. c'. Goodridge, 149 U. S. 680, 37 
 L. Ed. 986, 13 S. Ct. 970; Union Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Taggart, 149 U. S. 698, 37 L. 
 Ed. 905, 13 S. Ct. 977. 
 
 Facts warranting recovery for over- 
 charge. — \n Alaljania statute. Code, § 
 3460, provides that any railroad which 
 shall exact more than the rate specified 
 in any bill of lading, or shall make any 
 overcharge, shall be liable for double the 
 damages sustained, unless the service as 
 to which the extortion was committed 
 was performed at rates previously ap- 
 proved by the railroad commissioners, 
 when only actual damages may be re- 
 covered. Held that, where bills of lad- 
 ing for coal shipped specified a rate of 
 fifty cents per ton, and defendant ex- 
 acted seventy cents per ton, and con- 
 tended, in an action to recover the ex- 
 cess, that the fifty-cent rate was a mis- 
 take, and that tiie seventy-cent rate had 
 been authorized by the railroad commis- 
 s;oners, and had been posted in all freight 
 depots, but faileil to prove that such 
 rate had been so allowed or posted in the 
 place to which the coal was shipped, 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover under 
 the statute. Southern R. Co. v. Annis- 
 ton Foundrv, etc., Co., 135 Ala. 315. 33 
 So. 274. 
 
 What must be shown in action under 
 Missouri statute. — Tliough, in an action
 
 §§ 177-179 CARRIERS. 136 
 
 haul, in violation of a constitutional provision, the fact that the statutes ])ro- 
 vide only for indictment of the carrier for violation of the constitutional pro- 
 vision does not prevent a shipper aggrieved hy such violation from maintaining 
 a suit against the carrier for damages sustained thereby. -- 
 
 § 178. Measure of Damages.— Where a seller loses the benefit of the 
 sale by the refusal of a railroad company to furnish him with cars in which to 
 ship the goods in violation of statute, his measure of damages against the com- 
 pany is the profits lost by his inability to fulfill his agreement, provided he 
 would otherwise have performed the same.-- Under a statute making a rail- 
 road company liable to a person injured by unjust discrimination in charges '"for 
 damages treble the amount of the injury suffered." the "injury suffered" must 
 be proved, and it is not to be measured by the total amount of the discrimina- 
 tions complained of.--* In an action by a coal company, agahist a railroad com- 
 pany, for discrimination in furnishing transportation facilities under a statute, 
 imposing a liability for damages treble the amount of injures suffered, the jury, 
 in assessing damages, may consider the difference between the mining cost and 
 the fair average selling price in the mining region at the period of discrimina- 
 tion, though such is not absolutely the measure of damages, and, where the 
 discrimination alleged is the refusal of a siding, the loss on unmined coal \vhich 
 plaintiff was unreasonably prevented from mining by the refusal of the siding 
 may be considered.-^ Interest is not recoverable on treble damages imposed by 
 a statute as a penalty for unjust discrimination in charges by a railroad com- 
 pany.2c In a suit for damages for violation of the rule of a railroad commis- 
 sion prohibiting unjust discrimination in transportation of freight, exemplary 
 damages may be recovered if it appears that the conduct of the carrier amounted 
 to a willful violation of law.-' 
 
 § 179. Limitation of Actions. — Actions for damages for violations of 
 statutory and commission regulations of charges and discriminations must be 
 brought' within tlie time limited by statute. ^'^ 
 
 ao-ainst a railroad, under the Missouri W. 431, reversed. Houston, etc.. R. Co. 
 
 stiitute Rev. St. 1899, § 1136, for unrea- v. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 
 
 sonable charges, the plaintiff must show L. R. A. 225, citing Houston, etc., R. 
 
 that the charges were more than the Co. v. Hill, 70 Tex. 51, 7 S. W. 659. 
 rates fixed by the carrier and approved 24. How injury suffered is to be meas- 
 
 by the Board of Railroad Commissioners, ured. — Hoover r. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 
 
 such a showing is not necessary in an 156 Pa. 220, 27 Atl. 282, 30 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 action under §§ 1133 and 1134 for dis- 43, 22 L. R. A. 263, construing Act June 
 
 crimination between localities, and for 4, 1883. _ 
 
 charging a higher rate for a shorter than 25. What may be considered m de- 
 
 for a longer haul. Cohn v. St. Louis, termining measure of damages. — Minds 
 
 etc, R Co., 181 Mo. 30, 79 S. VV. 961. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 228 Pa. 575, 77 
 
 Liability of express company under Atl. 909 (action brought under Act of 
 
 Mississippi statute. — Under the Mississippi June 4, 1883, P. L. 72). 
 statute, Ann. Code 1892, §§ 4288, 4291, an 26. Interest not recoverable on treble 
 
 express company, discriminating out of damages imposed as a penalty.— Blair r. 
 
 distinct purpose, is liable to the party Sioux, etc.. R. Co., 109 Iowa 369, 80 N. 
 
 discriminated against for twice the dam- W. 073. 
 
 ages sustained, and is liable in actual 27. When exemplary damages may be 
 
 damages to one discriminated against for recovered. — Augusta Brokerage Co. r. 
 
 the sum he has paid in excess of the Central, etc., R. Co., 121 Ga. 48, 48 S. E. 
 
 rate charged others, even where the dis- 714. 
 
 crimination was not out of distinct pur- 28. Limitation of actions.— Under the 
 
 pose. American Exp. Co. z: Crawley. 88 Florida statute, Gen. St. 1906, § 2910, au- 
 
 Miss. 525, 41 So. 261. thorizing suits against railroads for vio- 
 
 22. Damages sustained by greater lation of the regulations and rates of the 
 charge for short than for long haul. — railroad commissioners, such suits to be 
 Hutchesoii z\ Louisville, etc., 1^. Co., 108 brought within twelve months after the 
 Ky. 615, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 361, 57 S. \V. 251. alleged injury, the time thus limited is a 
 
 23. Damages where benefit of sale is condition precedent to the suit and is a 
 lost through carriers refusal to furnish part of the right of action itself, and after 
 cars.— Judgment (Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S. it has elapsed the right of action is ex-
 
 137 
 
 CONTROL AND KIXULATION. 
 
 180 
 
 § 180. Petition or Complaint.— The pciiiion or complaint in an action 
 against a carrier for damages resulting from violation of a statutory regulation 
 must conform to the statute. The courts have in several cases passed upon the 
 sufficiency of such petitions or complaints.-'-' In an action against a railroad 
 comi)any for discrimination in freight charges, where there are several acts of 
 discrimination, it is not necessary to slate eacli as a separate cause of action.^'' 
 Where in a suit for damages for violation of the rule of a railroad commission 
 
 tinguished. La Floridienne v. Seaboard, 
 etc., Railway. 5(t Fla. l'.)6, 52 So. 298. 
 
 The Iowa statute, Laws 22d Gen. As- 
 sem., c. ~s, § 11, imposing a liability to 
 treble damages for freight overcharges 
 by railroads above the established max- 
 imum rate, making it a misdemeanor to 
 so overcharge, and giving a right of ac- 
 tion to the person injured for the recov- 
 ery of such damages and attorney's fees 
 on first making fifteen days' written de- 
 mand, imposes such damages as a pen- 
 alty, and not as compensation. Hence 
 the action is governed by Code 187:3, § 
 2529, subd. 1, prescribing a two-year lim- 
 itation for penal actions. Baker Wire 
 Co. r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 106 Iowa 
 239, 7G X. W. M'>. 
 
 The provision of the Kentucky statute, 
 Ky St., § 819, that all prosecutions and 
 actions '"under this law" shall be com- 
 menced within two years after the of- 
 fense shall have been committed or the 
 cause of action shall have accrued, ap- 
 plies not only to prosecutions and actions 
 under the sections immediately preced- 
 ing, referring to extortion, discrimina- 
 tion, and preferences, but to an action un- 
 der the section immediately following, 
 relating to the long and short haul. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. Walker, 110 
 Ky. 961, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 453, 63 S. W. 20. 
 29. Petition held sufficient. — In an ac- 
 tion against a railroad company for the 
 violation of the Misstniri statute. Rev. 
 St. 1899, § 1133, prohibiting railroads 
 from giving any unreasonal)le advantage 
 to any locality, or sut)jecting any local- 
 ity to unreasonable disadvantage, and 
 § 1134, prohibiting them from charging 
 higher rates for a shorter than for a 
 longer haul, a petition alleging that the 
 defendant has charged the plaintiflfs a 
 higher rate for shipping freight from a 
 certain point to their station than, its 
 published tariffs from the same point in 
 the same direction to stations at a greater 
 distance — specifying the difference in the 
 charges, and the amount on which the 
 excessive freight was paid, and alleging 
 that merchants doing business at the 
 other points were given an undue advan- 
 tage over plaintiff's — sufficiently states in 
 wdiat way they were injured by defend- 
 ant's acts. Cohn r. St. Louis, etc., K. 
 Co., 181 Mo. 30. 79 S. W. 961. 
 
 Petitions or complaints held insuffi- 
 cient. — .\. petition against a carrier for 
 trclile damaaes under the Iowa statute. 
 
 Code, §§ 2125, 2130, forljidding any com- 
 bination, contract or agreement to pre- 
 vent the carriage of freight from being 
 continuous from place of shipment to 
 destination and authorizing the recovery 
 of treble damages, was insufficient to 
 warrant recovery, where it failed to al- 
 lege any contract, coml)ination, or agree- 
 ment to prevent a continuous carriage 
 from the point of shipment to destina- 
 tion. Clark v. American Exp. Co., 130 
 Iowa 254, 106 N. W. 642. 
 
 The Iowa Code, § 2125, requires com- 
 mon carriers according to their respec- 
 tive powers, to afford all reasonable, 
 proper and equal facilities for the inter- 
 change of traffic between their respective 
 lines and for receiving, forwarding, and 
 delivering freight to and from their sev- 
 eral lines, and to and from other lines and 
 places connected therewith, and § 2130 
 authorizes a recovery of treble damages 
 for a violation of § 2125. Held, that 
 where a petition against a carrier failed 
 to allege that defendant did not provide 
 proper facilities for the interchange of 
 traffic between it and the connecting 
 carrier, or for the forw-arding of the 
 freight to other lines and places con- 
 nected therewith, the petition did not 
 state a cause of action for treble dam- 
 ages, under such section. Clark f. .\mer- 
 ican Exp. Co., 130 Iowa 254, 106 X. W. 
 642. 
 
 A complaint against a railway' com- 
 pany alleging that it refused to lease its 
 land to plaintiff that he might build 
 warehouses thereon, and that he erected 
 two warehouses adjacent to defendant's 
 side track and partly on its land, but 
 was ordered to remove the same, that 
 afterwards the defendant refused to con- 
 struct a side track to these buildings, but 
 riot alleging or showing by facts that 
 unequal or unreasonable preferences or 
 advantages were made discriminating 
 against plaintiff, or that the defendant 
 could have constructed the required side 
 track on its own land so as to reach the 
 warehouses, did not state a cause of ac- 
 tion for unjust discrimination under the 
 Minnesota statute. Gen. Laws 1887. c. 
 10. § 2. Myers z: Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 50 Minn. 371, 52 N. W. 962. 
 
 30. Not necessary to state each dis- 
 crimination as a separate cause of action. 
 —Cohn V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 181 Mo. 
 30, 79 S. W. 961. so holding in an action 
 under Rev. St. 1899. §§ 1133, 1134.
 
 §§ 180-183 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 138 
 
 prohibiting unjust discrimination in transportation of freight, exemplary dam- 
 ages may be recovered if it appears that the conduct of the carrier amounted 
 to a willful violation of the law, allegations of the petition which would throw- 
 light on the question as to whether the conduct of the carrier was willful will 
 not be stricken out as irrelevant. ^^ 
 
 §§ 181-275. Penalties for Violations of Regulations— § 181. In 
 General. — The state has power to impose penalties upon carriers for failure 
 to discharge public duties, provided they are not so enormous that the carier is 
 prevented from resorting to the courts to determine the validity of the statute.-^ - 
 Power is sometimes conferred upon a railroad commission to enforce the pen- 
 alty incurred for an injury inflicted by a carrier in violating any rule or regula- 
 tion of the commission.-^^ Statutes which impose penalties upon carriers for 
 neglect of duty are to be strictly construed ; and those who seek to recover such 
 penalties must bring their cases clearly within the terms of the statute.-'-* 
 
 §§ 182-196. Overcharge and Discrimination— § 182. Power to Im- 
 pose Penalty. — I'iie legislature has the right to fix a money penalty upon a 
 railroad company for charging more than the fixed maximum rates of toll for 
 carriage of freight and passengers.-*^ 
 
 § 183. Construction of Statutes Imposing Penalties. — A statute impos- 
 ing- a penalty for an overcharge or discrimination in rates, like all penal statutes, 
 must be strictlv construed. ^'^ 
 
 31. Allegations held not irrelevant. — 
 Augusta Brokerage Co. v. Central, etc., 
 R. Co., 121 Ga. 48, 48 S. E. 714. 
 
 32. Power of state to impose penalties. 
 ■ — Garrison v. Southern R. Co., 1.50 X. C. 
 57.-J. <J4 S. E. .578. 
 
 Statute not unconstitutional on ground 
 that penalties are excessive. — A state 
 statute, which confers on a railroad com- 
 mission the power to require railroads to 
 afford the usual and like customary fa- 
 cilities for interchange of freight to pa- 
 trons of each and all routes or lines alike, 
 and to make just and reasonable rules 
 for preventing unjust discriminations, and 
 provides for notice and an opportunity 
 of a hearing of the railroad company to 
 be affected by any order of the commis- 
 sion, and for a violation of an order of 
 the commission imposes a penalty on the 
 corporation in a sum not to exceed $5,000, 
 in the discretion of the trial judge, and 
 also subjects any person violating or 
 abetting the violation of the order to 
 punishment for a misdemeanor, does not 
 offend the constitutional guaranties of 
 due process of law and the equal protec- 
 tion of the laws, in that the railroad to 
 be affected by the order is prevented 
 from testing the validity of the statute 
 ■or the order of the railroad commission 
 because of excessive penalties. Wadlcy, 
 etc., R. Co. V. State, 137 Ga. 497, 7,'i S. 
 E. 741. 
 
 33. Power of railroad commission to 
 enforce penalty. — The authority given 
 the railroad commissioners by the Flor- 
 ida statute. Gen. St. 1906, § 2910, as 
 amended by Acts 1907, p. 108, c. 5624, ex- 
 tends only to injuries inflicted by a car- 
 rier in violation of a rule, rate, or regu- 
 
 lation directly affecting its duties as a 
 common carrier. Railroad Comm'rs v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 Fla. 525, 47 So. 
 870. 
 
 Mere liabilities for money payments, 
 imposed by a rule of the railroad com- 
 missioners upon a carrier in favor of a 
 shipper as cumulative remedies for 
 breaches of duties, are not within the 
 statute. Railroad Comm'rs v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co.. 56 Fla. 525, 47 So. 870. 
 
 34. Penal statutes strictly construed. — 
 Schloss V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 
 601, 22 S. W. 1014. 
 
 35. Power of legislature to impose 
 penalty for overcharge. — State r. Winona, 
 etc., R. C<J., 19 Minn. 4:;4 (Gil. .''^77). 
 
 36. Statutes imposing penalties strictly 
 construed. — The Missouri statute requir- 
 ing the Board of Railroad and Warehouse 
 Commissioners to investigate the reason- 
 ableness of rates including switching 
 charges, and imposing penalties for dis- 
 obedience of its orders, is penal, and 
 must be strictly construed. Darlington 
 Lumber Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 (Mo.), ]47 S. W. 1052. 
 
 The statutory remedy for overcharge 
 in freight afforded by the Texas statute, 
 liev. St., art. 4258, is not exclusive, but 
 cumulative, and he who would recover 
 the penalty provided by it must bring 
 jiimself clearly within its terms. Murray 
 & Bro. V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 407, 
 51 .\m. Rep. 650. 
 
 In Hincs v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 95 N. C. 434, 59 Am. Rep. 250, a statute 
 imposing penalties on railroad companies 
 for discriminations in freight rates was 
 held penal, and was accordingly construed 
 with the utmost strictness.
 
 139 
 
 CONTROL AND KKGUI.ATION . 
 
 §§ 184-185 
 
 § 184. Repeal of Statutes Imposing Penalties.— A statute imposing a 
 penalty for an unreasonable discrimination, payable to the person injured, is 
 not repealed by a subsefjuent statute which has no reference to parties discrim- 
 inated against, but provides in the interest of the general public for proceedmgs 
 at the instance of the commonwealth, for attacking or restraining violations of 
 law in res])ect to discriminations, and making such a violation a penal offense, 
 punishable bv hnc.''' Xor is a statute prescribing a jjenalty for an overcharge 
 or unjust discrimination, to be recovered by the party aggrieved, repealed by a 
 subsequent statute imposing a penalty for such an overcharge or discrimination, 
 to be recovered bv the state, and providing for the recovery of double damages 
 by the parlv aggrieved, where such statute provides that the remedies given 
 shall be regarded as cumulative, and that the act shall not be construed as re- 
 pealing any statute giving such remedies, and where the subject-matter of each 
 statute is mcrclv declaratory of the common law, and hence not repugnant.'^^ 
 
 § 18 5. Conditions Precedent to Right of Action for Penalty.— Statutes 
 
 imposing penalties fur an (jvcrchari^c ur discrimination to be recovered by the person 
 aggrieved sometimes prescribe certain conditions precedent to^the right to bring 
 an action for the penalty, as that the bringing of the action shall be in the dis- 
 cretion of the railroad commission,-' or that no liability can be incurred for 
 unreasonable or extortionate charges until a schedule of maximum rates ha^ 
 been made by the railroad commission,-*" or requiring notice to the carrier of 
 an overcharge and its refusal to refund, as a condition precedent to the rig^it 
 of action."-'^ 
 
 37. Repeal of statutes imposing penal- 
 ties. — Jackson r. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 22S Pa. of)6, 77 All. 905, and Minds r. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 228 Pa. 575, 77 Atl. 
 909, holding that the act of June 4. 1883 
 (P. L. 7) was not repealed by the Act of 
 Alay 31, 1907 (P. L. 352), nor by the Act 
 of May 31, 1907 (P. L. 354). 
 
 38. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McElroy, 92 
 Ark. 600, 123 S. W. 771, holding that 
 Acts of 1887, p. 227, was not repealed by 
 Acts 1899, p. 86, § 9 (Kirby's Dig., § 
 6802); Roberts v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 95 Ark. 249, 130 S. W. 531, holding the 
 Act of March 24, 1887 (Kirby's Dig., §§ 
 6722. 6725) was not repealed by the Act 
 of March 11, 1S99 (Acts ]S!)9. p. 82). 
 
 39. Right of action — Discretion of rail- 
 road commission. — Tlic Wisconsin stat- 
 ute. Acts ISTC), c. .")7, § 7. provides that 
 
 ■ all railroad companies violating tlie pro- 
 visions of the act regulating charges shall 
 forfeit to the persons paying the exces- 
 sive rates three times the actual daiu- 
 ages sustained, and that it shall be the 
 duty of the railroad commissioners to in- 
 vestigate complaints in regard to such 
 violation, and, on finding the complaint 
 well-founded, to report the facts to the 
 attorney general, who shall thereupon 
 prosecute the complaint, at the expense 
 of the state, for the lienefit of the party 
 aggrieved. Held, that there was no ab- 
 solute right in the party aggrieved to 
 bring an action for three times the ex- 
 cess, but that tlie l)ringing of the action 
 was in the discretion of the commission- 
 ers. Smith f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 
 Wis. 686. 
 
 40. No liability until maxim rates have 
 been fixed by railroad commission. — Un- 
 der tlie Illinois statute. Act May 2, 1873, 
 imposing a penalty on railroad com- 
 panies for making any unjust discrimi- 
 nation in freight rates, and providing 
 that the railroad and warehouse com- 
 missioners shall fix a schedule of reason- 
 able maximum rates, which shall be 
 prima facie evidence of the reasonable- 
 ness of the rates therein fixed, no liability 
 can be incurred for unreasonable or ex- 
 tortionate charges until such schedules 
 are made by the commissioners. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. :•. People. 77 111. 443. 
 
 41. When notice and refusal to refund 
 is required. — Under the Texas statute. 
 Rev. St., arts. 4257, 4258, and the acts of 
 April 19, 1879, and April 10, 1883, amend- 
 atory thereof, limiting freight rates to be 
 charged by railroads to fifty cents per 
 one luindred pounds per one hundred 
 miles, and giving the right *to recover a 
 penalty of $500 from railroad companies 
 for willful discrimination in freight 
 charges after refusal for twenty days, 
 upon notice, to refund the overcharge, a 
 notice and refusal to refund are only re- 
 quired where a charge exceeding the 
 fifty cent rate is made. W'oodhouse t: 
 Rio Grande R. Co., 67 Tex. 416. 3 S. \V. 
 
 Notice should so identify transaction 
 that it can be investigated. — The purpose 
 of a statute requiring notice of an over- 
 charge and giving time for the carrier to 
 refund is to enable the carrier to ascer- 
 tain whether an overcharge has been 
 made, and to enalile it to do so the no-
 
 §§ 186-187 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 140 
 
 § 186, Who May Recover Penalty. — L"iuler a statute imposing a penalty 
 on a carrier for demanding greater compensation than is allowed by law to be 
 recovered in a suit by the "party aggrieved," a passenger whose father pur- 
 chased a ticket for her use, and who used it on defendant's passenger train, 
 was held to be a "party aggrieved" and entitled to maintain the action for the 
 penalty.-*- Under such a statute a passenger, who was wrongfully required to 
 pay to the auditor on defendant's train a fare in addition to her ticket, can, al- 
 though she was not the purchaser of the ticket, maintain an action for the pen- 
 alty."*-^ The voluntary payment by a passenger of an unlawful overcharge does 
 not preclude him from recovering the statutory i^enalty.'*^ And where a stat- 
 ute imposing a penalty for charging excessive freight rates, to be recovered by 
 the injured party, contains no exception denying the right of action to a person 
 voluntarily paying the charges, such right of action is not affected by the fact 
 that the excessive charges may have been paid without protest, and with full 
 knowledge of the facts.-*-^ The fact that a passenger got on a train for the sole 
 purpose of subjecting the railroad company to the penalty for overcharge does 
 not impair his right to recover such penalty.-^'' A recovery in such case is not 
 defeated by the fact that the overcharge was ])aid by the passenger under a 
 champertous agreement with an attorney to induce the company to accept the 
 overcharge and then recover the penalty.-*' \\'here the agent of a railway com- 
 pany collects from himself, as shipper of goods, an illegal freight charge, and 
 pays the same over to the company, he is pari delicto with the company, and 
 can not recover from it the penalty provided for such illegal charge.^"'^ 
 
 § 187. For "What Acts Penalty Is Imposed. — For what acts a carrier is 
 liable under a statute or commission order imposing a ])enalty for an over- 
 charge or discrimination, and whether a liability exists in a particular case, is 
 to be determined by a proper construction of the terms of the statute or order 
 as applied to the facts in evidence. Some of the peculiar provisions of such 
 statutes or orders have received judicial interpretation. -^'^ 
 
 tice should so identify the transaction 
 that it can be investigated. Sabine, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Cruse, 83 Tex. 460, 18 S. W. 
 7.55. See, also, Woodhouse v. Rio Grande 
 R. Co.. 67 Tex. 416, 3 S. W. 323. 
 
 Notice to agent. — Under the Texas stat- 
 ute. Sayles' Civ. St., art. 4258b, § 10, pro- 
 viding that penalties for overcharges on 
 freight shall not be recoverable unless 
 the party aggrieved shall give notice 
 thereof in writing to the railway com- 
 pany or to the agent demanding or re- 
 ceiving the same, if it is claimed that no- 
 tice was given to an agent who is not to 
 be deemed the* agent of the railway com- 
 pany generally, it should be shown that 
 the notice was given to the agent who 
 demanded or received the overcharge, as 
 the statute requires that notice be given 
 to some officer of the company clothed 
 with general powers. Sabine, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Cruse, 83 Tex. 460, 18 S. W. 755. 
 
 Under this statute it was held that a 
 notice which was delivered to the suc- 
 cessor of the local agent who received 
 the overcharge, and which failed to give 
 data from which the record of the ship- 
 ment could be found on the company's 
 books, was insufficient. Sabine, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Cruse. 83 Tex. 460, 18 S. W. 755. 
 
 42. Who entitled to recover under stat- 
 
 ute authorizing suit by party aggrieved, — 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Freeman, 95 
 Ark. 218, 128 S. W. 1024, construing Kir- 
 by's Dig., § 6620. 
 
 43. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Frisby, 95 
 Ark. 281, 129 S. W. 291, construing Kir- 
 by's DiK., § 0620. 
 
 44. Penalty recoverable though pay- 
 ment of overcharge was voluntary. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 54 Ark. 101, 15 
 S. W. 18, 11 L. R. A. 452. 
 
 45. Streeter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 
 Wis. 294, construing Laws 1874, c. 273. 
 But see Stallings v. Southern R. Co., 92 
 S. C. 290, 75 S. E. 449. 
 
 46. Penalty recoverable though pas- 
 sengers sole purpose was to subject car- 
 rier thereto. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gill, 54 Ark. 101, 15 S. W. 18, 11 L. R. A. 
 452; Fisher r. New York Cent. R. Co., 46 
 N. Y. 644. 
 
 47. Missouri Pac. R. Co. r. Smith, 60 
 .■\rk. 221, 29 S. W. 752. 
 
 48. Agent of carrier collecting from 
 himself, as shipper, illegal charge. — 
 Stecvcr 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 62 Iowa 
 371, 17 X. \V. 595. 
 
 49. Switching charges. — A car of wheat 
 l)illed to an elevator company over de- 
 fendant railway was set by its employees 
 on tile connecting track between such
 
 141 
 
 CONTROL AND RIvGLI.ATIOX. 
 
 § 187 
 
 Maximum Rate Not Applicable to Transshipment, Elevator and De- 
 murrage Charges. — A rate charge exceeding the maximum allowed by statute 
 for through transmission over defendant road and a connecting road, pursuant 
 to an agreement therewith, will not be held to be in excess if within the maxi 
 
 line and thai of another road, and I)}- the 
 latter delivered over its switching tracks 
 to the elevator company; the former c(jm- 
 pany having no authority to use the 
 lines of the latter. Held, that the former 
 company in collecting from the shipper 
 $;i switcliing charges made by the latter 
 company did not sul)jcct itself to a pen- 
 alty under rule G of order forty-five of 
 the corporation commission of Okla- 
 homa, providing that, wliere a mill is lo- 
 cated on a different line, a switching 
 charge not exceeding $1 each way shall 
 be charged. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State. :2(i Okla. 1 (W;, 10'.) Tac. 21S!. 
 
 Collection from consignee of more 
 than bill of lading specifies.— The Ar- 
 kansas statute, Sand. <S: H. Dig., § G254, 
 making it unlawful for a railroad to col- 
 lect from a consignee of freight more 
 for transportation "than is specified in 
 the bill of lading," and declaring a pen- 
 alty for refusal to deliver on tender of 
 the amount specified, does not apply 
 where goods were shipped from L., con- 
 signed to G. at H., via R., but the bill 
 of lading only stated the charges from 
 L. to R., and the connecting line at R., 
 which was not a party to the l)ill of lad- 
 ing, accepted the shipment from the origi- 
 nal carrier, and paid it the amount of 
 charges claimed l)y it, without knowing 
 that they were more than the bill of lad- 
 ing specified, and then refused to deliver 
 to consignee, except on payment of its 
 charges and those it had paid the original 
 carrier. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gibson, 
 68 Ark. 34, 56 S. W. 268. 
 
 Under such a statute it is the duty of 
 the carrier, where the weight of the 
 goods is not specified in the bill of lad- 
 ing, to w^cigh them within a reasonable 
 time, and ascertain the charges, according 
 to the rates specified in the bill of lad- 
 ing; and if it fail to do so, and refuse to 
 deliver the goods, it is liable to the pen- 
 alty. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. :■. Hanni- 
 ford, 49 Ark. 291, :, S. W. 294. 
 
 Contract of affreightment — Method of 
 loading. — A written contract of atircight- 
 ment stipulated that, if the goods were 
 loaded in a bo.x car, the rate should l)e 
 so much per hundred pounds actual 
 weight, and, if loaded on a flat car, so 
 much per hundred pounds per 10,000 
 pounds. The actual weight of the con- 
 signment was 1,550 pounds, and the car- 
 rier loaded a part in a box car and part 
 on a flat car, in a way to make the 
 freight more than it would have been if 
 the whole consignment had been loaded 
 on either car. Held, that this was an 
 overcharge, and that plaintiff, after pay- 
 ing the wliole charge and complying 
 
 with the Georgia statutes. Civ. Code, § 
 2;il6, was entitled to recover the over- 
 charge and the penalty prescribed by said 
 act. Stewart :•. Comer, 100 Ga. 754, 2S S. 
 I'". 401, 02 .\m. St. Rep. ;i5;j. 
 
 Overcharge by conductor not ratified 
 by company. — The West Virginia statute, 
 Code J>i9], c. 54, p. 559, § 82c, cl. 5, im- 
 posing a penalty of $500 upon railroads 
 for overcharge in freight or passenger 
 rates, does not apply to an overcharge 
 by a conductor in violation of the com- 
 pany's rates and rules, which the com- 
 pany is not shown to have ratified. Hall 
 f. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 44 W. Va. 36, 28 
 S. E. 754, 41 L. R. A. 669, 67 Am. St. Rep. 
 757. 
 
 Transportation of freight to other 
 states. — The North Carolina statute. 
 Code, § 1966, imposing a penalty on com- 
 panies operating in the state, for dis- 
 crimination in freight charges, does not 
 apply to the transportation of freight to 
 otlier states. . McLean v. Charlotte, etc., 
 R. Co., 96 N. C. 1, 4 S. E. 769. 
 
 Higher rate for carrying freight in one 
 direction than in the opposite. — A car- 
 rier, cliarging a higlier rate for carrying 
 freight in one direction than it does for 
 carrying freight of the same class in the 
 opposite direction, does not as a matter 
 of law make an overcharge, within the 
 North Carolina statute, Revisal 1905, §§ 
 2642-2644, imposing a penalty on a rail- 
 road charging more for the transporta- 
 tion of property than is allowed by law, 
 etc. Scull & Co. V. .Xtlantic. etc., K. Co., 
 144 N. C. 180, 56 S. E. S76. 
 
 Rule as to short and long haul not ap- 
 plicable to transportation over other 
 roads. — Tlic Massachusetts statute, St. 
 1874, c. 372, § 140, prohibiting any rail- 
 road corporation from charging or re- 
 ceiving more for transporting freight "to 
 any station on its road" than for trans- 
 porting "the like class and quantity of 
 freight from the same original point of 
 departure to a station at a greater dis- 
 tance on its road in tlie same direction," 
 applies to transportation over its own 
 road, and not over other railroads, for 
 which it charges and receives nothing ex- 
 cept as collecting agent of other corpora- 
 tions. Commonwealth v. Worcester, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 124 Mass. 561. 
 
 Transportation without discrimination 
 of goods destined to point on connecting 
 line. — .\ sliipper deiiKUuled tliat a ship- 
 ment sliould be transported by tlie initial 
 carrier to a designated point, and there 
 delivered to a connecting carrier for 
 transportation to a point on its line. 
 The initial carrier refused, and the writ- 
 ten contract of shipment signed by the
 
 187 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 1^2 
 
 mum, after deducting transshipiuent. elevator, and demurrage charges necessi- 
 tated bv the existence of the two roads.'"' 
 
 Switching Charges in Addition to Lawful Rate for Carriage.— W here 
 a railroad company charges for the carriage of freight, in addition to the law- 
 ful rate for carriage between the place of shipment and the point of destination, 
 switching charges it has been compelled to pay for transporting the freight from 
 another railroad line to its own line at the place of shipment, it is not liable 
 under a statute imposing a penalty for an overcharge. ^'^ 
 
 Penalties for Unjust or Willful Acts. — L'nder the statutes in some states 
 imposing penalties on carriers for discrimination it is only an unjust^- or a 
 willful '^^ discrimination that will subject the carrier to the penalty. The word 
 "willfully;" as used iit a statute imposing a penalty on railroad companies for 
 willfully' neglecting to post rates of fare and freight, and for overcharging, does 
 not imply malice, so that, if it be shown that tlie company designedly omitted 
 to complv with the act. its liability for the penalty is fixed. ^-^ 
 
 Preference in Furnishing Cars to Owners of Spur Tracks. — Where all 
 shippers in the same situation at a given point on a railroad are treated alike 
 in the matter of furnishing coal cars, the mere fact that shippers who own spur 
 tracks are furnished cars in preference to those who do not own tracks, but 
 require the use of the railroad's side tracks, which are needed by the railroad 
 to conduct its general business and serve the public does not constitute a viola- 
 tion of a statute providing a penalty for unlawful discrimination. ^'^ 
 
 Additional Charge by Train Auditor. — Although no contention is made, 
 
 shipper bound the initial carrier to carry 
 the property to another point and there 
 deliver it to another connecting carrier 
 for transportation to the point of desti- 
 nation. The shipper signed the contract 
 without reading it. Held, that the initial 
 carrier was not liable to the penalty im- 
 posed by the Texas statute, Rev. St. 1895. 
 art. 4574, subd. 2, making a railroad com- 
 pany failing to transport and deliver 
 without discrimination goods destined to 
 any point on a connecting line guilty of 
 unjust discrimination. Judgment (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 374, modified. San 
 Antonio, etc., R. Co. z: Stribiing. 99 Tex. 
 319, 89 S. W. 963. 
 
 But such statute renders a railway com- 
 pany liable for the penalty imposed, 
 where it fails to comply with a contract 
 of shipment binding it to transport goods 
 to a designated station, and which states 
 the ultimate destination as a station on 
 a connecting carrier's line, but carries the 
 shipment beyond the designated station 
 and there delivers it to another connect- 
 ing-carrier. Judgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 86 S. \V. 374, modified. San Antonio. 
 etc., R. Co. V. Striblinrr, 99 Tex. 319, 89 S. 
 W. 963. 
 
 Injury to particular person need not be 
 shown. — In suits by the state against 
 railroad companies for unjust discrimina- 
 tion in rates, under the Illinois statute 
 approved May 2, 1873, no injury to any 
 particular person need be shown, as in 
 actions by private individuals under such 
 law. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 121 
 111. 304, 12 N. E. 670. 
 
 50. Maximum rate not applicable to 
 
 transshipment, elevator and demurrage 
 charges. — Owen z'. Si. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 83 Mo. 4.J4. 
 
 51. Switching charges in addition to 
 lawful rate for carriage. — Gilliland v. Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co., 81 Miss. 41, 32 So. 916, 
 construing Code, §§ 4287, 4288. 
 
 52. Only unjust discrimination will sub- 
 ject carrier to penalty. — Under the Texas 
 statute Rev. St., art. 4257, as amended by 
 Act April 19, 1879, and the Act of April 
 10, 1883, it is only in cases of unjust dis- 
 crimination by railroad companies that 
 the penalty against them for such dis- 
 crimination can be enforced. Woodhouse 
 v. Rio Grande R. Co., 67 1 ex. 416, 3 S. W. 
 323. 
 
 53. Only willful discrimination will sub- 
 ject carrier to penalty. — To subject a lail- 
 waj' company to penalty for unjust dis- 
 crimination in rates, under the Texas 
 statute, the discrimination must be "will- 
 fully" made. Woodhouse v. Rio Grande 
 R. Co., 67 Tex. 416, 419, 3 S. W. 323. 
 
 What is a willful act of discrimination. 
 — A "willful" act of discrimination in 
 freight charges is an act done, "know- 
 ingly or intentionally, and without rea- 
 sonable ground for believing it to be 
 lawful." Woodhouse v. Rio Grande R. 
 Co., 67 Tex. 416, 419, 3 S. W. 323. 
 
 54. Word "willfully" does not imply 
 malice. — Fuller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 31 
 Iowa 187, construing Acts 1862, c. 169, 
 § 2. 
 
 55. Preference in furnishmg cars to 
 owners of spur tracks. — Choctaw, etc., R. 
 Co. V. State, 73 Ark. 373, 84 S. W. 502, 
 92 S. W. 26, construing Act of March 11, 
 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 82, c. 53).
 
 143 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 187-191 
 
 in an action against a railroad company for the penalty for overcharge of fare, 
 of such overcharge by the ticket agent, yet, if the train auditor wrongfully made 
 an additional charge.' the two acts together may he considered as the act of one, 
 for the ])ur])Ose of holding the railroad liable. •''•" 
 
 Charges Collected upon Goods Not Delivered.— Charges collected upon 
 "d portion of a shipment which was not delivered is an overcharge within a stat- 
 ute, making railroad companies liable to a penalty for failure to refund an over- 
 charge of freight within a specified time.'"'" 
 
 § 188. Unit of Measurement in Determining What Is an Overcharge. 
 — Under a statute relating to penalties for charging illegal fares on railroads, 
 which fixes the rate wliich a company may receive for the transportation of 
 passengers at not exceeding three cents a mile for a distance of more than eight 
 miles, the unit of measurement is one mile, and the limit of three cents applies 
 first to nine miles, then to ten, and so on, and for any distances less than nine 
 miles it does not apply.^® 
 
 § 189. Number of Penalties Recoverable.— In a suit against a carrier 
 
 under a statute imposing a penally for overcharging a passenger, whether the 
 carrier is liable to but one penalty, or to more than one, where there has been 
 more than one case of overcharge, is to be determined by a construction of the 
 terms of the statute imposing the penalty and the facts in the particular case.'^^ 
 
 § 190. Amount of Penalty. — Tn some states the imposition of excessive 
 penalties is expressly forbidden by the constitution.^"' Before judgment, tlie 
 penalty imposed upon a railroad company by statute, for overcharges for_ car- 
 rying freight or passengers, does not bear interest, if the statute does not itself 
 allow it, and th.e liability is not of that character which entitles it to draw in- 
 terest under the general statutes relating to interest.'''^ 
 
 § 191. What Questions May Be Raised in Action for Penalty.— Where 
 
 the le-M'slature estalili<lies a iiassenger rate of so nnich ]>er mile, and prescribes 
 
 56. Additional charge by train auditor. 
 
 —St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. r. Frisby, 95 Ark. 
 281, 12'.t S. W. 2(1 1. 
 
 57. Charges collected upon goods not 
 delivered. — Cottrell ?■. Carolina, etc., R. 
 Co,, 141 N. C, 383. 54 S, E. 288, constru- 
 ing- Revisal 1905, §§ 2642. 2644. 
 
 58. Unit of measurement in determining 
 what is an overcharge. — Cleveland, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Wells, <>5 O. St. 313, 62 N. K. 
 332, 58 L. R. A. 651. construing Rev. St. 
 3376. 
 
 59. Number of penalties recoverable. — 
 A carrier charging e.xcessive fare on the 
 sale of two tickets to a husband for him- 
 self and wife is subject to but one pen- 
 alty under the .\rkansas statute. Kirby's 
 Dig., § 6620. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Young, 102 Ark. 599, 145 S. W. 203. 
 
 Under the New York statute. Laws 
 1857, p. 432, § 1, one who. at different 
 times, was charged excessive fare, can re- 
 cover but one penalty for all unlawful 
 charges prior to the commencement of 
 the action, Fisher v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co.. 46 N. Y. 644. 
 
 The Ohio law of 1873 gave a right of 
 recoverv for each case of overcharge. 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 33 O. 
 St. 384, 31 Am. Rep. 543, distingfuishing 
 46 N. Y. 644. 
 
 60. Penalties held not excessive. — The 
 penalties established by the Iowa "joint 
 rate act," being not less than $1,000, nor 
 more than $5,000, for the first offense, 
 charging more than the rate fixed by the 
 commissioners, and not less than $5,000 
 nor more than $10,000 for every subse- 
 quent offense, are not excessive, within 
 Const., art. 1, § 17, forbidding the im- 
 position of such penalties. Burlington, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Dev, 82 Iowa 312. 48 N. W. 
 98. 31 Am. St. Rep. 477, 12 L. R. A. 
 436. 
 
 Provision in Indiana constitution refers 
 to criminal proceedings. — The Indiana 
 statute. Acts 1901, p. 149 (Burn's Rev. 
 St. 1901, § 3312b, et seq.), prohibiting un- 
 just discrimination by an express com- 
 pany against any other company engaged 
 in the same business, and prescribing a 
 penalty for its violation, recoverable by 
 the state, is not repugnant to Const., 
 art. 1. § 16, declaring that all penalties 
 shall be proportioned to the nature of the 
 offense, as the provision has reference to 
 criminal proceedings, .\dams Exp. Co. v. 
 State, 161 Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033. 
 
 61. Interest not allowed. — Iron R. Co. 
 r. Lawrence Furnace Co.. 49 O. St. 102. 
 30 X. E. 616.
 
 §§ 191-194 CARRIERS. 144 
 
 penalties for a charge in excess thereof, to he recovered of the carrier hy the 
 passenger excessively charged, the question of the reasonableness of the rate 
 so fixed by the legislature may be raised in an action for such penalty. *^- 
 
 §§ 192-195. Defenses— § 192. Rates Charged No Higher than 
 Those Fixed by Railroad Commission. — The state is precluded from deny- 
 ing that the traffic rates fixed by the railroad commission are reasonable, and 
 railroad companies can not be subjected to penalties prescribed by statute, on 
 the ground that their rates are unreasonable, if they charge no more than the 
 rates thus fixed.*^*^ 
 
 § 193. Mistake. — Under a statute, which provides that if a railroad com- 
 pany sh.all charge or receive any greater comj^ensation for the transportation 
 of passengers than is allowed by law, it shall be liable to a penalty, to be re- 
 covered by the party aggrieved, the wrong is in the fact of charging, or receiv- 
 ing a greater compensation than is allowed ; and where the company or its 
 agent demands and receives for a fare a larger amount than is lawful, knowing 
 that it or he is receiving that amount, the company is liable, and a mistake in 
 making the overcharge will only go in mitigation of the penalty.*"^-* Therefore, 
 it is no defense to an action under such a statute that the overcharge was made 
 through a mistake as to the distance between stations.*"'-^ But an honest mis- 
 take of an agent of a railroad company in making change, whereby he receives 
 a larger amount than is lawful, will not make the company liable to the penalty .*'^'' 
 The New York statute ^" providing for a penalty for the exacting by a car- 
 rier of unlawful rates of fare expressly exempts from its operation a carrier 
 making an overcharge through inadvertence or mistake not amounting to gross 
 negligence.'''^ 
 
 § 194. Facts Not Constituting a Defense. — It is no defense to a com- 
 plaint of unjust discrimination that the privileges allowed to the favored party 
 may be withdrawn at any time.'''^ If a railroad receives for transportation a 
 
 62. Question of reasonableness of rate 68. Under this statute, where a rail- 
 fixed by legislature. — St. Louis, etc., R. road makes a mistake in the construction 
 Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 39 L. Ed. .567, of its "statutory rights, such as an ordin- 
 15 S. Ct. 484; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. arily prudent person, honestly desiring 
 Stevenson. 156 U. S. 667, 39 L. Ed. 573, to act within his rights, might make, it 
 15 S. Ct. 484, 491. is e.xempt from the penalty. Judgment 
 
 63. Rates charged no higher than those 88 App. Div. 147, 84 N. Y. S. 383, 14 N. 
 fixed by commission. — Burlington, etc., Y. Ann. Cas. 6, affirmed. Goodspeed v. 
 R. Co. V. Dev, 82 Iowa 312, 48 X. \V. 98, Ithaca St. R. Co., 184 N. Y. 351, 77 N. 
 31 Am. St. Rep. 477, 12 L. R. A. 43f,. E. 392. 
 
 64. Mistake no defense where amount 1 he statute does not impose the for- 
 received is known. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. feiture on a company making an over- 
 V. Waldrop, 93 Ark. 42, 123 S. W. 778, charge through a mistake made in good 
 construing Kirby's Dig., § 6620. Com- faith as to the effect of § 37, of the act, 
 pare Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McDermott making the rates of fare for the trans- 
 C\rk.), 152 S. W. 983. portation of passengers depend on the 
 
 65. Mistake as to distance between grades which were overcome by the road, 
 stations no defense. — Missouri Pac. R. Goodspeed z'. Ithaca St. R. Co., 88 App. 
 Co. v. Smith, 60 Ark. 221, 29 S. W. 752; Div. 147, 84 N. Y. S. 383, 14 N. Y. Ann. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McDermott Cas. 6, affirmed in 184 N. Y. 351, 77 N. 
 CArk.). 152 S. W. 983. E. 392. 
 
 66. Hopest mistake of agent in making When, under tlie advice of its counsel, 
 change a good defense. — Little Rock, etc., a railroad company makes an overcharge, 
 R. Co. r. Clark, 58 .-Xrk. 490, 25 S. W. 504; the right to which might be legally con- 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Young, 102 Ark. sidered a fairly doubtful question, it con- 
 599, 145 S. W. 203. See, also, Chicago, stitutes an inadvertance or mistake not 
 etc., R. Co. z\ McDermott (Ark.), 152 S. amounting to gross negligence, within 
 W. 983. the terms of the statute. Parker v. El- 
 
 67. Mistake not amounting to gross mira, etc., R. Co., 27 App. Div. 383, 49 N. 
 negligence — New York statute construed. Y. S. 1127, affirmed in 165 X. Y. 274, 59 N. 
 — Laws 1^90, pp. 1095, 1096, c. 565, §§ 37, E. 81. 
 
 39, as amended by Laws 1892, p. 1392, 69. No defense that privileges to fa- 
 
 c. 676. vored party may be withdrawn. — Butch-
 
 145 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 194-197 
 
 carload of merchandise to a station on its r(xid where it delivers the goods, and 
 they are accci>ted by the consignee, and charges more than it charges for trans- 
 porting the same a greater distance, it is liable to the penalty imposed by a 
 statute forbidding such discrimination, although by the original contract the 
 merchandise was to be transported to a more distant station/'^ In an action 
 against a railroad c()in])any to recover the penalties for overcharges for trans- 
 portation, where there was a special contract between the shipper and the com- 
 pany for legal rates, the plaintiff is not remitted to an action for breach of the 
 contract, and such contract constitutes no defense."^ In an action by a shipper 
 to recover ])enal damages under a statute forbidding discrimination in freight 
 rates, the railroad company can not set up in justification of the lower rates a 
 contract with the party in whose favor they were made, whereby, in considera- 
 tion of the lower rates, such party released the railroad company from an un- 
 explained, indefinite, and unadjusted claim /or damages arising from a tort; 
 for to allow such a defense would practically emasculate the lawJ- 
 
 § 195. Estoppel to Set Up Defense. — In a (jui tani action against a rail- 
 road compan\- for the i:)enalty for having taken overcharges for the transpor- 
 tation of merchandise, the company, in making defense, is not estopped from 
 showing that the i)ackages alleged to have been overcharged could have been 
 charged at a higher rate, or that they were all, or in part, exi)ress matter, and 
 not fully charged as such, or that for small packages the company could have 
 charged more."'' 
 
 § 196. Two Penalties — Effect of Enforcement of One. — Where a stat- 
 ute imposes two distinct penalties for an overcharge, and the penalties are not 
 alternative, the enforcement of one will not prevent the enforcement of the 
 other." -^ 
 
 § 197. Refusal to Transport Passengers. — Under statutes in some ju- 
 ri'^dictioiis the refusal of a railroad company to transport a passenger without 
 legal excuse subjects the company to a penalty."'' 
 
 ers', etc., Stock Yards Co. t'. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co.. 14 C. C. A. 2'.M). r.T l-\'(i. :{,->. 
 
 70. Facts not constituting defense to 
 greater charge for shorter than for longer 
 haul. — Osgood z\ Concord Railroad, (>:! X. 
 H. 2r>'), construin.t; Laws 1S.")9, c. .")•"). 
 
 71. Special contract for legal rates no 
 defense. — I\eynolds ?•. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., s.-, Mo. <H). 
 
 72. Contract with party in whose favor 
 discrimination is made, no defense. — 
 Union I'ac. R. Co. f. Goodridgc, 1-19 U. 
 S. 680, 37 L. Ed. 98(5, 13 S. Ct. 970; Union 
 Pac. R. Co. f. Ta!?gart, 149 U. S. 698, 37 
 L. Ed. 90->, i;; S. Ct. 977. 
 
 73. Carrier not estopped to show goods 
 could have been charged at higher rate. 
 — Mc(".rc,L;or 7\ ICric R. Co.. 3,) X. J. L. 
 ll.V 
 
 74. Two penalties — Effect of enforce- 
 ment of one. — Herrinian v. Burlington, 
 etc., R. Co., 57 Iowa 187, 9 X. W. 378, 10 
 N. \V. 340. 
 
 Ihe Iowa statute, Acts 15th Gen. As- 
 sam., c. 68, fixes a maximum rate for 
 freight charges, and provides that a 
 higher cliarge shall lie "punished hy a 
 forfeiture of $500 to the school fund," 
 
 and that the company "shall forfeit and 
 pay to the person injured five times the 
 amount of the charges," etc. Held, that 
 an action under the first clause would 
 not he a bar to an action under the sec- 
 ond. Herriman v. Burlington, etc., R. 
 Co., 57 Iowa 187, 9 N. W. 378, 10 N. W. 
 340. 
 
 75. Refusal to transport passengers. — 
 A Michigan staute. Comp. Laws. § 6235, 
 requires every railroad corporation to 
 furnisli sufficient accommodation for the 
 transportation of passengers, etc., and de- 
 clares that on refusal to transport any 
 passenger without legal excuse it shall 
 pay for such default damages or a pen- 
 alty at the party's election. Held, that 
 a carrier was not liable to a passenger 
 under such section for failure to trans- 
 port her by a particular train, which had 
 been discontinued and proper notice 
 given, provided the mistake in selling her 
 a ticket for use on such train, was an 
 error of the local ticket agent. Geer v. 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co., 142 Mich. 511, 106 
 N. W. 72. 
 
 But where a railroad company had ad- 
 vertised a train on a branch line to leave 
 
 1 Car— 10
 
 §§ 198-200 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 146 
 
 § 198. Refusal to Sell Mileage Tickets at Reduced Rates.— A statute, 
 making a railroad company liable to a penalty for refusal to sell a 1,000-mile 
 mileage ticket at a reduced rate, is void, is not within the police power of the 
 state.' *^ 
 
 § 199. Refusal to Furnish Passenger Tickets Granting Stop-Over 
 Privileges. — L'ndcr a statute prescribing a penalty for the refusal of a carrier 
 to* furi^ish passenger tickets granting stop-over privileges without the payment 
 of additional fare to persons ^'desiring a passage," persons who demand such 
 tickets solely for the purpose of having such demand refused, and thus laying 
 the foundation for the prosecution of an action to recover the penalty, are not 
 entitled to recover the penalty." 
 
 § 2 00. Refusal to Give a Transfer.— Under statutes in some states the 
 refusal of a street railroad company to give to a passenger paying one single 
 fare a transfer to other lines operated by the company, makes the company 
 liable to a penalty."^ 
 
 a connecting point shortly after the ar- 
 rival of another train, and had sent 
 printed posters to its agents showing the 
 contemplated operation of such train, but 
 before the time arrived when the train 
 was advertised to be put on notice of its 
 withdrawal was sent to some of the com- 
 pany's agents, and was published, but the 
 agent at Y. had received no such notice, 
 by reason whereof he sold a ticket to 
 plaintiff for passage over such branch 
 line, and advised her of the running of 
 the advertised train, and on her arrival 
 at the junction point she was compelled 
 to remain there overnight, the company 
 was liable for the penalty prescribed. 
 Van Camp v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 137 
 Mich. 4GT, 100 X. W. 771. 
 
 76. Statute imposing penalty void. — 
 Judgment 15 App. Div. 251, 44 N. Y. S. 
 175, reversed. Beardsley v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E. 488, 
 so holding as to Laws 1895, c. 1027, § 1. 
 
 77. Refusal to furnish passenger tickets 
 granting stop-over privileges. — Southern 
 Pac. Co. V. Robinson, 132 Cal. 408, 64 
 Pac. 572. 
 
 Certain persons combined for the pur- 
 pose of creating causes of actions for the 
 penalty prescribed under Civ. Code, § 
 490, and demanded tickets with the stop- 
 over privilege of a railroad company, and 
 also demanded passage from an interme- 
 diate station, having stopped there, for 
 the purpose of being refused passage on 
 a subsequent train, nearly 3,000 times. 
 Tney did not desire the stop-over privi- 
 lege, but in making their demands de- 
 sired that they be refused. Held, that 
 they could not recover the penalties pro- 
 vided by the statute, since it referred 
 only to persons desiring the stop-over 
 privilege. Southern Pac. Co. v. Robin- 
 son, 132 Call. 408, 04 Pac. 572. 
 
 78. Refusal to give a transfer. — 'I' he 
 New York statute. Laws 1890, p. HOC, 
 c. 56.J, § 78, as amended by Laws 1892, 
 p. 1398, c. 676, provides that any railroad 
 corporation may contract with any other 
 
 for the use of their respective roads, and 
 if such contract shall be a lease, certain 
 formalities are to be observed in its ex- 
 ecution. Section 104 (page 1114) provides 
 for transfers from one road to another 
 upon payment of a single fare. Held, 
 th it the latter section applies to surface 
 lines leased by one or more corporations 
 to another, and operated by the lessee, 
 so as to render the lessee liable where 
 transfers are tendered and refused for 
 the penalties provided for their refusal. 
 Judgment, 96 App. Div. 636, 89 N. Y. S. 
 1105, modified. Griffin v. Interurban St. 
 R. Co., 179 N. Y. 438, 72 N. E. 513. 
 
 The New York Railroad Law, Laws 
 1892, p. 1406, c. 676, § 104, contemplates 
 a person who enters on or continues a 
 trip with the actual desire of getting to 
 some place, and whose controlling pur- 
 pose is interfered with by an unjust re- 
 fusal to give him a transfer, and who 
 therefore is defeated of his aim, and does 
 not apply to a person who boarded a car 
 merely to seek information as_ to the 
 custom of the corporation to issue or 
 not to issue transfers at a certain point 
 over a certain route, which information 
 he desired for use in litigation, and who 
 had no definite purpose of going to any 
 particular place, since he was not pre- 
 vented by the refusal of a transfer from 
 accomplishing all he had intended, and 
 was therefore not an "aggrieved party." 
 Tudgment. 121 App. Div. 582, 106 N. V. S. 
 378, affirmed. Bull v. New York City R. 
 Co., 192 N. Y. 361, 85 N. E. 385. 
 
 In an action to recover the penalty im- 
 posed l)y such statute it appeared that 
 defendant was the operating company of 
 several leased lines, under a contract en- 
 tered into pursuant to the statute. Plain- 
 tiff was a passenger on one of such lines, 
 and demanded a transfer to another of 
 the leased lines, which was refused. 
 Held, that defendant's liability for the 
 penalty could not be defeated because 
 plaintiff's initial trip was on one of de- 
 fendant's leased lines, to be completed
 
 147 
 
 CONTKOI. AND KIXUI.ATION. 
 
 §§ 201-20J 
 
 § 2 01. Refusal to Sell Passenger Tickets of a Connecting Carrier. 
 — A statute imi)Osing a i)enalty for refusing to sell passenger tickets of a con- 
 nectin'ij carrier at the rate prescribed b\' the railroad commission, is not un- 
 con!-titufional, as coniijelling a railroad company to become the agent of an- 
 other railroad, or to appoint another railroad company its agent against its 
 consent, nor as depriving a railroad of the right to select its own agents.'^ In 
 what cases the liability of a railroad company attaches under such a statute is- 
 to be determined by an interi)rctati(jn of the peculiar ])r<t\ision< of the statute.^'" 
 
 § 202. Failure to Affix Check to Baggage and to Deliver Duplicate 
 to Passenger. — I'nder a statute, re(|uiring a railroad company to affix a check 
 to every parcel of baggage and to deliver a duplicate thereof to the passenger, 
 and imposing a penalty for failure to do so, and declaring that no fare shall 
 be collected from such passenger, the liability to furnish the passenger free 
 transportation on refusal to deliver him a check is as much a part of the pen- 
 alty as the cash i)enalty therein prescribed. '^^ A railroad corjjoration which in 
 fact receives the baggage of a passenger upon a train on which it is not bound 
 to take it, to be transported over a portion of the road for which he has pur- 
 chased a ticket, is subject, upon refusing to check the baggage, to the penalty 
 prescribed for such refusal. ^- 
 
 § 203. Refusal to Redeem Unused Passenger Tickets. — Under stat- 
 utes in some jurisdictions carriers are required to provide for the redemption of 
 unused passenger tickets, and a penalty is imposed for their failure or refusal 
 to do so.''*'' 
 
 on another of such lines, instead of on 
 the defendant's line, to be completed on 
 one or the other of the lessor company's 
 lines. O'Reilly v. Brooklyn Heights R. 
 Co., 95 App. Div. 253, 89 N. Y. S. 41, af- 
 firmed in 179 X. Y. 450, 72 N. E. 517. con- 
 struing in addition to the above statute, 
 Laws 1885, p. 525, c. 305; Laws 1890, p. 
 1082, c. 505; Laws 1892, p. 1382, c. 67(). 
 
 The penalties provided for on refusal 
 of transfer on payment of a single fare 
 from one to another of leased surface 
 railroads, under Laws 1890, p. 1082. c. 
 565, as amended by Laws 1892, pp. 1398, 
 1406, c. 676, §§ 78, 104, are not cumula- 
 tive, and the bringing of an action for 
 one penalty is a waiver of all previous 
 penalties incurred. Judgment, 96 .\pp. 
 Div. 636, 89 X. Y. S. 1105, modified. 
 Griffin r. Intcrurhan St. R. Co., 179 X. V. 
 438, 72 X. I".. 513. 
 
 79. Statute imposing penalty not un- 
 constitutiona]. — Stephens z'. Central, etc , 
 R. Co.. IMS Ga. 625. 75 S. E. 1041. so 
 holding as to Civ. Code, 1910, §§ 2752- 
 2755. 
 
 80. In what cases liability for penalty 
 attaches. — TIk' (ioorgia statute. Civ. Codf. 
 1895, § 2299, compelling a railroad to 
 sell any ticket of any other railroad com- 
 pany with which it may he directly or 
 indirectly connected for passage over the 
 lines of such connecting companies, and 
 § 2301, imposing a penalty for violation 
 of § 2299, to be recovered either by the 
 company discriminated against or by the 
 person oflfering to buy the ticket, or 
 both, are intended solely to prevent one 
 railroad company from discriminating 
 
 against a connecting company, and no 
 liability attaches for the penalty imposed 
 for a refusal to sell a ticket to a point on 
 the line of a connecting company, unless 
 such connecting company shall have ten- 
 dered its tickets and requested their 
 sale. Jones v. Louisville, etc., R. Co , 
 132 Ga. 11, 63 S. E. 627. 
 
 81. Failure to affix check to baggage 
 and to deliver duplicate to passenger. — 
 larr r. Oregon, etc., R. Co. (Idaho), 93 
 Pac. 957, construing Rev. St. 1S87, § 2674. 
 
 82. Commonwealth z\ Connecticut R. 
 Co., 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 447, construing 
 St. 1854, c. 23. 
 
 83. Refusal to redeem unused passenger 
 tickets. — I'nder the Iowa statute Code 
 Supp. 1902, §§ 2128a, 2128b, 2128c, where 
 a ticket agent refuses to sell a person 
 a ticket to a certain point, and so induces 
 him to bu^' one to a more distant point, 
 which ticket the agent afterwards refuses 
 to redeem when returned unused, the 
 carrier is lial)le for the penalty unless 
 lack of good faith on the part of plain- 
 tiff in the purchase is shown. Cook z: 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 Iowa 497, 113 
 X. W. 1079. 
 
 L'nder such statute, where the telegraph 
 operator at a railroad station while re- 
 lieving the station agent, refused to re- 
 deem a passenger ticket, the mere fact 
 that the station agent had been au- 
 thorized to redeem tickets is no defense 
 in an action for the penaltv. Rohrig z: 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Iowa 380, 106 
 X. \V. 935. 
 
 For a construction of the provisions of
 
 204-206 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 148 
 
 § 204. Failure to Post Schedules of Rates.— In some states there are 
 statutes requiring railroad companies to post schedules of rates, and imposing 
 a penalty for their failure to do so.^"* In an action for a penalty for failure to 
 po-t rates made by a railroad commission, the railroad company can not mter- 
 pose as a defense 'that the commission has not published schedules of rates for 
 all the railroads in the state although there is a statute providing that the sched- 
 ule shall not be taken as evidence until schedules have been prepared for all 
 the railroad companies in the state, as such a statute only applies to the recep- 
 tion of the schedule as evidence/'^-'^ 
 
 §S 205-210. Failure or Refusal to Receive or Transport Freight— 
 § 205. Statute Imposing Penalty Does Not Limit Carrier's Common- 
 Law Liability.— A statute requiring railroad companies to accept freight, and 
 imposing a penalty for refusal, and making it unlawful to allow freight to re- 
 main unshipped for a time specified, unless agreed to by the owner, does not 
 limit the carrier s common-law liability, nor apply to delays arising from the 
 carrier's negligence.*"^' 
 
 § 2 06. Who May Recover Penalty.— The "party aggrieved," under a stat- 
 ute authorizing recoverv bv such party of a ])enalty for a earner's refusal to 
 receive or transport freight, is one injured by the refusal.^' The party injured 
 in such case is the shipper.^^ Under such a statute, an agent can not recover 
 for iie use of his principal not being the real party in interest ;'^» nor can a 
 connecting carrier to whom the freight is consigned recover the penalty ; »*^ nor 
 
 an earlier Iowa statute Acts 28th Gen. 
 Assem., c. 71, §§ 1, 2, 3, see JoUey v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Iowa 491, 93 N. 
 W. 555. 
 
 84. Failure to post schedules of rates. 
 —The Arkansas statute. Act March 24, 
 1887, §§ 7, 12 (Sand. & H. Dig., §§ 6307, 
 6312), require that all railroad corpora- 
 tions in the state of Arkansas shall keep 
 posted up, at every depot freight office, 
 printed schedules for freight rates; and 
 that, for a violation of the act, they shall 
 forfeit and pay for every such offense 
 a certain sum, to be recovered by a civil 
 action "by the party aggrieved;" but that 
 a notice in writing of the violation, and 
 a demand for reparation, must be served 
 by claimant fifteen days before the com- 
 mencement of the action. Held, that the 
 reparation contemplated by the act was 
 compensation for injuries or wrongs suf- 
 fered from the failure to post the rates, 
 and that hence only a perscm so injuri- 
 ously affected was entitled to the penalty. 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 62 Ark. 
 452, 36 S. W. 186. 
 
 A notice which does not state how 
 claimant was aggrieved by a failure _ to 
 post schedules, the extent of his griev- 
 ances, and the damage occasioned there- 
 by, is fatally defective. Arkansas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Harris, 62 Ark. 452, 36 S. W. 
 186. 
 
 85. Johnson v. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 
 73 S. C. 36, 52 S. E. 644, construing Civ. 
 Code 1902, § 2093. 
 
 86. Carrier's common law liability not 
 limited. — Rehearing, Parker v. Railroad 
 Co.. 131 X. C. 827, 43 S. E. 1005, denied. 
 
 Parker v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 133 N. 
 C. 335, 45 S. E. 658, 63 L. R. A. 827, con- 
 struing Code, §§ 19G4, 1967. 
 
 87. The "party aggrieved" is one in- 
 jured by the refusal. — McRackan v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 150 N. C. 331, 63 S. 
 E. 1042, construing Revisal 1905, § 2631. 
 
 88. Shipper the party entitled to re- 
 cover penalty. — Crosby v. Pere Marquette 
 R. Co., 131 Mich. 288, 91 N. W. 124; con- 
 struing 2 Comp. Laws 1897, § 6235; Bur- 
 lington Lumber Co. v. Southern R. Co., 
 152 N. C. 70, 67 S. E. 167, construing 
 Revisal 1905, § 2631; Reid v. Southern R. 
 Co., 149 N. C. 423, 63 S. E. 112. 
 
 A consignor of goods, who, under con- 
 tract with the consignee, was permitted 
 to return certain goods that had been 
 shipped to him by the consignee, but 
 was not to receive credit therefor on his 
 account until the goods were received 
 by the consignee, is the party aggrieved, 
 within the North Carolina statute. Laws 
 1903, p. 999, c. 590, § 3, making it unlaw- 
 ful for railroads to omit to transport 
 goods received, for a longer period than 
 four days after receipt thereof, and pro- 
 viding penalties for a violation thereof, 
 which they shall forfeit to the party ag- 
 grieved, hummers v. Southern R. Co., 
 138 N. C. 295, 50 S. E. 714. 
 
 89. Agent can not recover for use of 
 principal. — McRackan v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 150 N. C. 331, '63 S. E. 1042, con- 
 struing I^cvisal 1905, § 2631. 
 
 90. Connecting carrier can not recover 
 penalty. — Crosljy v. Pere Marquette R. 
 Co., 131 Mich. 288, 91 N. W. 124, con- 
 struing 2 Comp. Laws 1897, § 6235.
 
 149 
 
 CCIXTROI, AND KFXULATIOX. 
 
 !§ 206-209 
 
 can it be recovered by an attorney for persons who attached the goods shipped 
 in suits a.^ainst tlie real owner.'" 
 
 § 207. When Penalty Will Be Imposed. — In what cases the penalty will 
 be' imposed, under a statute imposing a penalty for a carrier's failure or re- 
 fusal to receive or transport freight, is to be determined by a proper construc- 
 tion of the terms oi the statute imposing the penalty; such statute to be con- 
 strued in connecti(jn with any other statute having application to the particular 
 case.'-'- 
 
 § 2 08. Number of Penalties Recoverable. — I'nder a statute imposing a 
 penalty for a transportation company's refusal to ship freight tendered it, and 
 providing that each article refused shall constitute a separate offense, where a 
 railroad company refuses to transport a lot of cattle a separate penalty can be 
 recovered for each head thereof, since each head is an article within the stat- 
 ute.°^ 
 
 § 209. Tender and Refusal.— To entitle a shipper to the statutory penalty 
 for refusal to receive freight for shipment, it is not enough to constitute a ten- 
 der that he place the freight on the carrier's platform or simply ask the car- 
 rier's agent when the freight can be shipped, but there must be an actual tender, 
 though it is not essential that any particular language be used, but it is suffi- 
 
 91. Attorney for persons who attached 
 goods can not recover penalty. — Mc- 
 Kackan r. Atlantic, cIl.. R. Co., 1.")U X. 
 C. 331, 63 S. E. 1042, construing Revisal 
 190.3, § 3fi31. 
 
 92. When penalty will be imposed. — 
 The Xcirtli Carolina statute. Revival r.M).'), 
 § 2G31, declares that freight agents of 
 railroads shall receive all articles of the 
 nature received hy such company for 
 transportation whenever tendered at a 
 regular depot and forward the same by 
 the routes selected by the person ten- 
 dering the freight under existing laws 
 and for a failure so to do imposes a pen- 
 alty of $50 for each day's delay and ac- 
 tual damages. Held, that where a freight 
 agent refused to accept freight on Jan- 
 uary 27, 1905, or issue a bill of lading 
 therefor because of alleged lack of time 
 to ascertain the freight rates, but per- 
 mitted the freight to remain in the rail- 
 road's warehouse until he had time to 
 ascertain the rates, which he failed to 
 do until February 8th, there was a fail- 
 ure to receive for transportation when 
 tendered, creating a liability under such 
 section. Twitty v. Southern R. Co., 141 
 N. C. 355, 53 S. E. 957. 
 
 But since Revisal 1905, § 2632, allows 
 the carrier two days at the initial point 
 of shipment in which to ship freight, it 
 incurred no penalty under Revisal. § 2631, 
 for not shipping by the train which was 
 being loaded when the goods were of- 
 fered for shipment, even though the car- 
 rier's employee used discourteous and un- 
 warranted language in refusing to ship 
 on that train. Cox v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 148 N. C. 459. 62 S. E. 556. 
 
 A carrier refusing to receive cotton 
 tendered for shipment, and to issue a 
 
 l)ill of lading therefor, unless the shipper 
 will undergo the extra expense of placing 
 the cotton on its platform covered with 
 cotton, violates the Arkansas statute, 
 Kirby's Dig., § 6803, and can not escape 
 lial)ility by relying on § 528, which for- 
 liids a carrier from issuing a receipt for 
 property until the same has been received 
 into its custody. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. State, 84 Ark. 150, 104 S. \V. 1106. 
 
 In the North Carolina statute. Code, 
 § 1964, imposing a penalty for the refusal 
 of a railroad to receive goods for trans- 
 portation at any regular station, the 
 words "regular station" denote a place 
 where the railroad transacts regular and 
 orderly business with suitable buildings 
 and appliances, and with agents to give 
 bills of lading and receipts to shippers 
 tendering or receiving freight at all ap- 
 propriate times; and the fact that a 
 place is set down in the circulars and or- 
 ders of the railroad as a station, and that 
 a mail train stops there regularly is not 
 sufficient to make it a "regular station." 
 Land z: Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 104 X. 
 C. 48, 10 S. E. 80. 
 
 A point on a railroad where there was 
 never any station agent, no agent's of- 
 fice, no books kept, tickets sold, or bills 
 oi lading given, but where conductors 
 had frequently stopped trains to receive 
 and let off freight and passengers, is not 
 a "regular station" within the meaning of 
 such statute. Kellogg z: Suffolk, etc., R. 
 Co., 100 X. C. 15S, 5 S. E. 379. 
 
 93. Separate penalty recoverable for 
 each article. — Carter r. Wilmington, etc., 
 R. Co.. 126 X. C. 437, 36 S. E. 14; S. C, 
 129 X. C. 213, 39 S. E. 827, construing 
 Code. § 1964.
 
 §§ 209-210 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 150 
 
 cient if the language amount in common understanding to a tender and refusal. '^^ 
 Where a shipper is permitted to place lumber on a car, but the carrier refuses 
 to receive it for shipment, this is a "refusal to receive" it, within a statute im- 
 posing a penaltv for such refusal.'''' Under a statute providing that a carrier 
 shall forfeit a penalty of a prescribed amount for each day it refuses to re- 
 ceive freight tentlered for shipment, to entitle a shipper to the daily penalty 
 there must have been a tender and refusal each day.^''^ 
 
 § 210. Defenses. — When a carrier shows the existence of conditions for 
 which it is not responsible, preventing the discharge of its duty to receive goods 
 for shipment, it will not be held liable for the penalty imposed by statute for 
 failure to receive and ship goods.''' But it is not a sufficient defense to an ac- 
 tion to recover the statutory penalty for a carrier's refusal to receive freight 
 for shipment that the consignee of freight failed to unload cars consigned to 
 him, creating a congestion of traffic at the point of destination,'-^* or that an un- 
 usual emergencv has caused a shortage of cars so that goods can not be shipped 
 out as rapidly as customary,-'^ or that the defendant's agent who re- 
 fused to receive the goods for shipment was ignorant of the location of the 
 station to which the goods were to be shipped, which was located on a rail- 
 road maintaining a separate organization from, but operated by, defend- 
 ant,i or that the shipper asked for a bill of lading to a point on a 
 
 94. What amounts to a tender. — Wam- 
 pum Cotton Mills r. Carolina, etc., R. Co., 
 1.50 X. C. f.OS. 64 S. E. 586. 
 
 Facts not amounting to general tender 
 for shipment. — In an action for the stat- 
 utory penalty for a carrier's failure to 
 accept meat for shipment, the evidence 
 held to show that the meat arrived too 
 late for shipment, and was voluntarily 
 taken away by the shipper, so as not to 
 be a general tender for shipment. Cox 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 148 N. C. 4.59, 
 62 S. E. .556. 
 
 Place and time of tender. — To entitle 
 a shipper to the penalty imposed by the 
 North Carolina statute, Revisal 1905, § 
 26.31, for a carrier's failure to receive 
 freight for shipment, it must be tendered 
 at a regular depot and during business 
 hours. Garrison v. Southern R. Co., 150 
 N. C. 575. 64 S. E. 578. 
 
 95. What amounts to a refusal to re- 
 ceive goods for shipment. — Garrison v. 
 Southern R. Co., 150 N. C. 575, 64 S. E. 
 578, construing Revisal 1905, § 26.31. 
 
 96. Statute requiring a tender and re- 
 fusal each day. — Wampum Cotton Mills 
 T. Carolina, etc., R. Co., 150 N. C. 608, 
 64 S. E. 586. Compare Garrison v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 150 N. C. 575, 64 S. E. 578. 
 
 Where a shipper placed lumber on a 
 car with the carrier's consent and de- 
 manded a bill of lading, which was re- 
 fused, and went to the agent of the car- 
 rier two or three times and asked if he 
 had shipped the car load, and he said 
 he had not, and plaintiff refused to un- 
 load the car, there was a tender and re- 
 fusal to ship on each day from the time 
 the goods were placed in the car until 
 they were finally shipped, within the 
 North Carolina statute, Revisal 1905, § 
 2631, imposing a penalty of $50 for each 
 
 day a carrier refuses to receive freight. 
 Garrison v. Southern R. Co., 150 N. C. 
 575, 64 S. E. 578. 
 
 97. Existence of conditions for which 
 carrier is not responsible. — Garrison z>. 
 Southern R. Co., 150 N. C. 575, 64 S. 
 E. 578, construing Revisal 1905, § 2631. 
 
 Motive power tied up by strike. — The 
 North Carolina statute, Revisal 1905,^ § 
 2631, requires every railroad to receive 
 all articles for transportation whenever 
 tendered, and imposes a penalty of $50 
 for each day it refuses to receive freight. 
 Section 2633 imposes a penalty for re- 
 fusing to transport freight within a rea- 
 sonable time and requires shipments to 
 start from the initial point within two 
 days after the freight is received. Held, 
 that a carrier could plead any legal ex- 
 cuse to avoid the penalty for failure to 
 receive freight, and, if a carrier was un- 
 abl: to transport cattle because its mo- 
 tive power was tied up by a strike, it 
 would not be Iial)le for the statutory 
 penalty for its refusal to receive the 
 stock. Murphy Hardware Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 150 N. C. 703, 64 S. E. 873, 
 22 L. R. A., N. S., 1200. 
 
 98. Congestion of traffic at point of 
 destination. — Garrison v. Southern R. Co., 
 150 X. C. 575, 64 S. E. 578, construing 
 Revisal 1905, § 2631. 
 
 99. Unusual emergency causing short- 
 age of cars. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State, 84 Ark. 150, 104 S. W. 1106, con- 
 struing Kirby's Dig., § 6803. 
 
 1. Carrier's agent ignorant of location 
 of station. — Goods were delivered for 
 shipment to a station on a railroad, 
 which, though it maintained a separate 
 organization for local purposes, was op- 
 erated l)y defendant company and its re- 
 ceipts paid over to defendant's treasurer
 
 151 
 
 CONTROL AXD REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 210-212 
 
 conncctinj^^ line,- or llial a connecting carrier refuses to receive freight for 
 the consignee,'* or thai ihe shipper sutYered no pecuniary injury by the delay 
 in shipment caused by tlie carrier's refusal.-* it being the duty of a carrier of 
 interstate commerce to file and publish its schedule of rates, its failure to do 
 so is no defense to an action for the penalty for refusing to receive for trans- 
 portation an interstate shi])ment.'' 'J'hat a shipjjer presented goods for ship- 
 ment to v^cottsville. 'i'eiui., when the real name of the town on defendant's line 
 was v'^cottville, Tenn., did not relieve the carrier from the statutory penalties 
 for refusal to receive goods for shipment thereto.'' 
 
 § 211. Refusal to Give Shipper a Proper Bill of Lading. — Under a 
 statute imposing a peiialiN on a common carrier for refusing to give a shipper, 
 when demanded, a bill of lading or memorandum in writing stating the quan- 
 tity, character, order, and condition of goods received for shipment, a rail- 
 road company is not liable because an agent refused to state, in a bill of lading, 
 the weight or quantity of a car of lumber, loaded by the shipper, at a switch 
 where there was no agent or means of weighing, and when the shipper did not 
 furnish the agent an invoice of the shipment."^ 
 
 §§ 212-220. Delay in Shipment or Transportation of Freight— § 212. 
 Power to Impose Penalty. — A stale slaluic prohibiting delay 1j_\- carriers in 
 the shipment of freight, and providing a penalty for \iolation thereof, is a proper 
 exercise of the state's police power. '^ In some states power is conferred upon 
 
 and its operating reports made to defend- 
 ant's auditor, and tlie salaries of its em- 
 ployees were paid by defendant. De- 
 fendant's agent, who refused to receive 
 goods for shipment on the ground that 
 he did not know the location of the sta- 
 tion, was replaced by another agent 
 shortly thereafter, who received and 
 shipped the goods to the point of con- 
 signment. Held, that defendant's first 
 agent should have known or ascertained 
 the location of the shipping point, and 
 his ignorance of its location would not 
 relieve defendant from the penalty im- 
 posed by the North Carolina statute, Re- 
 visal 1905, § 2():31, for failure to receive 
 goods for shipment. Reid v. Southern 
 R. Co., 150 X. C. 753, f)4 S. E. 874. 
 
 2. Shipper's request for bill of lading 
 to point on connecting line. — Wampum 
 Cotton Mills V. Carolina, etc., R. Co., 150 
 N. C. ()12. 64 S. E. 588, construing Re- 
 visal, § ^iVM. 
 
 3. Refusal by connecting carrier to re- 
 ceive freight for consignee. — Wampum 
 Cotton Mills z: Carolina, etc.. R. Co., 150 
 N. C. 1)1:.', (14 S. I{. 5SS, construing Re- 
 visal, § 2f):il. 
 
 4. No pecuniary injury to shipper. — 
 Reid z'. Southern R. Co., 150 N. C. 753, 
 64 S. E. 874, construing Revisal 1905, § 
 2631. 
 
 5. Failure of carrier to file and publish 
 schedule of rates. — Burlington Lumber 
 Co. c'. Soutliern R. Co., 152 N. C. 70, 67 
 S. E. 167. 
 
 Under the North Carolina statute, Re- 
 visal 1905, § 2631, imposing a penalty on 
 carriers for refusal to receive freight 
 for shipment, a carrier is liable where 
 freigiit for sliiimu'iU to anotiior state was 
 
 tendered, and because the agent did not 
 have the schedule of freight rates to the 
 point of destination he refused for over 
 two months to issue a bill of lading of 
 any sort even to the end of its line or 
 to deliver to a connecting carrier. Bur- 
 lington Lumber Co. v. Southern R. Co., 
 ]5:i X. C. 71), (•)7 S. E. 167. 
 
 6. Mispelling name of destination point. 
 — Reid V. Southern R. Co., 150 X. C. 753, 
 64 S. E. 874. 
 
 7. Facts not rendering carrier liable. — 
 Conley z'. Sherman, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 
 295, 38 S. W. 519, construing Rev. St. 
 1895, art. 322; Sherman, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Conly (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 253, 
 construing Rev. St. ]s;)5. art. 322. 
 
 8. Power to impose penalty. — Lexing- 
 ton Grocery Co. v. Southern R. Co., 136 
 X. C. 396, 48 S. E. 801, so holding as to 
 Laws 1901, c. 634, p. 868; Wall-Huske Co. 
 V. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 407, 61 S. 
 E. 277. 
 
 The North Carolina statute, Revisal 
 1905, § 2632, which provides that the 
 party aggrieved may recover a penalty 
 for a carrier's unreasonable delay in 
 transporting goods, is constitutional as 
 a valid exercise of the police power. Rol- 
 lins X'. Seaboard, etc.. Railroad, 146 
 N. C. 153, 59 S. E. 671; Cardwell v. 
 Southern R. Co., 146 X. C. 218, 59 S. E. 
 673; Davis v. Southern R. Co.. 147 N. C. 
 68. 60 S. v.. 722. 
 
 Texas statute held constitutional. — The 
 Texas statute. Rev. St. 1S95. art. 4496, 
 imposing on a railroad company a pen- 
 alty of 5 per cent per month on the value 
 of a shipment during its negligent de- 
 tention in transportation, does not vio- 
 late Const., art. 1, § 13, declaring that ex-
 
 §§ 212-213 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 152 
 
 the railroad commission to adopt rules making carriers liable to a penalty for 
 delay in the shipment or transportation of freight." 
 
 § 213. Who May Recover Penalty. — Statutes imposing penalties on car- 
 riers for delay in transporting freight generally provide as to who shall be en- 
 titled to recover the penalty. I'nder the North Carolina statute the penalty may 
 be recovered by the "par'tv aggrieved," ^^ and an action therefor can not be 
 brought on relation of the "state. ^^ Cnder the South Carolina statute the pen- 
 altv may be recovered "by any consignee who may be injured in any way by 
 such delav or bv the owner or holder of the bill of lading." ^- 
 
 cessive fines should not be imposed, nor 
 cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Hannay-Frerichs 
 & Co.. 104 Tex. 603, 1-12 S. W. 11G3, mod- 
 ifying judgment 130 S. W. 250. 
 
 9. Power of railroad commission. — Un- 
 der the power to require carriers to fur- 
 nish necessary transportation facilities 
 and to prescribe rules to secure the fur- 
 nishing of such facilities, etc., the rail- 
 road commissioners may adopt a rule 
 making a carrier liable to a shipper for 
 $1 for each dav a car properly loaded, 
 and for which shipping instructions have 
 been given, should be detained in viola- 
 tion oi the rules of the commissioners; 
 and such a rule is neither excessive or 
 unreasonable, nor an arbitrary or unjust 
 discrimination against freight not so 
 loaded. The failure or refusal to dis- 
 charge the liability imposed by the rule 
 is not in violation of law, and the failure 
 or refusal to pay the liability fixed by the 
 rule is not made a penal violation thereof. 
 State V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 
 47 So. 969. 
 
 10. North Carolina statute — Penalty re- 
 coverable by "party aggrieved."— Re- 
 vised 1905, § 2632. 
 
 Where goods are delivered to a carrier 
 for transportation and a bill of lading 
 issued, the title, in the absence of any 
 direction or agreement to the contrary, 
 vests in the consignee, who alone is the 
 "party aggrieved." Elliott v. Southern 
 R. Co., 155 N. C. 235, 71 S. E. 339. 
 
 In an action to recover the penalty by 
 the consignors of a shipment oi hay, one 
 of the plaintiffs testified that the con- 
 signees were anxious for the hay, and 
 that they paid in full for it after delivery. 
 Held, that the consignees, and not the 
 consignors, were the parties aggrieved, 
 within the statute, and that the consign- 
 ors were without right to sue for the 
 delay. Stone & Co. v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 144 N. C. 220, 56 S. E. 932. 
 
 But where the plaintiff sold goods to 
 one at a distant point, delivered them to 
 the carrier, and received a bill of lading 
 therefor, and delivery at the buyer's 
 home was a part of the contract of sale, 
 it was held that plaintiff, and not the 
 consignee, was the "party aggrieved" by 
 the unreasonable delay, since the plain- 
 tiff was the one whose legal right was 
 
 denied. Cardwell z'. Southern R. Co., 
 146 N. C. 218, 59 S. E. 673. 
 
 A_ consignor shipping goods under an 
 agreement that the consignee shall not 
 pay for them until their arrival is the 
 "party aggrieved" by delay in transporta- 
 tion, and he may recover the penalty, 
 nothing else appearing. Davis v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 147 N. C. 68, 60 S. E. 722. 
 
 Where goods are shipped under an 
 open bill of lading, and the contract be- 
 tween the shipper and the consignee pro- 
 vides that the goods are not to be paid 
 for until received, inspected, and weighed 
 at the point of destination, and the stip- 
 ulation is inserted to ascertain the quan- 
 tity of the goods and the price therefor, 
 the title remains in the shipper, who is 
 the "party aggrieved" by the carrier's de- 
 lay in transportation, and he alone may 
 sue for the penalty though the carrier 
 is ignorant of the contract. Elliott v. 
 Southern R. Co., 155 N. C. 235, 71 S. E. 
 339. 
 
 Plaintiff loaded and received a bill of 
 lading for a car load of wood, shipped to 
 the consignee to be sold by him for plain- 
 tiff's benefit. Held, that plaintiff, and not 
 the consignee, was the "party aggrieved" 
 by the delay. Rollins v. Seaboard, etc., 
 Railroad, 146 N. C. 153, 59 S. E. 671. 
 
 11. Robertson v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 
 148 N. C. 323, 62 S. E. 413. 
 
 12. South Carolina statute — Penalty re- 
 coverable by consignee or by owner or 
 holder of bill of lading. — Act March 25. 
 1904 (^4 St. at Large, pp. 671, 672.) 
 
 Under this statute, a consignee, not 
 shown to be either the owner or the 
 holder of the bill of lading, can not re- 
 cover the penalty without proving that 
 he was injured by the delay. Fullerton 
 V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 333, 64 
 S. E. 142. 
 
 But the holder of a bill of lading can 
 recover the penalty without proving any 
 injury by the delay. Muckenfuss Mfg. 
 Co. V. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 
 177, 63 S. E. 747; Mills v. Southern Rail- 
 way, 82 S. C. 242, 64 S. E. 238. 
 
 A consignee, having received from the 
 carrier satisfaction for total loss of goods, 
 is no longer such injured consignee or 
 owner of the bill of lading as can maintain 
 an action under the statute. Macon v. 
 Southern Railway, 81 S. C. 167, 62 
 S. E. 6.
 
 153 
 
 CONTROL AND KF.GULATION. 
 
 §§ 214-215 
 
 § 214. In What Cases Penalty Is Imposed. — A statute authorizing^ re- 
 covery of a i)cnall\' for delay in transporlaiion of freight has no apjjlication to 
 loss of or damage to goods.'-' .\ statute imposing a penalt\- on a railroad com- 
 pany failing to transport goods received by it for shipment, and billed to any 
 place within the state, for a longer period than four days after receipt of the 
 same, unless (Otherwise agreed between the parties, refers to a delay in begin- 
 ning the transportaticju or starting the goods from the station of tlieir receipt, 
 and does not re([uirc a delivery at their destination within the time specified.''* 
 A statute imposing a ])enalty for delay in the transportation of freight, and re- 
 quiring a delivery at destination within a time s])ecified, does not apply to a de- 
 lay in delivery to the consignee after transportation ceases, nor compel a car- 
 rier to deliver loaded cars ofT its own right of way onto the private track of 
 the consignee.'"'' The North Carolina statute, imposing a penalty on carriers 
 for a failure to transport freight within a reasonable time, applies only to in- 
 trastate shipments, or those which do not require any departure from the bor- 
 ders of the state to execute the contract of carriage."' 
 
 § 215. Time within Which Freight Must Be Transported. — Statutes 
 imposing a penalty for delay in the transportation of freight sometimes contain 
 express provisions as to the time within which the goods must be transported. 
 In such case the carrier will be liable to the penalty if the transportation is de- 
 layed beyond the prescribed period.''' 
 
 13. No application to loss of or damage 
 to goods. -So holdint? as to the South 
 Carolina statute. Macon v. Southern 
 Railway, 81 S. C. 167, 62 S. E. 6; Cousar 
 Mercantile Co. v. Southern R. Co., 82 S. 
 C. 307. 64 S. E. :i91. 
 
 14. Delivery at destination within time 
 specified not required. — Walker Bros. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 137 N. C. 163, 49 S. E. 
 84. construin,^- Acts 1903, p. 999, c. .■■)90. 
 
 15. Statute not applicable to delay in 
 delivery to consignee after transporta- 
 tion ceases. — Brooks Mf,y\ Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 1,J3 X. C. 665, 68 S. E. 243, 
 construin.uf Revisal 1905, § 2632, as 
 amended by Acts 1907, c. 461. 
 
 Revisal 190,",, § 2632, providing that any 
 railroad failing to "transport" within a 
 reasonable time goods received shall pay 
 a penalty, and declaring that it shall be 
 considered that 'a railroad has "trans- 
 ported" freight within a reasonable time 
 if it has done so in the ordinary time n 
 quired, etc., imposes a penalty on a rail- 
 road for failing to reasonably "transport" 
 goods, as distinguished from a failure to 
 "deliver" goods to the consignee, and 
 for a failure to perform the first the 
 statutory penalty is imposed, while for 
 a failure to perform the second the con- 
 signee may sue for damages. Alexander 
 t'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 144 X. C. 93, .^)6 
 S. E. 697. 
 
 16. North Carolina statute applies only 
 to intrastate shipments. II iekory Mar- 
 ble, etc., Co. r. Soutliern R. Co., 147 X. 
 C. 53, 60 S. E. 719, construing Revisal 
 1905, § 2632. considered in connection 
 with Code, §§ 1966. 
 
 17. Time within which freight must be 
 transported — North Carolina statutes con- 
 strued. — Revisal 190,"), § 2632. imposing a 
 
 penalty on a carrier for neglecting to 
 transport within a reasonable time any 
 goods received for shipment, and provid- 
 ing that it shall be deemed to have trans- 
 ported the goods in a reasonaljle time, 
 if it has done so within the ordinary time 
 required for such transportation, and that 
 a delay of two daj's at the initial point and 
 forty-eight hours at one intermediate 
 point for each one liundred miles shall be 
 prima facie reasonable, etc., makes a 
 failure to transport within the ordinary 
 time prima facie unreasonable, and, where 
 the transportation is not within the or- 
 dinary time, the carrier is liable for the 
 penalty imposed, less two days at the 
 initial point and forty-eight hours at one 
 intermediate point for each one hundred 
 miles, but the two days at the initial point 
 and forty-eight hours at each intermedi- 
 ate point are not the standards by which 
 reasonal:)le time is measured. Jenkins v. 
 Southern R. Co., 146 X. C. 178, 59 S. E, 
 663. See, also, Wall-Huske Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co.. 147 X. C. 407, 61 S. E. 277. 
 
 The words "ordinary time," within the 
 statute, mean the regular customary time 
 within which, by the facilities in general 
 use for the performance of the duty of 
 carrj-ing goods, the carriage should be 
 completed. Jenkins v. Southern R. Co., 
 146 X. C. 178, 59 S. E. 663. 
 
 Where it is shown that the point of 
 shipment is a regular station on the car- 
 rier's main line, leading directly to the 
 point of destination, twenty-five miles 
 away, though tiiere is no testimony re- 
 garding the ordinary time required for a 
 freight train between the two points, the 
 jury may be permitted from their com- 
 mon observation and experience to con- 
 sider and determine the question of
 
 §§ 216-219 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 154 
 
 § 216. When Transportation Terminates.— Transportation of freight by 
 a carrier is not terminated so as to relieve the carrier from Habihty for a pen- 
 alty for delay on the train hauling the freight arriving within the yard limits 
 of the point to which the freight is consigned, nor until the relation of carrier 
 ends, and that of warehouseman begins. ^^ 
 
 §§ 217-220. Defenses— § 217. Failure to Prepay Charges.— Where a 
 carrier does not require prepayment of freight charges as authorized by stat- 
 ute, it waives such prepayment, so that failure to prepay is not a defense to an 
 action for the penalty imposed for delay in transportation.^^ 
 
 § 218. Notice to Shippers of Conditions Causing Delay.— That ship- 
 pers were notified by a carrier of conditions which prevented delivery of ship- 
 ments in the usual time is no defense to an action for the penalty for delay in 
 transportation, as a knowledge of the existence of the facts is not sufficient to 
 charge the shipper with notice of their efifect on the carrier.-" 
 
 § 219. Sunday Laws.— Whether the fact that delay in the shipment or 
 transportation of freight by a railroad company was caused by the company 
 not running its trains on Sunday is a defense in an action for the penalty im- 
 posed for such delay, and whether Sundays are to be included in the days for 
 which such penalty is allowed, are questions to be determined from the terms 
 
 ordinary time between the points, and, in 
 the absence of explanation, fix the amount 
 of the wrongful delay. Rollins v. Sea- 
 board, etc., Railroad, 14G N. C. 153, 59 
 S. E. 671. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for the penalty imposed by the statute, 
 the evidence showed that the goods were 
 delivered to it for transportation on De- 
 cember 7th, and were delivered to the 
 consignee January 12th following, and 
 that the distance was less than two- 
 hundred miles, the jury were justified 
 in finding that the time consumed was in 
 excess of the ordinary time. Jenkins v. 
 Southern R. Co., 146 N. C. 178, 59 S. E. 
 663. 
 
 In such an action the carrier may 
 show that extraordinary unforeseen con- 
 ditions prevented the discharge of the 
 duty within the ordinary time, and, where 
 such conditions are shown, the question 
 of reasonable time must then be measured 
 by the unusual conditions. Jenkins v. 
 Southern R. Co., 146 N. C. 178, 59 S. E. 
 663. 
 
 A station at which a car must be taken 
 out of a local train which comes into the 
 station and then placed into another train 
 leaving the station for the point of des- 
 tination is not an "intermediate point," 
 within the statute. Brooks Mfg. Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 152 X. C. 665, 68 S. E. 
 243. 
 
 But where freight less than a car load 
 destined for a point on a branch line 
 was loaded into a car intended to go 
 through without breaking bulk, and the 
 car at the junction was shifted from the 
 carrier's main to its branch line, and 
 transported to destination, the junction 
 point was an "intermediate point" within 
 the statute. Wall-Huske Co. v. South- 
 
 ern R. Co., 147 N. C. 407, 61 S. E. 277. 
 
 Under the express provisions of Laws 
 1907, p. 669, c. 461, the time allowed for 
 the transportation of freight by Revisal 
 1905, § 2633, namely, the actual running 
 time for freight trains between the point 
 of shipment and destination plus two days 
 at the initial point and two days at each 
 intermediate point, if any, must embrace 
 within them the day of delivery if the 
 goods were applied for, and for every 
 day beyond that the carrier incurs the 
 prescribed penaltv. Wall-Huske . Co. V. 
 Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 407, 61 S. E. 
 277. 
 
 Under Acts 1875, c. 240, imposing a 
 p-enalty against railroad companies for 
 allowing freight received foi shipment to 
 remain unshipped for more than five 
 days, unless by agreement, five full run- 
 ning days are intended, including Sun- 
 day whenever it intervenes; and the com- 
 pany would not incur the penalty until 
 the full expiration of the sixth day after 
 receipt of the goods. Keeter v. Wil- 
 mington, etc., R. Co., 86 N. C. 346. See, 
 also. Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 88 N. C. 570. 
 
 18. When transportation terminates.— 
 Wall-Huske Co. v. Southern R. Co., 147 
 N. C. 407. 61 S. E. 277, construing Re- 
 visal 1905, § 2632. 
 
 19. Failure to prepay charges no de- 
 fense where prepayment is waived.— 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Hannay-Frerichs 
 & Co., 104 Tex. 603, 142 S. W. 1163, mod- 
 ifying judgment 130 S. W. 250. 
 
 20. Notice to shippers of conditions 
 causing delay. — Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Hannay-Frerichs & Co., 104 Tex. 603, 142 
 S. W. 1163, construing Rev. St. 1895, art. 
 4496.
 
 155 
 
 COXTROI. AND KICGUI.ATIOX. 
 
 §§ 219-222 
 
 of the statute iiuposini,' the penalty construcil in connection with any statutory 
 enactment relatin<^ to the operation of trains on Sunday.-^ 
 
 § 22 0. Estoppel to Set Up Defense. — A carrier may be estopj)ed by its 
 conduct to set up a dcfeuM.-, in an action to recover the penalty prescriljed by 
 statute for a delay in llie shipment of freij^ht.-- 
 
 § 221. Failure to Give Notice of Arrival of Freight to Consignee.— 
 A statute imjjosing a penaky on a railnjad company for a failure to give no- 
 tice of the arrival of freight to the consignee within a prescribed time after its 
 arrival, and which also imposes a reciprocal demurrage on consignees for fail- 
 ure to remove freight, is a reasonable regulation in aid of commerce, and not 
 a burden upon it.-'' 
 
 §§ 222-226. Reftisal to Deliver Freight or Express Matter to Con- 
 signee— § 22 2. Constitutionality of Statute Imposing Penalty.— A stat- 
 ute entitling a consignee of merchandise to recover the amount of freight 
 charges for every day the carrier refuses to deliver after tender of freight, is 
 not repugnant to a constitutional provision requiring fines and penalties to be 
 appropriated for laving out public roads, where such provision refers only to 
 
 21. Effect of Sunday laws. — Xebnislca. — 
 In an action under C<)l)l)c\'s Ann. St. 1907, 
 §§ 10,()0() and lO.tiOT, for delay in shipment 
 of live stock, where the evidence shows 
 that the delay was caused by unloading 
 the stock for feed and rest at a division 
 point, and that to have continued the ship- 
 ment would have compelled the carrier 
 to operate its trains on Sunday, and^ re- 
 sulted in delivery of said stock on Sun- 
 day, the judgment against the carrier can 
 not be sustained. Cram v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 84 Neb. 607, 122 N. W. 31, 2(i L. 
 R. A., N. S., 1022, rehearing denied, 12.3 
 N. W. 104.5. 
 
 Xortit Carolina. — Where a safe ^ was 
 delivered to defendant carrier on Tues- 
 day, January 22, 1907, and arrived at its 
 destination on January 30th after passing 
 one intermediate point at which the car- 
 rier was entitled to two days' delay and 
 the safe, if transported with necessary 
 diligence, could not have arrived in time 
 for delivery before Sunday, defendant 
 was excused I)y Revisal 1905, § 2839, from 
 making a delivery on Sunday and was 
 therefore entitled to a deduction for that 
 day and for the two days at sucli inter- 
 mediate point in determining the length 
 • of time for which a penalty for delay 
 was recoverable. Blue Ridge Collection 
 Agency v. Southern R. Co. (N. C), 01 
 S. E. 462. 
 
 Where freight, if transported without 
 improper delay, should have been deliv- 
 ered on Friday. January 18th, and was 
 not in fact delivered until Wednesday, 
 the 23d, the carrier was not entitled to an 
 allowance in the computation of penal- 
 ties for delay imposed by Revisal 19()5. § 
 2(532, for the intervening Sunday, since, 
 the default having begun on a week day, 
 its duration was measured by the calen- 
 dar not exceeding thirty days, irrespec- 
 tive of intervening Sundays or holidays. 
 
 Wall-Huske Co. v. Southern R. Co., 147 
 N. C. 407, 61 S. E. 277. 
 
 Sinttli Carolina. — Under the act pro- 
 viding a penalty for failure to deliver 
 freight in a certain numljer of hours, 
 when notified that prompt shipment is 
 required, Sunday is not to be included in 
 the days for which the penalty is allowed, 
 as freight trains are prohil)ited l)y law 
 from running on Sunday. Salley v. Sea- 
 board, etc.. Railway'. 76 S. C. 173, 56 S. 
 E. 782. See, also. Sandford v. Seaboard, 
 etc.. Railway. 79 S. C. 519. 61 S. E. 74. 
 
 22. Estoppel to set up defence. — Where 
 four packages were delivered to defend- 
 ant railroad company for shipment under 
 a single bill of lading, three of which were 
 mismarked, but notwithstanding such 
 fact they were shipped to the place where 
 they were marked, and the package which 
 was correctly marked was not shipped, 
 defendant was estopped to claim, in an 
 action to recover a penalty for its fail- 
 ure to ship the correctly marked pack- 
 age, that the four packages constituted a 
 single shipment, and that the mismarking 
 of the three was a sufficient excuse for 
 not shipping the fourth. Lexington Gro- 
 cery Co. r. Southern R. Co.. 13f) X. C. 
 396^ 4S S. E. SOI. 
 
 23. Failure to give notice of arrival of 
 freight to consignee. — St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Cu. :. Iviwards. '.14 Ark. 374, 127 S. W. 713, 
 so holding as to the Act of April 19, 1907 
 (.A.cts 1907, p. 453) § 3, requiring railroad 
 companies failing to give notice of ar- 
 rival to the consignee within twenty-four 
 liours thereafter to forfeit to the inter- 
 ested party $5 a day per car on car load 
 shipments, and one cent a hundred pounds 
 per day on less than car load shipments 
 with a minimum and maximum charge of 
 five cents and $5 respectively, on less than 
 car load shipments.
 
 §§ 222-225 CARRIERS. 156 
 
 fines imposed as penalties for crimes or such as arise from forfeited 1)ail bonds. ^^ 
 § 223. Statute Imposing Penalty Not Merely in Aid of Common Law. 
 — A statute imposing a penalty on an express company refusing to deliver ex- 
 press matter at the residence of the consignee in a city of more than 2,500 in- 
 habitants, is not merely in aid of the common law requiring carriers of goods to 
 make personal delivery.--^' 
 
 § 224. Where Delivery Must Be Made. — Where no depot is maintained 
 •at a certain place on a railroad, and it is the custom to deliver freight for that 
 place from the depot at another point on the line, the conductors of freight 
 trains acting as freight agents at the former place, tender of the charges, and 
 demand for the goods by a consignee, can be made at the latter place where the 
 goods are retained, and" the penalty imposed, for refusing to deliver freight on 
 tender of charges, is incurred by refusal to deliver there. -'^ 
 
 § 225. Conditions Precedent to Recovery of Penalty. — Where a stat- 
 ute imposes a penalty upon railroad companies for a refusal to deliver freight 
 to a consignee upon his tendering the freight charges due as shown by the bill 
 of lading, an owner of freight, in order to recover the penalty, must bring him- 
 self strictly within the requirements of the statute.-" The entire freight charges 
 due, as shown by the bill of lading, must be paid or tendered in order to fix 
 the liability for the penalty, ^^ and where the bill of lading does not represent 
 the amount of charges that are legally demandable by the carrier to whom the 
 tender is made, such carrier can not be held liable for the penalty.-'-^ But it is 
 not necessary that the bill of lading shall be shown at the time, to make the 
 tender of the charges effectual, unless its production is demanded;-^" and the 
 railroad company has no right to impose, as a condition to the delivery of the 
 freight, the surrender of the bill of lading, any custom to the contrary notwitn- 
 standing.'^ 1 The penalty is recoverable only when the railroad company that 
 is sought to be charged has either itself executed the bill of lading, or has au- 
 thorized another company to execute it, or has ratified it by a voluntary act on 
 
 24. Statute held not unconstitutional. — freight upon a tender of its proportion of 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. c'. Harry & Bros., the charges, and it is thereupon replevied, 
 G3 Tex. 256, construing Const., art. HI, S and subsequently, after repairing the 
 24, and Gen. Laws, p. 35. damage, the company refuses to deliver 
 
 25. Statute not merely in aid of com- the remaining goods upon a tender of 
 men law. — Railroad Comm. v. Adams their proportion of the charges, but of- 
 Exp. Co., 171 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 337, 960, fers to do so upon the payment of the 
 construing Acts 1901, p. 97, c. 62 whole bill, no liability for the penalty is 
 (Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3312a). incurred. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. John- 
 
 26. Where delivery must be made.— son, 53 Ark. 282, 13 S. W. 1096. 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. McKee (Tex.). Under the Texas statute, Sayles' Civ. 
 
 15 S. W. 45, 4 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. App., St.. art. 4258a, §§ 1, 2, 3, a consignee who 
 
 § 8, construing Sayles' Civ. St.. art. 4258a. tenders the amount of freight shown to 
 
 27. To recover penalty strict compli- Ijc due by an expense account furnished 
 ance with statutory requirements must be by the carrier, which is no part of the 
 shown. — Schloss v. Atcliison, etc., R. Co., bill of lading, can not maintain an action 
 85 Tex. 601, 22 S. W. 1014, construing for tiie penalty. Schloss v. Atchison, 
 Sayles' Civ. St.. art. 4258a. §§ 1. 2, 3. etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 601, 22 S. W. 1014. 
 
 28. Freight charges, as shown by bill 29. Fordyce v. Johnson, 56 Ark. 430, 10 
 of lading, must be paid or tendered. — St. S. W. 1050. 
 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 53 Ark. 30. Bill of lading need not be shown 
 
 282, 13 S. W. 1096, construing Act Fel). unless production is dernanded. — Gulf, 
 
 27, 1885, § 3; Schloss v. Atchison, etc., etc., R. Co. v. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572, 12 S. 
 
 R. Co., 85 Tex. 601, 22 S. W. 1014, con- W. 1001, 7 L. R. A. 478, 16 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 stru.ing Sayles' Civ. St., art. 4258a, §§ 92f>, construing Laws 17th Leg. Sess., 
 
 1, 2, 3. p. 35. 
 
 Under the Arkansas statute. Act Feb. 31. Railroad company can not require 
 
 27, 1885, § 3, where a consignee declines surrender of bill of lading. — Dwyer v. 
 
 to receive a portion of the goods because Gulf, etc.. R. Co., 69 Tex. 707, 7 S. W. 
 
 they are damaged, and the railroad com- 504, construing Gen. Laws 17th Called 
 
 pany refuses to deliver the undamaged Leg. Sess., p. 35, § 2.
 
 157 
 
 CONTROL AND KKGUI.ATION. 
 
 §§ 225-228 
 
 its pari; aiul an acceptance of freij:,'ln by a company from a connecting com- 
 pany, where such acceptance is by statute made compulsory, will not be deemed 
 a ratification.-'- 
 
 § 226. Number of Penalties Recoverable. — Inder a statute providing 
 that the carrier shall inform the consignee of the amount of freight charges and 
 deliver the freight on tender or payment thereof, and that any failure or re- 
 fusal to comply with such provisions shall subject the carrier to a prescribed 
 penalty for each such failure or refusal, only one penalty is recoverable on one 
 shipment, though there are several demands for delivery and refusals thereof.''^ 
 
 § 227. Failure of Consignee to Unload Cars within a Prescribed 
 
 Time. — Under a statute making a consignee liable io a penalty to the railroad 
 company for failure to unload cars within a prescribed time after delivery and 
 notice, the consignor is not liable for failing to sec that cars are unloaded at 
 their destination. '■' 
 
 § 228. Failure to Stop at Station. — Under statutes in some states the 
 failure of a railroad company to stoj) a passenger train at a station, to discharge 
 a i^assenger who has purchased a ticket to such station, will subject the company 
 to a penalty.-'-'" Where a passenger goes to a flag station on a railroad at n;glit, 
 
 32. Carrier liable only when it has exe- 
 cuted, authorized execution of, or rati- 
 fied, bill of lading.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dwyer, 7.5 lex. 572, 12 S. W. 1001, 7 L. 
 R. A. 478, 16 Am. St. Rep. 926. 
 
 Under the Texas statute. Rev. St., art. 
 4251, making it obligatory on a railroad 
 company in the state, witliout delay, to 
 carry over its road, cars, freight, etc., re- 
 ceived from any connecting company, a 
 connecting company is not bound by a 
 through l)ill of lading, under which it re- 
 ceives freight, in ignorance of its terms, 
 and issued by the original carrier, who 
 had no authority to contract for it, and is 
 therefore not liable upon its refusal to 
 deliver goods on tender of payment or 
 charges specified in such a bill of lading, 
 under Laws 17th Leg. Sess., p. .35, impos- 
 ing a penalty on railroad companies for 
 refusing to deliver freight upon payment 
 or tender of the charges sliown in the 
 bill of lading. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Dwyer, 
 75 Tex. 572, 12 S. W. 1001, 7 L. R. A. 
 478, 16 Am. St. Rep. 926. 
 
 In an action to recover the statutory 
 penalty from a railroad company for recus- 
 ing to deliver certain freight on tender of 
 the charges shown on the bill of lading, it 
 appeared that the freight was received 
 for shipment, and the bill of lading exe- 
 cuted l)y another road; that defendants, 
 on receiving the goods from the connect- 
 ing line, paid the charges as shown on 
 the waybill, which were in excess of those 
 on the bill of lading; that if the freight 
 was shipped by the route it traveled, the 
 shipping carrier had no authority to l)ind 
 defendant and the connecting line to 
 carry at the rate specified in the bill of 
 lading; that if shipped at an authorized 
 rate, it was misrouted l)y a preceding 
 carrier, for whose act defendants were 
 not responsible, and the freight came to 
 
 defendants bound by the charges of their 
 connecting line. Held, that plaintiffs 
 must pay the rates paid by defendants to 
 their connecting line in full, their remedy 
 being against the railroad company which 
 shipped goods by an unauthorized route, 
 and defendants are entitled to hold tlie 
 goods until the freight is paid. Fordyce 
 V. Johnson, 56 Ark. 430, 19 S. W. 1().5<). 
 Evidence held not to show that a rail- 
 road company, against whom a suit was 
 brought to recover the statutory pen- 
 alty, authorized the execution of the bill 
 of lading or subsequently ratified it. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. -c-. Dwver, 84 Tex. 194, 
 19 S. W. 470. 
 
 33. Only one penalty recoverable on 
 one shipment. — Harrill Brus. v. Souili- 
 ern R. Co., 144 X. C. 532, 57 S. E. 3 3, 
 construing Revisal 1905. § 2633. 
 
 34. Consignor not liable. — Judgment 
 (Civ. App.). 40 S. \V. 431, reversed. Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. t: Campbell. 91 Tex. 551, 
 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225. 
 
 35. Failure to stop at station to dis- 
 charge a passenger. — In an action against 
 a railroad company, under the Michigan 
 statute, How. Ann. St.. § 3324, to recover 
 a penalty for failure to discharge a pas- 
 senger at his destination, it appeared that 
 plaintiff purchased a regular passenger 
 ticket for a station on the road; that pr:or 
 to the arrival at such station the train 
 was so full that defendant ran through 
 the station without stopping, there being 
 so many persons waiting for the train 
 that defendant determined it was unsafe 
 to stop. Held, to show no "legal or iust 
 excuse." within the statute, to excuse de- 
 fendant from lialnlitv for the penalty. 
 Hoyt V. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co., 112 Mich. 
 638, 71 X. \V. 172. 
 
 Under the Montana statute. Rev. Codes, 
 § 4330. requiring railroad corporations.
 
 §§ 228-231 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 158 
 
 intending to take a train that has been in the hal)it of stopping at such station 
 when signaled so to do, and the train does not stop for him, aUhough the usual 
 signal is given, he may recover the penalty prescribed for the failure of the 
 railroad company to '"furnish accommodation for his transportation."'"' 
 
 §§ 229-234. Failure to Furnish, or Delay in Furnishing Cars — § 
 
 22 9. Constitutionality of Statutes Imposing Penalties. — A statute impos- 
 ing penalties upon carriers for failure to furnish cars, when application for such 
 cars has been made by a shipper, must not contravene any provision of the 
 constitution. Certain statutes imposing penalties for such derelictions of duty 
 by carriers have been held constitutional.'^" 
 
 § 230. Statutes Imposing Penalties Strictly Construed. — Statutes im- 
 posing a penalty for failure of a railroad company to furnish freight cars to 
 an applicant therefor, will be strictly construed.'^ ^ 
 
 § 231. Powers and Duties of Railroad Commissions. — Under statutes 
 in some states the state railroad commission is empowered to recjuire railroad 
 
 on tender of the "regular rates of fare," 
 to furnish tickets entitling the purchasers 
 to ride, and providing that any railroad 
 failing to furnish tickets or refusing the 
 passage which the same call for, must 
 pa}' to the person so refused $200, one 
 purchasing a ticket at a reduced rate may 
 not recover the penalty on failure of the 
 railroad to stop at the station named in 
 the ticket. Miley v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 41 Mont. 51, 108 Pac. 5. 
 
 36. Failure to stop train when signaled. 
 — Freeman z\ Detroit, etc., R. Co., tjj 
 Mich. 577, 32 X. W. 833, construing How. 
 Ann. St., § 3324. 
 
 37. Statutes held constitutional. — That 
 the Arkansas statute, Laws 1907, Act No. 
 1'j3, pp. 4.J4. 4o3. §§ 1. 17, requiring railroad 
 companies to furnish cars within six days 
 of application therefor made the duty to 
 furnish cars absolute, and did not ex- 
 pressly provide for reasonable defenses to 
 be interposed, did not render it uncon- 
 stitutional, since the whole law is not in 
 the legislative act, but in the constitution 
 and higher rights of property, and a vio- 
 lation of the act would merely be prima 
 facie a breach of duty, which would not 
 preclude the right to set up defenses. 
 Oliver & Son z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 89 
 Ark. 466. 117 S. W. 238. 
 
 The provision of the Kansas act relat- 
 ing to the furnishing of cars by railway 
 companies to 'shippers of freight (Gen. St. 
 1909, § 7203 J, which allows shippers to re- 
 cover attorney fees in action successfully 
 prosecuted under the act, does not deny 
 the railway companies the equal protec- 
 tion of the laws guaranteed by the fed- 
 eral constitution because they are not al- 
 lowed attorney fees if they are successful 
 in such suits, or because they are not al- 
 lowed attorney fees in actions success- 
 fully prosecuted by them against ship- 
 pers for the detention of cars contrary to 
 the reciprocal provision of the act. Vos- 
 burg V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 89 Kan. 
 114, 130 Pac. 667. 
 
 The Texas statute, Rev. Stat. 1895, arts. 
 
 4497-4502, imposes penalties and dam- 
 ages on carriers for failure to furnish cars 
 at designated points within certain times 
 after demand, and declares that the car- 
 rier shall not be bound to comply with 
 the act provided it is prevented from do- 
 ing so by strikes or other calamities. 
 Held, that the exceptions so provided 
 were not exclusive, and did not prevent 
 the carrier from pleading any legitimate 
 defense in excuse of its failure to com- 
 ply with the act, and hence the same was 
 not unconstitutional as a deprivation of 
 the carrier's property without due process 
 of law. Allen v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 100 
 Tex. 525, 101 S. W. 792, affirming 42 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 331. 
 
 38. Statutes strictly construed. — Judg- 
 ment (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. "W. 431, 
 reversed. Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Cainp- 
 bell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 
 225; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan, 
 42 lex. Civ. App. 620, 94 S. "W. 199; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Loving (Tex. Civ. 
 App.,), 98 S. W. 451, 452, afifirmed in 101 
 Tex. 663, no op.; Texas, etc., R. Co. :'. 
 Barrow, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 611, 613, 77 S. 
 ■ W. 643, affirmed in 101 Tex. 663, no op. 
 See, also. Schloss v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co., 85 Tex. 601, 22 S. W. 1014; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. r. Hughes, 99 Tex. 533, 91 S. 
 W. 567. 
 
 A shipper desiring to recover the pen- 
 alty imposed for a carrier's failure to 
 furnish cars, must comply strictly with 
 the law. McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 79 Tex. 3.3, 38, 15 S. W. 164. 
 
 Statute not applicable to refusal to 
 furnish cars. — By refusing to furnish cars 
 on request, a railroad company did not 
 incur the penalty imposed by the Texas 
 statute. Rev. St. 1879, art. 279, providing 
 that for refusing to transport goods com- 
 mon carriers shall incur a penalty of not 
 less than $5 nor more than $500, to 1 e 
 recovered by the owner of the goods. 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Bailey, 4 
 Willson Civ. Cas. Ct. App., § 68, 15 S. 
 W. 203.
 
 159 
 
 CONTROL AND KKGUI.ATION, 
 
 !§ 231-233 
 
 companies, when cars arc applied fur, lo furnish them within a prescribed time, 
 and to impose a penalty for llieir failure to do so."'-' Under a Georgia statute, 
 as preliminary to a suit against a railroad company for tlie penalty imposed for 
 failure to furnish cars, the railroad commission is required to give the com- 
 pany an opportunity to present a defense before the commission, and if a sufifi- 
 cient defense is made the company is relieved from further liability.-*" 
 
 § 232, Application for Cars. — Before a carrier can be held liable for the 
 penalty prescribed for failure to furnish cars, an application must be made for 
 such cars*' In determining the sufficiency of such an application the terms of 
 the statute or commission nrdcr imposing the penalty must be considered. ■*- 
 
 § 233. Places at Which Cars Must Be Furnished. — Statutes imposing 
 
 39. Rule requiring cars to be furnished 
 within four days reasonable. — L'lukr tlic 
 Georgia statute, Laws l',M)5, p. 120, §§ 1, 
 2, 3, 4, the Railroad Commission Storage 
 Rule, No. y, providing that when a 
 shipper files with a railroad company 
 written application for cars, stating tiie 
 character of freight to 1)e shipped and its 
 destination, the railroad company shall 
 furnish such cars within four days, Sun- 
 days and holidays excepted, etc., and 
 for a violation of the rule shall, within 
 30 days after demand, pay the shipper $1 
 per day per car after expiration of free 
 time, is a reasonal)le rule. Southern R. 
 Co. V. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., i. •',.-, Ga. .'J."), 
 68 S. E. 8(17. 
 
 40. Georgia statute — Presentation of 
 defense before Railroad Commission. — 
 Laws I'.H).-), p. l;il, S :5. 
 
 A shipper, acting under Railroad Com- 
 mission Storage Rule No. 9, filed with 
 the commission a complaint for delay in 
 furnishing cars, which the secretary of 
 the commission referred to the manager 
 of the railroad having charge of claims, 
 who, in reply, denied the charges, and 
 stated tliat he understood that suit had 
 been l)rought on the claim and he did not 
 suppose it worth while for him to answer 
 the complaint in detail. Held, a sufficient 
 compliance with the statute requiring the 
 railroad commission to give a railroad 
 company an opportunity to present a de- 
 fense before the commission sft as to au- 
 thorize the claimant to bring suit for the 
 penalty imposed by Rule i), as authorized 
 by Laws 190.3, p. 120, § 2. Southern R. 
 Co. V. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 
 35, 68 S. E. 807. 
 
 Railroad Commission Storage Rule, 
 No. 9, requires railroad companies to fur- 
 nish cars prom])tly upon request therefor, 
 and provides that when a shipper files 
 with a railroad company written appli- 
 cation for cars, stating the character of 
 freight to be shipped and its destination, 
 the railroad company shall furnish such 
 cars within four days, Sundays and holi- 
 days excepted, etc., and for a violation of 
 the rule shall, within thirty days after 
 demand, pay the shipper $1 per day pe- 
 car after expiration of free time. Held 
 that, under tht statute entitling railroad 
 
 companies to present defenses before the 
 railroad commission, a decision of the 
 commission that a company had not 
 shown sufficient cause to relieve itself 
 from liability did not conclude the com- 
 pany as to the question of such liability, 
 upon a suit by the complaining shipper 
 for the amount claimed Ijy him against 
 the company for failure to furnish cars 
 on written demand within four days as 
 provided ])y the railroad commission rule. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Atlanta Sand, etc., 
 Co., 135 Ga. 35, 68 S. E. SOT. 
 
 41. Necessity of application for cars. — ' 
 In Te.xas, cars must be fiiriiisiied upon a 
 shipper making a timely demand therefor. 
 Rev. St. arts. 4494, 4496; Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. f. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 560, 45 S. 
 W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225, reversing 40 S. VV. 
 431. 
 
 42. Sufficiency of application for cars. — 
 An application for freight cars under the 
 Kansas reciprocal demurrage law (Laws 
 1905, p. 570, c. 345, § 2) is insufficient to 
 permit recovery of penalty for failure to 
 comply therewith, § 3 requiring that it 
 shall state, among other things, the time 
 they are desired, and tlie application men- 
 tioning no time, as to treat the absence 
 of such statement to mean "now" would 
 l)e legislation, and not interpretation. Cox 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., SI Kan. 186, 105 
 Pac. 14. 
 
 A written application by a shipper to a 
 carrier for a freight car to be furnished 
 within two days is not a compliance with 
 rule 9 of the North Carolina corporation 
 commission, requiring carriers of freight 
 to furnish cars within four days upon ap- 
 plication in writing therefor; and hence a 
 carrier to whom such application was 
 made incurred no penalty for failure to 
 comply therewith. McDuffie v. Seaboard, 
 etc.. Railway, 145 N. C. 397. 59 S. E. 122; 
 S. C, 145 N. C. 399, 59 S. E. 123. 
 
 Under the Texas statute. Rev. St. 1895, 
 arts. 4498, 4499, imposing a penalty on a 
 carrier for failure to furnisii cars, on ap- 
 plication, and requiring the application to 
 state the time when they are desired, an 
 application for a car "as soon as possible" 
 was not sufficient to bring the applicant 
 within the statute. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hughes, 99 Tex. 533, 91 S. W. 567.
 
 §§ 233-234 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 160 
 
 a penalty for failure to furnish cars generally prescribe the places at which 
 cars shall be furnished. Therefore the question whether a carrier is liable for 
 the penalty for failure to furnish cars at a particular place is to be determined 
 by a construction of the terms of the statute. ■^■' 
 
 § 234. Defenses. — In an action by a shipper against a railroad company 
 for the penalty prescribed, for failure of the company to furnish cars for an 
 interstate shipment upon demand, the existence of conditions for which the 
 company is not responsible preventing the discharge of its duty to furnish the 
 cars, is a good defense."*-^ But in such an action, mere proof that the company 
 did not have sufficient cars to comply with the demands made upon its services 
 when cars were ordered from it would be no defense.^^ Alere proof that there 
 is a strike on a railroad is no defense to an action for failure to furnish cars 
 on demand, since strikes may include only an insignificant number of employees 
 or those engaged in some department in no substantial way interfering with 
 the furnishing of cars or upon the happening of a strike, the company may with- 
 out sufficient effort, fail to conduct its business, but if a strike is of such mag- 
 nitude and character as to render the company unable, by the use of proper 
 
 43. Penalty not recoverable if carrier 
 has no agent at point of shipment. — The 
 Texas statute, Rev. St. 1895, art. 4499, 
 provides a penalty for the failure of a 
 railroad company to furnish freight cars 
 to one applying- therefor; and art. 4500 
 requires such applicant to "deposit with 
 the agent of such company," at the time 
 of making his application, a part of the 
 freight charges. Held that, if at the point 
 of shipment the company has no agent, 
 the penalty is not recoverable. Judgment 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 431, reversed. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 91 
 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 4.3 L. R. A. 225. 
 
 Furnishing cars at switches. — The 
 Texas statute, Rev. St. 1895, art. 4522, en- 
 acting that, where a railroad company 
 constructs a switch, it is bound to furnish 
 cars for the transportation of freight 
 therefrom, and in default thereof shall be 
 subject to the same penalties as in other 
 cases, does not apply to an action under 
 arts. 4497-4502, passed subsequent thereto 
 as an independent law, which provide a 
 penalty for failure of a railroad company 
 to furnish freight cars to one applj'ing 
 therefor. Judgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 
 S. W. 431, reversed. Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 
 43 L. R. A. 225. 
 
 Rev. St. 1895. art. 4498, which requires 
 applicants to state where the cars are de- 
 sired, which must be at "some station or 
 switch," does not make every switch a 
 receiving and discharging station, and a 
 switch at which the company has no 
 agent is not within the statute; and this, 
 although art. 4522 enacts that, where a 
 railroad company constructs a switch, it 
 is bound to furnish cars for transporta- 
 tion of freight therefrom. Judgment 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 431, reversed. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 91 
 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225. 
 
 Furnishing cars for shipment of grain. 
 • — Under the Minnesota statute, Gen. St. 
 
 1878, c. 124, if a railroad company itself 
 furnishes at one of its stations suitable 
 warehouse facilities for receiving, hand- 
 ling, storing, and delivering grain, on the 
 terms fixed by statute, it may designate 
 such warehouse or elevator as the exclu- 
 sive place at which it will receive grain 
 for shipment at that station, and may re- 
 fuse to receive it and furnish cars for its 
 shipment at any other place; but if it 
 fails to furnish such facilities on the terms 
 fixed it is required to furnish cars, upon 
 reasonable notice, in which to ship grain 
 out of any warehouse adjacent to its 
 tracks at such station. Rhodes v. North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 87, 24 N. W. 
 347. 
 
 S., by agreement with a railroad com- 
 pany, kept and maintained an adequate 
 elevator for the reception and delivery 
 of wheat for shipment by the railroad, 
 but he managed it in his own name, as 
 his own business, and not as agent for 
 the railroad company; and he received 
 wheat only on conditions not authorized 
 by Gen. St. 1878, c. 124, § 7, fixing the 
 charges, etc., of such elevators. The rail- 
 road con^pany refused to furnish cars at 
 any otlier elevator. Held, that the rail- 
 road company had not furnished suital)le 
 facilities for receiving, storing, and hand- 
 ling grain, or at the rates and on the 
 terms fixed by law, and it was therefore 
 required to furnish cars, upon reasonable 
 notice, and when able to do so, for ship- 
 ment of grain out of other warehouses 
 adjacent to its tracks at that station. 
 Rhodes v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 
 87, 24 N. W. 347. 
 
 44. Existence of conditions for which 
 carrier is not responsible. — Southern R. 
 Co. V. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 
 3."), (i,S S. v.. 807. 
 
 45. Insufficiency of cars. — Southern R. 
 Co. V. Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 35, 
 G8 S. E. 807.
 
 161 
 
 CONTROL AND RFXULATION. 
 
 §§ 234-236 
 
 effort, to furnish cars on demand, it will be a good defense to a suit for the 
 penalty prescribed for failure to furnish cars after written application there- 
 for. ^'^ The fact that a buyer notified a railroad company not to carry any more 
 of the seller's property consigned to the buyer does not absolve the company 
 from its duty to tlie seller to furnish him with cars for transportation of the 
 property sold."*" Where the rules of an association of railroads governing the 
 return of cars prove ineffectual to secure the return of a carrier's cars after 
 passing into the possession of other carriers, such rules are not a good defense 
 in a suit brought under the Arkansas statute, by the Attorney General, under 
 direction of the Railroad Commission, against a carrier for failure to furnish a 
 shipper with cars."*'^ 
 
 §§ 235-247. Failure to Pay or Adjust Claims— § 235. Power to Im- 
 pose Penalty.- — A statute, ])enalizing carriers for failing to settle a claim 
 promptly which a judgment finds to be just, is constitutional."*'' A statute, pro- 
 viding for a recovery of 50 per cent interest and reasonable attorney's fees from 
 carriers for failure to pay claims for freight lost or damaged within a pre- 
 scribed number of days after the claim is filed, is a valid exercise of the state's 
 police power. •''" The penalty imposed is not so exorbitant and unreasonable as 
 to render the statute unconstitutional."'' 
 
 § 236. Existence of Statutory Conditions Essential to Imposition of 
 Penalty. — The statutory penalty required of a carrier for its failure to adjust 
 a claim w'ithin the statutory period after it w'as filed, being a creature of the 
 statute, can be imposed only when all statutory conditions exist, and not other- 
 \vise.^2 
 
 46. Strike. — Southern R. Co. v. Atlanta 
 Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 35, G8 S. E. 807. 
 
 47. Carrier notified by buyer not to 
 carry seller's property consigned to 
 buyer — Jiult^ment (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. 
 W. 431, reversed. Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2. 43 
 L. R. A. 225. 
 
 48. Rules of association of railroads 
 governing return of cars. — St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. r. State, S5 Ark. 311, 107 S. W. 
 1180, construing Kirljy's Dig., § G813. 
 
 49. Statute imposing penalty held con- 
 stitutional. — The Mississippi statute. Laws 
 1908, c. 196, lield constitutional. Yazoo, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Jackson Vinegar Co., 220 
 U. S. 317, 33 S. Ct. 40. 
 
 A carrier penalized under this statute, 
 for failure to settle a claim promptly 
 which a judgment finds to be just, can not 
 urge that the statute is unconstitutional 
 as penalizing the failure to accede to an 
 extravagant claim. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217, 33 S. 
 Ct. 40. 
 
 The Georgia statute. Civ. Code, 1910, § 
 2778, imposing a penalty on carriers for 
 failure to adjust and pay claims, is con- 
 stitutional. Southern R. Co. f. Lowe, 139 
 Ga. 362, 77 S. E. 44. 
 
 The South Carolina statute. Act 1903 
 (24 St. at Large, p. 81), providing a pen- 
 alty to be paid the consignee by a car- 
 rier for failure to adjust and pay within 
 a certain time a claim for loss of freight 
 
 while in its possession, is constitutional. 
 Coffey V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 79 S. C. 
 150. (U) S. I^. 447. 
 
 50. Statute imposing penalty a valid ex- 
 ercise of police power. — Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377, 
 construing Laws 1907, c. 5618. 
 
 51. Penalty not exorbitant and unrea- 
 sonable. — Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. f. Coach- 
 man, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377. 
 
 52. Existence of statutory conditions es- 
 sential to imposition of penalty. — King v. 
 Atlantic, etc., Railroad, 86 S. C. 510, 68 S. 
 E. 769. 
 
 A South Carolina statute provides a 
 penalty for delay in payment of a claim 
 for damages to goods in transit, where 
 the shipper recovers the full amount 
 claimed, and declares that no such claim 
 sliall be filed until after the arrival of the 
 shipment or some part thereof or until 
 after the lapse of a reasonable time for 
 arrival. Plaintiff filed a claim for $85 for 
 damages to goods, and, on defendant's 
 failure to pay, brought action for $500 
 damages for the delay in arrival, $200 
 damages to the goods, and $40 statutory 
 penalties for the delay, and recovered a 
 verdict for $90. Held, in an action for the 
 penalty for failure to pay the claim for 
 damages within thirty days after it was 
 filed, that, as the verdict was general, the 
 court could not say but that all of it was 
 for the delay or for the statutory penalty 
 for delay, or at least enough of it to re- 
 duce it below the amount of the claim 
 
 1 Car— 11
 
 §§ 237-239 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 162 
 
 § 237. Who May Recover Penalty.— The purchaser of goods shipped to 
 the consignor's own order, with sight draft against the bill of lading, which 
 provides that the purchaser shall be notified of their arrival, is the "consignee 
 aggrieved " within a statute giving such person a right to recover a penalty for 
 failure to adjust, within the statutory period, a claim for non-delivery of 
 goods. ^^ 
 
 § 238. Where and When Cause of Action Arises.— A cause of action 
 against a railroad companv for the statutory penalty for failing to adjust a 
 cfaim for lost goods within the statutory limit arises at the point of destination, 
 when the road fails to adjust the claim. ^-^ 
 
 § 239. Necessity of Filing Claim, and with Whom It May Be Filed. 
 
 Under a statute providing a penalty for failure of a carrier to adjust a 
 
 claim for loss of or damage to goods within a stated time, and requiring the 
 filing of the claim with the agent at the point of destination, such filing is a 
 condition precedent to a recovery of the penalty, unless there is a waiver of 
 strict compliance with the statute."^ The claim in such case may be filed with 
 the nearest agent who keeps the station open during reasonable business hours, 
 and the claimant is not bound to file the claim with a nearer agent who leaves 
 his station closed most of the time.^« But filing a claim with an officer of the 
 carrier other than the agent at the point of destination and forwarding the 
 same by such officer in the discharge of his duties to the agent at the point of 
 destination is not a filing wnth the agent at the point of destination.s"^ Under 
 a statute, making each carrier of goods recognizing and acting under a contract 
 of through shipment the agent of the other connecting carriers, notice of_ a 
 claim for loss of goods, served on the agent of the terminal carrier, is notice 
 to the initial carrier, issuing its through bill of lading.-^^ 
 
 filed, and also that, as there was no evi- 
 dence that the shipment or some part of 
 it had arrived when the claim was filed 
 or that a reasonable time for arrival had 
 elapsed, plaintiff could not recover. Price 
 V. Charleston, etc., Co. (S. C), 77 S. E. 
 703. 
 
 53. "Consignee aggrieved." — Brown v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 91 S. C. 377, 74 S. 
 E. 754. 
 
 54. Where and when cause of action 
 arises. — Smith & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 
 84 S. C. ir,7, r,5 S. R. 1029. 
 
 55. Statutory requirement as to filing 
 condition precedent to recovery of pen- 
 alty unless waived. — King z.'. Atlantic, etc., 
 Railroad, 8(5 S. C. 510, 68 S. E. 769. 
 
 Waiver of right to have claim filed. — 
 Under the South Carolina statute, 24 Stat. 
 at Large, p. 81, prescribing a penalty for 
 failure of a common carrier to pay a 
 claim for damages for loss of freight 
 within ninety days after the filing of the 
 claim, where defendant railroad company 
 not only waived the right to have a claim 
 filed, but promised to pay it, it could not 
 thereafter contend that the claim was not 
 filed. Goldstein v. Southern Railway, 80 
 S. C. 522, 61 S. E. 1007. 
 
 Facts held not to constitute a waiver. — 
 In an action for goods lost by a carrier, 
 and the statutory penalty for failure to 
 adjust the claim within the time allowed 
 after a claim is filed with the agent at 
 the destination of the goods, it appeared 
 
 that plaintiff had had a conversation with 
 the carrier's local agent at the destination 
 of the goods, who told him to send his 
 claim to the general freight agent, which 
 he did. In the correspondence with such 
 agent there was no mention of the stat- 
 utory penalty; and at that time defend- 
 ant was not liable for it. Defendant 
 had no right to compel plaintiff to file 
 his claim with the local agent. Held, that 
 the direction by such agent to send the 
 claim to the general agent was not a 
 waiver of the statutory requirement that 
 the claim must be "filed" with the agent 
 at the destination of the goods before the 
 penalty sued for can be recovered, be- 
 cause waiver is the voluntary relinquish- 
 ment of some existing right. King v. At- 
 lantic, etc., Railroad, 86 S. C. 510, 68 S. E. 
 769. 
 
 56. Claim may be filed with nearest 
 agent who keeps station open during rea- 
 sonable business hours. — Sumter Pine, 
 etc., Co. r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 90 S. C. 
 376, 73 S. E. 770. 
 
 57. Filing claim with officer other than 
 agent at the point of destination. — Brown 
 V. Southern Railway, 71 S. C. 273, 51 S. 
 E. 151. 
 
 58. Notice of claim where there is a 
 through shipment over roads of connect- 
 ing carriers. — Smith & Co. v. Southern R. 
 Co., 84 S. C. 167, 05 S. E. 1029, construing 
 Act May 13. 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 1). 
 
 Evidence that claim was filed with de-
 
 163 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 § 240 
 
 § 240. Sufficiency of Claim. — Tncler a statute providing that claims 
 against carriers shall be "tiled" with the agent at the point of destination, a ver- 
 bal complaint to such agent about the loss of goods is insufficient, in order to 
 obtain the statutory penalty for the carrier's failure to adjust the claim within 
 the statutory period after it is filed. '''•• The term "filing a olaim" necessarily 
 imi^lies the placing of some written or printed paper showing the nature and 
 amount of the claim and the person to whom due with the proper custodian.''" 
 But any form of statement which shows the nature of the claim, the amount 
 of the loss, and in whose behalf presented, is sufficient, without proof that the 
 claim is valid. '"'^ 
 
 fendant at point of destination. — Kvidciicc 
 that G., tlie a^cnt of tlic torniinal carrier, 
 received plaintiff's claim for lost goods 
 and forwarded it, under the instructions 
 of defendant initial carrier's agent, to de- 
 fendant's general claim agent, and that 
 the latter not only received and consid- 
 ered the claim, but returned it to G., and 
 received it from him again with further 
 information, was evidence that the claim 
 was filed with defendant at the point of 
 destination, in an action to recover the 
 statutory penalty for failing to adjust the 
 claim. Smith & Co. f. Southern R. Co., 
 84 S. C. inr, c>:> S. P.. io2<). 
 
 59. Verbal claim insufficient. — King z\ 
 Atlantic, etc., Railroad, 8G S. C. olO, 08 
 S. E. TCi). 
 
 60. What term "filing a claim" implies. 
 —King v. Atlantic, etc., Railroad, 86 S. C. 
 510, 68 S. E. 769. 
 
 The North Carolina statute, Revisal 
 1905, § 2634, providing that every claim 
 for loss or damage to property while in 
 possession of a carrier shall be adjusted 
 and paid within sixty days after the fil- 
 ing of such claim with the agent of the 
 carrier at the point of destination, and 
 that failure to adjust and paj^ the claim 
 within tlie period prescril)ed shall sub- 
 ject the carrier to a penalty of $.'30, etc., 
 is a penal statute, and the claimant must 
 present his demand in writing in order 
 to recover the penalty, a verbal demand 
 being insufficient, the words "to file" 
 meaning "receiving a paper into custody." 
 Thompson z'. Southern l"'xp. Co. (X. C), 
 61 S. E. 182. 
 
 61. What form of statement is sufficient. 
 — Hawes i\ Southern Iv. Co., 73 S. C. 274. 
 53 S. E. 28."), so hold wliore the action 
 was brought under 24 St. at Large, p. 81. 
 
 Claims filed held sufficient. — Under the 
 North Carolina statute, Revisal 1905, § 
 2634, which provides a penalty for the 
 failure to adjust claims for loss or dam- 
 age to property while in possession of a 
 carrier within a specified time after pres- 
 entation of a demand in writing, a writ- 
 ten statement setting forth the purchase 
 of the article claimed to have been lost, 
 with the price, quantity, name of vendor 
 and shipping point, is, when handed to 
 the company's agent within the time spec- 
 ified by the statute, with a statement that 
 it was for the goods lost, sufficiently 
 definite to enable the company to inves- 
 
 tigate tlie claim, and will satisfy the re- 
 quirements of the statute. Currie v. Sea- 
 board, etc., R. Co., 156 N. C. 432, 72 S. 
 E. 493. 
 
 The South Carolina statute, 24 Stat, at 
 Large, p. 81, provides that every claim 
 for loss of or damage to freight shall be 
 adjusted and paid within ninety days, in 
 case of shipments from without the state, 
 after the filing of such claim, and pre- 
 scribes a penalty for failure to comply 
 therewith. Held, that where plaintiff 
 filed with defendant's railroad agent the 
 bill of lading, invoice of goods, and a 
 list of the shortage as a claim, there was 
 a sufficient filing, no form for setting out 
 tlie claim being prescribed by the stat- 
 ute. Goldstein v. Southern Railway, 80 
 S. C. 522, 61 S. E. 1007. 
 
 It is not essential under such statute, 
 if the claim filed is otherwise sufficient, 
 tliat the claimant should attach thereto 
 the freight bill or receipt and bill of lad- 
 ing. Hawes z'. Southern R. Co., 73 S. C. 
 274, 53 S. E. 285. 
 
 Where plaintiflf called defendant rail- 
 road agent's attention to the damaged 
 condition of five sacks of rice shipped 
 plaintifT, and stated tliat he would sell the 
 rice for what he could get, and claim the 
 difference, and the agent had knowledge 
 that the amount mentioned in the claim 
 filed by plaintiff was for damages to all 
 the sacks, the fact that only three sacks 
 were stated in the claim filed could not 
 defeat a recovery for the statutory pen- 
 alty for failing to adjust the claim within 
 tlie time required by law. Bolen f. Sea- 
 board, etc., Railway, 81 S. C. 78. 61 S. E. 
 1024. 
 
 The North Carolina statute, Revisal 
 190.-), §§ 2642, 2643, 2644, regulating rail- 
 road rates, provides that, in case of an 
 overcharge, the person aggrieved may 
 file a written demand for a return of the 
 amount, supported by the freight bill and 
 original bill of lading, and prescribes a 
 penalty for noncompliance. Plaintiff 
 made two shipments, on which distinct 
 overcharges were made and collected, 
 and filed this claim: "Inclosed please find 
 claim. Overcharge in freight to Lexing- 
 ton, N. C, $7.96: overcharge in freight 
 to Salisbury, N. C, $139 — total $9.35. 
 Please let us have prompt adjustment." 
 Held, that the claim filed, accompanied 
 in each case with the freight bill and bill
 
 ss 241-244 CARRIERS. 164 
 
 § 241. Place of Payment of Claim.— A statute, requiring claims for 
 dania'^es to freight to be presented to the agent at destination, does not pro- 
 vide for the place of payment. The carrier as the debtor must find the claim- 
 ant and tender pavment to him within the statutory period m order to avoid 
 the penalt^• for tionpayment, but may require the claimant to state where he 
 desires payment to be made, when payment at that place within the required 
 time will prevent the penalty from attaching.<^- 
 
 § 242. Who Is Liable for Penalty.— The delivering carrier is not liable 
 for the p'enaltv prescribed for failure to adjust or settle a claim arising out of 
 the loss of freight which has never been delivered to it;«3 and this is so 
 thoucrh the bill of lading introduced as a contract of shipment does not provide 
 that "the responsibilitv of any carrier shall cease on delivery to the connecting 
 line in good order ; «'■* and in such cases, the fact that the price of the goods 
 lost was*' tendered by the delivering carrier with intent to collect from the con- 
 necting carrier does' not render it liable for the penalty for failure to settle the 
 claim.«5 Where a bill of lading limits the carrier's liability to loss sustained on 
 its own line, a connecting carrier on whose line a loss did not occur can not be 
 charged with the penalty imposed for refusal to pay the loss.^c Where a stat- 
 ute subjects a receiver of a railroad to the duties, liabilities, and restrictions 
 arising from the operation of the road wdiich are attached to the corporation, 
 receivers of a railroad appointed by a federal court are subject to the penalty 
 prescribed for failing to adjust and pay a claim for loss of, or damage to, 
 freight.^'^ 
 
 § 243. Immaterial in What Manner Loss Was Caused.— Under a stat- 
 ute, providing that every common carrier failing to adjust any claim for loss of 
 or damage to interstate freight within ninety days shall pay a penalty in addi- 
 tion to actual damage, it is immaterial in what manner the loss was caused; the 
 purpose of the statute being to give the consignee a special remedy for the car- 
 rier's failure to deliver.*^^ 
 
 § 244. Amount of Penalty.— A penalty not exceeding $100 prescribed by 
 statute, for a railroad company's failure to refund on proper demand an over- 
 charge' in freight, is not objectionable as disproportionate to a claim of $1.39, 
 since it is not imposed to facilitate the collection of claims, but to enforce the 
 performance of a carrier's duties.*^^ 
 
 of lading, amounted to a separate writ- Where the court found that certain 
 
 ten demand for each overcharge within goods were never delivered to defend- 
 
 the statute, even though the two over- ant, the terminal connectmg earner, and 
 
 charges we're set out in one instrument, the bill of lading stipulated that no car- 
 
 and demand was made for the total sum. rier shall be liable for loss not occurring 
 
 Efiand v Southern R. Co., 146 N. C. 129, on his line, defendant was not liable for 
 
 50 S E 3j9 a penalty under the South Carolina stat- 
 
 62' Place of payment of claim.— Berley ute. Act Feb. 2.3, 1903 (24 St. at Large, 
 
 V Columbia, etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 232, 64 81), imposing a penalty for failure to ad- 
 
 S. E. 397, construing St. 1903, 24 St. at just or pay for loss or damage to prop- 
 
 Lar.'^e, p. 81. erty while in possession of a carrier. Mc- 
 
 " 63! Delivering carrier not liable where Meekin v. Southern Railway, 8.5 S. C. 381, 
 
 freight was not delivered to it. — Stothard 67 S. E. 745. 
 
 V. Louisiana R., etc., Co., 127 La. 383, 53 67. Receivers liable for penalty.— Hu- 
 
 So. 658, construing Act No. 29 of 1908; guelet v. Warfield, 84 S. C. 87, 65 S. E. 
 
 McMeekin v. Southern Railway, 85 S. C. 985, construing Act Feb. 23, 1903, 24 St. 
 
 381, 67 S. E. 745, construing Civ. Code at Large, p. 81 and Civ. Code 1902, § 
 
 1902, § 1710. 2025. 
 
 64. McMeekin v. Southern Railway, 85 gg immaterial in what manner loss 
 S. C. 381, 67 S. E. 745. .^as caused.— Wilson v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 
 65. Stothard v. Louisiana R., etc., Co., f^^ ^,) c^ q ^gg^ gQ g ^ 6g3_ constru- 
 127 La 383. 53 So 658 _ ing'Act 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 81). 
 
 •''•^i^KT.°^^VofH "^Whefn'^R 69. Penalty held not disproportionate 
 
 rier s liability. — Moody v. boutnern K. ""• . *' ^-^ , o ^i o r>^ -iac 
 
 Co., 79 S. C. 297, 60 S. E. 711. *« claim.-Efland v. Southern R. Co., 146
 
 165 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 245-247 
 
 § 245. What One Claiming Penalty Must Show. — Under a statute au- 
 thorizing the recovery of a jjenaily lor a carrier'^ failure to pay for loss of 
 freight, one seeking to recover the penalty must show that the loss occurred 
 while the freight was in possession of the carrier, and that he is entitled to the 
 full amount of his claim.''"' 
 
 §§ 246-247. Defenses— § 246. Amount Recoverable by Claimant as 
 Affecting Right to Penalty. — Under a statute imposing a penally upon car- 
 riers for failure to pay a claim for loss of, or damage to, freight within a pre- 
 scribed jjeriod, the claimant need not recover the full amount demanded by him 
 in order to authorize the imposition of the penalty, if the statute contains no 
 such limitation upon his right to recover it.'^ Ikit the rule is otherwise where 
 the statute expressly makes the right to recover the penalty depend upon the 
 recovery by the claimant of the full amount claimed."- 
 
 § 247. Effect of Voluntary Payment of Claim after Time Limited. — 
 
 In North Carolina it has been held that under a statute imposing a i)enalty upon 
 a carrier for failing to adjust a claim for loss of freight within a prescribed time, 
 and providing that, unless the claimant recover the full amount claimed, no pen- 
 alty shall be allowed, the jienalty is recoverable though the carrier voluntarily 
 pays the claim after the time limited.'-'' 15ut in South Carolina, in construing a 
 
 N. C. 12;). 59 S. E. 359, so liolding as to 
 penalty i)rescribcd by Rcvisal 1905, § 
 2i;44. 
 
 70. What one claiming penalty must 
 show. — Smith z\ Southern Railway, 89 S. 
 C. 415, 71 S. R. 9Sn. 
 
 7L Penalty recoverable though full 
 amount demanded is not recovered. — Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co. V. Brandon, 98 Miss. 
 461, 53 So. 957, construing Laws 1908, c. 
 190, § 1, amending Code 190(1. i< 4070. 
 
 72. Statute expressly making recovery 
 of penalty dependent on recovery of full 
 amount claimed. — L'ndcr the express 
 provisions of tlie South Carolina statute. 
 Act Feb. 23, 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 81), 
 no recovery of the penalty can be had 
 unless there is a recovery of the full 
 amount claimed. Bullock i'. Charleston, 
 etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 375. 64 S. E. 234; 
 Cousar Mercantile Co. z\ Southern R. 
 Co., 82 S. C. 307, 64 S. E. 391; Rippy & 
 Co. r. Southern Railway, 80 S. C. 524, 61 
 S. E. 976; Price v. Charleston, etc., R. Co. 
 (S. C), 77 S. E. 703; Ray z: Southern 
 R. Co. (S. C), 77 S. E. 1012. 
 
 But where plaintiff in an action under 
 this statute for loss and damage against 
 a carrier filed a claim for $16.88 and 
 proved a liability, exclusive of interest 
 of $16,871^, it was held entitled to recover 
 the penalty, since the addition of interest 
 raised the recovery above the amount of 
 the claim. W'liite Laundry Co. r. Cliar- 
 leston, etc., R. Co., S3 S. C. 209, 65 S. H. 
 239. See, also, Weinberg v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 83 S. C. 470, 65 S. E. 637. 
 
 It was also entitled to recover the pen- 
 alty in such case, under the maxim, "De 
 minimis non curat lex." White Laun- 
 dry Co. V. Charleston, etc.. R. Co., 83 
 
 8. C. 209, 65 S. E. 239. See, also, Wein- 
 berg V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 83 S. C. 
 470, 65 S. E. 637. 
 
 Under the above statute, where the 
 claim was for $15 damage in the aggre- 
 gate for damage to several articles, the 
 fact that the damage proved exceeded 
 that sum w^as not a bar to the recovery 
 of the penalty. Netherland f. Charles- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 79 S. C. 368, 60 S. E. 
 927. 
 
 .■\nd under such statute, the consignee 
 may sue for the penalty, if the time has 
 elapsed without adjustment of the claim, 
 at the same time he sues for loss or dam- 
 age to the property, though judgment 
 for the penalty can not be rendered un- 
 til he has recovered the full amount 
 claimed for loss or damage. Tenkins v. 
 .\tlantic, etc., R. Co.. 84 S. C. 343, 66 S. 
 E. 409. 
 
 The South Carolina statute, 24 St. at 
 Large, p. 1, providing for a penalty 
 against a carrier for damage to freight, 
 on refusal to pay the claim therefor and 
 recovery of the amount claimed, does 
 not require the claimant to demand in- 
 terest; and where he sues for the actual 
 amount of damage, without interest, and 
 recovers the amount claimed, he is en- 
 titled to the penalty. Abrahams ?'. Co- 
 lumbia, etc.. R. Co.. 73 S. C. 542. 53 S. E. 
 819. 
 
 73. Effect of voluntary payment of 
 claim after time limited — North Carolina 
 doctrine. — .\lbriiton & Co. r: Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 148 N. C. 485. 62 S. E. 597, 
 construing Revisal 1905, § 2634. 
 
 The purpose of such statute, being to 
 prevent unjust claims for losses, the fact 
 that defendant voluntarih- paid the claim
 
 §§ 247-252 CARRIERS. 166 
 
 similar statute, it has been held that the acceptance by the claimant of such a 
 voluntary payment will preclude recovery of the penalty."-* 
 
 § 248. Failure to Make Annual Reports. — In Texas a railroad company 
 is liable to a penalty for failure to make an annual report to the comptroller of 
 public accounts,'' o and it is no defense to an action by 'the state to recover such 
 penalty that the failure to make the report has resulted in no special damage to 
 the state." *^ 
 
 §§ 249-275. Procedure and Evidence — § 249. Venue. — The venue of 
 an action against a railroad company to recover a penalty imposed for violation 
 of a statutory regulation is generally determined by the statute imposing the pen- 
 alty. The peculiar provisions of some of these statutes have been construed by 
 the courts to determine the venue of the action authorized by them."'^ 
 
 § 2 50. Time within Which Action Must Be Brought. — An action against 
 a carrier to recover the penalty imposed for violation of a statutory regulation 
 must be brought within the time limited by statute."'* The statutory cause of action 
 against a carrier for failure to furnish cars for the shipment of freight does not 
 arise on the written shipping contract, and therefore, provisions in such contract 
 that an action thereon must be brought within a prescribed number of days, has no 
 application to a cause of action for failure to furnish cars called for by the 
 contract.''-' 
 
 § 251. Parties — By Whom Action May Be Brought. — See ante, "Who 
 Mav Recover Penaltv." § 186; "AMio May Recover Penalty," § 206; "Who May 
 Recover Penalty." §213; "Who May Recover Penalty," § 237. 
 
 §§ 252-263. Pleading— §§ 252-259. Declaration, Petition, or Com- 
 plaint — § 2 52. In General. — In an action against a carrier to recover the penalty 
 imposed for violation of a statutory regulation, the declaration, petition, or com- 
 plaint must state a cause of action under the statute,-" but it need not negative 
 
 for loss upon judgment for plaintiff, and chase of the ticket was had. Pennsyl- 
 
 while an appeal therefrom was pending, vania Co. v. O'Connell, 84 O. St. 218, 95 
 
 did not prevent a recovery of the pen- N. E. 773. 
 
 alty. Rabon v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 149 78. Time within which action must be 
 
 N. C. 59, 62 S. E. 743. brought. — The right of action given by 
 
 74. South Carolina doctrine. — Best v. the Iowa statute, Code, § 2130, to any 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 72 S. C. 479, 52 one against whom a common carrier has 
 S. E. 223, construing Act Feb. 23, 1903 discriminated in its rates is barred within 
 (24 St. at Large, p. 81). two years, unless the discrimination is 
 
 75. Failure to make annual report. — fraudulently concealed. Central Trust 
 Rev. St., arts. 4249, 4250. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 135 
 
 76. H. & T. C. R. Co. V. State, 61 Tex. N. W. 721. 
 
 342. 344. 79. McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 
 
 77. Venue. — Under the Kansas statute, Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 164. 
 
 Code Civ. Proc. § 50 (Gen. St. 1901, § 80. Pleading held to state a cause of 
 4480), as amended by Laws 1903, c. 379, action. — A declaration, in an action by 
 § 1, an action may be brought against a the state against the receivers of a rail- 
 railroad company to enforce a liability road company to recover a penalty im- 
 under the Mutual Demurrage Act (Laws posed by the railroad commissioners for 
 1905, c. 345), in any county of the state violation of the Florida statute, Gen. St. 
 in which the principal office or place of 1906, § 2907, providing that all contracts 
 business of such railroad company is lo- and agreements between railroad com- 
 cated. Star Grain, etc., Co. v. Atchison, panics as to use and transportation of 
 etc., R. Co., 85 Kan. 281, 116 Pac. 906. cars shall be submitted to the railroad 
 An action against a railroad company commissioners for inspection and cor- 
 to recover the penalty prescribed by the rection, in order to insure that such con- 
 Ohio statute. Rev. St., § 3376, for de- tracts are reasonable and just, and to in- 
 manding and receiving, on sale of a sure prompt delivery of freight and pas- 
 ticket, a greater sum for the transporta- sengers to points of destination, held to 
 tion of the passenger than that allowed state a cause of action. State v. War- 
 by law, should, under Rev. St., § 5022, field (Fla.), 58 So. 367. 
 be brought in the county where the pur- Under the Iowa statute. Acts 1890, c.
 
 167 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION, 
 
 § 252 
 
 matters of defense.''' Where an alle,<,Mlinii in the petition in such an action is 
 
 17, § 1, which is constitutional, railroad 
 companies who voluntarily establish joint 
 rates are prohibited from making any 
 unjust discrimination in sucli rates be- 
 tween the different stations on their re- 
 spective lines, while § 5 prohiljits any un- 
 just and unreasonable cliarge. A peti- 
 tion to recover the penalty provided in 
 such act, which alleges that defendant 
 railroad companies established joint rates 
 between all stations on tlieir respective 
 lines in the state, that they unjustly dis- 
 criminated between the different points 
 on their lines, to plaintiff's damage, and 
 that the rates cliarged plaintiff were un- 
 just and unreasonal>le, states a cause of 
 action; and that it contains further alle- 
 gations showing the different rates 
 charged between different points does 
 • not make the action one based solely on 
 the fact of such differences as establish- 
 ing the unjust or discriminatory char- 
 acter of the rates charged. Blair z: Sioux, 
 etc., R. Co.. 109 Iowa .369, 80 N. \V. 073. 
 
 Where a petition alleges that *joint 
 rates were cstalilished by two railroad 
 companies for all stations on either line, 
 the rates charged for the same class of 
 goods over like distances of road may be 
 considered, not only in arriving at the 
 solution of the question of unjust dis- 
 crimination, but also in determining 
 whether a rate charged was unreasonable; 
 and an allegation that a lower rate was 
 charged for transporting like goods over 
 the same distance of road than was 
 charged plaintiff makes a, prima facie 
 case of unjust discrimination. Blair t'. 
 Sioux, etc., R. Co., 109 Iowa 369, 80 N. 
 W. 673. 
 
 A petition against a carrier alleged 
 that defendant was a corporation operat- 
 ing a railroad between certain intrastate 
 points as a public carrier, and that the 
 portion of its road extending between 
 two points was a main line one hundred 
 and twenty-five miles long, and the other 
 line between two other points was a 
 branch line one hundred and four miles 
 long; that on September 8, 1905, plain- 
 tiff delivered to defendant a car load of 
 live stock to l)e transported between the 
 most distant points named within the 
 time provided by statute in consideration 
 of the regular freight rate; that defend- 
 ant's train left the starting point at 9 
 o'clock a. m. on the day of delivery, but 
 did not arrive at destination until 4:35 
 a. m. of September 11th following, the 
 time consumed being fifty-two hours and 
 eighteen minutes longer than that per- 
 mitted by statute, to plaintiff's damage 
 in the sum of $520. as provided by the 
 Nebraska statute. Cobbey's Ann. St. 1907. 
 §§ 10.606. 10.607. Held, that such peti- 
 tion stated a cause of action. Rehearing. 
 84 Neb. 607, 122 N. W. 31, denied. Cram 
 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 85 Neb. 586, 123 
 N. W. 1045, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 1028. 
 
 "In an action for the statutory penalty 
 for delay in the transportation of goods, 
 plaintiff alleged that he had consigned 
 to him from a specified city in the state 
 certain goods designated on the bill of 
 lading, and that notice was given the 
 carrier that prompt shipment was desired 
 to his place of business in H.. within the 
 state, that aljout three weeks elapsed 
 after shipment Ijefore the goods were lo- 
 cated by plaintiff, when it was discovered 
 that they had been negligently taken by 
 the defendant to H.. S. C.. another sta- 
 tion on defendant's line, and in violation 
 of the provisions of an act of the Leg- 
 islature of 1904 (24 St. at Large, at page 
 071), and allowed the goods to remain at 
 the said station for the time and period 
 aforesaid, wherefore plaintiff demands 
 judgment against defendant company for 
 the sum of $90 penalty as provided for in 
 the act of the Legislature of South Car- 
 olina of 1904. at page 671. and for the 
 costs of this action." Code Civ. Proc. 
 1902. § 88. provides that pleadings in a 
 magistrate court need not be in any par- 
 ticular form, but must enable one of 
 common understanding to know what is 
 intended. Held, that the complaint suffi- 
 ciently shows that plaintiff is suing for 
 the per diem penalty for delay in the 
 transportation of freight as provided in 
 24 St. at Large, p. 071. Farrell i'. Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co., 82 S. C. 410. 04 S. E. 226. 
 
 In an action under the Texas statute, 
 to recover the penalty prescribed for an 
 unlawful discrimination in freight 
 charges, the petition alleged that the de- 
 fendant company had charged plaintiff 
 twelve and one half cents per one .hun- 
 dred pounds freight for a carload of lum- 
 ber from Houston to Wharton, Texas, 
 while it charged one McCoy but eight 
 cents per one hundred pounds for a car- 
 load of lumlier at or about the same date. 
 Held, sufficient. New York. etc.. R. Co. 
 z: Gallaher. 79 Tex. 685, 15 S. W. 694. 
 
 A declaration in an action against a 
 carrier for charging an illegal freight 
 rate, which alleges the weight of the 
 freight, the time and place of delivery 
 to the carrier for transportation, the place 
 to which the same was to be transported, 
 the distance, and the amount demanded 
 and received by the carrier for freight 
 charges, and that such amount was more 
 than the lawful rate, contrary to the 
 statute, states an action based on the Vir- 
 ginia statute. Code 1860. c. 61. §§ 1. 18. 
 relating to railroads and imposing a pen- 
 alty on a railroad charging more than 
 the lawful rate. Hart f. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co.. 6 \V. Va. 330. 
 
 81. Matters of defense need not be 
 negatived. — The Ncl^raska statute. Cob-
 
 252-254 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 168 
 
 not an allegation of fact, but a conclusion of law, it should be stricken out.^^ 
 In an action against an express company to recover a penalty imposed for unjust 
 discrimination against another company engaged in the same business, an allega- 
 tion of a particular usage and custom, in reference to the handling of express, 
 between defendant and other express companies, with wdiich it refused to comply 
 when tendered a package by the company claimed to have been discriminated 
 against, is sutficient to show that the facilities denied to such company were those 
 which were extended to the other companies.^3 
 
 §§ 253-258. Necessary Allegations— §§ 253-254. In Actions for Pen- 
 alty for Overcharge — § 2 53. Overcharge in Passenger Rates. — A petition 
 in an action against a railroad company to recover the penalty prescribed for de- 
 manding excessive fare, will not be held bad for failing to aver that the pur- 
 chaser of the ticket was in fact transported, and that the fare was paid in due 
 course of business, though judgment was not rendered until after the enactment 
 of a statute taking away a right of action save in such cases. ''^■* In such an action 
 it is not necessary that the complaint should set out the various enactments con- 
 solidating the several companies which make up the defendant company so as to 
 show that the latter company is restricted to a fare of two cents per mile for 
 each passenger; but it is enough to allege that the defendant had been duly or- 
 ganized, that it was entitled to demand and receive of passengers a certain rate 
 of fare, and that it had demanded and receive^l a higher rate.*^-" 
 
 § 254. Overcharge in Freight Rates. — In an action to recover the penalty 
 imposed for charging freight rates in excess of the maximum rates prescribed by 
 law, the petition must allege that the rates charged were in excess of the maximum 
 rates fixed bv statute or commission order.^*^ In an action to recover the penalty 
 
 bey's Ann. St. 1907, § 10,G06, provides 
 for a specified speed in the transporta- 
 tion of live stock, provided that on 
 branch lines not exceeding one hundred 
 and twenty-five miles in length stock of- 
 fered in consignments of less than six 
 cars need only be shipped on three des- 
 ignated shipping days a week, and that 
 the carrier need only conform to the 
 schedule on the day so designated. Held, 
 that the exceptions contained in such 
 proviso were matters of defense which 
 need not be negatived in a petition by the 
 shipper. Cram z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 85 Neb. 586, 123 N. W. 1045, 26 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1028. 
 
 The declaration in an action against a 
 railroad company to recover penalties 
 for over charges is sufficient if it con- 
 forms to the act under which it was 
 drawn, though it fails to aver that de- 
 fendant is not within the exceptions con- 
 tained in the Virginia statute. Code 1873, 
 c. 61, §§ 1, 58. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Pendleton, 86 Va. 1004, 11 S. E. 1062, 
 affirmed 156 U. S. 667, 39 L. Ed. 574, 15 
 S. Ct. 413. 
 
 82. An allegation which is a conclusion 
 of law should be stricken out. — An alle- 
 gation in the petition, in an action against 
 railroad companies for unlawful discrim- 
 ination between shippers, "that defend- 
 ants, being railroad corporations, were at 
 the date hereinafter set out, and are now, 
 under the constitution and laws of the 
 state of Texas, prohibited from willfully 
 
 and unjustly discriminating in their rates 
 and charges for the transportation of any 
 freight, against any person or place, and 
 any such discrimination is unlawful, and 
 subjects any railroad corporation so do- 
 ing to a penalty of $500," is not an alle- 
 gation of fact, but of a conclusion of law, 
 and should have been stricken out as 
 such, but the refusal to do so was harm- 
 less error. New York, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gallaher, 79 Tex. 685, 15 S. W. 694. 
 
 83. Allegation sufficient to show dis- 
 crimination by one express company 
 against another. — Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 State, 161 Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033. 
 
 84. Actions for penalty for overcharge 
 in passenger rates — What allegations es- 
 sential. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. f. Cook, 
 37 O. St. 265. 
 
 85. Nellis v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 30 N. Y. 505. 
 
 86. Petition held not to state a cause 
 of action. — The Missouri statute, Rev. 
 St. 1889, § 2639, provides that railroad 
 corporations shall print schedules show- 
 ing the rates of freight established by 
 them, not to exceed the maximum rates 
 established by law; that copies shall be 
 posted in every depot, and filed with the 
 railroad commissioners; and that from 
 the date of such filing tlie rates sched- 
 uled shall not be in excess of statutory 
 maximum rates thereafter in force, and 
 shall be deemed the established rates un- 
 til changed as provided l)y this act. Sec- 
 tion 2631 provides that all railroads of
 
 169 
 
 CONTROr, AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 254-256 
 
 imposed for noncompliance with an order of the railroad commission fixing 
 freight rates, if the defendant was entitled to notice of the petition to the com- 
 mission asking for the revision and fixing of rates, and an opportunity of being 
 heard before the commission, the declaration must allege that it had such notice 
 and opportunity.^' In an action against a railroad company for charging an il- 
 legal freight rate, it is not necessary to allege in the declaration that the rates 
 prescribed by the statute, fixing the rates of toll on railroads, applies to the de- 
 fendant, or that ditYerent rates have not been prescribed by law.^** In an action 
 against a railroad company to recover the penalty prescribed for collecting greater 
 freight charges than those stipulated in the bill of lading, if the bill of lading 
 provides, "weight and classification subject to correction," plaintitt must allege 
 that tlie freight charges specified therein were based on the actual weight of the 
 freight.^'-' 
 
 § 2 55. In Actions for Penalty for Unjust Discrimination between 
 Shippers. — Where a statute provides that no liability shall attach for the making 
 of any charge which is authorized by the tarift' of charges approved by the rail- 
 road commission and also prohibits unjust discrimination between shippers, there 
 may be unjust discrimination between ship])ers, though the charges are not in 
 excess of the rate ajjproved by the commission ; and hence in a petition to 
 recover the penalty prescribed for unjust discrimination, it is not necessary to 
 allege that the rate charged was higher than the maximum rate allowed by the 
 commission.^" 
 
 § 2 56. In Actions for Penalty for Refusal to Receive or Transport 
 Freight. — In an action against a carrier to recover the statutory penalty fur re- 
 fusal to receive merchandise for transportation, the complaint must contain a 
 sufficient allegation of a tender of the merchandise.^^ In an action by railroad 
 commissioners against a railroad company to recover a penalty for a violation of 
 
 the state shall be common carriers, and 
 prohibits unreasonable charges. Section 
 2643 provides tiiat on violation of these 
 sections the person injured may recover 
 three times the amount of damages sus- 
 tained. Held, in an action to recover 
 penalties for charging plaintifif unreason- 
 able rates on coal shipped by him over 
 defendant railroad company's line, that a 
 petition which failed to allege that the 
 rates charged were in excess of the rates 
 fixed by defendant and filed with the 
 railroad commissioners and posted in de- 
 fendant's depots, and which also failed 
 to state that the charges were in excess 
 of the maximum rates fixed by the rail- 
 road commissioners or by the statute, 
 stated no cause of action. McGrew v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 114 Mo. 210, 21 S. 
 W. 463. 
 
 87. Declaration held insufficient on de- 
 murrer. — In the record of hearings be- 
 fore the board of railroad commissioners 
 on a petition asking for the revision and 
 fixing of tariff rates for the forwarding 
 of milk over a railroad, there was noth- 
 ing to indicate that the railroad had no- 
 tice of the petition, or an opportunity of 
 being heard before the board. In an ac- 
 tion against the railroad to recover a 
 penalty, under the Massachusetts stat- 
 ute. Pub. St., c. 112, § 194, for noncom- 
 pliance w-ith the order of the board, 
 there was no allegation in the declara- 
 tion to show tliat the defendant had such 
 
 notice or opportunity to be heard. Held, 
 on demurrer, that, while from what oc- 
 curred at the argument the court might 
 suppose that the defendant was before 
 the commissioners, yet it could not go 
 outside of the record before it. and that 
 the order was invalid for want of a no- 
 tice to the defendant. Littlefield f. Fitch- 
 l)urg R. Co., 158 Mass. 1, 32 X. E. S.Ji). 
 
 88. Allegations held to be unnecessary. 
 — Hart :•. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 6 W. 
 Va. 336. 
 
 89. Necessary to allege that charges 
 were based on actual weight of freight. 
 — Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. Lcionie, S4 Tex. 
 259, 19 S. \V. 385. following Sabine, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Cruse, S3 Tex. 460. IS S. \V. 753. 
 
 90. Unnecessary to allege that rate 
 charged was higher than maximum al- 
 lowed. — Roberts v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 115 .\rk. 249, 130 S. \V. 531. construing 
 act of 1887 (Kirby's Dig., §§ 6722. 6725). 
 read in pari materia with the act of 
 March 11. 1S90 (Acts ISOO. p. 82). 
 
 91. Allegation of tender held sufficient. 
 — In an action under the North Carolina 
 statute, a ^complaint alleging a tender at 
 defendant's regular depot at a specified 
 place on May 2, 1903, and that the de- 
 fendant for two successive daj-s. to wit, 
 "on Maj- 8 and 9, 1903, failed and refused 
 to receive the same." was held to con- 
 tain a sufficient allegation of tender. Cur- 
 rie V. Raleigli, etc., R. Co., 135 N. C. 535, 
 47 S. E. 654.
 
 §§ 256-260 CARRIERS. 170 
 
 a rule of such commissioners in refusing to transport freight offered to defend- 
 ant, where the declaration and the order of such commissioners attached thereto 
 fail's to set forth the point of destination to which defendant refused to transport 
 the freight, or that such point of destination is within the state, a demurrer is 
 properly sustained thereto.^- But the failure of such order to show the point of 
 destination is cured by a proper allegation in the declaration.'*!^ 
 
 § 2 57. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. 
 
 —Where an action is brought for a penalty prescribed for delaying shipments by 
 sidetracking in transit, a demurrer is properly sustained, wdiere the declaration 
 does not allege that the delay sued on was caused by such sidetracking. ^^ 
 
 § 2 58. In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Double-Decked 
 Cars for Sheep. — A petition in an action against a railroad company to recover 
 a penalty prescribed for failure to furnish double-decked cars for sheep, on re- 
 quest, need not state that the point to which plaintiff's sheep were to be shipped 
 was a station on the defendant's road, where it alleges that "the defendant was 
 conducting a general passenger and freight business over the line of its railroad" 
 between the point of shipment and the point of destination. ^^ 
 
 § 2 59. Unnecessary Allegations May Be Rejected as Surplusage.— In 
 
 an action against a carrier to recover the penalty imposed for violation of a stat- 
 utory regulation, unnecessary allegations in the petition may be rejected as sur- 
 plusage, and will not vitiate the pleading.^^^ 
 
 §§ 260-263. Answer— Sufficiency— § 260. In Actions for Penalty for 
 Overcharge. — In an action against a railroad company to recover a statutory pen- 
 alty for overcharging passengers, an answer attacking the statute as unconstitu- 
 tional, in that by its terms the carrier would be obliged to operate its railway at a 
 loss, is insufficient to raise the constitutional ciuestion, unless it shows that the 
 rate fixed is unreasonable.^" An allegation that a rate of passenger fare as fixed 
 by statute is unreasonable, in that the cost of transporting passengers exceeds the 
 rate, is insufficient to present the question whether the statute is constitutional, 
 because it does not show that the statutory rate makes a profit on the carrier's 
 aggregate business impossible.^'^ An answer alleging that an overcharge was made 
 
 92. Effect of failure to state point of gaged in such business to be common 
 destination. — State z: Atlantic, etc., R. carriers, and authorizes them to carry on 
 Co., 50 Fla. 601, 47 So. 387. trade, and to sue and be sued, by the 
 
 93. State v. Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 56 name adopted by the copartnership; and 
 Fla. 670, 47 So. 986. hence an allegation, in an action for the 
 
 94. Action for penalty for delaying penalty, that the company discriminated 
 shipments by side tracking — Declaration against was incorporated, when it was 
 insufficient.— Keystone Lumber Yard v. not, may be rejected as surplusage. Ad- 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 94 Miss. 192, 47 So. ams Exp. Co. v. State, 161 Ind. 328, 67 
 803. N. E. 1033. 
 
 95. Petition in action for penalty for A petition, in an action against a rail- 
 failure to furnish double-decked cars. — road company to recover the penalties 
 Emerson f. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., Ill prescribed by the Missouri statute, Rev. 
 Mo. 161, 10 S. W. 1113. St., §§ 833-835, for overcharges, is not 
 
 96. Unnecessary allegations rejected as rendered invalid by stating the maximum 
 surplusage. — Under the Indiana statute, rate to be less than that fixed by law. 
 Acts 1901, p. 149 (Burns' Rev. St. 1901, Reynolds v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 85 
 § 3312b, et seq.), prohibiting unjust dis- Mo. 90. 
 
 crimination by an express company 97. Answer must show that rate pre- 
 
 against any other company engaged in scribed is unreasonable. — Missouri Pac. 
 
 the same business, and prescribing a R. Co. v. Smitli, 60 Ark. 221, 29 S. W. 
 
 penalty for its violation, recoverable by 752. 
 
 the state, the company discriminated 98. Allegation insufficient to present 
 
 against need not be incorporated, as question whether statute is constitutional. 
 
 Acts 1879, p. 146, relating to foreign ex- — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Smith, 60 Ark. 
 
 press companies, declares all copartner- 221, 29 S. W. 752. 
 
 ships, associations, and companies en- Thus, in an action against a railroad
 
 171 
 
 CONTROL AND RFXULATION. 
 
 §§ 260-264 
 
 througli mistake as to the distance between the stations on defendant's road be- 
 tween which plainlilT traveled is insufficient on demurrer. ■•'• 
 
 § 261. In Actions for Penalty for Unlawful Discrimination in Rates.— 
 In an action by a shipper against a railroad company to recover the penalty pre- 
 scribed for unlawful (Hscrimination in rates, an answer which sets up as a de- 
 fense a contract between the defendant and the shipper in whose favor the alleged 
 discrimination was made, is insufficient as a defense if it fails to allege that such 
 shipper performed his obligation under the contract in consideration of which the 
 alleged (hscrimination was made.' 
 
 § 262. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for a penalty jirescribcd for delay in traii>]>orting 
 
 freight, an answer alleging that owing to the unusual conditions it was difficult to 
 secure help in railroad offices, is subject to exception, in the absence of any 
 allegation of how that fact contributed to the delay ; - and in such an action, an 
 answer alleging that there was great prosperity in the country at the time, and 
 that trade conditions demanded a larger number of cars than had ever been re- 
 quired, is demurrable, in the absence of any allegation of how the ability of de- 
 fendant to move freight was thereby affected.-"^ 
 
 § 263. In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Cars.— In an action 
 against a carrier for the penalty prescribed for failure to furnish cars after de- 
 mand, an answer failing to allege facts showing that the carrier had performed its 
 duty of providing a sufficient number of cars to meet the ordinary needs of its 
 business,' which it could reasonably anticipate, or that the scarcity of cars and 
 existing demands for them were the result of circumstances beyond its power 
 reasonaldy to control and provide against, is demurrable.-* 
 
 §§ 264-272. Evidence— §§ 264-267. Presumptions and Burden of 
 Proof— § 264. In Actions for Penalty for Overcharge.— In an action against 
 a carrier to recover the penalty prescribed for overcharges consisting in the excess 
 of the interstate rate over the rates prescribed by the railroad commission of the 
 
 company to recover the penahy pro- 
 vided for a violation of a statute limiting 
 the passenger rate to three cents a mile, 
 an allegation that the rate fixed is unrea- 
 sonable, in that the actual cost of trans- 
 porting each passenger and his baggage 
 over defendant's road is more than three 
 cents a mile, and that hence defendant is 
 compelled to transport passengers at a 
 loss, is bad on demurrer, it not showing 
 but that the statutory rate permits of a 
 profit on defendant's aggregate business. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Smith, 60 Ark. 
 221, 29 S. W. 752. 
 
 99. Answer alleging overcharge through 
 mistake held insufficient. — Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. c'. Smith, CO Ark. 231. 20 S. \V. 
 752. 
 
 1. Answer in action for penalty for un- 
 lawful discrimination held insufficient. — 
 In an action l)y a sliippcr of coal to re- 
 cover penal damages from a railroad 
 company for unlawful discrimination in 
 rates, the railroad company pleaded in de- 
 fense a certain contract between itself 
 and the coal company in whose favor 
 discrimination was alleged, whereby, in 
 consideration of the release by such com- 
 pany of a certain claim against defendant 
 for damages, and its agreement to fur- 
 
 nish coal to defendant for use in its lo- 
 comotives at cost, or at a maximum price 
 (which was alleged to have proved less 
 than cost), defendant agreed to allow a 
 rel)ate of forty cents per ton in case the 
 coal company's shipments of coal ex- 
 ceeded 200,000 tons annually. Held that, 
 in the aljsence of any allegations that the 
 shipments of coal exceeded 200,000 tons 
 annually, this answer constituted no de- 
 fense. Union Pac. R. Co. z-. Goodridge, 
 149 U. S. 680. 37 L. Ed. 986. 13 S. Ct. 970; 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Taggart. 140 U. S. 
 698. 37 L. Ed. 905. 13 S. Ct. 977. 
 
 2. Answer in action for penalty for de- 
 lay in transporting freight. — Texas Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Hannay-Frerichs & Co.. 104 
 Tex. 603, 142 S. W. 1163, so holding in 
 an action under Rev. St. 1895, art. 4496. 
 
 3. Texas Cent. R. Co. -■. Hannav-Fre- 
 richs & Co., 104 Tex. 603, 142 S. \V. 1163, 
 so holding in an action under Rev. St. 
 1S95. art. 4496. 
 
 4. Answer in action for penalty for 
 failure to furnish cars. — ludgment. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. c'. Allen, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 
 331, 98 S. W. 450. reversed. Allen f. 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co.. 100 Tex. 525. 101 S. W. 
 792, citing Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Barrow 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 94 S. W. 176.
 
 §§ 264-267 CARRIERS. 172 
 
 state, the burden of proving that the shipment was a domestic shipment is on the 
 plaintiff.-^ In an action against a railroad company under a statute which makes 
 the company hable for a penalty, where it collects greater freight charges than 
 those stipulated in the bill of lading, if the bill of lading provides "weight and 
 classification subject to correction," the plaintiff must allege and prove that the 
 freight charges specified therein were based on the actual weight of the freight.^* . 
 
 § 26 5. In Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Rates.— Where a 
 common carrier of goods discriminates in its rates, it will l)e presumed thatthe 
 person injured is the shipper who actually paid the freight.' A statute, prohibit- 
 ing a railroad company from charging more for a short haul than for a longer 
 haul, and making all such discriminating rates prima facie evidence of the 
 unjust discriminations prohibited by the act, does not prohibit discriminations 
 made in good faith because of differences in expenses of carriage and propor- 
 tioned with reference thereto, but a railroad relying thereon must prove that a 
 greater charge for a short haul than for a longer haul is not unjust discrim- 
 ination. ^ 
 
 § 266. In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Receive and Transport 
 Freight.— In an action against a carrier for the penalty for failure to receive 
 and transport an interstate shipment, plaintiff does not have to show that de- 
 fendant has filed and published its schedule of freight rates as required by law, 
 defendant being presumed to have complied with the law.-^ 
 
 § 267. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. 
 — In an action against a railroad company for the penalty imposed, for a delay 
 in the transportation of goods, the burden of showing that the time for the 
 transportation was unreasonable rests on plaintiftV*' but he makes a prima facie 
 case by showing that the carrier neglected to transport the freight within the 
 ordinary time required. ^^ Where delay is shown, the burden is on the defend- 
 ant to show that such delay was not negligent.^- Where by the terms of the 
 statute the carrier is relieved from liability if the goods are "burned, stolen or 
 destroyed" without its fault, it has the burden of proving such defense. Mere 
 proof of loss in such case raises a presumption of negligence. ^'^ Where a 
 
 5. Burden of proving shipment was a more, etc., R. Co., 246 111. 474, 92 N. E. 
 domestic shipment. — GuU', etc., R. Co. v. 934, construing Hurd's Rev. St. 1909, c. 
 Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. 114, § 126. 
 
 W. 419; S. C, 7.3 vS. W. 845. 9. Carrier presumed to have filed and 
 
 6. Burden of proving that charges were published freight rates. — Burlington Lum- 
 based on actual weight of freight.— Gulf, ber Co. r. Southern R. Co., 152 N. C. 70, 
 etc., R. Co. r. Loonie, 84 Tex. 259, 19 S. 07 S. K. 107. 
 
 W. 385, following Sabine, etc., R. Co. v. iq. Burden of proving that time for 
 
 Cruse. 83 Tex. 400, ]8 S. W. 755. transportation was unreasonable. — Alex- 
 
 7. Presumption that person injured is andcr r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 144 N. C. 
 shipper who actually paid the freight. — 93^ r^o g jr. 697, and Jenkins v. Southern 
 Central Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. r, Co, 146 N. C. 178, 59 S. E. 663, con- 
 (lowa), 135 N. W. 721. struing Revisal 1905, § 2632. 
 
 8. Effect of statute relating to discrim- ^^ p^.^^^ j^^j^ ^^^^ ^^^e by showing 
 ination between long and short haul neglect to transport within ordinary time. 
 People v. Baltmiore, etc.,_R. Co., 246 111. _je„i,i„s ,, Southern R. Co., 146 N. C. 
 474, 92 ^. E. 934 construing Kurds Rev. ^ g p ggg construing Revisal 1905, 
 St. 1909, c. 114, § 126. o 0630 
 
 Under such a statute, where a railroad ,„'"„, r u • a ^ -,0 ««4. 
 
 company charged with unjust discrimi- 12-. Burden of showing delay was not 
 
 nation in charging a larger freight for "^S^?^"*-tT"o^^% ^^ Vn/v.v°' /i. ^Js 
 
 hauling a shorter distance than is ^^^y-.^^'i'^Ji^ & P°v ^'^i ^^^: f^^'. j^f 
 
 charged for hauling a greater distance at &• W. 1103, construing Rev. St. 1895, art. 
 
 the same time over the same line did not 4496. 
 
 deny the facts and offered no explana- 13. Burden upon carrier to prove goods 
 
 tion, a prima facie case of unjust discrim- were burned, stolen or destroyed. — Rob- 
 
 ination was made by the mere proof of ertson v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 148 N. C. 
 
 the charge warranting a verdict against 323, 62 S. E. 413, construing Revisal 1905, 
 
 the railroad company. People v. Balti- § 2632.
 
 173 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGULATION. 
 
 §§ 267-271 
 
 written bill of lading acknowledging the receipt of a car is admitted in evidence, 
 the carrier is presumed to have known what it was doing when it accepted the 
 car, and it can not be heard to say that it did not have possession thereof at the 
 time it issued the bill of lading.'-* 
 
 §§ 268-271. Admissibility— § 268. In Actions for Penalty for Over- 
 charge. — ^Where a railroad company authorized the drayman, delivering to the 
 consignee goods carried by the company, to collect the charges, the drayman's 
 testimony that the consignee, on paying the charge, said he thought it was too 
 high, is admissible in an aclion by the consignee to recover a statutory penalty 
 for overcharge.''' 
 
 § 269. In Actions for Penalty for Discrimination in Rates. — In an 
 
 action against a carrier to recover the penalty prescribed for discrimination in 
 rates, evidence to be admissible must be relevant to the issues involved.'" 
 
 § 2 70. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. 
 — In an action against a carrier to recover the penalty prescribed for delay in 
 the transportation of freight, evidence not relevant to the issues involved is not 
 admissible,'" but evidence of any circumstances which contributed to produce 
 the delay in spite of ordinary diligence on the part of the carrier is admissible 
 to disprove negligence.''* 
 
 § 271. In Actions for Penalty for Failure to Furnish Cars. — In an 
 
 action against a railroad company for the penalty prescribed tor failure to fur- 
 nish cars for freight tendered, if the company complied with its duty to fur- 
 nish facilities for the transportation of goods, in the ordinary conduct of its 
 Inisiness, it is relevant to prove that at the time of the demand, the general 
 movement of freight through the country traversed by the company's lines, was 
 unusually large and more than was normally to have been expected, and that 
 therefore it could not comply with the demand for cars.''' In such an action. 
 
 14. Presumption that carrier had pos- 
 session of car when it issued bill of lad- 
 ing. — Sandford r. Seaboard, etc., Rail- 
 way. 71) S. C. r,i9. r,i S. K. 74. 
 
 15. Evidence of drayman authorized to 
 collect charges. — l'\iller f. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 31 Iowa 187. 
 
 16. Evidence held relevant. — In an ac- 
 tion again.st a railroad company under 
 the Texas statute, to recover the penalty 
 for discriminating in freight charges, it 
 appeared that, on Deceml)er 12th, plain- 
 tiff shipped a car load of lumber, for 
 which defendant charged him twelve and 
 one half cents per one hundred pounds, 
 while the person in whose favor defend- 
 ant was alleged to liave discriminated 
 was charged eight cents per one hundred 
 pounds on a car load of lumber shipped 
 by him on December 8th, from and to 
 the same points. Held, that a letter, 
 written on December 9th, l>y defendant's 
 freight agent to plaintiff, in which the 
 writer says, "as regards giving rebate on 
 your shipments, I would say that we 
 have published rates on lumber, copies 
 of whicli are on file with tlie commis- 
 sioner of the Texas Traffic .\ssociation. 
 As we are oliliged by agreement to main- 
 tain rates, you will see how utterly im- 
 possible it is for us to go into the rebate 
 business," is relevant and admissible, as 
 
 tending to show that defendant had not 
 changed its freight rates between Decem- 
 ber 8th and 12th. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Gallaher, 79 Tex. 68.5, l.') S. W. C94. 
 
 17. Evidence held irrelevant. — In an 
 action under the North Carolina statute, 
 Revisal 1905, § 26.32, it is not relevant to 
 the inquiry whether or not defendant 
 knew the facts which gave plaintiff the 
 right to sue. Cardwell v. Southern R. 
 Co., 146 N. C. 218, 59 S. E. 673. 
 
 In such an action evidence that plain- 
 tiff told defendant's agent that plaintiff 
 was shipping the goods to be sold on ac- 
 count, and that he could get no money un- 
 til the goods were sold, is not relevant to 
 tiie inquiry, since, when plaintiff estab- 
 lishes that he is the part}' aggrieved, it 
 bears in no way upon his demand or de- 
 fendant's obligation, whether defendant 
 knew who was the party aggrieved, either 
 at the inception of the matter or at any 
 other time. Rollins 7'. Seaboard, etc., 
 Railroad, 146 N. C. 153. 59 S. E. 671. 
 
 18. Evidence admissible to disprove 
 negligence. — Texas Cent. R. Co. i: Han- 
 nav-lM-orichs & Co., 104 Tex. 603, 142 S. 
 W. 11 ••-3. 
 
 19. Evidence that movement of freight 
 was unusually large. — Southern R. Co. f. 
 Atlanta Sand, etc., Co., 135 Ga. 35, 68 S. 
 E. 807.
 
 ;§ 271-272 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 174 
 
 evidence of defendant's animosity toward the consignee is admissible as strength- 
 ening plaintiff's theory that defendant refused to furnish cars, but the cause of 
 such animosity is immaterial.-" It is not competent for defendant to show pre- 
 vious delav of the intended consignee in unloading similar shipments, the car- 
 rier's remedy being not against the shipper but against the consignee for dam- 
 age. -^ The' exclusion of a bond entered into by plaintiff with the consignee 
 for the performance of the contract for shipment, is not error where the contract 
 is otherwise established.-- \Miere the records kept in the train dispatcher's 
 office show the number of cars ordered during the time in question and no 
 eff'ort is made to produce them or excuse offered for not doing so, there is no 
 error in excluding the testimony of the train dispatcher to show the number 
 of cars ordered, the witness stating that he can not give the number from mem- 
 ory anywhere near accurately.-^ Evidence is properly excluded where there 
 is no pleading to warrant its admission.-'* 
 
 § 272. Weight and Sufficiency. — In the appended note will be found 
 numerous decisions of the courts as to the weight of the evidence and its suf- 
 ticiency to prove particular facts in actions to recover the statutory penalty pre- 
 scribed for an overcharge in passenger rates -'' or in freight rates -'^ or for any 
 
 20. Evidence of carrier's animosity to- 
 ward consignee. — Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 561, 45 S. W. 2, 
 43 L. R. A. 225, reversing 40 S. W. 431. 
 
 Declarations of conductor. — Declara- 
 tions of a conductor while switching cars 
 for loading showing carrier's determina- 
 tion to furnish no cars for plaintiff's ship- 
 ments to a certain consignee, are admis- 
 sible. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 
 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225, 
 reversing 40 S. W. 431. 
 
 21. Evidence of previous delay of con- 
 signee in unloading inadmissible. — Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 
 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225, reversing 40 
 S. W. 431. 
 
 22. Bond between plaintiff and con- 
 signee for performance of contract for 
 shipment. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Camp- 
 bell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 
 225. 
 
 23. Testimony of train dispatcher to 
 show number of cars ordered. — Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 
 571, 79 S. W. 614, affirmed in 98 Tex. 635, 
 no op. 
 
 24. No pleading to warrant admission 
 of evidence.— Where the answer of the 
 defendant did not allege facts showing 
 that it had performed the duty laid upon 
 it by law of providing a sufficient number 
 of cars to meet the ordinary needs of its 
 business, which it could reasonably an- 
 ticipate, nor that the scarcity of cars and 
 the existing demands for them were the 
 result of circumstances beyond its power 
 reasonably to control or provide against, 
 and was therefore demvirrable, evidence 
 offered to show the facts alleged in the 
 answer was properly excluded, there be- 
 ing no pleading to warrant its admis- 
 sion. Allen V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 100 
 Tex. 525, 101 S. W. 792, affirming 42 
 Tex. Civ. App. 331. 
 
 25. Overcharge in passenger rates. — In 
 
 an action against a carrier for the penalty 
 imposed by Arkansas statute, Kirby's 
 Dig., § 6620, for charging excessive pas- 
 senger fare, evidence held to justify a 
 verdict against the carrier. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Young, 102 Ark. 599, 145 S. W. 
 203. 
 
 In an action to enforce the penalty for 
 overcharges, on the issue whether defend- 
 ant (M. P. Co.) operated a certain rail- 
 road, the only testimony was that of two 
 employees of the I. M. Co., that they 
 used blanks for bills of lading, etc., ap- 
 parently prepared for use of defendant, 
 but they did not state that the blanks 
 were used when the overcharges were 
 made; that, as far as they knew, they 
 were furnished by the I. M. Co.; and that 
 the passenger tickets and baggage checks 
 appeared to have been prepared for the 
 I. M. Co. They were employed and paid 
 by the I. M. Co. One of them testified 
 that he had received notice that the road 
 would be operated by defendant, but he 
 did not state when the notice was given. 
 Defendant and the I. M. Co. were shown 
 to be distinct corporations, and the road 
 had been leased by a third company to 
 the I. M. Co., and the blanks were printed 
 l)y defendant and furnished the lessee as 
 a matter of economy. Held, insufficient 
 to show that defendant operated the road 
 either jointly or with others. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Wright, 65 Ark. 631, 47 
 S. W. 557. 
 
 The M. Railroad Company is not shown 
 to have operated the L. Railroad, when 
 plaintiff was illegally charged for trans- 
 portation over the latter, by evidence that 
 the S. Railroad Company acquired the 
 greater part of the stock of the L. Rail- 
 road Company, and that the M. Railroad 
 Company acquired the greater part of the 
 stock of the S. Railroad Company, and
 
 175 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION, 
 
 !§ 272-274 
 
 unlawful discrimination in rates,-" for refusal to j,(ive trans fers,2« for refusal to 
 receive freij^dit for shiijnient,-"-' and for failure to furnish cars.'*" 
 
 §§ 273-274. Questions of Law and Fact— § 273. In Actions for Pen- 
 alty for Discrimination in Freight Rates.— In an action against a earner 
 for the penalty prescribed for discriniinatii^n in freight rates, if the plaintiff was 
 the consignee of the goods which he purchased, delivered at his plant, the ques- 
 tion whether he suffered damage bv reason of the discriminatory rates is one of 
 fact.31 
 
 § 274. In Actions for Penalty for Delay in Transportation of Freight. 
 
 — In an action a,<;ainst a carrier for the penally imposed, for delay in transport- 
 
 that several of the officers of the two 
 last-named companies were the same; it 
 appearing that the two companies re- 
 mained separate corporations, and that 
 they, by consent, appointed or selected the 
 same persons officers in each company to 
 reduce expenses. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Boiling, 66 Ark. G4(), 48 S. W. 80G. 
 
 On aii issue whetlier a railroad com- 
 pany charged plaintiff more than the fixed 
 statutory rate, the only evidence of the 
 distance between the stations was given 
 by a witness who was not a surveyor, but 
 who measured the railway between the 
 stations with a surveyor's chain of which 
 he did not know the length. He meas- 
 ured the chain, and multiplied the number 
 of feet in a chain by the number of chains 
 in the distance, and divided the product 
 by the number of feet in a mile, which he 
 estimated "something like 5,000 feet, 
 — 5,380." Held, that the evidence as to 
 the distance was not so conclusive as to 
 necessitate a verdict that there had been 
 an overcharge. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Smith, 60 Ark. 221, 29 S. W. 752. 
 
 26. Overcharge in freight rates. — Evi- 
 dence in a shipper's action against a car- 
 rier to recover overcharges and statutory 
 penalty therefor held to sustain a finding 
 tliat a rate made by the railroad com- 
 mission did not apply to the place to 
 which the freight was shipped. Sabine 
 Tram Co. v. Texarkana, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex.), 143 S. W. 143, affirming judgment 
 Texarkana, etc., R. Co. v. Sabine Tram 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 198. 
 
 Under the North Carolina statute. Acts 
 1903, p. 999, c. 590, §§ 1, 2, prescribing pen- 
 alties for making overcharges on freight, 
 the question whether there has been an 
 overcharge depends on whether the 
 amount exacted is "in excess of the rates 
 appearing in the printed tariff of said com- 
 pany or more than is allowed by law," 
 and in an action for the penalties the 
 mere unsworn declaration of defendant's 
 agent that there was an overcharge on 
 the goods is insufficient to sustain a find- 
 ing of an overcharge. Latta Martin Pump 
 Co. V. Southern R. Co., 138 N. C. 300, 50 
 S. E. 686. 
 
 A shipment originating on a railroad in 
 another state was made on a bill of lad- 
 ing accompanying the goods specifying 
 the shipment as a certain number of 
 
 pounds and at a certain rate per hundred, 
 and a domestic road collected only the 
 rate specified in the bill of lading. Held 
 not evidence of an overcharge by the do- 
 mestic road within the North Carolina 
 statute. Latta Martin Pump Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 138 N. C. 300, 50 S. E. 686. 
 
 27. Discrimination in rates.— In an ac- 
 tion against a common carrier for dis- 
 crimination in rates, evidence held suffi- 
 cient to go to the jury on the question 
 whether the alleged discriminatory rates 
 occurred in interstate or local shipments. 
 Central Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc., R Co 
 (lowaj), l.'Jo N. W. 721. 
 
 28. Refusal to give transfers.— The Il- 
 linois statute, Rev. Code Chicago, § 1725, 
 provides that any street railway company 
 rctusing to give transfers as provided by 
 § 1723 shall be liable to a penalty. Evi- 
 dence in an action by the city to recover 
 penalties for refusals to give such trans- 
 fers considered, and held to show that de- 
 fendant corporation was the real bene- 
 ficial owner of the connecting lines, and 
 required to give transfers, though the 
 dry legal title to one of the lines was in 
 another corporation. Chicago Union 
 Tract. Co. z: Chicago. 199 111. 579. 65 N 
 H. 470. 
 
 29. Refusal to receive freight for ship- 
 ment. — Evidence held to present a ques- 
 tion for the jury as to the sufficiency of a 
 shipper's daily tender of freight to a car- 
 rier to entitle him to the statutory pen- 
 alty for refusal to receive the freight for 
 shipment. Wampum Cotton ^lills v. 
 Carolina, etc., R. Co., 150 N. C. 608, 64 
 S. E. 5S6. 
 
 30. Failure to furnish cars. — Evidence 
 considered and held to show no valid ex- 
 cuse for delaj- in furnishing a shipper with 
 cars within a reasonable time, and to af- 
 ford no basis for a charge that if the car- 
 rier used ordinary care and diligence to 
 furnish the cars, and could not furnish 
 them earlier than it did, it would not be 
 liable for damages resulting from the de- 
 lay. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Powell, 34 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 575, 79 S. W. 86, affirmed in 93 
 Tex. 635, no op. 
 
 31. Question whether plaintiff, the con- 
 signee, suffered damage. — Central Trust 
 Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 135 
 N. W. 721, so holding in action for pen- 
 alty prescribed by Code, §§ 2124, 2125.
 
 §§ 274-276 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 176 
 
 ing freight, the court should leave the question of delay and the amount of re- 
 covery to the jury, with proper instructions on the law.=^- Where, in such an 
 action, the carrier had by its bill of lading treated the goods as those of both 
 plaintiffs, and there is testimony in corroboration of their ownership, the issue 
 of ownership is for the jury, though counsel for plaintiff's during the trial in- 
 advertently stated that one of plaintiffs was the sole owner, which statement 
 he withdrew by the consent of the trial judge.-*^ 
 
 § 275. Instructions.— Where, in an action against a carrier for penalties 
 for delay in the transportation of goods, the evidence shows the issuance of a 
 bill of lading on a designated date, acknowledging the receipt of a car on that 
 date, an instruction that the jury in computing the time of delay should count 
 from the time the shipment was actually received by the carrier or was withm 
 its control is properly refused."^-* In an action for the penalty prescribed for 
 negligent delay of a carrier in furnishing a shipper with cars, a charge which 
 seems to be on the weight of evidence in assuming that the delay constituted 
 negligence will not be held error on that account where, in another paragraph, 
 the qiiestion of whether such delay was negligence is treated as one for the de- 
 termination of the jury.'^^ A judgment wall not be reversed because of an 
 erroneous instruction, if the error is in favor of the appellant.-^^ 
 
 §§ 276-292, Offenses by Carriers or Their Agents— § 276. In Gen- 
 eral. There are statutes in a number of the states making carriers or their 
 
 agents w^ho violate certain statutory regulations liable to prosecution by the 
 state. Among the statutory enactments of this character whose validity the 
 courts have been required to determine or whose terms they have been called 
 upon to interpret, are provisions making a carrier liable to prosecution for 
 failing to furnish a suitable waiting room for passengers,^^ or for failing to 
 
 32. Delay and amount of recovery for 
 jury under proper instructions. — So held 
 in an action to recover the penalty pre- 
 scribed by the North Carolina statute, 
 Revisal 1905, § 2632. Shelby Ice, etc., Co. 
 V. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 66, 60 S. E. 
 721; S. C, 147 N. C. 61, 60 S. E. 723; 
 Hamrick Bros. & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 
 146 N. C. 185, 59 S. E. 666. 
 
 Whether goods are transported within 
 a reasonable time, measured by the North 
 Carolina statute, is for the jury. Alex- 
 ander V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 144 N. C. 
 93, 56 S. E. 697; Hamrick Bros. & Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 146 N. C. 185, 59 S. E. 
 666. 
 
 It is for the jury to ascertam whether 
 there had been an unreasonable delay 
 measured by the ordinary lime required 
 for transportation, and how much delay 
 there had been after making due allow- 
 ance to the carrier as provided by the 
 statute, and thus determine the amount 
 due plaintiff, and the judge can not de- 
 cide as a matter of law what amount is 
 due though the jury should believe the 
 evidence, for the jury must decide the 
 time of the delay before the amount of 
 the penalty can be ascertained. Davis v. 
 Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 68, 60 S. E. 
 722. See, also, Jenkins v. Southern R. Co., 
 146 N C. 178, 59 S. E. 663; Wall-Huske 
 Co. V. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 407, 61 
 S. E. 277. 
 
 But the court must define the term, 
 
 "ordinary time required." Jenkins v. 
 Southern R. Co., 146 N. C. 178, 59 S. E. 
 663. 
 
 33. Ownership of goods. — Sandford v. 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway, 79 S. C. 519, 61 
 S. E. 74. 
 
 34. Action for penalties for delay in 
 transportation — Instruction properly re- 
 fused. — Sandford v. vSeaboard, etc., Rail- 
 way, 79 S. C. 519, 61 S. E. 74. 
 
 35. Charge on the weight of evidence — 
 Error cured. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Pow- 
 ell, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 575, 79 S. W. 86, af- 
 firmed in 9S Tex. 635, no op. 
 
 36. Erroneous instruction in favor of 
 appellant not ground for reversal. — In an 
 action to recover a penalty against a rail- 
 road company for discrimination in rates, 
 an instruction that if the jury believe that 
 defendant charged plaintiff a greater rate 
 than it did the other shipper, "for a like 
 quantity of freight of the same class, 
 from the same point to the same point, 
 and in the same direction, and that such 
 charge was unjust and willfully made, 
 then such charge would be unlawful, and 
 you will find for plaintiff," is not ground 
 for reversal because it fails to define what 
 would be an "unjust" charge, if the rail- 
 road company is the appellant. New 
 York, etc., R. Co. v. Gallaher, 79 Tex. 685, 
 15 S. W. 694. 
 
 37. Failure to furnish suitable waiting 
 room for passengers.— Whether a railroad 
 sufficiently complies with the Kentucky
 
 177 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION'. 
 
 § 276 
 
 furnish separate coaches for white and colored passengers,-*^ or making a par- 
 ticuhir officer or agent of tlie carrier Hable to a prosecution for running freight 
 trains on Sunday,"-'' or for faiHng to keep the ticket office at a station open an 
 hour before tlie (lei)arture of a train.-*" ^ 
 
 statute, St. iy03, § 772, requiring railroads 
 to provide a convenient and suitable wait- 
 ing room for passengers, is a question of 
 fact depending upon the size of the city, 
 town, or station wiiere the railroad's 
 trains stop, and the numl)er of passen- 
 gers arriving at and departing therefrom. 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 
 28 Ky. L. Rep. 802, 90 S. W. G02. 
 
 In a prosecution under such statiJte, 
 evidence as to the ventilation and heating 
 of the waiting room in question should be 
 confined to the period of thirty minutes 
 immediately preceding the schedule time 
 of the departure of passenger trains, dur- 
 ing which the railroad is required by Ky. 
 St. 190;5, § 784, to keep the waiting room 
 open and warm. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 802, 90 S. 
 W. r,02. 
 
 38. Failure to furnish separate coaches 
 for white and colored passengers. — The 
 Kentucky statute, St. 1903, § 801, as 
 amended by Act March 15, 1894, provides 
 that the provisions of § 795, requiring all 
 railroads to furnish separate coaches for 
 white and colored passengers, shall not 
 apply to the transportation of passengers 
 in a caboose car attached to a freight 
 train. Ky. St. 1903, § 772a, provides that 
 all railway corporations owning or operat- 
 ing a road exceeding five miles in length 
 shall run at least one passenger train each 
 way daily, provided it may run a mixed 
 train carrying both freight and passen- 
 gers. The only train run by defendant 
 on a certain branch, and the only car in 
 which passengers could ride, was a caboose 
 car, and defendant sold tickets to both 
 white and colored passengers for use on 
 such caboose car. there being no separate 
 compartments therein, or no sign on the 
 car indicating which compartment was in- 
 tended for white or colored passengers. 
 The prosecution contended that, since de- 
 fendant was bound to run at least one 
 passenger train daily, the caboose car in 
 which passengers were hauled must be 
 considered a passenger train so as to re- 
 quire defendant to maintain separate com- 
 partments therein. Held, that the train 
 was simply a freight train with a caboose 
 attached, even though it carried passen- 
 gers, and defendant did not operate any 
 other passenger train on the road, and 
 hence the case was within the exception 
 contained in § 801. and defendant was not 
 liable for failure to maintain separate 
 compartments in such train. Southern 
 R. Co. V. Commonwealth. 33 Ky. L. Rep. 
 430, 110 S. W. 372. 
 
 39. Running freight trains on Sunday. — 
 The Georgia statute. Renal Code, § 420, 
 
 ]jrohibiting the running of freight trains 
 on Sunday is an exercise of the police 
 power of the state for the purpose of pre- 
 venting a violation of the Sabbath. It 
 does not seek to impose a penalty on the 
 corporation for the violation of its pro- 
 visions, but the statute is enforced by the 
 indictment of a particular officer of the 
 corporation, named in the statute, and no 
 other than the one so named can be law- 
 fully convicted. \'aughan v. State, 116 Ga. 
 841, 43 S. E. 249. 
 
 The statute can only be enforced by the 
 indictment of the superintendent of trans- 
 portation of the company, or the officer 
 having charge of the business of that de- 
 partment of the railroad. One who is 
 merely engaged as an employee in the 
 running and operation of the train com- 
 mits no offense under the statute. 
 \aughan v. State, IIG Ga. 841, 43 S. E. 
 249; Craven v. State, 109 Ga. 266, 34 S. E. 
 561. 
 
 In case there are two persons with 
 equal authority in charge of the transpor- 
 tation department the provision for in- 
 dictment might properly be directed 
 against him under whose orders the train 
 was run, but it is not contemplated that 
 two persons occupying different relations 
 to the company shall be equally indict- 
 able. Vaughan v. State, 116 Ga. 841, 43 
 S. E. 249. 
 
 If the act of February 28, 1874 (Code, 
 § 4578), is to be construed as allowing 
 freight trains not carrying live stock to 
 be run in anj' case after eight o'clock on 
 Sunday morning, such running is lawful 
 only when the given train has been ac- 
 tually started on or before the previous 
 Saturday night. A freight train not 
 started on its schedule until 12:50 A. M. 
 of Sunday morning can not be lawfully 
 run either before or after eight o'clock 
 of that day. Jackson v. State, 88 Ga. 
 787, 15 S. E. 905. 
 
 It is not justification for the running 
 of a freight train on Sunday that the 
 company has issued general rules and or- 
 ders to its employees not to do so, with- 
 out also showing either directly or by 
 circumstances, such as calling upon em- 
 ployees to account for their misconduct, 
 that in the particular instance the rules 
 or orders were violated without the sanc- 
 tion or connivance of the officer indicted, 
 that officer being one of those whose duty 
 it was to control the running of the train 
 in question. Heard v. State, 92 Ga. 477, 17 
 S. H. S.-.7. 
 
 40. Failure to keep ticket office at sta- 
 tion open. — A railroad ticket agent is not 
 guiltv. under Code, § 2359, for failing to 
 
 1 Car— 12
 
 §§ 277-278 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 178 
 
 § 277. Overcharge or Discrimination. — At common law it is an in- 
 dictable offense for a common carrier to unjustly discriminate between mem- 
 bers of the public ;-*i and bv constitutional provision or statute in a number of 
 the states common carriers' are made liable to prosecution for an overcharge 
 or unlawful discrimination.-- A statute making it a misdemeanor for a car- 
 rier to charge more than a fixed sum for transportating excess baggage, is not 
 violated by a carrier's knowingly accepting merchandise as baggage, and trans- 
 portincr it as such, and charging therefor a rate exceeding the maximum amount 
 allowed for carrving excess baggage.-'^ A joint trafhc arrangement, by which 
 connecting carriers haul from a point on one road to a point on the other road 
 for less than the first carrier charges from the same point on its road to its 
 terminus, between the points, is not in violation of a statute, making it an of- 
 fense for a carrier to charge more for hauling for a shorter than for a longer 
 distance "over the same line" in the same direction, the shorter being included 
 in the longer distance.-*-* In ignoring an unconstitutional statute limiting its 
 charges for transportation of passengers and appealing to equity for protection 
 against criminal proceedings to compel compliance therewith, a railroad com- 
 pany relies on the principle allowing an injured person under some circum- 
 stances to redress by his own hands the wrong done.^-'' 
 
 § 2 78. Carrying More than a Prescribed Number of Passengers.— 
 A municipal ordinance requiring a street-railway company to report to the city 
 quarterlv the number of trips made, and number of passengers carried, and 
 punishing by fine the carrying of more than 18 passengers on the average, is 
 a regidation reasonable in its nature, and is binding and valid.^'-^ 
 
 keep his office open at the station an hour 
 before the departure of a train coming 
 at an early hour, where the company did 
 not sell tickets at the station for such 
 train, but permitted the passengers to 
 pay regular ticket fare on the train, and 
 had given notice to the public of such 
 practice. Brady v. State, 83 Tenn. (15 
 Lea) 628. 
 
 41. Unjust discrimination indictable of- 
 fense at common la-w. — Garrison v. South- 
 ern R. Co., l.-iO X. C. .J7.5, 04 S. E. 578. 
 
 42. Unjust discrimination an indictable 
 offense. — Under the North Carolina stat- 
 ute, Revisal 1905, § .3749, it is an indictable 
 offense for a common carrier to unjustly 
 discriminate between members of the pub- 
 lic. Garrison v. Southern R. Co., 150 N. 
 C. 575, 64 S. E. 578. 
 
 Discrimination in rates where condi- 
 tions are the same.— Section 217 of the 
 Kentucky Constitution, providing that the 
 attorney general shall institute proceed- 
 ings to enforce the provisions of § 215, 
 prohibiting common carriers from making 
 a discrimination in rates where the con- 
 ditions are the same does not exempt a 
 carrier from indictment for a violation 
 of those provisions. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 108 Ky. 628, 22 
 Ky. L. Rep. 328, 57 S. W. 508. 
 
 There can not be a violation of § 315, 
 unless different charges be made for 
 transporting freight of the same class 
 from and to the same points and "upon 
 the same condition." Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 105 Ky. 179, 
 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1099, 48 S. W. 416, 43 L. 
 R. A. 550. 
 
 Statute applicable though conditions 
 on several lines are not the same. — Rail- 
 road Commission (Laws 1907, p. 93, c. 53, 
 § 48), making it an offense for any rail- 
 road company to collect for carrying one 
 person more than it demands from an- 
 other for a like contemporaneous serv- 
 ice, which omitted the words "under sub- 
 stantially similar circumstances and con- 
 ditions," as used in Interstate Commerce 
 Law (Act Cong. Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 2, 
 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 
 3155]), after which § 48 was patterned, ap- 
 plies to the different lines of an electric 
 railway company, though the conditions, 
 such as the cost of construction, etc., are 
 not the same on the several lines. Port- 
 land R., etc., Co. V. Railroad Comm., 56 
 Ore. 468, 105 Pac. 709, rehearing denied 
 109 Pac. 273. 
 
 43. Charging more than fixed sum for 
 transporting excess baggage.— Kansas, 
 etc., Iv. Co. V. State, 65 Ark. 363, 46 S. W. 
 421, 41 L. R. A. 333, 67 Am. St. Rep. 933, 
 construing Act April 19, 1895. 
 
 44. Charging more for short than for 
 long haul. — Commonwealth v. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1888, 72 
 S. W. 361, construing Ky. St., § 820. 
 
 45. Ignoring unconstitutional statute 
 and appealing to equity for protection 
 against criminal proceedings. — Coal, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Conley, 67 W. Va. 129, 67 S. E. 
 613. ., , 
 
 46. Carrying more than a prescribed 
 number of passengers— Ordinance held 
 valid.— St. Louis v. St. Louis R. Co., 89 
 Mo 44, 1 S. W. 305, 58 Am. Rep. 82.
 
 179 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 §§ 279-283 
 
 § 2 79. Failure to Deliver Express Matter to Consignee. — The Indiana 
 statute, rc(juirin^ express companies to (leli\er express matter to persons "to 
 whom the same is directed, living within" the limits of cities having a specihea 
 population, is not comi)lied with by a personal delivery to the consignee at the 
 local office.'*'' 
 
 §§ 280-282. Negligence Causing Death or Injury— § 280. In Gen- 
 eral. — In a criminal prosecution of a carrier for negligence causing the death 
 of a passenger, the same rules of evidence and j^rinciples of law a\)\)\y as in 
 an analogous civil action for damages."* ** 
 
 § 281. Who May Be Prosecuted. — A statute providing that, if the life 
 of any person being a passenger shall be lost by reason of the negligence of 
 the proprietor of any railroad, such proprietor shall be liable to fine, applies to 
 all corjjorations owning and running a railroad.^'' 
 
 § 282. Defenses. — In a prosecution of a carrier for negligence causing 
 death the contril)utory negligence of the person killed is a good defense.-"''^ 
 But the fact that the loss of life was caused by the improi)er conduct of third 
 persons, and that the accident would not otherwise have happened, is not a good 
 defense, if the carrier or its servants did not do all that could be done to re- 
 strain such impro])er conduct."'^ A printed indorsement on a season ticket, 
 disclaiming liability for any personal injury to the holder, is no defense to an 
 indictment of the corporation under a penal statute for gross negligence. •"'- 
 
 §§ 283-286. Indictment— § 283. Conditions Precedent to Indict- 
 ment. — Where a constitutional provision or statute prescribes certain condi- 
 tions precedent to the return of an indictment against a carrier for a criminal 
 offense, as that such an indictment can only be found upon the recommenda- 
 tion or request of the state railroad commission, or after such commission has 
 refused to exonerate the carrier, the performance of such conditions are essen- 
 tial to the return of a valid indictment. ^^ 
 
 47. Failure to deliver express matter to 
 consignee. — L'nited States Exp. Co. r. 
 State. 1C)4 Ind. 19G, 73 N. E. 101, constru- 
 ing Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § .3:n2a. 
 
 48. Rules of evidence and principles of 
 law applicable. — On trial of a railroad cor- 
 poration under the Maine statute. Rev. 
 St. 1857, c. 51, § 42, providing that a rail- 
 road company may he prosecuted and 
 fined for carelessly killing a person who 
 is exercising due care, it appeared that 
 deceased took passage from A. to B., hut 
 got ofif at an intermediate station when 
 the train had stopped, and was killed, 
 while attempting to re-enter the cars, by 
 an express train passing on an interven- 
 ing track, and defendant requested the 
 court to charge that, if the track was for 
 the continuous transportation from A. to 
 B., defendant was not bound at any inter- 
 mediate station to furnish ingress and 
 egress to deceased, and the court gave 
 the charge, but said that it would apply 
 only in a civil suit for damages, and had 
 nothing to do with the present prosecu- 
 tion. Held error, on the ground that the 
 same rules of evidence and principles of 
 law apply in such prosecution as in anal- 
 ogous civil actions for damages. State 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 58 Me. 176, 4 Am. 
 Rep. 258. 
 
 49. Statute applicable to all corpora- 
 
 tions owning and running a railroad. — 
 
 Commonwealth t'. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 
 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 512, construing St. 
 1840, c. 80. 
 
 50. Contributory negligence. — State v. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co.. si Mc. S4, 16 Atl. 368. 
 
 But it is no defense to an indictment 
 against a railroad company under the 
 Alassachusetts statute, St. 1874, c. 372, § 
 . 163. providing that if, by reason of the 
 negligence of such a compan}% or of the 
 unfitness or gross negligence of its serv- 
 ants or agents while engaged in its busi- 
 ness, "the life of any person being a pas- 
 senger is lost or the life of any person be- 
 ing in the exercise of due diligence and 
 not being a passenger or in the employ- 
 ment of such corporation, is lost," the 
 corporation shall be punished, that the 
 passenger was not in the exercise of due 
 care. Commonwealth r. Boston, etc.. R. 
 Corp., 134 Mass. 211. 
 
 51. Improper conduct of third persons. 
 — Commonwealth i'. Coburn, i:^2 Mass. 
 555, so holding in a prosecution under 
 Gen. St., c. 160. § 34. 
 
 52. Indorsement on ticket disclaiming 
 liability for injury to holder. — Comnion- 
 wealtli c'. \ ermont. etc., R. Co.. liw Mass. 
 7, 11 Am. Rep. ,501. 
 
 53. Conditions precedent to return of 
 indictment. — As to the validitv and con-
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 180 
 
 § 284 
 
 8 2 84 Necessary Alleg-ations.— An iiulictment of a carrier for an of- 
 fense defined bv constitutional or statutory enactment must allege facts that 
 will constitute the offense as defined by such enactment, nicludmg all its es- 
 sential elements and it must, of course, conform in its allegations to any stat- 
 utory requirement as to indictment.^'' In an indictment against a carrier of 
 
 struction of the terms of certain provis- 
 ions of the constitution and statutes of 
 Kentucky. Const., §§ 217, 218; St., §§ 819, 
 820, see the following cases. Common- 
 wealth V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 112 Ky. 
 75, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1382, 65 S. W. 158; Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 23 
 Ky. L. Rep. 544, 63 S. W. 448; S. C, 23 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1159, 64 S. W. 975; Louisville, 
 etc R. Co. z'\ Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 
 226,' 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1102, 1380, 46 S. W. 
 707, 47 S. W. 210, 598, 43 L. R. A. 541; 
 S. C, 114 Ky. 787, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1593, 
 1779, 71 S. W. 910. 
 
 54. Necessary allegations in indictment 
 for discrimination.— An indictment against 
 a railroad company for an unlawful dis- 
 crimination in the transportation of pas- 
 sengers, alleging the giving of a free pass 
 over its road, does not show an undue 
 preference when it fails to allege that by 
 virtue thereof the holder received free 
 transportation. State v. Southern R. Co., 
 125 X. C. 666, 34 S. E. 527. 
 
 In Kentucky, an indictment against a 
 railroad company for unjust discrimina- 
 tion must allege that the ofifense was will- 
 fully or knowingly committed, as Const., 
 § 217, makes that an essential element of 
 the ofTense. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth (Ky.), 46 S. W. 702. 
 
 As the constitution of Kentucky, § 215, 
 requires a railroad company to charge the 
 same amount of compensation for trans- 
 porting from and to the same points 
 freight of the same class or kind, an in- 
 dictment for violating that section must 
 allege that the freight in question was of 
 the same class or kind, or not of different 
 classes or kinds. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Commonwealth (Ky.), 46 S. W. 702; S. 
 C, 105 Ky. 179, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1099, 48 
 S. W. 416, 43 L. R. A. 550. 
 
 And as such provision further requires 
 that the freight must be hauled on the 
 same conditions, and in the same manner, 
 an indictment for discriminating in charges 
 must allege that the services to the differ- 
 ent persons were on the same conditions. 
 Commonwealth v. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1886, 72 S. W. 360; S. 
 C, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1888, 72 S. W. 361. 
 
 An indictment for violation of such 
 constitutional provision which fails to al- 
 lege that the discriminative rates were 
 charged for services to the different per- 
 sons "upon the same conditions," is fa- 
 tally defective. Commonwealth v. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co., 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1887, 
 72 S. W. 758. 
 
 Thus, an indictment for discrimination, 
 in violation of such provision is bad, 
 where it charges the hauling of freight of 
 
 the same class between the same points 
 for different persons for different charges 
 "and on different conditions." Common- 
 wealth V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 24 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 1888, 72 S. W. 361. 
 
 Necessary allegations in indictment for 
 charging more for short than for long 
 haul. — In an indictment under the 
 Kentucky statute, Ky. St. § 820, _ it 
 is not necessary to state the precise 
 amount charged for the longer dis- 
 tance, or to state the names of the per- 
 sons in whose favor the discrimination 
 was made, it being sufficient to state that 
 the specified amount charged or received 
 for the shorter distance was greater than 
 that charged or received from persons 
 generally for the longer distance. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 104 
 Ky. 226, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1102, 1380, 46 S. 
 W. 707, 47 S. W. 210, 598, 43 L. R. A. 541. 
 Even if it is a condition precedent to 
 such an indictment that the railroad com- 
 mission shall make an investigation, fol- 
 lowed by an order refusing to exonerate 
 accused from the operation of the pro- 
 visions of section 218 of the constitution, 
 an indictment stating the circumstances 
 of the offense, and reciting, "defendant at 
 said time not having been authorized by 
 the railroad commission of this common- 
 wealth to charge less for a longer than 
 for a shorter distance for transportation 
 of coal," is sufficient. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 226, 20 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 1102, 1380, 46 S. W. 707, 47 S. W. 
 210, 598, 43 L. R. A. 541. 
 
 Necessary allegations in indictment for 
 negligence causing death. — Under the 
 Massachusetts statute, St. 1840, c. 80, im- 
 posing a fine on any common carrier by 
 ' whose negligence the life of a passenger 
 is lost, to be recovered by indictment, the 
 indictment must aver that deceased left 
 a widow or heirs, or both, as the case may 
 be, and an averment that defendant is lia- 
 ble to the fine, to the use of the admin- 
 istrator and heirs at law of the deceased, 
 is insufficient. Commonwealth v. Eastern 
 R. Co., 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 473. 
 
 And an indictment under such statute 
 must also allege the taking out of ad- 
 ministration in the state. Commonwealth 
 V. Sandford, 78 Mass. (12 Gray) 174. 
 
 An indictment against a railroad cor- 
 poration under the Massachusetts statute, 
 St. 1874, c. 372, § 163, which imposes a pen- 
 alty on the corporation where, by reason of 
 its' negligence, or of the unfitness or gross 
 negligence of its servants or agents while 
 engaged in its business, the life of any 
 person is lost, alleged that one S. was 
 traveling on the highway, and in the ex-
 
 181 
 
 CONTROL AND RKGULATION. 
 
 §§ 284-287 
 
 passengers for negligence causing death it would not be good pleading to set 
 out in the indictment the evidence which tends to support the charge of neg- 
 ligence, and it is not necessary to allege the specific acts the neglect to do which 
 constitute the negligence charged, if such negligence consists in the omission 
 to perform a general duty and not in the omission to do any particular act or 
 acts.^"' An indictment against a railroad company for an unlawful discrimina- 
 tion in the transportation of passengers, alleging that it transported a passenger 
 free, is sufficient without alleging that there were other passengers on the same 
 train paying fare.''" 
 
 § 28 5. Effect of Unnecessary Allegations. — While an indictment against 
 a railroad company for a violation of a statute requiring railroads to provide 
 suitable waiting rooms and to maintain the same in decent rejjair, is sufficient 
 if it merely charges the railroad with a failure to keep convenient and suitaljle 
 waiting rooms for passengers, yet it is not objectionable because specifying the 
 particulars in which its waiting room was insufficient.'^" 
 
 § 286. Offenses Covered by Indictment. — In a prosecution of a railroad 
 company for failure to maintain separate compartments in its passenger train 
 for white and colored passengers as required by statute, it may not be consid- 
 ered whether defendant has been guilty of a violation of a statute, requiring 
 all railroads to run one passenger train each way daily on the roa<l, even though 
 the agreed facts show that defendant had not complied with the latter statute. 
 The proper manner of proceeding in such case is by indictment under the latter 
 statute.^^'* 
 
 §§ 287-292. Trial— § 287. Jurisdiction.— Where in a statute regulating 
 carriers every transgression of its pro\isions is characterized as an "otiense." 
 the means by which it is to be enforced is described as a "prosecution," the 
 verdict is called a "conviction" and the judgment a "fine," the penalties pro- 
 vided for thereby can be enforced only in a criminal prosecution which is not 
 within the jurisdiction of a court ha\ing no original criminal jurisdiction.'"'' 
 
 ercise of due diligence; that a locomotive 
 engine attached to a freight train was 
 passing the place where the highway 
 crosses the railroad; that a locomotive en- 
 gine was coming in the opposite direction; 
 that, while defendant was thus running 
 the last-named locomotive, it was its duty 
 in approaching the crossing, in view of 
 the position of the first-named locomotive, 
 to reduce its rate of speed, and give 
 proper signals and warnings, but it neg- 
 lected to do so, and, with the last-named 
 engine, ran over and killed S. Held that, 
 as the negligence alleged was that of the 
 servants of the corporation, and not of 
 the corporation itself, the indictment was 
 insufficient. Commonwealth v. Boston, 
 etc., Railroad, 1:^3 Mass. .'?S3. 
 
 55. Allegations not necessary in indict- 
 ment charging negligence causing death. 
 — Commonwealth v. Coburn, 132 Mass. 
 555. 
 
 An indictment under the Massachusetts 
 statute, Gen. St., c. 160, § 34, against a 
 carrier of passengers on a steamboat to 
 recover the penalty therein provided for 
 the loss of life of a passenger, caused by 
 its negligence, alleging that, liy the negli- 
 gence of defendant, the boat was permitted 
 to be defective and unsafe, and furnished 
 with a hurricane deck, which endangered 
 
 the safety of the boat and passengers 
 thereon, and that by defendant's negli- 
 gence the deck was suffered to be, and 
 was, overloaded with passengers, was not 
 insufficient, as failing to allege the evi- 
 dence which tended to support the charge 
 of negligence, or the specific acts the neg- 
 lect to do which constituted the negligence 
 alleged. Commonwealth 7'. Coburn, 132 
 Mass. 5")'). 
 
 56. Indictment for unlawful discrimina- 
 tion in transportation of passengers. — 
 v'^tate r. Southern R. Co., 12.5 X. C. OOr., 
 
 34 S. K. r.2:. 
 
 57. Specification of particulars not ren- 
 dering indictment objectionable. — Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. 7'. Commonwealth, 2S Ky. L. 
 Rep. S02, 90 S. W. r)02, so holding in an 
 indictment for a violation of Kj-. St. 1903, 
 § 772. 
 
 58. Indictment for violation of one stat- 
 ute not covering violation of another stat- 
 ute. — Southern R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 
 33 Ky. L. Rep. 430, 110 S. W. 372. 
 
 59. Jurisdiction. — State v. Union Pac. 
 R. Co.. f.7 Xcl^. 141, 93 N. W. 222; State 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 64 Neb. 679, 90 
 X. W. 877. 
 
 The supreme court of Nebraska having 
 no original criminal jurisdiction had no 
 jurisdiction of a proceeding to recover
 
 §§ 288-290 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 182 
 
 §§ 288-290. Evidence — § 288. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. 
 
 — \\here a railroad company is charged with not having tiled a taritt sheet 
 within the time prescribed by the Corporation Commission, and the evidence 
 shows that the taritY sheet has not been filed, the presumption is that the omis- 
 sion was wilfid."" In a prosecution for violation of a statute prohibiting the 
 running of freight trains on Sunday, if there was any legal excuse or justifi- 
 cation for running the train on that day, the burden of proving the same is on 
 the accused.'^ ^ 
 
 § 28 9. Admissibility. — On the trial of a prosecution against a railroad 
 companv for charging more for a short than for a long haul, the report of the 
 railroad' commission that defendant had been repeatedly guilty of the offense 
 is admissible as evidence. ^'- 
 
 § 290. Weight and Sufficiency. — In the appended note will be found de- 
 cisions of the courts as to the weight of the evidence, and its sufficiency to prove 
 particular facts, in criminal prosecutions of carriers for failure to file a tariff 
 sheet within the time prescribed,'^-^ for running a freight train on Sunday, "^^^ and 
 for negligence resulting in the death of a passenger."'^ 
 
 the penalties prescribed by the laws of 
 1893, ch. 24, § 9, regulating maximum 
 freight rates. State v. Union Pac. R. 
 Co., 67 Xeb. 141, 93 N. W. 222; State v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 64 Neb. 679, 90 N. 
 W. 877. 
 
 60. Presumption that omission to file 
 tariff sheet was willful. — Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. f. State. 3.3 Okla. 371, 125 Pac. 721. _ 
 
 61. Burden of proving excuse or justi- 
 fication for running train on Sunday. — 
 Jackson v. State, 8S Ga. 7S7, 15_S._ E. 90.5. 
 
 62. Report of railroad commission that 
 defendant had been repeatedly guilty of 
 offense admissible. — Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 239, 
 51 S. W. 167. 
 
 63. Evidence justifying finding that fail- 
 ure to file tariff sheet was willful. — Evi- 
 dence held to justify the corporation com- 
 mission in finding that the failure of a 
 railroad company to file a tariff sheet 
 within the time prescribed was willful. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. State, 33 Okla. 
 371. 125 Pac. 721. 
 
 64. Evidence not supporting indictment 
 for running freight train on Sunday. — The 
 indictment Ijcing founded on § 4578 of the 
 Code, and charging the running of a 
 "freight train" on the Sabbath day, and 
 the evidence showing that the train run 
 consisted only of a locomotive and cab, 
 and it not appearing that any freight was 
 carried, offered to l^e carried or invited 
 for carriage, the indictment was not sup- 
 ported by the evidence, a locomotive and 
 cab, when not run for carrying freight nor- 
 intended to be presently used for such 
 carriage, not being a freight train. Mc- 
 Xealy v. State, 94 Ga. 592, 21 S. E. 581. 
 
 65. Some evidence of negligence for 
 jury. — Proof that a passenger was killed 
 in a collision of a train with a hand car 
 which the track master had suffered to 
 be on the track, through a mistake in 
 time occasioned by his failure to observe 
 
 correctly the hour indicated by his watch, 
 held to be some evidence of negligence 
 for the jury. Commonwealth v. Ver- 
 mont, etc., R. Co., 108 Mass. 7, 11 Am. 
 Rep. 301. 
 
 Evidence insufficient to show negli- 
 gence causing death, — A passenger on a 
 train, which was running rapidly at night 
 on a road of frequent and sharp curves, 
 who was last noticed alive while he was 
 passing through a car in which there 
 were vacant seats, about midway of the 
 train, saying or doing nothing to indicate 
 where on the train he was going, or the 
 purpose of going, was found dead the 
 next morning, lying on the track between 
 the rails, his body being in a mutilated 
 condition, at or near the place of a sharp 
 curve in the road. There was at the 
 time a saloon car hitched to the rear of 
 the train, not annexed for the use of pas- 
 sengers, but presumably to be transported 
 to a station on the road. The passen- 
 ger cars were connected closely with one 
 another, but the saloon car was attached 
 to the train in such a manner as to leave 
 an open space between it and the pre- 
 ceding car eighteen inches wide. On an 
 indictment against the company, it was 
 alleged that the passenger, while exer- 
 cising due care, fell through the open 
 space between cars, and was thereby 
 killed by the negligence of the defend- 
 ants. Held, that the court properly di- 
 rected a nonsuit, as the evidence was in- 
 sufficient to establisli the alleged negli- 
 gence of the defendant and that the 
 death of the passenger was caused there- 
 by. State V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 81 Me. 
 84, 16 Atl. 368. 
 
 It is some evidence of negligence on 
 the part of a passenger that he under- 
 takes, in the nighttime, to pass through 
 a train of cars while the train is moving 
 rapidly, unless it may be reasonably in- 
 ferred that he has some excuse for so
 
 183 
 
 COXTROL AND RKGULATIOX. 
 
 §§ 291-294 
 
 § 291. Questions of Law and Fact. — At the trial of an indictment against 
 a railroad conipau} , iukIlt a >laUUc imposing a penalty for negligence in certain 
 cases, the court should not take the case from the jury, on the defendant's mo- 
 tion, where there is more than a mere scintilla of evidence of negligence."'^ 
 
 § 2 92. Charge. — In a ])rosecution of a railroad company for violation of a 
 statutory regulation the charge to the jury must not be misleading.*^'^ Where 
 an indictment against a railroad comi)any for a violation of a statute, requiring 
 railroads to provide convenient and suitable waiting rooms, alleges that the 
 waiting room is too small, not sufficiently ventilated, nor sufficiently lighted, an 
 instruction authorizing a conviction if the waiting room is too small or not suf- 
 ficientlv lighted or ventilated is not subject to the objection of pointing out in 
 an improper manner the evidence that has been introduced.'''' 
 
 §§ 293-298. Offenses by Persons Dealing with Carriers or Using 
 Their Conveyances — § 2 93. In General. — \W statute in some states certain 
 acts by persons dealing with carriers or using their conveyances are made crim- 
 inal or penal offenses. Statutes of this character, the provisions of which have 
 been interpreted by the courts, are enactments making it a misdemeanor for a 
 person to get on any car while in motion to obtain transportation thereon as a 
 passenger,*''' and enactments making an evasion of fare b'y a passenger an in- 
 dictable offense.'" 
 
 § 2 94. Sale of Passenger Tickets by Brokers. — In Xew York it has 
 been held that the sale of a valid passenger ticket by a broker is not a fraud, on 
 
 doing more than mere restlessness or 
 curiosity. State z\ Maine Cent. R. Co., 
 81 Me. S4, ir> Atl. lifiS. 
 
 66. When case should go to jury. — 
 Commonwcaltli :■. l'"itclilnir,^- R. Co., 92 
 Mass. (10 Allen) isi). 
 
 67. Charge held misleading. — In a pros- 
 ecution of a railroad for a violation of 
 Ky. St. 1903, § 772, requiring railroads 
 to provide a suitable waiting room for 
 passengers, a charge authorizing a con- 
 viction if the railroad neglected to pro- 
 vide a waiting room convenient and suit- 
 able "for the accommodation of the 
 passengers and the pul)lic traveling on 
 said railroad passenger trains," was mis- 
 leading, in that it was not restricted by 
 requiring the waiting room to be suffi- 
 cient merely for the passengers who 
 might travel to and from the station in 
 question. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 802, 90 S. W. 
 602. 
 
 68. Instruction not objectionable as 
 pointing out evidence in improper man- 
 ner. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth. 28 Ky. L. Rep. 802, 90 S. \V. (•.02, 
 so hoUHng in a prosecution for violation 
 of Ky. St., 190:?. § 772. 
 
 69. Getting on car in motion to obtain 
 transportation as a passenger. — The Xew 
 York statute, Pen. Code, § 426, subd. 2, 
 making it is a misdemeanor for a person 
 to get on any car while in motion, to ob- 
 tain transportation thereon as a passen- 
 ger, applies to a person seeking to l>oard 
 a car or train unauthorizedly, or intend- 
 ing to obtain transportation as a passen- 
 ger surreptitiously, and not to one who 
 steps on a car while in motion, in good 
 
 faith, intending to become a passenger 
 thereon. Judgment 126 App. Div. 936, 
 110 N. Y. S. 1127, reversed. East v. 
 Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 193 N. Y. 409, 
 88 i\. E. 751. 
 
 70. Evasion of fare. — It is not neces- 
 sary, in order to convict a passenger on 
 a railway car of an evasion of fare, un- 
 der the Massachusetts statute. Pub. St., 
 c. 112, § 197, to show moral turpitude in 
 such act of evasion. Commonwealth t'. 
 Jones, 174 Mass. 401, 54 N. E. 869. 
 
 The charter of a street-railway com- 
 pany required it to give transfers for a 
 continuous ride to any point on its lines. 
 Two lines ran parallel through a street 
 for a short distance to a transfer point, 
 where one of the lines ended. A rule of 
 the company required passengers on the 
 line ending at the transfer point to re- 
 ceive transfers for the other line there. 
 Defendant, knowing the rule, boarded a 
 car on the short line, tendered his fare, 
 and demanded a transfer to the other 
 line immediately, which was refused. He 
 left the car, without paying his fare, be- 
 fore reaching the transfer point, and 
 boarded a car on the continuing line and 
 paid his fare. Held, that he' was guilty 
 of an evasion of fare, within Pub. St.. c. 
 112, § 197, prohibiting persons from leav- 
 ing cars without having paid the fare for 
 the distance traveled, though he had no 
 intention to defraud the company, and, 
 if he had conformed to its rules, would 
 have been entitled to a continuous ride 
 over the route traveled for one fare. 
 Commonwealth r. Jones, 174 Mass. 401, 
 54 N. E. 869.
 
 294-296 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 184 
 
 either the transportation company or the traveler, calHng for protective legisla- 
 tion in the exercise of the police power J ^ But in Texas it has been held that 
 a statute making it a penal offense for any other person than the agent of a 
 railroad company to sell its tickets, is a valid exercise of the police power."- 
 
 § 295. Acceptance and Use of a Pass. — In some states the acceptance 
 and use of a railroad pass is made a criminal or penal offense."'^ Under a stat- 
 ute making it unlawful to use or attempt to use any pass, "which, by conditions 
 expressed thereon, is not transferable," a conviction can not be had for the use 
 of a pass which contains no other restriction as to transferability than the in- 
 dorsement, "if presented by any other person than the person named thereon, 
 the conductor will take up pass and collect fare." ''^ 
 
 § 296. Stealing or Attempting to Steal a Ride on Railroad Trains, — 
 
 The legislature of a state has authority to pass an act making the stealing or at- 
 tempting to steal a ride on railroad trains penal, as a measure conducive to the 
 public safety, whether or not the ride so stolen is a subject-matter of larceny.'''^ 
 The provisions of certain statutes imposing a penalty for this oft'ense have been 
 interpreted by the courts.'^'^ 
 
 71. Power to prohibit sale of passenger 
 tickets by brokers — New York doctrine. 
 — Order 26 App. Div. 22S. 50 X. Y. S. 5(j. 
 reversed. Tyroler v. Warden of City 
 Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006, 1018, 
 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 76.3. 
 
 Laws 1897, c. 506, § 1, prohibiting the 
 sale of passenger tickets by persons not 
 agents of the carrier, is not valid as a 
 police regulation of carriers as quasi pub- 
 lic corporations. Order 26 App. Div. 228, 
 50 N. Y. S. 56, reversed. Tyroler v. War- 
 den of City Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. 
 E. 1006, 1018, 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. 
 Rep. 763. 
 
 Nor is such act valid as a police regu- 
 lation of the manner in which the busi- 
 ness of ticket brokerage may be con- 
 ducted. Order 26 App. Div. 228, 50 N. 
 Y. S. 56, reversed. Tyroler v. Warden 
 of City Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 
 1006, 1018, 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. 
 Rep. 763. 
 
 Laws 1901, c. 639, prohibiting private 
 individuals from selling railroad tickets, 
 and forbidding the officers of a common 
 carrier from supplying tickets for sale to 
 any other than an authorized agent, is 
 not a valid exercise of the power of the 
 legislature to regulate the conduct of a 
 railroad company's business because it is 
 a creation of the legislature and a com- 
 mon carrier. Order 64 App. Div. 46, 71 
 N. Y. S. 654, affirmed. Fleischman v. 
 Caldwell, 168 N. Y. 671, 61 N. E. 1132. 
 
 Nor is such statute valid as a police 
 regulation of the ticket-brokerage busi- 
 ness, since it does not tend to promote 
 the health, comfort, or welfare of society. 
 Order 64 Avp. Div. 46. 71 N. Y. S. 654, 
 affirmed. Fleischman v. Caldwell, 168 N. 
 Y. 671, 61 X. E. 1132. 
 
 72. Texas doctrine. — Jannin v. State, 42 
 Tex. Cr. App. 631, 51 S. W. 1126, 62 S. 
 W. 419, 96 Am. St. Rep. 821, so holding 
 as to Laws 1893, p. 97. 
 
 73. Acceptance and use of a railroad 
 pass. — A contract between a railroad 
 company and a physician, by which he 
 is to receive for professional services 
 rendered by him for the railroad $25 per 
 month, and an annual pass over defend- 
 ant's road, where the physician does not 
 i;pend a major portion of his time in the 
 employment of the company, is prohib- 
 ited by Cobbey's St. 1907, §§ 10,664, 
 10,665, and the acceptance and use of 
 such pass by the physician renders him 
 guilty of a violation of these sections. 
 State 7'. Martyn, 82 Neb. 225, 117 N. W. 
 719. 
 
 74. Use of a nontransferable pass. — 
 Allardt r. People, 197 111. 501, 64 N. E. 
 533, construing Act June 10, 1897. 
 
 75. Power to make stealing a ride on 
 trains penal. — Pressley z'. State, 118 Ga. 
 315, 45 S. E. 395. 
 
 76. Interpretation of statutes penaliz- 
 ing stealing or attempting to steal a ride. 
 — Accused, charged with having stolen a 
 ride on a railroad train in violation of the 
 Georgia statute, having admitted that he 
 concealed himself on the train for the 
 purpose of avoiding the payment of fare 
 and stealing a ride, his conviction was 
 demanded. Pressley r. State, 118 Ga. 
 315, 45 S. E. 395. 
 
 If one conceals himself on a train or 
 in a car for tiie purpose of avoiding pay- 
 ment of his fare, he is guilty of attempt- 
 ing to steal a ride, within the Georgia 
 statute, Van Epps' Code Supp., § 6662, 
 if removed before the journey began, or 
 of actually stealing a ride if he remained 
 in the car until after the journey com- 
 menced. Mack z\ State, 119 Ga. 353, 46 
 S. E. 437. 
 
 But if one should conceal himself in 
 a car for some purpose other than that 
 of avoiding the payment of his fare, he 
 would not be guilty of stealing a ride,
 
 185 
 
 CONTROL AND REGULATION. 
 
 ;§ 297-298 
 
 § 297. Obstructing Train and Endangering Safety of Passengers.— 
 
 An iiulictincnt for obstrucliiig a railroad train, and endangering llie safety of 
 the passengers, can not be maintained against a passenger who, from whatever 
 motive, pulled a signal rope attached to a bell upon the engine, and thereby caused 
 the train to be stopped and the safety of the passengers to be endangered.'" 
 
 § 298. Indictment, Accusation, or Complaint. — Cases passing upon the 
 suttkiency of the in(Hctnient, accusation or complaint in prosecutions for of- 
 fenses by persons dealing with carriers or using their conveyances, will be found 
 in tlic appended note."^ 
 
 within the meaning of such statute. 
 Mack v. State, ll'J Ga. 352, 46 S. E. 437. 
 
 Nor would one be guilty of attempting 
 to steal a ride if he openly entered and 
 remained in a car with no intent to pay 
 his fare. Mack r. State, 119 Ga. 352, 4G 
 S. E. 437. 
 
 Where one without fare or ticket is 
 ordered by the conductor to leave the 
 train, but conceals himself and continues 
 his journey, he is guilty of violating tlie 
 Georgia statute. Acts 1897, p. 116. Braz- 
 zell z: State, 119 Ga. 5r)9, 46 S. E. 837. 
 
 77. Obstructing train and endangering 
 safety of passengers. — Commonwealth r. 
 Killian, 109 Mass. 345, 12 Am. Rep. 714. 
 
 78. Boarding train with intent to ob- 
 tain • free ride — Indictment sufficient. — 
 Under the Texas statute, Pen. Code, art. 
 lOlOh, declaring that any person board- 
 ing a passenger, freight, or other railway 
 train with no lawful business thereon, 
 with intent to oI)tain a free ride, with- 
 out the consent of the- person in charge 
 thereof, shall be guilty, etc., an indict- 
 ment charging that defendant unlawfully 
 boarded a passenger and freight train on 
 a certain railroad was not objectionable 
 for failure to sufficiently charge that "de- 
 
 fendant boarded a railway train." 
 Daugherty z'. State, 41 Tex. Cr. App. 661, 
 56 S. \V. 620. 
 
 Attempting to steal a ride — Accusation 
 sufficient to withstand general demurrer. 
 — An accusati'tn chargiii;^ M. with a mis- 
 demeanor, in tliat he fraudulently con- 
 cealed himself in a car of a railroad com- 
 pany for the purpose of avoiding the pay- 
 ment of fare and stealing a ride, under 
 the Georgia statute. Van Epps' Code 
 Supp., § 6662, was sufficient to withstand 
 a general demurrer. Mack v. State, 119 
 Ga. 352, 46 S. E. 437. 
 
 Avoiding payment of fare — Complaint 
 insufficient. — A violation of the New Jer- 
 sey statute. Revision, p. 912, § 18, cl. 2, 
 forbidding any person who has paid his 
 fare for a certain distance to proceed in 
 any railway carriage beyond such dis- 
 tance without paying fare, and with in- 
 tent to avoid payment thereof, can not 
 be proved under a complaint alleging 
 that the defendant traveled in a railway 
 carriage witliout having previously paid 
 his fare, with intent to avoid payment 
 thereof, in violation of clause 1. Harris 
 V. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 58 N. J. L. 
 282. 33 At). 799.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Rules and Regulations of Carriers. 
 I. Scope of Treatment, § 299. 
 II. Carriers of Goods, §§ 300-306. 
 
 A. General Statement, § 300. 
 
 B. Particular Rules and Regulations, § 301. 
 
 C. Changing or Modifying, § 302. 
 
 D. Operation and Effect as to Carrier, § 303. 
 
 E. Dut)' of Agents to Enforce, § 304. 
 
 F. Waiver of Regulations, § 305. 
 
 G. Proof of Regulations, § 306. 
 
 III. Carriers of Passengers, §§ 307-332. 
 
 A. Right to Make and Enforce Rules and Regulations, §§ 307-318. 
 
 a. In General, §§ 307-311. 
 (1) General Rule, § 307. 
 
 (,2) Soliciting Business in Cars, § 308. 
 
 (3) Use of Station Premises by Local Carriers and Others, § 309. 
 
 (4) Tickets and Fares, § 310. 
 
 (5) Enforcement of Rules and Regulations, § 311. 
 
 b. Must Be Reasonable, § 312. 
 
 c. Must Not Be Contrary to Law, § 313. 
 
 d. Must Not Discriminate, § 314. 
 
 e. Their Reasonableness as Question of Law, § 315. 
 
 f. Their Reasonableness as Mixed Question of Law and Fact, § 316. 
 
 g. Their Reasonableness Question for Jury, § 317. 
 h. Their Sufficiency Is Question for Jury, § 318. 
 
 B. Notice of Rules and Regulations, §§ 319-323. 
 
 a. Passenger's Contract Rights Not Affected by Rules of Which He Was Not 
 
 Chargeable with Notice, § 319. 
 
 b. Duty of Passenger to Inform Himself of Existence of Rules, § 320. 
 
 c. Sufficiency of Publication or Notice, § 321. 
 
 d. Bound by Rules of Which He Was in Ignorance, § 322. 
 
 e. Rules for Conduct of Carrier's Employees, § 323. 
 
 C. Enforcement of Rules and Regulations, §§ 324-326. 
 a. Enforcement Must Be Reasonable, § 324. 
 
 .b. Ejection of Passengers, § 325. 
 c. Enforcement by Punishing Prior Breach, § 326. 
 
 D. Waiver of Rules and Regulations, §§ 327-328. 
 
 a. Habitual Failure to Enforce, § 327. 
 
 b. Passenger's Duty to Conform to Rules as Affected by Lack of Fidelity in 
 Enforcing, § 328. 
 
 E. Contributory Negligence of Passenger in Not Conforming to Rules and Reg- 
 
 ulations, § 329. 
 
 F. Carrier Bound by Its Own Rules, §§ 330-332. 
 
 a. In General, § 330. 
 
 b. Rules Not Required by Law, § 331. 
 
 c. Rules Requiring More of Carrier tlian Law, § 332. 
 
 § 299. Scope of Treatment. — This chapter is intended to include merely 
 the bare right of carriers to make and enforce rules and regulations for the 
 conduct of its business and for the protection of its interests. ' The rights of a
 
 187 
 
 RULES AND RF.GULATIOXS OF CARRIERS. 
 
 §§ 299-300 
 
 carrier with reference to particular rules and regulations will be taken up un- 
 der the ap])roi)riatc chapters.' 
 
 §§ 300-306. Carriers of Goods— § 300. General Statement. — A 
 common carrier of goods, live stock, etc., has power to make and enforce rea- 
 sonable rules and regulations governing the conduct of its own business,- tak- 
 ing into consideration its duty to the public and the convenience of the pub- 
 lic as well as the safety and cx])edition of its business.-* It is well known and 
 understood that railroad companies act only through their agents ; that it is nec- 
 essary for them to adopt rules and regulations for the guidance of such agents; 
 and it is generally understood that persons dealing with such corporations are 
 to be governed by these rules and regulations, if fair and reasonable.-* But a 
 carrier can not make and enforce rules and regulations which are violative of 
 the law, without carrying liability to the persons injured by their enforcement.'^ 
 
 Reasonableness of Rules. — The most vital essential of all rules and regu- 
 lations made b\- carriers lOr the conduct of their business is that they operate 
 reasonably and without discrimination as to shi])pers.*^ If a rule is necessary 
 and indisj^ensable, it is reasonable. It might, indeed, be reasonable without be- 
 ing necessary. But, to be reasonable, it must be reasonable as respects both par- 
 ties.' Rules of carriers, it has been said, are presumptively reasonable and 
 just.'^ But it has also been said that whether or not such rules are in any case 
 reasonable, is a (juestion to be determined according to all the circumstances of 
 the case.-' 
 
 1. Scope of treatment — Rights as to 
 particular rules. — As to rights in rcf>ard 
 to receivin.q goods for shipment, see 
 post, "Duty to Receive and Carry." 
 chapter 4. As to when liability com- 
 mences and as to delivery to carriers, 
 see post, "When Liability Commences," 
 chapter 5. As to rights in regard to 
 bills of lading, see post, "Bills of Lad- 
 ing," chapter 6. As to rights in regard 
 to transportation and delivery, see post, 
 "Transportation and Delivery by Car- 
 rier," chapter 10. As to rights in regard 
 to charges and liens, see post, "Charges 
 and Liens," chapter 15. As to rules and 
 regulations in regard to live stock, see 
 post, "Rights, Duties and Liabilities," 
 chapter 19. As to rules and regulations 
 with reference to passengers, see post, 
 "Carriers of Passengers," part IV. As 
 to rules and regulations made and en- 
 forced by connecting carriers, see post, 
 "Connecting Carriers," part V. As to 
 rules and regulations as affected by the 
 power to regulate and control interstate 
 commerce, see post, "Interstate and In- 
 ternational Commerce," part VI. As 
 to rules and regulations by carriers by 
 water, see post, "Carriers bj' Witer," 
 part VII. 
 
 2. Rules and regulations. — Harp 7'. 
 Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 01 C. C. A. 405. 
 125 Fed. 445, affirming 118 Fed. 169; 
 Robinson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 64 
 C. C. A. 281, 129 Fed. 75.3; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Colby, 69 Neb. 572, 96 N. W. 
 145; Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Moore. 49 
 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98; Piatt v. LeCocq, 
 85 C. C. A. 621, 158 Fed. 723, 15 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 558. 
 
 3. Southern Exp. Co. v. Rose Co., 124 
 Ga. 581, 53 S. E. 185, 5 L. R. A., N. S., 
 
 619; Inman & Co. v. Seaboard, etc., R. 
 Co., 159 Fed. 960. 
 
 4. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Colby, 69 
 Neb. 572. 96 N. \V. 145. 
 
 5. Rules violative of la-w. — Eddy v. 
 Rider, 79 Tex. .-.;5. 15 S. W. 113. 
 
 6. Reasonableness — Discrimination. — - 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. ;■. Colby, (I'.t Neb. 
 572, 96 N. W. 145; Houston etc., R. Co. 
 V. Moore. 49 Tex. 31. 30 Am. Rep. 98. 
 
 A requirement of a railroad company 
 which is not a reasonable one, can not 
 be enforced. Johnson v. Three Hundred 
 and Eighteen, and One-Half Tons of 
 Coal, Fed. Cas. No. 14.010. 14 Blatchf. 
 453, 44 Conn. 548. 
 
 What is a reasonable provision by a 
 carrier for the transportation of coal 
 depends on the facts of each case. State 
 T. White Oak R. Co., 65 W. Va. 15, 64 
 S. E. 630, 28 L. R. A., N. S., 1013. 
 
 7. Johnson v. Three Hundred and 
 Eighteen and One-Half Tons of Coal, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 14,010, 14 Blatchf. 45.-^, 44 
 Conn. 548. 
 
 8. Presumption as to reasonableness. 
 —Piatt V. LcCocq. 85 C. C. A. 621. 158 
 Fed. 723, 15 L. R. .\., N. S.. 558, reversed 
 in 150 Fed. 391. 
 
 Provisions which a carrier had de- 
 termined, before the issuance of an alter- 
 native writ, to compel it to make reason- 
 able provision for the transportation of 
 coal, were proper, will be presumed such 
 as may be required of the carrier, at least 
 until a different showing is made. State 
 V. White Oak R. Co.. 65 W. Va. 15, 64 
 S. E. 630, 28 L. R. A.. N. S., 1013. 
 
 9. Dependent on circumstances. — Texas, 
 etc.. R. Co. :-. Currie. W.i Tex. Civ. App. 
 277. 76 S. W. 810.
 
 §§ 300-301 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 188 
 
 Question of Law or Fact.— The reasonableness of rules and regulations of 
 a common carrier for the reception and classification of freight is a question of 
 law for the court. ^^^ 
 
 § 301. Particular Rules and Regulations.— Stations and Facilities.— 
 In the absence of statutory provision, a carrier's location of necessary stations 
 and facilities is somewhat discretionary with it.^^ 
 
 Separation of Freight and Passengers.— A carrier may make and enforce 
 a reo-ulatioi: for carrying passengers and freight on separate trains if such regu- 
 lation is reasonable and sufficient accommodations furnished for each class.^^ 
 
 Time, Place, and Manner of Receiving.— A carrier may make reasonable 
 ndes in regard to time,!^ place,i-* and manner ^'' of receiving such goods for 
 shipment as it professes to carry. The carrier may provide for receiving one 
 article at one place and require other articles to be delivered somewhere else, 
 so long as the place of receiving is a reasonable one.^® It has been held that a 
 railroad has no right to make and enforce a rule which is one of general con- 
 venience only, and not made necessary by the state of the traffic at that place.i"^ 
 
 Classification and Preparation.— A common carrier may make reasonable 
 rules and regulations for the classification and suitable preparation of articles 
 for shipment.is in the absence of statutory interposition and regulation, a car- 
 rier may establish and promulgate reasonable rules and regulations governing 
 the manner in which thev shall be packed and prepared for shipment. i'^ 
 
 Time, Place and Manner of Delivering Freight.— The rule as to the 
 right of carriers of goods to make reasonable regulations for the conduct of its 
 
 10. Question of law or fact. — Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Colby, 69 Neb. 572, 96 N. 
 W. 145. 
 
 "Their reasonableness is a question of 
 law for the court to decide. Rorer on 
 Railroads, 227; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Whittemore, 43 111. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138; 
 Vedder r. Fellows, 20 N. Y. 126; Tracy 
 f. New York, etc., R. Co., 9 Bosw. 396. 
 In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whittemore, 
 supra, the court said: 'The circuit court 
 left it to the jury to say whether the rule 
 was reasonable. This was error. It was 
 proper to admit testimony as was done, 
 but, either with or without this testimony, 
 it was for the court to say whether the 
 regulation was reasonable, and therefore 
 obligatory upon the passengers. The 
 necessity of holding this to be a question 
 of law, and therefore within the province 
 of the court to settle, is apparent from 
 the consideration that it is only by so 
 holding that fixed and permanent regula- 
 tions can be established. If this ques- 
 tion is to be left to juries, one rule would 
 be applied by them to-day, and another 
 to-morrow.' " Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Colby, 69 Neb. 572, 96 N. W. 145. 
 
 11. Stations and facilities. — Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. z'. Baugh, 17.j Ind. 419, 94 N. 
 E. 571. See post, "When Liability Com- 
 mences," chapter 5. 
 
 12. Separation of freight and passen- 
 gers. — Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. Moore. 49 
 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98. vSee post, "Re- 
 lation of Carrier and Passenger," chap- 
 ter 21. 
 
 13. Time. — Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. 
 Co., 61 C. C. A. 405, 125 Fed. 445; Chi- 
 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Colby, 69 Neb. 572, 
 96 N. W. 145. See post, "When Liability 
 Commences," chapter 5. 
 
 14. Place. — Harp z\ Choctaw, etc., R. 
 Co., 61 C. C. A. 405, 125 Fed. 445; Rob- 
 inson V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 64 C. C. 
 A. 281, 129 Fed. 753. 
 
 15. Manner. — Harp v. Choctaw, etc., R. 
 Co., 61 C. C. A. 405, 125 Fed. 445; Rob- 
 inson T'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 64 C. C. 
 A. 281, 129 Fed. 753; Northwestern Ware- 
 house Co. V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 159 
 Fed. 975. See post, "Duty to Receive 
 and Carry," chapter 4. 
 
 16. Where a carrier had designated a 
 certain siding as the place at which it 
 would receive coal for transportation, 
 and such siding was not an unreasonable 
 place, a shipper was not entitled to com- 
 pel the carrier to receive coal from him 
 at another siding, where merchandise 
 other than coal was received, merely be- 
 cause the place so designated was not so 
 accessible to such shipper. Robinson v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 64 C. C. A. 281, 129 
 Fed. 753. 
 
 17. Rule of convenience. — Johnson v. 
 Three Hundred and Eighteen and One- 
 Half Tons of Coal, Fed. Cas. N. 14,010, 14 
 Blatchf. 153, 44 Conn. 548. 
 
 18. Classification and preparation. — 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Colby, 09 Neb. 
 572, 96 N. W. 145. See post, "Duty to 
 Receive and Carry," chapter 4; "When 
 Liability Commences," chapter 5. 
 
 19. Packing and preparation. — North- 
 western Warehouse Co. v. Oregon R., 
 etc., Co., 159 Fed. 975.
 
 189 
 
 RULES AND REGULATION'S OF CARRIERS. 
 
 !§ 301-304 
 
 business, applies to the delivery of the goods by the carrier to the shipper.^'^ A 
 railway company has the right to require persons hauling freight from its depot 
 to receive the same on the ]jlatform from its servants and not to enter the ware- 
 house for the inirpose of checking off the freight ; and also to require that per- 
 sons doing business with the company shall transact the same over the counter, 
 and not enter behind it. Such regulations are reasonable.-^ But if such regu- 
 lations are unnecessary and juit sliipi)crs to delay and expense they are unreason- 
 able and not enforceable. -- 
 
 Running of Trains and Time.— Although a carrier can not refuse to carry 
 such ])r()i)frty as is .i^cncrally carried, it must have the right to carry it on trains 
 made up In' itself and running on its own time. It can not be required to make 
 up special trains on demand or drive such trains made up entirely by other per- 
 sons, or of their cars.^a a carrier has the right to say what time its trains take 
 to make the trip between particular stations, but such rule must be reasonable 
 and can not limit the carrier's liability for delay in transportation. 2-* 
 
 § 3 02. Changing or Modifying. — A carrier of goods has the right to 
 change or modify the rules and regulations it has promulgated for the running 
 of its business, provided it gives the public reasonable notice of such changes.^^ 
 It has been held that shippers have no vested right to continue to load in a 
 particular manner, when conditions have so changed as to. render it an incon- 
 venience to the carrier.-^ 
 
 § 303. Operation and Effect as to Carrier. — Railroad companies may 
 also make reasonable regulations of their own for the management and running 
 of their trains, or they may follow general customs in such management and 
 running which, when established, known, and acted on by the public, may im- 
 pose upon the companies duties in reference to others, a breach of which, to 
 their injury, might render such companies liable to damages. ^^ 
 
 § 304. Duty of Agents to Enforce. — It is the duty of a carrier's agent to 
 enforce the rules and regulations prescribed by the carrier for the conduct of 
 its business, but not to give reason why such regulations were made.-^ And if 
 
 20. Delivery of goods. — Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. T. Colby, 69 Neb. 572, 96 N. W. 
 145. See post, "Transportation and De- 
 livery by Carrier," chapter 10. 
 
 21. Donovan 7'. Texas, etc., R. Co., 64 
 Tex. r>in. 
 
 22. Unnecessary delay and expense. — 
 Donovan f. 'I\'xas, etc., R. Co., (14 Tex. 
 519. 
 
 23. Running of trains and time. — Coup 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 22 
 N. W. 215, 56 Am. Rep. 374; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. f. Colbv, 09 Neb. 572, 96 N. 
 \V. 145. 
 
 24. Time of trip. — Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 7'. Currie, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 277, 76 S. W. 
 810. See post, "Delay in Transportation 
 and Delivery," chapter 11. 
 
 25. Notice of changes. — Harp z'. Choc- 
 taw, etc., R. Co., 61 C. C. A. 405, 125 Fed. 
 445; Robinson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 64 C. C. .-X. 281. 129 Fed. 753; Northwest- 
 ern Warehouse Co. v. Oregon R., etc., 
 Co., 159 Fed. 975. 
 
 26. No vested right. — A railroad com- 
 p;iny liaving a newly constructed line 
 through a locality underlaid with coal, 
 by permitting owners of mines to load 
 
 cars with coal from wagons on its side 
 track at two small stations for a number 
 of months, did not give them a vested 
 riglit to continue such manner of loading, 
 nor lose its common-law right to change 
 its regulation, and refuse longer to re- 
 ceive coal for shipment in such manner 
 when the volume of its business became 
 such that to permit the use of its station 
 tracks for loading cars in that manner 
 would not only interfere with the opera- 
 tion of its trains, and cause it loss and 
 inconvenience, but would also, by reason 
 of the slowness of the method, result in 
 serious loss and inconvenience to other 
 shippers and the public by greatly reduc- 
 ing the quantity of coal which the road 
 could handle and transport below what it 
 might if loaded by the use of modern ap- 
 pliances, as was the case at all other 
 shipping points on its line. Judgment 118 
 Fed. 169. affirmed. Harp v. Choctaw, etc.. 
 R. Co., 61 C. C. A. 405. 125 Fed. 445. 
 
 27. Operation and effect as to carrier. 
 — Texas, etc., R. C«^. r. Murphy, 46 Tex. 
 356, 26 Am. Rep. •272. 
 
 28. Duty of agents to enforce. — Dono- 
 van r. Texas, etc.. R. Co., 64 Tex. 519.
 
 §§ 304-307 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 190 
 
 an agent in giving ?ucli reasons, nse actionable langnage, he antl not the car- 
 rier is Hable.-'-^' 
 
 § 305. Waiver of Regulations. — AUhough a carrier may make reasonable 
 regulations for the conduct of its business it may waive a compliance therewith, 
 and this has been held to have been done where the carrier habitually permitted 
 the violation of such rules.-'"' 
 
 § 306. Proof of Regulations. — It will l)e presumed as a general rule that 
 a carrier has some regulation or is governed uniformily by some custom, in ref- 
 erence to a particular purpose.^^ But the facts involved in such regulations and 
 customs, upon which duties would arise, not being matters known to the court, 
 have to be proved as other facts, where a breach of such duties might become 
 the sul)iect-matter of a suit for damages.-^- 
 
 §§ 307-332. Carriers of Passengers— §§ 3 07-318. Right to Make 
 and Enforce Rules and Regulations — §§ 307-311. In General — § 307. 
 General Rule. — A carrier of passengers has the right to prescribe and enforce 
 all necessar\- and proper regulations for the government of their trains, the trans- 
 portation of passengers, and the protection of their own rights as well as those 
 of the passengers, when such regulations are not inconsistent with the law of 
 the land, unreasonable, or opposed to the rights of the citizen.-'-^ 
 
 29. Liability for actionable language. — 
 Donovan v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 64 Tex. 
 519. 
 
 30. Waiver of reg^Jlations. — "It may 
 
 be true, where a railroad company habit- 
 ually permits passengers to travel on its 
 freight trains, notwithstanding it may by 
 regulation prohibit it, that the company 
 will incur the same responsibility to such 
 passengers as if they were on the regular 
 passenger car." Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98. 
 
 31. Proof of regulations. — Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Murphy, 46 Tex. 356, 26 Am. 
 Rep. 272. 
 
 32. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 46 
 Tex. 356, 26 Am. Rep. 272. 
 
 33. General rule. — United States. — Gray 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 11 Fed. 683; 
 Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 
 L. Ed. 531. 
 
 Alabama. — Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 
 Yielding, 155 Ala. 359, 30 R. R. R. 285, 53 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 285, 46 So. 747; 
 Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. McDonough, 
 153 Ala. 122, 26 R. R. R. 618, 49 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 618, 44 So. 960, 13 L. 
 R. A., N. S. 445; Evans v. Memphis, etc., 
 R. Co., 56 Ala. 246, 28 Am. Rep. 771. 
 
 Arkansas. — Landrigan v. State, 31 Ark. 
 50, 25 Am. Rep. 547; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Adcock, 52 Ark. 406, 12 S. W. 874. 
 
 District of Columbia. — Watkins v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co.. 10 Mackey (21 D. C), 1 
 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 159. 
 
 Georpja. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Motes, 
 117 Ga. 923, 43 S. E. 990, 7 R. R. R. 161, 30 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 161, 2 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 507; Coyle v. Southern R. Co., 112 
 Ga. 121, 37 S. E. 163; Fluker v. Georgia R., 
 etc., Co., 81 Ga. 461, 8 S. E. 529, 2 L. R. 
 A. 843, 12 Am. St. Rep. 328; Kates v. At- 
 
 lanta Baggage, etc., Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 
 S. E. 372, 46 L. R. A. 431; Nunn v. Georgia 
 Railroad, 71 Ga. 710, 51 Am. Rep. 284; 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. Strickland, 90 Ga. 
 563, 16 S. E. 352; Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; Southern R. Co. v. 
 Watson, 110 Ga. 681, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 209, 36 S. E. 209. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flagg, 
 43 111. 364, 92 Am. Dec. 133; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Williams, 55 111. 185; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. v. McLallen, 84 111. 109; To- 
 ledo, etc., R. Co. V. Williams, 77 111. 354. 
 
 lozva. — State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa 204. 
 
 Kansas. — Brown v. Kansas City, etc., R. 
 Co., 38 Kan. 634, 16 Pac. 942. 
 
 /\'r);/Mt7c3'.- -Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Miles, 100 Ky. 84, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 580, 37 
 S. W._ 486. 
 
 Louisiana. — Decuir z'. Benson, 27 h',i. 
 Ann. 1. 
 
 Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Carr, 71 Md. 135, 17 Atl. 1052; Northern 
 Cent. R. Co. v. O'Conner, 76 Md. 207, 24 
 Atl. 449, 16 L. R. A. 449, 35 Am. St. Rep. 
 422. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Renaud v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 44 R. R. R. 632, 67 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 632, 97 N. E. 
 98; Commonwealth v. Power (Mass.), 
 Hull V. Boston, etc., Railroad, 210 
 Mass. 159, 96 N. E. 58, 44 R. R. R. 15, 
 67 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 15, 36 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 406, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 1147; 
 Tompkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 201 
 Mass. 114, 32 R. R. R. 487, 55 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 487, 87 N. E. 488, 20 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 1063. 
 
 Michigan. — Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 
 72 Am. Dec. 62; Kalamazoo Hack, etc., 
 Co. V. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 194, 47 N. W. 
 667, 10 L. R. A. 819, 22 Am. St. Rep. 693*; 
 Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 133
 
 191 
 
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CARRIERS. 
 
 §§ 307-308 
 
 Benefit of Passengers. — Whatever rules tend to promote the comfort, or- 
 der, and safety of railroad passengers, the company is authorized to make and 
 enforce. •■'■* 
 
 Government of Carrier's Employees. — A railroad company has a right to 
 prescribe reasoiiahle ruk-> fur (Ik- .l^(i\ ernment of its emi)loyees in the conduct 
 of its business ujion its trains. •■"'' 
 
 Need Not Be Embraced in By-Laws. — A railroad company has authority 
 to make and enforce reasonable regulations for the conduct of all persons using 
 the railroad or resortinj; to its depots, without prescri!)ing such regulations by 
 by-laws.''*' 
 
 Authority of Superintendent. — The superintendent of a railroad has au- 
 thorit)-, b\- delei^aiion, lo make and enforce reasonable regulations for the con- 
 duct of all i)ersons using the railroad or resorting to its depots.-'*" 
 
 § 308. Soliciting Business in Cars. — A railroad company, for its own 
 convenience in carrying on its business in an orderly manner, and to prevent 
 its passengers from being annoyed, may make and enforce a reasonable regu- 
 lation prohibiting persons from entering its cars to solicit business from pas- 
 sengers.-'*^ The dominion of a railroad corporation over its trains, tracks and 
 "right of way" is no less complete or exclusive than that which every owner has 
 
 Mich. 557, 8 R. R. R. 271, 31 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 271, 95 N. "W. 546. 
 
 Montana. — Doherty v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 43 Mont. 294, 41 R. R. R. 210, 04 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 210, 115 Pac. 401, 
 36 L. R. A., N. S., 1139. 
 
 Nczu Hampshire. — Johnson v. Concord 
 R. Corp,, 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dec. 199. 
 
 Kezv York. — Avery v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 121 N. Y. 31, 24 N. E. 20; Peck 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 70 N. Y. 587; 
 Rowe V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 71 
 App. Div. 474, 75 N. Y. S. 893. 
 
 Xortli Carolina. — McRae v. Wilmington, 
 etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 526, 43 Am. Rep. 
 745. 
 
 Ohio. — Crawford v. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 Co.. 26 O. St. 580; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Bartram, 11 O. St. 457; Shelton v. Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co., 7 O. Dec. 101, 1 W. 
 L. Bull. 190, affirmed in 29 O. St. 214; 
 Corry v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 3 O. 
 Dec. 82; L. S. & M. S. R. Co. v. Mortal. 
 18 O. C. C. 562, 8 O. C. D. 134. 
 
 Oklahoma. — Decker v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Okla. 553, 41 Pac. 610; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Johnson, 25 Okla. 833, 108 
 Pac. 378, 36 R. R. R. 165, 59 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 105. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Aluldowncy v. Pittsburg 
 etc., Tract. Co., 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 335; 
 Reese v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 131 Pa. 
 422, 19 Atl. 72, 6 L. R. A. 529, 17 Am. 
 St. Rep. 818; Robb v. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 Co., 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 282; West Chester, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Miles, 55 Pa. 209, 93 Am. 
 Dec. 744. 
 
 South Carolina. — Black f. .\tlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 82 S. C. 478, 32 R. R. R. 003, 55 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 003, 64 S. E. 
 418; Funderburg v. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 
 81 S. C. 141, 30 R. R. R. 281, 53 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 281, 21 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 868. 61 S. E. 1075. 
 
 Tcn)iessce. — Knoxville Tract. Co. v. 
 
 Wilkcrson, 117 Tenn. 482, 22 R. R. R. 
 703, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 703, 
 99 S. W. 992, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 041, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 579; Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 
 223. 43 L. R. A. 140; Summitt z: State, 
 70 Tenn. (8 Lea) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637; 
 Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co.. 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 533. 
 
 Texas.— Eddy v. Rider, 79 Tex. 53, 15 
 S. W. 113; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Moody, 
 3 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 22 S. W. 1009; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 
 31. 30 Am. Rep. 98; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Havden. 6 Tex. Civ. App. 745, 26 S. 
 W. 331; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Pearl. 3 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 4. 
 
 I'lrgin-ia. — -Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wy- 
 sor, 82 Va. 250. 
 
 U'ashiiiijiton. — Kirk v. Seattle Elect. 
 Co.. 58 Wash. 283. 37 R. R. R. 493. 60 Am. 
 
 6 Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 493, 108 Pac. 604, 
 31 L. R. A., N. S.. 991; Olson v. North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co., 49 Wash. 626, 29 R. R. 
 R. 705. 52 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 705. 96 Pac. 150, 18 L. R. A.. N. S., 209. 
 
 Jl'esf Virginia. — Boston v. Chesapeake, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 30 W. Va. 318. 
 
 jrlsconsin. — Plott v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 03 Wis. 511, 23 N. W. 412. 
 
 34. Benefit of passengers. — Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co. 7'. Williams, 55 Til. 185. 
 
 35. Government of carrier's employ- 
 ees. — Crawford ?■. Cincinnati, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 20 O. St. 580. 
 
 36. By-Laws. — Commonwealth v. Power 
 (Mass.), 7 Mete. 590. 41 .\m. Dec. 465. 
 
 37. Authority of superintendent. — 
 Commonwealth 7\ Power (Mass.), 7 
 Mctc. 590. 41 .Xm. Dec. 405. 
 
 38. Soliciting business in cars. — Jencks 
 V. Coleman. Fed. Cas. No. 7258. 2 Sumn. 
 221; Commonwealth v. Power (Mass.), 
 
 7 Mete. 590, 41 .Am. Dec. 405.
 
 §§ 308-309 CARRIERS. 192 
 
 over his own property. Hence, the corporation may exchide whom it pleases, 
 when they come to transact their own private business with passengers or other 
 third persons, and admit whom it pleases, when they come to transact such busi- 
 ness. This applies to selling lunches to, or soliciting orders from, passengers 
 for the sale of lunches. ^^ 
 
 § 309. Use of Station Premises by Local Carriers and Others.— In 
 General. — A railroad company may either exclude hackmen and other local car- 
 riers from its depot premises or regulate, in a reasonable manner, their use of 
 such premises.-*'^' And the company has also the right to exclude from its prem- 
 ises all persons going thereon for the purpose of transacting private business, 
 or it may extend the privilege of so doing to one and refuse it to another with- 
 out violating any principle of law which governs the conduct of carriers and 
 regulates their duty to the public.'^ 
 
 Exclusion of Local Carriers from Depot. — A regulation forbidding hack- 
 men and expressmen from coming within a j^assenger depot is reasonable.^2 
 
 Soliciting Patronage for Hotel on Depot Platform. — Where an inn- 
 keeper, or his agent in violation of a regulation of the railroad company, comes 
 upon its depot platform for the purpose of soliciting patronage for his hotel, 
 he may be ejected.'*^ 
 
 Peddlers and Loafers. — And a regulation forbidding peddlers and loafers 
 from coming within a passenger depot is reasonable and enforceable.'*'* 
 
 Exclusion from Depot for Supposed Violation of Regulations. — The 
 superintendent of a railroad depot, however, has no right to order a person to 
 leave the depot, and not come there any more, and to remove him therefrom by 
 force, if he does come, merely bcQause such person, in the judgment of the 
 superintendent, but without proof of the fact, had violated regulations estab- 
 lished by the railroad company.-*-^ 
 
 Grant of Exclusive Privileges to Local Carriers.— If a railway company 
 in good faith complies with its duty to afford proper facilities for persons en- 
 tering its stations to purchase tickets and take passage and to check their bag- 
 gage, and also like facilities for leaving the station and securing their baggage, 
 it does not violate any public duty or deprive any citizen of any lawful right 
 by granting to a single corporation or individual the exclusive right of entering 
 its trains to solicit the transportation of passengers and baggage, or by renting 
 to such corporation or individual a portion of its baggage room and conceding 
 
 39. Soliciting orders ior lunches. — Pcnnsxlvan'ia. — Smith v. New York, 
 Fluker v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 81 Ga. etc., R. Co., 149 Pa. 249, 24 Atl. 304. 
 461, 8 S. E. 529, 2 L. R. A., 843, 12 Am. Rhode Island. — Griswold v. Webb, 16 
 St. Rep. 328. R. I. 649, 19 Atl. 143, 7 L. R. A. 302. 
 
 40. £ng/an(/.— Beadell v. Eastern Coun- Tcnnessee.—Summitt v. State, 76 Tenn. 
 ties R. Co. (Eng.), 2 C. B., N. S., 509; (« Lea) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637. 
 Painter v. London, etc., R. Co. (Eng.), I crmont.— Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 
 2 C B N S 702 ''■^ "^"i- -Dec. 337. 
 
 Indiana".— hncas'^v. Herbert, 148 Ind. 41. Fluker z; Georgia R., etc Co., 81 
 
 64, 47 N. E. 146, 37 L. R. A. 376. Ga. 461, 8 S. E. 529, 2 L. R. A. 843 12 
 
 Massachusetts.— 0\A Colony R. Co. v. Am. St. Rep. 328; Kates v. Atlanta Bag- 
 
 Tripp, 147 Mass. 35, 17 N. E. 89, 9 Am. gage, etc., Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372, 
 
 St. Rep. 661. 46 L. R. A. 431. . 
 
 ,,. , . ^ , Ti „o TVT- 1 42. Exclusion of local earners from 
 
 Michigan. — Cole v. Rowen, 88 Alien. a^^^.*. c, .,,,,, .v^ „, Qf^f^ "c T^.i.i (a 
 
 ^ir, -r. \t ^.\^ -foo -lo T T3 A 0,0 T- 1 ucpot. — ^uniniitt V. btatc, < () ienn. (^» 
 
 219, oO N W. 138, 13 L. R. A. 848; Kal- ^J^^^ ^^ ^,^^ ^ ,3^ 
 
 A?^\^°^o. !^ M^w' S' fn ^''TT'Ja 43. Soliciting patronage for hotel on 
 
 Mich. 194, 47 N. w 667, 10 L. R. A. 819, ^ platform.-Landri.Jan v. State, 31 
 
 22 Am. St. Rep. 693. ,^^\ J^ ,. .^^^^ j.^.^^ .^~ 
 
 New For/e.— Barney v. Oyster Bay, 44, Peddlers and loafers.— Summitt v. 
 
 etc., Co., 67 N. Y. 301, 23 Am. Rep. 115. gtatc, 76 Tcnn. (8 Lea) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 
 
 Ohio. — State v. Union Depot Co., 71 637. 
 
 O. St. 379, 16 R. R. R. 614, 39 Am. & 45. Exclusion from depot for supposed 
 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 614, 73 N. E. 633, violation of regulations.— Hall v. Power 
 
 68 L. R. A. 792. (Mass.), 12 Mete. 482, 46 Am. Dec. 698.
 
 193 
 
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CARRIERS. 
 
 §§ 309-312 
 
 to it or him the privileges necessarily incident to the occupancy and use thereof, 
 provided that so doing does not interfere with the exercise by any other per- 
 son of any right which he may lawfully demand of the company as a common 
 carrier.""' This is especially so when the grant is made in pursuance of a rea- 
 sonable and proper regulation which in effect operates beneficially to its pa- 
 trons.-*^ Thus, a union dei)Ot company may grant to a transfer company the ex- 
 clusive privilege of using the grounds, buildings and i^latforms of the station 
 for the purpose of soliciting customers, and a regulation excluding therefrom 
 all others engaged in a like business, excepting only for the purpose of delivering 
 passengers or of calling for jjcrsons who have previously engaged them, is not 
 unreasonable or invalid.'*'^ 
 
 Can Not Deprive Passenger of Choice of Vehicles.— Though a common 
 carrier owning or controlling its terminals may exclude from them persons so- 
 liciting trade or hacking or expressing without its license, it can not deprive a 
 passenger of the privilege of being carried from the terminus in a convenient 
 and usual way, nor can it compel a passenger to take certain vehicles or none.'*'' 
 
 § 310. Tickets and Fares.— See post, "Fares, Tickets, Special Contracts, 
 Transfers, etc.," chapter 22. 
 
 § 311. Enforcement of Rules and Regulations.— See post, "Enforcement 
 of Rules and Regulations," §§ 324-326. 
 
 § 312. Must Be Reasonable. — To be binding upon a passenger, a rule or 
 regulation of the carrier must be reasonable, and reasonably necessary to the 
 proper conduct of the carrier's business.^'' And it may be stated that a carrier 
 
 46. Grant of exclusive privileges to lo- 
 cal carriers. — Kates v. Atlanta Baggage, 
 etc., Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372, 46 
 L. R. A. 43L 
 
 47. Kates v. Atlanta Baggage, etc., 
 Co., 107 Ga. 030, 34 S. E. 373, 46 L. R. 
 A. 431. 
 
 48. Snyder v. Union Depot Co., 19 
 O. C. C. 308, 10 O. C. D. 645. 
 
 A union depot company organized un- 
 der the Ohio statute in question, may 
 grant a transfer company the exclusive 
 right to use a designated portion of its 
 depot grounds for the purpose of stand- 
 ing thereon its hacks and other vehicles, 
 and of soliciting thereon the patronage 
 of incoming passengers; and a rule of 
 such depot company excluding there- 
 from all others engaged in a like busi- 
 ness, except for the purpose of deliver- 
 ing passengers or of receiving passen- 
 gers who shall have previously employed 
 them, is a reasonable rule, and may 
 be enforced so long as such trans- 
 fer company provides and furnishes at 
 such depot adequate accommodations in 
 tlie way of vehicles to meet the reason- 
 able requirements of the traveling pub- 
 lic, and shall make no greater charge for 
 its services than is made or may be per- 
 mitted to be made by others for like 
 services. State v. Union Depot Co., 71 
 O. St. 379, 16 R. R. R. 614, 39 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 614, 73 N. E. 633, 
 OS L. R. A. 702. 
 
 49. Can not deprive passenger of 
 choice of vehicles. — Griswold z'. Webb, 
 16 R. I. 049, 19 Atl. 143. 7 L. R. A. 302. 
 
 1 Car— 13 
 
 50. Must be reasonable. — England. — 
 Alarriott v. London, etc., R. Co. (Eng.), 
 1 C. B., N. S, 499. 
 
 United States. — Railroad Co. v. Fralof?, 
 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531. 
 
 California. — Barrett v. Market St. R. 
 Co., 81 Cal. 296, 22 Pac. 859, 6 L. R. A. 
 336, 15 Am. St. Rep. 61. 
 
 Florida. — Florida So. R. Co. v. Hirst, 
 30 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 
 Am. St. Rep. 17; South Florida R. Co. 
 V. Rhoads, 25 Fla. 40, 5 So. 633, 3 L. R. 
 A. 733, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506. 
 
 Georgia. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Strick- 
 land, 90 Ga. 502, 10 S. E. 352; Southern 
 R. Co. V. Watson, 110 Ga. 681, 36 S. E. 
 209, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 209. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams, 55 111. 185. 
 
 Iflii'a. — State v. Chovin, 7 Iowa 204. 
 
 Maryland. — Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 O'Conner, 70 Md. 207, 24 Atl. 449, 16 L. 
 R. A. 449, 35 Am. St. Rep. 422. 
 
 A'ezu Hampshire. — Johnson v. Concord 
 R. Corp., 46 N. H. 213, 88 Am. Dec. 199. 
 
 Nezi' Jersex. — State v. Overton. 24 X. 
 J. L. 435, 6l"Am. Dec. 671. 
 
 Kczv York. — Jenkins v. Brooklyn 
 Heights R. Co., 29 App. Div. 8, 51 N. 
 Y. S.-216, 5 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 315. 
 
 North Carolina. — McRae v. Wilming- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 526, 43 Am. 
 Rep. 745. 
 
 Pennsvhania. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 7'. Lvon, 123 Pa. 140, 16 Atl. 607, 2 L. 
 R. A. 489, 10 Am. St. Rep. 517. 
 
 Soutli Carolina. — Funderburg v. Au-
 
 §§ 312-313 CARRIERS. 194 
 
 is entitled to make only such rules for conducting its affairs as are reasonable, 
 not conflictnig with any legal liability, and not exemptnig from liability for neg- 
 ligence or improper conduct. If the rules be such as described, they are binding 
 on persons dealing %yith the carrier ^yhen notitied thereof.--^i All regulations of 
 a railroad company, ho^yeyer, \yill be deemed reasonable \yhich are suitable to 
 enable the company to perform the duties it undertakes, and to secure its o\yn 
 just rights in such' employment, and also such as are necessary and proper to 
 injure ^the ^^afety and jn-o'mote the comfort of passengers.-"'- 
 
 Regulations Must Be Reasonable under the Existing Circumstances.— 
 Regulations as to the time and manner in which passengers shall be transported 
 w-m not be enforced by the courts except where they are reasonable, and whether 
 or not they are in any case reasonable is a question to be determined according 
 to all the circumstances of the case.^^'^ . 
 
 Distinction between Right to Transportation and Right to Accommo- 
 dation.— The right to be carried by a common carrier of passengers is a right 
 superior to the rules and regulations of the carrier and can not be affected by 
 them, but the accommodation of passengers, while being transported, is sub- 
 ject to such rules and regulations as the carrier may think proper to make, pro- 
 yided they be reasonable."'-* 
 
 Sleeping in Waiting Rooms.— In the absence of any duty devolving upon 
 a railroad company to provide at its stations a place wherein its patrons may 
 sleep while awaiting the arrival or departure of trains, a regulation forbidding 
 passengers from going to sleep in its waiting rooms, or lying down on the benches 
 therein, is not, in a legal sense, unreasonable. "••"^ 
 
 Carrier's Employees Forbidden to Occupy Front Seat of Open Car.— 
 A rule of a street railway company that no employee of the company wearing 
 its uniform shall occupy the front seat of one of its open cars while it is in op- 
 eration is reasonable, in that it promotes the safety of passengers by preventing 
 persons who, by reason of their common employment, are likely to converse with 
 motorman, from doing so, and thus divert his attention from his duties.''^^^ 
 
 Wearing Uniform of Competitors Prohibited.— But a rule, adopted by a 
 railroad company, which prohibited passengers from wearing the uniform cap 
 of a line of steamers running in opposition to a line of steamers running in 
 connection with the company's railroad was not reasonable, and therefore not 
 binding on the public.^"^ 
 
 § 313. Must Not Be Contrary to Law.— It is essential to the validity of 
 a rule or regulation for the conduct of the business of a common carrier of pas- 
 sengers that it should not be repugnant either to a statute or the common-law. ^^ 
 
 gusta etc., R. Co., 81 S. C. 141, 30 R. 54. Distinction between right to trans- 
 
 R r'ssi, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., portation and right to accommodation. 
 
 281, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 868, 61 S. E. 1075. —Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. 
 
 Tennessee.—Summkt v. State, 76 Tenn. Dec. 62. ^ >^ 
 
 (8 Lea) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637; Trotlin- 55. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Motes, 117 
 
 ger V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co.. 79 Ga. 923, 43 S. E. 990, 7 R. R. R. 161, 30 
 
 Tenn. (11 Lea), 533. Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 161, 62 L- 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. R. A., N. S., 507. 
 
 Moore, 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98. 56. Garners employees forbidden to 
 
 Virginia.— Korio\k, etc., R. Co. v. Wy- occupy front seat of open car.— Rowe v. 
 
 sor, 82 Va. 250. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 71 App. Div. 
 
 IVest Virginia. — Boston v. Chesapeake, 474, 75 N. Y. vS. 893. 
 
 etc , R. Co., 36 W. Va. 318. 57. Wearing uniform of competitors 
 
 51. Norfolk, etc.', R. Co. v. Wysor, 82 prohibited.— South Florida R. Co. v. 
 
 Va 250 Rhoads, 25 Fla. 40, 5 So. 633, 3 L. 
 
 52." State r. Chovin, 7 Iowa 204. R. A. 733, 23 Am. St. Rep. 506. 
 
 53. Existing circumstances. — Texas, 58. Must not be contrary to law.— 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Curric, 33 Tex. Civ. App. /•H.i,'/*/;!^.— Marriott v. London, etc., R. 
 
 277,' 76 S. W. 810, affirmed in 97 Tex. Co. (Eng.), 1 C. B., N. S., 499. 
 
 648, no op. United States. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co.
 
 195 
 
 RULIvS AND RIXULATIONS OF CARUlliKS. 
 
 § 313 
 
 Made and Enforced in Violation of Law. — A railroad company may make 
 reasonable rules aiul rej^ulaii(jnj> lor the coutluct of its business as a earner, but 
 if made and enlort^d in violation of law it will be liable to persons injareo 
 thereby.-'''' 
 
 Forbidding Sale of Ticket to Persons Unable to Take Care of Them- 
 selves. — A rule of a railroad company forbidding the sale of tickets to persons 
 physically unable to take care of themselves, unless accompanied by an attendant, 
 is only for the guidance of its servants, and can not limit its responsibility to 
 the public, unless the rule can be justified by the principles governing the du- 
 ties of carriers of passengers.*"^ 
 
 Fares as Affected by Rule Requiring Purchase of Tickets. — The right 
 of a i)asseiiger on a sulnirban electric railwa}' to be carried at the rate of fare 
 prescribed in the company's franchise can not be made dependent upon compli- 
 ance with a rule of the carrier re(|uiring the purchase of tickets at regular sta- 
 tions.'"' 
 
 Rights to Stop Over— Rule Opposed to Statute. — And the purchaser of 
 a ticket conferring the right to ride between two stations by way of an inter- 
 mediate station can not be deprived of his right to stop over at the intermediate 
 station, by reason of a rule of die carrier to issue only alternative tickets, mak- 
 ing the intermediate station one terminus named in the ticket, and the passen- 
 ger is not bound to take notice of any rule or regulation of the railroad company 
 recjuiring the passenger to ride from the intermediate station by the longer ro'ite 
 without stop over, in contravention of a statute of the state. *^- 
 
 Wrongful Ejection — Rule Prescribing Duties of Employees. — The right 
 of a passenger ejected from a train, in violation of his rights, to recover dam- 
 ages therefor can not be affected by any rule of the carrier prescribing tiie 
 duties of its agents or conductors.*^^ 
 
 V. Thornton, 110 C. C. A. 502, 188 Fed. 
 808, 43 R. R. R. 13, 06 Am. & Eng-. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 13; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 
 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531. 
 
 California. — Robinson v. Southern Pac. 
 Co., 105 Cal. 526, 38 Pac. 94, 722, 28 L. 
 R. A. 773. 
 
 Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dickerson, 4 Kan. App. 345, 45 Pac. 975. 
 
 A'cH/MC^^'.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Al- 
 len, 121 Ky. 138, 26 R. R. R. 49, 43 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 49, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 1024, 89 S. W. 150. 
 
 Louisiana. — Decuir v. Benson, 27 La. 
 Ann. 1. • 
 
 Miclii Stan.— Coy v. Detroit, etc.. Rail- 
 way, 125 Mich. 616, 85 X. W. 6; Day v. 
 Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62. 
 
 Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 
 L. R. A. 140. 
 
 Te.vas.— 'Eddy v. Rider, 79 Tex. 53, 15 
 S. W. 113. 
 
 ['iVgifiia.— Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wy- 
 sor, 82 Va. 250. 
 
 ll'est ['i;i,'i»ia.— Boston v. Chesapeake, 
 etc., R. Co., 30 W. Va. 318. 
 
 IVvoining. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lampman, 18 Wyo. 106, 34 R. R. R. 28, 
 57 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 28, 104 
 Pac 533. 25 L. R. A., N. S., 217, Ann. 
 Cas. 1012 C, 788. , . . , . 
 
 59. Made and enforced in violation of 
 law.— Eddy v. Rider, 79 Tex. 53, 15 S. W. 
 113. 
 
 60. Forbidding sale of f'cket to per- 
 sons unable to take care of themselves. — 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 121 Ky. 
 138, 26 R. R. R. 49, 43 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 49, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 1024, 89 S. W. 150. 
 
 61. Fares as affected by rule requiring 
 purchase of ticket. — Coy v. Detroit, etc., 
 Railway. 125 Mich. OKi, 85 X. W. 0. 
 
 62. Right to stop over — Rule opposed 
 to statute.^Robinson v. Southern Pac. 
 Co., 105 Cal. 526, 38 Pac. 94, 722, 28 L. R. 
 A. 773. 
 
 63. Wrongful ejection — Rule prescribing 
 duties of employees. — Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Thornton, 110 C. C. A. 502. 188 
 Fed. 868, 43 R. R. R. 13, 66 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., X. S., 13. 
 
 Requiring performance of acts not re- 
 quired by law — Evidence. — Where the 
 rules of a railroad company for the con- 
 duct of trainmen with respect to pas- 
 sengers do not require more than the 
 law requires of the carrier, the admis- 
 sion in evidence of the rules is not prej- 
 udicial, but. where such rules require 
 more than the law requires, or require 
 the performance of acts which the law 
 does not recognize as a duty imposed on 
 the carrier, they are inadmissible. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Lampman, IS Wvo. 
 106. 34 R. R. R. 28. 57 Am. & Ensr. R. 
 Cas., N. S.. 28, 104 Pac. 533. 25 L. R. A., 
 X. S., 217. Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 788.
 
 §§ 314-31; 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 196 
 
 § 314. Must Not Discriminate. — Of course, a common carrier is bound to 
 treat all of its passengers of the same class alike so long as they conduct them- 
 selves properly, and has no right to discriminate in making or enforcing regu- 
 lations for their government.*''* 
 
 Made for Particular Occasion. — The rules and regulations of a common 
 carrier must have for their object the accommodation of passengers generally, 
 and they must be of a permanent nature, and not made for a particular occa- 
 sion or emergency.*'^ 
 
 § 315. Their Reasonableness as Question of Law. — It is generally held 
 that the reasonableness, and consecjuent validity, of a rule or regulation of a 
 carrier of passengers is a question of law for the determination of the court.**^ 
 
 Facts Not Disputed. — Where the facts are not disputed, the reasonableness 
 of a regulation of a carrier affecting the transportation of passengers is one of 
 law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury/*' 
 
 Exclusion from Certain Trains. — The reasonableness of a railroad com- 
 pany's regulation restricting the right of passengers to carriage on certain trains 
 is for the court.'"'' 
 
 Exclusion of Animals from Passenger Cars. — The reasonableness of a 
 regulation of a street railway forbidding the carrying of live animals into its 
 cars is a question for the trial court, and it is error to submit it to the jury.^*^ 
 
 64. Must not discriminate. — Illinois. — 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. Whittemore, 43 
 111. 420, 92 Am. Dec. 138; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Williams, 55 111. 185. 
 
 Kansas. — Brown v. Kan'sas City, etc., 
 R. Co., 38 Kan. 634, 16 Pac. 942. 
 
 Michigan. — Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 
 72 Am. Dec. 62; Kalamazoo Hack, etc., 
 Co. V. Sootsma, 84 Mich. 194, 47 N. W. 
 667, 10 L. R. A. 819, 22 Am. St. Rep. 693. 
 
 A^ew York. — O'Gorman v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 96 App. Div. 594, 89 N. Y. S. 
 589; Ray v. United Tract. Co., 96 App. 
 Div. 48, 89 N. Y. S. 49. 
 
 65. Made for particular occasion. — Day 
 V. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62. 
 
 66. Question of law. — Alabama. — Birm- 
 ingham R., etc., Co. V. McDonough, 153 
 Ala. 122, 26 R. R. R. 618, 49 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 618, 44 So. 960, 13 
 L. R. A., N. S., 445. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Ad- 
 cock, 52 Ark. 403. 12 S. W. 874. 
 
 Florida.—South Florida R. Co. v. 
 Rhoads, 25 Fla. 40, 5 So. 633, 3 L. R. A., 
 62 L. R. A., N. S., 507, 733, 23 Am. St. 
 Rep. 506. 
 
 Georgia. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Motes, 
 117 Ga. 923, 7 R. R. R. 161, 30 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 161, 43 S. E. 990; 
 Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 110 Ga. 681, 
 36 S. E. 209, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 209. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Lallen, 84 111. 109; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Whittemore, 43 111. 420. 92 Am. Dec. 
 138. 
 
 lozva. — Gregory v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 100 Iowa 345, 69 N. W. 532; Hoffbauer v. 
 Delhi, etc., R. Co., 52 Iowa 342, 3 N. 
 W. 121, 35 Am. Rep. 278. 
 
 Missouri. — Chilton v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 114 Mo. 88, 21 S. W. 457, 19 L. R. 
 A. 269. 
 
 ilfoH/a»o.— Doherty v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 43 Mont. 294, 41 R. R. R. 210, 64 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 210, 115 Pac. 
 401, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 1139. 
 
 New Jersex. — Daniel v. North Jersey St. 
 R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 603, 46 Atl. 625. 
 
 Nezv For^.— Barker v. Central Park, etc., 
 R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237, 45 N. E. 550, 35 
 L. R. A. 489, 56 Am. St. Rep. 626; Avery 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 31, 
 24 N. E. 20; Dowd v. Albany Railway, 47 
 App. Div. 202, 62 N. Y. S. 179; O'Gorman 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 96 App. Div. 
 594, 89 N. Y. S. 589. 
 
 Pennsvlz'ania. — Mnldowney v. Pittsburg, 
 etc.. Tract. Co., 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 335; Pitts- 
 burgh, etc., R. Co. V. Lyon, 123 Pa. 140, 
 16 Atl. 607, 2 L. R. A. 489, 10 Am. St. 
 Rep. 517. 
 
 South Carolina. — Weber v. Southern R. 
 Co., 65 S. C. 356, 43 S. E. 888, 6 R. R. R. 
 932, 29 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S-., 932. 
 
 Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fleming, 82 Tenn. (14 Lea) 128; Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Turner, 100 Tenn. 
 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 L. R. A. 140. 
 
 Virginia. — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wy- 
 sor, 82 Va. 250. 
 
 67. Facts not d'rputed.^Barker v. Cen- 
 tral Park, etc., R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237, 45 
 N. E. 550, 35 L. R. A. 489, 56 Am. St. 
 Rep. 626; Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 110 
 Ga. 681, 36 S. E. 209, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 209. 
 
 68. Exclusion from certain trains.— 
 Doherty v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 43 
 Mont. 294, 41 R. R. R. 210, 64 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 210, 115 Pac. 401, 36 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1139. 
 
 69. Daniel v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 
 64 N. J. L. 603, 46 Atl. 625.
 
 197 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CARRIERS, §§ 315-319 
 
 And the reasonableness of a rule of a railway company prohibiting a passenger 
 from having a dog with him in its passenger coach, and exacting a charge for 
 carrying dogs in the baggage car, is a question of law for the court."" 
 
 § 316. Their Reasonableness as Mixed Question of Law and Fact. — 
 In some cases, however, it has been held that the peculiar circumstances in- 
 volved made the reasonableness of such a rule a mixed question of law and 
 fact.'i 
 
 Woman Excluded from "Ladies' Cars." — Where a woman was excluded 
 from the "ladies' car" because she was of notoriously bad character, the de- 
 fendant pleaded a reasonable regulation authorizing the exclusion, and that 
 the plaintili came within it; and it was held that it is a mixed question of law 
 and fact whether such a regulation is reasonable or not, to be submitted to the 
 jury, on proper instructions." - 
 
 § 317. Their Reasonableness Question for Jury. — When the reasonable- 
 ness or unreasonableness of a rule of a railroad company depends upon the ex- 
 istence of particular facts and circumstances, it is a question for the jury, under 
 proper instructions."^ Thus, it is not error for the court in charging the jury, 
 to say that a given regulation of a carrier of passengers is unreasonable, when 
 the court explains to the jury what would be the rules of law by which the 
 reasonableness or unreasonableness of such a regulation is to be tested, and 
 leaves to the jury the determination of the facts of the particular case.""* 
 
 § 318. Their Sufficiency Is Question for Jury. — \\ hether a rule or reg- 
 ulation of a carrier of passengers is sufficient to accomplish its purpose is a 
 question of fact to be determined by the jury.'^^ 
 
 §§ 319-323. Notice of Rules and Regulations— § 319. Passenger's 
 Contract Rights Not Affected by Rules of Which He Was Not Charge- 
 able with Notice. — The rules and regulations which a railroad company may 
 adopt and enforce in the transaction of its business do not become eli'ective un- 
 til the public or the party to be affected thereby has actual knowledge thereof, 
 or such reasonable notice that the law will, under the particular circumstances, 
 infer knowledge."" 
 
 70. Gregory v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 be determined on demurrer. Day v. 
 Iowa 345. 69 N. W. :i'62. Owen. 5 Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. 62. 
 
 71. Mixed question of law and fact. — 73. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. z\ Lyon, 123 
 Brown v. Mcmpliis. etc.. R. Co.. 4 Fed. Pa. 140, 16 Atl. GOT, 2 L. R. A. 4S9, 10 
 37; Day v. Owen, '> Mich. 520, 72 Am. Dec. Am. St. Rep. 517. 
 
 62; Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 73 Am. ' 74. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 7 
 
 Dec. 337; Bass v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., Fed. 51. 
 
 36 Wis. 4.'0, 17 \tii. I^cp. 4i).-.. 75. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McLallen, 
 
 72. Woman excluded from "ladies' car.' 84 111. 109. 
 
 — Brown v. Meniphis, etc., R. Co., 4 76. United States. — Railroad Co. f. Fra- 
 
 Fed. 37. loff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531. 
 
 Negro passengers excluded from cab- Alabama. — Armstrong v. Montgomery 
 
 ins. — In an action against a common car- St. R. Co., 123 Ala. 233, 26 So. 349. 
 
 rier of passengers for refusing plaintitY a California. — Wright v. California Cent, 
 
 cabin passage, the notice of defense was R. Co., 78 Cal. 360. 20 Pac. 740. 
 
 that, by the regulations and established Indiana. — Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Har- 
 
 course of l)usiness of the boat, persons dcndorf, 164 Ind. 403, 15 R. R. R. 738, 38 
 
 of plaintiff's race were not allowed the Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 738, 72 N. E. 
 
 use of the cabin as passengers, which reg- 593. 
 
 ulation and course of business were Maryland. — Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. 
 
 averred to be reasonable. There was a v. ^^'ilkinson. 30 Md. 224. 
 
 demurrer to this defense. It was held Massachusetts. — Maroney f. Old Colony, 
 
 that the demurrer was not well taken, that etc., R. Co., 106 Mass. Ir3, 8 Am. Rep. 
 
 the reasonableness of such regulation was 305; Renaud z'. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 
 a mixed question of law and fact, to be (Mass.), 44 R. R. R. 632, 67 Am. & Eng. 
 
 found by the jury on the trial, under the R. Cas., N. S.. 632. 97 N. E. 98. 
 
 instructions of the court, and could not Missouri. — McGee z\ Missouri Pac. R.
 
 §§ 319-320 CARRIERS. 198 
 
 Required to Take Direct Route. — A passenger is not bound by a rule of 
 the railroad company, of which she has no knowledge, requiring passengers to 
 travel by a direct route.'" 
 
 Relation of Carrier and Passenger. — Sec post, "Relation of Carrier and 
 Passenger," chapter 21. 
 
 Ejection of Passengers. — See i)osi. "Ejection of Passengers," chapter 25. 
 
 Presumption as to Knowledge of Rules.— The law does not presume that 
 one about to become a passenger, or one who has become a passenger, on a 
 railroad train knows the rules and regulations of the railroad company.''' But 
 it has been held that if a notice prohibiting passengers from standing on the 
 platform be proven to have been posted in large metal letters, upon the doors 
 of the passenger cars of a railroad company, a passenger will be presumed to 
 know the rules, and if that knowledge be denied, the burden of establishing such 
 want of knowledge is upon the party denying it."'' 
 
 § 320. Duty of Passenger to Inform Himself of Existence of Rules. — 
 It is the legal duty of a passenger to use the care and diligence which a rea- 
 sonably prudent man would use under the same circumstances to make inquiries 
 in regard to and inform himself of the existence and nature of the carrier's rules 
 and regulations relating to the carriage and conduct of passengers. ^'^ 
 
 Conduct of Trains and Rights of Passengers. — A passenger's railroad 
 ticket is evidence of the payment of his fare and his right to be carried accord- 
 ing to its temis, but it does not express the whole contract, and wdiat it does not 
 set forth may be ascertained from the reasonable rules and regulations of the 
 railroad company, and he is bound to inform himself of such regulations re- 
 specting the conduct of trains and the rights of passengers. ^i 
 
 Purchase of Tickets, and Train Schedules. — If a passenger disregards 
 the regulations of the railroad company as to the purchase of tickets or the 
 running of trains, by failure upon his part to make any inquiries, and such neg- 
 lect is not induced by the company's agent \vho has authority in the matter, the 
 company is not liable for the consequences of such neglect. ■'^'- 
 
 Rights Not Increased by Ignorance of Rules. — One who neglects to in- 
 form himself as to the rules and regulations of the railroad company has no 
 
 Co., 92 Mo. 208, 4 S. W. 739, 1 Am. St. 79. Posted upon car doors.— Macon, etc., 
 
 Rep. 706; Burke v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., R. Co. v. Johnson, 3s Ga. 409. 
 
 51 Mo. App. 491. 80. Duty of passenger to inform him- 
 
 Pennsylvama.—L^V^ Shore, etc., R. Co. self of existence of rules.— /vah-w.?.- 
 
 V. Greenwood, 79 Pa. 373. Atchison, etc., R. Co. i'. Gants, 38 Kan. 
 
 Tennessee.— \^ov:x-,v\\\^, etc., R. Co. v. «08,^ 17 Pac. 54, 5 Am St. Rep. 780. 
 
 Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 A ^"/«c/o'.— Louisville etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 L R A 140 Miles, 100 Ky. 84, IS Ky. L. Rep. 580, 37 
 
 'ri;V«/a.— Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. v. Wy- ^- ^\-'^^^- ^, , , ^ ,. o 
 
 __ GO \-„ 2-() Oklahoma. — Noble v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 
 '.".-'• . , , Co., 4 Okla. 534, 46 Pac. 483. 
 
 Alighting from moving cars.-In Arm- Pcnnsylvania.-h?.^^ Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 
 a[°"?o/-o. q"'%T^-7- -i- i^.w ■' 1-1 "^' Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519, 6 Atl. 545. 
 
 Ala. 233 26 So. 349, It is held that while r.»«^..^r^.-Trotlinger v. East Tennes- 
 
 a rule of a street railway t.iat passengers ^^^^ j, ^^ ^,) r^^^^ (^, L^^, 53. 
 
 must not leave its cars while they are in r^^ra^.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Moody, 3 
 
 motion IS a reasonable rule, a passenger ^^^ ^-^^ ^ ^^22 32 g ^ -^^^qq. j^^^g. 
 
 can not be charged with the nonobserv- ^^^ _ ^ ^^ ^, Moore. 49 Tex. 31, .30 
 
 ance 01 such rule unless he knew 01 it. a j^,.,, 94^ 
 
 77. Required to take direct route. — II- gl. Conduct of trains and rights of pas- 
 linois Cent. R. Co. v. Harper, 83 Miss. sengers.— Southern Kan. R. Co. v. Hins- 
 560, 35 So. 764, 10 R. R. R. 612, 33 Am. dale. 38 Kan. 507, 16 Pac. 937; Lake Shore, 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 812, 64 L. R. A. 283, etc.. R. Co. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519, 
 102 Am. St. Rep. 469. G Atl. 545. 
 
 78. Presumption as to knowledge of 82. Purchase of tickets and train sched- 
 rules. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Rosen- ules. — Southern Kan. R. Co. v. Hinsdale, 
 zweig, 113 Pa. 519, 6 Atl. 545. 3« Kan. 507, 16 Pac. 937.
 
 199 
 
 RULKS AND REGULATIONS OF CARRIERS, 
 
 §§ 320-321 
 
 greater rights under his ticket than if he had acquired actual knowledge of 
 theni.^"- 
 
 § 321. Sufficiency of Publication or Notice.— It is not essential, in order 
 to hind the passenger, tliat he should he directly notified of the existence of a 
 reasonahle rule or regulation of the carrier. It is sufficient that it be so posted 
 or otherwise published that a reasonably ])rudent and diligent man, under the 
 same circumstances, would be put on inquiry and inform himself in regard to 
 the existence and nature of the regulation.'"' 
 
 Posted Regulations for Running of Trains. — A railroad company has the 
 right to make reasonahle regulatitjus for running its trains; and if a purchaser 
 of a ticket has notice of, or the company had given such publicity to them in 
 the ticket office, and by posters in the cars, that a person of ordinary intelli- 
 gence, by the use of reasonable care and caution, would or might have obtaine<l 
 all requisite information, he is l)f)und by the regulations.^" 
 
 Riding on Front Platform with Knowledge of Notice on Other Cars. 
 — \\ here a passenger knew that on certain cars of a street railway company 
 there was a notice stating that passengers choosing to ride on the front platfonn 
 did so at their own risk, it was not necessary for the company, in order to de- 
 feat an action by the passenger for injuries received while alighting from the 
 
 83. Rights not increased by ignorance of 
 rules. — Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. ■:■. Ruseii- 
 zwcIlt. 11:1 I'a. .)!'.), f) Atl. ")4,5. 
 
 84. Sufficiency of publication or notice. 
 — England. — Motteran v. Eastern Counties 
 R. Co. (Eng.), 7 C. B., N. S., 58, 6 Jur. 
 N. S., 583, 29 L. J. M. 59. 
 
 Georgia. — Macon, etc., R. Co. v. John- 
 son, 38 Ga. 409. 
 
 Illinois. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kelsey, 180 111. 530, 54 N. E. 608. 
 
 Kansas. — Southern Kan. R. Co. v. Hins- 
 dale, 38 Kan. 507, K) Pac. 937. 
 
 Maine—State r. Goold. 53 Me. 279. 
 
 Marvland.—Ba.\t\morc City Pass. R. Co. 
 V. Wilkinson. 30 Md. 224. 
 
 Massachusetts. — McDonough v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 191 Mass. 509, 20 R. R. R. 
 641, 43 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 641, 
 78 N. E. 141. 
 
 Nezv York. — Barker v. Central Park, etc., 
 R. Co., 151 N. Y. 237, 45 N. E. 550, 35 
 L. R. A. -189, 56 Am. St. Rep. 626. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Drake v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 137" Pa. 353, 20 Atl. 994, 21 .A.m. St. 
 Rep. 883. 
 
 South Carolina. — Funderburg v. Au- 
 gusta, etc., R. Co., 81 S. C. 141, 30 R. 
 R. R. 281, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 281. 21 L. R. A., N. S., 868, 61 S. E. 1075. 
 
 Tennessee. — Trotlinger v. East Tenn., 
 etc., R. Co., 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 533. 
 
 Riding on platform — Posted on doors 
 of cars. — If a notice proIiiMting passen- 
 gers from riding on tlie platforms of 
 cars be proven to have been posted in 
 large metal letters upon the doors of the 
 passenger car of a railroad company, a 
 passenger will be presumed to know of 
 such rule, and if such knowledge be de- 
 nied, the burden of showing such want 
 of knowledge is upon the party denying 
 it. Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 
 Ga. 409. 
 
 Entry and exit by rear platform only 
 — Use of such cars on prior occasions.^ 
 The fact that a notice of a regulation re- 
 quiring passengers to enter and leave de- 
 fendant's street cars by the rear platform 
 only, was put up inside of all such cars, 
 and legible to all who entered them, and 
 the fact that plaintiff had often previously 
 ridden in the cars, was evidence from 
 which it might be inferred that he had 
 notice of the existence of the regulation. 
 Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Wilkin- 
 son, 30 Md. 224. 
 
 Use of station platforms for boarding 
 and alighting — Platform on one side of 
 track only. — Wlien a passenger knows 
 that on one side of the track no platform 
 or place for alighting from trains has been 
 provided, and that there is a safe and 
 convenient platform, upon the other side 
 for the use of passengers in entering and 
 leaving trains, such knowledge is notice 
 of a rule of the companv that they shall 
 get on and off trains at said platform. 
 Drake v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 137 Pa. 352, 
 20 Atl. 994. 21 Am. St. Rep. 8S3. 
 
 Copy of carriers by-laws affixed at sta- 
 tions. — In Motteram z\ Eastern Counties 
 R. Co. (Eng.), 7 C. B., X. S.. 58, 6 Jur., N. 
 S.. 583. 29 L. J. M. C. 59. it is held that 
 proof that a copy of the b^'-laws of the 
 company was affixed at the stations at 
 which the passengers against which it was 
 attempted to enforce them got into and 
 left the train, is sufficient proof of the 
 publication of such by-laws under § 110 
 of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845, with- 
 out showing that copies were affixed at all 
 otlicr stations. 
 
 85. Postal regulations for running of 
 trains. — Trotlinger v. East Tennessee, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 533.
 
 §§ 321-324 CARRIERS. 200 
 
 front platform of a car. to prove that he had also seen such notice on the par- 
 ticular car on which he was riding.^^ 
 
 Required to Ride in Caboose— Not Posted as Required by Statute.— 
 If a passenger on a freight train is injured while riding on a freight car by rea- 
 son of an accident to the train, the company will be liable if the rule prohibiting 
 passengers from riding elsewhere than in the caboose is not conspicuously posted 
 as required bv law.^' 
 
 Fares, Tickets, Special Contracts, Transfers, etc.— bee post, "Fares, 
 Tickets, Special Contracts. Transfers, etc.," chapter 22. 
 
 § 322. Bound by Rules of Which He Was in Ignorance.— A rule or reg- 
 ulation may be so reasonable and so essential to the proper conduct of the car- 
 rier's business as to be enforceable, even by expulsion, against a passenger who 
 acquired his contract rights and boarded the train or street car without being 
 chargeable with notice of the existence of the regulation. ''S 
 
 Rules for Freight Trains. — A person who enters a freight train, knowing 
 it to be such and intending to take passage thereon, is charged with notice that 
 the railroad company is authorized under the law to make reasonable rules and 
 regulations in reference to the carrying of passengers thereon.^o 
 
 § 323. Rules for Conduct of Carrier's Employees.— A passenger is not 
 presumed to know the private or secret rules given by a railroad to its con- 
 ductors or other employees, but has the right to rely upon their statements as to 
 what the rules are, in contracting with them.''*' 
 
 §§ 324-326. Enforcement of Rules and Regulations— § 324. En- 
 forcement Must Be Reasonable. — Regulations of common carriers of pas- 
 sengers must not only be legal and reasonable, but the carrier must, at its peril, 
 enforce them against passengers in a reasonable manner and without undue 
 and unnecessary severity.''^ 
 
 Exclusion from "Ladies' Car." — Thus, if there be no sitting room in the 
 regular passenger cars for passengers excluded by a reasonable regulation from 
 the "ladies' car," and there be room to seat them in such car, they can not be 
 
 86. Riding on front platform with Rep. 319; Hufford v. Grand Rapids, etc., 
 knowledge of notice on other cars.— Ale- R. Co., 04 Mich. 631, 31 N. W. 544, 8 
 Donough V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 191 Am. St. Rep. 859. 
 
 Mass. 509, 20 R. R. R. 641, 43 Am. & 91. ///rt&a)»ff.— Birmingham R., etc., Co. 
 
 Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 641, 78 N. E. 141. V. McDonough, 153 Ala. 122, 26 R. R. R. 
 
 87. Required to ride in caboose-Not 618, 49 Am. & Eng R- Cas., N S., 618, 44 
 posted as required by statute.— Sherman So. 900 13 L. R. A., N. b., 445. 
 
 - H-innil.'il rti- R Pn TO Mn fi? S7 F/oridO.— LoUlSVlUc, CtC, K. CO. V. 
 
 \'n. Rrn 49'. Berry, 58 Fla. 300, 50 So. 579, 33 R. R. 
 
 To r> a\ 1 f u- T. u ■ R- 227, 56 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 
 88. Bound by rules of which he was m g^., 
 
 ignorance.-Faber v Chicago etc R. /^^c^a.-McKinley v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 62 Mnin. 433, 64 X. W. 918, 36 LR. ^o., 44 Iowa 314, 24 Am. Rep. 748. 
 
 '\- If' -^Sf'^^/^^^^T^'^S^'oin «; a' °;J' .l/flrv/a»rf.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 43 Mont. 294, 41 R. R R 210 64 Am. & <. -^^ j^^ ^35^ ^^ ^^1 ^o^g. Northern 
 
 Eng^ R Cas., X. S 210 llo Pac 401 30 ^^^^^_ ^ ^^ ^ O'Conner, 76 Md. 207, 24 
 
 L. R. A X. S. 1139; Ellis v. Houston, ^^ j ^^^ ^^ L. R. A. 449, 35 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 etc., R. Co., 30 Tex. Civ. App. 172, 70 S. ^^^ 
 
 W. 114; Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. Moody, 3 "prnn^y/^'awfa.-Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 22 S. W. 1009. pjjj^^^ -^g p^ 5^0^ 18 Am. Rep. 424. ' 
 
 89. Rules for freight trains.— Ellis v. Tennessee.— ho\x\%\\\\(i, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co., 30 Tex. Civ. App. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 
 172, 70 S. W. 114. L. R. A. 140; Nashville St. R. Co. v. 
 
 90. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Murden, 86 Griffin, 104 Tenn. 81, 57 S. W. 153, 49 L. 
 Ga. 434. 12 S. E. 630; Ft. Wayne Tract. R. A. 451. 
 
 Co. V. Hardendorf. 164 Tnd. 403. 15 R. R. West yirginia.— Boston v. Chesapeake, 
 
 R. 738, 38 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 73;-,, etc., R. Co., 36 W. Va. 318. 
 
 72 X. E. 593; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. r Wisconsin.— Bass v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 4 X. E. 20, 54 Am. Co., 36 Wis. 450, 17 Am. Rep. 495.
 
 201 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CARRIERS. §§ 324-327 
 
 left standing \vith(jiU breach of the contract of carriage. In such a case, how- 
 ever, tlie object of sucli regulation requires that the selection of the persons to 
 be aihiiilted into the "ladies' car" shall still rest in the discretion of the proper 
 officers of the train.''- 
 
 Backing of Cars Prohibited.— So, where a street car after wrongfully fail- 
 ing to stop at a regular street crossing to take on j^assengers, has passed beyond 
 the crossing from twenty to forty feet, a rule of the company forbidding the 
 backing of cars in such cases is unreasonable, and will not justify them, on a 
 rainy night when the road is very muddy, in refusing to back the car so as to 
 reach the crossing for an intending passenger.'*-' 
 
 Required to Enter Cars within Transfer Station.— It is an unreasonable 
 enforcement of a reasonable rc.^ulalion re(|uiring passengers to enter street cars 
 within a transfer station, or for failure to do so to pay an additional fare, for 
 the company's agents to eject one who, to their knowledge, had paid regular 
 fare, because he had entered a car, in which there was abundant room, while it 
 was standing only a few feet beyond the station line, upon his refusal to pay 
 an additional fare."-* 
 
 Must Show Reason for Suspension of Rule.— A passenger has no right 
 to complain of ihc enforcement of a reasonable rule by the conductor unlessjie 
 has stated to the conductor an adequate reason for its suspension in his case.^-'^ 
 
 § 32 5. Ejection of Passengers. — See post, ''Ejection of Passengers," 
 chapter 25. 
 
 Exclusion from Depot. — A superintendent of a railroad depot has author- 
 ity to exclude therefrom persons who persist in violating reasonable regula- 
 tions prescribed for their conduct.'"' 
 
 § 326. Enforcement by Punishing Prior Breach.— It has been held that 
 a common carrier of passengers may enforce observance of its regulations by 
 prevention, but not bv punishment of a breach already committed."*" 
 
 Ejection for Refusal to Pay Fare— Rule against Re -Entering.— A 
 
 railroad, lujwever. may enforce a reasonable rule preventing a passenger who 
 has willfully refused to pay his fare, and thereby provoked expulsion, from 
 re-entering the train from which he was ejected.^*^ 
 
 §§ 327-328. Waiver of Rules and Regulations— § 327. Habitual 
 Failure to Enforce. — A rule or regulation for the conduct of the business of 
 a common carrier of passengers may be waived and rendered invalid by such 
 open and habitual disregard and failure to enforce it as to justify the traveling 
 public in the belief lliat it has l)een repealed, expressly or impliedly.^^ 
 
 Riding on Freight Trains. — Thus, where a railroad company, notwith- 
 standing ils rule prohibiting passengers from riding on freigb.t trains, habitually 
 
 92. Exclusion from "ladies' car."— Bass N. Y. St. Rep. 865, 18 N. Y. S. 759. af- 
 V. Chica£,Mx etc.. R. Co., 'M) Wis. 450, 17 firmed in 138 N. Y. 623, 33 N. E. 1083. 
 Am Rep 495. 98. Phillips v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 90 
 
 93. Backing of cars prohibited.— Tack- S. C. 1S7. 44 R. R. R. 566, 67 Am. & Eng. 
 son Elect. R.. etc., Co. z: Lowry. 79 Aliss. R. Cas.. N. S., 566, 73 S. E. 75. 
 
 431, 30 So. 634. 99. Uuited States. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 94. Required to enter cars within trans- v. Lowell. 151 U. S. 209. 3S L. Ed. 131, 
 fer station.— Xasliville St. R. Co. r. Grif- 14 S. Ct. 281. 
 
 fin 104 Tenn si -,7 S \V. 153. 40 L. R. Florida. — Florida So. R. Co. r. Hirst, 
 
 A.'4.-,i. 30 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631. 32 
 
 95. Must show reason for suspension of Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 rule.— McMillan f. Federal, etc., R. Co., Indiana.— Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 172 Pa. 523. 33 Atl. 560. Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 4 N. E. 20, 54 Am. 
 
 96. Exclusion from depot. — Common- Rep. 319. 
 
 wealth 7'. Power (Mass.), 7 Mete. 596, 41 }fassacliusctts.—Swcct]an<\ v. Lynn, etc., 
 
 Am. Dec. 4f,5. R. Co.. 177 Mass. 574. 59 N. E. 443, 51 L. 
 
 97. Enforcement by punishing prior R. A. 783. 
 
 breach.— Smith 7'. Manhattan R. Co., 45 .l/iV/ij^ijan.— Greenfield v. Detroit, etc.,
 
 § ^^^-7 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 202 
 
 permits passengers to ride on freight trains, the fact tliat a passenger was on 
 a freight train when injured is no defense in an action against the company 
 for such injurv.i But it has been held that repeated violations of a rule of a 
 railroad company forbidding the carrying of passengers on freight trains, and 
 failure to publish and practically enforce such rule, are mere fact for the con- 
 sideration of the jury in determining whether a reasonably prudent person 
 would have concluded that the rule had fallen into disuse; and, therefore, it 
 was error to charge the jury that any particular state of facts would authorize 
 persons to believe that such rule had been abrogated, or had been permitted 
 to fall into disuse, and the issue should have been left to the jury.- 
 
 Permit for Freight Train. — A railroad company may waive a rule that a 
 person without a i)ermit can not ride as a passenger on a freight train, by a 
 long-continued disregard of such rule.^ But where a railroad company has a 
 rule forbidding the issuance of permits to ride on freight trains by conductors, 
 and a passenger is ejected from a freight train for want of such a permit, the 
 company is not liable because its conductors have violated such rule, unless they 
 have so frequently violated it as to warrant the conclusion that it is not en- 
 forced."* 
 
 Fares, Tickets, Special Contracts, Transfers, etc. — See post, "Fares, 
 Tickets, Special Contracts, Transfers, etc.," chapter 22. 
 
 R. Co., 133 Mich. 557, 8 R. R. R. 271, 31 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 271, 95 N. 
 W. 546. 
 
 Minnesota. — ^Jones v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 43 Minn. 279, 45 N. W. 444. 
 
 Missouri. — Burke v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 51 Mo. App. 491. 
 
 Pennsxlvania. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 •:. Greenwood, 79 Pa. 373. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 
 49 Tex. 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98; Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Xorris (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. 
 W. 708; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Huff 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 249; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Elliott, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 
 31, 54 S. W. 410. 
 
 1. Riding on freight trains. — Burke v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo. App. 491; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 
 31, 30 Am. Rep. 98. 
 
 2. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. 517. 
 
 3. Permit for freight train.^Greenfield 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 133 Mich. 557, 8 
 R. R. R. 271, 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 271, 95 X. W. 546. 
 
 4. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 440; Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 61 S. W. 436. 
 
 Riding on front platform. — A sign on 
 the hood of a street railway car forbid- 
 ding passengers to ride on the front plat- 
 form does not affect the liability of the 
 railway company to one riding on such 
 front platform, who has acted in the be- 
 lief, justified by the company's conduct, 
 that the rule thus indicated was not in 
 force. Sweetland -v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 177 
 Mass. 574, 69 N. E. 443, 51 L. R. A. 783. 
 
 Riding in express cars. — If a railroad 
 company whicii has a rule prohibiting 
 passengers from riding in the express car. 
 
 or in other cars than the passenger cars, 
 habitual!}' permits passengers to ride in the 
 express car, it will incur the same responsi- 
 bility to passengers for injuries received by 
 them, though the company's negligence, 
 when riding in the express car, as if they 
 were in a passenger car. Florida So. R. 
 Co. V. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506, 16 L. 
 R. A. 631, 32 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 But the fact that a street railway com- 
 pany regularly permitted passengers to 
 ride on the front platform of its cars did 
 not show a waiver on its part of a rule 
 providing that, if passengers chose to ride 
 on the front platform, they did so at 
 their own risk. McDonough v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 191 Mass. 509, 20 R. R. R. 
 641, 43 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 641, 
 78 N. E. 141. 
 
 Conductor's agreement to stop train at 
 passenger's station. — Where the time 
 schedule and printed rules showed that a 
 given train should not stop at a certain 
 station, but the evidence showed that it 
 did frequently stop there, the conductor's 
 agreement with a passenger to put him 
 off there was binding on the company. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott, 22 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 31, 54 S. W. 410; Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Huff (Tex. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 
 249. 
 
 Passenger forbidden to alight on north 
 side of tracks. — But the fact that the rail- 
 road company has permitted persons re- 
 siding north of its railroad track to cross 
 its right of way and track on foot, at 
 different points in the vicinity of its sta- 
 tion l)uilding, in going between different 
 parts of the town, is not a waiver of its 
 regulations with respect to its passenger, 
 nor a permission to them to alight on the 
 north side, contrary to such regulations. 
 Drake v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 137 Pa. 
 352, 20 Atl. 994. 21 Am. St. Rep. 883.
 
 203 
 
 RULlvS AXU RKGULATIONS f)P CARRIERS. 
 
 §§ 327-328 
 
 Responsibility for Baggage Prior to Purchase of Ticket.— See post, 
 
 "J'as-cn-ers" J'jTccls,"' clKq.lcT 2''. 
 
 Concurrence of Carrier Essential.— It has been held, however, that to 
 constitute a waiver of a rule of a carrier of passengers there must be such con- 
 duct as in effect establishes the concurrence of the carrier in the disregard of 
 the rci,nilali(in in (luestion.' 
 
 Can Not Be Abrogated by Subordinate Employees.— It has also been 
 held that a carrier of passenger's rules for the control of its trains and persons 
 thereon, for the security of its passengers and employees, and for the j^rotec- 
 tion of itself from imposition and wrong, can not be abrogated by subordinate 
 em])l()\ ees.'' 
 
 Right to Resume Enforcement. — The fact that a rule has often been vio- 
 lated does not deprive the carrier of the right to resume its enforcement when- 
 ever it may deem it j^roper to do so." 
 
 § 328. Passenger's Duty to Conform to Rules as Affected by Lack 
 of Fidelity in Enforcing. — A passenger's obligation to conform to the rea- 
 sonable rules and re-ulations of the carrier, of the existence of which he has 
 notice, or is chargeable with knowledge, does not depend upon the fidelity of 
 the carrier's emplovees in enforcing them.'^ 
 
 Riding in Wrong Car by Consent of Trainmen.— Where a passenger 
 
 5. Concurrence of carrier essential. — ■ 
 Florida So. R. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 11 
 So. 50(>, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 6. Can not be abrogated by subordinate 
 employees. — Transit Co. r. W'liahlc, 105 
 Tenn. 460, 465, 58 S. VV. 861, 51 L. R. A. 
 866; JMemphis, etc., R. Co. v. Benson. 85 Tenn. 
 627, 4 S. W. 5; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Turner, 100 Tenn. 213, 47 S. W. 223, 43 
 L. R. A. 140; Trotlinger v. East Tennes- 
 see, etc., R. Co., 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 533. 
 
 7. Right to resume enforcement. — 
 Hobbs V. Texas, etc.. R. Co.. 49 Ark. 537, 
 
 5 S. \V. 586. 
 
 8. Passenger's duty to conform to rules 
 as affected by lack of fidelity in enforcing. 
 —F/()r/(/a.— Florida So. R. Co. v. Hirst, 30 
 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 Am. 
 St. Rep. 17. 
 
 Indiana.— Ohio, etc.. R. Co. v. Hatton, 
 60 Ind. 12. 
 
 /owa.— Weber Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 113 Iowa 188, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 464, 84 N. W. 1042. 
 
 Maryland.— Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. 
 r. Wilkinson, 30 Md. 224. 
 
 .l//c7(i\'a;i.— Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 Co., 133 Mich. 557, 8 R. R. R. 271, 31 Am. 
 
 6 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 271, 95 N. W. 546. 
 r^^.i-dj.— Ellis V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 30 Te.x. Civ. App. 172, 70 S. W. 114; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Stell, 3 R. R. R. 
 722, 26 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 722. 
 
 West I'irginia. — Downey v. Chesapeake, 
 etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 732. 
 
 Authority of conductor. — Every one is 
 l)Ound to know tliat a railway conductor 
 has no general power to run his train ex- 
 cept in conformity to the train rules. 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. z\ Pierce, 47 
 Mich. 277, 11 N. W. 157. 
 
 Permit to ride on freight train. ^.\ pas- 
 
 senger who knew it was essential under 
 the rules of the railroad company, that, in 
 addition to his ticket, he should have a 
 permit to ride on a freight train, and that 
 he must get the permit before he got on 
 the train, and that the ticket agent had 
 no authority to say he could get it of the 
 conductor, can not, because of such rep- 
 resentation of the agent, recover for his 
 ejection by the conductor. Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Stell (Tex.), 3 R. R. R. 722, 26 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 722. 
 
 Where the railroad company's rules re- 
 quired that a person intending to be- 
 come a passenger on a freight train should 
 sign a special permit to be obtained from 
 its ticket agent or conductor, the action 
 of such agent in selling plaintiff a ticket 
 that he might ride on a freight train, with- 
 out mentioning the permit, did not create 
 an unconditional contract to carry plain- 
 tiff without a permit and in violation of 
 an established rule. Ellis v. Houston, etc., 
 R. Co., 30 Tex. Civ. App. 172, 70 S. W. 
 114. 
 
 Agreement of conductor to stop at pas- 
 senger's station. — Whore a passenger has 
 a ticket to a certain station, and takes 
 passage upon a train which, under the 
 regulations of the cafrier. does stop at 
 such station, the fac\ that the conductor 
 takes up his ticket and agrees to stop the 
 train at such station, and let the passen- 
 ger off there, will not bind the carrier. 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. r. Hatton, i-.O Tnd. 12. 
 
 Agreement with carrier conflicting with 
 train rules — Conductor. — .A conductor can 
 not be required In- a passenger to deviate 
 from his train rules on the latter's state- 
 ment of an alleged agreement with the 
 companv conflicting therewith. Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. r. Pierce. 47 Mich. 277, 
 11 X. W. 157.
 
 ^§ 32S-330 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 204 
 
 rides in a car, or place or position on a train or car, with knowledge of the 
 existence of a regulation of the carrier prohibiting passengers from riding 
 there, the fact that he is there by permission or invitation of the conductor or 
 other trainmen will not prevent his violation of such rule from constituting 
 contributory negligence.'-* 
 
 Riding in Dangerous Place by Consent of Conductor. — If a passenger 
 rides where he has no right to ride Ijv the rules of the railroad company, and 
 where no man of ordinary prudence would attempt to ride, the mere knowledge 
 or consent of the conductor or trainmen to his riding there will not entitle him 
 to any greater rights against the company on account of any injury received 
 by him while so riding, than if the conductor and trainmen had been wholly 
 ignorant that he was so riding.^" 
 
 Authority to Receive Other Property as Personal Baggage. — See post, 
 "Passenger's Effects." chai)ter 29. 
 
 § 329. Contributory Negligence of Passenger in Not Conforming to 
 Rules and Regulations. — See post, "Contributory Negligence," chapter 24. 
 
 §§ 330-332. Carrier Bound by Its Own Rules— § 330. In General. 
 
 — W here a regulation of the carrier is for the protection of the rights or for 
 the safety of passengers, a violation of it by the carrier may constitute action- 
 able negligence for which a passenger may recover damages.^ ^ 
 
 9. Riding in wrong car by consent of 
 trainmen. — Florida So. k. Co. v. Hirst, 30 
 Fla. 1, 11 So. 50G, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 Am. 
 St. Rep. 17; Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 Co., 133 Mich. 557, 8 R. R. R. 271, 31 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 271, 95 N. W. 546; 
 Downey v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 28 
 W. \a. 7:52. 
 
 Required to ride in passenger cars. — It 
 is the duty of the conductor of a train 
 to enforce a rule of the company requir- 
 ing passengers to ride in the passenger 
 cars, but the obligation upon passengers 
 and the protection to the company of a 
 rule of this kind is not dependent upon 
 the fidelity of the conductor or other 
 agent charged with the duty of its en- 
 forcement. Florida So. R. Co. v. Hirst, 
 
 30 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 
 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 On freight train — Arrangement with 
 conductor. — Plaintiff was not a passenger 
 on defendant's freight train, if he rode 
 thereon by an arrangement with the con- 
 ductor contrary to a rule of defendant 
 known to both. Greenfield v. Detroit, 
 etc., R. Co., 133 Mich. 557, 8 R. R. R. 271, 
 
 31 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 271, 95 
 N. W. 546. 
 
 In express car — Consent of conductor. 
 — It is contriijutory negligence for a pas- 
 senger to ride in an express car in vio- 
 lation of a known rule of the carrier, even 
 with the permission, connivance or knowl- 
 edge of the conductor of the train, or 
 without his protestation against it, when 
 the conductor is cognizant of the rule 
 and of its infraction, if by such violation 
 of the rule the passenger brings upon 
 himself injury from which he would have 
 escaped, although the negligence of the 
 carrier produced the accident, had he re- 
 mained in the passenger car set apart, and 
 
 affording space, for his accommodation. 
 Florida So. R. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 11 
 So. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 Am. St. 
 Rep. 17. 
 
 10. Riding in dangerous place by con- 
 sent of conductor. — Downey v. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 732. 
 
 Riding on running board — Authority of 
 conductor. — A street car conductor can 
 not waive a rule prohibiting persons from 
 riding on the running board. Twiss v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 208 Mass. 108, 40 
 R. R. R. 566, 63 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 556, 94 N. E. 253, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 
 552. 
 
 11. In General. — Frizzell v. Omaha St. 
 R. Co., 59 C. C. A. 382, 9 R. R. R. 714, 
 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 714, 124 
 Fed. 176; Jennings v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (Eng.), 35 L. J. Q. B. 15, L. R. 1 Q. 
 B. 7, 1 Ry. & C. T. Cas., 15; Pittsburgh, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Nuzum, 50 Ina. 141, 19 Am. 
 Rep. 703; Foley v. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 
 198 Mass. 532, 31 R. R. R. 251, 54 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 251, 84 N. E. 846; 
 Sweetland v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 177 Mass. 
 574, .59 X. K. 443, 51 L. R. A. 783. 
 
 Method of operation of street cars. — On 
 the trial of a charge of negligence in the 
 operation of a street car, a rule of the 
 company which directs the method of the 
 operation in respect of which complaint 
 is made is competent evidence. Frizzell 
 V. Omaha St. R. Co., 59 C. C. A. 382, 
 9 R. R. R. 714, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 714, 124 Fed. 176. 
 
 Excessive speed over frog. — Where it 
 appeared that the rules of a street rail- 
 way company required its cars to go over 
 a certain frog at a rate not exceeding four 
 miles an hour, evidence that one of its 
 cars about to pass over this frog was
 
 205 
 
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CARRIERS. 
 
 §§ 330-332 
 
 Right to Enforce Rule against Passenger.— Where a by-law of a rail- 
 road company impuscs certain duties on passenj^'crs, and lays correlative duties 
 on the company, tlie company must have strictly complied with the by-law to 
 entitle it to enforce it against a passenger.^^ 
 
 Violation of Rules to Accommodate Single Passenger.— Tlie duty of 
 a raih'oad company to tlie public requires tlial u sliuuld run its trains accord- 
 ing to its rules and regulations, without infringing upon them to accommodate 
 a single passenger. ^^ 
 
 § 331. Rules Not Required by Law.— And a regulation of the carrier, 
 made for the protection of the rights, or for the safety of passengers, may be 
 binding on the carrier, though not required by law.^-* 
 
 § 332. Rules Requiring More of Carrier than Law— It has been held 
 that a rule or regulation of a common carrier of passengers which requires more 
 of it than the law requires is not binding upon it, and its failure to conform to 
 it does not constitute actionable negligence for which a passenger may recover 
 damages. ^^'^ It has been held, however, that where a street car company, ac- 
 cording to its rules, issues transfers from and to certain lines, and the pas- 
 senger presents a transfer which is not honored by the conductor, and the pas- 
 senger is ejected, it is no defense to an action for the ejection that a statute 
 does not require the issuance of a transfer between the particular lines in 
 question.^*' 
 
 running at the rate of twelve or fifteen 
 miles an hour was held to be evidence of 
 negligence on the part of the company. 
 Swcetland v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 177 Mass. 
 574. 59 N. H. 443. 51 L. R. A. 783. 
 
 Motorman's disobedience of rules.— 
 Disobedience by a motorman of rules es- 
 tablished by the company is want of due 
 care on the part of the company. Foley 
 7'. Boston, etc.. St. R. Co.. 198 Mass. 532, 
 31 R. R. R. 251, 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 X. S., 231, S4 N. E. 84(i. 
 
 Motorman's opportunity to read rules. 
 — And that the motorman did not have 
 time to read the rules of the company, 
 where he had been in its service nearly 
 two weeks after having been instructed 
 for twelve days, is no excuse for his not 
 complying with rules established by the 
 carrier for the protection of passengers. 
 Foley V. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 198 Mass. 
 532, 31 R. R. R. 251, 54 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 251, 84 N. E. 846. 
 
 12. Right to enforce rule against pas- 
 senger. — Jennings v. Great Northern R. 
 Co. (Eng.), 35 L. J. Q. B.. 15 L. R., 1 Q. 
 B. 7, 1 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 15. 
 
 13. Violation of rules to accommodate 
 
 single passenger. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co 
 V. Xuzum, 5(1 Jnd. 141, 19 Am. Rep. 703. 
 
 14. Arnold v. Rhode Island Co. (R. I.). 
 23 R. R. R. 414, 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 414, 66 Atl. 60. 
 
 15. Fluker v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 81 
 Ga. 461, 8 S. E. 529, 2 L. R. A. 843, 12 
 Am St. Rep. 328; Summitt v. State, 76 
 Tenn. (8 Lea) 413, 41 Am. Rep. 637; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Lampm.an, 18 Wyo. 
 106. 34 R. R. R. 28. 57 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas.. N. S., 28, 104 Pac. 533. 25 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 217, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 788. 
 
 Starting trains — Rules requiring too 
 high degree of care. — The failure of train- 
 men to comply with the carrier's rules 
 regulating the starting of trains at sta- 
 tions, which rules require a higher degree 
 of care for the safety of the passeTigers 
 than the law requires, is not negligence 
 for which the carrier is liable. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Lampman, 18 Wyo. 
 106, 34 R. R. R. 28, 57 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 28, 104 Pac. 533, 25 L. R. A., 
 N. S.. 217, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 788. 
 
 16. Issuance of street car transfers not 
 required by law. — Arnold v. Rhode Island 
 Co (R. I.), 23 R. R. R. 414, 46 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 414, 66 Atl. 60.
 
 PART II 
 CARRIERS OF GOODS 
 
 CHAPTER W. 
 
 Duty to Receive and Carry. 
 
 I. General Statement and Explanation of Rule. § 333. 
 II. Duty to Furnish Sliipping Facilities and Means of Transportation, §§ 334-341. 
 
 A. In General. § 334. 
 
 B. Notice to Carrier, §§ 335-338. 
 
 a. Time of Notice, § 335. 
 
 b. Requisites and Sufficiency of Demand, § 336. 
 
 c. To Whom Given, § 337. 
 
 d. Specifying Condition and Danger of Goods, § 338. 
 
 C. Place of Furnishing Cars, § 339. 
 
 D. Goods Ready for Shipment. § 340. 
 
 E. Adequacy of Facilities, § 341. 
 III. Discrimination, §§ 342-355. 
 
 A. Right to Discriminate Generally, § 342. 
 
 B. Discrimination in Facilities and Cars, §§ 343-348. 
 
 a. In General, § 343. 
 
 b. Dscrimination in Favor of One of Several Connecting Carriers, § 344. 
 
 c. Preference in Delivery and Distribution of Cars, § 345. 
 
 d. With Respect to Use of Tracks, §§ 346-347. 
 
 (1) In General, § 346. 
 
 (2) With Respect to Spur Tracks, Switches and Belt Lines, § 347. 
 
 e. Discrimination in Switch and Trackage Charges. § 348. 
 
 C. Preference to Shipper in Order of Forwarding Goods. §§ 349-350. 
 
 a. In General, § 349. 
 
 b. Booking Freight, § 350. 
 
 D. Remedies for Discrimination, §§ 351-355. 
 
 a. Form of Action, §§ 351-353. 
 
 (1) Injunction and Mandamus. § 351. 
 
 (2) Quo Warranto, § 352. 
 ("3) Action at Law, § 353. 
 
 b. Evidence, § 354. 
 
 c. Damages, 355. 
 
 IV. Tender and Refusal, §§ 356-359. 
 
 A. In General, § 356. 
 
 B. Authority to Tender, § 357. 
 
 C. Authority to Receive Freight and Make Contracts. § 358. 
 
 D. Place and Time of OfTer for Transportation, § 359. 
 V. Payment or Tender of Charges, § 360. 
 
 VI. Time and Order of Shipment, 361. 
 VII. Character of Goods Tendered for Shipment. § 362. 
 VIII. Condition and Preparation of Goods Tendered, § 363. 
 IX. Private Owned Trains or Cars, § 364. 
 
 X. Shipment C. O. D., § 365. 
 XL Exceptional Causes Justifying Failure or Refusal. §§ 366-374. 
 
 A. General Statement, § 366. 
 
 B. Absence of Requisite Conveniences or Capacity. § 367. 
 
 C. Unusual Press of Business, §§ 368-371. 
 a. In General, § 368.
 
 207 ■ DUTY TO RECKIVE AND CARRY. § ^^^ 
 
 b. Discrimination or Granting Privileges, § 369. 
 
 c. Duty to Advise Shipper of Delay, § 370. 
 
 d. Carriers "Eniljargo," § 371. 
 
 D. Causes Beyond Carrier's Control, § 372. 
 
 E. Failure of Shipper to Insure, § 373. 
 
 F. Customs and Habits of Dealing, § 374. 
 
 XII. Right to Discontinue Service to Shipper, § 375. 
 XIII. Destination of Goods as Affecting Duty, § 37G. 
 XIV. Duty as to Express Companies, § 377. 
 XV. Enforcement of Duty, §§ 378-379. 
 
 A. By Injunction, § 378. 
 
 B. By Mandamus, § 379. 
 
 XVI. Action for Refusal, §§ 380-382. 
 
 A. Right of Action, § 380. 
 
 B. Procedure, § 381. 
 
 C. Damages, § 382. 
 
 XVII. Penalties for Wrongful Refusal. § 383. 
 
 § 333. General Statement and Explanation of Rule. — In America, ac- 
 cording to the early history of its settlement, the condition of the country and 
 the habits of the people, when carrying goods scarcely existed as a separate 
 business, it seems that the common law, requiring a carrier to transport goods 
 at customary rates, or. upon refusing, to be held liable for a breach of public 
 duty,^ was never generally adopted, even within the termini of the carrier's route. - 
 It may be that the faikire to recognize generally the common-law rule upon this 
 point, in America, induced some of the state legislatures to provide regulations 
 for running cars, and making railroad companies liable in case of their refusal 
 to carry passengers or property, or to deliver the same at the regular appointed 
 place.'* The conditions which existed in those early days are of no effect at 
 the present time and the rule must necessarily be of a different and broader 
 nature. The general rule wdiich exists today may well be deduced from the 
 definition of a "common carrier." Thus it may be well said that the term 
 "common carrier" naturally brings to mind a general undertaking, which em- 
 
 1. Common-law rule. — Where goods tie qualification to the business of a peo- 
 are properly tendered to a common car- pie whose occupations are vague, desult- 
 rier for shipment, the common law re- ory, and irregular. In England, one who 
 quires it to receive them. Alissouri, etc., holds himself out as a general carrier is 
 R. Co. V. Stoner, 5 Te.x. Civ. App. 50, 53, bound to take employment at the current 
 23 S. W. 1020; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. price; but it will not be thought that he 
 Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 29 S. W. 565. is bound to do so here. Nothing was 
 
 It is a common-law duty of a common more common formerly, than for the 
 
 carrier to receive freight whenever ten- wagoners to lie by in Philadelphia for a 
 
 dered. Reid v. Southern R. Co., 153 N. rise of wages. In England, the obliga- 
 
 C. 490, 69 S. E. 618. tion to carry at request upon the carriers' 
 
 2. Common-law rule not applied. — Pitts- particular route, is the criterion of the 
 buigh, etc., R. Co. 7'. Miirtcn, (U Ind. 539, profession; but it is certainly not so with 
 28 Am. Rep. ()S2. us. In Pennsylvania, we had no carriers 
 
 In Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, exclusively between particular places, _be- 
 
 61 Ind. 539, 2S Am. Rep. 682, it is said in fore the establishment of our public lines 
 
 the opinion: "In the case of Gordon v. of transportation; and according to the 
 
 Hutchinson, cited below, Chie^ Justice English principle we could have had no 
 
 Gibson, of Pennsylvania, as late as 1841. carriers, for it was not pretended that a 
 
 uses the following sensible remarks: 'But wagoner could be compelled to load for 
 
 rules which have received their form from any part of the continent.' " 
 
 the business of a people whose occupa- 3. Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 tions are definite, regular, and fixed, must Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 .\m. Rep. 682. 685; 
 
 be applied with much caution and no lit- 1 Indiana R. S. 1876, p. 710, § 29, 30.
 
 § 333 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 208 
 
 braces every one in the community. To make it particular, as an undertaking 
 with a single individual, it is only necessary that he should apply, with such 
 goods as the common carrier has undertaken to transport, in condition to be 
 transported, at the place designated, to have the goods carried on the terms pro- 
 posed in the undertaking; then the contract becomes identical with the person 
 thus applving, and it requires no other special contract between the parties, to 
 subject tlie common carrier to all legal liabilities as such, to the person apply- 
 ing.-* And it follows that a common carrier of goods is bound either by statute 
 or under the common law to receive and carry all the goods offered for trans- 
 portation in his line of business, when properly prepared for shipment, subject 
 to all the responsibilities incident to his employment."' And the rule may be 
 broadly stated that, in the absence of the existence of an exceptional cause, 
 such as the act of God, the public enemy, unavoidable accident, or an abnormal 
 and unanticipated inrush of business which will prevent the performance of 
 
 4. Meaning of term "common carrier." 
 —Doty V. Strong (Wis.), 1 Pin. 313, 40 
 Am. Dec. 773. 
 
 5. Duty to receive and carry. — New 
 Jersey Steam Xav. Co. v. Merchants 
 Bank (U. S.), G How. 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; 
 Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing Co. (U. 
 S.), 16 Wall. 318, 328, 21 L. Ed. 297; York 
 Co. V. Central Railroad (U. S.), 3 Wall. 
 107, 112, 18 L. Ed. 170; Inman- v. South 
 Carolina R. Co., 129 U. S. 128, 32 L. Ed. 
 612, 9 S. Ct. 249; Wabash R. Co. v. 
 Pearce, 192 U. S. 179, 187, 48 L. Ed. 397, 
 24 S. Ct. 231; Myrick v. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 106, 27 L. Ed. 
 325, 1 S. Ct. 425; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 99; Pro- 
 peller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 
 7, 22, 16 L. Ed. 41; Atchison, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 674, 
 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185. 
 
 United States. — Inman & Co. v. Sea- 
 board, etc., R. Co., 159 Fed. 960. 
 
 Alabama. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Rice, 
 169 Ala. 265, 52 So. 918, 29 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1214. 
 
 Georgia. — Shelnut v. Central, etc., R. 
 Co., 131 Ga. 404, 62 S. E. 294, 18 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 494; Wallace v. Matthews, 39 Ga. 
 617, 99 Am. Dec. 473; Southern Exp. Co. 
 V. Rose Co., 124 Ga. 581, 53 S. E. 185, 5 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 619. 
 
 Idaho. — Mcintosh v. Oregon R., etc., 
 Co., 17 Idaho 100, 105 Pac. 66. 
 
 Illinois. — Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 
 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574. 
 
 Iowa. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Franken- 
 berg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92. 
 
 Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Queen City Coal Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep. 832. 
 
 Ohio. — Waring & Co. v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. 553; 
 Samms v. Stewart, 20 O. 69, 70, 55 Am. 
 Dec. 445; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bing- 
 ham, 29 O. St. 364, affirmed in 9 O. St. 
 397. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, 
 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 29 S. W. 565; Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Galton, 45 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 67, 100 S. W. 166. 
 
 He is, in general, bound to take the 
 goods of all who offer, unless his com- 
 plement for the trip is full, or the goods 
 be of such a kind as to be liable to extra- 
 ordinary danger, or such as he is unac- 
 customed to convey. Propeller Niagara 
 V. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 7, 22, 16 L. 
 Ed. 41. 
 
 A railroad company is a carrier of 
 goods for the public, and, as such, is 
 bound to carry safely whatever goods are 
 intrusted to it for transportation, within 
 the course of its business, to the end of 
 its route, and there deposit them in a suit- 
 able place for their owners or consign- 
 ees. Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 107 U. S. 102, 106, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 
 425. 
 
 The Winona and St. Peter Railroad 
 Company, having been incorporated as a 
 common carrier, with all the rights and 
 subject to all the obligations which that 
 term implies, was bound to carry, when 
 called upon for that purpose, and charge 
 only a reasonable compensation therefor. 
 Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 
 180, 24 L. Ed. 99. 
 
 A railroad company is bound to re- 
 ceive and carry any freight properly ten- 
 dered to it. Memphis News Pub. Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 110 Tenn. 684, 75 S. W. 
 941, 63 L. R. A. 150. 
 
 Under Rev. St., art. 4227, providing that 
 in case of refusal by a common carrier 
 "to take and transport any passenger or 
 property, or to deliver the same, or ei- 
 ther of them, at the regular or appointed 
 time, such corporation shall pay to the 
 party aggrieved all damages which shall 
 be sustained thereby, with costs of suit," 
 a carrier is liable for receiving the goods 
 of one shipper after rejecting those of a 
 prior applicant. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 421. 
 
 Common carrieis are liable for refus- 
 ing to transport goods, in condition to be 
 transported, and delivered at the place 
 designated for receiving them. Doty v. 
 Strong (Wis.), 1 Pin. 313, 40 Am. Dec. 
 773.
 
 209 
 
 DUTY TO RECEIVK AND CARRY, 
 
 § 333 
 
 its common-law duty to shiiJi^ers, a common carrier has no right to refuse to 
 receive and transport property offered for sliipment, where sucli property is in 
 good condition and properly prepared for shipment, and belongs to a class of 
 property subject to carriage by such carrier.'' 
 
 Duty Not Dependent upon Contract. — The duty of common carriers with 
 respect to the transpurlatiun of property is a duty independent of contract, 
 arising by implication of law from the fact that property is received in the 
 course of business of such employment." It is not necessary to prove any 
 special undertaking, in an action against a carrier for refusing to carry goods. ^ 
 But this duty may arise either ujion his common-law obligation to that effect 
 or upon some express contract made by him in that behalf.'-^ And in this con- 
 nection it is held that the true test as to whether a party is a common carrier 
 or not is his legal duty and obligation with reference to transportation. If it 
 is optional with him whether he will carry or not, he is a private carrier; if 
 he must carry for all, he is a common carrier.^*^ 
 
 Carriers Public Institutions. — As a general rule, the law makes all rail- 
 ways public highwa}s, open to the use of all persons for the transportation of 
 their presons or property, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, 
 and it is apprehended it is unlawful to make any discrimination as to the prop- 
 erty offered to be carried, or as to whether it belongs to a private person or to 
 a corporation. If it is such property as is capable of being carried with the 
 means ordinarily employed by such carriers, the obligation is imperative, and 
 the carrier must receive the property and carry it with safety, in the way such 
 property is usually carried.^ ^ By accepting a grant of corporate power from 
 the state, a common carrier, such as a railroad, binds itself to do and perform 
 certain things conducive to the public welfare. These things consist principally 
 in the dutv to carry and transport persons and property from one point on its 
 road to another under reasonable rules and regulations. i- A railroad company, 
 
 6. Brown v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., IS 
 Mo. App. 568; Potts v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 17 Mo. App. 394; Hance v. Pacific 
 Exp. Co., 48 Mo. App. 179; Knight v. 
 Quincy, etc., R. Co., 120 Mo. App. 311, 96 
 S. W. 716, 720. See post, "Exceptional 
 Causes." 
 
 Where, at the time plaintiff offered an 
 animal to a carrier for transportation, 
 conditions \\ v.*re such, owing to the delay 
 of a train, that the animal, if shipped, 
 would be detained a whole day at a cer- 
 tain point, of which plaintiff was in- 
 formed, conceding that the cause of the 
 delay which the shipment would have en- 
 countered was unavoidable, the carrier 
 was liable for refusing to transport the 
 animal unless it should be accompanied 
 by a caretaker, or the shipper should sign 
 a release for all damages and liabilities. 
 Under the circumstances it was the duty 
 of the carrier to receive the shipment, and 
 to exercise reasonable care to supply the 
 animal's wants in case it required food 
 and water during detention. Kniglit v. 
 Quincv. etc.. R. Co., 120 Mo. App. 311. 96 
 S. W. 716. 
 
 7. Duty arises independent of contract. 
 — Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 
 90 Ga. 810. 17 S. E. 121; Delaware, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Trautwein, 52 N. J. L. 169, 19. 
 Atl. 178, 7 L. R. A. 435, 41 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 187, 19 Am. St. Rep. 442; Adams 
 Exp. Co. V. Nock (Ky.), 2 Duv. 562. 87 
 
 1 Car— 14 
 
 Am. Dec. 510; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431, 438, 49 S. 
 W. 526. 
 
 8. Special contract unnecessary. — Doty 
 V. Strong (Wis.), 1 Pin. 313, 40 Am. Dec. 
 773. 
 
 9. Either by law or contract. — Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 431, 43S, 19 S. W. 526. 
 
 10. Who are common carriers. — -Pied- 
 mont Mfg. Co. V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194. 19 S. C. 353; 
 Schloss V. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 17 Pac. 
 910; Xugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 27; 
 Pennewill v. Cullen (Del), 5 Har. 238; 
 Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. J. L. 372, 
 affirmed in 23 N. J. L. 580; Herring v. 
 Utlev, 53 N. Car. 270; Spears v. Lake, 
 etc., 'R. Co. (N. Y.), 67 Barb. 513; Harlan 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 235; Russell v. Livingston (N. Y.), 19 
 Barb. 343; Elkins v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 23 N. H. 275; Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Pa. 
 120. 
 
 11. Carriers, public institutions. — Peo- 
 ria, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 506; Powers v. Inferior 
 Court, 23 Ga. 65. 
 
 12. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. i\ Bingham, 
 29 O. St. 364, affirmed in 9 O. St. 397. 
 
 "The obligation to carry, thus assumed, 
 can not be disregarded or rejected at 
 pleasure. It is an indispensable condi-
 
 § 333 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 210 
 
 as a common carrier, can not refuse to receive and carry freiglit provided it 
 has expressly or impliedly offered to carry such freight if there is a proper 
 offer to pay freight charges, and no reasonable excuse for refusing trans- 
 portation. ^^ It is generally held to be the duty of a railroad, subject to such 
 
 tion to the right to exercise corporate 
 functions. The dutj- to carry is correl- 
 ative to the existence of the corporate 
 power of the company, and ceases only 
 with a surrender of its corporate privi- 
 leges. It is, therefore, a right that the 
 public have to enter upon the premises of 
 the companj- at points designed or desig- 
 nated for receiving passengers, and upon 
 compliance with the rules governing the 
 transportation of persons to be carried 
 over its road to such points thereon as 
 they may desire. The right of the pub- 
 lic to enter is coextensive with the duty 
 of the company to receive and carry." 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 
 O. St. 364. affirmed in 9 O. St. 397. 
 
 "Transportation by a common carrier 
 is necessarily open to the public upon 
 equal and reasonable terms. An exclu- 
 sive right granted to one is inconsistent 
 with the rights of all others." Memphis 
 News Pub. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 110 
 Tenn. 684. 75 S. W. 941, 63 L. R. A. 150. 
 
 Railroad companies can not, as other 
 carriers, relieve themselves from their 
 obligation to carry any property which 
 they are adapted to transport. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Harris, 1 Tex. App. Civ. 
 Cas.. § 1257. 
 
 Doing business with rival company.— 
 One railroad company is not justified in 
 disconnecting a switch leading to a coal 
 mine, and refusing to permit the owners 
 of the coal mine to ship coal over its road 
 because such owners also ship coal from 
 the same mine over the road of another 
 railroad company which is also con- 
 nected with the mine by a switch. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co. V. Suffern. 129 111. 274, 
 38 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 508. 21 N. E. 824. 
 
 13. Rule applied to railroads. — United 
 States. — Hannil)al, etc., R. Co. z>. Swift, 
 12 Wall. 262. 20 L. Ed. 423; Jencks v. Cole- 
 man, Fed. Cas. No. 7258, 2 Sumn. 221; 
 New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Mer- 
 chants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; 
 Pearson v. Duane, 4 Wall. 605, 18 L. Ed. 
 447; Saltonstall v. Stockton, Fed. Cas. No. 
 12271, Taney 11, affirmed in 13 Pet. 181, 
 20 L. Ed. 115; Southern Exp. Co. v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 5 Myers Fed. Dec, § 
 1511; Johnson v. Three Hundred and 
 Eighteen and One-Half Tons of Coal, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 14,010, 14 Blatchf. 45:;. 44 
 Conn. 548. 
 
 Alabama. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Prew- 
 itt, 46 Ala. 63, 7 Am. Rep. 586; Selma, 
 etc., R. Cr. v. Butts, 43 Ala. 385, 94 Am. 
 Dec. 694; South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein, 
 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578; Southwest- 
 ern R. Co. V. Webb, 48 Ala. 585. 
 
 California. — Pfister v. Central Pac. R. 
 Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 686, 27 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. Cas. 246, 59 Am. Rep. 404; Tar- 
 ludi V. Central Pac. R. Co., 34 Cal. 616; 
 Wheeler v. San Francisco, etc., R. Co., 
 31* Cal. 46, 89 Am. Dec. 147. 
 
 Connecticut. — Fuller v. Naugatuck R. 
 Co., 21 Conn. 557. 
 
 Dakota. — Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456. 
 
 Georgia. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Lo- 
 gan, 77 Ga. 804, 2 S. E. 465; Falvey v. 
 Georgia Railroad, 76 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. 
 Rep. 58. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Suf- 
 fern, 129 111. 274, 21 N. E. 824, affirming 
 27 111. App. 404; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bryan, 90 111. 126; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Gasaway, 71 111. 570; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Thompson, 19 111. 578; Galena, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Rae, 18 111. 488, 68 Am. 
 Dec. 574; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yar- 
 wood, 15 111. 468; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. 
 Rep. 605, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506; 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Dorman, 72 111. 
 504; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Pence, 68 111. 
 524; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Black, 11 
 111. App. 465. 
 
 Indiana. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wol- 
 cott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 N. E. 451, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 320; Fitzgerald v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 24 Ind. 447, 87 Am. Dec. 341; In- 
 dianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Rinard, 46 Ind. 
 293; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flanagan, 
 113 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Rep. 674, 32 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 532; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Godman, 104 Ind. 490, 4 N. E. 
 163; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 lozva. — Cobb, etc., Co. v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co., 38 Iowa 601; State v. Chovin, 7 
 Iowa 204. 
 
 Kentuckx. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Queen Ci'ty Coal Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep. 
 832; Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mer- 
 cer, 96 Ky. 475, 29 S. W. 301, 61 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 340, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 555; 
 Winnegar v. Central Pass. R. Co., 85 Ky. 
 547, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 156, 4 S. W. 237. 
 
 Maine. — Railroad Comm'rs v. Portland, 
 etc., R. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208. 
 
 Maryland. — Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lehman, 56 Md. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 415, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Jordon v. Fall River 
 R. Co., 5 Cush. (Mass.) 69, 51 Am. Dec. 
 44; Thomas v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 10 
 Mete. 472, 43 Am. Dec. 444. 
 
 Michigan. — American Merchants' Un- 
 ion Exp. Co. V. Phillips, 29 Mich. 515; 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 
 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275; Michigan, 
 etc., R. Co. V. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165. 
 
 Mississippi. — Southern Exp. Co. v.
 
 211 
 
 DUTY TO RECEIVE AND CARRY 
 
 § 333 
 
 reasonable rules as may be adopted in llie transaction of its business as a 
 common carrier, to receive and transport goods to the terminus of its line/"* 
 
 Moon, 39 Miss. 822; Vicksburg, etc., Co. 
 V. United States Exp. Co., G8 Miss. 149, 
 8 So. 332. 
 
 Missouri. — Birney v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Mo. App. 470; Ballentine v. North 
 Missouri R. Co., 40 Mo. 491, 93 Am. Dec. 
 315; White z: Missouri Pac. R. Co., 19 
 Mo. App. 400. 
 
 .Xczi' Jlamf^sliirc. — Bennett v. Dutton, 10 
 N. H. 481. 
 
 Nczv Jcrscv. — Atwater v. Delaware, etc., 
 R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 55, 57 Am. Rep. 543, 
 2 Atl. 803; Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 
 N. J. L. 372, affirmed in 23 N. J. L. 580; 
 Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. 
 J. L. 531, 18 Am. Rep. 754" New York, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 283, 21 
 Atl. 1052; Rogers Locomotive, etc., 
 Works V. Erie R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379. 
 
 Xezv York. — Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. 
 McLoon, 48 Barb. 27; Beekman v. Sara- 
 toga, etc., R. Co., 3 Paige 45, 22 Am. Dec. 
 679; Camden, etc., Transp. Co. v. Burke, 
 13 Wend. 611, 28 Am. Dec. 488; Carroll 
 V. Staten Island R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126, 17 
 Am. Rep. 221; Fish v. Clark, 2 Lans. 
 176, atifirmed in 49 N. Y. 122; Grund v. 
 Pendcrgast, 58 Barb. 216; Hastings v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Hun. 638, 6 
 N. Y. S. 836. 25 N. Y. St. Rep. 249, 3 
 Silvernail 422; Lamb v. Camden, etc., 
 Transp. Co., 2 Daly 454; People v. Bab- 
 cock, 16 Hun 313; People v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1, 28 
 Hun 543, 3 Civ. Proc. R. 11, 2 McCarty 
 Civ. Proc. 345; S. C. R. Co. 22 Hun 533; 
 Tierney v. New York, etc., R. Co., 76 N. 
 Y. 305, 67 Barb. 538. affirming 10 Hun 569. 
 Xortli Carolina. — Harrell v. Owens, 18 
 
 N. C. 273; V. Jackson, 1 Hayw. 14. 
 
 0/n'o.— Cleveland, etc., R. Co. z: Bar- 
 tram, 11 O. St. 457; Welsh v. Pittsburg, 
 etc., R. Co., 10 O. St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 
 490. 
 
 Oregon. — Honeyman v., Oregon, etc.. R. 
 Co., 13 Ore. 352, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 380, 10 Pac. 628, 57 Am. Rep. 20; Thomp- 
 son-Houston Elect. Co. V. Simon, 20 Ore. 
 60, 23 Am. St. Rep. 86, 47 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 51. 
 
 Pciinsvlz'ania. — Eagle v. White, 6 
 Whart. "505, 37 Am. Dec. 434. 
 
 South Carolina. — Avinger v. South Car- 
 olina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 13 Am. St. Rep. 
 716, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 519, 7 S. E. 
 493: Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, etc., 
 R. Co., 19 S. C. 353, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 194. 
 
 Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc.. Rail- 
 road z: Nelson, 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 Texas.— GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Hume, 87 
 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110; Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 421; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nich- 
 olson, 61 Tex. 491. 
 
 J'erniont. — Jones v. Western Yermont 
 R. Co., 27 Vt. 399, 65 Am. Dec. 206; Kim- 
 
 ball V. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 
 62 Am. Dec. 567; Noyes & Co. v. Rut- 
 land, etc., R. Co., 27 Vt. 110; Wilder v. 
 St. Johnsbury, etc., R. Co., 66 Vt. 636, 
 30 Atl. 41. 
 
 I'irginia. — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. f. Gal- 
 liher, 89 Va. 639, 16 S. E. 935. 
 
 iriseo)isin. — Ayres v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 71 Wis. 372, 37 N. W. 432, 5 Am. 
 St. Rep. 226; Doty v. Strong, 1 Pin. 313, 
 40 Am. Dec. 773; Lawrence v. Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co., 84 Wis. 427, 54 N. W. 797; 
 Leonard v. Whitcomb, 7 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 520. 
 
 England. — Austin v. Great Western R. 
 Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 442; Bretherton v. 
 Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54, 7 E. C. L. 345; 
 Crouch V. Great Northern R. Co., 11 
 Exch. 742, 34 Eng. L. & Eq. 573; Crouch 
 V. London, etc., R. Co., 14 C. B. 255, 78 
 E. C. L. 255. 23 L. J. C. P. 73; Dickson 
 V. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 18 Q. B. Div. 
 176; Garton v. Bristol, etc., R. Co., 1 
 
 B. & S. 112, 101 E. C. L. 112, 7 Jur., N. 
 S., 1234, 9 W. R. 734; Jackson v. Rogers, 
 2 Show. 327; Johnson v. Midland R. Co., 
 6 Railw. Cas. 61. 1 Ry. & C. Y. Cas. 
 16; Lane v. Cotton, 2 Mod. 472; Mor- 
 ton V. Tibbett, 15 Q. B. 428, 69 E. 
 
 C. L. 428; Oxlade v. Northeastern R. Co., 
 9 W. R. 272, 3 L. T. 671; Oxlade v. North- 
 eastern R. Co., 15 C. B., N. S.. 680, 109 
 E. C. L. 680; Palmer v. Grand Junction 
 R. Co., 4 M. & W. 749; Pegler v. Mon- 
 mouthshire R., etc., Co.. 6 H. & N. 644, 
 39 L. J. Exch. 249; Richards v. London, 
 etc., R. Co., 7 C. B. 839, 62 E. C. L. 839, 
 18 L. J. C. P. 251; Thomas v. North Staf- 
 fordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 1; 
 Williams v. Great W^estern R. Co., 52 L. 
 T. 250, 49 J. P. 439. 
 
 Canada. — Greene v. St. John, etc., R. 
 Co., 22 New Bruns. 252. 
 
 A railroad is a common carrier, and, 
 as such, is bound to carry for all persons 
 all goods offered for transportation by 
 any person whatever. Avinger v. South 
 Carolina R. Co.. 29 S. Car. 265. 7 S. E. 
 493. 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 519. 
 
 A railroad must carry any kind of 
 property which it is adapted to carry and 
 which it has impliedly or expressly of- 
 fered to carrv for the public. Herring 
 V. Utley. .^3 N. Car. 270. 
 
 14. Subject to reasonable rules.^.Vr- 
 braska. — Fremont, etc.. R. Co. v. Waters, 
 50 Neb. 592. 70 N. W. 225. 
 
 A railway company is bound to accept 
 goods for carriage to a place beyond the 
 confines of England if it holds itself out 
 as a carrier to such place, and is subject 
 to the common-law liability of a carrier 
 for hire. Crouch v. London & N. W. R. 
 Co.. 14 C. B. 255. 7 Railw. Cas. 717. 2 
 C. L. R. 188. IS Jur. 14S. 23 L. J. C. P. 73.
 
 § 333 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 212 
 
 and it is held that no special contract is necessary as common carriers are 
 bound to receive and carry for any person who tenders freight at the proper 
 place and in the proper condition, the law implying the contract. ^^ So it is 
 held that a railroad company can not lawfully carry for one person and refuse, 
 without a sufficient excuse, to carry for another, even though it had the right 
 to refuse to carry for the first.^" A contract between a railroad company and 
 certain other persons giving such person the exclusive right to ship particular 
 kinds of goods over the railroad has been held void.^" 
 
 Carrier Not a Public Institution. — A carrier, not a public institution, may 
 select the character of the goods it proposes to carry or discontinue to carry 
 a particular class. ^'^ 
 
 Effort to Stifle Competition. — A railroad company is not justified in re- 
 fusing to permit the owners of a coal mine to ship coal over its road because 
 such owners also ship coal from the same mine over the road of another rail- 
 road company. It is the duty of a railroad company to carry any freight that 
 is offered, provided its legal charges for such carriage are paid. It can not 
 take the position that it will not carry coal from the mine upon the line of its 
 road unless it is allowed to carry all the coal from such mine. It is for the 
 interest of the public that there should be full and fare competition between 
 the different railroad companies operating their lines in the state. Serious in- 
 jury will result to the business interests of the country if shippers can be com- 
 pelled by arbitrary measures to patronize one railroad to the exclusion of all 
 others. No monopolies would be more odious than those which would result 
 from the adoption of such a policy. ^'^ 
 
 Reason for Existence of Rule. — Railway companies have delegated to 
 them, as part of their franchises, much of the sovereign power of the state, 
 in consideration of their providing the means of commerce and intercourse by 
 constructing the roads which are the avenues of that commerce, and perform- 
 ing the additional duty of common carriers when authorized; and if so author- 
 ized they are obliged to transport all merchandise and passengers on the terms 
 fixed in the grant through which they obtained their franchises. 2*^ The privi- 
 
 15. Special contract unnecessary. — 20 L. R. A., N. S., 867, 127 Am. St. Rep. 
 Doty V. Strong (Wis.), 1 Pin. 313, 40 2G5, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1044. 
 
 Am. Dec. 773. 19. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Suffern, 129 
 
 Public carriers are bound to carry arti- 111. 274. 21 N. E. 824. 
 
 cles within their scope of business, with- 20. Reason for existence of rule.— Rog- 
 
 out any other contract than such as the ers Locomotive, etc., Works v. Erie R. 
 
 law would imply. Adams Exp. Co. v. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379. 
 
 Nock (Ky.), 2 Duv. 502, 87 Am. Dec. 510. Railroads, as public highways, created 
 
 16. Must carry for all alike. — Butchers', for public use and subject to state juris- 
 etc, Stock-Yards Co. v. Louisville, etc., diction, are handed over exclusively to 
 R. Co., 14 C. C. A. 290, 07 Fed. 35. corporate management and control, be- 
 
 17. Exclusive right to ship. — A contract cause it is for the best interests of the 
 between a railroad company operating a public that their functions should l)e per- 
 railroad in New Jersey, under acts of the formed for the state, as public trusts by 
 legislature of that state, and certain indi- corporate bodies; and the acceptance _ of 
 viduals, the effect of which is to give the such trusts on the part of the corporation 
 latter the exclusive right of transporting makes it the agency of the state, whereby 
 certain kinds of freight over their rail- it contracts to accept the duty of carrying 
 road, is void from considerations of pub- all persons and property, within the scope 
 lie policy, and will not be enforced by the of its charter, as a public trust. The ex- 
 courts of New Jersey, notwithstanding it elusive enjoyment of use to the corpora- 
 has been recognized as valid by the courts tion imposes the corporate duty to fur- 
 of another state. Union Locomotive, etc., nish every requisite facility for carrying 
 Co. V. Erie R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 23; Mes- passengers and freight, and to carry both 
 senger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. in such manner and at such times as the 
 L. 531, 18 Am. Rep. 754. See post, "Dis- public needs may require. People v. New 
 crimination," §§ 342-355. York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 9 Am. & Eng. 
 
 18. Carrier, not public institution.— R. Cas. 1, 28 Hun 543, 3 Civ. Proc. R. 11, 
 Ocean, etc., Co. v. Savannah Locomotive, 2 McCarty Civ. Proc. 345. 
 
 etc., Supply Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, "Although a railroad company is a pri-
 
 213 
 
 DUTY TO RECEIVE AND CARRY. 
 
 § 333 
 
 lege of making a road and taking tolls thereon is a franchise, as much as the 
 estabhshment of a ferry or a public wharf and taking tolls for the use of the 
 same. The public have an interest in tiie use of the railroad, and the owners 
 may be prosecuted for the damage sustained, if they should refuse to transport 
 an individual, or his property, without any reasonable excuse, upon being paid 
 the usual rate of farc.-^ 
 
 Receiver of Carrier. — The receiver of a railroad company who controls its 
 oi)cration is no less a common carrier because the property of the road is in 
 the custody of the court, and as such carrier he is obliged to receive and trans- 
 port cars and freight, and to furnish accommodations to connecting lines, to 
 the same extent and in the same manner as are the proper officers of other 
 railroad c()m])aiiics.-- 
 
 Freight from Connecting Lines.— See post, "Connecting Carriers,"' part 
 V; "Interstate and International Commerce," part \'I. 
 
 Limiting Duty. — A carrier can not relieve itself from its duty to receive 
 and carry by unreasonable regulations.-'^ Hence it is held that a common car- 
 rier has no right to refuse to receive and transport goods because the shipper 
 will not assent to a special contract of shipment which limits his common-law 
 responsibility.--* Again it is held that in the absence of any statute, the court 
 
 vate corporation in one sense of the term, 
 it is one in which the public have a very 
 great interest, and the paramount object 
 of the legislature in creating such a cor- 
 poration is the interest of the public. It 
 is upon the ground that such companies 
 are incorporated for public use that the 
 power given to them to take private prop- 
 erty for the construction of their roads 
 against the will of the owners has been 
 sustained. The legislature possesses no 
 constitutional power to authorize the 
 seizure of private property for private 
 purposes, even on giving just compensa- 
 tion. The power of the legislature to 
 authorize mvmicipal officers to ta.x the 
 people of cities, boroughs, and counties 
 for the payment of sul)scriptions to rail- 
 road corporations has been sustained, on 
 the ground that 'a railroad is a public 
 highway for the public benefit.' Sharp- 
 less V. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147, 59 Am. 
 Dec. 759, 2 Am. L. Reg., O. S., 27. The 
 nature of this peculiar and improved class 
 of highways makes it indispensable to 
 the public safety that the transportation 
 on it should be placed under the strict 
 regulation of one controlling head. This 
 necessity has led to the usual grant of 
 power to provide cars, locomotives, and 
 to embark in the business of transporta- 
 tion of freight and passengers. When 
 this power is assumed, the company be- 
 comes a common carrier, and thus exer- 
 cises a sort of public office, and has public 
 duties to perform. It is bound to receive 
 and carrj' all the goods oflfered for trans- 
 portation, and is liable to an action in 
 case of refusal without sufficient cause. 
 New Jersey Steam Navigation Company 
 7'. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 382. Even 
 lateral railroads, established by law for 
 the purpose of enabling the proprietors to 
 convey their minerals to the public thor- 
 oughfares, may be used by the public gen- 
 erally on payment of the established rates 
 
 of toll. Act of May 5, 1832." Lewis, C. 
 J., in Sandford v. Catawissa, etc., R. Co., 
 24 Pa. 37S. r,4 Am. Dec. Ml. 669. 
 
 21. Privilege of taking tolls.— Beekman 
 V. Saratoga, etc., R. Co. (X. Y.), 3 Paige 
 45, 22 .Am. Dec. 679. 
 
 22. Receiver of road.— Beers v. Wabash, 
 etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 244, 35 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 646. 
 
 23. Rules limiting duty. — Johnson v. 
 Three Hundred and Eighteen and One- 
 Half Tons of Coal, Fed. Cas. No. 14,010, 
 14 Blatchf. 453, 44 Conn. 54S; Seasongood 
 z: Tennessee, etc., Transp. 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1142, 54 S. W. 193, 49 L. R. A. 270; Alsop 
 v. Southern Exp. Co., 104 N. C. 278, 40 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1: 10 S. E. 297, 6 L. 
 R. A. 271; Carton z: Bristol, etc., R. Co., 
 B. & S. 112, 101 E. C. L. 112, 7 Jur.. N. S., 
 234. 30 L. J. Q. B. 273; Missouri Pac. Co. 
 z: Fagan, 72 Tex. 127, 9 S. W. 749. 2 L. R. 
 
 A. 75, 13 Am. St. Rep. 776; Southern 
 Exp. Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822. See 
 ante, "Rules and Regulations of Carriers," 
 chapter 3. 
 
 24. Requiring shipper to waive rights. 
 — Southern Exp. Co. r. Moon, 39 Miss. 
 822; Carton z: Bristol & E. R. Co., 1 B. 
 & S. 112, 7 Jur., N. S., 1234, 30 L. J. Q. 
 
 B. 273, 9 W. R. 734. See Mcintosh v. 
 Oregon R., etc., Co.. 17 Idaho 100, 105 
 Pac. 66. 
 
 A shipper can not be required to waive 
 any of his right as a condition precedent 
 to the carrier's acceptance of the freight 
 for transportation. Missouri Pac. Co. v. 
 Fagan, 72 Tex. 127, 9 S. W. 749, 2 L. R. 
 A. 75, 13 Am. St. Rep. 776. 
 
 Carriers can not refuse to receive prop- 
 erty for transportation, unless the con- 
 signor will agree to enter into a special 
 contract therefor. McMillan z'. Michigan, 
 etc., R. Co.. 16 Mich. 79, 93 .\m. Dec. 
 20S: HeflFron z: Michigan, etc., R. Co., 16 
 Mich. 131; King v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 
 16 Mich. 132.
 
 § 000 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 214 
 
 can not hold a regulation requiring the shipper of money to retain it over nigh^ 
 at his own risk to be reasonable, where it is made the duty of express com- 
 panies to provide safe places for valuables received. -"^ x\ regulation of a rail- 
 road company that owns a dock, that it will not receive coal from vessels land- 
 ing at the dock unless the owners will employ persons in moving it, designated 
 by the company, and at wages fixed by it, which are at the ordinary price, is 
 unreasonable, and will not be enforced.-" And it has been held that the fact 
 that competing carriers have made an agreement that neither will accept freight 
 not destined to certain points within specified limits, will not excuse one of 
 them for refusal to receive freight destined for points within the other's ter- 
 ritory as set apart in such contract.-' But such rules do not apply where the 
 carrier becomes a special or private bailee by special contract, of goods he is 
 not otherwise compelled to transport. -- 
 
 Common Carrier Becoming Special Bailee. — There is no doubt but what 
 a common carrier may become a private carrier or a bailee for hire, when, as 
 a matter of special engagement, he undertakes to carry something which it is 
 not his business to carry. In such cases the relation is changed from that of 
 a common carrier to that of a private carrier, and the carrier is not liable as a 
 common carrier, and can not be proceeded against as such.-'^ A vast difference 
 exists in the powers and duties of public, or common carriers, and private car- 
 riers. A common carrier is one who hold himself out in common, that is, to all 
 people alike, that he is engaged in the business of transporting persons, or cer- 
 tain kinds of property, and is prepared and ready to care for all who apply, on 
 
 25. Alsop V. Southern Exp. Co., 104 N. 
 Car. 278, 10 S. E. 297, 6 L. R. A. 271, 41 
 Alb. L. J. 167, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1. 
 In this case it appeared that money was 
 tendered to the agent of an express com- 
 pany at a regular station for shipment 
 fifty-five minutes before the train would 
 pass, going in the direction that_ the 
 money was to be sent; but it was refused 
 under a rule of the company that money 
 should be received for shipment only in 
 the morning before the train would pass 
 in the afternoon: held, that the rule was 
 in violation of the N. Car. Code, §_ 1964, 
 requiring all transportation companies to 
 receive goods of the kind and nature usu- 
 ally transported by them, whenever ten- 
 dered. 
 
 26. Requiring shipper to employ certain 
 persons to load. — Johnson ?;. Three Hun- 
 dred and Eighteen and One-Half Tons 
 of Coal, Fed. Cas. No. 14,010, 14 Blatchf. 
 4.53, 44 Conn. .548. 
 
 27. Agreement between carriers. — Sea- 
 songood V. Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co., 
 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142, 54 S. W. 193, 49 L. 
 R. A. 270. 
 
 28. Special bailee. — See post, this sec- 
 tion catchline, "Common Carrier Becom- 
 ing Special Bailee." 
 
 29. Common carrier as special bailee. — 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 170 Ind. 
 94, 83 X. E. 710, 712; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Wallace, 14 C. C. A. 257, 66 Fed. 506, 
 30 L. R. A. 161; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 v: Mahoney, 148 Ind. 196, 200, 46 N. E. 
 917, 47 X. E. 464, 40 L. R. A. 101, 62 Am. 
 St. Rep. 503. See, also, Baltimore, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. Voight, 176 U. S. 498, 44 L. 
 Ed. 560, 20 S. Ct. 385. 
 
 "A common carrier may, however, be- 
 come a private carrier or bailee for hire, 
 where, as a matter of accommodation or 
 special engagement, he undertakes to 
 carry something which it is not his busi- 
 ness to carry Railroad Co. v. Lockwood 
 (U. S.), 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Coup 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 22 
 N. W. 215, 56 Am. Rep. 374; Robertson 
 V. Old Colony R. Co., 156 Mass. 525, 31 
 N. E. 650, 32 Am. St. Rep. 482; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Wallace, 14 C. C. A. 257, 66 
 Fed. 506, 30 L. R. A. 161;" Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. 796, 
 38 L. R. A. 93, 58 Am. St. Rep. 348. 
 
 Circus property and performers. — A 
 railroad company made a contract to haul 
 a train consisting of cars owned by the 
 other party, and which contained circus 
 property and performers, on stated days, 
 1)etween certain points, at a rate less than 
 the regular rates of the company. It was 
 outside the scope of the company's regu- 
 lar business to haul such trains: held, that 
 the coinpany in hauling such trains acted 
 as a private carrier merely, and the valid- 
 ity of the contract was not affected by 
 the fact that it contained a stipulation 
 against liability for damage. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Wallace, 14 C. C. A. 257, 
 66 Fed. 506, 30 L. R. A. 161. 
 
 As it is optional with a carrier to ac- 
 cept or refuse powder for transportation, 
 if it chooses to accept it it can do so 
 with such limitation of its common-law 
 liability as it sees fit. California Powder 
 Works V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cal. 
 329, 45 Pac. 691, 36 L. R. A. 648.
 
 215 
 
 DUTY TO RECEIVE AND CARRY. 
 
 §§ 333-33A 
 
 the same terms. From its very nature his business is one in which the people 
 generally, or the public, acquire an interest to the extent, at least, that the business 
 be conducted honestly, impartially, and efficiently. ■'*'^ Hence the law intervenes 
 as to the public carrier and enforces certain regulations and limitations against 
 him in the interest of the iHiblic welfare. Among these regulations he is held to 
 receive and carrv for all alike such goods as are in his line of business.''' 
 
 §§ 334-341. Duty to Furnish Shipping Facilities and Means of 
 Transportation- § 334. In General. A roniuKjn carrier is under a legal 
 duty to sujjply patrons with cars to promptly move such freight as may be ex- 
 pected, according to the usual volume of business offered for shipment, and if 
 timely and reasonable demands are made for cars, and the carrier fails to fur- 
 nish them, without lawful excuse, he is answerable for the proximate damage 
 sustained by the shipper.'*- The obligation of a carrier to furnish cars may either 
 be imposed by law or arise from a special contract between the parties.-'^ In- 
 dependent of statute, a railroad is under a legal duty to furnish freight cars 
 to shi])pcrs wlien rc(|ucslc(l.'" A carrier must i)rovide reasonable facilities for 
 
 30. Cleveland, etc., ]\. Co. v. Henry, 170 
 Ind. 94, 83 X. K. 710. 
 
 31. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 170 
 Ind. 94, 83 X. F.. 710. 
 
 32. Duty to furnish facilities in general. 
 — Cronan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 130 S. W. 437. 
 
 The court, in an action for a carrier's fail- 
 ure to furnish cars for the transportation of 
 perishable freight, must consider the facts 
 in determining whether the order for cars, 
 the offering of the property for ship- 
 ment, and the notice given are reasonable. 
 Dobbins v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 141 
 N. Y. S. 637, 157 App. Div. 80. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for its 
 failure to furnish cars for the transporta- 
 tion of pcrishal)le freight, evidence lield 
 to support a finding that the demand for 
 cars and the offering of the property for 
 shipment were reasonable. Dobbins v. 
 Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 157 App. Div. SO, 
 141 N. Y. S. 637. 
 
 33. Obligation to furnish cars. — Chatta- 
 nooga, etc., R. Co. V. Thompson, 133 Ga. 
 127," 65 S. E. 285; Mulberry Hill Coal Co. 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 161 111. App. 272. 
 
 Under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. arts., 4226, 
 4227, requiring carriers to furnish suffi- 
 cient transportation for all property, and 
 making them liable for all damages caused 
 by their refusal to transport such prop- 
 erty, a shipper who shows that he was 
 ready to pay freight charges may recover 
 damages caused l>y a refusal to transport 
 his property. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Schmidt (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 452. 
 
 Illinois Rev. Stat. C. 114, §§ 84, 85, pro- 
 viding for treble damages for the failure 
 of a railroad company to furnish cars for 
 the transportation of such property as 
 shall, within a reasonable time previous 
 thereto, be ready or be offered for trans- 
 portation, does not to apply to a failure 
 to furnish cars at a mine for coal to be 
 
 dug and lioisted after the cars are fur- 
 nished. Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. People, 
 19 111. App. 141. 
 
 Act approved March 31, 1874, in force 
 July 1, 1874, § 22 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, 
 c. 114, § 84) requires railroad companies 
 to furnish, start, and run cars for the 
 transportation of such property as shall 
 within a reasonable time previous thereto 
 be ready or be offered for transportation 
 and to take, receive, transport, and dis- 
 charge such property, etc. Section 23 of 
 the Act § 85, c. 114, Hurd's Rev. St. 1905) 
 provides that on the refusal of a railroad 
 company to take, receive, transport, and 
 discharge any property within a reason- 
 able time, the company shall pay to the 
 party aggrieved treble the amount of 
 damages sustained thereby, etc. Held, 
 that the latter section is a penal statute, 
 and hence, under the rule that penal stat- 
 utes must be strictly construed, the provi- 
 sion of the former section that the com- 
 pany shall "furnish, start and run cars 
 for the transportation of" property, etc., 
 having been omitted from the latter, the 
 penalty provided is not recoverable 
 against a company which fails to perform 
 tliat duty. Atchison, etc.. R. Co. v. Peo- 
 ple. 81 X. E. 342, 227 111. 270. reversing 
 judgment. 1:2S 111. App. 3S. 
 
 34. Independent of statute. — Darlington 
 Lumber Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 116 
 S. W. 530. 216 Mo. 058; Baker v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. (Kan.), 129 S. W. 436. 
 
 A shipper may sue a carrier for failure 
 to furnish cars, as for a breach of com- 
 mon-law duty without any contract to 
 furnish them. Baker v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. (Kan.), 129 S. W. 436. 
 
 The common-law duty of a carrier com- 
 pelled it to furnish cars for the transpor- 
 tation of live stock on reasonable demand 
 <->f the shipper. Baker r. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. (Kan.). 129 S. \V. 436.
 
 § 334 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 216 
 
 the transportation of property,-"'' snch as it undertakes to carry,^*^ for all who 
 may applv in the regular course of business. 3" The general rule is that a car- 
 rier is not called upon to jeopardize its own business and its duty to the general 
 public, to convenience an individual shipper by furnishing him facilities. So 
 where a railroad company, by reason of a strike of the miners at the coal mines 
 from which it has been accustomed to obtain a large part of the coal which it 
 used in the operation of its road, is compelled to send to more distant fields 
 for a supply, thus making it necessary for it to withdraw its coal engines and 
 cars from that line of its road and use them in freighting coal for its own con- 
 sumption, these facts constitute a sufficient excuse for its refusal to furnish 
 the owners of the coal mines on that line of its road with engines and cars for 
 the transportation of their coal. The carrier in such cases is only required to 
 furnish cars and haul them in its regular trains according to its capacity with- 
 out injury to its other business.-^^ Nor is it called upon to jeopardize its busi- 
 ness by holding in waiting a number of cars without knowing whether or when 
 they will be used.^'' Under the common law as well as under various statutes, 
 including the interstate commerce act, it is the duty of a carrier to provide all 
 necessary facilities and means for transporting such property as may be of- 
 fered, at least to the extent that would ordinarily be expected to seek trans- 
 portation by the particular line.^"^ A carrier must provide cars for normal con- 
 ditions of the traffic unless it has reasons to anticipate other conditions, and 
 during a temporary abnormal condition it is not required to furnish a car for 
 every one sent off its line in fulfillment of a contract previously made with 
 shippers, though cars wholly beyond the control of a carrier are the same as 
 if not owned by it, and their places must be supplied with others.-^*^ In the 
 absence of an agreement to provide cars at a particular time, a carrier is only 
 obligated to exercise due diligence to furnish freight cars within a reasonable 
 time.-*- 
 
 35. Reasonable facilities. — St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. 1'. State, 84 Ark. 150, 104 S. 
 W. 1106; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 
 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Di Giorgio, 
 Importing, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 104 Md. 693, 65 Atl. 425, 8 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 108. 
 
 36. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wynne 
 Hoop, etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375. 
 
 37. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wynne 
 Hoop, etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375. 
 
 38. Effect coal miner's strike. — Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. z\ Queen City Coal Co., 
 13 Ky. L. Rep. 832. 
 
 A railroad is not liable for failure to 
 furnish cars to a coal company for ship- 
 ment of such company's coal, the rail- 
 road having, by reason of a strike among 
 the employees of all the other coal com- 
 panies in that district, been obliged to 
 take its coal trains onto another division 
 of its road, to haul coal to supply its en- 
 gines. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Queen 
 City Coal Co., 9d Ky. 217, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 
 126, 35 S. W. 626. 
 
 39. Holding cars in waiting. — A carrier 
 is not required to hold for a whole week 
 a large number of cars for a single ship- 
 per without knowing on what day of the 
 week or on what hour of tlie day a single 
 car may be needed. Di Giorgio Import- 
 ing, etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 104 
 Md. 693, 65 Atl. 425, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 108. 
 
 40. Duty to furnish shipping facilities. 
 
 — H. & T. C. R. Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 
 322, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421; San 
 Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Timon, 45 Tex, 
 Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 418; Thayer v. 
 Burchard, 99 Mass. 508; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wynne Hoop, etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 
 99 S. W. 375; State v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 C, 71 Neb. 593, 99 N. W. 309. 
 
 Under the common law, Ky. St., § 783, 
 and Interstate Commerce Act, § 1, com- 
 mon carrier held to be under a legal duty, 
 subject to certain exceptions, to furnish 
 to shippers, when seasonably requested, 
 sufficient cars and equipment to carry all 
 the freight offered. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. River, etc., Coke Co., 150 S. W. 641, 
 150 Ky. 489, 44 L. R. A., N. S., 185. 
 
 It is the duty of a common carrier, in- 
 dependent of statutory obligation, to pro- 
 vide reasonable facilities and appliances 
 to transport, when requested, such goods 
 as it held itself out ready to carry; the 
 law implies an agreement to furnish nec- 
 essary cars on a particular day when a 
 request has been in due time made by the 
 shippers of a station agent, who for that 
 purpose has the authority of a general 
 agent. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Timon. 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 418. 
 
 41. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Hoffman 
 Coal Co., 91 Ark. 180, 120 S. W. 380. 
 
 42. Dallenbach v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.^ 
 104 Til. .^pp. 310.
 
 217 
 
 DUTY TO RECEIVE AND CARRY, 
 
 i§ 335-336 
 
 §§ 335-338. Notice to Carrier — § 335. Time of Notice. — A railroad 
 company is nut l)ouiiil lo kcei> suilable cars constantly on hand at all stations 
 for the use of shippers, but is entitled to reasonable time in which to furnish 
 them after requisition is made by the shipper.-*'' A shipper desiring^ a car or 
 cars for transportation must, as a general rule, give the carrier reasonable 
 notice as to the time and place when the cars will be needed,-**" and in some 
 cases the extent of notice is fixed by statute.'*'^ Where the statute provides for 
 so many days notice as a safeguard to prevent the carrier from being pressed 
 for time, the notice may be waived.^'' 
 
 § 336. Requisites and Sufficiency of Demand. — Demand in Writing. 
 
 — Althougli a carrier has a rule requiring demands for cars to be in writing, 
 if the carrier does insist on the observance of the rule it seems that it will be 
 estopped to set the failure up to defeat a recovery.-*" In some instances stat- 
 utes exist which provide for the making of a written demand upon a carrier 
 for the furnishing of cars and which provide a penalty for the failure to com- 
 ply therewith,-*'* and where a shipper seeks to avail himself of the remedy 
 provided for by such statutes he must comply with the statute and make his 
 demand in writing.-*'* But such a statute does not do away with the common- 
 
 43. Notice to carrier for facilities. — 
 
 Huston Bros. v. Wabash R. Co., G3 Mo. 
 App. (ill. 
 
 When a shipper requires a car at a rail- 
 road station for his exclusive use, he 
 must give notice to the railroad company, 
 after which it will have a reasonable time 
 in whicli to furnish the car. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Bundy, 97 111. App. 202. 
 
 44. Notice as to time. — San Antonio, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 
 47, 99 S. W. 418; Di Giorgio Importing, 
 etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 104 Md. 
 693, 65 Atl. 425, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 108. 
 
 A requisition on a carrier to furnish cars 
 for the transportation of perishable car- 
 goes on the arrival of steamers required 
 the carrier to furnish 8 cars for June 27th 
 and to furnish others cars on further no- 
 tice on the arrival of other vessels. On 
 July 1st the carrier received notice to 
 furnish cars. Twenty-one cars were sup- 
 plied during that day and ten were sup- 
 plied next morning. The twenty-one cars 
 furnished were too late for the fast freight 
 because of the shipper's failure to give 
 notice of the vessels coming in when he 
 received it. Held, that the carrier was 
 not liable for loss sustained by deteriora- 
 tion of the goods due to the delay in 
 the transportation, there being no suffi- 
 cient notice to furnish cars. Di Giorgio 
 Importing, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 104 Md. 093, 65 Atl. 425, 8 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 108. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to furnish cars for perishable goods 
 imported, it appeared that the carrier was 
 as well posted about the movements of the 
 ships carrying the perishable goods as 
 plaintiff was; that a telegram of the ar- 
 rival of vessels went to the chamber of 
 commerce of the port, and the railroads 
 made it their business to know every 
 steamer that passed certain points before 
 entering the port. Plaintiff was in a po- 
 sition to inform the carrier of the time 
 
 when vessels were reported at such points 
 and of the expected day and hour of their 
 arrival. Held, that the carrier was under 
 no obligation to keep some one on watch 
 at the chamber of commerce for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining when vessels would 
 arrive so as to be prepared to furnish cars 
 for the transportation of cargoes. Di 
 Giorgio Importing, etc., Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 104 Md. 693, 65 Atl. 425, 8 
 L. R. A., N. S., 108. 
 
 It is the duty of a railroad company 
 engaged in the business of transporting 
 freight as a common carrier to receive 
 cattle for transportation upon reasonable 
 notice of the time and place where such 
 tender will be made, and it is liable for 
 failure to provide means of transportation 
 after such notice. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Whitehill, 104 Md. 295, 64 Atl. 1033. 
 
 45. International, etc., R. Co. v. Dimmit 
 County, etc., Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 
 23 S. W. 754. 
 
 46. Waiver. — Six days' notice allowed 
 railways by statute in which to procure 
 cars is a safe-guard given them to pre- 
 vent them from being pressed for time in 
 obtaining cars for transportation of prop- 
 erty, and being a privilege granted to 
 them, they can waive it at anj^ time. In- 
 ternational, etc., R. Co. V. Dimmit County, 
 etc., Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 188, 23 
 S. W. 754. 
 
 47. Demand in writing. — St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. T. Wvnne Hoop, etc., Co., SI 
 Ark. 37,1, 99 S. W. 375. 
 
 48. Statutes providing for written de- 
 mand. — Minnesota Reciprocal Demurged 
 Laws. 1907. chap. 23, Revised Law. Sup. 
 1909, § 2023 — 1 to 2023 — 13. Georgia acts 
 of 1905. p. 120. 
 
 49. Zetterberg v. Great Northern R. 
 Co.. 117 Minn. 495, 136 N. W. 295; Pope 
 V. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 112 Minn. 112, 
 127 N. W. 436; see, also, Ferrell & Co. 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 114 Minn. 531, 
 131 N. W. 1135.
 
 §§ 336-340 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 218 
 
 law rights of the shipper to recover datnages for the carrier's faikire to furnish 
 cars without such written demand.-^" The right to invoke the common-law 
 remedv to recover damages for an unreasonable failure of a carrier to furnish 
 cars without a written demand therefor, in the absence of contractual relations, 
 is a valuable one. and it can not be assumed that the legislature intended to 
 abrogate such rights unless an intention is clearly expressed. •'•^ 
 
 Definiteness. — An order for cars which is too indefinite as to the number 
 of cars. etc.. it does not constitute a basis for an action for failure to furnish 
 them.^- 
 
 § 337. To Whom Given. — The notice of demand for shipping facilities 
 must be given to an agent of the carrier, duly authorized to furnish the rec[ui- 
 site facilities.''^ 
 
 § 338. Specifying- Condition and Danger of Goods. — Where the ca- 
 pacity of a carrier is not overtaxed, a shipper demanding cars need not in order 
 to recover for failure to furnish cars, give notice to the carrier of the danger 
 of the goods becoming injured unless shipped without delay."'* 
 
 § 339. Place of Furnishing Cars, — As long as a spur track or switch 
 remains a part of the carrier's system, it must be operated impartially and 
 without discrimination against parties demanding a service similar to that ren- 
 dered other parties under special contracts.'"' ^^ 
 
 Delivery at Warehouse. — Where the usual course of business has been 
 for a railroad to furnish cars at a shipper's warehouse, the shipper may de- 
 mand cars for its use, giving reasonable notice of its requirements, and may 
 recover in case of a wrongful refusal or neglect to furnish the cars.-"''' 
 
 § 340. Goods Ready for Shipment. 
 
 i 356-359. 
 
 -See post, "Tender and Refusal," 
 
 50. Zetterberg v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 117 Minn. 495, 136 X. W. 295. See South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Moore, 133 Ga. 806, 67 
 S. E. 85, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 851. 
 
 51. Zetterberg v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 117 Minn. 495, 136 N. W. 295, wherein it 
 is held that the common-law rights of 
 shippers have been in no manner de- 
 creased by the Reciprocal Pemurged Law. 
 Its efifect is to create additional statutory 
 rights when its divisions have been com- 
 plied with. 
 
 52. Definiteness of demand. — In an ac- 
 tion for damages for a breach of public 
 duty in failing to supply cars for the ship- 
 ment of lumber, whereby the only request 
 for cars alleged was "a standing order 
 for five cars a day," the order was too 
 indefinite. Simmons- v. Seaboard, etc., 
 Railway, 133 Ga. 635, 66 S. E. 783. 
 
 53. A complaint in an action against a 
 railroad for failure to furnish a car for a 
 shipment alleged that plaintiff placed cer- 
 tain goods on defendant's side track for 
 shipment, making a verbal demand on the 
 agent of defendant at the nearest station, 
 and on those operating a local freight 
 train on the division in question, for a 
 suitable car for the shipment, and that 
 plaintifif also wrote the train master two 
 or three letters. Held, that the complaint 
 was demurrable, in that it failed to show 
 a demand on a person authorized to fur- 
 nish cars. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Moss, 
 75 Ark. 64, 86 S. W. 828. 
 
 Where the petition of a shipper against 
 a carrier for delay in furnishing cars for 
 a shipment from P. alleged as ground for 
 recovery that the cars were ordered of 
 the station agent at P., and it appears that 
 the only order was made of a station 
 agent at another station, recovery can not 
 be had, even if, though the station agent 
 of another station had no implied author- 
 ity to order cars for P., the order given 
 to such other station agent would have 
 constituted a sufficient t)asls for recov- 
 ery under a complaint leased thereon, in 
 view of the carrier having furnished cars 
 pursuant to such order, though tardily. 
 vSouthern Kansas R. Co. v. Cox, 47 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 84, 103 S. W. 1122. 
 
 54. Condition and danger of goods. — 
 Hoffman, etc., Stave Co. v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 119 Mo. App. 495, 94 S. W. 597. 
 
 55. A contract between a railroad com- 
 pany and a lumber company for a con- 
 struction of a switch track on the rail- 
 road's right of way construed, and held 
 not to give the lumber company an ex- 
 clusive privilege of the switch track; and 
 the carrier may not refuse to furnish cars 
 on such track to another shipper. South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Mather-McDowell Lumber 
 Co. (Miss.), 60 So. 42. 
 
 56. Delivery at warehouse. — Richey, 
 etc., Co. V. Nortliern Pac. R. Co., 110 
 Minn. 347, 125 N. 'W. 897.
 
 219 
 
 DUTY TO KKCEIVE AND CARRY. 
 
 § 341 
 
 § 341. Adequacy of Facilities. — The duty of a carrier to furnish rea- 
 sonably adcfiuale faciHties is commensurate with the powers and privileges 
 conferred upon it and the just requirement of the inil>hc ; and, in determining 
 its ohHgation, its business as a whole, the character of the service required, tlie 
 need of its performance, and the various rights of the ]>ublic and of the car- 
 rier should be considered.''' And the question as to what facilities and accom- 
 modations should be furnished by a common carrier in order to comply with 
 its public duty is one of fact.''"' 
 
 Facilities for Particular Purposes. — it seems that a carrier owes to the 
 public the duly id furnish cars and other facilities esj^ecially adapted to the 
 preservation and ])rotection of such goods as it holds itself out of the public 
 as being willing and ready to carry."'*' This would seem to follow from the 
 fact that it is more economical and more advantageous to all parties to have it 
 transported in suitable cars or cars peculiarly adapted to such particular pur- 
 poses.^*' Thus, a carrier holding itself out as a carrier of live stock is under 
 legal obligation, arising out of the nature of its employment, to provide suit- 
 able and necessary means and facilities for receiving live stock offered for ship- 
 ment over its road and connections."'^ Where large quantities of milk are pro- 
 duced along the line of a common carrier, and it is more advantageous to ])ro- 
 ducers, distributers, and consumers to have it transported in special cars fur- 
 nished with icing facilities than in ordinary cars, it is the duty of the carrier 
 to furnish such cars.*'- And although a carrier owns no refrigerator cars it 
 may be held liable for refusing or failing to furnish them to shippers for the 
 transportation of garden truck after it has led such shippers to raise the truck 
 in expectati6n of being furnished with such proper facilities. "^ So it has been 
 held that a carrier can not refuse to accept fruit for transportation because 
 refrigerator cars are necessary therefor although such cars can only be pro- 
 vided and furnished to it by another carrier. *"••* Nor can the carrier escape 
 liability on the ground that the trucking crop was unreasonably large, it being 
 no larger than might reasonably have been expected from the acreage planted, 
 
 57. Railroad Comm'rs v. Florida, etc., 
 R. Co., 58 Fla. 534, 50 So. 425. 
 
 Pub. St. 1901, c. KiO, § 1, provides that 
 every railroad company shall furnish to 
 all persons reasonable and equal terms, 
 facilities, and accommodations for the 
 transportation of property. Held, that it 
 was the duty of a common carrier of milk 
 to provide reasonable facilities for its re- 
 ception and delivery and care, including 
 care during transportation. Baker v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 N. H. 100, 65 Atl. 
 386, 12 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1072. 
 
 58. Question of fact. — Baker v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 74 X. H. 100, 65 Atl. 386, 12 
 Am. & I'.ng. Ann. Cas. 1072. 
 
 59. Duty to furnish proper facilities. — 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Renfroe, 82 Ark. 
 143, 100 S. W. 889, 10 L. R. A., N. S., lO&O. 
 
 A common carrier owes to the public 
 the duty of providing suitable cars for 
 the service and expeditious carriage and 
 preservation of such freight as it under- 
 takes to carry. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Cromwell, 98 Va. 227. 35 S. E. 444, 49 
 L. R. A. 462. 
 
 60. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Renfroe, 
 82 Ark. 143. 100 S. W. 880, 10 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1060; Baker v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 
 74 N. H. 100, 65 Atl. 386, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 1072. 
 
 61. Covington Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 
 139 U. S. 128, 133, 35 L. Ed. 73, 11 S. Ct. 
 461. 
 
 62. Facilities for particular purposes. — 
 Baker v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 N. H. 
 100, 65 Atl. 386, 12 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 1072. 
 
 63. Refrigerafor cars.— Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Geraty, 91 C. C. A. 602, 166 Fed. 
 10, 20 L. R. A., N. S., 370. 
 
 Where plaintifT, owning a farm in a 
 truck region, was induced to plant cab- 
 bages by assurance of defendant railroad 
 that refrigerator cars would be furnished 
 to transport them to market, which it re- 
 fused to do on reasonable demand, plain- 
 tiff could recover for unharvested cab- 
 bages which spoiled because of defend- 
 ant's refusal to furnish refrigerator cars, 
 plaintiff after such refusal not being 
 bound thereafter to tender the cabbages 
 for shipment. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Geratv. 91 C. C. A. 602, 166 Fed. 10, 20 
 L. R.'A., N. S.. 370. 
 
 64. Mathis v. Southern R. Co.. 65 S. C. 
 271, 43 S. E. 684, 61 L. R. A. 824.
 
 §§ 341-342 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 220 
 
 notice there of being imputed to the carrier.*^^ As to the duty of a carrier to 
 carry perishable goods in refrigerator cars and to furnish suitable and safe 
 facilities for all kinds of freight accepted for transportation, see post, "Trans- 
 portation and DeUvery by Carrier," chapter 10. 
 
 §§ 342-355. Discrimination— § 342. Right to Discriminate Gener- 
 ally. — Independently of any statute, as a part of its common-law obligation, a 
 carrier is required to treat its patrons impartially, and to avoid unjust discrim- 
 ination.*'*' such discrimination is prohibited by the soundest consideration of 
 public pohcy.^'" A common carrier owes an equal duty to all and it can not 
 be discharged if he is allowed to make unequal preferences and thereby pre- 
 vent or impair the enjoyment of the common right.*'^ 
 
 Railway Company. — In its character as a common carrier and relatively to 
 duties and obligations arising therefrom, a railway company can not grant to 
 any person, or persons, rights or privileges which it refuses to others, but must 
 treat all alike.*'^ Such a company as a common carrier is required to treat the 
 public with equality and fairness.'^*^ 
 
 65. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Geraty, 91 
 C. C. A. 602, 166 Fed. 10, 20 L. R. A., 
 X. S.. 370. 
 
 66. Unjust or unreasonable discrimina- 
 tion. — United States. — Menacho v. Ward, 
 27 Fed. 529, 23 Blatchf. 502. 
 
 Florida. — Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. 
 Co., 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 731. 
 
 Indiana. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Clos- 
 ser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 22 Am. St. 
 Rep. 593, 597, 9 L. R. A. 75. 
 
 /ozi'fl. — Cook V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 
 Iowa 551, 46 N. W. 1080, 9 L. R. A. 164, 
 25 Am. St. Rep. 512. 
 
 Kansas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. New 
 Era Milling Co. (Kan.), 100 Pac. 273. 
 
 Kentucky. — A general carrier of freight 
 can not discriminate between shippers or 
 classes of freight. Crescent Coal Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 
 S. W. 768, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 442. 
 
 Maine. — New England Exp. Co. v. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 188, 2 Am. 
 Rep. 31. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Fitchburg R. Co. v. 
 Gage, 12 Gray 393. 
 
 A carrier is bound to treat all shippers 
 without discrimination. Banner Grain 
 Co. V. Great Northern R. Co., 119 Minn. 
 68, 41 L. R. A., N. S., 678, 137 N. W. 161. 
 
 Missouri. — McGrew V. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 132 S. W. 1076. 
 
 New Jersey. — Messenger v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 36 N. J. L. 407, 13 Am. Rep. 457; 
 State V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 48 N. J. 
 L. 55, 57 Am. Rep. 543. 
 
 Kezi' York. — "The carrier can not unrea- 
 sonably or unjustly discriminate in favpr 
 of one or against another where the cir- 
 cumstances and conditions are the same." 
 Lough V. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 
 N. E. 292, 42 Am. St. Rep. 712, 25 L. R. 
 A. 674; Root v. Long Island R. Co., 114 
 N. Y. 300, 21 N. E. 403, 4 L. R. A. 331, 
 11 Am. St. Rep. 643. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Shipper v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 47 Pa. 338. 
 
 67. Agreements by common carriers 
 
 with shippers of goods which interfere 
 with the performance of their duties to 
 the public, are contrary to public policy. 
 Edgar Lumber Co. v. Cornie Stave Co., 
 95 Ark. 449, 130 S. W. 452. 
 
 68. Maine. — New England Exp. Co. v. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 188, 2 Am. 
 Rep. 31. 
 
 Xcw Hampshire. — McDuffee v. Port- 
 land, etc., Railroad, 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. 
 Rep. 72, 2 Am. Ry. Rep. 241. 
 
 Xcw Jersey. — Messenger v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531, 18 Am. Rep. 
 754, 758. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Audenried v. Philadel- 
 phia, etc., R. Co., 68 Pa. 370, 8 Am. Rep. 
 195; Sandford v. Catawissa, etc., R. Co., 
 24 Pa. 378, 64 Am. Dec. 667. 
 
 "Transportation by a common carrier 
 is necessarily open to the public upon 
 equal and reasonable terms. An exclu- 
 sive right granted to one is inconsistent 
 with the rights of all others." Auden- 
 ried V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 68 Pa. 
 370, 8 Am. Rep. 195. 
 
 Chief Justice Appleton, in the case of 
 the New England Exp. Co. v. Maine Cent. 
 R. Co., 57 Me. 188, 2 Am. Rep. 31, also 
 says: "The very definition of a common 
 carrier excludes the idea of the right to 
 grant monopolies, or to give special and 
 unequal preferences." Messenger v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531, 18 
 Am. Rep. 754. 
 
 69. Kates v. Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co., 
 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372. 46 L. R. A. 431; 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Holcombe & Co., 
 76 Ga. 590; Johnson Coal Min. Co. v. 
 Hocking Valley R. Co., 1 N. P., N. S., 385, 
 14 O. D. N. P. 209; State v. Cincinnati, 
 etc., R. Co., 47 O. St. 130, 23 N. E. 928. 
 
 Ohio statute merely declaratory of com- 
 mon law and confers no new rights. — 
 Johnson Coal Min. R. Co. v. Hocking 
 Valley R. Co., 1 N. P., N. S., 385, 14 O. 
 D. N. P. 209. 
 
 70. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Rust, 58 
 Tex. 98. 
 
 Railroad corporations occupy a peculiar
 
 221 
 
 DUTV TO RECEIVE AND CARRY. 
 
 § 342 
 
 Equal Terms for All Shippers.— While it is true that at common law, and 
 in the aliscncc oi chanc-r or >lalulory rcj,Hilations to the contrary, a common 
 carrier may discriminate as to rates, so that no unreasonahle charge is made, 
 yet he must carry for all; because it is a leading principle of the common law, 
 applicable to all common carriers, that they are bound to carry for all, and for 
 a reasonable remuneration.'' The tendency and undoubted weight of authority 
 is in favor of the doctrine thai a common carrier is charged with a quasi public 
 duty to transport merchandise on etiual terms for all parties, where the carry- 
 ing for some shippers at a lower price than for others will create monopoly by 
 injuring or destroying the business of those less favored."- Under this rule, 
 a carrier can not discriminate by receiving and carrying for one customer and, 
 under substantially the same circumstances, refusing to carry for another."^ 
 
 relation to tlic pul)lic as invested with cer- 
 tain franchises for the public benefit, and 
 they are l)Ound to use them with fairness 
 and for the common good. Messenger v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531, 18 
 Am. Rep. 754. 
 
 In the grant of a franchise of building 
 and using a public railway, there is an 
 implied condition that it is held as a quasi 
 public trust for the benefit of the public, 
 and the company possessed of the grant 
 must exercise a perfect impartiality to all 
 who seek the benefit of the trust. Mes- 
 senger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 
 531, 18 Am. Rep. 754. 
 
 Railway companies derive their charter 
 rights from the state and owe an equal 
 duty to every citizen, and they can not 
 exercise their charter rights in such man- 
 ner as to benefit an individual, town or 
 community, to the detriment of another. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 63 Tex. 
 332, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421. 
 
 A railroad company sought to evade the 
 receiving and delivery of grain in bulk to 
 a particular elevator to which it was con- 
 signed, on the ground that it had the 
 right to establish its own usage in the re- 
 gard, and it never lield itself out as a car- 
 rier of grain in l)ulk, except upon the con- 
 dition that it might itself choose the con- 
 signee, which had become the custom and 
 usage of its business, and it could not be 
 required to go beyond this limit. Held, 
 that the company could make no such in- 
 juries or arbitrary discrimination between 
 individuals in its dealings with the public. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 56 111. 365, 
 8 Am. Rep. (iOO. 
 
 71. Equal terms for all shippers. — Av- 
 inger z'. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 
 265, 7 S. E. 493, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 519. 
 
 "In Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. Co., 
 16 Fla. 623, 26 Am. Rep. 731. the follow- 
 ing language was used which succinctly 
 embodies the common-law doctrine on 
 this subject, to wit: 'That, as against 
 a common or public carrier, every per- 
 son has the same rigiit; that in all 
 cases, when his common duty controls, he 
 can not refuse A. and accommodate B.; 
 that all — the entire public — have the 
 right to the carriage for a reasonable 
 
 price — at a reasonable charge for the serv- 
 ices performed; and the commonness of 
 the duty to carry for all does not involve 
 a commonness or equality of compensa- 
 tion or charge; that all the shipper can 
 ask of a common carrier is that, for serv- 
 ices performed, he shall charge no more 
 than a reasonable sum to him.' This prin- 
 ciple was recognized and enforced in our 
 case of Ex parte Benson, 18 S. C. 42, 43." 
 Avinger v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. 
 C. 265, 7 S. E. 493, 13 .-Km. St. Rep. 716, 35 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 519. 
 
 72. Scofield V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 
 43 O. St. 571, 3 N. E. 907, 54 Am. Rep. 
 846; Avinger v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 
 S. C. 265, 7 S. E. 493, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 
 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 519. 
 
 As to discrimination in freight rates, 
 see post, "Discrimination in Rates and 
 Overcharge," chapter 16. 
 
 73. £»g/a;i£/.— Baxendale v. Bristol, etc., 
 R. Co., 11 C. B., N. S., 787, 103 E. C. L. 
 787; Cooper v. London, etc., R. Co., 4 C. 
 
 B. N. S. 738, 93 E. C. L. 738; Crouch 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 11 Exch. 
 742; Crouch v. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 23 L. J. C. P. 73; Davis v. TafT Vale R. 
 Co., App. 542, 11 R. 189; Carton v. Bris- 
 tol & E. R. Co.. 30 L. J. Q. B. 273; Pal- 
 mer V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 
 194. 40 L. J. C. P. 133; Johnson v. Mid- 
 land R. Co., 4 Exch. 327; Lees v. Lan- 
 cashire, etc., R. Co.. IS Sol. Jour. 629; 
 Page V. Great Northern R. Co.. 2 Ir. Rep. 
 (C. L.) 288; Palmer v. London, etc.. R. 
 Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 588, 35 L. J. C. P. 289; 
 West V. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 5 C. 
 P. 622; Southeastern R. Co. v. Railway 
 Comm'rs, 41 L. T., N. S., 760, 28 W. B. 
 464. 
 
 United States. — Butchers', etc.. Stock 
 Yards Co. v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 14 C. 
 
 C. .•\. 290, 67 Fed. 35. 
 
 Ca/i/or»;(7.— Wheeler z: San Francisco, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 31 Cal. 46. S9 Am. Dec. 147. 
 
 Colorado.— Bay\cs v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 
 13 Colo. 181, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 42. 
 22 Pac. 341, 5 L. R. A. 480; Kansas Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Bayles, 19 Colo. 348, 61 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 128, 35 Pac. 744. 
 
 Georgia.— Kates v. Atlanta Baggage, 
 etc., Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372, 46 L. R.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 222 
 
 Special Contractual Obligations. — It is the duty of a common carrier 
 railroad corporation to ha\ c regard for the rights of the pnbHc in the service 
 it engages to perform under the franchises the state permits it to use primarily 
 for the benefit of the pubhc.'-* This requirement embraces the (Uity to render 
 a service adequate to meet all the just requirements of the public, including 
 
 A. 431; Logan & Co. i: Central Railroad. 
 74 Ga. 684: Atlanta, etc.. R. Co. :■. Hoi- 
 combe & Co., 76 Ga. 590. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 
 67 111. 11, 16 Am. Rep. 599; Great Western 
 R. Co. v. Burns, 60 III. 284, 13 Am. R. Rep. 
 309. 
 
 Indiana. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wol- 
 cott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 X. E. 451, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 320; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Closser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 22 Am. 
 St. Rep. 593. 
 
 Maine. — New England Exp. Co. v. Maine 
 Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 188, 2 Am. Rep. 31. 
 
 Massacliiisctts. — Boston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Shanly, 107 Mass. 568; Vermont, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Fitchburg R. Co., 14 Allen 462, 92 
 Am. Dec. 785. 
 
 Xi-tc Hampshire. — Bennett v. Button, 10 
 X. H. 481; McDuffee v. Portland, etc., 
 Railroad, 52 X. H. 430, 13 Am. Rep. 72, 2 
 Am. R. Rep. 241. 
 
 Xeti' Jersey. — Messenger v. Pennsylvania 
 104, affirmed in 47 N. Y. 525; Mall'ory v. 
 R. Co., 37 X. J. L. 531, 18 Am. Rep. 754; 
 Xew Jersey R., etc.. Co. v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 27 X. J. L. 100. 
 
 -Wtc York. — Acheson v. New York, 
 Cent., etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 652; Lough v. 
 Outerbridge, 143 X. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 
 25 L. R. A. 674, 42 Am. St. Rep. 712; 
 Keeney v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 59 Barb. 
 104, affirmed in 47 N. Y. 525; Mallory v. 
 Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. 488. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Cumberland Valley R. 
 Co.'s Appeal, 62 Pa. 218; Sandford v. Cat- 
 awissa, etc., R. Co., 24 Pa. 378, 64 Am. 
 Dec. 667. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 
 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Doty v. Strong, 1 Pinn. 313, 
 40 Am. Dec. 773. 
 
 A carrier can not enact such rules dis- 
 criminating against shipments as to tend 
 to create monopolies and a right of ac- 
 tion accrues for damages resulting from 
 the enforcement of such a rule of a car- 
 rier of goods, requiring shipments from 
 certain points to be unloaded from the 
 cars of the line on which they have come, 
 delivered in drays and again loaded on its 
 cars before it will accept such goods for 
 shipment over its line. Such action not 
 only gives to the competing carrier a 
 right of action for damages to its right 
 of business but also gives a right of ac- 
 tion to the shipper who is damaged 
 by the wrongful requirement of un- 
 shipping, hauling, and reshipping and the 
 consequent waste, delay and injury. Lo- 
 gan & Co. V. Central Railroad, 74 Ga. 684. 
 
 It was the duty of the railroad company 
 to forward the papers tendered it, without 
 
 discrimination in time or order of ship- 
 ment; and it could not refuse to carry 
 papers of the rival house on the early 
 morning train, on the ground that it had 
 other trains going out later in the day. 
 Memphis News Pub. Co. v. Southern R. 
 Co., 110 Tenn. 684, 75 S. W. 941, 63 L. R. 
 A. 150. 
 
 The provision in the constitution of 
 Colorado, that "all individuals, associa- 
 tions, and corporations shall have equal 
 rights to have persons and property trans- 
 ported over any railroad in this state, and 
 no undue or unreasonable discrimination 
 shall be made in charges or facilities for 
 transportation of freight or passengers 
 within the state, and no. railroad company, 
 nor any lessee, manager, or employee 
 thereof, shall give any preference to in- 
 dividuals, associations, or corporations in 
 furnishing cars or motive power," imposes 
 no greater obligation on a railroad com- 
 pany than the common law would have 
 imposed upon it. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Denver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. 
 Ed. 291, 4 S. Ct. 185, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 57. 
 
 Under Texas Rev. St., art. 4227, provid- 
 ing that in case of refusal by a common 
 carrier "to take and transport any passen- 
 ger or property, or to deliver the same, 
 or either of them, at the regular or ap- 
 pointed time, such corporation shall pay 
 to the party aggreived all damages which 
 shall be sustained thereby, with costs of 
 suit," a carrier is liable for receiving the 
 goods of one shipper after rejecting those 
 of a prior applicant. Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Smith. 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 421. 
 
 Carriers engaged in the business of car- 
 rying coal, as well as all other articles or 
 merchandise and freight offered to it, have 
 no right to make any discrimination be- 
 tween shippers, and are obliged to carry 
 for all persons all classes and character of 
 freight offered to them. Bassett v. Aber- 
 deen Coal, etc., Co., 120 Ky. 728, 88 S. W. 
 318, 27 Ky. L. 1 1122; Crescent 
 Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 
 135 S. W. 768, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 442. 
 
 Industrial plants situated on spur 
 tracks. — A railway company owes the 
 same duty to carry goods to an industrial 
 plant connected with its line by spur 
 tracks that it does to plants situated on 
 the main line. Crescent Coal Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. 
 W. 768, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 442. 
 
 74. Taylor v. Florida, etc., R. Co., 54 
 Fla. 635, 45 So. 574, 14 Atn. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 472, 16 L. R. A., N. S., 307.
 
 223 
 
 DUTV TO RECKIVE AXD CARRY. 
 
 § 342 
 
 leasonable dispatch, cunveiiiencc, regularly, and promptness in the transportation 
 of passengers, provision and maintenance of adequate depot facilities suited to 
 the business and convenience of the communities along the road, and the per- 
 formance of the duties and the rendering t)f the service due to the public, with- 
 out unjust discrimination of any character as to persons, localities, or condi- 
 tions.'^' This duty, however, does not relieve the corporation from its contract 
 obligations to individuals, when an observance of the obligations does not ma- 
 terially and injuriously affect the rights of the public; and where the public, 
 or any member of it, is so effected, the rights of the respective parties can not 
 be arbitrarily determined by the corporation for itself. If the private rights 
 under the contract can not l)c adjusted by agreement, resort should be had to 
 the courts by proper parties, where all rights will be adjudged.'*^ It is the duty 
 of the corporation to oljscrvc the obligations of its contract with individuals 
 that are made in good faith, and that do not necessarily directly and materially 
 affect injuriously substantial rights of the public, until the corporation is re- 
 lieved from such contract by due course of law."' A railroad company is al- 
 lowed a reasonable discretion in the performance of its duties and in the ren- 
 dering of service to the public; l)Ul such discretion should be exercised in good 
 faith and for the public welfare, and not arbitrarily, and it is subject to con- 
 trol and regulation by governmental authority .'^'^ 
 
 Contracting to Carry for One Person Only. — The fact that one publish- 
 ing company solicits the inslilulion of certain train service and supports it by 
 large outlay of money does not change the rule, nor make the train a special 
 one, chartered .for a special purpose.'^ Nor can such contracting parties im- 
 pose, as a condition of acceptance and delivery of goods tendered, on another 
 person an obligation to share the burden of establishing the service voluntarily 
 assumed bv the contracting house.''" 
 
 75. Taylor z\ Florida, etc.. R. Co., 54 
 Fla. 633, 45 So. 574, 14 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 472, 16 L. R. A., N. S., 307. 
 
 76. Taylor v. Florida, etc.. R. Co.. 54 
 Fla. 635, 45 So. 574, 14 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 472. 16 L. R. A., N. S., 307. See post, 
 "Bills of Lading," chapter 6; "Shipping 
 Receipts," chapter 7: "Special Contracts," 
 chapter 8. 
 
 77. Taylor f. Florida, etc., R. Co., 54 
 Fla. 635. 45 So. 574, 14 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 472, 16 L. R. A., N. S., 307. 
 
 78. Taylor z: Florida, etc., R. Co., 54 
 Fla. 635, 45 So. 574, 14 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 472, 16 L. R. A., N. S., 307; Ellis r. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 53 Fla. 650, 44 So. 
 213, 13 L. R. A., N. S., 560. 
 
 Whether the duty a common carrier 
 owes to the public is materiallj' and in- 
 juriously affected by the contract obli- 
 gation of the corporation to individuals 
 cannot be arbitrarily determined by the 
 corporation for itself. Taylor 7: Florida, 
 etc., R. Co., 54 Fla. 635, 45 So. 574, 14 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 472, 16 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 307. 
 
 79. Contract to carry for one only. — 
 Memphis News Pub. Co. f. Southern R. 
 Co., 110 Tenn. 684. 75 S. \V. 041. 63 L. R. 
 A. 150. 
 
 Special train for transportation of news- 
 papers. — .A. railroad company contracted 
 with a newspaper publisher, agreeing to 
 run a special earlj' morning train carry- 
 ing only the newspapers of the publisher. 
 
 in consideration of the publishing com- 
 pany guarantying to it a certain revenue 
 from the operation of the train. This 
 train became one of its scheduled trains, 
 and was advertised as such. It was con- 
 ti oiled exclusively by the company, and 
 all the revenue derived from its opera- 
 tion in the carrying of passengers and 
 freight was its property. It was held, 
 that the railroad could not, relying on its 
 contract, refuse to carry on such train 
 newspapers tendered it by a rival pub- 
 lisliing house, which offered to comply 
 with all the conditions as to guaranty, 
 indemnity, etc.. complied with by the 
 house making the contract, and such re- 
 fusal constituted an illegal discrimination 
 between persons of the same class. Mem- 
 phis News Pub. Co. 7'. Southern R. Co., 
 110 Tenn. 684, 75 S. \V. 941, 63 L. R. A. 
 150. 
 
 80. Contribution as condition. — Mem- 
 phis News I'ub. Co. z: Southern R. Co., 
 no Tenn. 684, 75 S. W. 941, 63 L. R. A. 
 150. 
 
 In a suit by a publishing house against 
 a railroad company for refusal to carry 
 its papers on an early morning train, 
 which was put in service by tlie railroad 
 under a contract with another pulilishing 
 house which stipulated that the railroad 
 company should not forward the papers 
 of any other house than the contractor, 
 the contracting house could not. when 
 made a party to the suit by its rival, file
 
 8S 342-345 carriers. 224 
 
 No length of time or habit of dealing will discharge a carrier's duiy to 
 <;erve the public without discrimination. "^^ 
 
 Unusual Rush of Business as Guise for Discrimination.— See post, 
 "Unusual Press of Business," §§ 368-371. 
 
 §§ 343-348. Discrimination in Facilities and Cars— § 343. In Gen- 
 eral. A railroad company under the common law is required to extend to 
 
 all persons without discrimination equal facilities for receiving and shipping 
 freight of all kinds of the same class. ^^- 
 
 § 344. Discrimination in Favor of One of Several Connecting Car- 
 riers.— Providing Stations and Interchanging Freight.— The duty of a 
 carrier to accept goods tendered at its station does not recjuire it to accept cars 
 ottered by competing roads at arbitrary points near its terminus for the purpose 
 of using its terminal station. A law requiring the carrier so to do is unconsti- 
 tutional as taking property without due process of law.^^ 
 
 Requiring Delivery and Receipt of Cars between Connecting Car- 
 riers.— A provision in the constitution of a state that a carrier must deliver 
 its cars to connecting carriers without providing adequate protection for their 
 return, or compensation for their use, amounts to a taking of property without 
 due process of law wdthin the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, and so 
 held as to §§ 213, 214, of the constitution of Kentucky.^^ And the property of 
 a railway companv is taken without due process of law where such company 
 is compe'lled, upon payment simply for the service of carriage, to accept cars 
 ofi'ered to it at an arbitrary connecting point near its terminus, by a competmg 
 road, for the purpose of reaching and using the former's terminal facilities.^^ 
 
 § 345. Preference in Delivery and Distribution of Cars.— Where a rail- 
 road company discriminates against a shipper who has no other means of shipment 
 than over its line, and refuses to furnish him with cars at times when it is sup- 
 plying them freely to other shippers at points where it competes with other lines, 
 
 it is liable.^^ , ,. ., , . 
 
 Live Stock and Merchandise over Hay.— \\ here a railroad distributed its 
 freight cars so that empty cars were retained on the division where they had 
 been unloaded until they could be loaded with outgoing freight, and it preferred 
 shippers of live stock and merchandise over the shippers of hay located at non- 
 competitive points, and during a blockade at its terminals withheld cars for the 
 
 a cross bill, and thereby work out any Ky., § 213, to receive, deliver, and trans- 
 equities that it might have against it on port freight from and to any pomt where 
 account of expenses incurred through the there is a physical connection between 
 establishment and early maintenance of its track and those of any other railway 
 the train service. Memphis News Pub. company deprives the former company of 
 Co. V. Southern R. Co., 110 Tenn. 684, 75 its property without due process of law. 
 S W 941 63 L. R. A. 150. Judgment in 97 S. W. 778, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 
 ■ "^ ' ^ n ^ n .-, T ^„;c„;nA ^^r 18, reversed. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 P*r ^'fi^'lJv ~°'\ffs wTs 'l R Central Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 
 ?■ XT- ^'^ S" ' ' ' 53 L. Ed. 441, 29 S. Ct. 246. 
 A., iN. b., 44-<. Requiring delivery of cars to connect- 
 
 82. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Wren, 78 O. jj^ carrier.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 St. 137, 84 X. E. 78.5, If. L. R. A., N. S., Central Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 
 914. 53 L. Ed. 441, 29 S. Ct. 246. (Decided with 
 
 83. Providing for interchanging freight. reference to §§ 213, 214 of the Kentucky 
 — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Central Stock constituti(jn.) 
 
 Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, 53 L. Ed. 441, 85. Requiring receipt of cars. — Louis- 
 
 29 S. Ct. 24 3. ville, etc., R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards 
 
 84. Requiring delivery and receipt of Co., 212 U. S. 132, 53 L. Ed. 441, 29 S. Ct. 
 cars between connecting carrier. — Re- 246. _ ^ , r • , r^^ ■ 
 quiring a railway company to deliver its 86. Refusal to furnish cars.— Chicago 
 own cars to another railway company etc., R. Co. f Wolcott, 1^1 i"d. 20<, 39 
 when performing its duty under Const. N. E. 451, 50 Am. St. Rep. 320.
 
 225 DUTY TO KIXUIVE AM> CAKKV. §§ 343-348 
 
 shipment of liav to other points until the conj^estion was relieved, it was an un- 
 lawful discrimination.^' 
 
 As between Miners. — Where a railroad divides mines along its line into 
 two districts, and rales them according to their producing capacity, and during 
 a period of shortage gives to one coal company an excess of cars, it will be lia- 
 ble in damages to a coal company in the other district which has been deprivea 
 of its fair share of cars.**''* 
 
 §§ 346-347. With Respect to Use of Tracks— § 346. In General.— 
 
 A carrier by railroad in the discharge of its duties to the public mu.^t u-e all 
 the tracks set ai)art for the transportation of freight, and treat without favor 
 or discrimination all i)(.rs(in> offering freight to it for catriage."*" 
 
 Use by Express Companies. — A railroad conij^any is bound to jjermit any 
 express company to operate on its lines.''"' 
 
 § 347. With Respect to Spur Tracks, Switches and Belt Lines.— 
 
 Where a carrier received and delivered freight on private spur tracks pursuant 
 to contracts, and the contracts offered to all of its customers were identical, 
 there was no discrimination against any customer.-'^ 
 
 Preference in Use of Belt Lines and Spur Tracks. — A railroad company 
 may establish reasonable depots or places at which it will receive and deliver 
 freight and can not be required to receive or handle it at other places; but it 
 must use for the public convenience all the tracks set apart by it for the trans- 
 portation of freight, and treat all patrons without discrimination.'-^- A rail- 
 way company can not justify discrimination in refusing to carry coal between 
 a mine and an industrial plant on a belt line in a city while carrying other freight 
 between points on that line on the ground that it obtains an additional haul from 
 the other freight before or after the haul on the belt line.''-= 
 
 § 348. Discrimination in Switch and Trackage Charges. — Lessee and 
 Non-Lessee Coal Operators. — .V coal company, which constructs a railroad 
 switch to its mine and allows the hauling over it of coal of its lessees, does not 
 discriminate against others, whom it charges five cents a ton trackage, by charg- 
 ing its tenants only eight cents a ton royalt}- ; such charge to also cover trans- 
 portation over the track. ''^ 
 
 87. Preference in delivery and distribu- irom a mine on sucli line to one of such 
 tion of cars. — Dobnty v. Chicago, etc., R. plants is unlawful discrimination, though 
 Co., 81! Xeb. 518, 12ii N. \V. 165. the spur tracks involved are within what 
 
 88. Puritan Coal Min. Co. v. Pcnnsyl- the company calls its switching limits, 
 vania R. Co., 237 Pa. 420, 85 Atl. 42(). and regardless of the length, location. 
 
 89. With respect to use of tracks. — Lou- and proximity of the spur tracks and the 
 isville, etc.. R. Cn. r. Hi.ydon. 149 Ky. character of the plants. Crescent Coal 
 :\2\. 14S S. \\". 21"). Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 
 
 90. Use by express companies.— State v. 135 S. VV. 768, 33 L. R. A., N. S.. 442. 
 Missouri Puc. R. Co. (^Io. ). 144 S. \V. 93, Crescent Coal Co. v. Louisville, etc., 
 863. See post, "Duties as to Express R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. W'. 768, 33 L. 
 Companies." § 377. R. A., N. S., 442. 
 
 91. Discrimination with respect to spur 94. Lessee and non-lessee coal opera- 
 track switches and belt lines. — Gulf Com- tors. — Straiglit Creek Coal Min. Co. f. 
 press Co. v. .Vlahania, etc.. R. Co. (Miss.), Straight Creek Coal. etc.. Co. (Ky.), 122 
 56 So. 666. S. W. 842. 
 
 92. Preference in use of belt line and A railroad company, which has a mort- 
 spur tracks. — Crescent Coal Co. :■. L(Miis- gage on the switch road of a coal com- 
 villc, etc., R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. W. pany coming into its road at P.. and with- 
 768, 33 L. R. A.. X. S., 442. out charge puts its empty cars on the 
 
 A railway company need not carry switch for the various mineowners along 
 
 freight between points within ordinary it. and when they are loaded hauls them 
 
 switching limits at a given station: but. over the switchao P., making its charges 
 
 where it operates a belt line and carries from P., only, tlie same to all shippers, 
 
 freight between industrial plants thereon does not operate the switch as part of its 
 
 for compensation, refusal to carry coal general system, so as to be subject to 
 
 1 Car — 15
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 226 
 
 §§ 349-350 
 
 §§ 349-350. Preference to Shipper in Order of Forwarding Goods— 
 § 349. In General. — The requirenieiu of the common law that a common 
 carrier mu'^t receive goods offered for transportation in the order of their ten- 
 der can not. on principle, be affected either by the place where the shipment 
 originates or bv the ultimate destination of the goods.o^ There is, therefore, no 
 reason why a steamship company should prefer freight tendered in a car from 
 one forwarding ?igencv and deny freight similarly tendered by another forward- 
 ing at^ency or sliipper. If a steamship company desires an inland earner to 
 issue "through bills of lading, it may do so subject to its obligations to receive 
 and carry freight in order of its tender. The mere fact that a particular com- 
 modity is destined to a foreign port can not justify a carrier in giving a prefer- 
 ence to it over the same or another commodity because the latter may be a 
 domestic shipment.'"' . . 
 
 Cotton.— The great value of the cotton crop and the importance of its 
 prompt transportation gives that product no imperial rights over other products 
 of the state, and hence does not justify a carrier in refusing to ship lumber m 
 order that it may be enabled to ship cotton. It is not perishable in its nature, 
 and it will not be contended that its fluctuation in price is so violent that a delay 
 in transportation would substantially destroy its value.^" 
 
 § 3 50. Booking Freight. — The carrier's common-law obligation of indif- 
 ferently serving the public in the receipt and transportation of goods does not 
 inhibit 'a carrier by sea from making "booking" of freight— that is, from making 
 specific arrangements for the transportation of goods by a particular vessel — 
 in advance of its sailing day, provided this privilege is indift'erently extended 
 to all patrons, or if the grant of this privilege to shippers of one commodity 
 does not interfere with the carrier's discharge of duty to the shippers of othei 
 commodities with respect to the receipt and transportation of their goods. The 
 same rules which govern a carrier by sea in the reception of goods for trans- 
 portation apply to the carrier's engagements to transport by a particular vessel, 
 or within a specified limit of time.^'* 
 
 the charge of discrimination on account 
 of the trackage charges made by the coal 
 company owning the switch. Straight 
 Creek Coal Min. Co. ?•. Straight Creek 
 Coal, etc., Co. (Ky.), 122 S. W. 842. 
 
 95. Preferences to shipper in order of 
 forwarding. — Ocean, etc., Co. i'. Savan- 
 nah Locomotive, etc., Supply Co.. 131 
 Ga. 831, G3 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. A.. N. S., 
 867, 127 Am. St. Rep. 26.5, 1.5 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 1044. So held under Texas Re- 
 vised Statutes of 1895. art. 4537, Hill 7: St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 75 
 S. W. 874, reversed in 97 Tex. 506. 
 
 96. Ocean, etc., Co. r. Savannah Loco- 
 motive, etc.. Supply Co.. 131 Ga. 831, 63 
 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. A., N. S., 867. 127 Am. 
 St. Rep. 265, 273, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 1044. 
 
 97. Cotton. — Ocean, etc., Co. t'. Savan- 
 nah Locomotive, etc.. Supply Co., 131 Ga. 
 831, 63 S. E. 577. 20 L. R. A.. N. S., 807, 
 127 Am. St. Rep. 265, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. C?s. 1044. 
 
 98. Booking freight. — Ocean, etc., Co. 
 !■. Savannah Locomotive, etc.. Supply Co., 
 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. A.. X. 
 S., 867, 127 .\m. St. Rep. 265. 15 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 1044. 
 
 The system of "booking," is the prac- 
 tice of the steamship company to make 
 
 specific engagements with shippers for 
 a reservation of space for freight to be 
 shipped on a particular vessel, in advance 
 of its sailing day. If the steamship com- 
 pany indifferently extended this privilege 
 to all of its patrons and to all commodi- 
 ties, it would not violate any duty which 
 it owed the public. "The basal princi- 
 ple of the requirement of the common 
 law that a common carrier must convey 
 the goods of all persons offering to pay 
 his hire, unless his carriage be already 
 full, is that there should be no unjust 
 preference given one member of the pub- 
 lic over another. The practice of mak- 
 ing specific engagements in advance of 
 the shipment, if the privilege is indiffer- 
 ently extended to all, is but another form 
 of acceptance of goods tendered in the 
 order of their application. The same im- 
 partially of service is rendered when the 
 public notice is given by the carrier that 
 he will 'book' the freight of all patrons, 
 and reserves space for the goods engaged 
 to be transported as if he had received 
 the goods of the shipper in the order of 
 their tender. But when a carrier reserves 
 space in his carriage for a favored pa- 
 tron, or a favored commodity, not per- 
 ishable in its nature, and refuses to re- 
 serve space for another patron or commod-
 
 227 
 
 DUTV TO KIXKIVE AND CAKKV. 
 
 §§ 351-354 
 
 §§ 351-355. Remedies for Discrimination— §§ 351-353. Form of 
 Action— § 3 51. Injunction and Mandamus. — If. upon invcsiigaiion by the 
 stale coniinissioii of Ohio, the rale or rales or any reguhilion, practice or service 
 comphiined of. shall be found to be unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, or the 
 service siiall be found to be inadequate, the commission has the power to grant 
 relief; and in tliat event, if its orders are not complied with, it may compel 
 compliance In proceedings in mandamus, injunction or by other proper civil 
 j)rocccdings.'''' The railroad commission of Ohio is not invested with judicial 
 powers, either in the makinj,' of rales or determination of the distribution of 
 cars, etc., such as will preclude courts in suits by ship])ers to restrain enforce- 
 ment of such orders, from hearing de novo the matters in controversy ; nor 
 can such rulings effect the rights of siiippers, but they may resort to inherent 
 equitv powers to liaxc their rights determined and i)rolected by the courts.^ 
 
 Consolidated Railroad Extending into Several State?. — Where a de- 
 fendant railroad company is a cori)oration conscjlidaled under the statutes of 
 several states, including Ohio, and its road extends into several states, its acts 
 of injurious discrimination committed or threatened in that state to the business 
 of shippers, either on or along the line of its railroad, may be enjoined by the 
 courts of that state. - 
 
 Ad Interim Injunction. — W here there is evidence authorizing a finding that 
 the defendant carrier discriminated against the plaintiff in the receptioi. and 
 transportation of lumber tendered for shipment, the court does not abuse this 
 discretion in granting an ad interim injunction. •'■ 
 
 § 3 52. Quo Warranto. — See post, 'i^iscriminalion in Rates and Over- 
 :harge,"" chapter Id. 
 
 § 353. Action at Law. — See post, "Discrimination in Rates and Over- 
 charge," chajitcr 16. 
 
 § 3 54. Evidence. — At common law the parly complaining was required to 
 show that the discrimination was unjust and unreasonable,-* but under the 
 
 ity, he fails, to afford that commonness 
 of service which the law annexes as 
 an incident to his l)usiness. The steam- 
 ship company may discontinue to carry 
 any particular commodity, it desires, or 
 it may voluntarily cease to do business 
 as a common carrier and engage in the 
 lousiness of a special carrier; but so 
 long as it pursues the business of a com- 
 mon carrier, it is bound to render to 
 the public the service which the law ex- 
 acts of a common carrier." Ocean, etc., 
 Co. V. Savannah Locomotive, etc.. Supply 
 Co., 131 Ga. 831, (53 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 867, 127 Am. St. Rep. 265, 15 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1044. 
 
 99. Injunction and mandamus. — Ohio 
 Dairy Co. :■. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 7 
 N. P., N. S., 451, 457, 10 O. D. N. P. 97. 
 
 "It is further provided by the stat- 
 utes of Ohio (notably by §§ 3373-1, Rev. 
 Stat.), that the courts may grant relief 
 in cases wliere railroad companies do not 
 secure and extend to all shippers the same 
 and equal opportunities and facilities for 
 receiving and sliipping freiglu. One of 
 the most recent cases of this kind, con- 
 sidered by the supreme court of C)liio. 
 is that of Toledo, etc., R. Co. f. Wren. 
 78 O. St. 137, 84 N. E. 785, 16 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 914." Ohio Dairy Co. v. Lake 
 
 Shore, etc., R. Co., 7 X. P.. X. S., 451. 4.57, 
 19 O. D. N. P. 97. 
 
 1. Black Diamond Coal, etc., Co. v. 
 Railroad Comm., 8 X. P., X. S.. 5>S5, 19 
 O. D. X. P. 783. 
 
 2. Consolidated railroad extending into 
 several states. — ScotU-Ul ;■. Lake Sliore, 
 etc., R. Co.. 43 O. St. 571, 3 X. E. 907, 
 54 Am. Rep. 846. 
 
 Thus, where it appeared that the plain- 
 tiff's l)usiness was such as to make them 
 frequent shippers, and that a continuous 
 series of shipments was necessary in con- 
 ducting tlieir business, and that a remedy 
 sought by actions at law would lead to 
 a multiplicity of suits, it was held that 
 the court would intervene by injunction 
 to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and it 
 is not a prerequisite that the plaintiffs 
 should have first established their rights 
 by an action at law. Scofield z\ Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co., 43 O. St. 571, 3 N. E. 
 907, 54 Am. Rep. S46. 
 
 3. Ad interim injunction. — Ocean, etc., 
 Co. x: Savannah Locomotive, etc., Supply 
 Co., 131 Ga. 831, 63 S. E. 577, 20 L. R. A., 
 X. S., 867. 127 .\m. St. Rep. 26.'). 15 Am. 
 & Eng. .\nn. C:is. 1044. 
 
 4. Presumption and burden of proof. — 
 Railroad Comm. ■:: Weld, 96 Tex. 394. 404, 
 73 S. W. 529, reversing 68 S. W. 1117.
 
 §§ 354-356 CARRIERS. 228 
 
 statute of Texas, the Imnlen of proof is upon the carrier to establish that it 
 was reasonable and just."' 
 
 § 355. Damages.— Difference in Market Value at Destination and 
 Point of Shipment. — In an action against a railroad company by a shipper of 
 hay, grain, and straw to recover for alleged discrimination by the company's 
 giving to other shii)i)ers unequal preferences in the distribution and delivery of 
 cars, plaintiff can recover as damages only such sum as will compensate him 
 for the loss or injury, except that in such action, it shall not under Ohio Rev. St. 
 1906, §§ 337'3-l, be less than $500.'' In an action for discrimination against 
 plaintilT in furnishing cars, where there is no allegation of special damage, the 
 measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the hay and 
 straw that would have been transported if plaintiff had received the cars at 
 the point to which they were to have been carried wdien they would have reached 
 their destination, and their value at the same time and place from which they 
 were to have been carried, less the cost of transportation.' 
 
 Discrimination in Furnishing' Cars for Output of Coal Mines. — In an 
 action bv a coal company against a carrier for alleged illegal discrimination in 
 furnishing transportation facilities for shipment of coal, the measure of dam- 
 ages is what would have been a reasonably fair profit on the fairly probable 
 output of the mine discriminated against, less what was actually shipped from 
 such mine. 8 That the coal belonging to the coal company was left in the 
 ground and might be available for future shipment is immaterial on the question 
 of damages, in the absence of proof by defendant that the coal company would 
 realize for its coal if shipped in the future as much as it would have realized 
 if shipped during the period of alleged illegal discrimination.'* 
 
 Damages for Delay in Settlement of Plaintiff's Claim. — The court, 
 hearing a case against a railroad for unlawful discrimination, may include in 
 the general damages additional damages for delay in settlement of plaintiff's 
 claim. ^" 
 
 §§ 356-359. Tender and Refusal — § 3 56. In General. — A common 
 carrier can not as a general rule be rendered liable for failing to receive and 
 carry freights or live stock until the person injured proves that the freight or 
 stock was actually tendered to the company and that it refused to carry, ^^ and 
 the tender must be according to the carrier's usages and customs. i- However, 
 it seems that the carrier may waive a tender of the freight so as to become 
 liable. Thus where a carrier agreed to receive cattle for shipment, it waived 
 any informality or supposed insufficiency in the tender of the cattle. ^'^ But the 
 
 5. Railroad Comm. z: Weld, 96 Tex. Damages can not ])e recovered from a 
 394, 404, 7.3 S. W. 529, reversing 68 S. W. common carrier on account of the non- 
 1117, shipment of certain freight because of 
 
 6. Toledo, etc., R. Co. z-. Wren, 78 O. the failure of the defendant to provide 
 St. 137, 84 N. E. 785, 16 L. R. A., X. S., facilities, without proof that the freight 
 914. in question was offered for shipment. 
 
 7. Toledo, etc., R. Co. t'. Wren, 78 O. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. z>. Conatser, 61 
 St. 137, 84 N. E. 785. 16 L. R. A., N. S., Ark. 560, 33 S. W. 1057. 
 
 914. In Central, etc., R. Co. r. Morris, 68 
 
 8. Discrimination in furnishing cars. — Tex. 49, 3 S. W. 457, 28 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Hillsdale Coal, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania Cas. 50, it is said in tlie opinion: "It is 
 R. Co., 229 Pa. 61, 78 Atl. 28. urged, * * * that the points to which 
 
 9. Hillsdale Coal, etc., Co. v. Pennsyl- the lumber was to be carried, and a tender 
 vania R. Co., 229 Pa. 61, 78 Atl. 28. of the freight upon it, should have been 
 
 10. Damages for delay in settlement of averred. In an ordinary case, it might be 
 plaintiff's claim. — Puritan Coal Min. Co. that these allegations are proper and nec- 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2:i7 Pa. 420, S5 essary." 
 
 Atl. 426. 12. According to usage. — Galena, etc., R. 
 
 11. Tender and refusal.— Northwestern Co. r. Rac, 18 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574. 
 Fuel Co. r. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 20 13. Waiver.— Red River, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fed. 712; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. White- Eastin, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 88 S. W. 
 hill, 104 Aid. 295, 64 Atl. 1033. 530.
 
 229 
 
 DUTY TO KIvCKIVE AND CARRY. 
 
 § 356 
 
 refusal of a carrier to transport coal for a certain firm does not, in the absence of 
 actual tender of a definite amount for transportation, amount to a waiver of sucii 
 tender, so as to subject the carrier to liability f(jr loss of business caused by relying 
 on such refusal.'"* At any rate all that can be done by the owner of goods or live 
 stock, which are designed for transportation, is to place them contiguons to the 
 railway track at some usual or properly designated place, or in the railway's 
 cattle i^ens, and request the company to furnish cars and receive the goods.^-"' 
 The mere fact that a commodity or live stock intended to be shipped is not on 
 the platform (ir in the pens of the carrier is not an excuse for the carrier's fail- 
 ure to furnish cars, when such things are under the control of the shipper, and 
 ready for shipment in the usual way."' It is the duty of a company to receive 
 freights of all persons according to its usage and custom, and where wheat is 
 tendered lor shipment, and the company is in the habit of receiving such freight 
 by running its cars on side tracks to private warehouses, a tender accordingly, 
 or notice and readiness to deliver the wheat in that manner, is sufficient, and the 
 company can not recjuire that the grain be delivered in a different manner or at a 
 different place.'' Where a shipper demands cars at its warehouse for the trans- 
 portation of goods, the fact, particularly when communicated to the carrier, that 
 the goods to be shipped are pre])ared for and immediately available for shipmenu 
 is a sufficient tender to the carrier.'* Under a statute providing that every rail- 
 road corporation shall furnish cars for the transportation of such property ab 
 shall within a reasonable time ])rc\ious thereto be ready or offered for transpor- 
 tation at the several stations on its railroad, if the merchandise to be shipped is 
 substantially ready for shipment at the time the order for cars is placed, the stat- 
 ute is coni])lied with, and a failure to furnish the cars confers a right of action 
 upon the shipper.''' It follows from what has been said that an actual refu.sal 
 
 14. Tender of deiinite amount. — Wilder 
 V. St. |ohnsl)ury, etc.. R. Co., 6(3 Vt. G:56, 
 30 .\tl. 41. 
 
 15. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Flanagan, 
 113 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Rep. (J74, 32 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 532. 
 
 WHiere. after cattle are placed in the 
 stockyards of a railroad company, for 
 shipment, the company declines to ship 
 them, the shipper is relieved from the 
 necessity of making any further delivery 
 or ofTer to deliver the cattle. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Godman, 104 Ind. 490, 4 
 N. E. 163. 
 
 "Within the ruling in Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Godman, 104 Ind. 490, 4 N. E. 
 163, the refusal of the company upon de- 
 mand to furnish cars for the transporta- 
 tion of goods, such as those described, 
 which are alleged to have been placed 
 at a station upon its line to he trans- 
 ported, relieved the plaintiff's from mak- 
 ing any further delivery, or offer to <le- 
 liver." Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flana- 
 gan, 113 Ind. 488, 3 .\m. St. Rep. 674, 32 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 532. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for breach 
 of its common-law duty to furnish cars 
 to transport freight without unreasonable 
 delay, the petition alleging that defend- 
 ant was a common carrier for hire, had 
 been receiving lumber for shipment from 
 plaintiff in the past, had held itself out 
 as willing to receive the sliipment in ques- 
 tion, and promised from time to time to 
 furnish cars, and that plaintiff placed the 
 lumber at a certain point on its riglit of 
 
 way, urged the carrier repeatedly to fur- 
 nish the necessary cars, informing it of 
 the necessity of prompt shipment and the 
 damages which would accrue to him from 
 delay, and that it negligently failed and 
 refused to furnish such cars, and allowed 
 the lumber to remain lying on the right 
 of way from Noveml)er 20, 1906, until 
 the suit was brought, March 6, 1908, 
 thereby causing it to be injured and dam- 
 age to accrue to plaintiff, was sufficient 
 as against a general demurrer. Southern 
 R. Co. v. Moore. 133 Ga. 806. 67 S. E. 85. 
 26 L. R. A.. X. S., 851. 
 
 16. Goods ready for shipment. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ Leder Bros.. 87 Ark. 
 298. 112 S. W. 744. 
 
 There was a sufficient tender of live 
 stock for shipment to warrant a recovery 
 for failure to furnish cars, where the ship- 
 per, acting under instructions from the 
 railroad's agent, after request for the cars 
 was made, kept the stock ready for ship- 
 ment within a short distance of the sta- 
 tion: there being no accommodation for 
 keeping them at the station. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Ozier, 86 .\rk. 179, 110 
 S. W. 593, 17 L. R. A., N. S.. 836. 
 
 17. Duty to receive according to usage 
 or custom. — Galena, etc.. R. Co. :. Rac. 
 18 111. 4SS. 6S Am. Deo. 574. 
 
 18. Goods ready at warehouse. — Richey. 
 etc.. Co. :■. Northern Pac. R. Co.. llO 
 Minn. 347. 125 X. W. 897. 
 
 19. Goods ready at time of offer. — Mul- 
 berrv Hill Coal Co. :■. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co.,' 161 111. .\pp. 272.
 
 §§ 356-358 cARRii-RS. 230 
 
 by the carrier is necessary. So it has been held that a com]ilaint against a railroad 
 company for discriminating unjustly against a shipper by directing its agents to 
 refuse to receive or transport any goods offered for transportation by him, except 
 when prepaid, does not state a cause of action if it fails to aver that the agents 
 of the companv actually have refused to receive or transport his goods, and tha. 
 he has actually been injured.-" But where the carrier has refused to furnish the 
 shipper proper facilities, the latter is not bound to prepare and oft'er the freight 
 as a condition precedent to his right of action for damages.-^ 
 
 § 3 57. Authority to Tender. — And such tender of the goods for shipment 
 must be made by a person h;i\ ing authority to do so.-- It would seem that iii 
 an action brought against a carrier for refusing to receive and carry goods, it 
 v.Guld constitute a valid defense that the plaintiff had stolen them, although, at 
 the time cf offering, the carrier may not have known they had been stolen. ^^ As 
 the owner can redeem goods in the hands of the carrier, after their delivery to 
 him. and excuse a nondelivery to the depositor,-^' it is clear that the carrier would 
 be justified in refusing to receive them from one having a wrongful possession, 
 although, at the time of such refusal, he might not know the manner in which 
 they had been obtained.-'^ 
 
 § 3 58. Authority to Receive Freight and Make Contracts.— The local 
 
 agent of a railroad at a station at which a shii^jjer desires to have cars furnished 
 him has authority to receive applications therefor.-"^ Railroad agents are placed 
 at stations for the express purpose of receiving and forwarding freights and 
 making contracts with reference thereto, and where an agent has agreed to re- 
 ceive and ship stock at a particular time the company is bound thereby, unless 
 a delay in shipping was due to some unforeseen event, such as the law recog- 
 nizees as sufficient.-' And an agreement by an agent of a railway company to 
 furnish cars and receive and ship freight at a future day is not such an admis- 
 sion of the carrier's common-law obligation to receive and ship the freight when 
 oft'ered as will estop the company from denying such duty upon the freight be- 
 ing tendered to it for shipment, as by showing that it is discharged from such 
 dutv because its road is under government military control.-"" 
 
 Special Agreement as to Delivery. — The delivery or tender of freight to 
 
 20. Actual refusal necessary.— Allen z: 24. "A carrier is excused for nonde- 
 Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., lOO N. Car. 397, livery of goods to the consignee, when 
 6 S E 105 35 \m. & Eng. R. Cas. 532. they are demanded, or taken from his 
 
 21. Refusal to furnish facilities.— Un- possession by some person having a su- 
 der Rev. St. 1895, art. 4494, requiring rail- Pf'O'" title to the property. Fitch t/. 
 road companies to furnish accommoda- J^^^'^^i'^'y (^^"^h.), 1 Doug. 1. 40 Am. 
 tion for the transportation of all such ^^^:, ^^' ^^- , .. . , , 
 property as shall be offered for transpor- \\here the adverse title is made known 
 tation, etc., after a railroad company had [f^ the carrier if he is forbidden to de- 
 refused to furnish transportation to the ''ver the goods to any o her person he 
 shipper, the latter was not bound to pre- ^cts a his peril; and if the adverse title 
 pare and offer his freight, in order to be- '^ well founded and he resists it, he is 
 come entitled to damages for the refusal. I'^ble to an act.oi. for the recovery of 
 Judgment (Tex. Civ. App.). 40 S. W. 431, the goods. Pitch zk Newberry (Alich.), 
 reversed Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Camp- 1 P°"?.; \' ^^ ;V''-, Ar , ^ i n nc 
 bell, 91 Tex. 55], 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. ^5. fitch f. Newberry (Mich.), 1 Doug. 
 225 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33. 38. 
 
 „■ . , .^ , , . ,,. , ., 26. Local agents. — Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 
 22. Authority of shipper.— I- itch z^ New- .^, ^jj^,^ ^^ Tex. Civ. App. 331, 98 S. W. 
 berry (Mich.J, 1 Doug. 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33. ^g^, judgment reversed Allen v. Texas, 
 
 23. See Fitch v. Newberry (Mich.), 1 etc., R. Co., 100 Tex. 525, 101 S. W. 792, 
 Doug. 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33, 38. n i^. R. A.. N. S., 981, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 A common carrier need not receive for Ann. Cas. 618. 
 
 transportation goods from any person 27. Storms — Cold weather. — Pruitt v. 
 
 other than the owner or his duly author- Hannibal, etc., R. Co., r,2 Mo. 527. 
 
 ized agent. Drake v. Nashville, etc., R. 28. Phelps r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 94 
 
 Co., 125 Tenn. 627, 148 S. W. 214. 111. 548.
 
 231 DUTY TO RKCKlVt: AND CAKRV. §§ 358-359 
 
 a carrier for shipment may be made in accordance with such arrangement be- 
 tween the shii)])er and the carrier's agent as they may choose to make in regard 
 to the mode of deHvery. and a station agent has authority to consent to such 
 arrangement.-"-' 
 
 Apparent Authority to Act as Agent of Steamboat Company — Refusal 
 to Receive Freight. — W he-re une whtjm a slcauiho.-it carrier had i)tjrniiue<l lo 
 act as its agent in receiving freight, for such a length of time as to justify the 
 behcf that he was an authorized agent, wrongfully refused to receive freight 
 offered, the carrier can not escape liability on the ground that he had no au- 
 thority to receive freight f(jr shipment."-" 
 
 § 359. Place and Time of Offer for Transportation. — A carrier is not 
 liable for failure to furnish cars and transport goods unless they are offered at 
 a regular depot or other usual or designated place for receiving freight. '^^ Thus, 
 it is said that a common carrier is not bound to depart from his ordinary and 
 usual mode of business in receiving goods to carry. •^- Where common carriers, 
 doing an express business, only hold themselves out as carriers between certain 
 designated points, they can not be compelled to carry from intermediate points; 
 and where they are sued for property delivered to an agent at an intermediate 
 point, it is competent for them to show that they were not carriers from such 
 point, and that tlie agent was not authorized to receive the goods. ^-^ And al- 
 though a carrier hauls coal and other goods for hire from one end of its line to the 
 other, and carries goods other than coal from an intermediate station, it is not 
 bound to carry coal from that station unless it has publicly professed to do so ; ^* 
 nor can a carrier be compelled to receive goods beyond its own terminus.'^-*^ 
 
 Spur Tracks and Switches. — A railroad company owes to establishments 
 connected with its line by spur track the same duty to furnish shipping facilities 
 as it does to persons whose shipments are situated immediately on its main road.-'*^ 
 
 Usage and Custom. — By a long and continuous custom of receiving tor 
 transportation cordwood left at a point on the main line of its track, not a reg- 
 .ular station, or at a side or spur track, a railroad company may bind itself to 
 continue the custom until it has given reasonable notice of its discontinuance; 
 so that, where such a custom has been discontinued without reasonable notice, 
 a carrier will be liable for special damages to a shipper who has cut and stacked 
 wood for shipment in reliance on such custom, on refusal by the carrier to trans- 
 port the wood, nor is it necessary to such recovery that the shipper shall actually 
 deliver the wood at the point on the track wliere the carrier had been accustomed 
 to receive it, when he has offered to do so and been notified by the carrier that 
 it will not accept the shipment.-'*' 
 
 29. Special agreement as to delivery. — by means of a switcli track and course 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Ozier, S(j .\rk. of dealing is a station or stopping place 
 179 183 no S. W. 0^3, 17 L. R. A., N. S., witliin the meaning of this act. Mulberry 
 836! Hill Coal Co. r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 161 
 
 30. Authority of agent to refuse or re- 111. .\pp. 272. 
 
 ceive. — Scasongood :■. Tennessee, etc.. 32. Usual mode and manner. — Pitts- 
 
 Transp. Co., 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142. .")4 S. W. burgh, etc., R. Co. :. Morton. 01 Ind. 539, 
 
 193, 49 L. R. A. 270. 2S .\m. Rep. <>S2. 
 
 31. Place and offer for shipment. — 33. Intermediate points. — Thurman :-. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: Flanagan. 113 Wells, etc.. Co. (X. Y.), IS Barb. 500. 
 Ind. 488, 3 Am. St. Rep. 674, 32 Am. & 34. Receiving coal. — Johnson r. Midland 
 Eng. R. Cas. 532. R. Co. (Eng.). 6 Railw. Cas. 61, 4 Ex. 
 
 Under Railroad Act. § 84, requiring 367. 18 L. J. Ex. 366. 
 every railroad corporation in the state 34a. Beyond terminus. — Cobb. etc.. Co. 
 to furnish cars for the transportation of r: Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 38 Iowa 601. 
 property offered for transportation at the 35. Spur tracks and switches.— Louis- 
 several stations and at such stopping ville. etc.. R. Co. :. Higdon, 149 Ky. 321, 
 places as may be estal)lished for receiving 148 S. W. 26. 
 
 and discharging freights, a mine wliicli 36. Usage and custom.— Ethridge v. 
 
 has become a part of and appurtenant to Central, etc.. R. Co., 13t)^ Ga. 677, 71 S. 
 
 a regular station of a railroad company E. 1063, 38 L. R. A.. X. S.. 93, Ann. Cas. 
 
 by reason of being connected therewith 1912 D. 128.
 
 § 359 CARRIERS. 232 
 
 Private Switch or Spur Track. — A common carrier can not be required to 
 recei\e freight on or along a private switch, but its duty in that regard is con- 
 fined and Hmited to its own depots or shipping and receiving points.-*' Where a 
 carrier received and dehvered freight on j^rivate spur tracks, generally under 
 contracts between the parties, it did not show a custom, imposing on the carrier 
 a duty to deliver or receive freight on private si)ur tracks, if such a duty could 
 be created by custom.^^ 
 
 Regular Station. — A place at which there has never been any station agent, 
 where no tickets are kept or sold, where there is no agent's office, and where 
 no bills of lading or receipts are given, but where the conductors sometimes 
 stopped trains and took on freight and passengers, is not a "regular depot or 
 station" within the meaning of the provision of a statute which imposes a pen- 
 alty upon any company refusing to receive freight at any "regular depot, sta- 
 tion, wharf," etc.^^ 
 
 Time of Tender. — Where any goods or live stock are to be snipped, the car- 
 rier is not liable for failure or refusal to receive them unless they are offered 
 for shipment at the proper time, and ready for transportation.-"' Goods or live 
 stock for shipment must be tendered within reasonable hours and upon reasona- 
 ble notice."*^ A carrier is not negligent in failing to delay its regular freigiii 
 trains in order to handle a shipment of cattle.'*- Thus, it has been held that, 
 where the stock to be shipped was not loaded upon the arrival of the train, and 
 was not even in the yards of the company, but in a private yard, and had not 
 been given into the possession of any authorized agent of the carrier, the car- 
 rier was not liable for refusing to delay the train until the stock could be loaded, 
 notwithstanding the same train took cars of stock at other stations later, al- 
 though in these instances the locomotive was required to assist in loading the 
 cars, while in plaintiff's case it was not.'*'' 
 
 Time of Receiving. — A common carrier must receive at reasonable times 
 goods of the kind it undertakes to transport, but there is no duty on it to re- 
 ceive moneys or goods, and to assume liability for their safekeeping and in- 
 surance an unreasonable length of time before the transportation can begin.^^' 
 The reasonableness of the time within which a carrier must receive moneys or 
 goods for transportation is measured primarily by its relation to the transporta- 
 tion of the ])roperty, to the business of the carrier, and pro]:ier consideration of 
 
 37. Private switch. — Bedford-Bowling agent of tlie company; and this notwith- 
 Green Stone Co. r. Oman, 134 Fed. -441, standing the train took cars of stock at 
 judgment affirmed in i;54 Fed. 64, 67 C. a later station, where the locoinotive was 
 C. A. 190. required to assist in loading them. Fraz- 
 
 A carrier, furnishing sufficient facilities ier f. Kansas, etc., R. Co.. 48 Iowa 571. 
 of its own for the receipt and delivery of 41. Reasonable hours and notice. — Mis- 
 freight, is under no common-law duty to souri, etc., R, Co. ?'. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. 
 receive or deliver freight on private spur App. 677, 690, 29 S. W. 565. 
 tracks. Gulf Compress Co. z\ Alabama, Cattle must be tendered within season- 
 etc, R. Co. (Miss.), 56 So. 666. able hours and reasonable notice. — In the 
 
 38. Custom — private spurs. — Gulf Com- al)sence of a contract previously entered 
 press Co. r. Alabama, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), into, the carrier is bound under its com- 
 56 So. 666. mon-law duty to receive for shipment cat- 
 
 39. Regular station. — Kellogg v. Suffolk. tie or other property when tendered with- 
 etc, R. Co.. H)0 N. C. 158, 5 S. E. 379, in scasonal)le hours and upon reasonable 
 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 529. construing notice. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, 
 North Carolina Statute. 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 690, 29 S. W. 565. 
 
 40. Frazier v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 48 42. Delaying regular traffic. — San An- 
 lowa 571. tonio, etc., R. Co. 7'. Turner, 42 Tex. Civ. 
 
 Refusal to delay train until cars can be App. 5:i2. 94 S. W. 214. 
 
 loaded. — A railroad comi)any licld not to 43. Need not delay train. — Frazier v. 
 
 Ije lial^le for refusing to delay a train un- Kansas, etc., R. Co., 48 Iowa 571. 
 
 til four car loads of hogs could be loaded, 44. Time of receiving. — Piatt z: Lecocq, 
 
 the same being in a private yard until the 85 C. C. A. 621, 158 Fed. 723, 15 L. R. A., 
 
 arrival of the train on time, and not hav- N. S., 558, reversed, (C. C. 1906), 150 Fed. 
 
 ing been delivered to any authorized 391.
 
 233 
 
 DUTY TO RKCKIVE AND CARRY 
 
 §§ 359-360 
 
 the business of its customers.-*'' The rules and practice of an express company 
 to refuse to receive money for transi)ortation from a Ijank which has a burglar- 
 proof vault and ade(iuate facilities in the city where the packages were tendered 
 to kee]) lliem safely over night on the day preceding the departure of the train 
 which carried express matter are not unreasonable or unlawful/'' But under a 
 North Carolina statute it has been held that a rule of an express company for- 
 bidding its agents to receive money for shipment except on the day and prior to 
 the lime when trains left for the point of destination, was invalid.-*' 
 
 Carrying- on Sunday. — It has been said that a railroad company is not 
 bound to carry passengers or freight on Sunday, even when a statute permits it 
 to do so ; and if it contracts to do so and afterwards fails to carry out tne con- 
 tract, it i-- not an infraction of the company's general duty as a common carrier.-**^ 
 While on the other hand it is held that the fact that stock is oitered by a con- 
 necting line for transportation on Sunday does not excuse the carrier's failure 
 to rcceixc and carry.-*-' 
 
 § 360. Payment or Tender of Charges. — A carrier may require a i)re- 
 paymcnt of his charges and may refuse to carry goods tendered for transporta- 
 tion unless such charges are jiaid in advance. \\'hile the law compels him, from 
 motives of public i)olicy. to deal with all persons, and leaves him no choice as 
 to his customers, it does not bind him to deal on credit, and he may demand the 
 price of his lalior before it is performed. •'"" Of course the carrier can waive 
 such prepayment if he sees fit.-''' and the same rules apply where a carrier offers 
 
 45. Time of receiving money. — Piatt ■:■. 
 LeCDcq. 8o C. C. A. (;21, 158 Fed. 723, 1.5 
 L. R. A., N. S., o58, reversed (C. C. l'.)06), 
 loO Fed. 391. 
 
 46. Piatt V. Lecocq, 85 C. C. A. 621, 158 
 Fed. 723. 15 L. R. A.. N. S., 558, reversed 
 (C. C. 1900), 150 Fed. 391. 
 
 47. North Carolina Code, § 1964, pro- 
 vides that agents "of railroads and other 
 transportation companies, whose duties it 
 is to receive freights, shall receive all ar- 
 ticles of the nature and kind received by 
 such company for transportation, when- 
 ever tendered at a regular depot, * * * 
 and shall forward the same l)y the route 
 selected by the person tendering the 
 freight under existing laws." Held, that 
 the words "whenever tendered" could not 
 lie limited furtlier than to require the 
 tender to be made during reasonal)le busi- 
 ness hours, and were not qualified by the 
 words "under existing laws," which could 
 l>e construed as qualifying the word "for- 
 ward:" and that a rule of an express com- 
 pany forbidding its agents to receive 
 money for shipment, except on the day 
 and prior to the time when trains went to 
 the point of destination, w^as invalid. Al- 
 "sop r. Southern ICxp. Co.. 104 N. C. 27S. 
 10 S. E. 207. (■) L. R. A. 271. 
 
 48. Carrying on Sunday. — -Georgia R.. 
 etc.. Co. r. Maddox. UC C.a. 64. 42 S. E. 
 315. 
 
 49. Offer on Sunday. — Philadelphia, etc.. 
 R. Co. ;•. Lehman, 56 Md. 209. 40 Am. Rep. 
 415, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194. 
 
 50. Payment or tender of charges. — .\1- 
 len r. Capo Fear, etc.. R. Co.. 100 X. C. 
 397. 6 S. E. 105. 35 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 532; Wyld z: Pickford, 8 M. & W. 443; 
 
 Batson r. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 28, 6 E. 
 C. L. 376; Bastard z\ Bastard, 2 Show. 
 81; Fitch V. Newberry (Mich.). 1 Doug. 
 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33; Galena, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Rae. 18 111. 488. 68 Am. Dec. 574; Barnes 
 V. Marshall, 18 Q. B. 785, 83 E. C. L. 785; 
 Randall z: Richmond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. 
 C. 612, 13 S. E. 137. 49 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 754; Waring & Co. v. Baltimore, etc.. 
 R. Co., 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893. 7 O. Dec. 
 553; Samms 7\ Stewart, 20 O. 69, 55 Am. 
 Dec. 445. 
 
 The carrier may refuse to accept the 
 goods for transportation unless reason- 
 able regulations requiring the prepayment 
 of a specified freight are complied with. 
 Lamar z\ New York. etc.. Nav. Co., 16 
 Ga. 558. 
 
 Common carriers are bound to receive 
 and transport such articles as may be 
 delivered to them in the course of their 
 business, but ma)- demand freight in ad- 
 vance, and, if not paid, refuse to carry 
 the goods. Illinois Cent. R. Co. z-. Frank- 
 enberg. 54 111. 88, 5 .\m. Rep. 92. 
 
 A carrier is, in all cases, entitled to de- 
 mand the price of carriage before he re- 
 ceives the goods, and. if not paid, he may 
 refuse to take charge of them. Wright 
 z: Snell, 5 Barn. & .\ld. 353; Oppenheim 
 V. Russell, 3 Bos. & Pul. 48. See post, 
 "Charges and Liens," chapter 15. 
 
 51. Prepayment waived. — It is the duty 
 of cxi)rcss CDUipanies to receive all goods 
 offered for transportation, upon the pay- 
 ment or tender of their charges, but pre- 
 payment will be considered waived if not 
 demanded. .Msop f. Southern Exp. Co., 
 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1, 104 X. C. 278. 
 6 L. R. .\. 271. 10 S. E. 297.
 
 360 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 234 
 
 goods for shipment to a connecting carrier.''- So a person can not have a right 
 of action against a carrier for refnsing to receive and carry grain unless there 
 has been a tender of the customary freight charges, or manifestation of readi- 
 ness and wilHngness to pay according to the course and usage of the company, 
 whether it is required to be paid in advance or not.^^ g^^t prepayment of freight 
 is not necessarv to sustain an action against a carrier for refusal to carry and 
 delay in carrying freight, unless required by the company.'-* Accordingly it is 
 held that it is" not necessary to aver the actual tender of money for the carriage ; 
 and avennent that the person desiring to make the shipment was ready and 
 willing to pav is sufficient.-^^ A common carrier may require prepayment of 
 freight charges from any shipper at its choice, although it does not require it 
 from others,'"' or he may demand prepayment from any station and to any 
 station."'" So a general regulation by a carrier that it would require prepay- 
 ment on all freight to certain flag stations is not only reasonable, but is a mat- 
 ter entirelv within its powers.""" It should appear, however, that the shipper 
 or forwarding carrier had notice that prepayment was required."'-* So it has 
 been held that whether a railroad company can excuse a refusal to accept and 
 carry freight on the ground that the charges w^ere not prepaid, will depend 
 upon its custom in collecting charges, which is a question for the jury.'"^ It 
 
 52. Randall z\ Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 108 X. C. 612, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 74, 
 13 S. E. 137. 
 
 "If the East Tennessee. Virginia & 
 Georgia Railroad received prepayment of 
 freight for shipment over both lines, and 
 negligently failed to prepay the defend- 
 ant, as required by its regulations, and 
 the plaintiff has suffered damages by the 
 consequent detention, he must look to 
 the company who received his money, and 
 with whom he contracted for the ship- 
 ment. Mt. Pleasant Mfg. Co. v. Cape 
 Fear, etc.. R. Co.. 106 N. C. 207, 10 S. E. 
 1046." Randall r. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 
 108 X. C. 612, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 74, 
 13 S. E. 137. 
 
 53. Tender or manifestation of willing- 
 ness to pay. — Galena, etc., R. Co. f. Rae 
 l>s 111. 4-^--. <•,^ Am. Dec. 574. 
 
 54. Prepayment not necessary. — Galena, 
 etc., R. Co. i: Rae, IS 111. 488, 68 Am. 
 Dec. 574. 
 
 55. Actual tender not necessary. — Pick- 
 ford z: Grand I unction R. Co., 8 M. & 
 W. 372, 9 D. P. C. 76(5, 2 Railw. Cas. 592, 
 5 jur. 731. 
 
 56. Right to discriminate. — Randall r. 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co., 108 X. C. 612, 49 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 74, 13 S. E. 137; Al- 
 len c'. Cape Fear, etc., R. Co., 100 X. C. 
 397, 6 S. E. 105, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 532. The supreme court of Xorth Caro- 
 lina takes the position that a carrier may 
 discriminate among shippers in this re- 
 gard, and require prepayment of some 
 and allow credit to others. In the Allen 
 Case it is said that this right to demand 
 prepayment is but the exercise of a righf 
 to demand of every one, that, upon all 
 freight conveyed, the charges must be 
 paid in advance; and we do not perceive 
 any legal wrong done to one to whom 
 credit may not be given because it is given 
 to others; it may be because of their 
 
 punctuality in paying bills whenever they 
 are presented. The statute recognizes 
 the right, for it compels the company to 
 furnish transportation, not generally, but 
 "on the due payment of the freight or 
 fare legally authorized therefor" (Code, 
 § 1963); and therefore the exaction of pre- 
 payment of freight for goods consiarned 
 to the plaintiflf is but the assertion of a. 
 right which might be, if the fact that it 
 be not, enforced against all dealers. 
 
 57. "A common carrier can demand pre- 
 payment of freight from any one and to 
 any station. Code, § 1963; Allen v. Cape 
 Fear, etc.. R. Co., 100 X. C. 397, 35 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 532, 6 S. E. 105." Randall 
 ■z: Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 108 X. C. 612. 
 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 74, 13 S. E. 137. 
 
 58. Randall f. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 108 X. C. 612, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 74, 
 13 S. E. 137. 
 
 59. Notice of regulation. — Randall v. 
 Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 108 X. C. 612, 49 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 74, 13 S. E. 137; Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co. f. Morris, 68 Tex. 49, 3 
 S. W. 457, 28 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 50. 
 
 60. Custom — question for jury. — Reed 
 f. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. (Del.), 3 
 Houst. 176. 
 
 In an action by a shipper against a rail- 
 way company to recover damages for 
 overcharges and failure to furnish cars, 
 the fact that the freight was not paid or 
 tendered when the goods were offered 
 for shipment was no bar to a recovery 
 where the custom of the carrier did not 
 require it, Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. Wol- 
 cott, 39 X. E. 451, 141 Ind. 267, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 320. 
 
 Where a common carrier's bill of lad- 
 ing shows that the owner or consignee 
 was required to pay "freight charges be- 
 fore delivery" merely, recovery can be 
 had for failure to provide a shipper with 
 cars, though the charges were not ten-
 
 zzs 
 
 DUTV TO KtCEIVF, AND CARKV. 
 
 §§ 360-361 
 
 has been held that the shipper is entitled to prove that the goods were ample 
 security for the freight, so that there was no sufficient reason for stopping the 
 goods in transit.'"' 
 
 Operation and Construction of Statutes. — A state statute requiring rail- 
 road corporations to transport property on payment of the freight, does not 
 contemplate a prepayment, and hence there was a payment when, on the mak- 
 ing out of the bill of lading, a draft was given the railroad for the freight, and 
 was forwarded with the bill of lading and paid on presentation.''- Xor can a 
 carrier, under a statute which provides that, on the tender of the legal and cus- 
 tomary rates of freight on goods offered for transportation, any common car- 
 rier refusing to transport siiall be liable in damages to the party injured, escape 
 liabilitv for failure to transport on the ground that plaintiff did not tender the 
 freight charges at the time the freight was offered, as he was not bound to 
 make such tender until after the carrier had loaded the goods ready for trans- 
 P'ortation/'-'* 
 
 Switching and Placing Cars. — While it is the diity of a railroad to switch 
 and i)lacc cars coming from its own line, or tendered to it with proper transfer 
 switching charges by any connecting line, and it can not excuse itself from the 
 performance of its duty by the existence of disputes as to the correctness ot 
 charges withheld pending adjustment, yet it is warranted in refusing to switch 
 and place cars at the warehouse of a consignee, who has not only arbitrarily 
 refused to pay demurrage charges accrued in the past, but has expressed his 
 intention of persisting in his refusal even if such charges be justly incurred 
 in the future."^ 
 
 § 361. Time and Order of Shipment. — This rule requires carriers to ac- 
 cept and transi)ort jjroperty in the order in which it is off'ered, and they can 
 not exercise partiality in accepting the property tendered by some and rejecting 
 that ottered by other persons. If this rule is violated the company is liable for 
 all damages resulting therefrom.'"'* If a carrier store freight received for 
 transportation, on the ground that it has not facilities to forward it, and in the 
 
 dered by him at the time the goods were 
 offered for shipment. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wolcott. 141 Ind. 2(37, 39 N. E. 451, 
 50 Am. St. Rep. 320. 
 
 61. Goods as security. — Leach v. New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 89 Hun 377. 35 N. Y. 
 S. 305, 69 N. Y. St. Rep. 749. In this case 
 the defense by the carrier was failure to 
 tender freight charges. 
 
 62. Effect of state statute. — Dorrance & 
 Co. f. International, etc.. R. Co.. 103 Tex. 
 200, 125 S. W. 5C1, construing Texas Rev. 
 Stat., 1895, art. 4494. 
 
 Rev. St. • 1895, art. 4404, requires rail- 
 road corporations to take and transport 
 property on the due payment of the legal 
 freight. Article 449(3 provides that on 
 refusal so to transport any property, or 
 to deliver the same at the regular ap- 
 pointed time, the railroad shall pay to 
 the party aggrieved all damages sustained 
 thereby, with costs of suit, etc. Held, 
 that the words on "the refusal." etc., "so 
 to take," etc.. refer to the preceding arti- 
 cle and mean in case of tlie refusal to take 
 under the conditions prescribed in such 
 article. Dorrance & Co. :•. International, 
 etc., R. Co., 103 Tex. 2on, v2:> S. \V. 5fil. 
 
 63. Payment at time of offer not con- 
 templated. — Te.xas. etc.. R. Co. f. Havs. 
 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 390. 
 
 64. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. z'. Searles, 85 
 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A. 715. 
 
 65. Order of shipment. — Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. z\ Smith, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 421, 63 Tex. 322: St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hill, 14 111. App. 579. 
 
 It is undue prejudice for a railway com- 
 pany to receive goods at its station of one 
 carrier later than it receives them of an- 
 other, although the first carrier brings his 
 goods properly classified, weighed, and 
 prepared for loading. Garton f. Bristol, 
 etc., R. Co., 6 C. B.. X. S., 639. 5 Jur., 
 X. S., 1313, 28 L. J. C. P. 306, 1 B. & S. 
 112, 7 Jur., X. S., 1234, 30 L. Q. B. 273. 
 9 \V. R. 734. 
 
 It is the duty of a railroad company 
 to transport freight for all persons in- 
 differently, in the order in which its trans- 
 portation is applied for. State z'. Cincin- 
 nati, etc., R. Co., 47 O. St. 130, 23 X. E. 
 928. 
 
 A railway company can not close its 
 office and refuse to receive goods for car- 
 riage, while at the same time it continues 
 to receive similar goods from a particular 
 individual. Garton z: Bristol & E. R. Co., 
 1 B. & S. 112. 7 Jur.. X. S , 1234, 30 L. J. 
 Q. B. 273. 9 \V. R. 734.
 
 5§ 361-362 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 236 
 
 meantime receive and forward new and subsequent freight, it is liable to par- 
 ties injured thereby. Xor is it any defence that the goods of plaintiff were 
 shipped before other freights received sooner.«'' But it is not the duty of a 
 railroad companv. as a common carrier, to ship freight in the order of time 
 in which it was' oft'ered with reference to its entire line, but only with refer- 
 ence to the station where it was tendered.'^' And there is no invariable rule 
 requiring freight to be carried in the order in which it is received, without 
 regard to its character and condition, or its liability to perish.*'*^ Thus it is said 
 that hay not being perishable merchandise, a carrier is not called upon to put 
 forth unusual efforts to remove the same when delivered to it for transpor- 
 tation.'''^ 
 
 Forwarding Accumulated Freight. — The same rule of preference must be 
 observed in forwarding accumulated freight.'" 
 
 Relief Goods for Sufferers.— And giving preference to relief goods sent 
 to the suft'erers of a great fire is not such a discrimination against shippers of 
 other freight as to make a carrier liable as for negligence for not forwarding 
 freight in the order in which it is received. All general rules must yield to a 
 great public necessity.'^ 
 
 § 362. Character of Goods' Tendered for Shipment.— To What Things 
 Applicable.— The foregoing rule is a very broad one and has a general ap- 
 plication to every class of things that the carrier expressly or impliedly holds 
 itself out to theV^blic as being prepared to carry.' ^ But the general duty of 
 a carrier to receive and ship goods, etc.. for all alike does not compel a car- 
 rier to accept and carry all goods that may be offered, but only such as it has 
 undertaken to carrv. either expressly, or by implication.' '' A common carrier 
 
 66. Great Western R. Co. x\ Burns, 60 
 111. 284. 12 Am. R. Rep. 309. 
 
 67. Refers to station only. — Ballentine 
 c'. North Missouri R. Co., 40 Mo. 491, 93 
 Am. Dec. 31.5. 
 
 68. Regard to character of freight. — 
 Peet V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 
 
 91 Am. Dec 446. 
 
 So where two kinds of property are de- 
 hvered to a carrier at the same time by 
 different owners, one of which is perish- 
 able and the other not, preference is to 
 be given in the transportation to that 
 which is perishable. Marshall v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.), 45 Barb. 502, 
 afifirmed in 48 N. Y. 600; Tierney z'. New 
 York, etc.. R. Co.. 76 N. Y. 305, 67 Barb. 
 538, affirming 10 Hun r,iV.K 
 
 69. Hay not perishable. — Strough r. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 87 N. Y. S. 30, 
 
 92 App. Div. 584, affirmed in 73 N. E. 1133, 
 181 N. Y. 533. 
 
 70. Forwarding accumulated freight. — 
 Tierney f. New York, etc., K. Co.. 76 N. 
 Y. 305, 67 Barb. 538, affirming 10 Hun 
 569. 
 
 71. Relief goods for fire sufferers. — 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. r. Burrows, 33 
 Mich. 6. 
 
 72. Mcintosh v. Oregon R., etc., Co.. 
 17 Idaho 100, 105 Pac. 66; Shelnut v. Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co., 131 Ga. 404, 62 S. E. 
 294, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 494. 
 
 A corporation engaged in business as 
 a common carrier is bound to receive all 
 goods offered it for transportation which 
 it is able and accustomed to carry. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7'. Rose Co., 53 S. 
 E. 185, 124 Ga. 581, 5 L. R. A., N. S.. 619. 
 73. Excuse — Effect of general duty. — 
 Nitro-GIycerine Case (U. S.), 15 Wall. 
 524, 21 L. Ed. 206; Kuter v. Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co. (U. S.), Fed. Cas. No. 7955, 
 1 Biss. 35; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7\ Wal- 
 lace, 14 C. C. A. 257, 66 Fed. 506. 30 L. 
 R. A. 161; Pfister r. Central Pac. R. Co., 
 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 686, 27 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 246, 59 Am. Rep. 404; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. 7: Thompson. 19 111. 578: 
 Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 505; Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 Adams Exn. Co., 24 Inrl. 447. 87 Am. Dec. 
 341; Lee i'. Burgess (Ky.), 9 Bush, 652; 
 Boston, etc.. R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 
 568, 12 Am. L. Reg., N. S., 500; Jordon v. 
 Fall River R. Co. (Mass.), 5 Cush. 69, 
 51 Am. Dec. 44; Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. 
 f. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 
 275, 5 Am. R. Rep. 249; Vicksburg. etc., 
 Co. V. United States Exp. Co., 68 Miss. 
 149, 8 So. 332; Tierney v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305, 67 Barb. 538, af- 
 firming 10 Hun 569; Allen z\ Sewall (N. 
 Y.), 6 Wend. 327; People r. Babcock 
 (N. Y.), 16 Hun 313; Honeyman v. Ore- 
 gon, etc., R. Co., 13 Ore. 352, 25 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 380, 10 Pac. 628. 57 Am. 
 Rep. 20; Dickson v. Northern R. Co., 18 
 Q. B. Div. 176; Thomas v. North Staf- 
 fordshire R. Co., 3 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 1; 
 Johnson z: Midland R. Co. (Eng.), 4 
 Ex. 367, 6 Railw. Cas. 61, 1 Ry. & C. T. 
 Cas. 16; Heme v. Garton, 2 El. & El. 66,
 
 237 
 
 DUTV TO RECIilVK AXO CAKKV. 
 
 § 362 
 
 is only such as to goods of the kind to which his business is confined, but as 
 to them he must hold himself out to the iniblic generally, and engage in it as 
 a business, and not as a casual occupation."* A carrier who has never as- 
 sumed or offered to carry goods of a certain class, except upon special terms 
 exempting him from all the important duties and liabilities of a carrier, cai. 
 not l)e classed among carriers of property of that kinrl. or be made amendable 
 in the character of a common carrier as to such property."'' Thus it is held that 
 the class of carriers known as "transfer companies," engaged in receiving and 
 transferring the baggage of passengers to and from ])ublic conveyances, by 
 land and water, are under no obligation to accept and carry ordinary merchan- 
 dise. A parcel delivery express company need not receive and deliver hay, 
 lumber, or other articles too bulky, heavy, or otherwise inconvenient to handle 
 and transfer by its usual facilities. In other words, the duty of the carrier 
 is confined, as is sometimes provided by statute, to accepting and carrying prop- 
 erty "of a kind that he undertakes or is accustomed to carry." "'' The goods 
 otYered for transportation must be of the kind to which the carrier's business is < 
 confined. A carrier does not undertake to carry all kinds of goods, but only such 
 as are of the description which he professes to carry, and he is not liable as 
 such, where, by si)ecial agreement or as a matter of accommodation, he under- 
 takes to carrv a class of goods which it is not his business to carry." 
 
 Limitation by Public Notice.— A carrier may relieve himself from obli- 
 gation to transport particular kinds of goods by giving public notice, but this 
 l)rivilege does not extend to railroads.'^** A railroad can not limit its business 
 with respect to any i^-operty which it is adapted to transport, and which the 
 public have a right to expect it to transport, since it is a common carrier for 
 the benefit of the people as to all such property as, according to modern usage, 
 railroads are accustomed to transport.'*^ 
 
 28 L. I. M. C. 1(>: Irish :■. Chapman. 2 
 Ga. ;54!). 
 
 Where a carrier holds itself out as 
 only engaged in the carriage of specified 
 articles, it is under no obligation to 
 carry other things. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Higdon, 148 S. W. 2G, 149 Ky. 321. 
 
 A charge that a railway company must, 
 as a common carrier, transport goods 
 over a branch road in use by it, whether 
 owned or operated under a contract or 
 lease, is erroneous, in that such lial)ility 
 does not depend on the mere fact of use, 
 but on the object and purpose of the 
 construction, and the character of the 
 use. Avinger z\ South Carolina R. Co., 
 
 29 S. C. 200, 7 S. E. 49.1, 13 Am. St. Rep. 
 71 fi, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 519. 
 
 74. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 1 
 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 1257. 
 
 75. class or character of goods. — Lake 
 Siiore, etc., R. Co. r. Lerkins, 2.") Mich. 
 329, 12 .\m. Rep. 2:."i, r< Am. R. Rep. 249. 
 
 76. Transfer companies. — Pfister r. 
 Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 
 Pac. ()8(), 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246, 59 
 Am. Rep. 404. 
 
 77. The 86th section of the Railway 
 Clauses Consolidation Act (8 & 9 Vict. 
 c. 20), is an enabling provision; and if a 
 company act as carriers they are not 
 bound to carry all kinds of goods from 
 and to every station on the line, but only 
 such goods to and from such places as 
 they have publicly professed to do and 
 
 have convenience for. Johnson z-. Mid- 
 land R. Co., 4 Ex. 367, 6 Railw. Cas. 61, 
 1 Rv. & C. T. Cas. 16. 
 
 Cal. Civ. Code, § 2169, does not com- 
 pel carriers to accept and carry all goods 
 that may be offered, but only such as it 
 has undertaken and is accustomed to 
 carry. Pfister v. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 
 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 686, 27 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 246, 59 Am. Rep. 404. 
 
 Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854. 
 — .\ railway company is under the same 
 obligations as a common carrier under- 
 taking to carry in accordance with the 
 provisions of the Railway and Canal 
 Traffic Act, 1854; therefore questions as 
 to how far a sender of goods may require 
 delivery at any station he may appoint, 
 or as to how far a railway company is 
 , liable to carry goods of every kind, or for 
 'all persons alike, are to be determined in 
 each case, not with reference to what a 
 railway company may choose to do. or 
 may ordinarily do, but with reference to 
 what may be within its powers, and at 
 the same time a reasonable requirement. 
 Thomas z: North Staflfordsliire R. Co., 3 
 Rv. S: C. T. Cas. 1. 
 
 78. Limitation by public notice. — Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. z: Harris, 1 Tex. .\pp. 
 Civ. Cases, § 1257. 
 
 79. Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: Harris. 1 
 Tex. App. Civ. Cases, § 1257. 
 
 Railroad companies can not, as other 
 carriers, relieve themselves from their
 
 § 362 
 
 CAKRIKRS. 
 
 238 
 
 Dangerous Substances or Otherwise Injurious Articles. — While tht 
 ordinary obligation of a carrier is to receive all goods offeretl for shipment, he 
 may refuse to accept dangerous articles, and if there is reasonable ground to 
 suspect their character, he may demand to examine them. Without such rea- 
 sonable ground for suspicion, however, he can not force the consignor to dis- 
 close their nature.^" It has been held that a carrier may refuse to haul powder, 
 nitroglycerine, dynamite, aqua fortis. oil of vitriol, matches, etc.^^ But other 
 courts hold that common carriers are under legal obligation to receive and 
 properly carry explosives. The mere fact of such carriage does not render the 
 carrier guilty of a nuisance.'^- A railroad must carry freight of this character 
 over its road, and such dangers as necessarily result to others from the proper 
 and reasonable performance of this duty must be bourne by them as an un- 
 avoidable incident of the proper transaction of legitimate business. But a 
 nuisance may result from the negligent exercise of a right, or performance 
 of a duty, with respect to one's own property or property in his charge. A 
 nuisance to others may thus arise from the careless discharge by a common car- 
 rier of its duty in the transportation of such dangerous articles as are here in 
 question. The right to carry them does not include the right to subject per- 
 sons along the route to dangers from explosions for a longer time or in a 
 greater degree than is reasonably necessary to the proper performance of the 
 carrier's duty.'^^ A carrier is not required to receive goods tendered for ship- 
 ment which are injurious to the public health, peace, or morals, or likely to 
 destroy the property of others.^"* 
 
 Prohibited Articles. — As the law neither recjuires nor permits common 
 carriers to do illegal acts, they are not bound to transport and deliver com- 
 modities, if thereby they incur a penalty. '^^ But it is the duty of a common 
 
 obligation to carry any property which 
 they are adapted to transport. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Harris, 1 Tex. App. Civ. 
 Cases. § 12.57. 
 
 80. Dangerous substance. — Nitro-Glyc- 
 erine Case (U. S.), 15 Wall. 524, 21 L. 
 Ed. 206: Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Shanly, 
 107 Mass. 568, 12 Am. L. Reg., N. S., 
 500; Heme v. Garten, 2 El. & El. 66, 28 
 L. J. M. C. 16. 
 
 81. California Powder Works v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cak 329, 45 Pac. 
 691, 36 L. R. A. 648, citing Pfister v. 
 Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 
 686, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246, 59 Am. 
 Rep. 404; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood (U. 
 S.;, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 
 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, 5 Am. R. Rep. 249; 
 Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, etc.. R. 
 Co., 19 S. C. 353. 
 
 In California Powder Works v. Atlan- ' 
 tic, etc., R. Co., 113 Cal. 329, 45 Pac. 691, 
 36 L. R. A. 648, the court said: "It was 
 thus optional with the defendant to ac- 
 cept the powder for transportation or 
 not; but, if it chose to accept it, it could 
 accept it upon such terms and with such 
 limitation of its common-law liability as 
 it saw fit. Piedmont Mfg. Co. i'. Colum- 
 bia, etc.. R. Co., 19 S. C. 353." 
 
 82. Contrary ruling as to explosives. — 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Bcauchamp, 95 
 Tex. 496, 68 S. W. 502, 58 L. R. A. 71 G, 
 93 Am. St. Rep. 864. 
 
 83. Articles injurious to public health. 
 — Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. i\ Beauchamp, 
 
 95 Tex. 496, 500, 68 S. W. 502. 58 L. R. 
 A. 716, 93 Am. St. Rep. 864. 
 
 84. Articles injurious to public health, 
 etc. — Coweta County v. Central, etc., R. 
 Co., 4 Ga. App. 94, 60 S. E. 1018. 
 
 85. Prohibited articles. — State v. Goss, 
 59 Vt. 266, 9 Atl. 829, 59 Am. Rep. 706. 
 
 A railroad is not bound, as a common 
 carrier, to receive for transportation that 
 which the law prohibits it from carrying. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gasaway, 71 111. 
 570; Milwaukee Malt Extract Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa 98, 34 N. W. 
 761. 
 
 A railway company commits no broach 
 of duty in refusing to carry cattle with- 
 out a declaration from the owner or per- 
 son in charge under the Contagious Dis- 
 eases (Animals) Act, 1878, where a 
 local authority of the county makes a 
 regulation requiring such declaration be- 
 fore bringing cattle into the county. Wil- 
 liams V. Great Western R. Co., 52 L. T. 
 250, 49 J. P. 439. 
 
 Under Forest, Fisji, and Game Law, 
 § 8, as amended by Laws 1906, p. 1337, 
 c. 478, § 2, prohibiting the shipment of 
 deer, whether wild or domesticated, a 
 common carrier may refuse to ship the 
 meat of domesticated deer, which belong 
 to plaintiff and are not kept in close con- 
 finement, though the deer was killed to 
 prevent it from injuring others and to 
 preserve the herd. Dieterich v. Fargo, 
 52 Misc. Rep. 200, 102 N. Y. S. 720.
 
 239 
 
 Ul-'IY TO RFXi:iVF. ANU CARRY. 
 
 § 362 
 
 carrier to receive and transport spirituous and malt liquors for a reasonable 
 hire, notwithstanding the existence of the local option liquor law, according to 
 the (lirection of the owner or sender, unless the transportation has been pro- 
 hibited by the lawmaking power.^" And an unconstitutional law, prohibiting 
 railways from carrying certain cattle into or through the state, ''''^ or from car- 
 rying intoxicating li([Uors within a city without the payment of a license fee," 
 being void, will afford no excuse for failure (jr refusing to carry the goods 
 or cattle. 
 
 Quality of Goods. — A railroad com])any can not refuse to accept and trans- 
 port coal tendered by a shipper, on the ground that it is of inferior quality to 
 other coal also produced on its line, and that the marketing of such coal will 
 injuriously affect the sale and consequently the shijnnent of the superior 
 quality. "^^ 
 
 Breakable Goods. — A common carrier is not bound to carry breakable 
 goods, such as glassware, subject to all the common-law liabilities of a cofn- 
 mon carrier, where the uniform practice of defendant company, as well as 
 others, lias lieen to earn such wares only under a limited liability.^" 
 
 Money, Bank Bills, Etc. — Where a carrier is sought to be held liable as 
 a common carrier for refusing to receive or carry money, bankbills, etc., it 
 must be shown that he is such, if that class of carrying is not within the ordi- 
 nary business in which he is engaged. •'"' This matter classifies under the gen- 
 eral rule heretofore mentioned that a common carrier of goods is not under 
 obligation to accept any and carry all personal proi)erty that may be ofTered,"^ 
 but onlv such as he undertakes or is accustomed to carry.-'- It is held that it 
 
 86. Effect of local option law. — South- 
 ern Kxp. Co. 7: State, \()7 Ga. 670, 33 S. 
 E. 637, 46 L. R. A. 417, 73 Am. St. Rep. 
 146; Fears z: State, 102 Ga. 274, 29 S. E. 
 463. 
 
 .\ railroad company will be enjoined 
 from rcfusinji' to carry from another state 
 into South Carolina intoxicating liquors 
 in original packages, consisting of bot- 
 tles packed in wooden cases, when ten- 
 dered in car-load lots, with a release of 
 lialiility for waste or breakage not re- 
 sulting from its own negligence. Blu- 
 thcnthal ;•. Southern R. Co., 84 Fed. 920. 
 
 86a. Unconstitutional statute. — Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Hrickson, 91 111. 613, 33 
 Am. Rep. 70. 
 
 87. .\ common carrier, able and accus- 
 tomed to transport intoxicating liquors 
 from one city to another, can not law- 
 fully refuse so to do because of the 
 passage by one of the cities of an invalid 
 ordinance prohil)iting the transportation 
 and delivery of liquor within the city 
 witliout the payment of a license fee. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Rose Co., 124 Ga. 
 .581. 5 L. R. A.. X. S.. 619, 53 S. E. 185. 
 
 88. Quality of goods. — Olanta Coal 
 Min. Co. r. Bcccli Creek R. Co.. 144 Fed. 
 150, affirmed in Beech Creek R. Co. z'. 
 Olanta Coal Min. Co.. 85 C. C. A. 148, 158 
 Fed. ;!6. 16 L. R. A.. X. S., 677. 
 
 89. Breakable Goods. — .\ mandamus 
 will not issue to compel an e.xpress com- 
 pany to carry fragile goods — as glass- 
 ware — subject to all the common-law lia- 
 bilities of a common carrier. People v. 
 BalK-ock (X. Y.\ 16 Hun 313. 
 
 90. Money, bank bills, etc. — Lee z\ 
 
 Burgess (Ky.). 9 Bush 652; Allen v. Se- 
 wall (N. Y.), 6 Wend. 335; Jordan z: Fall 
 River R. Co. (Mass.), 5 Cush. 69, 51 Am. 
 Dec. 44; Kuter z-. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 Fed. Cas. No. 7955, 1 Biss. 35; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Thompson, 19 111. 578. 
 
 So it has been held that where a car- 
 rier is prohibited from carrying money, 
 or it is the usage of trade not to carry 
 money, if a person acquainted with the 
 prohibition or usage delivers money to 
 the carrier, it will not be responsible for 
 loss of money. Chouteau z'. Steamship 
 St. Anthony, 11 Mo. 226. 
 
 In the absence of evidence, the car- 
 riage of money is strictly speaking not 
 in the line of the duty of a carrier hold- 
 ing himself out only as a carrier of 
 goods, wares, and merchandise. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co. z: Hall (Ky.). 124 S. 
 W. 372. 
 
 91. Pfister z: Central Pac. R. Co.. 70 
 Cal. 169. 11 Pac. 6S6, 27 .Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 246.- 59 Am. Rep. 404. 
 
 92. The plaintiff, a county treasurer, 
 was a passenger on a train on defend- 
 ant's road, for the purpose of going from 
 San Jose to Sacramento. He had with 
 him, in small leather satchels, $91,952, in 
 gold coin, due the state from the plain- 
 tiff as county treasurer, and which he 
 was taking to deliver to the state treas- 
 urer. No objection was made by the 
 conductor of the train, who had knowl- 
 edge of the contents of the satchels, un- 
 til they reached Xiles, a way station on 
 the road. Here it was necessary to 
 change cars, and the conductor from 
 Xiles refused to permit the plaintiff and
 
 § 362 CARRIERS. 240 
 
 is not the business of a railway company to carry money. ^'^ Nor does the 
 charter of a railroad company, granted at a time when it was not incumbeni 
 on common carriers to carry money, requiring it to transport "all merchandise 
 and property." make it a common carrier of money ; neither does transporting 
 monev for an express company under a special contract have that effect.''^'* 
 Money and bank bills may for certain purposes be regarded as goods, but ordi- 
 narily, in speaking of "goods, wares, and merchandise." neither is included, and 
 a common carrier of "goods, wares, and merchandise" will not necessarily be 
 presumed to be a common carrier of money and bank bills.""' Where there is 
 no proof that a railroad company has at any time carried bank bills or money 
 of any kind, or held themselves out to the public as carriers of such property, 
 and no express contract to carry money has been proved, such contract can not 
 be implied from the fact that the company held itself out as a carrier of "goods, 
 freight, and passengers;" and it not being the business of the company to take 
 bank bills as freight, before it can be liable for such there must be proof that 
 its agent was authorized to receive them ; and proof that the agent was au- 
 thorized to receive "goods and freight" is not enough to show an implied power 
 to receive bank bills at ordinary freight rates.'"' But when it is within the char- 
 ter powers of a carrier by water to carry such articles as money, etc., the pre- 
 sumption is that the captain of a vessel employed by such common carrier has 
 authority to carry bank bills.'*'' 
 
 Cars Shipped by Builder. — It has been held that a railroad chartered with 
 usual powers to carry persons and property, and provided with the necessary 
 facilities for doing so, is bound to carry, as common carriers, cars shipped by 
 a builder as freight. "^^ 
 
 Cars of Other Carriers. — The rule is applied so as to bind a railway com- 
 pany engaged in the transportation of freights for hire as a common carrier, 
 to transport or haul upon its road the cars of any other railroad company when 
 requested so to do, and hold the same relation as a common carrier to such 
 cars that it does to ordinary freight received by it for transportation. In- case 
 of loss it will be held to the same measure and character of liability to the 
 owner of the cars so received for transportation as would attach in respect to 
 anv other property.-''* Of course the rule can only apply where the gauge of 
 
 his employees to enter the train with 94. Effect of charter carrying for ex- 
 
 their treasure, and required him to de- press companies. — Kuter v. Michigan 
 
 liver the same to the Wells, Fargo Ex- Cent. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 7955, 1 
 
 press Co., to whom the defenlant had Biss. 35. 
 
 given the exclusive privilege of carrying 95. Money not wares and merchandise. 
 
 money on its trains. The plaintiff at first — Lee r. Burgess (Ky.), !» Bush 652. 
 
 refused to do this, and offered to go into 96. Proof of undertaking. — Chicago, 
 
 the baggage car and pay any charges etc., R. Co. f. Thompson, 1!) 111. 5?S. 
 
 which might be exacted for the transpor- 97. Presumption as to authority.^ 
 
 tation of the money. This offer was re- Farmers', etc.. Bank r. Cluimplain 
 
 fused, and, to avoid being left at Niles, Transp. Co., 2?, Vt. 186, 56 .'\m. Dec. 68. 
 
 the plaintiff delivered the money to the 98. Cars shipped by car builder. — Greene 
 
 express company, paying for the trans- 7: vSt. John & M. R. Co., 22 New Burns, 
 
 portation $68.95. In an action against 252. 
 
 the company for refusing to carry the 99. Cars of connecting carrier. — Peoria, 
 
 treasure, it was held, tliat the duty of the etc., R. Co. z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 18 
 
 carrier is confined, both by the common Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506, 109 111. 135, 50 
 
 law and the Code of California, to ac- Am. Rep. 605; Green z'. St. John, etc., R. 
 
 cepting and carrying property "of a kind Co., 22 New Bruns. 252; Rogers Locomo- 
 
 that he undertakes or is accustomed to tive, etc.. Works v. Erie R. Co., 20 N. J. 
 
 carry," and there could be no recovery. Eq. 379; Atcliison, etc., R. Co. v. Den- 
 
 Pfister V. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, ver, etc., R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. Ed. 
 
 11 Pac. 686, 59 Am. Rep. 404, 27 Am. & 291, 4 S. Ct. 185, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 
 Eng. R. Cas. 246. 57; New Jersey R., etc., Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 
 93. Railway companies. — Jordan z'. Fall vania R. Co., 27 N. J. L. 100. 
 
 River R. Co. (Mass.;, 5 Cush. 69, 51 Am. In Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 Dec. 44. R. Co., 109 111. 135, 18 Am. & Eng. R.
 
 241 DUTY TO KlXKJVIv AM) CAUKV. § 362 
 
 the road is snilaljlc, and tlie cars are not defective or out of repair, or of such 
 unusual and peculiar construction as to be unreasonably hazardous or dangerous 
 to work with or handle.^ I5ut there must exist some real reason. The. mere 
 fact the cars may be tilled with a different coupling ap|mratus does not relieve 
 the carriii- nf this duty.- J Iowe\er. in the absence of a special contract or 
 special circumstances making it the duty of a connecting carrier to continue 
 transportation in the same cars the freight is delivered in, there is no obligation 
 upon such carrier to carry the freight in those cars when its own cars are not 
 in use, and the freight would not be injured by transfer to another car.-' 
 
 Grain in Bulk. — It has been held that railroads can not disregard the cus- 
 tom of con\c\iiig grain in bulk over the line of their own road and delivering 
 it at elevators thereon to which it may be consigned. If consigned to an ele- 
 vator or warehouse not on their road, and beyond their terminus, or there be 
 no elevator on the road on whicli the grain is carried, then they may rightfully 
 refuse to receive it in bulk.' 
 
 Coal. — If a railwav comiiany does not hold itself out as a common carrier 
 of coal, it is not obliged to carry coal from station to station, or for coal mer- 
 chants, and may restrict its coal traffic to the carriage of coal for colliery own- 
 ers, from the pit's mouth to stations where such colliery owners have their 
 depots.-"' Rut a railroad comjxmy accustomed as a common carrier to hauling 
 
 Cas. 506. ,)() Am. Rep. i\0'>, the court said: road so defectively constructed or other- 
 "The question presented is one of first wise unsafe as manifestly to imperil the 
 impression in this court. Nor have conn- life and limb of its employees. Texas, 
 sel cited any case where the exact ques- etc., R. Co. t'. Carlton, 60 Tex. 307, 1.5 
 tion involved has been considered by any Am. & Eng. R. Cas. .3.iO. 
 court of last resort. It leaves this court 2. Railroad companies are obliged to 
 free to determine the law on principle, as receive for transportation cars of the 
 shall be thought to best subserve public proper gauge which are offered to them 
 interests as well as the private interests by other companies, notwithstanding dif- 
 of corporations concerned. No proof is ference in coupling apparatus. Not only 
 needed to sliow the extent and the im- do the necessities of commerce and their 
 portance of the interests involved in tlic own interest require this, but it is re- 
 decision. It is a matter of so much pub- quired by statute: and it would be a flag- 
 lie concern, that judicial notice may be rant breach of corporate duty to refuse, 
 taken of tlie fact that cars belonging to Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 
 different companies are interchangeably Mich. 212, 7 N. W. 791, 1 Am. & Eng. R. 
 used on all the principal railroads in the, Cas. 101. 
 
 United States, and that no company 3. Change cars — Right to substitute its 
 
 could do any considerable freighting own cars. — Oregon Short Line, etc., R. 
 
 Inisiness that did not conform to this Co. r. Xorthern Pac. R. Co.. 51 Fed. 465, 
 
 general usage. Without such usage, it 'jI Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 145, affirmed in 
 
 would be difficult, if, indeed, it would be 61 Fed. 158. 9 C. C. A. 409. _ See post, 
 
 possible, to transact the commercial Inisi- "Connecting Carriers." Part V. 
 
 ness of the country. Freights for ship- Connecting carrier may transfer live 
 
 ment across the continent could not well stock to its own cars. — In the alisence of 
 
 be stopped at the terminus of each car- an express contract or special circum- 
 
 rier's line, and reshippcd in cars of the stances making it the duty of a connect- 
 
 connecting carrier. That would occasion ing carrier to continue the transportation 
 
 more delay than the necessities of com- of cattle in the same cars in which they 
 
 merce would tolerate. The extent of the are delivered to him. he has the right to 
 
 usage in regard to the exchange and unload for the purpose of transferring 
 
 transportation of cars among so many them to his own cars, provided this is 
 
 different railroads would seem to require done without unnecessary delay. McAl- 
 
 such exacting rules and regulations as ister r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 74 Mo. 351, 
 
 would insure the strictest accountability 7 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 373. 
 
 on the part of companies that may trans- 4. Grain in bulk. — Hempstead z: Chi- 
 
 fer or liaul cars over their respective cago, etc., R. Co.. 55 111. 95. 8 Am. Rep. 
 
 roads." fi;51. 640. 
 
 1. When rule unapplicable. — Chicago. 5. Coal. — Oxlade z: Northeastern R. 
 
 etc., R. Co. :•. Curtis, 51 Xel). 442, 71 N. Co.. 15 C. B., N. S.. 680. 
 
 W. 4:2. The fact that a railway company posts 
 
 But a railroad company is not bound up in a particular station a list of tolls, 
 
 to receive and haul the car of another including those for coal, is not sufficient 
 
 1 Car— 16
 
 § 362 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 242 
 
 coal over its road and to furnish cars for that purpose can not refuse to re- 
 ceive coal for transportation without rendering itself liable for resulting dam- 
 
 ages 
 
 Live Stock. — According to the common-law rule railroad companies are not 
 carriers of live stock, and can only make themselves carriers of that species of 
 property by assuming to convey it as carriers, either expressly or by implica- 
 tion." In some of the states, notable ^Michigan,* carriers of live stock are not 
 regarded as common carriers unless they have expressly assumed the responsi- 
 bilities of common carriers by special contract."* And in one case an injunction 
 was denied on the ground that the question was unsettled.^*' But in most of 
 the states, carriers of living animals are held to be common carriers, and to be 
 insurers to the same extent as if engaged in carrying general merchandise, sub- 
 ject to explanation as to loss or damage caused by animals to themselves and 
 to each other. There is no doubt that there is some controversy in the judicial 
 mind whether, in the conveyance of live stock, the duties and liabilities of the 
 common law "attach to the carrier, or whether the carrier, in the absence of a 
 
 evidence that it holds itself out as a 
 common carrier of coal from that sta- 
 tion. Oxlade i'. Northeastern R. Co., 15 
 C. B.. X. S., 680. 
 
 Agreement to transport coal for col- 
 lieries exclusively. — A railway company, 
 in order to prevent the obstruction of its 
 railway, which would be caused by an 
 unlimited coal traffic, ascertained the 
 probable consumption of coal in the 
 neighborhood of each of its stations, and 
 made arrangements with the collieries 
 for the requisite supply; it appointed de- 
 pot agents to manage the sale of the 
 coal, who from time to time ordered the 
 quantity wanted. All the depots were in 
 hands of these agents, who accounted to 
 the collieries for the proceeds of the sale. 
 No coal merchant was dealt with in this 
 way, but only coal ovv^ners, and each 
 dealer was treated alike and as one of 
 the public. On a motion by a coal mer- 
 chant to enjoin the company to af¥ord 
 him the same facilities for receiving and 
 forwarding his coal as to those who con- 
 signed their coal to the company, held, 
 that the arrangements of the company 
 were not such as gave or caused any un- 
 reasonable preference or disadvantage. 
 Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co., 1 C. B., 
 N. S., 454, 3 Jur., N. S., 637, 26 L. J. C. 
 P. 129. 
 
 6. Custom of carrier. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Queen City Coal Co., ]3 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 832. 
 
 7. Live stock. — White v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co., 19 Mo. App. 400; Lawrence v. 
 Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.. . 84 Wis. 427, 54 
 N. W. 797; South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein, 
 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578; Wabash, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Black, 11 111. App. 465; Bal- 
 lentine v. North Missouri R. Co., 40 Mo. 
 491, 93 Am. Dec. 315; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Dorman, 72 111. 504; Newport 
 News, etc., R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 Ky. 47."), 
 29 S. W. 301, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 555, 61 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 340; Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Lehman, 56 Md. 209, 40 Am. 
 
 Rep. 415, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 194; 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 
 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, 5 Am. R. 
 Rep. 249. 
 
 Railroad companies are not, by the 
 common law, common carriers of live 
 stock, and can only make themselves 
 common carriers of that species of prop- 
 erty by assuming to convey it as com- 
 mon carriers. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, 
 5 Am. R. Rep. 249. 
 
 8. Michigan rule. — Michigan, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165; Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 
 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, 5 Am. R. Rep. 249. 
 
 9. Right to refuse to carry live stock. — 
 One who has never assumed or offered 
 to carry live stock, except upon special 
 terms exempting him from all the im- 
 portant duties and liabilities of a common 
 carrier, can not be made amenable in the 
 character of a common carrier as to such 
 property, in case of a refusal to carry live 
 stock. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Per- 
 kins, 25 Mich. 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, 5 
 Am. R. Rep. 249. See opinion in Honey- 
 man V. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 13 Ore. 352, 
 10 Pac. 628, 57 Am. Rep. 20, 25 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 380. 
 
 10. The complainants, a stock-yard 
 company, sought an injunction to com- 
 pel a railroad company to receive at 
 their yards from complainants live stock 
 carried over the road and consigned for 
 delivery at the defendants' yards. The 
 injunction was denied, first, l)ecause the 
 question whether defendants were sub- 
 ject to any duty to the complainants to 
 receive such freight is an unsettled ques- 
 tion of law; second, because the injunc- 
 tion asked for was mandatory, and such 
 writs are not ordinarily granted until 
 final hearing. Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Central Stock Yard, etc., Co., 31 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 82, 43 N. J. Eq. 71, 10 Atl. 
 490, affirmed in 43 N. J. Eq. 605, 12 Atl. 
 374, 13 Atl. 615.
 
 243 
 
 DLTV TO RKCKIVE AND CAKKV. 
 
 §§ 362-363 
 
 special contract, is to be regarded as the bailee or special agent for the trans- 
 portation of such property, bound only to furnish suitable and safe carriage 
 and motive power, and liable only for defects in these. '" It is the duty of a 
 carrier who is engaged in the business of carrying live stock to receive and 
 carry such as are duly olTered for transportation.^- It has been held that a 
 railway company that transports cattle and live stock for hire, for such per- 
 sons as choose to employ them, thereby assume and take upon themselves the 
 relation of common carriers, and with the relation the duties and obligations 
 which grow out of it; and they are none the less common carriers from the 
 fact that the transi)ortation of cattle is not their principal business or employ- 
 ment. ^=' lUit evidence that a company had carried, and still offers to carry, 
 live stock for hire for all who desired on terms, as to duties, liabilities, and 
 relations, not recognized by the law of carriers, but in some respects variant, 
 and in others repugnant thereto, does not tend to prove that such company is 
 a carrier of live stock. ■■■* 
 
 Effect of Charter. — A charter only binds a common carrier to transport 
 such property as was usually transported by at the time the charter was granted ; 
 and where cattle were not trans])orted by rail at the time a charter was granted, 
 the companv is not bound to transport them as a common carrier, unless it 
 holds itself out to the public as transporting them, or enters into a special con- 
 tract to do so.^''"' 
 
 Dogs. — Under the common-law nde a common carrier, unless he professes 
 to carry dogs for people in general, is not bound to carry a dog for any par- 
 ticular individual ; and if a carrier says he will not carry dogs, except on cer- 
 tain terms, he can lawfully refuse to carry any particular dog on any other 
 terms. ^''' 
 
 Live Pigeons. — It has been questioned whether or not live pigeons would 
 be regarded in anv case as common-law freight for common carriers.^' 
 
 § 363. Condition and Preparation of Goods Tendered. — A carrier may 
 refuse to receive for carriage an article of property which is improperly packed 
 or prepared for transportation. i'' or not packed or prepared at all. as in the 
 
 11. See the opinion in Hoiicyman f. 
 Oregon, etc.. R. Co.. 13 Ore. 3.52. 10 Pac. 
 628, ,57 Am. Rep. 20. 25 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 380. 
 
 A. railway company is required by stat- 
 ute to receive and forward freight, in- 
 cluding live stock delivered to it for 
 transportation. Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. 
 r. Galton, 45 Te.x. Civ. Ap]). (u. 100 S. 
 W. 160. 
 
 12. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. r. Whitehill. 
 104 Md. 295. 64 Atl. 1033. 
 
 13. Kimball z: Rutland, etc.. R. Co., 26 
 Vt. 247. 62 Am. Dec. 567. and see Welsh 
 V. Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co., 10 O. St. 65. 
 75 Am. Dec. 490. 
 
 14. Carrying on special terms. — Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. r. Perkins. 25 Mich. 
 329. 12 Am. Rep. 275, 5 .\m. R. Rep. 249. 
 
 15. Effect of charter. — Michigan, etc., 
 R. Co. T'. McDonougli, 21 Mich. 165. 
 
 16. Dogs. — Dickson z\ Northern R. Co., 
 18 O. B. Div. 176. 
 
 A common carrier who does not as- 
 sume to act as sucli in the carriage of 
 dogs, but. upon the request of a party, 
 consents to carry a dog on a particular 
 occasion, cannot be sued as a common 
 carrier for the subsequent death of the 
 
 dog while under his charge, even though 
 money may have passed to defendant's 
 agents for the carriage. The action must 
 be upon a private contract, if recovery is 
 sought. Honeyman r. Oregon, etc.. R. 
 Co., 13 Ore. 352. 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 380, 10 Pac. 628. 57 .\ni. Rep. 20. 
 
 17. Live Pigeons. — .\merican Mer- 
 chants' Union Exp. Co. r. Phillips. 29 
 Mich. 515. 
 
 18. Goods not properly packed for 
 transportation. — Union Exp. Co. f. Gra- 
 ham, 26 O. St. 595: Fitzgerald z: .\dams 
 Exp. Co.. 24 Ind. 447. 87 .\m. Dec. 341; 
 Boyd V. Moses (U. S.), 7 Wall. 316. 19 L. 
 Fd. 192: Hart z: Baxendale (^^ng.K 16 T,. 
 T. N. S. 390, 6 Exch. 769. 16 Jur. 126; Co- 
 weta County z: Central, etc.. R. Co.. 4 
 Ga. App. 94. 60 S. E. 1018. 
 
 .\ carrier may well refuse to receive 
 property for transportation unless the 
 same is properly packed, but if he re- 
 ceives it the duty attaches of exercising 
 due care for I'ts safe carriage. Union 
 Exp. Co. z: Graham. 26 O. St. 595. 
 
 Under rule twenty-six of the railroad 
 commission, providing that no carrier 
 should be required to accept for carriage 
 any goods unless they are in such condi-
 
 §§ 363-364 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 244 
 
 case of loose hay/'' or it may properly prepare it for shipment itself.^" And 
 it has been said that where ordinary observation would discover their unfitness, 
 it is the duty of the carrier to refuse the shipment in order that tlie shipper 
 may put it into a fit condition for transportation.-^ A carrier is not bound to 
 receive goods which are so defectively packed that their concHtion will entail 
 upon it extra care and extra risk.-- So if an article is so packed as to injure 
 the rest of the cargo the carrier has the right to refuse to transport it,^" and 
 it has been held that a common carrier is not bound to receive money for ship- 
 ment unless it is properly secured and addressed.-^ Although a common car- 
 rier is accustomed to receive jugs of liquor in an unboxed condition, under a 
 special arrangement voluntarily made by it with shippers, it may, at will, with- 
 draw from the arrangement without liability to shippers who have been avail- 
 ing of it. though they incur increased expense by reason of the change.-^ 
 
 Live Stock Not Properly Loaded. — A railroad company is not bound to 
 receive cars from a connecting road loaded with hogs so crowded that they are 
 in danger from suffocation ; and if it does it makes the act of that road its own, 
 and is bound for the damages resulting to the hogs from suffocation or im- 
 proper loading.-*^ 
 
 § 364. Private Owned Trains or Cars. — So far as expression has been 
 given, there is unanimity among the courts of this county that a railroad cor- 
 poration, as a common carrier, is under no legal duty to haul show cars, that 
 is, cars owned and fitted up by showmen and used exclusively by them to house 
 and transport their employees and show property as a complete outfit from 
 place to place over railroads.-" The rule rests upon the principle that such 
 loaded cars or vehicles are not such goods as railroads hold themselves out to 
 carry, and in respect to which they assume a public duty to serve all alike who 
 apply for carriage, and such cars being a class of property they do not profess 
 to carry, and the drawing of which is inconsistent with their business, they 
 are therefore exempt from all public duty to haul them. Carriers certainly 
 
 tion and so prepared for shipment as to 
 render the transportation reasonably 
 safe, and under the common law a tender 
 of a car load of such commodities as un- 
 der the rules of the commission are to be 
 loaded by the shipper is not a good ten- 
 der, where the car on which the goods 
 were when ofifered for transportation was 
 the car of another line and was marked 
 as in bad order, and, though ofifered sev- 
 eral times, it was each time refused by 
 the inspector because of such dangerous 
 conditio'n. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Cook. 
 G2 S. E. 464, 4 Ga. App. 698. 
 
 19. Loose hay. — Under Revisal 1905, 
 §§ 1066, T099, 1112, and Acts 1907, cc. 469. 
 471, and the rules of the corporation com- 
 mission, a carrier whose motive power is 
 fire-driven engines may refuse to receive 
 for transportation loose hay. Tilley v. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. (X. C), 77 S. E. 994. 
 
 20. Carrier may pack. — Elgin, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Bates Mach. Co., 98 111. App. 311, 
 afifirmed in 66 N. E. 326, 200 111. 636, 93 
 Am. St. Rep. 218. 
 
 21. Duty to notify shipper of improper 
 condition. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. i\ Rice, 
 1(;() Ala. 26.5, 52 So. 918, 29 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 1214. 
 
 22. Goods defectively packed. — Pfistcr 
 
 V. Central Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 
 686, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 246. 59 Am. 
 Rep. 404; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood (U. 
 S.), 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 
 329, 12 Am. Rep. 275, 5 Am. R. Rep. 249. 
 
 23. In Boyd z\ Moses (U. S.), 7 Wall. 
 316, 19 L. Ed. 192, it was held that a car- 
 rier may refuse to receive for transpor- 
 tation lard so packed that it could not be 
 carried without injury to the rest of the 
 cargo. 
 
 24. Money — Properly secured and ad- 
 dressed. — Fitzgerald ;•. Adams Exp. Co., 
 24 I lid. 447, 87 Am. Dec. 341. 
 
 25. Unboxed jugs of liquor. — Vicks- 
 l)Urg, etc.. Co. V. United States Exp. Co., 
 68 Miss. 149, 8 So. 332. 
 
 26. Live stock not properly loaded. — 
 Paramore i'. Western R. Co.. 53 Ga. 383. 
 
 27. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 
 170 Ind. 94. 83 N. E. 710; Coup v. Wa- 
 bash, etc., R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 22 N. W. 
 215, 56 Am. Rep. 374; Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wallace, 14 C. C. A. 257, 66 Fed. 
 506, 30 L. R. A. 161; Robertson v. Old 
 Colony R. Co., 156 Mass. 525. 31 N. E. 
 650. 32 Am. St. Rep. 482; Wilson v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 129 Fed. 774. affirmed 
 in 133 Fed. 1022, 66 C. C. A. 486.
 
 245 DUTY TO RECrllVE A NT) CARRY. §§ 364-367 
 
 are not comijclled to haul such cars over their lines at reduced rates. -"^ 
 
 § 36 5. Shipment C. 0. D. — I'Voni a considerati(jn of the authorities it is 
 clear that ex].rc.s> companies and other common carriers are under no obliga- 
 tion or (lutv at the common law to engage in the C. (J. D. carriage of goods.-'* 
 hut that ihe obligation imposed to collect the purchase price of the article, ship 
 and relurn the proceeds to the consignor is an ol)ligation which must rest in 
 contract and not in an obligation imposed upon by the law.-'"' And this com- 
 mon-law liability of carriers to receive and carry has not been affected in any 
 wa\- 1)\- recent rate laus/'^ 
 
 Effect of Usage and Custom. — W bile it is undoubtedly true that express 
 companies have for many years done C. O. D. business yet if the law is as laid 
 down in the rule previously set out it is evident that such practice can not 
 create a legal duty on the part of the carrier unless it consents to the engage- 
 ment ; not being a common-law duty, but an obligation resting on an implied 
 contract the carrier may at any time terminate such practice and refuse to be 
 bound by an implied agreemei'u without its consent.'*- Such usages and cus- 
 toms can' not be relied upon to create a legal liability where one does not other- 
 wise exist although they may be inquired into for the purpose of interpreting 
 an implied contract and the extent of its obligation. •'■' 
 
 Effect of State Statutes.— A state statute imposing a tax upon persons 
 carrying liquor C. O. I)., is sufficient to warrant an express company in re- 
 fusing to carry liquor in that manner, since it can either pay the license tax 
 or refuse to carry the liquor.-'-* The express company is not required in such 
 a case to treat the act as unconstitutional.'''' 
 
 §§ 366-374. Exceptional Causes Justifying Failure or Refusal- 
 § 366. General Statement. — There are certain exceptional causes, such as 
 the act of Cod. the ])ul)lic enemy, unavoidable accident, or an abnormal and 
 unanticipated inrush of business which will prevent the performance of a car- 
 rier's common-law duty to shippers, to receive and transport property oft'ered 
 for shipment, although" such property is in good condition and properly pre- 
 pared for shipment, and belongs to a class of proj^erty subject to carriage by such 
 carrier. 
 
 § 367. Absence of Requisite Conveniences or Capacity.— Although 
 
 the owner, or his agent, offers goods for carriage and tenders payment for the 
 
 ' 28. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. r. Henry, 170 distinguished in Danciger z: Wells, 
 
 Ind ")4 83 N E 710 Fargo & Co., 15-4 Fed. 379, wherein it 
 
 A carrier is under no common-law ob- was said '-the precise question, however 
 
 ligation to furnish motive power and involved m that case, was the right of 
 
 servants to move a circus company's complamant to ^require the defendant to 
 
 train over the carrier's road at reduced ^^l[y '"^ goods. or., 
 
 rates. Sager r. Northern Pac. R. Co., uw; SlDancgerr. W ells, Fargo & Co.. 
 
 Fpfi ■'!(■ ■^'^■^ Fed. ;?,;». 
 
 ■"■:'■ ^ ^ T^ u- . 32. Effect of usage and custom.— Dan- 
 
 29. Duty as to C. O. D. shipment.-- ^. ^. ^^-^j,^ p^^„.^ ^^^ Co.. 1.^4 Fed. 379. 
 Danciger v. Wells, Fargo & Co., lo4 Fed. 33 o^nciger z: Wells, Fargo & Co.. 
 3~-^- 154 Fed. 379. 
 
 30. Danciger z: Wells, Fargo & Co., This is clearlv held in State z: .\tchi- 
 154 Fed. 379; citing Cox z: Columbus. son, etc., R. Co.. 176 Mo. 687, 75 S. W. 
 etc.. R. Co., 91 Ala. 392, 8 So. 824; Adams 77(5, 63 L. R. A. 761; Ulmer z: Farns- 
 Exp. Co. z: Commonwealth, 92 S. W. 935, worth, SO Me. 500. 15 .Atl. 65; National 
 29 Ky. L. Rep. 230, 5 L. R. A., N. S., 630; Bank z: Burkhardt. 100 U. S. 686, 692, 25 
 United States Exp. Co. z: Keefer, 59 Ind. l Ed. 766: Tilley z: County of Cook. 103 
 263; AIcNichol z: Pacific Exp. Co.. 12 Mo. u. S. loo. 26 L. Ed. 374. 
 
 App. 401: Fowler Comm. Co. v. Chicago, 34. State statute. — Craddock & Co. v. 
 
 etc., R. Co., 98 Mo. App. 210, 71 S. W. Wells-Fargo Co.'s Exp. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 1077. 125 S. W. 59. 
 
 In conflict with the rule herein an- 35. Need treat law as unconstitutional, 
 
 nounced is the case of Crescent Liquor — Craddock i^ Co. r. Wolls-Fargo Co.'s 
 
 Co. z: Piatt, 148 Fed. 894, but this case is Exp. (Tex. Civ. App.). 12,-) .s. \\ . 59.
 
 §§ 367-368 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 246 
 
 freight in advance, still the carrier is not bound to receive them, unless he has 
 the requisite convenience to carry them.-^*^ Thus, it is said that even if a car- 
 rier has held itself out as a carrier of coal from a particular station, no action 
 for refusing to carry it will lie, unless it is shown that the company has con- 
 veniences at the station for receiving and carrying the coal.^' Nor is he liable 
 where a vehicle, vessel or other means used for that purpose does not have the 
 capacity to transport safely the property tendered. ^^ But a carrier will not be 
 excused for refusal to carry goods merely because no boats passed on the line 
 of transportation in which it was engaged. If the fact had been that boats 
 could not possibly pass at the time of the tender of the goods for carriage, from 
 causes beyond the control of defendants, they would then be excused for re- 
 fusing to carry. ^'^' 
 
 §§ 368-371. Unusual Press of Business— § 368. In General.— A rail- 
 road company which has the rolling stock and equipments to carry without 
 delay the freights usually offered, is not bound to receive goods which it is not 
 at the time able to carry by reason of some accidental or extraordinary increase 
 in the public demand for transportation, which occurs without the fault of the 
 company. In such case the company may rightfully decline to receive freights 
 oft'ered which it can not carry without delay ; but if it does receive them it can 
 only relieve itself from responsibility for delay resulting from a previous ac- 
 cumulation of freights by acquainting the shipper wnth the facts when he offers 
 his goods and aft'ording him the option of acquiescing in the delay or seeking 
 some other line of transportation.'*" Although it is the duty of a railroad com- 
 
 36. Absence of requisite conveniences. 
 — Fitch r. Newberry (Mich.), 1 Doug. 1. 
 40 Am. Dec. 33; see Fish v. Chapman, 2 
 Ga. .349. 4f) Am. Dec. 393. 
 
 37. Refusing to carry coal. — Johnson v. 
 Midland R. Co.. Railw. Cas. 61, 4 Ex. 
 367. 18 L. J. Ex. 366. 
 
 38. Vehicle of insufficient. — Houston, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 421. 
 
 39. Where boats do not pass. — Doty v. 
 Strong (Wis.), 1 Pin. 313, 40 Am. Dec. 
 773. 
 
 40. Unusual press of business. — United 
 States. — Bussey r. Memphis, etc., R. Co. 
 (U. S.), 4 McCrary 40,5, 13 Fed. 330; Hel- 
 liwell z\ Grand Trunk Railway, 10 Biss. 
 170, 7 Fed. 68; Thomas v. Wabash, etc.. 
 R. Co., 63 Fed. 200, affirmed in 19 C. 
 C. A. 88, 71 Fed. 481; Marine Ins. Co. 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 643, 43 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 79. 
 
 Alabama. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Touart. 97 Ala. .514, 11 So. 756, 55 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 600. 
 
 Delaware. — Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 233. 
 
 Illinois. — Cobb, etc., Co. v. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co., 88 111. 394; Galena, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Rae, 18 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209, 31 N. E. 853. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Thayer v. Burchard, 99 
 Mass. 508. 
 
 Michigan. — Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Burrows. 33 Mich. 6. 
 
 Mississippi. — Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458, 1 Am. R. Rep. 
 295. 
 
 Missouri. — • Faulkner v. South. Pac. 
 Railroad, 51 Mo. 311, 3 Am. R. Rep. 293; 
 Dawson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 Mo. 
 296, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. .521; Ballon- 
 tine V. North Missouri R. Co., 40 Mo. 491, 
 93 Am. Dec. 31.5. 
 
 A'czv York. — Wilbert v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 36, affirmed in 12 
 N. Y. 245; Blackstock v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372; 
 Bouker v. Long Island R. Co., 89 Hun 
 202, 35 N. Y. S. 23. 
 
 Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., Rail- 
 road V. Nelson. 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 Texas. — Cross v. McFaden, 1 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 461, 20 S. W. 846; Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. T'. Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 421. 
 
 An unusual pressure of business may in 
 some instances justify the refusal by the 
 carrier to receive freight. International, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 
 8, 21 S. W. 691. 
 
 If, by unprecedented and unexpected 
 press of business, the company has al- 
 ready received more property than it can 
 then transport, and the warehouses at the 
 point are full and the company has no 
 present means of taking care of the prop- 
 erty ofifered, then it would be unreason- 
 able to hold that under such conditions 
 the company must accept the property 
 when offered, or else incur the liability 
 prescribed I)y the statute. Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 421. 
 
 By arts. 2226, 2227, Texas Rev. Stat., 
 a duty is imposed on railway companies 
 to furnish sufficient transportation to
 
 247 
 
 DUTY TO RICCKIVl-: ANU CAkkV. 
 
 § 368 
 
 pany to exercise reasonable (lilij,'ence to provide sufficient facilities and means 
 of transportation for all freij^ht, which it should reasonably expect will be of- 
 fered,-* ^ both interstate and intrastate/- takinj,' into consideration the fact that 
 at certain seasons more cars are needed/" yet it is not bound to provide in 
 advance for extraordinary occasions, nor for an unusual influx of business 
 which is not reasonably to be expected. ^^ And it has been held that the charter 
 of a railroad company requiring it to ship property in the order it is received 
 at the depots, way stations, and places desired by the owners thereof, is not 
 \iolated by failing to carry live stock loaded at a way station, but which, owing 
 to the amount of business, could not have been carried on the first train passing 
 without an extra engine, which must have been sent out from a distance and at 
 ni'dit."*'' I'm a railroad conipaii}- ran not excuse the breach of a contract to 
 receive and transport cattle upon a certain day by the fact that it was so 
 
 carry all property offered, tliouj^h when 
 the carrier, from an unexpected and un- 
 precedented press of business, is unaiile 
 to do so, this in general, will furnish a 
 legal excuse for refusing to accept 
 freight. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 
 63 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421. 
 
 41. Duty to provide facilities. — Daw- 
 son f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 7'.) Mo. 296, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 521; Dobbins 7: 
 Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 141 N. Y. S. 637, 
 157 App. Div. 80; Southern R. Co. v. At- 
 lanta, etc.. Supply Co., 135 Ga. 35, 68 S. 
 E. 807. 
 
 A common carrier is under a legal duty 
 to supply patrons with cars to promptly 
 move such freight as may be expected, 
 according to the usual volume of busi- 
 ness offered for shipment, and if timely 
 demands are made for cars, and the car- 
 rier fails to furnish tliem, without lawful 
 excuse, he is answerable for the proxi- 
 mate damage sustained by the shipper. 
 Cronan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 130 S. \V. 437. 
 
 42. Interstate and intrastate. — Oliver 
 & Son V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 89 Ark. 
 466, 117 S. W. 238. 
 
 43. McComb z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 
 Neb. 593, 99 N. W. 309. 
 
 Railroad company engaged in coal car- 
 rying trade held required to have a suffi- 
 cient supply of cars to meet the normal 
 demands of that trade during the fall and 
 winter months when the normal demand 
 is lieaviest. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. River, 
 etc.. Coke Co., 150 Ky. 489, 150 S. W. 641, 
 44 L. R. A.. N. S., 185. 
 
 44. Extent of duty to provide facilities. 
 — Arkansas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Sneed, 85 Ark. 293. 107 S. W. 1182; Ol- 
 iver & Son v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 89 
 'Ark. 466, 117 S. W. 238. 
 
 Georgia. — Southern R. Co. v. Atlanta, 
 etc.. Supply Co.. 135 Ga. 35. 68 S. E. 807. 
 
 IlUiiois. — Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 
 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Mulberry, etc., 
 R. Co. V. 111. Cent. R. Co., 161 111. App. 
 272. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Coal Co., '99 Ky. 217, 35 S. W. 626. 
 
 Missouri. — Dawson v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 79 Mo. 296, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 521. 
 
 A carrier is not required to keep a car 
 equipment sufficiently extensive for maxi- 
 mum freight output at any time of the 
 year, but only to meet a demand so ad- 
 justed as to utilize the equipment with 
 regularity throughout the year. Montana, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Morley, 198 Fed. 991. 
 
 Where there is an unprecedented press 
 of business, such as the carrier could not 
 by ordinary prudence foresee, it i's ex- 
 cused for not having provided therefor. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wynne Hoop, 
 etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375. 
 
 The statute requiring carriers to fur- 
 nish, without discrimination or delay, suf- 
 ficiciU facilities for the carriage of freight 
 does not make the duty an absolute one, 
 and does not require the carrier to pro- 
 vide in advance for an unprecedented and 
 unexpected rush of business. Cumbie v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (.^rk.). 151 S. W. 
 240. 
 
 In an action under the railroad demur- 
 rage law for failure to furnish cars, an an- 
 swer setting forth that defendant had a 
 large amount of equipment unused during 
 all the period of ordinary business, that 
 in tlic fall there is an unusually heavy traf- 
 fic, that at the time application by plain- 
 tiff for cars the demand for cars was ex- 
 ceptional, that defendant had apportioned 
 its equipment equitably so that everj' por- 
 tion of its line, had a just share thereof, 
 and that plaintiff was furnished with cars 
 at the earliest dates at which defendant 
 could furnish them, consistent with its 
 duty to serve all applicants equally, states 
 a good defense. Martin v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 110 Minn. 118, 124 N. W. 825. 
 
 An extraordinary increase of business, 
 which could not have been anticipated by 
 using judgment and diligence, and which 
 prevents a railroad from furnishing cars, 
 is a defense to an action for failure to 
 furnish the cars. Shoptaugh v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.). 126 S. W. 752. 
 
 45. Necessity extra engine service. — 
 Michigan, etc.. R. Co. z: McDonough. 21 
 Mich. 165.
 
 §§ 368-369 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 248 
 
 crowded with business upon that day and during the time of the subsequent 
 delay that it had no empty cars in which to receive the cattle.-"' And if a car- 
 rier contracts to deliver cars to another at another place, and does not so de- 
 liver them by reason of a shortage in the cars at the time, the fact of such 
 shortage will not relieve him from performance of the contract, whether known 
 to the other party or not.-*' 
 
 § 369. Discrimination or Granting Privileges.— A carrier will not be 
 allowed to discriminate in favor of an individual shipper, where the demand 
 exceed its capacity and the anticipated calls upon it.^^ A carrier will not be 
 allowed to take advantage of such a condition, so as to extend advantages to 
 one customer to the injury of another. It must, under such circumstances, as 
 at all other times in dealing with the public, act upon the rule of equality. To 
 permit the company to take advantage of a press of business to deal out favors 
 to certain customers to the detriment of others, might result in perpetuating 
 that condition upon the line. For instance, suppose the property offered for 
 transportation by other customers was more than could be transported promptly 
 by the particular line, that would not authorize the company to refuse to take 
 and transport, in the order tendered, the property of others, as soon as this 
 could be reasonably done.-*'* And in case of an unusual rush of business _a 
 shipper is only entitled to an equitable share of the cars for shipper's uses in 
 transportation/^" During a temporary scarcity of cars a railroad company is 
 entitled to consider, in apportioning them among grain dealers, their relative 
 volume of business; and, though there may be a difference in the number fur- 
 nished to different grain dealers at the same station, still, if no discrimination 
 is shown, no shipper has a right to complain, though he may not obtain all the 
 cars he deems necessarv.''^ 
 
 46. Contract to transport on certain 
 day. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. McCorquodale, 
 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80, 3.5 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 653. 
 
 Where a contract is made by a carrier 
 to furnish cars to transport cattle on a 
 certain day, the failure to furnish them 
 renders the carrier liable for consequent 
 damage to the cattle. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Scott & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 
 1065. 
 
 In a suit against a railroad for breacli 
 of a contract to furnish cars at a given 
 time for the shipment of cattle, an an- 
 swer setting up as an excuse "an unex- 
 pected and unprecedented rush of busi- 
 ness" was clearly insufficient. Southern 
 Kansas R. Co. v. Samples (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 109 S. W. 417. 
 
 47. Excuse for breach of contract. — 
 Williams r. Armour Car Lines (Del.), 79 
 Atl. 919. 
 
 48. Discrimination or granting of privi- 
 leges.— Judgment (1904) 87 N. Y. S. 30, 
 92 App. Div. 584, affirmed. Strough v. 
 Xew York Cent. R. Co., 181 N. Y. 533, 
 73 N. E. 1133. 
 
 49. Does not permit privileges to others. 
 —Houston, etc., R. Co. z: Smith, 63 Tex. 
 322, 327, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421; State 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 Neb. 593, 99 N. 
 W. 309. 
 
 A carrier must exercise reasonable dH- 
 
 igence to furnish cars adequate for the 
 transportation of freight, and not discrimi- 
 nate in favor of one shipper when the de- 
 mand exceeds the capacity of the carrier 
 and the anticipated and ordinary calls on 
 it. Dobbins v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 141 
 N. Y. S. 637, 157 App. Div. 80. 
 
 Where a shipper honestly attempted to 
 procure cars for transportation of perish- 
 able freight, and the carrier refused rea- 
 sonable demands for cars, and cars were 
 furnished competing shippers, the shipper 
 could recover for the refusal to furnish 
 cars, and the fact that he had held the 
 goods for speculative purposes was imma- 
 terial. Dobbins v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 
 141 X. Y. S. 637, 157 App. Div. 80. 
 
 50. Right of shippers to cars. — A sliip- 
 per maintained mandamus against a rail- 
 road company requiring it to furnish 50 
 cars at the rate of at least 5 cars a day for 
 his use. There was a general shortage of 
 cars and locomotives, but the railroad 
 exercised diligence to provide adequate 
 equipment for its business. Held, that the 
 shipper was only entitled to a just divi- 
 sion of the empty cars that should have 
 been apportioned to the station where the 
 shipper was in business. Dobney v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 83 Neb. 518, 120 N. W. 
 165. 
 
 51, Apportioning cars. — State f. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 71 Xcb. 593, 99 X. W. 
 309.
 
 249 DVTV TO Ri:CKlVK AND CAKRV. §§ 2i70-i72 
 
 § 370. Duty to Advise Shipper of Delay. — It is the (Uity of the carrier, 
 when applied 1(j for Lar>. lo adxise the shipper of the situation and circum- 
 stances which are Hkely to occasion any unreasonable delay."'- An extraordi- 
 nary increase of business, which could not have been anticipated by dilij,'ence, 
 and' which prevents a railroad fnmi furnishing cars, is a good defense to an 
 action for its failure to furnish the cars ; and,, where a carrier is reasonably 
 equii)i)cd for ordinary conditions of business, the fact of an unusual and un- 
 expected pressure of business will excuse the delay, provided the shipper is 
 notihed of the fact at the time of the shipment ; but such fact is no excuse when 
 the carrier, with full knowledge of it, accepts goods for transportation without 
 informing the shipper of the true situation."-' A carrier, on having reason to 
 anticipate inability to furnish cars after receijit of notice therefor, must advise 
 the shipper in order to excuse itself from liability for failure to furnish cars.-'-* 
 
 § 371. Carriers "Embargo." — A carrier "embargo" is a notice, issued 
 by a common carrier, refusing to receive or carry certain kinds of freight on 
 its line, or between certain points, and may be for a limited and definite period, 
 or for an unlimited or indefinite period. It is the result of a congestion of 
 business that makes it impossible for a road to carry all the freight that is of- 
 fered it."'"' 
 
 § 372. Causes Beyond Carrier's Control. — There are certain causes 
 which are beyond a carrier's control and which may excuse him from the ful- 
 fillment of his common-law obligations to the public. Thus a carrier may be 
 excused bv the act of God, the act of the public enemy, unavoidable accident, 
 etc.-'"'' While, under ordinary conditions, a railroad is bound to accept freight 
 tendered it, an impending flood of such a character as to fall properly within 
 the legal definition of an act of God. and which threatens with inundation the 
 carrier's tracks, is a sufficient excuse to justify it in refusing the goods for 
 shipment.^'" 
 
 Interference by Public Works. — That a city had dug a small ditch un- 
 der the tracks of a railroad com])any will not excuse a delay of six days in fur- 
 nishing a car for a shipment of goods. •'•^ 
 
 Military Control. — Where a road is under the military control of the gov- 
 ernment and is not permitted to receive freights from individuals, except upon 
 
 52. Duty to advise shipper of delay. — unreasonalile and unexpected press of 
 
 Cronan r. St. Louis, etc.. I'l. Co. (Mo. business, it was no defense to an action 
 
 App.). 130 S. W. -A,"]?. for failure to furnish the cars to show an 
 
 In an action acjainst a common carrier unusual and unexpected press of business. 
 
 for failure to furnish cars to ship timber, Cronan 7'. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. (Mo. 
 
 where the evidence showed that defendant App.). 130 .'^. W. 437. 
 
 at no time notified plaintiff it could not 54. Inability to furnish cars.— Di Giorgio 
 
 furnish cars because of an unexpected Importing-, etc.. Co. r. Pennsylvania R. 
 
 rush of business, but encouraged him in Qq io4 Md. fiOS. f».) Atl. 42,5. 8 L. R. A.. 
 
 getting out his timber and promised to x. S., lOS. 
 
 furnish cars to ship it. a declaration of law cc r-,r;-,^,-c "«.^Uo,-rr^ » r-i ^ ^1., 
 
 ^, ^ -c ^\ 11 J ^1 55. earners embargo. — Lhesapeake, 
 
 that if there was a sudden and unexpected ^.^ -p r^ -. nt'n. -, ». n^ ii< i.- 
 
 , /■ , ^, , • • f 1 • 1 etc.. K. Lo. V. (J (jara. etc.. Co., 144 Kv. 
 
 561. 139 S. W. 803. 
 
 increase in defendant's business, or if high 
 
 water delaved defendant in handling its u j • . 
 
 business, it' was not lial)le whether it no- „ 56. Causes beyond earner s control.— 
 
 tified plaintiff of this condition or not was Brown v. \\ abash, etc., R. Co.. is Mo. 
 
 more liberal to defendant than was justi- App. 568: Potts r. U abash, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 fied. Cronan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ^ ^^o. App. 394; Hance r. Pacific Exp. 
 
 (Mo. App.). 1.30 S. W. 4.37. Co.. 48 Mo. App 179: Knight v. Quincy. 
 
 53. Dillender 7-. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. etc.. R. Co.. 120 Mo. App. 311. 96 S. \\ . 
 
 (Mo. App."), 130 S. W. 107. "^l^'- ^ J. . ^ 
 
 Where the agents of a common carrier 57. Conditions beyond earners control. 
 
 told plaintiff to get his timber out of the —Gray r. ^\abash R. Co.. IT.) Mo. .\pp. 
 
 forest, and that cars would be furnished l"^"^- ^^ ^- ^^ ■ ^''^"^• 
 
 to take it to market, and he was not noti- 58. Interference by public works. — ^^Par- 
 
 fied at any time that the carrier would be ish & Co. t'. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. (Miss.), 
 
 unable to furnish cars on account of an 60 So. 322.
 
 § 372 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 250 
 
 an order of a proper armv officer, it is not liable for refusing to receive freights 
 from individuals. In such a case the fact that goods had been sold to the gov- 
 ernment does not authorize it to receive them for shipment without an order 
 from such armv officer.-^'-' But an order of the military power of the govern- 
 ment that a railroad company should transport government freights to the ex- 
 clusion of all private property, if necessary, will not release the company from 
 its obligation to receive and transport private property, where it appears that 
 the government did not actually assume control of the road and where the com- 
 pany still held itself out as a common carrier, and there was no evidence of 
 a necessitv to exclude private property ; and especially is this so where the par- 
 ties offering freight are government contractors and the freights tendered are 
 military supplies.'^" 
 
 Strikes and Boycotts.— The fact that, in consequence of a railroad's re- 
 ducing the wages of its employees, the latter struck, and prevented the com- 
 pany *f rom operating its cars, does not render the latter liable for damages for 
 failure to receive goods for transportation.*^"^ As a general rule railroad cor- 
 porations can not refuse or neglect to perform their jniblic duties pending a 
 controversy with their employees over the cost and expense of doing them, 
 where it does not appear that the employees committed any unlawful act, or 
 
 59. Military control. — Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. r. Phelps. 4 111. App. 238. affirmed in 
 0-i 111. 548; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clellan. 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Ashmead. 58 111. 487; Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, etc., Co., 64 
 111. 128. 
 
 Where a person desirous of shipping a 
 large quantity of corn over a railroad to 
 Cairo stored the same in a warehouse on 
 promise of the railroad company to trans- 
 port it as soon as cars could be procured 
 for the purpose, but the company never 
 received or receipted for the same, and 
 was unable to forward the same for want 
 of cars and for the reason that the road 
 was controlled by the military authorities 
 of the United States, who refused to give 
 permits to ship the same, and in conse- 
 quence of which the grain was injured by 
 exposure, etc.— held, that under the cir- 
 cumstances the company was not liable 
 to the owner of the grain for the delay in 
 furnishing transportation, there being no 
 contract to transport the same, and the 
 same never having come to its possession 
 for transportation. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Hornberger, 77 111. 457. 
 
 A railroad company under military 
 control of the government, transporting 
 troops and munitions to suppress the late 
 rebeUion, so as not to be in a free exer- 
 cise of its franchise, was not liable as a 
 common carrier for refusing to receive 
 freights for transportation. Phelps v. Ill- 
 inois Cent. R. Co., 94 111. 548. 
 
 60. Government not actually assuming 
 control. — Cobb, etc., Co. v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co., 38 Iowa 601. In this case it is said in 
 the opinion: "If defendant held itself out to 
 the world as a common carrier, and had per- 
 mission to carry other property than that be- 
 longing to government, the mere fact that 
 government demanded its services and at 
 
 any time may have excluded all property 
 from transportation except its own, 
 would afford no excuse for the defendant 
 refusing to take the grain of plaintiff of- 
 fered or delivered to it. And this for the 
 simple reason, that it would be liable for 
 not doing that which, as a carrier, it of- 
 fered to the world to do and had the 
 power and capacity to perform. It is not 
 at all difficult to understand that defend- 
 ant may have been subject to military 
 control, and the military officers of the 
 government may have used the railroad 
 to the extent of their requiremeftts, and 
 have had the authority at any time to 
 have appropriated it entirely to public 
 use, yet all the time defendant may have 
 transacted the business of a public car- 
 rier, and held itself out to the world as 
 such, and at the same time had the ability 
 to carry all property offered to it, and 
 the permission of the military authorities 
 so to do. In that case it can not be ear- 
 nestly insisted that it would not be held 
 liable for omission or neglect of the du- 
 ties it assumed." 
 
 61. Strikes and boycotts. — Pittsburgh, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 
 Am. Rep. 63. 
 
 In an action against a railroad for dam- 
 ages for failure to receive goods for 
 transportation, the company answered 
 that they were prevented from operating 
 their cars by persons in rebellion against 
 the government. Plaintiff replied that the 
 disturl)ance was caused only by defend- 
 ant's employees, who had refused to work 
 in consequence of reduction in wages. 
 Held, that the reply meant that the em- 
 ployees committed the acts after they 
 had refused to work, and hence after they 
 ceased to be employees. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 Am. 
 Rep. 63.
 
 251 DUTY TO RFXElVIi A.NU CARRY. §§ Zll-ZlS 
 
 that there was an illegal conibinalion compelling them to stop working.''- Xor- 
 has a railroad, doing business as a common carrier, the right to refuse to re- 
 ceive from a connecting railroad, cars of such connecting line, either loaded or 
 empty, or freight of any kind which is ordinarily transported between railroad 
 companies according to the proper and usual course of business; and it is no 
 e.xcuse for the action of a railroad company in so refusing cars or freight prop- 
 erly offered tliat the receiving cjf them might or probably would involve the com- 
 pany in a strike and boycott of employees, which exists on and against the road 
 from whiiMi it so refuses to receive the cars or freight.''-' 
 
 Unavoidable Accident. — Where a carrier receiving an order for a live poul- 
 try car, and, having nunc, immediately ordered a car and secured it four days 
 later, but by reason of an accident the car had U) be repaired, but for which it 
 would have arrived at the point desired in time, the carrier used reasonable 
 diligence."^ 
 
 Notifying- Shipper, — Where the agent of a carrier, who has agreed to 
 furnish a car fur a shi])per, attempts to notify the shipper that there will be a 
 delay of several days in the arrival of the car, and is unable to find him. but 
 requests a third person to notify the shipper of the fact, which he does on the 
 same day that the agent receives notice that there will be delay in the furnishing 
 of the car, the carrier exercises reasonable diligence in notifying the shipper.^^ 
 
 § 373. Failure of Shipper to Insure. — The failure of the shipper to in- 
 sure for the carrier's bencht is not a good ground for refusal to receive and 
 carry.'''' 
 
 § 374. Customs and Habits of Dealing-. — Xo length of time or manner 
 of treatment or habit of dealing will discharge a common carrier when requested 
 from the obligation to furnish to the public the service it is engaged in perform- 
 ing.'-" 
 
 § 3 7. "5. Right to Discontinue Service to Shipper. — A carrier can not re- 
 nounce as against some disfavored shipper the public duty which it assumed 
 when it engaged in the kind of transportation business which it offers to con- 
 duct. Being a common carrier for all, a carrier holding itself out for that pur- 
 pose must switch all cars tendered. It is equally elementary that a carrier may 
 be compelled by mandamus to perform duties of this kind to an aggrieved ship- 
 per.^'S It seems that a carrier may discontinue all further service to a shipper 
 on account of past infractions of reasonable rules adopted to secure better serv- 
 ice to the public. However, a shipper ought not to be compelled to pay an un- 
 just charge for car service with no redress, but to submit a claim for the re- 
 turn of his money to the manager of the association promulgating the rule or 
 order.''" The weight of authority seems to be that the carrier has a lien for 
 
 62. Controversy with employees. — Peo- Co., l.-)4 L'. S. Jl, 101, 3s L. Ed. 903, 14 
 pie V. Xew York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 9 S. Ct. lOii::. 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1, 28 Hun 543, 3 Civ. 67. Customs and habits of deahng.— 
 
 Proc. R. 11, 2 McCarty Civ. Proc. 345, re- Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Higdon. 149 Ky. 
 
 versing 2 Civ. Proc. 82. 321, 148 S. W. 26; Crescent Coal Co. v. 
 
 63. "Beers v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 35 ^-o^Vf^il^f - ^^^c. R. Co 143 Ky. 73. 135 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 04(5. 34 Fed. 244. S. W. 7( 8, 33 L. R. A.. N. S.. 442. 
 
 _,_,.,,, -J ^ iir 1 A railway company operating a belt 
 
 64. Unavoidable accident -Wenzel t^ ,.^^^ ^^_^ _^^^ ^^^^-^^^^ ^^^ transport coal be- 
 Great Xortlurn k. C., 1..2 A\ is. 418, 140 ^^^.^^^^^ ^ ^^^j,^^, ^^^^j industrial plants on 
 N- ^^ • ''^^- such line because it has never hauled coal 
 
 65. Notifying shipper. — Wenzel v. before. Crescent Coal Co. v. Louisville, 
 Great Norilurn R. Co., 152 Wis. 418, 140 ^tc R Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. W. 768, 
 N. W. 81. 33 L. R. A.. N. S.. 442. 
 
 66. Failure of shipper to insure as ex- 68. Larabee Flour Mills Co. f. Mis- 
 cuse for failure to receive and carry.^ souri Pac. R. Co.. 74 Kan. SOS. 88 Pac. 72. 
 Inman v. South Carolina R. Co., 129 U. 69. Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Mis- 
 S. 128. 32 L. Ed. 612. 9 S. Ct. 249. See, souri Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 
 also, Constable v. National Steamship 72. 76.
 
 §§ Z7~:^-?>76 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 252 
 
 compensation for the use of cars beyond reasonable free time. If the Hen be 
 waived the courts are open. But the car service association holds no franchise 
 to compel the payment of such claims, and then to decide for itself whether or 
 not it will refund. And, in any event, a carrier can not justly withold its serv- 
 ices when it is ec|uallv at fault in the matter of which it complains.'" 
 
 Back Charges Unpaid. — A common carrier of freight can not refuse to re- 
 ceive freight l)ecause back charges for other shipments have not been paid."^ 
 
 § 376. Destination of Goods as Affecting Duty.— Destination Not 
 Regular Station. — The fact that the place of destination is not a regular sta- 
 tion at which is kept an agent is no valid excuse for not receiving the goods. 
 When goods are shipped to a place where there is a side track, but no depot 
 platform or agent of the carrier, and this is known to. the parties, it has been 
 held that, leaving the car of goods upon the side track is a good delivery, and 
 relieves the company from further responsibility.'- But where goods are by 
 mistake directed to a point which has no existence in fact, the carrier is not 
 bound to undertake their transportation.'-^ 
 
 Rule Operates between Termini of Route. — The implied obligation of a 
 common carrier, arising from his relation to the public, is limited by the termini 
 of his own route." ^ Merely connecting with other routes, which he does not 
 own, operate or control, will not make him a common carrier over such con- 
 necting routes."-^ By the common law, a person who holds himself out as a 
 common carrier is not obligated thereby to carry goods at the current freights, 
 unless he has a particular route between certain fixed termini ; ''' nor is such 
 carrier bound by his general public obligation to provide other means of trans- 
 portation — as the coaches of other lines, or the cars of other roads — than such 
 as he owns, uses or holds out to the public on his own route for that purpose.'^''' 
 The statutes nowhere lay this duty upon railroad companies beyond the termini 
 of their respective lines or routes,'^ and the provision in the charter of a railroad 
 
 70. Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72, 76. 
 
 A common carrier holding itselt out to 
 the public as ready to do switching has 
 no right to discontinue switching cars for 
 a shipper on the ground of his refusal to 
 pay bills for car service when a detention 
 for which the charges were assessed was 
 occasioned as much by the fault of the 
 carrier as by the fault of the shipper. 
 Laral)ee Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co.. 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72. 
 
 71. Back charges unpaid. — Eastern 
 Kentucky R. Co. v. Holbrook, 4 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 730. 
 
 72. Reid v. Southern R. Co., 149 N. C. 
 423, 63 S. E. 112. 
 
 That a depot is or is not maintained at 
 the point of destination, in no way af- 
 fects the right of shippers to have their 
 goods received when tendered. Normile 
 V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 30 Wash. 21, 77 
 Pac. 1087, 67 L. R. A. 271; Alexander v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 144 N. C. 93, 56 S. 
 E. 697; Reid v. Southern R. Co., 149 N. 
 C. 423. 63 S. E. 112. 
 
 73. Mistake as to direction. — O'Rourke 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Iowa 526. 
 
 74. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682; Hempstead 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 111. 95, 8 Am. 
 Rep. 631. 
 
 A carrier may refuse to take goods if 
 
 he does not carry to the place to which 
 the owner wishes to send them. Inman 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 39, 47, 37 S. W. 37, affirmed in 93 
 Tex. 643, no op. See ante, "Under Texas 
 Statutes," II, B. 
 
 75. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 76. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 77. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 A railroad connected at its termination 
 with other companies, under an arrange- 
 ment by which, when furnished on its 
 own line with cars belonging to the other 
 companies, it shipped goods through to 
 points beyond its own route without a 
 transfer, but its own cars did not pass 
 beyond its own route. Held that, in the 
 absence of a special contract, the rail- 
 road was not bound to furnish means of 
 transportation to points l)eyond its own 
 route, and was not liable for a failure to 
 do so. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Alorton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 78. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 The following authorities will support 
 these views: Gordon v. Hutchinson 
 (Pa.), 1 Watts & S. 285, 37 Am. Dec. 
 464; Ballentine v. North Missouri R. Co., 
 40 Mo. 491, 93 Am. Dec. 315; Galena, etc.,
 
 253 
 
 DITS' TO klXKIVK AND CARRY 
 
 §§ 376-377 
 
 comi^any requiring il to jjerniil (jlhcr companies to form running connections with 
 it does not affect the rule."'' lUit a common carrier which holds itself out as 
 transi)orting goods offered it for shipment, to the points to which the shipper 
 desires to ship them, it is liable to him for not receiving and shipping them, 
 though those points are beyond its own line.**" Where a carrier held itself out as 
 a thrcjugh carrier to the seaboard, it could not relieve itself from failure to fur- 
 nish facilities to carry goods to the seaboard by reason of the fact that its 
 terminus was an inland town, and the fact that its uniform bill of lading ex- 
 pressly limited its liability to its own line, where there was nothing on the bill 
 of lading to indicate the terminus of the linc.^^ The duty on the part of a rail- 
 road common carrier to receive goods for transportation beyond its terminus 
 may be created b}' contract or a course of business, which would warrant those 
 dealing with it in jjresuming that their goods would be received beyond such 
 terminus.'^- • 
 
 § 377. Duty as to Express Companies.— Railroad companies are not re- 
 quired, bv usage or common law. to transport the traffic of independent express 
 companies over their lines, in the manner in which the traffic is usually carried 
 and handled ; and they need not, in the absence of a statute requiring it, fur- 
 nish to such express companies equal facilities for doing an express business 
 upon their passenger trains. ''•' The reason is obvious why special contracts in 
 reference to this business are necessary. The transportation required is of a 
 kind which must, if possible, be had, for the most part, on passenger trains. It 
 requires, not onl\- speed, but reasonable certainty as to the quantity that will 
 be carried at any one time. As the things carried are to be kept in the per- 
 sonal custody of the messenger or other employee of the express company, it is 
 important that a certain amount of car space should be specially set apart for 
 the business, and that this should, as far as practicable, be ])ut in the exclusive 
 
 R. Co. :•. Rae, 18 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 
 574; Illinois Cent. R. Co. z>. Cobb, etc., 
 Co., 64 111. 128; Wibert v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 36, affirmed in 
 12 N. Y. 245; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Duncan, 28 Ind. 441; Ang. on Carriers, §§ 
 25-26; Oxlade v. N. E. R. W. Co., 15 C. 
 B., N. S., 680; Hales v. The London & 
 N. W. R. W. Co., 4 Best & S. 66; Peet 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 
 Am. Dec. 446: Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682'. 
 
 79. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., 51 Fed. 465, 51 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 145, affirmed in 61 
 Fed. 158, 9 C. C. A. 409. 
 
 80. Effect of offer to public. — Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 
 N. E. 451, 5QrAm. St. Rep. 320. 
 
 "In Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682, the court 
 says: "Doubtless, a common carrier may 
 so hold himself out to the pul)lic as to 
 make himself liable for not receiving and 
 conveying goods beyond his own line.' " 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Wolcott, 141 Ind. 
 267, 39 N. E. 451, 455, 50 Am. St. Rep. 
 320. 
 
 81. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. r. Wood. 
 45 Ind. App. 1, 84 N. E. 1009. 88 N. E. 
 709. 
 
 82. Duty of carrier to receive. — Cobli. 
 etc., Co. T'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa 
 CiOl. 
 
 A carrier is not ordinarily bound be- 
 yond its own line, but it maj' by con- 
 tract become bound for delivery at the 
 final destination of the shipment, al- 
 though it extends beyond its line. Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 677, 690, 29 S. W. 565. See post, 
 "Connecting Carriers," part 5. 
 
 8o. Dutieri as to express companies.^ 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Keefer. 146 Ind. 
 21, 44 X. E. 796, 38 L. R. A. 93, 58 Am. 
 St. Rep. 348; Sargent v. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co.. 115 Mass. 416; Express Cases, 117 
 U. S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 791, 6 S. Ct. 542. 628. 
 1190. In the case last cited, the rail- 
 road companies had undertaken to 
 perform for the public the express busi- 
 ness before that time done over the same 
 line by express companies. The express 
 companies applied for space in the ex- 
 press cars for their goods and messen- 
 gers, and the railroad companies refused 
 to furnish the space or carry their mes- 
 sengers, and these suits were brought to 
 compel the railroad to furnish the de- 
 sired express facilities. The court held 
 that it was not the duty of railroads to 
 carry the goods and messengers of ex- 
 press companies, and that a railroad in 
 such service was not performing a duty 
 it owed to the pulilic, as a common car- 
 rier; that such right could only be ac- 
 quired by an express company by con- 
 tract with the railroad company.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 254 
 
 possession of the expressman in charge. As the business to be done is "ex- 
 press." it impHes access to the train for the loading at the latest, and for un- 
 loading at the earliest, convenient moment. All this is entirely inconsistent with 
 the idea of an express business on passenger trains free to all express car- 
 riers.^'^^ 
 
 §§ 378-379. Enforcement of Duty— § 378. By Injunction.— The writ 
 of injunction should only be granted in cases of extreme necessity.''"' Where 
 ihere is a continuing breach of the duty to receive and carry freight, the party 
 injured can have an injunction issued compelling its performance.^*' The in- 
 jury to the complainant, too. is of that nature, that while there may be a remedy 
 at law. as bv recovery of damages for injury, yet it is such that can not be ade- 
 quately relieved by suits for damages. It is continually recurring, and will re- 
 quire continued and repeated suits, and continued litigation, and the expenses 
 of each suit would make the recovery of the excess paid an inadequate remedy,^'^ 
 for in such a case continued suits for damages could not be considered an ade- 
 quate remedy at law.'*^ A court of equity will not assume to dictate the policy 
 or business management of a common carrier aside from its clear duty under its 
 charter or the statutes. That function belongs exclusively to the company it- 
 self, and will not be interfered with because changes ought to be made as ap- 
 parently reasonable, necessary or otherwise. But where the common carrier it- 
 self adopts as a part of its business policy any advantageous facility for hand- 
 ling freight, it must not discriminate in its use by the public, but must afford 
 the*' facility equally to all. and to this extent equity will interfere by injunction to 
 
 84. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Keefer, 
 14(5 Ind. 21. 44 X. E. 796, 3S L. R. A. 93, 
 5S Am. St. Rep. 34S. 
 
 85. Cases of extreme necessity. — Com- 
 plainant railroad company, having no 
 connection by rail with defendant's 
 stockyards, secured the services of a 
 connecting road in transferring stock 
 shipped over its road. The price of such 
 service being raised, complainant began 
 transferring by means of floats, but de- 
 fendants refused to receive stock so 
 transferred, or permit the floats to land 
 at their wharves. On application for a 
 preliminary mandatory injunction to de- 
 fendants to receive its freight, held, that 
 the facts showed no such pressing ne- 
 cessity as to require such writ. Dela- 
 ware, etc., R. Co. V. Central Stock Yard, 
 etc., Co., 43 X. J. Hq. GO;-), 12 Atl. 374, 13 
 Atl. 615. 
 
 86. Enforcement by injunction. — Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. 7'. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 
 2(;7, 39 X. E. 4.j1, .JO Am. St. Rep. 320; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 572, 
 12 S. W. 1001. 7 L. R. A. 478, 16 Am. St. 
 Rep. 926; Rogers Locomotive, etc., 
 Works V. Erie R. Co., 20 X. J. Eq. 379; 
 Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 
 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 2J3, 54 Fed. 746, 
 19 L. R. A. 395; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Burlington, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 481. 
 
 Combination to give express company 
 monopoly. — Plaintiffs filed a bill showing 
 that they manufacture locomotive en- 
 gines, and charged a combination be- 
 tween a railroad company over whose 
 road the engines must be shipped and 
 
 certain directors, to organize an express 
 company to do all the business of ship- 
 ping over the road, with reduced liabili- 
 ties, whereby the cost of shipping loco- 
 motives would be increased from about 
 $31 to $350 each: held, that plaintiffs had 
 no adequate remedy at law, and that an 
 injunction would issue to restrain the 
 parties from doing anything to prevent 
 carrying such engines as ordinary freight. 
 Rogers Locomotive, etc.. Works v. Erie 
 R. Co., 20 X. J. Eq. 379. 
 
 87. Rogers Locomotive, etc.. Works v. 
 Erie R. Co., 20 X. J. Eq. 379, 386. 
 
 Apprehension of interruption to traffic 
 not sufficient ground. — An injunction to 
 a company to work traffic will only be 
 issued where there is a well-founded 
 ground of complaint in respect of past 
 working, and the question of proper fa- 
 cilities for the receipt, etc., of traffic at a 
 junction does not arise until the junction 
 exists. Doublin Whiskey Distillery Co. 
 V. Midland, etc., R. Co., 4 Ry. & C. T. 
 Cas. 32. 
 
 88. In a case of discrimination, where 
 the nature of the complaining company's 
 business consists in mining coal which ne- 
 cessitates long continued and indetermi- 
 nable series of shipments, a remedy by 
 damages in an action at law would lead 
 to such a multiplicity of suits and involve 
 such uncertainty in the measure of dam- 
 ages that the remedy of damages would 
 be inadequate and resort may be had to 
 a court of equity. Johnson Coal Min. Co. 
 V. Hocking Valley R. Co., 1 X. P., X. S., 
 385, 14 O. D. X. P. 209.
 
 255 
 
 DUTY TO RECEIVE AND CARRY. 
 
 §§ 378-379 
 
 prevent such favored use thereof and compel its equal service to all.^'^ This 
 doctrine is founded not so much ui)on the purely private rights of the individual 
 as upon the general rights and hcnehts of the puhlic at large whose interest it 
 is to keep free and open the channels of trade and to i)revent the building up of 
 favored private enterprises liy a cjuasi public corporation."" 
 
 § 379. By Mandamus. — Right of State. — Even though the state has suf- 
 fered no injury and llic- pri\ai(.- pcr^fjn injured has a sufficient remedy at law, a 
 inandanuis may issue at the instance of the state to compel a railroad company 
 to receive and carry freight.'" The people have a right to compel the per- 
 formance of the duty to receive and transport freight through the courts, by 
 mandamus ; and tlicir .attorney general is the proper officer to set the process 
 in niotiiMi. The fact that injured individuals may have private remedies for 
 damages sustained docs not preclude the state from its remedy by mandamus, 
 where there is a general or partial susi)ension of the duty of receiving or trans- 
 porting freight atTecting large numbers of people."- The remedy by mandatnus 
 iias been invoked in many cases to compel the performance of the express and 
 implied obligation of carriers arising from their charters,'''' which are no more 
 
 89. Prevention of discrimination. — John- 
 son Coal Min. Co. v. l-iockiufj Valley R. 
 Co., 1 N. P., N. S., 385, 14 O. D. N. P. 
 209; Youghiogheny, etc., Coal Co. v. Erie 
 R. Co., 1 O. C. C, N. S., 333, 24 O. C. 
 
 D. 289. 14 O. C. C. 289. 
 
 90. Doctrine founded upon rights of 
 public. — Johnsiin Coal Miii. Co. z\ Hock- 
 ing \ alley R. Co., 1 X. 1'.. X. S., 385, 14 
 O. D. N. P. 209. 
 
 91. Enforcement by mandamus. — State 
 v. Hartford, etc., R. Co.', 29 Conn. 538; 
 Cantrell r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (111.). 
 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 227; Com- 
 monwealth r. Eastern R. Co., 103 Mass. 
 254; State v. Spokane St. R. Co. (Wash.), 
 11 .^m. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 02; State 
 V. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 7 Neb. 357; 
 Rex V. Barker (Eng.), 3 Burr. 1267; Lo- 
 raine v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 205 Pa. 
 132, 54 Atl. 580, 61 L. R. A. 502. 
 
 Where the injur}' resulted from the 
 nonperformance of a railroad company's 
 duty as a common carrier lo receive and 
 transport freight the connecting carrier 
 or shipper sustaining injury may obtain 
 relief in mandamus proceedings against 
 the carrier in fault. Toledo, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 730, 53 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 307, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 
 387; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Burlington, 
 etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 481; Rogers Loco- 
 motive, etc.. Works v. Erie R. Co., 20 N. 
 J. Eq. 379. See also, Union Pac. R. Co. 
 r. Hall. 91 U. S. 343. 23 L. Ed. 428. 
 
 92. Right of the people. — People v. New 
 York, etc., R. Co. (X. Y.), 9 .'Vm. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 1, 28 Hun 543, 3 Civ. Proc. R. 
 11, 2 McCarty Civ. Proc. 345, reversing 
 2 Civ. Proc. 82. 
 
 93. In the case of People v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 9 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 1, 28 Hun 543, 3 Civ. Proc. R. 11, 
 2 McCarty Civ. Proc. 345, the court said: 
 "The writ of mandamus has been awarded 
 to compel a company to operate its road 
 as one continuous line (Union Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Hall. 91 U. S. 343. 23 L. Ed. 428); 
 
 to compel the running of passenger trains 
 to the terminus of the road (State v. 
 Hartford, etc., R. Co., 29 Conn. 538); to 
 compel the company to make fences and 
 cattle guards (People v. Rochester, etc., 
 R. Co., 14 Hun. 373, 76 N. Y. S. 294); to 
 compel it to build a bridge (People v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 70 X. Y. 569); to 
 compel it to construct its road across streams 
 so as not to interfere with navigation 
 (State V. Northeastern R. Co. (S. C), 9 
 Rich. L. 247, 67 Am. Dec. 551); to compel 
 it to run daily trains (Re New Brunswick, 
 etc., R., 1 P. & B. 667); to compel the 
 delivery of grain at a particular elevator 
 (Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 56 111. 
 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690); to compel the com- 
 pletion of its road (Farmers' Loan & 
 Trust Co. V. Henning, 17 Am. L. Reg., 
 X. S., 266) ; to compel the grading of its 
 track so as to make crossings convenient 
 and useful (People z: Duchess, etc., R. 
 Co., 58 N. Y. 152; New York, etc., R. 
 Co. z'. People, 12 Hun 195, modified in 74 
 N. Y. 302; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State, 37 Ind. 489); to compel the re- 
 establishment of an abandoned station 
 (State v. New Haven, etc., Co.. 37 Conn. 
 153) ; to compel the replacement of 
 a track taken up in violation of it* 
 charter (Re.x z: Severn, etc.. R. Co., 
 2 Barn. & .-Md. 646) ; to prevent the 
 abandonment of a road once completed 
 (Talcott z: Pine Grove. Fed. Cas. Xo. 
 13735, 1 Flip. 120, atfirmed in 19 Wall. 666, 
 22 L. Ed. 227) ; and to compel a com- 
 panv to exercise its franchise (People v. 
 .Mbany. etc., R. Co., 24 N. Y. 261, 82 Am. 
 Dec. 295). 
 
 Under Code 1906, § 2364, requiring a 
 carrier to make reasonable provision for 
 the transportation of coal and coke, a 
 carrier may be compelled by mandamus 
 to construct a side track and switch where 
 neccssarv. State v. White Oak R. Co., 65 
 W. \a. 'l5, 64 S. E. 630, 28 L. R. A.. N. 
 S., 1013.
 
 § 379 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 256 
 
 obligations to the people than the duty to carry freight and passengers. That 
 duty is, indeed, the ultima ratio of their existence— the great and sole public 
 good for the attainment and accomplishment of which all the other powers and 
 duties are given or imposed. It is strangely illogical to assert that the state, 
 through the courts, may compel the performance of every step necessary to bring 
 a corporation into a condition of readiness to do the very thing for^ which it is 
 created, but it is then powerless to complete the doing of the thing itself. '•■* 
 
 Right of Shipper.— The question arises whether a writ of mandamus to 
 comptd the performance of a public duty may be issued at the instance of a 
 private relator. Clearly in England it may. The rule in that country is that, 
 in general, all those wlio are legally capable of bringing an action are also capa- 
 ble^of applying to the court for the writ of mandamus. This is true in all cases, 
 it is believed, where the defendant owes a duty, in the performance of which 
 the prosecutor has a peculiar interest; and it is equally true in case of appli- 
 cations to compel the performance of duties to the public by corporations. '^•'^ 
 And in this country it is held that a private person, who suffers damage and in- 
 convenience special or peculiar to himself, from the failure of the company to 
 operate its road as required by law may institute mandamus proceedings without 
 the sanction of the attorney general.^'' When a corporation undertakes to oper- 
 ate a railroad franchise, it assumes all the duties and obligations which spring 
 by law from the character of its business, and from the customs incidental to it. 
 It tenders a continuing oft'er to the general public that it will perform these du- 
 ties, for the benefit of each and every one of them, when demanded at its hands. 
 When anv member of the public makes a demand upon it under such general 
 oft'er, there immediately results a civil obligation on the part of the company 
 in favor of the party making the demand, enforceable in the name of such party, 
 through the usual remedies by which contracts are enforced. The party seek- 
 ing the enforcement of the obligation by mandamus can not be driven by the 
 corporation to an action for damages, nor can it, by the payment of money, leave 
 unperformed its specific afiirmative legal duty.''" It is not enough that a party 
 have a plain and adequate remedy in order to deprive him of the right to the 
 writ of mandamus. The remedy must also be one "in the ordinary course of 
 the law." ^^ And it has been said that : "A proceeding before the board of 
 
 94, People v. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 1, 28 Hun. 
 543, 3 Civ. Proc. R. 11, 2 McCarty Civ. 
 Proc. 345. 
 
 95. In Rex v. R. Co., 2 Barn. & Aid., 
 646, a private individual, without any al- 
 legation of special injury to himself, ob- 
 tained a rule upon the company to show 
 cause why a mandamus should not issue 
 commanding them to lay down again and 
 maintain part of a railway which they 
 had taken up. Under an act of Parlia- 
 ment, the railway was a pul)lic highway; 
 and all persons were at lil)crty to pass 
 and repass thereon, with wagons and 
 other carriages, upon payment of tlie 
 rates. What the prosecutor complained 
 of was the loss by the public, and par- 
 ticularly by the owners of certain collier- 
 ies (of which he does not appear to have 
 been one), of the benefit of using the 
 railway taken up. The writ was awarded. 
 It was not even claimed that the inter- 
 vention of the attorney general was 
 needed. Other cases to the same effect 
 are numerous. Clarke v. Canal Co., 6 Ad. 
 & Ell., N. S.. 898, 1 Chit. 700 
 
 96. In United States.— Hall v. Union 
 
 Pac. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 5950, 3 Dill. 
 515, affirmed in 91 U. S. 343, 33 L. Ed. 
 428; construing the act of March 3, 187, 
 17 U. vS. Stat, at Law 509. 
 
 This is true in all cases, it is believed, 
 where the defendant owes a duty in the 
 performance of which the prosecutor has 
 a peculiar interest. Tapping on manda- 
 mus, p. 28. The right is distinctly recog- 
 nized in this state in Hamilton v. Pitts- 
 burgh, 34 Pa. 49r), and in many cases fol- 
 lowing it. Loraine v. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 Co., 205 Pa. 132, 54 Atl. 580, 61 L. R. A. 
 502. 
 
 In mandamus by a coal miner to com- 
 pel a railroad company to furnish cars, 
 winch it refused to do unless he would 
 sell his coal to a company controlled by 
 the president of the railroad company, 
 it is immaterial tliat other shippers were 
 refused cars for the same reason. Lo- 
 raine V. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co.. 54 Atl. 
 580, 205 Pa. 132, 61 L. R. A. 502. 
 
 97. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co. v. Mor- 
 gan's, etc., R. Co. (La.), 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 71. 
 
 98. Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72.
 
 2':>7 DiTv TO Ki:ci:rvr; and cakrv. §§ 379-380 
 
 railroad coinniissi(jner.s is sufficiently out of the ordinary course of the law to 
 disting-uish it. lis characteristic feature is that it takes a mandamus suit in 
 this court to c(Hii]ilctc the remedy. Otherwise it might not he adequate. Hence 
 there is no reason why, in a case involving a right not of statutory creation and 
 not depending upon any statute for its enforcement, the comi)lainant may not 
 ajjply directly to this court for the desired relief." '■••' 
 
 Discrimination. — \Vhere a com]jlainant seeks to ffjrce a railroad company 
 to afford it facilities to those given a favored rival, the court may issue a man- 
 damus to compel it to serve l)oth alike.' 
 
 Strikes. — Where a railroad com])any refuses to carry freight and jjassengers 
 on the ground that its emi)loyees refused to work except for increased wages, a 
 mandamus may issue, at the suit of the commonwealth, represented by the at- 
 torney general, to compel it to do so, where there is no violence or force used 
 by such employees to prevent the operation of trains ; and it is no defense to such 
 proceedings that the state has suffered no injury, and that private shippers or 
 passengers have an adcc|uatc remedy at law in suits for damages. - 
 
 Failure to Offer for Transportation. — The writ of mandamus does not lie, 
 when the relator who seeks to transport his coal over a lateral railroad has not 
 opened or mined his coal or offered it in cars for transi)ortations.-"' 
 
 Question of Unlawful Transportation.— Where a product is dominated 
 "beer," with nothing to show that it is not intoxicating, and the carrier has a 
 right to assume that it is intoxicating, and therefore prohibited, there exists a dis- 
 cretion in regard to the evidence whereby the carrier may be satisfied that the 
 product if lawful, and mandamus will not lie to compel its transportation.-* 
 
 §§ 380-382. Action for Refusal— § 380. Right of Action.— A com- 
 mon carrier being bound to receive goods tendered to him in his line of busi- 
 ness for shipment is liable to a suit for damages for refusing to take goods so 
 tendered,'' wdthout good cause," or for enforcing rules and regulations discrim- 
 inating against the complaining shipper." And the fact that, after the damages 
 sued for had accrued, the shipper and the carrier entered into a contract for 
 the shipment of the freight, does not affect the ship])cr's right to recover the 
 damages sustained.** 
 
 For Whom Right Exists.— The refusal of a common carrier to take goods 
 for a ])arlicular consignee is in violation of an obligation to the shipper, and 
 
 99. Laral)ce Fldiir Mills Co. v. Missouri 6. Liability to suit for refusal. — For a 
 
 Pac. R.Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72. refusal, except upon a good cause to un- 
 
 1. Discrimination. — Cumlierland Tel., dcrtake the service, a right of action ex- 
 etc, Co. V. Texas, etc., R. Co. (La.), 18 ists against the carrier. Waring & Co. v. 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., .399. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 3 Wklv. L Bull. 
 
 2. Strikes.— People v. New York, etc., 893, 7 O. Dec. 5.J3: Canal Boat Mont- 
 R. Co. (X. Y.), 9 Am. & Hng. R. Cas. gomery v. Kent, 20 O. 54. 
 
 1, 28 Hun .US, 3 Civ. Proo. R. 11. 2 Mc- 7. Discrimination.— Logan & Co. v. 
 
 Carty Civ. Proc. 34."). Ctntral Railroad. 74 Ga. 684. 
 
 3. Failure to offer for transportation. - The Georgia statutes do not contain 
 Commonwcaltli r. Corey (Pa.), 2 Pittsb. any express provisions perhaps imposing 
 444. penalties on carriers for unjust discrimi- 
 
 4. Question of unlawful transportation. nation exercised to the detriment of the 
 — Milwaukee Malt I'.xtract C\). r. Chi- business of another but the scope and in- 
 cago. etc., R. Co., 73 Lnva 98, 34 X. W. tent of Ga. Civil Code. §§ 2188, 2214, 2268, 
 761. 2269, 2307, are broad enough to afford 
 
 5. Action for refusal. — Inman & Co. v. a remedy. Kates v. Atlanta Baggage, 
 Seaboard, etc.. R. Co.. 159 Fed. 960; Wal- etc., Co., 107 Ga. 636. 34 S. E. 372, 46 L. 
 lace V. Matthews. ,39 Ga. 617, 99 .-\ni. Dec. R. A. 431. 
 
 473; Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Ohio Revised Statutes. — Johnson Coal 
 
 Dec. 393; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Queen Min. Qo. v. Hocking \'allev R. Co.. 1 X. 
 
 City Coal Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep. 832; John- P.. X. S.. 3S5. 14 O. D. X. P. 209. 
 son Coal Min. Co. v. Hocking \'alley R. 8. Subsequent contract of shipment. — 
 
 Co., 1 X. P., N. S., 385, 14 6. D. X. P. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Taylor, 87 Ark. 
 
 ^09. 331, 112 S. W. 745. 
 
 1 Car— 17
 
 §§ 380-381 CARRIERS. 258 
 
 not to the consignee. An action of damages in favor of the consignee will not 
 lie in such a case.^ 
 
 Effect of Statutory Penalty.— A statute fixing a penalty per day per car to 
 be paid by the carrier for failure to supply cars according to the tenor of the 
 statute, does not abrogate the common-law action for damages to a shipper by 
 reason of a breach of" the carrier's common-law duty to furnish cars for trans- 
 portation of freight within a reasonable time.'"^ 
 
 Delayage Charges.— The fixing of delayage charges by a state railroad 
 commission for failure of carrier to furnish cars does not deprive the shipper 
 of his right to damages under the common law.'^ 
 
 § 381. Procedure. — Jurisdiction.— A suit to compel an interstate carrier 
 to receive and transport proi)erty tendered for shipment is one to enforce per- 
 formance of a dutv imposed by general law, and within the jurisdiction of the 
 courts, and the complainant is not required to resort in the first instance to the 
 Interstate Commerce Commission. ^i'' 
 
 Form and Action. — A cause of action for refusal of a common carrier to 
 furnish means of transportation, being founded on the public duty of the car- 
 rier, and not on special contract, arises ex delicto, and not ex contractu. ^^ 
 Damages from breach of a carrier's express contract to furnish cars at a speci- 
 fied time are recoverable in an action on the contract; but, in the absence of an 
 express contract, the proposing shipper has no action save for a breach of the 
 carrier'!^ general common-law duty to furnish cars within a reasonable time.^-' 
 
 Pleading.— In civil actions it is a rule that where a subject comprehends a 
 multiplicity of matters and a great variety of facts, in order to avoid prolixity, 
 the law allows general pleading.^^ 
 
 Statement of Cause of Action.— The general rule seems to be that the 
 petition must contain a jjlain and concise statement of the facts constituting a 
 cause of act ion.''' 
 
 Necessary Allegations. — In a suit against a carrier for failure to receive 
 and carry freight, or for failure to furnish cars for the transportation of freight, 
 the complaint must set out the duty of the carrier in that respect, either as a 
 
 9. For whom right exists.— Laf aye v. furnish the cars as requested, stated a 
 Harris 13 La A.nn 55;{ cause of action in tort and not in contract, 
 
 10. Effect of statutory penalty .-South- f."d a recovery must be predicated on the 
 ern R Co. v. Moore, 133 Ga. 80C.. 67 S. habihty of the carrier as a common car- 
 E. 85, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 851. See ante, "^r to furnish cars. Di Giorgio Import- 
 "Re^quisites and Sufficiency of Demand," -.- etc., ^Co^ .. f--y>v.i. R^Co., 1()^. 
 
 ,, 't-. 1 u \' * T? 14. General pleading. — State v. McCor- 
 
 11. Delayage charges--^ azoo etc R. ^ ^ f ^ ^^ ^ 
 
 Co. r. I-isher Bros. (Miss.), o9 So. 8m. ^^olcott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 N. E. 451, 50 
 
 11a. Jurisdiction. — Louisville, etc., K. .^^j^ g^ j^^p ^20. 
 
 Co. V. Cook Brewing Co., 90 C. C. A. 322, ^ jg_ Under Rev.' St. 1899, § 592 (Ann. 
 
 172 Fed. 117. 5t 19Q6^ p. 612), requiring the petition to 
 
 12. Form of action. — Pittsburgh, etc., contain a plain and concise statement of 
 R. Co. V. Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. the facts constituting a cause of action. 
 Rep. 682. a petition, alleging that during the four 
 
 13. Breach of express contract.— Cen- months from July to October, inclusive, 
 tral, etc., R. Co. v. Sigma Lumljer Co., plaintiff offered for shipment 120,000 feet 
 170 'Ala. '627, 54 So. 205. of oak logs of the value of $1,920 and 
 
 A declaration, in an action against a 60,000 feet of cypress logs of the value of 
 
 carrier for failure to furnish cars, which $840 from a certain station, and asked 
 
 alleged that plaintiff made requisition on for cars, but that defendant railroad failed 
 
 the carrier for cars for transportation of to furnish them, and that in consequence 
 
 the goods, and that the carrier received the logs l)ecame damaged, etc., stated a 
 
 and accepted the requisition, and which case for not furnishing cars to haul any 
 
 charged that the loss claimed to have of the logs during the months named, 
 
 been sustained by plaintiff was due to Shoptaugh v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 
 the negligence of the carrier in failing to App.), 126 S. W. 752.
 
 259 
 
 DUTY TO RECmVlv ANU CAKRV. 
 
 § 381 
 
 public duty or as the result of a contract,"' and every fact necessary to show 
 a breach of that pubhc duty or of the special contract between the parties, such 
 as a timely and sufficient tender of the goods for shipnient,'' (jr a request in due 
 time of a duly authorized agent, for necessary cars,"* and a readiness and will- 
 ingness to pay the re(|uisite freight charges. i'* l>ut where the refusal by the 
 carrier is not because of the non-pa Nuient of freight charges, it is not necessary 
 to allege a tender thereof.-" And where a railroad fails to furnish cars, plain- 
 
 16. Pleading in general. — In an action 
 for faihirc to fnrnish cars, tlic allc^^tion 
 in tlic complaint that sliippers at certain 
 points at which defendant must compete 
 with other carriers were furnished cars 
 for shipping to points to which plaintiff 
 wished to ship, and that the number of 
 cars so furnished was excessively out of 
 proportion to the numlicr furnished plain- 
 tiff, is sufficient to ciiarj^e defendant with 
 the duty of furnishing plaintiff with his 
 proportion of cars to points on its own 
 lines, or to points on connecting lines, 
 to which defendant held itself out as a 
 through carrier. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Wood, 45 Ind. App. 1, 84 N. E. 1009, 
 88 N. E. 709. 
 
 In an action for failure to furnish cars, 
 a complaint alleging that defendant is 
 a common carrier operating lines of rail- 
 road, and that it held itself out to plain- 
 tiff as a through carrier to certain points 
 beyond its lines l)y traffic arrangements 
 with connecting carriers, is not objection- 
 al)le in that it fails to allege any duty 
 which defendant owed to plaintifT. Re- 
 hearing 84 N. E. 1009, denied. Pittsburgh, 
 etc., R. Co. Wood, 45 Ind. App. 1, 
 S8 N. E. 709. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to furnish shipping facilities, the ab- 
 sence of an allegation in the complaint 
 that the defendant issued bills of lading 
 obligating itself to carry goods to points 
 beyond its own lines was not necessary 
 on the issue as to its holding itself out 
 as a through carrier to such points, 
 though such fact might be material to 
 support the averment that it held itself 
 out as a through carrier. Pittsburgh, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Wood, 45 Ind. App. 1, SS X. E. 
 709. 
 
 17. Tender. — A complaint in an action 
 against a railroad company for its fail- 
 ure to furnish a car in which to ship 
 plaintiff's timber, which does not allege 
 that the timlier was tendered to or re- 
 ceived for shipment by an agent author- 
 ized to ship the same, or that the plain- 
 tiff applied for a car to an agent author- 
 ized to furnish cars, is demurrable, though 
 it alleges that the plaintiff placed the 
 timber for shipment near the company's 
 tracks at a certain station, and that he ap- 
 plied to a freight conductor and to the 
 company's agents at other station for a 
 car. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Lee, <)9 
 Ark. 584, 65 S. W. 99. 
 
 A complaint in an action against a car- 
 rier for failure to furnish cars to a ship- 
 
 per, which alleges that the shipper had 
 placed saw logs along a carrier's tracks 
 for shipment and had made repeated de- 
 mands for cars, and that by the carrier's 
 failure to furnish cars the logs deterio- 
 rated, states a cause of action; the allega- 
 tions l)eing sufficient to show a tender for 
 shipment and demand for cars. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wynne Hoop, etc., 
 Co.. 81 .\xV. 373, 99 S. W. 375. 
 
 18. Demand for cars. — St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Lee, ny Ark. 584, 05 S. W. 99. 
 
 A complaint in an action against a rail- 
 way company for failure to furnish cars 
 which alleges that property was tendered 
 for shipment and that cars were demanded 
 in a certain month is sufficiently definite 
 as to the time when the demands were 
 made, where the stations were small, so 
 that the company might ascertain whether 
 such was the fact. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Rolfe. 7(i Ark. 220, 88 S. W. 870. 
 
 The allegation in the complaint, in an 
 action against a carrier for failure to 
 furnish cars to a shipper, that the ship- 
 per had made demand of the carrier for 
 cars, was sufficient to admit proof as to 
 the agent on whom demand was made, 
 and that he had authority to furnish cars. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wynne Hoop, 
 etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375. 
 
 19. As to payment of charges. — Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hays, 2 Tex. App. Civ. 
 Cases, § 390. See ante, "Payment or Ten- 
 der of Charges," § 360. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to furnish shipping facilities for the 
 carriage of grain, the complaint alleged 
 that the goods were tendered, and that 
 plaintiffs were "willing, ready, and able 
 to pay" the charges thereon. Held, that 
 the complaint was not insufficient for fail- 
 ing to allege payment of the freight on 
 the goods tendered, where there was no 
 basis for computing the amount of the 
 charges, as the quantity of grain to be 
 shipped depended entirely on the num- 
 ber and capacity of cars furnished by 
 the carrier. Pittsl)urgh. etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wood, 45 Ind. .^pp. 1, 84 X. E. 1009. S8 
 X. E. 709. 
 
 20. Allegation of tender of charges un- 
 necessary. — The reason for the refusal of 
 transi)ortation is alleged to l)e that the 
 Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Company 
 desired that the lumber should accumu- 
 late until they completed a junction be- 
 tween their road and the other defendant, 
 so that it would earn the profit on the 
 transportation beyond the proposed point
 
 § 381 
 
 CARRIIvRS. 
 
 260 
 
 tiff need not designate in his petition the character of cars required, defendant 
 heing uresumetl to know what kintl were needed.-' 
 
 Place of Delivery by Carrier — Value. — In an action against a railroad for 
 a general refusal to transport the complainant's goods it is not necessary to 
 allege to what place it was tendered for transportation, or its market value at 
 such place, had it heen transported hy the railroad, the action being, not for 
 failure to carry one specific lot, but a general refusal to carry.-- Where a car- 
 rier failed to furnish cars to transport plaintift"s logs, allegations of the value 
 of the two species of logs and a depreciation in value during the period they lay 
 at the station for lack of cars are sufficient to enable defendant to prepare its 
 defense so far as the measure of damages is concerned, and it is not entitled to 
 require plaintiff' to allege the market prices either at such station or at the in- 
 tended destination.-^^ 
 
 Excuses for Failure. — If any reason exists excusing a carrier from receiv- 
 ing freight for shipment or for refusing to furnish cars to a shipper, they are 
 matters for defense to be pleaded by the defendant and not the plaintiff.--* 
 
 Basis for Damages. — The petition in an action against a carrier for failure 
 or refusal to receive and carry freight or furnish cars for transportation of 
 property, must allege a basis for damages resultant from the negligence or will- 
 ful act of the carrier.-"' In an action for a continuous failure to furnish trans- 
 portation for freight, it is sufficient in alleging a basis for damages to charge 
 what could have been realized from sales if transportation had been furnished 
 and the loss which resulted from being compelled to keep it at a point where it 
 could not be sold, with a specific statement of the expenses incident to its 
 detention.-" 
 
 of connection. This shows that the re- 
 fusal to carry was not on account of the 
 nonpayment of freights, and, therefore, a 
 tender was not necessary to be alleged. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 
 49, 58, 3 S. W. 457. 
 
 21. Designating kind of cars. — vShop- 
 taugh V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 
 126 S. W. 752. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to furnish shipping facilities, a com- 
 plaint alleging that defendant was a com- 
 mon carrier of grain, and that plaintiffs 
 tendered grain for shipment and de- 
 manded "suitable cars" therefor, was not 
 open to the objection that it did not al- 
 lege the class of cars demanded. Pitts- 
 burgh, etc., R. Co. V. Wood, 45 Ind. App. 
 1, 84 X. K. 1009, 88 X. E. 709. 
 
 22. General failure to transport. — Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co. V. Morris, ()8 Tex. 49, 
 3 S. W. 457. 
 
 In such suit allegations of tender and 
 refusal of freight to the points to which 
 it was desired to ship the lumber are not 
 necessary. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Mor- 
 ris, 68 Tex. 49, 58, 3 S. W. 457. 
 
 Plaintififs, under the circumstances, 
 could make no contracts to deliver be- 
 cause they could not get the necessary 
 transportation, and hence could not have 
 averred the points to which it was to have 
 been carrier. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Mor- 
 ris, 68 Tex. 49, 58, 3 S. W. 457. 
 
 23. Allegation of value — Market price.— 
 Shoptaugh V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 126 S. W. 752. 
 
 24. Pleading matter of defense. — In an 
 
 action against a common carrier to re- 
 cover damages for its failure to provide 
 a shipper with transportation on demand 
 by him, that defendant was unable to 
 furnish plaintiff with cars except by un- 
 due interference with its business, or with 
 the rights of other shippers, is a matter 
 of defense. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wol- 
 cott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 N. E. 451, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 320. 
 
 25. Basis for damages. — A complaint in 
 an action against a carrier for failure to 
 furnish cars to a shipper on demand, 
 which alleges that the shipper placed logs 
 along the carrier's tracks for shipmeiit 
 'and demanded cars on which to ship 
 them, and that the carrier neglected to 
 furnish a suf^cient number of cars, and 
 that by reason thereof the logs deterio- 
 rated in value from exposure to the 
 weather in a specified sum, and that by 
 the carrier's negligent refusal to furnish 
 cars the shipper was damaged, sufficiently 
 charges that the negligence of the car- 
 rier in failing to furnish cars was the 
 proximate cause of the shipper's injury, 
 as against the objection that the injury 
 was due to the exposure of the logs to 
 the weather. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wynne Hoop, etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 
 S. W. 375. 
 
 26. Allegations in action for failure to 
 furnish transportation. — Central, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Morris, 68 Tex. 49, 3 S. W. 457.
 
 261 
 
 IJI'TV TO KKCKINI-: AM) CARRY 
 
 § 381 
 
 Answer. — In an action against a carrier for failure to furnish cars after 
 demand, an answer failing to allege facts showing that the carrier had performed 
 its (lutv of providing a suf^cient numher of cars to meet the ordinary needs of 
 its business, which it could reasonably anticipate, or that the scarcity of cars 
 and existing demands for them were the result of circuiustances beyond its 
 power reasonabl}' to coiilrol and jjrovidc against is demurrable.-' 
 
 Variance. — There is no \ariaiue when the allegation upon which the vari- 
 ance is predicated is immaterial. Thus, it has been held that the date alleged in 
 the petition was immaterial.-'^ 
 
 Evidence. — As railroad companies are not required at all times and under 
 all conditions to lia\e sufficient cars to take care of all demands, evidence to 
 show unusual demands at certain times, an e(|uitable distribution of cars at such 
 times, and that the failure to su])ply was justified under the conditions existing 
 at the time, should be admitted.-'' And in such a case the plaintiff is properly 
 allowed to prove by other shippers that in the seasons preceding the one in 
 question there was a car slKjrtage on defendant's road, in the district from which 
 plaintiff was shi]:)]')ing.-''" 
 
 Question of Law and Fact. — In accordance with the general rule, the (jues- 
 tion as to whetlicr a carrier has breached his ])ublic duty or his contract by fail- 
 ing to receive goods for shipment by failure to furnish cars, or by negligently 
 failing to move them after receiving them is one for the jury, where there is 
 evidence on the question upon which the minds of reasonable men might dift'er.-'* 
 The rule that whether a carrier negligently failed to supply cars when demanded 
 is for th.e jury applies onh- where a s])ecific and definite notice of the time when 
 the cars are required is shown.'- The question as to whether a carrier unreason- 
 
 27. Answer — Demurrer. — Judj^ment, 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 42 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 331, 98 S. W. 450, reversed. Allen 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 100 Tex. 525, 101 
 S. W. 792, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 618, 
 11 L. R. A., N. S., 981. 
 
 28. There is no variance between the al- 
 legation of a petition in an action against 
 a carrier for failure to furnish cars that 
 plaintiff had on hand at a station for ship- 
 ment in the month of July a stated 
 quantity of logs, that he demanded cars 
 to load them, and that the carrier failed 
 to furnish cars, and the proof that the 
 logs remained at the station until No- 
 vember, while plaintiff was vainly re- 
 questing cars; the date alleged in the pe- 
 tition being immaterial. Hoffman, etc.. 
 Stave Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 119 
 Mo. App. 495, 94 S. W. 597. 
 
 29. Evidence — Admissibility. — Mulberry 
 Hill Coal C.I. :■. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 161 
 111. App. 27:2. 
 
 30. Conditions preceding seasons as evi- 
 dence.- — Cronan v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mo. App.), 130 S. W. 437. 
 
 31. Porter v. Raleigh, etc.. R. Co.. 132 
 N. C. 71, 43 S. E. 547. 
 
 In an action to rccuvcr damages result- 
 ing from defendant's refusal to accept 
 plaintiff's grain for shipment, it was con- 
 tended, in defense, that the negligence of 
 plaintiff in refusing to receive and store 
 previous shipments of grain at the point 
 of destination prevented the carrier from 
 receiving the later shipment. Held, that 
 the question of plaintiff's negligence was 
 
 for the jury. Cobb, etc., Co. Z'. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co.. 38 Iowa 601. 
 
 Whether defendant, a carrier, with 
 knowledge of all the facts, interfered with 
 plaintiff's shipment of a monument over 
 its line by refusing its regular service 
 which would have been adequate to de- 
 liver the monumeiU by the date provided 
 for in plaintiff's contract with the pur- 
 chasers, and shipped it by special service 
 at a much greater expense, which had to 
 be paid from the fund provided for the 
 purchase of the monument, and hence ulti- 
 mately by plaintiff, held to be a question 
 for the jury. Harrison Granite Co. v. 
 Pennsvlvania R. Co., 154 Mich. 48, 117 
 X. W. 549. 
 
 Failure to furnish cars. — In an action 
 against a common carrier for failure to 
 furnish cars to sliip timber, where the 
 uncontradicted evidence showed that de- 
 fendant agreed to furnish at least one car 
 a day and several times told plaintiff that 
 cars would be furnished, and tliat when 
 he inquired as to the situation and noti- 
 fied defendant that he was keeping a large 
 crew of men on hand at a large expense 
 to have theni ready to load cars, defend- 
 ant notified him that the cars would be 
 furnished, the court was justified in re- 
 fusing to declare as a matter of law. that 
 there was no evidence of an agreement 
 to furnish cars. Cronan v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mo. App.). 130 S. W. 437. 
 
 32. Negligence in furnishing cars. — Di- 
 Gioruio Importing, etc.. Co. v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co.. 104 Md. 693, 65 .-Ktl. 425, 8 
 
 L. R. A.. X. S.. los.
 
 §§ 381-382 
 
 CARRIIvRS. 
 
 262 
 
 ablv neglected to provide a sufficient number of cars to forward freight is for 
 the' iury.--^ and as a general thing the validity and sufficiency of excuses made 
 by a carrier for failure to receive goods is for the jury.-^ The shipper can not 
 -omphin of the submission to the jury as a question of fact, whether or not, 
 on account of an accumulation of freight or press of business, all the cars be- 
 longing to carrier suitable for the shipper's purpose were in use, making it im- 
 possible to furnish a car on the day in question, and whether or not^ the earner 
 wa*^ prevented bv anv unavoidable delay caused by the use of cars.^^ 
 
 Instructions.— In' suits against carriers for failure or refusal to receive 
 goods for shipment, the instructions are to be limited by the issues raised by 
 the pleaiHngs as in other cases.-^'"' , • i i i 
 
 Nonsuit.— In an action against a carrier for the value of lumber which had 
 been ordered bv a customer from plaintiff, but which became a total loss because 
 of the carrier's failure to accept it for transportation, a nonsuit was properly 
 granted, where the execution of the written order for the lumber was not 
 l-'roven.-'" 
 
 § 382. Damages.— Duty of Owner to Avert or Mitigate Loss.— When 
 a railroad wrongfullv refuses to take and transport property when offered, the 
 owner must care for and ])reserve his property pending the delay .•'•^ _ 
 
 Enhancing Damages.— A shipper has no right to enhance his damages 
 caused by a carrier's failure to receive his goods or to furnish facilities for 
 shipping.^'' On breach of a contract to carry by vessel an ordinary article of 
 merchandise, the shipper will not be justified in procuring shipment by rail, if 
 the railroad prices would render it unprofitable, since a person has no right to 
 put others to an expense of such a nature as he would not as a reasonable man 
 incur on his own account.-^" In case of an article of specific utility for preserva- 
 tion, where the circumstances are such as to justify employing any transporta- 
 tion' which is accessible, and to render the difference in cost in transportation a 
 proper measure of damages, the shipper, on failure of the carrier to furnish 
 transportation as agreed, is bound to seek other means of carriage immediately 
 at hand, and is not permitted to await his leisure and speculate on future chances 
 
 33. Question for jury. — Judgment, 87 
 N. Y. S. 30, U2 App. Div. 584, affirmed. 
 Strough V. New York Cent. R. Co., 181 
 N. Y. 533, 73 N. E. 1133. 
 
 34. Excuses for failure. — In an action 
 against a carrier for failure to furnish 
 plaintiff with cars, evidence held suffi- 
 cient to make it a question for the jury 
 whether there was such a sudden and un- 
 usual increase of business and demand 
 for cars over defendant's road as to re- 
 lease it from its liability for failure to 
 furnish the cars. Dillender v. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 130 S. W. 107. 
 
 35. Question for jury. — Hastings v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 53 Hun 638, 6 N. 
 Y. S. 836, 25 N. Y. St. Rep. 249, 3 Silvei 
 nail 422. 
 
 36. Instructions. — Where* a shipper 
 leased his action against carrier upon its 
 failure to furnish cars on a given date al- 
 leged to be a reasonal)le time after de- 
 mand, a charge authorizing a recovery 
 on failure to furnish cars in a reasonable 
 time generally was erroneous as submit- 
 ting an issue not pleaded. Galveston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Word (Tex. Civ. App.), 124 
 S. W. 478. 
 
 37. Nonsuit for failure of proof. — Kent 
 
 V. Wadley. etc.. R. Co., 13C. Ga. 857, 72 
 S. E. 413. 
 
 38. Duty of owner to mitigate. — Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, (13 Tex. 322, 328, 
 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 421; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 19 S. W. 
 963. 
 
 Where plaintiff negligently left cotton 
 with a railroad company after its refusal 
 to take it, he can not recover for dam- 
 ages to it. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 
 63 Tex. 322, 328, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 431. 
 
 39. Enhancing damages. — In an action 
 against a railroad for failure to furnish 
 cars to transport plaintiff's logs, where 
 plaintiff did not know from the first that 
 he could not ship, that aftei discovering 
 such fact he continued to haul logs to 
 the station was not a defense, but cause 
 only for denying redress to the extent he 
 increased his damage by accumulating 
 logs after he knew that cars would not 
 he available. Shoptaugh v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 126 S. W. 752. 
 
 40. Extra expenses needlessly made. — 
 Ward's Cent., etc., Co. v. Elkins. 34 Mich. 
 439, 22 Am. Rep. 544.
 
 263 
 
 DUTY TO KKCKIVI-: AND CAKRV. 
 
 § 382 
 
 Ly making piecemeal shipments. ^ ' The mere fact that a shipper loads the 
 fresher logs first on cars furnished will not bar a recovery, unless the shipper 
 has reason to believe that the carrier will not furnish a sufficient number of 
 cars to remove all the logs before damage thereto will occur.-*- 
 
 Elements and Measure of Damag-es. — A shipper is entitled to recover 
 only sucli damages as were tiie natural and proximate consequences of the 
 failure of a carrier to furnish cars.-*-' The elements of damages occasioned a 
 shipper by a common carrier's refusal or failure to receive his goods would be 
 the loss occasioned 1)V the refusal or failure," and the reasonable expense of 
 keeping the goods during the delay .^■'' And the carrier, where freight is ten- 
 dered to it by delivery at the depot and wrongfully refused, is liable for the ex- 
 pense incurred in carr\ing it a second time to the depot, from which the owner 
 had received it.^'' \\ here a railroad company has wrongfully failed to furnish 
 the owners of a coal mine on its road with cars for the transportation of their 
 coal, the expenses of the coal owners wliile they were expecting cars to be fur- 
 nished, and anv reasonable profits tlie\ coulil have earned during the time the 
 miners were in their employment, may be considered in estimating damages.-*^ 
 A person -sustaining loss by a carrier's refusal to transport freight on stipulated 
 rates niav recover loss sustained on contracts made on the faith of such rates.'*'* 
 But the failure of a common carrier to provide facilities for the shipment of a 
 commoditv. whereby plaintiff is prevented from selling a stock of such com- 
 modity to others for shi]Miient. does not constitute a legal ground for the re- 
 coverv of (lamafres.-*'' Xor cim a dealer reco\er damages for a carrier's refusal 
 
 41. Article of specific utility for pres- 
 ervation. — Ward's Cent., etc., Co. v. I'.lk- 
 ins. :i4 Mich. 4.39, 22 Am. Rep. 544. 
 
 42. Order of loading logs. — St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Wynne Hoop, etc., Co., 81 
 Ark. ;}73. 99 S. W. :'.:."). 
 
 43. Proximate consequences. — Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Queen City Coal Co., 
 13 Ky. L. Rep. 832. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to furnish cars for the transportation 
 of logs, the evidence showed that after 
 the logs had l)een cut for ihree months 
 they would deteriorate; that the shipper 
 placed logs along the carrier's tracks for 
 shipment and demanded cars; that the 
 carrier failed to furnish cars; that the only 
 value of the logs consisted in their use 
 for hoops, and to l)e valuable the same had 
 to I)e manufactured before decay; and 
 that, if shipped proirji*' ■ '''- ;;- — ■■ --o -1 1 
 have been manufactured before deteriora- 
 tion. Held, tliat any delay in the ship- 
 ment which prevented the manufacture of 
 the logs into hoops before decay began 
 directly contributed to and was the proxi- 
 mate cause of any deterioration in the 
 value of the logs. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Wynne Hoop, etc., Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 
 S. W. 37.-.. 
 
 44. Loss and expense. — Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Smith, (13 Tex. 322, 22 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 421; Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Queen City Coal Co.. 13 Ky. L. Rep. 
 832. 
 
 Where one failed to deli\er cars at a 
 certain place as contracted for, the meas- 
 ure of damages would be such a sum as 
 would compensate the other party for the 
 
 damage sustained l)y him from such fail- 
 ure. Williams v. Armour Car Lines 
 (Del.), 79 Atl. 919. 
 
 A common carrier is lia1)le to a ship- 
 per, for the failure to furnish cars, for 
 such actual damages as were sustained 
 liy reason of any failure or default on its 
 part to deliver the cars as requested. Ya- 
 zoo, etc., R. Co. V. Fisher Bros. (Miss.), 
 59 So. 877. 
 
 Heating and spoiling of grain. — Where 
 a carrier refused to receive and transport 
 grain properly stored for transportation, 
 the shipper may show that because of 
 such refusal his grain became heated and 
 spoiled, although this resulted from some- 
 thing inherent in the nature of the grain 
 itself. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Morton, 
 (Jl I ml. 5:!9, 28 Am. Rep. ()S2. 
 
 45. Expense during delay. — Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Smith, G3 Tex. 322, 22 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 421; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. v. Queen City Coal Co., 13 Kv. L. 
 Rep. 832; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Xeel, 
 56 Ark. 279, 19 S. W. 963. 
 
 46. Expense of redelivering it to car- 
 rier. — Inman r. St. Louis, etc.. R. C<>., 14 
 Tex. Civ. App. 39. 37 S. W. 37. 
 
 47. Failure to furnish cars for shipment 
 of coal. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Queen 
 Ciiy Coal Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep. 832. 
 
 48. Loss sustained on contracts. — 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. Higdon. 149 Ky. 
 321. 14S S. W. 2f.. 
 
 49. Failure to sell others. — Little Rock, 
 etc., R. Co. z'. Conatser, 61 Ark. 560, 33 
 S. W. 1057; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 O een Citv Coal Co., 13 Kv. L. Rep. 832.
 
 § 382 
 
 CAKRIKKS. 
 
 264 
 
 to transport coal arising from his contract to buy the coal to be carried, where 
 the amount of coal to be delivered was optional with the seller, and it does not 
 appear that the dealer made any contracts for resale on the faith of it thai 
 caused him loss ; but as to another agreement binding the seller to deliver a 
 specified amount the dealer can recover the enhanced cost of delivering coal 
 under contracts for resale made on the strength of such agreement."'" 
 
 Measure of Damages. — In an action against a carrier for refusal to receive 
 and transport goods, plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the 
 value of the property where it was tendered to the comi^any and its value at 
 the place to which it was to be taken, less expense of transportation if the con- 
 tract required the shipper to pay the same/"*^ The carrier is liable for the amount 
 lost bv a decline in the market pending delay, which is to be estimated by ascer- 
 taining its price there, when it should ha\c arrived, had it been taken when 
 oft'ered, and its price at the time when it did arrive."^- 
 
 Refusal to Furnish Cars. — Where a railroad company fails to furnish the 
 owners of a coal mine on its road with cars for the transportation of their 
 coal, the measure of damages is the dift'erence between the value of the coal at 
 the mines and on the market. •''•'' But in an action against a railroad for failure 
 to provide cars for the shipment of plaintiff's corn, the latter can not recover 
 both the profits he might have made if the corn had been shipped and the ex- 
 penses incurred in preparing it for transportation. ^^ And where a seller looses 
 the benefit of the sale by the refusal of a railroad company to furnish him with 
 cars his measure of damages is the profits lost by his inability to fulfill his 
 
 50. Contemplated sales — Enhanced cost 
 of delivery. — Crescent Coal Co. v. Louis- 
 ville, etc.. R. Co., 143 Ky. 73, 135 S. W. 
 768, 33 L. R. A.. X. S., 442. 
 
 51. Measure of damages. — People v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 22 Hun 
 533; Inman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 14 
 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S. W. 37; Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Queen City Coal Co., 13 
 K}'. L. Rep. 832. 
 
 Where a carrier failed to furnish cars 
 for the shipment of hay and the necessi- 
 ties of the shipper required him to sell 
 the hay at the local price, he could re- 
 cover the difference between the local 
 price and what he could have obtained in 
 the desired market. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Leder Bros., 87 Ark. 298, 112 S. 
 W. 744. 
 
 The measure of damages for failure of 
 a carrier to furnish cars to a shipper, re- 
 sulting in damage of the goods, is the 
 difference in their value at the place of 
 shipment when offered for transportation 
 and their value at the same place when 
 shipping facilities were furnished. Richey, 
 etc., Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 110 
 Minn. 347, 125 N. W. 897. 
 
 The measure of damages for the re- 
 fusal of a carrier to accept and transport 
 freight tendered to it by one who had 
 sold it under contract, is the difference 
 between the contract price and the value 
 of the grain at the point of shipment, less 
 the cost of shipment, if the contract re- 
 quired the shipper to pa> the same, if the 
 contract price was less than the market 
 value at destination, whether the carrier 
 knew of the contract or not. Missouri, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Witherspoon, 18 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 615, 45 S. W. 424. 
 
 The measure of damages for a carrier's 
 refusal to accept goods for sliipment as 
 routed by the shipper, where the property 
 is wanted only because of its salability, 
 is the difference between the market 
 value at the destination to which it was 
 to have been carrier at the time when it 
 should have arrived there, and its value 
 at the same time at the place from which 
 it was to have l)een carried, less the 
 freight. Inman v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S W. 37. 
 
 Where the action was brought on ac- 
 count of any one specific failure to trans- 
 port any one lot of lumber, the difference 
 between the price of the lumber at the 
 point of departure and the price at its 
 place of destination, less the freight, is 
 the proper measure. Central, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Morris, 68 Tex. 49, 60, 3 S. W. 457. 
 
 52. Decline in market. — Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322, 329, 22 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 421. 
 
 53. Failure to furnish coal cars. — Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Queen City Coal Co., 
 13 Ky. L. Rep. 832. 
 
 Instructions that measure of damages 
 for railroad company's failure to furnish 
 mineowner cars was difference between 
 the cost of mining and selling price held 
 erroneous because it sliould have taken 
 into account the value of the coal left in 
 the ground. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. River, 
 etc.. Coke Co., 150 Ky. 489, 150 S. W. 641, 
 44 L. R. A., N. S., 185. 
 
 54. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hodge, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 543, 30 S. W. 829.
 
 265 
 
 DUTY TO KKCEIVli AN1> CAKRV 
 
 §§ 382-383 
 
 agreement, proxide*! lie uouhl otherwise ha\e performed the same.'"'' And it 
 is immaterial whether the carrier has knowledge of the contract of sale.^*' 
 
 Exemplary Damages.— Where a railway company refuses to carry goods 
 out of ill-will, or in willful disregard of the rights of the person ofTering them, 
 exemplary daniiiges may he given. •'"'' But the fact that a carrier is unable to 
 furnish cars because of unprecedented amount of business is no ground for 
 punitive damages.''^ 
 
 Excessive or Inadequate Damages. — In actions against a carrier for dam- 
 ages resulting from a failure or refusal to receive or carry freight properly 
 tendered or furnish cars upon proper demand, the courts follow the general 
 rule and will not disturb the verdict of the jury because of the amount found 
 unless it is clearly and plainly excessive or inaflequate. •''''•' 
 
 § 383. Penalties for Wrongful Refusal. — As to statutory penalties for 
 the wron<,'tul refusal or failure to receive and carry goods properly and sufifi- 
 ciently offered for transportation, see ante, "Penalties for \'iolations of Reg- 
 ulations." §§ 181-275. 
 
 55. Loss of sale or fulfillment of con- 
 tract. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 
 91 Tex. 5.j1. 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225. 
 
 56. Knowledge of contract of sale. — 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ Canipl)cll, 91 Tex. 
 551, 45 S. W. 2, 4,'! L. R. A. 225. 
 
 57. Exemplary damages. — .Avinger v. 
 South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 365, 7 S. 
 E. 493, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716, 35 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 519. 
 
 58. Press of business. — Mauldin v. Sea- 
 board, etc.. Railway, 73 S. C. 9, 52 S. E. 
 677, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 547. 
 
 59. Excessive or inadequate damages. — 
 In an action against a carrier for failure 
 to furnish cars for the transportation of 
 timber, the evidence showed that the 
 shipper placed near the track 312,000 feet 
 of elm logs for transportation. The logs 
 at the place of siiipment undamaged were 
 worth $10 per 1,000 feet. On account of 
 delay in the shipment, due to the failure 
 of the carrier to furnish cars on demand, 
 the logs were damaged to the extent of 
 80 per cent, of their value. Held, that a 
 verdict for $2,496 was not excessive. St. 
 Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Wj^nne Hoop, etc., 
 Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 When Liarilitv Commences. 
 I. In General, § 3S4. 
 II. Necessity for and Effect of Delivery and Acceptance, § 385. 
 
 III. What Constitutes Delivery and Acceptance, §§ 386-407. 
 
 A. In General, § 386. 
 
 B. Ordinarj' Course of Business as Common Carrier, § 387. 
 
 C. Place and Time of Delivery, § 388. 
 
 D. Notice of Deposit and Acceptance, §§ 389-392. 
 
 a. In General, § 389. 
 
 b. Actual and Constructive Notice and Acceptance. §§ 390-392. 
 
 (1) In General, § 390. 
 
 (2) Constructive Notice and Acceptance — Custom or Agreement, § 391. 
 
 (3) Goods Loaded on Cars. § 392. 
 
 E. Authority of Agent to Receive Goods, §§ 393-398. 
 
 a. In General, § 393. 
 
 b. Officers and Agents in General, § 394. 
 
 c. Authority of Third Persons — Special Agents, §§ 395-397. 
 
 (1) In General, § 395. 
 
 (2) Delivery to Lighterman to Be Carried to Ship, § 396. 
 
 (3) Delivery of Cotton to Compress Company, § 397. 
 
 d. Proof of Authority, § 398. 
 
 F. Complete Delivery for Immediate Shipment, §§ 399-406. 
 
 a. In General, § 399. 
 
 b. Exclusive Possession and Control, § 400. 
 
 c. Delivery for Immediate Shipment or Storage, §§ 401-406. 
 
 (1) In General, § 401. 
 
 (2) Something to Be Done Prior to Transportation, §§ 402-406. 
 
 (a) In General. § 402. 
 
 (b) Absence of Directions as to Shipment, § 403. 
 
 (c) Payment of Charges, § 404. 
 
 'd) Deposit Subject to Shipper's Order, § 403. 
 (e) Necessity for Loading on Cars, § 406. 
 
 G. Necessity for and Effect of Bill of Lading, § 407. 
 
 IV. Evidence of Delivery, §§ 408-411. 
 
 A. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 408. 
 
 B. Admissibility of Evidence to Show Delivery, § 409. 
 
 C. Sufficiency of Evidence of Delivery, §§ 410-411. 
 
 a. In General, § 410. 
 
 b. Bill of Lading or Receipt as Evidence, § 411. 
 
 V. Question of Law or Fact, § 412. 
 
 § 384. In General. — Although common carriers are insurers of property 
 entrusted to them for shipment, this insurance is not primary or special in its 
 nature, but only incidental to the contract of carriage and neither begins earlier 
 nor continues longer than is necessary to secure faithful and efficient execution 
 of the contract of carriage.' 
 
 § 38 5. Necessity for and Effect of Delivery and Acceptance, — The 
 
 general rule is tliat the receipt of t!ie goods lies at the foundation of the con- 
 
 1. When liability commences — In general. — Hutchinson v. United States Exp. 
 Co.. 63 W. \a. 128, 59 S. E. 949.
 
 267 
 
 WIIKX LIAIIILITV COMMKNCES. 
 
 § 38: 
 
 tract to carry and deliver, and if no goods are actually received there can be 
 no valid contract to carry or deliver.- A contract with a common carrier for 
 the transportation of property being one of bailment, it is necessary, in order 
 to charge him for its loss, that it be delivered to and accepted by him for that 
 purpose,'' either actuallv or constructively.^ The general rule is that a common 
 carrier's liability, as such, begins as goods are delivered to and accepted by it 
 for immediate transportation."' 
 
 2. Receipt of goods foundation of con- 
 tract. — i'ollard V. \"\uum, 105 U. S. 7, 2G 
 L. lid. 998; Missouri t'ac. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Fadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 
 S. Ct. 990; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 
 S. Ct. 1132. See The Lady Franklin (U. 
 S.), 8 Wall. 325, 19 L. Ed. 453. 
 
 "The liability of a carrier begins wiien 
 the goods are delivered to him or ins 
 proper servant and authorized to rece'Tve 
 them for carriage." Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 
 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 The lial)ility of a common carrier at- 
 taches l)y virtue either of full delivery of 
 the merchandise to be transported or by 
 acceptance of sucli merchandise by the 
 carrier. Corning & Co. v. Peoria, etc.. R. 
 Co., 144 111. App. 407; Sturdevant v. Tut- 
 tle, 22 O. St. Ill; Dean v. King, 22 O. St. 
 118; Colburn v. Oberlin Bldg., etc., Ass'n, 
 35 O. St. 258. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier 
 for failure to rarry goods, the plaintiff 
 must aver a delivery. It is not sufficient 
 to aver that the carrier executed a bill 
 of lading acknowledging the receipt of 
 the goods. Page & Co. z. Sandusky, 
 etc.. R. Co., 4 West. L. M. R44. 2 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 716; Spofford v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97: Southern Exp. 
 Co. r. AIc\eigh, (Jl \a. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 3. Contract one of bailment. — Stewart 
 V. Gracy, 93 Tenn. 314. 320, 27 S. W. 6(14. 
 
 Depot agent acting as agent in pur- 
 chasing cotton, for shipment under direc- 
 tions — Railroad seized by confederate 
 government Failure to ship. — Where it 
 appeared lluU plaintiff had employed C, 
 who was a depot agent for defendant car- 
 rier, to purchase cotton for him and to 
 hold and ship it under his directions, it 
 was held that C. in so dealing in cotton 
 for plaintiff, acted solely as plaintiff's 
 agent, and that where it also appeared 
 tiiat plaintiff had instructed C. not to ship 
 until he had purchased a certain number 
 of bales, and before C. had acquired the 
 requisite number, the railroad was taken 
 by the Confederate Government, but C. — 
 thereafter acquired the requisite number 
 of bales, defendant was not liable as a 
 common carrier for failure to ship the cot- 
 ton, and the fact that the railroad was 
 seized by the Confederate Government, 
 was at least some evidence that defend- 
 ant never received the cotton at all. cither 
 as bailee or common carrier. Sumner v. 
 Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 78 X. C. 2S9. 
 
 4. Actual or constructive delivery. -To 
 make a railroad company liatde as a 
 common carrier or warehouseman for 
 baggage lost, it must have been delivered 
 to and accepted by the carrier, either 
 actually or constructively. Williams T'. 
 Southern R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 42 R. R. 
 R. 105. 65 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S.. 
 105, 71 S. E. :;4f.. 
 
 5. Acceptance for immediate transpor- 
 tation. — United States. — Xorth Pennsylva- 
 nia R. Co. V. Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 
 727. 31 L. Ed. 287. 8 S. Ct. 266; Pratt V. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co.. 95 U. S. 43. 44. 24 
 L. Ed. 336; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Swift (U. S.), 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 
 423; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 
 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 Alabama. — Southwestern R. Co. v. 
 Webb, 48 Ala. 585. 
 
 Arkansas. — The lial)ility of a drayage 
 company as a common carrier began 
 when it accepted and received goods 
 situated in a car on a house track com- 
 monly used for unloading goods, when 
 it took possession of the car and be- 
 gan actual removal of the goods, 
 Arkadelphia Mill. Co. v. Smoker Mer- 
 chandise Co.. 100 Ark. 37. 42 R. R. R. 
 619, 65 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., G19, 
 139 S. W. 680. 
 
 Connecticut. — Merriam v. Hartford, etc., 
 R. Co.. 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344, 
 Trowbridge v. Chapin, 23 Conn. 595. 
 
 Dcla-Mirc. — Truax i: Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 233. 
 
 Georgia. — Wilson v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 82 Ga. 386. 9 S. E. 1076. 
 
 Illinois. — Michigan, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Alevres. 21 111. 627; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 z'. Smyser. 38 111. 354. 87 Am. Dec. 301. 
 
 Iowa. — Green r. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 
 41 Iowa 410; Lennon v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 127 Iowa 431, 16 R. R. R. 45, 39 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 45, 103 X. W. 
 343. 
 
 Maine. — McQuesten r. Sanford. 40 Me. 
 117. 
 
 Massaclnisetts. — Pitlock f. Wells, etc., 
 Co.. 109 Mass. 452. 
 
 .U/r/i/VaH.— Wright v. Caldwell. 3 Mich. 
 51: Michigan, etc.. R. Co. :■. McDonough, 
 21 Mich. 165, 4 Am. Rep. 466. 
 
 .Mississif^fi. — Anderson v. Mobile, etc., 
 R. Co. (Miss.), 19 R. R. R. 382, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S.. 382. 38 So. 661; 
 Tate V. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co.. 78 Miss. 482. 
 29 So. 392. 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 
 461. 84 Am. St. Rep. 649. 
 
 .Vt-ti- York. — Ball z-. Xew Jersey Steam-
 
 CARRIER: 
 
 268 
 
 §§ 385-386 
 
 Waiver of Delivery — Breach of Contract. — When a railway company an- 
 nounces through its agent that it will not make a shipment at a time previously 
 contracted for, a tender of the articles to he shipped at the time previously 
 agreed on is thereby waived and rendered unnecessary to fix the liahility of 
 the companv for resulting damages." And a parol contract hy which a railroad 
 company agrees to receive cattle on its cars for transportation on a certain day 
 and which is violated by not having the cars as agreed on, may he made the 
 basis of recoverv against the company for all damages caused thereby; and it 
 can not be claimed that its liability did not attach until the signing of a bill of 
 lading for the cattle, which were delivered on a subsequent day, and after such 
 violation of the contract by the carrier. The liability of the company was for a 
 breach of contract, which made delivery impossible.' 
 
 Action for Refusal to Furnish Cars. — Where goods are placed at a station 
 upon the line of a railroad to be transported, the refusal of the carrier to fur- 
 nish cars for the carriage of the property relieves the owner from the necessity 
 of making any further delivery or offer to deliver as a condition precedent to 
 a right of action against the carrier on account of such refusal.'^ 
 
 Liability as for Money Had and Received. — Where a person left a sealed 
 package containing treasury notes at the office of an express company to be 
 carried to a point to which the company was not a common carrier although the 
 package was not carried to and after demand made could not be found, the 
 company was not liable as for money had and received.'' 
 
 §§ 386-407. What Constitutes Delivery and Acceptance — § 386. In 
 General. — Delivery t(j. and accei)tance by, the carrier is com])lete whenever the 
 
 boat Co. (X. Y.), 1 Daly 491; Grosvenor 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34, 5 
 Abb. Prac, N. S., 345; Packard v. Getman 
 (X. Y.), 6 Cow. 757, 16 Am. Dec. 475; 
 Salinger v. Simmons (N. Y.), 57 Barb. 
 513. 8 Abb. Prac, X. S., 409, 2 Lans. 325; 
 Blanchard v. Isaacs (X. Y.), 3 Barb. 388. 
 Xortli Carolina. — Wells V. Wilmington, 
 etc., R. Co.. 51 X. C. 47, 72 Am. Dec. 556; 
 Williams v. Southern R. Co., 155 X. C. 
 260, 42 R. R. R. 105, 65 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., X. S., 105, 71 S. E. 346. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Spofford v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97. 
 
 South Carolina. — Park z: Southern 
 Railway, 78 S. C. 302, 25 R. R. R. 573, 
 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 573, 58 S. 
 E. 931. 
 
 Tennessee. — Stewart v. Gracy, 93 Tenn. 
 314, 27 S. W. 664; Watson v. Memphis, 
 etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 255. 
 • Texas.— Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Riley 
 (Tex. Cr. App.), 1 S. W. 446; Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hodde, 42 Tex. 467; 
 Yoakum v. Dryden (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 
 S. W. 312; International, etc., R. Co. y. 
 Dimmit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 186, 23 S. W. 754, distinguishing 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Xicholson, 61 Tex. 
 491, 495, and Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCor- 
 quodale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80, and fol- 
 lowing East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 64 
 Tex. 615, and Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Trawick, 
 80 Tex. 270, 15 S. W. 568, 18 S. W. 948; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 165. 
 
 There is an apparent conflict between 
 the authorities above cited and the cases 
 of Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Xicholson, 61 
 Tex. 491, 495, and Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80; 
 but in those two cases the railway had 
 contracted to receive and ship the cat- 
 tle at certain dates, but refused to re- 
 ceive them when presented for shipment, 
 and it was held that the railways were 
 responsible as mere individuals for breach 
 of their contract. International, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Dimmit County Pasture Co., 5 
 Tex. Civ. App. 186. 188, 23 S. W. 754. 
 
 Virginia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Veigh, 61 Va. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 West Firgin-ia. — Dudley v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 58 W. Va. 604, 52 S. E. 718. 
 
 Canada. — Kerr v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 24 U. C. C. P. 209. 
 
 6. Waiver — Breach of contract. — Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Xicholson, 61 Tex. 491. 
 See ante, "Duty to Receive and Carry," 
 chapter 4. 
 
 7. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. X'^icholson, 61 
 Tex. 491. 
 
 8. Refusal to furnish cars. — Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Flannagan, 113 Ind. 488, 32 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 53, 14 X. E. 370, 3 
 Am. St. Rep. 674. See post, "Duty to 
 Receive and Carry," F'art II, cliap. I. 
 
 9. Liability as for money had and re- 
 ceived. — Pitlock V. Wells, etc., Co., 109 
 Mass. 452. See post, "Destination of 
 Goods as Affecting Duty," § 376.
 
 260 
 
 WIIKX IJAHILITV COMMENCES. 
 
 §§ 386-388 
 
 I)roi)erty conies into his possession with his assent. i*' In order to constitute a 
 sufficient delivery, there must be, as a general rule, an actual change of posses- 
 sion from shipper to carrier." It is essential that they be placed in a position 
 to be cared for, and under the control of the carrier or his agent, with his 
 knowledge and consent. '- 
 
 Place, Time and Agent to Receive. — Generally speaking it is essential to 
 the esl;ihli>linK-nt of haliilily as a common carrier for the loss of goods to show 
 delivery to the carrier at a customary place, during the usual business hours, 
 and to an authorized agent of the carrier. '■• 
 
 § 38 7. Ordinary Course of Business as Common Carrier. — The deliv- 
 ery must be to him or his agent in the capacity of a common carrier, and not 
 to the agent to carrv for his own profit," or without compensation and contrary 
 to the regulations of the carrier known at the time.^'' 
 
 § 388. Place and Time of Delivery. — As a general rule, it may be said 
 that a railroad company is not bound to receive freight except at stations; but 
 it may, as a result of a custom, or as a consequence of an express contract, be- 
 come obligated to receive freight at a point on its line of railway where there 
 is no station, dejwt, i)lattorm. cars, or agent. i'' Goods which are ready, at a 
 
 10. What constitutes dehvery in gen- 
 eral. — I'ratt Z'. Grand Trunk R. Co., 9.J 
 U. S. r.i. 24 L. Ed. 33(). 
 
 When an express company accepts in 
 capacity of carrier.- -When ;-;<>o(l.s are de- 
 livered to parties to l)e forwarded and 
 transported, and these parties are express- 
 men, and receive compensation for for- 
 warding and transporting the goods are 
 in their custody as carriers. Thus, the 
 owner of certain goods about to arrive 
 at the depot of a railroad station in Char- 
 lotte. North Carolina, wished them to be 
 carried from thence to Richmond, Vir- 
 ginia, and an express company, by their 
 agent at Charlotte, undertook to remove 
 and deposit the goods in their warehouse 
 as soon as possible on the arrival of the 
 goods at the depot in Charlotte, and to 
 carry them from Charlotte to Richmond 
 within a reasonable time for the reward 
 paid. The goods arrived at the depot, 
 and the express company had notice of 
 their arrival. It was held, that it was a 
 delivery to the express company as a com- 
 mon carrier. Southern Exp. Co. z\ Mc- 
 Veigh, r,l Va. (20 Gratt.) 2G4. 
 
 11. Change of possession. — Canal-Boat 
 Alontgoniery z\ Kent. 20 O. .")4. 
 
 In custody of owner's warehouseman 
 after carrier's receipt of warehouse cou- 
 pon and order for delivery of goods. — 
 Tlie deliver}' of goods to a common car- 
 rier is not complete and. therefore, its 
 lial)ility for their accidental loss does not: 
 attach, where the goods are destroyed 
 in the custody of the owner's warehouse- 
 man, after the carrier had contracted to 
 ship the goods and had received the own- 
 er's warehouse coupon and an order for 
 the delivery of the goods, but had not pre- 
 sented the same or issued a receipt or bill 
 of lading for the goods. Stewart z\ Gracy. 
 9\i Tenn. :U4, 27 S. \V. (WU. 
 
 12. Under carrier's contract. — Grosve- 
 
 nor z: Xew York Cent. R. Co.. .'^!t X. Y. 
 34, 5 .-N.ljb. Prac. X. S.. 34.-). 
 
 13. Place, time, and agent to receive. — 
 Spofford c'. Pennsylvania R. Co., 11 Pa. 
 Super. Ct. 97; Southern Exp. Co. v. New- 
 by. 3(i Ga. 63."), 91 Am. Dec. 783. See post, 
 "Place and Time of Delivery," § 388. 
 
 Where a railroad company had a box 
 car placed at the platform of depot, to- 
 gether with a wooden skid to use in load- 
 ing the car, and the shipper without re- 
 questing aid from the companj', attempted 
 to drive a horse in the car, and in doing 
 so the horse was injured, it was held 
 that the horse at the time of the injury, 
 had not been received in the custody of 
 the carrier. Southern R. Co. z\ Bivings, 
 3 Ga. App. 552, fiO S. E. 287. 
 
 14. Parcel delivered to wagoner to 
 carry for his own profit. — If a parcel be 
 given to a wagoner for him to carry 
 for his own gain, and not for tlie profit 
 of his master, a common carrier, the latter 
 is not lial)le in case the parcel is lost. 
 Butler z: Basing. 12 Eng. C. L. 2S7. 
 
 15. Coat delivered to stage driver by one 
 not a passenger — No charge and refusal 
 to put on way-bill. — Where a coat was de- 
 livered to tlie driver of a stage coach, by 
 one. not a passenger, to be delivered to 
 another, in a different place, but notliing 
 was paid for its transportation, and the 
 driver refused to put it on the way-bill, 
 saying he had no right to do so. and there 
 was no proof that the coat ever came 
 into the possession of the proprietor of 
 the stage, or any of his agents, it was 
 held that there was no delivery of the 
 coat to such proprietor, and that he was 
 not liable, as a common carrier, for its 
 loss. Blanchard r. Isaacs (,X. Y.). 3 
 Barb. 388. 
 
 16. Place other than station. — Georgia, 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Marchman. 121 Ga. 235, 48 
 S. E. 961.
 
 § 388 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 270 
 
 place where the carrier may receive them, may be tendered for transportation 
 to an agent authorized to receive or reject them, without regard to the place 
 where the tender is made.^' 
 
 Customary Place of Delivery. — Where goods designed for immediate ship- 
 ment are placed in a condition to be carried, in the usual place of loading, in 
 accordance with the custom of delivery between the parties, with the carrier's 
 knowledge of the fact and purpose, or at the place of loading designated by 
 the parties, there is both a delivery to and an acceptance by the carrier, i'' And 
 in order to render a constructive delivery of goods to the carrier binding upon 
 it. they must be left at a place where an established custom has made it the duty 
 of the' carrier to take possession of them for transportation. i'-' It has been said 
 that in the absence of a custom to the contrary the deposit of freight on the 
 carrier's line may constitute a delivery to the carrier if immediate transi)ortation 
 of the freight is expected.-" Thus where under the system contemplated by 
 both the shipper and carrier it is expected that before delivery is consummated 
 the. shipper will either place the freight on the cars himself or have it done by 
 the carrier at his expense after special request, delivery on the cars terminates 
 the shipper's possession and is the inception of the possession by the carrier.-^ 
 
 As Dependent on Carrier's Consent. — The responsibility of a common 
 carrier commences with the delivery of the goods to itself or agent at the place 
 where it agrees to receive them, and if the agent agrees to receive them at the 
 depot where they are at the time, its liability as a common carrier begins.-- In 
 determining whether freight has been delivered to the carrier, it matters not 
 whether it was placed in the depot of the carrier, or on its platform or in its 
 car, so long as it is so deposited with its consent. Xor is it material in this 
 
 17. Cobb, etc., Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 38 Iowa 601. 
 
 18. Customary place of delivery. — South- 
 ern Exp. Co. r. Xcwby, o6 Ga. 63.5, 91 
 Am. Dec. 7S3. 
 
 Usual place with carrier's knowledge. — 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. i: American To- 
 bacco Co., 126 Ky. 582, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1013, 104 S. W. 377, 25 R. R. R. 586, 48 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 586. 
 
 Custom to deposit cotton on platform 
 for next train — Failure to take on. — Where 
 a railroad company erects a platform for 
 shipping cotton, and its course of busi- 
 ness is such that induces parties to store 
 cotton on it under a promise t'l ship by 
 the next freight train, and it passes jnd 
 neglects to take on the cotton, and the 
 cotton is destroyed by fire from a pass- 
 ing train, after the train which ought to 
 have taken it on has passed, the company 
 is liable, as a common carrier, for t!ie loss 
 of the cotton. Meyer v. Vicksburg, etc., 
 R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 639, 6 So. 218. 
 
 19. lozva. — Lennon v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 127 Iowa 431, 16 R. R. R. 45, 39 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 45, 103 N. VV. 343. 
 
 Maine.— WitzUr v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 
 35 Am. Rep. 327. 
 
 Neti' Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, 24 X. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 222. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Spofford v. Pennsylva- 
 nia R. Co., 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97. 
 
 Texas. — Martin v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 556, 22 S. W. 1007; 
 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 35 S. W. 28. 
 
 Delivery to vessel — Customary place. — 
 There can be no constructive delivery of 
 goods so as to bind the owners of a ves- 
 sel for their carriage except at such a 
 place as where by constant practice and 
 usage they have received property left 
 for transportation. Witzler v. Collins, 
 70 Me. 290, 35 Am. Rep. 327. 
 
 20. Wilson V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 82 
 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076. 
 
 21. Wilson V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 82 
 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076, distinguishing Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co. V. Hines, etc., Co., 19 Ga. 
 203; Fleming v. Hammond, 19 Ga. 145. 
 
 22. Carrier's consent. — Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 
 783. 
 
 Delivery to stage company — Accepted 
 by agent at postoffice. — Where a package 
 was delivered to the agent of a stage 
 coach company, at the postofifice where 
 the stage was standing, and not at an of- 
 fice of the company, to be carried from 
 Boston to Hartford, and was by the 
 agent, when he received it, entered on the 
 way-bill, he having previously directed 
 the person who had the care of the pack- 
 age to bring it to the postoffice, and it 
 was lost reaching Hartford, it was held 
 that the owners of the coach was liable 
 to the owner of the package for its value, 
 the delivery at the postoffice being with 
 the assent of their agent. Phillips f. 
 Earle (Mass.), 8 Pick. 182.
 
 271 
 
 WIIKN IJAKILITY COMMKXCES. 
 
 §§ 388-389 
 
 connection whether the hands who (lei)osit tlie freight are in the employ of the 
 shipper or the carrier.-' r • , 
 
 Carrier's Direction— Place Agreed on.— If the carrier (hrects the freight 
 to l)c deposited .H a iiariicular point agreeing to receive it there, a deposit of 
 the freight at that i>oim constitnles a good dehvery to the carrier.-^ Thus if 
 a railroad company , in the unrestrained exercise of its franchises, consents to 
 the delivery of the freight in its cars or warehouse for immediate shipment, 
 upon such delivery the liahility of the comi>any, as common carrier, at once 
 
 attaches.'-'" 
 
 Limits Established by Express Company.— Where an express company 
 cslal)li-hes limits in a city, hcxond which it will not call for or deliver packages, 
 it is not liable for refusing to call for or deliver packages at the store of one 
 who, knowing of the limits, moved his store outside thereof, though the limits 
 established in another direction were further from the comjjany's office than 
 such store.-'' 
 
 Time of Delivery. — W hether a shipper com])lies with a custom of carriers 
 reciuiring shippers desiring a car to be forwarded on a certain date to deliver 
 the shipment before a certain hour is immaterial, if the conditions are waived 
 and the shipment is in fact accepted by the carrier for transportation and de- 
 livery to the consignee.-^ 
 
 §§ 389-392. Notice of Deposit* and Acceptance— § 389. In General. 
 The mere deposit of goods on the carrier's line,-'* even though made at a cus- 
 tomary^ place for its acceptance for transportation can not constitute delivery 
 to the carrier unless it is given actual or constructive notice of such deposit,-'^ 
 
 23. Carriers consent. — Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. z: Smyscr. :is 111. :i.-,4. 87 Am. Dec. 
 301. 
 
 24. Carriers direction place agree on. — 
 Fleniiii.sj; r. Hammond, lU Ga. 14."). 
 
 25. Express contract for deliver in cars 
 or warehouse. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. z'. 
 Ashmcad. .ns 111. 487. 
 
 26. Limits established by express com- 
 pany. — lUillard r. .\nurican Exp. Co.. 107 
 Mich. (■)!•."), 6,") X. W. .")51. 
 
 27. Time of delivery. — Central, etc.. R. 
 Co. f. Butler, etc., Granite Co., 8 Ga. App. 
 1, 68 S. E. 775. 
 
 28. Mere deposit. — Central R.. etc., Co. 
 z: Hines. etc.. Co., 19 Ga. 203. 
 
 Placing cotton on the wagon or car 
 of a carrier, or near his boat or ware- 
 house, without notice to him, is not a . 
 delivery, unless made so by custom, or 
 by some regulation of the carrier. Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. z: Hodde. 42. Tex. 467; 
 Yoakum 7-. Dryden (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 26 
 S. \V. :ii2. 
 
 Ginned cotton placed on platform built 
 by railroad — Station agent requested by 
 gin manager to send car — Failure of con- 
 ductor to follow instructions — Fire. — 
 Where plaintiff's cotton, after being gin- 
 ned, was placed on a platform which had 
 been built by a railroad for cotton for 
 shipment, and, according to custom, the 
 manager of the gin requested the rail- 
 road's agent at the nearest station to have 
 a car sent for the cotton, but a train con- 
 ductor failed to follow his instructions, 
 so that no car was sent, and the cotton, 
 while on such platform, was destroyed 
 
 by fire, there existed no relation of car- 
 rier and shipper between plaintiff and 
 the railroad company. Anderson z'. Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co. (Miss.), 19 R. R. R. 382. 
 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 382. 38 So. 
 (')(') 1. 
 
 Deposited in wheeled truck close to de- 
 pot platform — Absence of station officials. 
 — But where a railroad provided a regu- 
 lar and safe place at its depot for receiv- 
 ing baggage, and there was a safe road 
 leading thereto, delivery of baggage to 
 the railroad in such sense as to make it 
 responsible for injury thereto could not be 
 accomplished by unloading the baggage 
 from a dray, in the absence of the sta- 
 tion officials, unto a wheeled truck close 
 to the edge of the platform near the track. 
 Lennon z: Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 127 Iowa 
 431. 16 R. R. R. 45, 39 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas.. N. S.. 45, 103 N. W. 343. 
 
 29. Notice necessary. — Alabama. — 
 Southwestern R. Co. :■. Webb. 48 Ala. 585; 
 Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. z: Kolb. 73 Ala. 
 396. 49 .-Km. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 512. 
 
 Arlcaiisas. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Murphy. 60 .\rk. 333, 30 S. W. 419. 
 
 Connecticut. — Merriam r. Hartford, etc.. 
 R. Co.. 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344. 
 
 ///moiV.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. Smy- 
 ser, 38 111. 354. 87 Am. Dec. 301. 
 
 loziv. — Lennon z'. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 
 127 Iowa 431, 16 R. R. R. 45, 39 .\m. & 
 En- R. Cas.. N. S.. 45, 103 X. W. 343. 
 
 Miclii:.:au. — Wright z: Caldwell, 3 
 Mich. 51. 
 
 Xczi.- Tor/:.— Packard z\ Getman (X.
 
 § 389 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 272 
 
 and the goods accepted for shipment by one having anthority."'" So a earner 
 is not liable for freight deposited near its track on a platform ; '-^^ or in a build- 
 ing which does not belong to the carrier and is not used for that purpose, when 
 not accepted for shipment; '•- or for goods deposited alongside the roadway 
 at a mere switch at which diere is no station, agent, etc., although goods are 
 shipped from that point by request.^-^ Xor will a mere deposit in a carrier's 
 warehouse by the shipper's' agent, without authority and in an unusual manner 
 when no one is in charge to receive it. bind the carrier.^^-* I'.ut where goods 
 are deposited at the customary place or place of agreement, and the agent's at- 
 tention directed thereto, the notice is sufficient. "^-^ 
 
 Roadside Deposit of Freight.— Roadside deposits of freight, made to save 
 the trouble of hauling to a regular depot, are. as a general rule, at the risk of 
 
 Y.), 6 Cow. 7.57, 16 Am. Dec. 475; Salin- 
 ger V. Simmons (N. Y.), 57 Barb. 513, 
 8 Abb. Prac, N. S., 409. 2 Lans. 325; 
 Grosvenor v. New York Cent. R. Co., 39 
 N. Y. 34. 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 345. 
 
 North Carolina. — Wells v. Wilmington, 
 etc., R. Co.. 51 N. C. 47, 72 Am. Dec. 556. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Spofford v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 97. 
 
 Texas.— Vi. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Riley 
 (Tex. Cr. App.), 1 S. W. 446; Houston, 
 etc R. Co. c'. Hodde, 42 Tex. 467; Yoakum 
 V. Dryden (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 
 312. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Glass v. Goldsmith, 22 
 Wis. 488. 
 
 Canada. — Kerr v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 24 U. C. C. C. P. 209. 
 
 30. Acceptance. — Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Mc\"ei.Lzh. fU Wi. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 31. Cotton deposited near track near 
 depot on platform of third party— Fire.— 
 A railroad company is not liable, as a 
 common carrier, for cotton merely placed 
 by its owner near its track near a depot, 
 on a platform which did not belong to 
 the company, where it was burned by a 
 spark from a passing locomotive. Brown 
 V. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co.. 19 S. C. 39. 
 
 32. Station agent also agent of owner 
 of guano for purpose of its distribution 
 among customers — Stored in building of 
 another company on railroads right of 
 way — Order to ship and requisition for 
 car. — In Hornc-Andrews Conim. Co. 7'. 
 Georgia R. Co., 136 Ga. 116, 40 R. R. R. 
 754. 63 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 754, 
 70 S. E. 879, it is held that where the agent 
 of a railroad company at a wayside sta- 
 tion was also the agent of the owner of 
 guano for the purpose of its distribution 
 among customers, and as such was in 
 possession of the property, which he had 
 stored in a building on the railroad's right 
 of way, but owned by another company, 
 and which was separate from the railroad 
 warehouse, the direction of the owner to 
 such agent to ship the guano to it, and 
 the making of a requisition by him on the 
 proper official of the railroad company 
 for a car, did not alone constitute a de- 
 livery to the carrier for transportation, 
 so as to render it liable for the destruc- 
 
 tion by fire of the guano before the ar- 
 rival of the car. and this is true, although 
 the agent testified that, had the car ar- 
 rived, it would have been placed in front 
 of the house where the guano was, for 
 the purpose of being loaded, and that the 
 witness would have had it loaded at the 
 expense of the owner. 
 •33. Deposit of goods alongside railroad 
 at mere switch. — A mere switch, at which 
 there is neitlier agent, station, nor plat- 
 form, but where shipments are made by 
 loading upon cars placed on the switch 
 by request, is not a depot, at which a de- 
 posit of goods alongside is such a deliv- 
 ery to the railroad as will make it liable 
 as a common carrier. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. Lilly (Miss.'), 8 So. 644. 
 
 34. Deposit in railroad warehouse 
 through door opened by shipper's agent 
 — No one in charge. — A delivery to a 
 railroad warehouse aljout dark and after 
 it was closed and locked for the night, 
 by plaintiff's agent by opening the up- 
 per door and thereby putting the goods 
 in, there being no one in charge, does not 
 show such delivery as will charge the 
 railroad company either as a common 
 carrier or warehouseman, without affirma- 
 tive proof of some act of negligence on 
 its part with respect to the custody of 
 the property. Spofford 7'. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., ri Pa. Super. Ct. 97. 
 
 35. Sacks of wool, properly directed, 
 deposited in station building and pointed 
 out to agents. — Evidence that wool was 
 delivered at the station of a common car- 
 rier, in sacks marked with the name and 
 address of the owners whose place of 
 business was in Boston, and with the ini- 
 tial of the agent who had purchased it; 
 that the weights and numbers were upon 
 all the sacks; that previous shipments had 
 been made by the same agent at the same 
 place to the same principal, during the 
 same season, and that when the agent 
 delivered the wool he piled it in one part 
 of the building, pointed it out to the de- 
 fendant's agents, and said, "That pile of 
 wool is for Boston," is evidence of a de- 
 livery to the carrier for shipment to his 
 principal at Boston. Nichols c'. Smith, 
 115 Mass. 332.
 
 27Z 
 
 WHEN LIAlilLITV COMMKXCI-: 
 
 §§ 389-390 
 
 the owners, until tlie goods arc loaded on a freight car.--'' And an action can 
 not be maintained against a railroad company, as a common carrier, for the loss 
 or destruction of goods deposited on the road side, at a place where there was 
 no regular station, and \M) agent, although a conductor of a freight train had 
 ])r()niiscd to stop and take them.-'' 
 
 Merely Depositing Goods in Place Convenient for Carrier. — Merely 
 ])lacing g(jods in such a ])lacc or positicjn that the common carrier can easily 
 take possession of them, i)ut without calling its attention to them, is not, under 
 ordinary circumstances, a delivery to the carrier either actual or constructive.-''® 
 
 Mere Permission to Place Cattle in Yards — Escape. — A mere permis- 
 sion hy the agent of a raih'oad t-oiiipan)- lo an owner of cattle to place the cattle 
 in the company's yards, where no bill of lading is given, does not render the 
 company liable for the escape of the cattle, before they were accepted for 
 shipment.-''^ 
 
 §§ 390-392. Actual and Constructive Notice and Acceptance — § 390, 
 In General. — The acceptance may be either actual or constructive."*" L'nless 
 there be a delivery according to an established custom of the carrier's business, 
 or a special contract or agreement,'** there must be actual notice and acceptance."* ^ 
 While it is the undoubted general rule that the delivery, to bind the carrier, 
 must be made either to him or to some one with authority from him, or who 
 may be rightfully presumed to have such authority, it is not to be understood 
 that it is not subject to such conventional arrangements between the parties as 
 they may choose to make in regard to the mode of delivery, or that it may not 
 be varied by usage, or by a particular course of dealing between them. They 
 may make such stipulations upon the su4)ject as they see fit, and when such 
 
 36. Roadside deposit. — Wells v. Wil- 
 niini4ton, etc., K. Co., ."> 1 X. C. 47, 72 Am. 
 Dec. .")")(■). 
 
 37. Promise of conductor. — Wells ;■. 
 Wilmintitdii, etc.. \\. Co., .")1 X. C. 47, 72 
 Am. Dec. .").")C). 
 
 38. Deposit convenient for railroad. — 
 O'Bannon v. Southern K.xp. Co., •">! Ala. 
 4S1. 
 
 Placing cotton on vehicle of carrier, 
 or near its boat or warehouse — Rule, cus- 
 tom, or notice. — The placing of cotton on 
 the wa.^on or car of a common carrier, 
 or near its l)oat or warehouse, is not a 
 delivery, unless some regulation of the 
 carrier or custom existing between the 
 carrier and the public makes it otherwise, 
 or notice is given to the carrier, or its 
 agent or other authorized employees. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hodde, 42 Tex. 
 4()7. 
 
 39. Permission to place cattle in yards. 
 —Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Riley (Tex, 
 Cr. App.), 1 S. W. 44(). See Brown v. 
 Oregon, etc., R. Xav. Co. (Ore.), 128 
 Pac. ,38. 
 
 40. Actual or constructive acceptance. — 
 Southern h'.xp. Co. v. Mc\'eii;h. ('>l \'a. 
 (20 Oratt.) 2C.4. 
 
 Constructive delivery. — Alabama. — 
 O'Bannon :. Souihern E.xp. Co., .51 Ala. 
 481; Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Kolh. 7 A 
 Ala. H9(), 49 .Vm. Rep. .54. 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. .512. 
 
 Connecticut. — Merriam x\ Hartford, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Conn. ;5,54, .52 .\m. Dec. ;:44. 
 
 District of Columbia. — Bowie v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., 1 MacArthur (8 D. 
 C.) 94. 
 
 Illinois. — Giand Tower Mfg., etc., Co. 
 r. Ullman. 89 111. 244; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. 7'. Ashmead, 58 111. 487, 11 Am. R. 
 Rep. 59; Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ Smyser, 
 38 111. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301. 
 
 Indiana. — Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Keith, 8 Ind. App. 57, 35 N. E. 296. 
 
 /oTi'fl.— Aiken v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 68 Iowa 363. 27 X. W. 281. 25 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 377; Frazier v. Kansas, etc., R. 
 Co., 48 Iowa 571. 
 
 Louisiana. — Meyer 7". Vicksburg, etc., 
 R. Co.. 41 La. Ann. 639. 6 So. 218. 
 
 Maine. — Witzler v. Collins. 70 Me. 290, 
 35 Am. Rep. 327. 
 
 .VrTi' Hampshire. — Moses z\ Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, 24 X. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 
 South Carolina. — Cone v. Southern Rail- 
 way, 85 S. C. 524, 36 R. R. R. 179, 59 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 179. 67 S. E. 779. 
 
 Texas. — Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Mar- 
 tin, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 464. 35 S. W. 21. 
 
 J'irginia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Mc- 
 \eigh, 61 Va. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 41. See post, "Constructive X'otice and 
 Acceptance — Custom or Agreement," § 
 391. 
 
 42. Actual notice and acceptance. — Rail 
 r. Xew Jersev Steamboat Co. (X. Y.), 
 1 Dalv 4'.Il. 
 
 1 Car— 18
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 274 
 
 §§ 390-391 
 
 stipulations are made, they, and not the general law. are to govern.43 
 
 § 391. Constructive Notice and Acceptance— Custom or Agreement. 
 
 It is not alwavs essential that the shipper should give the carrier actual notice 
 
 that goods have' been deposited for transportation by the carrier at a certam 
 customary place for receiving freight : the special circumstances being sometimes 
 sufficient 'to constitute a valid constructive notice to the carrier.-*-^ Such an ac- 
 ceptance for transportation may be constructive, and may be implied from a 
 proper delivery or tender of the goods to the carrier.^s An implied agreement 
 on the part of a common carrier to assume the responsibility of an hisurer of 
 goods deposited at a certain place, without actual notice to the carrier of the 
 deposit, may be established by proof of the custom of the carrier to receive 
 for transportation goods so deposited.-"^ Proof of a constant and habitual prac- 
 tice and usage of the carrier to receive goods when they are deposited for him 
 
 rr.i-a.f.— Martin z: Ft. Worth, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 5.56, 22 S. W. 1007; 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 12 
 Tex. Civ. App. 46-t, 35 S. W. 21. 
 
 Wisconsin. — ■ Gleason v. Goodrich 
 Transp. Co.. 32 Wis. 85. 14 Am. Rep. 716. 
 45. Implied from proper delivery. — Ala- 
 bama. — Alontgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Kolb, 
 73 Ala. 396, 49 Am. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 512. 
 
 Connecticut. — Merriam v. Hartford, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344. 
 
 I liinois.— Grand Tower Mfg., etc., Co. 
 c'. Ullman, 89 111. 244. 
 
 Indiana. — Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Keith, 8 Ind. App. 57, 35 N. E. 296. 
 
 Lduisiana. — Meyer v. Vicksburg, etc., 
 R. Co.. 41 La. Ann. 639, 6 So. 218. 
 
 .l/tvinc— Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 
 35 Am. Rep. 327. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Nichols v. Smith, 115 
 Mass. 332. 
 
 Xew .Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, etc., 
 Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. 
 Tcro.?.— East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 
 64 Tex. 615. 
 
 46. Custom and usage. — Alabama. — 
 Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Kolk, 73 A, a. 
 396, 49 Am. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 512. 
 
 Connecticut. — Merriam v. Hartford, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344. 
 
 loti'a. — Green v. Milwaukee, etc., R. 
 Co., 38 Iowa 100. 
 
 Kentucky.— Fhtshurg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 American "Tobacco Co., 126 Ky. 582, 31 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1013, 104 S. W. 377, 25 R. R. 
 R. 586, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 3., 
 586. 
 
 Louisiana. — Meyer v. Vicksburg, etc., 
 R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 639, 6 So. 218. 
 
 A>w Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 222. 
 
 "r^jra.?.— Martin v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 556, 22 S. W. 1007; 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Martm, 12 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 464, 35 S. W. 21. 
 
 IVisconsin. — Gleason v. Goodrich 
 Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716. 
 
 43. Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. Pool, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 682. 31 S. W. 688. 
 
 The general rule is that there must be 
 an actual delivery to the carrier, in or- 
 der to create its common-law liability for 
 carriage; but this does not mean, in all 
 instances, an actual delivery. It may 
 mean such a delivery as the parties among 
 themselves may agree upon as sufficient, 
 in placing the property under the con- 
 trol of the carrier, or the custom and 
 habit of dealing in shipments of a partic- 
 ular character may establish the liability 
 of the carrier, when in fact there has been 
 no actual delivery. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Union Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. 
 W. 975, 976. 
 
 44. Constructive notice. — Alabama. — 
 Montgomery, etc., R. Co. :•. Kolb, 73 Ala. 
 396, 49 Axn. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 512. 
 
 Hence a railroad company is not liable 
 for freight stolen or lost after a mere de- 
 posit of it on a platform at the company's 
 station house, unless it is shown that the 
 company or its agents had notice of svc'i 
 deposit and accepted the freight, for 
 transportation as a common carrier. 
 Southwestern R. Co. v. Webb, 48 Ala. 
 585. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fire Ass'n, 55 Ark. 163, 18 S. W. 43. 
 
 Connecticut. — Merriam v. Hartford, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344. 
 
 District of Columbia. — Bowie v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., 1 MacArthur (8 D. 
 C.) 94. 
 
 Indiana. — Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Keith, 8 Ind. App. 57, 35 N. E. 296. 
 
 Iowa. — Green v. Milwaukee, etc, 
 Co., 38 Iowa 100. 
 
 Louisiana. — Meyer v. Vicksburg, 
 R. Co.. 41 La. Ann. 639, 6 So. 218. 
 
 Ma/»^.— Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 
 35 Am. Rep. 327. 
 
 Xezv Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 222. 
 
 North Carolina. — Williams v. Southern 
 R Co., 155 X. C. 260, 42 R. R. R. 105, 65 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 10.5, 71 S. E. 
 346. 
 
 R. 
 
 etc..
 
 WHEX LIAIUI.ITV COMMENCES. 
 
 § 391 
 
 in a particular place, without special notice of such deposit, is sufficient to show 
 a public offer bv the carrier to receive goods in that mode, and to constitute an 
 agreement between the i)arties by which the goods when so deposited shall be 
 considered as delivered to him.-*" Such a practice and usage are tantamount 
 to an open declaration, a public advertisement by the carrier, that such delivery 
 should, of itself, be deemed an acceptance by him; and to permit him to set up. 
 against those who had been thereby induced to omit it, the want of the formal- 
 ity of an express notice, which had been thus waived, would be sanctioning in- 
 justice and fraud.-* ^ Such a customary delivery is sufficient although no notice 
 is given or receipt taken, and the custom itself contrary to the established reg- 
 ulations of the carrier.^'' lint where it is not shown that the goods are by virtue 
 of the custom or course of dealing, to be thereafter regarded as in the actual 
 I)Ossession of tlie carrier, there is no sufficient delivery. ■'"'" 
 
 Special Agreement. — If it is agreed that the deposit may be at a particular 
 place without express notice to the carrier, such deposit amounts to notice, and 
 is a delivery. ^'^ And it is the same where the goods are deposited at a desig- 
 
 47. Constant practice. — Voakuni T'. Dry- 
 den (Tex. Civ. .^pp.). 2() S. W. 312; Gulf, 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Pool, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 682, 
 ."^l S. W. fi8S; Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Hodde, 42 Tex. 4Cu. 
 
 Custom to deposit cotton on depot 
 platform before issue of bill of lading. — 
 I'laiiititf, liaving' a verlial aiireement with 
 a railroad company for the shipment of 
 cotton, delivered it for shipment by plac- 
 ing it upon its depot platform, within the 
 knowledge of the company's agent, as 
 was the custom of delivery at such de- 
 pot; and, before a bill of lading was given, 
 the cotton was destroyed by a fire, caused 
 by matches being ignited on the platform 
 by small boys allowed to play there. It 
 was held that the company was liable 
 as common carriers for the loss. Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 12 Tex. Civ. 
 .\pp. 464, 35 S. W. 21. 
 
 48. As where,- for instance, the delivery 
 was upon a private wharf or dock, used 
 exclusively by the carrier, and upon which 
 it had been its custom and constant usage 
 to receive goods left there for transporta- 
 tion l)y it, such a deposit, in the usual 
 and accustomed manner, would be con- 
 structive notice, and would lie regarded 
 as a sufficient delivery, though the goods 
 were not left in charge of any of its serv- 
 ants. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 2'. Pool, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 682, 31 S. W. 688. 
 
 A railway company is bound by a cus- 
 tom acquiesced in by it under which tim- 
 ber is piled up on its right of way for 
 shipment. If it is destroyed by fire orig- 
 inating from one of the company's trains, 
 and without the contributory negligence 
 of the owner of the timber, the railway 
 company is liable in damages. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. r. McLean, 74 Tex. 646, 12 S. W. 
 843. 
 
 49. Cotton deposited in street alongside 
 of depot platform — Custom adopted by 
 depot agent — No receipt. — A deposit of 
 cotton in a street alongside of the plat- 
 form of a railroad depot, or in the rail- 
 road cotton-yard, for shipment, in pur- 
 
 suance of a custom or usage adopted or 
 sanctioned l)y the depot agent may 
 amount to a delivery to the railroad com- 
 pany, although no receipt is given by the 
 agent to the shipper, and such usage or 
 custom is contrary to the established reg- 
 ulations of the company known to the 
 shipper, and no notice thereof is traced 
 to the superintendent or managing agent 
 of the company. Montgomery, etc.. R. 
 Co. z: Kolb, 73 .\la. 306. 49 .-Km. Rep. .J4, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. .-)12. 
 
 50. Extent of custom — Control of goods. 
 — In an action for cotton alleged to have 
 been delivered to the defendant as a com- 
 mon carrier and destroyed by fire, evi- 
 dence tending to show that the course of 
 dealing and custom was to place goods 
 to be shipped on the platform where the 
 cotton was destroyed, and that it was 
 the expectation and intention of the 
 owner and also of the railway company 
 that they were placed there for shipment, 
 and would ultimately be shipped when 
 instructions were given or when the party 
 was ready for shipment, but not showing 
 that such goods were, by virtue of the 
 custom or course of dealing, to be there- 
 after regarded as in the actual possession 
 of the railwaj', was insufficient to author- 
 ize submission to the jury of the question 
 of delivery by reason of such custom. 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. r. Beard, 34 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 253. 
 
 51. Delivery according to contract. — 
 Pratt r. Grand Trunk R. Co., 95 U. S. 43, 
 24 L. Hd. 336; Yoakum ;■. Drvden (Tex. 
 Civ. .-Kpp.). 26 S. \V. 312; Gulf, etc.. R. 
 Co. :■. Pool. 10 Tex. Civ. App. 682, 683. 
 31 S. W. 688. 
 
 When goods designed for immediate 
 shipment are placed in a condition to be 
 carried, at the place of loading designated 
 by the parties, there is both a delivery 
 to and an acceptance by the carrier. Pitts- 
 burg, etc., R. Co. 7'. American Tobacco 
 Co., 126 Ky. 582, 3t Kv. L. Rep. 1013. 
 104 S. W. 377. 25 R. R. R. 586, 48 .\m. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 586.
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 276 
 
 §§ 391-392 
 
 nated place in accordance with a conventional arrangement in respect to de- 
 livery ^^ ^nd it has heen held that the delivery of inanniiate property at the 
 u.nai place for receiving freight for shipment, nnder a prior agreement for its 
 carria-e is snfficient.-'^^^ It is not necessary that the carrier should have actua 
 notice of the delivery of cattle in the pens if there was a prior agreement that 
 the shipper should deliver the cattle hy putting them in the pens at the time they 
 were put there.''-* 
 
 S 392 Goods Loaded on Cars.— In the case of a chartered car, as in other 
 cases of carriage of freight, the responsihility of the carrier hegms with the 
 delivery to it of the goods.^^ ^^■here the carrier is notified of the fact that a 
 car placed by it on a side track to receive goods for transportation is loaded 
 and ready for shipment, its liability as a carrier will begin,^'^ especially where 
 it ha^ adopted a custom of so receiving them.- But the mere loading goods 
 on a car standing on a side track does not constitute a delivery to the railroad 
 company, where the station agent, on being notified thereof, declines to ship the 
 <roods and there is no custom or regulation of the railroad company making 
 such loading a delivery.^s Nor is the loading of a car set out for such use at 
 a sidino- where the company has no station house or agent, such a delivery to 
 the carrier as will impose liability on it for the loss of the cotton by fire at the 
 sidino- several hours before the arrival of the train, which in the regular course 
 of bitsiness would have transported it to its destination.-''' W hen a loaded car 
 
 Car left on side track loaded— Carrier 
 notified — Custom to remove before issue 
 of bill of lading. — Where the custom of a 
 railroad company was, when requested, 
 to place an empty car upon its side track 
 at a flag station to be loaded with cot- 
 ton, and, when loaded, to remove the car, 
 and subsequently issue a receipt _and_ hill 
 of lading, the railway company is liable 
 for the loss of cotton so loaded, if notice 
 has been given by the shipper of its desti- 
 nation, and that it was ready for removal, 
 and nothing remained to be done by him 
 before shipment, although no receipt or 
 bill of lading had been given for the prop- 
 erty, and the name of the consignees had 
 not been furnished to the carrier. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Murphy, 60 Ark. 
 333, 30 S. W. 419. 
 
 57. Effect of custom. — Where a railway 
 company, engaged in switching cars over 
 its switch tracks to and from the trans- 
 fer tracks of other lines of road, for fixed 
 system of charges, had adopted the cus- 
 tom of receiving loaded cars on its switch- 
 ing tracks, and undertaking to deliver 
 them to the transfer tracks at other points, 
 there was a sufficient delivery to it of 
 certain cars where the shipper had loaded 
 and sealed the cars and notified the car- 
 rier's agent of the fact, and directed him 
 to move the cars out, which the agent 
 agreed to do. Kansas, • etc., R. Co. _v. 
 Rosebrook-Josey Grain Co., 52 Tex. Civ. 
 App. I.'-jG, 114 S. W. 436. 
 
 58. Loading car on side track — Refusal 
 of station agent to ship — Custom. — Yoa- 
 kum v. Dryden (Tex. Civ. App.). 26 S. W. 
 312; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hodde, 42 
 Tex. 467. 
 
 59. Car, left on siding at request, loaded 
 with cotton. — The ])laintiffs operated a 
 cotton gin at a town where defendant 
 
 52. Constitutional arrangement. — Stew- 
 art ■;•. Gracy, 93 Tenn. 314, 320, 27 S. W. 
 664. 
 
 53. Delivery of inanimate property on 
 the platform of a railroad- company, which 
 is the usual place for receiving freight for 
 shipment, and under an agreement pre- 
 viously made for the carriage of the same, 
 is a sufticient delivery to charge the rad- 
 road company with responsibility as a 
 commcm carrier. Bowie z'. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.. 1 MacArthur (8 D. C.) 94. 
 
 54. Putting cattle in pens.— Ft. Worth, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Waggoner Nat. Bank, 36 
 Tex. Civ. App. 293, 81 S. W. 1050, afiirnied 
 in OS Tex. 616, no op. 
 
 55. Where car is chartered.— Central 
 R.. etc., Co. z\ Anderson, 58 Ga. 393. 
 
 56. Goods loaded on car. — Yoakum v. 
 Dryden (Tex. Civ. App.). 26 S. W. 312; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. z: Hodde, 42 Tex. 
 467. 
 
 Cars left on side track to be loaded by 
 shipper — Conductor's promise to remove 
 next morning. — Defendant railroad com- 
 pany, according to its custom and at 
 plaintiff's request, left two cars on its side 
 tracks, agreeing to remove them next day, 
 if loaded. The cars were loaded and 
 closed, and notice thereof given to a con- 
 ductor of defendant's freight train on the 
 evening of the day they were loaded, and 
 he promised to move them the next morn- 
 ing, but before doing so, the cars and 
 contents were destroyed by fire. It was 
 held that there had been a complete de- 
 livery of the freight contained in the cars 
 to defendant, rendering it liable for the 
 loss, though no bill of lading had been 
 executed. Pine Bluff, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Kenzie, 75 Ark. 100, 16 R. R. R. 50, 39 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 50, 86 S. W. 
 834.
 
 277 
 
 WIIK.N I,IAi;iLITV C(JMM1-:NCIvS. 
 
 j§ 3')2-3'J5 
 
 is on a switch provided for the shipper's convenience, who has not presented 
 a bill of lading to be signed, though ample time has elapsed, there is no suffi- 
 cient delivery and acceptance."" T.ut -where a railroad company constructs side 
 tracks running, to various warehouses, for the purpose of running out cars to 
 such warehouses, to be loaded by ihc sliipi.cr. the freight is delivered to the 
 carrier by the shii)per the monu'iil it is loaded on such cars, although no bill of 
 lading has been signed.''' 
 
 Special Contract. — .\ shipper and carrier may contract, in relation to the 
 use of a side track, that delivery of cars loaded by the shipper on such side 
 track to the carrier shall be understood to have taken place whenever the car- 
 rier removes the car from the track and places it in its freight train for ship- 
 ment, though sitch agreement would not affect the shipper's right to insist upon 
 the carrier's ])romptly accepting goods tendered to it for trans])ortation, or limit 
 the carrier's lial)ility for its own negligence.''- 
 
 §§ 393-398. Authority of Agent to Receive Goods— § 393. In Gen- 
 eral. — The delivery of freight to the carrier for immediate transportation may 
 be made through an agent of the carrier having real or apparent authority to 
 accept it for shipment; and such acceptance will render the carrier liable.''-' 
 
 railroad company had no station or agent. 
 Cotton was shipped by plaintififs notify- 
 ing the conductor of a local freight train 
 to leave a car on the siding. They 
 loaded the car and flagged tlie train on 
 which they desired to send it, the con- 
 ductor of which then gave them a bill 
 of lading. Pursuant to such plan they 
 loaded a car with cotton in the evening 
 after the only local frciglit train for the 
 day had passed, and there would be no 
 other until the evening of the next day. 
 During the night the cotton was de- 
 stroyed by fire. It was held that this 
 did not constitute a delivery to and ac- 
 ceptance l)y the railroad company, so as 
 to make them liable for the value of the 
 cotton. Tate v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 78 
 Miss. 842. 29 So. 392, 20 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., -ifil, 84 Am. St. Rep. 049. 
 
 60. Loaded car on siding — Failure of 
 shipper to make out bill of lading. — But 
 whore though a car was loaded and 
 standing at the shipper's wareliouse on 
 a siding constructed for its convenience, 
 the shipper had not made out a bill of 
 lading and presented it to the carrier's 
 agent to be signed, though ample time 
 had elapsed after the car was loaded for 
 the shipper to do so. there was no con- 
 structive delivery of the car to the car- 
 rier, so as to make it liable for the goods 
 on its destruction by fire. American 
 Lead Pencil Co. z'. Nashville, etc.. Rail- 
 way, 124 Tenn. 57, 40 R. R. R. 202. G:} 
 .^m. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 202. i:54 S. 
 W. 613. 
 
 61. Side track to warehouses con- 
 structed by carrier for its convenience. — 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: Smyser, lis 111. 354, 
 ST Am. Doc. 301. 
 
 62. Special contract. — Bainbridgc Gro- 
 cery Co. V. .\tlantic Coast Line R. Co.. 
 8 Ga. App. 677, 70 S. E. 154. 
 
 63. Delivery to agent. — United States. 
 — Strouss r. \Vabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 
 209. 
 
 Alabama. — Hosea v. McCrory, 12 Ala. 
 349; Montgomery, etc., R. Co. f. Kolb, 
 73 Ala. 396, 49 Am. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 512. 
 
 Dakota. — Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456. 
 
 Dckni'are. — Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 233. 
 
 Indiana. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Foster, 104 Ind. 293. 4 N. E. 20, 54 Am. 
 Rep. 319. 
 
 lozva. — Cobb. etc.. Co. v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co., 38 Iowa 601. 
 
 Kentucky. — Seasongood v. Tennessee, 
 etc.. Transp. Co., 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142. 54 
 S. W. 193. 49 L. R. A. 270. 
 
 Louisiana. — Fisher v. Geddes, 15 La. 
 Ann. 14. 
 
 Maine. — Lord v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 
 105 Me. 255, 33 R. R. R. 130. 56 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 130, 74 Atl. 117. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Jordan v. Fall River 
 R. Co. (Mass.). 5 Cush. 69, 51 .\m. Dec. 
 44; Nichols v. Smith, 115 Mass. 332. 
 
 Michiiian. — Wolf z: Grand Rapids, etc., 
 Railway. 149 Mich. 75. 27 R. R. R. 79. 50 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. 
 \V. 732. 
 
 Missouri. — Chouteau 
 Anthonv, II Mo. 226; 
 Railroad. 41 Mo. 503. 97 .\m. Dec. 288; 
 I'ruitt z\ Hannibal, etc.. R. Co., 62 Mo. 
 
 N. S.. 79. 112 N. 
 
 t'. Steamboat St. 
 Minter f. Pacific 
 
 Xezi- Ifanifysliire. — Mayall v. Boston, 
 etc., Railroad. 19 N. H. 122, 49 Am. Dec. 
 149; Bean ;•. Sturtevant. 8 N. H. 146. 28 
 .\m. Dec. 389. 
 
 Nezi' York. — Ball z'. New Jersev Steam- 
 boat Co. (N. Y.), 1 Daly Prac. 491; 
 Blanchard z: Isaacs (N. Y.). 3 Barb. 388; 
 Grosvenor z: New York Cent. R. Co.. 39 
 N. Y. 34. 5 Abb. Prac. N. S., 345; Rog-
 
 § 394 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 278 
 
 § 394. Officers and Agents in General. — A common carrier cor])oration 
 is prima facie liable for all contracts for carrying made by its general agents, 
 within the corporation's powers, and in an action for loss the onus rests upon 
 it to show that a private contract was made with such agent, or that the credit 
 was given to him exclusively; and it is not incumbent upon the shipper to posi- 
 tively prove the corporation's consent when its charter extends to the carrying 
 of such commodities.''"* 
 
 Station agents are to be presumed to have authority to accept freight for 
 transportation, and any limitations on their power to do so the public can not take 
 notice of, unless they are conveyed to the public in such a manner- as to au- 
 thorize the inference that shippers are apprised of them.*^"" A depot agent, who 
 receives and forwards freight, in the absence of special instructions made known 
 to the public, can bind the railroad company to receive and forward freight.''" 
 
 Person in Apparent Charge — Custom. — A delivery of freight for carriage, 
 to a person in apparent authority and apparently having power to receive and 
 receipt for it, is a good delivery. Thus, where one is placed in the situation 
 of master of a boat, a shipper may deliver freight to him for transportation.^' 
 And the same rules apply in the case of delivery to the captain of a steamboat 
 in the business of carrying freight.*5^ Where a shipper left goods at a carrier's 
 
 ers z: Long Island R. Co. (N. Y.), 38 
 How. Prac. 289; Rogers v. Wheeler. 52 
 N. Y. 262; Witbeck v. Schuyler ( N. Y.). 
 44 Barb. 469. 31 How. Prac. 97. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Williams v. Southern 
 R. Co., 155 N. C. 260, 42 R. R. R. 105, 65 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 105. 71 S. E. 
 346; Harrell v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 106 N. C. 258, 11 S. E. 286. 
 
 South Carolina. — Battle v. Columbia, 
 etc., Railroad, 70 S. Car. 329, 14 R. R. R. 
 425, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 425, 
 49 S. E. 489; McClure v. Richardson (S. 
 C). Rice 215, 33 Am. Dec. 105. 
 
 Tennessee. — Watson v. Memphis, etc., 
 R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.), 255, 19 Am. 
 R. Rep. 256. 
 
 Te.vas. — International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Folliard, 66 Tex. 603, 1 S. W. 624; Pa- 
 cific Exp. Co. V. Black, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 
 363, 27 S. W. 830; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Morrison's Faust Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 
 144. 48 S. W. 1103. 
 
 J'ermont. — Landon v. Proctor, 39 Vt. 
 78; Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84 
 Am. Dec. 646; Farmers', etc., Bank v. 
 Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 
 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 West Virginia. — Quarrier v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 20 W. Va. 424. 
 
 JVisconsin. — Gleason v. Goodrich 
 Transp. Co., 32 Wis. 85, 14 Am. Rep. 716. 
 
 £Hg/a«(/.— Burrill v. North, 61 Eng. C. 
 L. 679. 
 
 Where a carrier places one in a depot, 
 and holds him out to the public as quali- 
 fied to receive shipments, a delivery to 
 and an acceptance by him is a delivery 
 to the carrier. Milne v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo. .\pp.), 135 S. W. 85. 
 
 64. Officers and agents in general. — 
 Farmers'. etc., Bank v. Champlain 
 Transp. Co.. 2:! Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 65. Station agents. — Pruitt v. Hannibal, 
 etc., R. Co., 62 Mo. 527. 
 
 66. Depot agent — Special instruction. — 
 
 Watson J'. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. 
 (9 Heisk.) 255, 19 Am. R. Rep. 256. 
 
 67. Master of boat — Occasionally 
 carrying cotton for neighbors. — Defend- 
 ant was the owner of a boat, in which he 
 was accustomed to carry his own cot- 
 ton to Charleston, and occasionally, 
 when he had not a load of his own, to 
 take for his neighbors, they paying freight 
 for the same. H. was the master of the 
 lioat, and the general habit was for those 
 who wished to send their cotton by de- 
 fendant's boat, to apply to defendant 
 himself. On this occasion, the master of 
 the boat had been told to take the cot- 
 ton of certain other parties, which he 
 had done, when plaintiflf applied to H., 
 in the absence of defendant, to take on 
 board ten bales of his cotton, asking him 
 if it was necessary to apply to the de- 
 fendant himself, to which H. replied, he 
 thought not and received the cotton. It 
 was held that defendant was bound by 
 such act of H., as being within the gen- 
 eral scope of the authority conferred 
 upon him by placing him in the situation 
 of master of the boat, and that the de- 
 fendant was consequently chargeable as 
 a common carrier, for any loss of, or 
 damage to, plaintiff's cotton. McClure 
 f. Richardson (S. C), Rice 215, 33 Am. 
 Dec. 105. 
 
 68. Captain of steamboat — Trunk — 
 Proper agent at place. — The defendants 
 being the owners of a steamboat, and 
 their regular business being the trans- 
 portation of goods and merchandise 
 thereon, the plaintiff delivered to B., the 
 captain of such steamboat, wliile in 
 charge thereof, a trunk containing cloth- 
 ing, for transportation from A. to N. Y. 
 It was held that plaintiff had the right 
 to conclude that B. was the proper per- 
 son for him to treat witli, in the absence
 
 279 
 
 WHEN I.IAIilLITV COMMENCES. 
 
 § 394 
 
 freight depot delivering it to a freiglit handler in apparent charge who then 
 performed and who was accustomed to performing the duties of the receiving 
 clerk with reference to freight delivered, there was a sufficient delivery."'' But 
 where there is delivery, on hoard a vessel, to one apparently no more than a 
 common lahorer, without making proper inquiry, the rlelivery is insufficient.'^'' 
 And the same rule applies to the delivery and receipt of goods to deck hands 
 on a hoat, unless such persons are authorized to receive freight generally or 
 unless there exists a special contract or usage.'' .And the mere fact that the 
 reception of the freight hy the deck hands is such that the officers, whose duty 
 it is to receive goods for transportation, must, if they e.xercise reasonably at- 
 tention and care and diligence, know that the freight is on board, and receive 
 it, can make no ditterencc.'- 
 
 Authority Arising from Frequent Exercise of Power. — The frequent 
 exercise of a ])ower, of which his ])rincipal naay have been presumed to have 
 notice, may be regarded by persons dealing with the i)rincipal as sufficient evi- 
 dence of the authority of such agent, and this applies to employees of a rail- 
 road company receiving i)ackages for an express company.'-* If in an action 
 against a common carrier for the loss of a parcel, the defendant pleaded that 
 it was not delivered to him to be carried, it is sufficient for the plaintifY to show 
 that it was delivered to a person and at a house where parcels were in the habit 
 of being left for such carrier; and it is immaterial whether such person was 
 paid any money or not.'"* 
 
 Delivery on Wharf to Mate of Vessel. — W here goods are to be carried 
 coast-wise, and the usage of tl;e wharf is to dclixer them on the wharf to the 
 
 of any information to the contrary; and 
 that the defendants were liable as com- 
 mon carriers for the loss of the trunk 
 and contents, although it was proved that 
 they kept an agent at \.. whose ])usiness 
 it was to make contracts for the carriage 
 of freight. Witljeck r. Schuyler (X. V.), 
 44 Barl). 4m, ;n How. Prac. 97. 
 
 69. Freight handler — Failure to carry. 
 — In Lord :■. Maine Cent. R. Co., 105 
 Me. 255, 33 R. R. R. 130. 5r) Am. & Kng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 130, 74 Atl. 117, it appeared 
 that a shipper left goods for transporta- 
 tion at the freight depot of defendant 
 common carrier, delivering the same to 
 a freight handler who was apparently in 
 charge and who was accustomed to re- 
 ceive freight during the absence of the 
 receiving clerk, and the goods were prop- 
 erly packed and taggeil with the name of 
 the consignee and the place of destina- 
 tion, and the shipper was not requcste<l 
 to prepay the freight, and he left the de- 
 pot supposing nothing further would be 
 required preliminary to the transporta- 
 tion of the goods, and they were not 
 shipped. It was held that such circum- 
 stances sufficiently showed that the com- 
 mon carrier accepted the goods for trans- 
 portation when received by the freight 
 handler, and that there was a breach of 
 duty on the part of the common carrier 
 because of failure to transport the goods, 
 and that therefore it was liable in dam- 
 ages to the shipjicr. 
 
 70. Goods deposited by shipper's porter 
 at place on steamboat indicated by 
 common laborer — Authority — Failure of 
 porter to inquire. — Bui where, in an ac- 
 
 '.ion against the owner of a steamboat, 
 as a common carrier, it was proved that 
 it was the duty of the clerk of such 
 steamboat to receive freight for trans- 
 portation, and property, having been 
 taken on board such boat when lying at 
 the wharf by a porter, was left at a place 
 pointed out by a person on board, whose 
 appearance and employment indicated 
 that he was a common laborer, and no 
 inquiry was made by such porter, either 
 as to the authority of such person to re- 
 ceive property for carriage, or whether 
 there was or was not any other person 
 on board who had such authority, it was 
 held that there was not sufficient evi- 
 dence of delivery to render the owner of 
 the boat liable for the loss of such prop- 
 erty. Trowbridge :•. Chapin, 23 Conn. 
 595. 
 
 71. Delivered to steamboat deck hands 
 — Authority — Burden of proof. — Ford v. 
 Mitclicll, :n Ind. 54. 
 
 72. Care and precaution of deck hand 
 immaterial. — Ford ." . Mitchell. 21 Ind. 54. 
 
 73. Frequent exercise of authority — 
 Delivery to express company through 
 railroad employee. — Seasongoud :. Ten- 
 nessee, etc.. Transp. Co., 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1142, 54 S. W. 193, 49 L. R. A. 270: Pa- 
 cific Exp. Co. i'. Black, 8 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 363, 27 S. W. 830. citing Hull f. East 
 Line, etc., R. Co.. 66 Tex. 619, 2 S. W. 
 831; Prince v. International, etc., R. Co., 
 (■>4 Tex 144; Friedlander & Co. v. Cor- 
 nell. 45 Tex. 585. 
 
 74. Delivery of parcel at house. — Bur- 
 rill r. North, 61 Eng. C. L. 679.
 
 §§ 394-396 CARRIERS. 280 
 
 mate of the ship bv which thev are to be carried, if they are deHvered to the 
 mate, the wharfinger's responsibihty is at an end, and he is not hable, though 
 the goods are lost from the wharf before they are shipped.'"' 
 
 Delivery of Cash Letter to Steamboat Clerk.— The dehvery of a cash 
 letter to the clerk of a steamboat is a delivery to the master of the vessel; and 
 it is not necessary to show special authority in the clerk to receive such letters, 
 when a general iisage of boats in the trade is to receive them.'^« 
 
 Delivery to Clerk of Express Agent, Outside of His Office.— But it has 
 been held that a deliverv of a package of money to a clerk of an express agent 
 outside of his office is not a delivery to the company, although the former agents 
 of the companv were accustomed to receive such packages from the plamtiff 
 outside of their offices, and such clerk was accustomed to receive such packages 
 in the office of the agent and receipt for them there." 
 
 Authority to Receive Particular Kinds of Property.— Where by usage 
 there is a person appointed to receive and take charge of a particular kmd of 
 property, the delivery must be to him and not to one engaged in the discharge 
 of other duties."^ 
 
 Delivery to a stranger apparently in charge of an express wagon, though 
 the name of the carrier be on his cap shield, may be of such a nature as not 
 to bind the carrier.''' 
 
 Wagon Sent upon Carrier's Private Business.— A common earner by 
 wagon may send his wagon and team upon his own business, under the care of 
 a person who never has contracted for him, and is not authorized to contract 
 for him, without being liable for goods entrusted to such driver.^^ 
 
 §§ 395-397. Authority of Third Persons— Special Agents— § 395. 
 In General. — If the propertv is deposited with a third person, wdio is^ author- 
 ized by the carrier to execute a bill of lading in the name of the carrier, then 
 such mode of delivery is as complete as if the property had been actually de- 
 posited w^ith the carrier.^ 1 
 
 § 396. Delivery to Lighterman to Be Carried to Ship.— In ports where" 
 it is necessary for a vessel drawing much water to lie outside of the bar and 
 h.ave her cargo brought to her by lighters, and the usage is for the lighterman 
 
 75 Delivery on wharf to mate.— Cob- appeared, signed a receipt and took away 
 
 ban"r Downe ( Eng. K. B.). .5 Esp. N the goods. It did not appear that he 
 
 p ^Q ' came from or returned to the wagon, nor 
 
 ■ „ ■nw r r ^.,^v, f^ r^l^rt Mncpa was it shown who owned the wagon. 
 
 76. Dehvery o cash to clerk.-Hosea ^^^ .^mpany repudiated the whole trans- 
 V. McLr<,r3. i.. .via. o4j. action, including the name of the alleged 
 
 77. Delivery to clerk outside office.— ^^^^^^ ^^ signed in the book. It was held 
 Cronkitc z: Wells, .32 N. Y. 247. ^-^^^ there was no delivery to the carrier 
 
 78. To receive particular property.— made out. 
 
 Ball V. New Jersey Steamboat Co. (N. go. Driver sent upon carrier's own 
 
 Y.), 1 Daly 491. business — Authority of driver. — Jenkins 
 
 79 Delivery to stranger.— In Abrams v. z: Picket, 17 Tenii. (!) Yerg.) 480. 
 Piatt, 2:5 Misc. r,37, .52 X. Y. S. 153, an ac- 81. Delivery to third person.— Stewart 
 tion where the issue was whether the z: Gracy, '.I3 Tcnn. 314. 27 S. W. (>()4. 
 plaintiff had delivered certain goods to Delivery to servant or agent accustomed 
 the defendant, an express company, it to accept freight— Private mstruction.— 
 appeared that he was a regular customer, A delivery to a servant or duly authorized 
 furnished with a placard which he ex- agent of a common earner, who is in the 
 nosed when he wished an express wagon hal)it of receiving packages, for trans- 
 to call and also with book of blank re- portation is a sufficient delivery to the 
 ceipts After the plaintiff had exhibited carrier; and the acts of the agent m this 
 his placard on a certain day. a stranger, connection, within the usual scope of his 
 who had the name of the company in- employment will bind the earner, regard- 
 scribed on a shield on his cap, came in less of any private instructions, unless he 
 the store, while there was, on the other party delivenng the package knew of the 
 side of the street, "a sort of yellow instructions. Minter t^. Pacific Railroad, 
 wagon" on which the company's name 41 Mo. 503, 97 Am. Dec. 288.
 
 281 
 
 \Vlli:\ I.IAi;iLITV CO.MMEN'CKS. 
 
 §§ 396-397 
 
 to be engaged and paid !)> the captain of the vessel, to give his receipt to the 
 factor for the cotton, and lu take a receipt from the captain when he dehvers 
 it on board of the vessel, dehvery of goods to the ligliterman is a deHvery to 
 the master, and the transportation Ijy the lighter to the vessel the commence- 
 ment of the voyage, in execntiiiii of the cfjiUract by which the master engages 
 to carry. '*- 
 
 § 397. Delivery of Cotton to Compress Company. — When cotton is de- 
 livered to a compress company for compression, before shipment, such delivery 
 may or may not constitute a delivery to the carrier. Where the compress com- 
 pany acts as agent for the carrier, delivery to the former is a delivery to the 
 latter,'^'' but where the conijiress com])any acts as agent of the shipper, delivery 
 to it is not a delivery to take carrier.'^'* 
 
 82. Delivery to lighterman to be car- 
 ried to ship. — Bulkley v. Naumkeag 
 Stoain Cotton Co. (L\ S.), 24 How. 38(5, 
 10 L. Ed. 599. 
 
 Where a litihlcrnum, thus cnii)loyc(l, 
 was conveying- bales of cotton to a vessel 
 lyins outside of the bar, but l)efore they 
 were put on board, an explosion of the 
 boiler threw the I)ales into the water, by 
 which the cotton was damaged; the ves- 
 sel was held responsible for the lost upon 
 being lil)elled in a court of admiralty, the 
 master having included these l)ales in the 
 bills of lading which he signed. Bulk- 
 ley V. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. (U. 
 S.), 24 How. 386, K) L. Ed. 599_. 
 
 83. Where compress company is agent 
 of carrier. — Artliur v. Texas, etc.. R. Co., 
 304 U. S. 505, 51 L. Ed. 590, 27 S. Ct. 338, 
 23 R. R. R. 583, 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 583. 
 
 Where all cotton received by a carrier 
 for transportation is delivered to a com- 
 press company, which compresses it for 
 the railroad, at the expense of the latter, 
 and it gives its bills of lading: on the faith 
 of the receipts of the compress company, 
 a delivery to the compress company is a 
 delivery to the carrier, and the compress 
 company is its agent for whose negli- 
 gence the carrier is liable. Arthur v. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 204 U. S. 505, 51 L. 
 Ed. 590, 27 S. Ct. 338, 23 R. R. R. 583, 
 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 583. 
 
 Where a rule of a state railroad com- 
 mission requires a carrier to sign a bill 
 of lading for cotton when receipts of a 
 compress company are presented to it, the 
 rule applies to a case when the cotton is 
 tendered to the company although at the 
 time it is upon the compress company's 
 platform, and if the carrier does not re- 
 gard the presentation of these receipts as 
 in fact a tender, or a valid tender, it may 
 refuse to sign the Inll of lading, and where 
 it issues a bill of lading it acknowledges 
 the tender. Arthur v. Texas, etc., R. Co.. 
 204 U. S. 505, 520, 51 L. Ed. 590, 27 S. 
 Ct. 338, 23 R. R. R. 583, 46 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 583. 
 
 Plaintiflf delivered cotton to a compress 
 company, which was defendant's agent 
 for shipment when compressed, and after 
 
 the cotton had been checked by the com- 
 press company, plaintiff presented the 
 i)ills of lading to defendant's agent, but 
 he refused to sign them because the in- 
 surance carried by the compress company 
 to cover cotton on its platform for ship- 
 ment, pursuant to an agreement between 
 it and the railroad company, was not suf- 
 ficient to cover the cotton then on hand, 
 and plaintifif's cotton was destroyed lie- 
 fore the bills of lading were signed. Held, 
 that there was a delivery of the cotton 
 to defendant for transportation before 
 the fire. Texas Mid. Railroad v. Edwards 
 & Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 643, 121 S. W. 
 570. 
 
 84. Compress acting as shipper's agent. 
 — Missiiuri I'ac. R. Co. v. McFaddcn. 1."j4 
 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 9y.j; 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 U. 
 S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132. 
 
 Where a carrier issued a bill of lading 
 for cotton which was in the hands of a 
 compress company, who were the agents 
 of the shipper, for the purpose of being 
 compressed before shipment, and the cot- 
 ton was destroyed by fire while in the 
 possession of the compress company, it 
 was held that the carrier was not liable 
 to the assignee of the bill of lading al- 
 though such assignee did not have notice 
 of a custom or course of dealing between 
 the carrier and the shipper bj-" which it 
 was understood by both parties that the 
 cotton was not to be delivered at the 
 time the bill of lading was issued but 
 was to remain in the hands of the com- 
 press company as the agent of the shipper 
 to be compressed. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 
 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 A bought cotton and delivered it to a 
 compress company, where it was weighed, 
 classed and graded by A and marks put 
 upon each liale indicating the grade or 
 quality and the lot to wiiich it belonged. 
 The railroad compan}' issued bills of lad- 
 ing for the cotton, sometimes before it 
 was in the hands of the compress com- 
 pany at all. Compressing was to be done 
 at the expense of the railroad company. 
 It was held that the railroad company's 
 liability as common carrier commenced
 
 § 397 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 282 
 
 Custom or Special Contract. — Custom or special contract may render a 
 railroad company liable as a common carrier for goods which have never been 
 in its possession. Thus, where cotton is in the possession, and under the con- 
 trol of a compress company, but for which the carrier has issued bills of lading 
 in exchange for the compress company's receipts, the carrier is liable.'^'' A rail- 
 road company's liability, as a common carrier, for cotton begins upon its de- 
 livery to a warehouseman for compression for shipmlent, where by contract, ex- 
 press or implied, the carrier has authorized the warehouseman to receive cotton 
 for it, at the warehouse, and give receipts therefor to owners, and to issue it 
 for the railroad's benefit, and to hold and compress it for shipment by the rail- 
 road company, the latter issuing bills of lading to owners before taking 
 actual custody of the cotton ; upon presentation of the warehouseman's re- 
 ceipts.'*'^ And in such cases a custom of dealing between the parties, whereby 
 the property is treated as under the control of the railroad company from the 
 time it issues such bills of lading, will be sufficient to establish the carrier's lia- 
 bility.*' But the carrier in such cases is not liable for the loss, to an assignee 
 of the bill of lading without notice of the agreement and course of dealing be- 
 
 only when the specific cotton was de- 
 livered for the purpose of transportation 
 into its exclusive possession and control, 
 and only when specific lots were marked 
 and designated to correspond to the bills 
 of lading previously issued by the carrier. 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Knight. 122 U. 
 S. 79. 30 L. Ed. 1077. 7 S. Ct. 1132. 
 
 85. Custom or special contract. — Ar- 
 thur V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 204 U. S. 505, 
 51 L. Ed. 590, 23 R. R. R. 583, 46 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 583, 27 S. Ct. 338; 
 Marine Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 41 Fed. 643, 43 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 79; 
 Deming v. Merchants' Cotton Press, etc., 
 Co., 90 Tenn. 306, 17 S. W. 89, 13 L. R. A. 
 518; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Union Ins. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 975; Amory 
 Mfg. Co. V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 89 Tex. 419, 
 37 S. W. 856, 59 Am. St. Rep. 65; Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Douglas & Sons, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 28, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 98. 
 
 Custom to exchange bills of lading for 
 warehouse receipts of compress company 
 — Excessive accumulation of cotton in 
 street — Liability. — In Marine Ins. Co. v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 643, 43 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 79, it is held that a rail- 
 road company contracting to remove cot- 
 ton received by a compressing company, 
 from its warehouse where it was re- 
 ceived, to its compressing mill, is liable 
 for damage occasioned by a nuisance re- 
 sulting from the accumulation of the cot- 
 ton in a public street owing to its fail- 
 ure to remove the same, especially when 
 it had been accustomed to take up the 
 warehouse receipts of that company and 
 issue bills of lading for cotton covered 
 thereby, reserving the right to have it 
 compressed, as in the former case it would 
 assist continuance of the nuisance, and in 
 the latter would, as a common carrier, 
 permit the accumulation of dangerous 
 material, which it was bound to trans- 
 port promptly. 
 
 Compression at railroad's convenience 
 and cost — Fire while awaiting compression 
 — Negligence of employees of compress 
 company. — In Arthur v. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co., 204 U. S. 505, 51 L. Ed. 590, 23 R. R. 
 R. 583, 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 583, 
 27 S. Ct. 338, it is held that a carrier 
 which issues bills of lading to a shipper 
 in return for receipts given by a com- 
 press company for cotton in the latter's 
 custody is liable for loss by fire due to 
 the negligence of the servants of the 
 compress company in caring for the cot- 
 ton while awaiting the compression and 
 loading, which the railroad company had 
 ordered done for its own convenience 
 and at its own cost, where such company, 
 if it did not regard the presentation of 
 the receipt as a tender of the cotton, or 
 if it were not a valid tender, could, not- 
 withstanding the rules of the Texas state 
 railroad commission as well as its own 
 rules, have refused to sign the bills of 
 lading. 
 
 Cotton on platform of compress com- 
 pany — Fire — Bill of lading — Limiting lia- 
 bility. — In Amory Mfg. Co. z'. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co., 89 Tex. 419, 37 S. W. 856, 59 Am. 
 St. Rep." 65, it appeared that cotton on 
 the platform of a compress company near 
 defendant's railroad track was destroyed 
 by fire; that while it was on the plat- 
 form the railroad company executed a 
 ]n\[ of lading binding itself to transport 
 the cotton to M., N. H., and exempting 
 itself from liability for its loss or dam- 
 age while "in transit * * *, at depot or 
 place of trans-shipment." It was held 
 that the railroad was liable, as a common 
 carrier, for the loss of the cotton. 
 
 86. Contract. — Deming v. Merchants' 
 Cotton Press, etc., Co., 90 Tenn. 306, 17 
 S. W. 89, 13 L. R. A. 518. 
 
 87. Custom establishing liability. — Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Union Ins. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 975.
 
 283 WlinX LIARILITV COMMKNCKS. §§ 397-400 
 
 tween the shipper and the carrier.'*'' Xor rloes the mere fact that the cost of 
 compression is included in the charge for transportation and paid by the car- 
 rier, render the carrier liable prior to the actual delivery of the cotton."*" And 
 a railroad comi)any does not become liable for an injury to cotton caused by 
 the negligence of a compress company, exercising an independent employment 
 ill the handling of the cotton, by reiison merely of the fact that the railroad 
 companv has taken up the compress comjjany's receipts for cotton received for 
 compression and issued bills of lading therefor to the owners of the cotton, and 
 has agreed to ])av the comj)ress conipaiiN's charges for com])ression.'^"' 
 
 A contract with a compress company to transport all cotton brought 
 to its warehouse does not rendc-r llie carrier responsible for lobS to owners 
 of part of such cotton, for which it has given no bills of lading, if it has in fact 
 assumed no custody or control of any of the cotton, or of the place where it 
 was kept before it was put upon the cars, although it has, as a matter of con- 
 venience, given to the owners of other parts of such cotton bills of lading in 
 exchange for the warehouse receipts of the conijiress comi)any, and although it 
 is prohibited by statute, under a ])enalty, from issuing l)ills of lading except for 
 goods actually received into its ]iossession."i 
 
 Effect as Change of Possession. — It is held that the possession of cotton 
 by a compress company is not so changed, by the issuance by a railroad com- 
 pany to the owners of the cotton of bills of lading, as to render void an insur- 
 ance policy in favor of the compress company. •*- 
 
 § 398. Proof of Authority. — Where goods are delivered for transportation 
 to an agent of the carrier, who is clothed with api)arent authority to accept them 
 for such purpose, at a station or other regular place for the reception of freight 
 for carriage, the presumption is in favor of the agent's authority to bind the 
 carrier; but if the delivery to the agent is not made at or near a regular or 
 customary place for the acceptance of freight, the shipper has the burden of 
 proving that such agent had authority to bind the carrier by such acceptance.^^ 
 
 §§ 399-406. Complete Delivery for Immediate Shipment — § 399. In 
 General. — Such delivery to the carrier must be shown as to charge the latter 
 with the duties and liabilities of a carrier with respect to such goods.''"* 
 
 § 400. Exclusive Possession and Control. — In General. — Delivery of 
 goods to a common carrier for transportation, whether actual or constructive, 
 
 88. Liability to assignee of bill of lad- 1 Pick. 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Missouri 
 ing. — Missouri I'ac. R. Co. z-. McFadden, Coal, etc., Co. v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 
 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. I'.d. '.144. 14 S. Ct. 35 Mo. 84; Seasongood v. Tennessee, etc., 
 990. Transp. Co., 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142, 54 S. 
 
 89. Including cost of compression In W. 193, 49 L. R. A. 270; Abrams z: Piatt, 
 charge for transportation. — I'.dwards & 23 Misc. 637, 52 N. Y. S. 153. See ante, 
 Co. v. Texas Mid. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. "Officers and Aeents in General." § 394. 
 \pp.) 81 S. W. 800. Delivered at distance from railroad — 
 
 9o! Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 55 Authority of agent-Burden of proof.— 
 
 Ark 510 19 S. W. 314, 5r, Am. & Hng. Where goods are claimed to have been 
 
 R Cas 11'^ delivered to an agent or defendant car- 
 
 ' — „ ~' r ^ ., rier, at a distance from its line of rail- 
 
 91. Effect of contract with compress ^^^^_ ^^ ^^ ^^^^.^^ ^^ ^,^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^j^^,^^^ 
 
 company.— St. Louis etc k.Lu^z. Com- transported on its line, the authority of 
 
 mcrcial Union Ins Co., 139 L. S. 223, 3o ^,^^ ^^^^^^^ ^,^^j^ purporting to act as 
 
 L. I'.d. l.}4. 11 S. Lt. o.)4. agent, to bind the companv, nmst be 
 
 92. Possession of cotton not so charged shown. Missouri Coal, etc' R. Co. v. 
 by issuance of bills of lading as to void Hannilial. etc.. R. Co., 35 Mo. S4. 
 insurance policy. — California Ins. Co. v. 94. Complete delivery for immediate 
 L'nit>n Compress Co., 133 U. S. 387, 32 shipment. — Dean z\ King, 22 O. St. 118; 
 L. Ed. 730, 10 S. Ct. 3C.5. Page & Co. v. Sandusky, etc., R. Co., 4 
 
 93. Proof — Presumptions. — Cunard West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 716, 
 Steamship Co. z: Kelley, 53 C. C. A. 310, 718; Despatch Line f. Glenny & Co., 41 
 115 Fed. 678; Dwight v. Brewster (Mass.), O. St. 166.
 
 ;§ -400-401 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 284 
 
 being a bailment, involves exclusive possession in tbe carrier, and this involves 
 a surrender of custody and control for .the time being by the consignor.'*^ And 
 unless such exclusive possession and control of the goods have been surrendered 
 to the carrier, there has been no such delivery to it as to render it responsible 
 as a common carrier.'"' The delivery must be such as to place the goods in 
 the custody and under the control of the carrier, and not merely in his vehicle, 
 or other conveyance ; so that if they are really in charge of the owner's servants, 
 although they may be in the carrier's wagon or vessel, the carrier is not answer- 
 able.''" A railroad company is not responsible as a common carrier for stock 
 placed in its stock yards for subsequent shipment, but subject to the right of the 
 shipper to remove the stock from such pens for feed and water, before the ship- 
 ment is actuallv made.''^ But a ferryman is liable for loss of or damage to a 
 carriage and horses, which is placed upon the drop of his boat, though they are 
 driven bv the owner's driver.'**^ 
 
 §§ 401-406. Delivery for Immediate Shipment or Storage — § 401. 
 In General. — The delivery to and acceptance by the carrier must be for trans- 
 portation and not for storage.^ In order to render the carrier liable as an in- 
 
 R. 754, 63 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 745, 
 70 S. E. 879; Wilson v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 82 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076. 
 
 loiva. — Frazier v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 
 48 Iowa 571. 
 
 Mississippi. — Anderson v. Mobile, etc., 
 R. Co. (Miss.), 19 R. R. R. 382, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 382, 38 So. 661; 
 Tate V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 78 Miss. 842, 
 29 So. 392, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 461, 84 Am. St. Rep. 649. 
 
 Nebraska. — Burrowes v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 85 Neb. 497, 35 R. R. R. 373, 58 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 373, 123 N. W. 
 1028; Chicago, etc., R. ^Co. v. Powers, 73 
 Neb. 816, 18 R. R. R. 286, 41 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 286, 103 N. W. 678. 
 
 New York. — Grosvenor v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Prac, 
 N. S., 345. 
 
 North Carolina. — Sumner v. Charlotte, 
 etc., R. Co., 78 N. C. 289. 
 
 South Carolina. — Brown r. Atlanta, etc., 
 R. Co., 19 S. C. 39. 
 
 Tcnnesscc.^Stewurt v. Gracy, 93 Tenn. 
 314, 27 S. W. 664. 
 
 97. Goods in hands of consignor's serv- 
 ants. — Southern Exp. Co. v. McVeigh, 61 
 Va. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 98. Right of shipper to remove for feed 
 and water. — Cliicat^o, etc., R. Co. z'. Pow- 
 ers 73 Neb. H16, 18 R. R. R. 286, 41 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 286, 103 N. W. 678. 
 
 99. Vehicle driven by owner's driver. — 
 Cohen v. Hume (S. C), 1 McCord 439. 
 
 1. Delivery must be for transportation. 
 —Butler V. Basing, 12 Eng. C. L. 287; 
 Western R. Co. v. Bunch (Eng.), 13 App. 
 Cas 31, 57 L. J. Q. B. 361; Edwards V. 
 Sherratt (Eng.), 1 East 604; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Pool, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 682, 31 
 S. W. 688. See post, "Carriers as Ware- 
 houseman," chapter 13. 
 
 Whether carriers or forwarders — Effect 
 of instrument. — Wliere parties, who were 
 doing Inisiness as forwarders and also as 
 carriers, agreed orally to transport mer- 
 chandise, to be delivered to them from 
 
 95. Exclusive possession. — Wilson f. 
 Atlanta, etc.. R. Co.. 82 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 
 1076. See post, "Title, Custody and Con- 
 trol of Goods," chapter 9. 
 
 So when freight is deposited along the 
 carrier's line for the convenience of the 
 owner in delivering it to the carrier at 
 some future time and the latter does not 
 assume possession and custody to the 
 exclusion of the owner, it can not be 
 deemed to have accepted the goods for 
 shipment and its responsibility will not 
 begin until something further is done. 
 In such a case there must be a complete 
 surrender by the owner to the carrier 
 for the purpose of shipment and he can 
 not hold the carrier liable if he con- 
 tinues to exercise acts inconsistent with 
 such possession and custody. Wilson v. 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 82 Ga. 386, 9 S. 
 E. 1076. 
 
 And a carrier receiving lumber for 
 shipment to Europe was held liable on 
 its bill of lading for lumber lost after 
 placing it on the pier of the railway com- 
 pany and under its exclusive control. 
 Lewis V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 47 W. 
 Va. 656, 35 S. E. 908, 81 Am. St. Rep. 816. 
 
 96. United States. — Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 
 944, 14 S. Ct. 990; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 
 S Ct 1132. 
 
 The law will not divide the duty or the 
 obligation between the carrier and the 
 owner of the goods; it must rest entirely 
 upon the one or the other; and, until it 
 has become imposed upon the carrier by a 
 delivery and acceptance, he can not be 
 held responsible for them. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. 
 Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 Delaware.— Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 176; Truax v. 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 
 233. 
 
 Georgia. — Horne-Andrews Comm. Co. 
 V. Georgia R. Co., 136 Ga. 116, 40 R. R.
 
 285 
 
 \\lli;.\ I.IAIillJTV COMMKXCKS. 
 
 § 401 
 
 surer for the safety of j^oods tendered it for transportation tliey must be de- 
 livered to, and acce])ted l)y it for immediate sliii)ment.- If the dejjosit of the 
 
 tiino to time, and sul^scciucnlly, on rc- 
 ccivinjr a portion thereof to be trans- 
 ported pursuant to the contract, they ex- 
 ecuted an instrument stating tliat the 
 same was received to he forwarded, it 
 was held that they were responsible as 
 carriers, and not as forwarders. Blos- 
 som V. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 5(39, 07 Am. 
 Dec. 75. 
 
 2. Must be for immediate shipment. — 
 I'nitcd .S'/(//.\s-. --llaniiihal, rtc, 1\. Co. v. 
 vSwift (L'. S.), 12 Wall. 2ti2, 20 L. Kd. 423, 
 1 Am. R. Rep. 434; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Knight, 122 U. S. 71), 30 L. Ed. 1077, 
 7 S. Ct. 1132; Pratt v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 95 U. S. 43, 24 L. Ed. 336. 
 
 Alabama. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Sig- 
 ma Lumber Co., 170 Ala. 627, 40 R. R. 
 R. 197, 63 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 197, 
 54 So. 205; Mt. Vernon Co. v. Alabama, 
 etc., R. Co., 92 Ala. 296, 8 So. 687; O'Ban- 
 non V. Southern Exp. Co., 51 Ala. 481; 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cavander, 170 
 Ala. 601, 39 R. R. R. 338, 62 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 338, 54 So. 54. 
 
 Arkansas. — Garner v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 79 Ark. 353, 20 R. R. R. 527, 48 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 527, 96 S. W. 187, 
 116 Am. St. Rep. 83; Little Rock, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 527; Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Harnett, 69 Ark. 150, 61 S. W. 919; St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 19 
 S. W. 963; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bur- 
 row & Co.. 89 Ark. 178, 33 R. R. R. 754, 
 56 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 754. 116 S. 
 W. 198; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 
 60 Ark. 333. 30 S. W. 419. 
 
 Connecticut. — Hickox v. Naugatuck R. 
 Co., 31 Conn. 281, 83 Am. Dec. 143; Trow- 
 l)ridge v. Chapin, 23 Conn. 595; Merriam 
 V. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 
 Am. Dec. 344. 
 
 Dakota. — Waldron v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 1 Dak. 351, 46 N. W. 456. 
 
 Delaware. — Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 176; Truax v. 
 Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 
 233. 
 
 Georgia. — Dixon v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369, 17 .\ni. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 380; Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Newby, 36 Ga. G35, 91 Am. Dec. 783. 
 
 ///H(o/.y.— Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son, 99 111. App. 367; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Ashmead, 58 111. 487, 11 Am. R. Rep. 
 59; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smyser, 38 
 111. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Montgomery, 39 111. 335; Grand 
 Tower Mfg., etc.. Co. v. Ullman, 89 111. 
 244. 
 
 Indiana. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Foster, 104 Ind. 293, 4 N. E. 20, 54 Am. 
 Rep. 319; Van Gilder v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Iowa 548. 
 
 Kansas. — Missonri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
 Riggs, 10 Kan. App. 578, 62 Pac. 712. 
 
 Kentuckw — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stiles, 133" Ky. 786, 32 R. R. R. 231, 55 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 231, 119 S. W. 
 786; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. American 
 Tobacco Co., 126 Ky. 582, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1013, 25 R. R. R. 586, 48 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S.. 586, 104 S. W. 377. 
 
 Louisiana. — Williams v. Peytavin (La.), 
 4 Mart., O. S., 304. 
 
 .U(/i»f.— Wilson V. Grand Trunk Rail- 
 way, 57 Me. 138, 2 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 .Massacliusetts. — Barron v. Eldredge, 
 100 Mass. 455, 1 Am. Rep. 126; Fitchl)urg, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hanna (Mass.), 6 Gray 539, 
 66 Am. Dec. 427; Gass v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 99 Mass. 220, 96 Am. Dec. 742; 
 Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mass.), 11 Allen 80; Murray v. Inter- 
 national Steamship Co.. 170 Mass. 166, 48 
 X. E. 1093, 64 Am. St. Rep. 290; Watts v. 
 Boston, etc., Corp., 106 Mass. 466; Pit- 
 lock V. Wells, etc., Co., 109 Mass. 452. 
 
 Michigan. — Meloche v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 116 Mich. 69, 74 N. W. 301, 10 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 82; Michigan, 
 etc., R. Co. V. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165, 
 4 Am. Rep. 466; Michigan, etc., Co. v. 
 Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515; Stapleton v. Grand 
 Trunk R. Co., 133 Mich. 187, 94 X. W. 
 739, 9 R. R. R. 332, 32 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., X. S., 332. 
 
 Mississif^f^i. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. 
 Tronstine, 64 Miss. 834, 2 So. 255, 31 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 99. 
 
 Missouri. — Goodbar v. Wabash R. Co., 
 53 Mo. App. 434; McCrary v. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 518, 74 S. W. 
 2; Tate v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co.. 78 Miss. 
 842, 29 So. 392, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S.. 461, 84 Am. St. Rep. 649. 
 
 Xebraska. — Burrowes v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 85 Xeb. 497, 35 R. R. R. 373, 58 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 373. 123 N. 
 W. 1028; S. C. 87 Xeb. 142, 37 R. R. R. 
 450. 60 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S.. 450, 
 126 X. W. 1084; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Powers, 73 Xeb. 816. 18 R. R. R. 286. 41 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 286. 163 N. W. 
 678; Nelson z-. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 78 
 Xeb. 57. 23 R. R. R. 613, 46 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., X. S., 613, 110 X. W. 741. 
 
 Xezv Jersey. — New Brunswick Steam- 
 boat, etc., Co. V. Tiers, 24 X. J. L. 697, 
 64 Am. Dec. 394. 
 
 Xezi' York. — Blanchard z: Isaacs (X. 
 Y.), 3 Barb. 388; Ball z: Xew Jersey 
 Steamboat Co. (N. Y.). 1 Daly 491; Blos- 
 som z: Griffin. 13 N. Y. 569. 67 Am. Dec. 
 :.-.; Spade v. Hudson River R. Co. (X. Y.). 
 16 Barl). 383; London, etc.. Fire Ins. Co. 
 z: Rome, etc.. R. Co., 144 X. Y. 200, 39 X. 
 E. 79, 43 .\m. St. Rep. 752; O'Xeill v. Xew 
 York, etc.. R. Co.. 60 X. Y. 138. 10 Am. 
 R. Rep. 121: Wade z: Wheeler. 47 X. Y.
 
 § 401 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 286 
 
 goods is a mere accessory to the carriage, that is, if they are deposited for 
 the purpose of being carried without further orders, the responsibihty of the 
 carrier begins from the time they are received,=^ so while goods have been re- 
 ceived by a carrier for transportation, and not for storage, it is responsible for 
 them as a common carrier while they are in its possession before the transporta- 
 tion begins, if there remains nothing more for the shipper to do, and he has 
 rehnquished all control over the goods to the carrier.-* Where live stock is de- 
 
 658: Witbeck z\ Holland, 4,-) X. Y. 13. 
 affirming 55 Barb. 443. 38 How. Prac. 273; 
 Shelton z: Merchants' Dispatch Transp. 
 Co.. 59 N. Y. 258, 48 How. Prac. 257; 
 Grosvenor v. New York Cent. R. Co., 39 
 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 345. 
 
 North Carolina. — Berry v. Southern R. 
 Co., 122 N. C. 1002, 30 S. E. 14; Basnight 
 z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 592, W 
 S. E. 323; Sumner v. Charlotte, etc., R. 
 Co., 78 N. C. 289; Williams v. Southern 
 R. Co., 155 N. C. 260. 42 R. R. R. 105, 
 65 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 105, 71 S. 
 E. 346. 
 
 Ohio. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett, 36 O. St. 448. 
 
 Peiiiisvhaiiia. — Clarke v. Needles, 25 
 Pa. St. 338. 
 
 South Carolina. — Cone v. Southern 
 Railway, 85 S. C. 524, 36 R. R. R. 179, 59 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 179, 67 S. E. 
 779. 
 
 Tennessee. — American Lead Pencil Co. 
 V. Nashville, etc., Railway, 124 1 enn. 57, 
 40 R. R. R. 202, 63 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S.. 202, 134 S. W. 613; Southern R. Co. 
 v. Bickley. etc.. Co., 119 Tenn. 528. 
 29 R. R. R. 275, 52 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 275, 107 S. W. 680; Watson v. Mem- 
 phis, etc., R. Co.. 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 
 255, 19 Am. R. Rep. 256. 
 
 Texas. — East Line, etc.. R. Co. v. Hall. 
 64 Tex. 615; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Comp- 
 ton (Tex. Civ. App.). 38 S. W. 220; Gulf. 
 etc., R. Co. V. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 
 S. W. 568, 18 S. W. 948; International, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Dimmit County Pasture 
 Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 23 S. W. 754; 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard, 34 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 253; Galveston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 37 S. W. 255; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pool, 
 10 Tex. Civ. App. 682, 31 S. W. 688. 
 
 Virginia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Veigh, 61 Va. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 Washington. — Roy v. Griffin, 26 Wash. 
 106, 66 Pac. 120. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., 
 R. Co., 105 Wis. 1, 80 N. W. 920, 47 L. 
 R. A. 221, 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 65, 76 Am. St. Rep. 899; Schmidt v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 90 Wis. 504, 63 X. W. 
 1057; White v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 4() 
 Wis. 493, 1 N. W. 75, 21 .\m. R. Rep. 
 398. 
 
 England. — Western R. Co. v. Bunch 
 (Eng.), 13 App. Cas. 31, 57 L. J. Q. B. 
 361; Lovell v. London, etc., R. Co., 45 L. 
 
 J. Q. B. 476. 34 L. T. 127. 24 W. R. 394, 
 6 R. & C. T. Cas. ixix, 3 R. & C. T. xx. 
 
 3. Absolute deposit with carrier. — 
 Pratt V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 95 U. S. 
 43. 24 L. Ed. 336. 
 
 Where goods are delivered to a com- 
 mon carrier for transportation, and are 
 placed in its depot or warehouse await- 
 ing transportation, with nothing further 
 to be done by the shipper, and they are 
 burned before being shipped, the carrier 
 so receiving them is liable as a common 
 carrier, and not merely as a warehouse- 
 man. Grand Tower ' Mfg.. etc., Co. v. 
 Ullman, S9 111. 244. 
 
 Deposit mere accessory to carriage. — 
 If a common carrier receives goods into 
 its own warehouse for the accommoda- 
 tion of itself and the shipper so that the 
 deposit there is a mere accessory to the 
 carriage, and for the purpose of facili- 
 tating it, its liability as a common carrier 
 begins with the receipt of the goods. 
 Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. 338. 
 
 Both carrier and warehouseman.^ 
 Where a party, who is both a carrier and 
 a warehouseman, receives goods into his 
 w-arehouse to be transported by him, his 
 responsibility as a common carrier com- 
 mences when they are received. Blossom 
 V. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569. 67 Am. Dec. 75. 
 
 Liability of a railway as a common car- 
 rier attaches whenever the shipper has 
 done all that is required of him to pre- 
 pare his property for shipment, and has 
 delivered the same to the railway com- 
 pany and it has been accepted. Interna- 
 tional, etc., R. Co. V. Dimmit County 
 Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 23 S. 
 W. 754, distinguishing 1 exas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491, 495 and Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. v. McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41, 
 9 S. W. 80, and following East Line, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hall, 64 Tex. 615, and Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 S. W. 
 568, 18 S. W. 948; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pool, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 682, 31 S. W. 688; 
 Martin v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., 3 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 556, 22 S. W. 1007; Ft. Worth, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Martin, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 
 464, 35 S. W. 21, affirmed in 93 Tex. 660, 
 no op.; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty. 82 
 Tex. 608, IS S. W. 716. 
 
 4. Carrier's possession prior to trans- 
 portation. — United States. — Bulkley v. 
 Xaunikt-ag Steam Cotton Co., 24 How. 
 386. 16 L. Ed. 599; The Oregon, 1 Deady, 
 179 Fed. Cas. No. 10,553. 
 
 Illinois. — Grand Tower Mfg., etc., Co. 
 V. Ullman, 89 111. 244; Illinois Cent. R.
 
 287 
 
 WIIKN IJAI'.ILITV COMMENCES. 
 
 § -^1 
 
 livered to a railroad company its liability as an insurer commences as soon as 
 the animals have been properly received into its stock pens for immediate trans- 
 l)ortation.'' And if there is a delivery and acceptance for immediate or early 
 transportation, the carrier is liable,'' although it may not be able to transport 
 them promptly, and there may be a long storage of them jjrior to shipment J 
 15ut where freight is delivered to a carrier by a shipper, knowing that the car- 
 rier's power to transport it is subject to the permission of the military authority, 
 such delivery can only be for storage until such permission can be obtained.^ 
 
 Co. V. Aslmuad, ."s 111. 4sT. 11 Am. R. 
 Rep. 59. 
 
 Kcutuckw — Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 
 125 Ky. 056, 25 R. R. R. (■)52, 48 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 052, 102 S. W. 2:i2. 
 
 Louisiana. — Greenwood z'. Cooper, 10 
 La. Ann. 796. 
 
 Massaclntsetts. — Jordan v. Fall River 
 R. Co. (Mass.), 5 Cush. 69, 51 Am. Dec. 
 44; Murray Z'. International Steamship 
 Co., 170 Mass. 166, 48 N. E. 1()9;{, 64 Am. 
 St. Rep. 290; Fitchburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hanna (Mass.), 6 'Gray 5:59, 06 Am. Dec. 
 427; Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mass.), 11 Allen 80. 
 
 Michigan. — Meloche v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 116 Mich. 69, 74 N. W. ;U)1, 10 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 82. 
 
 Missouri. — Mason r. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 25 Mo. App. 473. 
 
 Nczi' Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, 
 etc., Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 222. 
 
 Xczi' York. — Blossom v. Griffin, 13 X. 
 Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75; London, etc.. Fire 
 Ins. Co. V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 
 200, 39 N. E. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 752; 
 Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. Y. 262. 
 
 0/n'o.— Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett, 36 O. St. 448. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard, 
 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 253. 
 
 Wisconsin. — White v. Goodrich Transp. 
 Co., 46 Wis. 493, 1 X. W. 75, 21 Am. R. 
 Rep. 398. 
 
 5. In case of live stock. — Arkansas. — A 
 railroad company's lialiility as a common 
 carrier for damage to stock begins when 
 it receives the animal for transportation. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ Mitchell (Ark ), 
 43 R. R. R. 673, 66 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 X. S., 673. 
 
 Indiana. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. God- 
 man, 104 Ind. 490, 4 N. E. 163. 
 
 Indian Tcrritorv. — Missouri, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Byrne. 3 Ind." T. 740. 49 S. W. 41. 13 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S.. 17. 
 
 Kentuclcv. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Stiles. 133 Ky. 780, 32 R. R. R. 231, 55 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 231, 119 S. W. 
 786. 
 
 Missouri. — Lackland f. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 101 Mo. App. 420, 11 R. R. R. 414, 34 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S.. 414. 74 S. W. 
 505; Mason v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 25 
 Mo. App. 473: Pruitt v. Hannibal, etc.. R. 
 Co., 62 Mo. 527. 
 
 Xebraska. — Xelson z\ Chicago, etc.. R. 
 
 Co., 78 Xeb. 57, 23 R. R. R. 613, 46 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 013. 110 X. W. 741. 
 
 Texas. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Jack- 
 son (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 255; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 S. 
 W. 568, 18 S. W. 948. 
 
 Virginia. — Xorfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 man, 91 \'a. 601, 22 S. E. 490, 44 L. R. A. 
 289. 50 Am. St. Rep. 855. 
 
 England. — MofTatt z'. Great Western R. 
 Co., 15 L. T. fi3(). 
 
 6. Delivery for early transportation. — 
 When tlie delivery of freight is made at 
 the warehouse, or other place of liusiness 
 of the carrier, for early transportation, it 
 becomes, the moment the delivery is 
 made, a common carrier as to such freight, 
 and its responsibility, as such, at once at- 
 taches. In such cases the deposit is a 
 mere accessory to the carriage, and does 
 not postpone its liability as a common 
 carrier to the time when the goods shall 
 be actuallj^ put in motion towards their 
 place of destination; and this principle is 
 applicable to the shipment of live stock. 
 Mason v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 25 Mo. 
 App. 473. 
 
 Promise to ship next morning. — Where 
 goods properly marked are placed inside 
 of defendant's freight depot for immedi- 
 ate shipment, and defendant's agents 
 agree to ship them on the following 
 morning, defendant is liable as a common 
 carrier. Meloche v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 116 Mich. 69. 74 X. W. 301, 10 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., X. S., S2. 
 
 Letter as direction for immediate ship- 
 ment — Request to mark prepaid not con- 
 dition precedent to shipment. — A shipper 
 wrote to the freight agent of a railroad 
 company, "Will you please * * * have 
 these three pieces marked according to 
 the address already tacked on and for- 
 ward immediately to Xewport, R. I. Will 
 you mark them prepaid? I will be at the 
 depot tomorrow and get the bill of lading 
 and pay the freight." It was held that 
 this letter was direction for immediate 
 shipment and did not make the marking 
 of the pieces as prepaid a condition pre- 
 cedent to the shipment. Berrv f. South- 
 ern R. Co.. 122 X. C. 1002. 30 S'. E. 14. 
 
 7. Lack of cars — Long storage — Duty 
 to load cars when furnished. — London, 
 etc.. Fire Ins. Co. z\ Rome, etc.. R. Co., 
 144 X. Y. 200. ;;9 X. I-".. 79. 43 Am. St. Rep. 
 752. 
 
 8. Power to transport corn subject to 
 permission of military authorities — Com
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 288 
 
 §§ 401-402 
 
 Accepted for Immediate or Remote Shipment and Placed on Carrier's 
 
 Platform.— Where gootls are accepted for shii)inent, whether intended to be 
 inmiediate or remote, the placing of the goods upon its platform renders the car- 
 rier responsible for any damages thereto from fire onginatmg wjthm its right 
 of way.'' Thus where' a car on the carrier's side track is loaded, sealed, and 
 the bill of ladin>; issued, the carrier's liability attaches at once.^" 
 
 No Direction or Intention to Ship Immediately.— If goods are deluered 
 to a railroad company and receiyed by it for shipment, they may be transmitted 
 without the issuance of a bill of lading, and may be regarded as in the posses- 
 sion of the railroad, as a common carrier, from the time they are receiyed, though 
 there was no instruction or intention that the carrier should immediately make 
 the shipment.^ ^ 
 
 §§ 402-406. Something to Be Done Prior to Transportation— § 402. 
 In General.— The liability of a railroad company, as a common carrier, for 
 goods destroyed while in its possession depends on whether or not it has ac- 
 cepted them 'for transixjrtation, and not whether all has been done that ought 
 to precede such acceptance, and if it takes control of goods and puts its agents 
 to preparing them for shipment, it has accepted them.i^ Hewever, it is gen- 
 erally said that as long as there remains something to be done by the shipper 
 befo're the entire control of the freight is surrendered to the carrier, the latter's 
 liability as a common carrier does not begin. ^"^ Thus, it is held that although 
 
 delivered into cars and warehouse of car- 
 rier — No shipper's receipt. — Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Ashmead, 58 111. 487, 11 Am. R. 
 Rep. 59. 
 
 9. Goods on carrier's platform. — Grif- 
 fin r. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., S9 S. C. 547, 
 72 vS. E. 463. 
 
 No trains scheduled until next day- 
 Shipper's knowledge. — A carrier received 
 frei.^ht for transportation, though it had 
 no trains scheduled to carry it until the 
 following day. The shipper knew the 
 facts, and understood that the goods 
 would be stored in the depot until the fol- 
 lowing day. It was held that the carrier 
 while so holding the goods at the depot 
 was liable as a carrier, and not as a ware- 
 houseman. Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 125 
 Ky. G56^ 25 R. R. R. 652, 48 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 652, 102 S. W. 232. 
 
 10. Loaded car on carrier's side track 
 near grain elevator — Bill of lading sent to 
 elevator company's office. — A railroad 
 company maintained a side track adjacent 
 to a wheat elevator. A car was loaded 
 for shipment, and a bill of lading was is- 
 sued and sent to the elevator company's 
 office. The bill of lading provided that 
 the carrier should be liable for any loss or 
 damage. It was held that car was received 
 for shipment, and having burned on the 
 side track before it was removed, the 
 railroad was liable as a common carrier. 
 Cincinnati Grain Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 146 Ky. 237, 43 R. R. R. 682, 66 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 682, 142 S. W. 374. 
 
 11. No direction or intention to ship im- 
 mediately. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Beard, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 
 253. 
 
 12. Something to be done prior to trans- 
 
 portation. — East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 
 04 Tex. 015. 
 
 13. Something to be done by shipper. — 
 United States. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. 
 Ct. 1132. 
 
 Alabama. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cav- 
 ender, 170 Ala. 601, 39 R. R. R. 338, 62 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 338, 54 So. 54. 
 
 Arkansas. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hunter, 42 Ark. 200, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 527; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 
 60 Ark. 333, 30 S. W. 419; Kansas, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Barnett, 69 Ark. 150, 61 S. W. 
 919. 
 
 Dclazvare. — Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 176. 
 
 District of Columbia. — Bowie v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., 1 MacArthur (8 D. 
 C), 94. 
 
 Georgia. — Dixon v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369, 17 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 380; Wilson v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 82 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076. 
 
 Illinois. — Grand Tower Mfg., etc., Co. v. 
 Ullman, 89 111. 244; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Montgomery, 39 111. 335; Toledo, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Gilvin, 81 111. 511; -Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Smyscr, 38 111. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 
 301. 
 
 loii'a. — Van Gilder v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Iowa 548. 
 
 Kansas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Riggs, 
 10 Kan. App. 578, 62 Pac. 712. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Judson v. Western R. 
 Corp. (Mass.), 4 Allen 520, 81 Am. Dec. 
 718; Watts v. Boston, etc., Corp., 106 
 Mass. 466. 
 
 Michigan. — Stapleton v. Grand Trunk R. 
 
 Co., 133 Mich. 187, 9 R. R. R. 332, 32 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 332, 94 N. W. 739. 
 
 Nebraska. — Burrowes v. Chicago, etc.,
 
 289 
 
 WIII-.X LIAUILITV COMMENCES. 
 
 402 
 
 the sliipper has delivered the goods to the carrier, if after such dehvery any- 
 thing required either by law or contract remains to be done by the shipper, the 
 rights and liability of tlic carrier are those only of a warehouseman.'^ Where 
 a part only of the freight is loaded, the balance to be loaded another day, after 
 the shipper finishes using it, the carrier is not liable.^"' And a carrier is not 
 liable for grain which is to be hauled by the shipper and loaded on board a ves- 
 sel, although the weighing has been tallied by the carrier's agent.'*' 
 
 R. Co., 85 Xel). 497, 3"> R. R. R. '.il'.i, 58 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 373, 123 X. W. 
 1028. 
 
 iVrw Hauipsltirc. — Barter & Co. v. 
 Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9, 6 Am. Rep. 434; 
 Elkins V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 N. H. 
 375; Moses v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 24 
 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. 
 
 Nezi' York. — Spade v. Hudson River R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), IG Barb. 383; London, etc.. 
 Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 
 N. Y. 200, 39 N. E. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 
 752; O'Neill v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 60 N. Y. 138, 10 Am. R. Rep. 121. 
 
 North Carolina. — Basnight v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., Ill N. C. 592, IG S. E. 323; 
 Sumner v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 78 N. 
 C. 289; Berry z: Southern R. Co., 122 N. 
 C. 1002, 30 S. E. 14. 
 
 0/no.— Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. f. Bar- 
 ret, 3G O. St. 448. 
 
 Totiicsscc. — American Lead Pencil Co. 
 V. Nashville, etc., Railway, 124 Tenn. 57, 
 40 R. R. R. 202, G3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 202, 134 S. W. G13. 
 
 T('.ra.y.— Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard, 
 
 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 253. 
 Wisconsin. — Schmidt v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 Co., 90 Wis. 504, 63 N. W. 1057. 
 
 So long as anything further is to be 
 done or orders to be given by the owner 
 to enable the company to perform its 
 dut3% it would be a bailee of a different 
 character than as carrier, and the ques- 
 tion of ordinary care on the part of the 
 company miglit become a prime factor in 
 the determination of the suit. In the lat- 
 ter case the depository or warehouseman 
 would only be liable for negligence or 
 want of ordinary care of the property, 
 and the burden would be on the plaintiff 
 as to negligence. In the other case, the 
 onus probandi as to due care would be 
 upon the defendant whenever the damage 
 is proved. International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dimmit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 186, 23 S. W. 754. 
 
 14. Liable only as warehouseman. — 
 Dixon T'. Central, etc., R. Cci., J 10 Ga. 173, 
 
 35 S. E. 369, 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 380. See post, "Carrier as Warehouse- 
 man," chapter 13. Georgia, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Sizer & Co., 4 Ga. App. 126, 60 S. E. 
 1026; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pool, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 682, 31 S. W. 688; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McCarty, 82 Tex. G08, 18 S. W. 716. 
 
 In Dixon v. Central, etc., R. Co., 110 
 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369, 17 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 380, it is said: "Wlicre goods 
 
 1 Car— 19 
 
 to be shipped are situated upon a spur 
 track of a railway company, and the 
 owner has no track scales, thus rendering 
 it necessary to move the loaded car to 
 the company's depot for the purpose of 
 weighing the same, so as to ascertain the 
 proper amount of freight charges, the de- 
 livery of such cars will i)e treated as hav- 
 ing l)een made to such comptiny at such 
 depot." Georgia, etc., R. Co. z\ Sizer & 
 Co.. 4 Ga. .^pp. l^f), (H) S. I-".. in:jt-,. 
 
 Can load in carrier's warehouse ready 
 for shipment — Agent notified Promise to 
 furnish car next morning for shipper to 
 load. — Plaintitif, who had goods stored in 
 defendant's warehouse, notified its agent 
 that he had a car load ready to be shipped, 
 and asked him if he could get a car and 
 load them. The agent said that it was 
 impossible to get a car that day, but that 
 he would load them the ne.xt morning. 
 PlaintifY said, ".Ml right, I will be there 
 to load them." He took no receipt at the 
 time because he was in the habit of being 
 present at shipments and taking receipts 
 then. That night the warehouse and 
 contents were destroyed by fire without 
 fault of the defendant. It was held that the 
 duty of transportation had not arisen prior 
 to the fire so as to justify the direction 
 of a verdict for defendant. Schmidt z\ 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Wis. 504, 03 X. 
 W. l().-.7. 
 
 15. Part of show outfit loaded into car 
 on Sunday — Part retained for use — Agree- 
 ment to finish loading on Monday — Car 
 burned. — The plaintiff, who was the pro- 
 prietor of a tent show, loaded a part of 
 his outfit on Sunday afternoon into a car 
 furnished him by the railroad company, 
 and retained the remainder for his use 
 during the following night, under an 
 agreement with the agent that the plain- 
 tiff would finish loading the car on the 
 following Monday morning, when it was 
 to be hauled to a station some 12 miles 
 distant. The car containing the goods 
 was destroyed by fire, without negligence 
 on the part of the defendant carrier, be- 
 fore the time came for loading the re- 
 mainder of plaintiff's outfit. It was held 
 that defendant was not liable as a com- 
 mon carrier for the loss occasioned 
 thereby. Burrowes z\ Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 85 Neb. 497, 35 R. R. R. 373, 58 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 37.^, 12.T N. W. 102S. 
 
 16. Grain weighed into cars and hauled 
 to edge of dock by warehouseman — Tal- 
 lied by mate.— The fact that a warehouse-
 
 §§ 402-404 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 290 
 
 Cotton at Compress. — W'liere cotton, at the carrier's compress house, is 
 under the shipper's control until hales are selected for shipment to correspond 
 with the bills of lading, the carrier is liable only from the time the bales are 
 selected and set apart.'' 
 
 § 403. Absence of Directions as to Shipment. — Where a carrier re- 
 ceives goods without tlircctions as to destination it is liable only as a ware- 
 houseman.^^ 
 
 § 404. Payment of Charges. — Where a common carrier receives goods 
 which can nut be transported until charges for transportation are paid the re- 
 
 man weighed grain into cars in the ware- 
 house, which cars were then to be taken 
 by the warehouseman's horses and men 
 to the edge of the dock thence to be dis- 
 charged into the vessel; and that "each 
 car was tallied by the mate or other au- 
 thorized officer of the vessel, in the ware- 
 houses," did not constitute delivery, there 
 of the grain to the ship master. Glass v. 
 Goldsmith, 22 Wis. 4.SS. 
 
 17. Cotton under shipper's control while 
 at carrier's compress house — Bales se- 
 lected for shipment by shipper, to corre- 
 spond with bills of lading. — Jn St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Knight, 132 U. S. 79, 30 L. 
 Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132, it appeared that 
 plaintiff shipped by rail a large quantity 
 of cotton at different times, and at differ- 
 ent points south of Texarkana, Ark., to 
 be made up into bales there at a com- 
 press house, and to be thence forwarded 
 to various destinations North and East. 
 The work at the compress house was to 
 be done by the defendant carrier, but un- 
 der directions of the shipper, who had 
 control of the cotton there for that pur- 
 pose, and who superintended the weigh- 
 ing, the closing, and the marking of it, 
 and who selected for shipment the par- 
 ticular bales to fill the respective orders 
 at the points of destination. Bills of lad- 
 ing for it were issued from time to time 
 by the agents of the railroad company, 
 sometimes in advance of the separation 
 by plaintiff of particular bales from the 
 mass to correspond with them. Plaintiff 
 was in the habit of drawing against ship- 
 ment with bills of lading attached, and 
 his drafts were discounted at local banks. 
 When shipments were heavy, drafts would 
 often mature before the arrival of the 
 cotton. .525 bales, marked on the margin 
 as of a quality, were so selected, and 
 shipped to K. at Providence, K. I. The 
 bill of lading described them as "contents 
 unknown," "marked and numbered as per 
 margin." The contents of the bales • on 
 arrival were found not to correspond with 
 the margin. The consignee had honored 
 the draft before the arrival of the cotton. 
 He refused to receive the cotton, and sold 
 it on account of the railroad company, 
 after notice to it. and sued in assumpsit, 
 on the bill of lading, to recover from the 
 company, as a common carrier, the 
 
 amount of the loss. It was held that de- 
 fendant's liability as a common carrier 
 began only when specified lots were 
 marked and designated and set apart to 
 correspond with a bill of lading then or 
 previously issued. See ante, "Delivery of 
 Cotton to Compress Company," § 397. 
 
 18. Absence of direction as to shipment. 
 — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cavender, 170 
 Ala. GOl, 39 R. R. R. 338, 62 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 338, 54 So. 54. See post, 
 "Carrier as Warehouseman," chapter 13. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pool, 10 Tex. Civ. 
 App. fiS2, 31 S. W. 688. 
 
 Awaiting directions as to destination — 
 Failure to transport. — Where goods were 
 sent to a railroad depot and deposited on 
 the stoop of the freig\ic house, no one 
 being there to receive them, and the cart' 
 man subsequently informed the freight 
 agent that the owner of the goods would 
 call and order where they should go, but 
 there was no proof that any such direc- 
 tion ever was given by the owner, it was 
 held that the company could not be held 
 liable for not transporting the goods. 
 Spade V. Hudson River R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 16 Barb. 383. 
 
 Car loaded — Failure to notify agent — ■ 
 Moved to another track — Awaiting or- 
 ders. — In an action for damages for neg- 
 ligence in allowing the burning of some 
 timber on a car intended for shipment, 
 it appeared that plaintiff loaded the car 
 while on defendant's track, but did not 
 notify agent that it was ready for ship- 
 ment, nor of the name of the consignee. 
 The car was moved by defendant's agent 
 to another track (constructed for ship- 
 per's convenience) very close to a dry- 
 kiln, from which it took fire. The court 
 found by consent that the tiinber had 
 l)een left with defendant, awaiting orders 
 for shipment, and, as a conclusion of law, 
 that defendant was not an insurer, but a 
 simple warehouseman witli respect to 
 plaintiff's timber. It was held that de- 
 fendant was not liable as a common car- 
 rier. Basnight v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 Ill N. C. 592, 16 S. E. 323. 
 
 Freight on platform awaiting instruc- 
 tions as to shipment. — Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Beard, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 78 S. 
 W. 253.
 
 291 
 
 WIIIv.V r.IABIIJTV COMMK.VCIvS. 
 
 §§ 404-407 
 
 sponsibility of the carrier is not that of an insurer, but that of a warehouseman, 
 who is liclrl to onl\' ordinary care for their safety.^'' 
 
 § 405. Deposit Subject to Shipper's Order.— When goods are deposited 
 subject to the further order of the owner, this does not constitute a dehvery so 
 as to render the carrier responsible from that time.-" So where the shipper re- 
 quests a delay while he sees the vendee of goods on the car, the carrier is not 
 
 liable other than ;i^ a warehouseman.-' 
 
 § 406. Necessity for Loading on Cars.— In order for a railroad com- 
 pany's liability as a common carrier of freight to begin, it is not necessary that 
 the goods be loaded on the cars which are intended for their transportation to 
 the consignee.-- And the mere fact that it is the shipper's contract duty to load 
 the freight on the cars does not prevent the railroad company's liability as an 
 insurer from commencing before the goods or live stock are on the car's.--' If 
 such a regulation by a carrier is of any binding force, it at most always re- 
 quires shipi)ers of the specified kinds of freight to furnish the necessary help 
 to load the freight, and does not change the company's relation to property de- 
 livered to and accepted l)y it for the sole pur])ose of being carried o\er its road.-"* 
 
 § 407, Necessity for and Effect of Bill of Lading-. — A carrier bv occu- 
 
 19. Payment of charges. — St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. r. CaveiukT, 170 Ala. GOl, 3'J 
 R. R. R. 33S, 62 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 338, 54 So. 54. Sec post, "Carrier as 
 Warehouseman," chapter I'A. 
 
 20. Deposit with carrier subject to fur- 
 ther orders. — Pratt r. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 95 U. S. 43, 24 L. Ed. 336; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Cavender, 170 Ala. 601, 54 
 So. 54, 39 R. R. R. 338, 62 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 338; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McCarty, 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716; In- 
 ternational, etc., R. Co. V. Dimmit County 
 Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 18G, 23 S. 
 W. 754; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pool, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 6s;>. ;5i S. W. r>ss. 
 
 In warehouse awaiting orders. — A rail- 
 road comjniny is not lialjle as common 
 carrier for property deposited in its ware- 
 house, to await orders from the owner 
 for its transportation. Michigan, etc., Co. 
 V. Shurtz, 7 Midi. 51.j. 
 
 If the same company is both a common 
 carrier and a warehouseman, and goods 
 are delivered to it to be transported when 
 it has orders from the owner, its liability 
 in the mean time is that of a warehouse- 
 man, and not that of a common carrier. 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 39 
 111. ;i3.-,. 
 
 21. Request for opportunity to see ven- 
 dee of hay on cars. — Where a shipper de- 
 livered to a railroad company, for trans- 
 portation, a quantity of ha3^ which was 
 placed on platform cars, and, the next 
 day, when the company was about to send 
 it forward, he requested that it should not 
 be taken away l)cfore he could first see 
 the party to whom it was sold, which re- 
 quest was complied with, and the next 
 day the hay was ignited by sparks from 
 a passing locomotive, and a portion of 
 it burned, it was held that from the mo- 
 ment the shipper requested the hay to 
 
 be detained, the liability of the railroad 
 was that of a warehouseman only. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomerv, 39 
 111. 335. 
 
 22. Necessity for loading on cars. — 
 I'nitcd Slates. — Bulkley v. Xaumkeag 
 Steam Cotton Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 386, 
 16 L. Ed. 599; The Oregon (U. S.), 1 
 Deady 179, Fed. Cas. No. 10,553. 
 
 Louisiana. — Greenwood v. Cooper, 10 
 La. Ann. 796. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Fitchburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hanna (Mass.), 6 Gray 539, 66 Am. Dec. 
 427; Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mass.), 11 Allen 80. 
 
 Xcw York. — London, etc.. Fire Ins. Co. 
 V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200, 39 
 X. E. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 752. 
 
 England. — Grant v. Norwav. 2 Eng. L. 
 & Eq. 337. 70 E. C. L. t)65' 
 
 23. Shipper's duty to load. — United 
 States. — Bulkley v. Xaumkeag Steam Cot- 
 ton Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 386, 16 L. Ed. 
 599; The Bark Edwin (U. S.). 1 Spraguc 
 477: The Oregon (U. S.), Deady 179, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 10,553. 
 
 Illinois. — Pennsylvania Co. f. Kenwood 
 Bridge Co., 170 111. 645. 49 X. E. 215. 
 
 Louisia>ia. — Greenwood v. Cooper, 10 
 La. Ann. 796. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Fitchburg, etc., R. Co. 
 7'. Hanna (Mass.), 6 Gray 539, 66 Am. 
 Dec. 427; Merritt v. Old Colony, etc.. R. 
 Co. (Mass.), 11 Allen 80. 
 
 Xc'ii' York. — London, etc.. Fire Ins. Co. 
 V. Rome, etc., R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200, 39 
 N. \'.. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 752. 
 
 24. Effect of regulations. — London, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Rome, etc.. R. Co., 68 Hun 598, 
 23 N. Y. S. 231, 52 N. Y. St. Rep. 581, 
 affirmed in 144 N. Y. 200. 39 N. E. 79, 43 
 Am. St. Rep. 752. See ante, "Rules and 
 Regulations of Carriers," chapter 3.
 
 4o; 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 292 
 
 pation is not relieved from all accountability because he has not signed a bill of 
 lading.-'' Although a bill of lading has not been issued the carrier's liability 
 as a 'common carrier of freight begins when he receives goods for shipment.^'^ 
 \\'henever a shipper delivers property to a common carrier who receives it into 
 his exclusive possession for transportation, there arises at once by implication 
 of law. a contract of carriage between the parties, without regard to the issu- 
 ance of a bill of lading 2" or the failure of the carrier to count, tally, book, or 
 
 25. Bill of lading.— Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Xicholson, 01 Tex. 491, 495. See post, 
 •■Bills of Ladins," chapter 6. 
 
 26. Liability begins on receipt of goods. 
 —United States.— Brower v. Water Witch, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 1971, 19 How. Prac. 241; 
 Snow V. Carruth, Fed. Cas. No. 13.144, l 
 Spr. 324; Citizens' Bank v. Nantucket 
 Steamboat Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2,730, 2 
 Storj- Hi. 
 
 .llabaiiia. — Alabama Mid. R. Co. r. 
 Darby, 119 Ala. 531, 24 So. 713; Mont- 
 gomery, etc., R. Co. V. Kolb, 73 Ala. 396, 
 
 49 Am. Rep. 54, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 512. 
 
 Arkansas.— Ga.rner v. St. Louis, etc., K. 
 Co., 79 Ark. 353, 20 R. R. R. 527, 48 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 527, 96 S. W. 187, 
 116 Am. St. Rep. 83; Pine Bluff, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McKenzie, 75 Ark. 100, 16 R. R. 
 R. 50, 39 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 50, 
 86 S. W. 834; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 
 Burrow & Co., 89 Ark. 178, 33 R. R. R. 
 754, 56 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 754, 
 116 S. W. 198; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Murphy, 60 Ark. 333, 30 S. W^ 419; St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 
 19 S. W. 963. 
 
 ////;iou.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smyser, 
 38 111. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301; Toledo, etc., 
 R Co V. Gilvin, 81 111. 511; Cleveland, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Wilson, 99 111. App. 367. 
 
 lozca.— Aiken v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 68 Iowa 363, 27 N. W. 281, 25 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 377. xi r^ 
 
 Maine. — Lord v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 
 105 Me. 255, 33 R. R. R. 130, 56 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., -N. S., 130, 74 Atl. 117. 
 
 Michigan.— Me\oche v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co, 116 Mich. 69, 74 N. W. 301. 10 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 82. 
 
 Missouri.— handes v. Pacific Railroad, 
 
 50 Mo. 346. 
 
 New York.— Coy\e v. Western R. Corp., 
 47 Barb. 152; Salinger v. Simmons, 57 
 Barb. 513, 8 Abb. Prac, N. S., 409, 2 Lans. 
 325; Lakeman v. Grinnell, 18 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 625; Packard v. Getman, 6 Cow. 757, 
 16 Am. Dec. 475; Rubens v. Ludgate Hill 
 Steamship Co., 65 Hun 625, 20 N. Y. S. 
 481; Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 
 N. Y. 63; Shelton v. Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 527; 
 Grosvenor v. New York Cent. R. Co., 39 
 N. Y. 34, 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 345. 
 
 North Carolina.— Berry v. Southern R. 
 Co., 122 N. C. 1003, 30 S. E. 14. 
 
 r^;ro.y.— East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 
 
 64 Tex. 615; International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dimmit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 180, 23 S. W. 754; Ft. Worth, etc., 
 R. Co. V. A'lartin, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 464, 
 35 S. W. 21; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Compton 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 320; Martin 
 V. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. 
 556, 22 S. W. 1007; Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Beard, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 
 253; New York, etc., Co. v. Weiss (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 674; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Graves (Tex.), 2 Wilson, Civ. 
 Cas. Ct. App., § 676. 
 
 Washington. — Roy v. Griffin, 36 Wash. 
 106, 66 Pac. 130. 
 
 Engh^nd. — Parker v. Great Western R. 
 Co., 7 M. & G. 353, 7 Scott In. R. 835, 8 
 Jur. 194, 13 L. J. C. P. 105, 3 Railw. Cas. 
 503, 1 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 15. 
 
 Plaintiff delivered a w^agon to defendant 
 road for shipment after 5 o'clock p. m. 
 The shipping clerk had left, but" the 
 wagon was received, and plaintiff was in- 
 formed that the bill of lading would be 
 made out the next day. Held, that the re- 
 lation of carrier was assumed by defend- 
 ant, though the bill of lading was not yet 
 issued. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Compton 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 230. 
 
 Where it is the custom of a railroad 
 company when requested, to place an 
 empty car upon its sidetrack at a flag sta- 
 tion to be loaded with cotton, and when 
 loaded, to remove the car, and subse- 
 quently issue a receipt and bill of lading, 
 the railway company is liable for the loss 
 of cotton so loaded, if notice has been 
 given by the shipper of its destination, 
 and that it is ready for removal, and 
 nothing remains to be done by him before 
 sliipment, although no receipt or bill of 
 lading has been given for the cotton, and 
 the name of the consignee has not been 
 furnished to the carrier. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333, 30 S. W. 
 419. 
 
 27. Wellborn v. Southern R. Co., 6 Ga. 
 App. 151, 64 S. E. 491. 
 
 Where the evidence authorizes a find- 
 ing that certain goods were delivered to 
 the agent of a railroad company, who 
 received them and was made acquainted 
 with their destination, a contract of car- 
 riage may be implied, although no bill 
 of jading or receipt for the goods be is- 
 sued and delivered to the shipper. South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 
 S. E. 333.
 
 293 
 
 Win:\ IJArill.lTV COMMKNCF.S. 
 
 407 
 
 receipt for it.-"* l""<»r unless a bill of lading is deniandcd by tbe shipper none 
 need be issued by the carrier; if he accepts the goods and puts them upon their 
 voyage on a verbal contract, he is liable as a common carrier.-*-^ A carrier may 
 enier into a contract without a bill of lading, a part of which is to be performed 
 before the goods are in a course of actual transportation by him. and in so far 
 as such contract would be binding ujxjn other persons it will be binding ujjon 
 
 him also.''" 
 
 Promise of Bill of Lading.— W hen the goods were recened for shipment 
 and a bill of lading was promised to be delivered the next day, the relation of 
 comninii carrier was assumed.'"'' 
 
 Liability for Belay— No Receipt or Contract.— That no receipt was given 
 and no written contract of shipment made with an express company, does not 
 prevent a shipper from recovering damages for delay in delivery in such ship- 
 ment where the carrier accepted the package for shi])ment.''- 
 
 Eflfect of Bill of Lading as . Initiating Liability.— The mere issuance of 
 a bill (if ladin- fnr L,^(i<ids does not constitute a cfjnstructive acceptance of them 
 by the carrier for transi)orlatioii.-''' The unautliorized issuance by an agent of a 
 
 28. Failure to count, tally, book, or re- 
 ceipt for. — The plainlilf delivered a quan- 
 tity of beer barrels at one of defendant's 
 freight houses at A. for transportation to 
 B., directed to a person in that city. 
 Plaintiff had been in the habit on former 
 occasions of sending receipts for barrels, 
 for defendant to sign, which was not done 
 on this occasion. It was the duty and 
 practice of defendant's receiving and ship- 
 ping clerk, on l)eing notified of the deliv- 
 ery of goods for transportation, to cor- 
 rect, tally and check them, and hand his 
 account to the bookkeeper, to be entered 
 into a book, from which goods were 
 shipped. No goods were shipped unless 
 receipted. The barrels in question were 
 not tallied, counted, booked or receipted, 
 nor did plaintiff ask to have them counted 
 tallied, etc., but the barrels were delivered 
 to the carrier at the usual place for trans- 
 acting such business and received by per- 
 sons in the employ of defendant, and de- 
 fendant's agent was present when a por- 
 tion of the property was delivered, and 
 directed where it should be put. The 
 barrels were accidently destroyed by fire 
 on the same evening they were delivered, 
 and while in defendant's possession, in 
 its freight house. It was held that de- 
 fendant was liable, as a common carrier, 
 for the value of the barrels. Coyle v. 
 Western R. Corp. (N. Y.), 47 Barli. 152. 
 
 29. 'Verbal contract sufficient. — ICast 
 Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, (14 Tex. 615; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Compton (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 38 S. W. 220; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491; Martin v. Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ. App. .550, 
 22 S. W. 1007; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Douglas & Sons, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 28. IG Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 98; Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. ■c-. Martin, 12 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 464. :J5 S. W. 21, affirmed in 
 9."} Tex. 060, no op.; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Wheat. 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas.. § 165; 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard. ;U Tex. 
 
 Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 253; Pacific Exp. 
 Co. V. Black, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 37 
 S. W. 830; International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dimmit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 186, 23 S. W. 754; Missouri Pac. R. 
 V. Graves, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 676; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamm, 2 Tex. App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 491. 
 
 If goods are delivered to a carrier and 
 received l)y it for shipment, they may 
 be transmitted without the issuance of a 
 bill of lading, and may l)e regarded as in 
 the possession of the carrier from the 
 time received, though there was no in- 
 struction nor intention that the carrier 
 should immediately make the shipment. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. z: Beard, 34 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 188, 78 S. W. 253, citing East 
 Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Trawick. 80 Tex. 270, 
 15 S. W. 568, 18 S. W. 948. 
 
 30. Texas, etc.. R. Co. z'. Nicholson, 01 
 Tex. 491. 
 
 31. Promise to issue bill of lading 
 next day. — In Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. Comp- 
 ton (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 220, it ap- 
 peared that plaintiff delivered a wagon to 
 defendant railroad for shipment after 5 
 o'clock p. m. The shipping clerk had left, 
 but the wagon was received for immediate 
 transportation by its depot employees, 
 and plaintiff was informed that the bill 
 of lading would be made out the next 
 day. It was held that the relation of 
 common carrier was assumed by defend- 
 ant. 
 
 32. Liability for delay — No receipt or 
 contract. — I'acific b'.xp. Co. f. Black. S 
 Tex. Civ. App. ;io:!. x'7 S. W. s;50. 
 
 33. Effect of issuance of bill of Lading. 
 — I'liitcd States. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. f. 
 McFadden. 154 U. S. 155. 38 L. Ed. 944. 
 14 S. Ct. 990; Robinson, etc., Co. v. Mem- 
 phis, etc.. R. Co.. 9 Fed. 129: S. C. 16 
 Fed. 57: Pollard v. \inton. 105 U. S. 7. 26 
 L. Ed. 99S: St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Com-
 
 § 407 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 294 
 
 steamship company of bills of lading to a purchaser. of goods then in a public 
 warehouse, subject to the orders of the seller, who is bound by the terms of 
 the sale to deliver the same on board, does not bind the company, so as to make 
 it responsible for the goods while in the warehouse and before their actual de- 
 livery into its custody; and an acceptance of the goods on board the ship is a 
 ratification of the contract of carriage made by the bills of lading only from the 
 time of such delivery.-'^ And the giving a l)ill of lading for goods in the pos- 
 session of another railroad in another state, in the course of transportation, is 
 not a delivery of the goods named therein though the shipper surrendered the 
 bill of lading of the latter carrier at the time.''"' 
 
 Authority of Officer. — The mere employment of an officer or agent for 
 such boat does not clothe him with apparent authority to issue bills of lading 
 for goods not on board, or not delivered to one authorized to receive freight on 
 account of the boat.^** 
 
 Effect of Statute as to Commencement of Liability — Change of Rule. 
 — A statutorv provision that the transportation of goods by a common carrier 
 shall be considered as commenced from the time the bill of lading is signed does 
 not preclude the liability from commencing at the time of the delivery of the 
 goods, so as to make the carrier liable for loss when no bill is issued.-^' 
 
 mercial Union Ins. Co.. 139 U. S. 223, 35 
 L. Ed. 1.54. 11 S. Ct. .554. 
 
 Arkansas. — Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 55 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314, 56 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 112. 
 
 Illinois. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Na- 
 tional Live Stock Bank, 178 111. 506, 53 
 N. E. 326. 
 
 Louisiana. — Hunt v. Mississippi Cent. R. 
 Co., 29 La. Ann. 446; Fearn, etc., Co. v. 
 Richardson, 12 La. Ann. 752. 
 
 Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wilkens, 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 Minnesota. — National Bank v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 
 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 North Carolina. — Williams v. Wilming- 
 ton, etc., R. Co.. 93 N. Car. 42. 
 
 England. — Berkley v. Whitling, 7 Ad. & 
 El. 29; Grand v. Norway, 70 C. B. 665, 3 
 Eng. L. & Eq. 337. 
 
 34. Bill of lading for goods in public 
 warehouse — Subject to vendors order. — 
 Cunard Steamship Co. v. Kelly, 53 C. C. 
 A. 310. 113 Fed. 678. 
 
 35. Bill of lading issued for flour in pos- 
 session of another railroad in another 
 state — Bills of lading exchanged. — Where 
 a railroad conipany in Missouri issues a 
 bill of lading reciting it has received a 
 car load of flour in apparent good condi- 
 tion for transportation to New Orleans, 
 and at the time the flour is in Kansas, in 
 the possession of another railroad com- 
 pany transporting it to Missouri, such 
 bill of lading is void, under the statute in 
 question; and the delivery of such bill of 
 lading is not a delivery of the commodity 
 named therein, though at the timeof its 
 issue the receiver of the bill surrendered 
 the Kansas railroad bill of lading therefor. 
 TEtna Nat. Bank v. Water Power Co., 58 
 Mo. -A pp. 532. 
 
 36. Authority of officer. — The above 
 principle is set forth in the following 
 
 cases wliich hold that in an action by the 
 shipper against the owners of a steam- 
 boat engaged in the business of common 
 carriers, to recover for the nondelivery of 
 goods as per bill of lading, the defendants 
 are liable only for so much of the goods 
 as was actually received on the boat or 
 delivered to some one authorized to re- 
 ceive freight on her account. Dean v. 
 King, 22 O. St. 118, followed in Colburn 
 V. Oberlin Bldg., etc., Ass'n, 35 O. St. 258, 
 following and approving Sturdevant v. 
 Tuttle, 22 O. St. 111. 
 
 37. Art. 283, Rev. Stats., has not changed 
 common-law rule. — Article 283 of the Re- 
 vised Statutes of Texas, providing that 
 the trip or voyage shall l)e considered as 
 having commenced from the time of the 
 signing of the bill of lading, and the lia- 
 bility of the common carrier shall attach 
 as at common law from after such sign- 
 ing, has not changed the coinmon-law rule. 
 East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 64 Tex. 
 615; International, etc., R. Co. v. Dim- 
 mit County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 
 186, 23 S. W. 754; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 15 S. W. 568, 18 
 S. W. 948; S. C, 68 Tex. 314, 4 S. W. 567, 
 2 Am. St. Rep. 494. 
 
 There is an apparent conflict between 
 the authorities above quoted and the cases 
 of Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 
 491, 495, and the Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Corquodale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80, but 
 in those two cases the railway had con- 
 tracted to receive and ship the cattle at 
 certain dates, but refused to receive them 
 when presented for shipment, and it was 
 held that the railways were lesponsible as 
 mere individuals for breach of their con- 
 tract. But where there is an actual de- 
 livery to and acceptance by the railway 
 company, its liability as a common car- 
 rier as under the common law begins at 
 that time. International, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 295 WnivN I.IAIillJTV COMMKNCES. §§ 408-411 
 
 §§ 408-411. Evidence of Delivery— § 408. Presumptions and Bur- 
 den of Proof. — Where it is established that goods have been delivered to a 
 common carrier, the presumption is that they were delivered for carriage, and 
 not for storage,-''* and the burden is upon the carrier to show that it received the 
 goods as a warehouseman, and not as a carrier.''"' 
 
 § 409. Admissibility of Evidence to Show Delivery. — The testimony of 
 a witnc>> whcj has no indcpcndcni knowledge oi the weight of grain shipped, 
 except what was contained in the certificates of weight, is inadmissible in such 
 an action to i)rove the (|uainity of grain shipped. •♦" 
 
 A certificate of v^^eight not shown to be an exact copy of the book of orig- 
 inal entries, or that it was given in the regular course of business, by one au- 
 thorized to do so, is inadmissible in an action against a carrier for loss of grain 
 in transit, to prove the delivery of the grain to and reception thereof by the 
 carrier.-*^ 
 
 §§ 410-411. Sufficiency of Evidence of Delivery— § 410. In General. 
 
 — In establishing the l)eginning of a common carrier's liability, the general rules 
 as to weight and sufficiency, which api)ly in civil cases generally, are applica- 
 ble. So it has been held in an action against an express company for failure to 
 deliver a package, that evidence that the package was delivered at a railroad 
 depot to a person in charge thereof, and that the employees of the railroad com- 
 panv were in the custom of so receiving packages for the express company, was 
 sufficient to sustain an allegation that the package was received at the office of 
 defendant, at its place of business.-*- And where cotton placed on a platform 
 within a short distance of a depot building at which defendant's agent trans- 
 acted business is destroyed by fire, the jury are warranted in finding that such 
 agent knew of the i)resence 'of such cotton and was guilty of negligence, es- 
 pecially where defendant does not place him on the stand.-*'' 
 
 § 411. Bill of Lading or Receipt as Evidence.— In General.— The bill 
 
 of lading and waybill made out by the authorized agent of a common carrier 
 are competent evidence tending to prove that the articles therein described were 
 delivered to such carrier for shipment.-*"* In an action against a carrier for the 
 loss of freight, the fact that the carrier issued a bill of lading or a receipt, for 
 the goods, while not conclusive, is prima facie i)roof that they were delivered to 
 the carrier, and accepted by it for transportation. ■*■' lUU a bill of lading or re- 
 ceipt acknowledging the delivery and acceptance of goods for shipment is not 
 
 Dimmit County Pasture Co.. 5 Tex. Civ. 40. Admissibility.— Emison v. Ohio, etc., 
 
 App. ISfi, 23 S. W. 7.54. R. Co.. ^2 O. C. D. 727. 
 
 When liability as warehousemen ceases. 41. Certificate of weight. — Emison v. 
 
 —Under Rev. St., art. 2S;). declarinji: when Ohio, etc., R. Co.. 12 O. C. D. 727. 
 the liability of warehousemen ceases and 42. Sufficiency of evidence. — Pacific 
 
 that of common carriers attaches, liabil- Exp. Co. r. Black, S Tex. Civ. App. 3t)3, 
 
 ity as a common carrier does not attach 07 S. W. 830. 
 
 until a bill of lading is given, or until the 43 p^ Worth, etc., R. Co. f. Martin, 
 
 goods have been delivered to, and received ^2 Tex. Civ. App. 41)4. 3.j S. W. 21. 
 by, the carrier. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. .. r 1 j- r^, ■ * r> n^ 
 
 Wheat. 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas.. § 10.5. See. ^^ Bill of lading.-Ch.cago etc R. Co. 
 
 also. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Douglas & ^' Johnston. ,,>s Neb. 23(., ,8 \. W 499. 
 Sons 2 Tex App. Civ. Cas., § 28, 10 Am. 45. Prima facie evidence.— f mtcd :itatcs. 
 
 & Etig. R. Cas. 98. See post! "Carrier as The Titania, O.") C. C. A. 215. 131 Fed. 229; 
 
 Warehouseman," chapter 13. The Willie D. Sandhoval, 92 Fed. 280.^ 
 
 38. Presumptions and burden of proof. Illinois. — Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co. v. Na- 
 — Berry r. Southern 1\. Co., 122 X. C. tional Live Stock Bank. 17S 111. 506, 53 
 1002. :!() S. \\. 14. ^'- E- 320; Northern Transp. Co. r. Mc- 
 
 39. Burden of proof.— Berry v. Southern Clary. 00 111. 233. 
 
 R. Co., 122 X. C. 1002, 30 S. E. 14. See A'<-»/ia-A-y.— Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 post, "Carrier as Warehouseman," chap- American Tobacco Co.. 120 Ky. 582, 31 
 ter 13. Ky. L. Rep. 1013, 25 R. R. R. 586. 48 Am.
 
 ;§ 411-412 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 296 
 
 conclusive and such delivery and acceptance may be denied.-*'^ Yet a common 
 carrier having given a bill of lading for goods can not relieve himself from his 
 liabilitv on the ground that the goods were never received by him. except by the 
 clearest proof of that fact.-*" It has been held that where a railroad company 
 issues a transferable bill of lading acknowledging the receipt of goods, it is es- 
 topped to deny the receipt of the goods when the bill of lading is in the hands 
 of innocent third parties: and where the general agent of a corporation issues 
 such a bill, the coni])any is also so osto]iped.^'^ 
 
 Receipt Given to Transfer Company. — A receipt given by a railroad com- 
 pany to a transfer company, to whom the consignor had delivered the goods, 
 is sufficient to show a delivery by the latter to the railroad company.-*^ 
 
 Effect of Statutes Prohibiting Issuance of Bill of Lading before De- 
 livery to Carrier. — The fact that the carrier is forbidden by statute to issue a 
 bill of lading for goods before they are delivered to it does not affect the value 
 of bills of lading as evidence of delivery to the carrier.'" 
 
 § 412. Question of Law or Fact. — Delivery of freight to a common car- 
 rier, where an action is brought to recover for loss of articles alleged to have 
 been delivered, is a question of fact for the determination of the jury.'"^^ 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 586, 104 S. W. 
 377. 
 
 Louisiana. — Flower v. Downs, 12 Rob. 
 101. 
 
 Mississippi. — Southern T^^,^ r^, v. Craft, 
 49 Miss. 480, 19 Am. Rep. 4. 
 
 Missouri. — Smith v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 74 Mo. App. 48. 
 
 Nebraska. — :Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. John- 
 ston, 58 Xeb. 236, 78 X. W. 499. 
 
 Kezi' York.- — -Fasy v. International Xav. 
 Co., 177 X. Y. 591, 70 X. E. 1098. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Johnston, 58 Xeb. 236, 78 X. W. 499. 
 
 Upon a written receipt by which the 
 defendants, carriers by water, acknowl- 
 edged having received from the plaintiffs 
 three hogsheads of tobacco, which they 
 were to freight to Xew Orleans, and, if 
 they bore inspection, pay the price they 
 may sell for, the defendants are liable for 
 the value of one of the hogsheads lost 
 in the warehouse, and never put on board 
 of their boat. Jones v. Walker, 13 Tenn. 
 (5 Yerg.j 427. 
 
 46. Not conclusive. — Where the agent of 
 a boat carelessly issues a bill of lading 
 acknowledging the receipt of freight not 
 on board or not delivered to a person au- 
 
 thorized to receive it, the owners of the 
 boat are not estopped, by reason of such 
 carelessness, from denying the receipt 
 thereof, although the shipper may have 
 been misled thereby. Dean v. King, 23 O. 
 St. 118, followed in Colburn z/. Oberlin 
 Bldg., etc., Ass'n, 35 O. St. 258, follow- 
 ing and approving Sturdevant v. Tuttle, 
 22 O. St. 111. 
 
 47. Evidence to overcome bill of lading. 
 — Little Miami, etc., R. Co. v. Dodds & 
 Co., 13 O. Dec. 407, 1 Cin. R. 47. 
 
 48. Transferable bill of lading. — Smith 
 f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48. 
 
 49. Receipt given to transfer company. 
 — ^Xew York, etc., Co. v. Weiss (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 47 S. W. 674. 
 
 50. Effect of statute prohibiting issu- 
 ance prior to delivery. — St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. z'. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 139 U. 
 S. 223, 35 L. Ed. 154, 11 S. Ct. 554; Jemi- 
 son V. Birmingham, etc., R. Co., 125 Ala. 
 378, 28 So. 51; Martin v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 55 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314, 56 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 112. 
 
 51. Question of fact. — Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hodde, 42 Tex. 467, 471; Southern 
 R. Co. V. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 S. 
 E. 333.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Bills of Lading. 
 
 I. iJifiiiitioii and Xature Generally, § 41:1. 
 
 II. Koriu and Contents, §§ 414-4^4. 
 .\. In General, § 414. 
 
 B. Writing-, § 415. 
 
 C. Signature, § 416. 
 
 D. Name of Consignee, § 417. 
 
 E. Statement of Value of Goods, § 418. 
 
 F. Notations and Marginal Memoranda, § 41U. 
 
 G. The Law, § 420. 
 
 H. Published Tariffs, § 421. 
 
 I. Expense Account of Carrier, § 422. 
 
 J. Recitals of Fact. § 42;{. 
 
 K. Special Conditions and Limitations, § 424. 
 
 III. Issuance and Acceptance, §§ 425-450. 
 
 A. Necessity for Issuance, § 425. 
 
 B. Authority to Issue, §§ 426-442. 
 
 a. Agents and Employees, §§ 420-428. 
 
 (1) Agents and Employees Who May Issue, §§ 426-427. 
 
 (a) Master of Vessel and Other Employees, § 426. 
 
 (b) Agents and Employees of Railroads, § 427. 
 
 (2) Proof or Estoppel to Deny Authority of Agent, § 428. 
 
 b. Receipt of Goods as Prerequisite to Issuance, §§ 429-442. 
 
 (1) Necessity. §§ 429-438. 
 
 (a) In General. § 429. 
 
 (b) Authority of Agents or Employees, § 430. 
 
 (c) As against Bona Fide Consignee or Transferee. §§ 431-437. 
 aa. Doctrine Prevailing in Most Jurisdictions. § 431. 
 
 bb. Doctrine in New York, Pennsylvania and Certain Other States, § 432. 
 
 cc. Conflict of Laws, § 433. 
 
 dd. Effect of Custom or Course of Business, § 434. 
 
 ee. Negligence of Carrier, § 435. 
 
 ff. Fraudulent Bills of Lading, § 436. 
 
 gg. Effect of State Statutes, § 437. 
 
 (d) Due Bill Promising to Issue a Bill of Lading, § 438. 
 
 (2) Subsequent- Delivery to Carrier as Validating Bill, §§ 439-442. 
 (a) In General, § 439. 
 
 (.b) Where Statute Prohibits Issuance before Receipt of Goods, § 440. 
 
 (3) Presumption as to Receipt of Goods, § 441. 
 
 (4) Proof of Nonreceipt of Goods, § 442. 
 
 C. Duty to Issue, § 443. 
 
 D. Issuance in Duplicate. § 444. 
 
 E. Acceptance and Assent to Provisions. §§ 445-4,50. 
 
 a. In General, § 445. 
 
 b. Assent to and Acceptance by Consignor, §§ 446-450. 
 
 (1) Effect of Acceptance, § 446. 
 
 (2) Presumption of .\ssent from Acceptance, §§ 447-450. 
 
 (a) In General. § 447. 
 
 (b) Rebuttal of Presumption, §§ 448-450. 
 aa. Failure oi Shipper to Sign Bill. § 448. 
 
 bb. Failure to Read or E.xamine Bill, §§ 449-450.
 
 CARRIERS. 298 
 
 (aa) In General. § 449. 
 
 (bb) Bill Received after Goods Shipped. § 450. 
 
 IV. Validity, §§ 451-454. 
 
 A. Fraud or Mistake, § 451. 
 
 B. Forgery, § 452. 
 
 C. No Goods Delivered to Carrier. § 453. 
 
 D. Partial Invalidity. § 454. 
 
 V. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 455-513. 
 
 A. General Rules of Construction. § 455. 
 
 B. Construction of Words and Phrases, § 456. 
 
 C. Notice of Contents, § 457. 
 
 D. Blanks and Unintelligible Characters. § 458. 
 
 E. Conditions on Back of Bill, § 459. 
 
 F. Usage and Custom, § 460. 
 
 G. Conflict of Laws, § 461. 
 H. Foreign Laws, § 462. 
 
 I. Fraudulent Bills of Lading, § 463. 
 
 J. Partial Invalidity, § 464. 
 
 K. When Bill of Lading Part of Contract, § 465. 
 
 L. Dual Character as Contract and as Receipt. §§ 466-479. 
 
 a. In General, § 466. 
 
 b. As Contract Generally, § 467. 
 
 c. As a Receipt in General, § 468. 
 
 d. Parol Evidence to Vary or Contradict Bill, §§ 469-479. 
 
 (1) As a Contract, §§ 469-470. 
 
 (a) Between the Parties, § 469. 
 
 (b) Between Consignor and Consignee, § 470. 
 
 (2) Merger of Oral Negotiations and Prior Verbal Agreements, § 471. 
 
 (3) To Explain Ambiguities and Technical Terms, § 472. 
 
 (4) Parol Evidence to Alter or Contradict Receipt Clauses of Bill, §§ 473-476. 
 
 (a) In General, § 473. 
 
 (b) Recital of Fact of Receipt and Quantity of Goods, § 474. 
 
 (c) Recital as to Quality or Condition of Goods, § 475. 
 
 (d) Recital as to Ownership of Goods, § 476. 
 
 (5) Recitals as to Rate and Receipt of Freight, § 477. 
 
 (6) Destination or Place of Delivery, § 478. 
 
 (7) Terminus of Road, § 479. 
 
 M. As Contract of Carriage, §§ 480-481. 
 
 a. As Imposing Liability of Common Carrier, § 480. 
 
 b. As Contract to Carry Specified Thing, § 481. 
 
 N. As Evidence of Fact and Time of Receipt and Acceptance of Shipment, 
 §§ 482-483. 
 
 a. As Evidence of Fact of Receipt and Acceptance of Shipment, § 482. 
 
 b. Time of Receipt of Shipment, § 483. 
 O. Destination or Place of Delivery, § 484. 
 
 P. Person to Whom Delivery Authorized, §§ 485-487. 
 
 a. In General, § 485. 
 
 b. Open and Closed Shipments, § 486. 
 
 c. Direction to Notify a Named Person, § 487. 
 
 Q. As Warranty or Evidence of Quantity, Quality or Condition of Goods, §§ 488- 
 494. 
 a. Effect as Warranty of Quantity, etc., §§ 488-491. 
 
 (1) In General, § 488. 
 
 (2) Recital That Contents Unknown. § 489. 
 
 (3) Recital That Goods in "Good Order," etc., § 490. 
 
 (4) Recital That "Contents Unknown and in Apparent Good Order," § 491.
 
 299 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 b. As Evidence of Quantity, Quality or Condition of Goods, §§ 4'j2-4'j4. 
 
 (1 ) As Evidence of Quality or Condition of Goods, § 492. 
 
 (2) As Evidence of Quantity or Wei|,4it of Goods, §§ 49:5-404. 
 
 (a) In General, § 4!):{. 
 
 (b) Bill Made I-'xclusive ICvidencc of Quantity l)y Agreement. § 494. 
 R. Effect of UnderstatiiiK Quantity. § 4y.j. 
 
 S. As F.vidciUL- or Wanaiity i>\ 'litk- or Ownership, §S 49(5-498. 
 a. In General. § 4'.)t;. 
 I). As Warranty of Title of .^liipper. § 497. 
 
 c. Shipment Fraudulently I'rocured by .Person Not Owner of Goods, § 498. 
 T. ICfFcct as Vesting Property in Consignee, §§ 499-510. 
 
 a. \\ Ikii Property Vests in Consignee, §§ 499-;>o:{. 
 (1 ) In General, § 499. 
 
 (2) Stoppage in Transitu, § oOO. 
 
 (3) Consignment to Enemy or Neutral, § jOI. 
 
 (4) Consignee Making Advances on Faith of Bill, § 502. 
 (.")) Removal of Goods by Unauthorized Person, § 503. 
 
 \). WIkii Properly Does Not Vest in Consignee, §§ 504-510. 
 
 (1) In General, § 504. 
 
 (2) Bill Not Delivered to Consignee, § 505. 
 
 (3) Consignment to Be Sold on Commission. § 506. 
 
 (4) Goods Billed to Shipper's Order, §§ 507-508. 
 
 (a) In General, § 507. 
 
 (b) Bill with Draft Attached to Be Delivered to Purchaser of Goods. § 508. 
 
 (5) Bill to Another than Purchaser, § 509. 
 
 (6) Bill to A. for Use of B., § 510. 
 U. Stipulations as to Value, § 511. 
 
 • V. Freight and Demurrage. § 512. 
 W. As Evidence of Carrier's Liability as Warehouseman, § 513. 
 VI. Transfer, §§ 514-589. 
 
 A. Negotiability, §§ 514-518. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 514. 
 
 b. Distinguished from Commercial Paper, § 515. 
 
 c. Effect of Statutes Making Bills of Lading Negotiable, § 516. 
 
 d. Bills Marked "Not Negotial)le," § 517. 
 
 e. W'hen Carrier Incurs Liability of Warehousemen, § 518. 
 
 B. Transferability or Assignability, § 519. 
 
 C. Mode of Transfer, §§ 520-536. 
 a. In General, § 520. 
 
 1). Delivery of Bill, §§ 521-531. 
 ( 1 ) In General, § 521. 
 
 (2) Intention to Pass Title, § 522. 
 
 (3) Necessity for Acceptance of Possession, § 523. 
 
 (4) Possession of Bill of Lading as Evidence of Title in Holder. §§ 524-525. 
 
 (a) In General, § 524. 
 
 (b) Rebuttal of Presumption, § 525. 
 
 (5) Exception in Favor of Stoppage in Transitu, § 526. 
 
 (6) Right of Disposal Retained by Consignor, §§ 527-528. 
 aa. In General, § 527. 
 
 bb. Consignor Indebted to Consignee, § 528. 
 
 (7) Necessity for Indorsement to Enable Holder to Sue. § 529. 
 
 (8) Necessity for Shipper's Order. § 530. 
 
 (9) Bill of Lading Signed in lilank, § 531. 
 
 c. Transfer by Indorsement and nelivery. §§ 532-534. 
 (1) In General. § .■.:12. 
 (,2) Necessity and Sufticiency of Indorsement or Assignment. § 533.
 
 CARRIERS. 300 
 
 (3) Necessity for Delivery of Bill. § 534. 
 
 d. Sale or Payment of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached, § 535. 
 
 e. Attachment of Bill of Lading, § 536. 
 
 D. Persons Who Make Transfer. §§ 537-539. 
 
 a. In General, § 537. 
 
 b. Consignee, § 538. 
 
 c. Consignor or Agent, § 539. 
 
 E. Consideration, § 540. 
 
 F. Effect of Transfer, §§ 541-576. 
 
 a. In General, § 541. 
 
 b. As Transfer of Contract between Consignor and Consignee, § 542. 
 
 c. Operation as Constructive Delivery of Goods, § 543. 
 
 d. Rights and Title of Holder Generally, §§ 544-576. 
 
 (1) In General, § 544. 
 
 (2) No Goods Delivered to Carrier, §§ 545-546. 
 
 (a) In General, § 545. 
 
 (b) Title to Goods Not Shipped or Included in Bill, § 546. 
 
 (3) Goods Shipped Without Authority of Owner, § 547. 
 
 (4) Assignment Made After Arrival of Goods, § 548. 
 
 (5) Bona Fide Holders, §§ 549-552. 
 
 (a) General Rule, § 549. 
 
 (b) Effect of Statutes Making Bills of Lading Negotiable, § 550. 
 
 (c) Estoppel of Carrier to Deny Conditions and Representations in Bill, 
 
 § 551. 
 
 (d) Duplicate or Triplicate Bill, § 552. 
 
 (6) Holder with Knowledge of Defects in Transferrer's Title, § 553. 
 
 (7) Holder of Lost or Stolen Bill of Lading, § 554. 
 
 (8) Holder of Forged Bill of Lading, § 555. 
 
 (9) Rights and Liabilities as to Carriers, §§ 556-565. 
 
 (a) As to Delivery of Goods, §§ 556-562. 
 aa. Duty to Deliver to Transferee, § 556. 
 
 bb. Production and Cancellation of Bill of Lading, § 557. 
 
 cc. Payment of Freight and Charges as Condition Precedent, § 558. 
 
 dd. Demand of Delivery, § 559. 
 
 ee. Liability for Misdelivery or Delay, § 560. 
 
 ff. Waiver or Rights to Indorsement of Bill, § 561. 
 
 gg. Duplicate and Triplicate Bills, § 562. 
 
 (b) Effect of Custom of Carrier, § 563. 
 
 (c) Explanation of Alteration in Bill, § 564. 
 
 (d) Liability for Freight and Demurrage, § 565. 
 
 (10) Rights and Liabilities as to Consignor, §§ 566-568. 
 
 (a) In General, § 566. 
 
 (b) As Defeating Stoppage in Transitu, § 567. 
 
 (c) Liability for Price of Goods, § 568. 
 
 (11) Rights and Liabilities as to Consignee, §§ 569-571. 
 
 (a) In General, § 569. 
 
 (b) Claim for Advances to Consignor, § 570. 
 
 (c) Liability to Consignee on Contract of Consignor, § 571. 
 
 (12) Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons, §§ 572-576. 
 
 (a) Claims of Third Person against Transferrers, § 572. 
 
 (b) Against Vendor of Consignor, § 573. 
 
 (c) Against Subsequent Purchaser of Goods, § 574. 
 
 (d) Subsequent Liens, §§ 575-576. 
 aa. In General, § 575. 
 
 bb. Subsequent Attachments, § 576. 
 
 G. Pledge, Mortgage or Collateral Security, § 577.
 
 301 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 413 
 
 H. I'urchase or Discount of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached, §§ 578-587. 
 
 a. Recording Papers, § 57H. 
 
 b. Rights and Title of Purchaser, §§ 57y-5H4. 
 
 (1) As to Consignor and Consignee, §§ 579-582. 
 
 (a) In General, § 579. 
 
 (b) Notice That Payment to Drawer Unauthorized, § 580. 
 
 (c) Drawer Indebted to Drawee or Consignee, § 581. 
 
 (d) Right to Sue for Purchase Price or for Conversion of Goods, § 582. 
 
 (2) Rights against Carrier, § 583. 
 
 (:{) Rights against Third Persons, § 584. 
 
 c. Liability of Purchaser for Shortage or Inferiority of Shipment, § 585. 
 
 d. Effect of Consignee's Accepting and Paying Draft, § 58G. 
 
 e. Charging Unpaid Draft to Drawer's Account, § 587. 
 
 I. Deposit of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached for Collection, § 588. 
 J. Duplicate and Triplicate Bills, § 589. 
 VII. Effect As Binding Intermediate and Terminal Carrier, § 590. 
 VIII. Modification or Rescission, § 591. 
 
 IX. Surrender, Discharge or Release, § 592. 
 X. Actions, §§ 59;{-()02. 
 
 A. Rights of .Kction and Defenses, § 593. 
 
 B. Parties, §§ 594-595. 
 
 a. Plaintiffs, § 594. 
 
 b. Defendants, § 595. 
 
 C. Pleading, §§ 596-597. 
 
 a. Bill, Petition, or Complaint, § 596. 
 
 b. Answer, § 597. 
 
 D. Production of Bill of Lading or Proof of Contents, § 598. 
 
 E. Proof of Execution of Bill, § 599. 
 
 F. Province of Court, § 600. 
 
 G. Instructions, § 601. 
 
 H. Directing Verdict, § 602. 
 
 § 413. Definition and Nature Generally. — A "bill of lading" is a com- 
 mercial instniniciu. and is a wriiicn acknowledgment signed by tbe master of a 
 vessel or by a common carrier that he has received the goods therein described 
 from the shipper, to be transposed on the terms therein expressed to the de- 
 scribed place of destination, and there to be delivered to the consignee or parties 
 therein designated.' It is a very ancient but not exclusively a sea document, 
 and has long Ijccn used l)y carrying companies in transportation on lakes and 
 rivers by steamboats, as well as sailing vessels, on canals,- and for transporta- 
 tion bv land.-' In all such cases it has been denominated and treated as a coin- 
 
 1. Bill of lading defined.— The Dela- 
 ware (U. S.), 14 Wall. :)79, (100. 20 L. Ed. 
 779; Pollard r. \inton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 
 L. Ed. 998. 
 
 Micliigau. — McMillan z'. Michigan, etc., 
 R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208. 
 
 North Dakota. — Yegen v. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co., 19 N. Dak. 70, 121 N. W. 205. 
 
 Bill as "liquidation of account." — A bill 
 of lading for goods sent to a purchaser, 
 and not objected to by him, amounts to 
 a liquidation of an account within the 
 statute of Illinois, giving interest on set- 
 tlement of accounts from the da^^ of "liq- 
 uidating accounts l)etween the parties and 
 ascertaining the balance," tlierc being no 
 
 other transaction between the parties. 
 Cooper z: Coates (U. S.). 21 Wall. 105, 
 22 L. Ed. 481. 
 
 2. Not exclusively a sea document. — 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. r. Wilkcns, 44 Md. 
 11, 22 .\m. Rep. 26. 
 
 "Strictly speaking, the term "bill of lad- 
 ing' is one to be applied only to the writ- 
 ten evidence of a contract for the carriage 
 and delivery of goods sent by sea, though 
 it is now in common use in connection 
 with the affreightment of goods by water 
 other than the sea, or carriage by rail." 
 Sellers f. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 123 Ga. 
 386, 51 S. E. 398. 
 
 3. It may be that the name "i>ill of lad- 
 ing" is not strictly appropriate to a re-
 
 §§ 413-418 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 302 
 
 mercial instruments.-* 
 
 Clean Bill of Lading. — A "clean" bill of lading, that is to say, a bill of lad- 
 ing which is silent as to the place of stowage, imports a contract that the goods 
 are to be stowed under deck.-"^ 
 
 Blind Billing. — The act of shipping without stating the charges is called 
 "blind billing." *' 
 
 §§ 414-424. Form and Contents — § 414. In General. — Any instru- 
 ment embodying the features specitied in the definition abo\e is a bill of lading, 
 so far as its legal effect is concerned, regardless of its form or the name by 
 which it may be designated.'' 
 
 Account for Freight or Freight Bill. — An account for freight or a mere 
 "freight bill" does not. ho\\e\er. constitute a l)ill of lading.'' 
 
 Due Bill Issued in Lieu of Incoming Bill of Lading. — A "due bill" issued 
 by a carrier in lieu of a bill of lading for cotton, representing the excess of cot- 
 ton called for by an incoming bill of lading on the issuance of an outgoing bill 
 for a smaller number of bales, could not be regarded as a bill of lading.'^ 
 
 § 415. Writing. — A bill of lading, although written with a pencil, is valid. ^'^ 
 
 § 416. Signature. — A bill of lading must be signed by the master of the 
 \essel or other agent of the carrier.^^ 
 
 Signature of Shipper. — L'nder the laws of Georgia it is required that the 
 shipper sign the bill of lading in order to make the special terms of the con- 
 tract of carriage effective. *- 
 
 § 417. Name of Consignee. — See post, "Person to Whom Delivery Au- 
 thorized," §§ 485-487. 
 
 § 418. Statement of Value of Goods. — Failure to file in a blank left in 
 a bill of lading for the ^•alue of the shipment does not invalidate the bill of 
 ladincf.^-^ 
 
 ceipt given by a common carrier as the 
 evidence of a bailment for transportation 
 upon land, but the receipts of railroad 
 companies are by usage so denominated, 
 and in respect to assignability and the 
 effect of assignment, the rule is the same 
 touching them as touching bills of lading 
 proper. Bass z'. Glover, 63 Ga. 745. 
 
 4. Commercial instrument. — Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. z\ Wilkens, 44 Aid. 11, 22 Am. 
 Rep. 20. 
 
 5. Clean bill of lading. — The Delaware 
 (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779; Niag- 
 ara Z'. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 7, 16 L. 
 Ed. 41. 
 
 6. Blind billing. — Standard Oil Co. z'. 
 United States, 17'.) Eerl. 814, lo:; C. C. A. 
 172. 
 
 7. No particular form required. — Coosa 
 River Steamboat Co. v. Barclay, 30 Ala. 
 120. 
 
 8. Account for freight or freight bill. — 
 Coosa River Steamboat Co. Z'. Barclay, 
 30 Ala. 120. 
 
 9. Due-bill.— St. Louis,, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Citizens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 
 30 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S.. 290. 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 10. Writing. — Main v. Jarrett, 83 Ark. 
 426, 104 S. W. 163, 119 Am. St. Rep. 144. 
 
 11. Signature of master of vessel.— The 
 Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 
 779; Covell v. Hill, 6 N. Y. 374; Gage v. 
 Jaqueth (N. Y.), 1 Lans. 207; Babcock 
 Z'. Orbison, 25 Ind. 75. 
 
 12. Signature of shipper. — Rhodes, etc., 
 Co. z'. Continental Furniture Co., 2 Ga. 
 App. 116, 58 S. E. 293. 
 
 But it has been held that the assent of 
 a shipper to the terms of a bill of lad- 
 ing may be established without his signa- 
 ture thereto, so as to make the contract 
 Ijinding as between him and the carrier. 
 Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia, etc., R. 
 Co., 19 S. C. 353. 
 
 13. Failure of shipper to state value in 
 bill of lading. — The failure of a shipper 
 who fills up a bill of lading for goods of 
 the value of more than fifty dollars, to 
 fill in the blank left for the value of the 
 shipment, does not constitute a fraudu- 
 ulent representation or concealment of 
 tiie value of the goods on his part, nor a 
 refusal to give their value when requested, 
 altliough he knew that the carrier be- 
 stowed a higher degree of care on pack- 
 ages of the value of fifty dollars or more 
 than on packages of less value. His mere 
 knowledge of that fact could not change 
 the degree of care imposed by law upon
 
 303 
 
 I'.II.LS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 419-425 
 
 § 419. Notations and Marginal Memoranda. — Where there is a nota- 
 tion or nienioranduni on the iiiars^in of the hih at its execution, touching the 
 manner of carrying, it may he regarded as i)art of the contract. ^"* if the shipper 
 assented to such notation ; ^•' hut a marginal note placed on a hill of lading hy 
 the shii)|)er is no ])art of the hill.''' 
 
 § 42 0. The Law. — W hat the law inserts is as much a part of a hill of lad- 
 ing as what is e\])ressly written therein.^' 
 
 The provisions of the Interstate Commerce Law forhidding railroads 
 to recover a greater or less compensation for the transi)ortation of property 
 than is s])ecified in the puhlishcd schedule of rates is a part of every hill of lad- 
 ing for the shipment of interstate freight. '^ 
 
 § 421, Published Tariffs. — Where a hill of lading hy a railway company 
 
 states that it is "■snhject to the i)ul)lished tariff' of said company and its con- 
 nections," and said tariit is well known to the shipi)er, rates in the tariff, when 
 ai)plicahle, will form part of the freight contract.'-' 
 
 § 422. Expense Account of Carrier. — An expense account, furnisherl hy 
 the carrier, and showing the amount of freight, constitutes no part of the hill 
 of lading, and can not l)e used in aid of it unless referred to therein.-" 
 
 § 423. Recitals of Fact. — See post, "Dual Character as Contract and as 
 Receipt," §§ 466-479. 
 
 § 424. Special Conditions and Limitations. — See post, "Special Con- 
 tracts," chaj)ter S; "Limitation of Liahility," chapter 14. 
 
 §§ 425-450. Issuance and Acceptance — § 425. Necessity for Issu- 
 ance. — Shippers should in all cases require a l)ill of lading, whether the con- 
 tract of affreightment is hy charter party, or without any such customary writ- 
 ten instrument.-' lUit a hill of lading is not essential to charge the carrier with 
 the duty of safely transporting the property delivered for carriage, although the 
 doing of the several acts entitling the shipper to a hill of lading is necessary to 
 charge the carrier with the safety of the articles intrusted to him.-- 
 
 the carrier, nor imposed upon the shipper 
 any higher duty than if he were ignorant 
 of such fact. Adams Exp. Co. z\ Green, 
 112 Va. 527. 72 S. E. 102. 
 
 14. Marginal notes. — Lawrence z'. Mc- 
 Grci^or (().). \Vri,u;ht 193. 
 
 15. Assent of shipper. — .\ notation, on 
 a l)ill of lading issued for a car load of 
 fruit, tliat the vents on the car are to be 
 closed, is not a direction from the shipper 
 to the carrier to close the vents, without 
 proof that the shipper assented to such 
 notation. Yesbik v. Macon, etc., R. Co., 
 75 S. E. 207. 1 1 Ga. App. 2US. 
 
 16. Marginal note placed on bill by 
 shipper. — A marginal note put by the 
 (luartirmaster's department on bills of 
 lading of vessels chartered by them, "that 
 if on the arrival of the vessel at the port, 
 of destination the consignee should order 
 her to another place to discharge, such 
 order in all cases to lie in writing on the 
 bill of lading," does nn[ make a part of 
 the contract entered into lij- the vessel; 
 and if her port of destination lie plainly 
 expressed in the body of the bill, the con- 
 signee can not, in virtue of the marginal 
 memorandum, order her to go forward to 
 
 another port. United States z'. Kimbal 
 (U. S.), 13 Wall. 636, 20 L. Ed. 503. 
 
 17. The law.— Ryan r. M. K. & T. R. 
 Co.. 65 Tex. 13, 57 Am. Rep. 589, 23 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 703. 
 
 18. Intestate commerce law. — Southern 
 R. Co. r. Harrison, 11!) Ala. 539, 24 So. 
 5.V2, 43 L. R. A. 3S.-). 72 .-Vm. St. Rep. 936. 
 
 19. Published tariffs. — Atchison, etc.. R. 
 Co. r. Roberts. 3 Tex. Civ. App. 370. 22 
 S. W. 1S3. 
 
 20. Expense account of carrier. — Texas. 
 etc.. R. Co. :■. Wo.h! (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 23 
 S. W . 714. 
 
 21. Necessity for bills of lading. — The 
 Delaware (,U. S.), 14 Wall. :.7<). 20 L. Ed. 
 779. 
 
 22. Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. v. Kolb, 
 73 .-Ma. 396; .Mabama Mid. R. Co. r. 
 Darby, 119 .^la. 531, 24 So. 713: Southern 
 R. Co. z: Johnson. 2 Ga. App. 36. 58 S. 
 E. 333; Johnson v. Stoddard, 100 Mass. 
 306: Meloche v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 
 Mich. 69, 74 N. W. 301: Tate z: 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 78 Miss. 842. 29 So. 
 392. 84 Am. St. Rep. 649. 651. 
 
 "Delivery of a bill of lading is not nec- 
 essary to fi.x liability upon the defend-
 
 ;§ 426-428 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 304 
 
 §8 426-442. Authority to Issue— §§ 426-428. Agents and Employ- 
 ees— §§ 426-427. Agents and Employees Who May Issue— § 426. Mas- 
 ter of Vessel and Other Employees.— Master of Vessel.— If the signer of 
 a bill of lading is not the master of the vessel, the vessel is not bound, because 
 the bill is signed by one not in privity with the owner. The taker assumes the 
 risk, not only of the genuineness of tlie signature, but of the fact that the signer 
 was' the master of the vessel.--' Evidence of authority to sign for the master 
 is, however, admissible notwithstanding the rule.^-* 
 
 Second Clerk of Steamer.— The second clerk of a steamer may execute on 
 behalf of the boat a bill of lading in the ordinary way and his receipt for mer- 
 chandise delivered on board will l)e binding.-'' 
 
 § 427. Agents and Employees of Railroads.— RaUroad Freight Agent. 
 
 A railroad freight agent has authority to receive goods and issue bills of 
 
 lading therefor.-'' . 
 
 General Freight Agent of Railroad Company and Assistants.— A bill ot 
 lading signed by the general freight agent of a railroad company is in effect 
 issued by the company itself, and is valid in the hands of innocent third parties, 
 although the goods were not in fact received,^' and the signature of an assist- 
 ant general officer is as efifective as that of the officer himself. -'^ 
 
 § 428. Proof or Estoppel to Deny Authority of Agent.— Express au- 
 thority of the agent of a carrier to issue a bill of lading or give a receipt for 
 goods need not be proved, wdien he acted as such in the proper place for re- 
 ceiving goods for the carrier, and w^as in possession of the carrier's stamp to 
 be used on such receipts, and the carrier took possession of the goods and 
 caused them to be shipped, presumably with knowledge of the receipt, which it 
 
 ant. Wells v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 .51 X. C. 47, 72 Am. Dec. 556." Berry v. 
 Southern R. Co., 122 N. C. 1002, 30 So. 14. 
 
 A carrier may enter into a con- 
 tract without a bill of lading, a part of 
 which is to be performed before the goods 
 are in course of actual transportation by 
 him, and in so far as such contract would 
 be binding upon other persons it will be 
 binding upon him also. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491. 
 
 A parol contract by which a railway 
 company agrees to receive cattle on its 
 cars for transportation on a day certain, 
 and which is violated by not having the 
 cars as agreed on, may be made the basis 
 of recovery against the company for all 
 damages caused thereby. It can not claim 
 that' its liability did not attach until the 
 signing of a bill of lading for the cat- 
 tle, which were delivered at a subsequent 
 day, and after the contract had been vio- 
 lated. The liability of the company for 
 damages was for a breach of contract, 
 which made delivery of the cattle at the 
 time specified impossible. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491; Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hamm, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 491. 
 
 Arts. 281, 282, 283, Rev. Stat, of Texas, 
 do not provide that a railroad is not lia- 
 ble as a common carrier of cattle upon 
 a parol agreement to furnish cars, and 
 that its liability does not attach until the 
 signing of the bill of lading. These sec- 
 tions merely provide that the carriers' 
 
 common-law liability as such shall com- 
 mence from the time the bill of lading is 
 signed; and that previous thereto they 
 shall be liable only as warehousemen for 
 goods placed in their depots or ware- 
 houses to be thereafter transported. They 
 do not in terms or in effect exernpt the 
 carrier from such liabilities as he is sub- 
 ject to in common with all persons, no 
 matter what occupation they may pursue. 
 Texas, etc., II. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 
 491. 
 
 23. Who may issue. — Pollard v. Vinton, 
 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998; The Schooner 
 Freeman (U. S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L. Ed. 
 341; The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 
 20 L. Ed. 779. 
 
 24. Putnam v. Tillotson (Mass.), 13 
 Mete. 517. 
 
 25. Second clerk of steamer. — Kirkman 
 T. Bowman (La.), s Rob. 24f). 
 
 26. Railroad freight agent.— St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Citizens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 
 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 290, 128 Am. St. 
 Rep. 17. See post, "Proof of and Estop- 
 pel to Deny Authority of .\gent," § 428. 
 
 27. General freight agent — Railroad 
 company and assistants. — Smith v. Mis- 
 souri I'ac. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 48; Sealy 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 84 Kan. 479, 114 
 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A., N. S., 500. 
 
 28. Sealy v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 84 
 Kan. 479, 114 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 500. »
 
 305 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 428-429 
 
 must be presumed the carrier had before tliey were so shipped. Xo other proof 
 of agency is necessary than that the agent's acts justify the party dealing with 
 him in beheving that he had authority.-"-* In such case tlie carrier is estopped 
 to deny the authority oi its agent.-'" 
 
 Proof of Authority as Requisite to Admission of Bill in Evidence. — See 
 post, "\'r()()\ of Ivxccution of I '.ill," § ?'>*). 
 
 §§ 429-442. Receipt of Goods as Prerequisite to Issuance— §§ 429- 
 438. Necessity — § 429. In General. — If a bill of lading is issued by a car 
 rier before the goods arc tendcrc<l it is void, and does not become effective until 
 the goods are offered to the carrier in such condition as it should receive them.-'* 
 The receipt of the goods is the foundation of the contract to carry and deliver 
 expressed in a bill of lading. If no goods are actually received by the carrier 
 there can be no valid contract to carry or deliver/^- and the bill imposes no 
 liabilitv on the carrier as an insurer until the goods are actually received by it.-'*^ 
 \\ bile the authorities may dift'er u\)on the point of what constitutes delivery to 
 a carrier, the rule is nowhere (|uestioned that when delivery has not been made 
 to the carrier, l)ut, on the contrary, the evidence shows that the goods remained 
 
 29. Proof or estoppel to deny authority 
 of agent. — Hansen z'. Flint, etc., R. Co.. 
 '.) Am. vSt. Rep. 791, 73 Wis. 346, 41 N. W. 
 529, so holding as to a bill of lading for 
 a through shipment over connecting 
 lines. 
 
 30. Agent left in charge of station after 
 resignation accepted. — Though tiie agent 
 of a carrier at a certain station resigned, 
 and his resignation was accepted, yet, no 
 one else having been appointed tor a 
 year, and the company having in the in- 
 terim left the station keys with him, and 
 he having personally seen to billing 
 freight, though he did not sign the bills 
 of lading, and no notice of his discharge 
 having been given the public, but he hav- 
 ing been permitted to act substantially 
 as he had done before, the carrier was 
 estopped by its acquiescence to question 
 his authority as agent as between it and 
 shippers who dealt with him. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. :•. Mink. 103 S. W. 294, 12(i 
 
 Ky. ;;:;:. :!i Ky. L. Rep. 833. 
 
 31. Necessity. — Central, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Cook. 4 Ga. App. 698, 62 S. E. 464; Adams 
 v. Brig Pilgrim, 10 West. L. J. 141, 1 O. 
 Dec. 477. See post, "Subsequent De- 
 livery to Carrier as \'alidating Bill," 
 §§ 439-442. 
 
 Compared to bill of exchange. — Com- 
 mon carrier is no more bound by bill of 
 lading given by his agent for goods not 
 received by him, than by a bill of ex- 
 change signed with his name by one not 
 autliorized to sign it. Hunt 7'. Mississippi 
 Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 446. 
 
 32. I'liitcd States, — Pollard v. \'inton. 105 
 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998; Robinson z: Mem- 
 phis, etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 57; St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Knight. 122 U. S. 79,' 30 
 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132; The Willie D. 
 Sandhoval. 92 Fed. 286; The Schooner 
 Freeman (U. S.), 18 How. 182. 15 L. Ed. 
 341. The Harter Act has not altered the 
 rule. The Isola Di Procida. 124 Fed. 942. 
 
 Arkaiisiis. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cit- 
 izens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 
 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 290, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 Under the express provisions of Kirby's 
 E)ig., §§ 524, 532, a carrier can not issue 
 any receipt for goods not actually received 
 into the possession of the carrier or ware- 
 houseman. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Cit- 
 izens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 
 30 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 X. S., 290. 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 Connecticut. — Relyea v. New Haven 
 Rolling Mill Co., 42 Conn. 579, 75 Fed. 
 420. 
 
 Indiana. — Stone v. Wabash, etc., R.. 
 Co., 9 111. App. 4S; Union R., etc., Co. v. 
 Yeager, 34 Ind. 1. 
 
 Louisiana. — Fearn, etc., Co. v. Richard- 
 son, 12 La. Ann. 752; Fellows v. Powell, 
 16 La. Ann. 316, 79 Am. Dec. 581; Hunt 
 f. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 
 446; Kirkman r. Bowman (La.). 8 Rob. 
 246. 
 
 Marxland. — Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Wilkiiis, 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Sears v. Wingate 
 (Mass.), 3 Allen 103. 
 
 Minnesota. — Natfonal Bank v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 X. W. 342. 
 560, 9 L. R. A., X. S., 263. 20 Am. St. 
 Rep. 566. 
 
 Xew York. — Miller i'. Hannibal, etc., 
 R. Co., 90 N. Y. 430, 43 .\m. Rep. 179. 
 
 North Carolina. — Black v. Wilmington, 
 etc.. R. Co., 92 X. C. 42, 53 Am. Rep. 450. 
 
 Canada.— Erh z: Great Western Ry. 
 Co., 5 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 179. 
 
 England.— Grant z: Xorway. 2d Eng. 
 L. & E. 337. 10 C. B. tEng.) 665. 
 
 33. Liability as insurer of goods. — Pitts- 
 Iiurg. etc.. R. Co. r. American Tobacco 
 Co.,^ 126 Kv. 582, 2:^ R. R. R. 586. 48 Am. 
 & Eng. R.'Cas.. X. S.. 586. 104 S. W. 377. 
 
 1 Car— 20
 
 §§ 429-430 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 306 
 
 in the possession of the shipper or his agent after the signing and passing of the 
 bill of lading, the carrier is not liable as carrier under the bill.-'-* In such case 
 no action is maintainable either on the ground of contract or tort.'"'* 
 
 § 430. Authority of Agents or Employees. — It is within the scope of 
 authority of the freight agents of a carrier to receive goods and issue bills of 
 lading therefor,-^'"' but such an agent is without authority to issue a bill of lading 
 for goods not delivered into the carrier's actual or constructive possession,"''' 
 and it is not within the apparent scope of his authority to issue such bill when 
 the goods have not been received.-'*'* This doctrine is applicable to transporta- 
 tion contracts made in that form by railway companies and other carriers by 
 land, as well as carriers by sea.^^ 
 
 Particular Officers and Agents of Carrier by 'Water. — The master of a 
 vessel.^" its shipping agent,-" the second clerk of a vessel,'*- or an officer or 
 
 34. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 
 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 35. Friedlander f. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 130 U. S. 416. 425, 32 L. Ed. 991, 9 S. Ct. 
 570. 
 
 36. Authority of agents or employees. 
 — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 
 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 128 Am. St. 
 Rep. 17, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 290. 30 R. R. R. 290. See ante, "Authority 
 of Agents or Emploj-ees," § 430. 
 
 37. Authority of agent. — United States. 
 — American Sugar-Retining Co. z'. Mad- 
 dock, 36 C. C. A. 42. 93 Fed. 980; Cunard. 
 etc.. Co. z: Kelley, 53 C. C. A. 310, 115 
 Fed. 678; Pollard z: Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 
 12, 26 L. Ed. 998; Robinson z\ Memphis, 
 etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 57; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 
 1077. 7 S. Ct. 1132; The Schooner Free- 
 man (U. S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L. Ed. 341; 
 The Isola Di Procida, 124 Fed. 942; The 
 Willie D. Sandhoval, 92 Fed. 286. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Citizens' Bank, 87 Ark.. 26, 30 R. R. R. 
 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 290, 
 112 S. \V. 154, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 Louisiana. — Fearn, etc., Co. v. Richard- 
 son. 12 La. Ann. 752; Fellows z\ Powell, 
 16 La. .\nn. 316, 79 Am. Dec. 581; Hunt 
 V. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 
 446; Kirkman Z'. Bowman (La.), 8 Rob. 
 246. 
 
 J/ai«c.— Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 
 35 Am. Rep. 327. 
 
 Maryland. — Baltimore, etc, R. Co. v. 
 "Wilkens, 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 Massaclitisetts. — - Kelley v. Bowker 
 (Mass.). 11 Gray 428. 71 Am. Dec. 725; 
 Sears z\ Wingate (Mass.), 3 Allen 103; 
 Shepherd z\ Xaylor (Mass.). 5 Gray 59L 
 
 Minnesota. — National Bank v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co.. 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 
 560, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. 
 Rep. 566. 
 
 North Carolina. — Black v. Wilmington, 
 etc., R. Co., 92 X. C. 42, 53 Am. Rep. 
 450. 
 
 0///0.— Dean v. King, 22 O. St. 118; 
 Little Miami, etc., R. Co. :■. Dodds & Co., 
 1 C. S. C. 47, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 407. 
 
 U'ashuigton. — Roy v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 42 Wash. 572, 85 Pac. 53, 7 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 728, 6 L. R. A.. N. S., 302. 
 
 England. — Coleman r. Riches, 16 C. B. 
 104; Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. (Eng.) 
 665. 2d Eng. L. & E. 337; Hubbersty v. 
 Ward, 8 Exch. 330; Lickbarrow :\ .Ma- 
 son, 2 T. R. (Eng.) 77. 
 
 Canada. — Erb z'. Great W^estern Ry. 
 Co.. 5 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 179. 
 
 38. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' 
 Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17, 
 112 S. \V. 154, 30 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 290. 
 
 Apparent authority of officer of cargo 
 steamboat. — The mere employment of an 
 officer or agent for a cargo steamboat 
 does not clothe him with apparent author- 
 ity to issue bills of lading for goods not 
 on board, or not delivered to one author- 
 ized to receive freight on account of the 
 boat. Dean v. King. 22 O. St. 118. 
 
 39. Application of rule to carriers by 
 land. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ Knight, 
 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132; 
 The Schooner Freeman (U. S.), 18 How. 
 182, 15 L. Ed. 341: Pollard z: Vinton. 105 
 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998; Friedlander z/. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co., 130 U. S. 416, 32 L. Ed. 991, 
 9 S. Ct. 570; Missouri Pac. R. Co. z\ Mc- 
 Fadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944. 14 
 S. Ct. 990; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. ?■. Com- 
 mercial Union Ins. Co.. 139 U. S. 223, 35 
 L. Ed. 154, 11 S. Ct. 554. 
 
 40. Master of vessel. — Friedlander z'. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 130 U. S. 416, 424, 
 32 L. Ed. 991, 9 S. Ct. 570; The Schooner 
 Freeman (U. S.), 18 How. 182. 15 T, Fd. 
 341; The Lady Franklin (U. S.), 8 Wall. 
 325, 19 L. Ed. 455; Pollard v. Vinton, 105 
 
 41. Shipping agents — Rivers of interior. 
 
 — Shipping agents of a vessel at points 
 on the rivers of the interior where cargo 
 is received and delivered, can not, by giv- 
 ing a bill of lading for goods not received 
 for shipment bind the vessel or its owner. 
 Pollard z: Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 
 998. 
 
 42. Second clerk of vessel. — Kirkman z'. 
 Bowman (La.), 8 Rob. 246.
 
 307 
 
 lULLS OF LAUIXG. 
 
 § 430 
 
 agent for a cargo steamboat,-*-' has no autlKjriiy to sign a hill of lading for goods 
 not actnally jnit on hoard the vessel. 
 
 A railroad freight agent has no authority to issue a hill of lading or re- 
 cei])l for goods not actua]l\ received. "♦■* 
 
 Agreement That Shipper Shall Retain Custody Till Future Day.— The 
 carrier's ]iahilil\- ;is siuli will nol attach on i.s^uing the hill in a case where not 
 only is tliere a failure to (klivcr, hut there is also an understanding between the 
 parties that delivery shall not he made till a future day. and that the goods, 
 until then, shall reniain in the custody of the shii)|)er.*'' 
 
 Issuance by Agent for Several Vessels in Name of Another than That 
 in Which Goods Loaded. — W here an agent of se\eral \oscU i^'-ues a hill of 
 latling in the name of one vessel for goods which are in fact loaded upon another, 
 the first \essel is not liable on the bill of lading in case of loss."*'' 
 
 Application of Doctrine of Estoppel. — \\'here the agent of a boat carelessly 
 issues a bill of lading acknowledging the receipt of freight not on board or not 
 delivered to a person authorized to receive it, the owners of the boat are not es- 
 topped, by reason of such carelessness, from denying the receipt thereof, although 
 the shipper may have been misled thereby. ■*" 
 
 Burden of Proof of Authority of Agent. — The authority of the agent of a 
 carrier to issue a bill oi lading or to make a si)ecial contract so as to bind it for 
 goods not delivered nuist be shown by the person asserting it.'*'' 
 
 U. S. 7, 2 J L. Rd. 99S; St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 
 7 S. Ct. 1132: The Delaware (U. S.), 14 
 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. r. McFadden, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. 
 Ed. 944. 14 S. Ct. 990; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. t'. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 139 
 U. S. 223, 35 L. Ed. 154, 11 S. Ct. 554. 
 
 Before the power to make and deliver 
 a I)ill of lading could arise, some person 
 must have shipped goods on the vessel. 
 Only then could there be a shipper, and 
 only then could there be goods shipped. 
 The goods need not have been actually 
 placed on the deck of the vessel. If they 
 came witliin_ the control and custody of 
 the officers of the boat for the purpose of 
 shipment, the contract of carriage has 
 commenced, and the evidence of it in the 
 form of a l)ill of lading would l)e ])inding. 
 But without such a delivery there is no 
 contract of carrying and the agent of the 
 carrier has no authority to make one. Pol- 
 lard :■. Vinton. 105 U. S. 7. 2(5 L. Ed. 998; 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z\ Wilkens. 44 Md. 
 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26; .\doue i: Seeligson 
 & Co., 54 Tex. 593. 
 
 43. Officer of cargo steamboat. — Dean 
 V. King. 22 ( ). St. 1 IS. 
 
 44. Railroad freight agent. — It is l)e- 
 yond the scope of a railroad freight 
 agent's authority, to issue a bill of lading 
 or receipt for goods not actually received. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co :■. Citizens' Rank, 
 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. R. 
 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 290, 
 12S .'\iii. St. \\v]i. IT. 
 
 45. Agreement that shipper shall retain 
 custody till future day, — Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. :■. .Mel- addon. l.Vl L'. S. 155. 38 L. Ed. 
 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 .\ carrier is not lialde on a bill of lad- 
 
 ing for propcrt)^ which at the time of the 
 signing o{ the l)ill remains in the hands 
 of the shipper for the purpose of being 
 compressed for the shipper's account, and 
 was destroyed by fire before the delivery 
 to the carrier had been consummated. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 154 
 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 990; 
 Arthur r. Texas, etc.. R. Co., 204 U. S. 
 505, 51 L. Ed. 590, 27 S. Ct. 338. 
 
 46. Issuance of bill by agent of several 
 vessels in name of vessel on which no 
 goods loaded. — The Lady Franklin ( U. 
 S.). S Wall. 325, 19 L. Ed. 455. 
 
 A bill of lading given by a person who 
 was agent of several vessels all alike en- 
 gaged in transporting goods brought to 
 certain waters liy a railwaj' line. l)ut hav- 
 ing separate owners, and not connected 
 by any joint undertaking to be respon- 
 sible for one anotlier's breaches of con- 
 tract — the bill, through mistake of the 
 agent, acknowledging that certain gootis 
 had been shipped on the vessel .-K.. when, 
 in fact, tliey had l^een previously shipped 
 on the vessel B., and a bill of lading given 
 accordingly — will not make the vessel .\. 
 responsible, the goods having been lost 
 by the vessel B., and the suit being one 
 by shippers of the merchandise against 
 the owner of the vessel. .\.. and tlie case 
 being thus unembarrassed by any ques- 
 tion of a bona fide purchase on the 
 strength of the bill of lading. The Lady 
 Franklin (U. S.), 8 Walk 325. 19 L. Ed. 
 455. 
 
 47. l)e;in :■. King. "22 O. St. 11 S. 
 
 48. Burden of proof of authority. — Kirk- 
 man :■. Bowman iLa.). s Rdl). 246. so 
 holdiuLi as to proof of autiiority of sec- 
 ond clerk on vessel.
 
 § 431 
 
 CAKRIIvRS. 
 
 308 
 
 §§ 431-437. As against Bona Fide Consignee or Transferee— § 431. 
 Doctrine Prevailing in Most Jurisdictions.— A bill of lading issued by a sta- 
 tion or shipping agent of a railroad company or other common carrier, without 
 receiving the goods named in it for transportation, imposes no liability upon the 
 carrier. * Even as against a bona fide consignee or indorsee for value, the carrier 
 is not estopped bv the statements of the bill of lading issued by his agent from 
 showing that the goods therein described were not in fact received for transpor- 
 tation, unless by its usual mode of doing business it has given to its agents au- 
 thority to issue bills of lading for goods not received. This doctrine is supported 
 by an unbroken line of authorities in England"*'' and Canada;-^" and is the set- 
 lied doctrine of the federal courts ;^^i and of the courts of most of the states 
 among which are Alabama,^^ Arkansas, ^-^ Illinois. •"'■* Louisiana,^^ Maryland,-^" 
 
 49. English cases. — Brown r. Powell 
 Coal Co.. L. R. 10 C. P. 562; Coleman 
 7'. Riches. 16 C. B. 104; Cox, Patterson, 
 & Co. V. Bruce & Co., 18 C. B. Div. 147; 
 Grant r. Norway, 10 C. B. (Eng.) 665, 2d 
 Eng. L. & E. 337: Hubbertsty t'. Ward, 
 8 Exch. 330; Jessel v. Bath, L. R. 2, Exch. 
 267; Lickbarrow r. Mason, 2 T. R. (Eng.) 
 77; McLean r. Fleming, L. R. 2, H. L. 
 Sc. 128; Meyer v. Dresser, 16 C. B., N. S., 
 646; Uessel z: Bath, 2 Exch. 267. 
 
 In Grant :■. Norway, 10 C. B. (Eng.) 
 665, 2d Eng. L. & E. 337, the question 
 was first distinctly presented for adjudi- 
 cation in England, whether the master 
 of a vessel signing a bill of lading for 
 goods which have never been shipped is 
 to be considered the agent of the owner 
 in that behalf, so as to make the latter 
 responsible to an indorsee of the bill for 
 value, and after full consideration the 
 court of common pleas held that he was 
 not. 
 
 "And this has not been at all changed 
 by the Bills of Lading Act: 18 & 19 
 Vict., c. Ill, § 3." National Bank v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 
 342, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. 
 Rep. 566. 
 
 American cases. — The English rule is 
 stated in Henderson v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 116 La. 1047, 41 So. 252, 114 Am. 
 St. Rep. 582; National Bank v. Chicago, 
 etc., R.- Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 
 L. R. A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 50. Erb V. Great Western R. Co., 5 
 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 179. 
 
 51. Eriedlander v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 130 U. S. 416, 9 S. Ct. 570, 32 L. Ed. 991; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 154 
 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944. 14 S. Ct. 990; 
 Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 
 998; Robinson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 
 16 Fed. 57; The Schooner Freeman (U. 
 S.), 18 How. 182, 15 L. Ed. 341; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. 
 Ed. 10i7, 7 S. Ct. 1132; The Lady Frank- 
 lin (U. S.), 8 Wall. 325, 19 L. Ed. 455; 
 The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 
 L. Ed. 779; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Com- 
 mercial Union Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223, 35 
 L. Ed. 154, 11 S. Ct. 554. 
 
 Deficiency of goods — Mistake. — The 
 rule that the master of a vessel has no 
 
 authority by virtue of his position, either 
 actual or apparent, to sign a bill of lad- 
 ing for cargo not actually received on 
 board, applies when there is only a de- 
 ficiency in part through mistake, and the 
 shipowner can not be held liable even by 
 an innocent indorsee of the bill of lading 
 for value, for such shortage, if the quan- 
 tity actually received is delivered. x\mer- 
 ican Sugar-Refining Co. t'. Maddock, 36 
 C. C. A. 42, 93 Fed. 980. 
 
 52. Haas v. Citizens' Bank, 144 Ala. 562, 
 113 Am. St. Rep. 61, 39 So. 129, 1 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 242; Jasper Trust Co. r. Kan- 
 sas City, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 416, 14 So. 
 546, 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 Enc. Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. 426; 
 Peck z'. Dinsmore (Ala.), 4 Port. 212. 
 
 53. Martin r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 55 
 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. 314; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 128 Am. St. Rep. 
 17, 22, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. 
 R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 290. 
 
 54. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. r. National 
 Live Stock Bank, 178 111. 506, 13 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 1, 53 N. -E. 326. 
 
 Where the goods were not actually re- 
 ceived by the carrier it is not estopped 
 from explaining or contradicting a bill of 
 lading or shipping receipt issued by its 
 agent, even though the party named 
 therein as the consignee has in good faith 
 advanced money, relying upon the ship- 
 ping receipt or bill of lading. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. National Live Stock Bank, 
 178 111. 506, 53 N. E. 326, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 1. 
 
 In Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. National 
 Live Stock Bank, 178 111. 506, 53 N. E. 
 326, 13 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 1. 
 "Appellee insists that a carrier of goods 
 is estopped from contradicting the bill of 
 
 55. Hunt V. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 
 29 La. Ann. 446; Fellows v. Powell, 16 
 La. Ann. 316, 79 Am. Dec. 581; Hender- 
 son V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 116 La. 
 1047, 41 So. 252, 114 Am. St. Rep. 582; 
 Fearn, etc., Co. v. Richardson, 12 La. Ann. 
 752. 
 
 56. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. Wilkens, 
 44 Md. 11. 22 Am. Rep. 26.
 
 309 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 431 
 
 Massachusetts,^'^ Minnesota,''** Missouri, •'•"^ North Carolina,"^' C)hio,"^ Texas,*^^ 
 W'ashington,^^" and otlier states. 
 
 Basis and Reasoning- of Doctrine. — The rL-asonin<.( hy which the doctrine 
 which ])re\ails in J'*nj,dan(l and in the federal courts and the courts of most of the 
 states is usually sujjpcjrted is that a hill of lading is not nej^otiahle in the sense 
 in which a hill of exchant^e or promissory note, is negotiahle, where the purchaser 
 need not look heyond the instrument itself; that so far as it is a receipt for the 
 goods it is suscejitihle of explanation or contradiction, the same as any other 
 receipt; that the whole question is one of the law of agency; that it is not within 
 the scope of the authority of the shipj)ing agent of a carrier to issue hills of lading 
 where no property is in fact received for transportation ; that the extent of his 
 authority, either real or ajjparent, is to issue hills of lading for freight actually 
 received ; and his real and apparent authority — i. e., the ])ower in which his prin- 
 cipal has clothed him in the character in which he is held out to the world — is the 
 same, viz. to give bills of lading for goods received for transportation ; and that 
 this limitation u]X)n his authority is known to the commercial world, anrl there- 
 
 lading or shipping receipt issued by an 
 agent, against a party named therein, who 
 has in good faith advanced money rely- 
 ing upon it; and cites, as sustaining this 
 proposition, Nortliern Transp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clary, OC 111. 233, and St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Larned, 103 111. 293. In the Mc- 
 Clary case it was not controverted that 
 100 barrels of flour were delivered by a 
 consignor to the Chicago & Nortliwestern 
 Railway Company to be shipped to Chi- 
 cago, and thence by water on propellers 
 of the Northern Transportation Com- 
 pany, to Ogdensburg, X. V. and thence 
 by rail to Barton's Landing. \'t., con- 
 signed to McCIary. The agent of the 
 Transportation company receipted the 
 Chicago & Northwestern Railway Com- 
 pany for the same, and by mistake the 
 flour was not delivered at the proper 
 warehouse, and became lost to the con- 
 signee. Here was an actual receipt of 
 goods for shipment, which were lost by 
 neglect. The carriage had commenced. 
 It was said in that case (page 236) : 'More- 
 over, this is really a contest l)etween two 
 carriers, which the appellee should not 
 be required to settle. His right of re- 
 covery from one or the other is conceded. 
 Having establislied a clear prima facie 
 lial)ility against the appellant, it seems 
 but just that he should be allowed to en- 
 ]oy tlie recovery he lias obtained without 
 being harassed further to determine a 
 question of liability as between the com- 
 panies themselves. In the Larned case, 
 certain cotton left at defendant's depot 
 by an agent of Larned, without orders 
 for shipment, was shipped, and wrongly 
 delivered. The defendant issued a bill 
 of lading, which was attached to a draft 
 which was paid by Larned. The latter 
 sued and recovered. Neither of these 
 cases has any of the features of tliis case, 
 as there was a clear liability in those 
 cases for affreightments actually received 
 by the carrier and lost to the consign- 
 ees.' " 
 
 57. Sears z'. VVingate (Mass.), 3 .\llen 
 lo.'i. 
 
 In Sears r. Wingate (Mass.). 3 .Allen 
 103, it is held that a bill of lading is con- 
 clusive evidence against the master of 
 a vessel in favor of a consignee, not a 
 party to the contract, who has advanced 
 money upon faith of its statements, as 
 to the amount and condition of the prop- 
 erty of which it acknowledges the receipt, 
 so far as from tlie whole instrument and 
 the usage of trade the facts may be re- 
 garded as absolute statements from the 
 master's own knowledge, but it is not 
 conclusive against the owners, as to the 
 property not actually shipped, because it 
 is not within the scope of the master's 
 authority by virtue of his position, either 
 actual or apparent, to sign but such as is 
 put on board. 
 
 58. National Bank ?■. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 4-t Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 560, 9 
 L. R. A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566; 
 Swedish-American Nat. Bank f. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 19 R. R. R. 783. 42 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 783, 96 Minn. 436, 
 10.-, X. W. 69. overruling McCord z: West- 
 ern Lnion Tel. Co.. 39 Minn. 181. 12 Am. 
 St. Rep. 636, 39 N. \V. 315. 1 L. R. A. 
 143; Ratzer z: Burlington, etc.. R. Co., 
 58 .\m. St. Rep. 530, 64 Minn. 245, 66 N. 
 \V. 988. 
 
 59. Louisiana Nat. Bank :\ Laveille. 52 
 Mo. 380. 
 
 60. Black z: Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 
 92 X. C. 42, 53 Am. Rep. 450. 
 
 6L Dean v. King. 22 O. St. 118; Little 
 Miami, etc., R. Co. z: Dodds & Co., 1 C. 
 S. C. 47, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 407. 
 
 62. Bills of lading are not commercial 
 or negotialile paper in the hands of an 
 innocent party, which precUuIes or estops 
 the carrier from denying that the freight 
 was received as therein admitted. Adoue 
 z: Seeligson & Co.. 54 Tex. 593. 
 
 63. Roy z: Northern Pac. R. Co.. 42 
 Wash. 572. 85 Pac. 53, 7 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 728, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 302.
 
 §§ 431-432 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 310 
 
 fore any person i)urchasing a bill of lading issued by the agent of a carrier acts 
 at his own risk as respects the existence of the fact (the receipt of the goods) 
 upon which alone the agent has authority to issue the bill, the rule being that if 
 the authority of an agent is known to be o])en for exercise only in a certain event, 
 or upon the' happening of a certain contingency, or the performance of a certain 
 condition, the occurrence of the event, or the happening of the contingency, or 
 the performance of the condition must be ascertained by him who would avail 
 himself of the results ensuing from the exercise of the authority.*'-* This pre- 
 sumption is i)redicated upon the assumption that the authority of the agent is 
 limited to issuing bills of lading for freight received before or concurrent with 
 the issuing of the bills, which would be the presumption in the absence of evi- 
 dence to the contrary. Xo doubt a carrier might adopt a different mode of 
 doing business by giving his agents authority to issue bills of lading for goods 
 not received, so as to render him liable in such cases to third parties."'"'' 
 
 Bills Stating- That "Weight Unknown" or "Subject to Correction." — 
 See post, ■"Ett'ect or Warranty of Ouantity. etc.," §§ 488-491. See also, post, 
 "Effect of State Statutes." § 437. 
 
 § 432. Doctrine in New York, Pennsylvania and Certain Other States. 
 
 The courts of \ew \'ork '■'' hold that a railroad company is liable upon a 
 
 64. Reason of doctrine. — National Bank 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 4G 
 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. 
 St. Rep. 566. 
 
 Since the master of the ship has no 
 authority to sign a bill of lading for goods 
 not actually put on board, the consignee 
 and every other party taking, or dealing 
 with, or making advances on the faith of 
 such an instrument which is untruthful 
 in this particular, does so with notice of 
 this limitation of the power of the master, 
 and acts at his own risks both as re- 
 spects the fact of shipment and the 
 quantity of cargo purported by a bill of 
 lading to be shipped. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 65. National Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 66. Armour v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 65 
 N. Y. Ill, 22 Am. Rep. 603; Bank z\ New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195, 12 N. 
 E. 433, 60 Am. Rep. 440, 32 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 497; Byrne v. Weeks (N. Y.), 4 
 Abb. Dec. 657; Dickerson v. Seelye (N. 
 Y.), 12 Barb. 99; Farmers', etc., Nat. 
 Bank v. Erie R. Co., 72 N. Y. 188; Van 
 Santen v. Standard Oil Co. (N. Y.), 17 
 Hun 140, affirmed in 81 N. Y. 171. 
 
 In Bank v. New York, etc., R. Co., 106 
 N. Y. 195, 12 N. E. 433, 60 Am. Rep. 440, 
 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 497, it is held 
 that a railroad company is liable upon a 
 bill of lading issued in its name by an 
 agent having authority to issue bills on 
 receipt of property for transportation to 
 one who, upon transfer by the shipper, 
 upon the faith of the bill, has, in good 
 faitli. discounted a draft drawn upon the 
 consignee, although no goods were de- 
 livered to the railroad or its agent. 
 
 Bills of lading issued by local freight 
 agent — Conspiracy between agent and al- 
 
 leged shipper. — In Bank v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195, 12 N. E. 433, 
 60 Am. Rep. 440, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 497, it appeared that one of defendant's 
 local freight agents, having authority to 
 give bills of lading, specifying the terms 
 of shipment, but having no right to issue 
 such a bill except upon actual receipt of 
 the property for transportation, issued 
 bills of lading purporting to be for sixty- 
 five barrels of beans to W., describing 
 them as received to be forwarded to C, 
 as consignee, but adding, with references 
 to the packages "contents unknown." 
 W. drew a draft on the consignee which 
 plaintifif discounted on the faith of and 
 on transfer of the bills of lading. No 
 barrels of beans were in fact shipped by 
 W. or delivered to defendant, but the 
 bills were issued in pursuance of a con- 
 spiracy between the agent and W. to de- 
 fraud. Payment of the draft was refused 
 l)y the railroad. It was held that the 
 latter was liable, and that the recital in 
 the bills that the contents of the pack- 
 ages were unknown was no defense. 
 
 A recital in the bills that the "contents 
 of the package were unknown" is no de- 
 fense where nothing is shipped and the 
 l)ill is wholly false. Bank f. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 60- Am. Rep. 440, 443, 106 
 N. Y. 195, 12 N. E. 433, 32 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 497. 
 
 Bills issued upon forged warehouse re- 
 ceipt. — In Armour t'. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co., 65 N. Y. Ill, 22 Am. Rep. 603, it ap- 
 peared that defendant's agent, having 
 authority to issue bills of lading", upon 
 delivery to him by M. of a forged ware- 
 house receipt, issued to M. two bills of 
 lading, each stating the receipt of a 
 quantity of lard consigned to plaintiffs 
 at New York, and to be transported and 
 delivered to them. Such agent was in-
 
 311 
 
 IIILI.S OF LADING. 
 
 § 432 
 
 bill of lading, issued in its name by an agent having authority to issue such 
 bills on receipt of property for transportation, to a bona fide consignee or 
 transferee, who lias parted with value upon tlie faith of the bill by discounting 
 or paying a draft drawn up(jn the consignee, although no goods were de- 
 livered to the railroad or its agent. The same doctrine prevails in Pennsyl- 
 vania''^ and South Carolina''^ and has been adopted by the courts of several 
 otlier states among whicli are Connecticut,'"' Georgia,'" Kansas, "' and Xe- 
 
 fornicd \>y M. at tlie time of tlic delivery 
 of the l)ills of lading, that he intended to 
 use tlieni at a bank. M. drew sif^ht drafts 
 on plaintiffs, to which he attached the 
 hills of lading, these were delivered to a 
 hank and forwarded to New York, and 
 the drafts were paid by plaintiffs, upon 
 the faith and credit of the bills of lading. 
 It was held that defendant carrier was 
 bound by the acts of its agents within his 
 apparent authority and was estopped 
 from denying the receipt of the lard. 
 
 67. Brooke v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 108 Pa. 029, 1 Atl. 206, 56 .•Xm. Rep. 235; 
 Franklin Trust Co. i'. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co.. 222 Pa. 96, 70 .\tl. 949, 22 L. R. ' 
 A., N. S., 828. 
 
 Bill issued by railroad shipping clerk. 
 — In Brooke, i'. New York, etc., R. C(j., 
 108 Pa. 529, 1 Atl. 206, 56 Am. Rep. 235, 
 it appeared that a shipping clerk at one 
 of defendant's railroad stations issued a 
 bill of lading in the name of the railroad 
 for certain goods that it had never re- 
 ceived; and that the bill of lading came 
 into the possession of an innocent third 
 person, who made advances of money 
 upon it. In an action against the 
 railroad to recover such advances l)y 
 such third person, it was held that the 
 railroad was estopped by the act of its 
 agent from denying the receipt of the 
 goods, although such clerk had no au- 
 thority to give bills of lading without 
 receiving the goods, and the railroad had 
 never done anything to lead anyone to 
 suppose that he had such authority. 
 
 Liability of connecting carriers. — 
 Where connecting railroads, forming a 
 through line, enter into an arrangement 
 hy which they employ an agent to so- 
 licit freight, and the agent issues a bill 
 of lading before the initial carrier re- 
 ceives the goods, and with knowledge 
 that tile bill of lading is to accompany a 
 draft on the consignee, and the con- 
 signee pays the draft, but the goods are 
 never received either l)y the consignee 
 or any of the railroads, the consignee 
 •can recover tlie amount of the draft from 
 the terminal carrier, since, apart from 
 the question of partnership, there is a 
 joint liability on the part of all the com- 
 panies on whose lielialf the l)ill of lading 
 was issued. Dulaney 7\ Philadelphia, 
 <?tc.. R. Co.. 228 Pa. 180. 77 .\tl. 507. 
 
 68. Thomas v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 85 
 S. C. 537. 64 S. E. 220. 34 L. R. A.. N. S.. 
 1177. 21 Am. & Eng. .\nn. Cas. 223. 32 
 
 R. R. R. 250. 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. 
 S., 250. 
 
 A carrier issuing a l)ill of lading for a 
 specified quantity of freight is estopped 
 to deny the receipt of such freight as 
 against a consignee in good faith relying 
 on the statement of the bill of lading, 
 paying a draft drawn on him by the 
 shipper for the quantity of freight desig- 
 nated in the liill of lading. Smith v. 
 Southern Railway, 89 S. C. 415. 71 S. E. 
 989. 36 L. R. .\.. N. S., 230. 
 
 Number of packages delivered for car- 
 riage. — The recitals in a Itill of lading, 
 issued l)y a carrier on the actual receipt 
 of goods, tliat a specified number of 
 packages were delivered for carriage are 
 conclusive on the carrier, as between it 
 and the consignee or transferee of the 
 l)ill of lading, who has incurred loss or 
 liability in reliance on the correctness of 
 such recitals. Thomas v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co.. 85 S. C. 537, 32 R. R. R. 250. 55 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 250. 64 S. E. 
 220. 34 L. R. A.. N. S.. 1177. 
 
 69. Relyea v. New Haven Rolling Mill 
 Co., 42 Conn. 579. 75 Fed. 420. 
 
 Consignee deceived by receipt clause — 
 Master of vessel chargeable with notice. 
 — As Ijctwccn the shipper and tlie ship 
 owner the receipt in a bill of lading is 
 open to explanation, but it is otherwise 
 where the consignee is deceived by it. and 
 the master of the vessel knew, or had 
 the means of knowing, that its statements 
 were incorrect. So held in Relyea f. New 
 Haven Rolling Mill Co.. 42 Conn. 579, 75 
 Fed. 420. 
 
 70. American Nat. Bank r. Georgia R. 
 Co.. 96 Ga. 665. 51 Am. St. Rep. 155. 23 
 S. E. 898; Thomas r. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 
 85 S. C. 537. 64 S. E. 220. 34 L. R. .\.. N. 
 S.. 1177. 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 223, 
 32 R. R. R. 250. 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S.. 250. ■ 
 
 Bill intended to be negotiated. — The 
 recitals in a bill of ladin.g as to the de- 
 livery of .goods and their quality, quantit)', 
 and condition are binding on the carrier, 
 when the bill was intended to be negoti- 
 ated and is held by bona fied transferee 
 for value. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Pferdmenges. etc., Co., S Ga. App. 81, 68 
 S. E. 617. 
 
 71. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. .Adams. 4 
 Kan. App. 305. 45 Pac. 920; Wichita Sav. 
 Bank i: .Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 20 Kan. 
 519. 20 .Am. R. Rep. 299; Missouri, etc.. 
 R. Co. v. Sealy. 78 Kan. 758. 99 Pac. 230. 
 See, also, Henderson r. Louisville, etc.,
 
 432 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 312 
 
 braska.'- In these states the carrier is held to be estopped to deny the de- 
 livery of the goods to the prejudice of third persons, who have in good faith 
 in the ordinary course of business acted upon the representations of the agent,'^ 
 
 R. Co.. 116 La. 1047, 41 So. 253, 114 Am. 
 St. Rep. 5S2. 
 
 Bill of lading issued on promise of 
 shipper to complete consignment — Fraud. 
 — In St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 4 
 Kan. App. 305, 45 Pac. 920, the petition 
 alleged that defendant railroad was a car- 
 rier of goods and owned a railway in M. 
 count}-, Kansas, passing through the city 
 of C. ; that on a certain day it received 
 of G. & W., at its station at C, in M. 
 county, one car of poultry, 20,000 pounds, 
 of the value of $1,000, consigned to A. 
 B. & Co. N. O.; and that the duly au- 
 thorized agent of said railroad company 
 issued a bill of lading therefor; that G. 
 & W. took said bill of lading to a bank 
 at C. and drew a draft for $500 on the 
 consignees, and attached said bill of lad- 
 ing thereto; that said draft, with the bill 
 of lading attached, in due course of busi- 
 ness was presented to the consignees at 
 their place of business in N. O., who on 
 the faith of the bill of lading advanced 
 the money and paid said draft; and that 
 the railway company neglected to ship 
 said car of poultry to the consignees at 
 N. O. The answer of the railway did not 
 deny issuing the bill of lading, but al- 
 leged that its agent at its station at C. 
 did not have authority to issue bills of 
 lading except for property actually re- 
 ceived; and that G. & W. did not deliver 
 all of the poultry named in the bill of 
 lading, but agreed to complete the load 
 at the stations along the line of said rail- 
 way; that they only placed five crates of 
 poultry in the car at C.. and were to com- 
 plete the 20,000 pounds at its stations at 
 A., O., H., and G.; that when the car 
 containing part of the poultry arrived at 
 the station of A., G. & W. did not furnish 
 the poultry to complete the load, and the 
 car was stopped there, and the said G. 
 & W. absconded, and the poultry then in 
 the car had to be sold to prevent great 
 loss; and that said poultry was sold at 
 A., for all it was worth in its then con- 
 dition; and it offers to pay to the con- 
 signees the amount for which the poultry 
 was sold, or confers judgment for the 
 same with all costs of suit. It was held 
 that plaintiffs below were entitled to 
 judgment on the pleadings. 
 
 Two bills of lading issued for same 
 consignment Fraud— Both Ijills transfer- 
 red for value. — In Wichita Sav. Bank v. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co., 20 Kan. 519, 20 
 Am. R. Rep. 299, it appeared that the 
 agent of a railroad company, v/ho had 
 authority to receive grain for shipment 
 over its road, and issue in the name of 
 the corpo'-ation a single bill of lading for 
 each consignment received, received 23,000 
 pounds of wheat as a single consignment 
 
 for transportation to St. Louis, Mo., and, 
 at the instance of the shipper, issued in 
 the name of the railroad two original 
 bills of lading of the same terms, tenor, 
 and effect, for such single consignment, 
 and the shipper negotiated one of such 
 l>ills to W., and immediately there- 
 after negotiated and transferred by in- 
 dorsement in writing the other of said 
 bills to a bank, and the bank, knowing 
 the custom of the railroad to issue only 
 one bill of lading for each shipment, and 
 relying wholly on the bill for its security, 
 accepted the same, advanced money 
 thereon in good faith, and in the regular 
 course of its business, and having no- 
 knowledge of the issuance of the two 
 bills of lading; and W., as the holder of 
 the bill assigned to him, received all of 
 the wheat so consigned and forwarded to 
 St. Louis. It was held that the shipper 
 being insolvent, and having absconded, 
 the railroad was estopped by its state- 
 ment promise in the bill of lading to deny 
 that he had received the grain mentioned 
 therein, and was liable to the indorsee 
 and assignee for its advances made by 
 the bank in good faith on the bill of 
 lading. 
 
 72. Sioux City, etc., Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 10 Neb. 556, 7 N. W. 311, 35 Am. 
 Rep. 488. 
 
 Bill of lading compared to bill of ex- 
 change.— In MciNeil V. Hill, Fed. Cas. No, 
 8914, Woolw. 96, it is said in the opinion: 
 "As civilization has advanced, and com- 
 merce extended, new and artificial modes 
 of doing business have superseded the ex- 
 changes l)y barter, and otherwise, which 
 prevail while society is in its earlier and 
 simpler stages. The invention of the bill 
 of exchange is a familiar illustration of 
 this fact. A more modern, but still not 
 recent invention, of like character, for the 
 transfer, without the somewhat and otten 
 impossible operations of actual delivery 
 of articles of personal property, is the 
 indorsement, or assignment, of bills of 
 lading and warehouse receipts. Instru- 
 ments of this kind are sui generis. From 
 long use and trade, they have come to 
 have among commercial men a well-un- 
 derstood meaning, and the indorsement 
 or assignment of tliem as absolutely 
 transfers the general property of the goods 
 and chattels therein named, as would a 
 bill of sale, * * *. If the warehouseman 
 gives to the party who holds such re- 
 ceipt a false credit, he will not be suf- 
 fered to contradict his statement which he 
 has made in the receipt, so as to^^ injure 
 a party who has been misled by it." 
 
 73. A bill of lading containing a state- 
 ment as to the quantity of goods, issued 
 with the understanding that the goods
 
 313 BILLS OF LAiJixG. §§ 432-434 
 
 and it is immaterial wlietlicr the bill of ladiii.t,' was ncj^otiaMe or not."'* 
 
 The reasoning of the cases which apply the doctrine which prevails 
 in New York and a lew other states is, in snbstance, that the c|uesti<jn does 
 not at all depend ujjon the negotiability of bills of ladinj.^, but upon the principle 
 of estoppel in ])ais: that where a principal has clothed an agent with [Xtwer 
 to do an act in case of the existence of some extrinsic fact, necessarily and 
 peculiarly within the knowledj^e (jf the agent, and of the existence of which the 
 act of executing the power is itself a representation, the principal is estopped 
 from denying the existence of the fact, to the prejudice of a third person who 
 has dealt with the agent or acted on his rejiresentation in good faith, in the 
 ordinary course of business.'-'' 
 
 Where Title to Property Is Not Made Throttgh Bill of Lading.— Hut 
 the [jrinci[jle that a Ijona tide enchn-sec of a l)ill of lading, ad\ancing his money 
 on it, may rely on the quantity acknowledged therein, and may compel the car- 
 rier to account for that quantity, whether it was all put on board the vessel or 
 not, does not a]iply to a case where the owner of the property did not purchase 
 it while it was in the hands of the carrier, and did not make title to it through 
 the bill of lading, but his ])m-chase was made ])rior to the shipment aufl the 
 goods were shi])])ed 1>\' his agent tor liini.''' 
 
 Language Guarding against Estoppel. — To guard against estoi)pel to 
 deny receipt of the amount of goods stated in the bill of lading, the carrier may 
 insert "shi]:)per's load and count." or some like clause, and will not then be lia- 
 ble to an assignee for value if the carrier delivers all the goods received."" 
 Where a carrier received a certain part of the goods specified in the bill of lad- 
 ing, but not the goods, the value of which is the basis of the action, and the 
 bill of lading gives notice to the jiurchaser thereof that the carrier did not vouch 
 for the quantity of goods, the carrier is not estopped from setting up that the 
 missing goods were never received."^ ^ 
 
 § 433. Conflict of Laws. — In an action against a carrier to recover moneys 
 advanced on bills of lading issued by an agent of the carrier without actual 
 receipt of the goods, an answer, alleging that the bills were delivered in another 
 state, where, by statute and decisions of the supreme court, they were void, 
 states a good defense."'^ 
 
 § 434. Effect of Custom or Course of Business. — Where by the usual 
 and custoniiiry mode of doing its business a carrier has given to its agents au- 
 thoritv to ifsue bills of lading for goods not received, it is liable to a bona fide 
 
 may he transferred liy transfer of the lull "Considerations of this character form 
 
 of lading, justifies a transferee in relying the basis of an equitable estoppel, with- 
 
 on the statement there made, and estops out reference to negotiability or direct- 
 
 the carrier from showing that he has ness of representation." Bank :•. New 
 
 not received the quantity recited. Nash- York, etc., R. Co.. lOfi X. Y. 19.5. fiO Am. 
 
 ville, etc.. Railway t'. Flournoy, 139 Ga. Rep. 440, 442, 12 N. E. 433, 32 Am. & 
 
 582. 77 S. E. 797; Henderson r. Louis- Eng. R. Cas. 497; Thomas :: Atlantic, 
 
 ville. etc.. R. Co.. 116 La. 1047. 41 So. 252. etc.. R. Co., 85 S. C. 537, 64 S. E. 220. 34 
 
 114 Am. St. Rep. 582. See, also, National L. R. .\., N. S.. 1177, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 Minn. .\nn. Cas. 223. 32 R. R. R. 2.50. .5.5 Am. 
 
 224, 46 N. W. 342. 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263, & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S.. :.\5n. 
 
 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 76. Title not made through bill of lad- 
 
 74. Dulaney f. Philadeli^Iiia, etc., R. Jng. Meyer :i Peck, 28 N. Y. 590. 
 
 Co., 228 Pa. 180 77 At!.. 507. 77. Language guarding against estop- 
 
 75. Reason of ru.le. — National Bank r. ^, v., i,,.;n. ... p.,;iT. •.,• - T.-i^„rn,^x- 
 ^, . 11 /-^ , , -hf ^^ . .,. pel. — .\a>liville. etc.. l\ail\\a\ .. rlourno\. 
 CliK-aud, etc.. R. Co.. 44 Mmn. 224, 46 ^ p , „_ ^ P „„_ - 
 
 X. W. 342. 9 L. R. A., X. S.. 263. 20 Am. ^■*'' :/,"'.,',' ^- 'l'., 
 
 St. Rep. 566. overruling McCord 7: West- 78. Nashville, etc Railway r. Flour- 
 
 ern Union Tel. Co., 39 Minn. 181. 39 N. "oy- l-^^ Ga. 582. 77 S. E. 797. 
 
 W. 315, 1 L. R. A. 143, 12 Am. St. Rep. 79. Conflict of laws. — Missouri, etc., 
 
 636. in which the above principle was in R. Co. :•. Sealy. 7S Kan. 758. 99 Pac. 230. 
 
 effect adopted and ajiplied.
 
 §§ 434-436 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 314 
 
 consignee or indorsee of such l)ill of lading as if in fact the goods were re- 
 ceived for transportation. '^" 
 
 Custom to Use Bills of Lading as Collateral Security for Drafts.— 
 Neither a general nor local custom to use bills of lading as collateral security 
 for drafts drawn against the goods purported to have been delivered to carrier 
 for transportation can have the effect of rendering the carrier responsible on 
 bill^^ of lading issued bv its agent for goods never delivered to the carrier,'^' 
 
 Custom of Issuing Bills of Lading for Cotton Delivered to Compress 
 Company. — If a railroad company, for its own convenience and the con- 
 venience of its customers, is in the habit of issuing bills of lading for cotton 
 delivered to a compress company, to be compressed before actual delivery to 
 the carrier, with no intention on' the part of the shipper or of the carrier that 
 the liability of the carrier shall attach before delivery on the cars, and the cot- 
 ton is destroyed bv fire while in the hands of the compress company, the rail- 
 road companv is not liable for the value of the cotton so destroyed even to an 
 assignee of the bill of lading without notice of the agreement and course of 
 dealing between the shipper and the carrier.''^ 
 
 § 43 5. Negligence of Carrier. — Where bills of lading issued by a car- 
 rier's agent for goods never received by it come into the hands of innocent 
 purchasers bv reason of the carrier's own negligence, it is liable thereon. ^"^ 
 
 § 436. Fraudulent Bills of Lading.— Collusive, Fraudulent Bill— The 
 
 rule is the same whether the bill of lading was issued fraudulently and col- 
 lusivelv or merelv l)v mistake.'^-* 
 
 80. Agent authorized by course of busi- 
 ness to issue bills for goods not received. 
 — Swedish-Ameriran Xat. Bank v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 96 Minn. 436, 105 N. 
 W. 69, 19 R. R. R. 783, 42 Am. & Eng. 
 R Cas., N. S., 783; National Bank v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. 
 W. 342, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. 
 St. Rep. .566. 
 
 81. Custom to use bills of lading as 
 collateral security for drafts. — Robinson 
 -r. Memijln>, etc.. R. Co., Hi Fed. :>! . 
 
 82. Custom of issuing bills of lading for 
 cotton delivered to compress company. 
 — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, l.J4 
 U. S. 1.-,.-,, 38 L. Ed. 944. 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 83. Person acting as freight agent and 
 member of firm — Bills of lading trans- 
 ferred by firm as collateral — Negligence 
 of carrier. — It appeared that a firm of 
 merchants in A., were also engaged in 
 the milling business in M., on the line of 
 defendant's railway; that for their con- 
 venience defendant estal)lished a station 
 at M. and appointed a member of the 
 firm its agent there. It was shown that 
 the business of the station was practi- 
 cally transacted in the firm's office at A., 
 and freight charges were settled from 
 time to time with defendant's officials. 
 Goods shipped by the firm at A., con- 
 signed to themselves at M., were deliv- 
 ered without presentation of the bill of 
 lading, and it appeared doubtful whether 
 in the case of such shipments, there was 
 any actual delivery of any bill -of lading 
 from hand to hand. Some of these bills 
 
 of lading, after the goods were delivered 
 to the consignees, were transferred by 
 the firm, as collateral, to persons who 
 had no knowledge of any irregularity. It 
 was held that defendant was liable on 
 these bills of lading in the hands of in- 
 nocent purchasers, since it was by rea- 
 son of its own negligence that they came 
 into their hands. Walters v. Western, 
 etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 369. 
 
 84. Collusive, fraudulent or forged bills. 
 — National Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 560. 9 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 Bill of lading with drafts attached is- 
 sued by one who was both freight agent 
 and member of firm. — In Erb v. Great 
 Western Ry. Co.. 5 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 
 179, it appeared that C, freight agent of 
 defendant railroad, and a partner of the 
 firm of B.. & Co., caused printed receipts 
 in the form commonly used by the rail- 
 road company to be signed, by his name 
 as such company's agent, in favor of 
 B. & Co., for flour which had never l)een 
 delivered to the railway company. The 
 receipts acknowledged that defendant 
 had received from B. & Co. the flour ad- 
 dressed to plaintiffs, and were attached 
 to drafts drawn by B. & Co., and ac- 
 cepted by plaintiffs. C. received the 
 proceeds of the drafts and absconded. It 
 was held that the act of C. in issuing 
 such receipts was not done within the 
 scope of his authority as the company's 
 agent, and the latter was not therefore 
 liable.
 
 315 HILLS OF LAiJixc. §§ 436-437 
 
 Bill Fraudulently Signed by Agent — Advances Made by Commission 
 Merchant. — A railro.Kl loinpany i> iint liaMe iov a(Kaincs nia<lc \}\ a com- 
 mission merchant upon the faith of a bill of lading fraudulently signed by one 
 of its station agents, the goods therein sj^ecihed nexcr ha\ing jjeen shii)|)ed or 
 received at the depot f(jr transporlaliun."''' 
 
 Forgery — Shipper Allowed to Fill Out Bill and Leave Blank for Quan- 
 tity.— Tlu- fact ihal the >liiiip(.T was allcjwcd to till the hill oi lading in Ins own 
 handwriting, and lea\e a blank which afforded opportunity for increasing the 
 statement of the number of bales shi])])ed. will not render the common carrier 
 liable for loss occasioned by the forgery of the shi])per in raising the biU of 
 lading.''" 
 
 § 437. Effect of State Statutes. — A statute making the acknowledgment 
 of receipt of property for transportation, contained in a bill of lading, con- 
 clusive evidence of the fact so stated, in favor of bona tide holders for value, 
 does not prescribe a rule of evidence, so as to interfere with the constitutional 
 power of the courts to investigate facts, and deprive the carrier of its property 
 without due process at law,'^^ and is not an unlawful regulation of interstate com- 
 merce. '^'^ 
 
 Effect of Statute Prohibiting Issuance of Bill of Lading Before Re- 
 ceipt of Goods. — Arkansas Statute. — Under Arkansas act approved March 
 15, 18tS7, ])rohibiting carriers from issuing bills of lading except for goods 
 actually received into their possession, a railroad company which has issued 
 bills of lading to the owners of cotton in the hands of a compress company is 
 not estopped as to third persons from denying that the cotton was in its pos- 
 session or control.'''' 
 
 Effect of Statute Making Bills of Lading Negotiable. — Statutes making 
 bills of lading negotiable apply to genuine bills of lading, and not to those is- 
 sued where no ]:iro])erty has been shipped or received by the carrier. ^"^ 
 
 Alabama Statutes. — Under the statutes of Alabama a bill of lading, reg- 
 ular on its face and issued by a carrier or its authorized agent, is a certificate 
 that the person to whom it is issued is the shipper of the property or the goods 
 therein (lescribed. that they really exist, and are subject to the order and di- 
 rectit)!! of the shijiper, unless the bill of lading furnishes notice that such is 
 not the fact. The statute is authority for any one to deal with the person to 
 whom such bill of lading is issued, on the basis and ])ostulate that the propertv 
 
 85. Bill fraudulently signed by agent — 114 Am. St. Rep. 582. following Hunt v. 
 Advances made by commission mer- Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 446. 
 chant. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. f. Wil- This rule of law has not been abro- 
 kciis, 4 1 M(l. II, 22 .\m. Rep. 26. .Cfated or modified by article No. 150, 
 
 86. Directing verdict where evidence Louisiana laws, of the year 1SG8, niak- 
 of forgery uncontradicted. — See post, inij hills of lading negotiable b\- indorse- 
 "Directin:4 \ erdict." 5; •'i()2. ment. and making answerable, both civ- 
 Shipper allowed to fill out bill and ill}- and criminall}-, any person issuing a 
 
 leave blank for quantity. — Lcliman, etc., 1)111 of lading unless the property speci- 
 
 C(i. 2\ Central R.. etc., Co., 12 I'ed. .")95. tied therein has been actually shipped. 
 
 87. Effect of state statutes— Due proc- Henderson v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 116 
 ess of law.— Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Bent, La. 1047, 41 So. 252, 114 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 94 Miss, f.81, 47 So. 805, 22 L. R. A., •'^«f- 
 
 XT c ^oi In Roy z\ rsorthern Rac. R. Co.. 42 
 
 ■"■'„"■. , . , , , Wash. 572, 85 Pac. 53, 7 Am. & Eng. 
 
 88. Regulation of mterstate commerce. ^^^^^ ^^^ .,8. 6 L. R. A., X. S., 302, it 
 -Franklin Trust Co^ v 1 h.ladelphia j ,^^, j ^ ^,^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ common carrier's 
 etc. R. Co 222 Pa. 9b. .0 Atl. 949, ^2 ^^^^^^ .^^ ^^j^.j^^^ ^ j^j,j ^^ ,^jj^^„ ^-^^ ^^^^^ 
 L. R. A., A. b., 828. which he knew had not been delivered 
 
 89. Martin r. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 55 ^q the carrier, does not bind the carrier. 
 Ark. 510, 19 S. W. ;>14. even as to an innocent transferee or 
 
 90. Effect of statute making bills of pledgee for value, even under a certain 
 lading negotiable. — Henderson v. Louis- statute making bills of lading negotiable 
 villc, etc.. R. Co., 116 La. 1047, 41 So. 252, by indorsement for. certain purposes.
 
 437 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 316 
 
 or goods in fact exist, are in possession of the carrier, and subject to the con- 
 ditions expressed in the bill of lading. Any one to whom such bill of lading 
 is indorsed and transferred by the person to whom it was issued, and who parts 
 with value and becomes the innocent holder of it without notice, may hold the 
 carrier responsible for the truth of the recitals, and for damages to the extent 
 he may have advanced on the faith of its genuineness and truth as a bill of 
 lading.' As between the railroad company and any one who shows himself a 
 bona fide transferee and purchaser of the bill of lading, the corporation is es- 
 topped from denying that it received and holds the goods specified in the re- 
 ceipt.'' ^ A contract indemnifying the carrier against shortage or loss resulting 
 from the issuance of bills of lading in advance of the receipt of the goods is 
 void.'^*- 
 
 Mississippi Statute. — Under the [Mississippi statute a bill of lading is con- 
 clusive evidence in the hands of a bona fide holder against the person or cor- 
 poration issuing it that the property mentioned therein was actually received 
 for shipment ; '-'^ though above the column for the insertion of the weights the 
 words "Weights subject to correction" were inserted.^-* An immaterial de- 
 scription of a shipment which weighed less than the weight stated will not pre- 
 vent the carrier from showing that the shipment tendered was the identical 
 property received, but it is liable for the shortage in weight.''-'^ The Mississippi 
 
 91. Alabama statutes. — Jasper Trust 
 Co. V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 
 416, 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 14 So. 546, 4 
 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law 
 & Proc. 426. 
 
 92. Code, §§ 4219, 4223, prohibit a com- 
 mon carrier from issuing bills of lading 
 in advance of the actual receipt of the 
 goods, under penalty of liability in dam- 
 ages to any person injured thereby. 
 Plaintiff railroad company declared on 
 an agreement with defendant warehouse- 
 men whereby, in consideration of plain- 
 tiff's issuing bills of lading on defendants' 
 warehouse receipts without requiring the 
 actual delivery of the goods, defendants 
 would make good any shortage in the 
 goods, or indemnify plaintiff for any lia- 
 bility so incurred. Held, the contract 
 was void, as illegal, notwithstanding de- 
 fendants' part of it was not violative of 
 the statute. Jcmison v. Birmingham, etc., 
 R. Co., 125 Ala. 378, 28 So. .U. 
 
 93. Mississippi statutes. — Hozzard v. Il- 
 linois, etc.. R. Co., 67 Minn. 32. 
 
 Under the Mississippi statute (Code of 
 Mississippi (1906;, § 4851), where a trans- 
 portation company has issued a bill of 
 lading for so many bales of cotton, weigh- 
 ing so many pounds, and describes it as 
 being marked with certain letters of the 
 alphabet, and the company tenders to a 
 bona fide holder of the bill of lading the 
 specified number of bales, which in fact 
 weigh less than the weight stated, and 
 are marked with different letters, and the 
 holder of the bill of lading accepts the 
 cotton, but stipulates that he does not 
 accept it in satisfaction of the bill of 
 lading, and sues the carrier, and it ap- 
 pears that the marks on the cotton were 
 immaterial in fixing its value, held, that 
 the carrier may show that the cotton 
 tendered by it was the identical cotton re- 
 
 ceived by it, despite the discrepancy in 
 marks; but it is liable for the shortage in 
 weight. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Doughty, 
 10 Ga. App. 317, 73 S. E. 541. 
 
 94. Stamping bills, "weight subject to 
 correction." — The effect of such a statute 
 can not be avoided by placing upon such 
 bills statements that the weights are sub- 
 ject to correction. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bent, 94 Miss. 681, 47 So. 805, 22 L. R. A., 
 N. S.. 821. 
 
 Under Code 1906, § 4851, providing that 
 every bill of lading acknowledging the 
 receipt of property for transportation 
 shall be conclusive evidence in the hands 
 of a bona fide holder, as against the car- 
 rier, that the property had been so re- 
 ceived, a bill of lading by a carrier which 
 describes a shipment of cotton as con- 
 taining a designated number of pounds 
 is conclusive on the carrier, though above 
 the column for the insertion of the 
 weights the words "Weights subject to 
 correction" were inserted. Yazoo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Bent, 94 Miss. 681, 47 So. 805, 22 
 L. R. A., N. S., 821. 
 
 95. Under Code Miss. 1906, § 4851, pro- 
 viding that every bill of lading, acknowl- 
 edging receipt of property for transpor- 
 tation, shall be conclusive evidence in the 
 hands of a bona fide holder for value, as 
 against the corporation is.suing it, that 
 the property has been received, where a 
 transportation company has issued a bill 
 of lading for so many bales of cotton, 
 weighing so many pounds, and described 
 it as being marked with certain letters, 
 but tenders to a l)ona fide holder of the 
 bill of lading the specified number of 
 bales, weighing less than the weight 
 stated, and marked with different letters, 
 the mark being immaterial in fixing the 
 value of the cotton, the carrier may show 
 that the cotton tendered was the identical
 
 317 
 
 151 LLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 437-439 
 
 statute was abrogated as to interstate shipments In' the Carinack amendment 
 to the Interstate Commerce Act.'"' 
 
 Missouri Statute. — Under the Missouri statute a railnjad is bound by a 
 Ijill of lachng which has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser, al- 
 though no goods were in fact received by it.-'' The rule is not altered by the 
 fact that the statute makes it a criminal offense for any agent of a railroad 
 com])any to issue a bill of lading unless the goods have actually been received. '•'^ 
 
 Texas Statutes. — The statutes of Texas have not changed the general rules 
 as to llic in\ali(lity in the hands of a bona fide jjurchaser of a bill of lading 
 for goods ne\er delivered t<j carrier.""^ 
 
 § 438. Due Bill Promising to Issue a Bill of Lading.— Bill of Lading 
 Surrendered for Unauthorized Due Bill. — W here a liill of la-liiig for g(j(j(ls 
 delivered l^y a carrier to a warehouseman was surrendered for a due bill, is- 
 sued by the carrier's agent without authority and the carrier was induced to 
 ship out the goods on other orders obtained through fraud, the liability of the 
 carrier rests on the due bill alone and not on the bill of lading.^ The due bill 
 represented nothing tangil)le: it is a promise to issue a bill of lading, and such 
 a promise is beyond the scope of authority of the agent making it. It is a mere 
 symbol for another symbol ; it can not be binding upon the railroad as a re- 
 ceipt, for no goods were received; it is not a bill of lading, and the statute re- 
 lating to them can not api')ly. It is a promise to give a bill of lading.- 
 
 §§ 439-442. Subsequent Delivery to Carrier as Validating Bill— § 439. 
 In General. — A delivery of goods corresponding in substance with a bill of 
 lading given previously and received to meet the bill of lading, makes the bill 
 operative from the time of such delivery.-' At that instant it becomes evidence 
 
 cotton received by it, l)ut it is lialjle for 
 the shortage in weight. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Doughty, 10 Ga. App. 317, 73 S. 
 E. 541. 
 
 96. Interstate shipments. — St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Woodruff Mills (Miss.), 62 
 So. 171. 
 
 97. Missouri statute. — Scaly v. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co., 84 Kan. 479, 114 Pac. 1077, 
 41 L. R. A., N. S., 500. 
 
 98. Sealy v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 41 
 L. R. A., N. S., 500. 84 Kan. 479. 114 
 Pac. 1077. 
 
 99. Texas statutes. — In Friedlander v. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 1:50 L'. S. 41 n, ,t3 L. 
 Ed. 991. 9 S. Ct. 570. 
 
 1. Bill of lading surrendered for unau- 
 thorized due bill. — Where a hill of lading 
 for cotton, assigned to plaintitT bank, was 
 surrendered for compress receipts to a 
 compress company to which the railroad 
 company had delivered the cotton at des- 
 tination, and the railroad companj' there- 
 after issued a duebill for the balance of 
 the cotton called for by the compress re- 
 ceipt, on issuing an outgoing bill for a 
 portion thereof, which duebill merely 
 called for the return of \2 bales, whicla 
 the railroad companj- never received, such 
 duebill was a mere promise to issue a 
 bill of lading which was beyond tlic scope 
 of the authority of the agent making it; 
 and hence the carrier was not liable 
 thereon. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ Citi- 
 zens' Bank, 87 .■Krk. 20. 112 S. W. 154, 30 
 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 290, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 2. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Citizens' 
 Bank. 87 .^rk. 2(J. 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. 
 R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 290, 
 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 Where a bill of lading for cotton de- 
 livered by a carrier to a compress com- 
 panj' had been surrendered for compress 
 receipts, and such receipts for a duebill 
 issued by the carrier's agent without au- 
 thority, and the carrier was induced to 
 ship out the cotton on other orders 
 through error or fraud, it was not es- 
 topped to deny that it ever received the 
 cotton pursuant to the duebill. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Citizens' Bank, 87 Ark. 
 26, 112 S. W. 154. 30 R. R. R. 290. 53 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S.. 290, 128 .\m. St. 
 Rep. 17. 
 
 3. Halliday v. Hamilton (U. S.), 11 
 Wall. 560, 20 L. Ed. 214; The Idaho, 93 
 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 978; Robinson f. 
 Memphis, etc.. R. Co., 16 Fed. 57; Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co. T. Cook. 4 Ga. App. 698, 
 62 S. E. 464. 
 
 The bill of lading does not become ef- 
 fective until the goods are offered to the 
 carrier in such a condition as that it 
 should receive them. Central, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Cook. 4 Ga. App. 698. 62 S. E. 464; 
 Union, etc.. R. Co. v. Yeager. 34 Ind. 1; 
 Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290. 35 Am. 
 Rep. 327; Rowlev v. Bigelow (Mass.), 12 
 Pick. 307. 23 .\m. Dec. 60'>. 607. 
 
 In Rowley v. Bigelow (Mass.). 12 Pick. 
 307. 23 Am. Dec. 606, it is held that if a 
 bill of lading is signed before the goods 
 are shipped or even purchased, and after-
 
 §s 439_442 CARRIERS. 318 
 
 of the ownership of the goods.-* and will operate on the goods embraced in it as 
 between the shipper and carrier bv way of relation and estoppel and the rights 
 and obligations of all concerned are the same as if the goods had been actually 
 shinped before the bill of lading had been signed; wdiether it was signed through 
 inadvertence or otherwise, before the goods were actually shipped, as if they 
 were received on the wharf or sent to the warehouse of the carrier, or were 
 delivered into the custody of the master or other agent of the owner of charterer 
 of the vessel and were afterwards placed on board.'' 
 
 § 440. Where Statute Prohibits Issuance before Receipt of Goods. 
 
 A state statute prohibiting the issuance of a bill of lading in the absence of 
 
 goods received for shipment, does not forbid curing an illegal bill by subse- 
 quently supplving the goods, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the bill 
 of lading.'* 
 
 § 441. Presumption as to Receipt of Goods.— A bill of lading is merely 
 evidence of delivery and acceptance of freight, and its issuance is not con- 
 clusive evidence of such deliverv or acceptance nor its nonissuance conclusive 
 that there has been no delivery or acceptance.' The fact that statute prohibits 
 all warehousemen and carriers, under a penalty, from issuing receipts or bills 
 of lading, except for goods which have been actually received into their pos- 
 session, does not raise a conclusive presumption that a railroad issuing a bill 
 of lading was in possession of the goods when it issued bills of lading.'^ 
 
 § 442. Proof of Nonreceipt of Goods.— Necessity for Clear Proof of 
 Nonreceipt.— A common carrier having given a bill of lading for goods can 
 not, however, relieve himself from liability on the ground that the goods were 
 never received by him, except l)y the clearest proof of that fact.'' 
 
 Testimony of Master.— The master of a vessel, not interested directly 
 as owner or part owner thereof, is competent as a witness to prove, on the 
 trial of such cause, the nonshipment of the goods described in the bill of lad- 
 ing; also, to prove 'the bill of lading to be false and fraudulent by the insertion 
 of other goods in it after he had signed it, which were never shipped or deliv- 
 ered on tlie vessel.'" 
 
 Admission in Agreed Statement.— Recitals in bill of lading as to the 
 weight of cotton delivered to^ a carrier, although prima facie correct, are over- 
 come by an admission in an agreed statement of facts that the identical cotton 
 received bv the carrier was delivered to the consignee.^i 
 
 wards, at any time before the vessel sails of bills of lading before receipt of goods, 
 
 on the voyage described, goods are put — Tin- Idaho. 93 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 97«. 
 
 on board as and for the gooas embraced 7. Presumption as to receipt of goods, 
 
 in the bill of lading, as against the ship- — Dunnington & Co. v. Louisville, etc., 
 
 per and master, the bill of lading will R. Co. (Ky.), 155 S. W. 75(L 
 
 operate on such goods by way of relation g. Presumption as to receipt of goods 
 
 and estoppel, and the consignee, who re- before issuance of bill of lading. — St. 
 
 ceives it and accepts drafts on the faith Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Connnercial Union 
 
 of the consignment, has as valid and ef- Ins. Co., 139 U. vS. 223, 35 L. Ed. 154, 11 
 
 fectual a title to the goods as could be S. Ct. 554. 
 
 obtained by an actual delivery of the g Necessity for clear proof of nonre- 
 
 goods themselves. ceipt.— Little Miami, etc., R. Co. v. Dodds 
 
 4. The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. & Co 1 C S C. 47, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 
 978; The Eddy (U. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 18 ^q. ' 
 
 L. Ed. 486; Halliday v. Hamilton (U. S.), ' t,„,.;^„„„ „r ^^^fpr Adams 7- 
 
 11 Wall. 560. 20 L. Ed. 214. ^ 10- pTf^t'"'""^ W. ? T T 141 1 O 
 
 5. The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, B'-.g Pilgrmi, 10 W e.t. L. J. 141, 1 O. 
 20 L. Ed. 779; The Eddy (U. S.). 5 Wall. ^^''C. ^>'- _ . 
 
 481 18 L Ed. 4H6: Halliday v. Hamilton 11. Admission in agreed statement.— 
 
 (U. S.). 11 Wall. 500, :30 L. Ed. 214. St. Louis, etc., R^ Co. v. Woodrutt Mills 
 
 6. Effect of statute prohibiting issuance (Miss.), 62 So. 171.
 
 319 
 
 lilLLS OF LADING. 
 
 ;§ 443-446 
 
 § 443. Duty to Issue. — A carrier is compelled to issue to the shiijper a 
 bill i)f ladiiitj; for j^nod:- iiUrusted to it for shipment. ''- 
 
 § 444. Issuance in Duplicate. — Hills of lading are usually issued in dupli- 
 cate, one bill being delixercd to the shipper and the other being retained by 
 the carrier.'-' In such case, the contract between a ship and the shipper is that 
 which is contained in the bills of lading delivered to the shipper. The bill re- 
 tained by the shi]) or "ship's bill," as it is sometimes callecl, is designed only 
 for its own information and convenience; not for evidence, as between the par- 
 ties, of wliat their agreement was. If it differs from the others, they must be 
 considered as the true and only evidence of the contract.'^ The right of the 
 shipper to demand a duplicate freight receipt or bill of lading is secured by 
 statute in X'irginia.'"' 
 
 §§ 445-450. Acceptance and Assent to Provisions § 445. In Gen- 
 eral. — r.oth parties to a bill of lading impliedly assent to its provisions.''" 
 
 §§ 44G-450. Assent to and Acceptance by Consignor — § 446. Effect 
 of Acceptance. — 'i'he acceptance of a bill of lading b}- the shipper, with kncnvl- 
 edge of its contents, makes of that instrument a binding contract, and defines 
 the rights and liabilities of the parties to it;'" so far as the conditions named 
 are reasonable in the eye of the law, and not against public jjolicy,"^ as for in- 
 stance a condition giving the carrier the benefit of insurance on the freight.''-^ 
 
 Change of Route. — Where a shipper accepts a bill of lading upon which 
 the routing specified by him had been erased and another substituted, with 
 
 12. Duty to issue. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Howard Supply Co., 125 Ga. 478, 54 S. 
 E. 5:50; Williamson & Co. v. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 807. 
 
 Where there is no agent. — After there 
 has been a full and complete constructive 
 delivery of freight to a common carrier, 
 according to the requirements exacted by 
 it of shippers under a local custom pre- 
 vailing at a station where it has no agent, 
 the shipper making such delivery is en- 
 titled to a receipt for the freight, notwith- 
 standing the carrier has previously, by 
 mistake, issued a receipt therefore to a 
 person not entitled to be recognized as 
 consignor. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. How- 
 ard Supply Co., 125 Ga. 478, 54 S. E. 530. 
 
 13. Issuance in duplicate. — The Dela- 
 ware (L'. S.), 14 Wall. 57'.). 20 L. Ed. 779. 
 
 14. Issuance in duplicate. — The Thames 
 (U. S.), 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 804; The 
 Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 596, 20 
 L. Ed. 779. 
 
 "More than one is required l)y the ship- 
 per, as he usually sends one by mail to 
 the consignee or vendee, and if four are 
 signed he sends one to his agent or factor, 
 and he should always retain one for his 
 own use. Such an instrument acknowl- 
 edges the bailment of the goods, and is 
 evidence of a contract for the safe cus- 
 tody, due transport, and right delivery 
 of the same, upon the terms, as to freight, 
 therein described, the extent of the obli- 
 gation being specified in the instrument." 
 The Delaware (U. S.). 14 Wall. 579, 59(5, 
 20 L. Ed. 779. 
 
 15. Virginia statutory requirement. — 
 Va. Acts, 1891-92, p. 9U5, Pol. Supl. Code. 
 § 1297a, ch. 7. 
 
 16. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Langdon, 118 
 Md. 2G8, 84 Atl. 473. 
 
 17. Effect. — See post, "Limitation of 
 Lial)ility," 'chapter 14. 
 
 The mere acceptance by the carrier of 
 a bill of lading signed by a shipper is 
 sutiticient to bind both as to a special 
 contract plainly written therein. Lefebure 
 V. American Exp. Co. (Iowa), 139 X. W. 
 1117; \an Etten v. Newton, 134 N. Y. 143, 
 31 N. E. 334, 30 Am. St. Rep. 630; Ger- 
 mania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, etc.. R. 
 Co., 72 N. Y. 90, 28 Am. Rep. 113; Cin- 
 cinnati, etc., R. Co. V. Pontius, 19 O. St. 
 221, 2 Am. Rep. 391. 
 
 18. Reasonableness and consistency 
 with public policy. — Davis z\ Central, etc., 
 R. Co., 66 \'t. 290, 29 Atl. 313. 44 Am. St. 
 Rep. 852. 
 
 A shipper's acceptance of a bill of lad- 
 ing is presumptivel)' an assent to its 
 terms, as far as they are reasonable, and 
 not inconsistent with public policy. 
 Leavens t'. American I'.xp. Co. (\ t.), 85 
 Atl. 557. 
 
 19. Condition giving carrier benefit of 
 insurance. — .1 shipper, electing to accept 
 a reduced rate l)y filling out the shipping 
 order and accepting the bill of lading, is 
 bound by the terms of the order making 
 it a part of the bill of lading, and giving 
 the carrier the benefit of insurance on the 
 freight. Burke v. Erie R. Co., 134 App. 
 Div. 413, 119 X. Y. S. 309.
 
 446-447 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 320 
 
 knowledge of the change, he is bound by the l)ill as changed.-" 
 
 Proof of Breach of Contract.— The acceptance of a bill of lading does 
 not preclude the shipper from showing that the cars were not properly iced, 
 as required by such bill.-^ 
 
 88 447-450. Presumption of Assent from Acceptance— § 447. In 
 General — \\'here the shipper of goods accepts a bill of lading or receipt from 
 the carrier he is conclusively presumed, in the absence of imposition, accident, 
 or mistake to have assented to all the terms and conditions contained m it, 
 and he can not afterwards be heard to say that he did not read the instrument 
 and did not know its contents; aliter where the facts show fraud, imposition 
 or mistake This doctrine prevails in the federal courts,22 and m the courts of 
 Alabama.23 Arkansas,^^ Georgia.^-" Illinois,^" lowa,^-^ Kentucky,^'^ Alaryland,^^ 
 :\Iassachu setts •■'0 Alichigan.^^i Minnesota.-"- Missouri,'"^^ New Hanxpshire,:'^ New 
 
 20. Change of route. — Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Thompson. 55 Tex. Civ. App. 12. 
 118 S. W. 618. 
 
 21. Proof of breach of contract. — John- 
 son V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 103 Am. St. 
 Rep. 464, 133 Mich. 596, 95 N. W. 724. 
 
 22. Presumption of assent from accept- 
 ance. — Leitcli V. Union R. Transp. Co., 
 Fed. Cas. Xo. 8,224; Wertheimer v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 1 Fed. 232, 17 
 Blatchf. 421. See ante, "Failure to Read 
 or Examine Bill," §§ 449-450. 
 
 23. Jones v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 89 
 Ala. 376, 8 So. 61, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 321; Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 
 340, 8 So. 649, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 358. 
 
 24. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 
 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104, 
 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 635.' 
 
 25. Central R., etc., Co. v. Hasselkus, 
 91 Ga. 382, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37, 55 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 586, 17 S. E. 838. 
 
 When the shipper accepts a bill of lad- 
 ing without objecting before the goods 
 have been shipped and permits the car- 
 rier to act upon it by proceeding with 
 the shipment, it is to l)e presumed that 
 he has accepted it as containing the con- 
 tract and has assented to its terms. Cen- 
 tral R., etc., Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382, 
 17 S. E. 838. 44 Am. St. Rep. 37, 55 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 586; Bedell v. Richmond. 
 etc., R. Co., 94 Ga. 22, 20 S. E. 262; Rich- 
 mond, etc., R. Co. V. Shomo, 90 Ga. 496, 
 16 S. E. 220; McElveen v. Southern R. 
 Co., 109 Ga. 249, 34 S. E. 281, 77 Am. 
 St. Rep. 371; Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ohio Valley, etc.. Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. 
 E. 821. 
 
 26. Coles V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 41 111. App. 607; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Furthmann. 47 111. App. 
 561, afifirfned in 149 111. 66. 36 N. E. 624, 
 41 Am. St. Rep. 265; St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Elgin Condensed Milk Co.. 175 111. 
 557. 51 X. E. 911, 67 Am. St. Rep. 238. 
 
 27. Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 36 
 Iowa 181, 14 Am. Rep. 514. 2 Am. R. Rep. 
 
 322; Robinson Bros. v. Merchants' Dis- 
 patch Transp. Co., 45 Iowa 470. 
 
 28. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Brownlee 
 (Ky.), 14 Bush 590. 
 
 Bill delivered shippers agent who had 
 no knowledge of condition. — In Adams 
 Exp. Co. c'. Xock (Ky.), 2 Duv. 562, 87 Am. 
 Dec. 510, it was held, where the oral tes- 
 timony recited in the agreed case, and 
 admitted, if competent, showed that the 
 bill of lading was neither read by the 
 shipper's agent nor its peculiar conditions 
 understood by him or even suggested to 
 him, and that he never signed the in- 
 dorsement accepting the peculiar condi- 
 tions; that such conditions were never 
 ol)ligatory on his principal, that testi- 
 mony as to the verbal contract was there- 
 fore competent. 
 
 29. Where a bill of lading delivered by 
 a carrier to a shipper is accepted by hini, 
 he is presumed, though he did notsign it, 
 to have read and acquiesced in its pro- 
 visions which therefore constitute a con- 
 tract of carriage, in the absence of fraud, 
 imposition, or mistake. De Wolff v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 106 Md. 472, 67 Atl. 
 1099. 
 
 30. Grace V. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 97 
 Am. Dec. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 131; Hoadley 
 V. Xorthern Transp. Co., 115 Mass. 304, 
 
 15 Am. Rep. 106. 
 
 31. McMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 
 
 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208. 
 
 32. Christendon v. American Exp. Co., 
 15 Minn. 270, 2 Am. Rep. 122; Hutchin- 
 son V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Minn. 524, 
 35 X. W. 433.' 
 
 33. Craycroft v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 18 Mo. App. 487; O'Bryan v. Kinney, 74 
 Mo. 125; Patterson v. Kansas, etc., R. 
 Co., 56 Mo. App. 657; St. Louis. etc.R. 
 Co. V. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634. 46 Am. Rep. 
 \?,\ McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 1 Am. St. Rep. 721. 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 
 689. 
 
 34. Durgin v. American Exp. Co.. 66 N. 
 H. 277. 20 Atl. 328, 9 L. R. A. 453, 45 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 325.
 
 321 
 
 KILLS OF LADIXn. 
 
 § 447 
 
 York,''-^' North Carolina.'"' Ohio,-'" Pennsylvania, •'"' South Carolina,-'*'' Tennes- 
 see,"*" Texas.-*' X'ernionl.-*- and other stales. 
 
 "Read This Bill," Printed in Italics on Its Face. — Where the attention 
 of the shiijpcr is called to the condiiicjus printed on the face of the bill of lading 
 by the direction, "Read this contract." printed in italics; this presumption ap- 
 plies with peculiar force and he will not he ])erniitted to show that he was igno- 
 rant of the contents of the bill.^-^ 
 
 Receipt Calling Attention to Conditions on Its Back. — The acceptance 
 b} a sliiitpcr ol a mere receipt l(ir Ireij^lil eallin;,' allention to conditions on the 
 back of ii. will n(jt be con.sirued to o[)erate as an acquiescence in such pro- 
 visions-*' 
 
 35. Bclger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. KiC, 
 10 Am. Rep. 575; Bishop v. Hinpire 
 Transp. Co. (N. Y.), 48 How. Prac. Ill); 
 Bostwick V. Bahimore, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), 55 Barb. 137; Germania Fire Ins. Co. 
 V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, 28 
 Am. Rep. 113; Hill v. Syracuse, etc., R. 
 Co., 73 N. Y. 351, 29 Am. Rep. 163; Kirk- 
 land V. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. 
 Rep. 475; McMaiion v. Macy, 51 N. Y. 
 155; Soumet v. National I{xp. Co. (N. Y.), 
 (-.6 Barb. 284; Knapp v. Wells, Fargo & 
 Co., 119 N. Y. S. 117, 134 App. Div. 712. 
 
 A shipper's acceptance or a bill of lading 
 binds him whether he reads it or not. 
 Boyle V. Bush Terminal R. Co., 136 N. 
 Y. S. 355, 151 App. Div. 551. 
 
 36. Whitehead v. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., 87 N. C. 255, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 168. 
 
 A through bill of lading, advantageous 
 to both, received by the plaintiff without 
 objection, stipulating that the cotton was 
 to be shipped "at compan3''s conven- 
 ience," is evidence of plaintiff's assent to 
 the restriction of defendant's common- 
 law liability, equivalent to an express 
 agreement, and affects plaintiff with legal 
 notice of its terms. Whitehead v. Wilm- 
 ington, etc., R. Co., 9 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 168, 87 X. C. 255. 
 
 37. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Pontius, 
 19 O. St. 221, 2 Am. Rep. 391. 
 
 38. Newberger v. Howard & Co.'s Exp., 
 6 Phil. 174; Wcrtheimer v. Pennsj'lvania 
 R. Co.. \\. N. C. (Pa.), .272. 
 
 39. Johnstone v. Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co., 39 S. C. 55. 17 S. E. 512, 55 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 346. 
 
 40. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brumley, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 401, 6 .^m. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 356; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 Am. 
 St. Rep. 847, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 579, 
 6 S. W. 881. 
 
 41. Ryan v. M. K. & T. R. Co.. 65 Tex. 
 13, 57 Am. Rep. 589, 23 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 703; St. Louis, etc.. Railway v. Gil- 
 breath (Tex. Civ. App.). 144 S. W. 1051. 
 
 The shipper's assent to conditions in- 
 serted in the body of a bill of lading is 
 conclusively presumed when he has had 
 an opportunity to know its contents, has 
 received it at the time of shipment, and 
 
 1 Car— 21 
 
 the carrier has used no unfair means to 
 deceive. Ryan v. M. K. & T. R. Co., 65 
 Tex. 13, 57 Am. Rep. 589, 23 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., 703. 
 
 42. "Where the bill of lading is received 
 by the consignor without objection, and 
 nothing is shown to the contrary, the 
 law presumes he accepts it and becomes 
 bound by its terms, as the contract for 
 the carriage of the goods receipted for, 
 and, if limitations are imposed upon the 
 common-law liability of the carrier, that 
 he consents to them and is bound by 
 them, so far as they are. in the eye of the 
 law, reasonable." Davis v. Central, etc., 
 R. Co., 66 \t. 290, 29 Atl. 313, 44 Am. St. 
 Rep. 852. 
 
 Where a shipper of live stock pays the 
 carrier the freight charges and receives a 
 writing, without reading it. which he sup- 
 poses contains merely a receipt, but 
 which contains a contract exempting the 
 carrier from liability for a failure to carry 
 promptly, the shipper maj' show by pa- 
 role a contract to deliver with dispatch. 
 King V. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. 565. 
 
 43. "Read this bill" printed in italics on 
 its face. — Mulli.Lian r. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co.. ;^() Iowa 181. 14 Am. Rep. 514, 2 
 Am. R. Rep. 322. 
 
 Where a shipper accepts from a car- 
 rier a h\\\ of lading containing a stipula- 
 tion to the effect that the company should 
 be exempted from injury to the goods 
 occurring beyond the terminus of their 
 own line, assent will be presumed upon 
 tlie part of the shipper in the absence of 
 fraud or mistake, and he will not be per- 
 mitted to show that he was ignorant of 
 the contents of the bill. Mulligan f. Il- 
 linois Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa isi. 14 Am. 
 Rep. 514, 2 Am. R. Rep. 322. In this case 
 it appeared that the conditions of the 
 bill of lading were printed upon its face, 
 and the attention of the shipper was 
 called thereto by the direction, "Read 
 this contract." printed in italics. 
 
 44. Receipt calling attention to condi- 
 tions on back. — ^Iorchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Furthmann, 47 111. App. 561, 
 affirmed in 149 111. 66. 41 Am. St. Rep. 265. 
 36 X. E. 624. See post. "Conditions on 
 Back of Bill." § 459.
 
 §§ 447-44S 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 122 
 
 Shipper's Testimony Showing Acceptance of Bill. — Where a railroad 
 company's custom was to carry horses at the owner's risk, and at reduced rates 
 for that reason, and the letters "O. R." signifying "Owner's Risk," were upon 
 the receipt given to plaintiff for his horses, and retained and put in evidence 
 by him: and he testified that "he did not see" those letters, hut not that he did 
 not understand their meaning, the restricted liability of the company clearly 
 appeared from plaintift"s evidence.-*'' 
 
 Possession of Bill by Shipper Prima Facie Evidence of Consent.— 
 Proof that a shipper took a receipt from a carrier containing provisions re- 
 stricting the carrier's liability is prima facie evidence of his assent to such lim- 
 itations ; ^"^ hence, is not necessary for the carrier to prove the shipper's knowl- 
 edge of and assent to the condition contained therein.-*' And it is error for 
 the court to charge that the burden is upon a carrier to prove the shipper's knowl- 
 edge of and assent to the stipulations of the bill of lading which he has accepted 
 without objection : but such error is not material where the stipulation to which 
 the charge applied was void.-** 
 
 Burden of Showing Assent to Change Terms.— Tn Ohio where a verbal 
 contract of shipment is made by which freight is to be carried to its destination, 
 but the bill of lading then made is merely to carry to the next carrier, the ship- 
 per not noticing this, the verbal contract is competent evidence, and the burden 
 is on the carrier to show assent by the shipper to a change in its terms.^^ 
 
 Assent to Conditions Lim.iting Carriers Common Law Liability.— See 
 ante. "Limitation of New Liability," chapter 14. 
 
 §§ 448-450. Rebuttal of Presumption— § 448. Failure of Shipper to 
 Sign Bill. — In the absence of fraud or mistake, a bill of lading accepted by 
 the shipper without objection and acted upon has, though signed only by the 
 carrier, the same effect as to being varied by parol as if it had been signed by 
 the shipper also and must be looked to as the final repository and sole evidence 
 of the contract of carriage.^*^ 
 
 45. Shippers testimony showing accept- 
 ance of bill. — Morrison v. Phillips, etc., 
 Constr. Co., 44. Wis. 405, 119 Am. R. Rep. 
 .312.' 2S .Am. Rep. 599. 
 
 46. Possession of bill by shipper prima 
 facie evidence of consent. — Strohn v. De- 
 troit, etc., R. Co., 21 Wis. 554, 94 Am. 
 Dec. 564. 
 
 Possession by a shipper of a carrier's 
 bill of lading for the property, contain- 
 ing special terms, is at least prima facie 
 evidence of his assent to them, and in 
 most cases may be conclusive. Morrison 
 V. Phillips, etc., Constr. Co., 44 Wis. 405, 
 119 Am. R. Rep. .312, 28 Am. Rep. 599. 
 
 47. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Bloch. 86 Tenn. 392, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847, 
 6 S. W. 881, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 579. 
 
 48. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Bloch, 35 Am. & Eng. "R. Cas. 579, 86 
 Tenn. 392, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847, 6 S. W. 
 881. 
 
 49. Burden of showing assent to change 
 terms.— P. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Blake- 
 more. 1 O. C. C. 42, 1 O. C. D. 26. 
 
 50. Failure of shipper to sign bill. — Cen- 
 tral R.. etc., Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382, 
 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. 'St. Rep. 37, 55 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 586. 
 
 Ohio. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Pon- 
 tius, 19 O. St. 221, 2 Am. Rep. 391; 
 Gaines v. Union, etc., Ins. Co.. 28 O. St. 
 418; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. LaTourette, 
 
 :3 O. C. C. 279. 1 O. C. D. 486, approved 
 and followed in Stevens v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 20 O. C. C. 41, 11 O. C. D. 
 168. 
 
 Texas. — Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. 
 Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 The receipt given by the express com- 
 pany purports to state the terms upon 
 which the shipment was made, and though 
 signed only by the carrier, when accepted 
 l)y the shipper he became a party to it, 
 bound by its terms. It contains all the 
 necessary elements of a shipping con- 
 tract, and under well-established princi- 
 ples it must be treated as the final agree- 
 ment of the parties, into which all parol 
 negotiations and understandings were 
 merged, and by its terms the duties and 
 liabilities of the parties thereto must be 
 determined. "Resort can not be had to 
 prior or contemporaneous parol negotia- 
 tions or a.greements to vary its terms." 
 .\nd this rule applies not only to its ex- 
 press provisions, but to the legal import 
 of the contract — the further provisions 
 which the law makes for the parties, such 
 as the right of the carrier to _ route the 
 shipment when the contract in its express 
 terms is silent upon that point. Wells, 
 Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 213, 222. 23 S. W. 412 (see 93 Tex. 
 742. no OD.) ; Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 
 82 Am. Dec. 617.
 
 \2i 
 
 l!ILLS OF LADING. 
 
 449 
 
 §§ 449-450. Failure to Read or Examine Bill-^§ 449. In General.— 
 
 WIktc. in ihc absence o\ fraiul or niistake. {^ij(j(U are (leli\erecl to a carrier for 
 transportation, and a bill of lading containing special stipulations is issued 
 therefor before the goods arc ship]>ed, the shipjjcr is bound to examine it and 
 ascertain its contents, and if he accepts it without objection he is bound by its 
 terms and can not invalidate it by showing that he signed it without reading 
 it. lie can not set up ignorance of its contents and resort can not be had to 
 prior parol agreements to vary them."'' This doctrine i)revails in the courts 
 of the L'nited States."'- and in those of the states of Alabama,'-' Arkansas,'"* 
 Georgia,''"' Illinois,'"'' Iowa,"'' Kentucky, •"•'* .Maryland,"'*' Massachusetts.''" Mich- 
 igan,"' Minnesota,*'- Missouri,'*-' Xew llami^shire,'"* New York,"-"' North Car- 
 olina,'"''' Ohio,''' I'ennsylvania,''-'* South Carolina.''-' Tennessee,^" Texas," ^ Wis- 
 consin,'- \'ermont.'-' and others. 
 
 51. Failure to read or examine bill. — 
 
 See post, "In General." § 44'.t. 
 
 52. Lcitch V. Union R. Traiisp. Co., Fed. 
 Cas. No. 8,224; Wertheimer v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 1 Fed. 232, 17 Blatchf. 421. 
 
 53. Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 45 Am. 
 & Fng-. R. Cas. 358, 91 AJa. 340, 8 So. 
 G49; Jones v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 89 
 Ala. 37G, 8 So. 61, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 3:>l. 
 
 54. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 
 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 7 Am. St. Rep. 
 104, 35 Am. & Rng. R. Cas. 635; Mcllroy v. 
 Buckner, 35 Ark. 555. 
 
 In St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 
 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 35 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 635, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104, it was 
 said in the opinion: "It has generally 
 been held by the courts in this country' 
 and in England that such contracts are 
 binding on the shipper, although he did 
 not read or hear them read before sign- 
 ing, provided the carrier resorted to no 
 unfair means, and practiced no fraud or 
 imposition, and the sliipper had the op- 
 portunity to know the contents." 
 
 55. Central R., etc., Co. v. Hassclkus, 
 17 S. E. 838, 91 Ga. 382, 44 Am. St. Rep. 
 37. 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 5S6. 
 
 Resort can not be had to a prior parol 
 agreement to add or to vary, in behalf 
 of the shipper, the terms of a special con- 
 tract contained in a bill of lading accepted 
 and signed by him before the goods were 
 shipped, it not appearing that his sign- 
 ing was the result of fraud or mistake. 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Shomo, 90 Ga. 
 496. 16 S. E. 220. 
 
 Where consignor delivers goods to a 
 railroad company and at that time re- 
 ceives a bill of lading which he accepts 
 and uses by appending to a draft drawn 
 on the consignee, the bill of lading, and 
 not prior stipulations whether in conver- 
 sation or by letter, is the final contract of 
 transportation, and evidence of conver- 
 sations and stipulations occurring before 
 the bill was delivered will l)e excluded. 
 Bedell v. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 94 Ga. 
 22. 20 S. E. 262. 
 
 56. Coles V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 41 
 111. App. 607. 
 
 57. Mulligan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 
 Iowa IHl, 14 Am. Rc-p. 514, 2 Am. R. 
 Rep. 322; Lefebure v. American Exp. Co. 
 (Iowa), 139 N. W. 1117. 
 
 58. Adams Exp. Co. v. Nock (Ky.). 2 
 Duv. 562, S7 Am. Dec. 510. 
 
 59. De Wolff V. Adams Exp. Co.. 106 
 Md. 472, 67 Atl. 1099. 
 
 60. Squire v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 08 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 163; Rice v. 
 Dwight Mfg. Co. (Mass.), 2 Cush. 80; 
 Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505. 97 Am. 
 Dec. 117. 1 Am. Rep. 131. 
 
 61. McMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 
 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208. 
 
 62. Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 ?,~ Minn. 524. 35 N. W. 433; Christendon 
 V. American Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270, 2 
 Am. Rep. 122. 
 
 63. Patterson v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 56 
 Mo. App. 657. 
 
 64. Durgin v. American Exp. Co., 66 N. 
 H. 277. 20 Atl. 328. 9 L. R. A. 453, 45 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 325. 
 
 65. Bostwick v. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 55 Barb. 137; Long v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 76; Hallenbeck v. 
 DeWitt (N. Y.), 2 Johns. 404; Harris v. 
 Story (N. Y.), 2 E. D. Smith 363. 
 
 66. Whitehead v. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., 87 N. C. 255, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 168. 
 
 67. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Tontius, 
 19 O. St. 221. 2 Am. Rep. 391. 
 
 68. In re Greenfield's Estate. 14 Pa. 489. 
 
 69. Johnstone v. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 
 :!9 S. "C. 55, 17 S. E. 512, 55 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 346. 
 
 70. East Tennessee, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Brumley, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 401. 6 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 356. 
 
 71. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Scrivener. 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 328. 
 
 72. Morrison v. Phillips, etc.. Constr. 
 Co., 44 Wis. 405, 119 Am. R. Rep. 312, 28 
 .^m. Rep. 599: Fuller v. Madison Mut. Ins. 
 Co., 36 Wis. 599. 
 
 73. Davis v. Central, etc., R. Co.. 66 Yt. 
 290, 29 .\\\. 313. 44 Am. St. Rep. 852.
 
 §§ 449-450 CARRIERS. ■ 324 
 
 Inability to Read.— An express stipulation in a bill of lading, limiting the 
 carrier's liability to loss or injury suttered on his own road, is binding on the 
 consignor notwithstanding his ignorance and inability to read, when it is not 
 shown that the carrier was informed of such ignorance or was asked to read 
 and explain the bill of lading."^ 
 
 Stipulations Printed in Fine Type. — It has been held that the presumjnion 
 of the shii)per"s assent to the limitations of the carrier's liability arising from 
 acceptance of the bill of lading was rebutted by the fact that they were printed 
 in such fine type as to be almost illegible;"' but it has been held in Texas that 
 the mere fact that such limitations were in fine type did not render them void.'« 
 
 Bill of Lading- Delivered in Dimly Lighted Car. — Proof that a carrier 
 gave a bill of lading to a shipi)er at night, in a dimly lighted and rapidly run- 
 ning car, which attemi)ts to limit the carrier's liability, is not sufficient evi- 
 dence of a contract, where the provision is obscurely printed and there is 
 nothing to show that the shipper assented to it.' ' 
 
 Agent Hurried and Lantern Only Light.— Where an agent of a carrier 
 handed plaintitt a bill of lading to sign and told him he was in a hurry and it 
 was dark and there was only a lantern to see by, and plaintifi^ signed it without 
 reading it, the only reason given for not doing so being that the agent wanted 
 to get home, he was bound by any special reasonable contract plainly printed 
 therein, and can not say that it was not fairly entered into.''' 
 
 Clause Rendered Unintelligible by Stamps. — In an action against a com- 
 mon carrier for the value of goods lost in his custody, evidence that often, but 
 not invariably, he had given to the plaintiffs receipts containing a printed clause 
 in favor of the carrier, and that in this instance, after receiving the goods, he 
 gave to a servant of the plaintiff a receipt therefor, containing such a printed 
 clause ; but that over part of this clause in this receipt a stamp was so pasted 
 as to render it unintelligible, and that until after the loss- neither the plaintiff 
 nor anv of his agents or servants had actual knowledge of such a clause in this 
 or any' of the other receipts, is not sufficient to warrant a finding that the plain- 
 tiff assented to the stipulation.''^ 
 
 § 450. Bill Received after Goods Shipped. — Where the goods were 
 shipped under a previous verbal agreement, without special exemptions in favor 
 of the carrier, and, after the goods were in transit, a bill of lading containing 
 such exemptions was handed to the shipper, who received it without examina- 
 tion or objection, the shipper's acceptance of such bill of lading did not give 
 rise to a presumption of his assent to the stipulations embraced in the bill of 
 lading, and does not conclude him from showing the agreement under which 
 shipment was made. This is the law in Alabama,'^" Illinois, ^^ Kansas,^- Massa- 
 
 74. Inability to read. — Jones v. Cincin- 79. Clause limiting liability rendered 
 nati, etc., R. Co., 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. unintelligible by stamps^ — Perry v. 
 321, 89 Ala. .370, 8 So. 61. Tlionipson, OS Mass. 249. 
 
 75. Stipulations printed in fine type.— gO. Bill of lading received without ex- 
 Brown v. Eastern R. Co. (Mass.), 11 amination after goods shipped under 
 Cush. 97; Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 2(54, verbal agreement.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 3 Am. Rep. 701; Verner v. Sweitzer, 32 ^,. Meyer, 78 Ala. 597, 27 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Pa. 208. Cas. 44. 
 
 ,J^:,^r" 'p^^- L\?-A^- ^^r^ ^^p- 81. Baker v. Michigan Southern, etc., 
 
 r "0^""' ^^' ^- Co-. 42 111. 73; Merchants' Dispatch 
 
 77. * Bill of lading delivered in dimly TJ,^"^?: ^O- ^ Ini^rtlYnann, 47 111 App. 
 v L.,. J r)i T-v 1 1 ^o M V ''Ol, amrmed in 149 111. 66, 36 N. E. 624. 
 lighted car. — Blossom v. Dodd, 43 N. Y. , '. c^ id o^c 
 
 „,,, „ » Tj r-Ai c • t 41 Am. bt. Rep. 265. 
 
 264, .', Am. Rep. 701, a case of a receipt _, „ _ 
 
 by an express company lor l)aggage. 82- Missouri Pac. R. Co v. Beeson, 30 
 
 78. Agent hurried and lantern only light. Kan. 298, 2 Pac. 496, 12 Am. & Eng. K. 
 — Lefebure v. American Exp. Co. (Iowa), *-as. 52. 
 
 139 N. W. 1117.
 
 Z2h 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 450 
 
 chusetts,**^ Minnesota,^-* Xew York,**-"' Ohio.'"' Texas, ^" Wisconsin,^** and other 
 states; and also in Canada.'''' To take the case out of the general rule it must 
 appear that before the delivery of the bill of lading the goods had been shipped, 
 so that the shi])])er could not have reclaimed them if he had objected to tlie 
 terms of the bill of lading.'"' 
 
 The rule that prior negotiations are merged in a subsequently written 
 contract docs not apply to such a case as this. Jf the shipper had expressly 
 assented to the terms of the bill of lading subsequently delivered to him, such 
 assent would operate as a change of the terms of the contract originally made, 
 and under which he had parted with his pro])erty. liut after the verbal agree- 
 ment had been consummated, and rights had accrued under it, the mere receipt 
 of the bill of lading, inad\ ertciilly omitting to examine the printed conditions, 
 is not sufficient to conclude hini from showing what the actual agreement 
 was under which the goods had been shipped.'" 
 
 Bill of Lading Incomplete When Goods Delivered Subsequently For- 
 warded to Shipper. — Assent by the shi])i)er to a i)rovision in a bill of lading 
 will not be presumed where the bill, being incomplete at the time of the de- 
 livery of the goods to the carrier, was not delivered to the consignor at that 
 time, but was subset (uenily corrected and forwarded by mail to him at the place 
 of destination. "'- 
 
 Bill Received without Examination after Goods Shipped under Ver- 
 bal Agreement and Forwarded to Consignee. — W here goods were shipped 
 under a \er])al agreement, wilhout special exem])tions in favor of the carrier, 
 and, after ihev were in transit, a bill of lading c(jntaining such exemptions 
 
 83. By the law of Massachusetts, in or- 
 der to limit the carrier's common-law lia- 
 l)ility by a clause in the bill of lading, the 
 l)ill of lading must be taken by the con- 
 signor, without dissent, at the time of the 
 delivery of the property for transportation. 
 When given a few daj^s after the delivery 
 of the goods, and while they are in tran- 
 sit, such a clause, not assented to by the 
 consignee, will not be binding on the 
 latter. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Boyd, 
 yi 111. 2(1S. 
 
 84. Southard v. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co., 00 Minn. 383, (J3 N. W. 442. 
 
 85. Bostwick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 45 N. Y. 712; Guillaume v. General Trans- 
 atlantic Co., 100 X. V. 491, 3 N. E. 489; 
 Lamb v. Camden, etc., R. Co (N. Y.), 4 
 Daly 483; Swift v. Pacific Mail Steamship 
 Co., lOG N. Y. 20G, 12 N. E. 583, 30 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 105; Kirkland v. Din.s- 
 more, G2 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475. 
 
 86. Gaines v. Union, etc., Ins. Co., 28 
 O. St. 418, 14 Am. R. Rep. 158. 
 
 87. Where goods are shipped under a 
 verbal contract, delivery afterwards to 
 shipper of bill of lading, his attention not 
 being called to its terms or conditions, 
 does not conclude him from showing 
 the agreement under which shipment 
 was made. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 
 II Tex. Civ. App. 674, 681, 26 S. W. 286, 
 affirmed in 93 Tex. 699, no op. 
 
 88. Strohn v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 21 
 Wis. 554, 94 Am. Dec. 564. 
 
 89. Northwestern Transp. Co. ■:■. Mc- 
 Kcnzie. 25 Can. Sup. Ct. 38. 
 
 90. Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Memphis, 
 
 etc., R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, 28 Am. Rep. 113, 
 affirming 7 Hun 233; Hill v. Syracuse, 
 etc., R. Co., 73 X. Y. 3:,1. 29 Am. Rep. 163. 
 
 91. Rule as to merger of prior nego- 
 tiations in subsequent written contract 
 inapplicable. — Gennania Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 Alenipliis, etc., R. Co., 72 X. Y. 90, 28 Am. 
 Rep. 113; Swift v. Pacific Mail Steamship 
 Co., 106 N. Y. 206, 12 X. E. 583. 30 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 105; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Furthmann. 47 111. App. 
 561, affirmed in 41 Am. St. Rep. 2(i5, 149 
 111. 66, 36 N. E. 624. 
 
 In Swift V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 
 106 N. Y. 206, 12 N. E. 583, 30 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 105, "the parties made a 
 special contract as to the transportation 
 of the oil. Two months after its deliv- 
 ery at Panama the common agent of the 
 defendants here executed bills of lading, 
 which were sent to plaintiffs, but were not 
 received until after the oil had left As- 
 pinwall. The contract, as set forth in the 
 Ijills, w^as diflferent from that actually 
 made. Held, that defendants could not 
 alter or abrogate the contract actually 
 made by issuing bills of lading, and. in 
 the al)sence of proof establishing that 
 plaintiff consented to accept the bills in 
 place of the prior contract, the latter nnist 
 control." Merchants' Dispatch Transp. 
 Co. V. Furthmann. 47 111. App. 561. af- 
 firmed in 41 Am. St. Rep. 2C)5. 149 111. 06, 
 36 X. v.. 624. 
 
 92 . Bill of lading incomplete when 
 goods delivered subsequently forwarded 
 to shipper. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. t', 
 Meyer. 78 Ala. 597. 27 Am. & I'.ng. R. 
 Cas. 44.
 
 §§ 450-455 CARRIERS. 326 
 
 were handed to the shij^per. who. without examination or objection, forwarded 
 it to the consignee, who made use of the same to receive and sell the goods not 
 lost, and accounted to the shipper for the proceeds, such acts of the consignor 
 and' consignee did not render the conditions contained in the bill binding on 
 the consignor, it appearing that he had no knowledge of such conditions and 
 never, in fact, assented to tliem.'^'' 
 
 §§ 451-454. Validity — § 451. Fraud or Mistake.— A shipper can not 
 allege frautl or mistake in bills of lading prepared l)y himself.''-* 
 
 § 452, Forgery.— Alteration, Goods Not Received by Agent of Carrier. 
 
 — See ante, "Fraudulent liills of Lading,"" § 436. 
 
 Liability of Bank Collecting Draft with Forged Bill of Lading At- 
 tached.— See post, "Deposit of Draft with T.ill of Lading Attached for Col- 
 lection."" § 588. 
 
 Liability of Purchaser of Draft with Forged Bill of Lading Attached 
 to Drawee,— See post, "Liability of Purchaser for Shortage or Inferiority of 
 Shipnient," § 585. 
 
 § 453. No Goods Delivered to Carrier.— See ante, "Receipt of Goods as 
 Prerequisite to Issuance," §§ 429-442. 
 
 § 454. Partial Invalidity, — See post, "Partial Invalidity," § 464. 
 
 §§ 455-513. Construction, Operation and Effect— § 455. General 
 Rules of Construction. — A bill of lading is subject to the same rules of con- 
 struction as other contracts. '-^'"^ 
 
 Subject Matter and Surrounding Circumstances.— It is the right and 
 duty of the court, in order to decide upon the meaning of a bill of lading, to 
 look not only to the language employed, but to the subject matter and sur- 
 rounding circumstances.'"*^' 
 
 Construed against Carrier. — In construing a bill of lading given by the 
 carrier for the safe transportation and delivery of goods shipped by a con- 
 signor the contract will be construed most strongly against the carrier, and 
 favorablv to the consignor, in case of doubt in any matter of construction. 
 Since its owai officers or agents prepared the instrument, it is both reasonable 
 and just that its own words should be construed most strongly against itself ; '^^ 
 as, for instance, the stipulation as to the route of the shipment. '•'•'^ 
 
 93. Bill received without examination, cific, ISO U. S. 49, -15 L. Ed. 419, 21 S. 
 after goods shipped under verbal agree- Ct. 278; London Assur. v. Companhia De 
 ment and forwarded to consignor. — • Moagens Do Barreiro, 167 U. S. 149, 43 
 Gaines v. Union, etc., Ins. Co., 28 O. St. L. Ed. 113, 17 S. Ct. 785. 
 
 418, 14 Am. R. Rep. 158; Baltimore, etc., 97. Construed against carrier. — First 
 
 R. Co. V. Campbell, 36 O. St. 647, 38 Am. Nat. Bank :■. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 95 
 
 Rep. 617. U. S. 673, 24 L. Ed. 563; London Assur. 
 
 94. Fraud or mistake. — Bessling & Co. i<_ Companhia De Moagens, Do Barreiro, 
 V. Houston, etc., R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 167 U. S. 149, 42 L. Ed. 113, 17 S. Ct. 785; 
 470, 80 S. W. 639, affirmed in 98 Tex. 610, Queen of the Pacific, 180 U. S. 49, 45 L. 
 no op. Ed. 419, 21 S. Ct. 278; Texas, etc., R. Co. 7;. 
 
 95. Rules of construction.— Whitnack v. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 626, 46 L. Ed. 358, 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Neb. 464, 118 N. 22 S. Ct. 253; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 W. 67, 19 L. R. A., N. S.. 1011, 130 Am. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294, 7 So. 762, 18 Am. 
 St. Rep. 692; Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. St. Rep. 119; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Co., 104 Iowa 659, 74 X. W. 192. Southern Flour, etc., Co., 136 Ga. 538, 
 
 96. Subject matter and surrounding cir- 71 S. E. 884; Lehigh Valley Transp. 
 cumstances.— Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Jurey, Co. v. Post Sugar Co., 128 111. .A.pp. 600, 
 111 U S 584, 592, 28 L. Ed. 527, 4 S. judgment affirmed in 81 N. E. 819, 238 
 Ct. 566; Barreda v. Silsbee (U. S.), 21 111. 121. 
 
 How 146, 16 L. Ed. 86; Nash v. Towne 98. Where a carrier accepts a shipment 
 (U. S.), 5 Wall. 689, 18 L. Ed. 527; Chesa- of freight to a place on its own line of 
 peake, etc.. Canal Co. v. Hill (U. S.), 15 railroad, and stipulates in its bill of lad- 
 Wall. 94, 21 L. Ed. 64; Queen of the Pa- ing tliat "the company agrees to carry
 
 327 iJii.Ls OF LADING. §§ 455-458 
 
 Obvious Prevails over Hidden Meaning". — Xo rule of construction binds 
 the cimri lo liiid ^oiiic liiildcu or (jlisciire meaning for a particular clause in a 
 l)ill of lading, because the simple and plain one which is seen upon its face 
 ]n-ovi(lcs for contingencies which may also be provided for in another clause 
 of the same Ijill.'"' 
 
 § 456. Construction of Words and Phrases.— "At the Owner's Risk." 
 — Tile term, "at llic o\\irt\ ri>k,"' in a bill of lading, wliicli i> declared lo be a 
 special contract, taken in connection with other stipulations therein, limits the 
 carrier to such loss or damages only as might result from ordinary neglect, 
 which is defmed to mean that want of care and diligence which prudent men 
 usually bestow on their own concerns.' 
 
 "0." K." stamped on the face of a bill of lading means that the goods were 
 recei\e(l ap])arently in good condition. - 
 
 The word "release" stamped on the face of a bill of lading means exemp- 
 tion from the common law liability as an insurer.^ 
 
 Notation "Inspection Allowed." — See post, "Usage and Custom." § 460. 
 
 "More or Less." — v^ee i)ost, "ISetween the Parties," § 469. 
 
 "Open" and "Closed" Shipments. — See post, "'Open' and 'Closed" Ship- 
 ments," § 486. 
 
 "Contents Unknown." — See post, "Recital That Contents Unknown," 
 
 "Good Order," "Good Condition," "Apparent Good Order."— See post, 
 
 "Recital That Goods in 'Good Urdcr,' etc.," ^ 4''l); ••Recital That 'Contents Un- 
 known and in Apparent Good Order,'" § 491. 
 
 "Shipper's Load and Count," "Weight Unknown," etc. — See post, "In 
 General," § 4V3. 
 
 "Quantity Guaranteed." — See post, "Bill Made Hxclusive Evidence of 
 OuaiUity by Agreement." § 494. 
 
 § 4 57. Notice of Contents. — Both parties to a bill of lading signed by 
 them arc chargeable with notice of its contents.'* 
 
 § 458. Blanks and Unintelligible Characters.— Blanks.— The blanks in 
 a bill of lading are not to be considered in construing the instrument.'' 
 
 Unintelligible Characters. — Unintelligible characters i)laced on a bill of 
 lading wliich convev no meaning to a person of ordinary intelligence and which 
 are not ex])lainetl to tk.e shipi)er, do not bind him.*' 
 
 said property to destination if on its R. Co. r'. Rathbone. 1 W. Va. 87. 88 Am. 
 
 road," and enters on the bill of lading, Dec. 6()4. 
 
 after the designation of the property. 2. Morganton Mfg. Co. v. Ohio River, 
 
 "Care W. A., which cliaracters when en- etc., R. Co., 121 N. C. 514, 28 S. E. 474, 
 
 dorsed on the bill of lading are proved 61 Am. St. Rep. 079. 
 
 to mean "in care of the Western and At- 3. Morganton Mfg. Co. r. Ohio River, 
 
 lantic Railroad Company." such bill of etc., R. Co.. 121 X. C. .-.14. 28 S. E. 474, 
 
 lading will l)e construed to mean that the 61 Am. St. Rep. t)7'.). 
 
 receiving carrier ol)ligates to transport 4. Notice of contents. — Norfolk, etc.. R. 
 
 the shijiment over its own road to desti- Co. 7\ Lanudon, S4 Atl. 473. 118 Md. ""S. 
 
 nation and there to deliver it to the West- See ante, "Assent to and Acceptance by 
 
 ern and .Atlantic Railroad Company for Consignor." §§ 446-450. 
 
 the benefit of the consignee, and not to 5. Blanks. — Grayson County Xat. Bank 
 
 mean a delivery of the shipment at a junc- 7'. Nashville, etc.. Railway (Tex. Civ. 
 
 tion point outside of the place of destina- App.). 79 S. W. 1094. 
 
 tion to the Western & .\tlantic Railroad 6. Unintelligible characters.— Norfolk. 
 
 Company to be transported to destina- etc., K. Co. : . Harnian, liU \'a. 501, 52 
 
 tion by the latter companv. Louisville, S. R. ;{6S. 
 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Southern Flour, etc., Co., The character "Rel. \'al. Lts. (or Ltd.) 
 
 i;!(i C.a. r>:!8, 71 S. E. SSl. 5 Cwt" appearing on a bill of lading of 
 
 99. Obvious prevails over hidden mean- goods and live stock will not be held to 
 
 ing. — Texas, etc.. R. Co. :■. Rciss. 1S;5 U. mean that the shipper and the carrier 
 
 S. 6~M. iVM), 41) L. Ed. ;!5S. 22 S. Ct. 253. have agreed that the property should be 
 
 1. At the owner's risk. — Baltimore, etc.. considered as worth only five dollars for
 
 §§ 459-460 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 328 
 
 § 4 59. Conditions on Back of Bill. — Conditions printed upon the back 
 of a bill of lading are not binding upon the shipper, unless his assent thereto 
 is established.'^ 
 
 § 460. Usage and Custom. — In bills of lading; where the terms used 
 have, bv usage, acquired a particular signification, the parties will be presumed 
 to have' used them in that sense."* Such evidence of usage or custom is never 
 considered of the character of parol evidence to contradict a written instru- 
 ment but is received for the purpose of ascertaining the sense and understand- 
 ing of parties by their contracts, which are made with reference to such usage 
 or custom ; for the custom then becomes a part of the contract, and may not 
 improperly be considered the law of the contract: and it rests upon the same 
 principles as the doctrine of the lex loci." Usage and custom of railroads can 
 not make a contract, can not prevent the effects of a settled rule of law, nor 
 be invoked by a party and introduced into a contract evidenced by a bill of lad- 
 ing as an element of it. when such usage or custom is contrary to law.i" Nor 
 is usage admissible to control the legal effect of a state of facts which the law 
 declares creates a contract between the parties. A case might arise in which 
 evidence of custom may be admissible to ascertain in whom rests the title of 
 property shipped, and which is claimed under a bill of lading. '^ 
 
 To Vary or Contradict Express Terms of Bill of Lading.— Evidence of 
 usage or custom is not admissible to control, vary or contradict the positive 
 stipulations.!- or an express contract ^^ contained in a bill of lading; or to sub- 
 stitute for the express terms or provisions of the instrument an implied agree- 
 ment or usage ^^ that the carrier shall not be bound to keep, transport, and de- 
 liver the goods in good order and condition ; !'• or to prove a custom of stop- 
 ping shipments of cotton, at a point short of the destination named in the bill 
 of lading.!^ ! 
 
 every hundred pounds of weight, where 
 there is no evidence as to what the char- 
 acters stood for and that construction 
 is glaringly inconsistent with another 
 clause of the bill of lading in which a dif- 
 ferent and higher valuation is placed upon 
 the stock. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 man. 104 Va. oOl, .52 S. E. 368. 
 
 7. Conditions on back of bill. — Painkin- 
 sky z: Illinrjis Cent. R. Co., 165 111. App. 
 536; Merchants' Dispatch Transo. Co. v. 
 
 Furthmann, 47 111. App. 561, affirmed in 
 149 111. 66, 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. Rep. 
 265. 
 
 8. Evidence of usage in general. — Hos- 
 tetter z: Park, i:;7 U. S. :U). 34 L. Ed. .568, 
 11 S. Ct. 1: Robinson z\ United States 
 
 (U. S.), 13 Wall. 363, 20 L. Ed. 653; The 
 Delaware (U. S.). 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 
 779; Wayne v. Steamboat General Pike, 
 16 O. 421. and see Jordan, etc., Co. v. 
 James. 5 O. 88. 
 
 9. Babcock z: May, 4 O. 334. 
 
 Although the bill of lading is the con- 
 tract of the parties, its execution may 
 be affected by a common usage of the 
 trade — such usage being supposed to have 
 been contemplated by the parties. Law- 
 rence V. McGregor (O.). Wright 193. 
 
 10. Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Nash- 
 ville, etc., Railway (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 
 S. W. 1094; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCown 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 25 S. W. 435; Dwyer 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 69 Tex. 707, 7 S. W. 
 
 504; Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: Pagan. 72 
 Tex. 127, 9 S. W. 749, 13 Am. St. Rep. 776, 
 2 L. R. A., N. S., 75. 
 
 11. Mercantile Banking Co. v. Landa 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 681. See, also, 
 Moore z\ Kennedy, 81 Tex. 144, 16 S. W. 
 740. 
 
 12. The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 
 20 L. Ed. 779; Western, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ohio Valley, etc., Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. 
 
 E. 821; Wayne v. Steamboat General Pike, 
 16 O. 421; Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), 
 Wright 193. 
 
 13. Mercantile Banking Co. v. Landa 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W'. 681; see also 
 Moore v. Kennedy, 81 Tex. 144, 16 S. W. 
 740. 
 
 14. Lawrence r. McGregor (O.), Wright 
 193. 
 
 15. Usage can not control express pro- 
 visions.— The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 
 579, 20 L. Ed. 779. 
 
 16. Parol testimony is not admissible on 
 the trial of a case brought to recover 
 damages growing out of an alleged breach 
 of contract for failure to deliver cotton 
 at the point of destination named in the 
 bill of lading to prove a custom of stop- 
 ping cotton short of the point of destina- 
 tion for purposes at variance with the 
 
 plain, unambiguous terms of the contract 
 of carriage. Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Mer- 
 chants', etc.. Bank, 137 Ga. 391, 73 S. E. 
 637.
 
 329 BILLS OF LAblXG. §§ 460-461 
 
 Usage as to Stowage. — In the case of a bill of lading or a charter party, 
 evidence of usa^jc in a particnlar trade is admissible to show that certain goods 
 in that trade nia\' be >li)\\ed on deck.'' 
 
 Custom as to Right of Inspection and Rejection. — Where a contract for 
 the sale of perishable prodnce stipnlated that the j^rices were f. o. b. cars and 
 the bill of lading contained the notation "inspection allowed," evidence to show 
 a custom that the buyer could inspect the goods on arrival, and, if not in good 
 condition, reject them, which custom was known to the agent of the seller who 
 made the sale, is admissible, in an action by the seller for the price, to show 
 that the same was a part of the contract of sale, and to exjjlain the significance 
 of the quoted words in the bill of lading. Such custom gave the buyer the right 
 of inspection before delivery, and to refuse acceptance on the goods being dam- 
 aged.'"* The purpose of the evidence as to the custom referred to was not to 
 create a warranty when none was created by the contract. Xo warranty was 
 needed to protect the buyer. The right of inspection and rejection gave him 
 all the protection he needed. Such a custom was not in violation of the terms 
 of the contract and of established rules of law. The custom being known to 
 the agent of seller, and being in fact of such a general character that the buyer, 
 in dealing with j^roduce dealers at the point of destination, would be required 
 to take notice of it, became a part of the contract, which is shown to have been 
 made with reference to it.''* Evidence of the custom referred to was further 
 admissi])le to ex])lain the full significance of the notation on the bill of lading, 
 "Inspection allowed." These words can have no other signification than ex- 
 plained by the custom referred to, that they referred to the right of inspection, 
 and rejection if found in bad condition. They necessarily mean a right of in- 
 spection before delivery. After delivery consignee had no need of permission 
 to insi)ect, and inspection before delivery would have been an idle ceremony 
 unless some right was to accrue to him upon such inspection if the goods were 
 not in good condition. The only reasonable interpretation to be given this lan- 
 guage in the bill of lading taken by the shipper, and inserted of course, with 
 liis direction, is in accordance with the custom proven by consignee.-" 
 
 § 461. Conflict of Laws, — The laws of the state where the bill of lading 
 was delivered will control as to the nature, interpretation, and elTect of the con- 
 tract for carriage;-' and it has such qualities as are imposed upon it by the 
 laws of that state. -- 
 
 Laws Governing Indorsements. — Although a foreign bill of lading pro- 
 vided that questions arising between the owners and shipowners should be de- 
 termined by the English law, the question of the effect of indorsements, where 
 no question for or against the carrier is raised, is to be determined by the law 
 of tlie place where the indorsements are made.--^ 
 
 17. Usage as to stowage. — Tlio Dcla- 21. Conflict of laws. — Frank Simpson 
 ware ( U. S.). 14 Wall. :)7'.i. 20 L. Ivl. 779. Fruit Co. r. Southern Pac. Co.. 157 111. 
 
 18. Custom as to right of inspection and App. 158. 
 
 rejection. — Fort Produce Co. r. Dissen. The law of the place where a bill of 
 
 45 Tex. Civ. App. 403, 101 S. W. 477. lading was made controls, where the right 
 
 19. Fort Produce Co. ?■. Dissen, 45 Tex. of the carrier to limit its common-law 
 Civ. App. 403, 101 S. W. 477. lial)ility is not involved. Missouri, etc.. 
 
 It would not have violated any rule if R. Co. f. Scaly. 7S Kan. 75S. ;i!) Pac. 2:'.o. 
 the parties had contracted for inspection As to right of bona fide purchaser 
 
 and rejection, and under the undisputed where goods not received by carrier. — 
 
 evidence as to the custom . referred to. See ante, "As against Bona Fide Con- 
 
 which became a part of the contract, this signee or Transferee," §§ 431-437. 
 is wliat was done. Fort Produce Co. 7'. 22. National Bank r. Baltimore, etc.. R. 
 
 Dissen, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 403, 101 S. W. Co.. 9i) Md. «()!, 59 Atl. 134. 105 Am. St. 
 
 477. Rep. 321. 
 
 20. Inspection allowed. — Fort Produce 23. Laws governing indorsements. — 
 Co. r. Dissen, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 403. 101 Baker Co. :\ Brown. 214 Mass. UtG, 100 
 S. W. 477. X. E. 1025.
 
 §§ 462-46; 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 330 
 
 § 462. Foreign Laws. — In the absence of evidence as to the law relating 
 to bills of lading of another state in which a bill of lading was issued, the court 
 will presume that the common law prevails in that state.--* 
 
 § 463. Fraudulent Bills of Lading.— Consignor Not Owner of Goods. 
 -See post, "Shipment Fraudulently Procured by Person Not Owner of Goods," 
 
 -See ante, "Receipt of Goods as Pre- 
 
 § 498. 
 No Goods Received by Carrier. 
 
 requisite to Issuance." §§ 429-442. 
 
 § 464. Partial Invalidity. — While a bill of lading is to be construed as 
 a whole, invalid conditions will not necessarily render the contract void; it may 
 be enforced so far as it is valid. -^ Where it was clearly the intention of the 
 parties that there should be a written contract, and one was deliberately made 
 and entered into, the fact that the contract contains many provisions which can 
 not be given effect and which it is apparent were never intended to be given 
 eft'ect; is not a sufificient reason for holding the contract invalid, or to justify 
 setting aside and disregarding the provisions which are applicable to the subject- 
 matter of the contract. -"^ 
 
 § 465. When Bill of Lading Part of Contract. — \\here a shipping or- 
 der.-' a shipping ticket,-"^ the letters -'• between a shipper and a carrier, or a 
 receipt ^" for freight, directs the goods to be shipped ''^^ or declares that the 
 shipment shall be^^ subject to the conditions of the bill of lading, the bill of 
 lading is a part of the contract of carriage. But it must appear that a bill of 
 
 24. Foreign laws, — National Bank v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 99 Md. 661, 59 
 Atl. 134, lO.J Am. St. Rep. 321. 
 
 25. Invalid conditions. — W'hitnack r*. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 82 Neb. 464. 118 N. 
 W. 67, 130 Am. St. Rep. 692, 19 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1011; Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co.. 104 Iowa 659, 74 N. W. 192. 
 
 26. W'hitnack v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 130 Am. St. Rep. 692, 82 Neb. 464, 118 N. 
 W. 67. 19 L. R. A.. N. S., 1011. 
 
 27. Shipping order and bill of lading as 
 contract of carriage. — Where a shipper 
 delivered to a carrier his shipping order 
 as per conditions of the carrier's bill of 
 lading, and the carrier delivered to the 
 shipper a bill of lading, the shipping or- 
 der and the bill of lading constituted the 
 
 contract of transportation. Illinois Match 
 Co. V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 95 N. E. 492. 
 
 250 111. 396, reversing judgment, 153 111. 
 
 App. 568. 
 
 28. Shipping ticket and bill of lading. 
 — Where a shipper sends with his sliip- 
 ment a shipping ticket directing that the 
 goods be shipped "as per condition of 
 company's bill of lading," and the carrier 
 receipts for the goods on these terms, 
 and there is a standard form of bill of 
 lading, an express contract of shipments 
 is created, and the terms in that bill of 
 lading become a part of the contract. 
 Southern R. Co. ?•. Frank & Co., 63 S. E. 
 656. 5 Ga. .\pp. 574. 
 
 29. Letters and bill of lading as con- 
 tract. — Where the letters between a car- 
 rier and a shipper set forth merely the 
 
 rates at which the goods would be car- 
 ried and the time within which a claim 
 for damages would be settled, it will be 
 presumed that the usage and custom of 
 issuing bills of lading was within the 
 contemplation of the parties, and such 
 bills of lading, when issued, will be re- 
 garded as parts of the contract. Mer- 
 chants', etc., Transp. Co. z'. Eichberg, 109 
 Md. 211. 71 Atl. 993, 130 Am. St. Rep. 
 524. 
 
 "A similar view was held by the court 
 of appeals of New York in the case of 
 Donovan v. Standard Oil Co., 155 N. Y. 
 112, 49 N. E. 678, where the court said: 
 'This instrument [the bill of lading] must 
 be read with the letter referred to under 
 which the plaintiffs entered into the gen- 
 eral arrangement, in order to ascertain 
 the full extent of tlieir duties and obliga- 
 tions as carrier.' " Merchants', etc., 
 Transp. Co. v. Eichberg, 109 Md. 211, 71 
 Atl. 993, 130 Am. St. Rep. 524. 
 
 30. Carrier's receipt for freight and bill 
 of lading. — A receipt by a carrier for 
 freight, vviiich declares that the shipment 
 shall be subject to the conditions of the 
 bill of lading, makes the bill of lading a 
 part of the contract of carriage. Sim- 
 mons Hardware Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 140 Mo. App. 130, 120 S. W. 663. 
 
 31. Southern R. Co. v. Frank & Co., 5 
 Ga. App. 574, 63 S. E. 656. 
 
 32. Simmons Hardware Co. v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co.. 140 Mo. App. 130, 120 S. W. 
 663.
 
 331 
 
 lilLLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 465-467 
 
 ladinj^ was made out or that a standard ffjrm was in use which the parties liad 
 .'.'greed on as part of the contract. ■"'•'• 
 
 §§ 466-479. Dual Character as Contract and as Receipt— § 466. In 
 General. — A hill of hidin,<^ is an instrument of a twofohl character. It is at 
 once a receiut and a contract. In the former character it is an acknowledgment 
 of the receipt of property hy the carrier. In the latter it is a contract to carry 
 them safely from the place of shijjment and deliver to a person named or his 
 order at the point of destination. It has heen so held hy the federal courts,-'^ 
 and the courts of Alahama.-'-"' Arkansas,""' Illinois,-*' Maine,-''' Maryland,-''^ Ne- 
 braska,-*" New York," Ohio,-*- v^outh CaroHna.'*-' Texas,-*-* and other states. 
 
 § 467. As Contract Generally. — The hill of lading establishes a con- 
 tractual relation helwccn the c:'.rrier and shi])ijer.^-'' W hen issued by a common 
 
 33. .\nierican Storage, etc., Co. v. W'a- 
 hasli R. Co. (Mo. App.), 123 S. W. 964. 
 
 An instrument reciting receipt by de- 
 fendant carrier from plaintiff of the "fol- 
 lowing articles" to he delivered to plain- 
 tiff at destination, after which is a de- 
 scription of the articles, followed by the 
 words "received sul)ject to conditions of 
 * * * (defendant's) bill of lading," it- 
 self constitutes the contract, in the ab- 
 sence of evidence by either party of any- 
 thing else in the way of a bill of lading 
 having been made out, or any form in 
 use having been agreed on as part of the 
 contract. American Storage, etc., Co. v. 
 Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.). V2?, S. W. 
 964. 
 
 34. Dual character of bill of lading. — 
 Pollard r. Vinton. 105 U. S. 7, S, 2() L. 
 Ed. 998; The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 
 
 579, 601, 20 L. Ed. 779; St. Louis, etc., 
 
 R. Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 87, 30 L. 
 
 Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1133; Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 Co. V. McFadden. 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 
 
 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. See The Lady Frank- 
 lin (U. S.), 8 Wall. 325, 19 L. Ed. 455; 
 The Schooner Freeman (L^. S.), 18 How. 
 182. 15 L. Ed. 341. 
 
 35. Wayland v. Mosely. 5 .\la. 430. 39 
 Am. Dec. 335; Alaliama, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Norris. 167 Ala. 311, 52 So. 891. 
 
 36. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' 
 Bank. 87 .\rk. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. 
 R. 290. 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 
 290, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 37. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. :■. 
 Furtiimann, 47 111. App. 561, affirmed in 
 149 111. 66. 36 N. E. 624. 41 Am. St. Rep. 
 265. 
 
 A "bill of lading" is a written acknowl- 
 edgment of the receipt of goods and an 
 agreement, on consideration, to transport 
 and deliver them at a specified place to 
 a person named on his order. Illinois 
 Match Co. r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 250 
 111. 396, 95 N. E. 492, reversing judgment 
 153 111. .-Kpp. 568. 
 
 38. O'Brien r. Gilchrist. 34 Me. 554, 56 
 .\m. Dec. 676, 67S. 
 
 39. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. r. Wilkens, 
 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 40. Wiiitnack z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 82 Neb. 464, 118 X. W. 67, 19 L. R. A.. 
 
 X. S., 1011, 130 Am. St. Rep. 692. 
 
 41. Wolfe V. Meyers (X. Y.), 3 Sandf. 7; 
 Miller v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 90 X. Y. 
 430, 43 Am. Rep. 179. 
 
 "A bill of lading has a twofold char- 
 acter: 1. That of a receipt; and 2. That 
 of a contract." Van Etten %■. Xewton. 
 134 X. Y. 143, 30 Am. St. Rep. 6.30. 
 
 42. Wood V. Perry (O.), Wright 240; 
 Page & Co. V. Sandusky, etc., R. Co., 4 
 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 716. 
 
 A bill of lading is a contract including 
 a receipt. Page & Co. v. Sandusky, etc., 
 R. Co., 4 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 716. 
 
 "The bill of lading is a contract includ- 
 ing a receipt. It is a contract admitting 
 the reception of certain goods, with an 
 agreement to carry them to the port of 
 discharge." Babcock :•. May, 4 O. 334. 
 And see Citizens' Nat. Bank v. C. X. O. 
 & T. P. R. Co., 29 Wkly. L. Bull. 15, 11 
 O. Dec. Reprint 703. 
 
 43. Thomas v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 85 
 S. C. 537, 64 S. E. 220, 34 L. R. A., X. S., 
 1177, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 223, 32 
 R. R. R. 250, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. 
 S.. 250. 
 
 44. .\. bill of lading is a receipt (for the 
 shipment) as well as a contract of car- 
 riage in writing. East Line, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615, 620; Dwyer v. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co., 69 Tex. 707, 710, 7 S. W. 504; 
 
 Cohen Bros. v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 44 
 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 383, 98 S. W. 437; 
 
 House V. Holland, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 502, 
 94 S. W. 153. 
 
 Bills of lading are practically- no more 
 than receipts for the goods, and are con- 
 tracts only in name. Kansas, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Rosebrook-Iosey Grain Co., 52 Tex. 
 Civ. .App. 156.' 114 S. W. 436. 
 
 45. As a contract. — Pace Mule Co. v. 
 Seaboard, etc.. R. Co. (X. C). 76 S. E. 
 513; Herring v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. (.X. 
 C), 76 S. E. 527. 
 
 A bill of lading given under art. 2S0 
 of Tex. Rev. Civil St., is a contract en- 
 tered into between the parties at the 
 time the goods are delivered, and is 
 
 cquallv binding upon both parties. Schloss 
 :•. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 601, 22 
 S. W. n)14.
 
 §§ 467-469 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 2>Z2 
 
 carrier, and signed and accepted by the shipper, it constitutes the contract for 
 the shipment of merchandise therein described,'**^ by which for a specified sum 
 the carrier undertakes to carry safely and deliver the goods received to the 
 person named in the bill or his order. ^' It is a sj^ecial contract, imposing the 
 duty of transportation and delivery according to its terms as understood by the 
 contracting parties at the time of entering into the same.^'^ 
 
 § 468. As a Receipt in General. — The bill of lading, to the extent that 
 it acknowknlges the delivery and acceptance of the goods by the carrier, is a 
 receipt. In other respects, it is a contract.-*'' This is the doctrine of the courts 
 of the United States •"*" and of the states of Alabama, "^i Arkansas,-"'- Illinois,^'"^ 
 Iowa,''-* Louisiana, "'•'^ New York,'''- Texas,'"'" and others. 
 
 §§ 469-479. Parol Evidence to Vary or Contradict Bill— §§ 469-470. 
 As a Contract — § 469. Between the Parties. — In so far as a bill of lad- 
 ing is a contract of carriage expressing the terms and conditions upon which 
 the shipment is to be transported, it can not be explained, varied, added to, 
 altered or contradicted by parol evidence. The bill of lading embodies the con- 
 tract between the shipper and the carrier, and, when delivered by the carrier 
 and received by the shipper, its terms, stipulations, and conditions are as bind- 
 ing on the parties thereto as are the terms, stipulations, and conditions of any 
 other written contract. A bill of lading is, therefore, to be taken as the sole 
 evidence of the final agreement of the parties, by which their duties and lia- 
 bilities must be regulated, and in the absence of fraud or mistake, when its 
 terms are free from ambiguity, parol evidence is inadmissible to vary its terms 
 or legal import. •'^'^ Where there is nothing in the nature of the business which 
 is the subject of such contract to control the meaning of its terms, the instru- 
 ment must be interpreted and its meaning gathered from the instrument itself, 
 without resort to any parol testimony.'"^ '^ This is the settled doctrine in the 
 federal courts ^'^ and in the courts of the states of Alabama,*''^ Arkan- 
 
 46. W'hitnack v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 82 Xeb. 464, 118 N. W. 67, 19 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1011, 130 Am. St. Rep. 092. 
 
 47. A bill of lading is a contract to 
 safely carry and deliver. Cobl) v. Brown, 
 113 C. C. A. 586, 193 Fed. 958; Williams 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ala.), 58 So. 
 
 315. 
 
 A bill of lading in the first instance 
 represents the contract between the 
 shipper and the carrier, by which, for a 
 specified sum, the carrier undertakes to 
 deliver the goods received to the right- 
 ful owner. Gass v. Astoria Veneer Mills, 
 134 App. Div. 184, 118 X. Y. S. 982. 
 
 48. It is a special contract. — Wayne v. 
 Steami)oat General Pike, l(i O. 421. 
 
 49. A bill of lading is an acknowledg- 
 ment of the receipt of the property by the 
 carrier. Cobb v. Brown, 113 C. C. A. 586, 
 193 Fed. 958; Williams v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ala.), 58 So. 315. 
 
 50. Cobb V. Brown, 113 C. C. A. 586, 193 
 Fed. 958. 
 
 51. Williams v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 (Ala.), 58 So. 315. 
 
 52. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' 
 Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. 
 R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 290, 
 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 53. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Furthmann, 47 111. App. 561, afiirmed in 
 
 149 111. 66, 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. Rep. 
 265. 
 
 54. Chapin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 
 Iowa 582, 44 N. W. 820. 
 
 55. Hunt V. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 
 29 La. Ann. 440; Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. 
 Steamer Red River, 106 La. 42, 30 So. 
 303, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 56. Van Etten v. Newton, 134 X. Y. 
 143, 30 Am. St. Rep. 630. 
 
 57. Cohen Bros. v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 lex. Civ. App. 381, 383, 98 S. W. 
 437; House v. Holland, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 
 502, 94 S. W. 153. 
 
 58. Between parties. — Tallassee Falls 
 Mfg. Co. V. Western Railway, 117 Ala. 
 520, 23 So. 139, 07 Am. St. Rep. 179; Lou- 
 isville, etc., R. Co. V. Fulgham, 91 Ala. 
 555, 8 So. 803. 
 
 59. Wayne v. vSteamlioat General Pike, 
 16 O. 421. 
 
 60. The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579. 
 20 L. Ed. 779; O'Rourke v. Two Hundred 
 and Twenty-One Tons of Coal, 1 Fed. 619; 
 The Lady Franklin (U. S.), s Wall. 325, 
 19 L. Ed. 455; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 591, 28 L. Ed. 527, 
 4 S. Ct. 566; Clark v. Barnwell (U. S.), 
 12 How. 272. 13 L. Ed. 985; Niagara 
 V. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 7, 23, 16 L. 
 Ed. 41. 
 
 61. Wayland v. Mosely, 5 Ala. 430, 39
 
 333 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 467 
 
 sas/'- Connecticut,"'' Georgia,''-* Indiana,'*"' Iowa,''" Kansas,'*" Louisiana,^^ 
 Massachusetts.'''' .Minnesota,"" Missouri," ^ Nebraska," 2 Xew York,"^ Ohio,'^ 
 Pennsvlvania,'"' Rhode Island."'' 'rcxas.'" \erniont.''' Wisconsin. "'-^ and others; 
 and in I'.ngland.""' 
 
 Obligations Implied from Nature of Contract. — Not only is parol evi- 
 dence inadmissible to vary the ex];ress terms of the contract contained in a bill 
 of lading, but it is inadmissible to vary the obligations as to which the contract 
 is silent, but whi^-h arc im])licd from its nature. ^^ 
 
 Proof That Bill Contract of Parties. — Before the rule excluding parol 
 
 Am. Dec. :$;!;); Cox v. Peterson, 30 Ala. 
 608, 68 Am. Dec. 145; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Fulgham, 91 Ala. 555, 8 So. 803; 
 vSteele v. Tovvnsend, 37 Ala. 247, 79 Am. 
 Dec. 49; Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Wes- 
 tern Railway. 117 Ala. 520, 23 So. 139, 
 <)7 Am. St. Rep. 179. 
 
 62. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' 
 Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. 
 R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 290, 
 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 63. Barber v. Brace, 3 Conn. 9, 8 Am. 
 Dec. 149. 
 
 64. Richmond, etc., R. Co. 7'. Shomo, 
 90 Ga. 49(), 16 S. E. 220; CeiUrai, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Cook, 4 Ga. App. 698. 701, 62 S. E. 
 464; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Cohn & Co., 
 6 Ga. App. 572, 573, 65 S. E. 355; McEl- 
 veen v. Southern R. Co., 109 Ga. 249. 34 
 S. E. 281. 77 Am. St. Rep. 371. 
 
 65. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Rcmmy, 
 13 Ind. 518; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wilson, 119 Ind. 352, 21 N. E. 341, 40 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 85. 
 
 66. Wilde v. Merchants' Despatch 
 Transp. Co.. 47 Iowa 272. 
 
 67. Hopkins v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 16 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 126. 
 
 68. Hunt V. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 
 29 La. Ann. 446; Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. 
 Steamer Red River. 106 La. 42, 30 So. 
 303, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 69. Blanchard v. Page (Mass.), 8 Gray 
 281. 
 
 70. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Home 
 Ins. Co.. 55 Minn. 236, 56 N. W. 815, 22 
 L. R. A., N. S., 390; Norton v. Baxter. 
 41 Minn. 146, 16 Am. St. Rep. 679. 
 
 71. O'Bryan v. Kinney. 74 Mo. 125; St. 
 Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Cleary. 77 Mo. 634, 
 46 .'Km. Rep. 13; Turner v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 632; Milne v. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co., 155 Mo. App. 465, 135 
 S. W. 85. 
 
 72. Whitnack v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 82 Neb. 464, 118 N. W. 67, 19 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1011, 130 Am. St. Rep. 692. 
 
 73. Niles v. Culver (N. Y.). 8 Barb. 205; 
 Fitzliugh 7'. Wiman. 9 N. Y. 559, Seld. Notes 
 250; Creery v. Holly (N. Y.), 14 Wend. 
 26; White V. Van Kirk (N. Y.). 25 Barb. 
 16; Long v. New York Cent. R. Co., 50 
 N. Y. 76; Collender z'. Dinsmore, 55 N. 
 Y. 200, 14 Am. Rep. 224; Germania Fire 
 Ins. Co. V. Memphis, etc.. R. Co., 72 N. 
 Y. 90, 28 Am. Rep. 113; Hill v. Syracuse, 
 etc., R. Co.. 73 N. Y. 351, 29 Am. Rep. 
 163; Hinckley v. New York Cent., etc.. 
 
 R. Co., 56 N. Y. 429; Van Etten v. New- 
 ton, 134 N. Y. 143, 31 N. E. 334, 30 Am. 
 St. Rep. 630. 
 
 74. Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), Wright 
 193; Wayne v. Steamboat General Pike, 
 16 O. 421; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Pontius, 19 O. St. 251, 2 Am. Rep. 391. 
 
 A bill of lading being a special con- 
 tract is not, as a general rule, to be 
 varied or altered by parol evidence. 
 Wayne v. Steaml>oat General Pike. 16 
 O. 421; Jordan, etc., Co. v. James. 5 O. 
 88; Babcock v. May, 4 O. 334; Cleveland, 
 etc., R. Co. v. La Tourette, 2 O. C. C. 
 279, 1 O. C. D. 486. 
 
 75. Shaw V. Merchants' Nat. Bank (Pa.), 
 8 Wkly. Notes Cas. 221; Hostetter z: 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 14 Atl. 609, 
 8 Sad. 499. 
 
 76. Gardner v. Chace, 2 R. I. 112. 
 
 77. Cohen Bros. v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 98 S. W. 437; 
 House V. Holland, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 502, 
 94 S. W. 153. Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 
 335. 82 Am. Dec. 617. 
 
 Except in the recital of the receipt ot 
 the goods, and of their quantity and 
 condition, l)ills of lading are strictly 
 written contracts, within the rule pro- 
 liiljiting parol evidence to contradict or 
 vary such contracts. Galveston, etc.. R. 
 Co. z'. Silegman (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 23 S. 
 W. 298. 
 
 78. King V. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. 565; 
 Davis V. Central, etc.. R. Co., 66 \'t. 290, 
 29 Atl. 313. 44 Am. St. Rep. 852. 
 
 79. Hansen v. Flint, etc., R. Co.. 73 
 Wis. 346. 41 N. W. 529. 9 Am. St. Rep. 791. 
 
 80. Goodrich v. Norris. Fed. Cas. No. 
 5545. 1 Al)l). Adm. 196; Brablev v. Duni- 
 pace, 1 H. & C. 521; Butler z: The Steam- 
 boat Arrow, 6 McLean 470, Newb. 
 Adm. 59. 
 
 81. Obligation implied from nature 
 contract. — Wills. I'^ar^o & Co.'s Exp. -'. 
 Fuller. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213. 23 S. W. 
 412. affirmed. in 93 Tex. 741. no op.; Ar- 
 nold V. Jones. 26 Tex. 335, 82 .\m. Dec. 
 617. 
 
 .^s a bill of lading for shipment of 
 cattle raises an implied obligation to 
 furnish suitable cars, and to transport the 
 cattle within a reasonable time, parol evi- 
 dence is inadmissible to show a parol 
 agreement prior to the bill of lading to 
 furnish "bedded" cars and to make close 
 connection with another line of carriers, 
 though it could be shown that bedded cars
 
 §§ 467-471 CARRIERS. 334 
 
 evidence can be applied, the written bill of lading must be shown to be the con- 
 tract of the parties.'^- . r , , -n r 
 
 Effect of Production of Bill of Lading.— The production of the bill ot 
 lading is an admission that the contract was in writing, and upon failure to 
 prove the written contract, evidence of a parole contract is inadmissible.*^"- 
 
 A clean bill of lading imports that the goods are stowed under deck, and 
 parol evidence that the vendor agreed that the goods should be stowed on deck 
 
 can not be received.^' , , -,1 - i i- 
 
 Through Bill of Lading.— If a receipt constitutes a through bill ot lading 
 of the go'ods parol evidence can not be given to explain or vary it ; what is 
 established bv contract can not be changed or affected by custom.'^-^ 
 
 Words "More or Less."— The words "more or less" in a bill of lading for 
 the shipping of a number of pieces of lumber, amounting to a specified number 
 of tons "more or less." can not be shown by parol to have been intended to 
 refer al'^o to the number of pieces shipped.^*' 
 
 Additional Provisions of Waybill for Guidance of Carrier's Employees. 
 —Proof that a waybill issued by the carrier for the guidance of its employees 
 stipulated delivery at a certain packing house was inadmissible to add that pro- 
 vision to the written contract between the carrier and shipper/^"^ 
 
 § 470. Between Consignor and Consignee.— As between the consignor 
 and the consignee, the bill of lading can not be regarded as a contract in writ- 
 ing, but merely as an admission or declaration on the part of the consignor as 
 to%is purpose,' at the time, in making the shipment, and such admission is sub- 
 iect to be rebutted by other circumstances connected with the transaction. '^s 
 
 Amount Shipped.— Bills of lading for goods shipped to purchaser are prima 
 facie but not conclusive evidence of the amount of goods shipped; and the 
 purchaser can show that the seller had not in fact shipped the quantity pur- 
 chased.^^ 
 
 § 471. Merger of Oral Negotiations and Prior Verbal Agreements.— 
 A bill of lading as a contract, in which the carrier agrees to transport and de-. 
 liver the goods to the consignee upon the terms and conditions specified in the 
 instrument, is a merger of all oral negotiations '"' and representations »i leading 
 
 were the only suitable cars to be used. 779; Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 
 
 and that transportation with reasonable 7, in L. Ed. 41. 
 
 dispatch would have made the close con- 85. Through bill of lading.— Hansen v. 
 
 nection. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Sileg- Flint, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. :uo. 41 N. W. 
 
 man (Tex. Civ. App.). 23 S. W. 298. 529. 9 Am. St. Rep. 791. 
 
 82. Writing must be contract of parties. 86. The words more or less.— O Brien 
 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. 7;. Tnrpv, ill U. v. Gilchrist, .U Me. ."54. :.(i .Xm. Dec. GTG. 
 
 S. 584. 2S L. Ed. 527, 4 S. Ct. 566. 87. Additional provisions of waybill for 
 
 Where the shipper insists that the con- guidance of carrier's employees.— -In- 
 
 tract between him and the railroad com- ternational, etc., R. Co. v. Griffith (Tex. 
 
 pany is by parol, and denies that the bill Civ. App.), 103 S. W. 225, affirmed in 
 
 of lading is the contract, and alleges that 102 Tex. 585, no op. 
 
 it had never been delivered to him, but 88. Between consignor and consignee, 
 
 only to a person who was not authorized —Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 
 
 to make a contract for him, evidence O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299. 
 
 of the parol contract is perfectly com- 89. Amount shipped.— Rcid Phosphate 
 
 petent, and it is a question to be de- Co. v. J'"armers' I-ertihzer Co. (S. C), 77 
 
 cided by the jury whether the under- S. E. sr,:;. _ _ 
 
 standing as detailed by the witnesses or 90. Merger of oral negotiations and 
 
 the bill of lading expresses the agree- prior verbal agreements.— Whitnack v. 
 
 ment of the parties. Mobile, etc., R. Co. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Neb. 464, US N. 
 
 V. Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 28 L. Ed. 527, W. 67, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 1011, 130 Am. 
 
 4 S Ct 566 St. Rep. 692; McFadden v. Missouri Pac. 
 
 83. Effect 'of production of bill of lad- R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. 
 ing.— Peck z: Dinsmore (Ala.), 4 Port. St. Rep. 721; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 212 Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 175 111. 557, 
 " 84. A clean bill of lading.— The Dela- 51 N. E. 911, 67 Am. St. Rep. 238. 
 ware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579. 605, 20 L. Ed. 91. In an action by the consignee for
 
 335 
 
 HILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 471 
 
 up to its making, and all other prior and contemporaneous agreements '•'- of the 
 parties ; and being in writing its terms or legal effect when free from am- 
 biguity '■*•' can not, in the absence of fraud or mistake, be explained or contra- 
 dicted bv parol testimony and thereby changed in its legal elTect ; '•'^ but where 
 the acceptance of the bill by the shij^jjer is the result of fraud or mistake the 
 verbal contract of shiiniicnt is not merged therein and it may be contradicted by 
 parol evidence showing the agreement between the parties.'''" 
 
 Instances of Inadmissibility of Evidence of Prior Verbal Contract. — 
 The rule which forbids the introduction of parol proof to vary the terms of 
 a written instrument excludes evidence of a i)rior or contemporaneous parol 
 agreement that the goods were received under other terms and conditions, that 
 they were to be shipped by another route than that designated,'"' that the goods 
 were to be deli\ered to a connecting railroad or steamer,-'' that the carrier 
 should not be responsible for any risk or loss which might befall the boat or 
 
 the loss of goods sliipped under a hill of 
 lading, it was held that the carrier could 
 not give in evidence representations, 
 made hy the consignor hcfore the e.xecu- 
 tion of tile hill, as to the depth of the 
 water at the place of landing, where there 
 was no evidence that the representations 
 were fraudulently made. Shaw v. Gard- 
 ner (Mass.), 12 Gray 488. 
 
 92. United States. — Southern Exp. Co. 
 V. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549, 24 L. Ed. 285; 
 The Caledonia, 43 Fed. 681. 
 
 Arkansas. — All previous contracts for 
 the transportation of property are merged 
 in the contract evidenced hy the hill of 
 lading, signed hy both parties. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Jones, 93 Ark. 537, 125 S. 
 W. 1025. 
 
 Georgia. — Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio 
 Valley, etc., Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. E. 
 821. 
 
 Indiana. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son, 119 Ind. 352, 21 N. E. 341, 40 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 85; Snow v. Indiana, etc., 
 R. Co., 109 Ind. 422. 9 N. E. 702. 
 
 Minnesota. — Norton v. Baxter, 41 Alinn. 
 146, 16 Am. St. Rep. 679. 
 
 Xezi' York. — Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 Memphis, etc.. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 90, 28 Am. 
 Rep. 113; Hill v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 73 
 N. Y. 351, 29 Am. Rep. 163; Long v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co.. 50 N. Y. 76; Niles v. 
 Culver (N. Y.), 8 Barb. 205. 
 
 Texas. — Parol evidence tending to show 
 a prior agreement or an understanding be- 
 tween carrier and shipper in executing a 
 bill of lading and which is intended to con- 
 tradict or vary the terms or legal import 
 of the written instrument is inadmissible. 
 Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 82 .\m. Dec. 
 617; Bessling & Co. v. Houston, etc., R. 
 Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 472, 80 S. W. 
 639, affirmed in 98 Tex. 610. no op.; Wells, 
 Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 .-Kpp. 213, 23 S. W. 412 (see 93 Tex. 742, 
 no op.); Galveston, etc., R. Co. r. Sileg- 
 man (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 298; Cross 
 V. Graves. 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 100, 16 
 S. W. 102; International, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Griffith (Tex. Civ. App.). 103 S. W. 225, 
 affirmed in 102 Tex. 585. no op. 
 
 93. Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio Valley, 
 etc., Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. E. 821. 
 
 94. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 119 
 Ind. 352. 21 N. E. 341, 40 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 85. 
 
 If no mistake or fraud is charged in the 
 execution of the contract it will be con- 
 clusively presumed tiiat all oral negotia- 
 tions and representations, not only as to 
 the terms and conditions on which the 
 goods are received, but also as to the route 
 by which they are to be forwarded are 
 merged in the bill of lading which will be 
 received as the sole evidence of the agree- 
 ment between the parties. McElveen v. 
 Southern R. Co., 109 Ga. 249, 34 S. E. 281, 
 77 Am. St. Rep. 371; Richmond, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Shomo, 90 Ga. 496. 16 S. E. 220. 
 
 95. Conclusiveness as to rate. — Where 
 plaintiff claims that he entered into a 
 verbal agreement with a railroad company 
 for the shipment of cattle at a fixed rate, 
 parol evidence is admissible to show what 
 that agreement was, though plaintiff 
 signed a bill of lading showing a differ- 
 ent rate; both parties testifj'ing that 
 plaintiff received the bill of lading just 
 as the train with the cattle, which he was 
 to accompany, was leaving, and that he 
 signed it on the assurance of defendant 
 that it was all right. Galveston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. House, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 263, 23 S. 
 W. 332. 
 
 96. McElveen v. Southern R. Co.. 109 
 Ga. 249, 34 S. E. 281, 77 Am. St. Rep. 371; 
 Richmond, etc.. R. Co. v. Shomo. 90 Ga. 
 496, 16 S. E. 220. 
 
 97. When under the terms of a contract 
 for carriage the carrier obligates itself 
 to carry the shipment to one of the 
 termini of its road and there deliver it 
 to a connecting line of railroad or 
 steamer for transportation to the des- 
 tination of the goods, evidence of a parol 
 representation that the freight would be 
 delivered to a connecting railroad and 
 not to a steamer, is inadmissible to vary 
 the terms of the written agreement. Mc- 
 Elveen V. Southern R. Co.. 109 Ga. 249, 
 34 S. E. 2S1. 77 Am. St. Rep. 371.
 
 §§ 471-473 
 
 CARRIICRS. 
 
 536 
 
 shipment in descending a river "^ and tlial the goods shall l)e delivered within 
 a definite and specific time.'"' 
 
 Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Prior Verbal Contract. — While hy 
 reason of frand or mistake it is permissihle for a shipper to otfer evidence of a 
 verbal contract of shipment not merged in the hill of lading delivered to him, 
 such contract must he clearly proxcd.' 
 
 Contract Distinct from Bill of Lading. — A prior verbal contract between 
 a shipper and carrier entirely distinct from the subsequent bill of lading, which 
 limits the carrier's liability, is not merged therein. ^ 
 
 § 472. To Explain Ambiguities and Technical Terms. — Abbreviations 
 and technical terms in bills of lading create such amhiguity that they may be 
 explained by parol testimony. The theory upon which parol testimony is allowed 
 in such case is that symbols of trade having a definite meaning may be inter- 
 preted, and the interpretation becomes a part of the writing. If the testimony 
 introduced as to the meaning of such trade symbols is conflicting, then it is for 
 the jurv to determine their proper signification.'' 
 
 Figures. — Where figures contained in the bill of lading are ambiguous, parol 
 evidence is properly admitted to prove their meaning.-* 
 
 §§ 473-476. Parol Evidence to Alter or Contradict Receipt Clauses of 
 Bill — § 473. In General. — In so far as a bill of lading constitutes a receipt — 
 that is, the part wherein is set out the receipt of the goods, the quantity, quality 
 and condition — it may, like other receipts, be explained, altered, varied, or con- 
 tradicted by parol evidence. As a receipt it is prima facie, and not conclusive, 
 evidence of the facts recited, and between the parties it is impeachable for mis- 
 take, error or false statements therein. '"^ This is settled rule in federal courts " 
 
 98. Exclusion of liability for unavoidable 
 losses. — The defendants, being sued as 
 common carriers, offered to prove by a 
 witness that he was present when the 
 bill of lading was executed by the defend- 
 ants and that it was the express contract 
 and understanding between them and the 
 plaintifif that they were not to be respon- 
 sible for any risk or loss that might un- 
 avoidably l)efall the boat or freight in 
 descending the river. Held, that the evi- 
 dence was properly excluded as tending 
 to contradict or vary the bill of lading. 
 Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 82 Am. Dec. 
 617. 
 
 99. Central R., etc., Co. v. Hasselkus, 
 91 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 
 37, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 586. 
 
 1. Sufficiency of evidence to establish 
 verbal contract. — Evidence showing that 
 S., some time prior to shipment, inquired 
 of an agent of a railroad company, own- 
 ing a line from Cincinnati to Dayton, the 
 freight rate from C. to a point beyond 
 his line, and was informed, and later 
 loaded two cars of the company, notified 
 the agent and sent blank bills of lading, 
 with shipping directions, which l)ills of 
 lading were returned by the agent duly 
 signed, does not estaljlish a verbal con- 
 tract, with common-law liability, and the 
 trial court very properly overruled a mo- 
 tion for a new trial on the ground that 
 the verdict was against the weight of the 
 evidence. Shaffer & Co. v. C. H. & D. 
 R. Co., 14 O. C. C. 488, 8 O. C. D. 66. 
 
 2. Contract distinct from bill of lading. 
 
 — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Elgin Con- 
 densed Milk Co., 175 111. 557, 51 N. E. 
 911, 67 Am. St. Rep. 238. 
 
 3. Symbols of trade — Technical terms. 
 — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Southern 
 Flour, etc., Co., 136 Ga. 538, 71 S. E. 884. 
 
 "Care W. A." has been construed to 
 mean in care of the Western and Atlantic 
 Railroad Company. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Southern Flour, etc., Co., 136 Ga. 
 538, 71 S. E. 884. 
 
 4. Figures. — Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 17 
 S. E. 904. 
 
 5. Parol evidence to alter or contradict 
 receipt clauses. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Citizens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 N. W. 
 154, 30 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 290, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 As a receipt, a bill of lading is, like 
 
 other receipts, only prima facie evidence 
 
 of what is expressed in it, and may be 
 
 explained by aliunde evidence. Wood v. 
 
 Perry (O.), Wright 240. 
 
 6. The Delaware (U. S.^ 14 Wall. 579, 
 601, 20 L. Ed. 779; Clark v. Barnwell (U. 
 S.), 12 How. 272, 13 L. Ed. 985; The 
 Lady Franklin (U. S.), 8 Wall. 325, 19 
 L. Ed. 455; The J. W. Brown (U. S.), 1 
 Diss. 76; The Wellington (U. S.), 1 Biss. 
 279; The Joseph Grant (U. S.), 1 Biss. 
 193; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Ruden (U. S.), 
 6 Cranch 338, 3 L. Ed. 242; Nelson v. 
 Woodruff (U. S.), 1 Black 156, 17 L. Ed. 
 97; Higgins v. United States Mail, etc.,
 
 2,?>7 lilLLS OF LADING. §§ 473-474 
 
 and in the states of Alabama,' Arkansas,'' California.-' Connecticut,^" Georgia, ^^ 
 Illinois,'- Iowa.'' Louisiana," Maine.''' Maryland,"' Massachusetts,^" Mich- 
 igan,'*^ Minnesota, 1'' Missouri,-" New York,-^ North Carolina.-- CJhio.^-^ Penn- 
 sylvania.-' Texas, -•"• X'erniont,-" West X'irginia.-" Wisconsin,-^ and others ; and 
 in England.'--' 
 
 § 474. Recital of Fact of Receipt and Quantity of Goods. — A bill of 
 
 lading issued In a conmKin carrier, as between ibe (original jiarlies to the con- 
 tract, is, so far as it acknowledges the receipt by the common carrier of a cer- 
 tain (|uantity of goods for shipment, only prima facie and not conclusive evidence 
 
 Co., Fed. Cas. No. 04C)9. :5 Blatchf. 2S2; 2\) X. W. '/.V.i; McMillan v. Michigan, etc., 
 
 The Ship Howard (U. S.), 1« How. 2:n, R. Co.. Ifj Mich. 79, 9.1 Am. Dec. 208. 
 
 15 L. lul. :3(;3; The Guidinsjr vStar. (12 l'\'d. 19. -National Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 
 407; Sutton v. Kettcll. Fed. Cas. No. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. :i42, 9 L. R. 
 
 13G47. 1 Spr. 309. A.. N. S., 263. 20 Am. St. Rep. .566; Nor- 
 
 7. VVayland v. Mosely. 5 .\la. 430. 39 to„ ,, Baxter, 41 Minn. 146, 16 .\m. St. 
 Am. Dec. 335; Cox v. Peterson. 30 Ala. Rgp (579 
 
 608 68 Am. Dec 145^ Compare Peck ^^ Missouri v. Webb. 9 Mo. 193; Mc- 
 
 f. Dnismore (Ala.) 4 Port. 212. p^^^l^,^ ^, Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 92 Mo. 
 
 8. A bill of ladmg. as a receip . is 3^3 ^ 5 ^^j ^ _^^ g^ j^ .^^ 
 prima facie and not conclusive evidence ^, ' , vr -.r ,,-, • 
 of the facts recited, and. between the 21. Meyer r. Peck 28 N Y 590; VVhite 
 original parties, is impeachable for mis- '- ^ »" J^"'^ (N. Y ). 2-, Barb 16; Fitz- 
 take. error, or false statements therein. li"gh v. W iman, 9 N. Y. 559, Seld. Notes 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Citizens' Bank. 250; \ an Etten v. Newton 134 N. \. 
 87 Ark. 26, 30 R. R. R. 290, 53 Am. & 1-13, 31 N. E. 334, 30 Am. St Rep. 630; 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 290, 112 S. \V. 154, Wolfe v. Meyers (N. Y.), 3 Sandf. 7. 
 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 22. Black 1'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 
 9. Pereira r. Central Pac. R. Co., 66 92 N. C. 42, 53 Am. Rep. 450; Peele 7: 
 Cal. 92. 4 Pac. 988. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 149 N. C. 390, 63 
 
 10. Rclvca V. New Haven Rolling Mill S. E. 66. 
 
 Co.. 42 Conn. 579, 75 Fed. 420. 23. Wood c'. Perry (Q.). Wright 240; 
 
 11. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. :■. Cohn & May f. Babcock. 4 O. 334; Page & Co. f. 
 Co., 6 Ga. App. 572, 573. 65 S. E. 355; Sandusky, etc.. R. Co., 4 West. L. Month. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. z: Cook, 4 Ga. App. 644, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 716; Dean z: King, 
 698, 62 S. E. 464; McElveen v. Southern 22 O. St. 118. followed in 35 O. St. 258, 
 R. Co., 109 Ga. 249. 77 Am. St. Rep. 371. (following 22 O. St. 111). 
 
 34 S. E. 281. 24. Cafiero r. Welsh, Fed. Cas. No. 
 
 12. Bissel 7'. Price, 16 111. 4()S: Mcr- 2286, 8 Phila. 130; Baltimore, etc.. Steam- 
 chants' Dispatch Transp. Co. ?■. Furth- boat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. 77; Franklin 
 
 mann, 47 111. App. 561. affirmed in 149 111. Trust Co. x: Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 66, 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. Rep. 265. 222 Pa. 96. 70 Atl. 949, 22 L. R. A., N. 
 
 13. Wisconsin z\ Young (Iowa). 3 G. S.. 828. 
 
 Greene 268; Chapin 7'. Chicago, etc., R. A bill of lading, in so far as it is a re- 
 Co.. 79 Iowa 582, 44 N. W. 820. ceipt. is not conclusive, but is open to 
 
 14. Kirkman 7'. Bowman (La.), 8 Rob. explanation between the original parties, 
 246; Hunt :\ Mississippi Cent. R. Co.. 29 and, wlicre marked "not negotiable," the 
 La. Ann. 446; Sonia Cotton Oil Co. z: same rule applies to third parties. 
 Steamer Red River, 106 La. 42, 30 So. Franklin Trust Co. z\ Philadelphia, etc.. 
 303. 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. R. Co., 222 Pa. 96. 70 Atl. 949, 22 L. R. 
 
 15. O'Brien z: GiJchrist. 34 Me. 554. 56 A.. N. S.. 828. 
 
 Am. Dec. 676: Tarliox z\ Eastern Steam- 25. Cohen Bros. z\ Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 boat Co.. .-)0 Me. 339: Witzler z\ Collins, Co.. 44 Tex. Civ. App. 381. 383. 98 S. W. 
 
 70 Me. 290. 35 Am. Rep. 327. 437; House z\ Holland, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 16. Atwcll z: Miller, 11 Md. :i48, 69 502, 94 S. W. 153; Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 Am. Dec. 206. z: Silcgman (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 
 
 17. Shepherd :•. Navlor (Mass.). 5 298. 
 
 Gray 591; Sears :■. Wingate (Mass.), 3 26. Davis z: Central, etc.. R. Co.. 66 Vt. 
 
 Allen 103; Blanchard .•. Page (Mass.). 8 290. 29 Atl. 313. 44 .-Km. St. Rep. 852. 
 
 Gray 281; Richards f. Doe. 100 Mass. 27. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Rathbone, 
 
 524; Hastings z: Pepper (Mass.). 11 Pick. 1 W. \'a. 87. 88 Am. Dec. 664. 
 
 41; Grace z: Adams. 100 Mass. 505. 1 28. Glass z\ Goldsmith, 22 Wis. 4SS. 
 
 Am. Rep. 131, 97 .\m. Dec. 117; Chandler 29. Bates v. Todd. 1 M. & Rob. 106; 
 
 f. Sprague (Mass.), 5 Mete. 306. 38 Am. Goodrich t'. Norris. .Abb. Adm. 196; 
 
 Dec. 404; Graves z: Lake Shore, etc.. R. Berkley z: Watling. 7 Ad. & El. 29, 34 E. 
 
 Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Rep. 282. C. L. 22; Fowler z: Sterling. 3 L. Can. 
 
 18. Giblions :: Rol)inson. 63 Mich. 146. Jur. 103. 
 
 1 Car— 22
 
 § 474 
 
 CARRIER? 
 
 33S 
 
 of such fact, and mav be rebutted. It operates as a receipt only, and is open to 
 explanation and subject to correction by proof that such merchandise was not 
 in fact received. The bill of lading as a receipt establishes prima facie the re- 
 ceipt of the quantity of goods named by the carrier, having in that regard the 
 same effect as parol testimony as to that fact, which may be overthrown by 
 proper evidence contradicting the fact, and this may be done under the general 
 denials'* This is the established doctrine in the federal courts ; ^i in the courts 
 of Georgia,=5- lowa,=^s Kentucky,-' Louisiana. =^'' :\Iaine,=^<' Maryland,^^' Massa- 
 chusetts.^^ Michigan,3i^ ^linnesota,4f* AUssouri,-*! New York,^^ North Carolina,-'^ 
 Ohio,-*^ Texas,-*'^ Wisconsin,^""' and others; anil in the English ^' and Canadian 
 
 courts. 
 
 Goods Not Delivered to Carrier. — An ordinary bill of lading is not conclu- 
 sive, as to the shipment of the goods. Ordinarily, in so far as it acknowledges 
 receipt of the goods, it is considered merely as a receipt, and extrinsic evidence 
 may be introduced to show that the carrier did not in fact receive the goods 
 tlierein described, or that no goods were in fact delivered to it for transportation, 
 and that, therefore, its liability as a carrier never existed."*^^ This doctrine pre- 
 vails in the federal courts"'^' and in Georgia,''^ Iowa,-'^i Louisiana,-^- Maine,53 
 
 30. Cohen Bros. r. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 98 S. W. 437. 
 See post, "As Warranty or Evidence of 
 Quantit}', Qualit}- or Condition of Goods," 
 §§ 488-494. 
 
 31. Recital of fact of receipt and quan- 
 tity of goods. — Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. 
 Co. V. Elder, 42 C. C. A. 130, 101 Fed. 
 1001; Brouty v. Five Thousand Tw^o 
 Hundred and Fifty-Six Bundles of Elm 
 Staves, 21 Fed. 590; Crenshawe v. Pearce, 
 37 Fed. 432; Sutton v. Kettell, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 13647, 1 Spr. 309. 
 
 32. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 62 S. 
 E. 464, 4 Ga. App. 698. 
 
 33. Chapin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 
 Iowa 582, 44 X. W. 820. 
 
 34. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. American 
 Tobacco Co., 126 Ky. 582, 104 S. W. 377, 
 25 R. R. R. 586, 48 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 586. 
 
 35. Fearn, etc., Co. v. Richardson, 12 
 La. Ann. 752; Hunt v. Mississippi Cent. R. 
 Co., 29 La. Ann. 446. 
 
 36. Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 35 
 Am. Rep. 327; O'Brien v. Gilchrist, 34 
 Me. 554, 65 Am. Dec. 676. 
 
 37. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Wilkens, 
 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 38. Shepherd v. Xaylor (Mass.), 5 Gray 
 591. 
 
 39. Gibbons v. Robinson, 63 Mich. 146, 
 29 X. W. 533. 
 
 40. Xational Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 41. A bill of lading is only prima facie 
 proof that the carrier received the goods, 
 being a mere receipt which may be re- 
 butted, not being like the contractual 
 clauses contained therein. Milne v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo.- App. 465, l.M 
 S. W. 85. 
 
 42. Abbe v. Eaton, 51 X. Y. 410; Dick- 
 erson v. Seelye (X. Y.), 12 Barb. 99; 
 
 Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590; Van Santen 
 T'. Standard Oil Co. (N. Y.), 17 Hun 140, 
 affirmed in 81 N. Y. 171; White v. Van 
 Kirk (X. Y.), 25 Barb. 16; Rhodes v. 
 Xewhall, 126 N. Y. 574, 27 X. E. 947, 22 
 Am. St. Rep. 859; Ellis v. Willard, 9 N. 
 Y. 529. 
 
 43. Black r. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 92 X. C. 42, 53 Am. Rep. 450; Peele v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 149 X. C. 390, 63 S. 
 E. 66. 
 
 44. Dean v. King, 22 O. St. 118. 
 
 45. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Union Ins. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 975; Cohen 
 Bros. V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 381, 98 S. W. 437. 
 
 46. Glass V. Goldsmith, 22 Wis. 488. 
 
 47. Bates 7-. Todd, 1 M. & Rolx 106. 
 
 48. Goods not delivered to carrier. — See 
 ante, "Receipt of Goods as Prerequisite to 
 Issuance," §§ 429-442. 
 
 49. Brouty v. Five Thousand Two Hun- 
 dred and Fifty-Six Bundles of Elm Staves, 
 21 Fed. 590; Cunard, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 
 53 C. C. A. 310, 115 Fed. 678; Sutton v. 
 Kettell, Fed. Cas. No. 13647, 1 Spr. 309; 
 The Lady Franklin (U. S.). 8 Wall. 325, 
 19 L. Ed. 455; The Tusker, Fed. Cas. Xo. 
 14274, 1 Spr. 70; The Willie D. Sandhoval, 
 92 Fed. 286. 
 
 50. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 4 Ga. 
 App. 698, 701, 62 S. E. 464; Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Cohn & Co., 6 Ga. App. 572, 573, 
 65 S. E. 355. 
 
 51. Chapin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 
 Iowa 582, 44 X. W. 820; Garden Grove 
 Bank v. Humeston, etc., R. Co., 67 Iowa 
 526, 25 N. W. 761, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 695; Wisconsin 7'. Young (Iowa), 3 G. 
 Green 268. 
 
 52. Hunt V. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 29' 
 La. Ann. 446. 
 
 53. O'Brien z: Gilchrist, 34 Me. 554, 5.6 
 Am. Dec. 676; Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me, 
 290, 35 Am. Rep. 327.
 
 339 
 
 BILLS OF LADIXn. 
 
 §§ -+74-475 
 
 Maryland,^-* Massachusetts.-"'"' Missouri,''" Xew ^'ork.•" Ohio,-"''^ Texas,"''' Wis- 
 consin.*'" and other states; and in I'ji<,dand '•' and Canada. "- 
 
 Less Goods Received than Receipted for. — In a suit on a bill of lading, 
 in the usual f(jrni, {or the n()n(lcli\ery of the goods therein described, the de- 
 fendant carrier may shdw hy ])ar()l evidence that the quantity of goods received 
 was less than that acknowledi^a-il in the Ijill, thereby contradicting the reccijit 
 clause of the Ijill.'""- 
 
 Greater Amount Received than Receipted for. — The receipt clause of a 
 bill of lading- may be contradicted b\- parol evidence showing that a greater 
 amount of goods was received than that stated in the bill.''' 
 
 § 475. Recital as to Quality or Condition of Goods. — A bill of lading 
 may be contradicted and explained b)- paml in its recital that the goods were in 
 good order and well conditioned, by showing that their internal stale and con- 
 dition was bad or not such as is represented in the instrument.''-'' 
 
 54. P.altimorc, etc.. R. Co. v. Wilkens, 
 44 M(l. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26; Lazard v. Mer- 
 cliants', etc., Transp. Co., 78 Md. 1, 26 
 .\tl. S'.IT. 
 
 55. Hall 7: Mayo (Mass.), 7 Allen 454; 
 Ryder v. Hall (Alass.), 7 Allen 456; Shep- 
 herd V. Naylor (Mass.), 5 Gray 591. 
 
 56. Missouri v. Webb. 9 Mo. 193. 
 
 57. Al)be V. Eaton, 51 N. Y. 410; Graves 
 V. Harwood (N. Y.), 9 Barb. 477; Meyer v. 
 Peck, 28 N. Y. 590, affirmed in Xi Barb. 
 5.32; Rhodes v. Nevvhall, 126 N. Y. 574, 27 
 X. E. 947, 22 Am. St. Rep. 859. 
 
 58. Dean r. King-, 22 O. St. 118; 
 Wood r. Perry (O.). Wright 240; Adams 
 7-. Brig Pilgrim, 10 West. L. J. 141, 1 O. 
 Dec. 477. 
 
 59. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Union Ins. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 975. 
 
 60. Glass V. Goldsmith, 22 Wis. 488. 
 
 61. Bates v. Todd, 1 M. & Rob. 106. 
 
 62. Horseman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 31 U. C. Q. B. 535; Erl) 7'. Great Western 
 R. Co.. 5 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 179. 
 
 63. Umtcd States. — American Sugar-Re- 
 fining Co. V. Maddock. 36 C. C. A. 42. 93 
 Fed. 980; Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. Co. v. 
 Elder. 42 C. C. A. 130, 101 Fed. 1001; St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 
 :;() L. Ed. 1077. 7 S. Ct. ll?2; The Isola 
 Di Procida, 124 Fed. 942; The Querini 
 Stamphalia, 19 Fed. 123; The Tusker, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 142, 74, 1 Spr. 70. 
 
 .l/«/»r.— O'Brien z: Gilchrist, 34 Me. 554, 
 56 Am. Dec. 676. 
 
 Massdcluisetts. — Hall r. Mayo (Mass.). 
 7 Allen 454; Kelley r. Bowkcr (Mass.), 11 
 Gray 428, 71 Am. Dec. 725; Ryder v. Hall 
 (Mass.), 7 Allen 456. 
 
 Xc7i' I'or/c— Graves v. Harwood (N. Y.), 
 9 Barb. 477; Meyer r. Peck (N. Y.). 33 
 Barb. 532. affirmed in 28 N. Y. 590; Van 
 Santen v. Standard Oil Co., 17 Hun 140, 
 affirmed in 81 N. Y. 171. 
 
 Ohio.— Dean v. King. 22 O. St. 118. 
 
 In an action by the shipper against the 
 owners of a steamboat engaged in the 
 l)usincss of common carriers, to recovc 
 for the nondelivery of goods as per bill of 
 lading, the defendants are liable only for 
 
 so r.iich of the goods as was actually re- 
 ceived on the boat and in such action pa- 
 rol evidence is admissil)lc to contradict 
 the terms of the bill of lading, in so far 
 as it purports to be a receipt for freight 
 delivered to the boat. Dean v. King. 22 
 O. St. 118, followed in 35 O. St. 258 (fol- 
 lowing and approving 22 O. St. 111). 
 
 Texas. — Cohen Bros. v. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co., 44 Te.x. Civ. App. 381, 98 S. W. 
 437. 
 
 Thus, under its general denial, it can 
 show that it had not in fact received fifty- 
 five cases of shoes, as called for in the bill 
 of lading, hut only forty-nine cases, 
 which was the numi)er delivered by it to 
 plaintifT. PlaintifT's cause of action was 
 based upon the fact that the fifty-five cases 
 had been delivered for shipment. De- 
 fendant had a right to show, notwith- 
 standing the bill of lading, which was 
 only, in this respect, a receipt for the 
 goods, that only forty-nine cases had been 
 so delivered. This necessarily involved 
 the fact that the bill of lading, as a re- 
 ceipt for so many cases, had been exe- 
 cuted bv mistake. Cohen Bros. v. Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 381. 
 382, 98 S. W. 437. 
 
 Canada. — Horseman v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 31 U. C. Q. B. 535. 
 
 64. Greater amount received than re- 
 ceipted for. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. Cohn 
 & Co., 6 Ga. App. 572, 573, 65 S. E. 355. 
 
 65. United States. — The Delaware (U. 
 S.), 14 Wall. 579, 601, 20 L. Ed. 779; 
 Clark z: Barnwell (U. S.), 12 How. 272, 13 
 L. Ed. 985. See post, "As Warranty or 
 Evidence of Quantity. Quality or Condi- 
 tion of Goods," §§ 488-494. 
 
 .Alabama. — Waj'land v. Moselv. 5 Ala. 
 430, 39 Am. Dec. 335. 
 
 Maine. — O'Brien v. Gilchrist. 34 Me. 
 554, 56 Am. Dec. 676. 
 
 Minnesota. — The bill as an acknowledg- 
 ment of the character, and condition of 
 the articles delivered ai d received, may 
 be explained, varied, or contradicted by 
 parol evidence like other receipts. Nor- 
 ton z'. Baxter, 41 Minn. 146. 1(5 Am. St. 
 Rep. 679.
 
 §§ 476-481 CARRIERS. 340 
 
 § 476. Recital as to Ownership of Goods. — An erroneous statement in 
 a bill of lading as to the ownership of the goods may be explained or contra- 
 dicted by parol.*'^' 
 
 § 477. Recitals as to Rate and Receipt of Freight. — The consideration 
 clause in bills of lading, ordinarily, has only the force and effect of a receipt, 
 and is open to explanation and contradiction by parol evidence.'"' A stipulation 
 in a bill of lading for a reduced or special rate of freight is not conclusive, but 
 only prima facie, evidence, open to explanation and contradiction. Where the 
 billfalselv recites that a reduced rate of freight is given, in consideration of 
 which the shipper agrees to accept a limited valuation for the property trans- 
 ported, in case of its loss through the negligence of the carrier, recital is not 
 conclusive on the shipper liut open to contradiction and exi)lanation."'^ 
 
 § 478. Destination or Place of Delivery. — Place of Delivery. — If by 
 mistake the terms of a bill of lading bind the carrier to deliver the goods at an 
 inconvenient and expensive place, the carrying i)art of the contract may be ex- 
 plained by parol evidence.'''* 
 
 § 479. Terminus of Road. — Instance where parol evidence was properly 
 admitted to show that San Antonio was the carrier's terminus instead of Junc- 
 tion City Kansas, misrecited as such in the shipping contract, where other pro- 
 visions of the contract showed such recital to be inconsistent with the main pro- 
 visions of the contract."" 
 
 §§ 480-481. As Contract of Carriage— § 480. As Imposing Liability 
 of Common Carrier. — Where the defendants, whose general business was that 
 of common carriers, gave to the plaintiffs a bill of lading, setting forth that they 
 had shipped, in good order and condition, certain iron, to be delivered to the 
 plaintiffs or their assigns in like order and condition, the dangers of the seas only 
 excepted; it was held that if not otherwise liable as common carriers, they con- 
 tracted such liability by the bill of lading, which bound them to deliver the iron 
 in good order and condition as they had received it, the dangers of the sea only 
 excepted."^ 
 
 § 481. As Contract to Carry Specified Thing. — A bill of lading is a con- 
 tract to carr\- and deli\x'r the specific thing named therein.'^- 
 
 66. Recital as to ownership. — Maryland Oil Co. v. Steamer Red River, 106 La. 
 Ins. Co. V. Ruden (U. S.), 6 Cranch 338, 42, 30 So. 303, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 3 L. Ed. 242. See post, "As Evidence or Evidence of custom. — See ante, "Usage 
 
 Warranty of Title or Ownership." §§ 49(5- and Custom," § 4G0. 
 
 498. 70. Terminus of road. — Swank v. San 
 
 67. Recitals as to rate and receipt of Antonio, etc., R. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 
 freight.— I-ontaine v. P.oatmcn"s Sav. Inst., G75. 681, 23 S. W. 249. 
 
 .57 Mo. .552; Hollocher v. Hollocher, (■)2 71. As imposing liability of common 
 Mo. 267; Edwards v. Smith, 63 Mo. 119; carrier. — Stephens, etc., Transp. Co. v. 
 McFadden v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tuckcrman, etc., Co., 33 N. J. L. 543. 
 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721. 72. A contract to carry a specific thing. 
 Parol evidence is admissible to show — Where a common carrier receives corn 
 that a lower rate of freight named in jn bulk for shipment in a certain desig- 
 a bill of lading is the regular rate charged nated car, and by its proper agents re- 
 all persons under the same circumstances, ceipts so-called "dray tickets" therefor, 
 as this does not tend to vary or con- and issues a bill of lading thereon at 
 tradict the written contract, but merely fixed price for shipment to a certain 
 to explain an ambiguity. Cross v. point, it is a contract to carry that spe- 
 Graves, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 100, 16 cific car of corn, and it is a breach of 
 S. W. 102. the contract for the carrier thereafter to 
 
 68. McFadden v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., unload and refuse to ship it, and substi- 
 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. tute therefor another carload of corn, 
 721. See ante, "Stipulations as to \'alue." though it may presumal)ly l)e of the same 
 § 511. grade and quality — no fact appearing in 
 
 69. Place of delivery. — Sonia Cotton proof showing assent of the shipper
 
 341 
 
 lill.I.S OF LAIMXG. 
 
 §§ 482-4^ 
 
 §§ 482-483. As Evidence of Fact and Time of Receipt and Accept- 
 ance of Shipment § 482. As Evidence of Fact of Receipt and Accept- 
 ance of Shipment. — A hill of Jailing fair on its face is prima facie evidence 
 that the- tarricT rc'cc'i\ (.(l ' •■ ai^i acccjilcd the shipment.''* 
 
 Bill Referring to Standard Form of Bill of Lading. ^A bill of lading is 
 in form only a receipt for freij^lit, issued to the consignor, containing the con- 
 tract of shi[jment. so that, in an action for failure to deliver part of the shi])- 
 ment, a pa])er, which had heen recognized as valid by the carrier's agent at desti- 
 nation, all the goods which had arrived being turned over on its presentation, and 
 which was of the same effect as a regular printed bill of lading, it. in ad<lition 
 to Ijeing a receipt, containing the specification, "as ])er conditions company's bill 
 of lading," thus supplying the essential that a mere receipt might lack, was proj)- 
 crly admitted against the carrier."-'" 
 
 Best Evidence Rule. — The fact of the delivery of freight to a common car- 
 rier for carriage ma\' be proven by oral testimony, notwithstanding the existence 
 of a receipt or bill of lading given by the carrier for such freight. Such re- 
 ceipt or liill of lading does not fall within the best evidence rule as prooi of 
 such fact of deli\"cry.''''' 
 
 Burden of Proof of Falsity of Bill. — A receii)t by a carrier for freigh.t, 
 though not conclusi\e. creates a presumption that it received the freight directed 
 therein, and the l)urden is on it to show the contrary.'^" 
 
 § 483. Time of Receipt of Shipment. — In the aljsence of convincing 
 testimony establishing a mistake, the recital of a bill of lading showing that the 
 carrier received a car for shipment on a specified day must control."'^ 
 
 § 484. Destination or Place of Delivery. — The contract in a bill of lad- 
 ing particularly covers the obligation of carrying the goods to destination and 
 of delivering them to the consignee. From that ]:)oint of view, the carrier was 
 
 thereto. The shipper or consignee is not 
 bound to accept such substituted corn, 
 nor, if it arrive at its destination in a 
 damaged condition, to brii.g his action 
 therefor as to such substituted corn, hut 
 has a right of action against the carrier 
 for the breach of the contract of ship- 
 ment of the corn named in his bill of lad- 
 ing. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Parrott, 
 11 Wkly. L. Bull. 296, 9 O. Dec. Reprint 
 252, distinguishing Dean z\ King, 22 O. 
 St. 118. 
 
 73. As evidence of fact of receipt and 
 acceptance of shipment. -Milne x'. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 1.").") Mo. App. 4()."). i:i.") 
 S. W. 85; Scigfried f. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo.), 12() S. W. 79S; Cohen Bros. 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 381, 98 S. W. 437. See ante, "Recital of 
 Fact of Receipt and Quantity of Goods," 
 § -174. 
 
 A hill of lading issued l)y a railroad 
 company, returned to it on its demand 
 when the shipper requested the goods to 
 be stopped in transit, was prima facie evi- 
 dence that the company received the 
 goods for shipment. Seigfried 7'. Clii- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (Mo.), 12« S. \V. 7'.ts. 
 
 The ])ill of lading and w:iy-l)ill made 
 by the authorized agent of a common 
 carrier are competent evidence tending 
 to prove that the goods described therein 
 
 were delivered to the carr-er for ship- 
 ment. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Johnston, 
 58 Neb. 236, 78 N. E. 499. 
 
 74. A bill of lading fair on its face calling 
 for the transportation of a car of lum- 
 ber is prima facie proof of the carrier's 
 receipt and acceptance of the lumber. 
 Milne v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 155 Mo. 
 App. 465, 135 S. W. 85. 
 
 75. McMeekin v. Southern Raihvav, 82 
 S. C. 468. 64 S. E. 413. 
 
 76. Best evidence rule. — Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Dexter. 50 Fla. 180, 39 So. 634. 
 1'.) R. R. R. 787, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 X. S., 787, 111 Am. St. Rep. 116. 
 
 77. Burden of proof falsity of bill. — 
 Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. :•. Colin & Co.. 6 
 Ga. App. 572, 573, 65 S. H. 355; Mussel- 
 lam 7\ Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 126 Ky. 
 500, ;n Ky. b. Rep. 908, 104 S. W. 337. 
 
 78. Time of receipt of car. — Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. r. Nelson, 30 Kv. L. Rep. 
 114, 97 S. W. 757. 
 
 A carrier issuing a bill of lading ac- 
 knowledging the receipt of a car on a 
 designated date, which is the date of the 
 hill, is concluded by the bill, and is es- 
 topped from claiming that it had not re- 
 ceived the car, in the absence of evidence 
 that the bill was misdated. Sandford t-. 
 Seahoard. etc.. Railwav, 61 S. E. 74. 79 
 S. C. 519.
 
 §§ 484-486 CARRIERS. 342 
 
 bound to carry the merchandise to the stipulated destination, and there deUver 
 it in accordance with the terms of the bill of lading.'*^ 
 
 Destination Blank.— If the point of destination in a bill of ladmg is left 
 blank, but is clearly shown by indorsement in the end of the bill of lading that 
 the place to which' it was to be shipped is beyond the carrier's own line, it is 
 prima facie an agreement to carr>- to such point in the absence of a stipulation 
 that it was only to carry to the end of its own line.^" 
 
 As Contract between Consignor and Consignee.— Ihlls of lading, and 
 drafts attached, sent by a consignor to the consignee through a bank, on pay- 
 ment of which drafts the consignee received the bills of lading, and, on pres- 
 entation thereof to the carrier, received the consignments in H. county pursuant 
 to the terms thereof, constitute a written contract between the consignor and 
 consignee to deliver the consignments in IT. county.'^ ^ 
 
 §§ 485-487. Person to Whom Delivery Authorized— § 48 5. In Gen- 
 eral.— Goods are deemed lo be consigned to the person named as consignee in 
 the bill of lading, although blanks in the body of the bill for the name of the 
 place of destination and consignee w^ere not filed.''- Ordinarily, the name of a 
 consignee is inserted; and then such consignee, or his indorsee, may receive the 
 goods and acquire a special property in them. Sometimes the shipper, or con- 
 signor, is himself named as consignee, and then the engagement of the carrier 
 is to deliver then to him or his assigns. Sometimes no person is named, the 
 name of the consignee being left blank, wdiich is understood to import an en- 
 gagement to deliver the goods to the person to wdiom the shipper or consignee 
 shall order the delivery, or to the assignee of such person. ^^ 
 
 § 486. Open and Closed Shipments.— L'pon an open shipment the con- 
 signee can obtain possession of the property without first making payment, while 
 npon a "closed" one he can not obtain possession of the shipment without first 
 making payment. '^^ 
 
 79 Place of delivery or destination.— 83. Chandler z\ Sprague (Mass.), 5 
 
 Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. Steamer Red Mete. 306, 38 Am. Dec. 404. 
 
 River, 106 La. 42, 30 So. 303, 87 Am. St. 84. Open and closed shipments. — Smith 
 
 Rep. 293. V. Landa, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 446, 101 S. W. 
 
 80. Destination blank. — Marshall, etc., 470. 
 
 R. Co. V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 176 Defendant shipped a car load of corn 
 
 Mo. 480, 75 S. W. 638. to R. on the order of plaintiff, the ship- 
 
 81 As contract between consignor and ment being an "open" one, so that R. 
 
 consignee.— Callender, etc., Co. v. Short, was able to obtam possession of the corn 
 
 78 S W 366, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 364. without payment. Defendants clerk 
 
 82: Person - whom ^oods consigned^ Zltk^^J^^^:,:^^^r1^.X 
 
 -A bill of If^^ "7 JX^.oods to be indicating a '-closed" shipment, and at- 
 from the consij^nor of the goods ,to e ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^^ ^^,^.^j^ ^^^^ p^j^ 
 
 delivered to his or th^'r assigns am i^i^tiff. Thereafter plaintiff learned 
 
 stipulated that each package of freight > I ^^^^ ^^^^^^ delivered on an 
 
 should be marked with the name of the ., „ shipment without payment, and 
 
 consignee and f ^tni^t-"' -<=^;P^^J:.P- endeavored^to obtlin paynient from R. 
 
 ments in carload lots to one co.is.gnce. ^^ ^.^ ^^ ^ ,^^^^^^^ insolvent. 
 
 n the margin was wntten S^ W^ O^^f^ Thereupon plaintiff sought to recover the 
 
 mdicat.ng the ""'^'^^•^/[. ^he^ ^ar fol P the corn from defendant on the 
 
 lowed by the name and l^^jti^" "^^ ^he ^^^^ ^^^^ shipment should have 
 
 consignee and the nanie of the connect K ^ ^^^^^^^^^„ ^^^^ ^..^^ding to custom, 
 
 ing carrier. The blanks m the body ot defendant claimed that the order 
 
 the bill for the name of the place of dest - ^>^\t 'e e .j,; „t. Held, that 
 
 nation and consignee were not filed. !,, ' , "-^ Jl^ „L entitled to recover on 
 
 Held, that the goods were, consigned to f -"/,f ^ ^^^ ",°^ .^f^l';^, /because of the 
 
 the person named as consignee, ^ash- ^J {"^^'^^^^ ,^ill „f f^^aing sent to him 
 
 viUe, etc., R. Co. v. Grayson County \at. ""'^ ^J^J^^^^ ^Sn^jth v. Landa, 45 Tex. 
 
 fo^ur'j' ^? ?ivir aSlaro\^rW^' lloT^anl "S^'t^^^^^ -1 S. W. 470. 
 
 o?e uUng decisfo";! of same court in same Evidence.-In such case there was no 
 
 else ill 79 S. W. 1094. prejudice to pla.ntiff in permitting de-
 
 343 
 
 I'.IIJ.S OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 487-489 
 
 § 487. Direction to Notify a Named Person. — A direction in a bill of 
 lading to "notify" a named person shows that he is not intended as the con- 
 signee.'' •"' 
 
 Direction to Notify Shipper of Arrival. — The direction in a hill of ladinj» 
 to notify the shijoper of the arrival of goods at their destination does not change, 
 modify, or (jualify the duty of the carrier to deliver the goods to the shijjper's 
 order as provided hy tlie hill of lading. '''' 
 
 §§ 488-494. As Warranty or Evidence of Quantity, Quality or Con- 
 dition of Goods — §§ 488-491. Effect as Warranty of Quantity, etc. — 
 § 488. In General. — Persons are not entitled to assume that the master of 
 vessel has authority, though his owners really gave him no such authority, to 
 estimate and determine and state on the bill of lading, so as to bind his owners, 
 the particular mercantile quality of the goods before they are put on board, as, 
 for instance, that they are goods containing such and such a percentage of good 
 or bad material, or of such and such a season's growth. To ascertain such mat- 
 ters is- obviously quite outside the scope of the functions and capacities of a 
 ship's cai)tain and of the contract of carriage with which he has to do.*'" 
 
 § 489. Recital That Contents Unknown. — Where a bill of lading con- 
 tains iio warranly that the gcKxIs (Iescrilje<l shall answer any particular quality, 
 but on the contrary expressly specifies' that the contents of the package is un- 
 known, it does not operate as guaranty as to quantity or quality of the ar- 
 ticles ; ^^ although a statute makes the carrier liable for the loss resulting from 
 the issuance of a bill of lading when no property has been received."'-^ The 
 words "contents unknown" being annexed to a bill of lading, imply that the 
 carrier only meant to acknowledge the shipment in good order of the cases, as 
 to their external condition.'"* excluding any implication as to quantity or quality 
 
 fendaiit to testify that he had frequently 
 made shipments to plaintiff's father-in- 
 law, who vvas wealthy, and that all the 
 shipments were "open." Smith v. Landa, 
 45 Tex. Civ. App. 446, 101 S. W. 470. 
 
 A clerk in the employ of defendant 
 having testified that the railway agent 
 agreed to so make the shipment that the 
 consignee could not obtain possession 
 thereof without first making payment and 
 the agent having denied such agreement, 
 it was proper to permit defendant to 
 testify as to what shipping instructions he 
 had given his office force. Smith v. 
 Landa, 4.5 Tex. Civ. App. 446, 101 S. W. 
 470. 
 
 It was proper to refuse to permit de- 
 fendant's clerk who attended to the ship- 
 ment to testify that he would not have 
 made the shipment on plaintifTs credit; 
 it not appearing that he had authority to 
 determine the character of shipments. 
 Smith V. Landa, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 446, 101 
 S. W. 470. 
 
 85. .'Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. Dahlberg 
 Brokerage Co.. 170 Ala. 617, 54 So. 168; 
 Pisapia v. Hartford, etc., Transp. Co., 116 
 X. Y. S. 26. 62 Misc. Rep. 607. 
 
 86. Direction to notify shipper of ar- 
 rival of goods at destination. — -Midland 
 Xat. Bank v. Missouri I'ac. R. Co.. i:]2 
 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. Rep. 
 505. 
 
 87. Warranty of quality. — St. Louis, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Knight. 122 U. S. 79. 30 
 L. F.d. 1077, 7 S. Ct. ii;;2. 
 
 88. Statement that contents of packages 
 are unknown.— St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Knight. 122 U. S. 79, 89. 30 L. Ed. 1077, 
 7 S. Ct. 1132; Clark v. Barnwell (U. S.), 
 12 How. 272, 13 L. Ed. 985; Bank v. New 
 York, etc.. R. Co., 60 Am. Rep. 440, 443, 
 106 N. Y. 195. 12 N. E. 433, 32 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 497. 
 
 89. Statute imposing liability for loss 
 where no goods received. — Where a car- 
 rier's agent, on receiving s shipment of 
 cotton, did not weigh it, but issued a bill 
 of lading on a certificate of a compress 
 company, which delivered the cotton in a 
 sealed car. and the ImU stated, "contents 
 and condition of contents of packages un- 
 known." though the cotton weighed less 
 than the weight given in the bill, whereb}'^ 
 the consignee, who purchased from thi 
 consignor, was deceived, to his injury, the 
 carrier was not liable to the consignee, 
 either under general principles or under 
 Code 1896, § 4223, making a carrier liable 
 for loss resulting from the issuance of 
 a bill of lading when no property has 
 been received. Alabama, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth Cotton Mfg. Co.. 42 So. 
 406. 146 Ala. :5SS. 
 
 90. "Contents unknown" applies only to 
 external condition. — Clark v. Barnwell 
 (L'. S.). 12 How. 272. 13 L. Ed. 985. 
 
 Wliere the l)ill of lading contains a 
 clau.-;e that the contents of the packages
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 344 
 
 §§ 489-490 
 
 of the article, or condition of it at the time received, or whether properly packed 
 or not in the cases. ''^ 
 
 § 490. Recital That Goods in "Good Order," etc.— A hih of lading in 
 which the carrier acknowledges that the goods have heen received by hnn ni 
 "good condition," '•- in "good order," '-'^^ or in "apparent good order," '•^•* is prima 
 facie evidence of that fact and renders him prima facie liable for the damages 
 if they are lost or injured ; but do not preclude him from showing that the loss 
 proceeded from some cause which was not apparent at the time he received the 
 troods: for it is well settled, that statements contained in bills of lading to the 
 effect that the goods mentioned therein were received in "good order," or "good 
 condition." are in the nature of mere admissions — mere written declarations — 
 not conclusive or nonexplainable as against the party making them, much less 
 as against one who did not.''-' 
 
 Carrier Receiving Goods Knowing Them to Be in Bad Condition.— 
 Where a carrier receives goods, knowing that some are not in good condition, 
 and issues a bill of lading reciting that they are in good order, the carrier can 
 not assert the contrary, where the bill of lading is in the hands of an innocent 
 purchaser for value.'"' 
 
 Statement That Goods Were Not in Bad Order.— Where a carriers re- 
 ceipt states that the goods, when received, were not in bad order, but they are 
 damaged when delivered to consignee, the presumption is that the damage oc- 
 curred while they were under the carrier's control.'*' In such case there is no 
 requirement that the owner should prove by evidence aliunde that the goods 
 were not damaged when the carrier received them.'*^ 
 
 Evidence. — Where it was an issue whether certain cotton, receipted for by 
 a shipper as in good order, was injured by water before being received on the 
 
 receipted for are unknown, an acknowl- 
 edgment of the master as to the condi- 
 tion of the goods when received on board 
 extends only to the external condition of 
 the cases. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 85, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 
 7 S. Ct. 1132. 
 
 91. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 
 U. S. 79, 8.5. 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132. 
 
 92. Recital that goods in "good condi- 
 tion" in "good order," etc. — Bath v. Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 
 237, 78 S. W. 993; Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Ivy, 79 Tex. 444, 15 S. W. 692; Mis- 
 souri Pac. Co. V. Fennell, 79 Tex. 448, 15 
 S. W. 693. 
 
 Where defendant, a connecting carrier, 
 receipted for certain furniture to a steam- 
 ship company as received in good condi- 
 tion, such receipt, while subject to ex- 
 planation, was evidence that the goods 
 were received by defendant from the 
 steamship in good condition. Interna- 
 tional, etc., R. Co. V. Shands (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 93 S. W. 110.3. 
 
 93. Recital that goods were received in 
 good order. — Xelson v. Woodruff (U. S.). 
 1 Black 156, 17 L. Ed. 97; Austin v. Talk, 
 20 Tex. 164. 
 
 94. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Jamieson, 
 20 Okla. 654, 95 Pac. 417. 
 
 As a general rule, the recital in a Ijill of 
 lading that the goods were received in 
 apparent good order, makes a prima facie 
 case against the carrier when the goods 
 
 are delivered by it in an injured condition. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Holder & Co., 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 223, 225, 30 S. W. 383. 
 
 If the goods are open to inspection 
 when received by the carrier, then the 
 production of his receipt reciting that 
 they were in apparent good order, throws 
 the l)urden upon him to rebut it. But 
 should the goods be incased in boxes, 
 and such are delivered without there be- 
 ing any external evidence of injury, and 
 are in apparent good order, the plaintiff 
 must show the good condition when de- 
 livered to the initial carrier. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Holder & Co., 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
 233, 225, 30 S. W. 383. 
 
 95. A bill of lading issued by a carrier 
 reciting that goods were received in ap- 
 parent good order is not conclusive, but 
 it may be shown that they were not in 
 good order. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jamieson, 20 Okla. 654, 95 Pac. 417. 
 
 Texas. — Bath v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 34 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 237, 78 S. W. 993; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ivy, 79 Tex. 444, 
 15 S. W. 692; Missouri Pac. Co. v. Fen- 
 nell, 79 Tex. 448, 15 S. W. 693. 
 
 96. Carrier receiving goods knowing 
 them to be in bad condition. — Xew York 
 Millinery, etc., Co. v. Hamburg, etc., Ges- 
 cllscliaft, 171 Fed. 577. 
 
 97. Statement that goods were not in 
 bad order. — International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 lilanlon, etc.. Co., (i:'. Tex. 109. 
 
 98. International, etc., R. Co. v. Blanton, 
 etc., Co., 63 Tex. 109, 112.
 
 343 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 490-492 
 
 ship or afterwards, it was competent for the mate of the ship to testify that he 
 rememhered some cotton heing wet when loaded, though he could not state 
 positively it was the cotton in question, and to state further that as a general 
 rule cotton was receii)ted for as being in good condition if it was apparently 
 so, although he had testified that he did not know why the cotton was receipted 
 for in gofKJ condition.'"' 
 
 Curing- Error in Admission of Bill as Evidence against Connecting 
 Carrier. — In an action for injuries to cotton shipped, ihc giving of a rcquoted 
 instruction that bills of lading issued by the initial carrier for a part of the 
 shipment, stating that the cotton was in good order, were not evidence in the 
 case that the cotton was in good order, cures any error, as against a connecting 
 carrier. l)y the admission of such l)ills containing such stipulation in the evi- 
 dence.^ 
 
 § 491. Recital That "Contents Unknown and in Apparent Good 
 Order." — A recital in a hill of lading that the contents of certain boxes are 
 unknown, and "in apparent good order," does not make a prima facie case, as 
 against the carrier, that the goods were in good order when received, and were 
 injured during transportation, where they were not exposed to view, and the 
 boxes were delivered in apparently the same condition as when received ; - nor 
 l^rexent proof of their actual condition when delivered.^' The words "in ap- 
 parent good order" in a bill of lading refer only to the external apparent con- 
 dition of the goods, and such words create no contract with reference to the 
 condition of the contents of the jiackages. liales. boxes, etc' 
 
 §§ 492-494. As Evidence of Quantity, Quality or Condition of Goods 
 — § 492, As Evidence of Quality or Condition of Goods. — .\ bill of lad- 
 ing raises the presumption that goods were delivered to the carrier for ship- 
 ment in good order.^ So far as regards the condition of the goods shipped, 
 It is prima facie evidence of a high nature, but not conclusive.'^ The master of 
 a vessel or the freight agent of a railroad or other carrier is not authorized to 
 open packages to ascertain their condition. The principle of public policy and 
 the convenience of transportation forbid that bo.xes, bales, etc., should be opened 
 and inspected before being receipted for by carriers. They, therefore, may 
 
 99. Evidence — Admissibility. — Bath v. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 234. 7S S. W. 993. 
 
 1. Curing error in admission of bill as 
 evidence against connecting carrier. — • 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. f. Batli, 40 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 270. 90 S. \V. 00. affirmed in 101 
 Tex. 641, no op. 
 
 2. Recital that "contents unknown and 
 in apparent good order." — (lulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Holder c^ Co., 10 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 223, 30 S. W. 3S3. 
 
 Barrels purporting to contain eggs filled 
 with sawdust Construction of bill of lad- 
 ing. — .\ carrier received from a person 
 representing liimself to be a member of 
 the firm of"^E. W. P. & Co., thirty barrels 
 for transportation over its road, delivered 
 to him a l)ill of lading certifying that it 
 had received of said tirm, "consigned to 
 their orders, the following described pack- 
 a.ges in apparent good order conteiUs and 
 value unknown." This part was printed, 
 following it and before the signature of 
 defendant's agent was written "articles, 
 30 l)bls. eggs." The person receiving the 
 bill indorsed it in blank in the name of 
 
 E. W. P. & Co. and annexed it to a draft 
 drawn upon plaintiff, who tipon faith 
 thereof, accepted and paid the draft. The 
 barrels were filled with sawdust and con- 
 tained no eggs. It was held that the de- 
 scription of the articles was not a repre- 
 sentation that the barrels contained eggs, 
 but. taking the whole bill together, it im- 
 ported that defendant had received thirty 
 packages descril>ed as containing or pur- 
 porting to contain eggs, but the actual 
 contents of which was unknown to the 
 defendant. Miller v. Hannibal, etc., R. 
 Co., 90 N. Y. 430. 43 Am. Rep. 179. 
 
 3. Mears z\ New York, etc.. R. Co.. 75 
 Conn. 171. 56 L. R. A. 8S4, 52 Atl. 610, 
 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 4. "Apparent good order" refers to ex- 
 ternal conditions. ('lulf. etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 Holder & Co., 10 Tex. Civ. App. 22::. 224. 
 30 S. \V. 3S3. 
 
 5. As evidence of quality or condition 
 of goods. — Sunirell :•. .Atlantic, etc.. R. 
 Co., l.")2 X. C. 269, 67 S. E. 5So. 
 
 6. Barrett v. Rogers, 7 Mass. 297, 5 Am. 
 Dec. 45: O'Brien r. Gilchrist. 34 Me. 554. 
 56 Am. Dec. 676.
 
 §§ 492-493 cARRii'RS. 
 
 346 
 
 show that thcv are damaged before coming into their possession." 
 
 Burden of Proof. — The burden is upon the carrier to show that the con- 
 dition stated is incorrect. '^ 
 
 8§ 493-494. As Evidence of Quantity or Weight of Goods— § 493. 
 
 In^General.— The weights stated in the bill of lading are prima facie evidence 
 of the amount received, in favor of the consignee, against the initial or con- 
 necting carrier collecting charges on such statement, though such weights were 
 reported by the consignor to the carrier, and adopted without verification, and 
 though the' bill of lading contains the words, "Weights subject to correction. *j^ 
 
 Acknowledgment Qualified by Expression "Shipper's Load and Count." 
 
 Where a bill of lading acknowledges receipt of a stated number of anicles, 
 
 qualified by the expression "shipper's load and count,'" it is prima facie evi- 
 dence of the receipt of th^ total number of articles stated, but the carrier may 
 overcome the prima facie case thus made by showing that it in fact received 
 a lesser number.^" 
 
 Weight "Subject to Correction" or "Weight Unknown."— Where bdl 
 of lading specified the quantity of cargo, but contained the statements, "'weight 
 and quantity unknown," or "weight unknown," the burden rests upon the car- 
 rier to account for any discrepancy between the quantity delivered and that 
 specified. This burden is met by proof that the full quantity loaded was de- 
 livered, and this may be shown as against a consignee who has paid drafts 
 drawn by the shippers for the full quantity specified, where the bills of lading 
 were attached to the drafts.^ ^ 
 
 Goods Loaded by Carrier's Agent. — The carrier may show as a matter of 
 fact that the goods described in a bill of lading were not received by it, though 
 its agent received the goods which were shipped and loaded the car.^^ 
 
 Surrender of Warehouse Receipt after Execution of Bill of Lading.— 
 The fact that the shipper surrendered to the warehouseman, after the execution 
 of the bill of lading, his warehouse receipt for the full amount named in such 
 bill, will not deprive the carrier of the right to dispute the correctness oi the 
 bill of lading in regard to the amount of goods delivered to it for transportation. ^^ 
 
 Competency of Evidence. — Although it is competent to show what goods 
 
 7. Gody V. Lyon (Ky.), 7 B. Mon. 113; shipped to its destination. The shipper 
 
 O'Brien v. Gilchrist, 34 Me. 534, 56 Am. procured from defendant a blank bill of 
 
 Dec GTG lading which he filled up by inserting the 
 
 8.' Burden of proof.-Atlantic, etc., R. Y^r'"''l as given by the weighmaster. and 
 
 Co. V. Cohn & Co., 6 Ga. App. 572. Go defendants agent signed it The shipper 
 
 o -p or' then forwarded the bill of lading to plain- 
 
 „, ". ', , , . T> HT- tiff at the point of destination and drew 
 
 9. Weight of shipment.-Brown z; Mis- ^,p^,^ ^j^^^^ f^^ ^^^ p^.^^^ ^f ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^. 
 
 soun, etc., R. Co.. 83 Kan. o74, 112 lac. wording to the weight as so stated, but 
 
 1"^^- , upon opening the car a shortage of 14,336 
 
 10. Acknowledgment qualified by ex- pounds was found in the corn and for 
 pression "shipper's load and count." — At- ti;,js ^hey brought suit against the railroad 
 lantic, etc.. R. Co. v. Cohn & Co., G Ga. company. The bill of lading contained 
 App. 572. G5 S. E. 35."). a column at the top of which was the 
 
 11. Weights "subject to correction" or word "Weight," under \yhich were the 
 "weight unknown." — Planters' Fertilizer words "subject to correction." In this 
 Mfg. Co. V. Elder, 42 C. C. A. 130, 101 column the weight of the corn was set 
 Fed. 1001. See ante, "As Agent Bona down. The bill also contained the words 
 Fide Consignee or Transferee," §§ 431-437. "contents and value unknown." It was 
 
 Receipt clause "subject to correction" held that plaintiff, the consignee, had a 
 Weighed by weighmaster of board of right to recover on account of the short- 
 trade and cars sealed — Carrier liable tor age against the carrier, 
 shortage.— In Tibbits & Son v. Rock Is- 12. Goods loaded by carrier's agent.— 
 land, etc., R. Co., 49 111. App. 567, it appeared Peele v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., G3 S. E. 
 that the shipper delivered to defendant rail- 66, 140 X. C. :!'.)0. 
 
 road a quantity of corn for shipment. It 13. Surrender of warehouse receipt after 
 
 was weighed by the weighmaster of the execution of bill of lading. — Glass v. 
 
 Board of Trade, properly sealed, and Goldsmith, 22 Wis. 488.
 
 347 niixs OF ladixg. §§ 493-494 
 
 were in the box when it stalled, and when it was dehvered, and for that pnr- 
 pose to show the weight at the beginning and end of its transportation, and any 
 admission which may have been made by the consignee in reference thereto, it 
 is not error, npon objection, to refuse to allow a witness to testify that "plaintitlf 
 knowingly only paid the freight rate on two hundred and twenty-tive pounds ot 
 freight" from the |)oint of shipment to the point of delivery. '■• 
 
 § 494. Bill Made Exclusive Evidence of Quantity by Agreement.— An 
 express agreement between the parlies may make the bill of lading conclusive 
 evidence of the (|uantily of goods delivered to the carrier and to be delivered to 
 the consignee.''' 
 
 Agreement Must Be Clearly Expressed. — The language of such an agree- 
 ment must not lie ill ihc lca>i amliiguous, and it must clearly show it is intended 
 by both parties to be an exi)ress agrcemcnl and a dei)arture from the usual re- 
 ceipt clause of a bill of lading.^" 
 
 "Quantity Guaranteed" — Evidence of Custom. — W hen a bill of lading ac- 
 knowledging the rcccii)l of a spccitieil ([uanliiy of freight contains the words, 
 "(luantity guaranteed;" the consignee may, in an action to recover for a short- 
 age, prove that the words, "quantity guaranteed," according to the custom of 
 the business, meant that the bill of lading was conclusive evidence of the amount 
 to be delivered; and that, if it fell short, the carrier was to pay for the shortage. 
 I'y the bill of lading itself the carrier guaranteed to deliver the quantity speci- 
 fied, and he was rcs])onsil)k' llicrefor.'' 
 
 Stipulation for Deduction of Deficiency in Quantity for Freight.— A 
 stipulation in a bill of lading, that "any damage or deficiency in quantity the 
 consignee will deduct from balance of freight due the captain" is not a guaranty 
 that the captain has received the whole quantity of goods specified, the words 
 "deficiency in quantity" relating to the property shipped. ^^ A bill of lading con- 
 tained this ])rovision, "all damages caused by boat or carrier, a deficiency of 
 cargo from (juantity, as herein specified, to be paid by the carrier and deducted 
 from the freight, and any excess on the cargo to be paid for to the carrier by 
 the consignees." It w^as held that this was not a guaranty of the quantity speci- 
 fied, or an agreement that the bill of lading should furnish the only evidence of 
 the quantity ; and that no damages could have been sustained in case the carrier 
 delivered all he received.^" 
 
 Where the freight was weighed into the vessel under the supervision 
 and control of the carrier and the bill of lading contained this clause: "All 
 the deficiency in cargo to be paid by the carrier and deducted from the freight 
 and any excess in cargo to be paid for to the carrier by the consignee," the car- 
 rier was estopped in an action to recover freight charges from questioning the 
 correctness of their acknowledgment and was bound to account for the precise 
 quantitv admitted bv the bills of lading to have been received.-'^ 
 
 14. Competency of evidence. — Louis- 19. Alihf ;•. r.at(Mi. ,11 X. Y. 410. 
 villc. etc.. K. Co. 7'. Yudclson, 135 Ga. 20. Acknowledgment of receipt of speci- 
 7,11, TO S. v.. ."iTf"). fied quantity on board Weighed under 
 
 15. A bill of lading made exclusive evi- supervision of carrier Action for freight 
 dence of quantity by agreement.- -Sawyer charges. — In Ivluuks :■. Xcwliall. 12i'> X. 
 7'. Cleveland Iron Min. Co., If. C. C. A. V. -.74, 27 N. E. 047, 22 Am. St. Rep. 859. 
 101, C)!) Fed. 211. it appeared that plaintiffs, as carriers, exe- 
 
 16. Agreement must be clearly ex- cuted and delivered to the consignor bills 
 pressed.- l^issel v. Campliell, 54 N. Y. 353; of ladinpf acknowledging the receipt on 
 Al)be V. Eaton, 51 N. Y. 410; Meyer v. board their vessel of a specified quantity 
 Peck, 28 N. Y. 590, aflfirmed in 33 Barb. of wheat to be transported to B. and 
 532. there delivered to defendant, the agent 
 
 17. Quantity guaranteed — Custom. — Bis- of the consignor, subject to charges. The 
 scl 7'. Caniplull. .■ t X. >'. :i"i". wheat was weighed into the vessel under 
 
 18. Stipulation for deduction of deficien- the supervision and control of the car- 
 cies from freight.— Meyer 7'. Peck, 28 X. riers. .^nd the bills each contained this 
 V. .-,9(1. ' clause: "all the deficiency in cargo to be
 
 §§ 404-407 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 348 
 
 Deficiency in Cargo to Be Paid for by Carrier. — A provision in a bill of 
 lading that all the deticiency in cargo shall be paid by the carrier and dedncted 
 from the freight, makes the carrier an insurer that the amount called for had 
 been delivered to it. and would be redelivered at the end of the route. -^ 
 
 § 495. Effect of Understating Quantity.— The fact that a larger quantity 
 of goods than ihal receipted for in the bill of lading was delivered to the 
 carrier does not give the latter the right to convert the excess,-- although the 
 consignor fraudulently misstated the weight of the goods, and the consignee 
 knew" that the bill of' lading stated the weight at less than it was, and did not 
 notifv the carrier thereof. -•"■ 
 
 §§ 496-498. As Evidence or Warranty of Title or Ownership— § 496. 
 In General. — A bill of lading is a symbol of the ownership of the goods cov- 
 ered by it: a representative of the goods. It is regarded as so much merchan- 
 dise. The merchandise is very often sold or pledged by the transfer of the bill 
 of lading which covers it.--* A bill of lading is property and evidence against a 
 carrier of valuable rights.-'^ It is prima facie evidence of title in the consignor 
 or consignee, but its recitals are not conclusive.-" 
 
 Presumption That Consignee Owner. — Where a bill of lading declared 
 that the consignee therein was the owner of the goods described therein, the 
 presumption was that the consignee was the owner.-' 
 
 § 497. As Warranty of Title of Shipper. — A carrier, in issuing a bill of 
 lading for propert}- delivered to it for transportation, does not warrant the 
 title of the shipper.-''* Hence, it is always a good defense to a carrier, even 
 against an innocent indorsee of the bill of lading, that the property was taken 
 from its possession by one having a paramount title. -'^ 
 
 Burden of Establishing Superior Title. — The burden is on the carrier to 
 clearly establish the superiority of the title to which it has yielded, where it 
 
 paid by the carrier and deducted from the 
 freight, and any excess in the cargo to 
 be paid for to the carrier by the con- 
 signee." Plaintiffs delivered 827 bushels 
 less than the quantity specified in the bills 
 of lading. In an action to recover the 
 stipulated freight, plaintiffs gave evidence 
 tending to show that they delivered all 
 of the wheat that they received. It was held 
 that the value of the deficiency was prop- 
 erly deducted; that plaintiffs were es- 
 topped from questioning the correctness 
 of their acknowledgment and were bound 
 to account for the precise quantity ad- 
 mitted by the bills of lading to have been 
 received. In this case, however, it is said 
 in the opinion: "The consignee in this 
 case is l>ut the agent of the consignor and 
 is authorized to pay only such freight as 
 is provided for by the bill of lading. He 
 can hold the property only for such 
 advances as the bill of lading directs him 
 to make, and there is no principle upon 
 which he can be made liable for any 
 greater amount than that called for by 
 the letter of his authority to pay." 
 
 21. Deficiency in cargo to be paid for 
 by carrier. — Vega Steamship Co. v. Con- 
 solidated Elevator Co., 7.5 Minn. 308, 77 
 X. W. 973, 43 L. R. A. 843. 74 Am. vSt. 
 Rep. 484. 
 
 22. Effect of understating quantity re- 
 
 ceived. — Wiggin V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 120 Mass. 201; Peebles v. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co., 112 Mass. 498. 
 
 23. Wiggin v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 120 
 Mass. 301. 
 
 24. As Evidence or warranty of title of 
 ownership. — Yegen i'. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 19 N. Dak 70, 121 N. W. 205. See 
 post, "Effect of Transfer," §§ .541-576. 
 
 25. As evidence of title and rights. — 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 435, 23 S. W. 618. 
 
 26. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Spires, 1 Ga. 
 App. 22, 57 S. E. 973. See ante, "Recital 
 as to Ownership of Goods," § 476. 
 
 Erroneous statement as to ownership of 
 goods. — A bill of lading, stating the prop- 
 erty to Ijelong to A. and B., is not con- 
 clusive evidence, and does not estop A. 
 from showing the property to belong to 
 another. Maryland Ins. Co. z'. Rudcn (U. 
 S.). 6 Cranch 338. 3, L. Ed. 242. 
 
 27. Presumption that consignee owner. 
 — Sandford v. Seaboard, etc., Railway, 79 
 S. C. 519, 61 S. E. 74. 
 
 28. Effect as warranty of title of ship- 
 per. — National Bank v. Cliicago, ftc, R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. 
 A.. N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 29. National Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566.
 
 349 I! ILLS OF LADING. §§ 497-500 
 
 has delivered tlie property to a third person claiming that the bill of lading 
 was fraudulently obtained, or issued by mistake.-'" 
 
 § 498. Shipment Fraudulently Procured by Person Not Owner of 
 Goods. — The fact that a person falsely ])retends to be the owner of property 
 and prcjcures it to l)e shi])ped in his name, a bill of lading being issued therefor, 
 gi\cs him iim ri.-lu [n (kiiiand llic pro])erty. .\ bill of lading obtained by such 
 fraudulenl representations is void, and it is the duty of the carrier on learning 
 the facts to hold the proi)erty subject to the instructions of the actual owner.''^ 
 
 §§ 499-510. Effect as Vesting Property in Consignee— §§ 499-503. 
 When Property Vests in Consignee — § 499. In General. — T'ne prima facie 
 elTect (jf a bill of lading, as regards the consignee, is to \ est the ownership of the 
 goods consigned by it in him,''- and the transportation is at his risk.-^'- but the 
 proof may show that the consignor is still the owner. •'•^ If the bill of lading 
 shows that the shipment is made for the benefit of the consignee, it is almost 
 decisive of the consignor's intention to part with the ownership of the property.-'"'" 
 
 Right to Receive Goods. — .V consignee's possession of a bill of lading gives 
 him no title to the pro])erty therein described beyond the right to receive it 
 from the carrier and hold it subject to an accounting with the consignor or the 
 true owner.-"' 
 
 Right of Carrier to Treat Consignee as Owner. — The consignee named 
 in the bill of lading is, for all purposes, considered as the owner of the goods, 
 and the carrier is entitled to treat him as the owner until the contrary appears. 
 The shipment in itself, until it is shown that the consignee is not the owner, 
 vests him with the title of owner.-''' 
 
 § 500. Stoppage in Transitu. — Where the consignor buys goods impliedly 
 
 for cash, but does not in fad pay for them, and ships them to the consignee, the 
 bill of lading being in the usual form, the person from whom the consignor 
 bought the goods, can not, upon learning of the consignor's failure in business, 
 
 30. Burden of establishing superior title. X. Y. S. 982, 134 App. Div. 184; Cobb v. 
 — Allaiuic. etc., K. Co. f. Spirts, 1 Ga. Beall. 1 Tex. 342, 349. See, also, Prender- 
 App. 22, 2:!. .")T S. 1-". ut:!, gast v. Williamson, G Tex. Civ. App. 723, 
 
 31. Shipment fraudulently procured by 26 S. W. 421; Campbell v. Alford, 57 Tex. 
 person other than o-wner of goods.^ 159. 
 
 Where after one, who has a common- 33. Shipment pursuant oral contract of 
 
 law lien on an engine for repairs, has put sale. — Where there is an oral contract for 
 
 it on a carrier's platform, to be shipped the sale of wheat, and the wheat is de- 
 
 to the owner C. O. D., tlic owner's agent livered to a common carrier and the bill 
 
 ol)tains a bill of lading l)y fraudulently of lading for it is delivered to the buyer, 
 
 representing himself to be the shipper, the title rests in him, and the transporta- 
 
 the l)ill of lading is void, and does not tion is at his risk. Orthwein's Sons v. 
 
 deprive the real shipper, or his agent, the Wichita Mill, etc., Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 carrier, of right t.o demand payment of 600, 75 S. W. 304. affirmed in 97 Tex. 643, 
 
 the lien as a condition to delivery. Pa- no op.; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 
 
 cific Aviation Co. r. Wells I'argo & Co. heimer, 82 Tex. 19:). 17 S. W. 60S, 27 Am. 
 
 (Ore.). 12S Pac. 4;5S. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 32. Effect as vesting property in con- 34 Qj.^i„ ^, Marx, 65 Tex. 649. 
 signee-Groye f Brien (U. S.). « How "^^ ^33 ^j^ ^^ ^ 
 
 -^"^^^ ^,\J^i ^'^Vnt^'Tri %A -.The W. 858, 54 Am. St. Rep. 672: Emery's 
 
 (U. S.). 17 How. 100, 15 L. bd. a8 1 ne <-■ t . xt ^ d 1 .->- /^ c* orn 
 
 yKj. ^ /. i. xxv^vv. • ,,., j' p, Sons v. Irvmg Nat. Bank, 2o O. St. 360, 
 
 Fricndschaft ( U. S.), 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L. h,d. , p ■ 
 
 322; The Sally Magee (U. vS.), 3 Wall. 451, 1^ Ani^Kep. ...... _, ^. ^. 
 
 18 L Ed 197: Halliday z'. Hamilton (U. 36. Right to receive goods.— First Nat. 
 
 S.), 11 Wall. 560, 20 L. Ed. 214; Scharff Bank v. Ege, U)9 X. \. 120. ic \. 1-.. 
 
 V. Meyer. 133 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. 858, 54 ;n7. 4 Am. St. Rep. 4:;i. 
 Am. St. Rep. 672. 37. Right of carrier to treat consignee 
 
 The consignee named in tlie bill of lad- as o-wner. — Sonia Cotton Oil Co. z: 
 
 ing is presumptively the owner of the Steamer Red River, 106 La. 42. 30 So. 303. 
 
 goods. Gass v. Astoria X'eneer Mills, lis S7 Am. St. Rep. 293.
 
 f§ 500-502 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 350 
 
 stops the goods in transit, and if he does he is Hable in damages to the con- 
 
 signee.-' 
 
 In time of war, a bill of" 
 ' is evidence of the owner- 
 
 § 501. Consignment to Enemy or Neutral. 
 
 lading consigning goods to an enemy,-'-' or a neutra 
 
 ship, going to show a justilication for condemnation in one case, and exemption 
 
 from liability in the other. 
 
 § 502. Consignee Making Advances on Faith of Bill. — \\ here an owner 
 of goods delivers them to a carrier, who issues a bill of lading to a consignee, 
 who advances money on the faith of bills, the latter becomes owner for his 
 own sake to reimburse himself, and after reimbursement, in trust for the former 
 owner.-*^ 
 
 Consignee Bank Advancing Money for Purchase of Goods, — A bank 
 which advances money or credit for the purchase of goods for import, taking 
 the bills of lading in its own name, becomes the legal owner of the goods, but 
 
 38. Seizure of goods in transit by per- 
 son selling to consignor. —Halliday i'. 
 Hamilton (U. S.), 11 Wall. 560, 20 h. Hd. 
 214. See post, "Stoppage in Transitu." 
 § 500; "As Defecting Stoppage in Tran- 
 situ," § 567. 
 
 A. in St. Louis having a standing agree- 
 ment -with B. & Co., in New Orleans, to 
 ship produce to them, drawing against 
 the shipments — the balance of any draft 
 on one shipment not discharged by its 
 proceeds, to be paid from the proceeds of 
 any other shipment — bought of C, resid- 
 ing at Cairo, on the Mississippi, a hundred 
 miles and more below St. Louis, a specific 
 number of sacks of corn, then lying at a 
 landing on the river somewhat above 
 Cairo, though much below St. Louis, aiid 
 received an order for its delivery. He did 
 not pay for it, though tlie transaction was 
 impliedly one for cash. A. delivered his 
 order to the agents of a steamer at St. 
 Louis, then- about to go down the river 
 to New Orleans. These gave to him a 
 regular bill of lading, agreeing to deliver 
 the specified number of sacks of corn to 
 B. & Co. in New Orleans. On the same 
 day A. drew his bill of exchange on B. 
 & Co., in New Orleans telling them to 
 charge the draft to the account of this 
 specific shipment; and attaching to his 
 bill of exchange, the bill of lading thus 
 received, sold the draft in the market. 
 Being forwarded, it was paid at maturity 
 by B. & Co., in New Orleans; they hav- 
 ing had no notice of any difficulty. They 
 were at the time in advance to A. on ac- 
 count of other shipments. The steamer 
 set ofif on her voyage, and stopping at 
 the place where the sacks of corn were, 
 took them on board. Proceeding further 
 on her voyage she same to Cairo, C.'s 
 residence. C. having learned that A. had 
 failed, had not paid for the corn and was 
 insolvent, issued an attachment, and on 
 the arrival of the steamer seized the corn 
 and took it off the boat. On suit brought 
 by B. & Co., for damages, held that after 
 the boat took the corn on board a trans- 
 
 fer of the property to B. & Co. was ef- 
 fected, and that C. had made himself lia- 
 ble for his act of seizure and asportation. 
 Halliday v. Hamilton (U. S.), 11 Wall. 
 5()0, 20 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 39. Consignment to enemy in time of 
 war.— The Sally Magee (U. S.), 3 Wall. 
 451, 18 L. Ed. 197. 
 
 Ownership presumptively in an enemy 
 from a bill of lading to him as consignee 
 is not disapproved by a test affidavit in 
 prize, stating generally that the goods 
 consigned had been purchased for their 
 consignee contrary to his instructions, and 
 that he had rejected them; and that this 
 appeared "from the correspondence of the 
 parties," which the affiant (an asserted 
 agent of the alleged true owner) swore 
 that he "believed to be true," but which 
 neither he nor any one produced, or ac- 
 counted for the absence of; and where, 
 though two years had passed between the 
 date of the claim and that of the decree, 
 the consignors and asserted owners, who 
 lived at Rio Janeiro, had not manifested 
 any interest in the result of the prize 
 proceedings, which were at New York, 
 nor, so far as appeared, had been even ap- 
 plied to in the matter. The Sally Magee 
 (U. S.), 3 Wall. 451, 18 L. Ed. 197. 
 
 40. Consignment to neutral in time of 
 war.— The Friendschaft (U. S.), 3 Wheat. 
 14. 4 L. Ed. 322. 
 
 Bill of lading consigning the goods to 
 a neutral, but unaccompanied by an _ in- 
 voice or letter of advice, is not sufficierit 
 evidence to entitle the claimant to resti- 
 tution; but is sufficient to lay a founda- 
 tion for .introduction of further proof. 
 The Friendschaft (U. S.), 3 Wheat. 14, 4 
 L. Ed. 322. 
 
 41. Consignee making advances on faith 
 of bill. — Armour v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co., (55 N. Y. Ill, 22 Am. Rep. 603; Bank 
 V. Jones, 4 N. Y. 497, 55 Am. Dec. 290; 
 Haille v. Smith, Bos. & Pull. 563; Allen 
 V. Williams (Mass.), 12 Pick. 297; First 
 Nat. Bank v. Shaw, 61 N. Y. 283.
 
 351 
 
 r.IIJ.S 01" LADING. 
 
 §§ 502-505 
 
 its title is not an absolute but only a security title,^^ ^vhich is not divested by de- 
 livery of the goods to the buyer on a trust receipt so as to enable him to create 
 a valid lien thereon."*-' 
 
 § 503. Removal of Goods by Unauthorized Person. — The subsequent re- 
 moval oi the snoods fnmi the vl^scI by ;i person other than the true owner, either 
 with or without the consent of her officers, can not (hvest that ownership.-*^ 
 
 §§ 504-510. When Property Does Not Vest in Consignee— § 504. 
 In General. — The prima facie elTect ol a bill of lading as vesting the property 
 shii)ped in the consignee may be controlled by special clauses in the bill of lading, 
 or by evidence aliunde*"' 
 
 § 505. Bill Not Delivered to Consignee. — See post, " Necessity for De- 
 livery of I'.ill," § 534; "Consignor or Agent," s; ?.V>. 
 
 Inserting in the bill of lading the name of a consignee gives him no 
 property in the goods until a delivery of the bill to him by some one author- 
 ized ; "' but the fact that the seller on shipping the goods to the buyer retains 
 
 42. Consignee advancing money for pur- 
 chase of goods. — Charavay t'. York Silk 
 Mfg. Co., 170 Fed. 819. 
 
 43. A bank which furnislicd the credit 
 to pay for imported goods, taking bills of 
 lading in its own name, is the legal owner 
 of the goods, and its title was not di- 
 vested by delivery of the goods to the 
 importer on a trust receipt, so as to en- 
 able the importer to create a valid lien 
 thereon. Century Throwing Co. v. Mul- 
 ler, lie, C. C. A. (n4, 197 Fed. 252. 
 
 44. Effect of subsequent removal. — Tlic 
 Idalio. u:; I'. S. 57.5, 2:5 L. Fd. 978. 
 
 45. Special clauses or extrinsic evidence 
 defeating consignee's title. — Lawrence v. 
 Minturn (U. S.). 17 How. 100. 15 L. Ed. 
 58; Grove v. Brien (U. S.), 8 How. 429, 12 
 L. Ed. 1142. 
 
 When there is a dealing between mer- 
 chants, for successive cargoes of merchan- 
 dise upon time, for which notes of hand 
 were to be given, payable from the date 
 of the ascertainment of the quantity of 
 each cargo, and an arrangement is after- 
 wards made for the substitution of an in- 
 terest account for the notes which were 
 to be given; and, in that arrangement, the 
 seller stipulates that the allowance of the 
 interest account should depend upon the 
 continuance of the original time of credit, 
 and that the buyer's balance on account 
 should always be under a certain sum; 
 and the buyer exceeds that amount and 
 refuses to make a remittance or pay- 
 ment, upon the call of the seller, to bring 
 the account within that sum. the seller 
 may arrest the further delivery of any 
 cargo or cargoes, though the same was 
 in the course of being delivered to the 
 buyer upon the seller's indorsement of 
 the invoices and bills of lading of such 
 cargoes. Masters f. Barrcda (U. S.), is 
 How. 489, 15 L. Ed. 4r)6. 
 
 "In Emery's Sons z'. Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, IS Am. Rep. 299, it is said: 
 'If the bill of lading shows that the con- 
 signment was made for the benefit of the 
 
 consignor or his order, it is very strong 
 proof of his intention to reserve the jus 
 disponendi.' " ScharfT v. Meyer, 54 Am. 
 St. Rep. 072, i:^:5 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. 858. 
 
 46. Bill not delivered to consignee. — Al- 
 len V. Williams (Mass.), 12 Pick. 297; 
 Butifington r. Curtis, 15 Mass. 528, 8 Am. 
 Dec. 115; Skilling z: Bollman, 73 Mo. 665, 
 :J9 Am. Rep. 537. 
 
 Defendant contracted with C. for a car 
 of lumber to be shipped to A. Being 
 •inable to fill the order, C. ordered the 
 lumber of P., who loaded a car, took a 
 hill of lading in his own name, with A. 
 named tlicrcin as consignee, at the same 
 time sending to C. an invoice or bill for 
 the lumber: C, however, never having 
 possession of the bill of lading. P. then 
 arranged with plaintiff, a bank, to take 
 the bill of lading, forward the car, and 
 guarantee the amount of the bill. Plain- 
 tiff having agreed to do this had C. in- 
 dorse the invoice as assigned to it and 
 took a delivery thereof. Thereupon plain- 
 tiff, having learned that defendant or- 
 dered the lumber, sent it the bill of lad- 
 ing and the invoice by letter stating the 
 inclosure of the bill of lading and invoice 
 of shipment made by P. for C. on an or- 
 der, as C. said, from defendant; tliat C. 
 asked it to forward them to defendant; 
 that P. left the bill of lading with plain- 
 tiff for collection from C, but it thought 
 best to see C, and get his instructions, 
 which were to forward it to defendant, 
 and to pay P. out of defendant's remit- 
 tance for the price of the lumber. De- 
 fendant wrote that plaintitT would have 
 to look to C. for the pay, as it had paid 
 him; but it retained the bill of lading, 
 and thereafter on delivery of the lumber 
 to A., the consignee, received the pro- 
 ceeds. Held, in an action on the bill of 
 lading, plaintiff having paid P., that the 
 title to the lumber never passed from P. 
 to C, he having refused to deliver the 
 bill of lading to C. till his bill was paid 
 or secured, notice of which defendant had
 
 §§ 505-507 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 352 
 
 •possession of the bill of lading can not attect the title, which has already passed 
 by the delivery of the goods to the carrier. If. under such circumstances, the 
 consignor wishes to prevent the title from vesting in the consignee, he must, by 
 bill oi lading, make the goods deliverable to his own order.-*' 
 
 § 506. Consignment to Be Sold on Commission.— A consignor of goods 
 to be sold on conmiission does not part with liis title by the consignment, but 
 retains it until the goods are sold.-^^ 
 
 §§ 507-508. Goods BiUed to Shipper's Order— § 507. In General.— 
 
 Where a bill of lading is taken, deliverable to the shipper's own order, the ni- 
 ference that it was not intended that the property in the goods should pass, 
 except by subsequent order of the person holding the bill, is almost conclusive, 
 but it has been said that this presumption may be rebutted by proof.-*-^ This is 
 the rule in the federal courts,"'"' in Alabama,^i Arkansas,^'- California,''^^ lowa,^-* 
 Kentucky,-"^'- Massachusetts,^^ ^lissouri,^' New York, "'^ Rhode Island,"'-' Wis- 
 consin.*'"'" and other states; and in England.''^ 
 
 Where there are circumstances pointing both ways, some indicatmg 
 an intent to pass the ownership immediately, notwithstanding the bill of lading, 
 in other words, where there is anything to rebut the effect of the bill, it becomes 
 a question for the jury, whether the property has passed. '"- 
 
 52. Berger z: State, 50 Ark. 20, 6 S. 
 W. 15. 
 
 53. Reynolds v. Scott, (15 Cal. xx, 4 
 Pac. 346. 
 
 54. Bill of lading on shipment to con- 
 signor's own order held to retain title in 
 the seller. Reed v. Racine Boat Co. 
 (Iowa). 137 N. W. 458. 
 
 55. Where one ships goods consigned 
 to liimself, the presumption is that he re- 
 mains the owner of the goods and the 
 liill of lading while the goods are in the 
 carrier's possession. Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Steele, 140 Ky. 383, 131 S. W. 22. 
 
 56. Merchants' Nat. Bank z: Bangs, 102 
 Mass. 291. 
 
 57. Bergeman v. Indianapolis, etc., R. 
 Co., 104 Mo. 77, 15 S. W. 992. 
 
 58. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank v. Logan, 
 74 N. Y. 568. 
 
 59. Hobart & Co. v. Littlefield Bros., 13 
 R. I. 341. 
 
 60. Doyle v. Roth Mfg. Co., 7(5 Wis. 48, 
 44 N. W. 1100. 
 
 61. Wait V. Baker, 2 Exch. 1; Wilms- 
 hurst V. Bowker, 2 M. & G. 792, 40 E. C. 
 L. 629; Ellershaw v. Magniac. 6 Exch. 
 570; Van Casteel v. Booker, 2 Exch. 691; 
 Jenkyns v. Brown. 14 Q. B. 496, 68 E. C. 
 L. 495; 19 L. J., Q. B. 286; Shepherd v. 
 Harrison, L. R.. 4 Q. B. 196, L. R.. 5 H. 
 L. 116; Gaborron v. Kreeft, L. R., 10 
 Exch. 274, Moak's Rep. 562; Ogg v. 
 Shuter, 1 C. P. Div. 47, 15 Moak's Rep. 
 231; Ex parte Banner, 2 Ch. Div. 278, 16 
 Moak's Rep. 704; Hare v. Browne, 4 H. 
 & N. 822. 29 L. J. Exch. 6; Joyce v. 
 Swann, 17 C. B., N. S., 84, 12 E. C. L. 
 83; Moakes v. Nicholson, 19 C. B., N. S., 
 290. 115 E. C. L. 290. 
 
 62. Circumstances pointing both ways. 
 — Dows V. National Exch. Bank, 91 U. S. 
 618, 634, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 when plaintiff sent it the l)ill of lading, 
 by letter indicating intention to make de- 
 livery of the lumber conditioned on pay- 
 ment of its price, and the invoice not 
 being a bill of sale, or evidence of a sale, 
 so that defendant's payment to C. was 
 no defense. Security State Bank v. 
 O'Connell Lumber Co., 64 Wash. 506, 117 
 Pac. 271. 
 
 47. Scharff v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428, 34 
 S. W. 858. 54 Am. St. Rep. 672. See post. 
 "Goods Billed to Shipper's Order." §§ 
 507-508. 
 
 48. Consignment to be sold on commis- 
 sion. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Heilliron- 
 ner, 108 N. Y. 439, 15 N. E. 701. 
 
 49. Bill of lading to shipper's order. — 
 Dows f. National Exch. Bank. 91 U. S. 
 618, 633, 23 L. Ed. 214. See post, "Trans- 
 ferability or Assignability," § 519. 
 
 50. Dows V. National Exch. Bank, 91 U. 
 S. 618, 633, 23 L. Ed. 214; The St. Jose 
 Indiana (U. S.), 1 Wheat. 208, 4 L. Ed. 
 73; The John K. Shaw, 32 Eed. 491. 
 
 Taking a bill of lading deliverable to 
 the shipper's own order, is inconsistent 
 with an intention to pass the ownership 
 of the cargo to the person on whose ac- 
 count it may have been purchased, even 
 when the shipment has been made in the 
 vessel of the drawee of the draft against 
 the cargo. Dows v. National Exch. Bank, 
 91 U. S. 618, 631, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 A shipment on the purchaser's own ves- 
 sel is ordinarily held to pass the prop- 
 erty to the purchaser; but not so if the 
 bill of lading exhibits a contrary intent, if 
 thereby the shipper reserves to himself 
 or to his assigns the dominion over the 
 goods shipped. Dows v. National Exch. 
 Bank, 91 U. S. 618. 635, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 51. McCormick v. Joseph, 77 Ala. 236.
 
 333 lULLS OF LADIXG. §§ 507-509 
 
 Bill of Lading and Draft Attached Drawn to Shippers' Order. — W here 
 a bill of lading and draft attached were drawn to the order of the seller, and 
 the bill of lading could not be surrendered until the draft was paid, and the 
 draft was not paid, the purchaser could not acquire title, under the nde that a 
 consignor who takes a bill of lading in his own name or to his order retains 
 title in himself until the bill is indorsed.''-' 
 
 Goods Billed to Buyer Subject to Seller's Order. — W here a seller takes 
 a bill uf lading, stipulaling lUr (k-li\er\ al ibe point oi destination to himself, 
 his order or assigns, it is evidence that, notwithstanding an appropriation of the 
 goods which might be sufficient to transfer title to the buyer, the goods are 
 retained within the seller's control, and the mere fact that the buyer is named 
 as consignee does not pass title to him."^ By such a bill the seller does not 
 reserve merely a lien, but the absolute right of disposal of the goods ; ''^ and 
 his assignee acquires the same rights so that the carrier is bound to deliver to 
 his order.*'" The consignee in such cases became the mere agent or factor 
 of the consignor or his assignee ; "" and must therefore deliver to his order 
 even though the consignor be indebted to him ( the consignee ) for advances. *^^ 
 
 § 508. Bill with Draft Attached to Be Delivered to Purchaser of 
 Goods. — A shipment of goods billed by the consignor to himself, to be delivered, 
 with the bill of lading, to another on his payment of draft attached to it for 
 the price, retains the title, prima facie, in the shipper till such payment, but sub- 
 ject to evidence of the real intent of the parties as to when title is to pass.*^^ 
 Where a bill of lading taken to the order of the seller is indorsed by him, and 
 attached to a draft upon the purchaser for the jirice, and the draft is delivered 
 to a bank for collection, or is discounted by the bank in reliance on the security 
 of the bill of lading, title does not pass to the purchaser until, by payment of 
 the draft, he has obtained possession of the bill.''' 
 
 § 509. Bill to Another than Purchaser. — When a bill of lading is taken 
 deliverable to the order of some person designated by the shipper, other than 
 the one on whose account they have been shipped," ^ the inference that it was not 
 intended that the property in the goods should pass, except by subsequent order 
 of the person hokling the bill, is almost conclusive, though it has been said that 
 it may be rebutted. "- 
 
 63. Bill of lading and draft attached Pcmisylzviiia. — Sclniniacher v. Eby, 24 
 drawn to shipper's order. — Citizens, etc., Pa. .521. 
 
 Bank V. Southern R. Co., 153 N. C. 346, 67. Alichitjan Cent. R. Co. r. Phillips, GO 
 
 69 S. 1-., 2<n. jU -1,)0 
 
 64. ^ Goods billed to buyer subject to 68. Marine Bank z: Wright, 48 N. Y. 1. 
 sellers order. — Grayson County Aat. Bank „,, -d-h -..u j c^ ^^ ' u j ... u j 
 V. Nashville, etc.. Railway (Tex. Civ. ,. ^^- ,^^J ^^^^ t'^^^ attached to be de- 
 App.), 79 S. W. 1094. r''^?^ ^r P"'"^^^'^' 1 1°°^?;-^^^-^=^^ 
 
 65. Dows V. National Exch. Bank, 91 Sr"^. R Co r.Dorsey, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 
 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 214; Ogg v. Shuter, ^'li-u ^^^ a-' "" ' .v f ^ f* c 
 
 1 C. P. Div. 47, Moak's Rep 231; Gobar^ ^ ^'" .^V^^"^'^^ f f "-?^ s^l ^'^^^—%^^ 
 
 ron V. Kruft, L. R., 10 Exch. 274, 14 ^^°''"''^ ^'^ S" v^■'■R ' i foo r""'' S' 
 
 Moak's Rep. 562. '-'o ^''T 'ci.' ' ' ' 
 
 66. United Statcs.—St. Paul Roller Mill '^^X' n" n . xw t3 i x- i 
 Co. V. Great Western Despatch Co.. 27 70. Grayson County Nat. Bank -c. Nash- 
 
 Fed. 434. See post, "Right of Disposal ^'",^v 'Ind. q '■''^' ^. ••''p i' '^PP-^h' 
 
 Retained by Consignor." §§ 527-528 S. W. 1094^ See post Purchase or D.s- 
 
 Massachusctts.-¥\T,i Nat Bank v. Dear- ^°""t of Draft with Bill of Lading At- 
 
 born, 115 Mass. 219, 15 Am. Rep. 93; \^'^'i^^-. §§5-S-..8.: Effect of_ Consignee s 
 
 First Nat. Bank v. Crocker, 111 Mass. 163. Accepting and I ay.ng Dratt. $j os... 
 
 Xczv }'o;-yt.— Bank v. Jones, 4 N. Y. 497, 71. Bill of lading to some one else than 
 
 55 Am. Dec. 290. See. also, First Nat. consignee.— Dows v. National Exch. Bank, 
 
 Bank V. Kelly, 57 N. Y. 34. 5>1 1^'- ?• 618, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 Ohio. — Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. 72. Dows v. National Exch. Bank. 91 U. 
 
 Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 1 Car— 23
 
 §§ 510-512 CARRIERS. 354 
 
 § 510. Bill to A. for Use of B.— If the bill of lading is special to deliver 
 the goods to A for the use of 1'., the property vests in B, and the action mnst 
 be brought in his name in case of loss or damage. "•• 
 
 § 511. Stipulations as to Value.— A stipulation in the receipt or a bill of 
 lading given by the carrier at the time of the shipment, as to the value of the 
 goods shipped,"^ is not binding upon the owner unless expressly agreed to by 
 him; and in the event of a breach of the contract of carriage by the carrier, 
 he is entitled to recover full damages as shown by the evidence, regardless of 
 such statement as to the value of the goods."-* 
 
 § 512. Freight and Demurrage.— Freight.— A bill of lading is a written 
 simple contract between a shipper of goods and ship owner; the latter to carry 
 the goods, and the former to pay the stipulated compensation when the service 
 is performed. The shipper or consignor, whether the owner of the goods shipped 
 or not, is the party with whom the owner or master enters into the contract of 
 attreig'htment. It is he that makes the bailment of the goods to be carried, and, 
 as the bailor, he is liable for the compensation to be paid therefor." The fact 
 that the consignee takes part in the negotiation as to the rate of freight to be 
 paid does not constitute him the shi]iper.''' 
 
 Stipulation for Payment of Freight.— It is usual for the consignee to 
 pay the freight to the ship owner. Ordinarily, the bill of lading provides that 
 he' shall do it. If he be the purchaser as well as the consignee, although treated, 
 for commercial reasons, as the agent of the consignor in making payment, in 
 practical efifect the payment is on his account, and must necessarily be added to 
 the price paid the consignor for the goods, in order to determine the total costs 
 to himself. He is therefore directly interested in fixing the rate of freight, and 
 it is not unusual for him to take part in the negotiations for it. But that act 
 does not constitute him the shipiier."" 
 
 Liability of Bank Collecting Draft with Bill Attached for Failure of 
 Consignee to Pay Freight.— See post, •"Deposit of Draft with Bill of Lading 
 Attached for Collection." § 588. 
 
 Demurrage. — Where no provision is made in a bill of lading for the pay- 
 ment of demurrage by the consignee, it may be recovered from the consignor 
 where he detains the vessel for loading for an unreasonable time.'''^ 
 
 Stipulations for Demurrage. — When a bill of lading contains a stipulation 
 for demurrage, the acceptance of the goods is evidence of an agreement on the 
 
 73. Bill of lading to deliver to A for Gihnor l)efore they came into the posses- 
 use of B.— Grove v. Brien (U. S.j. 8 How. sion of Fowle & Sons. Grove v. Brien 
 429, 12 L. Ed. 1142. (U. S.), 8 How. 439, 12 L. Ed. 1142. 
 
 Where a manufacturer upon the upper 74. Stipulation as to value. — Southern 
 
 waters of the Potomac shipped five hun- gxp. Co. v. Briggs, 1 Ga. App. 294, 57 S. 
 
 dred kegs of nails to Alexandria, taking £ 1066. See post, "Limitation of Lia- 
 
 from the master of the canal boat a re- bility," chap. 14. 
 
 ceipt saying that the nails were "to l)e 75. Wooster z: Tarr (Mass.), 8 Allen 
 
 delivered to Fowle & Sons in Alexandria, 270, 85 Am. Dec. 707; Blanchard v. Page 
 
 for the use of Robert Gihnor of Balti- (Mass.), 8 Gray 281; Davis v. Central, 
 
 more," and on the same day sent a letter etc., R. Co., 6G Vt. 290, 29 Atl. 313, 44 Am. 
 
 to the consignees, advising them that the ^s^. Rep. 852. 
 
 goods were consigned for the use of Gil- ^g_ y^j^ Etten v. Newton, 134 N. Y. 143, 
 
 mor, such delivery and bill of ladmg op- .,^ y- p .j.,^ oq Am. St. Pep. 630. 
 
 erated as a transfer of the legal title to ' _ oHnniatinn for navment of freieht. 
 
 Gilmor, who was in fact the consignor. 77. Stipulation tor payment ot i^ig"^- 
 
 Therefore, the kegs of nails in the hands --\a" /t en z. Newton ^34 N. Y. 143, 
 
 of Fowle & Sons were not subject to an •'! ^- C. 3..4, ..0 Am. St^ Kep. b30. 
 
 attachment by the creditors of the manu- 78. Demurrage.— \ an Etten v Newton, 
 
 facturer; nor had Fowle & Sons any valid 134 X. Y. 14:;. 31 N E._334, 30 Am. bt. 
 
 lien upon them for previous advances to Rep. ^630. See ante. Freight and Demur- 
 
 him. The title to the nails had passed to rage," § 512.
 
 355 
 
 BILLS OF LADIXC. 
 
 §§ 312-515 
 
 part of the consignee to pay both freight and demurrage; ^'•* but in the absence 
 of such a stiiHilation. it is generally held that the consignee is not bound to 
 respond in damages in the nature of deniurrage, because, not being a party to 
 the contract in the bill of lading, the contract implied from its subsequent' ac- 
 ceptance by him can not extend beyond the conditions upon which its delivery 
 is made dependent. A delay at the place of delivery, occasioned by the fault of 
 the consignee, furnishes an exception to the rule.*^" 
 
 § 513. As Evidence of Carrier's Liability as Warehouseman.— When 
 
 a carrier's respoiisihiliiy as such ceases, he becomes liable for the goorls as 
 warehousemen, until tliey are properly delivered; and the bill of lading is 
 evidence of that obligation.''' 
 
 §§ 514-589. Transfer— §§ 514-518. Negotiability.— See post, 'Trans- 
 ferability or Assigna])ility," § 51''. 
 
 § 514. General Rule. — I'.ills of lading are spoken of sometimes as nego- 
 tiable, and \ cry fre(|uenlly and more accurately as quasi-negotiable instru- 
 ments.''- That they are, even at the common law, invested with the attributes 
 of negotiability, in a general sense of that term, has been frequently admitted. *"' 
 A well-established custom has grown u[) in commercial circles by which such 
 bills of lading are treated as the symbols of title to the property in transit, are 
 taken as security for money advanced, and indorsed and delivered as a trans- 
 fer of the property. The effect of this custom injlependent of statute is to 
 make bills of lading to some extent and for some purposes negotiable and to 
 give superior rights to innocent transferees for value in the usual course of 
 business.**' 
 
 § 515. Distinguished from Commercial Paper.*— Though transferable 
 
 by indorsement, bills ot" lading are not ncg(itia])lc in a comniercial sense, as 
 bills of exchange or ])romissory notes; but arc only quasi negotial)le.^'' When 
 
 79. Stipulations for demurrage. — Jesson 
 7'. Soly, 4 Taunt, y.!; Werner z\ Smith, lo 
 Com. B. 285. Van Etten v. Newton, 1.34 
 N. Y. 143, .31 N. E. 334. 30 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 r.:io. 
 
 80. Stipulation for demurrage. — Gage 7' 
 Morse (Mass.), 12 Allen 410, 90 Am. Dec. 
 155; Young v. Moeller, 5 El. & B. 755; 
 Ford V. Cotesworth, L. R. 4 Q. B. 127; 
 Crawford v. Mellor, 1 Fed. 638; Van Et- 
 ten V. Newton. 134 N. Y. 143. 31 N. E. 
 334, 30 Am. Si. Rep. (530. 
 
 81. Evidence of liability as warehouse- 
 men. — Arkansas, etc., R. Co. r. German 
 Nat. Bank, 77 Ark. 482, 92 S. W. 522, 113 
 Am. St. Rep. 160; North Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. 
 S. 727, 8 S. Ct. 266, 31 L. Ed. 287; The 
 Thames (U. S.), 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 
 804; Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 3S \'t. 402, 
 91 Am. Dec. 350. 
 
 82. Negotiability. — Alabama. — \'oss & 
 Co. V. ]\ol)LM-tson, etc., Co., 46 Ala. 483. 
 
 Indiana. — Pattison v. Culton, 33 Ind. 
 240, 5 Am. Rep. 199. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Rowley v. Bigelow 
 (Mass.), 12 Pick. 307. 23 Am. Dec! 606; 
 Stanton v. Eager (Mass.), 16 Pic. 467. 
 
 Olilo. — For certain purposes, bills of lad- 
 ing are invested with some of the attri- 
 butes of negotiability, and hence are 
 termed in the books quasi negotiable. 
 
 Page & Co. V. Sandusky, etc., R. Co., 4 
 West. L. M. 644. 2 O. Dec. Reprint 716; 
 Adams v. Brig Pilgrim. 10 West. L. J. 
 141, 1 O. Dec. 477. 
 
 South Carolina. — First Nat. Bank v. Mc- 
 Swain, 75 S. E. 1106, 93 S. C. 30. 
 
 Tc.vas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 
 heimer, 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. 
 St. Rep. 861. 
 
 Wisconsin.— UAq v. Milwaukee Dock 
 Co., 29 Wis. 482, 9 Am. Rep. 603. 
 
 83. Pollard v. Reardon, 13 C. C. A. 171, 
 6.") b^ed. S4S; Tison v. Howard, 57 Ga. 410. 
 
 'Tn a qualified and restricted sense, a 
 l)ill of lading has the attribute of nego- 
 tiability." Davenport Nat. Bank v. lio- 
 meyer. 100 Am. Dec. 363, 45 Mo. 145. 
 
 84. Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 r.4 Minn. 245, 58 Am. St. Rep. 530, 66 N. 
 W. 9SS. 
 
 85. Not negotiable in commercial sense. 
 —United States.— \^i\on^\ Bank r. Mer- 
 chants' Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 92, 23 L. Ed. 
 208; The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655, 
 44 L. Ed. 929, 20 S. Ct. 803; Pollard v. 
 \inton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998; Shaw 
 V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. 
 892; Lehman, etc., Co. v. Central R., etc., 
 Co.. 12 Fed. 595. 
 
 Alabama. — Haas v. Citizens' Bank. 144 
 Ala. 562. 39 So. 129, 113 Am. St. Rep. 61, 
 1 L. R. A.. N. S., 242. 
 
 Arkansas. — Arkansas, etc.. R. Co. f. Ger-
 
 il5 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 356 
 
 it is said that a bill of lading is negotiable, it is only meant that its true owner 
 may transfer it by indorsement or assignment, so as to vest the legal title in 
 the assignee ;^^ and not that they are attended with all the incidents of such 
 paper in favor of a bona fide purchaser.**'^ Bills of exchange and promissory 
 notes are representatives of money, circulating in the commercial world as such 
 and it is essential, to enable them to perform their peculiar functions, that he 
 wdio purchases them should not be bound to look beyond the instrument, and 
 that his right to enforce them should not be defeated by anything short of bad 
 faith on his part. But bills of lading answer a different purpose and perform 
 dift'erent functions. They are regarded as so much cotton, grain, iron or other 
 articles of merchandise, in that they are symbols of ownership of the goods 
 they cover.^** Where the common law prevails and no statutes have been passed 
 
 man Xat. Bank, 77 Ark. 482, 92 S. W. 522, 
 113 Am. St. Rep. 160. 
 
 Georgia. — Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 
 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 8(37. 
 
 A bill of lading in one sense is a ne- 
 gotiable instrument but it is simply a 
 symbol or representative of the goods for 
 which it is issued. Allen, etc., Co. v. 
 Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 129 Ga. 748, 59 
 S. E. 813. 
 
 Illinois. — Stone v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 9 111. App. 48. 
 
 lozva. — Garden Grove Bank v. Humes- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 67 Iowa 526, 25 N. W. 
 761, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 695; Weyand 
 V. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 39 
 N. W. 899, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, 1 L. R. 
 A. 650. 
 
 Kentucky. — Douglas v. People's Bank, 86 
 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 
 9 Am. St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 510. 
 
 Marvhnd. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z>. 
 Wilkens, 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Blanchard v. Page 
 (Mass.), 8 Gray 281. 
 
 Misssouri.—M\d\and Nat. Bank v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 
 521, 53 Am. St. Rep. 505. 
 
 Nebraska. — Green v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 42 Neb. 379; Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston, 45 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144, 50 
 Am. St. Rep. 540. 
 
 New York. — Batavia Bank v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 497, 
 106 N. Y. 195, 8 N. Y. St. Rep. 209, 12 
 N. E. 433. 
 
 Pennsvhania. — Franklin Trust Co. v. 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 222 Pa. 96, 70 
 Atl. 949, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 828. 
 
 South Carolina. — National Bank v. At- 
 lanta, etc., R. Co., 25 S. C. 216. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 
 heimer. 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. 
 St. Rep. 861; Prendergast v. Williamson, 
 6 Tex. Civ. App. 725, 731, 26 S. W. 421; 
 Campbell v. Alford, 57 Tex. 159; Adoue 
 V. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 593, 595; Os- 
 born V. Koenigheim, 57 Tex. 91; National 
 Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 41 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 535, 93 S. W. 209, 210, affirmed in 
 101 Tex. 650, no op. 
 
 Bills of lading are not commercial oi 
 negotiable paper in the hands of an in- 
 
 nocent party. Adoue v. Seeligson & Co., 
 54 Tex. 593, 604. 
 
 86. Douglas v. People's Bank, 86 Ky. 
 176, 5 S. W. 420, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 9 
 Am. St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 510. See Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U. S. 
 7, 26 L. Ed. 998. See, also, Jasper Trust 
 Co. V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 
 416, 14 So. 546, 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 4 Am. 
 
 6 Eng. Enc. Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law & 
 Proc. 426. 
 
 "Assignment of bills of lading are not 
 governed by the commercial law. The 
 transferee simply acquires the title of the 
 transferrer to the goods described in 
 tliem. Commercial Bank v. Hurt, 99 Ala. 
 130, 12 So. 568, 19 L. R. A. 701, 42 Am. 
 St. Rep. 38; Jasper Trust Co. v. Kansas 
 City, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 416, 14 So. 546, 
 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. 
 Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. 426." Cos- 
 mos Cotton Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 171 
 Ala. 392, 54 So. 621, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1173, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 42. 
 
 87. Tison v. Howard, 57 Ga. 410; Haas 
 V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 792, 
 
 7 S. E. 629; Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 
 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867. 
 
 88. United States. — Distinguished from 
 commercial paper. — Friedlander v. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co., 130 U. S. 416, 423, 32 L. Ed. 
 991, 9 S. Ct. 570; Shaw v. Railroad Co., 
 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. 892; Pollard v. 
 Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998; Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. McFadden, 154 U. 
 S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 990; The 
 Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655, 44 L. Ed. 
 929, 20 S. Ct. 803. 
 
 In the hands of the holder a l)ill of lad- 
 ing is evidence of ownership, special or 
 general, of the property mentioned in it, 
 and of the right to receive said prop- 
 erty at the place of delivery. Notwith- 
 standing it is designed to pass from hand 
 to hand, with or without indorsement, 
 and it is efficacious for its ordinary pur- 
 poses in the hands of the holder, it is 
 not a negotiable instrument or obligation 
 in the sense that a bill of exchange or a 
 promissory note is. Its transfer does not 
 preclude, as in those cases, all inquiry 
 into the transaction in which it originated, 
 because it has come into hands of per- 
 sons who have innocently paid value for
 
 357 
 
 15ILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 515 
 
 to better their standing, bills of lading do not enjoy the full dignity of negotiable 
 paper proper; that is, the mere i)Ossession of them in a state apparently regular, 
 and under circumstances apjjarently innocent, does not always enable the holder 
 to negotiate them with full i)rotection to a bona fide purchaser. If the goods are 
 stolen, or procured from the owner by fraud, or entrusted to an agent for mere 
 custody and safekeeping, they occupy much the same, or perhaps exactly the same, 
 position that the property itself would occupy if it were thus dealt with instead 
 of the bills which represent it.'*'* 
 
 it. The doctrine of l)oiia fide purchasers 
 only applies to it in a limited sense. Pol- 
 lard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 8, 26 L. Ed. 
 098; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFadden, 
 154 U. S. 155. 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 That a bill of lading does not partake 
 of the character of negotialile paper, so 
 as to transfer to the assignees tliereof 
 the rights of the holder of such paper, is 
 well settled. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Fadden. 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 944, 14 
 S. Ct. 990. 
 
 It is true that while not negotial)le as 
 commercial paper is, bills of lading are 
 commonly used as security for loans and 
 advances; but it is only as evidence of 
 ownership, special or general, of the prop- 
 erty mentioned in them, and of the right 
 to receive such property at the place of 
 delivery. Friedlander v. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co., 130 U. S. 41(). 424. 32 L. Ed. 991, 9 
 S. Ct. 570. 
 
 Georgia. — The rule that possession car- 
 ries evidence of title so as to protect bona 
 fide purchasers in the usual course of 
 trade is, in the absence of a statute to 
 the contrary, limited to negotiable paper, 
 such as bills of exchange and promissory 
 notes, and to money, bank bills, or other 
 recognized currency, and does not apply 
 to bills of lading, which answer a differ- 
 ent purpose and perform different func- 
 tions. They are not the representatives 
 of money, are not used for transmission 
 of money, nor for the payment of debts. 
 nor for purchases. They are regarded 
 as so much cotton, grain, iron or other 
 articles of merchan-tlise, in that they are 
 symbols of ownership of the property 
 mentioned in them, and a transfer of the 
 symbol does not operate more than a 
 transfer of what it represents. Raleigh, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Lowe. 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 
 867. 
 
 Ohio. — A bill of lading is unlike a bill 
 of exchange or promissory nt)te. in this 
 — the latter are choses in action, credits 
 being property, and having a value in and 
 of themselves, and can be sold and deliv- 
 ered as property; while the bill of lading 
 is not a chose in action or property, but 
 the mere symbol of the property desig- 
 nated in it. which propcrtv can be brought 
 and sold and delivered, just as if bodily 
 present. l)y the transfer of the bill of lad- 
 ing by the owner of the property. Its 
 office is to effect the delivery of the pos- 
 session of property bought or taken in 
 pledge, which is not present, but in transit 
 to some place of consignment. Pomeroy. 
 
 etc., Co. r. Will, 2 .-\m. L. Rec. 1, 5 O. 
 Dec. Reprint 34. 
 
 Bills of exchange and promissory notes 
 are credits — valuable property in and of 
 themselves. Not so the bill of lading; 
 it merely represents the particular prop- 
 erty which is described in it. The value 
 is in that. The bill is its symbol, the 
 transfer of which transfers the property. 
 Its transfer is a legal mode of delivering 
 the property itself to the transferee. 
 Pomeroy. etc., Co. v. Will, 2 Am. L. Rec. 
 1. 5 O. Dec. Reprint 34. 
 
 Texas. — A bill of lading, even when, in 
 terms, running to order or assigns, is not 
 negotial)lc, like a bill of exchange, but 
 a syml^ol or representative of the goods 
 themselves; and the rights arising out of 
 the transfer of a l)ill of lading correspond, 
 not to those arising out of the indorse- 
 ment of a negotiable promise to pay 
 money, but to those arising out of a de- 
 livery of property itself under similar cir- 
 cumstances. Grayson County Nat. Bank 
 r. Nashville, etc.. Railway (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 79 S. W. 1094; Adoue r. Seeligson 
 & Co., 54 Tex. 593, 594; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. 
 W. 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 "While the transfer of bills of lading 
 may pass the title to the goods, unless 
 the common law has been modified by 
 statute, these instruments are not nego- 
 tiable, in the sense in which that term 
 is applied to bills and notes and other 
 negotiable instruments of a like charac- 
 ter. Although it has sometimes been said 
 that a bill of lading is negotiable, noth- 
 ing more is meant by this than that the 
 transfer of the bill of lading passes to 
 the transferee the title of the transferer 
 to the goods described therein. Nego- 
 tiability may be predicated of bills of ex- 
 change and promissory notes, because 
 they are the representatives of money, 
 which is itself negotiable, to the extent 
 that it can not be reclaimed from any- 
 one who receives it in good faith for value. 
 On the other hand, bills of lading do not 
 stand as representatives of money, but 
 of the goods therein described, and as 
 chattels are not negotiable, that quality 
 can not be given to the symbol; no greater 
 effect can be given to the transfer of the 
 symbol than to that of the thing which 
 it represents." Landa t-. Lattin. 19 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 246. 249. 46 S. W. 48. 
 
 89. Tison i: Howard. 57 Ga. 410. See 
 post. "Holder of Lost or Stolen Bill of 
 Lading," § 554.
 
 §§ 515-516 CARRIERS. 358 
 
 Use of Words of Negotiability.— Bills of lading can not be made, by any 
 form of words, negotiable ni the sense that commercial paper payable to bearer, 
 or order or assigns, is negotiable.'"' 
 
 False Bill of Lading. — A false bill of lading is not a negotiable instrument, 
 whether it is imlursetl or not.'-'^ 
 
 § 516. Effect of Statutes Making Bills of Lading Negotiable.— Al- 
 though a statute makes bills of lading negotiable by indorsement and delivery, 
 it do^es not follow that all the consequences incident to the indorsement of bills 
 and notes before maturity ensue or are intended to result from such negotiation. 
 Such statutes only prescribe the manner of negotiation, i. e., by endorsement and 
 delivery, and are' not intended to change totally their character, put them in all 
 lespects'on the footing of instruments which are the representatives of money, 
 and charge the negotiation of them with all the consequences which usually at- 
 tend or follow the negotiation of bills or notes. Some of these consequences 
 would be verv strange, if not impossible. Such as the liability of indorsers, the 
 duty of demand ad diem, notice of non-dehvery by the carrier, etc., or the loss 
 of the owner's property by the fraudulent assignment of a thief. If these were 
 intended, surely the statute w^ould have said something more than merely make 
 them negotiable by indorsement. No statute is to be construed as altering the 
 common law farther than its words import. It is not to be construed as mak- 
 ing any inno\ation upon the common law which it does not fairly express. Es- 
 peaally is so great an innovation as would be placing bills of lading on the same 
 footing in all respects with bills of exchange not to be inferred from words that 
 can be fully satisfied wathout it. The law has most carefully protected the owm- 
 ership of personal property, other than money, against misappropriation by others 
 than the ow^ner, even when it is out of his possession. This protection would 
 be largely withdrawn if the misappropriation of its symbol or representative 
 could avail to defeat the ownership, even when the person who claims under a 
 misappropriation had reason to believe that the person from whom he took the 
 property had no right to it.^'- The theory is that "negotiable," as used in the 
 statute,' means capable of being transferred by indorsement and delivery, soas 
 to give the indorsee a right to sue in his own name.=^-' This is the construction 
 
 90. Not negotiable in the sense of nego- 91. False bill of lading.— Jasper Trust 
 
 tiabie paper. — "If such words of ncgoti- Co. v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 
 
 ability be contained in them, they only 416, 14 So. 546, 42 Am. St. Rep. 75 4 Am. 
 
 indicate the intention of the shipper as & Eng. Enc. Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. 
 
 to the person for whose use the consign- 420. ,.,.,, r 
 
 ment is made. If the goods be delivered, 92. Effect of statute makmg bills of 
 
 by the terms of the bill, to the consignee lading negotiable.— Shaw r. Railroad Co., 
 
 or his order, there can be no doubt that 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. 892; Allen v. St. 
 
 the person to whom the bill may be trans- Louis Nat. Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 36, 30 L. 
 
 ferred by the consignor would be charged Ed. 573, 7 S. Ct. 460. See Goodman v. Si- 
 
 with notice of the rights of the consignee, monds (U. S.), 20 How. 343 15 L. Ed. 
 
 and on the other hand, if the bill be made 934; Murray v. Lardner (U. S.), 2 Wall, 
 
 to the use of the consignor, or his order, 110, 17 L. Ed. 857; Jasper Trust Co. z: 
 
 or his assigns, the consignee would be Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 99 Ala. 416, 
 
 charged with notice of the rights of those 14 So. 546, 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, •* Am. & 
 
 to whom the bill may have been trans- Eng. Enc. Law o49, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. 
 
 ferred. But, in either case, the question 426; Saltmarsh v. Tuthdl, 13 Ala. 390; 
 
 is open to the inquiry as to what such Matthews v. Poythress, 4 .Ga. 287; Na- 
 
 rights may be, and can be determined tional Bank v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 44 
 
 only by inquiry into the real nature and Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. A., JS. 
 
 character of the transaction." Emery's S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. 
 
 Sons z: Irving Nat. Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 93. Sealy v. Missouri, etc. R Co., 84 
 
 18 Am. Rep. 299. followed in 26 O. St. Kan. 479, 114 Pac. 1077. 41 L. R. A., M 
 
 641 (reversing in part 1 C. S. C. R. 76, 13 S., 500. 
 O. Dec. Reprint 425).
 
 359 
 
 lULLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 316 
 
 placed upon the statute of .\lal)aina,'*^ lowa.-'^ Minnesota,'"' and upon the stat- 
 ute of Missouri by the sui)reme court of the United States."" 
 
 Arkansas Statute. — Kirhy's Dig., § 530, providing that bills of lading for 
 goods actually deposited shall be transferable by indorsement, and that the 
 transferee shall be deemed the owner of the goods, makes a bill of lading rep- 
 rescntalixe, so far as the dcli\'crv is concerned, of the commoditx' itself. •''' 
 
 Louisiana, Maryland and Missouri Statutes Doctrine of State Courts. 
 — The state courts have held that the statutes of Louisiana,"" Maryland,' and 
 of Missouri- make bills of lading "negotiable" in the strictest meaning of the 
 terms; that is, it gives them the (juality of investing an innocent purchaser with 
 greater ri;.,dUs than those possessed by the original holder. •"■ 
 
 Necessity for Written Indorsement. — A transfer without written indorse- 
 ment and delivery does not operate under the statute. In such case no better 
 title passes bv a transfer of the symbols without such indorsement than by a 
 deliver\- of tlic g(i(»(l> which they represent.' 
 
 Bills of Lading Stamped Not Negotiable. — See post. "iJills Marked 'Xot 
 Negotiable." " § 517. 
 
 94. [aspcr Trust Co. f. Kansas City, 
 etc., R. Co.. <)!» Ala. 416. 14 So. 546. 42 
 Am. St. Rep. 75. 4 .\m. & Eng. Enc. Law 
 549, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. 426. 
 
 95. First Nat. Bank v. Mt. Pleasant Mill. 
 Co.. 10.3 Iowa 518, 72 N. W. 689; Scaly r. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 84 Kan. 479. 114 
 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A., N. S., 500. 
 
 96. Minnesota Gen. St. 1878. ch. 124, § 
 17. docs not put bills of lading on the 
 same footing as bills of exchange. Na- 
 tional Bank i\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 44 
 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 9 L. R. A., X. 
 S., 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566. And see 
 Scaly V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 84 Kan. 
 479. 114 Pac. 1077. 41 L. R. A.. X. S.. 
 500. 
 
 97. By the Missouri act of 1869, all 
 warehouse receipts and bills of lading, 
 except those which have the words "not 
 negotial)le" plainly written or stamped 
 on their face, are negotiable by written 
 indorsement thereon and delivery in the 
 same manner as bills of exchange and prom- 
 issory notes. This provision, "while it 
 doubtless gives the indorsee the right to sue 
 thereon in his own name, does not, for the 
 reasons fully stated by Mr. Justice Strong in 
 delivering "the judgment of the court in 
 Shaw T'. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 5.->7. 25 
 L. Ed. 892, attach to such an indorse- 
 ment of the symbol of property the same 
 effect which the common law gives to 
 the indorsement of a bill of exchange or 
 promissory note for the payment of a 
 sum of money; nor confer upon persons 
 making, upon a bill of lading indorsed 
 in blank by the owner, an advance of 
 money to a subsequent indorser whom 
 they have reason to believe not to be the 
 owner, the right to hold the goods against 
 the true owner." Allen ?•. St. Louis Xat. 
 Bank. 120 U. S. 20. :!t;. 30 L. Ed. 573. 7 
 S. Ct. 460. 
 
 98. Arkansas statute. — St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Citizens' Bank. 87 Ark. 26, 112 
 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. R. 290. 53 .\m. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 290, 128 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 99. Lalande v. His Creditors. 42 La. 
 Ann. 705, 7 So. 895. But see Sealy v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 84 Kan. 479, 114 
 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A.. N. S.. 500. 
 
 Under Louisiana act. — Bills of lading, 
 under Acts is(;s. p. 194. Xo. 150, are to 
 be taken in the same manner and to the 
 same extent as bills of exchange and 
 promissory notes, and are negotiable in 
 full. Hardie & Co. v. Vicksburg. etc., R. 
 Co.. 118 La. 253, 42 So. 793, overruling 
 Lalande v. His Creditors, 42 La. Ann. 705, 
 7 So. 895, and Hart v. R. R., 29 La. Ann. 
 448, and following Degado f. Wilbur. 25 
 La. Ann. 83. 
 
 1. Tiedeman v. Knox, 53 Md. 612; Har- 
 die & Co. v. Vicksburg. etc., R. Co.. 118 
 La. 253. 42 So. 793. 
 
 2. Sealy v. Missouri, etc.. R. Co.. 84 Kan. 
 479, 114 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A., X. S., 
 500. 
 
 3. Sealy v. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 8-1 
 Kan. 479, 114 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A., N. S., 
 500. 
 
 The state courts proceed on the ground 
 that the interpretation placed on such 
 statute by the United States supreme 
 court leaves this portion of the Missouri 
 statute without force. In Missouri, bills 
 of lading were already negotiable in the 
 sense that they were transferable by in- 
 dorsement and delivery (\alle v. Cerre, 
 36 Mo. 575, 88 .\m. Dec. 161; Davenport 
 Xat. Bank r. Homeyer. 100 Am. Dec. 363. 
 45 Mo. 145; Midland Nat. Bank f. Mis- 
 souri, etc.. R. Co.. 62 Mo. App. 531. 1 
 Mo. App. Rep'r 417). and the assignee 
 could sue in his own name. Walker v. 
 Mauro. 18 Mo. 564; Merchants' Bank v. 
 Union R.. etc., Co.. 69 X. Y. 373; Sealy 
 r. Missouri, etc.. R. Co.. S4 Kan. 479. 114 
 Pac. 1077. 4 1 1.. R. A., X. S.. .Mm. 
 
 4. Transfer not made in accordance 
 with statute. — .\llen :. St. Louis Nat. 
 Bank. 120 U. S. 20, 3S. 30 L. Ed. 573, 7 S. 
 Ct. 460.
 
 8S 517-519 CARRIERS. 360 
 
 8 517 Bills Marked "Not Negotiable."— The restricted negotiability 
 with which the common law invests bills of lading may be limited and still fur- 
 ther qualified by the insertion of appropriate terms wholly destroy mg all ne- 
 gotiability. Such a result may be accomplished by simply stampmg or pnntmg 
 across the face of the instrument the words "not negotiable." ^ 
 
 Under Statute Making Bills of Lading Negotiable.— A bill of lading on 
 which is stamped the words, "Xot negotiable unless delivery is to be made to 
 the consignee or order," is governed by common-law principles, and is exempt 
 from the "provision of a statute, providing that bills of lading shall be negotiable 
 provided that, where they have the words "not negotiable" plainly written or 
 stamped on the face thereof, they shall be exempt from the provisions of the 
 act The sole effect of these words were to exempt such bills of lading from 
 the provisions of statute in relation thereto. They are to be treated, then, as 
 
 at common law.*^ . • i i u 
 
 In View of New York Penal Statute.— A bill of lading is negotiable, be- 
 in^ such by its written terms, though the word "nonnegotiable" is prnited on 
 its" face, evidently in view of the penal statute, under which the carrier must 
 reo-ard every bill of lading as negotiable unless such word is printed on its face."^ 
 Notice of Rights of "^Consignor.- The words "not negotiable" stamped on 
 the face of a bill of lading do not simply limit the responsibility of the carrier, 
 but give notice to purchasers of the possible rights of the consignor, and are 
 sufficient to put a purchaser on inquiry as to the facts of the right of stoppage 
 in transitu by the consignor.^ 
 
 § 518. When Carrier Incurs Liability of Warehousemen.— Where a 
 carrier deposits the goods carried in a warehouse for safe-keeping, it incurs 
 the liability of a warehouseman, and from that point of view the bill of lading 
 is negotiable.-' 
 
 § 519. Transferability or Assignability.— In General.— See ante, "Ne- 
 gotiability," §§ 514-518. The bill of lading issued by a carrier to the owner 
 or shipper is the symbol of ownership of the goods shipped, and, though not 
 negotiable is assignable, or transferable,!'^ ^y the custom of merchants, so as to 
 
 5. Bills marked "not negotiable."— Na- 09 Md. (561, 59 Atl. 134. 105 Am St. Rep. 
 
 tional Bank z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 99 321; Barnum Grain Co. v. Great Northern 
 
 Md 661, 59 Atl. 134, 105 Am. St. Rep. R. Co., 102 Minn. 147, 112 N. W. 1030, 
 
 321; Franklin Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, rehearing denied id. 1049, so holding as 
 
 etc, R. Co., 222 Pa. 96, 70 Atl. 949, 22 to Linn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 7649; Dymock 
 
 L R. A., N.' S., 828. ■''• Missouri, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 
 
 '"In Bank v'.' New York, etc., R. Co., 400. . .. „ , 
 
 106 N. Y. 195, 12 N. E. 433, 60 Am. Rep. 7. In view of New York penal statute, 
 
 440, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 497, speaking — Pisapia r. Hartford, etc., Transp. Co., 
 
 of the liability of the common carrier 62 Misc. Rep. 607. 116 N. Y. S. 26. 
 upon a bill of lading the court says (page 8. Notice of rights of consignor.— Gass 
 
 201 of 106 X. Y.): 'If he desires to limit v. Astoria Veneer Mills 134 App Div. 
 
 his responsibility * * * to the named 184, 118 N. Y. S. 982. See as defeating 
 
 consignee alone, he must stamp his bills stoppage in transitu, see post, "Stoppage 
 
 as "non-negotiable;" and, where he does in Transitu," § 500. 
 
 not do that, he must be understood to in- 9. When earner incurs liability of ware- 
 tend a possible transfer of the bills, and housemen.— Hardie & Co. z^. \ icksburg, 
 to effect the action of such transferees.' etc., R. Co., 118 La. 253, 42 So. 793. 
 This would seem to be an intimation that 10. Transferability or assignability.— 
 the New York courts would not hold the Georgia.— Tison v. Howard, 57 Ga. 410; 
 carrier estopped from showing the truth Haas z: Kansas City etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 
 with the regard to nondelivery of the 792. 7 S. E. 629; Raleigh etc., R. Co. v. 
 goods when a bill of lading stamped 'Not Lowe, 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867. 
 negotiable' was found in the hands of the /owa.— Garden Grove Bank v. Humes- 
 third party." Franklin Trust Co. v. Phil- ton, etc., R. Co., 67 Iowa 526, 25 N. W. 
 adelphia. etc., R. Co., 222 Pa. 96. 70 Atl. 761, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 695. 
 949 ?2 L R A N S 828 Kentucky. — Douglas v. People s Bank, 
 6. National Bank v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 86 Ky. 176, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 5 S. W.
 
 361 
 
 RILLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 519-521 
 
 vest in the assignee the title of the goods which the assignor had in theni,'^ in a 
 transaction intended to have that effect.^- 
 
 Nonnegotiable Bill of Lading. — The nonnegotiabiHty of the bill of lading 
 does not prevent it from being assignable. Like any other negotiable instru- 
 ment, or chose in action, it may be transferred by assignment, and when thus 
 dealt with the assignee takes a valid title to it subject, of course, to the equities 
 existing between tlie original i)arties to it, of which, if there are any, he is held 
 to have had notice.''' 
 
 The words "not negotiable" stamped on the face of the bills of lading 
 in no wise destroyed their assignability;^'* aliter wliere the bill of lading states 
 that it is "not negotiable or assignable." ^'' 
 
 §§ 520-536. Mode of Transfer— § 52 0. In General.— At common law 
 a bill of lading is a symbol of the property, and the interest of the consignor in 
 the property passes either by an indorsement or a delivery of the bill of lad- 
 ing.^" 
 
 §§ 521-531. Delivery of Bill— § 521. In General.— Generally the de- 
 livery of a bill of lading by the person who, according to the terms of the 
 bill, is entitled to the goods, without written indorsement, if made with the in- 
 tention of passing title to the goods, is sufficient therefor.^" For many pur- 
 
 420, 9 Am. St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 510. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Saltus v. Everett (N. 
 Y.). 32 .A.m. Dec. 541, 20 Wend. 267. 
 
 Missouri. — Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. 
 V. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 124 Mo. App. 
 545. 102 S. W. 11. 
 
 Xebrasha. — Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 42 Neb. 379, 60 N. W. 583, 61 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 218; Union Pac. R. Co. 
 z: Johnston, 45 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144, 
 50 Am. St. Rep. 540. 
 
 Xezi' York. — Furman v. Union, etc., R. 
 Co., 106 N. Y. 579, 13 N. E. 587. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heid- 
 enheimer, 82 Tex. 195. 17 S. W. 60S, 27 
 Am. St. Rep. 861; Nashville, etc.. R. Co. 
 v. Grayson County Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). 91 S. W. 1106, judgment reversed 
 in 93 S. W. 431, 100 Tex. 17. 
 
 11. Saltus z: Everett ( N. Y.), 32 Am. 
 Dec. 541. 20 Wend. 267. 
 
 12. Tison z: Howard. 57 Ga. 410; Ma- 
 rine Nat. Bank v. Barringer, 46 Pa. 
 Super. Ct. 510. See post, "Intention to 
 Pass Title." § 522. 
 
 13. Steele z\ Sellman. 79 Md. 1, 28 Atl. 
 811; National Bank z\ Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co., 105 .\m. St. Rep. 321. 99 Md. 661, 59 
 Atl. 134. 
 
 14. Dymock z'. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 
 54 Mo. .App. 400; National Bank z\ Bal- 
 timore, etc., R. Co., 105 .Am. St. Rep. 321. 
 99 Md. 661, 59 Atl. 134. 
 
 The words "not negotiable," stamped on 
 the face of a bill of lading, do not pro- 
 hibit transfer of the bill and of the con- 
 tract represented thereby by indorsement 
 and delivery, as. under Code Civ. Proc, 
 § 449. any contract is transferable and 
 enforceable by suit in the name of the 
 assignee, but the transferrer of such a bill 
 has only his common-law rights, and can 
 not avail himself of Factors' .Act (Laws 
 
 1830, p. 203, c. 179), § 3, providing that 
 an agent intrusted with the possession 
 of a bill of lading shall be deemed the 
 true owner thereof so far as to give va- 
 lidity to any contract for the sale of goods 
 thereunder. Gass -■. .Astoria Veneer Mills, 
 118 N. Y. S. 982. 134 .\pp. Div. 184. 
 
 15. Ballinger's .\nn. Codes & St.. §§ 3590, 
 3598-3601 (Pierce's Code. §§ 6780. 8920, 
 6781, 6782), define a "bill of lading," make 
 bills of lading negotiable, and provide 
 that a bill of lading does not alter the 
 rights or obligations of the carrier, unless 
 it is plainly inconsistent therewith. A 
 bill of lading acknowledged the receipt 
 of property described from a person 
 named, and gave the name of the con- 
 signee and destination, and stated that 
 it was not negotiable or assignable. Held, 
 that the bill of lading was in effect a re- 
 ceipt for the goods and a contract be- 
 tween the shipper and the carrier that it 
 should be neither negotiated nor assigned, 
 and a delivery of the bill of lading with- 
 out indorsement, together with the in- 
 voice properly assigned, passed no title 
 or right to the goods. Bonds-Foster 
 Lumber Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 53 
 Wash. 302. 101 Pac. 877. 
 
 16. Mode of transfer in general. — Bonds- 
 Foster Lumber Co. z: Northern Pac. R. 
 Co.. 53 Wash. 302, 101 Pac. 877. 
 
 17. Transfer by delivery of bill. — I'liifed 
 States.— In re Levin. 17:? Fed. 119. 
 
 Colorado. — Florence, etc.. R. Co. f. Jen- 
 sen. 48 Colo. 28. 108 Pac. 974. 
 
 Gcors.ia. — Commercial Bank v. Armsby 
 Co.. 120 Ga. 74. 47 S. E. 5S9, 65 L. R. .\.. 
 N. S., 443: Orr v. Planters' Phosphate, 
 etc.. Co.. 8 Ga. .\pp. 59. 68 S. E. 779. 
 
 IlUnois. — Michigan Cent. R. Co. 7'. Phil- 
 lips. 60 111. 190. 
 
 Louisiana. — Croswell f. \'a. Bibber, 18
 
 §§ 521-526 CARRIERS. 362 
 
 poses it stands as representative of the shipment itself, and title to the goods 
 may be transferred by the owner by means of a transfer of the bill of lading 
 as long as the goods are in the possession of the carrier. ^'^ 
 
 § 522. Intention to Pass Title. — The delivery of an unindorsed bill of 
 lading constitutes a good symbolical delivery of the goods represented by the 
 bill oi lading onlv when such was the intent and purpose of the parties. i'' 
 
 § 523. Necessity for Acceptance of Possession. — Delivery, in order to 
 be effectual, should be followed by an acceptance of possession ; and methods 
 of delivery and acceptance differ, according to the subject matter and the local 
 situation of the thing. But constructive deliver}- and acceptance are now much 
 favored in such transactions. The transfer of the bill of lading of a ship at 
 sea, or the delivery of a warehouse key, have long been esteemed sufficient for 
 legallv transferring possession of the thing so symbolized. And so, in modern 
 times', the delivery in pledge of bills of lading of goods on transit, whether in- 
 land or by water, usually suffices to make the pledgee's title good against the 
 world.-" 
 
 Laches of Transferee. — Xo laches can be imputed to the transferee of a 
 bill of lading who, either himself or his agent being on the lookout, either took 
 possession of the property as soon as it arrived at its destination, or was pre- 
 vented from obtaining possession by the interference of an attaching creditor 
 of the consignor.-^ 
 
 §§ 524-52 5. Possession of Bill of Lading as Evidence of Title in 
 Holder — § 524. In General. — Mere possession of a bill of lading is evidence 
 of title in the holder, either general or special, to the goods embraced therein, 
 and that the bill is not made nor indorsed to such holder is not material. -- 
 
 § 52 5. Rebuttal of Presumption. — Presumption as to ownership of per- 
 sonal propertv arising from possession of a bill of lading may be explained or 
 rebutted by other evidence showing where the real ownership lies.--^ 
 
 § 52 6. Exception in Favor of Stoppage in Transitu. — There is an ex- 
 ception in some instances in favor of the consignor's right of stoppage in tran- 
 situ.-^ 
 
 La. Ann. 637; Phillips v. Bank, 2 La. 19. Intention to pass title. — In re Levin, 
 
 Ann. 19. 17.3 Fed. Ill); Tison v. Howard, 57 Ga. 
 
 Massachusetts. — First Xat. Bank v. 410; Florence, etc., R. Co. v. Jensen, 48 
 Crocker, 111 Mass. 163; Merchants' Nat. Colo. 28, 108 Pac. 974; Marine Nat. Bank 
 Bank v. Bangs, 102 Mass. 291; Allen f. v. Barrin.yer, 46 Pa. Super. Ct. 510. 
 Williams (Mass.), 12 Pick. 297; First 20. Necessity for acceptance of posses- 
 Nat. Bank v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219, sion. — Campbell v. Alford, 57 Tex. 159, 
 15 Am. Rep. 92. 162. 
 
 MmoM;-/.— ScharfiF v. Meyer, 54 Am. St. 21. Winslow v. Norton, 29 Me. 419, 50 
 
 Rep. 672, 133 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. 858. Am. Dec. 601. 
 
 0/m'o.— By the rules of commercial law, 22. As evidence of title in holder. — In 
 
 bills of lading are regarded as symbols re E. Reboulin Fils & Co., 165 Fed. 245. 
 
 of the property therein described, and the Possession of Ijills of lading by the 
 
 mere delivery of such bill by one who sliipper is regarded as prima facie evidence 
 
 has an interest in or a right to control of the ownership of property shipped, and 
 
 the property is equivalent to a delivery their delivery upon advances made a? 
 
 of the property itself. Emery's Sons v. symbolical delivery of such property. 
 
 Irving Nat. Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Prcndergast v. Williamson, 6 Tex. Civ. 
 
 Rep. 299; Pomeroy, etc., Co. v. Will, 2 App. 725, 26 S. W. 421; Campbell v. Al- 
 
 Am. L. Rec. 1, 5 O. Dec. Reprint 34. ford, 57 Tex. 159. 
 
 Oregon. — The chattels represented by 23. Rebuttal of presumption from pos- 
 
 a bill of lading are transferred by the de- session of bill. — Lovell v. Newman & Son, 
 
 livery of such bill, if nothing else is shown. 192 VcA. 753, 113 C. C. A. 39, affirming 
 
 Ladd. etc.. Bank v. Commercial State 188 Fed. 534; Hentz & Co. v. Lovell, 192 
 
 Bank (Ore.), 130 Pac. 975. Fed. 762, 113 C. C. A. 48, reversing Lovell 
 
 18. Orr V. Planters' Phosphate, etc., v. Hentz & Co.. 181 Fed. 555. 
 
 Co., 8 Ga. App. 59, 68 S. E. 779. 24. Orr v. Planters' Phosphate, etc..
 
 363 
 
 IJILLS ol" LADING. 
 
 §§ 527-529 
 
 §§ 527-528. Right of Disposal Retained by Consignor. — See post. 
 
 "Consij^nor <ir Ageiil," sj ?.V>. 
 
 § 527. In General. — When goods are consigned, and the right of dispo- 
 sition is retained in the consignors by the bill of lading, then the delivery of 
 the bill without indorsement for value transfers the ijro])erty in the goods in- 
 cluded in the bill. Such is the legal effect of a bill of lading for goods con- 
 signed to a factor for sale on account of the consignor, as in such case there is 
 no sale of the property before the transfer of the bill.-'' 
 
 § 528. Consignor Indebted to Consignee. — The delivery of a bill of lad- 
 ing for \alue though indorsed, carries with it the property in the goods cov- 
 ered thereb}', as against the consignor's factor, though a consignee is named 
 therein ; and this is so, although the consignor was indebted to his factor for 
 advances maf'.e on account of prior shipments.-"' The same rule applies in case 
 of sale, if the right to dispose of the projjerty is retained in the consignor by 
 the bill of lading.-" This is so without regard to the presence or absence of 
 words of negotial)ilit\ on its face.-** 
 
 § 52 9. Necessity for Indorsement to Enable Holder to Sue. — A writ- 
 ten indorsement may be necessary to transfer the contract so as to enable the 
 transferee to sue on it in his own name; but the delivery of the bill of lading 
 without indorsement, for \alue. transfers the property in the goods. -*^ 
 
 Co., 8 Ga. .\pp. .VJ, G8 S. E. 779; National 
 Bank z: Baltimore, etc.. R. Co.. 99 Md. 
 661, 105 Am. St. Rep. 321, 59 Atl. 134. 
 See post. "As Defeating Stoppage in 
 Transitu." § 567. See, also, ante, "Stop- 
 page in Transitu," § 500. 
 
 25. Scharflf r. Meyer. 54 Am. St. Rep. 
 672, 133 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. S5S; Davenport 
 Nat. Bank i: Homeyer, 45 Mo. 145. 100 
 Am. Dec. 363; \alle v. Cerre. 36 Mo. 575, 
 88 Am. Dec. 161; Holmes, etc., Co. v. Ger- 
 man Security Bank. 87 Pa. 525; Bank z'. 
 Jones. 4 N. Y. 497, 55 Am. Dec. 290; Ma- 
 rine Bank v. Wright, 48 N. Y. 1; Allen v. 
 Williams (Mass.), 12 Pick. 297; Jordan v. 
 Pennsylvania Co., :^1 ,-\Ih. L. J. 250; Em- 
 ery's Sons Z'. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 O. 
 St. 360. 18 Am. Rep. 299; Philips z: Bank, 
 2 La. Ann. 19. See. also, ante, "Goods 
 Billed to Shipiier's Onk-r." §>! •'■•iT-.-jOS. 
 
 26. Factor to whom consignor indebted 
 for advances on prior shipments. — Bank 
 i: Jones. 4 N. Y. 497, 55 .\m. Dec. 290: 
 Davenport Nat. Bank z: Homeyer. 45 Mo. 
 145, 100 Am. Dec. 363. See post, "Claim 
 tor Advances to Consignor," § 570. 
 
 27. Sale. — Weyand v. Atchinson, etc., R. 
 Co., 75 Iowa 573, 39 N. W. 899, 1 L. R. 
 A. 650, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504; Scharflf z: 
 Meyer, 54 Am. St. Rep. 672, 133 Mo. 428, 
 34 S. W. 858. 
 
 28. Emery's Sons z\ Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, 18 .\m. Rep. 299, reversing 
 in part, 1 C. S. C. K. 76. 13 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 42."). 
 
 29. Necessity for written instrument to 
 enable transferee to sue. — Buftington :. 
 Curtis. 15 Mass. 528. S .\m. Doc. 115: Dav- 
 enport Nat. Bank z\ Homeyer. 100 Am. 
 
 Dec. 363. 45 Mo. 145. And see, also. In 
 re E. Reboulin Fils & Co.. 105 Fed. 245. 
 
 "In passing upon the transferability of 
 bills of lading by delivery in Allen f. 
 Williams (Mass.). 12 Pick. 297, Shaw C. 
 J., in delivering the opinion of the court, 
 said: "Even a sale or pledge of the prop- 
 erty without a formal l)ill of lading, b}' 
 the shipper, would operate as a good as- 
 signment of the propert3\ and the deliv- 
 ery of an informal or unindorsed bill of 
 lading, or other documentary evidence of 
 the shipper's property, would be a good 
 sj-mbolical delivery, so as to vest the 
 property in the plaintiffs. That case was 
 followed with approval in First Nat. 
 Bank v. Dearborn. 115 Mass. 219, 15 Am. 
 Rep. 92. In each of those cases the con- 
 signor had simply taken the carrier's re- 
 ceipt for the goods, and it was held that 
 the transfer of the receipts by delivery 
 without indorsement was a symbolical 
 delivery of the goods covered by the re- 
 ceipts, and transferred to the transferee 
 all interest the consignors had in the 
 goods at the time of the transfers of the 
 receipts.' " Scharflf z: Meyer. 54 Am. St. 
 Rep. 672. 133 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. 858. 
 
 "In Allen z\ Williams (Mass.). 12 Pick. 
 297. it was held that where the bill of 
 lading was filled up with the name of a 
 particular consignee or bearer, the mere 
 delivery of the bill by the shipper for 
 value passed the property, as against the 
 named consignee. .And the court says 
 tliat whether the transferee acquired, by 
 delivery of the l>ill of lading, an absolute 
 property in the goods, or a lien only, was 
 immaterial." Davenport Nat. Bank z\ 
 Homever. 100 Am. Dec. 363, 45 Mo. 145.
 
 §§ 529-532 • CARRIERS. 364 
 
 In Missouri such indorsement was not necessary to enable the transferee 
 to sue in his own name.''" 
 
 § 530. Necessity for Shipper's Order. — A carrier of property, which, 
 by the terms of the bills of huling. is deliverable to the shipper's order, is lia- 
 ble for its value to the true owner if he delivers the property to the consignees, 
 or any one else, without such order.^^ Where the bill of lading reciuired the 
 delivery of the goods to the consignor, and did not provide for delivery to 
 bearer or order, the forwarding of the bill of lading to the purchaser of the 
 goods with directions to pay a draft for the purchase price and obtain an order 
 for the goods from a local bank, did not invest him with any right to the 
 goods as against the consignor.^^- The fact that the vendee presented the un- 
 indorsed bill of lading was not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the 
 terms of the bill raised, that the consignor was the owner of the goods. That 
 such is the presumption is well established.-"'^ 
 
 Estoppel of Pledgee. — \\'here the pledgor of such bills of lading has been 
 permitted by the pledgee to present them to the carrier as his own, and so ob- 
 tain the property, the pledgee is estopped to gainsay what he has thus sanc- 
 tioned.-""* 
 
 Where Bill of Lading Authorizes Delivery of Goods upon Written Or- 
 der. — If a bill of hiding expressly authorizes the carrier to deliver the goods 
 upon the written order of the consignee without the bill of lading, such or- 
 der, when given, has the same effect as the transfer of the bill of lading.^^ 
 
 § 531. Bill of Lading Signed in Blank. — A bill of lading, originally 
 signed in blank, and subsequently filled up by the authority of the shipper, so 
 as to make the goods deliverable to a transferee, has the same effect to vest 
 the property in him as if his name had been so intered by the direction of 
 the shipper, when it was filled up and signed by the agent of the carrier.^''^ 
 
 §§ 532-534. Transfer by Indorsement and Delivery — § 532. In 
 General. — At common law the title to goods while in possession of the car- 
 rier as bailee may be transferred by indorsement and delivery of the bill of 
 lading to a third person whose title to the goods is no better than that of the 
 person by whom the transfer is made.-"" 
 
 30. Sealy v. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 84 \V. 899, 1 L. R. A. 650; Cougar v. Galena, 
 Kan. 479, 114 Pac. 1077, 41 L. R. A., N. S.. etc., R. Co., 17 Wis. 477; Krudler v. El- 
 500, citing Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564. lison, 47 N. Y. 30, 7 Am. Rep. 402; Law- 
 See ante, "Effect of Statutes Making Bills rence v. Minturn (U. S.), 17 How. 100, 
 of Lading Negotiable," § 516, under catch- 15 L. Ed. 58; Alderman v. Eastern R. 
 line. "Louisiana, Maryland, and Missouri Co., 115 Mass. 233. See, also, Tuttle v. 
 Statutes Doctrine of State Courts." Becker, 47 Iowa 486. 
 
 31. Necessity for shippers order. — Dou- 34. Estoppel of pledgee. — Douglas v. 
 glas V. People's Bank. !) Am. St. Rep. 276, People's Bank, 9 Am. St. Rep. 276, 86 
 86 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420, 10 Ky. L. Rep. Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 
 243, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 510. 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 510. 
 
 32. Weyand v. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 35. Bill of lading authorizes delivery of 
 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, 75 Iowa 573, 39 N. goods upon written order.— Sewanl & Co. 
 W. 899, 1 L. R. A. 650, distinguishing v. Miller, 100 Va. 309, 55 S. E. 681. 
 Dows V. Greene, 24 N. Y. 638; Allen z'. 36. Bill of lading signed in blank.— 
 Williams (Mass.), 12 Pick. 297, and other Chandler v. Sprague (Mass.), 38 Am. Dec. 
 cases on the ground that they go no 404, 5 Mete. 306. 
 
 further than to hold that the delivery of 37. Transfer by indorsement and deliv- 
 
 an unindorsed bill of lading would be a ery. — United States.— Dows v. National 
 
 good symbolical delivery of the goods Exch. Bank. 91 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 214; 
 
 it represented, where such was the intent Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. (U. S.), 1 
 
 and purpose of the parties. Weyand v. Pet. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189. See post. "Rights 
 
 Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 9 Am. St. Rep. and Title of Holder Generally," §§ 544- 
 
 504, 509, 75 Iowa 573, 39 N. W. 899, 1 L. 576. 
 
 R. A. 6.50. Law V. Hatcher (Ind.), 4 Blackf. 364, 
 
 33. Weyand v. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., goes no further than to afifirm the propo- 
 9 Am. St. Rep. 504. 75 Iowa 573, 39 N. sition that the title to goods conveyed by
 
 365 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 333 
 
 § 533. Necessity and Suflaciency of Indorsement or Assignment. — 
 The delivery of the bill of lading without formal indorsement 'or assignment, 
 in deference to the mutual intent of the parties, and the loose usages of busi- 
 ness, is a sufficient constructive delivery.-^^ While a bill of lading may be as- 
 signed in writing, such an assignment is not indispensable, for the carrier is the 
 only party who can insist upon this formality; and if the carrier recognizes 
 the one to whom the bill of lading has been delivered, as owner or as justly en- 
 titled to possession of the goods which the bill of lading represents, it does so 
 at its own risk; and though the consignee might complain, a holder of the bill 
 of lading who had used it as a means of securing possession of the shipment 
 would certainly be estopped from saying that there was no assignment.'^'-* 
 
 As Creating Equitable Lien in Favor of Transferee. — A bill of lading 
 if delivered without indorsement to a third i)arty creates an equitable lien in 
 his fax'or who has recei\Cil it for \rihie. wliich rouris will proterl.'" 
 
 Statutes Providing for Indorsements Do Not Abrogate Common Law. 
 — Since by the common law bills of lading are transferable by delivery, and 
 statutes in derogation thereof are strictly construed, the statutes of a state which 
 provide that indorsement and delivery of bills of lading shall pass title should 
 not be construed to mean that such bills may not be transferred by delivery for 
 a valuable consideration.-^'^ 
 
 Constitutionality of Statute. — State statutes regulating the transfer of bills 
 ot lading by written indorsement, and forbidding the delivery of the property 
 except on surrender of such bill of lading, and imposing a penalty for violation 
 ot its proceedings, is not unconstitutional as imposing a burden of interstate 
 commerce, but valid in the absence of national legislation inconsistent therewith.^' 
 
 Where Demand for Delivery Basis of Action against Carrier.— Where 
 
 a bill of lading would pass from the con- 
 signor to a purchaser by an indorsement 
 and delivery of the bill of lading to the 
 vendee. This is but the common doctrine 
 affirmed by all the cases. Davenport Nat. 
 Bank z: Homeyer, 100 Am. Dec. 363, 45 
 Mo. 145. 
 
 Ill{)iois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. South- 
 ern Bank, 41 111. App. 287. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Chandler v. Sprague 
 (Mass.), 38 Am. Dec. 404, 40G, 5 Mete. 
 306. 
 
 Missouri. — Skilling v. Boilman, G Mo. 
 App. 76, affirmed in 73 Mo. 665. 39 Am. 
 Rep. 537; Kirkpatrick 7: Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co.. 86 Mo. 341; Valle v. Cerre, 36 Mo. 
 575, 88 Am. Dec. 161; Davenport Nat. 
 Bank z: Homeyer, 45 Mo. 145, 100 Am. 
 Dec. 363; Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: Mc- 
 Liney, 32 Mo. -\pp. 166; Dickson z: Mer- 
 chant's Elevator Co.. 44 Mo. App. 498; 
 ScharfT v. Meyer. 133 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. 
 858, 54 Am. St. Rep. 672. 
 
 Neiv York. — Gass v. Astoria Veneer 
 Mills, 134 App. Div. 184, 118 N. Y. S. 
 982. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heid- 
 enheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 199, 17 S. \V. 608, 
 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 The English bill of lading act of 1855 
 (IS & 19 \"ict, c. Ill), has been construed 
 in the following cases: The Figlia Mag- 
 giore L. R. 2 .\dm. & Eccl. 106; The Ship 
 Freedom f. Simmonds, L. R. 3 P. C. 594; 
 The Felix. L. R. 2 Adm. & Eccl. 273; 
 Lewis r. M'Kce, L. R. 2 Exch. 37; The 
 
 Mepoter. L. R. 1 Adm. & Eccl. 375; Dra- 
 cachi r. .A.nglo-Egyption Nav. Co., L. R. 
 3 C. P. 190; The Helene, B. & L. 415; 
 Short v. Simpson, L. R. 1 C. P. 248; 
 Smurthwaite v. Wilkins, 11 C. B., N. S., 
 103, E. C. L. 842; Sewell z: Burdick, L. R. 
 10 App. 74; Tessel z: Bath, L. R. 2 Exch. 
 267. 
 
 38. Necessity and sufficiency of indorse- 
 ments or assignments. — Campbell z-. Al- 
 ford, 57 Tex. l.V,); Adoue f. Seeligson & 
 Co., 54 Tex. 593, 595; Osborn f. Koenig- 
 heim, 57 Tex. 91; National Bank z: Citi- 
 zens' Nat. Bank, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 535, 
 93 S. W. 209, affirmed in 101 Tex. 650, 
 no op. 
 
 The general rule is that delivery, with- 
 out indorsement of a bill of lading, by 
 one entitled tliereunder to the goods, will 
 transfer his title. McMeekin v. Southern 
 Railway, 82 S. C. 468, 64 S. E. 413. 
 
 39. Orr v. Planters' Phosphate, etc.. Co., 
 S Ga. .\pp. 59, 65, 68 S. E. 779. 
 
 40. As creating equitable lien in favor 
 of transferee. — Little Miami, etc.. R. Co. 
 :. D.ul.ls & Co.. 1 C. S. C. 47. 13 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 407. 
 
 41. Statutes providing for indorsement 
 do not abrogate common law. — ScharfT v. 
 Meyer, \X\ .\lo. 428, :;4 S. W. S5S. 54 Am. 
 St. Rep. r)T2. 
 
 42. Constitutionality of statute. — Arkan- 
 sas, etc., R. Co. c'. German Nat. Bank, 113 
 Am. St. Rep. 160, 77 Ark. 482, 92 S. W.
 
 §§ 533-537 CARRIERS. 366 
 
 a so-called demand for delivery was made by the transferee of an "order no- 
 tify" bill of lading of a railroad company (which thereby agreed to transport 
 a certain shipment from and to named points within the state), before it was 
 indorsed bv the one having the legal title thereto, such demand can not be the 
 basis for the ascertainment of the damages for a breach of the contract of 
 carriage."*"' 
 
 Endorsement "Deliver to A." Sufficient for Bill of Lading. — Where a 
 bill of lading issued in the usual form by a railroad company, consigning the 
 shipment to the shipper's order, with directions to notify another, has on its 
 back an endorsement "Deliver to A." signed by the consignee, such endorse- 
 ment is a valid and sufficient assignment of the bill of lading to A.-*-* 
 
 § 534. Necessity for Delivery of Bill. — An indorsement of the bill of 
 lading without a delivery of it docs not transfer the title to the goods.-*^ 
 
 § 53 5. Sale or Payment of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached— Sale 
 of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached. — Where the owner, upon shipment 
 of the goods to his own order at the station of the proposed purchaser, makes 
 a draft in favor of a third person on the proposed purchaser for the price of 
 the goods and indorses the bill of lading and delivers that, with the draft at- 
 tached, to the third person, for a sufficient consideration, intending thereby to 
 sell the goods, the delivery of such draft and bill of lading so indorsed will 
 convev to that person the title to the goods.-**'' 
 
 Payment of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached. — Where a buyer from 
 a consignee paid the latter's draft with a bill of lading attached, the bill of 
 lading thereafter belonged to the purchaser, though he did not receive it until 
 subsequently."*" 
 
 § 536. Attachment of Bill of Lading. — An attachment of a bill of lad- 
 ing, while goods are in the possession of the carrier, operates to carry the title 
 thereto.'*'^ 
 
 §§ 537-539. Persons Who Make Transfer— § 537. In General.— A 
 
 bill of lading can be transferred so as to vest title in the transferee only by 
 the person to whom it is issued or by his authority. If transferred by stran- 
 ger having no authority therefor no title or right to the property is passed and, 
 the carrier is not liable to the bona fide transferee for damages for the loss he 
 sufifered thereby.'*"' If a stranger obtains unauthorized possession of it, and 
 perverts it to unauthorized uses, no one who trusts such stranger, and parts 
 with value on the strength thereof, can claim damages of the carrier for the 
 injuries he may thereby have suffered. It would be his own fault and folly if 
 he dealt with one having no authority in the premises.-^" A purchaser of a bill 
 of lading is put on incjuiry as to the existence of the parties to whom it was 
 
 43. Where demand for delivery basis 47. Sale or payment of draft with bill 
 of action against carrier. — Albany, etc., of lading attached. — Johnson & Co. ?'. 
 R. Co. V. Merchants', etc.. Bank, 137 Ga. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.), 79 Atl. 
 391, 73 S. E. 637. 109.5. 
 
 44. Endorsement "Deliver to A" suffi- 48. Attachment of bill of lading.— Ay- 
 cient for bill of lading.— Allen, etc., Cr). res, etc., Co. v. Dorsey Produce Co, r,3 
 V. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 129 Ga. 748, Am. St. Rep. 376. 101 Iowa 141, 70 N. W. 
 
 59 S. E. 813. . Ill- .^ ^ , r T 
 
 ._ ^T •... r J T r u-11 T> f 49. Person who makes transfer. — J as- 
 
 45 Necessity for delivery of biU.-Buf- ^^^,^^ ^^, ^, j^-.^„^^^ ^. ^^^^ ^ ^ 
 
 fingtonr. Curtis, 1.) Mass. o28, 8 Am. Dec. \^^ ^^^^ g^_ ^ . ,3,, ^,^ ^^g ^^ 
 
 iin'A^^''nP°'i?'^/: A^^"i/^- ^^'^^y^y- So. 546, 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 549, 6 
 100 Am. Dec. 363, 4., Mo. 145. See post, ^yc. Law & Proc. 426. 
 Consignor or Agent, § o.'.9. '^^ j^^p^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^, ^^^^^^ ^-^^^^ 
 
 46. Sale of draft with bill attached to etc., R. Co., 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 80, 99 
 third person.— American Nat. Bank 7'. Lee, Ala. 416, 14 So. 546, 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. 
 124 Ga. 863, 53 S. E. 268. Law 549, G Cyc. Law & Proc. 426.
 
 367 
 
 HILLS OF LADING 
 
 §§ 537-55'J 
 
 issued, and his failure to so inquire and to obtain their indorsement is a bar 
 to any chiini for damages against the carrier issuing it.''^ 
 
 § 538. Consignee. — In strict law, the proper person to pass a bill of lad- 
 ing by indorsement is the consignee, not the consignor.^- By the well-settled 
 principles of commercial law, the consignee is the authorized agent of the 
 owner, whoever he may be, to recei\e the goods, and he may transfer the bill 
 of lading by indorsement. ■"'•'• 
 
 § 539. Consignor or Agent. — A consignor can only transfer title by de- 
 livery of the bill of lading while title to the property is in himself.''-* Strictly 
 speaking, no person but tlie consignee can. by an indorsement on the bill of 
 lading, pass the legal title to the goods; but if the shipi)er be the owner, and 
 the shipment be on his own account and risk, although he may not pass the 
 title, by virtue of a mere indorsement of the bill of lading, unless he be the 
 consignee, or the goods be deliverable to his order; yet, by an assignment on 
 the bill of lading, or by a separate instrument, he can pass the legal title to the 
 same ; and it will be good against all persons, except purchasers for a valua- 
 ble consideration, without notice, by indorsement on the bill of lading itself. 
 Such an assignment by the owner, passes the legal title against his agents or 
 factors, and creditf)rs. in favor of the assignee. •'•' 
 
 Where Shipper Reserves Jus Disponendi. — By the rules of commercial 
 law, a bill of lading is regarded as the symbol of the property therein described; 
 •and a consignor who has reserved the jus disponendi may effectuate a sale or 
 pledge of the property consigned, by delivery of the bill of lading to the pur- 
 chaser or pledgee, as completely as if the property were in fact, delivered. If 
 such transfer of the bill of lading be made after the property has pass into 
 the actual possession of the consignee, the transferee of the bill takes it sub- 
 ject to anv right or lien which the consignee may have acquired by reason of 
 his ]:)Ossession. I'ut if the bill of lading be transferred by way of sale or pledge 
 to a third person, before the ])roperty comes into the possession of the con- 
 signee, the consignee takes the property subject to any right which the trans- 
 feree of the bill may have acquired by the symbolic delivery of the property 
 to him.'""' If the right to control the property be reserved by the shipper, the 
 
 51. lasper Trust Co. v. Kansas City, 
 etc., R. Co., 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 76. 99 
 Ala. 416, 14 So. 546, 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. 
 Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. 426. 
 
 52. Consignee. — Tison z: Howard, 57 
 Ga. 410. Sec, also. Bass v. Glover, 6:i 
 Ga. 745. 
 
 53. Conard r. Atlantic Ins. Co. (U. S.). 
 1 Pet. 386. 387, 7 L. Ed. 1S9. 
 
 Ohio. — Page & Co. v. Sandusky, etc., R. 
 Co., 4 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 716; Jordan, etc., Co. v. James, 5 O. 
 88; Little Miami, etc., R. Co. 7'. Dodds & 
 Co., 1 C. S. C. 47, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 
 407. 
 
 .\ consignee upon a hill of lading to 
 himself, or assigns, ol)tains a property 
 in tlie consignment by the hill of lading, 
 and may sell and transfer a title, while 
 the goods are in transit, liefore they ever 
 come to his actual possession, by indorse- 
 ing tlie bill of lading, notwithstanding 
 they have not been paid for. The mo- 
 ment goods are delivered liy A. to a car- 
 rier, to be forwarded to B. the prop- 
 erty vests in B. Jordan, etc., Co. v. James, 
 5 O. 88; Little Miami, etc.. R. Co. ■:•. 
 
 Dodds & Co., 1 C. S. C. R. 47, 13 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 407. 
 
 54. Maine Bank of Buffalo v. Barringer, 
 46 Pa. Sup. Ct. 510. 
 
 55. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. (U. S.), 
 1 Pet. 386. 387, 7 L. Ed. 189. 
 
 Tlie deliver}' of a bill of lading by the 
 consignor operates as a transfer of the 
 property or some interest therein onl)' 
 where there is a stipulation in the bill 
 itself whereby an ownership is retained 
 by the consignor. Bonds-Foster Lumber 
 Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 101 Pac. 
 877. 53 Wash. :!():?. 
 
 56. Where shipper reserves jus dispon- 
 endi. — See ante, "Right of Disposal Re- 
 tained l)y Consignor," §§ 527-528. ScharfT 
 z: Meyer. 54 Am. St. Rep. 672, 133 Mo. 
 428. 34 S. W. 858; Emery's Sons z: Irving 
 Nat. Bank. 25 O. St. 360. IS Am. Rep. 
 299. 
 
 Ohio. — Emery's Sons f. Irving Nat. 
 Bank. 25 O. St. 360. 18 Am. Rep. 299. fol- 
 lowed in 26 O. St. 641. reversing in part 
 1 C. S. C. R. 76. 13 O. Dec. Reprint 425; 
 Pomeroy. etc.. Co. z: Will. 2 Am. L. Rec. 
 1. 5 O. Dec. Reprint 34. 
 
 "As between the consignor and con-
 
 § 539 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 368 
 
 carrier must be regarded as his agent; if not, then as the agent of the con- 
 signee.^" 
 
 Question of Reservation of Jus Disponendi One of Intention.— if the 
 consignment be made by a vendor to a vendee, the question wliether the con- 
 signor reserved the jus disponendi is one of intention, to be gathered from all 
 the facts and circumstances of the transaction.^^ On such question of inten- 
 tion, the terms of the bill of lading are to be taken as admissions of the con- 
 signor, and are entitled to great weight, but are not conclusive. ^» Nor is the 
 fact tiiat the consignee had contracted with the carrier for special rates of 
 freight conclusive that the goods were delivered by the consignor to such car- 
 rier as the a^ent of the consignee.'^'^ 
 
 Bill of Lading Never Delivered to Consignee.— If a bill of lading in fa- 
 vor of the consignee, although such consignee be the agent or factor of the 
 consignor, may be transferred by the consignor by delivery for a valuable con- 
 sideration, in the absence of statutory inhibition, such bill in favor of a con- 
 signee who is a purchaser, when retained by the consignor, may be transferred 
 in the same way. If extraneous evidence is admissible to show the real in- 
 tent of the consignor as to the retention of the title of the goods covered by 
 the bill in the one case, it must be in the other.*^! 
 
 Bill Sent to Agent for Delivery to Consignee or Payment of Purchase 
 Price. — The consignor frequently sends to a consignee a bill not indorsed, and 
 then sends to his own agent in or within reach of the same port an indorsed 
 bill — it may be indorsed in blank, or to the agent, or to the party ordering the 
 goods — and the consignor sends to his agent with the bill orders to deliver the 
 bill to the party ordering the goods, or to receive the goods and deliver them 
 to him, provided payment be made or secured, or such other terms as the con- 
 signor prescribes are complied with. This course secures to the consignor, be- 
 
 signee. the bill of lading can not be re- 
 garded as a contract in writing, but merely 
 as an admission or declaration on the part 
 of the consignor as to his purpose, at 
 the time, in making the shipment, and 
 such admission is subject to be rebutted 
 by other circumstances connected with 
 the transaction. By the rules of commer- 
 cial law, bills of lading are regarded as 
 symbols of the property therein described, 
 and the delivery of such bill by one hav- 
 ing an interest in or a right to control the 
 property is equivalent to a delivery of 
 the property itself. A consignor who has 
 reserved the jus disponendi may effectu- 
 ate a sale or pledge of the property con- 
 signed, by delivery of the bill of sale to 
 the purchaser or pledgee, as completely 
 as if the property were, in fact, deliv- 
 ered." Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299, fol- 
 lowed in 26 O. St. 641, reversing in part 
 1 C. S. C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 425; 
 Hobart & Co. v. Littlefield Bros., 13 R. 
 I. 341. 
 
 57. Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299; followed 
 in 26 O. St. 641 (reversing in part 1 C. 
 S. C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 425). _ 
 
 58. Question of reservation of jus dis- 
 ponendi one of intention. — Emery's Sons 
 V. Irving Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 
 299, followed in 26 O. St. 641 (reversing 
 in part 1 C. S. C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 425). 
 
 59. Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299, followed 
 in 26 O. St. 641 (reversing in part 1 C. S. 
 C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 425). 
 
 60. Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299, followed 
 in 26 O. St. 641 (reversing in part 1 C. S. 
 C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 425). 
 
 61. Bill of lading never transferred to 
 consignee. — Scharff v. Meyer, 54 Am. St. 
 Rep. 672, 682, 133 Mo. 428, 34 S. W. 858. 
 See ante, "Bill Not Delivered to Con- 
 signee," § 505. 
 
 If the owner of merchandise deliver it 
 to a common carrier to be carried and 
 delivered to a named consignee, and take 
 from the carrier a bill of lading, consign- 
 ing such merchandise absolutely to such 
 consignee, omitting all words of negotia- 
 bility, as "or bearer," etc., but does not 
 deliver or send any bill of lading to the 
 consignee, but retains the same himself, 
 the carrier is his agent alone, and he may 
 pledge or transfer the goods, by pledging 
 or transferring the bill of lading, at any 
 time before such goods come into the 
 possession of the consignee, no matter 
 what contract in relation to the goods 
 may exist, or what the general state of 
 accounts may be between the consignor 
 and the consignee. Pomeroy, etc., Co. v. 
 Will, 2 Am. L. Rec. 1. 5 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 34.
 
 369 
 
 BILLS OF LADIN'G. 
 
 §§ 539-541 
 
 yoiid all question, the right and power of retaining the goods until the price 
 for them he paid or secured to him.''- 
 
 § 540. Consideration. — A hill (jf lading is a negotiahle instrument, un- 
 der Louisiana Acts 1S68, p. 193, No. 150, and may he transferred for an antece- 
 dent or ])re-existing deht, or for any consideration sufficient to support a simple 
 contract, under Acts 1904, ]). 152, Xo. 64. § 24.*'-'' 
 
 §§ 541-576. Effect of Transfer— § 541. In General.— The transfer 
 
 of a hill of lading does not create any contract relation hetueen the transferee 
 and the huyer, nor affect the rights of the huyer and the seller as between them- 
 selves."-* The assignment of a hill of lading operates as a transfer of the title 
 of the goods therein described. A transfer of the ownership of the property 
 covered by a bill of lading as well as of the right of possession is made as ef- 
 fectually by the transfer of the bill as it could be by a physical delivery of the 
 ])ropcrt}'.''"' 
 
 Efifect of Indorsement and Delivery. — The indorsement of a bill of lad- 
 ing to a shipper's order vests the title to tlie goods in the transferee as pur- 
 chaser or pledgee, as the case may be.'''' A transfer of a bill of lading by in- 
 dorsement, accompanied by a delivery of it, passes to the transferee the title 
 of the transferrer to the pro])erty described therein and nothing more.*^" A 
 
 62. Bill sent to agent for delivery to 
 consignee on payment of purchase price. 
 — Weyand v. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 9 
 Am. St. Rep. .504, .509, 75 Iowa 573, 39 N. 
 W. 899, 1 L. R. A. ()50. 
 
 63. Consideration. ^ Scheuermann v. 
 Monarch Fruit Co., 123 La. 55, 48 So. 647. 
 Sec post, "l^ledge. Mortgage or Collateral 
 Security," § 577. 
 
 64. Hawkins z: Alfalfa Products Co., 152 
 Ky. 152, 153 S. W. 201, 44 L. R. A.. X. 
 S., 600. 
 
 65. United States. — Means z'. Bank, 146 
 U. S. 620, 627. 36 L. Ed. 1107, 13 S. Ct. 
 186; Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. (U. S.), 
 1 Pet. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189; Dows v. National 
 Exch. Bank. 91 U. S. 618. 23 L. Ed. 214; 
 Allen V. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 120 U. S. 
 20, 36, 30 L. Ed. 573. 7 S. Ct. 460. 
 
 AlahaiiKi. — -"The transferee simply ac- 
 quires the title of the transferrer to the 
 goods described in them. Commercial 
 Bank v. Hurt, 99 Ala. 130. 42 Am. St. 
 Rep. 38, 12 So. 568, 19 L. R. A. 701; Jas- 
 per Trust Co. 7'. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 
 99 Ala. 416. 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 14 So. 
 546, 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 549. 6 Cyc. 
 Law & Proc. 426; Haas v. Citizens' Bank, 
 113 Am. St. Rep. 61, 144 Ala. 562, 39 So. 
 129. 1 L. R. A., N. S., 242. 
 
 lozva. — Garden Grove Bank v. Humes- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 67 Iowa 526, 25 N. W. 
 761, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 695; Ayres, 
 etc., Co. V. Dorsey Produce Co., 63 Am. 
 St. Rep. 376, 101 Iowa 141. 70 N. W. 111. 
 
 Maine. — Winslow v. Norton. 29 Me. 419, 
 50 .\n\. Dec. 601. 
 
 }fassachusetts. — R o w 1 e y z'. Bigelow 
 (Alass.). 12 Pick. 307, 23 '.\m. Dec. 606; 
 Chandler z\ Sprague (Mass.). 38 Am. Dec. 
 404, 5 Mete. 306. 
 
 Missouri. — "Bills of lading, by the law 
 
 1 Car— 24 
 
 merchant, are representatives of the prop- 
 erty for which they have been given, and 
 the indorsement and delivery of a bill of 
 lading transfers the property from the ven- 
 dor to the vendee; is a complete legal 
 delivery of the goods; divests the vendor's 
 lien." Skilling v. Bollman, 39 Am. Rep. 
 537, 538, 73 Mo. 665. See, "As Defeating 
 Stoppage in Transitu," § 567 
 
 By the Missouri act of 1869, any person 
 to whom a warehouse receipt or bill of 
 lading may be transferred shall be deemed 
 and held to be the owner of the goods 
 so far as to give validity to any pledge, 
 lien or transfer given, made or created 
 thereby, as on the faith thereof. Allen 
 V. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 36. 
 30 L. Ed. 573. 7 S. Ct. 460. 
 
 Xebraska. — Gates v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co., 42 Neb. 379, 60 N. W. 583. 61 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 218; Union Pac. R. Co. 
 v. Johnston. 50 Am. St. Rep. 540, 546, 45 
 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144. 
 
 Xczi.' York. — Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank v. 
 Logan. 74 N. Y. 568; Bank v. Jones. 4 N. 
 Y. 497, 55 Am. Dec. 290. 
 
 Penns\lvama. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Stern. 119 Pa. 24. 12 Atl. 756, 35 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 551. 4 Am. St. Rep. 626; 
 Decan v. Shipper, 35 Pa. 239. 78 Am. Dec. 
 334. 
 
 'A'.vaj.— Chandler v. Fulton. 10 Tex. 2. 
 10. 60 Am. Dec. 188; Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. \V. 
 60S. 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 66. Scheuermann v. Monarch Fruit Co., 
 123 La. 55, 48 So. 647. 
 
 67. United 5" /a/<'.y.— McNeil v. Hill, 1 Fed. 
 Cas. No. 8914. Woolw. 96. 
 
 Georgia. — Askew & Co. v. Southern R. 
 Co.. 1 Ga. App. 79. 81, 58 S. E. 242. 
 
 Ohio. — Little Miami, etc., R. Co. v.
 
 §§ 541-543 
 
 CARRIER? 
 
 370 
 
 title thus acquired is as efifectual iu law as it would be if based upon an ex- 
 press and completed contract of sale,«^^ for the indorsement and delivery of a 
 bill of lading are merely evidence of a sale.«» 
 
 § 542. As Transfer of Contract between Consignor and Consignee. 
 
 The transfer of a bill of lading is not a transfer of the contract between the 
 
 original parties to it. but merely a transfer of the goods represented by it ; '" 
 therefore, the assignee of such an instrument can not maintain an action 
 founded upon it as a contract in his own name.'^ 
 
 Shipment in Pursuance of Contract of Sale. — Where, in a written con- 
 tract between two parties, one buys from the other at a stipulated price goods 
 to be shipped, and the carrier issues to the seller a bill of lading therefor con- 
 signing the shipment to his order, which the latter transfers to a third person, 
 such transfer alone does not entitle such third person to sue the buyer. on the 
 contract for the purchase price."- 
 
 Under a statute authorizing the real party in interest to sue in his 
 own name on any contract which has been transferred to him, the com- 
 mon-law rule that the assignment of a bill of lading does not transfer rights 
 upon the contract, and that an action founded on the express contract con- 
 tained in the instrument must be brought by the original party to the contract, 
 does not apply.'" 
 
 § 543. Operation as Constructive Delivery of Goods. — Bills of lading 
 when transferred operate as a delivery of the property itself investing the 
 transferee with a constructive possession which serves all the purposes of ac- 
 tual possession and so continues until there is a valid and complete delivery of 
 the property, under and in pursuance of the bill of lading, and to the persons 
 entitled to receive the same."^ 
 
 Dodds & Co., 1 C. S. C. 47, 13 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 407. 
 
 Texas. — Landa v. Lattin, 19 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 246, 250, 46 S. W. 48; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 19.5, 199, 
 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 861; Mer- 
 cantile Banking Co. v. Landa (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 33 S. W. 681. 
 
 68. Mercantile Banking Co. v. Landa 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. \V. 681. 
 
 69. Indorsement and delivery merely 
 evidence of sale. — Page & Co. v. San- 
 dusk}-, etc., R. Co., 4 West. L. M. ii44, 2 
 O. Dec. Reprint 716. 
 
 70. As transfer between consignor and 
 consignee. — Orr v. Planters' Phospliate, 
 etc., Co., 8 Ga. App. 59, 68 S. E. 779. 
 
 71. Bahimore, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkens, 
 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Rep. 26; Blanchard v. 
 Page (Mass.), 8 Grav 281; Adams v. Brig 
 Pilgrim, 10 West L. J. 141, 1 O. Dec. 477; 
 Second Nat. Bank v. Walbridge, 19 O. 
 St. 419, 2 Am. Rep. 408. 
 
 72. Shipment in pursuance of sale. — Al- 
 len, etc., Co. V. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 
 129 Ga. 748, 59 S. E. m1:5. 
 
 73. Statute authorizing assignee to sue. 
 —Merchants' Bank z\ L'nion R., etc., Co., 
 69 N. Y. 373. 
 
 74. Operation as constructive delivery 
 of goods. — United States.— The Thames 
 (U. S.j, 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 804. 
 
 Arkansas. — Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. Ger- 
 man Nat. Bank, 113 .\m. St. Rep. 160, 77 
 Ark. 482, 92 S. W. 522. 
 
 Colorado. — Florence, etc., R. Co. v. Jen- 
 sen, 48 Colo. 28, 108 Pac. 974. 
 
 Georgia. — Branan v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 108 Ga. 70, 33 S. E. 836. 
 
 The assignment of a bill of lading con- 
 stitutes a symbolical delivery of the goods 
 themselves. Branan v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 108 Ga. 70, 33 S. E. 836. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Forbes v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co., 133 Mass. 154. 
 
 Massachusetts sales act. — A negotiable 
 bill of lading represents the property, and 
 tlie receipt of it by one is equivalent to 
 an actual delivery of the property, and 
 this rule is recognized by the sales act 
 (St. 1908, c. 237), making a negotiable bill 
 of lading a document of title, which on 
 indorsement passes the property as a di- 
 rect delivery thereof. Brown v. Floer- 
 sheim Mercantile Co., 92 N. E. 494, 206 
 Mass. 373. 
 
 Michigan. — Walker v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 Co., 49 Mich. 446. 13 N. W. 812. 
 
 Missouri. — A bill of lading is assignable, 
 such an assignment constituting in the 
 law a complete legal delivery of the goods 
 thereby evidenced to be in the hands of 
 the carrier, as effectually as an actual sale 
 and delivery thereof. Gratiot St. Ware- 
 house Co. V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 102 S. 
 W. 11, 124 Mo. App. 545. 
 
 Xebra ska. —Union Pac. R. Co. v. John- 
 ston, 45 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 540; Gates v. Chicago, etc., R.
 
 371 
 
 nil.LS (Jl" LADING. 
 
 § 344 
 
 §§ 544-576. Rights and Title of Holder Generally— § 544. In Gen- 
 eral — General Doctrine. — In the absence of any siatnie changing ihe com- 
 mon law a transfer of a bill of lading, where such is the intention of the par- 
 ties, passes to the transferee all the title to the goods described in it that the 
 transferror had at the time of assignment no other or better title."-"' A bill of lad- 
 ing not being commercial jiaper, the transferee merely acquires the title of the 
 transferror to the goods described/'' unless the true owner is estopped from as- 
 serting his titles as against the transferee."" A bill of lading as a mere docu- 
 
 Co., 42 Neb. 379, (iO X. \V. J.s:{, til Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 218. 
 
 Ohio. — Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. 
 Bank, 18 Am. Rep. 299, 303, 25 O. St. 3(iO. 
 
 Peiinsvhania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Stern, 119 Ta. 24, 12 Atl. 75G, 4 Am. St. 
 Rep. r)2r,, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 551. 
 
 Tennessee. — Third Xat. Bank v. Hays, 
 119 Tenn. 729. 108 S. W. lOGO, 14 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 1049. 
 
 Te.vas. — The assignment of a bill of lad- 
 ing, indorsed thereon, accompanied by de- 
 livery of the instrument, passes to the 
 assignee title to the goods, though actu- 
 ally in transit, as complete as if they had 
 passed through the buyer's hands and 
 been delivered l)odily to the assignee. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer, 82 
 Tex. 195. 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 
 801; Adoue z: Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 
 593. 
 
 In commercial transactions l)ills of lad- 
 ing, to a very large extent, are regarded 
 as the representatives of the goods cov- 
 ered by them, and where they are in- 
 dorseci and delivered with the intention 
 of passing the title to them, it is a sym- 
 bolic or constructive delivery of the goods 
 themselves. Campbell v. Alford, 57 Tex. 
 159, IGl. 
 
 The assignment of a bill of lading by 
 the consignee, by way of sale or mort- 
 gage will pass the property, though no 
 actual delivery of the goods be made (pro- 
 vided they were then at sea). Chandler 
 r. Fulton. 10 Tex. 2, I'.O Am. Dec. ISS. 
 
 75. Effect of transfer of bill of lading. — 
 United States. — The Carlos F. Roses, 177 
 U. S. 65, 44 L. Ed. 929, 20 S. Ct. 803; 
 Pollard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 
 998: Shaw r. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557, 
 25 L. Ed. 892; Friedlander v. Texas, etc.. 
 R. Co., 130 U. S. 416. 32 L. Ed. 991, 9 S. 
 Ct. 570; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFad- 
 den, 154 U. S. 155. 38 L. Ed. 944. 14 S. 
 Ct. 990; North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 31 
 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 Alabama. — Jasper Trust Co. v. Kansas 
 City, etc.. R. Co., 99 .\la. 416, 14 So. 546, 
 42 Am. St. Rep. 75. 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. 
 Law 549, 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 42(). 
 
 Georgia. — Raleigh, etc.. R. Co. v. Lowe, 
 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867; Haas v. Kansas 
 City, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 792, 7 S. E. 629. 
 
 Except where the rules of the common 
 law and mercantile usage have been modi- 
 fied by statute, the transfer of a bill of 
 
 lading by indorsement and delivery passes 
 lo the indorsee only such rights to, or 
 property in, the goods covered by the 
 bill as the transferrer himself has and as 
 it is the intention of the parties shall be 
 conveyed. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 
 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867. 
 
 Maryland. — National Bank v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 105 .Am. St. Rep. 321, 59 Atl. 
 134, 99 Md. 661. 
 
 \'e't<.' York. — Saltus v. Everett (X. Y.), 
 20 Wend. 267, 32 Am. Dec. 541. 
 
 Missouri. — Webster v. Bear, 141 Mo. 
 App. 531, 125 S. W. 815. 
 
 In the absence of any statute, the 
 transferee of a negotiable bill of lading 
 acquires no better title to the goods rep- 
 resented thereby than his transferror had, 
 unless the true owner is estopped from 
 asserting his right as against the trans- 
 feree, for the negotiability of a bill of 
 lading means assignability so far as the 
 written contract of carriage is concerned, 
 and, so far as the goods described in the 
 I)ill are concerned, a conveyance of such 
 title thereto as the transferror had. Gass 
 V. Astoria Veneer Mills, 118 X. Y. S, 
 982, 134 App. Div. 184. 
 
 Ohio. — Emery's Sons v. Irving Xat. 
 Bank. 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299, 
 followed in 26 O. St. 641 (reversing in 
 part 1 C. S. C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 
 4:j5). 
 
 Pennsylvania. — A bill of lading takes 
 the place of the property described 
 therein, and an assignment of it gives to 
 the person to whom it is transferred such 
 title as the assignor had, and this only 
 when it is the intention of the parties 
 that such change of title shall take ef- 
 fect. Marine Nat. Bank of Buffalo v. 
 Baringer, 46 Pa. Super. Ct. 510. 
 
 South Carolina. — Assignment of a bill 
 of lading by the owner thereof carries 
 the title to the goods covered by it. 
 First Nat. Bank v. McSwain, 93 S. C. 
 30, 75 S. E. 1106. 
 
 Te.vas. — Landa r. Lattin. 19 Tex. Civ, 
 App. 246, 46 S. W. 48; Nashville, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Grayson County Xat. Bank (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 91 S. W. 1106. judgment re- 
 versed in 93 S. W. 431, 100 Tex. 17. 
 
 J'.ngland. — Lickbarrow v. Mason, 6 
 East. 21. 
 
 76. First Nat. Bank z: Wilkesbarre 
 Lace Mfg. Co.. 162 Ala. 309, 50 So. 153. 
 
 77. Gass V. Astoria \'eneer Mills, 134 
 App. Div. 184, lis X. Y. S. 9S2.
 
 544 
 
 CAURIKRS. 
 
 372 
 
 nient is valueless, of consequence only in so far as it is evidence of title 
 to something in somebody. Its transfer is the transfer of the title to the 
 thing described in it, and whatever equities exist between the parties to it with 
 respect to the title of the property which it purports to represent, will follow 
 that property into the hands of the assignee of the bill of lading, unless some 
 other legal or equitable principle intervenes to preclude the assertion of a prior 
 right as against a bona fide assignee for value ; but the assignee of a non-nego- 
 tiable bill of lading is not subject to the equities of third persons whose claims 
 do not appear upon and are in no way connected with the bill."*^ 
 
 Title Same as That Acquired by Transfer of Goods Themselves. — The 
 delivery or negotiation of the bill produces no greater effect than would the 
 delivery of the goods it represents, and the right conferred by the indorsement 
 will be limited to that which might have been exercised by the indorsee had 
 the goods themselves been transferred instead of the bill.'^'^ The transfer of a 
 bill of lading, then, by the person in possession of the instrument, can give no 
 higher title than would the transfer of the property itself by the same per- 
 son.'*" and the presumption as to ownership arising from the bill may be ex- 
 plained or rebutted by evidence showing where the real ownership lies. 
 
 Goods Billed to Shipper's Order. — Seller's negotiation of bill of lading 
 for shi])mcnt consigned to its owner's order vests the legal title to the ship- 
 ment in a transferee. '*i But the indorsee or assignee must trace his title back 
 to its true owner. He has no greater right than the true owner.^'*- 
 
 Statement Showing Title of Consignor Attached to Bill.— AX'here a 
 shipper attached to the bill of lading a statement showing his real interest in 
 the goods, he is not estopped by negligence from asserting his title against the 
 transferee of the party in possession thereof.^^ 
 
 Certified Order for Delivery. — \Vhere the consignee of grain surrendered 
 the bills of lading to the local freight agent, and took certified orders therefor, 
 and obtained advances from a bank on the security of drafts accompanied by 
 the certified orders, the title to the grain was transferred to the bank,^^ and 
 such certified order was notice to the carrier of the bank's rights.''-^ 
 
 78. National Bank v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 105 Am. St. Rep. 321, 59 Atl. 
 134. 99 Md. 061. 
 
 79. Title same as acquired by transfer 
 of goods. — Massachusetts. — Rowley v. 
 Bifjelow (Mass.), 12 Pick. 307, 23 Am. 
 Dec. G06; Mechanics' Bank v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599, 11 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 570; Brower v. Peabody, 13 N. Y. 
 121; Dows V. Perrin, 16 N. Y. 325. 
 
 The assignee of a bill of lading can 
 not acquire a better title to the prop- 
 erty thus symbolically delivered, than 
 his assignor had at the time of assign- 
 ment. Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. Bank, 
 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299. 
 
 The right conferred by the indorse- 
 ment of a bill of lading is limited to that 
 which might have been exercised by the 
 indorsee, had the goods themselves been 
 transferred. Franklin Trust Co. v. Phil- 
 adelphia, etc., R. Co., 222 Pa. 96, 70 Atl. 
 949. 22 L. R. A., N. S., 828. 
 
 80. Seward & Co. v. Miller, 106 Va. 
 309, 55 S. E. 681. 
 
 81. Reed v. Racine Boat Co. (Iowa), 
 137 N. W. 458. 
 
 82. Douglas v. People's Bank, 9 Am. 
 St. Rep. 276, 86 Ky. 176, 5 S. W. 420, 10 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 510. 
 
 83. Statement showing consignor's in- 
 terest attached to bill. — I'laintiff sold to 
 F. 347 cases of eggs, and, at direction 
 of F., shipped them consigned to defend- 
 ant. In the same car plaintiff shipped 
 52 other- cases of eggs; and attached to 
 the bill of lading, accompanying the draft 
 for the 347 cases drawn on F., a state- 
 ment showing this fact, and that the 
 52 cases were consigned to defendant 
 for sale on plaintiff's account. Held, that 
 this was such precaution to notify the 
 consignee of the facts that plaintiff was 
 not estopped to assert title to the 52 
 cases against F.'s transferee of the bill 
 of lading. Webster v. Bear, 141 Mo. 
 App. 531. 125 S. W. 815. 
 
 84. Certified orders for delivery.— Na- 
 tional Newark Banking Co. v. Delaware, 
 etc., R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774, 58 Atl. 311, 
 60 L. R. A., N. S., 595, 103 Am. St. Rep. 
 825. 
 
 85. National Newark Banking Co. v. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774, 
 58 Atl. 311, 66 L. R. A., N. S., 595, 103 
 Am. St. Rep. 825.
 
 Z7Z 
 
 i:iLLS (Jl' LADIXG. 
 
 §§ 545-550 
 
 §§ 545-546. No Goods Delivered to Carrier— § 545. In General.— 
 
 If tlic <((j(j(ls were not (lcli\ c-rcd U) llic agciil of ilic carrier wlien he (ieli\ered 
 the bill of lading, the carrier is not liable.***^ 
 
 § 546. Title to Goods Not Shipped or Included in Bill.— The trans- 
 feree of the bill of lading gels only the title to the thing shipped or included 
 in the bill of lading, does not get a title to what shoidd have been shipped, or 
 to something which the vendor agreed to ship, and which is not embraced in 
 the bill of lading.*^" 
 
 § 547. Goods Shipped without Authority of Owner. — If a person with- 
 out authority from the owner of goods ships tiiem and takes a bill of lading in 
 his own name, he can not, by assigning that bill of lading to another, divest 
 the owner's title to the property; even in favor of a bona fide purchaser for 
 value, without notice.'^'^ 
 
 § 548. Assignment Made after Arrival of Goods. — The assignment of 
 a bill of lading to bona tide holder for a valuable consideration will vest the 
 legal interest of the consignee in the assignee, although the assignment be made 
 after the arrival of tlie goods.'"*'^ 
 
 §§ 549-552. Bona Fide Holders— § 549. General Rule.— The doc- 
 trine of bona hde purchasers only applies to the transfer of a bill of lading 
 in a limited sense. '"^ By indorsement of the bill of lading to a bona fide pur- 
 chaser, for a valuable consideration, without notice of any adverse interests, 
 the latter becomes, as against all the world, the owner of the goods; so far as 
 equities between the original parties thereto are concerned ; ■•! but inquiry into 
 the transaction in which the bill originated is not precluded because it' came 
 into the hands of persons who may have innocentlv paid \alue for it.-'- 
 
 § 550. Effect of Statutes Making Bills of Lading Negotiable.— As a 
 
 general rule, where I)ills of lading are made negotiable by statute, the holder 
 
 86. No goods delivered to carrier. — ■ 
 Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 64 
 Minn. 245, 66 N. W. 988, 58 Am. St. 
 Rep. 530; National Bank v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 20 
 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263. 
 See ante, "As against Bona Fide Con- 
 signee or Transferee," §§ 431-437. 
 
 87. Title to goods not shipped or in- 
 cluded in bill. — Cosmos Cotton Co. v. 
 First Nat. Bank, 171 Ala. 392, 54 So. 
 621, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, Ann. Cas. 
 1913 B, 42. 
 
 88. Saltus V. Everett (N. Y.), 20 Wend. 
 267. 32 Am. St. Rep. .')41. 
 
 89. Assignment made after arrival of 
 goods. — Chandler v. Belden, 18 John. 157, 
 9 Am. Dec. 193. 
 
 90. General rule. — Pollard v. Vinton, 
 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998. 
 
 91. United States. — Conard v. Atlantic 
 Ins. Co. (U. S.), 1 Pet. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189; 
 Means v. Bank, 146 U. S. 620, 36 L. Ed. 
 1107, 13 S. Ct. 186; Dows r. National 
 Exch. Bank. 91 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 Maine. — Winslow v. Norton, 29 Me. 
 419. 50 Am. Dec. 601. 
 
 iVcTC Jersey. — "A general indorsement 
 and delivery of a bill of lading vests in 
 the indorsee the title to the bill and the 
 property thereby represented, so as to 
 enable him to transfer to a bona fide pur- 
 
 chaser, for value, a good title, whatever 
 secret arrangement may have existed be- 
 tween the original parties." Farmers', 
 etc., Nat. Bank v. Hazeltine, 78 N. V. 
 104, 34 Am. Rep. 518, 521. 
 
 Ohio. — Page & Co. v. Sanduskv. etc., 
 R. Co., 4 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 716. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — "A bill of lading, 'regu- 
 larly, fairly, and for value indorsed to 
 another, will pass the title' to the goods 
 to the indorsee: Schumacher v. Eb)', 24 
 Pa. 521." Decan v. Shipper, 78 Am. Dec. 
 334, 35 Pa. 239. 
 
 92. The Carlos F. Roses. 177 U. S. 
 655, 44 L. Ed. 929. 20 S. Ct. 803; Pol- 
 lard V. Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 
 998; Shaw v. Railroad Co.. 101 U. S. 
 557, 25 L. Ed. 892; Friedlander v. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co., 130 U. S. 416. 32 L. Ed. 991. 
 9 S. Ct. 570; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 McFadden, 154 U. S. 155. 38 L. Ed. 944, 
 14 S. Ct. 990; North Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 f. Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 
 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 While a bill of lading is in a sense a 
 negotialde instrument, it is not such as 
 to preclude in the hands of a bona fide 
 purchaser all inquiries respecting its is- 
 sue. Bramley v. Ulster, etc., R. Co.. 126 
 N. Y. S. 854, 142 App. Div. 176.
 
 §§ 550-553 CARRIERS. 374 
 
 of a bill of lading, in the absence of either title to the goods or authority to 
 transfer them in himself, can not, by a transfer of the instrument pass the 
 right of property in the goods, even to a bona fide purchaser for value ; he can 
 convey no greater rights than he himself has."-^ But the voluntary act of the 
 owner of property in giving to another a bill of lading directing the carrier 
 to deliver the goods therein described to the person named in the bill or order 
 is sufficient to estop him from asserting any claim to the goods as against a 
 person, dealing in good faith with the person named therein.^-* 
 
 § 551. Estoppel of Carrier to Deny Conditions and Representations 
 in Bill. — Where an agent has authority to issue bills of lading and issues one 
 with certain conditions contained therein, which is negotiated to an innocent 
 third person, the company, as between itself and such third person, is estopped 
 to denv the conditions contained in the bill.''' 
 
 Right to Rely on Representations in Bill. — A very large proportion of 
 the business of the country is foundetl upon transfers of bills of lading; and 
 if the transferee were required at his perW to ascertain from the carrier 
 whether the representations made in the bill of lading are true or not, it would 
 practicallv put an end to this class of transactions.''^ 
 
 Recital of Receipt of Goods, Quality, or Quantity.— See ante, "As against 
 Lona Fide Consignee or Transferee," §§ 431-4.V. 
 
 § 552. Duplicate or Triplicate Bill. — See post, "Duplicate or Triplicate 
 Bill." § 589. 
 
 § 553. Holder with Knowledge of Defects in Transferrer's Title.— 
 
 The indorsement of a bill of lading, by a fraudulent holder, to a purchaser for 
 value who has notice of the fraud, will not vest title to or encumber the prop- 
 erty described in the bill.''' The purchaser of a bill of lading with reason to 
 believe that his vendor was not the owner of the bill, or that it was held to 
 secure the payment of an outstanding draft, is not a bona fide purchaser, and 
 he is not entitled to hold the merchandise covered by the bill against its true 
 owner. '^^ 
 
 93. Effect of statutes making bills of ply to make it transferable by indorse- 
 lading negotiable.—Sce ante, "Effect of ment and delivery, and the voluntary act 
 Statutes Making Bills of Lading Xego- of the owner of property in giving to 
 tiable," § 516. another a bill of lading which unquali- 
 
 Ala'bama.— jasper Trust Co. v. Kansas fiedly directs the carrier to deliver the 
 
 City. etc.. R. Co., 99 Ala. 416. 14 So. .546, goods to the person named therein or 
 
 42 Am. St. Rep. 75, 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. to his order is sufficient to estop such 
 
 Law 549. 6 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 426. owner from making any claim to the 
 
 Texas.— handa v. Lattin. 19 Tex. Civ. goods as against a person dealing in good 
 
 App. 246, 46 S. W. 48. See Blaidsell 7'. faith with the person named therein. 
 
 Citizens' Nat. Bank, 96 Tex. 626. 75 S. Gass v. Astoria Veneer Mills, 118 N. Y. 
 
 \V. 292. 62 L. R. A. 968. 97 Am. St. Rep. S. 982, 134 App. Div. 184. 
 
 944. 95. Estoppel of carrier to deny condi- 
 
 94. Factors' Act (Laws 1830, p. 203. tions and representations in bill. — Amer- 
 c. 179), § 3, providing that every agent ican Xat. Bank v. Georgia R. Co., 96 Ga. 
 intrusted wMth the possession of any bill ggs, 23 S. E. 898, 51 Am. St. Rep. 155. 
 
 of lading shall be deemed the true owner gg Rjg^t to rely on representations in 
 
 thereof so far as to give validity to any bill.— American Nat. Bank v. Georgia R. 
 
 contract made by the agent for the sale q^^ g^, q^ ggg^ 23 S. E. 698, 51 Am. St. 
 
 of the goods, and Pen. Code. §§ 628- j^^p jg^. Askew & Co. v. Southern R. 
 
 634a, providing that the agent of any car- q^ ^ ^ q^ ^pp_ ^g^ gg g £_ 242. 
 
 rier who delivers to ^"f ^^J , ^"7. "h.'s' 97. Holder with knowledge of defects 
 
 chandise for which a bil of l^bng has transferrer's title.-Decan v. Shipper. 
 
 been issued is punishable by imprison- ^ 
 
 ment unless the receipt is surrendered at ''■' ta. 2o9, .8 Am. Uec. 334. 
 
 the time of delivery or unless the re- 98. Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U. b. 
 
 ceipt bears on its face the words "not 557. 25 L. Ed. 892. 
 
 negotiable," give to a bill of lading a A bank discounted a draft on B on 
 
 higher quality of negotiability than sim- delivery, as collateral, by Bs agent, ot
 
 375 
 
 HILLS OF LADING. 
 
 ;§ 553-554 
 
 Indorsements on a draft attached to a bill of lading may put the 
 
 drawee on iiuiice that llie hank pre-eiiiin}^ il is a liolilcr fur collection only and 
 not a purchaser.''-' 
 
 Bill Showing Transferror to Be Agent.— A purchaser of a bill of lading 
 from one who appears, on the face of the bill, to be an agent is not a bona 
 fide i)urch.aser for value, without notice; that fact is sufficient to put him 
 upon his inquiry as to the state of the title.' 
 
 Fraud or Collusion between Consignee and Assignee. — Collusion or 
 fraud ])et\\eeii the consij^nee and his a>>i^Miee will enahle ilie consignor to as- 
 sert his right to reclaim the goods. - 
 
 Assignee Having Notice of Consignee's Insolvency.— If the assignee be 
 aware that the consignee is unahle to pay, then the assiginnent will be deemed 
 fraudulent as a<,^-linst tlie rii^hts of the consi^rnor.-' 
 
 Proof of Notice of Title of Factor's Principal. — That a bank which 
 bought a draft with bill of lading attached, drawn by a factor or a consignor, 
 took with notice of the princi])ars title must be satisfactorily proved, for a pur- 
 chaser from a factor is not i)ut on inquiry as to the title of the particular goods.'* 
 
 § 554. Holder of Lost or Stolen Bill of Lading.— The rule that a bona 
 fide purchaser of a lost or stolen bill or note indorsed in blank or payable to 
 bearer is not bound to look beyond the instrument, has no aj^plication to the 
 case of a lost or stolen bill of lading.-'"' Merchandise is very often sold or pledged 
 by a transfer of the bills which cover it; but as no sale of goods lost or stolen, 
 though to a bona fide purchaser for value, can divest the ownership of the per- 
 son who lost them or from whom they were stolen, so the sale of the symbol or 
 mere representative of the goods can have no such efTect, although it some- 
 times happens that the true owner, by negligence, has so put it into the power 
 of another to occupy his position ostensibly, as to estop him from asserting his 
 
 a bill of lading- of wheat shipped to B. 
 On acceptance of the draft, the bank 
 delivered the bill of lading to B, after 
 indorsing thereon that the wheat was 
 pledged to it for payment of the draft, 
 was placed in B's custody "in trust for 
 that purpose," and not to be diverted to 
 any other use. B sold and delivered the 
 wheat, but did not pay the draft. The 
 purchasers knew of the bill of lading and 
 tile indorsement before his purchase. 
 Held, that he was liable in an action for 
 conversion of the wheat. Farmers', etc., 
 Nat. Bank v. Hazeltine, 78 N. Y. 104, 34 
 Am. Rep. 5 is. 
 
 99. Indorsements on draft to which 
 bill attached. — Gregory v. Sturgis Xat. 
 Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. G6. 
 
 Where a draft attached to a bill of 
 lading was indorsed, "Pay to the order 
 of American National Bank," and by the 
 latter indorsed, "Pay any bank or banker 
 or order American National Bank," and 
 was presented by defendant bank to the 
 drawee, such indorsements were sufti- 
 cient to put the drawee on inquiry that 
 defendant was a holder for collection 
 onl}'. and was not a purchaser of the 
 draft payable to bearer. Gregory v. Stur- 
 gis Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 ?. 
 W. fiC. 
 
 1. Bill she-wing transferror to be agent. 
 — Decan r. Shipper. 35 Pa. 239, 7S Am. 
 Dec. 334. 
 
 2. Fraud or collusion between con- 
 signee and assignee. — Chandler z: Ful- 
 ton. 10 Tex. 2. (■)() Am. Dec. 188. 
 
 3. Assignee having notice of consign- 
 ee's insolvency. — Cliandler z: Fulton, 10 
 Tex. 2, (iO Am. Dec. 188. 
 
 4. Proof of notice of title of factor's 
 principal. — A principal consigned goods 
 to a factor. A company of which the 
 factor was president procured possession 
 of the goods and reconsigned them to a 
 third person. A bank bought the drafts 
 drawn on the third person for the price 
 of the goods, on the faith of the bill of 
 lading. Evidence examined, and held not 
 to show that the bank bought the drafts 
 with bills of lading attached with knowl- 
 edge that the company did not own the 
 goods and was insolvent and was going 
 to appropriate the proceeds, instead of 
 turning it over to the principal, and the 
 latter could not follow the goods or the 
 proceeds thereof into the hands of the 
 bank. Smith z\ Jefferson Bank, 97 8. 
 W. 247, 120 Mo. App. ,527. 
 
 5. Holder of stolen bill. — Shaw z: Rail- 
 road Co.. 101 U. S. 557. 25 L. Ed. 892; 
 The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575. 23 L. Ed. 978. 
 See, also, Goodman z: Simonds (U. S.), 
 20 How. 343, 15 L. Ed. 934; Murray v. 
 Lardner (U. S.). 2 Wall. 110, 17 L. Ed. 
 857: Matthews z: Poythress. 4 Ga. 287. 
 See. also. Tison z\ Howard. 57 Ga. 410.
 
 §§ 554-556 CARRIERS. 376 
 
 right as against a purchaser, who has been misled to his hurt by reason of such 
 negHcrence'!« The function of a bill of lading is entirely different from that 
 of a%ill or note. It is not a representative of money, used for transmission 
 of money, or for the pavment of debts or for purchases. It does not pass from 
 hand to hand as bank notes or coin. It is a contract for the performance of a 
 certain duty. True, it is a symbol of ownership of the goods covered by it— 
 a representative of these goods. But if the goods themselves be lost or stolen, 
 no sale of them by the finder or thief, though to a bona fide purchaser for 
 value, will divest the ownership of the person who lost them, or from whom 
 they were stolen."' 
 
 § 555. Holder of Forged Bill of Lading.— Liability of Purchaser of 
 Draft with Forged Bill Attached to Drawee.— See post. 'Lialjility of I'ur- 
 cha-cr for Shortage or Inferiorilv of Shipment," § 585. 
 
 Liability of Bank Collecting Draft with Forged Bill of Lading At- 
 tached.— See post. ■•Uepusit of Draft willi I'-ill of La(lin,<,^ Attached for Col- 
 lection," § 588. 
 
 Rights against Agent Negotiating Forged BiUs of Lading.— W here 
 fon;ed negotiable ocean bills of lading were negotiated by a third party, who 
 acted merely as an intermediary for the owner, the bills being negotiated on 
 the blank indorsement of the owner, the third party is not liable to the pur- 
 chasers, even though he received the consideration of the bills of lading in pay- 
 ment of a debt due him from the owners, and though he had received assets 
 from the owner to protect him. from claims upon these bills of lading.^ 
 
 §§ 556-565. Rights and Liabilities as to Carriers— § 556-562. As 
 to Delivery of Goods— § 556. Duty to Deliver to Transferee.— When a 
 bill of lading is transferred, it is the duty of the carrier to deliver to the as- 
 signee or transferee the property of which the bill of lading is the repre- 
 sentative.'' The transfer of a bill of lading makes the transferee the consignee 
 of the goods for all lawful purposes.^'* 
 
 Notice of Owner's Rights.— A carrier must deliver goods to the true 
 owner, claiming under the consignee, when it has notice of such owner's rights 
 and the bill of lading has been surrendered. ^^ Notice of the rights of a per- 
 
 6. Friecllander v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 10. Brown v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 91 
 130 U. S. 410, 32 L. Ed. 991, 9 S. Ct. 570; S. C. 377, 74 S. E. 754. _ 
 
 Shaw V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557, 25 11. Notice of owners rights.— National 
 
 L Ed 892 Newark Banking Co. v. Delawaxe, etc., 
 
 The" taking possession of property by R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774, 58 Atl. 311 66 
 
 one not its owner, or authorized by him, L. R. A., N. S., 595, 103 Am. bt. Rep. 
 
 shipping it, obtaining bills of lading 825. 
 
 from the carriers, indorsing them away, Certain cars of gram were contracted 
 or even selling the property and obtain- to be sold by the consignee prior to their 
 ing a full price for it, can have no effect arrival to different purchasers, and he 
 upon the rights of the owner, even in surrendered the bills of lading to the 
 the case of a bona fide purchaser. The local freight agent at the place of de- 
 Idaho 93 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 978; Ra- livery, and presented orders directing the 
 leigh 'etc, R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 Ga. 320, delivery of the cars to the several pur- 
 28 S E 867 chasers, "or ourselves or order, on pre- 
 
 7. Shaw V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557, senlation of this order." Upon these 
 25 L Ed 892; Weyand z;. Atchinson, etc., orders the local freight agent stamped 
 R Co 75 Iowa 573. 39 N. W. 899, 9 the words: "Car to be delivered on this 
 Am. St. Rep. 504. 1 L. R. A. 650. order, same as B. of L. B. of L. taken 
 
 8. Rights against agent negotiating up at" the place of delivery. ihe con- 
 forged bills of lading.— Moritz v. Adoue signee retained the orders thus certified 
 (Tex Civ \pp ) TiS S W 1140. drew on the purchasers for the price ol 
 
 9 Duty to deliver to transferee.— Ar- the grain, and obtained aavances on 
 
 kansas, etc.. R. Co. v. German Nat. Bank. plaintiff bank for the drafts, accompa- 
 
 77 Ark 4^2 92 S W 522, 113 Am. St. nied by the certified order. Held, that 
 
 Rep 160- Allen etc., Co. v. Farmers,' the contracts between the purchasers and 
 
 etc Nat 'Bank, 129 Ga. 748, .59 S. E. 813. the consignee were executory contracts,
 
 Z77 
 
 HILLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 556-557 
 
 son claiming title under consignee to have goods delivered to him. when given 
 to the agent of a carrier charged with the duty of delivering the freight, is 
 notice tn ihc carrier. '- 
 
 Nonnegotiable Bill of Lading. — A nonnegotiable bill of lading does not 
 control th.e possession of the j^roperty, and a transferee thereof obtains only 
 the title of the transferror, though by proper notice, where there are no inter- 
 vening rights, the transferee may require the carrier to hold possession for him 
 according to the bill ; and hence a shijjper under a nonnegotiable bill of lading 
 for sale on commission retains title until the pro])erty is soUl, and he mav order 
 that the same shall be reshipped, or dcli\ered to a bu}cr procured bv himself.^-'* 
 
 § 557. Production and Cancellation of Bill of Lading. — A delivery of 
 goods b\' a coniiiiun carrier to the consignee is made al the jteril of the carrier, 
 unless, when made, the consignee surrenders the bill of lading either made or 
 indorsed to himself. ^-^ If the goods, by the terms of the bill of lading, are 
 deliverable to the order of the shipper, the carrier should not deliver e.xcept 
 upon production of the bill of lading properly indorsed by the shipper; for this 
 is notice to the carrier that the shi])per intends to retain in his power the ulti- 
 mate (lisi)osition of the goods.'"' \\hether or not the carrier can compel a sur- 
 render of the bill of lading when it delivers the goods, if the holder of the bill 
 of lading insists on retaining it as a muniment of title, or for any other pur- 
 pose, and has a legal right to do so, he can, at least, be required to produce it 
 for cancellation, so that it will cease to be on its face a live bill of lading.^'' 
 
 Eflfect of Local Custom. — A local custom to deliver goods to the holder of 
 an unindorsed bill of lading, unknown to the consignor when the goods were 
 shiiiped. is no defense to an action for the value of the goods so delivered.^" 
 
 Redelivery of Goods to Shipper. — After the carrier has received the goods 
 and issued a bill of lading for them to the shipper, and before the transit has 
 commenced, it is not liable for refusing to redeliver them to him without a 
 surrender of the bill.^^ 
 
 and not a present bargain and sale. Na- 
 tional Newark Banking Co. v. Delaware, 
 etc., R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774, 58 Atl. 311, 
 66 L. R. A., N. S., 595. 103 .\m. St. Rep. 
 825. 
 
 12. National Newark Banking Co. v. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 774, 58 
 Atl. 311, 66 L. R. A., N. S.. 595, 103 Am. 
 St. Rep. 825; Decan v. Shipper, 35 Pa. 
 239, 78 Am. Dec. 334; Landa v. Lat- 
 tin, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 246, 249, 46 S. W. 
 48. See, also, Blaidsell Co. v. Citizens' 
 Nat. Bank, 96 Te.x. 626. 75 S. W. 292, 62 
 L. R. A. 968, 97 Am. St. Rep. 944; Seward 
 & Co. V. Miller. 10(5 \'a. 309. 55 S. E. 681. 
 
 13. Nonnegotiable bill. — The above 
 rnle is recognized l^y the Massachusetts 
 rules Act St. 190S, C. 237. Brown v. 
 Floershcin Mercantile Co.. 206 Mass. 373. 
 92 N. !•:. 494. 
 
 14. Production and cancellation of bill 
 of lading. — Union Pac. R. Co. v. John- 
 ston. 45 Neb. 57. 63 N. W. 144, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 540; Midland Nat. Bank v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. 
 W. 521. 53 Am. St. Rep. 505. See post, 
 "Liability for Misdelivery," § 560. 
 
 15. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com- 
 mercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 31 L. 
 Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266; The Thames (U. 
 S.), 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 804; Arkansas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. German Nat. Bank, 113 
 
 Am. St. Rep. 160, 164, 77 .Ark. 4h2, 92 
 S. W. 522: Weyand v. Atchinson. etc., 
 R. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 39 N. W. 899, 9 Am. 
 St. Rep. 504. 1 L. R. .\. 650. 
 
 Bill of lading shipper's order care of 
 third person.— If a railway company 
 agrees to carry goods, and issues bills of 
 lading therefor to the shipper's order in 
 care of a third person, at the place of 
 destination, its duty as carrier is not dis- 
 charged merely by delivering the goods 
 to such third person without the pro- 
 duction of such bills of lading properly 
 indorsed, and if after delivery to such 
 third person he delivers the goods to one 
 not entitled to receive them, the rail- 
 road conipany is liable to the indorsee 
 of the bills of lading for the value of 
 the goods, (p. 169.) Arkansas, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. German Nat. Bank. 113 .\m. St. 
 Rep. 160, 77 Ark. 482, 92 S. \V. 522. 
 
 16. Ratzer v. Burlington, etc.. R. Co., 
 58 \m. St. Rep. 530. 533, 64 Minn. 245, 
 66 N. \\'. 9SS. 
 
 17. Effect of local custom. — Weyand 
 V. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 
 39 N. W. 899, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, 1 L. 
 R. \. 650. 
 
 18. Redelivery of goods to shipF>er. — 
 Trindall v. Taylor. 4 Ell. & B. 219: Rat- 
 zer V. Burlington, etc.. R. Co., 64 Minn. 
 245, 66 N. W. 988, 58 Am. St. Rep. 530.
 
 §§ 558-560 CARRIERS. 378 
 
 § 5 58. Payment of Freight and Charges as Condition Precedent. — 
 
 A carrier mav refuse to deliver a consignment of freight to the transferee of 
 a bill of lading until its charges and the back charges of the initial carrier are 
 paid.^^ The burden is upon the transferee of a bill of lading to prove that 
 the freight charges had been pre]:)aid. 
 
 Connecting" Carrier — Bill Stamped Prepaid. — W here a person claimed a 
 shipment as purchaser of the bill of lading issued by the initial carrier, he was 
 not entitled to recover it in replevin from the connecting carrier in the absence 
 of anv showing except the bill of lading which did not recite the class of freight 
 shipped, the amount of charges prepaid, or the amount of charges prepaid on 
 account, but merely in a space headed "If charges are to be prepaid, write or 
 stamp here 'To be prepaid.'" contained the word '"Prepaid;" such instrument 
 not being prima facie proof that the freight had been fully paid.-'^ 
 
 Effect of Refusal to Pay on Right of Stoppage in Transitu Under 
 Nonnegotiable Bill. — See post, "As Defeating Stoi)ijage in Transitu,'' § 567. 
 
 § 559. Demand of Delivery. — Where a so-called demand for a shipment 
 of freight was made by the transferee of an "order notify" bill of lading of 
 a railroad company (which thereby agreed to transport certain cotton from 
 and to named points within the state), before it was indorsed by the one hav- 
 ing the legal title thereto, such demand can not be the basis for the ascertain- 
 ment of the damages for a breach of the contract of carriage.-^ 
 
 § 560. Liability for Misdelivery or Delay. — In General. — It is hardly 
 
 necessary to cite authorities to the general proposition that, when a bill of lad- 
 ing is outstanding, the carrier delivers the goods at its peril, without a pro- 
 duction of the bill of lading; and, if it so delivers them to some other than the 
 bona fide holder for value of the bill of lading, it is liable to him for conver- 
 sion of the goods. 22 The following authorities show the universality of the 
 rule as applied to transportation both on land and by water : ^3 The carrier 
 in such case has been held liable to the indorsee or pledgee of the bill for de- 
 livering the goods in transit at an intermediate point before the negotiation 
 of the bill,-'* to the shipper,-^ or consignee ; -•' for delaying the transportation 
 
 19. Payment of freight as condition mentrout z'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 1 Mo. 
 precedent. — Bramlev v. Ulster, etc., R. App. 158; Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 Co.. 142 App. Div. 'iTG, 126 X. Y. S. 854. 42 Neb. 379, 60 N. W. 583, Gl Am. & 
 
 20. Connecting carrier, bill marked pre- Eng. R. Cas. 218; Garden Grove Bank 
 paid. — Bramley v. Ulster, etc., R. Co., 120 v. Humeston, etc., R. Co., 67 Iowa 526, 
 N. Y. S. 854, 142 App. Div. 176. 25 N. W. 761, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 695; 
 
 21. Demand of delivery.— Albany, etc., Tindall v. Taylor, 4 El. & B. 219. See, 
 R. Co. V. Merchants', etc., Bank, 73 S. also, as bearing on the question: Halsey 
 E. 637, 137 Ga. 391. z'. Warden, 25 Kan. 128; Meyerstein v. 
 
 22. Liability for misdelivery.— Ratzer Barber, L. R. 2 Com. P. 38; Lee v. 
 V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 64 Minn. 245, Bowen, 5 Biss. 154, Fed. Cas. No. 8,183; 
 66 N. W. 988, 58 Am. St. Rep. 530. See Heiskell v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 89 
 ?.nte, "Production and Cancellation of Pa. 155, 33 Am. Rep. 745; Bass v. Glover. 
 Bill of Lading," § 557. 03 Ga. 745; First Nat. Bank v. Dearborn, 
 
 23. See The Thames (U. S.), 14 Wall. 115 Mass. 219, 15 Am. Rep. 92; Dows v. 
 98, 20 L. Ed. 804; North v. Merchants', National Exch. Bank, 91 U. S. 618, 23 
 etc., Transp. Co., 146 Mass. 315, 15 N. L. Ed. 214; Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. (U. 
 E. 779; Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., S.), 1 Pet. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189; Weyand 
 133 Mass. 154; Furman v. Union Pac. R. v. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 573, 
 Co., 106 N. Y. 579, 13 N. E. 587; City 39 N. W. 899, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, 1 L. 
 Bank v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 136; R. A. 650. 
 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 119 Pa. 24, 24. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Johnston, 
 
 12 Atl. 756, 4 Am. St. Rep. 620, 35 Am. 45 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144, 50 Am. St. 
 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 551; Boatman's Sav. Bank Rep. 540. 
 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221, 7 25. Delivery to shipper.— Wells, Fargo 
 
 S. E. 125; National Bank v. Atlanta, etc., 
 
 R. Co., 25 S. C. 216; Midland Nat. Bank 26. Delivery to consignee.— Ratzer v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, Burlington, etc., R. Co., 04 Minn. 245, 58 
 
 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. Rep. 505; Ar- Am. St. Rep. 530, 66 N. W. 988.
 
 379 
 
 l;lUI.S OF LADING. 
 
 ;§ 560-563 
 
 at the rcfiuest of the shijiper for a few days after it had issued the bill, thereby 
 causing damage to the goods ; -^ and for delivery to a third person where such 
 delivery was induced by fraud,-^ and the cafrier not notified of the transfer 
 of the bill till sometime afterwards when the consignor had become insolvent.-^ 
 
 § 561. Waiver or Right to Indorsement of Bill. — Even if delivery to 
 plaintiff, without indorsement, of a bill of lading by the one entitled by its 
 terms to the goods did not give a right of action thereon against the carrier, 
 it would be some evidence of waiver of the requirement, that, without the in- 
 dorsement, the carrier's agent recognized plaintiff's right to the gooch, and 
 that the carrier issued to him a voucher for the value of the lost part of the 
 goods shipped.'^" 
 
 § 562 Duplicate and Triplicate BiUs. — See post. "Duplicate and Trijili- 
 cate I'.i'ls,"" ij 5S''. 
 
 § 563. Effect of Custom of Carrier. — A custom practiced and main- 
 tained Ijy a carrier can not jjrevail against the express language of his bill of 
 lading, to aff'ect the rights of the holder by indorsement thereof, or in anywise 
 
 & Co. V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 32 Fed. 
 51, 12 Sawy. 519. 
 
 Where a shipper consigns goods to 
 himself and receives a hill of lading from 
 the carrier, who delivers them with a 
 proper way bill to a connecting carrier, 
 who, delivers them to the shipper at arj 
 intermediate point in transit without re- 
 quiring the cancellation of the bill of 
 lading. The connecting carrier is lia- 
 ble to an innocent pledgee of the bill for 
 failure to deliver the goods at their orig- 
 inal destination, and is estopped from 
 sliowing such intermediate delivery to 
 the original shipper. Ratzer v. Burling- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 58 Am. St. Rep. 5.30, 
 CA Minn. 245, 66 N. W. 988. 
 
 "It is a case for the application of the 
 doctrine of equitable estoppel, that, 
 where one of two innocent persons must 
 suffer by reason of the fraud of a third 
 party, he by whose negligent act or 
 omission such third party was enabled 
 to commit the fraud ought to bear the 
 loss." Ratzer v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 
 58 Am. St. Rep. 530, 64 Minn. 245, 66 N. 
 W. 988. 
 
 27. Delaying transportation at request 
 of shipper. — .XrnuMitrout v. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Cn., 1 Mo. Apix l."iS. 
 
 28. Delivery to third person. — Defend- 
 ant carrier transported certain cotton un- 
 der bills of lading consigned to the 
 shippers' order, with directions to notify 
 a cotton company. On arrival of the 
 cotton at destination, the carrier deliv- 
 ered it to a compress company, as a 
 warehouseman, and the bills of lading, 
 with drafts attached thereto, were deliv- 
 ered to plaintiff l)ank, which paid the 
 drafts and charged tlie amount to the 
 cotton company, Iiolding the l)ills of lad- 
 ing as collateral. PlaintifT thereafter in- 
 trusted the cotton company with the bills 
 of lading whenever it desired to replace 
 them with the compress receipts or other 
 
 bills of lading for outgoing cotton, and 
 in some instances, where compress re- 
 ceipts were not returned for all the cot- 
 ton called for in the bill of lading, the 
 bill would l)e indorsed by the compress 
 company and returned to stand for the 
 bales not called for by the corresponding 
 warehouse receipts. In some manner, 
 through the fraud of the cotton com- 
 pany, defendant carrier was induced to 
 ship out cotton represented by these 
 remnants of the bills of lading, without 
 any credit being given on the bills, and 
 without any satisfaction of the bank's 
 claim thereon. Held, that the bank was 
 entitled to recover from the carrier for 
 such cotton as it held bills of lading not 
 exchanged for warehouse receipts. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 87 
 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154, 30 R. R. R. 290, 
 53 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 290, 123 
 Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 29. Carrier not notified of transfer till 
 after insolvency of consignor. — Where a 
 bill of lading authorized delivery only on 
 surrender of the bill properly indorsed, 
 and the consignor, after transferring the 
 bill to a bank, wrongfullj' induced the 
 carrier to deliver to persons not named 
 in the bill without a surrender thereof, a 
 right of action immediately accrued 
 against the carrier to the holder of the 
 bill for misdelivery, which could be en- 
 forced at any time within the period of 
 limitations, and hence it was no defense 
 that the carrier was not notified of the 
 transfer of the bill of lading within a 
 reasonable time during which the con- 
 signor was solvent, and that, because of 
 such want of notice, and the consignor's 
 insolvencj\ the carrier could not recoup 
 its loss. Sheldon ?•. New York, etc.. R. 
 Co., 113 N. Y. S. r.Tf,. 61 Mi?o. Rep. 274. 
 
 30. Waiver of right to indorsement of 
 bill.— McMeekin r. Southern Railwav. 82 
 S. C. 468, 64 S. E. 413.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 380 
 
 §§ 563-567 
 
 limit the liability of the carrier thereon, unless such custom has been exer- 
 cised, and the indorsee has purchased or received the contract with knowledge 
 of that fact.=^i 
 
 § 564. Explanation of Alteration in Bill.— The burden of explaining 
 alterations in bills of lading on the faiih of w lien one has advanced money is 
 on him. and not on the railroad company, where the agent whose name is signed 
 to them testifies that the alterations were made after they left his hands.32 
 
 § 565. Liability for Freight and Demurrage.— See ante, "Freight and 
 Demurrage," § 512: "Pavment of Freight and Charges as Condition Precedent," 
 § 558. 
 
 §§ 566-568. Rights and Liabilities as to Consignor— §566. In Gen- 
 eral. If an assignee takes an assignment bona fide without notice of any such 
 
 circumstances as would render the bill of lading not fairly and honestly assign- 
 able he acquires a good title against the consignor,^^ especially where the per- 
 son 'transferring the bill obtained it as a result of the fault or neglect of the 
 consignor.""* 
 
 § 567. As Defeating Stoppage in Transitu.— The general rule is that 
 the vendor of goods on credit may exercise the right of stoppage in transitu 
 on the insolvency of the vendee at any time before there is an actual or con- 
 structive delivery of the goods to the vendee.-^ An exception to this rule is 
 when, during the transit, the vendee transfers the bill of lading to a bona fide 
 purchaser for value. By such transfer the right of stoppage in transitu is 
 terminated,'!*^ although the bill of lading is nonnegotiable,''' and is also a dupli- 
 
 31. Effect of custom of carrier. — Alid- 
 land Xat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. 
 Rep. 505. 
 
 32. Franklin Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co., 222 Pa. 96, 70 Atl. 949, 22 
 L. R. A., N. S., 828. 
 
 33. Rights against consignor. — Chan- 
 dler V. Fulton, 10 Tex. 2, GO Am. Dec. 
 188. 
 
 34. Where plaintiff transferred to an- 
 other the bills of lading for goods 
 shipped defendant, defendant having or- 
 dered the goods from such other, and 
 having no knowledge of plaintiff's un- 
 derstanding with him by which the bills 
 were turned over to him, he could pay 
 such other for the goods. Greenville 
 Lumber Co. v. National Pressed Brick 
 Co., 133 Mo. App. 217, 113 S. W. 236. 
 
 35. As defeating stoppage in transitu. 
 —Wheeling, etc., R. Co. v. Koontz, 15 
 O. C. C. 288, 9 O. C. D. 102. 
 
 36. Alabama. — Loeb v. Peters, 63 Ala. 
 243, 35 Am. Rep. 17. 
 
 Georgia. — Orr v. Planters' Phosphate, 
 etc., Co., 8 Ga. App. 59, 68 S. E. 779. 
 
 Maryland.— ThQ indorsement and deliv- 
 ery of a bill of lading by the seller to 
 the buyer transfers the property from 
 the vendor to the vendee; is a complete 
 legal delivery of the goods, devests the 
 vendor's lien. But though the vendor's 
 lien is thus devested by reason of the 
 complete delivery of the indicia of prop- 
 erty, he may, if the goods have not yet 
 reached the actual possession of the 
 buyer, and if no third person has ac- 
 quired rights by obtaining a transfer of 
 
 the bill of lading from the buyer, inter- 
 cept the goods in the event of the buy- 
 er's insolvency before payment, by the 
 exercise of the right of stoppage in tran- 
 situ. National Bank v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 99 Md. 661, 59 Atl. 134, 105 Am. 
 St. Rep. 321. 
 
 Missouri. — Skilling v. BoUman, 73 Mo. 
 665, 39 Am. Rep. 537. 
 
 0/?fa. — Wheeling, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Koontz, 15 O. C. C. 288, 9 O. C. D. 102; 
 Page & Co. V. Sandusky, etc., R. Co., 4 
 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 716. 
 And see, also, Emery's Sons v. Irving 
 Xat. Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 
 299. 
 
 Tc.vas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hei- 
 denheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 199, 17 S. W. 608, 
 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 The assignment of a bill of lading, 
 bona fide, for a valuable consideration to 
 an assignee without notice of the insol- 
 vency of the consignee, defeats the right 
 of stoppage in transitu. Chandler v. Ful- 
 ton, 10 Tex. 2, 60 Am. Dec. 188; Loeb v. 
 Peters, 63 Ala. 243, 35 Am. Rep. 17. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for goods 
 received, l)Ut returned by order of the 
 consignor, it appeared that the bill of 
 lading was sent to T. Bros. & Co., con- 
 signees, and by them transferred to plain- 
 tiff for value. Held that, though T. 
 Bros. & Co. were insolvent, their trans- 
 fer to plaintiff defeated the consignor's 
 right of stoppage in transitu. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 
 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 37, National Bank v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 105 Am. St. Rep. 321, 99 Md. 661.
 
 381 
 
 RILLS OF LADIXC. 
 
 § 567 
 
 Indorsee Charged with Notice of the Facts. — W hile ilie right of stop- 
 page in transitu may be defeated by the indorsement and deHvery of an un- 
 conditional bill of lading to a bona fide indorsee for a valuable consideration 
 witliout notice, yet. where the indorsee has notice of the facts or of a fact suffi- 
 cient to put him on in(|uiry which will disclose the facts, the right may be exer- 
 cised as against him. 'I'hc words "not negotiable" stamped on the face of a bill 
 of lading are sufficient to i)ut a jnirchaser on inquiry as to the facts of tiie 
 right of stop|)age in transitu by the consignor.-"' 
 
 Knowledg'e of Purchaser's Insolvency. — The right of stoppage in transit 
 is not lost wliere the ])urcliascr has indorsed the bill of lading to a subpurchaser 
 with knowledge of the original i)urchaser's insolvency, such knowledge bears 
 on tlie question f)f good faith.'" 
 
 The fact that the assignee knew that the goods were not paid for, is 
 not sufficient to defeat his rights as against the rigiit of the consignor to re- 
 claim the goods. In order to defeat such right of the assignee, he must have 
 had notice of such circumstances as would render the assignment of the bill 
 of lading defeasible."*^ 
 
 Transfer by Way of Mortgage or Pledge. — Where the transfer of a 
 bill of lading is by way of mortgage or pledge, or as collateral security for a 
 loan the right to stop the goods in transit is not absolutely defeated; for if the 
 mortgage is bona fide the seller may still resume his interest in them subject 
 to the rights of the mortgagee and will have the right to the residue after satis- 
 fying the mortgage,'*- but can not exert that right until he has discharged the 
 debt secured by the transfer, as his right is subject to that of the mortgagee or 
 pledgee."*-' 
 
 Consideration a Pre-Existing Debt. — The transfer of a bill of lading, as 
 a collateral tfj ])re\ions obligalions. without anything advanced, given up, or lost 
 on the part of the transferee, does not constitute such an assignment as will 
 preclude the vendor from exercising the right of stoppage in transitu.-*-* Hence 
 an assignee in trust for creditors of the insolvent vendee is not a purchaser for 
 
 .59 Atl. 134. See. also, Loeb v. Peters, 
 (;.3 Ala. 243, 35 Am. Rep. 17. 
 
 Bill must contain negotiable words. — 
 It seems the quasi ficsotial;ility wliich 
 protects the indorsee in his title to the 
 proods, and ajjainst stoppage in transitu, 
 only exists where the bill contains nego- 
 tial)le words, such as "order." "assigns," 
 etc. Page & Co. v. Sandusky, etc., R. 
 Co., 4 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 
 Tit". 
 
 38. Duplicate bill. — IK shipper is pre- 
 cluded from exercising his right of "stop- 
 page in transitu." by the transfer for 
 value by the consignee of a duplicate bill 
 of lading. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hei- 
 denheimer. S2 Tex. 195, 200. 17 S. W. 
 f)OS, 27 .\m. St. Rep. Sfil; Landa v. Lattin, 
 19 Tex. Civ. App. 246, 250. 46 S. W. 48. 
 
 39. Xczv York. — Gass v. Astoria Veneer 
 Mills, 134 App. Div. 184. 118 N. Y. S. 982. 
 
 40. Loeb V. Peters. 63 Ala. 243, 35 Am. 
 Rep. 17. And see Chandler v. Fulton, 10 
 Tex. 2, 60 Am. Dec. 188. 
 
 41. The fact that the assignee knew 
 that the goods were not paid for. — Clian- 
 dlcr c'. I'ulton. 10 Tex. 2. 60 Am. Dec. 
 188. 
 
 42. Pledge or mortgage. — Chandler v. 
 Fulton, 10 Tex. 2, 60 Am. Dec. 188. 
 
 43. Chandler v. Fulton, 10 Tex. 2, 60 
 Am. Dec. 188; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 199, 17 S. 
 W. 60S, 27_ Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 44. Consideration a pre-existing debt. 
 — Loeb '•. Peters. 63 Ala. 243, 35 Am. 
 Rep. 17. 
 
 '■Eminent jurists and judicial tribunals 
 hold that one who for prior indebted- 
 ness receives a bill of lading of goods, 
 either as collateral security or in pay- 
 ment of such indelitedness. has no such 
 title as will avail even against the vend- 
 or's right of stoppage in transitu; in 
 other words, that such an one, in such a 
 controversy, is not to be regarded as a 
 bona fide purchaser for value. Loeb v. 
 Peters. 63 Ala. 243. 35 Am. Rep. 17: Har- 
 ris 7'. Pratt, 17 N. Y. 249; Lesassier v. 
 Southwestern, 2 Woods 35; O'Brien v. 
 Xorris. etc., Co., 16 Md. 122. 77 Am. Dec. 
 2S4; Xaylor v. Dennie (Mass."). S Pick. 
 198. 19 Am. Dec. 319. .A.nd Goodman v. 
 Simonds, 19 Mo. 106, and Logan v. Smith. 
 62 Mo. 455, recognize the principle an- 
 nounced in the foregoing cases." Skill- 
 ing V. Bollman. 73 ^lo. 665. 39 Am. Rep. 
 537.
 
 §§ 567-570 cARRiKRS. 382 
 
 value, and consequently takes subject to the exercise of any right of stoppage 
 in transitu which mav exist against the assignor.-*'" 
 
 Refusal of Transferee to Pay Freight.— W here the transferee of a bill 
 of lading containing the words -not negotiable" refuses to pay the freight the 
 failure to defeat the right of stoppage in transitu is due to his breach of the 
 contract of carriage and he can not invoke the aid of equity to cancel the note 
 given bv him for the goods.-"' . 
 
 Unreasonable Delay of Transferee in Obtaining Possession.— Irans- 
 feree of unconditional bill of lading by indorscnienl and delivery for value, con- 
 taining words "not negotiable." has no action against carrier for conversion, 
 where" he unreasonablv delavs obtaining possession until consignee has become 
 insolvent, and consignor has exercised his right of stoppage in transitu."*^ 
 
 § 568. Liability for Price of Goods.— \\ here a principal consigned goods 
 to a factor with power to sell or reconsign, and a company reconsigned the 
 goods to a third person, and a bank, in good faith, bought a draft drawn by 
 the company against the new^ consignee, secured by a bill of lading, and took 
 possession of the goods and retained the proceeds, if the company was empow- 
 ered to reconsign the goods and draw against them, the bank was not liable to 
 the principal.'*'^ 
 
 §§ 569-571. Rights and Liabilities as to Consignee— § 569. In Gen- 
 eral. — See ante, "In General."" § 544. 
 
 § 570. Claim for Advances to Consignor.— Consignee has no lien on 
 properlv consigned to him for moneys due on prior transactions between him 
 and the' consignor, as against a transferee of the bill of lading who has advanced 
 moneys thereon in good faith.-*'* Thus a consignee who accepts drafts upon 
 the faith of the consignment acquires the right to sell the property, and apply 
 its proceeds towards the payment of the drafts ; but if these prove insufficient, 
 he has no lien for the amount of the deficiency on subsequent consignments, as 
 against persons who have advanced moneys upon them, and taken transfers of 
 the Ijills of lading as security."'^' 
 
 Priority of Pledgee against Person Advancing Money to Shipper.— 
 That bills of lading taken by shipper were in name of consignee is not suffi- 
 cient to put a bank taking them as security on notice of claims of person ad- 
 vancing money to shipper. As the bills of lading were never delivered to the 
 latter or his agent or to the consignee, they never secured title to the property 
 by a perfected i^urchase, and the latter never secured a perfected lien; for they 
 
 45 Assignee for creditors. — Loeb v. for the goods. Gass v. Astoria Veneer 
 
 Peters, 63 Ala. 243, 35 Am. Rep. 17; Har- Mills, 118 N. Y. vS. 982, 134 App. Div. 
 
 ris V. Pratt, 17 N. Y. 249, see, also, 184. See ante, "Payment of Freight and 
 
 O'Brien v. Norris, etc., Co., 16 Md. 122, 77 Charges as Condition Precedent," 55 5,58. 
 
 Am. Dec. 284; Naylor v. Dennie (Mass.), 47. Unreasonable delay of transferee 
 
 8 Pick. 198, 19 Am. Dec. 319; Nichols v. in obtaining possession. — Gass v. South- 
 
 Lifcware, 2 Bing. 83. crn I'ac. Co., 137 N. Y. S. 261, 152 App. 
 
 46. Refusal of indorsee of bill stamped j^)iv. 412. 
 
 "not negotiable" to pay freight.— Where ^g Liability to consignor for price of 
 
 one had m his possession the indorsed goods.— vSmith v. Jefferson Bank, 120 Mo. 
 
 bill of lading stamped thereon with the . -^-j. 97 5 W 247 
 
 r'lr:r'thl^?o',:stner'!o^ dSir .T; ' «; consignee has noUen on proper.y
 
 383 BILLS OF LADING. §§ 570-574 
 
 had neither actual or symbolical possession of the property, or any instrument 
 of writing whatever showing a valid lien.-'^i The fact that bills of lading named 
 the same i)ersons both as consignors and consignees was not sufficient to put 
 one taking them as security on inquiry as to a lien claimed by persons who 
 furnishc'(l nioncN- for the purchase of the goods. •'•- 
 
 Bank Making Advances on Bill of Lading. — A bank which makes ad- 
 vances on a bill of lading has a lien to the extent of the advances, on the proi> 
 erty in the hands of the consignee, and can recover from him the proceeds of 
 the property consigned, even though the consignor be indebted to the consignee 
 on general account ; and the consignee can not approjjriate the property or its 
 proceeds to his own use in payment of a prior rlebt.''-' 
 
 Purchaser of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached. — See post, '"Drawer 
 Indebted to Drawee or Consignee." v^ 5X1. 
 
 § 571. Liability to Consignee on Contract of Consignor. — One who 
 gets a bill of lading as assignee does not assume to carry out the contract of 
 the assignor with the consignee or drawee of the draft to which it is attached ; 
 or to warrant the obligations of the shipper as to the quality or quantity. The 
 foregoing rule ai)plies to unconditional transfers or assignments of bills of 
 lading; juid to shipments made with bill of lading attached to a draft for the 
 purcliasc monew''' 
 
 Liability of Purchaser of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached on War- 
 ranty, of Character, Quality or Quantity of Shipment. — See post, "Lia- 
 bility of rurchaser for Shorta.^c or Inferiority ot' Shii)nient," § 585. 
 
 §§ 572-576. Rights and Liabilities as to Third Persons— § 572. 
 Claims of Third Persons against Transferrers. — Where a transfer of a 
 bill of lading is made to a transferee without notice of a third person's claim 
 against the transferrer, its title to goods is not affected by such claims.''^ 
 
 § 573. Against Vendor of Consignor.— See post, "Rights against Third 
 Persons," § 584. 
 
 § 574. Against Subsequent Purchaser of Goods. — The indorsement of 
 a bill of lading by the consignee to a bona lide purchaser will vest a better ti- 
 
 51. Priority against person advancing "Drawer Indebted to Drawee or Con- 
 money to shipper. — Campbell v. Alford, signee," § 58L 
 
 57 Tex. loi); Frendergast v. Williamson, A bank paid the purchase money for 
 
 ':■> Tex. Civ. App. 725, 731. ?J\ S. W. 421. cattle at the request of A., and the cattle 
 
 Against person subsequently advanc- were delivered to the bank by the seller, 
 ing money to shipper. — A delivery, with- The cattle were shipped to another point 
 out indorsement, of a bill of lading of for sale, the bill of lading being issued in 
 goods in transit, to the consignee, who A's name, who drew a draft upon the 
 had made advances, was a sufficient de- consignees which, with the bill of lading 
 livery of the goods to constitute a pledge, attached, was indorsed and delivered to 
 and a person afterwards advancing the bank. The consignees refused pay- 
 money on the goods to the shipper ob- "lent of the draft, sold the cattle, and 
 tained no right superior to those of the applied the proceeds to an old debt owing 
 consignee, although, at the time of mak- to them by .\. It was held that the trans- 
 ing the advances, the goods were in the *ei' of the bdl of lading to the bank was 
 hands of a warehouseman who did not ^ transfer of the property in the cattle 
 know of the consignee's rights. Camp- ^'-^d that the consignees were liable to the 
 bell V. Alford, 57 Tex. 159. bank for the proceeds. Means v. Bank, 
 
 52. Frendergast v. Williamson. (> Tex. 
 
 146 V. S. 620. .36 L. Ed. 1107. 13 S. Ct. 
 186. 
 
 Civ. App. 725, 26 S. W. 421. ' '• ,. ..,.^ ^ . ^ ^ 
 
 _r ... , , .,, r 5*- Liability to consignee on contract 
 
 53. Bank making advances on bill of of consignor.— Cosmos Cotton Co. :•. 
 
 lading.— Means v. Bank, 146 U. S. 620, \:\y^[ Xat. Bank, .32 L. R. A., N. S.. 1173, 
 
 627 ;u; L. Ed. 1107. i;; S. Ct. U'.6: Con- ^-^ Ala. 392, 54 So. 621. Ann. Cas. 
 
 ard V. Atlantic Ins. Co. (U. S.), 1 Pet. loir^B. 42. 
 
 386, 7 L. Ed. 189; Gibson v. Stevens (U. "55. ClaTms of third persons against 
 
 S.), 8 How. 384, 12 L. Ed. 1123. See post. transferrer.— Freeman :•. Bank, 3 Te.xas 
 
 App. Civ. Cas.. § 33S.
 
 J§ 574-576 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 384 
 
 tie in the indorsee than a snbsequent sale of the goods by the consignor in the 
 vendee ''''" 
 
 Delivery for Pre-Existing Debt. — The indorsement of a bill of lading and 
 the delivery of the goods in consideration of a pre-existing debt is valid as 
 against a subsequent innocent purchaser of the goods, whether such transfer 
 was in payment or as collateral security/"*" 
 
 §§ 575-576. Subsequent Liens — § 575. In General. — A delivery of a 
 bill of lading is a symbolic delivery of the property which it represents, and 
 a holder of a bill of lading has constructive possession of the property, and 
 may hold it against all persons acquiring liens subsequent to the transfer 
 thereof."^ 
 
 § 576. Subsequent Attachments. — Where goods which have been trans- 
 ferred by the delivery of a bill of lading representing them are thereafter at- 
 tached by a creditor of the transferror, the attaching creditor acquires no 
 greater right in the attached property than the attachment debtor had at the 
 time of attachment."''^ If the indorsement was executed, after the levy of 
 the writ, then the property was subject to the attachment, and the lien should 
 be foreclosed.^''^ 
 
 Bank Discounting or Purchasing Draft. — A bank receiving sight draft 
 and bill of lading and crediting the shipper therefor has a right to the ship- 
 ment prior to the rights of a subsequent attachment creditor, whether it was a 
 purchaser or merely a pledgee of the draft and bill of lading.*"'^ In such case 
 neither the goods nor the proceeds of the draft are subject to attachment as 
 the property of the shipper."- Where a draft with bill of lading attached was 
 indorsed by the shipper and deposited with intervener bank for credit, the 
 bank became the owner of the draft and the shipment under the bill, as against 
 the shipper's attaching creditors, in the absence of jiroof that it took the draft 
 
 56. Against subsequent purchasers of 
 the goods. — Pas^e & Co. v. Sandusky, 
 etc., R.. Co., 4 West. L. M. 644, 2 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 716. 
 
 When triplicate bills of lading have 
 been executed by the carrier to the order 
 of the shipper, and one of the delivered 
 bills of lading was indorsed for value 
 before the shipper sold and delivered the 
 goods covered by it to another, the in- 
 dorsee of the bill can recover against the 
 vendee of the goods the value of the 
 goods, his bill of lading being prior to 
 the vender's purchase and receipt of the 
 goods from the shipper. Skilling v. Boll- 
 man, 73 Mo. 665, 39 Am. Rep. 537; Mid- 
 land Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. Rep. 
 505. See post, "Duplicate and Triplicate 
 Bills," § .-)r,2. 
 
 57 Delivery for pre-existing debt. — 
 Skilling V. Boilman, 73 Mo. 665, 39 Am. 
 Rep. 537. 
 
 58. Priority as to subsequent liens. — 
 Third Xat. Bank i\ Hays, 119 Tenn. 729, 
 108 S. VV. 1060, 14 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 1049. See ante, "Operation as Construc- 
 tive Delivery of Goods," § 543. 
 
 59. Priority against subsequent attach- 
 ment. — .^.doue V. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 
 593; Mercantile Banking Co. v. Landa 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 681. 
 
 In Walker v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 49 
 Mich. 446, 13 N. W. 812. a creditor of the 
 consignee attempted to get possession of 
 the property by garnishment proceedings 
 against the carrier. The supreme court 
 of Michigan discharged the carrier from 
 liability on the garnishment proceedings, 
 and held: "Common carriers must rec- 
 ognize transfers of bill of lading and con- 
 signments of goods, and, unless pro- 
 tected by proper vouchers, can not al- 
 ways assume to deal with consignments 
 as actually and beneficially belonging to 
 the consignee." Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Johnston, 50 Am. St. Rep. 540, 45 Neb. 
 57, 63 N. W. 144. 
 
 60. Mercantile Banking Co. v. Landa 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 681. 
 
 61. Ladd, etc.. Bank v. Commercial 
 State Bank (Ore.), 130 Pac. 975. 
 
 62. Where automobiles were shipped 
 under a bill of lading, with a draft on the 
 purchaser attached, and the draft was 
 discounted by intervener bank for the 
 benefit of the shipper, intervener became 
 a purchaser of the draft for value and 
 the owner of the machines, so that nei- 
 ther they nor the proceeds of the draft 
 were subject to attachment as the prop- 
 erty of the shipper. .-Xmerican Thresher- 
 man V. De Tamlile Motors Co. (Wis.), 
 141 N. W. 210.
 
 385 
 
 HILLS OF LADlXli 
 
 76 
 
 for collection only."'^ A bank which purchases*'-* or discounts^-^ a draft with 
 bill of lading attached or takes it to secure advancements, or money due the 
 bank,*"' acquires a special property in the goods, it is vested with the rights 
 
 63. Cox, etc., Grocery Co. f. National 
 Bank (Ark.), 156 S. W. 187. 
 
 64. Where a customer of a milling 
 company orders flour, which is consigned 
 by tlie company to itself, with a mem- 
 orandum on tile bill of lading to notify 
 tlie customer, and the milling company 
 draws a draft for the price of the flour 
 on the customer, payable to a bank, and 
 the bill of lading, indorsed in blank, is 
 attached, and the company deposits the 
 draft with the bill of lading attached with 
 the bank, and the amount of the deposit 
 is credited to the account of the depos- 
 itor and drawn against, the bank is the 
 purchaser, and the owner of the draft 
 and bill of lading, and its title is superior 
 to a s.nbsequcnt attachment lien against 
 the milling company. National Bank z\ 
 Everett, 1.36 Ga. 372, 71 S. E. 660. 
 
 A consignee consigned car loads of 
 goods to his own order, with instructions 
 to notify proposed buyers, and drew 
 sight drafts against the goods in favor of 
 a bank, and attached thereto the bills of 
 lading. The cashier of the bank and the 
 consignor testified that the bank bought 
 the drafts outright and gave credit there- 
 for to tile consignor, who checked 
 against the credit. The consignor was 
 active in attempting to prevent the diver- 
 sion of the goods from the claim of tlie 
 liank to the claims of subsequent attacli- 
 ing creditors of the consignor. Held, 
 that the bank had a special property in 
 the goods, and was entitled to recover 
 the amount of the drafts as against the 
 attaching creditors. Third Nat. Bank v. 
 Hays, 108 S. W. 1060, 119 Tenn. 729, 14 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1049. 
 
 65. Bank discounting draft. — Bank dis- 
 counting draft to wiiich i)ill of lading 
 was attached, and depositing net pro- 
 ceeds to drawer's credit in extinguish- 
 ment of a debt due it, held to be a pur- 
 chase for value, and to have acquired 
 title to the property represented by the 
 bill of lading. Latham v. Spragins (N. 
 C), 78 S. E. 282. 
 
 Where a bank takes by indorsement a 
 bill of lading and pays the draft of the 
 shipper for value of the goods, no at- 
 tachable interest remains in the shipper. 
 Buckeye Nat. Bank :■. Huff (Va.), 7.5 S. 
 E. 769. 
 
 The consignee of fruit, who was the 
 shipper's agent, sold the same while in 
 transit and drew a draft for the price, 
 which he attached to an order on the car- 
 rier for delivery as authorized by the bill 
 of lading. The draft was discounted by a 
 bank, and after the fruit was rejected by 
 the purchaser, the consignee's agent re- 
 sold it to another, who agreed to pay the 
 
 1 Car— 25 
 
 draft; but, before he did so, the fruit was 
 attached as the property of the con- 
 signee. Held, that the bank, on discount- 
 ing the drafts, became the owner of the 
 fruit until payment, and was vested with 
 the rights of a mortgagee in possession 
 as against the attaching creditors. Se- 
 ward & Co. z: Miller, 55 S. E. 681, 106 
 Va. 309. 
 
 A consignee of certain fruit, after sell- 
 ing the same, drew a draft, attached to 
 an order on the carrier for delivery 
 thereof, which draft was discounted by a 
 bank. The purchaser having refused the 
 fruit on arrival, the consignee's agent 
 sold the fruit to another, who agreed to 
 pay the draft, but did not do so until an 
 attachment was levied on the fruit as the 
 property of the consignee. Held that, 
 though the consignee's agent had no au- 
 thority to sell the fruit after discounting 
 the draft, the acceptance by the bank of 
 payment of the draft from the second 
 purchaser transferred to him all the 
 bank's rights to the property. Seward & 
 Co. 7\ Miller, 55 S. E. 681, 106 Va. 309. 
 
 The goods were not the property of 
 the consignee at the time the attachment 
 was levied. They belonged either to the 
 bank or to the second purchaser. If pay- 
 ment of the draft was an essential pre- 
 requisite, to invest the second purchaser 
 with title, then they were the property 
 of the bank; and if the agent of the con- 
 signee had no right to make sale to the 
 second purchaser, yet when the bank ac- 
 cepted payment of the draft from him. 
 all its rights passed to him, and the at- 
 tacliing creditor had no greater right 
 against him than it had against the bank. 
 Seward & Co. f. Miller, 106 Va. 309, 55 
 S. E. 681. 
 
 66. If a live stock shipper had turned 
 bills of lading with draft attached over to 
 a bank which advanced the money to buy 
 the stock shipped, in order to transfer to 
 the bank title to the stock or to the pro- 
 ceeds, or to secure the bank for its ad- 
 vancements, or in the nature of an order 
 on the consignee for the fund, which, 
 when received, was to be credited on the 
 the bank's claim, then, upon the delivery 
 of the bills of lading, the bank obtained 
 the right to receive the payment, and 
 the proceeds were no longer garnishable 
 upon the demand of a third person. 
 What Cheer Sav. Bank 7-. Mowery, 149 
 Iowa 114, 128 N. W. 7, 33 L. R. A., N. S.. 
 646. 
 
 That a bank promised the money or 
 paid checks given by a live stock shipper 
 for stock bought, or that he promised to 
 pay out of the proceeds, did not give the 
 bank any lien or rights in the stock; but
 
 § 576 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 386 
 
 of a mortgagee in possession and is entitled to recover the amount of the drafts 
 as against attaching creditors. As atfecting a creditor's right to garnish the 
 proceeds of a shipment, delivery of the shipment to the carrier and receipt by 
 the shipper of a bill of lading did not transfer to the consignees title to the 
 shipment, nor make them the shipper's debtors, where the bill of lading was 
 not delivered or tendered to them, but was delivered to a bank for delivery to 
 the consignees on payment of the price.^''^ 
 
 Delivery of Property Where Bill of Lading Pledged.— An actual man- 
 ual delivery of the goods is not necessary to pass possession, nor is 
 it necessary that the delivery should be made to the pledgee in person in or- 
 der to defeat a subsequent attachment.^^^ Wliere property in transitu is pledged 
 by the delivery of bills of lading therefor, such delivery is a constructive de- 
 livery of the p'roperty by which a lien in the way of pledge is created, which is 
 superior to an attachment lien upon the property.<5» The transfer of the bill of 
 lading to the pledgee is as effectual a transfer of goods as their manual de- 
 livery could be. '"' The special requisite of delivery is, no matter in whose 
 hands the propertv was a deposit, that it be no longer subject, in fact or in 
 law, to the dominion, possession or control of the pledgor, but to that of the 
 pledgee.'^ 
 
 Marshaling Securities.— If goods after having been transferred to a cred- 
 itor by the deliverv of a bill of lading representing them are attached by an- 
 other creditor of the transferrer, the former, though he has other securities, 
 can not be compelled to exhaust them before resorting to the goods. This is 
 not a case of two persons having a lien on the same property, one of whom 
 has another security, also, for, by reason of the transfer before the levy of the 
 
 if the bank furnished the money on an 
 agreement that the proceeds of the stock 
 were to be set aside or applied^ to pay- 
 ment, or as security of the bank's claim, 
 or if the legal effect of the manner of 
 shipment and the delivery to the bank of 
 the bill of lading with draft attached 
 vested it as against the shipper with the 
 right to receive the proceeds, another 
 creditor could not garnish the proceeds. 
 What Cheer Sav. Bank v. Mowery, 128 
 N. \V. 7, 149 Iowa 114, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 
 646. 
 
 If a bank took a bill of lading with 
 draft attached covering a shipment as se- 
 curity, or under an agreement express or 
 implied that it should collect the money 
 due or to become due from the consignee 
 and apply it to the bank's claim against 
 the shipper, no garnishment of the con- 
 signee could defeat the l)ank's right thus 
 created; the bank's right not depending 
 on its having taken the draft and bill of 
 lading in payment of its claims. What 
 Cheer Sav. Bank v. Mowery, 128 N. W. 7, 
 149 Iowa 114, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 646. 
 
 67. What Cheer Sav. Bank v. Mowery, 
 128 N. W. 7, 149 Iowa 114. 33 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. (;4r,. 
 
 68. Delivery of property. — Adoue v. 
 Seeligson & Co., 'A Tex. 593. See post, 
 "Pledge, Mortgage or Collateral Secu- 
 rity," § 577. 
 
 69. Campbell v. Alford, 57 Tex. 159, 
 162. 
 
 A cotton factor in Galveston procured 
 
 an advance of money from a banker on 
 "cotton in press," for which he gave his 
 order on the press to deliver the cotton 
 to a vessel then in port loading for Liv- 
 erpool. The order was notified to the 
 press, and the master of the vessel made 
 and delivered to the cotton factor, as the 
 shipper, a bill of lading for the cotton, 
 which the factor indorsed and delivered 
 to the banker, with his exchange on Liv- 
 erpool, in favor of the banker, attached. 
 Afterwards a third party, who was a 
 creditor of the cotton factor, sued out an 
 attachment against him and levied it on 
 the cotton, which was still in press. In 
 a contest between the banker, as claim- 
 ant of the cotton, and the attaching cred- 
 itor, held, the execution of the bill of lad- 
 ing for the cotton by the master of the 
 vessel in favor of the cotton factor, and 
 the transfer and delivery thereof by the 
 factor to the banker, constituted con- 
 structive delivery of the cotton. Adoue 
 V. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 593. 
 
 The execution of the delivery order by 
 the factor to the vessel for the cotton in 
 press, and the recognition and accept- 
 ance thereof by the press, l)efore the levy 
 of attacliment, constitutes a delivery of 
 the cotton, so as to except it from at- 
 tachment l)y the creditor. Adoue v. Seel- 
 igson & Co., 54 Tex. 593. 
 
 70. Adoue v. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 
 593. 
 
 71. Adoue V. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 
 593.
 
 387 
 
 lilLLS OF LADING. 
 
 §§ 576-577 
 
 attachnK-nt, the profjcrty never l)ecanie subject to the attachment lienJ^ 
 
 Effect of Custom. — K\i(lence of custom can not be given to overcome the 
 transferee's shcjwing of title, and give priority to the attachment Hen."^ 
 
 § 577. Pledg'e, Mortgage or Collateral Security. — It is well settled that 
 the owner of the hill of lading ina\ pk-dge the >anie as collateral security for 
 a debt.'-* 
 
 Who Are Pledgees, etc. — .\ bank advancing money to the consignee to 
 pay for the goods and taking the bills of lading representing the same as col- 
 lateral security fctr the l(i>s. aii|uires a lien on such goods. "'^ 
 
 Security for Pre-Existing Debt. — The transfer of a bill of lading as 
 mere collateral security for a pre-existing debt does not make the transferee 
 a purchaser for \aluc.''" 
 
 Rights of Pledgee, etc. — When a bill of lading is transferred and deliv- 
 ered as collateral security, the rights of the pledgee under it are the same as 
 those of an actual purchaser, so far as the exercise of those rights are nec- 
 essary to protect the hoUlcr.'' 
 
 72. Marshaling securities. — Scharff z\ 
 Meyer. . j t Am. St. Rep. 1172, i:53 Mo. 428, 
 ■.U S. W. S58. 
 
 73. Where claimant alleges title to a 
 carload of grain, attached as the prop- 
 erty of the shipper and consignee, by 
 indorsement and transfer of the bill of 
 lading prior to the attachment, plaintif? 
 whg joins issue, in efifect asserting that 
 the indorsement was subsequent to the 
 levy, can not give evidence of custom to 
 overcome claimant's showing of title by 
 such indorsement and transfer; any evi- 
 dence of custom given by claimant hav- 
 ing simply amounted to a statement of 
 what his legal rights were by reason of 
 the indorsement and transfer. Mercan- 
 tile Banking Co. z\ Landa (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), ;;;{ S. W. GSi. 
 
 74. Pledge mortgage or collateral se- 
 curity. — Douglas V. People's Bank, 86 Ky. 
 ITG, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 5 S. W. 420, 9 
 Am. St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 510. 
 
 A bill of lading, like any negotiable 
 credit, may be pledged by indorsement 
 and delivery to secure any lawful obli- ' 
 gation, under Civ. Code, arts. 3136, 3158. 
 Scheuermann v. Monarch Fruit Co., 48 
 So. 647, 123 La. 5.5. 
 
 The merchandise represented by a bill 
 of lading is very often pledged by the 
 transfer of the bill of lading which car- 
 ries it. Yegen t'. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 19 N. Dak. 70, 121 N. W. 205. 
 
 75. The sellers of cotton took bills of 
 lading in their own names and sent drafts 
 for the price to a correspondent for col- 
 lection, and the purchaser paid the drafts 
 l)y cliecks on a bank, which had agreed 
 to pay the checks and take bills of lad- 
 ing as security, and the purchaser, on so 
 paying the drafts, received the bills of 
 lading, and delivered them to the bank 
 under the agreement. Held, that the 
 purchaser of the cotton did not become 
 the absolute owner thereof on paying tlie 
 
 drafts of the seller by taking and receiv- 
 ing the accompanying bills of lading, and 
 that by delivery of the bills of lading to 
 the bank it acquired a lien on the cotton. 
 Judgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 
 1033, modified. First Nat. Bank r. San 
 Antonio, etc., R. Co., 77 S. W. 410, 97 Tex. 
 201. 
 
 76. Security for pre-existing debt. — 
 Loeb 7: I'eters, 35 .\ni. Rep. 17. 63 Ala. 
 243. 
 
 A mortgage or pledge of a bill of lad- 
 ing for a pre-existing debt is valid 
 against subsequent purchasers of the 
 goods. Skilling r. Bollman, 73 Mo. 665, 
 39 Am. Rep. 537, 540. 
 
 77. Rights of pledgee. — Means z\ Bank, 
 146 U. S. 620. 36 L. Ed. 1107, 13 S. Ct. 
 186. 
 
 Campbell r. Alford, 57 Tex. 159, 162; 
 Adoue V. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 593; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer. 82 
 Tex. 195, 17 S. \V. 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 
 861. 
 
 One who makes a temporary advance 
 to the consignee, taking the bill of lading 
 as his security, has the same rights as the 
 buyer of the goods. Alissouri Pac. R. Co. 
 f. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195. 17 S. W. 
 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 In absence of notice of fraud. — Where 
 the facts are not such as to put upon no- 
 tice the Iiolder of a bill to whom it had 
 been negotiated for value as security for 
 a draft drawn by the consignor on a third 
 person, that a promissory note negoti- 
 ated for value by the consignor to the 
 same holder had been given after deliv- 
 ery of the goods, and to cover the pur- 
 chase price, and where there is no evi- 
 dence of any participation by the holder 
 of the bill in the fraud of the consignor, 
 the payment of the note by the maker 
 does not release the carrier from liability 
 on the bill. Boatman's Sav. Bank v. 
 Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221, 7 S. E. 
 125.
 
 § S77 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 388 
 
 Title to Goods and Right of Possession. — The pledge of a bill of lading 
 does not invest the pledgee with title to the property; the title remains in 
 the pledgor : but the pledgee acquires a lien upon the property for the secu- 
 rity of his debt; and this lien, as long as he retains the possession of the prop- 
 erty, either actual or symbolical, is a legal lien, which is paramount to, and 
 will therefore prevail against, any prior equities existing on behalf of third 
 parties, of which the pledgee had no notice, or of which he was not required 
 by law to take notice.'^-'* The transfer of a bill of lading, although the trans- 
 action is not intended to give the permanent ownership, but to furnish secu- 
 rity for advances of money, or discount of commercial paper made upon the 
 faith of it, confers upon the person to wdiom it is transferred the title to the 
 goods and the right of possession till the debt is paid.'^ 
 
 Intention of Parties. — A pledgee to whom a bill of lading is given as se- 
 curity gels the legal title to the goods and the right of possession only if such 
 is the intention of the parties, and that intention is open to explanation.^*^ 
 
 78. Title to goods and right of posses- 
 sion. — Petitt & Cu. T. First Nat. Bank 
 XKy.), 4 Bush 334; Douglas v. People's 
 Bank, 86 Ky. 176, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 5 S. 
 \V. 420, 9 Am. St. Rep. 276, 32 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 510. 
 
 79. Where advances are made upon 
 goods in transit, and the bill of lading or 
 invoice is assigned, the title to the goods 
 passes and vests in the assignee. Manu- 
 facturers' Commercial Co. v. Rochester 
 R. Co., 126 N. Y. S. 1051, 142 App. Div. 
 249. 
 
 Where a bank furnislied money for the 
 purchase of cotton, and received from 
 the railroad company by which the cot- 
 ton was shipped the bills of lading to 
 hold as security for the money expended 
 for the cotton, the bank was entitled to 
 hold the cotton until its debt was paid. 
 National Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 93 
 S. W. 209, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 535; Camp- 
 bell V. Alford, 57 Tex. 159. 
 
 A bank furnished money to a buyer of 
 cotton and received the bills of lading for 
 the cotton to hold as security. The rail- 
 road company deposited the cotton with 
 a compress company, which issued re- 
 ceipts stating on their face that they 
 were nonnegotiable. These receipts 
 were exchanged by the railroad company 
 for the bills of lading. Held, that, 
 though the receipts were nonnegotiable, 
 they nevertheless gave the bank a right 
 to the possession of the cotton. Na- 
 tional Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 41 
 Tex. Civ. App. 535, 93 S. W. 209, affirmed 
 in 101 Tex. 650, no op. 
 
 A bank furnished money to a buyer of 
 cotton, and received the bills of lading 
 for the cotton to hold as security. The 
 railroad company deposited the cotton 
 with a compress company, which issued 
 receipts stating on their face that they 
 were nonnegotiable. These receipts were 
 exchanged by the railroad company for 
 the bills of lading. The bank sold the 
 cotton, accepting the buyer's note, but 
 retaining the compress company's re- 
 ceipts as security. Held, that, even 
 
 though the note were good, the accept- 
 ance of it did not deprive the bank of the 
 right to the possession of the cotton. 
 National Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 41 
 Tex. Civ. App. 535, 93 S. W. 209, af- 
 firmed in 101 Tex. 650, no op. 
 
 The railroad delivered the cotton to 
 the Cleburne Compress Company, which 
 executed and delivered to the railroad 
 its receipts for same. These receipts 
 were exchanged to appellee for the JdHIs 
 of lading held by it. The status of the 
 property was not changed by this ex- 
 change, except the compress became the 
 bailee of the cotton, instead of the rail- 
 road. National Bank i'. Citizens' Nat. 
 Bank, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 535, 93 S. W. 209, 
 affirmed in 101 Tex. 650, no op. 
 
 B. having received advances from C. & 
 C, of Galveston, on the faith of his 
 agreement to ship them certain goods, 
 delivered the goods to a carrier to be 
 transported to Liberty, the carrier exe- 
 cuting duplicate bills of lading specifying 
 that the goods were to be delivered to 
 the care of W. at Liberty, to be for- 
 warded to C. & C. After delivering with- 
 out indorsement one of these bills of lad- 
 ing to C. & C, B. procured from A. & 
 Co. advances on the same goods they 
 having inquired of W., and being in- 
 formed by him that he held the goods 
 subject to the order of B. W. had never 
 seen or had notice of the bill of lading. 
 Held, tliat the rights of the pledgees at- 
 tached when the goods were delivered to 
 the carrier under a bill of lading declar- 
 ing that the goods were to be forwarded 
 to them; that thereafter the rights of the 
 pledgees were superior to those of the 
 original owner, or any acquired through 
 him, and this, too, although the ware- 
 houseman, and forwarding agent at Lib- 
 erty, having no notice of the bill of lad- 
 ing, held the goods subject to the order 
 of the shipper. Campbell v. Alford, 57 
 Tex. 159. 
 
 80. The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 665, 
 44 L. Ed. 929, 20 S. Ct. 803; Pollard v. 
 Vinton, 105 U. S. 7, 26 L. Ed. 998; Shaw
 
 389 
 
 lilLLS OF LAUI.NG. 
 
 § '^yi 
 
 Delivery of Bill of Lading Equivalent to Actual Possession of Goods. 
 
 — As it is indispensahlc to llie xalidily (jf a i)lc(l,i,a- thai the actual possession of 
 the property pledged should i^ass to the pledgee, the possession of property 
 which is sought to be jiledged while it is in transit may be effected by trans- 
 ferring the bill of lading. Such transfer of the bill of lading is regarded as 
 equivalent to investing the pledgee with the actual possession of the property. ^^ 
 The indorsement and delivery of a bill of lading operates the same as the 
 delivery of the goods, and the pledgee to whom the same is delivered can hold 
 the property to secure his debt, against the consignee or any other person.''- 
 
 Action for Wrongful Conversion of Goods. — The transfer and delivery 
 of an Inland bill of lading of goods, by the consignee to a person who advances 
 money upon them, is not in form or effect a mortgage, but vests in such per- 
 son a property in the goods, which entitles him to maintain an action against 
 one who wrongfully converts them; as, for instance, the carrier, if he delivers 
 the goods to the consignee, without requiring the ])roduction of the bill of lad- 
 ing, but reiving u])on his assertitju that he holds it.^'- 
 
 Priority against Assignment of Purchase Money. — Where bills of lad- 
 ing for property loaded and shipped under a contract of sale designated the 
 seller as the consignor and the buyer the consignee, and an assignee made an 
 advance on the faith of an assignment thereof while the property was in the 
 possession of the carrier, he acquired a property interest in it, without an 
 indorsement of tlie bills which was prior in right to an assignment by the 
 consignor of the proceeds thereof to be paid by the buyer.''-* And such 
 assignee did not lose his priority over the former assignment of the purchase 
 price by allowing the shipment to be delivered to the buyer, who on receiving 
 them and acknowledging that the bills of lading had been assigned to cover 
 advances made on the faitli thereof, was bound to account to the assignee of 
 
 V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. .'iST, 25 L. Ed. 
 892; Friedlandor v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 
 130 U. S. 416, 423, 32 L. Ed. 991, 9 S. 
 Ct. 570; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McFad- 
 den, 154 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 941, 14 S. 
 Ct. 990; North Pennsylvania R. Co. : . 
 Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 
 
 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 The passage of title to goods in transit 
 by an assignment of the invoices or liills 
 of lading to secure advances is controlled 
 largely by the intention of the par- 
 ties. Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. 
 Rochester R. Co., 126 N. Y. S. 1051, 142 
 App. Div. 249. 
 
 Intention of parties. — Manufacturers' 
 Commercial Co. v. Rochester R. Co., 126 
 N. Y. S. lO.'.l, 142 .\pp. Div. 24'». 
 
 81. Delivery of bill of lading equivalent 
 to actual possession of goods. — Douglas 
 V. People's Hank, SC, Ky. 17C), 5 S. \V. 420, 
 10 Ky. L. Rep. 24;!, 9 .\m. St. Rep. 276, 
 
 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 510. See ante, 
 "Subsequent Liens." §§ 575-576. 
 
 A bill of lading represents the prop- 
 erty, and any bona fide title, for valua- 
 ble consideration, obtained through a 
 pledge of the l)ill of lading, is as valid 
 and effectual a title to the goods as 
 could be obtained liy an actual delivery 
 of the goods themselves. Grayson 
 County Nat. Bank v. Nashville, etc.. 
 Railway (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 79 S. W. 1094. 
 1096; Adoue v. Seeligson & Co., 54 Tex. 
 
 593, 594; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 
 heimer. 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. W. 608, 27 
 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 82. Campbell v. Alford. 57 Tex. 159. 162. 
 
 83. Action for wrongful conversion of 
 goods. — Forbes :■. Bostim, etc., R. Co., 
 133 Mass. 154. 
 
 84. Priority against assignment of pur- 
 chase money. — Manufacturers' Commercial 
 Co. V. Rochester R. Co., 117 N. Y. S. 
 989, affirmed 123 N. Y. S. 1128, 137 .App. 
 Div. 882. 
 
 A lumber company, which had a con- 
 tract to deliver a large number of ties 
 to a railroad companj-, assigned to plain- 
 tiff, its creditor, 30.000, ties, but. no ties 
 having been collected at the time, no 
 title to specific ties passed. When ship- 
 ments were later made, the bills of lad- 
 ing were indorsed by the lumber com- 
 pany to plaintiflf to apply on the debt, 
 and payment was made thereon to the 
 plaintiflf l>y the railroad company. Held, 
 that the rights of another creditor of the 
 lumber company, who made advances on 
 the security of pledges of bills of lading 
 of specific ties, to money in the hands 
 of the company, held by it for payment 
 for the ties represented by the pledged 
 bills of lading, were superior to the claim 
 of plaintiflf. Manufacturers' Commercial 
 Co. V. Rochester R. Co.. 126 N. Y. S. 
 1051, 142 App. Div. 249.
 
 §§ 577-579 CARRIERS. 390 
 
 the bills for the purchase price.'^-'^ 
 
 Priority against Person Advancing Money to Shipper.— See ante, 
 
 "Claim for Advances to Consit;nor." § ?70. 
 
 Estoppel of Consignor to Assert Title.— Where a merchant ships goods 
 to his broker, without conveying title to him but purely for the purpose of dis- 
 tribution to others, and sends to the broker a bill of lading, indorsed in blank, 
 for goods the possession of which, by the general custom of trade, is re- 
 garded as evidence of the right to dispose of the property for which it is is- 
 sued, he can not. in an action of trover, recover the goods from a bank which 
 has 'in good faith and without notice of the owner's title, taken the bill of lad- 
 ing' as security for a loan of money to the broker on his individual account, 
 an*d converted^ the propertv upon default in the payment of its debt.-^*' 
 
 Substitution of New 'Security.— The surrender of bills of lading, held 
 a*^ collateral securitv for a loan, is a good consideration for the substitution 
 therefor of new bill's of lading antedating the loan. As against the carrier the 
 holder is still a holder for value.'*' ,^ 
 
 Priority against Attachment.— See ante, "Subsequent Attachments, § 
 
 Stoppage in Transitu.— See ante, "As Defecting Stoppage in Transitu," 
 
 Release or Discharge of Lien.— A sale of cotton by the pledgor of the 
 bills of lading, pursuant to the uniform custom with the pledgee, releases the 
 carrier issuing the bills from liability to the pledgee,'^^ and the bank's_ lien on 
 the cotton is terminated by the deliv'ery of the proceeds of the sale to it.^^ 
 
 §§ 578-587. Purchase or Discount of Draft with Bill of Lading At- 
 tached— § 578. Recording Papers.— A bank wdiich discounts a draft with 
 a bill of lading attached, if not the absolute owner of the goods, stands in the 
 position of a mortgagee in possession, and is not required, in order to protect 
 its lien, to have the papers recorded."" 
 
 §§ 579-584. Rights and Title of Purchaser— §§ 579-582. As to 
 Consignor and Consignee— § 579. In General.— A party discounting a 
 draft and receiving therewith, deliverable to his order, a bill of lading of the 
 goods against which the draft was drawn, acquires a special property in them 
 and has a complete right to hold them as security for the acceptance and pay- 
 ment of the draft.-'i He becomes the owner of the shipment and neither the 
 
 85. Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. and on receiving payment, to deposit the 
 Rochester R. Co., 117 N. Y. S. 989, af- amount in the bank. Held, that the 
 firmed 123 N. Y. S. 1128, 137 App. Div. bank's lien on cotton which was sold 
 882. was terminated by the delivery of the 
 
 86. Estoppel of consignor to assert ti- proceeds of the sale to it. Judgment 
 tie.— Commercial Bank v. Armsby Co., (Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 1033, modified. 
 120 Ga 74, 47 S. E. 589, G5 L. R. A., N. First Nat. Bank v. San Antonio, etc., R. 
 S 443 Co.. 77 vS. W. 410, 97 Tex. 201. 
 
 87. Substitution of new security.— Mid- 90. Bank discounting draft with bill of 
 land Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., lading attached.— Seward & Co. v. Mil- 
 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. ler, lOG Va. 309, 55 S. E. 681. 
 
 Rep. 505. Where a bank discounted a draft at- 
 
 88. Release or discharge of lien.— First tached to an order on a carrier for the 
 Nat Bank v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. delivery of freight, it was not necessary 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 1033, affirmed that it should have the papers recorded, 
 in part and reversed in part in 97 Tex. as provided by Code, § 2465, in order to 
 201. preserve its lien. Seward & Co. v. Mil- 
 
 89. A bank agreed with cotton dealers ler, 55 S. E. 681, 106 Va. 309. _ 
 
 to advance money to them to pay for 91. Transfer of bill of lading with bill 
 
 cotton purchased, taking the bills of lad- of exchange attached.— Dows v. National 
 
 ing as security, and the uniform course Excli. Bank, 91 U. S. 018, 23 L. Ed. 214. 
 
 of business had been for such dealers Georgia.— Faxson Bros. v. Warfield, 6 
 
 to sell the cotton, and, after sales were Ga. App. 315, 65 S. E. 34. _ 
 
 made, to receive the bills from the bank, Under the express provisions of Civ.
 
 391 
 
 I5ILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 579 
 
 original consignor nor the consignee or drawee has any right to control it,*'- 
 nor can they or any one else effect the transferee's title."'^ The special prop- 
 erty in the goods which therehy passes to such transferee is suhject to be de- 
 vested by the acceptance and ])ayincnt of the draft. If the consignee refuses 
 to accept and pay such draft, the liile to tlie property included in the bill of 
 lading becomes absolute in the. indorsee as against the consignor and his cred- 
 itors. '••» The indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading and drafts to 
 which it is attached, operates as a sympolical delivery of the goods in tran- 
 situ covered by such bill and transfers the title thereto to the indorsee as ef- 
 fectually as if the goods them.selves had been delivered to him. '■J'' By reason of 
 the consideration moving from him as such purchaser, he acquires a position 
 superior to that of the drawee, and has the right to insist on the drawee's 
 recognizing this position before delivering the bill of lading to him."'' But he 
 has no more rights than the shipper and if the shipjier could not require ac- 
 ceptance of a time draft without surrendering the bill of lading, neither can 
 the holder.'-'"'" 
 
 Code lUK). § 41:34, when a 1-ill of hiding 
 is attached to a draft drawn on a third 
 person, it will be treated as security for 
 the draft, and neither title to the goods 
 nor right to the bill of lading will pass 
 to the drawee until, as required therein, 
 he accepts, or accepts and secures, or 
 pays the draft, as the case may be. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Strozier. 10 Ga. App. 
 157, 73 S. E. 42. 
 
 North Carolina. — The holder of a draft, 
 who takes an attached bill of lading by 
 assignment, as security for the amount 
 advanced on the draft, becomes the 
 owner of the goods, as against the ac- 
 ceptor, to an extent sufficient to secure 
 and protect his claim. Mason v. Nelson 
 Cotton Co., 62 S. E. 625, 148 N. C. 492, 
 18 L. R. A., N. S., 1221, 128 Am. St. Rep. 
 035. 
 
 Tennessee— Th'ivd Nat. Bank v. Hays, 
 119 Tenn. 729, 108 S. \V. 1060, 14 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1049. 
 
 West I'irginia. — Neill z: Rogers Bros. 
 Produce Co.. 41 W. Va. 37, 23 S. E. 702. 
 
 Rights of attaching creditor. — See ante, 
 "Sul)sequent Liens," §§ ■")7.")-.')76. 
 
 92. Paxson Bros. v. Warfield, 6 Ga. 
 App. 315, 65 S. E. 34. 
 
 Goods billed to shipper's order — Con- 
 signee to be notified. Where a carrier 
 gives a bill of lading specifying that the 
 goods are to be delivered to the order 
 of the consignor at a given destination, 
 though some other person is to l)e noti- 
 fied as consignee, and the original con- 
 signor attaches the bill of lading to the 
 draft and sells the draft and bill of lad- 
 ing to a third person, that person be- 
 comes the owner of the shipment, and 
 neither the original consignor nor the 
 consignee has any right to control it. 
 Paxson Bros. z\ Warfield, 65 S. E. 34, 6 
 Ga. App. 315. 
 
 93. On transfer of a h\\\ of lading witli 
 draft attached, covering a shipment in- 
 tended for a buyer from the consignor's 
 vendee, nothing said or done b}' the ven- 
 
 dee, nor Ijy the buj-er or anybody else 
 could afifcct the transferee's title. First 
 Nat. Bank v. McSwain, 75 S. E. 1106, 93 S. 
 C. 30. 
 
 94. American Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 
 123 Ala. 612, 26 So. 498, 82 Am. St. Rep. 
 147; Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 171 Ala. 392, 54 So. 621, 32 L. R. 
 A., N. S.. 1173, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 42; 
 Loeb r. Peters, 63 Ala. 243, 35 Am. Rep. 
 17; Chandler v. Sprague (Mass.), 38 Am. 
 Dec. 404. 5 Mete. 300. See ante, '"Bill 
 with Draft Attached to Be Delivered to 
 Purchaser of Goods." § 508. 
 
 The title to j^roperty is passed to the 
 bank upon a transaction as follows: A 
 bill of lading describing the property, 
 with a draft attached, is delivered to the 
 bank, and the bank credits the amount 
 of the draft to the drawer, and, when the 
 draft is not paid, does not charge the 
 amount thereof 1)ack to such drawer, but 
 assumes, itself, the collection of the draft. 
 First Nat. Bank v. Walsh, etc., Co.. 131 
 111. .A.pp. 508; Third Nat. Bank z: Hays, 
 119 Tenn. 729, 108 S. W. 1060, 14 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 1049. 
 
 95. Amercian Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 
 82 Am. St. Rep. 147, 123 Ala. 612, 26 So. 
 498. 
 
 The indorsement 'and delivery bj- a 
 shipper of a bill of lading to a shipment 
 of flour, with sight draft attached, to a 
 bank, who credited the shipper's account 
 with the amount of the draft, operated 
 as a symbolical delivery of the flour, and 
 vested the title in the bank. Walsh, etc., 
 Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 81 N. E. 1067, 
 228 111. 446; Third Nat. Bank z\ Hays. 
 119 Tenn. 729, 108 S. W. 1060, 14 Am. & 
 Eng. .\nn. Cas. 1049. 
 
 96. Mason v. Nelson Cotton Co.. 123 
 Am. St. Rep. 035, 148 N. C. 492. 02 S. E. 
 625, 18 L. R. A.. N. S.. 1221. 
 
 96a. Duty to surrender goods on ac- 
 ceptance of time draft. — National Bank f. 
 Merchants' Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 92, 23 
 L. Ed. 208.
 
 ;S 57'9-581 
 
 CARRIF.RS. 
 
 392 
 
 Draft with Flat Bill of Lading Attached.— The discounting of a draft at- 
 tached to a Hat bill of lading does not give the discounting bank an equitable 
 lien upon the shipment, where no act on the part of the consignor creating such 
 a lien is shown, and where the consignee had no notice that the bank had dis- 
 continued the draft.'-'" 
 
 Nothing in Bill to Show That Drawer of Draft Owner of Shipment. 
 
 Where there is nothing in the l)ill of lading to show that the consignor was 
 
 the owner of the shipment at the time the draft was discounted, a lien can 
 not be asserted as an inference from the fact of the delivery of the bill of lad- 
 ing at the time the draft is assigned to the bank.''"* 
 
 § 580. Notice That Payment to Drawer Unauthorized.— A draft at- 
 tached to a bill of lading for property purchased by the drawee, payable to 
 the holder is prima facie notice to the drawee that the price is claimed by 
 payee and payment to the seller and drawer is unauthorized.'^''^ 
 
 § 581. Drawer Indebted to Drawee or Consignee.— When a vendor of 
 goods ships them, taking from the carrier a bill of lading, and drawing a draft 
 payable to his own order upon the vendee, and attaching the bill of lading and 
 indorsing such draft to a third person for value, the title to the goods vests 
 in the indorsee, at least to the extent of the amount advanced and the con- 
 signee can not retain the price of the goods on account of a debt due him from 
 tlie consignor.! Thus, where a bank, for a valuable consideration, takes an 
 assignment of a bill of lading with draft attached, the consignee of the goods, 
 takes them subject to the rights of the holder of the bill of lading for the 
 amount of the draft, and he can not retain the price of the goods on account 
 of a debt due him from the consignor,^ nor can the bank's right be defeated 
 by the shipper's subsequently giving the bank a draft for the amount due 
 him from the consignee and paying the difference,'^ but the bank can not use 
 
 97. Maine Xat. Bank v. Barringer, 4() 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 510. 
 
 98. Maine Xat. Bank v. Barringer, 46 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 510. 
 
 99. Notice that payment to drawee un- 
 authorized. — Burrton State Bank v. Pease- 
 moore Mill. Co., Itia Mo. App. 135, 145 
 S. W. 508. 
 
 1. North Carolina. — Mason v. Nelson 
 Cotton Co., 128 Am. St. Rep. 635, 148 N. 
 C. 492, 62 S. E. 625, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1221; Latham v. Spragins (N. C), 78 S. 
 E. 282; Finch v. Gregg. 126 N. C. 17'. 
 35 S. E. 251, 49 L. R. A. 679, cited 
 in Willard Mfg. Co. v. Tierney. 133 N 
 C. 630. 45 S. E. 1026, in the support of 
 this principle. 
 
 The law is thus stated in Daniels on 
 Negotiable Instruments, § 1734 (a) : 
 "When the vendor of goods consigns 
 them to the purchaser, taking a bill of 
 lading from the carrier and intending to 
 resume the right of control over them, 
 at the same time drawing upon the pur- 
 chaser for the price and delivering the 
 bill of exchange, with the bill of lading 
 attached, to an indorsee for a valuable 
 consideration, the consignee, upon re- 
 ceipt of the goods, takes them ' sub- 
 ject to the right of the holder of the 
 bill of lading to demand payment of the 
 bill of exchange, and can not retain the 
 price of the goods on account of a debt 
 
 due to him from the consignor." Emery's 
 Sons V. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 
 18 Am. Rep. 299; Dows v. National Exch. 
 Bank, 91 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 214. This court, 
 in Finch v. Gregg, 126 N. C. 176, 35 S. E. 
 251, 49 L R. A. 679, recognized this al- 
 most elementary principle, carrying it to 
 its fullest extent. To the extent in- 
 dicated in this citation from Willard 
 Mfg. Co. V. Tierney, 133 N. C. 630, 45 S. 
 E. 1026, the principal contained in Finch 
 V. Gregg is sound. Mason v. Nelson 
 Cotton Co., 128 Am. St. Rep. 635, 148 
 N. C. 492, 62 S. E. 625, 18 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1221; Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. 
 Bank, 18 Am. Rep. 299, 25 O. St. 360. 
 
 2. Willard Mfg. Co. v. Tierney, 133 N. 
 C. 630, 45 S. E. 1026; Mason v. Nelson, 
 Cotton Co., 148 N. C. 492. 62 S. E. 635, 
 128 Am. St. Rep. 635, 18 L. R. A.^ N. S., 
 1321. 
 
 3. On the indorsement of a bill of lad- 
 ing to a bank by a shipper of corn, it 
 paid a draft drawn on the consignee for 
 the price without any notice of claim by 
 the drawee against the drawer on ac- 
 count of a previous transaction. The 
 draft being returned unpaid it was pre- 
 sented to the shipper, who satisfied the 
 same by giving the bank another draft 
 on the consignee, for a less amount, pay- 
 ing the difference between the two drafts 
 in money. Held, that the bank's right
 
 393 
 
 BILLS OF LADINX. 
 
 §§ 581-585 
 
 its legal title to enable the consignor to defeat the collection by the purchaser 
 of a debt due from the consignor.'* 
 
 § 582. Right to Sue for Purchase Price or for Conversion of Goods. 
 ^Right to Sue for Purchase Price. — On deposit of a draft, to which a 
 bill of lading was attached, in the seller's bank for credit, the bank became the 
 owner, and was entitled to sue the buyer for the price.'' 
 
 Right of Action against Consignee for Converting Shipment. — A pur- 
 chaser of a draft with bill oi lading attached may >uc the consignee for con- 
 verting the shi[)nient.'' 
 
 § 583. Rights against Carrier. — Purchaser Not a Holder in Due 
 Course. — In an action against a carrier f(jr injur) to a shipment, in the ab- 
 sence of the assertion of any equities against the consignor, it is no defense 
 to show that the plaintitY and holder of the bill of lading, drawn to the order 
 of the consignor and attached to a draft on the purchaser, is not a holder in 
 due course, if he took it for value, or that it was given as collateral security.'^ 
 
 § 584. Rights against Third Persons. — Vendor of Property Shipped 
 by Vendee. — Where a vendor put it into the power of his vendee to deal with 
 the property as his own, and thereby enabled him to mislead a bank, which 
 in good faith discounted his draft and accepted a bill of lading of the goods 
 sold as collateral security, any loss arising out of the transaction must fall 
 upon the vendor. "^ 
 
 Against Purchaser of Goods Consigned to Shipper's Order — Right to 
 Sell to Third Person. — A purchaser of drafts, drawn by a shipper, payable 
 to itself, and bills of lading, consigning to itself goods against which the drafts 
 were drawn, and which goods the shipper had agreed to sell to a third person, 
 acquires the title of the shipper with the power of jus disponendi of the ship- 
 per, and it may divert and sell the goods, and the third person may not com- 
 plain thereof.'' 
 
 Attaching Creditor, — See ante, "Subsequent Attachments," § 576. 
 
 § 58 5. Liability of Purchaser for Shortage or Inferiority of Ship- 
 ment. — Where a consignor of goods draws a draft or l)ill of exchange on 
 
 with respect to the corn was acquired by 
 tlie transfer to it of the bill of lading, 
 which was made without notice to it 
 of the consignee's claim against the ship- 
 per, and hence its right to the corn could 
 not be defeated in whole or in part by 
 the consignee's claim against the shipper, 
 nor did the subsequent change of drafts 
 between the hank and shijipcr in any 
 way interrupt or impair its rights. Free- 
 man V. Bank, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 338. 
 
 4. A transfer by a consignor to a bank 
 of a bill of lading of goods consigned to 
 a purchaser of the consignor and a draft 
 on the purchaser, followed by payments 
 by the bank of the draft of the consignor 
 by crediting the amount thereof to the 
 depositor, placed the legal right to pos- 
 session of the propert}' in the bank sub- 
 ject to the duty to deliver to the pur- 
 chaser on his payment of the draft, but 
 the bank could not use the legal title 
 to enable the consignor to defeat the col- 
 lection by the purchaser of a debt due 
 him from the consignor. Wilson Grain 
 Co. V. Central Xat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 139 S. \V. 996. 
 
 5. Right to sue for purchase price. — 
 Burrton State Bank v. Peasemoore Mill. 
 Co., 163 Mo. App. 135, 14.5 S. \V. 508. 
 
 6. Right of action against consignee for 
 conversion. — Where a produce company 
 purchased apples for another for ship- 
 ment, and, by the latter's authorit}-, de- 
 livered the bill of lading to plaintiff with- 
 out indorsement as security for the pay- 
 ment of the purchase price draft which 
 plaintiff discounted, title to the apples 
 passed to plaintiff, so that it could sue 
 the one for whom they were ordered 
 for converting them by ordering their 
 delivery to his customers. Canandaigua 
 Xat. Bank v. Southern R. Co., 118 N.^ Y. 
 S. 66S, 64 Misc. Rep. 827. 
 
 7. Purchaser not a holder in due course. 
 — Citizens', etc.. Bank v. Southern R. Co., 
 69 S. E. 261, 153 X. C. 346. 
 
 8. Vendor of property shipped by ven- 
 dee. — Xational Bank z\ Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 59 Atl. 134, 99 Md. 661, 105 Am. 
 St. Rep. :I21. 
 
 9. Against purchaser of goods con- 
 signed to shipper's order right to sell to 
 third person. — First Xat. Bank ;. Felker, 
 185 Fed. 67S.
 
 § 585 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 394 
 
 the purchaser for the purchase price and indorses the draft or bill of exchange 
 and assigns the bill of lading to a third person for value, the indorsee is not 
 liable on the original contract of sale, though the purchaser was compelled 
 to pay the draft or bill of exchange before he could inspect or get possession 
 of the goods. 1*^ The transaction does not constitute a sale of the shipment to 
 the purchaser of the draft with bill of lading attached^i and he is not deemed 
 to guarantee the character, quality, or quantity^^ of the goods shipped, and is 
 not liable for any breach of a warranty made by his assignor of the goods 
 lepresented by the bill of lading: ^•'' nor for a failure of title in the drawer of 
 the draft to the property shipped. ^-^ Hence, one who has accepted and paid 
 a draft attached to a bill of lading for property purchased by and to be de- 
 livered to him, by a bank which purchased the draft in due course of business, 
 can not, upon failure of the consideration, recover back from the bank the 
 amount so paid.^^ The bank does not become a warrantor of the quantity 
 or qualitv of the goods described in the bill^*^ and is not liable for shortage^'^ 
 
 10. Liability of purchaser on warranty 
 of character or quality or quantity of 
 shipment. — Mason v. Nelson Cotton Co., 
 12S Am. St. Rep. 635, 148 N. C. 493, 02 
 S. E. 625, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 1221, over- 
 ruling Finch V. Gregg, 126 N. C. 176, 
 35 S. E. 251, 49 L. R. A. 679; Lewis, 
 etc., Co. V. Small & Co., 117 Tenn. 153, 
 96 S. W. 1051, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 887. 
 
 11. The indorsement of a draft for the 
 price of cotton sold, with the bill of lad- 
 ing attached, by the seller, who was the 
 payee, to plaintiff bank for discount, did 
 not vest the legal title to the cotton for 
 the sale of which the draft was drawn 
 in the bank, nor constitute the l)ank 
 seller of the cotton. Bank v. Jones Cot- 
 ton Co., 156 Ala. 525, 46 So. 971. 
 
 12. Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, 171 Ala. 
 392, 54 So. 621, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 42; 
 Central Mercantile Co. v. Oklahoma State 
 Bank, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 954, 83 Kan. 
 504, 112 Pac. 114. 
 
 13. A buyer of a draft for the price of 
 goods sold under a warranty with bill 
 of lading attached, who receives payment 
 from the buyer of the goods, is not liable 
 for a breach of warranty, where he bought 
 the draft for full value, in the regular 
 course of mercantile dealing, and had no 
 interest in the goods, and took no part 
 in the bargain, and had no notice of its 
 terms. Mason v. Nelson Cotton Co., 
 62 S. E. 625, 148 N. C. 492, 18 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1221, 128 Am. St. Rep. 635. 
 
 "Payment by the drawee to the payee 
 of a negotiable draft with bill of lading 
 attached can not be recovered back by 
 the drawee on the ground that the payee 
 has received money which it can not 
 equitably retain because of a breach of 
 warranty made by the drawer to the 
 drawee on the sale of the goods for 
 which the bill of lading was given, since 
 any equities arising therefrom do not af- 
 fect the payee when he has secured an 
 acceptance or payment." Tolerton, etc., 
 Co. V. Anglo-California Bank, 50 L. R. 
 A. 777, 112 Iowa 706, 84 N. W. 930; Ma- 
 
 son V. Nelson Cotton Co., 128 Am. St. 
 Rep. 635, 148 N. C. 492, 62 S. E. 625, 18 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1221. 
 
 14. Failure of title in drawer of draft. 
 — .\ consignor of grain, which was de- 
 livered to a railway company for ship- 
 ment, drew a draft on the consignees, 
 and attached thereto bills of lading issued 
 to him by the carrier. The draft was in- 
 dorsed and delivered by the payees, to- 
 gether with the bills of lading, to a bank, 
 which paid to them the amount of it. 
 The drawees accepted and paid the draft. 
 Held, that neither the bank nor the pay- 
 ees were liable to the consignees of the 
 grain (the drawees) for a failure to title 
 in the drawer of the draft to the property 
 shipped. Hall v. Keller, 67 Pac. 518, 64 
 Kan. 211, 62 L. R. A. 758, 91 Am. St. 
 Rep. 209. 
 
 15. Lewis, etc., Co. 7'. Small & Co., 6 
 L. R. A., N. S., 887, 117 Tenn. 153, 96 S. 
 W. 1051. 
 
 16. A seller under a warranty drew a 
 draft on the buyer for the price, and with 
 the bill of lading indorsed it to a bank 
 in the ordinary course of business, and 
 the bank gave the seller credit on its 
 l:)Ooks for the amount of the draft, less 
 the usual discount. The bank had no no- 
 tice of any noncompliance with the con- 
 tract on the part of the seller. Held, 
 that the bank was an innocent purchaser 
 for value, and it did not become a war- 
 rantor of the quality and quantity of the 
 goods described in the bill of lading. 
 First Nat. Bank v. Mineral Wells, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 1099. 
 
 17. Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, 171 .\la. 
 392, 54 So. 621, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 42. 
 
 A seller of cotton, pursuant to instruc- 
 tions from the buyer, shipped it to the 
 buyer under a bill of lading, in which he 
 was named as shipper and a bank as con- 
 signee, the bill stating that the buyer 
 should be notified, and the seller drew a 
 draft on the buyer, payable to the bank, 
 and the bill of lading was attached to the 
 draft, which was deposited by the seller.
 
 395 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 585 
 
 or inferiority or deterioration of (|uality of the shipment ; ^^ althougli the bank 
 when notified of the seller's failure to comply with the contract of sale had 
 in its possession bonds of the latter more than sufficient to satisfy the de- 
 mands of the buyer. ^'•* The only representations which can be attributed to 
 the bank are that the pa])ers are in the same condition when presented as 
 when received from the drawer,-" nor can the drawee and acceptor when sued 
 on the draft plead failure or want of consideration as a defense.-^ In an ac- 
 tion by the buyer to recover the jjroceeds of a draft attached to a bill of lad- 
 ing against the collecting bank, evidence of a breach of warranty in the goods 
 for the price of which the draft was made is inadmissible in the absence of 
 proof that the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser or was acting as agent for 
 the drawer of the draft.-- A few cases have held to the contrary but the prin- 
 cipal ones ha\e been overruled.-'' 1'he general doctrine ])revails in the courts 
 
 The buyer paid the draft, and subse- 
 quently it was ascertained that there was 
 a deficiency of several pounds. Held, 
 tliat the l)ank was not liable to tlie I)uyer. 
 First Nat. Bank z\ \Vilkcsl)arre Lace 
 Mfg. Co., 162 Ala. 309, 50 vSo. l.Jll. 
 
 .A. bank purchasing from tlie shipper 
 his draft on the consignee for the price 
 of cotton shipped under contract of sale, 
 secured by the assignment of the bill of 
 lading therefor, to the shipper's order, at- 
 tached to it, does not, it being accepted 
 and paid, assume the obligations of the 
 drawer to the drawee, nor become liable 
 to the latter in case the property, com- 
 ing to his hands after his payment of the 
 draft, is short in weight of the amount 
 called for in the bills and for the price 
 of which the draft was drawn. Blaisdell 
 Co. V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 96 Tex. 626, 75 
 S. W. 292, 62 L. R. A. 968, 97 Am. St. 
 Rep. 944. disapproving Landa v. Lattin, 
 19 Tex. Civ. App. 246, 46 S. W. 48. And 
 see Blaisdell & Co. v. White & Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 70, 71, affirmed in 
 97 Tex. 626, no op. 
 
 18. A payee bank which in the ordinary 
 course of business cashed a draft with 
 blank indorsed bill of lading attached or 
 placed the proceeds thereof to tlie credit 
 of the consignors-drawers, and which for- 
 warded the same for collection, did not 
 become liable to the drawee-consignee 
 upon payment of the draft for a breach 
 of the contract of sale arising from a 
 shortage in weight or deterioration in 
 quality of the cotton covered by the bill 
 of lading. Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First 
 Nat. Bank, 171 Ala. 392, 54 So. 621, 32 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 1173, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 42. 
 
 Where the sellers of hay drew sight 
 drafts on the buyers, payable to them- 
 selves, and attached each of the drafts 
 to a bill of lading, and transferred them 
 to a bank, this did not constitute a sale 
 of the hay to the bank, so as to render 
 it liable for breach of the original con- 
 tract of sale in that the hay was of an 
 inferior quality. Lewis, etc., Co. f. Small 
 & Co., 117 Tenn. 153, 96 S. W. 1051, 6 
 L. R. A., N. S., 887. 
 
 19. The bank forwarded the draft and 
 bill of lading to its correspondent for 
 
 collection, with instructions not to sur- 
 render the bill of lading until the draft 
 was paid. The correspondent collected 
 the draft in full, and remitted to the bank 
 a part thereof. .After the payment to the 
 correspondent and before the transmis- 
 sion thereof to the bank, the latter was 
 notified of the failure of the seller to 
 comply with the contract of sale, and at 
 that time the bank had in its possession 
 funds belonging to the seller more than 
 sufficient to satisfy the demands of the 
 buyer for the loss it had sustained. The 
 bank obtained judgment against its cor- 
 respondent for the amount it retained. 
 Held, that the bank was not liable to the 
 ])uyer for the loss sustained, and the 
 seller could not claim the amount due to 
 the bank from its correspondent; there 
 l)eing nothing to impeach the good faith 
 of the transaction as between the bank 
 «ind the seller. First Nat. Bank z\ Min- 
 eral Wells, etc.. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 133 S. W. 1099. 
 
 20. Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173. 171 Ala. 
 392, 54 So. 621, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 42. 
 
 The bank held the draft as a bona fide 
 owner, and the bill of lading as a se- 
 curity for said draft, which the drawee 
 knew from inspection of the papers 
 when presented. Cosmos Cotton Co. v. 
 First Nat. Bank, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, 
 171 Ala. 392. 54 So. 621, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 
 42. See, also. Young z: Lehman, etc., 
 Co., 63 Ala. 519: First Nat. Bank v. 
 Wilkesbarre Lace Mfg. Co.. 162 .\la. 319, 
 50 So. 153. 
 
 21. Where a bank discounted a draft 
 with a bill of lading attached before ma- 
 turit\', in the ordinary' course of business, 
 the drawee and acceptor could not, when 
 sued on the draft, plead failure or want 
 of consideration. Bank z\ Jones Cotton 
 Co., 156 .\la. 525, 46 So. 971. 
 
 22. Felker z: First Nat. Bank. 196 Fed. 
 200. affirming 185 Fed. 678. 
 
 23. The case of Finch z: Gregg, 126 
 N. C. 176. 35 S. E. 251, 49 L. R. A. 679, 
 overruled by Mason z\ Nelson Cotton 
 Co.. 128 Am. St. Rep. 635. 148 N. C. 492, 
 62 S. E. 625, 18 L. R. -A., y. S.. 1221, and 
 the two or three others of like import
 
 § 385 
 
 CARRIER? 
 
 396 
 
 of England--* and the United States-'' and in the courts of the following states: 
 Alabamar« Iowa,-" Kansas^s Kentucky,-''' ^lassachusetts,-" North Carolina,3i 
 Tennessee.^2 and Texas.^^ The contrary doctrine seems to prevail in Missis- 
 profess to find support in Dows c'. Na- 
 tional Exch. Bank, 91 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 
 214, and Columbian Nat. Bank v. White, 
 65 Mo. App. 677. but neithey of these 
 decisions is authority for their position. 
 Mason v. Nelson Cotton Co., 128 Am. St. 
 Rep. 635, 148 N. C. 492, 62 S. E. 625, 18 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1221. 
 
 The court of Finch v. Gregg, 126 N. 
 C. 176, 35 S. E. 251, 49 L. R. A. 679, ex- 
 cited much comment at the time it was 
 announced, was the subject of adverse 
 criticism in a note by the editor of L. R. 
 A., in volume 49, page 679, and the prin- 
 ciple upon which it was made to rest 
 was condemned in a note of the case of 
 Hall T. Keller. 91 Am. St. Rep. 209. 64 
 Kan. 211, 67 Pac. 518, 62 L. R. A. 758. 
 Another comment of like purport will 
 be found in a note to an Alabama case 
 of Haas v. Citizens' Bank, 144 Ala. 562, 
 113 Am. St. Rep. 61, 39 So. 129, 1 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 242. 
 
 24. Robertson v. Reynolds. 2 Q. B. 196, 
 1 Gale & D. 526. 3 Perry & D. 611, 9 L. 
 J. Q. B., N. S., 249. 
 
 25. HoflFman v. National City Bank (U. 
 S.), 12 Wall. 181, 20 L. Ed. 366; Goetz v. 
 Bank, 119 U. S. 551, 30 L. Ed. 515. 7 S. 
 Ct. 318; Felker v. First Nat. Bank, 196 
 Fed. 200. 
 
 26. Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, 171 Ala. 
 392, 54 So. 621, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 42, dis- 
 tinguishing and overruling it so far as it 
 sustains a contrary doctrine. Haas v. 
 Citizens' Bank, 144 Ala. 562, 39 So. 129, 1 
 L. R. A., N. S., 242, 113 Am. St. Rep. 61; 
 Eufaula Grocery Co. v. Missouri Nat. 
 Bank, 118 Ala. 408, 24 So. 389; Bank v. 
 Jones Cotton Co., 156 Ala. 525, 46 So. 971. 
 
 The case of Haas v. Citizens' Bank, 144 
 Ala. 562, 1 L. R. A.. N. S.. 242, 113 Am. 
 St. Rep. 61, 39 So. "129, reaffirmed in 157 
 Ala. 607, 46 So. 1036, whether sound or 
 not, can be differentiated from all the 
 cases cited for and against this doctrine. 
 In the Haas case, the complaint averred 
 not only that the bank acquired the draft 
 and bill of lading, but purchased the ac- 
 count also, and on page 571, of 144 Ala. 
 the court, speaking through Tyson, J., 
 stresses the point that the bank pur- 
 chased the account and does not fasten 
 its liability upon the draft and bill of 
 lading alone. In response to the conten- 
 tion by the bank, that it held the draft 
 as bona fide purchaser, and was not 
 therefore liable, the court says: "To so 
 hold would be to give effect to only a 
 part of the transaction — to ignore its 
 ownership of the goods and the account 
 transferred to it by Klyce." The pur- 
 chase of the account or invoice was an 
 important factor in the mind of the 
 court, in reaching the conclusion in the 
 
 Haas case, and one not affirming in the 
 other cases which affirm or deny this 
 doctrine. See Cosmos Cotton Co. v. 
 First Nat. Bank. 171 Ala. 392, 54 So. 621, 
 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, Ann. Cas. 
 1913B, 42. 
 
 27. Tolerton, etc., Co. v. Anglo-Cali- 
 fornia Bank. 112 Iowa 706, 50 L. R. A. 
 777, 84 N. W. 930. 
 
 28. Hall V. Keller, 64 Kan. 211, 62 L. 
 R. A. 758, 91 Am. St. Rep. 209, 67 Pac. 
 518; Central Mercantile Co. v. Oklahoma 
 State Bank. 33 L. R. A., N. S., 954, 83 
 Kan. 504, 112 Pac. 114. 
 
 29. Bank discounting a seller's draft, 
 with bill of lading attached, as collateral 
 security, does not assume any contract- 
 ual liability toward the buyer, so that, on 
 the seller's breach of contract, the buyer 
 could not reclaim from the collecting 
 bank the money he had paid on the. 
 draft. Hawkins v. Alfalfa Products Co., 
 153 S. W. 201, 152 Ky. 152, 44 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 600. 
 
 30. Arpin v. Owens, 140 Mass. 144, 3 
 N. E. 25. 
 
 31. Mason v. Nelson Cotton Co., 128 
 Am. St. Rep. 635, 148 N. C. 492, 62 S. E. 
 625, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 1221, overruling 
 Finch V. Gregg, 126 N. C. 176, 35 S. E. 
 251, 49 L. R. A. 679, and diction in Sloan 
 V. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 126 N. C. 487, 
 36 S. E. 21. 
 
 In Mason v. Nelson Cotton Co., 128 
 Am. St. Rep. 635, 148 N. C. 492, 62 S. 
 E. 625, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 1221, the court 
 said: "That the case of Finch v. Gregg, 
 126 N. C. 176, 35 S. E. 251, 49 L. R. A. 
 679, should be overruled and the princi- 
 ple upon which it rests disapproved. 
 1. As contrary to the general current of 
 authority on a subject where uniform- 
 ity of decision is so greatly to be de- 
 sired. 2. Because it puts an undesir- 
 able and injurious clog upon commercial 
 intercourse between different sections of 
 the country. 3. Because it may, and fre- 
 quently does, work grevious wrong to 
 parties litigant, in subjecting them to the 
 burdens and obligations of contracts 
 which they never made, and holding 
 them responsible for fraud and wrongs 
 which they did not commit and of which 
 they had no knowledge or notice." 
 
 32. Lewis, etc., Co. v. Small & Co., 6 
 L. R. A., N. S., 887, 117 Tenn. 153, 96 S. 
 W. 1051- 
 
 33. Blaisdell Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 
 96 Tex. 626, 75 S. W. 292, 97 Am. St. 
 Rep. 944, 62 L. R. A. 968, 973, overruling 
 Landa v. Lattin, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 246, 46 
 S. W. 48; First Nat. Bank v. Mineral Wells, 
 etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 
 1099; Blaisdell & Co. v. White & Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 76 S. W. 70, 71, affirmed in 97 
 Tex. 626, no op.
 
 397 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 585 
 
 sippi.'*"* 
 
 Effect of Indorsement of Nonliability on Some and Omission from 
 Other Drafts. — The indorsement of drafts with bih of lachnj^ attached, pur- 
 chased Ijy a bank in due course; "not responsible for the quantity, quality or 
 delivery of the goods covered by the bill of lading." is mere surplusage and 
 does not render it hable on other drafts, etc., received in the same transaction 
 from which such indorsement is omitted.-'*'' 
 
 Fraudulent or Forged Bill of Lading. — The indorsee of a draft witli bill 
 of la(Hng attached does not become a i)arty of the sale, so as to be responsible 
 to the consignee if, after he has paid the draft, the bill of lading proves to be 
 frauchdent'"" or forged''" so that there is a failure of consideration. 
 
 Guaranty of Payment Describing Goods. — The fact that the draft was 
 bought in rehance upon a written guaranty uf its payment, in which the bill of 
 lading was described as covering goods of a designated quality, does not af- 
 fect the rule.-"^^ 
 
 Intervention in Garnishment Proceedings. — W here the seller of goods 
 shijjs tliem and makes a draft ujwn the purchaser with the bill of lading attached 
 and indorses to a bona fide purchaser for value and the drawee, after paying 
 the draft to a collecting agent, seeks to hold the proceeds by garnishment, as 
 the proi)erty of the drawer, the owner waives no rights by intervening and 
 asserting his title.-"^^ 
 
 34. The supreme court of Mississippi 
 in Russel v. Smith Grain Co., 80 Miss. 
 688, 32 So. 287, adopts the reasoning of 
 the court in Landa v. Lattin, 19 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 246, 46 S. W. 48. See, also, 
 Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 
 32 L. R. A., N. S., 1173, 171 Ala. 392, 54 
 So. 621, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 42; Mason 7'. 
 Nelson Cotton Co.. 128 Am. St. Rep. 63.'5, 
 148 N. C. 492, 62 S. E. 625, 18 L. R. .\., 
 N. S., 1221. 
 
 35. Where drafts of a seller of hay- 
 were attached to l)ills of lading and 
 transferred to a national hank, the fact 
 that the bank indorsed all l)ut three of 
 them with a statement that it was not 
 responsible for the quantity, quality, or 
 delivery of the goods covered by the l)ills 
 of lading, does not render it liable for 
 deficiency in quality of the goods cov- 
 ered by the three bills of lading, the in- 
 dorsement being mere surplusage. Lewis, 
 etc.. Co. r. Small & Co., 96 S. \V. 1051. 
 117 Tcnn. l.K?. f) L. R. .\.. N. S., 887. 
 
 36. Fraudulent bill. — Blaisdell Co. f. 
 Citizens' Nat. Bank, 96 Tex. 626, 75 S. 
 W. 292, 97 Am. St. Rep. 944, 62 L. R. A. 
 968. 
 
 37. Forged bill of lading. — Varney v. 
 Monroe Nat. Bank, Hi L. R. A., N. S., 
 337, 119 La. 943, 44 So. 753. 
 
 "In Hoffman v. National City Bank 
 (U. S.), 12 Wall. 181, 20 L. Ed. 366. it 
 was held: 'A consignor who had been 
 in the habit of drawing bills of exchange 
 on his consignee witli l)ills of lading at- 
 tached to the drafts drawn (it being part 
 of tlie agreement between the parties 
 that such bills should always attend the 
 drafts), drew bills on him with forged 
 bills of lading attached to the drafts, ami 
 had the drafts with the forged bills of 
 lading so attached discounted in the or- 
 
 dinary course of business by a bank ig- 
 norant of the fraud. The consignee, not 
 knowing of the forgery of the bills of 
 lading, paid the drafts. Held, that there 
 was no recourse by the consignee against 
 the bank.' " Mason v. Nelson Cotton 
 Co., 128 Am. St. Rep. 635, 148 N. C. 492, 
 62 S. E. 625. 18 L. R. A., N. S., 1221. 
 
 38. Guaranty of payment of describing 
 goods. — Central Mercantile Co. z'. Okla- 
 homa State Bank, 33 L. R. A., N. S.. 954. 
 83 Kan. 504, 112 Pac. 114. 
 
 Where the seller of goods ships them 
 and makes a draft upon the buyer with 
 bill of lading attached, one who buys the 
 draft and receives payment thereof from 
 the drawee is not liable for return of any 
 portion of the proceeds because of a de- 
 fect in the quality of the goods, though 
 the draft was bought in reliance upon a 
 written guaranty of its payment, in which 
 the bill of lading was described as cov- 
 ering goods of a designated quality. 
 Central Mercantile Co. v. Oklahoma 
 State Bank, 112 Pac. 114, 83 Kan. 504, 33 
 L. R. A., N. S.. 954. 
 
 39. Intervention in garnishment proceed- 
 ings. — Central Mercantile Co. I'. Okla- 
 homa State Bank, 33 L. R. -\., N. S., 954, 
 83 Kan. 504, 112 Pac. 114. 
 
 Gen. St. 1909, § 5834 (Code Civ. Proc, 
 § 241), provides that, where the answer 
 of a garnishee discloses that any other 
 person than defendant claims the indebt- 
 edness or property in his hands, the court 
 may order the claimant to be made a de- 
 fendant and notice to be served upon 
 him. Held, that where goods sold were 
 shipped on a bill of lading with draft at- 
 tached and the draft was paid, and be- 
 fore the money was remitted by the col- 
 lecting bank the buyer sued the seller for 
 defects in quality of the goods, and the
 
 §§ 586-588 CARRIERS. 398 
 
 § 586. Effect of Consignee's Accepting and Paying Draft. — Where a 
 
 bank discounts a seller's draft with bill of lading attached, the buyer's accept- 
 ance of such draft creates a new and independent contract between himself 
 and the transferee, and the payment of the draft releases the transferee from 
 all liability to the buyer.-* ^' \\'hen the consignor draws upon the consignee for 
 the purchase money, and the draft, the bill of lading attached, is indorsed or 
 transferred to some one who discounts the bill of exchange, the acceptance and 
 payment by the consignee of the draft, accompanied with the bill of lading 
 as 'shipping receipt, vest the title to the goods in him.-^^ It is well settled that 
 where a party consigns goods to another and thereupon draws upon the con- 
 signee for funds, accompanying the draft with the delivery of the bill of lad- 
 ing or shipping receipt, as collateral security for its payment, the acceptance 
 and payment by the consignee of the draft, accompanied with the bill of lad- 
 ing or "shii)ping' receipt, vests in him a special property in the goods. The bill 
 of lading in such case is a symbol of the goods, and the delivery thereof, with 
 the intention to transfer the property in the goods, is a symbolical delivery of 
 the goods.'*- 
 
 § 587. Charging IJnpaid Draft to Drawer's Account. — Where a bank, 
 which discounted a draft to which was attached a bill of lading upon its re- 
 turn unpaid, charged it to the drawer's account, if he had a sufficient balance 
 to pay the draft, it was thereby satisfied, and its claim on the property rep- 
 resented by the bill of lading extinguished.-*^ The bank, by charging the un- 
 paid draft to drawer's account, did not lose its title thereto and to the attached 
 bill of lading, if he had nothing to his credit with which to pay it; and hence 
 proof of such fact, although evidence of payment by the drawer, was not 
 conclusive."*-* 
 
 § 588. Deposit of Draft with Bill of Lading Attached for Collection. 
 
 — A seller's deposit of a bill of lading with a draft against the buyer attached 
 in bank for collection makes the bank and its correspondent his agent with 
 full power of disposition over the goods according to the terms and tenure 
 of the draft and bill of lading.-*'' 
 
 Right of Drawer to Control Collection and Disposition of Bill. — A 
 seller of machinery drawing a draft upon the purchaser, with the bill of lading 
 attached, and indorsing the draft to a bank for collection, has the right to 
 control the collection and the disposition of the bill of lading."*^ 
 
 Title of Bank to Goods. — Where a bank received for collection a draft 
 with a bill of lading for goods in transit attached, but did not discount the 
 draft or in any way purchase it. it was not the owner of the goods in transit,^'^ 
 
 drawee of the draft, after paying it to a 42. Orr v. Planters' Phosphate, etc., Co., 
 
 collecting bank, sought to hold the pro- 8 Ga. App. 59, 63, 68 S. E. 779, quoting 
 
 ceeds by garnishment as the property of Hall on Bailments, p. 127. 
 
 the seller, the payee bank by intervening 43. Charging unpaid draft to drawer's 
 
 and asserting its title to the proceeds, account. — Latham v. Spragins (N. C), 78 
 
 without waiting to be served with sum- $. E. 282. 
 
 mons, waived none of its rights. Central \^ Latham v. Spragins (N. C), 78 S. 
 
 Mercantile Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank, -g os*? 
 
 112 Pac. 114, 83 Kan. 504, 33 L. R. A., ' " "1^ •. r . r. -^u u-n t i a- 
 
 j^T g g.54 45. Deposit of draft with bill of lading 
 
 ■40." Hawkins v. Alfalfa Products Co., attached for collection.-Veitch v. Atkins 
 
 152 Ky. 152, 153 S. W. 201, 44 L. R. A., Grocery, etc., Co., 5 Ala. App. 444, 59 
 
 N. S., 600. So. 746. 
 
 41. Effect of consignee accepting and .46. Right of drawer to control collec- 
 
 paying of draft.-American Nat. Bank ^^°'',^"^^^''P°^/f'T °^,^!,"-7:^^^°"?, ^„\^- 
 
 V. Henderson, 82 Am. St. Rep. 147, 123 Bank z: Bank. 99 Ark. 386, 138 S. W. 472. 
 
 Ala. 612, 26 So. 498. See ante, "Bill with 47. Title of bank to goods.— Second 
 
 Draft Attached to Be Delivered to Pur- Nat. Bank v. Bank, 99 Ark 386, 138 S. 
 
 chaser of Goods," § 508. W. 472.
 
 399 
 
 BILLS OF LADING. 
 
 § 588 
 
 but a bank which is the payee of a negotiable draft, and consignee of a bill 
 of lading attached, may prove its ownership by showing its possession of 
 and exhil)itin_i,'' these <locnincnts.'^ 
 
 Fictitious or Forg'ed Bill of Lading. — A Ijank which in good faith receives 
 a draft for collection, collects the same from the drawee, and pays the pro- 
 ceeds to the drawer, is not liable to the i)ayor in damages because the latter 
 made payment in reliance uixni a forged bill of lading which the drawer had 
 attached to and forwarded with the draft ;^'' but money paid by the drawee 
 upon a draft tlrawn against "indorsed bills of lading" which are in fact ficti- 
 tious, and accepted "against" such bills in ignorance of the fraud, may l^e re- 
 covered back from the payee.-''" In such case the acceptance and payment of 
 the draft is conditional on the genuineness of the bill of lading and the payor 
 is entitled to recover the amount from the payee, as having been paid by mis- 
 take.'^^^ 
 
 Liability for Failure of Consignor to Pay Freight. — A bank holding a 
 draft attached to a bill of lading, for the price of a shipment, which 
 holds the draft for collection only, and not as a purchaser, is not liable to the 
 drawee after receiving payment for a deficiency in quantity of the shipment, 
 and for the drawer's failure to pay the freight as agreed, and as shown by the 
 invoice attached to the draft and l)ill of lading.-''- 
 
 Liability of Bank for Surrender of Bill of Lading without Payment 
 of Draft. — \\ here a shipper consigned a shi])ment to shipper's orders, attach- 
 ing drafts for the jjrice to the bills of lading and making payment a prereq- 
 uisite to the surrender of the bill and the bank holding the draft for collec- 
 tion surrendered the bill of lading to the buyer prior to judgment it is liable 
 to the owner for conversion of the goods to the amount of the draft, less the 
 freight charges. ^^ It is no defense that the owner of the bill of lading was 
 indebted to the purchasers of the goods for breach of warranty by the ship- 
 per.'''"* The shipment having been converted by the railway company through 
 
 48. Proof of ownership. — Tolcrton, etc., 
 Co. z: Anglo-Calif(iriiia Bank, 50 L. R. A. 
 777, 112 Iowa TOd. S4 X. W. ICiO. 
 
 49. Fictitious or forged bill of lading. — 
 Nebraska, etc., Grain Co. c'. First Nat. 
 Bank, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 251, 252, 78 Neb. 
 33-t, 110 N. W. 1019. 
 
 50. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Grotarian, 
 57 L. R. A. 689, 114 Fed. 433, 52 C. C. 
 A. 235. 
 
 51. Dealers in Alabama contracted to 
 sell one hundred bales of cotton to plain- 
 tiffs in Liverpool, and made a draft on 
 plaintiffs' bank and authorized agent in 
 Liverpool, payalde to their order, "value 
 received, and charfje the same to R. S. 
 M. L one hundred bales of cotton;" what 
 purported to be a bill of lading for such 
 cotton being attached. The draft and ac- 
 companying papers were indorsed to de- 
 fendant liank, and were by it presented 
 to and accepted generally, and paid by 
 plaintiffs' bank, acting in the belief, as 
 did defendant, tliat the bill of lading was 
 genuine. It was in fact a forgery, and 
 no cotton was shipped. Neitlicr plain- 
 tiffs nor their bank relied on the credit of 
 the drawers, but on the bill of lading. 
 Held, tiiat the acceptance and payment of 
 the draft was conditional on the genuine- 
 ness of the bill of lading, and that plain- 
 tiffs were entitled to recover the amount 
 from defendant as having been paid bj- 
 
 mistake. Hannay v. Guaranty Trust Co., 
 187 Fed. GSG. 
 
 52. Liability for failure of consignor to 
 pay freight. — Grcgorv z: Sturgis Nat. 
 Rank (Tex. Civ. App.). 71 S. \V. M. See 
 ante, "bVeight ami I )fniurragc," § r)l2. 
 
 53. Liability of bank for surrender of 
 bill of lading without payment of draft. 
 — Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ North Texas Grain 
 Co.. 32 Te.x. Civ. .App. 93, 74 S. W. 507. so 
 holding where a buyer of a shipment of 
 oats after examining them thus placed 
 under his control, refused to take them, 
 and it appeared that he would have paid 
 the draft but for the unauthorized sur- 
 render of the bill of lading bj- the bank. 
 
 54. Where a purchaser of drafts drawn 
 by a shipper payable to itself, and bills of 
 lading consigning to itself goods against 
 which the drafts were drawn, and which 
 goods tiie sliipper had agreed to sell to 
 a third person, forwarded the drafts and 
 bills of lading to a banker for collection 
 with instructions to deliver documents 
 only on payment, and the banker delivered 
 the goods to the third person prior to 
 payment, and the purchaser sued the 
 banker for conversion for the tortious de- 
 livery, the hanker could not defend on the 
 ground that the purchaser was indebted to 
 the tliird person for damages for breach of 
 warranty by the shipper because there 
 was no warranty by the purchaser, be-
 
 §§ 5S8-5S9 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 400 
 
 an illegal sale for the freight charges, shipper could not, since he had elected 
 to hold the hank liable for negligence in failing to collect the draft, hold the 
 railway company liable for conversion, but such right existed on the part of 
 the bank'."^ 
 
 Measure of Damages. — A bank receiving from the shipper a draft on the 
 consignee for the purchase price, with the bill of lading attached, without sur- 
 rendering the draft, took from the consignee, who was insolvent, a draft for 
 the price on third parties, and delivered the bill of lading to him. The third 
 parties having refused payment, the bank was liable to the shipper for the 
 loss caused by its surrender of the bill of lading but the measure of damages 
 was not the amount of the draft, but the value of the shipment at its destina- 
 tion, less freight charges.^^ 
 
 § 589. Duplicate and Triplicate Bills— Bills Marked "Original and 
 Duplicate" — Duplicate in Hands of Consignee. — A duplicate bill of lad- 
 ing in the hands of a consignee possesses all the validity of the original; itis 
 as to him an original, not a copy; the word "duplicate" stamped on the in- 
 strument indicates to him no more than that the bill of lading had been ex- 
 ecuted in duplicate; and by its transfer for value the shipper is precluded from 
 exercising the right of stoppage in transitu.-'^' Where a bill of lading is is- 
 sued in duplicate, one marked "Original" and one "Duplicate," the duplicate is, 
 in eftect, an original; and the holder of the duplicate may recover the goods 
 from the carrier, though the consignor had retained the original, and had or- 
 dered the goods returned to him/'^'^ 
 
 Delivery to Shipper or Consignee after Indorsement of Original Bill 
 for Value. — ^^■here a carrier issues original bills of lading declaring that the 
 consignment is in its possession to be delivered only on their presentation, and 
 not conditioned to be void in case of delivery on duplicate bills issued by it, the 
 
 cause the goods were tortiously converted 
 before a sale; a warranty arising only out 
 of contract. First Nat. Bank v. Felker, 
 185 Fed. 678. 
 
 55. Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: North Texas 
 Grain Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 93, 74 S. W. 
 567. 
 
 56. Measure of damages. — People's Nat. 
 Bank v. Brogden, 98 Tex. 360, 83 S. W. 
 1098, citing Thomas v. Morse, 80 Tex. 
 289, 290, 16 S. W. 48; and Brightman v. 
 Reeves, 21 Tex. 70, 77, afifirming People's 
 Nat. Bank v. Brogden CTex. Civ. App.). 
 84 S. W. 601, 002. 
 
 57. Duplicate in hands of consignee. — 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer, 82 
 Tex. 195, 200, 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. St. 
 Rep. 861. 
 
 58. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 
 heimer, 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. 
 St. Rep. 861. See, also, Landa v. Lattin, 
 19 Tex. Civ. App. 246, 250, 46 S. W. 48. 
 
 When the bill inclosed to the consignee 
 was by them transferred it was not the 
 less to be regarded by the transferrer as 
 an original because it was stamped "du- 
 plicate." It is to be presumed that he 
 understood the word "duplicate" accord- 
 ing to its legal signification, and he is to 
 be considered as being afifected with such 
 notice, and no other, as the word so in- 
 terpieted would give him. In law the 
 word "duplicate" does not mean a mere 
 
 copy. It differs from a copy in that a du- 
 plicate has all the validity of an original. 
 Instruments are executed in duplicate 
 that the parties may each retain an origi- 
 nal. Black's Law Die, word "Duplicate/' 
 p. 401; see also Burrill. And so Mr. 
 Greenleaf, volume 1, § 558, lays it down 
 that "if the instrument was executed in 
 duplicate or triplicate, or more parts, the 
 loss of all the parts must be proved to let 
 in secondary evidence of its contents," 
 thus indicating that all the parts are upon 
 the same plane — each is to be regarded as 
 an original. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 200, 17 S. W. 
 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 861. 
 
 If at that time the goods had reached 
 the point of destination, and the con- 
 signees or any assignee from them had 
 presented the duplicate and demanded de- 
 livery of the carrier, he could not have 
 declined because they produced a bill of 
 lading stamped "duplicate." The carrier 
 could not have exacted the production of 
 the original on the ground that it_ had 
 been retained by the consignor with a 
 view to the exercise of its right of "stop- 
 page in transitu," in the event of the in- 
 solvency, though unsuspected, of the con- 
 signees, or of their failure to pay the re- 
 mainder of the purchase money, though 
 not due within sixty days. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 200, 
 17 S. W. 608, 27 Am. St. Rep. 861.
 
 401 BILLS OF LADING. § 589 
 
 carrier will be liable on its original Ijills to one holding them as indorsee for 
 a valnaJjle consideration, though it previously delivered the consignment to the 
 shipj^er on his presenting one of the duplicate bills.'''* Numerous cases may be 
 found where the doctrine is announced in a general way that, when the goods 
 are shii)ped under bills of lading drawn in parts, to be delivered to the consignee 
 or his order, or assigns, the carrier is justified in delivering to the consignee, on 
 production of part of the bill of lading, although there has been a prior indorse- 
 ment for value to the holder of another part, provided the delivery be bona fide, 
 and without notice or knowledge of such i)rior indorsement;''" but it is not true 
 that, by the rules of the common law, where bills of lading are presented by 
 the person therein named as the j^arty to whom the goods are to be delivered, 
 the delivery to such person is valid, although the party presenting the bills is 
 the holder of only the duplicate or triplicate set of bills, and' the original had 
 been surrendered to a bona fide pledgee or purchaser for value/'^ Much of the 
 conflict of the courts on this subject has been due to an attempt to applv the 
 rule announced in a particular case to the general doctrine governing bills of 
 lading. The peculiar ])hraseology of the instrument to be construed must always 
 be kc]it in mind.*'- 
 
 Nonnegotiable Bill. — Where a bill of lading bears the caveat and contract 
 on each of the sets issued — "The one being accomplished, the other to stand void" 
 — furnishes an ample beware to the money loaner, and at the same time a full 
 protection by contract to the carrier. Under such circumstances, the carrier, in 
 delivering the goods, on production and surrender of either one of the sets of 
 three bills of lading issued, performed his contract. Such restriction and lim- 
 itation on the otherwise negotiable and assignable character of such instrument 
 are prohibited, in many of the states, by statute.''^ 
 
 Priorities Among Transferees. — The first transferee of a bill of lading, 
 though it be only one of a set of three bills, acquires the property; and subse- 
 ([uent transfers of the other bills are subordinate to the first transfer. '^■* 
 
 Duplicate or Triplicate Bill under Uniform Bills of Lading Act.— Under 
 Uniform liills of Lading Act, an owner of goods, who had made out in trip- 
 licate and indorsed one of them "Deliver to M.," and signed and gave it to M., 
 thereby rendered it negotiable; and a bona fide assignee of M., for value, took 
 title to the goods, regardless of the purpose of the indorsement to M. or M.'s 
 fraud.^'"' Where defendant, an owner of goods, has bills of lading made in trip- 
 licate, and indorses one to a party who assigns it to an innocent party, who in 
 
 59. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. Priorities among transferees of trip- 
 R. Co.. 132 Mo. 492. 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. licate or duplicate bills.— Where there 
 St. Rep. 505. are several bills of lading, each is a con- 
 
 60. Midland Xat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. tract in itself as to the holder, but there 
 R. Co., 53 Am. St. Rep. 505, 511. 132 Mo. is one contract as to the masters and own- 
 492. 33 S. W. 521; Gljn Miller, etc.. Co. v. ers. Therefore, if the several numbers 
 East & West Indian Dock Co.. L. R. 7 of the set of bills of lading be indorsed 
 App. Cas. 511. to different persons, and there be compe- 
 
 61. Midland Xat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. tition for the goods, the rule is that if the 
 R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, 53 Am. St. Rep. 505, equities be equal the property passes by 
 33 S. W. 521, distinguishing Skilling v. ^^^ bill first indorsed. "The usual course 
 Bollman, 73 Mo. 005. 39 Am. Rep. 537 'S to issue l)ills in triplicate originals, one 
 
 62. Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. ^°,.''^ retained by the carrier, one to be 
 R. Co.. 132 Mo. 492. 53 Am. St. Rep. 505. delivered to the shipper, and one to the 
 33 S. W 521 consignee; and the person who hrst gets 
 
 eo TS.T ~ ^- ui 1--11 Tifji 1 >- *^"^ ^^ th^ three gets the property which 
 
 63 Nonnegotiable bill -Midland Nat. it represents." Missouri Pac R. Co. v. 
 
 7.^o" .o^ 'a ^^'^^^o"!;} i '''^- R- C°'„13~ ^^°- Heidenheimer. 82 Tex. 195. 199. 17 S. W. 
 
 492, 53 Am. St. Rep. 505, 33 S. W. 521. c.OS. 27 Am. St. Rep. S.H. 
 
 64. Priorities among transferees.— First 65. Duplicate or triplicate bill under 
 
 Nat. Bank "■. Hge. 109 X. Y. 120. K) X. E. bills of lading act.— Roland, etc.. Co. v. 
 
 317, 4 Am. St. Rep. 431. Brown. 214 Mass. 190. 100 X. E. 1025. 
 
 1 Car— 26
 
 §§ 589-592 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 402 
 
 turn assigns it to plaintitt, the mere fact that defendant obtains the goods from 
 the carrier \vith a second bill before the plaintiff receives the indorsed bill does 
 not render the latter a spent bill, so as to relieve defendant from a conversion.*^^ 
 Right of Transferee of Triplicate Bill against Subsequent Purchaser 
 of Goods. — See ante, "Against Subsequent Purchaser of Goods," § 574. 
 
 § 590. Effect as Binding Intermediate and Terminal Carrier. — A final 
 carrier, having accepted a shipment for transportation from an initial carrier, 
 under a bill of lading issued by the initial carrier, is bound by such bill in so far 
 as the same is a contract for carriage,^" but in so far as it is a mere receipt for 
 the goods a final carrier, on receiving the goods for transportation from the in- 
 itial carrier, is not bound by the admissions contained therein.*^ ^ The recitals of 
 a bill of lading are not binding upon a carrier not a party to the bill of lading.^''^* 
 
 Under Texas Rev. St. 1895, arts. 331a, 331b, connecting carriers, hav- 
 ing recognized and acted on a bill of lading providing for through shipment of 
 cotton, were all bound by its terms. ■^^* 
 
 § 591. Modification or Rescission. — A bill of lading issued by a carrier 
 may be changed or modified by a subsequent parol agreement between the ship- 
 per and the carrier.'^ 
 
 § 592. Surrender, Discharge or Release. — A bill of lading does not cease 
 to be a security when the shipment has reached its destination, and the goods 
 which it represents have been landed or warehoused,''^ nor is it functus officio 
 
 66. Roland, etc., Co. v. Brown, 214 
 Mass. 196, 100 N. E. 1025. 
 
 67. Effect as binding intermediate and 
 terminal carriers. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 343; In- 
 ternational, etc., R. Co. V. Diamond Rol- 
 ler Mills, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 82 S. W. 
 660. 
 
 A bill of lading may be used against 
 the carrier that is not connected with its 
 execution in some respect as a contract 
 between the consignee and the carrier 
 that issued the bill, as an evidence of 
 right in the consignee to demand the 
 shipment from the last carrier. The bill 
 of lading is evidence of right in the con- 
 signee, and upon tender of that bill to a 
 carrier who is not a party to it, but who 
 has possession of the property, the ship- 
 per or consignee, as the case may be, who 
 has possession of the bill and is the 
 owner of the property, can demand pos- 
 session of the same by virtue of the own- 
 ership displayed by the bill of lading. 
 Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Nashville, 
 etc., Railway, (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 
 1094; International, etc., R. Co. v. Dia- 
 mond Roller Mills, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 
 82 S. W. 660. 
 
 68. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 343. 
 
 As said in the case of Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Kelly (Tex. Civ. App.) 74 S. W. 
 343. "As a receipt of the stoves from the 
 shipper it was tlie act and admission of 
 the carrier that so receipted, and prima 
 facie evidence against it._ It seems to us 
 an indefensible proposition that another 
 or connecting carrier is affected by such 
 
 an admission. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Benjamin, 63 111. 283; Evans V. Atlanta, 
 etc., R. Co., 56 Ga. 498." International, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Diamond Roller Mills, 36 
 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 82 S. W. 660. 
 
 The bill of lading being the act of de- 
 fendant railroads as partners, its recitals 
 as to the condition of the goods when re- 
 ceived were binding upon them. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Watkins, 45 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 321, 100 S. W. 162. 
 
 69. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Watkins, 45 
 Tex. Civ. App. 321, 100 S. W. 162; Inter- 
 national, etc., Co. V. Diamond Roller 
 Mills, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 82 S. W. 660. 
 
 70. Under Texas Rev. St. 1805, arts. 
 331a, 331b. — Elder, etc., Co. v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 
 975. 
 
 71. Modification or rescission.^Lin- 
 coln Tent, etc., Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 125 N. W. 603, 86 Neb. 338, 27 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 1130. 
 
 Where plaintiff delivered goods to de- 
 fendant to be transported over its line to 
 M., and there delivered to another car- 
 rier and by it taken to A., and received a 
 bill of lading naming himself as con- 
 signee, it was competent for them to 
 agree to a change of the contract, 
 whereby defendant should stop them at 
 M. and from there take them to D., es- 
 pecially as defendant was to receive ad- 
 ditional compensation for the carriage to 
 D. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Steele, 131 
 S. W. 22, 140 Ky. 383. 
 
 72. Surrender, discharge or release. — 
 Heiskell v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 89 
 Pa. 155, 33 Am. Rep. 745.
 
 403 HILLS OF LAi.iNG. §§ 592-593 
 
 because it passes into the hands of a pledgee,"'* for there can be no complete 
 delivery of goods under a bill of lading until they come into the hands of some 
 ])ers(»n who has a ri^ht to rccciw the same."'* 
 
 Surrender or Taking Up Bills of Lading — Authority of Compress Com- 
 pany. — Where a carrier, having shipped cotton under order bills, delivered the 
 same to a compress company at destination as a warehouseman, the compress 
 company became the agent of the carrier to take up the carrier's bills of lading, 
 and issue warehouse receipts therefor."' 
 
 Bill of Lading Surrendered for Unauthorized Due Bill. — See ante, "Due 
 Bill I'romising to Issue a I'.ill of Lading," § 438. 
 
 §§ 593-602. Actions-^§ 593. Rights of Action and Defenses.— Action 
 against Carrier. — Right of Indorsee. — The indorxemeut of a bill of lading 
 does not vest in the indorsee the right of action at law on the contract; and 
 hence, in action against a carrier for not carrying goods, he has the same defense 
 against the indorsee as against the consignee."" 
 
 Delay in Delivery. — The bill of lading not having been indorsed 
 to plaintiff by the party in whose favor it was issued, the former could not main- 
 tain an action against the company upon it. The assignor having received the 
 bill of lading with the knowledge that the shipment was not at the time on the line 
 of road of defendant, but on the line of a connecting road, he could not have 
 recovered damages for delay in its delivery, if the connecting road was prevented 
 from forwarding it by an armed mob."' 
 
 Failure to Deliver Goods. — The transferee or indorsee of a bill of lading 
 may maintain an action ex contractu against the carrier for failure to deliver to 
 him all or any portion of the goods specified in the bill of lading: and this is 
 true wh.ether the loss of the goods or the shortage occurred before or after he 
 acquired title to the bill of lading,"'^ and even though he may be but an agent or 
 trustee of the goorls for others."'-' 
 
 Action for Taking and Withholding Bills.^l'.ill of lading is propertv and 
 evidence against a railroad company of valuable rights and taking and withhold- 
 ing it from plaintifif for six months warranted an action for damages.'"' 
 
 Actions against Consignee.— The Georgia Civil Code. § 2936, provides that 
 a bill of lading may be delivered in pledge; but there is no provision that the 
 transfer of a bill of lading by the vendor of goods sold and shipped will give the 
 right to the transferee to sue for the purchase price of the goods.'*^ 
 
 73. Where the sellers of cotton took 5.3 Am. & Kng. R. Cas., X. S., 290. 128 
 bills of ladiny- in their own name, and Am. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 sent them, with drafts for the price, to a 76. Right of indorsee. — Pape & Co. v. 
 
 correspondent for collection, and the pur- Sandusky, etc., R. Co., 4 West. L. M. 
 
 chaser paid the drafts by checks on a (544, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 716. 
 
 bank which had agreed to pay the checks 77. Delay in delivery.— Haas r. Kansas 
 
 and take the bills of lading as security. City, etc., R. Co , si Ga 792 7 S E 629 
 
 and the purchaser, on so paying the -o t^ •■, j. j ,- j \ ,' » 
 
 drafts, received the bills of lading, and r failure to deliver goods.-Askew & 
 
 delivered them to the bank under the ^^p'^^;'"^'^^^''" ^^- ^^*- ^ ^'''- '^^^^ '''• "'^ 
 
 agreement, the bills did not l^ecome func- ^' ma' %'i' • 1 e t ■,,.■, ,• 
 
 tus officio in the hands of the bank, but 79. The mdorsee of a bill ot lading 
 
 still represented the cotton, on which it '"^>' '!^^' the vessel on which the goods 
 
 had a lien for the advances. First Nat. ^'^ shipped, for failure to deliver them. 
 
 Bank V. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. (Tex. *'i°"f '^ ^^ "f >' ^^ ^"f ^" ^"^"t or trustee 
 
 Civ. App.). 72 S. W. 10.3.3. modified in 77 ^^ }^}^ goods for others : as ex gr the 
 
 S. W. 410, 97 Tex. 201. See ante. "Pledge. 'f '^i^^.^^o^ ^,^1- S'ol^"'"' ^^- ^■^' 
 
 Mortgage or Collateral Security." § 577. ^^ ^^ ^"- ^^' ^^ L. Ed. S04. 
 
 74. Dows V. National Exch. Bank. 91 80. Actions for taking and withholding 
 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 214: Heiskell v. Far- hills. Cxult. etc.. R. Co. :•. Brown. 4 Tex. 
 mers', etc., Nat. Bank, S9 Pa. 155. 33 Am. '-'^'- -^PP- ^•>"'- -•> ?■ ^^ ''1^- 
 
 Rep. 745. 81. Actions against consignee. — .Mien, 
 
 75. Authority to take up bill of lading. — etc.. Co. i'. Farmers', etc.. Nat. Bank. 129 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Citizens' Bank, Ga. 748. 59 S. E. 813. 
 
 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154. 30 R. R. R. 290, Where a carrier issued to a seller of
 
 §§ 593-596 CARRIERS. 404 
 
 Recovery of Goods from Person Not Having Better Title. — The posses- 
 sion of goods acquired under a bill of lading is sufficient to maintain an action 
 against one who does not show a better title. ^- And a bank to which a draft 
 with bill of lading attached was sent can maintain replevin against a person re- 
 ceiving the goods without authority. ^^ 
 
 Recovery of Value of Goods. — A person who acquired possession of good-s 
 under a bill of lading, though he had only a special property in them to secure 
 advances made upon them, can recover the whole value of them from a pur- 
 chaser for cash, and hold the surplus beyond his own interest for the general 
 owner.'^^ 
 
 §§ 594-595. Parties— § 594. Plaintiffs.— The holder of an unindorsed 
 bill of lading can not sue upon it in his own name.'^"' 
 
 Bank Receiving Draft with Bill Attached for Collection. — See ante, 
 "Right of Action," § 380. 
 
 § 595. Defendants. — The shipper may sue either the master or the owner 
 upon a bill of lading signed by the master.^'' 
 
 §§ 596-597. Pleading— § 596. Bill, Petition or Complaint.— Allega- 
 tion That Bill of Lading Purchased by Indorsee of Draft with Bill At- 
 tached. — An allegation, in an action by a consignee to recover from a bank 
 mone\- paid on drafts purchased by the bank from the consignor, with bills of 
 lading attached, that the drafts and bills of lading were indorsed in blank by 
 the consignor and transferred to and purchased by the bank, shows the trans- 
 action to have been a mere purchase of the drafts, with the bills of lading as 
 security, and not a purchase of the bills of lading so as to in any way make 
 the bank liable for the performance of the consignor's contract.-^" 
 
 Allegation That Bank Assumed Relation of Seller. — An allegation that 
 the bank, by purchasing the draft, with assignment of the bill of lading of the 
 property for the price of which it was drawn, attached to and securing it, became 
 the owner of the property and assumed the relation of seller thereof to the per- 
 son on whom the draft was drawn, is a mere conclusion of the pleader, not to 
 be taken as an averment that the transaction was other than an ordinary pur- 
 chase of a draft secured by bill of lading attached, and does not enlarge the 
 legal efifect of the facts so as to charge that the bank purchased, not only the 
 draft, but the bill of lading,^-^ such complaint is demurrable. ''^'■^' 
 
 corn under written contract a bill of lad- chased by indorsee. — Blaisdell Co. v. Cit- 
 ing consigning- the shipment to the sell- izens' Nat. Bank, 75 S. W. 292, 96 Tex. 
 er's order, which the latter transferred 626, 62 L. R. A. 968, 97 Am. St. Rep. 944. 
 to a bank, such transfer alone did not en- 88. Allegation that bank assumed rela- 
 .title the bank to sue the buyer on the tion of seller. — Blaisdell Co. v. Citizens' 
 contract for the price. Allen, etc., Co. v. Nat. Bank, 96 Tex. 626, 75 S. W. 292, 62 
 Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 59 S. E. 813, L. R. A. 968, 97 Am. St. Rep. 944. 
 129 Ga. 748. 89. Plaintiff alleged a purchase by him 
 
 82. Recovery of goods from person not of cotton to be shipped with a draft ac- 
 having better title. — Adams v. O'Conner, companying a bill of lading; that after 
 100 Mass. 515, 1 Am. Rep. 137. the shipment defendant bank purchased 
 
 83. Heiskell v. Farmers', etc., Nat. the draft, and became the actual owner of 
 Bank, 89 Pa. 155, 33 Am. Rep. 745. the l)ill of lading and of the cotton which 
 
 84. Recovery of value of goods. — Ad- it represented, and thereby undertook to 
 ams V. O'Conner, 100 Mass. 515, 1 Am. carry out the contract of sale between 
 Rep. 137. plaintiff and consignor; that plaintiff was 
 
 85. Stone v. Swift (Mass.), 4 Pick. 389; compelled to pay the draft before the 
 Davenport Nat. Bank v. Homeyer, 100 arrival of the cotton; and that when the 
 Am. Dec. 3*;3, 45 Mo. 145. cotton arrived it was found short weight. 
 
 86. Defendants. — Harvy v. Pike, 7 Am. Held, that the complaint was demurra- 
 Dec. 698, N. C. Term Rep. 82. ble. Blaisdell & Co. v. White & Co. 
 
 87. Allegation that bill of lading pur- (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 70.
 
 403 
 
 BILLS OF LADIN'G. 
 
 §§ 596-598 
 
 Actions to Recover Money Paid on Draft with Forged Bill of Lading 
 Attached. — 'Ihe allc;^;aion> in an action against a collecting agc-nt to recover 
 money paid on a draft witii a forged bill of lading attached, must receive a 
 reasonable construction. '•*'* 
 
 § 597. Answer.— See ante. "Conflict of Laws," § 43.S. 
 
 § 598. Production of Bill of Lading or Proof of Contents. — A bill of 
 lading is the best evidence of its contents, and seconrlary e\idence will not be 
 admissible, unless its absence is accounted for.''^ 
 
 Evidence of Contract of Shipment. — The bill of lading is the best evidence 
 of the contract for the shipment and delivery of goods and it is error to permit 
 parol evidence thereof. "- 
 
 Action Founded on Bill of Lading. — Where an action against a common 
 carrier is founded on a bill of lading, then the bill of lading must be produced 
 in evidence, or its nonproduction must be accounted for, and its substance 
 proved as alleged.""" When a petition alleged that a shipment was made on 
 through bills of lading, and at agreed and through rates, for the "whole route," 
 it was founded on special contract evidenced by bill of lading, and not on com- 
 mon-law liability of the carrier, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover 
 without introducing the .same in evidence, or accounting for its nonproduction, 
 and then establishing its substance as alleged."* 
 
 Where Issue as to Ownership. — Where, in an action against a carrier for 
 injuries to a shipment, there is an issue as to ownership, it is error to permit 
 plaintiff to testify to the contents of the bill of lading, in order to show that 
 
 90. riainliffs' petition alleged that Y. 
 was indebted to a cotton seed meal com- 
 pany, and in payment of that debt de- 
 livered to them forged negotiable ocean 
 bills of lading representing cotton seed 
 meal in transit; that the cotton seed meal 
 company indorsed these bills of lading 
 to defendants, who in turn negotiated 
 them; plaintiffs becoming the ultimate 
 holders. The bill further charged that 
 plaintiffs had sold cotton seed meal for 
 the company, and that these sales had 
 been rescinded for delay in delivery, and 
 that, by means of a bonus, the cotton 
 seed meal company induced plaintiffs to 
 buy these negotiable ocean bills of lad- 
 ing; that plaintiffs paid the consideration 
 to persons named by defendants; that 
 the negotiations were really carried on 
 for the benefit of defendants, the cotton 
 seed meal company being largely in- 
 debted to them, and their only hope for 
 payment being the sale of these bills of 
 lading; and that this sale was made with 
 full knowledge of the dishonor of the 
 bills of lading by the persons on whom 
 they were drawn. Held, that the partic- 
 ular allegations showed that defendants 
 were not the owners of these bills of lad- 
 ing, and, as they were not parties to the 
 transactions between plaintiffs and the 
 cotton seed meal company, the allega- 
 tions that their only hope of payment was 
 in the sale of these negotiable bills of 
 lading can not be taken as true on de- 
 murrer, but the petition must be con- 
 strued to mean that they were not the 
 
 owners, but were only interested in the 
 sale, of the bills of lading, as they would 
 receive the proceeds; furthermore that 
 this sale was made with full knowledge 
 of the dishonor of the bills of lading can 
 not mean that defendants knew of the 
 forgeries, but only that they were re- 
 fused by the persons to whom the meal 
 had been shipped, and hence showed no 
 liability of defendants, so that a demur- 
 rer to the bill was properly sustained. 
 Moritz V. Adoue (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 
 S. W. 1140. 
 
 91. Proof of contents of bill of lading. 
 — Texas Cent. R. Co. z\ Fowler (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 102 S. W. 732. 
 
 92. Evidence of contract of shipment 
 — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cates, 15 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 135, 38 S. W. 648. See Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. v. Cocreham, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 166, 30 S. W. lllS; Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Carterj 9 Tex. Civ. .-Xpp. 
 677, 29 S. W. 565. 
 
 93. Action for damages to goods. — G., 
 H. & S. A. R. Co. z: Van Winkle & Co., 
 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 443; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Logan, 3 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas.. § 186. 
 
 Action for damages to live stock. — 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 165; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Nicholson, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 168. 
 
 94. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 165.
 
 §§ 598-601 CARRIERS. 406 
 
 he was the owner; the hill not having been prodnced, and no notice given to 
 detentlant to iiroduce it.''-"^ 
 
 Action Based on Common-Law Liability of Carrier. — In an action 
 against a common carrier founded on the common-huv habihty of such carrier, 
 it is not necessary to produce in evidence a bill of lading of the property alleged 
 to have been lost or injured, as. if there was a special contract restricting the 
 common-law liability of the carrier, it devolved on the carrier to allege and 
 prove it.'"' 
 
 § 599. Proof of Execution of Bill.— Where Carrier Admits Receipt 
 of Goods. — In a suit against a carrier for failure to deliver a portion of a ship- 
 ment of goods alleged to have been intrusted to it for transportation, error, if 
 anv. in. admitting in evidence a bill of lading covering the shipment, over ob- 
 jection for lack of proof of execution, becomes immaterial, where the carrier 
 admits that it received the goods sued for. and sets up tlelivery/'" 
 
 Though Bill of Lading Produced by Terminal Carrier. — \\ here a box of 
 goods was shipped from Xew York City to a town in Georgia, and was there 
 delivered by the last of the connecting line of carriers to the consignee, if such 
 final carrier making the delivery received and held the through bill of lading 
 issued by the initial carrier, on the trial of an action for damages brought by 
 tlie consignee against the final carrier, on the ground that the box had been 
 broken open and some of its contents lost and other articles damaged, the bill 
 of lading, produced by the defendant under notice, was admissible in evidence 
 on behalf of the plaintiff without proof of execution. ^^ 
 
 Proof of Signature. — In an action against a carrier for failure to deliver 
 freight, where the evidence sufficiently proves the bill of lading, it is not error 
 to admit it in evidence over the objection that there was no proof of its execu- 
 tion, of the signature thereto, or of the agency of the person purporting to have 
 signed it.^''^ 
 
 Proof of Agency of Signer Where Bill of Lading Not Basis of Plead- 
 ing. — A bill of lading is a private instrument which, if it does not constitute 
 in whole or in part the basis of the pleading, is not admissible in evidence, if 
 the same purports to be signed by a clerk or a servant, without proving the 
 agencv of such clerk or servant.^ 
 
 § 600. Province of Court. — It is in the province of the court to interpret 
 a bill of lading.- 
 
 § 601. Instructions. — The rule that instructions should be construed to- 
 gether and will be held unobjectionable if when so taken they are clearly not 
 misleading, applies to suits against a carrier based upon bills of lading.^ 
 
 95. Where issue as to ownership. — etc., R. Co. v. Benson, 8G Ga. 203, 12 S. 
 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Fowler (Tex. Civ. E. 357. 22 Am. St. Rep. 44G. 
 
 App.), 102 S. W. 732. 1- Bill of lading not basis of pleading. 
 
 96. Action based on common-law lia- —Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bertram, 
 bUity of carrier.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. 1 Jexas App. Civ. Cas., § 1152. 
 
 V. Nicholson, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.,' § . 2. Province of court.-It is the prov- 
 
 -j^gg nice of the court to interpret the written 
 
 Action for injury to live stock.— Mis- contract of affreightment between the 
 
 50uri Pac. R. Co. v. Nicholson, 2 Texas P^^ties ^^^^r^^h l^'^-'r o.^°- Z' a * cV 
 
 App. Civ. Cas.. § 1G8. ^'■d. 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 4 Am. St. 
 
 97 Where carrier admits receipt of g/ instruction.— In the suit the court 
 
 goods^—Georgia, etc R. Co. t^. Florida, j^stj-ucted that if, when plaintif! dis- 
 
 ctc.,^ Tobacco Co., 10 Ga. App. 38, 72 b. covered that the corn was delivered to 
 
 E- 511- R., R. was solvent, and by the exer- 
 
 98. Though bill of lading produced by cise of ordinary prudence plaintiflf could 
 terminal carrier. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. have collected the price from R. bV- 
 V. Yudelson, 135 Ga. 731, 70 S. E. 576. fore insolvency, but did not exercise 
 
 99. Proof of signature. — Richmond, such care, he could not recover against
 
 407 ];1LLS OF LADING. § 602 
 
 § 602. Directing Verdict. — Where a so-called demanrl for a shipment of 
 frei<(hl was made 1)\- ilic liaiisferee of an "order notify" hill of lading of a 
 railroad compan\' which therehy agreed to transport certain cotton from and 
 to named points within the state, hefore it was indorsed hy the one having 
 the legal title thereto, the direction of a verdict by the trial judge in favor of 
 the plaintiff on the basis of a suit brought by the transferee to recover dam- 
 ages ami ink rest from date of demand for failure to deliver cotton by virtue 
 of the terms of the contract contained in the l)ill of lading before its indorse- 
 ment is revisible error.'' 
 
 Evidence of Forgery Uncontradicted. — In action against carrier to re- 
 cover for ncgligeiur in issiiiii- bills of lading for goods not actually delivered, 
 uncontradicted evidence that the bills of lading as delivered did not include 
 goods not received, but were fraudulentl}' altered, requirerl verdict for de- 
 fendant."' 
 
 defendant on an estoppel. Meld, that l)elieve(l that the shipment was ordered 
 
 the instruction was not objectionable "open," yet plaintiff was misled by de- 
 
 on the theory that it was confused fendant's act in transmitting a "closed" 
 
 and misleading, and calculated to induce bill of lading, they should fmd for plain- 
 
 the jury to believe that, if they found tiff on that issue. Smith v. Landa, 45 
 
 against plaintiff on the issue of the es- Tex. Civ. App. 44G, lOl S. W. 470, af- 
 
 toppel, they would find for defendant firmed, no op. 
 
 also on all the other issues, the charge 4. Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Merchants', 
 
 preceding the portion in question hav- etc., l'>ank, 73 S. V.. (VM, 137 Ga. 3'Jl. 
 
 ing stated that, if the jury believed the 5. Evidence of forgery uncontradicted. 
 
 shipment was ordered "closed" accord- — Franklin Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, 
 
 ing to custom, they should lind for plain- etc., R. Co., 237 Pa. 519, 85 Atl. 855. 
 tiff on that issue, and that, if the jury
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Shipping Receipts. 
 
 T. Issuance, Form and Requisites, § 603. 
 II. Construction and Operation, §§ 604-G17. 
 
 A. As Contract of Parties. §§ 604-607. 
 
 a. In General, § 604. 
 
 b. Effect of Acceptance, § 605. 
 
 c. Receipt Filled Out by Shipper. § 606. 
 
 d. Conditions on Back, § 607. 
 
 B. As Contract of Bailment or Mere Receipt for Goods, § 608. 
 
 C. As to Initial or Connecting Carrier, § 609. 
 
 D. As Agreement to Carry to Destination, § 610. 
 
 E. As to Rate of Freight, § 611. 
 
 F. Effect of Recitals as to Receipt, and Quantity of Goods, § 612. 
 
 G. Effect of Admission That Goods in "Good Order," § 613. 
 H. Reference to Bill of Lading to Be Thereafter Issued, § 614. 
 I. Effect Where Bill of Lading Subsequently Issued, § 615. 
 
 J. Receipt Accepted after Shipment Received, § 616. 
 
 K. Parol Evidence to Alter, Explain or Contradict, § 617. 
 
 § 603. Issuance, Form and Requisites. — Proof of Execution. — Proof 
 that a receipt of goods alleged to have been delivered to an express company 
 was signed by a clerk of the cei-'pany employed to receive and deliver property 
 at its office ; that the clerk had acted in that capacity for several years ; that the 
 witness knew the clerk and had seen a large number of receipts signed by him 
 for property delivered ; and that he believed the signature to be the clerk's sig- 
 nature — sufficiently showed the execution of the receipt so as to bind the com- 
 pany.^ 
 
 Receipt in Form of Steamboat Bill of Lading. — See post, "As Contract 
 of Bailment or Mere Receipt for Goods," § 608. 
 
 Acceptance. — See post, "Effect of Acceptance/' § 605. 
 
 Conditions on Back. — See post, "Conditions on Back," § 607. 
 
 §§ 604-617. Construction and Operation— §§ 604-607. As Con- 
 tract of Parties — § 604. In General. — In the absence of fraud or imposi- 
 tion, a receipt delivered by a common carrier to a person shipping goods must 
 be held to be the contract between the parties. - 
 
 Receipt Made Out by Shipper and Presented to Carrier. — Where a 
 shipper and owner of goods, at the time of delivering the same to an express 
 company for transportation, also delivers to the express company for its signa- 
 ture a blank receipt, filled up by him at his office, containing the names of both 
 parties, and a series of conditions and clauses regulating the manner of trans- 
 portation and the liability of the express company in certain cases and contin- 
 gencies, and such receipt, at the time of the delivery of the merchandise, is pre- 
 sented by the shipper to the express company for its signature, and is signed 
 by the latter and returned to the shipper, it constitutes a special contract, bind- 
 ing upon both j)arties.^' 
 
 Express Receipts. — .\ receipt given by an express company to the consignor 
 
 1. Proof of execution. — Armstrong v. 3. Receipt made out by shipper and 
 Fargo (X. Yj, s Hun 17,5. presented to carrier. — Falkenan v. Fargo, 
 
 2. As contract of parties. — Huntington 44 How. Prac. 325, 3.5 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 V. Dinsmore (N. Y.), 4 Hun 66, 6 Thomp. 332, affirmed in 55 X. Y. 642. 
 
 & C. 195.
 
 409 sriiPi'ixG RECEIPTS. §§ 604-608 
 
 of goods is the contract by which the obligations of the i)arties must be deter- 
 mined.'* 
 
 § 605. Effect of Acceptance. — A consignor, by accepting a receipt wliich 
 provided for delivery without re(|uiring the production of a receipt or bill of 
 lading, accepted such provision as part of the contract.'' 
 
 Express Receipt.— The acceptance of receipt by the consignor from an ex- 
 press company for tlie carriage of a package imjjlies an accession to its terms, 
 thereby creating a contract e(iually as binding as though signed by both parties.*^ 
 
 Express Receipt Accepted without Reading. — In the absence of artifice 
 or concealment," the accei)lance, without objection, by a shipper, of an express 
 company's receipt for goods delivered, though it be unread at the time, consti- 
 tutes a contract between the i)arties, and binds them as to the conditions con- 
 tained in it.^ 
 
 § 606. Receipt Filled Out by Shipper. — A shipper of goods who fills out 
 a blank receipt contained in a book prexiously furnished by an express company 
 for his use, and obtains the signature of the company's agent thereto upon de- 
 livering to him a package for transportation, will be presumed to know the con- 
 tents of the receipt, and if he receives such receipt without objection, his assent 
 to its conditions will, in the absence of fraud, be conclusively presumed.^ 
 
 § 607. Conditions on Back. — Conditions printed on the back of a receipt 
 for goods, given by a carrier which directed the attention of the shipper to such 
 conditions, are not binding on the shipper.^" 
 
 § 608. As Contract of Bailment or Mere Receipt for Goods. — An in- 
 strument delivered by a carrier's agent to the shipper, reciting the delivery of 
 certain packages "marked and signed as stated to be shipped as per directions 
 below, subject to the conditions and exceptions of the company's bill of lading," 
 signed by the shipper and by the carrier's agent, was a mere receipt for the 
 goods for the purpose of shipping them to the point named in the memoran- 
 dum following the shipper's signature, and was not a contract by the car- 
 rier to ship the goods.' ^ \\'here plaintiff contracted to sell goods to defend- 
 ant to be shipped to D., via C, and delivered the goods to the carrier who 
 signed a dray ticket, or receipt, ])resented by the shipper, describing the goods, 
 and stating" they were for defendant, at D., to which the carrier added the words 
 "To AI.," the receipt was not evidence of a contract to carry to D., but only 
 to keep the goods safely and redeliver on account for their value. '- 
 
 Contract of Bailment to Be Ascertained from Both Receipt and 
 Verbal Agreement. — W here one of the terms indorsed on a shipper's receipt 
 was that packages should be marked with the consignee's name, and the con- 
 
 4. Express receipts. — Collcnder v. Pac. 665, 26 Am. St. Rep. 107, 12 L. R. 
 Dinsmore. 55 N. Y. 200. 14 Am. Rep. A.. N. S.. 709. 
 
 224, reversing 64 Barb. 457. 10. Conditions on back. — A carrier 
 
 5. Effect of acceptance. — Singer v. S^^e a shipper a receipt for goods which 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 191 referred to a bill of lading to be given 
 Mass. 449, 77 X. K. 191, 114 Am. St. thereafter, and directed attention to cer- 
 Rep. 6:55. ' tain conditions printed on the back. 
 
 6. Express receipt.— Adams Exp. Co. Held, that the conditions were a mere 
 V. Carnahan. 94 Am. St. Rep. 279, 29 Ind. notice, not bindmg on the shipper, since 
 App 606 (),3 X E 245 64 X'^ E 647 ^he receipt did not constitute a contract 
 
 7." Express "receipt' accepted without °^ shipment. Merchants' Dispatch 
 
 reading.-Knapp v. Wells. Fargo & Co., 1'^'''^^. ^^. '' f "'^nV^r' .. v r "Vo?' 
 
 119 X Y. S. 117, 134 App. Dfv. 712. f;''/*^T.' p'" o - ' ' ' ^ ' 
 
 ^ 41 Am. St. Rep. 2t>;i. 
 
 8. Soumet v. National Exp. Co. (N. n. As contract of bailment or mere 
 \.), 66 Barb. 2^\. receipt for goods.— Pittsburgh, etc.. R. 
 
 9. Receipt filled out by shipper. — Pa- Co. v. Bryant, 36 Ind. App. 340, 75 X. E. 
 citic Exp. Co. v. Foley, 46 Kan. 457, 26 829. 
 
 12. Fleming v. Mills, 5 Mich. 420.
 
 §§ 608-612 CARRIERS. 410 
 
 si^nor purposely omitted the name from the boxes, and was promised by the 
 shipper's Philadelphia agent that the IndianapoHs agent should be ordered not 
 to deliver the goods till directed, but the latter delivered them before, and the 
 con-^ignee failed without paving, in a suit for negligence ; the contract of bail- 
 ment^must be ascertained by the jury from both the receipt and the verbal ar- 
 rangement. ^•" ^ ,. ,., . , 
 
 Receipt in Form of Steamboat Bill of Lading.— 1 he tact that a receipt 
 criven bv a railroad company for freight received and transported over its road 
 fs in form like a steamboat bill of lading, does not aiTect the liability of the com- 
 pany, if the receipt given was intended only as a receipt.^-* 
 
 § 609. As to Initial or Connecting Carrier.— Where a defendant railroad 
 company gave a receipt for certain goods in controversy, reciting: "Received 
 of National ^lotor \^ehicle Company, by t'he Panhandle Railroad Company, 4 
 crates batteries, consigned, etc.," in the absence of any explanation of the mean- 
 ing of the words "by the Panhandle Railroad Company," such receipt will not 
 be construed to mean that such railroad was the initial carrier, and was not a 
 branch ^^ or subordinate line of defendant's system. 
 
 Receipt a Through Contract, Custom.— Through contract is created by the 
 shipping receipt in the following form, and parol evidence is inadmissible to 
 show a custom limiting its effect as such: "Milwaukee,— 188-. — Shipped the 
 following articles, in good order, to be delivered in like good order,^ as ad- 
 dressed without unnecessary delay. Consigned to H., Onekama, Mich.;" on the 
 face of which the carrier's agent stamped and wrote : "P". & P. M. R. R. Co. 
 Rec'd Nov. 2, 1887. —By agent. P., Milwaukee." i'^' 
 
 § 610. As Agreement to Carry to Destination.— A shipping receipt for 
 goods delivered to a carrier for transportation to a specified destination implies 
 an agreement by the carrier to carry the goods to their destination.^' 
 
 § 611. As to Rate of Freight.— A dray ticket given by the carrier, ac- 
 knowledging the receipt of the goods, and containing a statement as to the rate 
 of freight, is not conclusive as to such rate.^^ 
 
 § 612. Effect of Recitals as to Receipt, and Quantity of Goods.— A 
 
 receipt given by the carrier to a transfer company, to whom consignor had de- 
 livered the goods, is sufficient to show a delivery by the consignor to the car- 
 rier. ^'^ 
 
 Recitals as to Quantity of Goods.— The recitals in a shipping receipt as 
 to the quantity of the goods received does not estop the carrier from showing 
 the quantity actually received.^*^^' 
 
 13. Contract of bailment to be ascer- signed by defendant's agent. The re- 
 tained from both receipt and verbal ceipt was in the usual form issued by de- 
 agreement.— Union R., etc., Co. V. Riegel, fendant. Held, to imply an agreement 
 T/! I'a. 72. by defendant to carry the goods to their 
 
 14. Receipt in form of steamboat bill destination. Landes v. Pacific Railroad, 
 of lading.— Flash, etc., Co. v. New Or- 50 Mo. 34G. 
 
 leans, etc., R. Co., 2?, La. Ann. .35.3. 18. As to rate of freight— Wood v. 
 
 15. As to initial or connecting carrier. h'lcetwood, 22 Mo. 5(10. 
 
 — Hoye V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 100 N. 19. Effect of recitals as to receipt and 
 
 Y. S. 190, 114 App. Div. 821, affirmed in quantity of goods received.— New York, 
 
 191 N. Y. 101, 8.3 X. H. 580. etc., vSteamship Co. v. Weiss (Tex. Civ. 
 
 16. Receipt a through-contract-custom. App.), 47 S. W. 674. 
 
 — Hansen v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 20. A drayman was to deliver cotton 
 
 346, 41 X. W. 529, 9 Am. vSt. Rep. 791. on l)oard a steamboat. He took freight 
 
 17. As agreement to carry to destina- receipts, which were afterwards taken 
 tion. — A shipper delivered goods to one up and a Inll of lading issued. 53 bales 
 railroad, to be carried to a point on an- were properly delivered, and, by mistake, 
 other road. In an action against the 20 Ijales were delivered aboard another 
 latter for loss of part of the goods, a steamer and a freight receipt taken in 
 receipt for the goods was introduced her name. The other steamer took up
 
 411 SIIIPPIXG RECF.IPTS. §§ 612-616 
 
 As Evidence of Contents of Package. — A receipt given by an agent of an 
 express company for a scaled package, stating that it is "said to contain" a 
 certain sum of money, is not prima facie evidence of the amount actually in- 
 closed in the package.-' 
 
 § 613. Effect of Admission That Goods in "Good Order." — A receipt 
 given by a carrier stating that goods received by it for shipment were in good 
 order is not, as against the carrier, conchisive on that ciuestion.-- A shipping 
 reccii)t for boxed goods, reciting that they are received "in apparent good or- 
 der except as noted [contents and condition of contents of packages unknown]," 
 raises no presumption that the goods are received in good condition,--'^ And 
 does not prevent a carrier from proving what their actual conditions was when 
 delivered.-^ 
 
 § 614. Reference to Bill of Lading to Be Thereafter Issued. — Where 
 on delivery of goods to a carrier, its agent delivered a receipt describing the 
 goods "to he ship])ed as i)er directions below, subject to the conditions and 
 exceptions of the c()ni])any"s bill of lading," but no bill of lading was ever exe- 
 cuted or delivered, the carrier's uniform bill of lading was not thereby made a 
 part of the receipt or contract of shipment. -•"' 
 
 § 615. Effect Where Bill of Lading Subsequently Issued. — Where a 
 temporary receipt is issued by a carrier in contemplation of the substitution of 
 a bill of lading, the ])ill of lading when issued is the first and only contract be- 
 tween the parties.-" While a receipt delivered to the truckman of a shipper by 
 the carrier, upon receipt of goods containing conditions touching the convey- 
 ance thereof, if the only written evidence of the contract of shipment, is bind- 
 ing on the consignee, yet such receipt can not be considered as expressing the 
 contract of the parties, where it was surrendered and a bill of lading issued in 
 its stead,-" and is inadmissible in an action for loss of or injury to the goods. -^ 
 The fact that the receipt and bill of lading contained substantially the same lim- 
 itations of liability on the part of the carrier does not tend to show that the re- 
 ceipt remained the contract between the parties.-" 
 
 § 616. Receipt Accepted after Shipment Received. — Where there is 
 a verbal agreement of carriage, mider which the shi])per acce])ts and loads the 
 
 all the receipts, and issued a bill of lad- 24. Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 
 ing for 73 bales, and afterwards the 20 96 Am. St. Rep. 192, 75 Conn. 171, 52 
 
 bales were lost. Held, not to estop the Atl. Gio. 5(1 L. R. A. 884. 
 
 first-named boat to show that only 53 25. Reference to bill of lading to be 
 
 bales were actually received. Dean v. thereafter issued. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 
 King, 22 O. St. 118". Co. v. Bryant, 3() Ind. App. 340, 75 N. E. 
 
 21. As evidence of contents of pack- ^^!'.t. 
 
 age. — Fitzgcrakl 7'. .Vdains lixp. Co., 24 26. Effect where bill of lading subse- 
 
 Ind. 447, s7 Am. Die. ;i41. quently issued. — Washburn-Crosby Co. 
 
 22. Effect of admission that goods in v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 180 Mass. 252, 62 
 "good order." — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. X. H. 590. 
 
 Cowlcs, ;!:.' 111. IKi. 27. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. 
 
 Effect of admission that goods were v. Furthmann, 47 111. App. 501. atlirmed 
 
 received in good order. — In a suit against in 149 111. GO, 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. 
 
 a commcin carrier, tlic libelant makes a Rep. 205. 
 
 prima facie case by producing the re- 28. Receipts for goods delivered for 
 
 ceipt of the carrier, "Received in good carriage which were taken up when a 
 
 order;" but these words do not consti- ImII of lading was made are inadmissi- 
 
 tute an agreement; they are a mere ad- lile in an action for loss of the goods, 
 
 mission, and may be explained or con- they having been superseded by the bill 
 
 iradicted by the carrier. Seller v. Pa- of lading. Blanchard v. Page (Mass.), 
 
 cihc. Fed. Cas. No. 12,044, Deady 17, 1 S Gray 281. 
 
 Ore. 409. 29. MerciiaiUs' Dispatch Transp. Co. 
 
 23. Alcars v. New York, etc., R. Co., :■. Furthmann. 47 111. App. 501. attirme<l 
 52 Atl. 610, 75 Conn. 171, 56 L. R. A. in 149 111. 66, 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. 
 884, 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. Rep. 265.
 
 §§ 616-617 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 412 
 
 car, it can not be varied or modified by a receipt which the carrier's agent there- 
 after dehvers to the shipper, folded up, and which the shipper, without knowl- 
 edge of its contents, puts in his pocket. 2^' 
 
 § 617. Parol Evidence to Alter, Explain or Contradict. — A carrier's re- 
 ceipt is not, as against the shipper, conclusive evidence of the contract,^^ but 
 merely prima facie evidence of the delivery of goods ; and evidence is admissible 
 to prove by parol such facts as will show that the written instrument never had 
 any legal existence or binding force, and that it was given under such circum- 
 stances that it failed to contain the agreement of the parties ^- but not to 
 change the legal import and effect of the writing. Thus, a carrier's receipt for 
 merchandise "in store," to be forwarded to a city at so much per barrel, is a 
 contract to varv which no parol evidence is admissible.-^^ 
 
 Goods Sent "C. 0. D." — Where the consignor retains the carrier's receipt 
 for goods as the only contract of carriage, it can not be shown by parol that the 
 goods were sent C. O. D.,^^ or where the receipt contains the letters "C. O. D." 
 that the goods were to be delivered without payment pursuant to an understand- 
 ing between the shipper and the consignee.^'"' 
 
 Parol Evidence to Explain Ambiguity. — Ambiguous words or phrases in 
 a shipping receipt may be explained '''' and the meaning of abbreviations proved 
 by parol ;=^^ as, for instance, the letters, '"C. O. D.," ^'^ or the words "Care R. 
 R. Agt. Callaham."39 
 
 30. Receipt accepted after shipment 
 received. — Stoner f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 109 Iowa 551, 80 N. W. 5(39. 
 
 It is competent to put in evidence the 
 fact that goods were shipped under a 
 parol agreement, and that the receipt of 
 the company (the carriers) embodying 
 different terms was not delivered to the 
 shipper till several days after the goods 
 had been shipped under the oral agree- 
 ment, to rebut the presumption arising 
 against the shipper from his having the 
 receipt. Strohn v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 21 Wis. 554, 94 Am. Dec. 564. See ante, 
 "As Contracts of Bailment or Mere Re- 
 ceipt for Goods," § 608. 
 
 31. Parol evidence to alter, explain or 
 contradict. — Pereira v. Central Pac. R. 
 Co., 06 Cal. 92, 4 Pac. 988. 
 
 32. Purcell v. Southern Exp. Co., 34 
 Ga. 315. 
 
 33. Niles v. Culver (N. Y.), 8 Barb. 
 205. 
 
 34. Goods sent "c. o. d." — Smith v. 
 Southern Exp. Co., 104 Ala. 387, 16 
 So. 62. 
 
 35. In an action against an express 
 company to recover the value of a pack- 
 age which had been received by the com- 
 pany for transportation, and for which 
 a receipt had been given by the com- 
 pany in which the letters "C. O. D." were 
 used, it is not competent for the express 
 company to prove by parol former ship- 
 ments of goods by the same consignor 
 to the same consignee, where receipts 
 using the same letters were given and the 
 goods delivered without payment being 
 first required, pursuant to an understand- 
 
 ing to that effect between the consignee 
 and consignor, as such proof would 
 change the legal import and effect of 
 the written contract. American Exp. 
 Co. V. Lesem. 39 111. 313. 
 
 36. Parol evidence to explain ambig- 
 uity. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 
 77 Ga. 376, 3 S. E. 416, 4 Am. St. Rep. 87. 
 
 37. American Exp. Co. v. Lesem, 39 
 111. 312. 
 
 38. In an action against an express 
 company to recover the value of a pack- 
 age which had been received by the 
 company for transportation, for which 
 a receipt had been given in which the 
 letters "O. C. D." were used, parol evi- 
 dence is admissible to prove the mean- 
 ing of those letters. American Exp. Co. 
 V. Lesem, 39 111. 312. 
 
 Parol evidence is admissible to ex- 
 plain the letters "C. O. D.," followed by 
 an amount, in dollars, in an action for 
 goods delivered to an express company 
 C. O. D. Collender v. Dinsmore, 55 N. 
 Y. 200, 14 Am. Rep. 224. 
 
 39. A railroad company, on receiving 
 for transportation certain articles ad- 
 dressed to a point beyond its line, gave 
 the following receipt: "* * * Re- 
 ceived from J. * * * the following 
 articles for shipment to W., Cedar Keys, 
 Fla.: 1 bdl. bedding. [Name,] Care R. 
 R. Agt., Callahan. [Signed] D., Agt." 
 In an action to recover for the loss of 
 the goods, held, that the words, "Care 
 R. R. Agt., Callahan." are ambiguous, and 
 that they may be explained by parol evi- 
 dence. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 
 77 Ga. 376, 3 S. E. 416, 4 Am. St. Rep. 87.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Sl'lXIAL COXTRACTS. 
 
 I. Contracts for Transportation of Goods, §§ G18-711. 
 A. Power to Contract, §§ 618-621. 
 
 a. Power to Contract as Private Carrier, § 618. 
 
 b. Power to Contract Jointly or Severally, § 619. 
 
 c. Power to Contract to Carry beyond Terminus, § 620. 
 
 d. Contracts with Connecting Carrier, § 621. 
 R. Authority to Make Contract, §§ 622-637. 
 
 a. Agents of Road, §§ 622-6:i4. 
 
 (1) Ii> General, § 622. 
 
 (2) Local or Station Agent, §§ 623-631. 
 
 (a) Business at His Own Station, §§ 623-624. 
 aa. In General, § 623. 
 
 bb. Presumption as to and Proof of Want of Authority, § 624. 
 
 (b) As to Station Other than His Own, § 625. 
 
 (c) Shipments to His Station from Another, § 626. 
 
 (d) Respecting Trains in Which Shipment to Be Made, § 627. 
 
 (e) Point Where Railroad Has No Office or Agent, § 628. 
 
 (f) Contract to Carry beyond Carrier's Own Line, § 629. 
 
 (g) Not to Deliver without Surrender of Bill of Lading, § 630. 
 (h) Notice of Special Damages, § 631. 
 
 (3) Traveling Freight Agent, 632. 
 
 (4) Live Stock Agent, § 633. 
 
 (5) Express Drivers, § 634. 
 
 b. Receiver of Road, § 635. 
 
 c. Power of Consignor to Bind Consignee, § 636. 
 
 d. Agent of Owner or Shipper, § 637. 
 
 C. Form, Requisites, and Validity, §§ 638-656. 
 
 a. In General, § 638. 
 
 b. Consideration, § 639. 
 
 c. Offer and Acceptance— What Constitutes Contract, § 640. 
 
 d. Mutuality and Meeting of Minds, § 641. 
 
 e. Writing— Validity of Verbal Contract. §§ 642-643. 
 
 (1) In General, § 642. 
 
 (2) Authority of Agent, § 643. 
 
 f. Failure or Inability of Shipper to Read Contract, § 644. 
 
 g. Signing, § 645. 
 h. Fraud, § 646. 
 
 i. Mistake, §§ 647-648. 
 
 (1) As to Rate, § 647. 
 
 (2) Misclassification of Goods. § 648. 
 j. Discrimination and Overcharge, § 649. 
 
 k. Necessity for Actual Receipt of Goods. § 650. 
 1. EfTect of Partial Invalidity, § 651. 
 
 m. Conformity to Rates, Rules and Classification of State Corporation Com- 
 mission, § 652. 
 n. Evidence as to Contract, § 653-656. 
 
 (1) Parol Evidence, § 653. 
 
 (2) Bill of Lading or Receipt, §§ 654-655. 
 
 (a) In General, § 654. 
 
 (b) Whole Document in Evidence. § 655. 
 
 (3) Freight .\ccount or Bill. § ("1:^6.
 
 CARRIERS. 414 
 
 D. Construction, Operation and Effect, §§ 057-689. 
 
 a. In General. § 657. 
 
 b. Rules of Construction, § 658-663. 
 
 (1) In General. § 658. 
 
 (2) Practical Construction Given by Parties, § 659. 
 
 (3) Separable or Entire Contract, § 660. 
 
 (4) Alternative Conditions, § 661. 
 
 (5) Contracts Partly Written and Partly Printed, § 662. 
 
 (6) Clerical Errors, § 663. 
 
 c. Laws Governing, § 664. 
 
 d. Course of Dealing, Usage and Custom, § 665. 
 
 e. Persons Bound, § 666. 
 
 f. Persons Entitled to Benefit, § 667. 
 
 g. When Liability Accrues, § 668. 
 
 h. Duties and Obligations of Carrier and Shipper, § 669-687. 
 
 (1) Obligation as Fixed by Law. § 669. 
 
 (2) Special Contract as Superseding Common-Law Liability, § 670. 
 
 (3) Eflfect of Acceptance of Rate Offered, § 671. 
 
 (4) Obligation of Carrier to Receive, Transport and Deliver, § 672-675. 
 
 (a) In General, § 672. 
 
 (b) Continuing Offer to Carry, § 673. 
 
 (c) Goods to Be Carried beyond Terminus of Carrier's Line, § 674. 
 
 (d) Transportation "at Owner's Risk," § 675. 
 
 (5) Obligation of Shipper to Furnish Freight. § 676. 
 (5) Point Where Goods to Be Received, § 677. 
 
 (7) Destination, § 678. 
 
 (8) Property Concerning Which Parties Negotiating, § 679. 
 
 (9) Quantity to Be Shipped or Carried, § 680. 
 
 (10) Option as to Mode of Shipment, § 681. • 
 
 (11) Route, § 682. 
 
 (12) Stop-Over Privilege, § 683. 
 
 (13) Loading and Unloading, § 684. 
 
 (14) Time of Delivery to Carrier, § 685. 
 
 (15) Time to Be Consumed in Transportation, § 686. 
 
 (16) Agreements for Liquidated Damages, § 687. 
 i. Liability as Bailee, § 688. 
 
 j. Liability as Warehouseman, § 689. 
 
 E. Transfer or Assignment, § 690. 
 
 F. Performance or Breach, §§ 691-710. 
 
 a. What Constitutes a Breach, §§ 691-692. 
 
 (1) When Special Effort to Perform Required. § 691. 
 
 (2) Shipment of Bonded Goods on Unbonded Vessel, § 692. 
 
 b. Demand of Performance, § 693. 
 
 c. Tender of Property, § 694. 
 
 d. Excuses for Breach or Nonperformance, §§ 695-709. 
 
 (1) Act of God, § 695. 
 
 (2) "Perils of River," Navigation and Fire. § 696. 
 
 (3) Mobs and Strikes, § 697. 
 
 (4) Military Occupation, § 698. 
 
 (5) Nonpayment of Freight, § 699. 
 
 (6) Merchandise Not Branded as Required l)y Statute, § 700. 
 
 (7) Nondelivery by Shipper, § 701. 
 
 (8) Change of Legal Rate, § 702. 
 
 (9) Particular Stipulations or Contracts, §§ 703-709. 
 
 (a) Time Contracts, § 703. 
 
 (b) Contracts to Carry by Particular Train or Vessel, § 704.
 
 415 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 (c) Contract to Carry Perishables, § 705. 
 
 (d) Stipulation as to Destination at Which Carrier Has No Agency, § 706. 
 
 (e) Contract to Carry Beyond Terminus, § 707. 
 
 (f) Contract for Future Transportation. § 708. 
 
 (g) Contract to Carry Specific Quantity or Number, § 709. 
 e. Waiver of Breach, § 710. 
 
 G. Modification or Rescission, § 711. 
 II. Contracts for Cars or Other Means of Transportation, §§ 712-755. 
 
 A. Requisites and Validity, §§ 712-730. 
 
 a. Capacity to Contract, §§ 712-714. 
 
 (1) In General, § 712. 
 
 (2) Contract to Furnish Cars of Another Road, § 713. 
 
 (3) Contract to Furnish Cars on Line of Connecting Road, § 714. 
 
 b. Authority of Agent, §§ 715-723. 
 
 (1) Necessity, § 715. 
 
 (2) Authority of Station Agent, §§ 716-720. 
 (a) In General, § 716. 
 
 (h) Proof of .Authority, § 717. 
 
 (c) Time When Cars to Be Furnished, § 718. 
 
 (d) Station or Place Where Cars to Be Furnished, § 719. 
 
 (e) Verbal Contract, § 720. 
 
 (3) Traveling Agent, § 721. 
 
 (4) General Freight Agent, § 722. 
 
 (5) Conductor, § 723. 
 
 c. Certainty and ncthiiteiicss, § 724. 
 
 d. Consideration, § 725. 
 
 e. Date of Contract, § 726. 
 
 f. Mutuality, § 727. 
 
 g. Offer and Acceptance, § 728. 
 h. Writing, § 729. 
 
 i. Effect of Partial Invalidity, § 730. 
 
 B. Construction and Operation, §§ 731-736. 
 
 a. In General, § 731. 
 
 b. Persons Bound and Persons Entitled to Benefit. § 732. 
 
 c. Time When Cars to Be Furnished. § 733. 
 
 d. Contract witli Owner of Private Railroad, § 734. 
 
 e. Contract for Track Facilities, § 735. 
 
 f. Agreement to Haul Defective Car, § 736. 
 
 C. Performance or Breach, §§ 737-755. 
 
 a. What Constitutes a Breach, §§ 737-740. 
 
 (1) Refusal to Permit Use of Cars, § 737. 
 
 (2) Failure to Tender Cars in Time, § 738. 
 
 (3) Furnishing Defective Cars, § 739. 
 
 (4) Requisition Essential Where Contract to Furnish as Ordered. § 740. 
 
 b. Liability of Carrier for Breach, §§ 741-753. 
 
 (1) In General. § 741. 
 
 (2) Effect of Statute Allowing Recovery of Penalty, § 742. 
 
 (3) Tender of Property for Transportation, § 743. 
 
 (4) Road Not Owning Cars. § 744. 
 
 (5) Road Not Equipped with Cars of Character to Be Furnished, § 745. 
 
 (6) Failure to Furnish Refrigerator Cars, § 746. 
 
 (7) Effort to Procure Foreign Cars. § 747. 
 
 (8) Excuses for Breach or Nonperformance. §§ 748-753. 
 (a) In General. § 748. 
 
 (b') Act of God, § 749. 
 
 (.c) Unavoidable Accident or Casualties. § 750.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 (d) Storms, § 751. 
 
 (e) Wrecks, § 752. 
 
 (f) Unprecedented Traffic, § 753. 
 
 c. Liability of Shipper for Breach. § 754. 
 
 d. Waiver of Cause of Action Against Carrier. § 755. 
 
 III. Merger, §§ 756-760. 
 
 A. General Rule, § 756. 
 
 B. Contract Executed after Carriage Begun, §§ 757-758. 
 
 a. In General, § 757. 
 
 b. Ratification or Adoption by Negotiation of Bill of Lading, § 758. 
 
 C. Written Contract Executed after Breach of Parol Contract. § 759. 
 
 D. Receipt for Freight Accepted after Shipment Received, § 7G0. 
 
 IV. Modification and Rescission, § 761. 
 
 V. Actions against Carrier for Breach of Contract, §§ 762-786. 
 
 A. Nature and Form of Remedy, § 762. 
 
 B. Limitation, in Contract, of Time for Bringing Action, § 763. 
 
 C. Demand, § 764. 
 
 D. Persons Who May Sue, §§ 765-767. 
 
 a. Shipper, § 765. 
 
 b. Forwarding Agent, § 766. 
 
 c. Consignee, § 767. 
 
 E. Pleading, §§ 768-773. 
 
 a. Complaint, Declaration or Petition, §§ 768-772. 
 
 (1) Where Contract Distributive as to Time, § 768. 
 
 (2) Necessary Allegations, § 769. 
 
 (3) Sufficiency of Allegation, § 770. 
 
 (4) Theories of Case, § 771. 
 
 (5) Aider by Subsequent Pleadings and Verdict, § 772. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer, § 773. 
 
 F. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 774. 
 
 G. Questions for Jury, § 775. 
 H. Evidence, §§ 776-784. 
 
 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 776. 
 
 b. Admissibility, §§ 777-782. 
 
 (1) Relevancy and Competency, § 777. 
 
 (2) Parol Evidence, § 778. 
 
 (3) Best and Secondary Evidence, § 779. 
 
 (4) Custom, § 780. 
 
 (5) Necessity for Production of Bill of Lading, § 781. 
 
 (6) Evidence as to Net Profits, § 782. 
 
 c. Reception of Evidence, § 783. 
 
 d. Sufficiency of Evidence, § 784. 
 I. Instructions, § 785. 
 
 J. Verdict, § 786. 
 VI. Damages, §§ 787-798. 
 
 A. Liability, §§ 787-788. 
 
 a. In General, § 787. 
 
 b. Breach of Contract Other than That Sued on, § 788. 
 
 B. Duty of Shipper to Mitigate Damages, § 789. 
 
 C. Elements of Damage, §§ 790-793. 
 
 a. Loss of Profits, § 790. 
 
 b. Expense of Renotifying and Reshipping, § 791. 
 
 c. Increased Freight and Extra Charges, § 792. 
 
 d. Breach of Particular Contracts, § 793. 
 
 D. Measure of Damages, §§ 794-795. 
 
 a. Breach by Carrier, § 794. 
 
 b. Breach by Shipper, § 795. 
 
 416
 
 417 
 
 SI'KCIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 618-620 
 
 E. Special Damages, § 796. 
 
 F. Proof of Damages, § 797. 
 
 G. Release of Damages, § 798. 
 
 VII. Interference by One Carrier witii Contract of Anotlier, § 799. 
 VIII. Contracts to Furnish Freight, § 800. 
 IX. Contracts for Drayage or Hauling, § 801. 
 X. Contracts Enlarging Carrier's Liability, § 802. 
 
 §§ 618-711. Contracts for Transportation of Goods— §§ 618-621. 
 Power to Contract— § 618. Power to Contract as Private Carrier.— A 
 
 common carrier may l)cc(jir.c a prixalc carrier, and by sijecial agreemeiii under- 
 take for hire to carry that which he is under no obligation to carry.' 
 
 § 619. Power to Contract Jointly or Severally. — There is no statute to 
 prevent two or more persons from jointly, or jointly and severally, contracting 
 to transport goods from one place to another.- 
 
 § 62 0. Power to Contract to Carry beyond Terminus. — The doctrine 
 is now tirmly established, and has been long acquiesced in and acted upon, that 
 a railroad company may, by contract, bind itself to transport property beyond 
 its own line,-' through another state, over other railroads,-* and to assume the re- 
 sponsibility of a common carrier over the entire route,-"' unless restrained by its 
 charter.'^ A railroad company has this power and right, independently of stat- 
 ute." Such contract is binding."^ when made with the proi)cr representatives of 
 
 1. Power to contract as private car- 
 rier. — Judgment (App. 1907) SO X. E. 636, 
 reversed. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Henry, 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710. See 
 post. "Limitation of Liability-," chap- 
 ter 14. 
 
 2. Power to contract jointly or sev- 
 erally. — Hirsch v. Xew England Xav. Co.. 
 9;{ X. E. 524. 200 X. Y. 263, reversing 
 judgment, 113 N. Y. S. 395, 129 App. 
 Div. 178. 
 
 3. Power to contract to carry beyond 
 terminus. — Kentucky. — Loui.sville. etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Foster, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 637. 
 
 Maine. — Perkins v. Portland, etc., R. 
 Co., 47 Me. 573, 74 Am. Dec. 507. 
 
 New Jersey. — Saunders v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 78 N. J. L. 441, 74 Atl. 670. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — ^A carrier may contract 
 to carry goods beyond its line, and is 
 responsible for the carriage of the goods 
 contracted for. Baltimore, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co. V. Brown, 54 Pa. 77. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. t. Hill, 
 63 Tex. 381. 
 
 4. United States. — Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co. z: Mineral Springs Mfg. Co. (U. S.). 
 16 Wall. 318. 21 L. Ed. 297. 
 
 A railroad company has power as a 
 carrier to receive goods which are to be 
 transported beyond the end of the com- 
 panj-'s own route. Camblos v. Philadel- 
 phia, etc., R. Co., Fed. Cas. Xo. 2.331, 4 
 Brewst. 563, 9 Phila. 411. 
 
 Kentueky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Foster. 13 Ky. L. Rep. 637. 
 
 .Maine. — Perkins v. Portland, etc., R. 
 Co.. 47 Me. 573. 74 Am. Dec. 507. 
 
 1 Car— 27 
 
 .Massachusetts. — Hill Mfg. Co. v. Bos- 
 ton, etc., R. Corp., 104 Mass. 122, 6 Am. 
 Rep. 202; Feital v. Middlesex R. Co., 109 
 Mass. 398, 12 Am. Rep. 720. 
 
 .Minnesota. — Stewart v. Erie, etc., Transp. 
 Co., 17 Minn. 372, Gil. 348. 
 
 .Missouri. — Moore & Son v. Henry, 18 
 Mo. App. 35: Loomis v. Wabash, etc., 
 R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 340. 
 
 North Carolina. — Phillips v. North Car- 
 olina R. Co., 78 N. C. 294. 
 
 .\'ezu York'. — Bissell v. Michigan, etc., 
 R. Co., 22 X. Y. 258; Burtis v. Buffalo, 
 etc., R. Co., 24 N. Y. 269; Buffett v. Troy, 
 etc., R. Co., 40 N. Y. 168: Root v. Great 
 Western R. Co.. 45 X. Y. 524; Ogdens- 
 burg, etc., R. Co. v. Pratt, 49 How. Prac. 
 S4; Schroeder v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 12 X. Y. Super. Ct. 55. 
 
 J'crmont. — Xoyes & Co. f. Rutland, 
 etc., R. Co.. 27 Vt. 110; Morse z: Brain- 
 erd, 41 Vt. 550. 
 
 5. Phillips v. Xorth Carolina R. Co., 
 78 X. C. 294. 
 
 6. Stewart v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 17 
 Minn. 372, Gil. 348; Phillips v. Xorth 
 Carolina R. Co., 78 X. C. 294. 
 
 7. A special contract bj- a railroad 
 company for the delivery in a limited 
 time of freight received by it, to be trans- 
 ported to a point on a connecting line. 
 is valid, independently of statute, and 
 the company is liable for a failure to 
 comply therewith. Burtis x'. Buffalo, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 24 X. Y. 269. 
 
 8. Burtis r. Buffalo, etc.. R. Co., 24 
 X. Y. 269: Xoves & Co. i: Rutland, etc., 
 R. Co.. 27 Vt. 110.
 
 §§ 620-623 CARRIERS. 418 
 
 the company.^ Although such power is not expressly granted by the act of in- 
 corporation, it may be conferred by implication, as necessary to the proper and 
 protitable exercise' of the powers specially enumerated in the charter.^" 
 
 § 621. Contracts with Connecting Carrier. — Unless restrained by its 
 charter, a raih-oad corporation may make contracts with connecting carriers for 
 through transportation over their routes, such contracts being made with a 
 bona fide purpose to regulate traffic in a reasonable and just manner. ^^ 
 
 §§ 622-637. Authority to Make Contract— §§ 622-634. Agents of 
 Road — § 622. In General. — The railroad companies must, in the very nature 
 of things, have agents, and those agents must have the authority to do those 
 things necessary to accomplish the designs of the agency. i- Hence contracts 
 made by shipping agents of carriers within the reasonable scope of their em- 
 ployment or business are binding on the carrier. ^^ Aliter, as to contracts not 
 within the apparent scope of their authority. ^^ Unless some special reasons 
 known to the shipper restrict the general powers of the agent, the public have a 
 right to assume that the agents of carriers, whether corporations or not, and 
 whether such agents be local or general, have the right to bind such carriers by 
 contracts with their employers in the particular line of business in which they 
 are employed or are represented or held out as being employed, and within the 
 scope of the business of their principals.^-'* A carrier is bound by a contract in 
 its name, by another as agent, who has been accustomed to make similar con- 
 tracts as agent for such carrier, with its knowledge and approbation, and which 
 have been ratified or recognized by it.^^ 
 
 Delivery by Mistake to Unauthorized Agent. — Though a parcel was given 
 to an employee of a telegraph company for delivery under the mistaken belief 
 that he v.-as a messenger, the mere carrying away of such parcel by the em- 
 ployee for delivery was not a conversion thereof ; it not having been taken with 
 intent to assert any property right therein on the part of the bailee.^^ 
 
 §§ 623-631. Local or Station Agent— §§ 623-624. Business at His 
 Own Station — § 623. In General. — A railroad, which places an agent in 
 
 9. Proper parties. — Moore & Son v. Where a shipper enters the offices of 
 Henry, 18 AIo. App. 35. a carrier, he may assume that the person 
 
 10. Perkins v. Por-tland, etc., R. Co., therein dealing- with him has a right to 
 47 Me. 573, 74 Am. Dec. 507. h\nd the carrier, and, if he has not, the 
 
 Act 1847,' c. 270, assumes, by irresist- carrier must prove want of authority, 
 
 ible implication, that railroad companies Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Cox (Tex. Civ. 
 
 may make valid contracts for the trans- App.), 150 S. W. 265. 
 
 portation of goods to points beyond the 16. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 
 
 termini of their own line. Burtis v. Buf- Tex. 491. 
 
 falo, etc., R. Co., 24 X. Y. 209. 17. Delivery by mistake to unauthor- 
 
 11. Contracts with connecting carrier. ized agent— Plaintiff had been in the 
 — Stewart v. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 17 habit of delivering gowns to a certain 
 Minn. 372, Gil. 348. messenger, employed in the parcel de- 
 
 12. ' Agents ' of " road.— San Antonio, 'i^ery department of defendant telegraph 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. company, and when he called for a pack- 
 
 47 50 99 S W 418 '^^^ pursuant to plamtirt s request she 
 
 ''.',■' _, ,,. believed that he was still a messenger, 
 
 13. Lmcoln Tent, etc. Co z' Mis- though he had meanwhile been promoted 
 soun Pac. R. Oo., 86 Neb. 338, 12o .\. ^^ ^ clerical position, and could not, in 
 VV. 603. jj^g performance of his duty, actually de- 
 
 14. An agent of an express company ]jyer packages; l)ut he accepted plaintiff's 
 did not have authority to agree for tlie package and turned it over to a messen- 
 company to pay the undertaker's charges jrgr for delivery. Held, that the clerk 
 on a corpse and ship it. Gathright v. did not become plaintiff's agent for the 
 Pacific Exp. Co. (Tex.), 145 S. W. 1185, delivery of the package, but remained 
 affirming judgment, Pacific Exp. Co. v. defendant's servant, so as to make it lia- 
 Gathright (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. ble for his negligence in misdirecting it. 
 1035. Murray v. Postal Tek Cable Co., 96 N. 
 
 15. McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 E. 316, 210 Mass. 188, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 
 Tex. 33, 37, 15 S. \V. 164. 1183.
 
 419 
 
 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 623-625 
 
 charge of its business at a station and empowers him to contract for the ship- 
 ment of freight, holds him out to the iniblic as having authority to contract with 
 reference to all the necessary and ordinary details of the business, and within 
 the range of such business he is a general agent. ^'^ The authority of a local 
 agent does not extend to the i^erformance of any act for which he has not ex- 
 press authority, unless it is a thing necessary ffjr him to do in the execution of 
 the powers expressly given.''' 
 
 § 624. Presumption as to and Proof of Want of Authority. — A local 
 station agent in charge of a railway company's business at a station is presumed 
 to have authority to represent the company in all matters connected with the 
 transaction of its business at that i)articular station.-" Such agents are pre- 
 sumed to have authority to make contracts for the transportation of freight, and 
 in the absence of any adequate notice to the public of any limitations upon their 
 authority in that respect the corporation will be bound thereby, both as to rates 
 and as to expedition of transportation and delivery.-' A shipper contracting 
 with a railroad station agent for the transportation of freight is under no legal 
 obligation to make inquiries concerning the station agent's instructions or pow- 
 ers,-- for the burden of proof of want of authority is on the railroad.-'' 
 
 § 625. As to Station Other than His Own. — .\ local station agent's au- 
 thority extends only to the control of the carrier's business at his own station. -■♦ 
 Such agent has no implied authority to make any contract which will bind the 
 comjiany with reference to freight to be received at a different station than his 
 own;-'' when he attempts to do so, his act, until ratified, will not bind the com- 
 pany. This is in harmony with the well-settled rule that a principal is not 
 bound by a contract made by an agent that is not within the actual or apparent 
 scope of the agent's authority.-'' The existence of express authority to make 
 such contract is susceptible of proof.-" 
 
 18. Business at his own station. — Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 99 Tex. 343. 89 
 S. W. 968, reversing judgment (Civ. 
 App.), 86 S. W. 47; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brown. 99 Tex. 349, 89 S. W. 971; re- 
 versing judgment (Civ. App.). 86 S. W. 
 343. 
 
 19. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Jackson, 99 
 Tex. 343, 89 S. W. 968. 969, reversing S6 
 S. W. 47; Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: Dinwiddie, 
 21 Tex. Civ. App. 344. 51 S. W. 353; Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Belcher, 88 Tex. 549, 
 32 S. W. 518. 
 
 20. Presumption as to and proof of 
 want of authority. — Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Hodge. 10 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 30 S. W. 
 829; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 51 S. W. 261. affirmed in 93 Tex. 
 685. no op.; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Needham, 
 37 Tex. Civ. App. 129. 83 S. W. 22. 
 
 21. Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 
 S. W. 583. 
 
 22. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Tex. Civ. App.). 57 S. W. SS3. 
 
 23. Burden of proof of want of author- 
 ity. — Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. Hume Bros., 6 
 Te.x. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 915. 
 
 Where a contract of shipment is en- 
 tered into between a shipper and a sta- 
 tion agent, it is not necessary for the 
 former to prove that the latter has the 
 authority to make the contract. Gulf, 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Short (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 51 S. W. 261, affirmed in 93 Tex. 685, 
 no op. 
 
 In an action 1)}- a shipper for failure 
 to furnish transportation at a time 
 agreed on. the court properly refused to 
 instruct the jury that the burden was on 
 plaintiff to prove that the station master 
 had authority to make the contract. Gulf, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Wright. 1 Tex. Civ. App. 
 402, 21 S. W. 80. citing Easton r. Dud- 
 ley, 78 Tex. 236. 14 S. W. 583; McCartv 
 v. Gulf. etc.. R. Co.. 79 Tex. 33. 15 S. W. 
 164; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, 82 
 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716. 
 
 24. As to station other than his own. 
 — Hunter f. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 167 
 Mo. .App. 624. 150 S. W. 733. 
 
 25. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson. 99 Tex. 
 343. 89 S. W. 968, reversing 86 S. W. 47; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dinwiddie. 21 Tex. 
 Civ. .\pp. 344. 51 S. W. 353; Missouri, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Belcher. 88 Tex. 549. 32 
 S. W. 518. 
 
 26. Gulf, etc., R. Co. t'. Hodge, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. .App. 543, 548, 30 S. W. 829. 
 
 27. Evidence held to require submis- 
 sion to the jury of the authority of a 
 carrier's agent to contract for shipment 
 from another station than that at which 
 he was employed. McManus f. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 136 N. W. 769.
 
 §§ 626-631 CARRIERS. 420 
 
 § 62 6. Shipments to His Station from Another. — Prima facie the per- 
 son in charge of a station at one phice (station agent) has no power to act for 
 the raihvay company in reference to the making of a contract of shipment to 
 his station' from another station on the railroad. Nor would it he the duty of 
 the station agent receiving notice relating to a shipping contract made elsewhere, 
 to transmit such notice to agent at the station at which the shipment was made. 
 His failing to do so would involve the road in no liability. -"^ 
 
 § 627. Respecting Trains in Which Shipment to Be Made.— A local 
 freight agent of a railroad had no authority to bind the railroad by an agree- 
 ment that freight shall be shipped in a solid train without mixing any other 
 freight with it or that the train shall be drawn by a single engine,-'^ but he has 
 authority to contract for shipment by a certain train.'"' 
 
 § 628. Point Where Railroad Has No Office or Agent. — In an action 
 for a breach of contract of carriage from a point outside defendant's line, where 
 it appeared without dispute that defendant had no ofhce, agent, or servant at 
 the point of shipment, the delivery of the goods at the depot at such point to a 
 man whose cap bore defendant's name was insufficient to establish the agency 
 of such person."^ 
 
 § 629. Contract to Carry beyond Carrier's Own Line. — See post, "Con- 
 necting Carriers," Part A". 
 
 To Deliver at Place Other than His Station.^ — Where a contract for the 
 carriage of goods was to deliver the goods at a place on the company's road 
 other than a regular station, the burden was on the shipper to show that the 
 contract was made with an agent having authority to make it.^- 
 
 § 63 0. Not to Deliver without Surrender of Bill of Lading. — A car- 
 rier's local agent, on receiving a shipment, could bind the carrier by an agree- 
 ment not to deliver without surrender of the bill of lading which the shipper 
 attached to a draft upon the consignee. ^^ 
 
 § 631. Notice of Special Damages. — \Miere a carrier had 35 or 40 em- 
 ployees in a freight office, only 3 of whom were authorized to make shipping 
 contracts, notice of special damages likely to result from delay in a shipment 
 
 28. Shipments to his station from an- or agent. — Rosenfield v. Central Vermont 
 other.— Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, R. Co., 97 N. Y. vS. 905, 111 App. Div. 
 88 Tex. 549, 32 S. W. 518, citing Kauff- 371. 
 
 man v. Robey, 60 Tex. 308, 310; Labbe 32. To deliver at point other than his 
 
 V. Corbett, 69 Tex. 503, 507, 6 S. W. 808; station. — Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Irvine v. Grady, 85 Tex. 120, 125, 19 S. Reed, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 1020; Illinois Cent. 
 
 W. 1028; Taylor v. Taylor, 88 Tex. 47, R. Co. v. Swanson, 93 Miss. 485, 46 
 
 29 S. W. 1057. So. 83. 
 
 The local agent of an express company Plaintiff shipped some goods over de- 
 had no authority to make a contract for fendant's line, and persuaded the local 
 a shipment from another city having an agent to write on the bill of lading that 
 office to his own city. Gathright v. Pa- the car was to be switched to a certain 
 cific Exp. Co. (Tex.), 145 S. W. 1185, street at destination; the agent stating 
 affirming VM) S. W. 10;}5. that the company had no switching facil- 
 
 29. Respecting trains in which ship- ities at that street and protesting against 
 ment to be made.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. so billing the shipment. Held, that the 
 Jackson, 99 Tex. 343, 89 S. W. 968, re- agent had no authority to agree to_ bill 
 versing 86 S. W. 47. the goods to that point, and plaintiff 
 
 30. A shipper may rely upon the au- could not, under the circumstances, re- 
 thority of a station agent to make a spe- cover for the company's failure to dc- 
 cial contract for the shipment of fruit liver the goods as required by the bill of 
 trees by a certain train, and need not lading. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Swan- 
 affirmatively prove such authority. Pa- son. 92 Miss. 485, 46 So. 83. 
 
 cific Exp. Co. V. Xeedham, 37 Tex. Civ. 33. Not to deliver without surrender 
 
 App. 129. 83 S. W. 22. of bill of lading. — Sturges v. Detroit, etc., 
 
 31. Point where railroad has no office R. Co., 160 Mich. 231, 131 N. W. 706.
 
 421 SPF.CIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 631-637 
 
 given to the person who caused the bill of lading; to be executed, aiKJ who was 
 put forward to transact the business for the carrier, was notice to it.-5-» 
 
 § 632. Traveling Freight Agent.— The traveling freight agent of a rail- 
 road company nia\ liind lii^ i<<iiip;iny by an agreement with a shipper to place 
 freight on a siding of anoilur line at a particular rate, where the agent had 
 for several years been (luoling rates to the shipi)er and arranging for the latter's 
 shipments, the agreement in question was the inducement which procured the 
 shipment and the agent's authority had never before been f|uestioned by the com- 
 l)any.-''' 
 
 § 633. Live Stock Agent.— If a carrier's live stock agent did not have 
 autlujritv to make a contract with a shipper to ship by a certain train on a con- 
 necting "line, the carrier ratified the contract by billing the car and forwarding 
 it to its junction for shipment on the connecting line.-"' 
 
 § 634. Express Drivers.— An express driver is the general agent of the 
 companv to c(«llect goods for carriage and has all necessary implied powers 
 within the scope of his authority for that purpose, so that the company is bound 
 by his statement that a ixircel which the consignor's agent offered to_ remark 
 was all right without re-addressing it. There is no legal rule that carriers will 
 take only parcels legibly addressed, or that parcels without address at all may 
 not be given to, and taken by, the carrier's driver. •'■" 
 
 § 63 5. Receiver of Road. — A contract by a receiver of a railway to fur- 
 nish certain trans] )ortation to a shipper, is of force only during the receiver- 
 ship, and does not bind the company succeeding to the control of the proi)erty.-''* 
 
 § 636. Power of Consignor to Bind Consignee. — In a suit by a consignee 
 against a carrier for loss or injury to goods in transit, the carrier may ordi- 
 narily show that the consignor made a special contract of shipment, and that 
 the consignee received the shi])ment subject to such contract and to the risks 
 assumed by the consignor."'' 
 
 § 637. Agent of Owner or Shipper. — Where the owner leaves goods with 
 an agent to be shipped, he will Ije bound by the agent's contract with the car- 
 rier, though the carrier knew who the owner was.-*" Where diamonds in an un- 
 marked package are delivered by a servant of the sender to an express com- 
 pany, with a note directing them to be sent C. O. D., and a receipt not for a C. 
 O. D. package is given to the servant, who fails to show it to the sender, the com- 
 pany is not liable for failure to collect on delivery, as the sender is charged with 
 notice of the contents of the receipt.-*^ 
 
 34. Notice of special damages.— Chi- 40. Agent of owner or shipper.— Jcn- 
 caRO etc., R. Co. v. T'lantcrs', etc.. Oil iiin.^s ?■. Grand Trunk R. Co.. .52 Hun 
 Co.. 88 .'\rk. 77. ll.-i S. W. :i52. 227, 5 X. Y. S. 140. 23 N. Y.' St. Rep. 
 
 35. Traveling freight agent.-Xew l-^- affirmed in 127 N. Y. 438. 28 N. E- 
 York Cent. & H. R. Co. v. Deer Creek 391; . ^^.u:„„ 
 Lumber Co.. 49 Pa. Super. Ct. 453. Plamtiffs purchased mea ot a packmg 
 
 Tr- 1 r-^i.- company, requcstmp: it to snip it to a cer- 
 
 36. Live stock agent.-Kirby t'. Chi- ^^-^^ ^^-^^^ ^,^^, ^„^,,^ ^^ defendant rail- 
 cago. etc., R. Co.. 242 111. 418, 90 W. li.. ^^^^^ company solicited the shipment, and 
 
 2-"'2- Ti, , furnished the asjent of the packinsj com- 
 
 37. Express drivers.-ALr^vnus v. I latt. . ^^.j^,, j,^^ ,^,^^„^ f^^^^ p,- contract. 
 115 N. Y. S. 824, G2 Misc. Rep. 499. ^^.j^j-^,^ ^^.^^ j-^jj^j ^^^^ ^„d sj^^^d by de- 
 
 38. Receiver of road.— Houston, etc.. fondant's a.s:ent. and plaintiffs paid the 
 R. Co. i: Campbell. 91 Tex. 551. 45 S. freiirht. Held, that the contract was 
 W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 325. reversinpT 40 S. bindintr between defendant and plaintiffs, 
 W. 431. althoutrh not sitrned by the latter or by 
 
 39. Power of consignor to bind con- the packinu company as their asjent. 
 signee.— Perkins Co. v. .\merican ICxp. Kckles 7\ Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 87 S. 
 Co., 199 Alass. 561. 85 N. E. S95. See W. 99. 112 Mo. App. 240. 
 
 post "limitation of Liability," chap- 41. Smith z: Southern Exp. Co., 104 
 
 ter 14 Ala. 387. Irt So. 62.
 
 §§ 638-639 
 
 CAKRIKR; 
 
 422 
 
 §§ 638-656. Form, Requisites, and Validity— § 638. In General.— 
 
 A contract by a carrier which disables it to perform its duty to the pubhc will 
 not be enforced.-*- But a contract whereby a salt company agrees to ship 66 per 
 cent of its output over a certain railroad, which in return agrees to ship at as 
 low a rate as may be offered by any other road, is not void as against public 
 policy.-*^ 
 
 Form. — Xo particular form or solemnity of execution is required for a con- 
 tract of a common carrier to transport goods.'*'* 
 
 Receipt and Release. — A shipi)ing receipt and a release signed l)y the 
 shipper, exempting the carrier from loss or injury to the goods, though sepa- 
 rate and independent papers, contain the contract of the parties and neither 
 alone can be treated as the shipping contract."*" 
 
 Instructions to Captain of Lighter. — Where a shipper notified a carrier 
 that he desired to ship some lumber, and the carrier sent its own lighter to 
 transport it to the depot; and the shipper informed the carrier that instructions 
 as to shipment would be given to the captain of the lighter, to which arrange- 
 ment, which was the usual one between the parties, the carrier assented, the in- 
 structions to the captain formed a part of the contract of affreightment.-*^ 
 
 Specification of Number of Cars to Be Shipped. — A contract binding a 
 carrier to transport as many car loads of grain as the shipper may desire to be 
 transported is valid, at all events, as to grain already transported under it.'*'^ 
 
 § 639. Consideration. — Delivery and Acceptance of Goods. — A de- 
 livery of goods to, and their acceptance by, a carrier, is sufficient consideration 
 for his undertaking to safely carry the same.'*'^ 
 
 Mere Promise to For-ward Freight Already en Route. — The mere prom- 
 ise of a common carrier, without additional consideration, to forward freight 
 already on the route by an earlier train than usual, is not evidence from which 
 the jury may infer a special contract to do so.-*^ 
 
 Sufficiency of Statement of Consideration. — An instrument in the fol- 
 lowing form: "Lead from 15. to St. L. at liy^ per 100. All lead shipped by 
 
 42. Validity in general. — Chouteau v. 
 Union R., etc.. Co.. 22 Mo. App. 286. 
 
 43. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 387. 80 S. 
 W. 567. 
 
 44. Form, — Alobile, etc., R. Co. v. Ju- 
 rey, 111 U. S. 584, 591, 28 L. Ed. 527, 4 
 S. Ct. 566. 
 
 45. Plaintiff made a shipment on a 
 road connecting with defendant's, and 
 took a receipt from the agent, on which 
 were the words, "Valuation limited to 
 $5.00 per 100 pounds in case of total loss." 
 On the back was printed a statement that 
 the valuation as agreed upon should 
 cover loss or damage from any cause 
 whatever; also a printed statement that 
 the owner of the goods, in accepting the 
 receipt, agrees to be bound by all its stip- 
 ulations. Plaintiff then delivered to the 
 company a paper stating that he had vol- 
 untarily shipped at a lower rate than the 
 general tariff, on condition that he re- 
 lease the company from all liability for 
 loss or damage, and containing a formal 
 release to the company and all other rail- 
 road or transportation companies to 
 whom the goods should be delivered for 
 transportation. This release was at- 
 tached to the manifest, went along with 
 
 the goods, and was received by defend- 
 ant. The shipping receipt was not under 
 seal, or witnessed, and was returned by 
 plaintiff. The goods were received by 
 defendant at a freight rate agreed on be- 
 tween the roads. Held, that the shipping 
 receipt and release were separate and in- 
 dependent papers, prepared and signed 
 at the instance of the company receiving 
 the goods, and that defendant could not, 
 in its own interest, elect which of the 
 two should be treated as the shipping 
 contract. Woodburn v. Cincinnati, etc., 
 R. Co., 40 Fed. 731. 
 
 46. Instructions to captain of lighter. — 
 Uptegrove v. Central R. Co., IG Misc. 
 Rep. 14, 37 N. Y. S. 659, 73 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. 278. 
 
 47. Specification of number of cars to 
 be shipped. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Closser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 22 
 Am. St. Rep. 593, 9 L. R. A. 754. 
 
 48. Delivery and acceptance of goods. 
 — McCaulcv V. Davidson, 10 Minn. 418, 
 Gil. 33.-,. 
 
 49. Mere promise to forward freight 
 already in route. — Memphis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Reeves (U. S.), 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. Ed. 
 909.
 
 423 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 639-640 
 
 C. & R. to be forwarded by M. R. F. S. & G. R. R., at above rates from Janu- 
 ary 1, 1873 to January 1. 1874. and above rates guarantied for same time," 
 states a valid conlrart upon a NuffK-ient consideration.^" 
 
 Stating Quantity to Be Shipped, — An otter of a carrier to ship not ex- 
 cee(Hng a certain amount at a certain rate i)er ton, and the acceptance by the 
 shipper of the oiler without stating the quantity he agrees to ship, do not create 
 a contract binding on the carrier, as he receives no consideration for giving the 
 shipper an ojition to ship any qnruitit}- he jjleases.-''^ 
 
 Contract to Transport at Rate Fixed by Railroad Commission Act.— 
 A carrier's contract to iranspori freight at certain rates is not void, as being an 
 agreement to do what it was legally required to do by the railroad commission 
 act. and hence without consideration. ''-' 
 
 Railroad Inducing Purchase by Promise of Rate. — There is a contract 
 of carriage, on a sufficient consideration, where defendant railroad company, to 
 induce plaintiff' to buy ice, promised him to transport it from where it was to 
 a certain point for a certain amount per ton, and on the faith of that promise 
 he bought it.-'" 
 
 § 640. Offer and Acceptance — What Constitutes Contract. — The 
 
 mere promise bv a carrier to ship certain freight at a certain rate does not con- 
 stitute a contract on which an action can be based, unless the shipper accepts 
 the offer bv agreeing to ship the goods at such rate.^"* 
 
 Letter Containing Offer Shown to Third Person. — A letter from the 
 superintendent of a railroad addressed to a certain person, off'ering to receive 
 freight and transport it over his road and over the road of connecting lines, is 
 not a contract to carry between the company and a third person to whom the 
 letter was shown, and who on the strength of it sent freight over the road.-"'^ 
 
 Statements of Solicitor of Freight Shipment. — Statements by the com- 
 mercial agent of a common carrier, duly aruhorized to solicit shipments of 
 freight, that the time consumed in the trans])ortation of certain live stock will 
 be four days, and that there will be no delays, do not constitute an express con- 
 tract on the part of the carrier to ship and deliver within that time.^*' 
 
 Reply an Objection to Rate Offered. — A reply by a shipper to the effect 
 that unless a lower rate was allowed he could not do much shipping is not an 
 acceptance.-"' 
 
 Interlineation Made by Carrier on Bill of Lading Tendered by Ship- 
 per. — Where a shipper tenders to a carrier an unsigned bill of lading which the 
 latter alters and returns to shipper and thereafter forwards the goods, the un- 
 signed bill was a mere proposition to ship on certain conditions which was not 
 accepted by the carrier ; and the consignor having failed to dissent to the counter 
 proposition made by the carrier, is bound by the altered bill of lading. -'^^ 
 
 50. Sufficiency of statement of consid- 56. Statements of solicitor of freight 
 eration. — RigQiiis r. Missouri, etc.. R. shipment. — International, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Co.. r:! Mo.\^)OS. Wentworth. ST Tex. Til. 28 S. W. 277. 
 
 51. Stating quantity to be shipped. — 57. Plaintiff wrote defendant, a carrier. 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. :■. Dane, 4:; X. Y. that lie was aliout to lease a quarry, and 
 240. wanted a quotation of rates for ship- 
 
 52. Contract to transport at fixed rate nients to be made during the two years 
 by railroad commission act. — Thomp.son following. On defendant's answer, giv- 
 f. San Antonio, etc.. R. Co., 11 Te.x. Civ. ing a rate, providing the shipments were 
 App. 14.T. 32 S. W. 427. reasonably distributed during the season, 
 
 53. Railroad inducing purchase by idaintiff replied that, unless he got a 
 promise of rate. — Bigolow ;■. Cliicago. lower rate, he would not be able to do 
 etc., R. Co.. 104 Wis. n)'.i, so X. W. o."). niucli shipping. Held, not to amount to 
 
 54. Offer and acceptance what consti- a contract. Stcffen z\ Mississippi, etc., 
 tutes contract.— SoiuluTu R. Co. :•. Wil- R. Co., r^C S. W. 112:>. 1.-(> Mn. ■.V22. 
 
 cox. •)'.! \a. :>'.t4. :!'.) S. v.. 144. 58. Interlineation made by carrier on 
 
 55. Letter containing offer shown to bill of lading tendered by shipper. — In an 
 third person. — Kast Tennessee, etc.. R. action by the consignee against the ini- 
 Co. :. Montgomerv. 44 Ga. 278. tial carrier, for goods forwarded to De-
 
 §§ 640-642 
 
 CONTRACTS 
 
 424 
 
 Shipment from Point Other than That Named. — The shipment of the 
 goods from another point than that named in the offer is not an acceptance.'''"* 
 
 Arrangement with Peach Growers Association. — An arrangement be- 
 tween a railroad company and a ct>mmittee of a peach-growers' convention to 
 run a special train during a peach season so as to connect by a certain hour with 
 another road does not constitute a special contract with any peach grower to 
 transport peaches by such train, nor to render the company liable for any peaches 
 not accepted for transportation by snch train.''" 
 
 Contract to Carry Over Connecting Lines. — A contract whereby the lia- 
 bility of a railroad company is sought to be extended beyond the carriage over 
 its own line and safe delivery to the next connecting carrier will not be inferred 
 from loose and doubtful expressions, but must be established by clear and sat- 
 isfactory evidence. Taking a through fare on the receipt of cattle for trans- 
 portation over the line of the initial carrier and a connecting line or lines does 
 not establish such liability. '^'^ 
 
 § 641. Mutuality and Meeting of Minds. — To constitute a contract of 
 carriage, the minds of the jjarties must meet as to the terms and considerations 
 of the contract. *'- 
 
 §§ 642-643. Writing— Validity of Verbal Contract— § 642. In Gen- 
 eral. — Neither a bill of lading nor any other writing is necessary to constitute 
 a contract of shipment, an oral contract, in the absence of fraud or imposition, 
 when satisfactorily proved, being as obligatory on both carrier and shipper as 
 a written one.*'" The delivery to, and the receipt by, a common carrier, of a 
 
 troit and there destroj'ed by fire while in 
 the possession of the connecting carrier, 
 it appeared that plaintiff bought the 
 goods from the consignor at Cincinnati, 
 who sent them to the shipper's depot 
 with a bill of lading ready for the car- 
 rier's signature. The bill recited that the 
 goods "are to be delivered at Detroit." 
 The carrier interlined the bill with red 
 ink, so that it read, "to be delivered at 
 Toledo for Detroit," signed it, returned it 
 to the consignor, and forwarded the 
 goods to Detroit. The consignor made 
 no objection to the alteration of the bill 
 of lading. Held, that the unsigned bill 
 was a mere proposition to ship on cer- 
 tain conditions which was not accepted 
 by the carrier; and the consignor, having 
 failed to dissent to the counter-proposi- 
 tion made by the carrier, was bound by 
 the altered bill of lading. Muller z'. Cin- 
 cinnati, etc., R. Co., 13 O. Dec. 903, 2 
 Cin. R. 280. 
 
 59. Shipment from point other than 
 that named. — .\ freight agent of the de- 
 fendant's railroad, in answer to inquiries 
 from plaintiff, gave him certain rates 
 from a certain point on the road to New 
 Orleans. Ten days afterwards, plaintiff 
 shipped goods at a different point for 
 New Orleans, and obtained a bill of lad- 
 ing from one who had no authority to 
 bind defendant. Held, that there was no 
 contract with defendant. Robinson v. St. 
 L' uis, etc.. R. Co., Tj Mo. ilJ4. 
 
 60. Arrangement with peach growers 
 association. — Reed v. Philadclpliia, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 176. 
 
 61. Contract to carry over connecting 
 lines. — Myrick z'. Alichigan Cent. R. Co., 
 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. :;2.i. 1 S. Ct. 425; 
 Roy z'. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., m W. 
 Va. 616, 618, 57 S. E. 39, 31 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1. 
 
 62. Mutuality and meeting of minds. — 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. z'. Timon, 45 
 Tex. Civ. App. 47, .52, 99 S. W. 418. 
 
 63. Writing. — Judgment, Patrick v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 88 S. W. 330, 5 Ind. 
 T. 742. modified in 75 C. C. A. 434, 144 
 Fed. 632: Mobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Jurey, 
 111 U. S. 584, 28 L. Ed. 527, 4 S. Ct. 566; 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. ^lorris, 167 Ala. 311, 
 52 So. 891; McNeill v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 161 Ala. 319, 49 So. 797; Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. 7'. Graves, 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 676; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nich- 
 olson, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 168. 
 
 A carrier may legally enter into a parol 
 contract of shipment. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 29 S. 
 W. 565; Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ Nicholson, 
 61 Tex. 491; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 
 418; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. z'. Wright, 30 
 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 70 S. W. 335; Gulf, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Irvine (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 
 S. W. 540; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 883; 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. z'. Withers, 16 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 506, 40 S. W. 1073, affirmed in 
 93 Tex. 691, no op. 
 
 When a carrier legally enters into a 
 parol contract of shipment, it will be 
 binding upon the parties as the contract
 
 425 
 
 SI'IXIAL COXTR.\CTS. 
 
 §§ 642-643 
 
 package plainly marked with the name and address of the person to whom the 
 same is to be forwarded, is equivalent to an express written or verbal direction 
 to the carrier to transport the package as the same is directed/'-* although a 
 statute re(juires a common carrier to give receipts for merchandise delivered to 
 him.""' A statutory provision that the transportation of goods by a common 
 carrier shall be considered as commenced from the time the bill of lading is 
 signed does not preclude the liability from commencing before, viz, from the 
 time of the delivery of the goods, so as to make the carrier liable for loss when 
 no bill is issued."" 
 
 § 643. Authority of Agent. — In General. — X'erbal contract by a railroad 
 station aj.jcnt for the iransixirtalion of freight, binds the railroad company unless 
 the shipper knows that the agent has no such authority.''' 
 
 Stipulations Limiting Agent's Authority. — A written contract for the 
 shipment of cattle, limiting the authority of the carrier's agent to make a verbal 
 contract, does not merge a previous verbal contract made by the agent with the 
 
 rc^vilatinii' the shiiJiiKMit, unless volun- 
 tarily and mutually changed or aban- 
 doned. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. ()7T, 20 S. \V. 565. 
 
 Contract of affreightment. — Roberts v. 
 Riley, 1.") La. Ann. 10:5, 77 Am. Dec. 183. 
 
 64. Mere reception of goods. — No l)ill 
 of lading is necessary to create the liabil- 
 ity of a common carrier; the mere re- 
 ception of the goods for the purpose of 
 transportation is sufficient. Shelton v. 
 Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 36 N. 
 Y. Super. Ct. 527. 
 
 Express company failing to give re- 
 ceipt. — It is not essential to the liability 
 of an express company that they should 
 have given a receipt for the property de- 
 livered to them. Gulliver v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 38 111. 503. 
 
 Cars loaded at shipper's warehouse. — 
 Where a railroad has side tracks running 
 to a shipper's wareliouse, on which they 
 run cars to such warehouse to l)e loaded 
 by the shipper, the freight is to be re- 
 garded as delivered to and in the posses- 
 sion of the railroad from the time it is 
 loaded on the car, though no bill of lad- 
 ing has been issued. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Smyser, 38 111. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301. 
 
 65. Failure of a common carrier to give 
 receipts for merchandise delivered to 
 him, as required liy Code, § 2139, does 
 not affect his liability relative to such 
 goods. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kolb, 73 Ala. 396, 49 Am. Rep. 54. 
 
 66. East Line, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 64 
 Tex. 615. See, also, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wheat, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 165; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamm, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 491. 
 
 Rev. St.. arts. 281-283. making a car- 
 rier's liability begin when the bill of lad- 
 ing is signed, do not apply in case of a 
 parol contract by a railroad company to 
 receive cattle for transportation on a cer- 
 tain day, and the company is liable for 
 breach, though no bill of lading is signed. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z\ Xicholson, 61 Tex. 
 
 4'.»1; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamm, 2 
 Texas .\pp. Civ. Cas., § 491. 
 
 67. Authority of agent. — Gulf. etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Hume Bros., s7 Tex. 211, 27 S. VV. 
 110, reversing 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. 
 W. 915; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 883; 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Withers. 16 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 506, 40 S. W. 1073. affirmed in 
 93 Tex. 691, no op. 
 
 Since an oral contract by a railroad 
 station agent for transportation is bind- 
 ing unless the shipper has knowledge 
 that the agent has no authority to make 
 such contract, it is not error in an action 
 against a railroad on such a contract to 
 refuse to charge on defendant's plea set- 
 ting up the agent's want of authority to 
 enter into an oral contract. San Anto- 
 nio, etc., R. Co. V. Williams (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 57 S. W. 883. 
 
 This can be so only upon the theory that 
 such agents have ostensible authority to 
 make such contracts. The question in 
 such case would be wliether or not the 
 shipper knew of the lack of authorit}'. or 
 was ciiargeable with such knowledge. 
 Courts probal)ly might take notice of the 
 fact that such agents represent the rail- 
 way company in their localitj' in receiv- 
 ing and contracting for the shipment of 
 freight. The public can not take notice 
 of the limitations on their powers unless 
 they are conveyed to the public in such 
 a manner as to authorize the inference 
 that shippers are apprised of them. 
 Hence from the very nature of their of- 
 fice there is apparent authoritj- for the 
 making of freight contracts. San Anto- 
 nio, etc., R. Co. V. Williams (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 57 S. W. 883. 
 
 Question for jury. — Whether the 
 agents iiail authoritj- to make a verbal 
 contract of carriage and whether the 
 shipper knew of lack of authority on his 
 part to make such contract, is a question 
 for the jury. San .\ntonio. etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47. 99 S. W. 
 418.
 
 §§ 643-647 CARRIERS. 426 
 
 shipper, in which the agent agreed to furnish cars readx- to receive the cattle on 
 a certain day."* 
 
 Shipper Knowing That Written Contract Required. — The mere fact that 
 a shipper knew, when the verhal contract for a shipment was entered into, that 
 he would be required to execute a written contract, is not sufficient to constitute 
 a waiver of the rights that accrued under the verbal contract.^^ The shippers 
 knowledge of what was in former contracts is not notice to him of what will 
 be in the next contract he must sign, especially where there had been instances 
 when he had not been required to sign such written contracts.''"'^ 
 
 Ratification of Unauthorized Contract. — An authorized agent of a rail- 
 road company who receives freight for shipment without objection under a 
 parol agreement made by an unauthorized agent, binds the company Ijy his 
 authority, notwithstanding the want of authority by the agent who made the 
 contract."^ 
 
 § 644. Failure or Inability of Shipper to Read Contract. — In the ab- 
 sence of fraud or mutual mistake, a shipper who is sui juris will not be heard 
 to say that he did not read and understand his duly executed contract of ship- 
 ment^"^- but he is conclusively presumed, in the absence of fraud and imposi- 
 tion, to have assented thereto, and is bound thereby. It is not fraud for a 
 carrier's agent to fail to read to a shipper, who can not read, certain portions 
 of the receipt in fine print, where the clause omitted is expressive only of the 
 carrier's liability under the law."^ 
 
 § 645. Signing. — See ante, "Agent of Owner or Shipper," § 637. Neither 
 the signature of the agent of the carrier nor of the shipper is essential to the 
 validity of a contract of carriage and an unsigned bill of lading issued to shipper 
 is evidence of the contract."'* 
 
 § 64 6. Fraud. — See "Effect of Overcharge," chapter 16. 
 
 § 647-648. Mistake— § 647. As to Rate.— Where an agent of a rail- 
 road company telegraphed the general agent for a shipping rate, as requested 
 by plaintitts, and there w^as a mistake in the reply telegram, which was evident 
 on its face or known to the shippers, they could not seize upon such mistake 
 to take an unfair advantage of it,'-"* but where the shipper accepted the quoted 
 
 68. Stipulations limiting agent's au- Co., 74 Mo. App. 406; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 thority. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. Combes t'. Scrivener, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), SO S. \V. 1045. 328; International, etc., R. Co. v. Watt, 
 
 69. Shipper knowing that written con- 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 781. 
 
 tract required.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. 73. Hadd v. United States, etc., Exp. 
 
 Batte (Tex. Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 632. Co., 52 Vt. 335, 36 Am. Rep. 757. 
 
 70. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Timon, 74. Plaintifif, through an agent, deliv- 
 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 418, dis- ered certain goods to defendant railroad 
 tinguishing Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gallag- company for shipment, and asked for a 
 her (Tex.Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 97. bill of lading, which was given, but the 
 
 71. Ratification of unauthorized con- station agent neglected to sign it. The 
 tract.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 99 goods having been lost, plaintiff brought 
 Tex. 343. 89 S. W. 968, reversing 80 S. suit for their value, setting up the writ- 
 W. 47. ing as the contract of shipment. Held, 
 
 72. Failure or inability to read con- that the paper, while not constituting a 
 tract. — See ante, "Bills of Lading," chap- written contract, was evidence of the 
 ter 6. contract actually made, and, in tlie ab- 
 
 U. S. C. C. A. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. sence of any evidence to the contrary, es- 
 
 Harper Bros., 201 Fed. 671, 121 C. C. A. tablished the terms of such contract. 
 
 570; Kellerman v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., Judgment, Patrick v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 136 Mo. 177, 34 S. W. 41, 37 S. W. 828; Co., 88 S. W. 330, 5 Ind. T. 742, modified 
 
 McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 in 144 Fed. 632, 75 C. C. A. 434. 
 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721. 75. Mistake.— Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 See, also, Wyrick v. Missouri, etc., R. Gortatowsky, 123 Ga. 366, 51 S. E. 469.
 
 427 
 
 SPi:CIAL CO.VTKACTS. 
 
 §§ 647-651 
 
 rate in good faitli, and the mistake was not evident, it created a binding con- 
 tractJ*^ 
 
 § 648. Misclassification of Goods. — A carrier, classifying goods received 
 for shipment with knowledj^e ui iheir character, and collecting the freight 
 under such classification, can not a\oid the contract, or its liability for failure 
 to shij) according to the contract, on the ground that the goods did not belong 
 to the class named. '^ 
 
 § 649. Discrimination and Overcharge. — See ante. "Overcharge and Dis- 
 
 crinn'nation," s^vj 1S2-1'''). 
 
 Discriminatory Contracts. — C)ne who promised a railroad com])any, in 
 consideration of its laying its rails to his manufactory, and furnishing him 
 money to aid in bringing the raw material thereto, to give the company the 
 transportation of the manufactured product to market at reasonable rates, can 
 not avoid the contract on the ground that it dej)rived him of rights guaranteed 
 by Pennsylvania Const, art. 17, § 3, declaring that all individuals shall have 
 e([iial riglits to transportation, without discrimination.''^ 
 
 Effect of Overcharge. — The fact that the -railroad company collected an 
 excessive freight rate at the destination of the stock shipped does not show 
 fraud in the execution of the shipi)ing contract, and such contract is not in- 
 \alid because of such overcharge. '** 
 
 § 6 50. Necessity for Actual Receipt of Goods. — See ante, "Bills of 
 
 Lading," c]ia])ter (). 
 
 § 651. Effect of Partial Invalidity. — \'alid conditions in a shipping con- 
 tract, which can be separated from those which are understood by both parties 
 to be invalid, can be enforced,^" but where the purpose of the contract is illegal, 
 as where it is to create an illegal monopoly of an industry by the shipper in 
 the territory served by the carrier, the stipulations, imiocent on their face, will 
 not be enforced.'^^ 
 
 Unauthorized Contract to Carry beyond Carrier's Own Line. — The fact 
 that a station agent exceeds his authority in making a through contract for 
 trans])ortation. does not invalidate such contract for such part of it as lies 
 within his authoritv.*^- 
 
 76. W here a shipper applied to a rail- 
 road agent for a rate for the transporta- 
 tion of certain men and horses, and the 
 agent was a commercial agent only, with- 
 out authority to make a special rate, ami 
 
 "he telegrai)iied to the general agent for 
 one. and the reply, as delivered to the 
 agent, stated an amount lower than the 
 general agent had written, and upon re- 
 ceipt of it the agent quoted a rate, as 
 stated in the telegram, and the shippers 
 accepted it in good faith, and the mis- 
 take was not evident, it created a binding 
 contract. Central, etc., R. Co. z'. Gorta- 
 towsky, 51 S. K. 4C.9, 123 Ga. 366. 
 
 77. Misclassification of good s. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Cash Grain Co., 161 
 Ala. 332, .■)n So. SI. 
 
 78. Discriminatory contracts. — Bald 
 Eagle, etc., R. Co. r . Xittany, etc., R. 
 Co., 171 Pa. 284. 33 Atl. 239, 20 L. R. A. 
 423, 50 Am. St. Rep. 807. 
 
 79. Effect of overcharge. — .\tchison. 
 etc., R. Co. :■. Crittenden. 4 Kan. .App. 
 512, 44 Pac. 1000. See, also, post, "Dis- 
 crimination and Overcharge." chap. 16. 
 
 80. Effect of partial invalidity. — Grieve 
 :■. Illinois Cent. R. C(x. 104 Iowa 65!). 74 
 X. W. 1!)2. 
 
 81. \\ here a railroad company enters 
 Into a contract with a coal company for 
 the carriage of the hitter's coal, one 
 clause of which is void as making an il- 
 legal discrimination against smaller ship- 
 pers, and the obvious intent of the con- 
 tract, read a^s a whole, is to secure to the 
 coal companj' an illegal monopoly of the 
 coal industry served by the railroad, the 
 contract will not be disintegrated by the 
 court for the purpose of enforcing 
 against the railroad company other stipu- 
 lations contained in it, which, though in- 
 nocent on their face, were entered into 
 with the intent of securing an illegal mo- 
 nopol}' to the coal company, and would, 
 if enforced, effect that purpose. Burling- 
 ton, etc.. R. Co. I'. Nortiiwestern Fuel 
 Co.. 31 Fed. 652. 
 
 82. Unauthorized contract to carry be- 
 yond carrier's own line. — Gulf. etc.. R. Co. 
 r. Hodge, in Tex. Civ. .\pp. 543. 30 S. W. 
 829.
 
 §§ 652-658 CARRIERS. 428 
 
 § 6 52. Conformity to Rates, Rules and Classification of State Cor- 
 poration Commission. — All contracts or bills of lading made by carriers 
 •as to intrastate shipments, which are inconsistent with the rates, charges, classi- 
 fications, rules, and regulations adopted by the Corporation Commission, are 
 void.^^ Onlv such contracts relating to intrastate shipments as are made pur- 
 suant to rules and regulations adopted bv the Corporation Commission are 
 valid.^"-* 
 
 §§ 653-656. Evidence as to Contract— § 653. Parol Evidence.— Since 
 
 it is not necessary that a contract of affreightment should be in writing, parol 
 evidence of anv special agreement is. therefore, admissible, where the contract 
 is oral."""' 
 
 Shipping Receipt Not Embodying Contract. — Where a shipping receipt 
 given the shipper does not embody the contract of shipment, such receipt and 
 parol evidence is admissible to prove a contract to transport the goods.'*'^ 
 
 §§ 654-655. Bill of Lading or Receipt— § 654. In General.— The bill 
 of lading does not create the contract between the shipi)er and the common 
 carrier. It has been adopted as a convenient mode of establishing the contract, 
 but it is not an exclusive species of evidence.^" 
 
 § 6 55. Whole Document in Evidence. — When a receipt is introduced as 
 evidence of the contract of aftVeightment, the whole document is in proof ; and 
 one part can not be separated from the other in its judicial interpretation.'^'^ 
 
 § 656. Freight Account or Bill. — An account for freight, usually called 
 a freight bill, though receipted, is not admissible to prove the contract of af- 
 freightment or shipiuent, it not being a bill of lading.'^'* 
 
 §§ 657-689. Construction, Operation and Effect— § 657. In Gen- 
 eral. — In the al)sence of fraud or im])osition. the rights of a carrier and ship- 
 per are to be controlled by whatever written contract was entered into at the 
 time the property was received for transjjortation.'"' 
 
 §§ 6 58-663. Rules of Construction — § 658. In General. — Strictly 
 Construed against Carrier. — If there is a reasonable doubt as to the con- 
 
 83. Conformity to rates, rules and clas- 88. Whole of document in evidence. — 
 sification of state corporation commis- Butler r. The Arrow, Fed. Cas. No. 2,237, 
 sion.— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bilby, n McLean 470, Newb. Adm. 59. 
 
 35 Okla. 589, 130 Pac. 1089. 89. In an action by_ the shipper to r_e- 
 
 84. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bilby, 35 cover damages for injuries to certain 
 Okla. 589. 130 Pac. 1089. goods which defendant, as a common car- 
 
 85. Parol evidence. — Roberts v. Riley, rier, undertook to transport down the 
 15 La. Ann. 103. 77 .\m. Dec. 183; Gulli- Coosa river from Rome to Greenport, 
 ver V. Adams Exp. Co., 38 111. 503. and part of which were loaded on a 
 
 86. Shipping receipt not embodying lighter attached to the side of the 
 contract. — In an action by a shipper steamer, and which was sunk by striking 
 against a railroad company for neglect to a snag, plaintiff offered to read a re- 
 transport goods, it appeared that a ver- ceipted freight bill, the items appearing 
 bal contract was made with the carrier under the headline, "Freight per steanier 
 to transport the goods, and a receipt was Georgia to Greensport;" the contention 
 given therefor, merely stating the receipt - being that defendant violated the con- 
 of the goods marked with the consignee's tract by using the lighter. Held, that the 
 address. Held, that the receipt and parol freight bill was not admissible to prove 
 contract were admissible to prove a con- the contract, it not being a bill of lading, 
 tract to transport the goods, such receipt Coosa River Steamboat Co. v. Barclay, 30 
 not being a contract embodying the pre- Ala. 120. 
 
 vious oral engagement. McCotter v. 90. Construction, operation and effect. 
 
 Hooker, 8 N. Y. 497. Seld. Notes 1.50. —Addrmis r. Weir, lOS N. Y. S. 146, 56 
 
 87. Bill of lading, receipt. — Dunn f. Misc. Rep. 487. 
 Branner, 13 La. Ann. 452.
 
 429 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 658-663 
 
 struction of a contract of carriage, it is to be construed strictly and most strongly 
 against the carrier." * 
 
 Words Interpreted in Ordinary Sense. — It is the (hity of the court to 
 interpret writings free fruui ambiguity, and to determine what is meant by 
 words used therein, in an ordinary rather than a pecuhar technical or trade 
 sense; and where, in a freight contract, the worrl "lumber" was used, and there 
 was no evidence that it was used in any other than its common meaning, whether 
 it iiH-hidcd tics was for ibe court. "- 
 
 Hidden or Obscure Meaning.— .\ hi(l<lcn or obscure meaning will not be 
 sought for a particular clause of a bill of lading, or shipping contract because 
 its obvious meaning provides for contingencies which are also provided for by 
 other clauses of the same bill.'''- 
 
 Construed in Favor of Validity. — See i>ost, "Laws (Governing," § 664. 
 
 § 659. Practical Construction Given by Parties.— Where the terms 
 "compressed cotton, any quantity, and uncompressed cotton, any quantity" are 
 used in a tariff sheet, without further amplifying words, the construction placed 
 on said ternxs by the railroad company, through its agent, as to baled cotton 
 delivered to the railroad and thereafter compressed and then shipped through, 
 when there are no other i)romulgate(l rates between the designated points con- 
 cerning cotton shipments, is competent in determining the meaning of the con- 
 tract.'*-* 
 
 § 660. Separable or Entire Contract. — .\ contract of carriage, made in 
 Iowa, to take stock from Iowa to Indiana, though regarded as to be partly 
 performed in Iowa and partly in Illinois, is entire and indivisible.'*^ When a 
 carrier agreed to carry plaintiff's goods from a point in the state to a location 
 in Canada for a certain freightage, and to advance the customs duties, and col- 
 lect both the freight and duties at the destination, the contract was indivisible, 
 and the agreement to advance the duties was not a separate and foreign con- 
 tract.'-'" 
 
 § 661. Alternative Conditions. — See post, "Agreements for Liquidated 
 Damages," § 687. 
 
 § 662. Contracts Partly Written and Partly Printed. — Where a contract 
 
 for the carriage of freight is ])anly written and i)artly printed, the written por- 
 tions will control, and only so much of the printed matter in the blank form 
 used as is consistent with the written portions is of any effect.^" 
 
 § 663. Clerical Errors. — .\n apparent clerical error in writing a shipping 
 contract or copying it into the record, by which the shipper is made to agree 
 to jiav any loss or damage, to his own property, etc., will be disregarded and 
 
 91. Strictly construed against carrier.— 94; Practical construction given by 
 
 See post. "Limitati-.n ..f I.ial.ilitv." cliap- parties.— Cliicago. etc.. R. Co. r. Dodson 
 ^^^ j^ ■ (Okla.). 04 Pac. r,7P>. 
 
 ^ . ■ . , • • ^ ^ ■ 95. Separable or entire contract. — Illi- 
 
 Stipulat.ons in sliippmg contracts, in- ^^j^ ^,.,,^ j> ^.,^ .. j,^.^.,,^. ,-_^ j„ ^3^ -^ 
 
 serted entirely for the benefit of the car- j^. g ^^^ ^3 ^ ^ ^ ^lo. 66 Am. St. 
 
 rier, will receive strict construction. Ya- j^ ^.^ 
 
 zoo. etc.. R Co. .'^ Bent. 94 Miss^ 681 47 96. Waldron f. Canadian Pac. R. Co.. 
 
 So. 805. 22 L. R. A., N. S.. 821; Standard ^., ^y,^^,^ .,-.5 ^^^ p,^^, ^,^^ 
 
 Milling Co. r. White Line Cent. Transit "g^ Contracts partly written and partly 
 
 Co.. 122 Mo. 2.-,^. 21. ^^. W. ,01. printed.— Hal^cock :•. Lake Shore, etc.. R. 
 
 92. Words interpreted in ordinary (j,, 4;) x. V. 401. 
 
 sense.— Greason r. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. Bill of lading. — The contract of af- 
 
 112 Mo. App. 116, 86 S. \V. 722. freightnient. evidenced by a bill of lading 
 
 93. Hidden or obscure meaning. — Tudg- partly written and partly printed, is to be 
 ment 00 Fed. 1006. :iO C. C. .\. 670, affirmed. gathered from the whole instrument. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reiss, 22 S. Ct. 253. Robinson Bros. :■. Merchants' Despatch 
 183 U. S. 621, 46 L. Ed. 358. Transp. Co., 45 Iowa 470.
 
 §§ 663-664 
 
 CARRIERS 
 
 430 
 
 the agreement treated as one on part of the company to pay the loss if any as 
 therein Hmited."'* 
 
 § 664. Laws Governing. — A contract for transportation made by a rail- 
 road company is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and laws existing 
 when the contract is made.'-^^ 
 
 Conflict of Laws.— A contract for the transportation of goods is governed 
 as to its nature, construction, validity and effect, by the laws of the state or 
 country where it is made/ notwithstanding the initial carrier is a corporation 
 of another state.- When there are no circumstances attending the transaction, 
 except the mere execution, delivery and acceptance of a bill of lading, the 
 safest rule to arrive at the intention of the parties is that which upholds, 
 rather than that which defeats, the contract, and the laws of the state under 
 which the contract is valid should be applied/' 
 
 Contract to ^e Partly Performed in State Other than Locus Con- 
 tractus.— The general rule is that a contract for the carriage of freight from 
 one point in one state to a point in another will, in the absence of proof of a 
 contrary intention, be governed by the law of the place where the contract was 
 entered' into.-* but such contract is not necessarily governed in matters of con- 
 struction and eft'ect bv the laws of the locus contractus especially as to require- 
 
 98. Clerical errors. — St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Ro£?ers, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 304, 108 
 S. W. 1027. 
 
 99. Laws governing. — State v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co.. .51 Fla. .578, 646, 40 So. 875. 
 
 1. Conflict of laws. — United States. — 
 The Brantford City, 29 Fed. 373. 
 
 Connecticut. — Hale v. New Jersey 
 Steam Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. 
 Dec. 398. 
 
 Illinois. — Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Boyd, 91 111. 268; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Furthmann, 149 111. 66, 
 36 N. E. 624, 41 Am. St. Rep. 265; Gins- 
 burg V. Adams Exp. Co., 160 111. App. 
 566; Waxelbaum v. Southern R. Co., 168 
 111. App. 66; Gamble-Robinson Commis- 
 sioner Co. z: Delaware, etc., R. Co., 169 
 111. App. 319: Clingan z'. Cleveland, etc., 
 R. Co., 163 111. App. 568. 
 
 Where goods are delivered to a carrier 
 in another state, the contract to be per- 
 formed there, the laws of that state will 
 govern as to the construction of the con- 
 tract, and will determine the extent of 
 the carrier's undertaking. Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 74 111. 197. 
 
 lozua. — McDaniel v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 24 Iowa 412. 
 
 Missouri. — Hartman v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 39 Mo. App. 88; Lord, etc., Co. 2: 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. App. 175, 134 
 S. W. 111. 
 
 New York. — First Nat. Bank v. Shaw, 
 61 N. Y. 283; Robertson v. National 
 Steamship Co., 1 App. Div. 61, 37 N. Y. 
 S. 69, 72 N. Y. St. Rep. 223. 
 
 South Dakota. — Meuer v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 5 S. Dak. 568, 59 N. W. 945, 25 L. 
 R. A. 81, 49 Am. St. Rep. 898. 
 
 Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 2 
 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 191. 
 
 2. A bill of lading, made by certain 
 steamship companies to a shipper in 
 
 Georgia for carriage of cotton from Sa- 
 vannah to Bremen, via Baltimore, must 
 be deemed executed in Georgia, notwith- 
 standing the initial company is a corpo- 
 ration under the laws of Maryland. La- 
 zard r. Merchants', etc., Transp. Co., 78 
 Md. 1. 26 Atl. 897. 
 
 3. Ryan & Co. v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 65 Tex. 13, 57 Am. Rep. 589. 
 
 4. Contract to be partly performed in 
 state other than locus contractus. — Coii- 
 necticut. — A steamboat was in the busi- 
 ness of transporting goods from New 
 York to Providence. The plaintiflf owned 
 carriages, which he wished to have trans- 
 ported to Boston. The carriers received 
 them in New York, to convey them to 
 Providence or Boston, and they were 
 lost in the Sound, near Huntington, L. I. 
 Held, that the contract of the parties w?s 
 to be governed by the laws of New York. 
 Hale V. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co., 15 
 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398. 
 
 Georgia. — If goods are shipped by con- 
 necting carriers from New York to Geor- 
 gia, and suit is brought in Georgia for 
 damages from delay in delivery by the 
 final carrier after arrival, whether the de- 
 livery and taking of the sliipping receipt 
 constituted a contract by the shipper with 
 the initial carrier will be determined by 
 the laws of New York, if they be shown. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445, 
 67 S. E. 944. 
 
 If goods are shipped in one state on a 
 through contract and delivered in an- 
 other by a common carrier (omitting any 
 question of public policy), ordinarily, in 
 the absence of anything to show a con- 
 trary intent, the validity, form, and efifect 
 of the contract will be determined by the 
 laws of the state where it was made and 
 partly to be performed, under Pol. Code, 
 § 8, providing that the validity, form, and
 
 431 
 
 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 § 664 
 
 ments which are to be wholly performed in the latter state."' Thus, the courts 
 of Alabama '' and (Jhio " have held that where a shipper contracted in one 
 state with a carrier to ship goods and deliver them at a point in another state, 
 the contract, so far as delivery was involved, was to be wholly performed in 
 the latter, and the carrier's liability for failure to deliver depended upon the 
 law of that state, and the court o'i New Hampshire has held : When a con- 
 tract is made by a common carrier in one state to transport goods from that 
 state into another, and the goods are lost, the rights of the parties are governed 
 by the law of the state in which the loss happens.^ 
 
 Shipment to Be Held at Destination for Instructions. — In a suit for 
 (laniaj;es to a car luad of potatt)cs shipped under a contract to ship on defen<l- 
 ant's road from a point in Wisconsin to a point in Illinois and there hold for 
 instructions, and a subsecjuent order given defendant at its Chicago station to 
 ship to ^lississippi, the suit will be on the Illinois contract, and defendant's 
 liabilities will be determined by the law of Illinois.'* 
 
 Interstate Commerce. — \Vhere a contract for through transportation of 
 flour from Pond Creek, Okl., to New York, was made in Oklahoma, it was 
 subject to tlie Oklahoma law to the extent that such law was not an invasion 
 of the exclusive rights of the L'nited States to regulate commerce between the 
 states. ^*^ A state statute declaring that a consignor, by accepting a bill of lad- 
 ing or written contract for carriage, with a knowledge of its terms, assents to 
 
 effect of contracts are determined by the 
 laws of the place where executed. 
 Southern Exp. Co. f. Hanaw. 134 Ga. 44.5, 
 67 S. E. 944. 
 
 Illinois. — Where a contract for the 
 transportation of potatoes was made and 
 partly to be performed in Iowa, its valid- 
 ity and interpretation of the obligation 
 must he governed liy the laws of that 
 state, though the shipment might l)e car- 
 ried into or through Illinois. Coats f. 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 87 N. E. 929, 239 111. 
 154. 
 
 Iowa. — A contract of affreightment 
 made by a consignor for the consignee, 
 residing in another state, is binding upon 
 the latter, if it is valid under the laws of 
 the state where made. Rol^inson Bros. v. 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 45 
 Iowa 470. 
 
 Missouri. — Townsend, etc.. Dry Goods 
 Co. t'. United States Exp. Co., 113 S. W. 
 1161, 133 Mo. App. 683. 
 
 North Dakota. — Hanson z: Great 
 Northern R. Co., 18 N. Dak. 324, 121 X. 
 W. 78. 
 
 Xew York. — Robertson v. National 
 Steamship Co., 37 N. Y. S. 69, 1 App. Div. 
 61, 72 N. Y. St. Rep. 223. 
 
 South Dakota. — A contract, made in 
 Wisconsin, between a railroad company 
 and a shipper, for transporting live stock 
 and emigrant movables from a point in 
 that state to a point in South Dakota, is 
 to be interpreted by the law of the for- 
 mer state. Meuer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 5 S. Dak. 568, 59 X. W. 945, 25 L. R. -A. 81, 
 49 .\m. St. Rep. 898. 
 
 Tc.vas. — .\ contract made with a rail- 
 road company in one state to carry prop- 
 erty into another, if valid by the laws of 
 the former, would be valid in the latter. 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. Davis, 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 191. 
 
 A condition contained in a contract 
 made in Arkansas, for the shipment of 
 sheep to be transported from that state 
 to Texas, that "the business of the car- 
 rier shall not be delayed by the detention 
 of trains to unload and reload the sheep 
 for any cause wliatcver," is valid, the 
 condition being valid in Arkansas. 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Davis, 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 191. 
 
 A shipment from a point witliin to a 
 point beyond the state is not governed 
 i)y the local laws. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Xelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. Si. 
 
 Contract for carriage from France 
 through London to New York. — A bill 
 of lading, made in l-'rance, providing for 
 the transportation of goods from Havre. 
 France, to London, and from London to 
 New York, is not governed by the law of 
 England, as it was made, and to be p'T- 
 formed mainly outside of England. Rob- 
 ertson z: X'^ational Steamship Co., 1 App. 
 Div. 61, 37 N. Y. S. 69, 72 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 223. 
 
 5. Carter & Co. r. Southern R. Co., 59 
 S. E. 209, 3 Ga. App. 34; Atlanta, etc.. R. 
 Co. z'. Broome, 60 S. E. 355, 3 Ga. App. 
 641. 
 
 6. Southern Exp. Co. z\ Gibbs. 155 Ala. 
 303, 46 So. 465, 18 L. R. A.. N. S.. 874. 
 
 7. Tacobson & Co. z'. ."Kdams Exp. Co.. 
 1 0."C. C. 381, 1 O. C. D. 212. 
 
 8. Gray v. Jackson & Co., 51 X. H. 9. 
 12 Am. Rep. 1. 
 
 9. Shipment to be held at destination 
 for instructions. — MahatTov z\ Wisconsin 
 Cent. R. Co.. 147 III. .\pp! 43. 
 
 10. Interstate commerce. — Erie R. Co. 
 z'. Pond Creek Mill. etc.. Co.. 89 C. C. .•\. 
 568. 162 Fed. 878.
 
 §§ 664-666 CARRIERS. 432 
 
 the rate of hire, the time, place, and manner of dehvery therein stated ; but 
 that his assent to any other modification of the carrier's obhgations contained 
 therein can only be manifested by his signature to the contract, should not be 
 construed as merely affecting the vehicle through which a transportation con- 
 tract can be proved, but was a valid exercise of legislative power aft'ecting 
 interstate commerce originating in Oklahoma, to which transportation contracts 
 made in that state were subject.^ ^ 
 
 Effect of Hepburn Act.— The Hepburn act (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 
 § 7, 34 Stat. 595 [l\ S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 909] ), relating to the liability 
 of common carriers of property in interstate commerce for loss or damage to 
 such property, but which contains tlie proviso "that nothing in this section shall 
 deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of 
 action which he has under existing law," leaves a shipper free to resort to the 
 laws of a state applicable to his contract.^ - 
 
 § 665. Course of Dealing, Usage and Custom. — Where, at the time of 
 the shipment of goods by an agent to his principal, no particular agreement 
 is made between the agent and the carrier, the fact that they have an habitual 
 course of dealing with respect to contracts of transportation is a material and 
 important element in determining the construction to be put upon their acts.^'* 
 But the shipping of goods under a special contract in any number of instances 
 will not bind the parties sending them to similar terms in the future without 
 agreement.^'* 
 
 Effect of Usage. — Where a shipping contract, permitting the shipper to ac- 
 company his stock, and return, without extra charge, does not specify the route 
 by which he shall return, a general usage of the carrier to allow a return by 
 either of two routes will, if known to the shipper when the contract is made. 
 be presumed a part thereof. ^•'^ 
 
 § 666. Persons Bound.— Contract by Consignor. — The consignor is the 
 agent of the consignee in the shipment of the goods; and whatever contract 
 he makes with the carrier is binding on the consignee, ^"^ and he will be con- 
 clusivelv presumed to know its stipulations, in the absence of fraud or mis- 
 take.^' ' 
 
 Estoppel of Consignee to Question Authority of Consignor to Con- 
 tract. — \\'here a consignee sues to recover for a neglect of duty under a special 
 contract of affreightment made in his behalf by the consignor, the consignee 
 is not at liberty to challenge the authority of the consignor to make the ship- 
 ment under such a contract. ^^ 
 
 Contract with Purchasers — BiU of Lading Given to Seller. — Where a 
 carrier contracts with a purchaser of goods to transport them for him, the de- 
 livery of a bill of lading to the seller which modified the carrier's liability 
 under the original contract does not bind the purchaser, in the absence of a 
 course of business, between the parties, or of a custom sanctioning such an inter- 
 
 11. Erie R. Co. t'. Pond Creek Mill, 15. Effect of usage.— Milroy z'. Chicago, 
 etc., Co., 89 C. C. A. 568, 163 Fed. 878. etc., R. Co., 98 Iowa 188, 67 N. W. 276. 
 
 12. Effect of Hepburn act. — Latta z'. 16. Contract by consignor. — Frohlicli z'. 
 Chicag-o. etc., R. Co., !»7 C. C. A. 198, 172 Pennsylvania Co.. i:58 Mich. 116, 110 Am. 
 Fed. 8.-j0. St. Rep. :{10, 101 N. W. 223, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 
 13. Course of dealing, usage and cus- Ann. Cas. 1140. 
 
 torn. — Shelton v. Merchants' Dispatch 17. Robinson Bros. z'. Merchants' Des- 
 
 Transp. Co., .59 N. Y. 258, 48 How. Prac. patch Trans]). Co., 45 Iowa 470. 
 
 257. 18. Estoppel of consignee to question 
 
 14. McMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., authority of consignor to contract. — Bell 
 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; Heffron v. Bros. r. Western, etc., R. Co., 125 Ga. 
 Michigan, etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 131; King 510, 54 S. E. 532. 
 
 V. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 132.
 
 433 
 
 SrKCTAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 666-672 
 
 ])retation of the orii[^inal contract.'" 
 
 Clerical Errors. — See ante. '•Clerical Errors," § 663. 
 
 § 667. Persons Entitled to Benefit. — Though a person who had con- 
 tracted with a city to furnish it with coal for use in running a system of water- 
 works Ijeconies the head of the water commission of such city, he can not, be- 
 cause of his official position as such, avail himself of the terms of a transpor- 
 tation contract between the cit\- and a railway company whereby the former 
 had secured reduced freight charges upon goods or supplies hauled for its 
 benefit.-" 
 
 § 668. When Liability Accrues. — The lialiility of a carrier as such com- 
 mences at the time of ileli\ery and acceptance of property for shipment.-' 
 
 §§ 669-687. Duties and Obligations of Carrier and Shipper— § 669. 
 Obligation as Fixed by Law. — The obligation of a common carrier is fixed 
 by law, and is as nuicli a ])art of the contract of shii)ment as though written 
 therein.-- A bill of lading which recites the reccijit of the goods in good order 
 and binds the carrier to deli\er them in good order and condition as received, 
 imposes the liability of a common carrier on the carrier.--' 
 
 § 670. Special Contract as Superseding Common-Law Liability. — 
 
 See post, "Limitations of Lialjility." chapter 14. W here a sijecial contract is proven 
 between a shipper and a carrier, the former can not rely on the common-law 
 liability of the carrier. -■♦ 
 
 § 671. Effect of Acceptance of Rate Offered. — Where a shipper asked 
 for "the lowest rates on potatoes in car-load lots." and accepted the rates there- 
 upon offered by the carrier, all other terms and conditions are left open for 
 future arrangement.-'" 
 
 §§ 672-675. Obligation of Carrier to Receive, Transport and De- 
 liver — § 672. In General. — Implied Promise to Carry Safely and De- 
 liver. — Where the carrier recei\ed merchandise, and undertook its delivery, 
 there is an implied promise safely to carry and deliver the same without delay 
 
 19. Contract with purchaser of goods 
 — Effect of bill of lading given to seller. 
 — A carrier contracted with the purchaser 
 to transport certain iron, as evidenced l)y 
 a letter from the purcliaser to the carrier, 
 accompanied by an order to the seller to 
 deliver the iron. The carrier loaded the 
 iron on a canal iioat, and delivered to tiie 
 seller a bill of lading- for the purchaser, 
 which modified the carrier's Hal)ility un- 
 der the original contract. On the same 
 day, by the sinking of the boat, the iron 
 was lost. Held, that the carrier could not 
 defend under the bill of lading against a 
 recovery of the value of the iron by the 
 purchaser, in the absence of evidence of 
 a course of business between the parties, 
 or of a custom sanctioning such an inter- 
 pretation of the original contract. Park 
 V. Preston. lOS X. Y. 4;i4. t.l X. E. 705. 
 
 20. Persons entitled to benefit. — Dixon 
 r. Central, etc.. R. Co.. 1 H) Ga. 171]. .'ij S. 
 E. 3G9. 
 
 21. When liability accrues. — Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. :. roII..ck, ir, Wyo. 321. 93 
 Pac. 847. 
 
 1 Car— 28 
 
 22. Obligation as fixed by law, — Evans- 
 ville. etc.. R. Co. :■. Kcvekordes. .S5 Ind. 
 App. 70(1, (J9 X. K. 1022, 1?, X. E. 1135. 
 
 23. Contracts for transportation of 
 goods — Construction and operation. — The 
 defendants, whose general liusiness was 
 that of common carriers, gave to the 
 plaintiffs a bill of lading, setting forth that 
 thcv had shipped, in good order and con- 
 dition, certain iron, to be delivered to the 
 ])laintiffs or tlieir assigns in like order and 
 condition, the dangers of the seas only 
 excepted. Held, that if not otherwise lia- 
 ble as common carriers, they contracted 
 such liability by the bill of lading, which 
 bound them to deliver the iron in good 
 order and condition as they had received 
 it, the dangers of the sea only excepted. 
 Stephens, etc.. Transp. Co. ?■. Tuckerman, 
 etc., C<i.. -.v.) X. T. L. .-.4:i. 
 
 24. Special contracts as superseding 
 common law liability. — Micliigan Cent. R. 
 Co. :: Hale. C Midi. 243. 
 
 25. Effect of acceptance of rate offered. 
 — Jennings .- . Ciraiui Tnipk R. Co., .") X. 
 V.' S. 140. .■)2 Hun 227. 23 X. Y. St. Rep. 15.
 
 §§ 672-678 ■ CARRIERS. 434' 
 
 to the consignee.-'^ 
 
 § 673. Continuing Offer to Carry. — A contract by a carrier to transport 
 goods between certain points at a certain rate of freight for a certain period 
 of time is a contini-.ing otter to carry snch goods as plaintiff shall fnrnish, at 
 the specified price dnring the period named, and ])laintift' may recover damages 
 for failure of the carrier to transport goods afterwards offered.-" 
 
 § 674. Goods to Be Carried beyond Terminus of Carrier's Line. — 
 Where a package was delivered to an express company, to be carried to the 
 town of B., and the company was not a common carrier to B., the company 
 was liable only as an involuntary or gratuitous bailee.-^ 
 
 § 675. Transportation "at Owner's Risk." — The term, "at the owner's 
 risk."' in a bill of lading, or transportation contract which is declared to be a 
 special contract, taken in connection with other stipulations therein, limits the 
 carrier to such loss or damages only as might result from ordinary neglect, 
 which is defined to mean that want of care and diligence which prudent men 
 usuallv bestow on their own concerns.-'' 
 
 § 676. Obligation of Shipper to Furnish Freight. — W here a carrier con- 
 tracted to transport certain merchandise for defendant, the contract providing 
 in detail for the amount of the carrier's compensation, the amount of merchan- 
 dise to be transported, and the deductions to be made from the compensation 
 for merchandise lost in transit, the agreement of the carrier to transport the 
 merchandise and of defendant to pay therefor imported an implied covenant 
 by defendant to allow the carrier to transport merchandise and to furnish him 
 with the agreed quantity for that purpose.-"''^ 
 
 § 677. Point "Where Goods to Be Received. — Though a railroad com- 
 pany is not bound to receive freight except at stations, it may, as a result of 
 custom or an express contract, become obligated to receive freight at a point 
 where there is no station, platform, cars, or agent. "^ 
 
 "Point" Meaning Station. — Under a contract providing that^ a carrier 
 would return the outfit of a railroad contractor to point of shipment from any 
 point on the carrier's line, the word "point" would be construed to mean a 
 station or point where the carrier was doing its regular lousiness as a common 
 carrier."- 
 
 § 678. Destination. — The contract is a single, indivisible contract of trans- 
 portation to tlie point of destination and not effected by the place of transfer 
 to the succeeding carrier. Where a railroad company obligated itself to carry 
 to a named point beyond the terminus of its own line, such point is the desti- 
 nation of the shipment^" and an agreement, on the part of a carrier, to trans- 
 
 26. Implied promise to carry safely and 32. "Point" meaning station. — Santa Fe, 
 deliver. — Indiana, etc.. R. Co. r. I{nii3ire etc., R. Co. r. Grant Bros. Constr. Co., 
 Rubber Mtir. Co., lis 111. App. n:>2. 13 Ariz. 180, 108 Pac. 467. 
 
 27. Continuing offer to carry. — Harvey 33. Plaintiff delivered a shipment of 
 V. Connecticut, etc., R. Co., 124 Mass. 421, oranges to the defendant to be trans- 
 26 Am. Rep. 673. ported to C, a place beyond the terminus 
 
 28. Goods to be carried beyond terminus of defendant's road. The bill of lading 
 of carrier's line. — Pitlock z\ Wells Fargo provided that the goods were to be trans- 
 & Co., 10!) Mass. 4."52. ported over defendant's road to the com- 
 
 29. Transportation "at owner's risk." — pany's freight station, "as designated be- 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z\ Rathl)onc, 1 W. low," and the .only place mentioned in 
 Va. 87, 88 Am. Dec. 664. the bill was C, though this was in con- 
 
 30. Obligation of shipper to furnish ntction with a guaranty of the freight 
 freight. — White v. Toncray, 46 \'a. (5 rate. The contract also limited the lia- 
 Gratt.) 179. bility of the defendant to its own road. 
 
 31. Point where goods to be received. Held, that the defendant contracted to 
 — Georgia, etc., R. Co. f. Marchman. 121 transport the goods to C, and was liable 
 Ga. 23.5, 48 S. E. 061. for delivering them to the wrong parties
 
 435 
 
 SPECIAL CONTILVCTS. 
 
 §§ 678-680 
 
 port a shipment of goods to their destination, if on its road, or otherwise to a 
 place on its road where the same is to be delivered to "any connecting carrier," 
 left no discretion as to the place of delixery. where sucii jjlace was specified in 
 the shipi)ing receipt, and no other instructions were given: and it was its duty 
 to ohc}- the instrucli(jns, and tfaiisniit such instructions to the connecting car- 
 rier.''* 
 
 § 679. Property Concerning Which Parties Negotiating. — In deter- 
 mining what property is embraced in a shipping contract the court will not con- 
 fine the language to a specific quanlil\ , but will construe it to mean the property 
 concerning which the parties were negotiating.''"' 
 
 § 68 0. Quantity to Be Shipped or Carried. — If the contract of carriage 
 be to lake a specified ([uanlily or less, but ncji more in any event, the taking of 
 more is breach of contract, and forfeits the right to take the specified number 
 or less ; but if, in every event, the carrier is to take the specified quantity or 
 less, he may take more without a forfeiture of the right to take the specified 
 quantity.''" 
 
 Right to Elect Quantity to Be Transported. — Where a carrier covenanted 
 with a manufacturer of salt to transport from 1,200 to 5,000 barrels of salt, 
 annually, for three years, from the manufacturer's salt works to certain speci- 
 fied places, for a stipulated reward per barrel, transported, the manufacturer, 
 and not the carrier, had the right to elect what quantity of salt, not less than 
 1,200. nor more than 5,000, barrels, should be transported by the carrier an- 
 nuallv.''''' If the carrier willfully failed to transport the salt received by him in 
 the first or second year, he was bound to transport it in the second or third 
 year, and could not withhold it and at the same time call on defendant to sup- 
 plv what he already had in his own hands. The carrier was entitled to transport 
 within the year all the salt that defendant delivered in that year, and if he did 
 so his right in regard to the quantity to be transported the next year was not 
 therebv affected.^'* 
 
 at such station. German Fruit Co. z'. 
 California, etc., R. Co., 133 Cal. 42(), 6.5 
 Pac. 948. 
 
 A bill of lading accompanying cars of 
 grain shipped from Chicago fixed the des- 
 tination of the shipment as Bridgeport, 
 but directed that the cars be held at West 
 Albany for further orders. When the cars 
 reached West All)any the shipper directed 
 them to be sent to Waterl)urj\ instead 
 of Bridgeport. No new hill of hiding was 
 issued. Init the original was merely in- 
 dorsed, "Consignment changed." etc.; giv- 
 ing the new destination. Held, that the 
 whole transit of the grain from Chicago 
 to Waterbury was under a single and in- 
 divisible contract of transportation, and 
 West Albany was but the place of trans- 
 fer, and not the place of shipment. Soper 
 r. Tyler. ,JS Atl. 699, 77 Conn. 104. 
 
 34. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. ?•. Potts & 
 Co.. 71 N. H. 6S,-). 33 Ind. .\pp. .564. 
 
 35. "Your timber." — Where a letter 
 written by a carrier in referring to tim- 
 ber to he hauled under a contract between 
 it and a logging company referred to it 
 as "your timber," and at the time the con- 
 tract was negotiated the logging com- 
 pany not only made known its then hold- 
 ings and its outstanding contracts of -pur- 
 chase, but also its purpose to acquire 
 
 other timber properties and continue the 
 logging business at a certain point as 
 long as profitable or until the tributary 
 timber was exhausted, held, that in de- 
 termining what timber was embraced in 
 the contract the term "your timber" meant 
 the timber concerning which the parties 
 w^ere negotiating, and not the specific 
 quantity then owned by the logging com- 
 pany. Sultan R.. etc.. Co. :•. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., i>S Wash. 604, 109 Pac. 320, 
 hearing in banc denied 109 Pac. 1020. 
 
 36. Quantity to be shipped or carried. 
 — CooiHT ;■. Berry, 21 Ga. .")26. r>s Am. 
 Dec. 4C.S. 
 
 37. Right to elect quantity to be trans- 
 ported. — White z: Toncray, 36 \a. (9 
 Lci-h) 347. 
 
 38. White r. Toncrav, 46 Va. ( ."> Gratt.) 
 179. 
 
 Plaintiff was bound to transport within 
 the year all the salt he received, and 
 if he failed to do so he was still eiui- 
 tled to transport at least 1.200 barrels of 
 salt the next year, if the contract had 
 not then expired, but having it already 
 in his hands he had no right to call on 
 defendant for the delivery to him of 1.200 
 barrels more, and the transportation of 
 salt which plaintiff already had in his 
 hands in the next vear would be a com-
 
 §§ 680-685 CARRIERS. 436 
 
 Amount to Be Delivered Per Month. — Where a contract of carriage is 
 for all the shipper's freight to a named point during the summer and fall, to be 
 delivered in quantities of at least 25 per cent of the whole freight in each and 
 everv month from the tirst of July, the shippers are bound to deliver to the 
 carrier all their freight intended for such point during that "summer and fall"' 
 in such proportions as to equal 25 per cent of the whole during each month 
 from July and October, both inclusive. •'"■^ 
 
 § 681. Option as to Mode of Shipment. — Where a carrier has an op- 
 tion as to the mode of shipmeiu. it must exercise it for the best interests of the 
 consignee, and it is a breach of the contract to exercise it to his disadvantage, 
 unless it is done in good faith and under circumstances which seem to require 
 ic.^"' 
 
 § 682. Route. — Where, at the time of making a written contract for the 
 shipping of stock from Utah to Chicago, another written contract was made for 
 the trans]:)ortation of the shipper's servant to care for the stock, under which 
 a passenger ticket issued, which read to Omaha, though the contract for the 
 transportation of the stock did ngt namse any particular route Ijy which it was 
 to be shipped, the contract was to ship through Omaha.-* ^ 
 
 § 683. Stop-Over Privilege. — Where a complaint avers that a consignee 
 •was the owner of property at the time of shipment, a stop-over privilege con- 
 tained in the bill of lading will be presumed to have been for his benefit. •*- 
 
 § 684. Loading- and Unloading. — A contract of a railroad by which it 
 contracted at its own expense to load oil and transport it over its road to a 
 specified point, "and thence by barges to the warehouse" of the company, and 
 to provide suitable covered cars, etc., "and cause the same to be unloaded and 
 returned without delay," the oil company to pay "on the delivery of the oil;" 
 requires the company to unload the oil from the l)arges at the warehouse.-*-^ 
 
 Agreement to Furnish Facilities and Laborers. — A contract for the 
 transportation of cattle at reduced rates providing that the owner shall load 
 and unload at his own risk, the carrier furnishing laborers to assist under di- 
 rection of the owner, who was to examine for himself all the means used does 
 not require the carrier to furnish the facilities for unloading at a station en 
 route where they were delayed on account of a storm. ^"* 
 
 § 68 5. Time of Delivery to Carrier. — Where a contract of shipment does 
 
 pliance with his contract for that year, intended to be transported to N. T. dur- 
 and, defendant permitting him to do it, ing that "summer and fall," in such pro- 
 would be equivalent to an annual deliv- portions as to equal 25 per cent of the 
 ery by him of the same quantity for that whole amount during each month from 
 year. White t'. Toncray, 46 Va. (5 Gratt.) July to Octo1)er, both inclusive. Per- 
 179. kins v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., 35 Cal. 11. 
 39. The O. corporation agreed with P. 40. Option as to mode of shipment.— 
 to consign to him, at S., all their freight Stewart v. Comer, 100 Ga. 754, (13 Am. St. 
 intended to be transported to N. T., "dur- Rep. 353, 28 S. E. 461; Blitz v. Union 
 ing this summer and fall, amounting, it Steamboat Co., 51 Mich. 558, 17 N. W. 55. 
 is now supposed, to about 1,000 tons, and 41. Route. — Sharp v. Clark, 13 Utah 
 will deliver it to him from time to time, .-,10 45 p^c. 566. 
 
 in such quantities that at least 25 per ^^ Stop-over privilege — Tebbs v. 
 
 cent of the whole freight shall be de- Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 20 Ind. App. 192, 
 
 livered to hnn durmg each and every .^^ ^- p ^^^,^ 
 
 month from the first day of July next." ' ^^ ' '_ ' '. , , ,., ^^ 
 
 P. agreed to receive at S., and transport ^43 Loading and unloaditig^-New 
 
 to N. T., at a price specified, all the York, etc R- Co. z-. Standard Oil Co., 
 
 freight they should consign to him at 20 Hun 39, affirmed in 87 N. Y. 486. 
 
 S. before October 31st. Held, that they 44. Penn v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 49 
 
 were bound to consign to him at S. all N. Y. 204, 10 Am. Rep. 355, reversing 
 
 their freight, regardless of its quantity, 3 Lans. 443.
 
 437 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 685-694 
 
 not spccif\- the time the j^uods are to be delivered to the carrier for shipment, 
 the shipi)er has a reasonable time."*'' 
 
 § 686. Time to Be Consumed in Transportation. — Where agents for a 
 railroad stated to the owner of perishable goijds that the company had a sched- 
 ule for one of its trains between Savannah and New York of 43 hours, and 
 expected to maintain it. and such owner, acting on the beUef induced by such 
 statement, made shipments of such goods from Savannah to Xew York, a 
 special contract to trans])ort the shipments in 43 hours was not shown. ^" 
 
 § 687. Agreements for Liquidated Damages. — An agreement of a car- 
 rier to transport goo(ls from W-w \ nrk lo Missouri in a certain number of 
 days, or to deduct for each day's delay a certain amount from the freight 
 money, is not alternative agreements, but the amount to be deducted is in the 
 nature of liquidated damages.'*'^ 
 
 § 688. Liability as Bailee. — See ante, "Goods to He Carried beyond 
 
 'rerminns of Carrier's T.ine." § 674. 
 
 § 68 9. Liability as Warehouseman. — See post, "Carrier as Warehouse- 
 man," chapter 13. 
 
 § 690. Transfer or Assignment. — .V contract between a shipper and a 
 carrier for the transjjortation of certain freight at a specified rate is a personal 
 contract, and can not be transferred so as to make it include freight shipped 
 by any person other than the one with whom the contract was made.'*'' 
 
 §§ 691-710. Performance or Breach— §§ 691-692. What Consti- 
 tutes a Breach — § 691. When Special Effort to Perform Required. — 
 
 A contract to carry goods made b_\- a canal boatman shortly l)efore the period 
 when the canal might be expected to freeze re(|uires him to make a special ef- 
 fort to perform the contract. ^•' 
 
 § 692. Shipment of Bonded Goods on Unbonded Vessel. — Carriers 
 
 who receive bonded goods, knowing the\- are to be slii]i])e(l in bond, and, taking 
 them out of bond, slii]) them u])on an unbonded vessel, are liable as for con- 
 version. ■'•*' 
 
 § 693. Demand of Performance. — There is a breach of defendant rail- 
 road company's contract to transport plaintiff's ice from where it was, on an- 
 other road, where it notified him that it could not furnish cars and take it from 
 such place, so that it is unnecessary to make further demands, which both par- 
 ties know can not be complied with.-''^ 
 
 § 694. Tender of Property. — When a railway comiiany announces through 
 its agent that it will not make a shipment at a time previously contracted for, 
 a tender of the articles to be shipped at the time j^reviously agreed on is thereby 
 waived and rendered unnecessary to fix the liability of the company for result- 
 ing damages.''- and the refusal of i)rior shi])nient and information that an or- 
 
 45. Time of delivery to carrier. — South- 49. When special effort to perform re- 
 crn R. Co. t'. Wilco.x, 99 V'a. 394, .39 S. quired. ^ Spanii 7: Erie Boatman's 
 E. 144. Transp. Co., 11 Misc. Rep. (>S0, 33 N. Y. 
 
 46. Time to be consumed in transpor- S. .')(>(■.. (57 N. Y. St. Rep. 354. 
 
 tation. — .Atlantic, etc.. K. Co. t'. Wells, 50. Shipment of bonded goods on un- 
 
 i;;o Ga. 55. fiO S. E. 170. bonded vessel. — .Mcllicr :. St. Louis, etc., 
 
 47. Agreements for liquidated damages. Traii.si). Ci\. it Mo. .\pp. 2'^l. 
 
 — Harnionv t'. Bingham, 12 X. ^'. 99. t">2 51. Demand of performance. — Bigelow 
 
 .A.m. Dec. 142, arfirniin- S X. Y. Super. r. Chica^d. etc.. I'l. Co., 104 Wis. 109, SO 
 
 Ct. (1 Duer) 209. X. \Y. 9.-,. 
 
 48. Transfer or assignment. — Wabash 52. Tender of property. — Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Wright. 75 111. App. 243. R. Co. r. Xicholson. (U Tex. 491.
 
 §§ 694-699 CARRIERS. 438 
 
 der to refuse is still operative renders further tender unnecessary,"'^ and so 
 also where a carrier receives part of a shipment and declines taking any more 
 it is not necessary to tender the residue.^-* 
 
 §§ 695-709. Excuses for Breach or Nonperformance — § 695. Act of 
 
 God, — If a common carrier makes a contract for tlie future transportation of 
 goods, and at the time appointed fails to have his boat at the place, he is no 
 more exonerated by the act of God from liability for failure to comply with 
 an express stipulation of his contract than any other person would be for a 
 failure from the same cause to com])ly with any other kind of contract, the 
 rule in relation to this excuse being that, where the law imposes the duty, the 
 law will acknowledge the act of God as an excuse for its nonperformance; but 
 where one by his own contract expressly and absolutely undertakes to do any 
 act. he can not be discharged from the performance by the act of God, because 
 it was his own folly not to have made the proper exception. ^^ 
 
 § 696. "Perils of River," Navigation and Fire. — Nonperformance of a 
 contract to transport goods, "the usual dangers of river navigation and fire 
 excepted." will not be excused by unprecedented low water in a river, prevent- 
 ing navigation.''" 
 
 § 697. Mobs and Strikes.— Mob Preventing Connecting Carrier from 
 Doing Business. — See ante. "Contract to Carry beyond Terminus," § 620. 
 
 § 698. Military Occupation. — \\'here a railroad company agreed to ship 
 goods after a certain time, and before that time its line was seized by the Con- 
 federate government and held until after such time expired, it was a valid ex- 
 cuse for not shipping the goods. ^"^ Even where a railroad company is not in 
 the free exercise of its franchises, and receives property for transportation, and 
 gives the ordinary shipping receipt, without limiting its liability or undertaking, 
 it is still liable as a common carrier, notwithstanding military or other control. ^^ 
 
 § 699. Nonpayment of Freight. — Although goods have been taken into 
 the possession of a common carrier, if the freight is not paid as stipulated, he 
 may refuse to carr}' them, the contract not being yet consummated.*^'^ Where 
 a carrier, in an action against it for failure to carry goods delivered to it, 
 
 53. A railroad company passed an or- distant port for sale, the hay to be de- 
 der that after that date no shipment of livered at the ship's side, and, after re- 
 salt or other merchandise from B.. in ceiving twenty-four tons on board, de- 
 competition with S., would be received clined taking any more, because the ship 
 for local stations on its line, or for pass- was full, it was held that it was not nec- 
 ing over another road operated under essary for the plaintiff, after this refusal, 
 lease, or for points beyond, unless to tender the residue of the hay at the 
 charges were prepaid and shipments de- ship's side, in order to entitle himself to 
 livered at the company's warehouse by damages. Nourse v. Snow (Me.), 6 
 drays as local business, and that local Greenl. 208. 
 
 rates from that point would be assessed. 55. Act of God.— Collier v. vSwniney, 
 
 A firm, who shipped salt from B. by a Ifi Mo. 484; Myres v. Diamond Joe Line, 
 
 road connecting with the first-mentioned 58 Mo. App. 199. 
 
 road, tendered to it one or more car 57. "Perils of river," navigation and 
 
 loads, and it was refused; and, when 47 fire. — Cowley v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 92, 
 
 cars loaded with salt arrived, the agent Gil. 86. 
 
 of the road bringing them inquired of gg Military occupation.— Sumner v. 
 
 the agent of the other road whether the charlotte, etc.. R. Co., 78 N. C. 289. 
 
 order above stated was still operative, • r^ ^ n r^ Tv/r„r>i^ii-.« 
 
 and was informed that it was. Held, that .59 I Imois Cent. R. Co. z- McClellan 
 
 there was no necessity for further tender -^ I"- 58, 54 Am. Rep. 83 Illinois Cent^ 
 
 before bringing suit for the refusal. Cen- R- Co i;. Ashmead 58 111. 487; Illinois 
 
 tral, R. etc., Co. v. Logan, 77 Ga. 804, Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, etc., Co., 64 111. 
 
 2 S. E. 465. 
 
 128. 
 
 54. Where the defendant contracted to 60. Nonpayment of freight.— Stewart 
 
 carry fifty tons of the plaintiff's hay to a v. Bremer, 03 I'a. 208.
 
 439 si'ixiAL CONTRACTS. §§ 699-705 
 
 claims that its refusal was because the freight had not been paid, plaintiff may 
 show the value of the goods, for the purpose of showing that defendant had 
 ample security, and that there was no reason for stopping them in transit/'^ 
 
 § 700. Merchandise Not Branded as Required by Statute. — Under 
 
 a contr.-ul lOr iran>p()rtalion of ha\-. a carrier i> not liable for refusing to carry 
 hay upon which, as required by Rev. .^t. 1S41. c. (A, the name of the "i)er- 
 son ])ressing it" is not brruidcd.''- 
 
 § 701. Nondelivery by Shipper. — See post. '•Contract to Carry Specific 
 Quantity or Xunibcr."' v^ /l)*'. 
 
 § 702. Change of Legal Rate. — A railroad company is not relieved of 
 its contract obligation to give a shipper a certain rate, though the law is changed 
 after the contract is made so as to make it unlawful for the company to charge 
 other shippers a higher rate for shorter distances in the same direction, as it 
 is not the giving of the lower rate, but the charging of the higher rate, which 
 is declared unlawful.'"'" 
 
 §§ 703-709. Particular Stipulations or Contracts— § 703. Time 
 Contracts. — If a carrier agrees to forward goods to their destination, and de- 
 liver them within a given time, he is held to a strict performance; and no ob- 
 struction or even impossibility will be a defense against a nonperformance.*^* 
 
 § 704. Contracts to Carry by Particular Train or Vessel. — If the car- 
 rier expressly promised to receive and remove property by its next train, it 
 would be its dut\' to do so.''"' 
 
 Misrepresentation as to Size and Weight of Machine. — Representations 
 made by a shipper as to the size and weight or a machine to be transported, al- 
 though not correct, are no defense to a suit against the carrier for its failure 
 to carry such machine on a particular vessel, in accordance with the terms of 
 a bill of lading which was issued afterwards, and after the carrier's agents 
 had seen the machine, and had opportunity to obtain full information as to its 
 dimensions and weight.*'*"' 
 
 Goods Afterwards Forwarded by Another Vessel. — It is no defense to 
 a suit for damages for the breach of a contract to transport goods by a particu- 
 lar vessel that the carrier afterwards forwarded the goods by another vessel 
 without additional cost or risk to the shipper.*"^' 
 
 § 705. Contract to Carry Perishables.— Failure of Refrigerator Com- 
 pany to Furnish Cars. — A common carrier is not exempt from liability for 
 
 61. Leach 7\ Xcw York, etc., R. Co., avoidable accident or even impossibility 
 89 Hun 377, 3") X. V. S. 30."), (I'.i X. Y. preventing compliance will be no defense 
 St. Rep. 749. unless it is so stipulated in the contract. 
 
 62. Merchandise not branded as re- Central, etc., R. Co. t: Sigma Lumber 
 quired by statutes.— Pickard v. Bayley, 46 Co., 170 Ala. 627, 54 So. 205, Ann. Cas. 
 ^^[^, 200. 1912 D, 965; Shelby v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 63. Change of legal rate. — Xewport Co., 77 Mo. App. 205. 
 
 News, etc., Co. ■?•. McDonald Brick Co.'s 65. Contracts to carry by particular 
 
 Assignee, 109 Ky. 40S, 22 Ky. L. Rep. train or vessel. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 934, 59 S. W. 332. Sigma Lumber Co.. 170 Ala. 627, 54 So. 
 
 64. Time contracts. — L'pon tender of 205, Ann Cas. 1912 D. 9i".,y 
 
 goods to a carrier for shipment, it is gg Misrepresentation as to size and 
 
 bound to make all reasonable efforts to weight of machine.— The Protection, 42 
 
 furnish facilities for their transportation: ^^ ^^ .^ ^^r, ^^y^ p^^ g^g 
 
 l,ut, where it enlarges its liability by an ' " '^ • ^^^^^^^^^^ forwarded by 
 
 unconditional express promise to move °'- ^"""'', ^,, ^ Tr ^, ..^tJ.-^n a-^ C C 
 
 the goods at a certain time, such con- another vessel -lho_ 1 rot.etion. 4, L. L. 
 
 tract must be strictly performed, and un- -^- "^^ ■'» •^'■'~ ^ *^*^- '' '•
 
 §§ 705-711 CARRIERS. 440 
 
 failure to ship melons by the fact that the refrigerator company whose cars it 
 was intending to use failed to furnish them.^'^ 
 
 § 7C6. Stipulation as to Destination at Which Carrier Has No 
 Agency. — Where a carrier contracts generally to carry goods, but provides 
 that, if it has not an agency at the point of destination, it shall carry to its 
 nearest agency, and there notify the consignee, or deliver the property to some 
 other carrier, it is not sufficient to bring the case within the contract to prove 
 that it had no office at the point of destination.*''' A contract between a railway 
 and a construction company for the hauling of a camp and grading outfit re- 
 quired by the company in grading a railway extension requires the hauling of 
 such outfit to and from points as near as possible to the work without regard 
 to regular stations.'" 
 
 § 707. Contract to Carry beyond Terminus. — Mobs Preventing Con- 
 necting Line from Doing Business. — Xonperformance of a carrier's con- 
 tract to transport live stock to an extra terminal point is not excused by the 
 fact that the connecting line over which the shipment was to be carried was 
 prevented by a mob from doing business." ^ 
 
 Default of Connecting Line.— A common carrier which has contracted to 
 transport merchandise to a certain point is not relieved from liability for in- 
 juries thereto by the fact that it has intrusted the performance of part of the 
 contract to a connecting carrier." - 
 
 § 708. Contract for Future Transportation. — Nonperformance of a con- 
 tract by a carrier for the future transportation of goods is not excused by the 
 fact that the shipper knew that the fulfillment of the contract would be extremely 
 difficult.''^ 
 
 Act of God as Defense. — See ante, "Act of God," § 695. 
 
 § 709. Contract to Carry Specific Quantity or Number. — Where the 
 contract was for the transportation of a specific number of articles, it is no de- 
 fense, in a suit for the breach of the contract, which the defendant did not offer 
 to fulfill, that the plaintiff did not have so large a number ready for transporta- 
 tion."^ 
 
 § 710. Waiver of Breach. — Acceptance after Breach. ^Acceptance of 
 goods which a carrier has contracted to deliver at a certain time and which it 
 has failed to deliver until a later date is no waiver of the consignee's right of 
 action for the dela\-.'" 
 
 § 711. Modification or Rescission. — Where a definite shipping contract 
 has been made between a consignee and the carrier, it can not be varied by any 
 subsequent agreement between the carrier and consignor, imless by authority 
 from the consignee."*' A consignee may sue the carrier for breacli of rhity im- 
 
 68. Failure of refrigerator company to 72. Default of connecting line. — Gulf, 
 furnish cars. — Matliis v. Southern R. Co., etc., R. Co. v. Insurance Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 ^,-, S. C. 271, 43 S. E. 684. 61 L. R. A. App.), 28 vS. W. 237. 
 
 824. 73. Contract for future transportation. — 
 
 69. Stipulation as to destination at Myers v. Diamond Joe Line, .58 Mo. App. 
 which carrier has no agency. — Juds^ment pji) 
 
 (Sup. 1908) 69 All. 206. reversed Saund- ^ ^^ Contract to carry specific quantity 
 ers V. Adams Exp. Co., <8 \. J. L. 441, ^4 ^^ number.— Taylor v. The Robert Camp- 
 
 70. Santa Fe, etc., R. Co. v. ( irant Bros. ^ r . i m r n 
 Constr Co 33 S Ct 474 2^8 U S 177 ^^- Acceptance after breach.— Norfolk, 
 reversing judgment 108 Pac' 467, 'iS 'Ariz! etc., R. Co. t' Sliippers' Compress Co., 85 
 -^^(^ Va. 272, 2 S. J',. l.!9. 
 
 71. Mobs preventing connecting line 76. Modification or rescission. — Perkins 
 from doing business.— White v. Missouri Co. v. American Exp. Co.. 199 Mass. 561, 
 Pac. R. Co.. 19 Mo. App. 400. 8.5 X. E. 89.5.
 
 441 
 
 Sl'i:CI.\L CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 711-717 
 
 posed by law, and, if such duty has been varied by contract between the carrier 
 and consignor, the consignee may still sue ; his rights being limited by the terms 
 of the special contract."" 
 
 §§ 712-755. Contracts for Cars or Other Means of Transportation — 
 §§ 712-730. Requisites and Validity §§ 712-714. Capacity to Con- 
 tract — § 712. In General. — \o law proliibits a railway conijjany from con- 
 tracting- {(I furnisli cars at an agreed time and place on the line of the road to 
 be used for shipment."'^ 
 
 § 713. Contract to Furnish Cars of Another Road. — A railway's corn- 
 tract 1(1 furnisli a ^Iiipiicr car< l)(.'lMnL;in,i^ to aiintlicr line i^ nut ultra vires."*^ 
 
 § 714. Contract to Furnish Cars on Line of Connecting Road. — It is 
 competent for a railroad company to bind itself by contract to furnish cars at a 
 
 place not on its own bnc but on that of a connecting carrier. ''" 
 
 §§ 715-723. Authority of Agent— § 715. Necessity.— Where a con- 
 tract to furnish cars to a shipper was made with an agent having no authority to 
 make it. and he did not report it to the carrier, and the carrier did not learn of 
 it, it was not binding on the carrier."^ 
 
 §§ 716-720. Authority of Station Agent— § 716. In General.— A rail- 
 way station master is ])y virtue of his position ordinarily the agent of the car- 
 rier for the making of contracts to furnish cars at his station upon the road,^- 
 on a named day,^-"* notwithstanding such a power may not have been expressly 
 conferred on him.^-* 
 
 § 717. Proof of Authority. — Whether or not an agent of a railroad com- 
 panv had authoritv to make a contract to furnish cars for the shipment of cat- 
 tle is a matter of proof. '^•'' The local agent of a railroad company has authoritv 
 presumptively, to make contract for cars,^*^ and unless the shipper has notice of 
 limitations of the agent's authority to make such contracts he may rely upon such 
 presumptive authority;^" and in order for the railway to relieve itself from lia- 
 
 77. Perkins Co. v. American Exp. Co., 
 199 Mass. .'561. 85 N. E. 895. 
 
 78. Capacity to contract. — Cross 7'. ^^c- 
 Faden, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 4t)l. 20 S. W. 846; 
 Easton r. Dudley, 7s Tex. 23r,, 14 S. W. 
 583. 
 
 79. Contract to furnish cars of another 
 road. — Nichols v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 24 
 Utah s:!. 91 Am. St. Rep. 778, 66 Pac. 
 768. 
 
 80. On line of connecting carrier. — Mis- 
 souri, etc.. R. Co. z: Kyser, 87 S. \V. 389, 
 38 Tex. Civ. App. 355. 
 
 81. Necessity. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dinwiddie, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 344, 51 S. 
 W. 3,-) 3. 
 
 82. Authority of station agent. — Eas- 
 ton V. Dudley. 78 Tex. 236. 14 S. W. 583; 
 McCarty r. Gulf, etc., R. Co.. 79 Tex. 33, 
 15 S. W. 164; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hume 
 Bros.. 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 915, 
 affirmed, on this point, by the supreme 
 court in 87 Tex. 211; Gulf. etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Hodge. 10 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 30 S. W. 
 829. 
 
 83. McCartv r. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 
 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 164. 
 
 84. Express authority unnecessary. — A 
 
 contract made liy a station agent that 
 the company will furnish cars at a named 
 place and day for transportation of 
 freight, binds the company, notwithstand- 
 ing such a power may not have been ex- 
 pressly conferred on him. McCartv v. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33. 15 S.' W. 
 164: Easton z: Dudlev. 78 Tex. 236. 14 
 S. W. .-.s;;. 
 
 85. Proof of authority. — Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Hamm, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 
 491. 
 
 86. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thomp- 
 son (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 8. follow- 
 ing Easton z\ Dudlev. 78 Tex. 236, 14 S. 
 W. 583. 
 
 87. Where it is understood that the 
 shipper knew of no limitation upon the 
 authority of the station agent, it was 
 proper for the court to instruct the jury 
 that the agent had the power to contract 
 for the railway tor supplv of cars. etc.. 
 for a shipper. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z\ Hume 
 Bros.. 6 Tex. Civ. .App. 653. 24 S. W. 915. 
 reversed in 87 Tex. 211.
 
 j§ 717-718 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 442 
 
 bility, it devolves upon it to show want of authority in the agent, and that the 
 shipper knew it.*^^ 
 
 Sufficiency. — Where a shipper called up the station agent by telephone, but 
 was told that the station agent was not there ; and the shipper gave his order for 
 cars to the one who answered, who stated that it would be all right; but it ap- 
 peared that the latter had no authority, and that the shipper had no reason to 
 think that he had. there was no contract to furnish cars.^"-^ 
 
 § 718. Time When Cars to Be Furnished.— A local agent having the 
 power to contract for a shipment has also power to agree with the shipper upon 
 a time at which the cars necessary for that shipment shall be furnished.-^" The 
 authoritv to contract for the shipment implies the power to make the agreement 
 to furnish cars at a given time. It is necessary to enable the agent properly to 
 perform his duties.^^ 
 
 Contract to Furnish Cars in Unreasonably Short Time— Notice to Ship- 
 per of Limitation of Authority.— In the aljsence of testimony showing a hm- 
 itation upon his authority, a local station agent of a railway company has author- 
 ity to bind the railway company by contract to furnish cars at a particular 
 tirae.»2 The printing of the rule, upon the subject of the agent's authority to 
 contract for cars at a specified time, in the contracts can not be notice to a ship- 
 per of his want of authority, for the reason that such contracts in the natural 
 course of things would not be known to the shipper until after the contract for 
 cars had been made. There is no error in excluding the evidence offered to 
 show that the agent had no authority to make the contract.''-- To hold that the 
 denial, in the printed forms of shipping contracts, to the agent of authority to 
 contract for cars at a specified time, deprives him of such authority, is to hold 
 that the powers necessary to carry out his agency have been utterly destroyed 
 by such stipulation.^-* If the local agent of a railway company makes a con- 
 
 88. Burden of proof. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Hume Bros., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 656, 
 24 S. W. 915. reversed in 87 Tex. 211. 
 
 89. Sufficiency.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fromme (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 651. 
 
 90. Time when and place where cars 
 to be furnished. — German i^. Lake Erie, 
 etc., R. Co., 144 111. App. 532; Easton v. 
 Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 S. W. 583; Mc- 
 Carty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 15 
 S. W. 164; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hume 
 Bros., 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110, revers- 
 ing 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 915; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson, 99 Tex. 343, 
 89 S. W. 968, reversing 86 S. W. 47; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Irvine (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 73 S. W. 540; San Antonio, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 
 99 S. W. 418; Austin, etc., R. Co. v. Slator, 
 7 Tex. Civ. App. 344, 26 S. W. 233; 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 810; Cross v. Graves, 
 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 100, 16 S. W. 
 102. 
 
 91. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson, 99 Tex. 
 343, 89 S. W. 968, reversing 86 S. W. 47; 
 San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Timon, 45 
 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 418; McCarty 
 T. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 
 164; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hume Bros., 
 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110, reversing 6 
 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 915. 
 
 In the case of Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Jack- 
 
 son, 99 Tex. 343, 89 S. W. 968, reversing 
 86 S. W. 47, the court says in reference 
 to McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 
 33, 15 S. W. 164, and Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hume Bros., 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110, 
 reversing 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 
 915: "These cases rest upon the well- 
 recognized rule of law that, by conferring 
 upon an agent express power to do cer- 
 tain acts, the authority is implied to do 
 whatever may be necessary to execute 
 the express power." San Antonio, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 
 99 S. W. 418. 
 
 "If the agent can contract to receive 
 the freight, he can contract as to the time 
 when he will receive it and as to every 
 other undertaking necessary to that end." 
 Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 S. W. 
 583; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Timon, 
 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 418. 
 
 92. Notice to shipper of limitation of 
 authority. — Austin, etc^, R. Co. v. Slator, 
 7 Tex. Civ. App. 344, 347, 26 S. W. 233; 
 Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 S. W. 
 58.3 
 
 93. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Hume Bros., 87 
 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110, reversing 6 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 915. 
 
 94. Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 
 S. W. 583; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Timon, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 
 418.
 
 443 
 
 SI'KCIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 ;§ 718-720 
 
 tract for cars, and receives notice as to when the cars were desired, and agrees 
 to furnish them on that date, the railroad company would he Hahle for a failure 
 to do so, even though reasonahle lime was not given to liave them on hand.'*-^ 
 
 § 719. Station or Place Where Cars to Be Furnished. — A station agent 
 has apparent, if nut implied, autliorit}- lo Ijiud the carrier Uj furnish a car at a 
 specified place.'-^*^ 
 
 Station Other than Agent's Own. — The station agent of a railroad com- 
 pany may bind it by a contract to furnish cars at his station for the shipment 
 of freight, but not at other stations,'^" such agent has no implied authority to 
 order cars for another station ; '-^^ in an action on such contract the railroad may 
 show the agent's want of authority,'-''-' and is not liable for damages for breach of 
 such contract unless the agent is shown to have been authorized to so contract 
 or the com])any had notice of and ratified such contract.^ 
 
 Admissibility of Evidence. — H\idence of contracts of witness with the 
 agent of the railway company, by which cars had been furnished at I., was ad- 
 missible to show that such agent's contract with plaintiff to furnish cars at I., 
 was within the scope of his authority.- 
 
 § 720. Verbal Contract. — A station agent of a railroad company can bind 
 it by verbal contract to furnish cars at a given time for the shipment of freight, 
 unless the shipper knows that the agent has no such authority.-* Upon issue as 
 to the authority of a station agent to contract verbally to furnish cars at a given 
 time for the shipment of freight, the fact that the rule denying such authority 
 was printed upon the contract of shipment, is properly excluded for the rea- 
 son that the shipper would not naturally know of such contract until after the 
 
 95. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 vS. W. 8, following 
 Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 S. \V. 
 583. 
 
 96. Station or place where cars to be 
 furnished. — Grimes v. Lake Erie, etc., R. 
 Co., 142 111. App. 532. 
 
 97. Station other than agent's own. — 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 543, 30 S. W. 829. 
 
 Action for damages from breach of 
 a contract made by station agent for 
 150 cars, for use in shipping corn from 
 Belton to Laredo. The contract by 
 plaintiffs with the Laredo house, the 
 purchasers of the corn, required plain- 
 tiffs to load the corn upon the cars at 
 place of shipment, and did not require 
 the delivery by plaintiffs at Laredo. It 
 was therefore not necessary that the sta- 
 tion agent have authority to make freight 
 contracts from Belton to Laredo. . Hav- 
 ing authority to contract for supply of 
 cars for the shipper, the railway company 
 was bound by his contrart ir. furnish the 
 cars as the contract declared on. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
 " 543, 30 S. W. 829. 
 
 98. Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Cox, 47 
 Tex. Civ. App. 84, 103 S. W. 1122; Mis- 
 souri, etc.; R. Co. V. Belcher, 88 Tex. 
 549, 32 S. W. 518; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Jackson, 99 Tex. 343, SO S. W. 968, re- 
 versing 86 S. W. 47: Gulf, etc.; R. Co. v. 
 Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. .\pp. ,';43, 30 S. W. 
 
 829; Gulf, etc., R. Co. i: Dinwiddie, 21 
 Tex. Civ. App. 344, 51 S. \V. 353. 
 
 99. In an action against a railroad for 
 breach of a contract made bj- a station 
 agent in one county to furnish cars in 
 another county, the railroad could show 
 a want of authoritj^ in the station agent 
 to contract for the furnishing of cars in 
 other counties. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ray Bros., 84 S. W. 691, 37 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 622, citing Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Hodge, 
 10 Tex. Civ. App. 543. 30 S. W. S29; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Dinwiddie. 21 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 344, 51 S. W. 353. 
 
 1. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dinwiddie, 21 
 Tex. Civ. App. 344. 51 S. W. 353; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
 543, 30 S. W. 829; Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Belcher, 88 Tex. 549, 32 S. W. 518; S. 
 C, 89 Tex. 428. 35 S. W. 6. 
 
 2. Admissibility of evidence. — Pecos 
 River R. Co. v. Latham, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 78. 88 S. W. 392. 
 
 3. Writing-parol contracts. — Easton z: 
 Dudley, 7S Tex. 236, 14 S. W. 583; Mc- 
 Carty v. Gulf. etc.. R. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 
 37, 15 S. W. 164; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Hume Bros., 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. 
 W. 110, reversing 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 
 24 S. W. 915; International, etc., R. Co. 
 V. True, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 523, 57 S. W. 
 977. affirmed in 94 Tex. 705. no op.; Texas, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Gallagher (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 70 S. W. 97: Gulf, etc.. R. Co. z: Irvine 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 73 S. W. 540.
 
 §§ 720-72h CARRIERS. 444 
 
 contract for cars was made.-* Tlie fact that a shipper knew that he would he 
 required to sign a written contract hefore his property was shipped, would not; 
 as a matter of law. destroy the oral contract for the cars at a certain time, even 
 though he mav have known that the written contract would probal)ly contain 
 a negation to the agent of the power or authority to agree to furnish cars at 
 any specified time.-^ 
 
 § 721. Traveling Agent. — Whether a carrier's traveling freight agent has 
 authority to contract to furnish cars, is a c[uestion for the jury;^ as is also the 
 question whether a carrier ratified the contract of its traveling freight agent to 
 furnish cars for a through transportation over its own and a connecting line, 
 if he acted without authority/ Where a railroad's traveling agent contracted 
 to furnish cars at a point on another line for a through shipment to a destina- 
 tion on his own line, and the rule of the initial carrier was that responsibility 
 for through transportation must be assumed, if at all, by its connecting carrier, 
 the transaction must be assumed to have been conducted in accordance with 
 that custom, the duty to furnish the cars under the contract resting upon defend- 
 ant, and hence it could ratify the agent's act/*^ The road not being legally bound 
 to furnish cars on another line, unless it had agreed to do so. and the rule of 
 the other line requiring defendant to do so to insure the passing of the shipment 
 to destination over defendant's line, the fact that it furnished cars to be so used 
 at the instance of its agent would justify an inference that it acted upon the 
 agent's agreement.'' Evidence that similar agreements of a traveling freight 
 agent, to furnish cars at points on other lines for through shipments to points 
 on his line, were acted upon by the carrier tends to show that the making of 
 such agreements was within the agent's authority.^'* 
 
 § 722. General Freight Agent. — See post, "Offer and Acceptance," 
 § 728. 
 
 § 723. Conductor. — A carrier is bound by the promise of a freight train 
 conductor to furnish cars for a shipment, where he has been intrusted generally 
 with such power and accustomed to exercise it.^^ 
 
 § 724. Certainty and Definiteness. — An agreement by the general man- 
 ager of a carrier to furnish fruit cars within 24 hours after ordered was definite 
 and binding as to the cars actually ordered. i- 
 
 § 72 5. Consideration. — A request by a shipper that a carrier furnish cars 
 for a shipment carries with it an understanding on their part to use the cars, and 
 furnishes a sufficient consideration for the carrier's promise' to furnish them.^-^ 
 
 Agreement to Furnish Cars in the Future. — Where a shipper asks for 
 cars to be furnished on a day mentioned in the future for transportation of live 
 stock, and the carrier agrees to furnish same, such agreement rests upon a valid 
 consideration, and is binding on the carrier as well as the shipper, notwith- 
 
 4. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hume Bros., 87 11. Conductor. — Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110. Durrcnce. (i Ga. App. (il.'). G5 S. E. 583. 
 
 5. San' Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Timon, 12. Certainty and definiteness. — Chatta- 
 45 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 99 S. W. 418. noo^a .Southern R. Co. v. Thompson, 65 
 
 6. Traveling agent.— St. Louis, etc., R. S. E. 285, 1.3.3 Ga. 127. 
 
 Co. V. Boshear, 102 Tex. 76, 113 S. W. 6. 13. Consideration.— The contract of a 
 
 7. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Boshear, 102 carrier to furnish a person with a certain 
 Tex 76 113 S W 6 number of cars, at a certam price per car, 
 
 „ ■ 't • ' ' W -^ -a u -.A.". i^or shipment of freight, is not without 
 
 8. St Louis etc^. R. Co. v. Boshear, 102 c„„,i^i^ration, where it imposes on such 
 lex. /6, 113 b. W. I). person the obligation to load the cars and 
 
 9. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Boshear, 102 h^xc weekly inspection and shipments. 
 Tex. 76, 113 S. W. 6. Baxley v. Tallassec, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 
 
 10. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Boshear, 183, 29 So. 451: Pope v. Wisconsin Cent. 
 102 Tex. 76, 113 S. W. 0. R. Co., 112 Minn. 112, 127 X. W. 436.
 
 445 
 
 SPncIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ /25-728 
 
 standing the shipper may not ha\e owned or had any stock at the time the 
 agreement was enlereil into.'' 
 
 § 726. Date of Contract. — 'I'he time of making of a contract for cars is 
 
 inmiatcrial.'' 
 
 § 72 7. Mutuality. — The contract of a carrier to furnish a person with a 
 certain nunihcr of cars, at a certain price per car, for shipment of freight, is 
 not unilateral, where it imposes on such person the obligation to load the cars 
 and have weekly inspection and shipments.'" 
 
 § 72 8. Offer and Acceptance. — A contract by a carrier's agent to furnish 
 cars must be an uncondiiimial undertaking in order to impose on the carrier an 
 absolute liability to furnish the cars.'' A promise by the agent to haul a car 
 or cars at a specified time "if possible," on that date '« or "to do the best he 
 could," '■' and a statement by the agent "that he thought he could get the car," -" 
 are not unconditional contracts to furnish cars and do not render the railroad 
 liable for a failure to do so. 
 
 Acceptance of General Freight Agent.— Even if the superintendent of 
 transporiaiiun of a railroad !iad jxAvcr tu decline to furnish cars where the gen- 
 eral freight agent had made a special contract for the furnishing of a train to 
 move freight, there is a complete contract where plaintiff sent to the superin- 
 tendent a request for a train, and the superintendent sent it to the general 
 freight agent, who wrote plaintiff referring to his letter to the superintendent, 
 and saying that they had considered his application to be permitted to load a 
 train and were prepared to permit it.-' 
 
 14. Agreement to furnish cars in the fu- 
 ture. — I'ittsliuryh. etc.. R. Co. z\ Racer. ."> 
 Ind. App. :v»()y."::i X. E. 853. 
 
 15. Date of contract. — Plaintiff, in his 
 petition in an action for breach of con- 
 tract, alleged the making of a contract 
 with defendant on or about June 10th to 
 furnish him by June 14th cars to be de- 
 livered June 17th. Held, that the time 
 of the making of the contract was not 
 material, and it was error lo exclude evi- 
 dence of a contract made on June 14th. 
 Morehouse v. Texas Trunk R. Co., 4 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 2G7, 17 S. W. 1086. 
 
 16. Mutuality. — Baxley v. Tallassee, etc., 
 R. Co.. 12S Ala. 1S3. 2\) So. 451. 
 
 17. Unconditional undertaking. — Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Arnett, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 76, 88 S. W. 448. 
 
 18. Where plaintiff, a fruit grower, noti- 
 fied a railroad that it required a refrig- 
 erator car that day. and one on the fol- 
 lowing day. and was immediately noti- 
 fied that the car would be furnished that 
 day if possible, and thereafter, during the 
 same day, that defendant would be unable 
 to furnish a car that day, but would fur- 
 nish all cars needed by noon the follow- 
 ing day, there was no contract to furnish 
 a car on day named, but only to furnish 
 one on the following day. for breach of 
 which latter contract only the railway 
 companv was lialile. F.lbcrta Peach Co. 
 V. Georgia, etc.. R. Co.. M S. E. 779. 13.-? 
 Ga. 68"). 
 
 Evidence that a railroad's agent, when 
 applied to on October 30th to furnish 
 
 cars, accepted the order, and said that he 
 would have the cars ready by the 1st of 
 Xovember, if possible, but did not prom- 
 ise definitely to do so, was insufficient to 
 establish a contract to furnish the cars 
 on the 1st of November. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Arnett. SS S. W. 448, 40 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 76. 
 
 19. Offer and acceptance. — This did not 
 tend to show an unconditional undertak- 
 ing to furnish the car as requested, but 
 was entirely consistent with the agent's 
 promise merely to "do the best he could" 
 to so furnish it, and evidenced an effort 
 on his part to comply with his undertak- 
 ing. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: Cannington 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 110 S. \V. 965; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Arnett, 40 Tex. Civ. .App. 
 76. 88 S. W. 448. 
 
 20. A railroad depot agent verballj' 
 agreed with a shipper, who desired a 
 poultry car on a stated day. "that he 
 thought he could get the car, and would 
 do tile best he could towards getting it, 
 but did not make any absolute promise to 
 get the car." The car was not furnished 
 at the date asked for by the shipper. 
 Held, that the contract imposed on the 
 carrier no liability to furnish the car, ab- 
 solutely, and. as the shipper's action was 
 based "on contract, there could be no re- 
 covery. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Can- 
 nington (Tex. Civ. App.\ 110 S. W. 96."). 
 
 21. Acceptance of general freight agent. 
 — Outland f. Seaboard, etc.. R. Co.. 134 
 X. C. 3.-i0. 46 S. E. 735. 
 
 Plaintiff wrote defendant that he was
 
 §§ 729-734 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 446 
 
 § 729. Writing. — A contract between a carrier and a shipper for cars for 
 a shipment need not be in writing to be vaHd,-- even nnder a Reciprocal De- 
 murrage Law.-"^ 
 
 § 730. Effect of Partial Invalidity. — A station agent having aj^iparent 
 authorirv to biiul the railway in contracting for cars at his station, would not 
 invalidate a contract made by him for cars, by exceeding his authority in con- 
 tracting for shipment bv a named route. Testimony to the agent's authority 
 to bind the road as to the route would be immaterial.-^ 
 
 §§ 731-736. Construction and Operation— § 731. In General.— Con- 
 tracts to furnish cars when entered into arc to be governed by the ordinary and 
 general rules of construction that relate to contracts and the breaches thereof. ^^ 
 
 § 732. Persons Bound and Persons Entitled to Benefit. — A shipper's 
 order for a specified number of cars for a specified day, wlien accepted, is a 
 contract binding the carrier to furnish the cars, and the shipper to furnish the 
 goods, but does not render the carrier liable to parties who did not authorize the 
 order. -'^ 
 
 § 733. Time When Cars to Be Furnished. — When a request to furnish 
 necessary cars for a shipper on a certain day has been made of a railroad com- 
 pany's station agent in due time, the company is under an implied agreement 
 to furnish the cars on that day.-^ 
 
 § 734. Contract v/ith Owner of Private Railroad. — A shipping contract 
 between a railroad company and a private ])erson owning a road intended and 
 used solely for the latter's private business is not a contract between connecting 
 carriers, but one between the railroad company as a carrier and the private per- 
 son as a shipper, and the carrier to furnish cars on reasonable notice to the 
 shipper in necessary numbers for the conducting of the latter's business. ^^ 
 
 cutting and expected to cut fifty car loads 
 of props at a certain point, which he could 
 not load at any siding, and asked for a 
 train to load them on the main line. De- 
 fendant wrote that it had considered his 
 application to load a train on the main 
 line and was prepared to permit it, and 
 concluded, "Please let me know when you 
 desire a train, and we will take up with 
 the superintendent the question when it 
 can be furinshed." Held, that there was 
 an unconditional and complete contract 
 to furnish cars for transportation of the 
 props; the day when the superintendent 
 should send them being a mere matter of 
 detail and in law to be done within a rea- 
 sonable time after plaintiff should make 
 known his readiness therefor. Outland v. 
 Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 46 S. E. 735, 134 
 X. C. 3.50. 
 
 22. Writing. — See ante, "Verbal Con- 
 tract, § 720. 
 
 23. Under Minnesota reciprocal demur- 
 rage law. — Laws I'.iOT, c. 23 (Rev. Laws 
 Supp. 1909, §§ 2023—1 to 2023—13), known 
 as the "Reciprocal Demurrage Law," has 
 no application to voluntary contracts be- 
 tween carriers and shippers, and there- 
 fore an agreement of a carrier to furnish 
 cars at a specified time need not be in 
 writing, as required by such act. Pope v. 
 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 112 Minn. 112, 
 127 X. W. 436. 
 
 24. Effect of partial invalidity. — Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
 543, 30 S. W. 829. 
 
 25. Construction and operation. — Cross 
 V. McFaden, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 20 S. 
 W. 846; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 
 61 Tex. 491; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. McCor- 
 quodale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80. 
 
 26. Persons bound and persons entitled 
 to benefit. — Cumhie v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. (Ark.), 151 S. W. 240. 
 
 27. Time when cars to be furnished. — 
 Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 
 Ky. 475. 16 Ky. L. Rep. 555, 29 S. W. 301. 
 
 28. Contract with owner of private rail- 
 road. — By a contract between a railroad 
 company and a lumber company the lat- 
 ter agreed to build a road from a con- 
 nection with the railroad to its mill, 
 twelve miles distant, the connection and 
 the maintenance of a station there to be 
 at the joint expense of the parties. It 
 also agreed to build a side track "for the 
 placing of cars" under the supervision 
 of the railroad company's engineer, which 
 should be sufficient to enable the railroad 
 company with its engines to transfer cars 
 "to and from its railroad and the switch 
 and upon the railroad" of the lumber 
 company, which also bound itself under 
 penalties to ship all of its products, ex- 
 cept such as should be sent by water, over 
 the road of the railroad company. Held,
 
 447 SPRCIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 735-739 
 
 § 735, Contract for Track Facilities. — A transportalion company, having 
 a railroad wiiich tapped a coal rej^ion, and having agreed with the coal company 
 to build a side track to the hitter's mines, and to furnish the latter the same 
 transportation facilities and make the same charges as the transportation com- 
 pany charged between two points on its main road, the distance being about the 
 same, and the coal company having agreed to furnish for transportation all the 
 coal it should mine, up to a certain amount, was bound to furnish the coal com- 
 pany with the same facilities on the side track as it furnished on the main track 
 between the points named, and was not limited to the proportion of its facilities 
 that the whole product of the coal company's mines bore to the product of all 
 the other mines in the region.-'-' 
 
 § 736. Agreement to Haul Defective Car. — W here a railroad agreed to 
 haul a car, one of the drawbars of which was broken by attaching the good end 
 of it to a locomotive or train, it waived any objection that the car was not in 
 proper condition for transportation. 3" 
 
 §§ 737-755. Performance or Breach— § 737-740. What Constitutes 
 a Breach — § 737. Refusal to Permit Use of Cars. — The refusal to permit 
 shii)i)cr to use cars furnished him at an agreed time and place and resulting in 
 damage is a breach of the contract and gives cause of action."*^ 
 
 § 738. Failure to Tender Cars in Time. — "Whether or not the cars 
 contracted for were furnished within a reasonable time is a question of 
 fact for the jury lo be determined from all the evidence, and not a fact to be 
 proved by the opinion of any witness.^- As a matter of law, a railroad com- 
 pany wdiich contracts to furnish cars for transporting timber does not, by ten- 
 dering them 7"? or 80 days after the contract is made, perform its contract in 
 a reasonable time.'''' 
 
 Hour of Day at "Which Cars Furnished. — W here the railroad company 
 was n',)t re([uirc(l 1)\- cnlcr for cars for a particular day to furnish them at any 
 particular day, the delivery at any hour of the day is sufiticient.^-^" 
 
 § 739. Furnishing Defective Cars. — A railroad is liable as for breach of 
 contract for furnishing defective cars where the defects would have been dis- 
 covered on proper inspection.^^ 
 
 that sucli contract was between the rail- 34. Cars not required by order to be 
 road company, as a carrier and the luni- furnished at particular hour. — In an ac- 
 ber company, as a shipper, and by im- tion against a railroad company for fail- 
 plication bound tbe former on reasonalile ing- to furnish coal cars ordered for a 
 notice to fnrnisli cars on the side track in particular day, the evidence showed that 
 necessary numbers for the use of the lum- the cars were delivered at 4 o'clock in the 
 ber company in conducting its business. afternoon, and that the miners quit work 
 Taenzer & Co. v. Cbicaao. etc., R. Co.. at, that hour, so that the cars could not 
 irn Fed. ;M0, <).") C. C. .A. 4:?r). l)e loaded that day. Held that, where the 
 
 29. Contract for track facilities. — Hazel- railroad company was not required by the 
 ton Coal Co. v. Buck Mountain Coal Co., order to furnish the cars at any particular 
 57 Pa. .'iOl. hour, the delivery at anj' hour of the day 
 
 30. Agreement to haul defective car. — was sufficient. ilcGrcw v. Missouri Pac. 
 TudunuMit. lo:. 111. .\pp. DC. aflirnuMl. Ill- R. Co.. 10'.) Mo. .->S2. 19 S. W. 5;?. 
 
 inois Crnt. i\. Co. r. 15\ nic, •Jti.". 111. l», <',s 35. Liability for furnishing defective 
 
 X. K. T:2(». cars. — In an action l)y a quarry company 
 
 31. The refusal to permit shipper to use. against a railroad company for breach of 
 
 Cross V. AIcFaden. 1 Te.x. Civ. App. contract to furnish strong- and inspected 
 
 4(51, 20 S. \V. S4'>. cars for the transportation of stone, the 
 
 32. Failure to tender cars in time. — complaint alleged that a car was deliv- 
 Pecos. etc.. R. Co. f. Kvans-Snider-Buel ered which was defective, and had not 
 Co., 42 Tex. Civ. App. 00. 93 S. W. 1024, been inspected: that the defects were hid- 
 atfirmed in 100 Tex. 190, 97 S. W. 466. den and unknown to the quarry company, 
 
 33. Outland z\ Seaboard, etc.. R. Co., but would have been discovered on 
 134 N. C. 350. 46 S. E. 735. proper inspection by the railroad com-
 
 §§ 740-744 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 448 
 
 § 740. Requisition Essential Where Contract to Furnish as Ordered. 
 
 — Under a contract binding a carrier to furnish cars as ordered to ship peaches. 
 the shipper can not recover for faihire to furnish cars sufficient to transport 
 ungathered peaches, for whicli no requisition was made.^'"' 
 
 §§ 741-753. Liability of Carrier for Breach— § 741. In General.— 
 
 A\ here a raih'oad company contracted to furnish cars to a shipper at a specified 
 time, but neglected to do so or to give reasonable notice of its inability so to 
 do, it was liable for damages occasioned by failure to furnish the cars at the 
 agreed time,-'' as an individual, and not as a common carrier. -'^ 
 
 § 742. Effect of Statute Allowing Recovery of Penalty. — A shipper, 
 if he desires only to reco\er lor breach of contract to furnish cars, although he 
 may be entitled to recover the statutory penalty for carrier's failure to furnish 
 cars, need only show a valid contract, breach and extent of injury.^'' The lia- 
 bility of a railroad company for breach of a parol agreement to furnish cars at 
 a time specified is not abrogated by a statute prescribing a penalty for a failure 
 to suj)plv cars on written application, and an action for breach of such contract 
 is not an action for the i)enalty and is maintainable.'^" 
 
 § 743. Tender of Property for Transportation. — A carrier is not liable 
 for failure to furnish cars and transport goods, unless they are offered at a 
 regular depot or other usual place for receiving freight ; but refusal, on demand, 
 to furnish cars for goods placed at a station on its line, relieves the owner from 
 making any further delivery or oft'er to deliver.-'^ 
 
 § 744. Road Not Owning Cars. — A carrier is not relieved from liability 
 for breach of its contract to furnish cars, though at the date of and during the 
 
 pan}-; and that by reason thereof, and 
 without fault of the quarry company, the 
 car broke lose, ran down a grade, and 
 killed a quarryman. Held, that the facts 
 stated were sufficient to show an inex- 
 cusable breach of duty by the railroad 
 company. Hoosier Stone Co. v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 131 Ind. 575, 31 N. E. 
 3(i5. 
 
 36. Requisition essential where contract 
 to furnish as ordered. — Cumliie i\ St. 
 Louis, etc.. R. Co. (Ark.), 151 S. W. 240. 
 
 37. Liability of carrier for breach. — • 
 Nichols V. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 24 Utah 
 83, 6(> Pac. 768, 91 Am. St. Rep. 778. 
 
 A carrier is liable for damages result- 
 ing from a breach of a contract to fur- 
 nish cars at specified time and place. 
 Cross V. McFaden, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 4()1, 
 20 S. W. 846; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nichol- 
 son, 61 Tex. 491; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Corquodale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80; Pecos 
 River R. Co. v. Latham, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 78, 88 S. W. 392, affirmed in 101 Tex. 652, 
 no op. 
 
 The Texas statute in no way limits the 
 liability for damages for breach of a con- 
 tract, in which case it is only necessary 
 to show a valid contract and the extent 
 of injury from its ])reach. McCarty v. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 
 164. 
 
 38. International, etc., R. Co. v. Dimmit 
 Countv Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 
 23 S. 'W. 754. 
 
 39. Effect of statute allowing recovery 
 of penalty. — McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 79 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 164. 
 
 Where a carrier agreed to furnisli a 
 shipper stable cars, which were not shown 
 to be the only suitable kind and proper 
 for the freight to be shipped, although 
 that did not render it liable to the statu- 
 tory penalty for a failure to do so, it is 
 liable to damages for breach of the con- 
 tract. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Barrow, 33 
 Tex. Civ. App. 611, 77 S. W. 643, affirmed 
 in 101 Tex. 663, no op.; Austin, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Slator, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 344, 26 S. 
 W. 233. 
 
 40. Receivers, etc., R. Co. v. Graves, 4 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 149, 16 S. W. 102. 
 
 Though Act 20th Leg. Sess. imposes a 
 penalty on railroad companies for failure 
 to furnish freight cars after demand there- 
 for in writing, an action will lie for the 
 breach of an oral contract to furnish cars. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Harmonson, 4 
 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. 133, 16 S. W. 539. _ 
 
 41. A railroad company is not responsi- 
 ble in an action for an alleged infring- 
 ment of a contract to carry coal for the 
 i)laintiff, unless it is proved that the plain- 
 tiff actually tendered the coal to the com- 
 pany for transportation, and the company 
 then refused to carry it. Northwestern 
 Fuel Co. V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 20 
 Fed. 712; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Flan- 
 nagan, 113 Ind. 488, 14 N. E. 370, 3 Am. 
 St.' Rep. 674.
 
 449 SI'IXIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 744-750 
 
 time cfucred hy the cnnlract il diil not lia\x- or (nvn anv cars.-*- 
 
 § 74 5. Road Not Equipped with Cars of Character to Be Furnished. — 
 In General. — W here a carrier agreed to furnish a certain kind of cars it could 
 not a\(ji(l the consequences of a Ijreach of the duty to do so by showing that its 
 road was not equipped with cars of that character.-*^ 
 
 Preference as to Character of Cars. — Where a railroad company con- 
 tracted to furnisli a shi])per a certain numl)er ot cars at a specified time, but it 
 was understood that such order was merely an expression of preference, and 
 that the shipper would accept any variety of cars he could get. if the kind or- 
 dered were not obtainable, the com])any was not absolved from the duty to 
 furnish cars at the re(|uire(! time by inabihty to obtain the ])recise kind ordered. •*"* 
 
 § 746. Failure to Furnish Refrigerator Cars. — A railroad company 
 which does not own refrigerator cars, ]:>ut has an arrangement with the owners 
 of such cars whereby it can furnish the same to its shippers, is liable for in- 
 juries to shippers caused by delay in furnishing cars when promised. ^^ In an 
 action against a carrier for failure to furnish iced cars as agreed, it can not 
 show as a defense thai il held itself (ml as willing to haul iced cars to be fur- 
 nished by another company under a contract with the shi])per.''' Where a rail- 
 way company had cotitracted to ship freight in iced cars, the liability of the 
 raih-oad company for failure so to do does not depend upon whether the com- 
 pany who was to furnish the cars was a common carrier.-*" Where a carrier 
 fails to furnish refrigerator cews as agreed, the plaintiff has only to show that 
 defendant is such a carrier, and refused to carry the perishable freight which 
 was the cause of the damage to the shipper; and the carrier is liable, whether 
 the freight was more than enough to fill the cars agreed to be furnished, or not, 
 jind it is not necessary for him to show that the carrier agreed to furnish the 
 cars properly iced."^"^ 
 
 § 747. EfTort to Procure Foreign Cars. — A railroad company is not re- 
 lieved of liability for breach of iis contract to furnish cars to transport freight 
 by the fact that it used reasonable ettort to procure foreign cars.-*^ 
 
 §§ 748-753. Excuses for Breach or Nonperformance— § 748. In 
 General. — .Mailers not excusing ihc performance- of a special contract to fur- 
 nish cars. l)ut only tending to excuse performance of the general dutv imposed 
 by law, are no defense to a breach of the special contract.-""' 
 
 § 749. Act of God. — The act of God will not excuse a carrier from lia- 
 bility under an express contract to furnish cars.^^ 
 
 § 750. Unavoidable Accident or Casualties. — A railroad company un- 
 
 condilionall}- contracting tu furnish cars at a certain time can not excuse itself 
 from liability by showing unavoidable accident or delay. •'"'- 
 
 42. Road not owning cars.— Baxley v. 47, Mathis v. Southern R. Co.. 65 S. C. 
 Tallasscc, etc.. R. Co.. i;:s Ala. 1S,3, 29 So. 271, 43 S. E. 684, 61 L. R. A. 824. 
 
 451. 48. Mathis v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. 
 
 43. Road not equipped with cars of C. 271. 43 S. E. 684. 01 L. R. A. 824. 
 character to be furnished. — International, 49. Effort to procure foreign cars. — 
 etc., R. Co. V. True, 23 Tex. Civ. App. Outland z\ Seahoard, etc., R. Co.. 134 X. 
 523, 57 S. W. 977. C. :;.")0. 4i'. S. I-'.. 73.-). 
 
 44. Preference as to character of cars. 50. Excuse for breach or nonperform- 
 — Nicliols r. ()re.L;(in, etc.. \\. Cn., ::4 ance. — Chattaiioot^a Southern R. Co. z: 
 Utah S3, (•)(•) I'ac. 7i)S, iil Am. St. Rep. 77S. Tlioinpson. 133 Ga. 127. 65 S. E. 285. 
 
 45. Failure to furnish refrigerator cars. 51. Act of God. — Miller r. Chicago, etc.. 
 — International, etc., R. Co. f. Youn.ir R. Co.. i'>:.' Mo. App. 2.->:.\ 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 28 S. W. 819; Texas. 52. Unavoidable accident or casualties, 
 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Nicholson. 61 Tex. 491. — Cunihie z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.). 
 
 46. Mathis v. Southern R. Co.. 65 S. C. 151 S. W. 240; Harrison z: Missouri Pac. 
 271, 43 S. E. 684. 61 L. R. A. 824. R. Co., 74 Mo. 364. 41 Am. Rep. 318. 
 
 1 Car— 29
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 450 
 
 §§ 731-756 
 
 8 751. Storms.— Where a carrier agreed to furnish cars at a day certain, 
 it is no defense, on faihire so to do, that it was prevented by a severe stomi-^^ 
 
 § 7 52. Wrecks.— The wreck of a railroad train, whereby the free move- 
 ment of cars is prevented, is a sufficient excuse for the company's failure to 
 furnish cars to a shipper at a certain time and place as agreed.^'-* 
 
 § 753. Unprecedented Traffic— Where a carrier contracted to furnish a 
 «;pecified number of cars at specified times and places, the carrier's inability to 
 furnish the cars contracted for owing to unusually heavy traffic at the time the 
 cars were demanded constitutes no defense to an action for damages for such 
 failure. -^^ 
 
 § 754. Liability of Shipper for Breach.— A railroad company can re- 
 cover damages against a shipper who fails to furnish the goods to be shipped 
 at the time and place agreed on, the company having been ready with their 
 cars to receive them. The responsibilities for breach of contract can not rest 
 upon one of the parties whilst the other is to reap its benefits only.^« 
 
 § 755. "Waiver of Cause of Action against Carrier.— In an action 
 against a carrier for damages caused by its delay in transporting cattle, there 
 is'' no error in the court's failure to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs, by mak- 
 ing the written contract of transportation, waived all damages for breach of the 
 parol contract to furnish the cars at a stated time, where there was no consid- 
 eration for the waiver.^'" 
 
 §§ 756-760. Merger — § 756. General Rule. — Where a shipper of prop- 
 erty takes from the carrier a bill of lading or other voucher, expressing the 
 terms and conditions on which the property is to be transported, the writing, 
 in the absence of proof of fraud or mistake, must be taken as the sole evidence 
 of the final agreement of the parties, and by it their duties and liabilities must 
 be regulated.-'^'^ All prior verbal negotiations between the parties to a shipping 
 
 53. Storms. — Aliller v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., ti2 Mo. App. 252. 
 
 54. Wrecks. — Newport News, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Mercer, 96 Ky. 47.5, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 
 555, 29 S. W. 301. 
 
 55. Unprecedented traffic. — Oregon 
 R., etc., Co. V. Dumas, 104 C. C. A. 641, 181 
 Fed. 781. 
 
 A carrier who contracts to furnish all 
 the cars necessary to transport the peach 
 crop at a certain station, on failure to 
 do so, can not defend because of heavy 
 and unprecedented traffic. Cumbie v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.), 151 S. W. 240. 
 
 Texas.— GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Hume 
 Bros., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 
 915, following Cross v. McFaden, 1 
 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 20 S. W. 846; Gulf. 
 etc., R. Co. r. Hume Bros., S7 Tex. 211, 
 27 S. W. 110. 
 
 Unexpected increase of business. — In- 
 al)ility of a railroad to furnish cars con- 
 tracted for, owing to an unexpected in- 
 crease in its volume of business, is no de- 
 fense for breach of such contract. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hodge, 10 Tex. Civ. Ap'-. 
 543, 30 S. W. 829; Southern Kansas R. 
 Co. V. Morris (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 
 433. affirmed in 100 Tex. 611; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hume Bros., 87 Tex. 211, 27 
 S. W. 110. 
 
 56. Liability of shipper for breach. — 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 
 491. 
 
 57. Waiver of cause of action against 
 carrier.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, 82 
 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716. 
 
 After the cattle were loaded in the cars, 
 plaintiff signed a written contract of ship- 
 ment, releasing defendant from all liabil- 
 ity for delay in receiving or shipping the 
 cattle, and making it a condition prece- 
 dent to plaintiff's right to recover for any 
 injury to the cattle at any station where 
 they might be loaded or unloaded that he 
 should give the station master of the last- 
 named station a written notice of his 
 claim. Held, that the court erred in re- 
 fusing to instruct that plaintiff, by his 
 contract, had waived all claims for dam- 
 ages previously accrued, since, under Rev. 
 St., art. 1265, subd. 10, the want of con- 
 sideration for such contract could be set 
 up only by a proper plea supported by 
 affidavit, which was not done in this case. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 402, 21 S. W. 80. 
 
 58. General rule.— The bill of lading 
 that the shipper receives from the car- 
 rier, and uses by attaching thereto a 
 draft on the consignee in payment of the 
 goods shipped, is the final contract as to
 
 451 
 
 SPECIAL COXTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 7?G-7?7 
 
 contract are merged in tlie written contract, and the shipper can not admit the 
 execution of the contract and avail himself of the fact that he did not read it 
 or know its contents, where no mistake, fraud, imposition or deceit is charged 
 to Jiave occurred.'''' In such case the written shipping contract governs the 
 shipment as a matter of law.''" ilul an aiiioii may be maintained against a rail- 
 way comi)any on a verlial cfjutracl of shipment, under certain circumstances, 
 although a written contract may have been subsequently entered into."' 
 
 §§ 757-758. Contract Executed after Carriage Begun— § 757. In 
 General. — The mere receijjt of a written contract'"- or bill of lading does not 
 alter or affect a i)ri()r contract, under which goods have been actually shipped 
 and arc in course of transit, without an actual consent to the change.''-' Where 
 
 the transportation of the goods. Bedell 
 V. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 94 Ga. 22, 20 
 S. E. 262; Long v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 50 N. Y. 7G. 
 
 59. McFadden v. Missouri, Pac. R. Co.; 
 f)2 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689. 1 Am. St. Rep. 
 721; Turner v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 20 
 Mo. App. 632. 
 
 Instances. — Prior to the reception of 
 goods, and before any hill of lading was 
 issued, a carrier agreed to ship the goods 
 "in cold service." The bill of lading did 
 not mention such agreement. Held, that 
 it could be shown by parol evidence, in 
 an action by the shipper against the car- 
 rier to recover the value of the goods. 
 Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. Furth- . 
 mann, 47 111. App. 561, affirmed in 149 111. 
 66, 36 N. E. 624. 41 Am. St. Rep. 265. 
 
 A shipper, who had orally agreed with 
 a railroad company to ship liis cattle upon 
 certain terms and conditions, delivered 
 the cattle to the railroad company, and 
 then, before the train had started, ac- 
 cepted and signed a written contract of 
 shipment containing provisions materially 
 different from those of the oral contract. 
 Held, that the oral contract was thereby 
 annulled. Leonard v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 54 Mo. App. 293. 
 
 Bill of lading at variance with prior 
 agreement. -W'lierc a bill of lading is 
 given l)y the shipowner and accepted by 
 the shipper without objection, a prior 
 agreement for the carriage is not a final 
 and definite statement of all the terms of 
 the agreement between the parties, and the 
 bill of lading is the real contract by 
 which the mutual obligations of the par- 
 ties are to be governed. The Caledonai, 
 43 Fed. 681. 
 
 Where a bill of lading is made out by 
 the carrier, and delivered to and accepted 
 by the shipper, all previous parol agree- 
 ments are merged in it. Bostwick v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 55 Barb. 
 137. 
 
 If there is nothing on the face of a bill 
 of lading requiring the master of the ves- 
 sel to take one route rather than another, 
 such an obligation can not be estalilislied by 
 proof of any preliminary conversation. 
 White V. \'an Kirk (N. Y.). 25 Barb. 10. 
 
 60. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCord (Tex. 
 
 Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 1032; Southern Pac. 
 Co. V. Anderson, 26 Tc.\. Civ. App. 518, 
 63 S. W. 1023, affirmed in 95 Tex. 086, no 
 op.; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, 
 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 29 S. W. 565; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Avery, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 
 235, 46 S. W. 897, affirmed in 93 Tex. 673, 
 no op.; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, 82 
 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Stanley, 89 1 ex. 42, 33 S. W. 109, af- 
 firming 29 S. W. 806; San Antonio, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Wright, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 136, 
 137, 49 S. W. 147; Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Botts, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 609. 55 S. W. 
 514; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Funk, 42 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 490, 92 S. W. 1032; San Antonio, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Barnett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
 498. 66 S. W. 474; Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Wright, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 70 S. W. 
 335; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hume Bros.. 87 
 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110, reversing 6 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 915; San Antonio, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 57 S. W. 883; McNeill v. Galveston, etc.. 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 32; 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 677. 29 S. W. 565; Missouri, etc.. R. 
 Co. 7'. Withers, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 506. 40 
 S. W. 1073, affirmed in 93 Tex. 691, no 
 op.; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Mayes, 44 
 Tex. Civ. App. 31, 97 S. W. 318; Atchi- 
 son, etc.. R. Co. V. Grant. 6 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 674, 26 S. W. 286, affirmed in 93 
 Tex. 699, no op. 
 
 61. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: McCord (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 81 S. W. 1032. 
 
 62. Where a shipper loads his cattle 
 under a parol contract, it governs a writ- 
 ten contract given to him just as the train 
 was starting, and which he fails to read 
 before signing. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 29 S. W. 
 565. 
 
 63. Decree, 112 Fed. 829. reversed. 
 Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. 7'. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co.. 57 C. C. A. 533, 120 Fed. 873. af- 
 firmed Northern Pac. R. Co. v. American 
 Trading Co.. 25 S. Ct. 84. 195 U. S. 439, 
 49 L. Ed. 269. See ante, "Bills of Lad- 
 ing." chapter 6. 
 
 Illinois. — Wabash R. Co. v. Lannum. 71 
 111. App. 84. 
 
 Kansas. — A shipper who neglects to ex- 
 amine a bill of lading handed him after
 
 § 7-^7 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 452 
 
 a verbal contract was made, the goods received, and the journey begun, and 
 then a written contract was presented to the shipper, which he signed with a 
 knowledge of its contents or where he had sufficient time to have read its con- 
 tents, and which he was not induced to sign by any false representations of 
 the carrier's agent, or which he signed under circumstances such that he should 
 have read the same; the verbal contract is merged into the written contract; 
 but where the written contract was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the 
 verbal contract would not be merged into it ; "■* this rule could have no applica- 
 tion where the bill of lading was not relied on by the carrier.*^'' 
 
 Allegation and Proof of Want of Consideration, Duress, etc. — The 
 plaintiti' in attacking the validity of the written contract must allege and prove 
 the want of consideration for its execution, or circumstances of duress attend- 
 ing the same;^'*' this allegation it seems must be under oath.''''' 
 
 ihe shipment had been made on a parol 
 agreement is not bound by such bill's 
 terms as to a material matter which had 
 been otherwise stipulated in the parol 
 agreement. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Bee- 
 son. 30 Kan. 298, 2 Pac. 496. 
 
 -Vrri' }'or;V. — Where goods are shipped 
 tinder a verbal agreement for their trans- 
 portation, such agreement is not merged 
 in a bill of lading, which is partly writ- 
 ten and partly printed, delivered to the 
 shipper after he has parted with the con- 
 trol of his goods, notwithstanding such 
 bill of lading, by its terms, limits the lia- 
 bility of the carrier, and expresses on its 
 face that, by accepting it. the shipper 
 agrees to its conditions. The mere re- 
 ceipt of the bill, after the verbal agree- 
 ment had been acted upon, is not suffi- 
 cient to conclude him from showing what 
 the actual agreement was under which 
 the goods had been shipped. Schiff v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 52 How. 
 Prac. 91. 
 
 A failure to object to limitations con- 
 tained in a bill of lading issued in New 
 York, and delivered several days after the 
 goods had been shipped, can not, under 
 the decisions of New York, be held to be 
 a waiver of an oral contract, relating to 
 the manner of shipment of such goods, 
 also made in New York between the par- 
 ties, whereby different terms were agreed 
 upon. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. 
 V. Furthmann, 47 111. App. 561, affirmed 
 in 149 111. 66, 36 N. H. 624, 41 Am. St. Rep. 
 265. 
 
 North Carolina. — Where defendant orally 
 agreed to furnish cars to plaintiffs on 
 a certain day, and failed to do so, the 
 fact that plaintiffs shipped their cattle 
 after the day on which defendant agreed 
 to furnish the cars, and took a bill of lad- 
 ing therefor, does not merge the oral 
 contract to furnish the cars on a certain 
 day in the subsequent written contract 
 of shipment, and relieve defendant from 
 liability for such failure. McAbsher v. 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co., 108 N. C. 344, 12 
 S. E. 892. 
 
 68. Bill of lading subsequently handed 
 to shipper's clerk. — A contract of slii])- 
 ment made witli a common carrier can 
 
 not be modified by a bill of lading subse- 
 quently handed to the shipper's clerk. 
 Rudell V. Ogdensburg Transit Co., 76 N. 
 W. 380, 117 Mich. 568, 44 L. R. A. 415. 
 
 Wlien goods are shipped under a parol 
 contract covering future shipments, bills 
 of lading given by the carrier are only 
 evidence of the dates and amounts of 
 shipments made under the pre-existing 
 contract. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Elgin 
 Condensed Milk Co., 74 111. App. 619, af- 
 firmed St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Elgin Con- 
 densed Milk Co., 51 N. E. 911, 175 111. 557, 
 67 Am. St. Rep. 338. 
 
 64. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 6 
 Tex. Civ. App. 674, 26 S. W. 286, affirmed 
 in 93 Tex. 699, no op.; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 ?'. Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 402, 21 S. 
 W. 80. 
 
 65. Bill of lading not relied on by car- 
 rier. — In an action against a carrier for 
 loss resulting from defendant's delay in 
 delivering perishable goods which it un- 
 dertook to carry for plaintiff, where no 
 bill of lading was delivered to plaintiff, 
 and he sued on a verbal contract made by 
 him with defendant's agent to deliver 
 the goods within four days from the date 
 of their shipment, and defendant in its 
 answer does not rely on the bill of lading 
 sulisequently delivered to plaintiff, the 
 rule that oral testimony can not, in the 
 absence of any allegation of fraud or mis- 
 take, be introduced to change or vary the 
 terms of a written contract, does not ap- 
 ply. The issue is, was there a verbal con- 
 tract between plaintiff and the agent? 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Bradford, 15 
 Ky. L. Rep. 60. 
 
 66. Allegation and proof of want of 
 consideration duress, etc. — See Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Avery, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 
 235, 46 S. W. 897, affirmed in 93 Tex. 673, 
 no op.; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Under- 
 wood. 39 Tex. Civ. App. 404, 87 S. W. 713. 
 
 In the absence of a pleading putting 
 in issue its validity, the written contract 
 
 67. Allegation under oath. — But see 
 
 McNeill V. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 32; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 f. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 47, 
 reversed in 99 Tex. 343.
 
 453 
 
 Sl'i;CIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 757-759 
 
 Merger a Question for Jury. — Whether the written or verbal contract 
 sh(jul(l control is a (juesiitjii for the jury; and it is for the jury to find whether 
 or not the necessary time was given to inspect the written contract, anrl whether 
 the contents were misrepresented to the shipper."'^ 
 
 § 7 58. Ratification or Adoption by Negotiation of Bill of Lading.— 
 'J'he fact that a shipi)er, after receiving a bill of lading, negotiates the same,_ is 
 not a ratification or adoption of its terms, as between him and the carrier, which 
 will operate to annul a prior valid contract under which the goods were shipped, 
 
 and under which rights have vested and obligations have accrued. •■•'•' 
 
 § 759. Written Contract Executed after Breach of Parol Contract. — 
 Where a written contract for llic shipment of freight was entered into after the 
 breach of an oral contract in relation to the same matter, the written contract 
 did not merge the oral contract, and would not bar a recovery for breach of it,'" 
 
 imports a consideration. l'"l. W'orili, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Underwood, :}'.) Tex. Civ. App. 
 404, 87 S. W. 71.3. 
 
 In the absence of any evidence of want 
 of any additional consideration, fraud, 
 compulsion, duress or want of time to 
 read the written contracts, they must be 
 taken as merging all previous understand- 
 ings between the parties. San Antonio, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Barnett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
 498, 06 S. W. 474; Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 29 S. W. 
 56.5; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Mayes, 44 
 Tex. Civ. App. 31, 97 S. W. 318. 
 
 Contract to furnish cars. — Ft. Worth, 
 etc., R. Co. V. I'lidcrwood, 39 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 404. S7 S. W. 71.-.. 
 
 Weight of evidence — Instances. — Sec 
 v^an Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett, ?.~ 
 Tex. Civ. App. 498, 66 S. W. 474. 
 
 There is ample proof to sustain an al- 
 legation in plaintiff's pleading, that he 
 was overreached and caused to sign a 
 contract with whose contents he was not 
 acquainted, and with which he was not 
 permitted to acquaint himself by defend- 
 ant; where the evidence shows that the 
 written contract was not presented to the 
 plaintiff until he was en route, and that 
 he was then told that it was merely a 
 paper that secured him transportation; 
 and was not .given time in which to read 
 it, and that relying upon the statements 
 made to him, and impelled by the fact 
 that he was told that he must sign to get 
 transportation, he signed the contract. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Grant. 6 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 674, 26 S. W. 286, affirmed in 
 93 Tex. CiOn, no op. 
 
 68. Merger a question for jury. Atciii- 
 son, etc.. R. Co. v. Grant, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 
 674, 26 S. W. 286, affirmed in 93 Tex. 699. 
 no op. 
 
 Defendant carrier has the ri.ght to set 
 up in its answer that, instond (-if shipments 
 lieing made under a verlial contract, as 
 alleged by plaintiff, it was under a writ- 
 ten contract, but it is error to hold, with- 
 out submitting any issue thereon, that the 
 verbal contract was merged into the 
 written, and that a provision in the lat- 
 
 ter refiuiring certain notices to be given, 
 was Ijinding. Withers v. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 900. 
 
 69. Ratification or adoption by negoti- 
 ation of bill of lading. —Decree (C. C. 
 190:i), 112 I'ed. h2\i, reversed. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 130 Fed. 873. 57 C. C. A. 533, affirmed in 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. American Trad- 
 ing Co., 25 S. Ct. 84, 195 U. S. 439, 49 L. 
 Ed. 269. 
 
 A special agreement in behalf of rail- 
 way receivers to forward a thorough 
 shipment by the steamer of a connecting 
 carrier sailing on a designated day is not 
 modified by the mere receipt, without ob- 
 jection, and the sul)sequent hypotheca- 
 tion, of the bill of lading containing, as 
 a part of numerous conditions printed in 
 small type, the statements that the car- 
 rier is not to be liable for any loss not 
 occurring on its own road, and that the 
 contract as executed is accomplished, and 
 all liability thereunder terminates, upon 
 tlic delivery of the property lo the ves- 
 sel, where the bill was not examined or 
 read, and was accepted after the goods 
 had passed from the control of the ship- 
 per, by a clerk who had no knowledge of 
 these conditions, and no authority to con- 
 sent to a modification of the contract al- 
 ready made. Decree. Farmers' Loan, 
 etc., Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co.. 120 Fed. 
 873, 57 C. C. A. 533, affirmed in Northern 
 Pac. R. Co. V. American Trading Co.. 25 
 S. Ct. 84, 195 U. S. 439, 49 L. Ed. 269. 
 
 70. Written contract executed after 
 breach of parol contract. — Harrison v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 74 Mo. 364. 41 Am. 
 Rep. 31S. 
 
 Where animals are shipped under a 
 parol contract, and injured In' reason of 
 a defective car. the shipper's right to re- 
 cover damages is not affected by a writ- 
 ten contract of carriage, afterwards made, 
 in the abse"ce of an express provision 
 relating thereto. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. 
 r. Cravcraft. 12 Ind. App. 203. 39 N. E. 
 523. 
 
 A contract to furnish a certain number 
 of live-stock cars at a certain date is not
 
 §§ 759-761 CARRIERS. 454 
 
 unless there was a consideration inuring to the shipper as compensation for the 
 damages resulting from the breach when the contract was signed." ^ 
 
 § 760. Receipt for Freight Accepted after Shipment Received.— See 
 
 ante, "Shipping Receipts," chapter /. 
 
 § 761. Modification and Rescission. — Where a shipper telephoned the 
 carrier for an all-rail rate, and received a 90-cent rate and the next day shipped 
 the goods, and sent with them to the depot an ordinary dray ticket, the sending 
 of this ticket, without any designation that the freight was to go by an all-rail 
 route, was a contract that it should go in the ordinary way, and a revocation 
 of the telephone contract, and a charge to that effect was proper.'^- 
 
 Shipping Instructions Superseded by Bill of Lading.— A shipper's writ- 
 ten instruction to a station agent as to the selection of a connecting carrier is 
 sivjierseded bv subse(iuent l)ills of lading containing no provision on the subject. ^•'^ 
 
 Contract of Carriage and Insurance by Subsequent Bill of Lading De- 
 livered to Consignor. — Where plaintiff' made a contract at Mobile for the 
 transportation and insurance of certain goods from New York to Mobile, a 
 bill of lading afterwards given to his consignor when the goods were shipped, 
 limiting the carrier's liability to the value of the goods at the place of shipment, 
 did not supersede the oral contract, and the measure of damages was the value 
 of the goods at the place of delivery."-* 
 
 Shipping Report. — The shipping report signed by plaintiff' and the agent of 
 the connecting line at the connecting point could not change or affect the written 
 contracts between plaintiff" and defendant." •"• 
 
 Bill of Lading Issued by Connecting Carrier. — Where a railroad com- 
 panv agreed, in consideration of a consignor's routeing freight by its line, to 
 furnish through refrigerator cars for transportation of perishable products, the 
 agreement is not superseded by a bill of lading given by a connecting carrier at 
 the original point of shipment, whereby liability was lessened, the contracts being 
 independent of each other."'' 
 
 Express Modification of Provisions as to Duty to Feed and "Water 
 Stock. — The provisions of a bill of lading of live stock that the shipper is to 
 feed and water them is waived by the carrier when he writes across the face of 
 
 merged in a bill of lading issued after Texas. — Pecos River R. Co. v. Latham, 
 
 breach of the contract, when the cattle 40 Tex. Civ. App. 78, 88 S. W. 392, af- 
 
 were actually laden and shipped, so as to firmed in 101 Tex. 652, no op. 
 
 deprive the shipper of his right to dam- 71. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. House, 40 Tex. 
 
 ages for such breach. Pittsburgh, etc.. Civ. App. 10.5, 88 S. W. 1110. 
 
 R. Co. V. Racer, 10 Ind. App. 503, 37 N. 72. Modification and rescission.— Hos- 
 
 E. 280. tetter t'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 11 
 
 Where plaintifif contracted with the vice Atl. 609. 
 
 president and agent of two connecting 73. Shipping instructions superseded by 
 
 lines to ship oil by such lines, and noti- bill of lading. — Bessling & Co. v. Houston, 
 
 fied him of the danger of leakage in case etc., R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 80 S. 
 
 of delay on the route, and the latter agreed W. 639. 
 
 that there should be no delay, and that 74. Contract of carriage and insurance 
 
 the companies had competent coopers to by subsequent bill of ladmg delivered to 
 
 take care of the oil, and would be respon- consignor.— Judgment (Sup. 1897), 45 N. 
 
 sible for the leakage; and subsequently, Y. vS. 286, 17 App. Div. 408, reversed, 
 
 on receipt of the oil, the common agent of Lowenstein v. Lombard, etc., Co., 164 N. 
 
 the companies at the shipping point is- Y. 324, 58 N. E. 44. 
 
 sued through bills of lading, limiting the 75. Shipping report.— San Antonio, etc., 
 
 companies' liability for loss by leakage; R. Co. v. Barnett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 498, 
 
 and, by reason of delay in shipment, leak- 66 S. W. 474. 
 
 age occurred— held, that the jury were 76. Bill of lading issued by connecting 
 
 justified in finding that the contract was carrier.- Judgment, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 
 contained in the prior agreement, and not v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 74 Til. App. 
 
 in the bills of lading varying that agree- 619, affirmed in St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 ment. Swift v. Pacific Mail, etc., Co., 106 Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 51 N. E. 911, 
 
 N Y. 206, 12 N. E. 583. 175 111. 557, 67 Am. St. Rep. 238.
 
 455 SPECIAL coxTRACTs. §§ 761-763 
 
 the bill of lading: "To be fed and watered at the expense of the shippers. No 
 one in charge." Besides, when the carrier knows that no one accompanies the 
 stock, it is his duty to look after and care for them as if there were no contract 
 with the shijjpcr."' 
 
 Contract to Carry to Terminus Only— Markings on Bill of Lading.— 
 A specific agreement by the receiving carrier to transport the freiglil only to the 
 terminus of its line, and there deliver to a connecting carrier, can not be con- 
 trolled by markings on the bill of lading, giving the name of the consignee and 
 the ultimate destination of the freight.'^ 
 
 Through Contracts by Bill of Lading. — Where a verbal contract of ship- 
 ment is made by which freight i^ to be carried to its destination, but the bill of 
 lading then made is merely to carry to the next carrier, which the shipper does 
 not notice, the verbal contract is competent evidence in an action to recover un- 
 der the common-law liabilitv for failure to deliver.'-' 
 
 Subsequent Change of Rates.— A shipjjer applied to the local freight agent 
 of a railroad compan\ , to gel the rates of freight upon a proposed shipment of 
 a certain amount of grain to a given point. The agent, acting by authority, gave 
 hiiu the rate, and he agreed to ship at that rate. He then went to the master pf 
 trains of the company, and made an arrangement with him for the requisite 
 niunber of cars per week, for the purpose of making such shipment. Held, that 
 this amounted to a special contract, on the part of the company, to make the 
 shipment at the rates named by the freight agent, and to furnish the cars in 
 the manner agreed upon by the shipper and master of trains; and it could not 
 be affected by a subse(|uent change of their rates of freight.^" 
 
 False Representations as to Arrival as Grounds for Rescission.— 
 Where contracts for furnishing freight are entered into in reliance upon untrue 
 representations as to the arrival of the vessel at port of shipment, which repre- 
 sentations amount to a warrant}- on the part of the shipper and her agents, they 
 can not be enforced against the shippers, though the contracts contained no can- 
 celing clause. ^^ 
 
 Evidence of Rescission. — Where a shipper contracted with the agent of a 
 railroad company for the transportation of goods on a particular day and train, 
 but the company failed to perform such agreement, the fact that the shipper 
 was subsequently informed by another person that the goods could not be sent 
 by that train if the car should be full was not evidence of a subsequent rescis- 
 sion of such contract, it appearing that such person was not a freight agent of 
 the company.^- 
 
 §§ 762-786. Actions against Carrier for Breach of Contract— § 762. 
 Nature and Form of Remedy. — Where a railroad comjiany was induced to 
 break its contract with a shipper by threats and representations of a thinl per- 
 son, the shipper's remedy is an action against the railroad company for a breach 
 of contract. ''-'• 
 
 § 763. Limitation, in Contract, of Time for Bringing Action.— Under 
 a stipulation in a bill of lading that no action for breach thereof shall be sus- 
 tainable, unless brought within 40 days after the right of action has accrued, a 
 
 77. Express modification of provisions 80. Sub'=equent change of rates. — Tol- 
 as to duty to feed and water stock. —Xor- edo. etc.. R. Co. f. Roliorts. 71 111. .")4n. 
 folk, etc., R. Co. 7-. Sutherland, lo.") \a. 81. False representations as to arrival 
 54."), ")4 S. F.. 4<')."). as grounds for rescission. — Gray v. Moore, 
 
 78. Contract to carry to terminus only .;7 I-ed. Ut-ii. 
 
 by marking on bill of lading.— Miller 82. Evidence of rescission. — Curtis z: 
 
 Grain, etc., Co. 7-. Union I'ac. R. Co.. i:!s Cliicaij-o. etc.. R. Co., is Wis. 312. 
 
 Mo. <).-JS. 40 .^. W. S',)4. 83. Nature and form of remedy. — Glen- 
 
 79. Through contracts by bill of lading. coe Laiul. etc., Co. f. Hudson Bros. 
 —P. C. & St. L. R. Co. V. Blakemore. l Comm. Co.. 138 Mo. 439. 40 S. W. 93. 36 
 O C. C. 42, 1 O. C. D. 26. L. R. A. 804. 60 Am. St. Rep. 560.
 
 §§ 763-769 CARRIERS 
 
 456 
 
 delay for a longer period will not bar an action for breach of a prior verbal 
 contract to furnish cars for the shipment of stock at a certain place, on a cer- 
 tain day.^-* 
 
 § 764. Demand. — Xo demand is necessary before commencing an action of 
 contract against a carrier for neglecting to carry and deliver the goods accord- 
 ing to his contract, if the property be lost or destroyed.^'' 
 
 §§ 765-767. Persons Who May Sue— § 765. Shipper.— One with 
 whom a railroad company makes a contract for the shipment of goods may, 
 prima facie, recover for its breach, without showing title to the property.^'' 
 A bill of lading given by a common carrier to a shipper is sufficient evidence 
 of such shipper's ownership to entitle him to sue for failure to transport the 
 goods.''' 
 
 Consignee Agent of Shipper. — In an action against a carrier for failure 
 to transport goods according to a contract, if the consignee of the goods be 
 merely the agent of the shippers the latter are the proper parties to institute the 
 suit, and are entitled to recover the damages sustained.'"' 
 
 § 766. Forwarding Agent. — A mere forwarding agent who ships under a 
 contract made by his principal with the carrier has not a sufficient interest to 
 entitle him to maintain an action against the carrier for breach of the con- 
 tract.s9 
 
 § 767. Consignee. — A consignee, having title to the property carried, may 
 sue in ^^ontract upon the carrier's implied agreement to deliver; but such im- 
 plied agreement will be also subject to the terms of any express contract made 
 by the carrier with the consignor.'*" 
 
 §§ 768-773. Pleading— §§ 768-772. Complaint, Declaration or Pe- 
 tition — § 768. "Where Contract Distributive as to Time. — Where plain- 
 tiff, a carrier, contracted to transport for defendant, a manufacturer, from his 
 works from 1,200 to 5,000 barrels of salt, annually, for three years, the con- 
 tract providing in detail for plaintifif's compensation and the deductions to be 
 made therefrom for salt lost in transit, in asserting a breach of contract by 
 defendant, whether by refusing to pay for transportation or by refusing to 
 permit it, plaintiff must confine himself to a single year, or declare distributively 
 for single years. '*^ 
 
 § 769. Necessary Allegations. — Terms of Contract and Breach. — A 
 
 petition in an action on a shi])ping contract is defective where it does not set 
 forth the terms of the contract and allege a breach thereof.-'- A petition is 
 
 84. Limitation, in contract, of time for to his home for l)urial. PlaintifF obtained 
 
 bringing action. — McCarly r. GuU', etc., a coffin from the city, and purchased 
 
 K. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 164. See a box, in which he placed the coffin, 
 
 ante, "Limitation in Contract of Time and forwarded the body on defendant's 
 
 for Bringing Action," § 763; post, "Limi- vessel under a contract made by the sis- 
 
 tation of Liability," Chap. 14. ter of deceased with defendant. Held, 
 
 85 Demand. — Alden v. Pearson that plaintiff did not have a sufficient in- 
 
 (Mass.), 3 Gray 342. See Bowlin v. Nye terest in the contract to entitle him to 
 
 (Mass.), 10 Cush. 416. maintain an action against defendant for 
 
 86. Shipper. — Davis v. Jacksonville failing to transport the body. Driscoll 
 Southeastern Line, 126 Mo. 6a,_ 28 S. W. z: Xichols (Mass.), .5 Ciray 488. 
 
 9f^5 " 90. Consignee. — Perkins Co. v. Amer- 
 
 87. Parks v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. lean Exp. Co., 199 Mass. 561. 85 N. E. 
 Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 708. 895. 
 
 88. Consignee agent of shipper.— Har- 91. Where contract distributive as to 
 rison z: Stewart, Fed. Cas. No. 6,145, Ta- time. — White v. Toncray, 46 Va. (5 
 ney"485. Gratt.) 179. , , 
 
 89. Forwarding agent.— Plaintiff, at the 92. Terms of contract and breach.— 
 request of A., promised that after A.'s Garrison v. Bal)bage Transp. Co., 94 Mo. 
 death plaintiff would transport his body 130, 6 S. W. 701.
 
 457 • SI'KCIAL OJ-NTKACTS. § 769 
 
 fatallv defective wliieli jilead-^ rit nio-t a Ijreacli <>t an impleaded contract. ^'^ 
 
 Allegations That Defendant a Common Carrier.— In an action against a 
 railroad company on a special contract "to ship, transport, and carry" plaintiff's 
 goods lo X., a point heyond defendant's line, it is not necessary to allege that 
 (lefendanl is a common carrier."-* 
 
 Name of Carrier's Agent. — In an action against a carrier for breach of con- 
 tract (jf shij)ineiit. it is sufficient to allege that the shipping contract was made 
 with defendant corporation and it is unnecessary to state the name of the agent 
 making it."'' 
 
 Ability to Transport or Furnish Means of Transportation.— In a com- 
 I)laint against a railroad conij^au)- lor a Ijreach of a contract iu furnish at a cer- 
 tain time and place the necessary cars, and to transport a certain number of 
 hogs, it is not necessary to allege that the defendant, at the time complained of, 
 hail the ability to transport, or to furnish the means to transport, such hogs.*-"' 
 
 Delivery of Goods to Carrier. — In an action against a comjnon carrier for 
 l)reach of contract, in failin- to carry goods, the plaintiff must allege a delivery; 
 and it is not sufficient to allege that th? carrier executed a bill of lading "ac- 
 knowled.ging the recei])t" of the goods."" 
 
 Description of Shipment. — In an action against a carrier for breach of a 
 special contract for the shiinnent of fruit trees, where the petition did not claim 
 as damages, the market value of the trees, but the amount for which the trees 
 had been sold, of which it was alleged defendant was fully apprised when the 
 contract was made, it was not necessary for plaintiff", in his complaint or by a 
 bill of particulars, to give any description of the contents of the shipment ; his 
 measure of damages being the amount for which the trees had been sold."*" 
 
 Special Damages. — In an action against a railroad for failure to furnish 
 cars for the shi])ment of cattle according to contract, there can be no recovery 
 for horse hire made necessary by the delay, where such item is not pleaded.^^ 
 
 Items Constituting Amount of Damages. — In an action against a carrier 
 for breach of a special contract of shipment, where defendant was informed of 
 the accrual of items of expense for renotifying and delivering the goods to the 
 purchasers, in the event it failed to deliver them safely and at the time agreed 
 upon, it was not nccessany for plaintiff to itemize in his petition the diff'erent 
 matters constituting the amount of such damage.'' 
 
 Rate Fixed by Railroad Commission. — The petition in an action against 
 a carrier for breach of a freight contract, made while the railroad commission 
 was in force, need not allege that the rate fixed by the contract was that es- 
 tablished by the commission, as any violation of the commission act is a matter 
 of defense. - 
 
 93. Currcll z: ITaiinil)al. etc.. R. Co., 97 Co. v. Arnett, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 7>\ 88 
 Mo. App. 93, 71 S. \V. 111. S. W. 448. 
 
 94. Allegations that defendant a com- An item of damacjes was loss of price 
 men carrier. — Dunl^ar 7\ Port Royal, etc., on 4,000 bushels of corn from the breach 
 R. Co., ;iC. S. C. 110, 1.") .'=;. i'. :!.')7, 3t Am. of contract to furnish cars. There was 
 St. Rep. S()0. no averment of injury to corn accumu- 
 
 95. Name of carrier's agent.— Missouri, lated, throu,s;h exposure, etc. Held, er- 
 etc, R. Co. V. Withers, Ki Tex. Civ. App. ror to admit testmiony to the injury not 
 
 rAy\ 40 S. W. 107.3. il''^-'-^?,-. ^'"'^- «^1^-- ^^\ S:""- .V ?^^^' 
 
 . , ... ^ r ■ u Tox. Civ. -App. •)4r'.. .30 S. W . s29. 
 
 96. Ability to transport or furnish j j^^^^ constituting amount of dam- 
 means of transportation - I ittshursh. ages.-Pacitic Kxp. Co. r. Xeedham, S3 
 etc., R. Co. r. Hays. 49 Ind. 20,. ^ ^^ ^^ 3. ^^^ ^^j^. ^p^ j^g c;^^ c;t. 
 
 97. Delivery of goods to carrier.— Page Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Stonecvpher, 2.5 
 & Co. 7'. Sandusky, etc.. R. Co., 2 O. Dec. Tex. Civ. App. .5fi9, 63 S. W. 946; Mis- 
 Reprint 7ir,, 4 \y. L. M. 044. souri Pac. R. Co. 7: Edwards, 7S Tex. 
 
 98. Description of shipment. — ^Pacific 307, 14 S. W. i>07. 
 
 Exp. Co. V. Xoodhani, :i7 Tex. Civ. App. 2. Rate fixed by railroad commission. 
 
 129, 83 S. W 22. — Thompson f. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 
 
 99. Special damages.— Texas, etc., R. 11 Tex. Civ. App. 145, 32 S. W. 437.
 
 §§ 769-770 CARRIERS. 458 
 
 Illegality of Contract Relied on.— \Miere the petition in an action against 
 a railroad for breach of a freight contract showed no violation of law in the 
 contract made, it was a matter of defense to show wherein it was illegal.-- 
 
 Written Contract Relied on as Defense for Violation of Carrier's 
 
 Duty. — In an action against a railroad comjiany to recover damages for an 
 alleged violation of duty as a common carrier, plaintiff is not required to plead 
 or prove the written contract under which his shipment was made, which, if 
 relied on by defendant, is a matter of defense.-* 
 
 § 770. Sufficiency of Allegation.— In an action against a railroad com- 
 panv on a special contract ""to ship, transport, and carry" plaintift"s goods to 
 X..'a point beyond defendant's line, it is sufficient to set out such contract, and 
 a breach thereof bv defendant. •'' 
 
 That Defendant Railway a Common Carrier.— That a railway company 
 sued on a contract of carriage is a common carrier is sufficiently averred by an 
 allegation in the declaration that defendant is a corporation created by the law 
 of the state, and engaged in operating, a railroad, and conveying corn and grain 
 in cars furnished bv the companv upon its own and other roads.'' 
 
 Allegation of Acceptance of' Offer.— An allegation in the declaration in an 
 action by a shipper against a carrier lor breach of a contract of shipment, which 
 alleges an offer on the part of the carrier and an acceptance by the shipper, is 
 an allegation of an acceptance before the oft'er was withdrawn.'^ and is sufficiently 
 made bv use of the word agreed.'^ 
 
 Demand That Cars Be Furnished. — An allegation in the complaint in an 
 action against a railway company for failure to furnish cars that plaintiff had 
 demanded of the company, through its agent at a designated station, that cars 
 be furnished there, and that he had demanded of its agent at another designated 
 station, who acted as agent for another station, that cars be furnished at the 
 latter station, sufficiently shows demands of proper authority, and sufficiently 
 apprises the companv of the agents on whom the demands were made.-^ 
 
 Time When Cars to Be Furnished. — A complaint which alleges an agree- 
 ment whereby defendant was to equip a sidetrack to be laid to plaintiff's or- 
 chard, and to furnish sufficient refrigerator cars to handle plaintiff's apple crop 
 estimated at about 50 cars, at the rate of about six or eight cars per week, as 
 required by plaintiff, in consideration of which plaintiff' agreed to ship all his 
 apple crop over defendant's railroad and also alleges that defendant failed and 
 refused on demand to furnish cars in accordance with the contract, and that, 
 by reason thereof, plaintiff was damaged, etc., sets forth a contract mutual in 
 
 3. Illegality of contract relied on.— staves from a designated place, that 
 Thompson r. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., plaintiff was notified by defendant to have 
 11 Tex. Civ. App. 14.5, 148, .32 S. W. 427. the staves prepared for loading, and that 
 
 4. Written contract relied on as de- defendant wrongfully refused to accept 
 fense for violation of carrier's duty.— and transport the staves when tendered, 
 Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, etc., to plaintiff's damage, was not demurra- 
 R. Co., 129 Fed. 480; Southern Pac. Co. ble for failing to allege that plamtiff 
 V Arnett, .50 C. C. A. 17, 111 Fed. 849. promised and agreed to ship the staves 
 
 5. Sufficiency of allegation.-Dunbar v. ^"d pay the freight thereon; the word 
 Port Royal, etc., R. Co :ir, S. C. 110, 15 agreed bemg defined as brought mto 
 c -r> o-~ ',^ A,,, ct p,.,^ aac harmony, united in opinion, settled by 
 S. E. o.<, .,1 Am^ St. R. ). 8r,0. consent," and the allegation that plaintiff 
 
 6. That defendant railway a common ^^.^^ notified by defendant to have the 
 earner.— Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, ^^^^.^^ prepared for loading showing at 
 71 111. 540. I^^g^ ^}^^^ plaintiff was to accept the con- 
 
 7. Allegation of acceptance of offer. — ^j-j^j^^ l^y acting, and not by written ac- 
 Southern R. Co. v. Wilcox. 'J9 \'a. :594, ceptance (citing 1 Words and Phrases, 
 .39 S. K. 144. 279). Mott V. Jackson, 172 Ala. 448, 55 
 
 8. "Agreed." — A complaint, alleging So. 528. 
 
 that defendant, a common carrier, prom- 9. Demand that cars be furnished. — 
 
 ised and agreed with plaintiff for a re- Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Rolfc. 76 Ark. 
 ward to receive and transport some 220, 88 S. W. 870.
 
 459 si'KciAL CONTRACTS. §§ 770-772 
 
 its terms, and is not uncertain for failure to specify the time when the cars 
 were to be furnished, it being presumed that the parties made their contract in 
 view of the usual custom relative to the transaction with knowledge of the time 
 when, in the onlinary course, the crop would be moved.'" 
 
 Tender of Shipment. — A complaint in an action against a railway company 
 for failure to funusli cars which alleges that plaintiff placed for shipment at 
 stations named certain (|uantities of lumber, and that he offered the same for 
 shipment. sutTicicntlv shows tliat tlic tender was to the respective station agents. ^^ 
 
 Fact of Delivery of Goods to Carrier. — See ante. "Xecessary Allega- 
 tions." § 7')'^. 
 
 Allegation of Delivery of Goods within Reasonable Time. — An allega- 
 tion in the declaration that the goods were delivered according to the agreement 
 is to be construed as alleging,' a delivery within a reasonable time.'- 
 
 Readiness to Pay Freight. — A declaration in an action to recover for dam- 
 ages for defendant's breach of contract to furnish cars to carry plaintiff's live 
 stock, plaintiff declared on the special contract, alleging that "for a certain rea- 
 sonable hire or reward, to be thereupon ])aid by the plaintiff to the defendant 
 in that behalf," defendant agreed to furnish the cars, sufficiently alleged plain- 
 tiff's readiness to pay the freight at the time the car was demanded.'-' 
 
 Breach of Contract to Stop at Any Intermediate Point. — In an action 
 against a railroad company for breach of a condition in a bill of lading to the 
 eft'ect that the car containing bananas might be stopped at any intermediate point, 
 the complaint having alleged that there was a good market for the bananas at 
 both of the places named, that they had a market value which was stated, and 
 that they were shipped to meet the demands of the markets at such place, but 
 that by being carried further, they became unfit for use. was sufficient.'-* 
 
 § 771. Theories of Case. — A complaint for breach of a contract to carry 
 lumber by boat during the boating season, alleging that plaintiff was thereby 
 compelled to pay to others excessive freights to a certain amount, as one theory 
 of the measure of damages, and alleging that by reason of defendant's promises 
 that the lumber would all be conveyed, in due time, plaintiff" kept a large amount 
 of lumber on its docks, ready for shipment, which it was compelled to carry 
 over the winter, and sell in the spring at a reduced price, and was compelled to 
 pay taxes, interest, and insurance during the winter, as another theory of the 
 measure of damages, does not present inconsistent theories, but the jury may 
 be required to find on both.''' 
 
 § 772. Aider by Subsequent Pleadings and Verdict. — The subsequent 
 pleadings may supi)ly defects in the petition."' 
 
 10. Time when cars to be furnished. 16. Aider by subsequent pleadings— 
 — Oretjon R.. etc.. Co. v. Dumas. 104 C. The answer, after a tieiieral denial, al- 
 C. A. V.41, isi Fed. 781. leged a contract whereby it was to fur- 
 
 11. Tender of shipment. — Choctaw, nish cars on a certain day. in time for 
 etc., R. Co. V. Rolfe. TO Ark. 220. 88 S. plaintiff's cattle to reach the Chicago 
 \V. 870. market of a certain other day. and al- 
 
 12. Allegation of delivery of goods ^^'S^ed .that the cars were in readiness for 
 within reasonable time.-Southern R. Co. Pl^'ntift s use m due time, but that p am- 
 f Wilc.x '..',. \ a. :!l.4. liU S. E. 144. M*^ refused to take them. The replica- 
 
 ^ .,^ ,. r • L^ IT' . t'on admitted the contract as pleaded m 
 
 13. Readiness to pay f reight.-\\ ater- ^,^^ answer. Held, that the subsequent 
 man r. \ crmont Cent. R. Co., 2., \ t. ,0<. p,^.^ji„„s jj^j ^q^ supply the defects of 
 
 14. Breach of contract to stop at any t}^^ petition so as to justify a trial on 
 intermediate point. — Tebbs v. Cleveland. ^1,^ theory of an unpleaded contract 
 etc., R. Co.. 20 Ind. App, 192, 50 X. E. whereby defendant agreed to have the 
 480. cars ready at 1 a. m.. and not for failure 
 
 15. Theories of case. — Shores Lumber to furnish cars in time for the Chicago 
 Co. V. Starke, loo Wis. 498. 76 X. \V. StiO. market. Currell v. Hannibal, etc.. R. Co., 
 
 71 S. W. 113. 97 Mo. App. 93.
 
 §§ 771-17A CARRIERS. 460 
 
 Aider by Verdict. — \\"here in an action for not transporting certain goods, 
 the plaintitt declared that he loaded the goods on board the defendant's vessel, 
 to be transported by the defendant for a specified freight, to be paid by the 
 consignee, and that the defendant, in consideration thereof, promised to trans- 
 port and deliver the goods to the consignee, the declaration will, after verdict, 
 be held good, though it did not aver that the goods were the plaintitf's, nor that 
 a reasonable time for transporting them had elapsed. i' 
 
 Want of Allegation of Readiness to Pay Freight.— \\ here the contract 
 sued on was fairlv susceptible of the inter})retation that plaintitT was to pay a 
 reasonable freight' at the end of the carriage, a declaration alleging that, "for 
 a certain reasonable hire or reward to be thereupon paid by the plaintiff to the 
 defendant in that behalf," defendants agreed to let plaintiff have a car, etc., 
 was sufficient, on a motion in arrest, after verdict, for the want of an allegation 
 of readiness to pay the freight to the defendant at the time of demanding the 
 car.^^ 
 
 § 773. Plea or Answer.— Plea Denying Agency of Persons Making 
 
 Contract.— Where the agency of the person making a shipping contract which 
 included personal transportation is not denied by verified plea, the contract is 
 binding on the carrier.^'^ 
 
 Answer. — On a complaint for breach of a contract to furnish and set in cars 
 on a warehouseman's siding, an answer that the warehouseman had allowed the 
 cars to be placed so far out that collisions with cars on the main track resulted, 
 and there was danger of others, was properly stricken; it not being sufficient 
 as a defense in bar, and not having been pleaded as a set-off or counterclaim. ^•> 
 
 Illegality of Contract.— See ante, "Necessary Allegations," § 769. 
 
 Demurrer. — Since it is a matter of proof whether or not an agent of a rail- 
 road company had authority to make a contract to furnish cars, it is error to 
 sustain a demurrer to an answer, in an action against such company for in- 
 jury to the shipment, alleging want of such authority.-^ 
 
 § 774. Issues, Proof and Variance. — In an action for breach of contract 
 by a carrier to furnish cars for shipment of timber, the damages sought being 
 the profits which but for such breach plaintiff would have made on his contract 
 to furnish the timber to \\'., the question whether plaintifif had to turn over his 
 contract with W. to certain persons to pay them what he owed them is not 
 within the issues, there being interposed only the plea of general issue and spe- 
 cial pleas that the contract sued on was indefinite and unilateral. -- 
 
 Evidence That Contract in Violation of Interstate Commerce Laws.— 
 When an interstate railroad is sued for the breach of a contract tp carry goods 
 at a reduced rate, evidence that the contract is illegal as a violation of the in- 
 terstate commerce law is admissible under the general issue.-'' 
 
 Bill of Lading Evidencing Contract "to Forward," Action on Contract 
 "to Carry." — In an action against a railroad company on a special contract 
 "to ship, transport, and carry" plaintiff's goods to N., a point beyond defend- 
 ant's line, plaintiff could not offer in evidence the bill of lading, showing defend- 
 ant's contract to be "to forward" the goods to N., and that defendant "assumes 
 no liability beyond its own rails," and "will not be responsible for delays or 
 
 17. Aider by verdict.^Stimpson v. Gil- 20. Answer.— Amsden v. Dubuque, etc., 
 Christ (Me.), 1 Greenl. 202. R. Co., l.'i Iowa 1.32. 
 
 18. Want of allegation of readiness to 21. Demurrer. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 pay freight.— Waterman v. Vermont Cent. Hanini, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 491. 
 
 R. Co.. 2.5 Vt. 707. 22. Issues, proof and variance. — Baxley 
 
 19. Plea denying agency of persons v. Tallassec, etc., R. Co., 12s Ala. 183, 29 
 making contract.- -International, etc., R. So. 4.51. 
 
 Co. V. Camubell, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 509, 23. Evidence that contract m violation 
 
 512 20 S W 845 of interstate commerce laws. — Southern 
 
 R. Co. V. Wilcox, 99 \ a. 394, 39 S. E. 144.
 
 4f,\ SrKCIAL CONTRACTS. § 774 
 
 damages from mia\ oidalile causes," — a contract to forward not l)eing a contract 
 to carr\- or trans])<irl.-' 
 
 Validity of Written Contract Executed after the Oral Contract.— In 
 an action 1)\ a shi])ijer against a carrier for failure to furnish cars within the 
 time specified in an oral contract, it is error to ignore the written contract, 
 pleaded by defendant, executed after the oral contract, and releasing defendant 
 from lialnlitv for breach of the oral contract— its validity not having been as- 
 sailed in pla'inlifi"s jV.eadings— as. in the absence of a pleading putting in issue 
 the vahdity of the written contract, it, besides reciting a consideration, imports 
 
 one.-'' 
 
 Title of Consignee. — W here in an action ])y a consignee against the car- 
 rier and consignor to recover for damages to perishable freight, the consignee's 
 title being in issue the claim being that the property belonged to the consignor, 
 the consignee having in a sn])])lemental petition, and by way of estoppel, alleged 
 that he had i)resented a claim to the comijany. which it had refused to pay, say- 
 ing that, if the goods were damaged, it was the fault of the carrier, from which 
 the consignee must collect his claim, whereby tlie consignee was induced to sue 
 the carrier, the facts so alleged were admissildc under the consignee's general 
 allegation of ownership.-"'' 
 
 Instruction to Stop at Intermediate Point.— \\ here the contract for the 
 shipment of stock from L'tah to Chicago required that the shipment be made 
 through Omaha, but the stock was shipped by another route, whereby the ship- 
 per, lost an op])orlunilv to dispose of it at Omaha, it was proper, in an action 
 for the breach, for i)laintiff to testify that he told the shipping agent he wanted 
 the stock stopped at ( )niaha, as he expected it would be sold there; such testi- 
 mony not varying the terms of the contract.-" 
 
 Parol Evidence Where Bill of Lading Delivered after Contract Not 
 Relied on. — In an action against a carrier for loss resulting from defendaiu's 
 delav in delivering perishable goods which it undertook to carry for plaintilt, 
 where no bill of lading w^as delivered to plaintiff, and he sued on a verbal con- 
 tract made by him with defendant's agent to deliver the goods within four days 
 from the date of ilicir shipment, and defendant in its answer does not rely on 
 the bill of lading subsequently delivered to plaintiff, the rule that oral testimony 
 can not, in the absence of any allegation of fraud or mistake, be introduced to 
 change or varv the terms of a written contract, does not apply. -^ 
 
 Contract by Receiver or Agent of Receiver. — In an action against a rail- 
 road receiver for damages on a shipping contract to which the company was 
 subsequently made a j^iarty, there is no variance between the contract stied on 
 wdiich was alleged to have been executed by receiver and the contract in evi- 
 dence which was signed by the agent of receiver without showing on its face 
 that it w-as made with the receiver, where the road was in the receiver's hands, 
 when the contract was made.-'' 
 
 Contract to Furnish Cars on Specific Day— Evidence Showing Negli- 
 gent Delay.— W here a petition alleged the breach by a railroad of a contract 
 to furnish cars on a specific date, it was error to submit to the jury the issue. 
 
 24. Bill of lading evidencing contract 27. Instruction to stop at intermediate 
 "to forward," action on contract "to point. Sliarp :. Clark. 1P> Utah .".m. 4:. 
 carry."— Dunbar v. Port Royal, etc., R. I'ac. .".r.f.. ^ , j- 
 Co., 3C> S. C. 110, 15 S. H. 357, 31 Am. St. 28. Parol evidence where bill of lading 
 Rep. 8(i0. delivered after contract not relied on. — 
 
 25. Validity of written contract exe- ClusaiHako. etc., R. Co. :. Bradford. 15 
 cuted after the oral contract.— Ft. Worth, Ky. L. Rep. f,0. Sec ante, -Mer-er." ^5; 
 etc.. R. Co. f. Underwooil, 30 Tex. Civ. 75r). 700. 
 
 App. 404, S7 S. W. 713. 29. Contract by receiver or agent of 
 
 26. Title of consignee.— Texas Cent. R. receiver.— Texas, etc.. R. Co. f. Wilson 
 Co. 7: Dorscv, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 377, 70 (Tex. Civ. App.V 21 ?. W. 373. afhrmed 
 S. W. 575. in 85 Tex. 507.
 
 §§ 774-776 CARRIERS. 462 
 
 raised onlv by the evidence, of a negligent delay in furnishing cars.-"^*^ 
 
 Variance immaterial. — The variance is immaterial where, in an action 
 against a carrier on a bill of lading, the complaint alleged the bill of lading in 
 the form prescribed by the Code and the bill introduced in evidence contained 
 special limitations of the carrier's common-law liability;-'^ where a petition to 
 recover damages for a violation of a contract of affreightment to car r\- safely 
 alleged that the shipment was from Kansas City to Indianapolis, when in fact 
 the contract was from Kansas City to St. Louis, the evidence showing that the 
 alleged injuries occurred between Kansas City and St. Louis; 3- where, in an 
 action for breach of a carrier's contract to furnish cars, plaintiff alleged that 
 defendant's agent who acted for them in negotiating the contract, to wit. W. and 
 S., were duly authorized to make such contract, proof that plaintiff" negotiated 
 the contract with S. through letters and telegrams, and consummated a verbal 
 contract with ]\I.-'^ 
 
 "Variance Material. — Where an action is brought for an alleged breach of 
 a carrier's implied contract, and the goods are shown to have been shipped, un- 
 der a special written contract, the plaintiff' can not recover.-^-* 
 
 Variance as to Point of Destination. — In a suit against a carrier for 
 breach of contract of shipment, allegation in the petition that the contract pro- 
 vided for the shipment to a certain point, and the contract introduced showed 
 shipment to a different point, the variance was fatal.''-'' 
 
 § 775. Questions for Jury. — The question as to whether certain goods 
 were shipped upon a bill of lading or under a prior parol contract covering fu- 
 ture shipments is a question of fact for the jury.'^'^ 
 
 "Whether Parties Made Alleged Contract. — In an action against a car- 
 rier for failure to deliver cars, whether the parties made an alleged contract to 
 furnish them, as testified to by plaintiff", was a question of fact, so that it was 
 not error to deny defendant's motion for an instructed verdict.^" 
 
 "Whether Goods Delivered within Reasonable Time. — Where a contract 
 for the shipment of goods at a reduced rate requires delivery to the shipper 
 within a reasonable time, and there is considerable delay on the part of the ship- 
 per, but it is partially caused by the carrier making overcharges, and by an in- 
 crease in the rate, it is not error, in an action against the carrier for a breach 
 of the contract, to submit the issue whether the goods w^ere delivered to the car- 
 rier within a reasonable time.^"" 
 
 Authority of Agent to Make Verbal Contract. — See ante, "Authority of 
 Agent," §§ 715-723. 
 
 Merger of Oral in "Written Contract a Question for the Jury. — See ante, 
 "Contract Executed after Carriage Begun," §§ 7h7-7'b%. 
 
 §§ 776-784. Evidence — § 776. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. 
 — Burden of Proof of Making of Contract. — In an action against a railroad 
 
 30. Evidence showing negligent delay. 35. Variance as to point of destination. 
 
 —Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Arnett, 40 Tex. —Texas, etc:, R. Co. v. Hamm, 2 Texas 
 
 Civ. App. li\, 88 S. W. 448. App. Civ. Cas., § 491. 
 
 31. Variance immaterial. — Louisville, 36. Questions for jury. — St. Louis, etc., 
 etc., R. Co. V. Landers, 13.5 Ala. 504, 33 R. Co. z'. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 74 
 So. 482; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Cody, 111. App. (UO, affirmed St. Louis, etc., R. 
 137 Ala. 597, 34 So. 1003. Co. v. Elgin Condensed Alilk Co., 51 N. 
 
 32. Cash V. Wabash R. Co., 81 Mo. E. 911, 17."; 111. 557, fi7 Am. St. Rep. 238. 
 App. 109. 37. Whether parties made alleged con- 
 
 33. Pecos River R. Co. v. Latham, 40 tract. — Pope v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 
 Tex. Civ. App. 78, 88 S. W. 392, affirmed 112 Minn. 112, 127 N. W. 43G. 
 
 in 101 Tex. fi52. no op. 38. Whether goods delivered writhin 
 
 34. Variance material. — Stewart v. reasonable time. — Southern R. Co. v. Wil- 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 21 Ind. App. 218, cox. 99 \ a. 394, 39 S. E. 144. 
 
 52 N. E. 89.
 
 463 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 776-777 
 
 for its failure to furnish cars within a reasonable time for the shipment of cat- 
 tle, the burden is on plaintiff to pro\e the makin<( of a contract for the cars.-'"-* 
 
 That Rate Established by Railroad Commission. — There is no presump- 
 tion that the railroad commission of a state has established freight rates over 
 a particular road.-*" 
 
 That Rate Filed in Compliance with Interstate Commerce Act. — In a 
 suit against a railroad for breach of a contract to transport freight at a certain 
 rate, the burden is not on plaintiff to show that the contract rate had been filed 
 with the Interstate Commerce Commission and approved by the State Railroad 
 Commission, as required by Interstate Commerce Act Vth. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 
 Stat. 380, § 6 [L'. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3156], and Code 1892, § A292*^ 
 
 §§ 777-782. Admissibility— § 777. Relevancy and Competency.— In 
 an action against a carrier for failure to furnihh cars, evidence tliat cars were 
 ordered at a station from the agent there, who stated that cars could be had 
 through, the agent at another place, was admissible, as showing that the carrier 
 had contracted to furnish cars.'*- 
 
 Contract between Vendor and Vendee as to Purchase and Shipment. 
 — in an action against a carrier for failure to deliver goods committed to him 
 for transportation, evidence as to the plaintiff's purchase of the goods, and his 
 contract with his vendor as to their shipment, is admissible as part of the res 
 gestae to show plaintiff's interest in the gooch;, to identify them, and to show 
 that he authorized their delivery to the carrier, but not to show that the goods 
 were actually delivered to the carrier.-*-^ But in \'irginia it has been held : Evi- 
 dence of contracts by a shipper for the sale of goods to be shipped over a cer- 
 tain railroad, the railroad not being a party thereto, is inadmissible *in action by 
 the shipper against the railroad for the breach of a contract to carr}' the goods 
 at a certain rate, though such contracts of sale are based on the reduced freight 
 late.-*^ 
 
 Evidence as to Ability to Furnish Cars. — In an action against a railroad 
 company for damages f(jr failure t(j ship cattle as agreed, where it was claimed 
 in defense that the company was crowded with business, and could not furnish 
 cars sooner, evidence that empty cars stood at the shipping point during the 
 time of delay, and that the cattle were finally shipped in a part of the same 
 cars, is admissible."*'' 
 
 Knowledge of Officers That Carrier Unable to Furnish Cars. — Letters 
 of the officials of the carrier were competent to show that the officers knew that 
 the carrier did not have sufficient cars to meet the ordinary demands of ship- 
 pers.*'' 
 
 Seizure of Railroad by Confederate States. — Where, in an action against 
 
 39. Burden of proof of making of con- Mills v. Gulf, etc.. R. Co.. 84 Miss. 339, 
 tract.— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Ray Bros., 37 So. 134, 66 L. R. A. 453. 
 
 37 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 622, S4 S. \V. 691. 42. Relevancy and competency.— Gulf, 
 
 40. Presumption that railroad commis- etc.. R. Co. z\ House. 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 sion established rate.- ;^o hold where in 10.5. SS S. \V. 1110. 
 
 an action against a carrier to recover 43. Contract between vendor and 
 
 damages resulting fro'^i a failure to carry vendee as to purchase and shipment.— 
 
 out a, contract for the transportation of Xew England Mfg. Co. v. Starin, 60 
 
 produce at an agreed rate, defendant ex- Conn ']{\^ 22 \tl ')")3 
 
 cepted to the petition as showing a con- 44. ' Sou'tirern R. Co.' v. Wilcox. <)<i \a. 
 
 tract for transportation at a nxed rate „„, "io S F 144 
 
 made while the state railway commis- ' ' .S'., " ' ... r • . 
 
 sion was in existence, without alleging 45. Evidence as to ability to furnish 
 
 that such rate was authorized by the com- ^^'"!;— ^'"''- ^^"f^V- ^; ^^'- '■ McCrquodale. 
 
 mission. Thompson v. San Antonio, etc., '^ lex. 41, 9 S. \\ . SO. 
 
 R. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. .App. 115. 32 S. W. 46. Knowledge of officers that carrier 
 
 427. unable to furnish cars. — Midland X'alley 
 
 41. That rate filed in compliance with R. Co. :. HotYman Coal Co., 91 Ark. 180, 
 interstate commerce act. — Laurel Cotton 120 S. W. 380.
 
 ;§ 777 -7^^ CARRIERS. 
 
 464 
 
 a railroad companv to recover damages for failure to ship certain cotton, it was 
 shown that plaintiff had employed the defendant's station agent to purchase cot- 
 ton for him, and to hold and ship it under his directions, and the agent had been 
 instructed by plaintiff not to ship until he had purchased a certain number of 
 bales, evidence of the seizure of the railroad company by the Confederate gov- 
 ernment before the required number of bales had been jirocured should be con- 
 sidered as tending to prove that the defendant never received the cotton at all.^' 
 
 Commission Merchant's Quotation.— In an action for failure to furnish 
 cars to transport stock as agreed, accounts of sales and prices current sent by a 
 commission merchant to his principal are not evidence of the value or weight 
 of stock in the market.*^ 
 
 Effect of Date of Contract.— See ante, "Date of Contract," § 72f). 
 
 § 778. Parol Evidence.— Parol Evidence as to Records of Interstate 
 Commerce Commission. — In a suit against a carrier on an interstate com- 
 merce contract, oral testimony as to the schedule rates of the interstate com- 
 merce commission was proper, as the records of such commission could not be 
 reached bv process of the court.^-' 
 
 Parol Evidence Where Contract in Writing. — See ante, "Alerger," §§ 
 756-760. See. also, ante, "Issues, Proof and X'ariance," § 774. 
 
 § 779. Best and Secondary Evidence.— Where the defendant carrier 
 was alleged to be in possession of the contracts of shipment, and after notifi- 
 cation to produce them, defendant introduced secondary evidence of them, the 
 court did not err in refusing to strike out such evidence upon defendant's sub- 
 sequently oft'ering the written contracts in evidence. ■'*" 
 
 § 780. Custom. — In a suit for damages for breach of contract to furnish 
 cars, evidence, of custom in the matter of furnishing cars was properly excluded 
 as irrelevant and immaterial.'' ^ 
 
 § 781. Necessity for Production of Bill of Lading.— As the bill of lad- 
 ing received by the shipper from the carrier is the contract between the parties, 
 the shipper can not recover for an alleged breach of the contract of transpor- 
 tation by the carrier without producing in evidence the bill of lading,^- or ac- 
 count for its nonproduction and prove its contents in substance as alleged.^^ 
 If an action to recover for injury to live stock is founded on the carrier's com- 
 mon-lav; liability, and not on the bill of lading, it is not necessary for plaintiff 
 to produce the bill of lading in evidence."*^ 
 
 § 782, Evidence as to Net Profits. — Evidence of the eft'ect of the failure 
 to furnish cars to a mine as to expense of maintenance and as to the cost of 
 mining was admissible in determining the net profits recoverable. -^-^ 
 
 § 783. Reception of Evidence. — Reference to Memorandum of Con- 
 tract. — In a suit by a contractor against a railroad comi)any to recover dam- 
 
 47. Seizure of railroad by confederate (50, 93 S. W. 1024, affirmed in lOO Tex. 
 states.— Sumner v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 190, 97 S. W. 4G('. 
 
 78 X. C. 289. 52. Necessity for production of bill of 
 
 48. Commission merchant's quotation. lading.— Bedell v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 
 — Hoskins v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 19 (jj. q^ 22, 20 S. K. 2(i2. 
 
 Mo. App. 31.5. , r • 53. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 
 
 49. Parol evidence as to records of in- .^^^^^ ^ ^j^ ^^^^ ^ 1,;.. Missouri 
 terstate commerce commission.— Gulf, p^^ j^ <^^ .^, ^licholson. 2 Texas App. 
 etc., R. Co. V. Dimmitt, 17 lex. Civ. App. ^^j^ ^^^^ g ^^j^. g^^^ji ^ Richmond, etc., 
 25o. 42 S. W. .583. p. Cq 94 q^ 22, 20 S. E. 262. 
 
 50. Best and secondary evidence.^ . o r^ v i ^i.^„ 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Leatherwood, 29 Tex. ^ 54. Missouri Pac. R- Ca ... Xicholsou, 
 Civ. App. 507, 69 S. W. 119. affirmed in 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § lo8. 
 
 97 Tex. 634, no op. 55. Evidence as to net profits. — Mid- 
 
 51. Custom.— Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. land Valley R. Co. v. Hoffman Coal Co., 
 Evans--Snider-Buel Co., 42 Tex. Civ. App. 91 Ark. 180, 120 S. W. 380.
 
 465 
 
 SPI=:CIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 783-784 
 
 ages for the failure of defendant to furnish the number of cars agreed to be 
 furnished per day to be loaded with gravel, where plaintiff testified that at the 
 time the contract, which w^as verbal, was agreed on, he made a memorandum of 
 its contents, and that no reference was made in said memorandum to fiat cars 
 and- where plaintifi" also proved the alleged contract by the uncontradicted testi- 
 mony of twcj witnesses, defeiulant was not injured by the reference to the mem- 
 orandum.'"'' 
 
 § 784. Sufficiency of Evidence. — In General. — The evidence must tend 
 to show such an agreement as is sued ujjou or it is insufficient to make even a 
 prima facie case.-'"'" 
 
 Date of Contract. — It is sufficient to i)rove that the dam^ige occurred by 
 reason of the failure of the railroad company to furnish the cars, without ref- 
 erence particularly to the date of the entering into said contract."''^ 
 
 Contract to Carry at Reduced Rate. — Testimony of a shipper that he was 
 toKl by a ])erson who was in the office of a carrier, but not the regular agent, 
 that certain goods to be shipped a few days later would be carried at a certain 
 rate less than the tariff' rates, is not proof of a contract to carry at such reduced 
 rate.^^ In an action for breach of a contract of carriage, in which defendant 
 pleaded tliat the contract was invalid because the freight rate named therein 
 was unreasonable, while it would be some evidence of the justness of the charge, 
 conclusive perhaps in the absence of any other showing, to show that the rate 
 exacted was the published rate and the rate charged every one for a similar 
 service, it is not evidence when the purpose is to set aside a rate created by con- 
 tract.*'"' In such action where the record failed to show that the rate was dis- 
 criminatory or extortionate, or that it was unduly oppressive on the carrier, 
 other than to show that a published rate considerably higher than the contract rate 
 was established, it was insufficient to justify the court in setting aside the con- 
 tract rate.'"'^ 
 
 56. Reference to memorandum of con- 
 tract. — Robinson c'. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 Co.. 10:i Mich. (ior. (il X. W. 1014. 
 
 57. Evidence as to contract. — In an ac- 
 tion against a railroad company for fail- 
 ure to furnish cars to plaintiff, the latter 
 testified that he ordered three cars from 
 defendant to ship cattle in, that the or- 
 der was made at 11 o'clock, and the cars 
 were to he ready on the evening of that 
 day. Defendant's agent testified: That 
 in tlie morning plaintiff came to him, and 
 faid: "I am going for those steers to- 
 day. When can you have a train for 
 me?" That witness replied that No. 94, 
 a loaded train, was due at 1:12. That 
 plaintiff then said: "That will fix me. 
 I want my cattle to get in that train." 
 That at 11 o'clock plaintiff's cattle came 
 in, and he spoke to witness about the 
 train, and asked him what time he would 
 have a train. Held, that the evidence did 
 not tend to show an agreement to fur- 
 nish three cars to plaintiff. Gann t'. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 05 Mo. App. <i70. 
 
 Evidence in action for failure to 
 promptly ship the corpse held to show 
 that defendant's agent did not contract 
 to pay the undertaker's bill. Gathright v. 
 Pacific Exp. Co. (Tex.). 145 S. W.' 11S5, 
 affirming judgment. Pacific Exp. Co. v. 
 
 1 Car— 30 
 
 Gathright (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 
 
 103."i. 
 
 Evidence sufficient in action for breach 
 of a contract to furnish refrigerator cars. 
 — Ferrell & Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. 
 (Minn.), 138 N. W. 284. 
 
 58. Date of contract. — Morehouse v. 
 Texas Trunk R. Co., 4 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas.. § 2(57, 17 S. W. 1086: St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Evans. 78 Tex. 369, 14 S. W. 
 798: Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470, 10 
 S. W. 288. 
 
 59. Contract to carry at reduced rate. 
 — Wells. Fargo Exp. Co. f. Williams 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 314. 
 
 Inadequacy of rate. — In an action for 
 breach of a contract of carriage, the car- 
 rier must establish its claim of invalidity 
 of the contract on the ground of unrea- 
 sonableness of the freight rate charged 
 bj' direct evidence of the fact. Sultan R., 
 etc., Co. V. Great Northern R. Co., 58 
 Wash. 604, 109 Pac. 320. hearing in banc 
 denied 109 Pac. 1020. 
 
 60. Sultan R., etc.. Co. v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 58 Wash. 604, 109 Pac. 320. 
 hearing in banc denied 109 Pac. 1020. 
 
 61. Sultan R.. etc., Co. v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co.. 58 Wash. 604. 109 Pac. 320, 
 hearing in bank denied 109 Fac. 1020.
 
 §§ 7S4-785 
 
 CARRIER; 
 
 466 
 
 Proof of Ownership. — Where the evidence is sufficient to establish the title 
 of a vendee against the seller it is also sufficient to establish the title of the 
 plaintitl in an action against a railroad company for breach of a transportation 
 contract ;*5- but the plaintiff in such action is not entitled to recover where the 
 evidence' of ownership is insufficient to preclude the maintenance of a subsequent 
 action bv either the consignor or consignee."^ 
 
 Authority of Station Agent.— See ante. "Authority of Agent," §§ 715-723. 
 
 § 78 5. Instructions. — Instructions in actions for breach of special con- 
 tracts for transportation of freight must be tendered to the court by the party- 
 desiring them,^'-* must fairly submit the issue between the parties '^^ as based 
 upon the evidence '''' and pleadings."'" but must not assume f acts/-'^ be mislead- 
 
 62. Proof of ownership. — In an action 
 against a carrier for negligence causing 
 the loss of certain property in transit, 
 plaintiff's ownership of the property was 
 denied, and it was shown that plaintiff 
 purchased the property under a contract 
 which had been construed by the parties 
 thereto as passing title to plaintiff. Held, 
 that the evidence, being sufficient to es- 
 tablish plaintiff's title as against the seller, 
 was also sufficient to establish title as 
 against defendant. Union Feed Co. v. 
 Pacific Clipper Line, 71 Pac. 552, 31 
 Wash. 28. 
 
 63. Lashinsky v. Russian Co., 91 N. 
 Y. S. 175. 
 
 64. Necessity for tender — Authority of 
 agent of carrier to contract. — In an ac- 
 tion against a railroad company for fail- 
 ure to furnish cars, if the defendant 
 wishes to raise an issue as to the author- 
 ity of its agent to make the contract, it 
 should tender an instruction on that 
 point. McCarty v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 
 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 164. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for failure to furnish cars for the 
 shipment of live stock, the court in- 
 structed that if the jury believed that 
 plaintiffs contracted with defendant's 
 agent to furnish the cars at a certain time 
 and place, and that the agent had author- 
 ity to make such contract, and that de- 
 fendant failed to receive and ship the cat- 
 tle as agreed, to plaintiffs' damage, they 
 must find for plaintiffs. Held not error; 
 that, if defendant wished to raise an is- 
 sue as to the agent's authority to make 
 such a contract, it should have tendered 
 an instruction on that subject. McCarty 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 
 164. 
 
 65. Plaintiffs declared upon a verbal 
 contract to furnish cars. Defendant con- 
 tended that the shipment was under a 
 certain written contract or bill of lading. 
 The court, besides instructing that if the 
 jury believed from the evidence that de- 
 fendant's agent maxle such a contract^ and 
 had authority to do so. and that defend- 
 ant failed to furnish the cars to plain- 
 tiffs' damage they should find a verdict 
 in their favor, gave correct instructions 
 as to the measure of damages. Held, that 
 
 the court fairly submitted the issue un- 
 der the verbal contract. McCarty v. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co., 79 Tex. 33, 15 S. W. 164. 
 
 66. Based upon evidence. — Where the 
 record fails to disclose any evidence that 
 defendant's agent agreed to furnish cars 
 at a particular day named, it is error to 
 charge that, if the jury believe from the 
 evidence that the agent failed to furnish 
 the cars as agreed, plaintiff is entitled to 
 recover damages suffered by reason of 
 such failure. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Avery 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 33 S. W. 704. 
 
 Acquiescence of carrier in agent's vio- 
 lation of orders. — Evidence that one or 
 more of the agents of a railroad company 
 departed from their orders in shipping 
 fruit for one season by taking no bill 
 of lading, without evidence that the com- 
 pany had notice of such omission, does 
 not authorize a charge, in an action on a 
 contract of affreightment, that, notwith- 
 standing the agent may have violated his 
 instructions, yet, if the railway company 
 had knowledge of such contract, and ac- 
 quiesced in it, then it would be liable. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Felton. 36 S. E. 
 93, 110 Ga. 597. 
 
 Authority of drivers of express wagons. 
 • — In an action against an express com- 
 pany for the breach of a special contract 
 of shipment, it was error for the court 
 to assume in its charge that drivers of 
 delivery wagons for the express com- 
 pany had authority to make the contract 
 in question, where there was no evidence 
 
 67. A charge presenting an issue or 
 ground of recovery not presented by the 
 pleading should be refused. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ray Bros., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 622, 84 S. W. 691. 
 
 68. In an action for breach of contract 
 by a carrier's agent to furnish cars, where 
 the evidence was conflicting as to what 
 the agent told plaintiff, a requested 
 charge that the agent's statement that he 
 would try to have the cars furnished 
 would not be an agreement to do so, and 
 the verdict should be for defendant, was 
 properly refused, as assuming that the 
 statement was as stated. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Boshear, 102 Tex. 76, 113 S. 
 W. 6.
 
 467 
 
 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 § 785 
 
 ing,*'-' or confusing,'" conllicting,' ' or on the weight of the evidence,'- or with- 
 draw from the jury facts material in determining whether the carrier excused 
 its failure to furnish cars."-' 
 
 ill the- record tending to show that they 
 had such authority. Pacific Exp. Co. v. 
 Xcedham, 83 S. W. 22, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 129. 
 
 Liability for injury to live animals.— 
 In an action \)y an express company to 
 recover compensation for carrying live 
 pigeons, where neither the pleadings nor 
 the evidence indicated in what character 
 plaintiffs transmitted the birds, the re- 
 fusal of requests based on an assumption 
 that common carriers are not liable for 
 an injury to live animals in the course 
 of transportation was proper. American, 
 etc., l'"\p. Co. V. IMiillips, 2'J Mich. .">15. 
 
 Damages for failure to furnish train 
 on main line. — Under the contract (the 
 evidence), consisting of plaintiff's letter, 
 stating that he expected to cut fifty car 
 loads of props and asking defendant "to 
 grant me train to load my props on the 
 main line," and defendant's letter, agree- 
 ing to furnish "a train," there is no error 
 in an instruction to allow plaintiff such 
 damages as he sustained by defendant's 
 failure to furnish "trains" of cars suffi- 
 cient to transport fifty car loads of props; 
 no train having been furnished. Outland 
 V. Seal)oard, etc., R. Co., 46 S. E. 735, 134 
 X. C. 3.50. 
 
 69. Misleading instructions — Duty of 
 dispatcher to control cars. — In an action 
 against a railroad company for failure to 
 provide cars to a shipper as agreed, it 
 appeared that on the day before the cars 
 were required the necessary number were 
 standing at the desired place, but that 
 they were removed, and none furnished 
 in their stead. Held, that it was mislead- 
 ing to charge, without explanation, that 
 "it was the duty of the train dispatcher 
 to control defendant's cars, and to as- 
 sign them in the order in which they 
 were called for l^y the shipper," the com- 
 pany having a right, under such circum- 
 stances, to remove them elsewhere if it 
 make arrangements to furnish cars in 
 their stead at the proper time. Newport 
 News, etc.. R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 Ky. 475, 
 29 S. W. 301, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 5.-..-.. 
 
 Agreement to ship by a passenger train. 
 — In an action for delay in transporting 
 a circus, where plaintiff alleged and pro- 
 duced evidence to establish that carrier's 
 agent agreed to place the circus car in 
 a passenger train, and after failing to do 
 so, agreed to put it in the first freight 
 train, which he also failed to do, it was 
 error to submit a charge on plaintiff's 
 constructive or actual notice of agent's 
 want of authority to contract for the 
 passenger train, without also charging as 
 to the freight train agreement. Such 
 charge was misleading and prejudicial, as 
 ignoring the subsequent agreement to 
 
 send the car by the freight train. Parks 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 
 S. W. 708. 
 
 70. In an action against a railroad for 
 failure to furnish cars, the petition al- 
 leged the making of a contract with de- 
 fendant's agent in one county to furnish 
 cars at a point in another county. There 
 was evidence of an application for cars 
 as alleged, but no direct evidence of the 
 agent's authority to make such a contract. 
 The agent testified that no request had 
 been made of him, but that his books 
 showed that the request was made of 
 his clerk, and recited that the message 
 had been sent to the _agent in the other 
 county. The court, in its general charge, 
 submitted the issue of contract vel non, 
 as alleged, and in its special charge stated 
 that the local agent had no authority to 
 bind defendant to furnish cars in the 
 other county, but had the right to place 
 an order with the local agent in the other 
 county, for cars to be furnished there, 
 and that, if he did place the order, de- 
 fendant would be bound thereb}'. Held, 
 that the general charge, together with the 
 special charge, was confusing. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Ray Bros., 84 S. W. 691, 
 37 Tex. Civ. App. 622. 
 
 71. Conflicting instructions. — An in- 
 struction that a railroad company^ is not 
 required to furnish cars at any particular 
 hour of the day. and that a "delivery at 
 any hour of the day is a delivery on such 
 day, does not conflict with an instruction 
 that the railroad has the right to furnish 
 and supply cars the day before the day 
 specified, so as to have them ready for 
 the day for which demanded. McGrew 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 109 Mo. 5S2, 19 
 S. W. 53. 
 
 72. Instruction on weight of evidence. 
 — Texas, etc.. R. Co. -•. Rav Bros., 37 
 Tex. Civ. /\pp. 622, 84 S. W. 691. 
 
 Where, in an action against the car- 
 rier for damages to a shipment of freight, 
 alleged by the shipper to have been made 
 under an oral contract and by the car- 
 rier to liave been made under a subse- 
 quent written contract, plaintiff showed 
 facts as to the written contract which de- 
 feated it as a contract, a charge that the 
 oral contract was not in force was prop- 
 erly refused as being on the weight of 
 the evidence. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mil- 
 ler (Tex. Civ. App.). 88 S. \V. 499. 
 
 73. Where the evidence showed that 
 there was a market on the carrier's line 
 for only a small percentage of coal mined, 
 and that the greater percentage of coal 
 shipments went off the line, and that dur- 
 ing the shipping season there was an un- 
 precedented demand for cars for ship- 
 ment of coal and other commodities,
 
 §§ 785-789 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 468 
 
 Error Cured by Other Instructions. — An instruction that if the jury be- 
 Heved the evidence they should tind that defendant agreed to furnish plaintiff 
 with cars "as alleged in the complaint" (which was at such time as plaintiff 
 might need them) is harmless, though the contract merely required them to be 
 furnished within a reasonable time, they also being instructed that they were to 
 allow such damages as plaintiff' sustained by reason of cars not being furnished 
 in a reasonable time, and there having, as matter of law, been an unreasonable 
 delay in furnishing them."-* 
 
 § 786. Verdict.— See post, "Damages." §§ 787-798. 
 
 §§ 787-798. Damages— §§ 787-78 8. Liability— § 787. In General.— 
 
 See ante. "Liability of Shipper for Breach," § 754. 
 
 § 788. Breach of Contract Other than That Sued on. — In an action 
 for breach of a contract to furnish on a certain day a car for for the shipment 
 of cattle, damages can not be recovered for negligent shipment under a con- 
 tract thereafter entered into.'^ 
 
 § 789. Duty of Shipper to Mitigate Damages. — A shipper is ordinarily 
 required to mitigate or lessen the damages arising from a carrier's breach of a 
 contract to furnish means of transportation by exercising ordinary care to pre- 
 serve or dispose of his freight,"^*^ but he is not required in any attempt to lessen 
 the damages resulting from a carrier's refusal to supply cars as contracted for, 
 to employ, or attempt to employ, another carrier to do that which the defendant 
 carrier had obligated itself to do, and the failure to do which constitutes the 
 breach sued upon.'^''' 
 
 which demand could not reasonably have 
 been anticipated by the carrier, an in- 
 struction that the fact that the connect- 
 ing lines failed to return promptly the 
 cars of the carrier was no excuse for its 
 failure to furnish with reasonable prompt- 
 ness sufficient cars for the transportation 
 of the operator's coal was erroneous as 
 withdrawing from the jury the fact that 
 cars were ofif the line of the carrier, and 
 that the return thereof could not be se- 
 cured, in determining whether or not the 
 carrier excused its failure to furnish cars. 
 Midland Valley R. Co. v. Hoffman Coal 
 Co., 91 Ark. 180, 120 S. W. :i80. 
 
 74. Error cured by other instructions. 
 — Outlaiid T. vSeaboard, etc., R. Co., 134 
 N. C. :;:,o, w S. E. 735. 
 
 75. Breach of contract other than that 
 sued on. — Waters v. Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co., 110 X. C. 338, 14 vS. E. 803, 16 L. R. 
 A. 834. 
 
 76. Though plaintifY, induced to buy ice 
 by defendant railroad company's agree- 
 ment to transport it from where it was, 
 a few miles from its road, on another 
 company's tracks, to S., at $2 per ton, 
 bought it at To cents a ton, yet, having 
 made an absolute sale of it for $2 a ton 
 to a third person, which plaintiff would 
 have received but for defendant's breach 
 of its contract, he is entitled to $2 per 
 ton damages, less any expenses of ship- 
 ping, and less any sum he could have ob- 
 tained for it on sale to another; but he 
 can not recover this full amount where 
 
 defendant would transport the ice if de- 
 livered on its tracks, and plaintiff could 
 get it there for less than $2 per ton, but 
 made no effort to do so, and, being una- 
 ble to sell it, let it melt. Bigelow v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 N. W. 95, 104 
 Wis. 109. 
 
 77. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hodg^e, 10 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 543, 30 vS. W. 829. 
 
 Duty to procure transportation over 
 other line. — In an action for the l)reach 
 of a contract to transport goods, the rule 
 of damages which would obtain if the 
 plaintiff could not procure the goods to 
 i^e sent at all does not prevail when he 
 can send by another convej'ance. In the 
 latter case he must send the goods by 
 such other conveyance, and he will be 
 entitled to recover the difference between 
 the price at which the defendants under- 
 took to convey the goods and the price 
 which he was compelled to pay for their 
 transportation. Grund v. Pendergast (N. 
 Y.), 58 Barb. 216. 
 
 Where one makes a contract for the 
 transportation of goods, and delivers 
 them, ready for transportation, he has a 
 right to rely on the fulfillment of the 
 contract until it is repudiated, or he is 
 notified that the carrier can not or will 
 not transport the goods within a reason- 
 al)le time, and he is not oI)liged to pro- 
 cure their immediate transportation over 
 another line. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Flannagan, 113 Ind. 488, 14 N. E. 370, 
 3 Am. St. Rep. 674.
 
 469 
 
 SI'FXIAI, CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 790-791 
 
 §§ 790-793. Elements of Damage— § 790. Loss of Profits.— Specu- 
 lative i)rotits which niiglit have been lost as a result of a carrier's breach of a 
 contract for transportation are not an element of damages ; "'' but net profits of 
 operating a coal mine lost by reason of the carrier's failure to furnish cars 
 under a coiUracl binding the mine ojicrator not to shij) by another line may be 
 recovered.'" 
 
 Profits on Collateral Contract. — \\ liere plaintiff made an agreement for 
 a shipi)iug rate with drfcndani carrier, and, on defendant's refusal to give the 
 rate, canceled collateral contracts made on the faith of such agreement, he could 
 not recover loss of prospective profits on such contracts, since he should have 
 performed them, making his shipments at regular rates, and holding rlefendant 
 for the excess over the rate agreed.''" Where ])laintitf, at the time of making 
 an agreement for shipping rates with defendant com])any, stated he intended to 
 make certain contracts, but did not state the terms thereof, loss of profits on 
 such collateral contracts, occasioned by defendant's failure to keep its agree- 
 ment as to rates, could not have been within the probable contemplation of plain- 
 tiff and defendant when their agreement was made, and plaintiff could not re- 
 cover for such loss.''' 
 
 Subsequent Contract of Which Carrier Had No Knowledge.— Where 
 a railroad company contrack'd with a coal cnm])any to furnish cars at a point, 
 and failed to do so, the company, in an action for breach of the contract, can 
 not recover for profits that would have accrued on a subsequent contract made 
 l)v it to deliver a certain num1)er of tons of coal per day to a buyer, if the rail- 
 ro.id company had no knowledge when it agreed to deliver the cars that the 
 coal conipanv contemplated such a contract. ''- 
 
 § 791. Expense of Renotifying and Reshipping. — In an action against 
 
 a carriiT for the lireach of a sjjccial contract of shiijuient, plaintiff can recover 
 
 78. In an action by the owner of a 
 brick yard against a railroad company for 
 breach of a contract to transport a defi- 
 nite quantity of liricks per week, the fu- 
 ture profits, which the plaintiff expected 
 to make, can not be considered in esti- 
 mating the damages. Harrison v. New 
 Orleans, etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 777. 
 
 Where a drayman breaches a contract 
 to haul from one part of a city to an- 
 other all the cotton intended for a cer- 
 tain press at a fixed price per bale, he is 
 not liable for loss of profits which the 
 press might have made by compressing 
 cotton its owners failed to get from his 
 not complying with his contract. Read- 
 ing V. Donovan, 6 La. Ann. 491. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for 
 breach of a contract to transport speci- 
 fied goods for a given time to a place des- 
 ignated, the fact that a ground of the 
 contract, known to the carrier, was the 
 owner's contracts with third parties for 
 sales of the goods to them, does not en- 
 title him to recover of the carrier the 
 profits which he would have made but 
 for the breach of the contract of carriage. 
 Harvey v. Connecticut, etc., R. Co., 124 
 Mass. 421, 26 Am. Rep. (>73. 
 
 Where a railroad company undertook 
 to transport a steam boiler for the plain- 
 tiff, which he intended to use in the busi- 
 ness of sawing lumber for the market, 
 and the company failed to comply with 
 
 their agreement, held, that the specula- 
 tive profits which might be supposed to 
 arise, but which were defeated because 
 of the breach of contract which dela3-ed 
 the business, could not be looked to as 
 an element of damages. V'icksburg, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458. 
 
 79. Net profits of operating mine. — A 
 carrier contracted to furnish cars to the 
 operator of a coal mine opened at the 
 instigation of the carrier and ])Ound the 
 operator not to contract with another 
 line for the shipment of its coal. The 
 carrier knew that fixed charges had to 
 be met at the mine, whether it was run 
 or was idle, and knew that the onh- prac- 
 tical way to mine was to load the coal 
 into railroad cars, and that it was not 
 practical to store coal. The carrier failed 
 to furnish cars. Held, that the operator 
 might recover as damages the net profits 
 of operating the mine. Midland \'alley 
 R. Co. V. Hoffman Coal Co., 91 Ark. 180. 
 120 S. W. 380. 
 
 80. Profits on collateral contract. — 
 Stctfen z\ Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 156 
 Mo. 322. 56 S. W. 1125. 
 
 81. Steffen v. Mississippi, etc.. R. Co.. 
 !.-)(•. Mo. :V2:3. .■)i-) S. W. 112.V 
 
 82. Subsequent contract of which car- 
 rier had no knowledge. — Clyde Coal Co. 
 r. Pittsl)ur-. ou-.. K. Co.. 226 Pa. 391, 
 7.-) Atl. 596, 26 L. R. A.. N. S.. 1191.
 
 §§ 791-794 CARRIERS. 470 
 
 items of expense incurred in renotifying and delivering to purchasers the goods 
 which .they had purchased, where defendant had heen fully informed as to the 
 accrual of this element of damage in the event it failed to deliver the goods 
 safely at the time agreed upon.^'* 
 
 § 792. Increased Freight and Extra Charges. — Where a drayman 
 breaches a contract to haul from one part of a city to another all the cotton in- 
 tended for a certain press at a fixed price per bale, he is liable for the increased 
 price required to have the cotton hauled. s-* 
 
 Breach of Charter Party. — In an action for breach of a charter party, 
 whereby defendant was compelled to pay for the transportation of two cargoes 
 by other vessels, the measure of damages is the difference between the freight 
 as fixed in the charter party and the freight actually paid for the transportation 
 of the carLioes which the chartered vessel failed to carry.^^ 
 
 Goods Carried Part of Distance. — A\here, by a contract, a common car- 
 rier undertook to deliver merchandise at a particular point, for a certain price, 
 and it appeared that the goods were only carried part of the distance, and the 
 shipper was obliged to pay, in addition to the full freight paid the carrier, a 
 freight to other carriers for transporting the goods the remainder of the dis- 
 tance covered by the original contract, the extra charge then incurred was ap- 
 parently a damage incurred by the failure of the first carrier to comply with his 
 contract, and, as such, fell within Louisiana Civ. Code, art. 3204, giving the 
 shipper a privilege on the vessel in which the goods were shipped, and a right 
 to the writ of sequestration.'^" 
 
 § 793. Breach of Particular Contracts. — Contract to Carry Definite 
 Quantity Per Week. — In an action by the owner of a brick yard against a 
 railroad company for breach of a contract to transport a definite quantity of 
 bricks per week, neither the interest on the money invested in buildings, etc., 
 nor the depreciation in the value of his property since the breach of the con- 
 tract, could be considered in estimating the damages.'^' 
 
 Contract to Furnish Cars for Props Cut and to Be Cut. — A railroad 
 company which contracts to furnish, for a certain amount to be paid as freight, 
 cars to transport a certain amount of props cut and to be cut, having broken 
 the contract, is liable for damages as respects the props cut at the time of the 
 contract, as well as those thereafter cut, including those cut after it gave notice 
 that it could not furnish cars.^^ 
 
 §§ 794-795. Measure of Damages — § 794. Breach by Carrier. — A 
 
 carrier refuLing to comply with a contract to transport goods is liable for the 
 dift'erence between the market value at the destination when they would have 
 arrived if he had complied, and their value at the same time at the place from 
 which they were to have been carried. '^^ 
 
 83. Expense of renotifying and reship- 89. Georgia. — Chattanooga Southern R. 
 ping. — Pacific Exp. Co. v. Xeedham, 37 Co. v. Thompson, 133 Ga. 127, 65 S. E. 
 Tex. Civ. App. 129, S3 S. \V. 22. 2S5. 
 
 84. Increased freight and extra charges. Nciv York. — The proper measure of 
 — Rcarling v. Donovan, La. Ann. 491. damages for the breach of a contract to 
 
 85. Breach of charter party. — Lumber- transport goods from A to B is the dif- 
 man's Min. Co. v. Gilchrist, 5 C. C. A. ference between the value of the goods 
 239, 55 Fed. 677, 6 U. S. App. 599, affirm- at A and their increased value at B. 
 ing (C. C.) 50 Fed. 118. Bracket v. McNair (N. Y.), 14 Johns. 170, 
 
 86. Goods carried part of distance. — 7 Am. Dec. 447. 
 
 White f. The Kate Dale, 16 La. Ann. 172. Pennsylvania. — On a breach of a con- 
 
 87. Contract to carry definite quantity tract to carry wheat from Pittsburg to 
 per week. — Harrison v. New Orleans, Philadelphia, the measure of damages is 
 etc., R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 777. the difference between the value of the 
 
 88. Contract to furnish cars for propa \\heat at Pittsburg, and the freight added, 
 cut and to be cut. — Outland v. Seaboard, and the market price in Philadelphia, if 
 etc., R. Co., 134 X. C. 350, 46 S. E. 735. the wheat had arrived pursuant to the
 
 471 
 
 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 § 794 
 
 Deterioration Caused by Delay to Furnish Cars. — In a suit to recover 
 damages for failure to furnisli cars for the sliipnient of fruit, where the dam- 
 ages claimed are as compensation for the deteriorated condition of the fruit, 
 caused by the delay in furnishing cars, the difference in the market value of 
 the fruit at the point of shipment at the time the cars should have been fur- 
 nished, and at the time they were actually furnished, may be considered by the 
 jurv ill oliniatiiif^- damages."" 
 
 Refusal to Transport at Agreed Rate. — The measure of damages for a 
 breach of a contract for the transportation of goods is the difference between 
 their market price or value at the destination to which they were to have been 
 carried at the time they would have arrived there, if the carrier had performed 
 his contract, and their value at the same time at the place from which they were 
 to have been carried, less the agreed freight and other necessary charges of 
 transportation.'*^ Quaere, as to the rule, when the ])lace of destination is be- 
 yond the terminus of defendant's route. •'- 
 
 Contract to Deliver by Certain Time at Specified Rate. — In an action 
 upon a contract for the transporlalion of certain L;o()ds at a specific rate by a 
 certain time, where they were never taken possession of by the carrier, the 
 measure of damages for the breach is the difference in the value of the goods 
 at the time and place wdiere they were to be delivered and the value of the same 
 quantity of goods at the same time at the place from which they were to be 
 transported, with the cost of transportation at the specified rate added, with in- 
 terest on such dift'erence from the time the goods were to be delivered at the 
 
 contract. O'Conner r. Forster (Pa.), 10 
 Watts 418. 
 
 Texas. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Sto- 
 vall, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 251. 
 
 In an action against a railroad for fail- 
 ure to provide cars for the shipment of 
 plaintiff's corn, the latter can not recover 
 l)Oth the profits he might have made if 
 the corn had l)een shipped and the ex- 
 penses incurred in preparing it for trans- 
 portation. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. V. Hodge, 
 10 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 30 S. W. 829. 
 
 90. Deterioration caused by delay to 
 furnish cars. — Cliattanooga Southern R. 
 Co. T. Thompson. 133 Ga. 127, G5 S. E. 
 285. 
 
 91, Refusal to transport at agreed rate. 
 — Harvey v. Grand Trunk R. Co., Fed. 
 Cas. No. 6,180, 2 Hask. 124. 
 
 Indiana. — Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Cas- 
 ter, 13 Ind. 1()4. 
 
 Iowa. — In an action, upon a breach of 
 contract for the transportation of grain 
 from C. to L. at a stipulated price, the 
 defendant having refused to receive the 
 grain, the measure of damages was held 
 to be the difference between the market 
 price of the grain at C. and its market 
 price at L. (which was greater) at the 
 time it should have been delivered, less 
 the agreed price of carriage; the defend- 
 ant having failed to show that the grain 
 would not have reached without delay 
 or in safety the port of delivery, if he 
 had received it according to his contract, 
 or that his violation was not willful, or 
 that the plaintiff could, in the exercise of 
 ordinary care, have obtained another con- 
 
 vejance. Bridgman z\ The Emily, 13 
 Iowa 509. 
 
 Maine. — Where the defendant con- 
 tracted to carry fifty tons of the plain- 
 tiff's hay to a distant port for sale, the 
 hay to be delivered at the ship's side, and, 
 after receiving twenty-four tons on board, 
 declined taking any more, because the 
 ship was full, the rule of damages was 
 the difference between what the plaintiff 
 in fact received, or with due diligence 
 and i)rudence might have obtained, for 
 the hay left in his hands, and the price 
 at the port of destination, deducting 
 freight and expenses. Xourse v. Snow 
 (Me.), G Greenh 208. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Harvey r. Connecticut, 
 etc., R. Co., 124 Mass. 421, 26 Am. Rep. 
 G73. 
 
 Michigan. — The measure of damages for 
 the breach of a contract to transport from 
 one market to another aa ordinary ar- 
 ticle of merchandise, always to be found 
 in the market, is the excess in value at tlie 
 place of destination at the time when, by 
 the contract, the merchandise should have 
 arrived tliere, beyond its value at the 
 place of shipment, with the agreed freight 
 added, and such expenses as, under the 
 contract, the shipper would have incurred 
 in loading and unloading, etc.. had the 
 contract been performed. Ward's, etc., 
 Pac. Lake Co. r. Elkins, 34 Mich. 430. 22 
 .Km. Rep. 544. 
 
 Missouri. — Birney f. Wabash, etc.. R. 
 Co., 20 Mo. App. 470. 
 
 92. Michigan, etc., R. Co. r. Caster. 13 
 Ind. 164.
 
 § 794 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 472 
 
 point to which they were to be carried.-'^ 
 
 Contract of Sale Lost by Reason of Failure of Railroad.— A carrier, 
 for breach of contract to furnish cars to plaintiff, made with knowledge that 
 he had a contract to deliver the property offered for shipment to others on 
 board the cars at a certain price, is liable for the profit which he would have 
 made but for such breach ; «■* as, for instance, contracts for the delivery of cat- 
 tle,^^ grain,'"' lumber.''" timber'-'^ or wood.'"-' 
 
 93. Contract to deliver by certain time 
 at specified rate.— Cowley r. Davidson, 13 
 Minn. y~\ Gil. SG. 
 
 94. Contract of sale lost by reason of 
 failure of railroad.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hoa-e (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 986. 
 
 95. Where defendant had notice of 
 plaintiff's contract to deliver cattle at 
 their destination on a certain day, and 
 failed to furnish cars for the transporta- 
 tion thereof as agreed, and the cattle de- 
 preciated in value by reason of the delay, 
 the measure of damages is the difference 
 between the contract price at their des- 
 tination and their market value in their 
 damaged condition at the point of ship- 
 ment, less the freight. International, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Startz (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. 
 W. 575. 
 
 But, if defendant was not notihed ot 
 said contract, the damages would be the 
 difference in their market value at their 
 destination, and their value in their dam- 
 aged condition at the point of shipment. 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. Startz (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 575. 
 
 Where sale of cattle lost for season. 
 —The measure of damages for breach of 
 a contract for furnishing cars for the 
 shipment of cattle, which compelled 
 plaintiff to cancel a contract for _ their 
 sale, whereby he lost the opportunity of 
 putting them on the market for that sea- 
 son, is the difference between the rea- 
 sonable value of the cattle, when under 
 herd at the contemplated time and place 
 of shipment, and the amount stipulated 
 in the contract of sale. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 
 576. 
 
 96- The measure of damages on fail- 
 ure of a carrier to transport grain as 
 agreed is the difference between the price 
 at which plaintiff was required to sell the 
 grain and the price agreed to be paid 
 by the consignees, where such price is 
 less than the market value of the grain 
 at its intended destination. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Witherspoon, 45 S. W. 424, 
 18 Tex. Civ. App. 615. 
 
 Where defendant agreed to transport 
 plaintiff's grain to L. at a fixed rate, in 
 consequence of which plaintiff contracted 
 to sell the grain to dealers in L. at a spec- 
 ified price, the measure of plaintiff's dam- 
 ages, on the refusal of defendant to trans- 
 port the grain as agreed, is the difference 
 between the market value of the grain at 
 L. at the time it should have been carried 
 
 and its value at the place of shipment, 
 less the cost of carriage. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Witherspoon (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 38 S. W. 833; Inman v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S. W. 37, 
 affirmed in 93 Tex. 643, no op. 
 
 97. Plaintiff sued for a breach of con- 
 tract to carry his lumber by boat during 
 the boating season to C. When it be- 
 came evident to him that defendant would 
 not carry all the lumber during the sea- 
 son, plaintiff was unable to secure other 
 boats. There was no market for the 
 lumber at the place of shipment, and 
 plaintiff was compelled to hold it until 
 spring, when he shipped it to C, and sold 
 it for less than the price at C. the former 
 season. Held, that the proper measure 
 of damages was the difference in the mar- 
 ket price in C. during the time the lumber 
 ouglit to have been carried under the 
 contract, and the price when it could be 
 carried and sold the following season, 
 plus the cost of insurance daring the win- 
 ter, and interest on the proceeds of the 
 lumber which ought to have been car- 
 ried, from the close of navigation until 
 vv^hen it could be sold the following sea- 
 son. Shores Lumber Co. v. Starke, 76 
 N. W. 366, 100 Wis. 498. 
 
 98. Sale of timber. — Where defendant 
 carrier, at tlie time it contracted to fur- 
 nish plaintiff cars for shipment of tim- 
 ber, had notice of the existence of the 
 contract of W. to purchase the timber 
 from plaintiff, or knew that such con- 
 tract was in contemplation, and before 
 default in supplying the cars had notice 
 that it had been made and that the timber 
 was to be delivered to W. in performance 
 of plaintiff's contract with W., the meas- 
 ure of damages for failure to furnish the 
 cars is the profit which, but for such fail- 
 ure, plaintiff would have made out of his 
 contract with W. Baxley v. Tallassee, 
 etc., R. Co., 29 So. 451, 128 Ala. 183. 
 
 99. Where a railroad company, with 
 knowledge that an applicant for cars had 
 contracted to sell and deliver wood, failed, 
 without reasonable excuse, to furnish him 
 cars for its shipment, by reason of which 
 the contract was annulled by the pur- 
 chaser, it is liable to the applicant for the 
 profits he would have made on the con- 
 tract as actual damages. Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Campbell (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 
 S. W. 431, reversed 45 S. W. 2, 91 Tex. 
 551, 43 L. R. A. 225.
 
 473 SPFXIAL CONTRACTS. §§ 794-796 
 
 Reshipment to Another Point Necessitated. — In an action against a car- 
 rier who failed to haul freigiit. necessitating the reshipment of the goods by an- 
 other carrier, and to another jjoint, the measure of plaintiff's damages is the 
 difference between what he obtained and what he would have received at the 
 original destination, together with the additional expense of transportation, and 
 interest thereon.' 
 
 Where Carrier Transports Goods Part of Distance. — Where a carrier, 
 by failure to e.xercise due diligence, is able to tran.xporl the goods only a part of 
 the way, the shipper's measure of damages is the difference between the con- 
 tract price of transportation and the increased cost necessary to secure the de- 
 livery of the property at its destination, without any pro rata allowance to the 
 carrier for the ])arti,il carriage. - 
 
 Rate to Manufacturing Company to Secure Location of Plant. — W here 
 the shipper, a manufacturing company, instead of suing from time to time for 
 the difference between the contract rate and the freight charged on material 
 actually shipped, seeks to recover for the entire injury in one action, the measure 
 of damages is the diminution in value of the manufacturing plant by reason of 
 the carrier's refusal to maintain the contract rate; and this is true though the 
 shipper has liecome insohent.'' 
 
 Excessive Damages. — In an action against a railway company for breach 
 of a verbal contract to furnish cars for the shipment of certain cattle within a 
 given time, where, according to the market price at the place of destination, the 
 cattle would have sold for $968 more than they did if they had been shipped 
 as agreed, and j^laintiffs incurred further e.xpense, amounting to $95, in car- 
 ing for the cattle while waiting for shipment, a verdict for $700 is not excess- 
 ive."* 
 
 § 795. Breach by Shipper. — It seems that, where plaintiff', owner of a 
 canal boat, contracts to carry potatoes, to be put on board at a certain time, but 
 which are not put on board till some days after, thereby causing delav and ex- 
 pense to the plaintiff', the measure of the plaintift"s damages is not the diff'erence 
 between the ordinary rate of transportation of similar property and the rate 
 agreed to be paid to plaintiff', if the diff'erence were to be in his favor, together 
 with the value of the use of 'the boat for the time occupied by the defendants 
 in loading the boat beyond the time fixed by the contract, but plaintiff' is en- 
 titled to recover all the damages which, by default of defendants, he naturally 
 and necessarily sustains.'' 
 
 Voyage to Enhance Damages.— \\hcre a contract of aff'reightment has 
 been broken, and the master of the vessel knows that he can obtain no freight 
 at the port of lading, he can not make a voyage thither to enhance damages." 
 In an action to recover for the breach of a contract to furnish a given amount 
 of freight for a particular tri]) of a steamer, at a stipulated price, the defendant 
 may show, in mitigation of damages, that other freight was, or might have been. 
 I>rocured; but the burden of proof is on him, and, in the absence of such proof, 
 the measure of damages is the contract price of the freight.' 
 
 § 796. Special Damages. — A shipper can not recover special damages 
 arising from a railroad compan}-'s failure to furnish cars as agreed unless the 
 
 1. Reshipment to another point neces- signee, 109 Ky. 408, .59 S. W. 332, 22 Ky. 
 sitated. Laurent r. \';iu,ulin, .'.O \t. «.)(). L. Rep. 934. 
 
 2. Where carrier transports goods *• Excessive damages.— Gulf. etc.. R. 
 part of distance.— Spann r. I'.ric Boatman's Co. z: McCarty, S2 Tex. t)OS, 18 S. W. 716. 
 Traiisp. Co.. 11 Misc. Rep. (kSO, 33 X. V. 5. Breach by shipper.— Starbird z: Bar- 
 S. -A)V,. ()7 X. V. St. Rep. 3,54. ''^^'i'^' '^^ ^'^ V. 2,;(). 
 
 3. Rate of manufacturing company to , ^- Voyage to enhance damages.-Brad- 
 secure location of plant.-Xovport Xew.-^. "'l \/7,"*^"- %^^ "; "^/Uv- ^ o td- oin 
 
 etc., Co. r. McDonald lirick Co.'s As- ., 'r?^'i^'Z^: ''■ ^'"'^''^ ^^^ '"•>• ^ P'"" '^^- 
 
 3 Chand. 231.
 
 §§ 796-800 CARRIERS. 474 
 
 facts leading to the special damages are made known to the company. ■"* Where 
 a shipper desirous of shipping logs showed them to the general manager of a 
 railroad company, and explained the method and expense of loading them, and 
 the manager agreed to furnish cars, the shipper had a right to keep his teams 
 necessary for loading on expense while waiting for the company's performance 
 of the agreement, and on its failure to furnish cars he was entitled to recover 
 the expense as special damages.^ 
 
 Waggoner. — ^\'here a waggoner on being employed to carry a load of cotton 
 made the necessary preparations for the journey, but while loading his wagon 
 was discharged by the other j^arty, he was entitled to recover the price of carry- 
 ing the cotton. ^"^ 
 
 § 797. Proof of Damages. — Sufficiency. — Since, for a railway company's 
 failure to carry grain according to contract, plaintitt can recover only compensa- 
 tory damages, which he must prove, a verdict founded only on his testimony as 
 to what profit he would have made on the grain, if transported according to 
 contract, must be set aside.^^ 
 
 § 798. Release of Damages. — Damages for breach of a contract to fur- 
 nish cars for a shipment are not released by a provision in a subsequent contract 
 releasing such damages for the expressed consideration of a reduced freight 
 rate, where it appears that no reduction was given. i- 
 
 § 799. Interference by One Carrier with Contract of Another. — Where 
 C, by fraudulent representations to the person having charge of certain goods, 
 obtained possession of them for transportation, knowing that B., another car- 
 rier, had contracted with the owner for their transportation and the owner re- 
 fused to receive the goods from C, whereupon B. paid to C. the stipulated 
 freight, received the goods, and delivered them to the owner, B. could receive 
 the damages from C. if the goods, when received by B. and delivered to the 
 owner, were so damaged that the owaier had the right to recoup for damages 
 against B.'s claim for freight. ^^ 
 
 § 800. Contracts to Furnish Freight. — A contract with a proposed rail- 
 road, securing to it a percentage of all the tonnage moved by rail, incident to 
 the operation of salt-works, and referring in a clause to tonnage into and out 
 of that point, contemplates both the incoming and outcoming tonnage to the 
 operation of the works. ^-^ 
 
 8. Special damages. — -Choctaw, etc., R. road to the town wherin defendant's salt 
 Co. V. Rolfe, 76 Ark. 220, 88 S. W. 870. works were located, to give defendant 
 
 9. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Rolfe, 76 Ark. the benefit of competition in rates; de- 
 220, 88 S. W. 870. fendant agreeing to furnish plaintiff for 
 
 10. Waggoner. — Davis v. Crawford (S. transportation "for the full term of 20 
 C). 2 Mill Const. 401, 12 Am. Dec. 682. years, 66 per cent of all the tonnage 
 
 11. Sufficiency. — Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. moved by rail incident to the operation 
 Roberts. 71 111. 540. of its said works." The contract was 
 
 12. Release of damages. — Missouri, etc., silent as to the times when and the 
 R. Co. V. Darlington (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 quantities in which the tonnage was to 
 S. W. 550; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCarty, be delivered, but provided for the pay- 
 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716; Ft. Worth, etc., ment of liquidated damages for each year 
 R. Co. V. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 17 S. in which defendant should fail to tender 
 W. 834; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, to plaintiff 66 per cent of its tonnage. 
 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677, 680, 29 S. W. 565; It was shown that plaintiff's road was only 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Holliday, 65 Tex. 512. nine miles in length, and passed through 
 
 13. Interference by one carrier with an unsettled territory, in which the traffic 
 contract of another. — Barnett v. Central originating, besides that derived from de- 
 Line of Boats, 51 Ga. 439. fendant's business, was not sufficient to 
 
 14. Contracts to furnish freight. — Lone justify the building of the road, and that 
 Star Salt Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. without such business it would be operated 
 Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 355. at a heavy loss. It also appeared that de- 
 Plaintiff railroad agreed to construct a fendant's business required the constant
 
 473 
 
 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 
 
 §§ 801-802 
 
 § 8 01. Contracts for Drayage or Hauling. — An aj^'reement between a 
 railway and a drayman that the latter should haul to the dejiot of the former, 
 for a named price agreed to be paid by it, all freight that local shippers might 
 desire to have transported over its railroad did not bind the railroad to furnish 
 such hauling to the drayman, unless the shippers selected that road. Where 
 they shipped by another to an adjoining town and there transferred to the con- 
 tracting road, the drayman could not recover for loss of the i)rofits of hauling 
 in the hitter's depot. ^•'' A railway company is liable for breach of such contract, 
 and can not escape liability for depriving the drayman of the right to perform 
 the service at the price agreed upon by having it delivered to another road at 
 the initial point and hauled by that road to another point on its line before re- 
 ceiving it, where the person controlling the routing of the shipment designated 
 defendant's and not the oilier road as the route.^" Such contract did not bind 
 the shipper to deliver his goods to the defendant road.'" The dravman suing 
 for damages from being denied the right to perform his contract for lucrative 
 service, assumes the burden of showing that he was able and willing to perform 
 his ])art, had the carrier permitted,''' and a consignor was entitled to testify 
 that the consignee was entitled to route a shipment jjy rail.'^ 
 
 § 802. Contracts Enlarging Carrier's Liability. — Clear and Precise 
 Language. — To make a contract which enlarges a carrier's liability so as to 
 waive the limited protection which the law afifords him when entered into, it 
 "must be done by clear and precise language ; for the law will not imply from 
 any doubtful language such an intention, but will rather presume, when the 
 meaning of the contract is douljtful, that it was not his intention to waive a 
 protection so reasonable and so important to him. Express language will be 
 required to impose upon a party the responsibility of an insurer beyond his legal 
 obligation, or to prevent the operation of the customary rule in cases where 
 the act of God or inevitable accident excuses the nonperformance of a con- 
 tract." -° Statements by the commercial agent of a common carrier dulv au- 
 thorized to solicit shipments of freight in response to a statement bv the shipper 
 that he "wanted a quick run," that "it would take four days" to get the freight 
 to the Wednesday morning market, and that he would give the shipper a quick 
 run and as he had ten cars he could run them as special ; does not constitute an 
 express contract on the part of the carrier to ship and deliver within four davs.-^ 
 
 transportation of its product and its sup- 
 plies, and that the prompt filling of some 
 of its orders could be better accomplished 
 by shipment over a road other than plain- 
 tiff's. Held, that the contract did not 
 obligate defendant to deliver to plain- 
 tiff for transportation by regular and con- 
 tinuous delivery 66 per cent of its ton- 
 nage as it accrued. Lone Star Salt Co. 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 90 S. W. 863, 99 
 Tex. 434, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 828. 
 
 15. Contracts for drayage or hauling. — 
 Gulf, etc., 1\. Co. v. Dennison, 22 Te.\. Civ. 
 App. '.'9, ,"3S S. W. 834. 
 
 16. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Dennison, 25 
 Tex. Civ. App. 127. 60 S. W. 281, distin- 
 guishing Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Dennison, 22 
 Tex. Civ. App. 89, 5S S. W. 834. 
 
 17. Defendant railroad company con- 
 tracted with plaintifT to pay the latter 
 for all freight carried to its depot for 
 persons living in a certain city who wished 
 to ship freight on defendant's line. Plain- 
 tifT commenced to deliver a large quantitj' 
 of freight at defendant's depot, l)ut was 
 
 stopped by the latter, and paid for what 
 he had delivered: the shipper having made 
 arrangements to deliver the freight to 
 another road, at another station, to be 
 delivered to defendant at a connecting 
 point. Held that it was error to instruct 
 that the defendant had agreed by such 
 contract to pay the plaintifT for hauling 
 such freight, since the contract did not 
 iMud the shipper to delive*- the goods to 
 defendant company. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Deiuiison, 58 S. W. 834, 22 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 89. 
 
 18. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Dennison, 22 
 Tex. Civ. App. 89, 58 S. \V. 834. 
 
 19. Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. Dennison, 23 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 127, fiO S. W. 281. 
 
 20. Clear and precise language. — Inter- 
 national, etc., R. Co. :•. Wontworth, 8 
 Tex. Civ. .Vpp. 5, 14, 27 S. W. 680, af- 
 firmed in 87 Tex. 311. 
 
 21. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Went- 
 worth. 87 Tex. 311, 28 S. W. 277, affirm- 
 ing 27 ?. W. 680, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Title, Custody and Control of Goods. 
 
 I. Title and Rights of Consignor in General, § 803. 
 II. Title and Rights of Consignee in General, § 804. 
 
 III. Title and Rights of Carrier in General. § 805. 
 
 IV. Change of Destination, § 80C). 
 
 V. Seizure under Legal Process, § 807. 
 VI. Actions by and against Carriers, §§ 808-811. 
 
 A. Right of Carrier to Maintain Action, § 808. 
 
 B. Right to Maintain Action against Carrier, §§ 809-811. 
 
 a. In General, § 809. 
 
 b. Right of Consignor, § 810. 
 
 c. Right of Consignee, § 811. 
 
 § 8 03. Title and Rights of Consignor in General. — Where goods are 
 left with a common carrier to be delivered to the consignee without any quaH- 
 fication or restriction, the consignor parts with the goods and all control over 
 them.i and can not, by a subsequent direction to the carrier, prevent their de- 
 livery to the consignee,- unless such facts are shown as will justify the stop- 
 page' of the goods in transitu.^ A seller of goods for cash on delivery, who 
 delivers v.ithout payment, can not recover possession from the carrier after tlie 
 carrier in the usual course of business, and without notice, has given a negotia- 
 ble bill of lading therefor to the fraudulent buyer.-* The possession of one who 
 delivers goods to a carrier for transportation to himself as consignee gives him 
 a prima facie right to recover in conversion where the goods are attached in 
 a suit against another.-^ 
 
 When Carrier Consignor's Agent. — If the right to control the goods be 
 resen-ed by the shipper, the carrier must be regarded as his agent. ''^ The ques- 
 tion whether the consignor reserved the jus disponendi is one of intention, to 
 be gathered from all the facts and circumstances of the transaction." Where a 
 
 1. Title and right of consignor. — 
 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Wireman, 88 
 Pa. 264. See post, "Title and Rights of 
 Consignee in General," § 804; "Change of 
 Destination," § 806. 
 
 Where goods are shipped to a con- 
 signee over a railroad, the shipper has 
 no right to require a delivery at an in- 
 termediate point, although he ofTers_ to 
 pay the freight to the point of destina- 
 tion. Pinnix v. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 66 
 X. C. 34. 
 
 Right to demand redelivery. — Plaintif? 
 collected money for persons supposed to 
 be in the service of the United States, 
 and delivered it to defendant express com- 
 pany, directed to such persons, but the 
 company was unable to find the con- 
 signees. Held, that since the fact that 
 discharges had been issued in the names 
 of the consignees was evidence that the 
 money was not consigned to fictitious 
 persons, but to persons entitled to it, 
 plaintiff was not, as against defendant, 
 entitled to have the money redelivered 
 to him. Thompson v. Fargo (N. Y.), 4 
 Thomp. & C. 66.5, 2 Hun 379. 
 
 Under a shipment consigned to the 
 seller, "notify" the purchaser, title does 
 not pass to the purchaser, in the absence 
 of an^'thing to the contrary. Asheboro 
 Wheelbarrow, etc., Co. v. Southern R. 
 Co., 149 N. C. 261, 62 S. E. 1091. 
 
 2. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Wireman, 
 88 Pa. 264. 
 
 3. Stoppage in transitu. — As to con- 
 signor's riglit of stoppage in transitu, 
 see post, "Stoppage in Transitu," Chap- 
 ter 17. 
 
 4. Delivery of bill of lading to buyer. 
 — Western Transp. Co. v. Marshall (N. 
 Y.), 4 Abb. Dec. .57.5, 6 Abb. Prac, N. S., 
 280, affirming 37 Barb. 509. 
 
 5. Consignor also consignee. — Rosen- 
 cranz z'. Swofiford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 
 175 Mo. 518, 75 S. W. 445, 97 Am. St. 
 Rep. 609. 
 
 6. Right to control goods reserved by 
 shipper. — Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. 
 Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299. 
 
 7. Evidence as to intention. — Emery's 
 Sons V. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 
 18 Am. Rep. 299, followed in Miller v. 
 Sullivan & Co., 26 O. St. 639, reversing
 
 477 
 
 TITLE, Cl'STOUV AND CONTROL OF GOODS. 
 
 j§ 803-804 
 
 wholesale dealer ships goods to a retailer under an agreement that the title 
 should remain in the former, and that the latter should be responsible for them 
 while they were in his possession, and the retailer ships back the part of goods 
 unsold by the same carrier, the retailer is responsible to the wholesale dealer 
 for the value of the goods lost during transit, as the carrier is his agent.* 
 
 Rescission of Contract of Carriage.— Where a seller has authority "to 
 ship I)y 1i(i;lI,"" he may rescind a coiiiract of carriage with a boat owner, and re- 
 ship the goods in another boat, after they have been placed in the former boat 
 and a bill of lading has been sent to said buyer; and the rescission releases 
 such owner from all liability to the buyer for injury to the goods after they 
 were taken from his boat.'' 
 
 Delivery Conditional on Payment of Draft. — The shipper of goods, after 
 delivery to the carrier and receii)t of ])ill of lading, may make the delivery to 
 the consignee conditional on the latter's payment of a draft, provided the bill 
 of lading- has not l)ecn forwarded to the consignee, or some f»ne for his use.^" 
 
 After a consignor has elected to treat property as converted on ac- 
 count of the carrier's wrongful refusal to deliver according to his order, and has 
 notified the carrier of such election, he is under no obligation to defend suits re- 
 lating to the property or to aid the carrier in disposing of it.^^ 
 
 § 804. Title and Rights of Consignee in General.— Delivery to Car- 
 rier as Vesting Title in Consignee. — Where goods are in the possession of 
 the carrier to be delivered to the consignee it is presumed that the title to the 
 goods is in the consignee,'- subject only to the carrier's lien for freight. ^^ ^nd 
 
 in part 1 C. S. C. R. 76, 13 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 425. 
 
 On such question of intention, the 
 terms of the bill of lading are to be taken 
 as admissions of the consignor, and are 
 entitled to great weight, but are not con- 
 clusive. Emery's Sons v. Irving Nat. 
 Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 Am. Rep. 299. 
 
 8. Castelli z'. Jereissati. 80 N. J. L. 295, 
 78 Atl. 227. 
 
 9. Rescission of contract of carriage.— 
 Tootle V. Rusk. 5 O. Dec. Reprint 107, 2 
 Am. L. Rec. 553. 
 
 10. Delivery conditional on payment of 
 draft. — Louisville, cic, R. Co. f. Hart- 
 well, 99 Ky. 4;j(), IS Ky. L. Rep. 745, 36 
 S. W. 183, 38 S. \V. 1041. 
 
 11. Where property converted. — .\tchi- 
 son, etc., R. Co. v. Schriver, 72 Kan. 
 550, 84 Pac. 119. 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1056. 
 
 12. Title of consignee. — United States. 
 —Blum z'. The Caddo, Fed. Gas. No. 
 1573. 1 Woods 64; Lawrence v. Minturn 
 (U. S.), 17 How. 100, 107, 15 L. Ed. 5S. 
 
 Alabama. — Jones :•. Sims (Ala.), 6 
 Port. 138. 
 
 Arkansas. — Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Freed, 38 Ark. 614. 
 
 California.— Wehh v. Winter, 1 Cal. 
 417. 
 
 Georgia. — Rhodes, etc., Co. v. Conti- 
 nental Furniture Co., 2 Ga. App. 116, 58 
 S. E. 293. 
 
 Illinois. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Go. v. 
 National Live Stock Bank, 178 111. 506, 
 53 N. E. 326; Nonotuck Silk Go. v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 256 111. 66, 99 N. E. 
 893, affirming judgment 166 111. 519; S. 
 C.. 256 111. 76. 99 N. E. 897, affirming 
 judgment lt>6 111. .A-pp. 525. 
 
 Indiana. — Butler v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 Co., 18 Ind. App. 656, 46 N. E. 92; Madi- 
 son, etc., R. Go. V. Whitesel, 11 Ind. 55; 
 Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor, 103 Ind. 553, 
 3 N. E. 253; Cleveland, etc.. R. Go. 7-. 
 Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. 225, 41 N. 
 E. 480; Tebbs v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 20 Ind. App. 192, 50 N. E. 486. 
 
 lozi'o. — Bank v. American Exp. Co., 127 
 Iowa 1, 102 N. W. 107. 
 
 Kentuckv. — Hoeing v. Adams Exp. Co., 
 7 Ky. L." Rep. 664; Louisville, etc.. R. 
 Go. V. Fort Wayne Elect. Co., 108 Ky. 
 113, 55 S. W. 918, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1544. 
 
 Louisiana. — Schindler v. Smith, etc., Co., 
 18 La. Ann. 476; The Red River, 106 La. 
 42, 30 So. 303, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 Minnesota. — Benjamin v. Levy, 39 Minn. 
 11, 38 N. W. 702; McCauley v. Davidson 
 (Gil. 150), 13 Minn. 162; Amnion v. Illi- 
 nois Gent. R. Co.. 120 Minn. 438, 139 N. 
 W. 819. 
 
 Mississipti. — Butler v. Smith. 35 Miss. 
 457. 
 
 Xeic I'yrA'.— Thompson v. Fargo, 2 
 Hun 397, 4 Thomp. & C. 665 affirmed 
 in 63 N. Y. 479; White v. Schweitzer, 132 
 N. Y. S. 644, 147 App. Div. 544, reargu- 
 ment denied 133 N. Y. S. 1149; Price f. 
 Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; Wertheimer r. Wells, 
 Fargo & Co., 112 N. Y. S. 1062; Krulder 
 :•. Ellison. 47 N. Y. 36. 7 .\m. Rep. 402; 
 
 13. Lien for charges. — Memphis, etc., 
 R. Go. V. Freed. 38 Ark. 614; Howe i: 
 C. H. & D. R. Co., 18 O. C. C. 333, 10 O. 
 G. D. 182. See post, "Charges and Liens," 
 chapter 15.
 
 § 804 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 478 
 
 the consignor's right of stoppage in transitu. ^^ Hut until the. contract of ship- 
 ment takes eltect, the consignee has no title thereto.^'' In the ahsence of notice 
 to the carrier of the existence of a different relation, the consignee must be 
 treated as the owner of the goods, with authority to control them in transit.^'' 
 But where a party ships goods, consigned to himself, his agent, or the order of 
 eitlier,^" or where there is no agreement further than that the goods shall be 
 
 Dressner r. Manhattan Delivery Co., 92 
 N. Y. S. SOO. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Parker Buggy Corp. 
 f. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 152 N. C. 119, 67 
 X. E. 251; Gaskins z: Southern R. Co., 
 151 X. C. 18, 65 S. E. 51S. 
 
 0/r/o.— State v. Alullin, 78 O. St. 358, 
 So X. E. 556, affirming 10 O. C. C, X. S., 
 417. 20-30 O. C. D. 251; Howe v. C. H. & 
 D. R. Co., 18 O. C. C. 333, 10 O. C. D. 
 182: S. C, 18 O. C. C. 606, 10 O. C. D. 220. 
 
 South Dakota. — Hess v. South Dakota 
 Cent. R. Co. (S. D.), 139 N. W. 3154. 
 
 Toutcsscc. — Ochs V. Price, 53 Tenn. 
 (6 Heisk.) 483; Brooks v. Friend Paper 
 Co., 94 Tenn. 701, 31 S. W. 160. 
 
 Texas. — Xashville, etc., R. Co. v. Gray- 
 son County Xat. Bank, 100 Tex. 17, 21, 
 93 S. W. 431, reversing 91 S. W. 1106; 
 Greif & Bro. v. Seligman (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 82 S. W. 533; East Line, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hall, 64 Tex. 615, 620; Cobb v. 
 Beall, 1 Tex. 342, 347; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Rotter Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 104 S. 
 W. 402; Orthwein's Sons v. Wichita 
 Mill, etc., Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 600, 
 75 S. W. 364, affirmed in 97 Tex. 643, no 
 op.; Fort Produce Co. v. Dissen, 45 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 403, 101 S. W. 477. 
 
 J'irginia. — Vaughan Mach. Co. v. Stan- 
 ton Tanning Co., 106 \'a. 445, 56 S. E. 
 140. 
 
 iriscoiisin.—Congar z\ Galena, etc., R. 
 Co., 17 Wis. 477. 
 
 Service of garnishment process on the 
 consignee by a creditor of the shipper 
 before the goods arrive is good as against 
 another garnishment made after the 
 goods arrived. Schindier v. Smith, etc., 
 Co.. l>s La. Ann. 476. 
 
 Assignment of goods in transit. — A 
 bona fide assignment of goods at sea, and 
 their proceeds, is sufficient to pass the 
 legal title to the goods and proceeds, 
 without an indorsement of the bill of lad- 
 ing, so that replevin will lie for the pro- 
 ceeds. D'Wolf V. Harris, Fed. Cas. No. 
 4.221, 4 Mason 515. 
 
 Instances. — Where a lease for oil pro- 
 vides for delivery to the lessor of a frac- 
 tion of the oil in the pipe line of a car- 
 rier, there need be no actual physical 
 separation of the lessor's share from the 
 whole of the oil to vest title in him. 
 Smith V. Linden Oil Co., 69 W. Va. 57, 
 71 S. E. 167. 
 
 Where there was an order by letter, 
 for the purchase of two thousand bushels 
 of "red wheat, new crop, at 65 cents de- 
 livered Galveston, f. o. b. — shipment 
 
 within two days. Delivery at " and 
 
 the the seller wrote in reply, "We book 
 
 sale to you of 2,000 bushels 65 cents 
 Galveston," the reference to Galveston 
 was one of price only, and not as the 
 place of delivery, and upon delivery to 
 the carrier the title passed to the pur- 
 chaser. Orthwein's Sons v. Wichita Mill, 
 etc., Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 600, 75 S. W. 
 364, affirmed in 97 Tex. 643, no op. 
 
 A. purchased cattle, and consigned them, 
 without qualification, to his principal in 
 X'ew York, paying for them with "scale 
 tickets," in the nature of checks, which 
 were accepted by a bank, to be subse- 
 quently collected by draft on the con- 
 signee. After the cattle were en route, 
 the bank procured by the carrier two 
 shipping receipts, one covering the "scale 
 tickets" then accepted, and the other 
 those not yet presented. The receipts 
 recited that the carrier had received of 
 the bank certain cattle to be forwarded 
 to it at New York, but the cattle were 
 delivered as originally consigned. Held, 
 that delivery to the carrier put the title 
 in the consignee, and the bank, which 
 never shipped the cattle, and knew they 
 were shipped to consignee, did not ac- 
 quire title to them by the receipts. Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. v. National Live Stock 
 Bank, 53 N. E. 326, 178 111. 506. 
 
 14. Stoppage in transitu. — Memphis, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Freed, 38 Ark. 614; Krul- 
 der V. Ellison, 47 N. Y. 36, 7 Am. Rep. 
 402; Howe v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 18 O. C. 
 C. 333, 10 O. C. D. 182; Howe v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 O. C. C. 606, 10 O. C. D. 
 220; Brooks v. Friend Paper Co., 94 
 Tenn. 701, 31 S. W. 160; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Rotter Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 104 
 S. W. 402; Greif & Bro. v. Seligman (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 82 S. W. 533. See post, 
 "Stoppage in Transitu," chai)ter 17. 
 
 15. Until contract of shipment takes 
 effect. — Finn v. Western R. Corp., 112 
 Mass. 524, 17 Am. Rep. 128. 
 
 16. Tebbs v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 20 
 Ind. App. 192, 50 N. E. 486. See South- 
 ern Exp. Co. V. Fant Fish Co., 13 Ga. 
 App. 447, 78 S. Iv 197. 
 
 17. Goods consigned to shipper or 
 agent. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Lau, 57 
 Xeb. 559, 78 N. W. 291. See Whaley v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 84 S. C. 189, 65 S. 
 E. 1022. 
 
 Shipment "notify" the purchaser. — Un- 
 der a shipment of iron consigned to the 
 seller, "notify" the purchaser, title does 
 not pass to the purchaser, in the ab- 
 sence of anything to the contrary. Ashe- 
 boro Wheelbarrow, etc., Co. v. South- 
 ern R. Co.. 149 N. C. 261, 62 S. E. 1091. 
 
 Possession by a l)ank of a draft with
 
 479 
 
 TITLE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF GOODS. 
 
 § 8(H 
 
 shipped to a given point, and the consignor is shown to be the owner before 
 shipment,''' there is nothing to show a change of ownership. And if it appears 
 from a contract of sale that the title is to remain in the consignor until the 
 destination is reached, delivery to the carrier does not devest the title of the 
 consignor.'-' It is held that where a seller of goods delivers them to a carrier 
 and forwards Ijill of lading with draft attached for collection, the title vests in 
 the buyer without payment of price or actual delivery.-" The general rule that 
 a delivery bv the seller to the carrier is a delivery to the consignee,-' and that 
 the goods arc thereafter at his risk, may be changed by a contract that the 
 rights of the parties shall be otherwise.-- The presumption that the consignee 
 is owner of the goods may be explained or rebutted by evidence showing where 
 the real ownership lies,--^ and where the consignee's right in the goods is con- 
 troverted the (juestion of ownership is for the jury.-^ 
 
 By the acceptance of a draft for goods, accomi)anied by a bi"l of lading, 
 
 bill of ladiii.Li attaclicd as transferrec 
 thereof, the l)ill of lading containing the 
 recital, "Order Notify F." a buyer from 
 tlie consignor's vendee of the corn shipped 
 is only prima facie evidence of the con- 
 signing seller's intention to retain title 
 until payment of the draft. First Xat. 
 Bank v. McSwain, 75 S. E. 1106, 93 S. 
 
 c. ;{(). 
 
 Question for jury. — The presumption 
 tliat a person shipping goods, consigned 
 l)y l)ill of lading to himself or order, re- 
 tained the title, if litigated, is one of 
 fact for the jury. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 z\ Lau, Ts .\. W. .I'.n. :>7 Xeh. .■)59. 
 
 18. Agreement to ship goods to given 
 point. — Fast Line, etc., R. Co. z'. Hall. <')4 
 Tex. ()15. 
 
 19. Blakiston z\ Davies, Turner & Co., 
 42 Ra. Super. Ct. 390. 
 
 Where the consignor and consignee 
 enter into a contract. l)y which the con- 
 signee agrees to pay a specified price for 
 all the wheat that the consignor would 
 deliver to him at a certain point by a 
 specified time, the wheat purchased by 
 the consignor to fill tlie contract belongs 
 to the consignor until it reaches its des- 
 tination. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Nelson, 11 Teiin. (I Coldw.) 272. 
 
 20. Bill of lading attached to draft. — 
 Robinson v. Houston, etc., R. Co. (Te.x.), 
 146 S. W. 537, reversing judgment Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Robinson (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 131 S. W. 444. But see Cudahy 
 Packing Co. z: Dorsey. 26 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 484, 63 S. W. 548, holding that where a 
 carrier has instructions not to deliver 
 property until payment of draft, the title 
 does not pass upon delivery. 
 
 21. Straus & Bro. v. Wessel & Co.. 
 30 O. St. 211; Emery's Sons v. Irving 
 Nat. Bank, 25 O. St. 360, 18 \m. Rep. 
 299; Fort Produce Co. v. Dissen, 45 Tex. 
 Civ. .\pp. 403. 101 S. W. 477. 
 
 S., residing in Indiana, received from 
 W., a commission merchant of Cincin- 
 nati, $6,000, advanced on account of pork. 
 to be thereafter cut and shipped l)y S. 
 for sale on commission. In pursuance of 
 
 the contract, S. shipped by rail a car 
 load of the pork, consigned to W. at 
 Cincinnati, to whom he also sent an in- 
 voice of the shipment with a letter of 
 advice stating: "We deliver this load on 
 our own indebtedness." The value of 
 the shipment was less than the amount 
 of such indebtedness. The bill of lading 
 was taken by S. in his own name, and 
 was not forwarded to the consignee. It 
 was held that under these circumstances 
 the delivery of the pork by S. to the car- 
 rier was equivalent to a delivery to 
 the consignee. Straus & Bro. f. Wes- 
 sel & Co., 30 O. St. 211, affirming Wessel 
 & Co. V. Weber, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 844. 
 
 22. Contract changing rule. — Fort Pro- 
 duce Co. z: Dissen. 45 1 ex. Civ. App. 
 403, 101 S. W. 477. 
 
 23. Rebuttal of presumption. — United 
 States.— The Carlos F. Roses, 20 Ct. 803, 
 177 U. S. 655, 44 L. Ed. 929. 
 
 Alabama. — Southern R. Co. v. Proctor, 
 3 Ala. App. 413. 57 So. 513; Jones v. 
 Sims (.\la.), 6 Port. 138. 
 
 Indiana. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor, 3 
 N. E. 253, 103 Ind. 553; Cleveland, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Moline Plow Co., 13 Ind. App. 
 225. 41 N. E. 480. 
 
 Minnesota. — Amnion v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co., 120 Minn. 438, 139 X. W. S'9. 
 
 Kezv York. — Dressner v. Manhattan De- 
 livery Co., 92 N. Y. S. 800; Wertlieimer 
 V. Wells, Fargo & Co.. 112 N. Y. S. 1062; 
 Price z: Powell. 3 N. Y. 322. 
 
 Texas.— Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Caruthers (Tex. Civ. App.), 157 S. W. 
 238. 
 
 jri.ycoH.nH. — Cougar v. Galena, etc., R. 
 Co.. 17 Wis. 477. 
 
 Presumption of ownership in the con- 
 signee of goods may be rebutted by proof 
 of a completed sale before shipment to 
 the person directed in the bill of lading 
 to be notified, which completed sale niay 
 exist without delivery or payment of the 
 price. Amnion z'. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 
 139 N. W. S19. 120 Minn. 438. 
 
 24. Question for jury. — Cobl) r. Beall, 
 1 Tex. 342, 347.
 
 §§ 804-805 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 480 
 
 the consignee's title becomes absolute, subject only to the consignor's right of 
 stoppage in transitu.--^ 
 
 A direction to notify a third person contained in the bill of lading, does 
 not make him consignee, or give rise to a presumj)tion that he is the owner. -^ 
 
 Bill of Lading as Vesting Title in Consignee. — The effect of a bill of 
 lading as vesting title in the consignee is treated elsewhere.-' 
 
 Right to Maintain Action. -"^ — The consignee named in a bill of lading, upon 
 payment of freight, may maintain an action against any person who assumes a 
 control over them in violation of his right.--' Where a carrier has sold goods, 
 transported by him, consignee may follow up the goods, and recover them, or 
 recover the price thereof, from one who has purchased of the carrier and sold 
 them.^" 
 
 Right of Inspection. — Where the right of the shipper and carrier are not 
 regulated 1)\- agreement, the right of the consignee to inspect exists.-"^^ 
 
 Right to Repudiate Part of Transaction. — A carrier owes the consignee 
 no duty as a common carrier, except subject to the valid terms of the contract 
 of shipment, and if he repudiates part of the transaction, he must repudiate it 
 all. in which case he can not assert the carrier ever became as to him a common 
 carrier or a bailee for hire.^^ 
 
 § 805. Title and Rights of Carrier in General. — A carrier has a special 
 title to goods received for transportation, which gives it a legal right to the 
 custody thereof, before delivery to the consignee, as against one having no 
 right.-'^^ But it must yield possession, or recognize the right of a third person 
 having the true title to the goods, or such person may enforce his right l)y suit.^^ 
 
 25. Acceptance of draft. — Dows v. Cobb 
 (X. Y.I. 12 Barl). :;i(i. 
 
 26. Direction "notify" third person. — 
 Ammon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 120 Minn. 
 438, 1.39 X. W. 819. 
 
 27. Bill of lading as vesting title con- 
 signee. — Set ante. "Bins of Lading." 
 chapter •;. 
 
 28. Right to maintain action against 
 carrier for loss, damage, nondelivery, etc., 
 see post. "Right of Consignee," § 811. 
 
 29. Webb v. Winter, 1 Cal. 417. 
 
 A consignee can maintain replevin 
 against a warehouseman who wrong- 
 fully retains them, though the consignee 
 is not the general owner of the goods. 
 Butler V. Smith, 35 Miss. 457. 
 
 30. Crumbacker v. Tucker, 9 Ark. 3(15; 
 Bailey v. Shaw, 24 X. H. 297, 55 Am. 
 Dec. 241. 
 
 31. Right of inspection. — Earnest r. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., 134 X. Y. S. 323, 
 149 .A-pp. Div. 330. 
 
 32. Repudiation of part of transaction. 
 — Bates V. Weir, 121 App. Div. 275, 105 
 X. Y. S. 785. 
 
 33. Title of carrier. — State v. Intoxicat- 
 ing Liquors, 83 Me. 158, 21 Atl. 840. 
 
 34. Right of true owner. — Georgia.^^ 
 Georgia K., etc., Co. v. Haas, 56 S. E. 
 313, 127 Ga. 187, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 677. 
 
 Kansas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Jor- 
 don Stock Food Co., 72 Pac. 533, 07 Kan. 
 86. 
 
 New York. — Blossom v. Champion (N. 
 Y.), 37 Barb. 554; Bassett v. Spofford, 45 
 
 X. Y. 387, 6 Am. St. Rep. 101. affirming 
 2 Daly 432. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Jacoby v. Laussatt (Pa.), 
 6 Serg. & R. 300. 
 
 West J'irginia. — Smith v. Linden Oil 
 Co., (V.t W. Va. 57, 71 S. E. 167. 
 
 Instances. — Plaintiffs sold turpentine, to 
 be paid for on delivery, and the purchaser 
 sold the same to a third person. Plain- 
 tiffs, by order of the original purchaser, 
 caused the property to be shipped on de- 
 fendant's vessel, taking receipts therefor. 
 The second purchaser, without paying for 
 the property, procured from the agent of 
 the vessel a bill of lading, and indorsed 
 the same to one making advances on the 
 property. In an action against the mas- 
 ter of the vessel to recover possession 
 of the property, held, that the vendors 
 did not lose their title by failure to no- 
 tify the master of the fact that the price 
 had not been paid. Blossom v. Cham- 
 pion (N. Y.), 37 Barb. 554. 
 
 Where a supercargo, fraudulently con- 
 signed goods to a carrier to secure a 
 debt due from the shipper, it was held that 
 the carrier was not entitled to the goods 
 as against the shipper's assignees for 
 creditors. Jacoby v. Laussatt (Pa.), 6 
 Serg. & R. 300. 
 
 Where a vendor refused to deliver 
 goods to vendee in pursuance of a con- 
 tract but delivered them to a carrier con- 
 signed to another, it was held, that the 
 vendee could not, as against the carrier, 
 recover possession of the goods. Lester 
 V. McDowell, 18 Pa. 91. 
 
 Where an oil lease provided that the
 
 481 
 
 TITLE, CUSTOUV AND CONTROL OF GOODS. 
 
 § 805 
 
 A carrier can not jjledge,-''-'* or sell,'"' goods delivered to it for transportation, 
 so as to divert the title of the consignee. Where the title to goods has right- 
 fully passed to the consignee by reason of a good delivery the carrier can not 
 recover against him on the strength of a judgment recovered by the consignor 
 against the carrier in another state as for a misdelivery.-'" 
 
 Right to Insure Goods: — A carrier has- such an interest in goods intrusted 
 to it for transportation that it may insure not only its liability, but the whole 
 value of the goods. And in such case it may collect the whole value, and, after 
 reimbursing itself for the si)ecial loss it has sustained, will hold the surplus in 
 trust for ihc owners."^ 
 
 Safe Custody and Preservation. — Since a carrier is a bailee for hire, it 
 may resort to any means to protect the jjroperty that the owner could use.-^'^ 
 The duty and liability of the carrier as to safe custody and preservation of 
 property is treated elsewhere.^" 
 
 To enforce the payment of its charges a carrier has the right by the 
 common law to retain ])osscssion ui the goods transi)orted.^"* 
 
 Delay to Determine Ownership.— Where pro])erty is in the hands of a 
 common carrier, and piK^scssion thereof is demanded by a stranger to the bill 
 of lading prior to actual shipment and under a claim of ownership, the car- 
 rier, having reasonable doubt as to which party is entitled to possession and 
 acting in good faith, may have a reasonable time in which to investigate the 
 claims of the respective parties, and for this ])urpose may delay immediate 
 shijMnent."*- 
 
 Rig-ht to Dispute Consignor's Title. — It is held that the carrier can not 
 dis])ute the title of the consignor in an action brought bv him.-*"' This is es- 
 
 lessee should pa}- the landowner a royaltj- 
 of a fraction of the oil produced under the 
 lease, such royalty oil to be delivered 
 into the pipe line of a common carrier of 
 oil, such common carrier, having notice 
 of the assignment by the landowner to 
 another of a given fraction of such roy- 
 alty, must account to such assignee for 
 his undivided fraction of such oil. Smith 
 T. Linden Oil Co., (ill W. \'a. ."iT, 71 S. 
 
 E. k;:. 
 
 35. Power to pledge goods. — Kitchcll f. 
 \'anadar (Ind.). 1 Blackf. 35(), 12 Am. 
 Dec. 249. 
 
 Carriers by water purchased a boat on 
 their way to ascend a certain river to- 
 wards the place of destination, and de- 
 posited with the seller a part of the prop- 
 erty carried, as security for the price of 
 the boat; informing him tliat they were 
 carriers. Held, that this disposal of the 
 property was unauthorized, and that the 
 right to the possession of it continued in 
 the original owner. Kitchell x'. \'anadar 
 (Ind.), 1 Blackf. 3.5fi, 12 Am. Dec. 249. 
 
 36. Power to sell goods. — Cruml)acker 
 7: Tucker, 9 Ark. liG.J; Bailey z: Shaw, 24 
 N. H. 297, ,-).•) Am. Dec. 241. 
 
 37. Philadelphia, etc.. R. Co. v. Wire- 
 man, Ss Pa. 2(>4. 
 
 38. Right to insure goods. — Lancaster 
 Mills !■. Merchants' Colton-l'ress Co.. 89 
 Tenn. 1. 14 S. W. 317. 
 
 A carrier may contract valid insurance, 
 which will protect it from a loss of goods, 
 occasioned by the negligence of its own 
 servants. Phoenix Ins. Co. z\ Erie, etc., 
 
 1 Car— 31 
 
 Transp. Co.. 117 U. S. 312. 29 L. Ed. 873, 
 (') S. Ct. 7.-jO, 117t). 
 
 39. Power to protect property. — Pitts- 
 burg, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, 242 111. 178, 
 
 89 N. E. 1022. affirming 144 111. App. 
 293. 
 
 40. Safe custody and preservation. — See 
 post. "Loss of or Injurv to Goods," chap- 
 ter 12. 
 
 41. Enforcement of charges. — Ames v. 
 Palmer, 42 IVIe. 197, fifj Am. Dec. 271. 
 See post. "Detention for Del)t or 
 Charges," § 841. 
 
 This right does not deprive the general 
 owner of the right to immediate posses- 
 sion, as against a wrongdoer. It consti- 
 tutes no bar to the possession of the 
 property, unless set up by the authority 
 of the party holding such lien. Ames t: 
 Palmer. 42 Me. 197, (iti Am. Dec. 271. 
 
 42. Delay to determine ownership. — 
 Alerz f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., SO Minn. 33, 
 
 90 X. W. 7. ^ 
 
 What is a reasonable time for investi- 
 gation by a carrier to determine the own- 
 ership of goods claimed by two parties 
 is ordinarily a question for the jury. Merz 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 90 X. W. 7, 86 
 Minn 33. 
 
 43. Right to dispute consignor's title. — 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. f. Frame, 6 Colo. 3S2: 
 Wallace z: Matthews, 39 Ga. (il7. 99 Am. 
 Dec. 473; Lockhart z: Western, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 73 Ga. 472. 54 .\m. Rep. 883; Carter 
 V. Southern R. Co.. Ill Ga. 38. 36 S. E. 
 308. 50 L. R. A. 354. 
 
 Georgia Civil Code, § 22S6, provides
 
 §§ 805-806 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 482 
 
 pecially true where the party dehveriiig the property to the carrier is bound by 
 contracts or otherwise to make the shipment, or has become responsible to the 
 carrier for its charges."*^ But it is held that this rule does not apply to cases 
 where the plaintiff himself shows that he has no interest or title to the prop- 
 erty in question.^*^ And the carrier may dispute the consignor's title where the 
 title of the real owner is sought to be enforced against it.-*" 
 
 Liability as Trespasser, — A carrier who receives goods to carry from one 
 not authorized to deliver them to him is a trespasser and may be sued in trover 
 for the goods, as any other illegal taker may be.^" But where a shipper loads 
 property on railroad cars, the railroad company, if not a party to the. taking, 
 is not a trespasser, though subsequently notified by the owners of the property 
 not to ship it."*** 
 
 § 806. Change of Destination. — Where under tlie circumstances a de- 
 livery to the carrier is not a delivery to the consignee, the consignor has the 
 right to direct a change in destination, and the carrier is bound to obey such 
 direction,^^ even where the consignee has accepted bills on the strength of the 
 consignment;^*' and the carrier is not liable to the consignee.'' ^ But it is held 
 that where the bill of lading has been forwarded to the consignee the consignor 
 can not alter the destination. ='^- The consignor can not exercise the right to 
 change the destination without paying a reasonable charge therefor."-' 
 
 The true owner of the property in the possession of a common carrier may 
 have the same diverted at a station on the route between the shipping point and 
 the place of destination while it is in transit, but may be required to produce 
 
 that "The carrier can not dispute tlie ti- 
 tle of the person delivering the goods to 
 him by setting up adverse title in himself, 
 or a title in third persons, which is not 
 being enforced against him." Shellnut 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co., 131 Ga. 404, G2 
 S. E. 294, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 494. 
 
 A carrier sued by the consignor of 
 goods intrusted to it for transportation 
 can not say that the real title was in an- 
 other, unless it shows that the goods were 
 taken by the latter without injury to the 
 consignor. Great Western R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Comas, 33 111. 185. 
 
 44. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 11 
 III. App. 482. 
 
 45. Lockhart v. Western, etc., R. Co., 
 73 Ga. 472, .54 Am. Rep. 883. 
 
 46. Carter v. Southern R. Co., Ill Ga. 
 38, 36 S. E. 308, 50 L. R. A. 354; Lockhart 
 V. Western, etc., R. Co., 73 Ga. 472, 54 
 Am. Rep. 883. 
 
 47. Liability as trespasser. — Southern 
 Exp. Co. 7'. f^almer, 48 Ga. 85. 
 
 48. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Walley, 
 147 Ala. 697, 41 So. 134. 
 
 49. Right of consignor to change des- 
 tination. — Lewis V. Salena, etc., R. Co., 40 
 111. 2H1; Strahorn v. L^nion Stock Yard, 
 etc., Co., 43 111. 424, 92 Am. Dec. 142; 
 Howell V. Morlan, 78 111. 162; Hartwell v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 15 Ky. L. Rep. 
 778. See Carr v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 92 
 N. Y. S. 799. 
 
 A debtor who ships cotton to his lac- 
 tor and creditor for sale ami applicaHfjn 
 
 to the debt, and sends the bill of lading, 
 may change the shipment to another per- 
 son without making the carrier liable to 
 the first consignee. ChafTe v. Mississippi, 
 etc., R. Co., .59 Miss. 182. 
 
 Goods in hands of connecting carrier. 
 — A consignor of goods, after they have 
 passed from the hands of the railroad 
 company with which the contract of af- 
 freightment was made, into the hands of 
 another company, has the same right to 
 change their destination while in transitu, 
 l)y taking a new bill of lading, as if the 
 first company had a continuous line to the 
 destination. Sutherland v. Second Nat. 
 Bank, 78 Ky. 250, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 .'jCiS. 
 
 That a person to be notified of the ar- 
 rival of goods consigned to shipper's or- 
 der takes them from the carrier's posses- 
 sion without its knowledge and detains 
 them in its own warehouse is no justifi- 
 cation for the carrier's failure to comply 
 with the order from the shipper direct- 
 ing a diversion of the consignment. At- 
 chison, etc., R. Co. t'. Schriver, 84 Pac. 
 119. 72 Kan. 550, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1056. 
 
 50. Lewis 7'. Salena, etc., R. Co., 40 111. 
 2H1. 
 
 51. ChafTe v. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 59 
 Miss. 182. See Pool v. Colum1)ia, etc., R. 
 Co.. 23 S. C. 286. 
 
 52. Hartwell v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 15 Ky. L. Rep. 778. 
 
 53. Payment of reasonable charges. — 
 Carr ?■. Pennsylvania R. Co., 92 N. Y. S. 
 799.
 
 483 
 
 TITLE, CUSTODY AND COXTKOL OF GOODS. 
 
 §§ 806-808 
 
 the hill of l;uliii<,^ or furnish other evidence of ownersliii) to entitle him to this 
 rij^Hit.-^'' 
 
 Buyer Directed to Be Notified.— Where goods are shipped under a bill 
 of lading calling for delivery to the shipper, with directions to notify the buyer, 
 the latter has no authority to change the destination without proflucing the bill 
 of lading. ■''■''' 
 
 Agent. — W here a ])urchasing agent consigns goods to his principal, he can 
 not afterwards, while they are in transit, change their destinaticjii, nor confer 
 a right to make such change on another.'"'" 
 
 § 807. Seizure under Legal Process.— The duties and liabilities of the car- 
 rier where goods are seized under legal process, what goods are subject to legal 
 process, the rights of persons whose goods are wrongfully seized, and the rights 
 of the officer making the levy, will be found in another part of this work.'" 
 
 §§ 808-811. Actions by and against Carriers— § 808. Right of Car- 
 rier to Maintain Action. — A carrier has a right of action in its own name.'''* 
 and which it may assign, "•'•' for damage done to property intrusted to it to be 
 carried ; and it may sue in admiralty as well as at common law.''" A carrier 
 may sue to recover property wrongfully taken *or withheld from it,"^ and may 
 
 54. True owner. — Ryan r. Great Xortli- 
 ern R. Co., 1)5 N. W. 758, 90 Minn. 12. 
 See Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. r. Caruthers 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), l.J7 S. W. 2;?8. 
 
 55. Buyer directed to be notified. — Per- 
 kett T'. Manistee, etc., R. Co. (Mich.), 141 
 N. W. (507. 
 
 56. Agent.— Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. i: 
 National Live Stock Bank, 53 N. E. 326, 
 178 111. 506. 
 
 57. Seizure under legal process. — See 
 post, "Goods Seized under Letjal Proc- 
 ess," §§ S70-S74. 
 
 58. Right of carrier to maintain action. 
 — I'mtcd States. — The Beaconstield, 158 U. 
 S. 303. 15 S. Ct. 860, 39 L. Ed. 993; The 
 Commander-in-Chief (U. S.), 1 Wall. 43, 
 17 L. Ed. 609; Hovey r. The Sarah E. 
 Brown, Fed. Cas. No. 6,744. 
 
 Alabama. — The Farmer, 26 .\la. 189, 72 
 Am. Dec. 718. 
 
 Missouri. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kan- 
 sas City, etc., R. Co.. 78 Mo. .-Kpp. 245. 
 
 Xcii.' York. — Merrick v. Brainard (X. 
 Y.), 38 Barb. 574. 
 
 Though the owner may have a right of 
 action, a carrier may also recover the full 
 \ alue from one who destroys the prop- 
 erty. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. 7'. Chicago, 
 242 111. 178, 89 N. E. 1022. aflirming 144 
 111. App. :.•!):!. 
 
 59. Right of action assignable. — Mer- 
 rick V. Brainard (N. Y.), 38 Barb. 574. 
 
 60. The Beaconsfield. 158 U. S. 303, 15 
 S. Ct. 860, 39 L. Ed. 993; The Propeller 
 Commerce ( U. S.), 1 Black 574, 17 L. Ed. 
 107; Hovey r. The Sarali E. Brown. I'ed. 
 Cas. No. 6744. 
 
 61. Property wrongfully taken or with- 
 held.— United States :■. \'erniiiye, I'\>d. 
 Cas. No. If), 618. 10 Biatchf. 2S0, aftirmed 
 in 88 U. S. 138, 22 L. l'"d. f.OK. 
 
 Proof of delivery of goods to carrier 
 and its agreement to pay therefor, in con- 
 seciuence ol nontleliver\', is evidence of 
 
 sufticient property in the carrier to sup- 
 port trover for the goods. Maine Stage 
 Co. :•. Longley, 14 Me. 444. 
 
 Delivery to wrong person. — .\ carrier, 
 who by mistake delivers a consignment 
 of goods to the wrong person, may, after 
 demand for their return, or payment of 
 tiieir value, and a refusal, bring tort for 
 the conversion of the goods. Hudson 
 River R. Co. v. Lounsberry (N. Y.). 25 
 Barb. 597; Johnson v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 S2 Miss. 452, 34 So. 357; Cheshire Rail- 
 road <■■. Foster, 51 N. H. 490. 
 
 Illustrations. — Treasury notes of the 
 United States stolen from an express 
 company and sold for value after due in 
 tile regular course of business may be re- 
 covered by the express company which 
 has succeeded to the rights of tlie origi- 
 nal owner. Vermilye v. Adams Exp. Co. 
 (U. S.), 21 Wall. 138, 22 L. Ed. 609. 
 
 Defendant ordered a car of corn 
 through a broker, who ordered it from 
 H., who shipped the corn consigning it 
 to Iiimself. When the car had been 
 placed on the switch at its destination, 
 the broker opened the car and delivered 
 the corn to defendant, who paid the 
 broker for it. Thereafter the railroad 
 paid H. for the corn, the broker refusing 
 to do so, and the railroad then sued de- 
 fendant for conversion. Held, that plain- 
 tiff was entitled to maintain the action. 
 Fordyce :•. Dempsev, 82 S. W. 493, 72 
 Ark. 471. 
 
 Refusal of connecting carrier to sign 
 bill of lading. — Where cotton was deliv- 
 ered to a railroad companj- under a bill of 
 lading stating tiiat it was to be delivered 
 "to the ship T.," and it was placed on 
 lioard immediatelj- on its arrival, accord- 
 ing to the usage of the port, the railroad 
 company, by virtue of its right to pos- 
 session as bailee, could maintain a libel 
 against the vessel to recover the goods.
 
 j§ 808-809 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 484 
 
 maintain an action against another carrier to whom it has entrusted goods in 
 its charge for failure to dehver them according to contract.'"'- But where the 
 carrier has devested itself of further responsibility or interest in the goods by 
 delivering them to a warehouseman it can not maintain an action against him 
 for converting them.'^^' A carrier, who has delivered goods to the consignee, 
 without requiring the performance of a proper condition precedent to delivery., 
 can not recover possession of the goods without paying to the consignee the 
 amount of the freight paid by him.''-* 
 
 Where Goods Attached. — A carrier can not replevy goods taken by a con- 
 stable on a writ of attachment, regular on its face, against the consignee, where 
 the constalilc pays the carrier's charges.''"' 
 
 Bona Fide Purchaser. — A carrier who has negligently delivered goods to 
 a vendee of the shipper, without collecting the purchase money or requiring the 
 production of the bill of lading, can not recover them of a bona fide purchaser 
 from such vendee.''" But it has been held that where a carrier delivered a ship- 
 ment on a forged order, which was sold to one ignorant of the fraud, the rule 
 of caveat emptor applied, and the carrier could recover from such purchaser.^'' 
 
 §§ 809-811. Right to Maintain Action against Carrier— § 809. In 
 General. — To sustain an action against a carrier for loss or damage to goods, 
 plaintitt must be the owner, or have some special interest in them ; '■'^ and the 
 
 upon the master's refusal to siyn the liill 
 of lading except with certain additional 
 qualifications. Chamberlain :•. Torgorm, 
 48 Fed. 584. 
 
 62. Deford z: Seinour, 1 Ind. 532. 
 
 63. Effect of delivery to warehouseman. 
 — Hamilton v. Xickerson (Mass.), 11 Al- 
 len 308, wherein, it appeared that a com- 
 mon carrier by water carried goods to 
 their destination, and, being unable to find 
 the consignee, delivered them to a ware- 
 houseman, receiving from him the whole 
 amount of his charges, and left him in 
 possession of them for four years, with- 
 out further act of the carrier's part, or 
 any evidence of a special contract other 
 than that which would be naturally in- 
 ferred from these facts. It was held that 
 it was sufticient evidence that the carrier 
 has devested itself of further responsibil- 
 ity for or interest in the goods. 
 
 64. Walker v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., Ill 
 Ala. 233. 20 So. 358. 
 
 65. Where goods attached. — Livingston 
 r. Miller. 4fs Hun 232, IG X. Y. St. Rep. 71. 
 
 66. Bona fide purchaser. — Norfolk 
 Southern R. Co. v. Barnes, 104 N. C. 25, 
 10 S. E. 83, 5 L. R. A. 611. 
 
 67. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Taylor. 18 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 571, 45 S. \V. 7 49. 
 
 68. Right to maintain action against car- 
 rier. — Georgia. — Southern R. Co. v. John- 
 son. 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 S. E. 333. 
 
 Illinois. — Edgerton v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 240 111. 311, 88 N. E. 808; Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. National Live Stock Bank, 
 178 111. 506, 53 N. E. 326. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Garvan v. New York, 
 etc.. R. Co., 210 Mass. 275, 96 N. E. 717; 
 Sanford v. Housatonic R. Co. (Mass.), 11 
 Cush. 155. 
 
 Minnesota. — Grinnell-Collins Co. v. Il- 
 
 linois Cent. R. Co.. 109 Minn. 513, 124 N. 
 \V. 377, 26 L. R. A.. N. S., 437. 
 
 Xew York. — Thompson v. Fargo, 49 N. 
 Y. 188, 44 How. Prac. 17'o, 10 Am. Rep. 
 342, reversing 58 Barb. 575; Green v. 
 Clark (N. Y.), 5 Denio 497. 
 
 Tc.vas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wolston 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 233. 
 
 JViscoiisin. — Congar v. Galena, etc., R. 
 Co., 17 Wis. 477. _ 
 
 Instances of right to sue. — One who 
 has I;ought property agreeing to pay 
 therefor when sales are made by the con- 
 signees, to whom he has it shipped, who 
 are to pay the freight at the point of des- 
 tination, remitting to him the proceeds 
 less the freight, is the general owner, and 
 entitled to sue the carrier for failure to 
 deliver. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Allgood, 
 20 So. 986, 113 Ala. 163. 
 
 A complaint alleging that defendant car- 
 rier, received certain property of plaintiff, 
 to be delivered to a consignee named, but 
 that, on the latter's refusal to receive the 
 goods, defendant sold them, without first 
 notifying the owner, plaintiff therein, is 
 sufficent on demurrer to show general 
 ownership in plaintiff, so as to entitle him 
 to sue. Martin v. McLaughlin. 5 Colo. 
 387. 
 
 The delivery of shipping receipts to the 
 purchaser of goods, with drafts attached, 
 drawn by the sellers, is a delivery of the 
 goods to the purchaser, so as to entitle 
 him to sue the carrier for failure to de- 
 liver. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 32 
 111. App. 259. 
 
 Where goods were delivered to plaintiff 
 by a manufacturer with the right to re- 
 turn them if a proposed customer did not 
 buy, and on the goods being lost while in 
 the hands of the carrier, the manufacturer
 
 485 
 
 iriLi:, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF GOODS. 
 
 § 809 
 
 ownershii) must exist at the time of the injury.''" One having a benehcial in- 
 terest may maintain tlie action.'" The owner of goods, though he be not the 
 shipper, may recover from a carrier for injury neghgently done to them,'i or 
 for their non-dehvery.' - I'.ut where an owner ships goods under a bill of lad- 
 ing accepted by him, designating consignees as shippers and owners, he can not 
 predicate a right of action thereon for tlie railroad's alleged wrongful delivery.'-' 
 
 An action on the express contract in a bill of lading should, as a gen- 
 eral rule, be instituted by the tshipper. with wlium the master contracted, or by 
 the owner of the goods, where the shipper acted as hi.s agent."^ 
 
 Where there is common ownership in the goods shipped, each owner may 
 maintain a se])aralc anion for the damages sustained by him."'' -\nd one part- 
 ner may maintain suit against a carrier for damages for injury caused partner- 
 ship ])roperlv.'''' 
 
 Undisclosed Principal. — It is held that though an agent contracts in his 
 own name, without di.sclosing that of his principal, for the transportation of 
 goods, the owner may maintain an action against the carrier for failure to com- 
 ply with his contract." I hit it is also held that a carrier dealing with one as 
 
 billed the goods to plaintiff, trcatiiiR the 
 transaction as a sale, such act transferred 
 the title to plaintiff so as to entitle him 
 to recover against the carrier. Easter v. 
 New York, etc., Exp. Co., 132 N. Y. S. 402, 
 74 Misc. Rep. 399. 
 
 69. Law V. Hatcher (Ind.), 4 Blackf. 
 3<)4. But see Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Humpli- 
 ries. 4 Te.x. Civ. .-Xpp. 333. 23 S. W. 5.-)t5. 
 
 Defendant contracted to carry certain 
 merchandise for A., to whom the bill of 
 lading was made; but before the goods ar- 
 rived they were, by a verbal contract, 
 sold by A. to plaintiffs, but the bill of lad- 
 ing was not indorsed. When the goods 
 arrived. .\. directed that they be delivered 
 to plaintiffs, who found th.e goods dam- 
 aged. Held, that since the sale was not 
 complete until the goods were delivered, 
 and until after tlic damage occurred. A., 
 and not plaintiffs, should !)ring the action 
 against the carrier for the damage. Law 
 V. Hatclicr (Ind.). 4 Rlackf. 364. 
 
 70. Beneficial interest. — Lloyd v. Haugh, 
 etc.. Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148. 72 M\. 
 516, 21 L. R. A., N. S.. 188; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Caperton. 44 Ala. ini, 4 .\m. Rep. 
 118. 
 
 71. Where owner not shipper. — Harvey 
 V. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co.. ('> Mo. .\pp. 
 585. See Boughman v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co.. 14 Ky. L. Rep. 2r.8; Schlosser v. 
 Great Northern R. Co.. 20 N. Dak. 406, 
 127 N. W. 502. 
 
 The owner of goods may sue the carrier 
 in his own name to recover for an injury 
 thereto by a carrier, although they were 
 billed in the name of the owner's agent, 
 where the contract of shipment was made 
 for the benefit of the owner and that fact 
 was known to the carrier. Norfolk, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Crull. 112 \a. l.'Jl, 70 S. E. .V21. 
 
 72. D'.^njou V. Deagle (Md.), 3 Har. & 
 J. 206. 
 
 73. St. Louis, etc.. Railwav v. Gilbroatli 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 144 S. \V. 1051. 
 
 74. Action on express contract. — Dows 
 
 V. Cobl) (N. ^■.). \:l liarb. :;i<). 
 
 75. Common ownership. — Baughman v. 
 Louisvillr, etc.. R. Co., 14 Ky. L. Rep. 
 268; Newport News, etc., R. Co. v. Nixon, 
 16 Ky. L. Rep. 319, holding that plaintiff 
 can recover no more than he is entitled 
 to whether the ownership be put in issue 
 or not. 
 
 Undisclosed joint owner. — The joint 
 owners of personal property intrusted to 
 a common carrier may maintain an action 
 against him for its loss, notwithstanding 
 the receipt given for the property by the 
 carrier, at the time he received it. was an 
 acknowledgment that he had received it 
 from two of the plaintiffs, the joint own- 
 ership of the other plaintiff being un- 
 known to him. Day. etc.. Co. v. Ridley, 
 16 \'t. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489. 
 
 76. Partner. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Smith, 84 Tex. 348, 19 S. W. 509; South- 
 ern Kansas R. Co. v. Morris, 100 Tex. 
 611. 612. 102 S. \V. 396. afi'irming 99 S. 
 \V. 433. 
 
 77. Undisclosed principal. — Ames v. 
 First Div.. etc., R. Co.. 12 Minn. 412 (Gil. 
 295); .Atlanta, etc., R. Co. r. Texas 
 Grate Co., 81 Ga. 602, 9 S. E. 600; New 
 Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' 
 Bank (U. S.\ 6 How. 344. 12 L. Ed. 4(55. 
 
 Instances. — Where an express company 
 contracts with a transportation company 
 to carry its freight, one who ships goods 
 with the express company can maintain 
 an action in his own name against the 
 transportation company for the loss of 
 property while it is being carried by such 
 companv. New Jersev Steam Nav. Co. v. 
 Merchants' Bank (T. S.). 6 How. 344. 12 
 L. Ed. 465. 
 
 A third person rolled up the plaintiff's 
 coat in a bundle with his own coat, and 
 placed his own name and address upon 
 the bundle, and delivered it to the car- 
 rier, for transportation. It was held that
 
 § 809 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 486 
 
 shipper, and making its contract with him, assumes no responsibility to answer 
 to the real, but undisclosed, owner in case of loss of the property delivered to 
 it,"^ and may refuse to deliver the goods to him without the production of the 
 bill of lading."'' 
 
 Shipper Both Consignor and Consignee. — Shippers who are in control 
 of merchantlise shipped, and are both consignors and consignees, should be as- 
 sumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have sufficient title to en- 
 able them to maintain an action against the carrier.""' And though the shipper 
 does not own all the goods he may sue for loss or injury thereto. ''' Where 
 goods are consigned to the seller, with directions to notify the j)urchaser, the 
 purchaser can not sue the carrier for damage sustained because of delay,**- or 
 for loss occurring before he received the bill of lading."^' Hut it is also held 
 that where one ships goods to himself as consignee, the purchaser not to obtain 
 the bill of lading until payment of the draft attached, delivery to the carrier 
 vests title in the purchaser entitling him to sue the carrier for delay in trans- 
 portation.^^ 
 
 A bailee, who is the consignor of goods, has sufficient interest to maintain 
 an action against the carrier for loss or damage to goods. •'^^' or for delivery 
 without requiring the performance of a proper condition precedent to delivery. '*" 
 
 A factor has such special property in goods that he may sue the carrier for 
 their loss.^" 
 
 Transferee of Bill of Lading. — As a general rule, the indorsee or transferee 
 of a bill of lading, as the real party in interest, may bring an action in his own 
 name against the carrier.'^'* But in some jurisdictions it is held that an assign- 
 
 the plaintiff might maintain an action 
 against the carrier to recover damages 
 for the loss of his coat. Elkins v. Bos- 
 ton, etc.. Railroad, 19 N. H. 337, 51 Am. 
 Dec. 184. 
 
 78. Hill V. Adams Exp. Co., 78 N. J. 
 L. 333. 74 Atl. 674. 
 
 79. The owner of certain goods deliv- 
 ered them, through his agents, to a com- 
 mon carrier for transportation, and the 
 agents took a bill of lading therefor in 
 their own names. When the goods ar- 
 rived at destination, the agents through 
 whom the shipment had been made re- 
 fused to deliver the bill of lading to the 
 owner of the goods; but he demanded, 
 nevertheless, that the carrier make deliv- 
 ery to him. The carrier refused to deliver 
 to him, unless he would produce the bill 
 of lading. Held, that the carrier's refusal 
 to deliver, under the circumstances stated, 
 did not constitute a conversion, and that 
 the owner of the goods could not main- 
 tain bail trover against the carrier for 
 them. Kaufman v. Seaboard, etc.. Rail- 
 way. 10 Ga. .App. 248, 73 S. E. 592. 
 
 80. Shipper both consignor and con- 
 signee. — Swift V. Pacific Mail Steamship 
 Co., 106 N. Y. 206, 12 N. E. 583. See 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 444, reversed in 146 
 S. W. 537. 
 
 81. Shipper part owner, — Walter v. Ala- 
 bama, etc., R. Co., 142 Ala. 474, 39 So. 
 87; Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Frame, 6 Colo. 
 382. 
 
 82. Asheboro Wheelbarrow, etc., Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 149 X. C. 261, 62 S. E. 
 1091. 
 
 83. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Allen, 31 
 Okla. 248, 120 Pac. 1090, 39 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 309. 
 
 84. Robinson v. Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex.), 146 S. W. 537, reversing 131 S. W. 
 444. 
 
 85. Bailee. — Georgia. — Southern R. Co. 
 V. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 S. E. 333. 
 
 Illinois. — Great Western R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Comas, 33 111. 185. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Garvan v. New York, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 210 Mass. 275, 96 N. E. 717. 
 
 Maine. — Moran v. Portland Steam 
 Packet Co., 35 Me. 55. 
 
 86. Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 546, 20 
 Am. Rep. 227. 
 
 87. Factor. — Edgerton v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 240 111. 311, 88 N. E. 808; H. & 
 T. C. R. Co. z: Stewart & Co., 1 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 1246. 
 
 On to whom goods were shipped for 
 sale on commission who sold the goods 
 and consigned them to a buyer had such 
 an interest therein as authorized him to 
 sue the carrier for loss of a part of the 
 goods removed from the car before the 
 sale. Edgerton z'. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 240 111. 311, 88 N. E. 808, affirming 
 146 111. Api). 199. 
 
 88. Transferee of bill of lading. — United 
 States.— The Thames Fed. Cas. No. 13,859, 
 7 Blatchf. 226, affirmed in (U. S.), 14 Wall. 
 98, 20 L. Ed. 804; Robinson, etc., Co. z: 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co., 9 Fed. 129 
 
 California. — Dodge v. Meyer, 61 Cal. 405. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Newcomb v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Corp., 115 Mass. 230. 
 
 Missouri. — Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 124 AIo. App. 545,
 
 487 TITKK, CL'STODV AND CONTROL OF GOODS. § 809 
 
 nient of a bill of lading transfers no more than the property in the goods which 
 it represents, and does not transfer the contract between the original parties to 
 it ; and therefore its assignee can not maintain an action founded upon it in his 
 own name.'^'* 
 
 Shipper Surrendering Bill of Lading in Exchange for Transportation. 
 — Under the Carmack Amendment to the interstate Commerce Act which 
 ])rovides that any common carrier, receiving i)roperty for transportation from 
 a point in one state to a point in another state, shall issue a receipt or bill of 
 lading and shall be liable to the "lawful holder"' thereof for any loss or injury 
 to such property caused by it or by any carrier to which such i^roperty may be 
 delivered or over whose line such i)roperty may ])ass, the term "lawful holder" 
 comprehends the owner of the property transported or the one beneficially en- 
 titled to recover for the loss or injury, and manual i)ossession of the bill of 
 lading is not a prerequisite to the right to sue, so that a shipper accompanying 
 the shipment is not deprived of his right to sue because he surrenders his bills 
 of lading at the destination in exchange for free transportation on the return.^*^ 
 
 Forwarding Merchant. — A forwarding merchant, who delivers goods to a 
 carrier, under a coiitracl with llicir owner to forward them, has not such an 
 interest in them that he can maintain trover against the carrier for their non- 
 delivery.'" Ijut it has been held that forwarding merchants who have paid the 
 freight on goods which they delivered to the carrier for transportation could 
 maintain assumpsit on the contract for damage to the goods, and recover the 
 entire amount of the loss for the benefit of themselves and the owners of the 
 goods, especiallv where the latter were parties to the record and precluded from 
 further claim. •'- 
 
 An insurer who pays a loss caused by a carrier's negligence is subrogated 
 to the assurcd"s rights against such carrier: and suit can be maintained in the 
 name of the assured for the use of the insurer to recover of the carrier the 
 amount jiaid ujinn such loss.'*-' 
 
 Assignee of Claim. — An assignee of a claim for damages for delay in de- 
 livery is vested with the right of the shii)])er.''-* and may recover in his own 
 name from the carrier for injuries in transit.'*'' It is held that if plaintiff in 
 an action against a carrier for the conversion of goods was owner of the claim 
 at the time of the suit, it is immaterial that he was not the owner of the goods 
 at conversion.-"' 
 
 Borrower. — One who has no property, general or special, in an article 
 shij^jped, but is a mere borrower from the owner and consignee, can not sue a 
 carrier for its loss, but the action should be brought in the name of the owner.**" 
 
 102 S. W. 11; Kirkpatrick z: Kansas City. 92. Steanil)oat Co. r. Afkins & Co., 22 
 
 etc., R. Co., 86 Mo. :{41. Pa. r)22. 
 
 Nezv Fo;-A'.— Merchants' Bank z: Union 93. Insurer.— Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 R., etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 373. Manclicstcr Mills, 88 Tenn. 653, 14 S. W. 
 
 South Carolina. — Moore v. Atlantic, etc., •^^^- . c ^ ■ r a ^ 
 
 ID -1 1 or c n 1Q A- Q P 11 94. Assignee of claim for damages. — 
 
 Railroad, 85 b. C 19, ot b. it,, ll. ^ ,-. n r- n t- • i » e 
 
 " ' ,, ' . n r- Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Hannay-lTorichs & 
 
 89. Haas v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co.. ^.^ ^^^ ^^^ ,5(^3 ^^2 S. \V. 1163. modifv- 
 81 Ga. 792, 795, 7 S. E 629; Knight r. S . ;„„ j,,dgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S. W. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 1 ti III. no, M) in. li. 250 
 
 543, affirming 40 111. App. 471; .-Xdanis 7-. "^ ^^ Texas, etc., R. Co. z: Davis. 93 Tex. 
 
 The rilgnni, 1 O. Dec. 477. 10 West. L. 3-3^ -^ §_ ^^ 381_ 5. g y^ jgo, reversing 
 
 J- 14^- 54 S. W. 381. See Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 90. Shipper surrendering bill of lading Wolston (Tex. Civ. App.). 23 S. \V. 233; 
 in exchange for transportation. — .\ct June i-'^st Line, etc., R. Co. :■. Hall. 64 Tex. 
 29, i;h)(), c. 3591. § 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. ,;i-,; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Klepper (Tex. 
 595 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307); Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 567. 
 
 Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer (Tex. Civ. gg. Cult, etc., R. Co. v. Humphries, 4 
 
 App.), 155 S. W. 309. Tex. Civ. App. 333, 23 S. W. 556.^ 
 
 91. For-warding merchant. — Green v. 97. Borrower. — Lockhart v. Western, 
 Clark. 1;-' X. Y. ;m:'.. etc.. R. Co.. 73 Ga. 472. 54 Am. Rep. 883.
 
 j§ 809-810 
 
 CARRIER? 
 
 488 
 
 Person Directed to Be Notified. — A mere direction in a bill of lading to 
 notify a person of the arrival of goods does not entitle him to recover for 
 their loss.""' 
 
 Person Paying Freight and Responsible for Goods. — One required by 
 a carrier to pay freight on goods, and who was responsible for the goods, is 
 properly considered as consignee for value or as one who had incurred liability 
 as consignee, authorizing him to sue for any shortage.'*" 
 
 § 810. Right of Consignor. — A consignor's right to sue a carrier for loss 
 of goods depends on whether the title remains in him after delivery for trans- 
 portation.^ If the title has passed to the consignee, he can not maintain the 
 action.- Where he has no interest in the goods, he can not sue in an action 
 ex delicto for breach of duty by the carrier;^ and although he is named in the 
 contract of shipment as the person from whom they were received, he is not 
 entitled to maintain such action for their loss.-* And where a shipper of goods 
 consigned to himself sold the goods in transit, he can not, because of the car- 
 rier's failure to deliver, maintain an action for breach of the contract of car- 
 riage."' When the risk of transportation is upon the consignor, he will be con- 
 sidered the owner for the purpose of suing the carrier for loss or injury.*' When 
 the consignee is not mentioned, and the goods are shipped to a given point, the 
 consignor may sue for their loss." The right of stoppage in transitu in case of 
 the insolvency of the vendee is not a sufficient interest in the goods to enable 
 the consignor to maintain a suit in tort for loss or damage to the goods. '^ 
 
 Where Consignor Owner. — The consignor may maintain an action against 
 the carrier, when he, and not the consignee, is the owner of the goods.-' So 
 
 98. Person directed to be notified. — Dal- 
 
 bey & Co. i'. Mexican Cent. R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 105 S. W. 1154. See Asheboro 
 Wheelbarrow, etc., Co. z'. Southern R. Co., 
 149 N. C. 261, 62 S. E. 1091; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Allen. 31 Okla. 248, 120 Pac. 
 1090, .39 L. R. A., X. S.. .309. 
 
 99. Person- paying freight — Thomas z'. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 537, G4 S. 
 E. 220, 67 S. E. 908, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 223, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 1177. 
 
 1. Right of consignor. — Fein v. Weir, 
 114 X. Y. S. 426, 129 App. Div. 299, judg- 
 ment affirmed 92 X. E. 1084. 
 
 The shipper's present ownership of his 
 claim against a carrier for loss of freight 
 is an essential element of the cause of 
 action. Xorthern Alabama R. Co. v. 
 Feldman. 56 So. 16, 1 Ala. App. 334. 
 
 2. Krulder v. Ellison, 47 X. Y. 30, 7 
 Am. Rep. 402; Blum v. Ihe Caddo, Fed. 
 Cas. Xo. 1,573, 1 Woods 64. 
 
 Where the seller delivers an article to 
 the carrier for transportation by the 
 usual route on an open bill of lading, 
 title passes to the vendee or assignee, so 
 that the seller could not sue for their 
 injury en route unless he specifically re- 
 tained title by requiring the goods to be 
 delivered to his order, etc. Gaskins v. 
 Southern R. Co., 151 X. C. 18, 65 S. E. 
 518. 
 
 3. Central American Steamship Co. z'. 
 MoI)ile, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 128 S. 
 W. 822; Bennett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mo. .^pp.), 131 S. W. 770; Carter z'. 
 Graves, 17 Tenn. (9 Yerg.), 446. 
 
 4. Green v. Clark (X. Y.), 5 Denirt 
 497. 
 
 5. Sale of goods in transit. — Sweeney 
 
 V. Frank Waterliousc & Co., 81 Pac. 1005, 
 39 Wash. .JOT. 
 
 6. Consignor having risk of transporta- 
 tion. — Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Whitesel, 
 11 Ind. 55; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Rob- 
 inson (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 444. 
 See Matheson v. Southern Railway, 79 S. 
 C. 155, 60 S. E. 437. 
 
 7. Where consignee not mentioned. — 
 East Line, etc., R. Co. z\ iriall, 64 Tex. 
 615. 
 
 8. Right of stoppage in transitu. — Xor- 
 thern Pac. R. Co. z'. Lewis, 89 111. App. 
 30. 
 
 9. Where consignor owner. — Alabama. — 
 Southern R. Co. z'. Proctor, 3 Ala. App. 
 413, 57 So. 513. 
 
 Marxland. — Moore z\ Sheridine, 2 Har. 
 & McH. 453. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Sanford v. Housatonic 
 R. Co., 11 Cush. 155. 
 
 Minnesota. — Jarrett v. Great Xorthern 
 R. Co., 74 Minn. 477, 77 X. W. 304. 
 
 Missouri. — Landes v. Pacific R. Co., 50 
 Mo. 346. 
 
 Xczi- York.— Price v. Powell, 3 X. Y. 
 322; Levy z'. Weir, 77 X. Y. S. 917, 38 
 Misc. Rep. 361. 
 
 Tennessee. — W. & A. R. Co. v. Kelly, 
 38 Tenn. (1 Head) 158; Turney v. Wilson, 
 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515; 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Nelson, 
 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 Wcrmont. — Blumenthal v. Brainard, 38 
 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350. 
 
 Instances. — M. & Son contracted to 
 purchase a vehicle from plaintiffs for 
 $300, payal)le $35 cash with the order.
 
 489 
 
 TITLK, CUSTODY AND COXTKOL OF GOODS. 
 
 810 
 
 an action for failure to deliver j^roniptly apples consigned for sale on commis- 
 sion is properly brought in the name of the consignor, the consignment not 
 operating to devest his title. ^" Where the consignee is a mere agent of the 
 consignor, a right of action against the carrier is in the consignor alone.^^ 
 Where a purchaser reships proi)erty to the vendor, and afterwards, it being lost, 
 jiays him therefor, the right of action against the carrier for its loss is in such 
 purchaser.'- A shipper of goods under a "notify" bill of lading with a draft 
 attached, who receives them back from his bank, which had discounted the 
 draft, on payment being refused, reacquires title to the property so as to confer 
 capacitv U> maintain trover for conversion against the carrier.'-' 
 
 Where Consignor Agent. — It has been held that where an agent consigns 
 a package of money to his ])rincii)al he could sue the carrier for its loss.'-* But 
 where the agent, pursuant to instructions of his i)rincipal, consigns moneys of 
 the principal to him, he can not maintain an action against the carrier there- 
 for.'"' Where the consignee emjiloyed the consignor to purchase goods for him, 
 
 $;{() cash on arrival, and the l)alanco in 
 moTithly notes, with interest, secured by 
 a deed of trust thereon for the unpaid 
 portion of the price, .\fter payment of 
 the lirst casli instalhnent plaintiffs shipped 
 to their own order the vehicle and a 
 harness purchased as part of the same 
 contract, and sent the bill of lading to 
 a banker, with instructions to deliver the 
 same to the l)uyer on his making the 
 other cash payment and executing the 
 notes and mortgage. The vehicle was 
 injured in a wreck, whereupon plaintiff 
 and the l)uyer rescinded the contract; 
 pUiintifT returning the cash paid. .A-fter 
 tliis tlie carrier repaired the vehicle and 
 shipped it to the buyer, who tendered 
 compliance with the original contract, 
 which plaintiffs refused. Held, that plain- 
 tiffs were the owners of the property at 
 the time it was injured, and were there- 
 fore entitled to recover against the car- 
 rier as for a conversion. Norris v. St. 
 Joseph, etc., R. Co., 101 S. W. 159, 124 
 Mo. App. 16. 
 
 Where the consignor and consignee en- 
 ter into a contract, by which the con- 
 signee agrees to give the consignor a 
 specified price for all the wheat that the 
 consignor w^ould deliver to the consignee 
 at a certain point by a specified time, and 
 the wheat is purchased by the consignor 
 to fill said contract, the wheat belongs 
 to the consignor until it reaches its desti- 
 nation, and an action to recover for loss 
 or injury would be properly brought in 
 his name. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Nelson, -41 Tcnn. (1 C<ildw.) 272. 
 
 Owner of part of goods. — An owner of 
 crates of pears intrusted as a commission- 
 man with other crates to ship and sell, 
 such crates together making up a car, 
 may sue a carrier for any damage thereto. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Partridge, 50 So. 
 g:u. 58 Fla. 15:{. 
 
 Under the Kansas statute giving the 
 consignee of grain the right to recover 
 from a railway company for loss thereof, 
 the owner and consignor of grain can 
 not recover from a railway for loss or 
 
 shortage. Wel)er z\ Chicago, etc., R. C"., 
 77 Pac. 5;;:!, (■,'.) Kan. mi. 
 
 Pleadings must show that consignor is 
 owner. — Pennsylvania Co. z'. Por.r, ltt:5 
 Ind. .353, 3 X. E. 25;}; Adams E.xp. Co. f. 
 Bleich, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 122; Hoeing v. 
 Adams Exp. Co.. 7 Ky. L. Rep. 664; 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Metcalf. 50 Neb. 
 452, 69 N. W. 961. 
 
 10. Consignment on commission. — 
 Soutlicrn R. Co. z'. Deakins, li)7 Tenn. 
 522, (14 S. W. 477. 
 
 11. Consignee mere agent. — Zimmern's 
 Coal Co. v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 6 Ala. 
 App. 475, 60 So. 598. 
 
 A contract of sale calling for delivery 
 to a carrer for delivery to the buyer does 
 not give the buyer such interest in a 
 shipment consigned by the seller to its 
 agent as will authorize an action under 
 Ala. Code 1907, § 2490, by the agent for 
 the buyer's use against the carrier for 
 loss of a part of the shipment. Zimm- 
 ern's Coal Co. t'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 60 So. 098, 6 .Ala. .\pp. 475. 
 
 12. Ralph V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 32 
 Wis. 177, 14 .\n^. Rep. 725. 
 
 13. Perkett r. Manistee, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mich.). 141 N. W. 607. 
 
 14. Where consignor agent. — Southern 
 Exp. Co. z: Capon, in. 44 Ala. 101, 4 Am. 
 Rep. lis. 
 
 15. Thompson z: Fargo. 63 N. V. 479, 
 affirming 2 Hun :!79, 4 Thomp. & C. CC^ry. 
 
 That the moneys were fruits of a fraud 
 perpetrated liy the principal through tlie 
 instrumentality of the agent, although 
 the latter was innocent of the fraud, gives 
 him no title to the moneys which will 
 authorize him to maintain the action. 
 1 hompson z\ Fargo. 63 N. Y. 479. affirm- 
 ing 2 Hun 379, 4 Thomp. & C. 665. 
 
 Where consignee not found. — Where 
 lihiiiuitt' ctdlected certain money for a 
 third person and delivered it to an e.x- 
 press company, to be delivered to such 
 third person, as directed by him, but after 
 a diligent search sucli person could not 
 be found, and the package was retained 
 by defendant carrier, plaintiff had no
 
 § 810 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 490 
 
 the consignor can not maintain an action against the carrier for loss or damage 
 thereto. i*^ And if the consignee takes the risk and expense of transportation 
 of goods consigned to him l)y his agent, the agent can not maintain an action 
 against the carrier for nondeliverv of the goods.''' 
 
 Where Consignor Makes Contract of Shipment.— Whether he is the 
 owner or not. the consignor may sue the carrier for loss or injury to goods 
 where he makes the contract of 'shipment.''' If he has in fact no interest, his 
 
 such title to the property that an action 
 could be maintained by him to recover 
 it. Thompson r. Far.ajo, 49 N. Y. 188, 44 
 How. Prac. 176, 10 Am. Rep. :U2. revers- 
 ing 58 Barb. 57o. 
 
 16. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Nel- 
 son, 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 17. Potter V. Lansing (N. Y.), 1 Johns. 
 215, 3 Am. Dec. 310. 
 
 18. Where consignor makes contract of 
 shipment. — Licorghi. — Southern R. Co. v. 
 Maddox, 7 Ga. App. 650, 67 S. E. 838; Car- 
 ter z: Southern R. Co., Ill Ga. 38, 36 S. E. 
 308, 50 L. R. A. 354; Southern R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 S- E. 333. 
 
 lU'uiois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sch- 
 wartz, 13 111. App. 490; Ohio, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Emrich, 24 111. App. 245; Northern Line 
 Packet Co. z: Shearer, 61 111. 263. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Blanchard v. Page 
 (Mass.), 8 Gray 281; Finn v. Western R. 
 Corp., 112 Mass. 524, 17 Am. Rep. 128. 
 
 Mississippi. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Craft, 
 49 Miss. 480, 19 Am. Rep. 4. 
 
 Missouri. — Atchison v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co., 80 Mo. 213; Ross v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 119 Mo. App. 290, 95 S. W. 977; 
 Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co., 124 Mo. App. 545, 102 S. W. 
 11, cited in Bromschwig Tailors' Trim- 
 ming Co. V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 147 S. W. 175; Bennett v. Chicago. 
 etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.). 131 S. W. 770. 
 
 New York. — Dows v. Cobb, 12 Barb. 
 310. 
 
 Tennessee. — Carter v. Graves, 17 Tenn. 
 (9 Yerg.) 446. 
 
 Texas. — Hefifron v. Pollard, 73 Tex. 96, 
 11 S. W. 165, 15 Am. St. Rep. 764; Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. z;. Smith, 84 Tex. 348, 19 
 S. W. 509; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Stanley, 
 89 Tex. 42, 33 S. W. 109, affirming 29 S. 
 W. 806; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Mor- 
 ris, 100 Tex. 611, 102 S. W. 396; Texas. 
 etc., R. Co. V. Klepper (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 24 S. W. 567; Central American Steam- 
 ship Co. V. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 128 S. W. 822; Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. 
 W. 444; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson & 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 698; H. 
 & T. C. R. Co. V. Stewart & Co., 1 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 1246. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Hooper v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 27 Wis. 81, 9 .\m. Rep. 439. 
 
 When consignor part owner. — Cantwell 
 V. Pacific Exp. Co., 58 Ark. 487, 25 S. W. 
 503; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Barnctt 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 782; Southern 
 
 Kansas R. Co. v. Morris, 100 Tex. 611, 
 102 S. W. 396, affirming 99 S. W. 433. See 
 Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Frame, 6 Colo. 
 382. 
 
 One who is agent of the real owner 
 of goods and having charge of them en- 
 ters into a contract with a carrier for 
 the shipment of the goods without dis- 
 closing his agency may sue for a breach 
 of the contract. Carter v. Southern R. 
 Co., Ill Ga. 38, 36 S. E. 308, 50 L. R. A. 
 354, distinguishing Lockhart v. Western, 
 et^.. R. Cor, 73 Ga! 472, 54 Am. Rep. 883. 
 
 Consignor shipping at consignee's risk. 
 — A consignor, who has made contracts 
 of shipment, has a right of action against 
 the carrier for the loss of the goods, not- 
 withstanding the fact that by reason of 
 delivery of bills of lading and sending in- 
 voices stating that shipments were made 
 at consignees' risk, the title to the prop- 
 erty passes to the consignees. American 
 Roofing Co. V. Memphis, etc.. Packet Co., 
 5 N. P'^ 146, 8 O. Dec. 490. 
 
 Forwarding merchants paid freight 
 from New York to Philadelphia on goods 
 which were in transit from New York to 
 Cincinnati, and they delivered the goods 
 to the defendants, to be conveyed to 
 Baltimore and there delivered to The 
 Cumberland Railroad Company for car- 
 riage to Cumberland, and there to be de- 
 livered to the agents of the plaintiffs for 
 carriage in the line of their destination. 
 Held, that they could maintain assumpsit 
 on the contract against the defendants 
 for damages to the goods whilst under 
 their charge, and recover the entire 
 amount of the loss for the benefit of 
 themselves and the owners of the goods, 
 especially as tlie latter were parties to 
 the record and precluded from further 
 claim. Steaml)oat Co. v. Atkins & Co., 22 
 Pa. 522. 
 
 A statute requiring suit by the real 
 party in interest does not preclude the 
 consignor from suing on the contract of 
 shipment for injuries to the goods, though 
 the title has vested in the consignee. 
 Hooper v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 
 81, 9 Am. Rep. 439. 
 
 Instances. — Under the rule a seller of 
 goods consigned to the buyer and lost 
 in transit by a carrier, who had receipted 
 the seller for them and recited in the re- 
 ceipt that the goods were to be delivered 
 without unnecessary delay to the buyer, 
 could sue the carrier for their value, 
 though the buyer had paid for the goods 
 and had paid the freight. Atlantic, etc.,
 
 491 
 
 TITLK, Cl'STODV AND CONTROL OF GOODS. 
 
 § 810 
 
 recovery is for the benefit of tlie consij^nee or actual party in interest.'-' The 
 contract need not be in writinj^, l)ut may be implied from delivery and acceptance 
 of the t(0()ds for xliipnuMit.-" 
 
 Contract to Deliver at Certain Place. — When goods are shipped under 
 a contract b\- which the consi^nior is lo (k'li\er them to the consignee at a cer- 
 tain place, the consignor may maintain suit against the carrier for their loss 
 or injurv,-' or for delay in transportation. -- 
 
 Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods. — W here the consignor delivers 
 the goods U) the carrier in jjursuance of a contract of sale to the consignee but 
 the consignee refuses to receive them, the consignor may sue the carrier for a 
 
 R. Co. V. Mciiiliard, etc., Co., OC) S. \i. 897, 
 IXi Ga. (iH4. 
 
 Where one who had agreed to furnish 
 third persons coal on hoard cars, payment 
 on receipt at destination, contracted with 
 the carrier to transport the coal, and the 
 carrier converted the same to its own use, 
 he could sue tlie carrier therefor, though 
 it l)e conceded that he had no property 
 in the coal. Rehearing, 97 Pac. 471, 78 
 Kan. 505, denied. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Stone, 78 Kan. 510, 104 Pac. 1067 
 
 In an action of contract for neglecting 
 to carry and deliver goods of the plaintiff 
 according to the terms of a bill of lading 
 made part of the declaration, if the an- 
 swer does not deny the plaintiff's owner- 
 ship of the goods, but expressly admits 
 the shipment of the goods by the plaintiff, 
 and the defendant's promise to him to 
 carry and deliver them, the defendant can 
 not dispute the right of the plaintiff to 
 maintain tlie action, on the ground that 
 the bill of lading stipulates for their de- 
 livery to another person, nor on tlie 
 ground that the defendant had received 
 no notice of the right of the plaintiff to 
 control the bill of lading, .\lden ?'. I'ear- 
 son (Mass.), 3 Gray 342. 
 
 19. Georgia. — Southern R. Co. v. Mad- 
 dox, ()7 S. E. 838, 7 Ga. App. 650. 
 
 Illitiois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sch- 
 wartz, 13 111. .\pp. 490; Ohio, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Emrich. 24 111. App. 245. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Finn f. Western R. 
 Corp.. 112 Mass. 524, 17 .\m. Rep. 12S. 
 
 Ohio. — American Roofing Co. v. Mem- 
 phis, etc., Packet Co., 5 X. P. 146, 8 O. 
 Dec. 490. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Robin- 
 son (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 444. 
 
 20. Southern R. Co. z\ Johnson. 2 Ga. 
 App. 36, 5s S. v.. :va:\. 
 
 21. Contract to deliver at certain 
 place. — Ahibama. — Gulf Compress Co. v. 
 Jones Cotton Co., 172 Ala. 645. 55 So. 206; 
 Southern R. Co. v. Jones Cotton Co., 167 
 Ala. 575, 52 So. 899. 
 
 Indiana. — Madison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wiiitesel, 11 Ind. 55. 
 
 South Carolina. — Matheson v. Southern 
 Railway, 79 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 437, hold- 
 ing that consignor alone may sue. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Scott. 
 
 4 Tex. Civ. .App. 76, 26 S. W. 239; Texas 
 Steamship Co. i\ Dupree Comm. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. .Xpp.), 131 S. W. 621. 
 
 Instances. — Plaintiff, cotton company, 
 delivered cotton to a compress company 
 and subsequently delivered the warehouse 
 receipts of that company to a railway 
 company and received in exchange bills 
 of lading. The cotton companj- shipped 
 the cotton over the railway line to 
 a purchaser under a contract requir- 
 ing that the cotton should be deliv- 
 ered in good condition to the purchaser's 
 mills "landed," and drafts for the pur- 
 chase price with Inlls of lading attached 
 were drawn on the purchaser and hon- 
 ored before the cotton was delivered at its 
 destination. Held, that "landed" meant 
 that the cotton company was responsible 
 for the entire shipment of cotton and for 
 damages to it until delivered at the point 
 of destination, and therefore the right of 
 lecovery for damages to the cotton re- 
 sulting from exposure to the weather 
 while in the possession of the compress 
 company was in the cotton company, al- 
 though it had not been called on to repay 
 any of the purchase price. Southern R. 
 Co. V. Jones Cotton Co., 167 Ala. 575. 52 
 So. 899. 
 
 Where a seller in Texas, who con- 
 tracted with a buyer in New York to de- 
 liver to him there a specified quantity of 
 goods, delivered the goods to a carrier 
 and received a bill of lading making the 
 shipment suliject to the seller's order, and 
 the seller indorsed the bill of lading and 
 drew a draft on the buyer, and attached 
 the bill of lading thereto, and sent it to 
 X'ew York for collection, with directions 
 to deliver the bill of lading on payment of 
 the draft, the title to the goods vested in 
 the buyer when he paid the draft, and the 
 seller, who had not guaranteed the weights 
 of the shipment, could not. after payment 
 of the draft, sue the carrier for a short- 
 age thereafter occurring; but, where the 
 title had not passed to the Iniyer at the 
 time the shortage occurred, the seller 
 could sue therefor. Texas Steamship Co. 
 V. Dupree Comm. Co. (Tex. Civ. .-Kpp.), 
 131 S. W. 621. 
 
 22. .Atchison, etc.. R. Co. v. Consolidated 
 Cattle Co., 52 Pac. 71, 59 Kan. 111.
 
 §§ 810-811 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 492 
 
 breach of ckitv.-'' P.ut when title has passed to the consignee, the consignor 
 can not sue.-^ Where a third person wrongfully orders goods in the name 
 of the consignee, who refuses to receive them, they remain tlie property of the 
 consignor, and he mav sue for a misdelivery. -•'' 
 
 Conditional Sale.— Where goods are shi])ped for sale subject to the ap- 
 proval oi the consignee, the consignor has a right of action against the carrier 
 for failure to deHv'er them.-" One who receives goods, to be returned if not 
 suitable, and returns them, can not recover from the carrier for their loss en 
 route, since he did not own the goods.-" 
 
 One who ships goods c. o. d. is the proper person to recover against the 
 carrier for their loss, for the title has not passed to the buyer.-'^ 
 
 § 811. Right of Consignee. — The presumption that on delivery of goods 
 to a carrier the title thereto passes to the consignee -'•' is sufficient to sustain an 
 action either in tort-'"' or for breach of contract.-' ^ So the consignee is entitled 
 
 23. Refusal of consignee to receive 
 goods. — i,\\>rgii:. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Commercial Guano Co.. 30 S. E. 555, 103 
 Ga. 590. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Boggs, 
 134 111. App. 348. 
 
 Missouri. — Hance v. Wabash, etc.. R. 
 Co., 62 Mo. App. 60; Bergner v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 499. 
 
 Xew York. — Withers v. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co., 48 Barb. 455, affirmed in 
 51 N. Y. 626. 
 
 Virginia. — Spence v. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co., 92 Va. 102, 22 S. E. 815, 29 L. R. A. 
 578. 
 
 Illustrations. — Plaintiff consigned goods 
 to fulfill a contract to sell sound goods to 
 the consignee; through the carrier's neg- 
 ligence they were damaged, and the con- 
 signee refused to accept them. It was 
 held, that the consignor was entitled to 
 recover of the carrier. Withers v. New 
 Jersey Steamboat Co. (N. Y.), 48 Bar!). 
 455, affirmed in 51 N. Y. 626. 
 
 Plaintiffs shipped goods by a railroad, 
 guarantying freight. The bill of lading 
 was accompanied by a draft, to be accepted 
 by consignees before delivery of the 
 goods. The goods having been damaged 
 by delay, the consignees refused to receive 
 the same, and the railroad company no- 
 tified plaintiffs, requesting them to direct 
 the disposition of the goods, which plain- 
 tiffs refused to do, on the ground that 
 the goods belonged to the consignees, and 
 were shipped at their risk. Held, that 
 plaintiffs could maintain a suit against the 
 railroad company for damages caused by 
 the delay. Spence v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 
 92 \'a. 102, 22 S. E. 815. 29 L. R. A. 578. 
 24. McLaughlin v. Martin. 55 Pac. 195. 
 12 Colo. App. 268. 
 
 L. shipped goods to S., who refused to 
 receive them because damaged. Pending 
 a suit by L. against S. to recover the 
 price of the goods, L. brought suit "for 
 the benefit of whom it may concern" 
 against the carrier, for damages to the 
 goods in transit. Held, that L. showed no 
 interest in the goods entitling him to 
 
 maintain the action for damages. Leber- 
 man v. New Orleans, etc., Co., 28 La. 
 Ann. 412. 
 
 25. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v Fort Wayne 
 Elect. Co., 108 Ky. 113. 21 L. Rep. 1544, 
 55 S. W. 918. 
 
 26. Conditional Sale. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Kauffman & Co., 37 So. 659, 141 
 Ala. 671; Levy v. Weir, 77 N. Y. S. 917, 
 38 Misc. Rep. 361. 
 
 27. Gurwitz v. Weir. Ill N. Y. S. 557, 
 127 App. Div. 352. See Nathan v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 135 Mo. App. 46, 115 S. 
 W. 496. 
 
 28. Shipment c. o. d. — Adams Exp. Co. 
 V. McDonough, 6 O. C. C. 539, 3 O. C. D. 
 574. 
 
 Where the goods are shipped, marked 
 "C. O. D.," the contract of the common 
 carrier is not only to safely carry and 
 deliver the goods to the consignee, but 
 also to "collect on delivery," and return 
 to the consignor the charges on the 
 goods; and the consignor may sue on such 
 contract, where neither the goods nor 
 the charges thereon are returned to him. 
 United States Exp. Co. v. Keefcr. 59 Ind. 
 263. 
 
 29. Consignee presumed owner. — See 
 ante. "Title and Rights of Consignee in 
 General." § 804. 
 
 30. Right of consignee to maintain ac- 
 tion. — Bank v. American Exp. Co.. 127 
 Iowa 1, 102 N. W. 107. 
 
 Recovery of goods. — The consignee as 
 the presumptive owner of the goods can 
 sustain an action and sequestration against 
 the master of the carrier for the recovery 
 of the goods. The Red River, 106 La. 
 42. 30 So. 303, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 Same — After sale to another. — Merchan- 
 dise taken from cars of a carrier may be 
 recovered in a tort action by the con- 
 signee, though taken after sale to another. 
 Edgerton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 146 111. 
 App. 199, judgment affirmed, 88 N. E. 
 808. 
 
 31. Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor. 103 Ind. 
 553. 3 N. E. 253; Bank v. American Exp. 
 Co., 127 Iowa 1, 102 N. W. 107.
 
 493 
 
 TITLi:, CUSTODY AND C<J\TK()L OF GOODS. 
 
 § 811 
 
 to bring an action against the carrier for breach of its duty,-"- as for loss or 
 damage to the goods,-'-" misdelivery, •'■* delay in delivery ,•'•'• or failure to de- 
 liver.'"' .And it is held that he may maintain an action against the carrier, al- 
 though another ])crson was the owner.-'' 
 
 When the consignee is the owner of the goods, or when, by the delivery 
 of the g<jods to tile carrier, the properly vests in the consignee, he has the legal 
 rigiit of action, •■•■'' notwithstanding the freight is to be paid b)- the consignor, 
 
 32. White z: ScliwritziT, \:::i .\. \. .S. 
 (J44, 147 App. Div. 544, rcarHUiiiciU denied 
 133 N. Y. S. 114<,»; I'.ast 'reiiiiessee, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Xolson, 41 Temi. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 33. Loss or damage to goods. — United 
 .S7(/^\v.— Hall r. .Nasiivillc, etc., R. Co., 
 Fed. Cas. No. 5,i)4(). 
 
 Alabama. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Arm- 
 stead. .')() Ala. :{.")(). 
 
 Indiana.- — United States Exp. Co. v. 
 Keefer, .j9 Ind. 2():J. 
 
 Kentucky. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Tingle, 
 10 Ky. L. Rep. 3J8; Smith r. Lewis (Ky.), 
 :i B. Mon. 229. 
 
 Missouri. — Bromschwig Tailors' Trim- 
 ming Co. f. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 147 S. W. 175. 
 
 Nezu Vorh.— Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 
 322. 
 
 Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 
 43 Tex. Civ. App. G08, 97 S. W. 509. See 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. Humplirics, 4 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 33J, 23 S. W. 55(i. 
 
 riraiiiia. — \"aughan Mach. Co. v. Stan- 
 ton fanning Co.. 106 Va. 445, 5G S. E. 140. 
 
 IVcst rirgiiiia. — Williamsport. etc., 
 Luml)er Co. z\ Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 71 
 W. \'a. 741. 77 S. F.. 33:!. 
 
 That the seller of goods has agreed to 
 indemnify the buyer for the expenses of 
 a suit against the carrier for their loss is 
 not sufficient to overcome positive evi- 
 dence of title in the buyer, so as to show 
 that he was not entitled to sue. Deaver- 
 Jeter Co. v. Southern Railway, 74 S. E. 
 1071, 91 S. C. 503. 
 
 34. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: Fort 
 Wayne Elect Co.. 108 Ky. 113, 55 S. W. 
 9 IS, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1544. 
 
 35. Harper Furniture Co. v. S_outhern 
 Exp. Co., 144 N. C. 639, 57 S. E. 458. 12 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 924: Williamsport, 
 etc., Lumber Co. v. Baltimore, etc.. R. 
 Co., 71 W. Va. 741, 77 S. E. 333; Parker 
 Buggy Corp. v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 152 
 N. C. 119, 67 S. E. 251. 
 
 36. Madison, etc., R. Co. z: Whitesel, 11 
 Ind. 5."); Arbuckle 7'. Thompson, 37 Pa. 
 170. 
 
 Action for benefit of another. — .\n ac- 
 tion against a common carrier, for fail- 
 ure to deliver goods intrusted to it, is 
 properly brought in the name of the con- 
 signees alone, notwithstanding thev are 
 prosecuting the suit for the benefit of 
 another whom they hold liable for the 
 value of the goods. Mobile, etc.. R. Co. 
 z\ Williams. 54 Ala. 168. 
 
 37. Southern Exp. Co. f. Armstead, 50 
 .Ala. :550. 
 
 One designated in a bill of lading as 
 the consignee of goods may maintain an 
 action therefor against the carrier, though 
 the consignor continues to be the real 
 owner. Griffith z\ Inglcdew (Pa.), 6 
 Serg. & R. 429, 9 .\m. Dec. 444. 
 
 38. Where consignee is owner. — Burriss 
 v. Mi.^Mniri I'ac. R. Co., lo,", Mo. .\pp. 659, 
 78 S. W. 1042; Green z: Clark (X. Y.), 13 
 Barb. 57; Robinson v. Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. (Tex.), 146 S. W. 537, reversing 131 
 S. W. 444; Tradewell v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 150 Wis. 259, 136 N. \W. 794; Hawkins 
 z: Alfalfa Products Co., 153 S. W. 201, 152 
 Ky. 152, 44 L. R. A.. X. S., 600. 
 
 Consignee part owner. — Action against 
 a cuninioii carrier for the loss of goods 
 is properly brought in the name of the 
 sole consignee, though he does not own 
 the entire interest in the goods. Adams- 
 Exp. Co. V. Tingle, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 358. 
 See Southern Exp. Co. v. Armstead, 50 
 Ala. 350. 
 
 Instances. — If merchandise has been ac- 
 tually bought and the purchaser become 
 liable to pay therefor, such purchaser, 
 when the seller consigns such merchan- 
 dise to him, may recover of the carrier 
 for the loss thereof, notwithstanding the 
 seller has not pressed the purchaser for 
 payment. Plaff v. Pacific Exp. Co., 159 
 111. App. 493, judgment affirmed 95 N. E. 
 1089. 
 
 Lender a contract that a purchaser could 
 return an article if defective, his delivery 
 to a carrier will be presumed to be de- 
 livery to the vendor, entitling the latter 
 to recover from the carrier for its loss. 
 Hess V. South Dakota Cent. R. Co. (S. 
 Dak.), 139 N. W. 334. 
 
 Where goods are sold f. o. b. cars of a 
 carrier at a designated point, and are de- 
 livered to the carrier at such point and 
 are accepted by it without any limitation 
 on his conunon-law liability and are in- 
 jured in transit, the right of action there- 
 for is in the consignee. \'.iughan Mach. 
 Co. V. Stanton Tanning Co.. 106 Va. 445, 
 56 S. E. 140. 
 
 A company ordered goods from plain- 
 tiff on five days' sight draft attached to 
 bill of lading. Plaintiff, by mistake, 
 shipped the goods two months before the 
 time specified in the order, and the com- 
 pany refused to receive them except on 
 twenty days' draft. Plaintiff sent the bill 
 of lading and twenty days' draft to a 
 bank, and the company refused to accept 
 the draft, unless inunediate delivery was 
 made of the bill of lading to prevent de-
 
 § 811 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 494 
 
 and not bv the consignee,-"^^ or that the carrier has made settlement with the 
 consignor.-"' Where the transaction between a consignor and consignee amounts 
 to a sale of goods in existence by which the title is transferred, action against 
 the carrier for loss of the goods."* ^ or injury thereto or delay in shipment,^ ^ 
 must be brought by the consignee. The vendor, in such case, in making the con- 
 tract of shipment acts as the agent of the vendee."*-' although the vendee may be 
 a stranger to the carrier i^"* and the carrier is agent of the vendee, and liable 
 to him for its safe delivery.-*"' 
 
 Where Consignee Has Made Advances. ^ — A consignee, who has made ad- 
 vances on goods, may maintain an action in his own name against the carrier 
 for injury to the goods."*" And it has been held that the fact that he had l)een 
 paid his advances did not destroy his right of action.^' Where goods are shipped 
 for a purchaser, a bill of lading forwarded to him. and a draft drawn on him 
 for the price, which is i)aid. the title to the goods will be vested in him. entitling 
 him to sue the carrier for delay in transportation, though it was provided that 
 the goods must first pass inspection."*'^ But the acceptance and payment of drafts 
 drawn on general account, without reference to any particular lot forwarded, 
 will not pass the title."*" 
 
 Where Consignee to Sell on Commission. — It is held that a consignment 
 of goods to a commission merchant to be sold on commission does not operate to 
 devest the title of the consignor and that the consignee can not bring action 
 against the carrier for delay in delivery.-'" And where property is so consigned 
 without any previous contract or advances to a shipper, the consignee can not 
 
 murrage charges, and plaintiff telegraphed 
 the bank to deliver the bill. The object 
 in delivering the bill was to enable the 
 company to unload the goods to prevent 
 demurrage charges. Held, that this act 
 manifested an intention of extending 
 credit to the company and to pass the 
 title to the goods to them. Hoffman v. 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 84 X. W. .55, 
 12.5 Mich. 201. 
 
 39. Green v. Clark (X. Y.), 13 Barb. 57. 
 
 40. Sleepy Eye Milling Co. v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 119 Minn. 199, 137 X. W. 813. 
 
 41. United States.— BXnm v. The Caddo, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 1,573, 1 Woods «4. 
 
 Alabama. — South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 
 72 Ala. 451. 
 
 Kentucky. —S,m\\\\ v. Lewis (Ky.), 3 B. 
 Mon. 229. 
 
 Indiana. — Madison, etc., R. Co. v. White- 
 sel, 11 Ind. 55. 
 
 AVzc' York. — Frankfurt v. Weir, 83 N. 
 Y. S. 112, 40 Misc. Rep. 08-3. 
 
 42. Parker Buggy Corp. v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 152 N. C. 119, 67 S. E. 251. 
 
 43. Smith v. Lewis (Ky.), 3 B. Mon. 229; 
 Blum V. The Caddo. Fed. Cas. No. 1,573, 
 1 Woods 64, followed in Meigs v. Hagan, 
 86 Fed. 926. 
 
 It is an inference of law and not a 
 presumption of fact that the contract for 
 the safe carriage is between the carrier 
 and consignee. Green v. Clark (X. Y.), 
 13 Barb. 57. 
 
 44. Blum V. The Caddo, Fed. Cas. X^o. 
 1.573, 1 Woods 64. 
 
 45. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Spalding, 7 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 211, holding that carrier 
 liable only to vendee. 
 
 Defendants wrote for quotation of its 
 lowest "delivered prices" on lumber, and 
 plaintiff quoted prices at points of deliv- 
 ery. Defendants afterwards wrote that, 
 as the lumber would be shipped direct to 
 a coal company, "the freight would be 
 paid by that company." Thereafter de- 
 fendants placed the order with plaintiff at 
 the delivered prices quoted. Held, that 
 the contract did not make the carrier the 
 agent of the seller, and, if the lumber was 
 damaged in transit, the carrier was an- 
 swerable to the purchaser. Werner Saw- 
 mill Co. V. Ferree. 50 Atl. 924, 201 Pa. 405. 
 
 46. Where consignee has made ad- 
 vances. — Burritt 7'. Rench, Fed. Cas. Xo. 
 2,201, 4 McLean 325; Adams v. Bissell (N. 
 Y.), 28 Barb. 382. 
 
 The consignee of goods which were de- 
 stroyed while in transit may maintain an 
 action against the carrier for the recovery 
 of damages for such destruction, it ap- 
 pearing that such consignee paid the draft 
 drawn against the sliipment, and received 
 the bill of lading therefor, and subse- 
 quently purchased the goods from the 
 owner. Kirkpatrick v. Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co., 86 Mo. 341. 
 
 47. The Geiser, 19 Fed. 877. 
 
 48. Cobb V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 111. 
 394. affirming Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Cobb, etc.. Co., 64 111. 128. 
 
 49. Cobb V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 88 111. 
 394. 
 
 50. Where consignee to sell on commis- 
 sion. — Southern R. Co. v. Deakins, 107 
 Tcnn. 522, 64 S. W. 477.
 
 495 
 
 TITLE, CUSTODV AND CONTROL OF GOOI>S. 
 
 811 
 
 recover for (lamaj,a's lo the property in transit. ■"■' lUit where the consignee agrees 
 to pay the freight and sell on a specified commission, he has such a special prop- 
 erty as to entitle him to sue the carrier for a detention ; and may recover his own 
 damages and those of the owner.-^'- Where property has been consigned by the 
 owner to an agent who has a si)ecial interest therein, and the goods are negli- 
 gently delayed in transit, and converted by the carrier so that sales thereof pre- 
 viouslv made bv the consignee are canceled, such consignee may maintain an 
 action in his own name against the carrier for the recovery of damages on ac- 
 count of lost commissions and for the \aluc of the property converted.'-' 
 
 Where the consignor makes the contract of shipment, the consignee, 
 being the real party in interest, may maintain an action against the carrier for 
 injur\' to tile goods."'' or delay in shi])mcnt."'"' 
 
 Where Money Sent in Payment of Debt. — W'liere a creditor does not di- 
 rect how money in payment of a debt shall be sent, and the debtor sends it by 
 express, and it is lost in transitu, the debtor, rather than the creditor, has an 
 action against the express company."'" Itut where, in pursuance of an agreement 
 between a debtor and creditor, the debtor delivers the money to an express com- 
 pany addressed to the creditor, and gives no other instructions as to the owner- 
 ship or right of possession, and imposes no condition as to delivery, upon re- 
 fusal of tlie comi)any to flclivcr the money to the creditor he is entitled to sue 
 for and recover the same."' 
 
 Consignee Having No Title or Interest. — .A consignee, having no special 
 or general property in goods consii^ned to him, and incurring no risk from their 
 transportation, can not maintain against the carrier an action ex delicto for loss 
 or damage to the goods in transit. ^^ And it has also been held that he can not 
 maintain an action for a breach of the carrier's contract, such right of action 
 belonging to the owner of the goods. •''^ And wdiere the consignee disclaims an 
 interest in the goods and does not accept the consignment, it will be presumed 
 that the legal title revested in the consignor, so that an action for loss of the 
 goods can not be maintained in the name of the consignee for the benefit of a 
 third person who claims that the goods were ship])ed to the consignee as factor 
 
 51. Grinnell-Collins Co. r. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co.. 109 Minn. 51.-?, 124 X. W. 377, 26 
 L. R. A.. N. S., 437. 
 
 52. Boston, etc.. R. Co. v. Warrior 
 Mower Co., 76 Me. 251. 
 
 53. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru-Van 
 Zandt Imp. Co.. 85 Pac. 408, 87 Pac. 80. 
 73 Kan. 295. 6 L. R. A.. N. S., 1058, 117 
 Am. St. Rep. 468, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 roo. 
 
 54. Where consignor makes contract of 
 shipment. — Burriss i\ Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 10.-. Mo. App. 659, 78 S. W. 1042. 
 
 55. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkins- 
 ville Canning Co. (Ky. App.), 1L6 S. W. 
 758. 
 
 In Georgia it is held that a consignee of 
 freiglit can not maintain an action on a 
 hill of lading for loss caused hy delay, 
 where the consignor made the contract of 
 carriage, unless the hill of lading has heen 
 assigned or indorsed to him hy the con- 
 signor. Haas r. Kansas Ci'y, etc.. R. Co.. 
 81 Ga. 792, 7 S. V.. 629. 
 
 56. Where money sent in payment of 
 debt. — Bi-rnstinc 7\ I'.xpross Co., 40 O. St. 
 451. 
 
 57. Pratt v. Northern Pac. Exp. Co., 13 
 Idaho 373, 90 Pac. 341, 10 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 499. 
 
 58. Consignee having no interest. — 
 
 Georgia. — Southern R. Co. v. Miko. 136 
 Ga. 272, 71 S. E. 241. 36 L. R. A.. N. S., 68. 
 
 Minncsotn — Grinnell-Collins Co. v. Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co.. 109 Minn 513, 124 N. 
 W. 377, 26 L. R. A.. X. S.. 437. 
 
 Nezv ForA'.^Ogden v. Coddington (X. 
 Y.), 2 E. D. Smith 317. 
 
 Xortli Carolina. — See Ashehoro Wheel- 
 harrow, etc., Co. V. Southern R. Co.. 149 
 X. C. 261, 62 S. E. 1091. 
 
 Texas. — Cudahy Packing Co. v. Dorsey, 
 26 Tex. Civ. App. 4S4. 63 S. W. 548. 
 
 A shipper delivered goods to a carrier, 
 for delivery to a person named as con- 
 signee in a nonnegotiable shipping receipt. 
 The shipper drew on the consignee for 
 the price, and attached the draft to the 
 receipt. Suhsequcntly the carrier, at the 
 shipper's request, delivered the goods to 
 a third person. Thereafter the consignee 
 accepted the draft and paid it. Held, that 
 the consignee had not acquired any title 
 to the goods, and could not sue the car- 
 rier for conversion. Green r. Baltimore, 
 etc.. R. Co., 92 N. E. 622. 206 Mass. 331. 
 
 59. Ogden ?■. Coddington (X. Y.). 2 E. 
 D. Smith 317.
 
 § 811 
 
 CARRIERS. 496 
 
 for such third person.*''*^ But it has been held that, notwithstanding the con- 
 signor retains title, the consignee may sue the carrier for losses caused by delay 
 in their transmission, though he refuses to accept them l)ecause not sooner de- 
 livered.*'^ 
 
 Rescission of Contract of Sale.— \Miere, after failure to deliver freight, 
 consignee demanded back and received from vendor the price, there was a re- 
 scission of the sale preckuHng a recovery by consignee from the carrier for the 
 faiUire to dcli\er."- 
 
 Consignee Agent of Consignor. — A consignee has no cause of action 
 against a carrier for failure to deh\er goods consigned for sale by him as agent 
 of the consignor: the title being in the consignor.''- 
 
 60. Ezcll z: English (Ala.), 6 Port. 311. 62. Rescission of contract of sale.— 
 
 61. Clute z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 Matheson z\ vSouthern Railway, 79 S. C. 
 Kan. 333. Ill Pac. 431. 30 L. R. A., N. 155. GO S. E. 437. 
 
 ^ 1071 63. Whalej^ v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 84 
 
 S. C. 189, Go S. E. 1022.
 
 CliAlTER X. 
 Tkaxsi'oktatiox and DELiviikv BV Cakrikr. 
 
 I. Duties as to Transportation in Gt-ncral, § 812. 
 
 II. Route and Deviation Therefrom, §§ 813-834. 
 
 A. Selection by Shipper, §§ 813-82G. 
 
 a. Right to Select, § 813. 
 
 b. Requisites, Construction and Proof of Agreement, §§ 814-.S15. 
 
 (1) Requisites and Construction, § 814. 
 
 (2) Evidence, § 815. 
 
 c. Deviation by Carrier, §§ 81G-821. 
 
 (1) In General, § 81(1. 
 
 (2) Losses for Which Carrier Is Liable, §§ 817-819. 
 
 (a) In General, § 817. 
 
 (b) Loss Caused by Inevitable Casualties, § 818. 
 
 (c) Transportation by Connecting Carriers, § 819. 
 
 (3) Necessity for and Justification of Deviation or Forwarding by Another 
 
 Carrier, § 820. 
 
 (4) Damages, § 821. 
 
 d. Refusal to Route Cars as Directed by Shipper, § 822. 
 
 e. Shipment over Route Contrary to Express Direction of Shipper, § 823. 
 
 f. Forwarding by Different Boat or Conveyance than That Stipulated, § 824. 
 
 g. Carrier Fraudulently Inducing Shipment over Longer Route. § 825. 
 h. Diversion by Order of Shipper or Consignee, § 826. 
 
 B. Selection by Carrier, §§ 827-834. 
 
 a. Right to Select in General, § 827. 
 
 b. Regard for Rights of Shipper. § 828. 
 
 c. Degree of Care Rec|uirc(l. § S2'.). 
 
 d. Duty to Select Safe and Direct Route, § 830. 
 
 e. Duty to Pursue I'sual and Customary Route and Deviation Therefrom, §§ 
 • 831-834. 
 
 (1) In General, § 831. 
 
 (2) Deviation, §§ 832-834. 
 
 (a) What Constitutes, § 832. 
 
 (b) Necessity and Justification, § 833. 
 
 (c) Losses for Which Carrier Is Liable and Nature uf Liability, § 834. 
 
 III. Duty and Necessity of Delivery, §§ 835-841. 
 .•\. Duty to Deliver. § 835. 
 
 B. Liability for Failure or Refusal to Deliver, § 83G-841. 
 
 a. In General, § 830. 
 
 b. E.xcuse for Nondelivery in General, § 837. 
 
 c. Right to Require Receipt before Delivery. § 838. 
 
 d. Requiring Proof of Right to Goods, § 839. 
 
 e. Requiring Production and Surrender of Bill of Lading. § S40. 
 
 f. Detention for Debt or Charges, § 841. 
 
 IV. Mode and Sufficiency of Delivery in General, §§ S42-S40. 
 
 A. In General. § 842. 
 
 B. What Constitutes Delivery, § 843. 
 
 C. Carrier liy Water, § 844. 
 
 D. Duties in Making Delivery, § 845. 
 
 E. Efifect of Custom or Usage, § 846. 
 V. Time of Delivery, § 847. 
 
 VI. Necessity for Personal Delivery, § 848. 
 VII. Place of Delivery. §§ 849-853. 
 
 1 Car— 32
 
 CARRIERS. 498 
 
 A. In General § 849. 
 
 B. Usual Place at Destination, § 830. 
 
 C. Specified Place, § 851. 
 
 D. Intermediate Point, § 852. 
 
 E. Shipments in Carload Lots, § 853. 
 
 VIII. To Whom Delivery Alay Be Made. §§ 854-857. 
 
 A. Consignee or Agent, § 854. 
 
 B. Consignor or Agent, § 855. 
 
 C. Actual Owner, § 856. 
 
 D. Holder of Bill of Lading. § 857. 
 
 IX. Misdelivery, § 858-866. 
 
 A. Liability in General, § 858. 
 
 B. Fraudulent Consignee, § 859. 
 
 C. Delivery without Production of Bill of Lading, §§ 860-865. 
 
 a. In General, § 860. 
 
 b. Liability to Bona Fide Holder, § 861. 
 
 c. Laches of Holder of Bill, § 862. 
 
 d. Bill Attached to Draft, § 863. 
 
 e. Duplicate Bills, § 864. 
 
 f. Direction in Bill to Notify Third Person, § 865. 
 
 D. Defenses, § 866. 
 
 X. Duty of Consignee to Remove Goods, § 867. 
 XL Failure or Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods, § 868. 
 XII. Goods Shipped C. O. D., § 869. 
 XIII. Go'ods Seized under Legal Process, § 870-874. 
 
 A. Liability of Carrier. § 870. 
 
 B. Duties of Carrier, § 871. 
 
 C. Seizure under Police Regulations, § 872. 
 
 D. Garnishment of Carrier, § 873. 
 
 E. Rights of Attaching Officer, § 874. 
 
 XI\'. Actions for Failure to Deliver or Misdelivery, §§ 875-903. 
 
 A. Conditions Precedent, § 875. 
 
 B. Form of Action, § 876. 
 
 C. Joinder of Actions, § 877. 
 
 D. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 878. 
 
 E. Parties, § 879. 
 
 F. Pleading, §§ 880-882. 
 
 a. Declaration, Complaint or Petition, §§ 880-881. 
 
 (1) In General, § 880. 
 
 (2) Necessary Allegations, § 881. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer, § 882. 
 
 G. Issue, Proof, and Variance, § 883. 
 H. Evidence, §§ 884-887. 
 
 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, § 884. 
 
 b. Necessity of Producing Bill (jf Lading, § 885. 
 
 c. Admissibility of Evidence, § 886. 
 
 d. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 887. 
 I. Damages, §§ 888-900. 
 
 a. Nominal Damages, § 888. 
 
 b. Exemplary Damages, § 889. 
 
 c. Compensatory Damages, §§ 890-900. 
 
 (1) Failure or Refusal to Deliver, § 890-893. 
 
 (a) Actual Loss Proximately Resulting, § 890. 
 
 (b) Measure and Elements in General, § 891. 
 
 (c) Goods Having no Market Value, § 892. 
 
 (d) Computation of Damages, § 893.
 
 499 
 
 TRANSPOKTATIOX AND DKLIVKRV I'.V CAKKJKR. 
 
 § 812 
 
 (2) Misdelivery, § 894. 
 
 (3) Delaying Notice of Arrival of Goods, § 895. 
 
 (4) Delaying Notic(i of Refusal of Goods, § H'.Mi. 
 
 (5) Mitigation of Damages, § 897. 
 
 (6) Evidence, § 898-899. 
 (a) In General, § 898. 
 
 (h) Evidence as to Value, § 899. 
 
 (7) Inadequacy of Damages, § 900. 
 J. Trial and Judgment, §§ 901-90:{. 
 
 a. Questions for Jury, § 901. 
 
 I). Instructions, § W2. 
 
 c. Verdict uiid Judgment, § 903. 
 
 § 812. Duties as to Transportation in General.— Duties in General. 
 
 — A ooiUract by a carrier to lraiisi)()rl frcii^lu inii)oses on it the oljligalioii to 
 trans])ort the freight safely ' and within a reasonal)le time to the point of desti- 
 nation,- and in the order in which it is offered.-' Tiie carrier, being an insurer, 
 may not escape habihty for nonperformance of the contract, except by showing 
 that a faihire to trans])()rt arose from an act of God or the pnblic enemy, or 
 public authority, or of the shipper, or from the intrinsic nature of the proi)erty 
 itself,"* or from a sudden press of business which could not have been reason- 
 ably anticipated."' And, while accidents and obstructions will excuse delay, they 
 do not put an end to the contract, which must be completed as soon as the im- 
 pediment to the traiis])ortation of the ])roperty is removed, or can reasonably 
 
 1. Duty to transport goods safely. — See 
 
 post, "Eoss of or Injury to Goods," chap- 
 ter 12. 
 
 2. Duty to transport freight promptly. 
 — United States. — Bank z\ Adams Exp. Co., 
 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. S72; The Delaware, 
 14 Wall. .579. .59(), 20 L. Ed. 779; The Com- 
 mander-in-Chief (U. S.), 1 Wall. 43. 17 
 L. Ed. 009; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kirhv, 
 225 U. S. 155, 50 L. Ed. 1033, 32 S. Ct. 
 648, Ann. Cas. 1914a, 501. 
 
 Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. King 
 (Ark.), 148 S. W. 1035. 
 
 North Carolina. — See Watson v. Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co., 59 S. E. 55, 145 N. C. 230. 
 
 Ohio. — Wyler, etc., Co. v. Louisville, 
 etc.. Railway (Ohio), 6 N. P., N. S., 589, 
 18 O. D. N. P. 722. 
 
 Texas. — Bergin v. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 1184. 
 
 I'irginia. — !\[urphv, etc.. Co. v. Station, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.), 239. 
 
 West ]'irs,inia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.! IS W. Va. 301. 41 Am. Rep. 
 690; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Morchead. 
 5 W. Va. 293. 
 
 A year is an unreasonable time for ;i 
 carrier to take to cduvcv a package from 
 Boston to Milwaukee, and upon the ex- 
 piration of that time the owner may well 
 maintain an action for nondelivery. Nndvl 
 V. Wells, 11 Wis. 407. 
 
 3. Order of forwarding. — ITnuston. ct-.. 
 R. Co. V. Smitli. <■,:; Tex. 3::-J. 
 
 4. Excuses for failure to perform con- 
 tract.— Wells V. Great Northern R. Co., 
 59 Ore. 1(15. 114 Pac. 92. 116 Pac. 1070, 34 
 L. R. A., N. S.. 818. 
 
 Prevented by human agency. — For fail- 
 ure to carry and deliver, a common car- 
 rier can not excuse itself by showing that 
 through human agency, other than of a 
 lHd)lic enemy, not untler its control, this 
 was prevented, without fault on its part. 
 (nilf. etc.. R. Co. v. Levi, 70 Tex. 337. 13 
 S. W. 191, s L. R. A.. X. S.. 323. 
 
 Direction on freight becoming illegi- 
 ble. — Where several pieces of machinery 
 were sliipped to the defendant's agent to 
 he forwarded to plaintiff, and tTiey were 
 described in the l)ill of lading as "three 
 pipes in one bundle, and two single pipes," 
 and they were delivered bj- the shipper's 
 agent to the defendant's agent, who had 
 a copy of the bill, and. by some means, 
 the direction on one of the single pipes 
 become illegible, and it was not for- 
 warded, it was held that these facts were 
 sut'licient to subject the defendant for 
 negligence as a bailee. Foard i\ .Atlantic 
 ^cN.' Car. R. Co. (N. Car.\ S Jones 235. 
 
 Wrongful refusal to forward without 
 prepayment. — A forwarding company. 
 eoiUracting without prepayment to for- 
 ward goods to a distant place, breaches 
 its contract where its agent at an iiUer- 
 mediate point refuses to forward the 
 goods without the charges being fully 
 naid, regardless of whether the company 
 is a mere forwarder and not a common 
 carrier. Lee v. Fidelity Storage & Trans- 
 fer Co.. 98 P. 658, 51 Wash. 208. 
 
 5. Mauldin v. Sealioard Air Line Rail- 
 way, 73 S. C. 9. 52 S. E. 077; compare 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Touart. 97 Ala. 
 514. 11 So. 756.
 
 812 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 500 
 
 be overcome.^ If the place of destination can not be reached so as to make de- 
 livery, the carrier should not only take care of the goods, but also notify the 
 consignor or owner within a reasonable time, of its inability to make the de- 
 livery.' And the carrier should also notify the consignor where goods, not 
 shipped bv him in accordance with the direction of the buyer, are deposited at 
 the end o'f the carrier's road, and it refuses to deliver them to the connecting 
 line on the ground that the liabilities of the latter are greater than the exemp- 
 tion contained in the original contract.^ 
 
 Duty to Follow Instructions. — Carriers of goods are required to follow the 
 instructions given by the owner of property concerning its transportation when- 
 ever practicable.'-' 
 
 Goods Defectively Marked.— Where goods delivered to a carrier for trans-, 
 portation are without proper directions as to destination, the carrier is not lia- 
 ble for neglecting to transport them.i" In such case the carrier should hold 
 the goods until the true destination can be determined by inquiry.!^ And an 
 agreement by its agent to have goods forwarded to their proper destination 
 from a point on a connecting line to which they were carried through the mis- 
 take of the shipper, in addressing them, makes such carrier merely a gratuitous 
 bailee of the goods.^- But a carrier is liable for failure to duly forward goods 
 marked with only an initial though the bill of lading provides that the carrier 
 should not be liable for wrong carriage or wrong delivery of goods marked 
 with initials. ^^ 
 
 Duty to Carry in Identical Conveyance Specified in Contract. — If the 
 carrier is ready and willing, and offers to transport the freight, it will not, it 
 would seem, be liable in damages for not offering to do it in the identical boat 
 specified in the contract. The object of the shipper is to procure the transporta- 
 tion of his property, and it can not be essential to him whether it be done in one 
 boat or another.^-* But it has been held that where an express company has 
 agreed to forward goods by a particular vessel, and that vessel does not go, 
 it has no right to forward the goods by any other u5ual and proper mode of con- 
 
 6. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. O'Donnell, 
 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 117. 34 Am. St. Rep. .J79. 
 
 7. Where destination can not be reached 
 — Notice to consignor. — Green, etc., Nav. 
 Co r. Marshall, 48 Ind. 596; Baltimore, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293. 
 
 8. Rawson v. Holland (N. Y.), 47 How. 
 Prac. 292, .5 Daly 15.5. affirmed in 59 N. Y. 
 611. 
 
 9. Duty to follow instructions. — Ex- 
 press Co. V. Kountze Bros. (U. S.), 8 Wall. 
 342. 19 L. Ed. 457; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Irvine (Tex. Civ. App.). 73 S. W. 540; 
 Gillett V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 68 S. W. 61; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Dorsey, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 377, 70 S. W. 
 575. 
 
 Where a carrier was instructed to carry 
 goods in bond, and they were taken out 
 (A bond without authority, in consequence 
 of which they were of less value at the 
 point of destination than they would have 
 been had they been brought there in bond, 
 the taking them out of bond was an in- 
 terference with the shipper's rights, ren- 
 dering the carrier liable for actual dam- 
 ages. Smith v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 30 So. 265, 106 La. 11. 54 L. R. A., N. S., 
 923, 87 Am. St. Rep. 285. 
 
 10. Goods defectively marked. — Finn v. 
 Western R. Corp., 103 Mass. 383. 
 
 No directions as to destination. — On 
 the trial of an action against a carrier for 
 neglecting to forward a lot of shingles de- 
 livered with no directions whither to for- 
 ward, except a stencil mark, "J. S. C," on 
 each bunch, and, on one bunch in seven, 
 "J. S. Clark," in pencil, where the defend- 
 ant's station agent denied actual notice, 
 mere proof that within three years six 
 or eight lots had been received at the same 
 station, while he was in charge, similarly 
 stencil marked, accompanied with the bills of 
 lading, was insufficient to justify a finding 
 that he "ought clearly to have known" 
 that they were sent to J. S. Clark. Finn 
 V. Western R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283. 
 
 11. Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co. r. 
 Merchants' Exp. Co., 76 X. J. L. 207, 68 
 Atl. 906. 
 
 12. Treleven v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 89 Wis. 598, 62 N. W. 536. 
 
 13. Goods marked only with initials. 
 — McGowan v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 95 \. C. 417. 
 
 14. Duty to carry in identical convey- 
 ance specified in contract. — Canal Boat 
 MontLiomery v. Kent, 20 O. 54.
 
 501 
 
 TKAXSPOKTATKtX AND DIXIVKRV BY CAKKIHR. 
 
 § 812 
 
 veyance; and, when it does so forward go(jds, it is liable lo the owner in case 
 of their loss.'"' 
 
 Duty to Trace Goods. — It is the duty of the carrier v> trace goods when the 
 owner >o (k-man<lsJ''' 
 
 Duty as to Perishable Goods. — W here it becomes impossible to deliver 
 gjoods accordini^- U) direclion^, or to return them before they would inevitably 
 perish, the carrier should sell them.'' Hut, a carrier can not justify the sale of 
 perishable freight which is obstructed in the course of its shij)ment by a strike, 
 without notice to the shipper and instructions from him, when it ajjpears that 
 such notice could have been given and instructions obtained without inconveni- 
 ence to the carrier or causing any delay that would have endangered the safety 
 of the goods. '^ 
 
 Duty to Verify Counting of Goods. — A shipi)er of goods, loading the car, 
 may comi)el the agent of the carrier to verify the loa<ling and counting by the 
 shii)i)er.''' 
 
 Entry in Custom House. — W here the governmental power prevents the 
 carriage of goods to their destination until duties are paid, it is the duty of the 
 carrier to take all practicable means to notify the consignees, and, failing in 
 that, to notify the shippers, of the situation. Meanwdiile the carrier is at lib- 
 erty to turn the goods over to the customs officers, or to store them in a suitable 
 and reasonablv safe place.-" Where the goods are entered for "immediate con- 
 sumption." the carrier is required to pay the custom charges. -' 
 
 Effect of Usage. — The duties of a carrier may arise out of usage as well 
 as from statutor\- enactments, and wdien once established the obligation of the 
 carrier to i^erform them is as binding in the one case as in the other.-- 
 
 Special Contract. — A carrier in accepting shipments accepts them subje t 
 to the liabilities imposed by law% and the only w^ay in wdiich it can vary or limit 
 the lia1)ility is by special contract. -'■ \Micre the carrier contracts to carry within 
 a particular time, or to make a jiarticular connection, or to carry by a particular 
 
 15. Goodrich 7'. Thompson, 44 X. Y. 
 324, affirming 27 X. Y. Super. Ct. 75. 
 
 16. Duty to trace goods. — Cleveland, 
 etc., R. Co. r. Freiberg, 11 O. C. C. X. 
 S., 241, 20-30 O. C. D. 669, affirmed in 
 83 O. St. 482. See Herf, etc., Chemical 
 Co. V. Lackawana Line, 70 Mo. App. 274. 
 
 In Georgia it is so provided by stat- 
 ute. Civil Code, §§ 2317. 2318; Code 
 1910. §§ 2771, 2772; Central, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Murphey, 116 Ga. 863. 43 S. E. 265, 60 
 L. R. A. 817; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Elder, 116 Ga. 942, 43 S. E. 379; Davis v.' 
 Seaboard, etc.. Railway. 136 Ga. 278. 71 
 S. E. 428. See post. "Connecting Car- 
 riers," Part V. 
 
 17. Duty as to perishable goods. — 
 Dudley r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 58 \V. 
 Va. 604, 52 S. E. 718. 3 L. R. A., X. S.. 
 1135, 112 Am. St. Rep. 1027. 
 
 18. Railroad 7'. Odil. 96 Tenn. 61, 33 S. 
 \V. 611. 
 
 19. Duty to verify counting of goods. 
 — Peele v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 149 X. 
 C. 390, 63 S. E. 66. 
 
 20. Entry in custom house.— Pennsyl- 
 vania Co. T. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 107 
 111. App, 386. 
 
 21. Mitchelson v. Minneapolis, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 67 Minn. 406. 69 X. W. 1106. 
 
 Plaintiff instructed his agents in Que- 
 bec to ship certain merchandise to St. 
 Paul. Under their direction, their clerk 
 made out triplicate invoices, a declara- 
 tion to be presented to the United States 
 consul, and a consular certificate: the 
 tv.o latter stating that the goods were 
 to be entered at the port of Sault St. 
 Marie. The invoice, also in triplicate, 
 stated that they were to be consigned for 
 entry at that port to F., defendant's agent. 
 The l)ill of lading specified that goods 
 going to or coming from the United 
 States were subject to customs charges. 
 The invoice, declaration, consular certifi- 
 cate, and bill came into the agent's hands 
 when the goods reached Sault St. Marie. 
 Hold, that defendant's agent was war- 
 ranted in entering the goods for "imme- 
 diate consumption." and in paj'ing the 
 duty fixed l)y tlie custom house officials, 
 and that it was not his duty to enter 
 them for "transportation" to St. Paul. 
 Mitchelson f. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co.. 
 69 X. \V. 1106, 67 Minn. 406. 
 
 22. Effect of usage. — Railroad Comm'rs 
 V. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 59 Fla. 612. 52 
 So. 4. 
 
 23. Special contract. — Russell 7: Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co.. 37 Mont. 1, 94 Pac. 488.
 
 §§ 812-815 CAKRii'Rs. 502 
 
 train, it is liable for the consequence of a failure to transi)ort according to its 
 terms. -"^ 
 
 §§ 813-834. Route and Deviation Therefrom— §§ 813-826. Selection 
 by Shipper— § 813. Right to Select.— The shipper usually has the right to 
 select the route over which his goods are to be shipped.-'' 
 
 §§ 814-815. Requisites, Construction and Proof of Agreement— 
 § 814. Requisites and Construction. — The provisions of a contract of ship- 
 ment, whcihcr xcrhal or written, determine the route and connections to be ob- 
 served.-'' 
 
 Authority of Agent to Bind Carrier.— The agent of a railway has author- 
 ity to bind the company as to the routing of a through shipment in the absence 
 of knowledge by the shipper of limitation on his powers ; but where he notified 
 a shipper demanding an all-rail shipment that the company would not regard 
 such billing by him but would send it partly by water, this was notice to the 
 shi]-)per of his' lack of authority to contract for an all-rail shipment.-' 
 
 Written Instructions by Shipper— Assent of Agent.— A written instruc- 
 tion by a shipper to a station agent as to his selection of a connecting carrier, 
 to which the agent assented, at the same time telling the shipper, that "the office 
 at the terminal generally took their own route, and w^ould not pay any attention 
 to him." did not amount to a written contract beween the shipper and the com- 
 panv, the assent thereto being insufficient; but amounted only to an instruction 
 or direction of the shipper.-'' A shipper's written instruction to a station agent 
 as to the selection of a connecting carrier is superseded by subsequent bills of 
 lading containing no provision on the subject.-'-^ 
 
 Receipt for Goods Designating Route.— A receipt given for goods "for 
 Baltimore, via Chesapeake and Delaware canal." is a contract to carry the goods 
 through that canal to Baltimore.3<^ 
 
 § 815. Evidence. — Evidence as to the customary running time of cattle 
 trains between tw^o points over defendant's line is admissible on the issue of 
 deviation from the route selected by the shippers, but evidence as to the rate 
 of speed of one freight train at a certain time, is inadmissible.-'' ^ 
 
 Parol Evidence. — Where shipping contract is silent as to the route, parol 
 evidence as to the route agreed upon is inadmissible.-^ - 
 
 Experience of Shipper as to Best Route.— On the question whether the 
 shipper made the contract with the carrier to ship the goods by a certain route, 
 his testimony wdierein he stated what experience he had in shipping such goods, 
 and that the route indicated was a better way of shipping them, was admissible.^-^ 
 
 Right of Consignee to Designate Route. — On the issue as to who had the 
 
 24. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kirby, 22.J 28. Written instructions by shipper, as- 
 U. S. 155, 164, 56 L. Ed. 1033, 32 S. Ct. sent of agent.— Bessling & Co. v. Hous- 
 648, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501. See post, ton, etc., R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 80 
 "Limitation of Liability," Chapter 14. S. W. 639, affirmed in 98 Tex. 610, no op. 
 
 25. Right to select.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. 29. Bessling & Co. v. Houston, etc., R. 
 V. Irvine (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 540; Co., 80 S. W. 639, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470. 
 Wells, Fargo & Co's Exp. v. Fuller, 4 gQ Receipt for goods designating 
 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 412 (see 93 route.-Hand v. Baynes (Pa.), 4 Whart. 
 Tex. 242. no op.); Texas, etc R Co r. ^^^ 33 ^^^ ^^^ 54 
 
 Eastin, 100 Tex. 556, 102 S. W. 105; In- ' ^ ,, , t? r^ „ Tr,,;,.^ CTpv 
 
 ternational, etc., R. Co. v. Wentworth, 31. Gulf, etc. R^ Co. t;. Irvme (Tex. 
 
 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 12, 27 S. W. 680. af- Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 540 
 
 firmed in 87 Tex. 311. 32. Parol evidence.— Wells, Fargo & 
 
 26. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, Co.'s Exp. v. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 
 55 Tex. Civ. App. 12, 118 S. W. 618. 322, 23 S. W. 412 (see 93 Tex. 742, no op.). 
 
 27. Authority of agent to bind carrier. 33. Experience of shipper as to best 
 — Bessling & Co. v. Houston, etc., R. Co., route. — Central R., etc., Co. z'. .Skellie, 86 
 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 80 vS. W. 639, af- Ga. 686, 13 vS. E. 1017. 
 
 firmed in 98 Tex. 610, no op.
 
 503 
 
 TRANSPOKTATIOX AND DKLIVKKV liY CARRIF.R. 
 
 §§ 815-819 
 
 right to designate the route of a shipment hy rail, the consignor may testify that 
 the consignee had such right.''^ 
 
 §§ 816-821. Deviation by Carrier— § 816. In General.— When the 
 shipper, 1)V the assent of tlie carrier, designates the route, that route must be 
 pursued, and a deviation therefrtjm is at the risk of the carrier,--'' except as to 
 perishable goods, where conformity would cause injury to the shipment.'^'' 
 
 §§ 817-819. Losses for Which Carrier Is Liable— § 817. In General. 
 — If a carrier deviates from the route fixed by his contract, he becomes re- 
 sponsible for all loss ■'' which may occur in transit •''^ either on his own or con- 
 necting lines ^•' and can ncjt a\ai] himself of any excepti(jns in his behalf in the 
 contract."'" 
 
 § 818. Loss Caused by Inevitable Casualties. — Unless justified hy ur- 
 gent circumstances, a deviation by the carrier will render it responsible for 
 losses resulting, even from inevitable casualties.-'^ 
 
 § 819. Transportation by Connecting Carriers. — Substitution of Other 
 Connecting Carrier. — A common carrier who unjustifiably substitutes another 
 connecting carrier fur the one named in the bill of lading, becomes an insurer 
 for the substituted carrier, and liable for loss of the goods while in the latter's 
 possession, even by inevitable casualties.-*- When goods are delivered to the 
 first of a connecting line of railroads, to be shipi)ed by a specified route, a de- 
 livery to another railroad, which forms a part of a ditTerent route, is a conver- 
 sion, which renders the first road liable for the value of the goods. If they be 
 delayed by such delivery, or damage result, the first road may be held responsi- 
 ble therefor.-*^ 
 
 34. Right of consignee to designate 
 
 route. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Deiini.son, 2.') 
 Tex. Civ. App. 127, GO S. W. 281. 
 
 35. Express Co. v. Kountze Bros. (U. 
 S.\ S Wall. .-542, 10 L. Ed. 457. 
 
 Deviation by carrier. — Lord, etc., Co. v. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 134 S. 
 W. Ill; Railroad r. Odil, 96 Tenn. 61, 
 64, 33 S. W. 611; Post v. Southern R. Co., 
 103 Tenn. 184, 214, '^2 S. W. 301, 55 L. 
 R. A. 481. 
 
 36. Lord, etc., Co. v. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mo. App.), 134 S. W. 111. 
 
 37. Losses and injuries for which car- 
 rier is liable. — Texas, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Eastin, 100 Tex. 556. 102 S. W. 105; G. 
 H. & H. R. Co. r. Allison, 59 Tex. 193. 
 
 Where by assent of the carrier a ship- 
 per selects the route over which his 
 goods are to be shipped, the carrier is 
 liable for all damages resulting from de- 
 viation therefrom. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Irvine (Tex. Civ. App.). 73 S. W. 540; 
 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Fuller, 4 
 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 222, 23 S. W. 4l:J 
 (see 93 Tex. 742, no op.). 
 
 A common carrier contracting to for- 
 ward goods "by sail on the lake," all lake 
 dangers being in that case taken by the 
 owners, is liaiile as insurer for their loss 
 if sent by steam. Merrick v. Webster. 
 3 Mich. 268. 
 
 38. Railroad 7'. Odil. 96 Tenn. 61. 64. 
 33 S. W. 611. 
 
 The master of a vessel laden witli lime, 
 deviated, unnecessarily, from the usual 
 
 course, and during the deviation was 
 overtaken by a tempest which wetted the 
 lime, and the vessel taking fire, all was 
 lost. The court held the carrier liable, 
 Ijccause the loss had actually happened 
 while his wrongful "act" (the deviation 
 in the course of the voyage), was in op 
 eration and force, and llic loss was at- 
 tributed to the wrongful act. Lamont & 
 Co. V. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 
 Heisk.) 58, 64. 
 
 39. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Eastin. 100 
 Tex. 556, 102 S. W. 105. See post. 
 "Transportation bv Connecting Carriers." 
 § 819. 
 
 40. Deviation as depriving of exemp- 
 tions of contract. — Pecos, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Hushes. 44 Tex. Civ. App. 135. 139. 98 
 S. W. 410; G. H. & H. R. Co. v. Allison. 
 59 Tex. 193; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Eastin, 
 100 Tex. 556, 102 S. W. 105; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Louisiana, etc.. Lumber 
 Co.. 50 Tex. Civ. App. 179. 109 ?. W. 1143. 
 
 41. Loss caused by inevitable casual- 
 ties. — Fatman & Co. z: Cincinnati, etc., 
 R. Co., 2 Disn. 248. 13 O. Dec. 152; RaU- 
 road V. Odil. 96 Tenn. 61, 64, 33 S. W. 
 fill. 
 
 42. Fatman & Co. z: Cincinnati, etc., 
 R. Co.. 2 Disn. 248, 13 O. Dec. 152: Rail- 
 road 7'. Odil. 96 Tenn. 61. 33 S. W. 611. 
 
 43. Georgia R. Co. v. Cole. 68 Ga. 623. 
 Instances. — .\ carrier received goods 
 
 to be carried to a point beyond its own 
 line, with directions to deliver them to 
 certain connecting carriers, with the last
 
 § 819 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 504 
 
 Loss by Negligence of Connecting Carrier. — A contracting carrier is lia- 
 ble for injuries to a shipment diverted from the route contemplated by the car- 
 rier's contract, arising from the negligence of the carrier to which it entrusted 
 it. The initial carrier could not shift its responsibility by placing the shipment in 
 the hands of another carrier not contemplated by the contract, even if it was 
 compelled to do so by necessity."*"* 
 
 Diversion from All Rail to Water Route.— A railroad company may stip- 
 ulate to carry freight by rail from one point to another over its own line and 
 those of connecting roads and such stipulation imposes upon it the duty to so 
 transport the shipment. \M'ien it or any subseciuent road acting as its partner 
 or agent divested the shipment from the stipulated all-rail route and shipped 
 by water, this was a breach of the contract and subjected the initial carrier to 
 dangers for any injury to the shipment resisting therefrom. ■*•"* A printed con- 
 dition that each connecting company shall alone be held answerable for loss or 
 damage to the property sustained "during such transportation" does not affect 
 this Hability. The damage was not sustained "during such transportation as 
 was contracted for," but during transportation of an entirely diii'erent character, 
 and as a consequence of a breach of the contract.^*' 
 
 Clause "if Receipted for in Good Order" at Intermediate Point.' — A 
 statement that the initial carrier shall not be lialile for any damages or defi- 
 ciency in packages, if receipted for "in good order" by a connecting carrier at 
 some intermediate point, does not release the initial carrier where the shipment 
 is diverted from the route stipulated in the bill of lading and damaged while in 
 transit.^' The clause "if receipted for in good order," etc., is not to be taken as 
 
 of which the shipper had made an agree- 
 ment for stopping the car at intermedi- 
 ate points on its hne for delivery of portions 
 of the goods. It, however, wrongfully 
 sent the goods by different connect- 
 ing carriers, whose lines reached but one 
 of the intermediate points. On arrival 
 of the goods there, the shipper disclosed 
 his contract to have them distributed at 
 the three points, and demanded compli- 
 ance therewith. The carrier refused com- 
 pliance until payment of freight for the 
 whole route, when it delivered the goods 
 destined to that point, and undertook, 
 at its own cost, to carry to each of the 
 other points the portion of the goods to 
 be delivered there, and in doing so the 
 goods were injured. Held, that the ini- 
 tial carrier, though it did not know of 
 the shipper's agreement with the last 
 connecting carrier, to which it was di- 
 rected to deliver th'e goods, was liable 
 for the damage. Brown, etc., Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania Co., 63 Minn. 546, 65 N. W. 961. 
 Where a carrier gives a through bill of 
 lading to a point beyond its own line, 
 it can not deliver the goods at an inter- 
 mediate point to another line which 
 comes no nearer to the destination, but 
 it must carry them to the terminus of its 
 own line and there deliver them to a 
 connecting carrier. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Caldwell. ^\) Ark. 218, 116 S. W. 2in._ 
 
 44. Loss by negligence of connecting 
 carrier. — Missouri, etc., K. Co. v. Leibold 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. 368; G. H. 
 & H. R. Co. V. Allison, 59 Tex. 193. 
 
 45. In Harshman v. Little Miami, etc., 
 
 Railways (O.), Dayton 173, 175, the de- 
 fendants stipulated in the bill of lading to 
 transport tobacco to New York by way ot 
 the B. & O. R. Co., and all the' way by 
 railroads. It was diverted from an all- 
 rail route at Baltimore and shipped by 
 sea. It was held that the defendant was 
 liable for damages for any injury to the 
 tobacco resulting from such shipment. 
 
 46. Harshman v. Little Miami, etc., 
 Railways (O.), Dayton 173, 175. 
 
 47. Where a contract is made with a 
 railroad company to carry freight by rail- 
 road from one point to another (as from 
 Cincinnati to Philadelphia), at a speci- 
 f.ed price for the whole distance, with 
 a stipulation that the company shall not 
 l)e lialile for any damage or deficiency 
 in packages, if receipted for "in good or- 
 der" by another company, at some in- 
 termediate point on the route; and after- 
 wards the goods are receipted for "in 
 good order," and carried a part of the 
 distance by water, on vessels, and the 
 goods are proved to have been damaged 
 while in transit, the first-named company 
 is liable for such damages. The contract 
 is an entirety; the company are carriers 
 for the whole distance, and are liable ac- 
 cording to the legal obligations imposed 
 on them as carriers: they are to carry 
 the goods without loss or damage, save 
 those arising from inevitable accident or 
 public enemies; and l)y changing the 
 route they assume the risk of safe trans- 
 portation. Fatman & Co. 7'. Cincinnati, 
 etc., R. Co., 2 Disn. 248, 13 O. Dec. 152.
 
 505 TRAXSP(JRTATION AXIJ DELlVIvRV liV CAKRIKK. §§ 819-820 
 
 al)soliUcl\- releasing the carrier, in an\- event, from responsibility in case of loss 
 of goods, but only from responsibility for losses occurring without any fault of 
 the carrier, or agents employed by him.'*** 
 
 Failure to Communicate Shipping Directions to Connecting Lines. — 
 Failure of a railroad c(jmpan\ tu cijmuuuiicate to its connecting line the direc- 
 tion that the goods are shipped in care of a certain railroad, resulting in their 
 diversion to another route than that directed, while making it liable for injury 
 resulting, docs not, in tounection with such consequent diversion, amount to a 
 con\cr^ioii. and ipso farto make it liable for the \rilue of the goods. •*'•* 
 
 Effort of Shipper to Hold Substituted Carrier. — The shipper does not 
 waive his right to recover from the original carrier which substituted another 
 connecting carrier for that named in the l)ill by m;iking an effort, at its instance, 
 to hold the substituted carrier.''" 
 
 Right of Initial to Recover from Connecting Carrier. — Where an initial 
 carrier shipped over certain connecting lines contrary to the express directions 
 of the shipper, thereby becoming an insurer, it was entitled to recover against 
 a connecting carrier for negligence of the latter for which it was adjudged lia- 
 ble, and to be subrogated to the rights of the shipper."'^ 
 
 § 82 0. Necessity for and Justification of Deviation or Forwarding by 
 Another Carrier. — W hen, in case of an unforeseen necessity, the safety of the 
 shipment demands it, a deviation from the route agreed upon \vith the shipper 
 may be made, and will be justifiable. But, where the goods can be properly 
 cared for and held until the shipper can be communicated with, the carrier will 
 not be justified in selecting another route, without notice to him and instructions 
 from him.^'- \\'hether or not a carrier should ship over other lines depends on 
 the character of the freight, probable duration of interruption, expense of such 
 diversion and use of such care as an ordinarily prudent person would use under 
 like circumstances.^^ 
 
 Ordinary or Temporary Obstructions. — Any ordinary or temporary ob- 
 struction of the prescribed roiUc will not justify a deviation therefrom. The 
 carrier upon discovery of such obstruction should not take a route different 
 from the one agreed upon, but should await its removal or notify the shipper 
 of the impracticability of proceeding; a temporary obstruction only suspends but 
 does not dissolve the contract.''"* 
 
 Floods. — The de\iation b\- a carrier from the stiimlated route, to save delay, 
 Ijecause it was impassable by floods, does not render such carrier an insurer, and 
 liable for delay caused by such deviation ; •''•"' but where horses were shipped 
 with defendant under a special contract for speedy and safe shipment in a par- 
 ticular manner, and defendant, owing to its line being obstructed by a flood, 
 
 48. Fatnum & Co. v. Cinciiftiati. etc., 54. Hand v. Baynes (Pa.), 4 Wliart. 
 R. Co., 2 Disii. 24S. 1.3 O. Dec. l.-)2. 204. .S.3 Am. Dec. 54. 
 
 49. Failure to communicate shipping An alteration of the voyage requiring 
 directions to connecting lines. — Mootli :'. a vessel to proceed by sea instead of 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), through a canal, is a deviation rendering 
 37 S. \V. 1C)S. the carrier liable for the loss of prop- 
 
 50. Effort of shipper to hold substi- ^'.rty. although the canal was tempora- 
 tuted carrier.— Railroad r. Odil, iXJ Tenn. '■'Iv obstructed. Hand v. Baynes (Pa.), 
 ci :;:? S W fill ^ Whart. 204, 33 Am. Dec. 54. 
 
 L, n- u... r • -i.- 1 * .>-. t^ Floods. — International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 51. Right of mitial to recover from ,,. „,„.^,... . o ^^„,. ru. Xr^T. - ■>- c 
 
 ■ ° ■ rr^ ^ T> r' W entwortn, 8 lex. Liv. App. o. 2. ;>. 
 
 connectmg earner. — 1 exas, etc.. K. Co. f. ,.. .^„ ^^ 
 
 Eastin, 100 Tex. 55G, 102 S. \V. 105. Because a carrier had notice that part 
 
 52. Necessity for and justification of ^( the stipulated route was dangerous, 
 deviation.— Railroad r. Odd. W Tenn. fit, jj ^u^i ^^^^ assume all risks from unfore- 
 ('■4. ;::> S. W . (Ul. j^^^j^,, floods thereon. International, etc.. R. 
 
 53. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: Jones Co. r. Wentworth, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5. 27 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 695. S. W. 680.
 
 §§ 820-822 CARRIERS. 506 
 
 delivered the horses to another express compaii}-, who hauled the cars on a slow 
 freight train, whereby the horses were injured, defendant is not exonerated from 
 liability on the ground that the second carrier was the agent of plaintiff and not 
 of defendant.^*^ 
 
 Storms. — Forwarding perishable freight by rail is justifiable when a storm 
 prevents a boat from proceeding upon its voyage."'' 
 
 Strikes. — A common carrier can not justify a deviation in route, upon re- 
 fusal of a connecting carrier to receive freight on account of a strike, without 
 notice to the shipper and instructions from him, where it ap])ears that the goods 
 could have been held and properly cared for, without endangering their safety, 
 until such notice had been given and instructions received. ^'•'^ 
 
 § 821. Damages. — ^Measure of Damages. — The rule that a carrier is re- 
 quired to follow the shipper's instructions in routing, and that, on failure to do 
 so, it becomes an insurer, in no way conflicts with the general rule for the meas- 
 ure of damages for breach of contract of carriage, which limits recovery to 
 such damages as might reasonably be supposed to have been within the contem- 
 plation of the parties at the time the contract was made as the probable result 
 of its breach. ^'^ 
 
 Consignee Failing to Receive Prompt Notice of Arrival of Goods. — 
 Where a carrier transports goods by a different route than that over which they 
 were shipped, and, in consequence, the consignee fails to receive prompt notice 
 of their arrival, he can recover from the company the difference between the 
 market value of the goods at the time of their arrival and at the time he re- 
 ceived the notice.*^" 
 
 Liability as for a Conversion. — A carrier is not liable in conversion for 
 goods because it transports them to their destination by a route other than that 
 over which they were shipped.^'^ 
 
 Consignee Refusing to Receive Goods. — Where the consignee of goods 
 transported by a route dift'erent from that over which they were shipped re- 
 fuses to take them, because he did not receive prompt notice of their arrival, and 
 they are sold by the terminal carrier, he can not recover their value from the 
 forwarding carrier.*"'- 
 
 Carrier without Notice of Consignee's Right to Refuse Shipment.— 
 Where a carrier was without notice of the provision of the contract of sale be- 
 tween consignor and consignee which authorized consignee to refuse to accept 
 the shipment unless routed over a certain railroad, it was not liable, on failure 
 by it to follow the routing instructions of consignor, resulting in refusal by con- 
 signee to accept shipment, for damages so sustained by consignor.*'-'^ 
 
 § 822. Refusal to Route Cars as Directed by Shipper. — After a car- 
 rier has refused to route cars as desired, if the shipper permits the carrier to 
 take the cars for shipment, he acquiesces in the routing actually given by the 
 carrier.*^^ 
 
 56. Adams Exp. Co. v. Jackson, 92 61. Liability as for a conversion. — 
 Tenn. 326, 21 S. W. 666. vSouthern Pac. Co. v. Booth (Tex. Civ. 
 
 57. Storm.— Railroad v. Odil, 96 Tenn. App.), :!!) S._W. 585. _ 
 
 61 64 .33 S. \V. 611. ^2- Consignee refusing to receive 
 
 CO Oi •/ -D M 1 r^ ri r.,- n^ goods. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Booth 
 
 58. Strike. — Railroad v. Odil, 96 Tenn. 7^^ ^.. . ^ on c \\j -o- 
 61 ''-^ S W 611 ^^^'^- ^'^'- App.). 39 S. \V. oSo. 
 
 • '"' 63. Carrier without notice of consign- 
 
 59. Measure of damages.— St. Louis, ge's right to refuse shipment.— St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Louisiana, etc., Lumber Co., etc.. R. Co. v. Louisiana, etc., Lumber 
 50 Tex. Civ. App. 179, 109 S. W. 1143. Co., 50 Tex. Civ. App. 179, 109 S. W. 
 
 60. Consignee failing to receive prompt 1143. 
 
 notice of arrival of goods. — Southern 64. Acquiescence in routing. — Missouri, 
 
 Pac. Co. !■. Booth (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 etc.. R. Co. 7'. Thompson, 55 Tex. Civ. 
 S. \V. 585. App. 12, 118 S. \V. 618.
 
 507 TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVKKV I'.V CARRIICR. §§ 822-824 
 
 Refusal to Route Shipment over Connecting Carrier Designated by- 
 Shipper. — A carrier refusing to route a shipment over connecting carriers des- 
 ignated by the shipper, and reciuiring him to ship over other connecting car- 
 riers, is an insurer of the goods (hiring transportation by the connecting car- 
 riers selected 1)V it.''"' 
 
 Refusing Short or through Route. — Where a shipper requested a railroad 
 to ship cattle over a certain route, and such road, without any excuse, refused 
 so to do, it became liable for all loses accruing to ship]jer by reason of the ship- 
 ment of the cattle over a longer route.''*' unless protected by a written contract 
 signed bv the ship])er.''' 
 
 Carrier Having No Traffic Arrangement with Requested Connecting 
 Line. — Where a carrier had no authority from connecting carriers to contract 
 for through shipments except by a certain route, a shipper contracting for 
 through shipment could not recover damages to the shipment occasioned by their 
 having gone that way instead of another, as requestecl ; he knowing the limita- 
 tion of the carrier's "authority."'^ Where a shipper of live stock was informed 
 before the stock was loaded that there could be no through billing to the point 
 of destination other than by a particular route, he could not select a different 
 route and exact a through billing, when the carrier was not prepared to give 
 it, and the shipper had been informed of that fact.*'''* 
 
 § 823. Shipment over Route Contrary to Express Direction of Ship- 
 per. — If a carrier becomes liable for all losses by a mere deviation from the 
 route contracted for, for a stronger reason he should be held liable for all losses 
 when shipped over a route contrary to the express instructions of the shipper.'" 
 
 § 824. Forwarding by Different Boat or Conveyance than That Stip- 
 ulated. — If a common carrier forwards goods by different boats or conveyances 
 than those coiUem])lated by his agreement, he becomes an insurer of the goods, 
 and can not avail himself of any exemption in his behalf in the contract." ^ 
 
 65. Refusal to route shipment as des- ton, etc., R. Co. v. Everett, 99 Tex. 269, 
 ignated by shipper. — I'ecos l^tivcr R. Co. 89 S. W. 761, reversing 86 S. W. 17, cited 
 z'. Harrin-ton, '.)',» S. W. 1050, 4S Tex. Civ. in Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 99 Tex. 
 App. ,']4(). 326, 331, 89 S. W. 763, 765, reversing 86 
 
 66. Refusing short or through route. S. W. 18. 
 
 —Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Eastin, 102 vS. W. 69. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Buchanan, 
 
 105, 100 Tex. 556. 94 S. W. 199. 42 Tex. Civ. App. 620. 
 
 67. Carrier wrongfully refusing through Where a carrier routes cattle ship- 
 short routing. \\ Iumc a bliippcr of live nients over certain connecting lines after 
 stock requested a through transportation it had refused the shipper's request for 
 over the lines of the initial and connect- routing over another and shorter route, 
 ing carrier liy a shorter route, and it it is not lialile for damages for the adop- 
 was wrongfully denied him by the ini- tion of such longer route, where it had 
 tial carrier, when it. under its traffic ar- no traffic arrangements with the connect- 
 rangements with the other road, had the ing lines forming the shorter route, and 
 power or authority to grant it, the initial where it had ofifered to ship by the local 
 carrier will be liable for damages result- rates by such route. Houston, etc., R. 
 ing from the longer haul, unless pro- Co. v. Buchanan, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 
 tected by a written contract signed by 625, 94 .S. \\'. 199. 
 
 the shipper. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 70. Shipment over route contrary to 
 
 Buchanan, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 625, express direction of shipper. — Texas, etc., 
 
 94 S. W. 199. R. Co. f. luistin, 100 Tex. 556, 102 S. W. 
 
 A carrier which makes a through ship- 10,5. 
 mcnt under a special contract for a re- Wiiere a railroad agent shipped over 
 
 duced rate of freiglU is not lialde for an a certain route contrary to the express 
 
 injury to the shipment on a certain con- directions of the shippers, he was guilty 
 
 nccting line, though it did not choose of misfeasance, anil lialjle for loss occur- 
 
 the through route which the shipper pre- ring I)y reason of the shipment over the 
 
 ferred. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Short route selected bv him. Texas, etc.. R. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 25 S. W. 142. Co. v. Eastin, 100 Tex. 556, 102 S. W. 
 
 68. Carrier having no arrangement 105. 
 
 with requested connecting line. — Hous- 71. Forwarding by different l)oat or
 
 §§ 825-820 
 
 carrif:rs. 
 
 508 
 
 § 82 5. Carrier Fraudulently Inducing Shipment over Longer Route. 
 
 — Where a shipper of Hve stock was led into the execution of a contract for 
 shipment which fixed the route, hy means of false information by the agent of 
 the carrier, the shipper was entitled to recover for damages resulting by reason 
 of that route being longer than another route which he had demanded." - 
 
 § 826. Diversion by Order of Shipper or Consignee. — See ante, "Change 
 of Destination."' § 8U<). 
 
 §§ 827-834. Selection by Carrier— § 827. Right to Select in Gen- 
 eral. — In contracts of shipment which are silent in their express terms as to 
 the matter of route, the carrier has the right, subject to certain restrictions, to 
 choose the route." "^ In such case, the right of the carrier to choose the route is, 
 by force of law, impressed upon and becomes a part of the contract as effectu- 
 ally as if expressed therein.'^-* 
 
 Right of Initial Carrier. — In the absence of a selection of a route by a ship- 
 per, the initial carrier may choose the same."-^ Thus where a bill of lading issued 
 by the initial carrier for goods to be transported over several connecting lines, 
 and which may be forwarded over dift"erent lines to the place of destination, 
 contains no directions on the subject, the right to designate the route rests with 
 the initial carrier.'''^ 
 
 § 828. Regard for Rights of Shipper. — The selection of the route by the 
 carriers must be made with regard for the rights of the shipper.'" 
 
 § 829. Degree of Care Required. — The carrier is liable for all damages 
 resulting from its negligence in selecting the route.'''^ The rule seems to be, that 
 the carrier, in the exercise of this right, must use such care in relation to the 
 
 conveyances than that stipulated. — G. H. 
 & H. R. Co. z: Allison. 59 Tex. 193. 
 
 Shipment by boat other than that di- 
 rected by shipper. — Where a consignment 
 of tow hy way of rail line and steamboat 
 connections was refused by the steam- 
 boat because the carriage of such goods 
 was prohibited, it was a breach of the 
 railroad company's duty to forward the 
 goods hy a towboat, in violation of the 
 shipper's instructions to the freight agent 
 that, unless it could be forwarded by the 
 steamboat line, he did not wish to send 
 it. Johnson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 33 X. Y. f)10, 88 Am. Dec. 41G. 
 
 72. Carrier fraudulently inducing ship- 
 ment over longer route. — Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Buchanan, 94 S. W. 199, 42 Tex. 
 Civ. A pp. 020. 
 
 73. Right to select. — Alabama, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McKenzie, 139 Ga. 410, 77 S. E. 
 647, 45 L. R. A., N. S., 18; Edwards v. 
 American Exp. Co., 109 Me. 444, 84 Atl. 
 987, 42 L. R. A., N. S., 705; Hoffman v. 
 Delaware, etc., R. Co., 39 Pa. vSuper. Ct. 
 47; Chartrand v. Southern Railway, 85 
 S. C. 479, 67 S. E. 741; Wells, Fargo & 
 Co.'s Exp. V. Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213. 
 222, 23 S. W. 412 (see 93 Tex. 742. no 
 op.); Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Irvine (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 73 S. W. 540. 
 
 Bills of lading specifying no particu- 
 lar route for a certain shipment of cot- 
 ton, give the carrier the right to choose 
 the route. Bessling & Co. v. Houston, 
 
 etc., R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470, 80 S. 
 W. ():i9, affirmed in 98 Tex. (ilO, no op. 
 
 A bill of lading given by an express 
 company, undertaking to forward to point 
 nearest destination reached by the com- 
 pany, which was the point of destination, 
 subject to condition that the company 
 should not be liable except as forwarders 
 only within their own line of cominuni- 
 cation, does not fix the route of ship- 
 ment over the company's line, but leaves 
 the company free to choose the route. 
 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Fuller, 4 
 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 74. Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 222, 23 S. W. 
 412 (see 93 Tex. 742, no op.). 
 
 75. Right of initial carrier. — Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Irvine (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. 
 W. 540. 
 
 76. Bessling & Co. v. Houston, etc., R. 
 Co., 80 S. W^ 639, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 470. 
 
 77. Regard for rights of shipper. — Ala- 
 bama, etc., R. Co. V. McKenzie, 77 S. 
 E. 647, 139 Ga. 410, 45 L. R. A., N. S., 
 18; Edwards v. American Exp. Co., 109 
 Me. 444, 84 Atl. 987, 42 L. R. A., N. S., 
 705; Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Fuller, 
 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 412 (see 
 93 Tex. 742, no op.); Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 f. Irvine (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 540. 
 
 78. Liability for negligence In select- 
 ing route. — Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. 
 T'uller. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213. 223, 23 S. 
 W. 412, affirmed in 93 Tex. 742, no op.
 
 ■09 
 
 TRAXSPORTATIOX AND UKLU I'KV i;V CAkKlKR. 
 
 §§ 829-831 
 
 shipment as an ordinarily prudent i^erson would use under similar circumstances.'^ 
 The character of the goods shipped, whether perishable or not. the apparent ob- 
 ject to be subserved by the shipment, and all the surrounding circumstances 
 throwing light upon the shipment, must be considered by the carrier in the ex- 
 ercise of the right of routing, and if it fails to use that degree of care which an 
 ordinarily prudent person would use under like conditions, it is held responsible 
 for damages proximately resulting from its negligence in the selection of the 
 route.'^" 
 
 § 830. Duty to Select Safe and Direct Route. — The carrier must, at its 
 peril, select a reasonably safe and direct route.'' ^ As a general rule when goods 
 are delivered to a carrier for transportation to a designated point, it is his duty 
 to transport them by the safest and most direct route."- It can not arbitrarily 
 select a known unsafe route, except at the risk of incurring liability for negli- 
 gence."^'' Xeither can it arbitrarily choos. a long, inexpeditious route, without 
 assuming the risk of delay incident to the choice.**-* The action of the carrier 
 in not selecting the most ex])editious route is a question of negligence vel non, 
 and should be submitted to the jury as such.""'' 
 
 Choice between Route Partly by Water and All-Rail Route. — W here 
 there was no contract by the carrier fur all -rail transportation and the bill of 
 lading was silent as to the route, the selection of a route partly by water, whereon 
 the goods were lost by act of God. did not make the carrier liable.*"' 
 
 Selection of Obstructed Route. — The carrier can not select a route so oIj- 
 structed tliat (lcli\er\- can ncjt l)c made over it, where another practicable route 
 is open, though by the bill of lading it is entitled to select the route. ^' 
 
 §§ 831-834. Duty to Pursue Usual and Customary Route and Devia- 
 tion Therefrom — § 831. In General. — A carrier whicli undertakes to carry 
 goods between two given places is bound to jnirsue the usual and customary 
 route. •'*•'' The principle is equallv a]iplicable to carriers by water and to carriers 
 by land, whether thev act in a ])ul)lic capacity or under special undertakings.^^ 
 
 79. Wells. Farqo & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 80. Wells, Far{?o & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 223, 23 S. W. 
 412 (see 93 Tex. 742, no op.). 
 
 81. Duty to select a safe and direct 
 route. — Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler. 4 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 213. 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 82. Safest and most direct route. — 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Eastin. 100 Tex. 
 .550. 102 S. W. 105. 
 
 83. Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213. 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 84. W^ells. Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213. 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 If the carrier selects a longer and 
 less expeditious route than the one de- 
 sired by the sliipper. it will he held re- 
 sponsil)le for all damages resulting from 
 its action. Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. 
 V. Fuller. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. 
 W. 412; Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. Irvine (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 540. 
 
 Express companies. — If an express 
 company witli the facilities furnished 
 such companies for transportation under 
 the laws of the state of Texas, in exer- 
 cising its right of routing when the ship- 
 per has failed to do so. chooses a long 
 or inexpeditious railway route, when 
 there is a direct and speedy line which 
 
 it ma\- use, and when the circumstances 
 surrounding the shipment indicate that 
 delay will he damaging, it should he held 
 lialile for any damage proximately re- 
 sulting from the additional time con- 
 sumed in the journey. Wells. Fargo & 
 Co.'s Exp. V. Fuller. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 213. 223. 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 85. Wells. Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Ful- 
 ler. 4 Tex. Civ. .A.pp. 213, 23 S. W. 412. 
 
 86. Choice between route partly by 
 water — And all rail route. — P>o.s<ling & 
 Co. V. Houston, etc.. R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 470. SO S. W. r.39. affirmed in 98 
 Tex. 010. no op. 
 
 87. Selection of obstructed route.— 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co. :•. Hcux. 40 S. W. 
 327, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 502. 
 
 88. Powers v. Davenport (Ind.). 7 
 Blackf. 497. 43 Am. Dec. 100. See post, 
 "Losses for Which Carrier Is L-'ahle." 
 S§ S17-S19. 
 
 Addition of words "water permitting" 
 docs not change the character of tiie con- 
 tract, as there implied under the general 
 exception, "the account of God." Ben- 
 nett V. Bvram & Co.. 38 Miss. 17. 75 Am. 
 Dec. 90. ' 
 
 89. Powers r. Davenport (Ind.), 7 
 Blackf. 497, 43 Am. Dec. 100.
 
 §§ 831-853 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 510 
 
 If a carrier would secure the right to deviate from the usual course of the trade, 
 he should stipulate for it iu the hill of ladiug."" 
 
 §§ 832-834. Deviation— § 832. What Constitutes.— A deviation is a 
 voluntary departure, without necessity or reasonahle cause, from the regular and 
 usual course of transportation.''^ Whether there has heen a deviation or not is, 
 upon conceded facts, a question of law for the court. '^- 
 
 § 833. Necessity and Justification. — Deviation Usual or Customary. 
 
 — A deviation which is a customary incident of the voyage, and according to 
 the known usage of trade, does not defeat the exceptions in a bill of lading so 
 as to subject the carrier to the res])onsibility of an insurer. '^'•' Where the usual 
 route of a vessel was through Long Island Sound, but the master, because of 
 the obstruction of the sound by ice, went to the south of the island, this was 
 held to be a deviation, and not justified by a usage of vessels to make a similar 
 deviation under a like circumstance.^'* 
 
 Personal Motive of Carrier. — The personal motive of a private person un- 
 dertaking, as a common carrier, to carry goods between two points — desire to go 
 to his own house — is not a legal excuse for unnecessary deviation from the usual 
 and customarv route, and he is liable for all loss sustained in consequence 
 thereof. '■'•' 
 
 Deviation Caused by Unprecedented Floods. — \\ here a carrier's deviation 
 from regular and usual course is caused by unprecedented floods, which render 
 it absolutely necessary to change the route to prevent or reduce loss, the carrier 
 is not held liable as an insurer.-"^ But that the roadbed of a railroad company 
 was damaged by an unprecedented flood, necessitating the forwarding of a ship- 
 ment received as a connecting carrier by a more circuitous route, does not relieve 
 the carrier from liability for the damages caused thereby, where, by the exer- 
 
 90. Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), 
 Wright 19.3. 
 
 91. Deviation defined. — Hostetter v. 
 Park, 137 U. S. 30. 34 L. Ed. 568, 11 S. 
 Ct. 1. 
 
 92. Crosby z: Fitch, 12 Conn. 410. 31 
 Am. Dec. 74.'j. 
 
 93. Usual or customary deviation. — 
 Constable v. National, etc., Co., 154 U. 
 S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062; Hos- 
 tetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 34 L. Ed. 
 568, 11 S. Ct. 1; Marande v. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co., 184 U. S. 173, 46 L. Ed. 487, 22 
 S. Ct. 340 (holding evidence insufficieiU 
 to show deviation). 
 
 In marine insurance, it is no deviation 
 for a vessel to touch and stay at a port 
 out of its course, if such departure is 
 within the usage of the trade. The same 
 doctrine is applicable in the case of a 
 bill of lading, even though the usage be 
 not known to the particular shipper, if 
 it be established as a general usage. 
 Hostetter v. Park. 137 U. vS. 30, 34 L. 
 Ed. 568, 11 S. Ct. 1. 
 
 In Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 34 
 L. Ed. 568, 11 S. Ct. 1, it was held to bene 
 deviation, in the Pittsburg and New Or- 
 leans barge trade, to land and tie up a 
 tow of barges, and detach from the tow 
 such barge or barges as were designated 
 to take on cargo en route, and to tow the 
 same to the several points where the 
 cargo might be stored, it having been 
 
 shown that such delays were within the 
 general and established usage of the 
 trade. Constable z'. National, etc., Co., 
 154 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 
 1062. 
 
 Usage as to place of discharging cargo. 
 — It is no deviation to land goods at a 
 place where the usage of the trade per- 
 mits them to be landed. Gracie v. Marine 
 Ins. Co. (U. S.), 8 Cranch 75, 3 L. Ed. 
 492; Constable v. National, etc., Co., 154 
 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 106.2. 
 
 Where the regular pier of a steamship 
 company is so blockaded that its ships 
 can not obtain access to it to discharge 
 its cargo, it is a matter of ordinary pru- 
 dence to select a neighboring pier for 
 that purpose, and the berthing of the ship 
 at such a pier is not a deviation so as to 
 render the company an insurer of the 
 cargo discharged there, without notice to 
 the consignee, until its actual delivery. 
 Constable v. National, etc., Co., 154 U. 
 S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062. 
 
 94. Crosby v. Fitch. 12 Conn. 410, 31 
 .A.m. Dec. 745. 
 
 95. Personal motive of carrier. — Pow- 
 ers V. Davenport (Ind.), 7 Blackf. 497, 43 
 Am. Dec. 100. 
 
 96. Deviation caused by unprecedented 
 floods. — IiUernational, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wentworth, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 27 S. W. 
 680, affirmed in 87 Tex. 311.
 
 511 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DKLIVKKV l',V CAKRlKk. 
 
 §§ 833-835 
 
 cise of reasonal)lc care, it could have guarded against the efifect of the tloods.'-^' 
 
 § 834. Losses for Which Carrier Is Liable and Nature of Liability.— 
 
 If a carrier deviates, without necessity, from the usual and common course of 
 trade or the regular and usual route •''• and the goods are lost or injurerl during 
 such deviation or as a conse(|uence thereof, he is responsiljle therefor, and is 
 not excused e\cn if the loss or injury result from act of God,'-''-' inevitable acci- 
 dent, or act of the puljlic enemies.' Such excuse is only available to him while 
 in the i)ursuit of his voyage in tiie usual way.- 
 
 If the loss occurred from the carelessness or wantonness of the navi- 
 gators of another vessel l)r<)Ught into collisi(jn with the vessel, that does not 
 excuse the carrier; he is answerable to the shi[)])cr, and the owners of the ves- 
 sel occasioning the accident refund (ner to him.'' 
 
 Liable as for a Conversion. — If a common carrier deviates from the regular 
 route and the goods are lost, it is liable as for a conversion.-* 
 
 §§ 835-841. Duty and Necessity of Delivery— § 835. Duty to De- 
 liver. — The (lutv of a carrier is not merely to carry safely the goods intrusted 
 to it, but also to deliver theni."' or do what is equivalent thereto." The conditions 
 
 97. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bland 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), ;34 S. W. 675. 
 
 98. Indiana. — Powers v. Davenport 
 (Ind.), 7 Blackf. 497, 4:3 Am. Dec. 100. 
 
 Mississippi. — Bennett v. Byram & Co., 
 38 Miss. 17, 75 Am. Dec. 90. 
 
 OJiio. — Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), 
 Wright 193. 
 
 Pcnnsxlvania. — Hoffman v. Delaware, 
 etc., R." Co., 39 Pa. Super. Ct. 47. 
 
 South Carolina. — Chartrand v. Southern 
 Railway, 85 S. C. 479, G7 S. E. 741. 
 
 Tcnrj.— Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. z-. 
 Fuller, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 23 S. W. 
 413; International, etc., R. Co. v. Went- 
 worth. S Tex. Civ. App. 5, 27 S. W. G80, 
 aflirnied in 87 Tex. 311. 
 
 Instances. — A carrier, who, owing to 
 an interruption on his own line, forwards 
 matter via another line, consigned to 
 himself, receives it at its aestination, de- 
 livers it to the original consignee, and 
 collects the freight, is responsible to the 
 original consignor for damages thereto 
 en route. Levy v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 35 La. Ann. G15. 
 
 Carrier stopping short of point of re- 
 shipment. — A common carrier, which un- 
 dertakes to deliver goods at a certain 
 place, with the privilege of reshipping at 
 an intermediate point, but stops short of 
 that point, and goods there lost in a 
 storm, is liable therefore, although he 
 would not have been liable had he dis- 
 charged his duty by taking them to the 
 point agreed upon. Cassilay v. Young & 
 Co. (Ky.), 4 B. Mon. 265, 39 Am. Dec. 
 SOi"). 
 
 99. International, etc., R. Co. v. Went- 
 worth. 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5. 27 S. W. 6S0, 
 affirmed in 87 Tex. 311. 
 
 1. Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), Wright 
 
 193. 
 
 2. 
 193. 
 
 3. 
 193. 
 
 Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), Wright 
 Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), Wright 
 
 4. Liable as for a conversion. — Lhillips 
 V. Brigliam, etc., Co., 20 Ga. 617, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 2:57. 
 
 5. Duty to deliver. — United States. — 
 North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Commer- 
 cial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. '.27, 31 L. Ed. 
 287, 8 S. Ct. 266; Brittan v Barnaby, 21 
 How. 527, 16 L. Ed. 177; The Comman- 
 der-in-Chief (U. S.), 1 Wall. 43, 17 L. 
 Ed. 609; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kirby, 
 225 U. S. 155, 56 L. Ed. 1033, 32 S. Ct. 
 1)48, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501. 
 
 Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co v. King 
 (Ark.), 148 S. W. 1035. 
 
 Illinois. — American Exp. Co. v. Bald- 
 win, 26 111. 504, 79 Am. Dec. 389. 
 
 A/oiuc— Backer v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181. 
 
 Nezv Hampshire. — Smith v. Mashen, 
 etc., R. Co., 27 N. H. 86. 
 
 Xew York. — De Mott v. Laraway (X. 
 Y.), 14 Wend. 225. 
 
 Ohio. — Waring & Co. v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 553; Oskamp v. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 61 O. St. 341, 56 N. E. 13; Steamboat 
 John Owen z: Johnson, 2 O. St. 143; Git- 
 tings V. Baker, 2 O. St. 21. 
 
 Pcnnsvhania. — Graff v. Bloomer, 9 Pa. 
 114. See Union Exp. Co. v. Ohleman, 
 92 Pa. 323. 
 
 Tcvas.— Morgan v. Dibble, 29 Tex. 107, 
 
 6. Connecticut. — Graves v. Hartford, 
 etc.. Steamboat Co., 38 Conn. 143, 9 Am. 
 Rep. 369. 
 
 ///ni(u'.f.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. War- 
 ren, 16 111. 502, 63 Am. Dec. 317. 
 
 Louisiana. — Sleade v. Payne, 14 La. 
 Ann. 453. 
 
 .\czi' Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co., 32 N. H. 523, 64 Am. Dec. 381. 
 
 .V.-7C' I'orA'.— Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 
 ;522: Zinn v. New Jersey Steamboat Co.. 
 49 N. Y. 442, 10 Am. Rep. 402: Sherman 
 r. Hudson, etc., R. Co., 64 N. Y. 254. 
 
 IJ'iscousin. — Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 
 454.
 
 §§ 835-836 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 512 
 
 which would release a carrier from this duty must be the same as would re- 
 lease it from the safe carriage of the goods;" and it is not relieved from the 
 duty by usage.^ 
 
 §§ 836-841. Liability for Failure or Refusal to Deliver— § 836. In 
 General. — Liability in General. — Where a carrier fails to account for or de- 
 liver property intrusted to it for shipment without a valid excuse, it is liable in 
 an action to recover the damages sustained.'^ The acceptance of a part of goods 
 by the consignee, at a place dift'erent from that specified in the contract, though 
 admissible in the mitigation of damages, does not discharge the carrier from 
 liability for the residue.^" 
 
 Liability for Breach of Contract. — Failure of a carrier to deliver goods 
 
 lir, 94 Am. Dec. 3G4: Houston, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Adams. 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 
 116; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Haynes. 72 
 Tex. 175, 10 S. W. 398. See Fielder v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tex. 176, 179, 
 46 S. W. 633, affirming 42 S. W. 362. 
 
 Vervwnt. — Pickett v. Downer, 4 \'t. 21. 
 
 Virginia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239. 
 
 West J'irginia. — AIcGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z\ Morehead, 
 
 5 \V. \'a. 293. 
 
 Duty to make personal delivery. — See 
 post, "Necessity for Personal Delivery," 
 § 848. 
 
 In the absence of a special contract or 
 custom, tlie duty of a common carrier of 
 troods is not completed on the mere ar- 
 rival of the goods at destination, but in- 
 cludes the duty of delivery to the con- 
 signee. Burr V. Adams Exp. Co.. 58 Atl. 
 609. 71 X. J. L. 263. 
 
 Delivery subject to conditions. — The 
 contract of the carrier as to deliver}' is 
 none the less binding because the deliv- 
 er}' is subject to a condition. Steamboat 
 John Owen v. Johnson, 2 O. St. 143. 
 
 7. North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com- 
 mercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 733, 31 
 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 8. Effect of usage. — Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Adams. 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 
 116. 
 
 9. Liability for failure or refusal to de- 
 liver. — Georgia. — Atlanta Baggage, etc., 
 Co. V. Mizo, 61 S. E. 844, 4 Ga. App. 407. 
 
 Iowa. — Dant & Co. v. Northwestern 
 Union Packet Co., 34 Iowa 588. 
 
 Kentucky. — Adams Exp. Co. v. McDon- 
 ald (Ky.), 1 Bush 32. 
 . South Carolina. — Catlctt v. Charleston, 
 etc.. Railway, 62 S. E. 315, 81 S. C. 327. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harry 
 
 6 Bros.. 63 Tex. 256. 
 
 West I'irginia. — Dresser v. West Vir- 
 ginia Transp. Co., 8 W. Va. 553. 
 
 Failure to deliver draft. — The liability 
 of a common carrier who has undertaken 
 to carry and deliver a draft, and has 
 failed to do so, arises immediately upon 
 such failure, and is not secondary to the 
 liability of the drawer of the draft. 
 
 Jones V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 28 Cal. 259. 
 
 Under the Arkansas statute a carrier, 
 failing to deliver goods to the legal 
 holder of the bill of lading on his sur- 
 render thereof, is liable to him for the 
 damages sustained. Kirby's Dig., §§ 530, 
 531. Arkansas Southern R. Co. v. Ger- 
 man Nat. Bank, 92 S. W. 522, 77 Ark. 482, 
 113 Am. St. Rep. 160. 
 
 Part of goods deliverable. — ^Where 
 plaintiff's goods, while in the possession 
 of defendant, a carrier, for transporta- 
 tion, were stolen, but part of them were 
 found by the police and deposited with 
 the property clerk, defendant was not 
 thereby relieved of his obligation to de- 
 liver such part; he having an adequate 
 right to recover them. Heyman v. Stry- 
 ker, 121 N. Y. S. 592, 67 Misc. Rep. 88. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against an 
 express company for refusal to deliver a 
 coop of chickens on a certain date, a 
 verdict for defendant was unwarranted; 
 it appearing that its driver, on being re- 
 quested by plaintiff's wife to carry the 
 coop through a side gate, only 10 feet 
 awaj', instead of through the front gate, 
 indignantly threw the coop back into the 
 wagon, without looking to see where the 
 side gate was, saying that he would not 
 carry it anywhere, and that defendant's 
 agent, on being informed of the driver's 
 conduct, ratified the same. Gary v. 
 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 40 S. W. 845. 
 
 A common carrier who undertook to 
 transport freight by steamer to a desig- 
 nated point, but terminated his voyage at 
 an intermediate port, and reshipped such 
 freight on the steamer of another carrier, 
 was liable to the owner for its loss, 
 where the second carrier could not find 
 the consignee at the place where the 
 freight was to be delivered, and, because 
 there was no safe place of storage there, 
 returned it to the port where the reship- 
 ment was made, and there stored it in a 
 proper warehouse, which, with the 
 freiglit, was soon after accidentally de- 
 stroyed by fire. Green, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 Marshall. 48 Ind. 596. 
 
 10. Cox. etc., Co. f. Peterson, 30 Ala. 
 608, 68 Am. Dec. 145.
 
 ;i3 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DIvLIVKKV 15V CARRIF.K. 
 
 836 
 
 on demancr without lawful excuse, is a breach of the carrier's original contract, 
 for which suit may he brought on that contract." 
 
 Liability as for Conversion. — The wrongful failure or refusal of the car- 
 rier U) deliver goods after iliey have arrived at their destination, on demand, 
 constitutes a conversion fur which the carrier is liable.'- And the rightful 
 owner may recover for such conversion, if entitled to possession at the time of 
 his demand, though he was a stranger to the contract of bailment.^'* But if the 
 refusal to deliver is qualified, and the qualification is reasonable and made in 
 good faith, there is no conversion.'^ A carrier is liable for conversion when it 
 fails or refuses to deliver gotxls, without lawful excuse, in accordance with the 
 
 11. Breach of contract. — Wilson z'. Cal- 
 ifornia Cent. R. Co.. 'J4 Cal. KU), 29 Pac. 
 801. 17 L. R. A. 685. 
 
 12. Liability as for conversion. — Geor- 
 ff/a.— Bird v. Georj^ia Railroad, 72 Ga. 
 f)")"}; Richmond, etc., R. Co. r. lienson, 80 
 Ga. 20;i, 12 S. E. 3.)7. 22 Am. St. Rep. 440; 
 Southern Exp. Co. z'. Fant Fish Co., 12 
 Ga. App. 447, 78 S. E. 197. 
 
 Kcntttckv. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lawson, 88 Ky. 496. 11 S. W. 511; Jei- 
 fersonville R. Co. v. White (Ky.), 6 Bush 
 251. 
 
 Missouri. — Locfflcr v. Keokuk, etc.. 
 Packet Co.. 7 Mo. .Vpp. 185. 
 
 Nebraska. — Shellenberg v. Fremont, 
 etc., R. Co.. 45 Nel). 487, 6:5 N. W. s:,;), 
 50 Am. St. Rep. 501. 
 
 Nczv York. — Clement v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 56 Hun 043, 9 N. Y. S. 001. 
 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 713; Judah v. Kemp, 2 
 Johns. Cas. 411; McEntee v. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co., 45 N. Y. 34, Am. 
 Rep. 28. 
 
 Oklalwma.— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dunham. 30 Okla. 724, 129 Pac. 802. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heid- 
 enhcimer, 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. \V. 008; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Humphries, 4 Tex. 
 Civ. .\pp. 333. 330, 23 S. W. 550. 
 
 Refusal to deliver to consignee holding 
 original bill on tender of charges entered 
 thereon constitutes a conversion. South- 
 ern Fxp. Co. 7'. Fant Im'sIi Co., 12 Ga. 
 .\pp. 14 7, 78 S. E. 197. 
 
 Imposition of unreasonable condition. 
 — The refusal to deliver the goods ex- 
 cept upon an unreasonable condition is 
 equivalent to an absolute refusal to de- 
 liver. LoefHer v. Keokuk, etc., Packet 
 Co., 7 Mo. .\pp. 185. 
 
 Refusal to trace goods. — If no notice is 
 given of the arrival of goods as required 
 by custom, and by reason of such failure 
 the owner and consignee, acting on the 
 belief that the goods are lost, asks the 
 carrier to trace them, which he refuses 
 to do, such request and refusal are equiv- 
 alent to demand for the goods and re- 
 fusal to deliver, and the carrier is liable. 
 Herf, etc.. Chemical Co. ,-. Lackawana 
 Line, 70 Mo. App. 274. 
 
 Effect of act of God. — Where goods 
 shipped do not reacli the point of des- 
 
 1 Car— 33 
 
 tination, the carrier is guilty of conver- 
 sion and liable for their value, except 
 where an act of God intervenes. Wil- 
 liamson & Co. T'. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), i:i8 S. W. s()7. 
 
 Conversion by receivers under order of 
 court. — The receipt of the goods for 
 traiispfjrtation and the subsequent al- 
 leged conversion being shown to have 
 l)een committed by receivers who oper- 
 ated a steamship line under orders of the 
 court which appointed them, and the evi- 
 dence in no way connecting defendant 
 company with either the receipt, the 
 transportation, or the conversion, a ver- 
 dict finding damages against the latter 
 for such conversion should have been set 
 aside. Ocean Steamship Co. f. Wilder, 
 33 S. E. 179, 107 Ga. 220. 
 
 The captain's unwillingness to carry 
 the goods to the place designated l)y the 
 consignee at the landing, even if sus- 
 tained by the contract between him and 
 the consignee, did not afford good 
 ground for not landing the goods and 
 tendering them to the consignee, to be 
 delivered on payment of the freight. 
 The Red River. 30 So. 303. 100 La. 42, 
 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 Though there was error in the con- 
 tract of shipment, by which the master 
 liound himself to place the goods on the 
 levee, he had no right to retain the 
 good^ on board and leave the place of 
 the goods' destination. The Red River, 
 30 So. 303, 106 La. 42, 87 Am. St. Rep. 
 293. 
 
 Agent individually liable. — A railroad 
 agent, under ortlers from the superin- 
 tendent to deliver no goods consigned 
 to persons who had abandoned the coun- 
 try and gone into the federal lines, re- 
 fused to deliver goods to the order of 
 such a consignee. It was held, a conver- 
 sion for which the agent was individually 
 liable. Elmore v. Brooks, 53 Tenn. (6 
 Heisk.) 45. 
 
 13. Shellenberg :•. Fremont, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 45 Neb. 487, 63 N. W. 859, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 501. 
 
 14. Qualified refusal to deliver. — LoefF- 
 Ter r. Keokuk, etc.. Packet Co., 7 Mo. 
 App. 185; McEntee v. New Jersey Steam- 
 boat Co., 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Rep. 28.
 
 § 836 
 
 CARRIIJRS. 
 
 514 
 
 shipper's orders, ^^ or sells them.i'^ or stores them at destination as its own,^" 
 or transports them to another place to prevent their coming to the possession 
 of the consignee. ^'^ Refusal to deliver goods to one not entitled to receive theni,^-* 
 or placing them in a private warehouse, at the expense of the owner, without 
 giving him notice of arrival,-'* or retaining them on board where there is no safe 
 place for storage,-^ or transferring them from a sealed car into another for the 
 carrier's convenience,-- does not amount to a conversion. The mere showing 
 of a breach of contract of transportation, as a bare omission to deliver goods, 
 may not prove conversion. -'"^ And a failure to deliver goods, if they have been 
 lost when demand is made, will not constitute a conversion, though the loss was 
 caused by negligence,-'* or it was negligence to fail to deliver before such loss.^^ 
 Where a carrier omits for an unreasonable time to deliver property, and then 
 offers to deliver it, the owner can not refuse to receive it, and proceed against 
 the carrier for its conversion, though the latter is liable for damages for the 
 delay.2^* 
 
 15. Refusal to deliver in accordance 
 with instructions. — Atchison, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Schriver, 84 Pac. 119, 72 Kan. 550, 4 L. 
 R. A.. N. S., 1056. 
 
 Effect of claim of third person. — 
 \\'here a carrier has received a car load 
 of goods for transportation according to 
 shipper's order, the claim of a third per- 
 son to them will not justify the carrier 
 in withholding the delivery according to 
 such order. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Schriver, 84 Pac. 119, 72 Kan. 550, 4 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 1056. 
 
 16. Sale of goods. — Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Langdon, 84 Atl. 473, 118 Md. 268. 
 
 A vessel having on board a cargo of 
 flour for transportation capsized at her 
 wharf before sailing, and the cargo was 
 much damaged. The carriers mignt eas- 
 ily have communicated with the owners 
 of the cargo, and sought instructions as 
 to the disposal of it; but they neglected 
 to do so, and sold the cargo upon their 
 own authority, at auction, after which 
 the vessel sailed, and in due time arrived 
 at the port of delivery. Held, that the 
 sale of the flour, under these circum- 
 stances, was an unlawful conversion by 
 the carrier. The Joshua Barker, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 7,547, Abb. Adm. 215. 
 
 17. Storing goods as it's own. — If a 
 carrier, employed to convey cotton to 
 market, and instructed to sell at a cer- 
 tain price, or store it, without any stipu- 
 lation as to payment of freight, stores 
 the cotton as his own without demanding 
 charges from the consignee or warehouse- 
 man, it is a conversion. Blair v. Jeffries 
 (S. C), Dud. 59. 
 
 18. Diversion of goods. — Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. O'Donnf^H, 4!) O. St. 489. 
 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117, 34 
 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 19. Refusal to deliver to one not enti- 
 tled. — Where one owning 6,000 tons of 
 iron ore which was stored on a railroafl» 
 dock gave an order to the railroad com- 
 pany to deliver 3,500 tons to a furnace 
 company, and the furnace company did 
 not take possession nor separate the 
 
 3,500 tons from the other ore, and the 
 owner, having learned that the furnace 
 company was financially embarrassed, 
 gave orders to the railroad company to 
 deliver to other persons, which orders 
 were honored, the furnace company 
 never acquired title to the ore, and could 
 not maintain an action of trover and con- 
 version against the railroad company. 
 vStaake v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 80 Atl. 
 1102, 231 Pa. 466. 
 
 20. Placing goods in warehouse. — 
 Rome R. Co. c'. Sullivan, etc., Co., 14 Ga. 
 277. 
 
 21. Retaining goods on boat. — The 
 Hattie Palmer, 68 Fed. 380, 15 C. C. A. 
 479. 
 
 22. Goods were sent by a sealed car to 
 he delivered unljroken at the place of 
 destination. The railroad company on 
 the way opened the car and transferred 
 the goods to another. The owner re- 
 fused to receive them and brought tro- 
 ver. Held, that if the goods are removed 
 for the convenience of the carrier, and 
 are afterwards delivered without loss of 
 quantity and without injury, the carrier 
 would not be liable in trover. Tucker v. 
 Housatonic R. Co., 39 Conn. 447. 
 
 23. Bare Omission to Deliver. — Taug- 
 her V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 N. Dak. 
 Ill, 129 N. W. 747. See Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Barnett, 190 Fed. 118, 111 C. C. A. 
 158. 
 
 A failure by a carrier to tender goods 
 at the place of destination is not per se a 
 conversion. Way v. Dennie, 174 Mass. 
 43, 54 N. E. 347. 
 
 24. Goods lost before demand. — Mag- 
 nin V. Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410, 26 Am. 
 Rep. 608; Taughcr-^'. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 21 N. Dak. Ill, 129 N. W. 747. See 
 Goldbowitz V. Metropolitan Exp. Co., 91 
 N. Y. S. 318. 
 
 25. Southern Exp. Co. v. Sinclair, 130 
 Oa. 372, 60 S. E. 840. 
 
 26. Unreasonable delay. — United States. 
 — See Cliicago, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett, 190 
 Fed. 118, 111 C. C. A. 158. 
 
 Iowa. — Clark v. American Exp. Co.,
 
 515 
 
 TKANSrOKTATIOX AND DIvLIVKRV i;Y CAKRIF,R. 
 
 § 836 
 
 Goods Lost after Failure to Deliver on Demand. — W here the carrier, on 
 demand oi the consi^niec, refnses to deliver the goods without a sufficient excuse, 
 it is liable for their suhseciuent loss.-' And where a consignee is erroneously 
 informed by an agent of the carrier that the goods have not arrived, whereby 
 he fails to get them, and they are lost or destroyed, the failure to deliver is such 
 negligence as will render the carrier liable.-'* lUit where the consignee is subse- 
 
 106 N. VV. 642. 130 Iowa 254. 
 
 Nezi' Jersey. — Higgins v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 83 N. J. L. 398. 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 New ForA'.— Scovill v. Griffith, 12 N. 
 Y. 509. 
 
 Toniessce.—UMnois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 94 S. W. 600, 116 Tenn. 624. 
 
 r^.raj.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Everett, 37 
 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 83 S. W. 257; Bauni- 
 back r. Gulf. etc.. R. Co.. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 650, 23 S. W. 693; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Tyler Coffin Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 81 
 S. \V. 826; Wells, Fargo & Co. 7'. Han- 
 son. 41 Tex. Civ. App. 174. 91 S. W. 321. 
 
 West I'irgiitia. — Ryland v. Chesapeake, 
 etc., R. Co., 46 S. E. 923, 55 W. Va. 181. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 conversion of certain goods, in which no 
 demand on the carrier for the goods and 
 refusal on its part were shown, and in 
 which it appeared that defendant still 
 had the goods in its possession, a tender 
 of them was a defense to the action. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Tyler Coffin Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 826. 
 
 Where the agent of the carrier, 
 through inadvertence, erroneously states 
 that goods have not arrived, but later the 
 owner refuses to receive them, the fail- 
 ure to deliver is not a conversion. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. z: Campbell, 54 Tenn. 
 (7 Heisk.) 253. 
 
 September 11th the carrier's agent no- 
 tified the consignee that a box of goods 
 had arrived for him. The consignee on 
 the next day gave a drayman an order to 
 get the goods. The drayman called on 
 the agent, and paid the freight, and, with 
 a receipt therefor, demanded the goods 
 of an employee of the carrier, who, the 
 drayman testified, told him the goods 
 were short, and that he would take stens 
 to find them. The evidence tended to 
 show that thereafter the consignee de- 
 manded the goods, and that the carrier 
 having the consignee's receipt for the 
 goods exhibited it to him; that about 
 three months thereafter the goods were 
 found in the carrier's depot, where they 
 had been all the time, and were tendered 
 to the consignee, who refused to receive 
 them. In an action by the consignee 
 against the carrier for failure to deliver 
 the goods, the court instructed the jury 
 that, if they found for plaintiff at all, they 
 must find the value of the goods. Held 
 error, as the court could not, as a matter 
 of law, say there had been a conversion. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Lawson, 9 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 681. 
 
 27. Goods lost after failure to deliver 
 
 on demand. — Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 McCuirr, 79 .\la. 395. 
 
 Act of God. — A carrier is liable fur 
 goods lost by the act of God after its re- 
 fusal to deliver to the consignee on pres- 
 entation of the bill of lading, though the 
 goods were marked by number only, and 
 the delivery was refused because the 
 waybill giving the name of the consignee 
 had not been received when the demand 
 was made, and the contract exempted the 
 carrier from liability for wrong carriage 
 *or delivery of goods marked by initials 
 or numbers. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Benson, 86 Ga. 203, 12 S. E. 357, 22 .\m. 
 St. Rep. 446. 
 
 28. United States.— Centrdi] Trust Co. 
 r. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 70 Fed. 
 764. 
 
 Indiana. — Jeffersonville R. Co. v. Cot- 
 ton. 29 Ind. 498, 95 .\m. Dec. 6'>6. 
 
 Kansas. — Union Pac. R. Co. v. Moyer, 
 40 Kan. 184. 19 Pac. 639, 10 Am. St. Rep. 
 183. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Stevens v. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad (Mass.), 1 Gray 277. 
 
 Xebraska. — Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Arms, 15 Neb. 69. 17 N. W. 351. 
 
 Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Kelly, 91 Tenn. 699. 20 S. W. 312. 
 17 L. R. A. 691; S. C, 91 Tenn. 708, 20 S. 
 W. 314. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Meyer v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 24 Wis. 566. 1 .\m. Rep. 207. 
 
 Illustrations. — .\ bill of lading for 
 hams provided that the railroad company 
 carrying them should not be liable for 
 the hams while at a station awaif'ng de- 
 livery, and that they should be delivered 
 during business hours. The hams 
 reached the station of their destination 
 on Thursday. The consignee inquired 
 for them Thursday and Friday, and was 
 told that they had not arrived. He was 
 notified of their arrival at 5.30 Saturday 
 p. m.. and removed them Monday a. m. 
 They were found to have been damaged 
 bv lieat. Held, that the company was li- 
 able. McKinney z: Jewett, 90 N. Y. 267. 
 affirming 24 Hun 19. 
 
 Where goods were plainly marked. "J. 
 Weil & Bros." but the station agent en- 
 tered them on the waybill as for "T. Weil 
 & Co.," and when the messengers of J. 
 Weil & Bros, called for the goods, they 
 were told that there was nothing for 
 them, and the mistake was not discov- 
 ered until the goods were destroyed by 
 fire, it was held that the carrier was li- 
 able. Meyer z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 
 Wis. 566, 1 .\m. Rep. 207.
 
 §§ 836-837 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 516 
 
 quently notified that the goods have arrived, in ample time to remove them be- 
 fore the loss, he can not recover their value on the ground of conversion.-^ 
 
 Right of Consignee Who Has Refused Goods.— Though the consignee has 
 refused, under a mistake, to receive goods from a carrier, he may maintain an 
 action for a refusal to deliver them upon his suhseciuent demand, when they 
 are still in the hands of the carrier, and no other rights have intervened.=^"_ 
 
 Effect of Settlement with Consignee.— In case of unqualified consignment 
 of propertv, the carrier has the right to assume that the consignee is the own§r, 
 and to settle a claim, for damages for the nondelivery of property with him.^^^ 
 
 § 837. Excuse for Nondelivery in General. — What Excuses.— A car- 
 rier may show as an excuse for nondelivery that the goods were seized under 
 valid legal process.-"^- or were delivered to the true owner,-'-' or that the shipper 
 wrongfully obtained the goods from the true o\vner,-'-t or that the goods were 
 the carrier's own property,^^"' or that consignor had properly exercised his right 
 of stoppage in transitu,-"^" or that the delivery was prohibited by law,^" or the 
 proper authorities,^'^ or that the contract of carriage was illegal,-''^ or that de- 
 livery was prevented bv the act of God^" or the public enemy.^i 
 
 What Does Not Excuse.— Nondelivery by a carrier of goods shipped is not 
 excused by obstructions and difficulties that should have been foreseen,42 qj. 
 by the fact that the goods were stolen,-* =* or were partially injured by the act of 
 
 29. Williams r. Delaware, etc.. Canal 
 Co.. .53 Hun 635. 6 N. Y. S. 36, 25 N. Y. 
 St. Rep. 518, 3 Silvernail 19. 
 
 30. Right of consignee who has re- 
 fused goods. — Bacharacli z\ Chester 
 Freight Line, 133 Pa. 414, 19 Atl. 409. 
 
 31. Effect of settlement with consignee. 
 — Scammon r. Wells, Fargo & Co., 84 
 Cal. 311, 24 Pac. 284. 
 
 32. Seizure under legal process. — As to 
 seizure under legal process as excusing 
 delivery, see post, "Goods Seized under 
 Legal Process," §§ 870-874. 
 
 33. Delivery to true owner. — The 
 Idaho, 93 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 978. See 
 post, "Actual Owner," § 856. 
 
 Whether the shipper obtained posses- 
 sion by fraud, or whether he honestly 
 supposed he had a right to the property 
 is immaterial. The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575, 
 23 L. Ed. 978. 
 
 Liability to holder of bill of lading. — 
 That goods were taken from the carrier 
 by one from whom the consignor ob- 
 tained them without paying the price is 
 a good defense to an action by an in- 
 dorsee of a bill of lading to recover of 
 the carrier for nondelivery, as the seller's 
 title was paramount to that of the con- 
 signor. National Bank v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 20 Am. 
 St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 263. 
 
 34. Bates v. Stanton, 8 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 79. 
 
 35. Valentine v. Long Island R. Co., 79 
 N. E. 849, 187 N. Y. 121, reversing 92 N. 
 Y. S. 045. 102 App. Div. 419. 
 
 36. Stoppage in transitu. — Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 
 17 S. W. 608. See post, "Stoppage in 
 Transitu," chapter 17. 
 
 37. Delivery prohibited by law. — Pat- 
 ron V. Silva, 1 La. 275. 
 
 Where other goods illegal. — If ship- 
 per's goods may legally enter the port, 
 the fact that they are on board other 
 goods which, if landed, would expose the 
 ship to seizure, does not excuse the car- 
 rier's failure to deliver. Fernandez v. 
 Silva, 1 La. 269. 
 
 38. A carrier was excused for refusing 
 to deliver a shipment of bananas to the 
 consignee, where, upon its arrival, the 
 carrier was notified by the chief of po- 
 lice not to deliver, and that the consignee 
 would not be allowed to unload and dis- 
 tribute it, if delivered; the chief of police 
 acting under instructions from a sanitary 
 commission created by an ordinance es- 
 tablishing a quarantine against all ba- 
 nanas from New Orleans, though the par- 
 ticular shipment was made from Mobile. 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Tirelli, 93 Miss. 
 797, 48 So. 962, 17 Am. & Eng. Cas. 879, 
 21 L. R. A., N. S., 731. 
 
 39. Contract of carriage illegal.— A 
 shipper of coin and bullion from Mexico 
 to Texas, during the Civil War, in vio- 
 lation of the proclamation of the presi- 
 dent of the United States, can not re- 
 cover of the carrier for failure to deliver 
 it. Cantu ?•. Bennett, 39 Tex. 303. 
 
 40. Act of God. — Williamson & Co. v. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 
 S. W. 807; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clellan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83. See 
 post, "Loss of or Injury to Goods," 
 chapter 12. 
 
 41. Act of pubic enemy. — Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. McClellan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 
 83. See post, "Loss of or Injury to 
 Goods," chapter 12. 
 
 42. What does not excuse. — Berje v. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 37 La. Ann. 468. 
 
 43. Where goods stolen. — Perkins v. 
 Chautauqua Tract. Co., 137 N. Y. S. 80,
 
 517 
 
 TRAXSl'ORTATIOX AND DKIJVKKV 15V CARRIER. 
 
 § 837 
 
 God,^*^ or because they were piled beneath other goods,'*-'' or because the carrier 
 failed to have a waybill for theni.^'' It does not avail a carrier which has con- 
 verted goods of a consignee that the consignee had not paid for them,-*" or that 
 the conversion was thrcjugh an honest mistake, ''■■* or that the shipper may have 
 been negligent in marking the goods,-*" or that the consignee knew that the bill 
 of lading fraudulent!}- stated the weight of the goods at less than it was. and 
 did not notify the carrier thereof. •''" And it is no defense to an action for con- 
 version against the carrier that by mistake it delivered the goods to a third per- 
 son, and that it offered to deliver to the consignee other goods of equal value,-"'' 
 or that the consignee refused to accept a tender of the goods made after the ex- 
 piration of the time during which he agreed to extend the period of delivery. •'"'- 
 A carrier can not set up title in another as a reason for refusing to deliver the 
 goods to the shipper or consignee.-'''^' A carrier is not excused for nondelivery of 
 money consigned to a bank because the bank was closed when he arrived, and, 
 on failing to tind the cashier after going to his house twice, he brought the money 
 back to the consignor, who refused to receive it.-'-* The master of a vessel, who 
 delivers most of the goods mentioned in the bill of lading to plaintitY, who claims 
 as the transferee of the bill, can not object, when sued for the rest, that the bill 
 has not been assigned to him.-"-"' A carrier can not refuse to deliver to consignees, 
 who have purchased and shipped goods for their principal, though he has failed 
 and assigned the goods for the benefit of his creditors."" 
 
 7(j Misc. Rep. 307. See Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. z: O'Donnell. 49 O. St. 489. 'A2 N. 
 E. 476, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579, 21 L. R. A., 
 N. S.. 117. 
 
 44. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harn, 44 
 Te.x. 623. 
 
 45. Louisville, etc., R. Co. Z'. McGuire, 
 79 Ala. ;i9.-). 
 
 46. Bovvdon z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 41 
 So. 294, 148 Ala. 29. 
 
 47. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Rotter Bros. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 104 S. W. 402. 
 
 48. Frazier f. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 104 Mo. App. 355, 78 S. W. 679. See Cle- 
 ment z: New York, etc., R. Co., 56 Hun 
 643. 9 N. Y. S. 601, 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 713. 
 
 49. Downing v. Outerbridge, 79 Fed. 
 931, 25 C. C. A. 244. 
 
 50. Wiggin v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 120 
 Mass. 201. 
 
 51. Clement v. New York. etc.. R. Co., 
 .■■)() Hun 643, 9 N. Y. S. 601, 30 X. Y. St. 
 Rep. 713. 
 
 52. Hamilton f. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 103 Iowa 32.-), 72 X. W. .-)3C). 
 
 53. Estoppel to set up title in another. 
 — Rosenficld v. Express Co., Ked. Cas. 
 No. 12,or)0. 1 Woods 131. Perkins z: 
 Chautauqua Tract. Co., 137 N. Y. S. 80, 
 76 Misc. Rep. 307. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where one. without title 
 ti) goods, delivers them to a carrier, on 
 whom he afterwards gives plaintiff an or- 
 der for them, and the carrier accepts the 
 order, and receives the charges for 
 freight, in an action of detinue against 
 the carrier for refusal to deliver the 
 goods the carrier is estopped to show 
 that the goods belonged to a third per- 
 son. Young z: East Alabama R. Co., 80 
 Ala. 100. 
 
 The fact that a third person claims 
 
 goods shipped to the shipper's order, and 
 represents to the carrier that he expects 
 to be able to arrive at an understanding 
 with the shipper within a few days, will 
 not justify the carrier in withholding de- 
 livery according to the shipper's order. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Schriver, 84 Pac. 
 119, 72 Kan. 550, 4 L. R. A., X. S.. 1056. 
 A vendee of goods delivered them to a 
 carrier for shiptnent. The vendor 
 claimed that the wrong goods had been 
 delivered, and induced the carrier to 
 change the shipment for his account, so 
 that the goods were never delivered to 
 the vendee. In an action by the vendee 
 against the carrier, the latter offered to 
 prove that the vendor had been indebted 
 to the vendee, and had sold the goods on 
 account, and that subsequently to the 
 shipment the account had been settled, 
 the goods in question deducted, and the 
 balance paid. Held inadmissible, as the 
 carrier could not thus dispute the title 
 of the vendee to the goods. Patterson 
 :. Moore, 34 Pa. 69. 
 
 54. Merwin z: Butler, 17 Conn. 138. 
 
 55. Tracy z: Storer, 5 La. 366. 
 
 56. Jordan, etc.. Co. z: James. 5 O. 88. 
 wlierein the facts were: Commission 
 merchants agreed in Boston with P. to 
 purcliase and ship for him and on his 
 notes goods to themselves in Cincinnati, 
 to be sold on commission. They made 
 the purchase, shipped the goods to New 
 Orleans charged with the freight, an-i 
 paid the insurance. .At Xew Orleans the 
 goods were reshipped to them at Cin- 
 cinnati, and tliey were charged with the 
 freight from Boston. On the way the 
 freighters received the goods from them 
 to a new destination and issued a new 
 bill of lading.
 
 §§ 838-839 
 
 carrie:rs. 
 
 518 
 
 § 838. Right to Require Receipt before Delivery.— The carrier may de- 
 mand a recciin for the goods from the consignee before deUvering them to him.^" 
 And the carrier is not bonnd to take receipts for them, part by part, as they are 
 taken away, bnt may require a receipt for the whole before delivering any.^*^ 
 The reasonableness of a regulation of a carrier as to receipts for goods is a ques- 
 tion of law, whenever, upon the particular facts found, the court can pronounce 
 upon its legal efifect by the application of any rules of law.^^ 
 
 § 839. Requiring- Proof of Right to Goods. — As carriers are bound to 
 deliver property to the persons entitled, at their peril,«o they will be protected in 
 refusing to deliver until they have had an opportunity to determine whether the 
 person demanding the property is entitled to receive it.^i But the rule of a car- 
 rier that consignees must be identified, has no application to a consignee of goods 
 not delivered nt their destination, and ordered back to their place of shipment, 
 so as to relieve the carrier from liability for its refusal to deliver to him without 
 
 57. Right to require receipt before de- 
 livery.— Dwycr r. Gulf, etc., R. Co.. 69 
 Tex. 707, 709, 7 S. W. i>Oi\ Skinner v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 Tex. 707, 709. 
 7 S. W. 504; Skinner v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co.. 12 Iowa 191, holding 
 that a consignee can not maintain replevin 
 against the carrier on its refusal to sur- 
 render the goods without a receipt, recit- 
 ing that the goods were in good order, 
 where it did not refuse to give him_ a 
 chance to examine them before executing 
 such receipt. 
 
 58. Unreasonable regulation as to re- 
 ceipt. — Defendant, a railroad company, in 
 the regular course of its business of carrying 
 wheat for plaintiff, weighed the same 
 into a delivery bin at its elevator, where 
 it was consigned, from which it could be 
 spouted into wagons or sacks at the con- 
 signee's pleasure; but by a regulation the 
 consignee was required, before taking the 
 same from the bin, or before he could 
 ascertain, except from the statements of 
 the defendant, whether the same was 
 correct, to receipt for the wheat as 
 weighed into such delivery bin. Held, 
 that such regulation was, as matter of 
 law, unreasonable and void. Christian t'. 
 First Division, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 21, 
 Gil. 12. 
 
 59. Question of law. — Christian v. 
 First Division, etc., R. Co., 20 Minn. 21, 
 Gil. 12. 
 
 60. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. ■<^ Pumph- 
 rey, .59 Md. .'590. See post, "Misdelivery," 
 §§ 858-866. 
 
 61. Requiring proof of right to goods. 
 — Georgia. — Bass v. Glover, 63 Ga. 745. 
 
 Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pumphrey, 59 Md. .390. 
 
 New York. — McEntee v. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co., 45 N. Y. .34, 6 Am. 
 Rep. 28. 
 
 Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Fowler, 12 
 Tex. Civ. App. 683, 34 S. W. 661. 
 
 A carrier is not bound to accept the 
 statement of a consignee that he is the 
 owner, as true. But it is the consignee's 
 
 duty to furnish the evidence of his right 
 to receive the shipment. Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Fowler, 12 Tex. Civ. .App. 683, 34 
 S. W. 661, affirmed in 93 Tex. 661, 684, 
 no op. 
 
 The carrier has a right to require the 
 most unquestionable proof of the identity 
 of the person seeking to have a delivery 
 made to him. Moore v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 48 S. E. 887, 103 Va. 189; Sellers 
 V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 123 Ga. 386, 51 
 S. E. 398. 
 
 A carrier is not bound to forward goods 
 to a person who claims to be the con- 
 signee, if they are not accompanied with 
 any instructions or bill of lading, and the 
 claimant produces no authority from the 
 consignor for their delivery, although they 
 are marked with the initials of the claim- 
 ant's name. Finn v. Western R. Corp., 
 102 Mass. 283. 
 
 Where parcels are defectively addressed, 
 a refusal to deliver them to a person not 
 identifying himself as the consigjiee or 
 producing any evidence of title to the 
 property, coupled with an offer to deliver 
 if such title or authority to receive them 
 is shown, is justified by the duty of car- 
 riers to secure delivery to the proper per- 
 son. McEntee v. New Jersey Steamboat 
 Co., 45 N. Y. 34, 6 Am. Rep. 28. 
 
 In conversion it appeared that defend- 
 ant carrier received a horse consigned to 
 "T. & W.," and transported it to the point 
 of destination; that plaintiff claimed the 
 shipment was to himself, and demanded 
 possession of the horse; that defendant 
 refused to deliver it till it had some evi- 
 dence of plaintiff's right to receive the 
 horse, and used all reasonable efforts to 
 ascertain who was the proper consignee; 
 that plaintiff never furnished any evi- 
 dence; and that, when it was finally de- 
 termined to whom the horse should be 
 delivered, he refused to accept the liorse, 
 and pay the charges, whereupon defend- 
 ant sold it at public auction. Held, that 
 there was no conversion by defendant. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. Fowler, 12 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 683, 34 S. W. 661.
 
 519 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY I5Y CARRIER. 
 
 §§ 839-&40 
 
 his being idcnlilied.''- The (lucstion whether llie carrier acted in good faith, in 
 delaying deHvery to ascertain the identity of the consignee is for the jury .«=* 
 
 § 840. Requiring Production and Surrender of Bill of Lading.— As. 
 
 in general, a l)ill of huluv^ is a>higiialjle by the c(jiisignee and sometimes by the 
 consignor, so as io render the carrier Hable to make dehvery to the assignee,"'"* 
 where a bill of lading covering a shipment has been issued, the carrier may de- 
 mand its production as a condition precedent to making delivery .«^ And a ship- 
 per of goods, who infonns a connecting carrier that he holds bills of lading for 
 the goods, is esto])ped from disi)Uting the fact."" Where a shipment is consigned 
 to a certain city, to be delivered at some port of that city in order to be loaded on 
 vessels, the carrier has no right, in the absence of any contract on the subject, 
 to require the surrender of the bills of lading at the city mentioned before the 
 shipment is carried to a port."' In Texas it is held that a railroad company 
 has no right to demand surrender of bills of lading as a condition of deliver)' 
 of the goods which they represent to a consignee who tenders charges and pro- 
 duces the bill of lading for inspection, but refuses to surrender the same;*'^ 
 and it is immaterial that there is a general custom among railroads of requiring 
 the surrender of the bill of lading."" 
 
 62. Thomas v. Pacific Exp. Co., .'50 Mo. 
 A pp. ST). 
 
 63. Question for jury. — Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Pumphrey, 59 Md. 390. 
 
 64. Bass 7'. Glover, OH Ga. 74."); Dwyer 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 09 Tex. 707, 709, 7 
 S. W. 504. 
 
 65. Right to require production of bill. 
 — Bass :: Glover, 0:i Ga. 74.^,; Sellers r. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co.. 12.3 Ga. ;5,S6, 51 S. 
 E. 398; Kaufman z\ Seaboard, etc.. Rail- 
 way, 10 Ga. App. 248, 249, 73 S. E. 592; 
 Dwyer v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 09 Tex. 707, 
 7 S. W. 504; Nashville, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Grayson County Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 91 S. W. 1100, judgment reversed, 
 in 100 Tex. 17, 93 S. W. 431, where it is 
 held that the carrier would clearly have this 
 right provided it had any good reason to 
 doubt the consignee's right to receive the 
 goods. See .\rkansas, etc., R. Co. z'. Ger- 
 man Nat. Bank, 77 Ark. 482, 92 S. W. 522. 
 113 Am. St. Rep. 100; Finn z\ Western 
 R. Corp., 102 Mass. 283; Shepard z: Hein- 
 ken, 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. 525. 
 
 A carrier is not liable for failure to 
 deliver to an unidentified consignee, where 
 he fails to produce the bill of lading, though 
 he may offer security. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 7'. Freeman. 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 240, 
 10 S. \V. 109. 
 
 .\ shipper of goods telegraphed to the 
 connecting carrier that he held the bills 
 of lading, and that no delivery should be 
 made until bills of lading were surren- 
 dered. The carrier thereupon refused to 
 deliver the goods. Subsequently the ship- 
 per wrote a letter, addressed to the con- 
 necting carrier, recalling the order in the 
 telegram, and directing a delivery without 
 the bills of lading. The consignee pre- 
 sented the letter to the carrier at its of- 
 fice at the place of destination. Init the 
 carrier refused to deliver because the bills 
 of lading were imt pro(lucefl. but deliv- 
 ered them on iinxluction of tiie freiglit 
 
 receipts. Held, that the carrier was jus- 
 tified in refusing to deliver, and therefore 
 not liable to the shipper for the damage 
 to the goods caused by the delay in the 
 delivery. Schlichting z'. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 90 X. W. 959. 121 Iowa 502. 
 
 A consignee of goods can not obtain 
 possession of them from a carrier, who 
 received them from another carrier, by 
 means of a possessory warrant, without 
 producing the bill of lading, or account- 
 ing for it. Bass 7'. Glover, 03 Ga. 745. 
 
 66. Schlichting z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 90 N. W. 959, 121 Iowa 502. 
 
 67. George & Co. v. Louisville, etc.. R. 
 Co., 40 So. 486, 88 Miss. 306. 
 
 68. Dwyer v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 69 Tex. 
 707, 7 S. W. 504, followed in Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McCown (Tex. Civ. App.). 25 S. 
 W. 435; First Nat. Bank z: San Antonio, 
 etc., R. Co., 97 Tex. 201, 214, 77 S. W. 410. 
 
 Where bills of lading were pledged to 
 secure advances made to the purchaser 
 of the goods, and on the bankruptcy of 
 the purchaser a part of the property cov- 
 ered by the bills of lading was in posses- 
 sion of a carrier, its refusal to deliver the 
 property to tiie pled'jec of the bills of lad- 
 ing, except on surrender thereof, was a 
 conversion of the propertv. Judgment 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 1033. modified. 
 First Nat. Bank 7-. San Antonio, etc.. R. 
 Co., 77 S. \V. 410, 97 Tex. 201. 
 
 Reason of rule. — The bill of lading may 
 lu' of use to tlie consignor or owner of 
 the goods after a delivery has been made. 
 It must be conceded that the bill of lading 
 was at one time the property of the 
 owner of the goods, and it is not perceived 
 how the delivery of them could destroy 
 his right in this property without his 
 consent. Dwyer z: Gulf, etc., R. Co., 69 
 Tex. 707. 709, 7 S. W. 504. 
 
 69. Gulf. etc.. R. Co 7'. McCown (.Tex. 
 Civ. App.\ 25 S. \V. 435.
 
 § 841 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 520 
 
 § 841. Detention for Debt or Charges. — Detention for Debt. — A car- 
 rier, having received goods for transportation, can not detain them for a debt 
 due to itself, not connected with the carriage.'" And wliere the goods are with- 
 held under a claim for a sum other than that due for freight, the consignee may 
 maintain trover against the carrier."' In such an action the carrier can not 
 plead in defense a subsequent tender of delivery on payment of freight charges 
 after the price of the articles com])rising the freight had materially declined. "- 
 
 Detention for Charges. — A carrier is not liable for the detention of goods 
 until the charges for freight are paid."'^ And the carrier is not liable for retain- 
 ing th.e goods in order to ascertain the amount of charges,"'* or whether there are 
 
 y 
 
 70. Detention for debt. — Pharr v. Col- 
 lins. 33 La. .\nn. 939. 48 Am. Rep. 2.51. 
 
 71. Adams r. Clark (Mass.). 9 Cush. 215, 
 .57 Am. Dec. 41; Blair v. Jeffries (S. C). 
 Dud. 59. 
 
 When goods are sent, not according to 
 the contract witli the owner, but !)y some 
 other route, there is no lien for freight 
 money; and, if the goods are withheld un- 
 der a claim of lien, an action of trover will 
 lie for their value. Marsh v. Union Pac. 
 R. Co., 9 Fed. 873, 3 McCrary 236. 
 
 It can not be assumed, where on the 
 day after the arrival of live s^tock, the car- 
 rier refused to deliver it on the tender of 
 a certain amount, that the refusal was 
 merel}' because the amount tendered was 
 not equal to the amount claimed for 
 freight, and not because it did not include 
 the day's charges for feed, which the car- 
 rier, with the consignee's consent, had 
 caused to be given to the animals. Scott 
 Bros. V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 
 345. 
 
 72. Blair v. Jeffries (S. C), Dud. 59. 
 
 73. Detention for charges. — United 
 States.— The Eddy (U. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 
 18 L. Ed. 486. 
 
 Georgia. — Dixon v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369. 
 
 Maine. — Ames v. Palmer, 42 Ale. 197, 
 66 Am. Dec. 271. 
 
 South Carolina. — Blair v. Jeffries (S. 
 C), Dud. 59. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rines 
 & Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 618, 84 S. W. 
 1092; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Klepper, 29 
 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 69 S. W. 426; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 
 437, 66 S. W. 341; Gulf, etc., R. Co. t: 
 North Texas Grain Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 
 93, 74 S. W. 567; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Weissman, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 86, 21 S. W. 
 426. 
 
 Connecting carrier. — .\ rcshipper in 
 good faith at a reasonable rate, under a 
 contract with one holding a possession 
 apparently fair under a bill of lading au- 
 thorizing a reshipment, must be paid his 
 freight before the owner can claim his 
 property, notwithstanding the first car- 
 rier's bad faith. Walker v. Cassaway, 4 
 La. Ann. 19, 50 Am. Dec. 551. 
 
 Charges accruing from misdirection. — 
 Where lumber intended for plaintiff at 
 Baird, Texas, was shipped to "Beard." 
 
 Texas, through mistake of plaintiff's agent 
 at the initial point in signing a shipping 
 bill ordering it consigned to plaintiff at 
 such latter point, and from there it was 
 sent to plaintiff at Baird, which was on 
 defendant company's line, defendant was 
 entitled to hold the lumber for payment 
 of the increased freight charges covermg 
 the entire route over which the lu.iiber 
 was so transported, and was not liable 
 in damages for refusal to deliver to plain- 
 tiff upon his tender of what would have 
 been the proper amount of freight charges 
 but for such mistake. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 ?'. Klepper, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 69 S. 
 W. 426. 
 
 An offer by consignees "to give secu- 
 rity to pay freight, if legally liable," is 
 not such a tender of security as comes 
 within the rule that the consignee is en- 
 titled to delivery upon the payment of, 
 or security for. the freight. Fox v. Holt, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 5.012. 36 Conn. 558, 4 Ben, 
 278. 
 
 Where property is shipped by a factor, 
 who, under Cal. Code, § 2369, lias os- 
 tensible authority to deal therewith as 
 his own, "in transactions with third per- 
 sons not having notice of the actual own- 
 ership," the actual owner's recovery, in 
 an action of claim and delivery against 
 the master of a vessel, will be subject to 
 the terms of the shipment. And the 
 master of the vessel has a lien upon the 
 property in his possession for proper 
 charges and freights. Green 7\ Campbell, 
 52 Cal. 586. 
 
 Under Louisiana Civ. Code, art. 3213, 
 the captain of a vessel may keep the 
 goods, unless the shipper or consignee 
 shall give him security for tlie payment 
 of the freight. But he can not demand 
 payment before giving the consignee an 
 opportunity to inspect the condition of 
 the shipment, and he is bound, upon the 
 consignee's tendering the freight money, 
 to place the whole lot of goods com- 
 prising the shipment on the levee, sepa- 
 rate from other goods, subject to the in- 
 spection of the consignee. Lanata f. The 
 Henry Grinnell, 13 La. Ann. 24. 
 
 74. Plaintiff shipped certain goods, which, 
 on being refused l)y the consignee, plaintiff 
 directed to be returned to him. The 
 goods were returned under an "astray way- 
 bill," not accompanied by any bill indicat-
 
 521 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DKLUT.RV 1!Y CARRIKR. 
 
 § 841 
 
 in fact any charges due.'"' Uui ilic right to detain goods for charges does not 
 exist where the parties have, l^y their agreement, reguhited the time and manner 
 of paying the freight.''' The person entitled to the goods may maintain an ac- 
 tion for conversion against a carrier detaining goods for freight, where, by 
 agreement, the goods are to be delivered before jjayment," or v.here the car- 
 rier demands a greater amount than the price agreed upon,'** or an excessive 
 rate,"'* or wliere the goods have been received from a wrongful holder,**'^ or 
 where the damage sustained to the goods is greater than the freight due,"' or 
 
 iiif^ hack charges, whereupon defendant's 
 agent refused to deliver the goods until 
 he ol)tained information as to the aniount 
 of such hack charges, and, on ohtaining 
 such information, the agent notified plain- 
 tiff thereof, and tendered the goods to 
 plaintit^ on payment of the charges, which 
 plaintiff refused. Held, that the agent's 
 refusal to deliver in the first instance did 
 nt)t constitute a conversion, and hence 
 the carrier was only responsii)le for loss 
 accruing l)ecause of the delay in delivery 
 after the goods were returned. Norfolk, 
 etc., R. Co. i: Potter, 6G S. E. 34, 110 Va. 
 427. 
 
 75. A carrier receiving goods at the end 
 of another's line is not responsil)le for 
 the latter's omission to inform him 
 whether the freight has been paid, and 
 may retain the goods a reasonal)le time 
 to ascertain the facts. Union Exp. Co. v. 
 Shoop. 85 Pa. 325. 
 
 Where a station agent had reasonable 
 doubts as to whether a charge for the de- 
 tention of a car containing plaintiff's 
 goods was lawful, and as to whether the 
 railroad company would insist on pay- 
 ment, his refusal to deliver the goods to 
 the owner before obtaining instructions 
 did not constitute a conversion. Hett v. 
 Boston, etc.. Railroad, 44 Atl. 910, 69 N. 
 H. 139. 
 
 76. Chandler z: Belden (N. Y.), 18 
 Johns. 157, 9 Am. Dec. 193. 
 
 77. Goods to be delivered before pay- 
 ment.— Chandler z\ Belden (X. Y.), IS 
 Johns. 157, 9 Am. Dec. 193. See Lee i: 
 Fidelity Storage, etc., Co., 98 Pac. 658, 
 51 Wash. 208. 
 
 78. Northern Transp. Co. v. Sellick. 52 
 111. 249; Isham r. Grcenliam, 12 O. Dec. 
 is;i. 1 Handy '■->'>7. 
 
 When carrier unauthorized to make 
 special rate. — IMaintit'f, under a contract 
 with a railroad company for special rates 
 on stock, on their arrival at their desti- 
 nation on another railroad tendered the 
 • amount fixed by contract, and demanded 
 delivery, which was refused, unless a 
 larger sum called for by the waybill was 
 paid. In an action against the latter rail- 
 road, there was no evidence that the con- 
 tracting company was authorized to make 
 the special rate for defendant. Held, that 
 a nonsuit was properly granted. Lewis 
 V. Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 25 S. C. 249. 
 
 Connecting carrier. — Plaintiff shijiped a 
 horse, to Ik- carried under a through con- 
 tract over connecting railroads; but the 
 
 freight charges, as fixed by the carrier, 
 were not sufficient to pay the charges of 
 both carriers, but were sufficient to pay 
 the charges of the last carrier. Held 
 that, on the tender of the agreed freight 
 at the point of destination, the last car- 
 rier was bound to deliver the horse. 
 Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Marsh, 57 Ind. 
 505. 
 
 Where goods shipped by a railroad 
 company under a special contract as to 
 charges are received by a connecting 
 line witliout notice of the contract, with 
 a waybill showing charges in excess of 
 the contract price, and the connecting 
 line, without paying such charges, carries 
 the goods to their destination, and refuses 
 to deliver them to the consignee on ten- 
 der of the contract price (which is in 
 excess of the amount due the connecting 
 line), the latter is liable for damages sus- 
 tained by the consignee for failure to de- 
 liver the goods after it has had a reason- 
 able opportunity to ascertain the exist- 
 ence of the special contract. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Brookhaven Mach. Co., 
 71 Miss. 663, 16 So. 252. 
 
 The Arkansas Act of Feb. 27, 1885, 
 providing that all carriers shall surrender 
 freight on payment of the charges spec- 
 ified in the bill of lading, does not apply 
 to a connecting carrier which has neither 
 made, authorized, nor adopted the bill 
 of lading. Loewenberg v. Arkansas, etc., 
 R. Co., >)() Ark. 439, 19 S. W. 1051. 
 
 79. Excessive rate. — Where a terminal 
 carrier of an interstate shipment, through 
 a mistake as to the rate, refused to de- 
 liver the goods until an excessive rate 
 was paid, the refusal amounted to a con- 
 version. Pecos, etc.. R. Co. z\ Porter 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), I5r. S. W. 2<',7. 
 
 Improper classification of goods. — A 
 railroad company can not refuse to de- 
 liver japanned iron rings, designed for a 
 neck yoke for horses, because the con- 
 signee refuses to pay freight on them as 
 saddlery hardware, they being properly 
 classified as common hardware. Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co. v. Oustin. 35 Xeb. SC). 52 X. 
 W. 844. 
 
 80. Goods shipped by wrongful holder. 
 — Liefert r. C.alvcston. etc.. R. Co. iTex. 
 Civ. .\pp.). 57 S. W. S'.i9; Savannah, etc., 
 R. Co. 2'. Talbot. 123 C.a. 37S. 51 S. E. 401. 
 
 81. Damage exceeding charges. — Kan- 
 sas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: Peru-\'an 
 Zandt Imp. Co.. 73 Kan. 295. 85 Pac. 408, 
 87 Pac. so. 6 L. R. A.. X. S.. 1058, 117
 
 §§ 841-843 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 522 
 
 where goods of several owners are shipped by one bill of lading, and one of the 
 owners offers the freight due for his goods, though the freight on the other goods 
 is not paid.^- A void injunction annulling an established interstate railroad rate 
 and directing a lower rate will not authorize a consignee, on refusal of tender 
 of the lower rate fixed by the injunction, to recover the goods shipped in re- 
 plevin.'*^ 
 
 §§ 842-846. Mode and Sufficiency of Delivery in General— § 842. 
 In General. — A carrier must deliver the goods entrusted to it in a proper man- 
 ner,^^ and in such condition that they may be identified by the consignee. ^^ Any 
 manner of delivery, good as against the consignee, is, in the absence of notice 
 that he is not the owner of the goods, good as against the consignor,^*^ as where, 
 by direction of the consignee, the delivery of money was at an unusual place, in 
 consequence of whicli the property was stolen after delivery.''" 
 
 Waiver of Objections. — ^^■here a carrier tenders freight at an unreasonable 
 time or improper place or in an improper manner, the consignee, by accepting 
 the goods, waives all objections which he might have urged against the acceptance 
 under ordinary circumstances.'^*^ And the consignee discharges the carrier from 
 responsibility for an erroneous delivery by subsequently acquiescing therein.^^ 
 
 § 843. What Constitutes Delivery. — In General. — There is no delivery 
 of the goods so as to discharge the carrier from liability, as such, where it still 
 has control of the goods and no one else may move them without its con- 
 sent.^*^ or where they are inaccessible to the consignee,-^i or where something re- 
 
 Am. St. Rep. 468, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 790. 
 
 South Carolina. — Ewart v. Kerr (S. 
 C), Rice 203: Miami Powder Co. v. Port 
 Royal, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. E. 
 339, 21 L. R. A. 123. 
 
 Vermont. — Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 4:2 \'t. 441, 1 Am. Rep. 350. 
 
 In Georgia it is held that a consignee, 
 can not maintain an action ex contractu 
 against a carrier for the value of goods 
 not delivered, and which the carrier ten- 
 dered at destination in a damaged con- 
 dition, but refused to deliver without 
 payment of the usual freight charges, 
 notwithstanding the damage to the goods 
 amount to more than the freight charges, 
 and the shipper demanded that the dam- 
 ages to the shipment be offset against the 
 freight bill. Wilensky v. Central, etc., R. 
 Co., 10 Ga. App. 8, 72 S. W. 516; S. C, 72 
 S. E. 418, 136 Ga. 889, Ann. Cas. 1912 D, 
 271. 
 
 82. Hale v. Barrett, 26 111. 195, 79 Am. 
 Dec. 367. 
 
 83. Void injunction. — Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Foster Lumber Co., 31 Okla. 661, 
 122 Pac. 139. 
 
 84. Mode of delivery. — Trice v. Miller, 
 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 440; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Clark, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., ^ 
 512. 
 
 85. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Crow 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W: 170. 
 
 86. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335, af- 
 firming 24 Barb. 533; O'Dougherty v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 1 Thomp. & 
 C. 447. 
 
 87. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335, af- 
 firming 24 Barb. 533. 
 
 88. Waiver of objections. — Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Clark, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 512. 
 
 89. O'Dougherty v. Boston, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 1 Thomp. & C. 447. 
 
 90. No delivery where carrier in control 
 of goods. — Huntting Elevator Co. v. Bos- 
 worth, 179 U. S. 415, 45 L. Ed. 256, 21 S. 
 Ct. 183; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bosworth, 
 179 U. S. 442, 45 L. Ed. 267, 21 S. Ct. 
 941; Rau v. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 443, 45 
 L. Ed. 268, 21 S. Ct. 194; Bosworth v. 
 Carr, etc., Co., 179 U. S. 444, 45 L. Ed. 
 268, 21 S. Ct. 194. 
 
 The line of a railroad company termi- 
 nated at East St. Louis and it had no 
 track extending into the city of St. Louis, 
 Missouri. It did not own any terminal 
 or facilities for handling of freight busi- 
 ness at either point, its business being 
 handled by a terminal company under an 
 agreement by which that company leased 
 to the railroad company terminal facili- 
 ties and storage room for cars, the con- 
 tract providing that cars damaged in 
 making and breaking up of trains should 
 be at the risk of the railroad company, 
 and that cars rendered in bad order when 
 the terminal company should use them 
 in making a further conveyance, were to 
 be repaired by the terminal company. 
 The evidence showed that cars in the 
 yards of the terminal company were not 
 
 91. Where goods inaccessible. — Hung- 
 erford v. Winnebago, etc., Transp. Co., 
 33 Wis. 303.
 
 523 
 
 TKANSl'ORTATKJX AND DELIVERY BV CARRIER. 
 
 § 843 
 
 mains to be done to complete delivery and acceptance;''- an actual acceptance 
 being necessary to relieve the carrier from liability."'* P>ut the carrier's liability 
 
 to be moved except under orders of the 
 railroad company and that orders from 
 tiic consi>j;nce were not recognized l)y the 
 terminal company. Cars containing freight 
 for St. Louis were delivered by the rail- 
 road company at the yards of the terminal 
 company, and while there awaiting fur- 
 ther directions as to the shipment, were 
 destroyed by fire. It was held that the 
 railroad company was liable, as there had 
 beeit no delivery. Huntting IClevator Co. 
 V. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 415, 4,'-> L. Ed. 256, 
 21 S. Ct. 18.3; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bosworth. 179 U. S. 442, 45 L. Ed. 267, 
 21 S. Ct. 941; Rau v. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 
 443. 45 L. Ed. 268, 21 S. Ct. 194; Bos- 
 worth V. Carr, etc., Co.. 179 U. S. 444, 45 
 L. l-:d. :-'ii^. :-M S. Ct. v.)\. 
 
 92. Where something remains to be 
 done. — The deposit of goods upon a float 
 preparatory to their actual delivery to 
 the consignee does not constitute a de- 
 livery thereof, so as to terminate the 
 carrier's liability. Miller v. Steam Nav. 
 Co.. 10 N. Y. 431, Seld. Notes 64, affirm- 
 ing 13 Barb. 361; Goold v. Chapin, 20 N. 
 Y. 259, 75 Am. Dec. 398. 
 
 Freight was left on Saturday, at dusk, 
 at the request of the consignee, upon a 
 side track of the railroad; the consignee 
 promising to remove it on Monday morn- 
 ing. The consignee, on opening the car 
 on Monday morning with his own key, 
 found one case opened and the contents 
 removed. Held, that the common car- 
 rier was liable for the contents. Eagle v. 
 White (Pa.), 6 Whart. 505, 37 Am. Dec. 
 434. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped an engine, together 
 with certain tools and a cable used in 
 connection therewith, consigned to him- 
 self at a flag station on defendant's road 
 where defendant maintained a warehouse 
 and a side track, but no station or agent. 
 The consignment was shipped on an open 
 flat car, and on its arrival plaintiff, in pass- 
 ing through the town, discovered the car 
 set out on the side track, and notified his 
 l)ookkeeper to confer with defendant's 
 agent at an adjoining station and ascer- 
 tain if the tools belonged to plaintiff, and, 
 if so to unload the same. Plaintiff's book- 
 keeper was unable to ol)tain this informa- 
 tion until it was too late to unload the 
 material the next day, and during the 
 night the tools and calile were lost or 
 stolen from the car. Held, that the mere 
 setting out of the flat car on the siding, 
 without more, did not constitute a de- 
 livery. Normile v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 77 Pac. lOSr. 36 Wash. 21. 167 L. R. A. 
 271. 
 
 93. Acts not constituting acceptance. — 
 In an action against an express company 
 for the value of a trunk which had been 
 misdelivered, plaintiff testified that when 
 
 the trunk reached its destination the com- 
 pany's agent agreed that plaintiff might 
 take some things out of the trunk, and 
 leave it in the office for a day or so, upon 
 paying the charges and signing a receipt, 
 and that, upon calling for the trunk, he 
 was informed that it had been delivered 
 to other parties upon the supposition that 
 he had sent for it. The agent testified 
 that he had no authority to make such 
 an arrangement, but did not say that he 
 so notified plaintiff. Held, that there 
 had not been a complete delivery of the 
 trunk to plaintiff. Oderkirk v. Fargo, 58 
 Hun 347, 11 N. Y. S. 871, 34 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. 166. 
 
 Merchandise was consigned to plain- 
 tiff at a station where he had previously 
 l)een agent. When the train arrived, the 
 conductor opened the car. and told plain- 
 tiff that he had some freight for him. The 
 plaintiff replied that he could not take 
 it — that he was no longer agent — where- 
 upon it was taken to the next station, 
 where it perished. Held, that the com- 
 pany was liable for its value, as there 
 was not a delivery to the consignee, he 
 only refusing to receive as agent for the 
 company. Edwards v. Cheraw. etc., R. 
 Co.. 32 S. C. 117, 10 S. E. 822. 
 
 An express company's agent left word 
 at the store of F., the person entitled to 
 receive a package, that the package 
 was at the office, and F.'s clerk said that 
 F. was absent, and that he would come 
 over and see about it. He afterwards 
 went over, and said that "F. was away, 
 and had the key of the safe, and that the 
 defendants would have to keep it." But 
 the package was not offered to him. nor 
 was it entered on the delivery book ac- 
 cording to the custom of the company. 
 Held, that the packages had not been de- 
 livered, and that the company was liable. 
 Baldwin v. American Exp. Co.. 23 111. 
 197. 74 .\m. Dec. 190. 
 
 .•\. purchased a quantity of flour to be 
 manufactured by a certain mill and a 
 parol agreement was made by A. and B. 
 for the sale of the flour by the former to 
 the latter for cash on delivery. After- 
 wards a freight company gave B. an in- 
 strument styled a W\\\ of lading, dated 
 before the flour had been manufactured. 
 l)y which said company acknowledged the 
 receipt by it for the flour from B. and 
 agreed to transport it to C. at Boston. 
 Mass. Afterwards the servants of the 
 transfer company took the flour from 
 said mill, and put it in the custody of a 
 railroad company for which freight com- 
 pany acted as agent, said transfer com- 
 pany giving the superintendent of said 
 mill dray tickets for the flour, and re- 
 ceiving from said railroad company a 
 l)ill of" lading for the flour to be delivered 
 to C. at Boston. Hearing of the embar-
 
 § 843 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 524 
 
 is terminated where the consignee has actually accepted the goods,"-* as where 
 they are pointed out to him and he removes a portion,'^^ or has paid the freight,"*^ 
 or the carrier retains the goods at his request.''" And it is held that an actual 
 delivery is not necessary to devest the liahility of the carrier, but such liability 
 ceases 'when the goods are ready tor delivery, and a reasonable opportunity to 
 remove them has been afforded.'"' Where an initial carrier wrongfully sent 
 goods by a connecting carrier, whose lines reached but one of the three places 
 of destination, and on arrival of the goods at that point, the shipper disclosed 
 his contract to have them distributed at three points, but compliance therewith 
 was refused until the freight for the entire route was paid the shipper did not 
 accept a deliverv of the entire shipment, by paying the freight and accepting 
 
 rassment of B., who a few days after- 
 wards became insolvent, A. inquired of 
 the superintendent of the mill al)out the 
 flour, received from him said dray tickets, 
 and the day after the delivery of the 
 flour to the railroad company went with 
 said tickets and a bill for the flour to B. 
 and requested payment, which not lieing 
 made A. told B. that he would keep the 
 tickets and make other disposition of the 
 flour. Held, that A's acceptance of the 
 dray tickets did not operate as a delivery, 
 and he was still the owner of the flour 
 and entitled to its possession. Union R., 
 etc., Co. f. Yeager, 34 Ind. 1. 
 
 94. Acceptance by agent. — In an action 
 against a carrier to recover the value of a 
 car load of lumber consigned to plain- 
 tiff at a station where defendant had no 
 agent, it appeared that the car was placed 
 on a side track at such station in the 
 presence of plaintiff's agent, and that he, 
 or some of his employees, jumped on the 
 car, pulled out a piece of the lumber, and 
 said, "This is the lumber we have been 
 waiting for." Held, that a judgment for 
 defendant should not be disturbed. Ar- 
 mistead Lumber Co. v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Miss.), 11 So. 472. 
 
 Agents of both carrier and owner. — 
 The plaintiff shipped tul)s of butter liy tlie 
 defendant's boat, and directed the captain 
 to sell them on arrival. On arrival, the 
 captain hauled the boat to the pier, and 
 gave her in charge to another agent of 
 the carrier. The next day the butter was 
 placed on deck. The captain sold part, 
 and the rest was stolen. Held that, from 
 the time the butter was placed on deck, 
 it was to be deemed delivered to the cap- 
 tain as the shipper's consignee. Labar 
 V. Taber (N. Y.), 3.5 Barb. 305. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped hay on board a vessel 
 of which defendant was master, and con- 
 signed the hay to defendant for sale. It 
 did not appear that defendant had a 
 warehouse or other building at the point 
 of destination for the storage of goods, 
 and there was no custom as to storing 
 hay in such cases. By special agreement 
 the hay was carried on deck, and, the 
 next morning after arriving, defendant 
 began his efforts to sell, leaving the hay 
 on the boat. Held, that plaintiff waived 
 
 his riglit to liave tlie hay landed and 
 stored, and that defendant's lialMlity as 
 carrier terminated on arrival at the des- 
 tination, and his character as consignee 
 to sell began. Stone v. Waitt, 31 Me. 409, 
 52 Am. Dec. 021. 
 
 95. Goods pointed out and portion re- 
 moved. — Where the agent of a railroad 
 company, on the arrival of perishable 
 goods upon their warehouse platform at 
 10 o'clock a. m. on Saturday, immediately 
 pointed them out to the agent of the 
 consignees, who, on being informed that 
 there was no room for them in the ware- 
 house, took a portion of them away, and 
 not until the next Monday returned for 
 the remainder, when they could not be 
 found, held to be an actual delivery, and 
 within a reasonable time. Cull)reth v. 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 
 392. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for the value of cotton which was 
 Inirned in a car, it appeared that the cot- 
 ton had Ijeen transported to the place of 
 delivery in safety; that the car was placed 
 on a side track, at the request of plaintiff, 
 and for its convenience; that the waybill 
 had been delivered to defendant, as a re- 
 ceipt and that plaintiff had removed a 
 portion of the cotton. The origin of the 
 fire was unknown. Held, that the evi- 
 dence showed a delivery of the cotton. 
 Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co., 38 S. C. 365, 17 S. E. 147, 37 Am. St. 
 Rep. 767. 
 
 96. Paying freight. — New Albany, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Campbell, 12 Ind. 55. 
 
 97. Goods held by request. — Young v. 
 Smith (KyJ, 3 Dana 91, 2S Am. Dec. 57. 
 
 98. Constructive delivery. — Wood v. 
 Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 541; Mel- 
 bourne V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 88 Ala. 
 443, 6 So. 762. See post, "Carrier as 
 Warehouseman," Chapter 13. 
 
 Where a drayage company which was 
 a common carrier was the agent of the 
 consignee to receive a shipment of one 
 car load of goods, which the evidence 
 showed to have been removed in about 
 a day or a day and a half, and the railroad 
 company notified the drayage company more 
 than that time before the goods were 
 destroyed by fire, the car having been
 
 525 
 
 TKAXSl'ORTATIOX AND DKLIVI-.K V HY CARRIIvR. 
 
 § 843 
 
 the portion of the goods destined for that point.''*' Where the carrier has made 
 delivery, its HabiHty is terminated, though the consignee or liis agent return the 
 goods.' 
 
 Receipt for Goods. — Tlic dehvery of goods is complete when the consignee 
 or his agent gives a receipt for them,-' though a part is left on the premises of 
 the carrier.'* J'ut if the agent of the carrier abstracts a parcel while in the act 
 of delivering it, il is no delivery, even though a receipt is signed, and the form 
 of delivery gone through, b\- the agent's laying the j)ro])crty for a moment out of 
 his hands.-* 
 
 Transfer to Warehouse. — The transfer of goods, consigned in the usual 
 general terms, b}- a \ endur on credit, by a carrier by railway, to a warehouse at 
 the station designated for their discharge, in the vicinity of the vendee's place 
 of business, there to await the payment by him of the charges thereon, does 
 not ipso facto constitute a (leli\ery thereof.'' 
 
 Delivery by One Carrier to Another. — An e.xi)ressman agreeing to carry 
 baggage to a railroad slalinn is relic\cd from liability by depositing- the bag- 
 
 placed on a house track for unloading, 
 there was a completed delivery by the 
 railroad company to the drayage com- 
 pany. Arkadelpliia Milling Co. v. Smoker 
 Merchandise Co., 100 .'\rk. 37, 139 S. W. 
 G80. 
 
 99. Brown, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania 
 Co., r)3 Minn. .")4<i. (•).■> X. W. (Mil. 
 
 1. Redelivery by consignee's agent to 
 consignor. — Where a railroad company 
 receives and issues hills of lading for un- 
 comp essed cotton, and, under due au- 
 thority, sends it to a compress leased 
 and operated by the assignee of the bills, 
 and his servants, not being informed that 
 he had l)ecome the owner by assignment, 
 redeliver it to the original consignor, be- 
 lieving him the owner, the company is 
 not liable to the assignee for failure to 
 deliver the cotton. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Mch'adden. S'.i Tex. i:{S. ?,?, S. W. S53. 
 
 Return to warehouse when carrier 
 properly delivered goods. — Where prop- 
 erty consigned to a jKiint beyond the 
 terminus of defendant's route was safely 
 transported to the termination of his line, 
 and there delivered to a warehouseman, 
 who acted as agent of the carriers and 
 others in receiving and delivering freight, 
 and who, in accordance with the custom, 
 turned it over, to a teamster, who deliv- 
 ered it to the consignee, it was a delivery 
 which terminated defendant's liability as 
 carrier, though the goods were afterwards 
 returned to the warehouse by the con- 
 signee. Salinger v. Simmons (N. Y.), 57 
 Barb. 513, 8 Abb. Pac, N. S. 409, 2 Lans. 
 32.5, 
 
 2. Giving receipt. — Kenny Co. v. At- 
 lanta, etc., R. Co., 122 Ga. 365, 50 S. E. 
 132; State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 106 
 Me. 138, 76 Atl. 265, 29 L. R. A., N. S., 
 745, 20 Am. i*t F.ng. Ann. Cas. 668. 
 
 The word "receipt," as in common use, 
 means no more than a bare acknowledg- 
 ment of having received something, and, 
 in the absence of evidence to show the 
 contents of a receipt given by a con- 
 
 signee to a railroad company, it was er- 
 ror to permit the jury to assume that the 
 writing contained any special clause en- 
 larging such acknowledgment. Erie R. 
 Co. V. Wanaque Luml)er Co., 75 X. J. 
 L. S~>s, 69 .\tl. 16S. 
 
 Receipt before delivery. — In an action 
 to recover money given to an express 
 company to deliver to H. at L., it ap- 
 peared that the rules of such company 
 required a receipt for money packages 
 before the same were delivered; that on 
 the morning the money in question was 
 to reach L. the train was late, and H. 
 knew he would not have time after the 
 train arrived to receipt for the money and 
 take passage on the train, as he desired; 
 that, therefore, by promising to "relieve" 
 the express agent from liability, he per- 
 suaded him to let him (H.) receipt for 
 the mone}^ in advance; that after the 
 train arrived the agent carried the pack- 
 age to the platform of the car on which 
 H. stood, and piched it towards him, saj^- 
 ing, "Here is your money;" that the pack- 
 age lodged on the platform step, and it 
 was claimed that H. never actually re- 
 ceived it. Held, that the arrangement be- 
 tween the agent and H. terminated the 
 liability of the carrier. Carroll v. South- 
 ern Exp. Co., 37 S. C. 452, 16 S. E. 12S. 
 
 3. State V. Intoxicating Liquors, 106 
 Me. 138, 76 Atl. 265, 20 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 668. 
 
 4. American Exp. Co. v. Haggard, 37 
 111. 465, 87 .\m. Dec. 257. 
 
 5. Transfer to warehouse. — Calahan v. 
 Babcock, 21 O. St. 2S1, 8 An:. Rep. 63. 
 
 When goods have arrived at their des- 
 tination, and notice has been given to 
 the consignee, who does not indicate an 
 intention to receive them, and the goods 
 remain in the custody of the carrier with- 
 out any agreement to hold them as agent 
 or warehouseman for the consignee, there 
 is no deliver)' to the consignee. Wheel- 
 ing, etc., R. Co. V. Koontz, 61 O. St. 551, 
 56 N. E. 471, 76 Am. St. Rep. 435.
 
 § 843 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 526 
 
 gage there at the place provided for it.*^' unless he was ordered to deliver it oth- 
 erwise.'^ 
 
 Delivery to Independent Warehouseman. — Where a carrier is accustomed 
 to deliver goods transported 1)}- it to a warehouseman, who is independent of 
 the carrier, and by whom the consignees are notified of the arrival of such 
 goods, and the consignees are aware of the custom, and have long acquiesced 
 in it, the liability of the carrier ends with the delivery of the goods to the ware- 
 houseman, and no recovery can be had against the carrier for their subsequent 
 destruction by fire.^ 
 
 Partial Delivery. — Where a carrier fails to deliver a part of a shipment of 
 freight, and the part not delivered is necessary to make the whole shipment ef- 
 fective, it is a failure to deliver the whole.» But a shipper is not justified in 
 refusing to receive goods carried for him by rail because one of a number of 
 boxes is missing. ^^ 
 
 6. Delivery by one carrier to another. — 
 Henshaw v. Rowland, 54 N. Y. 242. 
 
 Where an expressman who agrees to 
 carrj- a trunk to a depot, to be taken 
 there at once, delivers it at the place set 
 apart for such baggage, and calls the at- 
 tention of the baggage agent thereto, and 
 tells him to whom it belongs and on 
 what train it was going, he is not liable 
 for the loss of the trunk. Anniston Trans- 
 fer Co. V. Gurley, 107 Ala. 600, 18 So. 
 209, 34 L. R. A. 137. 
 
 Where a hackman ordeied to take a 
 box "to the early train" took it to such 
 train, and, finding no one there authorized 
 to receive it, carried it into the depot — a 
 safe building, locked at night — and, with 
 the baggage master's knowledge, placed 
 it on the platform where trunks for the 
 train were usually put, and the box was 
 lost, he was not, in law, negligent, such 
 delivery being a sufficient compliance with 
 the order. Manheim v. Carr, 62 Me. 473. 
 
 7. Manheim v. Carr, 62 Me. 473. 
 Defendants, who engaged to carry and 
 
 deliver a trunk to a certain depot, under 
 a contract to deliver it in a safe place, or 
 keep it until a delivery could be made 
 "to the boat, deposited it, with other bag- 
 gage, on the pier, from which several 
 boats started. Held, that the defendants 
 were liable for the loss of the trunk after 
 it was deposited at the pier. Sunderland 
 V. Westcott, 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. 260, 40 
 How. Prac. 468. 
 
 8. Delivery to independent warehouse- 
 men.— Black V. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90, 44 
 N. W. 1120. 
 
 Grain arrived over defendant's road, 
 consigned to plaintiffs, November 25th 
 and 26th, and was inspected on those days, 
 and weighed by the state weighmaster, 
 and stored by defendant on November 
 26th in a public warehouse fit for such 
 purposes, for and on behalf of plaintiffs, 
 subject to a general instruction given by 
 the railway companies to all the elevator 
 companies not to issue any warehouse 
 receipts until the paid freight bills were 
 presented. On the afternoon of Novem- 
 ber 27th ■ (Saturday), between 4 and 5 
 
 o'clock, the elevator company gave plain- 
 tiffs written notice that the wheat had 
 been placed to their credit, accompanied 
 with a report of the weight and grade. 
 The defendant did not present its freight 
 bill to plaintiffs until November 29th 
 (Monday). The wheat was accidentally 
 destroyed by fire in the elevator on the 
 night of November 27th without any fault 
 of either party. Both parties knew of and 
 acquiesced in the general custom of rail- 
 roads at that point, which was, in the 
 absence of special instructions to deliver 
 the grain to one of the public elevators 
 for the consignee, immedia!.ely upon in- 
 spection. Held, that defendant's liability 
 as carrier had terminated before the de- 
 struction of the property; and that the 
 instruction contained in the notice that 
 warehouse receipts would not be issued 
 to consignees until the paid freight bills 
 were presented, in no way affected the 
 situation of the property with reference 
 to tlie duty of the carrier. Arthur v. St. 
 Paul, etc., R. Co., 38 Minn. 95, 35 N. W. 
 718. 
 
 9. Partial delivery. — McKerall v. Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co., 76 S. C. 338, 56 S. E. 
 965. 
 
 The shipper is not bound to take any 
 and every remnant of goods, in whatever 
 condition they may be identified and of- 
 fered to him, short of total destruction. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Warren, 16 111. 
 502, 63 Am. Dec. 317. 
 
 A party delivered 1,716 pounds of rags, 
 put up securely in bags, to a common 
 carrier, to be transported to Chicago; on 
 demand the carrier offered some 500 
 pounds of rags lying loosely about. Held, 
 that an offer to deliver the rags in such 
 a condition, it not appearing that they 
 were tlie same rags, was not a delivery 
 pro tato, and that the carrier was liable 
 for the value of the whole. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Warren, 16 111. 50'3, 63 Am. Dec. 
 317. 
 
 10. Duty of consignee to accept partial 
 delivery. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Booton, 
 4 Tex. Civ. App. 103, 15 S. W. 502.
 
 527 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY 1«Y CARRlKR. 
 
 § 844 
 
 § 844. Carrier by Water.— In the absence of a special contract, goods will 
 be regarded as delivered when deposited upon the proper wharf at their place 
 of destination, at a proper time, and notice given to the consignee, after which 
 he has had a reasonable lime and opportunity to remove them.^i But in order 
 to relieve the carrier from responsibility, there must be a delivery on the wharf 
 to some person authorized to receive the goods, or some act must be done which 
 is equivalent to a delivery.'-' A mere deposit of the goods at the ship's own 
 wharf is not sufficient, without an acceptance by the consignee, where the goods 
 are not separated and set apart from the residue of the cargo, and reasonable 
 time and opijortunity given for their removal. '•"' And the discharge of a cargo 
 
 11. Carrier by water. — United Slalcs. — 
 Salmon Falls Mf-. Co. z'. The Tangier, 
 Fed. Cas. No. r2,2M, 1 Cliff. 39(5; The 
 Grafton, Fed. Cas. No. S.GoG, 01c. 43; 
 v^almon Falls Mfj?. Co. v. The Tangier, 
 ]-c(\. Cas. No. 12,2(57, 3 Ware 110; The 
 Middlesex, Fed. Cas. No. 9,533; Kennedy 
 V. Dodge, Fed. Cas. No. 7,701, 1 Ben. 
 311; The vSantec, Fed. Cas. No. 12,328, 
 2 Ben. 519; The Tybee, Fed. Cas. No. 
 14.304, 1 Woods 358; Warner v. The 
 Illinois, Fed. Cas. No. 17,184a. 
 
 Louisiana. — Segura v. Reed, 3 La. Ann. 
 ()95. See Northern v. Williams, etc., Co., 
 G La. Ann. 578. 
 
 Nczu York. — McAndrew v. Whitlock, 
 52 N. Y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. G57, affirming 33 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 623; Goodwin v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 154, 10 Am. 
 Rep. 457, reversing 58 Barb. 195. 
 
 ''As the steamboat or ship can not leave 
 the water, a usage has ripened into law, 
 that a delivery upon the wharf at a public 
 port, with notice to the consignee, will 
 e.xcuse the carrier by water. When there 
 is a contract for any particular mode of 
 delivery, that will, of course, govern." 
 Dean v. Vaccaro, 39 Tenn. (2 Head) 488, 
 75 Am. Dec. 744. 
 
 Where the master of a vessel delivered 
 the goods at the place chosen by the con- 
 signees, at which they agree to receive 
 them, and did receive a large portion of 
 them after full and fair notice, and the 
 master deposited them for the consignees 
 in proper order and condition at midday, 
 on a week day, in good weather, it was 
 a good delivery according to the general 
 usages of the commercial and maritime 
 law. Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 23 
 How. 28. 16 L. Ed. 412. 
 
 Bulky articles landed on a wharf are, 
 after notice to consignee, payment of 
 freight, and a reasonable time for their 
 removal, absolutely at his risk; and the 
 carrier is not liable, even as warehouse- 
 man, for resulting damage. Goodwin v. 
 Baltimore, "etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 154, 10 
 Am. Rep. 457, reversing 58 Barb. 195. 
 
 The ship is not liable for damage by 
 rain to cargo delivered on wharf, at re- 
 quest of cors'gnee, whose clerk assumed 
 charge thereof, but failed to employ suf- 
 ficient dravs to remove then, before night. 
 Ellswarth'z'. Wild Hunter, Fed. Cas. No. 
 4,411. 2 Wood.- 315. 
 
 Reasonable time is such as gives the 
 consignee- linu- enough, under all proper 
 and ordinary circumstances, and by pro- 
 ceeding in the ordinary mode of those 
 engaged in the same business, to provide 
 for the care and removal of the goods. 
 McAndrew v. Whitlock. 52 N. Y. 40, 11 
 Am. Rep. 657, affirming 32 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 623. 
 
 12. Sleade v. Payne, 14 La. Ann. 453. 
 
 Goods were shipper to a certain land- 
 ing, but no consignee was named, and no 
 l)ill of lading issued. When the boat 
 arrived, the goods were put on the bank 
 l:)y the clerk of the boat, who requested 
 a warehouseman to place them in a shed, 
 which he refused to do. Held, that there 
 was not such a delivery as released the 
 carrier from liability to consignees who 
 did not receive the goods. Bartlett v. The 
 Philadelphia, 32 Mo. 2:.G. 
 
 13. Delivery on wharf alone. — Redmond 
 z. Liverpool, etc.. Steamboat Co.. 46 N. 
 Y. 578. 7 Am. Rep. 390. reversing 56 Barb. 
 320. Warner v. The Illinois (Pa.). 17 
 Phila. 549. See Howland v. The Henry 
 Hood. Fed. Cas. No. 6.795. 
 
 Illustrations. — The carrier is liable 
 where the consignee made repeated calls 
 during the day, and the goods were not 
 placed on the wharf until an advanced 
 hour in the day, and lost through inatten- 
 tion of the carrier's servants. Segura f. 
 Reed, 3 La. Ann. 695. 
 
 Where goods, on arriving at destina- 
 tion, were^ by the defendant's direction, 
 put on the wharf, it was held that this was 
 nnt a delivery to the consignee, although the 
 goods were taken away (without the di- 
 rection of the consignee") by a carter 
 usually employed to transport his_ goods, 
 and the greater part actually received by 
 the consignee; and the defendant was lia- 
 ble for tiie goods not actually delivered. 
 Ostrander 7'. Brown (X. Y.). 15 Johns. 
 39, 8 Am. Dec. 211. 
 
 Where a vessel discharged goods m a 
 rainstorm which made it impossible for 
 the consignee to take them away, though 
 he knew of their arrival, and the carrier 
 did not check the goods off to the con- 
 signee in accordance with its custom, 
 there was not such a delivery to the con- 
 s'Ernee as relieved the carrier from liabil- 
 ity for the loss of the goods while they 
 were on the wharf. Morgan z: Dibble, 
 29 Tex. 107, 94 Am. Dec. 264.
 
 §§ 844-845 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 528 
 
 at a remote, unusual, or inaccessible spot, or upon an uncovered pier, so that it 
 is exposed to the weather or to any unusual hazard, may render the carrier lia- 
 ble for resulting injury, notwithstanding a stipulation against the consequences 
 of negligence in its bill of lading.^"* On failure of the shipper to make provi- 
 sion for receiving the cargo, the carrier is at liberty to treat the contract as 
 broken, and land the cargo at the usual place, if there is one, or procure a suita- 
 ble place at the shipper's expense, or he may wait for the shipper to appear, 
 and rely on obtaining compensation for the delay in an action for breach of the 
 implied contract to receive in a reasonable timc.^-'^ 
 
 § 845. Duties in Making Delivery. — Notice to Consignee — Necessity 
 for. — As to necessity ft)r notice to consignee of the arrival of goods, see else- 
 where.^" 
 
 Sufficiency of Notice. — The laws of the state where the delivery of an 
 interstate shipment is made govern as to the sufficiency of notice.^' The no- 
 tice must be reasonable ; ^^ it must inform the consignee with reasonable cer- 
 tainty that the carrier is ready to deliver, and of the place of delivery; and 
 must be given in business hours. !'•* Notice by mail is held sufficient,-*^ but it 
 must be addressed properly.-^ Newspaper notice is not good unless knowledge 
 of it be brought home to the consignee.-- And it is held insufficient as to goods 
 from abroad.-^ Notice may be given by posting on a bulletin board at the cus- 
 
 14. Discharge at remote or inaccessible 
 place. — Constable v. National, etc., Co., 
 154 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062. 
 
 15. Wordin v. Bemis, 32 Conn. 268, 85 
 Am. Dec. 255. 
 
 16. Necessity for notice to consignee. — 
 See post, "Carrier as Warehouseman," 
 Chapter 13. 
 
 17. Sufficiency of notice — What law 
 governs. — Greek-American Produce Co. 
 f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 4 Ala. App. 377, 
 58 So. 994. 
 
 18. Notice must be reasonable. — Craw- 
 ford V. Clark, 15 111. 561; Atlantic Nav. 
 Co. V. Johnson, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 475. 
 
 19. T. & P. R. Co. V. Schneider, 1 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 118. 
 
 20. Notice by mail. — Alabaiua. — South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Adams Mach. Co., 165 Ala. 
 436, 51 So. 779. 
 
 Compliance with Code 1896, § 4224, 
 which provides that a carrier, if the des- 
 tination of freight is a city or town having 
 2,000 or more inhabitants and a daily 
 mail, is not relieved from responsibility 
 as a carrier unless within twenty-four 
 hours after its arrival notice is given the 
 consignee personally or through the mail, 
 is not shown where one alleged notice 
 was mailed "within a day or two" after 
 arrival of the goods, and another notice 
 was mailed eighteen days after and only 
 two days before the goods were burned. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Adams Mach. Co., 165 
 Ala. 436, 51 So. 779. 
 
 Kexu York. — Friedman v. Metropolitan, 
 etc., Co., 90 N. Y. S. 401, 45 Misc. Rep. 
 383. 
 
 North Carolina. — Rule 1, Corp. Com. 
 Poythress v. Durham, etc., R. Co., 62 S. 
 E. 515, 148 N. C. 391, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 
 427. 
 
 U asliin'j,ton. — Normile v. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co., 77 Pac. 1087, 36 Wash. 21, 67 L. 
 R. A. 271. 
 
 21. Where goods were directed to the 
 consignee, whose name, and the number 
 of his place of business, were placed upon 
 the box, notice of their arrival, mailed 
 to him, without giving his number, which 
 in consequence thereof was returned, is 
 insufficient. Union Steamboat Co. v. 
 Knapp, 73 111. 506. 
 
 Mailing the notice to the place of de- 
 livery where the consignee was known 
 not to be doing business, and where the 
 notice would not be received, is insuffi- 
 cient. National Bank v. Southern R. Co., 
 135 Mo. App. 74, 115 S. W. 517. 
 
 An address upon a box intrusted to a 
 carrier read "Wm. Wood & Co., New 
 York," while the shipping ticket read "VV. 
 Wood." There were forty persons in 
 the New York directory, who bore the 
 name of "W. Wood." Held, that the 
 carrier did not fulfill its duty by mailing 
 a notice of the arrival of the box at desti- 
 nation to a "W. Wood" selected by 
 chance from the names in the directory. 
 Wood V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 96 N. Y. 
 S. 184, 48 Misc. Rep. 643. 
 
 22. Newspaper notice. — .Snow v. The 
 Inca, h'ed. Cas. No. 13,145a; Kohn v. 
 Packard, :j La. 224, 23 Am. Dec. 453. 
 
 The publication of the cargo list of a 
 steamer was not such a notice to the con- 
 signee as to discharge the shipowner from 
 liability under a bill of lading, the goods 
 having been unloaded and sold for stor- 
 age. Caruana v. British, etc.. Steam 
 Packet Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2484, 6 Ben. 517. 
 
 23. Goods from abroad. — Atlantic Nav. 
 Co. V. Johnson, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 475.
 
 529 
 
 TkANSl'(JKTATIOX AND DELIVERY I5V CAKKIKR. 
 
 § 845 
 
 toni house at a port where it is usual so to post such notices. 2^ Where a pack- 
 age is jointly addressed to two persons, notice to one of them is notice to both. 2' 
 Actual notice to the consignee's agent is sufficient ; -'• but notice to a drayman 
 merclv authorized to haul a consignee's goods from the depot,-" or to a person 
 at the consignee's place of business who represents that lie is the consignee, 2« 
 is held insufficient. Where a consignee has actual notice of the arrival of 
 freight, and does not demand it in a reasonable time thereafter, the manner of 
 notice is immaterial.-'' It is held a question for the jury whether notice is 
 sufficient.''" 
 
 Safe-Keeping of Goods. — I'ntil the goods are called for it is the duty of 
 the carrier to take i)roper care of them, as by depositing them in a safe place.'** 
 And wl'.ere circumstances prevent the removal of freight in such time as is 
 usually rc(iuired l)y the consignee, it is the carrier's duty to keep it under the 
 responsibility of a warehouseman.-''- But if the owner of goods is present at 
 their arrival, and is then notified that the carrier will not store such goods, 
 and still leaves them, the railroad company may ])Ut them off its premises; 
 though if the carrier afterwards place the goods in its shed it waives the 
 refusal and becomes liable as a dejiository.^'^ Where a consignee can not be 
 located, the carrier, if informed that the ownership of the property is in the 
 consignor, is bound to hold it a reasonable length of time, subject to the con- 
 signor's order.-'^ 
 
 Unloading Goods. — It is ordinarily the duty of the carrier to unload the 
 freight and de])osit it in a suitable place at which the consignee may receive it;^-"' 
 
 24. Posting notice. — Coiistal)le v. Na- 
 tional, etc., Co., l,-)4 U. S. .jI. 14 S. Ct. 
 l()(i'2. :{S L. Ed. 903. 
 
 25. Notice to joint consignee. — Wells v. 
 Anu'rican i'.x]). Co., 44 Wis. :54:.'. 
 
 26. Notice to agent. — Backhaus "'. Chi- 
 cago, etc., Iv. Co., 92 Wis. 393, ()(> N. W. 
 400. 
 
 27. Notice to drayman. — Berry v. West 
 Virginia, etc., R. Co., 30 S. E. 143, 44 W. 
 Va. .■538, ()7 Am. St. Rep. 781. 
 
 28. Cavallaro v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 110 
 Cal. 348, 42 Pac. 918, 52 Am. Rep. 94. 
 
 29. Southern R. Co. V. Adams Mach. 
 Co., If).-) .W'd. 430, .^1 So. 779. 
 
 30. It is a question for the jury wholher 
 notice given to a consignee hy a drayman. 
 at 5 o'clock p. m. of a Saturdaj-. of the 
 arrival of goods, which burned the follow- 
 ing day in the carrier's warehouse, was 
 not sut^icient, where the consignee kept 
 his place of business open that night till 
 9 o'clock, or later, and there was evidence 
 that the drayman offered to haul the 
 goods then. Frank v. Grand Tower, etc., 
 R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 181 
 
 31 Safe keeping of goods. — Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Moreliead, .■) W. Va. 293; 
 American Exp. Co. v. Hockett, 30 Tnd. 
 250, 95 Am. Dec. 691. See post, II, XT. 
 
 1 he carrier of goods deposited them 
 outside its depot, where they were injured 
 by the weather before they could be 
 taken Ijy the consignee. Held, that the 
 carrier was liable, as it was its duty to 
 warehouse the goods until called for by 
 the consignee. McHenry r. Philadelpliia. 
 etc.. R. Co. (Del.). 4 Har. 44S. 
 
 A carrier without compensation held 
 liable on the ground of gross negligence, 
 
 because he deposited the goods in a place 
 which was peculiarly unsafe at the time, 
 by reason of an anticipated raid of hos- 
 tile troops .-Xdams Exp. Co. v. Cressap 
 (Ky.). (■) Bush 572. 
 
 A usuage for the shipper to notify the 
 consignee, and for the consignee to call 
 at a railroad station and take the goods 
 without notice from the carriers, will not 
 excuse the railroad company for want of 
 proper care of the goods until they are 
 called for. Browning v. Long Island R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), 2 Daly 117. 
 
 32. Harris v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 9 
 Ky. L. Rep. 392. 
 
 33. Smith v. Nashua, etc.. R. Co., 27 
 X. H. Sf), 59 Am. Dec. 364. 
 
 34. Southern R. Co. v. Born Steel 
 Range Co.. 120 Ga. 527, 55 S. E. 173. 
 
 35. Duty to unload. — Beaumont v. Phila- 
 delphia, etc.. R. Co.. 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 
 224. See Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Bensley, 
 69 111. 630. 
 
 Portion of goods unloaded. — Where, 
 after notice to tlie consignee (^f tiie ar- 
 rival of goods and the removal of a portion 
 of those unloaded, the remainder of the 
 goods wliich have l)een unloaded are de- 
 stroyed by tire on the wharf, the fact 
 that the carrier has not unloaded a por- 
 tion of the consignment does not make 
 it liable for the destroyed goods. Wyn- 
 antskill Knitting Co. v. Murray, 90 Hun 
 554. 36 X. Y. S. 26, 71 N. Y. St. Rep. 33. 
 
 Where not duty to unload. — When a 
 car loaded witii fruit in tniskets is. at the 
 consignee's request, taken for unloading 
 to a platform so placed and constructed 
 tliat the fruit will be liable to damage from 
 the weather, and also liable to be stolen 
 
 1 Car— 34
 
 § 845 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 >30 
 
 but it is held that in the case of bulky freight shipped by cars the carrier is not 
 required to remove it from the car, but discharges its obligation by delivering 
 the car in a safe and convenient position for unloading at the place designated, 
 by the contract, or, in the absence of such designation, on its side track in the 
 usual and customary place for unloading by consignees. ^^^^ And when the con- 
 signee knows that the railroad company has no depot or agent at the place of 
 destination, leaving the car containing the goods on a side track at such place 
 is a good delivery, and relieves the carrier of further responsibility, and no 
 liability as warehouseman will be assumed.-"' Where the consignee undertakes 
 to unload the goods, using the carrier's machinery for that purpose, the carrier 
 is not answerable for any loss or injury that may happen in the course of 
 unloading.^^ 
 
 Opportunity to Inspect and Remove Goods. — After goods have arrived 
 the carrier must give the consignee a reasonable opportunity to inspect ^^ and 
 
 if taken from the car, it is not the dutj' 
 of the defendant to unload the car. 
 Davies z: Alichigan Cent. R. Co., 131 111. 
 App. r.49. 
 
 Under Arkansas Act March 24, 1887, 
 which provides that a common carrier of 
 freight shall load, transport, and unload 
 freight for the one charge for transpor- 
 tation, defendant could be excused from 
 unloading brick on the ground only tha; 
 plaintiff voluntarily bound himself by 
 agreement, express or implied, to unload 
 it. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Bruce, 55 
 Ark. 65, 17 S. W. 363. 
 
 Illustrations. — A car load of bricks was 
 consigned to plaintiff at "Cloverfield Sta." 
 There was no station agent or side track 
 there, and no one was upon the ground 
 to receive the bricks. After waiting a 
 few minutes, during which the locomotive 
 whistle was repeatedly sounded, the car 
 was carried to a station a mile beyond, 
 and left upon a side track. Held that, 
 since the loaded car could not be left 
 upon the track, it was the duty of the 
 company to unload and leave the bricks 
 upon the ground, and, the freight having 
 been prepaid, plaintiff was entitled to re- 
 cover their value. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Gilmer, 89 Ala. 534, 7 So. 654. 
 
 A railroad contracted at its own ex- 
 pense to load oil and transport it over 
 its road to a specified point, "and thence 
 by barges to the warehouse" of the com- 
 pany, and "cause the same to be unloaded 
 and returned without delay;" tlie oil com- 
 pany to pay "on the delivery of the oil." 
 Held, that the contract required the rail- 
 road company to unload the oil from the 
 barges at the warehouse, and no freight 
 could be recovered for oil not unloaded. 
 New York Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Standard 
 Oil Co., 87 N. Y. 486, affirming 20 Hun 39. 
 36. Car load freight. — Beaumont v. 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 38 Pa. Super. 
 Ct. 224. McCabe v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 154 Til. App. 380. See Yount v. Wabash 
 R. Co., 119 S. W. 1, 136 Mo. App. 697. 
 
 Alabama Code 1907, § 5604. requires 
 cars shipped for "track delivery" to be 
 placed on tracks maintained by rail- 
 
 road companies at accessible places for 
 unloading cars, for the purpose of de- 
 livering freight in car load lots. Greek- 
 American Produce Co. v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co., 4 Ala. App. 377, 58 So. 994. 
 
 37. South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 
 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749; Reid v. Southern 
 R. Co., 63 S. E. 113, 149 N. C. 423. See 
 Bachant v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 187 
 Mass. 392, 73 N. E. 642, 105 Am. St. Rep. 
 408. 
 
 38. Where consignee unloads. — If A., 
 for whom goods are transported by a 
 railroad company, authorizes B. to receive 
 the delivery and transportation thereof 
 to A. and B. instead of receiving the 
 goods at the usual place of delivery, re- 
 quests the agent of the company to per- 
 mit the car which contains the goods to 
 be hauled to a near depot of another rail- 
 road company, and such agent assents 
 thereto, and assists B. in hauling the car 
 to such depot, and B. there requests and 
 obtains leave of that company to use its 
 machinery to remove the goods from the 
 car, then the company that transported 
 the goods is not answerable for the want 
 of care or skill in the persons employed 
 in so removing the goods from the car, 
 nor for the want of strength in the mach- 
 inery used in the removal of them, and 
 can not be charged with any loss that 
 may happen in the course of such de- 
 livery to A. Lewis V. Western R. Corp. 
 (Mass.), 11 Mete. 509. 
 
 39. Opportunity to inspect goods. — 
 United Slates.— Th& Mary Washington, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 9,229, 1 Abb. U. S. 1, Chase 
 125; Dibble v. Morgan, Fed. Cas. No. 3, 
 881, 1 Woods 406; Bradstreet v. Heran, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 1,792, 1 Abb. Adm. 209. 
 affirmed in Fed. Cas. No. 1792a, 2 Blatchf. 
 llf. 
 
 Kansas. — Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Maris, 16 Kan. 333; Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., 55 
 Kan. 525, 40 Pac. 899. 
 
 Nezv Foir/^.— Clark v. Masters, 14 N. Y. 
 Super. Ct. 177. 
 
 If the consignee can not examine the 
 goods without unlading, tlic carrier is
 
 531 
 
 TRAXSl'OKTATIOX AND DIXIVKKV liV CAKKlKK. 
 
 §§ 845-84(5 
 
 remove 1116111,-*^' in the usual hours of business.^' lint an actual inspection of the 
 goods and their removal by the consignee is not necessary to a delivery by a car- 
 
 ri(.r.'- 
 
 Duty to Inform Consignee of Charges.— A statute pnnidmg that carriers 
 
 shall inform anv consignee of the correct amount due for freight according to 
 classification and rales established and tiled is not limited to a shipment where 
 rates have been established and filed; but the carrier must inform the con- 
 signee of the charges in any case.-*'' 
 
 § 846. Effect of Custom or Usage.— The prima facie obligation of a 
 carrier with resjKct to (klivcry may be affected by a well-established and gen- 
 erally well-known custom and usage.-*^ Delivery according to the well-known 
 custom and usage of the i)ort will discharge the carrier of its responsibility.-*' 
 
 hound U) unlade the cargo at his own 
 expense, and place it in such a position 
 that the consignee may exercise these 
 rights, before he can claim his whole 
 freight. Clark v. Masters, 14 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 177. 
 
 40. Opportunity to remove goods. — 
 United States.— Dihhlc v. Morgan, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 3,881, 1 Woods 406. 
 
 Kansas. — Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Maris, Ki Kan. 333; Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co.. 55 
 Kan. 525, 40 Pac. sun. 
 
 Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jones, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 494. 
 
 Louisiana. — Maignan v. New Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co., 24 La. Ann. 333; Sleade v. 
 Payne, 14 La. Ann. 453; Segura v. Reed, 
 3 La. Ann. 695. 
 
 Nezv York.— Frice v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 
 323; Goodwin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 50 N. Y. 154, 10 Am. Rep. 457, reversing 
 58 Barb. 195; McAndrcw v. Whitlock, 
 52 N. Y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. 657, aflirming 
 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. 623. 
 
 Nezv Jersey. — Burr v. Adams Exp. Co., 
 71 N. J. L. 263, 58 Atl. 609. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Backhaus v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co.. 92 Wis. 393, 66 N. W. 400; Parker 
 V. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co.. 30 Wis. 689. 
 
 Where a consignee requires several days 
 to remove a large quantity of I)ulky mer- 
 chandise, the carrier is liable as such for 
 quantities as are lost or stolen from its 
 warcliouse before such time expires, 
 though lie pointed out to the consignee 
 all the merchandise before he began to 
 remove it. Maignan z'. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co.. 24 La. Ann. 333. 
 
 If goods are received on a holiday, and 
 it has been the usage of the consignee 
 not to receive goods on those days, he 
 is entitled to a reasonalile time after 
 that day to remove them, Iiefore the car- 
 rier's liability will cease. Russell Mfg. 
 Co. V. New Haven Steamboat Co., 50 N. 
 Y. 121. 
 
 41. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Wichita 
 WHiolesale Grocery Co.. 55 Kan. 525, 40 
 Pac. 899; Leavenworth, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Maris, 16 Kan. 333. 
 
 42. Dibble v. Morgan. Fed. Cas. No. 
 3,881, 1 Woods 406. 
 
 43. Duty to inform consignee of charges. 
 — Harrill Bros. v. Southern R. Co., 144 
 N. C. 532, 57 S. E. 383. Revisal 1905, § 
 2633. 
 
 44. Effect of custom or usage. — I'nited 
 States. — Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 
 23 How. 28, 38, 16 L. Ed. 412. 
 
 Alabama. — Alabama, etc., R. Co. y. Kidd, 
 29 Ala. 221; Melbourne v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 88 Ala. 433, 6 So. 762; Mobile, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Williams, 54 Ala. 168. 
 
 Georgia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Everett, 
 37 Ga. 688; Mosher & Co. v. Southern 
 Exp. Co., 38 Ga. 37. 
 
 Illinois. — Cahn v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 71 111. 96. 
 
 lozva. — Angle & Co. v. Mississippi, etc., 
 R. Co., 9 Iowa 487. 
 
 Kentucky. — Briant v. Louisville, etc.. R. 
 Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 47. 
 
 Nezi; Hampshire. — Stimson v. Jackson, 
 58 N. H. 138. 
 
 Pennsvkania. — McMasters r. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 69 Pa. 374, 8 Am. Rep. 
 264. 
 
 Ufalu—Sharp v. Clark. 13 Utah 510, 4,% 
 Pac. 566. 
 
 Considered part of contract. — Long- 
 established, uniform, and well-known 
 usage as to the mode of delivery will be 
 considered as a part of the contract of 
 the carrier. The Richmond. Fed. Cas. 
 No. 11,796, 1 Bi.ss. 49. 
 
 When no consignee is named, but merely 
 the place of destination, what constitutes 
 a delivery depends on the usages of the 
 trade. Galloway v. Hughes (S. C), 1 
 Bailey 553. 
 
 Must be established by proof. — Where 
 a carrier relie.-; on local usage as con- 
 trolling the question of sufficiency of de- 
 livery, such local usage must be affir- 
 matively established by proof, and evi- 
 dence of a single case in which such 
 a usage has been acted upon is insuffi- 
 cient. ' Rowland r. Miln (N. Y.), 2 Hilt. 
 150. 
 
 45. Delivery according to usage of port. 
 — Constable f. Xational. etc.. Co., 154 U. 
 S. 51. 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062; 
 Richardson v. Gooddard (U. S.), 23 How. 
 28, 16 L. Ed. 412; Field v. The Lovett 
 Peacock, Fed. Cas. No. 4,768; Irzo v.
 
 § 846 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 532 
 
 But such custom or usage should be known to the shipper,'*'^ or of such character 
 that he is chargeable with notice of it."*^ Also, it must not be unreasonable,'*'* 
 or contrary to the contract of shipment.^"^ 
 
 ]'erkins, 10 Fed. 779. The Alill Bay (D. 
 C). 13 Fed. ISl; Atlantic Nav. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 475. See 
 Richmond z-. Union Stcanil)oat Co., 87 
 N. Y. 340. 
 
 46. Custom must be known. — Ccniral 
 R., etc., Co. V. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393; 
 Packard v. Earle, 113 Mass. 280; Steam- 
 boat Albatross v. Wayne, 16 O. 513, af- 
 firming 4 West. L. J. 527, 1 O. Dec. 219. 
 
 But see Turner v. Huff, 46 Ark. 222, 
 55 Am. Dec. 580, holding that a carrier 
 by water can not be held for loss of goods 
 delivered at the proper landing place, al- 
 though there is no warehouse there, and 
 he gives no notice to the consignee, if 
 such is the uniform usage, although neither 
 shipper nor consignee knows the usage. 
 
 Where there are no directions for trans- 
 portation, save such as may be inferred 
 from marks on the goods, the carrier is 
 only bound to transport and deliver them 
 at their destination according to the es- 
 tablished usage of the business in whicli 
 he is engaged, whether the consignor 
 knew of the usage or not. Hemstead v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.), 28 Barb. 
 485. 
 
 47. To effect the prima facie obligation 
 of a carrier with respect to delivery, the 
 custom and usage must be so uniformly 
 acquiesced in, by length of time, that the 
 jury will feel themselves constrained to 
 say that it entered into the minds of the 
 parties, and made a part of the contract. 
 Cahn z: Michigan Cent. R. Co., 71 111. 96. 
 
 A shipper who has been in the habit 
 of shipping over a certain railroad is 
 chargeable with notice of a general and 
 long-established custom of the road to de- 
 liver freight to connecting lines as con- 
 signors. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Mur- 
 ray, 72 111. 128. 
 
 48. Custom must be reasonable. — Reed 
 V. Richardson. 98 Mass. 21(), 93 Am. Dec. 
 155. See The Mill Boy, 13 Fed. 181, 4 
 McCrary 383. 
 
 Instances of reasonable customs. — The 
 custom of a port to stop discharging 
 cargoes of brimstone when there is a high 
 wind is not unreasonable. Bertellote v. 
 Part of Cargo of Brimstone, 5 Hughes 
 201, 3 Fed. 661. 
 
 A custom of a railroad company to 
 deposit freight on the platform of small 
 way stations without storing it, and with- 
 out notice to the consignee, is a reason- 
 able one, and will operate to discharge 
 the company from its common-law li- 
 ability for loss occasioned by its failure to 
 store it. McMasters v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 69 Pa. 374, 8 Am. Rep. 264. 
 
 Plaintiff sold to B. certain goods, to be 
 paid for in cash on delivery, and B. sold 
 
 them lo W. Plaintiffs, by order of B., 
 caused the property to be shipped on 
 board a vessel of which defendant C. 
 was master, taking a receipt therefor, 
 which they continued to hold. W., with- 
 out having paid for the property, and 
 without any actual possession or in- 
 dicia of ownership, procured from the 
 owner of the vessel a bill of lading as 
 owner and shipper of the goods, and in- 
 dorsed it to persons advancing money on 
 it. Held, in an action of claim and de- 
 livery for the goods, that proof of a cus- 
 tom to deliver the bill of lading only to 
 holders of the shipping receipt was ad- 
 missible; such custom being reasonable, 
 and tending to protect the shipper and 
 shipowner. Blossom v. Champion (N. 
 Y.), 37 Barb. 554. 
 
 A usage of expressmen, whenever pack- 
 ages arrive at their places of business 
 specially addressed to consignee at estab- 
 lishments where many persons sojourn or 
 are employed, to deliver them in the of- 
 fices or counting-rooms of such estab- 
 lishments, to the clerks there in charge, 
 for the consignees, and take the receipts 
 of the clerks therefor, without giving no- 
 tice to the . consignees personally, held 
 to be a reasonable usage, in respect to 
 ordinary packages — as a box of clothing 
 of the value of $50. Sullivan v. Thomp- 
 son, 99 Mass. 359. 
 
 49. Custom must not violate contracts. — 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 119 Pa. 24, 
 13 Atl. 756, 4 Am. St. Rep. G26; CoUender 
 v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 200, 14 Am. Rep. 
 334, reversing 64 Barb. 457. 
 
 Illustration. — In an action against an 
 express company for goods which it con- 
 tracted to deliver to a certain consignee, 
 "C. O. D. $375, from T.'s Express," evi- 
 dence of a custom showing that the con- 
 tract means that T.'s Express was re- 
 quired to collect of the consignee, is in- 
 admissible, as the contract clearly makes 
 it incumbent on defendant to collect from 
 T.'s Express. Collender v. Dinsmore, 55 
 N. Y. 300, 14 Am. Rep. 234, reversing 64 
 Barb. 457. 
 
 Proof of a custom l)etween the carrier 
 and a third person to make and receive 
 delivery of goods formerly shipped with- 
 out production of the bill of lading, which 
 was not brought home to the shipper, or 
 acquiesced in l)y him, will not exonerate 
 the carrier from liability when instructed 
 to deliver only on production of bill of 
 lading. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 119 
 Pa. 24. 12 Atl. 756. 4 Am. St. Rep. 626. 
 See Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co., 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 
 Am. St. Rep. 505, affirming 62 Mo. App. 
 531.
 
 533 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND Di;i.I\i:kV I'.Y CARRIKR. 
 
 § 847 
 
 § 847. Time of Delivery. — Reasonable Time. — Where the contract of 
 shi])ineiit dtjcs not s])ecif\ an\ particular time for delivery, it must be made 
 within a reasonable time.''" I f a common carrier by water be prevented from 
 delivering goods on account of the freezing up of the river, his obligation to 
 deliver them in a reasonable time after the resumption of navigation will still 
 continue.'''' W hat is such reasonable time can not be defined by atiy general 
 rule, but must (lei)end up(jn the circumstances of each particular case. Thus the 
 mode of conveyance, the distance, the nature of the goods, the season of the 
 year, the character of the weather, and the ordinary facilities of' transportation 
 are matters i)roperly to be considered.'- .Anrl whether goods are delivered within 
 a reasonable time is a question for the jur)-.'"' 
 
 Within Reasonable Hours.— The carrier must tender the goods at a rea- 
 sonable lime."'' and within reasonable hours,''"' which is generally held to be 
 within Imsincss hours."''' .\nd if the goods are tendered after the hours of busi- 
 
 50. Reasonable time. — I'liitcd States. — 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. Kirby, 225 U. S. 
 155, 5() L. Ed. 1033, 32 S. Ct. 048, Ann. 
 Cas. 1914A, 510. 
 
 Gcoviiia. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Geor- 
 gia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 17 S. 
 E. 904; Central R., etc., Co. v. Skellie, Sft 
 Ga. 686, 12 S. E. 1017; Rome R. Co. v. 
 Sullivan, etc., Co., 25 Ga. 228; Central 
 R., etc., Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382. 17 
 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37. 
 
 Missouri. — See Bartlett v. The Phila- 
 delphia, 32 Mo. 256. 
 
 Ohio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. r. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579; 
 Wyler, etc., Co. v. Louisville, etc., Rail- 
 way, 6 N. P., N. S., 589, 18 O. D. X. P. 
 72?. 
 
 Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Nelson, 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.), 272. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Tram- 
 mel!, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 312, 68 S. W. 716; 
 Morgan v. Dibble. 29 Tex. 107, 94 Am. 
 Dec. 264; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 512; Trice v. Mil- 
 ler, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 440; Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. Haynes, 72 Tex. 175, 
 10 S. W. 398; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Baugh 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 245. 
 
 Virginia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239. 
 
 PVest Virginia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Morehead, 
 5 W. Va. 293. 
 
 "When goods are delivered to a car- 
 rier for transportation, the contract which 
 the law implies is, whether there be any 
 writing or not, that the carrier, for a 
 reasonable compensation, will within rea- 
 sonable time deliver the goods at the 
 place of destination to the consignees." 
 Waring & Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. Reprint 
 553. 
 
 Where an owner of goods delivers them 
 to a railroad company to be shipped to 
 a designated point, and a bill of lading 
 is issued to the owner, in whicli lie is 
 
 named as both shipper and consignee, and 
 which contains the words, "notify" a third 
 person, the company will not be relieved 
 of liability to the owner for loss occa- 
 sioned by a failure to comply with its ob- 
 ligation, to deliver the goods at the point 
 of destination within a reasonable time, 
 by showing that such failure was due to 
 the instructions not to deliver given by 
 the person whom it was directed in the 
 l)ill of lading to notify of the arrival of 
 the goods at their destination who at the 
 time of such instructions was not in pos- 
 session of the bill of lading nor entitled 
 to its possession. Florida Cent., etc.. R. 
 Co. f. Berry. 116 Ga. 19, 42 S. K. 371. 
 That a shipper insisted upon the pay- 
 ment of drafts drawn on a third person, 
 who was to l)e notified of the arrival of 
 the goods, after notice that, in accord- 
 ance with the directions of such third 
 person, the goods had been transported 
 to a point other than the original place 
 of destination, does not relieve the com- 
 ])any from liability to the shipper for 
 failure to transport the property within 
 a reasonable time. Florida Cent., etc., 
 R. Co. r. Berrv, 116 Ga. 19, 42 S. E. 371. 
 
 51. Lowe ?■. Moss. 13 111. 477. 
 
 52. What is reasonable time. — McGraw 
 t. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 18 W. \'a. 361, 
 41 Am. Rep. 696. See Columbus, etc., R. 
 Co. T'. Flonrno}-. 75 Ga. 745. 
 
 53. Question for jury. — Columbus, etc., 
 R. Co. T'. Flournoy, 7.") Ga. 745. 
 
 54. Tender at reasonable time. — Mar- 
 .-hall r. -Xniorican Kxp. Co., 7 Wis. 1. 
 See Bartlett z: The Philadelphia, 32 Mo. 
 256. 
 
 55. Within reasonable hours. — Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. f. Traninicll, ~S Tex. Civ. App. 
 312, 315, 68 S. W. 7H"., affirmed in 95 
 Tex. 680, no op.: Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Haynes. 72 Tex. 175. 10 S. W. 39S. 
 
 56. Within business hours. — Morgan v. 
 Dil)blo, 29 Tex. 107. 119. 04 Am. Dec. 264; 
 T. & P. R. Co. r. Schneider, 1 Tex. App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 118. 
 
 It is the duty of an express company 
 to deliver packages as soon ps '^r-'-tV-ble 
 after arrival, within the usual hours of
 
 §§ 847-848 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 534 
 
 ness, or when the consignee is unable to receive them, such tender will not dis- 
 charge the carrier."^' But an offer to deliver a package to a bank need not be 
 made during banking hours.'''' unless such is the special engagement, or the es- 
 tablished usage of the place of destination.'^'-^ 
 
 Delivery on Holiday. — Where it is a general and uniform custom at a place 
 to which freight is consigned not to make delivery on a certain holiday, negli- 
 gence can not be predicated on the failure of a carrier to make delivery on that 
 day. And one who ships goods to an agent at such place is bound by the custom, 
 though he had no actual knowledge thereof.'"'^' r)Ut the carrier may discharge a 
 cargo on a holiday, where there is no law or custom forbidding a delivery on 
 such holiday. ^^ 
 
 Delivery during Rain. — It has been held that for a carrier which has con- 
 tracted to deliver the goods on the platform at a station where it has no building 
 or agent, without further responsibility therefor, to deliver them during a rain, 
 is not negligence.^- 
 
 § 848. Necessity for Personal Delivery. — Carriers undertaking to de- 
 liver in person must make actual delivery to the proper person at his residence 
 or place of business.^^ 
 
 Carriers by wagons are required to deliver the goods to the consignee at 
 his house or place of business, and their liabifity as carrier continues until 
 such delivery.'''-^' 
 
 Express Companies. — An express company is bound to make personal de- 
 
 transacting general business in such 
 place. Marshall v. American Exp. Co., 
 7 Wis. 1. 
 
 57. Hill V. Humphreys (Pa.), 5 Watts 
 & vS. 12.3, 39 Am. Dec. 117. 
 
 58. Banking hours. — Young v. Smith 
 (Ky.), 3 Dana 91, 28 Am. Dec. 57; Mar- 
 shall V. American Exp. Co., 7 Wis. 1. 
 
 In an action by a bank against an ex- 
 press company to recover for a package 
 alleged to have been lost through the 
 negligence of the company, it appeared 
 that it had been the custom of the com- 
 pany to deliver packages to the bank after 
 banking hours. Held, that a tender of 
 a package to the bank V/i hours after 
 banking hours is equivalent to a delivery. 
 Marshall v. American Exp. Co., 7 Wis. 1. 
 
 59. Young V. Smith (Ky.), 3 Dana 91, 
 28 Am. Dec. .57. 
 
 60. Delivery on holiday. — Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. V. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S. W. 
 124, 64 L. R. A. 443. 
 
 61. Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 23 
 How. 28, 10 L. Ed. 412. 
 
 A ship was ready to discharge, and, the 
 consignees being notified, she began to 
 discharge on Monday. The consignees 
 took the freight away up lo Wednesday 
 night, leaving then a few bales on the 
 wharf. Thursday was the annual "Fast 
 Day" appointed by the governor. Dur- 
 ing the forenoon of that day more cargo 
 was unloaded, and on the afternoon all 
 that was on the wharf was burnt. Held, 
 that there was a good delivery to dis- 
 charge the carrier from all liability. 
 Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 23 How. 
 28, 16 L. Ed. 412. 
 
 62. Delivery during rain. — Allam v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 1S3 Pa. 174, 38 Atl. 
 709, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 535. 
 
 63. Necessity for personal delivery. — 
 Baldwin v. American Exp. Co., 23 111. 197, 
 74 Am. Dec. 190. 
 
 In early cases it was held that, as a 
 general rule, a common carrier must de- 
 liver the goods, to the owner or consignee 
 personally at the place where the trans- 
 portation ends, and from this duty he can 
 only be discharged by a special contract, 
 or proof of an opposite usage. Schroeder 
 V. Hudson River R. Co., 12 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 55. See Fisk v. Newton (N. Y.), 1 
 Denio 45. 43 Am. Dec. 649; Bartlett v. 
 The Philadelphia, 32 Mo. 256. 
 
 A stipulation in a bill of lading that the 
 goods should be forwarded to "Louisville 
 depot only" is sufficient to relieve the 
 common carrier from making a personal 
 delivery to the consignee at his residence 
 or place of business. Merchants' Des- 
 patch, etc., Co. V. Merriam, 111 Ind. 5, 11 
 N. E. 954. 
 
 That a consignee had guaranteed the 
 rent of a building, and was thus compelled 
 to pay it, docs not justify the carrier in 
 delivering the goods there. Mahon v. 
 Blake, 125 Mass. 477. 
 
 64. Carriers by wagons. — Morris, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ayres, 29 N. J. L. 393, 80 Am. 
 Dec. 215; Banscmer v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 
 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. See Gibson 
 V. Culver (N. Y.), 17 Wend. 305, 31 Am. 
 Dec. 297; Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 
 23 How. 28, 39, 16 L. Ed. 412.
 
 535 
 
 TRANSPORTATION' AND UKLISKKV IJY CARRIER. 
 
 § 848 
 
 livery either lo the residence or i)lace of Inisiness of the consignee.'^^ And it 
 must use reasonable diligence and make reasonable inquiry to find the consignee. '^"^ 
 The rule as to the place and mode of delivery of express packages may be mod- 
 ified by special agreement under which delivery may be made at the express 
 office, and the duty of the carrier is then measured by the usage or the terms 
 of the special agreement."' Where it is the custom for consignees to call for 
 packages at the company's office, on being notified of their arrival, it is not bound 
 to make i)ersonal delivery."** An exj^ress company may fix reasonable delivery 
 
 65. Express companies. — Illinois. — 
 American Merchants' L'nion Exp. Co. v. 
 Wolf, T'J 111. 430. 
 
 Indiana. — Railroad Comm. v. Adams 
 Exp. Co., 171 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 337, 11) 
 L. R. A., N. S., 93, rehearing denied t^'> 
 N. E. 966. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — .\merican Union Exp. 
 Co. V. Robinson, 72 Pa. 274. See Union 
 Exp. Co. V. Ohleman, 92 Pa. 323. 
 
 Nezv Jersey. — See Burr v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 71 N. J. L. 263, 58 Atl. 609. 
 
 West Virginia. — Hutchinson v. United 
 States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 
 94!), 14 L. R. .-\.. X. S., 393. 
 
 Reciprocal duties. — An express carrier's 
 duty to deliver to the consignee in per- 
 son, and the consignee's duty to receive, 
 are reciprocal. The consignee cannot, by 
 design, or to promote his convenience, 
 deprive the carrier of the right to termi- 
 nate by delivery the liability as insurer 
 within a reasonable time. Where the con- 
 signee has notice of the arrival, and the 
 carrier is ready to deliver but is prevented 
 by the consignee's absence, the liability 
 as carrier ends, and thenceforward the 
 liability is for reasonable care. Adams 
 Exp. Co. 7'. Darnell, 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. 
 Dec. 5S2. 
 
 A usage of expressmen, whenever pack- 
 ages arrive at their places of business 
 specially addressed to consignees at es- 
 tablishments where many persons so- 
 journ or are employed, to deliver them in 
 the offices or counting rooms of such estab- 
 lishments, to the clerks there in charge, 
 for the consignees, and take the receipts 
 of the clerks therefor, without giving no- 
 tice to the consignees personally, held to 
 be a reasonable usage, in respect to ordi- 
 nary packages, as a box of clothing of 
 the value of $50. Sullivan v. Thompson, 
 99 Mass. 259. 
 
 A stipulation, in the receipt for an ex- 
 press package addrosscd to a consignee 
 at a particular place in a certain city, that 
 it "is to be forwarded to our agency near- 
 est or most convenient to destination 
 only," held not to discharge the express- 
 man from all liability other than for the 
 safe delivery of the packap,e at his own 
 place of business in that city, and its safe- 
 keeping there upon arrival. If he has 
 agents there who habitually deliver such 
 packages according to the special address 
 of each, he is bound to deliver the pack- 
 
 age as it is specially addressed, according 
 to the reasonable usages of his business. 
 Sullivan v. 'rhoin])snn. <)<» Mass. 259. 
 
 Where an express company deposited 
 goods on the station platform at the place 
 of destination, without delivering them to 
 the consignee, or placing them in the cus- 
 tody of any person, held, that this was 
 gross negligence, and rendered the com- 
 pany liable as a common carrier for their 
 loss, although the company's agent, to 
 whom they were tendered by the con- 
 signor's messenger for shipment, at first 
 declined to receive them because the com- 
 pany had no agent at the place of desti- 
 nation, and was not allowed to use the 
 depot of the railroad company, and al- 
 though the shipping agent, iii signing the 
 receipt, added the words "owner's risk," 
 but without the knowledge or consent of 
 consignor, and although the consignee, 
 when he ordered the goods to be for- 
 warded by the express company, knew 
 that the company had no agent at the 
 place of destination, and he had lately 
 received goods forwarded by it under re- 
 ceipts containing the same added words. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Armstead, 50 Ala. 
 350. 
 
 66. Witbeck v. Holland, 55 Barb. 443, 38 
 How. Prac. 273, affirmed in 45 N. Y. 13, 
 6 Am. Rep. 23. 
 
 An express company is liable for failure 
 to deliver a package to the consignee, 
 where its inquiries as to him were con- 
 fined to a few persons in the vicinity of its 
 place of business, and it obtained infor- 
 mation as to a person so named, who was 
 the father of the consignee, but made no 
 inquiry of him. Witbeck c. Holland, 45 
 N. Y. 13, 6 Am. Rep. 23. 
 
 An express company is liable for a 
 package that was stolen after having been 
 held by the company for some time be- 
 cause it did not know of the consignee's 
 residence, where it knew of two families 
 in the city by the same surname as the 
 consignee, and by inquiring of either could 
 have learned of the residence. Witbeck 
 v. Holland, 55 Barb. 443, 38 How. Prac. 
 273. 
 
 67. Special agreement. — Hutchinson v. 
 United States Exp. Co.. 63 W. Va. 128, 59 
 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. \.. X. S.. 30.-^. 
 
 68. Custom for consignees to call for 
 packages. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Holland, 
 1()<.) .\la. 362, 19 So. 66.
 
 § 848 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 536 
 
 limits in towns and cities ; ^'' anel where it has estabhshed such hmits, it is not 
 liable for refusing to deliver packages at the store of one who, knowing of the 
 limits, moved his store outside thereof, though the limits established in another 
 direction were further from the company's office than such store."^*^' 
 
 Railroad Companies. — The general rule that the undertaking of a carrier 
 to transport gt)ods to a particular destination includes the obligation of safe de- 
 livery to the consignee or his agent does not apply to railroad companies. A 
 universal custom relieves them from the duty of personal delivery to the con- 
 signee."^ And the same principal is applicable to a corporation of freighters 
 owning a line of freight cars."- If a railway company, receiving goods for trans- 
 portation over its road, exacts the payment of cartage in advance of shipping, 
 this will constitute an express contract to deliver at the consignee's place of busi- 
 ness, and its liability for damages will not cease until this is done."^ 
 
 Carriers by "Water. — Where the contract is to carry 1)y water the carrier is 
 not required to make personal delivery to the consignee ; it is enough that the 
 master discharge the goods upon the wharf, giving due and reasonable notice 
 to the consignee of the fact.""* The rule that the carrier is not bound to de- 
 
 69. Reasonable limits for delivery. — 
 
 Railroad Conim. z'. Adam.s Exp. Co., 171 
 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 966, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 
 93, denying rehearing 85 N. E. 337. 
 
 70. Bullard V. American Exp. Co., 107 
 Mich. 695, 65 N. W. 551. 
 
 71. Railroad companies. — United States. 
 — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate 
 Commerce Comm., 188 Fed. 229; South- 
 ern Pac. Co. V. Interstate Commerce 
 Comm., 188 Fed. 341. 
 
 Alabama. — South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 
 66 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749. 
 
 Illinois. — Vincent v. Chicago, etc., R, 
 Co., 49 111. 33; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Hallock, 64 III. 284; Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Friend, 64 111. 303. 
 
 Indiana. — Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. 
 
 Michigan. — ^Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Ward, 2 Mich. 538. 
 
 Missouri. — Buddy v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Mo. App. 206. 
 
 Where a part of goods were destroyed, 
 and the remainder arrived uninjured, ttie 
 carrier, in order to avoid liability for the 
 entire amount of the goods shipped, is 
 not bound to make, nor offer to make, a 
 personal delivery of the property to the 
 consignee. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bivens, 13 Ind. 263. 
 
 72. Freighters. — Merchant's Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Hallock, 64 111. 284. 
 
 Where it is the usage of a merchants' 
 dispatch transportation company, upon 
 the consignee's request, to deliver goods 
 shipped upon their arrival to teamsters 
 not in the company's e"mploy, who deliver 
 them to the consignee at the latter's ex- 
 pense, collecting their charges from him, 
 in the absence of such a request the com- 
 pany's liability as a carrier is terminated 
 by storing the goods in its warehouse pro- 
 vided for that purpose, if such warehouse 
 is safe and suitable. Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Hallock, 64 111. 284. 
 
 73. Charge for cartage. — Cahn v. Michi- 
 gan Cent. R. Co., 71 111. 96. 
 
 If a railroad company accepts goods for 
 transportation from B. to W., and charges 
 in addition to the usual freight for trans- 
 portation between these points a further 
 compensation for streetage to the foot of 
 Sixth street, and fails to deliver the goods 
 to the consignee or his agent, or at the 
 foot of Sixth street, the consignor is en- 
 titled to recover, although the jury may 
 find that the terminus of the road is 
 within the depot in W., and that the goods 
 were safely delivered at that point. Bal- 
 timore, etc., R. Co. V. Green, 25 Md. 72. 
 
 74. Carrier by water. — United States. — ■ 
 The Eddy (U. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 18 L. Ed. 
 486; Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 23 
 How. 28, 16 L. Ed. 412; The Grafton, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 5,656, Olc. 43. 
 
 Indiana. — Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. 
 
 Louisiana. — Kohn v. Packard, 3 La. 224, 
 23 Am. Dec. 453. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Chickering v. Fowler 
 (Mass.), 4 Pick. 371. 
 
 Ne?v York. — McAndrew v. Whitlock, 52 
 N. Y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. 657, affirming 33 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 633; Redmond v. Liver- 
 pool, etc.. Steamship Co. (N. Y.), 56 Barb. 
 320. 
 
 Pcnnsxhania. — Cope v. Cordova (Pa.), 
 1 Rawle 203. 
 
 Contra. — The responsibility of a car- 
 rier upon the Ohio river does not cease 
 upon the delivery of goods on the wharf, 
 and notice given to the consignee, but it 
 is his duty to attend to the actual delivery. 
 Hemphill v. Chenie (Pa.), 6 Watts & 
 S. 62. 
 
 A promise by a shipmaster to deliver 
 goods to a consignee does not l)ind him 
 tfj deliver tliem personally, or at any par- 
 ticular wharf. Chickering v. Fowler 
 (Mass.), 4 Pick. 371. 
 
 Unless a carrier by water has under- 
 taken to do something more, wlicn it de-
 
 537 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DIXIVKRV BV CARRIER. 
 
 §§ 848-849 
 
 liver to the consignee al his place of business may be controlled by well-estab- 
 lished custom."^ 
 
 §§ 849-853. Place of Delivery— § 849. In General.— A carrier must 
 deliver goods at a safe place;''' acccNsiblc to the conhiguee." And where de- 
 livery is to be made from the car il must be placed where it can be conveniently 
 unloaded '^ A carrier by water is not obliged to deliver freight at a pier nearest 
 to the address of the consignee as given in the bill of lading."" As a general 
 rule placing cars on side tracks does not complete the carrier's contract of car- 
 riage,^" unless such is the agreement of the i)arties.'^' 
 
 Destination Not on Carrier's Route. — W hen a common carrier undertakes 
 to transport goods, consigned lo a person residing beyond his route, at a point 
 to which there is no connecting carrier, lii^ liability is terminated by flelivery 
 of the goods to a warehouseman at the point upon his route nearest to the resi- 
 dence of the consignee, and notifying the latter.82 In such case, where the evi- 
 dence is conflicting, what is the proper place of delivery is a question for the 
 
 jurv.**^ 
 
 Regulations Respecting Delivery. — A carrier may require the consignee to 
 receive freight on the platform of its depot. «-^ And it may have yards for its 
 convenience^n handling, storing, and distributing freight, and will not be obliged 
 as a common carrier to transjiort freight from one point in the yards to another 
 for the convenience of shi])pers.^-'' 
 
 livers the goods into tlie custody of the 
 wharfinger, upon the wharf, the transit is 
 ended, and its responsibility as carriers 
 ceases. Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Champ- 
 lain Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 180, 5G Am. 
 Dec. 68. 
 
 Deposit on bank of river. — In the ab- 
 sence of any special contract, it is neg- 
 ligence in a common carrier of goods to 
 deliver them by merely placing them 
 upon the l)ank of a river, in the absence 
 of tlie consignee, and not under the care 
 of the agents of the carrier, he having 
 agents at the point for the purpose of re- 
 ceiving and delivering goqds. Dresbach 
 V. California Pac. R. Co., .57 Cal. 402. 
 
 75. Effect of custom. — Briant v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., y Ky. L. Rep. 47. 
 
 76. Safe place. — A railroad company is 
 responsililc for the loss of a heavy arti- 
 cle, incurred in the act of delivery to the 
 consignee at an unusual and unfit place. 
 So held where the road employees had 
 rolled from a car a hogshead of molasses 
 upon a "new platform," and in their at- 
 tempt to help the consignee's driver to 
 raise it thence, into his wagon, it burst. 
 Benbow v. North Carolina R. Co., 61 N. 
 C. 421, 98 Am. Dec. 76. 
 
 77. Position of accessibility. — Russell 
 Grain Co. v. Wabash R. Co., S9 S. W. 
 908, 114 Mo. App. 488; Brooks Mfg. Co. 
 V. Southern R. Co., 68 S. K. 243, 152 N. 
 C. 66,5. 
 
 A sale of goods after arrival at destina- 
 tion, but before delivery, did not relieve 
 tlio carrier from the d'lty to the buyer, 
 derived from the consignee, to place the 
 goods in a position of accessibility for 
 deliverv. Russell Grain Co. v. Wabash 
 R. Co.^ 89 S. W. 908, IM Mo. App. 488. 
 
 78. Bachant v. Boston, etc., Railroad, 
 187 Mass. 392, 73 N. E. 642, 105 Am. St. 
 Rep. 408. 
 
 79. Western Transp. Co. v. Hawley 
 (X. Y.), 1 Daly 337. 
 
 80. Placing cars on side track. — Klass 
 Comm. Co. V. Wabash R. Co., 84 Mo. 
 App. 164; Loeb v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 85 S. W. 118. See Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Haynes, 72 Tex. 175, 10 S. W. 
 398. 
 
 81. Southern R. Co. v. Barclay, 56 So. 
 26, 1 Ala. App. 348. 
 
 When a consignee of goods is fully ad- 
 vised at the time of shipment that the 
 railroad company has no depot or agent 
 at the place of destination, the exigencies 
 of its business not requiring such, the lia- 
 bility of the company as common car- 
 rier terminates with the safe delivery of 
 the car containing the goods on a side 
 track at such place, and no liability as 
 warehouseman will be assumed. South, 
 etc., R. Co. r. Wood. 66 Ala. 167, 41 .\m. 
 Rep. 749. 
 
 82. Destination not on carrier's route. 
 - — Salinger v. Simmons (X. Y.'), 8 .Abb. 
 Prac, X. S.. 409. 57 Rarb. 513, 2 Lans. 325. 
 
 83. Question for jury. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. Bcrnlicim, 113 Ala. 489, 21 So. 
 405. 
 
 84. Delivery on platform. — Donovan v. 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co., 64 Tex. -519. 
 
 85. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Higdon, 
 14S S. W. 26, 149 Ky. 321. 
 
 But a carrier by railroad can not arbi- 
 trarily and without any relation to the 
 use to which it is put designate a part_ of 
 its track or system as yards or switching 
 limits, and assert that it owes no duty 
 as a carrier in that district except such as 
 it chooses to assume, nor can it classify
 
 § 849 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 538 
 
 Contradiction between Bill of Lading and Marks on Goods. — In case of 
 a shipment of goods, the point of deHvery called for by the bill of lading must 
 control, though differing from the marks on the box of goods shipped, and must 
 be taken to be the contract between the parties/"^*' A stipulation in a bill of 
 lading to deliver goods at a particular point is not changed by the carrier's agent 
 marking the goods with a dift'erent address, so as to make the carrier liable for 
 failing to deliver at the latter place. ^" 
 
 Usage or custom may control as to the place of tlelivery.'^'* But such usage 
 or custom nmst not be unreasonable or illegal,""'* and must have been known by 
 the consignee. ^^' 
 
 or divide its trackage into parts, and say 
 that on one part it is a carrier and on 
 another it is not. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hig-don, 148 S. W. 26, 149 Ky. 321. 
 
 86. Contradiction between bill of lad- 
 ing and marks on goods. — Moore & Son 
 ■I'. Jrienry, IS Alo. App. 35. 
 
 A bill of lading acknowledged the re- 
 ceipt of the goods from the consignors, 
 in New York, addressed to M., at B., 111., 
 but contained a cause that they were to 
 be forwarded "to Chicago depot only." 
 The consignors had been in the habit of 
 so shipping. The goods arrived at Chi- 
 cago, were stored in a warehouse, and 
 were destroyed by the great fire of Oc- 
 tober 9, 1871. Held, that the presumption 
 of an agreement to deliver the goods at 
 B., raised by the acceptance of the goods 
 so marked, was overcome by the express 
 contract in the bill of lading, and M. 
 could not recover from the carrier for 
 the loss. Merchants' Dispatch, etc., Co. 
 V. Moore, 88 111. 136, 30 Am. Rep. 541. 
 
 Expression in bill of lading not con- 
 trolling. — The expression in the bill of 
 lading, "to be forwarded to East St. Louis 
 station, on its line," is not such an express 
 contract to forward to East St. Louis as 
 overcomes the implied agreement, from 
 the "marks and destination," to carry to 
 St. Louis, a point beyond. Wabash, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Jaggerman, 115 111. 407, 4 N. 
 E. 641. 
 
 87. King V. De Land, etc., R. Co., 10 
 O. Dec. 8, 18 Wkly. L. Bull. 39. 
 
 88. Usage or custom. — United States. — 
 The Grafton, Fed. Cas. No. 5,656. Olc. 
 43, affirmed in Fed. Cas. No. 5,655, 1 
 Blatchf. 173. 
 
 Alabama. — Stone v. Rice, 58 Ala. 95. 
 
 Illinois. — Cahn v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 71 111. 96. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Nash, 
 43 Ind. 423. 
 
 Michigan. — Gates v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 Co., 122 N. W. 1078, 158 Mich. 477. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Stimson v. Jackson, 
 58 N. H. 138. 
 
 New York. — Atlantic Nav. Co. v. John- 
 son, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 475. 
 
 North Carolina. — Homeslv v. Elias, 06 
 N. C. 330. 
 
 South Carolina. — See Galloway v. 
 Hughes, 1 Bailey 553. 
 
 A custom of a railway company to de- 
 
 liver goods at the consignee's place of 
 business is not established by the fact 
 that the company delivered goods ar- 
 riving at its depot to a carter, to be by 
 him delivered, only when the consignee 
 did not furnish his own teams or give 
 directions to the contrary; the company 
 not being interested in the cartage of 
 the goods. Cahn v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co., 71 111. 96. 
 
 Where it has been the custom of a 
 railroad company to deliver cars loaded 
 with lumber for the plaintiff, at or near 
 his place of business, it will be presinned 
 that a contract of shipment was made 
 with reference to such custom, and the 
 company is bound to deliver the cars 
 at the usual place. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Nash, 43 Ind. 423. See Gates v. Detroit, 
 etc., R. Co., 122 N. W. 1078, 158 Mich. 
 477. 
 
 A usage to deliver goods consigned to 
 a particular person, though in different 
 parcels, at one place, will relieve the car- 
 rier from his responsibility as insurer, 
 where he offers to make such delivery, 
 but the consignee claims the right to re- 
 quire a delivery at different places. The 
 Richmond, Fed. Cas. No. 11,796, 1 Biss. 49. 
 
 89. Usage must be reasonable and le- 
 gal.—Rccd V. Richardson, 9S Mass. 216, 
 93 Am. Dec. 155. 
 
 Illustrations. — A custom can not be up- 
 held as reasonable which would justify 
 a steamboat carrier in putting off goods 
 consigned to such a landing at the usual 
 place on the river bank, without any 
 protection, when the landing had been 
 broken up by an inundation and the wash- 
 ing away of the building, and the persons 
 in charge had removed. Stone v. Rice, 
 58 Ala. 95. 
 
 A usage of a port, that, in order to 
 constitute a delivery of water-borne goods 
 by the carrier, a receipt therefor must be 
 given by the consignee or his agent, and 
 that until then the liability of the carrier 
 continues, is unreasonable and illegal. 
 Reed v. Richardson, 98 Mass. 216, 93 Am. 
 Dec. 155. 
 
 90. Colorado. — Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 De Witt, 1 Colo. App. 419, 29 Pac. 524. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Packard v. Earle, 113 
 Mass. 280. 
 
 0/!w.— Albatross v. Wayne, 16 O. 513. 
 
 Contra.— See Turrjer v. Huff, 46 Ark. 
 222, 55 Am. Dec. 580.
 
 539 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY 15Y CARRIKR. 
 
 § 850 
 
 § 8 50. Usual Place at Destination.— The place of destination is the proper 
 place for a carrier to deliver a shipment of goods ;"i and the consignee is under 
 no obligation to receive them elsewhere.'-'- L'nless the specific place is named ni 
 the contract of shipment, property is to be delivered at the usual place for mak- 
 ing such delivery at the point of destination.'*"* In the absence of a custom au- 
 thorizing the agent of a railrtjad company, at the recpiest of the consignee, after 
 the car lias reached its destination, to undertake to deliver it at another place, 
 such an undertaking is nothing more than a i)ersonal accommodation on the 
 part of the agent, and can not render his principal liable.'-'' The unqualified re- 
 fusal of a consignee to receive goods tendered him by the carrier is a waiver of 
 
 91. Destination named in bill of lading. 
 
 — Arkansas. — St. Louis, (.■tc. R. Co. v. Kil- 
 berry, 83 Ark. h7, 102 S. \V. 894. 
 
 Georgia.— Home R. Co. v. Sullivan, etc., 
 Co.. 14 Ga. 277. 
 • Illinois.— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rose, 
 20 111. App. 670: Coats v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 134 111. App. 217. 
 
 0/,/o._Waring & Co. v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 553; Oskamp 7'. vSouthern Kxp. 
 Co., 61 O. St. 341, 56 N. E. 13; Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Oskamp, etc., Co., 14 O. C. 
 C. 176, 7 O. C. D. 417. 
 
 Texas.— GnU, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 
 Clark, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 512; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Baugh (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 42 S. W. 245. 
 
 Where "privilege of reshipping" is re- 
 served in the bill of lading, the carrier 
 continues liable until the goods are safely 
 delivered at the port of destination. The 
 privilege of reshipment is to allow him to 
 carry the goods in another's vessel, if 
 he will, but does not discharge or affect 
 his liability for the safe delivery of the 
 goods. Little V. Semplc. 8 Mo. 99. 40 
 Am. Dec. 123. 
 
 Where a package was misaddressed, a 
 delivery to the consignee at a place other 
 than that to which the package was_ di- 
 rected would have been at the carrier's 
 peril. Mott V. Long Island R. Co., 123 
 N. Y. S. 49. 
 
 Change of destination by consignee. — 
 Where a consignee, having his place of 
 business at East St. Louis, was in the 
 habit of receiving goods in car-load lots 
 billed to St. T<ouip, and had directed a 
 carrier, whose line terminated at East St. 
 Louis, to hold at East St. Louis all such 
 goods carried by it, and consigned to 
 him at St. Louis, held, that the carrier 
 was justified in still delivering such goods 
 to a connecting carrier, and forwarding 
 them to St. Louis, in spite of such noti- 
 fication. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Jagger- 
 man, 115 Til. 407. 4 N. E. 641 
 
 92. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 2 Texas 
 .^pp. Civ. Cas., § 512; Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. r. .Aidams, 49 Tex. 748, 759, 30 Am. 
 Rep. 116. See Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Frank 
 Co. (Tex.L 48 S. W. 210. 
 
 93. Usual place. — .-Irh-ansas. — Missouri. 
 etc., R. Co. V. Pullen, 90 Ark. 182, 118 S. 
 W. 702. 
 
 Illitwis.—Cr'dwiord v. Clark, 15 111. 561. 
 
 .Missouri. — Russell Grain Co. v. Wabash 
 R. Co., 89 S. W. 908, 114 Mo. App. 488. 
 
 AVw Jersey. — Erie R. Co. v. Wanaquc 
 Lumber Co., 75 N. J, L. 878, 69 Atl. 163. 
 
 Xew York. — Atlantic Nav. Co. v. John- 
 son. 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 475. 
 
 Where a local custom bound a railroad 
 company to deliver cars loaded with lum- 
 ber for plaintiff at or near his place of 
 Inisiness, and the local agent agreed to 
 run such cars to the usual place, and the 
 luml>er was thereafter destroyed, the 
 company is liable. Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Nash, 43 Ind. 423. 
 
 Depot or warehouse. — Carriers by rail- 
 road and canal usually deliver at ware- 
 houses belonging to themselves or oth- 
 ers. Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 23 
 How. 28, 39, 16 L. Ed. 412. 
 
 A carrier's contract of carriage contin- 
 ues until delivery at its depot or ware- 
 house where goods are customarily un- 
 loaded and delivered. Klass Comm. Co. 
 V. Wabash R. Co., 84 Mo. App. 164; Loeb 
 V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 85 S. W. 
 118. 
 
 Where usual place unsafe. — A steam- 
 boat carrier, having goods consigned to 
 a consignee at a landing where there had 
 been a warehouse keeper who usually re- 
 ceived and took care of goods landed 
 there, can not avoid liability by proving 
 a delivery of goods at the usual place on 
 the river bank, without any protection or 
 guard, when the landing had in the mean- 
 time been broken up by an inundation, 
 and the washing away of the buildings 
 and the removal of the person which 
 constituted it a landing. Stone r. Rice, 
 58 Ala. 95. 
 
 Where the usual wharf for discharging 
 is blocked so tliat a vessel can not obtain 
 access to it, tlie discharge of her cargo, 
 for the mutual advantage of ship and 
 consignees, at a neighboring wharf, 
 which is a fit and proper place therefor, 
 is not a deviation such as to render the 
 companv an insurer of cargo there dis- 
 charged without notice to the consignee, 
 until its actual delivery to him. Consta- 
 ble 7'. National, etc., Co., 154- U. S. 51, 
 
 14 S. Ct. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903. 
 
 94. Melbourne 7'. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 Co.. 88 Ala. 443, 6 So. 762.
 
 §§ 850-852 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 540 
 
 the right to insist on a tlehvery at the usual place of delivery. ^^ 
 
 § 8 51. Specified Place. — A carrier must deliver a shipment at a specified 
 place where it so agrees ; ^^ and delivery at such place will, in any case, be suffi- 
 cient.^" Under a carrier's demurrage rule, so providing, where delivery of car- 
 load freight can not be made on a particular track selected, the carrier is en- 
 titled to make delivery at the nearest available point. ''^ 
 
 § 8 52. Intermediate Point. — The one who has the right to receive the 
 goods shipped to a certain destination may withdraw them at any point on the 
 route, on payment of the freight to the destination in case it has not been pre- 
 paid,^^ where he can do so without unreasonable interference with the business 
 of the carrier;^ and if he receives the goods before they have arrived at the 
 place of deliverv. the carrier is relieved from further res])onsibility.- Rut an 
 
 95. Effect of refusal to receive goods. 
 
 — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Montmollcn. 145 
 Ala. 468, 39 So. 820. 117 Am. St. Rep. 58. 
 
 96. Delivery at specified place. — Massa- 
 chusetts. — Chickering z'. Fowler (Mass.), 
 4 Pick. 371. 
 
 Micliigati. — -Moore v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co., 3 Mich. 23. 
 
 Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 342. 
 
 IVisconsin. — Sultana v. Chapman, 5 Wis. 
 454. 
 
 Because of the lov7 stage of water, the 
 boat could ascend the river, does not ex- 
 cuse the defendant's failure to deliver the 
 goods at the specified place. Cox, etc., 
 Co. V. Peterson, 30 Ala. 008, 68 Am. Dec. 
 145. 
 
 Where goods are marked vi^ith the 
 name and place of residence of the owner, 
 and are described in the bill of lading as 
 so marked, and nothing further appears 
 to indicate their destination, the residence 
 of the owner will be held to be their ul- 
 timate place of destination. Brown & Co. 
 V. Mott & Co., 22 O. St. 149. 
 
 Effect of custom. — -Evidence of a cus- 
 tom among the steamboat men to ascend 
 the river as high as the stage of the wa- 
 ter in it permitted, and then to land their 
 cargo and deposit the goods in ware- 
 houses, is not admissible for the defend- 
 ants, in an action against the owners of 
 a steamboat carrier for failing to deliver 
 goods at the place specified in their bill 
 of lading. Cox, etc., Co. v. Peterson, 30 
 Ala. 608, 68 Am. Dec. 145. 
 
 But the delivery of the cotton by de- 
 fendant at its wharf at West Wego, 
 which is on the opposite side of the river 
 from New Orleans, was a compliance 
 with the bill of lading requiring its de- 
 livery at the port of New Orleans, al- 
 though West Wego was not at that time 
 within the boundaries of the port of New 
 Orleans, as defined in the statute, it be- 
 ing, in a well-understood commercial and 
 business sense, the part of that port 
 where steamship companies rightfully ex- 
 pected to receive cotton from Texas for 
 transportation to European ports. Reiss 
 V. Texas, etc., R. Co., 98 Fed. 533. 39 C. 
 C. A. 149; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reiss, 99 
 
 Fed. 1006, 39 C. C. A. 680. Affirmed 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reiss, 22 S. Ct. 253, 
 183 U. S. 621, 40 L. Ed. 358. 
 
 Illustrations. — Wliere a railroad com- 
 pany contracts to deliver a car of lumber 
 to the consignee in a specified part of the 
 city, a tender of the lumber to the con- 
 signee at its station in the city is not a 
 compliance with its undertaking. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Driskell (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 128 S. W. 460. 
 
 The liability of a carrier who con- 
 tracted to deliver goods in Pittsburg was 
 not changed to that of a warehouseman 
 by his depositing the goods at his ware- 
 house in Allegheny City, just across the 
 river, and but a few hundred yards from 
 his warehouse in Pittsburg. Graff v. 
 Bloomer, 9 Pa. 114. 
 
 Under a bill of lading reciting the ship- 
 ping of goods on a particular ship, to 
 be landed at a certain place, the goods 
 must be landed there from the ship, if 
 it can be done with safety to her. Shaw 
 V. Gardner (Mass.), 12 Gray 488. 
 
 The consignee of a part of a cargo of 
 grain, coming from the lakes to Buffalo, 
 has the right to select the elevator into 
 which it shall be discharged. Richmond 
 v. Union Steamboat Co., 8 Abb. N. C. 60, 
 affirmed in 87 N. Y. 240. 
 
 A bill of lading whereby the ship con- 
 tracts to deliver a cargo of coal at a 
 designated port to the consignee, "or his 
 assigns," is not an express undertaking 
 to deliver at the particular coal wharf 
 owned by the consignee. Smith v. Lee, 
 06 Fed. 344, 13 C. C. A. 500. 
 
 97. Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.), 23 
 How. 28. 10 L. Ed. 412. 
 
 98. Wooley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Wis.), 130 N. W. 616. 
 
 99. Delivery at immediate point. — 
 Sharp V. Clark, 13 Utah r.lO l.-i Pac. 506. 
 
 1. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Sargent, 19 
 O. St. 438. 
 
 2. Geoi'gia. — Bruhl v. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 103 Ga. 583, 30 S. E. 209. 
 
 Maine.—Stone v. Waitt, 31 Me. 409, 52 
 Am. Dec. 621. 
 
 Mississippi. — Bennett v. Byram & Co., 
 38 Miss. 17. 75 Am. Dec. 90. 
 
 New York. — Parsons v. Hardy (N. Y.),
 
 541 
 
 Tk.WSI'OKTATION AM) DI'.I.I \i;r V \:y CAKKIKK. 
 
 §§ 852-853 
 
 offur to receive the goods on cerlain conditions, which is refused, will not operate 
 to relieve the carrier from his contract to deliver them at the point to which 
 they are consigned.-"' 
 
 § 8 53. Shipments in Carload Lots. — A carrier is bound, in the absence of 
 a contrary custom or toutract, lu deliver shipments received in carload lots at 
 the consignee's place of business, when located on its industrial tracks ; •*" but it 
 is not bound, at its own charge, to make delivery beyond its own or leased 
 tracks."' 
 
 Delivery of Grain — Statutory Provisions. — L'nder the Illinois statutes re- 
 lating to warehousemen, railroad companies can not deliver grain received for 
 transportation to any other warehouse than that to which it was consigned, with- 
 out the consent of the owner or the consignee.'' In order for the statutes to 
 ajjply, the grain must be in bulk and consigned to a particular warehouse at the 
 lime of sliipment;" and such warehouse must be connected by some track with 
 the line of the railroad conipan\ and be. in fact, a ])ortion thereof.'' Where a 
 
 14 Wend. 315, 28 Am. Dec. 521; Sweet v. 
 Barney, 23 N. Y. 335. 
 
 Ohio. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Sar- 
 gent, 19 O. St. 438. 
 
 Pciuisvlt'iinia. — Arbuckle v. Thompson, 
 37 Pa. 170. 
 
 The expense of transportation, after 
 the j^oods liave been unciindiiionally re- 
 ceived by the consignee at an intermedi- 
 ate port, is to be l)orne by the consignee. 
 Reed v. Dick (Fa.), 8 Watts 479. 
 
 3. Arl)uckle z\ Thompson, 37 Pa. 170. 
 
 4. Shipments in car load lots. — Banner 
 Grain Co. z'. Great Northern R. Co., 137 
 N. W. IGl, 119 Minn. 68, 41 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 678; \'incent z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 49 111. 33. 
 
 5. Banner Grain Co. v. Great Northern 
 R. Co., 137 N. W. 161, 119 Minn. 68, 41 
 L. R. A., N. S., 678; Brooks Mfg. Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 68 S. E. 243, 152 N. C. 
 665. 
 
 6. Grain — Illinois statute. — Act Feb. 16, 
 1867. § 22; Rev. St., c. 114, § 82; Vincent 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 49 111. 33. 
 
 It is no sufficient excuse for the com- 
 pany to refuse to deliver it that it can 
 not do so without large additional ex- 
 pense, caused by the loss of the use of 
 motive power, labor, and service, and loss 
 of use of cars while the same are being 
 delivered and unloaded at such elevators 
 and brought back, for it is precisely that 
 for whicli the company is paid its freight. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. People, .")6 111. 3()5, 
 8 Am. Rep. 690. 
 
 A contract by a railroad company- with 
 certain elevators that it will deliver grain 
 to them exclusively is not a valid excuse 
 to the company for refusing to deliver 
 grain to other elevators upon the line of 
 its way, the owners of which are not par- 
 ties to the contract, and to which grain 
 has been consigned. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. People, 56 111. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690. 
 
 A railroad company' can not evade the 
 dutj' of receiving and delivering grain in 
 bulk to a particular elevator on its line of 
 road, to which it was consigned, on tlie 
 
 ground that it had the right to establish 
 its own usage in that regard, and, never 
 having held itself out as a carrier of grain 
 in Inilk, except on condition that it might 
 choose the consignee, this had become 
 the usage, beyond which it could not be 
 compelled to go. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 People, 56 111. 365. 8 Am. Rep. 690. 
 
 7, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stanbro, 87 
 111. 195. 
 
 8. People T'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 
 111. 95, 8 Am. Rep. 631. 
 
 The provisions of Const., art. 13, § 5, 
 that all railroad companies shall deliver 
 grain to any elevator that can be reached 
 by any track which "can be used" by 
 such companies, does not refer to mere 
 physical possibility. A company can not 
 be compelled to run cars over a track for 
 the use of which it has no license or con- 
 tract. Hoyt V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 93 
 111. tH)l, affirming 1 111. App. 374. 
 
 Where a carrier contracted to use an- 
 other's side track for the purpose of de- 
 livering grain to plaintitif's elevator, sit- 
 uated on such side track, it was held, 
 tliat plaintiff's elevator was to be consid- 
 ered on the line of defendant's road, for 
 the purpose of delivering grain as a com- 
 mon carrier. Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. Na- 
 tional Elevator, etc., Co., 153 111. 70. 38 
 N. E. 915, affirming 50 111. App. 339, and 
 distin.guishin.g Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stanbro, S7 111. 195. 
 
 Illustrations. — A railroad company en- 
 tered the city from different points upon 
 separate tracks, these separate tracks or 
 lines of road being called "divisions." The 
 elevator was situateii upon a track used 
 by the company in connection with the 
 business of one of those divisions exclu- 
 sively, init could be reached from the 
 other division, though by a very in- 
 direct route, and subjected the company 
 to great loss of time and pecuniary dam- 
 age, in the delay that would be caused 
 to their regular trains and business in 
 their other division. Held, that the roads 
 constituting these different divisions.
 
 §§ 853-854 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 542 
 
 railroad has provided a warehouse on its own track which is ample in capacity 
 and apparatus to receive, contain, and unload all grain ordinarily transported 
 in bulk over its road, a delivery of grain in bulk to such warehouse is sufficient,'^ 
 if not consigned to any other warehouse on the line of its road.^^ A contract 
 by which a railroad company agrees to deliver to an elevator all cars of grain 
 consigned to said elevator brought to a certain ])oint over its road, binds the 
 company to deliver the grain to the elevator, though it was not consigned 
 thereto until after it reached such place. ^^ 
 
 §§ 854-857. To Whom Delivery May Be Made— § 854. Consignee or 
 Agent. — The duty of a carrier is discharged by delivery to the consignee,^ - 
 
 though belonging to the same corpora- 
 tion, and having a common name, were, 
 tor the purposes of transportation, sub- 
 stantiallj- different roads, constructed un- 
 der different charters, and the track upon 
 which the elevator in question was sit- 
 uated, having been laid for "the conven- 
 ience especially of one of those divisions, 
 and onlj' approachable from the other 
 under the difficulties mentioned, could not 
 be regarded as upon the line of the lat- 
 ter division, so as to make it obligatory 
 upon the company to deliver thereat 
 freight coming over that division. Chi- 
 cago & N. W. Ry. Co. V. People, 56 111. 
 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690. 
 
 9. It appeared that the track upon' 
 which the elevator was situated was 
 owned and used by defendant carrier and 
 another company in common, and was 
 a direct continuation of the line of one 
 of the defendant's divisions, and of con- 
 venient and easy access from that di- 
 vision, and was used by the defendant not 
 only to deliver grain to other elevators 
 thereon, some of which were more diffi- 
 cult of access than that of the relator, 
 but also to deliver lumber and other 
 freight coming over such division; thus 
 making it not only legally, but actually, 
 by positive occupation, a part of the road. 
 Held that, in reference to grain coming 
 over that division, the track upon which 
 the plaintiff's elevator was situated was 
 to be regarded as a part of the defend- 
 ant's line of road, and it was its duty to 
 deliver such grain to that elevator, if 
 consigned thereto. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. People, 56 111. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690. 
 
 10. People V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 55 
 ni. 95, 8 Am. Rep. 631. 
 
 11. National Elevator, etc., Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 50 111. App. 339, af- 
 firmed 153 111. 70, 38 N. E. 915. 
 
 12. Delivery to consignee. — United 
 States. — North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727. 31 
 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549, 24 L. Ed. 
 285; Brittan v. Barnaby (U. S.), 21 How. 
 527, 16 L. Ed. 177; Conard v. Atlantic 
 Ins. Co. (U. S.), 1 Pet. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189. 
 
 Arkansas. — Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.), 150 S. 
 W. 1028. 
 
 Ccor^ia. — McCaffrey v. Georgia South- 
 ern Railroad, 69 Ga. 622; Bass v. Glover, 
 63 Ga. 745; Brulil v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 103 Ga. 583, 30 S. E. 269; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Fant Fish Co., 12 Ga. App. 447, 
 78 S. E. 197. 
 
 A'czij York. — Gass 7'. Astoria Veneer 
 Mills, 134 App. Div. 184, 118 N. Y. S. 
 982; Marshall v. New York Cent. R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 45 Barb. 502, affirmed in 48 N. 
 Y. 660. 
 
 Ohio. — Oskamp v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 01 O. St. 341, 56 N. E. 13, reversing on 
 other grounds, 14 O. C. C. 76, 7 O. C. 
 D. 417; Steamboat John Owen v. John- 
 son, 2 O. St. 143. 
 
 Tennessee. — Dean v. Vaccaro, 39 Tenn. 
 (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744; Butler 
 V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 76 Tenn. 
 (8 Lea) 32. 
 
 Texas. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Gray- 
 son County Nat. Bank, 100 Tex. 17, 93 
 S. W. 431, reversing 91 S. W. 1106. 
 
 JVashiugton. — • Bonds-P'oster Lumber 
 Co. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Wash. 
 302, 101 Pac. 877. 
 
 Consignee prima facie owner. — A car- 
 rier may presume, in the absence of some 
 notice to the contrary, that the consignee 
 is the owner of the goods. Sweet v. Bar- 
 ney, 23 N. Y. 335, affirming 24 Barb. 533; 
 Sturges z'. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 166 Mich. 
 231, 131 N. W. 706. 
 
 Minnesota Gen. St., c. 39, § 15, provides 
 that a conditional sale shall be absolutely 
 void as against the creditors of the ven- 
 dee and subsequent purchasers and mort- 
 gagees in good faith, unless the note or 
 contract, or copies thereof, shall be filed 
 as provided. Held, where plaintiff deliv- 
 ered a piano to a common carrier for 
 shipment, and transferred the bill of lad- 
 ing to the consignee, who recovered from 
 the carrier the full value of the piano, 
 which was destroyed I)y fire before deliv- 
 ery, the fact that a copy of the sale, 
 which was conditional, was filed as re- 
 quired by statute, was not notice to the 
 carrier, and the latter had a right to rely 
 on the presumption that the title was in 
 the consignee. Dyer v. Great Northern 
 R. Co., 51 Minn. 345, 53 N. W. 714, 38 
 Am. St. Rep. 506. 
 
 Delivery to joint consignee. — Where a 
 purchaser of wagons from one who bor- 
 rows money from another to enable him
 
 543 
 
 TKAXSl'ORTATIOX AND DELIVKRV BY CARRIF.R. 
 
 § 854 
 
 or 
 
 by his direction, i'' or to his agent authorized by him to receive the 
 
 to fill Uic order, altliousli requested by 
 both the seller and lender to send the 
 money to the latter, sends it by express, 
 in a package addressed jointly to the 
 seller and lender, as though they were a 
 lirni, the express company, delivering the 
 package to the seller, is not liable to the 
 lender for his interest therein, merely for 
 the fact that the agent to whom the pur- 
 chaser delivered the package knew that 
 the lender had shipped the wagons to the 
 purchaser by railway, and had sent a bill 
 tliereof for collection, which had l^een re- 
 turned to the lender uiip;iid. Wells v. 
 Anurican I'.xp. Co., 44 Wis. 342. 
 
 Warehouseman as consignee. — Where 
 a bill of lading contains a stipulation that 
 the goods shall be delivered "into a ware- 
 house or to assigns" at a certain land- 
 ing, the warehouseman at the landing is 
 the consignee; and, if he consents that 
 the goods be landed at a point less than 
 ten feet above the surface of the water, 
 the consignor can not recover for dam- 
 ages to the goods by a flood on the 
 ground that defendant violated Code, §§ 
 896, 897, making carriers liable in double 
 the value of the goods damaged by flood, 
 if they are landed at a point less than ten 
 feet perpendicular above the sutface of 
 the water. Winston v. Cox, etc., Co., 38 
 Ala. 2(is. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where bills of lading 
 for beans shipped l)y plaintiff referred to 
 commission merchants wlio had bought 
 the beans from plaintiff as the shippers, 
 and there was no evidence of notice to 
 the carriers that plaintiff had any inter- 
 est in the beans, a delivery by the ulti- 
 mate carrier to the proper persons named 
 in the bills was not a conversion, though 
 made on forged bills of lading. Nelson 
 Grain Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co. (Mich.), 
 140 N. W. 48(1. 
 
 Plaintiff's assignors shipped by a com- 
 mon carrier certain goods addressed to 
 another person, but took a bill of lading 
 which showed that the goods were con- 
 .signed to the order of the consignors. 
 On the arrival of the goods, another cony 
 mon carrier, in the usual course of busi- 
 ness, and at the addressee's request, ob- 
 tained and delivered them to him without 
 notice that he was not the real owner. 
 Held, that there had been no conversion 
 by the second carrier. Nanson v. Jacob, 
 93 Mo. 331, () S. W. 246, 3 Am. St. Rep. 
 531. 
 
 13. Delivery by direction of consignee. 
 — United Stcitcs. — North Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank. 123 U. S. 
 727, 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 vS. Ct. 266; Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549, 24 L. 
 Ed. 285. 
 
 Georgia. — McCaffrey v. Georgia South- 
 ern Railroad. 69 Ga. 622. 
 
 Nezi' Yarh.—Gass z: Astoria Veneer 
 Mills, 134 App. Div. 184. 118 N. Y. S. 982. 
 
 Oliio. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Oskamp, 
 etc., Co., 14 O. C. C. 176, 7 O. C. D. 417. 
 
 Tennessee. — Butler v. East Tennessee, 
 etc., R. C<.., 76 Tenn. (8 Lea) 32. 
 
 Illustrations. — An express company 
 received a package of money addressed 
 to a certain bank at its street and number, 
 but, at the direction of the bank, deliv- 
 ered the package, in another part of the 
 city, to the bank's agent, from whom the 
 money was afterwards stolen. Held, that 
 the owner could not recover of the ex- 
 press company for nondelivery. Sweet v. 
 Barney, 23 N. Y. 335, affirming 24 Barb. 
 533. 
 
 The consignee paid the express charges 
 on goods sent C. O. D., but refused to 
 receive the goods, and directed the com- 
 pany to return them to the consignor. 
 The consignor brought suit against the 
 consignee, and recovered a judgment for 
 the value of the goods; but in the mean- 
 time, after a verdict was rendered in 
 favor of the consignor, and before judg- 
 ment was rendered thereon, the express 
 company, by direction of the consignor's 
 attorney, returned the goods to the con- 
 signor. The consignee never counter- 
 manded his directions to the company to 
 reship to the consignor. When final 
 judgment was rendered, the consignee 
 brought an action of trover against the 
 company to recover the value of the 
 goods, without offering to pay the money 
 due on the goods. Held, that the con- 
 signee had no right of action against the 
 company. American Exp. Co. v. Green- 
 halgh, SO 111. 68. 
 
 Written authority from consignee. — A 
 delivery on written autlnirity from the 
 consignee releases the carrier from liabil- 
 ity, even though the consignee states that 
 he has no claim on the goods. Dobbin 
 V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 56 Mich. 522, 
 23 N. W. 204. 
 
 But such authority should not be so 
 uncertain as to give just grounds for 
 doubting the scope of the authorization. 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Windham. 1 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 267, 268. 21 S. W. 402. 
 
 An order for consignee to railroad 
 agent w-ho was also the express company 
 agent as follows: "Railroad Agent: Dear 
 Sir — Please deliver to the bearer any 
 freight I may have in your possession and 
 oblige;" is not a sufficient demand on the 
 express company to make it the agent's 
 duty to deliver express. Wells Fargo & 
 Co. V. Windham. 1 Tex. Civ. App. 267, 21 
 S. W. 402. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped by defendant's steam- 
 ship company a quantity of butter con- 
 signed to plaintiff's order, the packages 
 being unmarked. A third person pre- 
 sented to defendant's delivery clerk, at 
 the place of receipt, a letter written by 
 plaintiff to him containing this clause, 
 'The rolls sent you today you will find
 
 854 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 544 
 
 shipment. ^^ When dehvery has been made to an agent, the carrier, 
 if sued for misdelivery, must prove that the recipient had authority from the 
 
 a very good qualit}%" and upon this the 
 clerk delivered butter to such person. 
 Held, that the letter was not a sufficient 
 authority to justify a delivery of the but- 
 ter. \'iner v. New York, etc.. Steamship 
 Co., 50 N. Y. 23. 
 
 A written order, dated at a place where 
 an express company had no office, ad- 
 dressed to an agent of the company at 
 its office, where consignments to the 
 writer were to be transferred to a rail- 
 load company, and directing that agent 
 to "deliver anj' and all express matter 
 (moneys included) addressed to [the 
 writer] to the conductor of" that railroad, 
 "until further notice," and concluding 
 with the words, "This my standing or- 
 der," until revoked authorized deliveries 
 of such matter to be made not only to 
 the person who happened to be con- 
 ductor at the time the order was signed, but 
 to any other person occupying that posi- 
 tion and acting in that capacity. South- 
 ern Exp. Co. V. Williams, 27 S. E. 743, 
 99 Ga. 482. 
 
 14. Delivery to agent of consignee. — 
 Arkansas. — E q u i t a h 1 e Powder Mfg. 
 Co. V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Ark.), 15u 
 S. W. 1028. 
 
 Georgia. — Bruhl v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 103 Ga. 583, 30 S. E. 269; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Williams, 99 Ga. 482, 27 S. E. 743; 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Coleman, 103 
 Ga. 583, 30 S. E. 269; Southern Exp. Co. 
 V. Everett, 37 Ga. 688; Brunswick, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Rothchild & Co., 46 S. E. 830, 
 119 Ga. 604; Kenny Co. v. Atlanta, etc., 
 R. Co., 122 Ga. 365, 50 S. E. 132. 
 
 Illinois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Simp- 
 son, 17 111. App. 325. 
 
 Xezu York. — Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 
 335, affirming 24 Barb. 533. 
 
 Tennessee. — Dean v. Vaccaro, 39 Tenn. 
 (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744; Butler v. 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 76 Tenn. 
 (8 Lea) 32. 
 
 Texas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Craw- 
 ford (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 748; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Lewine (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 20 S. W. 835. 
 
 Although the goods were not ordered 
 by the consignee to whom the shipper 
 really intended to send them, but by an- 
 other person, bearing, or pretending to 
 bear, the same name, to whom the goods 
 were finally delivered after passing 
 through the hands of the real consignee's 
 agent a delivery to the authorized agent 
 of the consignee completes the contract 
 of carriage. Southern Exp. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams, 27 S. E. 743, 99 Ga. 482. 
 
 Delivery to stringer accompanied by 
 consignee's drayman. — I'laintiff s con- 
 signed certain hogs to P., paying charges, 
 and shipping them by defendant's road. 
 Reaching their destination, they were 
 
 taken from defendant's cars by a stranger, 
 assisted by consignees' drayman. An ex- 
 pense bill was given the stranger at his 
 request, on his representation that he 
 was acting for the consignees. The hogs 
 were delivered by the stranger to the 
 consignees as his property, and they paid 
 him for them. Held, that the railroad 
 company was not guilty of negligence, 
 and that plaintiff's remedy was against 
 the consignees. Ryder v. Burlington, etc., 
 R. Co.. 51 Iowa 460, 1 N. W. 747. 
 
 Delivery by direction of agent. — Where 
 a railway company receives freight con- 
 signed to the agent of the owner, a de- 
 livery to a third person on the direction 
 of the agent is a delivery to the consignee, 
 and the railway company is not liable to 
 the owner, though the person to whom 
 delivery is made fails to pay for the 
 goods. Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 
 Neb. 379, 60 N. W. 583. 
 
 Goods delivered to the defendant by 
 plaintiff, for shipment, were, before their 
 delivery to the consignee, directed to be 
 delivered to S., the agent of the plaintiff. 
 Afterwards, on an order from S., direct- 
 ing that the goods be delivered to the 
 consignee, and an order from the latter, 
 directing that they be delivered to cer- 
 tain named persons, the goods were sur- 
 rendered to such persons. On learning of 
 sucli delivery, plaintiff made no objec- 
 tion, but began suit against the consignee 
 for the value of the goods. Held, that 
 defendant was not liable for such de- 
 livery. Brasher v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 12 
 Colo. 384, 21 Pac. 44. 
 
 A package sent to a bank directed to 
 the cashier thereof, is properly delivered 
 to the assistant receiving teller while he 
 was at the receiving teller's desk. Hotch- 
 kiss V. Artisans' Bank, 42 Barb. 517, af- 
 firmed in 41 N. Y. 564, 2 Abb. Dec. 403. 
 
 Money sent by express to a bank was 
 delivered to a person in its employ, who 
 called for it, and gave a receipt. Such 
 person had been in the habit of receiving 
 packages for the l^anks in the same way, 
 and this mode of delivery was adopted 
 at the request of the bank officers, and 
 for their accommodation. Held, that this 
 was a good delivery. Sweet v. Barney, 24 
 Barb. ->:',:>,, affirmed in 23 N. Y. 335. 
 
 Delivery to president of college as de- 
 livery to student. — In an action against an 
 express company for the loss of a dia- 
 mond pin consigned to a student at a col- 
 lege, it was held that if it was the custom 
 of the president of the college to receive 
 from the defendant parcels directed to the 
 students therein under his charge, and re- 
 ceipt therefor, or if it was in accordance 
 with the rules of the college that he 
 should do so, then he might properly be 
 considered as the authorized agent of the
 
 545 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY BY CARRIER. 
 
 § 854 
 
 consignee to receive the goods, or liad been held out by him as authorized. ^^ 
 VVliere the carrier knows that the consignee is not entitled to receive the goods, 
 delivery to hiin,^« or on his order,'" will render the carrier liable. 
 
 students for that purpose, and the jury 
 mi^ht presume a )j;ood delivery to the 
 student to whom it was addressed, wlien 
 delivered to the president thereof. South- 
 ern l''xp. Co. V. Kverctt, 37 C)a. OHS. 
 
 A package addressed to "Hon. J. G. 
 Carlisle, Secretary United States Treas. 
 Dept., Washington, D. C," but with no 
 direction tn dclivi-r ii personally to the 
 secretary of the treasury, or to any par- 
 ticular department, was properly deliv- 
 ered at the treasury department, at the 
 usual place for such packages, within the 
 time agreed upon. Aldrich, etc., Mfg. Co. 
 V. .American Exp. Co., 75 N. W. 94, 117 
 Mich. 32. 
 
 Acquiescence in former deliveries. — 
 W'liere former deliveries to a certain per- 
 son had been acquiesced in, the carrier 
 had the right to regard such person as 
 an agent, and the delivery to him may 
 constitute a good defense to an action 
 against the carrier for conversion. On- 
 tario Bank v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 
 59 N. Y. 510, affirming 5 Daly 117. 
 
 Effect of custom. — If it is the custom 
 for the carrier to forward goods by boat 
 from their destination on its line, and the 
 consignee knew this when he ordered 
 goods siiipped, and the owner of a boat 
 has previously received goods for him 
 from the carrier and delivered them, the 
 carrier is authorized to deliver the goods 
 to such owner for transportation by boat 
 to the consignee. Chesapeake & O. Ry. 
 Co. V. Lavin' (Ky.), 124 S. W. 274. 
 
 Delivery to drayman. — A carrier, who 
 delivers the goods to a drayman not au- 
 thorized by the consignee to receive them, 
 is liable for their loss. Dean v. Vaccaro, 
 39 Tenn. (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744; 
 Shenk v. Philadelphia Steam Propeller 
 Co., 60 Pa. 109, 100 Am. Dec. 541. 
 
 An officer of the customhouse on board 
 a ship in the discharge of his official duty 
 to care for the lawful unloading of the 
 cargo, is not, as such, authorized to re- 
 ceive the goods; and a discharge, with 
 his knowledge and assent, is not such a 
 delivery as relieves the carrier from lia- 
 bility. McAndrew v. Whitlock, 53 N. Y. 
 40, 11 IKm. Rep. 657. 
 
 But when the duties on dutial)le 
 goods are not paid upon their arriving 
 at the port of New York, under the laws 
 of con.gress and th'e treasury regulations 
 of that port, the custom-house officers are 
 the only persons authorized to receive 
 such goods on the wharf; and when they 
 do so receive them, day or night, the lia- 
 bility of the carrier terminates. Red- 
 mond V. Liverpool, etc.. Steamship Co., 
 (N. Y.). 56 Barb. 320. 
 
 Illustrations of persons not authorized. 
 
 1 Car— 35 
 
 — Where a carrier delivered certain mer- 
 chandise directed to M. at a certain casino 
 to a barkeeper at the casino, who was not 
 M.'s agent, or authorized by her to re- 
 ceive the package, there was no delivery 
 to the consignee, and the carrier was 
 therefore liable. Charles Schlesinger & 
 Sons V. New York, etc., R. Co., 85 N. Y. 
 S. 372. 
 
 If goods are sent by a common carrier 
 to l)e delivered to A, the carrier is not 
 Jnstitied in delivering them at the store 
 of B, although A. has guaranteed the rent 
 of the store, and has been compelled to 
 pay it. Mahon v. Blake, 125 Mass. 477. 
 
 An express company tendered a pack- 
 age to the consignee at her place of busi- 
 ness, and she refused to accept it or pay 
 the charges, on the ground that she never 
 authorized its purchase. Afterwards the 
 consignee's daughter called at the express 
 office, and ordered the package sent to 
 her mother's place of business, but her au- 
 thority was not shown. The package was 
 taken back to the consignee's place of 
 business, and delivered to one W., who 
 was in the place of business, but no ques- 
 tions were asked as to his authority, and 
 he receipted for the same in his own 
 name. No authority in W. to accept the 
 package for the consignee, or circum- 
 stances from which it might be inferred, 
 was showm. Held, that the express com- 
 pany was liable to the consignor for its 
 loss. Nebenzahl v. Fargo, 3 N. Y. S. 
 929, 15 Daly 130, 23 N. Y. St. Rep. 231. 
 
 15. American Merchants' Union Exp. 
 Co. V. Milk, 73 111. 324. 
 
 In an action against a railroad company 
 for delivering a lot of sewing machines 
 to the wrong person, it appeared that 
 plaintifT was general agent for sale of the 
 machines at vSt. Paul, and had been in the 
 habit of shipping machines to a subagent 
 at Minneapolis. The latter having re- 
 quested plaintiff to ship him a certain 
 number of machines, plaintiff caused that 
 number of machines to be shipped, 
 consigned to himself at Minneapolis. 
 Defendant delivered them to the sub- 
 agent. Held, that the fact that the 
 niachines w^ere consigned to plaintiff was 
 not conclusive that they were not sent 
 pursuant to the request of the subagent, 
 and that the jury might, from such cir- 
 cumstances, find authority in the subagent 
 to receive the machines. Wilcox r. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 24 ;Minn. 269. 
 
 16. Notices that consignee not entitled. 
 — Nanson v. Jacob. 93 Mo. 331. 6 S. W. 
 246, 3 Am. St. Rep. 531; Lester v. Dela- 
 
 17. Southern Exp. Co. r. Dickson, 94 
 U. S. 549, 24 L. Ed. 285.
 
 §§ 854-855 
 
 CARRIF.RS. 
 
 546 
 
 The addressing of a package to a consignee in the care of a third 
 person, as between the consignor, the consignee, and the carrier, and as to the 
 liabiUty of the latter, and in the absence of known limitations upon the scope 
 of the' authority given, confers upon such third person the right to receive the 
 goods, and ordinarily constitutes him the proper person to whom to make de- 
 liverv/'^ A\'here such third person declines the package, the consignee is en- 
 titled to receive it.^^ 
 
 Where the bill of lading fails to show who the consignee is, delivery 
 without ascertaining from the shipper to whom the same is to be made makes 
 the carrier liable in conversion.-" 
 
 Conflict between Bill of Lading and Marks on Goods. — W here there is a 
 conflict between the bill of lading and the marks on goods, in determining to 
 whom it is the duty of the carrier to deliver, the marks on the goods do not 
 control the bill of lading.-^ 
 
 § 8 55. Consignor or Agent. — When the carrier delivers the goods to the 
 agent selected by the consignor to receive them, the carrier's responsibility 
 ceases.-- And the fact that the agent is also the agent of the carrier does not 
 affect the question.--^ But a carrier who, without authority from the consignor 
 
 the bill of lading or other express au- 
 thority, was not an authorized agent to 
 receive the goods of such consignor. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Weil, 57 Pac. 853, 
 
 8 Kan. App. 8.39. 
 Delivery by direction of broker. — 
 
 Where a carrier delivers the goods as 
 directed by the consignor's broker, who 
 was not his duly authorized agent to di- 
 rect such delivery, the carrier is liable. 
 The Ijroker, under his general powers as 
 such, has no authority either to receive 
 the goods or to direct to whom they 
 should be delivered, nor could such au- 
 thority be conferred upon him. so as to 
 bind the consignor, by any local custom 
 or usage, the latter having no knowledge 
 thereoif. American Sugar Refin. Co. v. 
 McGhee, 96 Ga. 27, 21 S. E. 383. 
 
 23. Georgia. — Fitzsimmons v. Southern 
 Exp. Co., 40 Ga. 330, 2 Am. Rep. 577. 
 
 Maine.—St& Stone v. Waitt, 31 Me. 409, 
 52 Am. Dec. 621. 
 
 Ohio. — Roberts v. Union Line Exp. 
 Co., 2 O. Dec. 577 (after such agent re- 
 ceives the goods, the carrier is not even 
 a naked bailee.) 
 
 Tt'.t-a.?.— Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hogg 
 (Tex.) 2 Posey 544, 549. 
 
 Contra. — Where a package delivered to 
 common carriers for transportation is 
 addressed to the care of the agent and 
 principal representative of the carrier at 
 the point where the carriage is to termi- 
 iiate, it may be regarded as a direction to 
 have the package stopped at the place on 
 the route where the agent is in charge of 
 the business, and does not import that 
 upon receiving it the carrier's responsi- 
 bility ceases, and the agent becomes a 
 consignee. Russell v. Livingston, 16 N. 
 Y. 515, reversing 19 Barb. 346; compare 
 P>ristoe 7'. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 9 Barb. 158, and Labar v. Taber (N. Y.), 
 35 Barb. 305. 
 
 ware, etc., R. Co., 92 Hun 342, 36 N. Y. 
 S. 907, 72 X. Y. St. Rep. 334; Nashville, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 
 100 Tex. 17, 93 S. W. 431, reversing 91 
 S. W. 1106. See Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Fant Fish Co., 12 Ga. App. 447, 78 S. E. 
 197. 
 
 Where the consignor is known to the 
 carrier to be the owner, the carrier must 
 be understood to contract with him only 
 tor his interest, upon such terms as he 
 dictates in regard to the delivery, and the 
 consignees are to be regarded simply as 
 agents selected by him to receive the 
 goods at a place indicated. Where he is 
 an agent merely, the rule is different. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Dickson, 94 U. S. 
 549, 24 L. Ed. 285. 
 
 18. Care of third person. — Common- 
 wealth V. People's Express Co., 201 Mass. 
 564, 88 N. E. 420. See Russell v. Living- 
 ston, 16 N. Y. 515, reversing 19 Barb. 346. 
 
 19. United States Exp. Co. v. Hammer, 
 51 N. E. 953, 21 Ind. App. 186. 
 
 20. Where consignee unknown. — Gass 
 V. Astoria \'enecr Mills, 118 N. Y. S. 982, 
 134 App. Div. 184. 
 
 21. Conflict between bill and marks. — 
 Rome 1^. Co. v. Sullivan, etc., Co., 25 Ga. 
 22''. 
 
 22. Agent of consignor. — Roberts v. 
 Union Line Exp. Co., 2 O. Dec. 577; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hogg (Tex.), 2 
 Po'^ey 544. 549. 
 
 Knowledge of agency. — In a suit by a 
 consignor against a carrier for the value 
 of goods delivered by the carrier to a 
 third party, it was held that evidence to 
 show such third party an agent of the 
 consignor was admissible, though the 
 facts were unknown to defendant when 
 the eoods Avere delivered. Angle & Co. 
 V. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 9 Iowa 487. 
 
 The husband of the consignor, who had 
 separated from her, and who did not have
 
 547 
 
 TRANSPORTAIION .\M> l)i:iJVKl<V IIV CAKKIKK. 
 
 §§ 855-857 
 
 or consignee, delivers goods lu the consignor's general agent at the place of de- 
 livery, is liable to the consignee,-"* even though the consignee did not reside 
 there, and did not exi:)cct to be there to receive them.--'' And where a consignee 
 has made advances for the goods, the carrier is liable for a conversion thereof, 
 where he delivers them to another at the consignor's request, though the con- 
 signor sent no bill of lading to the consignee.-" A carrier is guilty of no con- 
 version, though it receives property from one not rightfully entitled to jjosses- 
 sion, and, acting as a mere conduit, delivers it in ])ursuance of his directions, 
 if this is done before notice of the rights of the real owner.-" 
 
 § 856. Actual Owner.- \> the actual owner may recover the property from 
 the carrier,-^ il is excused for failure to deliver to the consignee by delivering 
 the property to the actual owner,-'' or his duly authorized agent.'*" 
 
 § 8 57. Holder of Bill of Lading. — W Iktc by the indorsement of a bill 
 of lading, the indorsee obtains the right to the delivery of the goods named 
 therein, a delivery to the holder of a bill of lading properly indorsed relieves 
 the carrier from further liability,-'^ even though such holder obtained possession 
 of the bill wrongfully."'- lUit it is held that if the carrier delivers the goods on 
 
 24. General agent. — Ela v. American, 
 etc.. Exp. Co., 2<) Wis. (HI, 9 Am. Rep. 
 619. 
 
 25. Wilson Sewing Mach. Co. v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 71 Mo. 203. 
 
 26. Where consignee made advances. — 
 Bailey v. Hudson River R. Co., 49 \. 
 Y. 70. 
 
 27. Shellnut v. Central, etc., R. Co., 131 
 Ga. 404, 400. 02 S. E. 294, 18 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 494; Nanson v. Jacob, 93 Mo. 331, 
 6 S. W. 246, 3 Am. St. Rep. 531. 
 
 28. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Talbot, 123 
 Ga. 378, 51 S. E. 401. 
 
 A package of money, really Iielonging 
 to A alone, was sent by express, directed 
 to the firm of A & B; and on its arrival 
 A demanded it of the express company, 
 stating that it was his. There was no as- 
 signment by B to .\ of his appnrent interest, 
 nor any written order by him to deliver 
 to A, nor any offer of a receipt or acquit- 
 tance from both. The company refused 
 to deliver to A, claiming that the money 
 had been garnisheed. Held that, apart 
 from the question of garnishment, A was 
 entitled to recover the money. Wells 
 V. American E.xp. Co., 55 Wis. 23, 11 N. 
 W. 537. 12 X. W. 441, 42 Am. Rep. 695. 
 
 29. Delivery to actual owner. — United 
 States.— The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575, 23 L. 
 Ed. 978; Roscnfield v. Express Co., Eed. 
 Cas. No. 12,060, 1 Woods 131. 
 
 loiva. — Brunswick & Co. v. United 
 States Exp. Co., 46 Iowa 677. 
 
 Minnesota. — National Bank v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co.. 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342. 
 560, 9 L. R. A., N. S.. 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 
 566. 
 
 New York. — Bliven v. Hudson River R. 
 Co.. 36 N. Y. 403, affirming 3.5 Barb. 188. 
 
 Pcnnsvlvania. — King v. Richards, 6 
 Whart. 418, 37 .\m. Dec. 420. 
 
 West Jlr^inia. — Smith r. Linden Oil 
 Co., 69 W. Va. 57. 62, 71 S. E. 167. 
 
 Where lumber was loaded by the seller, 
 passing title thereto to the buyer to 
 
 whom it was billed, but ihe seller un- 
 loaded it and reloaded the car, billing it 
 to his own order, the carrier properly de- 
 livered it to the buyer, and was not lia- 
 ble to the seller in damages for nonde- 
 livery. McCollom r. Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co.. i:!!) X. W. 1129. 1.-.2 Wis. 435. 
 
 30. Agent of cwner. — Adams z: Blank- 
 enstein. 2 Cal. 413, 56 Am. Dec. 350; 
 Southern Exp. Co. z: Everett, 37 Ga. 688. 
 
 31. Holder of bill of lading. — United 
 States. — North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 31 
 L. Ed. 287. 8 S. Ct. 266; The Thames 
 (U. S.), 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 804. 
 
 Nebraska. — L^nion Pac. R. Co. z'. John- 
 ston, 45 Neb. 57. 63 N. W. 144, 50 Am. 
 St. Rep. 540; Gates z: Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co., 42 Neb. 379, 60 N. W. 583. 
 
 Pennsvlzania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. r. 
 Stern, 119 Pa. 24, 12 Atl. 756, 4 Am. St. 
 Rep. 626. 
 
 South Carolina. — National Bank z\ At- 
 lanta R. Co.. 25 S. C. 216. 
 
 32. Wrongful possession of bill. .\ 
 railroad company issued bills of lading 
 for grain shipped to the order of the 
 shipper, per advice of M., B. & Co. The 
 bills were duly indorsed, and by M.. B. 
 •."t Co. delivered to a bank as collateral. 
 The bank was in the habit of allowing M., 
 B. & Co. to withdraw such bills from time 
 to time, and they got possession of these 
 bills, and obtained the grain from the 
 railroad on presentation thereof. Fail- 
 ing to pay their note when due, the bank 
 stied them, and sought to recover from 
 the railroad company the value of the 
 grain, on the ground that the property 
 nassed to it by delivery of the bills of 
 ladincr. Held.' that the bank, by allow- 
 intr M., B. & Co. to get possession of the 
 bills and present them, properly indorsed, 
 to the railroad company, was estopped to 
 denv the leealitv of the delivery. Doucr- 
 las 'v. People's Bank. 86 Ky. 176. 5 S. W. 
 420.
 
 § 857 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 548 
 
 a stolen bill of lading, it will not be protected from liability, though the bill be 
 indorsed in blank and the delivery be made in perfect good faith,^-^ unless the 
 bill was stolen by reason of the negligence or carelessness of the owner or his 
 agent.'-^' Where a bill of lading deliverable to order is attached to, and for- 
 warded with, a time draft sent to an agent for collection, without special in- 
 structions, an acceptance of the draft by the drawee entitles him to the bill of 
 lading, and a deliven- of the goods to him discharges the carrier from liability.^^ 
 HoTder of Unindorsed Bill of Lading.— Possession of a bill of lading by 
 one other than the consignee, wiihoui indorsement, does not justify the delivery 
 of the consignment to such person.^'^ And where the bill directs delivery to 
 the vendor's order, or his assigns, the carrier is notified that he must not deliver 
 to the consignee without the bill properly indorsed by the consignor, and if he 
 delivers otherwise he will l)e liable.-^^ 
 
 33. Delivery on- stolen bill. — Raleigh, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Lowe, 28 S. E. 867, 101 Ga. 
 320. 
 
 A carrier, without the production of 
 the bill of lading, delivered goods to a 
 person for whom it had reason to believe 
 that they were ultimately intended, tak- 
 ing his check to indemnify itself against 
 loss because of such unauthorized deliv- 
 ery. The bill of lading was subsequently 
 stolen from a bank, which, as the own- 
 er's agent, was its lawful custodian, but 
 which had no knowledge of the above 
 facts. Held, that the bank was under no 
 duty to the carrier of so guarding the 
 possession of the bill as to protect said 
 carrier from loss occasioned by surren- 
 dering the indemnifying check, in conse- 
 quence of the production of the bill of 
 lading by an unauthorized person, and it 
 made no difference that said unauthorized 
 person was the party who was to be no- 
 tified of the consignment, and whose 
 name appeared upon the bill of lading in 
 this connection. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lowe, 28 S. E. 867, 101 Ga. 320. 
 
 34. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Lowe, 101 
 Ga. 320, 38 S. E. 867. 
 
 In such case the familiar principle would 
 be applicable that where one of two in- 
 nocent parties must suffer by the fraud 
 of another, the loss should fall upon him 
 who enabled such third person to com- 
 mit the fraud. Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lowe, 101 Ga. 320, 28 S. E. 867. 
 
 35. Commercial Bank v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 100 111. 401, 43 N. E. 7.56, affirm- 
 ing .58 111. App. 438. 
 
 36. Holder of unindorsed bill. — Louis 
 ville, etc., R. Co. v. Barkhouse, 100 Ala. 
 543, 13 So. 534. 
 
 Where a consignee named in a bill of 
 lading was arrested and tnrown into jail, 
 and the bill of lading was taken from his 
 person by the jailer, and the bill of 
 lading was never assigned or indorsed by 
 the consignee, a delivery of the goods by 
 the carrier to a person who by some 
 means obtained possession of the bill of 
 lading from the jailer did not discharge 
 it from liability, though it acted in good 
 faith in surrendering the property. 
 
 Florence, etc., R. Co. v. Jensen, 48 Colo. 
 28, 108 Pac. 974. 
 
 A carrier is liable for goods consigned 
 to the shipper, and delivered, without or- 
 ders, to a person who ordered the goods, 
 and to whom the shipper Iiaa sent an 
 unindorsed bill of lading, drawing on him 
 through a bank for the price, and ac- 
 companying the draft with another bill 
 of lading, and an order for the goods to 
 be delivered on payment of the draft, 
 though the company was ignorant of the 
 sending of the other bill of lading and 
 draft, as well as of the fact that the goods 
 were not paid for. Weyand v. Atchison, 
 etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 573. 39 N. W. 899, 
 1 L. R. A. 650, 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, revers- 
 ing 33 N. W. 133. 
 
 Where a director of a corporation to 
 which goods have been consigned got 
 possession of the unindorsed bill of lad- 
 ing and induced the carrier to deliver the 
 goods to him without authority, which he 
 converted to his own use, the carrier was 
 liable for misdelivery. Cane Belt R. Co. 
 V. Peden Iron & Steel Co., 45 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 630, 101 S. W. 528. 
 
 A custom on the part of a carrier or of 
 carriers generally at a particular place to 
 deliver goods to one other than the con- 
 signee, who merely holds the bill of lad-. 
 ing without any indorsement, does not 
 justify such delivery. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Barkhouse, 100 Ala. 543, 13 So. 534; 
 Weyand v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 75 Iowa 
 573, 39 N. W. 899. 9 Am. St. Rep. 504, 1 
 L. R. A. 650 (shipper having no knowl- 
 edge of custom). 
 
 A carrier which makes delivery to a 
 person other than the shipper or con- 
 signee of goods shipped on his presenting 
 an unindorsed receipt therefor, provid- 
 ing for delivery to a certain person, which 
 he has surreptitiously obtained, is liable 
 therefor, notwithstanding its custom, un- 
 known to the shipper, to deliver goods to 
 persons presenting such a receipt with- 
 out inquiry as to who they are or what 
 is their authority. Adrian Knitting Co. 
 V. Wabash R. Co., 108 N. W. 706, 145 
 Mich. 323. 
 
 37. Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. German 
 Nat. Bank, 92 S. W. 522, 77 Ark. 482, 113
 
 549 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DKLIVIvRV P,V CARRIER. 
 
 § 858 
 
 §§ 858-866. Misdelivery— § 8 58. Liability in General.— A carrier 
 
 must, in all events, dcliNer the j^oods which it carries to the person entitled to 
 receive them, and it is liable if it delivers to the wrong person, ^'^ or in violation 
 
 .•\.m. St. Rep. H)0; Grayson County Nat. 
 Bank v. Nashville, etc., Railway (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1094. 
 
 A bill of ladinpf, promisinjjf to deliver 
 goods to "A or his assij^ns," was sent i)y 
 A to B unindorsed, and in a letter con- 
 tainiuf^ no words of transfer. Held, that 
 B could maintain no action aj^ainst C, the 
 owner of the ves.sel, either as surviving 
 owner or as assignee of the goods, and 
 that C, having delivered part of the goods 
 to B was not thereljy estopped to deny 
 his claim to the residue. Stone v. Swift 
 (Mass.), 4 Pick. 389, Ifi Am. Dec. 349. 
 
 38. Delivery to wrong person. — United 
 States. — The lluiUrrss (L'. S.j, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 6,914, 2 Ware (Dav. 82), 89. See 
 Southern R. Co. v. Atlanta Nat. Bank, 
 112 Fed. 8G1, 50 C. C. A. 5.58, 5G L. R. A. 
 546. 
 
 Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pfei- 
 fer, 90 Ark. 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 1107; Equitable Powder 
 Mfg. Co. V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 99 
 Ark. 497, 138 S. W. 964. 
 
 Illinois. — Brown 7'. Cleveland, etc., R. 
 Co., 155 111. App. 187. 
 
 Indiana. — American I{xp. Co. v. Stack, 
 29 Ind. 27. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Hall r. Boston, etc., R. 
 Corp. (Mass.), 14 .-Mien 439, 92 Am. Dec. 
 783; Murraj' v. F'ostal Telegraph Cable 
 Co., 96 N. E. 316, 210 Mass. 188, Ann. Cas. 
 1912, C, 1299. 
 
 Missouri. — Wilson v. Adams Exp. Co.. 
 43 Mo. App. 659; American Storage, etc., 
 Co. V. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.), 123 S. 
 W. 964. 
 
 .Wxt' York. — Security Trust Co. v. 
 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp., 178 N. Y. 
 620, 70 N. E. 1109, affirming 80 N. Y. S. 
 830, 81 .A.pp. Div. 426. 
 
 Ohio. — Oskamp v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 61 O. St. 341, 56 N. E. 13. 
 
 rcvfl:?.— Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: Clark. 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 512; Trice v. 
 Miller, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 440; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer, 82 
 Tex. 195, 17 S. W. 608; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Fowler, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 683. 34 S. 
 W. 661, affirmed in 93 Tex. 661, 684, no 
 op.; Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. .^dams, 49 
 Tex. 748, 30 .\m. Rep. 116; Roberts v. 
 Yarboro. 41 Tex. 449; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Humphries, 4 Tex. Civ. .'Xpp. 333. 23 
 S. W. 556; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. First Nat. 
 Bank, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 283, 112 S. W. 
 589; Wells Fargo & Co. 7'. Windham. 1 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 267, 260, 21 S. W. 402. 
 
 All classes of common carriers arc re- 
 sponsible, and equally responsible, for a 
 loss of the goods by delivery to the 
 wrong person. Houston, etc.. R. Co. :■. 
 Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 .Am. Rep. 116. 
 
 Misdelivery by connecting carrier. — 
 .^ee prjst, "Connecting Carriers," part \'. 
 
 Care required in identification of con- 
 signee.^Defendant, an express company, 
 refused to deliver a package to one claim- 
 ing that he was consignee until he was 
 identified, whereupon he brought L., at 
 whose hotel he was stopping, and who 
 was also unknown to the defendant. L. 
 then procured a person known to the 
 company, who identified L., but stated 
 that he did not know the consignee. L. 
 then represented that the person claiming 
 to be the consignee was the person to 
 whom the package was addressed, where- 
 upon it was delivered to him, without in- 
 quiry as to the length or nature of L.'s 
 acquaintance with him. Held, that the 
 company was liable to the real consignee 
 for the value of the package. American 
 Exp. Co. v. Stack, 29 Ind. 27. 
 
 Intention of consignor. — W^here goods 
 were consigned to L. S., Springfield, 111., 
 whether the consignor meant L. S., of 
 Boston, Mass., or L. S., of Springfield 
 111., was not material. Singer v. Mer- 
 chants', etc., Transp. Co.. 77 N. E. 882. 
 191 Mass. 449, 114 .Am. St. Rep. 635. 
 
 Delivery to one of similar name. — 
 Plaintiff shipped by defendant's road 
 goods consigned to A. B., in Washington. 
 Defendant could find no one of that 
 initial, but found one L. B., and learning 
 from plaintifif's agent that he had sold 
 some goods to L. B., delivered the goods 
 to him. Held, that defendant was liable 
 lor the goods. W^ernwag f. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co., 117 Pa. 46, ll Atl. 868. 
 
 Agreements to hold goods. — W'here the 
 agent of an express company agrees with 
 the consi.gnee of goods, before he has 
 paid the charges thereon, that he may take 
 part of the goods, and leave the balance 
 to be called for at a future day, the agent 
 acts within the apparent scope of his au- 
 thority, and, in the al)sence of notice to 
 the consignee of want of actual authority, 
 binds the company so as to make it lia- 
 l)le in case the goods are afterwards neg- 
 ligently delivered to the wrong person. 
 Oderkirk v. Fargo, 61 Hun 418, 16 N. Y. 
 S. 220, 41 N. Y. St. Rep. 9, following 58 
 Hun 347, 11 N. Y. S. 871. 
 
 A special a.greement that goods might 
 remain in the depot without storage 
 charges until called for. if not taken away 
 promptly within twenty-four hours on 
 reaching their destination, is not valid 
 Mnless supported by a consideration, but 
 it may bind the carrier so far as to pro- 
 hibit the deliver}- of the goods for storage 
 to a third person, who was a warehouse- 
 man, without direct authority so to do
 
 § 858 
 
 OVRRI^S. 
 
 550 
 
 of tlie shipper's instruclions.-''^ A common carrier is bound to deliver the goods 
 
 from the shipper. Angle i'. Mississippi, 
 etc.. R. Co., IS Iowa 555. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where a carrier, on ar- 
 rival of goods at destination, placed them 
 in the wai^ehouse of a third person, who 
 i)y mistake delivered them to a person 
 not authorized to receive them, the car- 
 rier is liable to the owner. Alabama, etc., 
 R. Co. z'. Kidd, 35 Ala. 209. 
 
 A railroad company delivered certain 
 articles of freight within twenty-four 
 hours after their arrival at their place of 
 destination to warehousemen, who were 
 supposed by the company to be agents of 
 the consignee, but who w^ere not so in 
 fact. The goods were destroyed by fire 
 five or six daj^s afterwards, while in the 
 hands of the warehousemen. A published 
 rule of the company provided that "all 
 articles of freight, on arriving at the place 
 of destination, must be taken away within 
 twenty-four hours after being unloaded 
 from the cars; goods remaining uncalled 
 for at the end of that time will be placed 
 in store, and storage charged." Held, 
 that the companj' was liable for the loss 
 of the goods, as it was bound at its peril 
 lo know that the persons to whom it de- 
 livered them had authority to receive 
 them. Angle v. Mississippi, etc.. R. Co.. 
 18 Iowa 555. 
 
 A shipper billed certain goods to his 
 local agent, and not to the purchaser, and 
 the agent, without transferring the bill of 
 lading, made a further contract with de- 
 fendant for the carriage of the goods to 
 the place where they were to be delivered 
 to the purchaser; the agent directing that 
 such goods should be delivered only to 
 his order. Held that, the evidence being 
 sufficient to support a finding that the 
 shipper had not parted with the right 
 to the possession of the goods, a delivery 
 of them to the purchaser was at the risk 
 of the defendant. Wolfe v. Missouri Pac. 
 Ry. Co., 97 Mo. 473, 11 S. W. 49, 10 Am. 
 St. Rep. 331, 3 L. R. A. 539. 
 
 In an action for damages against a 
 steamboat company, it appeared that 
 plaintiff put on board one of defendants' 
 boats certain iron, to be conveyed to one 
 A at B; that there was an understanding 
 between defendants' agent and A (of 
 which plaintiff was ignorant) that all 
 freight transported for him should be 
 landed at a place on the river bank near 
 his house, and that the iron was landed 
 there; that, shortly after, A refused to 
 pay the freight bill, and notified defend- 
 ants' agent that he should not take the 
 iron away; that afterwards one C with- 
 out authority from A, was permitted to 
 pay the freight bill, and took the iron 
 away, and that plaintiff never received 
 any information as to the disposition of 
 it. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to re- 
 cover. Howard v. Old Dominion Steam- 
 
 ship Co., 83 N. C. 158, 35 Am. Rep. 571. 
 
 A., in France, having arranged, by 
 correspondence with the agent of the de- 
 fendant carrier in Havre, for the carriage 
 of a bag of gold to the United States, sent 
 the bag addressed to a certain name, 
 street, and number, "New York, Utica, 
 America." The bill of lading provided 
 for the delivery of the bag to that name, 
 at that street and number, "New York 
 [City]," and was sent by mail to A. too 
 late for a reply to be received at Havre 
 from him before the vessel sailed. A. 
 took no steps to advise defendant of the 
 error. The gold was delivered in New 
 York City to a person who falsely rep- 
 resented himself to be the person for 
 whom it was intended, a bill of lading 
 having been sent by defendant to a per- 
 son other than the consignee. Held, in 
 an action by the consignee, that there 
 was no negligence on A.'s part, and that 
 a finding that defendant was negligent 
 was justified by the evidence. Guillaume 
 7. General Transp. Co., 100 N. Y. 491, 3 
 N. E. 489. 
 
 Bills of lading for cotton recited that 
 it was received for delivery to the order 
 of plaintiff. The shipper was a buyer of 
 cotton, who paid therefor by drafts on 
 plaintiff, secured by the bills of lading. 
 The cotton was delivered to another, who 
 guaranteed to hold the carrier harmless, 
 and, without paying plaintiff, applied the 
 cotton to a claim against the third person. 
 The delivery was not made in accordance 
 with custom, but in reliance on the guar- 
 snty. Held, that the carrier was liable to 
 plaintiff for the loss of the cotton. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 112 S. W. 
 589, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 283. 
 
 Through the mistake of a forwarding 
 agent, goods belonging to Russel Adams, 
 and marked "R. Adams, Brenham, Tex." 
 were shipped to Bremond, Tex., and on 
 request of a letter signed "R. Adams," 
 were forwarded to Burton, Tex., and de- 
 livered to Robert Adams, who showed no 
 receipt or bill of lading, and who re- 
 ceipted for them as "R. Adams." It was 
 held that the carrier was liable for the 
 goods. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 
 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116. 
 
 A statement by a teamster, known by 
 a railroad company to be employed by a 
 mill owner to deliver flour for transpor- 
 tation, that "this flour is for Mr. T.," does 
 not authorize the company to deliver the 
 Hour received from tlie teamster under 
 sucli remark, without further instructions 
 from the owner, whatever may be the lo- 
 cal custom of receipting. Sawyer v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 22 Wis. 403, 99 Am, 
 Dec. 49. 
 
 39. Delivery in violation of instructions. 
 — vSonthern h",xp. Co. 7\ h'.verett, 37 Ga. 
 688; Mosher & Co. v. Southern Exp. Co.,
 
 551 
 
 TRANSPOkTATKJX AND DKLIVEKY liY CARRIKR. 
 
 § 858 
 
 at their rlestination, and it is liable if it delivers them at the wrong station.'**^ 
 
 Liability as for Conversion. — Where a carrier delivers goods to the wrong 
 
 person, it is liable fur Lon\ ersion." It has been held that where a carrier 
 
 38 Ga. 37; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Carter, 
 62 111. App. OIH. See Ginnochio — Jones 
 Fruit Co. V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 
 App.), 134 S. W. 1()2M. See post, "Deliv- 
 ery without Production of Bill of Lad- 
 ing," §§ 8()0-8(J5. 
 
 A consignor of freight directed the car- 
 rier to forward a portion of it to places 
 designated by a third party. Instead of 
 doing this, the carrier delivered it to such 
 third person, who wrongfully converted 
 it, and disappeared. Held, that the car- 
 rier was liable. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Carter, i\2 111. App. cis. 
 
 Delivery after order to stop in transitu. 
 — A wrongful delivery of goods after an 
 order given by the consignor, founded on 
 the inability of the consignee to pay, to 
 stop in transitu, renders the carrier lia- 
 ble; and the subsequent receipt by the 
 consignor of the consignee's note packed 
 in blank with the goods, and an attempt 
 on his part to collect it, does not relieve 
 the carrier's lial)ility unless the note be 
 paid. Adams Exp. Co. v. Wentworth, 
 1 Cin. S. C. R. 142, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 
 464. See post, "Stoppage in Transitu," 
 chapter 17. 
 
 An inspection of property shipped in 
 sealed cars, permitted by the carrier with- 
 out authority at the point of destination, 
 in consequence of which the consignor, 
 who was also the consignee, was prevented 
 from completing a contemplated sale 
 thereof, is not a wrongful delivery by the 
 carrier so as to make it liable for the 
 value of the property. Dudley v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 52 S. E. 718. 58 \V. \'a. 604, 
 112 Am. St. Rep. 1027, 3 L. R. A., X. S., 
 1135. . 
 
 40. Delivery at wrong place. — Rome R. 
 Co. V. Sullivan, etc.. Co.. 14 Ga. 277; 
 Frisby v. Sheridan (La.), 3 Mart.. N. S.. 
 243. 
 
 The act of an agent of carrier in billing 
 a shipment to a place other tlian that 
 stated in the contract of sliipment, held 
 the proximate cause of the shipper's los- 
 ing the benefit of the market. Gulf, etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Harris (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 72 S. 
 W. 71. 
 
 41. Liability as for conversion. — United 
 States. — Blowers & Co. v. Canadian Pac. 
 R. Co., 155 Fed. 935; Southern E.\p. Co.- 
 V. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549. 24 L. Ed. 285. 
 
 California. — Newhall v. Central Pac. R. 
 Co., 51 Cal. 345, 21 Am. Rep. 713. 
 
 Georgia. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Sloat, 93 Ga. 803, 20 S. E. 219; Southern 
 Exp. Co. 2: Sinclair, 130 Ga. 372, 60 S. E. 
 849; Rome R. Co. r. Sullivan, etc.. Co.. 
 14 Ga. 277; Hol)1>s t-. Chicago Packing, 
 etc.. Co., 98 Ga. 576, 25 S. E. 584, 58 Am. 
 St.- Rep. 320; Bruhl v. Coleman. 113 Ga. 
 1102. 39 S. E. 481; Merchants', etc.. 
 
 Transp. Co. v. Moore & Co., 124 Ga. 482, 
 52 S. E. 802; Atlantic, etc, R. Co. v. Good- 
 win, 1 Ga. App, 351. 57 S. E. 1070. 
 
 Illinois. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Rose, 
 20 111. App. 670. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Claflin v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mass.), 7 Allen 341; Forbes v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 .\m. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 76; Wright, etc., Wire- 
 Cloth Co. V. Warren, 177 Mass. 283, 58 N. 
 
 E. 1082. 
 
 .l/arv/rt'id.— Seal)oard, etc.. Railway v. 
 Phillip's, 108 Md. 285, 70 .^tl. 232. 
 
 Michigan. — Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 
 344, 29 N. W. 855, 6 Am. St. Rep. 301. 
 
 A'ctv York. — Security Trust Co. V. 
 Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exp., 178 N. Y. 620, 
 70 N. E. 1109, affirming 80 N. Y. S. 830, 
 81 App. Div. 426; Packard v. Getman 
 (N. Y.), 4 Wend. 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166. 
 
 Ohio. — Oskamp v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 61 O. St. 341, 56 N, E, 13. 
 
 South Carolina. — Trowell v. Youmans 
 (S. C), 5 Strob. 67. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Seley. 
 31 Tex. Civ. App. 158. 72 S. W. 89; Hous- 
 ton, etc.. R. Co. V. Adams, 49 Tex. 748. 
 759, 30 .A.m. Rep. 116; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195, 202, 17 
 S. W. 608. 
 
 Vermont. — Winslow, etc., Co. v. Ver- 
 mont, etc.. R. Co., 42 Vt. 700, 1 .\m. Rep. 
 36.5. 
 
 West J'irginia. — Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 63 W. Va. 423, 
 61 S. E. 364. 
 
 Illustrations. — If dutiable goods which 
 are sent into the L^nited States from Can- 
 ada, are marked to the care of another 
 person than the consignee, in order that 
 such person may pay the duties, under 
 an arrangement by which such goods 
 come in bond, this gives to the agent no 
 authority to change their destination: and 
 a carrier who, knowing the limited au- 
 thority thus conferred upon the agent, 
 upon his order delivers them to persons 
 not entitled to receive them, is liable for 
 a conversion. Claflin z: Boston, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mass.). 7 .'\llen 341. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped a car of zinc dross to 
 its own order, care of defendants, who 
 operated a line of steamships, and sent 
 the bill of lading to C. with draft at- 
 tached. The draft was not paid, and it 
 and the bill of lading were returned to 
 plaintiff. The car was placed on defend- 
 ants' wharf, and the freight bill delivered 
 to them showed plaintitT to be the con- 
 signee, and was indorsed, "Notify C." 
 
 F. had accepted freight rates on a ship- 
 ment of zinc dross oluained from defend- 
 ants, and requested defendants to deliver 
 the permit for loading to C. Several bar- 
 rels of dross were hauled to the wharf by
 
 § 858 
 
 CAKRIERS. 
 
 552 
 
 by mistake delivered goods consigned to plaintitif to another, but recovered them 
 within a day. and tendered them to plaintiff within three days, there was no 
 conversion.'* - 
 
 Effect of Fraud, Imposition or Mistake. — Neither fraud.^-' imposi- 
 
 C.'s teamster and loaded on defendants' 
 steamer under the permit. The barrels 
 bore the same mark as those in the car, 
 and defendants also permitted the con- 
 tents of the car to be loaded, and all the 
 dross was carried abroad. Held, that 
 there was nothing in the transaction with 
 F. which could relieve defendants from 
 liability for conversion of the dross. 
 Wright, etc., Wire-Cloth Co. v. Warren, 
 58 N. E. 1082, 177 Mass. 283. 
 
 Plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to 
 W. a car load of corn, to be paid for in 
 cash before delivery. W. having paid 
 part of the price only, plaintiff shipped 
 the corn on one of the cars of defendant, 
 a common carrier, for account of himself, 
 not stating the name of any consignee. 
 Defendant delivered the corn to W. at 
 his request, but without the consent of 
 plaintiff, and without payment of the bal- 
 c nee of the price. Held, that this was a 
 conversion of the corn by defendant. 
 Jellett V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 Minn. 
 3G5, 15 N. W. 237. 
 
 A carrier delivered goods to the con- 
 signee four days after notice by the real 
 owner, to the carrier's agent where the 
 goods were, not to do so except on his 
 written order. In reply to such notice, 
 and three days afterwards, the agent ad- 
 vised the owner that he could not hold 
 the goods if demanded on bill of lading, 
 and to send his orders through the ship- 
 ping office. On the next day the owner 
 wrote such agent that he wanted the goods 
 reshipped to him, and he would advance 
 freight. Held, that the owner was guilty 
 of no laches that would prevent him re- 
 covering from the carrier for the con- 
 version of the goods, there appearing to 
 be no delay by such owner affecting the 
 ground on which the carrier acted. Les- 
 ter V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 92 Hun 342, 
 36 N. Y. S. 907, 72 X. Y. St. Rep. 334. 
 
 Where a carrier negligently delivers 
 goods to one other than the consignee, 
 and afterwards contracts with the person 
 to whom they are delivered to sell the 
 goods, and hold the proceeds for its ac- 
 count, it is guilty of conversion. Erie 
 Dispatch v. Johnson, 87 Tenn. 490, 11 
 S. W. 441. 
 
 A carrier is guilty of a conversion of 
 the goods when he forwards them from 
 their point of destination elsewhere on the 
 order of any one but the party to whom 
 they should have been delivered. Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 
 759, 30 Am. Rep. 116. 
 
 42. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wortham (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 1071. 
 
 43. Delivery through fraud. — I'nitcd 
 
 States.— The Sahtee, Fed. Cas.*No. 12,328, 
 2 Ben. 519. affirmed in Fed. Cas. No. 
 12,330, 7 Blatchf. 186. 
 
 Arkansas. — Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. 
 f. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 99 Ark. 497, 138 
 S. W. 964. 
 
 Georgia. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Speirs, 
 1 Ga. App. 22, 57 S. E. 973. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 
 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116; Trice v. 
 Miller, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 440. 
 
 rirginia. — Moore v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co., 103 \'a. 189, 48 S. E. 887. 
 
 li'est Virginia. — Dudley v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 58 W. Va. 604, 52 S. E. 871, 3 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1135, 112 Am. St. Rep. 
 1027. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where one had given a 
 general order to an express company 
 that all matter addressed to him should 
 be delivered by it to the conductor of a 
 named railroad, and a packj.ge of goods 
 which had been received by the conductor 
 from the express company under such 
 order was tendered by an agent of the 
 railroad company to the person who had 
 given the order, and he declined to re- 
 ceive it because it was not intended for 
 him and was not his property, and the 
 agent of the railroad company thereupon 
 delivered the goods to an impostor, who 
 pretended to be the rightful consignee, 
 and loss to the consignor was thus oc- 
 casioned, both the person giving the order 
 and the railroad company became liable 
 to the consignor for the value of the 
 goods, though the impostor exhibited to 
 the agent of the railroad company, be- 
 fore the goods were delivered, some evi- 
 dence tending to show that the goods 
 were really intended for him. Bruhl v. 
 Coleman. 39 S. E. 481, 113 Ga. 1102. 
 
 Delivery to person presenting notice 
 sent to consignee. — Defendant, a carrier, 
 sent to plaintiffs, the consignees of certain 
 goods, a notice that the goods had ar- 
 rived at destination, such notice bearing 
 a request to return it when calling to 
 pay charges, and a statement that all 
 orders for the delivery of goods must 
 give the number of the car and date of 
 freight bill. Plaintiffs handed this notice 
 to their truckman, who lost it, and some 
 third person presented it to defendant, 
 and received the goods. Held, that such 
 notice furnished no such evidence of title 
 as to justify defendant in delivering the 
 goods, upon its production, without as- 
 certaining that the delivery was being 
 made to the consignee, and it was im- 
 material that plaintiff's truckman had 
 Ijeen accustomed to take them from the 
 carrier on the production of similar no-
 
 553 
 
 TKANSI'OKTATIOX AND DELIVERY BY CARRIER. 
 
 § 858-859 
 
 tion,*-* nor mistake^''' will excuse the carrier for delivering goods to 
 the wrong person. The carrier is liable, without regard to the ciuestion of due 
 care or negligence.''' 
 
 § 859. Fraudulent Consignee.— When the carrier delivers goods to the 
 person to whom llic goods were sent, although by false and fraudulent devices 
 that ])erson impersonates another, to whom the consignor believed he was send- 
 ing the goods, the carrier is not liable."''^ 
 
 tices. Siiishfiincr v. .\'c\v York Cent., etc., 
 R. Co.. 4(1 X. Y. S. 887, 21 Misc. Rep. 4.'5. 
 
 Forged order. — A carrier is liable for 
 misdelivery on a forged order. Trowel! 
 v. Youmaiis (S. C), 5 Strob. 07; American 
 Mercliants' Union Exp. Co. v. Milk, 73 111. 
 224; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 49 
 Tex. 74S. lU) .\m. Rep. llC. 
 
 Forged bills of lading. — .\ carrier, de- 
 Hverin.L; freif^ht to the liokler of forged 
 bills of lading, is liable to the holder of 
 the genuine bills. New York Cent., etc., 
 R. Co. V. I5ank, 193 Fed. 456. 
 
 44. Imposition. — California. — Adams v. 
 Blankenstein, 2 Cal. 413, 56 Am. Dec. 350. 
 
 Georgia. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Spires, 
 1 Ga. App. 22, 57 S. E. 973. 
 
 Virginia. — Moore v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co., 103 Va. 189, 48 S. E. 887. 
 
 West Virginia. — Dudley v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 58 W. Va. 604, 52 S. E. 718, 3 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1135, 112 Am. St. Rep. 
 1027. 
 
 Impersonation of consignee. — A com- 
 mon carrier, wlio negligently delivers 
 goods to one impersonating the true con- 
 signee, is liable therefor. Pacific Exp. 
 Co. V. Critzer (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 
 1017. 
 
 45. Delivery by mistake. — United States. 
 —The Santee, Fed. Cas. Xo. 12,328, 2 
 Ben. 519, aftirmed in Fed. Cas. No. 12,330, 
 7 Blatchf. 18(). 
 
 Arkansas. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487; Equitable Powder 
 Mfg. Co. V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 99 
 Ark. 497, 138 S. W. 964. 
 
 California. — Adams v. Blankenstein, 2 
 Cal. 413. 56 Am. Dec. 350. 
 
 Georgia. — Rome R. Co. v. Sullivan, etc., 
 Co., 14 Ga. 277; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Spires, 57 S. E. 973, 1 Ga. App. 22; Sel- 
 lers V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 123 Ga. 386, 
 51 S. E. 398. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ames, 
 40 111. 249. 
 
 .\'eiv For/^.— Packard v. Getman (N. Y.), 
 4 Wend. 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166; Scheu v. 
 Eric R. Co. (N. Y.). 10 Hun 498; Bush 
 V. Romer (N. Y.), 2 Thomp. & C. 597. 
 
 Soutli Carolina. — Trowell v. Youmans 
 (S. C), 5 Strob. 67. 
 
 Texas.— GuU, etc.. R. Co. v. Fowler, 12 
 Tex. Civ. App. 683, 34 S. W. 661, affirmed 
 in 93 Tex. 661, 684, no op.; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. r. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 195. 17 
 S. W. 608; Roberts r. Yarboro. 41 Tex. 
 449; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7-. Humphries, 4 
 Tex. Civ. .App. 333, 23 S. W. 556; Hous- 
 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 
 30 Am. Rep. 116. 
 
 Virginia. — Moore v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co., 103 Va. 189, 48 S. E. 887. 
 
 IVest Virginia. — Dudley v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 58 W. Va. 604, 52 S. E. 718, 3 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1135, 112 Am. St. Rep. 
 1027. 
 
 A carrier is chargeable with a conversion 
 at the instance of the consignee or his 
 assigns, if he delivers the goods to any 
 other person, though the carrier acts in 
 entire good faith, and the wrong de- 
 livery is the result of an innocent mis- 
 take on the part of another carrier from 
 whom he received the goods. Merch- 
 ants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Moore & Co., 
 52 S. E. 802, 124 Ga. 482. 
 
 Where a carrier by mistake issues a 
 receipt for freight to the wrong person, 
 it can excuse delivery to him only by 
 showing he was in fact the true owner 
 of the freight and asserted his claim 
 thereto before delivery could be made to 
 the consignee for whom the shipment 
 was intended. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Howard Supply Co., 54 S. E. 530, 125 
 Ga. 478. 
 
 46. Indiana. — Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Wright, 58 N. E. 559, 25 Ind. .\pp. 525. 
 
 Massaehusetts. — Forbes v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 76. 
 
 Ohio. — Oskamp z: Southern Exp. Co. 
 61 O. St. 341, 56 N. E. 13. 
 
 Te.ras. — Houston, etc., R. Co. z\ Adams. 
 49 Tex. 74S, :in .\iii. Rep. 116. 
 
 47. Fraudulent consignee. — United States- 
 — Fulton, etc.. Cotton Mills v. Hudson 
 Nav. Co., 164 Fed. 1022, affirming 157 
 Fed. 987. 
 
 .Massaehusetts. — Samuel 7-. Chenev. 135 
 Ma.<;"s. 278. 46 Am. Rep. 467. 
 
 .\ ezc York. — Price 7'. Oswego, etc., R. 
 Co. (N. Y.), 58 Barb. 599. 
 
 Ohio. — Oskamp 7". Southern Exp. Co., 
 11 O. C. C. 543. 5 O. C. D. 145; Oskamp 
 7'. Southern Exp. Co., 61 O. St. 341, 56 
 N. E. 13. 
 
 Pennsyhania. — Seibert v. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co.. 1j fa. Super. Ct. 435. 
 
 Te.ras. — Pacific Exp. Co. v. Hertzberg, 
 17 Tex. Civ. App. 100, 42 S. W. 795. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where a person, fraudu- 
 lently a.ssuniing the name of a reputable 
 merchant, orders goods by letter, the 
 carrier, to whom the seller intrusts the 
 goods for delivery to such person, is not 
 liable to the seller for delivering the goods
 
 § 859 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 554 
 
 Goods Consigned to Fictitious Firm. — Where a carrier, without requiring 
 evidence of identit}'. dehvers lu a stranger goods which have heen fraudulently- 
 ordered by the latter in the name of a fictitious firm, and which have been 
 shipped in compliance with the order, directed to the fictitious firm, it is liable 
 to the consignor for their value.'*'' 
 
 Goods Shipped on Fictitious Order. — Where, by means of a fictitious order, 
 a consignor is induced to send property to a person whom he knows to be re- 
 sponsible, the carrier is liable for loss from a delivery of the goods to another 
 person, claiming to be the ])roper consignee, though the delivery is induced by 
 false representations to the carrier's agent.-*"*'* A delivery to one who by falsely 
 
 to him. Samuel v. Cheney, 1155 Mass. 278, 
 46 Am. Rep. 467; Edmunds v. Merchants' 
 Despatch Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 383; 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Luce, 11 O. 
 C. C. 543, 5 O. C. D. 145. 
 
 G., representing himself as Y., of Provi- 
 dence, bought goods of plaintiff. The 
 goods were marked to Y., and delivered 
 to defendant railway company, who car- 
 ried them to Providence. G., who was 
 known to defendants by his real name, 
 applied for theni as the property of Y.; 
 and defendants delivered to him on his 
 receipt, but without his producing a bill 
 of lading, which the defendants had given 
 to plaintiff, promising to deliver the goods 
 to Y. or order. There was no Y. in 
 Providence. Held, that the defendants 
 were not liable to plaintiff for delivering 
 the goods to G. Dunbar v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Corp., 110 Mass. 26, 14 Am. Rep. 576. 
 
 48. Goods consigned to fictitious firm. 
 — Price V. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 50 N. Y. 
 213, 10 Am. Rep. 475. 
 
 49. Goods shipped on fictitious order. — • 
 Florida. — Southern Exp. Co. i'. Van Me- 
 ter, 17 Fla. 783, 35 Am. Rep. 107. 
 
 Illinois. — Shearer v. Pacific Exp. Co., 43 
 111. App. 641, affirmed in 160 111. 215, 43 
 N. E. 816, 37 L. R. A. 177, 52 Am. St. 
 Rep. 324. 
 
 Indiana. — American Exp. Co. v. 
 Fletcher, 25 Ind. 492. 
 
 Ohio. — Oskamp v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 61 O. St. 341, 56 N. E. 13, reversing 14 
 O. C. C. 176. 
 
 Tennessee. — Sword v. Young, 89 Tenn. 
 (5 Pickle) 126, 14 S. W. 481, 604. 
 
 Vermont. — Winslow, etc., Co. v. Ver- 
 mont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 700, 1 Am. Rep. 
 365. 
 
 Where, after notice from the consignee 
 that he had not ordered the goods, tlic 
 carrier delivers them to one who had 
 wrongfully ordered them in the name of 
 the consignee, it is liable to the consignor 
 for their value. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Fort Wayne Elect. Co., 108 Ky. 113, 
 55 S. W. 918, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1544; Pacific 
 Exp. Co. V. Hertzberg, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 
 100, 42 S. W. 7!)5. 
 
 It is no defense in an action against 
 an express company for delivering a 
 package of money to a person other than 
 the consignee that the consignor might 
 have discovered by the exercise of due 
 care that the order and check for the 
 
 money were forgeries. Judgment, 80 N. 
 Y. S. 830, 81 App. Div. 426, affirmed. Se- 
 curity Trust Co. V. Wells, Fargo & Co.'s 
 Exp., 70 N. E. 1109, 178 N. Y. 620. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against a 
 railroad company to recover damages 
 from them, as carriers, for nondelivery 
 of goods, it appeared that the goods were 
 ordered from the plaintiffs, by C, writing 
 under the false name of R., and intend- 
 ing to swindle liie plaintiffs. The plain- 
 tiffs addressed the goods to R., and for- 
 warded them by defendants' road. C. 
 awaited their arrival, and claimed them 
 under the name of R., which name he as- 
 sumed for the purpose of getting them; 
 and the defendants deliverea tliem with- 
 out requiring identification, or taking any 
 other precaution to make sure that the 
 person receiving them was R. Held, that 
 they were liable for a misdelivery. Win- 
 slow, etc., Co. V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 
 42 Vt. 700, 1 Am. Rep. 365. 
 
 Goods ordered over a fictitious name, 
 with the intent not to pay for them, were 
 delivered by the carrier to the person 
 giving the order, upon his presenting an 
 unindorsed bill of lading made out in the 
 assumed name, and without requiring 
 liim to identify himself as the consignee 
 or the consignee's agent. Held, that the 
 carrier was liable to the consignor for 
 the price of the goods. Sword v. Young, 
 89 Tenn. (5 Pickle) 126, 14 S. W. 481; 
 S. C, 14 S. W. 604. 
 
 Same — Consignments of money. — A. 
 forged a telegram in the name of B., re- 
 questing a national bank at Charleston, 
 III, to forward $500 to B., at Gaines- 
 ville, Fla. LTpon the receipt of this tele- 
 gram, B.'s agent gave his note for the 
 money, which B. subsequently paid, and 
 the bank forwarded the money by ex- 
 press; the package being addressed to 
 B., at the Arlington House, Gainesville. 
 The agent of the express company at 
 Gainesville delivered the package to a 
 stranger without any further identifica- 
 tion than that an hotel keeper, known to 
 said agent as a reliable person, accom- 
 panied the stranger, and treated him as 
 B. Held, that the company was liable to 
 B. for the loss of the money. Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Van Meter, 17 Fla. 783, 35 
 Am. Rep. 107. 
 
 An impostor, under the name of J. C. 
 S. (one with wliom plaintiff had had
 
 TKAXSl'OkTATlOX .\M> IMlLlVKKV I'.V CAKKIKK. 
 
 §§ 859-860 
 
 representing himself to be an agent of another, obtained the assent of the con- 
 signor to a sale of goods which were consigned to his assumed principal, is not 
 excused, even though he may have heen recognized Ijy the consignor in making 
 the sale."'" 
 
 Two Persons with Same Name. — It has been held that where there were 
 two men of tlu- same name, and one refused a tender of the goods, saying he 
 had not ordered them, a delivery to the other who i)roduced tlie bill of lading, 
 did not charge the carrier with negligence, though the person receiving the goods 
 was a comparative stranger.'"'' 
 
 §§ 860-865. Delivery without Production of Bill of Lading- § 860. 
 In General. — A carrier delivers goods at its peril to one wiliiout the bill of 
 lading:''- and it is liable if il makes wrongful delivery without requiring the 
 production and surrender of llie bill,"'' e\en if delixery l)e made to the con- 
 
 dealings), tclcgraplied to plaintiff tu ox- 
 press to him $4,000, in response to which 
 plaintiff expressed the money, at the 
 same time telegraphing for particulars as 
 to tile use the money was to be put to, 
 wliich telegram the impostor answered. 
 The impostor had been staying in the 
 town to which the money was expressed, 
 and from which the telegram was sent, 
 for several days, under the name of J. 
 C. S.; and the express company, on re- 
 ceipt of the money, delivered it to the 
 impostor, after using reasonable diligence 
 to ascertain his identity. There was no 
 evidence as to his true name. Held, that 
 the express company was liable to plain- 
 tiff as for a misdelivery of the money. 
 Pacific Exp. Co. V. Shearer, IGO 111. 215, 
 43 N. E. 816, 37 L. R. A. 177, 52 Am. St. 
 Rep. 324, affirming 43 111. App. 641. 
 
 Suit against an express company for 
 failure to deliver a package of money 
 consigned by the plaintiff to one A. The 
 receipt given for the package stipulated 
 that it was to be delivered to .\. in per- 
 son. Answer, that the agent of the com- 
 pany at the place to which said package 
 was addressed was also the telegraph op- 
 erator at that place; that a person pre- 
 tending to be A. came to said agent, and 
 sent a telegram through him to the plain- 
 tiffs, requesting that the money sued for 
 should be sent; that in answer to said 
 telegram the monej' was sent l)y tlie 
 plaintiffs, addressed to -A..; and tliat the 
 same person who had sent said telegram 
 called for and demanded said package, 
 representing himself to be the person to 
 whom the same was addressed, and the 
 money was thereupon delivered to him 
 by the defendant's agent. Held, that the 
 answer did not show such a degree of 
 care and caution as would relieve the de- 
 fendant from liability, even if charged as 
 a forwarder only, .'\merican Exp. Co. v. 
 Fletcher, 2.-) Ind. 492. 
 
 50. Brunswick & Co. v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 46 Iowa 677; Edmunds v. Mer- 
 chants' Despatch Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 
 283. 
 
 51. Two persons of same name. — Rush 
 
 V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 02. 
 Sec Pacific Exp. Co. v. Hertzberg, 17 
 Tex. Civ. App. 100, 42 S. W. 795. 
 
 A carrier's agent, who delivered goods 
 to one whose name was the same as that 
 of the consignee, was not chargeable with 
 knowledge that the consignor had been 
 sending goods through the same com- 
 pany for five years, six or seven times a 
 year, addressed in the same way. Singer 
 z. Merchants', etc., Transp. Co.. 77 N. E. 
 882, 191 Mass. 449, 114 .\m. St. Rep. 635. 
 
 52. Delivery without bill of lading. — 
 Alabama. — Alobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Bay 
 Shore Luml)er Co., 165 Ala. 610, 51 So. 
 956; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Dahlberg 
 Brokerage Co., 170 Ala. 617, 54 So. 168. 
 
 Georgia. — Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. 
 Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221, 7 S. E. 
 135. 
 
 Illinois. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. z\ Na- 
 tional Live Stock Bank, 59 111. App. 451. 
 
 Ohio. — Bank v. Baltimore, etc.. Rail- 
 way. 15 O. D. N. P. 32, 2 N. P., N. S., 
 403. 
 
 53. Farris v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 143 
 111. App. 208; Merchants' Despatch, etc., 
 Co. r. Merriam, 111 Ind. 5. 11 N. E. 954. 
 
 Under commercial usage a carrier 
 should deliver articles sliii)ped only on 
 production of bill of lading, though it 
 names the consignee. First Nat. Bank v. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co.. c.s Pac. wr,. '2^ 
 Wash. 4:i9. 
 
 Where goods have been transferred 
 from one carrier to another, the last car- 
 rier is bound to deliver the goods to the 
 holder of the bill of lading issued by the 
 first carrier. Grayson County Nat. Bank 
 7'. Nashville, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 79 S. W. 1094. 
 
 But in Nanson 7: Jacob, 93 Mo. 331, 6 
 S. W. 246, 3 .\m. St. Rep. 531, it was held 
 that there had been no conversion by the 
 second carrier where plaintiff's assignors 
 shipped by a common carrier certain 
 goods addressed to another person, but 
 took a bill of lading, which showed that 
 the goods were consigned to the order 
 of the consignors, and on the arrival of 
 the goods, the second carrier, in the usual
 
 § 860 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 556 
 
 signee.'"* As a general rule where it is stipulated that the goods shall be de- 
 livered only on the production of the bill of lading, a delivery, even to the 
 consignee, renders the carrier liable if the bill be not presented."-'' In some 
 states by statute carriers are required not to deliver goods except upon the sur- 
 
 course of business, and at the addressee's 
 request, obtained and delivered them to 
 him, without notice that he was not the 
 real owner. 
 
 Custom. — If a usage exists for railroad 
 corporations in a certain cit}^ to deliver 
 to a consignee goods consigned to him 
 by a bill of lading not containing the 
 words "or order," without requiring the 
 production of the bill of lading, such a 
 delivery is good as against a person to 
 whom the consignee has previously de- 
 livered the bill of lading as security for 
 an advance made by him to the con- 
 signee. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 76. 
 
 Receipt held not bill of lading.— A 
 shipping receipt, whereby the carrier 
 agreed to transport goods, and in which 
 a third person was named as consignee, 
 and the number of the car containing the 
 goods was stated, was not a bill of lad- 
 ing to bearer, and was not an instrument 
 symbolical of the goods, without produc- 
 tion of which a delivery could not be 
 made to any one. Green v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 93 N. E. 622, 206 Mass. 331. 
 
 54. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Johnston, 45 
 Neb. 57, 63 N. W. 144, 50 Am. St. Rep. 
 540; Gates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 42 
 Neb. 379, 60 N. W. 583. 
 
 55. Stipulation requiring production of 
 bill. — Marxland. — Seaboard, etc., Railway 
 V. Phillips', 108 Md. 285, 70 Atl. 232; Ches- 
 apeake Steamship Co. v. Merchants' Nat. 
 Bank, 102 Md. 589, 63 Atl. 113; Mer- 
 chants' Nat. Bank v. Baltimore, etc.. 
 Steamboat Co., 63 Atl. 108, 102 Md. 573. 
 
 New York. — Foggan v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 61 Hun 623, 16 N. Y. S. 25. 
 
 Texas. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Gray- 
 son County Nat. Bank, 93 S. W. 431, 100 
 Tex. 17, reversing 91 S. W. 1106; Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. United States Fidel- 
 ity, etc., Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 148 S. W. 671. 
 
 Holder of invoice, — When goods are 
 consigned to the order of the shipper, 
 and the manifest and invoice show that 
 they were to be delivered only on produc- 
 tion of the bill of lading, the carrier is 
 liable, to the extent of their value, for 
 delivering them to the holder of the in- 
 voice without compliance with these 
 terms. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stern, 119 
 Pa. 24, 12 Atl. 756, 4 Am. St. Rep. 626. 
 
 In Texas it is held that in the absence 
 of such a stipulation in the bill the car- 
 rier may deliver to the consignee without 
 requiring its production. Nashville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Grayson v. County Nat. Bank, 
 100 Tex. 17, 93 S. W. 431, reversing 91 
 S. W. 1106. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where a railway com- 
 pany, after issuing a bill of lading on 
 
 which is stamped, '"Not negotiable unless 
 delivery is to be made to the consignee 
 or order," delivers the goods to the con- 
 signee named therein without requiring 
 the bill of lading to be produced, it does 
 so at its peril. Barnum Grain Co. v. 
 Great Northern R. Co., 102 Minn. 147, 
 112 N. W. 1030. 
 
 A bill of lading containing a provision 
 that the goods are to be delivered on 
 "presentation of duplicate thereof" estab- 
 lishes the fact that the consignor is the 
 owner of the goods, and, if the carrier 
 delivers the goods to the consignee with- 
 out the presentation of any bill of lading, 
 the carrier becomes liable to the con- 
 signor. Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. Ir- 
 vin, 46 Ind. 180. 
 
 On the face of the bill of lading, under 
 the word "Consignee," was written "Or- 
 der of C. E. Drake." On the back was 
 printed the word "Conditions," and under 
 it "Not negotiable," and under this a num- 
 ber of conditions, one of which provided 
 ihat "if the word 'Order' is written hereon, 
 immediately before or after the name of 
 the party to whose order the property is 
 consigned," the surrender of the bill of 
 lading shall be required before the deliv- 
 ery of the property, and that in any other 
 case the property may be delivered with- 
 out requiring such surrender. Held, that 
 the l)ill of ladit.g on it.= fact was trans- 
 ferable, and the carrier, having delivered 
 the goods without requiring its produc- 
 tion, was liable to third persons who had 
 acquired rights in the property. First 
 Nat. Bank v. New York, etc., R. Co., 85 
 Hun 160, 32 N. Y. S. 604, 66 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. 112. 
 
 Where a carrier permitted goods con- 
 signed to shipper's orders to be taken 
 away by a purchaser after arrival at des- 
 tination without complying with carrier's 
 instructions in producing a bill of lading, 
 it is liable for their value regardless of 
 whether its possession was that of a car- 
 rier or warehouseman. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hall, etc., Mach. Co., 23 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 211, 56 S. W. 140, affirmed in 93 
 Tex. 694, no op. 
 
 Production of bill not required.— 
 Where a Ijill of lading provided that, if 
 the shipper did not elect to sign and ac- 
 cept the conditions printed thereon, the 
 property would be transported at the 
 carrier's liability, limited only as pro- 
 vided by common law and the laws of 
 the United States and the several states, 
 and the shipper signed no acceptance of 
 the conditions, a further provision of the 
 bill of lading that its surrender, properly 
 indorsed, should be required before the 
 delivery of the property at destination,
 
 557 
 
 TRAXSPORTATIOX AND DELIVERY BV CARRIKR. 
 
 § 860 
 
 render of the bills of lading.-"''' Where a shipment is delivered to the proper 
 person the carrier is not liable to the consignor though delivery was made with- 
 out the i)roduction of the bill of lading;-''" as, for instance, where the bill is 
 wrongfully withheld.-''** Where goods are consigned by a person to his own 
 order and are delivered to such consignor or upon his order, this delivery frees 
 the carrier from further liability to the consignor, even though the bill of lading 
 was not surrendered in accordance with a stii)ulation therein contained. ^^ A 
 carrier, which issues a bill of lading naming an intended buyer as the shipper 
 and consignee, in the absence of any outstanding order of the apparent shipper, 
 may, as between itself and him, waive a stipulation that the bill of lading was 
 to be surrendered before delivery, without subjecting itself to liability to the 
 owner."'* .And a bill of lading, providing that, unless the word "order" was 
 written thereon immediately before or after the .name of the party to whose 
 order the freight was consigned, the carrier might deliver without the produc- 
 
 liad no application to tiie sliipment. 
 George & Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 40 So. 48f), 88 Miss. 306. 
 
 Goods were shipped under a bill of lad- 
 ing which stipulated for their delivery to 
 the order of the consignor, and that its 
 surrender should be required before the 
 delivery of the goods at destination. The 
 bill was indorsed to a partnersliip for col- 
 lection, and delivery was directed to the 
 firm's order. Held, that the carrier was 
 authorized to deliver upon a written or- 
 der signed by one of the partners, with- 
 out requiring the bill to be presented, 
 though the partner may have privately 
 intended the signing of the order to be 
 I'.is individual act only, provided the car- 
 rier's agent had no information of such 
 partner's intention. Chicago Packing, 
 etc., Co. V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 29 S. 
 H. fiOS, \m Ga. 140, 40 L. R. A. 367. 
 
 56. Statutes requiring surrender of bills 
 of lading.— Nebraska Meal Mills r. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 64 Ark. 169, 41 S. W. 
 810, 38 L. R. A. 358, 62 Am. St. Rep. 
 183. See Laws 1858 C. 326 & 1859 C. 
 353; Colgate v. Pennsylvania Co.. 102 N. 
 Y. 120, 6 N. E. 114, affirming 31 Hun 297. 
 
 Under Pen. Code, § 633, making it an 
 offense for a carrier to deliver merchan- 
 dise for which a bill of lading has been 
 issued unless it bears on its face the 
 words "Not negotiable," or unless it is 
 surrendered at the time of the delivery, 
 delivery of goods without surrender of the 
 bill of lading is unlawful where the words 
 "Not negotiable" do not appear on its 
 face, though such words are printed on 
 the back. First Nat. Bank v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 85 Hun 160, 32 N. 
 Y. S. 004, r.o N. Y. St. Rep. 112. 
 
 Delivery to consignee after transfer by 
 him of bill of lading. — Under Laws 1858, 
 c. 326, and 1859, c. 353, forbidding a de- 
 livery by a common carrier except on the 
 production and cancellation of the bill of 
 lading, the common carrier is liable for 
 conversion upon delivery of the goods to 
 consignee after he has transferred the bill 
 of lading to third parties, unless the bill 
 of lading is stamped "Not negotiable." 
 
 Colgate V. Pennsylvania Co., 102 X. Y. 
 120, 6 N. H. 114, affirming ;jl Hun 297. 
 
 57. Effect of delivery to proper person. 
 ^-A provision in a bill of lading requir- 
 ing a surrender as a condition of deliv- 
 ery is for the benefit of tht carrier, and 
 hence, where delivery is made to the 
 proper person, it is immaterial that sur- 
 render of the bill was not required. Nel- 
 son Grain Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co. 
 (Mich.), 140 N. W. 486. 
 
 Where one ships goods consigned to 
 the order of himself, with direction to 
 notify B., who was the purchaser and ul- 
 timate consignee, and sends the bill of 
 lading, requiring delivery of the goods 
 on production of the bill of lading prop- 
 erly indorsed, together with a draft on 
 P>., to a bank, the bill of lading to be de- 
 livered to B. on payment of the draft, the 
 carrier is not liable for delivering the 
 goods to B., who paid the draft to the 
 bank, though the bill of lading was not 
 produced, and though part of the draft 
 was not paid till after delivery of part of 
 the goods; and it is immaterial that the 
 bank subsequently became insolvent, and 
 failed to remit proceeds of the draft. 
 Witt V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 41 
 S. W. 10C)4. 99 Tenn. 442. 
 
 58. "If the bill of lading is wrongfully 
 withheld, and the goods go to the per- 
 son who is legally or equitably entitled 
 to them, as between him and the shipper, 
 though without the use of the bill of lad- 
 ing, the shipper sustains no actual dam- 
 age, where there is no other outstanding 
 interest in the goods; and his claim for a 
 merely technical irregularity in delivering 
 them without the bill of lading, is dam- 
 num absque injuria." Herbst v. The 
 Asiatic Prince, 97 Fed. 343. 345. 
 
 59. Goods shipped to consignor's or- 
 der. — Chicago Packing, etc., Co. r. Sa- 
 vannah, etc., R. Co.. 103 Ga. 140. 29 S. 
 E. 698, 40 L. R. A. 367. 
 
 60. Waiver of stipulation requiring sur- 
 render of bill. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. -•. 
 Gilbreath (Tex. Civ. App.L 144 S. W. 
 1051.
 
 ;§ 860-861 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 558 
 
 tion or surrender of the bill, protects the carrier in deHvering to a third person, 
 where tlie bill does not contain the word "order." ^^ Where no bills of lading 
 are issued, the carrier is justified in delivering the goods to the consignee with- 
 out the production of receipts or other evidence of ownership issued to the con- 
 signor.*^- 
 
 § 861. Liability to Bona Fide Holder. — Where the carrier delivers goods 
 without the surrender of the bill of lading it assumes the risk of its previous 
 transfer tb an innocent party.*'^ And it is liable to a bona fide holder of the 
 bill where, without production of such bill, it delivers the goods to one not en- 
 titled thereto."^ l>ut the carrier is not liable where the transfer of the bill is 
 subsequent to delivery, as the transfer of a bill of lading only carries with it 
 whatever title the transferror had at the time of the transfer.*'-'' 
 
 61. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mayer 
 Bros. Co., T9 Kan. (597, 100 Pac. 623; 
 Weisman z: Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 22 
 R. 1. 12S. 47 Atl. 31S. 
 
 62. Where no bills issued. — Schlichting 
 r. Chicas?o, etc., R. Co., 121 Iowa 502, 96 
 X. W. 9.-)n. 
 
 63. Liability to bona fide holder. — ■ 
 Midland Xat. Bank z\ Missouri," etc., R. 
 Co., 1 Mo. App. 417, (32 Mo. App. 531. 
 
 64. United States. — The Thames. Fed. 
 Cas. No. 13,858, 7 Blatchf. 22G, affirmed 
 in 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 804. 
 
 Georgia. — Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. 
 Western, etc., R. Co.. 81 Ga. 221, 7 S. E. 
 125. 
 
 Nczv Ilaiiif^shire. — First Nat. Bank v. 
 Northern Railroad, 58 N. H. 203. 
 
 Nezu York. — Colgate v. Pennsylvania 
 Co. (N. Y.), 31 Hun 297, affirmed in 102 
 N. Y. 120, 6 N. E. 114. 
 
 Te.vas. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Gray- 
 son County Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.). 
 91 S. W. 1106, judgment reversed in part, 
 100 Tex. 17, 93 S. W. 431. 
 
 Where, by the terms of the bill of 
 lading, the goods are consigned to the 
 order of the consignor, and the bill is 
 indorsed in blank, and negotiated for 
 value as security for a draft drawn by 
 the consignor on a third person, the 
 carrier has no right to deliver the goods 
 lo such third person without production 
 of the bill of lading, or authority from 
 the holder thereof. Boatmen's Sav. Bank 
 v. Western, etc., R. Co., 81 Ga. 221, 7 S. 
 E. 125. See Chicago Packing, etc., Co. 
 V. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 103 Ga. 140, 
 29 S. E. 698, 40 L. R. A. 3G7. 
 
 Where a carrier allows live stock 
 shipped over its road to go into the pos- 
 session of a person, other than the con- 
 signee, without the order of the cofi- 
 signee, it becomes responsible for their 
 value to a bank, which holds the orders 
 of the consignee indorsed on the receipts 
 for the shipments. North Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. 
 S. 727, 737, 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 Memorandum on bill "for A." — Where 
 a vessel issues a bill of lading for goods, 
 making them deliverable to order, the 
 fact that upon the vessel's bill of lading 
 there is a memorandum "for A," does not 
 
 justify a delivery to A., where the ship- 
 per's bill of lading is not produced, as 
 against an indorsee of the shipper's bill 
 of lading, who cashed a draft on the con- 
 signee upon the faith thereof. The 
 Thames, Fed. Cas. No. 13,859, 7 Blatchf. 
 226, affirmed in (U. S.), 14 Wall. 98, 20 
 L. Ed. S04. 
 
 Indorsement "notify" third person. — • 
 Where a person ships goods which he 
 intends to deliver under a previous con- 
 tract, but takes a bill of lading to his 
 own order, the delivery to the carrier will 
 not be held to be a delivery to the per- 
 son to whom the goods are contracted, 
 for in such case the shipper reserves to 
 himself power to dispose of the property; 
 and a bank taking the bill of lading to 
 secure advances made without knowledge 
 of such contract is a bona fide purchaser, 
 notwithstanding an indorsement on the 
 l>ill to notify certain third persons. Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Southern Bank, 41 
 111. App. 287. 
 
 Effect of custom. — The rights of a bona 
 fide holder for value and without notice of a 
 bill of lading stipulating for the delivery of 
 the goods to the shipper's order at a desig- 
 'nated point with direction; to notify a 
 third person are not affected by a prior 
 agreement or custom of the consignor, 
 the third person and the carrier giving 
 such third person the right to change the 
 destination of the goods without the pro- 
 duction of the bill of lading. Western, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Ohio, etc., Trust Co., 107 
 Ga. 512, 33 S. E. 821. 
 
 65. Subsequent transfer of bill. — Ala- 
 bama Nat. Bank v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 
 42 Mo. App. 284. See St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Gilbreath (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 
 S. W. 1051. 
 
 A delivered property to a common car- 
 rier, to be delivered to B. Bills of lad- 
 ing were issued, and transferred to C, 
 for money advanced to B. Before the 
 carrier had notice of the transfer, it de- 
 livered the property, under B's direction, 
 to third parties, in part before a"d in part 
 after the transfer of the bills. Held, that 
 for that part delivered before the trans- 
 fer the carrier was not liable. Colgate v. 
 Pennsylvania Co. (N. Y.), 31 Hun 297, 
 affirmed in 102 N. Y. 120. 6 N. E. 114.
 
 559 
 
 TRAXSPORTATIOX AND DlXIVKkV HV CARRIER. 
 
 §§ 862-863 
 
 § 862. Laches of Holder of Bill. — Laches on tlie part of the owner of a 
 bill of ladinj,' can not be assnmed merely from delay in presenting it to the car- 
 rier.*''^ And wliere a carrier issues a bill of lading for goods as deliverable to 
 order, the laches of the holder in not presenting the order does not excuse the 
 carrier for the delivery of the g(jods to a person not authorized to receive them, 
 and without ])roduction of the bill.''" 
 
 § 863. Bill Attached to Draft. — If the seller takes a bill of lading to his 
 own order and attaches thereto a draft for the purchase money, he retains the 
 title till the draft is paid, accepted, or secured ; and in such case the carrier be- 
 comes the agent of the seller and is authorized to deliver the goods only on sur- 
 render of the bill of lading;'"''^ and a delivery to the buyer without payment of 
 the draft or production of the bill of lading is, unless the seller consents, a con- 
 version."" l>ut where a bill of lading unconditionally directs delivery to the 
 consignee, the carrier is not liable to the consignor by making such delivery 
 without requiring the production of the bill of lading though he attached thereto 
 a sight draft on the consignee, and sent it to a bank for collection, in the ab- 
 sence of notice to the carrier of such draft.''^ Where a third party has cashed 
 drafts attached to a bill of lading, the carrier is liable to him for a misdelivery."' 
 
 66. Laches of holder of bill. — First 
 Nat. Bank v. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), 85 Hun 100, \V2 N. Y. S. 604, 60 N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 112. 
 
 Where holder of bill negligent. — A 
 hank holding a draft, with bill of lading 
 attaclied, for collection, permitted the 
 drawee to take it up by a new draft, re- 
 taining the bill of lading as security, and 
 to reship the goods. This was in accord- 
 ance with a long course of dealing be- 
 tween them. The goods were delivered, 
 by the drawee's orders, to a third party. 
 The railway company had no notice at 
 any time of the bill of lading, it having 
 been issued by a transportation company. 
 Held, that the railroad company was not 
 liable to the bank on such bill of lading. 
 National Bank 7'. Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 Co.. 103 Pa. 407. 30 Atl. 228. 
 
 67. The Tiiames. Fed. Cas. No. 13,859, 
 7 Blatchf. 220, affirming Fed. Cas. No. 
 13,858, 3 Ben. 279, affirmed in 14 Wall. 
 98, 20 L. Ed. 804. 
 
 68. Bill of lading attached to draft. — 
 Arkansas. — Midland X'allev R. Co. z\ Fay, 
 etc., Co., 89 Ark. 342. 116 S. W. 1171. 
 
 Georgia. — Southern R. Co. 7'. Strozier, 
 10 Ga." A pp. 157. 73 S. E. 42. 
 
 MississiYpi. — Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Organ Power Co., 92 Miss. 781. 40 So. 
 254. 
 
 Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 ITnited States Fidelity, etc., Co.. 125 
 Tenn. 658. 148 S. W. 671. 
 
 Under a shipment addressed to the 
 consignor with direction to notify his 
 vendee, a bill of lading marked. "B. T^. 
 attached to draft," sufficiently notified the 
 carrier not to deliver the shipment with- 
 out surrender of the bill, though the 
 blank form I'sed was what is known as 
 the "straight." and not the "order." form. 
 Sturges V. Detroit, etc.. R. Co., 166 Mich. 
 231, 131 N. W. 706. 
 
 A consignee forwarded goods by a car- 
 rier, consigned to himself, "to be for- 
 warded to Louisville depot only," and 
 sent the bill of lading, with a draft at- 
 tached, to a banker for collection. The 
 drawee of the draft never paid it, but 
 wrote out an order in favor of his brother 
 upon the carrier, signed by himself as 
 "agent," and obtained the goods. Held, 
 that as there was evidence that the bill 
 of lading was not produced, and the 
 goods were delivered to the drawee's 
 brother upon the letter alone, and with- 
 out inquiry as to his identity or right to 
 the goods, the carrier was liable for the 
 loss. Merchants' Despatch, etc.. Co. v. 
 Merriam, 111 Ind. 5, 11 N. E. 954. 
 
 69. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Fay. etc.. 
 Co., 89 Ark. 342, 116 S. W. 1171. 
 
 70. Nebraska Meal Mills v. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co., 64 Ark. 109, 41 S. W. 810, 38 
 L. R. A. 358, 02 .'\m. St. Rep. 183. 
 
 71. Where third party has cashed 
 drafts. — United States. — See North Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 
 123 U. S. 727, 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 26fi. 
 
 Illinois. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Earned. 103 111. 293. 
 
 Soittli Carolina. — National Bank v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 25 S. C. 216. 
 
 One of the common uses of bills of 
 lading is to enal)le sellers of goods to 
 obtain advances upon their shipments by 
 drawing on the purchasers for the price 
 of tlie goods, attaching the bill of lading 
 to the draft, and having the draft dis- 
 counted by some bank, which holds the 
 bill of lading and relies upon its terms 
 as security for the paj-ment of the draft. 
 The carrier must have knowledge that 
 the bill of lading may be so used and 
 thus get into the hands of a bona fide 
 }iolrlpr. ^pfi is hound to see that the 
 goods are not delivered until the draft
 
 §§ 864-86; 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 560 
 
 § 864. Duplicate Bills. — Where a railroad company issues original ship- 
 per's order hills of lading, declaring that the consignment is in its possession, to 
 be delivered only on their presentation, not conditioned to be void in case of de- 
 livery on duplicate bills issued for protection, the company will be liable on its 
 original bills to one holding them as assignee for a valuable consideration, 
 though it has already delivered the freight to the shipper on his presenting one 
 of the duplicate bills."- Where the owner of goods received a bill of lading 
 containing a provision that they should be delivered to the consignee upon a 
 presentation of a duplicate of such bill of lading, the carrier is liable for the 
 loss occasioned by the delivery of the goods to the consignee who did not pro- 
 duce such duplicate." 3 
 
 § 865. Direction in Bill to Notify Third Person.— A direction contained 
 in a bill of lading, to notify a certain person of the arrival of the shipment at 
 the place of destination, is no authority to the carrier to make delivery of such 
 shipment to the person to be so notified, without the production of the bill of 
 
 is paid and the bill of lading produced. 
 Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio, etc., Trust 
 Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. E. 821. 
 
 Illustrations. — Defendant railroad coni- 
 panj- received, in Arkansas, cotton from 
 plaintiff's agent, to be shipped to Rhode 
 Island. By mistake the cotton was sent 
 to Maine. The company then gave the 
 agent a through bill of lading, and agreed 
 to have the cotton sent from Maine to 
 P., in Connecticut. The agent drew 
 against the bill of lading, and the draft 
 was paid by plaintiff. In the meantime 
 the cotton had been delivered by the rail- 
 road company in Maine, into whose hands 
 it had come, to one A., who refused to 
 give it up. Held, that defendant was lia- 
 ble. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Larned, 103 
 111. 293. 
 
 Where a second carrier receives goods 
 from the first carrier, to transport to their 
 destination, knowing upon whose account 
 they are carried, although without knowl- 
 edge that the consignor has drawn upon 
 the purchaser and attached the draft to 
 the bill of lading, it is liable to the holder 
 of the bill of lading if it delivers the 
 goods to one who, before the arrival of 
 the goods, has purchased them from the 
 consignee. Alderman v. Eastern R. Co., 
 115 Mass. 233. 
 
 A consigned a car of cof-n to his own 
 order, with directions to the railroad com- 
 pany to notify B. A then drew on B for 
 the price, and sent on the draft, with the 
 bill of lading indorsed in blank attached, 
 for collection. B was absent from home 
 when the draft was presented, and at the 
 request of B's clerk, C, who had business 
 dealings with B, paid the draft, and kept 
 the bill of lading as security. The corn 
 was then delivered to B, and put into his 
 storehouse; and some days afterwards C 
 learned of the fact, but said nothing to the 
 company about the misdelivery, and B, 
 with C's knowledge, used up the corn in 
 his business. C then sued the company. 
 Held, that as he had done nothing to in- 
 duce the misdelivery, and being unJer no 
 
 legal duty to notify the company of the 
 same, he was not estopped from main- 
 taining the action. Joslyn v. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co., 51 Vt. 92. 
 
 Effect of agreement unknown to plain- 
 tiff. — By an agreement between the draw- 
 ers of drafts attached to a bill of lading 
 and the shipper, that the goods should 
 be delivered to the drawee without the 
 production of the bill of lading, the car- 
 rier delivered the cotton to the drawee. 
 Held, that this arrangement, being un- 
 known to plaintiff, was a fraud on him, 
 and did not excuse the carrier for the im- 
 proper delivery. National Bank v. At- 
 lanta, etc., R. Co., 25 S. C. 21G. 
 
 72. Delivery to holder of duplicates.— 
 Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. 
 Rep. 505, affirmnig 02 Mo. App. 531. 
 
 Custom and usage at the place of de- 
 livery of never delivering a consignment 
 without surrender of the original bills, 
 and of loaning money on such original 
 bills, is not a factor in determining the 
 liability of a railroad on such bills to a 
 bona fide holder thereof, by written as- 
 signment, as security for a loan, where 
 the road has delivered the consignment 
 to the shipper on presentation of the du- 
 plicate bill alone. Midland Nat. Bank v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 132 Mo. 492, 33 S. 
 W. 521, 53 Am. St. Rep. 505. 
 
 The custom in the place of delivery, 
 that the consignee should take possession 
 of the consignment within six days after 
 notice of its arrival, does not excuse the 
 carrier from liability on the original bill 
 of lading, conditioned for delivery of the 
 consicnment. on its presentation, where 
 it delivers the consignment to one pre- 
 senting the duplicate bill. Midland Nat. 
 Bank v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 132 Mo. 
 492, 33 S. W. 521, 53 Am. St. Rep. 505, 
 affirming judgment 02 Mo. App. 531. 
 
 73. Directing delivery upon presentation 
 of duplicate. — McEwen v. Jeffersonville, 
 etc., R. Co., 33 Ind. 368, 5 Am. Rep. 216.
 
 561 
 
 TRANSPORTATION ASl) DELIVERY BY CARRIER. 
 
 865-866 
 
 lading ])ropcrly indorsed.''* And the holder of the bill of lading is not reqnired 
 to notify the carrier not to deli\er to the person who was to be notified, nor to 
 inquire whether the goods would be so delivered.'"' 
 
 § 866. Defenses. — It is no defense in an action against a carrier for de- 
 li\erv of i^tjods U) the wrong person that such person acknowledges his liabil- 
 ity liierefor.'*' (;r that such a person had a lien on the goods for freight paid, 
 where it appears that he at the time owed i)laintiff a large sum,'" or that the 
 consignee negligently failed Id rail for the goods within a reasonable time,'^ or 
 
 74. Direction to notify third person. — 
 United Shttcs. — Xortli Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 12:5 U. S. 727, 
 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 Georgia. — See Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. 
 V. Berry, 116 Ga. 19, 42 S. E. :571. 
 
 Illinois. — Sec Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Southern Bank, 41 111. App. 287. 
 
 Mussachusctts. — See Wright, etc., Wire- 
 Cloth Co. V. Warren. 177 Mass. 283, 58 N. 
 E. 1082. 
 
 Mississippi. — AUihaina. etc., R. Co. v. 
 Organ Powder Co., 92 Miss. 781, 46 So. 
 254. 
 
 Xcbraska. — Union Stock Yard Co. v. 
 Westcott, 47 Neb. 300, 66 N. W. 419. 
 
 New York. — Lyons v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (App. Tenn.). 119 N. Y. S. 703. af- 
 firmed in 120 N. Y. S. 1132, 136 App. Div. 
 903; Furman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 106 
 N. Y. 579, 13 N. E. 587. 
 
 South Carolina. — General Elect. Co. v. 
 Southern Railway. 72 S. C. 251, 51 S. E. 
 69.'). IK) Am. St. Rep. 600. 
 
 Illustrations. — PlainlifT's assignors de- 
 livered freight to a carrier in Norfolk, Va., 
 for shipment to Denver, Colo., receiving 
 a receipt therefore describing the goods 
 as "marked 'Y,' order notify Zucca Bros.," 
 Denver, Colo. The goods were delivered 
 by an intermediate carrier to defendant 
 company with a "transfer sheet," "Con- 
 signee, 'Y,' order Hup. Zucca Bros., Den- 
 ver, Colo.," and were delivered l)y defend- 
 ant to Zucca Bros, without demanding the 
 production of the bill of ladmg. The bill 
 of lading had been attached to a draft 
 drawn on Zucca Bros, for the price of 
 the goods, which was dishonored and the 
 bill of lading returned, and indorsed to 
 plaintiff, who demanded the goods of de- 
 fendant. Held, that defendant had sulili- 
 cient notice to put him on inquiries, and 
 a delivery of the goods to Zucca Bros, 
 without demanding the bill of lading was 
 negligence, and rendered defendant liable 
 for their value. Furman v. Union Pac. 
 R. Co.. 106 N. Y. 579. 13 N. E. 587. 
 
 A bill of lading declared that, if the 
 word "Order," was written thereon im- 
 mediately before or after the name of the 
 party to whose order the property was 
 consigned, the surrender of the bill 
 of lading, properlj- indorsed, should lie re- 
 ([uired before delivery of the property. 
 .\n organ l^lower was shipped bj- plaintiflf 
 under a bill of lading, reciting: "Con- 
 
 signed to Organ Power Company, P. R. 
 M. Co. Notify Paton-Rubush Music 
 Company. Via Merchants Dispatch." 
 The freight bill contained the following: 
 "Consignee Organ Power Company, O N 
 Patton-Rubush M. House." Held that, as 
 the court would take judicial notice that 
 the letters "O N" signified "order notify," 
 the carrier was chargeable as for a mis- 
 delivery in delivering the blower to the 
 person to be notified without surrender 
 of the bill of lading and payment of the 
 draft thereto attached. Alabama, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Organ Power Co., 92 Miss. 781, 46 
 So. :>54. 
 
 Effect of custom. — Where cattle are 
 shipped to the order of the consignor, the 
 fact that the railroad company had been 
 in the habit of delivering cattle, trans- 
 ported by it, to a person to whom the re- 
 ceipts required notice to be given with- 
 out requiring the production of any bill 
 of lading or receipt of the carrier given 
 to the shipper, or any authority of the 
 shipper, in no respect relieves the com- 
 pany from liability, where it is not shown 
 that the shipper or the bank which took 
 the draft against the shipment, had anj- 
 knowledge of the practice. North Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 
 123 U. S. 727. 31 L. Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 75. National Bank v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 25 S. C. 216. 
 
 76. Defenses. — .\tlantic Nav. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 475. 
 
 77. Lester v. Delaware, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), 92 Hun 342, 36 N. Y. S. 907, 72 N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 334. 
 
 78. Negligent failure to call for goods. 
 — Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Herndon, 81 
 111. 14;i. 
 
 The failure of a consignee to observe 
 a custom, requiring him to take posses- 
 sion of a consignment of goods within a 
 certain time after its arrival at its desti- 
 nation does not justify or excuse the mis- 
 delivery of the goods by the carrier, nor 
 relieve against the express language of 
 the bill of lading to deliver only to the 
 shipper's order. Midland Nat. Bank v. 
 Missouri. Pac. R. Co.. 132 Mo. 492. 33 S. 
 W. 521. 53 .Am. St. Rep. 505. 
 
 Consignee unknown. — The liability of 
 a carrier, for wrongful delivery to a 
 stranger, is not discharged because the 
 consignee, whose initials only were marked 
 
 1 Car— 36
 
 § 866 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 562 
 
 that the delivery was made according to custom and usage,"" or was occasioned 
 by fraud, mistake or imposition,""' or that the goods were subsequently destroyed 
 by an unprecedented storm.''' or that the consignee refused to accept a tender 
 thereof made more than three weeks after the expiration of the time extended 
 for delivery, and suit had been brought/^- or that one shipping goods to his 
 order failed to endeavor to recover possession thereof from the one wrongfully 
 obtaining them.^^ And a carrier is not relieved from liability for misdelivery 
 by stipulations in the bill of lading that the consignee shall remove the goods 
 immediately,'^-* or requiring claims for loss or damage to be made in a certain 
 time and manner. ^"^^ Xhe fact that a carrier, wrongfully delivering goods, re- 
 claimed and tendered them to the ship])er might be shown in mitigation of dam- 
 ages, does not relieve the carrier, on the shipper's damages exceeding the value 
 of the goods. ^"^ 
 
 Mistake in Directions. — A carrier is not liable for a misdelivery made 
 througli a mistake, in the direction of a parcel, such mistake not being known 
 to the carrier, which delivers according to the direction and the known course 
 of business at destination.*^' But it has been held that if a carrier delivers goods 
 to the wrong person, he is responsible, although the address of the consignee 
 was erroneously given.^**^ 
 
 Ratification of Unauthorized Delivery. — A carrier's unauthorized delivery 
 of goods mav be ratiticd ; ''•' and the right of action for wrongful delivery may 
 
 on the goods, was unknown, and did not 
 claim the goods at the end of the transit. 
 Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Glidewell, 39 
 Ark. 487. 
 
 79. Effect of custom of usage. — Mobile, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Bay Shore Lumber Co., 165 
 Ala. GIO, 51 So. 956. 
 
 80. Fraud, mistake or imposition. — See 
 ante, "Liabilit}- in General," § 858. 
 
 81. Subsequent loss by unprecedented 
 storm. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Seley, 31 
 Tex. Civ. App. 158, 72 S. W. 89. 
 
 82. Hamilton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 13 Iowa 325, 73 N. W. 536. 
 
 83. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Fay, etc., 
 Co., 89 Ark. 342, 116 S. W. 1171. 
 
 84. Stipulation as to removal. — An 
 ocean carrier which deposited a shipment 
 of goods in a closed wharf after unload- 
 ing them, and notified the consignee of 
 their arrival, after which the delivery 
 clerk at the gate of the wharf delivered 
 the goods to the wrong person, is not 
 exempted from liability by a stipulation 
 in the bill of lading that the consignee 
 shall remove the goods immediately, oth- 
 erwise they will be deposited at his ex- 
 pense and risk of fire, loss, or injury in 
 the warehouse provided for that purpose 
 on the steamship wharf. Collins v. Burns, 
 63 N. Y. 1. 
 
 85. Stipulation as to claims for dam- 
 ages. — Where a carrier is guilty of a con- 
 version by reason of a wrong delivery, he 
 can not take advantage of a stipulation 
 in the bill of lading that claims for loss 
 or damage must he made in writing at 
 the point of delivery after the arrival of 
 the property, and, if delayed more than 
 30 days after delivery or after due time 
 for delivery, the carrier shall not be lia- 
 ble. Merchants, etc.. Transp. Co. v. 
 Moore & Co., 52 S. E. 802, 124 Ga. 482. 
 
 86. Alidland X'alley R. Co. v. Fay, etc., 
 Co., 89 Ark. 342, 116 S. W. 1171. 
 
 87. Mistake in directions. — Stimson v. 
 Jackson, 58 N. H. 138. Sec Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hodapp, 83 Pa. 22; Cougar 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 24 Wis. 157, 1 
 Am. Rep. 164. 
 
 Where a box marked "Leopold Ho- 
 telfa" had come through on defendant's 
 line from New York, and had lain in de- 
 fendant's warehouse two months, during 
 which time no inquiry was made for it, 
 and defendant's officers had inquired for 
 the consignee without finding him, and 
 the box was then delivered to Leopold's 
 Hotel, the proprietor of which was ac- 
 customed to receive consignments for 
 emigrants, it was error, in an action for 
 the loss, to instruct that delivery to the 
 wrong person was a want of ordinary 
 care. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Hodapp, 
 83 Pa. 22. 
 
 88. McCulloch V. McDonald, 91 Ind. 
 £40. See Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 631. 
 
 89. Ratification of unauthorized deliv- 
 ery. — Converse v. Boston, etc , Railroad. 
 .'■)8 N. H. 521. 
 
 Illustrations. — A consignee ratifies an 
 unauthorized delivery by paying _ freight 
 charges and filing a mechanic's lien and 
 making claim in bankruptcy against the 
 persons to whom delivery had been made. 
 Burritt Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 135 
 X. Y. S. 557, 76 Misc. Rep. 520. 
 
 Plaintifif sold merchandise to A. on con- 
 dition that it was to be forwarded by car- 
 rier to C, who sliould deliver it to A. on 
 his executing a note indorsed by C. and 
 others. C, without notice of the arrange- 
 ment, and on representation made by A., 
 verbally authorized A. to receive the 
 package from tlic carrier, after which A.
 
 563 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DIvLIVlIRY l!V CAKKlKR. 
 
 § 866 
 
 be waived by any action which ratifies the delivery, and thereby deprives the 
 carrier of the right to recover over against the person to whom the dehvery 
 was made.'-"^ lUit a suit by consignor at instance and for benefit of carrier and 
 judgment for vakie of the goods wrongfully converted by consignee after ar- 
 rival at destination, does not affect consignor's right of recovery against car- 
 rier for its misdelivery.'" 
 
 The acceptance of goods by the consignee, at a place short of their desti- 
 nation, after the lime ajjpointed for their delivery, will not free the carrier from 
 the responsibility for damages incurred by a breach of his contract of affreight- 
 ment."- But it is held that, where a consignee directs the forwarding of goods 
 from a wrong destination, to another place where he receives them, such ac- 
 ceptance oi)crates as a waiver of the carrier's liability for the erroneous de- 
 livery. '•••' .\n(l after such acceptance the carrier is not liable for the loss of the 
 
 .■ient to plaimitf a note with forged in- 
 dorsemeiUs, on which plaintiff afterwards 
 sued A., allesins the consideration to be 
 i^oods sold and delivered. Held, that 
 plaintiff could not afterwards recover of 
 the carrier for failure to deliver the goods 
 to C. Piatt V. Wells (N. Y.), 2(j How. 
 I'rac. 442. 
 
 Delivery without production of bill of 
 lading. — 'rhou.uli uoods may Iiave l)een 
 sliipped upon a i)ill of lading the produc- 
 tion of which was, by its terms, essential 
 to a lawful delivery of the goods to the 
 person for whom they were intended, the 
 purpose being that this person should pay 
 for the goods before obtaining posses- 
 sion of them, yet where the consignor, 
 after receiving information that the goods 
 had in fact been delivered without the 
 production of the bill of lading, and 
 knowing that payment had not been 
 made,, drew a draft payable thirty days 
 after its date, upon the other party, took 
 an acceptance thereof, and undertook its 
 collection through a bank, this, though 
 the collection was not in fact made, was 
 such an aliandonment of the original pur- 
 pose of requiring payment on delivery, 
 and such a ratification of the delivery, if 
 actually made, as would relieve the car- 
 rier from liability for having made deliv- 
 ery without requiring the surrender of 
 the bill of lading. Southern R. Co. v. 
 Kinchen, 103 Ga. 18(5, 29 S. E. 81fi. 
 
 Where consignors deliver goods to a 
 common carrier with directions to notify 
 a third person and deliver to him on his 
 presentation of the bill of lading and pay- 
 ment of the draft, and the carrier delivers 
 the goods before payment of the draft 
 and without presentation of the bill of 
 lading, but afterwards the consignors treat 
 directly with such party, accepting a part 
 of the purchase money in cash, and tak- 
 ing a check for the balance, which was 
 not paid, the consignors by treating di- 
 rectly with the party receiving the goods 
 waived any right they might have against 
 the carrier. Callawav 7'. Southern R. Co., 
 .55 S. K. 3:-\ 12(1 C.a. 102. 
 
 Where delivery not ratified. — Plaintiffs 
 consigned to themselves, and retained, the 
 
 bill of lading for goods of which they had 
 made an executory contract of sale; the 
 goods to be delivered to the buyer only 
 on compliance with certain conditions 
 precedent. When the goods reached the 
 destination, defendant carrier improperly 
 delivered them to the buyer. Held, that 
 plaintiffs did not ratify such delivery by 
 corresponding with the buyer in refer- 
 ence to the subject of payment, where 
 they never assented to the delivery, and 
 shortly afterwards called defendant's at- 
 tention to the matter, and insisted all the 
 time on the liability of defendant. Mc- 
 Swegan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 App. 
 Div. .301, 40 N. Y. S. 51, reversing 16 
 Misc. Rep. 157, 37 N. Y. S. 943. 
 
 A shipper can not be held bound by, 
 or be supposed to have consented to. the 
 improper shipment or delivery of his 
 goods by the carrier, merely by following 
 them to the point to which they have been 
 improperly forwarded, or by demanding 
 them from the party to whom they were 
 wrongfully delivered. Houston, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. .-Xdams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 
 11 (i. 
 
 90. Blowers & Co. v. Canadian Pac. R. 
 Co.. 155 Fed. 935. 
 
 91. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Hall, etc.. 
 Mach. Co.. 23 Tex. Civ. App. 211, 56 S. W. 
 140. affirmed in 93 Tex. 694, no op. 
 
 92. Acceptance of goods.— .\tkisson v. 
 Steanil)oat Castle Garden. 28 Mo. 124. 
 
 In an action to recover the value of 
 bricks, as upon failure of the carrier to 
 deliver them according to the contract of 
 shipment, it appeared that the bricks were 
 left I)y the company at a station beyond 
 the place of destination designated in 
 the contract of shipment. Held, tliat 
 the fact that certain tenants of the con- 
 signee and owner asked at the station 
 if plaintiff's bricks had come, and un- 
 loaded them and placed them on the 
 ground, is not sufficient, in the absence 
 of other proof of authority, to show that 
 they received them as plaintiff's agents. 
 Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Gilmer, 89 Ala. 
 .")34. 7 So. 654. 
 
 93. Hayman v. Canadian, etc.. R. Co., 
 86 N. Y. S. 728. 43 Misc. Rep. 74.
 
 §§ 866-867 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 564 
 
 goods,^-* or for the acts or omissions of persons employed to remove them.^-''* 
 
 If the owner receives payment from the person to whom the carrier has 
 erroneously delivered goods, he hecomes estopped to make any claim therefor 
 as against the carrier;'"' but a receipt of payment for a portion of the goods 
 dos not constitute a waiver of his claim against the carrier for the balance, if 
 he does not intend such waiver. •'' And it is held that the receipt by the owner 
 of the proceeds of the sale of goods wrongfully delivered, is no bar to the re- 
 covery of damages of the carrier for the wrongful delivery."'^ 
 
 Subsequent Payment of Draft. — A carrier who delivers goods to the pur- 
 chaser without requiring surrender of bill of lading, and payment of draft 
 thereto attached, as directed by the consignee, does not render himself liable to 
 the consignor as for conversion of the goods, where the purchaser subsequently, 
 but promptly, paid the draft to the bank that held it for collection, although the 
 bank failed to remit proceeds, and subsequently became insolvent/''* 
 
 § 867. Duty of Consignee to Remove Goods. — Where the goods have ar- 
 rived at destination and the carrier has properly performed its duty, as by giv- 
 ing notice of arrival when it is required, it is the duty of the person entitled 
 to receive the goods to remo\e tliem within a reasonable time,^ or at the end 
 
 94. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Sarg:ent, 
 19 O. St. 438. 
 
 95. Jewell v. Grand Trunk Railway, 55 
 X. H. 84. 
 
 96. Receipt of payment for goods.— 
 Brown v. \ andalia R. Co., 16.3 111. App. 
 473. 
 
 97. Lester v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 92 
 Hun 342, 36 N. Y. S. 907. 72 N- Y. St. Rep. 
 334. 
 
 98. Arrington v. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., 51 N. C. 68, 72 Am. Dec. 559; Clarke- 
 Lawrence Co. V. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co., 
 63 \V. \'a. 423, 61 S. E. 364. 
 
 99. Subsequent payment of draft. — Witt 
 V. East Tennessee, etc.. R. Co., 99 Tenn. 
 442, 41 S. E. 1064. 
 
 1. Duty of consignee to remove goods. 
 —Illinois. — Jackson & Son v. Xew York 
 Cent., etc., R. Co., 167 111. App. 461. 
 
 Kentucky. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Tingle, 
 7 Ky. L. Rep. 441; Harris 7' Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 392. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Bickford v. Metropoli- 
 tan Steamship Co., 109 Mass. 151. 
 
 Nezi' York. — Goodwin v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 50 N. Y. 154, 10 Am. Rep. 457; 
 Clendaniel v. Tuckerman (N. Y.). 17 Barl:). 
 184. 
 
 South Carolina. — Layton & Sons v. 
 Charleston, etc., R. Co., 90 S. C. 323, 72 
 S. E. 988. 
 
 West Virginia. — Hurley & Son v. Nor- 
 folk, etc., R. Co., 68 W. Va. 471, 69 S. 
 E.%904; Hutchinson v. United States Exp. 
 Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 393; Berry v. West Virginia, 
 etc., R. Co., 44 W. Va. 538, 30 S. E. 143, 
 67 Am. St. Rep. 781, holding that distance 
 from depot and means of removal imma- 
 terial. 
 
 A consignee can not, after he has no- 
 tice of the arrival for him of property, 
 defer taking it away, while he attends to 
 his other affairs, thus prolonging the du- 
 ration of the carrier's liabilitv as insurer. 
 
 It is his duty at once, and with diligence, 
 to act upon the notice, and to seek de- 
 livery, and to continue until delivery is 
 complete. The time he gives to his other 
 business after receiving the notice can- 
 not be allowed to him in estimating what 
 is a reasonable time in which to take de- 
 livery. Hedges v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 29 N. Y. Super. Ct. 119. 
 
 A rule requiring removal within forty- 
 eight hours after notice of arrival of 
 freight is not unreasonable. Gulf City 
 Constr. Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 121 
 Ala. 621. 25 So. 579. 
 
 Reasonable time to produce bill of lad- 
 ing. — Wliere title and control of the 
 goods does not pass to the consignee 
 until he acquires a bill of lading, he is 
 entitled to a reasonable time after arrival 
 to obtain and produce such bill of lading. 
 Layton & Sons v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 72 S. E. 9SS, 90 S. C. 323. 
 
 Reasonable diligence used. — Where the 
 consignees of a cargo of malt unloaded 
 part of it the day after receiving notice of 
 its arrival, but did not continue the work 
 until the seventh day after breaking bulk, 
 a finding that they used reasonable dili- 
 gence is supported by evidence that one 
 Sundaj' and one holiday had intervened, 
 and that on one or two of the other days 
 it had been raining. Scheu v. Benedict, 
 116 N. Y. 510, 22 N. E. 1073, 15 Am. St. 
 Rep. 426. 
 
 Where the custody has been transferred 
 to the consignee, as where l)ulky articles 
 are landed from a vessel upon a public 
 wdiarf, with notice to the owner and con- 
 signee, who pays the freight and takes 
 steps to remove them, if hz unnecessarily 
 delays the removal, he does so at his own 
 risk. Goodwin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 50 X. Y. 154. 10 Am. Rep. 457. reversing 
 58 Barb. 19:.. 
 
 In the absence of notice of arrival con- 
 signees of perishable freight are not
 
 565 
 
 TRANSrOKTATION AND UKLIVKRV IJY CARKIMK. 
 
 §§ 867-868 
 
 of an agreed delay;-' and if he fails to do so the carrier relieves itself from 
 all liability by depositing them with a resjjonsible warehouseman.-* As to what 
 constitutes such reasonable time, see elsewhere.-* 
 
 § 868. Failure or Refusal of Consignee to Receive Goods.— The car- 
 rier's resijonsibilily, as such, ceases where the coii>i.i4nee in\h or refuses to re- 
 ceive the goods, and afterwards its liability is that of a warehouseman.'^' Where 
 
 houiul to make iiuiuirj' at tlic office of the 
 carrier therefor, tliou^h tliey have reason 
 to l)elieve that the shipment is overdue. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Xaive, 79 S. W. 
 124. 112 Tenn. 239, 04 L. R. .V. 443. 
 
 Illustrations.— i\ consignment of freight 
 reached ils destination in due time. The 
 consignee liail notice of its arrival No- 
 vemljer sth. about 9 o'clock a. m., and 
 that day removed about two-thirds of it, 
 and, under ordinary conditions, could 
 have removed all of it, but was hindered 
 in the use of his dray by an unusual 
 crowd of people obstructing the streets; 
 and the portion left in the depot was 
 burned that night. Xo negligence was 
 charged on the carrier as to fire, and the 
 action against it by the consignee as- 
 sumed its liability as a common carrier, 
 and not as the warehouseman. Held, that 
 a peremptory instruction to find for de- 
 fendant was proper. Harris v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 392. 
 
 The plaintiff, having arrived with a 
 cargo of coal at the place of destination, 
 offered to deliver it, but the owner was 
 not ready to receive it; and it was left 
 on board the plaintiff's vessel, which, after 
 waiting several days for an opportunity 
 to discharge her cargo, was carried away 
 by a freshet, and her cargo lost overboard, 
 so that it could not be delivered to the 
 owner. Held, that the plaintiff's contract 
 as a carrier had l)een performed, and 
 that he was entitled to recover the stipu- 
 lated freight, he I)eing liable only for the 
 want of ordinary care after the offer to 
 deliver. Clendaniel v. Tuckerman (X. 
 Y.), 17 Barb. 184. 
 
 2. Rickford v. Metropolitan Steamsliip 
 Co., 109 Mass. ir)l. 
 
 Contract by employee without author- 
 ity. — A railway company delivered to the 
 owner goods which were in its warehouse, 
 taking his receipt therefor. By an ar- 
 rangement between the owner and the 
 baggageman, a part of the goods were 
 left in the warehouse, and subsequently 
 lost. Held, that the company is not lia- 
 ble for the goods lost, where the baggage- 
 man had no authority to make any con- 
 tract for the company; his permitting 
 part of the goods to remain in the ware- 
 house being his private arrangement, to 
 which the company was not a party. Mul- 
 ligan V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 4 Dak. 
 315, 29 N. W. 659. 
 
 3. Bickford v. Metropolitan v^teamship 
 Co., 109 Mass. 151. 
 
 4. What constitutes reasonable time. — 
 See post, "Carriers a^5 Warehouseman," 
 chapter 13. 
 
 5. Failure or refusal to receive goods. 
 — (/tv^r^'i'i;.— .American Sugar Rehn. Co. v. 
 McGhee, 9(5 Ga. 27, 21 S. E. 3H3. 
 
 Illinois. — American Merchants' Union 
 E.xp. Co. V. Wolf, 79 111. 430 (after notice 
 to consignor). 
 
 .Vrt*.' Yurk. — .■\dler v. Weir. 90 X. Y. S. 
 730, 49 Misc. Rep. 134; Lendsberg v. Dins- 
 mark (X. Y.), 4 Daly 490; Williams v. 
 Holland (X. Y.), 22 How. Prac. 137; Man- 
 hattan Rubber Shoe Co. v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 41 N. Y. S. 83, 9 .-Xpp. Div. 172, 75 
 X. Y. St. Rep. 544. 
 
 Tennessee. — Kremer v. Southern E.xp. 
 Co.. 40 Tenn. (0 Coldw.) 356, (carrier 
 liable only for gross negligence). 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Jen- 
 kins, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 429. 80 S. W. 428; 
 House V. Soder, 36 Tex. 629, reaffirmed in 
 Gerhard v. Neese, 30 Tex. 635. 
 
 IVisconsin. — Marshall v. American Exp. 
 Co., 7 Wis. 1. 
 
 A shipper of goods consigned to him- 
 self can not. 1)y failure to receive tiieni on 
 their arrival, continue to hold the carrier 
 liable as such: and it is immaterial that 
 he forwards the bill of lading to an agent 
 of the initial carrier at the point of desti- 
 nation, the goods being in the warehouse 
 of a connecting line, and directs him to 
 deliver them from time to time as sub- 
 sequentlv ordered. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Carter, 40 N. E. 374, 105 111. 570, 36 L. 
 R. A. 527. 
 
 The refusal of the owner of goods con- 
 signed to himself to receive same at des- 
 tination constitutes an abandonment, and 
 the owner is estopped from afterwards 
 assertintr that the carrier had converted 
 them. Reedv 7'. Pacev. 00 Pao. 50. 22 
 Wash. 94. 
 
 Insufficient excuse for refusing to re- 
 ceive goods. — In an action brought by a 
 hank against an express company to re- 
 cover for the value of a package alleged 
 to have been lost through the negligence 
 of the company, it appeared that the com- 
 pany tendered a delivery of the package 
 at the bank an hour and a half after the 
 usual banking hours, that it was the cus- 
 tom of the company to deliver packages 
 after banking hours, that the teller and 
 clerk were present at the time, and that 
 ordinarily delivery of packages was made 
 to such "teller. Held, that it was not a 
 sufficient excuse on the part of the bank 
 for refusing to receive the package that
 
 § 868 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 566 
 
 the consignee is absent from the place of destination,*^ or where the carrier is 
 unable to hnd an unknown consignee after reasonable inquiries,' the carrier may 
 discharge itself from further liability by placing the goods in store with some 
 responsible third person at the place of delivery, for and on account of the 
 owner. If the carrier converts the goods to its own use or wrongfully disposes 
 of them, it is liable for their value.'* 
 
 Duties of Carrier in General. — If a consignee fails or refuses to receive the 
 goods consigned to him, it is the duty of the carrier to take such steps in relation 
 to the goods as will advance the owner's interest and purposes consistently with 
 a reasonable security to itself for its freight and charges. What it ought 
 to do in a given case will depend upon circumstances. If, acting as agent for 
 the owner, it pursues such course as men of ordinary i)rudence would follow, 
 it will be protected by the law. whatever may be the result.'' The carrier should 
 take proper care of the goods, ^'^ and should store them in a safe place.^^ It is 
 held that it is the dutv of the carrier to notify the consignor of the consignee's 
 
 it was tendered after banking hours, and 
 tiiat the vaults had been locked by the 
 cashier, who had taken the keys away 
 with him. Marshall v. American Exp. 
 Co., 7 Wis. 1. 
 
 6. Where consignee absent. — Salinger 
 V. Simmons (N. Y.), 8 Abb. Prac, N. S., 
 409, 57 Barb. 513. 2 Lans. 325. 
 
 7. Inability to find unknown consignee. 
 — Where the consignee of certain kegs of 
 butter, sent from Albany to New York 
 by a freight barge, was a clerk, having no 
 place of business of his own, whose name 
 was not in the city directory and who was 
 not known to the carrier, and after rea- 
 .sonable inquiries by the carrier's agent 
 could not be found, it was held that the 
 carrier discharged himself from further 
 responsibility by depositing the property 
 with a storehouse keeper, then in good 
 credit, for the owner, and taking his re- 
 ceipt for the same, according to the usual 
 course of business in that trade, though 
 the butter was subsequently sold by the 
 storehouse keeper, and the proceeds lost 
 to the owner by his failure. Fisk v. New- 
 ton (N. Y.), 1 Denio 45, 43 Am. Dec. 649. 
 
 8. Where carrier converts goods. — 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pfeifer, 90 Ark. 
 524, 119 S. W. G42, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 1107; 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Saulsberry, 
 103 S. W. 254, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 624. 
 
 In an action for damages against a 
 steamboat company, it appeared that 
 plaintiff put on board one of defendant's 
 boats certain iron, to be conveyed to one 
 A. at B.; that there was an understand- 
 ing between defendant's agent and A. (of 
 which plaintiff was ignorant) that all 
 freight transported for him should be 
 landed at a place on the river bank near 
 his house, and that the iron was landed 
 there; that, shortly after, A. refused to 
 pay the freight ))ill, and notified defend- 
 ant's agent that he should not take the 
 iron away; that afterwards one C, with- 
 out authority from A., was permitted to 
 pay the freight bill, and took the iron 
 away; and that plaintif? never received 
 any information as to the disposition of 
 
 it. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to 
 recover. Howard v. Old Dominion 
 Steamship Co., 83 N. C. 158, 35 Am. Rep. 
 571. 
 
 9. Duties of carrier in general. — The 
 Keystone, 28 Mo. 243, 75 A.m. Dec. 123. 
 
 10. Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 
 in. 407, 71 Am. Dec. 286; Chickering v. 
 Fow^ler (Mass.), 4 Pick. 371; Redmond v. 
 Liverpool, etc., Steamboat Co., 46 N. Y. 
 578, 7 Am. Rep. 390, reversing 56 Barb. 
 320. 
 
 The failure of the legal holder of the 
 ImU of lading to appear for the purpose 
 of receiving the goods when they reached 
 their destination did not relieve the car- 
 rier of liability, but it was required to 
 store the same with the company desig- 
 nated, with directions to deliver to the 
 person entitled thereto on the production 
 of the bill of lading, properly indorsed. 
 Arkansas, etc., R. Co. v. German Nat. 
 Bank, 92 S. W. 522, 77 Ark. 482, 113 Am. 
 St. Rep. 160. 
 
 11. Storage in safe place. — The Eddy 
 (U. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 18 L. Ed. 486; Rich- 
 ardson V. Goddard (U. S.), 23 How. 28, 
 16 L. Ed. 412; Brittan v. Barnaby (U. 
 S.), 21 How. 527, 16 L. Ed. 177; The 
 Thames (U. S.), 14 Wall. 98, 20 L. Ed. 
 804; North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com- 
 mercial Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 727, 31 L. 
 Ed. 287, 8 S. Ct. 266. 
 
 On refusal of the consignee to accept 
 goods, it devolves on the master of the 
 carrier to have them placed, at the ex- 
 pense of the consignee, in a place where 
 they will not be exposed to loss. The 
 Red River, 30 So. 303, 106 La. 42, 87 Am. 
 St. Rep. 293. 
 
 That the goods are foreign merchan- 
 tiise, subject to duty, and are entered in 
 bond by the consignee, he obtaining a 
 permit to remove them to a designated 
 warehouse, and that their removal is un- 
 der the supervision of the customs of- 
 ficer, does not affect the carrier's liabil- 
 ity. Redmond v. Liverpool, etc., Steam- 
 boat Co., 46 N. Y. 578, 7 Am. Rep. 390, 
 reversing 56 Barb. 320.
 
 567 
 
 TRANSPORTATION' AND DlvLIVKRV BY CARRIER. 
 
 § 868 
 
 refusal to receive the goods; '- even if the goods are perishable where it is prac- 
 ticable to give notice.^-' But the carrier need not give such notice where it was 
 given by the consignee.'^ Tlie carrier must hold the goods subject to the order 
 of the consignor,'"' and return them to him upon his demand, subject to reason- 
 able regulations as to the payment of charges, etc. ; "' but it necfl not return the 
 goods unless the consignor so demands.^" 
 
 12. Notice to consignor. — United States. 
 —See The Hddy (U. S.), 5 Wall. 481, 18 
 L. Ed. 486. 
 
 Georgia. — American Sugar Refin. Co. 
 7'. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27, 21 S. E. 383; Ala- 
 bama, etc., R. Co. V. McKenzie, 139 Ga. 
 410, 77 S. E. 647, 45 L. R. A., N. S., 18. 
 
 Illinois. — American Merchants' Union 
 Exp. Co. V. Wolf, 79 111. 430; Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Harville, 136 111. App. 
 243. 
 
 KcntuckM. — Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dreyfuss-Weil Co., 150 S. W. 321, 150 
 Ky. 333. 
 
 jVcw York. — Carrizzo v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 123 N. Y. S. 173, 66 Misc. Rep. 
 243, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 579. See Manhattan 
 Rubber Shoe Co., v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 41 N. Y. S. 83, 9 App. Div. 172, 75 N. Y. 
 St. Rep. 544. 
 
 In Williams v. Holland (N. Y.), 22 
 How. Prac. 137, it was held that the fail- 
 ure to notify the owner of the consignee's 
 refusal does not render the carrier lial)le. 
 unless it is at least shown that tlie car- 
 rier knew who was the owner. 
 
 Tc.vas. — The carrier is not required to 
 notify the shipper until it is notified, or 
 by the exercise of ordinary diligence 
 could have known of the consignee's re- 
 fusal. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Jenkins, 
 80 S. W. 428, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 429. 
 
 Contra. — If the consignee refuses to 
 receive goods shipped, the carrier is not 
 liable to the consignor for failure to 
 notify him. Krcmer v. Southern Kxp. 
 Co., 4C) Tenn. ((i Coldw.) 356. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped goods consigned to 
 himself, with directions to notify a third 
 person at the point of destination, on 
 which party plaintiff had drawn for them, 
 attaching the bill of lading to the draft. 
 The drawee wrote plaintiff that he was not 
 able to pay the draft on presentation, 
 whereupon plaintiff made a second draft, 
 on ten days' time. The railroad com- 
 pany, in the meantime, had stored the 
 goods with a warehouseman, taking a 
 warehouse receipt therefor in its own 
 name. Held, that the company's liability 
 as common carrier ceased upon its de- 
 livery at the warehouse, although it had 
 failed to notify plaintiff of the drawee's 
 failure to receive. Gregg v. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co.. 147 111. 550. 35 N. E. 343, 37 Am. 
 St. Rep. 2;5S, aftirming 47 111. App. 590. 
 
 Delay in giving notice. — Where the con- 
 signee of cotton refused to accept the 
 same on the ground that it was of infe- 
 rior grade, the carrier was liable for de- 
 lay, in notifying the shipper of such re- 
 
 fusal in case the cotton was of inferior 
 grade, only for the decline in the market 
 price for the time intervening between 
 the date on which by the exercise of or- 
 dinary care it could have learned of the 
 consignee's refusal and notified the ship- 
 per and the date on which the cotton was 
 actually sold after notice was given. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Jenkins, 80 S. 
 W. 42S, :>,:, Tex. Civ. App. 429. 
 
 13. Perishable goods. — .\labama, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. McKenzie, 77 S. E. 647, 139 Ga. 
 410. 4.-) L. R. .X.. X. S., lis. 
 
 14. Where notice given by consignee. — 
 Manlialtan Rubber Shoe Co. ?'. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 41 N. Y. S. 83, 9 App. Div. 
 172, 75 N. Y. St. Rep. 544. 
 
 15. American Sugar Refin. Co. v. Mc- 
 Ghee, 96 Ga. 27, 21 S. E. 3^3. 
 
 16. Return of goods to consignor. — 
 Freiberg v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 11 O. 
 C. C, N. S., 241, 20-30 O. C. D. 669, af- 
 firmed in S3 O. St. 4S2. 
 
 Liability to consignee. — Where a buyer, 
 to whom goods are consigned, wrong- 
 fully refuses to receive them on their ar- 
 rival within a reasonable time, the car- 
 rier is not guilty of conversion in com- 
 plying with the seller's orders to ship the 
 goods back to him; and the consignee is 
 estopped to sue the carrier. Stafsky v. 
 Southern R. Co., 39 So. 132, 143 Ala. 272. 
 
 17. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: Heilprin 
 & Co., 95 111. App. 402; Adams Exp. Co. 
 V. McConnell. 27 Kan. 238. 
 
 Plaintiff delivered defendant goods for 
 carriage, but the consignee refused to ac- 
 cept them, and plaintiff was notified by 
 defendant of such refusal. Plaintiff 
 claimed that he instructed defendant by 
 postal to return the goods. Defendant 
 denied receipt of the postal, but on re- 
 ceiving a subsequent communication from 
 plaintiflF, which it did not understand, 
 sent a representative for an explanation, 
 and, receiving instructions for a return of 
 tlie goods, at once communicated with 
 its agent, and the goods were immediately 
 shipped and tendered to plaintiff the first 
 business daj' after their arrival. Plain- 
 tiff, a week before, had demanded their 
 return by a letter claiming that they 
 would be useless if not returned within 
 three days. Held, that the facts did not 
 justify a finding of a conversion by de- 
 fendant. Rubin z\ Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 
 85 N. Y. S. IIOS. 
 
 Refusal of consignor to order return. 
 — Where a suit of clothes is manufac- 
 tured to order, to be inspected by the 
 purchaser before acceptance, and the car-
 
 § 868 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 568 
 
 Return of Goods by Consignee after Delivery. — Where, after delivery to 
 the consignee, he refnses to receive the goods and returns them, the carrier is 
 not hahle for their loss.^"* 
 
 Excuses for Failure to Receive. — Tlie consignee is not justified hecause of 
 mere delay in the transportation of goods, to refuse to receive theni;i'' hut if 
 they have become useless to the consignee, by reason of delay, he is not bound 
 to receive them, and may recover their value. -^' The consignee may not, as a 
 general rule, reject the goods because they have been damaged in the course of 
 shipment;-^ but, when the entire value of the goods has been destroyed and 
 the injurv amounts practically to a total loss, the consignee is justified in refus- 
 ing them and may sue for the entire amount.-- And he may refuse the goods 
 where upon their arrival the packages or casks are, by the fault of the carrier, 
 in a damaged condition, so that they can not be handled without loss and fur- 
 ther damage, and the carrier refuses to repair them.-"^ 
 
 Sale of Rejected or Unclaimed Freight. — Where a statute regulating the 
 sale of rejected freight l)v a carrier supersedes the common law in resi)ect .to 
 the manner of selling such freight, a sale in violation of the statute is illegal.-^ 
 
 rier tenders the goods, and the consignee 
 refuses to accept them, but states that he 
 will shortly call for them, and the car- 
 rier stores them for several weeks, when 
 the consignee absolutely rejects them, 
 and the consignor refuses to order their 
 return, on being informed of the rejec- 
 tion, on the ground that they are no 
 longer of any use to him, the consignor 
 can not recover of the carriage. Levy 
 f. Weir, 77 \. Y. S. 917, 38 Misc. Rep. 3()1. 
 
 18. Return of goods by consignee after 
 delivery. — A carrier, who received mer- 
 chandise addressed to the consignee at 
 \V., carried the goods to C, the terminus 
 of its line, and delivered to a warehouse- 
 man, from whom the goods were taken 
 by a teamster and hauled to C, and, in 
 the absence of the consignee, left on his 
 premises. The consignee afterwards re- 
 fused to receive the goods, whereupon 
 the teamster returned them to the ware- 
 house at C, where they were afterwards 
 lost. In an action to recover the value, 
 held, that the carrier was not liable. Sal- 
 inger V. Simmons (N. Y.), 57 Barb. 513, 
 2 Lans. 325, 8 Abb. Prac, N. S., 409. 
 
 19. Delay in delivery. — Kentucky. — 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Saulsberry, 103 
 S. W. 254, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 624. 
 
 New Jersey. — Higgins v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 83 N. J. L. 398, 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Oklahoma. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dreyfus, 37 Okla. 492, 132 Pac. 491. 
 
 Texas.— Q\Al, etc., R. Co. v. Everett, 37 
 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 83 S. W. 257; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Somerville Mercantile 
 Agency (Tex. Civ. App.), 104 S. W. 1072. 
 
 Delay in the delivery of goods by a 
 common carrier will not authorize the 
 consignee to reject them upon their ar- 
 rival, and recover their full value from 
 the carrier. His remedy is to sue for the 
 damage he has sustained by reason of 
 the delay. Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 
 134 Ga. 445, 67 S. E. 944. 
 
 20. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetzc, 2 Texas 
 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 631. See St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Dreyfus. 37 Okla. 492, 132 Pac. 
 491. 
 
 21. Damage to goods in shipment. — 
 Wilkins v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 160 N. 
 C. 54. 75 S. E. 1090. See post "Loss of 
 or Damage to Goods," Chapter 12. 
 
 22. Wilkins v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 160 
 N. C. 54, 75 S. E. 1090. 
 
 23. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533. 
 
 24. Statute regulating sale of rejected 
 freight. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Arkan- 
 sas, etc.. Grain Co., 42 Tex. Civ. App. 
 125, 95 S. W. 656; Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. 
 North Texas Grain Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 
 93, 74 S. W. 567. 
 
 Kentucky Statute 1903, § 785, author- 
 izes sale of nonperishable freight un- 
 claimed for one year on giving specified 
 notice. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Sauls- 
 berry, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 624, 103 S. W. 254. 
 
 Under the Texas statute, such sale must 
 lie made only after tlie expiration of six 
 months, on notice to the consignor and 
 such notice of sale as will reasonably as- 
 sure a sale at the reasonable market value. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Groce (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 106 S. W. 720. 
 
 A sale is unauthorized, where the sale 
 is for much less than the market value 
 and is made without notice of sale, and 
 immediate sale is unnecessary to protect 
 the carrier in its freight charges, and it 
 is liable for the fair market value at the 
 time of sale. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Groce (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. W. 720. 
 
 Such statute is applicable to a ship- 
 ment from a point without to a point 
 within the state. St. T^ouis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Arkansas, etc., Grain Co., 42 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 125, 95 S. W. 656. 
 
 Where, after rejection of certain corn 
 l)y the consignee, the carrier sold it with- 
 out complying with a state statute reg- 
 ulating such sales, and there was no evi- 
 dence that the corn was perishable other 
 than that it was moldy and in a damaged
 
 569 
 
 TRAXSPOKTATIOX ANlJ lJl".I.l\i:i<V liV CARKIKK. 
 
 §§ 868-869 
 
 Perishable Goods. — W here <,'oods are of a perishable nature, and, in the 
 absence of the consignee, or his refusal to receive them, it becomes a matter 
 of necessity to sell, the carrier may rightfully sell them ; -•''' and it should make 
 an ordinarily diligent effort to sell at the best price obtainable.-" In some states 
 there are statutory provisions regulating the sale of such goods. -^ And when 
 a carrier sells goods not in accordance with the statute, it is liable for con- 
 version.-* 
 
 § 869. Goods Shipped C. 0. D.— Necessity for Undertaking to Collect. 
 
 — In order lo charge a carrier with the duly >>\ collecling from the consignee 
 the price or other charge against goods transported, there must be some under- 
 taking by the carrier to collect, either directly proved, or inferable from usage.-"-' 
 
 condilioii, it was no defense to the car- 
 rier's lial)ility tliat the statute was inap- 
 plicable to perishable freight. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Arkansas, etc.. Grain Co., 
 42 Tex. Civ. App. 1 ;-'-), <t.5 S. W. (;-)(■). 
 
 25. Sale of perishable goods. — Illinois. — 
 Hasler Co. v. Crilliiig Florida Orchard 
 Co., 133 111. App. ()35. 
 
 Toniesscc. — Rankin v. Menipliis, etc., 
 Packet Co.. 56 Teiin. (9 Heisk.) 564, 24 
 Am. Rep. 3:39. 
 
 Tc.r(7j.— Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cox & 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 1196. 
 
 H'cst rir^inia. — Dudley v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co.. 58 W. Va. 604, 52 S. E. 718, 3 L. 
 R. A.. N. S.. 1135. 112 Am. v^t. Rep. 1027. 
 
 Where a carrier without authority 
 opens a sealed car and the property 
 tluTcin is perishal)le, and the owner, on 
 being notified of the danger of loss, rely- 
 ing on the unauthorized inspection by the 
 carrier as constituting a conversion, gives 
 notice of his abandonment of the prop- 
 erty, the carrier may sell the same on ac- 
 count of the owner, deduct his charges 
 from the proceeds, and will l)e lialde for 
 the balance only. Dudley v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 52 S. E. 718, 58 W. Va. 604, 
 112 .Am. St. Rep. 1027, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1135. 
 
 26. Best price obtainable. — Hull & Co. 
 T. Missouri Pac. K. Co., 60 Mo. App. 593. 
 
 27. Under Kentucky St. 1903, § 785, 
 authorizing a carrier to sell perishable 
 freight as soon as it deems a sale nec- 
 essary, on giving specified notice, a car- 
 rier having in its possession as unclaimed 
 freight corn delivered to it for transpor- 
 tation must, as soon as it is deemed nec- 
 essary to sell the same, sell it as perish- 
 able freight, and give notice thereof, and 
 may, if necessary to sell it at some other 
 place for want of market, transport the 
 same to such place, but the sale must be 
 made in the state, and the carrier taking 
 the freight to another state and there 
 selling it converts it. Chesapeake, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Saulsberry, 103 S. W. 254, 31 
 Ky. L. Rep. 624. 
 
 Nezv York.— haws 1899, p. 1294, c. 582, 
 amending § 46 of the railroad law (Laws 
 1S90. p. 1097, c. 565), provides that un- 
 claimed live stock and perishable freight 
 or baggage may be sold by any railroad 
 
 without notice, as soon as it can be, upon 
 the best terms that can be obtained, etc., 
 Ten boxes of fish packed in ice were con- 
 signed to plaintiff April 7th, reaching 
 their destination April 8th. He failed to 
 call for them for fifty-four hours, though 
 two notices were sent hint, and he had 
 ample opportunity to do so. Held, that 
 defendant was warranted in selling the 
 fish. ■ Leech v. New York, etc., R. Co., 83 
 X. Y. S. 166, 40 Misc. Rep. 654. 
 
 Oklahoma. — Comp. Laws 1909, § 455. au- 
 thorizes public or private sale without 
 advertising. Ginnochio-Jones Fruit Co. 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 134 
 S. W. 1028. 
 
 A car load of potatoes on the tracks at 
 Tulsa in the latter part of November was 
 "perishable property" within the mean- 
 ing of the statute. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Dreyfus, 37 Okla. 492, 132 Pac. 491. 
 
 Texas.— Rtv. St. 1805 acts 328, 331, au- 
 thorizes sale at public auction after five 
 day's notice. Carter v. International, 
 etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 
 681. 
 
 28. Sale in violation of statute. — Car- 
 ter V. International, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 93 S. \y. 681. 
 
 Demand by consignee before sale. — 
 The consignee of a car load of onions 
 having refused to accept the same be- 
 cause of its damaged condition, the car- 
 rier, after a delay of eight days, shippea 
 the property to another place to be sold 
 for freight charges. .A.fter such ship- 
 ment, but before sale, the consignee de- 
 manded the property, offering to pay the 
 cliargcs, which the carrier refused. Held 
 a conversion of the property, the sale not 
 being such as is provided for by Rev. St. 
 1895, arts. 328, 329. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Rines & Co.. 37 Tex. Civ. App. 618, 84 
 S. W. 1092. 
 
 29. Necessity for undertaking to col- 
 lect.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. t. Merrill, 48 
 ill. 425. See -Adams Exp. Co. v. Ten 
 Winkel. 44 Colo. 59, 96 Pac. 818. 
 
 The agent of an express company who 
 instructed a sender of a package to ad- 
 dress the package as he wanted it ad- 
 dressed, and who showed him where he 
 would find envelopes for C. O. D. pack- 
 ages, had the right to presume that the
 
 § 869 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 570 
 
 Liability for Collection of Price. — Where the carrier undertakes to de- 
 liver goods to the consignee suhject to the payment of a certain sum of money, 
 the carrier is not authorized to deHver the goods without collecting such 
 money ; ^" and if it delivers the goods without collecting the sum due, it be- 
 comes liable therefor,^*^ unless the consignor ratifies such delivery.'^- A con- 
 
 sender would exercise care to properly 
 mark the envelope selected. Adams Exp. 
 Co. z: Ten. Winkel, 44 Colo. 59, 96 Pac. 
 SIS. 
 
 What amounts to contract to collect. — 
 Where a shipper sent a package, by her 
 servant, to an express companj-, with in- 
 structions to be carried C. O. D., but the 
 company gave a receipt which was not in 
 the form of a receipt for package sent C. 
 O. D., and the shipper knew it was not, 
 the receipt operates as a refusal to send 
 the package C. O. D.; and, if the shipper 
 accepts and retains the receipt, it is con- 
 clusive, and she can not recover of the 
 company for a delivery without collec- 
 tion. Smith V. Southern Exp. Co., 104 
 Ala. 387, 16 So. 62. 
 
 A bill of lading recited that the gpods 
 were "to be delivered witholit delay, etc., 
 at the port of, etc., to, etc., or assigns, he 
 or they paying freight for said goods at 
 the rate of, etc., charges payable when 
 collected by boat; charges to be collected" 
 a certain sum, being the value of the 
 goods. Held, that the plain and reason- 
 able intent of the language was that the 
 charges were to be collected by the car- 
 rier. Meyer v. Lemcke, 31 Ind. 208. 
 
 A stipulation in a bill of lading that 
 goods are to be delivered "subject to 
 the payment of $1,665 to the clerk of 
 John Owen (the steamboat) for E. S. 
 J." — the goods shipped having been sold 
 by the shipper to the consignee, and the 
 $1,665 being part of the purchase money 
 — is a binding condition, for the breach 
 of which the vessel may be seized under 
 the statute relating to watercrafts as com- 
 mon carriers. Steamboat John Owen v. 
 Johnson. 2 0._ St. 143. 
 
 Giving receipt c. o. d. — Where the car- 
 rier gives a receipt for a package re- 
 ceived by it for transportation, the use 
 of the letters "C. O. D." which are the 
 initials of the words "collect on delivery," 
 implies an undertaking on its part to col- 
 lect of the consignee on delivery the 
 amount due from him, and marked on the 
 package, and to return such amount to 
 the consignor. American Exp. Co. v. 
 Lesem, 39 111. 312. See United States 
 Exp. Co. V. Kcefer, 59 Ind. 263. 
 
 Marking package c. o. d. — ^A consignor 
 can not charge a common carrier with 
 any duty of collecting from the con- 
 signee the price or other charge against 
 goods transmitted by the carrier by sim- 
 ply marking the package "C. O. D." 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Merrill, 48 111. 
 425. 
 
 "Please collect," written on a bill ac- 
 
 conipan3ing parcels, is a request only; 
 and where a request to collect is made on 
 delivering a parcel to a carrier, he is un- 
 der no obligation or agreement to do so. 
 Tooker v. Gormer (N. Y.), 2 Hilt. 71. 
 
 30. Liable for collection. — Steamboat 
 John Owen r. Johnson, 2 O. St. 143. 
 
 31. .Ilabaina. — See Smith v. Southern 
 Exp. Co., 104 Ala. 387, 16 So. 62. 
 
 Illinois. — American Merchants' Union 
 Exp. Co. V. Wolf, 79 111. 430. 
 
 Indiana. — Meyer v. Lemcke, 31 Ind. 
 208. 
 
 Minnesota. — See Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., 
 R. Co., 30 Minn. 265, 15 N. W. 237. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Murray v. Warner, 55 
 N. H. 546, 20 Am. Rep. 227. 
 
 New York. — Tooker v. Gormer (N. Y.), 
 3 Hilt. 71. 
 
 That the sum to be collected was larger 
 than that due, makes no difference in the 
 liability of the carrier, for delivering the 
 goods without collection. Steamboat 
 John Owen v. Johnson, 2 O. St. 143. 
 
 Liability of connecting carrier. — An 
 initial carrier, forwarding goods shipped 
 C. O. D. by a connecting carrier, may re- 
 cover of the connecting carrier for their 
 delivery to the consignee without pay- 
 ment, which was imposed as a condition 
 of delivery. Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 
 546, 20 Am. Rep. 227. 
 
 A carrier undertaking to deliver a 
 corpse in a casket for an undertaker giv- 
 ing the carrier his bill C. O. D. for his 
 services and the price of the casket, is not 
 liable for permitting the consignee to 
 take the corpse from the casket without 
 
 32. Ratification of delivery without col- 
 lection. — Though goods were not to be 
 delivered until the price be paid, yet 
 where the consignor, after notice that the 
 goods had been delivered without such 
 payment, drew a draft upon the consignee, 
 took an acceptance thereof, and under- 
 took its collection through a bank, he 
 thereby abandoned the original purpose 
 of requiring payment on delivery, and 
 ratified the delivery, and whether the 
 draft was collected is immaterial. South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Kinchen, 29 S. E. 816, 103 
 Ga. 186. 
 
 Where a proposed Iniyer of goods re- 
 jected the consignor-consignee's draft 
 with bill of lading attached, that after the 
 carrier delivered the goods to the buyer 
 the draft was again presented is not con- 
 clusive evidence of the consignor's rati- 
 fication of the delivery. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Dahlberg Brokerage Co., 170 Ala. 
 617, 54 So. 168.
 
 571 
 
 TKANSl'OkTATlU.N AM) OKLIVKRV liV CAKRIKK. 
 
 § 869 
 
 signee's check for goods sent C. (J. D. is not payment, and the carrier is hable 
 if the clieck is not paid.''-' lUit tlie carrier is not liable if the consignor receives 
 the check wilhovU olijcclion.'--* 
 
 Examination of Goods by Consignee.— it is held that the carrier may re- 
 fuse to permit llic consignee to examine goods sent C. (J. D. until he has paid 
 the charges and accepted delivery.''^ But it is also held that the consignee has 
 the right to a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods.-'" Where the carrier 
 permits the consignee to examine the goods, such examination is not a delivery, 
 so as to render it liable to the consignor for the money directed to be collected.=*^ 
 
 paying the Ijill, as il would be against 
 public policy to require a return ol the 
 corpse for nonpayment. American Exp. 
 Co. V. Epply. 1 Wkly. L. Bull. ?'.», r, U. 
 Dec. 337. 
 
 Acceptance of portion of goods. — Where 
 a carrier is employed to carry a parcel of 
 clothes, with mstructions to brmg back 
 the goods if they are not paid for, and 
 the person to whom they are sent retains 
 a portion of the goods, and returns the 
 others, sending a check for those retained, 
 the sender can not refuse to receive the 
 goods returned, and the check, and sue 
 the carrier for the value of the whole 
 parcel, or for damages, where it does not 
 appear that the check was not for the full 
 value of the goods retained. Feiber v. 
 Manhattan Dist. Tel. Co., 3 N. Y. S. 116, 
 22 Abb. N. C. 121, 15 Daly 62, 20 N. Y. 
 St. Rep. 980. 
 
 Goods received before draft for collec- 
 tion. — A marked goods with B's name, 
 and sent them by railroad to B, taking 
 therefor a railroad receipt, in which, un- 
 der the heading "Marks and Consignees," 
 were written "B order A." A indorsed the 
 receipt in blank, drew a draft on B for 
 the price, attached the draft to the re- 
 ceipt, and forwarded both by an express 
 company for collection. The railroad 
 company delivered the goods to C, an- 
 other common carrier, to transport to 
 their destination, with a freight bill con- 
 taining the words, "Order A: Notify B," 
 and the express company gave the receipt, 
 with the draft attached, to C for collec- 
 tion. Held, that C, by delivering the 
 goods to B without the authority of A, 
 and before the payment of the draft by 
 B, was liable to A for the conversion of 
 the goods, and that the fact that the re- 
 ceipt and the draft were not received by 
 C until after he received the goods was 
 immaterial. Libby r. Ingalls, 124 Mass. 
 jo:;. 
 
 Contract for delivery of similar goods. 
 — A carrier can not justify delivery of 
 freight to a buyer who had rejected the 
 consignor-consignee's draft w^ith bill of 
 lading attached, on the ground that the 
 buyer had a contract with the consign- 
 or's principal for delivery of similar 
 goods. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Dah- 
 Iberg Brokerage Co.. 170 Ala. 617, .'J4 So. 
 168. 
 33. Receiving consignee's check. — Rath- 
 
 bun T. Citizens' Steamboat Co. (N. Y.), 
 1 City Ct. R. 107. 
 
 34. Rathbun v. Citizens' Steamboat Co., 
 TO X. "i". liTc,, :'.:> Am. Rep. :i:il. 
 
 35. Examination of goods by con- 
 signee. — Wiltse V. Barnes, 4G Iowa 210. 
 
 36. Lyons v. Hill, 46 N. H. 49; American 
 Exp. Co. V. Epply, 1 Wkly. L. Bull. 79, 5 
 O. Dec. 337. 
 
 37. Aaron v. Adams Exp. Co., 27 Wkly. 
 L. Bull. 183, 11 O. Dec. 500; American 
 Exp. Co. V. Epply, 1 Wkly. L. Bull. 79, 
 5 O. Dec. 337. 
 
 A carrier received goods, with direc- 
 tions to collect the price on delivery to 
 the consignee. The latter paid the price 
 lo the carrier on condition that it should 
 be returned to him if the goods on ex- 
 amination proved unsatisfactory. They 
 did prove so, and the money was repaid; 
 the carrier taking back the goods to the 
 consignor, who refused to receive them, 
 and demanded the price. Held, that the 
 consignor could not recover the price. 
 Lyons v. Hill, 46 N. H. 49. 
 
 A consignee of a suit of clothes C. O. 
 D. paid the price to the carrier under an 
 agreement that he might have it returned 
 to him if the fit of the clothes was un- 
 satisfactory. He thereafter brought the 
 clothes to the consignor, telling him how 
 he had left the money with the carrier, 
 and stating that the clothes did not fit. 
 The consignor altered the clothes, with 
 the agreement that he should have the 
 money from the carrier if he made them 
 tit satisfactorily, and then sent them a 
 second time to the consignee. The fit 
 w^as not satisfactory, and he returned the 
 clothes to the carrier, who returned to 
 him the money. Held, that the carrier 
 was not liable to the consignor, as he had 
 ratified the act of the carrier in receiv- 
 ing the money conditionally. Brooks v. 
 American Exp. Co. (N. Y.), 14 Hun 364. 
 Fraud on consignee. — Where the con- 
 signee, upon examination of the goods, 
 discovers that they are worthless, and the 
 whole afTair a fraud on the part of the 
 consignor, he may return them and re- 
 ceive back the money paid from the car- 
 rier at any time before it is actually paid 
 over to tiie consignor; the fraud of the 
 consignor relieving the carrier from li- 
 abilitv as to hini. Herrick z: Gallagher 
 (N. Y.), 60 Barb. 566.
 
 § 869 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 572 
 
 Liability to Consignee. — A carrier need not deliver goods sent C. O. D. to 
 the consignee until he has paid the charges. •^''* Where the consignee refuses to re- 
 ceive the goods, the carrier is relieved from liability by delivering to the true 
 owner. ^^ If the consignee paying a draft accompanying a bill of lading which 
 by mistake called for more goods than the carrier delivered, would have known 
 of the mistake before paying the draft, had he exercised ordinary care, his fail- 
 ure to do so amounts to actual knowledge."*" Where goods are sent C. (). D. at 
 consignor's risk, and the carrier's agent knows that they show signs of wet dam- 
 age, it is his duty to disclose such fact to the consignee before demanding and 
 receiving payment therefor.^^^ The fact that the carrier remits the purchase 
 price to the consignor before receiving notice from the consignee that the goods 
 were worthless does not receive it from liability, if the notice was within a rea- 
 sonable time."*- Before the consignee sues the carrier to recover the price paid 
 he must otTer to return the goods to it.^^ 
 
 Liability as 'Warehouseman — Notice to Consignor. — A carrier is liable 
 onlv as warehouseman for goods to be delivered C. O. D., where the consignee 
 requests a few days time in which to pay the charges after receiving notice of 
 their arrival ; and it need not notify the consignor of the delay.'*"^' It is also held 
 that notice of nonacceptance of the goods is unnecessary.^^ But it has been held 
 that when the carrier fails to give such notice it remains liable as carrier.^*^ 
 
 38. Liability to consignee. — Lane v. 
 Chadwick. 14ti Mass. <iS, 15 N. E. 121; 
 Pacific Aviation Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 
 04 Ore. 530, 128 Pac. 438. 
 
 39. Delivery to true owner. — The con- 
 signee paid the express charges on goods 
 sent C. O. D., but refused to receive 
 the goods, and directed the company to 
 return them to the consignor. The con- 
 signor brought suit against the consignee, 
 and recovered a judgment for the value 
 of the goods; but, in the meantime, after 
 a verdict was rendered in favor of the 
 consignor, and before judgment was ren- 
 dered thereon, the express company, by 
 direction of the consignor's attorney, re- 
 turned the goods to the consignor. The 
 consignee never countermanded his direc- 
 tions to the company to reship to the con- 
 signor. When final judgment was ren- 
 dered, the consignee brought an action 
 of trover against the company to recover 
 the value of the goods, without offering 
 to pay the money due on the goods. 
 Held, that the consignee could not re- 
 cover. American Exp. Co. v. Greenhalgh, 
 80 111. 68. 
 
 On consignee's refusal to pay the 
 charges and accept delivery, the carrier 
 may return the goods to the consignor, 
 if the consignor has specially instructed 
 them so to do, or if the company took 
 charge of the goods subject to a general 
 regulation, known to the consignor, pre- 
 scribing this course. Wiltse v. Barnes, 
 46 Iowa 210. 
 
 40. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Levine 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 1095, holding 
 that whether he exercised such care is 
 a question for tlie jury. 
 
 41. Where goods damaged. — Hardy v. 
 American Exp. Co., 182 Mass. 328, 65 N. 
 E. 21b, 59 L. R. A. 731. 
 
 42. Hardy v. American Exp. Co., 182 
 Mass. 338. 65 N. E. 375, 59 L. R. A. 731. 
 
 Reasonableness of time question for 
 jury. — Where the books were delivered 
 on December 1st, opened by the con- 
 signor December 12th or 13th, and on 
 December 19th, after the express com- 
 pany had remitted the purchase price to 
 the consignor, notice was sent the ex- 
 press company by the consignee that *^he 
 books were so damaged as to be worth- 
 less, the reasonableness of the time within 
 which notice was sent was for the jury 
 and the jury would be warranted in find- 
 ing that notice to the express company 
 within a reasonable time was reasonaI)ly 
 to the expected. Hardy v. American Exp. 
 Co., 182 Mass. 328, 65 N. E. 375, 59 L. R. 
 A. 731. 
 
 43. Hardy v. American Exp. Co., 65 
 N. E. 375, 182 Mass. 328, 59 L. R. A. 731. 
 
 A consignment of fifty sets of Balzac's 
 works, damaged so as to be worth only 
 $5 or $0, is not so worthless as to excuse 
 its return to the express company which 
 delivered them, when demand is made 
 on it for the price paid. Hardy v. Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co., 65 N. E. 375, 182 Mass. 
 328, 59 L. R. A. 731. 
 
 44. Liability as warehouseman — Notice 
 to consignor. — Hasse v. American Exp. 
 Co., 94 Mich. 133, 53 N. W. 918, 34 Am. 
 St. Rep. 328; Grossman v. Fargo (N. Y.), 
 6 Hun 310; Weed v. Barney, 45 N. Y. 
 344, 6 Am. Rep. 96. 
 
 45. Kremer v. Southern Exp. Co., 46 
 Tenn. (6 Coldw.), 356. 
 
 46. American Exp. Co. v. Wettstein, 
 28 111. App. 96 (failure to notify for a 
 week). And see Tooker v. Gormer (N. 
 Y.), 2 Hilt. 71; American Merchants* 
 Union Exp. Co. v. Wolf, 79 111. 430.
 
 573 
 
 TKAXSrORTATlOX ANU UKLIVIlKN \;\ CAKKIKK. 
 
 §§ 8rj9-870 
 
 W here the consignee can not be found and the express coniijany immediately 
 notifies the consignor thereof, it is only liable as a warehouseman though the 
 goods are destroyed before the consignor receives the notice. •♦' 
 
 §§ 870-874. Goods Seized under Legal Process— § 870. Liability of 
 Carrier. — Excuses Nondelivery. — A earner i- excused from liability fur 
 failure to deliver goods, when, without any act. fault, or connivance on the part 
 of the carrier, they are seized \)y virtue of a valid legal process, and taken out 
 of its jjossession.-*^ I'.ut if goods attached are not taken from the carrier's cus- 
 tody, and the attachment is afterwards dissolved, the levy furnishes no defense 
 
 47. Hasse v. American Exp. Co., 94 
 Midi. ^■^■^, y.\ X. W. OIH, 34 Am. St. Rep. 
 lias. 
 
 48. Excuses nondelivery. — I'nitcd Stales. 
 —The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 708; The 
 Idaho, 93 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 978; Wells 
 V. Maine Steamship Co., Fed. Cas. No. 
 17,40t, 4 Cliff. 228; Lemont V. New York, 
 etc.. R. Co., 28 Fed. 920; Rosentield 
 V. Express Co., Fed. Cas. No. 12,060; l 
 Woods 131; Stiles v. Davis (U. S.), 1 
 Black 101, 17 L. Ed. 33; Robinson v. 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 57. 
 
 California. — Hayden v. Davis, 9 Cal. 
 573. 
 
 Georgia. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 cox, etc.. Co.. 48 Ga. 432, 11 Am. R. Rep. 375; 
 Wallace v. Matthews, 39 Ga. 617, 99 Am. 
 Dec. 473; Western, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio, 
 etc., Trust Co., 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. E. 821. 
 See Southern R. Co. v. Heymann, 118 
 Ga. 616, 45 S. E. 491, reversed in Hey- 
 man v. Southern R. Co., 203 U. S. 270, 
 51 L. Ed. 178. 27 S. Ct. 104. 7 Am. & 
 .Eng. Ann. Cas. 1130. 
 
 Indiana. — Ohio. etc.. R. Co. v. Yohe, 51 
 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727; Indiana, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Doremeyer. 20 Ind. App. 605, 
 50 N. E. 497. 67 Am. St. Rep. 264. 
 
 Maine. — Bennett v. American Exp. Co., 
 83 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 159, 23 Am. St. Rep. 
 774, 13 L. R. A. 33, 49 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 56. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Adams v. Scott. 104 
 Mass. 164; French v. Star Union Transp. 
 Co., 134 Mass. 288; Clifford v. Brocton 
 Transp. Co.. 214 Mass. 466. 101 N. E. 1092. 
 
 Michiiian. — Pingree v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 Co., 66' Mich. 143, 33 N. W. 298, 11 Am. 
 St. Rep. 479; Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 
 344, 29 N. W. 855, 6 Am. St. Rep. 301. 
 
 Minnesota. — Cooley v. Minnesota Trans- 
 fer R. Co., 53 Minn. 327. 55 N. W. 141, 55 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 616. 39 Am. St. Rep. 
 609. 
 
 Missouri.— h?i\u\2i v. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663. 
 31 S. W. 900. 50 \m. St. Rep. 459; Letts- 
 Spencer Grocery Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co.. 138 Mo. App. 352. 122 S. W. 10. 
 
 Kciv Hampshire. — Hett v. Boston, etc.. 
 Railroad, 69 N. H. 139. 44 Atl. 910. 
 
 .\'ew Mexico. — Mac\'eagh f. .\tchison. 
 etc., R. Co.. 3 N. Mcx. 327. 5 Pac. 457. 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 651. 
 
 -Wxc York. — Barnard ?■. llolibe. .")4 X. 
 
 \'. 516; Bates v. Stanton. 8 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 79; Edson v. Weston (N. Y.), 7 Cow. 
 278; Rogers v. Weir, 34 N. Y. 463; Mier- 
 son V. Hope. 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. 561; 
 Livingston v. Miller (N. Y.), 48 Hun 232, 
 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 71; Bliven v. Hudson 
 River R. Co. (N. Y.), 35 Barb. 188, af- 
 firmed in 36 N. Y. 403; \'an Winkle v. 
 United States Mail, etc., Ct. (X. Y.), 37 
 Barb. 122. 
 
 Ohio. — Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. O'Don- 
 nell. 49 O. St. 489. 32 N. E. 476. 21 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 Oregon. — Jewett v. Olsen, 18 Ore. 419, 
 23 Pac. 262, 17 Am. St. Rep. 745, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 435. 
 
 Pennsvlvania. — Holmes v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co.. 2 Pa. Ct. Rep. 345. 
 
 South Carolina. — Faust v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co.. 8 S. C. 118. 
 
 Te.ras.—Gu\i, etc., R. Co. z: Belton Oil 
 Co.. 45 Tex. Civ. App. 44. 99 S. W. 430. 
 
 I'ermont. — Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 \'t. 
 186, 46 Am. Dec. 145. 
 
 England.— TyUr v. London & S. W. R. 
 Co., 1 C. & E. 285; Wilson v. Anderson, 
 1 B. & Ad. 450, 20 E. C. L. 426; Sheridan 
 V. New Quay Co., 4 C. B., N. S.. 618. 93 E. 
 C. L. 618; Verrall v. Robinson, 5 Tyr. 
 lOC.O. 4 D. P. C. 242. 
 
 Contra — In West Virginia, it is held 
 that it is no defense to the claim of a 
 consignee that the goods have been at- 
 lachcd or seized by virtue of ajiy juridical 
 process. The contract of the carrier is 
 that he will delive. the goods in good or- 
 der and condition to the shipper or to 
 his assigns. He thus guarantees to pro- 
 tect the possession of the shipper and his 
 assigns. Xeill v. Rogers Bros. Produce 
 Co.. 41 W. Va. 37. 23 S. E. 702. 
 
 Under Act Pennsylvania June 13, 1874 
 (Purd. Dig. I Ed. iss.".] 146. pi. 8), car- 
 riers are not responsil>le to the owner 
 of goods, nor to the holder of the bill of 
 lading or other receipt for the same, 
 when the goods, are taken from them 
 by legal process. Lemont v. Xew York, 
 etc., R. Co.. 28 Fed. 92n; Automatic Mer- 
 chandising Co. V. Delaware, etc.. Co., 233 
 Pa. .".SI. 's2 .\tl. 9:>0. 
 
 Where goods are taken under a search 
 warrant, and by the court delivered to a 
 tliird person, who claims that the goods 
 were stolon from him. the carrier is not
 
 § 870 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 574 
 
 to the carrier for failing to transport and deliver them.^'' 
 
 Validity of Process. — A seizure under legal process of goods in the custody 
 of the carrier will not protect it from liability for their nondelivery unless the 
 process was valid and regular.-""' And it is held that the carrier must exercise 
 due diligence to ascertain whether the process is in fact legal. '"'^ P>ut it is held 
 that the consignor is not entitled to maintain replevin for goods though they were 
 
 liable to the consignee. Bliven z'. Hud- 
 son River R. Co. (N. Y.), 35 Barb. 188, 
 affirmed in 36 N. Y. 403. 
 
 That the process was obtained by 
 fraud, is immaterial if the carrier is in 
 no way privy thereto. Bliven v. Hudson 
 River R. Co. (N. Y.), 35 Barb. 188. 
 
 Right to yield possession to one hav- 
 ing paramount title. — In Van Winkle v. 
 United v^tatcs Mail, etc., Co. (N. Y.), 37 
 Barb. 122, an action against a carrier for 
 non-delivery of goods, it was held that 
 defendant could introduce evidence to 
 show that the goods did not belong to 
 the shipper, but to a firm, and were taken 
 from defendant at their destination un- 
 der an attachment against the firm. 
 
 49. Faust V. South Carolina R. Co., 8 
 S. C. 118. 
 
 50. Seizure must be under valid proc- 
 ess. — United States. — The M. M. Chase, 
 37 Fed. 708; Wells v. Maine Steamship 
 Co., Fed. Cas. No. 17,401, 4 ClifT. 228. 
 
 Georgia. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 cox, etc., Co., 48 Ga. 432. 
 
 ///mo;.y.— Great Western R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Comas, 33 111. 185. 
 
 Indiana. — Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Yohe. 
 51 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727. 
 
 Maine. — Bennett v. American Exp. Co., 
 83 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 159, 23 Am. St. Rep. 
 774, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 56, 13 L. R. 
 A. 33. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Edwards v. White Line 
 Transit Co., 104 Mass. 159, 6 Am. Rep. 
 213; Kiff V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 117 
 Mass. 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429. 
 
 Michigan. — Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 
 Mich. 344, 29 N. W. 855. 6 Am. St. Rep. 
 301. 
 
 Missouri. — McAlister v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 74 Mo. 351, 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 373, holding that the carrier is not liable 
 for surrendering property on a writ is- 
 sued under an unconstitutional statute, 
 the writ being valid on its face. 
 
 Xew York. — Bliven v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 36 N. Y. 403; Livingston v. Miller, 48 
 Hun 232, 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 71; Van Win- 
 kle V. United States Mail, etc., Co. (N. 
 Y.), 37 Barb. 122. 
 
 0/n'o. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 
 21 L. R. A., X. S., 117, 34 .\m. St. Rep. 
 579. 
 
 .South Carolina. — Faust v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co., 8 S. C. 118; Kohn v. Rich- 
 mond, etc., R. Co., 37 S. C. ], 16 S. E. 
 376, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 675, 24 L. R. 
 A. 100. 
 
 Tennessee.' — Xashvillc, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Estes, 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 749, 3 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 210. 
 
 Process must be valid on its face. — 
 Merz z!. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 8G Minn. 
 33, 90 N. W. 7. See Livingston v. Miller, 
 48 Hun 232, 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 71. 
 
 The Pennsylvania statute, Act June 13, 
 1874 (P. L. 2S5), exempting a carrier 
 from liability for goods taken on legal 
 process, does not protect a carrier from 
 lial)ility for goods taken by writ of at- 
 tachment void on its face. Automatic 
 Merchandising Co. v. Delaware, etc., Co., 
 82 Atl. 939, 233 Pa. 581; S. C, 46 Pa. 
 Super. Ct. 648. 
 
 Negligence in complying with mere tel- 
 egram from sheriff. — Where a common 
 carrier surrenders mules in transportation 
 to a person who exhil)its only a tele- 
 gram from a sheriff directing him to 
 seize the mules under a writ of attach- 
 ment, alleged to be in the sheriff's hands, 
 the carrier will be liable to the shipper 
 in damages, for negligence, whether there 
 be a contract in limitation of such a lia- 
 bility or not. And the liability will not 
 be released by the subsequent appearance 
 of the sheriff and his actual levy of the 
 attachment on the mules. Nickey z'. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 35 Mo. App. 79. 
 
 The bare statement that the goods 
 were seized by legal process and that 
 fact communicated to the shipper, with- 
 out more, is not sufficient to relieve the 
 carrier from its legal liability. It should 
 be shown what was the nature or char- 
 acter of the process and at wliose instance or 
 against whom the process was sued out, and 
 the burden is also on the carrier to show that 
 the process was legal and that it was is- 
 sued against the proper parties. Mosher 
 & Co. 7'. Southern Exp. Co., 38 Ga. 37. 
 
 Illegal seizirre. — Under Mass. Gen. St. 
 ch. 8 , § 28, as re-enacted in 1889, ch. 415, 
 §§ 30, 65, prohibiting the sale of intoxicat- 
 ing liquors directly or indirectly, except as 
 authorized in that chapter, an attachment 
 of liquors while in the hands of a com- 
 mon carrier is illegal. Kiff v. Old Col- 
 ony, etc., R. Co., 117 Mass. 591, 19 Am. 
 Rep. 429. 
 
 51. Georgia, etc., R. Co. r-. Knight, 11 
 Ga. App. 489, 75 S. E. 823. 
 
 Delivery by a carrier on demand of an 
 ofificer levying an attachment, where the 
 attachment was on a printed form upon 
 which appeared a form for bond not 
 filled out, without inquiry as to whether 
 a l)ond had been given, does not protect 
 the carrier from liability to the owner of 
 the goods. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Knight, 75 S. E. 823, 11 Ga. App. 489.
 
 575 
 
 TKAXSI'ORTATION AND DKI.IVKRY HY CARRIKR. 
 
 § 870 
 
 taken unikT a void writ if he had kiiowled^a- of the jiroceedings.-'''- 
 
 Attachment against Person Other than Owner. — It is held a defense to 
 an action against a common carrier for breach of its contract to deliver goods, 
 that they were taken from him by an officer under an attachment against a per- 
 son who was not their owner ; •'■■' but there is a contrary holding.-"'^ 
 
 Goods Wrongfully Detained.— Where the seizure of goods under process 
 of law is l)rou,L;ht about in consequence of the unauthorized and wrongful act 
 of the carrier in detainin- iheni while in transit, the carrier is liable for a fail- 
 ure to deliver."'"' 
 
 Where goods are exempt from attachment it is no defense that the 
 goods were taken from tlie carrier by an (jfticer and attached against its will 
 and without fraud or collusion on its part, or knowledge of the nature of the 
 goods. •"'' 
 
 Where Property Diverted. — Where a carrier accepts property for a cer- 
 tain point and diverts it to a different i)oint, where it is attached, and the shipper 
 loses his property, the carrier is liable as for conversion. ■'••'•" 
 
 When Goods Are Attachable. — Goods in tbe custody of the carrier within 
 
 52. Florence, etc., R. Co. v. Radetsky, 
 52 Colo. -IT',). i:32 Pac. 791. 
 
 53. Attachment against person other 
 than owner. — liuliaiia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Doremcyer, 20 Ind. App. 605, 50 N. E. 
 497, (57 Am. St. Rep. 264. See Furman 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Iowa 395, 17 
 N. W. 598, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 280; 
 Hett V. Boston, etc., Railroad, 69 N. H. 
 139, 44 Atl. 910. 
 
 Merchants failed and made an assign- 
 ment for the l)enefit of creditors. The 
 assignee sold goods assigned to plaintiffs, 
 who delivered them to a dispatch com- 
 pany to he sent by rail to a distant place, 
 and while en route they were attached 
 l)y the creditors of the insolvent mer- 
 cliants, and the agent of the dispatch 
 company was summoned as garnishee. 
 Some days later plaintiffs demanded the 
 goods of the garnishee, and, being re- 
 fused, brought suit for a conversion. 
 Held, that the action could not be main- 
 tained. At the time of the demand the 
 goods were in legal effect in the pos- 
 session of the sheriff. If the goods were 
 wrongfully attached, the remedy was 
 against the parties attaching. Stiles v. 
 Davis (U. S.), 1 Black 101, 17 L. Ed. 33. 
 
 54. Edwards v. White Line Transit 
 Co., 104 Mass. 159, 6 Am. Rep. 213. And 
 see Bingliam v. Lamping, 26 Pa. 340, 67 
 Am. Dec. 418. 
 
 In Dickson v. Chaffee. 34 La. Ann. 
 1133, it was held that where plaiiUiff con- 
 signs goods receiving the l)ill of lading 
 therefor, and the sheriff seizes them un- 
 der a writ commauding the seizure of the 
 property of another, and consigns them 
 to defendant, who, pursuant to direc- 
 tions, sells them, and pays over to the 
 slicriff the proceeds, he is not liable to 
 plaintiff, where he had no other notice of 
 his adverse claim than that the goods had 
 been originally shipped in plaintitT's 
 name and that lie lioUl the bill of lading 
 therefor. 
 
 55. Goods wrongfully detained. — West- 
 ern, etc., R. Co. V. Ohio, etc., Trust Co., 
 107 Ga. 512, 33 S. E. 821. 
 
 Holding goods to allow creditors to 
 attach. — Where a carrier receives goods 
 consigned to one who has made advances 
 thereon, it is liable to the consignee 
 where, through connivance with the ship- 
 per, it holds the goods until thej' can be 
 attached by the shipper's creditors. Rob- 
 inson V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 16 Fed. 57. 
 
 A carrier who receives goods under an 
 engagement to forward them to the con- 
 signee can not hold them to answer an- 
 attachment at the suit of a creditor of 
 the shipper, previously served upon him; 
 nor is he liable in respect to them upon 
 the attachment. Bingham v. Lamping, 
 26 Pa. 340, 67 Am. Dec. 41S. 
 
 56. Goods exempt from attachment. — 
 Kiff V. Old Colony, etc., R. Co.. 117 Mass. 
 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429. 
 
 56a. Where property diverted. — Lincoln 
 Grain Co. r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 91 Neb. 
 203, 135 X. W. 443. 
 
 Where a carrier, in pursuance of an 
 agreement or custom whereby a certain 
 third person was to have the right to 
 change the destination of the goods 
 shipped without producing the bill of lad- 
 ing, under the instructions of such third 
 person to whom notice was to be given 
 of the delivery of the goods, and without 
 authority from the holder of the bill of 
 lading who had no notice of the agree- 
 ment or custom, stops the goods at an 
 intermediate point, and there stores them 
 in its warehouse, where they are levied 
 on as the property of the consignor, un- 
 der an attachment sued out against him 
 liy such third person, such seizure will 
 not relieve the carrier from liability for 
 its failure to deliver the goods on de- 
 mand of the holder of the bill of lading. 
 Western, etc.. R. Co. v. Ohio, etc.. Trust 
 Co., 33 S. E. 821, 107 Ga. 512.
 
 § 870 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 576 
 
 the state and county where the writ is issued at the time of the issuing of the 
 writ are subject to attachment. '*■' But freight in the custody of the carrier 
 is not attachable unless it is susceptible of manual seizure.-'^^ As a general rule 
 property can not be attached unless it belongs to the person against whom the 
 attachment is issued. •"''^ 
 
 Goods Subject to Execution.- — The piling of property on the carrier's 
 wharf does not give it such possession as to prevent its being seized on execu- 
 tion against the owner.*^*' 
 
 Liability for Removing Attached Property. — Where a creditor has at- 
 tached property of his debtor, and tiled a copy of the writ, as recjuired by 
 statute, a railroad company, which, with notice of attachment, removes and 
 ships the property on the order of the debtor, is liable to the attaching creditor 
 in tro\er.^''^ 
 
 Liability to Mortgagee of Goods. — Where goods have been delivered to a 
 carrier for transportation, a demand thereof under a mortgage with condition 
 broken, given by the consignor, is not such legal process as will render the 
 carrier liable for conversion on its refusal to deliver the goods to the mort- 
 gagee.'-' 
 
 Liability for Refusal to Permit Levy. — To a suit against a carrier for 
 refusing to permit the levy of an attachment on property in his hands, it is a 
 good defense that the property did not belong to the defendant in attachment, 
 and was not subject to levy.''-"5 And it has been held that the fact that the agent 
 of the carrier obstructed an officer in levying an attachment, and removed the 
 
 57. When goods are attachable. — 
 Viiifed States.— The M. M. Chase. 37 Fed. 
 70S. 
 
 Georgia. — Western R. Co. r. Thornton, 
 60 Ga. 300; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 cox, etc., Co., 48 Ga. 432. 
 
 Io7i.'a. — Furman v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 62 Iowa 395, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 280, 
 17 X. W. 598. 
 
 /Co«,ya,f.— Wheat v. Platte, etc., R. Co., 
 4 Kan. 370. 
 
 Xezv York. — Bliven v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 36 N. Y. 403; Van Winkle v. United 
 States Mail, etc., Co. (N. Y.), 37 Barb. 
 122. 
 
 Vermont. — Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 
 186, 46 Am. Dec. 145. 
 
 58. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 48 
 111. 402; Sutherland v. Second Nat. Bank, 
 78 Ky. 250, 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 368; 
 Bates V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 60 Wis. 
 296, 19 N. W. 72, 50 Am. Rep. 369, 14 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 700. 
 
 Goods, which are not in the county, 
 are not susceptible of manual seizure, 
 and therefore not attachable. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. V. Pennock, 51 Pa. 244. 
 
 59. Goods can not be attached for 
 vendor's debts. — Where a carrier receives 
 freight from a vendor consigned to the 
 vendee, the vendor has no further author- 
 ity over it except the right of stoppage 
 in transitu, and it can not be attached for 
 his debt. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Spaulding (Ky.), 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 418. 
 
 Property belonging to the carrier, is 
 not subject to attachment in its hands as 
 the property of the consignee. Hamil- 
 
 ton V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 103 Iowa 325, 
 73 X. W. 536. 
 
 Goods not attachable in suit against 
 consignee. — Persons in New Orleans or- 
 dered goods manufactured in New York 
 and shipped to them, to be paid for on 
 delivery. The goods were accordingly 
 manufactured and placed in the hands of 
 a carrier, directed to the parties ordering 
 them at New Orleans. Held, that the 
 title did not pass to the consignees until 
 the delivery of the goods at place of con- 
 signment, and that therefore they were 
 not attachable in a suit against the con- 
 signees while they were still in New 
 York. Bates v. New Orleans, etc., R. 
 Co. (X. Y.). 4 Abl). Prac. 7"^ 13 How. 
 Prac. 516. 
 
 60. Goods subject to execution. — Coos 
 Bay, etc.. Xav. Co. v. Siglin, 34 Ore. 80, 
 53 Pac. 504. 
 
 61. Removing attached property.— 
 Johnson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 44 X. 
 H. 626. 
 
 62. Demand by mortgagee. — Kohn v. 
 Richmond, etc.. R. Co., 37 S. C. 1, 16 S. 
 E. 376, 24 L. R. A. 100, 55 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 675. 
 
 63. Refusal to permit levy. — Simpson 
 V. Dufour, 126 Ind. 322, 26 X. E. 69, 22 
 Am. St. Rep. 590. 
 
 Since goods in transit are presumed to 
 belong to the consignee, a carrier who, 
 after service of notice of garnishment in 
 an action against the shipper, forwards 
 the goods, is not liable to the attaching 
 creditor in an action to recover their 
 value. Bingham v. Lamping, 26 Pa. 340, 
 67 Am. Dec. 418.
 
 577 
 
 TRANSPORTATKJX AND UKLIVKKV HV CARRIER. 
 
 §§ 870-871 
 
 goods out of tlic state by running out the train, does not furnish a cause of 
 action against the carrier, at the instance of the j^laintifif in attachment.*'"' 
 
 § 871. Duties of Carrier. — Notice of Seizure to Owner of Goods. — 
 Where goods, while in the hands of a carrier, are seized hy \ irtue of legal 
 process, and taken out of its possession, it should gi\e imniediate notice of the 
 seizure to the persons interested.''-"' It is held that if the owner has timely 
 knowledge of the seizure the carrier need not give him formal notice.*''' And 
 where he has been notified by the carrier of an attempt to levy an attachment 
 on the goods, knowledge of the danger makes further notice unnecessar)'.*'^ 
 
 Duty to Resist Judicial Process. — The carrier is not required to resist 
 forcibly judicial proceedings in the courts of the state into or through which 
 the ijoods are carried.*"^ And the carrier is not bound to resist officers of the 
 
 64. Liability to attaching creditor. — 
 Western R. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Ga. .iVi, 
 27 .-Xm. Rep. 411. 
 
 65. Notice of seizure. — United States. — 
 Robinson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 16 
 Fed. 57; American Exp. Co. v. MuUins, 
 212 U. S. 311, 53 L. Ed. 525, 29 S. Ct. 381, 
 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 536; The M. 
 M. Chase, 37 Fed. 708; Lemont v. New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 28 Fed. 920; Wells v. 
 Maine Steamship Co., Fed. Cas. No. 
 17,401, 4 Cliff. 228. 
 
 hidiana. — Ohio, etc.. R. Co. v. ,Yohe, 51 
 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727. 
 
 loiva. — Furman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 57 Iowa 42, 10 N. W. 272. 
 
 Miiuiesota. — Merz v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 86 Minn. 33, 90 N. W. 7. 
 
 A't'TC York. — Bliven v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 36 N. Y. 403. 
 
 North Dakota. — Taugher v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co.. 21 N. Dak. Ill, 129 N. W. 747. 
 
 O/i/o.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 Oregon. — Jewett v. Olsen, 18 Ore. 419, 
 23 Pac. 262, 17 Am. St. Rep. 745, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 435. 
 
 That a shipper of goods replevied them 
 while in the carrier's liands does not ex- 
 onerate the carrier from liability to the 
 consignee, who was not notified of the 
 replevin action. Spiegel v. Pacific Mail 
 Steamship Co.. 56 N. Y. S. 171, 26 Misc. 
 Rep. 411. 
 
 Where no reply is made to the notice 
 given to the consignor and consignee of 
 goods seized under legal process, llie car- 
 rier has a right to presume that they have 
 abandoned the property, as subject to the 
 legal process under which it was seized. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Wilcox, etc., 
 Co.. 48 Ga. 432. 
 
 Where goods are levied on at destina- 
 tion by attachment against the consignee, 
 it is not the duty of the carrier to defend, 
 or to give notice to the consignor, on the 
 failure of the consignee to claim the prop- 
 
 erty or to defend the action, he being 
 presumably the owner, and not the con- 
 signor. Frank Bros. & Co. r. Central R. 
 Co., '.» I 'a. Super. Ct. 1 :.".). 
 
 Notice to consignor's husband. — A 
 common carrier is not lial)le for house- 
 hold goods seized while in its hands un- 
 der an attachment against the consignor's 
 husband, where it has notified the latter 
 of the attachment on his presenting the 
 bill of lading to its agent in time for him 
 to assert the consignor's title to the 
 goods before they are sold under the at- 
 tachment, as it was entitled to rely on the 
 presumption that he was the consignor's 
 duly-authorized agent in regard to the 
 control of the goods, and it is immaterial 
 l)y what means he obtained the bill of 
 lading. Furman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 57 Iowa 42, 10 N. W. 272; S. C, 81 Iowa 
 r>lO, 46 N. W. 1049. 
 
 If the carrier fails to give notice it 
 assumes the burden of establishing the 
 legality of the proceedings on which the 
 attachment was made, and it is not pro- 
 tected because the writ is regular on its 
 face if it is void in law. Taugher v. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 N. Dak. Ill, 129 
 N. W. 747. 
 
 66. Robinson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 
 l!) Fed. 57; MacVeagh v. .\tchison, etc., 
 R. Co., 3 N. Mex. 327, 5 Pac. 457, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 651. 
 
 67. MacVeagh f. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 
 .'i X. Mex. 327. 5 Pac. 457. 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. (;.")1. 
 
 68. Duty to resist judicial process. — 
 American Exp. Co. v. MuUins, 212 U. S. 
 :;il, 53 L. Ed. 525, 29 S. Ct. 381, 15 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 5;{r>. 
 
 If the carrier, through connivance or 
 fraud, permits a judgment to be rendered 
 against it. such judgment can not be in- 
 \ oked by it as a bar to an action brought 
 bv the owner of the goods. American 
 Exp. Co. V. Mullins. 212 U. S. 311, 314. 
 53 L. Ed. 525,' 29 S. Ct. 381, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 536; Harris i: Balk. 193 
 U. S. 215, 49 L. Ed. 1023, 25 S. Ct. 625. 
 
 1 Car— 37
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 578 
 
 §§ 871-872 
 
 law,<5^ or remove the goods J" in order to prevent their seizure nnder legal 
 process. 
 
 § 872. Seizure under Police Regulations.— As a general rule, a carrier 
 is not liable for the loss of goods, if, without its fault, they are seized under 
 the authority of the police regulations of the state.' ^ but an illegal seizure is 
 no defence in an action against the carrier for the value of the goods."- 
 
 Notice of Seizure.— As a general rule the carrier must give proper notice 
 
 69. Not bound to resist officer.— Savan- 
 nah, etc., R. Co. T. Wilcox, etc., Co., 48 
 Ga. 432, 11 Am. R. Rep. 375; Pingree v. De- 
 troit, etc., R. Co., 66 Mich. 143, 33 N. 
 W. 29S. 11 Am. St. Rep. 479. 
 
 70. Not bound to remove goods. — Mac- 
 Veagh V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 3 N. Mex. 
 327, 5 Pac. 457, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 651. 
 
 71. Seizure under police regulations.^ 
 United States.— WeW^ v. Maine Steamship 
 Co., Fed. Cas. No. 17,401, 4 Cliff. 228. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cans, 69 Ark. 252, 62 S. W. 738. 
 
 Georgia.—Southern Exp. Co. v. Sottile 
 Bros., 134 Ga. 40, 67 S. E. 414, 28 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 139. 
 
 0/,jo.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. 
 A., X. S., 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 Seizure of liquors.— Where liquors 
 marked for shipment through a state, 
 while in the custody of the carrier in that 
 state, were seized and destroyed, in con- 
 formity with the state statute, as being 
 kept, deposited, and intended for sale in 
 violation thereof, and the carrier gave 
 regular notice to their owner, it is re- 
 lieved from all obligation to deliver such 
 liquors. Wells v. Maine Steamship Co., 
 Fed. Cas. No. 17,401, 4 Cliff. 228. 
 
 The carrier is not liable to the con- 
 signor for nondelivery to the consignee, 
 even though the statute be unconstitu- 
 tional; it never having been judicially de- 
 clared so. Southern Exp. Co. v. Sottile 
 Bros., 134 Ga. 40, 67 S. E. 414, 28 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 139. 
 
 But where goods were shipped to be 
 safely transported and delivered, "un- 
 avoidable accidents excepted," a loss oc- 
 curring through a lieutenant in the United 
 States army with a detachment of sol- 
 diers stopping the train and taking the 
 goods (intoxicating liquors), under the 
 claim that the carrier had been unlawfully 
 selling such goods to the Indians, is not 
 within the exception, neither could such 
 destruction be said to be by the public 
 enemy. It was held that no technical vis 
 major was proved, and that the carrier 
 was lia])le. Seligman v. Armijo, 1 N. Mex. 
 459. 
 
 Under Arkansas Statute, Act Feb. 13, 
 1899, §§ 1, 3, seizure and destruction of 
 liquor shipped from a point within the 
 state to a prohibited district is a defense 
 to an action against the carrier for the 
 
 conversion thereof. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Cans, 62 S. W. 738, 69 Ark. 252. 
 
 Seizure of game. — Where game birds, 
 though lawfully taken and shipped in 
 Arkansas, were not packed in the manner 
 prescribed by Lacey Act, § 5 (Act Cong. 
 May 25, 1900, c. 553, 31 Stat. 188 [U. S. 
 Comp. St. 1901, p. 3182]), and were seized 
 and confiscated by the game warden in 
 Missouri before arriving at their destina- 
 tion in Illinois, the shipment not being 
 interstate commerce in 'the full sense, the 
 carrier was not liable to the shipper for 
 the value of the game so seized. Eager 
 z: Jonesboro, etc., Exp. Co. (Ark.), 147 
 S. W^ 60. 
 
 Failure to deliver firearms believed to 
 be intended for mob. — Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. z: O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 
 476, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. 
 Rep. 579. 
 
 Forfeiture for nonpayment of custom 
 duties. — To a declaration against a car- 
 rier for nondelivery of goods, defendants 
 pleaded that the goods had, prior to the 
 delivery to the carrier, been forfeited to 
 the crown for nonpayment of customs 
 d.ue. Held, not a valid defense. White v. 
 Canadian Pac. R. Co., 6 Man. 169. 
 
 Carrier not chargeable with knowledge 
 of unconstitutionality of statute. — A ear- 
 lier will not be held liable in damages 
 for permitting the goods of his bailor tp 
 be taken out of his custody upon a writ 
 issued under a penal statute which is 
 subsequently decided to be unconstitu- 
 tional. He is not bound to know that it 
 is unconstitutional. McAlister v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 373, 
 74 Mo. 351. 
 
 72. Illegal seizure of game. — Bennett v. 
 American Exp. Co., 83 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 
 159, 13 L. R. A. 33, 23 Am. St. Rep. 774, 
 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 56; Merriman v. 
 Great Northern Exp. Co., 63 Minn. 543, 
 65 N. W. 1080. 
 
 Deception of shipper. — The mere fact 
 that at the time the shipper delivered 
 game to a carrier, he knew that its agent 
 had been directed not to receive game, 
 does not render the shipper guilty of 
 such deception as will exonerate the car- 
 rier from liability for its loss by illegal seiz- 
 ure by a game warden, if there was no spe- 
 cial contract limiting the carrier's liabil- 
 ity. Bennett v. American Exp. Co., 83 
 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 159, 23 Am. St. Rep. 774, 
 13 L. R. A. 33, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 56.
 
 579 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY BY CARKIKR. 
 
 §§ 872-875 
 
 of the seizure to the owner of the goods."-' 
 
 § 873. Garnishment of Carrier. — Goods Awaiting Transportation. — 
 
 Goods held by a carrier for transportation are liable to ^garnishment before they 
 are in transit.'''^ 
 
 Goods in Transit. — A carrier can not be held as garnishee for property in 
 actual transit at llw time of si-rsice of process.""'' 
 
 Termination of Transportation. — A carrier, after the termination of the 
 transportation of the j)roi)erty. and while holding it only as warehouseman, is 
 liable to garnishment in respect to such property.'" 
 
 § 874. Rights of Attaching Officer. — if an officer attaching goods sub- 
 ject to the lien of a common carrier for freight pays the freight, that he may 
 get the goods into his possession, the officer, in respect to the lien, stands in 
 the place, and has the rights, of the common carrier.'" 
 
 §§ 875-903. Actions for Failure to Deliver or Misdelivery— § 875. 
 Conditions Precedent. — Necessity for Demand. — IJefore an action can be 
 maintained again^t the carrier for failing to deliver the goods to the consignee, 
 a demand must be made for them, unless it is not in the power of the carrier to 
 deliver them.'" And an action will not lie for omitting seasonably to deliver the 
 
 73. Notice of seizure. — United Stales. — 
 See Wells v. Maine Steamship Co., Fed. 
 Cas. No. 17,401, 4 Cliff. 228. 
 
 Georgia. — See Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Sottile Bros., 134 Ga. 40, 67 S. E. 414, 28 
 L. R. A., N. S.. 139. 
 
 .Massachusetts. — Kiff z'. Old Colony, etc., 
 R. Co., 117 Mass. 591, 19 Am. Rep. 429. 
 
 Michigan. — Gibbons v. Farwell, 63 Mich. 
 344, 29 N. W. 855, 6 Am. St. Rep. 301. 
 
 New York. — Bliven v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 36 N. Y. 403. 
 
 OJiio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. 
 A., K. S., 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 When notice unnecessary. — Where game 
 unlawfully killed, is delivered to a car- 
 rier for shipment by one not entitled to 
 its possession, the carrier, on delivering 
 the game to the state on demand, is not 
 bound to give notice to the consignor. 
 Thomas v. Northern Pac. Exp. Co., 7.") 
 N. W. 1120, 73 ^[inn. IS.!. 
 
 74. Goods awaiting transportation. — 
 Illinois. — See Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, 
 48 111. 402. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Adams v. Scott, 104 
 Mass. 164. 
 
 Missouri.— Landa v. Hoick, 129 Mo. 663, 
 31 S. W. 900, 50 Am. St. Rep. 459. 
 
 Wisconsin. — See Bates v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 60 Wis. 296, 19 N. W. 72, 50 Am. 
 Rep. 369, 14 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 700. 
 
 Goods stored on board of a steamer for 
 shipment to a foreign port arc not sub- 
 ject to garnishment where unreasonable 
 expense and delay would be incurred in 
 unloading them. Van Camp Hardware, 
 etc., Co. V. Plimpton, 174 Mass. 208, 54 
 N. E. 538, 75 Am. St. Rep. 296. 
 
 Lack of knowledge as to ownership. — 
 A common carrier can not be charged as 
 a garnishee for goods consigned to de- 
 fendant, when he does not know whether 
 
 ihcy belong to the defendant or not. 
 Walker v. Detroit, etc., R. Co.. 49 Mich. 
 446, K! X. W. si:>. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 251. 
 
 75. Goods in transit. — Bates v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 60 Wis. 296, 19 X. W. 72, 50 
 Am. Rep. 369, 14 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 700. 
 
 A railroad company is not liable to be 
 garnished in respect of property which is 
 already in transit and beyond the limits 
 of the county. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Cobb. 48 111. 402, Michigan Cent. R. Co. 
 r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 111. App. 399. 
 
 Property in the hands of a common 
 carrier in transit to a place outside of the 
 state is not subject to garnishment, though 
 it is within the state at the time of the 
 service of the garnishee summons. Steve- 
 not V. Eastern R. Co., 61 Minn. 104, 63 
 X. W. 256, 28 L. R. A. 600. 
 
 Public policy, and the proper discharge 
 of the duties of conmion carriers, require 
 that they can not be held liable upon a 
 garnishee summons for personal chattels 
 in their possession in actual transit at the 
 time the summons is served. Bates v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 14 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 700, 60 Wis. 296, 19 N. W. 72. 50 
 Am. Rep. 369. 
 
 76. Termination of transportation. — 
 Cooley f. Minnesota Transfer R. Co., 53 
 Minn. 327, 55 X. W. 141, 39 Am. St. Rep. 
 r>09. 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 616. 
 
 77. Rights of attaching officer. — Thomp- 
 son :■. Rose. If. Conn. 71. 41 .\ni. Dec. 121; 
 Rucker f. Donovan, 13 Kan. 2.")1, 19 .A.m. 
 Rep. S4. 
 
 78. Necessity for demand. — Jarrett ''. 
 Great Xorthern R. Co.. 74 Minn. 477, 77 
 X. W. 304. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped goods by express, and 
 the company carried the goods to the 
 consignee, who refused to receive theni. 
 whereupon the company placed them in
 
 § 87; 
 
 CARRIIvRS. 
 
 580 
 
 poods. without a previous demand."'^ A demand is unnecessary where it would 
 be useless.''^' or where the carrier has converted the goods, ^^ or wrongfully re- 
 fused to deliver them,*- or made delivery to the wrong party,''^' or failed to de- 
 liver according to the consignment/^-* 
 
 Tender of Charges. — The rule that, to entitle the consignee to the posses- 
 sion of the goods, he must pay or tender the legal charges for their carriage, 
 has no application in an action against the carrier for the conversion of the 
 "oods."^" And a tender is unnecessary where it would be useless,-^*' or where 
 the carrier makes a peremptory refusal to deliver the goods,'^' or refuses to de- 
 
 their "on hand department." and notified 
 the consignee that they were at the own- 
 er's risk, hut failed to notify the con- 
 sig-nor. Six months thereafter the con- 
 signor, on inquiry, was informed that the 
 goods were so held. Without making 
 any demand he sued for failure to de- 
 liver the goods. At the trial the express 
 company tended the goods. Held, that 
 a verdict for the full value of the goods 
 must he set aside. Block v. United States 
 l^.xp. Co.. 75 X. J. L. 4.55. 68 Atl. 173. 
 
 Even though the carrier has made a 
 wrong delivery of the goods, a demand is 
 necessary to render it liable for conver- 
 sion. Rome R. Co. v. Sullivan, etc., Co., 
 14 Ga. 277. 
 
 Unless there is proof of a contrary 
 dealing with the property by the carrier, 
 there must l)c a demand for the property 
 and a refusal by the carrier in order to 
 show conversion. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Britton. :59 So. 585. 145 Ala. 654. 
 
 Order equivalent to demand.— An order 
 from the shipper of goods consigned to 
 shipper's order, duly accepted by the car- 
 rier and noted on the bill of ladmg by 
 its agent, directing a diversion of the 
 goods from one destination to another, is 
 equivalent to a demand for delivery. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Schriver, 84 Pac. 
 119. 72 Kan. 550, 4 L. R. A, N. S., 10.56. 
 Insufficient demand.— Where goods 
 were delivered to a carrier for transporta- 
 tion under a contract to deliver them 
 within a specified time, a demand made 
 for the goods on the day agreed on for 
 delivery before the goods had arrived was 
 insufficient to charge the carrier with con- 
 version thereof. Clark v. American Exp. 
 Co., 106 N. W. 643, 130 Iowa 254. 
 
 Where a consignor, having heard noth- 
 ing from the goods shipped, asked the 
 carrier wdiat had became of the goods, 
 and was told that he did not know, there 
 was no demand, so as to render the car- 
 rier guilty of conversion. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Tyler Coffin Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 81 S. W. 826. 
 
 Young trees were consigned by express 
 to a person at a certain station in care of the 
 railroad agent, who was agent also of the 
 express company. The freight and ex- 
 press received at the station were kept 
 in the same room. After the trees had 
 been there several weeks, the consignee 
 sent an order, addressed to the "R. R. 
 Agent," directing the latter to deliver to 
 bearer "any freight" there might be for 
 
 the consignee. The agent reported that 
 there was nothing for him. Held, that 
 the demand was not sufficient to charge 
 the express company with liability for 
 tlie agent's failure to deliver. Wells, 
 Fargo & Co. v. Windham, 1 Tex. Civ. 
 .\pp. 267, 21 S. W. 402. 
 
 79. Robinson v. Austin (Mass.), 2 Gray 
 564; Ryland v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 46 S. E. 923, 55 W. Va. 181. 
 
 80. When demand unnecessary. — Where 
 a railroad company contracted to carry 
 goods to a point beyond the terminus 
 of their line, it is no objection to a re- 
 covery by the owner for their nonde- 
 livery that no demand was made by him 
 at said point, if it appears that the goods 
 never reached the point in question, and 
 that the defendants had no ofifice there, 
 nor any agent upon whom the demand 
 could be made. Schroeder v. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 12 N. Y. Super. Ct. 55. 
 
 81. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Heiden- 
 heimer, 82 Tex. 195, 17 S. W. 608. 
 
 82. Peebles v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 
 Mass. 498; Wiggin v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 120 Mass. 201. 
 
 83. Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co., 63 W. Va. 423, 61 S. E. 
 364; compare. Cole v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 21 Mo. App. 443. 
 
 Where a carrier delivers goods to the 
 person to whom they are consigned, after 
 notice by the real owner not to do so ex- 
 cept on his written order, no further de- 
 mand is necessary to entitle such owner 
 to maintain an action against the carrier 
 for their conversion. Lester v. Delaware, 
 etc., R. Co., 92 Hun 342, 36 N. Y. S. 907, 
 72 N. Y. St. Rep. 334. 
 
 84. Erskine v. Steamboat Thames, 6 
 Mo. 371; Ludwig v. Meyre (Pa.), 5 Watts 
 & S. 435. 
 
 85. Tender of charges. — Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. V. O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. 
 E. 476, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. 
 Re.x 579. 
 
 If a carrier by railroad refuses to deliver 
 goods carried, for other reasons than the 
 nonpayment of freight, an action will lie 
 against him for conversion of the goods, 
 without payment of freight. Peebles v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 498; Wig- 
 gin V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 120 Mass. 201. 
 
 86. Fernandez v. Silva, 1 La. 269. 
 
 87. Chandler v. Fulton, 10 Tex. 2, 60 
 Am. Dec. 188. See Peebles v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 498.
 
 581 
 
 TKANSl'ORTATION AND DKLI VKKV liV CAKKII'.R. 
 
 §§ 875-876 
 
 liver unless the consignee pay illegal charges,*^** or a sum other than the charges 
 for freight,'^'-* or where the goods are damaged to a greater extent than the 
 hill for freight/'*" or where the carrier has only partially perfomied its under- 
 taking." ^ The owner of projjerty shijjped to his agent may sue for nondelivery, 
 though he harl not paid or offered to pay the freight, and the carrier had not 
 looked to him f(jr payment thereof. "- 
 
 § 876. Form of Action. — Assumpsit,"- or case,'^ may he hrought against 
 the carrier for not delivering goods. 
 
 Detinue may he maintained for wrongful refusal to deliver.''-"' 
 
 Replevin. — I pon the refu.sal of a carrier to deliver freight to the consignee 
 upon a valid tender by him of its regular charges, he may maintain an action of 
 replevin therefor."" i>ut it has been held that where- goods came into the hands 
 of the carrier law full}-, replevin could not be maintained for the mere detention 
 of the goods.'-'' 
 
 Trover will lie against a carrier for a misdelivery,-''' ur an approjjrialion of 
 the property to its own use, or for any act antagonistic to and inconsistent with 
 plaintitif's claim or right; ""but not for goods lost by accident or stolen, or for 
 nondelivery, unless there be a refusal to deliver while the carrier is in posses- 
 
 88. Long v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 51 Ala. 
 512; Johnston v. Davis, GO Mich. 50, 20 N. 
 W. 830. See Looniis v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 17 Mo. App. 340. 
 
 Where, on a dispute as to the amount 
 due I'or ilic carriaL;(.- dI' l;oo(1s; tlic carrier 
 withheld them until the amount claimed 
 l)y iiim to be due should be paid, a tender 
 was not necessary before bringing suit 
 for their conversion, where there was no 
 refusal by the owner to pay what he 
 deemed a proper amount. Gates v. Be- 
 kins, 87 Pac. 505, 44 Wash. 423. 
 
 89. Blair v. Jeffries (S. C), Dud. 59; 
 Adams v. Clark (Mass.), 9 Cush. 215, 57 
 Am. Dec. 41. 
 
 90. Ewart v. Kerr (S. C), Rice 203; 
 Miami Powder Co. v. Port Royal, etc., R. 
 Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. E. 339, 21 L. R. A. 
 123; Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 42 \"t. 
 441, 1 Am. Rep. 350. 
 
 91. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533; John- 
 ston V. Davis, 60 Mich. 56, 26 N. W. 830. 
 
 Where goods arrive at their point of 
 destination, and the packages or casks 
 arc, by the fault of the carrier, in a dam- 
 aged condition, so that they can not be 
 handled without loss and further damage, 
 it is the duty of the carrier to repair the 
 casks, if possible, before the owner can 
 be compelled to receive them; and, if he 
 refuses to do this, the owner may refuse 
 to receive the goods, and may recover the 
 value; and this, without otTering to pay 
 the freights. Breed r. Mitchell. 4S Ga. 
 533. 
 
 92. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Allgood, 
 113 Ala. 163, 20 So. 986. 
 
 93. Assumpsit. — Bullard v. Young 
 (Ala.), 3 Stew. 4(5 ; Bates v. Bigby, 123 Ga. 
 727, 51 S. E. 717. 
 
 See Dresser v. West \irginia Transp. 
 Co., 8 W. Va. 553, where oil belonging to 
 
 plaintiff was delivered to defendant car- 
 rier, by a petroleum company, to be trans- 
 ported from the tanks at their wells to 
 the point of destination. After it was so 
 transported plaintiff demanded the oil, and 
 defendant refused to deliver it because it 
 was claimed by the petroleum company. 
 It did not appear that defendant sold or 
 disposed of the oil or any part of it. Held, 
 that plaintiff could not recover on the 
 common counts for goods sold and de- 
 livered to defendant by plaintiff or for 
 money received by defendant for plain- 
 tiff's use. 
 
 94. Case.— Bullard v. Young (Ala.), 3 
 Stew. 4(i ; Johnson 7'. Strader, 3 Mo. 355; 
 Packard z'. Getman (X. Y.), 6 Cow. 757, 10 
 Am. Dec. 475; S. C, 4 Wend. 613. 21 .'\m. 
 Dec. 166. 
 
 95. Detinue. — Long z\ Mol)ile. etc., R. 
 Co., 51 Ala. 512. 
 
 96. Replevin. — Indiana. — Evansvillle. etc., 
 R. Co. V. ^Llrsh, 57 Ind. 505. 
 
 Michigan. — Johnston v. Davis, 60 Mich. 
 56. 26 N. W. 830. 
 
 I'crntont. — Dyer z\ Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 42 Vt. 441, 1 .\m. Rep. 350. 
 
 97. Woodward v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 46 X. H. 524. 
 
 98. Trover. — I'nitcd States. — Blowers & 
 Co. V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 155 Fed. 935. 
 
 .Alabama. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Lamp- 
 ley, 76 Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334. 
 
 Illinois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. Parks, 
 54 111. 294. 
 
 -Vi'Tc York. — Packard f. Getman (X. Y.), 
 4 Wend. 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166. 
 
 South Carolina. — Trowell z: Youmans 
 (S. C), 5 Strob. 67. 
 
 99. Central R.. etc.. Co. z: Lampley, 
 76 Ala. 357. 52 Am. Rep. 334. See St, 
 Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Dunham. 36 Okla. 
 -;24, 129 Pac. 862.
 
 §§ 876-880 
 
 CAKRIKRS. 
 
 582 
 
 sion.i nor for an act or omission whicli amounts to negligence merely and not 
 to an actual wrongs as trover can not be sustained without proof of conversion.^ 
 And a carrier who receives goods to carry from one not authorized to deliver 
 them to him may be sued in trover.-* 
 
 Delivery after Notice to Stop in Transitu.— An action against a common 
 carrier for its negligence in delivering goods after notice from the shipper to 
 stop them in transitu, which it agreed to do, is founded upon the tort of de- 
 fendant, not upon the shipping contract, which ended upon the receipt of such 
 notice by tlie carrier.-^ 
 
 § 877. Joinder of Actions. — One entitled to maintain an action against a 
 carrier for failure to deliver goods may join therewith a claim for a statutory 
 penalty for unreasonable delay in delivery.^ 
 
 § 878. Jurisdiction and Venue.— In some states, by statute, a carrier 
 may be sued for failure to deliver goods either in the county where the contract 
 for transportation was executed or in the county where the delivery was to be 
 made.' 
 
 § 879. Parties. — As to who may maintain an action against a carrier for 
 failure to deliver or misdelivery, see elsewhere.'' 
 
 §§ 880-882. Pleading— §§ 880-881. Declaration, Complaint or Pe- 
 tition— § 880. In General.— Statutory Form.— In an action against a car- 
 rier to recover for its failure to deliver goods, a complaint in the form prescribed 
 bv the statute is sufficient.'^ 
 
 ' Repugnancy. — Where a declaration in an action against a carrier is defective 
 for repugnancy, a demurrer thereto will be sustained.^" 
 
 1. Alabama. — Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 Lampley, 7G Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334. 
 See Long v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 51 Ala. 
 512. 
 
 Georgia. — Bird v. Georgia Railroad, 72 
 Ga. 655. 
 
 Massachusetts. — See Adams v. Clark 
 (Mass.), 9 Cush. 215, 57 Am. Dec. -41. 
 
 Missotiri. — Johnson v. Strader, 3 Mo. 
 355. 
 
 Xe-iV Hampshire. — Moses v. Norris, 4 N. 
 H. 304. 
 
 New Forit.— Packard v. Getman, 4 
 Wend. 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166; Magnin v. 
 Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410, 26 Am. Rep. 608. 
 
 A undertook to carry certain flour for 
 B to a certain place, and, having deposited 
 it by the way, a part of the flour was 
 Laken by mistake by C. B refusing to re- 
 ceive the residue, C received it, and paid 
 for the whole. This was a conversion by 
 A sufficient to support trover by B. Bul- 
 lard V. Young (Ala.), 3 Stew. 46. 
 
 2. Central R., etc., Co. v. Lampley, 76 
 Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334. 
 
 3. Buliard v. Young (Ala.), 3 Stew. 46; 
 Johnson v. Strader, 3 Mo. 355; Packard v. 
 Getman (N. Y.), 6 Cow. 757, 16 Am. Dec. 
 475; S. C, 4 Wend. 613, 21 Am. Dec. 166. 
 
 4. Southern Exp. Co. v. Palmer, 48 
 Ga. 85. 
 
 5. Delivery after notice to stop in tran- 
 situ.— Rosenthal V. Weir, 170 X. Y. 148, 63 
 X. E. 65, 57 L. R. A. 527. 
 
 6. Joinder of action. — Robertson v. At- 
 
 lantic, etc., R. Co, 148 N. C. 323, 62 S. E. 
 413; Rcvisal 1905, § 2632. 
 
 7. Jurisdiction and venue. — See post, 
 '"Loss of an Injury to Goods," Chapter 12. 
 
 Georgia statute. — Burns v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 65 S. E. 582, 6 Ga. App. 614; 
 Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Merchants', etc.. 
 Bank, 73 S. E. 637, 137 Ga. 391; Ga. Civ. 
 Code 1910, § 2798; Ga. Civ. Code 1895, § 
 2334. 
 
 If one delivers a commodity to a car- 
 rier for shipment from one county to an- 
 other, and the commodity is never 
 shipped, and the evidence authorizes the 
 inference that the carrier or its agents 
 made way with the commodity at the 
 point where it was delivered to the car- 
 rier, trover and conversion may be main- 
 tained against the carrier in the county 
 where the delivery to the carrier and the 
 conversion took place. Southern R. Co. 
 V. Morrison, 8 Ga. App. 647, 70 S. E. 91. 
 
 Express companies. — Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. B. R. Elect. Co., 55 S. E. 254, 126 
 Ga. 472. Civ. Code, 1895, § 2004. 
 
 8. Parties. — See ante, "Right to Main- 
 tain Action against Carrier," §§ 809-811. 
 
 9. Statutory form. — Southern Exp. Co. 
 v. Crook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am. Rep. 140. 
 
 10. Repugnancy. — A declaration in as- 
 sumpsit against a common carrier, aver- 
 ring a verbal agreement that goods and 
 chattels were to be delivered according 
 to the direction of the plaintiff, and not 
 to the consignee, but further expressly
 
 583 
 
 TRANSPORTATION AND DlvI.IVKRY BY CARRIER. 
 
 §§ 880-881 
 
 A prayer, in action aj^ainst a carrier for conversion of goods, is defective 
 where it iLjnorcs evidence that may he considered in mitigation of damages. ^^ 
 
 Construction of Petition.— Where a petition can he construed either as a 
 s-uit in contract or as an action for hreach of (hity arising out of the contract, 
 the hitter construction will he adopted. '- 
 
 § 881. Necessary Allegations.— Plaintiff's Interest.— A complaint in an 
 action against a carrier for failure to deliver goods should show plaintiff's 
 ownershij) in the goods or interest in the contract of transportation. '•' 
 
 That Defendant Common Carrier. — The complaint must allege that de- 
 fcndaiU is a coninion carrier, or it will not he held responsihle in that char- 
 acter." 
 
 Reasonable Time for Delivery. — The complaint must show either that 
 after the carrier received the goods to be transported a reasonable time has 
 elapsed for lransi)ortation, or that the goods have been transported before the 
 demand was made.^"' 
 
 As to Charges. — If charges were to be paid for transportation, it must be 
 alleged, or the agreement will be presumed to be without consideration. ^^ The 
 complaint must shov.' either that the defendant's reasonable freights and charges 
 have been paid or ten<!ered, or that a reason exists for not having done so.^' 
 
 Failure to Perform Duty. — In order to make a good complaint, the aver- 
 ments should be such as to show a duty or obligation resting upon the carrier, 
 and a violation of that dutv, or a failure to perform the obligation.'^ Where 
 
 statint>- that sucli vcrluil asrccMuent was 
 subject to the terms and conditions of a 
 written receipt which provided that the 
 goods and chattels were to be delivered 
 to such consignee, is demurrable for re- 
 pugnancy. Thomas v. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. (Del.), 50 Atl. 385, 3 Pen. 81. 
 
 11. Seal)oard, etc., Railway v. Pliillips, 
 108 Md. 385, 70 Atl. 333, holding that a 
 prayer, that if the jury found for plain- 
 tiff to allow the value of the goods shipped 
 at the time of conversion with interest in 
 the jury's discretion, was defective in that 
 it ignored evidence tending to show that 
 the carrier, in response to plaintiff's de- 
 mand for a return of the goods, had them 
 retransported and tendered them to plain- 
 tiff in sul)stantially the same condition In 
 which it had received them, and had 
 thereafter held them subject to plaintiff's 
 order. 
 
 12. Construction of petition. — Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co. T'. Goodwin, 1 Ga. App. 351, 
 57 S. E. 1070; Central, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago Portrait Co., 133 Ga. 11, 49 S. E. 
 727, IOC) Am. St. Rep. 87. 
 
 13. Plaintiffs interest.— Galveston, etc.. 
 R. Co. z: Borden (Tex. Civ. App.). 29 S. 
 W. 1100. 
 
 In an action by A against a railroad 
 company for damages for the nondelivery 
 to B of goods consigned to him by A, the 
 complaint must allege either that A was, 
 and continued to be. or that the con- 
 signee, B, was not. the owner of the 
 goods, and that the company had notice 
 or knowledge of .K's continued owner- 
 ship, and of B's want of title, notwith- 
 standing the consignment thereof. Penn- 
 sylvania Co. f. HoUlcrman, ()9 Ind. 18. 
 
 Insufificient complaint. — In an action 
 
 against a common carrier for a failure to 
 deliver freight, a count in the declaration 
 employing no other averment of owner- 
 ship in the plaintiff than the word "claims" 
 is not sufficient on demurrer. Montgom- 
 ery, etc., R. Co. V. Edmonds, 41 Ala. 667. 
 Sufficient complaint. — If a complaint 
 against a common carrier, for failure to 
 carry and deliver property, shows that 
 the property was bought of the consignor 
 by the plaintiff, that the consignor de- 
 livered it to the carrier, and that the car- 
 rier executed a l)ill of lading to the plain- 
 tiff, but failed to deliver the goods, it is 
 sufficient. Ohio, etc.. R. Co. f. Yone, 51 
 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727. 
 
 14. That defendant common carrier.— 
 Bristoe v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), 9 Barb. \r>^. 
 
 15. Reasonable time for delivery. — Jef- 
 fersonvilk-, etc.. R. Co. r. Gent, 35 Ind. 39. 
 
 16. Allegation as to charges. — Bristoe 
 V. Rensselaer, etc.. R. Co. (X. Y.,), 9 Barb. 
 158. 
 
 17. Payment or tender of charges. — 
 Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. z\ Gent, 35 
 Ind. 39. 
 
 18. Lake Erie, etc.. R. Co. v. Condon, 
 10 Ind. App. 536. 38 N. E. 71. 
 
 The complaint, in an action against a 
 conuiion carrier tor failure to deliver 
 freight at its destination, is demurrable 
 where, by the contract of shipment set 
 out, the defendant only agreed to deliver 
 the freight to a connecting carrier. Lake 
 Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Condon, 10 Ind. App. 
 536, 38 N. E. 71. 
 
 A complaint with alleges that plain- 
 tiff's decedent entered into a written con- 
 tract with defendant to ship his house- 
 hold goods, cattle, etc.. over It lines, that
 
 §§ 881-882 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 584 
 
 the petition in an action against a carrier for failure to deliver property does not 
 mention a contract to notify the consignee of the receipt of the property at its 
 destination, or allege a breach of such condition, plaintiff can not recover on 
 the ground of such breach.^'-' In an action by the consignor a complaint which 
 alleges merely that defendant failed to deliver the goods within a reasonable 
 time to the consignee at the destination is demurrable; it should allege that the 
 goods were not elsewhere delivered to and accc]5ted by the consignee.-" 
 
 Demand and Refusal in Action for Conversion. — A petition, in an action 
 against a carrier lor conversion, which, with proper allegations of the plaintift"s 
 ownership of the property and of its value, avers that the defendant converted 
 it to his own use, states a cause of action. It is not necessary to allege a demand 
 of the property bv the plaintiff' and a refusal to deliver it to him by the defend- 
 ant.2i 
 
 Immaterial Averments. — In a complaint upon a bill of ladmg given to the 
 consignor, which contains a clause providing that the goods shall be delivered on 
 "presentation of duplicate hereof," it is unnecessary to aver the reasons that in- 
 fluenced, and purposes that controlled, the shippers or the carrier in inserting the 
 clause, and such averments do not add anything to the legal eff'ect of the bill of 
 lading.-- 
 
 § 882. Plea or Answer. — A plea seeking to avoid liability for failure to 
 deliver goods because of a special contract must clearly bring the defendant 
 within the provision of the contract.-^ As in other civil actions a plea -■* or 
 
 defendant furnished decedent a car on a 
 side track and directed him to load his 
 goods therein, and that, after they were 
 loaded, defendant, without notice to de- 
 cedent, pulled the car onto its main track, 
 where it was negligently struck by a 
 freight train and the property therein 
 damaged, and setting out a contract in 
 the usual form of a bill of lading, suffi- 
 ciently shows a contract for carriage, a 
 compliance with the contract by decedent, 
 that the goods were received for trans- 
 portation, and the carrier's failure to carry 
 and deliver. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brown (Ind.), 97. N. E. 145. 
 
 Under the Georgia Code, which abol- 
 ishes forms of action, and simply requires 
 a plaintiff to set forth the facts which 
 constitute his cause of action, a petition 
 in an action by the owner of bills of lad- 
 ing to recover the value of the goods rep- 
 resented thereby is sufficient to sustain a 
 recovery where it alleges facts which 
 raised a duty on the part of defendant, 
 into whose possession the goods came by 
 virtue of such bills of lading, to properly 
 deliver them, and shows a breach of sucli 
 duty by their delivery to another, 1)y 
 which they were lost to plaintiff; and it 
 is not material whether defendant's lia- 
 bility arises upon the contracts or ex 
 delicto. Southern R. Co. z^. Atlanta Nat. 
 Bank, 112 Fed. 861, 50 C. C. A. 558, 36 L. 
 R. A. 546. 
 
 19. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Darby, 28 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 229, 67 S. W. 129. 
 
 20. Pennsylvania Co. v. Holdcrman, 69 
 Ind. 18. 
 
 21. Demand and refusal. — Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 
 
 33 N. E. 4^6, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. 
 St. Rep. 579. 
 
 22. Immaterial averments. — Jefferson- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. v. Irvin, 46 Ind. 180. 
 
 23. Plea or answer. — Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Price, 159 Ala. 213, 18 So. 814. 
 
 A carrier defended an action for failure 
 to deliver one case of goods included in a 
 shipment by setting up in a special plea 
 lhe terms of a special contract under 
 which the shipment was made, avoiding 
 liability unless claim for the loss or dam- 
 ages was made promptly after arrival, and 
 if delayed more than thirty days after the 
 delivery of the property, or after a due 
 time for delivery, no liability would be 
 imposed on the carrier. The shipment, 
 minus the case, was delivered February 
 27th. and claim was made May 16th. 
 Held, tliat the plea was defective, since, 
 the action being for a failure to deliver, 
 the plea should have alle.gcd that no claim 
 was made within thirty days after due 
 time for delivery. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 7. Price, 159 Ala. 213, 48 So. 814. 
 
 24. In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for misdelivery of goods, where the 
 complaint alleges that they were deliver- 
 able to the order of plaintiffs, who de- 
 livered the l)ills of ladin.g to defendant 
 witli the agreement that tlie goods were 
 to be delivered to another on his pay- 
 ment for the same, but does not allege 
 that such agreement was part of the origi- 
 nal contract with defendant, or that the 
 goods were marked to indicate that the 
 price was to be collected, a plea that the 
 agreement was with defendant's agent, 
 who was acting l)eyond his authority, and 
 as plaintiffs', and not defendant's, agent, is 
 good, since in sucli case his failure to
 
 585 
 
 TRAXSPOKIATION AXD DKIJVF.RY liV CARRII:R. 
 
 §§ 882-883 
 
 answer -■' which states facts which would defeat the plaintiff's action is suffi- 
 cient, lint an answer to a coni])laint for failure to deliver goods by boat ac- 
 cording to a contract which excepted the dangers of canal navigation, averring 
 an inability to deliver on account of the dangers of the canal, but without stat- 
 ing what such dangers were, is not sufficient on special demurrer.-'' 
 
 Admission of Nondelivery. — Where a common carrier sued for nondelivery 
 pleads ouK ihat il ikmt received the goods, this is an admission of the non- 
 deli\ery.-' 
 
 Answer Curing Petition. — If a petition in an action of trover against a 
 carrier is defective in not positively averring a conversion, such defect is cured 
 by the answer, which denies that the defendant had "converted said goods. "^'* 
 
 § 883. Issue, Proof and Variance. — Issues. — Where plaintiff alleges 
 that defendant received goods for carriage, but neither delivered them to the 
 consignee nor returned them to plaintiff, a general denial puts in issue both 
 the delivery of the goods to defendant and their nondelivery by it.-'' 
 
 Proof. — Under the general issue in an action against a carrier for failure to 
 deliver goods any fact or circumstance is admissible which legitimately tends to 
 rebut plaintiff's ])roof upon a point which he must sustain in order to recover. •'" 
 Under the general issue the defendant may show an attempted delivery,^* or 
 that the identical goods claimed by plaintiff were shipped by another person, who 
 took a bill of lading therefor,''- or that when the consignee demanded the goods 
 he had no bill of lading and refused to pay the invoice price of the goods or show 
 his ownership. •■'•■• Where, defendant ])leads specially an offer to deliver the 
 
 collect before delivery could not bind de- 
 fendant. Cox V. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 
 91 Ala. 'MKl. s So. S24. 
 
 Demurrable plea. — .\ plea by a carrier, 
 sued for the nondelivery of ^oods, which 
 alleges that before it ascertained that the 
 same was intended for plaintifT, the plain- 
 tiff had left the United States, preventing 
 the carrier from delivering the goods to 
 him, and the carrier did not receive in- 
 structions from him to deliver the gooas 
 to any other person, was demurrable be- 
 cause it contained no matter of avoidance 
 of the fulfillment of the carrier's contract, 
 and failed to show an attempt by notice 
 through the mails or otherwise to effect a 
 delivery. Broadwood v. Southern Exp. 
 Co.. 4l' So. iCi'.i. MS Ala. IT. 
 
 Special plea setting up fraud of ship- 
 per and mistake of agent. — In an action 
 against a carrier by a shipper for its fail- 
 ure to deliver more than 49 cases of 
 shoes, when 55 cases were mentioned in 
 the bill of lading, defendant answered by 
 a special plea admitting the issuance of 
 a bill for 55 cases, and that the car con- 
 tained only 49 cases on its arrival at des- 
 tination, but it was alleged that not more 
 than 49 cases were delivered to the car- 
 rier, and that the reason the bill \vas is- 
 sued for 55 cases was tliat plaintiff at- 
 tempted to defraud defendant by falsely 
 and fraudulently representing to its agent 
 at the point of shipment that he had 
 hauled 55 cases to the station and placed 
 that many in the car. and induced the 
 agent to sign the bill of lading in ques- 
 tion. Held, that the special plea fairly 
 set up a defense of mistake on the part 
 of defendant's agent. Cohen Bros. v. 
 
 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 44 
 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 98 S. W. 437. 
 
 25. Skinner z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 12 
 Iowa 191. 
 
 In replevin by a consignee to recover 
 goods withheld by a carrier, the petition 
 stated that plaintiff believed the goods 
 had l)een damaged, and would not sign a 
 receipt acknowledging that they were re- 
 ceived in good order till he had an op- 
 portunity to examine them, and, because 
 of his refusal to sign a receipt in good 
 order, the carrier had refused to deliver 
 them. Held, that an answer denying that 
 plaintiff claimed that the goods were dam- 
 aged at the time he applied for them, and 
 alleging that the goods were tendered on 
 con(iition that consignee sign a receipt 
 usually given on delivery of goods, was 
 sufticient. Skinner v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 13 Iowa 191. 
 
 26. Woodworth r. McBride (X. Y.). 3 
 Wend. 227. 
 
 27. Admission of nondelivery. — Hot 
 Springs R. Co. z\ Huduins. 42 .\rk. 4S5. 
 
 28. Answer curing petition. — Uouisville, 
 etc.. R. Co. ■:■. Lawson, 8S Kv. 49G, 11 5. 
 W. 511. 
 
 29. Issues. — Brooks r. Delaware, etc., 
 K. Co.. ss \. V. S. '.tf.l. 
 
 30. Proof under general issue. — Wells, 
 Fargo & Co. v. Hanson, 41 Tex. Civ. ,\pp. 
 174,^91 S. W. 321. 
 
 31. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Montmollen, 
 :{9 So. 820, 145 Ala. 468, 117 Am. St. 
 Rep. 58. 
 
 32. Evart v. The Lowndes, 5 La. Ann. 
 42(i. 
 
 33. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. z: McCool, 
 1C.7 Ala. 644, 52 So. 656.
 
 §§ 883-884 CARRIERS. 586 
 
 goods, on payment of freight, plaintitif, under a general denial, may prove 
 that the otter was accompanied by a demand for the bill of lading.^'* Evidence 
 of damages sustained by plaintilt, by reason of the existence of special cir- 
 cumstances, is inadmissible, unless the complaint alleges that the carrier had 
 konwledge of such circumstances, or that the refusal to deliver was wanton 
 and willful. ■''•"' 
 
 Failure of Proof. — In an action against a carrier for wrongful delivery, 
 where there is no proof that the carrier delivered the goods without the pres- 
 entation of the bill of lading, as was alleged, a verdict for the plaintiff will 
 not be sustained. ^"^ Where in an action against a carrier for conversion, it 
 appeared that plaintiff was entitled to recover for a portion of the goods, the 
 fact that the goods were of different weights and classification, and that it was 
 not shown what the Vv-eight and classification of the recoverable portion was, 
 did not constitute a failure of proof as to value, since the value might be re- 
 garded as a fractional part of the entire value, the burden being on the carrier 
 to show that goods recoverable were less than the average value, if such was 
 the case.-''" 
 
 Variance. — The plaintiff' in an action against a carrier for misdelivery or 
 nondelivery can not recover where there is a fatal variance between the al- 
 legations and the proofs, as where there is a variance between the nature and 
 elements of the cause of action, or substantial departure from the issues as 
 to some material matter. So, there can be no recovery where the complaint 
 alleges facts constituting a common-law liability, and the evidence shows a 
 special contract,-"^ or in an action for nondelivery, upon proof that the article 
 was delivered, so damaged as to be worthless.^^ Where plaintiff sues merely 
 for negligent failure to deliver under a contract of carriage, he can not re- 
 cover as for an unlawful taking."*" And if a shipper sues for conversion and 
 fails to establish the offense, his action must fail unless his complaint states 
 facts necessary to a recovery on the contract or some other proper form of 
 recovery."* 1 But there is no material variance between allegation that plain- 
 tiff drew a draft on a proposed purchaser of the goods with bill of lading 
 attached and proof that the draft was drawn in the name of plaintiff's prin- 
 cipal."*- And proof that the carrier received and was paid for transporting 
 property, and that it w'as not delivered on a proper demand, supports an alle- 
 gation that the carrier received the property, agreed to deliver it, and neglected 
 to do so."*-^ 
 
 §§ 884-887. Evidence— § 884. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. 
 
 — In an action against a carrier for failure to deliver goods, proof of the de- 
 livery of the goods to the carrier for transportation, and of their nondelivery, 
 shows a prima facie right in ])laintiff to recover."*^ 
 
 34. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Booton, 4 Texas R. Co. v. Dahlberg Brokerage Co., 170 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 230, 15 S. W. 909. Ala. 617, 54 So. 168. 
 
 35. Special damages. — Silver v. Kent, 43. Lane v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 
 60 Miss. 124. Mass. 455. 
 
 36. Failure of proof. — Sout'iern R. Co. 44. Presumptions and burden of proof. 
 V. Kinchen, 10.3 Ga. 186, 29 S. E. 816. — Cohen v. Southern Exp. Co., 53 Ga. 128. 
 
 37. First Nat. Bank v. San Antonio, See post, "Loss of or Injury to Goods," 
 etc., R. Co., 97 Tex. 201, 77 S. W. 410, Chapter 12. 
 
 modifying judgment 72 S. W. 1033. "A carrier of parcels for hire who 
 
 38. Material variance. — Hall v. Pennsyl- agrees to deliver a telescope bag at a 
 vania Co., 90 Ind. 459; Bartlett v. Pitts- railroad passenger station in time for the 
 burgh, etc., R. Co., 94 Ind. 281. owner to take a particular train and gives 
 
 39. Midd V. Wells, 11 Wis. 407. a claim check therefor is required to af- 
 
 40. Southern Exp. Co. v. Palmer, 48 fix a duplicate check to the baggage and 
 Ga. 85. to deliver the same at the baggage room 
 
 41. Taugher v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 or other usual place of deposit of bag- 
 N. Dak. Ill, 129 N. W. 747. gage at the depot; and in an action to re- 
 
 42. Immaterial variance. — Atlantic, etc., cover for nondelivery, proof by plaintiff
 
 587 
 
 TRANSPORTATKJX AXO DIlMNKKY UV CARRlKR. 
 
 § 884 
 
 Delivery to Carrier. — In an action against a carrier for failure to deliver 
 goods, llic plainlili' must show that the goods were in the carrier's possession 
 for transportation ; •»•"' but the burden is on the carrier to show that goods re- 
 ceipted for were not in fact received.^" Where it rebuts the prima facie liability 
 arising from tlie issuaiuc of a bill of lading,"*' the plaintiff has the burden of 
 jiroN ini^ tliai ilie .i^oods wore actually delivered to the carrier.-*** 
 
 Nondelivery by Carrier.— In an action against a carrier for failure to 
 deliver goods intrusted to it for transportation the plaintiff has the burden of 
 proving the nondelivery, •*'•' although slight proof thereof is sufficient to cast 
 on the carrier the burden of showing delivery.^^ A carrier admitting the re- 
 ceipt of goods has the burden of proving delivery therer>f by a preponderance 
 of the evidence."'' 
 
 Excuse for Nondelivery. — The burden of proof is upon the carrier to show 
 an excuse for iKMidclivery of property which it is proved to have received for 
 transporlation.''- And where no explanation is given for its failure to deliver. 
 
 'lIkiI he iiKiuircd at the haggagc room of 
 the persons in charge thereof, and at a 
 proper time for his baggage, and was un- 
 able to get it, makes a prima facie case 
 which entitles him to recover, unless met 
 with evidence of equal weight; but the 
 l)urdcn of proof docs not shift from the 
 plaintiff to the defendant." Ziegler 7'. 
 Freeman, 12 O. C. C, N. S., 122, 21-31 
 O. C. D. 342. 
 
 45. Delivery to carrier. — Southern R. 
 Co. V. Allison, 115 Ga. (535, 42 S. E. 15; 
 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Hanson, 41 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 174, 91 S. W. 321. See Cohen r. 
 Rome R. Co., 45 (ia. 293. 
 
 The plaintiff need not show that a bill 
 of lading was issued, if the delivery of the 
 goods for sliipment is shown. Alabama 
 Mid. R. Co. z: Darby. 24 So. 713. 119 Ala. 
 531. 
 
 Necessity for showing contract of 
 transportation. — In an action against an 
 express company for the conversion of 
 plaintiff's property, where the fact of de- 
 fendant's possession and conversion were 
 properly alleged and proved, it was not 
 necessary for plaintiff to show the con- 
 tract under which the property had been 
 received by defendant for transportation. 
 Girardeau v. Southern I{xp. Co., 26 S. F,. 
 711. 48 S. C. 421. 
 
 Where the owner carries away a por- 
 tion of the goods left at a freight depot, 
 without orders where they should be car- 
 ried, he must show wdiat was retained 
 by the carrier. Spade v. Hudson River 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 16 Barb. 383. 
 
 46. The Willie D. Sandhoval. 92 Fed. 
 286. See Smith v. Austro-American Steam- 
 ship Co., 125 La. 763, 51 So. S41. 
 
 47. Rebuttal of presumption arising 
 from bill of lading. — ^Where a shipper of 
 gciods loaded the car and made out the bill 
 of lading, and sent it to the carrier's agent, 
 who signed it, relying on the shipper load- 
 ing the car and counting the articles with- 
 out verifying the sanle, the prima facie 
 liability of the carrier arising from the 
 
 issuance of the Ijill of lading is rebutted. 
 Peele v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. 149 X. C. 
 390, 63 S. E. 66. 
 
 48. Peele z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 149 
 X. C. 390, 63 S. E. 66. 
 
 45. Burden of proving nondelivery. — 
 r, lite J St, ites.— The Falcon, Fed. Cas. No. 
 4,617, 3 Blatchf. 64. 
 
 .iriuvisas.— Kansas City, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Morrison (Ark.), 146 S. W. 853. 
 
 Illincis. — sVoodbury v. I-rink, 14 ilT. 
 279. 
 
 Louisiana. — Sehneideau & Co. z: Penn- 
 ington, 21 La. Ann. 299. 
 
 Mississippi. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Provine, 61 Aliss. 288. 
 
 Xt-zi' J'o»7.'.— Roberts r. Chittenden, 88 
 X". Y. 33; compare Schroeder z'. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 12 N. Y. Super. Ct. 55. 
 
 Nondelivery to only one consignee 
 shown. — Wliere the liill of lading specifies 
 that the goods were to be delivered to L. 
 or Z., in an action against the carrier for 
 nondelivery, it is not enough for the ship- 
 per to show nondelivery to L., but he 
 must also give some evidence of nonde- 
 livery to Z. So held in The Falcon, Fed. 
 Cas. Xo. 4,617, 3 Rlatchf. 64. 
 
 Plea as admission of nondelivery to con- 
 signee. — When in an action against a rail- 
 road, as a common carrier, for nondelivery 
 of goods to a consignee, it pleads, only, 
 that it never received the goods, this is 
 an admission of the nondelivery to the 
 consignee, and proof of nondelivery to 
 the consignee is not necessary to entitle 
 the plaintiff to a judgment. Hot Springs 
 R. Co. z: Hudgins, 42 Ark. 485. 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 643. 
 
 50. The Falcon, Fed. Cas. No. 4,617, 3 
 Hlatchf. 64; Woodbury v. Frink, 14 111. 
 279; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Provine, 61 
 Miss. 2SS. See Smith f. Austro-American 
 Steamship Co., 51 So. 841, 125 La. 763. 
 
 51. Dunie z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 161 
 X. C. 520. 77 S. E. 7.-.r,. 
 
 52. Excuse for nondelivery. — Georgia.— 
 Purcell z: Southern Exp. Co.. 34 Ga. 315. 
 
 Louisiana. — Chapman z'. Xew Orleans,
 
 § 884 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 588 
 
 it will be presumed that the goods are still in the hands of the carrier and 
 withheld from the owner."''' 
 
 Misdelivery. — \\'here the carrier delivers the goods to a person not named 
 ni the bill of lading as the consignee,''"* or delivers without the production of 
 the bill of lading,''"' or without the consignor's order,-''*' it has the burden of 
 proving that they were delivered to the proper person. Where the carrier 
 proves facts sufficient to raise a presumption of delivery to the true con- 
 singee.^' the plaintitt must meet this presumption by a preponderance of tes- 
 timony."''^ \\'here the carrier delivers the goods at a place other than that 
 agreed upon, it has the burden of showing that the delivery was made for the 
 account of the shipper.'''' Where a wrongful delivery amounting to a con- 
 version by the carrier is shown, it is incumbent on the carrier, if it desires 
 to show a return in mitigation of damages, to prove both the identity and un- 
 impaired condition of the goods."" 
 
 Notice. — A vessel has the burden of showing that notice was given to the 
 consignee of the place where the vessel was to discharge.'"'^ Where a consignee 
 refuses to accept perishable goods, the burden is on the carrier to show its in- 
 ability to notify the shipi^er before selling the goods to prevent loss.*'^ 
 
 Authority of Agent. — Where a contract for carraige is to deliver the goods 
 at a place other than a regular station, the burden is on the shipper to show 
 that the contract was made with an agent having authority to make it.*'^ 
 
 Fraud is not to be presumed in the case of common carriers, where there is 
 no evidence to show an illegal or fraudulent conversion of property intrusted 
 to them for trriusportation, but not delivered.''^ 
 
 It is presumed that proper instructions were given, in the absence of 
 evidence to the contrary, where jjy delivery to a connecting carrier, defendant 
 
 etc., R. Co., 21 La. Ann. 224, 99 Am. Dec. 
 722. 
 
 Missouri. — Hanmiett v. Wabash R. Co., 
 128 Mo. App. 1, 106 S. W. 1106, 1107. 
 
 N'ev.' Hampshire. — Shelden v. Robinson, 
 7 N. H. 157, 26 Am. Dec. 726. 
 
 Where a carrier converts property, 
 claiming it as its own, plaintiff proves his 
 cause of action by showing delivery for 
 transportation, the burden being then 
 cast on the carrier to show that it re- 
 ceived the goods in good faith under mis- 
 take of fact as to plaintiff's ownership, 
 and that it is the true owner. Valentine 
 V. Long Island R. Co., 79 N. E. 849, 187 
 N. Y. 121, reversing 92 N. Y. S. 645, 102 
 App. Div. 419. 
 
 53. Adams Exp. Co.. v. Holmes (Pa.), 
 9 Atl. 166, 6 Sad. 167. 
 
 54. Misdelivery. — Florence, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Jensen, 48 Colo. 28, 108 Pac. 974; 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Spires, 57 S. E. 
 973, 1 Ga. App. 22. 
 
 In an action against a carrier on a con- 
 tract to carry and deliver goods, where 
 plaintiff proved that both the consignor 
 and consignee were its agents, and showed 
 that defendant delivered the goods to a 
 stranger, and defendant's answer alleged 
 that it delivered the goods to the right- 
 ful owner thereof, the burden is on de- 
 fendant to show such ownership. Cleve- 
 land, etc., R. Co. V. Molinc Plow Co., 13 
 Ind. App. 225, 41 X. E. 480. 
 
 Where it is claimed that the bill of lad- 
 ing was procured by fraud, the carrier 
 
 must show that fact before it can dis- 
 regard its directions. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Spires, 57 S. E. 973, 1 Ga. App. 22. 
 
 55. National Bank v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 25. S. C. 216. 
 
 56. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Dvihlbero 
 Brokerage Co., 170 Ala. 617, 54 So. 168. 
 
 57. Proof that a person professing to 
 be the consignee of a money package was 
 identified by a trustworthy person as the 
 proper consignee to the satisfaction of 
 the person charged with the delivery, 
 about the time such consignee was ex- 
 pected to call for such a package, and 
 told the person delivering to write his 
 name in the receipt book, is sufficient to 
 raise a presumption of a proper delivery 
 to the true consignee. Ten Eyck v. Har- 
 ris, 47 111. 268. 
 
 58. Ten Eyck v. Harris, 47 111. 268. 
 
 59. Gilkinson v. The Scotland, 14 La. 
 Ann. 417. See Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Potts & Co., 71 N. E. 685, 33 Ind. .A.pp. 
 b54. 
 
 60. Seaboard, etc.. Railway v. Phillips, 
 108 Md. 285, 70 Atl. 232. 
 
 61. Notice.— The Prince Albert, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 11,426, 5 Ben. 386. 
 
 62. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. McKenzie, 
 139 Ga. 410, 77 S. E. 647, 45 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 18. 
 
 63. Authority of agent. — Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Swanson, 92 Miss. 485, 46 So. 83. 
 
 64. Fraud. — Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 
 Md. 328.
 
 589 
 
 TKAXSI'ORTATiOX AND UKUIVKKV I',V CARRlKR. 
 
 §§ 884-886 
 
 carrier's liability terminated provided it gave proper instructions to the con- 
 necting carrier."'"' 
 
 § 88 5. Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading. — In an action against 
 ship owners lor a .sum acku(j\viedged to he due for nondelivery of goods, the 
 production of the bill o\ lading is not essential.''*' 
 
 § 886. Admissibility of Evidence. — As a general rule, in an action 
 against llic carrier any fact (jr circumstance which is relevant to the issues as 
 made b\' the pleadings is admissible.*'" So evidence of the carrier's mode of 
 dealing''"^ and of the ])laintilT"s ac(|uiescence therein/'-' that the i)laintiff had 
 
 65. Hempstead v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co. (N. Y.). 28 Barb. 48,'). 
 
 66. Necessity of producing bill of lad- 
 ing.~.\\\vill 7'. .Xixoii (L'. S.), 4 Wall. 
 572, 18 L. l'".(l. ;!().-.. 
 
 67. Admissibility of evidence — Illustra- 
 tions. — Where an issue was whether a rail- 
 road company had delivered to a con- 
 signee all the goods it had received from 
 the consignor, evidence that the car was 
 sealed at the loading point and remained 
 sealed until delivery of the goods to the 
 consignee is admissible. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Simonson, 68 Pac. 653, 64 Kan. 
 802. 57 L. R. A. 765, 91 Am. St. Rep. 248. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier 
 to recover the value of goods not deliv- 
 ered, the evidence of a witness, who gives 
 the particular facts of his knowledge, and 
 states tiiat the goods were carefully 
 packed, and that he saw them taken away 
 by the drayman, and saw the bills of lad- 
 ing after they were signed, is proper for 
 the consideration of the jury. Scholes v. 
 .\ckerland, 15 111. 474. 
 
 In an action by a consignor to recover 
 from a railroad company the amount of 
 a sight draft attached to a bill of lading, 
 drawn on the consignee of certain lumber 
 to be delivered on payment of the draft, 
 and which plaintiff alleged defendant had 
 delivered witliout such payment, defend- 
 ant could sliow that the luml)cr was so in- 
 ferior to the lumber contracted for that 
 the payments already made covered the 
 value of the entire amount shipped, and 
 that there was therefore no balance due 
 plaintiff. Stearns v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 Ill N. W. 709, 148 Mich. 271. 
 
 Where, in an action against an express 
 company for failing to deliver plaintiff's 
 trunk, it was shown that a trunk answer- 
 ing the description of plaintiff's and con- 
 taining the same list of articles and a 
 l)Ook with plaintiff's name was found in 
 a railway baggage room at another sta- 
 tion, the burden being on plaintiff to prove 
 a delivery of the trunk to the express 
 compan3% it was error to refuse to per- 
 mit the latter to ask plaintiff on cross- 
 examination whether he had not brought 
 a ticket to tlio station where the trunk 
 was found and checked the trunk on such 
 ticket, instead of delivering it to defend- 
 ?nt. Wells Fargo & Co. x'. Hanson, 41 
 Tex. Civ. .Xpp. 174. 91 S. W. 321. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for conversion of corn by a sale after 
 rejection l)y the consignee, the issue was 
 sharply drawn as to whether the corn was 
 No. 2 mixed corn when loaded at the 
 point of shipment, evidence that the corn 
 was part of another carload, the balance 
 of whicli witness sold as No. 2 corn to 
 dealers at the point of shipment, and that 
 no complaint had ever been made by any 
 of the purchasers of the same was not 
 irrelevant. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Ar- 
 kansas, etc., Grain Co., 95 S. W. 656, 42 
 Tex. Civ. App. 125. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for con- 
 version of freight, based on a refusal to 
 deliver without payment of excessive 
 charges, evidence that the carrier claimed 
 a specified sum to be the true rate per 
 hundred pounds on the shipment was ad- 
 missible to show what rate had been de- 
 manded. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Porter 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 207. 
 
 Evidence of custom. — Where a railroad 
 company gives a receipt for freight to be 
 delivered to its agent at the terminus of 
 the road, and the agent there deposits it 
 in a warehouse not belonging to the com- 
 pany, evidence of its custom to deposit 
 freight in that warehouse is admissible in 
 behalf of the company in an action against 
 it for the loss of the shipment. Alabama 
 & T. R. R. Co. f. Kidd. 29 Ala. 221. 
 
 68. Mode of dealing. — ^Ridgway Grain 
 Co. f. Pennsylvania R. Co., 228 Pa. 641, 
 77 Atl. 1007, 31 L. R. A., N. S., 1178; 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. r. Williams, 54 Ala. 
 168, holding that where the carrier pro- 
 dues in evidence the receipt of the con- 
 signee for the goods, it may be shown 
 that its course of dealing was to demand 
 and receive paj'ment of freight and a re- 
 ceipt for the goods before tiieir delivery. 
 
 In an action against an express com- 
 pany to recover the value of a package 
 which it failed to deliver, it was not error 
 to admit testimony as to the refusal of 
 the company to deliver a like package to 
 one other than the consignee at a differ- 
 ent time and a different office, where the 
 court limited it to the proof of the course 
 of dealing between the parties. Adams 
 F.xp. Co. r. Gordon. 27 O. C. C. 243. 
 
 69. Acquiescence of plaintiff. — Ridgway 
 Grain Co. z\ Pennsvlvania R. Co.. 77 Atl. 
 1007, 228 Pa. 641, 3i L. R. A., N. S.. 1178.
 
 § 886 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 590 
 
 never received the goods." ^^ that he had never been paid for then^i or what 
 freight charges he had paid/^ jg admissible when relevant to any fact to be 
 ascertained by the jury. An objection is properly sustained to a question to a 
 witness calling for a comparison that could be made as well by the jury.'-^ 
 
 In an action for conversion of goods evidence tending to show that de- 
 fendant carrier is in possession of the property sued for and exercising owner- 
 ship over it is admissible."-* In such an action the plaintiff may prove that he 
 has paid for the goods." ^ Evidence of what the carrier did after it had con- 
 verted the goods is immaterial."*^ And an oft'er of an attorney for defendant 
 carrier to settle, made after suit brought, is inadmissible where no tender of 
 payment of anv damages was made.'" In an action against an express com- 
 pany for conversion by the sale of property in its possession belonging to plain- 
 tiff',' testimony as to the rules of the company regarding sales of unclaimed 
 property was' properly excluded where the sale in question was not made under 
 the statute regulating the sale of unclaimed property by express companies."'^ 
 
 Res Inter Alios. — Evidence which relates to the transaction forming the 
 basis of the action and tends to throw light upon its true character may be 
 
 70. In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to deliver freight, evidence that the 
 consignees had never received the freight 
 was admissible, as tending to show that 
 it had never been delivered at the station, 
 as the contract of shipment provided. 
 Alabama Mid. R. Co. v. Thompson, 32 
 So. 672, 134 Ala. 232. 
 
 71. Southern R. Co. v. Allison, 42 S. E. 
 15. 115 Ga. 635. 
 
 72. In an action for failure to deliver 
 a case of goods included in a shipment 
 which was delivered, evidence of what 
 freight charges consignor had paid on the 
 case is admissible. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Price, 159 Ala. 213, 48 So. 814. 
 
 73. A bank delivered money to an ex- 
 press company for shipment. When the 
 package arrived at its destination, the 
 consignee, on opening it, found nothing 
 therein but waste paper. In an action by 
 the consignee against the carrier for non- 
 delivery, the carrier's contention was that 
 the money was never delivered to it. To 
 support this contention it was shown that 
 pieces of paper found in the package 
 when it was delivered to plaintiff dis- 
 closed certain stains. The color of the 
 panels of the counter in the bank was 
 then shown. The stains on the paper 
 were tobacco stains. Held, that an ob- 
 jection to a question as to whether the 
 color of the bank panels was similar to 
 the color of the stains on the paper was 
 properly sustained. Bank v. American 
 Exp. Co., 102 N. W. 107, 127 Iowa 1. 
 
 74. Action for conversion. — Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Britton, 149 Ala. 552, 43 So. 
 108. 
 
 Illustrations. — Evidence is adinissible 
 to show that the carrier's claim agent 
 showed witness that plaintiff's goods 
 were in the box addressed to plaintiff, 
 which the agent said belonged to plaintiff 
 and offered to sell to witness. Lou'isville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Britton, 149 Ala. 552, 43 So. 
 108. 
 
 A consignor sent by an association of 
 
 railroad companies, of which the defena- 
 ant was one, a car load of oats, weighing 
 23,667 pounds, to be forwarded to a sta- 
 tion beyond the line of the defendant's 
 road, and received from the transit com- 
 pany a bill of lading, which he sent to 
 the consignee, in which the oats were 
 stated to weigh 20,000 pounds. The con- 
 signee paid the consignor for the full 
 contents of th« car. In an action by the 
 consignee against the defendant for the 
 conversion of that portion of the grain 
 removed, the freight agent of the defend- 
 ant testified that he removed on behalf 
 of the defendant the excess of oats above 
 20,000 pounds at the end of the defend- 
 ant's road. Held, that the testimony was 
 competent on the question of conversion. 
 Wiggin V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 120 Mass. 
 201. 
 
 75. In an action against a carrier for 
 the conversion of a part of a car load of 
 grain in bulk, the consignee, on the ques- 
 tion of title, may prove that he has paid 
 for the entire car load. Peebles v. Bos- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 498. 
 
 76. Where grain shipped is converted 
 by a carrier in delivering it to the con- 
 signee without presentation of the bill of 
 lading, and thereafter is redelivered to 
 the carrier and by it stored in a ware- 
 house, evidence, in an action for conver- 
 sion, that it was customary for the car- 
 rier to store grain in a warehouse while 
 awaiting demand of the bill of lading is 
 immaterial; and evidence that after the 
 conversion plaintiff was notified from 
 time to time, and knew that the grain was 
 in a certain place at his final disposal, is 
 also immaterial. Marshall, etc.. Grain Co. 
 V. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 75 S. W. 638, 
 176 Mo. 480, 98 Am. St. Rep. 508. 
 
 77. Offer to settle.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cleburne Ice, etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 79 S. W. 836. 
 
 78. Girardeau v. Southern Exp. Co., 26 
 S. E. 711, 48 S. C. 421.
 
 591 TRANSPORTATJfiX AM) DIXIVKRV 15V CARRIER. § 886 
 
 regarded as res gestrc and is adiiiissiljle, though in a certain sense it is res inter 
 aHos.'-' 
 
 Waybills as Self- Serving Declarations. — Waybills relating to goods are 
 not admissihlc in lichalf of the defendant carrier as they merely amount to 
 declarations of the defendant in its own favor. '^'^ 
 
 Documentary Evidence. — A sales bill reciting a purchase by plaintiff of 
 the goods from a vendor is admissible in evidence, though it is not shown by 
 whom it was made out, where the eviflence tends to show that it was received 
 by ])laintiff, and that he had paid it.^^ But a bill of lading is not admissible 
 on behalf of the endorsee where there is no proof of the endorsement. ^- 
 
 Parol Evidence. — Words or forms of expression, in a carrier's receipt for 
 goods, which are not of universal use, but are purely local or technical, may 
 be explained by parol evidence.^-'' In an action against a carrier for the non- 
 delivery of goods consigned beyond the terminus of its route unaccompanied 
 by any directions as to their transportation and delivery, parol evidence in its 
 behalf is admissible to show the route and termini, and the usage. of the carrier, 
 and the knowledge of the consignor of these matters, as entering into the con- 
 tract, though the defendant is prima facie liable for the carriage and delivery 
 of the goods according to the marks. ''^■* A\'here in such an action the plaintiff's 
 employee had proved the receipt for the goods, and stated, without objection, 
 the circumstances under which it was given to him, the carrier may introduce 
 evidence as to the circumstances under which it gave the receipt,*^ But where 
 a bill of lading expressly stipulates for delivery to the consignor or his assigns, 
 evidence that, according to the rules and customs of all railroads, a bill of lad- 
 ing, written as it was, would be considered to authorize delivery by the carrier 
 to the consignee without production or surrender of the bill of lading, is in- 
 admissible.^'' 
 
 Character of Employees. — In an action against an express company for a 
 failure to deliver money consigned to it, evidence of the good moral character of 
 its employees is inadmissible.**" 
 
 Evidence of Prior Losses. — In an action by the consignee against an express 
 coni])an\- for its failure to deliver money, evidence that several months before 
 the transaction in question the consignor had been losing money through the theft 
 of some of its em])loyees is incompetent.^^ 
 
 Evidence that an employee must ultimately make good the loss under 
 
 79. Res inter alios.— Seaboard, etc.. Rail- 83. Parol evidence. — Collender v. Dins- 
 way V. Phillips, 108 Md. 285. 70 Alt. 232, more, 5.5 X. Y. 200, 14 Am. Rep. 224. re- 
 which was an action for conversion of versin.tj 04 Barb. 457. wherein plaintiff 
 goods shipped, holding that a series of shipped with defendant merchandise 
 letters and telegrams which passed be- marked with the name and address of 
 tween defendant carrier and another, who the consignee, and the additional direc- 
 jointly issued the bill of lading; touching tion, "C. O. D. $375, from Turner's Ex- 
 the handling and movement of the goods press, Boston, Mass." In an action 
 while in the possession of one or the against defendant for neglecting to col- 
 other of the carriers, was admissible. lect of Turner's Express, held, that evi- 
 
 80. Self-serving declarations. — Southern dence was admissible to show the com- 
 R. Co. 7'. Allison. 11."> C.A. (las, 42 S. E. 15. mon meaning of the letters "C. O. D." 
 
 81. Documentary evidence. — Louisville, liut not of the remaining words. 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Britton, 39 So. 585, 145 Ala. 84. Angle & Co. v. Mississippi, etc., R. 
 
 654. Co., 9 Iowa 487. 
 
 82. Proof of indorsement.— Capehart v. 85. Scovill v. Griffith, 12 N. Y. 509. 
 Granite Mills, '.»7 Ala. 353, 12 So. 44, hold- 86. Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Nash- 
 ing that where it appeared that on the ville, etc.. Railway (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 
 l)ack of the bill of lading was written the S. W. 1094. 
 
 name of the firm to whom it was issued, 87. Character of employees.— Bank z\ 
 
 "per P. C, Atty.," who was a member of American Exp. Co., 102 N. \V. 107, 127 
 
 the firm, and there was no evidence that Towa 1. 
 
 P. C, or any other member of the firm, 88. Evidence of prior losses. — Bank ?•. 
 
 made the indorsement, there was no American Exp. Co., 102 N. W. 107, 127 
 
 proof of indorsement. Iowa 1.
 
 §§ 886-887 CARRIERS. 592 
 
 a bond given by him on entering his employment is inadmissible, in an action 
 against a carrier for misdelivery of goods, as affecting the carrier's liability, 
 though such evidence is admissible to show the interest of the employee as a 
 witness.^"' 
 
 Evidence as to what transportation lines carried the goods and the 
 efforts plaintiff made to find them, is not prejudicial to defendant, in an 
 action against a transportation company for failure to deliver cotton at the place 
 designated in the bill of lading, where there is no claim that the cotton was 
 delivered to any one at that place.'"' 
 
 § 887. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence.— Degree of Proof.— Where 
 
 a carrier is sought to be charged with liability for delivering goods to a wrong 
 person, no greater degree of proof is required of the authority of such person to 
 receive them than in the case of any other issue in a civil action.^i 
 
 Proof of Conversion. — Proof of nondelivery of goods by a carrier without 
 proof of wrongful disposition or withholding, is not sufficient to establish a con- 
 version. »2 Evidence that goods were delivered to defendant, and that he re- 
 fused to deliver them to plaintiff, and failed to account for them, is sufficient to 
 show con version. ^-"^ And the general and unqualified refusal of a carrier to 
 deliver goods is evidence of a conversion. ^^ 
 
 Evidence of Notice. — The making and depositing in a post office of a notice 
 by a carrier to the consignee of goods is not sufficiently shown by evidence that 
 it was the regular course of business to make and deposit such notices, where it 
 appears that the persons w^hose duty it was to make and deposit them had no 
 recollection thereof, and there was no memorandum in any book or paper in the 
 office of the carrier from which tlie making of such notice could be verified.^^ 
 
 Evidence of Title and Right to Goods. — In an action against a railroad for 
 the conversion of plaintiff's goods, a sales bill reciting purchase by plaintiff of the 
 goods from a shoe company, in connection with evidence that it was paid, showed 
 title in plaintiff and his right to immediate possession of the goods, in the absence 
 of contrarv evidence.^''' 
 
 Evidence That Goods Shipped in Good Order.— In an action against a 
 carrier to recover the value of goods not delivered, the evidence of a witness, who 
 gives the particular facts of his knowledge, and states that the goods were care- 
 fully packed, and that he saw them taken away Ijy the drayman, and saw the 
 bills of lading after they were signed, may be held as sufficient evidence of 
 the fact that they were shipped and in good order. s" 
 
 Particular instances of evidence held sufficient or insufficient are set out in 
 the notes. ''^ 
 
 89. Hamilton z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 98. Evidence held sufficient.— Tn an i.c- 
 72 X. W. oSG, 103 Iowa 325. tion against a carrier for nondelivery of 
 
 90. Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 Ala. money, evidence of the delivery of the 
 3.53, 12 So. 44. money to the carrier, and that when the 
 
 91. Degree of proof.— Wilcox v. Chi- packajje supposed to contain it was de- 
 cag-o, etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 269. livered to the consignee it contained 
 
 92.' Proof of conversion.— Rosenfeld v. nothing but waste paper, was sufficient to 
 
 C'^ntral Vermont R. Co.. 97 N. Y. S. 905, support a verdict for plaintiff. Bank v. 
 
 Ill App. Div. 371. .'\merican Exp. Co., 102 N. W. 107, 127 
 
 93. Suesskind-Schatz Co. v. Loria, 99 Iowa 1. 
 N. Y. S. 427. In an action by consignor against a 
 
 94. ' Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Britton, railroad company for delivery of goods 
 
 149 Ala. 552, 43 So. 108. to the consignee without requiring sur- 
 
 95. Evidence of notice.— Stephens jn v. render of bill of lading, evidence that 
 United States Exp. Co.. 21 Wis. 405. there was no course of dealing between 
 
 96. Evidence of title and right to goods. the parties waiving a provision of the 
 --Loiiisvilie, etc., R. Co. v. Britton, 39 bill of lading requiring its surrender be- 
 So.' 585, 145 Ala. 654. fore the delivery of the goods, and that 
 
 97. EvidfPce that goods shipped in plaintiff did not with knowledge of such 
 good order.- -Scholes v. Ackerland, 15 delivery in many instances ratify such 
 111 474 course of dealing between the consignee
 
 593 
 
 TRAN'SPORT.\TK>N' AND DELIVHRV HV CARRIF.R. 
 
 § 888 
 
 §§ 888-900. Damages™§ 888. Nominal Damages.— When goods have 
 been delivered by a carrier to a person not entitled to them, and the latter de- 
 livers the goods to the shipper or consignee, or pays him their vahie. in a suit 
 
 of the goods and the agent of the rail- 
 road company, held to sustain a verdict 
 for the plaintiff. Salberg v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co.. 2:i7 Penn. 495, 85 Atl. 7G7. 
 
 Evidence that a witness, on learning 
 that goods shipped to him over defend- 
 ant's railway had reached their destina- 
 tion, went with his wagons to haul the 
 same, and found them in a car on a 
 switch about two miles distant, and that 
 he had Ijeen informed tiiat the car re- 
 mained at the point of destination a day 
 and a night, is sufficient to support a find- 
 ing that the goods remained at the point 
 of destination onlj' twenty-four hours, 
 and were thereafter removed by the rail- 
 road company to the place where they 
 were delivered to a third party. St. 
 Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Hall, etc., Mach. 
 Co., 56 S. W. 140. 23 Tex. Civ. App. 211. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for nondelivery of plaintiff's trunk, plain- 
 tiff testified without objection that B. de- 
 livered the trunk to the carrier for trans- 
 portation, such evidence justified a find- 
 ing of the delivery of the trunk to the 
 carrier. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Hanson, 
 41 Tex. Civ. App. 174, 91 S. W. 321. 
 
 Where a bill of lading required the car- 
 rier to notify a person named, and the 
 carrier's counsel admitted that it was the 
 carrier's duty to give notice of the ar- 
 rival of the goods, a finding that it was 
 the carrier's duty to give notice to the 
 person named of the arrival of the goods 
 was justified. Uber v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 151 Wis. 431. 138 X. W. 57. 
 
 Evidence held insufficient. — In an ac- 
 tion for tlie value of certain furniture de- 
 livered to defendant for carriage, it ap- 
 peared that plaintiff's husband delivered 
 the goods and took the receipt, which he 
 gave to plaintiff. When the goods 
 reached their destination they were de- 
 livered to a carman, who produced the 
 receipt, it having been given him by plain- 
 tiff's husband. The goods were taken to 
 a salesroom, and exposed for sale, where 
 plaintiff saw them, and made no objection. 
 The goods were sold, and plaintiff's hus- 
 band got the money. He had sold other 
 goods through the same salesman by 
 plaintiff's authority, and on one occasion, 
 in his presence, she asked for the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale. Plaintiff testified that 
 she did not give the receipt to her hus- 
 band, and that she thought the salesroom 
 was a railway storehouse. Held not suf- 
 ficient evidence to sustain a verdict for 
 plaintiff. Reynolds v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co.. 50 Hun 006, 3 N. Y. S. 331, 21 N. Y. 
 St. Rep. 319. 
 
 Plaintiff, a consignee, in his action 
 against a common carrier for refusing to 
 
 1 Car— 38 
 
 deliver goods, alleged and proved his 
 cause of action, but, on his examination, 
 admitted that the carrier had been or- 
 dered by the consignor not to deliver the 
 goods. Held, that a nonsuit was prop- 
 erly ordered. Pool v. Columbia, etc., R. 
 Co.. 23 S. C. 286. 
 
 Insufficient evidence of delivery. — To 
 prove delivery of a lost trunk, the de- 
 fendants adduced the deposition of the 
 clerk of a steamer, running from Mont- 
 gomery to Xew Orleans, where the trunk 
 was directed, who stated that it was de- 
 livered, and a receipt taken, which was 
 subsequently lost. The address of the 
 trunk received was different from that al- 
 leged to have been delivered, and, in reply 
 to numerous inquiries, the defendants 
 said, "We have written all along the 
 line, and will get it to you as soon as pos- 
 sible." Held, that delivery was not 
 proved. Stadhecker v. Combs & Co. 
 (S. C). 9 Rich. Law 193. 
 
 Evidence not sustaining defence. — In an 
 action l)y a shipper against a carrier for 
 the conversion of a car load of lumber 
 by delivering it to a wrong person, the 
 defense that defendant was justified in 
 making the delivery, because the invoice 
 delivered by plaintiff to the person re- 
 ceiving the lumber described the car con- 
 taining it in connection with another car 
 rightfully delivered to such person, is 
 not sustained, where the evidence shows 
 that the invoice described the lumber in 
 the car actually sold to such person, and 
 did not describe the lumber in suit. Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co. v. Bay Shoe Lumber Co., 
 165 Ala. 610, 51 So. 956. 
 
 In an action by the shipper against a 
 railroad company for the loss of freight, 
 it appeared that tlie goods were delivered 
 to defendant at Parkersburg, W. Va., 
 April 18, 1861, consigned to a person at 
 Culpepper Court House, Va.; that the 
 goods were carried as far as Baltimore, 
 and there sold at auction by the carrier 
 in 1864, for a grossly inadequate price. 
 The carrier sought to justify by showing 
 that the war between the confederate and 
 federal governments had begun prior to 
 the date of the alleged shipment; that 
 troops were marching through Baltimore 
 to Washington previous to that time; 
 that Ft. Sumter had been fired upon on 
 April 12 or 13, 1861; and that the presi- 
 dent of the L'nited States had issued his 
 call for 75,000 men on April 15, 1861. 
 Held, that the evidence only showed that 
 the war was existing, but did not show 
 that defendant was prevented thereby 
 from delivering the freight. Baltimore, 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Morehead. 5 \V. \a. 293.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 594 
 
 §§ 888-890 
 
 against the carrier for the nondelivery of the goods the shipper or consignee 
 can only recover nominal damages.''-' 
 
 § 889. Exemplary Damages. — In a proper case exemi^lary damages are 
 recoverable in an action against a carrier for refnsal to deliver.^ 
 
 §§ 890-900. Compensatory Damages— §§ 890-893. Failure or Re- 
 fusal to Deliver— § 890. Actual Loss Proximately Resulting.— In an ac- 
 tion against a carrier for breach of its duty to deliver goods, the plaintifif may re- 
 cover compensation for the actual loss sustained as the direct and proximate 
 result of the carrier's wrong.- Damages which are not the natural and prox- 
 
 Marxlaiid. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pumphrey. 59 Md. 390. 
 
 Mississif^pi. — Strieker v. Leathers, 68 
 Miss. 803, 9 So. 821, 13 L. R. A. 600. 
 
 South Carolina. — Teague v. Southern R. 
 Co., 45 S. C. 27, 22 S. E. 779. 
 
 Texas.— See Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Corquoedale, 71 Tex. 41, 46, 9 S. W. 80. 
 Illustrations. — A. purchased goods of B. 
 in New York, of which he received a bill 
 of sale and in payment for which he gave 
 his note at six months. The goods were 
 shipped by B., to be delivered to the or- 
 der of the shipper at San Francisco. On 
 arrival at San Francisco, the defendant, 
 who was master of the vessel, delivered 
 the goods to A., who paid the freight. 
 The agent of B., to whose order the 
 goods were ordered to be delivered, sub- 
 sequently tendered the freight to the mas- 
 ter and demanded the goods. In an ac- 
 tion for the value of the goods, it was 
 held that B. held a lien on the goods for 
 the purchase price, for which the defend- 
 ant was liable, but not for their value in 
 San Francisco. Persse v. Cole, 1 Cal. 369. 
 In an action against a common carrier 
 for failing to deliver to the plaintiff a 
 canvas bag containing ninety double 
 eagles of the coinage of the United States, 
 which the carrier received from the plain- 
 tiff's agent in Mexico, in 1862, it was held 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover 
 in treasury notes the value of the coin, 
 together with the premium on gold at the 
 time when it should have been delivered, 
 with interest on the amount from the date 
 of the demand. Cushing v. Wells, etc., 
 Co., 98 Mass. 550. 
 
 Plaintiff's intestate delivered to defend- 
 ants' agent a certain sum of money for 
 the purpose of paying a semiannual pre- 
 mium on his policy of life insurance which 
 l)y the terms would lapse if the premiums 
 were not paid within eight days. The 
 c.gent knew of this, but failed to deliver 
 the money. Held, that defendants would 
 be liable for the net value of the policy 
 on the day it lapsed. Grindle v. Eastern 
 Exp. Co., 67 Me. 317, 24 Am. Rep. 31. 
 
 The defendant contracted with the 
 plaintiff to carry a quantity of pease from 
 Canada to New York by water, but, by 
 his own negligence and unnecessary de- 
 lay, was unal)le to carry them further 
 than Burlington during the same season, 
 on account of tlie freezing of the lake. 
 
 99. Nominal damages. — Rosenfield v. 
 Express Co., Fed. Cas. Xo. 12,060, 1 
 Woods 131. 
 
 1. Exemplary damages. — Defendants 
 received goods on their steamboat at St. 
 Louis to deliver at plaintiffs' landing. On 
 going down the river, defendants mad? 
 no attempt to stop at the landing, but 
 left the goods at a point a few miles be- 
 low, and on the return stopped at the 
 landing with the goods, which they re- 
 fused to deliver unless plaintiffs would 
 pay the freight charges and also the cost 
 of storage at the place where the goods 
 were left. Held to be such a willful re- 
 fusal to deliver as to entitle plaintiffs to 
 exemplar}' damages. Silver v. Kent, 60 
 Miss. 124. 
 
 A steamboat company received goods 
 for shipment as a common carrier for 
 hire, to be delivered at a private landing. 
 The company afterwards refused to de- 
 liver the goods at the private landing, but 
 delivered the same at another place. 
 Held, that the consignor was entitled to 
 recover punitive damages for willful fail- 
 ure to deliver. Strieker v. Leathers, 68 
 Miss. 803, 9 So. 821, 13 L. R. A. 600. 
 
 Where the driver of an express com- 
 pany's wagon refused to deliver an ex- 
 press package, with malicious disregard 
 of the rights of the consignee, and the 
 express company ratified his act, the con- 
 signee was entitled to exemplary dam- 
 ares. Gary v Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Exj). 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 845. 
 
 A petition alleging that defendant s 
 agent wrongfully, willfully, and wantonly 
 took possession of and withheld a l)ill of 
 lading on which lumber was shipped to 
 plaintiff, and that the agent's acts were 
 authorized and ratified by defendoi't, 
 states a tort for which actual and exem- 
 plary damages may be recovered. Alder- 
 son V. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App), 
 23 S. W. 617, affirmed in 93 Tex. 678, 
 no op. 
 
 Mere brusqueness on the part of the 
 agent, not amounting to insult, is not 
 a ground for punitive damages in an .ra- 
 tion against a carrier for damages for re- 
 fusing to deliver goods. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Brookhaven Mach. Co., 71 Miss. 
 663, 16 So. 252. 
 
 2. Actual loss proximately resulting — 
 Kentttc!c\.—Lou\s\-i\\c. etc., R. Co. v. Law- 
 son, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 681.
 
 595 
 
 TRv\NSI'ORTATION AND I^KLIVKRV i'.V CAKKIKK. 
 
 §§ 890-891 
 
 imatc result of the carrier's breiich of duty are not recoverable.'^ Damages 
 which are too remote are not recoverable."* 
 
 Action ex Delicto or ex Contractu. — The same rule applies to an action 
 against a carrier for failure to deliver goods, whether it is ex delicto or ex 
 contractu in form, and the measure of damages is as much a question of law, 
 under the control of the court, as if the right rested on contract only.-"' 
 
 § 891. Measure and Elements in General. — In General. — If a carrier 
 
 fails to deli\er g(jods or c(jn\erts thcni it i> liable for the value of the goods 
 at llicir destination and at the time when they slKnild have been delivered," with 
 
 The plaintiff then, upon the defendant 
 refusinj^ either to forward the pease by 
 lailroad to Xew York, or to deliver them 
 to the plaintiff, except upon tlie payment 
 of the freight, ol)tained possession of 
 ihem by writ of replevin, and sent them 
 to Boston for a market, which was a ju- 
 dicious disposition of tliem. Held, that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to recover the 
 difference between the net amount real- 
 ized from the sale of the pease in Boston 
 and the net amount they would have sold 
 for in Xew York, at the time when they 
 sliould liave arrived there, had the de- 
 fendant properly discharged his contract. 
 Laurent r. \'aughn, 30 Vt. 90. 
 
 3. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. Pickens (Tex. 
 Civ. .A pp. I. .-jS S. W. 156. 
 
 Illustrations. — The suffering of plain- 
 tiffs' families, from cold and inconven- 
 ience, by the failure of defendant to de- 
 liver them a bill of lading of clothing and 
 household goods shipped, is not the nat- 
 ural and proximate result of a breach of 
 the shipping contract, where defendant 
 was not informed by plaintiffs of their 
 necessitous condition, and the consequent 
 sufferings from cold that might ensue 
 from their inability to l)uy other clothing 
 and goods . if those shipped were not 
 promjitly delivered. vSt. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 r. May (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 408. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for failure to deliver cotton at the desti- 
 nation named in the liill of lading, the 
 consignor claimed damages suffered tjy 
 reason of the consignee's refusal to ac- 
 cept after having procured samples, 
 which he would not have done if the coi- 
 ton had been delivered at the proper place, 
 plaintiff could not recover, in the ab- 
 sence of proof that the carrier was in- 
 strumental in permitting the consignee 
 to procure the samples, or that it had any 
 knowledge of the contract between plain- 
 tiff and the consignee, since sucii dam- 
 ages were special, and not the pro.ximate 
 result of the carrier's breach of coiUract. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pickens (Tex. Civ. 
 .■\pp.), 58 S. W. l.-> 
 
 4. Remote damages. — .■\lderson v. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. .Xpp.), 23 S. W. 
 617, affirmed in iCi Tex. 678, no op.; Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago Portrait Co., 
 49 S. E. 737. 122 Ga. 11, 106 Am. St. 
 Rep. 87. 
 
 Illustrations. — There can be no recov- 
 ery of damages under an allegation that, 
 l)y reason of defendant's failure to de- 
 liver lumber, plaintiff was unable to build 
 a house for which she would have re- 
 ceived certain rent, this being too remote. 
 Alderson v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 23 S. W. 617, affirmed in 93 Tex. 
 678, no op. 
 
 5. Action ex delicto or ex contractu. — 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Ck. z. I'uniphrey, 59 
 Md. 3«.)(). 
 
 6. Value at destination. — United States. 
 —The Gold Hunter, ¥ed. Cas. No. 5,513, 
 
 I Blatchf. & H. 300. 
 
 Alabama. — Capehart v. Granite Mills, 97 
 Ala. 353, 13 So. 44; Echols v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 90 Ala. 366, 7 So. 655. 
 
 Georgia. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. How- 
 ard Supply Co., 125 Ga. 478, 54 S. E. 530; 
 Rome R. Co. v. Sloan, 39 Ga. 636; Cooper 
 z. Young, 22 Ga. 269, 68 Am. Dec. 502; 
 Taylor & Co. v. Collier, 26 Ga. 122; 
 Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. Goodwin. 1 Ga. 
 App. 351, 356, 57 S. E. 1070: .\lbany. etc., 
 R. Co. V. Merchants, etc.. Bank, 137 Ga. 
 391, 73 S. E. 637. 
 
 Illinois. — Northern Transp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clary, 66 111. 333. 
 
 Kentucky. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Webb, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 44: see Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Lawson-, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 681. 
 
 Louisiana. — St. Marc r. La Chapella 
 (La.), 1 Mart.. O. S., 36; Ames v. Reed 
 (La.), 2 Mart., N. S., 236; Burke v. Clarke, 
 
 II La. 206. 
 
 Maryland. — Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 Pumphrey, 59 Md. 390. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Massachusetts Loan, 
 etc., Co. v. Fitchburg R. Co.. 143 Mass. 
 31S, 9 N. E. 669; Spring z: Haskell 
 (Mass.), 4 Allen 112; Forbes v. Boston, 
 etc.. R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 76; Peebles z: Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 112 Mass. 498; Gushing z: Wells, etc.. Co., 
 98 Mass. 550. 
 
 .Minnesota. — Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co.. 30 Minn. 265, 15 N. W. 237. 
 
 Missouri. — Loeffler v. Keokuk, etc.. 
 Packet Co., 7 Mo. App. 185; Atkisson v. 
 Steamboat Castle Garden, 28 Mo. 124. 
 
 .\ez.' York'.—Sherman z: Wells (N. Y.). 
 28 Barb. 403. 
 
 Ohio. — Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. z: O'Don-
 
 § S91 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 596 
 
 interest thereon from that time/ at the same time deducting the unjiaid cost 
 of transportation.^ It has been held that in case of conversion tliere is no de- 
 
 nell, 49 O. St. 4S9, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 117. 34 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 Ponisyk'auia. — Ludwig v. Meyre (Pa.), 5 
 Watts & S. 435. 
 
 Tennessee. — Dean r. \'accaro, 39 Tenn. 
 (2 Head) 4SS. 75 Am. Dec. 744; Erie Dis- 
 patch V. Johnson, 87 Tenn. 490, 11 S. W. 
 441. 
 
 Texas.- — Carter z\ International, etc., R. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 681; H. & 
 T. C. R. Co. v. Stewart & Co., 1 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 1246; Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Rines & Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 618, 
 84 S. W. 1092. See Missouri, etc.. R. Co. 
 r. Cox & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. ■ 
 1196. See Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Cleburne 
 Ice, etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 
 836. See Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Curry, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 453. 
 
 IVcst I'ir^iiiia. — Clarke-Lawrence Co. 
 V. Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co., 63 W. Va. 423, 
 61 S. E. 364. 
 
 JViscoiisiii.—Nudd v. Wells, 11 Wis. 407. 
 
 The measure of damages for failure of 
 defendant express company, with knowl- 
 edge of the facts, to deliver a bicycle 
 which plaintiff had purchased and shipped 
 for use during her vacation, she being un- 
 able to use it at other times, is the value 
 of the l)icycle, and not the cost of hiring 
 another during her vacation, though at 
 the close of her vacation defendant of- 
 fered to deliver it, and she refused to re- 
 ceive it, no bicycle being obtainable at 
 the place where her vacation was spent. 
 Judgment, 43 N. Y. S. 1123, 19 Misc. Rep. 
 530, 3 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 400, affirmed. 
 Mitchell V. Weir, 45 N. Y. S. 1085, 19 App. 
 Div. 183. 
 
 7. Interest as element of damage. — 
 United Stafcs.— The Gold Hunter, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 5513, 1 Blatchf. & H. 300. 
 
 Alabama. — Capehart v. Granite Mills, 
 97 Ala. 353, 12 So. 44; Echols v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 90 Ala. 366, 7 So. 655. 
 
 Illinois. — Northern Transp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clary, 66 111. 233. 
 
 fozi'a. — Dant & Co. v. Northwestern Un- 
 ion Packet Co., 34 Iowa 588. 
 
 Kentuckx. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Webb, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 44. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Spring v. Haskell 
 (Mass.) 4 Allen 112; Gushing v. Wells, 
 etc., Co., 98 Mass. 550; Forbes v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 133 Mass. 154, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 76. 
 
 Minnesota. — Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co., 30 Minn. 265, 15 N. W. 237. 
 
 New For^.— Sherman v. Wells (N. Y.), 
 28 Barb. 403; McCormick v. Pennsylvania 
 Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 303. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rines 
 & Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 618, 84 S. W. 
 1092; Carter v. International, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 681. 
 
 Wisconsin.— l::inAA v. Wells, 11 Wis. 407. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against a 
 carrier for failure to deliver tobacco de- 
 livered to it for transportation, it ap- 
 peared that at the time the tobacco was 
 landed at the point of destination the ship- 
 per was entitled to receive it in good con- 
 dition, and that it came in a damaged 
 condition. The carrier retained it for the 
 estimation of damages, and, instead of 
 paying the damages assessed and deliver- 
 ing the tobacco to the shipper, it shipped 
 it to another point. Held, that the ship- 
 per was entitled to recover interest on 
 the value of the tobacco from the date of 
 its arrival at the point of destination. 
 Dant & Co. v. Northwestern Union 
 Packet Co., 34 Iowa 588.' 
 
 Interest in discretion of jury. — In as- 
 sumpsit against a carrier for not deliver- 
 ing goods intrusted to him to carry, in- 
 terest on the value of the property is not 
 allowable as matter of law, but the jury, 
 in their discretion, may allow or with- 
 hold interest. Richmond v. Bronson 
 (N. Y.), 5 Denio 55. 
 
 Rate. — Where, after the conversion of 
 property, the legal rate of interest is re- 
 duced, the owner is entitled to the legal 
 rate from the conversion to the time the 
 rate is changed, and to the reduced rate 
 from them to the date of the trial. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Humphries, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 App. S.-^S, 23 S. W. 556. 
 
 8. Deduction of unpaid charges. — Ala- 
 bama. — Capehart v. Granite Mills. 97 Ala. 
 353, 12 So. 44; Echols v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 90 Ala. 366, 7 So. 655. 
 
 Georgia. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. How- 
 ard Supply Co., 125 Ga. 478, 54 S. E. 530; 
 Cooper V. Young, 22 Ga. 269, 68 Am. Dec. 
 503; Taylor & Co. v. Collier, 26 Ga. 122; 
 Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Merchants, etc., 
 Bank, 137 Ga. 391, 73 S. E. 637. 
 
 Illinois. — Northern Transp. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clary, 66 111. 233. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Peebles v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co., 113 Mass. 498. 
 
 Missouri. — Atkisson v. Steamboat Cas- 
 tle Garden, 28 Mo. 134. 
 
 Tennessee. — Dean v. Vaccaro, 39 Tenn. 
 (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744; Erie Dis- 
 patch V. Johnson, 87 Tenn. 490, 11 S. W. 
 441. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rines 
 & Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 618, 84 S. W. 
 1092; Carter v. International, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 681. 
 
 Where freight paid or to be paid by 
 another. — In an action against a common 
 carrier for the conversion of goods de- 
 livered to a person unauthorized to re- 
 ceive them, who pays the freight upon 
 them, the measure of damages is the 
 market value of the goods, less the 
 freight, with interest from the date of the
 
 597 TRANSPORTATION AND DKIJVI-KV l!V CAKKlKK. §§ 891-892 
 
 duction for freight." I'nless a carrier has contracted to carry the goods to 
 their destination tro fulfill a contract at a greater price, or knew of such con- 
 tract, he can not he charged with more than the market value of the goods, less 
 freight charges at their destination, by reiison of his failure to deliver to the 
 person aiUlujrized to receive them under the bill of lading.^'' 
 
 Goods Shipped under Contract of Sale. — Where the carrier negligently 
 delays the dc]i\'cry of goods, whereby a sale is cancelled, and converts them, in 
 an action by the c(jnsignee for the loss of commissions and the value of the prop- 
 erty, the measure of damages is the price for which the sale was made.'^ 
 
 Where goods are taken by legal process, as being the goods of a party 
 not the sliipijcr, ii i> held that the damages in an action against the carrier are 
 properly measured by llie value of the goods at the place where they were 
 taken.'- It is also held that where a shipment is diverted to another state by 
 the carrier and there attached for a debt not due, and sold, the measure of 
 damages is the value of the property at the point of shipment to the shi]Ji)er.' '• 
 
 Expenses. — As an element of damages for improi)erly withholding freight, 
 l)laintitY should be allowed exj^enses incurred in sending for it.'^ fiut it has 
 been held that the expense of plaintiff's agent while waiting the delivery of 
 the freight, on a statement of the agent of the carrier that the same had not 
 arrived, when it was in fact in his possession, is too remote to be allowed in an 
 action for conversion. '•'• 
 
 Profits. — A carrier is not liable for the loss of profits by the necessary sus- 
 pension of ])laintift"s manufactory in consequence of its failure to deliver coal 
 shipped according to contract.'" If goods intrusted to a common carrier for 
 shipment have been sold in advance of delivery, and in view of unusual condi- 
 tions at prices yielding a profit and such expected profit is lost, it is not recov- 
 erable as part of the damages, unless the carrier, had notice of the contracts or 
 the special purpose for which the goods had been purchased and shi])ijed.'" 
 
 Retail Price. — The retail price, where a quantity of merchandise is sued for, 
 can not properly measure the value. The retail price would be unjust, for the 
 merchant in fixing that price takes into consideration not only the first cost of 
 the goods, but store rent, clerk hire, insurance, and a probable amount of bad 
 debts, and adds to all these a percentage of profit. ^'^ 
 
 § 892. Goods Having- No Market Value. — Where a carrier fails to deliver, 
 according to contract goods which are worn and have no market value, such as 
 personal apparel, the measure of damages is what they are worth in their worn 
 
 conversion. Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. Co., Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, •> L. R. A., 
 
 133 Mass. 154. N. S., 1058, 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 85 Pac. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier, 408, 87 Pac. 80. 
 
 l)rought by the assignee of an insolvent 12. Goods taken under legal process. — 
 
 (lel)tor to recover for a wrongful deliv- \'an Winkle r. L'nitcd States Mail, etc., 
 
 try of goods to the consignee, after in- Co. (X. Y.), 37 Barl). 122. 
 
 solvency, and without calling for the 13. Lincoln Grain Co. f. Chicago, etc., 
 
 proper vouchers from him, the measure R. Co., 91 Neb. 203, 135 X. W. 443. 
 
 of damages is the market value of the 14. Expenses. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 goods, less the freight cliarges, although Loonie, S4 Tex. 259, 263, 19 S. W. 385. 
 
 i)y the contract between the consignee and 15. Central, etc.. R. Co. v. Chicago Por- 
 
 his assignee the freight was to be paid by irait Co.. 122 Ga. 11, 49 S. E. 727, 106 Am. 
 
 the former, and the carrier had notice of c;t- j^^p 87 
 
 the assignment, and its terms. Massa- jg Profits.-Cooper z: Young, 22 Ga. 
 
 chusetts Loan, etc., Co. v. Fitchburg R. ^ .^ ,.„ ^ -r. ^^.^ 
 
 Co., 143 Mass. 318. 9 N. E. 669. -"''l ^'^ 'r-^^' , t r^ nu 
 
 9. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Goodwin, 1 17. Clarke-Lawrence Co. v Ches- 
 Ga. App. 351, 57 S. E. 1070. apeake, etc.. R. Co., G3 \\ . \ a. 423, 61 ?. 
 
 10. Grayson County Nat. Bank v. Xash- ^'" •'^''•^• 
 
 ville. etc.. Railway (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 18. Retail price.— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 S. W. 1094. T'ayne. 15 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 38 S. W. 
 
 11. Goods shipped under contract of 366; Heidenheimer & Co. v. Schlett, 63 
 sale. — Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. z\ Peru-Van Tex. 394.
 
 §§ 892-895 ' CARRIERS. 598 
 
 condition as compared willi their value if they were new, exchiding circum- 
 stances of inconvenience resulting from heing deprived of their use.^" _ The 
 measure of damages for the conversion hy a carrier of household and kitchen 
 furniture is actual value, and it is not necessary, to prove value, to first prove 
 market value.-" 
 
 § 893. Computation of Damages.— Damages for nondelivery of goods 
 intrusted to a carrier should be computed in the currency of the country where 
 the goods were to be delivered, without taking into account any depreciation or 
 appreciation there may be in the currency of that country. -^ 
 
 § 894. Misdelivery. — The rule as to the measure of damages for loss of 
 goods applies to losses occasioned by misdelivery.-- The measure of damages, 
 where the plaintitt receives the goods for sale and disposal at the place where 
 thev were misdelivered, is their value at that point when so received, less the 
 price they actuallv brought, with due care in the sale, plus the cost and carriage, 
 if the same had not been paid.-'"- Where an article is shipped to a factor, at a 
 certain market, who had been instructed not to sell until ordered, and_ the car- 
 rier delivered it to a factor at a different market, who had no instructions con- 
 cerning it, and it was by him immediately sold, upon its appearing that the 
 article^in question rose in price, from that day until the suit was brought, the 
 ]ilaintiff is entitled to recover the highest price attained by the article within 
 that period, where the suit is brought within a reasonable time.-^ 
 
 Delivery without Payment of Draft.— The measure of damages for wrong- 
 ful delivery of the goods by the carrier to the consignee without requiring pay- 
 ment of a draft, according to the directions of the consignor, can not exceed the 
 value of the goods.-'' 
 
 Delivery at Wrong Place. — In an action against a earner for failure to 
 fleliver goods at the proper place,-" or grain shipped in bulk at a particular 
 elevator,^' the plaintiff may recover the expenses of removing the property to 
 the proper place or elevator. 
 
 § 8 95. Delaying Notice of Arrival of Goods. — In an action for damages 
 for delay in giving notice to the consignee of the arrival of goods, whereby they 
 had depreciated, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of 
 the goods, at the time of notice to the consignee, and the value at the time the 
 goods arrived.-^ 
 
 19 Goods having no market value.— signed to himself to defendant to be car- 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Webb, 8 Ky. L. ried by it to M., and there dehvered to 
 j^gp 44 another carrier, and by it taken to A., 
 
 20. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Porter (Tex. defendant agreed with plaintiff that it 
 Civ App.), 156 S. W. 267. would endeavor to stop the goods at M., 
 
 21. Computation of damages.— Rice v. and from there take them to D., and by 
 Ontario Steamboat Co. (N. Y.), 56 Barb. reason of its negligent failure to use rea- 
 .384. See The Patrick Henrv, Fed. Cas. sonable effort to do so they were not 
 No 10.805. 1 Ben. 292. ' stopped, but taken to A., defendant is 
 
 22. Misdelivery.— See post, "Loss of or liable for the cost of taking them back 
 Injury to Goods," Chapter 12. to D. Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. Steele, 
 
 23. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Miller 140 Ky. .-583, 131 S. W. 22. 
 
 Coal Co., 66 Ark. 645, 51 S. W. 1054. See 27. Delivery at wrong elevator.— Rich- 
 
 Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. Chesapeake, etc., mond ?-. Union Steamboat Co 87 N. Y. 
 
 R Co.', 63 W. Va. 423, 61 S. E. 364. 240; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stanbro, 87 
 
 24. Arrington v. Wilmington, etc., R. TU. 195, holding that if the action is un- 
 Co. 51 N. C. 68, 72 Am. Dec. 559. der the Illinois statute (Rev. St., c. 114, 
 
 25. Delivery without payment of draft. § 82) requiring delivery at a particular 
 —Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hartwell, 99 warehouse, the depreciation in the price 
 Ky 436 36 S. W. 183, 38 S. W. 1041, 18 of tlie grain may be considered. 
 
 Ky. L. Rep. 745. 28. Delaying notice of arrival of goods. 
 
 26. Delivery at wrong place. — Where, — New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Tyson, 46 
 after plaintiff had delivered goods con- Miss. 729.
 
 599 TRANSI'ORTATIOX AND UKLIVKKV I'.V CAKKlKR. §§ 896-899 
 
 § 896. Delaying Notice of Refusal of Goods. — Where the consignee of 
 
 ]jro|)ertv refused lo ;urc|)t it on the j^nnind that it was of inferior grade, the 
 carrier was liahle for dehiy, in notifying tlie shii^pcr of snch refusal in case the 
 property was of inferior grade, only for the decline in the market price for the 
 time intervening between the date on which, by the exercise of ordinary care, 
 it could have learned of the consignee's refusal and notified the shipper, and 
 the date on which the i)roi)erty was actually sold after notice was given.-" 
 
 § 897. Mitigation of Damages. — Where goods which have been wrong- 
 fully dchvered are reclaimed by the carrier and tendered or delivered to the 
 consignee, or the proceeds thereof paid to liini, such tender, delivery or payment 
 will mitigate the damages.-'" Ikit a rejected compromise proposition made to 
 the consignee of goods by a person to whom tiiey have been wrongfully delivered 
 by the carrier for the purchase thereof and payment of a profit on the same 
 does not work a mitigation of the damages.^'* Where two of three cars were 
 wrongfullv delivered to one, who subsequently became bankrupt, and plaintiff 
 was allowed a part of the total value of all the cars in his claim against the 
 bankrupt's estate, in a subsequent action against the carrier for the value of 
 the two cars wrongfully delivered, the full amount recovered from the bank- 
 rupt's estate will not be allowed as a credit against ])laintiff's claim, but only the 
 pro rata i)ayment on the two cars wrongfully delivered. ^- 
 
 §§ 898-899. Evidence— § 898. In General. — In an action against a car- 
 rier to recover tor the carrying of good> lieyond their destination, plaintiff 
 should be allowed, where the breacii of the contract is admitted, to give evidence 
 of any general or direct damages which he may have suffered. •^•' In trover for 
 conversion of a car of coal, the plaintiff' is entided to show, on the issue of 
 exemplary damages, that defendant had seized and api)ropriated other cars of 
 coal than the one involved in the suit.-'"* 
 
 § 8 99. Evidence as to Value.— Value at Place of Shipment. — Evi- 
 dence of the value of goods at the point of shipment is relevant to the inquiry 
 as to value at the point of delivery ; ='"' and the carrier can not complain that the ' 
 proof of value is confined to the place of shipment, as the presumption is that 
 the value there is less than at the point of destination. •^'' 
 
 29. Delaying notice of refusal of goods. 33. Admissibility of evidence as to dam- 
 — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Jenkins, SO S. ages. — Teague v. Southern R. Co., 45 S. 
 W. 42S. :ir. Tex. Civ. App. 429. C. 27. 22 S. E. 779. 
 
 30. Mitigation of damage s.— Clarke- 34. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cleburne Ice, 
 Lawrence Co. v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., etc.. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 83b. 
 G3 W. Va. 423, (51 S. E. 304. 35. Evidence of value at point of ship- 
 
 Plaintiflf agreed to sell and deliver to ment. — I'.cluils :. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. 
 
 W. a car load of corn, to be paid for in 90 Ala. 3t)(), 7 So. Goo. 
 
 cash before delivery. W. having paid part Where corn was to be carried between 
 
 of the price only, plaintiff shipped the two stations about eighty miles apart, the 
 
 corn on one of the cars of defendant, a value of the corn at the place and time 
 
 common carrier, for account of self, not of delivery to the carrier is competent 
 
 stating the name of any consignee. De- evidence of its value at the place of des- 
 
 fendant delivered the corn to W. at his tination. South, etc.. R. Co. v. Wood, 72 
 
 request, but without the consent of the Ala. 451. 
 
 plaintiff, and without payment of the bal- Where the plaintifTs fail to give precise 
 
 ance of the price. Held, that defendant evidence of the market value of the goods 
 
 was entitled to allege and prove, in mit- at the place of delivery, the defendant 
 
 igation of damages, that, subsequent to may give evidence of their value at the 
 
 such conversion^ plaintiff luul received place where they were shipped, and of 
 
 from W. the full amount of the purchase the expenses of transportation to the 
 
 price of the corn. Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., place of delivery, as a proximate method 
 
 R. Co., 30 Minn. 2Go, 15 N. W. 237. of ascertaining the damages. Richmond 
 
 31. Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. Chesapeake, v. Bronson (N. Y.), 5 Denio 55. 
 
 etc., R. Co., ()3 W. Va. 423, 61 S. E. 364. 36. Rome R. Co. v. Sloan, 39 Ga. 636: 
 
 32. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hiram Echols v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 90 Ala. 
 Blow & Co. (Ky. App.), 124 S. W. 391. 366, 7 So. 655.
 
 §§ 899-901 CARRIERS. 600 
 
 No Market Value at Destination. — Where there is evidence that the goods 
 have no market vaUie at the place of delivery, it is proper to admit evidence of 
 the amount paid for them in other cities, where it is also shown that the prices 
 paid are those charged by dealers in such goods, and that the goods are reason- 
 ablv worth the same amount at the place of delivery.^" 
 
 Amount Received at Sale. — Where carriers sold a car load of potatoes 
 without giving the buyers an opportunity to inspect them, the amount received 
 at the sale ilocs not show the market value of the potatoes. 2*^ 
 
 Contract Price. — In an action against a common carrier for the value of a 
 lot of fruit trees delivered to it for transportation, but which it failed to deliver 
 at the point of destination, the price at which plaintiff had contracted to sell 
 the trees at such point affords some evidence of their value at that point. ^® 
 
 Value at Time of Seizure under Legal Process. — Where delivery by a 
 carrier to an officer under a valid writ of attachment constitutes conversion, 
 proof of the value of the property delivered, as of the date delivered to the offi- 
 cer, is competent proof of value to support a recovery.'**^ 
 
 Testimony that the goods were worth "about" a stated amount is not 
 the equivalent or positive proof that the amount named was their exact value 
 or that they were worth not less than that sum.^^ 
 
 Opinion of Expert. — The jury are not absolutely bound by the opinion of 
 an expert witness touching the market value of the goods at the point of des- 
 tination. ■*- 
 
 § 900. Inadequacy of Damages. — The rule applicable to all cases is that 
 where the amount of damages allowed by the jury is not plainly inadecjuate, 
 their verdict in this particular will not be disturbed.'*^ 
 
 §§ 901-903. Trial and Judgment— § 901. Questions for Jury.— In an 
 
 action against a carrier for a wrongful delivery or failure to deliver, questions 
 of law should not be submitted to the jury.^"* Where the evidence is conflict- 
 
 37. No market at destination. — New shipped by a seller to himself did not ar- 
 York, etc., Co. v. Weiss (Tex. Civ. App.), rive until nearly three months after the 
 47 S. W. (374. date of the waybill, though the seller had 
 
 38. Amount received at sale. — Carter v. been informed that the goods would ar- 
 International, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. rive in three or four days, it was not 
 App.), 93 S. W. 681. proper to leave it to the jury to find that 
 
 39. Contract price. — Clements v. Bur- the goods had arrived in due course, 
 lington, etc., R. Co., 74 Iowa 442, 38 N. v^eaboard, etc.. Railway v. Phillips, 108 
 W. 144. Md. 385, 70 Atl. 232. 
 
 40. Value at time of seizure under legal The consignor of a car of eggs notified 
 process. — Taugher v. Northern Pac. R. a railroad station agent tliat it desired 
 Co., 21 N. Dak. Ill, 129 N. W. 747. to ship them in one of defendant's cars. 
 
 41. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Howard The railroad station agent thereupon pro- 
 Supply Co., 54 S. E. 530, 125 Ga. 478. cured a car of the defendant, in which 
 
 42. Opinion of expert.-Atlantic, etc., l'^^ eggs were shipped to Chicago over 
 R. Co. V. Howard Supply Co., 125 Ga. the agent s road, to be there forwarded 
 ,-Q - . c T,- -QA II J > ^Q l^j^g state of New York; the agent noti- 
 
 4<», 04 J5. it,. o3U. r • J r 1 i> i r ^ /-ii • 
 
 .„ t , r J T lymg defendant s general agent at Chi- 
 
 43. Inadequacy of damages.— In an ^ago of the shipment. Defendant's Chi- 
 action by the consignor agamst a car- ^^^^ ^gent issued a receipt to the Con- 
 ner for conversion of goods, after re- signoj. showing the proper destination of 
 fusal of the consignee to take them by the eggs, but through a mistake of an 
 selling them to a third person, where employee of the railroad in instructing a 
 there was evidence that the goods were connecting railroad the eggs were sent 
 worth from $10 to $12, a verdict for $6 ^^ ^ wrong destination. Held, that the 
 will not be disturbed. Baker v.^ Chicago, question of a defendant's liability for the 
 etc., R. Co.. 98 Iowa 438, 67 N. W. 376. railroad company's error was one of law, 
 
 44. Question of law for court. — Na- and was improperly submitted to the jury. 
 tional Bank v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 25 Richer v. Fargo, 78 N. Y. S. 1007, 77 App. 
 S. C. '216; Richer v. Fargo, 78 N. Y. S. Div. 550. 
 
 1007, 77 App. Div. 550. In an action by a bank, who had cashed 
 
 Illustrations. — Where goods ordered re- time drafts attached to a bill of lading
 
 601 
 
 TRANSPORTATinX AM) DELIVKRY BY CARRIF.R. 
 
 § 901 
 
 ing, or there is doubt as to the inference to be drawn therefrom, the question 
 is for the jury.'*-^ The following are held r|uestions for the jury: What is a 
 due and reasonable effort and dilij^ence on the i)art of the carrier to find an un- 
 
 of cotton, against a railroad company for 
 wrongful delivery of the cotton to the 
 drawee, L. M. Co., it was proper for the 
 court to refuse to charge "that if the 
 jury find that L. M. Co. was entitled by 
 its contract to the cotton, upon its ac- 
 ceptance of the drafts, then tiie plaintiff 
 can not recover, even though it still holds 
 the bill of lading," as such cliarge would 
 submit to the jury a question of law. 
 National Bank v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 25 
 S. C. 21G. 
 
 45. Conflicting evidence — Illustrations. — 
 There was evidence tliat goods shipped 
 to New York over defendant railroad ar- 
 rived there within two weeks, and were 
 properly stored there for three years, 
 ready for delivery, and that the consignee 
 did not appear to receive them; that the 
 connecting carrier unsuccessfully tried to 
 find the consignee; and tliat finally the 
 property was sold for charges. There 
 was, on the other hand, evidence that the 
 goods did not reach New York within 
 six weeks, that defendant's agent was un- 
 able to trace them five months after their 
 shipment, and that repeated inquiries were 
 made for the goods at the connecting car- 
 rier's depots in New York within two 
 months after the shipment. Defendant 
 had agreed to deliver the goods in New 
 York. Held, that the question of non- 
 delivery was for the jury. Alabama, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Eichofer, 100 Ala. 224, 14 So. 56. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for con- 
 version of goods shipped, the defendant 
 having denied that the goods were worth 
 the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and 
 the evidence on this point being in con- 
 flict, the court erred in instructing the 
 jury that, in the event they found for 
 plaintiff, they should find for the full 
 amount claimed. Georgia Railroad v. 
 Richards, 9 Ga. App. 639, 72 S. E. 48. 
 
 Where the demand read, "We feel 
 justified in putting in a claim for the 
 entire shipment, and hold the goods sub- 
 ject to your inspection." and where a later 
 letter contained complaints that the con- 
 signees had lost the use of their money 
 for the intervening period, it was a ques- 
 tion for the jury wliether a fiat denial of 
 liability by the express company did not 
 excuse a more definite tender of the al- 
 most worthless books. Hardy v. Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co., 182 Mass. 328, 65 N. E. 375, 
 59 L. R. A. 731. 
 
 In an action against an express com- 
 pany for the value of a trunk which had 
 been misdelivered, plaintiff testified that, 
 when the trunk reached its destination, 
 the company's agent agreed that plain- 
 tiff might take some things out of the 
 trunk, and leave it in the office for a day 
 or so, upon paying the charges and sign- 
 
 ing a receipt, and that, upon calling for 
 the trunk, he was informed that it hau 
 been delivered to other parties upon the 
 supposition that he had sent for it. The 
 agent testified that he had no authority 
 to make such an arrangement, but did not 
 say that he so notified plaintiff. Held, 
 that there had not been a complete de- 
 livery of the trunk to plaintiff, and that 
 the q&estion of defendant's liability as a 
 warehouseman should have been submit- 
 ted to the jury, for, if the arrangement 
 was made before payment of the charges 
 and signing of the receipt, with a view 
 to giving plaintiff reasonable opportunity 
 of sending for his goods, it was a matter 
 within the apparent scope of the agent's 
 authority, and would bind the company 
 in the absence of any notice to plaintiff 
 of any restriction on the agent's authority. 
 Oderkirk v. Fargo, 58 Hun 347, 11 N. Y. 
 S. 871, 34 N. Y. St. Rep. 166. 
 
 Where plaintiff delivered to an initial 
 carrier nineteen cases of rugs, one con- 
 signed to a point on the line of the 
 initial carrier and eighteen to a point 
 on the line of the terminal carrier, and 
 only seventeen were delivered at such 
 point, and two employees of the initial 
 carrier testified that seventeen cases only 
 were delivered at the point on the termi- 
 nal line, and that the word "eighteen" in 
 the bill of lading was a mistake, the 
 question is for the jury. Siyufy v. Penn- 
 sylvania Co.. 83 Atl. 279, 234 Pa. 466. 
 
 Whether reasonable care exercised. — 
 Where defendant carrier agreed to carry 
 plaintiff'3 trunk to a station, and, in his 
 absence left it on the platform, in the 
 usual place for such deliveries, and it 
 was stolen therefrom, but the evidence 
 whether plaintiff was to be there to re- 
 ceive it was conriicting, the question 
 • whether defendant exercised reasonable 
 care in protecting it was for the jury. 
 Ft. Worth Transfer Co. v. Isaacs (Tex 
 Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 39. 
 
 Whether plaintiff paid freight.^Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. v. Britton, 149 Ala. 552, 
 43 So. 108. 
 
 Whether delivery made to authorized 
 person. — Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 99 Ark. 497, 138 
 S. W. 964. 
 
 Existence of special contract. — In an 
 action for conversion of goods by failure 
 to forward, \vhere evidence is conflicting 
 the question of the existenc(*of a contract 
 imposing a liability on defendant to for- 
 ward the goods directly to plaintiff with- 
 out respect to the acts of the forwarding 
 agent, is for the jury. Lee v. Fidelity 
 Storage, etc., Co., 98 Pac. 658, 51 Wash. 
 208.
 
 §§ 901-902 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 602 
 
 known consignee ; •**^ whether a tender to the consignee was reasonable in re- 
 spect to time, place, and manner ; ■*' whether a carrier exercised reasonal)le care 
 in giving notice of the arrival of perishable freight ;-*'^ whether a particular con- 
 tract was one of affreightment, as with a common carrier, or a hiring by the 
 job;^^ whether, in the absence of an agreement, a reasonable time for delivery 
 had elapsed;^" the reasonableness of a condition of the contract of carriage 
 exempting the carrier from liability, unless claim was made in writing within 
 30 davs ; ''^ the reasonableness of a qualified refusal to deliver goods without 
 the bill of lading therefor ; •''- and the question, as to the time and place when 
 the duty of the carrier ends.^^ 
 
 Proper Place of Delivery. — Where a shipment is billed to a point which is 
 not on a railroad, but near it, what is the proper place of delivery by the car- 
 rier is a question for the jury, where the evidence is conflicting.-"*'* 
 
 Reasonable Time for Removal of Goods. — Where the facts are undis- 
 puted it is a question for the court to determine what is a reasonable time for 
 the removal of goods after arrival : ^'^' but where the facts are in dispute, or the 
 inference to be drawn therefrom is in doubt, it is a question for the jury.^*^ 
 
 Whether Partial Delivery Intended as Delivery of the Whole. — In an 
 action against common carriers for the \alue of goods delivered to them for 
 transportation, where there has been a partial delivery, and suljsequently the 
 remainder of the goods are lost, it is for the jury to determine whether the tak- 
 ing of a part of the goods by the consignee was intended and understood by 
 the parties as a delivery of the whole or only of the part taken. •■*" 
 
 § 902. Instructions. — In an action against the carrier for breach of its 
 duty, such as failure to deliver, it is error to give instructions on issues not 
 raised bv the ])leadings ^'^ and the evidence.^"'-' And it is error to give a charge 
 
 46. Question for jury. — Zinn v. New 
 Jersey Steamboat Co.. 49 N. Y. 442, 10 
 Am. Rep. 402. See Walsh zk Adams Exp. 
 Co.. 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 292. 
 
 47. Reasonableness of tender of goods. 
 —Hill r. Humphreys (Pa.), 5 Watts & S. 
 123. 39 Am. Dec. 117. 
 
 48. Uber v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 
 Wis. 431, 138 N. W. 57. 
 
 49. Fuller v. Bradley, 25 Pa. 120. 
 
 50. In the absence of any agreement, 
 the court can not say as a matter of law 
 that from February 27th to May 16th a 
 due time for delivery had elapsed, or that 
 because part of the freight had been de- 
 livered on February 27th, a reasonable 
 time had elapsed for the part not deliv- 
 ered. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z'. Price, 1 jO 
 Ala. 213, 48 So. 814. 
 
 51. Adams Exp. Co. v. Gordon, 27 O. 
 C. C. 243. 
 
 52. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Britton, 
 39 So. 585, 145 Ala. 654. 
 
 53. Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain 
 Transp. Co.. 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 54. Proper place of delivery. — Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Bernhcim, 21 So. 405, 
 113 Ala. 489. 
 
 55. Reasor^ble time for removal of 
 goods. — .\rkadclphia Milling Co. v. 
 Smoker Merchandise Co., 100 Ark. 37, 
 139 S. W. 680. 
 
 56. Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Smoker 
 Merchandise Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 
 680; Burr v. Adams Exp. Co., 71 N. J. 
 L. 263, 58 Atl. 609. 
 
 57. Sessions v. Western R. Corp. 
 (Mass.), 16 Gray 132. 
 
 58. Instructions. — In an action against 
 an express company to recover the value 
 of a package which it failed to deliver, 
 an instruction that the failure to demand 
 the original receipt would be a waiver by 
 the company of a certain condition of the 
 contract was erroneous, where no such 
 waiver was pleaded. Adaius Exp. Co. v. 
 Gordon, 27 O. C. C. 243. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for damages for negligence in failing to 
 promptly notify the shipper of the con- 
 signee's refusal to accept the goods, there 
 was neither allegation nor proof that the 
 carrier failed to transport the goods 
 within a reasonable time or give the con- 
 signee notice of arrival, an instruction 
 that it was the duty of the carrier to 
 carry out the contract and ship the goods 
 to the destination in a reasonable time, 
 and to give notice to the consignee as 
 agreed on, was error. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Jenkins, 80 S. W. 438, 35 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 429. 
 
 59. Where the only evidence of a de- 
 mand and refusal for goods alleged to 
 have been converted by a carrier was evi- 
 dence of plaintiff's attorney that he de- 
 manded pay for the goods, the court 
 erred in charging on the issue of willful 
 conversion. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hum- 
 phries, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 333, 23 S. W. 556. 
 
 Where goods were refused by the con- 
 signee, and were afterwards received by
 
 603 
 
 TRANSPORTATION' AND DELIVKRV 15V CARRlKR. 
 
 §§ 902-903 
 
 which changes tlie issue made by the plaintiff in his declaration.'^' If a charge 
 partly abstract is not prejudicial to the party complaining, it is not ground 
 for reversal."^ It is error to refuse a special charge ui)on an issue raised by the 
 evidence.''- A charge which is in accord with the law and fully and fairly pre- 
 sents to the jury the issues they were called on to determine is not erroneous, 
 notwithstanding some slight verbal inaccuracy of exjjression."-* Where an in- 
 struction on the measure of damages is more favorable to the ])laintiff than the 
 one prescribed by law. he has no cause to be dissatisfied therewith.''-* 
 
 § 903. Verdict and Judgment. — Where it is immaterial whether the de- 
 fendant carrier's liability (lepeiids upon its duties as a carrier or a warehouse- 
 man, the objection that the trial court based its judgment on its liability as a 
 carrier is unimportant.''"' Where an action is brought for damages resulting 
 from a carrier's failure to deliver goods, judgment should not be rendered for 
 the ])Osscssion of the goods and for damages, as in an action of replevin.*""' 
 
 Special Verdict. — In an action against a railroad comjjany for the value of 
 goods sold by it after the consignee's refusal to receive them, a special verdict 
 that the goods were not of the quality ordered by the consignee is insufficient 
 to sujjport a judgment for plaintiff" for the proceeds of the sale.'*' 
 
 Statutory Interest Penalty. — Where a verdict against defendant railroad 
 company for damages resulting from failure to deliver a shipment contained 
 no mention of a statutory interest penalty, and plaintiff's petition was insuffi- 
 
 the consignors and sold, an instruction that, 
 if the carrier delivered the goods to the 
 consignee without his surrender of the 
 hill of lading or other order from the 
 consignors to deliver the consignors were 
 entitled to recover, held error. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Jenkins, 80 S. W. 428, 35 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 429. 
 
 Instruction not prejudicial. — The agent 
 of a forwarding company, which was un- 
 der contract to forward goods without 
 prepayment of the charges, refused to de- 
 liver them without the charges being paid. 
 Held, in an action against the forwarding 
 company for conversion, that an instruc- 
 tion that if there was a conversion de- 
 fendant would be liable for the reason- 
 able value of the goods at the time of 
 conversion was not prejudicial error, in 
 that there was no evidence of the value 
 at that time, where plaintiff testified as to 
 the value, since that was the best evidence 
 obtainable by plaintiff. Lee v. Fidelity 
 Storage & Transfer Co., 98 P. 658, 51 
 W^ash. 208. 
 
 60. In Central R.. etc., Co. v. Avant, So 
 Ga. 195, 5 S. E. 78. suit was brought 
 against a railroad company for failing 
 to deliver to the consignee two car loads 
 of watermelons, according to the con- 
 tract of affreightment, and the evidence 
 showed that they were in fact delivered 
 at the point of destination within a rea- 
 sonable time, but the consignee refused 
 to receive them on the ground that they 
 were damaged by not being properly 
 loaded, and that they had become bruised 
 and a part of them were rotten, it was 
 error to charge that if the defendant did 
 not put the melons in good safe cars, and 
 they had to be transferred from tlie cars 
 in which they were loaded, whereby dam- 
 
 age accrued, the jury would find for the 
 plaintiff the amount of such damage. 
 
 61. Instruction partly abstract. — In an 
 action ior n<in(lcliver\- of goods, an in- 
 struction that defendant, in the absence 
 of a contract to the contrary, is bound to 
 carry and deliver the goods in a reason- 
 able time, regardless of any unexpected 
 or extraordinary pressure of business, is 
 abstractly correct, and is not ground for 
 reversal, though the record on appeal 
 fails to show any evidence as to a pres- 
 sure of business. Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Touart, 97 Ala. 514. 11 So. 756. 
 
 62. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. Cleburne Ice, 
 etc.. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 79 S. W. 836. 
 
 63. Slight verbal inaccuracy. — That in 
 an action against a carrier for refusal to 
 deliver freight without identification of 
 the person claiming it. the judge, in re- 
 ferring to the paper which the agent 
 called on plaintiff to produce as evidence 
 of his right to demand delivery, alluded 
 to it as "the waybill or bill of lading," 
 was not erroneous, as conveying to the 
 jury the idea that it was incumbent on 
 plaintiff to produce the waybill, which 
 should have been in the hands of the car- 
 rier. Sellers v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 
 51 S. E. 398. 123 Ga. 386. 
 
 64. Instruction favorable to party com- 
 plaining. Wilson ;■. .Xtlanta, etc., R. 
 Co.. ^2 <'.a. :!^i''. 9 S. K. 1070. 
 
 65. Judgment. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Hall, etc., Mach. Co.. 56 S. W. 140. 23 
 Tex. Civ. App. 211. 
 
 66. Brookstone v. Wescott Exp. Co.. 
 <■)! X. V. S. 72, 29 Misc. Rep. 634. 
 
 67. Special verdict. — Finley v. Lewis 
 (Tex.), ;!9 S. W. 974.
 
 § 903 CARRIERS. 604 
 
 cient to support a judgment therefor, it was error for the court to allow such 
 penalty in entering judgment on the verdict. "^^ 
 
 Unwarranted Verdicts. — Where, in an action against a carrier for con- 
 version, the evidence showed only a probable delivery to one not authorized to 
 receive the property and the question of delivery and authority was not sub- 
 mitted to the jury, a verdict against the defendant is unwarranted.*''^ In an 
 action against a carrier for nondelivery of nursery trees, a verdict for plaintiff 
 for a certain sum will not be sustained where there was an utter failure of 
 proof of any certain value.'''*^ 
 
 68. Statutory interest penalty. — Gulf, R. Co. v. Humphries, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Gregory (Tex. Civ. App.), 333. 337, 23 S. W. 556. 
 
 59 S. \V. 310. 70. Adams Exp. Co. v. Jones, 53 111. 
 
 69. Unwarranted verdicts. — Gulf, etc., 463.
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Dix.w IX Transportation or Delivery. 
 
 I. In General, § 904. 
 II. Diligence Required of Carrier, § 90."). 
 
 III. What Constitutes Reasonable Diligence, § 906. 
 
 IV. Perishable Goods, § 907. 
 
 V. Excuses for Delay, §§ 908-922. 
 
 A. In General, § 908. 
 
 B. Delay Caused by Act of God. Public Enemy, etc., § 909. 
 
 C. Delay Caused by Seizure under Judicial Process, § &10. 
 
 D. Delay Caused by Unusual Rusli of Business, §§ 911-914. 
 
 a. In General, § 911. 
 
 b. Duty to Provide Proper Eacilitics, § 912. 
 
 c. Where Carrier Could Have Avoided Delay, § 913. 
 
 d. Notice to Shipper, § 914. 
 
 E. Delay Caused by Act of Consignor or Consignee, § 915. 
 
 F. Delay Caused by Rule of Carrier, § 916. 
 
 G. Delay Caused by Misdirection of Goods, § 917. 
 H. Delay Caused by Strikes and Riots, § 918. 
 
 I. Where Goods Are Perishable, § 919. 
 J. Delay under Time Contract, §§ 920-921. 
 
 a. In General, § 920. 
 
 b. Power of Agent to Make Contract, § 921. 
 
 K. Duty of Carrier after Excusing Cause Removed, § 922. 
 VI. Duty of Consignor and Consignee to Avert or Mitigate Injury, § 923. 
 VII. Duty of Consignee to Accept Goods, § 924. 
 VIII. Delay Caused by Connecting Carrier, § 925. 
 IX. Damages, §§ 926-954. 
 
 A. In General, § 926. 
 
 B. Arising Proximately from Delay, § 927. 
 
 C. Arising at Time of Delivery, § 928. « 
 
 D. Nominal Damages, § 929. v 
 
 E. Stipulated Damages, § 930. 
 
 F. Special Damages, §§ 931-939. 
 
 a. In General, § 931. 
 
 b. Within Contemplation of Parties, § 932. 
 
 c. Notice of Special Circumstances, § 933-938. 
 
 (1) Necessity of Notice. § 933. 
 
 (2) Sufficiency of Notice, § 934. 
 
 (3) Time Notice Given, § 935. 
 
 (4) Notice to Agent, § 936. 
 
 (5) Implied Notice, § 937. 
 
 (6) Evidence to Prove Notice, § 938. 
 
 d. Where Cause of Delay Known to Shipper, § 939. 
 
 G. Exemplary Damages, § 940. 
 
 H. Measure and Elements of Damages. §§ 941-947. 
 
 a. In General, § 941. 
 
 b. Decrease in Market Value, § 942. 
 
 c. Loss of Profits, § 943. 
 
 d. Expenses Occasioned by Delay, § 944. 
 
 e. Interest on Value of Goods, § 945. 
 
 f. Mental and Physical Suffering, § 946. 
 
 g. Lial)ility as for Conversion, § 947.
 
 § 904 CARRIERS. 606 
 
 I. Mitigation of Damages, § 948. 
 
 J. Goods Intended for Use of Consignee. §§ '.)49-951. 
 
 a. In General, § 949. 
 
 b. Measure and Elements of Damages, § 950. 
 
 c. Particular Goods, § 951. 
 
 K. Goods Intended for Sale, § 952. 
 
 L. Goods Intended to Be Repaired. § 953. 
 
 M. Time of Reporting Claim for Damages, § 954. 
 
 X. Actions for Delay, §§ 955-974. 
 
 A. Nature of Action, § 955. 
 
 B. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 956. 
 
 C. Joinder of Causes of Action, § 957. 
 
 D. Parties. § 958. 
 
 E. Limitation of Actions, § 959. 
 
 F. Prerequisites to Bringing Action, § 960. 
 
 G. Pleading. §§ 961-964. 
 
 a. Plaintiff's Pleadings, §§ 961-963. 
 (.1) In General. § 961. 
 
 (2) Particular Allegations, § 962. 
 
 (3) Amendments, § 963. 
 
 b. Defendant's Pleading, § 964. 
 
 H. Issues, Proof and Variance, § 965. 
 
 I. Dismissal and Nonsuit, § 966. 
 
 J. Burden of Proof and Presumptions, § 967. 
 
 K. Evidence, § 968-969. 
 
 a. Admissibility of Evidence, § 968. 
 
 b. \\'eight and Sufficiency of Evidence, § 969. 
 L. Instructions, §§ 970-972. 
 
 a. Province of Court and Jury, § 970. 
 
 b. Necessity and Propriety of Instructions, § 971. 
 
 c. Form, Requisites and Sufficiency, § 972. 
 M. Verdict, § 973. 
 
 X. Judgment, § 974. 
 
 XI. Demurrage, and Liability of Consignee or Owner for Delay, §§ 975-985. 
 
 A. In General, § 975. 
 
 B. Right of Carrier to Charge. § 976. 
 
 C. Rules and Regulations of Carrier, §§ 977-979. 
 
 a. In General, § 977. 
 
 b. By Whom Promulgated, § 978. 
 
 c. Notice, § 979. 
 
 D. Time and Amount of Charge, § 980. 
 
 E. Arrival and Continuance at Destination and Nature Thereof, § 981. 
 
 F. Persons Liable for Demurrage, § 982. 
 
 G. Lien for Demurrage, § 983. 
 
 H. Remedies and Defenses, §§ 984-985. 
 
 a. Of Carrier, § 984. 
 
 b. Of Consignee, § 985. 
 
 § 904. In General. — It is the duty of a comnion carrier to whom goods 
 are delivered for transportation to forward them promptly, and without un- 
 reasonahle delay, to their destination.^ In the absence of an express contract 
 stipulating the time within which the carrier is to transi)ort and deli\er goods, 
 
 1. Delay in transportation in general. .Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 450, 69 L. R. A. 
 
 — Biblj Broom Corn Co. r. .'\tchison, etc., N. S., 509 110 Am. St. Rep. 361. 
 R. Co., 94 Minn. 269, 102 N. W. 709, 3
 
 607 
 
 DKLAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DKLIVKRY. 
 
 §904 
 
 the law ini])lies a jironiise to do no within a reasonable time.^ 
 
 Implied Contract. — If a bill of lading is given at the time the goods are 
 delivered to the carrier, the 1)ill of lading comprises not only a receipt for the 
 goods, hut a contract to ftiHill the obligation which the law imposes on the car- 
 rier, and although the words be not put in the bill of lading that the carrier 
 will deliver within a reasonable time, that is the legal interpretation of the con- 
 tract which the carrier enters into when the bill of lading is given, where there 
 is nothing put in the bill to exclude that interpretation.'' This implied agreement 
 is as much a part of the bill of lading as if exi)ressed in it in so many words."* 
 If no time is exi)ressed, the contract is not on that account to be regarded as 
 incomplete, so as to admit proof of a distinct and separate agreement as to 
 time. In such a case the parties are presumed to have intended that the car- 
 rier's obligation as to the time of ])erformance, shall not extend beyonrl that 
 imposed ui)on it by law in all undertakings for the transportation and delivery 
 of goods which requires that there shall not be an unreasonable delay."' Though 
 
 2. Vnitcd States. — Northern I'ac. R. Co. 
 V. American Trading Co., 195 U. S. 439, 
 49 L. Ed. 209, 2") S. Ct. 84. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 State, 84 Ark. 150, 104 S. W. 1106; St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Pearce, 82 Ark. 353, 
 101 S. W. TOO, 12 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 125. 
 
 Georgia. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Geor- 
 gia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 17 S. E. 
 904; Central R., etc., Co. r. Skellie, 86 Ga. 
 686, 12 S. E. 1017; Rome R. Co. v. Sulli- 
 van, etc., Co., 25 Ga. 228; Central R., etc, 
 Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 
 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37; Johnson v. East 
 Tennessee, etc.. R. Co., 90 Ga. 810, 17 S. 
 E. 121. 
 
 Illinois. — Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 
 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Ohio, etc.. R. 
 Co. z: Dunbar, 20 111. 623, 71 Am. Dec. 
 291. 
 
 Indiana. — I'ittshurgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kno.x, 177 Ind. 344, 98 N. E. 295. 
 
 Kcntuckw — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Saulsbury! 120 Ky. 179, 103 S. W. 254. 
 12 L. R. A., N. S.. 431. 
 
 Louisiana. — Ratlibone V. Xcal, 4 La. 
 Ann. 503, 50 Am. Dec. 579. 
 
 Missouri. — Dawson v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 79 Mo. 296. 
 
 Nebraska. — JefFeries v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 88 Neb. 268, 129* N. W. 273. 
 
 Nezi' York. — Parsons r. Hardy (N. Y.), 
 14 Wend. 215, 28 .\m. Dec. 521, and note. 
 
 Ohio. — Waring & Co. v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 553. 
 
 Oklahoma. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' Union Gin Co., 34 Okla. 270, 125 
 Pac. 894. 
 
 Pennsvh'ania. — Joynes z'. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 235 Pa. 232. 83 .A.tl. 1016, Ann. 
 Cas. 1913D, 964; Hoffman v. Delaware, 
 etc., R. Co., 39 Pa. Super. Ct. 47. 
 
 South Carolina. — Nettles v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co. (S. C), 7 Rich. L. 190, 02 
 Am. Dec. 409. 
 
 'fe.x-as. — International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8, 17. 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. 
 
 R. A., N. S., 545; Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Silegman (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 vS. W. 
 298; International, etc., R. Co. v. Server, 
 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 441; San An- 
 tonio, etc., R. Co. v. Josey (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 71 S. W. 600; Texas, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Langbehn (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 
 1188. 
 
 ll'isconsin.— Feet z'. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446. 
 
 If no time is agreed upon in the con- 
 tract of shipment, the carrier is bound 
 to complete the contract within a reason- 
 able time, and if it fail to do so within 
 that time, without legal excuse, it is lia- 
 ble therefor. Place v. Union Exp. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 2 Hilt. 19. 
 
 In the absence of a special contract on 
 the part of the carrier to deliver within 
 a specified time, mere delay in transpor- 
 tation does not create a liability, the de- 
 lay must be unreasonable. Shoot v. 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 145 111. .A.pp. 532; 
 Bacon v. Cleveland R. Co., 155 111. 
 Ai)p. 40. 
 
 Absolute duty. — ^"In the absence of spe- 
 cial contract, there is no absolute duty 
 resting upon a railroad carrier to deliver 
 tlie goods intrusted to it within what, 
 under ordinary circumstances, would be 
 a reasonable time." Greismcr z\ Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co.. 102 N. Y. 503, 7 N. 
 E. 828. 55 Am. Rep. 837. 
 
 3. Implied contract. — Waring & Co. v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 
 893, 7 O. Dec. Reprint 553. 
 
 4. Central R., etc.. Co. v. Hasselkus, 91 
 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 .\m. St. Rep. 37. 
 
 5. Parol evidence not admissible.^ 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 
 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37. 
 
 Parol evidence is not admissible to 
 negative this presumption by showing 
 that a det'inite and specific time was 
 agreed upon either expressly or by im- 
 plication. Central R., etc.. Co. f. Has- 
 selkus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 .\m. 
 St. Rep. 37.
 
 §§ 904-905 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 608 
 
 a bill of lading is silent as lo the goods being delivered within a reasonable time, 
 yet that obligation is part of the written contract, and an action for failure to 
 deliver in a reasonable time is not barred in six years, but in fifteen years.*5 
 
 § 905. Diligence Required of Carrier. — It is the duty of the carrier to 
 exercise reasonable and ordinary diligence to transport and deliver the goods 
 to their destination," exercising the care necessary to comply with its contract 
 of shipment; keeping in view the character of the goods, their likelihood of 
 deterioration and loss in value by reason of delay. *^ The carrier is not bound 
 to use extraordinary diligence.^ Alere delay docs not create a liability on the 
 part of the carrier to respond in damages; the delay must be unreasonable.^*^ 
 
 Carrier Not Insurer. — For delay in receiving and carrying the goods, the 
 carrier is not an insurer, and is bound only by the general rule of liability for 
 a breach of his contract, or of his public duty as a carrier.' ^ The principle upon 
 which the extraordinary responsibility of common carriers is founded does not 
 require that that responsibility should be extended to the time occupied in the 
 
 6. Waring & Co. v. Bahimore, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Wkly. L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 553. 
 
 7. Diligence required of carrier. — Flor- 
 ida. — Seaboard Air Line Railway v. 
 Rentz, 60 Fla. 429, 54 So. 13. 
 
 Georgia. — Johnson v. East Tennessee, 
 etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 810, 17 S. E. 121. 
 
 Illinois. — Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 
 20 111. 623, 71 Am. Dec. 291; Bacon z\ 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 185 111. App. 40. 
 Xew York. — Greismer v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 
 55 Am. Rep. 837, citing Wilbert v. New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 12 N. Y. 245; Black- 
 stock V. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 
 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372. 
 
 North Carolina. — Bonar v. Merchants' 
 Co., 46 N. C. 211. 
 
 South Carolina. — Harby v. Southern R. 
 Co., 75 S. C. 321, 55 S. E. 760. 
 
 Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Foster 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 44; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Kapp, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 203, 83 S. W. 233; Gerhard v. Neese, SG 
 Tex. 635; International, etc., R. Co. i: 
 Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 545; International, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Server, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 441; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gillett (Tex. Civ. 
 App.;, 99 S. W. 712; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 103 
 S. W. 684; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Turner, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 94 S. W. 
 214; Alissouri, etc., R. Co. v. Kyser, 43 
 Tex. Civ. App. 322, 95 S. W. 747. 
 
 West Virginia. — Delaney v. United 
 States Exp. Co., 70 W. Va. 502, 74 S. 
 E. 512. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Peet v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446. 
 
 While, as a rule, only an act of God 
 or of the public enemy will relieve a car- 
 rier of goods from liability for their safe 
 delivery, it need only exercise due dili- 
 gence as to the time of delivery. Judg- 
 ment (Sup. 1908) 110 N. Y. S. 1125, re- 
 versed Cormack v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co., 90 N. E. 56, 196 N. Y. 442, 17 Am. 
 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 949, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1209. 
 
 Where a common carrier receives 
 goods for transportation and is sued for 
 delay in delivering them, it is error to 
 charge that the carrier is bound to ex- 
 traordinary diligence as to the time of 
 transportation. Ordinary and reasonable 
 diligence is the rule. Johnson v. East 
 Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 810, 17 S. 
 E. 121. 
 
 The words "promptly and without de- 
 lay," used to define a carrier's duty with 
 reference to the transportation 'of goods, 
 mean "with reasonable promptness, and 
 without unreasonable delay." Burlin- 
 game v. Adams Exp. Co., 171 Fed. 902. 
 
 8. International, etc., R. Co. v. Young 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 68. 
 
 9. Extraordinary diligence. — Johnson 
 r. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 
 810, 17 S. E. 131. 
 
 10. Delay must be unreasonable. — Ba- 
 con V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 155 111. 
 App. 40; Shoot V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 145 111. App. 532. 
 
 11. Carrier not insurer. — Pittsburgh, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 
 Am. Rep. 63; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 
 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191, 8 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 323, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45. 
 
 The rule that a carrier is an insurer of 
 safe delivery does not apply to liability 
 for delay of transportation; reasonable 
 care only being required to avoid delay. 
 Delaney v. United States Exp. Co., 70 W. 
 Va. 502, 74 S. E. 512. 
 
 A common carrier is not an insurer 
 as to time, but is bound to transfer 
 freight to its destination within a reason- 
 able time. American Exp. Co. v. Smith, 
 :j3 O. St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561. 
 
 The rule that a carrier is an insurer is 
 inapplicable to an action for damages to 
 a shipment of corn by delay; the corn 
 having been transported and delivered to 
 the consignee. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 103 S. W. 
 684.
 
 609 IMvU.W IX TKAXSI'ORTATIOX OR DKLIVKKV. § 905 
 
 transporlalion. The danger of robbery or embezzlement Ijy collusion or fraud, 
 on the part of the carrier, has no application here.^- The reasons upon which 
 the extraordinary responsibility of the carrier for the safety of the goods is 
 founded do not retjuire that the same responsibility should be extended to the 
 time occupied in their transportation. The danger of loss by robbery or em- 
 bezzlement or theft by collusion and fraud on the carrier's part, has no appli- 
 cation where the mere time of the carriage is concerned. The carrier's first duty 
 is to carry the goods safely, and the second to deliver them; and it would be 
 very hard to oblige the carrier, in case of any obstruction, to risk the safety of 
 the goods in order to prevent delay. The carrier's duty is to deliver the goods 
 within a reasonable time, which is a term implied by the law in the contract to 
 deliver, the duty to deliver within a reasonable time being merely a term en- 
 grafted bv legal implication ui)on the promise or duty to rleliver generally.*^ 
 
 Where Carrier Exercises Reasonable Diligence. — A carrier is not liable 
 for delay in the IransiJortalion of goods, if ordinary care and diligence is used 
 in the transportation and delivery thereof to the consignee. ^^ It is not bound 
 to use any extraordinary exertions nor to incur heavy expense, in order to 
 hasten the delivery of goods. i'' Where a carrier fails or refuses to accept 
 freight tendered it for transportation because of its inability to transport it, 
 occasioned by extraordinary circumstances or an emergency that could not have 
 been reasonably forseen and for which the carrier is not responsible, such fail- 
 ure or refusal gives the shipper no right to recover for delay in transportation 
 of the freight tendered, where the carrier does all that could have been rea- 
 sonablv required of it to meet the demands made upon it for transportation.^*' 
 
 Where Goods Shipped with as Much Dispatch as Possible. — Where, in 
 an action against a carrier of goods for damages caused by delay, it appears 
 from the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, the witness being a person who 
 had actual knowledge of the fact, that the car alleged to have been unreason- 
 ably delayed in its passage was sent forward and delivered with as much dis- 
 patch as possible under the actual circumstances which existed at the time, there 
 is no error in granting a nonsuit.''" 
 
 With All Possible Dispatch. — A carrier is not bound to great haste or ex- 
 pedition. ^^^ In expediting the shipment the law does not require that it should 
 be transported in as speedy a way as possible.'^ Xo rule of law makes it the 
 imperative duty of a carrier to furnish immediate transportation after receiving 
 freight for shipment.-" 
 
 Where Shipment for Illegal Purpose. — If an owner of cotton, during the 
 civil war, forwarded it by a common carrier to the Rio Grande, for the illegal 
 
 12. Parsons v. Hardy (N. Y.), 14 charge that the carrier is bound to ex- 
 Wend. 215, 38 Am. Dec. 521. traordinary diligence as to the time of 
 
 13. Hutchinson on Carriers, §§ 330- transportation. Ordinary and reasonable 
 335; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 76 Tex. diligence is the rule. Johnson v. East 
 337. 13 S. W. 191, 8 L. R. A., N. S., Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 810, 17 
 323. 18 Am. vSt. Rep. 45. S. E. 121. 
 
 14. Where carrier exercises reasona- 6. Seaboard Air Line Railway f. Rcntz, 
 ble diligence.— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 00 Fla. 439. .-)4 So. i:!. 
 
 Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 103 S. W. 17. Where goods shipped with as much 
 
 684. dispatch as possible. — Smitii v. Cleveland, 
 
 It is sufficient, if the carrier exert due etc.. R. Co.. 92 Ga. .')39. IS S. E. 977. 
 
 care and diligence to guard against delay, 18. With all possible dispatch.— Ger- 
 
 if the goods are finally delivered in safety. hard v. Xeese, 3() Tox. (>35: Chicago, etc.. 
 
 Parsons v. Hardy (N. Y.), 14 Wend. 315, R. Co. r. Gillett (Tex. Civ. App.). 99 S. 
 
 2S Am. Dec. 521. W. 712. 
 
 15. International, etc.. R. Co. v. Server, 19. International, etc., R. Co. v. \ oung 
 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 441. (Tex. Civ. App.). 72 S. W. 68. 
 
 Where a common carrier receives 20. Immediate transportation. — Liu- 
 
 goods for transportation and is sued for cago. etc., R. Co. f. Kapp. 37 Tex. Civ. 
 delay in delivering them, it is error to .\pp. 203, 83 S. W. 233. 
 
 1 Car- 39
 
 § 905 CARRIERS. 610 
 
 purpose of evading the blockade and revenue laws of the I'nited States, and of 
 exporting the cotton to Mexico, and attempted to hurry the carrier along so as 
 to escape the United States authorities and effect his purpose, the carrier was 
 under no obligation to make dispatch in aid of the owner's reports.-^ 
 
 Where Carrier Has Notice of Necessity for Haste.— Notice to a carrier 
 of special circumstances which would result in si)ecial damages to a shipper 
 from delay in transportation of machinery imposes on the carrier the duty to 
 use dili<^ence commensurate with the requirements of the case, which duty the 
 carrier "performs when he uses reasonable diligence to forward the goods 
 
 prominlv.-- • i r ^• 
 
 Where Goods Not Shipped in Turn.— A shipper has no right of action 
 against a carrier for delay in shipment if the freight is shipped in a reasonable 
 time whether in its turn or not.--' . , , r 
 
 Where Proper Means and Facilities Furnished.— It is the duty of a car- 
 rier to provide suhicient and suitable means for the carriage of goods and to 
 make deliverv of them with all convenient dispatch.^-' A carrier is bound to 
 do all that is' reasonable and use all reasonable means by increasing the number 
 of its tracks and warehouses to accommodate its increased business.-' 
 
 Where Shipper Designates Time.— Although a permit issued by a steam- 
 shii) companv designated a certain dav as the date on which certain goods were 
 to be delivered on the wharf for shipment, a railroad company transporting the 
 croods to the wharf had no right to disregard the express directions of the ship- 
 per that the goods should be delivered on the wharf m the forenoon of such 
 dav and to rely on the statement of such permit; and where the railroad com- 
 panv delivered die goods in the afternoon, and they were refused by the steam- 
 ship company on account of lack of room on the vessel, the railroad company 
 was liable to the shipper for resulting damages.-*^ Under a statute requiring 
 carriers to transport freight promptly on receiving notice that prompt shipment 
 is required requires notice to be given within such time before shipment that 
 the carrier's agent, notwithstanding his other duties, with reasonable diligence, 
 mav remember the notice; it not being necessary to give notice of the exact 
 time of shipment.-' L'nder a statute requiring carriers to transport freight 
 promptly on receiving notice that prompt shipment is ref|uired. the notice must 
 be given the shipping agent.-^ . -^^ ^ n- t^ 
 
 Where No Previous Information as to Causes of Delay Given.— if 
 the shipper has not all the information he desires as to the circumstances or 
 causes which will expedite or delav the delivery of goods, it would be more 
 reasonable that he should make inquiry than to impose on the company or its 
 accents the duty of giving unasked a statement of such circumstances.-'' 
 "where Goods Held for Freight.— Even if a railroad company may with- 
 hold from the owner goods shipped over its road, for the purpose of ascertain- 
 ing whether the bill of lading correctly states the amount due, or whether a 
 
 21. Where shipment for illegal purpose. Pa. 2.32, 83 Atl. lOlG, Ann. Cas. 1913 D, 
 — (krlTard r. Xeese, 3(1 Tex. 035. 904. j • .. ^- 
 
 .22. Where carrier has notice of neces ^,:^'^-^,^^:^JrTf^t..rcZ 
 sity for haste.-Chicago, etc R. Co. <,;. ^^., ^^, ^. ^ ^^^.^ ^.^ ^^.^^ ^^_^^ 2,.^ 
 rianters_ Gin, etc., Co., 88 Ark. m. n.> ^^ ^.^^ ^^^.^^ ^j^^^ ^^ carrier.-Act 
 
 ^- ^^- "■'■^- ,. J . ^ March 26, 1904 (24 St. at Large, p. B71), 
 
 23. Where goods not shipped in turn. ^ ^. j^jjjg ^ Southern Railway, 82 S. C. 
 — Wilson V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 82 Ga. ^^^ ' 64 S E. 23S. 
 
 386. 9 S. E. 107G. See post, "Perishable " gg. -p^^" .^^^qj^ ' notice given.— Mills v. 
 Goorls." § 907. _ _ _ Southern Railway, .S2 S. C. 242, (14 S. E. 
 
 24. Where proper means and facilities |>:;s. 
 
 furnished.— Railroad Co. v. 0'I3onnell, 49 29. Where no previous information as 
 
 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 34 Am. St. Rep. to causes of delay given. — Peet v. Chi- 
 
 .579. 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117. cago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. 
 
 25. Joynes V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 235 Dec. 446.
 
 611 
 
 DKLAV IX TRAXSi'ftinATKi.V ok M-XIV1:RV. 
 
 §§ <;05-906 
 
 waybill in its ])o.ssession sets forth the true aiiKjunt, yet it can hold the goods 
 only for a reasonable time.'"' 
 
 § 906. What Constitutes Reasonable Diligence. — Whether goods shipped 
 are delixered by the carrier within a reasonable time depends on the facts of 
 each case,-'^ inclnding tlie time ordinarily re(|uired for carriage between the two 
 points, the preparations made by the carrier, whether ample or not, the effort 
 at dispatch, the information given to the shipper of pecnliar reasons for speedy 
 transit and delivery, the character of the freight, and kindred circumstances. ^- 
 
 Cause of Delay. — A claim for loss of profits by being compelled to sto]j an 
 electric i)lant I)ccause a shaft used therein was broken en route and returned 
 to the repair shop by the express company to be repaired before it was for- 
 warded to the plant was based upon the owner's being deprived of the use of 
 the shaft, and whether the delay was caused by injur\- to the shaft or by other 
 reasons is immaterial.'"' 
 
 Delivery in Usual Course of Business.— .\ delivery in the usual course of 
 business is within a reasonable time.'" Where an unusual contingency has 
 arisen which unexpectedly largely increases the business and thereby prevents 
 the handling of freight with the usual ])romi)tness and dispatch, the criterion 
 of reasonable diligence is not the usual average rate of speed in ordinary times, 
 but the average running time under the extraordinary ancl unusual circumstances 
 existing at the time.''-'' 
 
 Delivery in Compliance with Custom.— ( )ne who shijjs goods to an agent 
 at a place where a custom not to deliver on a holiday i)re\ails is bound bv such 
 custom, though he has no actual knowledge thereof.-^'' 
 
 Delay during Sundays and Holidays.— W here it is a general and uniform 
 
 30. Where goods held for freight. — 
 
 Beaslev :■. BaUimoro, etc., R. Co.. 27 App. 
 D. C. 595. 
 
 31. What constitutes reasonable dili- 
 gence. — United States. — Alissouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Hall, 14 C. C. A. 153, 66 Fed. 868. 
 
 New Jersey. — Higgins v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 83 N. J. L. 398, 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Nezu York. — Coffin v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 64 Barb. 379, affirmed in 
 56 N. Y. 632. 
 
 South Carolina. — Nettles v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co. (S. C), 7 Rich. L. 190, 02 
 Am. Dec. 409. 
 
 IViscousin. — Peet v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446, 447. 
 
 32. Columlius, etc., R. Co. v. Flournoy, 
 75 Ga. 745. 
 
 33. Cause of delay. — Stone z\ Adams 
 Exp. Co. (K}-.), 122 S. W. 200. 
 
 34. Delivery in usual course of business. 
 — In the absence of special contract, a 
 railroad company, as a common carrier, 
 is bound to deliver goods at their desti- 
 nation, or at the end of its route to the 
 next carrier, according to the usual course 
 of business, witli all convenient dispatch. 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. r. Nelson, 
 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 In an action against the carrier to re- 
 cover for alleged reasonaiile delay in tiie 
 transportation of freight where the only 
 evidence on the suliject of reasonable time 
 is that the goods were carried and reached 
 their destination witliin the usual time oc- 
 
 cupied, according to the usual course of 
 inisiness in accomplishing the transporta- 
 tion between the point of sliipment and 
 the point of delivery, and there is no evi- 
 dence of any special undertaking for 
 completing the transportation within a 
 definite or fixed time, a verdict for the 
 defendant is not improper. Lowe v. East 
 Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 90 Ga. 85, 15 S. 
 I-'.. (192. 
 
 35. Michigan Cent. R. Co. z\ Burrows, 
 33 Alich. (■). 
 
 36. Delivery in compliance with custom. 
 — Though it is error to exclude evidence 
 for defendant in an action against a car- 
 rier for injury to a consignment of 
 dressed poultry, resulting from failure to 
 care for and preserve it, and from delay 
 in delivery, that the delay in delivery was 
 caused by the intervention of the 4th of 
 July, which was observed l)y carriers and 
 among Inisiness men of all classes by sus- 
 pending business, and that the custom oi 
 suspending business on that day was an 
 estal)lished one — general, certain, and uni- 
 form — it is not cause for reversal, under 
 Shannon's Code, § 6351. providing that 
 there siiall be no reversal in the supreme 
 court except for errors which aflfect the 
 merits of the judgment complained of, 
 where the uncontroverted evidence 
 showed that the carrier was negligent 
 in failing to care for and reserve the 
 lioultry. Pennsvlvania R. Co. :•. Xaive, 
 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S. W. 124, 64 L. R. A., 
 X. S., 443.
 
 § 906 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 012 
 
 custom at a place to which freight is consigned not to make delivery on a holi- 
 day, negligence can not he predicated on the failure of a carrier to make de- 
 liver}- on that day.-'" Under a statute which re(|uires transportation of freight 
 within a reasonable time, and declares that in reckoning what is a reasonable 
 time a delay of two days at the initial point and forty-eight hours at one inter- 
 mediate point for each one hundred miles of transportation shall not be charged 
 against the carrier as unreasonable, in determining whether a shipment was un- 
 reasonablv delayed, the court is not authorized to exclude intervening Sundays, 
 because another statute prohibits the running of freight trains on Sundays be- 
 tween sunrise and sunset. ^'^ This is a remedial statute in response to a public 
 demand that quasi public corporations shall transport freight in a reasonable 
 time. There is no indication that Sundays shall be excluded from the reason- 
 able time prescribed in which railroads shall transport freight, since Sundays 
 are counted in the time in which clerks, sheriffs, lawyers, road overseers, and 
 all others are respectively required to perform certain acts under a penalty if 
 they fail to do so within the time prescribed." ^^ Though it is error to exclude 
 evidence for defendant in an action against a carrier for injury to a consign- 
 ment of dressed poultry, resulting from failure to care for and preserve it, and 
 from delay in delivery, that the delay in delivery was caused by the interven- 
 tion of a holiday, which was observed by carriers and among business men of 
 all classes by suspending business, and that the custom of suspending business 
 on that day was an established one — general, certain, and uniform — it is not 
 cause for reversal, under a code provision that there shall be no reversal in 
 the supreme court except for errors which affect the merits of the judgment 
 complained of, where the uncontroverted evidence showed that the carrier was 
 negligent in failing to care for and preserve the poultry.^*^ 
 
 Delay at Transfer Points. — By statute in some states a carrier is allowed 
 certain time at intermediate points for a change of cars and for unloading and 
 
 37. Delay during Sundays and holi- 
 days. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive, 112 
 Tenn. 239, 79 S. W. 124, 64 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 443. 
 
 38. Revisal 1905, § 2632; Davis v. At- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 145 N. C. 207, 59 S. 
 E. 53. 
 
 Revisal 1905, § 2632, requiring car- 
 riers to transport goods within a rea- 
 sonable time, and imposing a penalty 
 for delay, provides that in reckoning 
 reasonable time a delay of two days at 
 the initial point and forty eight hours 
 at one intermediate point for each one 
 hundred miles of distance or fraction 
 thereof over which freight is to be 
 transported shall not be charged against 
 the carrier. Held, that a carrier was 
 not entitled to a deduction of interven- 
 ing Sundays, because § 2613 prohibits 
 the running of freight trains on Sun- 
 day between sunrise and sunset. Wat- 
 son V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 59 S. E. 
 55. 145 N. C. 236. 
 
 Where one of the two days next after 
 the delivery of freight to a carrier for 
 transportation was Sunday, such day 
 was properly deducted in ascertaining 
 whether the freight was transported 
 within a reasonable time, as required by 
 Revisal 1905, § 2632, not as Sunday, but 
 as one of the two initial days of nonac- 
 tion which the carrier was entitled to 
 .before it was required to begin the 
 
 transportation. Davis v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 145 N. C. 207, 59 S. E. 53. 
 
 "In Keeter i'. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., 86 N. C. 346, Ashe, J., says that the 
 defendant set up the defense that Sun- 
 day should not be counted because the 
 statute (chapters 97 and 203, pp. 182, 
 359, Laws 1879) forbade freight trains 
 to run on that day, and holds that Sun- 
 day is to be counted, not e.xcluded, in 
 making up the time which the railroad 
 is allowed for transportation. Said 
 chapters 97 and 203, pp. 182, 359, Laws 
 1879, referred to by Judge Ashe, are 
 now Revisal 1905, § 3844, again brought 
 forward as a defense by defendant. The 
 same ruling that Sunday (unless the 
 last day) is to be counted was made in 
 Branch v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 77 
 N. C. 347." Davis v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 145 N. C. 207, 59 S. E. 53. 
 
 39. "In the cognate matter of demur- 
 rage, as Judge Ruffin notes in Branch v. 
 Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 77 N. C. 347, 
 Sundays are counted in the time pre- 
 scribed. To same effect: Pressed Steel 
 Car Co. V. Eastern R. Co., 57 C. C. A. 
 635, 121 Fed. 609; The Oluf, 19 Fed. 459; 
 Baldwin v. Sullivan Timber Co., 142 N. 
 Y. 279, 36 N. E. 1060." Davis v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 145 N. C. 207, 59 S. E. 53. 
 
 40. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive, 112 
 Tenn. 239, 79 S. W. 124, 64 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 443.
 
 613 
 
 l)i:i,.\V I.\ TKAXSl'OkTATKJN OK UKLIVKKV. 
 
 § '^06 
 
 reloading, if necessary ."♦^ A station on the defendant's railroad which is the 
 terminus of two other railroads is not an interniediate point with reference to 
 freight not transferred to the other lines, but shipjjed through on the defend- 
 ant's line to points beyond.^- Under the demurrage and delayage rule of a rail- 
 road commission, fixing a charge against carriers for each day's detention of 
 a car in transit, without allowance for free time, and allowing a day's free tirne 
 at transfer points, a carrier is not deprived of such allowance by a delay in 
 transit, but tinu- not used at one point can not be userj at another.-*^ 
 
 Failure to Deliver at Night. — A regulation of an express company, de- 
 clining delivery of freight, including dead bodies, from night trains at a small 
 station where no night office is maintained, and providing for carriage to the 
 next station and return the next morning to the destination, is a reasonable 
 rule."*^ The question of the legality of the regulation is similar to that of the 
 legality of such a regulation of a telegrajih company.-* •'' It is competent for 
 such companies to estal)lish reasonable hours within which their business may 
 be transacted ; and they may fix those hours with reference to the quantity of 
 business done. They may not be required to employ both a day and night mes- 
 senger, if it be apparent that the business of the company will not justify such 
 employment.^'' 
 
 Computing Time, — L'nder a statute providing that the time within which 
 an act is to l)c done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including 
 
 41. Delay at transfer points. — The 
 forty-eight hours' aHowaiice to a carrier 
 for delay at intermediate points by Re- 
 visal 1905, § 2632, is for change of cars 
 if necessary, and for unloading and re- 
 loading. Watson V. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 
 59 S. E. 55, 145 N. C. 23G. 
 
 "In Meredith v. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 
 137 N. C. 478, 50 S. E. 1, this court held 
 that the 'forty-eight hours at interme- 
 diate points was, as the statute says, only 
 'prima facie reasonable delay,' and not 
 to be allowed unless it was a necessary 
 delay. The statute allows the carrier 
 'the ordinary time for transporting such 
 articles of freight between the receipting 
 and shipping stations,' and, in addition 
 to that, 'a delay of two days at the ini- 
 tial point' (instead of the day of receipt, 
 under Revisal 1905, § 887), and 'forty- 
 eight hours at one intermediate point for 
 each one hundred miles of distance or 
 fractions thereof * * * shall be held 
 prima facie reasonable.' This is the plain 
 language of the body authorized to make 
 laws, and this court has no desire or 
 power to read or construe it except as it 
 is written. If the time allowed is too 
 liberal, or too restricted, it is for the leg- 
 islature to change it." Davis v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 145 N. C. 207, 59 S. E. 53, 55. 
 
 42. It was so held under North Caro- 
 lina Revisal 1905, § 2632, providing what 
 shall be a reasonable time for the trans- 
 portation of freight, and authorizing a 
 delay of forty-eight hours at one interme- 
 diate point for each one hundred miles. 
 Davis V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 145 N. C. 
 207, 59 S. E. 53. 
 
 43. Rule (Miss.\ 10 of Railroad Com- 
 mission, adopted June 8, 1904: Keystone 
 Lumber Yard f. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 97 
 Miss. 433, 53 So. 8. 
 
 44. Failure to deliver at night. — Adams 
 Exp. Co. c'. Hibbard. 145 Ky. 818, 141 
 S. W. 397, 38 L. R. A., N. S., 818. 
 
 45. Adams Exp. Co. v. Hibbard. 145 
 Ky. 818, 141 S. W. 397, 38 L. R. A.. X. 
 S., 818. 
 
 46. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hard- 
 ing, 103 Ind. 505, 3 N. E. 172; Adams 
 Exp. Co. V. Hibbard, 145 Ky. 818, 141 S. 
 W. 397, 38 L. R. A., N. S., 818; Western 
 Union Tel. Co. v. Wingate, 6 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 394, 25 S. W. 439; Western Union 
 Tel. Co. V. McCoy (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 
 S. W. 210. 
 
 "In Western Union Tel. Co. r. Stein- 
 bergen, 107 Ky. 469, 54 S. W. 829, 21 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 1289, we said: 'The office hours 
 of the company, where the message was 
 to be delivered to the sendee, were from 
 7 o'clock a. m. to the same hour in the 
 evening, and the message in question, 
 having been received during the night of 
 the 19th, need not have been delivered 
 until within a reasonable time after 
 7 o'clock on tlie morning of the 20th.' 
 And in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crider, 
 107 Ky. 600, 54 S. W. 963, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1336, we again said: 'It seems to be 
 well settled that telegraph companies 
 may make reasonable rules and regula- 
 tions for the conduct of their business, 
 and may, where the volume of the busi- 
 ness does not require it, or justify the 
 expense, close their office for night de- 
 livery. Ordinarily, whether such a rule 
 or regulation is a reasonable one, is a 
 question for the court and not for the 
 jury. And certainlj"^ such is the law 
 when, as in this case, there is no con- 
 trariety of testimonv on the subject.' " 
 Adams Exp. Co. r. Hibbard, 145 Ky. 818, 
 141 S. W. 397, 38 L. R. A.. N. S.. 818.
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 614 
 
 §§ 906-907 
 
 the last, unless the last dav shall be Sunday, when it shall also be excluded, 
 what constitutes a reasonable time for the transportation of freight, must be 
 determined by including the last day, unless it is Sunday."*' In determmuig 
 what is a reasonable time for transportation and delivery of freight under or- 
 dinary conditions, under a contract fixing no time, extraordinary conditions, 
 not known to the shipper at the time of shipment, can not enlarge the time.-*^ 
 
 Question for Jury. — See elsewhere.-*'' 
 
 Particular Instances of Delay.— A delay of twenty-four hours,'^" two,^^ 
 three. ■'•- iwclvc."'' fifteen •'-* or seventy'-'^ days has been held an unreasonable 
 delay. One month '"■ has been held unreasonable. 
 
 § 907. Perishable Goods.— A carrier of perishable goods must exercise 
 care in view of the fact that the goods are perishable, and. though it is not lia- 
 ble for losses caused by the inherent nature of the goods, it is liable for dam- 
 ages from unreasonable delay in view of the nature of the goods.^' A earner 
 of perishable freight, guilty of negligent delay in the transportation thereof, 
 resulting in a loss of ice necessary to retain the proper temperature to preserve 
 the freight, is liable for the damages attributable to an insufficient quantity of 
 ice.-^-^ But' the carrier owes only the duty of exercising reasonable care to pro- 
 tect it from injury, in the absence of any special contract as to the time of 
 
 deliverv.''-' . , , , • i • u 
 
 What Is Perishable Property.— Corn is not perishable property withm the 
 meaning of a stipulation in the contract of shipment releasing the carrier from 
 liability'' from loss on perishable property, and the carrier is liable for injury 
 to the corn bv heating during a delay in shipment.*^*^ 
 
 Natural Tendency to Decay.— Unreasonable delay by a carrier in forward- 
 incr perishable goods, for a space of time within which, by the operation of 
 naUiral laws de^'cay will be produced, renders the carrier liable for the damage 
 
 47. Computing time. — Revisal (N. C), 
 1905. § 887: Davis v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 14.5 N. C. 207, 59 S. E. 53. 
 
 48. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Langbehn 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 1188. 
 
 49. Question for jury. — See post, 
 "Province of Court and Jury," § 970. 
 
 50. Particular instances of delay. — 
 Ormsby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 3 Mc- 
 Crary 48, 4 Fed. 70(5. 
 
 It is the duty of a carrier receiving 
 freight to be transported to carry it with- 
 out unnecessary delay and a delay of 
 twenty-four hours at a station on the 
 way will be deemed unnecessary, unless 
 explained by something which the law 
 recognizes as sufificient. Jefferies v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 88 Neb. 268, 129 N. \V. 
 273. 
 
 51. Two days.— Peck t'. \\ eeks, 34 
 Conn. 145. 
 
 52. Three days. — Wood z: Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 68 Iowa 491, 27 N. W. 473, 5(i 
 Am. Rep. 861; Hewitt v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 63 Iowa 611, 19 N. W. 790; Mc- 
 Graw v. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 18 W. 
 Va. :'.61. 41 Am. Rep. 696. 
 
 53. A delay of twelve days in deliver- 
 ing goods from Adrian to Chicago is un- 
 reasonable and the carrier is liable for 
 damages. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Day, 
 20 111. 375. 71 Am. Dec. 278. 
 
 54. Fifteen days. — Michigan, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Dav. 20 111. 375, 71 Am. Dec. 278. 
 
 55. Seventy days. — St. Louis, etc., Rail- 
 way ■:: Heath, 41 Ark. 476. 
 
 56. A delay of a month in the transpor- 
 tation of freight a distance of thirty- 
 three miles is unreasonable, and the car- 
 rier is liable for the damages sustained. 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. z'. Saulsberry, 
 126 Ky. 179, 103 S. W. 254, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
 624, 12 L. R. A., N. S., 431. 
 
 "Where in case for the nondelivery of 
 a parcel in a reasonable time it appeared 
 that the parcel in question had been de- 
 livered to the defendant in London on 
 the eighth of August, addressed to the 
 plaintiff at Birmingham, where it should 
 have arrived on the tenth, but did not 
 arrive until the third or fourth of Sep- 
 tember, it was held upon this evidence 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover: 
 Raphal z: Pickford, 6 Scott N. R. 478." 
 Michigan, etc., R. Co. :■. Day, 20 111. 375, 
 71 Am. Dec. 278. 
 
 57. Perishable goods. — Trakas v. Char- 
 leston, etc., R. Co., 87 S. C. 206, 69 S. 
 E. 209. See post, "Arising Proximately 
 from Delay," § 927. 
 
 58. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: White 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 103 S. W. 673, affirmed 
 in 102 Tex. 591, no op. 
 
 59. Pennsylvania R. Co. z: Clark, 85 
 Atl. 613, 118 Md. 514. 
 
 60. What is perishable property. — Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. z: McClellan, 54 111. 58, 
 5 Am. Rep. 83.
 
 615 
 
 DKLAV I\ TRAXSl'OKTATION OK DKLIVF.kV. 
 
 § '-^07 
 
 to tlie goods.''' The carrier is lialjle for injury to corn by heating where the 
 transportation is delayed Ijeyond a reasonable time."- The carrier is liable for 
 injury to fruit by decay.'-' Where a carrier's agent consented, when requested, 
 to i)lace a car of ])erishable fruit in ])Osition for unloading and failed to do so 
 and the fruil .lecayed, the carrier is liable for his negligent failure.''* 
 
 Preference to Be Given Perishable Goods. — it is held in Wisconsin that, 
 if a carrier recei\e lor tr,iiis])ortation goods ])erishable and those not perishable 
 at the same time, and there is a press of freight so that the carrier can not 
 transport and deliver all the goods before the perishable will perish, but can 
 deliver the i)erishable in time to save them if the delivery of the others is de- 
 layed, it is the dutv of the carrier to give i)reference to the jjerishable. There 
 is'no invariable rule thai freight of all kin(ls shall be transported and delivered 
 in the order in which it is received.' '' This is followed in Xew York and. 
 Mississippi,'''' but is not followed in Massachusetts, where the court said: 
 "Nothing is re(|uired of him in respect to such risks but the use of due care. 
 If the owner of goods, which are liable to injury by freezing, chooses to send 
 them at a season of the year when they are exposed to such a risk, he takes 
 the risk himself. The conductor was bound to assume that it was important 
 to each owner of freight that his property should be carried with all reasonable 
 care and speed, as the company had undertaken to do and had directed him to 
 do, and he could not know that the speedy delivery of the contents of the other 
 cars was not more im]-)ortant than that of the apples." ''' But the Wisconsin 
 court said: "If the carrier received for trans])ortation goods perishabje and 
 those not so at the same time, and there was a press of freight, so that he could 
 not transport and deliver all before the perishable goods would perish, but 
 could deliver the perishable in time to save them if the delivery of the others 
 was delayed, can there be any doubt what his duty would be? Can there be 
 any doubt that a preference in such a case would be reasonable, and if reason- 
 able, that the perishable goods, if they did not have the preference, would not 
 be delivered in a reasonable time, and the carrier would be liable?" *^^ If the 
 custom of giving such preference has been long established and is well known, 
 the parties are supposed silently to adopt the custom as part of the contract, 
 unless it conflicts with its express terms.'"'^ 
 
 61. Natural tendency to decay. — In St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. f. Coolidge, 7.'. Ark. 
 112, 83 S. W. :^33. 108 Am. St. Rep. 21. 
 67 L. R. A.. N. S.. 355. 3 Am. & Ens;. 
 Ann. Cas. 582, the carrier was held liable 
 for damage to potatoes from hot weather 
 during- delayed transportation. 
 
 Where there is no agreement in the 
 contract of shipment as to time for trans- 
 portation of pcrishal)le goods, and the 
 carrier neglected to transport the goods 
 within a reasonable time, without legal 
 excuse and the property afterwards and 
 before deliver}^ is injured from its nat- 
 ural tendency to decay, the carrier is 
 liable for the loss of the goods. Place 
 z: Union Exp. Co. (N. Y.), 2 Hilt. IS). 
 
 62. Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. McClellan, 
 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83. 
 
 " 63. "The Georgia court announced this 
 rule in regard to perishable goods: 'Un- 
 rcasonalilc delay in forwarding fruit 
 would he negligence because prolonging 
 the time witliin which, by tlie operation 
 of natural laws, decay will be produced, 
 and therefore such negligence would 
 contribute to causing the damage:' For- 
 rester T'. Georgia R.. etc.. Co.. 92 Ga. 699. 
 19 S. E. Sll." St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. t'. 
 
 Coolidge, 73 Ark. 112, 83 S. W. 333, 108 
 Am. St. Rep. 21, 67 L. R. A.. N. S.. 555, 
 3 .\m. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 582. 
 
 64. Texas, etc.. R. Co. 'z: Payne (Tex. 
 Civ. A])p.). 15(1 S. W. 1 121). 
 
 65. Preference to be given perishable 
 goods. — Peet r'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 
 W is, .-)94. 91 Am. Dec. 446. 449. 
 
 66. Vazoo. etc., R. Co. 7: Blum Co., 88 
 Miss. ISO. 40 So. 748. 10 L. R. A.. N. S., 
 432; Tierney z'. New York. etc.. R. Co., 
 76 N. Y. 305; Marshall i: Xew York 
 Cent. R. Co.. 48 N. Y. 660. 
 
 67. Svvetland v. Boston, etc.. R. Co.. 
 102 Mass. 276. 
 
 68. I'cet r. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 20 
 Wis. .")'.)4. 91 .\m. Dec. 446. 
 
 69. Custom of giving preference. — 
 "CooiH-r :-. Kane t X. \.). l".t Wend. :;<i'i. 
 ;i2 .\m. Dec. 512; Kirkman r. Shawcross 
 (N. C). 6 Term Rep. 14; Judd z: Evans 
 (N. C). 6 Term Rep. 398. We doubt, 
 however, whether the proof showed that 
 this custom had been so long established 
 as to make it part of the contract. But 
 we think the practice reasonable, and noi 
 in violation of any rule of law." Peet 
 z: Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 
 Am. Dec. 446.
 
 § 907 
 
 CARRIER; 
 
 616 
 
 Shipment by Next Train.— \\hen perishable goods are placed in cars pro- 
 vided for them lor transportation by the carrier in time for the next regular 
 train, the carrier is bound to transport the goods by such train, in preference 
 to other freight, if he has knowledge of the circumstances, and is liable for 
 injurv resulting from delav in not shi])ping the goods by that train.'*' 
 
 Shipment on Sundays and Holidays.— L'nder a statute providmg that 
 trains laden exclusively with vegetables and fruit may run on Sunday, and such 
 freight trains as mav'be in transit which can reach their destination by six 
 o'clock in the foreno'on may run on Sunday, a carrier of perishable fruit may 
 not excuse a delay in the transportation on Sunday in the absence of testimony 
 explaining why a train did not go to the point of destination on Saturday even- 
 ing, and why such train or another train could not reach the destination before 
 six o'clock Sunday morning J '^ 
 
 Shipment Over Connecting Carrier.— Where a railroad company accepts 
 perishable goods to be transported for its own line and over connecting roads, 
 it is bound to forward the goods promptly.'- Where a carrier undertakes to 
 deliver perishable goods to a connecting carrier by a fixed time, and negligently 
 delays delivering them, and they freeze while in the possession of the connectiiig 
 carrier, the initial carrier is liable therefor.'=^ But the contrary has been held.'-* 
 
 70. Shipment by next train.— The 
 court charged that it was the duty of de- 
 fendant to transport the cabbages by the 
 first train, unless a reasonable and proper 
 excuse for the delay was shown, unless 
 there was such a pressure of property of 
 a similar kind which arrived before as 
 to make it impossible; that if there was 
 a pressure of freight this car should 
 have been forwarded before forwarding 
 ordinary nonperishable property. Held, 
 no error. Tierney z'. New York, etc., R. 
 Co., 76 N. Y. 305, affirming 10 Hun 569, 
 67 Barb. 538. 
 
 Plaintiff on January 6, 1873, loaded 
 upon one of the defendant's cars, at Al- 
 bany, cabbages for transportation to 
 New York, and paid the freight. On the 
 car was placed a placard, signed by de- 
 fendant's general freight agent: "Per- 
 ishable property; this car must run to 
 New York by first train." A way bill 
 delivered to plaintifif showed shipment 
 from Albany January 7. The car arrived 
 at East Albany at 10:40 p. m. of that day; 
 at. 10:50 a freight train started thence for 
 New York; this car remained until 3:20 
 p. m. of January 9, when it proceeded to 
 New York. On arrival tlie cabbages 
 were found to be frozen. The usual time 
 for a freight train from Albany to New 
 York is from ten to eleven hours. If 
 the cabbages had been delivered in the 
 ordinary course of business, they would 
 not have been frozen. Defendant gave 
 evidence that the car, on arrival at East 
 Albany, was switched on to a side track 
 and blocked up by cars subsequently ar- 
 riving, so that it could not be moved un- 
 til they were sent forward. It did not 
 appear that any sudden emergency inter- 
 fered with the ordinary use of the road, 
 or that the amount of freight was un- 
 usual or exceeded the capacity of de- 
 fendant to remove it, or that the freight 
 
 sent forward after the car arrived were 
 made up of freight received before. Held, 
 that a verdict for plaintiff was warranted. 
 Tierney v. New York, etc., R. Co., 76 
 N. Y. 305, affirming 10 Hun 569, 67 Barb. 
 538. 
 
 71. Shipment on Sundays and holidays. 
 —Under Civ. Code 1902, § 2122, as 
 amended by Act Feb. 21, 1903 (24 Stat. 
 83). Trakas v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 87 S. C. 206. 69 S. E. 209. 
 
 72. Shipment over connecting carrier. 
 — Blodgett V. Abbot, 72 Wis. 516, 40 N. 
 W. 491, 7 Am. St. Rep. 873. 
 
 A railroad company chargeable with 
 unreasonable delay in holding a car con- 
 taining vegetables is liable for the nat- 
 ural consequences thereof, even beyond 
 its own line. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. 
 W. 792. 
 
 73. "In a Massachusetts case where a 
 carrier contracted to deliver apples to a 
 connecting carrier by a fixed time, and 
 negligently delayed delivering them, and 
 they froze in the possession of the con- 
 necting carrier, the court said: 'If the 
 freezing had occurred on defendant's 
 line, it can not be doubted that the law 
 would regard the delay as the proximate 
 cause of the damage; it is none the less 
 so because it happened on a connecting 
 line. The damage was not caused by 
 any extraordinary event subsequently 
 occurring, but was caused by the event 
 which was, according to common ex- 
 perience, naturally and reasonably to be 
 
 74. The freezing of apples while being 
 transported by a subsequent carrier is 
 not so direct and natural a result of un- 
 reasonaI)]e delay by the first carrier, as 
 to make such first carrier liable therefor 
 by reason of such delay. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6.
 
 617 
 
 DICLAV IX TRAXSPOKTATKiX OR DKIJVKKV. 
 
 j§ 007-908 
 
 A railroad comi)any acceptinj,^ perishable freight for trans])oriation over iis o\vn 
 and connectinj^ roads must forward the same promptly, to the extent of its abil- 
 ity, until it has delivered or offered to deliver it to the connecting carrier, and 
 is not excused from the performance of such duty by the mere fact that its 
 agent supposed there would be a delay in the forwarding of such freight by 
 the connecting carrier."^ 
 
 Particular Goods. — The carrier has been held liable for injuiy to pota- 
 toes,''' corn," and fruit '"^ caused by delay. Where a carrier accepts potatoes 
 to be shii)ped during a season of the year when the weather is naturally se- 
 verclv .cold, although it is not cold at the time the freight is received, where 
 during a delay of two or three days the potatoes freeze, the carrier is liable.'*-* 
 Hay not being perishable merchandise, a carrier is. not called upon to put forth 
 uiuisual efforts to remove the same when delivered to it for transportation.**" 
 
 §§ 908-922. Excuses for Delay.— § 908. In General.— Where goods 
 are actually transported and delivered, but the time of delivery is delayed, such 
 delav, if resulting from causes beyond the control of the carrier, may be ex- 
 cused; if under such circumstances the carrier exercises due care, he is not 
 liable.*'^ A carrier may be excused for delay in receiving the goods, or in 
 transporting them after they have been received, whenever the delay is neces- 
 sarily caused by unforeseen disaster which human i)rudence can not provide 
 against, or by accident not caused by the negligence of the carrier, or by thieves 
 and robbers, or an uncontrollable mob.^- All that can be required of a car- 
 rier is that he shall exercise due care and diligence to guard against delay, and 
 that if it occur without his fault or negligence, he shall omit no reasonable 
 efforts to secure the safety of the goods. ^^ 
 
 expected, a change of temperature:' Fox 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Co.. 148 Mass. 220, 19 
 N. E. 222, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 702. In the ab- 
 sence of a contract fixing the time for deliv- 
 ery to the connecting carrier, the law fixes 
 a reasonable time, and what is a reason- 
 able time must be determined from the 
 length of tlic journey, the usual time, the 
 weather, the nature of goods transported, 
 etc.: Hutcliinson on Carriers, § 32!). 
 Under these authorities, which are con- 
 sonant to reason and justice, the evi- 
 dence is sufiicient to hold the initial car- 
 rier was guilty of a negligent act — the 
 delay in transportation of this class of 
 goods in the season when weather con- 
 ditions naturally produce delay — whicli 
 caused, in whole or in part, the condition 
 in which tliey reached the consignee. It 
 is evident that the last carrier was 
 equally or more negligent than the ini- 
 tial carrier, but that does not change the 
 rule, and merely renders each or both 
 liable when the act of either is an effi- 
 cient and pro.ximate cause of the injury." 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 7'. Coolidge. 73 
 Ark. 112, 83 S. W. 333, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 582. 108 Am. St. Rep. 21, 67 
 L. R. A.. N. S., 555. 
 
 75. Blodgett v. Abbot. 72 Wis. Slii. 40 
 N. W. 491. 7 Am. St. Rep. 873. 
 
 76. Potatoes. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Coolidge, 73 Ark. 112, 83 S. \V. 333. 
 108 Am. St. Rep. 21, 67 L. R. A., N. S., 
 555, 3 .\m. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 582; Mc- 
 Graw z: Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 18 \V. 
 Va. 361. 41 Am. Rep. 696. 
 
 77. Corn.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clellen, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83. 
 
 78. Fruit. — Forrester v. Georgia R., etc., 
 Co.. 92 Ga. 699, 19 S. E. 811: Place z: 
 Union Exp. Co. ( N. Y.). 2 Hilt. 19; Tra- 
 kas z: Charleston, etc., R. Co., 87 S. C. 
 206, 69 S. E. 209. 
 
 A carrier, on receiving fruit for trans- 
 portation, is bound to forward it to its 
 destination immediately. Frey f. New 
 York Cent., etc.. R. Co.. 100 N. Y. S. 225, 
 114 App. Div. 747. 
 
 An express company is liable for dam- 
 ages to fruit injured by delay in its 
 transportation. .-Vdams Exp. Co. z\ Wil- 
 liams (Ark.), 14 S. W. 40. 
 
 79. McGraw z\ Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 
 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 696. 
 
 80. Judgment 87 N. Y. S. 30. 92 .\pp. 
 Div. 584. affirmed. Strough z'. New York, 
 etc.. R. Co.. isi X. Y. :uV.i. 73 X. E. 1133. 
 
 81. Excuses for delay. — Gulf, etc.. R. 
 Co. z: Levi, 76 Tex. 337. 13 S. W. 191, 8 
 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45: 
 International, etc., R. Co. z: Hynes, 3 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 20, 21 S. W. 622; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. z'. Langbehn (Te.x. Civ. 
 App.), 150 S. W. 1188. 
 
 82. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hollowell. 
 f.5 Ind. 188, 32 .Am. Rep. 63; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191, 
 8 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 326. 18 .\m. St. 
 Rep. 45. 
 
 83. Hutch, on Carr., § 330. See, also. 
 §§ 331-35, 292. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: Levi. 
 76 Tex. 337, 341, 13 S. W. 191. S L. R. 
 A., N. S., 323, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45.
 
 § 908 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 618 
 
 In Absence of Express Contract. — Inde])en(lent of special contract a com- 
 mon carritT is not lial)lc for a delay in delivery of freight where such delay re- 
 sulted from causes beyond the carrier's control, and the carrier exercised due 
 care for the protection and preservation of the property."'"* Where the breach 
 of a carrier's undertaking is alleged to be a failure to exercise due care and 
 diligence in making delivery, resulting" in delay in delivery, the carrier can al- 
 lege as a defense any facts which the law recognizes as an excuse for delay, 
 though no exemption froni liability on such groiuid is in the contract of ship- 
 ment. ''•' 
 
 Stipulation for Exemption from Particular Cause. — The stipulation in a 
 contract to ship perishable goods within a prescril)ed time exempting the car- 
 rier from liability from unavoidable or extraordinary casualty, and natural tend- 
 ency of the goods to decay, does not exempt the carrier from liability where 
 the goods are delayed by a connecting carrier because of an excessive amount 
 of freight to be handled.^'' 
 
 In Addition to Act of God or Public Enemy. — The absence of negligence 
 excuses a carrier for delay in transporting goods, and it is error to instruct the 
 jury that only an act of God or the public enemy can supply such excuse.^" If 
 the delay is induced by causes beyond the carrier's control, it is excused, re- 
 gardless of the agency producing such failure or delay. It is immaterial whether 
 such delay be attributed to the act of God or not.*^^ If by accident or misfor- 
 tune, not amoimting to an inevitable casualty or the act of God, the transpor- 
 tation of the goods is retarded, the carrier will not be responsible for such de- 
 lay, if he has used due care and reasonable diligence, and the goods are finally 
 safely delivered. •^•* 
 
 Due Diligence in Care for Property. — To render delay excusable the car- 
 rier must have exercised due care to protect the property against injury pend- 
 ing the delay.**" 
 
 Carrier on Same Footing as Other Bailees. — In this respect, a common 
 carrier stands upon the same ground with other Ijailees, and may excuse delay 
 in delivery of the goods by accident or misfortune, although not inevitable or 
 produced by the act of God.^^ 
 
 84. In absence of express contract. — 
 International," etc.. R. Co. v. Hynes. 3 
 Tex. Civ. App. 20, 21 S. W. 622; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Gatewood, 79 Tex. 89, 95, 
 14 S. W. 913, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 419; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 
 S. \V. 191, 8 L. R. A.. N. S., 323, 18 Am. 
 St. Rep. 4.5. 
 
 85. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Stark Grain 
 Co.. 103 Tex. 542, 131 S. W. 410, modif}'- 
 ing judgment (Tex. Civ. .App.), 120 S. W. 
 1146. 
 
 86. Stipulation for exemption from par- 
 ticular cause. — Place r. Union Exp. Co. 
 (X. V.j, 2 Hilt. 19. 
 
 A stipulation exei'npting the carrier 
 from liability for delay by reason of the 
 dangers of the sea, does not exempt tlie 
 carrier from delay by an act of the pub- 
 lic enemy. The carrier could not recover 
 for freight where it had undertaken to 
 ship goods, exempting itself from natural 
 loss by -waste and the dangers of the 
 sea only, and the goods -were captured 
 by a ship of the Confederate States. Tir- 
 rell V. Gage (Mass.j, 4 Allen 245. 
 
 87. In addition to act of God or public 
 enemy. — Bacon v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 15.5 111. .\pp. 40. 
 
 The carrier may excuse delay by acci- 
 
 dent or misfortune, although not inev- 
 itable, or produced by an act of God. 
 Parsons v. Hardy (N. Y.), 14 Wend. 215, 
 28 Am. Dec. 521. ' 
 
 88. International, etc., R. Co. v. Hynes, 
 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20, 21 S. W. 622. 
 
 89. Story on Bailments, § 545 a. Par- 
 sons V. Hardy ( N. Y.), 14 Wend. 215, 28 
 Am. Dec. 521; Wibert v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 12 N. Y. 245; Peet v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 
 446, 448. 
 
 A common carrier who has been guilty 
 of no negligence, is not liable for delay 
 in the transportation of goods occasioned 
 by an accident not inevitable, if the 
 goods are finally safely delivered. Nash- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson, 53 Tenn. (6 
 Heisk.) 271. 
 
 90. Due diligence in care for property. 
 — International, etc., R. Co. r'. Hynes, 3 
 Tex. Civ. App. 20, 21 S. W. 622; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. 
 W. 191, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 18 Am. 
 St. Rep. 45. 
 
 91. Carrier on same footing as other 
 bailees. — Hutchinson on Carriers, § 330. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 
 S. W. 191, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45, 8 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 323.
 
 619 I)i:lav in tkaxspoktation '■(.■ i.i mvkrv. §§ 908-909 
 
 Railroad on Same Footing as Other Carriers. — A railroad carrier stands 
 upon the Munc fijolin,<4 a> oilier carrier-, and may excuse delay in the delivery 
 of goods by accident or niisfi)riune not inevitable or jiroduced by the act of 
 God."- 
 
 Carrier Must Notice Signs of Danger. — The carrier is bound to take 
 notice of the signs of approaching danger, and if of a character to awaken ap- 
 prehension at a time when the facilities and means of escape are within his 
 control, he is bound to employ such means. It was error, therefore, to charge 
 the jury that, in calculating the extent of the danger and means requisite to 
 meet it. the carrier could act upon the experience, history, and tradition of the 
 past.'-'-' lUit mere knowledge of the existence of a snow storm a thousand miles 
 away, on a connecting line, is not such definite knowledge of the existence of 
 an obstruction as will i)revent the carrier from excusing itself for a delay caused 
 by the snow.'" 
 
 § 909. Delay Caused by Act of God, Public Enemy, etc. — A carrier is 
 not liable in transijorlation of goods for dcla} caused by an act of God.'*'* 
 Where delay in delivery of freight was caused by atmospheric conditions, ren- 
 dering the telegraphic wires unavailable, so that the employees in charge of 
 the train could not receive orders, it was beyond the carrier's control, and ex- 
 cusable.'"' 
 
 Known to Carrier. — .\ carrier, receiving property for transportation with 
 knowledge of an obstruction on its road, and without informing the shipper. 
 can not offer the obstruction as an excuse for not making a prompt delivery 
 of the freight, though the obstruction is the act of God; and it is bound tc. 
 take notice of the signs of approaching danger, such as storms, liable to create 
 obstructions, if any are known to it.''' 
 
 The freezing of a river which renders it impossible for a carrier by water 
 to trans])ort goods, is an act of God, which excuses delay. '••'^ 
 
 92. Railroad on same footing as other the consequences of which a common 
 carriers. — Geismer :: Lake Shore, etc., carrier is not liahle.' Herring z: Chesa- 
 R. Co.. 102 N. Y. 563. 7 N. E. 828, 55 peake, etc., R. Co., 101 Va. 778. 45 S. 
 Am. Rop. s:?7. H. 322. Cases are cited to the contrary. 
 
 93. Carrier must notice signs of danger. among which are the following: 
 — Lament & Co. :. Xasluillc, etc., R. Michaels z'. New York Cent. R. Co.. 30 
 Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58. N. Y. 564, 86 Am. Dec. 415; Read z: 
 
 94. Palmer z: .\tchison, etc., R. Co., 101 Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630, 86 Am. Dec. 426; 
 Cal. 187, 35 Pac. 630. W'oli f. .\merican Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 421, 
 
 95. Delay caused by act of God, pub- 97 .\m. Dec. 406 (see. however. Amer- 
 lic enemy, etc. — Williams Co. v. Pensa- ican Brewing Ass'n v. Talbot. 141 Mo. 
 cola. etc.. Co., 57 Fla. 237. 48 So. 630; 674, 42 S. \V. 679. 64 Am. St. Rep. 538); 
 American Exp. Co. z: Smith, 33 O. St. Wald z: Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 162 111. 
 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561. And see Starhuck 545, 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 356, 
 r. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 1 Wkly. L. 53 .\m. St. Rep. 332 (merely adopts the 
 Bull. 110. 7 O. Dec. Reprint 97. New York rule): Cassilay f. Young 
 
 A railroad company is not liable for (Ky.), 4 B. Mon. 26.5, 39 Am. Dec. 505 
 damages arising from delay in the ship- (no discussion of principles); Alabama, 
 ment of goods, owing to the loss of a etc., R. Co. z\ Quarles, 145 Ala. 436, 40 So. 
 car on account of extraordinary weather 120, 5 L. R. .\., N. S., 867, 117 .\m. St. Rep. 
 conditions. Unionville Produce Co. v. 54, 8 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 308: (car- 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 153 S. \V. 63, 168 rier's delay — destruction by cyclone): 
 Mo. App. 168. Bil)b Broom Corn Co. z'. Atchison, etc.. 
 
 As to injury to or destruction of goods R. Co., 94 Minn. 269, 102 \. W. 709. 69 L. 
 
 ty act of God, see post, "Loss of or In- R. A.. N. S., 509, 110 Am. St. Rep. 361. 3 
 
 jury to Goods," XI. Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 450; Green- 
 
 96. International, etc., R. Co. z: Hynes, Wheeler Shoe Co. :■. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 3 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 20, 21 S. W. 622. Co.. 130 Iowa 123. 106 X. W. 498. 5 L. 
 
 97. Known to carrier. — Xelson z: R. .-\... X. S., 882, 8 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Great Xorthern R. Co.. 9 R. R. R. 311, 32 Cas. 45; Wabash R. Co. z: Sharpe. 76 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 311; S. C, Xeb. 424, 107 N. \V. 758, 124 Am. St. 
 72 Pac. 642, 28 Mont. 297. Rep. 823. The last three are 1903 flood 
 
 98. Parsons z\ Hardy (X. Y.), 14 Wend. cases." Rodgers z\ Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 215, 28 Am. Dec. 521. 75 Kan. 222. 88 Pac. 885, 10 L. R. A., 
 
 " 'Severe weather is an act of God. for X. S.. 658, 12 .\m. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 441.
 
 §§ 909-910 cARRiKRS. 620 
 
 An extraordinary and unprecedented flood is an act of God, and injury 
 caused to the shipper by it solely is not a ground of action against a carrier for 
 damages from delay in the shipment of goods, and where the carrier is free from 
 negligence.^^ A carrier, which undertakes to carry goods over its own route, is 
 not responsible for unavoidable delays, such as might be occasioned by the 
 destruction of a railroad bridge by a flood, and if such delays occur while the 
 goods are in transit it is thereupon the duty of the carrier to exercise ^ound dis- 
 cretion and reasonable diligence in forwarding the goods to their destination. 
 The carrier is not bound to divert the goods from its own to another route over 
 which it has control, unless in the exercise of such discretion and diligence it 
 appears that the change of route would have prevented the loss attendant upon 
 delav.^ But admitting that an express company is responsible for the fault or 
 negligence of a railroad, over which it carries, the fact that a bridge of the rail- 
 road was carried away by a freshet of unusual violence is not such default or 
 negligence in the railroad company as will make the express company responsi- 
 ble for the loss of perishable property by a delay thus made inevitable. - 
 
 Whirlwind. — Where, after a carrier had received a wagon for shipment, an 
 unprecedented whirlwind blew it from the platform, the carrier was not liable 
 for the consequent delay in shipment.^ 
 
 A heavy dew can not be a sufficient cause for delay in transporting cattle by 
 railroad, so as to relieve the railroad company from liability for delay.^ 
 
 § 910. Delay Caused by Seizure under Judicial Process. — Garnish- 
 ment. — A statute providing that, when a carrier summoned as garnishee in an 
 actio!i has goods in its possession shipped by or consigned to defendant, it shall 
 not be liable for its failure to transport the goods until it is discharged, exon- 
 erates the carrier garnished in an action against the shipper or consignee from 
 liability for delay caused by the garnishment, but a carrier merely alleging that 
 a third person was in possession of the goods at the time he was garnished and 
 omitting to allege any fact showing that the possession of the third person was 
 the possession of the carrier is not within the statute. -"^ A common carrier after 
 acceptance of freight for shipment from a place within a state to a place with- 
 out, after the goods have been received, placed in a car for transportation, and 
 a bill of lading issued to the shipper, the service of a garnishee simimons upon 
 the carrier does not excuse it from liability for an unreasonable delay in for- 
 warding the goods to their destination.'"' 
 
 Quarantine. — A carrier was excused for refusing to deliver a shipment of 
 bananas to the consignee, where, upon its arrival, the carrier was notified by 
 the chief of police that the shipment must not be delivered, and that the con- 
 signee would not be allowed to unload and distribute it, if delivery were made; 
 the chief of police acting under instructions from a sanitary commission created 
 by an ordinance establishing a quarantine against all bananas from New Orleans, 
 though the jjarlicular shipment was made from Mobile.' 
 
 Refusal of Clearance by Collector of Port. — The wrongful refusal of 
 a collector of a port to allow a vessel to clear, because of the presence of 
 
 99. Xorris v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 23 (Ind. Terr. App.), 17 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 Fla. 182, 1 So. 475. 11 Am. St. Rep. 355; Cas., N. S., 273. 
 
 Greismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 102 5. Delay caused by seizure under ju- 
 
 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 55 Am. Rep. 837. dicial process. — Haasc & Sons iM.sh Co. 
 
 1. American Exp. Co. v. Smith, 33 O. "''■ Merchants', etc., Transp. Co., 143 Mo. 
 
 St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561. App. 42, 122 S. W. 302. 
 
 o \™ • t:" /-. c -^t oo /^ 6. Baldwin z: Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 9. .1^ .Ta p''^- S."^- ''• ^"'" ' '^ °- «1 Minn. 247, 83 N. W. 986, 51 L. R. 
 St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561. ,^ ^, ^ ^.^^ ^3 ^,^^ ^^ ^^^ 3^^ 
 
 3. Whirlwind.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 7. Quarantine.— Alabama, etc., R. Co. 
 Compton (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 220, ^. Tirelli, 93 Miss. 797, 48 So. 902, 17 Am. 
 221. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 879, 21 L. R. A., N. 
 
 4. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Truskett S., 731.
 
 621 
 
 OKLAV IN TR.\XS1'(JKTAT1().\ ()i< [)ElJ\i:ii\ 
 
 §§ <no-9ii 
 
 coiilrabaiul on board, is no excuse for delay, ^ although the bill of lading pro- 
 vides that the carrier shall not be liable for loss or delay due to a "restraint of 
 princes, rulers, or pco])lc." '■' 
 
 §§ 911-914. Delay Caused by Unusual Rush of Business— § 911. 
 In General. — A raih. .ad company is bound to have all reasonable and neces- 
 sary facilities and appliances for conducting and carrying on in a prompt, skill- 
 ful and careful manner the business in which it is engaged, and for transporting 
 without um-casonal)lc delay the usual and ordinary (|uanlity of freight offere<l 
 it for trans])()rtaii()n, or which might reasonably and ordinarily be expected;'" 
 but it is not Ijound to be prci)ared for unusual and extraordinary contingencies, 
 which no onHnary prudence or foresight can reasonably foresee or anticipate.'* 
 It must furnish such facilities for transportation as will meet the ordinary de- 
 mands of the public, but is not bound to anticipate or provide in advance for an 
 unusual influx of freight.'- Where a carrier fails or refuses to accept freight 
 tendered to it for transportation because of its inability to transport it, which 
 inal)ility has been occasioned by extraordinary circumstances or an euiergency 
 that could not have been reasonably foreseen and for which the carrier is not 
 responsible, such failure or refusal of freight for transportation may not give a 
 shipper the right to recover damages for delays in the transportation of the 
 freight tendered, where the carrier does all that could have been reasonably 
 recjuired of it to meet the demands made upon it for transportation.'^ But it 
 has been held that a rush of business is no defense for failure to transport 
 freight with reasonable care, diligence and dispatch.'-* 
 
 8. Refusal of clearance by collector of 
 port. — Nortlicrii Pac. R. Co. z: American 
 Trading Co., 19.-) U. S. 439, 49 L. Ed. 2G9, 
 25 S. Ct. 84. 
 
 Where a railroad contracts to forward 
 lead by a connecting line, within a cer- 
 tain time, by a contract lawful when 
 made, and not since rendered unlawful, 
 the mere fact that the deputy collector 
 wrongfully refuses clearance to the ves- 
 sel employed by the initial carrier upon 
 the ground that the lead is contraband, 
 does not excuse the carrier from liabil- 
 ity for failure to fulfill its contract. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. American Trad- 
 ing Co., 195 U. S. 439, 49 L. Ed. 269, 25 
 S. Ct. 84. 
 
 9. Northern Pac. R. Co. 7-. American 
 Trading Co., 195 U. S. 439, 49 L. Ed. 2()9, 
 25 S. Ct. 84. 
 
 10. Delay caused by unusual rush of 
 business. — Micliigan Cent. R. Co. r. Bur- 
 rows. 33 Micli. 6. 
 
 11. i'liitcd i"/o/c.y.— Helliwell v. Grand 
 Trunk Railway, 7 Fed. 68. 10 Biss. 170. 
 
 Illinois.' — Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 
 18 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574. 
 
 Kentucky. — Newport News, etc., R. 
 t Co. Z-. Reed, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 1020. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Thayer v. Burchard, 99 
 Mass. 508. 
 
 Mississif^f^i. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. f. Blum, 
 89 Miss. 242. 42 So. 282, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 272; Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. 
 7'. Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458; Yazoo, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. Blum Co.. 88 Miss. 180, 40 So. 
 748, 10 L. R. .v., N. S., 432. 
 
 Missouri. — Ballentine v. North Mis- 
 souri R. Co.. 40 Mo. 491. 93 .\m. Dec. 
 315; h'aulkner 7'. Soutli Pac. Railroad, 51 
 
 Mo. 311; Baker 7'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 (AIo. App.), 129 S. VV. 436; Dawson 7'. 
 Chicago,, etc., R. Co., 79 Mo. 296. 
 
 New York. — Wilbert v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 36; Bouker v. 
 Long Island R. Co.. 89 Hun 202, 35 N. 
 Y. S. 23, 69 N. Y. St. Rep. 219. 
 
 Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Nelson. 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 In Michigan Cent. R. Co. 7'. Burrows, 
 33 Mich. 6, the railroad was excused be- 
 cause of the unusual rush of business 
 caused by the Chicago fire. 
 
 12. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. 7-. Blum, 89 
 Miss. 242, 42 So. 282. 11 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 272. 
 
 13. Seaboard Air Line Railway 7'. 
 Rentz. 60 Fla. 429. 54 So. 13. 
 
 14. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7-. McCorquodale. 
 71 Tex. 41. 9 S. W. 80; Cross 7'. McFaden. 
 1 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 20 S. W. 846; In- 
 ternational, etc., R. Co. 7'. Anderson. 3 
 Tex. Civ. App. 8. 21 S. W. 691; Interna- 
 tional, etc., R. Co. 7'. Lewis (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 23 S. W. 323; Gulf. etc.. R. Co. 
 7'. Hume, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653. 24 S. \V. 
 915, reversed in 87 Tex. 211: Texas, etc.. 
 R. Co. 7'. Felker. 40 Tex. Civ. App. 604, 
 90 S. W. 530. 
 
 The volume of business offered to or 
 accepted by a common carrier can not 
 avail to relieve it from the performance 
 of a contract already entered into. An 
 excess of business might, under some 
 circumstances, justify a refusal to accept 
 goods for shipment, but it could not ex- 
 cuse a nonperformance of contract ob- 
 ligations. International, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 8, 21 S. W. 
 691.
 
 §§ 911-912 cARRiKRS. 622 
 
 Where Carrier Used Due Diligence. — Where a carrier's failure to trans- 
 port cotton wiili reasonable dispatch was caused by an excessive crop, it is not 
 liable for the delav. where it took extraordinary steps to handle the cotton, and 
 the shipper knew at the time it offered the cotton for shipment that, on account 
 of the heavy traffic and large demand for cars, it could not be transported with 
 the usual rapidity.^"' 
 
 § 912. Duty to Provide Proper Facilities.— It is the duty of a common 
 carrier to provide sufficient facilities and means of transportation for all freight 
 which it should reasonably expect will be offered, but it is not bound to provide 
 in advance for extraordinary occasions, nor for an unusual influx of business 
 which is not reasonablv to be ex]^ected. When an emergency arises and more 
 business is suddenly and unexpectedly cast upon a carrier than he is able to 
 accommodate, unless the carrier decline to receive the excess offered, some ship- 
 pers must necessarily be delayed ; yet if the carrier do receive the goods without 
 notice to the shippers of the circumstances likely to occasion delay, or fail to 
 obtain his assent, express or implied, to the delay, he will be bound to transport 
 the goods within a reasonable time, notwithstanding such emergency. i'' If a 
 delay happen in the transi)ortation in consequence of an unusual press of busi- 
 ness', the company, having a reasonable equipment for all ordinary purposes, 
 and the goods be'ing carried with as much expedition as is practicable under 
 the circumstances, is not liable for damages because of the delay, but would be 
 for any injury to the goods during the delay.^' Just what the measure of the 
 carrier's duty' in this connection is in a particular case depended upon the situa- 
 tion and circumstances of the parties. It may be that circumstances here re- 
 lieved carrier of the duty of notifying shippers, or this particular shipper, of 
 the congestion at the produce yard. But here again such circumstances are not 
 to be presumed, but showai, and, if a question of fact arises in connection there- 
 with, a reference to the jury would be unavoidable.^'' 
 
 Car Shortage.— A shipment having been accepted for transportation without 
 notice to the shipper that there was a shortage of cars and an unprecedented 
 amount of business, the carrier should be held liable for damages for unrea- 
 sonable delay. 1" And where a carrier accepted an automobile for shipment, it 
 is liable for an unreasonable delay in the shipment, and its temporary inability 
 to secure a car large enough to hold the automobile will not exonerate it.-" 
 
 15. Where carrier used due diligence. ment.— East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 —Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Blum, 89 Miss. Nelson, 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.) 272. 
 
 242 42 So. 282, 11 .\m. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 18. Joynes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 235 
 
 272 Pa. 232, 83 Atl. 1016, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
 
 16. Duty to provide proper facilities. — 964. 
 
 Bussey r. Memphis, etc.. R. Co., 13 Fed. 19. Car shortage.— Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 330, 4 McCrary 405; Dawson v. Chicago, Co. v. Early-Clement Gram Co. (Tex. 
 
 etc' R. Co., 79 Mo. 296; Joynes v. Penn- Civ. App.), 124 S. W. 1015. 
 
 sylvania R. Co., 235 Pa. 232, 83 Atl. 1016, A carrier may not escape liability for 
 
 Ann. Cas. 1913D, 964. delay in furnishing cars on the ground 
 
 A railroad company is bound to do all of a car famine resulting from an exten- 
 
 that is reasonable, and to use all reason- sion of the carrier's mileage and a nat- 
 
 able means by increasing the number of ural increase in business. Baker v. St. 
 
 its tracks and warehouses to accommo- Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 129 S. 
 
 date its increased business, and whether W. 436. • r -i 
 
 it has done this in a given case is a ques- A carrier is not excused from its fail- 
 
 tion for the jury. Where delay occurs ure to move promptly cotton delivered 
 
 in the transportation of goods in con- to it for transportation by proving that 
 
 sequence of a lack of cars or other fa- eighty per cent or more of its equipment 
 
 cilities, the company is liable for the de- was ofif its line, engaged in the carriage 
 
 lay unless it can show good cause there- of shipments offered along the line for 
 
 for. Joynes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 235 other points in other states. St. Louis, 
 
 Pa 232, 83 Atl. 1016, Ann. Cas. 1913D, etc., R. Co. v. Phcrnix, etc., Oil Co., 115 
 
 964, citing Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, S. VV. 393, 88 Ark. 594. 
 
 etc., Co.. 64 111. 128. 20. Grigsby v. Texas, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 
 17. Where carrier has proper equip- Civ. App.), 137 S. W. 709.
 
 623 lil-.I.AN- IX TK.WSl'KKTATIOX OK DKI.IVKRV. § 912 
 
 During" Part of Year. — The rollinj,^ stock of a railroad corporation, though 
 sufficient for its orehnary business during nine months of the year, was insuffi- 
 cient {() tarry j^ronijitly all the freight of a particular kind, requiring i)eculiar 
 cars, in three months of a year in which it had made a s])ecial contract with a 
 person to transport his freight of that kind without specifying any (|uantity to 
 be transported or limiting any time for the perf(jrmance of the service. During 
 intervals in those months between days when he deli\ered freight to the corpo- 
 ration under the coiUract and the days when it was loa<led on the cars by his 
 storekeeper, inl(j wlnjse yard the corporation sent cars to be loaded at the store- 
 keeper's discretion, he incurred ex]jenses for storage and insurance on that 
 Ireigiit. The cars sent to the storekeeper were more than sufficient Xo have 
 carried all that freight alone so ])rom|)tly as to have avoided such expenses; but 
 tlie storekeeper loaded thcin with it only proportionally with similar freight 
 of his other customers likewise awaiting transportation but with whom the 
 corporation has no special contract. The fact that in those three months every 
 year there was a great accumulation of such freight for transportation over the 
 road was insufficient to render the cor])oration liable for those expenses on the 
 ground of negligence in its e(|ui]inient.-^ 
 
 At Time Contract of Shipment Made. — Ikit if, at the time the contract 
 of shi])nienl was made, there was already an accumulation of business on the 
 carrier's lines, which incapacitated it, or might reasonably be expected to in- 
 capacitate it, for transporting and delivering the goods within a reasonable time, 
 and this was then known to the carrier, or might have been known by j^roper 
 etfort on its ])art, or if there were then reasonable grounds for a belief on the 
 part of the carrier that such was the state of the case at the time, then the car- 
 rier would be liable for the delay, although it was occasioned by such accumula- 
 tion of business. In such case it is the carrier's duty to inform the shipper of 
 the condition of its lines, so that he may exercise his right to select some other 
 line for the transportation of his property; and if the carrier fails to do this, 
 and takes the property in fhe face of threatened inability to transport it with 
 requisite dispatch, it must answer for the consecjuences of the delay. A car- 
 rier has no right to take a ship])er's ])roperty for transj^ortation, concealing from 
 him at the time existing circumstances within its knowledge, or within its fair 
 and reasonable means of knowledge, and not within the knowledge of the 
 shipper, that may incapacitate, or may be fairly ex]:)ected to incai:)acitate it for 
 the full ])erformance of its diU\- in transporting the property, and then claim 
 exemption from liability.-- lUu ii', at the time of making the contract of ship- 
 ment, the carrier had no doubt, and if the condition of business on its lines 
 gave it no ground for doubting, that suitable means would be at its command 
 within the usual and ordinary time for conveying the goods, and if all rea- 
 sonable efforts were seasonably employed to obtain such means, and the delay 
 was solely occasioned by an extraordinary and unusual influx of freight upon 
 its lines for foreign export, arising subsecpiently to the making of the con- 
 tract, so that it was thereby rendered impossible for the carrier, with proper 
 diligence on its part, to procure vessels to carry the flour within a reasonable 
 time, tile carrier \\(tul<l not be resi>onsible for the delay.-'' 
 
 Shipment over Connecting- Carrier. — Through bills of lading impose on 
 tl'io railroad com])any. as carrier, the obligation to provide means of trans- 
 portation for the goods shipped to their ultimate destination without delay, and 
 it is no excuse for the nonperformance of this duty that it could not procure 
 transportation by boat by reason of a previous accumulation of freight, of 
 which it was advised when it receivecf the goods for transportation.--* 
 
 21. During part of year. — I'hayer f. 23. Ik'lliwcll :■. Grand Trunk Railway, 
 Burcliard, Hit Mass. .-lOS. 7 l'\'(l. t'.s, lo Rjss. 170. 
 
 22. At time contract of shipment 24. Shipment over connecting carrier, 
 made. — tlclliwcll :. Ciraml Trunk Rail- — Busscv r. Mi^nipliis, etc.. R. Co.. 13 
 way, 7 Fed. 68, 10 Biss. 170. Fed. 330. 4 McCrary 40.').
 
 §§ 912-914 CARRIERS. 624 
 
 Defective Road Bed. — Results attributed to a defective roadbed and equip- 
 ment do not excuse nonperformance of a carrier's duty to safely deliver a ship- 
 ment at its destination within a reasonable time.-'' 
 
 Burning of Tunnel. — A railroad company is excused for delay in the de- 
 livery of goods caused by the burning of a tunnel on its line between the place 
 of shipment and that to which the goods were consigned.-*' 
 
 § 913. Where Carrier Could Have Avoided Delay. — Delay in transporting 
 freight can not be excused by the fact that crews were taken from freight trains 
 to handle an extraordinary amount of passenger traffic of which the carrier had 
 previous warning and could have provided for.-" A railroad company receiving 
 goods to be carried by its own and connecting lines is not excused for a failure 
 to transport to the end of its own line and deliver, or oft'er to deliver, to the next 
 carrier, merely by the fact, which its agents knew, that there was a block of 
 freight at a certain bridge, and the further fact that there was no room for 
 the goods in the defendant company's depot at an intermediate point ; especially 
 where it is not clear that the general block of freight for the east at the bridge 
 would have prevented the transportation of plaintiffs" goods. ^^ The fact that 
 the accumulation of cars and freight at the place of delivery was such that the 
 companv could not reach that point within a reasonable time would not exon- 
 erate the carrier, it being within the power of the company to have removed the 
 obstruction. The interest or mere convenience of the carrier should not be 
 allowed to stand in the way of his duty, in that respect. And, moreover, the 
 carrier should provide in his contract for such a contingency, if he would limit 
 his liability.-'^ 
 
 § 914. Notice to Shipper. — To relieve a carrier from liability for delay in de- 
 livery due to a congestion of traffic, the shipper must be notified of such con- 
 dition before the shipment is received, in the absence of an express agreement of 
 exemption. 2'J A carrier failing to notify the shipper of probable delay in the ship- 
 ment by reason of its having unexpectedly received more business than it can ac- 
 commodate is bound to transport the goods within reasonable time notwithstand- 
 ing the emergency .'^1 Though a carrier, which has provided facilities for handling 
 •he traffic which may ordinarily be expected, need not provide in advance for an 
 extraordinary amount of traffic, and may refuse to accept freight, _ yet. if it 
 accepts freight without notifying the shipper of the congested condition of the 
 traffic, it can not excuse delay in delivery because of such condition, so that, 
 even if a carrier could take its freight crews for the purpose of handling an 
 extraordinary passenger traffic, it was bound to notify shippers of freight of 
 the crippled condition of its freight traffic by the diversion of freight crews, in 
 order to excuse delay in transportation from such cause.-"^- 
 
 Where Shipper Has Notice. — Where a carrier's failure to transport cotton 
 with reasonable dispatch was caused by an excessive crop, it was not liable 
 
 25. Defective road bed. — Tliompson r. 31. Joynes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2.35 
 Quincy, etc., R. Co., 136 Mo. App. 404, Pa. 232, 83 Atl. 1016, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
 117 S. W. 1193. 964; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Kolp (Tex. 
 
 26. Burning of tunnel.— Railroad Co. r. Civ. App.), 88 S. W. 417; International, 
 O'Donnell. 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 34 etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 
 Am. St. Rep. .579, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117. 8, 11, 21 S. W. 691; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 27. Where carrier could have avoided .McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41, 48, 9 S. W. 
 delay.— Daoust v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Felker, 40 Tex. 
 149 Iowa 650, 128 N. W. 1106. Civ. App. 604, 90 S. W. 530; Interna- 
 
 28. McLaren v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 tional, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis (Tex. Civ. 
 Wis 138 App.), 23 S. W. 323; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 
 29. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClellan, v. Hume, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 24 S. W. 
 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83. 915, reversed in 87 Tex. 211. 
 
 30. Notice to shipper. — Missouri, etc., 32. Missouri, etc., R. Co. z'. Stark Grain 
 R. Co. V. Stark Grain Co., 103 Tex. 542, Co., 103 Tex. 542, 131 S. W. 410. 
 
 131 S. W. 410.
 
 625 DELAY IN TR^ANSPORTATIOX OR UICLIVERV. §§ 914-915 
 
 for the delay, where it took extraordinary steps to handle the cotton, and the 
 shipper knew at the time it offered the cotton for shipment that, on account of 
 the heavy traffic and large demand for cars, it could not be transported with the 
 usual rapidity.''^ 
 
 Goods Delayed by Connecting- Carrier. — Where, while goods received by 
 the first carrier are in transit, the coimccling line notifies it that it can not receive 
 the goods and transport them to their destination because of a block in freight, 
 this will not relieve the first carrier from liability for damages caused by the 
 delay, where it fails to notify the shipper and give him an opportunity to dis- 
 pose of the i)roi)erty or take measures for its preservation.^'* 
 
 Sufficiency of Notice. — Notice possessed by the public generally is not 
 sufficient notice to a ])articular shii)j)er.^^ In an action for delay in transporting 
 wheat allegations that the delay was due to a congestion of traffic which was 
 generally known, and that all contracts made with the carrier for shipment of 
 grain on the lines where such conditions existed were made with reference to 
 such conditions, and with full notice thereof by the shippers of their existence, 
 does not show notice to a shipper whose grain was delayed.^'' 
 
 Notice after Acceptance. — Where goods shipped by a carrier are delayed 
 by unusual and unprecedented Hoods, a mere failure to notify the consignor or 
 consignee, is not of itself an act of negligence rendering the carrier liable for 
 the consequences of such delay. Where there is no evidence that had such 
 notice been given, the damages would have been avoided or lessened.-^' 
 
 § 915. Delay Caused by Act of Consignor or Consignee. — The fact 
 that a shipper was negligent in delaying the ordering of goods before he de- 
 livered them to a carrier for transportation, and had already sustained damages 
 because of his delay, will not prevent him from recovering the damages, arising 
 from the negligence of the carrier in delaying such transportation, which can 
 be shown with reasonable certainty to have resulted therefrom.-'^^ 
 
 Refusal to Pay Freight. — A shipper can not recover from a carrier dam- 
 ages for delay in (leli\cry of goods caused by his refusal to pay the freight 
 charges.^^ But a carrier can not justify a delay in delivery from a failure to 
 place a solid car shii)ment where it could be unloaded after its arrival on the 
 
 33. Where shipper has notice. — Yazoo, or consignee. — A railroad company can 
 etc., R. Co. !■. Bkini, S'J Miss. 242, 42 So. not escape recovery of damages through 
 282, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 272. its negligent delay in transporting cattle 
 
 A carrier's delay in the transportation feed for plaintiff by showing that he had 
 
 of cotton was caused by an unprece- unreasonably delayed ordering such feed, 
 
 dented cotton crop, for the transporta- Belcher v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tex. 
 
 tion of which it could not provide nee- 593, 598, 50 S. W. 559, reversing 47 S. 
 
 essary cars. It took unusual pains to W. 384. 
 
 handle the cotton as promptly as possi- In such case a charge which informed 
 
 ble. The shipper knew the situation the jury, in effect, that if the plaintiff 
 
 when the cotton was offered for trans- failed to use ordinary care to prevent the 
 
 portation. Held, that the carrier was injury which miglit arise from the de- 
 
 not liable for delay. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. fendant's negligence, he could not re- 
 
 V. McKay (Miss.), 44 So. 780. cover from the railroad company for anj' 
 
 34. Goods delayed by connecting car- damages sustained by him through its 
 tier.— In re Potitieiis of Petersen, 21 Fed. negligence, is error. Such a charge ap- 
 885 plies strictly the rule of contributory 
 
 35. Sufficiency of notice.-Missouri. "egHgence to acts which occurred after 
 etc., R. Co. V. Stark Grain Co.. 103 Tex. ^^'^ '"^"7 '"".'^ been mflicted. whereas the 
 542 131 S W 410 '"'■ stated is applicable onl\- to those 
 
 ' . ■ .■ ' r. ^ o 1 ^ • '^^^^ which concur in producing the in- 
 
 36. Missouri, etc., R. Co. :■. Stark Grain jury. Beleher r. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 
 Co.. 103 Tex. 542, 131 S. \\. 410. ()o Tex. .-,93. 597. 50 S. W. 559, reversing 
 
 37. Notice after acceptance. — Norris v. 47 S. W. ;;S4, 1020. 
 
 Savannah, etc. R. Co.. 23 Vh\. 1S2, 1 So. 39. Refusal to pay freight. — Missouri 
 
 475, 11 Am. St. Rep. 3.").-). Pac. R. Co. z: \V'eissmsn. 2 Tex. Civ. 
 
 38. Delay caused by act of consignor App. 86, 87, 21 S. W. 426. 
 
 1 Car— 40
 
 § 915 CARRIERS. 626 
 
 ground that the consignee did not tender the freight, unless notice was given 
 of the arrival of the car and a demand made for the freight.-*"' 
 
 Refusal to Accept. — In an action to recover for loss occasioned hv delay 
 in the transportation of merchandise, it is no defense that the consignor did not 
 appoint an agent to receive the goods at their destination, and inform defend- 
 ants of the appointment, if the contract and usage of trade did not require it, 
 and the delay was not due to the plaintiff's failure to appoint a receiving 
 agent. ^^ 
 "Failure to Unload Cars. — Where a railway company refused to furnish cars 
 for the transportation of grain to Cairo during the war, on account of the large 
 accumulation of cars on its track at that point waiting to be unloaded, and finally 
 furnished cars upon the promise of the shipper to unload the same, which was 
 not done either by him or the consignee, but refused, it was held, in a suit 
 against the company to recover damages for delay in transporting the grain, 
 ihe iur\- were justified in finrling for the det'endant/-- 
 
 Failure of Consignee to Present Bill of Lading, — A carrier delaying the 
 delivery of freight may not excuse the delay on the ground that the bills of 
 lading were not presented, where it did not decline to deliver because thereof.^^ 
 
 Where Bill of Lading Indorsed to Purchaser. — Though a consignor of 
 goods shipped to his own order may divert tliem from their original destination, 
 and generally this is not changed because they are shipped with directions to 
 notify the proposed vendee, as between the ])arties that the right does not exist 
 when the carrier has given a bill of lading for the goods, and it has been in- 
 dorsed and forwarded with draft attached to the proposed vendee, and he has 
 paid it and taken over the bill of lading, without notice, and because the goods 
 would have reached their original destination in the ordinary course of ship- 
 ment, and in the latter circumstances the proposed vendee may recover against 
 the carrier or shipper damages suffered through a delay caused by diverting a 
 shipment and replacing it."*^ 
 
 Burning of Tunnel. — In an action against a common carrier for the con- 
 version of goods delivered to it for transportation, where defendant's justifi- 
 cation for its failure to deliver the goods in due course of transit was that a 
 tunnel on its line had been set on fire by plaintiff's associates, and with his 
 knowledge, the court properly charged that, if the tunnel was rendered im- 
 passable, defendant was excused from making delivery until the obstruction 
 ceased, or other means of effecting the delivery could reasonably be procured, 
 and then further delay in making the delivery, on account of the tunnel, was 
 not excused, unless the obstruction was caused in whole or in part by plain- 
 tiff.^^ 
 
 Delay Caused by Act of Third Person. — Where an owner of goods de- 
 livers them to a railroad company to be shipped to a designated point, and a 
 bill of lading is issued to the owner, in which he is named as both shipper and 
 consignee, and which contains the words, "notify" a third person, it is the duty 
 of the railroad company, unless otherwise instructed by the owner, or by some 
 holder of the bill of lading properly indorsed, to transport the goods, within a 
 reasonable time, to the point of destination mentioned in the bill of lading. The 
 company will not be relieved of liability to the owner for loss occasioned by a 
 failure to comply with this obligation, by showing that the failure to deliver the 
 
 40. Gcorf^ia, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott, .3 44. Where bill of lading indorsed to 
 Ga. .App. ~~.3. 60 S. E. 363. purchaser. — Davidson Development Co. 
 
 41. Refusal to accept. — Salter f. Kirk- r. Southern R. Co., 147 X. C. .J()3, 61 S. 
 l)ride. 4 X. J. L. 22:5. E. 381. 
 
 42. Failure to unload cars. — CoIjI). etc., 45. Burning of tunnel. — Baltimore, etc., 
 Co. z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 88 111. 394. R. Co. v. O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489. 32 
 
 43. Failure of consignee to present bill X. E. 476, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. 
 of lading. — Hall Grain Co. v. Louisville, St. Rep. 579. 
 
 etc., R. Co., 148 Mo. App. 308, 128 S. W. 42.
 
 627 
 
 df:i.a^- in tka.\si'(ji<t.\tio\ i)\< I)[:li\'Kkv 
 
 §§ 'J13-918 
 
 goods at the ])oint of destination within a reasonable time was due to instruc- 
 tions not to (leHver, given by the person whom it was (hrected in the bill of lad- 
 ing to notify of the arrival of the goods it their destination, who at the time 
 of such instructions was not in possession of the bill of lading nor entitled to 
 its possession. Such i:)erson could not acquire any title to the goods or right to 
 control the shipment until he came into possession of the bill of lading jjrop- 
 erlv indorsed by the consignor."*'' 
 
 § 916. Delay Caused by Rule of Carrier. — A carrier is not excused for 
 
 dela\- by a rule, to which llie c()n>ignce had not consented anrl of which the 
 consignor was ignorant, giving other cars a preference."'" 
 
 § 917. Delay Caused by Misdirection of Goods.— Where a carrier re- 
 ceives a siiipment of goods iiui [jroperly marked, it is liable for delay in de- 
 livery caused thereby.-''' 
 
 § 918. Delay Caused by Strikes and Riots. — X(jt only storms aufl floods 
 and other naiural causes may excuse delay. i)ut the conduct of men may also do 
 so. An incendiary may burn down a bridge, a mob may tear up the tracks or 
 disable the rolling stock or interpose irresistible force or overpowering intimida- 
 tion, and the only duty resting upon the carrier, not otherwise in fault, is to use 
 reasonable efforts and due diligence to overcome the obstacles thus interposed, 
 and to forward the goods to their destination. ^^ 
 
 Strikes of Employees. — For the delay resulting from the refusal of the 
 emi)loyees of a carrier to do duty, the carrier is undoubtedly responsible.^'^ 
 \\'here the alleged excuse arises wholly out of the misconduct of the carrier's 
 employees who wrongfully refuse to perform their duty, and thus deprive the 
 
 46. Delay caused by act of third per- 
 son. — I'lnrida Cent. R. Co. z'. Berry. 110 
 Ga. 1!). 42 S. E. 371. 
 
 The tact tliat a sliipper who had 
 shipped goods to himself as consignee 
 with direction to notify a third person, 
 insisted upon the payment of drafts 
 drawn on such third person after notice 
 that, in accordance with the directions of 
 such third persons, the goods had been 
 transported to a point other than the 
 original place of destination, does not re- 
 lieve the comoany from liability to t'^e 
 shipper for failure to transport the prop- 
 erty within a reasonable time. Florida 
 Cent. R. Co. r. Bcrrv. 1 lO Ga. 19. 42 S. 
 E. .'ni. 
 
 47. Delay caused by rule of carrier. — 
 A carrier had an arrangement witii an 
 elevator companj' by which it turned 
 into the elevator for storing and drying 
 any grain that arrived in its yards. It 
 was the rule of the railroad to turn into the 
 elevator such cars in the order of their 
 arrival in the yards. The elevator was 
 not a party to prescribing this rule, nor 
 had it agreed to be bound by it. .A. ship- 
 per wlio delivered corn to the carrier for 
 delivery at the elevator for drying had 
 no knowledge of this rule. The carrier 
 was negligent in delaying the tr.nnspor- 
 tation of the corn, and in delivering the 
 same after arrival to the elevator, so that 
 the corn spoiled. Held, that the carrier 
 was liable for the injuries sustained, be- 
 cause it was bound to deliver the corn 
 in a reasonable time, and where the con- 
 
 signee called for i!ie same within a rea- 
 sonable time, notifying the carrier that 
 the corn was shipped to be dried, and 
 required immediate handling, the refusal 
 to deliver because there were other car 
 loads of grain that had precedence un- 
 der its rule did not relieve it from lia- 
 bility. Hall Grain Co. t: Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co.. 14S Mo. App. ,30S. 128 S. W. 42. 
 
 48. Delay caused by misdirection of 
 goods.— Gulf. etc.. R. Co. :•. Maetze. 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 631. 
 
 49. Delay caused by strikes and riots. 
 — Greismer r. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co.. 102 
 N. Y. 503. 7 X. E. S2S. .-..-. Am. Rep. 837. 
 
 50. Strikes of employees. — United 
 States. — Sherman f. rcnnsvlvania R. Co., 
 Fed. Cas. No. 12.769. 
 
 Georgia. — Central R 
 gia Fruit, etc., Exch. 
 E. 904. 
 
 Illinois. — Pittsburgh. . __. 
 
 Hazen. 84 111. 30, 2,5 .Am. Rep. 422 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 Hollowell. 0.-) Ind. 188. 32 .\m. Rep. 63 
 
 Missouri. — Read f. St. Louis, etc.. 
 Co.. 60 Mo. 199. 
 
 -Vt'Tc )'ork. — Blackstock z: Xew York, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 20 X. Y. 48. 75 Am. Dec. 372. 
 
 The defendant, as a common carrier, 
 is liable for any interruption to the 
 transit, caused by the refusal of its serv- 
 ants to perform their duty, which occa- 
 sioned loss to the plaintiffs. Sherman z: 
 Pennsylvania R. Co.. Fed. Cas. Xo. 
 12.709. 
 
 etc.. Co. f. Geor- 
 91 Ga. 3S9. 17 S. 
 
 etc., R. Co. r. 
 
 R.
 
 § 918 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 628 
 
 carrier, for the time, of the ability to send forward the goods ; the question is, 
 whether the carrier's case can be separated from that of the employees, so that 
 it can be held that though the latter are culpable, their employer, the carrier, 
 is without fault and consequently not responsible to the shipper. This in- 
 volves a consideration of the legal effect of the relations which exist between 
 these several parties. In the first place, there is no privity between the shipper 
 and the emplovees. The latter owe no duty to the former which the law can 
 recognize. If they had committed a positive tort or trespass upon the property, 
 the owner might pass by the employers and hold them responsible, but for a 
 nonfeasance or simple neglect of duty, they are only answefable to their em- 
 ployees. The maxim in such cases is respondeat superior.^^ 
 
 Where Employees Have Quit Work. — But the carrier is not liable where 
 the delay is caused by its late employees who have quit work and ceased to 
 be employees. ^'- 
 
 Where Other Servants Employed. — Where employees suddenly refuse to 
 work, and are discharged, and delay results from the failure of the carrier to 
 supply promptly their places, such 'delay is attributable to the misconduct of 
 the employees in refusing to do their duty, and this misconduct in such cases 
 is justly considered the proximate cause of the delay ;^3 but when the places 
 of the recusant employees are promptly supplied by other competent men, and 
 the "strikers" then prevent the new employees from doing duty by lawless and 
 irresistible violence, the delay resulting solely from this cause is not attribu- 
 
 51. Story on Agency, § 309. Blackstock 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 
 75 Am. Dec. 372, 373; Denny z: Manhat- 
 tan Co. (N. Y.), 2 Denio 115; S. C. (N. 
 Y.), 5 Denio 639. 
 
 "Those who intrust their goods to car- 
 riers have no means of ascertaining the 
 character or disposition of their subordi- 
 nate agents or servants; they have no 
 agency in their selection, and no control 
 over their actions." Blackstock z\ New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. 
 Dec. 372, 374. 
 
 52. Where employees have quit work. — 
 Georgia. — Haas v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 81 
 Ga. 792, 7 S. E. 629. 
 
 Kentuckx. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bell, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 393. 
 
 Xezi' York. — Greismer v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 
 55 Am. Rep. 837. 
 
 Texas. — International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 545; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 45, 15 
 S. W. 121; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Levi, 
 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 9, 14 S. W. 
 1062. 
 
 "For delay resulting solely from the 
 lawless violence of men not in the em- 
 ployment of the company, the coinpany is 
 not responsible, even though the men 
 whose violence caused the delay had, but 
 a short time before, been employed by 
 the company." Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hazen, 84 111. 36, 25 Am. Rep. 422. 
 
 The case of Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bennett, 89 Ind. 457, 6 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 391, decided by the supreme court of 
 Indiana, affirms the rule asserted in Pitts^ 
 burgh, etc., R. Co. v. HoUowell, 65 Ina. 
 
 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63, though the case was 
 one under contract. Gulf, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191, 8 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 323, 326, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45. 
 
 Where delay in transportation of the 
 goods is caused by the riotous acts of 
 employees of the carrier who had struck 
 and ceased to work, thereby terminating 
 the relation of master and servant, the 
 carrier is excused for delay causea 
 thereby. Greismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 55 Am. 
 Rep. 837. 
 
 53. Failure to employ other servants. — 
 Redf. on Carriers, § 28; Edw. on Bail- 
 ments, § 609. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hazen, 84 111. 36, 25 Am. Rep. 422; Con- 
 ger V. Hudson River R. Co., 13 N. Y. 
 Super. Ct. 375; Parsons v. Hard (N. Y.), 
 14 Wend. 215, 28 Am. Dec. 521; Black- 
 stock V. New York, etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 
 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372; Condict v. Grand 
 Trunk R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500. 
 
 "In the case of Greismer v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 55 
 Am. Rep. 837, the same ruling was made, 
 and the case distinguished from Weed v. 
 Panama R. Co., 17 N. Y. 362, 72 Am. 
 Dec. 474, and Blackstock v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372." 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 
 S. W. 191. 8 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 18 Am. 
 St. Rep. 45. 
 
 "It is a well-settled principle of law 
 that a delay caused by a 'strike,' or a 
 mob, composed solely of the employees 
 of a railroad company, * * * will not ex- 
 cuse the company from receiving and 
 carrying freight according to its contract 
 or public duty." Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63.
 
 629 
 
 DlvLAY IN TIt.\NSI'OKTATION OR DIXIVKRV 
 
 § '^18 
 
 table to the misconduct of the employees, but arises from the misconduct of 
 persons for whose acts the carrier is in no manner responsible.-'"'^ 
 
 Delay Caused by Other Employees. — Whether a common carrier would 
 or would nui be excused for any delay in delivering goods resulting entirely 
 from a strike by some of its employees, in which there was neither violence 
 or lawlessness, yet where it affirmatively appears that the delay was caused in 
 part by the disobedience and failure in the performance of their duties of other 
 employees who did not engage in the strike, but were retained in the com- 
 pany's service, and the carrier not having shown that the injury resulted from 
 the delay caused solely by the striking emjjloyees, it is liable for failing to de- 
 liver in what would usually be a reasonable time a carload of fruit which be- 
 came worthless from inherent (|ualilies because alone of detention en route 
 beyond such reasonable time.'-'' 
 
 Where There Is Violence or Intimidation. — Where a railroad company 
 receives freight for shipment and its emi)loyees strike or cease to work for 
 the company it is still bound to forward the freight within a reasonable time; 
 but if the strike is accompanied with violence and intimidation, so as to render 
 it unsafe to forward the freight, the company is thereby relieved from liability 
 for delay, especially when the resistance made by the strikers is of such a 
 character as could not be overcome by the company, or controlled by the civil 
 authorities when called upon by it.^« Where goods are actually transported 
 and delivered by a carrier, it is not liable for loss resulting from mere delay 
 caused by strikes of its employees accompanied by intimidation and violence'^'^ 
 
 54. A carrier can not be relieved of lia- 
 bility for damages caused by a delay Tn 
 delivery owing to a strike where the de- 
 lay in forwarding the freight is not 
 caused by lawless violence on the part of 
 its former servants or their sympathizers 
 in preventing servants from carrying on 
 the company's l)usincss, but arises 
 through the carrier's inability to promptly 
 secure new servants to take the place of 
 the strikers. Central R., etc., Co. v. Geor- 
 gia Fruit, etc.. Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 17 S. E. 
 904. 
 
 Where other servants employed. — Lake 
 Shore, etc., R. Co. z: Bennett, 89 Ind. 457, 
 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 391. 
 
 Illinois. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Ha- 
 
 zen, 84 111. 36, 25 Am. Rep. 422; I., etc., 
 
 R. Co. z'. Juntzen (111.), 10 Bradwell 295. 
 
 Indiana. — I'rttsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 HoUowell, (15 Ind. 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63. 
 
 Nczv York. — Greismer v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. E. 828, 55 
 Am. Rep. 837. 
 
 Texas.— Gu\i, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 76 
 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 
 32*3, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45; International, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Server, 3 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 441. 
 
 Where delay is caused merely by the 
 refusal of a carrier's employees to per- 
 form their duties as such, the carrier is 
 liable therefor, but if the employees sud- 
 denly refused to work and are discharged 
 from or abandoned their employment, 
 and their places are promptly supplied by 
 other competent men who are prevented 
 from doing duty by strikers' use of law- 
 less and irresistible violence, the carrier 
 is not responsible for the delay caused 
 
 solely by such violence, provided it has 
 used reasonable efforts and diligence to 
 suppress the interference. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Levi, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 9, 14 S. W. 1062. 
 
 55. Delay caused by other employees. 
 — Central R., etc., Co. z'. Georgia Fruit, 
 etc., Fxch., 91 Ga. 3S9, 17 S. E. 904. 
 
 56. Where there is violence or intimi- 
 dation. — Haas v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 81 
 Ga. 792, 7 S. E. 629. 
 
 57. International, etc., R. Co. v. Tis- 
 dale, 74 Tex. 8, 18, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R. 
 A., N. S., .t45; Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: Levi, 
 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 9, 14 S. W. 1062; 
 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas.. § 45, 15 S. W. 121; Inter- 
 national, etc., R. Co. v. Hynes, 3 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 20, 21, 21 S. W. 622; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191, 
 8 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 18 Am. St. Rep. 45; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Gatewood, 79 Tex. 
 89, 95, 14 S. W. 913, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 
 419. 
 
 The carrier is not liable for loss result- 
 ing from delay in delivering freight, 
 caused by a strike of its employees, ac- 
 companied by intimidation and violence 
 which could not be prevented or sup- 
 pressed by either the company or the civil 
 authorities. Haas v. Kansas, etc., R. Co.» 
 SI Ga. 792, 7 S. E. 629, 35 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 572. 
 
 Notification to defendant from the su- 
 perintendent of terminals at the destina- 
 tion of the shipment not to undertake to 
 deliver to the terminals because of a 
 strike of its employees, was admissible on 
 the issue whether the defendant was neg- 
 ligent in detaining the shipment. Sterl-
 
 ss 918-920 CARRIERS. 630 
 
 which could not be prevented or suppressed by the carrier or the civil author- 
 ities the delay being necessarilv caused by unforeseen disaster which human 
 prudence could not provide against or by accident not caused by the negligence 
 of the carrier or bv thieves or robbers or an uncontrollable mob/'-^ 
 
 Failure to Exercise Reasonable Diligence.— A carrier is liable for m- 
 iurv bv delay in transit where the delay is caused by interference of strikers 
 in the 'movement of trains only when it fails to exercise reasonable diligence 
 to expedite the shipment. Reasonable diligence, under the circumstances, is 
 
 what the law requires. '•" • ,• , , r , , 
 
 Failure to Suppress Strike.— A railroad company is liable for delay in 
 transporting freight caused by a strike, where it delayed more than a month 
 in calling on the civil authorities to suppress the strike."*' 
 
 Where Strike Is Caused by Carrier.— "Though the delay occasioned by 
 a mob or -trikc might be a sufficient defense, it would seem that it ought to be 
 made to appear that the mob or strike existed without the fault of the defend- 
 ant and the facts should be stated so that the court may determine from *em 
 whether the mob or strike was such as occasioned an unavoidable delay." '>^ 
 
 § 919. Where Goods Are Perishable.— As to lial)ility where preference 
 given to perisliable goods, see elsewhere."- 
 
 §§ 920-921. Delay under Time Contract— § 920. In General.— When 
 a partv bv his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound 
 to make it good.''-" Therefore, where a carrier enters into an express contract 
 to carry and deliver goods within a specified time, the carrier is bound to ful- 
 fill his contract, and is liable for delay regardless of the cause thereof."^ Xo 
 
 ill"- V St Louis etc., R. Co., 38 Tex. Civ. overruling 12 S. W. 677; Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 Add 451 86 s' W. 655, affirmed in 101 Co. v. Levi, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 9, 
 
 Tex.' 661,' no op. . ^^ J. W. 1062 t " ^« T.v 
 
 In an action against a common earner 58. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi <6 lex. 
 
 for the conversion of goods delivered to 337. 13 S. W. 191, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 
 
 it for transportation, defendant alleged 18 Am. St. Rep. 4a. _ 
 
 that when the goods were received a 59. Failure to exercise reasonable dUi- 
 
 "strike " amounting to an insurrection, gence.— Sterling v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co 
 
 existed at the place to which they were 38 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 86 S. W. 655, at- 
 
 consigned, and that the goods, which con- firmed in 101 Tex. 661, no op. 
 
 sisted entirely of firearms and ammuni- 60. Failure to suppress strike.— Inter- 
 
 tion were purchased and consigned to national, etc., R. Co. v. Server, 3 1 exas 
 
 plaintifif to be used in aid of the insurrec- App. Civ. Cas., i? 441. 
 
 tion. knowledge of which having come to 61. Where strike is caused by camer.- 
 
 defendant's officers, they deemed it im- Railroad z'. Bell, l.i Ky. L. Rep. o9o. 
 
 proper to deliver the goods to plaintiff, 62. Where goods are ^ penshable.-See 
 
 and after consulting the governor of the ante, Perishal)le Goods M- 
 
 state and under his advice, caused them 63. Time contract.— Deming v. Grand 
 
 ?o b; shipped out of the state and re- Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 
 
 tained for several months. Held, that a 26< , t^ i i? r^ .^ 
 
 rhar-e that if the jury found the facts to 64. Deming v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 
 
 be af alleged by defen'dant, the latter was N. H. 455, 2 Am Rep. 267. Hamiony z;. 
 
 ustified in witliholding the goods from Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99, 62 Am^ Dec. 142; 
 
 plaintiff, otherwise not, was as favorable Baldwin z' New York etc Co. (N. Y.O, 
 
 as defendant could ask. Baltimore, etc., 3 Bosw. 545; Price v. Hartshorn, 44 N Y. 
 
 R Co " O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. 94, 102, 4 Am. Rep. 645; Ward v. New York 
 
 F 4^fi Vl I R A \ S , 117, 34 Am. St. Cent. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 29, 33, 7 Am. Rep. 
 
 E. 4r6. 1 U K. A., A ^^._ ^^^^^^ ^^^_^ ^ ^^ ^, Nelson, 38 
 
 TJnder' Texas Statute.-Under Rev. St.. Tex. Civ. App. 605, 86 S. W. 616; Texas, 
 
 irt 277 which declares that the duties etc., R. Co. v. Felker, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 and liabilities of carriers in Texas shall 604, 90 SW. 530. 
 
 be the same as at comijion law, except In Collier r- Swinney, 16 Mo. f^-J^l 
 
 where otherwise provided, a common car- carrier was held not exempt from habihty 
 
 Her is not liable for depreciation in the to deliver the goods within the time stip- 
 
 value of goods, resulting solely from in- ulatcd in an al)solute contract, because of 
 
 evitable delay in their transportation, high water on the river by which the 
 
 ^msed by a mob of rioters. Gulf, etc., R. goods were to be transported, 
 
 rn ; T evi 76 Tex 337, 13 S. W. 191, 18 If a carrier has agreed to carry goods 
 
 Am St Rep 45 8 L R. A., N. S., 323, to their destination and deliver them
 
 631 
 
 1)KLA\' I.N TkANSroRTATIOX OR DKLIVKRY. 
 
 § 920 
 
 temporary obslruclion ur even absolute impossibility will Ijc a defense to an 
 action for failure to comply with the engagement/'^ because he might have pro- 
 vided a,!4ainsl it !)y his contract.'''*' 
 
 What Constitutes Contract. — To make a time contract, there must be 
 mutuality of obligation and express stipulaticjn.''' It has been held, that the 
 making arrangements to run sj^ecial fruit trains from fruit growing districts 
 to market, and holding out public notice thereof, and of the time to be made 
 by trains as to their arrival at market, is not regarded in law as creating a 
 special contract between railroad corptjrations so holding out inducements and 
 the shippers absolutely within the advertised time.''** A stipulation in a bill 
 of lading in regard to the manner in which goods were to be transporte^d does 
 not constitute a contract to deliver the goods within a particular time, and the 
 carrier is not liable for delay where it undertook to carry the goods by water 
 instead of 1)\' rail, and tlu- trans])ortation was delayed by obstructions by ice.'''** 
 StifRciency of Contract. — Mere statements by the carrier's agent that the 
 ordinary time of carriage is from ten to fifteen days are not sufficient to show 
 a special i)arol contract, nor to overcome the effect of bills of lading or receipts 
 as evidence of the real contract.'" Statements by the commercial agent of a 
 
 witliin a prcscrilii'd time, it will Ik.- held 
 to a strict performance of the contract. 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. V. Gatewood, 79 Tex. 89, 
 14 S. W. 913, 10 L. R. A., N. S.. 419. 
 
 65. New Hampshire. — Deming v. Grand 
 Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 
 2(J7. 
 
 Tc.nis. — International, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Wentworth, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5. 27 S. W. 
 680; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Gatewood, 79 
 Tex. 89, 95, 14 S. W. 913. 10 L. R. A., X. 
 S., 419. 
 
 66. International, etc., R. Co. v. Went- 
 worth, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 27 S. W. 680, 
 affirmed in 87 Tex. 311. 
 
 67. What constitutes contract. — Inter- 
 national, etc., R. Co. z: Wentworth, 8 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 5, 11, 27 S. W. 680. affirmed in 
 87 Tex. 311. 
 
 In Pickford v. Grand Junction R. Co., 
 12 M. & W. (Eng. Exch.), 766, it appeared 
 that defendant common carrier published 
 a printed notice, which was posted oyer 
 the door of their station for the reception 
 of goods in Liverpool, that all goods re- 
 ceived after 4 o'clock p. m. would l)e for- 
 warded on the next working day. Long 
 after the publication of this notice, cer- 
 tain goods were l^rought to the station 
 about half-past five p. m., to be for- 
 warded to Birmingham by railway. The 
 person who brought them, a servant of 
 the owner, saw the carrier's weigher, and 
 asked if there was time for the goods to 
 proceed that evening, and he said there 
 was, and the goods were placed by the 
 defendant's porters on the trucks on 
 which goods are carried upon such rail- 
 road. The same servant had on former 
 occasions taken goods of the same kind 
 to such station at later hour, where they 
 were never refused for being too late, 
 and had been forwarded the same even- 
 ing. It was held tliat upon these facts, 
 there was evidence to go to tlie jury of 
 a special contract by the defendant rail- 
 
 road to forward the goods on the same 
 evening on which they were received. 
 
 68. International, etc., R. Co. v. Went- 
 worth. 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 27 S. W. 680, 
 affirmed in 87 Tex. 311. 
 
 69. The bills of lading contained the 
 following conditions: "2. This merchan- 
 dise may be carried in box cars, covered 
 skeleton cars, or on open platform cars; 
 if destined beyond Philadelphia, it may 
 l)c transported l)y water, in vessels, boats, 
 l)argcs or lighters, and if so destined to 
 any point beyond, the same rmiy be in- 
 trusted or delivered in the cars of tiiis 
 company, or otherwise, to any other rail- 
 road or transportation company or 
 agent." It full}- appeared that the estab- 
 lislied route of the defendants below was 
 l)y railroad to Philadelphia, and from 
 thence by water to Boston. Is it true, 
 the transportation company were not al)- 
 solutely bound to this route beyond Phil- 
 adelphia. They had the option to send 
 the goods forward, either by water, in 
 vessels, boats, barges or lighters, or by 
 any railroad or transportation compan}', 
 or agent. There was certainly nothing in 
 this option to render it incumbent upon 
 the carriers to send the goods by railroad 
 whenever there was any obstruction of 
 the communication by water. There was 
 nothing in it which gave the plaintiff any 
 right to suppose that the goods would be 
 delivered in Boston without any unnec- 
 essary delay, and that if they could not 
 be immediately sent on by water, they 
 would lie sent by rail. Obstructions by 
 ice in the river are, in their nature, 
 merely temporary, and of very uncertain 
 duration. Empire Transp. Co. f. Wal- 
 lace. ('■•S, Pa. 302. 8 Am. Rep. 178. 
 
 70. Sufficiency of contract. — Strohn v. 
 Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 126. 99 Am. 
 Dec. 114. 
 
 A mere statement of a station agent, 
 to one about to deliver goods for sliip- 
 mont over a railroad, that the goods
 
 § 920 CARRIERS. ■ 632 
 
 common carrier, duly authorized to solicit shipments of freight, that the time 
 consumed in the transportation of certain live stock will be four days, and 
 that there will be no delays, do not constitute an express contract on the part 
 of the carrier to ship and deliver in that time/^ Where the agents of a rail- 
 road company stated to an owner of perishable goods that the company had a 
 schedule for one of its trains between certain points of a certain number of 
 hours, and expected to maintain the schedule, and that everything possible 
 would be done to maintain it, and such owner, acting on the belief induced 
 by such statements that such train would reach destination in that time, made 
 shipments of such goods, a special contract to transport the shipments in that 
 time was not made by the carrier.' - 
 
 Consideration for Contract. — A promise, without consideration, made by 
 a carrier's agent to use his best efforts to deliver goods arriving at night, at a 
 stated time, will not support an action for damages for failure to so deliver 
 goods shipped several years afterwards from a station in another state, with- 
 out any contract by the agent at that point to deliver other than in the ordinary 
 course of business. '■"• 
 
 Carrier Insurer.— W hen a railroad company, by its agent, agrees to deliver 
 goods within a prescribed time, it does not become an absolute insurer of 
 the goods, and need not deliver at all events or pay for the property. The 
 parties are presumed to contract with reference to the responsibility which the 
 common law imposes upon the carrier in ordinary cases, the carrier assuming 
 the risk in respect to time. If the goods were destroyed by an act of God or 
 the public enemy before the time for delivering them expired, this would ex- 
 cuse the carrier on the special contract.'''* 
 
 Where Penalty Stipulated.— A carrier, where perishable goods are injured 
 by delay beyond the time stipulated by the fault of a connecting carrier, is li- 
 able for damages therefor notwithstanding there is a special stipulation for a 
 penalty in case of delay beyond a prescribed time.'"' The carrier is liable both 
 for the penalty and for damage to the goods from the delay."*^ 
 
 Shipment over Connecting Carrier. — A carrier contracting to deliver a 
 shipment of freight at a place designated within a certain time is liable to the 
 shipper for damages on its own or connecting lines.'^" 
 
 Effect of Acceptance of Goods. — Where there has been a delay in the 
 transportation of goods causing a breach of the carrier's contract to deliver at 
 a specified time, by reason of which loss ensues to the consignee, such consign- 
 ee's right of action for the delay is not waived by a mere acceptance of the 
 goods upon arrival at a later date than that specified in the contract.'^^ Where 
 a carrier agrees to deliver certain freight at a point in due time for its trans- 
 portation to its final destination by a certain steamer and fails to comply with 
 ■ the agreement and the freight, after arriving too late for transhipment, was 
 
 should arrive at the proposed destination New York to Milwaukee, within twelve 
 
 at a certain time, is not a contract to days, but owing to a crowd of fruit on a 
 
 carry them within such time. Sauter v. connecting road there was a delay of 
 
 .A.tchison, etc., R. Co., 78 Kan. 331, 97 twenty days, and the goods decayed, the 
 
 Pac. 434. carrier was held liable for the loss, al- 
 
 71. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Wells, 130 though the contract stipulated that the 
 Ga. 55, 60 S. E. 170; International, etc., carrier should pay five cents per hundred 
 R. Co. V. Wentworth, 87 Tex. 311, 28 S. weight for every day beyond the twelve 
 W. 277. days. Place v. Union Exp. Co. (N. Y.), 
 
 72. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Wells, 130 2 Hilt. 19. 
 
 Ga. 55, 60 S. E. 170. 76. Place v. Union Exp. Co. (N. Y.), 2 
 
 73. Consideration for contract. — Lipp- Hilt. 19; Nudd v. Wells, 11 Wis. 407. 
 mann v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Ill N. Y. 77. Shipment over connecting carrier. 
 S. 522, 127 App. Div. 187. —Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Miller (Tex. Civ. 
 
 74. Carrier insurer.— Strohn v. Detroit, App.), 88 vS. W. 499. 
 
 etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 126, 99 Am. Dec. 114. 78. Effect of acceptance of goods. — 
 
 75. Where penalty stipulated.— Where Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Shippers' Com- 
 a carrier agreed to transport fruit from press Co., 83 Va. 272, 2 S. E. 139.
 
 633 DELAY IX TRANSPORTATION OR DFXIVERY. §§ 920-921 
 
 shipped to another point with the consent of the shipper and there sold at a 
 loss, the latter shipment and sale is for the benefit of the carrier and it is the 
 carrier's duty to make good the loss."" 
 
 Act of God as Excuse. — Under an express contract for transportation and 
 delivery by a certain time, the carrier is bound by his contract and is not ex- 
 cused for liability thereon by an inevitable accident. '^'^ 
 
 Liability for Loss. — The carrier assumes responsibility as to time ; but the 
 rule of lial)ility fur injury or loss is at common law.**^ 
 
 When Action Accrues. — Where there is a promise to transport to and de- 
 liver goods, within a reasonable time, an action does not accrue to the plaintiff, 
 instantly on the promise being made, but only after the lapse of a reasonable 
 time; and negligence comi^laincd of must occur at a time subsequent to the 
 promise. ^- 
 
 § 921. Pov^er of Agent to Make Contract. — Authority to Vary General 
 Notice. — A station agent who receives and forwards freight has power to bind 
 the carrier that the goods shall be forwarded to a point beyond the carrier's 
 terminus within a particular time, notwithstanding a general notice published 
 that tlie carrier would not be liable beyond its own road.**^ 
 
 Authority of Agent from Holding Out. — Where a person is the only repre- 
 sentative of a railroad company at a station and was placed there for the pur- 
 pose of transporting its business, he is authorized to contract for the transpor- 
 tation of goods, and to bind the company on a contract to deliver within a cer- 
 tain time, if reasonable. By placing him in charge of its business at the station, 
 and empowering him to contract for the shipment of the goods, the railroad 
 company held him out as possessing aathority to contract with reference to all 
 necessary and ordinary details of the business.^-* 
 
 Statement Made by Agent. — In an action against a connecting carrier for 
 daiuage to i)erishal)lc goods caused by delay, the statement of the carrier's 
 agent to whom the goods were delivered as to the time required for the freight 
 to reach its destination, is admissible when such statement may have been the 
 inducement of the contract.^^ Statements of the conductor of a railroad train 
 as to the time for transportation and delivery of goods, made while engaged 
 in the business of the railroad and while in control of the train, are admissible 
 against a railroad in an action for damages from delay.^*' The railroad is not 
 absolutely bound by such statements but the statements are admissible in evi- 
 dence on the general ])riiici])les of agency.^" 
 
 Authority as to Perishable Goods. — It is of the highest importance to the 
 shipper tliat a definite time should be fixed for the shipment of perishable goods ; 
 and unless the power of the agent is limited by some rule or instruction of the 
 company, the authority conferred upon him to contract for the transportation 
 of the property carries with it the power to make such agreement with refer- 
 ence to the time when it should be received and shipped as the necessities of the 
 case demand. ^^ 
 
 79. Skcllie r. Central R., etc., Co., 81 Chicago, etc.. R. Co., fis Iowa 491. 27 X. 
 Ga. 56, 6 S. E. 811. .W. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 861. 
 
 80. Act of God as excuse. — Harmony v. gS. Statement made by agent. — Blod- 
 Binsham, 1:2 X. V. 99, &2 Am. Dec. 142. gg^t v. Alihot, 72 Wis. 516, 40 X. W. 491. 
 
 81. Liability for loss. — International, 7 ^m. St. Rep. 873. 
 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Wcntworth, 8 Tex. Civ. gg^ p^.;^^ ,, ^^^^^^^ j (^^^ & P. 60; Bar- 
 
 App. 5, 27 b. W. (.SO. athrmed m 8. Tex. j^^^ ,, ^^^^^ (Mass.). 19 Pick. 220; Sisson 
 
 3.J1- „,^ . TD , e "•• Cleveland, etc., R. Co.. 14 Mich. 489, 
 
 82. When action accrues.-Barkcr & ,,^ ^^ ^ 252. 
 Co. .-. Glasccnv (O.), I app. lOS. /-, 1 . . t? r- 1 . 
 
 83. Power of agent to make contract— 87 bisson :: Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 14 
 
 .)~'. 
 
 Deming v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. ^^''~^^'- -»^^. ^^ Am. Dec. 
 
 455, 2 Am. Rep. 267. 88. Authority as to perishable goods. — 
 
 84. Authority of agent from holding Wood :•. Ciiicago, etc.. R. Co., 68 Iowa 
 
 out.— 2 Rc«ll"icld on Rys.. 141. Wood z: 491, 27 X. W. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 861.
 
 §§ 921-922 CARRIERS. 634 
 
 Authority of Ag-ent at Another Station. — A railroad company is not liable 
 under a contract for delivery of cars at a certain time, made by an agent at a 
 different station from that to which the cars were to be delivered, although 
 the agent at the latter station referred the shipper to the former station agent, 
 where the former had no express authority."*" 
 
 Authority of Agent of Another Carrier. — A statement of the agent of a 
 connecting carrier as to the time the freight would arrive has the force of a 
 contract, where the time is usual and reasonable.'"' 
 
 Authority of Agent as to Shipment over Connecting Carrier. — A sta- 
 tion agent who receives and forwards freight has power to bind the carrier 
 that the goods shall be forwarded to a point beyond the terminus of that road 
 before a particular hour, notwithstanding a general notice published that the 
 carrier would not be lialjle beyond its own road.''^ 
 
 Shipper's Knowledge of Want of Authority. — Where a shipper is 
 chargeable with knowledge of the fact that the carrier's agent has no authority 
 to contract for the deliyery of the goods at their destination at a certain date, 
 and the bill of lading contains no evidence of such an undertaking, no recov- 
 erv can be had for failure to deliver by the date named. '■'- 
 
 § 922. Duty of Carrier after Excusing Cause Removed. — While ac- 
 cidents and obstructions will e.xcuse delay, they do not put an end to the con- 
 tract. As soon as the impediment to the transportation of the property is 
 removed or can reasonably be overcome, the carrier must complete the con- 
 tract without further (lela_\-."" 
 
 What Constitutes Due Diligence. — X'erdict in an action against a carrier 
 for damage to a carload of perishable fruit from a delay of two days, the 
 train being sidetracked because of unprecedented rains, which overflowed and 
 washed out the track, is properly directed for defendant, though plaintiff ex- 
 presses the opinion that defendant had not sufficient cause for the delay, and 
 though a light work train went over the road through the water a day earlier 
 than the freight train was moved ; the train dispatcher, who was not cross- 
 examined, testifying that no train could go between the place where the train 
 was sidetracked and the destination of the car, before the day it was moved, 
 
 89. Authority of agent at another sta- Netv York. — Spann v. Erie Boatman's 
 tion. — \rjorhees v. Cliicago. etc.. R. Co.. Transp. Co., 11 Misc. Rep. 680, 33 N. Y. 
 71 Iowa T:5.5, 30 N. \V. 29, 60 Am. Rep. S. 566, 67 N. y. St. Rep. 3.i4; Bowman v. 
 823. Teall (N. Y.j, 23 Wend. 306, 35 Am. Dec. 
 
 90. Authority of agent of another car- 562; Parsons z'. Hardy (N. ¥.), 14 Wend, 
 rier.— Wood z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 68 215, 28 Am. Dec. 521; Greismer v. Lake 
 Iowa 491, 27 X. W. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 861; Shore, etc., R. Co., 102 N. Y. 563. 7 N. E. 
 Biodgett V. Abbot, 72 Wis. 516, 40 N. W. 828, 55 Am. Rep. 837. 
 
 491, 7 Am. St. Rep. 873; Strohn z: De- 0/no.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Don- 
 
 troit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 126, 99 Am. nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 34 Am. 
 
 Dec. 114. St. Rep. 579, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117. 
 
 91. Authority of agent as to shipment ^^^er the removal of the obstacle to 
 over connecting carrier.-Story on transportation, the carrier is hound to 
 Agency, § 443, 127. Wilson z: York, etc., ^1?''^'^ .^^ w"^'?'., /oo' a"' ^^ -""o .^ 
 Railway. 18 Eng. Law and Eq. 557 ^\,^-^? ^^ -^^"d- 2^^' "^ ^"^- °^^- f^' 
 Backman z: Charlestown, 42 x\. H. 125; , ^he freezing up of a river may have 
 Burnside z: Grand Trunk R. Co., 47 N. been a sufficient excuse for the delay m 
 H. 554, 93 Am. Dec. 474; Deming v. ^'^, delivery of the goods at L anri the 
 Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 455, 2 Am. defendant may have been justified under 
 
 tlie circumstances in storing them at H., 
 but his obligation to deliver them at L., 
 
 Rep 
 
 92. Shipper's knowledge of want of au- within\"'VeTsonabl7 time ^"after "the' ^' 
 
 thority.— Parks z.Guh', etc., R. Co. (Tex. sumption of navigation, still continued, 
 
 Civ. App.), 30 b. VV . 708. unless the plaintifif had agreed to receive 
 
 93. After excusing cause removed. — them at H., or in some other way re- 
 
 lUinois. — Lowe v. Moss, 1:2 111. 477, 479. leased the defendant from his original 
 
 Mississippi. — Bennett v. Byram & Co., undertaking. Lowe z: Moss, 12 111. 477, 
 
 38 Miss. 17, 75 Am. Dec. 90. 479.
 
 635 
 
 DI:LAV IX TRAXSI'OKTATIOX (iR I »!■ 1. 1\ KKV 
 
 §§ 922-023 
 
 and that a locomotive was sent for and brouj^ht over the train as soon as it 
 could be done, and that this was the first train run over this section after it 
 was rc])airc-d.'" 
 
 Where Goods Accepted by Consignee. — The carrier is relieved from all 
 further responsibility after the removal of the obstacle to transportation by 
 the acceptance of the goods by the consignee, and can collect pro rata freight.'-*^ 
 Interference of the owner by giving directions as to the care of property, the 
 transportation of which is interrupted by the closing of a river, is not in itself 
 an acceptance of the jjroperty ; it is merely evidence of acceptance, to be sub- 
 mitted ti) a jury with the other circumstances of the case/'*' 
 
 Acceptance of Part. — It may Ije that the common carrier, in such a case, 
 would be entitled to the full price for the trans])ortation of all the goods, not- 
 withstanding the withdrawal of a part by the owner before they reached the 
 end of the voyage, but it is clear that his liability for the goods remaining with 
 him would continue the same as if none had been taken away.''" 
 
 The burden of proof is upon the carrier to show that it exercised due 
 care to transport tlie car within a reasonable time after the track was in proper 
 condition, the question as to what is a reasonable time being one of fact for 
 the jury.'"''^ 
 
 § 923. Duty of Consignor and Consignee to Avert or Mitigate In- 
 jury. — A siiipper iia\iiig deli\ered goods to a carrier for lran>p<jrtation, has a 
 right to rely upon the fulfillment of the contract in pursuance of which he acted 
 uiitil it is repudiated, or until he is notified that the carrier can not, or does not 
 intend to, trans])ort the goods within a reasonable time."'^ However, a shipper 
 injured by the delay of a carrier to make shipment and delivery of goods must 
 not remain supine and inactive, but must make reasonable exertions to avert 
 the loss and prevent the damage to his property, and if he fail to do this, and 
 the injury results by reason of his negligence, he can not recover.^ But the fact 
 that a consignee, after discovering the carrier's negligence in failing to trans- 
 port the goods in a reasonable time, failed to use ordinary care to avoid the 
 
 94. What constitutes due diligence.^ 
 
 Burnham z\ Alabama, etc., R. Co.. 81 
 Miss. 4<i. :!:» So. 'J 12. 
 
 95. Where goods accepted by con- 
 signee. — i'arsons ;■. Hardj' (,X. V.). 14 
 \\ end. 215. 28 Am. Dec. 521. 
 
 96. Bowman v. Teal! (N. Y.), 23 Wend. 
 306. 35 .\m. Dec. 562. 
 
 97. Acceptance of part. — "The fact that 
 the plaintiff took from the place where 
 they were stored, part of the goods 
 which would justify hauling by land, re- 
 leased the defendant from all future lia- 
 bility in reference to the goods thus 
 taken awaj'. but it would not of itself re- 
 lieve him from his obligation to deliver 
 the balance of the goods according to his 
 original contract. It would be a great 
 hardship if a merchant who had a stock 
 of goods detained upon one of our rivers, 
 by ice or low water, within a few miles of 
 his place of doing business, could not be 
 permitted, at his own expense, to send 
 for such articles as could be conveniently 
 transported by land, without discharging 
 the common carrier from all responsil)il- 
 ity, in reference to the goods left with 
 him." Lowe z'. Moss. 12 111. 477, 479. 
 
 98. Burnliam t'. Alabama, etc., R. Co.. 
 81 Miss. 46, :i2 S(\ '.112. 
 
 99. Duty of consignor and consignee to 
 
 avert or mitigate injury. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Sumner, 106 Ind. 55. 5 N. E. 
 404, 55 Am. Rep. 719; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Flannagan. 113 Ind. 488. 14 N. E. 
 370. 3 Am. St. Rep. 674, 680. 
 
 1. International, etc.. R. Co. f. Ritchie 
 (Tex, Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 840. 841; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. i'. Smith. 63 Tex. 
 322. 323. 
 
 Where an express company has de- 
 layed in delivering samples of cotton, it 
 was the owner's duty to use due care in 
 mitigating injury done him by the ex- 
 press company', and the company would 
 be relieved of lial)ility to the extent of 
 the price received for cotton. Wells 
 Fargo Exp. Co. z'. Samuels, 11 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 15. 17, 31 S. W. 305. 
 
 " 'It is the duty of the shipper to ex- 
 ercise reasonable diligence and care to 
 minimize the injury to his shipment 
 caused by delay.' 4 Elliott on Railroads, 
 1730. And he 'must not remain supine 
 and inactive, but should make reasonable 
 exertions to help himself, and tlieretn' 
 reduce his losses and diminish the re- 
 sponsibility of the party in default to 
 him.' Vicksburg, etc.. R. Co. z: Rags- 
 dale. 46 Miss. 458." Chicago, etc.. R. Co. 
 z\ Planters' Gin. etc.. Co.. S8 .-Krk. 77. 113 
 S. W. 352.
 
 §§ 923-924 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 636 
 
 injury caused bv such negligence, will not preclude him from recovering the 
 damages actually caused to him by such negligence, which he could not, by or- 
 dinary diligence, have prevented.- 
 
 § 924. Duty of Consignee to Accept Goods.— The failure to deliver 
 the goods within a reasonable time by the carrier is only a breach of the con- 
 tract*' of carriage, and the carrier is liable for the damages incurred by reason 
 of the delav; but the consignee can not refuse to accept the goods on account 
 of the unreasonable delay in the carriage, and sue for a conversion.^ But the 
 reiusjl of the consignee to accept the goods does not discharge the earner from 
 all liability for the goods. The carrier still owes a duty to the consignee for the 
 care of the goods. It should store the goods in its depot, or in some w^irehouse 
 where they would be reasonably safe and free from injury. It has no right 
 to abandon the goods or to convert them to its own use.^ 
 
 Effect of Acceptance.— Where there has been a delay in the transportation 
 of goods causing a breach of the carrier's contract to deliver at a specified time, 
 by reason of wdiich loss ensues to the consignee, such consignee's right of action 
 
 2. In a suit against a railway for dam- 
 age through delay in transportation of 
 goods, a charge is not correct to the ef- 
 fect that if plaintiff's injury resulted from 
 his own failure to use ordinary care to 
 avoid injury from defendant's negligence, 
 there can be no recovery. Belcher v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tex. 593, 597, 50 
 S. W. 559. reversing 47 S. W.. 384. 
 
 3. Duty of consignee to accept goods. 
 — Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pfeifer, 90 Ark. 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. 
 R. A., X. S., 1107; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Aludford. 44 Ark. 439. 
 
 ///moi.y.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. He- 
 ilprin & Co., 95 111. App. 402. 
 
 Kentucky. — Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Saulsberry, 126 Ky. 179, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
 
 624, 103 S. "W. 254, 12 L. R. A., N. S., 431. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Hackett v. Boston, 
 
 etc., Railroad, 35 N. H. 390. 
 
 New York. — Briggs v. New York Cent. 
 R Co. (N. Y.), 28 Barb. 515; Baumann 7'. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 71 N. Y. S. 632, 
 35 Misc. Rep. 223; Scovill v. Griffith, 12 
 N. Y. 509. 
 
 South Carolina.— l<iett\es v. South Car- 
 olina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. 190, 62 Am. Dec. 
 409. 
 
 Where flour was shipped on F^ebruary 
 12, 1906, and thereafter remained in the 
 possession of a railroad company until 
 July 1st, when it was found and tendered 
 to plaintiff, plaintiff was bound to re- 
 ceive the flour when tendered notwith- 
 standing the delay; the carrier's liability 
 being to render compensation for dam- 
 ages growing out of the delay, and not 
 for loss of the flour. Moody v. Southern 
 Railway, 60 S. E. 711, 79 S. C. 297. 
 
 "In the case of Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 23 S. W. 
 693, the plaintiff had a car load of lumber 
 on one of defendant's cars, which, by 
 agreement, was to be delivered at a point 
 about one mile distant, where plaintiff 
 was building a house. The lumber was 
 not delivered until about one and one- 
 
 half months later, and the plaintiff, hav- 
 ing, in the meanwhile, purchased other 
 lumber, refused to receive same, and sued 
 for the value of the lumber. In that case 
 it was held that the plaintiff should have 
 accepted the lumber, and held the defend- 
 ant liable for all actual damages which 
 he had sustained." Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Pfeifer, 90 Ark. 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1107. 
 
 Under statute imposing liability on 
 carrier. — Though a carrier delays deliv- 
 ery of freight for four months, the con- 
 signee must accept it when tendered and 
 rely on his right to recover for negligent 
 delay, notwithstanding Act Feb. 23, 1903 
 (24 St. at Large, p. 81), making a car- 
 rier liable for loss of or damage to goods 
 and a penalty for failure to adjust the 
 claim therefor within a time limited. 
 Bullock V. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 64 S. 
 E. 234, 82 S. C. 375. 
 
 4. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. z: Pfeifer, 90 
 Ark. 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1107. 
 
 Where a shipper refuses to receive the 
 goods transported because of delay in 
 the transportation, and the refusal of the 
 carrier to make any concession on ac- 
 count thereof, the carrier has no right to 
 convert the freight to its own use or to 
 dispose of it contrary to law. Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co. V. Saulsberry, 126 Ky. 
 179, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 624, 103 S. W. 254, 
 12 L. R. A., N. S., 431. 
 
 "In the case of Bacharach v. Chester 
 Freight Line, 133 Pa. 414, 19 Atl. 409, it 
 was held that, although the consignee re- 
 fused to accept the goods, yet, upon a re- 
 newal demand by the consignee, if the 
 carrier failed or refused to deliver the 
 goods, the consignee could sue for the 
 conversion of the goods. Little Rock, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Glidewell, 39 Ark. 487. 
 490." Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. Pfeifer, 90 
 Ark. 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1107.
 
 637 
 
 DIvLAY IN TRAXSl'ORTATIOX OK DKLU'KRV. 
 
 §§ 924-927 
 
 for the delay is not waived by a mere acceptance of the floods upon arrival at a 
 later date than that specified in the contract."' 
 
 The burden of proof is on the carrier to prove the nej^ligence by which the 
 consij.,Miee enhanced the amount of the damage or failed t<j prevent the injury, 
 as well as the extent to which such damages were enhanced, or to which they 
 might have been lessened by the use of ordinary care on the part of the con- 
 signee.*' 
 
 Question for Jury. — Whether or not the consignee exercised proper care to 
 avoid injury is a question for the jury."^ 
 
 § 92 5. Delay Caused by Connecting Carrier. — See elsewhere.^ 
 
 §§ 926-954. Damages— § 92 6. In General. — A carrier is liable for 
 damages resulting from delay in the trans])ortation and delivery of goods if he 
 fails to transport and deliver them within a reasonable time." 
 
 As for Breach of Contract. — Damages arising from merely negligent delay 
 in transportation of freight by a common carrier are generally and correctly 
 treated as arising ex contractu. The rule for their admeasurement is well es- 
 tablished in our jurisprudence, and can not be modified, and the damage recover- 
 able largely increased, by the simple expedient of changing the form of the action. 
 Especially must this be true in a jurisdiction that pays but little attention to the 
 forms of pleadings, but looks to the substance of the cause. ^'^ A carrier's fail- 
 ure to carry and deliver within a reasonable time is a breach of contract and not 
 a conversion so that the owner can not refuse to receive them and recover their 
 value. ^^ 
 
 § 927. Arising Proximately from Delay. — That the measure of damages 
 for delay in the delivery of goods by a carrier is the dift'erence between their 
 value when actually delivered and what they would have been worth upon sea- 
 sonable delivery, is the usual, but not the universal, rule. In addition to this 
 difference in market value, the carrier will be liable also for such other and in- 
 cidental damages as naturally and ])roximately flow from the delay, ^- and for 
 such as reasonably might have been expected to be within the contemplation 
 of the parties when the contract of carriage was entered into as the probable 
 result of a breach of it.^^ The carrier is liable for such damages as are the 
 
 5. Effect of acceptance. — Norfolk, etc.. 
 R. Co. r. Shippers' Compress Co., 83 Va. 
 272. 2 S. E. 1:59. 
 
 6. Judgment (Civ. App. 1898), 47 S. W. 
 384, 1020, reversed. Belcher v. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co., oO S. W. .'i.oO, 92 Tex. 593. 
 
 7. Question for jury. — Belclier z\ Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co.. 92 Tex. 593. 597, 50 S. 
 W. 559, reversino; 47 S. W. 384. 
 
 8. Delay caused by connecting carrier. 
 — See post. "Connecting Carriers," Part \'. 
 
 9. Damages. — International, etc., R. 
 Co. f. Server. 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 441; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Silegman 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 23 S. W. 298; San An- 
 tonio, etc., R. Co. 7'. Josey (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 71 S. W. 60G. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 nondelivery of goods, defendant proved 
 that, after the lapse of some months, the 
 goods were found at the sliipping point, 
 and tliere offered to phiintiff, who refused 
 to take them. It was shown that some of 
 the goods were damaged. Phiintitf 
 proved the value of the goods when 
 shipped. Held, tliat plaintiff was entitled 
 
 to some damages. Anderson z'. Louis- 
 ville, etc.. R. Co. (Miss.), 15 So. 795. 
 
 10. As for breach of contract. — Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co. z: Tennings, 86 Miss. 329, 38 
 So. 374, 109 Am! St. Rep. 708. 
 
 11. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Watson, 1 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 813. 
 
 12. Arising proximately from delay. — 
 3 Hutcliinson, Carr. nd Ed.. § lilt')!'.. Clute 
 z: Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Kan.), Ill Pac. 
 431, 30 L. R. A., N. S.. 1071. 
 
 13. England. — Hadley v. Baxendale 
 (Eng.), 9 Ex. 341; Hale on Carriers. 408: 
 Sedgvv. Meas. Dam. ((Uh Ed.) 79: Sedg^v. 
 Meas. Dam. (6th Ed.) note 81. Field on 
 Dam., § 375; Gee z\ Lancashire, etc., R. 
 Co. (Eng.). 6 Hurl. & N. 211. 
 
 United States. — The Caledonia, 157 U. 
 S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 644. 15 S. Ct. 537. 
 
 Arkansas. — Murrell z'. Pacific Exp. Co.. 
 54 .\rk. 22, 14 S. W. 1098. 26 Am. St. 
 Rep. 17. 
 
 Florida.— Brock z: Gale, 14 Fla. 523, 14 
 Am. Rep. 356. 
 
 Gcors,ia. — Savannah, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Pritchard, 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261. 4 .\m.
 
 § 927 
 
 CARRIKRJ 
 
 638 
 
 natural result of the delay, and for such as reasonably might have been expected 
 to be within the contemplation of the parties when the contract of carriage was 
 entered into as a probable result of a l)reach of it.^^ While the carrier is pnma 
 facie only liable for the natural and ordinary consequences of the breach of 
 contract by delav : but where, at the time of entering into the contract, both 
 parties knew and contemplated that if such breach is committed some injury will 
 occur in addition to the natural and ordinary consequences of the breach, the 
 carrier will be liable to give compensation or damages on the occurrence of the 
 injury. i-"' It is not necessary always that those facts should be mentioned in the 
 negotiations, or in express terms made a part of the contract. l:)ut when they are 
 known to the carrier under such circumstances, or they are of such a character 
 that the parties mav be fairly supposed to have them in contemplation in making 
 the contract, such special facts become relevant in determining the cfuestion of 
 damages.^*' 
 
 Certainty as to Cause of Damage. — The damages must be certam both m 
 their nature and respect to the cause from which they proceed.^' 
 
 Injury to Perishable Goods from Loss of Ice.— A carrier of perishable 
 freight, guilty of negligent delay in the transportation thereof, resulting in a. 
 loss of ice necessary to retain the proper temperature to preserve the freight, is 
 liable for the damages attributable to an insufficient quantity of ice.^'^ 
 
 Interest on Debt to Be Satisfied by Goods.— The fact that a consignee of 
 
 St. Rep. 92; Cooper z: Young, 22 Ga. 269. 
 68 Am. Dec. 502. 
 
 Kansas. — Johnson z'. Mathews, 5 Kan. 
 118. 
 
 Massaclnisctts. — Fox v. Boston, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 148 Mass. 220. 19 N. E. 222. 1 L. R. 
 A.. N. S.. 702; Swift River Co. z'. Fitch- 
 burg R. Co.. 169 A'lass. 326, 47 N. E. 1015. 
 61 Am. St. Rep. 288; Harvey r. Connecti- 
 cut, etc.. R. Co., 124 Mass. 421. 26 Am. 
 Rep. 673; Derry v. Flitner. 118 Mass. 131; 
 Cutting V. Grand Trunk R. Co. (Mass.). 
 13 Allen 381; Goddard z\ Barnard 
 (Mass.), 16 Gray 205; Waite z: Gilbert 
 (Mass.), 10 Cush. 177; Ingledew z'. 
 Northern Railroad (Mass.). 7 Gray 8G; 
 Scott V. Boston Steamship Co.. 106 Mass. 
 468. 
 
 Michigan. — Sisson v. Cleveland, etc.. R. 
 Co., 14 'Mich. 489. 90 Am. Dec. 252. 
 
 New Jersey. — Higgins v. United States 
 Exp. Co.. 83 "N. J. L. 398. 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Netc For^.— Scovill v. Griffith, 12 N. 
 Y. 50; Ward v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 47 N. Y. 29, 7 Am. Rep. 405; Griffin 
 V. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489, 69 Am. Dec. 718 
 North Carolina. — Harper Furniture Co. 
 V. Southern Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. 
 E. 145. 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483, 128 Am. 
 St. Rep. 588. 
 
 Ohio. — Devereaux v. Buckley, 34 O. St. 
 16, 32 Am. Rep. 342. 
 
 r^;ra.y.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCorqu- 
 odale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Pickens (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. 
 W. 156, 157; Haberzettle v. Trinity, etc., 
 R. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 527, 103 S. W. 
 219; International, etc., R. Co. v. Tisdale, 
 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900, 4 L. R. A., N. S.. 
 545; Jones v. George. 61 Tex. 345, 48 Am. 
 Rep. 280; Pacific Exp. Co. z: Darnell 
 Bros., 62 Tex. 639. See example: Wells 
 
 Fargo & Co. z\ Battle. 5 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 532, "24 S. \\\ 353. 
 
 When a common carrier is guilty of 
 unreasonable delay in the performance 
 of his contract, he becomes liable for all 
 the actual and legitimate damages result- 
 ing from such unnecessary delay. But he 
 is not liable for hypothetical or chimer- 
 ical damages. Gerhard t'. Neese, 36 Tex. 
 635. 
 
 For an inordinate and unnecessary de- 
 lay in the carriage of goods, the con- 
 signor is entitled to recover the loss di- 
 rectly and proximately resulting from the 
 delay. Higgins z'. United States Exp. 
 Co.. 83 N. J. L. 398. 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Consequential damages are only recov- 
 eral)le from a carrier for delay in the de- 
 livery of goods wiien they are the natural 
 and probable sonsequences of the car- 
 rier's default. Davidson Development 
 Co. z'. Southern R. Co.. 147 N. C. 503, 61 
 S. E. 381. 
 
 14. Within contemplation of parties. — 
 Haberzettle z\ Trinity, etc., R. Co., 46 
 Tex. Civ. App. 527, 103 S. W. 219. 
 
 15. Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern 
 Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 30 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 483, 128 Am_. St. Rep. 588, 
 citing Hydraulic Engineering Co. v. Mc- 
 Haffie. 4'Q. B. Div. 670. 
 
 16. Harper Furniture Co. v. Soutlicrn 
 Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 30 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 483, 128 Am. St. Rep. 588. 
 
 17. Certainty as to cause of damage. — 
 1 Sutherland on Damages, 71. Savannah, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Pritchard, 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. 
 E. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 92. 
 
 18. Injury to perishable goods from 
 loss of ice. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 White (Tex. Civ. App.). 103 S. W. 673, 
 affirmed in 102 Tex. 591, no op.
 
 539 ])i:i,AV IN TRAXSPOKTATIOX OR UIXIVKKV. § 927 
 
 goods was paviiij,' interest on a debt which he depended on the goods to satisfy 
 is not an element of damages in an action against the carrier for a delay in de- 
 livering- tlu-ni,''' 
 
 Where Goods Intended for Feed for Cattle.— W here a earner delays the 
 shipment of goods intended to be fed to cattle, of which the carrier ha<l notice, 
 and injury resulting to the cattle by reason of the delay and the inability of the 
 shipper to get other feed, the carrier is liable to the shipper for the resulting 
 injurv to the cattle.-" 
 
 Loss of Profits by Delay in Shipment of Machinery.— A claim for loss 
 of profits by being compelled to stop an electric plant because a shaft used 
 therein was broken en route and returned to the rei^air shop by the exj^ress com- 
 pany to be rei)aired before it was forwarded to the jjlant was based upon the 
 owner's being deprived of the use of the shaft, and whether the delay was caused 
 by injury to the shaft or by other reasons was immaterial.-' 
 
 ' Arising- from Act of Shipper. — Where a funeral was voluntarily postjjoned 
 ])y the plaintiff, the carrier causing delay in the arrival of the corpse is not liable 
 for the expense of re-embalming the body, necessitated by postponement of the 
 funeral, the cori)se having arrived one hour before the time set for the funeral. -- 
 
 Arising from Condition of Goods When Accepted. — Plaintififs brought suit 
 to recover the value of corn shipped by them over defendant's road, and alleged 
 to have been rendered worthless by delay in transportation. Plaintiffs had con- 
 trol of the loading of the car in which the corn was shipped, and they loaded 
 the corn in the car themselves, while it was wet, and in a condition to be dam- 
 aged by being bulked in the car. Held, that defendant was not responsible for 
 damages occasioned thereby, notwithstanding the fact of a delay in the trans- 
 portation thereof. -■• 
 
 Arising- from Failure of Shipper to Accept. — Where a car load of potatoes 
 is damaged by delay in transportation, and is further damaged by the consignee's 
 delay in unloading the car, the consignee can not recover for the cost of labor 
 and sacks for resacking the potatoes, made necessary l)y the condition of the po- 
 tatoes when the consignee unloaded the car, but is only entitled to the cost of 
 the labor and sacks made necessary by the condition of the potatoes at the time 
 he might have taken possession of them.-^ 
 
 Right to Inspect. — Where the contract between a buyer and seller that the 
 buyer should have the right to inspect the goods before acceptance was com- 
 municated to the carrier, and it refused to allow inspection, which resulted in a 
 refusal to accept, and plaintiff allowed the consignee to handle the goods on con- 
 signment, thereby realizing a sum less than the contract price, the carrier was 
 liable for the dilTerence lietween the sum received and the contract price. -■'• 
 
 Acceptance on Sunday. — A carrier having refused the consignee the right 
 to inspect the goods until too late to inspect and unload them on Saturday, the 
 carrier is liable for damages to the time the goods were taken in charge by the 
 consignee on Monday morning; the consignee not being bound to unload on 
 Sunday to lessen the damage.-" 
 
 19. Interest on debt to be satisfied by 23. Arising from condition of goods 
 goods. — Houston, etc.. R. Co. r. Jackson, when accepted. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 (1:2 Tex. 209. r. Smith. 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 138. 
 
 20. Where goods intended for feed for 24. Arising from failure of shipper to 
 cattle. — I'.nurland ;. Clioctaw. etc.. K. accept. — C.ult. etc.. 1\. Co. z\ Cliinski. ."ir: 
 Co.. !»'.) '1\'X. 407. !Ht S. \V. 4S,{, :! L. R. .\., Tex. (."iv. .Apji. 21. 114 S. W. S.')!. 
 
 N. S.. nil. 122 .\m. St. Rep. 647. 25. Right to inspect. — Missouri, etc.. R. 
 
 21. Loss of profits by delay in ship- Co. .- . Hopkins. .")2 I'ex. Civ. App. 16(5. 113 
 ment of machinery. — Stone :•. Adams S. W. iiiiC. 
 
 Exp. Co. (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200. 26. Acceptance on Sunday. — Missouri, 
 
 22. Arising from act of shipper. — .\la- etc.. R. Co. 7'. Hopkins. j2 Tex. Civ. App. 
 bama City. etc.. R. Co. i: Brady, 160 Ala. 166. 113 S. W. 306. 
 
 61.5. 49 So. 351.
 
 §§ 928-931 CARRIERS. 640 
 
 § 928. Arising at Time of Delivery. — Where a car load of potatoes is 
 damaged bv delay in transportation, and after its arrival the consignee neglected 
 to remove "the potatoes for several days, which resulted in further damages to 
 the potatoes, the carrier will only be liable for the damages which had accrued 
 at the time of delivery of the car upon its arrival.-" 
 
 § 92 9. Nominal Damages. — For unreasonable delay in the transportation 
 of goods the shipper is entitled to recover only nominal damages, when no ac- 
 tual damages are proved.-^ The delay of an express company in delivering 
 goods, when not attached with any actual damage to the shipper, renders the 
 companv liable only for nominal damages. The rule that a new trial will be 
 granted' to enable a recovery of such damages does not necessarily obtain where 
 the cause of action is such a breach of contract or in the nature of a breach of 
 contract.-^ 
 
 § 930. Stipulated Damages. — The parties may determine the measure of 
 damages by contract. In such case the decrease in the market value does not 
 constitute the measure of damages. 2*^ 
 
 Necessity for Consideration. — A stipulation in a bill of lading that, in 
 case of loss of the goods shipped, the measure of damages shall be their value 
 at the point of shipment, instead of at their destination, is void, in the absence 
 of consideration therefor.-"^ 
 
 Stipulation for Valuation of Goods at Time of Shipment. — Where bills 
 of lading provide that the amount of any damage for which the carrier should 
 become liable should be computed at the value of the goods shipped at the time 
 and place of shipment, it is error, in an action by the shipper for delay in de-- 
 livering the goods, to charge that the damages should be estimated according to 
 the price of the goods at the place of delivery .^^ B^^^t ^ provision in a bill of 
 lading that, in case of loss of the property, its value or cost at place of shipment 
 shall govern the settlement does not cover the owner's damages from delay in 
 transportation.^" 
 
 §§ 931-939. Special Damages — § 931. In General. — The law. as it is 
 to be found in the reported cases, has fluctuated ; but the principle is now settled 
 
 27. Arising at time of delivery. — Gulf, A contract fixing the liability for loss 
 etc., R. Co. z\ Chinski, 53 Tex. Civ. App. at tlie value at place of shipment is held 
 21, 114 S. W. 851. to be reasonable and valid. Matheson z\ 
 
 28. Nominal damages. — Aultman Engine, Southern Railway, 79 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 
 etc Co V Chicago, etc., R. Co., 143 Iowa 437, 438, citing Live Stock Co. v. Kansas, 
 561, 121 X. W. 22'; Clark v. American Exp. etc,, R. Co., 100 Mo. App. 074, 75 S. W. 
 Co.. 130 Iowa 254, 106 X. W. 642. 782; Southern Pac. Co. v. Phillipson (Tex. 
 
 Where, in an action for damages for de- Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 958. 
 lay in shipping freight, defendant's breach 33. Morrow v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 of the contract of shipment by undue de- (Mo. App.), 123 S. W. 1034. 
 lay was not denied, plaintiff was at least But the measure of damages for a car- 
 entitled to nominal damages, so that a rier's negligent delay in transporting prop- 
 motion for nonsuit was properly denied. erty is the difference between the market 
 Story Lumber Co. v. Southern R. Co., 151 value of the property at the point of des- 
 X. C. 23, 65 S. E. 460. tination, in the condition in which it 
 
 29.' Eiswald v. Southern Exp. Co., 60 would have been received had it been de- 
 
 Qa 49r, livered in a reasonable time, and its market 
 
 30. Stipulated damages.— Devereaux v. value at that point in the condition which 
 Buckley, 34 O. St. 10, 32 Am. Rep. 342. it was in at the time of its arrival, not- 
 
 31. Necessity for consideration. — St. withstanding the stipulation in the bill of 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coolidge, 73 Ark. 112, lading that in the event of loss of prop- 
 83 S. W. 333, 108 Am. St. Rep. 21, 67 L. erty the value of the same at the point of 
 R. A., X. S., 555, 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. shipment should govern, the stipulation 
 582. referring to property lost in transit and 
 
 32. Stipulation for valuation of goods not to property damaged. Hardin Grain 
 at time of shipment.— Southern R. Co. v. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 90 S. W. 681, 
 Cofer, 149 Ala. 505, 43 So. 102. 120 Mo. App. 203.
 
 641 
 
 DKLAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. 
 
 § 931 
 
 that whenever either the object of the sender is specially brought to the notice 
 of the carrier, or circumstances are known to the carrier from which the object 
 ought in reason to be inferred, so that the object may be taken to have been 
 within the contemplation of both parties, damages may be recovered for the 
 natural consequences of the failure of that object.^* For delay of a carrier in 
 delivering freight, there may be recovered not only such damages as normally 
 result therefrom, but such as result from special circumstances known to the 
 carrier at the time of the contract. ^^^ More than nominal damages can be re- 
 covered for breach of a contract of shipment by unreasonable delay when the 
 special purpose or use of the article shipped is expressly made a part of the 
 contract or of the negotiations, or where it is of such a character that the par- 
 ties may fairly be suj)posed to have contcmi)lated such special purpose or pres- 
 ent use when making the contract.-" 
 
 Where Statute Prevents Restricting Liability. — Special damages may be 
 allowed against a railroad in a state whose laws deprived the carrier of the priv- 
 ilege of declining to receive the shipment, of limiting its liability, or of charging 
 extra compensation for the extra liability.-*' 
 
 Damages Not Certain in Amount. — Where notice of the special conse- 
 quences of delay in delivery is given, and forms the basis of the contract of 
 carriage, the carrier is liable for special damages for delay, though their amount 
 can not be estimated at tiie timc.'''^ 
 
 Goods Shipped to Fill Penalty Contract. — For negligent delay in deliv- 
 ery of goods, the carrier, who has been requested to ship promptly and notified 
 that the goods were designed to fill a penalty contract, is liable for such special 
 damages as the shipper may reasonably incur by reason of his failure, occa- 
 
 34. Special damages. — Harper Furniture 
 Co. V. Southern Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 
 62 S. E. 145, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483, 128 
 Am. St. Rep. 588. 
 
 35. United 5/a/(?5.— Central Trust Co. v. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. 683. 
 
 Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Plant- 
 ers' Gin, etc., Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 
 352. 
 
 lozi'a. — Elzy V. Adams Exp. Co., 141 
 Iowa 407, 119 N. W. 705; Cowan v. 
 Western Union Tel. Co., 122 Iowa 379, 
 98 N. W. 281, 101 Am. St. Rep. 268, 64 
 L. R. A., N. S., 545. 
 
 /vra;i.ja.y.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru- 
 VanZandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 
 408, 87 Pac. 80, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 1058, 
 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 790. 
 
 Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mink, 126" Ky. 337, 103 S. W. 294. 31 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 833; Stone v. Adams Exp. Co. 
 (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Weston v. Boston, etc.. 
 Railroad, 190 Mass. 298, 76 N. E. 1050, 112 
 Am. St. Rep. 330, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 569, 
 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 825. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Rocky Mt. Mills v. Wil- 
 mington, etc., R. Co., 'll9 N. C. 693, 25 
 S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. Rep. 682. 
 
 The defendant, at the time of shipping, 
 having had notice of the existing facts 
 out of which special damages would 
 naturally accrue to the plaintiffs by a 
 
 1 Car— 41 
 
 negligent delay in the delivery, ought to 
 he held liable for such special damages 
 which naturally and proximately resulted 
 from such delay. The rule seems to be 
 well established concerning the liability of 
 tlie defendant under such circumstances. 
 Alorrow v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. 
 A pp.), 123 S. W. 1034. 
 
 36. Story Lumber Co. v. Southern R. 
 Co., 151 N. C. 23, 65 S. E. 460. 
 
 37. Where statute prevents restricting 
 liability. — The carrier is so held liable be- 
 cause: (1) By the very nature of its busi- 
 ness it invites the passage over its line, 
 at the rates fixed by the commission, of 
 the usual commerce of the country, some 
 of which it must know will be tendered to 
 it with notice of such special conditions, 
 and such invitation and tender constitute 
 a contract with reference to such condi- 
 tions; (2) it must be assumed that the 
 rates fixed by the commission include 
 extra compensation for this class of risks 
 as one of thg ordinary and fixed charges 
 of operation, and that therefore the ship- 
 pers generally have paid for this measure 
 of indemnity: and (3) the carrier has the 
 opportunity to make immediate prepara- 
 tion to guard against the breach. Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Belcher, 89 Tex. 428, 
 430, 35 S. W. 6. 
 
 38. Damages not certain in amount. — 
 Gledhill Wall Paper Co. v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 119 N. Y. S. 623.
 
 §§ 931-933 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 642 
 
 sioned by such delay of the carrier, to perform his contract witliiii the stipulated 
 time.2^ 
 
 § 932. Within Contemplation of Parties. — The consignee in an action 
 a^'-ainst a carrier for delav in dehvering goods can not recover special damages 
 not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the execution of the 
 contract of shipment.-*" Where the special circumstances under which a contract 
 of shipment was made were not communicated to the carrier, the measure of 
 damages for the breach of the contract is the amount of injury which would 
 generally arise from such breach.-* ^ Where the special circumstances are known 
 or have'been communicated to the carrier who breaks his contract by delay, and 
 where the damages complained of How naturally from the breach of contract 
 under the special circumstances, such special damages may be supposed to have 
 been contemplated by the parties and are recoverable. •*- 
 
 §§ 933-938. Notice of Special Circumstances— § 933. Necessity 
 of Notice.- — If a shipper would charge the carrier with any special damages, 
 he must have communicated all the facts not ordina'rily attending the carriage, 
 or the peculiar character and value of the property.^ ^ Special damages can not 
 be recovered for delay of a carrier in shipping goods, unless notice of the cir- 
 cumstances by reason of which special damages would result from delay was 
 given the carrier at the time of shipment.-*^' Unless a carrier has been notified 
 
 39. Goods shipped to fill penalty con- 
 tract. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. z'. Southern 
 Seating, etc.. Co.. 104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. W. 
 303, 50 L. R. A., X. S., 720, 78 Am. St. 
 Rep. 9.33. 
 
 40. Special damages. — Ligon v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 1. 
 
 41. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Darnell Bros., 
 62 Tex. 639, 641. 
 
 42. Hadley v. Baxendale (Eng.), 9 Exch. 
 341; Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern 
 Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 30 
 L. R. A., N. S., 483, 128 Am. St. Rep. 
 588; Story Lumber Co. v. Southern R. 
 Co., 151 N. C. 23, 65 S. E. 460. 
 
 43. Notice of special circumstances. — 
 Willian-is v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., .56 Fla. 
 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 134. 
 
 44. Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mudford, 48 Ark. 502, 3 S. W. 814; Mur- 
 rell V. Pacific Exp. Co., 54 Ark. 22, 24, 14 
 S. W. 1098, 26 Am. St. Rep. 17; Hooks 
 Smelting Co. v. Planters' Compress Co., 
 72 Ark. 275, 79 S. W. 1052; Crutcher v. 
 Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 74 Ark. 358, 85 S. 
 W. 770; Pine Bluff Iron Works v. Bol- 
 ing & Bro., 75 Ark. 469, 88 S. W. 306; 
 Long V. Abeles & Co., 77 Ark. 150, 91 
 S. W. 29; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. New- 
 house Mill, etc., Co., 90 Ark. 452, 119 S. 
 W. 646; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters' 
 Gin, etc., Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352. 
 
 Georgia. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Pritc- 
 hard, 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 4 Am. St. 
 Rep. 92. 
 
 Kentucky. — Stone v. Adams Exp. Co. 
 (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Nelson, 97 S. W. 757, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 
 114; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkinsville 
 Canning Co., 132 Ky. 578, 116 S. W. 758. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Swift River Co. v. Fitch- 
 burg R. Co., 169 Mass. 326, 47 X. E. 1015, 
 61 Am. St. Rep. 288. 
 
 Michigan. — McKinnon v. McEwan, 48 
 Mich. 106, 11 N. W. 828, 42 Am. Rep. 458. 
 
 Missouri. — Morrow v. Missoui^i Pac. R. 
 Co. (Mo. App.), 123 S. W. 1034. 
 
 North Carolina. — Harper Furniture Co. 
 V. Southern Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. 
 E. 145. 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483, 128 Am. 
 St. Rep. 588; Asheboro, etc., Mfg. Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 149 N. C. 261, 62 S. E. 
 1091; Lewark v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 137 
 N. C. 383, 40 S. E. 882; Sharpe v. Southern 
 R. Co., 130 N. C. 613, 41 S. E. 799; Neal 
 V. Pender-Heyman Hardware Co., 122 N. 
 C. 104, 29 S. E. 96, 65 Am. St. Rep.697; 
 Rocky Mt. Mills v. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co.. 119 N. C. 693, 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. 
 St. Rep. 682; Foard v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 53 N. C. 235, 78 Am. Dec. 277; Story 
 Lumber Co. v. Southern R. Co., 151 N. 
 C. 23. 65 S. E. 460. 
 
 Okhihoma. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' Union Gin Co., 34 Okla. 270, 125 
 Pac. 894. 
 
 South Carolina. — Traywick v. Southern 
 Railway, 71 S. C. 82, 50 S. E. 549, 
 110 Am. St. Rep. 563; Mills v. South- 
 ern Railway, 90 S. C. 366, 73 S. E. 772; 
 Moore v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 
 19, 67 S. E. 11; Green Co. v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 83 S. C. 498, 65 S. E. 639; 
 Wesner, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic, etc., 
 Railroad, 71 S. C. 211, 50 S. E. 789; Guess 
 V. Southern Railway, 73 S. C. 264, 53 S. 
 E. 421; Milhous v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 75 S. C. 351, 55 S. E. 764; McKerall v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 76 S. C. 338, 56 S. 
 E. 965; Strange v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 77 S. C. 182, 57 S. E. 724; Matheson v. 
 Southern Railway, 79 S. C. 155, 60 S. 
 E. 437; Kolb v. Southern Railway, 81 S. 
 C. 536, 62 S. E. 872. 
 
 Tennessee. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Southern Seating, etc., Co., 104 Tenn,
 
 643 
 
 DKI.AV IN" TKANSI'OKTATIOX (;R DKl.IVKKV. 
 
 § 933 
 
 of the urgent necessity for prijuiiH carriaj^e, he will he liahle. in case of his neg- 
 ligent delay, only for the usual and ordinary damages ; ■*•' that is, the difference 
 between the market price at destination at time of delivery and when they should 
 have been delivered, if the goods were intended for sale on the market,"*" or 
 the rental value of the goods if not intended for market."*" Failure of an ex- 
 press company to deliver, within a reasonable time, the order book of a nursery- 
 man, containing the names of his customers, does n(jt render the company liable 
 for losses resulting thrcjugh his inability to till their orders, unless the com- 
 pany had notice that it was necessary for him to have the book to enable him 
 to deliver the trees. 15ut if the company had notice at the point of destina- 
 tion and negligently failed to make j^romj^t delivery of the book, it is liable for 
 special damages.^"' Where a carrier fails to deliver orange boxes within a rea- 
 sonable time, the contract not fixing any time for delivery, the freezing of the 
 oranges on the trees was not such a direct, natural, and proximate result of 
 such failure to deliver as to render the carrier liable, where the carrier was not 
 informed that the oranges would be left on the trees until the boxes were de- 
 livered nor was the carrier liable for loss due to the idleness of the men em- 
 ployed to pick and ship the oranges, where the carrier was not informed that 
 the men had been so hircrl."*" 
 
 Notice on Return Shipment. — Where mill machinery was shipped to be 
 repaired, and then by a separate contract shipj^ed back, to give the carrier no- 
 tice of special circumstances from which damage would arise from delay in 
 transportation, so as to make it liable therefor, it is not enough that the agent 
 with whom the first contract was made knew thereof, there having been no 
 delay in the first shipment, but the agent with whom the second contract was 
 made must have been infomied of such circumstances.^*' 
 
 Notice of Particular Facts. — Where a carrier was without knowledge that 
 if a shipment of goods should be delayed the owner w'ould be unable to store 
 the same on arrival, it is not liable for the dift'erence in price between that 
 which the owner might have obtained by sales in the usual course of his busi- 
 ness, if the goods had arrived in due time, and that realized by a forced sale 
 due to a lack of storage cai)acity when the goods arrixed.-'"^ 
 
 568, 58 S. \V. 303, 50 L. R. A., X. S., 729, 
 78 Am. St. Rep. 933. 
 
 Texas.— GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbert, 4 
 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. 
 W. 320: Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: Pettit, 3 
 Tex. Civ. App. 588, 22 S. W. 761; Pacific 
 Exp. Co. v. Jones, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 
 113 S. \V. 952; Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., 
 R. Co., 99 Tex. 407. 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 1111, 122 Am. St. Rep. 647. 
 
 In order to impose on the carrier who 
 makes unreasonable and negligent delay 
 to transport and deliver a shipment a 
 further liability than for damages arising 
 naturally and directly, that is, in the or- 
 dinary course of things, from a l)reach 
 of contract, such unusual or extraordi- 
 nary damages must have been brought 
 within the contemplation of the parties 
 as the probable result of a breach at the 
 time of contracting. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431. 49 S. \V. 
 526. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for fail- 
 ure to deliver goods shipped, special dam- 
 ages can not l^e recovered unless the 
 facts rendering the carrier liable for sucli 
 damages were within knowledge of the 
 carrier at the time of entering into the 
 
 contract of shipment. Ligon z\ Missouri 
 Pac. R. C<x. :; Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 1. 
 The same general principle is applied 
 in telegraph cases. Mood z: Wtstcrn 
 Union Tol. Co.. 40 S. C. 524. 19 S. E. 67; 
 Rogers v. Western Union Tel. Co.. 72 S. 
 C. 290, 51 S. E. 773; Smith z: Western 
 Union Tel. Co.. 72 S. C. 116. 51 S. E. 537; 
 Poteet V. Western Union Tel. Co.. 74 S. 
 C. 491. 55 S. E. 113. 
 
 45. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Darnell Bros., 62 
 Tex. 639. 
 
 46. Missouri, etc., R. Co. r. Webb. 49 S. 
 W. 526, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431; Pacific 
 Exp. Co. z: Darnell Bros., 62 Tex. 639; 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. z: Watson, 1 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 813. 
 
 47. Galveston, etc., R. Co. z: Jessee, 
 2 Texas .-Kpp. Civ. Cas.. § 403. 
 
 48. Wells, Fargo & Co. z: Battle, 5 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 532, 24 S. W. 353. 
 
 49. Williams z: Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 48 
 So. 209. 56 Kla. 735. 24 L. R. .\.. N. S., 134. 
 
 50. Notice on return shipment. — Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. r. Mink. l::(i Kv. 337, 
 103 S. W. 294, 31 Ky. I,. Rep. 833.' 
 
 51. Notice of particular facts. — Rutland 
 7'. Southern Railwav, SI S. C. 448, 62 S. 
 E. 865.
 
 R 934 CARRIERS. 644 
 
 § 934. Sufficiency of Notice.— Generally, notice given at the time of ship- 
 ment of any special circumstances which would show that the damages to be 
 anticipated from a delay would be enhanced has been held sufficient.^^ a car- 
 rier is liable for special damages, although at the time of the shipment it had 
 no knowledge or information of the circumstances from which such damages 
 were liable to arise, if, after the goods reached their destination, notice was 
 given the carrier of such circumstances and the carrier, after such notice, de- 
 layed in making deliver}^ of the goods.^^ The carrier has sufficient notice of 
 the peculiar circumstances of the case where, at the time of shipment, notice 
 was given the carrier that the goods were intended for feeding cattle, and when 
 application was made to the carrier's agent for delivery of the goods, the agent 
 was informed that the shipper would suffer great loss if the delivery were not 
 made promptlv, as the shipper was feeding cattle on full feed.'^^ fhat a car- 
 rier was notified that gin machinery delayed in transportation was badly needed 
 was insufficient to charge the carrier with notice that the consignee conducted 
 a public ginnery and had a special need for the machinery.^s Notice to_ a car- 
 rier by the shipper that all consignments of cans should be rushed during the 
 packing season is not sufficient to apprise the carrier that a consignee would be 
 compelled to close down its cannery, and that its tomatoes would be spoiled if 
 the shipment were delayed, so as to permit a recovery for such special dam- 
 ages from the delay.^*^ Where an agent of the defendant, an express company, 
 asked the plaintiff why he did not ship a shaft for a steam shovel by freight, 
 and was informed that the steam shovel was broken down, and that unless the 
 shipment was hurried the entire plant and crew would be idle, and was told 
 of what the outfit consisted, the defendant was sufficiently notified of the ne- 
 cessity for haste to render it liable for special damages.^^ That electric lights 
 in the office of an express company at a place from which electric machinery 
 was expressed for repairs, and to which it was returned under separate con- 
 tract, were not burning while the machinery was away for repairs, did not give 
 notice to the express company of the purpose for which the machinery was 
 used, so as to make it liable for special damages by loss of profits; its agent 
 making the return contract of carriage not knowing those facts.^s Where a 
 shipper of household goods notifies the agent that she needs the goods immedi- 
 ately, there is not a sufficient notice of special damages to authorize a recovery 
 for a cold contracted by the shipper, caused by the lack of the household goods 
 shipped.59 \ carrier, informed by a shipper that tents were intended !o be used 
 during severe weather as a stable for the protection of his horses, has sufficient 
 notice to render it liable for the expenses and damages which might result by 
 
 52. Sufficiency of notice. — Missouri, etc., ant's agent, at a time when the probable 
 R. Co. V. Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431, consequences thereof were fully dis- 
 49 S. W. .j26. closed. There would, in our opinion, be 
 
 53. Though, at the time of the ship- manifest injustice in requiring the plain- 
 ment of the order book of a nurseryman, tifif, rather than the defendant, to bear 
 the express company may have had no the loss arising from this fault of the 
 notice of the importance of its early de- agent." Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., R. 
 livery, yet if it received such notice at Co., 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. A., 
 the point of destination, and negligently N. S., 1111, 122 Am. St. Rep. 647. 
 failed to deliver it within a reasonable 55. Kolb v. Southern Radway, 81 S. C. 
 time thereafter, it is liable for special 536, 62 S. E. 872. 
 
 damages resulting from inability to fill 59. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkins- 
 orders. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Battle, ville Canning Co., 132 Ky. 578, 116 S. W. 
 5 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 24 S. W. 353. 758. 
 
 54. "The plaintiff's loss did not arise ^^ gj ^ Adams Exp. Co., 141 Iowa 
 from delay m transportation, nor from ^^^ ^^^ ■'■^ -^ ^^5 
 
 any cause for the prevention of which J„ o^ \ a -a n /'xr,. ^ 
 
 notice at the time of the contract was ^%^w%nn ^^' 
 
 important, but from the failure to per- 122 b. W. 200. 
 
 form the simple duty to deliver the prop- 59. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. McKenna 
 
 erty, due to the faithfulness of defend- (Miss.), 61 So. 823.
 
 645 
 
 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. 
 
 §§ 934-935 
 
 reason of its failure to deliver thcni within a reasonable time.'^'^ 
 
 By Whom Notice Given.— I'nder a statute which requires carriers to trans- 
 port freight prouipilv (ju receiving notice requiring prompt shipment, but pre- 
 scribes no particular 'method of giving notice, it may be given by the consignee 
 or holder of the bill of lading through another; direct notice not being essen- 
 
 tial.«i 
 
 Notice of General Use of Goods.— Proof that the earner had knowledge 
 of the general use to which the article was to be put will not be sufficient to 
 charge him with liability for loss of the use or the profits which would thereby 
 have been made. The special circumstances of the case requiring care or ex- 
 pedition must have been brought to his attention in such a way that his accept- 
 ance of the article under the circumstances could fairly be said to amount to 
 an assumption of risk which naturally and proximately would follow from 
 his default.'"'- 
 
 § 935. Time Notice Given. — As to the time notice should be given, it is 
 stated in the leading English case*'=* and in many cases following it, that the 
 rule for the recovery of damages of a special or exceptional kind for the breach 
 of a contract for the delivery of property, includes, as essential to liability there- 
 for, notice, at the time of the making of the contract, to the party bound to 
 deliver, or the peculiar conditions under which such damages are likely to re- 
 sult from the breach.*^-^" Its operation has generally been wise and just, and it 
 is only when it is made the exclusive rule in cases in which the reasons under- 
 lying it do not make it applicable that it fails to meet the demands of substan- 
 tial justice. The truth that it is not to be regarded as an exclusive rule for 
 the measure of damages in all cases of breach of contract for the delivery of 
 property has been expressed many times by eminent jurists.'-^ In most of the 
 
 60. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Maxwell (lex. 
 Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 548. 
 
 61. By whom notice given. — Mills v. 
 Southern Railway, sl' S. C. 242. G4 S. E. 
 238. 
 
 62. Notice of general use of goods. — 
 Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. Chesapeake, etc., 
 R. Co.. 63 W. Va. 423. 61 S. E. 364. 
 
 63. Time notice given. — Hadley v. Bax- 
 endale (Kng.). 9 I'.x. :541, 3 C. L. R. 517. 
 
 64. :S Hutchinson on Carriers, § 1367; 
 4 Elliott on Railroads, § 1731. 
 
 Arkansas.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. King, 
 104 .'Krk. 215, 148 S. W. 1035; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Phelps. 46 Ark. 485; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Mudford, 48 Ark. 502. 3 
 S. W. 814; Choctaw, etc.. R. Co. v. Wal- 
 ker, 71 Ark. 571, 76 S. W. 1058; Crutcher 
 V. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 74 Ark. 358, 85 
 S. W. 770. 
 
 Kc)ituck'\. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mink, 12G" Ky. 337, 103 S. W. 294, 31 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 833; Patterson ;■. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co.. 123 Kv. 783. 30 Ky. L. Rep. 78, 97 
 S. W. 426; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 
 97 S. W. 757, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 114; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkinsville Canning Co., 
 132 Ky. 578. 116 S. W. 758, 760. 
 
 Mississiptyi. — Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458. 
 
 South Caro/ina.— Shieder v. Southern 
 Railway, 83 S. C. 455, 65 S. E. 631; Mc- 
 Meekin v. Southern Railway, 82 S. C. 468, 
 64 S. E. 413; McKerall r. Atlantic, etc., 
 R Co., 76 S. C. 338, 56 S. E. 965; Kolb 
 
 z: Southern Railway, 81 S. C. 536. 62 S. 
 E. 872. 
 
 r^-va^.— Hassler v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 142 S. W. 629: Haber- 
 zettle V. Trinity, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 527, 103 S. W. 219; Pacific Exp. Co. 
 7. Jones, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 113 S. 
 W. 952; Ligon v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 1. 
 
 Jl'cst rirgiiiia. — ^Delaney z: United States 
 Exp. Co.. 70 W. Va. 502, 74 S. E. 512. 
 
 In order to charge a carrier with such 
 special damages for delay in transporta-- 
 tion as the rental value of machinery in- 
 tended for immediate use, special notice 
 of the intention must be given at the 
 time of shipment, and not afterwards. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 366, 22 S. W. 760. 23 S. W. 320; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 588, 589, 22 S. W. 761. 
 
 In the case of Strange v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 77 S. C. 182, 57 S. E. 724. the court 
 expressly ruled that it was error to re- 
 ceive testimony as to notice of plaintiff's 
 business as a traveling salesman after the 
 loss of his sample trunks. Kolb v. South- 
 ern Railway, 81 S. C. 536, 62 S. E. 872. 
 
 65. Bourland r. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 
 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483. 122 Am. St. 
 Rep. 647, 649. 3 L. R. A.. \. S.. 1111. 
 
 "Thus, in Newport Dock Company v. 
 Wilson, L. R. 1 Ex. 177, Chief Baron Pol- 
 lock said of it: 'It is quite true that the 
 case is not applicable to and does not
 
 § 935 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 646 
 
 decisions the question as to the exact time when the notice should have been 
 triven has not received much attention, there being no difficulty arising from 
 the fact that it was given after the contract was made, but before the damage 
 resulted. But in some cases it has been attempted to establish the right to dam- 
 ages beyond those which would ordinarily arise from the breach of the con- 
 tract in 'the particular case by showing notice of the special circumstances after 
 the making of the contract and before the breach; although there was an inti- 
 mation by^'one of the judges in one case,*'"' that such notice ought to be_ held to 
 be effectual for the purpose, the decisions have been to the contrary in cases 
 of this character which have come to our attention, where it became necessary 
 to pass upon the point.''' 
 
 Reason for Rule.— The usual reasons stated for the adoption of the rule 
 that such notice should be given at the time the contract is entered into is that 
 the carrier mav have an opportunity of demanding additional compensation if 
 it so desires or of refusing to make the contract, or to protect itself by special 
 precautions to avoid loss m event it does make the contract.^'^ But under the 
 law as it now is in some states, this rule can not rest upon the ground either 
 that the carrier might have the opportunity to demand a greater rate for the 
 transportation, or to refuse to enter into the contract for the shipment, because 
 the carrier is not now at liberty under the law to require the one or to refuse 
 the other; and yet under the law the carrier is liable for special damages for a 
 breach of its contract to transport the goods within a reasonable time, if notice 
 of the special circumstances is given to it at or before the time the shipment 
 is made.''*' 
 
 Notice Given Subsequent to Shipment.— Where a carrier when it con- 
 tracts to transport goods has no notice of circumstances from which it may be 
 reasonably expected that special damages will result from delay, such damages 
 can not be recovered, though notice is given subsequently and after the ex- 
 piration of a reasonable time for delivering the goods J" A carrier's liability 
 for delav in the transportation of machinery shipped for a specific purpose 
 which was not disclosed to the carrier would not be affected by subsequent no- 
 tice bv the shipper, as to the purpose of the shipment. '^ Notice of special cir- 
 
 decidc every case. No rule, no formula, 
 could do that. No precise, positive rule 
 can embrace all cases.' " Bourland v. 
 Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. 
 W. 483, 122 Am. St. Rep. 647, 649, 3 L. 
 R. A., N. S., nil. 
 
 66. Gee v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co. 
 (Eng.), 6 Hurl & N. 217. 
 
 67. 1 Sedgwick on Damages, § 158. Jor- 
 dan V. Patterson, 67 Conn. 473, 35 Atl. 
 521; Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 
 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. A., N. 
 S., nil, 122 Am. St. Rep. 647; Ligon v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 3 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 1. 
 
 68. Reason for timely notice. — It is so 
 held upon the principle that the carrier, 
 by reason of the additional risk and the 
 increased liability, may enter into suita- 
 ble stipulations looking to its protection. 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Battle, 5 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 532, 534, 24 S. W. 353; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 
 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 320. 
 
 The carrier would have the right ac- 
 cording to Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Bel- 
 cher, 89 Tex. 428, 35 S. W. 6, to charge 
 more, or insert other provisions in its 
 contract concerning such si)ecial condi- 
 
 tions, in order to cover the risk of hav- 
 ing to pay such special damages. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. May (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 44 S. W. 408. 
 
 69. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters' Gin, 
 etc., Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. King, 104 Ark. 215, 
 148 S. W. 1035. 
 
 70. Notice given subsequent to ship- 
 ment. — Towles V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 83 S. C. 501, 65 S. E. 638. 
 
 After failure of car to arrive. — Notice 
 given to a carrier after a car did not ar- 
 rive in time, adds nothing to the liability 
 of the carrier. Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. 
 Hopkinsville Canning Co., 132 Ky. 578, 
 116 S. W. 758. 
 
 Damages accruing after notice. — Spe- 
 cial damages iox a carrier's delay in 
 transportation can not be recovered 
 wliere the carrier had no notice at the 
 time of contract of the special facts; not 
 even those accruing from delay occur- 
 ring after it is given such notice. Hassler 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 142 
 S. W. 629. 
 
 71. Given subsequent to shipment. — 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Gill)crt. 4 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 366, 371, 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 320.
 
 647 
 
 DELAY IN TKANSI'(M<TATION OR DKI.IVKKV 
 
 § 935 
 
 cumslanccs after the shipping" coiUracl has been made, and after the goods have 
 been shipped, will not op'erate to fix a liability for special damages not taken 
 into consideration at the time the contract was made."- Where, after freight 
 was shipped, the shipper notified the carrier that it was intended for a partic- 
 ular purpose and was required in a limited time, it is not such notice as would 
 render the carrier liable for special damages for failure to deliver promptly J* 
 Notice U) the agent of a carrier, at the i)lace of delivery, after cotton seed meal 
 and hulls liad failed to arrive on time, of the use to which the consignee in- 
 tended to i)ut the shipment, was not sufficient to render the carrier liable for 
 special damages accruing by reason of its failure to make prompt delivery there- 
 after."^" Though notice of special damages from delay in delivery of freight 
 is not sufficient as to such shi])ment. being given after the goods were lost, it 
 is sufficient notice to it of ilie need of haste as to a second shipment, made a 
 few days later to sujjply the goods lost."'' Where notice of special damages is 
 not given till after discovery that certain of the goods have been lost, there can 
 be no recovery of such damages, in absence of evidence of negligence of the 
 carrier in attempting to trace the lost freight."'' 
 
 72. Hutchinson on Carriers, vol. r{, pp. 
 1()21-1()2(;. 
 
 Alabama. — Pilcher v. Central, etc., R. 
 Co., 1.5.5 .\la. 31(). 4r) So. 765. 
 
 Kcntiickx. — Franklin v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ky.), 116 S. W. 76.'). 
 
 Massachusetts. — Swift River Co. z'. 
 Fitchhurg- R. Co., 169 Mass. 326, 47 N. E. 
 ]01.-,, 61 Am. St. Rep. 288. 
 
 Oklalioiiia.—St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' Union Gin Co., 34 Okla. 370, 125 
 Pac. 894. 
 
 Ti'intcssec. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Southern Seating, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 
 568, 58 S. W. 303, 50 L. R. A., N. S., 729, 
 78 Am. St. Rep. 933. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Bel- 
 cher, 89 Tex. 428. 35 S. W. 6; Gulf. etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Loonie, 82 Tex. 323, IS S. W. 
 221. 27 Am. St. Rep. 891. 
 
 Jl'iscoiisiu. — Bradley v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 94 Wis. 44. 68 N. W. 410. 
 
 Subsequent knowledge of facts ren- 
 dering Npecial danuigcs prol)al)le. would 
 ni)t, in al)sencc of fraud or gross negli- 
 gence on part of railroad, render it re- 
 sponsible beyond general measure in or- 
 dinary cases of delay in delivery of goods 
 by carrier. Ligon z\ Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co.. 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 1. 
 
 Where a carrier was not notified, un- 
 til after the contract of shipment had 
 been entered into that the goods were 
 desired for a special purpose, which ne- 
 cessitated their prompt delivery, the car- 
 rier was not liable for special damage 
 caused by the failure to deliver promptly. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mill Elevator, 
 etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 87 S. W. 753. 
 
 Notice to the carrier, after the date of 
 the contract, that special damage would 
 arise from a delay in the shipment, in 
 time for him to have prevented the de- 
 lay, does not render him lialile for such 
 damages. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Bel- 
 cher. 89 Tex. 428, 35 S. W. 6; Belcher v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tex. 593, 50 S. 
 
 W. 559, reversing 47 S. W. 384, 1020; 
 Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 99 Tex. 
 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 1111, 
 122 Am. St. Rep. 647; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 370, 22 
 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 320; Pacific Exp. 
 Co. V. Redman (Tex. Civ. App.), 60 S. 
 W. 677. 
 
 It can not be assumed by the courts 
 that the parties, in making such a con- 
 tract, contemplated that defendant would 
 be liable for such damages on subsequent 
 notice, or that the railroad commission 
 in fixing rates made any allowance for 
 such a risk: for no such liability has ever 
 been fixed upon the carrier by any ad- 
 judicated case so far as the court have 
 been able to ascertain. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Belcher. 89 Tex. 428. 35 S. W. 6. 
 
 Plaintifl sued for damages for pain and 
 retarded recovery for failure of an ex- 
 press company to promptly deliver medi- 
 cine purchased l)y her. The medicine was 
 ordered by plaintiff's relative, for whom 
 she had worked, which fact was known 
 to defendant's agent at the shipping point. 
 The package was directed to such relative, 
 and. though defendant's agent was in- 
 formed that it contained medicine, he wa5 
 not informed that it was for plaintiff. 
 Held, that though defendants, subsequent 
 lo the date of shipment, were notified of 
 plaintiflf's interest therein and the prob- 
 able consequence of their failure to de- 
 liver, they were not responsible for spe- 
 cial damages to plaintiti for their failure 
 to thereafter promptly deliver the medi- 
 cine. Pacific Exp. Co. V. Redman (Tex. 
 Civ. .\pp.), 60 S. W. 677. 
 
 73. McKerall r. .\tlantic. etc.. R. Co., 
 76 S. C. 338. 56 S. E. 965. 
 
 74. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson. 97 
 S. W. 757. 30 Ky. L. Rep. 114. 
 
 75. McMeekin i: Southern Railway. 82 
 S. C. 468. 64 S. E. 413. 
 
 76. McMeekin :■. Southern Railway, 
 82 S. C. 468, 64 S. E. 413.
 
 §§ 935-936 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 648 
 
 Delay in Delivery. — Where notice is given of circumstances which will oc- 
 casion special damages after the contract to carry has been performed and after 
 the goods have arrived for deliver)', the carrier is liable for such special dam- 
 ages where it negligently fails to make such deliver)'.'^" Where a carrier of 
 freight received no notice of special circumstances requiring prompt delivery 
 at or before the time of the shipment, but it transported the freight promptly 
 to the point of destination, and its agent there negligently and willfully failed 
 to make a delivery for more than a month alter the arrival of the freight, 
 though the consignee notified him of the necessity of a prompt delivery and of 
 the special circumstances which would cause special damages for a delay, the 
 consignee could recover special damages sustained by the delay in delivery.'^ 
 
 § 936. Notice to Agent. — Notice to a carrier's agent receiving a package 
 for shipment, that it contained medicine for a sick person, is notice to the car- 
 rier of the importance of its prompt delivery."^ But notice to a station agent 
 of special damages that may result from delayed shipment of car from a dis- 
 tant station is not notice to the company.^*^ Nor is notice to an agent at a sta- 
 tion to which the goods were to be shipped by a connecting carrier sufficient, 
 in the absence of proof that the goods ever reached the station. ^^ Where mill 
 machinery was shipped to be repaired, and then by a separate contract shipped 
 back, to give the carrier notice of special circumstances from which damage 
 would arise from delay in transportation, so as to make it liable therefor, it is 
 not enough that the agent with whom the first contract was made knew thereof, 
 there having been no delay in the first shipment, but the agent with whom the 
 second contract was made must have been informed of such circumstances. ^2 
 And notice of special conditions rendering immediate shipment necessary to a 
 train master is not notice to the railway company upon a matter under control 
 of the station agent, it not appearing that the train master had any control over 
 the station agent in the matter of making contracts for shipment, or that it was 
 
 77. Delay in delivery. — Southern R. Co. 
 V. Lewis. 165 Ala. 451, 51 So. 863. 
 
 78. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. King, 104 
 Ark. 215, 148 S. W. 1035. 
 
 The plaintiff was fattening for market 
 a number of beef cattle, and, anticipating 
 that his supply of feed would soon be ex- 
 hausted, he purchased and delivered to 
 the defendant two car loads of cottonseed 
 cake for transportation. No notice was 
 given to the defendant, at that time, of 
 the purpose for which the cake was 
 needed, and of the damage to result from 
 delay in making delivery. The cars were 
 promptly carried to their destination. An 
 agent of the plaintiff applied to the de- 
 fendant's station agent for the cake and 
 stated that the plaintiff would suffer a 
 great loss if the cake were not delivered, 
 as he was feeding the cattle on full feed. 
 The cake was not delivered. By some 
 mistake the cars were sent out on an- 
 other railroad, and the cake was not de- 
 livered for more than three weeks, not- 
 withstanding plaintiff from day to day, 
 repeated the notice given and the de- 
 mand for delivery. The plaintiff's supply 
 of food for the cattle was exhausted about 
 the time the cake should have been de- 
 livered, and he could not otherwise ob- 
 tain sustenance for the cattle, in conse- 
 quence of which they were greatly de- 
 preciated in value. It was held that the 
 plaintiff could recover for the injury to 
 
 the cattle by reason of the failure to de- 
 liver the cake. Bourland v. Choctaw, etc., 
 R. Co., 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. 
 R. A., X. S., 1111, 122 Am. St. Rep. 647. 
 
 79. Notice to agent. — Pacific Exp. Co. 
 V. Black, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 366, 27 S. 
 W. 830. 
 
 80. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 88 
 Tex. 549, 551, 32 S. W. 518. 
 
 81. Where special sawmill machinery 
 was ordered from Marshall, Tex., through 
 an intervening concern to be manufac- 
 tured and shipped from Huntsville, notice 
 given to the carrier's agent at Marshall 
 of special damages resulting from delay 
 in transportation was insufficient to 
 charge the carrier therewith, in the ab- 
 sence of any proof that the machinery 
 ever reached Marshall or was under the 
 control of such agent. Pacific Exp. Co. 
 V. Jones, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 113 S. 
 W. 952. 
 
 One station agent is not required to 
 transmit to another notice received by 
 former as to special damage likely to re- 
 sult from delay in shipping a car from the 
 latter's station; therefore, such notice to 
 the former is not notice to the latter or to 
 the company. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Belcher, 88 Tex. 549, 551, 32 S. W. 518. 
 
 82. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mink, 126 
 Ky. 337, 103 S. W. 294, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
 833.
 
 649 DKLAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. §§ 936-937 
 
 his duty to communicate to such agent information with reference thereto.^^ 
 Local agents of a carrier receiving a shipment need not be given notice of the 
 special purpose for wliich the shipment is to be used, in order to charge the 
 carrier for damages resulting from a delay in transportation, where superior 
 traffic officers have sucli notice.^' 
 
 Notice to Driver of Express Wagon.— Where the plaintiff delivered a 
 camping outfit to an express conii)any for transportation, notice to the driver 
 of the express wagon that plaintiff required the things urgently was not suffi- 
 cient notice to the carrier that special damages would accrue from delay in 
 transportation so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover the expense of hotel ac- 
 commodations for the camping party during the delay.'^ 
 
 § 937. Implied Notice. — It is not necessary that the carrier be expressly 
 informed of the special facts, if they are known to it, or are of such a char- 
 acter that the parties may be fairly supposed to have contemplated them in 
 making the contract. ^^' The shipper was a firm engaged in the manufacture 
 and sale of furniture; of this the title of the firm, consignee in the bill of lad- 
 ing, taken in connection with the character of the implement ordered and 
 shipped, would give reasonable notice. In this day and time certainly it is a 
 matter of common knowledge that an engine shaft is the part by which the 
 power of the engine is applied to the operating machinery, that it is essential 
 and necessary for the purpose, and without it the engine itself and the rna- 
 chinery dependent upon it are for the time out of action. The style and title 
 of the firm, taken in connection with the nature and description of the imple- 
 ment ordered, together with the unusual mode by which the shipment was pro- 
 vided for, and the nature of the carrier's business, by which it undertook for 
 a greater wage to give additional assurance, both of safety and dispatch, all 
 give notice that damages beyond the ordinar}^ amount might be reasonably ex- 
 pected in case there was delay, in breach of the carrier's contract.^" 
 
 Notice from Mode of Shipment. — A carrier may be charged with suffi- 
 cient notice of the necessity for haste to entitle the shipper to recover special 
 damages where the goods were shipped by an unusual and expensive mode of 
 transportation. It would assuredly occur to any and every one that a shaft 
 consisting of a piece of metal weighing not less than six hundred and fifty 
 pounds, which under ordinary circumstances could and would be shipped with 
 perfect safety and at a much lower charge by railway, would not have been 
 shipped in this unusual way and at a much higher price unless the call was 
 urgent and some unusual result would follow by reason of delay. ^-^ 
 
 83. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 89 87. Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern 
 Tex 428, 35 S. W. 6; S. C, 88 Tex. 549, Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, fi2 S. E. 145. 128 
 32 S. W. 518: Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Am. St. Rep. 588, 30 L. R. A., N. S.. 483. 
 Faulkner, 88 Tex. 649, 32 S. W. 883, re- 88. Notice from mode of shipment.— 
 ver.sing- 31 S. W. 543. riaintiff. a furniture company, ordered an 
 
 84. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Nelson (Tex. engine shaft, weighing some 650 pounds, 
 Civ. App.), 139 S. \V. 81. to be shipped to it by express from an- 
 
 85. Notice to driver of express wagon. other state, through defendant and other 
 Harris t'. l-'argo, 113 X. Y. S. .")7r. express companies; but tlie shaft was not 
 
 86. Implied notice. — Harper Furniture deHvered on time, and plaintiff was com- 
 Co. V. Southern Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, pelled to close its mills because of delay 
 62 S. E. 145, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483, 128 in delivery and sued to recover damages 
 Am. St. Rep 588. from the closing of its mills by the delay. 
 
 "Notice, in general, does not require Held, that the fact that plaintiff was en- 
 positive information, but from facts, and gaged in manufacturing furniture, which 
 circumstances. if sufficiently brought was shown by the bill of lading, taken in 
 home to a party, such as to put a per- connection with the nature of the shaft 
 son of ordinary caution in the same sit- ordered, and the unusual mode of ship- 
 uation on any inquiry reasonably lead- ment for such a heavy article, and the 
 ing to a knowledge of the truth, a court nature of defendant's business, by which 
 may justlv infer actual knowledge." Mor- they undertook for a higher wage to 
 row V. M'issouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App.), carry with additional safety and dispatch, 
 123 S. W. 1034, 1038. was sufficient to give defendant notice
 
 § 937 CARRIERS. 650 
 
 Notice from Nature of Goods. — There may be shipments of goods of such 
 character that the carrier would be Hable for the value of the rent or use of the 
 property during the time of a delay, although it was not informed of any special 
 object or purpose in the shipment.-^» The carrier may be charged with notice 
 from the nature of the goods shipped where the consignees were a firm engaged 
 in the manufacture and sale of furniture, knowledge of which the carrier is 
 charged with from the name and title of the shipper. The name of the consignee, 
 in tlie bill of lading, in connection with the character of the shipment shipped, an 
 engine shaft, would be sufficient to charge the carrier with notice of the special 
 circumstances of the case.'-"' Where gin stands and machinery for a cotton gin 
 are shipped over a common carrier to a gin company whose plant is located and 
 being built on the carrier's right of way, the carrier is charged with notice of 
 the purpose and use of such machinery, and the period of the year in which it 
 is used, and, in case of unreasonable and diligent delay in shipment, will be 
 held liable for the damages which are the direct result of such delay, although 
 no express mention of the purpose of such machinery and the period in which 
 it is desired for use is made in the shipping contract."^ Rut for delay in cases 
 of an ordinary shipment of goods to a merchant of the kind in which he deals, 
 where there is no fact shown which would put the carrier on contemplation or 
 knowledge of the fact that the goods are designed for a special purpose and 
 for a definite use, other than is inferred from the character of the shipment, 
 the measure of damages is the difference in the value of the goods at the time 
 they should have arrived and the time they did arrive."- The carrier is not put 
 on notice that goods were intended for a special purpose, and is not liable for 
 damages resulting to the consignee from being compelled to shut down an ice 
 plant, from delay in the receipt of oil shipped over the carrier, where the only 
 notice to the carrier was the fact that the oil was shipped to the "Home Ice 
 Factory," and was to be used for fuel."^ Cotton seed meal and hulls are not 
 of such character as to put a carrier on notice that their prompt delivery was 
 necessarv to avoid loss on cattle being fed by a shipper."-* Where a shaft used 
 
 that damages beyond the ordinary amount such results might follow delayed deliv- 
 
 might reasonably be expected in case of ery of the oil, that the shipment was 
 
 delay in transportation, so as to render made to the "Home Ice Factory," and it 
 
 defendant liable for any special damages was fuel not putting the carrier on notice, 
 
 resulting from such delay. Harper Furni- Haberzettle v. Trinity, etc., R. Co., 103 S. 
 
 ture Co. V. Southern Exp. Co., 63 S. E. W. 219, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 527. 
 
 145, 148 N. C. 87, 128 Am. St. Rep. 588, 94. Cotton seed meal. — Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483. Co. 7'. Nelson, 97 S. W. 757, 760, 30 Ky. 
 
 89. Notice from nature of goods. — II- L. Rep. 114, citing Newport News, etc., 
 linois Cent. R. Co. v. Nelson, 97 S. W. R. Co. v. Mercer, 96 Ky. 475, 29 S. W. 
 757, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 114; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 301; Wells v. National Life Ass'n, 99 
 V. Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 588, 590, 2:: Fed. 222, 39 C. C. A. 476, 53 L. R. A., N. 
 S. W. 761. S., 33; Duntley v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 
 
 90. Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern N. H. 263, 20 Atl. 327, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 
 Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 128 449, 49 Am. St. Rep. 610; Illinois 
 Am. St. Rep. 588, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483. Cent. R. Co. v. Southern Seating, 
 
 91. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Farmers' etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. W. 
 Union Gin Co., 34 Okla. 270, 125 Pac. 894. 303, 50 L. R. A., N. S., 729, 78 . Am. 
 
 92. It is error in such case to allow St. Rep. 933; Baltimore, etc., R. 
 rents for delayed machinery. Gulf, etc., Co. v. O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. 
 R. Co. V. Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 588, 589, E. 476, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. 
 22 S. W. 761. Rep. 579; Wood on Railway Law, p. 1607. 
 
 93. For a delay in delivering fuel oil, a "In Louisville, etc., Packet Co. v. Bot- 
 carrier was not liable for damages result- torff, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1324, 77 S. W. 920, 
 ing to plaintiff through being compelled 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1324, the question here 
 to shut down an ice plant, for expenses raised was not presented, and on the 
 paid employees while the plant was idle, tacts it is not in conflict with the views 
 for loss of profits, and for loss sustained herein expressed. In Illinois Cent. R. 
 by not having ice to save meat, etc., in Co. v. Mossbarger, 91 S. W. 1121, 28 Ky. 
 cold storage, where the carrier did not L. Rep. 1217, it appears that notice was 
 know when the contract was made that given to the railroad company before any
 
 651 DKI.AV IX TKAXSI'OKTATIOX OR DKLIVHKV. §§ 937-940 
 
 in an electric plant fell (nit of a car in transit and was brtjken, after which the 
 express company had it repaired and forwarded to the owner, damages claimed 
 for loss of jjrohts in being prevented from rimning the plant while the shaft 
 was being repaired were special damages, and hence could not be recovered 
 unless the carrier had notice of the use for which the shaft was intended, either 
 actually (jr by ])lain inference from the nature -of the thing transported."'' Such 
 notice can not be inferred fairly, from the character of the property, or from 
 the fact that the old engine boilers were sent over the defendant's road to the 
 same person who had furnished the new ones soon after those harl been 
 ship])ed.'"'' 
 
 § 938. Evidence to Prove Notice. ^ — In an acticjn to rec<j\er damages for 
 pain and retarded recovery liy reason of failure of a carrier to promptly de- 
 liver medicine, ordered by a relative of the plaintiff, for whom he had worked, 
 which facts were known to the carrier's agent at the shipping point; but the 
 l)ackage was directed to the relative, and, though the carrier's agent was in- 
 formed that it was for the plaintiff, the evidence is insufficient to show notice 
 to the carrier of the plaintiff's connection with and interest in the shipment, 
 so as to warrant a finding of special damages in his favor.''" 
 
 § 939. Where Cause of Delay Known to Shipper. — A shipper claiming 
 special damages for delay in a shipment of goods intended to be followed and 
 sold by him at destination can not recover expenses incurred with knowledge 
 that the goods had been misdirected.-'* 
 
 § 940. Exemplary Damages. — In case of failure to carry and deliver 
 freight in reasonable time, where such failure arose from the mere negligence 
 of tile carrier, but that wanton and gross neglect of their duties by common 
 carriers, and reckless disregard of the rights of shippers, and willful refusal 
 to deliver, if alleged in the declaration and sustained by the proof, would au- 
 thorize a verdict not only for compensatory, but also for exemplary damages.^" 
 
 The mistake of a carrier's clerk in billing goods to the wrong destina- 
 tion, which the carrier immediately corrected on notice by sending out a tracer, 
 and the refusal of the connecting carrier to deliver the goods without payment 
 of charges for the extra haul resulting from the mistake, do not make a case 
 of willfulness, op]:)ression. or wanton disregard of the ship]:)er's rights by the 
 original carrier, authorizing punitive damages for the delay. ^ 
 
 of the feed was shipped of the purpose 98. Where cause of delay known to 
 
 for which it was desired." Illinois Cent. shipper. — iManklin v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 R. Co. 7'. Xelson, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 114, 97 Co. (.Ky. ). IK". S. W. Tti.".. 
 
 S. \\'. T.'iT. 99. Exemplary damages. — American 
 
 95. Shaft used in electric plant.— "There Exp. Co. z: Jennings, SG Miss. 329, 38 So. 
 was nothing in the appearance of the 374, 109 Am. St. Rep. 708, citing Hadley 
 shaft to indicate the special use that was ^.. Baxendale (Eng.), 9 Ex. 341. 
 to be made of it. The shaft, itself, did ..^,^5^ ii,„itation of the general rule is 
 not therefore give the required notice. eminently correct, but neither the aver- 
 Nor did the fact that electric lights were ,^^^,^^g ^^ plaintiff's declaration nor the 
 used in the Adams Express Company ot- ^^^^^ -^^ evidence bring his case within it." 
 fice at Pikeville. and that they were not American Exp. Co. v. Jennings. 8t3 Miss. 
 l)urning <lunng the time the shaft was ^.-.^ ^^ ^^ 3.^^ ^^g ^^^ g^ j^-^ -^^ 
 l)eing repaired, bring home to the appel- •.• j 
 lee notice of the use that was intended To entitle a shipper to punitive dam- 
 to be ma.le of the shaft." Stone v. Adams ages for delay in transportation, gross 
 Exn Co (Kv) 1"' S W '^00 "01 negligence, or willful or wanton disre- 
 
 96'. Old engine bo~ilers.— Swift River Co. sard of its duty, on the part of the car- 
 
 r. Eitchhurg R. Co., I(i9 Mass. 326. 47 X. '•'^'"- "V'^t be shown American Exp. Co. 
 
 E. 1015, fit Am. St. Rep. 288. ^'- Burke (Miss.), 61 So. 312. 
 
 97. Evidence to prove notice. — Pacific 1. Vazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Cliristmas, 89 
 
 Exp. Co. 7'. Rechiian (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). Miss. 686, 42 So. 169. 
 60 S. \V. 677.
 
 §§ 940-941 CARRIERS. 652 
 
 Goods Held for Prepayment of Freight.— Where delay in the transpor- 
 tation of goods appears to have been occasioned by inclination of the carrier 
 to enforce its regulations for prepayment of freight, which, though reasonable, 
 had not been brought to the shipper's attention, and the actual injury to the 
 goods resulted without its knowledge, and there was nothing warranting a find- 
 ing of wrongful intent, exemplary damages were not recoverable.^ 
 
 Where Agent Fails to Locate Car. — Proof that the agent of a carrier at 
 the destination of a shipment did not locate the car in which the same was is 
 proof of simple negligence only, and does not authorize exemplary damages for 
 delay in the delivery of the shipment. ^ 
 
 §§ 941-947. Measure and Elements of Damages— § 941. In General. 
 
 — The damages recoverable from a carrier for delay in delivering goods re- 
 ceived for transportation are such as are the natural and proximate results of 
 its acts and such as reasonably might have been expected to be within the con- 
 templation of the parties at the time of entering into the contract, and where 
 the carrier has notice that delay in the delivery will result in an unusual loss 
 there may be a recovery therefor.-* In the leading case on this subject^ it is 
 said that where two parties have made a contract, which one of them has 
 broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such 
 breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered 
 either arising naturally, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may 
 reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at 
 the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. 
 Now, if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made 
 were' communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus knownto both 
 parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such a contract, which they 
 would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would 
 ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under these special circumstances 
 so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, if these special circum- 
 stances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he, at the 
 most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of 
 injury which would arise generally, and, in the great multitude of cases, not 
 affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract. This 
 nde has been followed in numerous cases.<^ Where goods are not delivered 
 in a reasonable time by a common carrier, the measure of damages is any rea- 
 sonable loss and expense occasioned by the delay, together with the value of 
 the goods at the time and place they should have been delivered, less their value 
 at the time and place of actual delivery," with interest from the former date, 
 less the freight, if unpaid.^ 
 
 Damages in Addition to Statutory Penalty. — Under a statute which pro- 
 vides that, on refusal of a railroad to transport any property or deliver it at 
 the regular appointed time, it shall pay all damages sustained, and in case of 
 the transportation of property shall in addition pay special damages of five per 
 centum per month on the value of the property at the time of shipment, for 
 the negligent detention thereof beyond the time reasonably necessary for trans- 
 portation, a contention that the statute implies that other damages accrued and 
 
 2. Goods held for prepayment of freight. 6. Withrow v. Southern R. Co., 159 N. 
 —Lord V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 105 Me. C. 222, 74 S. E. 925; McDonald v. Unaka 
 255, 74 Atl. 117. Thnber Co., 88 Tenn. 38, 43, 12 S. W. 420; 
 
 3. Where agent fails to locate car.^ Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Southern Seating, 
 Southern R. Co. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 260, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. W. 303, 50 
 44 So. 837. L. R. A., N. S., 729, 78 Am. St. Rep. 933. 
 
 4. Measure and elements of damages. 7. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Douglass, 
 — Pilcher v. Central, etc., R. Co., 155 Ala. 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 67. 
 
 316, 46 So. 765. 8. Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 
 
 5! Hadley v. Baxendale (Eng.), 9 Exch. 445, 07 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 227. 
 341. 
 
 t
 
 653 
 
 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DKLIVERY. 
 
 §§ 941-942 
 
 that the five ix^r centum is to be given only in addition to other damages is 
 without merit.'' 
 
 Actual Injury to Goods. — A carrier is Uable for the actual injury to goods 
 which is caused bv its delay in shipping.!^ 
 
 Rental Value of Goods. — A carrier is liable for the rental value of the 
 goods for the time the shipper has been deprived of their use by the carrier's 
 delay. ^1 
 
 § 942. Decrease iti Market Value. — Where goods are intended far 
 market the measure of damages for unreasonable delay in the transportation is 
 the decrease between the market value of the goods at their destination at the 
 time when they should have arrived there if moved with reasonable diligence 
 and the market value of the same goods at their destination at the time when 
 thev actually did arrive there, ^- with interest from the former date, less the 
 
 9. Damages in addition to statutory 
 penalty.— Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Hannay- 
 Frericlis & Co., 104 Tex. m\i, 142 S. W. 
 1163. 
 
 10. Actual injury to goods. — Lord v. 
 Maine Cent R. Co., 105 Me. 255, 74 Atl. 
 117. 
 
 11. Rental value of goods. — Lord v. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., 105 Mc. 255, 74 Atl. 
 117. 
 
 12. Decrease in market value. — Moore 
 on Carriers, p. 425; Hutchinson on Car- 
 riers, §§ 767, 1367, 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of 
 Law, 2d ed., 3S1; Ray. Negligence of Im- 
 posed Duties, p. 1036; Simpson v. London, 
 etc., R. Co., Q. B. Div. 274; Cory v. 
 Thames Iron Works, 3 Q. B. 181; Die 
 Elbinger v. Armstrong, 92 Q. B. 473. 
 
 England. — CoUard v. S. E. Railway Co., 
 7 Hurl. & Norm. (Eng.) 79; Wilson v. The 
 Lancashire, etc., R. Co., 99 Eng. C. L. 
 632; Wilson v. N. Castle, etc., R. Co., 18 
 E. L. & E. 557; Gee v. London, etc., Rail- 
 road (Eng.), 6 Hurl. & N. 211. 
 
 Arkansas. — Murrell v. Pacific Exp. Co., 
 54 Ark. 22, 14 S. W. 1098, 26 Am. St. Rep. 
 17; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mudford, 48 
 Ark. 502, 3 S. W. 814; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Phelps, 46 Ark. 485; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Coolidge. 73 Ark. 112, S3 S. W. 
 333, 67 L. R. A., N. S., 555, 108 Am. St. 
 Rep. 21, 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 582; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters' Gin, etc., 
 Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Newhouse Mill, etc., Co., 
 90 Ark. 452, 119 S. W. 646. 
 
 Florida. — Norris v. Savannah, etc., R. 
 Co., 23 Fla. 182, 1 So. 475, 11 Am. St. Rep. 
 355. 
 
 (7 iMrgid.— Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 
 134 Ga. 445. 67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. 
 Rep. 227; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 85 Ga. 497, 11 S. E. 809; Goodin 
 V. Southern R. Co., 125 Ga. 630, 54 S. E. 
 720, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 1054, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 573; Cooper v. Young, 22 
 Ga. 269, 68 Am. Dec. 502, collected cases 
 in note 505; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pritchard. 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 4 Am. 
 St. Rep. 92: Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Texas 
 Grate Co., 81 Ga. 602, 9 S. E. 600; South- 
 
 ern Exp. Co. V. Briggs, 1 Ga. App. 294, 
 57 S. E. 106G. 
 
 Illinois. — Priestly v. Northern Indiana, 
 etc., R. Co., 26 111. 205, 79 Am. Dec. 369; 
 Sangamon, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 14 111. 
 156; Wabash R. Co. v. Foster, 127 111. 
 App. 201; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Rae, 18 
 111. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; McCabe v. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co., 154 111. App. 380; 
 Euston & Co. V. Erie R. Co., 147 111. App. 
 594. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wood (Ind. App.), 84 N. E. 1009; Pitts- 
 burgh, etc., R. Co. V. Knox, 177 Ind. 344, 
 98 N. E. 295. 
 
 Iowa. — Hudson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 92 Iowa 231, 60 N. W. COS, 54 Am. St. 
 Rep. 550. 
 
 Kentuckv. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nel- 
 son. 97 S. W. 757, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 114. 
 
 ^Iassacllusetts. — Fox v. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co., 148 Mass. 220, 19 N. E. 222, 1 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 702; Ingledew v. Northern Rail- 
 road (Mass.), 7 Gray 86; Cutting v. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co. (Mass.), 13 Allen 
 381; Scott V. Boston Steamship Co., 106 
 Mass. 468; Harvey z: Connecticut, etc., 
 R. Co., 124 Mass. 421, 26 Am. Rep. 673. 
 
 Michigan. — Sisson v. Cleveland, etc., R. 
 Co., 14"AIich. 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252. 
 
 MississipM. — American Exp. Co. v. Jen- 
 nings. 86 Miss. 329, 38 So. 374, 109 Am. 
 St. Rep. 70S; Silver v. Kent, 60 Miss. 
 124: Railway v. Ragsdale, 14 Miss. 460. 
 
 Missouri. — Hardin Grain Co. v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 120 Mo. App. 203, 96 S. W. 
 681; Cowherd V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mo. App), 131 S. W. 755. 
 
 Xczi.' York. — Note to Griffin v. Colver, 
 16 N. Y. 489, 69 Am. Dec. 718; Ward v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 29, 7 
 Am. Rep. 405 ; Kent v. Hudson River R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 22 Barb. 278; Medbury v. New 
 York, etc.. R. Co. (N. Y.), 26 Barb. 564; 
 note to Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 40, 62 
 Am. Dec. 130: Shannon v. Comstock (N. 
 Y.). 21 Wend. 457, 34 Am. Dec. 262; 
 Bracket v. McNair (N. Y.), 14 Johns. 170, 
 7 Am. Dec. 447; Wibert v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 36; Jones v. New 
 York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 29 Barb. 633;
 
 § 942 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 654 
 
 Bracco v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. 
 Co., 113 N. Y. S. 131, 61 Misc. Rep. 60. 
 
 North Carolina. — Harper Furniture Co. 
 V. Southern Exp. Co., 1-18 N. C. 87, 62 
 S. E. 145, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483, 138 Am. 
 St. Rep. 588; Davidson Development Co. 
 V. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 503, 61 S. 
 E. 381; Lee v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 136 
 N. C. 533. 48 S. E. 809; Boyle v. Reeder, 
 23 N. C. 607; Foard v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 53 N. C. 235. 78 Am. Dec. 277; Rocky 
 Mt. Mills v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 119 
 X. C. 693, 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. Rep. 
 682; Sharpe z: Southern R. Co., 130 N. C. 
 613 41 S. E. 799; Neal v. Pender-Heyman 
 Hardware Co., 122 N. C. 104, 29 S. E. 
 96, 65 Am. St. Rep. 697. 
 
 Ohio. — Wyler Ackerland & Co. v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 83 O. St. 293, 94 N. 
 E. 423; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. O'DonngU, 
 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 34 Am. St. 
 Rep. 579, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 117; Dever- 
 eaux V. Buckley, 34 O. St. 16, 32 Am. 
 Rep. 342, 344. 
 
 Pennsylvania.— 'Ecke\ v. Murphey, 15 Pa. 
 488, 53 "Am. Dec. 607. 
 
 South Carolina.— Nettles v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. 190, 62 Am. Dec. 
 409 and note 411; McKerall v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 76 S. C. 338, 56 S. E. 965; 
 Rutland v. Southern Railway, 81 S. C. 
 448, 62 S. E. 865. 
 
 rr.rfl.f.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mill 
 Elevator, etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 87 
 S. W. 753; International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Philips, 63 Tex. 590, 594; Haberzettle v. 
 Trinity, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 
 527, 103 S. W. 219; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McCarty, 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716; Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Foster (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 86 S. W. 44; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 588, 589, 22 S. 
 W. 761; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCorquo- 
 dale, 71 Tex. 41, 47, 9 S. W. 80; Texas, 
 etc R. Co. V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491; 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Webb, 20 Tex. 
 Civ App. 431, 440, 49 S. W. 526; Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Fagan, 72 Tex. 127, 9 S. 
 W. 749, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 75, 13 Am. St. 
 Rep. 776; Garlington v. Fort Worth, etc., 
 R. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App. 274, 78 S. W. 
 368. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Peet v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Wis. 594, 91 Am. Dec. 446, 450. 
 
 Where goods shipped have a market 
 value, and there is nothing to indicate 
 the specific purpose for which they were 
 ordered, damages for delay in delivery are 
 usually the difference between the market 
 value at the time fixed for delivery and 
 that when they were in fact delivered. 
 Harper Furniture Co. V. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 30 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 483, 128 Am. St. Rep. 588. 
 
 Where there is delay in transportation 
 of goods intended for sale at destination, 
 and the market price has fallen in the 
 meantime, the carrier is liable for the 
 difference in market price between the 
 time when they should have arrived and 
 
 that when they were delivered, together 
 with any other and incidental damages 
 naturally and proximately flowing from 
 the delay. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Car- 
 penter, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 585, 114 S. W. 
 900. 
 
 Hutchinson on Carriers, § 771, thus 
 states the rule: "If the goods are in- 
 tended for sale in the market at desti- 
 nation, and the carrier unreasonably and 
 negligently delay their transportation, it 
 is now universally agreed, whatever 
 doubts may have been at one time en- 
 tertained upon the subject that the general 
 rule by which the damages are to be 
 computed, if goods of the particular kind 
 have fallen in market value during the 
 r'elay. or if they have depreciated in qual- 
 ity because of the delay, is the difference 
 1)etween the market value when the goods 
 should have arrived and the value at the 
 time of their delivery, the carrier being 
 lialile to the extent of the depreciation, 
 with interest from the time when they 
 should have been delivered." Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Webb, 20 Te.x. Civ. App. 
 431, 49 S. W. 526. 
 
 An instruction that the measure of a 
 recovery for delay in the delivery of 
 freight is the difference between the value 
 at the point of shipment and the value 
 at the point of destination, after the lapse 
 of a reasonable time for effecting the car- 
 riage, less the freight charges, is incor- 
 rect in that it is more favorable to the 
 plaintiff than the measure prescribed by 
 law. Wilson v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 82 
 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076. 
 
 At common lavsr, the measure of the 
 carrier's liability for negligent delay in 
 transporting goods is the depreciation in 
 market value at the time and place they 
 should have been delivered and the mar- 
 ket value according to their condition at 
 the time and place of actual delivery or 
 tender, together with reasonable loss 
 proximately caused by such delay. Bul- 
 lock 7'. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 64 S. E. 
 234, 82 S. C. 375. 
 
 The selling price at the place of deliv- 
 ery is the true measure of damages. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. Peru-Van Zandt Imp. 
 Co, 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 408, 87 Pac. 80, 
 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1058, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 790. 
 
 Under Georgia Civ. Code 1910, § 2773. 
 the measure of damages for a failure to 
 deliver goods in a reasonable time is the 
 difference between the market value at 
 the time and place they should have been 
 delivered and the time of actual delivery, 
 and it is error to instruct that a carrier 
 could be held liable for the condition the 
 goods were in on the Monday following 
 the Saturday of their arrival, or as soon 
 thereafter "as they could be sold." West- 
 ern, etc.. R. Co. V. Summerour, 77 S. E. 
 802. 139 Ga. 545. 
 
 Decisions contra. — "The question in 
 Conger v. Hudson River R. Co., 13 N.
 
 655 
 
 DKLAV IX TKANSI'OKTATION OR UKMVKKV 
 
 § 942 
 
 freight, if un[)aid.'^ 
 
 Rule Not Peculiar to Carriers. — The princijjle which allows the difference 
 in market \aluc lictwccn the two periods of time as a measnre of damages of 
 course finds its almost universal application in the case of common carriers, as 
 they do the princij)al, if not the entire, transportation of the country. But it 
 does not proceed from the extraordinary care required of them by the common 
 law, or any other stringeiU rules ajjplicd to them, but is e(|ually binding upon 
 any party who undertakes to do for another a specific thing within a specified 
 time."" 
 
 Analogy to Case of Loss of Goods. — The rule applied in the case where 
 the goods are lost, that the measure of damages is the difference between the 
 value of the goods at the point of shipment and that at the point of destination, 
 does not apply to the case where there is merely a delay in the transjjortation 
 of the goods. ^^ Where the goods are lost, the injury to the consignee is the 
 excess of the cost of the goods at the point of destination, over the cost of the 
 goods at the point of shipment, which is the loss occasioned him by the neces- 
 sity of substituting the goods with others purchased at the place of destination, ^"^ 
 but where the goods are delayed the consignee can not substitute others for 
 them, as it is his duty, despite the delay, to accept the goods. ^" Clearly the two 
 rules are not analogous. However, it has been held that where the carrier 
 agrees to ship the goods to another point after their arrival at the original point 
 of destination, the measure of -damages for delay in holding the goods at the 
 original destination is the difference in values at the changed destination.^*' 
 
 What Constitutes Market Value. — The measure of damages is the dif- 
 ference between the market value of the lumber at the date of the shipment, as 
 evidenced by the contract price which had been offered at that date, and the 
 market price of the same goods when they were sold after delay in delivery.^^ 
 
 Y. Super. Ct. 375, was whether the ship- 
 per could recover from the carrier dam- 
 ages occasioned by a loss of market 
 through dela3\; and the court intimated 
 that such damages are too speculative 
 in their character to form the basis of 
 legal action." Sisson v. Cleveland, etc., 
 R. Co., .14 Mich. 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252. 
 
 In Wibert v. New York, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 19 Barb. 36, it was held, in an 
 action against a carrier for failure to 
 deliver butter in a reasonable time, that 
 the difference between the value of but- 
 ter at the time it should have been de- 
 livered and its value at the time of actual 
 delivery could not be recovered as dam- 
 ages, l)ecause the loss was not the actual 
 and proximate result of the act com- 
 plained of. "The reasoning of the court 
 is. that the fall in price was not in con- 
 sequences of the delay, and therefore the 
 carrier was not liable for the resulting 
 loss. It is to be regretted that this point 
 was not passed upon by the court of ap- 
 peals when the case reached that tribunal 
 — 12 N. Y. 245 — as the case seems to us 
 to lay down a rule of damages wholly 
 unwarranted bv reason or authority." 
 Sisson V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 14 Mich. 
 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252. 
 
 13. Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 
 Ga. 445, f)7 S. E. 944. 137 .\m. St. Rep. 
 227. 
 
 14. Rule not peculiar to carriers.^ 
 "There is nothing in the point made by 
 
 appellants' counsel that the measure of 
 damages does not apply when the delay 
 occurred through the fault of the railroad 
 company before they assumed the atti- 
 tude of common carriers by signing a bill 
 of lading." Texas, etc., R. Co. f. Xichol- 
 son, (■)! Tex. 491. 
 
 15. Analogy to case of loss of goods. — 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 
 491. 
 
 16. See post. "Loss of or Injury to 
 Goods," chapter 12 
 
 17. See ante, "Duty of Consignee to 
 Accept Goods," § 924. 
 
 18. San .\ntonio. etc., R. Co. z\ Thomp- 
 son (Tex. Civ. App.). 66 S. W. 792. 
 
 19. What constitutes market value. — 
 Where an action was brought against 
 a railroad company for delay in deliver- 
 ing a car of b'mber the measure of dam- 
 ages was equal to the difference between 
 the market value of the lumber, at the 
 date of shipment, as evidenced by the 
 contract price which had been oflFered 
 the shipper at that date, and the market 
 price of the same lumber when it was 
 sold, after the delay in delivery, with the 
 storage charges during the time the lum- 
 ber was held for a rising market, the 
 holding for a rising market a"d the ex- 
 pense incident thereto having been made 
 necessary by the delay in delivering the 
 shipment accorfb'ntr to contract. N'~"'^oU'. 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Wilkinson, 106 Va. 775, 56 
 S. E. SOS.
 
 § 942 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 656 
 
 \\'hile a shipper whose commodity fails to reach the market at a proper time 
 through the neghgence of the carrier is entitled to recover the market price, 
 nevertheless, where a shipper shipped corn so that it would, if delivered promptly, 
 have reached their destination on a day when for a few hours, because of a 
 corner in the com market, corn was worth twice as much as it was the day 
 before or the day after, this artificially advanced price could not be considered 
 the market price.-*^ 
 
 Market Reports in Newspapers. — Newspaper reports of the state of the 
 market are competent evidence to prove the market value as the measure of 
 damages.-^ 
 
 At Ultimate Destination. — The measure of damages is the marke value of 
 the goods at the place of ultimate destination, known to the carrier, and not an 
 intermediate point to which the carrier contracts to transport the goods.22 
 
 Additional Damages. — The measure of damages for delay in delivering 
 goods received by a carrier for transportation is the difference between the 
 market value of the goods at the time of delivery and at the time when by rea- 
 sonable diligence they should have been delivered, together with incidental dam- 
 ages naturally flowing from the delay, and special damages where the shipper 
 informed the' carrier when the contract of shipment was made of special cir- 
 cumstances requiring expedition in the shipment.^^ If there is other deteriora- 
 tion than that in the market value due to the delay of the carrier that must 
 also be taken into consideration. 2^' 
 
 Where Carrier Has Knowledge Goods Intended for Market. — This rule 
 applies where the carrier is chargeable with knowledge that the goods carried 
 are intended for the market.^^ The cases generally make no mention of knowl- 
 edge of the shipper, which would undoubtedly arise from the nature of the 
 goods themselves. The rule is said to apply in ordinary cases, and it is an or- 
 dinary case where no special information is given the carrier as to the purpose 
 for which the goods are shipped, other than that arising from the nature of 
 the goods themselves. Where, owing to the failure of an express company to 
 deliver a box containing souvenirs, suitable for sale only in the city to which 
 sent, within a reasonable time, they were without market value, the measure of 
 damages was the market value of the souvenirs when shipped, though the ex- 
 press company was not informed of the contents of the box.^^ 
 
 Where Goods Injured by Delay. — In an action against a carrier for un- 
 reasonable delay in delivering goods, on proof that the goods were such as were 
 called for by the contract, and in good condition when shipped, and of negli- 
 gent delay of the carrier, resulting in damage to them, the shipper is entitled 
 to recover the difference in the market value of the goods in the condition in 
 which they would have arrived but for the delay, and that in which they did 
 
 20. Johnson-Brinkman Comm. Co. v. fendants' delay, it would be both illogical 
 Wabash R. Co., 64 Mo. App. 590. and unjust to hold that defendants shall 
 
 21. Market reports in newspapers. — be discharged because the injurious con- 
 Sisson V. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 14 Mich. sequences of their act did not result until 
 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252. the cattle were out of their own hands. 
 
 22. At ultimate destination. — The con- Sisson v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 14 Mich, 
 tract of the defendants was to transport 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252. 
 
 the cattk from Toledo to Buffalo. The 23. Additional damages. — Pilcher v. 
 
 defendants were informed when they en- Central, etc., R. Co., 155 Ala. 316, 46 So. 
 
 tered into the contract that the ultimate 755. 
 
 destination was to an Albany or New ^ .p^^^ ^^ j, ^o. v. Nicholson, 61 
 
 York market; and they must be held to ,j, ^^^ 
 
 have assumed their obligations in refer- ' ' • , 1 1 j j 
 
 ence to that fact. If, in fact, there was no . 25. Where carrier has knowledge goods 
 fall in prices before the cattle had reached intended for market.— Devereauxt;. Buck- 
 Buffalo, but afterwards, and before they ley, 34 O. vSt. 16, 32 Am. Rep. 342. 
 could be delivered at Albany, a loss had 26. Lambert-Murry Co. v. Southern 
 occurred as the direct consequence of de- Exp. Co., 146 N. C. 321, 59 S. E. 991.
 
 657 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. § 942 
 
 arrive.2" Where a carrier of fniit delayed the transportation and failed to ice 
 the car during transit, causing the fruit to rot, and the consignee refused to ac- 
 cept the fruit, which was of some value, when tendered for delivery at the 
 point of destination, and the carrier sold the fruit for all it was then worth, 
 the proceeds belonged to the consignee, who, in addition to that amount, was 
 entitled to recover the difference between the value of the fruit if delivered in 
 good condition and the value as delivered, less reasonable expenses incurred 
 by the carrier in making the sale.-*^ 
 
 Where Receipt of Goods Delayed. — This rule has also been applied in 
 cases where the carrier sinii^ly delays the receipt of the goods but does not 
 refuse to rcceixc tlicm.-'' 
 
 Where Goods Shipped to Another Market.— The rule applies regardless 
 of the fact that the goods were afterwards shipped to a market other than the 
 original destination.^" If by reason of the delay there is no market value for 
 the goods at destination, and consequently they are shipped to another market, 
 the measure is the difference in market value at destination when they should 
 have arrived and what they sold for on the other market.^ ^ Where a railroad 
 agent at the point to which goods were consigned agrees to send the car con- 
 taining them as soon as it arrives to another point, and thereby their destina- 
 tion is changed to the latter, the measure of damages for delay in holding the 
 car at the original destination is the difference in values at the changed desti- 
 nation. ^'- 
 
 Where Goods Misdirected.— The railroad company is responsible in dam- 
 ages for depreciation in value of goods between the date of misdirection and 
 date of its coming into hands of rightful consignee. ^^ 
 
 Where Market Value Does Not Fluctuate.— As to perishable articles of 
 fluctuating value, as grain, live stock and such like, this rule is doubtless "the 
 tme one. But it seems that the difference in market value at the two times 
 is not the measure of damages where the value of the property is not subject 
 to fluctuation during the interval, as where the goods shipped consists of ma- 
 chinery. If this were the measure of damages, there would be no great incen- 
 tive to carriers to perform promptly a contract for the delivery of such articles, 
 as the articles are not liable to deteriorate in a few days or months.^-* 
 
 Goods Having Actual Value. — The shipper of a commodity to the market 
 for sale, who fails to get it to the market through the negligence of the carrier, 
 is entitled to base his claim for damages on the market price, regardless of ac- 
 tual value.-''' 
 
 Goods Having Market Value.— This rule applies where the goods have a 
 market value. •*•' Where, owing to the failure of an express company to de- 
 
 27. Where goods injured by delay.— 32. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Thomp- 
 Garlinf,non v. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 34 son (Tex. Civ. App.), 6G S. W. 792. 
 Tex. Civ. App. 274, 78 S. W. 3G8. 33. Where goods misdirected.— Vincent 
 
 28. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Cumbie, 101 "'• Rather, :n Tex. 77. Vis .Am. Dec. 516; 
 Ark. 172. 141 S. W. 9;]0. GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 Texas .\pp. 
 
 29. Where receipt of goods delayed.— ^'^'l Swu ^ ^^^" , , ^ 
 
 Innian & Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 14 ^^- ^^^.^^ market va ue does not fluc- 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S. W. 37, affirmed l"**^-" .'"v^^^-''' ■ ^c^rUiern Indiana, etc.. 
 
 in 93 Tex. 643, no op., citing Houston, ^^- ^O' 2t; 111. 20o, .9 Am. Dec. 3r.9: Har- 
 
 etc, R. Co. V. Smith, 63 Tex. 322; Gulf, Pfl f.^^mture Co. r. Southern Exp. Co., 
 
 etc.. R. Co. 7'. Hume. 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. ]^^ ^: ^- ^~\ '''~, ^- ^ 14.5. 128 Am. St. 
 
 W. 110, and Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Nichol- ^^7, ''^^- 'f t > ■"^- ^- i^' ^P' x . 
 
 son. 61 Tex 491 ^^- Goods havmg actual value. — John- 
 
 -on-Brinkman Comm. Co. v. Wabash R. 
 
 30. Where goods shipped to another 
 
 Co., 64 Mo. App. 590. 
 
 market^Houston, etc R Co v. Foster gg. Goodshaving market value.-Har- 
 
 (Tex. C.v. App.). 86 S. W. 44. ^^^ Furniture Co. z: Southern Exp. Co.. 
 
 31. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Carpenter, i48 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 128 Am. St. 
 
 52 Tex. Civ. App. 585, 114 S. W. 900. Rep. 588, 30 L. R. A., N. S.. 483. 
 
 1 Car— 42
 
 s 942 CARRiKRS. 658 
 
 liver a box containing? sonvenirs, suitable for sale only in the city to which sent, 
 within a reasonable time, thev were without market value, the measure of dam- 
 ages was the market value of the souvenirs when shipped, though the express 
 company was not informed of the contents of the box.^^' Pleasure of damages 
 for delay in transporting and delivering goods which are not intended for the 
 market is ordinarily the rental value of the goods during the delay, with legal 
 interest from the time the goods should have been delivered.^^^ 
 
 Goods Valueless.— Where the evidence shows that at the time of delivery 
 the goods have become valueless, a recovery of the full value of the goods when 
 antrwbere thev should have been delivered is ])roper.=''' 
 
 Goods Ordered for Specific Purpose.— W here there is nothing to indi- 
 cate the specific purpose for which the goods were ordered, the damages are 
 usually the ditTerence in the market value of the goods at the time fixed for 
 deliverv and that when thev were in fact delivered.-*'" 
 
 Goods Purchased at High Price.— The measure of damages for delay in 
 a shipment of goods is the difi:'erence in the market price at the time they ought 
 to have been delivered and of actual deliver}-, irrespective of whether the goods 
 were purchased at a high or low price.-^'^ 
 
 Goods Redelivered to Consignor.— Where redelivery of the goods to the 
 consignor by a carrier after they had been returned to him was delayed, the 
 shipper's measure of damages was the difiference between the market value of 
 the goods when redelivery should have been made and their value at the time 
 redeliverv was tendered."*- 
 
 Perishable Goods. — The measure of damages for delay in the shipment of 
 perisliable goods is the market price at the place of destination at the time the 
 goods were due there,''^ provided the petition therefor warrants it, and does 
 not specificallv plead elements of damage, when the recovery is restricted to the 
 elements alleged.^'^ 
 
 Goods Consisting of Samples.— In an action against an express company 
 for failure to deliver samples of goods, the damages should be measured by th" 
 fall in ])rice of the goods represented by the samples.-''"' 
 
 Particular Goods. — This rule applies to shipments of machinery,-**' cans to 
 
 37. Where goods have no market value. E. 809; Fox v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 148 
 — Lambert-Murry Co. v. Southern Exp. Mass. 220, 19 N. E. 222, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 
 Co., 146 N. C. 321, 59 S. E. 991. 702; Hutchinson on Carriers, § 767; Ray 
 
 38. Brown v. Adams. 3 Texas App. Civ. on Imposed Duties of Freight Carriers, 
 Cas § 390 P- 1036." St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cool- 
 
 39. Goods valueless.— Southern Exp. idge, 73 Ark. 112, 83 S. W. 333, 108 Am. 
 Co. V. Briggs, 1 Ga. App. 294, 57 S. E. St. Rep. 21, 67 L. R. A., N. S., 555, 3 Am. 
 1066. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 582. 
 
 40. Goods ordered for specific purpose. 44. Parsons-Applegate Co. v. Louisville, 
 —Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern Exp. etc.. R. Co., 1:56 Mo. App. 494, 118 S. 
 Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 128 Am. W. 101. 
 
 St. Rep. 588, 30 L. R. A., N. S.. 483. 45. Goods consisting of samples.— 
 
 41. Goods purchased at high price. — Where cotton samples are shipped from 
 Rutland v. Southern Railway, 81 S. C. an interior market to the market at Gal- 
 448, 62 S. E. 865. ' veston, delay in delivering such samples 
 
 42. Goods redelivered to consignor. — will render the carrier liable for the de- 
 Norfolk, etc.. R. Co. V. I'otter, 110 Va. cline in the price of cotton. Wells Fargo 
 427, 66 S. E. 34. Exp. Co. v. Samuels, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 
 
 43. Perishable goods.— Parsons-Apple- 15, 17, 31 S. W. 305. 
 
 gate Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 136 46. Machinery.— In the absence of no- 
 Mo. App. 494, 118 S. W. 101. tice to or knowledge Ijy a carrier_ as to 
 "it can not be disputed that, in the the special use to be made of a shipment 
 absence of this contract, the legal liabil- of machinery, the only damages recover- 
 ity would be for the price at Chicago at able for a delay in shipment is the differ- 
 the time the potatoes were due there. St. ence between the value when delivery 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mudford, 48 Ark. should have been made and the value^ 
 502, 3 S. W. 814; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. when it was made. Bracco v. Merchants' 
 V. Phelps, 46 Ark. 485; ^ast Tennessee, Despatch Transp. Co., 113 N. Y. S. 131, 61 
 etc., R. Co. V. Johnson, 85 Ga. 497, 11 S. Misc. Rep. 60. 
 
 e
 
 659 
 
 DKI.A^' IX TRAXSrORTATIOX OR DELIVERY. 
 
 §§ 942-943 
 
 he used in canning vegetables, ■*" and berries.'** 
 
 § 943. Loss of Profits.— The inclination of the earlier authorities to hold 
 that conteni])laled prohts per se were improper elements of damage has given 
 way under the riper wisdom of jurisprudence, and. instead of holding to the 
 earlier inclination, the weight of authorities in modern jurisprudence either 
 holds or concedes that, where a loss of profits is not too remote or conjectural 
 to be susceptible of computation with reasonable accuracy, they are proper ele- 
 ments of damages."*" 
 
 Notice to Carrier. — I'.efore recovery can be hud for hjst profits the carrier 
 should be notiried at the time of making the contract of the specific puqjose for 
 which the goods are to be u.sed, and of the losses in profits, or losses expected 
 to be sustained by not haviiig the use of the goods. ■'•" In an action against the 
 carrier for delay in transportation there may be a recovery of all the damages 
 caused the injured party, which includes gains prevented as well as losses sus- 
 tained. The damages must, however, be such as may fairly be supposed to 
 have entered into the contemplation of the parties when they made the contract, 
 that is, such as mi^lit naturally be expected to follow its violation, and they 
 
 47. Cans used in canning. — The measure 
 of damasics to a consignee for delay in 
 shipping a car load of cans to he used in 
 canning tomatoes is the difference between 
 the market value of the cans at the time 
 when it should have Iieen delivered and 
 its value at the time of delivery, and, in 
 addition to this, the consignee may re- 
 cover the amount reasonably spent after 
 the car was delayed in telephoning and 
 telegraphing to locate tlie car and secure 
 its delivery. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hop- 
 kinsville Canning Co., 1152 Ky. .')7S, 11 (> S. 
 W. Tr.s. 
 
 48. The measure of the shippers' dam- 
 ages for a delaj'-ed shipment of berries 
 which were sold by the carrier on arri- 
 val was the market value of the berries 
 on the date which they would have ar- 
 rived if transported with reasonable dili- 
 gence, less charges for transportation and 
 refrigeration. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 v^per])er c^ Co.. \\~ Md. 595, 84 Atl. 72. 
 
 49. Loss of profits. — '"This rule is rec- 
 ognized witli approval by each and all 
 of the following authorities cited by 
 counsel for plaintiff in error in support 
 of his first proposition. Strawn v. Cogs- 
 well, 28 111. 457; Frazer v. Smith, 60 111. 
 145; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Jessee, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 40,3, and authori- 
 ties cited; People's Sav. Bank v. Water- 
 loo, etc.. Transit Co., 118 Iowa 740, 92 
 N. W. 091; Bartow v. Erie R. Co., 73 N. 
 J. L. 12, 02 Atl. 489; Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hill, 03 Tex. 381; Western Union 
 Tel. Co. V. Crall, 39 Kan. 580, 18 Pac. 719; 
 Moulthrop .-•. Hvett, 105 .\la. 493, 17 So. 
 32, 53 Am. St. Rep. 139; Williams v. 'Is- 
 land City Mercantile, etc., Co., 25 Ore. 
 573, 37 Pac. 49; Brigham & Co. v. Car- 
 lisle, 78 Ala. 243, 50 Am. Rep. 28; Gas 
 Co. 7'. Glass Co., 56 Kan. 014. 44 Pac. 621; 
 Cutting V. Miner, 30 App. Div. 457, 52 
 N. Y. S. 288, 5 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 348; Griffin 
 
 V. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489, 69 Am. Dec. 718r 
 Western Gravel Road Co. v. Cox, 39 Ind. 
 200; Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Sup- 
 ply Co., 112 Ga. 1, 37 S.- E. 130; Bell v. 
 Reynolds, 78 Ala. 511, 50 Am. Rep. 52: 
 Pollock & Co. V. Gantt, 69 Ala. 373, 44 
 Am. Rep. 519; Witherbee v. Meyer, 155 
 N. Y. 446, 50 N. E. 5S." Ft. Smith, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Williams, 30 Okla. 726, 121 Pac. 
 275. 40 L. R. A., N. S., 494. 
 
 In an action for damage caused by de- 
 lay in the shipment of fruit, it would not 
 ])e a correct rule for the measure of dam- 
 ages to say that "the plaintiffs are en- 
 titled to recover only what they paid for 
 the peaches, such other loss as the proof 
 shows tliat they sustained in consequence 
 of such failure incurred in and about the 
 loading, the superintending or loading, 
 less what they have realized from the sale; 
 not the profits that ma^' have been real- 
 ized from the sale in New York, in case 
 the instructions had been followed and 
 the fruit delivered earlier in Xew York." 
 Central R., etc., Co. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 686, 
 12 S. E. 1017. 
 
 50. Notice to carrier. — Arkansas. — Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Planters' Gin, etc., 
 Co.. 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352. 
 
 Illinois. — Priestly z: Northern Indiana, 
 etc., R. Co., 26 111. 205, 79 Am. Dec. 309. 
 
 Kcntuckv. — Franklin v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ky.), 116 S. W. 765. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Harvey v. Connecticut, 
 etc., R. Co., 124 Mass. 421, 26 Am. Rep. 
 673. 
 
 Oklahoma. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Farmers' Union Gin Co., 34 Okla. 270. 
 125 Pac. 894; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Wolfe, 01 Neb. 502, 86 Pac. 441. 
 
 Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hassell, 
 23 Tex. Civ. App. 681, 58 S. W. 54; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 300, 22 S. W. 700, 23 S. W. 320.
 
 §§ 943-944 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 660 
 
 must be certain both in their nature and in respect to the cause from which they 
 proceed."'^ 
 
 Market at Place of Destination. — There is no rule which subjects a com- 
 mon carrier to a greater damage for a breach of his contract than the amount 
 of profits which the shipper might have made over the freight and cost, by a 
 sale at the time and place at which the article to be transported was to be de- 
 livered, provided there be a market for the article there. In case there is no 
 market for the article but the owner requires them for his own use, he can not 
 recover profits which he might have realized by the sale of articles into which 
 he might manufacture the article.^- 
 
 § 944. Expenses Occasioned by Delay. — The shipper is under duty to 
 so handle the goods as to reduce the damages as much as possible, and he is 
 entitled to have considered in estimating his damages the necessary expense to 
 which he was put in thus reducing the damages. ^^ Reasonable expenses oc- 
 casioned by the delay may be allowed as an element of damage. ^^ Expenses of 
 the consignee in tracing the goods, ^'^ as telegraphing or telephoning,^** are nat- 
 ural results of the carrier's delay in transporting the goods, for which the con- 
 signee can recover. Goods, having been billed by mistake of the carrier's agent 
 to the wrong destination, were returned to the correct destination, where an at- 
 
 51. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Pritchard, 
 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 92. 
 
 .'Mlegrations of loss of profits which 
 would have accrued to plaintiffs upon the 
 fulfillment of a collateral contract, in con- 
 sequence of a delay on the part of a com- 
 mon carrier in the delivery of freight, are 
 properly stricken upon demurrer, where 
 it does not appear that the contract, from 
 the fulfillment of which profits would have 
 accrued, was in the contemplation of 
 parties at the time the carrier received 
 the freight for transportation. Goodin v. 
 Southern R. Co.. 125 Ga. 630, 54 S. E. 
 720, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 1054, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 573. 
 
 52. Market at place of destination. — 
 Cooper V. Young, 22 Ga. 269, 68 Am. Dec. 
 502. 
 
 Where there was no special contract 
 sued on or proved, it was error to admit 
 evidence to show that the consignees had 
 bargained off the cotton shipped at three- 
 eighths of a cent per pound over the 
 market price, if they could have received 
 it within a reasonable time, where the 
 carrier knew nothing about the bargain, 
 was not informed of it and not in privity 
 with it at all. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Flournoy, 75 Ga. 745. 
 
 In an action for damages on account of 
 delay by a common carrier in delivering 
 goods, it was error to admit evidence of 
 the profit which the plaintiff would have 
 made by selling such goods if he had re- 
 ceived them promptly, after proof only of 
 the shipment and the delay in deliver3^ 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445, 
 67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 227. 
 
 53. Expenses occasioned by delay. — 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Ind. 
 App.), 84 N. E. 1009. 
 
 54. England. — Black v. Baxendale, 1 
 Exch. 410. 
 
 Kentucky. — Franklin v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. (Ky.), 116 S. W. 765. 
 
 North Carolina. — Rocky Mt. Mills v. 
 Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 119 N. C. 693, 
 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. Rep. 682. 
 
 Ohio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476, 21 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 117, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579. 
 
 South Carolina. — McKerall v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 76 S. C. 338, 56 S. E. 965; 
 Nettles V. South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. 
 L. 190, G2 Am. Dec. 409. 
 
 Texas. — San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Josey (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 606; 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Douglass, 1 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 67. 
 
 55. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Hazlett, 35 
 Okla. 12, 128 Pac. 105. 
 
 "Amongst the cash items expended by 
 the plaintiff is one for 'telegrams, time, 
 and expenses looking for boilers, and 
 team for hauling expected boilers, $15.' 
 We think that this should have been al- 
 lowed: Waite V. Gilbert (Mass.), 10 
 Cush. 177." Swift River Co. v. Fitchburg 
 R. Co., 169 Mass. 326, 47 N. E. 1015, 61 
 Am. St. Rep. 288. 
 
 Where goods are, through the negli- 
 gence of the carrier, delivered to the 
 wrong person, the consignee may recover 
 the necessary expenses incurred in find- 
 ing them and taking possession of them, 
 as the result of the search mitigated the 
 damages and formed a proper claim 
 against the carrier. Savannah, etc., R. 
 Co-. V. Pritchard, 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 
 4 Am. St. Rep. 92. 
 
 56. Murrell v. Pacific Exp. Co., 54 Ark. 
 22, 14 S. W. 1098, 26 Am. St. Rep. 17; Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkinsville Canning 
 Co.. 132 Ky. 578, 116 S. W. 758; Haber- 
 zettle V. Trinity, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 527, 103 S. W. 219.
 
 661 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. § 944 
 
 tempt was made by the connecting carrier to collect charges for the extra haul 
 resulting from the mistake. Here the refusal of plaintiff to pay such charges 
 and leave the matter for future adjustment resulted in a further delay. No 
 willful wrong or oppression on the part of the receiving company was shown. 
 The measure of the plaintiff's damages is the value of the use of the goods 
 during the first delay and any necessary expense incurred in informing the com- 
 pany of its nonreceipt, without including the expense of trying to locate the 
 goods after giving the first notice, or the delay and expense connected with se- 
 curing an adjustment whereby the goods were eventually released without pay- 
 ment of the extra freight.^' Rut a consignee can not recover the expenses in- 
 curred by him on a trip to the point of destination to look after the shipment.'*^ 
 
 Storing and Preserving Goods. — Storage charges during the time that the 
 goods are held at tlieir destination for a rising market, where the holding for a 
 rising market and the expense incident thereto are made necessary by the de- 
 lay in delivering the shipment according to the contract, are recoverable 
 by the shipper.^^ If a carrier wrongfully delays the transportation and de- 
 livery of orange boxes, the shipper can not leave the oranges exposed to the 
 weather at the carrier's loss. It is the duty to preserve the property and house, 
 or protect the same from damage by cold, if it can be reasonably done, and it 
 is his right to recover of the carrier the reasonable expense therefor, together 
 with the proximate damages tor the delay.^'^ 
 
 Demurrage Paid by Shipper. — Where a carrier undertaking to deliver 
 lumber to a vessel knew at the time of the making of the contract that the ad- 
 verse party would be compelled to pay demurrage charges if the cargo was de- 
 layed, but delayed delivery for an unreasonable time and thereby forced the ad- 
 verse party to become liable for demurrage, the carrier was liable for the amount 
 of the demurrage.*'^ Where, owing to unreasonable delay by a railroad in for- 
 warding a car load of grain, the consignee refused to accept it, so that the con- 
 signor was compelled to leave it in the car, and the railroad company demanded 
 and received demurrage, the consignor was entitled to recover the demurrage in 
 an action for the damages occasioned by the delay. ^'^ 
 
 Same — Knowledge of Carrier. — That a carrier did not know when con- 
 tracting for the transportation of lumber that demurrage would accrue by rea- 
 son of a delay did not relieve it from liability for demurrage charges, where, 
 after the arrival of the lumber at destination, it undertook to deliver the lumber 
 to a vessel with knowledge that a delay in delivery would incur liability for de- 
 murrage.^^ 
 
 Selling Goods at Another Point. — \\1iere a shipper, in pursuance of the 
 duty to reduce damages, ships the goods to other points, and there sells them, 
 the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the goods at the 
 original destination of the shipment at the time it should reasonably have ar- 
 rived there and the actual selling price at the point where it was disposed of, al- 
 lowing for the difference in the cost of transportation.^^ 
 
 Expense of Traveling with Goods. — A carrier having no notice that the 
 shipper intended to follow the goods and sell them at destination is not liable 
 
 57. Yazoo, etc.. R. Co. v. Christmas, 89 61. Demurrage paid by shipper.— 
 Miss. 686, 42 So. 169. Southern R. Co. r. Lewis. 165 Ala. 4.51, .51 
 
 58. Southern R. Co. v. Coleman. 1,53 So. 863. 
 
 Ala. 266, 44 So. 837. 62. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Kolp (Tex. 
 
 59. Storing and preserving goods. — Nor- Civ. .^pp.), 88 S. W. 417. 
 
 folk, etc.. R. Co. r. Wilkinson, 56 S. E. 63. Same — Knowledge of carrier. — 
 
 808, 106 Va. 775. Southern R. Co. :■. Lewis. li>5 .Ma. 451. 
 
 60. Williams v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 51 So. 863. 
 
 56 Fla. 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 64. Selling goods at another point— 
 
 134, citing St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Necl, Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Wood (Ind. 
 
 56 Ark. 279. 19 S. VV. 963, 55 Am. & Eng. App.), 84 N. E. 1009. 
 R. R. Cas. 428.
 
 §§ 944-945 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 662 
 
 for special damages arising from delay in shipment, such as loss of the ship- 
 per's time and expenses incurred by him in following the goods in ignorance of 
 the delay. ''-^ 
 
 Purchase of Duplicate Goods. — If the goods are absolutely worthless, the 
 shipper can recover the full amount of the cost that he is put to in getting their 
 duplication. The measure of his damage is the cost of the duplicate machinery 
 minus the value of the delayed machinery utilized to its best advantage.''^ 
 
 § 945. Interest on Value of Goods. — The delay of the carrier is a breach 
 of contract and the shipper can recover interest as a part of his damages.^^' 
 When the property is delivered by the carrier, but a loss has ensued to the ship- 
 per from a failure to deliver it within a reasonable time, no reason is per- 
 ceived why interest on the amount of the loss may not also be allowed from the 
 time compensation for the loss is demanded. In actions of pure tort, which 
 do not sound in contract, as where the property of a third party is destroyed 
 or injured through the negligence of a carrier, the usual practice is to leave the 
 allowance of interest on the damages which may be assessed to the sound dis- 
 cretion of the jury. But, as the case at bar is founded upon a breach of con- 
 tract, it may well be distinguished from the case last cited.*^^ In an action 
 against a carrier for delay in the transportation of goods, the shipper is enti- 
 tled to interest at the legal rate on the value of the shipment for the time it 
 was delayed."'-' Interest is allowed on the decrease in market value." ^ 
 
 Interest on Judgment. — ^See elsewhere."^^ 
 
 65. Expense of traveling with goods. — 
 
 Franklin :•. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 
 116 S. W. 7G.5. 
 
 66. Purchase of duplicate goods. — Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. c'. Planters' Gin, etc., 
 Co.. 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352; Wabash 
 R. Co. z: Harris, 55 111. App. 159. 
 
 67. Interest on value of goods. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Phelps, 46 Ark. 485; 
 Rocky Mt. Mills r. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., 119 N. C. 693, 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. 
 St. Rep. 682. See ante, "Decrease in 
 Market Value," § 942. 
 
 "In an action against a common carrier 
 for failure to transport property in ac- 
 cordance with its contract, the general 
 rule is to allow as damages the value of 
 the property, with interest upon such 
 value from the time when it should have 
 been delivered, if it is not delivered at 
 all. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill, 147 
 U. S. 591, 622, 37 L. Ed. 292, 13 S. Ct. 
 444." Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Truskett. 
 44 C. C. A. 179, 104 Fed. 728, affirmed in 
 186 U. S. 480, 46 L. Ed. 1259, 22 S. Ct. 
 943. 
 
 Where a common carrier delays in car- 
 rying produce, interest on its value after 
 the time when it should have been deliv- 
 ered may be recovered. Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Jackson, 62 Tex. 209. See 
 Brown v. Adams, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 390. 
 
 But it has been held that in an action 
 against a carrier to recover for delay in 
 transporting plaintiff's freight, in the ab- 
 sence of fraud, delinquency, or injustice 
 on the part of the carrier, plaintiff can not 
 recover interest as a part of his damage. 
 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. r. Wright, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 339. 
 
 68. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Truskett, 
 44 C. C. A. 179, 104 Fed. 728, affirmed in 
 186 U. S. 480, 4G L. Ed. 1259, 22 S. Ct. 
 943. 
 
 69. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Hannay-Fre- 
 richs & Co., 104 Tex. 603, 143 S. W. 1163, 
 modifying judgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 
 S. W. 250. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for failure 
 to deliver cattle within the time agreed, 
 interest from the date of the breach of 
 the contract (if the suit is considered as 
 ex contractu), or from the date of the in- 
 jury (if the action be viewed as one in 
 tort), may be allowed, if plaintiff recov- 
 ers damages. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Haynes, 64 Miss. 604, 1 So. 765. 
 
 For wrongful delay in shipping goods 
 the damages usually supposed to be in 
 contemplation constitute the difference 
 in the value of the goods when they 
 should have been and when they were 
 delivered, and in other cases the value 
 of the use of the goods may be recovered 
 if they are in condition to use, and in the 
 absence of any appreciable loss from ei- 
 ther source the interest on the money in- 
 vested in the goods themselves during the 
 wrongful delay is the correct measure of 
 compensation. Davidson Development 
 Co. V. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 503, 61 
 S. E. 381. 
 
 70. See ante, "Decrease in Market 
 Value," § 942. 
 
 71. Interest on judgment. — See post, 
 "Judgment," § 974.
 
 663 
 
 DELAY IN' TK.\XSI*(JkTATIOX OR DELIVERY. 
 
 §§ 946-947 
 
 § 946. Mental and Physical Suffering. — Generally damages for mental 
 and physical suft'ering are not recoverable a;,'ainst a carrier for delay in the 
 shipment of goods. It has been so held where the shipment of household goods, 
 wearing apparel'- or goods used in giving an exhibition"^ were delayed. But 
 where a package containing medicine for the plaintiff's wife which was known 
 to an express company was not promptly delivered by the company, physical 
 and mental suffering of the wife causetl by the delay were held proper basis for 
 recovery, but damages for symi^athetic mental sufferings of the husband on 
 account of the i)ain of his wife were held too remote.'"* And a carrier being 
 informed, when a package was delivered to it for transportation, that it con- 
 tained medicine for a sick girl, and that it was important that it should be de- 
 livered without delay, it is unnecessary to recovery for suffering by her from 
 delay in its delivery, that the order for the medicine made by her father and 
 doctor, when in fact she was unconscious, should have been with her knowledge 
 and approval."-' 
 
 Delay in Shipping Corpse. — W here a corpse arrived an hour before the 
 time appointed for the funeral, and the plaintiff', the widow of deceased, of her 
 own accord postponed the funeral until the following day, she is not entitled to 
 damages for mental anguish because of delay, though before the arrival of the 
 corpse some of the friends of the family had departed."*^ 
 
 § 947. Liability as for Conversion. — .Mere unreasonable delay in trans- 
 porting does not amount to conversion, so as to authorize the consignee, upon 
 the arrival of the goods, to reject them and sue for their full value. His rem- 
 edy is to sue for the damages he has sustained by reason of the delay.'" The 
 
 72. Mental and physical suffering. — 
 Brown z\ Adams, ;! Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 390. 
 
 73. In an action against a carrier for 
 delay in transporting plaintiff's museum, 
 for a certain exhibition, plaintiff can not 
 recover for mental anguish experienced 
 because of the delay. Yoakum v. Dunn, 
 1 Tex. Civ. App. .524, 21 S. W. 411. 
 
 74. Shipment of medicine. — Pacific Exp. 
 Co. r. Black, <S Tex. Civ. App. 363, 27 S. 
 W. 830, citing Western Union Tel. Co. 
 V. Cooper, 71 Tex. 507, 9 S. W. 598, 1 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 728, 10 Am. St. Rep. 772; 
 Gulf, etc., Tel. Co. z: Richardson, 79 Tex. 
 649, 15 S. W. 689; Western Union Tel. Co. 
 V. Hoffman, 80 Tex. 420, 15 S. W. 1048, 
 26 Am. St. Rep. 759; Hale v. Bonner, 82 
 Tex. 33, 17 S. W. 605, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 
 336, 27 Am. St. Rep. 850. 
 
 There was testimony before the court 
 in this case from which it might be im- 
 plied that M was the agent of *the com- 
 pany to receive the package for shipment. 
 He was notified of the fact that the pack- 
 age contained medicine for Mrs. B, who 
 was sick, and that it was important that 
 it should be sent on the next train. This 
 was notice to the company rendering it 
 liable for the injury occasioned by its 
 neglect in forwarding the package with 
 reasonable dispatch. Pacific Exp. Co. z\ 
 Black, 8 Te.x. Civ. App. 363, 27 S. W. 830. 
 
 75. Hendricks z'. Ainerican Exp. Co., 
 138 Ky. 704, 128 S. W. 1089, 32 L. R. A., 
 N. S.. 867. 
 
 76. Delay in shipping corpse. — Alabama 
 City, etc., R. Co. z: Brady, 160 Ala. 615, 
 49 So. 351. 
 
 77. Liability as for conversion. — 5 Am. 
 & Eng. Ency of Law, 221; Hutchinson 
 on Carriers, §§ 328, 775. 
 
 .Alabama. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Mont- 
 mollen, 145 Ala. 468, 39 So. 820, 117 Am. 
 St. Rep. 58; South, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 
 78 Ala. 587; Alabama, etc., R. Co. z: Grab- 
 felder, 83 Ala. 200, 3 So. 432; Southern 
 R. Co. z: Moody, 151 Ala. 374. 44 So. 94. 
 
 Arkansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Nuesch, 99 Ark. 568, 139 S. W. 679; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. f. Pfeifer, 90 Ark. 524. 
 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 1107: St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z: Cumbie, 101 Ark. 
 172, 141 S. W. 939: Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 t'. Planters' Gin, etc.. Co., 88 .\rk. 77, 113 
 S. ^\^ 352. 
 
 Michigan. — Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Burrows. 33 Mich. 6. 
 
 Xczi' Jersey. — Higgins v. United States 
 Exp. Co.. 83 N. J. L. 398, 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Xew York. — Briggs v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 28 Barb. 515; Magnin z: 
 Dinsmore, 70 N. Y. 410, 26 Am. Rep. 
 608; Wamsley z\ Atlas Steamship Co., 
 168 N. Y. 533. 61 N. E. 896, 85 Am. St. 
 Rep. 699; Scoyill z'. Griffith, 12 N. Y. 509. 
 
 South Carolina. — Shaw v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co., 5 Rich. L. 462. 57 Am. Dec. 
 768. 
 
 Texas. — Baumbach z'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 23 S. W. 693; Gulr. 
 etc., R. Co. z: Darby, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 
 229, 67 S. W. 129; Wells Fargo & Co. z: 
 Hanson. 41 Tex. Civ. App. 174, 175, 91 
 S. W. 321; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. z: lackson. 4 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 47, 15 S. W. 128; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Booton, 4 Texas -App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 67, 15 S. W. 502; Galveston,
 
 § 947 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 664 
 
 owner can not charge the carrier with a conversion, or the value of the goods, 
 for a delay, however long, if they are safely kept, unless they have been de- 
 manded of the carrier, and their delivery refused. Delay on the part of a car- 
 rier does not constitute a conversion of the goods, no matter how long con- 
 tinued, so as to make him liable for their value ; and, so long as the goods remain 
 in specie, the plaintiff can recover from the carrier only the damages which he 
 has sustained by the delay."® There may be a possible case where the property 
 has ceased to be of any Aalue at all, such as wholly decayed perishable goods. "'^ 
 
 Damage after Refusal to Accept. — In an action for damages from delay 
 in the transportation of goods, by reason of which they were rendered worth- 
 less, plaintiff can not recover for any loss occasioned by his refusal to receive 
 the goods when tendered by the carrier on their arrival.®" 
 
 Where Goods Useless to Consignee. — The consignee must accept the 
 goods although at the time of arrival they are of no use to him. Plaintiff had 
 a carload of lumber on one of defendant's cars which, by agreement, was to be 
 delivered at a point on its track about a mile distant, where defendant was 
 building a house. The lumber was not delivered there until about a month and 
 a half later, when plaintiff refused to receive it, having in the meantime pur- 
 chased lumber to supply his needs. He sued for the value of the lumber. It 
 is well settled that mere delay, however unreasonable, on the part of the car- 
 rier in delivery of the goods, does not amount to a conversion ; the consignee 
 must receive it when tendered, so long as it retains its identity and is not ren- 
 dered wholly valueless. He should have accepted it and held defendant liable 
 for the actual damages which he had sustained. ^^ But it has been held that 
 where, by reason of the delay of a carrier in delivering a part of a machine 
 shipped, such part had become useless to the owner, and he was compelled to 
 replace it with another, he is not bound to receive such part when tendered to 
 him, but is entitled to recover its value of the carrier at the time and place it 
 should have been delivered, with interest. ^^ 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Watson, 1 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 813; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Martin, 
 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 342; St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Tyler Coffin Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 81 S. W. 826; Gulf, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Somerville Mercantile Agency (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 104 S. W. 1072. See ante, "Duty 
 of Consignee to Accept Goods," § 924. 
 
 Mere "delay on the part of the car- 
 rier does not constitute a conversion of 
 the goods, no matter how long continued, 
 so as to make him liable for thei; valvu;; 
 and, so long as the goods remain in specie, 
 however much they may he depreciated 
 in value, the consignee or owner must 
 receive them when tendered, and can re- 
 cover from the carrier only the damages 
 which he has sustained by the delay." 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Everett, 37 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 167, 83 S. W. 257. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier, 
 where the complaint alleged a breach of 
 the contract to deliver certain goods, and 
 the proof showed only unreasonable de- 
 lay in delivery, the court erred in render- 
 ing judgment for the total value of the 
 property. Southern R. Co. v. Moody, l.'l 
 Ala. 374, 44 So. 94. 
 
 Not conversion per se. — If a carrier 
 failed to deliver goods within a reason- 
 able time, it does not amount to a con- 
 version per se. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Martin, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 342. 
 
 Where goods temporarily lost. — Where 
 an express company lost plaintiff's trunk 
 and failed to deliver the same on demand 
 within a reasonable time, but later found 
 the same and ofifered a delivery, there 
 was no conversion, and it was only liable 
 for the damage occasioned by the delay. 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Hanson, 41 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 174, 91 S. W. 321; Baumbach 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 
 :33 S. W. 693. 
 
 78. Ryland v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 55 W. Va. 181, 46 S. E. 923. 
 
 79. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Montmollen, 
 145 Ala. 468, 39 So. 820, 117 Am. St. Hep. 
 58; Southern Exp. Co. z'. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 
 445, 67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 227. 
 
 80. Damage after refusal to accept. — 
 In an action for damages from delay in 
 the transportation of fruit trees, etc., it 
 was error to refuse to charge that if the 
 trees, when they arrived, and were ten- 
 dered to plaintiff, were but partially dam- 
 aged, he could recover only for such por- 
 tion as was damaged. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Gates, 38 S. W. 648, 15 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 135. 
 
 81. Where goods useless to consignee. 
 Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 650, 23 S. W. 693. 
 
 82. Plaintifif shipped to himself over de- 
 fendant's road a cotton press, in several 
 pieces, one of which (a sill) was delayed
 
 665 
 
 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. 
 
 §§ 947-948 
 
 Where Goods Destroyed by Act of God.— Where a carrier received goods 
 for transportation, and, owing to delay in carriage and delivery at the point of 
 destination, the goods were still in the possession of the carrier, when a large 
 part of them were destroyed by an unusual storm, the carrier is not liable for 
 conversion of the goods so destroyed. ^^ liut where a carrier received goods 
 for transportation, and while in the company's possession a large portion of 
 them were destroyed by a storm, and the carrier recovered a portion of them 
 and retained them an unreasonable time, the company is liable for conversion 
 of the goods so recovered and retained.**^ 
 
 Demand and Refusal. — The owner can not charge the carrier with a con- 
 version, or the value uf the goods, for a delay, however long, if they are safely 
 kept, unless they have been demanded of the carrier, and their delivery re- 
 fused. «^ Where a consignee, having heard nothing from the goods shipped, 
 asked the carrier what had become of the goods, and was told that he did not 
 know, there was no demand, so as to render the carrier guilty of conversion.''® 
 
 Effect of Tender of Goods. — In an action against a carrier for the con- 
 version of certain goods, in which no demand on the carrier for the goods and 
 refusal on its part were shown, and in which it appeared that defendant still 
 had the goods in its possession, a tender of them was a defense to the action.®^ 
 
 § 948. Mitigation of Damages.— A shipper does not lose his right to 
 recover from a carrier for delay in the delivery of goods in consequence of hav- 
 ing received them and disposed of a portion of them at private sale. These 
 facts may be considered in mitigation of damages to a certain extent, but the 
 cause of action having accrued by the delay, the carrier is obliged to make good 
 the loss resulting from his neglect, and the acceptance of the goods, it is well 
 settled, is no bar to the action.*^'"* Damages to which a shipper is entitled by 
 reason of delay are not to be diminished by or in consequence of a statement 
 put upon the record by counsel for the carrier, even with the consent of the 
 shipper's attorney, that on a certain day the goods were sold by the carrier, it 
 not appearing that such sale was made by or with the consent of, or notice to, 
 the shipper.^^ In an action for damages against an express company, for neg- 
 
 in its delivery over a month, in conse- 
 quence of which plaintiff purchased an- 
 other sill. Held, that plaintiff was not 
 bound to receive the sill when tendered 
 to him, as by reason of the delay it had 
 become useless to him, he having been 
 compelled to replace it with another, and 
 detached, as it was, from the press, it 
 was value less. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ma- 
 etze, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 631. 
 
 Under Georgia Code. — In a suit against 
 a carrier for failure to deliver goods in a 
 reasonable time, the measure of damages 
 is that prescribed by the Civil Code, § 
 2319; and where the evidence shows that 
 at the time of the actual delivery the 
 goods had been rendered valueless by 
 the negligent delay of the carrier, a re- 
 covery for the full value of the goods 
 when and where they should have been 
 delivered will be upheld. Hutch. Carr. 
 (3d. Ed.). § 651; East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Johnson, 85 Ga. 497, 11 S. E. 809; 
 Schulze z: Great Eastern R. Co., 19 Q. 
 B. Div. 30, 30 Amer. & Eng. R. Cas. 134. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Briggs, 1 Ga. App. 
 294. 57 S. E. lor.c. 
 
 83. Where goods destroyed by act of 
 God.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Darby, 28 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 229, 67 S. W. 129. 
 
 84. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Darby, 28 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 229, 67 S. W. 129. 
 
 85. Demand and refusal. — Ryland v. 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 55 \V. \'a. 181, 
 46 S. E. 923. 
 
 A carrier is not liable as for convert- 
 ing goods unreasonably delayed, in the ab- 
 sence of a demand for delivery and re- 
 fusal thereof while the goods are in its 
 possession. Southern R. Co. v. Moody, 
 169 Ala. 292, 53 So. 1016. 
 
 86. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tyler Cof- 
 fin Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 826. 
 
 87. Effect of tender of goods.— St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z: Tvler Coffin Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. \V. S26. 
 
 88. Mitigation of damages. — Rathbone 
 I'. Xcal, 4 La. .\nn. 503. 50 Am. Dec. 579. 
 
 89. In an action against a carrier for un- 
 reasonable delay in the transportation of 
 certain goods, a statement put in the rec- 
 ord by counsel for defendant, with the 
 consent of plaintiff's attorneys, that on 
 "the 26th day of December." the year not 
 appearing, "the goods in question were 
 sold for $163.28" at a certain place, it not 
 appearing that such sale was made by or 
 with the consent of, or upon notice to, 
 plaintiffs, was ineffectual to diminish the 
 damages. Shidlovsky t'. Mallory, etc., 
 Co., Ill N. Y. S. 778, 60 Misc. Rep. 67.
 
 §§ 948-949 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 666 
 
 ligently delaying for a period of fourteen days the shipment of a piece of ma- 
 chinery necessary for the operation of plaintiffs' mill, the fact that the same 
 piece of machinery was delayed for four months at the place where it had been 
 sent for repairs, does not preclude the plaintiffs" right of recover}'.-*" 
 
 §§ 949-951. Goods Intended for Use of Consignee— § 949. In Gen- 
 eral.— In an action against a carrier for delay in the delixer}- of goods, where 
 the goods are not intended for sale in the market of destination but are intended 
 for some use by the owner, there being no special circumstances such as would 
 make the carrier liable for special loss, the carrier can be held liable only for 
 that inconvenience to which the owner has been put by the deprivation of the 
 property pending the delay. ''^ But where the goods are shipped for a special 
 purpose or for present use in a given way, and these facts are known to the 
 carrier, he is responsible for the damages fairly attributable to the delay and 
 in reference to the purpose or the use indicated."'- The detriment caused by 
 
 90. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Darnell (Tex.), 
 6 S. W. 763. 
 
 91. Goods intended for use of con- 
 signee. — American Exp. Co. v. Jennings, 
 86 Miss. 329, 38 So. 374, 109 Am. St. Rep. 
 708: Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Brookhaven 
 Mach. Co.. 71 Miss. 663, 16 So. 252; Silver 
 V. Kent, 60 Miss. 124; Railroad Co. v. 
 Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458; Yazoo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Christmas, 89 Miss. 686, 42 So. 169; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 631; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Gil- 
 bert. 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 760, 
 23 S. W. 320. 
 
 Where goods are intended for the own- 
 er's personal use the measure of damage 
 for delay in delivery, in the absence of 
 special circumstances, is value of the use 
 of such property during the delay, and 
 the carrier is not liable for depreciation 
 in market value by reason of such delay. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. f. Hindsman, 1 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 204. 
 
 Where goods shipped are not intended 
 for sale in the market of destination, but 
 are intended to serve some specific pur- 
 pose of the owner, in the absence of spe- 
 cial circumstances which may make the 
 carrier liable for some special loss or for 
 the expense which the owner may be put 
 to by the carrier's negligent delay, the 
 carrier can be held liable only for the in- 
 convenience to which the owner has been 
 put by being deprived of the use of his 
 property during the time of the delay. 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Jessee, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 403. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson in his work on Car- 
 riers, § 776, lays down the rule thus: 
 "Where the goods are not intended for 
 sale in the market of destination, but are 
 intended to serve some specific purpose 
 of the owner, the rule that the carrier 
 will be liable for depreciation in the mar- 
 ket value during his negligent delay will, 
 of course, not be applicable; and in the 
 absence of special circumstances which 
 may make the carrier liable for some 
 special loss or for the expense to which 
 the owner may be put by his negligent de- 
 lay, he could be held liable only for the 
 
 inconvenience to which the owner had 
 been put by being deprived of the use 
 of his property during the time of the 
 delay; which must be determined as a 
 question of fact by the jury, by ascer- 
 taining from the evidence the value of 
 its use, the criterion of which would be, 
 in most cases, its rental value during the 
 delay; or, in case of an absolute refusal 
 to transport according to contract, for 
 such time as would be requisite to ob- 
 tain the article by another conveyance 
 or from some other source." Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hassell, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 681, 
 683, 58 S. W. 54. 
 
 92. Harper Furniture Co. z\ Southern 
 Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 128 
 Am. St. Rep. 588, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 366, 368, 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 320; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 588, 589, 22 S. W. 761. 
 
 Where a common carrier undertakes 
 to deliver property shipped within a cer- 
 tain time, with notice of the purpose for 
 which shipped, it is liable, on a breach, 
 for any special losses which might rea- 
 sonably have been anticipated by the par- 
 ties as a probable result of a delay. Gal- 
 veston, etc., R. Co. v. Watson, 1 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 813. 
 
 In Priestly v. Northern Indiana, etc., 
 R. Co., 26 111. 205, 79 Am. Dec. 369, dam. 
 ages were allowed for the use of machin- 
 ery during the time it was wrongfully de- 
 layed in shipment. The court said: "The 
 proposition can not be entertained for a 
 moment that, under a contract to deliver 
 in a reasonable time valuable machinery, 
 such as described in the declaration, the 
 difference in the market value of such 
 machinery at the time it was in fact de- 
 livered and when it should have been de- 
 livered is all the damages the owner of 
 the machinery is entitled to claim. If 
 this was the measure, there could be no 
 great incentive to carriers to perform 
 promptly a contract for the delivery of 
 such articles, as they are not liable to 
 deteriorate in a few days or months." 
 Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern Exp.
 
 667 
 
 DKI.AV I\ TRANSPORTATION OR DKLIVERV. 
 
 § 949 
 
 the delay is the loss of the use of such machinery during the time ; and, where 
 the purpose of the machinery and the period of its use are known to the car- 
 rier, the expense incurred in ohtaining other machinery, the expense of main- 
 taining idle hands, the rental \ aluc of 4he machinery, if ascertainable with rea- 
 sonable accuracy, or the interest on money invested in idle machinery, are 
 proper elements of damage; but remote and conjectural matters, such as 
 interest on money borrowed for speculative purposes, or damage done to cotton 
 purchased with such borrowed money — matters not proximately growing out of 
 the delay — are not proper elements of damage. Neither are loss of profits 
 a proper element unless expressly mentioned and made a condition of the con- 
 tract at the time of its execution, and then only when such profits can be es- 
 timated with reasonable certainty."^ A carrier which has notice of the special 
 purpose to which the consignee intends to put machinery shipped over its line 
 may be charged with any special damage resulting from delay in the transpor- 
 tation, which, in the nature of things, was reasonably within the contempla- 
 tion of the parties at the time of shiiDment.'^"* 
 
 Damages Must Be Certain. — The damages recoverable from the carrier 
 must be ccriaiii bi»lh in llicir nature and in respect to the cause from which 
 they proceed.''^' An owner of a public ginnery delivered a part of the ma- 
 chinery to a carrier for transportation to a designated point, to be repaired by 
 the consignee. The carrier delayed the delivery of the machinery. The owner 
 testified that a certain definite amount was a fair profit for ginning a bale of 
 cotton, but he could only estimate the number of bales that went to his gin 
 during the days his plant was shut down in consequence of the delay. The 
 profit on each bale depended on contingencies. The owner was held entitled to 
 nominal damages only ; the estimate of what he might have earned by operating 
 the gin. had the shipment been promptly delivered, being speculative.^** 
 
 Knowledge of Carrier. — In order to recover lost profits as special dam- 
 ages from a carrier for delay in the shipment of the goods, the carrier 
 at the time of the delivery of the shipment to it must have notice of 
 the use for whicli the goods are intended,''' or the character of the goods 
 
 Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 128 Am. 
 St. Rep. .588, 30 L. R. .\., N. S., 483. 
 
 In Griffin z: Colver, 16 N. Y. 489, 494, 
 69 Am. Dec. 718, it is laid down that the 
 broad, general rule in such cases is that 
 the party injured is entitled to recover 
 all his damages, including gains prevented 
 as well as losses sustained; and this rule 
 is suliject to but two conditions: "The 
 damages must be such as may fairly be 
 supposed to have entered into the con- 
 templation of the parties when they made 
 the contract, that is, must be such as 
 might naturally be expected to follow its 
 violation; and they must be certain both 
 in their nature and in respect to the cause 
 from wliich they proceed." Deming v. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 45.j. 2 Am. 
 Rep. 267, 272. 
 
 93. "Whatever detriment was caused, or 
 whatever harm was done, resulted not 
 from any fluctuation in market values, 
 but from being deprived of the specific, 
 mechanical use for which this machinery 
 was intended, and without wliich plaintiff 
 could not operate its gin. Hence it seems 
 to us that whatever net benefit or value 
 the use of this machinery would have 
 been to consignee is the true measure of 
 damages. Its use, in the specific office 
 
 for which it was designed, is the thing 
 which plaintiff lost. Now, what injury 
 resulted from this loss, what detriment 
 was caused, what harm was done to plain- 
 tiff by losing the use of this machinery, 
 and what measure is to be applied in as- 
 certaining such harm, are the questions 
 to be determined." St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Famers' Union Gin Co., 34 Okla. 270, 
 125 Pac. 894, 899. 
 
 94. Gulf, etc., R. Co. r. Gilbert. 4 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 
 320. 
 
 95. Damages must be certain. — Deming 
 f. Grand Trunk R. Co., 4S X. H. 455, 2 
 Am. Rep. 267: Griffin z: Colver, 16 N. Y. 
 489. 69 .A.m. Dec. 718. 
 
 96. Southern R. Co. :: Coleman, 153 
 Ala. 2C)ii, 44 So. S;i7. 
 
 97. Knowledge of carrier. — Kentucky.— 
 Brand z: Illinois Cent. R. Co., 108 S. \V. 
 356, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1335. 
 
 Xczv Jersey. — Higgins v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 83 N. J. L. 398, 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Nezc ForA-.— Goodfield v. Piatt (App. 
 Term.), 130 N. Y. S. 180. 
 
 Texas. — Ligon v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 3 Texas .\pp. Civ. Cas., § 1; Galveston, 
 etc., R. Co. z: lessee, 2 Texas -App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 403; Gulf, etc., R. Co. z: Compton
 
 § 949 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 668 
 
 must be such that may be reasonably inferred therefrom.'-^** In the leading 
 case on this subject.''^' the action was against the defendants as common 
 carriers for not delivering seasonably a broken iron shaft sent to the man- 
 ufacturers as a pattern for another for plaintiffs' mill, and it was held that the 
 plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for the loss of profits while their mill 
 was stopped in consequence of defendants' delay; notwithstanding the plain- 
 tiffs' agent told the defendants' clerk when the shaft was sent to them that the 
 mill was stopped, and the shaft must be sent immediately, and the clerk replied 
 that it would reach its destination the next day. The opinion of the court was, 
 that this was not notice of such special circumstances as would lead the defend- 
 ants to contemplate such loss of profits as a natural consequence of a delay 
 in forwarding the shaft, inasmuch as, for aught that was said to defendants, 
 the plaintiffs might have had another shaft; or there might have been other 
 defects in the machinery that would have stopped the mill.^ Where a carrier 
 contracted with an agent of an undisclosed principal for the transportation of 
 machinery, without being informed of any special circumstances requiring prompt 
 delivery, but was subsequently notified thereof, and negligently delayed the 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 220; Haberzet- 
 tle V. Trinity, etc., R. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 527, 103 S. W. 219. 
 
 In a suit against a carrier for delay in 
 shipment of engine to be used in ginning 
 cotton for that season, when it did not 
 appear defendant was notified of such 
 purpose and no special damages were al- 
 leged or proved, permitting recovery for 
 rental value was error. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 
 760, 23 S. W. 320. 
 
 Allegations of loss of profits which 
 would have accrued to plaintiffs upon the 
 fulfillment of a collateral contract in 
 consequence of the delay on the part of 
 a common carrier in the delivery of 
 freight are properly stricken upon demur- 
 rer, where it does not appear that the 
 contract, from the fulfillment of which 
 profits would have accrued, was in the 
 contemplation of the parties at the time 
 the carrier received the freight for trans- 
 portation. Goodin v. Southern R. Co., 
 125 Ga. 630, 54 S. E. 720, 6 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 1054, 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 573. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped a photographic outfit 
 to a certain place by defendant's railroad, 
 for a particular purpose. It did not ap- 
 pear that defendant at any time had no- 
 tice of the particular purpose of its ship- 
 ment, or of the particular necessity or 
 advantage to plaintiff of their delivery 
 at the place of destination at a certain 
 date, or that plaintiff would suffer any 
 special damage by delay. Held, that the 
 measure of damages for failure to trans- 
 port and deliver the goods within a rea- 
 sonable time was the rental value of the 
 goods during the delay, they not being 
 goods intended for market, and that loss 
 of profits claimed, of an uncertain kind, 
 were not allowable. Galveston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Jessee, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 403. 
 
 Where mill castings were deposited 
 with an express company without instruc- 
 tions as to the necessity for an expedi- 
 
 tious transportation, and that pending 
 their return the mill would have to be 
 shut down, the shipper can not recover 
 for loss from the interruption of his busi- 
 ness. Higgins V. United States Exp. Co., 
 83 N. J. L. 398, 85 Atl. 450. 
 
 Must be pleaded and proved. — If an 
 article is intended for use in business at 
 destination, and the carrier unreasonably 
 delays its transportation, the owner can 
 not recover for the loss of its use during 
 the delay, or the profits which he would 
 thereby have made if it had been season- 
 ably delivered, unless he alleges and 
 proves that the carrier, at the time the 
 contract for its transportation was made, 
 is informed of the special use to which it 
 was to be put. Clarke-Lawrence Co. v. 
 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 63 W. Va. 423, 
 61 S. E. 364. 
 
 98. Brand v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 108 
 S. W. 356, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1335. 
 
 99. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 
 (Eng.), 341. 
 
 "The general doctrine of this case, 
 which was decided in 1854, has been rec- 
 ognized and followed in both the English 
 and American courts, and is regarded as 
 a leading case. Sedg. on Dam. (4th Ed.), 
 81 to 84, notes and cases, and also pp. 406, 
 409. See, especially, cases collected on 
 p. 81. Humphreysville Copper Co. v. Ver- 
 mont Copper Min. Co., 33 Vt. 92." Dem- 
 ing V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 455, 
 2 Am. Rep. 267. 
 
 In the absence of knowledge by the 
 carrier of the purpose for which a ma- 
 chine was to be used, the measure of 
 damages does not include the profit con- 
 signee might have realized from its op- 
 eration during the time delayed, nor 
 rental value together with teams, wagons 
 and hands to operate it. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hassell, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 681, 58 
 S. W. 54. 
 
 1. Deming v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 
 N. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 267.
 
 669 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OR DF.LIVERY. § 949 
 
 transportation, it was liable for special damages so arising after it had a rea- 
 sonable opportunity to avoid further delay after such notice.^ In an action for 
 damages for loss of a tobacco crop, on failure to furnish, as per contract, at the 
 stipulated time, certain flues to use in curing tobacco, it was contended that no 
 special damages could be recovered, inasmuch as plaintiff failed to show that 
 defendant had knowledge that such damages would result from a failure to de- 
 liver the tlucs, but the court held that it was a matter of common knowledge 
 in localities where tobacco is cultivated that if it is not cut and cured in apt 
 time serious loss is the necessary consequence, and such knowledge would be 
 assumed against defendant engaged in manufacturing the flues and his agent 
 engaged in selling the same.^ 
 
 Proximate and Remote Damages. — The damages must be such that it 
 might naturally be expected to follow from the violation of the carrier's agree- 
 ment to transport and deliver the goods.^ Where a carrier delays the trans- 
 portation of machinery for a mill, the loss sustained by the shipper of the sav- 
 ing in expense of the operation of the mill as a two-press mill, as contemplated, 
 and as a one-press mill, as it is required to do on account of the carrier's delay 
 in delivering the machinery, is speculative, and not recoverable.** The plaintiff 
 alleged, in substance, that he shipped his photographing outfit on the defend- 
 ant's road, to be transported a distance of one hundred and fifty miles. The 
 shipment was made, and it was the plaintiff's desire to have his outfit at the 
 point of destination, ready for business, two days later. There were troops 
 stationed at that place, and the time selected by the plaintiff to open his busi- 
 ness there, was payday of the troops, which continued about six days. His 
 outfit did not reach' such place until five days thereafter, and some tent poles 
 did not reach there at all. In consequence of this delay and loss, he 
 was prevented from opening his business until fifteen days after the ship- 
 ment, when payday had expired. He claimed as damages the value of the 
 articles lost and six hundred dollars loss of profits. It was held, on general 
 demurrer, that the facts alleged showed a good cause of action, but that a spe- 
 cial exception to the petition, that the damages claimed were too remote, should 
 have been sustained as to the damages claimed for loss and profits.*^ But it has 
 been held that a consignee may recover for the loss of a tobacco crop from the 
 delay of the carrier to deliver certain flues used in curing tobacco."^ 
 
 Under Interstate Commerce Act. — Where there is a delay in the transpor- 
 tation of machinery intended for a special use known to the carrier, it is re- 
 sponsible for such damages as are fairly attributable to the delay, having been 
 informed that special damages would result therefrom, though it is bound to 
 accept the shipment when tendered, and under the Interstate Commerce Act 
 
 2. Virginia-Carolina Peanut Co. r. At- parties to this contract of carriage." Wil- 
 lantic, etc., R. Co., 155 N. C. 148, 71 S. Hams f. .Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 Fla. 735, 
 E. 71. 48 So. 209. 211, 24 L. R. A., N. S.. 134. 
 
 3. Neal r. Pender-Heyman Hardware 5. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7-. Planters' Gin, 
 Co.. 122 N. C. 104, 29 S. E. 96, 65 Am. St. etc.. Co., 88 Ark. 77. 113 S. W. 352. 
 Rep. 697. 6. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Jessee. 2 
 
 4. Proximate and remote damages. — Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 403. 
 
 Deming r. Grand Trunk R. Co., 4S N. H. In a suit against a carrier for delay in 
 
 455, 2 Am. Rep. 267; Griffin ?•. Colver, 16 shipment, loss of profits can not be al- 
 
 N. Y. 489, 69 Am. Dec. 718. lowed as damages, unless data of estima- 
 
 "We think it perfectly clear that the tion arc so definite and certain that tliey 
 
 defendant, in view of the allegations of can he ascertained by calculation and car- 
 
 the declaration, can not be held lialile for rier had notice that such damages would 
 
 loss and damage in the enforced idleness ensue from the delay. Galveston, etc., R. 
 
 of persons employed to pack and ship Co. v. Jessee, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 
 plaintiff's oranges on his orange groves 403. 
 
 at Rock Ledge. It can not reasonably 7. Neal r. Pender-Heyman Hardware 
 
 be supposed that this element of damage Co., 122 N. C. 104, 29 S. E. 96, 65 Am. St. 
 
 entered into the contemplation of the Rep. 697.
 
 §§ 949-950 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 670 
 
 can not make a special contract to compensate it for the additional risk.'' 
 
 § 950. Measure and Elements of Damages.— Expense as Measure of 
 Damages. — Costs and expenses incurred by a shipper in consequence of the 
 delav in the shipment of material to be used in building are recoverable as 
 damages.^ In an action against a carrier for delay in delivering machinery for 
 plaintiiT's mill, plaintiff could recover the difference between the expense of 
 shutting down the plant during the installation of the machinery at the later 
 period and what it would have been at the earlier period had the machinery ar- 
 rived within a reasonable time, provided the fixed charges of the mill were less 
 when the machinery was due than when it was installed, and such clement of 
 the damage was brought to the carrier's attention at the time of shipment. ^"^ 
 But a shipper, suing a carrier for delay in the transportation and delivery of a 
 shipment, can not recover the expenses incurred by him on a trip to the point 
 of destination to look after the shipment. ^^ 
 
 Wages Paid Employees. — Wages paid to workmen constitute an element 
 of damages m an action for delay of material used in building ^^ or milling.^' 
 Where, because of delay of a train through the alleged negligence of defendant 
 carrier, a crew of men assembled by plaintiff were detained for four days, the 
 measure of damages, if the delay was negligent, was the aggregate wages paid 
 men and the amount paid for their board and lodging during the time.^^ But 
 in an action for damages from delay in the delivery of certain machinery, the 
 plaintiff, without notice to the carrier that employees' wages would be lost in 
 event of delay, can not recover therefor. ^^ 
 
 Profits as' Elment of Damages. — In order to recover lost profits as spe- 
 cial damages from a carrier for delay in the shipment of goods, the carrier at 
 the time of the delivery of the shipment to it must have notice of the use for 
 which the goods are intended, or the character of the goods must be such that 
 such use mav be reasonablv inferred therefrom. ^^ In an action for delay in the 
 
 8. Under Interstate Commerce Act — 
 
 \ct Feb. 4. 1887. c. 104, 24 Stat. .379, U. 
 S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Planters' Gin, etc., Co., 88 Ark. 
 77, 113 S. W. 3.J2. 
 
 9. Measure and elements of damages. 
 — Rockv Mt. Mills z: Wilmington, etc., 
 R. Co.."ll9 N. C. 693, 25 S. E. 854, Sfj Am. 
 St. Rep. 682. 
 
 10. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters' 
 Gin. etc., Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352. 
 
 11. Southern R. Co. 7'. Coleman, 15'3 
 Ala. 266. 44 So. 837. 
 
 12. Wages paid employees. — Rocky Mt. 
 Mills V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., J 19 N. 
 C. 693, 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. Rep. 682. 
 
 Where an express company had notice 
 that a steam shovel shaft was necessary 
 to the operation of a railroad construc- 
 tion outfit, it was liable for special dam- 
 ages consisting of the rental value of the 
 outfit and the wages of plaintiff's crew 
 during the period of its negligent delay. 
 Elzy r. Adams Exp. Co., 141 Iowa 407, 
 119 X. W. 705. 
 
 In an action for failure of a carrier to 
 deliver goods according to contract, it 
 is proper to admit evidence of losses l)y 
 reason of an expense of hands, etc., dur- 
 ing a necessary suspension of business 
 occasioned by the default of the carrier 
 for a period during which the plaintiff 
 could not, by ordinary diligence, have 
 
 supplied himself with the article by other 
 means. Cooper z: Young, 22 Ga. 269, 68 
 Am. Dec. 502. 
 
 13. Priestly v. Northern Indiana, etc., 
 R. Co., 26 111. 205, 79 Am. Dec. 369; Mor- 
 row V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 
 123 S. W. 1034; Pacific Exp. Co. z'. Dar- 
 nell (Tex.), 6 S. W. 765. 
 
 Expenses for help of a mill, necessarily 
 under pay and idle while the mill is shut 
 down owing to delay in transportation of 
 freight, which the carrier knew must ar- 
 rive before the mill could start, are re- 
 coverable as damages. Morrow v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 123 S. W. 
 1034. 
 
 14. White z'. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 Ill Minn. 167, 126 N. W. 533. 
 
 15. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Hazlett, 35 
 Okla. 12, 128 Pac. 105. 
 
 16. Profits as element of damages. — 
 Brand v. Illinois Cent R. Co., 108 S. W. 
 356. 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1335; Stone r. Adams 
 Exp. Co. (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200. 
 
 The shippers of part of a machine by 
 express can not recover, as special dam- 
 ages for delay in delivery, the loss of 
 profits on contracts for goods to have 
 been made on the machine, in the ab- 
 sence of an express contract giving no- 
 tice to the carriers of the necessity for 
 immediate delivery. Goodfield v. Piatt 
 (App. Term.), 130 N. Y. S. 180.
 
 671 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION' OR DELIVERY. § 950 
 
 shipment of a machine the fact that the profits in operating the machine would 
 have been greater at destination than at other points is not an element of dam- 
 ages where carrier had no knowledge of such fact.^" Where a shaft used in 
 an electric plant fell out of a car in transit and was broken, after which the 
 express company had it repaired and forwarded to the owner, damages claimed 
 for loss of profits in being prevented from running the plant while the shaft 
 was being repaired were special damages, and hence could not be recovered 
 unless the carrier had notice of the use for which the shaft was intended, either 
 actually or b\- plain inference from the nature of the thing transported.'^ And 
 to recover for loss of profits of an established business by its interruption, it 
 must be shown what, for a reasonable time previous thereto, were the usual 
 income and e.xpenses. and such average earnings will constitute a standard for 
 measuring the loss. Loss of expected profits of a mill, due to interruption of 
 the business, is recoverable, where the business is an established business, and 
 the amount of such jirofits is made reasonably certain by comj)etent proof, ^® 
 but not where the profits are merely speculative.-" Where a pop-corn wagon 
 was delivered to a carrier for transportation, with information that it was 
 wanted at its destination on a certain day, for a special occasion, the measure 
 of damages for failure to trajisport it in time for the day mentioned is the loss 
 of the profits which would have been made on that day, but. as to other days, 
 the measure of damages would be the fair rental value of the wagon. -'i The 
 court, in an action for loss of anticipated profits from interruption of a business, 
 should define profits for the jury, and call their attention to the rule of law by 
 which they are to be guided in determining the amount of i)rofits.-- But in an 
 action for wrongful delay in shipjiing a boiler required for the operation of cer- 
 tain machinery, profits of the enterprise were disallowed as a proper basis of 
 damages, and it was held that the cost of hands necessarily kept unemployed by 
 reason of delay, with interest on capital unproductive for the time, was the 
 correct rule for award of the damages.-'' 
 
 Profits on Sales. — A shipper, in an action against a carrier for delay in 
 transporting machinery for his sawmill, can not by way of damages show loss 
 from inabilitv to fill a contract for lumber, because of the delay in transporta- 
 tion, in the absence of evidence that the carrier was notified of the fact of such 
 contract.-^ In an action against a carrier for delay in transporting cotton seed 
 mill machinery, the plaintiff can not recover as special damages losses sustained 
 
 17. Texas, etc., R. Co. f. Hassell. 23 maj' recover the value of the use of it at 
 Tex. Civ. App. 681, 58 S. W. 54. such destination during the period of 
 
 18. "The damages arising from loss of the fair intended to be exhibited at. and 
 profits between the time when the shaft s"ch value could not be more properly 
 should have arrived and the time when determined than by ascertauiing what the 
 it did arrive were special damages. Illi- probable net profits would have been, 
 nois Cent. R. Co. r. Hopkinsville Canning ^ °'''^""] ''• •^"""' ^ ^^^- ^'^- '^PP- ^-*' 
 Co., 132 Ky. 578, 116 S. W. 758, and the 21 S- jA . 411. . 
 
 cases therein cited: Patterson z: Illinois . 22. The word profits m a manufactur- 
 
 Cent R Co 123 Ky 783 97 S W 426 '"" *^'" agricultural business means the 
 
 30 Ky. L. Rep. 78." Stone' t". .\dams'Exp! "et earnings, or the excess of returns over 
 
 Co (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200. expenditures, and relates to any excess 
 
 ■itx -Kf "" -Kf ■ -D 11 /- which remains after deducting from the 
 
 m ^°T'T9rc;^wTn^^ '• '■^turns the operating expenses and de- 
 
 (Mo. App.). 123 S. W. 1034. preciation in capital, and also, in a proper 
 
 20. Southern R. Co. r. Coleman, 153 case, interest on capital emploved. Mor- 
 Ala. 266, 44 So. 837. citing Reed Lumber row r. Missouri Rac. R. Co. (Mo. .\pp.), 
 Co. V. Lewis, 94 .\la. 626, 628, 10 So. 333; v23 S. W. 1034. 
 
 Moulthrop z: Hyett, 105 .\la. 493, 17 So. 23. Raiiwav r. Ragsdale, 14 Miss. 460. 
 
 32, 53 .\m. St. Rep. 139. cited in Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern 
 
 21. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. ?•. Compton (Tex. Exp. Co.. 148 X. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 30 
 Civ. App.). 38 S. W. 220. L. R. A.. X. S.. 4S3, 128 Am. St. Rep. 588. 
 
 And where a carrier was notified of 24. Profits on sales. — Louisville, etc., R. 
 
 purpose of shipping a museum, on failure Co. 7'. Mink, 126 Ky. 337, 103 S. W. 294, 
 to transport it to its destination, shipper 31 Ky. L. Rep. 833.
 
 § 950 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 672 
 
 on contracts for seed niade, not only subsequent to the notice to the carriers 
 but after the carriers' default; such contracts not having been made in reliance 
 on the carrier's fulfillment of its obligation.^^ But evidence of loss of profits 
 by the necessary suspension of iron works in consequence of the failure of a 
 common carrier' to deliver coal according to contract is inadmissible in an action 
 against the carrier for a failure to transport and deliver under his contract. 2° 
 
 Rental Value of Goods. — Measure of damages for delay in transporting 
 and delivering goods which are not intended for the market is ordinarily the 
 rental value of the goods during the delay, with legal interest from the time the 
 goods should have been delivered.-" This is the measure of damages in the 
 absence of special notice to the carrier.^s The rental value of the property de- 
 laved should be estimated with reference to the circumstances of the case; and, 
 if there is a market rental value, such value would control, but, if there was no 
 market, the value may be ascertained by proof of such elements or facts af- 
 fecting the question as may exist, and by the opinions of witnesses properly in- 
 formed on the subject.29 But where goods can not be said to have rental value, 
 the measure of damages for delay in delivering such goods would be the value 
 of the use of goods to the owner during the delay, excluding from estimate re- 
 mote, speculative and uncertain damages restricting estimate to natural, direct, 
 certain and proximate injury sustained. ^^ 
 
 Interest on Value of Goods. — Where the period a public ginnery was 
 stopped in consequence of the failure of a carrier to promptly transport and 
 deliver a part of the machinery thereof was so short that the ginnery had no 
 rental value, interest on its value for that period is the proper measure of dam- 
 
 25. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters' 
 Gin, etc., Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352. 
 
 26. Cooper v. Young, 22 Ga. 269, 68 
 Am. Dec. 502. 
 
 27. Rental value of goods. — Elzy v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 141 Iowa 407, 119 N. W. 
 705; Lord v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 105 Me. 
 255, 74 Atl. 117; Brown v. Adams, 3 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 390. And see, to the 
 same effect, Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. les- 
 see, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 403; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Maetze, 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 631; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Comp- 
 ton (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 220. 
 
 Where a shipper is deprived of the use 
 of property and the property is such that 
 it can not be replaced, the measure of his 
 damages for delay .in transportation is the 
 ordinary worth of the property for use. 
 Weston V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 190 
 Mass. 298, 76 N. E. 1050, 4 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 569, 112 Am. St. Rep. 330, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 825. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped on defendant's rail- 
 road a cotton press in several pieces, which 
 was delivered, except one piece, a sill, of 
 which plaintiff immediately notified de- 
 fendant, and plaintiffsent for and received 
 another sill after a delay of over a month. 
 Held, that the plaintiff's measure of dam- 
 ages was the reasonable cost of replacing 
 the delayed sill, and the fair rental value 
 of the press during the delay caused in 
 the operation thereof by the failure to de- 
 liver the sill promptly, together with legal 
 interest on such damages. Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Maetze, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 631. 
 
 Claim was made for a carrier's delay 
 in shipping to M. a new invention for 
 renovating feathers, which had no es- 
 tablished rental value. Evidence showed 
 that the machine was moved from town 
 to town as the supply of feathers to be 
 cleaned became exhausted, and that at 
 M. the supply of feathers and the profits 
 were greater than at other places, due to 
 working up the supply during such delay. 
 There was testimony as to the rental 
 value of the machine, together with 
 horses and wagons. Held, that the 
 measure of damages was the fair rental 
 value of the machine, to be determined 
 from its character, capacity, and running 
 expenses, and, in the absence of specific 
 instructions how to arrive at such value, 
 it was error to refuse charges that no 
 recovery could be had for any special 
 benefit from use of the machine at M., 
 and to find the rental value of the ma- 
 chine alone, without teams, wagon, and 
 hands to operate it. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hassell, 58 S. W. 54, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 
 681. 
 
 28. In an action for negligent delay in 
 delivery of machinery, the measure _ of 
 damages, in the absence of special notice, 
 is its rental value pending delivery, with 
 the reasonable expenses incurred in en- 
 deavoring to secure delivery. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hazlett, 35 Okla. 12, 128 
 Pac. 105. 
 
 29. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 631. 
 
 30. Brown v. Adams, 3 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 390.
 
 673 ' DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION' OR DKIJVKRV. § 950 
 
 ages, if claimed.-'^ It not appearing that a carrier of a shipment of brick knew 
 that it was to l)e used in a building of any si)ecial size or kind, or that its diver- 
 sion would work the delay in the consignee's building o])erations that resulted, 
 the shipment being ordered for the trade as far as it reasonably appeared to the 
 carrier, and it not appearing that there was any change in value of the brick 
 during the delay in replacing the diverted shipment, the consignee's measure of 
 damage is limited to interest on the amount invested in the shipment during the 
 delay.-'- Where in an action against a railroad for negligently failing to de- 
 liver machinery, which caused the shutting down of a flouring mill, the com- 
 l)laint did nf)t allege nor the evidence sliow that any definite profit was lost, nor 
 that the contract was such as to inform defendant that any loss of special profit 
 would ensue, it was error to admit evidence showing what the special profit would 
 have been during the time the mill was shut down, as the proper measure of dam- 
 ages was the legal interest on the capital invested, and such other damages as 
 were the direct and necessary result of defendant's negligence. ^^ 
 
 Earning Capacity of ,Goods. — Plaintiff shipped over defendant's line a 
 grading outfit, consisting of a car of mules and a car of grading implements, 
 and informed defendant's agent that he was sending the outfit to the point of 
 destination to fulfill a contract ; that his laborers were also being carried along 
 with him, and their wages would begin as soon as they arrived ; that it w^ould 
 be necessary for the cars to go forward together in order that work might com- 
 mence at once on their arrival. In an action for damages caused by the delay 
 in delivering the car of grading implements, an instruction allowing plaintiff to 
 recover the net earning capacity of the teams and grading implements during the 
 period of the alleged delay was not erroneous, as defendant was put upon no- 
 tice that plaintiff would suffer this special damage if such delay occurred.'^'* 
 
 Where Goods Replaced. — Where after an unreasonable delay the consignee 
 rei)laces the goods with others, he can recover the costs thereof. ^-^ Where, ow- 
 ing to delay in the transportation of machinery, the shipper was compelled to 
 duplicate the same, but the carrier did not convert the machinery shipped. It 
 was still the property of the shipper, and its damage was the cost of the dupli- 
 cated machinery less the value of the delayed machinery utilized to its best ad- 
 vantage. ■''^' 
 
 Question for Jury. — The damages must be determined as a question of fact 
 b}- the jury, by ascertaining from the evidence the value of use of the goods. ^^ 
 
 Loss on Collateral Contract. — Plaintiff, in an action against a carrier for 
 delay in transporting machinery for its sawmill, can not, by way of damages, 
 shou^ loss from inability to fill a contract for lumber, because of the delay in 
 
 31. Interest on value of goods. — South- terest on the capital invested, expenses 
 ern R. Co. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 266, 44 incurred in endeavoring to get the delayed 
 So. 837; Davidson Development Co. v. machinery, of unemployed employees, and 
 Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 503, 61 S. E. such other damages as were the direct 
 381. and necessary result of defendant's negli- 
 
 32. Davidson Development Co. v. South- gence; to which rule we still adhere." 
 ern R. Co., 147 N. C. 503, 61 S. E. 381. Sharpe v. Southern R. Co., 130 N. C. 613, 
 
 33. "'The facts in this case are very 41 S. E. 790. 800. 
 
 similar to those in Foard v. Atlantic, etc., 34. Earning capacity of goods.— St. 
 
 R. Co., 53 X. C.235, 78 .\m. Dec. 277, where Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Lamb, 95 .\rk. 209, 
 
 a part of the machinery — a steam pipe — 12S S. W. 1030. 
 
 was negligently delayed by the railroad 35. Where goods replaced.— Gulf, etc.. 
 
 company, on account of which the mill R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 
 was left idle for some length of time. § 631. 
 
 There the court held that the profits 36. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Planters 
 
 which the mill would have made would Gin, etc., Co., 88 Ark. 77, 113 S. W. 352. 
 
 be too vague, indeterminate, and uncertain 37. Question for jury.- Galveston, etc., 
 
 to be correctly estimated, and hold the R. Co. v. Jessee, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 
 measure of damages to be the legal in- § 403. 
 
 1 Car— 43
 
 §§ 950-951 CARRIERS. . 674 
 
 transportation, in the absence of evidence that the carrier was notified of the 
 fact of such contract. ^s 
 
 § 951. Particular Goods. — Used in Household. — The measure of dam- 
 ages for delay in the deHvery of goods consisting of household necessities and 
 wearing apparel intrusted to a carrier for shipment is the reasonable value of 
 the use of the property to the owner during the time of the delay.=*'> 
 
 Used in Trade. — \\'here the carrier has notice of its nature, the carrier is 
 liable for damages resulting to the shipper from delay in the transportation and 
 delivery of goods intended "for use in trade. The carrier is liable to the nursery- 
 man for resulting damages in the delay in the shipment and delivery of an order 
 book, where the delay rendered the nurseryman unable to fill orders.^^ The 
 proper measure of damages for the failure of a railway company to deliver a 
 traveling man's trunk containing samples is the value of the use of the prop- 
 erty during the delay, including such incidental expenses and damages as were 
 in the contemplation of the parties when the contract for carriage was entered 
 
 into.-'^ 
 
 Used in Manufacturing. — \\here a carrier delays the delivery of a piece 
 of machinerv used for manufacturing an article, the measure of damages is the 
 value of the crude material which was lost through the delay.-*^ Where the 
 delayed goods are gin machinery, the proper measure of damages is the rental 
 value of the machinery during the time it has been delayed. -^^^ For the delay 
 in the shiument of cotton for use in a mill, special damages may be allowed, if 
 it appears that the carrier had knowledge of the pur]30se for which the cotton 
 was required, and that stopping the mill would follow from delay.'*^ In an ac- 
 tion by the shipper against the carrier for delay in shipping a piece of machin- 
 ery necessary to the operation of plaintiff's sawmill, the jury may, in estimating 
 damages, consider the loss of time, the expense of idle servants, contracts which 
 the shipper had to fill, and profits arising from the operation of the mill. In 
 such case multiplying the amount of loss per day by the number of days, Sun- 
 day excepted, will give amount plaintiffs are entitled to recover.-^"^ Interest on 
 the capital invested in a plant during the time it was necessarily idle as a re- 
 sult of delay in a shipment of iron, and the wages paid during such time, can 
 not be taken as the measure of damages, where there was nothing to indicate 
 the use to which the iron was to be put, or that any special damages would be 
 sustained Ijy delay in prom])t shipment. 4'^' 
 
 Used in Milling and Lumbering. — In an action against a carrier for delay 
 in delivery of log wagons to a mill and lumber company, the measure of dam- 
 ages is not the usable value thereof during the delay, but is the difference in 
 
 38. Loss on collateral contract. — Louis- IVitchard, 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 4 Am. 
 ville, etc., R. Co. v. Mink. 128 Ky. 337, St. Rep. 92. 
 
 103 S. W. 294, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 833. "In Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Pntchard, 
 
 39. Goods used in household.— Missouri, '/ Ga. 412, 4 Am St. Rep. 92, 1 S. E. ^61 
 etc., R. Co. V. Clifton (Te.x. Civ. App.), 80 damages were allowed for mjury caused 
 S. W. 386: Brown v. Adams, 3 Texas App. '^Y wrongful delay m shippmg a still 
 Civ Cas § 390 worm for a turpentme distillery. Har- 
 
 The measure 'of damages for delay in P^r Furniture Co '^.Southern Exp. Co 
 
 transportation of household goods was l^^ \^\V\%\ \ f' IS ^ 
 
 the value of their use to plaintiff. Mis- ^eP- 588, 30 L. R- A. N. S. 483. 
 
 souri. etc.. R. Co. v. Dement (Tex. Civ. ^,.^3. Gulf etc R. Co. ^' Gilbert, 4 Tex. 
 
 App.), 115 S. W. 635. ^'J, App. 366, 22 S W 760, 23 S W. 320. 
 
 .«s TT J • .. J IT- n -r on 44. Gee v. London & Lancashire Ry. 
 
 40. Used in trade.-\\'ells Fargo & Co. ^ ,, ^^^ g ^^^^j ^ ^ 211^ ^i^^d in Harper 
 V. Battle, -> Tex. Civ. App. .-.32, 24 S. W . ,;^,rniture Co. v. Southern Exp. Co., 148 
 353. N_ C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 128 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 41. Conheim v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 5^^. 30 L. R. A., N. S., 483. 
 
 104 Minn. 312, 116 N. W. 581, 15 Am. & 45, Pacific Exp. Co. v. Darnell (Tex.), 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 389. C, S. W. 765. 
 
 42. Machinery or material used in 46. Ashel)oro, etc., Mfg. Co. v. South- 
 manufacturing.— Savannah, etc., R. Co. V. ern R. Co., 149 N. C. 261, 62 S. E. 1091.
 
 675 DKI.AY IX TKAXSI'OKTATIOX OK DKI.IVERY. § 951 
 
 their value, if the\- depreciated during the delay, at the time when they should 
 have heen delivered and at the time that they were delivered, after deducting 
 the uni)aid cost of transportation, unless the carrier had notice that sjiecial dam- 
 ages, or more than ordinary damages, would result from failure to deliver in 
 time.'' 
 
 Used in Building. — W here a shipper, engaged in Iniilding a mill, contracted 
 with a carrier for the shipment of the mill machinery from the factory to the 
 mill and the shipment was delayed through the negligence of the carrier, by 
 reason of which workmen employed by the shipj^er were forced to lie idle, 
 though under pay, the measure of the shipper's damages is the interest on the 
 unemplo\ed capital, the wages paid to the workmen, and such costs and ex- 
 penses incurred by the shipper in consecjuence of the delay,'*'* reduced by the 
 earnings recei\ed. or wiiicii by reasonable diligence could have been received, 
 from their employment, during the delay, in other work.'-' lUit a contractor 
 ship])ing doors, windows, and blinds by rail, to be used in the construction of 
 a building, can not recover of the railroad company wages paid by him to his 
 employees while they were doing nothing, because of delay in delivery, where 
 the company at the time of shipment did not know that such a delay would 
 probabK' result in suc-li damages.''" 
 
 Used in Canning and Packing. — Special damages such as shutting down 
 a cannery and the spoiling of tomatoes by the reason of the shut down, re- 
 sulting from the failure of a carrier to ship a car load of cans in time, can not 
 be recovered in the absence of a showing that the carrier had notice of facts, 
 which would apprise a person of ordinary prudence that such loss would be 
 anticipated from the delay. Notice to a carrier by the shipper that all con- 
 signments of cans should be rushed during the packing season is not sufficient 
 to apprise the carrier that a consignee would be comjjelled to close dov.-n its 
 cannery, and that its tomatoes would be spoiled if the shipment were delayed, 
 so as to permit a recovery for such special damages from the delay. •''^ In an 
 action against a carrier for loss of a consignment of ice shipped by i^laintilTs 
 to themselves, plaintiffs were not entitled to recover for the loss of fish, for the 
 lacking of which they intended to use the ice, in the absence of anv evidence 
 that the carrier knew or should have known that the ice was intended for that 
 purpose, the damages being limited to the value of the ice at destination at the 
 time it should have arrived. ''- 
 
 Used for Theatrical or Amusement Purposes. — The ordinary damages in 
 case of a delay in the transportation of tliealrical property are diff'erent from 
 the ordinary damages in case of a delay in the transportation of ordinar\- mer- 
 
 47. Used in milling and lumbering.^ ities. Ice is something of general, every- 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. f. Xewhousc Mill, day use all the year round, and required 
 etc.. Co., W) Ark. 4."):.', ll'.t .S. \V. <i4(). for many different purposes. Persons liv- 
 
 48. Goods used in building. — Rocky Mt. ing in localities where tobacco is culti- 
 Mills V. Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 119 N. rated are presumed to know what a to- 
 C. ()93, 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. Rep. 682. bacco flue is intended for, and that, if to- 
 
 49. McMeekin v. Southern Railway, 82 hacco is not cured promptly when cut. 
 S C. 468 64 S. E. 413. serious loss will result. In Sledge v. Reid. 
 
 ' - T •' \f • ij D r'^ •. "^ N. C. 440, Mr. Justice Bvnum savs: 
 
 50. Ligon t'. Missouri lac. R. Co., 3 .^,^^ j^^^ ^^ ^,^^ ^^^ ^j^^ -,^ followhig 
 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., ^ 1. ^,^^ 1^^^ ^^ ^,^^ mule, was neither a nec- 
 
 51. Used m canning and packing.— llli- essary nor natural consequence. * * * 
 nois Cent. R. Co. f. H<.pkin.svillc Canning Ti^e ^alue of the mule taken, and the hire 
 Co., 132 Ky. "jTs, ID) S. \\ . T.jS. of anotlier, is the measure of the plain- 
 
 52. Ice used in packing fish. — "Xeal v. tiff's damage. Anj-thing bej'ond this 
 Pender-Heyman Hardware Co., 122 N. C. would be too remote and conjectural, and 
 104", 29 S. E. 96, 65 Am. St. Rep. 697, would lead the courts into a boundless 
 pressed upon our attention by the plain- field of investigation.' See, also. Wood's 
 tiff's counsel in his brief and oral argu- Mayne on Damages. §§ 26, 40." Lewark 
 ment, differs materially from the case at ?'. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 137 X. C. 3S3, 49 
 bar. Tobacco flues are different commod- S. E. 882, 883.
 
 CARRIERS. 676 
 
 § 951 
 
 chandise, and for that reason carriers usually put such property in a different 
 classification from that in which ordinary merchandise is put. As the owner 
 has to pay the expenses, or some of the expenses, incident to using the property, 
 he can- not recover the ordinary net earnings, but the ordinary gross earnings, 
 less such expenses, if any, as the deprivation of the use of the property saved 
 him from.^-' As a prerequisite to the recovery of earnings lost by the delay in 
 the transportation of such property, it is necessary to show notice that the 
 freight to be transported is that kind of freight and that it is to be used at its 
 destmation.^-* Where a carrier contracts with a shipper to deliver certain ma- 
 chinery, a merry-go-round, to a certain place by a certain day for a specific 
 purpos'e, and has full notice of the nature of the purpose, it is fully warned of 
 the use of which the machinery is to be put, and of the importance of haying 
 it there on the particular day specified, and of the damage or loss of earnings 
 which would result from failure to deliver same on the day agreed upon, and 
 undertakes such shipment with full knowledge that such conditions and the 
 expected earnings are the moving motive on the part of the shipper, and there- 
 upon through want of diligence fails to deliver such machinery until after the 
 day agreed upon, and after the time has expired when such machinery can be 
 operated with any profit, such carrier is liable in such amount as will reason- 
 ably compensate the shipper for the damage done. And, if the amount of 
 earnings or profits can be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy, they 
 then become the most just and adequate measure of damages.-'^-^ 
 
 Used in Feeding Cattle. — A railroad company is liable for special dam- 
 ages for delay in transportation of food for cattle if, at the time of the execu- 
 tion of the contract of shipment, the carrier was aware that such special dam- 
 ages would arise from the delay.^<^ In order that a shipper of feed for cattle 
 may recover damages to the cattle which he was feeding, caused by delay in 
 the transportation of the feed, he must show that the carrier was notified of 
 the special circumstances from which such damages would probably flow in 
 
 53. Theatrical property. — Where scenery plaintiff was entitled to recover all ad- 
 
 and theatrical properties were shipped un- ditional expense incurred by him and all 
 
 der a written contract, but the carrier profits which he would have received, 
 
 knew that they were to be used at desti- after deducting the expense of advertis- 
 
 nation in a widely advertised exhibition, ing his show, if the car had been hauled in 
 
 and that the shipper was under a great time to enable him to give the perform- 
 
 cxpense in their use, in an action for neg- ance. It was proper for the jury to take 
 
 ligent delay in transportation, in which into consideration the nature of plaintiff s 
 
 no loss of special profits was sought to be business and his profits for a reasonable 
 
 recovered, plaintiff was entitled to recover period next preceding the time when the 
 
 his ordinary gross earnings, less such ex- contract was violated. Illinois Cent. R. 
 
 pcnses if any, as the deprivation of the Co. v. Byrne, 205 111. 9, 68 N. E. 730. 
 
 use of the property saved him from. 54. Weston v. Boston, etc., Railroad, 
 
 Weston V Boston, etc., Railroad, 190 J 90 Mass. 298, 76 N. E. 1050, 112 Am. St. 
 
 Mass 298 76 N. E. 1050, 112 Am. St. Rep. Rep. 330, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 569, 5 Am. & 
 
 330, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 569, 5 Am. & Eng. Eng. Ann Cas. 825. 
 
 Ann Cas 825 55. Ft. Smith, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 
 
 In an action 'against a railroad for dam- 30 Okla. 726, 121 Pac. 275, 40 L. R. A., N. 
 ages suffered by a theatrical company by S., 494 , . , ^. ,^, ,,. 
 reason of defendant's failure to haul a 56. Used m feeding cattle.— Missouri, 
 car of scenery to a certain city within the etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 89 Tex. 428, 35 b. 
 time agreed, the evidence showed that the W. 6. _ , , . i , 
 show could not get to the city so as to Where a earner unreasonably delayed 
 fill an engagement there; that the advance the shipment of meal and hulls, and had 
 sale of tickets had been refunded to the notice that they were intended to feed the 
 purchasers; that there was a contract be- consignees' cattle, and that they were de- 
 tween plaintiff and the opera house pendent thereon for the feed and con- 
 whereby plaintiff was to receive a certain s ignees' supply of feed was exhausted by 
 per cent of the sales; and there was evi- reason of the delay, the carrier was liable 
 dcnce that the railroad was informed that for the depreciation in the value ot the 
 the object of hauling the car was to give cattle caused directly and proximately by 
 the theatrical performance in question. the delay. Illinois Cent R. Co. t' Moss- 
 Held that it was proper to instruct that barger, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 121^ 91 b. VV. ll<ii.
 
 677 
 
 DKLAV IX TRANSF'OKTATION OR DF.LIVERV 
 
 §§ 951-952 
 
 case of delay. •'■■' W here one shipped meal to himself, intendinj^ to feed it to 
 his cattle at the point of destination, and after a delay in delivery gave the car- 
 rier notice of the purpose for which the meal was consigned, that his supply of 
 feed was almost exhausted, that he could not supply himself elsewhere, and 
 that the cattle could not be changed to other feed without loss, of which the 
 carrier did not have notice at the time of the shipment, he was not entitled to 
 recover special damages for loss in the weight of the cattle, extra work in at- 
 tempting to care for them, and secure proper feed, arising from further delay 
 in delivery, after the lapse of a reasonable time from the giving of the notice.""'* 
 Where cattle were without feed on account of delay in the shipment of meal 
 and hulls, it was the duty of the consignees to use diligence to secure other 
 meal and hulls or other suitable food, and they are not entitled to damages 
 which they could have prevented by reasonable diligence in procuring other 
 food."''-' 
 
 For Immoral Use. — It seems the carrier is not liable for special damages 
 where the goods were intended for an immoral or illegal use.'-" 
 
 Fertilizer. — There is no foundation for special damages, where the evidence 
 discloses nothing more than an ordinary shipment of fertilizer, with no notice 
 to the carrier at the time it received the goods of any special use to which it 
 was to be api)licd. or of such scarcity of fertilizer as to prevent the purchase 
 of two tons of other guano by the plaintiff. ''^ 
 
 § 952. Goods Intended for Sale. — Where property is shipped ^'or gen- 
 eral sale to such purchasers as may be obtained, and the carrier unreasonably 
 and negligently delays the transportation, the measure of damages for that de- 
 fault is the depreciation in salable quality and market value of the property 
 at the place of destination between the time when it should have arrived and 
 when it did in fact arrive.^^- But, if the property is sold at an advantageous 
 price before shipment on condition that it be delivered within a certam time, 
 and the carrier, with knowledge of that fact, undertakes the transportation, and 
 through negligence fails to make the delivery in time, and the conditional pur- 
 chaser declines to .receive the property on account of the delay, the liability of 
 the carrier is measured by the difference between the market value of the prop- 
 erty when it arrived at the place of destination and the price at which it was 
 conditionallv sold before shipment. ^■'^ The difference between the modes of 
 
 57. Daul)e r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 
 Tex. Civ. App. 24. 86 S. W. 797. 
 
 A carrier was not liable for special dam- 
 ages through a failure to deliver cotton 
 seed meal and hulls within a reasonable 
 time after receiving it, where it did not, at 
 the time of such receipt, have notice of 
 the purpose for which the shipment was 
 intended, nor the urgent necessity of its 
 prompt delivery. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Nelson, 97 S. W. 757, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 114. 
 
 Where cotton seed meal and hulls were 
 to be shipped by a carrier from Memphis 
 to Cecilia, notice that the purpose was to 
 feed cattle in Cecilia, and that they would 
 suffer from the delay, given to the car- 
 rier's agent at Cecilia to those in charge 
 of its freight department at Louisville, and 
 to its chief train dispatcher, was sufficient 
 to bind tlie carrier without notice to the 
 bill of lading clerk at Memphis. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Mossbarger. 28 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1217, 91 S. W. 1121. 
 
 58. Patterson r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 123 Ky. 783, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 78, 97 S. W. 
 42G. 
 
 59. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mossbarger, 
 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1217, 91 S. W. 1121. 
 
 60. Goods for immoral use. — Gerhard v. 
 Neese, 36 Tex. 635. 
 
 61. Fertilizer. — Matheson r. Southern 
 Railway, 79 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 437, citing 
 Travwick v. Southern Railway. 71 S. C. 
 82. 7)0 S. E. 549, 110 Am. St. Rep. 563; 
 Wesner. etc., Mfg. Co. z: Atlantic, etc.. 
 Railroad, 71 S. C. 211, 50 S. E. 789: Guess 
 T. Southern Railway, 73 S. C. 264. 53 S. 
 E. 421: Strange v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 
 77 S. C. is:2. ." S. K. 724. 
 
 62. Loss of profit on sales. — Hutchinson, 
 Carr., § 771; 3 Wood, Railway Law, p. 
 1607; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hale, 
 85 Tenn. 69, 1 S. W. 620. 
 
 63. Hutchinson, Carr., § 772. 
 .Irk-iiHsas. — Murrell v. Pacific Exp. Co., 
 
 54 Ark. 22, 14 S. W. 1098, 26 Am. St. 
 Rep. 17. 
 
 Gcon^ici. — Savannah, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Pritchard, 77 Ga. 412. 4 Am. St. Rep. 92, 
 1 S. E. 261. 
 
 A'fl«.y<7.y.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru-
 
 § 952 
 
 CARRIF.KS. 
 
 678 
 
 measuring the carrier's liability in the two cases is clue to the difference between 
 its obligations and the consequences of their breach. In the former case the 
 obligation is general, and the loss and liability are general, while in the latter 
 case" the obligation is special, and the loss and liability are special."^ If the 
 goods are forwarded by a carrier in pursuance of a contract of sale between 
 the consignor and consignee, the measure of damages is the difference between 
 the contract price and the value of the goods when actually delivered.^^ The 
 measure of damages in an action against a carrier for delay in the transporta- 
 tion and delivery of goods is the loss which the fulfillment of the contract would 
 have prevented, or which the breach of it has entailed. The general intent of 
 the law is to put the injured party, so far as money can do it, in the same po- 
 sition as if the contract had been performed.*'" 
 
 Knowledge of Carrier. — The damages for the loss of a sale fall under the 
 denomination of special damages ; and, without notice of the fact of such sale, 
 it could not be understood that such a loss would have been foreseen or con- 
 templated by the parties. It is proper that the carrier should understand the ex- 
 tent of the responsibility he assumes, and the consequence of a failure on his 
 part ; and if no special circumstances are communicated to him he ought to be 
 held responsible only for the consequences which might ordinarily be supposed 
 to flow from his breach of contract. ''''■ A carrier not having been informed of 
 
 Van Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 
 408. 87 Pac. 80, 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 6 
 L. R. A., N. S., 1058, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 790. 
 
 A'ew Hampshire. — Deming v. Grand 
 Trunk R. Co., 48 X. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 
 367. 
 
 "In such case the loss would be the dif- 
 ference between the price at which the 
 goods were bargained, and the price the 
 consignee was enabled to sell them for in 
 market, and the loss would be the direct, 
 immediate and natural result of the car- 
 rier's breach of contract as in "the other 
 case." Deming v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 
 N. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 267. 
 
 Where a carrier, with knowledge that 
 a shipper has contracted to sell his prop- 
 erty at a given price, to be delivered at 
 a certain time, accepts it for transporta- 
 tion, and negligently delays same, the 
 measure of damages is whatever the ship- 
 per has lost by reason of the failure to 
 deliver in time. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hogg (Tex.), 2 Posey 544. 
 
 "In this case the plaintiff's evidence 
 tended to prove that he informed the de- 
 fendant's agent that he had a lot of wool 
 that was sold if it could go immediately 
 to Boston, and that if it could not go at 
 once that way he should send it by an- 
 other railroad; and that the agent told 
 him to send it the next morning, and it 
 should go by the next freight train. Un- 
 der the circumstances, the jury might 
 have found that the contract was entered 
 into for the express purpose of enabling 
 the plaintiffs to complete their contract 
 of sale, and we think the defendants 
 ought to be charged with the loss occa- 
 sioned by the breach of their contract. 
 Grififin v. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489, 69 Am. 
 Dec. 718." Deming v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 48 N. H. 455, 2 Am. Rep. 267. 
 
 64. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Soutliern 
 Seating, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. 
 W. 303, 50 L. R. A., N. S.. 729, 78 Am. 
 St. Rep. 933. 
 
 65. Euston & Co. v. Erie R. Co., 147 
 111. App. 594. 
 
 Where a carrier accepts property with 
 knowledge that the consignor has sold 
 it under a contract to' deliver it at a cer- 
 tain time, and by the carrier's negligence 
 the transportation is delayed until the 
 time for delivery has passed, thus caus- 
 ing the consignor to lose said sale, the 
 measure of damages is the difference be- 
 tween the price at which the property 
 was contracted to be sold and its market 
 value when delivered. Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hogg (Tex.), 2 Posey 544. 
 
 66. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 
 106 Va. 775, 56 S. E. 808. 
 
 67. Knowledge of carrier. — Deming v. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 455, 2 Am. 
 Rep. 267. 
 
 In an action for damages, caused by 
 delay in the transportation of fruit trees 
 sold under contract for delivery by a cer- 
 tain day, special damages can not be re- 
 covered unless the necessity for such de- 
 livery was brought to the knowledge of 
 defendant at the time of the shipment, 
 or 'from the character of the freight de- 
 fendant was charged with such knowl- 
 edge. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gates, 38 
 S. W. 648, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 135. 
 
 "The rule is well established that a 
 carrier may not be required to respond 
 on the breach of its obligation to trans- 
 port, within a reasonable time, for such 
 consequential damages as the loss of 
 .profits which depend upon collateral acts 
 or sales, unless he is informed of the 
 shipper's intention to transport the goods 
 for the particular purpose at the time the 
 contract of shipment is entered into.
 
 679 
 
 DELAY IX TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. 
 
 952 
 
 the shipper's intention to transport the goods for the purpose of a sale thereof 
 at a certain time which he had advertised, is not Hable, because of its delay in 
 transportation, for the consequential damages of loss of profits from such* sale, 
 even were they not too remote anrl speculative.''^ Where a carrier accepting 
 a shipment of berries for transjjortation did not know that the shipper had sold 
 them at a certain price, or that he would lose the sale, if the berries failed to 
 arrive at a certain point at the time agreed upon, the carrier upon delay in ship- 
 ment, resulting in loss of the sale, would not be liable in damages for the dif- 
 ference between the figure at which the berries had been contracted for and 
 the amount for which the shipper subsequently disposed of them ; the price ob- 
 tained being the best possible under the circumstances.*'" A carrier is presumed 
 to know what threshing-machines are used for, and that the only purpose im- 
 plement dealers have in shipping such property into the heart of a great wheat- 
 growing country is to sell it.''" 
 
 Where Full Contract Price Received. — In an action against a railroad 
 company for dchn ing freight, where tlie shipper received the full contract price 
 for the freight at the destination, notwithstanding the delay, on sale to a third 
 person, the carrier is not liable for damages for loss of profits."^ 
 
 Where Market Price Same. — A shipper claiming special damages for de- 
 lay in the shipment of goods intended to be sold by him at destination can not 
 recover for loss on goods returned to him undamaged, without showing that 
 the market price at destination was greater than that at the place of shipment."^ 
 
 The loss of a commission is not so remote as to be excluded as an ele- 
 ment of damages, where a carrier delays the delivery of a threshing-machine 
 until after the threshing season, thereby causing the cancellation of previous 
 sales and the loss of commissions of the consignee."'' 
 
 Shipment to Fill Penalty Contract.— For negligent delay in deliverv of 
 goods, the carrier, who has l)een requested to ship promptly and notified that 
 the goods were designed to fill a penalty contract, is liable for such special dam- 
 ages as the shipper may reasonably incur by reason of his failure, occasioned 
 by such delay of the carrier, to perform his contract within the stipulated time."^ 
 
 Unless such purpose is communicated by 
 the shipper to the carrier at the time of 
 entering? into the contract, the matter of 
 consequential damages which may arise 
 from the breach is to be regarded as not 
 within the contemplation of the parties, 
 and therefore not recoverable in any 
 event. Though the rule is that an- 
 nounced in Hadley c'. Baxendale. touch- 
 ing the I)reach of a contract, it is said to 
 find appropriate application in those 
 cases where a common carrier is sued for 
 the breach of its common-law oliligation 
 'to deliver goods within a reasonable time, 
 as will appear by reference to the fol- 
 lowing authorities." Dunne f. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co.. 166 Mo. App. .372, 148 S. W. 
 997. See Rogan r. Wabash R. Co.. 51 
 Mo. App. 665; Steffen v. Mississippi 
 River, etc.. R. Co.. 156 Mo. 322. 56 S. W. 
 1125; Gray r. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 51 
 Mo. .\pp. 666. 
 
 68. Dunne r. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 166 
 Mo. .\pp. 1372, 148 S. \V. 997. 
 
 69. Cowherd z: St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 
 (Mo. App.). 131 S. W. 755. 
 
 70. Missouri Pac. R. Co. :■. Peru-Van 
 Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 408, 
 87 Pac. 80. 6 L. R. .\., X. S., 1058. 117 
 Am. St. Rep. 468. 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 790. 
 
 71. Where full contract price received. 
 — Withrow i: Southern R. Co., 159 X. C. 
 222, 74 S. E. 925. 
 
 72. Where market price same. — Frank- 
 lin z: Louisville, etc., R. Co. (Kv.), 116 
 S. W. 765. 
 
 73. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru-Van 
 Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295. 85 Pac. 408, 
 87 Pac. 80. 6 L. R. A.. N. S.. 1058. 117 
 Am. St. Rep. 468. 9 Am. & Eng. .\nn. 
 Cas. 790. 
 
 Decision contra. — In an action against 
 a carrier for delay of goods, losses or 
 profits on sales were too remote to fur- 
 nish basis for recovery. Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. f. Douglass. 1 Texas .\pp. Civ. 
 Cas.. § f>7. 
 
 74. Shipment to fill penalty contract. — 
 Where plaintitT, in shipping pews to a 
 certain church, informed the carrier that 
 its contract with the church was a pen- 
 alty contract, and directed immediate 
 shipment. plaiiUifF's measure of damages 
 in an action against the carrier for de- 
 la_r in delivery was the amount of for- 
 feiture paid by it under the terms of the 
 contract. Illinois Cent. R. Co. z\ South- 
 ern Seating, etc.. Co.. 104 Tenn. 568, 58 
 S. W. 303. 50 L. R. .\., X. S.. 729. 78 .\m. 
 St. Rep. 933.
 
 §§ 952-953 CARRIERS. 680 
 
 Evidence of Shipment and Delay Only. — In an action for damages on 
 account of delay by a common carrier in delivering goods, it is error to admit 
 evidence of the profit which the plaintiff would have made by selling such 
 goods if he had received them promptly, after proof only of die shipment and 
 the delay in delivery."^ 
 
 Delay by Connecting Carrier. — The measure of damages against a carrier 
 contracting to deliver goods over a connecting carrier, where the goods are 
 delaved on the latter, causing loss, extends to gains prevented as well as losses 
 sustained, the damages, however, must be supposed to have entered into the 
 contemplation of the parties when the contract of transportation was made."^" 
 
 § 953. Goods Intended to Be Repaired. — Notice to Carrier. — Where 
 mill castings were deposited with an express company for delivery to a repair 
 shop, and no specific instructions were given to the carrier as to the necessity 
 for an expeditious transportation of the castings by the carrier to and from 
 the shop, and the carrier was not informed that pending the return of the cast- 
 ings the mill would have to shut down, and the plaintiff's business cease, the 
 damages recoverable for delay in transportation and return of the castings do 
 not extend to special damagesJ^ A carrier is, through its station agent and 
 bill clerk, under the agency of whom it receives freight for transportation, 
 charged with notice rendering it liable for special damages for delay in trans- 
 portation; the shipper having before delivery of the freight to them explained 
 that the articles, the rolls of his mill, were being shipped for repair, and that 
 till their return he could do no business, and marked on the bill of lading 
 "Rush through." '^^ 
 
 Notice to Agent. — Where mill machinery was shipped to be repaired, and 
 then by a separate contract shipped back, to give the carrier notice of special 
 circumstances from which damages would arise from delay in transportation, 
 so as to make it liable therefor, it is not enough that the agent with whom the 
 first contract was made knew thereof, there having been no delay in the first 
 shipment, but the agent with whom the second contract was made must have 
 been informed of such circumstances.''-' 
 
 Measure and Elements of Damages. — An owner of a public ginnery de- 
 livered a part of the machinery to a carrier for transportation to a designated 
 point, to be repaired by the consignee. The carrier delayed the delivery of the 
 machinery. The owner testified that seventy-five cents was a fair profit for 
 ginning a bale of cotton, but he could only estimate the number of bales that 
 went to his gin during the days his plant was shut down in consequence of the 
 delay. The seventy-five cents profit depended on contingencies. Held, that 
 the owner was entitled to nominal damages only; the estimate of what he might 
 have earned by operating the gin, had the shipment been promptly delivered, 
 being speculative.^^ The owner of a cotton gin sent a piston rod, necessary to 
 operate his gin, to a machinist for repairs, and the rod was lost by the carrier 
 by whom it was shipped to the owner, and he sued the carrier for damages 
 owing to the enforced idleness of his gin. An instruction authorizing the jury, 
 in determining the rental value of the gin, to consider time lost by plaintiff" in 
 going to defendant's office to inquire about the piston rod, was erroneous. 
 The defendant carrier could not be held liable for special damages owing to 
 
 75. Evidence of shipment and delay 78. Morrow i'. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 only.— Southern Exp. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 (Mo. App.), 12.3 S. W. 1034. 
 
 Ga. 445. 67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 79. Notice to agent.— Louisville, etc., 
 
 227. R. Co. ?'. Mink. l:2(i Ky. 337, 31 K}^ L. 
 
 76. Delay by connecting carrier. — Sa- Rep. H33, 103 S. W . 294. 
 
 vannah. etc., R. Co. v. Pritchard, 77 Ga. 80. Measure and elements of damages. 
 
 412, 1 S. E.'20l, 4 Am. St. Rep. 92. —Southern R. Co. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 
 
 77. Goods intended to be repaired. — 266, 44 So. 837. 
 Higgins V. United States Exp. Co., 83 N. 
 
 J. L. 398, 85 Atl. 450.
 
 681 DKl.AV IX TKANSl'OKTATKJN Ok 1)1-1. IVKKV. §§ 953-958 
 
 the enforced idleness of the gin in the ahsence of a showing either that it had 
 notice of the special circumstances before it received the shipment, or that the 
 initial carrier contracted for a through shipment, and had such notice before 
 receiving the shipmenl.^i 
 
 § 954. Time of Reporting Claim for Damages.— The provision in a bill 
 of lading that as a condition to liability of the carrier all claims for damages 
 must be reported by the consignee within a certain time after arrival of the 
 goods, refers solely to loss of or damage to articles shipped, and not to special 
 damages to the owner from delay in transportation. '^- 
 
 §§ 955-974. Actions for Delay— § 955. Nature of Action.— There is 
 so great a similarity between the action e.x contractu and e.x delicto in an action 
 against a carrier for damages to perishable goods by delay that it is difficult to 
 determine which it is. The difference is more in form than in substance.*-* In 
 some of the decisions it is considered ex contractu, «•* while in others ex de- 
 licto.'^-"* 
 
 § 9 56. Jurisdiction and Venue.— A railroad company in partnership with 
 another companv may be sued with the latter for delay in transportation, in a 
 county in which' the latter operates its road, though the former does not operate 
 a road in such county, nor have an agent there. **^' 
 
 § 957. Joinder of Causes of Action. — The administrator can not recover 
 in the same action for both the menial suffering of the deceased and for his 
 death. The two causes of action, the one, on account of the death of the de- 
 ceased, which was attributed to the failure to receive in due time oxygen 
 shipped by the carrier, and the other, to recover for the pain and suft'ering sus- 
 tained by the deceased on account of the failure to receive the oxygen in time 
 to relieve his distress, can not be set up in the same petition.^' 
 
 § 958. Parties. — The action must be brought by the owner or one having 
 a beneficial interest in the goods.*^-^ The ownership need not be extensive, and 
 an agent, factor, broker, bailee or other person having rights in the property 
 to be protected may maintain an action, and recover both for himself and the 
 general owner.''-' One with whom a carrier of goods has made a contract of 
 
 81. .\nicrican E.xp. Co. r. Jennings, 8G 87. Joinder of causes of action. — Hend- 
 Miss. 329, 38 So. 374, 109 Am. St. Rep. ricks v. American Exp. Co., 138 Ky. 704, 
 708. 128 S. W. 1089, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 867, 
 
 82. Time of reporting claim for dam- ^'^'-J- .^ . ,. , . n r^ 
 ages.-M,,rrow :. Missonri Pac. R. Co. 88. Parties.-Savannah etc R Co_ t-. 
 (AIo. Ap]).). 123 S. W. 1034. Commercial Guano Co.. 103 Ga 590, 593, 
 ^ „„ . ' ' r J 1 r,i 1 .^ Ai 30 S. E. 555: Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 83. Actions for delay.— Blodgett v. .\h- Peru-Van Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 
 bot, 72 Wis. 516. 40 N. W. 491, , Am. g. p^^ ^^g g^ p^^, gO g ^ R. A.. N. 
 St. Rep. 873. 5^ jQ5g jj~ ^^^^ g^ p^p 4gg^ 9 j^^^ & 
 
 Trover. — "We doubt wlietlier. under E„g. \nn. Cas. 790; Clute i: Chicago, 
 
 the circumstances, trover will lie. Rol)- etc.. R. Co. (Kan.). Ill Pac. 431. 30 L. 
 
 inson ;■. Austin (Mass.), 2 Gray 564." r \.^ n g^ 1071. 
 
 Swift River Co. r. Fitchburg R. Co., 169 gg. ' /^o»;.yaj.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mass. 326, 47 X. E. 101.-., 61 .\m. St. Rep. Peru-Van Zandt Imp. Co.. 73 Kan. 295, 
 
 288. 85 Pac. 408, 87 Pac. 80, 117 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 84. Macon, etc., R. Co. 7\ Walton. 127 468. 6 L. R. A., N. S., 1058. 9 .\m. & Eng. 
 Ga. 294. 56 S. E. 419; Waring & Co. v. Ann. Cas. 790. 
 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 3 Wkly. L. Bull. .l/a//u\— Boston, etc.. R. Co. r. War- 
 
 893, 7 O. Dec. Reprint 553; Commins :■. rior Mower Co., 76 Me. 251. 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 78 S. C. 8, 58 S. E. .U(7.$-.y(7r/n<.yc//.y. — Harrington v. King, 
 
 944. 121 Mass. 269; F'inn 7: Western R. Corp.. 
 
 85. San .\ntonio. etc.. R. Co. f. Graves ^o Mass. 524. 17 .\m. Rep. 128. 
 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 49 S. W. 1103. .1/mHr.fo/fl.— Chamberlain v. West, 37 
 
 86. Jurisdiction and venue. — San An- Minn. 54, 33 N. W. 114. 
 
 tonio, etc.. R. Co. r. Graves (Tex. Civ. Ncxv York. — Green z: Clarke, 12 X. Y. 
 
 App.), 49 S. W. 1103. 343.
 
 §§ 958-960 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 682 
 
 shipment may sue in his own name for damages caused by delay in the shipment, 
 even though he does not own all of the goods.'^"' 
 
 Consignor and Consignee. — There is considerable confusion among the de- 
 cisions as to whether the consignee or the consignor is the proper party plain- 
 tiff in an action against a carrier for damages by delay in transportation, but 
 it is well settled that the action must be brought by the owner or one having 
 a beneficial interest in the property.'*^ The carrier has notice of the interest of 
 both the consignor and consignee, and, if either suffers an injury through its 
 delay, he should be permitted to obtain redress in his own name in a direct ac- 
 tion against the carrier.''- The consignee is always presumed to possess the 
 necessary ownership, until the contrary is shown. ''-^ Where a threshing ma- 
 chine, shipped consigned to a commission merchant, was delayed in transit by 
 the carrier, so that the consignee was compelled to cancel previous sales, the 
 consignee may recover in his own name damages for loss of the commission 
 and the value of the property. •'■* 
 
 § 959. Limitation of Actions. — An action for damages for failure to 
 transport and deliver goods in a reasonable time is ex contractu and the period 
 for limitation for such actions and not for ex delicto applies.'*-^ Where there 
 is a promise to transport to and deliver goods within a reasonable time, an 
 action for damages for delay does not accrue to the shipper, instantly on the 
 promise being made, but only after the lapse of a reasonable time ; so the neg- 
 ligence complained of must have been at a time subsequent to the promise. ^*5 
 
 § 96 0. Prerequisites to Bringing Action. — Acceptance of Goods as 
 Condition Precedent. — The owner of freight may not, because of delay of the 
 carrier in delivering it, refuse to receive it, and sue the carrier for the value 
 of the goods, though he has been obliged to buy other like goods ; but he should 
 accept it and sue for the damages. •^'^ But it has been held the refusal of the 
 consignee to accept the goods, of some value, when tendered for delivery at 
 the point of destination, does not prevent him from bringing an action for 
 
 90. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. c'. Barnett 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 26 S. \V. 7S2. 
 
 91. Consignor and consignee. — Hutch- 
 inson on Carriers, §§ 731-734; Wood's 
 Browne on Carriers, § 599; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Peru-Van Zandt Imp. Co., 73 
 Kan. 29.5, 85 Pac. 408. 87 Pac. 80, 117 Am. 
 St. Rep. 4f38, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 1058, 9 
 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 790. 
 
 92. Clute f. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Kan.), Ill Pac. 431, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1071. 
 
 "The consignor has been allowed to 
 recover for the benefit of the consignee 
 (6 Cyc. Law & Proc, p. 513, note 91), 
 and the consignee for the benefit of 
 others having an interest (6 Cyc. Law & 
 Proc, p. 511, note 84). These refine- 
 ments are not in harmony with the spirit 
 of the Code." Clute v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. (Kan.), Ill Pac. 431, 30 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 1071. 
 
 93. Consignee. — Ray on Carriers of 
 Freight, 1006. 
 
 Indiana. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor, 
 103 Ind. 553, 3 N. E. 253. 
 
 Kansas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru- 
 Van Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 
 Pac. 408, 87 Pac. 80, 117 Am. St. Rep. 
 468, 6 L. R. A.. N. S., 1058, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 790. 
 
 Kcutiickx. — Smith v. Lewis (Ky.), 3 
 B. Mon. 229. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Griffith v. Ingledew 
 (Pa.), 6 Serg. & R. 429, 9 Am. Dec. 444; 
 Arbuckle v. Thompson, 37 Pa. 170. 
 
 Ordinarily, the right of action for de- 
 lay or damages is in the consignee. 6 
 Cyc. Law & Proc. pp. 510, 511; Clute v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Kan.), Ill Pac. 
 431, 30 L. R. A., N. S., 1071. 
 
 94. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru-Van 
 Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 408, 
 87 Pac. 80, 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 6 L. R. 
 A., N. S.. 1058, 9 Am. & 'Eng. Ann. Cas. 
 790. 
 
 95. Limitation of actions. — Though a 
 bill of lading is silent as to the goods 
 being delivered within a reasonable time, 
 yet that obligation is part of the written 
 contract, and an action for failure to de- 
 liver in a reasonable time is not barred 
 in six years, but in fifteen years. Waring 
 & Co. V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 3 Wkly. 
 L. Bull. 893, 7 O. Dec. Reprint 553. 
 
 96. Barker & Co. v. Glascow (O.), 
 Tapp. 198. 
 
 97. Prerequisites to bringing action. — 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pfeifer, 90 .\rk. 
 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1107.
 
 683 
 
 DELAY IN' TKAXSI'OkTATION Ok DKUVEKV 
 
 !§ 960-961 
 
 damages/"^ . . ,. ., 
 
 Payment of Freight as Condition Precedent.— A earner is ordinarily en- 
 titled to retain possession of the goods shipped until the freight charges thereon 
 are paid ; "•' hut, when the carrier negligently delays the delivery of tlie goods, 
 so that the damages occasioned hy such delay equal or exceed the amount ol 
 freight due for transportation, the consignee may rightfully demand the de- 
 livery of the goods without payment of the freight, and a refusal by the car- 
 rier to surrender possession upon such demand is wrongful and amounts to a 
 conversion.^ 
 
 Extra Haul Because of Mistake.— The shipper is not hound to pay charges 
 for the cxira haul l^clOrc receiving the goods, where the goods were transported 
 an extra di.slance by a connecting carrier, owing to a mistake of the initial 
 carrier. - 
 
 §§ 961-964. Pleading— § 961-963. Plaintiff's Pleadings- § 961. In 
 General.— Sufficiency.— In an action for damages for delay in the transpor- 
 tation and delivery of goods it is sufficient to allege facts showing that the car- 
 rier received the goods for transportation and failed to deliver them in a rea- 
 sonable time.'- it is not necessary for the ^bi])i)er to allege that the delay was 
 
 tcntion by the carrier amounts to a con- 
 version, for which trover will lie. Miami 
 Powder Co. v. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 
 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. E. 339, 21 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 123; Ewart v. Kerr (,S. C), Rice 203, 
 followed. 
 
 Not hardship on carrier. — "In argu- 
 ment the plaintit^ in error oljjected to the 
 rule stated by this court because of the 
 embarrassments which might be imposed 
 upon carriers by dissatisfied shippers. 
 But the rule contended for by it would, 
 in our view, enable carriers to impose 
 much greater embarrassment upon ship- 
 pers. A rule which would require a ship- 
 per to pay his debt to a carrier who owes 
 him a greater sum does not seem to be 
 a just and fair way to settle a contro- 
 versy." Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru- 
 Van Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 
 408, 87 Pac. 80, 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 6 
 L. R. A., N. vS., 1058. 9 :\m. & Kng. Ann. 
 Cas. 790. 
 
 2. Extra haul because of mistake. — 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Christmas. 89 Miss. 
 080, 42 So. 109. 
 
 3. Pleading. — Whittle v. Southern 
 Railway, SS S. C. 172, 70 S. E. 456; Gal- 
 veston, etc., R. Co. V. Jessee, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 403. 
 
 A complaint in an action against a car- 
 rier of freight, which alleges that it neg- 
 ligently omitted to deliver the freight for 
 such a length of time that it was spoiled, 
 to the shipper's damage, states a cause of 
 action for negligent delay. Pittslnirgh, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Knox. 177 Ind. 344. 98 X. 
 E. 295. 
 
 A petition which states facts showing 
 delay by the carrier in tlie delivery of a 
 maciiine, and asks for judgment for its 
 rental value, during that time, is good on 
 general demurrer as a claim for rent. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pettit, 3 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 588, 22 S. \V. 761. 
 
 98. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cumbie, 
 101 Ark. 172, 141 S. W. 939. 
 
 99. Payment of freight as condition 
 precedent. -Stuiia Cotton Oil Co. ■.-■. 
 The Red. River, 100 La. 42, 30 So. 303, 
 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. 
 
 1. 6 Cyc. 497. 
 
 Kansas. — Alissouri Pac. R. Co. v. Peru- 
 Van Zandt Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295 85 
 Pac. 408, 87 Pac. 80, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1058, 1059, 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 9 Am. 
 &; Eng. Ann. Cas. 790; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Goodholm, 01 Kan. 758, 60 Pac. 
 1066. 
 
 South Carolina. — Miami Powder Co. v. 
 Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 
 S. E. 339, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 123, 55 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 688. 
 
 J'crmont. — Dyer v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 42 \t. 441, 1 Am. Rep. 350. 
 
 IVasliington. — Moran Bros. Co. v. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Wash. 266, 53 
 Pac. 49, 1101. 
 
 "In the case of Moran Bros. Co. v. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., 19 Wash. 266, 53 
 Pac. 49, the supreme court of Washing- 
 ton said: 'If a carrier has negligently 
 delayed delivery of goods, or otherwise 
 subjected itself to lialjility for damages 
 in respect to the property carried, equal 
 to or greater than the amount of the 
 freight, tlie consignee may maintain re- 
 plevin witlunit a tender; and the claim 
 for freight and the claim for damages 
 may be adjudicated in the replevin suit.' " 
 Alissouri Pac. R. Co. r. Peru-Van Zandt 
 Imp. Co., 73 Kan. 295, 85 Pac. 408, 87 
 Pac. 80, 117 Am. St. Rep. 468, 6 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1058. 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 790. 
 
 If property is damaged, while in the 
 charge of a common carrier, to a greater 
 extent than the bill for freight, the lien 
 of the carrier is extinguisiied: and the 
 consignee not only has the right to de- 
 mand the property of the carrier without 
 payment of the freight charges, but re-
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 684 
 
 §§ 961-962 
 
 caused by a connecting carrier. This is matter of defense, which need not be 
 anticipated bv the shipper."* A petition alleging that the carrier did on a cer- 
 tain date undertake to transport within a reasonable time certain goods, but that 
 it failed to transport the goods within a reasonable time, and that the goods, 
 having been delayed a certain length of time or more, were damaged thereby 
 to a certain amount, states a cause of action.^ 
 
 Duplicity.— In an action against a carrier for damages to goods by delay in 
 shipment, a paragraph of the petition alleging that, if the goods were not de- 
 laved in transit, "they were damaged because the company failed to notify the 
 petitioner of the arrival of the car, as is the general custom of railroads, at the 
 point of destination, as well as of this defendant, and that if petitioner was 
 notified it was after the said damages had been sustained and not immediate 
 notice, as is the general custom to give, is duplicitous.« 
 
 § 962. Particular Allegations.— Allegation of Negligence.— A complaint 
 alleging that the defendant carrier unreasonably delayed a shipment for pne 
 day? without alleging negligent delay, states a cause of_ action in contract against 
 the carrier for failure to transport with reasonable dispatch." 
 
 Allegation as to Form of Contract.— Where a petition alleges shipment, 
 but not a special contract, plaintiff may not be required to amend by stating 
 whether he shipped under an oral or written contract. ^ 
 
 4. Whittle c'. Southern Railway, 88 S. 
 C. 172. 70 S. E. 456. 
 
 5. Macon, etc.. R. Co. z\ Walton, 127 
 Ga. 294, 56 S. E. 419. 
 
 A declaration which alleges that the 
 defendant, a common carrier, contracted 
 with the plaintiffs that a consignment 
 would be carried from a certain point on 
 a certain day, and that the consignment 
 was not carried until a later day, 
 whereby the plaintiffs were damaged, 
 sets forth a cause of action. Richmond, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Bedell, 88 Ga. 591, 15 S. E. 
 676. 
 
 A complaint in an action against a car- 
 rier for delay in the delivery of a car load 
 of stoves, which alleged that there was 
 no market for the stoves at the point of 
 destination, that plaintiff owned teams 
 and hired drivers in peddling stoves, that 
 during the delay in the delivery the 
 teams and drivers were unemployed, re- 
 sulting in loss to plaintiff, that the car- 
 rier, "or its agent, or its agent at" point 
 of destination, knew that there was no 
 market for the stoves, except as above 
 set forth, and that plaintiff was sustain- 
 ing the expense specially claimed and 
 made necessary by the delay of the car- 
 rier, but which failed to allege that any 
 notice was given to the carrier at the 
 time of the making of the contract for 
 shipment of the special circumstances on 
 which plaintiff's claim for damages was 
 based, was insufficient to authorize the 
 recovery of such damages. Pilcher z'. 
 Central, etc., R. Co., 155 Ala. 316, 46 So. 
 765. 
 
 A declaration which alleges that the 
 defendant, a common carrier, contracted 
 with the plaintiffs that a consignment of 
 cotton would be carried out of a certain 
 
 port on a certain day, and that the vessel 
 did not leave until a subsequent day, 
 whereby the plaintiffs were damaged, sets 
 forth a cause of action. Richmond, etc., 
 R. Co. c'. Bedell, 88 Ga. 591, 15 S. E. 676. 
 
 6. Duplicity. — Macon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Walton, 127 Ga. 294, 56 S. E. 419. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for dam- 
 ages to a car of melons by delay in ship- 
 ment, a paragraph of the petition alleged 
 that, if the melons were not delayed in 
 transit, they were damaged because the 
 company failed to notify petitioner of the 
 arrival of the car, as is the general cus- 
 tom of railroads, at the point of destina- 
 tion, as well as of this defendant, and 
 that if petitioner was notified it was after 
 the said damages had been sustained and 
 not immediate notice, as is the general 
 custom. Held, that duplicity in such par- 
 agraph was not cured by an amendment 
 which alleged merely that said paragraph 
 is amended so that it shall read, "peti- 
 tioner shows that said melons were dam- 
 aged by reason of the fact that said com- 
 pany failed to notify," etc., "remainder as 
 in petition." Macon, etc., R. Co. v. Wal- 
 ton, 56 S. E. 419. 127 Ga. 294. 
 
 7. Particular allegations. — Commins v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 78 S. C. 8, 58 S. E. 
 944. 
 
 Where it is alleged that the delay was 
 caused by the negligence of the railroad 
 company, without stating what the negli- 
 gence was, evidence of the bad condition 
 of the track where the delay occurred is 
 admissible to show such negligence. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. Turner, 1 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 625, 20 S. W. 1008. 
 
 8. Allegation as to form of contract. — 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Beardwell, 79 Kan. 
 40. 99 Pac. 214.
 
 685 DKI-AV IN TkANSI'OKTATION OR DKI.IVF.RV. § 962 
 
 Allegation of Right of Shipper to Sue.— An allegation that the shipper 
 had sold the y()(jd> i^ not open to the (jbjcciion that it shows a sale to a third 
 person, who alone may sue, since it merely shows an executory contract of sale 
 with the ri.i,dn of the third ])erson to inspect and reject the goods."' 
 
 Allegation of Acceptance. — A complaint in an action for delay which fails 
 to allege acceptance of the goods by the carrier is insufficient. An allegation 
 in the declaration that the carrier negligently and carelessly failed and refused 
 to transport and deliver cars loaded by the shipper with reasonable promptness 
 and dispatch after they were loaded and delivered to the carrier to be trans- 
 ported, by reason whereof the shipper suffered loss, is not equivalent to an al- 
 legation that the freight was accepted by the carrier for transportation.^'^ In 
 an action against a railroad company, seeking to recover damages for its delay 
 in the transportation and delivery of certain freight, where the declaration fails 
 to allege directlv or to charge that such freight was ever accepted by the de- 
 fendant for transportation, but, fairly construed, the declaration would seem 
 to charge no more than a failure ui)on the part of the defendant to accept and 
 transport certain freight otYered to it by the plaintiffs for shipment, it is error 
 to sustain a demurrer to a plea filed to the declaration, which avers, in sub- 
 stance, that, at the times mentioned in the declaration, owing to an unusual and 
 extraordinary condition of affairs which then prevailed, the defendant was un- 
 able to meet the demand upon it to furnish sufficient cars to shippers to trans- 
 port all their freight: that it did use all reasonable and proper diligence in its 
 efforts to supplv the plaintiffs with a fair and proper proportion of its available 
 cars; that the plaintiffs knew, or could have known by the use of reasonable 
 diligence, of the existence of such extraordinary condition of affairs, by reason 
 of which the defendant would probably be unable to supply them with the cars 
 required bv them with usual promptness. ^^ 
 
 Allegation as to Deviation.— In an action against a carrier for failure to 
 transport goods within a reasonable time, whereby the goods were damaged, a 
 paragraph of the petition claiming damage alleged to have resulted in conse- 
 quence of defendant's routing the goods over a different line from that stipu- 
 lated in the contract of affreightment set out a good cause of action. ^- 
 
 Allegation as to Overcharge of Freight. — In an action against a carrier 
 for delay in transportation of goods, a paragraph alleging that the plaintiff was 
 damaged for overcharge of freight on the goods in a certain sum sets forth a 
 legal cause of action.'"' 
 
 Allegation of Contributory Negligence.— In an action against a carrier for 
 damages from delay in delivering fruit shipped, a plea attempting to set up con- 
 tributory negligence of the consignee in failing to call for it for four days after 
 ai rival, but averring no duty of the consignee to do so. nor any notice of the 
 
 9. Allegation of right of shipper to sue. that it shows a sale to the third person 
 
 — A complaint in an action by a shi])p<-'r who alone may sue, since the complaint 
 
 for delay in the delivery of corn, which merely shows an executory contract of 
 
 alleges a contract for the transportation sale with the right of the third person to 
 
 of the freight from a point in Indiana to inspect and reject tlie freight. Pittsburgh, 
 
 Pittsburg, consigned to the order of the etc., R. Co. f. Kno.x. 177 Ind. .344, 9S X. 
 
 shipper, with directions to notify his E. 295. 
 
 agent on arrival at yards of the carrier lo. Allegation of acceptance. — Seaboard 
 
 near Pittsburgh that the shipper's agent Air Line Railway r. Rentz, 60 Fla. 429, 
 
 sold the corn to a third person at fifty- 54 So. 13. 
 
 two cents a bushel, which was its value, jj Seaboard Air Line Railway f. Rentz, 
 
 that the carrier negligently failed to de- ^q pj^ ^.^g 54 So 13 
 
 liver the freight for several days, whereby Allegation as to deviation.-Macon. 
 
 It was damaged so that the value was . n .^^ w" u .., t^- r-> on. kr q 
 
 reduced to twenty cents a bushel, which etc R. Co. z: Walton, 1.. Ga. .04. 56 b. 
 
 was the highest price the shipper could 1^-41.. 
 
 obtain, and^ for which he was compelled 13. Allegation as to overcharge ot 
 
 to sell, states a cause of action in favor freight.— Macon, etc.. R. Co. v. Walton, 
 
 of the shipper as against the objection 127 Ga. 294, 56 S. E. 419.
 
 § 962 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 686 
 
 arrival, nor aiiv fads that would relieve the carrier from giving such notice, was 
 
 bad.i-* ' 
 
 Allegation of Damages.— A complaint agamst a carrier for delay m deliver- 
 in<^ a shipment of goods alleging the ditlerence between their value as delivered 
 an*d as it should have been delivered, and payment for such difference as dam- 
 ages, is sufficient, though such damages be special damages, because of the 
 goods being wet when delivered to the carrier. i-"' 
 
 Allegation of Damage to Each Article.— A petition against a carrier to 
 recover damages for delay in delivering goods need not allege the damage done 
 to each article : it being sufficient to itemize the articles alleging the value of each, 
 and the aggregate value of the whole.^*^'' 
 
 Allegation " of Special Damages.— To authorize recovery by shipper of 
 special, as distinguished from general, damages for delay, the complaint must 
 specify the grounds for special damages.^^ Where, in an action against a car- 
 rier for delay in delivering certain threshing machinery, the consignee claimed 
 special damages, in that he lost the benefit of contracts with certain individuals 
 in the neighborhood of the place to which the machinery was shipped for the 
 threshing of grain, a complaint failing to allege the names of the persons with 
 whom it was claimed the consignee had such contracts is objectionable. i'^ 
 
 Notice of Special Circumstances.— The complaint must aver that the car- 
 rier at the time of taking the contract of shipment, had notice of the special cir- 
 cumstances, to be held liable for special damages. i'' The objects of the ship- 
 
 14. Allegation of contributory negli- 
 gence. — A plea which averred the failure 
 of the consignee to present the bill of 
 lading and call for the fruit within a rea- 
 sonable time as the proximate cause of 
 the damage, and that the bill required 
 notice of arrival of the fruit, but did not 
 aver that notice of its arrival was given, 
 was bad, since the failure to present the 
 bill of lading and call for the fruit might 
 have been due to the want of notice. 
 Western Railway v. Hart, 160 Ala. 599, 49 
 So. 371. 
 
 15. Allegation of damages. — Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. i\ Bigham (Tex. Civ. App.), 07 S. 
 W. 522. 
 
 16. Allegation of damage to each article. 
 — Brown r. Adams, 3 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 390. 
 
 17. Allegation of special damages. — 
 Delaney v. United States Exp. Co., 70 
 W. Va. 502, 74 S. E. 512. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for de- 
 lay in shipment of goods, facts which 
 authorize the award of special actual 
 damages must be alleged in the petition 
 in order to entitle the complainant to re- 
 cover such damages. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Cole, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 97, 16 S. 
 W. 176. 
 
 - Loss of sale. — In a suit against a car- 
 rier for the loss of sale of goods trans- 
 ported by reason of its unnecessary de- 
 lay, such damages being special, must be 
 specially pleaded. International, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hatchell, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 498, 
 500. 55 S. \V. 186. 
 
 Delay in shipment of samples. — .'\.ver- 
 ment in a petition in an action against 
 an express company for delay in deliver- 
 ing samples of cotton that the samples 
 
 were consigned to plaintiff's agent at a 
 named point and that plaintiff was dam- 
 aged in a certain sum by reason of such 
 delay, may admit proof of such damages 
 by reason of a fall in the market price 
 of cotton. Wells Fargo Exp. Co. v. Sam- 
 uels, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 15, 16, 31 S. W. 
 305. 
 
 18. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Sproles 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 92 S. W. 40. 
 
 19. Notice of special circumstances. — 
 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Battle, 5 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 532, 534, 24 S. VV. 353; Pacific Exp. 
 Co. V. Darnell Bros., ' 62 Tex. 639; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 366, 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 320. 
 
 Shipper must allege carrier had notice 
 of necessity of promptly forwarding 
 goods to authorize recovery for loss of 
 profits. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Darnell Bros., 
 62 Tex. 639, 641. 
 
 Evidence of knowledge on the part of 
 the carrier of the necessity of prompt 
 delivery, and that the consignor's busi- 
 ness would be suspended by any delay, 
 is inadmissible, in the absence of any 
 averments to that effect. Pacific Exp. Co. 
 V. Darnell Bros., 62 Tex. 639. 
 
 A complaint against a carrier for de- 
 lay in tlie transportation of certain thresh- 
 ing machinery alleged that plaintiffs used 
 22 head of horses and 20 men at an ex- 
 pense of not less than $40 per day; that 
 said men and teams were forwarded to 
 the destination of the machinery, so as 
 to l)e there on the arrival of the machin- 
 ery, and that because of the delay, plain- 
 tiffs incurred an expense of maintaining 
 such employees and teams during four 
 and a half days at $40 a day, and that de- 
 fendant, at the time of the shipment,
 
 687 
 
 DKLAV IX TKAXST'OKTATION f)R DELIVERY. 
 
 §§ 962-964 
 
 ment of samples of cotton from an interior market to a market at Galveston is 
 too well known to need either averment or i)roof in an action against an express 
 conipany for damages for delay in delivering cotton samples so shipped.-"^* 
 
 § 963. Amendments. — In an action against an express company for neg- 
 ligently delaying the shipment of a piece of machinery, an amendment to the 
 petition alleging that defendant's agent had notice that the operation of the ship- 
 per's mill would he suspended until the machinery should he returned does not 
 state a new cause of action.-^ 
 
 § 964. Defendant's Pleading. — An allegation of loss, in an action for fail- 
 ure to transport orange hoxes within a reasonahle time, that by reason of the 
 premises plaintiff incurred loss and damage in being unable to pack and ship part 
 of his oranges for the Christmas market, is insufficient.-- A plea, in an action 
 against a carrier for failure to deliver freight within a reasonable time, which 
 does not show that the cars referred to therein contained the freight, or that 
 the shipper was responsible for the matters set up, and which does not show that 
 the matters alleged might not have had reference to a different shipment, is bad.^-' 
 
 Special Plea. — The carrier, in an action for damages for delay, can not, un- 
 der a general denial, take advantage of the fact that the goods were transported 
 by a connecting carrier from an intervening iioint to their destination where the 
 goods were damaged by delay,-^ or that the delay was caused by a strike.-^ 
 Where the answer does not contain a general denial, and the special denial does 
 not extend to the shipper's allegations of damages, it is only necessary for the 
 shipper to ])rove such allegations as are placed in issue by the special denial. 2'' 
 
 Demurrers and Exceptions. — Where the complaint does not allege the car- 
 rier's knowledge, when it received the goods for transportation, of the si^ecific 
 facts pleaded from which shipper's damages accrued, the objection should be 
 made by special exception to the complaint, and a ruling of the trial court in- 
 voked upon it, so as to afford the shijjper an opportunity to amend his complaint 
 if the exception is sustained; and where the carrier fails to make the objection 
 in that manner and form, he can not thereafter raise it by a special charge, 
 
 knew that if there was a delay piaintififs 
 would be damaged in the manner and 
 form alleged. Held, that the complaint 
 was not objectionable for failure to al- 
 lege that defendant was notified of the 
 advance shipment of plaintiffs' men and 
 teams, or that expense or injury would 
 result from such delay and the amount 
 thereof. Missouri, etc., R. Co. z: Sproles 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 92 S. W. 40. 
 
 20. "It is a matter of common informa- 
 tion that samples are so sliipped to make 
 sales in the market to which the ship- 
 ment is made, and not for sale of samples 
 themselves. It would not be unreasonable 
 to say that the parties contemplated such 
 oi)ject by the shipment, and fliat a breach 
 of the carrier's contract would involve 
 liability for decline in tlic price of cot- 
 ton — the bales of cotton represented by 
 the samples. Texas, etc., R. Co. t: Nich- 
 olson, 61 Tex. 401." Wells Fargo Exp. 
 Co. z: Samuels, 1 1 Tex. Civ. App. 15, 16, 
 31 S. W. 30.-). 
 
 21. Amendments. — Such an amendment 
 merely perfects the cause of action al- 
 readv definitely stated. Pacific Exp. Co. 
 V. Darnell (Tex.). 6 S. W. 76.5. 
 
 22. Defendant's pleading. — Williams z: 
 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 56 Fla. 735, 48 So. 
 209. 24 L. R. A., N. S., 134. 
 
 23. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z: Cash Grain 
 Co.. 161 Ala. 332, 50 So. 81. 
 
 24. Special plea. — In an action for dam- 
 ages through delay in transporting mel- 
 ons, where the complaint alleged that 
 defendant received the melons under an 
 agreement to deliver them at a certain 
 point, and that by its failure so to do 
 within a reasonable time the melons were 
 rendered worthless, it was only necessary 
 to prove that defendant received tlie mel- 
 ons for transportation and failed to de- 
 liver them in a reasonal)le time, and de- 
 fendant could not, under a general denial, 
 take advantage of the fact that the melons 
 were transported l>y an independent car- 
 rier from an intervening point to their 
 destination where they were damaged. 
 Whittle V. Southern Railway. 70 S. E. 
 456. 88 S. C. 172. 
 
 25. In an action against a carrier for 
 delay in transportation, evidence of a 
 strike that caused the delay was not ad- 
 missible under the general denial. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z: Pumphrey (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 246. 
 
 26. Wabash R. Co. :•. Newton, etc.. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). no S. W. 092.
 
 §§ 964-965 CARRIERS. 
 
 raising the question of the sufficiency of the carrier's complaint to support the 
 damages proved or by exception to the general charge, after all the evidence is 
 adduced upon the trial, or upon a motion for new trial after the verdict is re- 
 turned.-' 
 
 Sufficiency on Demurrer. — In an action against a carrier for delay in trans- 
 portation and delivery of freight, where the declaration fails to allege that it was 
 ever accepted by the carrier for transportation, but merely alleges a failure of 
 the carrier to accept and transport freight offered by plaintiff for shipment, it 
 was error to sustain a demurrer to a plea to the declaration alleging that at the 
 time mentioned in the declaration, owing to an unusual condition of affairs then 
 prevailing, the carrier was unable to meet the demand upon it to furnish suffi- 
 cient cars for shippers to transport all their freight; that it used all reasonable 
 and proper diligence in efforts to supply plaintiff with a proper proportion of 
 its available cars; that plaintiff" knew, or could have known by the use of rea- 
 sonable diUgence of the existence of such extraordinary conditions by reason 
 of which the carrier would probably be unable to supply them with usual prompt- 
 ness.-"^ 
 
 § 965. Issues, Proof and Variance.— Where a carrier's witness testifies to 
 delays at diff'erent points than those specified in the complaint, it can not object 
 to the plaintiff's testimony as to such delays as not within the issues. ^^ In an 
 action for damages for delay in the transportation of goods, where the complaint 
 alleges that the carrier received the goods under an agreement to deliver them at 
 a certain point, and that by reason of its failure to do so within a reasonable time 
 the goods were rendered worthless, it is only necessary to prove that the carrier 
 received the goods for transportation and failed to deliver them within a reason- 
 able time.30 Where it is claimed the goods were injured by delay it is necessary 
 to prove their condition when accepted by the carrier.^i 
 
 Under Separate Counts. — In an action of case against a railway company 
 for nondelivery of goods in proper time, brought by the owner, who was neither 
 consignor nor consignee, and whose pleading describes the property, not by ref- 
 erence to bills of lading, but as a designated number of bushels of grain, the 
 fact that a bill of lading was made out for each car in which the grain was 
 shipped does not confine plaintiff to proof of only one car under each count, but 
 he may prove the entire shipment as one transaction, although made partly on 
 different days."- 
 
 Under Allegations to Deliver in Specified Time. — The declaration alleg- 
 ing an undertaking to deliver in a specific time, but none to deliver in a reason- 
 able time, evidence of what would be a reasonable time was inadmissible, and no 
 recovery could be had under the declaration as it stands for failure to deliver in 
 a reasonable time. If the necessary allegation is supplied by amendment, all the 
 
 27. Demurrers and exceptions. — Wabash order with directions to notifj' the third 
 R. Co. V. Newton, etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. person, that the third person was duly no- 
 App.), 110 S. W. 992. tified, but refused to receive the goods 
 
 28. Sufficiency on demurrer.— Seaboard because damaged, and that the shipper 
 Air Line Railway v. Rentz, 60 Fla. 429, was not promptly notified of such refusal, 
 .54 So 13 '^'^^ ^"^ evidence did not show the condi- 
 ' „X T r J • c \ tion of the goods when shipped, the ship- 
 
 29. Issues, proof and varmnce.-San An- ^^^,^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ St. Louis, etc., R. 
 
 i°"'°' f:^k\T I'-iJ- ""- Co. V. Townes, 93 Ark. 430. 124 S. W. 
 
 App.), .0 S. W. 438. jQ3g 2g ^ j^ ^^ j^ s^ 572 
 
 30. Whittle V. Southern Railway, 88 in an action predicated upon delay in 
 S. C. 172, 70 S. E. 456. transporting perisha1)le merchandise, 
 
 31. Where, in an action by a shipper for there must be proof of condition at the 
 damages from the delay of the carrier in time both of receipt and of delivery. Leo- 
 notifying him of the refusal of a third nard Seed Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 
 person, to whom the goods had been sold, 162 111. App. 190. 
 
 to accept them, the evidence showed that 32. Under separate counts. — Illinois 
 
 the property was shipped to the shipper's Cent. R. Co. v. Cobb, etc., Co., 64 111. 148.
 
 689 
 
 DF.LAV IN TkANSl'OKTATION OR UELIVEKV. 
 
 §§ 965-967 
 
 relevant facts and circumstances touchinj^ the particular shipment, as well as 
 touching that class of shipments generally, may be shown to ascertain what 
 length of time would he reasonahk-.-''' 
 
 Evidence of Loss of Profits. — Where in an action against a railroad for 
 negligently failing to deliver machinery, which caused the shutting down of a 
 flouring mill, the complaint did not allege nor the evidence show that any definite 
 profit was lost, nor that the contract was such as to inform defendant that any 
 loss of special i)rofit would ensue, it was error to admit evidence showing what 
 the special profit would have been during the time the mill was shut down, as the 
 proper measure of damages was the legal interest on the capital invested, and 
 such other damages as were the direct and necessary result of defendant's neg- 
 ligence'''^ 
 
 Variance. — A purchaser from a consignee who obtains the bill of lading 
 stands as consignee, and there is no variance between the declaration in an ac- 
 tion for delay which alleges that the freight was consigned to the purchaser and 
 the evidence disclosing that the freight was consigned to the consignee with di- 
 rections to notify the purchaser, a variance being a material difiference.^^ 
 
 § 966. Dismissal and Nonsuit. — Where, in an action for damages for delay 
 in shipping freight, the carrier's breach of the contract of shipment by undue de- 
 lay is not denied, the consignee is at least entitled to nominal damages, so that a 
 motion for nonsuit is pro])erly denied.-''*'' 
 
 § 967. Burden of Proof and Presumptions. — One suing for negligent de- 
 lay in transporting freight must jirove negligence and damage.''"' A carrier agreed 
 to transport with reasonable dispatch certain goods. The schedule time between 
 the two points was seven days. The goods arrived ten days after initial delivery. 
 There was no evidence that shipments were put on the first train leaving the 
 
 33. Under allegation to deliver in spe- 
 cified time. — Ciiitral R., etc., Co. r. Has- 
 selkus, '.II Ga. :;S2, J 7 S. H. 838, 44 Am. 
 St. Rep. ;?7. 
 
 34. Evidence of loss of profits. — Sharpe 
 V. Southern R. Co., 130 X. C. (513, 41 S. E. 
 799. 
 
 35. Variance. — The allegation in the 
 declaraticjn in an action by a purchaser 
 from a consignee for the delay of the 
 carrier in the delivery of freight, as to 
 when the purchaser became the owner of 
 the freight by payment therefor and de- 
 livery of the bill of lading is not descrip- 
 tive, and the purchaser is not confined 
 to the date, though to make out a case 
 he must show that the freight was in- 
 jured after he l)ecame the owner thereof 
 and while the carrier sustained the rela- 
 tion of carrier to him. Johnson & Co. 
 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 79 Atl. 1095, 
 84 Vt. 48(5. 
 
 Allegations describing consignee. — The 
 varianci' hi-twecn a jn-lition. in an action 
 by a shipper against a carrier, which al- 
 leges that the carrier agreed to deliver 
 at designated places to third persons, and 
 the proof, which shows that the bills of 
 lading named the shipper as consignee 
 and contained directions to notify the 
 third persons, is immaterial, as the car- 
 rier undertook to turn the freight over 
 at destination to the third persons, on 
 their presenting the bills of lading show- 
 
 1 Car— 44 
 
 ing they were the persons authorized to 
 take charge of the shipments. Hall Grain 
 Co. V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 148 Mo. 
 App. 308, 128 S. \V. 42. 
 
 36. Dismissal and nonsuit. — Story Lum- 
 ber Co. V. Southern R. Co., 151 X. C. 23, 
 65 S. K. 460. Sec ante. "X'ominal Dam- 
 age," § 929. 
 
 37. Burden of proof and presumptions. 
 — Haasc & Sons Fish Co. v. Merchants', 
 etc., Transp. Co., 143 Mo. App. 42, 122 S. 
 W'. 362. 
 
 A shipper suing a carrier for delay in 
 the delivery of freight has the burden of 
 proving delay. Kansas City, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Morrison (Ark.), 146 S. W. 853. 
 
 Where a consignee seeks to charge a 
 carrier with lialiility by way of damages 
 or statutory penalty for delay, the burden 
 is on the consignee to show that the 
 goods were not transported according to 
 the contract within a reasonable time. 
 Watson V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co.. 59 S. E. 
 55. 145 N. C. 236. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for in- 
 jury l)y delay in transit, the burden is 
 on the plaintiff to establish by a prepon- 
 derance of the evidence facts entitling 
 him to recover. Sterling v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co., 38 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 451, 86 S. 
 W. 655, affirmed in 101 Tex. 661, no op. 
 See Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Battle, 5 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 532, 534. 24 S. W. 353.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 690 
 
 § 967 
 
 place of consignment, or any demand therefor, that the train took more than 
 schedule time, or that- any shipment had heen carried in less than ten days. No 
 presumption of negligence arose, and the plaintitT did not sustain the hurden of 
 proving failure to transport with reasonable dispatch.-*-^ But where the delay in 
 a shipment is prolonged beyond the time within which a like shipment is usually 
 transported between the ponit of shipment and the point of delivery, the burden 
 is cast on the carrier to 'explain such delay and to show that it did not result from 
 its negligence or the negligence of its connecting carrier.-'' 
 
 Where notice of special damages from the delay of freight was given to 
 the carrier's agent at destination, it will not be presumed from the carrier's fail- 
 ure to prove affirmatively that the machinery shipped had never arrived at des- 
 tination, and that it had so arrived and was within the control of its agent at that 
 place, so as to charge it with the agent's knowledge of such special damages.-*]^ 
 
 Perishable Goods.— Delay in the transportation of perishable freight raises 
 a prima facie presumption of negligence of the carrier, and to escape liability it 
 must show that it exercised reasonable diligence in forwarding the freight. 
 \\'here a prima facie presumption of negligence of a carrier in transporting per- 
 ishable freight is raised by undisputed proof of delay, whether the carrier's evi- 
 dence to excuse delav shows reasonable diligence is for the jury.-^^ 
 
 Of Excuse for Delay.— The burden is always on the carrier to satisfactorily 
 explain the delay by showing want of negligence or the intervening of an over- 
 powering act excusing delay.-* - 
 
 38. Gamble-Robinson Comm. Co. 7'. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co.. 107 Minn. 187, 119 
 N. \V. 1068. 
 
 39. Bacon v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 155 
 111. App. 40. 
 
 Where the delay in transportation is 
 beyond the time usually irequired, the 
 burden is cast on the carrier in an action 
 for injuries for such delay to explain the 
 delay, and show that it did not result from 
 negligence. Shoot v. Cleveland, etc., R. 
 Co., 145 111. App. 532. 
 
 As a carrier must use ordinary care to 
 avoid unreasonable delay in the transpor- 
 tation of goods, proof of an unusual de- 
 lay shows negligence prima facie calling 
 on the carrier to excuse the delay and 
 thereby disprove negligence to avoid lia- 
 bility for a loss sustained in consequence 
 o! the delay. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gil- 
 lett (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 712. 
 
 Where, in an action against an express 
 company for delay in the transportation 
 of goods from Erie. Pa., to Lenoir. N. C, 
 the evidence showed that the goods were 
 received for transportation October 28th, 
 and were not delivered until November 
 9th, a presumption of actionable negli- 
 gence against the company arose, entitl- 
 ing plaintiff to a submission of his cause 
 to the jury under proper instructions. 
 Harper Furniture Co. v. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 57 S. E. 458, 144 N. C. 639, 12 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 924. 
 
 As a carrier must use ordinary care 
 to avoid unreasonable delay in the trans- 
 portation of goods, proof of an unusual 
 delay shows negligence prima facie call- 
 ing on the carrier to excuse the delay 
 and thereby disprove negligence to avoid 
 liability for a loss sustained in conse- 
 
 quence of the delay. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Gillett (Tex. Civ. App.), 99 S. W. 
 712. 
 
 It seems, that on proof of delay in de- 
 livery a prima facie case is made against 
 the carrier, and the burden of proof rests 
 on it to show that the delay was from 
 a cause for which it was not responsible. 
 It rests on the carrier for the additional 
 reason that such facts are peculiarly 
 within the knowledge of the carrier, and 
 not easily ascertained by the shipper, 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 106 
 Va. 775, 780, 56 S. E. 808, quoting 5 Am. 
 & Eng. Ency. of L. (2d Ed.) 254, 255. 
 
 Where goods lost. — A railroad company 
 is prima facie liable for damages from a 
 delayed shipment of goods, due to car 
 lieing lost. Unionville Produce Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 153 S. W. 63, 168 
 Mo. App. 168. 
 
 40. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Jones, 52 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 367, 113 S. W. 952. 
 
 41. Perishable goods. — Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. V. Clark, 118 Md. 514, 85 Atl. 61?. 
 
 42. Of excuse for delay. — St. Louis, etc., 
 Railway v. Heath, 41 Ark. 476. 
 
 A carrier delaying the transportation 
 of property has the burden of showing 
 a special excuse, such as unusual rush of 
 business at the time. McMillan v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 147 Iowa 596, 124 N. 
 W. 1069. 
 
 Where the delay in delivering freight 
 is extraordinary, the burden is on the 
 carrier in actions for damages for delay 
 to show unusual conditions justifying the 
 delay. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Stark 
 Grain Co., 103 Tex. 542, 131 S. W. 410, 
 modifying judgment 120 S. W. 1146.
 
 691 DF.r.AV IX TRAXSPORTATIOX OR DEUVKRV. §§ 967-968 
 
 Shipment over Connecting Carriers. — In an action for damages brought 
 against an initial and connecting carrier for delay in the transportation and 
 delivery of goods, if the shipjK'r proves the delivery of the goods to the initial 
 carrier, the delay and the resulting damages, and the defendants introduce no 
 evidence to show by whom the delay was occasioned, the shipper is entitled to 
 a judgment against the initial carrier for the damages shown. Upon such a 
 showing, the burden is on the initial carrier to show proper delivery to the con- 
 necting carrier and freedom from negligence on its part."*-' 
 
 §§ 968-969. Evidence— § 968. Admissibility of Evidence.— In an ac- 
 tion for delay in transportation of goods, the time ordinarily re(|uirecl for car- 
 riage, the prei)arations by the carrier, the effort at dispatch, the character of the 
 freight, and kindred circumstances are admissible."*"* In an action against an 
 express company for delay in the delivery of i)laintiff"s trunk, containing arti- 
 cles which he intended to use at a summer resort, evidence that the hotel to 
 which the trunk was to be delivered and where plaintiff was to stop was a high- 
 priced hotel, patronized by people of wealtli and ])rominence in the business and 
 social w'orld, that many social functions and entertainments were conducted 
 there for the benefit of the guests, and that there were tennis courts and golf 
 links for the use of guests, which plaintiff desired to use, had used on former 
 occasions, and which he did use after receiving the apparel contained in the 
 trunk, was admissible, as bearing on plaintiff's damage."*^ 
 
 Exact Time of Delay. — Where a considerable delay is shown, evidence is 
 admissililc to sliow the exact time of delay."*" 
 
 Cause of Delay. — In an action for damages caused by the unlawful deten- 
 tion of the plaintiff's property shipped over the defendant's railroad, it is proper 
 to admit evidence showing the cause of delay, and that the defendant used due 
 diligence."*" 
 
 Usage and Custom. — Where in an action for delay in the delivery of the 
 goods the carrier relied on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff" in failing 
 to present the bill of lading, and the evidence shows that when the goods ar- 
 rived at the point of destination the carrier charged the freight on them to the 
 plaintiff' and accepted payment for the freight without the presentation of any 
 bill of lading, evidence that it w^as not the custom of plaintiff to present bills 
 of lading is admissible."*^ Evidence of the custom of the carrier as to the plac- 
 ing of cars in its yards at the terminal point for examination before acceptance 
 is admissible to establish a custoni binding on the carrier."*'' \\'here. in an action 
 
 43. Shipment over connecting carriers. 48. Usage and custom. — Tohnson & Co. 
 — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 106 x\ Central Vermont R. Co.. 84 Vt. 486. 
 Va. 775, .56 S. E. 808, decided under § 70 Atl. 1095. 
 
 1295 of Va. Code. , ., ,, 49. Johnson & Co. v. Central Vermont 
 
 44. Admissibility of evidence.— Ala- r. Co., 84 Vt. 486. 79 Atl. 1095. 
 bama, etc.. R. Co. :•. AlcKenzie. 139 Ga. ,.-, ... 
 
 410, 77 S. E. 647. 45 L. R. A., N. S., 18. , ^^^aT' •" T ""i^]^'' ^^^'"'/ • ^""'"'t' 
 
 45. Tames -■. American Exp. Co.. 76 N. ^°'' ^^1^>' '" tie delivery ot freight the 
 T L ""S"' ~0 \tl Til issues were whether the halDilit}- ot the 
 "■46; Exact time of delay.-Where. in an "i^'']^' ^^ ^"^^ had ceased before plain- 
 action aqainst an express company for ^'^ '^^'''T th^i °'''"^'' • ''^ ^^'^ freight by 
 delay in the transportation of uoods. the Purchase from the consignee, and whether 
 evidence showed that fourteen" days was l^'^ ^l^'"^'^ ^^^ ^'^^'] '^"^ in such a posi- 
 consumed in transporting goods from V°" \ ! '''^' l'° ''"P^ '" *'"^""^- ^''" 
 Erie. Pa., to Lenoir, N. C, evidence to ^"''''i ■ ^'^^^^^tom of the earner as to 
 establish the exact quantum of wrongful ^''.^^ placing of cars in its yards at the ter- 
 delay was admissible. Harper Furniiure """^^ P^*"* for examination before ac- 
 Co. V. Southern Exp. Co., 57 S. E. 458, ^-^^t'l"^^, .^^j^.^ admissible to establish a 
 144 N. C. r.:;9. 1:: Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. ^^'^^J"''' binding on the carrier Johnson 
 go4 ' «t Co. i\ Central Vermont R. Co.. 84 Vt. 
 
 "47. Cause of delay.— Bcaslcy v. Balti- ^^^'' ''' '^^^- ^^^'''■ 
 more, etc.. R. Co., 27 .\pp. D. C. 595.
 
 § 968 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 692 
 
 against a carrier for delay in delivering lumber to a vessel, rendering the plain- 
 till liable to demurrage charges, the issue is whether the carrier had notice of 
 the charter party making the plaintiff liable for demurrage charges, evidence that 
 all charter parties make provision therefor is competent to show the carrier's 
 knowledge.^'" 
 
 Failure to Care for Goods. — In an action against a carrier for damages to 
 a shipment of melons through failure to promptly transport them, testimony 
 that the car was improperly iced at an inten^ening point is admissible as tend- 
 ing to show the condition of the melons and that the time within which they 
 were delivered was unreasonable/'''^ 
 
 Contract with Third Person.— The shipper can testify that he had a con- 
 tract with the carrier to deliver goods to a vessel during her lay days, and by 
 reason of the defendant's delay, was required to pay demurrage.-^- 
 
 Evidence of Usual Time.— Evidence as to the customary length of time 
 consumed by freight trains in running between the points on defendant's line 
 over which the shipment was made was admissible to show unnecessary delay.^-^ 
 
 Evidence of Other Shipment. — In an action against a carrier for delay in 
 shipping fruit, shippers of fruit between the points in question are properly al- 
 lowed to testify to the usual time required to make the shipment to an inter 
 mediate point on the route, and as to their experience as to the time required 
 for the whole shipment.^^ Where bills of lading for cotton bound the railroad 
 only to transport with as reasonable dispatch as its general business ^yould per- 
 mit^ evidence, in an action against the road by the shipper for delay in deliver- 
 ing the goods, that a subsequent shipment reached the same destination prior to 
 the first shipment, is competent in respect to delay on road's part, and in refuta- 
 tion of its plea that an unprecedented amount of freight prevented it from haul- 
 ing the cotton more expeditiously.-^"' Evidence that the drivers of express wagons 
 to whom the goods were delivered agreed at the time that they should go on 
 a certain train, that the shipper had made shipments before with the drivers, 
 and that their contracts had been carried out, is admissible as showing the 
 agencv of the drivers to receive goods and contract for their shipment. ■^^'' 
 
 Evidence of "Want of Damage. — In an action against a carrier for failure 
 to deliver samples of goods, testimony offered to show that the shipper actually 
 received more for his goods than they were actually worth in market at the 
 place of delivery should be admitted. •'*' 
 
 Evidence of Value of Goods. — The exclusion of testimony offered by the 
 defendant to prove that cotton in bales is inferior to that in samples, is error.^^ 
 
 Evidence of Market Value of Goods.— It being shown that the agents of 
 the railwav company were informed at the time of receiving the shipment that 
 
 50. Southern R. Co. v. Lewis, 165 Ala. livery. Southern R. Co. v. Lewis, 165 Ala. 
 4.'.1, 51 So. 863. -151, 51 So. 86:5. 
 
 51. Failure to care for goods.— Whittle 53. Evidence of usual time.— Texas, etc., 
 V. Southern Railway. 88 S. C. 172, 70 S. R. Co. v. Crowley (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. 
 E. 456. W. 342. 
 
 52. Contract with third person.— Where 54. Evidence of other shipment.— Ke- 
 the complaint, in an action apainst a car- mendo v. Fruit Dispatch Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 rier for unreasonable delay in the deliv- App.), 131 S. W. 73. 
 
 ery of lumber to be furnished by plain- 55. Southern R. Co. v. Cofer, 149 Ala. 
 
 tiff to a third person under a contract 565, 43 So. 102. 
 
 requirinj? delivery to a vessel under a 56. Such evidence was admissible as 
 
 charter party stipulating for demurrage, res gestae. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Needharn 
 
 alleged that plaintifif had a contract to (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. 1070, affirmed 
 
 deliver lumber to a vessel within her lay in 101 Tex. 652, no op. 
 
 days, and by which he was required to 57. Evidence of want of damage.— 
 
 pay demurrage incurred in furnishing the Wells Far.t^^o Exp. Co. v. Samuels, 11 Tex. 
 
 cargo, plaintifif was properly permitted Civ. App. 15, 17. :'.l S. W . 305. 
 
 to testify that he had such a contract to 58. Evidence of value of goods.— Wells 
 
 show that demurrage charges proximately Fargo Exp. Co. v. Samuels, 11 Tex. Civ. 
 
 resulted from the carrier's delay in dc- App. 15, 17, 31 S. W. 305.
 
 693 DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION OK DELIVERY. § 968 
 
 it was for immediate sale at their destination, it was relevant to show the state 
 of the market at the destination when it should have been delivered, and the lower 
 price when actuallv delivered. •''■' The plaintiff may introduce evidence of con- 
 tract price as tending to show market price of goods.'=" In an action against a 
 carrier for unreasonable delay in the transportation of fruit, a witness who has 
 been in the business of shipping fruit to the same destination for fifteen or 
 twenty years and has received from dealers their daily quotations as well as 
 accounts of sales of fruits shipped by him, can testify from returns of sales of 
 shipments by him at a certain time as to the market value of such fruit at the 
 point of des'tination at that time, also the testimony of a resident of the city to 
 which the fruit was shi])ped who sold the fruit in question, was admissible.*!^ 
 
 Evidence of Want of Neglig-ence.— The carrier has the right to show if 
 it can that llic shipment in (luestion was shipped on the first freight train on 
 its road after it had been received, and that the transportation began as soon 
 as the road was clear and open to the train. '■- 
 
 Declarations and Admissions of Shipper.— It is reversible error, where 
 the plaintiffs has recovered from a carrier a certain amount for loss on a ship- 
 ment of goods through delay, to exclude evidence of his statement, on his re- 
 turn from the trip, tliat he had lost a much less amount.''-' 
 
 Declarations and Admissions of Agents, etc.— The declarations of the 
 railway conductor as to the time when his train is due at a station on his roiUe, 
 made while he is running the train, is competent evidence."-* And a conversation 
 between its agent and the shipper is admissible to show defendant's negligence 
 for delay in deliverv under the contract in bill of lading."-^ But where it in no 
 way appeared that 'the delay, concerning which the statements of a conductor 
 we're offered as admissions of negligence, was one to the fault of such conductor, 
 or that the schedule of the delayed train was in any manner under his control. 
 or that he had authority to speak for the railway company in such matter, the 
 statements were not admissible.'''' 
 
 Expert and Opinion Evidence.— A witness who has had ten years' experi- 
 ence in inspecting cotton seed is qualified as an expert to testify to the extent 
 of the deterioration in value of seed through delay in transportation and sub- 
 jection to dampness.''" 15ut an action against a carrier to recover for unrea- 
 sonable delav in the delivery of freight, the opinion of its agent that the claim 
 was just and should be paid is not admissible as evidence for the plaintiff.'^'' _ 
 
 Cumulative Evidence. — In an action for injur>^ to trees by delay in their 
 transportation l)y an express comjjany. error in admitting evidence as to the 
 good reputation of the nurseryman from whom ]ilaintift' received the goods is 
 
 59. Evidence of market value of goods. 63. Declarations and admissions of 
 
 —Ft Worth etc., R. Co. :. Grcathoiise. shipper.— Texas, etc., R. Co. f. I'lsher, 1.) 
 
 82 Tex. 104, 17 S. W. 834. Tex. Civ. .\pp. y-:'-. -^ S. \\ . :!i'2. _ 
 
 60 Where a commission merchant tes- 64. Declarations and admissions ot 
 
 tified that his order for a carload of po- agent, etc.— Missour^ Pac. R. Co. :^ I-a- 
 
 tatoes at CO cents per bushel f. o. b. at tjan. 72 Tex. 127. 9 ^. \\ . 749. 2 L. K. A.. 
 
 3.; he, the shipper, was also entitled to X. S.. 7.). 13 .\m. St. Rep. <r6. 
 
 show that he had contracted to sell po- gS. Houston, etc.. R. Co. r. Houx. 15 
 
 tatoes to the commission company at (K) Tex. Civ. App. 502, 40 S. W. 327. 
 
 cents per bushel f. o. b. cars at B., the gg g^ Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: Carlisle, 
 
 point of shipment— not that such contract ^^ r^^^ q;^. j^pp oes, 78 S. W. 553, af- 
 
 price was recoverable, the defendant car- fir,„ed no op.; Cooper Grocer Co. f. 
 
 rier having no notice of the contract but Britton (Tex. Civ. App.). 74 S. W. 91: 
 
 as bearing on the market price. Garling- Standefer v. Aultman. etc.. Machinery 
 
 ton V. Fort Worth, etc., R. Co., 34 Tex. ^^ .^^ ^p^^ ^j^. ^pp ^qq ~g g w. 552. 
 
 Civ App. 274. 78 S. W 368 '^ ^^ ^^^ j^j^^ evidence.-San 
 
 r^^i'v/c F'in,~' ■ Antonio, etc.. R. Co. :: Josey (Tex. Civ. 
 
 Ga. f)<s<i. i~ >. 1-- u) 1 < . \ \ r-i o \\' rf\i- 
 
 62. Evidence of want of negligence.— ^PP)- '1 ^ ^^ • ^O*'- 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. r. Kapp. :!7 Tex. 68. East Tennessee, etc. R Co. r. Tohn- 
 
 Civ App. 203, 83 S. W. 233. son, 85 Ga. 497. 11 S. E. 809.
 
 §§ 968-969 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 694 
 
 not reversible, where the sound condition of the trees when received by the 
 express companv was otherwise abundantly established.''-' 
 
 Evidence of' Excuse for Delay. — Where the defendant, a railroad com- 
 pany, in a suit against it for unreasonable delay in transporting stock from the 
 west to the east, sets up as an excuse that the delay was occasioned by the want 
 of empty cars at a particular point on the route, it is competent for the plain- 
 tiff, for' the purpose of meeting such excuse, to prove that empty cars passed 
 that point, going west, while the stock was there waiting transportation.'^^ 
 
 § 969. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence.— Mere proof of delay in 
 transportation"! or of deterioration in goods'- does not support an inference of 
 negligence of the carrier, but slight evidence of negligence is sufficient to raise the 
 inference that the delay was negligent.'-^ The derailment of a train causing 
 delay in transportation of goods by a carrier is prima facie evidence of negli- 
 gence.'"' 
 
 The derailment of the train and the wreck, by which the transportation 
 of the propcrtv was so dela_\ed that it caused the damage, made out a prima 
 facie case of negligence against the defendant.''^ 
 
 To Prove Notice.— Evidence of the name and title of the consignee, the 
 nature of the goods shipped, the mode of shipment and the destination, may 
 afford sufficient proof of notice to the carrier of the necessity for prompt de- 
 liverv to avoid special damages to the consignee.'*^ 
 
 Of Market Value.— In an action against a carrier for damages for delay 
 in traufijortation of merchandise, evidence of a broker, who had made purchases 
 of merchandise like that in question at the place in question and at or about the 
 time in question, was sufficient to show prima facie the market value of such 
 merchandise at the time and place involved."" 
 
 Failure to Give Notice of Arrival. — Under a statute requiring the car- 
 rier to give notice of arrival of the goods to the consignee, delay in giving such 
 notice is some evidence of delay in shipment."'^ 
 
 69. Cumulative evidence. — Pacific Exp. 
 Co. V. Xeedhani (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. 
 W. 1070, 1071, affirmed in 101 Tex. 652, 
 no op. 
 
 70. Evidence of excuse for delay. — Tol- 
 edo, etc.. R. Co. '•. Lock-hart. 71 111. 627. 
 
 71. Weight and sufficiency of evidence. 
 —Holland f. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 12:5 S. 
 W. 987, 1.39 Mo. App. 702. 
 
 72. The mere fact that the freight was 
 shipped in apparently good order and 
 properly packed, and was in a deteriorated 
 condition when delivered after a delay, 
 is not sufficient to require the carrier 
 to show that it was not negligent. Haase 
 & Sons Fish Co. v. Merchants', etc.. 
 Transp. Co., 14.3 Mo. App. 42, 122 S. W. 
 362. 
 
 73. Holland t'. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 139 
 Mo. App. 702, 123 S. W. 987. 
 
 74. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace, 
 90 Ark. 138, 118 S. W. 412, 22 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 379. 
 
 75. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. Wallace, 
 90 Ark. 138, 118 S. W. 412, 22 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 379, citing St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418, 21 S. W. 883; St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Sandiage, 85 Ark. 
 589, 109 S. W. 551. 
 
 76. To prove notice. — The facts relied 
 upon by the plaintifif to sustain its con- 
 tention are: (1) Its name, indicating the 
 
 character of business engaged in by it. 
 (2) The nature of the article shipped, to 
 wit, an edger, a machine used by saw- 
 mills, weighing about 1,000 pounds, indi- 
 cating an article not of general use but 
 for particular purpose. (3) That the ma- 
 chine was shipped unboxed, uncovered, 
 and open, and thus observable by the de- 
 fendant. (4) Being a single machine, in- 
 dicating that it was intended to be used 
 in conjunction with other machinery. (5) 
 The destination, being a section in which 
 lumber was manufactured. All of which 
 were under defendant's observation or 
 knowledge at the time the contract of 
 carriage was made. Held, sufficient evi- 
 dence of notice of necessity for prompi 
 shipment. Story Lumber Co. v. Southern 
 R. Co., 151 N. C. 23, 65 S. E. 460. 
 
 77. Of market value. — Euston & Co. v. 
 Erie R. Co., 147 111. App. 594. 
 
 78. Failure to give notice of arrival. — 
 In view of Code 1896, § 4224, providing 
 that a common carrier, if the place of 
 destination of freight is a city of a cer- 
 tain size, etc., is not relieved from lia- 
 bility as a common carrier by reason of 
 a storage of freight, unless within twenty- 
 four hours after the arrival thereof no- 
 tice is given the consignee, the fact that 
 a railroad failed to give the consignee of 
 cotton notice of its arrival until a cer-
 
 695 
 
 nivI.AV IN' TRANSI'UKTATKJN OR DKIJVEKY. 
 
 §§ 969-970 
 
 Statutory Affidavit.— L'lulcr a statute providing that, when any action is 
 founded on an open account, the party's affidavit, or that of his agent or at- 
 torney, will be sufficient evidence of the claim, an action ijy a shipper for dam- 
 ages resulting from a delay in transportation of goods is not an open account, 
 within Uk- nieanin-' uf llic statute.'*^ 
 
 Sufficient to Go to Jury. — There is sufficient evidence of the carrier's de- 
 lay in the shipment of perishable goods to go to the jury, where it is shown that 
 the consignee had been advised of the shipment, was on the lookout for the 
 goods and had made sales in advance, and witnesses had testified as to the time 
 the goods were received, it appearing the witnesses meant the time the goods 
 arrived and not the time they were rcceived.^*^ Where the evidence shows that 
 the carrier had notice that the goods were needed for a special purpose and 
 that damages would result from unreasonable delay, from the address of the 
 consignee, the mode of shipment and the nature of the goods shipped, it is suffi- 
 cient to take the question of the amount of special damages for delay in de- 
 livery to the jury.**^ 
 
 §§ 970-972. Instructions— § 970. Province of Court and Jury.— 
 
 Whether a delay is unreasonable and whether damage resulted therefrom are 
 questions for the jury under the circumstances of each particular case.^^ 
 
 Cause of Delay.— L'nder conflicting evidence, the question whether delay of 
 a shipment was due to defendant's negligence, or to an unavoidable congestion 
 of traffic, is for the jury.""-' 
 
 Rule of Precedence in Unloading at Elevator. — W here a carrier of corn 
 for delivery to an elevator for drying negligently delayed the transportation, and 
 thereby caused the cars to lose the precedence they would have enjoyed if car- 
 ried promptly, under a rule providing for the sending of cars to the elevator 
 in the order of their arrival, the question of the liability for the injury to the 
 
 tain date, in an action against the road 
 for delay in delivering the cotton, was 
 some evidence that the delivery was de- 
 layed until at or close to that date. South- 
 ern R. Co. 7'. Cofer, 149 Ala. 5G5, 43 So. 
 102. 
 
 79. Statutory affidavit. — Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Gildea. 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 271. 
 
 80. Sufficient to go to jury. — Gibson v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 88 S. C. 360, 70 S. 
 E. 1030. 
 
 81. Harper Furniture Co. z: Southern 
 Exp. Co., 148 N. C. 87, 62 S. E. 145, 30 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 483, 128 Am. St. Rep. 588. 
 
 82. Instructions. — Georgia. — Western, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Summerour, 139 Ga. 545, 77 S. 
 E. 802. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Knox, 177 Ind. 344. 98 N. E. 295. 
 
 Neiv Jersey. — Carr v. Delaware, etc., R. 
 Co., 81 N. j" L. 533, 79 Atl. 323; Higgins 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 83 N. J. L. 
 398, 85 Atl. 4.50. 
 
 Texas. — Garlington v. Forth Worth, etc., 
 R. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App. 274, 78 S. W. 
 368; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kapp, 37 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 203, 83 S. W. 233. 
 
 The issue of reasonable diligence in the 
 shipment of freight is for the jury. Cum- 
 mins V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 58 S. E. 
 944, 78 S. C. 8. 
 
 WlK'tlior an electric railroad company 
 
 used due diligence in clearing its track 
 of a wreck, so as to- transport a corpse 
 witli promptness, is a question for the 
 jury. Alabama City, etc., R. Co. z: Brady, 
 ino' Ala. r,i.-,, 49 So. 351. 
 
 Where there is some evidence. — Where 
 there is evidence, in an action against a 
 railroad for damages from the explosion 
 of a car of explosives, that the company 
 allowed the car to be delayed, the ques- 
 tion of negligence is for the jury. Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Beauchamp. 95 Tex. 
 496. 68 S. W. 502, 58 L. R. A., N. S.. 716, 
 93 Am. St. Rep. 864. 
 
 Where there is conflict in evidence in 
 an action against an express company 
 for delay in delivering samples of cotton 
 as to whether samples were delivered to 
 the company for shipment, the issue 
 should be submitted to the jury. Wells 
 Fargo Exp. Co. v. Samuels, 11 Tex. Civ. 
 .\pp. 15. 17. 31 S. W. 305. 
 
 Six days. — Where a carrier refuses to 
 deliver goods to the owner until the 
 amount due for freight is ascertained, it 
 can not be said, as a matter of law, that 
 six days is so clearly a reasonable time 
 that there is no room for submitting the 
 question of due diligence to the jury. 
 Beasley v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 27 App. 
 D. C. 595. 
 
 83. Cause of delay. — Unionville Produce 
 Co. z: Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 168 Mo. .\pp. 
 168, 153 S. W. 63.
 
 §§ 970-971 CARRIERS. 696 
 
 corn, because of delay in transit, because of tbe rule, was one of fact, on it be- 
 ing assumed tbat the rule atlorded a valid excuse for failure to deliver promptly.'** 
 
 Excuse for Delay. — Whether a carrier is excused for delay is a question 
 for the jnry.^^ Where a carrier seeks to excuse its failure to transfer cars 
 of potatoes to the yard where they were to be delivered because of extraordinary 
 demands and condition of traffic, a question of fact is presented, ^^^ and it was 
 error to instmct that, if plaintiff and the other dealers helped to block the pro- 
 duce vard after expiration of free days, plaintiff' could not recover.''' 
 
 Where Goods Shipped for Sale. — In an action by a seller to recover the 
 value of goods againsi a carrier to whom they were delivered for transportation 
 to the buyer, but which were not accepted because of delay in delivery, whether 
 the contract of sale provided that the goods were to be delivered into the actual 
 possession of the buyer, or whether they were to be delivered free on board cars, 
 is for the jury.^^ 
 
 Where Goods Shipped for Use. — In an action against a carrier for delay 
 in the delivery of goods not intended for sale in the market of destination, 
 where the measure of damages is the owner's inconvenience owing to the de- 
 privation of the property, the question of inconvenience and damage therefrom 
 is for the jury.^^ \Vhere a carrier had sufficient notice that tents were shipped 
 to be used as stable for the protection of horses, during severe weather, the 
 question whether the damages claimed to have resulted from failure to deliver 
 in a reasonable time were the proximate result of such breach, or were within 
 the contemplation of the parties at the time of making the contract, is for the 
 jury.-'"^ 
 
 Instruction Assuming Facts. — Where, in an action against a carrier for 
 delav in the shipment of corn, the evidence as to the time when defendant re- 
 ceived the corn was conflicting, it was improper for the court to assume in its 
 charge that the corn was received by the carrier on a particular day.^^ 
 
 Instruction on Weight of Evidence. — An instruction in a case where 
 freight was delivered to a carrier on Saturday, and was not shipped till Mon- 
 day, there being no train Sunday, that in considering the question of negligence 
 of the carrier in failing to transport the freight within a reasonable time it was 
 under no obligation to run its train on Sunday, and can not be charged with 
 negligence in failing to transport on Sunday, if it ran no freight train over the 
 line that day, is not open to the objections that it is on the weight of evidence, 
 that it presents a hypothetical issue, and not a real question of fact, or that it 
 singles out and lays undue stress on an issue not in the case.^- 
 
 § 971. Necessity and Propriety of Instructions. — In a suit against a 
 railway for damage through delay in transportation of goods, plaintiff is en- 
 titled to a charge submitting the question of negligence where the evidence justi- 
 fies such submission."-'' 
 
 84. Rule of precedence in unloading at 89. Where goods shipped for use. — 
 elevator. — Hall Grain Co. r. Louisville, Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 Texas App, 
 etc., R. Co., 148 Alo. App. .308, 128 S. Civ. Cas., § 631. 
 
 W. 42. 90. Pecos, etc., R. Co. r. Maxwell (Tex. 
 
 85. Excuse for delay.^W'hether a car- Q\y App.), 156 S. W. 548. 
 
 rier is excused by the conduct of the ship- ^'^ Instruction assuming facts.— St. 
 
 per IS a question of fact for the jury. j^ouis, etc.. R. Co. r. Thompson (Tex. 
 
 ^sY^g Ml 3'^2''^' ^'^- -^''J'-^' 1"^ S- ^^'- ''^■^• 
 
 Se/joynes z/.' Pennsylvania R. Co., 235 ?2-, Instruction on weight of evidence. 
 
 Pa. 232, 83 Atl. 1016, Ann. Cas. 1913D, —Rehearing (Tex Civ. App.), 47 b. W. 
 
 964 384, denied. Belcher v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 
 87. Joynes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 23.5 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S W. 1020, re- 
 Pa. 232, 83 Atl. 1016, Ann Cas. 1913 D, versed 92 Tex. 593, 50 S. W. 559. ^ 
 
 964. 93. Necessity and propriety of instruc- 
 
 88. Where goods shipped for sale. — tions. — Lklcher v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 Acme Paper Box Factory v. Atlantic, etc., 92 Tex. 593, 597, 50 S. W. 559, reversing 
 R. Co., 148 N. C. 421, 62 S. E. 557. 47 S. W. 384.
 
 697 DF.I.AV IX TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY. §§ 971-972 
 
 Rule as to Assessing Damages. — In an action against a carrier for dam- 
 ages resulting ivom delay in the delivery of goods, it is erroneous to instruct 
 to assess damages in case of unreasonable delay, without any direction as to the 
 rule by which such damages shouUl le assessed.''^ 
 
 That Damages in Excess of Freight. — In an action of trover in such case 
 the damage to the property while in the hands of the carrier must be equal to 
 or greater than the freight charges ; and, therefore, where there is no evidence 
 on the trial establishing this fact, it is error for the trial judge, in response to 
 the requests of a defendant carrier, to refuse to place this element of the case 
 before the iur\ /'•' 
 
 Distinguishing Damages from Delay from Subsequent Damage. — 
 Where goods are injured by delay in transpc-tation, and are further injured by 
 the delay of the consignee in removing them from the car, the carrier, being 
 liable only for the damages from delay in transportation, is entitled, in an ac- 
 tion to recover damages, to a special instruction to distinguish between the dam- 
 ages to the goods at the time of their arrival and the damages from the con- 
 signee's delay in unloading the car, and it is error to refuse such a charge, al- 
 though the matter is covered in a general charge.***' 
 
 § 972. Form, Requisites and Sufficiency.— Abstract Instruction. — 
 
 Goods having been transported an extra distance by Jv connecting carrier, owing 
 to a mistake of the initial carrier, the connecting carrier demanded payment for 
 such extra haul before permitting the shipi)er to take his goods. \\'hile the 
 shipper is not bound to pay such charge before receiving his goods, it is error 
 to so charge as an abstract proposition, in an action by the shipper to recover 
 from the original carrier for delay resulting from his refufal to pay the charge 
 before the matter is adjusted."^ 
 
 Applicability to Pleadings. — It is not error for the court to refuse an in- 
 struction asked bv a carrier, excusing the carrier from the duty to notify the 
 shippers of the arrival of the goods, where such question is not raised by the 
 carrier's pleadings."^ Where suit was brought against a railroad company for 
 failing to deliver to the consignee two car loads of watermelons, -o the contract 
 of affreightment, and the evidence showed that they were in fact delivered at 
 the point of destination within a reasonable time, but the consignee refused to 
 receive them on the ground that they were damaged by not being properly 
 loaded, and that they had become bruised and a part of them were rotten, it was 
 error to charge that if the defendant did not put the melons in good safe cars, 
 and they had to be transferred from the cars in which they were loaded, wdiereby 
 damage accrued, the jury would find for the plaintiff the amount of such dam- 
 age. This charge changed the issue made by the plaintiff in his declaration.^^ 
 
 Instruction Enlarging Damages Pleaded. — An instruction directing the 
 jury to assess the damages at the difference between the market value of the 
 goods when delivered and the market value of the same when they should have 
 been delivered, is erroneous, where the damages so charged are greater than 
 the damages pleaded.^ 
 
 94. Rule as to assessing damages. — Ya- 98. Applicability to pleadings. — Gibson 
 zoo etc R Co. r. Christmas. 89 Miss. <•. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co.. 88 S. C. 360, 70 
 6Sfi,' 42 So. IfiO. S. E. 1030. 
 
 95. That damages in excess of freight. 99. Central R.. etc., Co. :■. Avant. 80 
 —Miami I'owder Co. r'. Port Royal, etc., C.a. 19,=;, 5 S. E. 78. 
 
 R. Co., 38 S. C. 78, 10 S. E. 339, 21 L. R. 1- Instruction enlarging damages 
 
 A., N. S.. 123. pleaded. — W'liere tlie petition alleged that 
 
 96. Distinguishing damages from delay pood tomatoes were depreciated in value 
 from subsequent damage. — Guh', etc., R. a specified sum per crate by the decline in 
 Co. V. Chinski. 5:! I'ex. Civ. .\pp. 21, 114 the market, that a specified number of 
 S. W. S5^. crates were spoiled, and that plaintiflF in- 
 
 97. Form, requisites and sufficiency. — curred expense in sortins: the same, and 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. :■. Christmas, 89 Miss. the evidence showed a jjrcater damage to 
 686, 42 So. 169. a specified number of crates than that
 
 §§ 972-974 CARRIERS. 698 
 
 Applicability to Evidence. — In an action against an express company for 
 refusing to deliver a dead body at night at a station where no night office was 
 maintained, the body being carried to the first night station and returned the 
 next day, an instruction that if defendant's agent at the destination knew be- 
 fore the" arrival of the body at night that it would then arrive, and plaintiff was 
 there to receive it, and read}-, wilhng. and able to pay the charges, defendant 
 was bound to deliver to him on the first arrival at the destination, was erroneous, 
 as ignoring the validity of the company's rule preventing delivery at inght at 
 that station, and as being unsupported by evidence, there being no showing that 
 the agent had the knowledge predicated by the instruction. - 
 
 Confusing and Misleading Instructions.— Where in a suit against a car- 
 rier for delay in transporting a machine the appellant asked the court to charge 
 that the measure of damages was the cash rental value of the machine during 
 the time of delay, he can not complain of its refusal to give a charge conflicting 
 with that proposition, to wit: that no recovery could be had of the rental value 
 because defendant was not shown to have had notice that the machine was to 
 be used at once.^ In an action against a carrier for damages caused by its delay 
 in transporting goods which were delivered to it on Saturday, an instruction 
 that the jury should determine whether the defendant was negligent in failing 
 to transport the car within a reasonable time, when qualified by the statement 
 that defendant was under no obligation to run its train on Sunday, and was not 
 chargeable with negligence in failing to do so, if it ran no freight train over its 
 line on that day, was erroneous, since it might have led the jury to believe that 
 defendant was not required to transport the goods until Monday, whereas it was 
 plaintift"s right to have the court instruct the jury upon the very facts proved, 
 and to direct their minds to the very circumstances on which he relied.^ 
 
 Errors Cured by Verdict. — In an action against two railroad companies for 
 damages for delay in the transportation of freight, it appeared that the contract 
 of shipment was made with an associated fast freight line, composed of the 
 two defendant companies. The court submitted to the jury the issue whether, 
 under the contract of association, the roads over which freight was carried were 
 responsible for the entire obligation of the contract of carriage. The error, if 
 any, was cured by verdict for the plaintiff.^ 
 
 § 973. Verdict. — Where in an action for negligent delay in transporting 
 perishable freight, it is agreed that the freight should have arrived on a certain 
 day, and the plaintiff's evidence shows that it did not arrive until five days later, 
 while evidence of the carrier fixes the arrival on the day the freight should have 
 arrived, the verdict for the plaintiff establishing an unreasonable delay au- 
 thorizes a recovery, provided such delay was the result of the negligence al- 
 leged by the plaintiff.*"' 
 
 § 974. Judgment. — A judgment against a carrier for damages for delay in 
 the transportation of goods does not bear interest, under a code providing for 
 
 pleaded, an instruction directing the jury 3. Confusing and misleading instruc- 
 
 to assess the damages at the difference be- tions.— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hassell, 23 
 
 tween the market value of the tomatoes Tex. Civ. App. 681, 683, 58 vS. W. .54. 
 
 when delivered and the market value of ^ Judgment (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 
 
 he same when they would have been de- reversed. Belcher v. Missouri, 
 
 hvered had no unreasonable delay occur- ^ ^ ^^ ^^^ 5^3 ,^^ g ^ 559 
 
 red was erroneous because it enlarged ' . , ,. t-, , nr 
 
 the cause of action pleaded. Parsons- 5 Errors cured by verdict.--Rocky Mt. 
 
 Applegate Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., Mills v. Wilmington, etc., R- Co 119 N. 
 
 118 SW. 101, 136 Mo. App. 494. C. 693. 25 S. E. 854, 56 Am. St. Rep. 682. 
 
 2. Applicability to evidence. — Adams 6. Verdict.— Parsons-Applegate Co. v. 
 
 Exp. Co. V. Hibbard. 145 Ky. 818, 141 S. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 136 Mo. App. 494, 
 
 W. 397, 38 L. R. A., N. S., 818. 118 S. W. 101.
 
 699 DI'I.AV IX TRANSPORTATION (JR UKUIVERV. §§ 974-976 
 
 interest <in jud^micnls in recovery for delA." 
 
 §§ 975-985. Demurrage, and Liability of Consignee or Owner for 
 Delay — § 975. In General.— Definition. — Demurrage i> a sum fixed by the 
 contract of affreightment as a remuneration t(j tlie shipowner for the detention 
 of the ship l)eyond the lay days allowed for loading or unloading.'' 
 
 Applicability to Railroads. — The term "demurrage," as used in its technical 
 sense, a])plies to maritime law, and some authorities have held that it is con- 
 fined to carriers by water, but it is now generally used to signify the charge for 
 the st(ira,L;e of goods in railroad car." 
 
 Reference to Maritime Law. — The adoption Ijy the railroad company of 
 the term ■■(knuirrage" as a designation for this charge does not require the 
 court t(j re>ort to the maritime law as a standard for testing the validity of the 
 regulation.'" 
 
 Terminal Defined. — Two yards of a railroad company were about four 
 miles apart, both were used as terminal points, and cars placed in either yard 
 could l)e released when ordered by the shipper. There was no evidence that, 
 if the cars had been brought to the yard nearest to the dumi)ing piers instead 
 of to the other yard, the detention of the cars would have been less than if 
 placed in the nearest yard. Tt was held that both yards were a part of the 
 terminal.'' 
 
 Power to Regulate and Control. — The power to regulate car service and 
 demurrage charges as to cars employed in interstate commerce is not conferred 
 upon the state railroad commission of Ohio by the act of April 2, 1906, creating 
 and prescriljing the duties of the state railroad commission. Demurrage charges, 
 as respects matters of interstate commerce, are within the control of the inter- 
 state commission, the state railway commission having no power to impose such 
 charges on interstate commerce, l)Ut as to interstate commerce the commission 
 has such power.' - 
 
 § 976. Right of Carrier to Charge. — It is the undoubted right of a com- 
 mon carrier to adopt and enforce, as between itself and its customer, any rea- 
 sonable regulation for the conducting of its business, the purpose and eft'ect 
 of which is the protection of the carrier and the benefit of the public.^-' The 
 carrier, in addition to its compensation for the carriage of goods, has the right" 
 
 7. Judgment. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. The average time to take a car out of the 
 Southern Seating, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568, yards and place it on the piers to unload 
 58 S. W. 303, 50 L. R. A., N. S., 729, 78 was from 30 minutes to an hour. Both 
 Am. St. Rep. 933. See ante, "Interest on yards were used as the terminal point, 
 Value of (jQods," § 945. and cars placed in either yard could be 
 
 8. Demurrage,' and liability of consignee pleased when ordered by the shipper, and 
 or owner for delay.-Davis v. Wallace, [here was no evidence that, if the cars 
 Fed. Cas. No. 3,r,57. 3 Cliff. 123; Wordin had been brought to the yard nearest to 
 V. Bemis, 32 Conn. 268, 85 Am. Dec. 255; the dumping piers instead of to the other 
 Cross V. Beard, 26 N. Y. 85; Fisher v. y^'^^ t^ie detention of the cars would have 
 Abeel (X. Y.), 66 Barb. 3S1. been less than it was. Held to justity 
 
 . ,. , .,. •, J T^- a hnding that both yards were a part of 
 
 9. Applicability to railroads.— Dixon v. ^j^^ '-terminal," within the demurrage 
 Central, etc., R. Co., 110 Ga. 173, 3o S. ^^^,^3 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Marshall, 
 E- 369. t;^o n. Y. S. 41, 147 App. Div. 806, 17 L. 
 
 10. Reference to maritime law. — Miller \{_ \_ x. S., 193. 
 
 V. Georgia R., etc., Co., SS Ga. 5()3, 15 S. 12. Power to regulate and control. — 
 
 E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, IS L. R. A., Railroad Comm. v. Ann Arbor R. Co.. 12 
 
 N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 70. Q. C. C, N. S., 317, 21-31 O. C. D. 337. 
 
 11. Terminal defined.— A carrier adopted affirming 8 X. P., X. S., 233, 19 O. D. X. 
 demurrimo nilcs for coal cars at a termi- !'. 691. at'tirnied in 83 O. St. 476. 
 
 nal at whicli it maintained two yards for 13. Right of carrier to charge.— Miller 
 
 cars until called for. The yards were v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563. 15 S. 
 
 about four miles apart, and one yard was E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A., 
 
 a mile and a half from dumping piers. N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 70.
 
 § 976 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 700 
 
 to charge tor their storage and keeping, as a warehousemen, for whatever time 
 they remain in its custody after reasonable opi:)ortunity has been afforded the 
 owner to remove them.^-* This right extends to the adoption and enforcement 
 of a reasonable regulation as to the time in which the cars of a common carrier 
 by rail whose customer has the privilege of unloading the cars for himself or 
 has agreed to unload such cars, as to the time within which the cars may be 
 unloaded free of any expense for storage, and to the fixing of the reasonable 
 rate per day at which storage or other demurrage for delay shall thereafter be 
 charged for the use of such cars so long as they remain unloaded. ^^ Railroads 
 
 14. Compensation as warehouseman. — 
 
 Hutchinson on Carriers. § ;!7S. South- 
 western R. Co. V. Felder, 46 Ga. 433; Mil- 
 ler V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 
 15 S. E. 316. 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 177, 18 
 L'. R. A., X. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 70. 
 
 After the arrival of the goods at their 
 destination, the liability of the carrier as 
 such ceases, but the carrier becomes lia- 
 ble for the custody of the goods as a 
 warehouseman, and if the goods are not 
 removed within a reasonable time, is en- 
 titled to compensation, for which the 
 carrier has a lien as warehouseman. Nor- 
 way Plains Co. v. Boston, etc.. Railroad 
 (Mass.). 1 Gray 263, 61 Am. Dec. 423. 
 
 15. Right to charge demurrage. — 11 Ry. 
 & Corp. L. J. 49; Beach. Ry. Law, § 924; 
 Jones, Liens, § 384; 4 Lawson, Rights, 
 Rem. & Pr., p. 3146, §§ 1831, 1832; Wood, 
 Ry. Law, pp. 1592, 1593, 1600; 2 Wat. 
 Corp. 245, 246; Redf. R. R. (6th Ed.), pp. 
 67-83; Amer. & English Enc. Law, vol. 2, 
 pp. 878-881; Union Pac, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cooke, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 89, note; 
 Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 90, 
 note; Pennsylvania Millers State Ass'n v. 
 P. & O. Ry. Co., 8 Interst. Com. R. 531. 
 
 Alabama. — Southern R. Co. v. Lockwood 
 Mfg. Co., 142 Ala. 322, 37 So. 667, 669, 68 
 L. R. A., X. S., 227, 110 Am. St. Rep. 32, 
 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 12. 
 
 Georgia. — Miller v. Georgia R., etc., 
 Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. 
 Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 70, 79; Dixon v. Central, 
 etc., R. Co., 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369. 
 
 Illinois. — Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 207 111. 199, 69 N. E. 825; Railway 
 Co. V. Propst Lumber Co., 114 111. App. 
 659; Railway Co. v. Dorsey Fuel Co., 113 
 111. App. 382. 
 
 Kentucky. — Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 V. Ohio, etc., R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152, 32 S. 
 W. 595, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326, 36 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 850, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 722. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Miller v. Mansfield, 112 
 Mass. 260. 
 
 Mississippi. — X'ew Orleans, etc., R. Co. 
 V. George & Co., 82 Miss. 710, 35 So. 193; 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 
 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 715. 
 
 Missouri. — McGee v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 71 Mo. App. 310; Darlington v. Mis- 
 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 1. 72 S. 
 W. 122; Owen v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 83 Mo. 454; Darlington Lumber Co. v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 216 Mo. 658, 116 S. 
 W. 530. 
 
 Xczv York. — Crommelin v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 1 Aljb. Dec. 472, 43 N. Y. 90. 
 
 North Carolina. — Hockfield v. Southern 
 R. Co., 150 N. C. 419, 64 S. E. 181, 134 
 Am. St. Rep. 945. 
 
 OJiio. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 
 
 3 O. N. P. 122, 5 O. Dec. 659. 
 Pennsylvania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Midvale Steel Co., 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 
 313, 88 Am. St. Rep. 836. 
 
 Tennessee. — Swan v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co.. 106 Tenn. 229, 61 S. W. 57. 
 
 Texas. — ^Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Hunt 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 549, 550; 
 Quanah, etc., R. Co. v. Drummond (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 728; Baumbach v. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 23 
 S. W. 693. 
 
 Virginia. — X^'orfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 
 90 Va. 393, 18 S. E. 673, 674, 44 Am. St. 
 Rep. 916, 918, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 530. 
 
 Wyoniing. — Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Cann, 2 Wyo. 3. But see Cleveland, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. Holden, 73 111. App. 582; Cleve- 
 land, etc., R. Co. V. Lamm, 73 111. App. 
 592. 
 
 In ordinary cases, the railway which 
 delivers a car to be unloaded by consignee 
 may charge reasonable demurrage fixed 
 Ijy regulation and brought to freighter's 
 notice. Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 
 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 653, 23 S. W. 693. 
 The consignee of two car loads of coke 
 
 was notified upon their arrival that a 
 charge for rental would be made if they 
 were not unloaded within forty-eight 
 hours. The notification was in compli- 
 ance with the rules of an association of 
 railroads, organized for the purpose of 
 facilitating the unloading of cars, and the 
 charge made for the rental was much less 
 than the average earning capacity of 
 freight cars. The railroad company had 
 at the point of destination no warehouse 
 for the unloading of bulk freight, such as 
 coke. Held, that the railroad company 
 was entitled to charge rental for the use 
 of the cars after the expiration of a rea- 
 sonable time for unloading. Schumacher 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 111. 199, 69 N. 
 E. 825.
 
 701 
 
 DKI.AV IN TKANSI'OKTATION" OK DELIVERY. 
 
 § 976 
 
 are entitled to charge and receive extra compensation for extra service rendered 
 after the arrival of freight at its destination, such as reconsignment cliarges, 
 car service or switching charges, demurrage, and the Hke.'*' A railroad com- 
 pany as a common carrier is bound to furnish cars for the transportation of 
 freight, and it must have control over its cars in order to perform its duties to 
 the i)ublic. Tf persons to whom shipments of goods and merchandise were con- 
 signed might hold the cars without unloading, at their pleasure or convenience, 
 and without extra costs or charges, and thus deprive the railroad company of 
 the use of its cars for the transjnjrtation of freight, it is very evident that both 
 the railroad company and the shii)i)ing public would suffer serious injury and 
 loss. The right, therefore, of a railroad comi)any to make and enforce reason- 
 able rules and regulations to secure i)rompt unloading of its cars is clear. ^' 
 
 Necessity for Contract.— The right to charge for the storage of goods in 
 cars arises where the goods are necessarily detained by virtue of the failure of 
 the consignee to comply with his obligation to the carrier, whereby the carrier 
 is deprived of the use of its cars.'^ Demurrage is often a matter of contract, 
 but not necessarily so.''' Independent of any express or implied contract of 
 plaintiffs to be bound by the rules, the modern doctrine in this country is that 
 the right to demurrage, in such circumstances, exists independent of contract 
 or statute.-" The very circumstance that, in ordinary commercial voyages, a 
 particular sum is deemed by the parties a fair compensation for delays, is the 
 very reason why it is, and ought to be, adopted as a measure of compensation, 
 in cases ex delicto.-' A corporation was organized to compress cotton and 
 operate a compress. It did not authorize shippers to consign cotton to it, and 
 did not accept any cotton as consignee. As agent of the owners, it delivered 
 cotton to a railroad for transportation and collected from the railroad the charges 
 for compensation. The corporation was not liable to the railroad company for 
 demurrage, there being no contractual relation between the corporation and 
 the railroad with reference to the shipment of cotton. -- 
 
 By Adoption of Regulation. — W here a regulation of this character is known 
 to the customer before the contract for transportation is made, it is to be pre- 
 sumed, in the absence of anv evidence to the contrary, that the parties contracted 
 
 16. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 
 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 
 715. 
 
 17. Baltimore.- etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 3 
 O. N. P. 122. 5 O. Dec. 659; New York, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Seiberling & Co., 8 O. C. 
 C. 593. 4 O. C. D. 210. 
 
 18. Necessity for contract. — Dixon v. 
 Central, etc.. R. Co., 110 Ga. 173, 35 vS. 
 E. 369. 
 
 19. The Apollon (U. S.), 9 Wheat. 361, 
 6 L. Ed. 111. 
 
 20. United States. — Hawgood v. One 
 Thousand Three Hundred and Ten Tons 
 of Coal, 21 Fed. 681. 
 
 Georgia. — Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 
 88 Ga. 563. 15 S. E. 316, 18 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 323. 30 Am. St. Rep. 170. 50 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 70; Dixon v. Central, etc., 
 R. Co.. 110 Ga. 173. 35 S. E. 369. 
 
 Keiitueh'w — Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. 
 V. Ohio, etc.. R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152. 32 S. 
 W. 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. R. A.. 
 N. S., 850, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326. 
 
 Massaehusetts.—MiWcr z: Manstield, 112 
 Mass. 260. 
 
 Missouri. — Owen r. St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 Co., 83 Mo. 454; McGee v. Chicago, etc., 
 
 R. Co.. 71 Mo. App. 310; Darlington v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 1. 72 
 S. W. 122. 
 
 Xezv York. — Huntly v. Dows (X. Y.), 55 
 Barb. 310; Erie R. Co. v. Waite, 114 X. 
 Y. S. 1115, 62 Misc. Rep. 372. 
 
 Virginia. — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. .\dams, 
 90 Va. 393, 18 S. E. 673, 22 L. R. A., X. S., 
 530, 44 Am. St. Rep. 916. 
 
 "Where the bill of lading contains no 
 provision for the payment of demurrage, 
 no case has been cited to show the con- 
 signee or his assignee is liable for demur- 
 rage; and the English authorities are uni- 
 formly against such a lial)ility; Young v. 
 Maeller, 5 El. & B. 755; Chappell v. Com- 
 fort, 10 Com. B., N. S., 802; Smith v. 
 Sieveking, 5 El. & B. 589." Gage r. 
 Morse (Mass.), 12 Allen 410. 90 Am. Dec. 
 155. 
 
 In Gage v! Morse (Mass.). 12 Allen 
 410, 90 Am. Dec. 155, the bill of lading 
 was assigned before delivery of the goods. 
 
 21. The Apollon (U. S.). 9 Wheat. 361, 
 6 L. Ed. 111. 
 
 22. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Capital Com- 
 press Co., 50 Tex. Civ. App. 572. 110 S. 
 W. 1014.
 
 976 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 702 
 
 with reference to it : -•= and it is operative, whether inthcated upon the bill of 
 lading or not, and whether the shipments are made to the order of the consignor 
 with^the ctistomarv direction to notify the customer, or directly to the customer 
 himself.--* Demurrage is allowed the carrier where it discharges its duty and 
 delivers the car within the proper time, and the consignee, by delay in unload- 
 ing it, deprives the owner of the car of its use, for, in such case, the parties 
 contracting with reference to the regulation of the carrier for demurrage, the 
 rate so fixed is adopted by the contract; but where the carrier does not deliver 
 the goods according to the contract, and for that reason the consignee refuses 
 to receive it, although he has no right to do so, he can not be said to adopt the 
 rate of demurrage fixed by the regulation of which he is not shown to have had 
 notice, and which seems to apply to a dififerent state of facts.-^ 
 
 Damages in Nature of Demurrage.— Damages in the nature of demurrage 
 are recoverable for detention beyond a reasonable time in miloading only, where 
 there is no express stipulation to pay demurrage.-''' 
 
 Necessity for Bill of Lading.— As between a carrier and customers who 
 have notice of the regulation before shipments are made and in the absence of 
 evidence of an agreement to the contrary, a regulation of the carrier fixing a 
 rate of storage charges is operative, whether indicated upon the bill of lading 
 or not.-" 
 
 Necessity for Statute.— A reasonable charge may be imposed by earners by 
 rail on consignees, independent of statute, for the detention of cars beyond a 
 reasonable time.-^ 
 
 Goods in Car or Warehouse.— It is not material that the goods remain m 
 the cars of the carrier instead of being put into a storehouse.-^ The carrier is 
 as much entitled to charge for the use of its car as for the use of its ware- 
 house.3(» W'here it is the duty of the consignee to unload freight, and failing to 
 do so he accepts the benefit of storage in a car he can not deny the carrier's 
 
 23. By adoption of regulation. — Miller 
 V. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 360. 
 
 24. Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 
 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 
 18 L. R. A., X. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Gas. 70. 
 
 25. Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 
 Tex. Civ. App. (',.50, 23 S. W. 693. 
 
 26. Damages in nature of demurrage. — 
 \\ordin r. Bemis, 32 Conn. 268, 85 Am. 
 Dec. 255. 
 
 27. Necessity for bill of lading. — Miller 
 V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 
 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 70. 
 
 28. Necessity for statute. — Erie R. Co. 
 V. Waite, 114 X. Y. S. 1115, 62 Misc. Rep. 
 372. 
 
 "In this state demurrage charges as to 
 shipments of grain in car-load lots are 
 allowed by statute. Section 1115, Rev. 
 St. 1899." Darlington v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co.. 99 Mo. App. 1, 72 S. W. 122. 
 
 Virginia Code, §§ 1202, 1203, allow rail- 
 road companies to make a certain charge 
 for the shipment of produce and other 
 articles; and "for the weighing, storage, 
 and delivery of articles at any depot or 
 warehouse of the company, a charge may 
 also be made, not exceeding the ordinary 
 warehouse rates charged in the city or 
 town in which, or nearest to which, the 
 depot or warehouse is situated;" but for- 
 
 bid a railroad company "to charge or 
 receive any fee or commission other than 
 the regular transportation fees, storage, 
 and other charges authorized by law for 
 manifesting, receiving, or shipping any 
 goods, or other articles for transportation 
 on such railroad." Held, that said stat- 
 utes do not forbid a charge of $1 per day 
 for the detention of a car more than 
 seventy-two hours after notice to the con- 
 signee of its arrival. Lacy and Hinton, 
 jj., dissenting. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Adams, 90 Va. 393, 18 S. E. 673, 22 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 530, 44 Am. St. Rep. 916. 
 
 29. Goods in car of warehouse. — The re- 
 sponsil)ility of the company for their cus- 
 tody was the same as if they had been 
 stored, and the company has the right to 
 retain them until the charges are paid. 
 Miller V. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260. 
 
 30. Compensation for car as warehouse. 
 — "Where the carrier's duty ends with the 
 transportation ^of the car and its delivery 
 to the custom'er, and no further service 
 is embraced in the contract, the carrier, 
 after a reasonable time has been allowed 
 for unloading, is as much entitled to 
 charge for the further use of its car as 
 it would be for the use of its warehouse." 
 Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 
 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 70.
 
 703 
 
 DKI.AV IX TKAXSl'OKTATION OR DF.I.IVKRV. 
 
 § 976 
 
 riglU to compensation on the grouml that sonie otlier method was not resorted 
 
 Goods Shipped to Consignee or Consignor. — As hetween a carrier and 
 
 custoiucrs who ha\e n(jticc oi the re<^ailati<jn hef<;re shipments are made and in 
 the ahsen.ce of evidence of an agreement to the contrary, a regulation of the 
 carrier fixing a rate for storage charges is operative, whether the shipments are 
 made to the order of the consignor with the customer's direction to notify the 
 carrier or siii|)pe(l (h'rectly to the customer himself.''- 
 
 Goods to Be Shipped Over Connecting Line. — A railroad company which 
 receives freight for transmission beytMul its line without demanding i)repayment 
 of charges can not claim such charges until it has carried such freight to the 
 end of its line, and is ready to deliver it to the connecting carrier ; and the re- 
 fusal of the consignee to receive the goods or pay the charges at any other point 
 does not entitle the com])any to charge demurrage/'-' 
 
 Goods Refused by Consignee. — The decisions which hold that a carrier 
 wdiich delivers to the consignee a loaded car, to be unloaded by him, may charge 
 reasonable demurrage, hxed by regulation and brought to the notice of the 
 freighter, relate to ordinary cases, where the carrier discharges its duty and 
 delivers the car within the proper time, and by the consignee's delay in unload- 
 ing is deprived of the use of the car; but where the ])laintiti:' refuses to receive 
 the car, he does not adopt by agreement a rate of demurrage fixed by a rule of 
 which he is not shown to have had notice, and which seems to apply to a dif- 
 ferent state of facts: and there being no evidence that the charges were rea- 
 sonable, the court could well conclude that the amount claimed was unreasona- 
 ble.-'-» 
 
 Goods Destroyed. — Where the consignee failed to unload goods from a ves- 
 sel within the time allowed, and afterwards, while the vessel was detained on 
 demurrage, the vessel and cargo were lost without the fault of the master, the 
 consignee is liable for demurrage.-'^'' 
 
 Charges on Cars of Another Carrier. — The carrier may collect demurrage 
 charges on a car owned by another carrier/'^' it is not illegal for one railroad to 
 collect a charge for detention of a car belonging to another road, where the uni- 
 versal practice is that the road into whose custody the cars is delivered is enti- 
 tled to the earnings of the car as long as it is in its possession. 3" 
 
 31. Wliile a customer whose duty it is 
 to unload freight consigned to him and 
 who, failing to do so within a reasonable 
 time, accepts the benefit of storage in a 
 car by requesting or permitting the car- 
 rier to continue holding it unloaded in 
 his service and subject to liis will and 
 convenience as to the time of unloading, 
 may insist that the rates fixed shall not 
 be unreasonable or excessive, he can not 
 be heard to complain of the method ot 
 storage and to deny the carrier's right to 
 any compensation at all for its service 
 on the ground that some other method 
 was not resorted to. Miller v. Georgia R., 
 etc.. Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. 
 St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 323. 50 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 70. 
 
 32. Goods shipped to consignee or con- 
 signor.-Millrr f. Georgia R., etc., Co., S8 
 Ga. 5(i;!, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 
 18 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 70. 
 
 33. Goods to be shipped over connect- 
 ing line. — Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Diether, 10 Ind. App. 206, 37 N. E. 39. 
 106'.), 53 Am. St. Rep. 385. 
 
 34. Goods refused by consignee. — It was 
 so held where the defendant claimed $200 
 for storage due, which was more than the 
 value of the lumber. The rules or de- 
 fendant provided that storage would be 
 charged for cars if not unloaded within 
 iwenty-four hours after notice of arrival — 
 for first day, $1, second, $2.50, third and 
 sicceeding days, $5 per day; and plaintiff 
 was notified that unless he received the 
 hmiber it would be stored for his account. 
 Baumbach r. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. 
 .■\pp. 6.")0. 23 S. W. fi'.i.i. 
 
 35. Goods destroyed. — Brown v. Ral- 
 ston. 3ti \'a. (9 Leigh) 5:52. 
 
 36. Charges on cars of another carrier. 
 — Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., 
 R. Co., 98 Ky. 152, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326, 
 32 S. W. 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 850. 
 
 37. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 32 S. W. 595. 98 Kv. 152. 17 
 Ky. L. Rep. 726. 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850, 56 
 .\m. St Rep. 326. 
 
 .\ railroad entitled to possession of 
 cars, and liable to the owners thereof for 
 a per diem charge for their use may re-
 
 S 977 CARRIERS. ^^04 
 
 §§ 977-979. Rules and Regulations of Carrier— § 977. In General. 
 —Necessity for.— The law compels the carrier to receive the goods of the pub- 
 lic and to transport and deliver them within a reasonable time. To do this it is 
 necessary that the means of transportation shall be under the carrier's control, 
 and that after the dutv of carriage has been performed, its vehicles shall not be 
 converted into storehouses, at the will of consignees, to remain such indefinitely 
 and without compensation. If no check could be placed upon such detention, 
 it is plain that the business of transportation would be at the mercy of private 
 interest or caprice, and that carriers, thus hampered in their facilities, and un- 
 able to foresee the time or extent to which their vehicles would be diverted from 
 the work of carriage, could not provide properly for the demands of traffic or 
 perform with dispatch their legitimate function. It would place upon the car- 
 rier the burden and expense of supplying numerous vehicles not needed for the 
 hauling of freights, thus requiring it to provide extra facilities, as well as to 
 render extra service, without compensation beyond that received for transporta- 
 tion. It would result in the accumulation of cars on the carrier's tracks, and 
 the obstruction, in a greater or less degree, of the movement and unloading of 
 trains. Not onlv would loss ensue to the carrier, but consignees and shippers 
 in general, and the people at large, must suffer seriously from this hindrance to 
 the* due and regular course of transportation. In this matter the public have 
 rights paramount to those of any individual or class of individuals, and the busi- 
 ness of the common carrier must be so conducted as to subserve the general in- 
 terest and convenience. Especially is this true as to railroad companies, in view 
 of the important franchises granted them by the public, and the use and control 
 thus acquired of highways upon which the commerce of the country is so largely 
 dependent."^ 
 
 Purpose and Object. — The charge is not for transportation, storage, or de- 
 livery of freight, and it is not a device or a pretext for exacting of the shipper or 
 the consignee more than the rate prescribed by law^ and fixed by schedule ; but it 
 is for the use and occupation of the cars and the obstruction of the tracks by the 
 consignee for weeks and months after the contract for transporting and deliver- 
 ing tile freight had been fulfilled and ended. It is neither a transportation charge, 
 nor a storage charge, nor a terminal charge, nor a subterfuge for adding to the 
 cost of transportation in excess of the rates prescribed.-"-'* 
 
 cover of a consignee demurrage charges rules and regulations to secure prompt 
 
 for unreasonable delay. Erie R. Co. v. unloading of its cars is clear. Baltimore, 
 
 Waite, 114 N. Y. S. 1115, r,2 Misc. Rep. etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 3 O. N. P. 122, 5 O. 
 
 372 Dec. 659; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Seiber- 
 
 38. Rules and regulations of carrier.— ling & Co., 8 O. C. C. 593, 4 O. C. D. 210. 
 
 Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 39. Purpose and object.— Norfolk, etc., 
 
 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 175, 15 S. E. 316, 18 R. Co. v. Adams, 90 \a. 393, 44 Am. St. 
 
 L R. A., X. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Rep. 916, 919, 18 S. E. 673, 22 L. R. A., 
 
 Cas. 70. N. S., 530. 
 
 A railroa'd company as a common car- The object of the regulation of the 
 rier is bound to furnish cars for the trans- carrier fixing a charge for the detention 
 portation of freight, and it must have con- of cars is not for the purpose of raising 
 trol over its cars in order to perform its revenue at all. That feature is insignifi- 
 duties to the public. If persons to whom cant, the purpose being to facilitate trans- 
 shipments of goods and merchandise were portation, and the less revenue there is 
 consigned might hold the cars without derived from the enforcement of the 
 unloading, at their pleasure or conveni- charge the greater the carriers are bene- 
 ence, and without extra costs or charges, fited and their facilities increased for 
 and thus deprive the railroad company of serving the public. The purpose of the 
 the use of its cars for the transportation regulation is an advantage and not an 
 of freight, it is very evident that both injury to the customer. Kentucky Wagon 
 the railroad company and the shipping Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 98 Ky. 152, 
 public would suffer serious injury and 56 Am. St. Rep. 326, 32 S. W. 595, 17 Ky. 
 loss. The right, therefore, of a railroad L. Rep. 726, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850. 
 company to make and enforce reasonable
 
 705 IH:i..\Y IN TKAXSl'ORTATIOX OR DKLIVKRV. §§ 977-97% 
 
 Necessity for Counter Penalties. — That there is no reciprocity of indem- 
 nity and connter pcnaUy in dcnmrraj^e rules in favor of the customer against the 
 carrier for not pronijjtly performing its duties as a common carrier, does not in- 
 vaHrlate such rules. •" 
 
 General and Uniform Application. — The rule, to be beneficial to all alike, 
 must be (jf universal ajjplication, and a rare or exceptional circumstance, incident 
 to a jKirticular shijjper at some particular time, can not be allowed to annul the 
 rule.'*' A rule of a railroad commission forbids railroads to discriminate in de- 
 murrage rates, and re(|uires them to collect demurrage at all places on their lines 
 if tliev collect at any i)lace. The oj^eration of the rule is to be suspended by the 
 commission when justice demands. Other rules of the commission regulate car 
 service associalious. Trior to the promulgation of the later set of rules, a car 
 service association had a rule providing for the withdrawal of service on private 
 sidings in case of the failure to consignees to pjomptly settle bills for car service 
 charges. Where a consignee refused to recognize the car service association, and 
 refused to i)ay car service or demurrage, the withdrawal of car service on his 
 siding by the car service association did not constitute such o])pressive and arbi- 
 trary action as to constitute the car service association an illegal trust and combine 
 or criminal conspiracy inimical to the public welfare.^- A demurrage rule pro- 
 hibiting discrimination between persons, and providing, if car service be collected 
 from one person, it must be from all who are liable, does not prevent demurrage 
 being collected for cars loaded with certain kinds of freight, though it is not 
 charged where they are loaded with other kinds."*-' 
 
 Construction of Rules. — Demurrage rules promulgated by a carrier must be 
 construed most favorably to the shipper.-*"* In an action by a carrier for de- 
 murrage charges under a rule of the carrier the court will not give the rule a 
 broader construction than its language indicates, unless the reason of the thing 
 and the surrounding circumstances require it to do so."*"' 
 
 § 978. By Whom Promulgated. — That the rule was promulgated by a per- 
 son or board of persons representing a combination of carriers does not impair 
 its effect as a regulation of a particular carrier. A common carrier, though a cor- 
 poration, makes a regulation its own bv adopting it and acting upon it, irrespective 
 of the source from when it is derived."*" 
 
 Rules Framed by Car Service Association. ^A number of railroads en- 
 tering a city may enter into a car service association without surrendering their 
 corporate autonomy and functions, and delegate the control and management of 
 their business as common carriers to the arbitrary control of the manager and 
 committee of the car service association, and thereby abolish competition, and 
 the rules of the association as to demurrage charges are not for that reason 
 illegal."*' 
 
 40 Necessity for counter penalties.^ 43. Xcw Orleans, etc.. R. Co. v. George 
 
 Kentucky WaKon Mfi?. Co. v. Ohio. etc.. & Co.. s:2 Miss. Tio. :{:. So. 19.3. 
 
 R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152. .')(■) Am. St. Rep. :i2(). 44. Construction of rules.^Staten Is- 
 
 32 S W 595 17 kv. L. Rep. 72(5, 3() L. land Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Marshall 
 
 R. A.. X. S.. 850. " (App. Term). 117 N. Y. S. 1034. judg- 
 
 41. General and uniform application. — ment aftirmed 121 X. Y. S. 82. 
 
 It is not necessary tliat an exception he 45. Staten Island Rapid Transit Co. r. 
 
 made in behalf of' shippers by reason oi Marshall, 121 X. Y. S. 82, 13G App. Div. 
 
 unfayorable weather conditions. Ken- 571. 
 
 tucky \Va!?on Mfg. Co. v. Ohio. etc.. R. 46. By whom promulgated.— Miller v. 
 
 Co 98 Ky 152. 56 Am. St. Rep. 326, 32 Georgia R.. etc.. Co.. 88 Ga. 5(53, 30 Am. 
 
 S iv 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 30 L. R. St. Rep. 170. 15 S. E. 316. 18 L. R. A., 
 
 A. N S 850 ' N. S.. 323, 50 Am. & Kng. K. Cas. 70. 
 
 42. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 47. Rules framed by car service asso- 
 Miss 520 37 So. 939. 68 L. R. A., N. S.. ciation.— Kentucky \Yagon Mfg. Co. v. 
 715. ■ Ohio. etc.. R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152. 56 Am. St. 
 
 1 Car— 45
 
 §§ 978-979 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 706 
 
 Shipper Not Consulted. — Where all the carriers in a city formed a car service 
 association and appointed a manager and committee, which promulgated rules to 
 regulate charges for demurrage, the facts that a shipper was not consulted in the 
 framing of the rules and had no voice in the selection and appointment of the 
 manager or committee, do not invalidate such rules.^*^ 
 
 SulDordinate Agents. — Where by a general rule of a railroad company known 
 to the consignee demurrage and storage were chargeable to all patrons but a 
 special contract was made, not with the authorities who promulgated the rule but 
 with subordinate agents, and for the express purpose of avoiding the application 
 of the rule in the given instance, a breach of the contract by one of the same agents 
 who co-operated in making it affords no cause of action against 'the company."*^ 
 
 § 979. Notice. — Necessity of Notice. — A consignee can not be held liable 
 for demurrage fixed by a rule of which he had no notice,'*" unless the rate of 
 demurrage is shown to be reasonable.^ ^ The consignee being advised of the 
 arrival of cars for him, formal notice is not necessary to make him liable for de- 
 murrage. ^- 
 
 Rules contained in bills of lading, imposing demurrage for dilatory unload- 
 ing of cars, are binding upon consignees, though they be in fact ignorant of their 
 existence. ^^ 
 
 Rep. 326, 32 S. W. 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 
 726, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850; Phillips Co. v. 
 Erie Railway, 6 O. C. C, X. S., 505, 14 
 O. D. X. P. 706. 
 
 The fact that a l)ill for demurrage 
 charges due a railroad was made out by 
 direction of a car service association, to 
 which the railroad intrusted its business 
 in the collection of demurrage, and on 
 its letter heads, does not justify the con- 
 signee in refusing to pay such demurrage. 
 Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 
 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 715. 
 
 The fact of the enactment of Acts 1898, 
 p. 97, c. 82, making car service associa- 
 tions subject to the control and supervi- 
 sion of the railroad commission, is 
 indicative of a legislative intent that such 
 associations shall not be deemed within 
 the inhibition of Code 1892, § 4437, defin- 
 ing trusts, and declaring therti illegal, or 
 of Acts 1900, p. 125, c. 88, which accom- 
 plishes the same purpose. Yazoo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 
 68 L. R. A., N. S., 715. 
 
 Where a numl)er of railroad companies, 
 by mutual agreement, enter into a car- 
 service association and adopt such reason- 
 able rules and regulations, it is the same 
 in effect as if each company for itself had 
 adopted the same. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Fisher, 3 O. N. P. 122. 5 O. Dec. 659. 
 And see Phillips Co. v. Krie Railway, 6 
 O. C. C. X. S., 505. 14 O. D. X. P. 706. 
 
 48. Shipper not consulted. — Kentucky 
 Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 98 
 Ky. 152. 56 Am. St. Rep. 326. 32 S. W. 
 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. R. A., X. 
 S., 850. 
 
 49. Subordinate agents. — Thus, where 
 the rules of the company required pay- 
 ment of demurrage on goods not removed 
 within forty-eight or sixty hours after 
 their arrival and also provided for the 
 storage in warehouses of goods not re- 
 
 moved within a certain time, the storage 
 and drayage to be at the expense of the 
 consignee, and these rules were known to 
 the plaintiff who contracted with the de- 
 fendant's station agent and soliciting agent 
 that in consideration of a large shipment 
 of freight over the defendant's railway no 
 demurrage, drayage or storage would be 
 charged against him, a breach of the con- 
 tract as to storage gave the plaintiff no 
 right of action against the company to re- 
 cover the money paid, and it was not er- 
 ror to grant a nonsuit. Harris v. Cen- 
 tral R., etc., Co., 91 Ga. 317, 18 S. E. 159. 
 
 50. Notice. — Before such rules or regu- 
 iations«can be enforced against a particu- 
 lar consignee, it must be shown that he 
 bad knowledge thereof. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Fisher, 30 O. N. P. 122, 5 O. 
 Dec. 659. 
 
 51. A consignee who refuses to accept 
 the goods on the ground of delay in de- 
 livery by the carrier can not be held liable 
 for demurrage fixed by the rules of the 
 carrier, of which he had no notice, unless 
 the rate of demurrage is shown to be rea- 
 sonable. Baumbach v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 
 4 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 23 S. W. 693. 
 
 A carrier by rail may establish a rule 
 fixing a reasonable rate for the detention 
 of cars after a sufficient period for un- 
 loading, without specific notice to the 
 shippers or consignee. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co. V. Bulah Shaft Coal Co., 42 Pa. Super. 
 Ct. 187. 
 
 52. Xew Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. George 
 & Co., 82 Miss. 710, 35 So. 193. 
 
 53. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 
 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A.. X. S., 
 715. 
 
 A shipper who signs a contract under 
 which freight is received by a common 
 carrier, by the terms of which the shipper 
 agrees to remove the freight within forty- 
 eight hours after notice of its arrival, is
 
 707 
 
 I»1:LAV IX IK.WSI'OKI ATIOX OR I ([-XIVrvRV. 
 
 §§ 979-980 
 
 Form and Requisites of Notice. — The carrier is not bound to serve a ver- 
 batim copy of the rule on the shipper.'''' The shipper is sufficiently charged with 
 knowledge of a demurrage rule by the regular rendering to him of bills for the 
 
 violation thereof.'''-'^' 
 
 § 980. Time and Amount of Charge. — Reasonableness of Time. — It 
 
 is reasonable that a railroad company should have some rule as to when freight 
 should be removed from its cars.-"'" The rule must allow time to meet all cases 
 likely to arise. •^'' The period of forty-eight hours, •''•'* which, computed under 
 car service rules, extends to near sixty hours, not including Sundays and legal 
 holidays, within which the customer is required to unload the carrier's cars 
 after delivery, is not an unreasonable time fr(jin which to start a demurrage 
 charge."'''" Neither is a period of twenty-four hours,'''^ nor one of four days.'^^ 
 On the issue as to what was a reasonable time, evidence as to the distance of 
 the consignee's home from the station is not admissible.''- 
 
 Computing Time. — L'nder demurrage rules providing that the delivery of 
 cars consigned to a siding used exclusively l)y individuals located thereon shall 
 be considered as effected when, if the siding is full, the road offering the cars 
 would have made delivery had the siding permitted, delivery will commence, 
 though the cars filling the siding are for another consignee, having equal right 
 to use the siding."'* Where the bill of lading provides for a lien for demurrage, 
 
 bound by its terms altliougli the contract 
 was not read l)y liini and he failed to 
 know its coiUcnts. Xew York, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Seiberlin- & Co., 8 O. C. C. 593, 
 4 O. C. D. 210. 
 
 The fact that important conditions of 
 the contract are written or printed, after 
 the signature and on an opposite page, 
 does not vary the rule where there is an 
 express reference to such conditions on 
 the face of the contract above the signa- 
 ture. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Seiberling 
 & Co.. 8 O. C. C. 59.-!. 4 O. C. D. 210. 
 
 54. Form and requisites of notice. — 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Midvalc Steel Co., 
 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 313, 88 Am. St. Rep. 
 836. 
 
 55. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Midvale Steel 
 Co., 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 313, 88 Am. St. 
 Rep. S3r.. 
 
 56. Time and amount of charge. — Xew 
 York, etc., R. Co. v. Seiberling & Co., 8 
 O. C. C. 593, 4 O. C. D. 210. 
 
 57. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, 
 etc., R. Co., 98 Ky. 152, 32 S. W. 595, 17 
 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850, 
 56 Am. St. Rep. 326. 
 
 58. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Seiberling 
 & Co., 8 O. C. C. 593, 4 O. C. D. 210. 
 
 "A rule of a railroad company that a 
 party to whom freight is consigned must 
 receive the same within fortj'-eight hours 
 after notice is a reasonable one, and a 
 charge for storage after that time is legal. 
 Gulf City Constr. Co. v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 121 .\la. 621, 25 So. 579." South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Lockwood Mfg. Co., 142 
 Ala. 322, 37 So. 667. 68 L. R. A., N. S., 
 227, 110 Am. St. Rep. 32, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 12. 
 
 A rule of carriers that: "A charge of 
 one dollar shall be imposed for car serv- 
 ice for and upon each car carried over 
 
 any i)orlion of its line of railroad not 
 unloaded liy the consignee within forty- 
 eight hours from the time said car arrived 
 at the destination thereof, ready for de- 
 livery to such consignee, for each day or 
 part of day after said forty-eight , hours, 
 not including Sundays and legal holidays, 
 during which said car should remain un- 
 loaded, the said charge being payable by 
 the consignee or person receiving the 
 car," is reasonable and valid. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. V. Midvale Steel Co., 201 
 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 313, 88 Am. St. Rep. 836. 
 
 59. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, 
 etc.. R. Co., 98 Ky. 152, 32 S. W. 595, 17 
 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850. 
 5C, Am. St. Rep. 326. 
 
 60. A stipulation in a bill of lading that 
 the carrier may make a reasonable charge 
 for a failure of the consignee to unload 
 his propertj' from the carrier's cars within 
 twenty-four hours after its arrival is a 
 reasonable provision, and hence it was 
 not error for the trial court to charge that 
 the parties were l)ound thereby. Swan 7'. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 106 Tenn. 229, 61 
 S. W. 57. 
 
 61. A rule or regulation requiring con- 
 signees, on receiving notice of the arrival 
 of cars, to unload the same within four 
 days thereafter, or pay the delivering com- 
 pany one dollar per car per day, for all the 
 time over said period of four days that 
 such cars shall remain on the tracks of 
 said company without being unloaded, is 
 a reasonable rule or regulation, and, there- 
 fore, legal and valid. Baltimore, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Fisher, 3 O. N. P. 122, 5 O. Dec. 
 659. 
 
 62. Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 
 207 111. 199. 69 N. E. 825. 
 
 63. Computing time. — New Orleans, etc.. 
 K. Co. r. George & Co., 82 Miss. 710, 35 
 So. 193.
 
 § 980 
 
 CARRIF.RS. 
 
 708 
 
 a railroad company mav charge for the time the goods are detained and until 
 demurrage is actually p'aid.'^'* In the rules of a railroad company requiring the 
 payment of demurrage on cars where more than a stated number of days 
 elapse '•between the date of arrival of each car and date released," "date of 
 arrival"' means the time of the arrival of the car in the yards, and not upon a 
 pier besides a ship, nor the time when notice of arrival is given the shipper, 
 and the "date released"' does not mean the date when the car is unloaded, but 
 the date when the consignee's vessel is registered at the pier as ready to load.*^^ 
 In the absence of any custom to the contrary, Sundays are computed in the 
 calculation of lay days at the port of discharge ; but where the contract s])ecifies 
 working davs. Sundavs and holidays are excluded in the computation.'''^ 
 
 Reasonableness of Charge.— As it is the legitimate object of this rule to 
 prevent the di\ersion of cars from the work of carriage, it would seem but 
 proper that the charge for their use, wdien detained as a means of storage, should 
 not be such as to encourage customers to adopt that means instead of the more 
 regular and usual methods.''' Rules of a carrier imposing reasonable charges 
 on consignee for delay in unloading cars are enforceable.*^^ The customary 
 rates for storage in warehouses and elevators need not be made the measure 
 of compensation where the storage is in cars on the tracks of a railroad. A 
 uniform charge of so much for a car per day is not unreasonable because the 
 cars vary in capacity, nor because a part of a day is charged for as a whole 
 day.^'-' A charge can not be regarded as unreasonable, so long as a reasonable 
 time is allowed for unloading, and so long as the charge for the use of the 
 cars beyond that time is not excessive.'" A dollar per day for each car is a 
 reasonable charge.'^ 
 
 In Excess of "Value of Goods. — Where the carrier claims demurrage in an 
 amount in excess of the value of the goods shipped and there is no evidence 
 that such charge is reasonable, the court will conclude that the amount claimed 
 is unreasonable. '- 
 
 64. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Samuel, 4.5 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 348. 
 
 65. A coal company contracted with a rail- 
 road company for the carriage of coal from 
 the mines to tide water at Elizabethport, 
 N. J., where the coal was loaded upon ves- 
 sels. When cars arrived in Elizabethport 
 they were placed in the railroad company's 
 general yards until a vessel of the ship- 
 per was ready to load, when it regis- 
 tered at the railroad company's pier, and 
 sucji company berthed it, and ran the cars 
 out on the pier, and dumped the coal into 
 the vessel as an incidental part of the 
 transportation. Sometimes there was de- 
 lay waiting for a vessel or a berth. The 
 schedule of rules respecting charges filed 
 ])y the railroad company with the Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission required the 
 payment of demurrage when there was an 
 average detention of cars for more than 
 five days, computed on the basis of the 
 time "between the date of arrival of each 
 car and date released." Held, that the 
 "date of arrival" meant the time of the 
 arrival of the car in the yards, and not 
 upon the pier, nor the time when notice 
 of arrival was given the shipper's agent, 
 and that the "date released" did not mean 
 the date when the car was unloaded, but 
 the date when the shipper's vessel was 
 registered at the pier as ready to load; the 
 car being then released so far as" the 
 
 shipper was concerned, and any further 
 delay being that of the railroad company. 
 Order, Central R. Co. v. Hite, 1G6 Fed. 976, 
 reversed. Hite v. Central Railroad, 171 
 Fed. 370, 9(3 C. C. A. 32G. 
 
 66. Brooks v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 481. 
 
 67. Reasonableness of charge. — Miller v. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 
 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 70. 
 
 68. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. George 
 & Co., 82 Miss. 710, 35 So. 193. 
 
 69. Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 
 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. R. ' 
 Cas. 70. 
 
 70. Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 
 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 
 170, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 70. 
 
 71. Miller v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 88 
 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. St. Rep. 
 170,' 18 L. R. A., N. S., 323, 50 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 70; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mid- 
 vale Steel Co., 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 313, 
 88 Am. St. Rep. 836. 
 
 A charge of one dollar a day for each 
 day after four days is reasonable. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. V. Fisher, 3 O. N. P. 
 122. 5 O. Dec. 659. 
 
 72. In excess of value of goods. — Baum- 
 bach V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
 G50, 23 S. W. 693.
 
 709 
 
 DKI.AV IN TRANSl'OKTATION OR DKl.IVFvRV. 
 
 §§ 980-981 
 
 Interest on Cost of Car. — The charge may be more than the usual per 
 centum on the first cost of the car. The carrier does not construct cars for the 
 purpose of storing i)roj)erty in them, and their use for transportation involves 
 the use of costly railway tracks and other expenditures.'^'' 
 
 As at Maritime Law. — The fact that the term was arloptcd from the mari- 
 time law 1)\ railroad companies as a designation of the charges for goods stored 
 in cars does not re(|uire that the principles which govern on this point untkr 
 maritime law shall control in determining the rates of carriers by land.'"* 
 
 Question for Jury. — Whether a particular rule or regulation is or is not 
 reasonable in its re(|uirements is, when the facts are shown, a q'uestion of law 
 for the court, and not a question of fact for the jury.'"' 
 
 § 981. Arrival and Continuance at Destination and Nature Thereof. 
 
 — The obligation of the carrier is not alone to carry the cargo, but it is in ad- 
 dition to deliver it at the place of discharge in the port of destination men- 
 tioned in the bill of lading: and the consignee incurs no liability for demurrage 
 until such delivery is made or tendered.'" A railroad comj^any is not entitled 
 to demand or receive demurrage until it is in a condition to tender a delivery 
 of the goods at a convenient, safe and unintermpted point at its depot.'^" In 
 the absence of a provision in a bill of lading declaring a lien for delays before 
 reaching private sidings, a carrier of freight can not base a lien for demurrage 
 on provisions for constructive placing of cars contained in schedules filed with 
 the Interstate Commerce Commission.'*^ 
 
 Arrival at Port. — A contract to deliver goods at a port implies more than 
 bringing the vessel into water within a line drawn across the mouth of the 
 harbor; in the absence of any special provision and of any custom to discharge 
 into lighters, it imports that the carrier is to bring his vessel to some wharf, 
 or convenient or customary ])lace of discharge, where he can deliver and the 
 consignees receive the cargo, according to the usage of the port ; and where a 
 vessel can not be brought to any wharf on account of ice, the carrier is not 
 entitled to demurrage for delay."^ Under a bill of lading requiring a vessel 
 to deliver a cargo of coal at a specified dock, the voyage is not completed, and 
 the lay days for discharging do not commence to nui, until she reaches such 
 dock and is in condition to discharge, unless she is prevented from reaching it 
 through the active fault of the charterer or consignee.'^" Where, by the bill 
 
 73 Interest on cost of car. — Kentucky 
 Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. Co.. 98 
 Ky. 152, 32 S. W. 595. 17 K. L. Rep. 72G, 
 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850, 56 Am. St. Rep. 
 32(5. 
 
 74. As at maritime law. — Miller v. Geor- 
 gia R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 
 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A.. X. S., 
 323. 50 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 70. 
 
 75. Question for jury. — Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. z\ I'ishcr, 3 O. X. P. 122, 5 O. Dec. 
 659. 
 
 76. Arrival and continuance at destina- 
 tion and nature thereof. — Manson v. New 
 York, etc.. R. Co.. 31 Ecd. 297, 24 Blatchf. 
 448, citing Mcintosh v. Sinclair. 11 Ir. C. 
 L. 456; Aylward v. Smith. Ecd. Cas. No. 
 688, 2 Lowell 192; Parker v. Winlow. 7 El. 
 & Bl. 942; Hodgdon z\ New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 46 Conn."276, 33 Am. Rep. 21. 
 
 77. Tlie legal eflfect of its undertaking 
 is to deliver the goods at a point and in a 
 manner to enable the consignee to re- 
 ceive them without inconvenience, delay 
 or interruption. After notice it may re- 
 
 quire prompt action on the part of the 
 consignee, but he may demand of it free, 
 convenient, safe and undisturbed access 
 to his goods. East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hunt, 83 Tenn. (15 Lea) 261. 
 
 The primary duty of a railroad com- 
 pany in carrying goods includes delivery 
 of the goods to the consignee at destina- 
 tion, and the carrier is not entitled to an 
 additional charge for car service until such 
 duty is performed. Carrizzo t. New York, 
 etc., R. Co.. 123 N. Y. S. 173, m Misc. 
 Rep. 243, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 579. 
 
 78. Carrizzo v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 123 N. Y. S. 173, 66 Misc. Rep. 243, 9 L. 
 R. A.. N. S.. .-.79. 
 
 79. Arrival at port.— Hodgdon v. New 
 York, etc.. R. Co.. 46 Conn. 276, 33 Am. 
 Rep. 21. 
 
 80. In re 2.098 Tons of Coal. 67 C. C. 
 A. 671. 135 Fed. 317; Harrison i\ Smith, 
 14 C. C. A. 656. 67 Fed. 354; Randall v. 
 Sprague, 21 C. C. A. 334. 74 Fed. 247, 
 Hagerman v. Norton, 46 C. C. A. 1, 105 
 Fed. 996.
 
 § 981 CARRIERS. 710 
 
 of lading, the cargo is to be delivered free of handling at the private dock of 
 a consignee known to have special facilities for unloading, the vessel will be 
 entitled to demurrage for unnecessary delay of the consignee in beginning the 
 discharge, although the total time consumed, including the delay, is not longer 
 than would have been occupied in discharging at a public dock of the same 
 port with the inferior facilities there afforded. "^^ 
 
 Arrival on Particular Track. — A bill of lading, providing that the carrier 
 mav charge for detention of cars after they have been held forty-eight hours 
 for unloading, and may hold the property subject to a lien therefor, merely 
 authorizes the carrier to charge demurrage when the cars have been held for 
 unloading, and not to give such right where they have been placed upon a 
 storage track awaiting switching to a place where they could be unloaded.**^ 
 But where the consignees refuse to accept any delivery except on a designated 
 track where deliver}^ can not be made, the carrier is not bound to make deliv- 
 ery elsewhere before commencement of the running of free time.'^^ Where on 
 the arrival of certain cars, the carrier offers to deliver by spotting them on any 
 available track for unloading, and the consignee's reply that they want the cars 
 as soon as possible to work so that they can unload and avoid teaming ex- 
 penses, there is not a refusal by the consignee to accept delivery except on a 
 particular track. ^* A statement in a bill of lading that, wdiere cars are detached 
 from trains on private sidings, the goods shall be at the owner's risk, does not 
 provide a lien for demurrage. ^-^ 
 
 Arrival at Coal Piers. — Rules stipulating that demurrage will be charged 
 at designated coal i)iers for the detention of coal cars held for transshipment, 
 promulgated by a terminal carrier, required to deliver at such piers a consignee's 
 coal, do not authorize the collection of demurrage for the detention of coal cars 
 at a freight yard under the control of the carrier twelve miles distant. ^"^ 
 
 Awaiting Orders. — A carrier's rule tha't cars for unloading should be con- 
 sidered placed when they are held awaiting orders from consignors or con- 
 signees apjilies only after the carrier is ready to make delivery and the con- 
 signee neglects or refuses to designate the place for deliver}^''*■^ 
 
 Held for Transshipment. — Under a demurrage rule of a carrier, stipu- 
 lating that demurrage would be charged at a designated place for detention of 
 coal cars held for transshipment, the date of arrival of cars at a place twelve 
 miles distant from the place specified, in another state and upon the lines of 
 another railway, was not the proper date to be taken in computing the total 
 detention of the cars where tlie cars were held solely for the convenience of 
 the carrier.^'*^ 
 
 Contract for Payment before Delivery. — Where the bill of lading under 
 which goods are shipped provides that the delivering carrier may make a rea- 
 sonable charge for detention of any car wdnich is held twenty-four hours for 
 unloading and may hold the property subject to a lien for demurrage, and that 
 the consignee shall pay all charges before a delivery of the property, and the 
 consignee has a yard to which a side track has been constructed by a carrier 
 other than the jjlaintift', though cars can be transferred from the plaintiff's track 
 
 81. I'ionecr Fuel Co. f. McBricr. 28 C. 86. Arrival at coal piers. — Staten Island 
 C. A. 400, 84 Fed. 495. Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Marshall (App. 
 
 82. Arrival on particular track.— Car- Term), 117 N. Y. S. 1034, affirmed 121 N. 
 rizzo v. New York, etc., R. Co., 123 N. Y. S. 82. 
 
 Y. S. 17.3, 66 Misc. Rep. 243, 9 L. R. A., 87. Awaiting orders.— Wooley 7'. Chi- 
 
 N. S., .579. caRO, etc., R. Co., 150 Wis. 183, r.',(S N. W. 
 
 83. Wooley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., o^f, 
 
 ^■'2.^X1':- ^?^' ^^'^r?- ^- ^'^^- r, n ..a 88. Held for transshipment.— ludg- 
 
 84. Wooley v Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 ^^^^.^^^ ,,. ^^. y ^ ,„.,^ affirmed. Staten 
 
 Wis. 183, 136 N. W. 616^ j^l^,^^, j^ ij Transit Co. v. Marshall, 121 
 
 85. Carnzzo v New York^ ^^^■']^- 5^?- X. Y. S. 82, 136 App. Div. 571. 
 123 N. Y. S. 173, 66 Misc. Rep. 243, 9 L. • • - . fi 
 
 R. A., N. S., 579.
 
 711 
 
 DKLAY IN' TRAXSKJKTATIO.V OR DKLIVERY. 
 
 § 981 
 
 to this side track, the consignee is liable to the payment of demurrage before a 
 delivery of the property, and hence it is not necessary for the -plaintiff to place 
 the cars on {ho consicmee's side track before making a demand for demurrage. ^^ 
 
 Designation of Berth. — A designation by a charterer of a berth for a ves- 
 sel, on notice of its arrival in port, was given within a reasonable time when 
 delivered within two or three hours from such notice of arrival.'-*^' 
 
 Continuance at Destination. — In order for the carrier to enforce demur- 
 rage charges, it must show that the cars on their arrival were placed on its side 
 tracks in suitable and convenient places for unloading and were so kept for 
 the .full period allowed tlie consignee for unloading, without charge."^ How- 
 ever, the car need not be at all times in a convenient place for unloading, pro- 
 vided the consignee is not unreasonably hindered or delayerl in unloading,-'- nor 
 need the car be kept in the same spot or place. If, in receiving other freight 
 and removing unloaded cars, it becomes necessary to shift the i)Osition of a car 
 awaiting unloading, such shifting will not relieve the consignee from the duty 
 of unloading in the time allowed therefor without charge, provided the car, 
 after shifting is left in a convenient place for unloading.'-'-* The cars after their 
 arrival at their destination, though not kcjjt accessible at every moment of time 
 are to be treated as remaining accessible if the carrier is always ready to render 
 them so within the shortest ])racticable time, not longer than a few hours, after 
 being notified that the consignee is ready to unload.'-''* 
 
 Notice of Arrival. — Notice to the transferee of a consignee of the arrival 
 of a car of coal is sufficient to establish the right of a carrier to demurrage, 
 whether the notice was given by the railroad company, the consignee, or other 
 parties."-' Where one ships carloads of grain to himself at a station on a con- 
 
 89. Contract for payment before de- 
 livery. — riaintiff received three cars of 
 stone over delendant's road. Due notice 
 of its arrival was given plaintifT, together 
 with the amount of the freight charges 
 thereon, but plaintiff did not pay the same 
 until ten days after the arrival of the cars, 
 when defendant refused to deliver the 
 stone until demurrage charges had been 
 paid. Plaintiff had a stone yard to which 
 a side track had been constructed by a 
 company other than defendant, though 
 cars could be transferred from defendant's 
 track to this side track. The bill of lad- 
 ing under which the stone was shipped 
 provided that the delivering carrier might 
 make a reasonal)le charge every day for 
 the detention of any car and for use of the 
 track after the car had been held twenty- 
 four hours for unloading, and might add 
 such charges to all other charges 
 thereunder, and hold such property 
 subject to lien therefor, and that the con- 
 signee should pay all charges before a 
 delivery of the property. It was held, in 
 conversion for the value of the stone, that 
 the defendant was entitled to the payment 
 of the demurrage, under the bill of lad- 
 ing, 1)efore a delivery of the property, and 
 hence it was not necessary for the defend- 
 ant to place the cars on plaintiff's side 
 track l)cfore making a demand therefor, 
 as such would constitute a delivery of the 
 propertv. Swan t'. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 lOr. Ton'n. L>'J'.t, Cl S. \V. ST. 
 
 90. Designation of berth. — The St. 
 Bernard, 105 Fed. 99-t. 
 
 91. Continuance at destination. — Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 3 O. X. P. 
 122, O. Dec. 659. 
 
 92. If a car is placed and kept in a suit- 
 al)le place for unloading for the four days 
 prescribed by the rule, and the consignee 
 fails to unload it, he will be liable for car 
 service thereafter, though the car may 
 not at all times be in a convenient place 
 for unloading, provided he is not there- 
 after unreasonal)]}- hindered and delayed 
 in unloading. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Fisher, 3 O. N. P. 122, 5 O. Dec. 659. 
 
 93. But if a car is shifted from day to 
 (la\' and from place to place, and is not 
 at any time, for the full period of four 
 daj-s, in a suitable place for unloading, 
 the company can not recover car service 
 therefor. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 
 3 O. X. P. 122, 5 O. Dec. 659. 
 
 94. It was so held in construing a reg- 
 rlation expressed in this language: "It 
 lieing understood that said car or cars 
 are to be placed and remain accessible to 
 tlie consignee for the purpose of unload- 
 ing during the period in which held free 
 of demurrage and that when the period 
 of such demurrage charge commences 
 the}' are to remain accessible to the con- 
 signee for unloading purposes." Miljer v. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co.. 88 Ga. 563. 15 S. 
 E. 316. 30 Am. St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A.. 
 X. S.. 323, 50 Am. & "Eng. R. Cas. 70. 
 
 95. Notice of arrival. — Chicago, et<;., R. 
 Co. i'. Woolner Distilling Co., 160 111. App. 
 192.
 
 §§ 981-982 cARRii'RS. 712 
 
 necting line, and the grain in transit is transferred from the cars in which it 
 was fi'rst shipped to the cars of the connecting hne, on its arrival at its desti- 
 nation, a notice by the carrier to the shipper of the arrival of the number of 
 cars of grain consigned, in its cars bearing certain numbers, is sufficient notice, 
 without informing him in what cars it was originally shipped, or into what cars . 
 it had been transferred in transit," to render him liable for demurrage on his 
 failure to unload it within proper time after arrival.'-"' I'nder a carrier's rule 
 that it shall give prompt notice by mail or otherwise of the arrival of freight, 
 such notice can not be given so as to authorize the carrier to charge for storage 
 until the cars containing the freight have been placed in such a position that 
 they may be unloaded and thus change the carrier's relation to that of ware- 
 housemen.^" 
 
 § 982. Persons Liable for Demurrage.— Consignor.— A shipper of 
 corn, who, knowing that the one to whom he consigns it could not pay for it, 
 and knowing also that he himself is expected to pay for the use of_ the car 
 while the corn is in it, allows it to remain on the tracks until he sells it to an- 
 other party, is liable for the use of the car.^s Where the consignor has notice 
 that a consignee had refused to accept car loads of goods, and directs the car- 
 rier to reship them, with direction to allow all charges to follow, and the sec- 
 ond consignee also refuses to accept the goods, the consignor is liable for de- 
 murrage."^ Where a consignor ships the first of several deliveries of iron, and 
 subsequently the railroad company notifies him that the purchaser will not ac- 
 cept the iron, and thereafter he ships other deliveries, consigning them to his 
 own order, although the purchaser continues the embargo, and the cars remain 
 unloaded on the tracks of the railroad, the consignor is liable to the railroad 
 company for demurrage; and if, after the embargo is raised, the railroad com- 
 pany refuses to release the cars until the demurrage is paid, the consignor is 
 liable for demurrage from the time the embargo is raised until the time when 
 he finally pays the original demurrage, if the bill of lading provides for a lien 
 for demurrage.^ 
 
 Consignee. — A consignee, receiving and disposing of the cargo, is liable for 
 demurrage. - 
 
 Agent. — An agent who buys produce and ships it for another, having no 
 concern with it afterwards, is not responsible for damages growing out of a 
 failure of the owner to cause delivery within a reasonable time, in the absence 
 of an express stipulation to that effect."^ Where a person agrees to have a 
 vessel loaded for another at the wharf of a railroad company where it is cus- 
 tomary -to load vessels in turn, and for the railroad company to do the loading, 
 which was done, causing the delay, such person is not answerable for demur- 
 rage, he having no personal control over the loading.^ The owner of a vessel, 
 having abandoned his lien on the cargo for demurrage, can not maintain an 
 action for damages against the shi])pers, who were merely agents.-' 
 
 Holder of Bill of Lading. — A carrier, in delivering a cargo, -is not 
 bound to look beyond the owner and holder of the bill of lading. As he has 
 the control of the delivery and acceptance of the goods, he is responsible, on 
 
 96. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Hunt (Tex. 154, citing Irzo v. Perkins, 10 Fed. 779; 
 Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 549. Neilson v. Jesup, .30 Fed. 138; Reed v. 
 
 97. United States v. Texas, etc., R. Co., Weld, 6 Fed. 304; Sprague v. West, Fed. 
 185 Fed. 820. Cas. No. 13,255 Abl). Adm. 548. 
 
 98. Persons liable for demurrage.— Hunt 3. Agent— Stafford v. Watson, 22 Fed. 
 V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), Cas. No. 13,276, 1 Biss. 437, 2 Chi. Leg. 
 31 S. W. 523. News 385. 
 
 99. Baltimore, etc., J^. Co. v. Samuel, 48 4. The Schmidt, 27 Fed. G71. 
 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 274. 5. Stafford v. Watson, 22 Fed. Cas. 
 
 i. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Samuel, 45 No. 13,276, 1 Biss. 437, 2 Chi. Leg. News 
 
 Pa. 'Super. Ct. 248. 385; Irzo v. Perkins, 10 Fed. 779; The 
 
 2. Consignee.— Gates v. Ryan, 37 Fed. William Marshall, 29 Fed. 328.
 
 713 
 
 DKLAY IX TRANSPORTATION- OR DELIVERY. 
 
 § 982 
 
 accepting the goods under the bill of lading, for demurrage according to its 
 terms. I fe can not relieve himself from responsibility by subcontracts for a 
 delivery to others, who do not act directly under the bill of lading, but only 
 under the consignee's orders.*' The fact that the defendant purchased the 
 freight after arrival by obtaining the bills of lading properly indorsed, the 
 freight having been .shipped to the order of the consignor, is no defense to an 
 action for demurrage by the carrier." Under a bill of lading which provides 
 for the payment of freight and average accustomed, the indorsee is entitled to 
 take the goods within a reasonable time after their arrival, under the ordi- 
 nary rules of law as to liability for damages for detention, such as apply in 
 the al)sence of any .specific agreement. Had the bill of lading provided for 
 the payment of freight and all other conditions as i)er charter party, the con- 
 signee would be liable for demurrage as specified in the charter jjarty.** Where, 
 after a vessel is loaded, the master signs bills of lading providing for the pay- 
 ment of freight, but neither the bills of lading nor the charter party bind the 
 cargo for the payment of demurrage, and the bills of lading come into the 
 hands of third persons, who make advances on them without notice of any 
 claim for demurrage, the consignees of the bills of lading are not liable for 
 the payment of demurrage. '^ 
 
 6. Holder of bill of lading.— J., the 
 
 owner ami consiL^iiee of certain iron rails, 
 sold them to arrive, to a railroad com- 
 pany, to be delivered "ex ship, free of 
 duties; terms, cash on handing invoice 
 and order on vessel when they arrive in 
 T^^ew York." On arrival, J. entered the 
 goods at the customhouse, and paid duties 
 and freight. P. & C. who had acted as 
 agents for J. in some matters concerning 
 the rails, procured the ship a berth, and 
 received from J. the invoice and order on 
 the vessel for delivery, with a request to 
 collect payment from the railroad com- 
 pany, which they subsequently did.- There 
 was unreasonable delay in unloading the 
 ship, partly in removing the iron from 
 the dock, and partly through difficulty in 
 getting lighters. Held that, whether or 
 not P. & C. really acted in reference to 
 the delivery of the iron for themselves or 
 for the railroad company, J. was liable to 
 the ship for the demurrage, and must look 
 to his vendees or to P. & C. for his in- 
 demnity, if the delay was by their fault. 
 Neilsen v. Jesup, 30 Fed. 138. 
 
 7. The assignment of the bill of lading 
 and the acceptance of the freight there- 
 under constituted an adoption by the de- 
 fendant of the liabilities as well as the 
 rights under the contract of shipment. A 
 denial of a promise to pay under such cir- 
 cumstances is a denial of an express 
 promise only. .•Ks a denial of an implied 
 promise it is a mere conclusion. Cin- 
 cinnati, etc., Tract. Co. v. Norfolk, etc.. 
 Railway. lS-28 O. C. D. 543, 8 O. C. C, N. 
 S.. 134. 
 
 8. "The bill of lading for the lumber in 
 question provided for 'paying freight for 
 said lumber as per charter party dated 
 7th March. 1S93. and average accustomed.' 
 A bill of lading in this form imposed upon 
 the indorsee of the bill of lading who re- 
 ceived the goods under it none of the 
 
 stipulations of the charter, except such 
 as pertained to the payment of freight. 
 Chappel V. Comfort (Eng.). 10 C. B., N 
 S.. 802; Smith v. Sieveking (Eng.), 4 El. 
 & Bl. 945; Fry v. Mercantile Bank, L. R. 
 1 C. P. 689; Dayton v. Parke, 142 X. Y. 
 391, 37 N. E. 642. It was no notice to 
 him of any other provisions of the charter, 
 such as that he must discharge a certain 
 quantity of lumber per day, or, in default 
 thereof, pay a specified price per day foi 
 any further detention of the vessel. Un- 
 der this bill of lading, the vendee was 
 entitled to take the goods within a rea- 
 sonable time, according to the circum- 
 stances, on arrival, and under the ordinary 
 rules of law as to liability to damages 
 for detention, such as apply in the ab- 
 sence of any specific agreement. This is 
 a very different liability from that of a 
 specific agreement that assumes all risks 
 of detention, from whatever cause, and 
 agrees upon a specified rate of damages. 
 Had the bill of lading provided for the 
 payment of freight and 'all other con- 
 ditions as per charter party,' the latter 
 provision would have been construed 
 ejusdem generis, as imposing upon the 
 consignee the payment of something 
 more than freight, and would have in- 
 cluded the obligations referred to in the 
 charter party respecting the rate of de- 
 livery, and the payment of the demurrage 
 specified, though not necessarily includ- 
 ing independent provisions of the charter 
 party relating to different subjects. Rus- 
 sell V. Niemann. 17 C. B.. N. S.. 162; 
 Serraino z: Campbell. 25 Q. B. Div. 501: 
 Id.. [lS9i] 1 Q. B. 2S3; Wegener z: Smith, 
 1.-) C. B. 285; Porteus v. Watney, 3 Q. B. 
 Div. 534." Burrill v. Crossman. 65 Fed. 
 104. 
 
 9. One Hundred and Twelve Sticks of 
 Timber, IS Fed. Cas. No. 10.524. S Ben. 
 214.
 
 983 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 714 
 
 § 983. Lien for Demurrage.— Under what seems to be the weight of modern 
 authority, a carrier has a Hen for demurrage on the goods while in its control,^" 
 even without an express stipulation therefor in the contract of shipment.^! But it 
 has been held that all liens are created by law or by contract of the parties; and 
 when the law gives none, neither party can create one without the consent or 
 agreement of the other.^^ \ common carrier has no lien upon goods for dam- 
 
 11. Darlinc;ton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 99 Mo. App.^1, 72 S. VV. 122. 
 
 "Nor do we think it necessary to the 
 existence of such lien that it arise from a 
 specific contract providing for the same, 
 but that such right and contract may 
 arise by implication, as in t'le case of 
 warehouse charges to a railroad company 
 that has stored goods, transported by it, 
 when not received by the consignee 
 promptly at the place of delivery. Miller 
 V. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260; Merchants', 
 etc., Transp. Co. v. Moore, 88 111. 136, 
 30 Am. Rep. 541; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Alexander, 20 111. 23; Darlington v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 1, 72 S. W. 
 122; Barker v. Brown, 138 Mass. 340." 
 Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 
 111. 199, 69 N. E. 825. 
 
 "It is claimed, however, by appellant 
 that the case of Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jenkins, 103 111. 588, lays down the rule 
 contrary to the views we have above ex- 
 pressed, and that that case should be con- 
 trolling in the present case. We think 
 not. That case seems to have related to 
 or grown out of the shipment of goods in 
 less quantity than a car load lot." Schu- 
 macher V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 111. 
 199, 69 N. E. 825. 
 
 A lien for proper demurrage charges 
 exists independently of any stipulation 
 therefor in the contract of shipment, and, 
 in an action to enforce the same, it is not 
 necessary to aver or prove a special con- 
 tract with reference thereto. Pittsburgh, 
 etc., Railway v. Mooar Lumber Co., 6 O. 
 C. C, N. S., 638, 17-27 O. C. D. 588. 
 
 12. Nicolette Lumber Co. v. People's 
 Coal Co., 213 Pa. 379, 62 Atl. 1060, 3 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 327, 110 Am. St. Rep. 550, 5 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 387. 
 
 A railroad company has no lien upon 
 goods for demurrage in absence of con- 
 tract. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hunt, 83 Tenn. (15 Lea) 261. 
 
 "The English rule is that no lien exists 
 for demurrage cliarges under the mari- 
 time law unless it is expressly provided 
 by contract (Birley v. Gladstone, 3 Maule 
 & S. 205), and some of the American 
 courts have followed the Englisli doctrme. 
 Gage V. Morse (Mass.), 12 Allen 410, 90 
 Am. Dec. 155; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jenkins, 103 111. 588; Cleveland, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Holden, 73 111. App. 582; Burling- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago Lumber Co., 
 15 Neb. 390, 19 N. W. 451 ; Crommehn v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 43 N. Y. 90, 1 
 Al)b. Dec. 472." Darlington v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 1, 72 S. W. 122. 
 
 10. Lien for demurrage. — Southern R. 
 Co. f. Lockwood Mfg. Co., 142 Ala. 322, 
 37 So. 667, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 227, 110 Am. 
 St. Rep. 32. 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 12; 
 Schumacher v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 
 111. 199. 69 X. E. 825; Kentucky Wagon 
 Mfg. Co. V. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 98 Ky. 152. 
 32 S. W. 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 850, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326. 
 
 "We think the right to make the rule 
 and to enforce it is pretty thoroughly es- 
 tablished by the modern American cases, 
 and that the defendant had a lien upon 
 the lumber which had not been unloaded 
 fiom the Oregon car. Barker v. Brown, 
 13S Mass. 340; Steinman v. Wilkins (Pa.), 
 7 Watts & S. 466, 42 Am. Dec. 254; 
 Schmidt v. Blood (N. Y.), 9 Wend. 268, 
 24 Am. Dec. 143." Darlington v. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 1, 72 S. W. 122. 
 The authority of the case of Gage v. 
 Morse (Mass.), 12 Allen 410, 90 Am. Dec. 
 155. is overturned by the later Massachus- 
 etts case of Miller v. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 
 260. The Nebraska case followed the case 
 of Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Jenkins, 103 111. 
 588. without comment. Coming to the re- 
 cent cases, we find the following decisions 
 hold that the right of lien exists independ- 
 ent of contract: McGee v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 71 Alo. App. 310; Miller v. Georgia 
 R., etc., Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 30 Am. 
 St. Rep. 170, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 323; Ken- 
 tucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. 
 Co., 98 Ky. 152, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 32 S. 
 W. 595, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326, 36 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 850; Miller v. Mansfield, supra, and 
 4 Elliott, R. R., § 156; Darlington v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. 1, 72 S. W. 
 132. 
 
 A railroad company has a common law 
 lien upon the property in a car, for its 
 proper demurrage charges against such 
 car, and may enforce the same by refus- 
 ing to deliver such property until payment 
 of the demurrage charges has been made. 
 Pittsburgh, etc.. Railway v. Mooar Lum- 
 ber Co., 6 O. C. C, N. S., 638, 17-27 O. C. 
 D. 588. 
 
 "The railroad commissions of some of 
 the states have recognized the rule and 
 the right to enforce demurrage charges — 
 the Kansas commission in the case of 
 Davis V. Missouri, K- & T. R. Co., Com- 
 missioners' Reports of Kansas (1891), p. 
 21; the Iowa commission, in Rotlischild v. 
 Railroad, Commissioners' Reports of 
 Iowa (1887), p. 783; the Missouri commis- 
 sion, in the case of E. R. Darlington & 
 Co. %'. Central Car Ass'n of St. Louis, May 
 ]6, 1901." Darlington v. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 99 Mo. App. 1, 72 S. W. 122.
 
 715 DliLAV I.\ TKANSI'OKTATIOX OR UIXIVERV. § 983 
 
 ages arising from the neglect of the consignee to take them away within a rea- 
 sonaljlc time after notice to liim of their arrixal. lience, the consignee of goods 
 shipped h\' railroad is not Ijound by rides and regulations of the company pro- 
 viding for a hen for demurrage, though puljhshed without his or the consignor's 
 assent thereto when the contract for shii)])ing the goods was made. Even a 
 knowledge of such rules, without assent thereto will not atifect the shipper or 
 consignee. 1-' The right of a common carrier to a lien extends to charges con- 
 nected with the expenses of transportation strictly.''* The inconvenience or 
 expense occasioned by the detention of cars constitutes a claim in the nature 
 of a demurrage, hut the carrier must seek his redress in the ordinary manner 
 for the breach of an implied contract to pay for the use and occupation of the 
 cars, lie can not enforce it by a detention of the goods.'"' 
 
 Statutory Provision. — The i)rovision of the Mississippi Code, giving a lien 
 for freight and storage, cou])led with a power to sell therefor, applies to de- 
 murrage charges for delay in unloading cars."'' 
 
 A carrier engaged in interstate commerce has a lien for demurrage on 
 a shipment left in the car after the expiration of the free time allowed by. the 
 interstate tariffs to which the shipment was made. The last connecting carrier 
 of an interstate shipment can a])])l\' the proper interstate tariffs and collect de- 
 murrage on foreign cars in its possession used in transporting interstate ship- 
 ments.'' 
 
 Where Goods Damaged. — The right of a vessel carrying cargo free of 
 handling to a lien for demurrage for delay of the consignee in beginning to 
 discharge is not affected by the fact that the delay arose from the refusal of 
 the consignee to receive the cargo because damaged in transit by an excepted 
 peril, and the fact that during the delay the consignee was negotiating with the 
 owner to purchase the damaged cargo at a reduced price. "^ 
 
 For Other Cars. — Where demurrage is due on several cars constituting a 
 shipment, the charge for each car need not be enforced against it separately, 
 but enough may be retained to satisfy the charge against all."^ 
 
 Relinquishment of Lien. — Discharging cargo after giving notice of a claim 
 for demurrage is not a waiver of the lien, where such cargo is placed on the 
 dock, and kept separate from other goods, so as to be capable of identification.-'^ 
 The placing by a carrier of a car on the team track, to l)e unloaded by the con- 
 signee, is not such an al)solutc deliver}^ to him of the lumber therein as to cut 
 off any future right of lien thereon of the carrier for demurrage charges be- 
 cause of the consignee not unloading in the time limit therefor.-' A carrier 
 does not waive its lien for demurrage on shipments left in cars after the free 
 
 13. Chicaj^o, etc., R. Co. f. Jenkins, 103 16. Statutory provision. — Code of Miss. 
 111. 588, distinf^uished in Schumacher 7*. 1892, § 2108; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 207 111. 199, 09 N. George & Co., 82 Miss. 710. 35 So. 193. 
 
 E. 825. 17. Gault Lumber Co. v. Atchison, etc.. 
 
 A carrier has no lien on freight for de- R. Co.. 37 Okla. 24. 130 Pac. 291. 
 
 murrage for delay in unloading the barges ig. Where goods damaged.— Pioneer 
 
 on which it was carried at their point of Fuel Co. i\ McBrier, 2s C. C. A. 466, 84 
 
 destination, and has no right to retain p^^ 4()- 
 
 possession of the goods until the demur- ^^ '-^^^ ^^^^^ cars.-Xew Orleans, etc.. 
 
 rage is raid Nicolette Lumber Car. j, ^^ ,. ^.^,^^^ ^^ ^ ^2 ^^j^^ „jO 35 
 
 People s Coal Co., 213 Pa. 379, 62 Atl. 1060, ^. 
 
 3 L. R. A., N. S., 327, 110 Am. St. Rep. ' "^^ ^''•'^ ,. . , , ,. 
 
 550. 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 387. ^ 20 Relmquishment of lien.— Pioneer 
 
 14. 2 Redtield on Railways (6th Ed.), F"el Co. v. McBrier, 2S C. C. A. 466, 84 
 p. 193. Xicolctte Lumlier Co. v. People's I'*^^'- -i-'^- 
 
 Coal Co., 213 Pa. 379, 62 Atl. 1060, 3 L. R. 21. Southern R. Co. v. Lockwood Mfg. 
 
 A., N. S.. 327, 110 Am. St. Rep. 550, 5 .A.m. Co., 142 Ala. 322, 37 So. 667. 68 L. R. A., 
 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 387. X. S.. 227, 110 Am. St. Rep. 32, 4 Am. & 
 
 15. Crommelin v. New York, etc., R. Eng. Ann. Cas. 12. 
 Co., 43 X. V. 90, 1 .Abb. Dec. 472.
 
 §§ 983-984 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 716 
 
 time for unloading has expired by permitting a carrier to remove a portion of 
 the shipment. -- 
 
 §§ 984-985. Remedies and Defenses— § 984. Of Carrier.— Refusal 
 to Switch Cars.— h is the chity of a raih-oad to switch and place cars com- 
 ing from its own lines or tended to it with proper transfer switching charges 
 bv any connecting line, and it can not excuse itself from the performance of 
 it's duty by the existence of disputes as to the correctness of demurrage charges 
 withheld pending adjustment,-'^ or the existence of a combination of the con- 
 signee and others to resist the enforcement of the rules of a car association 
 as* to demurrage and who refuse to pay for car service.--^ This duty, however, 
 can not be enforced bv a consignee who has wrongfully refused to pay the 
 demurrage charges under the rules of the association,--^ nor by a consignee who 
 has not only wrongfully refused to pay demurrage charges incurred in the 
 past, but has expressed 'his intention of persisting in his refusal even if such 
 charges be justlv incurred in the future. ^'^ A rule of a car serAnce association, 
 provtding that where consignees refuse to pay, or unnecessarily defer settle- 
 ment of, car service charges, cars will not be switched to the private sidings 
 of such persons, but deliveries will only be made on public delivery tracks of 
 the companv, is legal and enforceable.-' 
 
 Jurisdiction.— A circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction to de- 
 termine in the first instance the indebtedness of a shipper to a railroad com- 
 pany for demurrage, under the rules adopted by the company and filed ^yith 
 the Interstate Commerce Commission, where it depends on the construction, 
 and not on the reasonableness or unreasonableness, of such rules, although the 
 latter question is one primarily for the commission. ^"^ 
 
 Declaration.— A declaration averring that plaintiff and defendant were 
 parties to a contract of shipment over plaintiff's road, that since the demurrage 
 rule was adopted it has formed part of the contract of shipment, sufficiently 
 avers an implied contract for payment of demurrage.-^ 
 
 Issues and Proof.— Where an order of a car service association is reason- 
 
 22. Gault Lumber Co. r. Atchison, etc., 
 R. Co.. 37 Okla. 24. 130 Pac. 291. 
 
 23. Remedies and defenses. — Yazoo, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Searles, 8.5 Miss. 520, 37 vSo. 
 939. 68 L. R. A., N. S., 715. 
 
 24. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726. 
 32 S. W. 595, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326, 36 L. 
 R. A., X. S.. 850. 
 
 25. A customer having committed the 
 first wrong and thus caused the carriers to 
 do the wrong complained of, is not in a 
 position to ask relifef in equity. Ken- 
 tucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. 
 Co., 98 Ky. 152, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 32 S. 
 W. 595, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 850, 56 Am. St. 
 Rep. 326. 
 
 26. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 
 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 
 715. 
 
 27. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 
 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 
 715. 
 
 Rules of a car-service association of 
 railroads making a reasonable charge for 
 the use of cars and tracks for the time 
 consignee unreasonably delays to unload 
 goods, providing that when cars are not 
 unloaded within the time limit such charge 
 must be paid before the goods can be un- 
 
 loaded, and that, should any consignee, 
 1)eing the owner of a private siding de- 
 cline to pay such charges in arrear, the 
 companies may refuse to place other cars 
 on such siding for unloading until all ar- 
 rears are paid, are all reasonable and valid. 
 Phillips Co. V. Erie Railway, 6 O. C. C, 
 N. S., 505, 14 O. D. N. P. 706. 
 
 28. Jurisdiction. — -"It is true that, un- 
 der the decision of the supreme court, 
 in Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton 
 Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 S. Ct. 350, 51 
 L. Ed. 553, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1075, 
 the reasonableness of a rate or charge 
 can not be inquired into in an independ- 
 ent suit by court and jury, prior to ac- 
 tion by the interstate commerce commis- 
 sion, finding the established charge to be 
 unreasonable. In the case before us, 
 however, the court is asked to say, as a 
 matter of law, what the schedule of rules 
 in regard to charges for demurrage, filed 
 by the defendant company, actually is, 
 without regard to the reasonableness or 
 imreasonableness thereof." Hite v. Cen- 
 tral Railroad, 96 C. C. A. 326, 171 Fed. 
 370. 
 
 29. Declaration. — Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 V. Midvale Steel Co., 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 
 313, 88 Am. St. Rep. 836.
 
 717 ni'.I.AV IN TRANSI'(JRT.\Tir)X OR DKLIVrlRV. §§ 984-985 
 
 able in its j^cncral tenor and effect, the question whether it was rightfully in- 
 voked in a particular instance does not attect the question of whether the asso- 
 ciation is or is not a trust or combine.^" Proof that the plaintiflf was unable 
 to unload material at once does not of itself establish the carrier's right to col- 
 lect demurrage, in the absence of proof that the plaintitY failed to unload the 
 cars c()nsi,L;ni-il williin the rc(|uire(l time.''' 
 
 Sufficiency of Evidence. — Under a statute providing that proof that a 
 party has been comijclled to pay more for services by reason of the unlawful 
 act or agreement of a trust than he would have been compelled to pay ex- 
 cept for such unlawful act or agreement shall be conclusive proof of dam- 
 age, mere proof tliat one has been compelled to pay more for a service than 
 his com[)etitors were paxin^- for tlic same service, without proof that such ex- 
 cessive payment was due to the alleged wrongful act and agreement complained 
 of. does not constitute the required i)roof of damage.'-- 
 
 Qnestions of Law and Fact.— A rule on its face may apparently be rea- 
 sonal)lc, eiilier as time allowed for unloading or as to the extent of the pen- 
 alty by which it is sought to enforce a reasonal)le time limit, or the reasonable- 
 ness of the rule may be doubtful, in either of which cases the evidence is for 
 the jury.-'-' Where the rule is manifestly a reasonable one, both as to time and 
 charge, the court will not take up time by instructing a jury to find the fact.^"* 
 Whether a particular rule or regulation is or is not reasonable in its require- 
 ments is, when the facts are shown, a (fuestion of law for the court, and not 
 a question of fact for the jury. -''•'• 
 
 § 985. Of Consignee. — Where the bill of lading allows a given number of 
 days to the consignee for un!oa<ling, a contract is impljed on his part that, from 
 the time when the ship is at the usual place of discharge, he will take the risk 
 of any ordinary vicissitude which may occur to prevent the release of the ship 
 at the e\]Mration of the running days.^*^ 
 
 Inability to Unload. — The fact that neither the consignee nor the one 
 charged with the duty of unloading cars is able to receive and unload them 
 within the free time, after notice of their arrival will not relieve the consignee 
 of the obligation to pay demurrage or car service charges on cars used in in- 
 terstate shipments.-"" 
 
 Condition of Weather. — A consignee of freight was not excused from non- 
 compliance with his duty to unload it from the cars within the time stipulated 
 
 30. Issues and proof. — Yazoo, etc., R. folk, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 90 \a. 393. 18 
 Co. V. Soarles. So Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, S. E. 673, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 530, 44 Am. 
 68 L. R. A., N. S.. 715. St. Rep. 916. 
 
 31. Wooley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 a rule of a carrier imposing a charge 
 Wis. ISH, 136 N. W. 616. of $1 per day for time a car remains un- 
 
 32. Sufficiency of evidence.— Yazoo. loaded after forty-eight hours from time 
 etc.. R. Co. f. ^Scarles. 85 Miss. 520, 37 j^ is ready for delivery to the consignee, 
 So. 939, tis L. R. A.. X. S., 71.). ^\■^Q reasonableness of which is not de- 
 
 . 33. Questions of law and fact— Penn- uj^jj^ jg manifestly reasonable, and need 
 
 sylvania R. Co. v. Midvale Steel Co., 201 „ot be submitted to a jury with direc- 
 
 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 313, 88 Am. St. Rep. 83(). tjo^ go to find. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 
 Whether or not a demurrage charge is Midvale Steel Co., 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 
 
 reasonable is a question of fact. Ken- -^^y^^ gg ^m. St. Rep. 836. 
 
 t"'=^>;,^\^-°" 5!^^f; ^°- '; °i"°' %' ?o 35. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Fisher, 
 
 ?^\r^^-oHr T 'r A \t^q \'-^n ^, An. 3 O. X. P. 122, 5 O. Dec. 659. 
 
 S. W. o9o, 36 L. R. A., X. S., 8o0, 56 Am. _, '. ,, ^. 
 
 St Rep 326 36. Of consignee. — Manson v. Xew 
 
 34. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Midvale York, etc., R. Co.. 31 Fed. 297 24 Blatcht. 
 
 Steel Co., 201 Pa. 624, 51 Atl. 313, 88 Am. t^^' citing Tns x-. Byers 34 Law T. X. 
 
 St. Rep." 836, citing Kentucky Wagon S- 526; Randall v. Lynch, 2 Camp. 352; 
 
 Mfg. Co. V. Ohio, etc., R. Co.. 98 Ky. 152, Cross z: Beard, 26 X. \. S5. 
 
 32 S. W. 595, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 36 L. 37. Inability to unload. — Xcbraska 
 
 R. A., X. S.. 850, 56 Am. St. Rep. 326; Transfer Co. r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 
 
 Miller v. Mansfield, 112 Mass. 260; Nor- Xeb. 488, 134 X. W. 163.
 
 S 935 CARKIKRS. 718 
 
 in the bill of lading bv reason of the extreme condition of the weather.^s ^ 
 
 Seizure by Government.— It seems that where a chartered vessel is seized 
 and detained bv a revenne officer of the United States, the charterer can not 
 be made liable "for demurrage during the period of such detention. »» 
 
 Rush of Business.— Excuse for failure to unload freight where goods are 
 shipr.ed by a vessel, to be unloaded at a dock and put on railroad cars, but 
 owing to an unexpected number of vessels arriving at one time, the freight was 
 not unloaded immediately but in order of the arrival of the vessel, the shipper 
 is excused from liabilitv for demurrage.-*'^ 
 
 Offset of Claim.— the fact that a consignee has an unadjusted clann for 
 damages against a railroad is no valid excuse for his refusal to pay demurrage 
 on cars undulv detained bv him.-*^ 
 
 Recovery of Overcharges.— A car service rule recjuiring prompt payment 
 of demurrage charges and providing that no claim of mistake or overcharge 
 will be considered unless the bill for demurrage is first promptly paid, does 
 not subject consignees to a liability to imposition in the collection of demurrage, 
 but leaves them free to prosecute actions for damages for the collection of 
 overcharges or for refusing to render services when no demurrage is due or 
 payment thereof has not been unduly delayed.-*- In a suit by a consignee for 
 damages for extorting excessive demurrage charges or for withholding car 
 service under a pretended claim for demurrage, the burden is on the carrier 
 to prove the proper assessment of unpaid demurrage, and that payment thereof 
 had been refused or unduly delayed, within the terms of a rule requiring the 
 prompt pavment of demurrage charges.-*-^ 
 
 Pleading. — In a carrier's action for demurrage, an allegation that the car- 
 rier delivered cars to the defendant in such large numbers and so unreasonably 
 concentrated them as to prevent the defendant from handling them promptly, 
 choking and overwhelming the defendant's side track with cars, when they 
 knew it was impossible for defendant to handle and unload them, stated a suffi- 
 cient, defense. ■*■* 
 
 Affidavit of Defense. — Where a declaration for demurrage on cars is ac- 
 companied by an account giving exact details as to each car, an affidavit of de- 
 fense makes no issue by stating generally that the demurrage rule is not 
 applicable to defendant, because in many cases the detention was caused by re- 
 loading, and that this is embraced in the charge of delay in unloading, defend- 
 ant showing that it has the means of specifying particulars by stating that it 
 will produce at the trial its own records to prove that plaintiff's were inade- 
 quate as a basis of claim.-*'' 
 
 38. Condition of weather.— Darlington lector for their damages." Brooks v. 
 
 V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 99 Mo. App. Minturn. 1 Cal. 481. 
 
 1, 72 S. W. 122. 40. Rush of business. — Wordin v. Be- 
 
 ' 39. Seizure by government. — "If the mis, .'!2 Conn. 208, 8.5 Am. Dec. 255. 
 
 seizure were legal, and occasioned by any 41. Offset of claim.— Yazoo, etc., R. 
 
 act or neglect on the part of the defend- Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 
 
 ant — such as a neglect to pay duties on G8 L. R. A., N. S., 715. 
 
 the cargo— then, the plaintiffs will be 42. Recovery of overcharges.— Yazoo, 
 
 entitled to recover the full amount of etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 8.-) Miss. 520, 37 
 
 freight (see Morgan v. Insurance Co. So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 715. 
 
 (U. S.), 4 Dall. 455, 1 L. Ed. 907), and per- 43. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 
 
 haps demurrage, upon which latter sub- Aliss. .'20, 37 So. 939, 68 L. R. A., N. S., 
 
 ject I express no opinion at present. If 715. 
 
 the seizure were illegal, I think the 44. Pleading.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 
 plaintiffs may, within the principle of the v. Empire State Chemical Co., 189 Fed. 
 
 case of Morgan v. The Insurance Co. of 174. 
 
 North American, recover the full amount 45. Affidavit of defense.— Pennsylvania 
 
 of freight, but no demurrage. In such R. Co. v. Mid vale Steel Co., 201 Pa. 624, 
 
 case the plaintiffs must look to the col- 51 Atl. 313, 88 Am. St. Rep. 836.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Loss OR I X JURY TO GoODS. 
 
 I. What Law Governs, § 986. 
 
 II. Nature and Validity of Contract of Transportation. § 987. 
 
 III. Care Required of Carrier, §§ 988-1010. 
 
 A. In General, § 988. 
 
 B. Liability as insurer. §§ 989-1010. 
 
 a. General Rule, § 989. 
 
 b. Exceptions and Excuses, §§ 990-1004. 
 
 (1) .\ct of God, §§ 990-994. 
 
 (a) In General. § 990. 
 
 (b) What Constitutes Act of God, § 991. 
 
 (c) Negligence Concurring with Act of Gbd, § 992. 
 
 (d) Where Danger Should Have Been Anticipated, § 99.3. 
 
 (e) Duty to Prevent Act of God from Causing Injury, § 994. 
 
 (2) Act of Public Enemy, §§ 995-997. 
 
 (a) In General, § 995. 
 
 (b) Thieves and Robbers, § 996. 
 
 (c) Strikers, Rioters, Mobs and Insurrectionists, § 997. 
 
 (3) Fault of Shipper or Owner, §§ 998-1002. 
 
 (a) In General. § 998. 
 
 (b) Goods Improperly Marked, § 999. 
 
 (c) Goods Improperly Packed. § 1000. 
 
 (d) Goods Improperly Loaded, § 1001. 
 
 (e) Misrepresentation or Concealment of Nature or Value of Goods, § 1002. 
 
 (4) Inherent Infirmities of Goods, § 1003. 
 
 (5) Act or Mandate of Public Authority. § 1004. 
 
 c. Carriers to Which Rule Applicable, §§ 1005-1009. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1005. 
 
 (2) Carriers Not Owning Means of Transportation, § 1006. 
 
 (3) Carriers of Mon^, § 1007. 
 
 (4) Persons Occasionally Carrying, § lOOS. • 
 
 (5) Forwarders, § 1009. 
 
 d. Commencement and Termination of Liabilit}', § 1010. 
 IV. Goods Shipped on Chartered or Private Cars, § 1011. 
 
 V. Acts or Omissions Rendering Carrier Liable in General, §§ 1012-1016. 
 
 A. In General, § 1012. 
 
 B. Proximate Cause of Loss or Injury. § 1013. 
 
 C. Negligence of Agents or Servants, § 1014. 
 
 D. Negligence or Misconduct of Third Person, § 1015. 
 
 E. Deviation or Delay. § 1016. 
 
 VI. Mode or Means of Transportation. §§ 1017-1021. 
 
 A. In General. § 1017. 
 
 B. Means of Transportation in General, § 1018. 
 
 C. Duty as to Perishable Goods, § 1019. 
 
 D. Carrying Goods on Open Cars. § 1020. 
 
 E. Means for Loading and LTnloading, § 1021. 
 VII. Duties after Injury, § 1022. 
 
 VIII. Eflfect of Insurance. §§ 1023-1029. 
 
 A. In General, § 1023. 
 
 B. Contract for Benefit of Insurance, §§ 1024-1029. 
 a. Power to Stipulate and Validity. § 1024.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 720 
 
 b. Operation and Effect, §§ 1025-1028. 
 
 (1) Right of Shipper to Recover from Carrier, § 1025. 
 
 (2) Right of Carrier to Recover from Insurer, § 1026. 
 
 (3) Effect as Defeating Insurer's Right of Subrogation. § 1027. 
 
 (4) Inconsistent Stipulations in Contract and Policy, § 1028. 
 
 c. Suits against Carrier. § 1029. 
 IX. Claims for Damages, § 1030. 
 
 X. Extent of Liability, § 1031. 
 XI. Actions for Loss or Injury. §§ 1032-1089. 
 
 A. Nature and Form, § 1032. 
 
 B. Right of Action and Defenses, §§ 1033-1035. 
 
 a. In General, § 1033. 
 
 b. Conditions Precedent, § 1034. 
 
 c. Defenses, § 1035. 
 
 C. Jurisdiction and Venue, § 1036. 
 
 D. Parties, § 1037. 
 
 E. Pleading. §§ 1038-1051. 
 
 a. Declaration, Complaint, Petition or Bill, §§ 1038-1049. 
 (1) In General, § 1038. 
 
 (2). Necessity and Sufficiency of Allegations, §§ 1039-1047. 
 
 (a) Plaintiff's Title or Interest, § 1039. 
 
 (b) That Defendant a Common Carrier, § 1040. 
 
 (c) As to Consideration, § 1041. 
 
 (d) Delivery to and Acceptance by Carrier, § 1042. 
 
 (e) As to Contract of Carriage, § 1043. 
 
 (f) Negligence of Defendant, § 1044. 
 
 (g) Description of Property. § 1045. 
 
 (h) Damage and Value of Goods, § 1046. 
 (i) Special Statutory Proceeding, § 1047. 
 
 (3) Amendments, § 1048. 
 
 (4) Aider by Answer, § 1049. 
 
 b. Plea or Answer, § 1050. 
 
 c. Admissions in Pleadings, § 1051. 
 
 F. Issues. Proof and Variance, §§ 1052-1055. 
 
 a. In General, § 1052. 
 
 b. Evidence Admissible under Pleadings, § 1053. 
 
 c. Matters to Be Proved, § 1054. 
 
 d. Variance, § 1055. 
 
 G. Evidence, §§ 1056-1067. 
 
 a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof, §§ 1056-1060. 
 
 (1) Plaintiff's Burden of Proof in General, § 1056. 
 
 (2) Defendant's Burden of Proof in General, § 1057. 
 
 (3) Condition of Goods When Received by Carrier, § 1058. 
 
 (4) Shipment Composed of Several Classes of Goods, § 1059. 
 
 (5) Where Transportation under Special Contract, § 1060. 
 
 b. Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading, § 1061. 
 
 c. Admissibility of Evidence, §§ 1062-1066. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1062. 
 
 (2) Declarations and Admissions, § 1063. 
 
 (3) Opinion Evidence, § 1064. 
 
 (4) Documentary Evidence, § 1065. 
 
 (5) Parol Evidence, § 1066. 
 
 d. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence. § 1067. 
 H. Damages, §§ 1068-1085. 
 
 a. Extent of Liability, Measure and Elements of Damages. §§ 1068-1080. 
 (1) In General, § 1068.
 
 721 
 
 LOSS OR INjrKV To GOODS. 
 
 § 986 
 
 (2) Loss of Goods. § 1069. 
 
 (■^) Injury to Goods, §§ 1070-1072. 
 
 (a) In General, § 1070. 
 
 (b) Ri,t,'ht to Abandon Goods, § 1071. 
 
 (c) When Damaged Goods Sold, § 1072, 
 
 (4) Freight, Allowance and Deduction, § 1073. 
 
 (0) Interest, § 1074. 
 
 (6) Expenses of Owner, § 107."). 
 
 (7) Goods Shipped under Contract of Sale, § 1076. 
 
 (8) Goods Having Xo Market Value, § 1077. 
 
 (9) Profits, § 1078. 
 
 (10) Special Damages, § 1079. 
 
 (11) Exemplary Damages, § 1080. 
 
 b. Duty of Owner to Mitigate or Avert. § 1081. 
 
 c. Evidence as to Value or Damage, §§ 1082-1084. 
 
 (1) In General, § 1082. 
 
 (2) Admissibility, § 108.3. 
 
 (3) Weight and Sufficienc3^ § 1084. 
 
 d. Recovery as Affected by Allegation of Damages, § 1085. 
 I. Province of Court and Jury, §§ 1086-1087. 
 
 a. In General, § 1086. 
 
 b. Particular Questions of Law or Fact, § 1087. 
 J. Instructions. § 1088. 
 
 K. Verdict, § 1089. 
 
 § 886. What Law Governs. — .As a general rule the law of the place where 
 the contract of carriage i.s made governs in determining the liability of the car- 
 rier, unless the parties at the time of making it had some other law in view.' 
 This rule admits of some variation in practice, dependent sometime upon the 
 question as to where the contract is to be performed,- or where it is breached. ^ 
 As to requirements which are to be wholly performed in one state the laws of 
 that state govern ; •* so the laws of the state where de'iverv is to be made fix the 
 
 1. What law eoverns. — Palmer f. 
 Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 101 Cal. 187. 35 
 Pac. 630; Bertonneau r. Southern Pac. 
 Co., 17 Cal. App. 439, 120 Pac. 53; Liver- 
 pool, etc.. Steam Co. z-. Phenix In?. Co . 
 129 U. 397. 9 S. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 
 7SS. 
 
 In transporting: eoods from Mexico 
 into Texas the liability of a common car- 
 rier is determined l)y the Inws of ^Icx- 
 ico. Cantu v. Bennett, 39 Tex. 303. 
 
 2. Bertonneau z: Southern Pac. Co., 17 
 Cal. App. 439, 120 Pac. 53. 
 
 W^here a package is delivered to a car- 
 rier in New York to 1>e delivered in 
 Ohio, and is negligently lost, in an ac- 
 tion for such loss the place of delivery 
 is the place of the performance of the 
 contract, and the law of Oliio governs. 
 Tacobson & Co. z: .\dams' Exp. Co., 1 
 O. C. D. 212, 1 O. C. C. 381. 
 
 Civ. Code, California. § 2200, which 
 exempts carriers of specified valualiles, 
 etc., from liability in excess of $50, un- 
 less they have notice of the nature of 
 the freight, etc., does not apply to a 
 through shipment from anotlicr state 
 
 over connectng lines; the place of per- 
 formance of the contract, as aflfecting 
 the applicaliility of laws, not being de- 
 termined by the place of delivery, and 
 the code provision not being applicable 
 on the theory that it afTects only the 
 remedy. Bertonneau f. Southern Pac. 
 Co.. 17 Cal. .\])ii. 439. 120 Pac. 5:v 
 
 Where contract to be partiy performed. 
 y-.-\. contract of carriage, though made 
 in a foreign state, is not necessarily 
 governed, in matters of construction 
 and eflfect, by the laws of that state, 
 where the contract is to be parth- per- 
 formed in another state. Carter '& Co. 
 :•. Southern R. Co.. 3 Ga. App. 34, 59 S. 
 E. 209; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. z: Broome, 
 3 Ga. .\pp. 641, 60 S. E. 355. 
 
 3. A carrier's liability for loss of goods 
 shipped from New York to Kentucky, 
 which loss occurred in Kentucky, was 
 governed by the Kentucky law. Cin- 
 cinnati, etc.. R. Co. V. Hansford & Son, 
 100 S. W. 251, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1105. 
 
 4. Carter & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 
 3 Ga. App. 34. 59 S. E. 209; .Atlanta, etc.. 
 R. Co. z: Broome. 3 Ga. .App. 641. 60 
 S. E. 355. 
 
 1 Car — 46
 
 §§ 986-987 cARRii-Rs. 722 
 
 liability of the carrier for the care of the goods after reaching their destination.^ 
 Where goods were lost by fire in another state, in which the rule as to a car- 
 rier's liability would be different, as the question is a commercial one the courts 
 of the state in which the action is brought will adhere to their own rule in that 
 respect.'' 
 
 Validity of Contract. — On interstate shipments, the general rule is that the 
 lex loci contractus and not the lex fori prevails as to the validity of the con- 
 tract, but, although a contract be valid where made, yet if it contravenes the 
 public policy of the state where it is to be in part performed and is sought to be 
 enforced, it will not be enforced. The public policy of the latter state can not be 
 set at naught either by comity, or the will of the contracting parties.'' 
 
 § 987. Nature and Validity of Contract of Transportation. — To render 
 a common carrier liable, a particular agreement for hire is not necessary,^ nor 
 is it necessary to pro\e a written contract, as the law implies in the absence of 
 such a contract an obligation to deliver in good condition to the person from 
 whom freight is accepted.'^* But if there is an express written contract, an ac- 
 tion can not be brought by the assignee of the bill of lading on an implied prom- 
 ise arising from the carrier's duty to transport and deliver.^"' Where in loading 
 and packing, another's goods were not distinguished from the shipper's and both 
 alike were leceived by the carrier from the shipper, its liability for loss extends 
 to all the goods, though the contract was made with the shipper alone. ^^ Where 
 a carrier's agent, through error, omitted a part of the goods from the bill of lad- 
 ing which were put in the car with his knowledge after its first loading, and the 
 carrier collected its charges therefor, the shipper is entitled to recover for the 
 crates so omitted on proof of loss.^- A contract, imposing upon a carrier the 
 exclusive duty of safe-keeping, may be implied by usage, or by a particular course 
 of dealing between the parties ; but the implication that the carrier assumes the 
 duty of immediate transportation, and hence the responsibilit}' of an insurer, 
 without knowing to wb.at place and to whom goods are to be shipped, must be 
 clear. 1-' 
 
 What Law Governs. — As to what law governs as to the validity of a con- 
 tract of carriage, see elsewhere.^'* 
 
 Effect of Invalidity of Contract of Carriage. — W hen a carrier accepts 
 pro]:)erty for transportation, the law imposes upon it, in the absence of a binding 
 contract limiting its liability, the duties of either a common or private carrier, ac- 
 cording to the facts, for the violation of which it will be liable, regardless of the 
 legal sufficiency of the contract of carriage.^-* The fact that the contract is in 
 violation of law or involves an illegal act does not prevent or affect the shipper's 
 right to recover for losses occasioned by the negligence or wrongful act of the 
 carrier.^" And a carrier can not defend an action for damages resulting from 
 
 5. Heath v. South Bound R. Co., 4G 22.3 Pa. 148, 72 Atl. .516, 21 L. R. A., 
 S. C. 104, 24 S. E. 166. N. S., ISS. 
 
 6. Dunham v. Boston, etc., R. Co. ( N. 12. Omission of part of goods from 
 Y.). 46 Hun 245, 11 N. Y. St. Rep. 472; bill of lading.— Southern R. Co. v. Wil- 
 Faulkner v. Hart, 82 N. Y. iU. 37 Am. Hams, i:i9 Ga. .357, 77 S. E. 153. 
 
 Rep. .574. 13. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Sigma Lum- 
 
 7. Validity of contract. — .\dams Exp. ber Co., 170 Ala. 627, 54 So. 205, Ann. 
 Co. 7'. Green. 112 Va. 527, 72 S. E. 102. Cas. 1912 D, 965. 
 
 8. Agreement for hire unnecessary. — 14. What law governs. — See ante, 
 Allen 7\ Sewall (N. Y.), 2 Wend. 327. "What Law Governs." § 986. 
 
 9. Written contract unnecessary. — I\u- 15. Effect of invalidity of contract of 
 ben's v. Luflgate Hill, etc., Co., 65 Hun. carriage. — ludse r. Northern Pac. R. Co., 
 025, 20 N. Y. S. 481, 48 N. Y. St. Rep. 189 l-ed. ]()]4. 
 
 732. 16. 'I'lie fact that one who delivers 
 
 10. Knight v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., goods to a carrier for transportation 
 141 111. 110, 30 X. E. 543, affirming 40 carries on business under a firm name. 
 HI. .A.pp. 471. when in fact he has no partner, and thus 
 
 11. Lloyd 7'. Haugh, etc., Transfer Co., violates a law of the stale, is no defense
 
 72Z 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 987-988 
 
 its negligence in transporting goods on the ground that the consignor could not 
 lawfully acquire title to them.'" JUit it is held that a shipper of property in 
 violation of the proclamation of the president of the L'nited States can not re- 
 cover against the carrier,'^ and that in an action for the recovery of the value 
 of intoxicating li(|uors lost during transportation, the j^laintiff must allege and 
 prove that lu' o\\ lu'd and possessed tlie liipiors with lawful intent.''' 
 
 Where Carrier Refuses to Ship Goods. — A carrier is ntjt liahle for negli- 
 gence in caring for hay after its delivery for shipment where, the hay not heing 
 branded as re(|uired hy statute, it refuses to ship it.-"' 
 
 Transportation after Rescission of Contract. — W here the ship])er right- 
 fully rescinds the contract for transportation and forhids the carrier to under- 
 take the carriage, the carrier, in insisting on carrying the goods, does so at its 
 own peril, upon risks and responsihilities incident to the emjdovnient, without 
 regard to anv limitation of liahilily contained in the contract originallv.-' 
 
 Void Provision in Bill of Lading. — A jjrovision of the bill oif lading that, 
 if the 1)111 is assigned, it must lie presented to the carrier, properly indorsed, 
 before the arrival of the goods at the place of destination, is unreasonable 
 and \()id.-- 
 
 Preference in Rates. — .\ shipper's action for loss of goods can not he de- 
 feated because he was given a preference in rates under the interstate commerce 
 law, where the right was ex])ressly recognized by the commerce commission in 
 an <adniinislrati\ c ruling.--' 
 
 Special Contracts of Carriage. — Where contracts for transporting goods 
 are special contracts, and specify the shijiment to be at owner's risk, he can only 
 recover under such special contracts ; and if the goods shipped under such special 
 contracts were lost by fire, the carrier or its agents exercising such care as a 
 prudent man would as to his own goods in ])rotecting tlicm from unforeseen 
 accident, plaintiff can not recover.--* 
 
 §§ 988-1010. Care Required of Carrier— § 988. In General.— A com- 
 
 to ail action hj- him against ti:c cuTier 
 for injuries to the goods in course of 
 transportation, if in fact he is the true 
 owner of the goods. Wood v. Krie R. 
 Co. (N. Y.). 9 Hun 648. affirmed in 7:2 
 N. Y. inc., :3S Am. Rep. 12,). 
 
 Contract violating interstate commerce 
 act. — .Vet Feb. 4. 1SS7. c. 104. 24 Stat. 
 379 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901. p. 31.)4). 
 Warren v. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co.. 1,")() 
 111. App. 111. 
 
 Though goods are shipped under a 
 contract hy which a special rate is 
 charged, and a rebate allowed, in vio- 
 lation of the interstate commerce act. 
 such fact will not relieve the carrier of 
 liability for the loss of the goods. In- 
 surance Co. V. Delaware Mut., etc., Ins. 
 Co.. 91 Tenn. .t.'^7. 19 S. W. 7r>.'). 
 
 Contract violating postoffice laws. — 
 Wliere tlie prdcf shows the tielivery of 
 a letter or package containing money, 
 to be carried between two places, at each 
 of which is a postoffice. a recovery may 
 be had on a count charging the defend- 
 ant as a bailee to deliver the money on 
 request, even if the contract to carry is 
 conceded to lic invalid, as opposed to 
 the postoffice laws. Hosea f. McCrory. 
 12 Ala. :M!). 
 
 That a shipper delivered goods to a 
 carrier with the intention of smuggling 
 
 them is not a defense to an action 
 against the carrier for the loss of the 
 goods, if the carrier was ignorant of the 
 intent, and was not implicated in the 
 smuggling. Donovan v. Compagnie Ge- 
 nerale Transatlantique. .'59 X. Y. Super. 
 Ct. .^)19. 
 
 17. Fanriers', etc.. Bank v. Detroit, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 17 Wis. 372. 
 
 18. Cantu v. Bennett. 39 Tex. 303. 
 
 19. Sommer v. Cate, 22 Iowa SS."). 
 
 20. Pickard r-. Rayley. 4<i Me. 200. 
 
 21. TransDortation after rescission of 
 contract. — Dauohy : . Silliiiian (X. Y.). 2 
 Lans. ■">(■) 1. 
 
 22. Void provision in bill. — Bishop v. 
 Empire Transp. Co.. 3.3 X. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 99. 
 
 23. Preference in rates. — Santa Fe, etc., 
 1\. Co. V. Grant Bros. Constr. Co.. 13 
 Ariz. 186, 108 Pac. 467. where the agree- 
 ment for a reduced rate for the ship- 
 ment of a railroad contractor's outfit 
 was included in the specifications and 
 contract, under which lie was the suc- 
 cessful bidder. 
 
 24. Special contracts of carriage. — Bal- 
 timore, etc.. R. Co. :■. Rathbone. 1 W. 
 Va. 87, 88 Am. Dec. 664. See ante. "Spe- 
 cial Contracts," chapter 8; post. "Limi- 
 tation of Liability." chapter 14.
 
 § 988 
 
 CAKRIKRS. 
 
 724 
 
 mon carrier as such is bound to exercise the strictest care -'' and extraordinary 
 diHgence -" to transport safely the goods intrusted to it. The carrier must 
 use that degree of attention and care which the occasion and sul)ject committed 
 to its trust demand,-" and its duty is not measured by that which is usual and 
 customarv for otlier carriers to do under like circumstances.-^ Whenever the 
 situation or condition of the goods, from accident or from any cause, becomes 
 such as to require special care or attention, the carrier must put itself in place 
 of the owner, and do for them all that might reasonably be expected of a care- 
 ful and prudent person, and, if necessary, it would be its duty to incur any rea- 
 sonable expense in their preservation.-'* The degree of care necessary' depends 
 on the known condition and character of the f reight ; =5" but is not measured by 
 the value of the goods shipped,='i or by the amount of freight to be paid where 
 the shipper makes no concealment or misrepresentation, and the carrier has 
 means as ample as the shipper to ascertain the nature and value of the goods. "- 
 
 25. Care required of carrier. — Carpen- 
 ter z\ Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (Del.), fi 
 Pen. 15, 64 Atl. 252; Klair z: Philadel- 
 phia, etc.. R. Co., 2 Boyce's (25 Del.) 274. 
 78 .\tl. 10S5; Niagara r. Cordes (U. S.), 
 21 How. 7. u; L. Kd. 41. 
 
 26. Extraordinary diligence. — Central, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Manchester Mfg. Co., 6 
 Ga. App. 254. 64 S. E. 1128. See Bibb 2'. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 508, 84 S. W. 663. 
 
 Extraordinary diligence is that ex- 
 treme care and caution which very pru- 
 dent and thoughtful persons use in se- 
 curing and preserving their own prop- 
 erty. Wallace z: Clayton, 42 Ga. 443; 
 Richmond, etc., R. Co. z: White. 88 Ga. 
 805. 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 By the Georgia Civil Code, § 2264,^ it 
 is declared that a common carrier ''as 
 such is bound to use extraordinary dili- 
 gence." Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs' 
 Pharmacy Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 S. E. 1039. 
 
 27. Wolf v. American Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 
 421, 97 Am. Dec. 406. 
 
 A carrier must exercise such diligence 
 as is required by law to protect the 
 goods from destruction and injury result- 
 ing from conditions which, in the exer- 
 cise of due care, may l)e averted or coun- 
 ter-acted. It must guard the goods from 
 destruction or injury by the elements 
 from the effects of delays, and from 
 other sources of injury which it may 
 avert, by the exercise of care and ordi- 
 nary intelligence. Taft Co. z'. American 
 Exp. Co., 133 Iowa 522. 110 N. W. 897. 
 10 L. R. A., N. S.. 614; Beard v. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co., 79 Iowa 518, 44 N. W. 800, 
 7 L. R. A. 280, 18 Am. St. Rep. 381. 
 
 Apples shipped in bulk in winter. — 
 Where plaintiff shipped apples in hulk 
 from New York to Minnesota in winter, 
 it was not for the jury to determine 
 whether the railroad company receiving 
 the freight in Chicago was required to 
 immediately transfer the fruit to another 
 car, or send the car to the roundhouse, 
 but -it was only required to exercise rea- 
 sonable care. The carrier was not re- 
 quired to anticipate that a car of apples 
 
 so loaded would be delivered in its yard, 
 and be prepared to take extraordinary 
 precautions to protect the fruit from 
 frost. Calender-Vanderhoof Co, z', Chi- 
 cago, etc., R, Co., 109 N. W. 402, 99 Minn. 
 295. 
 
 28. Hinton z: Eastern R. Co., 72 Minn. 
 339, 75 N. W. 373. 
 
 29. M. P. R. Co. z'. Barnes & Co., 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 575. 
 
 Danger from inherent infirmity of 
 goods. — When goods become exposed to 
 danger of deterioration or destruction 
 from their own inherent infirmity, it is 
 the carrier's duty to employ at least a 
 reasonable degree of skill and diligence 
 to preserve them. M. P. R. Co. v. 
 Barnes & Co., 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. 
 § 575. 
 
 Danger from fire. — The diligence re- 
 quired of a carrier in regard to preserv- 
 ing goods in the course of transportation 
 by him from loss by fire is not limited to 
 avoid setting fire to such goods, but ex- 
 tends also to protecting and preserving 
 them from destruction after a peril from 
 fire has become apparent. Atlanta, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., 135 Ga. 
 113, 68 S. E. 1039. 
 
 30. Character and condition of goods. 
 —Barron, etc., Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. 
 R. Co.. 8 N. P., N. S., 517, 19 O. D. N, P. 
 710, affirmed in 80 O. St. 707, 11 O. C. 
 C, N. S.. 602, 21-31 O. C. D. 142. 
 
 Diligence does not require that all 
 goods shall receive the same care. Some 
 may be properly loaded on open cars. 
 Others may be forwarded by regular 
 freight trains; others, on account of 
 their perishable nature, must be sent by 
 fast freight; others, because of their 
 great inherent value, must be shipped un- 
 der special precautions to prevent loss 
 by theft. Georgia Southern R. Co. z-. 
 Johnson, etc, Co.. 121 Ga. 231, 48 S. E. 
 807. 
 
 31. Value of goods. — Adams Exp. Co. 
 z: Green, 112 Va. 527, 72 S. K. 102. 
 
 32. Amount of freight as affecting de- 
 gree of care. — Southern Pac. R. Co. z'. 
 Maddox, 75 Tex. 300, 12 S. W. 815.
 
 /AT) 
 
 LOSS OK IMURV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 988 
 
 Whether the carrier has discharged the duty of using care and (HHgence in the 
 transportaticjii of goods is to be judged with reference to the nature of the 
 service, and the circumstances and exigencies under which it is to he per- 
 formed."'^ 
 
 To Anticipate, or Protect Goods from, Act of God. — .\s to care re(|uired 
 of the carrier lo aiilicipaU- or iir(jtccl good> from ilic act of God, see elsewhere.''* 
 
 Contract Limiting Liability. — Where by contract the carrier is exemi)t from 
 Habihty for loss from certain causes, it is bound to use ordinary diligence in 
 protecting the goods intrusted to it from loss from such causes.-'"' 
 
 A carrier of good gratuitously •'''• is only liable for losses due to gross 
 negligence.''' v^o it is not liable f(jr goods stolen without negligence on its i)art.-'** 
 
 33. H(jIIa(lay v. Kennard (U. S.). \2 
 Wall. :>.-.4, :-'0 L. Ed. 390. 
 
 34. Act of God. — See ' post, "Where 
 Daiij^cT Sliould Have Been Anticipated," 
 § <)!).■{: "Duty to Prevent .^ct of God 
 from Causing? Injury," § 994. 
 
 35. Contract limiting liability. — Little 
 Rock, etc., R. Co. V. Talbot. 47 .\rk. 97, 
 14 S. W. 471. vSce post, "Limitation of 
 Lial)ility," chapter 14. 
 
 36. Carrier of goods gratuitously — 
 Illustration. — Gold dust was taken on 
 l)oard of the steamer New World, to he 
 carried gratuitously from Sacramento to 
 San Francisco; the clerk of the boat hav- 
 ing given the owners of the dust actual 
 notice that he would receive gold dust or 
 money only on condition that no charge 
 should be made and no responsil)ility in- 
 curred. Fay V. New World, 1 Cal. 348. 
 
 Evidence that the freight clerk of an 
 express company on the day of leaving 
 their employ delivered his trunk to his 
 successor, saying he would send it by ex- 
 press: that he paid nothing for the trans- 
 portation; and supposed it would go free, 
 but expected to pay if asked; and that 
 the company always forwarded the bag- 
 gage of the employees to and from the 
 different offices, held to warrant a jury 
 in finding that the bailment was not 
 gratuitous. Gott v. Dinsmore, 111 
 Mass. 45. 
 
 The defendant was one of tlie com- 
 panies forming a continuous and connect- 
 ing line of railroads from T. to B., en- 
 gaged in the business of transporting 
 freight from the former to the latter 
 place. By an arrangement between such 
 companies, cars loaded with freight were 
 run from each terminus over the whole 
 length of said line. The plaintiffs, being 
 sliippers of oil, at T., provided and fur- 
 nislied wooden tanks of their own for 
 holding oil to be transported over the 
 said continuous line from T. to B.; and, 
 by an arrangement between them and 
 one of the companies, such tanks were 
 placed on platform cars belonging to 
 that company, and fastened thereto, for 
 safety, but they were to remain the prop- 
 erty of the plaintiflfs. Cars, with tanks 
 thereon, filled with oil belonging to the 
 plantifTs, were run between T. and B. 
 
 .•\fter the tanks were emptied of their 
 contents at B., the cars, with the empty 
 tanks thereon, were liy the same line re- 
 turned to T. The carriers furnished the 
 plaintiffs with a bill of lading for each 
 shipment of oil, specifying the quantity 
 of oil, but no mention was made of the 
 tanks. No bill of lading was furnished 
 on the return of the empty tanks; nor 
 was any consideration paid for the trans- 
 portation thereof, independent of that 
 paid for the transportation of the oil 
 from T. to B.; nor was any special ar- 
 rangement made as to the return trans- 
 portation. Two of said tanks, filled with 
 oil, owned and shipped by the plaintiffs 
 to B., while being carried on said cars, 
 and while on that part of the line owned 
 and operated by the defendants, were, 
 with their contents, burned up and de- 
 stroyed. Held, that although no com- 
 pensation was paid to the companies, di- 
 rect!}', for the transportation of the 
 empty tanks, yet that they received a 
 compensation in a legal sense, in the 
 payment of freight on the oil. and that 
 the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the 
 value of the tanks destroyed. Spears v. 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. ( N. .Y.), 67 
 Barb. 513. 
 
 Where the undertaking of a carrier is 
 that persons sending grain over the 
 route are entitled to liave the empty 
 bags returned without cliarge for freight, 
 this is not to be deemed a gratuitous 
 l)ailment. Pierce :•. Milwaukee, etc., R. 
 Co.. -IW Wis. :;s7. 
 
 That a carrier meant to carry goods 
 gratuitously, if not communicated to the 
 owner, does not render the bailment a 
 gratuitous one. Gray v. Missouri River 
 Packet Co.. 64 Mo. 47. 
 
 37. Liability of carrier without hire. — 
 .llalhiiiui. — Louisville, etc.. R. Co. z: Ger- 
 son, 102 .\la. 409, 14 So. 873. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Clark v. Eastern R. 
 Co., 139 Mass. 423, 1 X. E. 12S. 
 
 Mississtf/'i. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Tronstine, 04 Miss. 834, 2 So. 255. 
 
 Missouri. — Gray r. Missouri River 
 Packet Co., 64 Mo. 47. 
 
 Nczo Jersey. — Dudley v. Camden, etc., 
 
 38. When goods stolen. — Fay 
 
 World, 1 Cal. 34>^, 
 
 New
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 726 
 
 §§ 988-989 
 
 But it is held that if such carrier enter upon the execution of the business in- 
 trusted to it, it is bound to use a degree of dihgence and attention adequate to 
 the performance of the undertaking/'" 
 
 A private carrier is boiuid only to exercise reasonable care ni respect to the 
 goods.-"' but is liable for failure to use ordinary care.'^ 
 
 §§ 989-1010. Liability as Insurer— § 989. General Rule.— The rule is 
 that in the absence of contractual slii)ulations ^- a carrier is responsible as an 
 insurer for the safety of the goods intrusted to it for transportation and is liable 
 for any loss or damage thereto.-*^' unless caused by the act of God,-'^ or the public 
 
 Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 872; 
 Burritt v. Rench, 4 McLean 325, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 2201; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Fair- 
 banks & Co., 33 C. C. A. 611, 90 Fed. 467; 
 Hannibal Railroad v. Swift, 12 Wall. 262, 
 20 L. Ed. 423; Holladay v. Kennard, 12 
 Wall. 254, 20 L. Ed. 390; Myrick v. Mich- 
 igan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. . 
 Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425; New Jersey, etc., 
 Nav. Co. V. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 
 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; St. John z'. Southern 
 Exp. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 12228, 1 Woods 
 612; Saunders v. Southern R. Co., 62 C. 
 C. A. 523. 128 Fed. 15, 11 R. R. R. 596, 34 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 596; Strous^ 
 7: W^abash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 209; The 
 Commander-in-Chief, 1 Wall. 43, 17 L. 
 Ed. 609; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 
 435, 19 L. Ed. 772; Niagara v. Cordes, 21 
 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; The Snap, 28 Fed. 
 527; The Zenobia, Fed. Cas. No. 18209, 
 Abb. Adm. 80; Tompkins f. Dutchess, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 14,087a; York Co. 7'. Cen- 
 tral R. Co., 3 Wall. 107, 18 L. Ed. 170; 
 Inman & Co. ?'. Seaboard, etc., R. Co., 
 159 Fed. 960. 
 
 Alabama. — East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 51 Am. Rep. 
 489, 22 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 437; Jones 
 z'. Pitcher & Co., 3 Stew. & P. 135, 24 
 Am. Dec. 716; Knox v. Rives, etc., Co., 
 14 Ala. 249, 48 Am. Dec. 97: Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Cowherd, 120 Ala. 51, 23 
 So. 793; Selma, etc., R. Co. v. Butts, 43 
 Ala. 385, 94 Am. Dec. 694; South, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. 
 Rep. 578; South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 66 
 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 419; Southern R. Co. z'. Levy, 
 144 Ala. 614, 17 R. R. R. 50, 40 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 50, 39 So. 95; Tallas- 
 see Falls Mfg. Co. z'. Western Railway, 
 128 Ala. 167, 29 So. 203. 
 
 Arkansas.— 'Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 
 Ark. 424, 19 S. W. 961; Kansas City, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Barnett, 69 Ark. 150, 61 S. W. 
 919; Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Talbot, 
 47 Ark. 97, 14 S. W. 471; Packard v. 
 Taylor, etc., Co., 35 Ark. 402, 37 Am. 
 Rep. 37; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nevill, 
 60 Ark. 375, 30 S. W. 425. 28 L. R. A. 
 80, 46 Am. St. Rep. 208; St. Louis, etc.. 
 Railway v. Lesser, 46 Ark. 230. 
 
 California.— Agnew v. Steamer Contra 
 
 44. Act of God.— See post, ".A.ct of 
 God," §§ 990-994. 
 
 Ferry Co.. 42 N. J. L. 25, 30 .\m. Rep. 
 501. 
 
 Tr»»t'.y.yt't'.— Kirtland v. Montgomery, 
 31 Tenn. (1 Swan) 452; Jenkins v. Mot- 
 low, 33 Tenn. (1 Sneed) 248, 60 Am. Dec. 
 154; Coward z: East Tennessee, etc., R. 
 Co.. 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 225. 
 
 liisconsin.— Fierce 7'. Milwaukee, etc., 
 R. Co.. 23 Wis. 387. 
 
 Failure to provide means for extin- 
 guishing fire. — In an action to recover 
 for loss of a trunk in defendant's bag- 
 gage room, where it was placed without 
 defendant's consent, failure of the de- 
 fendant to provide suitable means for 
 the extinguishment of fire was not of it- 
 self gross negligence, making defendant 
 liable for the loss of the trunk by an ac- 
 cidental fire. Clark v. Eastern R. Co., 
 139 Mass. 423, 1 N. E. 128. 
 
 39. Kirtland v. Montgomery, 31 Tenn. 
 (1 Swan) 452; Jenkins v. Motlow, 33 
 Tenn. (1 Sneed) 248, 60 .\m. Dec. 154. 
 
 40. Private carrier. — Faucher z'. Wil- 
 son. OS N. H. 338, 38 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. 
 A. 431. 
 
 Ordinary care and diligence. — Samms 
 V. Stewart. 20 O. 69, 55 .\m. Dec. 445. 
 
 41. lackson Architectural Iron Works 
 V. Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. E. 665, 70 
 Am. St. Rep. 432, affirming 15 Misc. Rep. 
 93. 36 N." Y. S. 808. 
 
 43. See post, "Limitation of Liability," 
 chapter 14. 
 
 Where gold dust is received for trans- 
 portation, and the carrier delivers to the 
 shipper a bill of lading which states that 
 it is received at San Francisco, and that 
 "on arrival at Panama the same is to be 
 forwarded across the Isthmus, and to be 
 reshipped by one of the United States 
 Mail Steamship Company's ships to New 
 York, * * * and to be delivered in 
 like good order and condition at the port 
 of New York, dangers of the seas (land 
 carriage and river navigation, "thieves, 
 and robbers) excepted," and the f^old 
 dust is not delivered, the carrier's liable, 
 unless he shows that he was prevented 
 from delivering it by some of these 
 causes. Simmons v. Law, 21 N. Y. Su- 
 per. Ct. (8 Bosw.) 213, affirmed in (1866) 
 42 N. Y. (3 Keyes) 217, 4 Abb. Dec. 
 241. 
 
 43. Carrier liable as insurer. — United 
 5/a/<.^._Railroad Co. v. Varnell, 98 U. 
 S. 479, 25 L. Ed. 233; Bank v. Adams
 
 /^/ 
 
 LOSS OK INjlKV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 989 
 
 Costa, 27 Cell. 425, 87 .\m. Dec. 87; Bo- 
 hannan z: Hamnioiul, 42 Cal. 227; Hooper 
 v. Wells, VnTiio & Co., 27 Cal. 11, 85 Am. 
 Dec. 211; Jackson r. Sacramento Val. R. 
 Co., 23 Cal. 268; Scammon v. Wells 
 Fargo & Co., 84 Cal. :ni, 24 Pac. 284. 
 
 Connecticut. — Clark v. Richards, 1 
 Conn. 54; Hale v. New Jersey Steam 
 Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 5:i9, 39 Am. Dec. 
 398; Richards v. Gill)ert, 5 Day 415; W'il- 
 liams r. Grant, 1 Conn. 487, 7 Am. Dec. 
 235. 
 
 Dclaivarc. — Culbreth v. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. 392; Klair v. Wil- 
 mington Steaml)oat Co., 4 Pen. 51, 7 R. 
 R. R. 821, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 821, 54 Atl. 694; Pennevvill v. CuHen, 5 
 Har. 238; Reed v. Wilmington Steamboat 
 Co., 1 Marv. 193, 40 Atl. 955, 1 Hardcsty 
 127; Truax v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 3 Houst. 233; Carpenter v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.. 6 Pen. 15, 64 .\tl. 252. 
 
 Florida.— C\ydt Steamship Co. v. Bur- 
 rows, 36 Fla. 121, 18 So. 349. 
 
 Georgia. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 War field. 129 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; Sa- 
 vannah, etc., R. Co. V. Wilcox, etc., Co., 
 48 Ga. 432; Ohlen v. .\tlanta, etc.. R. 
 Co., 2 Ga. .\pp. 323. 58 S. E. 511; South- 
 ern Exp. Co. V. Shea, 38 Ga. 519; South- 
 ern Exp. Co. r. Palmer, 48 Ga. 85; 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Purcell, 37 Ga. 103, 
 92 .\m. Dec. 53; Central R., etc., Co. v. 
 Hines, etc., Co.. 19 Ga. 203; Central, 
 etc.. R. Co. f. Lippman, 110 Ga. 665, 36 
 S. E. 202. 50 L. R. A. 673; Cooper v. 
 Berry, 21 Ga. 526, 68 Am. Dec. 468; 
 Cooper V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 412, 110 Ga. 659, 
 36 S. E. 240: Dibble f. Brown. 12 Ga. 
 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Fish v. Chapman, 
 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393; Georgia R. 
 Co. V. Beatie, 66 Ga. 438, 42 Am. Rep. 
 75; Georgia R. Co. v. Spears, 66 Ga. 485. 
 42 Am. Rep. 81; Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783. 
 
 By Civil Code, § 2264. the same lia- 
 bility in effect is imposed upon a com- 
 mon carrier as at common law. Cooper 
 V. Raleigh, etc.. R. Co., 110 Ga. 659, 36 
 S. E. 240. 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 412; Louisville, etc.. R. Co. r. Warfield. 
 129 Ga. 473. 59 S. E. 234. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Peo- 
 ple, 56 111. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Sawyer, 69 111. 285; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. r. Shea, 66 111. 471; 
 Coles :•. Louisville, etc.. R. Co.. 41 111. 
 App. 607; Gulliver v. .A.dams Exp. Co.. 
 38 111. 503; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fran"k- 
 enberg. 54 111. 88. 5 .\m. Rep. 92; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. f. McClellan, 54 111. 58. 5 Am. 
 Rep. 83; Merchants' Despatch Trans]). 
 Co. r. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 1 111. .Anp. 
 399; Peoria, etc.. R. Co. z: United States, 
 etc.. Co.. 136 III. 643, 27 N. E. 59, 29 Am. 
 St. Rep. 348; Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 20 111. 407. 71 Am. Dec. 286; United 
 States Exp. Co. z: Hutchins, 67 111. 348; 
 Western Transp. Co. z: Xewhall, 24 111. 
 
 466, 76 .\m. Dec. 760; Woods v. Devin, 
 13 111. 746; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, 242 111. 178, 89 N. E. 1022, 44 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 358. 
 
 Indiana. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Darnell, 
 31 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582; Bansemer 
 2'. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 
 Am. Dec. 367; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Woodwar<l, 164 Ind. 360, 17 R. R. R. 7, 
 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 7, 72 N. 
 E. 558; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Nicho- 
 laj, 4 Ind. .\pp. 119, 30 N. E. 424; Pitts- 
 burg, etc., R. Co. V. HoUowell, 65 Ind. 
 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63; Powers f. Daven- 
 port, 7 Blackf. 497, 43 /\m. Dec. 100; 
 Simpson r. Dufour, 126 Ind. 322. 26 N. E. 
 69, 22 .\m. St. Rep. 590; Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Tapp, 6 Ind. .\pp. 304, 33 N. E. 
 462; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. z: Henry, 170 
 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710, reversing 80 N. 
 E. 636. 
 
 Iowa. — Hart v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 69 Iowa 485, 29 N. W. 597, 27 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 59; McCoy z: Keokuk, etc.. R. 
 Co., 44 Iowa 424; Swiney z\ .\merican 
 Exp. Co. (Iowa) 115 N. W. 212; Gilbert 
 Bros. T'. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa) 136 
 N. W. 911: Cownie Glove Co. f. Mer- 
 chants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 130 Iowa 
 327, 106 N. W. 749, 114 Am. St. Rep. 419, 
 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1000. 
 
 Kansas. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Patten, 3 Kan. App. 338, 45 Pac. 108; 
 Kansas Pac. R. Co. f. Nichols, etc., Co., 
 9 Kan. 235, 12 Am. Rep. 494; Kansas 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Reynolds, 8 Kan. 623: St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z: Sherlock, 59 Kan. 
 23, 51 Pac. 899; Watkins Merchandise 
 Co. 7'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., lOS Pac. 116, 
 82 Kan. 308; Stiles v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co.. 33 Ky. Rep. 625. 110 S. W. S20. 
 
 Kentucky. — Bland v. Adams E.xp. Co., 
 1 Duv. 2.32, 85 Am. Dec. 623; Cincinnati, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Webb, 103 Ky. 705, 46 S. 
 W. 11; Farley z: Lavary. 107 Ky. 523. 
 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1252. 54 S. W. 840. 47 L. 
 R. A. 383; Hall & Co. z: Renfro. 3 Mete. 
 51; Robertson & Co. z: Kennedy, 2 Dana 
 430, 26 Am. Dec. 466; Chesapeake, etc.. R. 
 Co. z: Hall. 136 Ky. 379, 124 S. W. 372; 
 Lewis V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 135 Ky. 
 301. 122 S. \y. 184. 25 L. R. A., N. S., 938, 
 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 527. 
 
 Louisiana. — Berje z: Texas, etc., R. 
 Co., 37 La. Ann. 468; Cranwell z\ The 
 Fanny Fosdick. 15 La. Ann. 436. 77 Am. 
 Dec. 190; De\'illers v. Schooner John 
 Bell, 6 La. Ann. 544; Hunt z: Morris, 6 
 Mart., O. S., 676, 12 Am. Dec. 4S9; 
 Thomas z: Morning Glory, 13 La. .\nn. 
 269. 71 .\m. Dec. 509; Van Hern f. Tay- 
 lor. 7 Rob. 201. 41 Am. Dec. 279. 
 
 Maine. — Emery v. Hersey, 4 Greenl. 
 407, 16 .\m. Dec. 268; Fillebrown v. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co.. 55 Me. 462. 92 .\m. 
 Dec. 606; Parker z: Flagg. 26 Me. 181, 
 45 Am. Dec. 101; Sager z: Portsmouth, 
 etc., R. Co., 31 Me. 22S. ,50 .Km. Dec. 659; 
 Wood z: Maine Cent. R. Co., 98 Me. 98, 
 50 .\tl. 457. 9 R. R. R. 721, 32 Am. &
 
 § 989 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 728 
 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 721. 99 Am. St. Rep. 
 339. 
 
 Maryland. — Boyle v. McLaughlin, 4 
 Har. & J. 291; Fergusson r. Brent. 12 
 Md. 9, 71 Am. Dec. 582. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Claflin z: Boston, etc., 
 R. Co., 7 .\llen 341; Evans z\ Fitchburg 
 R. Co., Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19; 
 Gage V. Tirrell, 9 Allen 299; Hastings v. 
 Pepper, 11 Pick. 41; Smith z: New Ha- 
 ven, etc., R. Co.. 12 Allen 531; Swetland 
 z: Boston, etc., R. Co., 103 Mass. 276. 
 
 Michigan. — Heller z: Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 109 Mich. 53, 66 X. W. 667, 63 Am. 
 St. Rep. 541; Black z: Ashley, 80 Mich. 
 90, 44 N. W. 1120. 
 
 Minnesota. — Christenson v. American 
 Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270, Gil. 208, 2 Am. 
 Rep. 122; Lindsley z: Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 36 Minn. 539, 33 N. W. 7, 1 Am. St. 
 Rep. 692: Moulton v. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 X. W. 497, 47 Am. 
 Rep. 781. 
 
 Mississit>{>i. — Bennett v. Byram & Co., 
 38 Miss. 17, 75 Am. Dec. 90: Gilmore z. 
 Carman, 1 Smedes & M. 279, 40 Am. 
 Dec. 96; Mobile, etc., R. Co. z'. Weiner, 
 49 Miss. 725; Neal z: Saunderson, 2 
 Smedes & M. 572, 41 Am. Dec. 609; Pow- 
 ell V. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 
 158; Southern Exp. Co. z'. Moon, 39 
 Miss. 822; Whitesides r. Thurlkill, 12 
 Smedes & Al. 599. 51 Am. Dec. 128. 
 
 Missouri. — Costigan v. Michael Transp. 
 Co., 33 Mo. App. 269; Daggett v. Shaw, 
 3 Mo. 264, 25 Am. Dec. 439: Davis z: 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. 340, 1 S. 
 E. 327; Doan v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 38 
 Mo. App. 408; Hill v Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 
 323; Leonard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 
 Mo. App. 293; Lupe v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Mo. App. 77; Read v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199: Wolf z: Amer- 
 ican Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 421. 97 Am. Dec. 
 406. 
 
 Nebraska. — Black v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 30 Neb. 197, 46 N. W. 428; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Planning, 23 Neb. 
 552, 37 N. W. 462; Ringwalt z'. Wabash 
 R. Co., 45 Neb. 760, 64 N. W. 219; Wa- 
 bash R. Co. V. Sharpe. 76 Neb. 424, 107 
 N. W. 758, 124 Am. St. Rep. 823; Sun- 
 derland Bros. Co. V. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 89 Neb. 660, 131 N. W. 1047. 
 
 Nezi) Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 222; Moses v. Norris, 4 N. H. 304; Rix- 
 ford V. Smith, 52 N. H. 355, 13 Am. 
 Rep. 42. 
 
 Xezv Jersey. — Mershon v. Hobensack, 
 22 N. J. L. 372; New Brunswick, etc.. 
 Co. V. Tiers. 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 
 394. 
 
 Nezv York. — Adams v. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. F.. 
 369, 34 L. R. A. 682, 56 Am. St. Rep. CI 6; 
 Allen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327; Ames v. 
 Astor, 6 Cow. 266; Colt z\ McMechen, 6 
 Johns. 16^, 5 Am. Dec. 200; Conger v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 13 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 375; Cragin v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 51 N. Y. 61, 10 \m. Rep. 559; De- 
 Mott V. Laraway, 14 Wend. 225, 28 Am. 
 Dec. 523; Howe v. Oswego, etc., R. Co., 
 
 56 Barb. 121; Jackson Architectural Iron 
 Works v. Hurlbut. 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. E. 
 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432; Kemp v. Cough- 
 try, 11 Johns. 107; McArthur v. Sears, 21 
 Wend. 190; McKinney v. Jewett, 90 N. 
 Y. 267, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 209; Mal- 
 lory V. Tioga R. Co., 39 Barb. 488; Mer- 
 rill r. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Merritt v. 
 Earle, 31 Barb. 38, affirmed in 29 N. Y. 
 115, 86 Am. Dec. 292; Michaels v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. 
 Dec. 415; Miller v. Steam Nav. Co.. 10 N. 
 Y., 431, Seld. Notes 64; Park v. Preston, 
 108 N. Y. 434, 15 N. E. 705; Parsons v. 
 Hardy, 14 Wend. 215. 28 Am. Dec. 521; 
 Penn v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 204, 
 N. Y. S. 577, 34 N. Y. St. Rep_. 695; 
 10 Am. Rep. 355; Robinson v. Cornish, 13 
 Schieffelin v. Harvey, 6 Johns. 170, 5 
 Am. Dec. 200; Sherman v. Wells, 28 
 Barb. 403; Waldron v. Fargo. 170 N. Y. 
 130, 62 N. E. 1077. 
 
 North Carolina. — Backhouse v. Sneed, 
 
 5 N. C. 173; Boner v. Merchants' Steam- 
 boat Co., 46 N. C. 211; Harrell r. Ow- 
 ens, 18 N. C. 273; Patterson v. North 
 Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C. 147; Thomas 
 V. Southern R. Co., 131 N. C. 590. 42 S. 
 E. 543, 6 R. R. R. 860, 29 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S.. 860. 
 
 North Dakota. — Duncan v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 17 N. Dak. 610, 118 N. W. 
 826, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 952. 
 
 Ohio. — Minnesota Min. Co. v. Chap- 
 man, 2 West. L. M. 75, 2 O. Dec. Reprint 
 207; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Ambach, 10 
 O. C. C. 490, 6 O. C. D. 574, affirmed in 
 
 57 O. St. 38, 47 N. E. 1039; Welsh v. 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 10 O. St. 65, 75 
 Am. Dec. 490; Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 O. 
 St. 722; Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), 
 Wright 193; Long v. Louisville, etc.. 
 Packet Co., 7 N. P., N. S.. 14, 18 O. D. 
 N. P. 699: McGregor & Co. ■;:'. Kilgore, 
 
 6 O. 358; Canal Boat Montgomery z\ 
 Kent, 20 O. 54; Railroad Co. v. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476; Trans- 
 fer Co. V. Kelly, 36 O. St. 86, 38 Am. 
 Rep. 558; Davidson z'. Graham, 2 O. St. 
 131. 
 
 Oregon. — Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 20 Ore. 392, 26 Pac. 230, 12 L. R. 
 A. 318. 23 Am. St. Rep. 126; Lacey v. 
 Oregon P., etc., Co. (Ore.), 128 Pac. 999. 
 
 Peiinsyhania. — American Exp. Co. v. 
 Second ' Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. 394, 8 Am, 
 Rep. 268; Beckham v. Shouse, 5 Rawle 
 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653; Eagle v. White, 
 6 Whart. 505, 37 Am. Dec. 434; Harring- 
 ton t'. M'Shane, 2 Watts 443, 27 Am. 
 Dec. 321; Hart z'. Allen, 2 Watts 114; 
 Hays V. Kennedy, 41 Pa. 378, 80 Am. Dec. 
 627; Leonard v. Hendrickson, 18 Pa. 40, 
 55 Am. Dec. 587; Simpson z'. Hand, 6 
 Whart. 311. 36 Am. Dec. 231; Verner v. 
 Sweitzer, 32 Pa. 208; Willock z: Penn-
 
 729 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 989 
 
 sylvania R. Co., ItiC I 'a. 184. 30 Atl. 948, 
 27 I.. K. A. 228, 45 Am. St. Rep. G74; 
 Gordon .- . Little, 8 Serg. & R. 533. 11 Am. 
 Dec. 632. 
 
 South Carolina. — Campbell v. Morse, 
 Harp. 468; Cliarleston, etc., Steamljoat 
 Co. V. Basf)n, Harj). 262; Cook f. Gour- 
 din, 2 Nott & McC. 19; Everleigh v. Syl- 
 vester, 2 Brev. 178; Kwart v. Street, 2 
 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131; Harrington 
 V. Lyles, 2 Nott & McC. 88; M'Call v. 
 Brock, 5 Strob. II'J; McClures v. Ham- 
 mond, 1 Bay '.»'.), 1 \m. Dec. 598; Patton 
 V. Magrath, Dud. 159, 31 Am. Dec. 552; 
 Porcher v. Northeastern R. Co., 14 Rich. 
 L. 181 ; Reaves v. Waterman, 2 Speers 
 197. 42 .^m. Dec. 364; Singleton v. Hil- 
 liard, 1 Strob. 203; Slater v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co., 29 S. C. 96, 6 S. E. 936; 
 Smyrl 7'. Niolon, 2 Bailey 421, 23 Am. 
 Dec. 146. 
 
 Tennessee. — Baker v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 10 Lea 304, 16 Am. & Rng. R. 
 Cas. 149; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. lack- 
 son, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 271; Craig v. 
 Childress, 7 Tenn. (Peck) 270, 14 Am. 
 Dec. 751; Jones v. Walker, 13 Tenn. (5 
 Yerg.) 427; Lewis & Co. v. Ludwick, 46 
 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454; 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Katzenberger, 
 
 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 3S0, 1 S. W. 44, 57 
 Am. Rep. 232; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 David, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 261, 19 Am. 
 Rep. 594; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie, 
 112 Tenn. 331, 78 S. W. 1055. 105 Am. St. 
 Rep. 947; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Stone, 
 112 Tenn. 348, 79 S. W. 1031, 105 Am. St. 
 Rep. 955; Southern Exp. Co. v. Womack, 
 48 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 256; Turney v. Wil- 
 son, 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 
 515; Watson v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 56 
 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 255. 
 
 Texas.— .\vno\d v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 
 82 Am. Dec. 617; Chevallier v. Straham, 
 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Gulf. etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491, 7 S. W. 
 785; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 12 S. W. 
 677; International, etc., R. Co. t'. Berg- 
 man (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 999; 
 Houston, etc., Nav. Co. v. Dwyer. 29 Tex. 
 376; Philleo v. Sanford, 17 Tex. 227, 67 
 Am. Dec. 654; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. ■ W. 643; 
 Pacific Exp. Co. v. Hertzberg, 17 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 100, 42 S. W. 795; Gulf, etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 
 85 S. W. 479; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Fel- 
 ker, 40 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 604, 90 S. W. 530; 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. Halloren, 53 
 Tex. 46, ,S7 Am. Rep. 744; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. :•. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 
 66 S. W. 341; Houston, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 9 .\m. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 59; Williamson & Co. v. Texas, etc.. 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. W. 807; 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Nicholson. 61 Tex. 
 491; British, etc.. Ins. Co. v. Gulf. etc.. 
 R. Co.. 63 Tex. 475. 51 Am. Rep. 661; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Trawick, 68 Tex. 
 314, 4 S. W. 567: Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. McCorquodale, 71 Tex. 41, 
 9 S. W. 80; International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wentworth, 8 Tex. Civ. .App. 5. 27 S. W. 
 680, aftirmed in 87 Tex. 311; Texas Cent. 
 R. Co. f. Hunter & Co., 47 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 190, 104 S. W. 1075; .Abbott Gin 
 Co. r. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 57 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 26:i, 122 S. \V. 284. 
 
 The Texas statute maintains the com- 
 mon-law liability of the carrier. See 
 Rev. St. art. 278, Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Harris, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 1257; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. :•. Nicholson. 61 Tex. 
 491. 
 
 I'ennont. — Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 
 Vt. 402. 91 .\m. Dec. 350; Day. etc.. Co. 
 c'. Ridley. 16 Vt. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489. 
 
 r/>gj«;a.— Parish & Co. v. Reigle, 52 
 Va. (11 Gratt.) 697, 62 Am. Dec. 666; 
 Friend v. Woods, 47 Va. (6 Gratt.) 189, 
 52 Am. Dec. 119; Herring r. Chesapeake, 
 etc., R. Co., 9 R. R. R. 262. 32 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 262, 45 S. E. 322, 101 
 Va. 778; Murphy, etc.. Co. v. Staton, 17 
 Va. (3 Munf.) 239; Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Beasley, etc., Co., 104 Va. 788, 790, 
 52 S. E. 566. 3 L. R. A., N. S., 183. 
 
 Under the Virginia statute the liabil- 
 ity of an initial carrier of goods with re- 
 spect to acts done on its own line, re- 
 mains as at common law. Section 1294. 
 c. 24, Code, 1904. Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co. T. Pew, 109 Va. 288, 64 S. E. 35. 
 
 West Virginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Morehead. 5 W. Va. 293; McGraw z. 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 
 41 Am. Rep. 696, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 188; Hurley & Son z: Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co., 68 W. Va. 471, 69 S. E. 904; Hutchin- 
 son z: United States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 
 128. 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 393. 
 
 JVisconsin. — Goldberg v. Ahnapee, etc., 
 R. Co., 105 Wis. 1, 80 N. W. 920. 47 L. R. 
 
 A. 221. 76 Am. St. Rep. 899; Klauher z: 
 American Exp. Co., 21 Wis. 21, 91 Am. 
 Dec. 452; Strohn v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 
 23 Wis. 126, 99 Am. Dec. 114; Wood z: 
 Crocker, 18 Wis. 345. 86 Am. Dec. 773. 
 
 JFvomtng. — Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Blyth. 9 Wyo. 410, 118 Pac. 649, 119 Pac. 
 875, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 288. 
 
 England. — Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. 
 Raym. (Eng.) 909; Culver z: Lester. 32 
 Can. L. J. (Eng.) 421; Foward z: Pitland. 
 1 D. & E. (Eng.) 27; Hill z: Scott. 2 Q. 
 
 B. 371. 713; Nugent z: Smith, 1 C. P. 
 Div. 423; Portsmouth, etc.. Steamoacket 
 Co. (Eng.), 11 Exch. 618; Riley z: Home, 
 5 Bing. (Eng.) 217; Trent, etc., Nav. Co. 
 r. \\'ood. 4 Doug. (Eng.) 2sr. 
 
 "The liab'lities of a common carrier 
 may be distinguished into two distinct 
 classes, according to their nature: the 
 one, a liability for losses bj- neglect on 
 the part of the carrier or his agents 
 which is the liability of a bailee, arising 
 from omission of duty; the other, a 
 liabilit}' for losses by accident, mistake, 
 or other unavoidable occurrence, with-
 
 § 989 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 730 
 
 enemv-*^ the fault of the shipper.**' inherent infirmities of the goods,-*' or, by an 
 act of pubHc authoritv.^« So, where freight is lost or damaged while in the pos- 
 session of- a carrier, 'it can not escape its common-law responsibility by merely 
 province that the loss or damage was not occasioned by its negligence,"* ■' or that 
 it has'iised the utmost care and diligence.-'^' Carriers of goods being msurers 
 are not relieved from liability by the fact that the loss or damage happened from 
 some unknown cause,°i or could not have been avoided by any human vigilance.^^ 
 Origin and Foundation of Rule.— The rule imposing such high responsibility 
 upon a carrier of goods grew out of a situation which required that kind of 
 
 out any actual fault on the part of the 
 carrier, which is the liability of an ni- 
 surer, and founded upon a principle of 
 the common law." Davidson v. Gra- 
 ham 2 O. St. 131. followed in Graham & 
 Co. r. Davis & Co., 4 O. St. :5r,2, 375. 
 
 Liability similar to, but not strictly 
 that of insurer. — "A carrier is not an 
 insurer, though often loosely so called. 
 The e.xtent o1 his responsibility may be 
 equal to that of an insurer, and even 
 greater, but its nature is not the same. 
 His contract is not one for indemnity, 
 independent of the care and custody of 
 the goods. He is not entitled to a ces- 
 sion of the remains of the property, or 
 to have the loss adjusted on principles 
 peculiar to the contract of insurance; and 
 when a loss occurs, unless caused by the 
 act of God. or of a public enemy, he is 
 always in fault." Hall z: Railroad Cos. 
 (U. S.). 13 Wall. 367. 20 L. Ed. 594. 
 
 Rule should not be applied to new 
 cases. — In Boyce v. Anderson (U. S.), 2 
 Pet 150. 7 L. Ed. 379, cited in Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Zernecke, 183 U. S. 582, 
 46 L. Ed. 339, 22 S. Ct. 229, it was said 
 that the law applicable to comnion car- 
 riers of goods is one of great rigor and 
 should not be applied to new cases, and 
 the court refused to treat slaves as goods 
 and chattels, but regarded them as pas- 
 sengers. 
 
 Doctrine not to be overturned by 
 courts. — The general doctrines respect- 
 ing the liability of common carriers are 
 as clearly and firmly settled by the un- 
 interrupted current of decisions in the 
 English and American courts as any 
 principles of the law can be; they are 
 not to be overturned or shaken by any- 
 thing short of legislative enactment. 
 Philleo V. Sanford, 17 Tex. 227, 67 Am. 
 Dec. 654. 
 
 45. Act of public enemy. — See post, 
 "Act of Puldic Enemy," §§ 995-997. 
 
 46. Fault of shipper or owner. — See 
 post, "Fault of Shipper or Owner," 
 §§ 998-1002. 
 
 47. Inherent infirmities of goods. — See 
 post. "Inherent Infirmities of Goods," 
 § 1003. 
 
 48. Act of public authority. — Duncan f. 
 Great Northern R. Co... 17 X. Dak. 610, 
 118 N. W. 826, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 952. 
 See post, "Acts or Mandate of Public 
 Authority," § 1004. 
 
 49. Absence of negligence. — Delaware. 
 — Klair v. Wilmington Steamboat Co. 
 (Del.), 4 Pen. 51, 7 R. R. R. 821, 30 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 821, 54 Atl. 694. 
 
 Illinois. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Canadian 
 Pac. R. Co., 107 111. App. 386; Porter v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 111. 407, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 286. 
 
 Missouri. — Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 89 Mo. 340, 1 S. W. 327; Hill r. Stur- 
 geon, 28 Mo. 323. 
 
 Xczv Jersey. — Mershon v. Hobensack, 
 22 N. J. L. 372. 
 
 Xczv York. — Howe v. Oswego, etc., R. 
 Co., 56 Barb. 121; Ladue v. Griffith. 25 
 N. Y. 364, 82 Am. Dec. 360; Mc Arthur 
 f. Sears, 21 Wend. 190; Merritt v. Earle, 
 31 Barb. 38. affirmed in 29 N. Y. 115, 86 
 Am. Dec. 292; Miller v. Steam Nav. Co., 
 10 N. Y. 431. Seld. Notes 64. 
 
 OrrgOH.-— Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co.. 20 Ore. 392. 26 Pac 230, 12 L. R. 
 A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Harrington v. M'Shane, 
 2 Watts 443, 27 Am. Dec. 321; Verner 
 z'. Sweitzer. 32 Pa. 208. 
 
 S\nith Carolina. — Ewart v. Street, 2 
 Bailey 157. 23 Am. Dec. 131; McCall v. 
 Brock, 5 Strob. 119. 
 
 Tt^nr.s-.— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Turner 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 643. 
 
 J'irginia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239. 
 
 50. California.— Agnew v. Steamer 
 Contra Costa, 27 Cal. 425, 87 Am. Dec. 87. 
 
 Georgia. — Richmond, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 W'hite, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802; Ohlen 
 z'. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 323, 
 58 S. E. 511. 
 
 Nezi' For/c .—:\IcArthur v. Sears (N. Y.), 
 21 Wend. 190. 
 
 0/zio.— Union Mut. Ins. Co. 7'. Indian- 
 apolis, etc., R. Co., 1 Disn. 4S(), 12 O. 
 Dec. 745. 
 
 South Carolina.— McCaW v. Brock (S. 
 C), 5 Strob. 119; Ewart t'. Street (S. 
 C), 2 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 51. Cause of loss or damage unknown. 
 — Turncy z\ Wilscjii. i:. Tcnn. (7 Ycrg.) 
 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515. 
 
 52. Loss unavoidable by human vigi- 
 lance.— Albright V. Penn, 14 Tex. 290. 
 
 "No force, however great, no accident 
 however inevitable, no fraud however 
 beyond his control, will excuse him." 
 Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. 
 Dec. 639.
 
 731 
 
 LOSS OH INJURY T(J GOODS. 
 
 §§ 989-990 
 
 security for the protection of the public ; ^"'' and is founded upon public policy,^* 
 arisinf^ from the public nature of the carrier's employment,'''' and the extensive 
 contrcjl it exercises o\c-r tlu- jiropc-rty of others."''' 
 
 Goods Addressed to Carrier or Agent as Consignee. — The liability of 
 the carrier is not lessened by the fact that the {^oods were addressed to carrier 
 or its agent as consignee.''' 
 
 Effect of Custom. — The liability of a common carrier can not be altered by 
 evidence of a custom, universally known and recognized in the particular river 
 trade, by which the carrier was exempted from liability for loss, unless it pro- 
 ceedcil from nc-i^ligi-nce or ilishoncstv on it^ p.irt.''^ 
 
 The Carmack amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act imj^jsed a 
 lialiility for scjme default in the carrier's common-law duty as a commrjn carrier. 
 and not liabiliiv as an insurer."'-' 
 
 §§ 990-1004. Exceptions and Excuses— §§ 990-994. Act of God— 
 § 99 0. In General. — The authorities all agree that the carrier is not an insurer 
 
 in respect lo what is called an act of God."*' And it is not liable for losses result- 
 
 53. Origin of rule. — .\tlantic, etc., R. 
 Co. c'. Riverside Mills. 2H) U. S. 186, .55 
 
 L. Ed. 1(57, 31 S. Ct. 104, :n L. R. A., 
 N. S., 7. 
 
 The rule was not a part of the ancient 
 common law. It had its orign in what 
 was supposed to lie the commercial ne- 
 cessities of ICn.t'land at a time when the 
 government afforded imperfect protec- 
 tion to goods in transit, and when rol)- 
 beries were of frequent occurrence. It 
 was first recognized and received its first 
 judicial announcement as a principle of 
 law in the W'oodliefe and Curtis case, de- 
 cided in the thirty-eighth year of the 
 reign of Elizabeth. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Gatcwood. 79 Tex. 89, 14 S. W. 91.S; Van 
 Santvoord z: St. b^hn ( N. Y.), 6 Hill 
 157. 
 
 54. Foundation of rule. — "The rule is 
 intended as a guard against fraud and 
 collusion, and is founded on the same 
 broad principles of public policy and con- 
 venience whicli govern in the case of inn- 
 keepers. This principle of extraordinarj' 
 responsibility was taken from the edict 
 of the prretor in the Roman law, and it 
 has insinuated itself into the jurispru- 
 dence of all the civilized nations of Fm- 
 rope." 2 Kent. 805, 9th Ed. Sword z'. 
 Young. 89 Tenn. 126, 14 S. W. 481, 604, 
 quoting 2 Kent. (9th Ed.) 805. 
 
 "This rule is a politic establishment 
 contrived by the policy of the law for 
 the safety of all persons, the necessity 
 of whose affairs oblige them to trust 
 these sort of persons that tliej^ may l)e 
 safe in their ways of dealing." Lord 
 Holt, in Coggs z\ Bernard, 2 Ld. Ray- 
 mond, 909, quoted in .\tlantic, etc.. R. 
 Co. z: Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 55 
 L. Ed. 167. 31 S. Ct. 164. 31 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 7: Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Zer- 
 necke, 183 U. S. 582, 46 L. Ed. 339, 22 
 S. Ct. 229; Chevallier z: Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115. 47 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 Should not be departed from. — The 
 old rule that a common carrier is an- 
 
 swerable for all losses not occasioned by 
 act of God or the public enemy is 
 founded alike in justice and in sound 
 policy, and ought never to be departed 
 from. Arnold z\ Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 82 
 Am. Dec. 017. 
 
 55. Hannibal Railroad z: Swift (U. S.), 
 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; Gait z: Ad- 
 ams Exp. Co. (D. C), McArthur & M. 
 124. 48 Am. Rep. 742; Samms v. Stewart, 
 20 O. 69. 55 Am. Dec. 445. 
 
 56. Davidson z: Graham, 2 O. St. 131, 
 followed in Graham & Co. ;•. Davis & 
 Co.. 4 O. St. 362, 37.-). 
 
 57. Goods addressed to carrier as con- 
 signee. — Ficnnett f. Northern, etc.. Co.. 
 12 ( )rv. 4'.), 6 Pac. 160. 
 
 58. Effect of custom. — Turney :■. Wil- 
 son. 15 Tenn. (7 Vcrg.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 
 515. 
 
 59. Carmack amendment of June 29. 
 190(i. to the act of February 4, 1887, § 20 
 under which a carrier receiving propertj^ 
 for interstate transportation is required 
 to issue a receipt or bill of lading there- 
 for, and is made liable to the holder for 
 "any loss, damage, or injurj^ to such 
 property caused by it." or by any con- 
 necting carrier to whom the property 
 mav be delivered. Adams Exp. Co. 
 z: Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 57 L. Ed. 314, 
 33 S. Ct. 148, 44 L. R. A.. N. S.. 257; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Latta, 33 S. Ct. 
 155, 226 U. S. 519, 57 L. Ed. 328. revers- 
 ing judgments Latta z-. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 172 Fed. 850, 97 C. C. A. 198. and 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: Latta. 184 Fed. 
 987. 106 C. C. .\. 664. 
 
 60. Act of God relieves carrier. — 
 I'liiti'd States. — Bank f. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 93 U. S. 174. 23 L. Ed. 872; New 
 lersey. etc., Nav. Co. z'. Merchants' Bank 
 "(U. S.). 6 How. 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; Pearce 
 f. Newton. 41 Fed. 106; Strouss z: Wa- 
 bash, etc., R. Co.. 17 Fed. 209; The Mag- 
 gie Hammond (U. S.), 9 Wall. 435. 19 
 L. lul. 772: Reed r. United States (U. 
 S.), 11 Wall. 591. 20 L. Ed. 220;
 
 § 990 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 732 
 
 Primrose z: Western Union Tel. Co.. 154 
 U. S. 1, 3S L. Ed. S83, 14 S. Ct. 1098; 
 Niagara :•. Cordes (U. S.). 21 How. 7, 16 
 L. Ed. 41; The Delaware (U. S.), 14 
 Wall. ."jTy. 20 L. Ed. 779; York Co. v. 
 Central R. Co. (U. S.). 3 Wall. 107, 18 
 L. Ed. 170; Railroad Co. z: Varnell, 98 
 U. S. 479. 480. 25 L. Ed. 233; Clark z: 
 Barnwell (U. S.), 12 How. 272. 13 L. Ed. 
 985; Railroad Co. r. Reeves (U. S.), 10 
 Wall. 176, 19 L. Ed. 909. 
 
 Alabama. — Jones v. Pitcher & Co., 3 
 Stew. & P. 135. 24 Am. Dec. 716; Knox 
 z: Rives, etc.. Co., 14 .\la. 249, 48 Am. 
 Dec. 97; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cow- 
 herd, 120 Ala. 51, 23 So. 793; Selma. etc., 
 R. Co. r. Butts, 43 Ala. 385. 94 Am. Dec. 
 694; Smith z: Western Railway. 91 Ala. 
 455, 8 So. 754, 24 Am. St. Rep. 929, 11 L. 
 R. A. 619; South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein. 
 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578; South, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Wood. 66 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 
 749, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419; Sprowl 
 v. Kellar, 4 Stew. & P. 3S2; Southern R. 
 Co. z: Lew, 144 Ala. 614, 39 So. 95, 17 
 R. R. R. 50, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S.. 50. 
 
 Arkansas. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Barnett. 69 Ark. 150, 61 S. W. 919; Lit- 
 tle Rock, etc.. R. Co. z: Talbot. 47 Ark. 
 97, 14 S. W. 471; Packard r. Taylor, etc., 
 Co., 35 Ark. 402. 37 Am. Rep. 37; St. 
 Louis, etc.. Railway c'. Lesser, 46 Ark. 
 236. 
 
 California. — Agnew v. Steamer Contra 
 Costa. 27 Cal. 425, 87 Am. Dec. 87; Bo- 
 hannan z\ Hammond, 42 Cal. 227; 
 Hooper z: Wells. Fargo & Co., 27 Cal. 
 11, 85 Am. Dec. 211; Jackson v. Sacra- 
 mento Val. R. Co., 23 Cal. 268; Scam- 
 mon V. Wells Fargo & Co., 84 Cal. 311. 
 24 Pac. 284. 
 
 Colorado. — Blythe v. Denver, etc., R. 
 Co., 15 Colo. 333, 25 Pac. 702, 11 L. R. 
 A., 615, 22 Am. St. Rep. 403. 
 
 Connecticut. — Clark v. Richards, 1 
 Conn. 54; Hale v. New Jersey Steam 
 Xav. Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. 398; 
 Williams v. Grant, 1 Conn. 487, 7 Am. 
 Dec. 235. 
 
 Dclaz^'arc. — Klair v. Wilmington Steam- 
 boat Co., 4 Pen. 51. 7 R. R. R. 821, 30 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., X. S.. 821, 54 Atl. 694; 
 Pennewill v. Cullen, 5 Har. 238; Reed v. 
 Wilmington Steamboat Co., 1 Marv. 193, 
 40 .A.tl. 955, 1 Hardesty 127; Truax o 
 Philadelphia, etc., R. Co.". 3 Houst. 233; 
 Klair v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 2 
 Bovce's (25 Del.) 274, 78 Atl. 1085. 
 
 Georgia. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lippman, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 202, 50 
 L. R. A. 673; Cooper v. Raleigh, etc., 
 R. Co., 110 Ga. 659, 36 S. E. 240, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 412; Dibble v. 
 Brown. 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; 
 Fish V. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 
 393; Georgia R. Co. v. Beatie, 66 Ga. 
 438, 42 Am. Rep. 75; Georgia R. Co. v. 
 Spears, 66 Ga. 485, 42 Am. Rep. 81; 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 
 
 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783; Ohlen v. Atlanta, 
 etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 323, 58 S. E. 
 511; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.' Warfield, 
 129 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; Forrester v. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co.. 92 Ga. 699, 19 S. 
 E. 811; Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 
 97 Ga. 777, 25 S. E. 759; Savannah, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Commercial Guano Co., 103 
 Ga. 590. 30 S. E. 555. 
 
 Illinois. — Gulliver v. Adams Exp. Co., 
 38 111. 503; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clcllan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Mer- 
 chants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Kahn, 
 76 111. 520; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. United 
 States, etc., Co.. 136 111. 643. 27 N. E. 
 59, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348; Porter v. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co., 20 111. 407. 71 Am. 
 Dec. 286; United States Exp. Co. v. 
 Hutchins, 67 111. 348; Woods v. Devin, 
 1.3 111. 74(i; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Frankenberg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am. Rep. 92; 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 56 111. 365, 
 8 .\m. Rep. 690; Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. 
 Z'. Chicago, 89 N. E. 1022, 242 111. 178, 
 44 L. R. \.. N. S.. 358. 
 
 Indiana. — Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Yohe, 
 51 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727; Pittsburg, 
 etc., R. Co. T'. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 
 32 Am. Rep. 63; Powers v. Davenport, 
 7 Blackf. 497. 43 Am. Dec. 100; Toledo, 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Tapp, 6 Ind. App. 304, 33 
 N. E. 462; Walpole v. Bridges, 5 Blackf. 
 222; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 
 170 Ind. 94, 83 N. E. 710. reversing 80 
 X. E. 636; Reid v. Evansville. etc., R. 
 Co., 35 X. E. 703, 10 Ind. App. 385, 53 
 Am. St. Rep. 391; Bansemer v. Toledo, 
 etc., R. Co., 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 
 367. 
 
 lozva. — Cownie Glove Co. v. Mer- 
 chants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 106 X. 
 W. 749, 130 Iowa 327, 114 Am. St. Rep. 
 419. 4 L. R. A.. N. S., 1060: Swiney z'. 
 American Exp. Co., 115 N. W. 212; Gil- 
 l^ert Bros. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 
 X. W. 911; Hewett z-. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co., 63 Iowa 611, 19 N. W. 790. 
 
 Kansas. — Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Xich- 
 ols. etc., Co., 9 Kan. 235, 12 Am. Rep. 
 494; Watkins Merchandise Co. v. Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co., 82 Kan. 308. 108 Pac. 
 116; Sauter v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 78 
 Kan. 331, 97 Pac. 434. 
 
 Kentucky. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 W^ebb, 103 Ky. 705, 46 S. W. 11; Farley 
 z: Lavary. 107 Ky. 523, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 
 1252, 54 S. W. 840, 47 L. R. A. 383; Hall 
 & Co. V. Renfro, 3 Mete. 5i; Chesa- 
 peake, etc., R. Co. V. Hall, 136 Ky. 379, 
 124 S. W. 372; Lewis v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 135 Ky. 361, 122 S. W. 184, 25 L. 
 R. .'\.. X. S., 938, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 527. 
 
 Louisiana. — Dalzell v. Saxon, 10 La. 
 .•\nn. 280; Thomas z'. Morning Glory, 13 
 La. Ann. 269, 71 .A.m. Dec. 509. 
 
 .Maine. — Emery v. Hersey, 4 Greenl. 
 4C7, 16 Am. Dec. 268; Parker v. Flagg, 
 26 Me. 181, 45 .Am. Dec. 101; Sager v.
 
 733 
 
 LOSS OR IXJUkV TO G(K)DS. 
 
 § 990 
 
 Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., :u Me. 22S, ->0 
 Am. Dec. fiV.). 
 
 \Uir\laml. — Boyle 7-. McLaughlin, 4 
 Har. & J. 201. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Kvans v. Fitchburg R. 
 Co., Ill Mass. 142, 13 Am. Rep. Ill; 
 Gage V. Tirrell, 9 Allen 21)9; Hastings 
 V. Pepper, 11 Pick. 41; Smith v. New 
 Haven, etc., R. Co., 12 Allen 5:51; Swet- 
 land v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 
 276. 
 
 .l/iV/(i.i;a//.— Black v. Ashley, 44 N. \V. 
 1120, 80 Mich. •»(). 
 
 Minncsofa. — Christenson v. American 
 Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270, Gil. 208, 2 Am. 
 Rep. 122: lones v. Minneapolis, etc., R. 
 Co., 91 Minn. 229. 11 R. R. R. fiGl. 34 
 Am. & Hng. R. Cas., N. S.. (561. 97 N. 
 W. 893, 103 Am. St. Rep. 507. 
 
 Mississippi. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Bigger, 66 Miss. 319, 6 So. 234; Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co. V. Weincr, 49 Miss. 725; 
 Powell V. Mills. 30 Miss. 231. 64 Am. 
 Dec. 158; Neal v. Saundcrson, 2 Smedes 
 & M. 572. 41 Am. Dec. 609. 
 
 Missouri. — Ballentine v. North Mis- 
 souri R. Co., 40 Mo. 491, 93 Am. Dec. 
 315; Daggett v. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264, 25 Am. 
 Dec. 439; Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 89 Mo. 340, 1 S. W. 327; Read v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199; Steam- 
 boat Lynx V. King, 12 Mo. 272. 49 Am. 
 Dec. 135; Wolf v. American Exp. Co., 
 43 Mo. 421. 97 Am. Dec. 406; Merritt 
 Creamery Co. v. Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 
 128 Mo. App. 420. 107 S. W. 462. ■ 
 
 Nebraska. — Black v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 30 Neb. 197. 46 N. W. 428; Ring- 
 wait V. Wabash R. Co.. 45 Neb. 760. 64 
 N. W. 219; Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co., 89 Neb. 660. 131 N. 
 W. 1047. 
 
 AVw Hampshire. — Aloses v. Norris, 4 
 N. H. 304. 
 
 Xcw Jersey. — Mershon v. Hobensack, 
 22 N. J. L.372; New Brunswick, etc.. 
 
 Co. v. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697. 64 Am. Dec. 
 394. 
 
 A'rti' York. — Adams v. New Jersey 
 
 Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 
 
 369, 34 L. R. A. 682. 56 Am. St. Rep. 
 
 616; Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Belknap, 21 
 Wend. 354; Cragin v. New York Cent. 
 
 R. Co., 51 N. Y. (il, 10 Am. Rep. 559; 
 
 Hollister v. Nowlcn. 19 Wend: 234, 32. 
 
 Am. Dec. 455; Howe r. Oswego, etc.. 
 
 R. Co.. 56 Barb. 121; McCormick v. 
 
 Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 353; 
 
 Merritt 7'. Earle, 31 Barb. 38. affirmed in 
 
 29 N. Y. 115, 86 .\m. Dec. 292; Miller 7'. 
 
 Steam Nav. Co., 10 N. Y. 431, Seld Notes 
 
 64; Read 7'. Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630. 86 
 
 Am. Dec. 426. affirming 18 N. Y. Super. 
 
 Ct. 395; Sherman 7'. Wells, 28 Barl). 40;i; 
 
 Waldron 7'. Fargo, 170 N. Y. 130. 62 N. 
 
 E. 1077; Colt 7'. McMechen. 6 Johns. 
 
 160. 5 Am. Dec. 200. 
 
 North Carolina. — Harrell 7'. Owens, 18 
 
 N. C. 273; Thomas v. Southern R. Co., 
 
 131 N. C. 590. 42 S. E. 543. 6 R. R. R. 
 
 860, 29 Am. & Eng. R.- Cas., N. S.. 860. 
 
 North Dakota. — Duncan v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co.. 17 N. Dak. 610, 118 N. W. 
 826, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 952. 
 
 0/no.— Railroad Co. v. O'Donnell, 49 
 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476; Bowman v. Hil- 
 ton, 11 O. 303; Canal Boat Montgomery 
 V. Kent, 20 O. 54; Transfer Co. v. 
 Kelly, 36 O. St. 86, 38 Am. Rep. 558; 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Barrett, 36 O. 
 St. 448; Welsh v. Pittsburg, etc.. R. 
 Co., 10 O. St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490; Dav- 
 idson 7'. Graham. 2 O. St. 131; Long v. 
 Louisville, etc.. Packet Co., 7 N. P., N. 
 S.. 14, 18 O. D. N. P. 699. 
 
 Ore'^oii. — Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 20 Ore. 392. 26 Pac. 230. 12 L. R. A. 
 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126; Lacey 7'. Ore- 
 gon, R., etc., Co.. 128 Pac. 999. 
 
 Fcnnsvhania. — Beckham v. Shouse, 5 
 Rawle 179, 28 Am. Dec. 653; Eagle r. 
 White, 6 Whart. 505, 37 .\m. Dec. 434; 
 Harrington v. M'Shane, 2 Watts 443, 27 
 Am. Dec. 321; Hays v. Kennedy. 41 Pa. 
 378. 80 Am. Dec. 627; Long 7'. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 147 Pa. 343. 23 Atl. 459, 14 
 L. R. A. 741. 30 Am. St. Rep. 732; Mor- 
 rison 7'. Davis & Co.. 20 Pa. 171, 57 .Am. 
 Dec. 695; Verner 7'. Sweitzer, 32 Pa. 208: 
 Willock v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 166 Pa. 
 184, 30 Atl. 948, 27 L. R. A. 22)?, 45 Am. 
 St. Rep. 674. 
 
 South Carolina. — Campbell v. Morse. 
 Harp. 468; Cook 7'. Gourdin, 2 Nott & 
 McC. 19; McCall 7'. Brock. 5 Strob. 119: 
 Porcher v. Northeastern R. Co., 14 Rich. 
 L. 181; Reaves 7'. Waterman, 2 Speers 
 197, 42 Am. Dec. 364; Slater v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co., 29 S. C. 96, 6 S. E. 936: 
 Smyrl v. Niolon, 2 Bailey 421. 23 Am 
 Dec. 146; Ewart 7-. Street. 2 Bailey 157. 
 23 Am. Dec. 131; Ferguson 7'. Southern 
 Railway, 91 S. C. 61. 74 S. E. 129. 
 
 Tennessee. — Jones v. Walker, 13 Tenn. 
 (5 Yerg.) 427; Lewis & Co. v. Ludwick. 
 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 368. 98 Am. Dec. 
 454; Louisville, etc., R. Co. 7'. Katzen- 
 berger, 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 3S0, 1 S. W. 44 
 Am. Rep. 232; Nashville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. David, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 261. 
 19 Am. Rep. 594; Nashville, etc.. R. Co. 
 v. Stone. 112 Tenn. 348, 79 S. W. 1031. 
 105 Am. St. Rep. 955; Nashville, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. King, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 269; 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. 7-. Lillie, 112 Tenn. 
 331, 78 S. W. 1055, 105 Am. St. Rep. 947: 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7-. Glenn. S4 Ten-. 
 (16 Lea) 472. 1 S. W. 102; Turney 7'. 
 Wilson, 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 340, 27 Am. 
 Dec. 515; Watson 7'. Memphis, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 255; Craig 7-. 
 Childress, 7 Tenn. (Peck) 270, 14 Am. 
 Dec. 751. 
 
 Te.vas. — Arnold 7-. Jones, 26 Tex. 335. 
 82 Am. Dec. 617; Chevallier v. Straham. 
 2 Tex. 115. 47 Am. Dec. 639; Gulf, etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Levi. 12 S. W. 677; Houston, 
 etc., Nav. Co. 7'. Dwyer, 29 Tex. 376; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. Felker, 40 lex. 
 Civ. App. 604, 90 S. W. 530; Interna- 
 tional, etc., R. Co 7'. Halloren, 53 Tex. 
 46, 37 Am. Rep. 744; International,
 
 990 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 734 
 
 ing from such cause unless it expressly insures against them."^ 
 
 Must Be Proximate Cause.— A carrier is not exempt from liability for the 
 loss of, or damage to, goods occasioned by the act of God, unless such act is the 
 proximate, not merely the remote, cause of injury complained of.''- 
 
 etc. R. Co. V. Wentworth, 8 Tex. 
 Civ! App. 5, 11, 27 S. W. ()80. affirmed in 
 87 Tex. 311; Texas Cent. R. Co. z\ Hun- 
 ter & Co.. 47 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 190, 104 
 S. \\". 1075; International, etc., R. Co. 
 z'. Hynes, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 20, 21 S. W. 
 622; Fentiman v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 
 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455, 460. 98 S. W. 
 939; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Trawick, (iS 
 Tex. 314. 4 S. W. 567; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 
 479; Abbott Gin Co. r. Missouri, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 57 Tex. Civ. App. 2(53, 122 S. W. 
 284. 
 
 Vermont. — Day, etc., Co. v. Ridley, 16 
 Vt. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489; Spencer v. Dag- 
 gett. 2 Vt. 92. 
 
 Virginia. — Herring v. Chesapeake, etc., 
 R. Co., 101 Va. 778, 45 S. E. 322, 9 R. K. 
 R. 262, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S.. 
 262: Murphy, etc., Co. z: Staton, 17 Va. 
 (3 Munf.) 239; Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. 
 z: Beasley. etc., Co.. 104 Va. 788. 52 S. 
 E. 566. 3 L. R. A.. N. S., 183. 
 
 West J'irgiiiia. — Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293; Mc- 
 Graw z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 18 W. 
 Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 696, 9 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 188; Maslin z'. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.. 14 W. Va. 180. 35 Am. Rep. 
 748; Hutchinson z\ United States Exp. 
 Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 393. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Klauber v. American Exp. 
 Co.. 21 Wis. 21, 91 Am. Dec. 452; Strohn 
 V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 126, 99 
 Am. Dec. 114. 
 
 Wxoniiug. — Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Blyth, 19 Wyo. 410, 118 Pac. 649, 119 
 Pac. 875, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 288. 
 
 England. — Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. 
 Raym. (Eng.) 909; Forward z: Pittard, 
 1 D. & E. (Eng.) 27. 
 
 61. Southern Exp. Co. f. Glenn, 84 
 Tenn. (If, Lea) 472. 1 S. W. 102. 
 
 The implication of an exception as to 
 losses occasioned by inevitable accident 
 may be repelled by i>arol proof, con- 
 nected with advertisements and cir- 
 culars of agreement to insure a safe de- 
 livery, without any exception, for inevi- 
 table accidents. Morrison v. Davis & 
 Co., 20 Pa. 171. 57 .\m. Dec. 695. 
 
 If a carrier specially undertakes to de- 
 liver safely any article carried, it will 1)C 
 bound by its undertaking to answer for 
 the loss, although it may happen from 
 an unavoidable accident. Gaither v. 
 Barnct (S. C), 2 Brev. 488. 
 
 Stipulation not having such effect. — A 
 provision in a bill of lading. "Damage or 
 deficiency in quantity specified, if any, to 
 be deducted from charges by consignees," 
 should not be construed, in the absence 
 
 of evidence that such was the intent, as 
 extending the liat)ility of the carrier to 
 losses within the ordinary exception of 
 losses caused by the act of God, but 
 should be restricted to damage or defi- 
 ciency caused by his default or neglect. 
 Price z\ Hartshorn, 44 N. Y. 94, 4 Am. 
 Rep. 645. affirming 44 Barb. 655. 
 
 62. Must be proximate cause of injury. 
 i')iitcd States. — Tompkins v. Dutchess, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 14,087a; King z\ Shepherd, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 7,804, 3 Story 439. 
 
 Jlabania. — Sprowl z'. Kellar, 4 Stew. & 
 P. 382; Steele z'. McTyer, 31 Ala. 667. 70 
 Am. Dec. 516; Jones v. Pitcher & Co., 
 3 Stew. & P. 135. 24 Am. Dec. 716. 
 
 Gcoriiia. — Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Benson & Co., 86 Ga. 203, 12 S. E. 357, 
 22 Am. St. Rep. 446; Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co. z: White & Co., 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 
 802. 
 
 ////;i(h'.s-.— Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Cur- 
 tis. 80 111. 324. 
 
 lozva. — Wood V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 68 Iowa 491, 27 N. W. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 
 861; Hewitt v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 
 Iowa 611, 119 N. W. 790. 
 
 Kentucky. — Cassilay v. Young, 4 B. 
 Mon. 265^ 39 Am. Dec. 505; Cincinnati, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Weljb, 103 Ky. 705. 46 S. 
 \V. 11. 
 
 Maryland. — Fergusson v Brent, 12 Md. 
 9, 71 Am. Dec. 582; Boyle z\ McLaughlin, 
 4 Har. & J. 291. 
 
 MU-liigan. — Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Burrows, 33 Mich. 6. 
 
 Missouri. — Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 13 Mo. App. 449; Read t'. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199; W^olf z\ Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co.. 43 Mo. 421, 97 .\m. Dec. 
 406. 
 
 Kcz^' .Icrscv. — New Brunswick, etc., Co., 
 V. Tiers,. 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 394. 
 Nezv York.— Merrkt v. Earle, 31 Barb. 
 38, affirmed in 29 N. Y. 115, 86 Am. Dec. 
 292; Michaels v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. Dec. 415. 
 
 South Carolina.— Ewart v. Street, 2 
 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 Tennessee. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Jack- 
 son, 92 Tenn. 326, 21 S. W. 666. 
 
 7\,.i-rt.s-.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCor- 
 quodale, 71 Tex. 41. 9 S. W. SO; M. P. R. 
 Co. V. Barnes & Co., 2 Texas .\pp. Civ. 
 Cas., § 575. 
 
 Washington.— Sm\t\\ v. North American 
 Transp. i::o., 20 Wash. 580, 56 Pac. 372, 
 44 L. R. A. 557. 
 
 ]Vest Virginia.— McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.', 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696, 9 \m. & Eng. R. Cas. 188; Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. z\ Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293; 
 Hutchinson v. United States Exp. Co., 63
 
 735 
 
 LOSS OK INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 990-991 
 
 Providential Delay.— A carrier is not liable for damage to a shipment due 
 to pnn iilc-ntial delay in transi)ortation."'' 
 
 § 991. What Constitutes Act of God.— In General.— An act of God 
 which will excuse a carrier for loss of goods is such an unavoiflable or inevitable 
 accident''* as can not be prevented by human care, skill or foresight,*'-'^ but re- 
 
 W. Va. 12S, .V.I S. 1',. ".tt'.t, 14 L. R. A.. X. 
 S., 39;j. 
 
 Instances where act of God not prox- 
 imate cause. — In Lanjj: r. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., l.-i4 I'a. 342. 2G Atl. 370. 20 L. R. A. 
 3G0, 35 Am. vSt. Rep. 84(5, it appeared that 
 a train containing several carloads of 
 whiskey was overtaken by the Johnstown 
 flood, but was not swept away: that the 
 train was left upon the track, and the cars 
 were uninjured, but, owing to the de- 
 struction of the track ahead, it could not 
 resume its journey; that while the train 
 was waiting for the track to be repaired, 
 thieves, in open daylight and in presence 
 of the trainmen, who made no resistance, 
 broke open the cars and seized some of 
 the whiskey; that a volunteer guard of 
 citizens interfered and protected the train 
 iluring the niglit and part of the follow- 
 ing clay and then destroyed the re- 
 mainder of the whiskey to prevent it from 
 falling into the hands of the dangerous 
 element in the community; that the 
 trainmen made no efforts to protect the 
 train, but as soon as tfie thieves began 
 to break open the car with axes, they 
 turned their backs and left the neighbor- 
 hood. It was held, that the flood was not 
 the cause of the loss, but merely created 
 the opportunity for plunder. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 loss of goods, it appeared that a severe 
 storm produced an unusually low tide, 
 and thereby caused the carrier's barge to 
 strike against a timber, projecting from 
 the wharf so low in ordinary tides as to 
 be no cause of injury. Held, that the 
 storm would not release the carrier from 
 liability for the loss, on the ground that 
 it was caused by an act of God, since the 
 proximate cause of the loss was the pro- ' 
 jecting timber. New Brunswick, etc., Co. 
 f. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 61)7, 64 Am. Dec. 
 394. 
 
 63. Providential delay.— M. P. R. Co. i: 
 Barnes l^- Ci>., :.' Texas .\pp. Civ. Cas., § 
 575. 
 
 64. What constitutes act of God. — • 
 United States.— The Majestic, IIG U. S. 
 375, 41 L. Hd. 103i), 17 S. Ct. 597. 
 
 Delaware. — Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 6 Pen. 15, 64 Atl. 252. 
 
 Georgia. — Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 
 46 Am. Dec. 393. 
 
 Indiana. — Walpole v. Bridges, 5 Blackf. 
 222. 
 
 Louisiana. — Brosseau & Co. v. The Hud- 
 son, 11 La. Ann. 427. 
 
 Tennessee. — Lewis & Co. v. Ludwick, 
 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 
 454. 
 
 By the phrase, "act of God," is meant 
 
 all unavoidable or inevitable accidents. 
 Walpole V. Bridges (Ind.), 5 Blackf. 222. 
 
 The words "inevitable accident." are 
 synonymous with the phrase "the act of 
 God." Xeal v. Saunderson (Miss.), 2 
 Smedes & M. 572, 41 Am. Dec. 009. See 
 Blythe v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 15 Colo. 
 333, 25 Pac. 702, 22 .\m. St. Rep. 403, 11 
 L. K. A. 615. 
 
 The phrase "unavoidable accidents," is 
 equivalent to "inevitable accidents." Fow- 
 ler V. Davenport, 21 Tex. 626; Fish v. 
 Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393. 
 
 65. Not preventable by human care. — 
 United States. — Tompkins v. Dutchess, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 14,087a. 
 
 Alabama. — Sprowl v. Kellar (.A.la.), 4 
 Stew. & P. 382. 
 
 Colorado. — Blythe v. Denver, etc., R. 
 Co., 15 Colo. 333, 25 Pac. 702, 22 Am. St. 
 Rep. 403, 11 L. R. .\. 615. 
 
 Dehncare. — Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 6 Pen. 15, 64 Atl. 252. 
 
 ////«oi.f.— Wald V. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 Co., 162 111. 545. 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. R. A. 
 356, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332. 
 
 Louisiana. — Brousseau & Co. v. The 
 Hudson, 11 La. Ann. 427. 
 
 IVest rirginia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.! 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Klauber v. American Exp. 
 Co., 21 Wis. 21. 91 Am. Dec. 452. 
 
 The foundation of the rule that the act 
 of God excuses the failure to discharge 
 a duty is the maxim. "Lex neminem co- 
 git impossibilia." If by the use of rea- 
 sonable care, prudence, and diligence un- 
 der the circumstances of a particular case 
 it is possible to discharge the duty, then 
 those circumstances do not constitute 
 a valid excuse for a failure to perform it. 
 Nothing less than a fortuitous gathering 
 of circumstances preventing the perform- 
 ance of a duty as could not have been 
 foreseen or overcome by the exercise of 
 reasonable prudence, care, and diligence 
 constitutes an act of God which will ex- 
 cuse the discharge of the duty. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Boyce, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 195. 
 196, 87 S. W. 395, afiirnied in 101 Tex. 
 639, no op. 
 
 Illustrations. — A carrier is liable for 
 damage to carpets caused by the bursting 
 of casks of chloride of lime, caused by an 
 excess of unslacked lime in the composi- 
 tion, though both lime and carpets were 
 well stored, and the bursting of the casks 
 was unusual. Brousseau & Co. z'. The 
 Hudson, 11 La. Ann. 427. 
 
 Though ships in dock were generally 
 mooredwith the stern to the stream, de- 
 fendant's ship was moored with the bow
 
 § 991 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 736 
 
 suits from a direct and violent act of nature/"^ such as lightning, storms, inunda- 
 tions, earthquakes,*^' perils of the sea,"'^ or floods, etc.,*^" and is exclusive of human 
 agency."'^^' The terms "vis major" and "casus fortuitus" are used in the civil 
 la\v in the same sense as "act of God" in the common law;'^ but the rule of 
 
 to the river, that she might better meet 
 an expected hurricane. On the fall of the 
 tide, the ship groimded; and, owing to a 
 declivit.v in the dock, water in the ship 
 ran to the bows, injuring plaintiff's goods, 
 which were stored there. Held, that the 
 damage was not occasioned by the act 
 of God, as the bottom of the dock was 
 known, and it must have been foreseen 
 that the water must be thrown to one 
 end of a vessel setting on a declining bot- 
 tom. Ewart V. Street (S. C), 2 Bailey 
 157. 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 The fact that a moored vessel sprung 
 a leak after it was grounded on the fall- 
 ing of the tide, thereby damaging a ship- 
 per's goods, does not show that the dam- 
 age was an act of God, and unavoidable 
 by human agency. Ewart f. Street (S. 
 C). 2 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 66. Act of nature. — United States. — 
 Tompkins :-. Dutchess. Fed. Cas. No. 
 14,087a. 
 
 Delazi'arc. — Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del). 6 Pen. l-".. 64 Atl. 2.-.2. 
 
 Illinois. — Wald v. Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co., 
 162 111. 545. 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. R. -A.. 35fi, 
 53 Am. St. Rep. 332. 
 
 Louisiana.- — Brotisseati & Co. v. The 
 Hudson, 11 La. Ann. 427. 
 
 Texas. — Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 Virginia. — Friend v. Woods, 47 \'a. (6 
 Gratt.) 189, 52 Am. Dec. 119. 
 
 West Virginia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361. 41 Am. Rep. 
 696. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. _ 
 
 IVisconsin. — Klauber v. American Exp. 
 Co., 21 Wis. 21. 91 Am. Dec. 4.")2. 
 
 Obstruction in river from mixed causes. 
 —In Mcrritt r. Earle (X. Y.), 31 Barb. 3S, 
 affirmed in 29 X. Y. 115, 86 Am. Dec. 292, 
 it is held, that loss of a vessel occasioned 
 by an obstruction in a river, produced ])y 
 mixed causes, and which is not the re- 
 sult of the operation of natural forces 
 upon natural objects alone, or the shores 
 or the bottom, is not, in a logical or le- 
 gal sense, the act of God. 
 
 67. Alabama. — Jones v. Pitcher (.\la.), 
 3 Stew. & P. 135, 24 Am. Dec. 716. 
 
 Delaware. — Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), 6 Pen. 15. 64 Atl. 2.->2. 
 
 Georgia. — Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 
 46 Arn. Dec. 393. 
 
 Louisiana. — Brousseau & Co. v. The 
 Hudson, 11 La. Ann. 427. 
 
 Texas. — Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639; International, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 Am. 
 Rep. 744. 
 
 West Virginia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 Jl'iscousin. — Klauber v. American Exp. 
 Co., 21 Wis. 21. 91 Am. Dec. 4:)2. 
 
 68. Perils of the sea. — United States. — 
 Reed r. United States (U. S.). 11 Wall. 
 591, 20 L. Ed. 220. 
 
 Georgia. — Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 
 46 Am. Dec. 393. 
 
 Texas. — Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115. 47 Am. Dec. 039. 
 
 West Jlrginia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 69. Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., R. 
 Co. (Del.), 6 Pen. 15, 64 Atl. 252. See 
 post "Floods," this section. 
 
 70. Exclusive of human agency. — 
 United States. — Dibble v. Morgan, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 3,881, 1 Woods 406; The Ma- 
 jestic, 166 U. S. 375, 41 L. Ed. 1039, 17 
 S. Ct. 597, citing 2 Kent. Com. 592. 
 
 Alabama. — Jones z'. Pitcher & Co. 
 (Ala.), 3 Stew. & P. 135, 24 Am. Dec. 716. 
 
 Georgia. — Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- 
 field. 1 Ga. App. 203. 58 S. E. 236. 
 
 Maryland. — Fergusson v. Brent, 12 
 Md. 9," 71 Am. Dec. 582. 
 
 Nczo ./'LT.yt'v.-rNew Brunswick, etc., 
 Co. z: Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 
 394. 
 
 Nezv For/c— Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 
 115, 86 Am. Dec. 292, affirming 31 
 Barb. 38. 
 
 r(?.ra.y.— Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 The term "act of God" means some- 
 thing superhuman, or something in op- 
 position to the act of man. Merchants' 
 Despatch Co. z: Smith, 76 111. 542. 
 
 Contra. — In Hays z'. Kennedy, 41 Pa. 
 378. 80 Am. Dec. 627, it is said: "It is 
 impossible to exclude the intervention of 
 man from those accidents which are 
 called acts of God." 
 
 And in Price v. Hartshorn, 44 N. Y. 
 94, 4 Am. Rep. 645, affirming 44 Barb. 
 655, it is held, that where a jettison be- 
 comes necessary, for the preservation of 
 the remainder of a cargo, by reason of 
 a violent storm, the loss is by act of God, 
 although occasioned through the imme- 
 diate agency of men. 
 
 71. Civil law terms. — Brousseau & Co. 
 V. The Hudson, 11 La. Ann. 427. 
 
 Loss not due to vis major or casus 
 fortuitus. — In an action against a carrier 
 for the loss of goods, it appeared that 
 the goods were destroyed by tlic Inirst- 
 ing of casks of chloride of lime in the 
 hold of the vessel, attributed to an excess 
 of unslacked lime in the composition of 
 the chloride. Held, that the carrier was 
 liable, the cause of the loss not being 
 vis major casus fortuitus. Brousseau & 
 Co. V. The Hudson, 11 La. Ann. 427.
 
 7Z7 
 
 LOSS OR IXJUKV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 991 
 
 liability is not the same as under the common law."- It is held that the carrier 
 is liable for loss of or injury to goods caused by the collision"^ or stranding of 
 its vessel,'"* or Ijy the vessel striking the mast of a sunken ship."^ And it is held 
 that the striking of a vessel on a rock is not an act of God, though the officers 
 were misled by a buoy.''* lUit it is also held that the striking of a vessel on a 
 rock not generally known, and not actually known to the master of the vessel, 
 is the act of (iod.'' There is a conflict as to whether the carrier is liable where 
 its boat runs on an unknown snag in the channel of the river."** The carrying of 
 a boat against a bank by a current in the stream has been held not due to an act 
 of God."" In an early case it was held that where a vessel ran aground and 
 sank in consequence of the sudden cessation of the wind, the accident was due 
 to an act of God.^" The ujxsctting of a carrier's wagon on a decayed bridge across 
 a stream is not an unavoidable accident.**' 
 
 Earthquake. — Where the injury to property transported by a carrier is 
 caused cniircl}- by an eartli(|uakc. the carrier is not liable in the absence of negli- 
 gence on its part.'**- 
 
 Floods. — A carrier is not liable for loss of or injury to freight which is 
 caused by an unprecedented flood which could not have been anticipated or 
 guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care.'"'' 
 
 72. Hunt V. Morris (La.), fi Mart., O. 
 S., fiTfj, 12 Am. Dec. 489, holding tliat in 
 absence of negligence carrier not liable 
 for loss of goods on steamer destroyed 
 by fire while aground. 
 
 73. Collision of vessel. — Mershon v. 
 Hobensack, 2-1 X. J. L. ;{72. 
 
 \\ here defendant's boat, carrying 
 plaintiff's goods, collided with another 
 boat and sunk, without fault on the part 
 of her master or crew, defendant was 
 not relieved from liability for the loss of 
 plaintiff's goods on the ground that the 
 accident was chic to the act of God. Hays 
 1'. Keniu'dy. H Ta. :!7S, 80 .\m. Dec. 627. 
 
 74. Stranding of vessel. — The strand- 
 ing of a vessel, and resulting loss of 
 cargo, during a storm, by the reason of 
 the fact that a light of another, pre- 
 viously stranded vessel was mistaken for 
 a range light, which mariners used in 
 steering into the harbor — the range light 
 being invisible, and the false light being 
 nearly in its position — was not an acci- 
 dent due to the act of God, because it 
 had occurred in part through the inter- 
 vention of human agency. Alc.Vrthur v. 
 Sears (X. Y.). 21 Wend. 190. 
 
 Bar in river. — In Friend v. Woods, 47 
 Va. (G Gratt.) 189, 52 Am. Dec. 119, a 
 carrier stranded his boat upon a l)ar 
 which had been formed in the river a 
 few days before the boat had proceeded 
 on its voyage, the bar resulting from a 
 rise of a tributary river. The officers 
 and crew of the lioat were ignorant of 
 the bar, when the lioat stranded upon it. 
 The carrier was licld liable. 
 
 75. Steamboat colliding with mast of 
 submerged sloop — Possibility of seeing 
 mast. — In Merritt r. Earle, 29 X. Y. 115, 
 SC) Am. Dec. 292, an action against the 
 owner of a steamboat for the value of 
 property lost while being transported, it 
 appeared that the immediate cause of tlie 
 
 1 Car— 47 
 
 accident and loss was the contact of the 
 steaml)oat with the mast of a sloop 
 wiiicli had been sunk in a squall, two 
 days before; and that the mast was out 
 of water fifteen or sixteen feet at low 
 water, and was visible the day before 
 and the same day of the accident. It 
 was lield, that the loss was not caused 
 by an inevitalile accident, or act of God. 
 
 76. Vessel striking rock. — Fergusson v. 
 Brent. 12 Md. 9, 71 .\m. Dec. 582, wherein 
 it appeared that tiie vessel was overtaken 
 by a heavy fog, which induced the cap- 
 tain to make for a harbor, where there 
 were many vessels safely moored at the 
 time. When approaching the harbor, 
 and while he was at the helm, the look- 
 out notified him of a buoy, whereupon 
 he bore away, and the vessel struck on 
 a rock about thirty yards from the buoy, 
 damaging plaintiff's goods. 
 
 77. Williams v. Grant, 1 Conn. 4S7, 7 
 Am. Dec. 2.3."). 
 
 78. Unknown snag. — In Steele v. Mc- 
 Tyer, 31 Ala. ()67, 70 Am. Dec. 516, and 
 Turney v. Wilson, 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 
 340, 27 \w\. Dec. 515. the carrier was 
 held liable. But in Smyrl v. Niolon (S. 
 C), 2 Bailey 421. 23 Am. Dec. 146. the 
 contrary was Iiold. 
 
 79. Current carrying boat against bank. 
 —Craig V. Childress, 7 Tenn. (Feck) 270, 
 14 Am. Dec. 751. 
 
 80. Sudden cessation of wind. — Colt v. 
 -McMichcn (X. Y.), 6 Johns. ItU), 5 Am. 
 Dec. 200. 
 
 81. Fish V. Chapman, 2 Ga. 349. 46 .\m. 
 Dec. 393. 
 
 82. Earthquake.— Slater v. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co., 29 S. C. 9ti. 6 S. H. 936. 
 
 83. Unprecedented fl o o d. — United 
 States. — Memphis, etc., R. Co. r. Reeves 
 (U. S.), 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. Ed. 909; 
 Strouss z: Wabash, etc.. R. Co.,* 17 Fed.
 
 § 991 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 738 
 
 Lightning-. — Lightning is an act of God relieving a carrier from liability for 
 loss of or damage to goods. '^'^ 
 
 A snowstorm of such violence as to prevent the moving of trains is an act of 
 God.'^^ 
 
 An unprecedented storm is held to constitute an act of God relieving a car- 
 rier from liabilitv fur injury to freight.^''*' But the carrier is liable where it re- 
 
 209; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. x'. United 
 States. 47 Ct. CI. 266. 
 
 Alabama.—Smhh v. Western Railway, 
 91 Ala. 455, 8 So. 754, 24 \m. St. Rep. 
 929. 11 L. R. A. 619. 
 
 Georgia.— Wallace v. Clayton, 42 Ga. 
 443. 
 
 ///i"Hoi.y.— Wald v. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 Co., 162 111. 545, 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. R. A. 
 356, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332. 
 
 Louisiana. — Dalzell v. Saxon, 10 La. 
 Ann. 280. 
 
 Missouri. — Vail v. Pacific Railroad, 63 
 Mo. 230. 
 
 Ohio. — See American Exp. Co. v. 
 Smith, 33 O. St. 511, :51 Am. Rep. 561. 
 
 Pennsxlvania. — Morrison v. Davis & 
 Co., 20 "Pa. 171, 57 Am. Dec. 695; Long 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 147 Pa. 343, 23 
 Atl. 459, 14 L. R. A. 741, 30 Am. St. Rep. 
 732. 
 
 Texas. — Fentiman v. Atchinson, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455, 98 S. W. 939. 
 A flood may be an act of God, although 
 as great a flood occurred at the same 
 place many years before. Fentiman v. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 455, 98 S. W. 939. 
 
 The Johnstown flood, caused by the 
 breaking of a dam which retained a 
 large volume of water at a high eleva- 
 tion, due to extraordinary and unprece- 
 dented rains, and thereby letting into a 
 narrow valley a volume of water twenty 
 feet to thirty feet in height, was an act 
 of God. Wald v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 
 44 N. E. 888, 162 111. 545, 35 L. R. A. 356, 
 53 Am. St. Rep. 332; Long v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 147 Pa. 343, 23 Atl. 459, 14 
 L. R. A. 741, 30 Am. St. Rep. 732. 
 
 Illustrations. — A sudden and unex- 
 pected rise in the river to a height never 
 known before, by which goods in a rail- 
 road depot were injured, is an act of 
 God, for which the carrier is not liable. 
 Read v. Spaulding, 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 395, affirmed in 30 N. Y. 630, 86 Am. 
 Dec. 426. 
 
 A carrier by canal is excused, on the 
 ground of inevitable accident, for a loss 
 of goods caused by a dam in the canal 
 giving way in consequence of an extra- 
 ordinary flood, if no want of diligence or 
 skill is attributable to the carrier. And, 
 although horses are, in general, part of 
 the equipment of a canal boat, for the 
 sufficiency of which the carrier is re- 
 sponsible, yet the mere fact that the boat 
 was delayed on her way by lameness of 
 a horse, in consequence of which she 
 happened to be at the place of the flood 
 when it occurred, will not render the 
 
 carrier liable. Morrison v. ^IcFadden 
 (Pa.), 5 Clark 23, 3 Am. L. J., N. S., 462; 
 Morrison v. Davis & Co., 20 Pa. 171, 57 
 Am. Dec. 695. 
 
 Defendant at New Orleans received, to 
 be delivered at Louisville, molasses 
 which he agreed to reship thence to 
 Pittsburg. In accordance with a usage 
 shown, the molasses was landed at Port- 
 land two mudes below, but within the 
 corporation of Louisville, and its reship- 
 ment at once engaged. The boat, how- 
 ever, on which the reshipment was to 
 have been made, did not comply with 
 its engagement; and shortly after the 
 river rose so rapidly that, with every 
 exertion the molasses was in part dam- 
 aged, and in part lost. Held, that de- 
 fendant was not liable. Dalzell v. Saxon, 
 10 La. Ann. 280. 
 
 84. Lightning. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 340, 13 S. W. 191. 
 
 85. Snow storm. — Ballentine v. North 
 Missouri R. Co., 40 Mo. 491, 93 Am. Dec. 
 315; Black v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 
 Neb. 197, 46 N. W. 428. 
 
 A snowstorm in Missouri in the win- 
 ter season is not an "act of God," in the 
 sense in which that term is used. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Smissen, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 
 549, 73 S. W. 42, affirmed in 97 Tex. 649, 
 no op. 
 
 86. Unprecedented storm. — Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. r. McKenzie, 5 Ala. App. 605, 
 59 So. 345; International, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Bergman (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 
 999; Herring v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 
 101 Va. 778, 9 R. R. R. 262, 32 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 262, 45 S. E. 322. 
 
 Tornado. — A carrier is not liable for 
 the results of a tornado, with no con- 
 curring negligence on its part. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Compton (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 38 S. W. 220; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Crier, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 434, 100 S. W. 
 1177, affirmed in 102 Tex. 583, no op. 
 
 Whirlwind. — Carrier is not liable for 
 injury to goods received by it for ship- 
 ment and blown from its platform by 
 an unprecedented whirlwind, where car- 
 rier was not concurrently negligent. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Compton (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 38 S. W. 220. 
 
 A tempest is an act of God. See Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Levi, 76 Tex. 337, 13 S. 
 W. 191. 
 
 Cars blown from track by storm — Fire 
 from stove or lamp. — In Blythe v. Den- 
 ver, etc., R. Co., 15 Colo. 333, 25 Pac. 
 702, 11 L. R. A. 615, 22 Am. St. Rep. 403, 
 it appeared that the express car con- 
 taining the package whose value was
 
 739 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 991 
 
 ceives j^oods during a severe storm which causes their loss.**" 
 
 Fire. — A loss occasioned by accidental fire, not arising from negligence or 
 carelessness, is not within the exception of a loss caused by act of God,**" unless 
 
 sued for, with three others, were blown 
 from the track by a violent gale of wind, 
 into such a position that all the freight 
 must have been thrown into one corner, 
 at the top of the car; that the car was 
 immediately set on fire by the stove or 
 lamp therein, and so quickly consumed 
 that the messenger escaped with dilTi- 
 culty; that the wind was so violent as to 
 make it almost impossilile to stand or 
 walk at the time; and that the package 
 could not have been rescued by the ex- 
 ercise of proper exertion. It was held, 
 that the finding of the jury that the act 
 of God was the proximate cause of the 
 loss, and that there was no negligence, 
 was full}' warranted by the evidence. 
 
 Delay of perishable goods. — Where a 
 railroad com])any. in transporting a car 
 load of melons and green corn, is de- 
 laj'cd by a violent and protracted storm, 
 in consequence of which, when the goods 
 arrived at their destination, they were 
 in a decaying and damaged condition, it 
 is not liable therefor, in the absence of 
 negligence on its part. M. P. R. Co. v. 
 Barnes & Co., 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 575. 
 
 87. New Brunswick, etc., Co. v. Tiers. 
 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 394. 
 
 88. Accidental fire. — United States. — 
 Arthur t'. Texas, etc., R. Co., 204 U. S. 
 505, 51 L. Ed. 590, 27 S. Ct. 338; Bank v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 
 872; Railroad Co. v. Androscoggin Mills 
 (U. S.), 22 Wall. 594. 22 L. Ed. 724; Con- 
 stable t'. National Steamship Co., 154 U. 
 S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062; York 
 Co. V. Central R. Co. (U. S.), 3 Wall. 107, 
 18 L. Ed. 170; New Jersey, etc.. Nav. 
 Co. V. Merchants' Bank (U. S.), 6 Ylovi. 
 344. 12 L. Ed. 465. 
 
 Georgia. — See Richmond, etc., R. Co. 
 V. White. 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802; At- 
 lanta, etc.. R. Co. 7'. Jacobs' Pharmacy 
 Co., 135 Ga. 113. 68 S. E. 1039. 
 
 Illiuois. — Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 111. 407. 71 Am. Dec. 286. 
 
 Maine. — Parker v. Flagg, 26 Me. 181, 
 45 Am. Dec. 101. 
 
 Mississippi. — Gilmore v. Carman 
 (Miss.), 1 Sniedes & M. 279. 40 Am. Dec. 
 96. Compare Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Mill- 
 saps, 76 Miss. 855, 25 So. 672, 71 Am. St. 
 Rep. 543, holding that a carrier is not 
 liable for property destroyed by fire not 
 originating on its premises and for which 
 it is not responsible. 
 
 New York. — Miller v. Steam Nav. Co., 
 10 N. Y. 431, Seld. Notes 64, affirming 
 13 Barb. 361; Gould v. Hill (N. Y.), 2 
 Hill 623. 
 
 Ohio. — Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 
 131; Graham & Co. r. Davis & Co., 4 
 O. St. 362, 375; Minnesota Min. Co. i'. 
 
 Chapman. 2 West. E. M. 75, 2 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 207. 
 
 .S'outli Carolina. — Patton i: Magrath 
 (S. C), Dud. 159, 31 .^m. Dec. 552; Sin- 
 gleton V. Hilliard (S. C). 1 Strob. 203. 
 
 Te.ras. — Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115, 47 .'\ni. Dec. 639; Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Bath, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 697, 44 S. 
 W. 595, affirmed in 93 Tex. 731, no op. 
 
 Conlra. — In General Eire Extinguisher 
 Co. r. Carolina, etc., Co.. 137 N. C. 278, 
 19 R. R. R. 336. 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S.. 336. 49 S. E. 208, it is held, that 
 tiiough the carrier was negligent in fail- 
 ing to forward goods shipped, it was not 
 liable for the loss of the goods by fire, 
 where it was not negligent with respect 
 to the fire, in absence of evidence that 
 its negligence in failing to forward was 
 the proximate cause of the loss. .\nd 
 see Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Millsaps. 76 
 Miss. 855, 25 So. 672, 71 Am. St. Rep. 
 543. 
 
 In Louisiana it is held that while com- 
 mon carriers are not insurers against loss 
 or damage by fire, they are liable under 
 Rev. Civ. Code 1870, art. 2754, unless 
 they can prove that loss or damage was 
 occasioned by accidental or uncontrolla- 
 ble events. Lehman, etc., Co. z: Mor- 
 gan's Louisiana, etc., Co., 38 So. 873. 115 
 La. 1, 70 L. R. A. 562, 112 Am. St. Rep. 
 259. 
 
 Where a steamboat was destroyed by 
 fire at night, while returning from a trip 
 to procure wood, and while it was 
 aground, defendant was not liable for 
 loss of goods in the absence of proof of 
 negligence. Hunt z: Morris (La.), G 
 Mart., O. S., 676, 12 Am. Dec. 489. 
 
 "The most resistless conflagration, if 
 occasioned by human agency withoift 
 any negligence whatever on the part of 
 the carrier, will furnish no valid ground 
 of exemption. Chevallier Z'. Straham, 2 
 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639." Gulf. etc.. 
 R. Co. z'. Levi, 76 Tex. 337. 340, 13 S. W. 
 191. 
 
 Fire can not be considered, in itself, 
 an unavoidable danger, and in case of 
 loss from that cause the defendant is 
 l)ound to show the origin or cause of 
 tlie fire, to bring himself within the 
 exception; otherwise, the presumption 
 is it might have been avoided by proper 
 care. L'nion Mut. Ins. Co. z'. Indianap- 
 olis, etc.. R. Co., 1 Disn. 480, 12 O. Dec. 
 745. 
 
 Chicago fire. — Loss Iiy fire, as in the 
 great C!hicago fire of 1871, will not relieve 
 a carrier from his undertaking. Mer- 
 chants' Despatch Co. z: Smith, 76 111. 542. 
 
 But in Michigan Cent. R. Co. z: Bur- 
 rows, 33 Mich. 6. it was held that car- 
 riers are not bound to be prepared for
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 740 
 
 § 991 
 
 the fire was caused by lishtning.'^-^ or the spontaneous combustion of the goods 
 
 carried.'"' . . . ^ , ,^ 
 
 Chang-es in Temperature.— A carrier is not an insurer against damage to 
 
 freight from changes in temperature, unless the circumstances imposed on the 
 
 carrier that obhgation.''^ , ., . •, ., 
 
 Freezing Weather.— \\here goods are frozen while m transit, the carrier 
 can not except under very exceptional circumstances, escape liability on the 
 ground 'that the damage was caused by an act of God.'-'-' But it is held that 
 
 unusual or extraordinary contingencies, 
 such as the great Chicago fire, which no 
 ordinary prudence or foresight could rea- 
 sonably foresee or anticipate. 
 
 Fire diverted by wind. — Defendants, 
 who. as carriers, were hauling cotton, 
 placed it at night within fifteen feet of 
 a camp fire. The fire was renewed at 
 midnight, at which time no wind was 
 blowing; but in the morning the cotton 
 was found to be on fire, the wind having 
 arisen and blown the fire into the cot- 
 ton. Held, that the accident was not 
 due to the act of God. Chevallier z\ 
 Straham. 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 Same— Distant fire.— In Miller z\ Steam 
 Nav. Co.. 10 X. Y. 431, Seld. Notes 64. 
 affirming 13 Barb. 361, it is held, that an 
 accident^al fire, not caused by lightning, is 
 not the act of God, although the proxi- 
 mate cause of the burning of the goods 
 was a sudden gust of wind diverting the 
 course of a distant fire so as to drive the 
 flames in the direction of and upon them. 
 Dry weather and violent wind. — On the 
 day that a carrier received property for 
 transportation a fire broke out a quarter 
 of a mile distant. It being very dry and 
 the wind blowing with great violence, 
 the fire spread rapidly and consumed the 
 carrier's warehouse together with a por- 
 tion of plantifif's property. Held, that 
 the loss was not the result of inevitable 
 accident or the act of providence. Par- 
 sons f. Monteath (N. Y.), 13 Barb. 353. 
 Fire from engine equipped with best 
 spark arrester. — Where a contract of 
 carriage contained no limitation of the 
 carrier's common-law liability, the fact 
 that the carrier used care to equip the 
 engine, handling the car in which the 
 goods were shipped, with the best spark 
 arrester, and that such engine was op- 
 erated by a skillful engineer, did not 
 exempt the carrier from liability for de- 
 struction of the goods by fire communi- 
 cated by a spark from the engine. Gulf, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 85 S. \V. 479. 
 
 Fire caused by explosion of boiler of 
 another steamboat. — In McCall r. Brock 
 (S. C). 5 Strol). 119, it is held, that a loss 
 by fire, which, occurring in another boat, 
 renders a common carrier liable, will 
 render him equally so if he carries in a 
 steamboat, even though the loss be 
 caused by an explosion of its boiler— 
 and this without any regard to his dili- 
 gence or negligence. 
 
 89. Fire caused by lightning. — United 
 States. — New Jersey, etc., Nav. Co. v. 
 Merchants' Bank (U. S.). 6 How. 344, 
 12 L. Ed. 465. 
 
 Ohio. — Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 
 131. 
 
 Tr.n?.?.— Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 90. Spontaneous combustion. — Massa- 
 chitsetts. — Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., 11 
 Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19. 
 
 Xezv Hampshire. — Rixford v. Smith, 52 
 N. H. 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42. 
 
 Tt\n7.y.— Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 115, 47 \m. Dec. 639. 
 
 91. Change in temperature. — White v. 
 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., Ill Minn. 167, 
 126 N. W. 533. 
 
 92. Freezing weather. — Alabama. — 
 South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 
 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578. 
 
 Arkansas. — Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 
 Ark. 424, 19 S. W. 961; St. Louis, etc.. 
 Railway v. Lesser, 46 Ark. 236. 
 
 Georgia. — Cooper v. Raleigh, etc., R. 
 Co.. 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 412, 
 110 Ga. 659, 36 S. E. 240; Georgia R. Co. 
 V. Spears, 66 Ga. 485, 42 Am. Rep. 81. 
 
 ///;;!o;.y.— Burke v. United States Exp. 
 Co., 87 111. App. 505; St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Dorman, 72 111. 504. 
 
 loiva. — McCoy v. Keokuk, etc., R. Co., 
 44 Iowa 424. 
 
 Kansas. — Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Nich- 
 ols, etc., Co., 9 Kan. 235, 12 Am. Rep. 
 494; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 
 Kan. 623. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Smith v. New Haven, 
 etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 12 Allen 531. 
 
 Minnesota. — Lindsley v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 36 Minn. 539, 33 N. W. 7, 1 Am. 
 St Rep. 692; Moulton v. St. Paul, etc., 
 R. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 16 N. W. 497, 47 
 Am. Rep. 781. 
 
 Missouri. — Lupe v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Mo. App. 77. 
 
 Xcbraska. — Atchinson, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Washlnirn, 5 Neb. 117. 
 
 Nezu Hampshire. — Rixford v. Smith, 52 
 N. H. 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42. 
 
 New York. — Clarke v. Rochester, etc., 
 R. Co., 14 N. Y. 570, 67 Am. Dec. 205; 
 Mynard z'. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 71 N. 
 Y. 180. 27 Am. Rep. 28. 
 
 OJiio. — Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 O. St. 
 722. 
 
 Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 W>nn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 S. W. 311. 
 
 Texas.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fagan,
 
 741 
 
 LOSS OR INJLKV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 991-992 
 
 where the goods are frozen, the carrier is not resi)onsible, if it has been guihy of 
 no previous nej^digence or misconduct, hy which such loss or damage may have 
 been occasioned."'* 
 
 Hot Weather. — A shipper of lard in the summer months takes the risk of 
 damage occasioned by the excessively hot weather, unless some neglect or fault 
 can be charjj^ed u])nn the carrier, contributing to the loss."-* 
 
 Insanity of Employee. — If an engineer, accompanied by the conductor, neg- 
 ligently wrecks a car and causes a loss of goods, the loss is not an act of God 
 so as to excuse the carrier though the engineer was insane at the time."'' 
 
 § 992. Negligence Concurring with Act of God. — There is a conflict 
 among the authorities as to the liability of a carrier where the loss of goods in 
 its possession is due, not solely and only to an act of God, but to an act of God 
 combined with the negligence of the carrier. Many cases hold that a carrier is 
 not exempt from liability for a loss, if it has been guilty of any previous negli- 
 gence or misconduct which brings the projjerty in contact with the destructive 
 force of the actus Dei, or unnecessarily exposes it thereto ; the act of God must 
 have been the sole cause of the loss.'-"^ Some cases hold that, although the car- 
 
 72 Tex. 127, 1) S. W. 74<), 2 L. R. A. 75, 
 13 Am. St. Rep. 77G; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Harris. ()7 Tex. Ififi. 2 S. W. .574. 
 
 Vermont. — Kimball v. Rutland, etc., R. 
 Co., 26 Vt. 247, ()2 Am. Dec. o()7. 
 
 West Virginia. — Maslin v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 14 W. Va. 180, 35 Am. Rep. 
 748. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Ayres v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 71 Wis. 372. 37 X. W. 432, 5 Am. St. 
 Rep. 22C.. 
 
 Cold weather in the latitude of Texas 
 in the month of December is not that act 
 of God which would excuse a carrier 
 from the performance of its contract. 
 The carrier must be held to have antici- 
 pated such weatlier at the time of enter- 
 ing into the contract. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Coggin, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 423, 99 
 S. W. 1052. 
 
 93. McGraw v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 
 18 \V. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 69(1. 9 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for the loss of fruit trees frozen 
 while en route. plaintifT must show tliat 
 the freezing was caused by unnecessary 
 delay in transporting the trees, or that 
 they were carelessly exposed and the 
 company is not liable if the trees are 
 frozen while remaining in the cars at the 
 terminus of the route, instead of being 
 placed in the warehouse, if the cars af- 
 forded a better shelter than the ware- 
 house. Vail V. Pacific Railroad, 63 Mo. 
 230. 
 
 Assumption of risk by shipper. — In 
 Swetland v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 102 
 Mass. 276, it is said in the opinion: "If 
 the owner of the goods, which are lia- 
 ble to be injured liy freezing, chooses to 
 send them at a season of the year when 
 they are exposed to such risks, he takes 
 the risk himself." 
 
 94. Hot weather. — Xelson z\ Woodruff. 
 Fed. Cas. Xo. 10.117, affirmed in 1 Black 
 156, 17 L. Ed. 97. 
 
 95. Insanity of employee. — Central. 
 
 etc., R. Co. i\ Hall. 52 5. E. 679. 124 Ga. 
 322, 41 L. R. A., X. S., 898. 110 Am. St. 
 Rep. 170. 
 
 96. Negligence concurring with act of 
 God — Carrier held liable. — United States. 
 — Dil)ble 1-. Morgan, I'etl. Cas. Xo. 3.881, 
 
 I Woods 406; The Zenobia. Fed. Cas. 
 Xo. 18,209. Abb. Adm. 80; Tompkins :-. 
 Dutchess, Fed. Cas. No. 14,087a. 
 
 Alabama. — McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 102 Ala. 193, 14 So. 370, 48 Am. 
 St. Rep. 29, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 178; 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Sigma Lumber 
 Co.. 170 Ala. 627, 54 So. 205, Ann. Cas. 
 1912D, 965; Alabama, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Quarles, 145 Ala. 436. 40 So. 120. 117 
 Am. St. Rep. 54, 5 L. R. A., N. S., 867, 
 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S., 69; Ala- 
 bama, etc., R. Co. V. Elliott & Son, 150 
 Ala. 381, 43 So. 738, 124 Am. St. Rep. 72. 
 9 L. R. A., N. S., 1264; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Gidley. 119 Ala. 523, 24 So. 753. 
 
 Georgia. — Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Benson & Co.. 86 Ga. 203. 12 S. E. 357, 
 22 Am. St. Rep. 446; Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co. V. White & Co., 88 Ga. 805. 15 S. E. 
 802; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Commercial 
 Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590, 30 S. E. 555; 
 Brunswick, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 97 Ga. 
 777, 25 S. E. 759; Forrester f. Georgia 
 R., etc., Co., 92 Ga. 699, 19 S. E. 811; 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs' Pharmacy 
 Co., 135 Ga. 113. 68 S. E. 1039. 
 
 Illinois. — Edison v. Pennsylvania Co., 
 70 111. App. 654; Michigan Cent. R. Co. r. 
 Curtis, 80 111. 324; Wald r. Pittsburg, etc.. 
 R. Co.. 162 111. 545, 44 N. E. 888. 35 L. 
 R. .A. 356, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332. Compare 
 Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. Chicago. 242 
 111. 178, 89 X. E. 1023. 44 L. R. A., N. S., 
 358; Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. z: Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co.. 130 Iowa 123, 106 X. W. 498, 
 5 L. R. A.. X. S., 882. 
 
 Kentucky. — Southern R. Co. r. Smith, 
 31 Ky. L." Rep. 243. 102 S. W. 232. 
 
 Louisiana. — See Watts & Co. f. Saxon, 
 
 II La. Ann. 43. 
 
 .Ujrv/a«(/.— Bovle z: McLaughlin (Md.),
 
 § 992 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 742 
 
 rier may have contributed in a remote way, by its own negligence or laches, to 
 the loss of the goods, if the proximate cause of the loss is the act of God, it 
 
 4 Har. & J. 291; Fergusson z'. Brent, 12 
 Md. 9, 71 Am. Dec. 582. 
 
 Minnesota. — Jones v. Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co., 91 Minn. 229, 11 R. R. R. 6G1, 34 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 661, 97 N. 
 W. 893, 103 Am. St. Rep. 507: Bibb 
 Broom Corn Co. v. Atchinson, etc., R. Co., 
 94 Minn. 269, 102 N. W. 709, 14 R. R. R. 
 407, 34 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 407, 
 110 Am. St. Rep. 361, 69 L. R. A. 509. 
 
 Missouri. — Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 89 Mo. 340, 1 S. W. 327; Pruitt v. 
 Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 62 Mo. 527; Read 
 z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199; 
 Wolf z: American Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 421, 
 97 Am. Dec. 406; Gratiot St. Warehouse 
 Co. T'. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 102 S. W. 
 11, 124 Mo. .\pp. 545. 
 
 Xebraska. — Wabash R. Co. v. Sharpe, 
 76 Neb. 424, 107 N. W. 758, 124 Am. St. 
 Rep. 823; see Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Manning, 23 Neb. 552. 37 N. W. 462. 
 
 A'ezc Jersev. — New Brunswick, etc., Co. 
 V. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 394. 
 
 Nezi' York. — Condict v. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500; Michaels v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. 
 Dec. 415; Read z: Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 
 630, 86 Am. Dec. 426, affirming 18 N. Y. 
 Super. Ct. 395; Dunson v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.), 3 Lans. 265; Mer- 
 ritt z: Earle, 29 N. Y. 115, 86 Am. Dec. 
 292, affirming 31 Barb. 38. 
 
 Pennsxlvania. — Liverey v. Philadelphia, 
 64 Pa. 106, 3 Am. Rep. 578. 
 
 South Carolina. — Sonneborn & Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 65 S. C. 502, 44 S. E. 
 77; Ferguson v. Southern Railway, 91 S. 
 C. 61, 74 S. E. 129. 
 
 Texas. — Chavallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 
 W5, 47 Am. Dec. 639; M. P. R. Co. z: 
 Barnes & Co., 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 575; Pinkerton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
 117 Mo. App. 288, 93 S. W. 849. See 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Texas Star Flour 
 Mills (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 1179. 
 
 Where loss or damage is caused by 
 the act of God, a carrier is not liable for 
 such loss or damage, though it may have 
 been negligent, unless it can be made to 
 appear that there was some causal con- 
 nection recognized by the law between 
 such negligence and the loss or damage 
 incurred. Fentiman v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455, 98 S. W. 939, 
 and authorities cited. Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. i: Crier, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 434, 
 100 S. W. 1177, affirmed in 102 Tex. 583, 
 no op. 
 
 IVest Virginia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co.. 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696, 9 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where a railroad com- 
 pany, connecting with a boat, unloaded 
 freight intended for the boat on the river 
 bank below high-water mark, wlien it 
 
 was raining and the river was rising, the 
 boat not then being at the wharf and . 
 there being no necessity for unloading at 
 that time, the company can not escape 
 liability for damage to the goods caused 
 by their being submerged, on the ground 
 that the damage was caused by an act of 
 God. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Commer- 
 cial Guano Co., 30 S. E. 555, 103 Ga. 590. 
 
 Where the common carrier received 
 goods at Worcester, Mass., to transport 
 to the consignee at Mattoon, 111., and 
 carried them by way of Chicago, instead 
 of the most usual and direct route, by 
 way of Indianapolis, and while stored in 
 Chicago, awaiting a reshipment, they 
 were destroyed by the great fire of 1871, 
 held, that the carrier was not excused 
 from liability on the ground of inevitable 
 accident, as there was no compulsion to 
 take the goods through Chicago. Mer- 
 chants' Despatch Transp. Co. •;:'. Kahn, 
 76 111. 520. 
 
 Defendant, who engaged to carry 
 freight to a certain port, and there re- 
 ship to another port, deposited the 
 freight at a port three miles from the 
 agreed destination, and departed, leaving 
 it on the bank, where it reinained for 
 several days, when it was partly de- 
 stroyed by flood. Held, that defendant 
 was liable, though his agent, on discov- 
 ering the danger, used extraordinary dil- 
 igence in removing the freight to a place 
 of safety. Watts & Co. v. Saxon, 11 La. 
 Ann. 43. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier 
 for damages caused by the freezing of 
 certain casks of wine, where it appeared 
 that the cold weather was not the sole 
 cause of injury, and that the loss would 
 not have taken place had not the negli- 
 gence and inattention of the defendant 
 co-operated with the cold, plaintiff is en- 
 titled to recover. Wolf v. American 
 Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 421, 97 Am. Dec. 406. 
 
 A railroad company cannot excuse 
 themselves, as for inevitable accident, by 
 sliowing that the cars were thrown off 
 the track by accidentally running over 
 a man, if it also appear that the man 
 was a drover attending to cattle on the 
 train, and fell off because no proper 
 place was provided for such attendants, 
 and he was compelled to stand on the 
 bumpers; and this, though the man fell 
 off by his own carelessness — the com- 
 pany having no right to put him in such 
 a position. Goldey Z'. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., .'iO Pa. 242, 72 Am. Dec. 703. 
 
 Where a carrier attempted to cross a 
 fording place in a creek, between sun- 
 set and dark, while a shower was ap- 
 proaching, without examining the state 
 of the ford, and the wheels of his wagon 
 stuck fast, and the water rose with ex-
 
 743 
 
 LOSS OK IXJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 992 
 
 will be excused.''" The conflict is exemplified in the case where a carrier has 
 negligently delayed a shipment, thereby exposing it to loss by an act of God. 
 One line of cases holds that the carrier is liable.'*** while others sustain the op- 
 
 traordin.iry sudik-iiness, so as to injure 
 the K"o<ls in tlie wagon, he was held 
 liable for the (himaerc thus caused. Canii)- 
 l)ell ?■. Morse ( S. C.i, Tlarp. 4r,s. 
 
 If a carrier has departed from the line 
 of duty, and has violated his C(jntract, 
 and while thus in fault, and in conse- 
 quence of that fault, the goods are in- 
 jured liy an act of Ood, which would not 
 otherwise have produced the injury, then 
 the carrier is not protected. Michaels v. 
 New York Cent. R. ^c, 30 N. Y. 564. 86 
 Am. Dec. 415; Read v. Spaulding. 30 N. 
 Y. 630, 86 .Am. Dec. 426, affirming 18 N. 
 Y. vSuper. Ct. :!<»-,. 
 
 Where a carrier negligently leaves 
 goods exposed on a wharf, he is liable 
 f(ir tiu'ir loss even though occasioned by 
 immediate act of God. Morgan f. Dib- 
 ble. 29 Tex. 107, 94 Am. Dec. 264. 
 
 Must prove foundered vessel sea- 
 worthy. — If a vessel fiumders. the own- 
 ers, as common carriers, must prove that ' 
 she W'as seaworthy, before they can 
 bring themselves within the excuse of 
 its being the act of God. Bell v. Reed 
 (Pa.\ 4 Bin. 127. 5 Am. Dec. 398. 
 
 Wrongful refusal to deliver on de- 
 mand. — A railroad company transported 
 goods to destination and notified the 
 owner to take them away. In response, 
 the owner promptly called at the freight 
 depot, tendered the charges due and de- 
 manded delivery of the goods, wliich 
 demand the railroad company refused. 
 The next day an unprecedented flood oc- 
 curred which damaged the goods. Held, 
 that the company having refused the 
 owner's demand and wrongfully detained 
 the goods, held them at its own risk, and 
 was responsible for the damage caused by 
 the flood. Henry v. .\tchison, etc., R. 
 Co.. 109 Pac. 1005. 83 Kan. 104. 28 L. R. 
 A.. N. S., 1088. 
 
 Loss by perils of sea when goods im- 
 properly stowed. — "Goods, though lost by 
 perils of the sea, if they were stowed on 
 deck w-ithout the consent of the shipper, 
 are not regarded as goods lost l)y the 
 act of God within the meaning of the mar- 
 itime law. nor are such losses regarded 
 as losses by perils of the sea wliich 
 will excuse the carrier from delivering 
 the goods shipped to the consignee un- 
 less it appears that the manner in which 
 the goods were stowed is sanctioned by 
 commercial usage, or unless it affirma- 
 tively appears that the manner of stow- 
 age did not, in any degree, contribute to 
 the disaster; that the loss happened with- 
 out anj^ fault or negligence on the part 
 of the carrier, and that it could have been 
 prevented by human skill and prudence, 
 even if the goods had been stowed under 
 
 deck, as required by the general rules of 
 the maritime law." The Delaware (U. S.), 
 14 Wall. 579, 598, 20 L. Ed. 779. And 
 see Lawrence v. Minturn (U. S.), 17 
 How. 100, 15 L. Ed. 58. 
 
 97. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves 
 (U. S.), 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. Ed. 909. See 
 cases in second succeeding note. 
 
 98. Authorities holding carrier liable. — 
 Alabama. — Alabama. etc., R. Co. V. 
 Quarles, 145 Ala. 436, 40 So. 120. 5 L. R. 
 .•\.. N. S., 867, 117 Am. St. Rep. 5^, 19 R. 
 R. R. 69, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 69. 
 (Goods detained 11 days.) Alabama, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Elliott & Son, 150 Ala. 381, 43 
 So. 738, 124 Am. St. Rep. 72, 9 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 126. (Goods delayed four days.) 
 
 Georgia. — Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802 (Goods 
 wrongfully detained after arrival). See, 
 also. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Benson 
 & Co., 80 Ga. 203, 12 S. E. 357, 22 Am. 
 St. Rep. 446. 
 
 Illinois. — Wald v. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 Co., 162 111. 545, 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. R. A. 
 356, 53 Am. St. Rep. 332. 
 
 Compare Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, 242 111. 178, 89 N. E. 1022, 44 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 358, holding that though defend- 
 ant railroad was negligent in not getting 
 the car containing plaintiff's butter out 
 of its freight yards before the destruc- 
 tive part of an unprecedented flood, con- 
 stituting an act of God, came, it was not 
 liable, unless it was warned of the ap- 
 proach, not merely of a rise in the river, 
 but of the flood. 
 
 lozi'a. — Green-Wheeler Shoe Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co.. 130 Iowa 123, 106 N. 
 W. 498, 5 L. R. A., N. S., 882. See. also. 
 Hewett V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 63 Iowa 
 611, 19 N. W. 790. 
 
 Kentucky. — Cassilay v. Young (Ky.), 4 
 B. Mon. 265, 39 .\ni. Dec. 505. (Stoppage 
 short of reshipment point.) See, also, 
 Hernsheim f. Newport Xews, etc., Co.. 18 
 Ky. L. Rep. 227. 35 S. W. 1115. 
 
 Minnesota. — Bibb Broom Corn Co. v. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co., 9 Minn. 269, 102 
 \. W. 790, 14 R. R. R. 407, 37 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 407, 69 L. R. A. 509, 
 110 Am. St. Rep. 361. 
 
 Xebraska. — Sunderland Bros. Co. v. 
 Thicago, etc., R. Co., 89 Neb. 660, 131 N. 
 W. 1047; Wabash R. Co. v. Sharpe, 76 
 Neb. 424. 107 N. W. 758. 124 Am. St. Rep. 
 823; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Manning, 23 
 Neb. 552, 37 N. W. 462. 
 
 Nezv York. — Read v. Spaulding, 30 N. 
 Y. 630. 86 Am. Dec. 426. affirming 18 N. 
 Y. Super. Ct. 395; Bostwick v. Baltimore, 
 etc.. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 712; Dunson v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 3 Lans. '265; 
 Heyl z: Inman Steamship Co., 14 Hun
 
 § 992 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 744 
 
 posite doctrine and hold that the carrier is excnsed, although the goods would 
 not have been exposed to such injury but for the delay.''"' It has been held that 
 the mere fact that the captain of a well-fitted boat was inexperienced is not 
 
 564; Tierney v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 76 N. Y. 305; Michaels v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. Dec. 415. 
 
 JJ'cst J'irgiiiia. — McGraw v. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 41 Am. Rep. 
 696, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 99. Vnited States. — Memphis, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Reeves (U. S.), 10 Wall. ITC. 19 
 L. Ed. 909; Thomas v. Lancaster Mills, 
 19 C. C. A. 88, 71 Fed. 481; Scott v. Bal- 
 timore, etc.. Steamboat Co., 19 Fed. 56; 
 Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, etc., 
 R. Co., 135 Fed. 135, affirmed in 147 Fed. 
 457, 77 C. C. A. 601. 
 
 Kansas. — Rodgers z'. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co., 75 Kan. 222. 88 Pac. 885, 10 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 658, 12 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 441; 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 78 Kan. 
 490, 97 Pac. 465, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 177. 
 
 .Va/»r.— O'Brien v. McClinchy, 68 Me. 
 557. 
 
 Massaclnisctts. — Denny v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 13 Gray 481, 74 Am. Dec. 
 645. See, also, Hoadley z: Northern 
 Transp. Co., 115 Mass. 304. 15 Am. Rep. 
 106. 
 
 Michigan. — See Michigan Cent. R. Co. 
 z: Burrows, 33 Mich. 6. 
 
 Mississippi. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Millsaps, 76 Miss. 855, 25 So. 672, 71 Am. 
 St. Rep. 543; Merchants', etc., Ass'n v. 
 Wood, 64 Miss. 661, 2 So. 76. 
 
 Missouri. — Elam v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 117 Mo. App. 453, 93 S. W. 851; Mof- 
 fatt Comm. Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 
 113 Mo. App. 544, 88 S. W. 117; Lighl- 
 foot & Son V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 126 
 Mo. App. 532, 104 S. W. 182. Compare 
 Armentrout v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 1 
 Mo. App. 158. 
 
 Nezv Mexico. — McVeagh v. Atchinson, 
 etc., R. Co., 3 N. Mex. 327, 5 Pac. 457. 
 
 North Carolina. — General Fire Extin- 
 guisher Co. V. Carolina, etc., R. Co., 137 
 N. C. 278, 49 S. E. 208, 42 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 336. 
 
 0/2 /o.— Daniels v. Ballantine, 23 O. 532, 
 13 Am. Rep. 264. 
 
 Pennsxhania. — Clarke v. Needles, 25 
 Pa. 338;" Morrison v. Davis & Co., 20 I'a. 
 171, 57 Am. Dec. 695. 
 
 Tennessee. — Lamont & Co. v. Nash- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58. 
 See, also, White v. Conly, 82 Tenn. (14 
 Lea) 51, 52 Am. Rep. 154. 
 
 Texas. — Hunt Bros. v. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. 69, af- 
 firmed in 97 Tex. 637, no op.; Interna- 
 tional etc., R. Co. V. Bergman (lex. 
 Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 999; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Darby, 67 S. W. 129, 28 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 229; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. North 
 Texas Grain Co., 32 Tex. Civ. App. 93, 74 
 
 S. W. 567; Fentiman v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455, 98 S. W. 939. 
 Compare Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McCorquo- 
 dale, 71 Tex. 41, 9 S. W. 80. 
 
 J'ennont. — Davis v. Central \'ermont 
 R. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 29 Atl. 313. 
 
 J'irginia. — Herring v. Chesapeake, etc., 
 R. Co., 101 Va. 778, 9 R. R. R. 262, 32 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 262, 45 S. E. 
 322. 
 
 Illustrations. — A common carrier, who 
 transports goods safely to their destina- 
 tion, is not responsible for injuries to 
 them l)y a flood while in the depot at 
 that place, although the goods would not 
 have been exposed to such injury but for 
 delay in transportation. Denny z\ New 
 York Cent. R. Co. (Mass.), 13 Gray 481, 
 74 Am. Dec. 645. 
 
 Wheat shipped by plaintiff over the de- 
 fendant railroad was damaged, and a part 
 of it totally destroyed, in an unprece- 
 dented storm, which occurred while the 
 wheat was still in the possession of the 
 railroad company. The railroad had been 
 guilty of negligence in failing to place 
 the wheat on the proper elevator tracks 
 promptly, so that it could be unloaded, 
 and in other ways; and, but for its negli- 
 gence, the cars ' would probably have 
 been unloaded when the storm occurred. 
 Held, that the storm was the proximate, 
 and the company's negligence the re- 
 mote, cause of the injury to the wheat, 
 and the company was not liable. Hunt 
 Bros. V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 74 S. W. 69. 
 
 Where, in an action against a common 
 carrier for good$ lost in Jan unprece- 
 dented storm, it appeared that the place 
 of storage was safe under usual condi- 
 tions, and that, though it was possible 
 to have delivered them on the morning 
 of the storm, the bad weather deterred 
 the drayman, and it did not appear that 
 there was any safer place after the dan- 
 ger became apparent, the company was 
 not liable. International, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Bergman (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 999. 
 Lame horse — Canal boat overtaken by 
 flood.— In Morrison r. Davis & Co., 20 
 Pa. 171, 57 Am. Dec. 695, it appeared 
 that freight carried in a canal boat was 
 injured by the wrecking of the boat, 
 caused by an extraordinary flood. It was 
 held, that the carrier was not rendered 
 liable merely by the fact that, when the 
 boat was started on its voyage, one of 
 the horses attached to it was lame, and 
 that in consequence, such delay occurred 
 as prevented the Ijoat from passing the 
 place where tlie accident happened, 
 though beyond such place it would have 
 been safe.
 
 745 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 992-993 
 
 sufficient to render the boat liable for loss resulting from a sudden storm and 
 not from his incomjjctency.^ 
 
 § 993. Where Danger Should Have Been Anticipated. — An act of God 
 is no excuse where the carrier could have anticipated the danger and provided 
 against it or avoided it by the exercise of proper care.- Where a carrier under- 
 takes to transport a shipment, knowing at the time that a portion of its route is 
 obstructed by floods, the existence of the floods is not such an act of God as will 
 relieve it from liability for injuries to the shipment while being carried over 
 anotlier route.-' It is the duty of railroads in constructing their roadbeds to 
 guard against floods which may be anticipated, though some may be extraor- 
 dinary and unusual; ' but they are not liable for failure to guard against extraor- 
 
 1. Hart V. Allen (I'a.). 2 Watts 114. 
 
 2. Where danger should have been an- 
 ticipated. — (')iitcd States. — Southern Pac. 
 Co. 7: Sclioer, ".2 C. C. A. 268, 57 L. R. 
 A. 707, 114 Fed. 466, 3 R. R. R. 254, 26 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 254. 
 
 Georgia. — The carrier is required to ex- 
 ercise extraordinary diligence. Section 
 2066, Code. Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590, 30 
 8. E. 555; Richmond, etc., R. Co. z\ Wliitc, 
 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 Precautions for the protection of the 
 goods which would have been available 
 as against any previous Hood of which the 
 carrier (a railroad company) had knowl- 
 edge, would not necessarily fill the meas- 
 ure of extraordinary diligence, inasmuch 
 as history or tradition might make it in- 
 cumbent on the carrier to have more 
 knowledge than that actually possessed. 
 In such matters it might be just to treat 
 the means of knowledge as equivalent to 
 actual notice. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 Illinois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ash- 
 mead. 58 111. 487. 
 
 Indiana. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Heath. 22 Ind. App. 47, 53 N. E. 198. 
 
 Louisiana. — Carrier is bound to the 
 most exact diligence. See Blocker v. 
 Whittenburg, 12 La. Ann. 410; Watts & 
 Co. r. Saxon, 11 La. Ann. 43. 
 
 Missouri. — Clark v. Pacific R. Co., 39 
 Mo. 184, 90 Am. Dec. 458; Ellet v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 518, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 183; Hill v. Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 
 323; Wolf V. American Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 
 421. 97 Am. Dec. 406. 
 
 Montana. — Xelson v. Great Northern 
 R. Co., 28 Mont. 298, 9 R. R. R. 311, 32 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 311, 72 Pac. 
 642. 
 
 A'cbraska. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Manning, 23 Neb. 552, 37 N. W. 462. 
 
 SoKtli Carolina. — Ewart v. Street, 2 
 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 Tennessee. — Laniont & Co. v. Nash- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58. 
 
 Te.ras. — Philleo v. Sanford. 17 Tex. 
 227, 67 Am. Dec. 654; St. Louis, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Bland (,Tex. Civ. App.). 34 S. W. 
 675. 
 
 West J^irginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293. 
 
 Whether an extraordinary flood, caus- 
 ing loss of goods in possession of car- 
 rier, constituted an act of God, sufficient 
 to relieve the carrier from liability, de- 
 pends on whether it could have been 
 foreseen and guarded against by the ex- 
 ercise of reasonable care. Ferguson v. 
 Southern Railway, 91 S. C. 61, 74 S. E. 
 129. 
 
 Common carriers are not bound to 
 make extraordinary provision for an act 
 of God which could not reasonably have 
 l)een anticipated. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Fries, 87 Pa. 234. 
 
 Reflux of tide — Vessel grounded. — In 
 Charleston, etc.. Steamboat Co. r. Bason 
 (S. C), Harp. 262, it appeared that the 
 steamboat of defendants, when going 
 through an inland passage to Charleston, 
 grounded from the reflux of the tide, and, 
 in consequence of which, she fell over 
 and bilge water rose in the cabin and in- 
 jured a box of books belonging to plain- 
 tiff. It w^as held, that defendants, as 
 common carriers, were liable for the loss 
 so occasioned. 
 
 Unusually low tide — Vessel pierced by 
 timber projecting from wharf. — In New 
 Brunswick, etc., Co. v. Tiers, 24 N. J. 
 L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 394, it is held that 
 the fact that a severe storm produced an 
 unusually low tide, and thereby caused the 
 carrier's barge to strike against a timber 
 projecting from the wharf so low as in 
 ordinary tides to l)e no cause of injury, 
 will not excuse the carrier for the loss 
 of the goods caused by the timber pierc- 
 ing the vessel. 
 
 Rain. — In Klauber z\ American Exp. 
 Co.. 21 Wis. 21, 91 Am. Dec. 452, it is 
 held, that against all ordinary occurrences 
 of rain, the carrier is bound to provide; 
 and if it does not, and damage ensues to 
 the goods, it must bear the loss. .\nd see 
 Philleo V. Sanford, 17 Tex. 227. 67 Am. 
 Dec. 654. 
 
 3. Transportation undertaken with 
 knowledge of flood. — Adams \'.\p. Co. v. 
 Jackson. 92 Tenn. :;:.'r.. 21 S. W. iii'ii>. 
 
 4. Duty in constructing roadbeds. — Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. z: Davidson. 60 S. W. 
 278. 25 Tex. Civ. App. 134. See Inter- 
 national, etc.. R. Co. v. Halloren. 53 Tex. 
 46. 37 Am. Rep. 744. 
 
 Rain overflowing the road bed of a
 
 §§ 993-994 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 746 
 
 dinarv floods unknown to common experience, and which could not have been 
 reasonably anticipated in the construction of the road."' A carrier is not bound 
 to provide against an unprecedented emergency, such as a greater flood than was 
 ever known before in that locality, unless it has reason to suspect that such 
 emergencv is about to arise.'' And it is not required to procure cars of sufficient 
 strength to withstand a storm which it can not reasonal)ly anticipate as likely 
 to occur." 
 
 § 994. Duty to Prevent Act of God from Causing Injury. — A carrier 
 must use reasonable care and diligence to jjrotect freight from loss or danger 
 even from a cause against which it is not an insurer, such as the act of God, and 
 if it fails to do so and loss results therefrom, it is lialjle."^ It is generally held 
 
 railroad and washing away a part of its 
 embankment from under the cross ties 
 can not l)e considered an act of God in 
 such sense as to relieve the railroad from 
 liability for not furnishing sufficient 
 drainage to properly carry away die rain, 
 unless it was so far outside the range of 
 ordinary human experience that the duty 
 of exercising reasonable care did not re- 
 quire the railroad to anticipate and pro- 
 vide against it. Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Boyce.^39 Tex. Civ. App. 195, 87 S. W. 
 395, affirmed in 100 Tex. 639, no op. 
 
 5. International, etc., R. Co. v. Hall- 
 oren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 Am. Rep. 744. 
 
 The railroad company in constructing 
 its roadbed need not take into account 
 the history of previous floods within the 
 memory of living men, as due care may 
 be shown in locating the road, though 
 information from the inhabitants was not 
 sought after. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Bland (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 675. 
 
 6. Nashville, etc., R. Co. z: King, 53 
 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 269. 
 
 Extraordinary floods, that may reason- 
 ably be anticipated, must be guarded 
 against, without reference to the infre- 
 guency of their occurrence. The fact that 
 floods not provided for have occurred 
 only at long intervals constitutes no de- 
 fense. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Pomeroy, 67 
 Tex. 498. 3 S. W. 722; Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Madden, etc., Co., 46 lex. Civ. 
 App. 597, 103 S. W. 1193, affirmed in 102 
 Tex. 578, no op. 
 
 7. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Texas Star Flour 
 Mill (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 1179. 
 
 8. Duty to prevent act of God from 
 doing injury. — I'lntcd' States. — Holladay 
 z: Kenard, 12 Wall. 254, 20 L. Ed. 390; 
 Pearce v. Newton, 41 Fed. 106; Strouss 
 V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 209; The 
 Aline. 19 Fed. 875; The M. M. Chase, 
 37 Fed. 708; Southern Pac. Co. v. Schoer, 
 52 C. C. A. ^68, 57 L. R. A. 707, 114 Fed. 
 466, 3 R. R. R. 254, 26 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas., N. S., 254. 
 
 Alabama. — Smith v. Western Railway, 
 91 Ala. 455, 8 So. 754, 24 Am. St. Rep. 929, 
 11 L. R. A. 619. 
 
 Connecticut. — Peck v. Weeks, 34 Conn. 
 145. 
 
 Georgia. — Wallace v. Clayton, 42 Ga. 
 443. 
 
 IHiitois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. 7>. 
 Adams. 42 111. 474, 92 Am. Dec. 85; Wald 
 z'. Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co., 162 111. 545, 44 
 N. E. 888.^35 L. R. A. 356, 53 Am. St. 
 Rep. 332. 
 
 Indiana. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Heath. 29 Ind. App. 47, 53 N. E. 198; Cin- 
 cinnati, etc., R. Co. V. Webb, 103 Ky. 
 705, 46 S. W. 11. 
 
 Missouri.— Clark v. Pacific R. Co., 39 
 Mo. 184. 90 Am. Dec. 458; Dav's z'. Wa- 
 bash, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. 340, 1 S. W. 327; 
 Ellet z: St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 76 Mo. 518, 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 183; Hill v. Stur- 
 geon, 28 Mo. 323; Read v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 199. 
 
 Nebraska. — Black v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 30 Neb. 197, 46 N. W. 428; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co v. Manning, 23 Neb. 552. 37 
 N. W. 462; Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 89 Neb. 660, 131 N. W. 
 1047; Wabash R. Co. v. Sharpe, 76 Neb. 
 424, 107 N. W. 758. 124 Am. St. Rep. 
 823. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Morrison z\ McFadden 
 (Pa.), 5 Clark 23, 3 Am. L. J., N. S., 
 462. 
 
 South Carolina. — Charleston, etc.. Steam- 
 boat Co. V. Bason, Harp. 262; Ewart v. 
 Street, 2 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 Tennessee. — Lamont & Co. v. Nash- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58. 
 
 rr.ra.y.— Philleo v. Sanford, 17 Tex. 
 227, 67 .\m. Dec. 654; St. Louis, etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Bland (Tex. Civ. App.). 34 S. 
 W. 675. 
 
 Under the Carmack amendment (Act 
 June 29, 1906, c. .1591, § 7, 34 Stat. 593 [U. 
 S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307] ) to the 
 Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 
 1887, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 386' [U. S. 
 Comp. St. 1901, p. 31691), a carrier is not 
 excused from liability for destruction of 
 goods by flood unless he shows some ac- 
 tivity in protecting them as necessity 
 arises. National Rice Mill Co. v. New 
 Orleans; etc., R. Co., 61 So. 708, 132 La. 
 615. 
 
 Inaccuracy in a weather bureau's fore- 
 cast held no detense, where the carrier 
 showed no reasonable activity to protect 
 the shipment after being warned of the
 
 747 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 994 
 
 that the carrier is not re(|uired to exercise the hi^jhest diligence but only such 
 care as an ordinarily prudent person or carrier would use under like circum- 
 stances." J kit in some jurisdictions, the carrier must exercise extraordinary 
 diligence.'" It is held that where an un])recedented Hood is threatened as the 
 result of a general storm, it is ilic carrier s duty to exercise unusual care to see 
 that a car loaded with lime, likely to become ignited by water, be kept removed 
 a safe distance from the cars loaded with rice." As to goods which arrive too 
 
 impfiidiii^'^ tlnod. Xatiuiial Rice Mill. Co. 
 V. New Orleans, etc., K. Co., (Jl So. 708, 
 133 La. Cl.-,. 
 
 Where the only means of protection 
 was by occupying the track of another 
 road. It can not Ik- said lliat a railroail 
 conii)aiiy i.s j.(uilty of ne^liKcncc as a mat- 
 ter of law in failinj? to protect freight in 
 its yards afj;ainst an unusual and extra- 
 ordinary flood. Wallace v. Clayton, 42 
 Ga. 44;5. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against 
 steanil)oat owners for the loss of goods, 
 it appeared that on the voyage a storm 
 arose which caused the boat to lay to, 
 and, while thus laying to, it took in water, 
 and was in a sinking condition. Held, 
 that if the loss was caused by the sink- 
 ing of the boat, and that could have been 
 prevented by prudence and skill on the 
 part of the officers of the boat, the owners 
 were liable. Sprowl v. Kellar (Ala.), 4 
 Stew. & P. 382. 
 
 A carrier failed to deliver promptly cer- 
 tain fruit trees, because of high water, 
 rendering a part of its line impassable, 
 whereby the trees were, when received, 
 dead, l)ut did not show that it could not 
 have sent them over another line. Held, 
 that the loss was not occasioned by the 
 act of God. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Manning, 23 Neb. 552, 37 N. W. 462. 
 
 A carrier is responsible for injuries to 
 perishable goods (potatoes) by cold, 
 where due care in view of all the circum- 
 stances was not taken to protect them. 
 Wing T. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 1 Hilt. 23.). 
 
 Where the grounding of a boat while 
 waiting for the tide was unavoidable, but 
 resulting injury to cargo, by the heeling 
 of the boat, might have been avoided by 
 selecting a level bottom for grounding, 
 or by removing goods after that accident 
 occurred, the carrier is liable. Charleston, 
 etc., Steamboat Co. v. Bason (S. C), 
 Harp. 2t)2. 
 
 Defendant undertook to transport 
 plaintiff's cotton, l)ut, owing to the de- 
 struction of a bridge by an unusual flood, 
 the cotton was delayed, during which time 
 it was injured and depreciated in weight 
 by the bursting of the bagging, and the 
 manner in which it was handled. Held, 
 that defendant was liable for the damage. 
 Lipford V. Charlotte, etc., R. Co. (S. C), 
 7 Rich. L. 400. 
 
 That the roadbed of a railroad company 
 was damaged by an unprecedented flood, 
 necessitating the shipment of goods by a 
 more circuitous route, does not relieve 
 
 th • carrier from liaijility for the damages 
 caused thereby, where, by the exercise 
 of reasonable care, it could have guarded 
 against the effect of the floods. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Bland (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 
 S. W. (575. 
 
 A steamship brought a consignment of 
 oranges to New York, where she arrived 
 on December 2<>th. The weather was so 
 cold as to render it impossible to land 
 oranges without freezing them, and con- 
 tinued below zero for several days. The 
 oranges were landed in spite of the con- 
 signee's objection, and their value was 
 tor the most part destroyed. Held, that 
 tlie act which destroyed the cargo was 
 not the "act of God," but of man, in dis- 
 charging the oranges at an unsuitable 
 time. The Aline, 19 Fed. 875. 
 
 9. Care of ordinarily prudent person or 
 carrier. — Railroad Co. v. Reeves ( L'. S.). 
 
 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. Ed. 909; Black v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 30 Neb. 197, 46 N. W. 
 428; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. David, 53 
 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 261, 19 Am. Rep. 594; 
 Lamont & Co. v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 
 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58. 
 
 In circumstances of danger, the law- 
 requires of a carrier ordinary care, skill, 
 and foresight in attempting to escape; 
 and, in great danger, great care is the 
 ordinary care of prudent men. Morrison 
 V. McFadden (Pa.), 5 Clark 23, 3 Am. 
 L. J., N. S., 462. 
 
 In case of emergency, or when property 
 confided to his care is placed in jeopardy 
 by some vis major, the carrier is bound 
 to use actively and energetically all the 
 means of his command, that he might, 
 reasonably, be expected to possess, 
 to meet the emergency and save the 
 property. Lamont & Co. v. Nashville, 
 etc., R. Co., 56 Tjnn. (9 Heisk.) 58. 
 
 In order to charge a common carrier 
 with goods lost in an unprecedented 
 storm, plaintiff must sliow that by ordi- 
 nary prudence it could have protected 
 the goods after becoming aware of the 
 impending danger. International, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Bergman (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 64 S. 
 W^ 999. 
 
 10. Georgia.— Q'w. Code, § 2066. Rich- 
 mond, etc., R. Co. V. White, 88 Ga. 805, 
 15 S. E. S02. 
 
 Louisiana. — Blocker r. Whittenliurg, 12 
 La. Ann. 410. See Watts & Co. f. Saxon, 
 
 11 La. Ann. 43. 
 
 11. National Rice Mill. Co. f. New Or- 
 leans, etc., R. Co., 132 La. 615, 61 So. 
 708.
 
 §§ 994-995 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 748 
 
 late to admit of giving the usual notice to the consignee before a flood occurs, 
 the carrier is bound to the exercise of extraordinary diligence in protecting them 
 from damage; but if they are .damaged in spite of such diligence, the carrier will 
 be excused.^- It is held, that a common carrier, upon our western waters, is not 
 responsible for not drying merchandise which has been wet and damaged by in- 
 evitable accident.^"' 
 
 §§ 995-997. Act of Public Enemy— § 995. In General.— A carrier is 
 not an insurer against loss of or damage to freight occasioned by acts of the 
 public enemy, and if the carrier has exercised due diligence it is not liable for 
 losses so caused.^"* In order that the carrier may avail itself of the rule that it 
 
 12. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 
 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 13. Steamboat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 
 272. 49 Am. Dec. 135. 
 
 14. Act of public enemy relieves car- 
 rier. — l')iitcd States.— HoWaday v. Ken- 
 nard. 12 Wall. 254. 20 L. Ed. 390; Rail- 
 road Co. V. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. 
 Ed. 909; Primrose v. Western Lnion Tel. 
 Co., 154 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 883. 14 S. Ct. 
 1098: Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. 7, 16 
 L. Ed. 41; York Co. v. Central R. Co., 
 3 Wall. 107, 18 L. Ed. 170; Railroad Co. 
 z'. Varnell, 98 U. S. 479, 25 L. Ed. 233; 
 The Delaware. 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 
 779; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, 13 
 L. Ed. 985. 
 
 Alabama. — Jones v. Pitcher & Co., 3 
 Stew. & P. 135, 2 Am. Dec. 716; Knox c. 
 Rives, etc., Co., 14 Ala. 249, 48 Am. Dec. 
 97; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cowherd, 
 120 Ala. 51, 23 So. 793; Selnia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Butts. 43 Ala. 385, 94 Am. Dec. 695; 
 South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 
 23 Am. Rep. 578; South, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749, 9 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419; Southern R. Co. 
 V. Levy, 144 Ala. 614, 39 So. 95, 17 R. R. 
 R. 50, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 50. 
 
 Arkansas. — Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Barnett, 69 .-Krk. 150, 61 S. W. 919; Little 
 Rock, etc., R. Co. v. Talbot, 47 Ark. 97, 
 14 S. W. 471; Packard v. Taylor, etc., 
 Co., 35 Ark. 402, 37 Am. Rep. 37; St. 
 Louis, etc., Railway v. Lesser, 46 Ark. 236. 
 
 California. — Agnew V. Steamer Contra 
 Costa, 27 Cal. 425, 87 Am. Dec. 87; Bohan- 
 na.i V. Hammond, 42 Cal. 227; Hooper v. 
 Wells, Fargo & Co., 27 Cal. n, 85 Am. 
 Dec. 211; Jackson v. Sacramento Val. R. 
 Co., 23 Cal. 268; Scammon v. Wells Fargo 
 & Co., 84 Cal. 311, 24 Pac. 284. 
 
 Connecticut. — Clark v. Richards, 1 
 Conn. 54; Hale v. New Jersey Steam-Nav. 
 Co., 15 Conn. 539, 39 Am. Dec. :i98; Wil- 
 liams V. Grant, 1 Conn. 487, 7 .\m. Dec. 
 235. 
 
 Delazvare. — Klair v. Wilmington Steam- 
 boat Co., 4 Pen. 51, 7 R. R. R. 821, 30 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 821. 54 Atl. 
 694; Pennewill v. Cullen, 5 Har. 238; Reed 
 V. Wilmington Steamboat Co., 1 Marv. 
 193, 40 .\tl. 955, 1 Hardesty 127; Trau.x 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. 
 233. 
 
 Georgia. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Lipp- 
 
 man, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 202, 50 L. R. A. 
 673; Cooper v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 110 
 Ga. 659, 36 S. E. 240, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas.. N. S., 412; Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 
 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460; Fish v. Chapman, 2 
 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 393; Georgia R. Co. 
 V. Beatie. 66 Ga. 438, 42 Am. Rep. 75; 
 Georgia R. Co. v. Spears, 66 Ga. 485, 42 
 Am. Rep. 81; Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783; 
 Ohlen V. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 
 323, 58 S. E. 511 ; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wilcox, etc., Co., 48 Ga. 432; Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Warfield, 129 Ga. 473, 
 59 S. E. 234; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802; Forrester 
 V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 92 Ga. 699, 19 
 S. E. 811; Brunswick, etc., R.' Co. v. 
 Smith, 97 Ga. 777, 25 S. E. 759. 
 
 Illinois. — Gulliver v. Adams Exp. Co., 
 38 111. 503; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clellan, 54 III. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Mer- 
 chants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Kahn. 76 
 111. 520; Peoria, etc., R. Co. r. United 
 States, etc., Co., 136 111. 643, 27 N. E. 
 59, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348; Porter v. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co., 20 111. 407, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 286; United States Express Co. v. 
 Hutchins, 67 111. 348; Woods r. Devin, 
 13 111. 746, 56 Am. Dec. 483: Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 111. 88, 
 5 Am. Rep. 92; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 People, 56 111. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690; 
 Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Cnicago, 89 N. 
 E. 1022, 242 111. 178, 44 L. R. A., N. S., 
 358. 
 
 Indiana.— Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Yohe, 51 
 Ind. 181, 19 Am. Rep. 727; Pittsburg, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188. 32 Am. 
 Rep. 63; Powers v. Davenport, 7 Blackf. 
 497, 43 Am. Dec. 10'^; Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Tapp, 6 Ind. App. 304, 33 N. E. 
 462; Walpole v. Bridges, 5 Blackf. 222; 
 Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Henry, 170 Ind. 
 94, 83 N. E. 710, reversing 80 X. E. 636; 
 Reid V. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 35 N. E. 
 703, 10 Ind. App. 385, 53 Am. St. Rep. 
 391; Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. Co.. 25 
 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367. 
 
 Iowa. — Cownie Glove Co. v. Merchants' 
 Dispatch Transp. Co., 106 N. W. 749, 130 
 Iowa 327, 114 Am. St. Rep. 419, 4 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 1060; Swiney v. American Exp. 
 Co., 115 N. W. 212. 
 
 Kansas. — Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Nichols, 
 etc., Co., 9 Kan. 235, 12 Am. Rep. 494;
 
 749 
 
 LOSS OR IXJUKV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 995 
 
 is exempt from lialiility for injuries resultinj^ from the act of the public enemy, 
 
 Watkins Mcrcliaiulise Co. v. Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co., 8a Kan. :{08, 108 Pac. llfi. 
 
 Kentucky. — Hall & Co. v. Renfro, 3 
 Mete. 51; Chestipcake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hall, l.iC. Ky. 37'.), 124 vS. W. 372; Lewis 
 V. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 135 Ky. 361, 
 122 S. W. 184, 25 L. R. A., N. S., 938, 21 
 Am. & Hnjr. Ann. Cas. 527; Farley v. 
 Lavary, 54 S. W. 840, 107 Ky. 523, 21 
 Ky. L. Rep. 1252. 47 L. R. A. 383; Stiles 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 10 S. W. 820, 33 
 Ky. L. Rep. ()25. 
 
 Louisiana. — McCraiiie z'. Wood, 24 La. 
 Ann. 4()(); Thomas v. Morning Glory, 13 
 La. Ann. 209, 71 Am. Dec. 509. 
 
 Maim-. — Emery v. Hersey. 4 Grecnl. 
 407. If) Am. Dec. 2(58; Parker v. FlagR. 
 2G Me. 181. 45 Am. Dec. 101; Sager v. 
 Portsmouth, etc.. R. Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 
 Am. Dec. ()59; Wood v. Maine Cent. R. 
 Co., 98 Me. 98, 50 Atl. 457, 9 R. R. R. 721, 
 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 721, 99 
 Am. St. Rep. 339. 
 
 Marvlaud. — Boyle v. McLaughlin, 4 
 Har. & J. 291; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Harper, 29 Md. 330. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Evans v. Fitchburg R. 
 Co.. Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19; Gage 
 V. Tirrell. 9 Allen 299; Hastings v. 
 Pepper. 11 Pick. 41; Smith v. New Haven, 
 etc., R. Co.. 12 Allen 531. 
 
 .1/i(7n><7;;.— Black v. Ashley. 44 N. W. 
 1120, 80 Mich. 90. 
 
 Minnesota. — Christenson v. American 
 Exp. Co.. 15 Minn. 270, Gil. 208. 2 Am. 
 Rep. 122. 
 
 Mississif^pi. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bigger, ()f5 Miss. 319. (5 So. 234; Mobile. 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Weiner. 49 Miss. 725; Pow- 
 ell V. Mills. 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 
 158. 
 
 Missouri. — Austin v. St. Louis, etc., 
 Packet Co.. 15 Mo. App. 197; Clark v. 
 Pacific R. Co.. 39 Mo. 184, 90 Am. Dec. 
 458; Duggett r. Shaw. 3 Mo. 264, 25 Am. 
 Dec. 439; Davis r. Wabash, etc.. R. Co.. 
 89 Mo. 340. 1 S. W. 327; Read v. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 60 Mo. 199; Steamboat Lynx 
 V. King. 12 Mo. 27. 49 Am. Dec. 135; 
 Wolf V. American Exp. Co.. 43 Mo. 421, 
 97 Am. Dec. 406; Merritt Creamery Co. 
 V. Atchison, etc.. R. Co., 128 Mo. App. 
 420. 107 S. W. 462. 
 
 A'ebraslca. — Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co., 
 45 Neb. 760, 64 N. W. 219; Wabash R. 
 Co. V. Sharpe. 76 Neb. 424. 107 N. W. 758, 
 124 Am. St. Rep. 823; Sunderland Bros. 
 Co. i: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 89 Neb. m\ 
 131 N. W. 1047. 
 
 Xezv Hampshire. — Moses z\ Norris, 4 
 N. H. 304. 
 
 Nezi' .Jersey. — Mershon v. Hobensack, 
 22 N. J. L. 372; New Brunswick, etc., Co. 
 V. Tiers, 24 N. J. L. 697, 64 Am. Dec. 
 394. 
 
 Nezi' York. — Adams r. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co., 151 X. Y. 163, 45 N. E. 
 
 ■ Ut'.i, .(4 L. R. A. 682, 56 Am. St. Rep. 616; 
 Allen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327; Camden, 
 etc., R. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. 354; 
 Cragin v. New York Cent. R. Co., 51 
 N. Y. 61, 10 Am. Rep. 559; Heincman 7-. 
 Cjrand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Prac. 430, 
 1 Sheld. 95; HoUister r. Xowlen, 19 
 Wend. 234. 32 Am. Dec. .455; Howe v. 
 Oswego, etc., R. Co., 56 Barb. 121; Mc- 
 Arthur v. Sears, 21 Wend. 190; Mallory 
 r. Tioga R. Co., .39 Bar)). 488; Merritt r. 
 F.arle. 31 Barb. 38, affirmed in 29 N. Y. 
 115,86 Am. Dec. 292; Miller t. Steam Nav. 
 Co.. 10 N. Y. 431. Seld. Notes 64; Read 
 V. Spaulding, 30 N. Y. 630, 86 .-Km. Dec. 
 426, affirming 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 395; 
 Rol)inson 7-. Cornish, 13 N. Y. S. 577. 34 
 N. Y. St. Rep. 695; Sherman v. Wells. 28 
 Barb. 403; Spaids z'. New York Mail 
 Steamship Co.. 3 Daly 139; Waldron v. 
 Fargo. 170 N. Y. 130. 62 N. K. 1077; 
 Colt V. McMechen, 6 Johns. 160, 5 Am. 
 Dec. 200. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Harrell v. Owens. 18 
 N. C. 273; Patteison 7'. North Carolina 
 R. Co.. 64 N. C. 147; Thomas 7'. Southern 
 R. Co., 131 N. C. 590. 42 S. E. 543. 6 R. 
 .R. R. 860, 29 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 860. 
 
 North Dakota. — Duncan 7-. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 17 N. Dak. 610, 118 N. W. 826, 
 19 L. R. A.. N. S.. 952. 
 
 Ohio. — Toledo, etc., R. Co. 7'. Aml)ach. 
 10 O. C. C. 490. 6 O. C. D. 574. affirmed in 
 57 O. St. 38. 47 N. E. 1039; Welsh 7'. Pitts- 
 burg, etc.. R. Co., 10 O. St. 65, 75 Am. 
 Dec. 490; Railroad Co. v. O'Donnell, 49 
 O. St. 489. 32 N. E. 476. 503; Bowman v. 
 Hilton, 11 O. 303; Canal Boat Montgom- 
 ery 7'. Kent. 20 O. 54; Transfer Co. v. 
 Kelly, 36 O. St. 86, 38 Am. Rep. 558; 
 Pittsl)urgh, etc., R. Co. v. Barrett, 36 O. 
 St. 448; Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 131. 
 
 Oregon. — Oakes v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 20 Ore. 392. 26 Pac. 230. 12 L. R. A. 
 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 126; Lacey v. Oregon 
 R.. etc., Co. (Ore.), 128 Pac. 999. 
 
 Petinsvlz'ania. — Beckham 7'. Shouse. 5 
 Rawle 179. 28 .\m. Dec. 653: Eagle z: 
 White, 6 Whart. 505, 37 Am. Dec. 434; 
 Harrington v. M'Shane. 2 Watts 443. 27 
 Am. Dec. 321; Hart 7'. Allen. 2 Watts 114; 
 Hays V. Kennedy, 41 Pa. 378. 80 Am. Dec. 
 627; Verner 7'. Sweitzer. 32 Pa. 20S; Wil- 
 lock 7'. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 166 Pa. 184, 
 30 Atl. 948. 27 L. R. A. 228. 45 Am. St. 
 Rep. 674. 
 
 Rhode Island.— Unhb^rd & Co. 7'. Harn- 
 dcn Exp. Co.. 10 R. L 244. 
 
 South Carolina. — Campbell 7'. Morse, 
 Harp. 468; Charleston, etc.. Steamboat 
 Co. 7'. Bason, Harp. 262; Harrington 7-. 
 Lyles, 2 Nott & McC. 88; McCall v. 
 Brock. 5 Strob. 119; Porcher 7-. North- 
 eastern R. Co.. 14 Rich. L. 181; Slater v. 
 South Carolina R. Co.. 29 S. C. 96. 6 S. 
 E. 936; Smvrl z: Niolon, 2 Bailev 421, 23
 
 § 99i 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 750 
 
 it must be free from fault at the time.^*^ A common carrier is liable if it negli- 
 gently exposes freight to capture by a public enemy, in consequence of which it 
 is captured or destroyed.^*'' 
 
 Who Are Public Enemies. — The term "public enemy" is understood to ap- 
 ply to foreign nations, with whom there is open war,^" and to pirates, who are 
 
 Am. Dec. 14(5: Ewart r. Street (S. C), 2 
 Bailej- 157. 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 Tennessee. — Jones v. Walker, 13 Tenn. 
 (5 Yerg.) 427; Lewis & Co. r. Ludwick, 
 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454; 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. T'. Katzenberg, 84 
 Tenn. (16 Lea) 380, 1 S. W. 44, 57 Am. 
 Rep. 232; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Lillie, 
 112 Tenn. 331. 78 S. W. 1055, 105 Am. 
 St. Rep. 947; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stone. 112 Tenn. 348, 79 S. W. 1031, 105 
 Am. St. Rep. 955; Southern Exp. Co. v. 
 Glenn. 84 Tenn. (16 Lea) 472. 1 S. W. 
 102; Southern Exp. Co. v. Womack, 48 
 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 256; Turney z'. Wilson, 
 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515; 
 Watson V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. 
 (9 Heisk.) 255; Adams Exp. Co v. Jack- 
 son, 92 Tenn. 326, 21 S. W. 666; Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 
 14 S. W. 311; Lamont & Co. v. Nashville, 
 etc.. R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58; Nash- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Jackson. 53 Tenn. 
 (6 Heisk.) 271 Craig v. Childress, 7 Tenn. 
 (Peck) 270, 14 Am. Dec. 751. 
 
 Texas. — Arnold v. Jones, 26 Tex. 335, 
 82 Am. Dec. 617; Chevallier v. Straham, 2 
 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Levi (Tex.), 12 S. W. 677; Interna- 
 tional, etc.. R. Co. z'. Bergman (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 64 S. W. 999; Houston, etc., Nav. 
 Co. v. Dwyer, 29 Tex. 376; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 
 479; Abbott Gin Co. v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co., 57 Tex. Civ. App. 263, 122 S. W. 284; 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. Wentworth, 
 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5, 27 S. W. 680; Texas 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Hunter & Co., 47 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 190, 193, 104 S. W. 1075; Al- 
 bright V. Penn, 14 Tex. 290; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co.^ V. Trawick, 68 Tex. 314, 4 S. W. 567. 
 
 Virginia. — Herring v. Chesapeake, etc., 
 R. Co., 101 Va. 778, 45 S. E. 322, 9 R. R. 
 R. 262. 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 262; 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 97 Va. 284, 
 33 S. E. 606; Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239; Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Beasley, etc., Co., 52 S. E. 566, 104 
 Va. 788, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 183. 
 
 West Virginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293; McGraw v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361, 41 
 Am. Rep. 696. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188; 
 Maslin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 14 W. 
 Va. ISO, 35 Am. Rep. 748; Hutchinson v. 
 United States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 
 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 393. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Klauber v. American Exp. 
 Co., 21 Wis. 21, 91 Am. Dec. 452. 
 
 Wyoming. — Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Blyth, 19 Wyo. 410, 118 Pac. 649, Ann. 
 
 Cas. 1913E, 288, rehearing deViied 119 
 Pac. 875. 
 
 England. — Coggs v. Bernard. 2 Ld. 
 Raym. (Eng.) 909; Forward v. Pittard, 1 
 D. & E. (Eng.) 27. 
 
 A contract to deliver goods at the 
 "point proposed" is subject to the com- 
 mon-law qualification of losses occasioned 
 by the act of the public enemy. Neal v. 
 Saunderson (Miss.), 2 Smedes & M. 572, 
 41 Am. Dec. 609. 
 
 A bill of lading stipulating that the 
 goods shall be delivered (the dangers of 
 tlie seas only excepted), without addi- 
 tional compensation, does not enlarge the 
 carrier's liability so as to render it liable 
 for a loss arising froin the act of a public 
 enemv. Gage v. Tirrell (Mass.), 9 Allen 
 299. 
 
 15. Carrier must be free from fault. — 
 Dunson v. New York Cent. R. Co. (N. 
 Y.), 3 Lans. 265. 
 
 16. Caldwell v. Southern Exp. Co., Fed. 
 Cas. No. 2,;303, 1 Flip. S5. 
 
 Goods delaying one day. — A railroad 
 company received goods for transporta- 
 tion which were placed on cars, and hav- 
 ing gone a part of the distance, the cars 
 containing the goods were detached from 
 the train, and other cars taken up in their 
 place, which train arrived safely at its 
 destination. The cars left behind were 
 taken on the train of the following day, 
 and, while on the way, the train was cap- 
 tured and burnt by the pul^lic enemy. 
 Held, that the railroad company was not 
 liable. Clark v. Pacific R. Co., 39 Mo. 184, 
 90 Am. Dec. 458. 
 
 17. Who are public enemies. — Foreign 
 nations at open war. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Levi (Tex.), 12 S. W. 677; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Womack, 48 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 256; 
 Lewis & Co. V. Ludwick, 46 Tenn. (6 
 Coldw.) 36S, 9S Am. Dec. 4r)4. 
 
 Confederate soldiers on Kentucky soil 
 were held public enemies in Bland v. Ad- 
 ams Exp. Co. (Ky.), 1 Duv. 232, 85 Am. 
 Dec. 623; Frank v. Keith (Ky.), 2 Bush 
 12.3. 
 
 Army or government of Confederate 
 States within own territory. — The destruc- 
 tion of the property Ijy the confederate 
 army can not be set up by a common car- 
 rier in Tennessee as an act of the "public 
 enemy." Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Estes, 
 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 622, 24 Am. Rep. 289. 
 See S. C, 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 749. Com- 
 pare Lewis & Co. c'. Ludwick, 46 Tenn. 
 (6 Coldw.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454. 
 
 And in Patterson v. North Carolina R. 
 Co., 64 N. C. 147, it is held, that the des- 
 truction of property, under tlie authority
 
 751 
 
 LOSS OR IX JURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 995-996 
 
 considered at war with all mankind,''^ but: not to thieves and roLbers,^^ or to 
 strikers, rioters, nu^bs and insurrectionists.^" 
 
 Duties of Carrier.— W hen goods are threatened to be destroyed or seized 
 by a public enemy, the carrier is bound to use due diligence to prevent such de- 
 struction or seizure,-' and orcUnary negligence in this respect will render it 
 liable.-- When property is removed from a car by public enemies, it is incum- 
 bent upon the carrier to care for the property and if it fails to do so in such 
 reasonable manner as is necessary and practicable under all the circumstances, 
 and the property is lost, the carrier will be held liable.-'^ 
 
 § 996. Thieves and Robbers. — The liability of a carrier as an insurer of 
 goods carried extends lo l()s>cs caused by the acts of thieves or robbers, such 
 persons not being within tlie lerni "public enemies."--* The reason of the rule 
 
 of the Confederate States, in 1862, can not 
 be claimed as the act of a public enemy, 
 by a railroad company situated within tiie 
 limits of that government and authority. 
 
 But in Hubbard & Co. v. Harnden Exp. 
 Co., 10 R. I. 244, where certain goods sent 
 by express were seized about the last of 
 April, ISOl, by an officer of the Confeder- 
 ate government at Savannah, Ga., and 
 placed in a bonded warehouse, and sub- 
 sequently sold for nonpayment of duties 
 levied on thorn, after the consignee had 
 been notified that they would be sold un- 
 less he paid the duties, it was held, that 
 the express company had been deprived 
 of the goods by the acts of the pul^lic ene- 
 mies, and was, therefore, not liable for 
 their value. 
 
 United States troops. — The liability ^f 
 a common carrier for tlie safe delivery of 
 goods is not relieved by showing that 
 they were destroyed by an overwhelming 
 force of United States soldiers under 
 the command of an army officer, this not 
 being a destruction 1)y "public enemies." 
 Seligman v. .Vrmijo, 1 X. Mcx. 4.")9. 
 
 Same — Within Confederate lines. — ^In 
 the late civil war, the troops of the United 
 States were a "public enemy," against 
 whose act a common carrier, within the 
 Confederate lines, did not insure. South- 
 ern Exp. Co. V. WomacK, 48 Tenn. (1 
 Heisk.) 25C). 
 
 18. Pirates. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Wo- 
 mack, 4S Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 256; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Levi (Tex.). 12 S. W. 677; Lewis 
 & Co. V. Ludwick, 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 
 368, 98 Am. Dec. 4.")4. See Hays v. Ken- 
 nedy, 41 Fa. 37S, SO Am. Dec. 627. 
 
 19. Thieves and robbers. — See 
 "Thieves and Robljcrs," § 996. 
 
 20. Strikers, rioters, etc. — See 
 "Strikers, Rioters, Mobs and Insurrec- 
 tionists," § 997. 
 
 21. Diligence required of carrier to pre- 
 vent loss. -Holladav v. Kcnnard (U. S.), 
 12 Wall. 25 1. 20 L. l-.d. :i',)(i. 
 
 22. Ordinary negligence renders car- 
 rier liable. — Holladav v. Kennard (U. S.), 
 12 Wall. 2.-i4. 20 L. lul. 390. 
 
 What is ordinary negligence depends on 
 
 post. 
 
 post. 
 
 the character of the employment. Where 
 skill and capacity are required to accom- 
 plish an undertaking, it would be negli- 
 gence not to employ persons having those 
 qualification. Holladay v. Kennard (U. 
 S.), 12 Wall. 254, 20 L. Ed. 390. 
 
 23. Wallace v. Sanders, 42 Ga. 486. 
 
 24. Loss by thieves and robbers. — .-i/a- 
 /)<;»/(/.— The Belfast v. Boon & Co., 41 
 Ala. 50; Boon & Co. v. The Belfast, 40 
 Ala. 184. 
 
 Arkansas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Xe- 
 vill. 60 Ark. 375, 30 S. W. 425, 28 L. R. 
 A. 80, 46 Am. St. Rep. 208. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. Holl- 
 owell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63. 
 
 Keiv York. — Schieflfelin v. Harvey (X'. 
 Y.), 6 Johns. 170, 5 Am. Dec. 206. 
 
 Ohio. — Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 
 131; Graham & Co. v. Davis & Co., 4 O. 
 St. 362, 375. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Hays v. Kennedy. 41 Pa. 
 378. 80 Am. Dec. 627. 
 
 Tennessee. — Lewis & Co. v. Ludwick, 46 
 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454; 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7'. Womack, 48 Tenn. 
 (1 Heisk.) 256; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Estes. 54 Tenn. il Heisk.) 622, 24 Am. 
 Rep. 289. 
 
 Texas.— 0\i\U etc.. R. Co. v. Levi. 76 
 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191; S. C. 12 S. W. 
 677; Chevallier v. Straham. 2 Tex. 115. 47 
 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 West ]'lrs.lnla. — Hutchinson z\ L nited 
 States Exp Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 
 949. 14 L. R. A., N. S., 393. 
 
 Under the laws of Mexico, a carrier is 
 not liable for a shipper's goods stolen by 
 robbers. Cantu v. Bennett. 39 Tex. 303. 
 
 Larceny by agent or employee.— A 
 carrier is liable for a larceny by its agent 
 in charge of the property. Chesapeake, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Hall. 136 Ky. 379. 124 S. W. 
 372: Southern Exp. Co. v. Bank, lOS Ala. 
 517. 18 So. 664. 
 
 The owners of a ship, though there be 
 no fault or negligence on their part are 
 answerable for goods which they have 
 undertaken to carry, if embezzled or 
 stolen by the crew. Schieflfelin r. Harvey 
 (X. Y.), 6 Johns. 170. 5 Am. Dec. 206.
 
 §§ 996-998 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 752 
 
 furnished by the earlier decisions is that the shipper might lose his goods by 
 collusion between the carrier and lawless persons, thieves, or robbers.-^ 
 
 § 997. Strikers, Rioters, Mobs and Insurrectionists. — Strikers, rioters, 
 mobs and insurrectionists are not public eneniies and a carrier's common-law 
 liability extends to losses occasioned by them.-'- 
 
 §§ 998-1002. Fault of Shipper or Owner— § 998. In General.— It may 
 
 be stated as a general rule that a carrier who has used due care is not respon- 
 sible for loss of or injury to goods resulting from the neglect, or wrong of the 
 shipper or owner.-' When the owner accompanies the goods, the general lia- 
 
 25. Reason of rule.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Gatewood. 79 Tex. 89. 14 S. W. 913; 
 Coggs z\ Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. (Eng.) 
 909. 
 
 Lord Mansfield in Forward r. Pittard, 
 1 D. & E. (Eng.) 27, said: "If an armed 
 force come to rob the carrier of the goods 
 he is liable; and a reason is given in the 
 books, which is a ])ad one, viz, that he 
 ought to have a sufficient force to repeal 
 it; but that would be impossible in some 
 cases, as for instance, in the riots in the 
 j'ear 1780. The true reason is, for fear 
 it may give room for collusion, that the 
 master may contrive to be robbed on pur- 
 pose, and sliare the spoil." 
 
 Presumption that police of state ade- 
 quate protection. — In Hays v. Kennedy, 
 41 Pa. 378, 80 Am. Dec. 627, it is said: "By 
 the very nature of his contract, the car- 
 rier, by himself or his agents, is bound to 
 be always with the goods during their 
 carriage, and the law presumes, and must 
 in all ordinary cases presume, that, if 
 watchful, the ordinary police of the state 
 will be entirely adequate for his protec- 
 tion. It is, therefore, because he is pre- 
 sumed, and almost conclusively presumed, 
 to be in fault in such case, that he is held 
 liable." 
 
 26. Strikers, rioters, etc. — Arkansas. — • 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nevill, 60 Ark. 
 375, 30 S. W. 425, 28 L. R. A. 80, 46 
 Am. St. Rep. 208. 
 
 Illinois. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Chicago, 242 111. 178, 89 N. E. 1022, 44 L. 
 R. A., X. S., 358, afifirming 144 111. App. 
 293. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Holl- 
 owell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63. 
 
 Ohio. — Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 
 131, followed in Graham & Co. v. Davis 
 & Co., 4 O. St. 362, 375. 
 
 Tennessee. — Lewis & Co. v. Ludwick, 46 
 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454; 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Womack, 48 Tenn. 
 (1 Heisk.) 256; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Estes, 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 622, 24 Am. 
 Rep. 289. 
 
 Texas.— GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 76 
 Tex. 337, 13 S. W. 191; Chevallier v. Stra- 
 ham, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Levi (Tex.), 12 S. W. 677. 
 
 West Virginia. — Hutchinson v. United 
 States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 
 949, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 393. 
 
 27. Fault of shipper or owner. — United 
 
 States. — Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 
 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; Railroad Co. v.- 
 Varnell, 98 U. S. 479, 25 L. Ed. 233; The 
 Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 
 779; Clark v. Barnwell (U. S.), 12 How. 
 272, 13 L. Ed. 985; Choate i'. Crownin- 
 shield. Fed. Cas. No. 2,691, 3 Cliff. 184; 
 The David & Caroline, 5 Blatchf. 266, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 3,593; The Huntress, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 6,914, 2 Ware (Dav. 82) 89. 
 
 Alabama. — McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 102 Ala. 193, 14 So. 370, 48 Am. St. 
 Rep. 29, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 178; 
 Southern R. Co. v. Levy, 39 So. 95, 144 
 Ala. 614, 17 R. R. R. 50, 40 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., N. S., 50. 
 
 Arkansas.— St Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Law, 68 Ark.* 218, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 286, 57 S. W. 258. 
 
 California. — Bohannan v. Hammond, 42 
 Cal. 227; Stockton Lumber Co. v. Cali- 
 fornia Xav.. etc., Co., 10 Cal. App. 197, 
 101 Pac. 541. 
 
 Colorado.— Union Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Rainey, 19 Colo. 225, 34 Pac. 986, 61 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 302. 
 
 Connecticut. — Candee v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 73 Conn. 667, 49 Atl. 17, 21 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 434; Clark v. Rich- 
 ards, 1 Conn. 54; Williams v. Grant, 1 
 Conn. 487, 7 Am. Dec. 235. 
 
 Delaware. — Reed v. Philadelphia, etc., 
 R. Co., 3 Houst. 176; Culbreth v. Phila- 
 delphia, etc., R. Co., 3 Houst. 392; Car- 
 penter V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 6 Pen. 
 15, 64 Atl. 252; Reed v. Wilmington 
 Steamboat Co., 1 Marv. 193, 40 Atl. 955, 
 1 Hardesty 127; Pennewill v. Cullen, 5 
 Har. 238. 
 
 Georgia. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741; 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs' Pharmacy 
 Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 S. E. 1039; Ohlen v. 
 ./\tlanta, etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 323, 58 
 S. E. 511; Coweta County v. Central, etc., 
 R. Co.. 4 Ga. App. 94, 100, 60 S. E. 1018; 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Warfield, 129 
 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; Central, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Lippman, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 
 202, 50 L. R. A. 673. 
 
 ////«oj.f.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Clellan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Erie 
 R. Co. V. Wilcox, 84 111. 239, 25 Am. Rep. 
 451; Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood Bridge 
 Co., 170 111. 645, 49 N. E. 215. 
 
 Indiana.— ToXtAo, etc., R. Co. v. Tapp, 
 6 Ind. App. 304, 33 N. E. 462; Evansville,
 
 753 
 
 LOSS OR IXJUKV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 998 
 
 bility of the carrier is limited to the extent that it is in no sense liable for any 
 
 etc., R. Co. V. Keith, :i5 X. E. 296, 8 Ind. 
 App. 57; Reid v. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 
 35 X. E. 703, 10 Ind. App. 385, 53 Am. 
 St. Rep. 391. 
 
 lozi'a. — Cobb, etc., Co. v. Illinois Ceni. 
 R. Co., 38 Iowa 601: Hart v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa 485, 27 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 59. 29 X. W. 597; Cownie Glove 
 Co. 7'. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co.. 
 106 X. W. 749. 130 lou-a 327, 114 Am. 
 St. Rep. 419. 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1060. 
 
 Kansas. — Watkins Merchandise Co. f. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 82 Kan. 308, 108 
 Pac. 116. 
 
 Kentucky. — Farley v. Lavary. 107 Kv. 
 523. 21 Kv. L. Rep. 1252, 54 vS. \V. 840. 
 47 L. R. A. 383. 
 
 Lt>uis{a)ta. — v^anthur Z'. Xew Orleans, 
 etc.. R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 67. 
 
 Maryland. — Philadelpiiia. etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Diffcndal. 109 Md. 494, 72 Atl. 193, 458. 
 
 .^fassacluisclts. — Hastings v. Pepper 
 (Mass.) H Pick. 41; Pratt v. Ogdens- 
 bury. etc.. R. Co., 102 Mass. 557. 
 
 Michigan. — Black v. Ashley, 80 Midi. 
 90, 44 X. W. 1120. 
 
 Missouri. — Haynes v. Wabash R. Co.. 
 54 Mo. App. 582. See Daggett r. Shaw, 
 3 Mo. 264, 25 .\m. Dec. 439. 
 
 N^ezi.' Hampshire. — Stimson v. Jackson, 
 58 X. H. 138: Rixford v. Smith, 52 X. H. 
 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42; Moses z-. Xorris. 4 
 N. H. 304. 
 
 Kczi.' York. — Harris v. Northern In- 
 diana R. Co., 20 X. Y. 232; Xelson v. 
 Stephenson, 12 X. Y. Super. Ct. 538; 
 Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35, 50 
 How. Prac. 457, 20 Am. Rep. 442. See 
 Sherman f. Wells, 28 Barb. 403. 
 
 North Carolina. — Lee v. Raleigh, etc., 
 R. Co.. 72 X. C. 236; Currie v. Seaboard, 
 etc., R. Co.. 156 N. C. 432, 72 S. E. 493. 
 
 North Dakota. — Duncan v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co.. 17 X. Dak. 610, 118 X. W. 
 826, 19 L. R. A., X. S'., 952. 
 
 O/a'o.— Union Exp. Co. v. Graham, 26 
 O. St. 595; .American Exp. Co. v. Smith. 
 33 O. St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561; Railroad 
 Co. z: O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 X. E. 
 476. 
 
 Oklalwvta. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. 'v. 
 Beatty. 27 Okla. 844, 116 Pac. 171. 
 
 Oregon. — Goodman f. Oregon R., etc., 
 Co.. 22 Ore. 14. 28 Pac. 894, 49 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 87; Lacey v. Oregon R., 
 etc., Co. (Ore.), 128 Pac. 999. 
 
 South Dakota. — Heumphreus v. Fre- 
 mont, etc., R. Co., 8 S. Dak. 103, 65 N. 
 W. 466. 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S.. 546. 
 
 Tennessee. — Southern Exp. Co. z'. Kauf- 
 man, 59 Tenn. (12 Heisk.) 161; American 
 Lead Pencil Co. z'. Xashville, etc.. Rail- 
 way. 124 Tenn. 57, 134 S. W. 613, 32 L. R. 
 A., X. S.. 323. 
 
 Texas. — Bonner z\ Grumliach, 2 Tex. 
 Civ. .App. 482. 21 S. W. 1010: Ft. Worth, 
 etc.. R. Co. z: Word (Tex. Civ. .App.), 32 
 
 1 Car— 48 
 
 S. W. 14; Texas Exp. Co. v. Scott, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 72, 16 Am. & Eng. 
 K. Cas. Ill; Chevallier z\ Straham, 2 Tex. 
 Il.">. 47 .Am. Dec. 039; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Scrivener, 2 Texas .App. Civ. Cas., § 
 328; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 12 S. W. 
 677; Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: Trawick, 68 Tex. 
 314. 4 S. W. 567; House z: Soder, 36 Tex. 
 629; Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. 290; M. P. 
 R. Co. V. Barnes & Co., 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 575; Fentiman Z'. Atchison, 
 etc.. R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455, 98 S. 
 W. 939. 
 
 J'erntont. — Ross v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 
 49 Vt. 364, 24 Am. Rep. 144. 
 
 I'irginia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.j 239. 
 
 West Virginia. — Roderick v. Baltimore, 
 etc.. R. Co., 7 W. Va. 54; McGraw v. Bal- 
 timore, etc., R. Co.. 18 W. Va. 361, 41 
 Am. Rep. 696, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Congar v. Chicago, etc, R. 
 Co., 24 Wis. 157, 1 Am. Rep. 164; Jen- 
 kins T'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 41 Wis. 112; 
 Miltimore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 
 Wis. 190; Klauber v. American Exp. Co., 
 21 Wis. 21. 91 Am. Dec. 452. 
 
 England. — Barbour v. South Eastern 
 R. Co.. ;;4 L. T. (Eng.) 67. 
 
 Illustrations. — If the consignor put 
 conibustil)lcs in a car in violation of the 
 carrier's rules, negligently and wrong- 
 fully, and a fire was caused thereby, 
 which destroyed his goods, he could not 
 recover. Pratt v. Ogdensbury, etc., R. 
 Co.. 102 Mass. 557. 
 
 Where a contract for the shipment of 
 .semi-perishable evaporated apples pro- 
 vided that, if the fruit was not removed 
 by the consignee within twenty-four 
 hours after its arrival at destination, it 
 might be kept in the car at the sole risk 
 of the owner, and the consignee was 
 promptly informed of the arrival of the 
 fruit at its destination, and knew the char- 
 acter of the fruit, the weather conditions, 
 and the provisions of the contract of 
 shipment, but failed to unload the fruit 
 for several da3's. made no effort to pro- 
 tect it. and did not complain as to its 
 being kept in the car, although fully in- 
 formed thereof, he was guilty of such 
 negligence as to preclude a recovery 
 from the carrier for injury resulting to 
 the fruit from being left in the car. 
 Becker v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 96 X. A*. 
 S. 1. 109 App. Div. 230. 
 
 Where a railroad permits consignees 
 of produce to sell it from cars in a yard 
 known as the "market yard." but does 
 not permit any one consignee to have 
 more than three cars at a time in the 
 market, and other cars are kept in an- 
 other j-ard until a car is emptied and re- 
 leased, a consignee can not recover for 
 a loss from deterioration of produce in 
 the storage yard, where delaj' in delivery
 
 § 998 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 754 
 
 injury or loss that mav occur throui^h the act of tlic owner or through any agency 
 
 to the market yard was due to the neg- 
 lect of the consignee in emptying the 
 cars. Laughlin Bros. Co. v. Philadelphia. 
 etc.. R. Co.. 74 Atl. 418. 22,-) Pa. 540. 
 
 Where the car load of freight, when 
 burned, was standing on an industrial 
 switch leading to the shipper's ware- 
 house, and the fire was started by a coal 
 oil stove in the office of the warehouse 
 being turned over by one of the shipper's 
 employees, firing the warehouse, from 
 which the flames spread to the car, de- 
 stroying its contents, the act of the ship- 
 per's employee in starting the fire was 
 the proximate cause of the loss of the 
 car; it then being in the possession of 
 the shipper, and not of the carrier. 
 American Lead Pencil Co. r. Nashville, 
 etc.. Railway, 124 Tenn. 57, 134 S. W. 
 61.3. 32 L. R. A.. X. S.. 323. 
 
 Instances when shipper or consignee 
 not negligent. — The fact that a shipper 
 packed and shipped applies in Xovemlier 
 from Xew York to Minnesota in a box 
 car did not constitute contributory neg- 
 ligence so as to preclude recovery for 
 damages by frost, which defendant rail- 
 road company might have prevented l)y 
 reasonable care. Calcnder-Vanderhoof 
 Co. z: Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 109 X. W. 
 402. 99 Minn. 295. 
 
 The fact that a shipment remained in 
 the depot at the destination five days after 
 plaintiff paid the freight charges and 
 signed the waybill does not show con- 
 tributory negligence. Saunders t'. South- 
 ern Railwayr 90 S. C. 79. 72 S. E. 637. 
 
 Though a shipper discovers before 
 loading or the departure of the car that 
 it is not suitable for carrying perishable 
 goods, he is not thereby guilty of con- 
 tributory negligence, or does not assume 
 the risk, if he can not relieve himself of 
 the situation. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. z'. 
 McLean, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 13,0, 118 S'. 
 W. 161. 
 
 In an action by a consignee against a 
 carrier for damages to fruit from de- 
 fective drainpipes in a refrigerator car 
 used by plaintiff for storage after the re- 
 lations of carrier and w-arehouseman had 
 terminated, where it appeared that, if the 
 fruit had been removed from the car, it 
 would have spoiled immediately because 
 the consignee had no cold-storage facili- 
 ties, the consignee would not be negli- 
 gent in failing to do so. And the ducy 
 did not devolve upon the consignee to 
 repair the car to prevent damage to the 
 fruit. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Tripis 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 199. 
 
 Where plaintiff shipped goods con- 
 signed to himself at a flag station on de- 
 fendant's road, where defendant main- 
 tained a warehouse, plaintiff was not 
 guilty of laches in that he was not pre- 
 
 pared to receive and remove the same 
 until the day following the day on which 
 he received notice of arrival. Xormile 
 7'. Xorthern Pac. R. Co., 77 Pac. 1087. 36 
 Wash. 21, 67 L. R. A. 271. 
 
 A shipper who in routing a shipment 
 selected a longer route than he could 
 have taken was not guilty of contribu- 
 tory negligence causing injury to the 
 shipment, where the carrier in the ex- 
 ercise of ordinary care could have trans- 
 ported the shipment without damage. 
 Uber z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 Wis. 
 431, 13S X. \V. 57. 
 
 Underestimating weight of article 
 shipped. — It is not a part of the implied 
 contract of shipment that a shipper 
 should declare the true weight of an 
 article shipped, and a shipper is not lia- 
 ble for negligence in understating the 
 weight of an article of ol)vious nature, 
 where an injury occurs because the tackle 
 used in unloading it is insufficient, though 
 adequate for the weight stated. Hanna 
 z: Pitt, 106 X. Y. S. 14.5, 121 App. Div, 
 120. 
 
 Shipping bridge trusses exceeding 
 agreed height. — A bridge builder loaded, 
 upon a flat car, bridge trusses that ex- 
 tended sixteen feet four inches from the 
 platform of the car, after having ob- 
 tained permission, through the agent, to 
 ship trusses fifteen feet high. In at- 
 tempting to take the car under a bridge, 
 the trusses were injured. Held, that the 
 shipper could not recover unless the rail- 
 road company knew the actual height of 
 the trusses. And a charge that if any 
 agent or employee of the defendant saw 
 the car after it was loaded, and made no 
 objection to it, the defendant was liable, 
 was error. Pennsylvania Co. z'. Ken- 
 wood Bridge Co., 49 X. E. 215, 170 111. 
 645. reversing 69 111. App. 145. 
 
 Loss by fire — Placing cotton on plat- 
 form near track. — It is not contributory 
 negligence per se for a shipper to place 
 cotton for shipment on a private plat- 
 form, so close to passing engines that 
 it is in danger of being ignited, and to 
 leave it there without watch or guard, 
 if the platform was constructed for the 
 purpose of receiving freight and has been 
 used by the railroad company for re- 
 ceiving cotton. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Fire Ass'n. 55 .Ark. 163, 18 S. W. 43. 
 
 Loading in accordance with plaintiff's 
 instructions. — Where a railroad company 
 to whom peaches were delivered for 
 shipment was bound to load the fruit 
 and furnish regulation material necessary 
 to properly load it, anxl the evidence in 
 an action for the spoiling thereof show^ed 
 that they were loaded by agents of the 
 company in accordance with instructions 
 from the plaintiff, and tliat the}' were
 
 755 
 
 LOSS (iR INJLKV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 998 
 
 that is under his exchisive control.-'* This rule, however, only requires the 
 owner to exercise care and dili^'ence : that everything was not done that skill or 
 prudence could have suggested is no bar to a recovery.-" .\nd it is not a ground 
 for limiting the responsibility of the carrier, where no interference is attenipteil 
 with its control of the property carried, that the owner accompanies it and keeps 
 watch for its safety.'-" Where goods are lost because of latent defects in ap- 
 pliances for unloading furnished by the sliip])er, the carrier is not liable.-' ^ 
 
 Negligence and Contributory Negligence.— Some cases hob! that if lost or 
 injury to freight is caused jiarily by [he iR-gligence of the .shipper and partly by 
 the negligence of the carrier, there can be no recovery, unless, by ordinary care, 
 the shij)per could not have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the 
 carrier."- Hut it is also held that, in an action against a carrier, on a common- 
 law contract of carriage, without reservations or exception, for failure to deliver 
 property shipped in good condition, contributory negligence on the part of the 
 ]ilaintiff is not awiilablc as a defense. ■'■' 
 
 Where a shipper of inflammable and explosive acids does not give no- 
 tice to the carrier of their nature, it is relieved from liability for the loss of the 
 goods due to explosion and tire cau.sed by a portion of the acids leaking from 
 their containers. •'^■* 
 
 loaded in the best manner possible with 
 the material furnished, there was no sucli 
 negligence of the plaintiff as will pre- 
 clude a recovery. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Woldert Grocery Co. (Te.x. Civ. .-\pp.). 
 144 S. \V. 1194. 
 
 28. When owner accompanies goods. — 
 \\'il>(in f. llaniilttm. t < ). Si. T:>;i: Xuii- 
 nelee r. St. Louis, etc., I\. Co. (Mo. 
 A pp.), 129 S. W. 762. 
 
 Car under control of shipper's agent. 
 — While a carrier is held to l)e an insurer 
 of the safety of property while it is in 
 his possession as a carrier, the rule does 
 not apply where the goods were trans- 
 ported in a car which was left in the ex- 
 clusive control of the shipper's agent, 
 and the}' were destroyed by his act; and 
 in such case it is immaterial whether the 
 agent was careful or negligent. Hart r. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Iowa 485, 29 N. 
 W. .-)97, 27 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. ,J0. 
 
 Agreement in violation of law. — Where 
 the owner of property shipped by rail, 
 by agreement with the ca)rrier, under- 
 takes to care for it in the course of 
 transportation, and it is destroj-ed through 
 his act. the carrier is not liable for the 
 loss, although the agreement may have 
 been in violation of Code, § i:^08, provid- 
 ing that "no contract, receipt, rule, or 
 regulation shall exempt any corporation 
 engaged in transportation of persons or 
 property by railway from lial)ility of 
 common carrier." Hart f. Chicago, etc.. 
 R. Co.. 69 Iowa 48.5. 29 .\'. W. .-)97, 27 .Am. 
 & Kng. R. Cas. 59. 
 
 29. \\iIson f. Hamilton, 4 O. St. 722. 
 
 30. llannil)al Railroail r. Swift (l*. J?.). 
 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. I'.d. l:.*:;. 
 
 31. Defects in appliances furnished by 
 shipper. — The owner of a hogshead of 
 molasses furnished a common carrier 
 with skids wherewith to unload the same 
 from his wagon; but the skids, owing to 
 
 a latent defect, broke under the weight 
 of the hogshead, and the contents thereof 
 were lost. Held, that the owner could 
 not maintain an action against the car- 
 rier for the loss. Loveland v. Burke, 120 
 Mass. 1.39, 21 Am. Rep. 507. 
 
 32. Negligence and contributory negli- 
 gence.— Keed :: riiiladelphia. etc., R. C<.. 
 (Del.), 3 Houst. 176. See Coweta County 
 V. Central, etc., R. Co., 4 Ga. .\pp. 94. 60 
 S. E. 1018. 
 
 The fact that a consignee, after discov- 
 ering the carrier's negligence in failing 
 to transport the goods in a reasonable 
 time, tailed to use ordinary care to avoid 
 the injury caused by such negligence, 
 will not preclude him from recovering 
 the damages actually caused to him by 
 such negligence, which he co'dd not. by 
 ordinary diligence, have prevented. Bel- 
 cher V. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. 50 S. W. 
 559. 92 Tex. 593, reversing 47 S. W 3S4 
 1020. 
 
 33. McCarthy 7: Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 
 102 Ala. 193, 14 So. 370. 48 .Am. St. Rep. 
 29, 61 .Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 178. wherein 
 it is said: "Xo where in the books can 
 be found any reference to the defense 
 of contributory negligence against the 
 common-law liabilitj- of common carriers 
 of goods. .And in the nature of things 
 there can be no such defense, to speak 
 with any approach to le^al accuracy. 
 There must always be negligence on the 
 part of a defendant or else it cannot be 
 said that a plaintiff has been guilty of 
 contrilnitory negligence. * * * When he 
 (the carrier) relies u])on the other excep- 
 tion to that rule of liability, that which 
 rests upon the fault of the sliipper. he 
 must bring himself entirely and perfectly 
 within it by negativing all contributory 
 fault of his own." 
 
 34. Bradley v. Lake Shore, etc.. R. Co., 
 145 .App. Div. 312, 129 X. Y. S. 1045.
 
 §§ 998-999 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 756 
 
 Duty of Consignor as to External Protection. — As to external protection 
 of the goods, the owner is not required to cover them so as to be safe against 
 the action of rain or wind or fire not happening by the act of God.''^ 
 
 § 999. Goods Improperly Marked. — It is the duty of the shipper of goods 
 to have them properly marked, and if he neglects to do it, and there is a loss in 
 consequence, without any fault of the carrier, he must bear the loss;^^ but if 
 there is a loss through any want of reasonable caution on the part of the carrier, 
 or its servants, it will be responsible.-'" And negligence on the part of the owner 
 of goods, in delivering them to a carrier incorrectly addressed, does not defeat 
 his right to recover for a loss of the goods ui)on the ground of contributive neg- 
 ligence, if the carrier's agents received them with knowledge of the error.^s if 
 the carrier accepts goods which are not marked to any place of destination, or 
 are marked to a place that has no existence, it is liable for a loss where they 
 are carried to another station and there left.-'-' 
 
 Goods Marked Only with Initial. — \\ here the consignor marks the goods 
 with the initials only of the consignee, the carrier is liable for entering them on 
 the bill of lading in the name of a stranger, wdiereby the goods are lost.-*"' And 
 where a carrier receives goods whicli are only marked wath the initials of the 
 consignee and gives a bill of lading therefor, specifying the consignee, it is 
 bound to remark the goods if that is necessary to insure their safe delivery.'* ^ 
 
 35. External protection. — Klauher z'. 
 American Exp. Co.. 2] Wis. 21, 91 Am. 
 Dec. 452. 
 
 36. Goods improperly marked. — United 
 States.— Th& Huntress. Fed. Cas. No. 
 6,914. 2 Ware (Dav. 82) 89. 
 
 Alabama. — Broadwood v. Southern Exp. 
 Co.. 41 So. 709, 148 Ala. 17. 
 
 Missouri. — Weaver v. Southern R. Co., 
 13.5 Mo. App. 210, 115 S. W. 500. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Stimson v. Jackson, 
 58 N. H. 138. 
 
 Tennessee. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Kauf- 
 man. 59 Tenn. (12 Heisk.) 161. 
 
 Where a box improperly directed was 
 delivered to a railroad for transportation 
 and was safely carried to its destination, 
 and there, after having been kept for 
 two months and due diligence exercised 
 to ascertain the consignee, was delivered, 
 by reason of the improper direction, to 
 the wrong person, the company was not 
 liable for the loss. Lake Shore, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hodapp, 83 Pa. 22. 
 
 Goods directed to wrong place. — A. 
 chartered a car, which he loaded with fur- 
 niture to be sent to O., Ha. He shipped 
 the car via the C. railroad to the B. rail- 
 road at G., where it was duly delivered. 
 By mistake of A. or his agent, the car 
 was directed to O., Del. In consequence 
 of this misdirection, the goods were de- 
 layed and finally reached A. much dam- 
 aged. In an action by A. against B. he 
 was nonsuited. Knorr v. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co. (Pa.), 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 
 187. 
 
 County omitted in marking — Two towns 
 of same name. — The contrilnitory negli- 
 gence of the shipper in only marking 
 goods to the town and state to which it 
 is to be sent, omitting the county, will 
 relieve the carrier from liability for loss 
 which results from the fact that there 
 
 are two towns of the same name in the 
 state. Congar v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 24 Wis. 157, 1 Am. Rep. 164. 
 
 37. The Huntress. Fed. Cas. No. 6,914, 2 
 Ware (Dav. 82) 89. 
 
 The carrier is liable when guilty of 
 negligence without which, notwithstand- 
 ing the shipper's mistake in directing 
 goods, the loss would not have occurred. 
 vSo, it is liable for loss of goods where, 
 though improperly directed they would 
 have reached their intended destination 
 but for the changing of the directions 
 ])y the carrier's agent. Weaver v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 115 S. W. 500, 135 Mo. App. 
 210. 
 
 38. Carrier's knowledge of imperfect ad- 
 dress. — O'Rourke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 44 Ifjwa 52(). 
 
 Where the directions are not clear, it is 
 the carrier's duty, unless an emergency 
 arises, to hold the goods and ask further 
 instructions from the shipper. Weaver v. 
 Southern R. Co., 135 Mo. App. 210, 115 
 S. W. 500. 
 
 Where goods were marked with the 
 name, bijt not with the place of destina- 
 tion, when received l)y the carrier, though 
 it was the shipper's fault that the goods 
 were not properly marked, the carrier 
 can not be heard to complain thereof, 
 because it received the freight in that 
 condition, and thereby waived any defect 
 in the manner in which it was marked or 
 directed. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Maetze, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 631. 
 
 39. Goods marked to place that does 
 not exist. — (i'Kourke z\ Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Iowa 526. 
 
 40. Goods marked only with initials. — 
 Forsythe v. Walker, 9 Pa. 148. 
 
 41. Krender v. Wolcott (N. Y.), 1 Hilt. 
 223.
 
 757 
 
 LOSS OK IXJLRV TO GO(JDS. 
 
 § 1000 
 
 § 1000. Goods Improperly Packed. — In the absence of negligence on their 
 part, carrier^ are iioi liable for los^e^ resulting from the defective manner in 
 which goods are packed by the owner. ^■- Jlut, though goods be improperly 
 packed, the carrier is liable for other injuries to which the bad packing did not 
 contribute.-* •■' The owner of liquids, or any articles shipj^ed in casks, of any 
 description, is, in the first instance, chargeable with the duty of supplying proper 
 ones, and would presumptively be responsible for a loss arising from their insuf- 
 ficiencv or defects,-*^ but the carrier is not excused from liability for loss caused 
 by standing a cask on end, instead of on the bilge, by the fact that the barrel 
 was old and defectiNC*'' 
 
 Duty of Carrier Receiving Goods Improperly Packed. — If a carrier ac- 
 cepts for carriage goods improperly packed, it is bound to exercise due care for 
 their safe carriage ; ■*" and where goods are not in a proper condition to be 
 shipped in safety, it is bound to stow them with reference to their condition.^ "'' 
 
 Presumption That Goods Properly Packed. — Shippers of large expe- 
 rience, in llie absence of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to use the best 
 method of packing for the particular kind of carriage.-* ** 
 
 42. Goods improperly packed. — Ala- 
 bama. — Broadwood 7'. Southern \i\p. Co., 
 148 Ala. 17, 41 So. 7()y. 
 
 Dclazi-arc. — Culbreth v. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 392; Car- 
 penter V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (Del.), 
 6 Pen. 15, 64 All. 252. 
 
 Georgia. — Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Ja- 
 cobs' Pharmacy Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 S. E. 
 1039; Coweta County z: Central, etc., R. 
 Co., 4 Ga. App. 94. 100. 60 S. E. 1018. 
 
 Minnesota. — Shriver v. Sioux City, etc., 
 R. Co., 24 Minn. 306. 31 Am. Rep. 353. 
 
 Nczv Hampshire. — Rixford v. Smith, 52 
 N. H. 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42. 
 
 0/mo.— Union Exp. Co. v. Graham, 26 
 O. St. 595. 
 
 Oregon. — Goodman v. Oregon R., etc., 
 Co., 22 Ore. 14, 28 Pac. 894, 49 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 87. 
 
 Te.vas.—A\hr\ght v. Penn. 14 Tex. 290; 
 Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Evans-Snyder-Buel 
 Co.. 100 Tex. 190. 97 S. W. 466, affirming 
 42 Tex. Civ. App. 60; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wittnebert, 101 Tex. 368, 108 S. W. 150, 
 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1227, 16 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 1153, reversing 104 S. W. 
 424. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Klauber v. American Exp. 
 Co., 21 Wis. 21, 91 -\m. Dec. 452. 
 
 Neglect to pack. — If damage is caused 
 to furniture l)y the shipper's neglect to 
 pack it, the company is not responsible. 
 Barbour v. Southern R. Co., 34 L. T. 
 (Eng.) 67. 
 
 Notwithstanding the bill of lading ac- 
 knowledged receipt of goods in good 
 order, the carrier may show, in case ol 
 injury to the goods, and as against the 
 owner of them, that it was occasioned by 
 insufficiency in the cask, etc., in which 
 they were packed, and not by any negli- 
 gence on its part. Zerega v. Poppe, Fed. 
 Cas. No. is,2i:!. .\1)1>. Adm. 397. 
 
 The loss must actually result from the 
 defective packing and tlirougli no fault 
 of the carrier. Zerege v. Poppe, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 18,213, Abb. Adm. 397. 
 
 43. Injuries from another cause. — 
 Shriver r. Sioux City. etc.. R. Co., 24 
 Minn, ".nc, :ji Am. Rep. 3."/!. 
 
 44. Failure of shipper to furnish proper 
 casks. — Nelson v. Stephenson, 1:.' X. Y. 
 Super. Ct. 538. 
 
 Wrong casks furnished by carrier. — .\ 
 railroad company l)y mistake delivered 
 empty casks to consignees wiiich had 
 contained turpentine, when they should 
 have delivered casks which had contained 
 ketchup. The company's servants knew 
 the casks were to be refilled with ket- 
 chup. The consignees not knowing of 
 the mistake refilled the casks with ket- 
 chup, which was spoiled. In an action by 
 the consignees against the railroad com- 
 pany, it was held that there could be no 
 recovery for the loss of the ketchup. 
 Cunningham v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 254, 49 L. T. 
 (Eng.) 394. 
 
 45. Thompson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 27 Iowa, appx., 561. 
 
 46. Duty of carrier as to goods improp- 
 erly packed. — Union E.xp. Co. :■. Graham. 
 26 U. St. 595; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hotchkiss, 14-24 O. C. D. 431, 435. 
 
 Where a carrier accepts goods improp- 
 erly packed, their condition lieing open 
 to ordinary observation, the duty attaches 
 of using due care for their safe carriage, 
 and the carrier is subject to all the lia- 
 I)ilities ordinarily attaching to an ordinary 
 shipment of the same character. Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co. V. Rice, 169 Ala. 265. 52 
 So. 918. 
 
 47. The David & Caroline, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 3,593, 5 Blatchf. 266. 
 
 48. The Moravian, Fed. Cas. No. 9,7S9, 
 2 Hask. 157. 
 
 Where goods are shipped in cases, and 
 there is nothing in the appearance or 
 condition of tiie goods, on l)eing opened 
 after delivery, affording ground for rea- 
 sonable inference that they were improp- 
 erly packed, or unless some evidence to 
 that eflfect is given, the presumption is
 
 § 1001 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 758 
 
 § 1001. Goods Improperly Loaded.— A carrier is not liable for any dam- 
 age resulting solelv from the negligence of the shipper in loading the freight on 
 the cars-*^ According to some of the cases, the carrier is not liable for such 
 damage,' notwithstanding knowledge of its employees of the improper loading.-^^ 
 But according to others the carrier is liable for injury to goods shipped, though 
 thev were improperly loaded, if the improper loading was apparent to the ordi- 
 nary observation of 'the carrier's servants. ^i And it is held that if, after knowl- 
 edge by the carrier of the existence of a danger caused by the shipper's negli- 
 gence in loading a car, the goods may be preserved by the use of extraordinary 
 
 that thev were properly packed, although 
 the bill' of lading contains the clause, 
 "weight, contents and value unknown." 
 English z\ Ocean Steam Nav. Co., Fed. 
 Cas. Xo. 4.490, 2 Blatchf. 425. 
 
 49. Goods improperly loaded. — Alabama. 
 —McCarthy v. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., 102 
 Ala. 193. 14 So. 370, 61 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 178, 48 Am. St. Rep. 29. 
 
 Georgia.— East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741. 
 
 lUiiiois. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood 
 Bridge Co.. 170 111. (545. 49 N. E. 215; 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 111. 623, 
 71 Am. Dec. 291. 
 
 Xczi: Hamt>sliirc.—Ri:<.iovd v. Smith. 52 
 N. H. 355. 13 Am. Rep. 42. 
 
 rr-n75.— Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Evans- 
 Snyder-Buel Co., 100 Tex. 190, 97 S. W. 
 466; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Word 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 14; Gulf, 
 etc R Co. V. Wittnebert, 101 Tex. 368, 
 108 S. W. 150, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1227, 
 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1153, reversing 
 104 S. W. 42. 
 
 A carrier is not liable for damages to 
 a wagon caused by its being blown from 
 a platform car during transportation, 
 where the shipper assumed the sole 
 charge and responsibility of loading and 
 fastening the wagon, and there had been 
 a high wind for a sufficient time before 
 the train started to enable him either to 
 further fasten the wagon, or to counter- 
 mand the order for its shipment. Mil- 
 timore v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Wis. 
 190. 
 
 Liability to persons hiring cars. — If a 
 railroad company charters some of its 
 cars to an individual, who loads them 
 himself and in his own way, the company 
 is not liable as a common carrier for any 
 injury to the property in such cars aris- 
 ing from imperfect loading. East Ten- 
 nessee, etc., R. Co. V. Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 
 73 Am. Dec. 741; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dunl)ar, 20 111. 023, 71 Am. Dec. 291. 
 
 Shipper loading cars at his factory. — 
 The fact that a shipper loads his cars at 
 his manufacturing establishment for his 
 own convenience, instead of delivering the 
 freight at the station for loading, does 
 not make him the agent of the carrier, 
 so as to make the latter responsiljlc for 
 damages resulting from improper loading. 
 And the carrier is not required to inspect 
 the manner of loading every load. Penn- 
 
 sylvania Co. V. Kenwood Bridge Co., 170 
 111. 645, 49 N. E. 215, reversing 69 111. 
 App. 145. 
 
 Effect of delay. — Plaintiffs had control 
 of the loading of the car in which corn 
 was shipped, and loaded the corn in the 
 car themselves, while it was wet, and in 
 a condition to be damaged by being 
 bulked in the car. Held, that defendant 
 was not responsible for damages occasioned 
 thereby, notwithstanding the fact of a de- 
 lay in the transportation thereof. Gal- 
 veston, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas. § 138. 
 
 If there is no evidence to remove the 
 presumption of negligence on the part of 
 the carrier, plaintiff is entitled to judg- 
 ment, though the improper loading of the 
 goods contributed to the injury. Mc- 
 Carthy V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 
 193, 14 So. 370. 48 Am. St. Rep. 29, 61 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 178. 
 
 50. Knowledge of improper loading. — 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. Drought & 
 Co. (lex. Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 1011. 
 
 Negligence of shipping noticed by for- 
 warder of freight. — Where plaintiff loaded 
 heavy machinery upon a platform^ car, 
 and blocked its wheels with insufficient 
 blocking insecurely nailed, by reason 
 whereof the machinery, while being trans- 
 ported by defendant, broke from its 
 fastening without fault of defendant, in 
 the running of the train, or in mainte- 
 nance of the track, and was injured, the 
 defendant was not liable therefor, al- 
 though its yard master and forwarder of 
 freight cars saw the fastenings and no- 
 ticed their insufficiency, before the in- 
 jury was done. Ross v. Troy, etc., R. 
 Co., 49 Vt. 304, 24 Am. Rep. 144. 
 
 51. Improper loading apparent to car- 
 rier. — McCarthy v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 102 Ala. 193, 14 So. 370, 48 Am. St. 
 Rep. 29, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 178. 
 
 Connecting carrier not chargeable with 
 notice. — Where the goods are improperly 
 loaded by the shipper in close cars, which 
 come from the initial carrier to a con- 
 necting carrier with their doors closed, 
 the improper loading is not to be held 
 apparent to the connecting carrier, and 
 no duty rests upon the connecting car- 
 rier to open the cars to see whether the 
 loading was properly done. McCarthy v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 193, 14 
 So. 370, 48 Am. St. Rep. 29, 61 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 178.
 
 759 
 
 LOSS OR IXJUKV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1001-1002 
 
 care on its part, it will not Ije relieved from liability, if it is negligent in this 
 regard, bv settini( up the original negligence of the shipper. ^- 
 
 Duty of Inspection. — It is held that it is not the duty of a railroad company 
 which recei\e> a hiailed car from the consignor or from another railroad com- 
 pany to make an inspection of the manner of loading, when the defect can not 
 be discovered by external examination. •"'■' Hut it is also held that where the 
 owner loads the goods the carrier has the duty of seeing that the loading is such 
 as to secure their safety '' 
 
 Negligence of Consignor Imputed to Consignee. — In an action by a con- 
 signee against a C(jmmon carrier ftjr damages to goods which were improperly 
 loaded by the consignor, the negligence of the consignor is imi)uted to the con- 
 signee."'^ 
 
 § 1002. Misrepresentation or Concealment of Nature or Value of 
 Goods. — it is held that where the consignor fraudulentl} conceals from the 
 carrier, or misrejiresents, the value or nature of goods, the carrier is relieved 
 from liabilitv in case of loss without its default.'''* And in no case is it held 
 
 52. Atlanta, etc., R Co. v. Jacol)s' Phar- 
 macy Co., i;i5 Ga. li:5, (58 S. R. 1039. 
 
 53. Duty of inspection. — Gulf, etc., Co. 
 V. \Vittiiol)crt, 101 Tc.x. iJfiS. 108 S. W. 150, 
 14 L. R. .\.. X. S., 1.'227. It; Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. ll."):{, rcvcr.sinq: 104 S. W. 424. 
 
 54. Hannil)al Railroad v. Swift (U. S.), 
 12 Wall. •.>(•,:.•. :.'() L. VA. 42:;. 
 
 55. Negligence of consignor imputed 
 to consignee. — McCarthy v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 193. 14 So. 370. 48 
 Am. St. Rep. 29, (U .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 178. 
 
 56. Misrepresentation or concealment 
 of nature or value of goods. — Louisiana. — 
 Lcvois r. Calc, 17 La. Ann. 302. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Phillips v. Earle (Mass.), 
 8 Pick. 182. 
 
 Mississippi. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Phillips & Co. (Miss), GO S. E. 572. 
 
 AVxc Vorlc. — Magnin v. Dinsmore, 38 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 248; S. C, 62 N. Y. 3"), 
 riO Hovx'. Prac. 457, 20 Am. Rep. 442; 
 Richards v. Westcott," 15 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 589; Sewall v. Allen (N. Y.), {> Wend. 
 335. 
 
 Peuiisylraiiia. — Relf v. Rapp, 3 Watts 
 & S. 21," 37 Am. Dec. 528; Coxe v. Heisley, 
 19 Pa. 243. " 
 
 Tennessee. — Shackt v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 94 Tenn. 658, 30 S. W. 742, 28 L. R. 
 A. 176. 
 
 Te.vas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. York, 
 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 638; Texas 
 Exp. Co. V. Dupree, 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 318; Texas Exp. Co. v. Scott, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 72, 16 Am. & 
 'Eng. R. Cas. ill; Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. JBurke, 55 Tex. 323, 9 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 59; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Pitman, 30 
 Tex. Civ. App. 62C.. 71 S. W. 312. 
 
 Rationale of Doctrine. — A common 
 carrier is entitled to protection against 
 liability, sought to be thrown upon him, 
 by concealment or fraud, which he would 
 not otherwise have assumed; and no one 
 has a right, by any concealment or arti- 
 fice, to disarm him of that vigilance, which 
 
 tlie nature and extent of the danger rea- 
 sonably demands; or to deprive him of 
 the increased compensation which a more 
 hazardous or responsible service justly 
 entitles him to receive. Richards v. 
 Westcott, 15 N. Y. Super. Ct. 589. 
 
 If questions as to the nature and value 
 of the goods are answered improperly, 
 so as to deceive the carrier, there is no 
 contract between the parties and no de- 
 livery. Despatch Line f. Glenny & Co.. 
 41 O. St. 166, reversing 10 Am. L. Rec. 
 172, 6 O. Dec. Reprint 1142; Railwav Co. 
 V. Simon. 15 O. C. C. 123, 8 O. C. D. 540. 
 
 Illustrations. — A carrier is not liable 
 for the loss of a box containing valuable 
 articles, when it is so disguised as to 
 resemble those which generally contain 
 articles of small value, and no notice is 
 given him of the contents. Warner v. 
 Western Transp. Co., 28 N. Y. Super Ct. 
 490; Southern Exp. Co. v. Everett, 37 
 Ga. 688. 
 
 Where one sent to an express com- 
 pany, by a young negro slave, a box three 
 i)y four inches in size, tied by a string, 
 and containing a dimond pin worth $500, 
 without notifying the company of the 
 value of the contents, held, that the com- 
 pany was not liable for the loss of the 
 pin from the box. Everett v. Soutliern 
 Exp. Co.. 46 Ga. 303. 
 
 Where notice .that a ship would not 
 be responsible for; jewelry, unless the 
 value were disclosed, is brought home to 
 plaintiff, who, without disclosing the na- 
 ture or value of articles, intentionallj' 
 ships them so as to conceal their real 
 character, the owners are not liable. 
 Baldwin v. Collins (La.). 9 Rob. 468. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped by defendant com- 
 pany various parcels, including a basket 
 containing silver and various stuffs used 
 by his wife in her millinery business. 
 The lot had the general appearance of 
 household goods, and the agent receiving 
 the parcels cried out in plaintiff's hear- 
 ing, "Household goods" to which plain-
 
 § 1002 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 760 
 
 that the shipper can recover more than the apparent vaUie of the property ac- 
 cording to representation made where he misrepresents its character, or mis- 
 leads the carrier as to its vahie.^' A person omitting, without fraud, to state 
 
 tiff made no objection, and they were 
 shipped as such. On the bill of lading 
 was written. "Owners' risk rel. to value 
 $5.00," which meant that defendant's lia- 
 bility was limited to $5 per 100 pounds, 
 but plaintiff testified that he thought that 
 it meant that he would receive $500 in 
 case of loss. Plaintiff was an intelligent 
 German machinist, who had traveled 
 much, and had resided two years in the 
 country, and his wife had been in business. 
 Some of the articles in the basket, being 
 silver, would not have been received as 
 freight, and some would have been car- 
 ried only at a rate much higher than that 
 for household goods. Plaintiff testified 
 that he did not know that rates of freight 
 were different according to classification. 
 Held, that the plaintiff could not recover 
 for the loss of the contents of the basket. 
 Shackt z'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 94 Tenn. 
 658. 30 S. W. 742, 28 L. R. A. 176. 
 
 Where a carrier's charges for trans- 
 porting packages, when the true value 
 is stated in the receipt, and it exceeds 
 $50, are greater than when no value 
 is stated, and the shipper knows this, 
 and, for the purpose of obtaining a 
 lower freight charge, does not insert 
 the value in the receipt, and the car- 
 rier does not know the true value, and, 
 if it did, would, besides making a greater 
 charge, use greater precaution, this is a 
 fraud on the carrier, releasing it from lia- 
 bility where the package is stolen. Pa- 
 cific Exp. Co. V. Pitman, 71 S. W. 312, 30 
 1 ex. Civ. App. 626. 
 
 Where one ships a valise containing 
 money by a common carrier, if the agent 
 of the carrier at the time of receiving the 
 valise asked the shipper if it contained 
 money, and he replied that it did not, the 
 carrier will not l)e responsible for its loss 
 while in his possession. Texas Exp. Co. 
 z'. Dupree, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 318. 
 
 Reply held not false statement. — A re- 
 ply by a shipper, in answer to an inquiry 
 of the carrier's agent as to whether the 
 package contained anything l)reakal)le or 
 anything requiring it to be given special 
 attention, that it did not, was not a false 
 statement of the facts, though the pack- 
 age contained a valuable diamond ring. 
 Head v. Pacific Exp. Co. (Tex. Civ. App. J, 
 126 S. W. 682. 
 
 57. Recovery of only apparent value. 
 — United States. — Earnest v. Express 
 Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4248, 1 Woods 573. 
 
 California. — Hayes v. Wells, Fargo & 
 Co., 23 Cal. 185, 83 Am. Dec. 89. 
 
 Civ. Code, § 2200, provides that "a 
 common carrier of gold, * * * upon 
 loss or injury of such articles, * * * 
 is not liable for more than the value of 
 the articles named in the receipt or bill 
 
 of lading." Scammon v. Wells Fargo & 
 Co., 84 Cal. 311, 24 Pac. 284. 
 
 Georgia. — Everett v. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 46 Ga. 303; Savannah, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Collins, 77 Ga. 376, 3 S. E. 410, 4 Am. 
 St. Rep. 87; Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Moore. 80 Ga. 522, 5 S. E. 769. See 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 7 Ga. App. 
 165, 66 S. E. 492; Way v. Southern Ry. 
 Co., 132 Ga. 677. 64 S. E. 1066. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shea, 
 66 111. 471; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Thomp- 
 son, 19 III. 573. See Oppenheimer & Co. 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 69 111. 62, IS 
 .•\m. Rep. 596; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Marcus, 38 111. 219. 
 
 Kciituckv. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hall, 13"'6 Ky. 379, 124 S. W. 372; South- 
 ern Exp. Co. V. Fox, 131 Ky. 257, 115 S. 
 W. 184, 117 S. W. 270. 
 
 Minnesota. — Douglas Co. v. Minnesota 
 Transfer R. Co., 62 Minn. 288, 64 N. W. 
 899, 30 L. R. A. 860. 
 
 Ohio. — Despatch Line v. Glenny & Co., 
 41 O. St. 166; Railway Co. v. Simon, 15 
 O. C. C. 123, 8 O. C. D. 540. 
 
 South Carolina. — Bottum v. Charleston, 
 etc., R. Co., 72 S. C. 375, 51 S. E. 985, 
 2 L. R. A., N. S., 773, 110 Am. St. Rep. 
 610; Galveston etc., R. Co. v. Quilhot 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 134 S. W. 261. 
 
 J'ir^^iiiia. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Green, 
 112 Va. 527, 72 S. E. 102. 
 
 The ignorance of an agent as to the 
 contents of the package delivered for 
 shipment, and .innocence of any inten- 
 tion to deceive the carrier, or to conceal 
 the value of the goods, do not affect the 
 liability of the carrier where the princi- 
 pal intended to deceive the carrier or to 
 conceal the value of the goods. Chesa:- 
 peake, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 136 Ky. 379, 
 124 S. W. 372. 
 
 That articles of greater value are placed 
 in the same box with ordinary freight is 
 not such a concealment of the character 
 of the goods as relieves the carrier from 
 liability for the loss of the ordinary 
 freight. Hyde v. New York, etc., Steam- 
 ship Co., 17 La. Ann. 29. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where the shipper made 
 misrepresentations as to the nature of the 
 goods shipped, representing them to be 
 household goods, when in fact a part con- 
 sisted of jewelry and wearing apparel, 
 the company was exempt from liability 
 as to the jewelry and wearing apparel, 
 because it never contracted to carry such, 
 but was not exempt as to the household 
 goods. Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 
 80 Ga. 522, 5 S. E. 769. 
 
 Where a shipper delivered to an ex- 
 press company a package wrapped in Ma- 
 nilla paper and tied with a twine string, 
 but not sealed, which contained the music 
 and libretto in manuscript of an opera,
 
 761 
 
 ■ LOSS OK INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1002 
 
 the character and contents of packages, fully, may be precluded from receiv- 
 ing the value of the articles so omitted; but his right to recover for articles 
 enumerated will not be afifected.^** If a shipper is guilty of no fraud or negli- 
 gence, or deception, which misled the carrier into accepting a shipment for less 
 freiglit than it was entitled to receive, he may recover the value of the articles 
 lost.'''' if a carrier is t(jld that a package containing money is very valuable, or 
 
 valued at $1, ().")<), stating merely that it 
 contained "music," without mentioning 
 its value, and hiyjjled over the thirty-five 
 cents' charges asked, until he obtained a 
 reduction of 10 cents, he could not, on 
 the destruction of the property by the 
 burning of the express car, recover its full 
 value; it appearing that, had the company 
 known the value of the package, it would 
 have charged a much higher rate, and 
 would have shipped the package in a safe 
 as a "money package," in which event it 
 would not have been destroyed. Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Wood, 25 S. E. 430, 98 Ga. 
 268. 
 
 A shipper, by concealing valuable silks 
 and furs in a bundle having the appear- 
 ance of bedding only, and thereby 
 shipped at a low rate of freight, releases 
 the carrier from liability for loss, except 
 as to what may properly be termed "bed- 
 ding." Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shea, 66 
 111. 471. See Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Collins, 77 Ga. 370, 3 S. E. 416, 4 Am. St. 
 Rep. S7. 
 
 Where a box of pictures was shipped 
 with household effects and billed as glass, 
 in the absence of actual fraud, the carrier 
 is only liable for the value of a box of 
 household glass. Bottum v. Charleston, 
 etc., R. Co., 51 S. E. 985, 72 S. C. 375, 2 
 L. R. .\.. X. S., 77:1, 110 Am. St. Rop. 010. 
 
 Cigars misdescribed as smoking to- 
 bacco. — A shipper of cigars misdescribed 
 as smoking tobacco, though guilty of 
 fraud, deception, or negligence in mislead- 
 ing the carrier to ship the cigars for less 
 freight than it was entitled to receive, is 
 nevertheless entitled to recover for the 
 loss of the cigars, and the reasonable 
 value of the tobacco as described. Jen- 
 kins V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 66 S. E. 407, 
 84 S. C. 520. 
 
 While the interstate commerce act 
 (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 10, par. 3, 24 
 Stat. 382, as added by Act March 2. 1889, 
 c. 382, § 2, 25 Stat. 858 [U. S. Comp. St. 
 1901, p. 3160]) prohibits a shipper from 
 obtaining the transportation of property 
 at less than the regular rates then es- 
 tablished and in force, by fraudulent 
 representations as to value, and makes 
 such fraud a misdemeanor and imposes a 
 penalty therefor, it does not prevent the 
 shipper, on loss of the goods, from recov- 
 ering their apparent value according to 
 fraudulent representations made, since, as 
 the carrier's charges were based on that 
 value, it is fair and just that it should be 
 held liable for their loss upon the same 
 basis of value. Adams Exp. Co. v. Green, 
 112 Va. 527, 72 S. E. 102; \isanska v. 
 
 Southern Exp. Co., 92 5. C. 573, 75 S. E. 
 902. 
 
 58. Southern Exp. Co. v. Womack, 48 
 Tcnn. (1 Heisk.) :.•:.';. 
 
 59. Where shipper not guilty of fraud 
 or negligence. — Jenkins v. Atlantic, etc., 
 R. Co., 84 S. C. 520, 66 S. E. 407 (shipper 
 may also recover freight paid). 
 
 Failure of a carrier to ascertain the true 
 value of a package to be carried and to 
 cliarge its regular schedule rates therefor 
 as authorized hy Michigan Pub. Acts 1909, 
 Xo. 300, could not defeat the shipper's 
 right to recover the full value of the pack- 
 age if lost, in the absence of any showing 
 of limitation of liability in the contract of 
 carriage or fraud or deceit of the shipper. 
 Farnsworth v. Xational Exp. Co., 166 
 Mich. 070. 132 X. W. 441. 
 
 Illustrations. — A shipper who sent a 
 package to an express company for ship- 
 ment, inclosed in a pasteboard box, 
 wrapped with heavy brown paper, and 
 containing articles of merchandise or nov- 
 elty goods of the class that are sold by 
 dry goods stores, retail hardware stores, 
 and others, and which the express corn- 
 pany knew the shipper was engaged in 
 dealing in, and he received a receipt stat- 
 ing that the value was asked, but not 
 given, that the package was accepted at 
 the owner's risk of breakage as merchan- 
 dise only, and contained no money, jew- 
 elry, or valuables, the recovery in case of 
 loss being limited to $50, was not guilty 
 of fraud upon the express company in 
 shipping the package in the ordinary 
 freight department, and not in the money 
 department, and in not disclosing its con- 
 tents to the express company. Fine & 
 Bro. V. Southern Exp. Co., 10 Ga. App. 
 101, 73 S. E. 35. 
 
 The defendant corporation gave the 
 plaintiff a receipt for goods to be for- 
 warded, among which was specified "1 
 cradle." The cradle was wrapped up in 
 a piece of carpet, and bound with cords, 
 and there was evidence introduced tend- 
 ing to show that the plaintiff had told 
 one of the defendants' agents that it 
 contained a valise. Held, that the de- 
 fendants were liable for the loss of the 
 valise. Harmon v. Xew York & E. R. 
 Co. (X. Y.). 28 Barb 323. 
 
 Where the agent of the shipper truth- 
 fully says that he does not know the value 
 of a trunk, and he receives a receipt stat- 
 ing that the value was asked and not 
 given, there is no fraudulent concealment 
 of the value of the trunk, whereby a 
 cheaper rate was obtained so as to af- 
 fect the liability of the carrier for the loss
 
 § 1002 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 762 
 
 as valuable as money, though not told that it contains money, his responsibility 
 is not lessened on the ground of concealment or fraud/^*^' 
 
 Proximate Cause of Loss or Injury. — It is held that the misrepresenta- 
 tion by a shipper as to contents of shi]nnent in order to obtain lower rates does 
 not present a recovery for loss of the shii)ment where the misrepresentation did 
 not contribute to the loss.^^ 
 
 Misstatements Need Not Be Intentional. — If the shipper's misstatements 
 as to the contents of a box shipped were material, and caused the carrier to omit 
 the performance of some attention which the goods required, whereby they 
 were lost, it would not be responsible for such loss, whether the misstatements 
 were intentional or inadvertent.*'- 
 
 Carrier Must Exercise Ordinary Care. — Though a carrier is absolved 
 froni lial)ility as insurer because of misrepresentations by the shipper as to the 
 nature of the goods shipped, whereby the carrier was induced to omit pre- 
 cautions which it would oth.erwise have employed, it is liable as bailee for fail- 
 ure to exercise ordinary care to safely deliver the property.''*^ 
 
 Duty of Carrier to Make Inquiry and of Shipper to State Value and 
 Nature of Goods. — Some of the authorities hold tliat it is the duty of the car- 
 rier to ask questions as to the nature and value of the goods, *•■* and that a mere 
 
 of the trunk by fire. Southern Exp. Co. 
 V. Keeler, 109 Va. 459, 64 S. E. 38. 
 
 That an express company accorded 
 shipments of the vahie of $50 and over a 
 higher degree of care than shipments un- 
 der that value, that, had it known the 
 value of the shipment involved, it would 
 have accorded it the unusual and extra- 
 ordinary care that shipments of its value 
 were accorded, that the shipper had 
 knowledge that valuable shipments were 
 handled with more care than shipments 
 of ordinary value, and that the contract 
 prepared by the company had a blank 
 space containing the word "value," as a 
 request to the shipper to value the ship- 
 ment, and that by his failure to do so it 
 was not informed of its value and was de- 
 prived of the opportunity of giving the 
 shipment unusual care, do not amount to 
 a case of fraudulent representation or 
 concealment of the value of the shipment, 
 and afford no defense to an action to re- 
 cover its full value. Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 Green. 112 \'a. 527, 72 S. E. 103. 
 
 Where the words "Contents unknown" 
 are written above the signature to the 
 bill of lading for cases of domestics, one 
 of which is not delivered, the shipper, on 
 proving that the lost case contained silk 
 goods, and not domestics, may recover its 
 value, where the misdescription was not 
 intended to deceive, and it is not pre- 
 tended — that a knowledge of the true 
 contents would have inauced a higher 
 freight or greater watchfulness. Fassett 
 V. Ruark, 3 La. Ann. 094. 
 
 A designation of goods shipped as emi- 
 grant movables covered the shipper's 
 goods consisting of typewriter, diction- 
 ary, wearing apparel, trunk, and personal 
 effects, and did not estop the shipper from 
 claim.ing their actual value. O'Connor v. 
 Great Northern R. Co., 118 Minn. 223, 
 136 X. W. 743. 
 
 Cigars shipped as "smoking tobacco." — 
 
 The distinction between cigars and smok- 
 ing tobacco as a basis of separate freight 
 classification and rates, considered with 
 respect to the nature, use, comparative 
 value, and risk, is not so marked that a 
 shipment of cigars as "smoking tobacco" 
 is of itself evidence of the shipper's fraud 
 or negligence; it appearing that cigars 
 "corded and sealed" are subject to the 
 same rate as smoking tobacco, while ci- 
 gars not corded and sealed take a higher 
 rate. Jenkins z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 66 
 S. E. 407, 84 S. C. 520. 
 
 Where articles consisting of bedding' 
 and clothing are marked "Bedding," the 
 clotliing Ijeing wrapped up in the bedding 
 and no value being placed on the goods 
 at the time of shipment, in the absence 
 of evidence that the clothing had been so 
 placed to conceal its value, the carrier is 
 liable for the loss of the clothing. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Clark, 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas. § 512. 
 
 60. Dwight V. Brewster (Mass.), 1 Pick; 
 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133; Allen v. Sewall (N. 
 Y.), 2 Wend. 327. 
 
 61. Proximate cause of loss or injury. — 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Phillips & Co. 
 (Miss.), 60 So. 572. 
 
 62. Misstatements need not be inten- 
 tional. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Ray 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 127 S. W. 281. 
 
 63. Carrier must exercise ordinary care. 
 — Head v. Pacific Exp. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 126 S. W. 682. 
 
 64. Duty of carrier to make inquiry. — 
 Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Bollcs, 80 Til. 473; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. 
 Fargo (N. Y.), 45 How. Prac. 90; Des- 
 patch Line V. Glenny & Co., 41 O. St. 166, 
 reversing 10 Am. L. Rec. 172, 6 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 1142; Railway Co. v. Simon, 15 
 O. C. C. 123, 8 O. C. D. 540. 
 
 Labeling a box as containing articles
 
 763 
 
 LOSS OK IXJUKV TO G(XJDS. 
 
 § 1002 
 
 failure on the part of the shipper to inform the carrier as to their value is not, 
 per se, such fraud as will discharge the carrier, though they be of unusual value, 
 where no improper means were used to conceal the value.'*'' J>ut it is also held 
 that a shipper, tendering a carrier an article of unusual value not apparent from 
 casual insjjection, is bound to disclcjse the \alue, and a failure so to do is a fraud 
 in law absolving the carrier from liability for its loss.'*" And in any case the 
 
 of a different nature and value from its 
 real contents will dispense with further 
 inquiry li\ the carrier as to its con- 
 tents. Rcif z: Rapp (Pa.), 3 Watts & S. 
 21, 37 Am. Dec. .■)2K. 
 
 Where pictures are shipped in a box 
 marked "Glass," the carrit-r is not required 
 to iuijuire iniu the nature and value of 
 the contents of the box. Bottum v. 
 Charleston, etc.. R. Co., 51 S. E. 985. 72 
 S. C. 375, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 773, 110 Am. 
 St. Rep. (JIO. 
 
 65. Duty of shipper to state value. — Il- 
 linois. — Merchants' iJe>patch Transp. Cu. 
 r. Bolles, SO 111. 473. 
 
 Lotiisiaiui. — Levois z'. Gale, 17 La. Ann. 
 302: Baldwin v. Collins (La.), 9 Rob. 468. 
 
 Miissactiusctts. — Phillips v. Earle (M^ss.), 
 8 Pick. 1S2. 
 
 AVic ]'ork. — Gorham Mfg. Co. z'. "Fargo, 
 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 434; S. C, 45 How. 
 Prac. 90: Sewall v. Allen (N. Y.), 6 W^end. 
 335. 
 
 Ohio. — Jacobson & Co. v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 1 O. C. C. 381, 1 O. C. D. 212. See 
 Wilson V. Hamilton. 4 O. St. 722. 
 
 Pcinisyhtniiii. — Caldwell v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 3G Pa. Super. Ct. 465. 
 
 Tc.vcis. — Texas Exp. Co. v. Scott, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 72, 16 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. Ill; Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Quilhot (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 
 200; Southern Pac. R. Co. z: Maddox, 75 
 Tex. 300, 12 S. W. 815; Head r. Pacific 
 Exp. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 682. 
 
 The fa'lure of the shipper to advise a 
 common carrier of the value of the article 
 presented for carriage, and that its ac- 
 tual value is greater than its apparent 
 value, will not affect his rights, unless it 
 justified the carrier in adopting the course 
 of conduct through which the loss oc- 
 curred. Gait z: Adams Exp. Co. (D. C), 
 Mc.Arthiir ^\: ^L 124, 48 Am. Rep. 742. 
 
 Illustrations. — A clause in a carrier's 
 contract, viz "Specie, drafts, bank bills, 
 and other articles of great intrinsic or 
 representative vahie, will only be taken 
 upon a representation of their value, and 
 b}' a special agreement assented to by the 
 superintendent," does not apply to a 
 family portrait delivered to the carrier in 
 a wooden case, so as to prevent a recov- 
 ery against the carrier for the loss of the 
 portrait, in the absence of notice of value 
 or of the making of such special agree- 
 ment. Green z'. Boston, etc., R. Co., 128 
 Mass. 221. 35 Am. Rep. 370. 
 
 A IVox seven or eight inches long, by 
 five or six high and wide, made of three- 
 fourths or seven-eighths inch boards, 
 wrapped in heavy, brown paper, tied with 
 
 heavy twine, and sealed with sealing wax 
 at every crossing of the twine and on the 
 knot where it was tied, addressed to a 
 well-known silver-manufacturing com- 
 pany, and weighing about twenty pounds, 
 was delivered to a carrier without any 
 statement made as to its value or con- 
 tents, no questions being asked on those 
 subjects. The box in fact contained sil- 
 ver coin. This box was transmitted to 
 tlie carrier through an expressman, who 
 knew that the carrier had in his place of 
 husincFS two counters — one for ordinary 
 merchandise, and the other for money 
 packages. He delivered the box at the 
 counter for ordinary merchandise, but he 
 did not know the contents or value of 
 the box, and made no statement on the 
 sul)jcct. The sum he charged for the box 
 was less than was ordinarily charged for 
 valual)le packages. Held, that these cir- 
 cunistances did not constitute fraud, im- 
 position, unfair concealment, or disguise. 
 Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Fargo, 35 X. Y. 
 Super. Ct. 434. 
 
 Valuable negatives marked "photo 
 goods." — Plaintiff sliipped valuable nega- 
 tives of prehistoric cities, represented to 
 be, and marked, "photo goods." If their 
 character had been known, a higher trans- 
 portation rate would have been charged. 
 No inquiry or representations were made 
 as to the value of the shipment. Held, 
 that the evidence did not raise an issue of 
 fraud or concealment as to the character 
 and value of the goods. Southern Pac. R. 
 Co. V. D'Arcais, 64 S. W. 813, 27 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 57. 
 
 The mere failure of a shipper to state 
 that a package contained a valuable ring 
 does not absolve the carrier from liability 
 for loss of the ring. Head z'. Pacific Exp. 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 12f, S. W. <;s2. 
 
 The shipment of silverware and expen- 
 sive china in a box and barrel is not so 
 unusual nor is their value so extraordinary 
 as to require the shipper as a matter of 
 law to give notice to the carrier of their 
 nature and value in absence of a request 
 for such information, in order to recover 
 for their loss en route. Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Quilhot (Tex. Civ. App.). 134 
 S. W. 261. 
 
 66. Southern Exp. Co. f. Pope. 5 Ga. 
 App. f.SO. (i3 S. E. 809. 
 
 Envelope containing valuable article. — 
 Coinnioii carriers who are engaged in 
 transporting and delivering letters are not 
 liable for the loss of any article of spe- 
 cial value contained within a letter envel- 
 ope, unless at the time of its delivery to
 
 §§ 1002-1003 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 764 
 
 neglect of a shipper to disclose the contents of a package offered for transpor- 
 tation is a fraud on the carrier, if there is anything in its form or outward ap- 
 pearance likely to deceive the carrier/'" whether so designed or not.^'** It is 
 held that where property requires peculiar Care and attention for its safe trans- 
 portation, the shipper should make known to the carrier the necessity, in order 
 that proper precaution may be used.'^''' In some instances it is provided by stat- 
 ute that shippers give notice of the character and value of goods."" 
 
 Property Having Peculiar Value. — Where a carrier has no notice of the 
 peculiar value of an article, only its market value can be recovered for its loss 
 under a statute providing that the peculiar value may be recovered against one 
 who had notice thereof.'^ 
 
 Liability Limited Where Value Not Disclosed.— Where a carrier limits 
 its liability to a specihed amount, if the value of the property is not stated by 
 the shipper, and the goods are of greater value than the amount specified, silence 
 alone on the part of the shipper as to the real value, although there be no in- 
 quiry by the carrier and no artifice to deceive, is fraud in law which discharges 
 the carrier from liability for ordinary negligence." - 
 
 § 1003. Inherent Infirmities of Goods. — Carriers are not insurers that 
 goods shall reach their destination in the same condition in which they were 
 shipped; and they are not liable for ordinary wear and tear of goods in the 
 course of transportation, or for their ordinary loss, deterioration in quantity 
 
 them thev are informed of its value. 
 Hayes v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 23 Cal. 185, 
 83 Am. Dec. 89. 
 
 Trunk containing money or jewelry. — 
 A shipper of a trunk by freight must 
 notify the agent of the carrier that it 
 contains money, as a carrier need not ac- 
 cept money to be shipped as freight, un- 
 less it is first notified, so that it may 
 charge a rate sufficient to justify it in 
 taking the degree of care observed in the 
 transportation of money, notwithstanding 
 the constitution declaring that the com- 
 mon-law liability of a carrier shall not 
 be limited. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hall, 136 Ky. 379, 124 S. W. 372. 
 
 A trunk, described as a traveler's 
 trunk, was given to expressmen to carry 
 to the passenger depot of a railroad. 
 Among other articles, it contained $432 
 worth of jewelry, intended for sale as 
 merchandise. It was delivered at the des- 
 ignated place, but the jewelry was miss- 
 ing. Held that the expressmen, being 
 without fault, and having no reason to 
 suppose that the trunk contained anything 
 but the ordinary convenient baggage of a 
 traveler, were not liable for the value of 
 the lost jewelry. Richards v. Westcott, 
 15 N. Y. Super. Ct. 589. 
 
 67. Harrington v. Wabash R. Co., 108 
 Minn. 257, 122 X. W. 14, 23 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 745; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Quil- 
 hot (Tex. Civ. App.), 134 S. W. 261. 
 
 Silence of one tendering a package to a 
 carrier for shipment may constitute a 
 fraud upon the carrier, without any intent 
 of the shipper to deceive, if the size, 
 shape, or appearance of the package mis- 
 leads the carrier as to the value of the 
 contents. Porteous v. Adams Exp. Co., 
 112 Minn. 31, 127 N. W. 429. 
 
 68. Harrington v. Wabash R. Co., 108 
 Alinn. 257, 122 N. W. 14, 23 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 745. 
 
 69. Shipper must notify carrier as to ne- 
 cessity for particular care. — Wilson v. 
 Hamilton, 4 O. St. 722. 
 
 An express company, in the transporta- 
 tion of brittle goods without notice of 
 their character, is not liable to the extent 
 of common carriers. American Exp. Co. 
 V. Perkins, 42 111. 458. 
 
 Sufficient notice. — Where a box contain- 
 ing a glass bottle filled with oil of cloves 
 was delivered to a carrier by water, 
 marked: "Glass. With Care. This Side 
 Up," there was a sufficient notice to the 
 carrier of the value and nature of the con- 
 tents to charge him with loss in transit, 
 occasioned by the breaking of the box. 
 Hastings v. Pepper (Mass.), 11 Pick. 41. 
 
 70. Under Rev. St. U. S., § 4281, requir- 
 ing shippers of trinkets, lace, etc., to give 
 to carriers by vessel written notice of the 
 true character and value thereof, in order 
 to entitle them to recover for loss, fans 
 and parasols made of delicate arid ex- 
 pensive materials, ornamented with carv- 
 ing, fragile in construction, and intended 
 more for ornament than for use, although 
 possessing to some extent the quality of 
 utility, are "trinkets," and, though con- 
 stituting a part of a lady's paraphernalia, 
 arc not clothing. Ocean Steamship Co. v. 
 Way, 90 Ga. 747, 17 S. E. 57, 20 L. R. A. 
 123. 
 
 71. Property having peculiar value. — S. 
 D. Civ. Code, § 2326; Hess v. South Da- 
 kota Cent. R. Co., 30 S. Dak. 538, 139 N. 
 W. 334. 
 
 72. Liability limited where value not dis- 
 closed. — Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 
 35, 50 How. Prac. 457, 20 Am. Rep. 442.
 
 765 
 
 LOSS OK IN'JIKV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1003 
 
 or (iuality in the course of the irij), or from inherent natural infirmity and tend- 
 ency to damage.'-' The owner of goods sent by a carrier is not insured by th« 
 
 73. Inherent infirmities of goods. — United 
 Stales. — Jaiiiuy z\ Tudor Co., '.'> I'"cd. 814; 
 Lamb v. i'arkniaii, Fed. Cas. Xo. 8020, 1 
 Spr. ;J4;{; Lawrence v. Lieutenant Admiral 
 Cylloniljerg, Fed. Cas. No. 8139; Nelson v. 
 Woodruff, Fed. Cas. No. 10, 117; The 
 Howard ( U. S.), 18 How. 2:u, l.> L. Ivd. 
 363. 
 
 A'-l.-iiiisas. — Little Rock, etc., K. Co. v. 
 Talbot, 47 Ark. 97, 14 S. \V. 471. 
 
 Dclincare. — Klair v. Wilmington Steam- 
 boat Co., 4 Pen. 51, 7 R. R. R. 821, 30 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 821, 54 Atl. 
 694; Trua.x v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 
 
 3 Houst. 233; Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 6 Pen. 15, (U Atl. 252; Reed v. 
 Wilmington Steamboat Co., 1 Marv. 193, 
 40 Atl. 955, 1 Hardesty 127. 
 
 Gcargia. — Brown, etc., Co. v. Clayton, 
 12 Ga. 564; Georgia R. Co. v. Johnson, 
 
 113 Ga. 589, 38 S. E. 954; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Bailey. 7 Ga. App. 331, 66 S. E. 960; 
 Fish V. Chapman. 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. Dec. 
 393; Ohlen v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 2 Ga. 
 App. 323, 58 S. E. 511; Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Warfield, 129 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; 
 Forrester v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 92 Ga. 
 699. 19 S. E. 811; Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lippman, 110 Ga. 665, 36 S. E. 202, 50 
 I,. R. A. 673; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Goetchius. 135 Ga. 170, 68 S. E. 1110; 
 Coweta County v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 
 4 Ga. App. 94, 60 S. E. 1018. 
 ////;;r)ii-.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Clellan, 54 111. 58, 5 Am. Rep. 83; Ohio, 
 etc., R. Co. f. Dunbar, 20 111. 623, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 291. 
 
 Indiana. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Nicholai. 4 Ind. App. 119, 30 N. E. 424; 
 Pittsl)urgh. etc., R. Co. v. "Morton, 61 
 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 loiiJa. — Beard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 
 Iowa 518, 44 N. W. 800. 7 L. R. A. 280, 
 18 Am. St. Rep. 381; Gilbert Bros. v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 N. W. 911; 
 Cownie Glove Co. v. Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co., 130 Iowa 327, 106 N. W. 749, 
 
 114 Am. St. Rep. 419, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1060. 
 
 Kcntiichv. — Farley v. Lavary, 107 Ky. 
 523, 21 Kv. L. Rep. 1252, 54 S. W. 840, 47 
 L. R. A. 383; Hall & Co. v. Renfro, 3 Mete. 
 51; Lewis v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 135 
 Ky. 361, 122 S. W. 184, 25 L. R. A., N. S., 
 938. 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 527; 
 Schwartz & Co. v. Erie R. Co., 32 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 777, 106 S. W. 1188; Stiles v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 33 Ky. L. Rep. 625, 110 
 S. W. 820. 
 
 }[assacliusctts. — Evans r. Fitchl)urg R. 
 Co., Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19. 
 
 .U/V/m\'</».— Black V. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90, 
 44 N. W. 1120. 
 
 Mississi-t^H- — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Abels. 60 Miss. 1017. 21 .-Km. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 105; Louisville, etc.. R. Co. f. Bigger, 
 66 Miss. 319. 6 So. 234. 
 
 .Missouri. — Funsten Dried Fruit, etc., 
 Co. V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 
 426, 143 S. W. 839; Daggett r. Shaw, 3 
 Mo. 264, 25 Am. Dec. 439. 
 
 A't'tc Ilampsliirc. — Faucher v. Wilson, 68 
 N. H. 338, 38 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. A. 431; 
 Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H. 355, 13 Am. 
 Rep. 42. 
 
 Xorih Carolina. — Currie v. Seaboard, 
 etc., R. Co., 156 N. C. 432, 72 S. E. 493. 
 
 Xortli Dakota. — Duncan v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 17 N. Dak. 610, 118 N. W. 826, 
 
 19 L. R. A.. N. S., 952. 
 
 Ohio. — American Exp. Co. v. Smith, 33 
 O. St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561; Toledo, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ambach. 10 O. C. C. 490, 6 O. 
 C. D. 574. affirmed in 57 O. St. 38, 47 N. 
 E. 1039; Canal Boat Montgomery v. Kent, 
 
 20 O. 54; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett, 36 O. St. 448. 
 
 Oregon. — Lacey v. Oregon R., etc.. Co. 
 (Ore.). 128 Pac. 999. 
 
 Texas.— M. P. R. Co. v. Barnes & Co, 
 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 575; Fentiman 
 V. Atchison, etc., R. Co.. 44 Tex. Civ. App. 
 455. 98 S. W. 939; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Levi, 76 Tex. 337. 13 S. W. 191: Texas 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Hunter & Co., 47 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 190, 104 S. W. 1075; Interna- 
 tional, etc., R. Co. v. Hynes. 3 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 20, 21 S. \Y. 622; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Levi, 12 S. W. 677; Albright v. Penn, 
 14 Tex. 290; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Tra- 
 wick. 68 Tex. 314. 4 S. W. 567. 
 
 J'irginia. — \'irginia, etc., R. Co. v. Sav- 
 ers. 67 Va. (26 Gratt.) 328. 
 
 JVest J'irginia. — Br.ltimore. etc., R. Co. v. 
 Morehead. 5 W. Va. 293; McGraw i: Bal- 
 timore, etc.. R. Co., 18 W. Va. 361. 41 
 Am. Rep. 696. 9 .Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 188. 
 
 A carrier of merchandise is only liable 
 for such deterioration in merchandise car- 
 ried as is attributable to its negligence. 
 Ruddell 7'. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 152 111. 
 App. 218; Joerg i'. Atchison, etc.. R. Co.. 
 152 111. .\pp. 229. 
 
 The freezing of potatoes by a carrier 
 will l)c licld to 1)L' cau.-^cd by the nature 
 of the property, so as to exempt him from 
 lialiility. provided he has been guilt}' of 
 no previous negligence or misconduct 
 wiiich can be considered the proximate 
 cause of the injury. McGraw z\ Balti- 
 more, etc.. R. Co.. 18 W. Va. 361. 41 Am. 
 Rep. 696. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. ISS. 
 
 Moisture of cotton received prior to 
 lading. — The responsil)ility of the carrier 
 does not extend to damages resulting to 
 a cargo of cotton in bales, from moisture 
 of the contents of the bales received pre- 
 vious to the time of lading, which could 
 not have been discovered by the master 
 of the vessel and where the vessel was 
 seaworthy, and there was no subsequent 
 negligence on the part of the master with 
 respect to protecting the cotton. Clioate 
 r. Crowninshield. Fed. Cas. No. 2.601. 3 
 Cliff 184.
 
 § 1003 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 766 
 
 carrier against their explosion,""' spontaneous combustion,"'' putrefaction, dis- 
 solution, growth, disease."'' fermentation,""^ acidification, effervescence,""^ evapo- 
 ration.'^'^ unavoidable leakage,'^'^' or natural decay. "^^ A carrier of perishable 
 goods is liable for damages for its failure to exercise due care in view of the 
 nature of the goods,''- and must show that the loss was caused by the inherent 
 qualities of the goods unmixed with negligence on its part.**-' 
 
 74. Explosion. — Rixford f. Smith. 52 X. 
 H. 355. 13 Am. Rep. 42; The Nitro-Gly- 
 cerine Case (U. S.). 15 Wall. 524, 21 L. 
 Ed. 20(>. 
 
 75. Spontaneous combustion. — Rixford 
 r. Smith, 52 X. H. ;J55, 13 Am. Rep. 42; 
 Evans r. Fitchburg- R. Co.. Ill Alass. 142, 
 15 Am. Rep. 19; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 
 v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 If a fire destroying a car load of high 
 proof spirits was of spontaneous origin, 
 caused by contact with the air, the car- 
 rier was not liable therefor where, on 
 delivery of the car to the consignee, it 
 notified his agent that one of the barrels 
 containing the spirits was broken. Roth- 
 child Bros. 7'. Xorthern Pac. R. Co. 
 (Wash.). 123 Pac. 1011. 
 
 76. Putrefaction, etc. — Rixford v. Smith, 
 52 X. H. 355. 13 Am. Rep. 42. 
 
 77. Fermentation. — Rixford v. Smith, 52 
 X. H. 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42; Evans v. Fitch- 
 burg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. 
 Rep. 19. 
 
 A common carrier is not liable for the 
 loss of molasses by the bursting of the 
 barrel, caused by the fermentation of the 
 contents. Faucher v. Wilson, 38 Atl. 1002, 
 68 X. H. 33S. 3!) L. R. A. 431. 
 
 78. Acidification and effervescence. — 
 Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 
 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 79. Evaporation. — Evans z'. Fitchburg 
 R. Co., Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19. 
 
 80. Unavoidable leakage. — Xelson v. 
 \\'oodruff. Fed. Cas. Xo. 10,117; Evans v. 
 Fitchburg R. Co., Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. 
 Rep. 19. ' 
 
 In Xelson v. Woodruff, Fed. Cas. No. 
 10,117, it is held, that a common carrier 
 is not responsible for leakage from bar- 
 rels, if they are such as are commonly 
 used for similar purposes, and became un- 
 fitted to hold their contents from causes 
 connected with the nature and condition 
 of the article which the carrier could not 
 control. 
 
 Hog's lard having certain qualities 
 which make its leakage from ordinary 
 barrels or wooden casks unavoidable in 
 hot weather, a person who ships it in 
 that condition from a southern port for 
 a long voyage, through low latitudes in 
 midsummer, takes upon himself the risk 
 of all loss necessarily proceeding from 
 that cause. Xelson v. Woodruff, Fed. 
 Cas. Xo. 10.117. 
 
 Alcohol reduced in strength — Failure to 
 prove carrier in fault. — In Jordan v. Amer- 
 ican Exp. Co., 86 Me. 225, 29 Atl. 980, 
 which was an action against an express 
 company for not safely carrying alcohol 
 
 contained in tin cans and I^oxed, it ap- 
 peared that the carrier receipted for two 
 l)Oxes, not valued, nor contents specified. 
 The boxes were delivered to the plaintiff, 
 apparently in the condition received, ex- 
 cept they were wet, presumably, in the 
 absence of proof, from leakage. There 
 was no oroof that the cans were full when 
 delivered to plaintiff. The complaint was 
 that the alcohol was reduced in strength 
 in transit. It was held that the action 
 could not be maintained. 
 
 81. Natural decay. — Delaware. — Carpen- 
 ter v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 6 Pen. 15, 
 64 Atl. 252. 
 
 Indiana. — Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. 
 
 .'[farvland. — Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Diffendal, 109 Md. 494, 72 Atl. 193. 
 
 .Massachusetts. — Evans v. Fitchburg R. 
 Co., Ill Mass. 142, 15 Am. Rep. 19. 
 
 AVti' Hampshire. — Rixford v. Smith, 52 
 X. H. 355, 13 Am. Rep. 42. 
 
 Ohio. — Long v. Louisville, etc.. Packet 
 Co., 7 X. P.,' X. S., 14, 18 O. D. X. P. 
 699; American Exp. Co. z: Smith, 33 O. 
 St. 511, 31 Am. Rep. 561; Railroad Co. v. 
 O'Donnell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476. 
 
 Fruit shipped being inherently subject 
 to decay, and the bill of lading being- 
 qualified with that condition, the vessel 
 is not responsible for its sound delivery, 
 without evidence of some misfeasance ot 
 the master which set in action or aggra- 
 vated such tendency. Lawrence t'. Lieu- 
 tenant Admiral Callomberg, Fed. Cas. No. 
 8,139, affirmed in Fed. Cas. Xo. 3,716, 1 
 Black 170, 17 L. Ed. 89. 
 
 If the value of peaches was lessened 
 because of natural deterioration while in 
 possession of the carrier without its 
 fault, it would not be liable to the own- 
 ers. Pennsylvania R. Co. z'. Goetchius, 
 135 Ga. 170, 68 S. E. 1110. 
 
 82. Carrier must exercise due care. — 
 Trakas v. Charleston, et-^., R. Co., 87 S. 
 C. 206, 69 S. E. 209. 
 
 A carrier was lial)le for damage caused 
 liy decay in a shipment of fruit, if by ex- 
 ercise of reasonable skill and diligence 
 the decay could have been prevented. M. 
 P. R. Co. V. Barnes & Co., 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 575. 
 
 83. Carrier must be free from negligence. 
 — Forrester v. Georgia R., etc.. Co.. 92 
 Ga. 699, 19 S. E. 811; Central R., etc., Co. 
 V. Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 
 17 S. E. 904. See Philadelphia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Diffendal. 109 Md. 494, 72 Atl. 193, 
 458. 
 
 Unreasonable delay in forwarding per- 
 ishable freight would 1)C negligence on the
 
 767' 
 
 LOSS OR IXTURV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1004-1005 
 
 § 1004. Act or Mandate of Public Authority.— Act of Military Au- 
 thority. — -A carrier is not liable for the loss of goods shipped contrary to the 
 dircclifjiis of the owner in obedience to a military order,^'* or for goods seized 
 and destroyed under military authority. *'•'' 
 
 Seizure under Legal Process. — A carrier, surrendering in good faith and 
 witliout ii(.-.i;Ii.m.iK(.' i^ooiU taken under a \aii(l legal prcjcess issued against the 
 owner is excused frcjui furtlKr liability,'"' and is not liable for losses occasioned 
 there] )y.^' 
 
 §§ 1005-1009. Carriers to Which Rule Applicable § 1005. In Gen- 
 eral. Railroads. The rule that a common carrier is an insurer of goods and 
 lial)le for all bjsses unless occasioned bv the excepted causes ai)])lies to all classes 
 of common carriers.'**' of which railroads afford the most numerous examples. ^^ 
 .V railroad company oi)crating a meagerly equi])ped railway.'"' and a company 
 receiving freight before its road is completed, and when it is only running con- 
 struction trains,'-*^ are res])onsible as common carriers. As to liability of rail- 
 road comj)anies conveying chartered or private cars, see elsewhere. "- 
 
 Express Companies. — Express companies are subject to all the common- 
 law liabilities of common carriers,"-' though they have no means of transjKjrta- 
 tion of their own and em])lov the vehicles of other carriers for that purpose.^"* 
 
 part of the carrier l)ccause proloiiffin^ the 
 time within which hy the operation of 
 natural loss decay would he produced and 
 such negligence would therefore contrih- 
 ute to causinj? the injury. Forrester v. 
 Georjjia R.. etc.. Co., 92 Ga. (')!)<). 19 S. F.. 
 811. 
 
 84. Losses occurring through act of 
 military authority. — Railroad Co. v. Hurst, 
 oS Tenn. (11 Hcisk.) ()2.5. 
 
 A carrier shipping goods to a distant 
 place in obedience to a military order, and 
 storing them, is not liable for a loss oc- 
 curring by fire without his negligence, 
 though the owner had not had sufficient 
 time to look after them after he learned 
 where they were. Railroad Co. ?'. Hurst, 
 .58 Tenn. (11 Heisk.) ^2',. 
 
 85. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Estes, 54 
 Tenn. (7 Hcisk.) 622, 24 Am. Rep. 289; 
 S. C, 78 Tenn. (10 Fea) 749. 
 
 86. Seizure under legal process. — Clif- 
 ford 7'. Brockton Trans]). Co., 214 Mass. 
 466, 10] N. E. 1092. See ante, "Goods 
 Seized under Legal Process," §§ 870-874. 
 
 87. M. P. R. Co. r. Barnes & Co., 2 
 Texas .A^pp. Civ. Cas., § 57;'); Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Belton Oil Co., 45 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 
 44, 99 S. \V. 4:!0. 
 
 88. Carrier to which rule applicable — 
 Who are common carriers. — See ante. 
 "l\rs(>n.s ;inil Corpoi alions Who .\re 
 Common Carriers," §§ 3-18. 
 
 89. Railroads.— Helliwcll 7'. Grand Trunk 
 Railway, 7 Fed. 68, 10 Biss. 170. See 
 ante, "Railroad Companies," § 3. .And 
 see, also, ante and post, the particular 
 sections. 
 
 Railroad companies are subiect to lia- 
 bility as common carriers, although their 
 charters do not. in so many words, pro- 
 vide that thev shall be. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Thonipson, 19 Til. 578. 
 
 Under the Texas statute, a railroad is 
 
 responsible as a common carrier. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. 7'. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491. 
 
 90. White 7'. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 
 Ill Minn. 167, 126 N. W. 533. 
 
 91. Little Rock. etc.. R. Co. 7'. Glidewell, 
 39 .Ark. 487. 
 
 92. Chartered or private cars.— See 
 post, "Goods Shipped on Chartered or 
 Private Cars," § 1011. 
 
 93. Express companies. — Alabama. — 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Hess. 53 .Ala. 19; 
 Southern Exp. Co. 7'. Crook, 44 .Ala. 468, 
 4 Am. Rep. 140. 
 
 Georgia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Newby, 
 36 Ga. 635, 91 .Am. Dec. 783. 
 
 Illinois. — Gulliver 7'. .Adams Exp. Co., 38 
 111. 503. 
 
 /n(f/fl»a.— Express companies are made, 
 by statute (1 Gav. & H. St. p. 327). com- 
 mon carriers. American Exp. Co. v. 
 Hockett, 30 Ind. 250, 95 Am. Dec. 691; 
 United States Exp. Co. v. Ru.sh, 24 Ind. 
 403. 
 
 Missouri. — Kirby 7'. .Adams Exp. Co., 2 
 Mo. App. 369. 
 
 .Vr7C' )'o;-A'.— Sherman 7'. Wells. 28 Barb. 
 403; Belger 7'. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, 10 
 Am. Rep. 575; Read 7'. Spaulding, 18 N. 
 V. Super. Ct. 395; Landsbcrg 7'. Dinsmore 
 (N. v.), 4 Daly 490. 
 
 Failure to comply with a statute declar- 
 ing such companies common carriers does 
 not relie\e an exi>ress company from re- 
 sponsibility as such carrier. United States 
 Exp. Co. V. Rush, 24 Ind. 403. 
 
 94. District of Columbia.— Ga\t z: -Ad- 
 ams Exp. Co. (D. C), Mc.Arthur & M. 
 124, 48 .Am. Rep. 742. 
 
 .Mabama. — Southern Exp. Co. 7'. Ash- 
 ford, 126 .Ala. 591. 28 So. 732. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Buckland 7'. .Adams Exp. 
 Co.. 97 Mass. 124. 93 .Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 Minnesota. — Christenson 7'. American
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 768 
 
 § 1005 
 
 And the status of an express company is not changed h>- an agreement with 
 the shipper that it is to be held hable as a forwarder only,'-'- or by calhng itselt 
 an "express forwarder." ^'■' 
 
 Wagoners who carry goods for hire are subject to the same habdity as com- 
 mon carriers.'-'' ... , , 
 
 Transfer companies, are Hable as common carriers tor loss or damage to 
 
 goods.-'- , ..... .,. 
 
 Carriers by Water.— The general rule of a common carriers liability ap- 
 plies to carriers by water."'-' 
 
 Ferrymen —The law regards a public ferryman as a common carrier, and 
 thrown upon him the same duties and liabilities.^ And a private ferryman, not 
 on a public road, mav incur the liabilities of a common carrier by notoriously 
 undertaking to transport for hire all persons indifferently, with their carriages 
 and croods:^ but this is a question for the jury.=^ But one who keeps a ferry 
 for his own use. and for the- convenience of customers to his mill, and who 
 charges no ferriage, is not liable as a common carrier.^ 
 
 Switching Companies.— A railroad company taking loaded cars from its 
 connection with aiuuhcr road, transferring them by a switch engine over its own 
 
 Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270, Gil. 208, 2 Am. 
 Rep. 122. 
 
 Ohio.— United States Exp. Co. v. Back- 
 man, 28 O. St. 144. 
 
 South Carolina. — Stadliccker r. Combs & 
 Co. (S. C), 9 Rich. L. 193. 
 
 95. Gait V. Adams Exp. Co. (D. C), Mc- 
 Arthur & M. 124, 48 Am. Rep. 743. 
 
 96. Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 
 Mass. 124. 9.3 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 97. Carriers by wagon, — Philleo v. San- 
 ford, 17 Tex. 227, 67 Am. Dec. 654; Gor- 
 don z-. Hutchinson (Pa.), 1 Watts & S. 
 285, 37 Am. Dec. 464; Chevallier v. Stra- 
 ham, 2 Tex. 115, 47 Am. Dec. 639. See 
 Herring v. Utle, 53 N. C. 270. 
 
 98. Transfer companies. — Arkadelphia 
 Mill. Co. V. Smoker Merchandise Co., 100 
 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 680. 
 
 99. Carriers by -water. — United States.— 
 Niajjara v. Cordes, 21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 
 41; The Commander-in-Chief, 1 Wall. 43, 
 17 L. Ed. 609; The Maggie .Hammond, 9 
 Wall. 435, 19 L. Ed. 772. Tompkins v. 
 Dutchess, Fed. Cas. No. 14,087a. 
 
 Alabama. — Jones v. Pitcher & Co., 3 
 Stew. & P. 135, 24 Am. Dec. 716. 
 
 Connecticut. — Hale v. New Jersey Steam- 
 Nav. Co.. 15 Conn. 539. 39 Am. Dec. 398; 
 Richards v. Gilbert, 5 Day 415; Clark v. 
 Richards. 1 Conn. 54. 
 
 .Ui.f.yo »;-/.— Daggett v. Shaw, 3 Mo. 264, 
 25 Am. Dec. 439. 
 
 South Coro/nia.— McClures v. Hammond, 
 1 Bay 99, 1 Am. Dec. 598; Harrington v. 
 Lyles, 2 Nott & McC. 88; Faulkner v. 
 Wright, Rice 107; Patton v. Magrath, 
 Dud. 159, 31 Am. Dec. 552. 
 
 Texaj. — Houston, etc., N&v. Co. v. 
 Dwyer. 29 Tex. 376. 
 
 Carrier on lake. — McArthur v. Sears (N. 
 Y.), 21 Wend. 190; Spencer v. Daggett, 2 
 Vt. 02. . . . 
 
 A boatman is a common carrier, within 
 the rule. Harrington v. Lyles (S. C), 2 
 Nott & McC. 88; Turney v. Wilson, 15 
 
 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 340, 27 Am. Dec. 515; 
 Gordon v. Buchanan, 13 Tenn. (5 Yerg.) 
 71; Moss v. Bettis, 51 Tenn. (4 Heisk.) 
 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1; Johnson v. Friar, 12 
 Tenn. (4 Yerg.) 48, 26 Am. Dec. 215. 
 Compare Eveleigh v. Sylvester (S. C), 2 
 Brev. 178. 
 
 Contra. — In an early case it was held 
 that the master or owners of a vessel 
 transporting goods on the high seas are 
 not common carriers within the meaning 
 of the rule. Aymar v. Astor (N. Y.), 6 
 Cow. 266. 
 
 1. Ferrymen. — Alabama. — ■ Babcock z. 
 Herbert, 3 Ala. 392, 37 Am. Dec. 695. 
 
 Arkansas.— Harvey v. Rose, 26 Ark. 3, 7 
 Am. Rep. 595. 
 
 California. — May v. Hanson, 5 Cal. 360, 
 63 Am. Dec. 135. 
 
 Kentucky.— UaW & Co. v. Renfro, 3 
 Mete. 51. 
 
 lozva. — Slimmer v. Merry, 23 Iowa 90; 
 Whitmore v. Bowman, 4 G. Greene 148. 
 
 Missouri. — Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 5 
 Mo. 36. 
 
 Ohio. — Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 O. St. 
 722. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa. 
 342. 
 
 Tennessee. — Sanders v. Young, 38 Tenn. 
 (1 Head) 219. 73 Am. Dec. 175. 
 
 rr.rfl.?.— Albright v. Penn, 14 Tex. 290.^ 
 If a ferryman combines, as is frequently 
 the case, with the business of a ferryman, 
 the carrying of merchandise without the 
 presence of the owner, he is bound by 
 the obligations of a common carrier as to 
 such property. New York v. Starin, 106 
 N. Y. 1, 12 N. E. 631. 
 
 2. Hall & Co. V. Renfro (Ky.), 3 Mete. 
 51; Littlejohn v. Jones (S. C), 2 McMul. 
 365, 39 Am. Dec. 132. 
 
 3. Littlejohn v. Jones (S. C), 2 McMul. 
 365. 39 Am. Dec. 132. 
 
 4. Self v. Dunn, 42 Ga. 528, 5 Am. Rep. 
 544.
 
 769 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1005-1006 
 
 track to a spur of its own, and receiving its compensation from the connecting 
 road, is liable as a cfjuinion carrier for the safety of the goods transferred.^ 
 
 Carriers of Passengers may by special contract or general course of busi- 
 ness become liable as common carriers as to articles not strictly within their 
 line of business.'' 
 
 Trustees and Receivers. — The fact that a railroad is in the custody of the 
 court (Iocs not render the receiver appointed by the court" any the less liable as 
 a common carrier." Trustees of an insolvent railroad company, who operate 
 the road, are, it seems, liable for loss of goods as common carriers.^ 
 
 A mail carrier may become liable as a common carrier."' 
 
 One agreeing to tow a vessel out of a port is not liable as a common 
 carrier. 1" 
 
 Carriage of Goods Not Transported for Public Generally. — A common 
 carrier of certain kinds ol good^ i.-> not liable a> ;-iich where it transports other 
 kinds of goods, which it does not transport for the public generally.^' 
 
 § 1006. Carriers Not Owning Means of Transportation. — Transpor- 
 tation companies, not owning or controlling any means of conveyance them- 
 selves, but engaging on their own behalf in the business of transporting freight 
 through the agency and over the lines of other carriers, of their own selection 
 and employment, are common carriers and insurers of such freight while it is 
 being carried for them by the other carriers. ^- 
 
 5. Switching companies.— Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. i'. Wichita, etc., Grocery Co., 55 
 Kan. ',2:>. -11) I'ac. 899. 
 
 6. Proprietors of stage coach. — The 
 practice of conveying for hire, in a stage 
 coach, parcels not belonging to passen- 
 gers, renders the proprietors of the coach 
 liable as common carriers for the loss of 
 such parcels. Dwight v. Brewster 
 (Mass.), 1 Pick. 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133; 
 Powell z'. Mills, 30 Miss. 231, 64 Am. Dec. 
 158; Beckham z'. Shouse (Pa.), 5 Rawle 
 179, 2S Am. Dec. 653; Goodwyn, etc., Co. 
 V. Douglas (S. C), Cheves 174. 
 
 A street-railway company, may become 
 liable as a common carrier of merchandise 
 on its cars. Levi v. Lynn, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mass.), 11 Allen 300, 87 Am. Dec. 713. 
 
 Railroad company.— See Elkins v. Bos- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 23 X. H. 275. 
 
 Two instances of the transportation of 
 goods l)y a passenger train, witliin two 
 years, lor which freight was paid to the 
 baggage master, is not evidence of a cus- 
 tom to thus transport goods, or that the 
 public understood that such a custom ex- 
 isted. Elkins r. Boston, etc., R. Co., 23 
 X. H. 275. 
 
 7. Receivers. — Beers v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 34 ]\(i. 244. See Paige v. Smith, 99 
 Mass. 3'.)."). 
 
 8. Trustees.— Faulkner v. Hart, 44 N. 
 Y. Super. Ct. 471. 
 
 Trustees of a railroad mortgage, given 
 to secure bonds of the company, fore- 
 closed, and, by permission of the court, 
 bid at the sale. TThey purchased the road, 
 and operated same for the benefit of their 
 cestuis que trustent. Held that, as to 
 the public, they were operating the road 
 
 1 Car — 19 
 
 as owners, and were liable as common 
 carriers. Rogers v. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 
 598, afiirming 2 Lans. 486. 
 
 9. Mail carrier. — The statute of the 
 United States (Acts 11th Cong. c. 54) 
 making it unlawful for a mail carrier to 
 take any letter or packet, and deliver it 
 to the person to whom it was sent does 
 not apply where a mail carrier for hire 
 takes bank notes in a sealed envelope, 
 and delivers them according to the di- 
 rection; and in an action against him, as 
 a common carrier, for the loss of the 
 package, he can not set up such statute 
 as a defense. Dwight v. Brewster 
 (Mass.), 1 Pick. 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133. 
 
 10. Towage of vessel. — Pennsylvania, 
 etc., Xav. Co. v. Dandridge (Md.), 8 Gill. 
 & J. 248, 29 Am. Dec. 543. 
 
 11. Carriage of goods not transported 
 for public generally. — Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Harris, 1 Te.xas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 1257. 
 
 A statute prohibiting "common car- 
 riers of goods, wares, and merchandises 
 from limiting their common-law liability, 
 does not either limit or extend the class 
 of propertj' to be embraced by the car- 
 rier transporting goods for hire." Tex. 
 Rev. St. art. 278; Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Harris, 1 Texas -\pp. Civ. Cas., § 1257. 
 
 Carriage of money. — See post, "Car- 
 riers of Money," >j l(i()7. 
 
 12. Carriers employing means of trans- 
 portation of other carriers. — United States. 
 —Rank f. Adams Hxp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, 
 23 L. Ed. 872. 
 
 .^llalhJiim. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Ash- 
 ford, 126 Ala. 591. 28 So. 732; Southern 
 Exp. Co. t'. Crook, 44 Ala. 468, 4 Am.
 
 1007 
 
 CARRIE^RS. 
 
 770 
 
 § 1007. Carriers of Money.— Where it is the regular occupation of a car- 
 rier, as in the case of an express company,!^ to transport money or its repre- 
 sentatives, it is liable as a common carrier for loss or damage to the same.^* 
 It is not to be presumed that a carrier of ordinary freight is also a carrier of 
 money or its representatives. In order to render the carrier liable as such, it 
 must 'be clearly proved that it held itself out to the public as such.i^ But it is 
 held that the proprietors of a stage coach accustomed to carry parcels not be- 
 longing to passengers are liable as common carriers for the loss of a package 
 of money.^'' And it is also held that the owners of a vessel are responsible as 
 common carriers, for money or gold taken on board as freight for transportation.^' 
 
 Liability as Dependent upon Compensation.— It is held, that the liability 
 of the carrier depends ui)on the fact whether or not it received the money to 
 carr>' for a compensation : and though there be no stipulated price for the serv- 
 ice, yet, if the usage in such cases implies an agreement to pay the earner for 
 such service, it will be liable.i^ Where the owner of a boat claims that the car- 
 riage of banknotes was by private contract between the plaintiff and the cap- 
 tain, the mere fact that the captain was permitted to retain the compensation 
 for "carrying does not of itself exonerate the owner from liability as a common 
 carrier for their loss.^^ 
 
 Effect of Usage.— To render a boat liable as a common carrier of money, 
 it must be its usage to carry money for hire,^" or the known usage of the trade 
 
 Rep. 140; Southern Exp. Co. v. Hess, 53 
 Ala. 19. 
 
 Colorado. — Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. 
 V. Cornforth, 3 Colo. 280, 35 Am. 757. 
 
 Illinois. — Edison v. Pennsylvania Co., 
 70 111. App. 654; Gulliver v. Adams Exp. 
 Co, 38 111. 503; Merchants' Despatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Kahn, 76 111. 520; Michi- 
 gan Cent. R. Co. v. Curtis, 80 111. 324; 
 Wald V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 162 111. 
 545, 44 N. E. 888, 35 L. R. A. 356, 53 Am. 
 St. Rep. 332. 
 
 Indiana. — American Exp. Co. v. Hock- 
 ett, 30 Ind. 250, 95 Am. Dec. 691; United 
 States Exp. Co. v. Rush, 24 Ind. 40:5. 
 
 Massachusetts.— Buc\<i.\d.n6. v. Adams 
 Exp. Co. 97 Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 Missouri.— KnsX.'m v. St. Louis, etc.. 
 Packet Co., 15 Mo. App. 197. 
 
 New Forife.— Langworthy v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith 195; Place v. 
 Union Exp. Co., 2 Hilt. 19; Mercantile 
 Mut. Ins. Co. V. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith 115. 
 
 0/n'o.— United States Exp. Co. v. Back- 
 man, 28 O. St. 144. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Chouteaux v. Leech, 7 
 Leg. Int. 109, 9 Leg. Int. 78. 
 
 Tennessee. — Merchants' Transp. Co. v. 
 Bloch Bros., 86 Tenn. (2 Pickle) 392, 6 
 S. W. 881. 
 
 13. Carriage of money — Express com- 
 pany. — United States Exp. Co. v. Hut- 
 chins, 67 111. 348. 
 
 14. Kuter v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 
 Fed. Cas. No. 7,955, 1 Biss. 35; Citizens', 
 etc., Bank v. Nantucket Steamboat Co., 
 Fed. Cas. No. 2,730, 2 Story 16; Sher- 
 man V. Wells (N. Y.), 28 Barb. 403. 
 
 15. ///tuou.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Thompson, 19 111. 578. 
 
 Kentucky.— hte v. Burgess, 9 Bush 652. 
 New Forfe.— Sewall v. Allen, 6 Wend. 
 335, overruling 2 Wend. 327. 
 
 The charter of a common carrier upon 
 Lake Champlain, extended to the carry- 
 ing of all goods, wares, and merchandise, 
 and "all other articles and things usually 
 transported by water," on that lake, and 
 it appeared that bank bills were usually 
 carried by the water craft upon that lake 
 at the time the corporation received its 
 charter and went into operation. It was 
 held that the carrier's powers extended 
 to the carrying of bank bills, and that if 
 it assumed the risk of carrying such arti- 
 cles, it was liable as a common carrier. 
 Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Champlain 
 Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 A carrier of "goods, wares, and mer- 
 chandise" will not necessarily be, pre- 
 sumed to be a common carrier of money 
 and bank bills. Lee v. Burgess (Ky.), 
 9 Bush. 652. 
 
 The term "merchandise" does not ap- 
 ply to mere evidence of value, such as 
 notes, bills, and checks. Citizens' Bank 
 V. Nantucket steamboat Co., Fed. Cas. 
 No. 2,730, 2 Story 16. 
 
 16. Dwight V. Brewster (Mass.), 1 Pick. 
 50, 11 Am. Dec. 133. 
 
 17. Sulakowski v. Flint, 22 La. Ann. 6. 
 
 18. Liability dependent upon compen- 
 sation,— Kirtland V. Montgomery, 31 
 Tenn. (1 Swan) 452. . 
 
 19. Farmers' etc.. Bank v. Champlam 
 Transp. Co., 23 Vt. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68. 
 
 20. Effect of usage. — Choteau v. The 
 St. Anthony, 16 Mo. 216, holding that the 
 act of the captain of a boat in takmg 
 bank bills for transportation is not prima 
 facie evidence of the liability of the boat 
 as a common carrier. 
 
 Proof of the usage of the clerks of 
 steamboats to receive and carry pack- 
 ages from one port to another, without 
 hire, in the expectation that such boat
 
 771 
 
 LOSS (Mi INJl'KY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1007-1009 
 
 that it should so carry it.-' Proof of a custom by boats to carry money for 
 customers to gain patronage does not establish a custom to carry it for hire.-- 
 
 § 1008. Persons Occasionally Carrying. — A j^erson whose business is 
 not the carr)ing of goods, and wlio does not hohl himself out to the world as 
 such, will not be liable as an insurer, although he may occasionally carry goods 
 for hire.-'' l>ut such person is liable if he assumes the occupation (jf carrier.-"* 
 or contracts specially to carry goods and deliver them in "good order and con- 
 dition, unavoidable accidents only excepted." -•'• The question whether a jjer- 
 son whose princi])al occupation is farming, but who at certain seasons of the 
 year makes contracts for transportation of goods with those who chose to em- 
 ploy liim, is liable as a common (jr private farrier is for the jury.-" 
 
 § 1009. Forwarders. — Parties undertaking merely to forward goods, by 
 a carrier, other than themselves, are only forwarders, and not carriers, of such 
 goods, and do not assume the responsibility of insurers. -' Where parties do- 
 ing business as forwarders and also as common carriers, agree orally to trans- 
 I)ort merchandise, to l)c delivered to them from time to time, and subsequently, 
 
 would be preferred by the parties in 
 their shipments of freisht, is insufficient 
 to hind the owners. Cincinnati, etc., Mail 
 Line Co. v. Boal, 15 Ind. 345. 
 
 21. Choteau v. The St. Anthony, 16 Mo. 
 216. 
 
 Although ordinarily a steamboat may 
 not be compelled to take charge of money, 
 yet, if the general usage of boats in a 
 particular trade to take charge of money 
 is shown, the delivery of money to a 
 particular boat will be governed by this 
 common usage. Hosea 2'. McCrory, 12 
 Ala. 349. 
 
 The owners of a steamboat are re- 
 sponsible as common carriers for loss of 
 a cash letter delivered to the clerk, if the 
 jury find that it is the general custom of 
 steamboats to carry such letters, al- 
 though thev are delivered to the clerk and 
 carried without ciiarge. Garey v. Meag- 
 her & Co., 33 Ala. 630. 
 
 22. Chouteau v. The St. Anthony, 20 
 Mo. 51 9. 
 
 23. Persons occasionally carrying. — Al- 
 lis V. Voight, 99 Mich. 125, 51 X. W. 190; 
 Faucher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. 338, 38 
 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. A. 431; O'Rouke v. 
 Bates, 133 N. Y. S. 392, 73 Misc. Rep. 
 414; Fish v. Clark, 49 N. Y. 122, affirming 
 2 Lans. 176; Satterlee v. Groat (N. Y.), 1 
 
 Wend. 272; v. Jackson, 2 N. C. 
 
 (1 Hayw.) 14; Samms r. Stewart, 20 O. 
 69, 55 .Xm. Dec. 445. 
 
 Contra. — A person who undertakes, 
 though only pro hac vice, to carry by 
 river for hire, without special contract, 
 incurs the responsibility of a common car- 
 rier. Moss V. Bettis, 51 Tenn. (4 Heisk.) 
 661, 13 Am. Rep. 1, citing Gordon v. 
 Hutchinson (Pa.), 1 Watts & S. 285. 37 
 Am. Dec. 464, wherein it is held that one 
 who carries goods for hire is subject to 
 the same liabilities as a common carrier, 
 although that lie not his principal and 
 direct liusiness, but only his occasional 
 and incidental employment. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where it was proved 
 that defendant owned a sloop, and was 
 specially employed by the plaintiffs to 
 make two trips to carry grain, held, that 
 this fell short of proof sufficient to make 
 him a common carrier. Allen v. Sack- 
 rider, 37 N. Y. 341. 
 
 One who sends his servant to transport 
 goods belonging to a particular person 
 from one place to another, with special 
 instructions not to take the goods of any 
 other person for transportation, is not 
 liable as a common carrier in case of 
 loss of the goods, notwithstanding he 
 was once a common carrier, but had 
 abandoned the business. Satterlee v. 
 Groat (N. Y.), 1 Wend. 272. 
 
 If the owners of a flatboat only pro- 
 pose to carry the cotton of particular 
 persons, they can not be held liable as 
 common carriers to a third person, with 
 whom the master of the boat, in viola- 
 tion of their instructions, makes a con- 
 tract for freight. Steele v. McTyer. 31 
 Ala. 667, 70 .Km. Dec. 516. 
 
 24. Chevallier v. Straham, 2 Tex. 115. 
 47 Am. Dec. 639. 
 
 25. Fish z: Chapman, 2 Ga. 349, 46 Am. 
 Dec. 393. 
 
 26. Haynie r. Baylor, 18 lex. 498. 
 
 27. Forwarders. — Goodrich v. Thomp- 
 son, 27 X. V. Super. Ct. 75; Hersfield 
 f. Adams (X. Y.), 19 Barb. 577; Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co. V. Second Nat. Bank, 69 
 Pa. 394, 8 Am. Rep. 268. See ante, 
 "Transportation and Forwarding Com- 
 panies." § 8. 
 
 Loss by accidental fire. — If goods are 
 under tlie control oi' parties as forward- 
 ers and not as common carriers, and are 
 consumed by accidental fire in a ware- 
 house without any fault or negligence 
 on their part, they are not liable, unless 
 they had agreed for compensation paid, 
 to insure them, and iiad failed to do so. 
 Southern Exp. Co. z\ Mc\'eigh, 61 Va. 
 (20 Gratt.) 264.
 
 §§ 1009-1010 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 72 
 
 on receiving a portion thereof to be transported pursuant 'to the contract, they 
 execute an instrument stating that the same was received to be forwarded, they 
 are responsible as common carriers, and not as forwarders.-^ Under a contract 
 by a companv engaged in assembhng car load lots of goods for shipment, it is 
 immaterial, to a recovery for damage to the goods and for cartage and storage 
 charges paid before a delivery of the goods could be obtained, whether such 
 companv was a mere forwarder, or a forwarder and distributor, as it was obli- 
 gated to carrv out its undertaking, without regard to what name it used in desig- 
 nating its business.-" 
 
 § 1010. Commencement and Termination of Liability. — A carrier's 
 common-law liabilit}" as an insurer of freight does not attach until the freight 
 has been actually or constructively delivered to and accepted by it for trans- 
 portation.'""^ \Miere the liability has begun, it continues until there has been a 
 proper deliverv.'"'^ or the carrier has in some way been discharged of his pe- 
 
 28. Blossom r. Griffin. i:5 X. V. o<J!>, 
 G7 .\m. Dec. T.J. 
 
 Warehouseman and carrier — Freight 
 received for forwarding by his own or 
 other boats. — In Ladne v. Griffith. 25 N. 
 V. 3ii4. S2 Am. Dec. 300, it appeared that 
 a warehouseman at Buffalo was also a 
 carrier on the Erie canal, and used to re- 
 ceive freight from the west and forward 
 it to the east by the first boat going, 
 whether his own or that of other car- 
 riers: that he received goods shipped from 
 Detroit addressed to his care at Buffalo and 
 marked "to go from Buffalo to East 
 Albany, at 30 cts. per lOO lbs." it was 
 held, that the presumption was that the 
 goods came to his possession as a car- 
 rier, and having been burned, although 
 without his fault, while in his warehouse 
 awaiting transportation, he was liable for 
 their value. 
 
 29. Garberson v. Transcontinental 
 Freight Co., 51 Wash. 213, 98 Pac. 612. 
 
 30. Commencement of liability. — See 
 an'e, 'AVlien Liability Commences," chap- 
 ter 5. 
 
 The rule that carriers are insurers of 
 property intrusted to them is only inci- 
 dental to the contract of carriage, and 
 does not begin earlier than is necessary 
 to secure faitliful execution of such con- 
 tract. Hutchinson v. United States Exp. 
 Co.. 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. 
 A.. N. S., 393. 
 
 31. Proper delivery. — Arkadelphia Mill. 
 Co. V. Smoker Merchandise Co., 100 Ark. 
 37, 139 S. W. 680; Bowman v. Hilton, 11 
 O. 303; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kelm, 121 
 Minn. .343, 141 N. W. 295, 44 U R. A., 
 X. S., 995. 
 
 Where a bill of lading exempts a car- 
 rier from liability from loss by fire, and 
 the goods are burned while in the car, 
 but' after they had been formally deliv- 
 ered to the consignee, a judgment in his 
 favor, without proof that the fire was 
 caused by the carrier's negligence, can- 
 not be sustained. St. L., I. M. & S. R. 
 Co. V. Bone, 52 Ark. 26, 11 S. W. 958. 
 
 Mode and sufficiency of delivery. — See 
 ante, "Transportation and Delivery of 
 Carriers," chapter 10. 
 
 The liability of a drayage company as 
 a carrier of goods, receiving goods from 
 a car on a house track, continued until 
 it had completed the carriage by the ac- 
 tual delivery of the goods to the con- 
 signees at their place of business. Ark- 
 adelphia Mill. Co. V. Smoker Merchan- 
 dise Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 680. 
 
 Where consignee's agent had surren- 
 dered bill of lading, gone to the car 
 which had been spotted on the delivery 
 tracks for delivery, and had broken the 
 seal and entered the car before a fire 
 occurred, there was a delivery and the 
 carrier was not liable. Rothchild Bros. 
 V. Xorthern Pac. R. Co. (Wash.), 123 Pac. 
 1011. 
 
 Delivery at intermediate point. — One 
 who delivers goods to a carrier for trans- 
 portation to a designated point may ac- 
 cept delivery thereof at an intermediate 
 point, and, when he does so, the liability 
 of the carrier terminates. Whitin v. 
 Pendegast, 50 N. Y. 674. 
 
 Delivery to connecting carrier. — A bill 
 of lading executed at New York de- 
 scribed the goods as marked: "D. W. 
 Mott & Bros., Memphis, Tenn. To be 
 transported to Philadelphia, and there 
 delivered to the Penn. R. R., all rail to 
 Cincinnati, Ohio." Held that, in the ab- 
 sence of any indication to the contrary, 
 the ultimate destination was Memphis, 
 and that the agents of the Pennsylvania 
 Railroad, who at Cincinnati had for- 
 warded them thither by steamboat, were 
 not liable for their loss. Brown & Co. v. 
 Mott & Bros., 22 O. St. 149. 
 
 Goods, the property of A., were for- 
 warded by B. by railroad from Baltimore 
 to be delivered at St. Louis, and were 
 so injured before reaching their destina- 
 tion as to be valueless. In an action by 
 A. to recover their value from the rail- 
 road, it was proved that the damage was 
 done after the goods were transferred to 
 another railroad, and that the receipt 
 given by the company shipping the goods 
 contained the clause that: "The respon- 
 sibility of the company is to terminate 
 when the goods are unloaded from the 
 cars. Goods intended for all rail must
 
 17^ 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1010 
 
 culiar rclalicni to the properly.'^- TIic liability of a common carrier as an in- 
 surer does not continue longer than is necessary to secure faithful and efficient 
 execution of the contract of carriage,-'-' and it can be held responsible as sucii 
 only so long as there remains something necessary to be done or to happen in 
 order to terminate its liability as carrier.^-* Where a common carrier has trans- 
 ported goods to destination, and the consignee has paid the freight and given 
 his receipt for the shipment, the contract of carriage is complete.''-'" Where a 
 common carrier takes goods being transported by it from the cars, and places 
 them in a warehouse for reshipment, and they are there destroyed by tire, the 
 goods are still in transit, and the carrier's liability as an insurer continues, and 
 it is liable for the loss.^** Where a carrier agrees to deliver imported goods in 
 bond to the consignee at an internal port of entry, it is liable for losses sustaine<l 
 while the goods are detained in a warehouse in the original port of entry, be- 
 cause of the carrier's failure to j^reparc and tile the necessary clearance papers."'^ 
 
 be marked "'rhrouk'h l)y rail.' Jiiver 
 goods, via Wlieeling or Parkersburg, 
 must be marked on this ticket." Held, 
 that the responsibility of the defendants 
 ceased upon unloading the cars at the 
 terminus of their road, and that the pro- 
 vision that the goods might, in certain 
 contingencies, be transported from that 
 place by steamboat, forbade the interpre- 
 tation that the unloading of the cars 
 could mean unloading at the place of 
 destination. McCann v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Md. 202. 
 
 Rule requiring removal within certain 
 time. — 'I 1k' liability of a carrier under a 
 rule, rixed by himself, that all articles of 
 freight must be taken away within 
 twenty-four hours after being unloaded, 
 does not, it seems, cease within twenty- 
 four hours, though within that time he 
 unloads them within a warehouse, unless 
 they are delivered to one authorized to 
 receive them. Angle & Co. v. Mississippi, 
 etc., R. Co., '.) Iowa 487. 
 
 A bill of lading provided that prop- 
 erty not removed with twenty-four hours 
 after arrival at destination may be kept 
 in the car, depot, or place of delivery of 
 the carrier at the owner's risk, or may 
 at the carrier's option be stored at the 
 owner's risk and cost, sul^ject to the 
 carrier's freight lien. Held, that such 
 clause was only applicable to property 
 after it had reached its tlestination and 
 did not apply to hay transported under 
 a contract re(|uiring delivery at ship's 
 side within lighterage limits of the port 
 of New York, which had only readied 
 the rail terminal at the time it was 
 stored and destroyed. Bolles v. Lehigh 
 Valley R. Co., l.'j'.t Fed. G94, Sij C. C. A. 
 5C>2. 
 
 Delivery in dangerous condition. — Car- 
 rier was nut lialile lor loss of snoods from 
 fire after delivery, although they v/ere in 
 a dangerous condition when delivered, 
 when the consignee accepted delivery 
 with knowledge of their condition. 
 Rothchild Bros. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. 
 (Wash.), 12;i Pac. 1011. 
 
 32. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Sargent, 
 
 l'.» (J. St. 438. (Resumption of posses- 
 sion by owner.) Bowman v. Hilton, 11 
 O. 30:i; McGregor & Co. v. Kilgore, 
 O. 358. See ante. "Failure or Refusal 
 of Consignee to Receive Goods," § 868; 
 "Goods Seized under Legal Process," §§ 
 870-874; post, "Stoppage in Iransitu," 
 chapter 17. 
 
 33. Hutchinson v. United States E.\p. 
 Co., 63 W. Va. 128, .V.J S. F. '.149, 14 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 393. 
 
 34. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cowherd, 
 120 Ala. 51, 23 So. 793; Mobile, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Prewitt, 46 .Ala. 63, 7 Am. Rep. 
 586; Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Western 
 Railway, 128 Ala. 167, 29 So. 203; Jack- 
 son V. Sacramento Val. R. Co., 23 Cal. 
 268; American Exp. Co. v. Hockett, 30 
 Ind. 2.J0, 95 Am. Dec. 691; State v. Cree- 
 den, 78 Iowa 556, 43 N. W. 673, 7 L. R. 
 A. 295: Norway Plains Co. v. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad (Mass.), 1 Gray 263. 61 Am. 
 Dec. 423; Burnell v. New York Cent. 
 R.- Co.. 45 N. Y. 184, 6 .\m. Rep. 61; 
 Mierson v. Hope, 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 561; \'an Horn v. Kermit (N. Y.), 4 E. 
 D. Smith 453. 
 
 35. Stewart v. Central, etc.. R. Co., 3 
 Ga. App. 397, f)0 S. I-'.. 1. 
 
 Payment of freight alone. — Goods 
 transported by a railroad arrived at the 
 place of destination, and were placed on 
 the platform of the depot at the usual 
 place of discharging goods read)- for de- 
 liver}' to the consignee in good order, 
 and he was notified of their arrival, and 
 l)aid the freight on them. Held, that it 
 seems that the payment of the freight 
 without any arrangement as to the fur- 
 ther custody of the goods is equivalent 
 to deliver}', so far as to throw the risk 
 of loss on the consignee. New Albany, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Campbell, 12 Ind. 55. 
 
 36. Goods being reshipped. — Merchants' 
 Despatch Transp. Co. f. Kahn, 76 111. 
 520. 
 
 37. Cownie Glove Co. v. Merchants' 
 Dispatch Transp. Co.. 106 N. W. 749. 
 130 Iowa 327. 4 L. R. A.. .\. S.. 1060, 114 
 Am. St. Rep. 419.
 
 § 1011 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 774 
 
 § 1011. Goods Shipped on Chartered or Private Cars— Power of 
 Carrier to Charter. — A common carrier having the exckisive right of trans- 
 portation of passengers and freight over its road in its own cars and by means 
 of its own motive power has the right to charter or hire an entire train or any 
 part of it to another company or individual. •'"' 
 
 Liability of Carrier. — In the case of a chartered car, as in other cases of 
 carriage of freight, the responsibihty of the carrier begins with the deHvery to 
 it of the goods and ends with its deHvery of them at the place of destination. ^'^ 
 But where one hires the use of cars from a railroad company to be used in the 
 transportation of freight, to be loaded as the hirer choose, or to be left in the 
 control of the shipper or his agent, the company does not incur the risk of a 
 common carrier Avith respect to the contents of such cars while transporting 
 them.-**^' The remedy of the hirer for injuries must be on the contract for hire and 
 the implied undertaking of the company that the hired cars are substantial and 
 will be duly carried to their point of destination, etc.^^ 
 
 A special contract between a railroad company and one who has chartered 
 a car. as to the liability for loss of the goods shipped in such car, will, if legal 
 and reasonable, be enforced.'*- 
 
 Private Cars. — A common carrier's liability does not attach to a railroad 
 company that has contracted to move property in the shipper's own cars con- 
 trolled by his own agents, and though operated by railway employees, run upon 
 a schedule to suit the shipper.'*^ But it is held that, in such case, the defendant 
 
 38. Power to charter cars. — East Ten- 
 nessee, etc., R. Co. v. Whittle, 27 Ga. 
 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741. 
 
 39. Central R., etc., Co. v. Anderson, 
 58 Ga. 393. 
 
 40. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741; 
 Chappell V. Western Railway, 8 Ga. App. 
 787, 70 S. E. 208. 
 
 Goods destroyed by shipper's agent. — 
 The rule that a common carrier is an in- 
 surer of the safety of freight does not 
 apply where the goods were transported 
 in a car left in the exclusive control of 
 the shipper's agent, and they were de- 
 stroyed by his act; and in such case it is 
 immaterial whether or not such agent 
 was negligent. Hart v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 69 Iowa 485, 29 N. W. 597, 27 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 59. 
 
 Manner of loading. — Where parties hire 
 the use of cars from a railroad, to be 
 used in the carriage of freight, to be 
 loaded as the hirers choose, the railroad 
 does not incur any risk as to the mode 
 adopted in loading the cars. Ohio, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 111. 023, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 291. 
 
 That the employees of the carrier re- 
 tain the management of a train chartered 
 by it to an individual, docs not render 
 the carrier liable as a common carrier 
 for injuries to property shipped on the 
 train. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741. 
 
 41. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Whittle, 27 Ga. 535, 73 Am. Dec. 741. 
 
 Where a railroad company hired to 
 the proprietor of a theatrical company 
 a baggage car for the transportation 
 of theatrical properties, and in connec- 
 
 tion with the car furnished lamps, one 
 of which exploded on account of hav- 
 ing been neglectfully filled, whereby 
 the properties in the car were burned, 
 the value of the properties so burned 
 may be recovered in an action ex 
 contractu brought against the railroad 
 company by the person to whom the 
 car was rented and who owned the 
 properties, on the theory that while 
 the contract did not expressly refer 
 to the lamps, or warrant that they were 
 in reasonably safe condition, neverthe- 
 less such was a reasonable implication 
 flowing from the contract as made, and 
 that the burning of the properties was 
 reasonably to have been anticipated 
 from the furnishing of defective lamps. 
 Further damages flowing from the l^reach 
 may (so far as they were within the 
 contemplation of the parties at the time 
 the contract was made) be also recov- 
 ered. Chappell V. Western Railway, 8 
 Ga. App. 787, 70 S. E. 208. 
 
 42, Special contract. — Central R., etc., 
 Co. z'. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393. 
 
 43. Private cars. — Coup v. Wabash, etc., 
 R. Co., 56 Mich. Ill, 22 N. W. 215, 50 
 Am. Rep. 374, wherein the court said: 
 "It is a misnomer to speak of such an ar- 
 rangement as an agreement for carriage 
 at all. It is substantially similar to the 
 business of towing vessels, wliich has 
 never been treated as carriage. It is, 
 although on a larger scale, analogous to 
 the business of furnishing horses and 
 drivers to private carriages. Whatever 
 may be the liability to third persons who 
 are injured l)y carriages or trains, the 
 carriage owner can not hold the persons 
 he employs to draw his vehicles as car- 
 riers."
 
 //.^ 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1011-1012 
 
 will be liable as a common carrier for an injury to the cars resulting from the 
 (lerailment of the train."*^ 
 
 §§ 1012-1016. Acts or Omissions Rendering Carrier Liable in Gen- 
 eral — § 1012. In General. — A loss caused by the negligence of the carrier 
 constitutes a liabihiy nf the carrier at common law.-*-"' A common carrier, to 
 exempt itself from liability for injuries hapjK-ning to goods, while it is engaged 
 in transjiorting them for hire, must show that it was free from fault at the time 
 the injury or damage occurred, and that no act or neglect on its part concurred in 
 or contributed to the injury.-*" The carrier is liable for losses occasioned by 
 misdirecting the goods.^' sliijjping them prematurely,'*** leaving them in a place 
 exposed to fire,-*'' miloading them at an impro])er time,-'" failing to place them 
 
 44. Mallory v. Tioga R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 39 Barl). 488. 
 
 45. Loss caused by negligence of car- 
 rier. — British, etc., Marine Ins. Co. V. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co.. 63 Tex. 475, 479, 51 
 Am. Rep. 661; Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. Zim- 
 merman & Co., 81 Te.x. G05, 608, 17 S. 
 W. 239. 
 
 46. Michaels v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 30 N. Y. 564, 86 Am. Dec. 415; Read v. 
 Spauldinj?, 30 N. Y. 630. 86 Am. Dec. 
 426, affirming 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 395. 
 
 It is not necessary, in order to estab- 
 lish the liability of common carriers for 
 the loss of goods carried by them, to 
 show that the loss was occasioned solely 
 by their negligence. If their act or 
 omission was in itself a want of ordinary 
 care and diligence, and contril)uted to 
 the loss, it is not for the court or jury 
 to measure in what proportion or degree, 
 imless the loss must have happened not- 
 withstanding such negligence. Lamb v. 
 Camden, etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.). 2 
 Daly 454. 
 
 Where a vessel transporting freight 
 was run into and sunk by a steamer in 
 the night, and those in charge of the 
 vessel were guilty of negligence in hav- 
 ing no watchman on the deck, the own- 
 ers of the vessel were liable to a shipper 
 for the value of freight lost, though 
 those in charge of the steamer were also 
 guilty of negligence. Converse v. Brain- 
 erd, 27 Conn. 607. 
 
 47. Goods misdirected by carrier. — 
 Vincent v. I-Jatlur, :;i 'lex. 77, 86, '.)s Am. 
 Dec. 51(). 
 
 48. Injuries caused by premature ship- 
 ment.— Where a carrier, after informing 
 tlic owner of goods delivered to it for 
 transportation that they will be held at 
 place of receipt till the freight charges 
 are prepaid, ships the goods without pay- 
 ment, and without notice to the owner, 
 it is lial)le for damages resulting from 
 such premature shipment. Campion r. 
 Canadian Pac. R. Co., 4:! l-ed. 77:., 11 L. 
 R. A. 128. 
 
 49. Leaving cotton in exposed place. — 
 When a carrier leaves a car load of 
 cotton at an intermediate station, on a 
 side track, within ten feet of tlie main 
 
 track, in danger of fire from sparks 
 from passing engines, and without a 
 guard, this is evidence of gross negli- 
 gence, and, unexplained, will make the 
 carrier liable for all losses occasioned 
 by such negligence. Purcell v. Southern 
 Exp. Co.. 34 Ga. 315. 
 
 \ railway company received a quantity 
 of cotton for transportation, and had it 
 placed on l)arges for carriage to another 
 city, to be placed on its cars. By di- 
 rection of the company the barges were 
 detained a mile or two below the proper 
 place for the delivery of freight to the 
 company and at a point where there was 
 such a large amount of shipping as to 
 necessitate the mooring of the barges 
 much nearer the channel of the river and 
 passing steamers than would have been 
 necessary at any point in that neighbor- 
 hood. The prevailing winds at that sea- 
 son blew from passing steamers towards 
 the barges, and on the bank near by 
 trains were constantly running. .After 
 the barges had been so moored for sev- 
 enteen days, the cotton caught fire from 
 a passing steamer. Held, that the com- 
 pany was negligent in placing the cotton 
 in such an exposed position. Thomas v. 
 Lancaster Mills. 71 Fed. 481, 19 C. C. 
 A. 88. 
 
 A railroad companj' received, and is- 
 sued l)ills of lading making it liable for 
 loss by fire in case of negligence, for, 
 uncompressed cotton, and, under author- 
 ity of the assignee of the bills, sent it to 
 a compress company, and. after it was 
 compressed, allowed it to remain for an 
 unreasonal)le length of time on the plat- 
 form of the compress company, exposed 
 to sparks from passing engines, and it 
 was burned up. Held, that the company 
 was lial)le for the cotton. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. V. McFadden. 89 Tex. 138. 33 S. 
 W. 853. 
 
 50. Unloading goods at improper time. 
 — .\ common carrier will be held liable 
 for damage caused to goods whicli lie 
 has transported to the place of destina- 
 tion, and landed during a rainstorm, 
 without giving notice to the consignees 
 of their arrival, although the goods were 
 but a few hours exposed, and his agent 
 made some etfort to protect them from
 
 § 1012 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 776 
 
 in a warehouse,^^ negligently handling them,"'- or failing to require instruc- 
 tions as to their transportation. ^^ Placing a wooden car next to the tender 
 of the locomotive, or permitting the express messenger to ride in the front pas- 
 senger car,^-* or failing to place cars within fire and police protection when 
 temporarily standing on side tracks, ^""^ is not evidence of negligence. Unload- 
 ing goods on Sunday is not fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in the 
 absence of proof that, by the law of the state where the loss happened, such 
 act was unlawful. ^"^ Where a carrier refuses to receive goods for transporta- 
 tion, because badly packed, it is not liable, as a trespasser, for their destruc- 
 tion, without negligence on its part, while being separated by it from other 
 freight with which they had been improperly mixed, and which it is such car- 
 rier's duty to transport.^'" The fact that a station agent persuaded the consignee 
 of freight to receive goods in a damaged condition, and pay the freight does 
 not render the carrier liable for damages when it would not otherwise be re- 
 sponsible unless the agent was authorized to assume such liability.^** 
 
 Effect of Custom. — That it was the custom of steamboats to carry torch- 
 lights at night on board does not affect the liability of the owners of a steam- 
 boat for a loss by fire caused by the negligent use of such lights. ^'-^ 
 
 Goods in Bad Condition When Received by Carrier. — A consignor can 
 not reco\er for loss of perishable goods ship])ed in bad condition, even though 
 the carrier's negligence contributed to the loss, unless by ordinary care the 
 former could not have avoided the consequences of the latter's negligence. ^"^ 
 
 the rain by which they were damaged. 
 Withers v. New Jersey Steamboat Co. 
 (X. v.), 48 Barb. 455. 
 
 A carrier of perishable goods, with 
 notice that they would be injured 
 by rain, unloaded them after notice to 
 the consignee, but, before the consignee 
 could take all of them from the landing, 
 they were injured by rain, the carrier 
 making no attempt to protect them. 
 Held, that the carrier was liable. Mc- 
 Andrew v. Whitlock, 52 N. Y. 40, 11 Am. 
 Rep. 657, affirming 32 X. Y. Super. Ct. 
 62.3. 
 
 Where a shipment of apples is un- 
 loaded from a packet upon a wharf- 
 boat in the early evening, and during 
 the night the apples are frozen, the car- 
 rier is liable to the consignee for the 
 damages thus sustained. Long v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., Packet Co., 7 X. P., N. S., 
 14, 18 O. D. X. P. 699. 
 
 51. Failure to place goods in ware- 
 house. — Where plaintiff shipped a ma- 
 chine together with certain tools, etc., 
 consigned to himself at a flag station on 
 defendant's road, where defendant main- 
 tained a warehouse and side track, but 
 no station or agent, the carrier, not hav- 
 ing placed the tools and cable in its 
 warehouse on their arrival, as it might 
 have done, was liable to plaintiff for 
 their loss. X'ormile v. Northern Pac. R. 
 Co., 77 Pac. 1087, 36 Wash. 21, 67 L. R. 
 A. 271. 
 
 52. Negligent handling of goods.^ 
 When cotton is injured and depreciated 
 in weight by the bursting of the bagging, 
 and the manner in which it is handled, 
 the carrier is liable. Lipford v. Char- 
 lotte, etc., R. Co. (S. C.j, 7 Rich. L. 409. 
 
 53. Failure to require instructions. — 
 
 Plaintiff contracted to transport for de- 
 fendant, from his works, from 1,200 to 
 5,000 barrels of salt, annually, for three 
 years. The contract provided in detail 
 for plaintiff's compensation and the de- 
 ductions to be made therefrom for salt 
 lost in transit. Held, that it was the 
 duty of plaintiff to attend at the works 
 of defendant at such times as suited his 
 convenience, to receive the salt from 
 time to time as he was ready, and com- 
 mence its transportation, and to apply 
 for the instructions requisite as to its 
 points for transportation, and if he com- 
 menced the transportation without re- 
 quiring such instructions, any loss occa- 
 sioned thereby was attributable to his 
 own fault. White v. Toncray, 46 \a. 
 (5 Gratt.) 179. 
 
 54. Placing wooden car next to loco- 
 motive. — Adams Hxp. Co. z'. Sharpless & 
 Sons, 77 Pa. ."516. 
 
 55. Failure to place cars within fire and 
 police protection. — Insurance Co. v. Lake 
 Erie, etc., R. Co., 152 Ind. 333, 53 N. E. 
 382. 
 
 56. Unloading goods on Sunday. — 
 Shclton z\ Merchants', etc., Transp. Co., 
 59 X. Y. 25S, 4S How. Prac. 257. 
 
 57. Goods refused because improperly 
 packed. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. z\ Insurance 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 237. 
 
 58. Southern R. Co. v. Gardner, 127 
 Ga. 320, 56 S. E. 454. 
 
 59. Effect of custom. — Hililer r. Mc- 
 Carthy, 31 Ala. 501. 
 
 60. Goods in bad condition when re- 
 ceived by carrier. — Reed z'. Pliihidelphia, 
 etc., R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 176.
 
 777 
 
 LOSS OR IN JURY TO GOODS, 
 
 § 1012 
 
 Goods Injured While Detained for Freight.— It is held that as a carrier 
 may properly refuse to deliver goods until payment of its charges for freight, 
 negligence iii caring for them while so detained is not a cause of action in trover 
 for their conversion.''' 
 
 If the condition of the contents of a box is unknown to a carrier re- 
 ceivin.i,^ llie box for shipnic-nl, ;i laihnc to guard a.i^ain^-t lialulity for the condi- 
 tion of the goods, hv examination or ^iipulali(jn, is negligence.*'- 
 
 Payment of Freight in Illegal Currency,— If a common carrier accepts 
 goods to ])e carried for hire, the fact that the freight was paid and accepted 
 in an illegal currency, would not affect its liability for the loss of the goods 
 by negligence.*'^ 
 
 Obligation of Carrier to Insure Goods, — .\n agreement between a ware- 
 houseman and a railroad comi^any providing that the latter would deposit all 
 cotton received by it for shipment with the warehouseman, to be compressed, 
 and that he would insure such cotton while in his possession, does not impose 
 upon the railroad company any obligation to insure in event of the warehouse- 
 man's failure to do so."-* 
 
 Particular instances of acts not constituting negligence are set out in the 
 notes.""' 
 
 61. Goods injured while detained for 
 freight. — Crossan r. New York. etc.. R. 
 Co.. 140 Mass. 19G, 21 N. E. 367, 14 Am. 
 St. Rep. 408, ?> L. R. A. 766. 
 
 62. Morsanton Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., 
 R. Co.. 121 N. C. 514, 28 S. E. 474, 61 
 Am. St. Rep. liT'.i. 
 
 63. Payment of freight in illegal cur- 
 rency. — Southern Exp. Co. f. W'oniack, 
 4S Teiin. (1 Heisk.) 2;J6. 
 
 64. Obligation of carrier to insure 
 goods. — Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' 
 Cotton- I'ress Co., S'.i Tcnn. (5 Pickle) 1, 
 14 S. W. :n7, 24 Am. St. Rep. .".Sf,. 
 
 65. Acts not constituting negUgence.^ 
 A carrier is not chargeable with negli- 
 gence in failing lo take precautions to 
 guard against the danger from fire to 
 cotton awaiting transportation in locked 
 box cars on a side track, in the open 
 country, estaljlished and maintained for 
 the accommodation of the planters in 
 that neighborhood, where the carrier is 
 merely following a practice which has 
 continued for years without any result- 
 ing loss or complaint. Charnock "'. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 194 U. S. 432, 48 L. 
 Ed. 10.57, 24 S. Ct. 671, affirming 51 C. 
 C. A. 78. 113 Fed. 92. 
 
 If a railroad train of nine cars loaded 
 with various lots of freight l)ecomes ob- 
 structed by a snowstorm, so that four 
 of the cars must be left liehind on a cold 
 night without shelter, and tlic conductor 
 is able to select which cars shall bo left, 
 and knows that one car contains goods 
 which will be injured by freezing, he is 
 not bound as matter of law to take that 
 car forward rather than other cars con- 
 taining goods of which, in respect to 
 their liability to injury by freezing, he 
 knows nothing. Swetland v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 27G. 
 
 Where a carrier received a car of or- 
 gans on a certain day in regular course 
 
 of business, together with seventy-four 
 other cars, the act of the carrier in ten- 
 dering such car on the following day 
 with the others to a connecting carrier, 
 which only accepted forty of them, de- 
 clining the others on account of its in- 
 ability to handle them because of a flood, 
 did not show negligence of the carrier 
 contributing to the damage of the or- 
 gans in such car by the flood. Arm- 
 strong, etc., Co. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 26 Okla. 352, 100 Pac. 216, 29 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 671. 
 
 A carrier to which fruit was delivered 
 for shipment when the temperature was 
 below freezing point is not negligent in 
 forwarding the fruit on the day of re- 
 ceipt, instead of retaining it in storage 
 until warmer weather. Tucker v. Penn- 
 svlvania R. Co., 11 Misc. Rep. 366, 32 X. 
 Y. S. 1, reversing 10 Misc. Rep. 35, 30 N. 
 Y. S. 811. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for neg- 
 ligence in failing to remove tobacco 
 from a warehouse, by reason of which 
 it was burned, it appeared that plaintiff 
 had purchased tobacco from the owners 
 of the P. warehouse, some of which was 
 stored in the B. warehouse. The ware- 
 house receipts for the tobacco were 
 stamped "P. Warehouse." and. with or- 
 ders on the warehousemen for delivery 
 of same, were delivered to defendant on 
 July 3d, who had contracted to store the 
 tobacco in a warehouse owned by it. 
 On account of prior orders for work, de- 
 fendant was unable on that day to han- 
 dle the tobacco. On the 6th (the 5th be- 
 ing Sunday, and the 4th legal holiday), 
 defendant delivered the orders to the P. 
 warehouse, but, on account of orders 
 ahead of plaintiff's, it could not get the 
 tobacco that day. but on the next day 
 did receive it as fast as it was deliv- 
 ered to it. It did not know any of the
 
 § 1013 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 778 
 
 § 1013. Proximate Cause of Loss or Injury. — Where carriers are re- 
 sponsible bv reason of negligence they are only liable for the ordinary and prox- 
 imate consequences of their faults, and not for those which are remote and 
 extraordinary.*"^ It is held that if a carrier has been delinquent in any of its 
 duties, and a loss has occurred while its wrongful act was in force, it is per- 
 mitted to show, in defense, although prima facie liable, that, although it may 
 have been in default, yet the loss was independent of that default, and must 
 have happened although the delinquency had never existed.^" 
 
 Loss during Negligent Delay. — Where goods are destroyed by fire during 
 a negligent delav it is held that the delay is the proximate cause of the loss ren- 
 dering die carrier liable ; '^^ but there are cases holding to the contrary .^^ Where 
 plaintitts had control of the loading of a car of corn and they loaded the corn 
 while it was wet, and in a condition to be damaged by being bulked in the car, 
 the carrier was not responsible for damages occasioned thereby, notwithstand- 
 ing the fact of a delay in the transportation."^*^* As to loss occasioned by the 
 act of God during negligent delay, see elsewhere."^ 
 
 Particular instances of proximate cause of loss or injury to goods are set 
 out in the notes.' - 
 
 tobacco was stored in the B. warehouse, 
 which was burned the night of the 7th. 
 Held, that defendant \yas not negligent 
 in failing to remove the tobacco from 
 the B. warehouse, so as to render it li- 
 able for its value. Stewart v. Gracy, 93 
 Tenn. (9 Pickle) 314, 27 S. W. 664. 
 
 66. Carrier liable for proximate conse- 
 quences. — Morrison z\ McFadden (Pa.), 
 r, Chirk 2?,. 
 
 When the proof fails to connect the 
 carrier with any fault touching the arti- 
 cle intrusted to it for carriage, no action 
 can be maintained against it to recover 
 damages for not safely carrying mer- 
 chandise. Jordan v. American Exp. 
 Co., 86 Me. 22.5, 29 Atl. 980. 
 
 Though a vessel be defective or the 
 carrier negligent, yet, if these circum- 
 stances do not contril^ute .to the loss, 
 the carrier is not liable, if otherwise ex- 
 cused. Hart z: Allen (Pa.), 2 Watts 114; 
 Hill z: Sturgeon, 35 Mo. 212, 86 Am. Dec. 
 149. 
 
 67. Hill V. Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 323. 
 
 68. Loss by fire during negligent delay. 
 — Deming v. Merchants' Cotton Press, 
 etc., Co., 90 Tenn. 306, 17 S. W. 89, 13 
 L. R. A. 518; Hernsheim v. Newport 
 News, etc., Co., 18 Ky. L. Rep. 227, 35 
 S. W. 1115. 
 
 The failure of a carrier to move a car 
 load of lumber, after being made ready 
 for shipment and notice thereof, renders 
 it liable for the loss of the lumber by 
 its subsequent destruction in the burning 
 of adjacent property without the carri- 
 er's fault, (jreen v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 163 Ala. 138, 50 So. 937. But see 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Sigma Lumber 
 Co., 170 Ala. 627, 54 So. 205, Ann. Cas. 
 1912D, 965. 
 
 A railroad company erected a platform 
 for the purpose of shipping cotton, and 
 the course of business adopted was for 
 parties to store cotton on it to be shipped 
 
 by the next freight train. Plaintiff stored 
 cotton on the platform, but it was not 
 taken by the next freight train, and, after 
 such train had passed, the cotton was de- 
 stroyed by fire set by a passing locomo- 
 tive of the company. Held, that the 
 company was lial)le for the loss of the 
 cotton. Meyer v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 
 41 La. Ann. 639, 6 So. 218, 17 Am. St. 
 Rep. 408; Whitehurst v. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co., 131 La. 139, 59 So. 42. 
 
 69. Scott V. Baltimore, etc.. Steamboat 
 Co., 19 Fed. 56; Thomas v. Lancaster 
 Mills, 19 C. C. A. 88, 71 Fed. 481. 
 
 70. Contributory negligence of shipper. 
 —Galveston, etc.. R. Co. z\ Smith, 2 
 Texas -App. Civ. Cas., § 138. 
 
 71. Loss by act of God during delay. — 
 See ante, "Negligence Concurring with 
 Act of God," § 992. 
 
 72. Instances of proximate cause. — A 
 traiSc agreement required defendant, a 
 standard-gauge road, one of the parties 
 thereto, to maintain a third rail for the 
 accommodation of the other party, a nar- 
 row-gauge road. The rail was not main- 
 tained; wherefore cotton shipped on the 
 narrow-gauge road could not be_ for- 
 warded, and was thrown off and injured 
 by the rain and mud. Held, that defend- 
 ant was not liable; the proximate cause 
 of injury lieing the exposure of the cot- 
 ton to the rain and mud, and not the vio- 
 lation of the contract, which imposed no 
 obligation on defendant to receive or 
 care for the cotton. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 19 S. W. 963. 
 
 Where goods were delivered by a rail- 
 road company to a transfer company and 
 destroyed by fire while in its possession, 
 the fire was the proximate cause of the 
 loss, and the drayage company could not 
 escape liability on the ground that the 
 consignees had delayed making payment 
 of drafts attached to the bill of lading, 
 and thereby delayed surrender of the
 
 77') 
 
 U)SS OR INTL'RV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1014 
 
 § 1014. Negligence of Agents or Servants. — Carriers are responsible, 
 by reason of the duties imposed upon them as carriers, for the negligence of 
 their agents or servants in and about the carriage of freight,"^ including its re- 
 
 j4()i)(ls to the transfer company. .Krka- 
 delphia Mill. Co. v. Smoker Merchandise 
 Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. G80. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for damage to goods lost by fire 
 the fact that the fire originated in a 
 steam cotton compress erected on the 
 company's premises witii its permission, 
 hut not under its control, does not es- 
 tal)lish negligence in the company, the 
 permission to erect the same not l^eing 
 the proximate cause of the injury. Chalk 
 & Co. V. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 85 N. C. 
 4;.':;. 
 
 Where a railroad moves a burning car 
 to save its own property, such action, 
 and not the original lire, is the proximate 
 cause of the burning of other property 
 near which the car is moved. Latta v. 
 New Orleans, etc., R. Co.. 59 So. 250, 131 
 La. 2T;.\ Ann. Cas. 1914A, '.is.s. 
 
 Leaving car door open — Loss by fire. 
 — Wiiile a car containing binding twine 
 was in the freight yard of a railway com- 
 pany ready for unloading, a fire broke 
 out in a building twenty-three feet away, 
 situated on property, on the other side of 
 an alley, not belonging to the company. 
 The car was then moved promptly, but 
 in the meantime, and within twenty min- 
 utes of the breaking out of the fire, the 
 twine caught fire from sparks entering 
 through the car door, which had been 
 left open about ten inches. Held, that 
 the leaving open of the .door was not 
 the proximate cause of the loss. Scott 
 V. Allegheny Val. R. Co., 172 Pa. 646, 
 33 Atl. 712. 
 
 Carrying high proof spirits with the 
 barrel in a broken condition was not the 
 proximate cause of a fire destroying the 
 spirits, which originated in some way 
 after the consignee had taken possession 
 and when his agents were entering the 
 car to remove the goods. Rothchild 
 Bros. V. Northern Pac. R. Co., 68 Wash. 
 527, 123 Pac. 1011, 40 L. R. A., N. S., 773. 
 
 Failure to use ordinary care to extin- 
 guish fire. — Where plaintifY's goods, while 
 in the custody of defendant railway 
 company, were destroyed by a fire which 
 originated without defendant's fault, but 
 which might have been extinguished be- 
 fore the goods were destroyed, if defend- 
 ant had used ordinary care, defendant's 
 negligence was the cause of the loss. 
 Peerless Mfg. Co. v. New York, etc., R. 
 Co., f.i Atl. .-n. 73 X. H. :!2S. 
 
 Failure to exercise reasonable care in 
 giving notice of arrival of perishable 
 freight held proximate cause of an in- 
 jury to the freight. Uber 7'. Cliica.go, 
 etc., R. Co., 1.-)! Wis. 431. 13S X. W. :.:. 
 
 Where defendant carrier improperly 
 added a charge for icing to the expense 
 
 bill of a car of cabbage, but this error 
 was not the cause of the consignee's re- 
 fusal to accept the car and pay a draft 
 attached to l)ill of lading, which caused 
 a delay resulting in loss from the de- 
 terioration of the cabbage, defendant was 
 not Iial)le for such loss because of the 
 addition of the icing charge. Freeman 
 7'. Quebedcau.x fTe.x. Civ. App. ), 151 S. 
 W. 643. 
 
 73. Liability for negligence of agents 
 or servants. — Untied States. — Bank v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 
 872. 
 
 Alabama. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Cavender, 170 Ala. 601, 54 So. 54. 
 
 IHinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Nei- 
 mann, 84 111. .-Xpp. 272. 
 
 Louisiana. — Williams & Sons v. Mor- 
 gan, 32 La. Ann. .168; Watts v. Saxon, 
 11 La. Ann. 43. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Hamil v. New York, 
 etc., Co., 177 Mass. 474, 59 N. E. 75. 
 
 Missouri. — Otis Co.* v. Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 20 S. W. 676. 
 
 Nerv Yorh. — Rosenblum v. Weir, 113 
 N. Y. S. 520, affirmed in 117 N. Y. S. 
 1146, 132 App. Div. 929; Howe v. Os- 
 wego, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 56 Barb. 121; 
 Fein v. Weir, 114 N. Y. S. 426, 129 App. 
 Div. 229. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Willock v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., 166 Pa. 184, 30 Atl. 948, 45 Am. 
 St. Rep. 674, 27 L. R. A. 228. 
 
 Texas.— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Brass 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 133 S. W. 1075; Ed- 
 wards & Co. V. Texas Mid. R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 1097. 
 
 Jl'voniini^. — Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Blytii, 19 Wyo. 410, 118 Pac. 649, 119 Pac. 
 875, Ann. Cas. 1913 E. 288. 
 
 Express company employing railroad 
 company to transport goods. — An ex- 
 press cunipany is liable lu a sliipper lor 
 the full value of goods destroyed tiirough 
 the negligence of a railroad company 
 wliich it has employed to do its trans- 
 porting. Boscowitz V. Adams Exp. Co., 
 93 111. 523, 34 Am. Rep. 191. See Bank 
 V. Adams Express Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 
 L. Kd. S72. 
 
 When warehouseman becomes agent of 
 owner. — Where a railroad company, on 
 failure of a consignee to receive goods 
 shipped, stores such goods in a ware- 
 house, taking a receipt in its own name, 
 the storing will be held to be for the 
 benefit of the owner, subject to the com- 
 pany's lien for freight charges; and the 
 warehouseman is therefore the agent of 
 the owner, and not of the railroad com- 
 pany. Gregg V. Illinois Cent. R. Co.. 147 
 111. 550, 35 N. E. 343, 37 Am. St. Rep. 
 238, affirming 47 III. App. 590.
 
 § 1014 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 780 
 
 ceipt for future carriage ; '■* and where the servant is acting within his author- 
 ity, the carrier is responsible, though the wrong or damage be done inad- 
 vertently and with tlie purpose to accomplish its business in an unhiwful 
 manner.'-' 
 
 Negligence in Unloading Goods. — The proprietors of a railroad are hable 
 for want of ordinary care in their servants in unloading freight from their cars, 
 though the consignee, knowing it to be the rule of the carriers that he must un- 
 load freight, and that if he did not unload it within a certain time, the carriers 
 would, has neglected to unload it."'' 
 
 Cotton Destroyed by Compress Company. — Where cotton is negligently 
 damaged or destroyed by a compress company after there has been delivery to 
 a carrier for transportation, the carrier is liable as the compress company is its 
 servant.'" 
 
 Delegation of Duties by Carrier. — A common carrier, who undertakes to 
 perform an entire service, has no authority to constitute another person or cor- 
 poration the agent of the consignor or consignee. He may employ an agency, 
 but it must be subordinate to him, and not to the shipper, who neither employs 
 
 74. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cavender, 
 170 Ala. 601, 54 So. J4. 
 
 Joint negligence of. servants and an- 
 other. — Where a truckman is employed 
 to convey heavy articles to a railroad 
 station, and. after agents of the company 
 have received the articles and assumed 
 charge of them for the purpose of trans- 
 portation, assists them in loading the ar- 
 ticles on the cars, the company will be 
 liable for damages resulting from the 
 joint negligence of the truckman and its 
 servants. Merritt v. Old Colony, etc., R. 
 Co. (Mass.), 11 Allen 80. 
 
 75. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cavender, 
 170 Ala. f)01, .54 So. 54. 
 
 76. Negligence in unloading goods. — 
 Kimball z-. Western R. Co. (Mass.), G 
 Gray 542. 
 
 77. Cotton injured by negligence of 
 compress company. — Wliere the owner 
 of cotton delivers to a railway company 
 the warehouse receipts of a compress 
 company, and the railway company ac- 
 cepts them and issues bills of lading 
 thereon to the owner, and the cotton is 
 injured by exposure to the weather after 
 delivery to the compress company, the 
 railway company is liable for the loss, 
 l)ecause it occurred while in the hands 
 of its agent, the compress company. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Jones Cotton Co., 167 
 Ala. 575, 52 So. 899. 
 
 Where a carrier, in a bill of lading for 
 the shipment of cotton, reserves the 
 right to have it compressed, and after- 
 vvards places it in the hands of a com- 
 press company for that purpose, such 
 compress company becomes the agent of 
 the carrier; and, if the cotton is damaged 
 or destroyed by the negligence of the 
 compress company, the railway company 
 is liable to the owner. Otis Co. v. Miss- 
 ouri Tac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 20 S. W. 
 676. 
 
 A railroad company received, and is- 
 sued bills of lading for, uncompressed 
 cotton, and, in accordance with written 
 
 authority, sent it to be compressed. After 
 having remained an unreasonable length 
 of time with the compress company, it 
 was destroyed by fire. The bill of lading 
 provided that the railroad company 
 should not be liable for loss by fire, ex- 
 cept in case of its negligence. Held, 
 that the company was liable for the loss 
 of the cotton. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McFadden (lex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 18. 
 
 A carrier required by the railroad com- 
 mission regulations, when requested l)y 
 the shipper of cotton, to deliver the cot- 
 ton to the nearest compress on the line 
 of its route for compression, but not re- 
 quired to deliver it to any other com- 
 press, having, at the request of the ship- 
 per, noted on the l)ill of lading that it 
 was to he compressed at another com- 
 press, and there delivered it, is none the 
 less liable for it as a common carrier 
 while in the possession of the compress, 
 though the shipper was interested in such 
 compress, as such delivery must still be 
 deemed a part of the railroad's duty as 
 a common carrier; it having by its bill 
 of lading reserved the right to have the 
 compressing done at its cost. St. Louis, 
 etc., Co. V. Brass (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 
 S. W. 1075. 
 
 A carrier which issues bills of lading 
 to a shipper in return for receipts given 
 liy a compress company for cotton in the 
 latter's custody is liable for loss by fire 
 due to negligence of the servants of the 
 compress company in caring for the cot- 
 ton while awaiting the compression and 
 loading which the railway company had 
 ordered done for its own convenience 
 and at its own cost, where such com- 
 pany, if it did not regard the presentation 
 of the receipts as a tender of the cotton, 
 or if it were not a valid tender, could, 
 notwithstanding the rules of the Texas 
 state railroad commission as well as its 
 own rules, have refused to sign the bill of 
 lading. Arthur v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 27 
 S. Ct. 338, 204 U. S. 505, 51 L. Ed. 590, 
 reversing 139 Fed. 127.
 
 781 LOSS OR INJURV TO GOODS. §§ 1014-1017 
 
 it, pays it, nor has aii) rij^iit to interfere with it. Its acts become his, because 
 clone in his service, and by his direction."^ 
 
 § 1015. Negligence or Misconduct of Third Person. — A carrier will not 
 
 be excused from liahilil)- for the loss of ^mmxU 1)\ the neglij^cnce or misconduct 
 of a third i)erson."'-' 
 
 § 1016. Deviation or Delay. — Deviation. — .As to liability of a common 
 carrier for 1(jss of or injury to j^oods accruing,' during deviation, see elsewhere. ^'^ 
 
 Delay. — The liabilit\ of the carrier for losses occurring during delay is 
 treated elsewhere.'*' 
 
 Where a carrier fails to furnish cars at the time agreed and Ijecause 
 of such failure, frciglU shipped fails to connect with a train of a connecting 
 carrier anrl is damaged Ijy delay, the company is liable therefor. *'- 
 
 § 1017-1021. Mode or Means of Transportation— § 1017. In Gen- 
 eral. — Mode of Transportation in General. — If a carrier takes the most 
 dangerous of two modes of conveyance round a fall, he does so at his own 
 risk.s3 ;\i-,(j where there are two customary routes, one through a cold country 
 and one through a warm one. and the latter route becomes obstructed, the car- 
 rier is negligent in sending over the cold route, without notice to shipper or 
 consignee, goods whicli it is bound to know are destructive by frost. ^■^ 
 
 Must Obey Directions of Owner. — A carrier is liable for damage occa- 
 sioned by disregard of the directions given by the owner as to the mode of con- 
 veyance.^''^ 
 
 Duty with Regard to External Protection. — .\ shii)per. by consenting 
 that his goods may be carried on deck, does not thereby assume the risk of their 
 loss or injury ; and, if the carrier has contracted to cover and protect them, he is 
 liable for damage from rain occasioned by the want of such protection, and the 
 fact that the shipi)er knew that the goods were not covered wdien the boat de- 
 jxirled is imm.'iterial.^'''' 
 
 Manner of Stowing or Packing Goods. — .A carrier is negligent in stow- 
 ing a barrel of oil on end in a car, when the safer way is to stow it on the bilge, 
 like other barrels in the same car.*^" The mere fact that a railroad corporation, 
 transporting bales of cotton as a common carrier, packed them into a car so 
 
 78. Delegation of duties. — Bank v. Loss or Injury." § 1013. See, also, ante. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174, 23 L. Ed. "Delay in Transportation or Delivery." 
 872. See Watts v. Saxon, 11 La. Ann. 43. Chapter XL 
 
 Where an express company, engaged 82- failure to furnish cars at time 
 
 to transport packaffes. etc., from one ^f'"^^f:— ^f.'/^'^;,^i' V^'''^-^^- ^°- ''• ^'^°''g^' 
 
 point to another, sends its messen.c;er in 30 Okla. 12, 1;2< lac. s.l._ 
 
 Charlie of them on the car set apart for 83. Mode of transportation in general. 
 
 its use by the railroad company em- —Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), Wright 
 
 ployed to perform the service, the latter l^-^- o , t^ ^ .«,^ 
 
 company becomes the agent of the ^ 8*. Pierce v. Southern Pac. Co. 120 
 
 former. Bank v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. Cal. l.'sr,. 47 Pac. 874, :.'l Pac. 302, 40 L. 
 
 S. 174, 23 L. Ed. 872. R-,;^- ^T'O. 
 
 „„--,. . J . r i.u' J 85. Directions of owner. — bager v. 
 
 79. Negligence or misconduct of third p,,rtsmoutli. etc.. R. Co.. 31 Me. 228. 50 
 
 ?"o??-~« '■,"•" 'o. V T^f ''ran M ■ • • Am. Dec. r,.V.): Colbath -•. Bangor, etc.. 
 L. 3<2, aftirmed in 23 x\. J L. 580; Howe ^ ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^.^ .^ .^^, ^^g 
 
 r. Oswego, etc.. R. Co. (N. Y.), ab Barb. j^ ^ common carrier accepts a package 
 
 ^■^ • having legible directions as to carriage, 
 
 Public enemy.— Sec ante. ".\cts of Pub- \^ jg liable for loss from failure to observe 
 
 lie Enemy," §§ 9'.)r)-997. sucii directions. Colbath v. Bangor, etc., 
 
 80. Losses occurring during deviation. R. Co.. 74 Atl. 918, 105 Me. 379. 
 
 — See ante, "Route and Deviation There- 86. Duty with regard to external pro- 
 
 from," §§ 813-834. tection. — Schwinger v. Raymond, Sa X. 
 
 81. Losses occurring during delay. — See ^- l'^-- •^S -^m. Rep. 415. 
 
 ante, "Xegligcnce Concurring with Act 87. Stowing goods. — Thompson -■. Chi- 
 
 of God," § 992; "Proximate Cause of cago, etc., R. Co., 27 Iowa, appx., 561.
 
 §§ 1017-1018 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 782 
 
 tightly that on their taking fire the car could not be unloaded is not conclusive 
 of negligence in the packing.'"^ 
 
 Loss Incident to Particular Mode of Transportation. — A carrier is not 
 responsible for a loss which occurred from a cause necessarily incident to the 
 particular mode of transportation which was equally well known to the carrier 
 and the shipper. ^'^ 
 
 § 1018. Means of Transportation in General. — A carrier is bound to 
 furnish suitable and safe vehicles and means of transportation for the carriage 
 of goods it undertakes to carry and transport, and is liable for losses caused 
 by its failure to do so,"" though it is entitled to determine, in the first instance, 
 the sufficiency of the vehicles furnished.'-'^ The carrier is bound to provide a ve- 
 
 88. Packing goods. — Pemberton Co. v. 
 New Y..rk. etc.. R. Co., 104 Mass. 144. 
 
 89. Effect of custom. — Philleo v. San- 
 ford, 17 Tex. 227, (w Am. Dec. 654; Chev- 
 aillier T'. Fatten. 10 Tex. 344. 346. 
 
 90. Duty to provide suitable means of 
 transportation. — United States. — Cincin- 
 nati, etc., R. Co. V. Fairbanks & Co., 33 
 C. C. A. 611, 90 Fed. 467; Hannibal Rail- 
 road V. Swift (U. S.), 12 Wall. 262, 20 L. 
 Ed. 423; Railroad Co. v. Pratt (U. S.), 
 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827, 49 How. 
 Prac. 84; The Northern Belle v. Rob- 
 son, 154 U. S. 571, 19 L. Ed. 748. 14 S. 
 Ct. 1166. 
 
 Alabama. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- 
 cago Varnish Co., 169 Ala. 287, 53 So. 
 832. 
 
 .Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Marshall, 74 Ark. 597, 86 S. W. 802. 
 
 Illinois. — Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Crews, 53 111. App. 50; Beard v. Illinois, 
 etc., R. Co., 79 Iowa 518, 44 N. W. 800, 
 7 L. R. A. 280, 18 Am. St. Rep. 381. 
 
 Kentucky. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc.. Stove Co., 33 Ky. L. Rep. 
 924, 111 S. W. 358. 
 
 Maine. — Sager v. Portsmouth, etc., R. 
 Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dec. 659. 
 
 Mississipf^i. — Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Searles, 71 Miss. 744, 16 So. 255. _ 
 
 Missouri. — Nicholson v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 141 Mo. App. 199, 124 S. W. 573; 
 Potts V. Wabash, etc., R. Co.,. 17 Mo. 
 App. 394. 
 
 New York. — Loomis v. Lehigh Valley 
 R. Co., 208 N. Y. 312, 101 N. E. 907. 
 
 North Carolina. — Forrester & Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 553, 61 S. E. 
 524, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 508, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. Ann. Cas. 143. 
 
 0/a"o.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. O'Don- 
 nell, 49 O. St. 489, 32 N. E. 476; Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. V. Fisher, 3 N. P. 122, 
 
 5 O. Dec. 659; State v. Cincinnati etc., 
 R. Co., 47 O. St. 130. 23 N. E. 928. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Willock v. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 166 Pa. 184, 30 Atl. 948, 45 
 Am. St. Rep. 674, 27 L. R. A. 228. 
 
 Tennessee. — Railroad v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 
 177, 18 S. W. 266; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 410, 
 
 6 S. E. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847. 
 
 Texas. — Hunt v. Nutt (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 27 S. W. 1031. 
 
 At common law a common carrier, re- 
 ceiving grain or produce for shipment in 
 bulk, is bound to furnish cars equipped 
 with grain doors or bulkheads rendering 
 the car safe and suitable for the purpose 
 intended. Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. 
 Co., 101 N. E. 907, 208 N. Y. 312. modify- 
 ing judgment 132 N. Y. S. 138, 147 App. 
 Div. 195. 
 
 Any failure of a carrier to furnish cars 
 suitable and safe, which could have been 
 avoided by due care, is negligence. 
 Railroad v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177. 179, 18 S. 
 W. 266. 
 
 "The nature of the goods must be con- 
 sidered in determining the carrier's duty. 
 Some metals may be transported in open 
 cars. Many articles of commerce, when 
 transported, must be protected from 
 rain, sunshine, and heat, and must have 
 cars fitted for their safe transportation." 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson & Co., 
 55 Tex. Civ. App. 407, 118 S. W. 853, 855. 
 
 Hidden defect. — A ferryman is liable 
 as a common carrier for a loss resulting 
 from an internal defect in the forging of 
 the hook and chain used to fasten the 
 ferry boat, undiscoverable by the closest 
 inspection, and unavoidable by human 
 care, skill and foresight. Albright v. 
 Penn, 14 Tex. 290, 298. 
 
 Horses are part of the equipment of a 
 canal boat, and if one of tliem l^e lamed, 
 and by reason thereof the carrier is dis- 
 abled to escape from danger into which 
 he has fallen, he is not excused. Mor- 
 rison V. McFadden (Pa.), 5 Clark 23. 
 
 91. Nicholson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 141 Mo. App. 199, 124 S. W. 573. 
 
 Right of shipper to recover for appli- 
 ances furnished to car. — ^In an action by 
 a shipper of hay to recover for standards 
 voluntarily erected by him upon flat cars 
 for safety of transportation, held, that 
 the railroad company was not liable; no 
 special contract being proved, and the 
 rule applying that the carrier is, in the 
 first instance, the judge of the sufiiciency 
 of his carriages. Sloan & Co. v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 58 Mo. 220.
 
 783 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1018 
 
 hide fitted to encounter all ordmary risks of transportation.''- Thus, if merchan- 
 dise of one owner is carried in cars in the same train with cars containing a com- 
 bustible substance of another owner, the carrier must take every precaution 
 against the sprcacHng of any fire which may occur, one of which precautions is 
 a coupling whicli alUnvs the cars to be f|uickly separated."'' 
 
 It is not the duty of a shipper to inspect a car furnished by a carrier, or 
 to exercise care to kiinw wIk-iIkt the ear i^ in cfjiidition ; but he may assume 
 that the carrier would nOt have <hrected tlie ])lacing of the goods in the car un- 
 less it was suitable. '■'■* 
 
 Means of Transportation Belonging to Another. — In an action against a 
 carrier for injury to prcjperiy shipped in a defective car, it is no defense that 
 the car belonged to another carrier.'-''' And the carrier is liable for loss caused 
 by defects in cars leased from the consigtior under an agreement by which it 
 was to keep the cars in repair at consignor's cost."*' 
 
 Knowledge by Shipper of Defects in Car. — The fact that a person who 
 delivered goods to a carrier for transportation accepted a defective or unsuita- 
 ble car for their conveyance, knowing it to be defective, does not exempt the 
 carrier from liability for the destruction of the goods, through the defect in the 
 car, while in course of transj)ortation, without proof of a distinct agreement on 
 his part to assume the risk arising from that cause."" .And it is held that the 
 
 92. Empire Transp. Co. v. VVamsutta 
 Oil Refill., etc., Co., r..3 Pa. 14, 3 Am. Rep. 
 51.5. 
 
 Where a carrier was relieved from li- 
 ability as an insurer by tlic terms of the 
 contract to carry a draft, it was held to 
 Iiave used proper dilipfcnce and foresight 
 in placing- the draft in a safe while carry- 
 ing it upon a steamboat, although upon 
 opening the safe, after a fire which had 
 destroyed the boat, the contents of the 
 safe were found in ashes. Frank v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 18 La. Ann. 279. 
 
 93. Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta 
 Oil Refin., etc., Co., 63 Pa. 14, 3 Am. 
 Rep. 51.5. 
 
 94. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. f. Louisville, 
 etc., Stove Co.. Ill S. \V. :!.-.s, ;^'! Ky. L. 
 Rep. 924. 
 
 95. Means of transportation belonging 
 to another. — Austin ?■. St. Louis, etc., Co., 
 1") Md. .\pp. 197; Wallingford v. Colum- 
 bia, etc., R. Co.. 26 S. C. 258, 2 S. E. 19; 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago Varnish 
 Co., 169 Ala. 287, 53 So. 832; Cincinnati, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Fairbanks & Co., 33 C. 
 C. A. 611, 90 Fed. 467. 
 
 A common carrier is liable for loss of 
 goods resulting from defects in car used 
 for transportation, the existence of which 
 imply negligence, although the car be- 
 longed to another, and was procured 
 by the carrier for the particular ship- 
 ment at the special request of the ship- 
 per, upon his paying the additional ex- 
 pense, and the shipment was made in its 
 then condition — the car being of a kind 
 acceptable to the carrier, and commonly 
 used in making like sliipmcnts. Railroad 
 V. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177, 18 S. \V. 266. 
 
 96. Central, etc., R. Co. x\ Chicago 
 Varnisb Co.. 169 Ala. 2S7, .5:? So. 832. 
 
 97. Knowledge by shipper of defects 
 in car. — ['nitcd States. — Railroad Co. v. 
 
 Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827. 
 49 How. Prac. 84; Cincinnati, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Fairbanks & Co., 33 C. C. \. 611, 
 90 Fed. 467. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Marshall, 74 Ark. 597, 86 S. W. 802. 
 
 Kentucky. — See Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Louisville, etc.. Stove Co.. 33 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 924, 111 S. W. 358. 
 
 Ma^saMi^ettsI — Pratt v. Ogdensburg, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 Mass. 557. 
 
 N^czv Yark. — Ogdensburg, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 
 827, 49 How. Prac. 84. 
 
 North Carolina. — Forrester & Co. v. 
 Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 553, 61 S. E. 
 524. 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. CaS. 143, 18 
 L. R. A.. N. S., 508. 
 
 Texas. — Hunt v. Nutt (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 27 S. W. 1031. 
 
 Effect of provisions in contract of 
 shipment. — A provision in the contract 
 of shipment that the shipper accepts the 
 car provided by the company does not 
 protect the latter, if the car proves de- 
 fective. Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., 
 R. Co.. 26 S. C. 258. 2 S. E. 19. 
 
 A carrier is not protected against lia- 
 bility for loss or injury to goods result- 
 ing from defects in a car by a stipulation 
 in the bill of lading, accepted by the ship- 
 per, to tlie effect that he had examined 
 the car himself and found it in good 
 order, and accepted it as suitable and 
 sufficient for the purpose of his shipment. 
 Railroad v. Dies, 91 Tenn. 177, 18 S. W. 
 266. 
 
 Shipper's objection to substitution of 
 another car. — \\'lioro a carrier tciulere<! 
 a slii])per a car in wliicli to load a stock 
 of goods and the shipper went to con- 
 siderable trouble and expense in load- 
 ing the car, and thereafter the carrier, 
 because of the car's defective roof, of-
 
 §§ 1018-1019 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 784 
 
 carrier is not relieved from responsibility in suCh case, even though there was 
 an agreement that it should not be responsible.-*'^ But the rule does not apply 
 to transportation by wagons where the shipper selects and approves the wagons 
 to be used.''-' 
 
 If the consignor undertakes to furnish the cars used in transportation, 
 the carrier is not liable for a loss resulting from their defective condition.^ 
 
 § 1019. Duty as to Perishable Goods. — A carrier undertaking to trans- 
 port perishable goods is bound to furnish cars especially adapted to the preser- 
 vation of such goods during the time required for their transition from the place 
 of shipment to the place of destination under the contract. ^ If it undertakes to 
 carry perishable property in vehicles specially adapted to preserve that kind of 
 propertv. it becomes responsible for defects in such vehicles, if damage re- 
 sults.^ The carrier is not relieved of responsibility to the consignee therefor 
 by the fact that it had the car inspected by the shipper from whom the goods 
 were brought."* 
 
 fered to substitute another car, but fi- 
 nall}% upon the shipper's objection to 
 the substitution, undertook the transpor- 
 tation of the goods after ordering the- 
 reof repaired, the shipper, because of 
 such objection, was not estopped from 
 claiming damages for the destruction of 
 his goods by water coming in through 
 the roof of the car. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 f. Townsend (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. 
 \V. 760. 
 
 98. Railroad Co. v. Pratt (U. S.), 22 
 Wall. 123, 124, 22 L. Ed. 827, 49 How. 
 Prac. 84. 
 
 99. Transportation by wagon. — Carr v. 
 Schafer, l.J Colo. 48, 24 Pac. 873, distin- 
 guishing Merchants' Dispatch & Transp. 
 Co. V. Cornforth, 3 Colo. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 
 7.>7. 
 
 1. When shipper furnishes cars. — Cen- 
 tral, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago Varnish Co., 
 169 Ala. .287, 53 So. 832. See Cleveland, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Louisville, etc., Stove Co., 
 33 Ky. L. Rep. 924, 111 S. W. 358. See 
 ante, "Goods Shipped on Chartered or 
 Private Cars," § 1011. 
 
 Where, under an agreement between 
 defendant railroad company and a con- 
 signor, the latter was authorized to se- 
 lect cars for the transportation of its 
 merchandise, and it selected a car which 
 had been delivered to it loaded with sand 
 for the shipment of a consignment of 
 glass to plaintiff, and damage resulted by 
 reason of the unsuitableness of the car, 
 the railroad company was not liable to 
 the consignee for negligently furnishing 
 an unsuitable car, since as against the 
 railroad company the consignee was 
 bound by the consignor's selection un- 
 der such agreement. Edward Frohlich 
 Glass Co. V. Pennsylvania Co., 101 N. 
 W. 223, 138 Mich. 116, 110 Ann. St. Rep. 
 310. 
 
 A refrigerator car was loaded by plain- 
 tiff with apples, and consigned to de- 
 fendant carrier, under agreement that 
 the latter should not be liable for loss 
 or damage by causes beyond its control 
 or by heat. The car was under the con- 
 
 trol of defendant for two days, and the 
 temperature varied from forty-seven to 
 sixty-eight degrees above zero. It was at 
 a season when cold weather was to be 
 anticipated, and the car was selected to 
 keep the apples at a uniform tempera- 
 ture. Before consignment, plaintiff kept 
 the car ventilated by keeping one or 
 more of the side doprs open; but these 
 were so constructed that they could not 
 be kept open in transit, and they were 
 air-tight when closed. The car was not 
 designed to be ventilated, and, though 
 there was an ice box open at the top, 
 it could not be kept open while in transit. 
 Held, that there was no such negligence 
 on the part of defendant as to make it 
 liable for damage caused by heat and 
 lack of ventilation. Densmore Comm. 
 Co. z\ Duluth, etc., Railway, 77 N. W. 
 904, 101 Wis. 563. 
 
 2. Duty as to perishable goods. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. z\ Renfroe, 82 Ark. 
 143, 100 S. W. 889, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 
 317. 
 
 3. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 54 
 111. App. 130, affirmed in 159 111. 53, 42 
 N. E. 382, 50 Am. St. Rep. 143; Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. McLean, 55 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 130, 118 S. W. 161. 
 
 Illustrations. — When a carrier under- 
 takes to transport perishable goods in 
 cars having appliances for ventilation, it 
 assumes the duty to make all the ap- 
 pliances available for the safe transporta- 
 tion of the goods, in the absence of any- 
 thing in the contract to the contrary. 
 Western Railway z'. Hart, 160 .\la. 599, 
 
 49 So. 371. 
 
 A railroad company furnishing refrig- 
 erator cars for the transportation of meat 
 is liable for damages caused by defects 
 in the car whereby warm air, is admitted 
 into the car, causing the meat to spoil. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 54 111. App. 
 130, affirmed in 159 111. 53, 42 N. E. 382, 
 
 50 Am. St. Rep. 143. 
 
 4. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 159 
 111. 53, 42 N. E. 382, 50 Am. St. Rep. 143, 
 affirming 54 111. App. 130.
 
 785 
 
 LOSS f)I< INJL'KV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1019 
 
 Carrier Using Cars of Another. — A carrier can not escape responsibility 
 for its failure to provide cars reasonably tit for tlie conveyance of the particular 
 class of goods it undertakes to carry by alleging that the cars used for the pur- 
 poses of its own transit were the property of another."' A carrier which uses 
 the cars owned and prepared for use by a refrigerator company for the trans- 
 portation of perishable goods consigned to it by shippers is under the same 
 obligation, as to shipi)ers, to care for the goods, as it would have been had the 
 refrigerator cars belonged to it.'' 
 
 Duty to Carry in Ventilated Car, and as to Ventilation. — \\ here a car 
 rier receixes perishable gnoiis lor >liipniem at a seascjn when a ventilated car 
 is the only reasonably safe means of carrying them, and ships in an ordinary 
 unventilatcd box car, it is liable for the damage resulting therefrom."^ Where 
 a shipper directs the carrier to carry goods with ventilators in a certain condition, 
 and the carrier follows the instructions, the carrier is not liable for injury re- 
 sulting from the ventilation ; ** but otherwise, when the carrier violates the in- 
 structions of the shipper and injury occurs thereby.'-' I'nder a custom that a 
 carrier sh.all not open or close the ventilators of a car, or change them from the 
 position in which placed by the ship])er, unless so notified, the carrier may as- 
 sume, on failure to give notice, that the shipper does not desire the ventilators 
 changed, and is not liable for failure to do so.''^ 
 
 5. Carrier using cars of another. — St 
 
 Louis, etc.. R. Cr>. :■. Renfroe, 82 Ark. 
 14:{. 100 S. \V. 889. 10 L. R. A.. N. S., 317. 
 
 6. New York, etc., R. Co. v. Cromwell, 
 <)8 Va. 227. ."i.-) S. E. 444, 49 L. R. A. 462; 
 Gibson v. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 93 
 Ark. 4;!'.t. 124 S. \V. 1033. 
 
 Illustrations. — .\ carrier using a car of 
 a refrigerator company for the transpor- 
 tation of perishable goods is liable for 
 a loss caused by negligence in failing to 
 keep the drain holes of the car open. 
 Gibson v. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 93 
 Ark. 439, 124 S. W. 1033. 
 
 Where a carrier undertook to trans- 
 port a shipment of strawberries and to 
 furnish a refrigerator car and to ice the 
 same, it could not escape liability for 
 damage to the shipment because of a 
 failure to properly ice the car by show- 
 ing that the car belonged to another cor- 
 poration and that under the agreement 
 between it and the carrier the duty of 
 icing the car devolved on the other cor- 
 poration. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ?•. Ren- 
 froe, 82 Ark. 143, 100 S. \V. 889. 10 L. 
 R. A.. X. S.. ::ir. 
 
 7. Duty to carry in ventilated car, and 
 as to ventilation. — Forrester t'. Southern 
 R. Co.. 147 X. C. 553, 61 S. E. 524, 18 
 I.. R. .\.. X. S., .508, 1.-. Am. c^- I'^ng. .\nn. 
 r':i>. 14.! 
 
 Contra. — A railroad company is not 
 liable for injuries to fruit shipped, re- 
 sulting from failure to place it in a ven- 
 tilated car. unless an obligation on the 
 part of the company to place it in such 
 a car is shown. Davenport Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co.. :!4 .\tl. .■)9. 173 Pa. 398. 
 
 Evidence of custom. — In an action 
 against a carrier by railway for damages 
 to lemons shipped in the month of .\]>ril. 
 occasioned by their negligent transpor- 
 
 1 Car— 50 
 
 tation in an unventilated car, upon proof 
 of a custom in the fruit trade of shipping 
 lemons in ventilated cars in warm 
 weather, evidence is admissible to show 
 whether, during the period between cold 
 and hot weather, transportation com- 
 panies used their own judgment in select- 
 ing cars, or the shippers gave instruc- 
 tions to the companies. Giles v. Fargo, 
 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 117, 17 N. Y. S. 476, 
 43 N. Y. St. Rep. 65. 
 
 8. Texas, etc., R. Co. z: Davis-Fowler 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 309; Gil- 
 lett z'. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 68 S. W. 61 (see 95 Tex. 681. no 
 op.); Texas, etc.. R. Co. z: Smissen, 31 
 Tex. Civ. App. 549, 551, 73 S. W. 42, af- 
 firmed in 97 Tex. 649, no op. 
 
 Where a shipment of vegetables was 
 made in the month of February, when 
 freezing weather is not unusual, and the 
 consignors directed the carrier to leave 
 open a vent in the car, they could not 
 recover for loss caused by severe, but 
 not unprecedented, cold weather. Gillett 
 z: Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 t)8 S. W. 61 (see 95 Tex. 681, no op.). 
 
 9. Texas, etc.. R. Co. f. Davis-Fowler 
 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 133 S. W. 309. 
 
 Where a shipper directed the carrier 
 in a bill of lading to carrj' bananas with 
 the ventilators of the car closed and the 
 pli;gs all out, and the carrier closed the 
 ventilators l)ut left the plugs all in. the 
 principle that the carrier is not respon- 
 sible for loss or injury to goods occa- 
 sioned bj' their being improperly loaded 
 by the shipper has no application, and 
 the carrier is liable for injury occasioned 
 by violating the instructions. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Davis-Fowler Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 133 S. W. 309. 
 
 10. Schwartz & Co. z: Erie R. Co.. 32 
 Ky. L. Rep. 777. 106 S. W. 1188.
 
 § 1019 
 
 CARRIF.RS. 
 
 786 
 
 Duty to Carry in Refrigerator Cars. — It has been held in cases decided 
 before refrigerator cars had come into general use that a carrier is not, as a 
 matter of law, bound to furnish refrigerator cars to carry perishable goods, but 
 that under certain circumstances it might be a question for the jury whether the 
 carrier acted reasonably in not furnishing such cars.^^ P)Ut later cases hold 
 that it is the duty of a carrier to fumish such cars where it is necessary for the 
 safe transportation of perishable goods.' ^ \ carrier which agrees to ship fruits 
 in a through refrigerator car. so as to guard against frost, is liable for their loss 
 occasioned by being transferred to an ordinary car and frozen, notwithstanding 
 a stipulation in the bill of lading against liability for injuries due to the 
 weather.'"' 
 
 Duty as to Icing. — The carrier is required to use i)roper care for the pro- 
 tection and preservation of the property which it acce])ts for transportation, and, 
 when a failure to ice cars would amount to want of such care, it would be an 
 act of negligence.'"^ And the carrier is not relieved from liability by the fact 
 that it has no refrigerator cars where the goods could have been carried safely 
 bv the use of ice in ordinary cars.'"* Though a shipi)er observed the condition 
 of a car as to insufficient refrigeration, yet if the agent assured him that the 
 railroad companv would furnish the ice, the company would be liable.'" The 
 
 11. Duty to carry in refrigerator cars. 
 
 —Udell r. Illinnis Cent. R. Co.. 1?> Mo. 
 App. 254. 
 
 A common carrier who runs a refrig- 
 erator car is not, in the absence of an 
 express contract to carry by the refrig- 
 erator car, liable for damages to an ar- 
 ticle carried by it, occasioned by heat 
 during transit. Wetzell v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 12 Mo. App. .599. 
 
 12. Beard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 
 Iowa 518, 44 N. W. 800, 7 L. R. A. 280, 
 18 Am. St. Rep. 381. See International, 
 etc., R. Co. -c'. Welbourne (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 113 S. W. 780, and Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. 7'. McLean, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 130, 
 118 S. W. 161. 
 
 By virtue of the care for the preserva- 
 tion of goods transported by them which 
 is required of carriers, a railroad receiv- 
 ing butter for shipment south in sum- 
 mer is bound to ship the same in such 
 manner as to prevent injury by heat. 
 Beard f. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 Iowa 
 518, 44 X. W. 800, 7 L. R. A. 280, 18 
 Am. St. Rep. 381. 
 
 The obligation of a railroad company 
 to furnish refrigerator cars for butter re- 
 ceived for transportation in hot weather 
 is not discharged by the fact that the 
 freight charges thereon were the rates 
 for common cars, that being no evidence 
 of an agreement that such cars should 
 be used. Beard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 79 Iowa 518. 44 N. W. 803, following 
 Beard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 Iowa 
 518, 44 N. W. 800, 7 L. R. A. 280, 18 Am. 
 St. Rep. 381. 
 
 13. Effect of stipulation against liabil- 
 ity. — Merchants' Dispatch & Transp. Co. 
 V. Cornforth, 3 Colo. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 
 757. 
 
 14. Duty as to icing. — Brcnnisen ?'. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 100 Minn. 102, 110 
 N. W. 362, 363, 10 .\m. & Eng. .Ann. Cas. 
 169. 
 
 The duty to provide suitable cars ex- 
 tends to proper refrigeration according 
 to established custom. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McLean, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 130, 
 118 S. W. 161. 
 
 Though a carrier does not expressly 
 contract to furnish a refrigerator car for 
 perishable commodities, if it accepts such 
 commodities for transportation, and in 
 fact furnishes a refrigerator car, it im- 
 pliedly undertakes to exercise the dili- 
 gence as to icing that that class of goods 
 require. International, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Welbourne (Tex. Civ. App.), 113 S. W. 
 780. 
 
 A car of cabbage was loaded by ten 
 o'clock a. m. March 15, 1907, and defend- 
 ant carrier immediately notified, but per- 
 mitted it to stand on the siding without 
 refrigeration until the night of the _ 16th, 
 and the car was not then iced until the 
 morning of the 17th, when the cabbage 
 had already begun to spoil. On arrival 
 at destination, it was a total loss. Ninety- 
 five per cent, of all shipments of perish- 
 able produce were carried by defendant 
 on its passenger trains, and the car in 
 question could have lieen shipped on a 
 passenger train which went north at six 
 o'clock on March 15th but for defendant's 
 rule against carrying more than one 
 freight car at a time on its passenger 
 train, and tliat a tank car was being car- 
 ried on the train in question. Held, that 
 such rule was no defense for defendant's 
 failure to sooner move and refrigerate 
 the shipment, under its duty to transport 
 IJerisliable pro])erty with reasonable dis- 
 patcli. McLean <■. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 578. 
 
 15 Beard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 
 Iowa 518, 44 N. W. 800, 7 L. R. A. 280, 
 18 An). St. Rep. 381. 
 
 16. Southern R. Co. v. Williams, 139 
 Ga. :>57, 77 S. E. 153.
 
 787 LOSS (JK INJLKV TO GOODS. §§ 1019-1020 
 
 carrier is entitled to obey the consignor's direction not to ice, and will not be 
 resjjonsible for damages consequent on such instruction unless through an un- 
 reasonable delay in transportation it becomes the carrier's duty to disregard the 
 instruction.'" The rule of a railroad company not to re-ice refrigerator cars 
 unless they could get a certain amount of ice in the ice tanks, unknown to a ship- 
 per, and not embraced in his contract, does not relieve the company from the 
 duty imposed by the contract of re-icing the refrigerator at specified points in 
 the journey.'^ Where a shipper of fruit undertakes to sup]jly the car with ice, 
 an injury to the goods in consequence of the heat must, in the absence of evi- 
 dence showing a default on the carrier's part, be assumed to result from the 
 shipper's failure to supply sufficient ice for the car.'" A carrier receiving a 
 refrigerator car loaded with fruit must use ordinary care to keep the car iced, 
 though the bill of lading showing that the car is loaded with fruit is silent on 
 the subject : and though it is customary among shippers of fruit, when the 
 weather is warm, to cause instructions to be placed in the bill of lading in ref- 
 erence to icing.-" Where goods are damaged because the cars were not iced, 
 if the plaintiffs knew or had notice that their contract for icing was not with the 
 carrier, the carrier is not liable, even though the bill of lading was given by it 
 and the mone\- for icing the car was paid to its agent.-' 
 
 Injuries after Passing from Defendant's Possession. — W here a carrier 
 was bound to furnish a suitable car for the shipment of cabbages, and to suffi- 
 ciently ice the same, and the cabbages were damaged by reason of the carrier's 
 negligence, it was liable for damages so sustained, though some of the injuries 
 resulted after tiie sliipinenl had ])assed from its ])Osscssion.-- 
 
 Where the consignee has possession of a refrigerator car, and only 
 he and those authorized l)y him have access to its interior, the carrier is not 
 bound to repair defective drain pipes therein, unless it has knowledge of the 
 defective condition.-*^ 
 
 § 1020. Carrying Goods on Open Cars. — Although the. shipment of cot- 
 ton on open flat cars may not be in itself such negligence as would make the 
 carrier liable under all contingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is 
 devolved on the carrier the duty to take additional ])recautions for the protec- 
 tion and safety of the cotton.-^ A railroad company may carry on a platform 
 
 17. Instructions of consignor. — Texas 21. McCunncll Pjids. :. Si'utlicrn R. 
 Cent. R. Co. r. Dorsey, 30 Tex. Civ. App. Co.. 144 X. C. S9, .-)(•, S. l-".. :..".'.•. 
 
 377, 70 S. W. 'u')-. Southern Exp. Co. r. 22. Injuries after passing from defend- 
 
 Fant Fish Co., 12 Ga. App. 477. 78 S. K. ant's possessioi^ — Houston, etc.. R. Co. z: 
 
 197. Wilkorson P.ros. (Tex. Civ. App.). 82 S. 
 
 18. Effect of rule unknown to shipper. ^^ • l^^'^'-'- 
 
 — Orem. etc.. I'roduce Co. r. XortliLin 23. Missouri, etc., R. Co. :•. Tripis (Tex. 
 
 Cent. R. Co., lor, M.l. i, r.i; Atl. 4:u\. Civ. App.). 117 S. W . 190. 
 
 19. Where shipper undertakes to supply ,, ^4. Carrying goods on open cars.- 
 ice.-ChicaKO, etc. R. Co. r. Reyman iJi /7J''^'Vi V-'i ?'n ^ " '• ^ '' '''"'" '''' 
 Ind. 278, 76 N. E. 970. reversing 73 N. t> V-^' V v i . 
 
 P rQ~ Held neghgence. — A railroad company 
 
 ■ "* '■ ... loaded cotton on flat cars in a train con- 
 Where the shipper ot Iruit undertook sistin- of both flat and box cars. and. 
 to supply the refrigerator car with ice. although both classes of cars contained 
 the carrier had a right to assume, ex- cotton, none was burned, except that on 
 cept as facts may have existed that put the flat cars. Held, that failure to place 
 It on notice to the contrary, that tlie ship- ^he cotton in box cars was nedisience. 
 pers had furnished enough ice to keep x^^v Orleans, etc., R. Co. r. Faler, .".S 
 the car cool until a delivery to the con- Miss. 911. 
 
 signee could be had in the ordinary Effect of custom— carrying in open 
 
 course of business. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. boats.— In au action against a common 
 
 z: Reyman (Ind.). 73 N. E. o87, reversed carrier upon a bill of lading for a failure 
 
 on another point in 70 N. E. 970. if.c. ^q deliver cotton in good order, a plea 
 
 I""- ~'^- that it was the custom, known to the 
 
 20. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. f. Jackson, plaintiflf, to transport cotton and other 
 55 Tex. Civ. App. 407, 118 S. W. 853. freight between the points named in
 
 §§ 1020-1022 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 788 
 
 car a box so large that it can not be ])ut into a box car. due precaution being 
 taken to keep it from getting wet.-'^ 
 
 Contract for Shipment on Open Cars. — When the consignor of goods 
 agrees that they may be loaded and transferred on open cars, the carrier, in the 
 absence of negligence on its part, is not liable for any damage caused to the 
 goods by being so loaded and transported.-'' But in such case it is held that the 
 carrier is liable for a loss by fire resulting from its negligently failing to furnish 
 suitable means and appliances to prevent the goods from taking fire.-' 
 
 § 1021. Means for Loading and Unloading. — A carrier, in taking freight, 
 is bound to use sound and proper hands and machinery for loading and unload- 
 ing, and the safe handling and removing the goods, and if loss ensue from the 
 failure in anv particular the carrier must bear it.-^ A carrier who, in unloading, 
 uses the machinery of another in hoisting the goods from his boat, is liable for 
 damage to the goods resulting from a break in the machinery.-^ But the car- 
 rier mav show a local usage requiring the consignee to furnish suitable appa- 
 ratus for unloading goods, and, where such usage is shown, the carrier is not 
 liable for a loss occasioned by the breaking of such apparatus."*' 
 
 § 1022. Duties after Injury. — It is the duty of a carrier, when goods in 
 its care are injured, to make reasonable exertions to repair the injury or arrest 
 its progress.'"'^ \\'here goods arrive at their point of destination and the pack- 
 ages or casks are, by the fault of the carrier, in a damaged condition, so that they 
 can not be handled without loss and further damage, it is the duty of the carrier 
 to repair the casks, if possible, before the owner can be compelled to receive 
 tb.em.''- Where an express company, on receiving a package for transportation, 
 
 the bill of lading in open l)oats, and that 
 all the damage which the cotton sus- 
 tained was caused .by the rains which fell 
 during the voyage, constitutes a good 
 defense on demurrer. Chevaillier v. Pat- 
 ton, 10 Tex. 344, approved in Philleo v. 
 Sanford, 17 Tex. 227, 67 Am. Dec. G54. 
 
 25. Burwell z: Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 94 
 X. C. 4.51. 
 
 26. Contract for shipment on open cars. 
 — -VVestern, etc., Railroad z'. Exposition 
 Cotton Mills, 81 Ga. 522, 7 S. E. 916, 2 
 L. R. A. 102. 
 
 27. Chicago, etc., R. Co. ?■. Moss, 60 
 Miss. 1003. 4:) Am. Rep. 42S. 
 
 28. Duty to provide suitable means for 
 loading and unloading. — McGregor & 
 C'). r. Kilgore, (> O. :i.5S, 27 \m. Dec. 260. 
 
 Where carrier not liable. — If \., for 
 whom goods are transported by a rail- 
 road company, authorized B. to receive 
 the delivery thereof, and to do all acts 
 incident to the delivery and transporta- 
 tion thereof to A., and B., instead of re- 
 ceiving the goods at the usual place of 
 delivery, requests the agent of the com- 
 pany to permit the car which contains 
 the goods to be hauled to a near depot 
 of another railroad company, and such 
 agent assents thereto, and assists B. in 
 hauling the car to such depot, and B. 
 there requests and obtains leave of that 
 company to use its machinery to remove 
 the goods from the car, then the com- 
 pany that transported the goods is not 
 
 answerable for the want of care or skill 
 in the persons employed in so removing 
 the goods from the car, nor for the want 
 of strength in the machinery used for 
 the removal of them, and can not be 
 charged with any loss that may happen 
 in the course of such delivery to A. 
 Lewis V. Western R. R. Corp. (Mass.), 
 11 Mete. 509. 
 
 29. DeMott f. Laraway (N. Y.), 14 
 Wend. 225, 28 Am. Dec. 523. 
 
 30. I^oveland v. Burke, 120 Mass. 139, 
 21 Am. Rep. 507. 
 
 31. Duties after injury. — Chouteaux v. 
 Leech & Co., 18 Pa. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 602. 
 See ante, "Duty to Prevent Act of God 
 from Causing Injury," § 994. 
 
 Duty to dry goods. — If packages of 
 fur Ijecome wet, the carrier should have 
 them opened and dried. Chouteaux v. 
 Leech & Co., 18 Pa. 224, 57 Am. Dec. 602. 
 
 If merchandise on board a boat gets 
 wet by accident, and no exertion is made 
 to dry it, the carrier is liable for the dam- 
 age, though his engagement was to de- 
 liver safely, "the dangers of the river ex- 
 cepted." Bird V. Cromwell. 1 Mo. 81, 13 
 Am. Dec. 470; Ewart v. Street (S. C), 
 2 Bailey 157. 23 Am. Dec. 131. 
 
 Contia. — The master of a steamboat 
 carrying wheat, which was wet by inev- 
 itable accident, is nut 1--'^V ^nr damages 
 because he did not dry the wheat. Steam- 
 ]>oat Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272, 49 Am. 
 Dec. 135. 
 
 32. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533.
 
 789 
 
 LOSS (JK IXJIKV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1022-1023 
 
 is not infoniictl thai it c()ntain> <i(jl(l, the coiwpany is not negligent in failing to 
 search the ruins of the express car after a tire in order to recover the proj)- 
 erty.^'' Where a consignee directed the carrier not to re-ice fish in transit, and 
 decay, resulting from failure to re-ice, made transportation unsafe, the carrier 
 could discharge f)r destroy the shi])nuMU without liability. ■•' 
 
 Where the consignee refuses to receive any part of the shipment, <>r 
 to co-operate in examining the go(jds, and claims reimhursemeni as for total 
 loss, the carrier will not be held guilty of '"converting" the goods, by reason 
 of calling in disinterested and competent persons and having broken jjackages 
 repacked, and unbroken i)ackages opened and examined, in order to ascertain 
 the character and condition of their c( intents.'-'' 
 
 §§ 1023-1029. Effect of Insurance— § 1023. In General.— The ship- 
 per or owner of goods may maiiUain an actiou against a common carrier for 
 loss of or injury thereto, notwithstanding the goods are insured, ^'^ or the insurer 
 has advanced the amount of damage.-'" Where a shipper has received from 
 his insurer the part of the loss insured against, he may sue the carrier, not 
 oidy in his own right, for the unpaid balance due to himself, but as a trustee 
 for the insurer for the amount paid by him : and the carrier can not, in such 
 suit, set up such payment by the insurer as a defense pro tanto, the carrier 
 having no right to call upon the insurer for contribution. •''^ A clause, in a 
 policy of insurance on goods in transportation, that in case of loss the insured 
 shall proceed against the carrier in the first instance, is valid, as against the 
 carrier.'*'' 
 
 Policy Reciting Release of Carrier. — A fire policy obtained by a shijjper 
 on goods shipped, reciting the release by assured of the carrier from liability 
 under its bill of lading, and the waiver by the insurer of any right of subroga- 
 tion against the carrier, constitutes no defense to a claim of the shipper against 
 the carrier for the burning of the goods, there being no such privity between it 
 and the parties to the contract of insurance, with reference thereto, as to author- 
 ize it to receive anv benefit from it as against instired.-*" 
 
 33. Rowan :: Wells Fargo & Co., 80 
 N. Y. S. 220. 80 .\pp. Div. .31. 
 
 34. Soutliern F.xp. Co. f. Fant Fish 
 Co.. 12 Ga. App. 477, 7S ?. F. 107. 
 
 35. Refusal to receive goods. — Silver- 
 man V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 2r, So. 447, 
 51 La. Ann. 178.->. 
 
 36. Effect of insurance. — Merrick r'. 
 Brainard (X. V.), :;s P.arh. .-)74. 
 
 37. Effect of payment by insurer. — 
 United States. — Steamship Wellesley Co. 
 f. Hooper & Co.. ms C. C. A. 71, IS.-, 
 Fed. 73.3. 
 
 Pciiits\lvania.— Ga\es v. Hailman, 11 
 Pa. 51. 'i." 
 
 South Carolina. — Burnside v. Union 
 Steamhoat Co. (S. C), 10 Rich. L. 113. 
 
 Tc.n7,y.— Gulf. etc.. R. Co. z: Zimmer- 
 man & Co., SI Tex. CO.-.. 17 S. \V. 230. 
 
 Where the insurer advanced the value 
 of goods destroyed to the owner as a 
 loan without interest, witli the under- 
 standing that the latter sltouhl sue the 
 carrier, and. if successful, repay tlic loan, 
 and. if unsuccessful, retain tlie money 
 as payment of the insurance, it was held 
 that this arrangement was no har to a 
 libel by the owner against the carrier. 
 The Guiding Star. 53 Fed. 936. 
 
 Carrier receiving benefit of insurance. 
 — An express company receipted for 
 goods left to them to be forwarded by a 
 ])articular vessel, and, that vessel being 
 withdrawn, sent them by another, which 
 was lost. Held, that the fact that the 
 owner demanded and collected the in- 
 surance on a portion of the goods could 
 not operate to relieve the express com- 
 pany from lialiility for such loss, the 
 sum tints received being deducted from 
 the value of the goods for which the ex- 
 press company had become liable, and. 
 Iiaving received the benefit thereof, the 
 companv had no ground of complaint. 
 Goodrich :■. Thompson. 44 X. Y. 324. af- 
 firming 27 X. "N". Super. Ct. 7.-.. 
 
 The action may be brought in the 
 name of the insurer or of the insured for 
 its benefit. Steamship Welleslev Co. f. 
 Hooper & Co.. los C. C. A. 71. 1S5 Fed. 
 73;!. 
 
 38. Gales z: Hailman. 11 Pa. 515. 
 
 39. Tnman z: South Carolina R. Co.. 
 120 U. S. 12S. S. Ct. 240. 32 L. F.d. 612. 
 
 40. Policy reciting release of carrier. — 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z: Brass (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). 133 S. W. 1075.
 
 § 1024 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 790 
 
 §§ 1024-1029. Contract for Benefit of Insurance— § 1024. Power 
 to Stipulate and Validity.— A stipulation in a bill of lading or shippuig con- 
 tract that a carrier, when liable for a loss of the goods, shall have the beneht 
 of any insurance that may ha,ve been effected upon them, is valid as between 
 the carrier and the shipper.-* i This results from the right of the carrier to 
 insure the goods for its protection.-* ^ Such a provision m a bill of lading is 
 not invalid by reason of its being in contravention of any rule based on pubic 
 policy-* 3 Hence it must be that in the absence of stipulation m a policy to the 
 contrarv the insured mav without invalidating his policy make such contracts 
 with a carrier limiting the liability of the latter as may be lawful under the laws 
 in force at the place of shipment, or such other laws as may be applicable ; for the 
 parties oucrht to be presumed to contract with reference to the right of the car- 
 rier to refuse to receive and transport freight without a contract limiting its 
 liability in so far as this may lawfully be done under the law governing the 
 
 shipment."*"* . , • j ^ • 
 
 Rio-ht to Require Shipper to Insure.— A shipper can not be required to in- 
 sure °f or the carrier's beneht as a condition on which the freight will be re- 
 ceived and transported, and a stipulation in the contract of carriage, requiring 
 the shipper to procure insurance for the benefit of the carrier m case of loss, 
 or one requiring him when he does effect insurance to procure such as will pro- 
 tect the carrier, 'is void.-*-'^ A refusal to give the carrier the benefit of any insurance 
 already secured is in eft'ect but a refusal to insure for its benefit. And the shipper 
 mav reject a bill of lading containing a stipulation by the carrier for the benefit 
 of 'the insurance and have his goods transported on one that does not contain 
 that provision.^'' 
 
 Effect of Statute.— A statute forbidding common carriers to impose re- 
 striction of their liabilitv is not infringed by a provision in a bill of lading that 
 the carrier shall have the benefit of any insurance to the owner on the freight.-*' 
 
 41. Contract for benefit of insurance.-- 
 Utiitcd States. — Phoenix Tns. Co. v. Krie. 
 etc.. Transp. Co., 117 U. S. 312. 29 L. Ed. 
 873. 6 S. Ct. 750, 1176; Liverpool, etc.. 
 Co. z: Phenix Ins. Co.. 129 U. S. 397, 462. 
 32 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469; Queen of the 
 Pacific, 180 U. S. 49, .56. 45 L. Ed. 419, 21 
 vS Ct. 278. See, also. The Germanic, 196 
 U. S. 589, 599. 49 L. Ed. 610, 25 S. Ct. 
 317; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Erie, etc., Transp. 
 Co., Fed. Cas. No. 11,112, 10 Biss. 18; 
 Bradley v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 153 
 Fed. 350, 82 C. C. A. 426; Rintoul v. New 
 York Cent., etc., R. Co., 21 Blatchf. 439, 
 17 Fed. 905; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Burr, 
 130 Fed. 847, 65 C. C. A. 331. 
 
 New York. — Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. 
 V. Calebs, 20 N. Y. 173. 
 
 T^;ira.y.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Inter- 
 national, etc., Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149, 1.52, 
 19 S W. 459; British, etc., Marine Ins. 
 Co. V. Gulf, etc.. R. Co., 63 Tex. 475. 480, 
 51 Am. Rep. 661; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Zimmerman & Co., 81 Tex. 605, 17 S. 
 W. 239. 
 
 England.— Veck v. North Staffordshire 
 R. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473, 9 Jur., N. S., 
 914, 32 L. J. Q. B. 1023, 8 L. T. 768; Ash- 
 den V. London B. & S. C. R. Co., L. R. 
 5. Ex. D. 190, 42 L. T. 586, 28 W. R. 511, 
 44 T. P. 20?,. 
 
 42. Right of carrier to insure. — British, 
 etc.. Marine Ins. Co. v. Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co., 63 Tex. 475, 51 Am. Rep. 661. 
 
 43. Public policy. — British, etc., Marine 
 Ins. Co. V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 
 475, 51 Am. Rep. 661; Insurance Co. v. 
 Easton, 73 Tex. 167, 11 S. W. 180, 37 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 671. 
 
 44. Insurance Co. v. Easton, 73 Tex. 
 167, 176, 11 S. W. 180, 37 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 071. 
 
 45. Requiring shipper to insure. — 
 United States. — Inman v. South Carolina 
 R. Co., 129 U. S. 128, 139, 32 L. Ed. 612, 
 9 S. Ct. 249; Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phe- 
 nix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397. 32 L. Ed. 788, 
 9 S. Ct. 469; New York Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Lockwood (U. S.), 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. 
 Ed. 627; Bradley v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 
 153 Fed. 350, 354, 82 C. C. A. 426. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Willock v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co., "l66 Pa. 184, 45 Am. St. Rep. 674, 
 30 Atl. 948, 27 L. R. A. 228. 
 
 Texas. — Insurance Co. v. Easton, 73 
 Tex. 167, 179, 11 S. W. 180, 37 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 671. 
 
 England.— Peck v. North Staffordshire 
 R. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473. 
 
 46. Refusal to give benefit of insurance 
 already secured. — Insurance Co. v. Eas- 
 ton, 73 Tex. 167, 11 S. W. 180, 37 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 671. 
 
 47. Texas statute. — British, etc.. Ma- 
 rine Ins. Co. V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 
 873; Rintoul V. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 475, 51 Am. Rep. 661.
 
 791 
 
 LOSS OR IXIl'kV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1024-1025 
 
 Loss by Negligence of Carrier. — A condition in a bill of lading providing 
 that the carrier shall have the benefit of any insurance on the goods held by 
 the owner is valiil as between the ])arties, thouj^h a loss occurs through the neg- 
 ligence of the carrier."*^ Such a stipulation in the contract of shipment is not 
 an unreasonable and unjust exemption from !iabilit\- for negligence ; ■*'•' but the 
 contrary is held in Pennsylvania.-''"' 
 
 Consideration. — A stipulation thai the carrier should have the benefit of 
 any insurance on the goods to be carried is valid without a special consideration 
 therefor to the shipper, and will not be held invalid simply because there was 
 no corresponding reduction of frei,i,du charges.''^ 
 
 Power of Agent of Shipper to Assent to Stipulation. — In absence of n(j- 
 tice to contrary, the carrier may assume that the agent of the ship{jer, having 
 authority to make contract for shipment, has the power to assent to stipula- 
 tions for benefit of insurance. ■'•- 
 
 §§ 1025-1028. Operation and Effect— § 102 5. Right of Shipper to 
 Recover from Carrier. — In stii)u]ating for the benehl of insuraiice the carrier 
 does not limit its common-law liability to the shipper for any loss that may oc- 
 cur."^'^ The fact that the carrier may have the right to reimburse itself from 
 an insurer or third party for losses under the shipping contract will afford no 
 defense to an action against it by the shipper. It must first pay and may then 
 sue on the policy."'^ Such a stipulation does not entitle the carrier to receive 
 the benefit of the insurance or to a tender thereof, before an action can be 
 brought against it for the loss.-''-' Where the contract of insurance does not 
 cover losses caused by the carrier's negligence, the carrier is liable for losses 
 so occasioned, notwithstanding a stipulation that it should have the benefit of 
 any insurance effected on the goods.-"''' 
 
 Effect of Payment by Insurer. — \\here a carrier provided in its contract 
 of shii)ment that it should have the benefit of any insurance effected upon the 
 goods to be transported, the owner, if he has received from the insurance com- 
 pany the amount of the loss, wmII be precluded by such stipulation from recover- 
 ing against the carrier.-"'" Such facts, however, the carrier must show to avoid 
 
 48. Loss by negligence of carrier. — 
 
 Phoenix Ins. Co. 7'. Erie, etc., Transp. 
 Co., 117 U. S. 312, () S. Ct. 750, 117(5. 2!) 
 L. Ed. 873; Riiitoul 7: New York Cent., 
 etc.. R. Co.. 21 Blatchf. 439. 17 Fed. 905; 
 Piatt 7'. Richmond, etc., R. Co.. 108 N. 
 Y. 358, 13 N. Y. S. R. 660, 15 N. E. 393, 
 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 517, 11 Cent. Rep. 
 101. 
 
 49. Rintoul 7'. New York Cent., etc.. 
 Co.. 17 Fed. 905, 21 Blatchf. 439. 
 
 50. Willock V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 166 
 Pa. 184, 30 .\tl. 948, 45 .\m. St. Rep. 074, 
 27 L. R. A. 22s. 
 
 51. Consideration unnecessary. — Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. 7'. International, etc., 
 Ins. Co.. 84 Tex. 149, 19 S. W. 459. 
 
 52. Power of agent of shipper to as- 
 sent to stipulation. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 7-. Intcrnalional, etc., Ins. Co., S4 '[\k. 
 149, 153, 19 v^. \V. 459, citing Ryan & Co. 
 V. M. K. & T. R. Co., 05 Tox. 13. 23 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. TO.i. 
 
 53. Right of shipper to recover from 
 carrier. — British, etc.. Marine Ins. Co. 7. 
 Gulf, etc.. R. Co.. 03 Tex. 475, 51 .Am. 
 Rep. 661. 
 
 The shipper does not hind himself to 
 insure, or to do anything which will re- 
 sult in benefit to the carrier. There is. 
 
 therefore, no contract of exemption 
 against liability for loss by negligence, 
 no agreement that the carrier shall be 
 indemnified, but the contract simply is 
 that, in the contingency of insurance, a 
 consequent benefit will, in case of loss, 
 result to the carrier. British, etc.. Ma- 
 rine Ins. Co. 7'. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 
 475, 480. 51 Am. Rep. 661. 
 
 54. British, etc., Marine Ins. Co. 7-. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475, 51 .\m. 
 Rep. 661. 
 
 55. Inman 7'. Soutli Carolina R. Co., 
 129 U. .^. 12s, 9 S. Ct. 249, 32 L. Ed. 012. 
 
 56. Insurance not covering losses by 
 negligence. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7. Zim- 
 nurnian i^ Co.. 81 Tex. 605. 17 S. W. 239. 
 
 57. Effect of payment by insurer. — 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. 7-. Zimmerman & Co., 
 SI Tex. 605. 17 S. W. 239: Rintoul 7-. 
 New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 17 Fed. 
 905. 21 Blatchf. 439. 
 
 Right of carrier regarded as counter- 
 claim. — If. the riLrliis of tlie carrier may 
 be regarded as in the nature of a counter- 
 claim by way of recoupment or set-off, 
 then the question arises as to the extent 
 of the stipulation, assuming it to be 
 otherwise valid, and w-hat would amount 
 to a breach of it. By its terms the ship-
 
 §§ 1025-1026 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 792 
 
 liabilitv ^^ 
 
 The "advancement" by the insurer to the insured of the insured value 
 of the croods does not constitute a "payment" in such sense as to preclude the 
 assured*' from recovering from the carrier the amount of its common-law lia- 
 bilitv.^'' . . , . r 
 
 Agreement by Insurer to Pay Loss.— In an action against the earner for 
 damao-e to goods conveved under a contract stiixilating for the benefit of in- 
 surance, it is no defense that the insurer has agreed to pay the shipper for his 
 
 loss ^'^ 
 
 Liability Limited to Value at Place of Shipment.— W here a bill of lad- 
 ino- hniited the HabiHtv of the carrier to the value of the goods at the place of 
 shipment, and provided that it should have the benefit of any insurance efifected 
 bv the owner, the carrier can not claim the benefit of insurance covering the in- 
 creased value of the goods at the port of destination, which the owner had the 
 right to effect for his own protection.^'! 
 
 § 1026. Right of Carrier to Recover from Insurer.— Where a carrier 
 in a bill of lading reserves the right to recover insurance on goods destroyed in 
 transitu, for destruction of which it is liable, the insurance company is liable 
 to such carrier.^'- 
 
 pers were not compelled to insure for 
 the benefit of the railroad company; but 
 if they had insurance at the time of the 
 loss, which they could make available to 
 the carrier, or which, before bringing suit 
 against the company, they had collected, 
 without condition, then, if they had 
 wrongfully refused to allow the earner 
 the benefit of the insurance, such a 
 counterclaim might be sustained, but 
 otherwise not. Inman v. South Carolina 
 R. Co., 129 U. S. 128, 9 S. Ct. 249, 32 L. 
 Ed. 612. 
 
 58. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Zimmerman & 
 Co.. 81 Tex. 605, 17 S. W. 239. 
 
 59. Advancement not constituting pay- 
 ment—Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Zimmerman 
 & Co., 81 Tex. 605, 17 S. W. 239. 
 
 Illustrations. — A bill of lading pro- 
 vided that, in case of loss or injury of 
 the goods, the damage should be ad- 
 justed on the basis of their value at the 
 place and time of shipment, and that the 
 carrier should have the benefit of any 
 insurance effected by the shipper. He 
 insured the goods for their value at the 
 port of destination, but the policy con- 
 tained a provision that in case of any 
 agreement between the assured and any 
 carrier whereby, in case of loss for which 
 the carrier would be liable, he should 
 have the benefit of the insurance, there 
 should be no liability on the policy be- 
 yond the amount which was not recover- 
 able from the carrier, and to make good 
 the loss temporarily by advancing money 
 pending delay in collecting from the car- 
 rier, which should not affect the final lia- 
 bility of the insurer. The goods were 
 damaged in shipment, and the insurer 
 advanced a sum to the owner; taking a 
 receipt by which he agreed to prosecute 
 his claim against the carrier, and to re- 
 fund to the insurer the amount collected. 
 Held, that such advance was strictly 
 within the terms of the policy, and did 
 
 not constitute a payment of the loss, 
 whereby the carrier could claim the bene- 
 fit under the bill of lading as set-off in an 
 action by the owner to recover the dam- 
 ages. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Burr, 130 
 Fed. 847, 65 C. C. A. 331. 
 
 A bill of lading provided that, in case 
 of loss or damage to the goods, the car- 
 rier should have the benefit of any in- 
 surance for or on account of the owner, 
 and should be subrogated to its rights be- 
 fore any demand on account of such loss 
 or damage should be made. The shippers 
 obtained a policy of insurance on the 
 goods, conditioned that it should not in- 
 ure directly or indirectly to the benefit 
 of any carrier or bailee by stipulation in 
 l)ill of lading or otherwise, and that it 
 should be null and void to the extent of 
 any amount recovered from any car- 
 rier or bailee. The goods having been 
 lost by the carrier, the insurer advanced 
 to the shippers an amount equal _ to 
 the insurance, taking a receipt reciting 
 that it was received "as a loan without 
 interest, and repayable only to the ex- 
 tent of any net recovery we may make 
 from the carriers responsible for the 
 loss." Held, that the advance made by 
 the insurance company did not extin- 
 guish the liability of the carrier nor con- 
 stitute a defense to an action against it to 
 recover for the loss. Bradley v. Lehigh 
 Valley R. Co., 153 Fed. 350, 82 C. C. A. 
 436, affirming 145 Fed. 569. 
 
 60. Effect of agreement by insurer to 
 pay. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Spratt 
 (Ky.), 2 Duv. 4. 
 
 61. Liability limited to value at place 
 of shipment. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Burr, KJO Fed. 847, 65 C. C. A. 331. 
 
 62. Right of carrier to recover from in- 
 surer. — British, etc.. Marine Ins. Co. r. 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475, 478. 51 
 Am. Rep. 661.
 
 793 
 
 I/)SS Ok INJLKV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1026-1028 
 
 Where There Are Several Carriers.— Wlicrc a part (jf the goods was 
 shipped from an inland point under a through bill of lading which contained 
 two sets of conditions, the first set relating exclusively to land carriage, and 
 the second to the ocean transportation, the carrier could not avail itself of a 
 clause contained in the first set of conditions concerning the right of the carrier 
 to have the benefit of any insurance on the goods for the loss of which it might 
 be liable when the goods were lost at sea.''-'* 
 
 § 1027. Effect as Defeating Insurer's Right of Subrogation. — Where 
 
 a shipping contract or a bill ui laiiiiii; i)r(j\idc> thai an\ iii>uraniL- on the goods 
 shall be for the benefit of the carrier, payment of the insurance to the shi]>per 
 discharges the carrier, and prevents the insurance comjjany from maintaining 
 an action against the carrier for causing the loss,**-* although the negligence of 
 the carrier contributed thereto.*"' •''' The rule that an insurer, when he has in- 
 demnified an owner of property for a loss occasioned by a carrier, is entitled to 
 all the means of indemnity which the satisfied owner held against the carrier, 
 and that the owner can not, after loss, relinquish any rights to which the in- 
 surer is entitled, docs not mean that the owner and the carrier may not, at the 
 time the goods are shipped, and before insurance is effected, make, without 
 fraudulent concealment, a valid agreement that any insurance shall inure to the 
 benefit of the carrier.*'" 
 
 § 1028. Inconsistent Stipulations in Contract and Policy. — The ef- 
 fect of a carrier's stipulating in its contract of shipment for the benefit of any 
 insurance that may have been effected upon the goods to be transported, where 
 previously thereto the shijjper has obtained a policy providing that the insurer 
 shall be subrogated to the claim of the insured against the carrier, is to invali- 
 date the contract of insurance and defeat a recovery by the insured on the pol- 
 icy.*'" The carrier's liabilitv for loss of goods is the ultimate liability, while that 
 
 63. Where there are several carriers. — 
 
 Liverpool, etc., Co. i\ riicnix Ins. Co., 
 129 U. S. 397, 9 S. Ct. 4r)9, 32 L. Kd. 788; 
 Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Insurance Co., 129 
 U. vS. 4<;4, 9 S. Ct. 480, .■)2 L. Ed. 800. 
 
 64. Effect as defeating insurer's right 
 of subrogation. — L'liitcd States. — Phcenix 
 Ins. Co. V. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 117 U. 
 S. 312. 29 L. Ed. 873, 6 S. Ct. 750, 117G; 
 New York Cent. R. Co. za Lockwood 
 (U. S.), 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Liv- 
 erpool, etc., Co. z: Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 
 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469. 
 
 Nc7V York. — Piatt v. Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co., 108 N. Y. 358, 15 N. E. 393, 13 N. Y. 
 S. R. 660, 11 Cent. Rep. 101, 32 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 517; Connecticut Fire Ins. 
 Co. V. Erie R. Co., 73 N. Y. 399, 29 Am. 
 Rep. 171. 
 
 Texas. — British, etc.. Marine Ins. Co. 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475, 51 Am. 
 Rep. 661; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Inter- 
 national, etc., Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149, 19 
 S. W. 459. 
 
 In Wager i: Providence Ins. Co., 150 
 U. S. 99, 37 L. Ed. 1013, it was said that, 
 in case of loss, the carrier is primarily 
 liable to the shipper, and the posi- 
 tion of an insurer is substantially that of 
 a surety. The insurer can recover, there- 
 fore, after payment of a loss, by subro- 
 gation to the rights of the shipper, and 
 upon no other ground; so that whatever 
 amounts to an extinguishment of the 
 
 right of action of the shipper againsr 
 the carrier must defeat the insurer's right 
 to subrogation. 
 
 65. A bill of lading contained a pro- 
 vision that the carrier should have the 
 benefit of insurance effected by the in- 
 sured in case, of liability for loss, but pro- 
 vided that the carrier should not be lia- 
 ble for loss by perils of navigation. A 
 loss occurred through the perils of nav- 
 igation as the proximate cause, but to 
 which the negligence of the carrier re- 
 motely contributed, and the insurers paid 
 the loss to the shippers. Held, that the 
 insurers were not subrogated to the 
 rights of the shippers, and could not 
 maintain an action against the carrier. 
 I'hirnix Ins. Co. 7'. Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 
 Fed. Cas. Xo. ll.ll:.'. lo Biss. is. 
 
 Loss by negligent stranding. — Such a 
 stipulation limits the right of an insurer 
 of the goods, upon paying to the shipper 
 the amount of a loss bj- stranding, oc- 
 casioned by the negligence of the car- 
 rier's servants, to recover over against 
 the carrier. Liverpool, etc., Co. t'. Phenix 
 Ins. Co.. 129 U. S. 397, 462, 32 L. Ed. 
 7SS, 9 S. Ct. 469; Phoenix Ins. Co. z: 
 Erie, etc.. Transp. Co., 117 U. S. 312. 29 
 L. Ed. 873. 6 S. Ct. 750. 1176. 
 
 66. Rintoul v. New York Cent., etc., R. 
 Co.. 20 Fed. 313. 
 
 67. Effect of inconsistent stipulations. 
 — Missouri Pac. R. Co. z\ International, 
 etc.. Ins. Co.. 84 Tex. 149, 19 S. W. 459.
 
 §§ 1028-1029 CARRiiCRS. 794 
 
 of the insurer is that of an indemnitor in ah cases in which the insiu-ance con- 
 tract does not stipulate to the contrary, or in which a contrary intention may not 
 be fairly inferred from the time and circumstances of the contract. If the m- 
 sured wishes a policy that will place the ultimate liability on the insurer, he must 
 so make his contract as to protect the carrier afterwards to be selected by hmi.^^ 
 
 Notice of Stipulation in Policy.— An open policy of insurance which stipu- 
 lates that '"this insurance shall not enure to the benefit of any carrier," is not 
 void as being in restraint of trade, and when violated by a contract between 
 the insured and a carrier by which the latter should be subrogated to the rights 
 of the insured in case of loss, avoids the policy, and neither the insured nor the 
 carrier can assert rights under it in case of loss, and this though both the car- 
 rier and the insured were in fact ignorant of the stipulation.'"'"^ 
 
 Notice to Insurer of Stipulation in Bill of Lading.— Where the bill of 
 lading is prior in point of time to the policy, which recites the fact of shipment, 
 this is sufficient evidence that the policy was issued with notice of^the right se- 
 cured by the carrier bv contract and in suliordination to that right."^*^ 
 
 Effect of Voluntary Payment by Insurer.— Where a shipper has, by 
 inconsistent stipulation with a carrier, defeated the insurer's right to subroga- 
 tion, payment by the insurer is purely \oluntary and gives no rights against the 
 carrier. No subrogation would follow from such payment against the carrier.'^ ^ 
 
 § 1029. Suits against Carrier.— Pleading and Proof.— A petition stat- 
 ing that plaintilT was the owner of certain goods injured while in the carrier's 
 possession; that he had transferred to an insurance company one-half of his 
 right of action, and that his suit was for one-half the damages sustained, for 
 the use of the insurance company, discloses a good cause of action, and the mere 
 allegation that the cause of action had been transferred does not compel him 
 to negative the illegality of such transfer. The allegation that the suit was for 
 the use of the insurance company is proper to protect its interest, and it is not 
 necessary to show by averment or proof how the insurance company acquired 
 its interest. '^2 
 
 Supplemental Petition. — A supplemental petition in a suit by an insurance 
 companv against a carrier who has received the benefit of insurance, which 
 does not allege that the carrier had notice of want of authority in the shipper's 
 agent to make such a contract, is defective, and an exception thereto should be 
 sustained. "^^ 
 
 Answer. — Where plaintiff alleges a transfer of one-half of his right of ac- 
 tion to the insurance company and that the suit is for the use of such company, 
 if the carrier relies on anything in the transfer to defeat the action, as that the 
 cause of action had been devoted to an illegal purpose, it should set it up in its 
 answer.""* 
 
 68. Insurance Co. v. Easton, 7.3 Tex. 72. Pleading and proof— Suit by shipper 
 1G7, 11 S. W. 180, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. for benefit of insurer. — East Line, etc.. 
 671. ' R. Co. V. Hall, 64 Tex. 615. 
 
 69. Notice of stipulation in policy. — To entitle the shipper to recover for 
 Insurance Co. v. Easton, 73 Tex. 167, 11 the use of the insurance company, the 
 S. W. 180. 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 671. _ averment and proof need not go further 
 
 70. Notice to insurer of stipulation in ^j^^n to show a right of recovery in the 
 bill of lading.— British, etc., Marine Ins. shipper, the record plaintiff; for this pur- 
 Co. V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475, 51 pogg ^^e suit is not the suit of the insur- 
 Am. Rep. 661; Insurance Co. v. Easton, ^nce company. East Line, etc., R. Co. 
 73 Tex. 167, 173, 11 S. W. 180, 37 Am. & ^, Hall, 64 Tex. 615, 621. 
 
 E"g- 5,' C^s- ^^''1- , ^ . u • 73. Supplemental petition.— Missouri 
 
 71. Effect of voluntary payment by m- p^^ j, g^ ^, International, etc., Ins. 
 surer -Missouri Pac. R. Co. z. Interna- ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^9 g ^ 459 
 tional. etc., Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149, 1.j2, 19 „\ . „ ^ , . . o r^ „ 
 S W. 459; British, etc., Marine Ins. Co. 74. Answer.— East Line, etc., R. Co. v. 
 V. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 63 Tex. 475, 51 Am. Hall, 64 Tex. 615. 
 
 Rep. 661.
 
 795 LOSS OK INJIKY TO GOODS. §§ 1029-1031 
 
 Evidence. — \\ here the carrier claims ihe benefit of insurance, it must show 
 clearly that, under the terms of the contract, it is entitled thereto."^ it must 
 prove that such insurance was procured by the shipper, and paid by the in- 
 surer;'^*' and that the shipi)er had refused to allow the carrier the benefit of 
 itJ^ Where plaintiff suing a carrier for injuries to goods by fire alleges that 
 he had transferred to an insurance company one-half of his right of action the 
 transfer when offered in evidence can not be excluded on the gr(jund that it 
 contained other matters than the bare transfer itself.'" 
 
 § 1030. Claims for Damages. — Where the c(jntract between a shipper 
 and a carrier contains no sti]ndalion as to the time within which a claim for loss 
 or damage to the shipment must be made, or where such stipulation, if made, 
 is void, the shipper is not re(|uired to give iwtice of his claim, but may e^ue 
 thereon at any time within that fi.xed by the statute of limitations of the state.'^ 
 Where a statute required that a claim should be filed with the agent of the car- 
 rier at the point of destination, filing the claim with the soliciting freight agent 
 at destination is a sufficient filing.'*" 
 
 Waiver of Defect in Claim. — Where a claim was presented for damages 
 to freight, and recei\e(l without objection, and afterwards treated as pending, 
 a provision that it must be \eritk'(l is waived.**^ 
 
 Efifect of Filing- Subsequent Claim. — Where a claimant for damages to 
 freight filed a claim against the carrier for the value of the goods and freight 
 within the time required by his contract of shipment, the fact that he also after 
 that time filed a claim for the value of the goods without the item for freight 
 would not preclude his recovery under the first claim. **- 
 
 Adjustment of Claim. — A railroad company has the right in adjusting in- 
 jury to property caused by its negligence to contract to kee]) the injured property 
 and pay the owner its value in settlement of the damages.'^'' 
 
 Waiver of claim for damages by receiving goods, paying freight, etc., is 
 treated elsewhere. '^'^ 
 
 The reasonableness of a rule of an express company requiring that, in case 
 of a claim being made for a package lost in transit, the original receipt must be 
 produced within thirty days annexed to the notice of loss, is one for the jury 
 to determine under all the circumstances of the case and proper instructions by 
 the court. ■'^•' 
 
 § 1031. Extent of Liability. — Tt may be stated generally that the liability 
 of the carrier in case of loss of or injury to goods extends to the amount of 
 damage sustained.^^ The extent of the carrier's liability- may be affected by a 
 contract made stibsequent to the consignee's refusal to receive goods damaged by 
 
 75. Burden of proof. — ^Tnman v. South p. 81), providin°r penalty for loss of 
 Carolina R. Co., 139 U. vS. 128, .32 L. Ed. property. Bell 7: v'^outliern Railway, 77 
 f)12, S. Ct. 249; Liverpool, etc., Co. v. S. C. 7S, 57 S. E. r,S9. 
 
 Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397. 4<>.3. 32 81. Waiver of defect in claim.— Wabash 
 
 L. Ed. 78S. 9 S. Ct. 4t;9. R. Co. v. Brown. 1.52 111. 484, 39 N. E. 
 
 76. Proof that insurance procured. — 273. affirniinc; "il 111. .\pp. f>:tG. 
 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. Zimmerman & Co., 82. Effect of filing subsequent claim. — 
 
 81 Tex. 605. 609, 17 v^. \V. 239. Jenkins r. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 6.5 S. E. 
 
 77. Inman v. South Carolina R. Co., (136. s:', S. C. IT:;. 
 
 129 U. S. 128, 9 S. Ct. 249, 32 L. Ed. 612. 83. Adjustment of claim.— Chicago, etc.. 
 
 78. Admissibility of transfer.— East R- Co. :•. Katzcnhach, 2i) X. E. 709, 118 
 Line, etc.. R. Co. :■. ll.ill, f.4 Tex. 615. I"fl- ^~^- 
 
 79. Claims for damages. Southern R. 84. Waiver of claim.— See post, "De- 
 Co. f. Mooresville Cotton Mills, 187 Fed. tenses." ij 1():'..5. 
 
 72. 109 C. C. .\. 300. 85. Question for jury. — .\dams Exp. 
 
 Generally as to limitation of time for Co. f. Gordon, 5 O. C. C. N. S., 563, 
 
 presenting claim, see post. "Limitation 17-27 O. C. D. 243. 
 
 o\ Lial)ility." chapter 14. 86. Extent of liability. — See post, 
 
 80. Act Feb. 23, 1903 (24 St. at Large, "Damages," §§ 1068-1085.
 
 1031-1032 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 796 
 
 delay.^' As to the ettect of the shipper's misrepresentation or concealment of 
 the nature or value of goods as affecting the extent of liability, see ante, "^^lis- 
 representation or Concealment of Nature or X'akie of Goods," § 100^. 
 
 §§ 1032-1089. Actions for Loss or Injury— § 1032. Nature and 
 Form. — Ex Contractu or Ex Delicto. — Damages for loss of or injury to 
 property while in a carrier's custody may be recovered either in an action ex 
 contractu or one ex delicto at the option of the pleader.^s In all actions on the 
 case, against a carrier for a loss or injury done to property, the wrong is the 
 gist of the action, and the contract collateral thereto; but, in all actions of as- 
 sumpsit against a carrier, the contract to deliver is the g-ist of the action.*'^ In 
 an action in assumpsit against carriers for the loss of goods, where the facts 
 are such that it is a question whether the carriers obtained possession of the 
 goods otherwise than as trespassers, even if they got the goods as trespassers, 
 the form of the action is no obstacle to a verdict against them.'"^ 
 
 Trover. — Trover will not lie against a common carrier for goods lost or 
 damaged by nonfeasance merely;''^ nor for any act or omission which amounts 
 to negligence merely, and not to an actual wrong/'^ Unless the property shipped 
 is totally destroyed", the carrier is not liable for its full value as for conversion, 
 but the remedy is an action for injuries to the property as for breach of the 
 contract of carriage.'*^ 
 
 87. Effect of contract. — Grinnell v. 
 Wisconsin Cent. Co., 47 Minn. 569, 50 
 N. W. 891. 
 
 Effect of agent's mistake, — Where a 
 consignee refused to receive goods on 
 the ground that they were damaged on 
 account of delay, and a contract was 
 made between him and defendant car- 
 rier's agent by which the goods were 
 turned over to him, to be disposed of 
 on defendant's account, defendant to pay 
 the difference between the proceeds and 
 the costs and charges for the goods, a 
 mistake of the agent in thinking the 
 goods damaged, does not affect defend- 
 ant's liability on the contract. Grinnell 
 V. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 47 Alinn. 569, 
 50 N. W^ 891. 
 
 88. Action ex contractu or ex delicto. — 
 United States. — Central .Trust Co. v. 
 East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 70 Fed. 764. 
 
 Georgia. — Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. El- 
 liott, 3 Ga. App. 773, 774, 60 S. E. 363; 
 Lytle V. Southern R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 
 219, 221, 59 S. E. 595. 
 
 Missouri. — Blackmer, etc., Pipe Co. v. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 479, 
 119 S. W. 1; Wernick v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 131 Mo. App. 37, 109 S. W. 1027. 
 
 New Jersey. — Mershon v. Hobensack, 
 22 N. J. L. 372. 
 
 New York. — Catlin v. Adirondack Co., 
 81 N. Y. 639, 11 Abb. N. C. 377; Hawkins 
 V. Hoffman, 6 Hill 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa. 
 342; Howard v. American Exp. Co., 47 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 416; Solomon v. Adams 
 Exp. Co., 47 Pa. Super. Ct. 423. 
 
 T^.t-a.y.— Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Rose- 
 brook-Josey Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 114 S. W. 436; Ft. Forth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McAnulty, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 321, 326, 26 
 S. W. 414. See, also. G., C. & S. F. R. 
 Co. V. Levy, 59 Tex. 542, 548, and Gal- 
 
 veston, etc, R. Co. V. Roemer, 1 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 191, 20 S. W'. 843. 
 
 J'irginia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Mc- 
 \>igh, 61 Va. (20 Graft.) 264. 
 
 89. Carter z\ Graves, 17 Tenn. (9 
 Yerg.) 446. 
 
 90. Cooper r. Berry, 21 Ga. 526, 68 
 .\m. Dec. 468. 
 
 91. Trover. — Alabama. — Central R., etc., 
 Co. 7'. Lampley, 76 Ala. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 
 334. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Bowlin v. Nye (Mass.), 
 10 Cush. 416. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Moses v. Norris, 4. 
 N. H. 304. 
 
 Xezv York. — Hawkins v. Hoffman (N. 
 Y.), 6 Hill 586, 41 Am. Dec. 767; Dela- 
 ware Bank z: Smith (N. Y.), 1 Edm. Sel. 
 Cas. 351. 
 
 Ji'est J'irginia. — Dudley v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 58 W. Va. 604, 607, 52 S. E. 
 718, 3 L. R. A.. N. S., 1135, 112 Am. St. 
 Rep. 1027. 
 
 Defendant received for transportation 
 certain bars of iron, and, while on the 
 road, his vehicle broke down, and the 
 iron was left on the highway over night. 
 On arriving at his destination, it was 
 discovered that two bars of the iron were 
 missing. Held, that an action of trover 
 would not lie against the carrier, but that 
 the shipper's action was on the contract. 
 Moses r. Norris, 4 N. H. 304. 
 
 92. Central R., etc., Co. v. Lampley, 76 
 .\la. 357, 52 Am. Rep. 334. 
 
 93. Iowa. — Parsons v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 144 Iowa 745, 123 N. W. 776. 
 25 L. R. A., N. S., 842. 
 
 Missouri. — Redmon v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 90 Mo. App. 68. 
 
 Texas.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Everett, 
 37 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 83 S. W. 2.-,7. 
 
 Where a car load of chops was injured 
 in transit by wetting, the fact that the
 
 ')7 
 
 LOSS OR IXJURV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1032-1034 
 
 Where there is a special contract varyinj,' the coimiion-law liability of 
 the carrier, the action is properly bronj^ht on the special contract, and not on 
 the common-law liability. '•*■* 
 
 Common-Law or Statutory Liability. ^An action to recover for the loss 
 of goods will be presumed to be upon the carrier's common-law liability, and 
 not upon the statute where the essential allegation to statutory liability is not 
 
 made 
 
 To Recover Proceeds of Goods Sold. — W here the carrier lost jKirt of the 
 goods, and sold the balance at the i)oint of destination in pursuance of authority 
 contained in the contract of shi])ment, assumpsit is tlie proper form of action 
 for the shipiKT to bring to recover the proceeds of the sale from the carrier."** 
 
 §§ 1033-1035. Right of Action and Defenses— § 1033. In General. 
 — Persons Entitled to Sue.- .\.> to ])ersons entitled to maintain action against 
 a carrier for loss of or injury to goods, see elsewhere.''" 
 
 That the bill of lading had not been transferred to the owner, at the 
 time lie demanded the goods, by the bank to which they were consigned, is not 
 fatal to his right to recover for injury to the goods while being held for the 
 pavmcnt of freight in excess of that due where the carrier refused to deliver 
 to him for the specific reason that he would not pay such excessive amount.'*^ 
 
 Assignability of Right of Action. — .\ right of action against a common 
 carrier for injurv to goods while in its care for transportation is assignable.^^ 
 
 § 1034. Conditions Precedent. — Where state bonds are lost through the 
 carrier's negligence, the owner may recover their value without stating in the 
 complaint, and without having furnished to the carrier as a condition precedent, 
 the numbers or dates of the bonds, there being no rule of the company requir- 
 ing it.^ 
 
 Payment or Tender of Charges. — It is held that in an action for loss of 
 goods, j)ayment or tender of freight need not be proved.- It is the duty of a 
 
 consignee was in the wholesale trade, to 
 wliich the chops, in tlieir damaged con- 
 dition, were unsuitable, did not entitle 
 him to refuse to accept them and sue the 
 carrier for iheir original value. Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Pitts & ^on. .37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 212, 8.3 S. W. 727. 
 
 Where goods retain a substantial value 
 after tlu' injury, the owner can not re- 
 fuse to take tliem, and sue the carrier 
 for their entire value; hut can recover 
 only for the diminution in value. Mc- 
 Cirath Bros. v. Charleston, etc.. Railway. 
 91 S. C. .'■)."j2. 7.-. S. E. 44. 42 L. R. A.. N. 
 S.. TS2, Ann. Cas. 1914.\. (U. 
 
 Machinery being so injured by a car- 
 rier that it is valuable only for old iron, 
 for which it wnuld brinji', at the price 
 therefor of twenty-five cents a hundred 
 pounds, fifty-five to seventy-seven cents, 
 its net value to its owner, if anything, by 
 reason of the expense of receiving it. 
 finding a purchaser, and delivering it, is 
 so insignificant that it will not be con- 
 sidered as regards his right to sue for 
 and recover its entire value before the 
 injurv. McGrath Bros. v. Charleston, 
 etc.. Railway, 91 S. C. 5.-)2, 7.5 S. E. 44, 42 
 L. R. .\.. N. S., 782, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 64. 
 
 94. Special contract. — Boaz 7'. Central 
 R.. etc., Co.. S7 Ga. 4()3, 13 S. E. 711: 
 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Forsythc. 4 
 
 Ind. App. 32G, 29 X. E. 1138: Kimball v. 
 Rutland, etc., R. Co., 26 \'t. 247, 62 Am. 
 Dec. .J67. 
 
 95. Common law or statutory liability. 
 — Central, etc.. R. Co. r. Jones. 7 Ga. 
 App. 165, 66 S. E. 492. Ga. Civ. Code, 
 189.-), § 2298. 
 
 96. To recover proceeds of goods sold. 
 — v^tevens :•. Savward (Mass.), 3 Gray 
 lOS. 
 
 . 97. Persons entitled to sue. — See ante, 
 "Right to Maintain Action against Car- 
 rier?' §§ 809-811. 
 
 98. Clegg :•• Southern R. Co.. 13.5 X. 
 C. 148, 47' S. E. 667, 65 L. R. A. 717. 
 
 99. Assignability of right of action. — 
 Norfolk, itc. R. Co. ;. Read. S7 \'a. IS."). 
 VI S. I-:. :>'.».-.. 
 
 1. Conditions precedent. — Martin v. 
 .\nurican i'.xp. Co.. !;• W is. 336. 
 
 2. Payment or tender of freight where 
 goods lost. — l-"erguson :. Capi>eau iMd.i. 
 C. liar. \: J. .394. 
 
 Where part of the goods are lost by 
 neglect of the carrier, the owner may 
 maintain an action for the value of the 
 goods lost, without previous payment or 
 tender of freight, if he has received t.ie 
 remainder of the goods with the carrier's 
 consent. Alden v. Pearson (Mass.). 3 
 Grav 342.
 
 §§ 1034-1035 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 798 
 
 consignee whose property is injured while in the control of a carrier to pay all 
 the freight charges, and then sue the carrier for the injury done.'* Rut where 
 the damages are equal to or exceed the amount of the charges, it is not neces- 
 sary that the plaintitT should allege and prove that he had paid or tendered the 
 amount due for freight.-* And it is held that it is no defense to an action for 
 damages that the freight has not heen paid.^''" The fact that the consignor had not 
 paid or tendered the freight charges on goods, in the absence of demand for 
 prepayment, does not absolve the carrier from liability for damages thereto, 
 since the usual custom is to collect the freight on delivery to the consignee, 
 thereby waiving the right to prepayment.*' 
 
 Demand as Condition Precedent. — An action may be maintained against 
 a carrier for loss of goods without proof of demand at the place of destination. 
 when the evidence shows that the goods never reached the destination.' Where 
 the carrier lost part of the goods, and sold the balance at the pointof destina- 
 tion, no demand on him for the proceeds is necessary to enable the shipper to 
 maintain an action therefor, though, if it were, the commencement by the car- 
 rier of an action for a balance of freight, being equivalent to a refusal to ac- 
 count for the proceeds, gave the shipper an immediate right of action. '^ 
 
 § 103 5. Defenses. — Receiving Goods. — Receiving from a carrier prop- 
 erty which has been damaged by it,'' or a part of which is missing,^" is no waiver 
 of plaintiff's claim for the damage sustained, as nothing short of a release or the 
 acceptance of something in satisfaction is a bar to his right of action." And an 
 
 3. Where goods injured. — Miami Pow- 
 der Co. r. Port Royal, etc.. R. Co.. .38 
 S. C. 78. 16 S. E. 3.39. 21 L. R. A. 123. 
 
 4. When damages exceed charges. — 
 Miami Powder Co. v. Port Royal, etc., 
 R. Co., 47 S. C. 324, 25 S. E. 153. 
 
 5. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Rudy, 173 
 Ind. 181, 89 N. E. 951, reversing 87 N. 
 E. 555. 
 
 6. Prepayment of freight. — Evansville, 
 etc., R. Co. f. Keith, S Ind. App. 57, 35 
 N. E. 296. 
 
 7. Demand as condition precedent. — 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ Meyer, 78 .-Ma. 
 597. 
 
 8. Stevens v. Say ward (Mass.), 3 Gray 
 108. 
 
 9. Waiver by receivinsc goods. — Howe 
 f. Oswego, etc., R. Co. (X. Y.), 56 Barb. 
 121; Bowman z: Teall (N. Y.), 22 Wend. 
 306, 35 Am. Dec. 562: Underwriters' 
 Agency f. Sutherlin. 55 Ga. 266. 
 
 In an action to recover for damage to 
 goods while in defendant's possession 
 for transportation, it is no defense that 
 the consignees accepted the goods if 
 they notified the consignors of their 
 damaged condition, and did not accept 
 as purchasers. Withers v. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co. (N. Y.), 48 Barb. 455. _ 
 
 Receiving goods short of their destina- 
 tion docs not relieve the carrier from li- 
 ability to the consignee for damages to 
 the goods caused by its negligence while 
 transporting them. Lesinsky v. Great 
 Western IDispatch, 10 Mo. App. 134. 
 
 In the absence of a reasonable regu- 
 lation upon the subject by the carrier, 
 the fact that the consignee received the 
 goods without giving notice of a claim 
 
 that they were injured, as he well knew, 
 does not work forfeiture or waiver of 
 his claim for damages. Ohio, etc., R. 
 Co. z\ Nickless. 73 Ind. 382. 
 
 In Louisiana it is held that the con- 
 signee's receipt of goods is concliisive 
 that he is satisfied with their condition 
 at delivery. If, from their outward ap- 
 pearance, they have been opened, he 
 should refuse to receive them until the 
 contents be examined or the master noti- 
 fied to attend their examination; but if 
 he take them out of the latter's sight 
 without saying anything, and deposit 
 them where he and his agent alone have 
 access, he can not recover for any defi- 
 ciency. Monro v. The Baltic (La.), 1 
 Mart., O. S., 194. See Marcy v. Warner, 
 17 La. Ann. 34. Compare Oakley i'. Rus- 
 sell (La.), 6 Mart., N. S., 58. 
 
 A master can not exonerate himself on 
 the ground that the consignees received 
 the goods, if they made objections to 
 which he replied "that they might re- 
 ceive the goods, and he would settle 
 afterwards." Bernadon v. Nolte (La.), 7 
 Mart.. O. S., 278. 
 
 10. Howe f. Oswego, etc.. R. Co. (N. 
 Y.). 56 Barb. 121. 
 
 The receipt by the owner of the whole 
 number of casks of goods shipped does 
 not prevent him from maintaining an 
 action against the carrier for the loss 
 of part of the contents, unless the jury 
 find that he received the property as and 
 for the compliance with the contract of 
 the carrier. .Alden r. Pearson (Mass.), 
 3 Gray 342. 
 
 11. Bowman <■. Teall (N. Y.), 22 Wend. 
 306, 35 Am. Dec. 562.
 
 799 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. § 1035 
 
 acceptance of a ijortion oi a cargo of malt first unloaded by an inspector of the 
 consignees, who examined it as it was taken from the boat, does not constitute 
 an acceptance of the residue, so as to relieve the carrier from liability for sub- 
 sequent damage by leakage. '- 
 
 Effect of Receipt Given on Obtaining Goods. — A receipt given to the car- 
 rier for goods before they are examined does not conclude the consignee from 
 showing the actual condition of his property, in an action for loss of portion of 
 the goods, ^-^ or for damage thereto.'"* 
 
 Act of Saving Goods. — A shipper being notified by the carrier that the boat 
 containing the goinls had sunk, and that he could not deliver the goods, does not 
 waive his right to recover damages thereto by his act of saving what he could 
 from the wreck.'"' 
 
 Waiver by Paying Freight. — Where a common carrier performs its con- 
 tract to transport and deliver goods, a payment of the freight, or a submission to 
 judgment therefor, does not preclude the owner of the goods from recovering 
 damages for injuries received by the goods during their transit. Me may pay 
 the freight and sue for the damages, or set up his damages by way of counter- 
 claim in an action to recover the freight, or he may bring a cross action."' 
 
 Selling Goods to Third Person. — The owner may recover from a carrier, 
 where his claim is established by clear and distinct proof, for injury to goods in 
 transportation, discovered after delivery to him, though he sells them before 
 making a claim against the carrier, and without giving it oi)portunity to insj^ect 
 them.''' 
 
 Lien for Charges.— Where failure to deliver goods on demand of the con- 
 signee is not placed on the ground of a lien for- charges, a carrier can not plead 
 such lien in defense of a subse(|uent action for loss of the goods. ''^ 
 
 Mistake in Making Out Bill of Lading. — In an action against a carrier for 
 failure to deliver all the articles mentioned in the bill of lading, the carrier may 
 defend on the ground that its agent made a mistake in making out the bill.'^ 
 
 Effect on Consignee of Release by Consignor. — .\ release and contract of 
 indemnity to a common carrier, execute*! by the consignor without authority 
 from the consignee, is no bar to an action by the consignee for damage-^ to the 
 goods.-" 
 
 Failure to Call for Assessment of Damages. — W here the clerk of the con- 
 signee of goods on discovering that they were damaged did not notify the car- 
 rier, and did not call for a board of sun'ey to assess damages according to the 
 rule recognized in commercial usage, but assessed the entire damages himself: 
 
 12. Scheu T'. Benedict. 110 X. Y. .jlO. were wet. Mears i'. Xew York. etc.. R. 
 22 X. K. ^^)7■^. l.". .\m. St. Rep. 42(), Co., 52 Atl. 610. 75 Conn. 171. 5r, L. R. 
 
 13. Effect of receiot given on obtaining A. 884. 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 goods. — Porter :•. Chicai;o, etc., R. Co.. 15. Act of saving goods. — Lengsfeld 
 
 20 Iowa 73. 7\ Tones. 11 La. Ann. r>24. 
 
 A receipt given by a party to common 16. Waiver by paying freight. — Sch- 
 
 carriers for goods transported by them winger 7\ Raymond. 83 X. Y. 192. 3«? 
 
 will not be set aside on the bare allega- Am. Rep. 415. See Underwriters' 
 
 tion that he never received such goods. Agency r. Sutliorh'n. 55 Ga. 2t'.t'>. 
 
 with no explanation tending to explain 17. Selling goods to third person.— The 
 
 how he came to make a formal admission F.lmira Sheplierd. Fed. Cas. Xo. 4.418, 
 
 of their receipt. Chapman :■. Camden. (^ Blatchf 341 
 
 ^*^A ^M^°n-^''- v^V'''''''•r"^ p r 18- Lien" for charges.-Lonisville. etc.. 
 
 14. Monell f. Xorthern Cent. R. Co. r. /^ \f n ■ - , . \ i -n- 
 (N. Y.). 10 Hun 585. ^- ^'^- '-■ ^^^^"'•'■^^ '•• Ala. 39.>. 
 
 .A consignee of goods employed an ex- . 19- Mistake m making out bill of lad- 
 press company to cart the goods to his ing.— Cohen Bros. :■. Missouri, etc.. R. 
 home, and its agent at the depot looked Co.. 44 Tex. Civ. .\pi>. ;si. ;i> s. W . 4P,7 
 at the box containing the goods, and 20. Effect on consignee of release by 
 signed a "clear" receipt, making no com- consignor. — Cream Citj' R. Co. f. Chi- 
 plaint. Held not to preclude the con- cago. etc.. R. Co.. 63 Wis. 93, 23 X. \V. 
 signee from showing that the goods 425. 53 .\m. Re]i. 267.
 
 §§ 1035-1036 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 800 
 
 and thereafter, as the packages were opened for sale, he (Hscoyered increased 
 damages, the consignee is restricted to the amount ct damages first assessed by 
 the clerk. -^ 
 
 Goods Damaged before Received by Carrier.— .\ common carrier, sued 
 on its common-law liability for loss or injury of goods received by it for trans- 
 portation, may relieve itself of liability by showing that the goods were damaged 
 before it received them.-- 
 
 Effect of Unlawful Rate. — That a rate given to a shipper may be in viola- 
 tion of the rates fixed by the Interstate Commerce Commission does not affect 
 the carrier's liabilitv to respond or the shipper's right to recover for loss of the 
 
 goods. -^ 
 
 A violation of Interstate Commerce Act, § 10, prohilnting false billing, 
 false classification, false weighing, or misrepresentations as to the contents of a 
 package, by which a discrimination is obtained, constitutes no defense to a car- 
 rier's liabilitv for loss of goods ship{)ed in interstate commerce, resulting from 
 a violation of its duties as a carrier.--* 
 
 That no person was appointed to receive goods at their destination is 
 no defense in an action to recover for their loss if the goods never in fact ar- 
 rived at the destination.-'' 
 
 That the carrier does not know who is the real owner of goods received 
 for transportation is no defense in an action for their loss.-'' 
 
 Plaintiff's failure to procure insurance on the goods is no excuse for a 
 carrier, in an action against him for negligence.-' 
 
 § 1036. Jurisdiction and "S^enue.— In many states there are statutes reg- 
 ulating the jurisdiction and venue of actions against carriers for loss of or injury 
 to goods. -^ 
 
 21. Failure to call for assessment of 
 damages. — Williams :•. The Columbia, 
 
 1 Wash. T. 9.-.. 
 
 22. Goods damaged before received by 
 carrier. — Ohlen z: Atlanta, etc., R. Co.. 
 
 2 Ga. App. 32.3, 58 S. E. 511. 
 
 23. Effect of unlawful rate. — Central. 
 etc., R. Co. f. Butler Marlile, etc.. Co., 8 
 Ga. App. 1. 68 S. K. r:.'. 
 
 24. Violation of interstate commerce 
 act. — xAdams Exp. Co. r. Chamherlin- 
 Tohnson-Du Bose Co., 75 S. E. GOl, 138 
 Ga. 455. 
 
 25. No person to receive goods. — Phil- 
 lips r. Earle (Mass.). S Pick. ls2. 
 
 26. Carrier ignorant of real owner. — 
 Lloyd V. Haugh, etc., Transfer Co., 22.3 
 Pa. 148, 72 Atl. 5' 6, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 
 188. 
 
 27. Failure to procure insurance. — Bre- 
 nan r. Shelton (S. C), 2 Bailey 152. 
 
 28. Jurisdiction and venue. — Arkansas. 
 — Kirby's Dig., § 0068, provides that an 
 action may be brought against a rail- 
 road company upon a liability as carrier 
 in any county through which the road 
 passes. Section 6758 provides that a 
 railroad company leasing another rail- 
 road wholly or partly in this state is 
 subject to all the laws of the state gov- 
 erning railroads. Section 6732 provides 
 that the term "railroad corporation" shall 
 include all corporations operating roads 
 in this state, whether as owner, lessee, 
 etc. Section 7702 provides that all gen- 
 
 eral provisions, terms, etc., shall be con- 
 strued liberally in order to effect the true 
 legislative intent. Defendant did not own 
 a line of road in S. district, but ran a 
 through train into the district over the 
 line of another road. Plaintiff delivered 
 goods at S. for shipment over defendant's 
 line and another road, and sued for de- 
 fendant's negligent failure to make ship- 
 ment. Held that, construing all the sec- 
 tions together, defendant's road passed 
 through the S. district wi.hin the mean- 
 ing of § 6068, so as to permit an action 
 against it in that district. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Jaber, 107 S. W. 1170, 85 Ark. 
 332. 
 
 Georgia.— Civ. Code 1895, § 2334. de- 
 claring that a carrier shall be sued in 
 the county in which the cause of action 
 originated for injury to property, and also 
 on all contracts, confers jurisdiction of 
 an action for delivering goods in bad or- 
 der, on the courts of the county where 
 they were delivered, whether the action 
 be e.x contractu or ex delicto. If the ac- 
 tion proceed ex delicto the -carrier does 
 not defeat the jurisdiction by showing 
 that, physically considered, the loss or 
 damage did not occur in the county where 
 the delivery in good order should have 
 been made. Brooke v. Nashville, etc., R. 
 Co., 5 Ga. App. 253, 62 S. E. 1002 (dis- 
 tinguishing and affirming Brooke v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 492, 60 S. E. 
 218); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Warfield, 
 129 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; Lytle V. South-
 
 801 
 
 LOSS OK IN'IL'RV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1037 
 
 § 1037. Parties. — As to itivjpcr parties to maintain actions against carriers 
 for lobS or injury to goods, see elsewhere.-" 
 
 Suit against Receiver. — A receiver appointed to assume charge of the af- 
 fairs of a raihoad company may be held responsible for the damage actually 
 sustained l>y a shipper of freight, through the negligence of the receiver's agents 
 and employees, in any case in which the company could be so held. IJut where 
 the receiver is ajjpointed by a court of equity he can ncji be sued at law withcjut 
 permission of the appointing court.'"' 
 
 crn R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 21'J, 222. r,9 S. H. 
 595; Burns v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 Ga. .App. 014. ()5 S. 1''. ')H2. 
 
 Cases not fallin}^ within the provisions 
 of this section are j^overncd by the gen- 
 eral law. Nonresident corporations are 
 within the purview of this section, as to 
 contracts made and torts committed in 
 the state. Lytle v. vSouthern R. Co., 3 
 Ga. App. 219. 220, 59 S. E. 595. 
 
 A suit e.\ delicto aj?ainst a nonresident 
 railway company, arisinjf out of its fail- 
 ure to deliver safely a shipment of goods 
 at a point in another state, may be 
 brought in any county in this state in 
 which legal service of process can be 
 made. Lytle v. Southern R. Co., 3 Ga. 
 App. 219, 59 S. E. 595. 
 
 Under Civ. Code 1895, § 3298, provid- 
 ing that railroad companies shall be sued 
 in the county in which the cause of action 
 originated for the purpose of recovering 
 damages for injuries to personal property, 
 it must affirmatively appear that the 
 cause of action originated in the county 
 where the suit was filed. Brooke v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 492, 
 60 S. E. 218. 
 
 Kcntxicky. — Civ. Code, Prac, § 73, pro- 
 vides that an action against a carrier 
 must be brought in the county in which 
 defendant resides, or in which the con- 
 tract is made, or in which the carrier 
 agrees to deliver the property. Brunk v. 
 Ohio, etc., R. Co., 32 Ky. L. Rep. 174, 105 
 S. W. 443. 
 
 Plaintiff, who resided in E. county, 
 shipped goods to that county; the ship- 
 ment being over defendant road from St. 
 Louis to R., in M. county, in this state, 
 and from there to E. county 1)}^ another 
 road. A suit was brought in the M. 
 county circuit court to recover for dam- 
 age to the goods while in the St. Louis 
 yards. Defendant's residence is not in 
 M. county. Held that, since the propertj' 
 was to be delivered in M. county, an ac- 
 tion to recover damages arising out of 
 the breach of the contract of carriage for 
 injury to the goods, etc., \wd.y be brought 
 in that county. Wilson v. Louisville, etc.. 
 R. Co., 112 S. W. 585, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 985. 
 
 In an action against an initial and an 
 intermediate carrier for loss of goods, it 
 appeared that tlie initial carrier accepted 
 plaintiff's goods for transportation to a 
 town in another county into which the 
 line of neither defendant ran: the bill of 
 lading providing tliat the rcsponsii>ility 
 
 1 Car— 51 
 
 of each company should cease on delivery 
 to a connecting carrier. Held, that a 
 plea to the jurisdiction of the court in the 
 county of final destination was properly 
 sustained. Brunk v. Ohio, etc., R Co 
 105 S. W. 443, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 174. 
 
 An action to recover damages for loss 
 of property, is properly brought in the 
 county in which plaintiff resides, that bc- 
 nig a county into which the carrier passes, 
 and also the county in which the contract 
 was made and the injury occurred. Plotz 
 V. Miller, 51 S. W. 170, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 25?. 
 
 Louis'uma.—VwA^v Code Prac, art. 105, 
 subd. 9, providing that in all cases where 
 anj' corporation shall commit trespass, or 
 do anything for which an action for dam- 
 ages lies, it may be sued in the parish 
 where the damage is done or trespass 
 committed, as amended by Act No. 44 of 
 1910 to cover passive violation of con- 
 tract by public carriers, and by Act No. 
 93 of 1888, giving the right to sue at the 
 place of delivery, an action against a ear- 
 ner for damages e.x contractu because of 
 negligent handling of machinery shipped, 
 may be brought either in the parish where 
 the property was damaged, at the domi- 
 cile of defendant, or at the place of de- 
 livery of the machinery. Lafayette v. 
 Wells Fargo & Co. Exp., 129 La. 323, 56 
 So. 257. 
 
 _ Texas. — Under an early statute, an ac- 
 tion on a contract of transportation by 
 a common carrier could be brought in the 
 county where the goods were to be de- 
 livered or in the county where the de- 
 fendant resided. Barrow v. Philleo, 14 
 Tex. 345, 346. 
 
 Where a carrier operating no line oi 
 road in Texas, but having agencies in 
 several counties therein, gives a bill of 
 lading for the delivery of goods in a 
 county in which it has no agent, with a 
 stipulation limiting its liability to injuries 
 accruing on its own road, suit for injury 
 to the goods is properly brought in the 
 county of their delivery, under Rev. St. 
 1895, art. 1194, permitting one who has 
 contracted in writing to perform an ob- 
 ligation in a particular county to be sued 
 therein, or where he has his domicile. 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Hornbeck, 90 Tex. 
 490. 39 S. W. 564. 
 
 29. Parties. — See ante. "Right to Main- 
 tain Action against Carrier," §§ S09-S11. 
 
 30. Suit against receiver. — !Melendy v. 
 Barbour, 78 \'a. 544.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 802 
 
 §§ 1037-1038 
 
 Joinder of Parties.— A shipper who contracts with a carrier may recover 
 damages to a shipment withont joining any other person having an interest in the 
 goods as partv plaintiff.^ ^ It is held that the consignor of goods, not to be de- 
 livered except upon production of bill of lading and payment of draft, and his 
 assignee of the bill of lading in whose favor the draft was drawn, are properly 
 joined as plaintiffs in an action against the carrier for the loss of the goods.-^- 
 There is a conflict as to whether the consignee can sue alone where another per- 
 son is part owner of the goods.=^=^ An action for damage to a shipment is prop- 
 erly brought in tort jointly against the railway and the transportation company 
 which contracted to ship the property .^"^ 
 
 8S 1038-1051. Pleading— §§ 1038-1049. Declaration, Complaint, 
 Petition or Bill— § 1038. In General.— Whether Action on Case or m As- 
 sumpsit.— it is sometimes verv difficult to distinguish whether a declaration, 
 complaint or petition states a cause of action on the case or in assumpsit.'' The 
 alleviation which especially distinguishes the counts in case from those in assump- 
 sit ts the omission of the consideration and the averment of negligence.-^*' A 
 declaration against a carrier for loss of goods in transit, alleging the considera- 
 tion the promise, the breach, and the giving of the notice of loss required by 
 the bill of lading, states a cause of action in assumpsit upon the contract of 
 carriage.^" 
 
 Construction of Petition.— If a petition is ambiguous as to whether it is a 
 proceeding ex contractu or ex delicto, the court, in the absence of a demurrer 
 adequate to compel the plaintiff to make his allegations more specific, and to re- 
 lieve the ambiguity, will so construe the petition as to uphold the fullest recovery 
 to which the plaintiff may be entitled under all the facts of the case as they ap- 
 pear.38 
 
 31. Joinder of parties. — Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Barnett (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. 
 W. 782, 783; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Smith, 84 Tex. 348, 19 S. W. 509; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Klepper (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 24 S. W. 567. 
 
 A contrary doctrine seems to be held 
 in Swift z: Pacific Alail, etc., Co., 106 N. 
 Y. 206, 12 N. E. 583, holding that the mer- 
 chandise being whale oil, the product of a 
 whaling voyage, evidence that seamen on 
 the whaling vessel "were interested in the 
 oil" is not sufficient to establish that they 
 are partners or joint owners, so as to re- 
 quire them to be joined as plaintiffs.^ 
 
 32. Consignor and assignee of bill of 
 lading.— Hartwell v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 15 Ky. L. Rep. 778. 
 
 33. Where consignee part owner. — In 
 Alabama it is held that the consignee may 
 sue alone. Southern Exp. Co. v. Arm- 
 stead, 50 Ala. 350, cited in Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Touart, 97 Ala. 514, 516, 11 
 So. 756. 
 
 In Kentucky the Alabama rule seems 
 to prevail. See Adams Exp. Co. v. Tingle, 
 10 Ky. L. Rep. 358. 
 
 In Texas the part owner must be made 
 a party to the suit. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Rushin, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 317. 
 
 34. Parties defendant. — Merchants', etc., 
 Transp. Co. t. Eichbcrg, 71 Atl. 993, 109 
 Md. 211. 
 
 35. Whether action on case or in as- 
 
 sumpsit. — See Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stock & Sons, 104 Va. 97, 51 S. E. 161. 
 
 Petition setting forth cause of action 
 ex delicto. — Southern R. Co. z'. Horner, 
 115 Ga. 381, 41 S. E. 649. 
 
 Petition foimded on bill of lading. — A 
 petition alleged that plaintiff shipped cat- 
 tle from Memphis, Tenn., to Ft. Worth, 
 Tex., over several lines of connecting 
 railroad, one of which was defendant's 
 line; that said shipment was made "on 
 through bills of lading, and at agreed and 
 through rates, for the whole route, the 
 contracts and bills of lading of each of 
 said railroads in regard to the shipment 
 of cattle being recognized and carried 
 out by the other;" that the cattle were 
 damaged by the negligence of defendant, 
 etc. Held, that the petition was founded 
 on the special contract evidenced by the 
 bill of lading, and not on the liability of 
 the carrier at common law. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Wheat, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 165. 
 
 36. Wright v. McKee, 37 Vt. 161. 
 
 37. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Stock & 
 Sons, 51 S. E. 161, 104 Va. 97. 
 
 38. Construction of petition. — Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Pope, 5 Ga. App. 689, 690, 
 63 S. E. 809, wherein it is held that the 
 rule is in no wise inconsistent with the 
 rule that equivocal or ambiguous state- 
 ments of facts will be construed most 
 strongly against the pleader.
 
 803 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 |§ 1038-1040 
 
 Joint Liability of Connecting Carriers. — A complaint showing thai goods 
 were shipped by contract with one of the defendants, to be transferred to a given 
 point in care of another carrier, but, in violation of that contract, they were 
 transferred to the other defendant, and that they were destroyed while in pos- 
 session of the latter defendant, is sufficient to sujjport the action against the de- 
 fendants. ■■" 
 
 The allegations of a bill should be sufficiently explicit to warrant a de- 
 cree a,L,^ainsl the defendant, and if they are not. a dcnuuTer tliereto will be sus- 
 tained."*^ 
 
 §§ 1039-1047. Necessity and Sufficiency of Allegations— § 1039. 
 Plaintiff's Title or Interest. — In an anion against a carrier for loss of or 
 injury to goods the plaintiff's ownershij) of the goods or his interest entitling him 
 to sue should be alleged.^ ^ It is held that where the consignee sues, he need 
 not aver that he is the owner, as the law will presume, when nothing appears 
 to the contrary, that such is the fact, and that the contract for transportation of 
 the goods was made with him as such owner.^- 
 
 § 1040. That Defendant a Common Carrier. — In order to recover against 
 a common carrier, as sucli, for loss of or injury to goods, the declaration or com- 
 
 39. Joint liability. — I n dependence 
 Mills Co. V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 72 
 Iowa 535, :'A X. W. 320, 2 Am. St. Rep. 
 258. 
 
 40. Allegations not sufficiently explicit. 
 • — .A hill a.L^aiiist a firm and an express 
 company alleged that complainants, at 
 S., shipped goods to such firm at G., to 
 be delivered on complainant's order, and 
 forwarded by said express company to 
 its office at G. a C. O. D. bill, to which 
 was attached the bill of lading, with in- 
 structions to collect, etc.; that the firm 
 claimed the shipment was by mistake, 
 and, after about ten months, proposed 
 to take the goods, and give a note at 
 eight months, and sent, by express, a 
 note to complaints, who acknowledged 
 its receipt by letter, and on the same 
 day they delivered to said express com- 
 pany, in S., an order notifying it that 
 the firm had settled the C. O. D. bill, 
 and to turn over to the firm the bill 
 of lading, and let the C. O. D. bill come 
 back; that nine days afterwards the goods 
 were destroyed by fire in the depot at 
 G., where they had remained; that com- 
 plainants do not know whether or not 
 such company forwarded said order of 
 release, or refused to deliver said bill of 
 lading to said firm, and, if it appear that 
 said firm were deprived of th*^ right to 
 take said goods from the depot by failure 
 of such company to perform its duty, it 
 would be liable to complainants for the 
 amount of said note, etc., "as charged, 
 which is accordingly done." Held, that 
 the allegations against the express com- 
 pany were not sufficiently explicit to 
 make the company liable and a demurrer 
 to the bill should have been sustained. 
 Cole V. Kankin (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 72. 
 
 41. Plaintiff's title or interest — Allega- 
 tions held sufficient. — A complaint which 
 
 charges the carrier with the loss of "cer- 
 tain goods, the property of the plaintiff," 
 sufiiciently shows the interest of the 
 plaintiff. Ames v. First Div., etc., R. Co., 
 12 Minn. 412, Gil. 295. 
 
 A complaint which alleges that the 
 carrier, in consideration of reasonable 
 compensation to be paid by consignor, 
 agreed to safely carry to a certain place 
 and there deliver to the consignee, or or- 
 der, certain goods and property of con- 
 signor of the value of $178.50, sufficiently 
 alleges that, the property consigned for 
 shipment belonged to the consigrnor. Zalk 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 98 Minn. 65. 
 107 N. W. 814. 
 
 In an action by a consignee against the 
 carrier to recover for damage to goods 
 in transit, the general allegation that the 
 consignee had purchased the goods from 
 the consignor, and was the ow-ner thereof 
 at the time they were damaged, is a suf- 
 ficient allegation of ownership. Texas 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Dorscy. 70 S. \V. 575. .^0 
 Tex. Civ. App. 377. 
 
 Allegation that consignor owned the 
 goods is unnecessary, wiiere it appears, 
 and tlu- reviewing court has previously 
 held that consignor had such an interest 
 in the goods that he had a right to stop 
 them in transitu, provided consignee was 
 insolvent, and that defendant railway 
 recognized that right, and made a new 
 agreement with consignor, whereby the 
 company agreed and undertook to deliver 
 the goods to one other than consignor, 
 whereby they were lost. Howe :■. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 18 O. C. C. 606. 10 O. 
 C. D. 220. 
 
 42. Where consignee sues. — United 
 States Mail Line Co. r. CarroUton Fur- 
 niture Mfg. Co., 101 Ky. 658, 19 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 833, 42 S. W. 342.
 
 §§ 1040-1042 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 804 
 
 plaint must aver that the defendant is a common carrier,'- or set out facts con- 
 stituting it such in law.-*-* , , r i . • 
 
 Aider by Verdict.— Where a petition tails to aver that the defendant is a 
 common carrier, but alleges a contract to carry made with it, the petition is good 
 after verdict, when the proofs showed that defendant was exercising the othce 
 of a carrier, and did. in fact, so contract and act m this mstance.^-^ 
 
 8 1041 As to Consideration.— In an action ex contractu against a car- 
 rier the averment of consideration must be direct and explicit, and not by way 
 of inducement merelv.-*^ It is a sufficient averment of consideration that the 
 defendant agreed to 'carry the goods "for a valuable consideration."-'' It need 
 not be alleged that the freight charges were paid or tendered.-i^ 
 
 In an action ex delicto to recover for goods destroyed m transit, it is not 
 necessary to allege that a compensation was paid or agreed to be paid for the 
 carriage of the goods.-*'-^ 
 
 8 1042 Delivery to and Acceptance by Carrier.— The declaration must 
 allege a deliverv of the goods to the carrier,-'" and that it accepted or undertook 
 
 43 That defendant a common carrier. 
 
 — Louisvillo. etc.. R. Co. V. Gerson, 102 
 \\a. 409. 14 So. 873; Jones z: Pitclier 
 (Ala.). 3 Stew. & P. 135, 24 Am. Dec. 
 
 Compare Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. 
 J L 372, holding that in assumpsit it is 
 not necessary to allege that defendant 
 is a common carrier, but that such allega- 
 tion is necessary in an action on the case. 
 
 Allegations held sufficient. — In an ac- 
 tion by a consignee to recover for cot- 
 ton lost by defendants as carriers, an al- 
 leo-ation that defendants, "before and at 
 the time of shipment, were the owners 
 and proprietors of the boat, and copart- 
 ners in freighting, and which boat had 
 been usually employed in conveying and 
 transporting cotton for hire, suthciently 
 alle-^ed that the owners were coinmon 
 carriers. Jones v. Pitcher (Ala.), 3 Stew. 
 & P. 135, 24 Am. Dec. 716. 
 
 A complaint against a railroad for the 
 loss of a box, alleging that the box was 
 delivered to defendant "to be carried by 
 it as a common carrier of freight, suth- 
 ciently alleges that the box was dehvered 
 to defendant as a common carrier. Kan- 
 sas Citv, etc., R. Co. v. Spann, 40 So. 83, 
 
 145 Ala. 679. >r .- • u n 
 
 44. Southern Exp. Co. v. Mc\ eigh, 61 
 Va. (20 Gratt.) 264. 
 
 Illustrations.— The master of a steam- 
 boat plying on a navigable river is pre- 
 sumed to be a common carrier, and, in 
 an action for the purpose of charging 
 him as such, the burden is on the defend- 
 ant to show the contrary, if he denies the 
 fact, although the declaration only al- 
 leges that the defendant is master of a 
 certain steamboat, without alleging in so 
 many words that he is a common car- 
 rier. Bennett v. Filyaw, 1 Fla. 403 
 
 A complaint alleged that plaintiffs 
 caused to be delivered to defendant cer- 
 tain property in good condition to be 
 carried by defendant over its road to li., 
 and thence to be forwarded to plaintiff at 
 L and that defendant received the goods 
 
 for said carriage and delivery, but failed 
 to deliver them to plaintiffs in good or- 
 der. Held, that the words "to be for- 
 warded" import an obligation to assume 
 responsibility for the transportation of 
 the goods from E. to L., and for their 
 delivery to plaintiffs. Davis v. Jackson- 
 ville Southeastern Line, 126 Mo. 69, 28 
 S. W. 965. 
 
 The allegation that "the defendant, be- 
 fore and at the time of the committing 
 of the grievance hereinafter mentioned, 
 was the owner and proprietor of a cer- 
 tai.i railroad, to wit, the Baltimore & 
 Ohio Railroad, and of certain carriages 
 used by it for the carriage and convey- 
 ance of goods and chattels in, upon, and 
 along said railway, from a certain place, 
 to-wit, Parkersburg, Wood county, West 
 \'irginia, for .hire and reward to it, the 
 defendant in that behalf," is a sufficient 
 allegation that the defendant was a com- 
 mon carrier. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Morehead, 5 W. \a. 293. 
 
 45. Aider by verdict. — Kain v. Kansas 
 City, etc., R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 53. 
 
 46. Consideration — Action ex contractu. 
 — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Smith, 106 \'a 
 645, 56 S. E. 567. 
 
 Insufficient averment. — An averment 
 that tlie defendant, in consideration of 
 the delivery to it of certain goods, issued 
 its bill of lading, by which it "undertook, 
 promised, and agreed" to carry the 
 goods to their destination, is not such an 
 averment of consideration as is necessary 
 in assumpsit. Pennsylvania R. Co;. v. 
 Smith, 106 Va. 645, 56 S. E. 567. 
 
 47. Jarrett v. Great Northern R. Co., 74 
 Minn. 477, 77 N. W. 304; Carter v. Graves, 
 17 Tenn. (9 Yerg.) 446. 
 
 48. Jarrett v. Great Northern R. Co., 7t 
 Minn. 477, 77 N. W. 304; Ferguson v. 
 Cappeau (Md.), 6 Har. & J. 394. 
 
 49. Action ex delicto. — Hall v. Cheney, 
 36 N. H. 26. See Wright v. McKee, 37 
 
 Vt- If"'!- . T J u 
 
 50. Delivery to earner. — Jordan v. Haz- 
 ard, 10 Ala. 221. See Philadelphia, etc., R.
 
 805 
 
 LOSS OR IXJURV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1042-1043 
 
 to carrv llK-ni.''^ 
 
 Time of Delivery. — A iKtiiion in an action against a carrier for damage to 
 goods nuisi alle^H- tlie time wlien the carrier received the goods.-'- 
 
 Place of Delivery.— In an action against a carrier for the loss of goods m 
 transit, the refusal to re(|uire i)laintiffs to show in the hill of particulars where 
 the goods and cars were delivered to defendant was not error where defendant 
 was not emharrassed in making its defense hy the lack of such statement.''* 
 
 § 1043. As to Contract of Carriage.— In declaring on the contract of 
 carriage, great exaclnos is demanded.'' Where one elects to sue a carrier for 
 failure tV^perform its dutv instead of suing on the contract, he need not set out 
 the precise terms of the contract.'-"' In such case, a petition, alleging that plani- 
 tiff delivered to defendant freight for transportation, sufficiently avers the con- 
 tract of shipment, without alleging its terms or attaching a copy thereof to the 
 petition.'" A i)etition alleging that defendant is a common carrier, and fully 
 setting out the fact constituting the cause of action for injuries in transit to a 
 shipment and charging a hreach of duty imposed on defendant hy law. is suffi- 
 cient without an express declaration on any hill of lading or contract of carriage 
 which may have heen made."'" .\nd it may be sufficient without any allegation 
 as to the 'issuance of a hill of lading.''^ Under a statute providing that, where 
 anv ])leading is founded on a written instrument, a copy thereof must he filed 
 with the complaint, in a suit against a carrier for failure to deliver goods in time 
 and good condition tlie complaint should be l)ased on the bill of lading.-"'-' 
 
 Co^nditions Limiting Liability.— Conditions in a contract of carriage limit- 
 ing the carrier's liability should be stated."" 
 
 Privity of Contract. — Where suit was brought against two railroad com- 
 ]xmies for damages on account of an alleged breach of contract, and the petition 
 failed to show anv privity of contract between the plaintiff and one of the de- 
 fendants, a demurrer filed by it was properly sustained."^ 
 
 Immaterial Allegations.— Tf there are i^rovisions in the contract of carriage 
 other than are usnallv cnilxxlied therein it is not necessary to aver the reasons 
 that infiuenced or tlic juirposes that controlled the shipper or carrier in inserting 
 
 Co. V. Venable Bros., 117 Ga. 142, 43 S. E. 
 407. holding: that an allegation that de- 
 fendant received the goods as in good or- 
 der at a named station on its line and 
 transported them to their destination does 
 not make the action one brought solely 
 under the terms of Ga. Civ. Code. § 2298. 
 
 51. Acceptance by carrier. — Sommer- 
 ville V. Merrill (Ala.), 1 Tort. lOT. 
 
 52. Allegation of time when carrier re- 
 ceived goods. — Missouri I'ac. R. Co. v. 
 Crtath. :; Trxas .App. Civ. Cas.. § 83. 
 
 Sufficient allegation. — A complaint for 
 loss of commercial fertilizers declaring on 
 nine invoices of chemicals and dissolved 
 bnne. covering different days during three 
 months, and alleging that twenty barrels 
 of chemicals and sixty-six of dissolved 
 bone were never delivered, and that plain- 
 tiff does not know on what "days the 80 
 barrels * * * lost were received * * * for 
 shipment," is not indefinite or uncertain 
 in failing to allege "on what day or days" 
 they were received liy the carrier. Dun- 
 bar, etc.. Co. V. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 
 19 S. C. 601. 
 
 53. Place of delivery to carrier. — Ches- 
 apeake, etc. R. Co. -■. Stock & Sons, 51 
 S. E. 101. 104 \'a. '.»:. 
 
 54. Allegations as to contract.— Weed 
 
 V. Saratoga, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.). 19 Wend. 
 .5.34; Camp v. Hartford, etc.. Steamboat 
 Co.. 4.". Conn. ,",;',:',. 
 
 Indorsement need not be set out. — Mat- 
 ter printed on the l)ack of the freight re- 
 ceipt is but a notice and not a part of the 
 contract, and therefore the indorsement 
 need not be set out in the declaration as 
 part of the contract. Western Transp. 
 Co. V. Xewhall. 24 111. 466. 76 Am. Dec. 
 TOO. 
 
 55. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v Cody. 119 
 Ga. 371. 46 S. E. 429; Atlanta. e*c.. R. Co. 
 7'. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co.. 135 Ga. 113. 68 
 S. H. 1039. 
 
 56. Charleston, etc.. R. Co. v. Duck- 
 worth. 7 Ga. App. 350. 66 S. E. 1018. 
 
 57. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Berry. 42 
 Tex. Civ. App. 470. 93 S. W. 1107. 
 
 58. Martin v. Fort Worth, etc.. R. Co.. 
 3 Tex. Civ. App. 550. 22 S. W. 1007. 
 
 59. 2 Tnd. Rev. St. 44. Indianapolis, 
 etc., R. Co. ?'. Rcmmy. \^^ Inil. .MS. 
 
 60. Conditions limiting liability. — Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. V. Rathbone. 1 W. V'a. 
 87. 88 Am. Dec. 064; Ferguson f. Cap- 
 pcau (M(l.\ Har. & J. 394. 
 
 61. Privity of contract. — Guthrie v. At- 
 lantic, etc.. R. Co.. 119 Ga. 603. 40 S. E. 
 824.
 
 §§ 1043-1044 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 806 
 
 them ; such allegations add nothing to the legal effect of the contract.*'- As it 
 is no excuse for a carrier, in an action against it for negligence, that the plain- 
 tiff engaged to procure insurance on the goods carried, and failed so to do, it is 
 not necessary in declaring against the carrier, to set forth such engagement, 
 nor to allege that it has been fulfilled, nor to aver an excuse for nonfulfiUment.*'-' 
 
 § 1044. Negligence of Defendant. — Ordinarily to recover for the loss of 
 or damage to property it is sufficient to allege that the defendant undertook the 
 transportation of the property as a common carrier and that it was lost or dam- 
 aged while in its possession.**-* It need not be alleged that it was defendant's 
 duty to carry the goods safely, since such duty is implied by law.*''' In a count 
 in trover it is unnecessary to allege the carrier's duty as such, if its business is 
 set fortii, together with its negligence, and the loss resulting therefrom.^*' When 
 negligence is alleged a general averment of negligence is sufficient, and particular 
 acts of negligence need not be alleged.^'' In such an action specific allegations 
 
 62. Immaterial allegations. — Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Rathhonc, 1 W. Va. 87, 88 
 Am. Dec. 664. 
 
 63. Brenan v. Shelton (S. C), 2 Bailey 
 152. 
 
 64. Defendant's negligence. — McFad- 
 den V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 
 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721; Kelly v. 
 Benedict (La.), 5 Rob. 138, 39 Am. Dec. 
 o30. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier 
 to recover the value of a car load of 
 mules destroyed by fire through defend- 
 ant's negligence, the petition alleged the 
 deliver}- and loss of the property while in 
 defendant's possession as a common car- 
 rier, and charged negligence in managing 
 and operating the train, whereby the car 
 containing the mules was set on fire, and 
 the mules destroyed. Held that, even 
 without the last allegation of negligence, 
 the petition was sufficient. McFadden v. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 
 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721. 
 
 65. Duty to carry safely.— Lang v. 
 Brady. 73 Conn. 707, 49 Atl. 199. 
 
 66. Wright v. McKee, 37 Vt. 161. 
 
 67. General averment sufficient. — Con- 
 necticut. — Peck V. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145. 
 
 Georgia. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. War- 
 field, 129 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; S. C, 3 Ga. 
 App. 187, 59 S. E. 604. 
 
 Illinois. — East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co., 24 111. App. 279, re- 
 versed on other grounds in 123 111. 594, 15 
 N. E. 45. 
 
 Massachusetts. — School Dist. v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 102 Ma.'-s. 552, 3 Am. Rep. 
 502. 
 
 Minnesota. — McCauley v. Davidson, 10 
 Minn. 418, Gil. 335. 
 
 Unless the pleading is attacked by mo- 
 tion, a general averment of negligence is 
 sufficient. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Vincent, 
 58 Xeb. 171, 78 N. W. 457. 
 
 Under the New York statute (Code 
 Civ. Proc, § 481), requiring the com- 
 plaint to state plainly and concisely the 
 facts constituting each cause of action. 
 
 a complaint against a steamship company 
 for negligence in transporting goods, 
 which avers that defendant undertook to 
 transport certain furs from and to points 
 named, being paid therefor, and that it 
 "so negligently and carelessly misbehaved 
 itself" in the matter that plaintiff sus- 
 tained damage, is insufficient, and a mo- 
 tion to make more definite should be 
 granted. Rubens v. Ludgate Hill Steam- 
 ship Co., 49 Hun 608, 2 N. Y. S. 30, 21 
 Abb. N. C. 464, 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 17. 
 
 Illustrations. — In "an action against a 
 carrier, the declaration, after stating the 
 delivery of poultry to be carried, the de- 
 fendant's reception of it on board his 
 boat for that purpose, that the boat did 
 not start within a reasonable time, al- 
 leged that "the defendant so negligently, 
 carelessly, and improperly conducted 
 himself in this behalf that, for want of 
 due care in said defendant and his serv- 
 ants, said poultry was not conveyed to 
 New York, and delivered to the plaintiffs, 
 until the same became and was, in con- 
 sequence of said carelessness and negli- 
 gence, damaged and spoiled, and of no 
 value to the plaintiffs." Held, that these 
 allegations applied not only to negli- 
 gence in not proceeding to New York, 
 but also in not taking proper care of the 
 poultry while transporting it. Peck v. 
 Weeks, 34 Conn. 145. 
 
 A declaration alleging that the carrier 
 "negligently unloaded" coal, "mixing it 
 with soil and different kinds," sufficiently 
 sets out the breach of the carrier's duty 
 in unloading in an unsuitable place, or in 
 such a manner that the different kinds 
 were mixed together. Rice v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 212. 
 
 Averment, in a declaration against a 
 carrier for loss of goods, that, by reas(jn 
 of the negligent manner in which defend- 
 ant conducted himself, the goods "were 
 wholly lost to the plaintiff," is sufficient 
 negation of delivery of the goods accord- 
 ing to the contract for carriage. Wil- 
 liams V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 9 W. 
 Va. 33.
 
 807 LOSS OR IXJURV TO GOODS. §§ 1044-1046 
 
 of ncj,^Hgc-nce may be treated as suri)lusage."** 
 
 Failure to Ice.— A petition alle{,nng failure of the carrier to properly re- 
 frij^erate a car of fruit, to ice the car at its destination, to keep it iced so as to 
 properly preserve the fruit, and that the car was almost entirely without ice when 
 turned 'over to plaintiff, was not demurrahle, as not alleging when and where 
 the car should have been iced, or what would have been i)roi)er icing."" 
 
 The carrier's knowledge of the character of the goods shipped with 
 respect to damages likely to result from delay in transit, or facts from which 
 such knowledge may be 'inferred, should be alleged in an action for recovery of 
 such damages.'" 
 
 Where Carriage Gratuitous.— Allegation of Gross Negligence.—.! com- 
 plaint which alleges a delivery of goods to a common carrier, and acceptance by 
 him, to be conveyed without reward, the loss of the goods occasioned by the gross 
 negligence of the defendants, together with the value of the goods and the 
 amount of the loss to the bailor, states a ground of action.' ^ 
 
 § 1045. Description of Property. — The petition or complaint in an action 
 for loss of pro])erty should describe the property so as to show what is in- 
 tended.'- A complaint in an action for loss of a draft, merely alleging by whom 
 and on whom it was drawn, and not stating the date, amount of the draft, or 
 the time when payable, is insufficient.'-^ But it is held that the comi)laint need 
 not state the numi)er or dates of state bonds."-' Allegations that a lost box con- 
 tained pictures of plaintiff's dead wife, etc.. which could not be reproduced, and 
 plaintiff's family Bible, containing the family records, were proper as descriptive 
 of the articles charged to have been lost.'^ 
 
 § 1046. Damage and Value of Goods.— W here no motion is made for a 
 more specific statement, a complaint averring plaintiff's ownership of certain 
 goods destroyed, their amount, a demand for the same or payment of its value, 
 and demanding damages in the sum of a certain amount, interest, and costs, is 
 sufficient, although no value of the goods, nor the fact that plaintiff was dam- 
 aged by their loss, is specifically alleged."" A complaint for loss of a draft, 
 merely alleging that the draft was worth a certain sum, is insufficient as a state- 
 ment of the value, but a statement of the sum for which it wns drawn would be 
 sufficient: it being unnecessary to allege that the drawer had funds on deposit 
 sufficient to pay it.'' 
 
 68. Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Warfield, 72. Description of property.— Galves- 
 129 Ga. 473, 59 S. E. 234; Southern Exp. ton, etc., R. Co. v. Quilhot (Tex. Civ. 
 Co. V. Bailey, '' Ga. App. 331, 66 S. E. App.), 123 S. W. 200, holding that a pe- 
 960; Deen v. Wheeler, 7 Ga. App. 507, tition describing property as "one chest 
 515,' 67 S. E. 212. of silver," and as "one punch liowl. one 
 
 A petition alleging that defendants un- H. P. vase, and two C. G. howls." with- 
 
 dertook as carri^ers to convey property out even stating the material thereof, is 
 
 for hire, and failed to do so. and speci- subject to special exception to suttic.ency 
 
 fying the acts of negligence whicli caused of description. 
 
 the loss, is not sul)ject to exception as 73, Description of draft. — Zeigler v. 
 
 uniting distinct causes of action^a cause Wells. etc.. Co., 23 Cal. 179, S3 .Am. 
 
 ex contractu with one ex delicto; the Dec. ST. 
 
 specification of the negligent acts may 74. Description of bonds. — Martin z: 
 
 be regarded as surplusage. Kelly v. Ben- American l-'.xp. Co., I'.i Wis. 33("). 
 
 edict (La.). ,-. Rob. 138, 39 Am. Dec. 530. ^g Missouri, etc.. R. Co. i: Dement 
 
 69. Failure to ice.— Southern R. Co. v. ^^^^^ q-^^. App.L 115 S. W. 635. 
 
 ^\o.''cL^rieV'^ knowledge' of ''character of '6; ^^^"^fgf, ^"^ ^^^"^ °f. e°°ds.-Inde- 
 
 goods.-Wyler. etc., Co. r. Unusvllc, ^^^^'i^'' ^^'%^^/^^]^'X''^ ^';' ^ 
 etc R. Co., 6 N. P., X. S., 589, 18 O. D. Co., .2 Iowa o3o, 34 N. W. .20. 2 .\m. bt. 
 
 N. P. 722. ^^P- '~^^- 
 
 71. Where carriage gratuitous.— Mo- 77. Zeigler r. Wells, etc., Co., 23 Cal. 
 
 Cauley 7'. Davidson. 10 Minn. 41S, Gil. 179. 83 Am. Dec. 87. 
 335.
 
 §§ 1046-1050 CARRIERS. 808 
 
 Necessity for Demanding Interest. — Under a statute making the carrier 
 liable for the amount of loss or damage to freight en route, together with inter- 
 est thereon from the date of fiHng the claim until its payment, the complaint in 
 an action against the carrier therefor need not demand interest in order to re- 
 cover it."^ 
 
 § 1047. Special Statutory Proceeding. — In a special proceeding given by 
 statute it is essential that the complaint set forth those facts and contain those 
 allegations, which show that the case fell within the provisions of the statute.'''* 
 
 § 1048. Amendments. — An action, based on the carrier's common-law lia- 
 bility, can not, by amendment, be converted into a suit founded upon a statutory 
 liability. ^^^ In a suit to recover damages for freight burned up at the point of 
 deliverv to the carrier, an amendment changing the destination, from a point 
 with.out to a point within the same state, does not introduce a new cause of 
 action.^^ Where a petition has the fault of duplicity, in that it sets up in one 
 count allegations suitable to an action against the carrier receiving the goods "as 
 in good order," and also to an action against it upon a coiumon-law liability for 
 the loss of the goods, and a special demurrer calls attention to this dereliction, 
 the plaintiff may save his suit from dismissal, by filing an amendment showing 
 his election to proceed upon only one of the theories. '^- 
 
 § 1049. Aider by Answer.— Althotigh a complaint be deficient, in that it 
 does not allege that demand was made for the delivery of goods at the point of 
 consignment, such demand is rendered unnecessary by an answer which alleges 
 that the same had been delivered according to the agreement. ■'"'•"• 
 
 § 10 50. Plea or Answer. — Effect of General Denial. — In an action 
 against a common carrier for loss of goods, a general denial puts the plaintiff 
 upon the proof of his cause, whatever else the defendant may have pleaded. ^^ 
 
 Effect on General Denial of Answer Containing Special Defense. — In 
 an action against a carrier for failure to deliver all the articles mentioned in the 
 bill of lading, the fact that the answer, in addition to a general denial, contained 
 a special defense that the bill was procured by fraud of the shipper did not pre- 
 clude the defense of a mistake on the part of the carrier's agent in making out 
 the bill.""' 
 
 The sufficiency of the answer must be determined by the case made bv the 
 petition, and that it might be a good answer to some case is not sufficient ; the 
 
 78. Necessity for demanding interest. — by adding an averment that defendant 
 Harter i\ Charleston, etc., R. Co., (w vS. received the machinery from a connect- 
 E. 29n, 8.5 S. C. 192. ing road "in good order" so as to allege 
 
 79. Special statutory proceedings. — Tlie a statutory liability under Code, § 3480, 
 Galena v. Beals, 5 Wis. 91; Gray v. The providing that, "where there are several 
 Reveille, f) Wis. 59. connecting railroads under different com- 
 
 In proceedings under Wisconsin Rev. panics, the last company which has re- 
 
 St. c. 116, to recover damages for the ceived the goods as 'in order' shall be 
 
 nonperformance of a contract of af- responsible to the consignee for any dam- 
 
 freightment, the complaint must set out ages." Exposition Cotton Mills v. West- 
 
 the jurisdictional facts that the injury re- ern, etc., R. Co., 83 Ga. 441, 10 S. E. 113. 
 
 suited from the negligent default or cul- 81. Charleston, etc., R. Co. v. Duck- 
 
 pable misconduct on the part of those worth, 7 Ga. App. 3.50, 66 S. E. 1018. 
 
 having the vessel in charge, whereby the 82. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Broome, 3 
 
 injury occurred. Gray v. The Reveille, 6 Ga. App. 641, 00 S. E. 355. 
 
 Wis. 59. 83. Aider by answer. — Zalk v. Great 
 
 80. Amendments. — Hartwell R. Co. v. Xortlurn R. Co., 9S Minn. 65, 107 N. W. 
 Kidd, 10 Ga. App. 771, 74 S. E. 310. 814. 
 
 A declaration against a railroad com- 84. Effect of general denial.-^Fowler v. 
 
 pany for damage to machinery in transit, Daven])ort, 21 Tex. iV.li\. 
 
 caused by the negligence of the defend- 85. Answer containing special defense, 
 
 ant's agents, states a cause of action at — Cohen Bros. v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 
 
 common law; and can not be amended 44 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 98 S. W. 437.
 
 809 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1050 
 
 answer must present a defense to the case made by the petition.^" An answer 
 averring want of authority in the defendant's agent to receive and carry pack- 
 ages of money, without compensation to the defendant, and without its knowl- 
 edge, is not bad as amounting to the general issue, where there is no averment 
 in the complaint that the defendant was engaged in the business of carrying 
 packages of money for hire.''" An answer pleading violation of a stipulation 
 as to the giving of notice of the claim for projjerty destroyed within a certain 
 time, should allege that ])laintiff knew of the destruction at the time thereof. '''* 
 Where the validity of a carrier's contract depends upon the reasonableness of a 
 ])rovision as to the giving of notice in case of injury to stock the carrier must, 
 in order to avail itself of th.is i)rovision as a defense, allege in its answer a state 
 of facts showing that the shipi)er had failed to give the notice before defendant 
 delivered to its connecting line, and that he had the opportunity to do so.^'' 
 
 A plea not distinctly denying- the averment of the declaration that the 
 carrier did not sat'eK carr\ the goods, but alleging a limitation of liability in the 
 terms of the bill of lading, is not a good plea.'"' 
 
 Matters Which Must Be Specially Pleaded. — Many defenses must be 
 specialK ]>lea(led, as that the defemlant had been released from contract, or that 
 the goods were onlv ])artially lost.'" that part of goods sued for did not belong 
 to plaintiff,"- that defendant failed to give notice of loss within a reasonable 
 time."'* If the carrier wishes to contend that the wholesale and not the retail 
 price of the property should govern in fixing the amount of damages, facts sup- 
 porting such contentions should be specially pleaded.-'-* 
 
 An estoppel must be pleaded strictly.""' 
 
 Pleading Contract of Carriage. — In an action against carrier for loss of 
 freight, where plaintitT ])lea(ls the contract of carriage, its ])rovisions inure to 
 the benefit of defendant without being pleaded by it."'' 
 
 Right to Damaged Goods. — In an action against a railroad to recover the 
 value of goods damaged in transit, defendant, on being held liable for the dam- 
 ages sued for, is not entitled to an order awarding the damaged goods to it in 
 the absence of a i^roper pleading on its part seeking to recover such goods."" 
 
 Right to Claim Reduction of Verdict. — Where, in an action for the loss of 
 cigars shipi:)cd as "smoking tobacco," the carrier did not claim in its answer for 
 a ditiference of unpaid freight at a higher rate prescribed for cigars, it could not 
 claim a reduction of the verdict for plaintiff to the extent of the dift'erence, in 
 
 86. Sufficiency of answer. — Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Harris, 67 Tex. 106, 172, 
 2 S. W. -.74. 
 
 87. Answer not amounting to general 
 issue. — Cincinnati, etc., Mail Line Co. z'. 
 r.(ial, 1.^ Ind. .34.5. 
 
 88. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Brass (Tex. 
 Civ. -Xpp.), 133 S. W. 1075. 
 
 89. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 88 
 Tex. r>9:i, 32 S. W. 510. 
 
 90. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Wilson 
 (Pa.). 3 Atl. 783, 2 Sad. 291. 
 
 91. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harn, 44 
 Tex. 62S. 
 
 92. McGregor z'. Oregon R., etc.. Co.. 
 50 Ore. 527. <)3 Pac. 465, 14 L. R. A.. X. 
 S., 66S. 
 
 93. Soutliern R. Co. z'. Mooresville 
 Cotton Mills. 187 Fed. 72, 109 C. C. A. 
 390. 
 
 94. Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. Barden 
 (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 132 S. W. 83. 
 
 95. Southern Exp. Co. v. Fox, i:>l Kv. 
 257, 115 S. W. 184, 117 S. W. 270. 
 
 A plea in an action for daniage to goods 
 was insuliicient to estop plaintit? from 
 claiming that the value was more than 
 
 $75, where it alleges that plaintiflf fraud- 
 ulently stated that the value of the goods 
 was $75 in order to obtain a low freight 
 rate, but fails to allege that defendant 
 did not know that the value was more 
 than $75. or that it was deceived by 
 plaintiff's statement as to value. South- 
 ern Exp. Co. V. Fox, 131 Ky. 257, 115 S. 
 W. 184, 117 S. W. 270. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for loss 
 of freight, a plea of estoppel by reason 
 of plaintiff having received the bill of 
 lading after loss, and having forwarded 
 it to defendant with his claim for dam- 
 ages, was insutticient. where it alleged 
 no facts showing tiiat defendant acted 
 on the contents of tlie bill of lading to 
 its prejudice, or that it was misled by 
 anything plaintiff did with reference 
 thereto. McGregor i-. Oregon R., etc., 
 Co., 50 Ore. 527, 93 Pac. 465, 14 L. R. A., 
 N. S., 668. 
 
 96. Houston, etc., R. Co. z: Groves. 48 
 Tex. Civ. .App. 45. 106 S. W. 416. 
 
 97. Right to damaged goods. — Mis- 
 souri, etc.. R. Co. f. Kahn (Tex. Civ. 
 A pp.). 91 S. W. 816.
 
 §§ 1050-1053 CARRIERS. 810 
 
 order to relieve itself for liability for a statutory penalty, on _ the ground that 
 plaintilT was not entitled to recover the amount claimed by him.^s 
 
 Time of Amendment of Answer. — It is not error to refuse to allow de- 
 fendant carrier to amend its answer on the hearing and during the argument so 
 as to rely on a clause in its receipt to complainants providing that claims for 
 damages against it must be presented within thirty days, in the absence of suf- 
 ficient reason for failure to move to amend earlier, the defense presented by it 
 being merely technical.'''^ 
 
 § 1051. Admissions in Pleadings. — When a carrier refuses to pay dam- 
 ages demanded for injury to goods on the ground that they were carried at 
 "owner's risk," the jury may infer a waiver of other grounds of defense, and 
 an admission that the goods were damaged while in possession of the carrier. ^ 
 
 General Denial and Special Plea. — Where the plaintitT's right to recover 
 depended upon the fact being shown that defendants were partners in, or joint 
 owners of a boat, upon which cotton was freighted and lost, and there was a 
 plea of the general denial, and a special plea admitting the joint ownership, each 
 plea presented a separate issue and the admissions contained in the special plea 
 must be taken in reference only to the issue presented by it ; and the admission 
 thus made does not dispense with the necessity of the plaintiff's proving the 
 partnership or joint ownership except as to the issue presented by such special 
 plea.- 
 
 §§ 1052-1055. Issues, Proof and "Variance— § 1052. In General.— In 
 
 an action against a carrier for loss of or injury to goods such matters are in is- 
 sue as are properly put in issue by the pleadings and proof.' 
 
 § 10 53. Evidence Admissible under Pleadings.— In General.— In ac- 
 tions against carriers for loss of or injury to goods, the general rule applies that 
 the evidence to be admissible must correspond with the allegations and be re- 
 stricted to the issues. So evidence is inadmissible to show loss of goods shipped 
 or delivered at any other time than that alleged,* or to show damages to other 
 property than that specified in the petition.^ Where plaintiff' sues on a verbal 
 contract for shipment, and relies upon such contract as the law implies from 
 mere delivery of goods to a railroad company to be carried as freight, and no 
 written contract is alleged, a written contract introduced by defendant is not 
 relevant.'' Where the complaint alleged a contract to "carry and deliver" goods, 
 the bill of lading, showing a contract to carry and deliver such goods upon cer- 
 tain conditions named, can not be excluded as being a different contract from 
 
 98. Right to claim reduction of freight. presented. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Bell, 
 —Jenkins z\ Atlantic, etc., R. Co., W> S. 62 N. E. 103.5, 65 O. St. 408. 
 
 E. 407, 84 S. C. 520. Where, in an action a,^-ainst a carrier 
 
 99. Time of amendment. — Cole v. Ran- for loss of goods, plaintiff did not allege 
 kin (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 72. that the loss occurred through the car- 
 
 1. Admission implied from resting de- rier's negligence, and the carrier pleaded 
 fense on specific around. — Soutli, etc., R. a release given in consideration of a 
 Co. V. Wilson, 78 Ala. 587, 27 Am. & Eng. lower freight rate by which it was agreed 
 R. Cas. 41. that the goods should be shipped at the 
 
 2. Fowler v. Davenport, 21 Tex. 626. owner's risk, the invalidity of such re- 
 
 3. Issues — Illustrations. — Where, in an lease to relieve the carrier from liability 
 action to recover of a carrier the value for loss resulting through its negligence 
 of a package lost in transit, the petition was not in issue. Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. 
 sets out a bill of lading containing a stip- Blyth, 19 Wyo. 410, 118 Pac. 649, 119 
 ulation limiting the lialjility of the car- Pac. 87.5, Ann. Cas. 191.'! E, 288. 
 
 rier to $50, unless the value of the article 4. Evidence admissible under pleadings, 
 
 is disclosed, and admits that the value — Witzler v. Collins, 70 Me. 290, 35 Am. 
 
 was not disclosed, and alleges that the Rep. 327. 
 
 package was lost through the car- 5. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Smith, 84 
 rier's negligence, and the answer admits Tex. 348, 19 S. W. 509. 
 the loss and defendant's liability to $50, 6. Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Fried- 
 no issue, except that of negligence, is man, 128 Ga. 316, 57 S. E. 778.
 
 811 
 
 LOSS Ok INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1053 
 
 that set out in the complaint J Where, in an action to recover for injury to 
 freight shipped from a foreign slate, the carrier sets up a special contract, the 
 consignee may show that the contract was void under the laws of the foreign 
 state without pleading such laws." And when the carrier offers evidence to 
 prove that loss was occasioned by act of God, it is competent for plaintiff to set 
 it aside by proof of negligence, or other facts establishing that the loss was not 
 in fact pro.ximately caused by the act of God, without specially pleading the 
 same." 
 
 Under General Issue or General Denial. — It may be shown under the gen- 
 eral issue, in assumpsit against a common carrier, that the goods were destroyed 
 by the public enemy.'" L'nder the general denial the defendant may show that 
 it did not receive and agree to transport the goods described in the i)etition.'' 
 L'nder the plea of non assumpsit, not verified as required by statute, defendant 
 can not deny the execution of the bills of lading sued on ; but evidence is ad- 
 missible tending to show that the marks on the cotton, when received by defend- 
 ant for shiiiment, answered the marks described in the bills of lading, and that 
 the contract contained in them has been fully performed by defendant. '- 
 
 Particular instances of evidence which have been held admissible '•' or 
 
 7. Hill f. Georgia, etc., Co., 43 S. C. 
 461, 21 S. E. 337. 
 
 8. Frasier v. Charlestown, etc., R. Co., 
 73 S. C. 140, 52 S. E. 964. 
 
 9. M. P. R. Co. V. Barnes, 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § ")7."). 
 
 10. What may be shown under gen- 
 eral issue. — Southern I'.xp. Co. f. W'o- 
 mack, ts I'cnn. ( 1 Heisk.) 256. 
 
 11. What may be shown under gen- 
 eral denial. — Plaintiff averred, that de- 
 fendant "received and agreed" for a re- 
 ward to transport a case of "plate" glass, 
 which was broken through defendant's 
 negligence. Under an answer denying 
 each and every allegation, defendant in- 
 troduced evidence that it gave a receipt 
 for "one case of rough glass." on which 
 receipt was plainly marked "The actual 
 contents of packages must be stated on 
 this receipt." Held, that such evidence 
 was admissible under the general denial, 
 as showing that defendant did not re- 
 ceive and agree to transport plate glass. 
 Great Western Despatch, etc., Shore Line 
 V. Glcnny, 41 O. St. 166. 
 
 12. Unverified plea. — Hurd's Rev. St. 
 111., p. 1075 (,Prac. Act, § 34); St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 7'.), 7 S. 
 Ct. 1132, 30 L. Kd. 1077. 
 
 13. Evidence admissible. — An allega- 
 tion that the defendant not only failed 
 and refused to comply with its obliga- 
 tion, but converted to its own use the 
 goods, was sufficient to admit proof not 
 only of conversion, but of loss by negli- 
 gent breach of the contract of transporta- 
 tion. M. P. R. Co. r. Barnes & Co., 2 
 Texas .\pp. Civ. Cas., § 575. 
 
 In an action for damages to fruit from 
 defective drainpipes in a refrigerator car, 
 which plaintiff, the consignee, after tlie 
 relations of carrier and warehouseman 
 had terminated, had rented for the stor- 
 age of fruit at the destination, a petition 
 alleging defendant's negligence in failing 
 to repair the pipes was sufficient to admit 
 
 proof of any facts going to show the neg- 
 ligence, including the promise of defend- 
 ant's agent to repair, though no such 
 promise was mentioned in the pleadings; 
 the duty to repair not depending on a 
 specific promise, but arising from the 
 fact that the pipes were defective after 
 knowledge l)y defendant. Missouri, etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Tripis (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 
 S. W. liti). 
 
 That defendant not in control of road. 
 —Plaintiff alleged the undertaking on the 
 part of defendant to carry the goods 
 safely, the negligence of the company, 
 and consequent loss of the goods. De- 
 fendant specifically denied each allega- 
 tion. Held, that evidence that the road 
 was not in the control of defendant, but 
 of a receiver, was admissible. Kansas 
 Pac. R. Co. z: Searle, 11 Colo. 1, 16 Pac. 
 32S. 
 
 That notice given of peculiar value of 
 goods. — In an action for damages for 
 shelling corn shipped in the ear, plaintiff 
 may show that he notified defendant 
 that the corn shipped was for seed, and 
 not for ordinary purposes, though such 
 notice was not averred in the petition 
 which alleged that the corn was of pecu- 
 liar value for such purposes. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. f. Nevin, 31 Kan. 385, 2 Pac. 
 795. 
 
 That goods lost by inevitable accident. 
 — In an action against a coninion carrier 
 for the loss of goods, it is error to ex- 
 clude evidence for the purpose of proving 
 that the goods were lost by inevitable ac- 
 cident, where the defense pleaded was 
 that the goods were lost b\- inevitable 
 accident. Xeal v. Saunderson (Miss.), 2 
 Smedes i1- M. 572. 41 .\m. Dec. 609. 
 
 That plaintiff claimed damages on dif- 
 ferent grounds. — Where, in an action 
 against a carrier for damages to plain- 
 tiff's shipment of apples, the complaint 
 charged defendant with negligence in 
 closing the air vents in the cars, whereby
 
 §§ 1053-1054 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 812 
 
 inadmissible ^-^ under pleadings are set out in the notes. 
 
 § 1054. Matters to Be Proved. — Proof is not required of allegations of 
 the class that are usually denominated impertinent, and which may be struck out 
 as surplusage, but allegations that form the very substance of the contract of 
 carriage must be proved.^"' In an action against a carrier, for a breach of his 
 duty as such, although negligence be averred in the complaint, it is not necessary 
 to show anv positive misconduct, to sustain the averment.^'' In Kentucky by 
 statute it is' provided that allegations concerning the value or amount of dam- 
 ages, accompanied by a statement of facts showing an implied promise to pay 
 
 the apples were spoiled, defendants were 
 properly permitted, on cross-examination 
 of one of plaintiff's witnesses, to ask if 
 plaintiff had not, at another trial, claimed 
 damages on different grounds, without 
 any special allegation in regard thereto 
 in defendant's answer. Cane Hill, etc., 
 Co. v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). 95 S. W. 731. 
 
 Under general allegation of ownership. 
 — In an action l)y a consignee of per- 
 ishable freight against the carrier and 
 consignor to recover for damages thereto, 
 the consignee's title was in issue; the 
 claim being that the property belonged 
 to the consignor. In a supplemental pe- 
 tition, and by way of estoppel, the con- 
 signee alleged that he had presented a 
 claim to the company, which it had re- 
 fused to pay, saying that, if the goods 
 were damaged, it was the fault of the 
 carrier, from which the consignee must 
 collect his claim, whereby the consignee 
 was induced to sue the carrier. Held, 
 that the facts so alleged were admissible 
 under the consignee's general allegation 
 of ownership. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Dorsey, 70 S. W. 57.5. 30 Tex. Civ. App. 
 377. 
 
 Proof of custom. — Where the petition 
 in an action for damages to butter, caused 
 by being carried in an ordinary freight 
 car, charges defendant with negligence in 
 not taking proper precautions to pre- 
 serve the butter, evidence of a custom 
 among railroads of putting butter into 
 cold storage, when refrigerator cars are 
 not ready to receive it, is admissible. 
 Beard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 79 Iowa 
 518, 44 N. W. 800, 7 L. R. A. 280, 18 Am. 
 St. Rep. :'.8]. 
 
 14. Evidence inadmissible. — On a com- 
 plaint in two counts — First, on the writ- 
 ten contract; and, second, on the carrier's 
 common-law liability — evidence of a prior 
 oral agreement is inadmissible, even un- 
 der the second count, to vary the writ- 
 ten contract. Snow v. Indiana, etc., R. 
 Co., 109 Ind. 422, 9 N. E. 702. 
 
 In an action against a common carrier 
 for the loss of freight stored in its ware- 
 house, evidence that defendant owned the 
 building in which the fire started that 
 destroyed defendant's warehouse, and 
 had leased it to a lard company' whose 
 use of it made it dangerous to the ware- 
 house, was inadmissible where defend- 
 
 ant's negligence in that respect was not 
 pleaded. Standard Milling Co. v. White 
 Line Cent., etc., Co., 122 Mo. 258, 26 S. 
 W. 704. 
 
 Plaintiff having ordered a l)oat which 
 was shipped by defendant's steamship 
 line, found when it arrived that it was 
 seriously damaged, and refused to re- 
 ceive it; whereupon defendant agreed 
 that if it did not replace the boat with 
 a new or perfect one within a reason- 
 able time, it would pay plaintiff the 
 value of the damaged boat. It was held 
 that evidence of cost of the boat was 
 properly excluded, there was nothing in 
 the pleadings to authorize the introduc- 
 tion of such evidence. The defendant 
 could not introduce evidence of another 
 and different contract than the one al- 
 leged by plaintiff unless it had itself al- 
 leged it. New York, etc.. Steamship Co. 
 V. Island City Boating, etc., Ass'n, 2 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 490, 491, 21 S. W. 1007. 
 
 Bill of lading. — In assumpsit against a 
 railroad company to recover goods al- 
 leged to have been lost by defendant, 
 who had engaged as common carrier to 
 transport the same for hire, where the 
 declaration contains only the common 
 counts, without regard to the bill of lad- 
 ing, and which contains valid exceptions 
 against loss or damages by fire, etc., the 
 bill is not admissible in evidence, not be- 
 ing applicable to any of the counts. Bal- 
 timore, etc., R. Co. V. Rathlione, 1 W. 
 Va. 87, 88 Am. Dec. 664. 
 
 Loss of profits. — An averment that 
 plaintiff was under contract did not war- 
 rant evidence of proof of loss of profits, 
 in the al)sence of proof of knowledge by 
 the carrier thereof at the time of ship- 
 ment. Williamsport, etc.. Lumber Co. v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 71 W. Va. 741, 77 
 S. E. 3:i:!. 
 
 15. Matters to be proved. — Stout v. 
 Coffin, 2S Cal. 65, 68. 
 
 Where a complaint alleges that the 
 carrier, warehouseman, and forwarding 
 defendant received goods as a common 
 merchant, to be kept by him and con- 
 veyed to a certain place and delivered to 
 the plaintiff, no recovery can be had 
 against the former for the loss of the 
 goods, without proof that he contracted 
 to carry them. Stout v. Coffin, 28 Cal. 65. 
 
 16. Merritt 7'. liarle, 31 Barb. 38, af- 
 firmed in 29 N. Y. 115, 86 Am. Dec. 292.
 
 813 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1054-1055 
 
 such \aluc or daiiiaji^c, need not be proved unless traversed.'" 
 
 § 1055. Variance. — In an action against a carrier for loss of or damage to 
 goods, the general rule api^lies that the proof must correspond to the allegations 
 and that any material \ariance is fatal to plaintiff's recover)."* The jjlaintiff 
 
 17. Kentucky statute,— Civ. Code, § 12G. 
 Merchants' Uispatcli '1 ransp. Co. v. Hos- 
 kins, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 799, 41 S. W. 31, 
 44 S. W. :i<;2. 
 
 A petition setting up the value of 
 goods, and a written contract under wliich 
 defendant agreed to carry and deliver 
 them safely to plaintiff — the contract 
 limiting defendant's responsiljility for the 
 goods in a 'number of particulars — con- 
 tains an implied promise of defendant 
 to be responsilile for the goods, except 
 under the contingencies guarded against, 
 within Civ. Code, § 120. Merchants' Dis- 
 patch Transp. Co. v. Hoskins, 41 S. W. 
 31, 44 S. W. 3(52, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 799. 
 
 Formerly it was provided by Civ. 
 Code ls.-)4. § 153, that the value of the 
 articles alleged to have been lost must 
 be proved, though alleged in the declara- 
 tion and not noticed in the answer. 
 Huston V. Peters (Ky.) 1 Mote, n.'.s. 
 
 18. Material variance — Illustrations. — 
 In an action for damages for the loss of 
 a chest shipped by defendant's railroad, 
 where the allegation in the petition is 
 that the company undertook to carry the 
 chest to Camden, and the bill of lading 
 introduced by plaintiff as evidence of the 
 contract shows the agreement to have 
 ])een to carry the chest to New York, the 
 terminus of defendant's road, there is 
 a fatal variance, and it is immaterial that 
 on the margin of the bill of lading are 
 the words, "To be shipped for Camden 
 from New York." Jenneson v. Camden, 
 etc., Transp. Co. (Pa.). 5 Clark 409. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for dam- 
 ages to plaintiff's sliipment of apples, 
 damages arising after arrival of the ap- 
 ples and before their delivery could not 
 1)6 recovered under an allegation of the 
 petition that the apples were damaged on 
 their arrival at destination. Cane Hill, 
 etc., Orchard Co. v. San .\ntonio, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. .^pp.), 95 S. W. 751. 
 
 There was a variance between an alle- 
 gation that the damage was caused from 
 delay in transportation and proof that it 
 arose from lack of refrigeration which 
 was not alleged. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 McLean, 55 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 130, 118 S. 
 W. If.l. 
 
 Where the petition for injuries to goods 
 alleges an express agreement of carriage, 
 no recovery can be had, in the absence of 
 proof of an express agreement. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Rackusin (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 145 ?. \V. 734. 
 
 Immaterial variance. — In an action 
 against a carrier for injuries sustained liy 
 cattle and hogs during transportation, it 
 is not a material variance that they are 
 descriliod in the written contract of ship- 
 
 ment as one car load of cattle; the ac- 
 tion being treated as one of tort, and not 
 as founded on the contract. Central R. 
 Co. V. Pickett, »7 Ga. 734, 13 S. E. 750. 
 
 .\ variance in an action for damages 
 to goods shipped in that the initials of 
 the consignee on the wayl^ill were differ- 
 ent from those of plaintiff, though the 
 surname was the same, was not necessa- 
 rily material or fatal. Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Barfield, 58 S. E. 230, 1 Ga. App. 
 203. 
 
 In a suit against a carrier, the declara- 
 tion stated the goods to have been de- 
 livered to the defendant on board a 
 schooner, to be safely carried from one 
 port to another on Lake Erie, "the dan- 
 gers of the seas only excepted." The ex- 
 ceptive clause contained in the bill of lad- 
 ing offered in evidence was, "The dan- 
 gers of the lakes and rivers only ex- 
 cepted." Held, that the variance was im- 
 material. Harrison v. Hixson (Ind.), 4 
 Blackf. 22G. 
 
 In an action against a common car- 
 rier to recover for goods lost by fire at 
 the end of the transit, but before the lia- 
 bility of the carrier had terminated, the 
 plaintiff alleged a verbal contract by the 
 carrier to carry the goods, by an all-rail 
 route, at an agreed rate, within a speci- 
 fied time. The defendant denied that he 
 carried the goods under the contract as 
 alleged, but admitted that he carried 
 them under bills of lading not differing 
 from the verbal contract as to rate or 
 time, but which provided for carrying 
 them over his usual route, not all-rail, 
 and claimed exemption from the loss by 
 the terms of such bills of lading. Held, 
 that the answer was substantially in 
 avoidance of liability for loss at the end 
 of the transit; and therefore plaintiff 
 was entitled to recover, unless the proof 
 showed that such exemption was a part 
 of the contract for shipment, and that the 
 carrier was without fault, although the 
 special provision as to an all-rail route 
 had not been proved as alleged. Gaines 
 V. Union Transp., etc.. Co., 2S O. St. 418. 
 
 In an action against "a carrier for loss 
 of goods by fire after they were delivered 
 to defendant, the petition alleged that the 
 goods were accepted by defendant, and 
 that it had agreed with plaintiff for val- 
 uable consideration to transport and de- 
 liver the same to their destination, nam- 
 ing the place to which each car was des- 
 tined, and that defendant negligently de- 
 laved the transportation, where!)}- both 
 the said cars were destroyed. The testi- 
 mony, which was not objected to at the 
 trial, showed that the cars were delivered 
 to defendant, not for shipment to their
 
 § 1055 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 814 
 
 can not declare upon one cause of action and recover upon another.^''^' So where 
 the complaint declares on the common-law liability of the carrier if it appears 
 that the shipment was made under a special contract or bill of lading, no recov- 
 er}' can be had.-*^ And in an action against a carrier as such, no recovery can 
 be had on evidence showing liability as a warehouseman. 21 Conditions in the 
 contract of carriage limiting the carrier's liability should be stated, and where 
 the declaration sets out merely an ordinary engagement of a common carrier, 
 proof of a contract containing a special exception of the general liability of com- 
 mon carriers constitutes a fatal variance.22 A suit for goods alleged to have 
 been lost bv a carrier out of shipments covering a season can not be maintained 
 as a suit on special contract for a particular shipment, where the allegation as 
 to the loss is <7eneral, and it can not be shown out of which shipment the loss 
 occurred.-^ 
 
 was to receive for this purpose was no 
 part of th" regular f-iglU rate to - 
 paid for the transportation ot the cars 
 but certain f^xed switching charges. The 
 evidence further showed the deln^ery o^ 
 the cars to defendant and their loss oy 
 fire Held, that the suit was or negli- 
 gent loss and not for the failure to 
 fr'ansport'to points of destination and 
 that the allegations as to the P^^^^ m 
 destination were immaterial, and that 
 
 Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). H-l ^- ^^ ■ 
 
 '^^A shipper sued a common carrier on its 
 common law liability for negligence re- 
 suS in injuries to the property shipped. 
 In defense a written contract between the 
 cartfes was shown, which was not, how- 
 ever effective to vary the common-law 
 iTab iity of the carrier in the premises^ 
 Held, that the variance, ^f/^f' ^f 5°^ 
 fatal. San Antonio etc., R. Co J. Uo 
 Ian (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 302. 
 
 Effect of failure to object.— In an ac 
 tion against a carrier, under a complain 
 Thich Alleges that, before the arnva^ o^ 
 the <^oods at their original destination, 
 tte consfgnee had left that P ace and he 
 carrier was directed to forward the 
 gooTs from thence to him at another 
 olace but that he neglected so to do 
 tTkctcd so negligently that the good 
 were lost, evidence that, when the prop 
 erty had reached its destination, the con- 
 signee's agent demanded a delivery of it, 
 whkh was refused by reason of the neg- 
 Ugence of the defendant, will sustain a 
 re^covery against the carrier; there be ng 
 no objection taken at the trial to the 
 variance. Rosebrooks J- Dinsmore (N 
 Y ) 4 Abb. Dec. 118, 36 How. Prac. 138, 
 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 59. 
 
 19. Harris v. Hannibal, etc., K. Co., 6t 
 
 ^%heJt a plaintiff sets forth in his pe- 
 tition that the defendant, a railroad com- 
 pany by failing to use ordinary care and 
 diligence in the management of its rail 
 
 road cars, caused the plaintiff to lose a 
 negro slave who escaped from the com- 
 pany's custody during transportation, but 
 the instructions are predicated on the 
 ground of a contract, and the respon- 
 sibilities of a bailee or common carrier 
 are applied to the defendant, a judgment 
 for the plaintiff will be set aside, although 
 there was no demurrer to the petition. 
 Harris z'. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 37 Mo. 
 307. 
 
 20. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 
 14 Ind. App. 406, 42 N. E. 1106; Snow v. 
 Indiana, etc., R., Co., 109 Ind. 422, 9 N. 
 E. 702. 
 
 21. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 
 122 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132; 
 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Grabfelder, 83 
 Ala. 200, 3 So. 432; Stout v. Coffin, 28 
 Cal. 65; Gratiot St. Warehouse Co. v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 221 111. 418, 77 
 N. E. 67.5. 
 
 Complaint alleging liability as carrier. 
 — A complaint in assumpsit declaring on 
 an undertaking to carry three boxes of 
 goods to a certain point, there to be de- 
 livered, which was superseded by another 
 undertaking to reship the goods and de- 
 liver them back to the shipper at another 
 point, and alleging that the carrier neg- 
 ligently lost part of the goods during 
 such reshipment, declares on a liability 
 as carrier, and not as warehouseman. 
 Aronson z'. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 70 
 Pa. 68. 
 
 22. Declaring on unconditional con- 
 tract — proving contract limiting liability. 
 — Connecticut. — Camp v. Hartford, etc., 
 Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333. 
 
 Maryland. — Ferguson v. Cappeau (Md.), 
 6 Har. & J. 394. 
 
 A'czv York. — Fairchild v. Slocum (N. 
 Y.), 19 Wend. 329. 
 
 Ohio. — Davidson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 
 131. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Stump v. Hutchinson, 
 11 Pa. 533. 
 
 West Virginia. — Baltimore, etc., Co. v. 
 Rathbone, 1 W. Va. 87, 88 Am. Dec. 664; 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Skeels, 3 W. 
 Va. 556. 
 
 23. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gross (Miss), 
 22 So. 946.
 
 815 
 
 LOSS OR INTL'RV TO GOODS. 
 
 1055-1056 
 
 Failure to Prove Allegation of Negligence. — Where, in a declaration in 
 an action against a common carrier, averments which attect only tiie rule of 
 care and negligence which should govern the case are inserted, the failure to 
 prove the allegation of negligence is no variance, and the plaintitif may recover 
 without such proof, provided the evidence shows a case under the general rule 
 respecting the ]ial)ility of carriers.-* 
 
 Omission to Set Out Indorsement on Freight Receipt. — As matter printed 
 on the hack oi the freight reccipl i> not ;i ])ari of ilie c(jiitract, omitting to set 
 out the indorsement in the declaration as part of the contract can give rise to 
 no variance.-^ 
 
 A recovery based on evidence broader than the allegations of the pe- 
 tition can ntjt he sustained.-'' So, under counts against a defendant merely as 
 carrier or hailee of property, the shipper can not recover for losses resulting 
 from the misrepresentation of the defendant's agent, wherehy the plaintiff was 
 induced to ship on a slow instead of a fast train.-' 
 
 §§ 1056-1067. Evidence— §§ 1056-1060. Presumptions and Burden 
 of Proof. -^—§ 1056. Plaintiff's Burden of Proof in General.— Prima 
 Facie Case. — In an action against a cunimon carrier the plaintitV makes a prima 
 facie case by proving that the goods were received by the carrier for transpor- 
 tation and that it failed to deliver them according to its undertaking.^'^ 
 
 24. Failure to prove allegation of neg- 
 ligence. — Saryent f. Birchard, 4;{ Vt. 
 oTO. 
 
 25. Failure to set out indorsement. — 
 Western Transp. Co. v. Xewliall, :M 111. 
 466, 76 Am. Dec. 760. 
 
 26. Atchison v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 
 Mo. 213. 
 
 27. Maslin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 14 
 W. Va. ISO, 35 Am. Rep. 748. 
 
 28. Presumptions and burden of proof. — 
 Generally as to carriers by water. — See 
 post, "Carriers l)y Water," Part \'II. 
 
 In action agcunst carrier of live stock. 
 — See post, ".\ctioiis," chapter 20. 
 
 29. Prima facie case. — United States. — 
 The K. Al. Xortoii, l.". l-ed. 686. 
 
 Alabama. — Southern R. Co. v. Levy, 144 
 Ala. 614, 39 So. 95, 17 R. R. R. 50, 40 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 50; Mouton 
 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 537, 29 
 S.. 602, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 673 
 
 Georgia. — Coweta County v. Central, 
 etc., R. Co., 4 Ga. App. 94, 60 S. E. 1018. 
 
 Illinois. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Radbourne, 52 111. App. 203. 
 
 Indiana. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Liveright, 
 14 Ind. App. 518, 41 N. E. 350, 43 X. E. 
 162. 
 
 lozva. — Angle v. Mississippi, etc.. R. 
 Co., 18 Iowa 555. 
 
 Kentucky. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Craw- 
 ford, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 619; Crawford v. 
 Adams Exp. Co., 7 Ky. L. Rep. 362. 
 
 .l/(;i»t'.— Little :■. Boston, etc., Railroad, 
 66 Me. 239; George v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 57 Mo. App. 358; Bennett v. Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co.. 83 Me. 236, 22 Atl. 159, 49 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 56, 13 L. R. A. 33; 
 Tarbox v. Eastern Steamboat Co., 50 Me. 
 339. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Cass v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mass.). 14 .-Mien 448. 
 
 Minnesota. — Witakcr v. Chicago, etc.. 
 R. Co., 115 Minn. 140, 131 X. \V. 1061. 
 
 .)Iissouri. — Kirby v. Adams Exp. Co., 
 2 Mo. App. 369. 
 
 AVtc ForA'.— Merritt v. Earle, 31 Barb. 
 38; Westcott v. Fargo, 63 Barb. 349, 6 
 Lans. 319. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Grogan v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 114 Pa. 523, 7 Atl. 134, 60 Am. 
 Rep. 360; .^dams Exp. Co. v. Holmes 
 (Pa.), 9 Atl. 166; Bell v. Reed (Pa.), 
 4 Bin. 127, 5 Am. Dec. 398; Adams Exp. 
 Co. V. Holmes (Pa.). 9 Atl. 166. 
 
 South Carolina. — McCall v. Brock (S. 
 C), 5 Strob. 119; Ewart v. Street (.S. C). 
 2 Bailey 157, 23 Am. Dec. 131; Smyrl v. 
 Niolon (S. C), 2 Bailey 421, 23 .\m. Dec. 
 146. 
 
 Tcvas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Scott, 
 4 Tex. Civ. App. 76. 26 S. W. 239; Rvan 
 & Co. v. M.. K. & T. R. Co., 65 Tex. 13, 
 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 703; Galveston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Home. 69 Tex. 643, 9 S. \V. 
 440; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. China Mfg. 
 Co., 79 Tex. 26, 14 S. W. 785; Galveston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Efron (Tex. Civ. .App.). 38 
 S. VV. 639; Head v. Pacific Exp. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 682; Fenti- 
 man v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 44 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 455, 98 S. W. 939; Gulf. etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.). 85 
 S. W. 479; M. P. R. Co. V. Barnes & Co.. 2 
 Texas -"^pp. Civ. Cas., § 575. 
 
 J'ir(^inia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239. 
 
 Ji'isconsin. — Black v. Goodrich Transp. 
 Co., 55 Wis. 319, 13 X. W. 244, 42 .\m. 
 Rep. 713. 
 
 Loss of money delivered to express 
 company. — In an action a.uaiiist an ex- 
 press company for tlie loss of money de-
 
 1056 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 816 
 
 Delivery to Carrier. — In an action against a common carrier for loss or in- 
 jury to goods, plaintiff must, in the first instance, show that they were delivered 
 to the carrier.^o . , . , , • r -, w 
 
 Nondelivery by Carrier.— The burden ot showmg that the carrier failed to 
 deliver the goods to the consignee rests upon the plaintiff' in an action for their 
 loss; 3^ but slight evidence will be sufficient to throw upon the carrier the burden 
 
 livered to it for transportation, it is 
 only necessary for plaintiff to prove the 
 delivery of the money to defendant and 
 its failure to deliver it to the consignee. 
 United States z: Pacific Exp. Co., 15 Fed. 
 Rep. SOT. 
 
 30. Delivery to carrier. — United States. 
 —United States z: Pacific Exp. Co., 15 
 Fed. 867; Manning v. Hoover, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 90-14, Abb. Adm. 188; The Willie D. 
 Sandhoval. 92 Fed. 2S6. 
 
 Alahmiia. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Echols, 97 Ala. 556, 12 So. 304. 
 
 Crt/!/o;-jna.— Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 
 108. 
 
 Florida.— Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 ris, 26 Fla. 148, 7 So. 544, 42 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 457, 23 Am. St. Rep. 551. 
 
 Georgia. — Ocean "Steamship Co. v. Wil- 
 der, 107 Ga. 220, 33 S. E. 179; Southern 
 R. Co. V. Allison, 115 Ga. 635, 42 S. E. 
 
 15. 
 
 /HdiflHa.— Fitzgerald v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 24 Ind. 447, 87 Am. Dec. 341. 
 
 Michigan. — Bonfiglio v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 125 Mich. 476, 84 N. W. 722; 
 Marquette v. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, 7 
 N. W. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 453. 
 
 Minnesota.— Boehl v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 191, 46 N. W- 333. 
 
 Nezv York.— Ahrams v. Piatt, 23 Misc. 
 Rep. 637, 52 N. Y. S. 153; Canfield v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. Rep. 238; Jean, etc., Co. v. Flagg, 45 
 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 421. 
 
 South Carolina.— Hipp v. Southern R. 
 Co., 50 S. C. 129, 27 S. E. 623. 
 
 Tennessee.— IWinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Southern, etc., Co., 104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. 
 W. 303, 50 L. R. A. 729. 
 
 Where a shipment consists of a num- 
 ber of articles, and the bill of lading 
 issued by the carrier makes no further 
 reference to the character or identity of 
 the separate articles composing the ship- 
 ment than the approximate weight of the 
 shipment as a whole, the shipper should 
 show, otherwise than by the bill of ladmg, 
 that all of the articles contained in the 
 shipment were in fact delivered by him 
 to the carrier. Tryon Co. v. Hutchinson 
 Lumber, etc., Co., 8 Ga. App. 643, 70 
 S. E. H7. 
 
 Essential to existence of contract. — In 
 absence oi proof that goods were deliv- 
 ered to defendant carrier, or delivered in 
 good condition, any presumption that it 
 received them goes behind its duty and 
 enters into the origin of the contract for 
 carriage, since there is nothing for the 
 contract to act upon until the goods 
 
 come into the carrier's charge and until 
 that is proved, the contract is not. Mar- 
 quette V. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, 7 N. 
 W. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 453. 
 
 Presumption where portion of freight 
 received or delivered. — Wliere a lot of 
 goods were shipped together and em- 
 braced in the same way-bill, and part 
 of them were delivered to the consignee 
 and part not, the presumption is that the 
 entire lot were received by the carrier. 
 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hepner, 3 Colo. 
 App. 313, 33 Pac. ^. 
 
 Where several packages are shipped by 
 freight, and one bill of lading is issued, 
 and the connecting carrier received a 
 portion of the shipment, it will be pre- 
 sumed to have received it all. Bradley 
 V. Northwestern R. Co., 57 S. E. 1101, 
 77 S. C. 317. 
 
 31. Burden of proving nondelivery by 
 carrier. — Alabama. — Barron v. Mobile, 
 etc., R. Co., 2 Ala. App. 555, 56 So. 862. 
 
 California. — Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 
 108. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dick- 
 inson, 74 111. 249. 
 
 Louisiana. — Silverman v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1785, 26 So. 447. 
 
 Maine. — See Tarbox v. Eastern Steam- 
 boat Co., 50 Me. 339. 
 
 .Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Schumacher, 29 Md. 168, 96 Am. Dec. 
 510. 
 
 Mississippi. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Provine, 61 Miss. 288. 
 
 Nezv York. — Hirsch v. Hudson River 
 Line, 26 Misc. Rep. 823, 57 N. Y. S. 272; 
 Place V. Union Exp. Co. (N. Y.), 2 Hilt. 
 19. 
 
 Xorth Dakota. — Morris v. Minneapolis, 
 etc., R. Co. (N. Dak.), 141 N. W. 204.- 
 
 Ohio. — See Zeigler v. Freeman, 12 O. 
 C. C, N. S., 122, 21-31 O. C. D. 342; 
 Klunk V. Hocking Valley R. Co., 74 O. 
 St. 125, 135, 77 N. E. 752. _ 
 
 Pennsxlvania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Raiordon, 119 Pa. 577, 13 Atl. 324, 4 Am. 
 St. Rep. 670. 
 
 Tf-vflj.- Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Phil- 
 ipson (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. 958; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Capper, 38 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 61, 84 S. W. 694; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Douglas & Sons, 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 28. 
 
 rcrmont.— Day Catlin & Co. v. Ridley, 
 16 Vt. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489. 
 
 In a shipper's action for a shortage in 
 a shipment of grain upon arrival at desti- 
 nation, the burden was on plaintiff to 
 prove that a portion of the grain received
 
 817 
 
 LOSS OR IXJURV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1056 
 
 of showing delivery to the consignee.-'- The fact that the goods have not ar- 
 rived at destination after tlie hipse of a reas(jnahle time warrants the inference 
 that they have heen lost."'-' Where it was shown that it was the custom of de- 
 fendant carrier to notify consignees of arrivals of their goods, the presumption 
 is that, if the goods had arrived, notice would have heen given. ^* Proof by the 
 plaintiff that the defendants' boat was capsized, and the {property flamaged, and 
 a portion thereof carried to a place out of their course, throws the burden of 
 proof on the dc-f(.'ndaiU> tn accdiuit for the property. •'-'' 
 
 Delivery to Carrier in Good Condition. — It is held that the plaintiff must 
 introduce e\ idence tending to i)r(jve that the projjcrty was in an undamaged con- 
 dition when received by the carrier and was in a damaged condition when de- 
 livered to the consignee.-'" \\'herc the i)laintiff proves a bill of lading for trans- 
 portation to destination, and a delivery of certain goods there a month after- 
 wards in a damaged condition, in the absence of contrary evidence the presump- 
 tion is that tlu'x- wvvc tlu- goods covered by the bill.''" 
 
 Actionable Negligence. — The jdaintiff is not ordinarily re(|uired to show, 
 in the first instance, that the injury upon which the action is based was due to 
 negligence for which the carrier is responsible.-'" But it is held where 
 
 by defciulant was not delivered. Morris 
 V. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co. (X. Dak.), 
 141 N. W. 204. 
 
 Contra. — Wlieelcr r. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co.. ,-{ Ml). App. ;{.-).s. 
 
 32. Slight evidence sufficient. — The Fal- 
 con, Fed. Cas. Xo. 4<117. 3 Blatchf. G4; 
 Woodbury z: Frink, 14 111. 279; Chicapro, 
 etc.. R. Co. 7'. Dickinson, 74 111. 249; Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. V. Provine, 61 Miss. 
 288. 
 
 33. Southern R. Co. v. Montag, 1 Ga. 
 App. 649, o7 S. E. 933. 
 
 34. Jonesville Mfg. Co. v. Soutliern 
 Railway, 58 S. E. 422, 77 S. C. 480. 
 
 35. Day Catlin & Co. v. Ridley, 16 Vt. 
 4S, 42 Am. Dec. 4S9. 
 
 36. Delivery to carrier in good condi- 
 tion. — I'niU'd States. — The \'incenzo, 10 
 Ben. 228, Fed. Cas. Xo. 16,948. 
 
 CoJiiiccticut. — Mears v. New York, etc.. 
 R. Co., 75 Conn. 171. 52 Atl. 610. 56 L. R. 
 A. 884, 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ben- 
 jamin, 63 111. 283. 
 
 Louisiana. — See Silverman v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1785, 26 So. 
 447. 
 
 Maine. — Little v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 66 Me. 239. 
 
 .Miclii^an. — Marquette v. Kirkwood, 45 
 Mich. 5^1, 7 N. W. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 453; 
 Marquette z'. Langton, 32 Mich. 251. 
 
 .Minnesota. — Paterson v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 95 Minn. 57, 103 N. W. 621. 
 
 Xezv York. — Brooks v. Dinsmore, 6 X. 
 Y. St. Rep. 281; Hirsch v. Hudson River 
 Line, 26 Misc. Rep. 823, 57 N. Y. 
 S. 272; Smith v. Xew York Cent. R. 
 Co., 43 Barb. 225. affirmed in 41 X. Y. 
 620; Thyll v. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 84 
 N. Y. S. 175. 
 
 Oregon. — Goodman r. Oregon, R., etc.. 
 Co., 22 Ore. 14, 28 Pac. 894. 
 
 Te.ras. — Bath v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 
 34 Te.x. Civ. .\pp. 234, 78 S. W. 993; Mis- 
 
 1 Car— 52 
 
 souri Pac. R. Co. v. Breeding. 4 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 154, 16 S. W. 184; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. f. Capper, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 
 61, 84 S. W. 694. See I. & G. X. R. Co. 
 V. Blanton, etc.. Co., 63 Tex. 109. See 
 post, "Condition of Goods When Re- 
 ceived by Carrier," § 1058. 
 
 Wet hay. — In an action against a rail- 
 road company for negligence in carrj^ng 
 hay. whereby it was wet and damaged, 
 it is essential for plaintiff to show the 
 condition of the hay when delivered to 
 the compan}-. Marquette v. Langton, 2 
 Mich. -Zr,!. 
 
 Bill of lading endorsed "-weight and 
 contents unknown." — In WcntwiTth t-. 
 Realm, 16 La. -\nn. 18, it appeared that a 
 shipper took a bill of lading with the 
 endorsement upon the margin '\veight 
 and contents unknown." and on the ar- 
 rival of the vessel at X'ew Orleans the 
 freight was condemned by the Port War- 
 den to be sold as damaged goods. It 
 was held that, under such bill of lading, 
 the common carrier has complied with its 
 contract when it has delivered the box 
 containing the goods externally in good 
 order and condition at the time of the 
 proof rests upon the consignee to show 
 that the contents of the liox were in good 
 order and condition at the time of the 
 shipment. 
 
 Where the defense is that the goods 
 reached destination in good condition it 
 is immaterial wiiether the burden of prov- 
 ing that the goods were in good condi- 
 tion when they were reached by the car- 
 rier is placed on plaintiff or defendant. 
 St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. 7'. Musgrove, 153 
 Ala. 274. 45 So. 229. 
 
 37. Identity of goods. — Barrow 7-. Phil- 
 leo. 14 Tex. 345. 
 
 38. Westcott 7'. Fargo (X. Y.), 63 Barb. 
 349, (■) Lans. 319; Tarbox v. Eastern 
 Steamlioat Co.. 50 Me. 339; Doan v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co.. 38 Mo. .\pp. 408.
 
 § 1056 
 
 CARRIER?. 
 
 818 
 
 the suit for loss of or injury to freight is hased upon the alleged negligence of 
 the carrier, or that of its employees, plaintiff lias the hurden of proying such 
 allegation,-''^ and that the negligence aheged \yas the proximate cause of the in- 
 jury.-*" 
 
 Value of Lost Freight.— Plaintiff, in an action to recover the value of freight 
 lost \yhile in the defendant carrier's custody, must prove its value.-* ^ In the ab- 
 sence of all evidence to the contrary, the law \vill presume that bank notes de- 
 livered to a common carrier for transportation are worth their nominal value.-^^ 
 The carrier's refusal to count money delivered to it in a sealed package for car- 
 riage,- at the request of the consignee, will not create any presumption against 
 it as to the amount contained in the package.'*-'' 
 
 That Defendant a Common Carrier.— In an action to recover against de- 
 fendant as a common carrier, plaintiff must prove that such was defendant's 
 statu s.^^ 
 
 39. Suit based on alleged negligence. — 
 
 Uitifcd States.— The New Orleans, 2(') 
 Fed. 44. 
 
 Alabama. — Frederick v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 31 So. 968, 133 Alji- 486. 
 
 /oTca.— Taft Co. v. American Exp. Co., 
 133 Iowa 522, 110 X. W. 897, 10 L. R. A.. 
 N. S., 614. 
 
 Michigan. — George v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 108 Mich. 572. 66 N. W. 479. 
 
 Minnesota.— Roehl v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 191, 46 N. W. 333. 
 
 Missouri. — George v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 57 Mo. App. 358; Farr v. Adams Exp. 
 Co., 100 Mo. App. 574. 75 S. W. 183; 
 Ficklin v. Wabash R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 
 211, 93 S. W. 861. 
 
 0/2/0.— Childs V. Little Miami R. Co., 
 1 Cin. R. 480, 13 O. Dec. 672. 
 
 Vermont. — Mann v. Birchard, 40 \ t. 
 326. 94 Am. Dec. 398. 
 
 Where, in an action against a common 
 carrier for the value of goods delivered 
 for transportation, plaintiff alleges that 
 the goods were destroyed by fire through 
 the negligence of the defendant, and the 
 defendant denies any negligence on its 
 part, and alleges that the goods were de- 
 stroyed while in its warehouse after hav- 
 ing been transported to their destination, 
 the burden is upon the plaintiff to show 
 defendant's negligence. Denton v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 52 Iowa 161, 2 N. W. 
 1093, 35 Am. Rep. 263. 
 
 40. Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 19 S. Dak. 122, 102 N. W. 595, 18 R. R. 
 R. 48, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 48. 
 
 41. Value of lost freight. — United 
 States.— The E. M. Norton. 15 Fed. 686; 
 Seller v. Pacific, Fed. Cas. Xo. 12,644, 
 Deady 17, 1 Or. 409. 
 
 Georgia. — Purcell v. Southern Exp. Co., 
 34 Ga. 315; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 ///!«oi5.— Adams Exp. Co. v. Stettan- 
 ers, 61 111. 184, 14 Am. Rep. 57. 
 
 Iowa. — Cownie Glove v. Merchants', 
 etc Transp. Co., 130 Iowa 327, 106 N. 
 W. 749, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 1060, 114 Am. 
 St. Rep. 419. 
 
 Louisiana. — Chapman v. Xew Orleans, 
 
 etc., R. Co., 21 La. Ann. 224, 99 Am. Dec. 
 722; Kirk v. Folsom, 23 La. Ann. 584. 
 
 Maine. — Little v. Boston, etc., Rail- 
 road, 66 Me. 239. 
 
 Missouri. — Grier v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 108 Mo. App. 565, 84 S. W. 158; 
 Kirby v. Adams Exp. Co., 2 Mo. App. 
 369; Lupe v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. 
 App. 77; McFall v. Wabash R. Co., 117 
 Mo. App. 477, 94 S. W. 570. 
 
 Tt'.n/jr.— Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Glosson. 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 324. 
 
 Failure to take bill of lading — Amount 
 of grain. — A shipper of a cargo of grain, 
 who takes no bill of lading from the car- 
 rier, is bound, in an action brought for 
 short delivery, to prove the amount de- 
 livered by him to the carrier to be trans- 
 ported. Manning v. Hoover, Fed. Cas. 
 Xo. 9044, Abb. Adm. 188. 
 
 42. Value of bank notes. — Harris v. 
 Moody. 17 N. Y. Super. Ct. 210; S. C, 
 30 N. Y. 266, 86 Am. Dec. 375. 
 
 43. Money in sealed package — Failure 
 of carrier to count. — Fitzgerald z\ Adams 
 Exp. Co., 24 Ind. 447, 87 Am. Dec. 341. 
 
 44. That defendant a common carrier. — 
 United States.— Chizens' Bank v. Xantuc- 
 ket Steamboat Co., 2 Story 16, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 2730; The Westminister, 62 C. C. A. 
 406, 127 Fed. 680. 
 
 Alabama.—South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 
 71 Ala. 215, 46 Am. Rep. 309, 16 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 267. 
 
 Cfl/i/or/Hfl.— Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 
 108. 
 
 Tr-t-a^.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Doug- 
 las, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 28. 
 
 Carrier's liability beyond its own line.— 
 Where it is sought to extend tlie liabil- 
 ity of a carrier Ijeyond its own line, the 
 burden is upon the party seeking to es- 
 tablish such liability to show an express 
 contract by which the company becomes 
 liable, as common carrier, beyond its 
 own route; and such contract must be 
 shown by real and satisfactory evidence. 
 Taylor v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 87 Me. 
 299, 32 Atl. 905, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. 
 S., 614.
 
 810 
 
 I.OSS OR 1X1 cm' T(i (".(JOUS. 
 
 § 1056 
 
 Payment or Tender of Charges. — It is not necessary to prove payment or 
 teiKkr of frri^lit cliari,'cs. as where jfoods are delivered to a common carrier for 
 transportatinu a pnimisr to pa\ tlie cliarj^'es will be presumed.^'" 
 
 When Loss or Injury Occurred. — \\ here a shi]jnient delivered to the car- 
 rier in good order is received in had order, it is presumed that it was damaged 
 while in the carrier's possession,'**' whether such damage was open or concealed.'*'^ 
 And where goods are delivered securely boxed to a common carrier for carriage, 
 and a part only are delivered by it to the consignee, the presumption is that tlie 
 loss occurred while the goofls were in the carrier's j)ossession.''** 
 
 Loss during Common -Carrier Possession. — Some of the cases seem to 
 hold that tlic Iiurdcn i> upon plaiiuilT i<i sliow that the loss of or injury to freight 
 complained of occurred while the carrier was responsible for the property as a 
 common carrier.-*" Hut there is a holding that the burden is on the carrier to 
 show that its liability as common carrier had ceased before the loss occurred.''" 
 
 Where Shipper Travels in Charge of Shipment. — Ordinarily, the burden 
 of j)roof is on the carrier to account for frei.^ht lost during transit, but in case 
 of a si)ecial contract under which the shii)per accomi)anies the shipment for the 
 purpose of taking charge of it en route, the burden is upon the shij^per of prov- 
 ing that a loss was the result of the carrier's negligence."'^ 
 
 45. Payment of freight. — Win no f. 
 Illinois Cent. R. d., :il Iowa .JHIL 
 
 46. When damage occurred. — Savannah, 
 etc., R. Co. r. HoflFniavcr, 75 Ga. 410; 
 Kelly V. Southern Railway. 8-4 S. C. 240. 
 66 S. E. 198. 
 
 Where a carrier, instead of deliverins: a 
 trunk at the port as required by its con- 
 tract, without giving the owner an oppor- 
 tunity to examine or take charge of it 
 for the purpose of entry, sent it to the 
 customhouse, and. after entry and re- 
 lease, forwarded it liy an express com- 
 pany to the owner's address, it had the 
 burden of showing that a loss therefrom 
 did not occur while it was in its actual 
 custody. Judgment (1902) 79 N. Y. S. 
 1103. 77 -Xpp. Div. 469, affirmed. Fasy 
 V. International Xav. Co.. 70 N. E. 1098, 
 177 N. Y. 591. 
 
 47. Savannah, etc.. R. Co. v. Hoffmaycr, 
 75 Oa. 410. 
 
 48. Only portion of freight dehvered. — 
 Rice V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. 
 App. 27. See Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mercantile Claim Co., 8 Ga. App. 17, 68 
 S. E. 492. 
 
 49. Loss during common-carrier pos- 
 session. — Soulli, etc., R. Co. 7'. Wood, 71 
 Ala. 215, 46 Am. Rep. 309, 16 Am. & Hng. 
 R. Cas. 267. Compare South, etc., R. Co. 
 T'. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749, 
 hoi(Hng that the burden is upon the de- 
 fendant to prove that its liability had 
 terminated before the injury occurred. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson. 53 
 Kan. 157, 35 Pac. 1114; Nave v. Pacific 
 Exp. Co.. 19 Mo. App. 563; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. f. Heath (Tex. Civ. App.), 18 S. 
 W. 477; Texas, etc., R. Co. 7'. Llano Live 
 Stock Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 33 S. W. 748; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. t'. Breeding, 4 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas.. § 154. 16 S. W.1S4; Cur- 
 tis r. Chicago. i.tc., R. Co., is Wis. I'.r.'. 
 
 Burden of showing loss of freight be- 
 
 tween time of delivery to carrier and time 
 car left on side track. — In Soutli. etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Wood. 71 Ala. 215, 16 Am. St. Rep. 
 309. 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 267, an action 
 against a railroad company, as a common 
 carrier, to recover for its failure to de- 
 liver corn received by it for transporta- 
 tion to a designated point on its road, 
 at which there was neither depot or 
 agent, it appeared that the corn was re- 
 ceived by the company and transported 
 in good condition to the place of desti- 
 nation, and the car in which it wa"s 
 shipped, was placed on a side track by 
 the consignee, where it remained for sev- 
 eral days, with no one in charge of it or 
 protecting it; and that when the corn 
 was taken from the car, there was a de- 
 ficiency in quantity. It was held that 
 the burden of proof was on the plaintiff 
 to show that the loss occurred between 
 the time when tlie corn was received by 
 the company, and the time when the car 
 containing it was left on the side track, 
 that 1)eing, under the facts of this case, a 
 delivery, and not on the defendant to 
 show that the loss occurred after the 
 car was placed on the side track. 
 
 50. Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. L'nited States 
 Rolling Stock Co.. 136 111. 643. 27 X. E. 
 5<,i. ;.".i Am. St. Rep. 348. 
 
 51. Where shipper travels in charge of 
 shipment. — .lUilhiiiui. — .Alabama. etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Thomas, 89 .Ala. 234, 7 So. 762; 
 Central R., etc.. Co. v. Smith. 85 Ala. 
 47, 4 So. 708. 
 
 .■irhansas. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Weakly, 50 Ark. 397. 8 S. W. 134. 
 
 Califoniiti. — Ringgold r. Haven. 1 Cal. 
 108. 
 
 Io7i.'a. — Winne 7\ Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 31 Iowa 583; Winn z'. .\merican Exp. 
 Co., 149 Iowa 259. 128 X. W. 663. 
 
 Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Hedger (Ky.), 9 Bush 645. 
 
 Missouri. — Clark f. St. Louis, etc., R.
 
 §§ 1056-1057 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 820 
 
 Upon What Line Goods Injured. — W here the evidence fails to show that 
 the goods were ever out of the carrier's possession, it is not necessary for the 
 shipper to show upon what line of railway the goods were injured.''- 
 
 § 1057. Defendant's Burden of Proof in General.— Carrier Must Prove 
 Itself Not Responsible. — After it has been sliown that the goods were de- 
 livered to the carrier in good condition and that it failed to deliver theiii or de- 
 livered them in a damaged condition, the presumption is that the carrier was neg- 
 ligent and it has the burden of proving that the loss or damage resulted from 
 some cause for which it was not responsible,-'^ such as an act of God "'-' or the 
 
 Co., 04 Mo. 440; McBeath v. Wabash, 
 etc., R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 445. 
 
 Pcuusvlrania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
 Raiordon, 119 Pa. 577, 13 Atl. 324, 4 Am. 
 St. Rep. 670. 
 
 Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 
 16 lex. Civ. App. 74, 40 S. W. 829. 
 
 JViscoiisiii. — Doty v. Strong (Wis.), 1 
 Pin. 313. 
 
 Contra. — In Louisiana it is held that 
 the carrier must show that the injury 
 was occasioned by the fault of a shipper 
 or his servants. Roberts v. Riley, 15 La. 
 Ann. 103, 77 Am. Dec. 1S3. 
 
 Where defense of special contract not 
 available. — In an action against a buyer 
 for tlie price of l^ananas sold, in which 
 defendant filed a cross action against 
 plaintiff and the carriers, the carriers 
 alleged in defense that any damage to the 
 fruit was caused by the negligence of 
 the shipper's agent who accornpanied the 
 shipment under the contract between the 
 shipper and the consignee, but no such 
 contract between the carriers and the 
 shipper was alleged. Held that, since no 
 benefit could inure to the carriers from 
 the contract between the shipper and con- 
 signee, the burden was not on the con- 
 signee to show that any damage to the 
 fruit was not the result of the messen- 
 ger's negligence. Kemendo v. Fruit Dis- 
 patch Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 131 S. W. 73. 
 
 52. Upon what line goods injured. — 
 Yoakum v. Dunn, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 524, 
 526, 21 S. W. 411. 
 
 53. Burden on carrier to prove itself 
 not responsible. — United States. — Argo 
 Steamship Co. f. Seago, 42 C. C. A. 128, 
 101 Fed. 999; Ceballos v. Warren Adams, 
 20 C. C. A. 486, 74 Fed. 413; Choate v. 
 Crowninshield, Fed. Cas. Xo. 2,691, 3 Chff. 
 184; Cumming v. Barracouta, 40 Fed. 498; 
 Hudson River Lighterage Co. v. Wheeler 
 Condenser, etc., Co., 93 Fed. 374; The 
 Jefferson, 31 Fed. 498; Kerr v. Norman, 
 Fed. Cas. Xo. 7,732, 1 Newb. 525; The 
 Martha, Fed. Cas. No. 9.14.5, Olc. 140; 
 The Queen, 78 Fed. 155; The Samuel E. 
 Spring, 29 Fed. 397; The Staincliffe, 15 
 Fed. 350; Turner v. Black Warrior, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 14,253, 1 McAll. 181; United 
 States V. Pacific Exp. Co., 15 Fed. 867; 
 The Westminster, 62 C. C. A. 406, 127 
 Fed. 680; The Wildcroft, 126 Fed. 229; 
 
 The Williams Taber (U. S.), 2 Ben. 329; 
 The Zone, Fed. Cas. No. 18, 220 22 L. 
 Rep. 725, 2 Spr. 19; Western Mfg. Co. v. 
 Guiding Star, 37 Fed. 641. 
 
 Alabama. — Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Lit- 
 tle, 71 Ala. 611, 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 37; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cowherd, 120 
 Ala. 51, 23 So. 793; Monton v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co., 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. 
 S., 673, 29 So. 602, 128 Ala. 537; Rich- 
 mond, etc., R. Co. V. Trousdale & Sons, 
 99 Ala. 389, 13 So. 23, 42 Am. St. Rep. 41; 
 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Parker, 123 Ala. 
 683, 27 So. 323; South, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wilson, 78 Ala. 587, 27 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 41; South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 66 
 Ala. 167, 41 Am. Rep. 749; Barron v. Mo- 
 bile, etc., R. Co., 2 Ala. App. 555, 56 So. 
 862; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Rice, 169 
 Ala. 265, 52 So. 918, 29 L. R. A., N. S., 
 1214. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Birdwell, 72 Ark. 502, 82 S. W. 835; St. 
 Louis, etc.. R. Co. 7'. Coolidge, 73 Ark. 
 112, 83 S. W. 333. 
 
 California. — Agnew v. Contra Costa, 27 
 Cal. 426, 87 Am. Dec. 87; Jackson v. Sac- 
 ramento Valley R. Co., 23 Cal. 268; Wil- 
 son z'. California Cent. R. Co., 94 Cal. 
 166, 29 Pac. 861, 17 L. R. A. 685. 
 
 Colorado. — Union Pac. R. Co. v. Stu- 
 peck, 50 Colo. 151, 114 Pac. 646. 
 
 Connecticut. — Boies v. Hartford, etc., R. 
 Co., 37 Conn. 272, 9 Am. Rep. 347; Mears 
 V. New York, etc., R. Co., 75 Conn. 171, 
 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. R. A. 884, 96 Am. St. 
 Rep. 192. 
 
 Florida. — Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 ris, 26 Fla. 148, 7 So. 544, 42 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 457, 23 Am. St. Rep. 551. 
 
 Georgia. — Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wooten, 87 Ga. 203, 13 S. E. 509; Central 
 R., etc., Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 
 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37; Cohen v. 
 Southern Exp. Co., 53 Ga. 128; Columbus, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Kennedy, 78 Ga. 646, 3 S. 
 E. 267; Cooper v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 110 
 Ga. 659, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 
 412, 36 S. E. 240; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. 
 Keener, 93 Ga. 808, 21 S. E. 287, 44 Am. 
 St. Rep. 197; Purcell v. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 34 Ga. 315; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. 
 White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802; Van 
 
 54. Act of God.— See ante, "Act of 
 
 God," §§ 990-994.
 
 821 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1057 
 
 Winkle & Co. v. vSouth Carolina R. Co., 
 .'{H Ga. "^2. 
 
 Civil Code, 189,j, § 22(54, provides that 
 in cases of loss the presumption of law 
 is against tlie carrier. Southern R. Co. 
 V. Montag, 1 Gu. App. 049, fi50, .'57 S. K. 
 
 y:j:j. 
 
 The provision includes also injury or 
 damage to the goods. Central R., etc., 
 Co. V. Hassclkus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 vS. E. 
 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37. 
 
 Illinois. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Stettaners, 
 01 111. 184, 14 /\m. Rep. 57; Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. r. Fox, 113 111. App. 180; 
 Burke v. United States Exp. Co., 87 111. 
 App. 50'>: Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Rad- 
 hourne, 52 111. App. 203; Nonotuck Silk 
 Co. V. .-Xdams Exp. Co., 100 111. App. 
 519, judgment affirmed 99 X. E. 893, 250 
 111. 00. 
 
 hidiaua. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Liveright. 
 14 Ind. App. 518, 41 N. E. 350, 43 N. E. 
 102; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Racer, 5 
 Ind. App. 209, 31 N. E. 853; Toledo, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Tapp, Ind. App. 304, 33 N. E. 
 402; Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Mitchell 
 (Ind.), 91 X. E. 735. 
 
 lozi'a. — Angle v. Mississippi, etc., R. Co , 
 18 Iowa 555; Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 104 Iowa 059, 74 N. W. 192; McCoy 
 V. K. & D. M. R. Co., 44 Iowa 424; 
 Mitchell z: United States Exp. Co., 40 
 Iowa 214; St. Clair r. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co.. 80 Iowa 304. 45 X. W. 570; Tiller v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 24 R. R. R. 
 581, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 581, 
 112 X. W. 031; Winne v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co.. 31 Iowa 583; Cownie Glove Co. v. 
 Merchants', etc., Transp. Co., 100 X. W. 
 749, 130 Iowa 327, 114 Am. St. Rep. 419, 4 
 L. R. A., X. S., 1000. 
 
 Kentucky. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Walker, 
 119 Ky. 121, 83 S. W. 100, 47 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas., X. S.. 145, 24 R. R. R. 145. 67 L. 
 R. A. 412. 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1025; Ohio, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Tabor. 98 Ky. 503, 32 S. W. 108, 
 36 S. W. 18, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 508, 1411, 
 34 L. R. A. 685; Louisville, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Bourne, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 445. 
 
 Louisiana. — Chapman r. X^ew Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co., 21 La. Ann. 224, 99 Am. Dec. 
 722; GriefT v. Switzer, 11 La. Ann. 324; 
 Lehman, etc., Co. v. Morgan's, etc., 
 Steamship Co., 115 La. 1, 38 So. 873, 18 
 R. R. R. 559, 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. 
 S., 559; Price, etc.. Co. r. The Uriel, 10 
 La. Ann. 413; Roberts f. Riley, 15 La. 
 .Ann. 103. 77 .\m. Dec. 183; Silverman v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 51 La. Ann. 1785, 
 20 So. 447; Tardos v. Toulon, 14 La. Ann. 
 429, 74 Am. Dec. 435; Mahon 7'. The 
 Olive Branch, 18 La. Ann. 107; Kirk v. 
 Folsom, 23 La. Ann. 584. 
 
 Maine. — Bennett v. American Exp. Co., 
 S3 Me. 230, 22 Atl. 159. 49 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 50. 13 L. R. A. 33; Dow v. Port- 
 land Steam Packet Co., 84 Me. 490, 24 
 Atl. 945; Little v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 00 Me. 239; Tarbo.x z'. Eastern Steamboat 
 Co., 50 Me. 339. 
 
 .Massaeltusetls. — Alden v. Pearson 
 (Mass.), 3 Gray 342; Cass v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mass.), 14 Allen 44H; Lewis v. 
 Smitli. 107 Mass. 334. 
 
 .U;V/u^'a;i.— Wallace i: Lake Shore, etc., 
 R. Co., 133 Mich. 033. 95 X. W. 750. 
 
 .Minnesota. — Bpchl z: Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 191, 40 X. W. 333; Hinton 
 V. Eastern R. Co., 72 Minn. 339. 75 X. 
 W. 373; Hull V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 41 
 .Minn. 510, 43 X. W. 391, 5 L. R. A. 587, 
 10 Am. St. Rep. 722; Lindsley v. Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 30 Minn. 539, 33 X. W. 7, 1 
 Am. St. Rep. 092; Shriver v. Sioux City, 
 etc., R. Co., 24 Minn. 500, 31 Am. Rep. 
 353; Powers Mercantile Co. v. Wells 
 I'argo & Co., 93 Minn. 143, 12 R. R. R. 
 504, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. X. S., 504, 
 100 X. W. 735; .\mmon f. Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co., 120 Minn. 438, 139 X. W. 819; 
 Hrennisen z: Pennsylvania R. Co., 101 
 Minn. 120. Ill X. W. 945; Fockens v. 
 United States Exp. Co.. 99 Minn. 404. 109 
 X. W. 834. Compare Jones v. Minneap- 
 olis, etc.. R. Co.. 91 Minn. 229, 97 X. W. 
 893. 103 .\m. St. Rep. 507. See Whitaker 
 v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 115 Minn. 140. 
 131 X. W. 1001. holding that the burden 
 remains on plaintiff throughout the trial 
 to show carrier's negligence, and he is 
 simplj' aided by the presumption of neg- 
 ligence arising from the delivery to the 
 carrier in sound condition and receipt by 
 consignee in damaged condition. 
 
 Mississippi. — Burnham v. Alabama, etc.. 
 R. Co., 81 Miss. 40, 32 So. 912; Chicago, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Abels. 60 Miss. 1017. 21 .\m. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 105; Gardner v. Xew Or- 
 leans, etc.. R. Co., 78 Miss. 040, 29 So. 
 409; Southern E.xp. Co. z'. Seide. 07 Miss. 
 009, 7 So. 547. 
 
 Missouri. — Anderson v. Atchison, etc.. 
 R. Co., 93 Mo. App. 677, 3 R. R. R. 42. 
 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., X. S., 42, 67 S. 
 W. 707; Hill z: Sturgeon, 28 Mo. 323; 
 Ketchum z: American Merchants' L'nion 
 Exp. Co., 52 Mo. 390; Kirby z: Adams 
 Exp. Co., 2 Mo. -App. 369; McFall z: Wa- 
 bash R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 477. 94 S. W. 
 570; Xave z: Pacific Exp. Co., 19 Mo. 
 App. 503; Read v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 60 Mo. 199; Rice v. Indianapolis, etc.. R. 
 Co., 3 Mo. App. 27; Wolf v. .American 
 Exp. Co., 43 Mo. 421, 97 Am. Dec. 400. 
 
 Xezi' Hampshire. — Hall 7'. Chenev. 30 X. 
 H. 20; Shelden 7-. Robinson, 7 X.'H. 157. 
 20 Am. Dec. 720. 
 
 Xezc Jcrsev. — Hunt 7'. Morris. 12 X. J. 
 L. 175, 22 Am. Dec. 300. 
 
 .\V7C' York. — Blum z'. Monahan. 73 X'. Y. 
 S. 102. 30 Misc. Rep. 179; Bowden 7-. 
 Fargo. 2 Misc. Rep. 551. 22 X. Y. S. 889; 
 Brooks 7'. Dinsmore. 3 X. Y. St. Rep. 587; 
 Campe 7'. Weir. 28 Misc. Rep. 243. 58 N. 
 Y. S. 10S2; Canfield 7-. Baltimore, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 93 X. Y. 532. 10 Am. cS: Eng. R. Cas. 
 152, 45 .^m. Rep. 20S; Colt 7-. McMechen 
 (X. Y.). 6 Johns. 160. 5 Am. Dec. 200; 
 Fairfax z: Xew York. etc.. R. Co.. 67 X. 
 Y. 11; Heyl 7'. Inman Steamship Co. (X.
 
 § 1057 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 822 
 
 Y.), 14 Hun 504: Hoffbert z: Bumford, 
 88' N. Y. S. 940; Hutkoflf v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co.. 29 Misc. Rep. 770, 01 N. Y. S. 
 254; Merritt v. Earle. 31 Barb. 38; Moore 
 V. Evans (N. Y.), 14 Barb. 524; Morris 
 V. Wier, 20 Misc. Rep. 586, 46 N. Y. S. 
 413: Park v. Preston, 108 N. Y. 434, 15 
 N. E. 705; Schmidt v. Blood (N. Y.), 9 
 Wend. 268. 24 Am. Dec. 143; Sejalon v. 
 Woolverton. 31 Misc. Rep. 752, 64 N. 
 Y. S. 48; Steers v. Liverpool, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 15 Am. Rep. 453; 
 Strong V. Long Island R. Co., 91 App. 
 Div. 442, 86 N. Y. S. 911; Trimble v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 39 App. Div. 403, 
 57 N. Y. S. 437; Wheeler v. Oceanic 
 Steam Nav. Co., 125 N. Y. 155, 26 N. E. 
 248, 21 Am. St. Rep. 729, 3 Silvernail Ct. 
 App. 276. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Everett v. Norfolk, 
 etc.. R. Co., 138 N. C. 68, 50 S. E. 557, 1 
 L. R. A., N. S., 985, 18 R. R. R. 551, 41 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 551: Hinkle 
 V. Southern R. Co.. 126 N. C. 932, 36 S. 
 E. 348, 78 Am. St. Rep. 685; Mitchell v. 
 Carolina Cent. R. Co., 124 N. C. 236, 32 
 S. E. 671, 44 L. R. A. 515; Parker v. 
 Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 133 N. C. 335, 45 
 S. E. 658, 63 L. R. A. 827. 
 
 0/„-o.— Bowman v. Hilton, 11 O. 303; 
 Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., 
 R. Co., 1 Disn. 480, 12 O. Dec. 745; United 
 States Exp. Co. v. Bachman, 2 Cin. R. 
 251, 13 O. Dec. 885, affirmed in 28 O. 
 St. 144; Graham & Co. v. Davis & Co., 4 
 O. St. 362; Davidson v. ' Graham, 2 
 O. St. 131; Welsh v. Pittsburg, etc., R. 
 Co., 10 O. St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490; Penn- 
 sylvania Co. v. Yoder, 1 O. C. C, N. 
 S., 2S3, 15-25 O. C. D. 32: Fatman & Co. 
 V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 2 Disn. 248, 
 13 O. Dec. 152. 
 
 Oklahoma. — Patterson v. Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co., 24 Okla. 747, 104 Pac. 31. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 Holmes (Pa.), 9 Atl. 166; American Exp. 
 Co. V. Sands, 55 Pa. 140; Buck v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. 170, 24 Atl. 678, 
 30 Am. St. Rep. 800; Bell v. Reed (Pa.), 
 4 Bin. 127, 5 Am. Dec. 398; Empire 
 Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil Refin., etc., 
 Co., 63 Pa. 14, 3 Am. Rep. 515; Grogan 
 V. Adams Exp. Co., 114 Pa. 523, 7 Atl. 
 134, 60 Am. Rep. 360; Hays v. Kennedy, 
 3 Grant 351; Menner v. Delaware, etc., 
 Canal Co., 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 135; New 
 York Cent, etc., R. Co. v. Eby (Pa.), 12 
 Atl. 482; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 
 87 Pa. 577, 13 Atl. 324, 4 Am. St. Rep. 
 670; Phoenix Pot- Works v. Pittsburgh, 
 etc., R. Co., 139 Pa. 284, 20 Atl. 1058; 
 Haugh, etc., Transfer Co., 72 Atl. 516, 223 
 Pa. 148, 21 L. R. A., N. S., 188. 
 
 South Carolina. — Ewart v. Street (S. 
 C), 2 Bailey 421; Johnstone v. Richmond, 
 etc., R. Co., 39 S. C. 55, 17 S. E. 512; 
 McCall V. Brock (S. C), 5 Strob. 119; 
 Smyrl v. Niolon (S. C), 2 Bailey 421, 23 
 Am. Dec. 146; Wallingford v. Columbia, 
 etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258, 2 S. E. 19; 
 
 Wardlow v. South Carolina R. Co. (S. 
 C), 11 Rich. L. 337; McCord v. Atlan- 
 tic, etc., R. Co., 57 S. E. 477, 76 S. C. 
 469. 
 
 Tennessee. — Deming v. Merchants' Cot- 
 ton Press, etc., Co., 90 Tenn. 306, 17 S. 
 W. 89, 13 L. R. A. 518; Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 S. W. 
 311; Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. 
 St. Rep. 847; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stone, 112 Tenn. 348, 79 S. W. 1031, 105 
 Am. St. Rep. 955, 18 R. R. R. 88, 41 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 88; Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. V. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 
 S. W. 124, 64 L. R. A. 443, 13 R. R. R. 
 126, 35 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 126; 
 Turney v. Wilson, 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 340, 
 27 Am. Dec. 515; Gordon v. Buchanan, 
 13 Tenn. (5 Yerg.) 72; Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Womack, 48 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 
 256, 267; Craig v. Childress, 7 Tenn. 
 (Peck.) 270, 14 Am. Dec. 751; Railroad 
 V. Mitchell, 58 Tenn. (11 Heisk.) 400. 
 
 Texas. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Bryan 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 234; Bibb v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 508, 84 S. W. 663; Fire Ass'n v. Leob, 
 25 Tex. Civ. App. 24, 59 S. W. 617; Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Shanley, 36 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 291, 81 S. W. 1014; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 
 66 S. W. 341: Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Scott, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 76, 26 S. W. 239; 
 Ryan v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 65 Tex. 13, 
 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 703; Galves- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Ball, 80 Tex. 602, 16 
 S. W. 441; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Zimmer- 
 man & Co., 81 Tex. 605, 17 S. W. 239; 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mclntyre, 36 
 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 82 S. W. 346; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Trawick, 80 Tex. 270, 275, 
 
 15 S. W. 568, 18 S. W. 948; Fentiman v. 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co., 98 S. W. 939, 44 
 Tex. Civ. App. 455; Galveston, etc., R. 
 Co. T. Home, 69 Tex. 643, 9 S. W. 440; 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. China Mfg. Co , 
 79 Tex. 26, 14 S. W. 785. 
 
 Vermont. — Day Catlin & Co. v. Ridley, 
 
 16 Vt. 48, 42 Am. Dec. 489; Mann v. 
 Bichard, 40 Vt. 326, 94 Am. Dec. 398. 
 
 Virginia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Staton, 
 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239; Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Reeves, 97 Va. 284, 33 S. E. 606. 
 
 ll'est J'^irginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293; Bosley v. 
 Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 54 W. Va. 563, 
 10 R. R. R. 458, 33 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 458, 46 S. E. 613. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Black v. Goodrich Transp. 
 Co., 55 Wis. 319, 13 N. W. 244, 42 Am. 
 Rep. 713; Browning v. Goodrich Transp. 
 Co., 78 Wis. 391, 47 N. W. 428, 10 L. R. 
 A. 415, 23 Am. St. Rep. 414; Lamb v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 101 Wis. 138, 76 N. 
 W. 1123; Kirst v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 46 Wis. 489, 1 N. W. 89; Uber v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 151 Wis. 431, 138 N. 
 W 57; Struebing Co. v. Merchants' Des-
 
 823 
 
 I^OSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1057 
 
 patch Transp. Co., 142 Wis. (J57, 120 
 \. \V. 21. 
 
 Rationale of rule. — Where goods are 
 dclivL-red into the possession of a com- 
 mon carrier, it must show that it used 
 due care for their preservation, for tlie 
 shipper is not supposed to be present 
 during the transportation, and the goods 
 are in the custody of the carrier and its 
 agents. Tardos v. Toulon, 14 La. Ann. 
 429, 74 Am. Dec. 435. 
 
 It is safest to presume that a carrier 
 is negligent who refuses to show to the 
 contrary, when, if such is the fact, he 
 has but to call his own agents to the wit- 
 ness stand. His employees are with the 
 goods during the whole time tiiey are 
 under his ciiargc, by day and by night. 
 They are with them at all places, whether 
 at depots or when the train is at its 
 greatest speed, or the ship is in mid- 
 ocean. The owner is presumptively ab- 
 sent. Ryan & Co. v. M., K. & T. R. 
 Co., 65 Tex. 13, 20. 23 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. TO.".. 
 
 If goods were properly prepared for 
 shipment and loaded under the carrier's 
 inspection, and accepted by it for ship- 
 ment, il is presumed that any damage to 
 the goods shown wiien uidoaded at des- 
 tination would not have occurred if they 
 were transported and stored with due 
 care. Carleton v. Union Transfer, etc., 
 Co., 121 N. Y. S. 997, 137 App. Div. 225, 
 affirming 117 N. Y. S. 1021, 164 Misc. 
 Rep. 51. 
 
 Freight not accounted for. — Where the 
 carrier not only fails to deliver freight, 
 but also fails or refuses to give an ac- 
 count as to the manner of its loss, it 
 must be presumed that such cause was 
 the carrier's negligence. Alabama, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Little, 71 Ala. 611, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 37; Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 W'alker, 119 Ky. 121, 24 R. R. R. 145, 
 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 145, 83 S. 
 W. 106, 26 Ky. L- Rep. 1025, 67 L. R. 
 A. 412; George v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 57 Mo. App. 358; Shelden v. Robinson, 
 7 N. H. 157, 26 Am. Dec. 736; Canfield 
 V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532, 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 152, 45 Am. Rep. 
 268; Black v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 
 Wis. :;!'». i:i X. W'. 244, 42 Am. Rep. 713. 
 
 Goods damaged by wet. — A common 
 carrier has the burden of proving that 
 damage to goods in its custody by wet 
 was not due to its negligence. But a 
 jury need not infer negligence on the 
 part of a common carrier from the mere 
 fact that goods are wet while in its pos- 
 session, but such fact may be considered 
 in connection with the other evidence in 
 the case. Mears v. Xew York, etc., R. 
 Co., 75 Conn. 171, 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. R. A. 
 884, 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. See The Queen, 
 78 Fed. 155. 
 
 Steamboat run into river bank. — Neg- 
 ligence must l)e presumed where it is 
 shown tiiat the steamboat carrj'ing the 
 
 freight, when proceeding quietly up the 
 river, was run into the bank l>y the pilot 
 so hard as to knock a hole into the bot- 
 tom of the boat big enough to sink it, 
 and no reason was shown for the acci- 
 dent. Louisville, etc., Packet Co. v. 
 Smith, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1323, 60 S. W. 524. 
 
 Breakage. — Proof of breakage of goods 
 in the hands of the common carrier 
 makes a prima facie case of negligence 
 against the carrier, and the burden of 
 proof is thrown on it to show due care 
 and diligence. Ketchum v. American 
 Merchants' Union Exp. Co., 52 Mo. 390. 
 See Heck v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Mo, 
 .App. 532 (machine delivered with legs 
 broken); Bowden v. Fargo, 2 Misc. Rep. 
 551, 22 N. Y. S. 889 (safely packed piano 
 broken); Campe v. Weir, 28 Misc. Rep. 
 243. 58 N. Y. S. 1082 (both violin and 
 crate broken); Hutkoff v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co.. 29 Misc. Rep. 770, 61 N. Y. S. 
 254, affirmed in 30 Misc. Rep. 802, 63 X. 
 Y. S. 198 (case of plate glass shattered — 
 other cases in good condition); Hudson 
 River Lighterage Co. v. Wheeler Con- 
 denser, etc., Co., 93 Fed. :;74 (casting 
 found cracked). 
 
 Goods stolen at destination. — Where 
 goods are stolen, while in the possession 
 of a carrier after arriving at their desti- 
 nation, in the absence of evidence to the 
 contrary, it is presumed that the loss 
 resulted from the carrier's negligence. 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Keener, 93 Ga. 
 SOS, 21 S. v.. 2S7, 44 .\ni. St. Rep. 197. 
 
 Failure to account for portion of freight 
 saved from freshet. — In Charlotte, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Wooten, 87 Ga. 203, 13 S. E. 509, 
 it is held that though goods saved by a 
 common carrier from the perils of a 
 freshet were damaged by passing through 
 the freshet, yet if some saved are unac- 
 counted for, and it is not shown that 
 the freshet caused their loss, or what 
 their condition was when they disap- 
 peared, a recovery for their value may 
 be had against the carrier without deduct- 
 ing anything for conjectural damage 
 which they maj- have sustained by reason 
 of tile freshet before their loss occurred. 
 
 Goods carried at "owner's risk." — 
 Wlien loss or damage to goods occurs 
 while they are in the possession of the 
 carrier, though carried at "owner's risk." 
 the carrier must make at least a prima 
 facie showing that it was not caused by 
 its negligence. South, etc.. R. Co. z\ Wil- 
 son, 7S .Ma. 5S7, 27 Am. & F.ng. R. Cas. 41. 
 
 Accidents which usually result from 
 negligence. — -When a thing is shown to 
 liave l>een under the management of the 
 defendant common carrier or its servant, 
 and the accident in which the loss or in- 
 jury to freight occurred is such as in the 
 ordinary course of things does not hap- 
 pen if those who have the management 
 use proper care, it affords, reasonable 
 evidence, in the absence of explanation, 
 that such accident was due to negligence
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 824 
 
 § 1057 
 
 public enemy,^^ the fault of the owuer,'"^ iuhereut iufiruiities iu the goods, ^'^ act 
 or mandate of public authority,'"'^ or to some cause against which the carrier had 
 relieved itself from liability by special contract/»'^ And it is held that this rule 
 applies to perishable goods,^'^ and to carriers using the means of transportation 
 of others.^^ The fact that an article was not properly packed or loaded when 
 delivered to the carrier does not exempt it from making proof that a loss alleged 
 w^as not attributable to its negligence.'-- 
 
 The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act re-estab- 
 lished the common-law rule that, when freight is delivered to a carrier in good 
 condition and reaches its destination in bad condition, the presumption of negli- 
 gence arises throwing the burden on the carrier of exonerating itself from lia- 
 
 for which the carrier is responsible. Rm- 
 toul V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 21 
 Blatchf. 439, 17 Fed. 905. 
 
 Occurrence of accident during perform- 
 ance of act not ordinarily cause of injury. 
 — Where plaintiff showed that his goods 
 were injured while in the possession of 
 defendant railroad company as bailee for 
 hire, and that defendant, when applied to 
 by him. gave no account of the injury 
 except merely that it occurred while de- 
 fendant's agents were performing an act 
 which, when performed with due_ care, 
 does not ordinarily cause such an injury, 
 the jury were warranted in inferring neg- 
 ligence for which defendant was respon- 
 sible. Kirst V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 
 46 Wis. 489, 1 N. W. 89. See Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Zimmerman & Co., 81 Tex. 
 605, 608, 17 S. W. 239. 
 
 Failure to find box delivered to car- 
 rier—No evidence introduced by carrier. 
 —In Morley v. Eastern Exp. Co., IIG 
 Mass. 97, it appeared that A. delivered a 
 box containing his property to a common 
 carrier at one town to be carried to an- 
 other town; that the box was directed to 
 B. at the later town; that A. had made 
 efforts to find the box, but had not been 
 able to do so; that he had made inquiries 
 at both towns at the offices of the car- 
 rier; that he had not seen the box since 
 he sent it; and that he had inquired of 
 B. about the box. It was held that this 
 was not sufficient evidence ,to maintain 
 an action by A. against the carrier for 
 the value of the box and its contents, al- 
 though the carrier put in no evidence. 
 
 Presumption of negligence not over- 
 come.— Where holly in shipment was in- 
 jured by freezing, the presumption of 
 negligence of a carrier was not overcome 
 by evidence that defendants accepted the 
 car as loaded by plaintiff and transported 
 it without delay to its destination. Press- 
 ley Co. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Minn.), 
 136- N. W. 11. 
 
 Statutory presumption strengthened.— 
 In an action against a railroad company 
 for damages to stock carried by it, the 
 defendant's evidence merely consisted of 
 a showing, from the appearance of the car 
 in which the stock had been carried, that 
 the train had not been derailed. No em- 
 
 ployee in charge of the train was pro- 
 duced to account for the injury. Held, 
 that the statutory presumption of the 
 company's negligence, under Code, § 3033 
 was strengthened by the presumption of 
 fact arising from this failure to produce 
 material witnesses. Columbus, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Kennedy, 78 Ga. G46, 3 vS. E. 267. 
 
 55. Act of public enemy. — See ante, 
 "Acts of Public Enemy," §§ 995-997. 
 
 56. Fault of owner. — See ante, "Fault of 
 Shipper or Owner," §§ 998-1002. 
 
 57. Infirmities in goods. — See ante, "In- 
 herent Infirmities of Goods," § 1003. 
 
 58. Act of public authority. — See ante. 
 "Act or Mandate of Public Authority," 
 § 1004. 
 
 59. Contract relieving from liability. — 
 See post, "Limitation of Liability," chap- 
 ter 14. 
 
 It is incumbent on a carrier having dif- 
 ferent contracts, by one of which it in- 
 sures the goods, and by the other the 
 shipper assumes all risk, to show the con- 
 tract actually made. Mcintosh v. Ore- 
 gon R., etc., Co., 105 Pac. 66, 17 Idaho 
 100. 
 
 60. Perishable Goods. — Georgia. —Cen- 
 tral R., etc., Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382, 
 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37. 
 
 Minnesota. — Fockens v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 99 Minn. 404, 109 N. W. 834; 
 Brennisen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 101 
 Minn. 120, 111 N. W. 945. 
 
 South Carolina. — Trowbridge v. Charles- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 90 S. C. 183, 73 S. E. 78. 
 
 Evidence that vegetables when loaded 
 were in good condition, that their char- 
 acter was such that if properly handled 
 they would have reached destination 
 without damage, and that they in fact ar- 
 rived in a damaged condition, is presump- 
 tive evidence of negligence, which was 
 not rebutted by proof of proper icing, 
 etc. Ammon v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 139 
 N. W. 819, 120 Minn. 438. 
 
 61. Carrier using means of carriage of 
 others.— Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Rad- 
 l)Ourne, 52 111. App. 203. 
 
 62. Article improperly packed. — Union 
 Exp Co. V. Graham, 26 O. St. 595; Mc- 
 Carthy V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 102 Ala. 
 193, 14 So. 370, 48 Am. St. Rep. 29.
 
 825 
 
 LOSS OK INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1057 
 
 bility/''' The amendment does not in\alidate a state law fixing the onus of 
 proof. ''"• 
 
 Act of God or Public Enemy. — \\ here the carrier claims that the loss or 
 injury was the result ui an act of (^(jd or the public enemy, the burden rests 
 upon it of proving such defense.'^'" Some of the cases hold that after the carrier 
 has shown in defense that the cause of the loss of or injury to the freight is one 
 covered by a common-law exemption, the plaintiff must introduce evidence to 
 prove that the proximate or contributing cause of the daiuage sustained was the 
 carrier's negligence.''" (Jther cases hold that the burden rests upon the carrier 
 of proving not only that the cause so set up as a defense was the proximate one, 
 but that it was guilty of no negligence, of commission or omission, with respect 
 to protecting the freight.''" 
 
 63. Carmack amendment. — Act June 29, 
 
 ]90(i, c. a. V.I I, S r, :;i Stat. 593 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307), amending 
 Act Feb. 4. 1SH7, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 38ti 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169); Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Scott (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 
 S. W. 294. 
 
 64. National Rice Mill. Co. v. New Or- 
 leans, etc., R. Co.. 132 La. ()15, 61 So. 708. 
 
 65. Act of God or public enemy. — 
 United States. — Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Reeves (U. S.), 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. Ed. 
 909; The Majestic, 17 S. Ct. 597, 166 U. 
 S. 375, 41 L. Ed. 1039. reversing 60 Fed. 
 624, 9 C. C. A. 161, 23 L. R. A. 740, modi- 
 fying 56 Fed. 244. 
 
 Califoniia. — Jackson v. Sacramento Val- 
 ley R. Co., 23 Cal. 268. 
 
 Georgia. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Hassel- 
 kus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. 
 Rep. 317; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 
 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802; Central, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Hall, 124 Ga. 322, 52 S. E. 679, 4 
 L. R. A., N. S., 898, 110 Am. St. Rep. 
 170; Van Winkle & Co. v. South Carolina 
 R. Co., 38 Ga. 32; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 
 S. E. 1039; Wallace v. Sanders, 42 Ga. 
 486. See Civil Code, § 2265. 
 
 Louisiana. — Lehman, etc., Co. v. Mor- 
 gan's, etc.. Steamship Co., 115 La. 1, 38 
 So. 873, 18 R. R. R. 559, 41 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas.. N. S., 559. 
 
 Missouri. — Davis v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 89 Mo. 340. 1 S. W. 327. 
 
 OA'/(7/io»»rt.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Logan, etc., Co., 105 Pac. 343, 23 Okla. 
 707, 29 L. R. A., N. S., 663. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Hays v. Kennedy, 41 Pa. 
 378, 80 Am. Dec. 627; Leonard v. Hen- 
 drickson, 18 Pa. 40, 55 Am. Dec. 587. 
 
 South Carolina. — Ferguson v. Southern 
 Railway. 91 S. C. 61, 74 S. E. 129. 
 
 Texas.— Ryan & Co. z^. M., K. & T. R. 
 Co., 65 Tex. 13, 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 703. 
 
 J'irginia. — Murphy, etc., Co. v. Station, 
 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239. 
 
 Jl'est Virginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 z\ Morehcad, 5 W. Va. 293. 
 
 66. Burden of proving carrier's negli- 
 gence proximate cause. —United States. — 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves (U. S.), 
 10 Wall. 176. 19 L. Ed. 909. 
 
 Alabama. — See Western R. Co. z: Har- 
 well, 91 Ala. 340, 8 So. 649. 
 
 lo-wa. — Mitchell z: United States Exp. 
 Co., 46 Iowa 214. 
 
 Louisiana. — Kirk v. P'olsom, 23 La. Ann. 
 584. 
 
 Minnesota. — Jones v. Minneapolis, etc., 
 R. Co., 91 Minn. 229, 97 N. W. 893, 103 
 Am. St. Rep. 507. 
 
 Missouri. — Davis z: Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 89 Mo. 340. 1 S. W. 327. 
 
 Xezo York. — Lambert z: Benner, 31 N. 
 Y. Super. Ct. 665. See Russell Mfg. Co. 
 V. New Haven Steamboat Co., 50 X. Y. 
 121. 
 
 Oklahoma. — Armstrong, etc., Co. v. Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co., 20 Okla. 352, 109 Pac. 
 216. 29 L. R. A., N. S., 671. 
 
 Texas.— M. P. R. Co. v. Barnes & Co.. 
 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 575. 
 
 67. California. — Jackson v. Sacremento 
 Valley R. Co., 23 Cal. 268. 
 
 Georgia. — Central, etc., R. Co. v. Hall. 
 124 Ga. 322, 52 S. E. 679, 4 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 898, 110 Am. St. Rep. 170; Central R.. 
 etc., Co. V. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382, 17 S. 
 E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37; Savannah, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 
 590, 30 S. E. 555; Richmond, etc., R. Co. 
 V. White. 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802; Van 
 Winkle & Co. v. South Carolina R. Co., 
 38 Ga. 32; Wallace v. Sanders, 50 Ga. 134. 
 
 Civil Code, § 2265, provides that in or- 
 der for a carrier to avail itself of the act 
 of God as an excuse, it must establish 
 not only that the act of God or excepted 
 fact ultimately occasioned the loss, but 
 that his own negligence did not con- 
 tribute thereto. Atlanta, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., 135 Ga. 113. 68 
 "S. E. 1039. 
 
 Indiana. — See Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Mitclicll (Ind.), 91 N. E. 735. 
 
 Louisiana. — So provided by Rev. Civ. 
 Code, art. 2754. Jean Webre c'. Kendall, 
 etc., Co., 12 La. Ann. 446; National Rice 
 Mill. Co. r. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 132 La. 615, 61 So. 708. 
 
 Pcnns\lvania. — Hays v. Kennedy, 41 
 Pa. 378", SO Am. Dec. 627; Leonard :-. 
 Hcndrickson, 18 Pa. 40. 55 .\m. Dec. 5ST. 
 
 South Carolina. — Ferguson v. South- 
 ern Railwav, 91 S. C. 61, 74 S. E. 129. 
 
 Texas.— R\an & Co. z: M., K. & T. R.
 
 1057 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 826 
 
 Contributory Negligence of Shipper.— A defendant earrier has the hurden 
 of estabh?hing that the aheged contributory negUgence of the shipper, in loading 
 or marking, or otherwise affecting the freight, was the proximate cause of the 
 damage sued for/'-^ though the shipper accompanied the goods."'-^ It is only when 
 the lols is shown to have originated from an act of the shipper, and he seeks to 
 hold the carrier on the ground of its subsequent negligence in not avoiding or 
 lessening the damage, that he has the burden of proof/"' 
 
 Inherent Infirmities of Goods. — W here a common carrier, sued for loss or 
 damage to goods, defends on the ground that the loss or damage accrued through 
 an inherent vice or natural deterioration of the goods, the burden of establishing 
 such defense is upon defendant.' ^ 
 
 Where a carrier relies upon a special custom to relieve it from liabil- 
 
 Co., 65 Tex. 13. 23 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 703.. 
 
 JVcst Virginia. — Baltimore, etc, R. Co. 
 v. Morehead. 5 W. Va. 293. 
 
 After it is shown by dates of shipment 
 that the goods had time to arrive and be 
 delivered to the consignee before a flood 
 occurred which destroyed them, the bur- 
 den of showing what part of the goods, 
 if any. did not arrive within that time, 
 is upon the carrier. And then the burden 
 is on the consignee to show the damage 
 done to those which did arrive, and the 
 amount thereof, in order to recover on 
 the ground of negligence in not giving 
 notice of arrival, or in not delivering ap- 
 plication. Richmond, etc., R. Co. t'. 
 White. S Ga. 80.5. 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 Injury occasioned by natural dangers 
 incident to navigation. — It is not suffi- 
 cient for the carrier to render it probable 
 that the injury to freight was occasioned 
 by one of the natural dangers incident 
 to the navigation. It is incumbent upon 
 him to show that he has used diligence 
 and proper skill to avoid tlije accident, 
 and that it was unavoidable. Jean Webre 
 V. Kendall, etc.. Co.. 12 La. Ann._ 446. 
 
 Possibility of loss notwithstanding ut- 
 most endeavors of crew and absence of 
 negligence. — In the case of loss of freight 
 in transit, the onus probandi lies on the 
 carrier, to exempt him also from the 
 liability, and it is not enough for him to 
 prove, where the goods are carried by 
 water, that the navigation is attended 
 with so muchj danger that a loss may 
 happen notwithstanding the utmost en- 
 deavors of the watchman and crew to 
 prevent it and that the person conduct- 
 ing the boat possesses competent skill, 
 has used due diligence, and provided 
 hands of sufficient strength and experi- 
 ence to assist him. Murphy, etc., Co. 
 V. Staton, 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 239. 
 
 Act of public enemy. — In an action 
 against a railroad company for the loss 
 of goods, where there was evidence tend- 
 ing to show that they were taken from 
 the car by the Confederate army, the 
 burden was on the company to show 
 that they exercised due care to save the 
 goods after they were thrown out of the 
 car or the existence of such circum- 
 
 stances as prevented its exercise. Wal- 
 lace V. Sanders, 42 Ga. 486. 
 
 68. Contributory negligence of shipper. 
 — .Uabaiiui. — See Atlantic, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Rice. 169 Ala. 265, 52 So. 918. 29 L. R. 
 A., N. S., 1214. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc/, R. Co. v. 
 Pape, 100 Ark. 269, 140 S. W. 265. 
 
 Georgia. — The carrier must negative 
 contributory negligence on its own part. 
 Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs' Pharmacy 
 Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 S. E. 1039. 
 
 Ohio. — Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. r 
 Gibson, 8 O. C. C, N. S., 345. 18-28 
 C. D. 538. See Union Exp. Co. v. Gra- 
 ham. 26 O. St. 595. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Menner v. Delaware, 
 etc., Canal Co., 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 135. 
 
 Texas. — Belcher v. Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co., 92 Tex. 593. 50 S. W. 559; Kemendo 
 V. Fruit Dispatch Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 131 S. W. 73. See Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Capper, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 61, 84 S. W. 
 694. 
 
 Freight carried on deck — Shipper's 
 consent. — The ship-owner has the bur- 
 den of proving that the shipper Icon- 
 sented that his property might be carried 
 on deck. So held in The Peytona, Fed. 
 Cas. No. 11.058. 2 Curt. 21. 
 
 Possibility of plaintiff preventing dam- 
 age. — The Inirden of proof is upon a de- 
 fendant carrier to show that any part of 
 the damages occasioned to plaintiff by 
 defendant's negligence with respect to 
 the freight could have been prevented by 
 plaintiff, and what part, if any. Belcher 
 f. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 92 Tex. 593, 50 
 S. W. 559. 
 
 69. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Pape, 100 
 Ark. 269, 140 S. W. 265. 
 
 70. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. z'. Pape. 100 
 Ark. 269. 140 S. W. 265. 
 
 71. Inherent infirmities of goods. — 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Bailey, 7 Ga. App. 
 331, 66 S. E. 960. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for de- 
 livering a barrel of cider with the head 
 burst, leaving only a small quantity of 
 cider in the barrel, where the only de- 
 fense relied on was that the cider had 
 fermented, the burden of proving the de- 
 fense is on the carrier. Green v. Indian- 
 apolis, etc., R. Co., 56 Mo. 550.
 
 827 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. § 1057 
 
 ity for loss of goods to which it is otherwise subject, the burden of proof is 
 upon it to establish such custom." - 
 
 Burden as to Means of Transportation. — If freight be lost or injured in 
 an accident hap]jening U) or by reason of that which a common carrier has pro- 
 vided for the transportation, the law presumes the accident to be (hie to the want 
 of proper care and jnits upon the carrier the burden of reheving itself from that 
 presumption."'' W here grain shijjped on defendant's cars is found on delivery 
 to be damaged by water, the presumption that the cars were in good order, raised 
 by evidence that the cars of defendant were universally inspected, as provided 
 by the rules of the company, and would have been condemned if in bad order, is 
 not conclusive, but the question of their condition is for the jury."-* Loss of the 
 door to a car containing freight, unexplained, raises a presumption of negligence 
 on the jiart of the carrier."'' 
 
 Shipper's Knowledge of Defects in Vehicles. — Where the owner of {prop- 
 erty to be transported makes his own selection of the carrier's vehicles, as to 
 defects not plainly apjjarent or visible, the burden is on the carrier to show that 
 such owner had knowledge of them, in an action for damages to the property 
 caused by such defects."'' 
 
 As to Tracing Lost Freight. — .\n express company has it within its power 
 to trace goods and (lisco\er where they were lost, while it is not so with the 
 shipper, and, therefore, the burden is upon the company to show that- it has 
 used rea'^onable care, to trace lost goods."' 
 
 Delivery in Good Condition. — On proof that a carrier received goods in 
 good condition, the burden rests on defendant to show delivery in the same con- 
 dition to the next carrier or to the consignee : such proof being within its power."* 
 
 That Plaintiff Received Voucher as Payment. — \\ here plaintiff received 
 and retained a voucher from a carrier in payment for certain damaged goods 
 but did not take ste])s to collect the same, the burden was on the carrier to show 
 tliat plaintitT receixed the voucher as ])avnient.'" 
 
 Presumption from Failure to Introduce Evidence. — \\ here the evidence 
 tends to tix a liability on the carrier who has it in its power to offer evidence of 
 all the facts as they existed, and rebut the inferences which the proof tends to 
 establish, and it refuses to offer such proof, the natural inference is that the 
 proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would support, the inference against it.""" 
 
 72. Special custom. — Irisli v. Milwau- 76. Shipper's knowledge of defects in 
 kee, etc.. R. Co.. 19 Minn. 376 Gil. 323, vehicles. — Harris :'. Xortlicrn Indiana R. 
 18 Am. Rep. :'.W. Co., 2() X. Y. 2;;2. 
 
 73. Burden as to means of transporta- 77. As to tracing lost freight. — .\dams 
 tion. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Raiordun, Exp. Co. i'. Stettaners, i">l 111. 1S4. 14 
 119 Pa. 577, 13 Atl. 324. 4 Am. St. Rep. Am. Rep. .-.7. 
 
 ()70: Trace 7\ Pennsylvania R. Co., 2f) 78. Delivery in good condition. — Orem, 
 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 4(i(). etc.. Prodnce Co. :•. Northern Cent. R. 
 
 Burden of proving subsequent accident Co.. 106 Md. 1. 66 Atl. 4.;6. 
 
 beyond carrier's control. — When the car 79. That plaintiff received voucher as 
 
 is defective at tlie time of injury to payment. — ^Ic)ody z\ Soutliern Railway, 
 
 freight transported in it, and the defect T'.» S. C. 2'.iT, (lo S. K. Til. 
 
 contributed to the injury, the onus is on 80. Presumption from failure to intro- 
 
 the carrier to disprove negligence, and it duce evidence. — Pennsylvania R. Co. :. 
 
 must show that the defect arose, not .Anoka Xat. Bank. 108 Fed. 482, 486. 47 
 
 from the insufficiency of the vehicle, but C. C. .A. 454. 
 
 from some sul)sequent accident bej'ond Where plaintiff, in an action against a 
 
 its control. ICmpire Transp. Co. f. \Vam- railroad company to recover for a loss 
 
 sutta Oil Refin., etc., Co., 63 Pa. 14, 3 of goods in shipment, introduces evi- 
 
 Am. Rep. 515. dence which tends strongly to show in- 
 
 Unseaworthiness of vessel. — See post. ferentially that defendant managed and 
 
 "Carriers l)y Water," Part VII. controlled the line of road upon which 
 
 74. Searles v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., the loss occurred, although it was owned 
 69 Miss. 186, 13 So. 815. by a separate corporation, such as that 
 
 75. Little Z'. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 66 the managing ofticers of the two com- 
 Me. 239. panics were the same, that defendant
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 828 
 
 §§ 1057-1058 
 
 § 1058. Condition of Goods When Received by Carrier.— vSome cases 
 hold that it iinist be presumed, in the absence of evidence on the subject, that 
 freio-ht was delivered to the carrier in the same condition as that in which it was 
 delivered by it to the consignee.^^^ But there are cases holding that when the 
 carrier delivers goods to the consignee in a damaged condition, it must prove, 
 in order to exonerate itself, that they were in such condition when delivered to 
 it by the consignor as it is presumed that the goods were received l)y it in good 
 
 order. ''^- . , , 
 
 Bill of Lading Not Conclusive as to Condition of Freight.— As a general 
 rule, the plaintiff, in an action against a carrier fur damage to freight, makes 
 out a prima facie case bv producing the receipt of the carrier acknowledging that 
 the freight was delivered to the carrier in good order, but such an acknowledg- 
 ment is a mere recital and not conclusive. ^-^ 
 
 held itself out to the public as operating 
 the line by advertising it as a part of its 
 system, etc., and defendant, although 
 having it within its power, fails to pro- 
 duce evidence to show the actual rela- 
 tion between the two companies, it is a 
 reasonable presumption that such evi- 
 dence would support plaintiff's conten- 
 tion, "and the jury is justified in de- 
 termining the issue in favor of the plain- 
 tiff. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Anoka Nat. 
 Bank. 108 Fed. 482. 47 C. C. A. 454. 
 
 81. Condition of goods when received 
 by carrier. — United States. — Ceballos v. 
 Warren Adams, 20 C. C. A. 486, 74 Fed. 
 413; Choate v. Crowninshield, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 2,691, 3 Cliff. 184; Kerr v. Norman, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 7,732, Newb. 525; Soule v. 
 Rodocanachi, Fed. Cas. No. 13,178, Newb. 
 504; The Alartha, Fed. Cas. No. 9,145, Olc. 
 140; The Williams Taber Co.. Fed. Cas. 
 No. 17,757. 
 
 Alabama. — Grey v. Mobile Trade Co.. 
 55 Ala. 387, 28 Am. Rep. 729; South, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 
 Am. Rep. 578; Steele v. Townsend, 37 
 Ala. 247, 79 Am. Dec. 49. 
 
 Connecticut. — Mears v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 75 Conn. 171, 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. 
 R. A. 884. 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 F/or/dfl.— Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Har- 
 ris, 26 Fla. 148, 7 So. 544, 42 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 457, 23 Am. St. Rep. 551. 
 
 Illinois. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Fox, 
 113 111. App. 180; Chesapeake, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Radbourne, 52 111. App. 203. 
 
 Iowa. — Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. Co, 
 104 Iowa 659, 74 N. W. 192; McCoy v. 
 K. & D. M. R. Co., 44 Iowa 424; Powers 
 V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 130 Iowa 615, 105 
 N. W. 345; Winne v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 31 Iowa 583. 
 
 Louisiana.— "V^rAos, v. Toulon, 14 La. 
 Ann. 429, 74 Am. Dec. 435. 
 
 Minnesota. — Boehl v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 Minn. 191, 46 N. W. 333. 
 
 Missouri.— ^uAAy v. Wabash, etc., R. 
 Co., 20 Mo. App. 206; Davis v. Wal)ash, 
 etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 449; Doan v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., o8 Mo. App. 408; 
 Nave V. Pacific Exp. Co., 19 Mo. App. 
 563; Read v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 
 Mo. 199. 
 New York. — Brooks v. Dinsmore, 6 N. 
 
 Y. St. Rep. 281; Caldwell v. Erie Trans- 
 fer Co., 13 Misc. Rep. 37, 33 N. Y. S. 
 993, 67 N. Y. St. Rep. 843; Hoffbert v. 
 Bumford, 88 N. Y. S. 940; Smith v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 43 Barb. 225, af- 
 firmed in 41 N. Y. 620; Brooks v. Dins- 
 more, 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 587. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Adams Exp. Co. v. Hol- 
 mes (Pa.), 9 Atl. 166; American Exp. 
 Co. V. Sands, 55 Pa. 140; Buck v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. 170, 24 Atl. 678, 
 30 Am. St. Rep. 800; Hays v. Kennedy 
 (Pa.), 3 Grant 351; Castellucci v. Le- 
 high Valley R. Co., 40 Pa. Super Ct. 24. 
 
 Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 S. W. 311; Mer- 
 chants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 
 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep. 
 847. 
 
 Texas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Breed- 
 ing, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 154, 16 S. 
 W. 184; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. D'Arcais, 
 27 Tex. Civ. App. 57, 64 S. W. 813. 
 
 Where the shipper forwarded goods to 
 a customer for inspection, and the goods 
 were subsequently returned in a damaged 
 condition, there is no presumption that, 
 while in the hands of the customer, they 
 remained in the same condition as when 
 originally shipped. Brooks v. Dinsmore, 
 6 N. Y. St. Rep. 281. 
 
 82. Alabama. — Montgomery, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Moore, 51 Ala. 394. 
 
 Georgia.— Br \t A v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533; 
 Henry v. Central R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 
 815, 15 S. E. 757; Hartwell R. Co. v. 
 Kidd, 10 Ga. App. 771, 74 S. E. 310; The 
 Ocean Steamship Co. v. McAlpin, 69 Ga. 
 437; Southern R. Co. v. Nailon, 7 Ga. 
 App. 430, 431, 67 S. E. 116; Central, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Mercantile Claim Co., 8 Ga. 
 App. 17, 19, 68 S. E. 492; Fain v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 734, 736, 60 S. E. 
 359; Ohlen v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 2 
 Ga. App. 323, 58 S. E. 511. 
 
 Goods presumed in good order. — 
 Where it does not appear that the car- 
 rier received the goods in bad order, the 
 presumption is they were in good order. 
 Henry v. Central R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 815, 
 15 S. K. 757. 
 
 83. Bill of lading not conclusive as to 
 condition of freight. — United States. — 
 Choate v. Crowninshield, Fed. Cas. No.
 
 829 
 
 LOSS OR IXJIKV TO COODS. 
 
 §§ 1059-1061 
 
 § 1059. Shipment Composed of Several Classes of Goods. — Where a 
 
 sliipment was ci^inp(j>e(l (jI >c\LTal classes of ;^()()(1>. and a purticjii of it was lost, 
 there is no legal presnniption as to whether such jjortion belonged to the least 
 or most \aluable class, or to any particular class.''* 
 
 § 106 0. Where Transportation under Special Contract. — As to pre- 
 sumptions and burden (jf proof where a special c(jntract is set up as a defense 
 in an action against the carrier for loss or injury to goods, see elsewhere.*^ 
 
 § 1061. Necessity of Producing Bill of Lading.— In an action against a 
 common carrier founded on its c<jnimon-law liability, it is not necessary to pro- 
 duce in evidence a bill of lading of the property alleged to have been lost or in- 
 jured, as, if there is a special contract restricting the common-law liability of 
 the carrier, ii devolves on the carrier to allege and prove it.^"^ But where the 
 action is founded on a bill of lading, then the bill of lading must be produced 
 in evidence, or its nonprcjduction must be accounted for, and its substance proved 
 as alleged.'"*^ 
 
 2,G91, :i Cliff. 1H4; Cunarcl vSleamship Co. 
 V. Kelley, 115 Fed. 678; The Moravian, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 9,789, 2 Hask. 157; The 
 California. Fed. Cas. No. 2,314, 2 Sawy. 
 12; The Colombo, Fed. Cas. No. 3,040, 3 
 Blatchf. 521; The Martha, Fed. Cas. No. 
 9,145, Olc. 140; Seller v. Pacific, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 12,044. Deady 17, 1 Or. 409; Turner 
 V. Black Warrior, Fed. Cas. No. 14,253, 1 
 McAll. 181. 
 
 Connecticut. — Mears v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 75 Conn. 171, 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. 
 R. A. 884, 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 Louisiana. — Lengsfield v. Jones, 11 La. 
 Ann. 624. 
 
 Maine. — Tarbox v. Eastern Steaml)oat 
 Co., 50 Me. 339. 
 
 Mississippi. — Gardner v. New Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co., 78 Miss. 640, 29 So. 469. 
 
 Xczu J'or/^.— Harnett v. Westcott, 56 
 N. Y. Super. Ct. 213, 3 N. Y. S. 7, 18 N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 962; Jean, etc., Co. v. Flagg, 
 45 Misc. Rep. 421; Thyll v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 84 N. Y. S. 175. 
 
 North Carolina. — Burwell z\ Ralcigli, 
 etc., R. Co., 94 N. C. 451, 25 Am. & Kng. 
 R. Cas. 410. 
 
 Oregon. — Seller v. Pacific, Deady 17, 1 
 Or. 409, Fed. Cas. No. 12,644. 
 
 South Carolina. — Stadhecker v. Combs 
 & Co. (S. C), 9 Rich. L. 193. 
 
 rr.ra.f.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Holder, 10 
 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 30 S. W. 383. See 
 ante, "As Warranty or Evidence of Quan- 
 tity, Quality or Condition of Goods," §§ 
 488-494. 
 
 A bill of lading signed by the carrier 
 acknowledging the receipt of the goods, 
 "to be delivered in good order to A. at 
 B.. is prima facie evidence that they were 
 in good condition when received by the 
 carrier, but is not conclusive, and the 
 carrier may prove that the goods were 
 damaged before they came into his pos- 
 session. In such case, the burden is on 
 the carrier to prove such fact. Tarbox 
 v. Eastern Steamboat Co., 50 Me. 339. 
 
 84. Shipment composed of several 
 classes of goods. — in Lake Shore Nitro- 
 
 Glycerine Co. z\ Illinois Cent. R. Co., 75 
 111. 394, which was a suit against a com- 
 mon carrier, to recover for the loss of the 
 greater part of a shipment of carboys, 
 part containing nitric acid and the others 
 containing sulphuric acid, the former be- 
 ing of much greater value, the proof was 
 unsatisfactory, as to the proportion of 
 each, but there was proof tending to 
 show that the car contained the acids in 
 the usual proportions to be mixed in the 
 manufacture of nitro-glycerine. The 
 court instructed the jury that "the legal 
 presumption is that, the burden of proof 
 being on the plaintiff, all the acids so 
 lost, and not proven to have l^een nitric, 
 and most valuable, must have been sul- 
 phuric, and of the least value." It was 
 held that there was no legal presumption 
 in such a case, but it was a question of 
 fact from the evidence, whether the car- 
 boys, or most of those destroyed, con- 
 tained nitric or sulphuric acid. 
 
 85. Special contract. — See post, "Limi- 
 tation of Lial)ility," chapter 14. 
 
 86. Necessity of producing bill of lad- 
 ing. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. z\ Nicholson, 
 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 168. 
 
 Where the declaration against a car- 
 rier for negligent carriage is joint against 
 the party signing the bill of lading and 
 another not signing it, avers an "agree- 
 ment" disconnected with the bill of lad- 
 ing not alleged to be in writing, states 
 the bill of lading as an inducement to the 
 cause of action, does not make profert 
 of it, and the breaches assigned seem to 
 be of the joint "agreement." and not of 
 the contract contained in the bill of lad- 
 ing, the declaration will lie construed as 
 one in tort, and not "founded on" the 
 contract, so as to require profert of the 
 bill of lading, under Code Tenn. § 2893. 
 Whittcnton Mfg. Co. f. Memphis, etc.. 
 Packet Co., 21 Fed. 896. 
 
 87. Where bill foundation of action. — 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. :■. Wheat. 2 Texas 
 .\l)p. Civ. Cas., § 165: Missouri Pac. R. 
 
 C. 
 
 Nicholson. 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.,
 
 1062 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 830 
 
 §§ 1062-1066. Admissibility of Evidence— § 1062. In General.— Rel- 
 evancy and Materiality of Evidence. — Generall}-. in an action against a car- 
 rier for loss of or damage to goods, evidence which is relevant and material to 
 the issues is admissible. '^^ Evidence which is irrelevant and immaterial is inad- 
 missible.^^ and is properly excluded. '"^ 
 
 § 168: G. H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Van Win- 
 kle. 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 44:!. 
 
 Where in a suit against a carrier the 
 petition alleged that plaintiff shipped 
 cattle from Memphis, Tenn.. to Ft. 
 Worth, Tex., over several lines of con- 
 necting railroad, one of which was de- 
 fendant's' line, and that said shipment 
 was made "on through hills of lading, 
 and at agreed and through rates for the 
 whole route, the contracts and bills of 
 lading of each of said railroads in regard 
 to shipment of cattle being recognized 
 and carried out by the other;" that the 
 cattle were damaged by the negligence 
 of defendant, etc.. the suit was upon the 
 bill of lading. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Wheat, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 165. 
 
 88. Relevancy and materiality of evi- 
 dence. — See ante, "Evidence Admissible 
 under Pleadings," § 1053. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against a 
 carrier for damages to goods alleged to 
 have been injured by water while in 
 transit, evidence is admissible to show 
 that no rain fell while the property was 
 on defendant's road, and that the car in 
 which it was being transferred was not 
 allowed to be stopped near by any water 
 tank. Burwell v. Raleigh, etc., R. Co.. 94 
 N. C. 451, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 410. 
 
 In an action for damages for injury to 
 fruit trees en route plaintiff testified, that 
 the orders for both shipments were ob- 
 tained by salaried traveling men, and that 
 one shipment was sold for a certain price 
 and was not delivered, and that plaintiff 
 told defendant's agent, on November 2d 
 or 3d, that if he did not receive the ship- 
 ment promptly and in good condition he 
 would refuse it, and also testified that 
 plaintiff's customers were to receive the 
 shipments at destination on November 
 2d. Held, that the evidence was admis- 
 sible on defendant's claim that plaintiff 
 was negligent in not being ready to re- 
 ceive the trees at destination, especially 
 in view of defendant having introduced 
 an order for trees from one of plaintiff's 
 customers requiring them to be delivered 
 at such destination in October, Novem- 
 ber, or December with notice by mail of 
 the date of delivery. Young v. Southern 
 R. Co., 157 N. C. 74. 72 S. E. 835. 
 
 When a bridge truss loaded upon a flat 
 car is so high that, in attempting to take 
 it under a bridge upon defendant's rail- 
 road, it is injured by coming in contact 
 with the bridge, the load being higher 
 than the shipper agreed it should be, and 
 the shipper claims that the defendant 
 might have taken the car to its destina- 
 tion without going under the bridge, and 
 
 shows that it afterwards did take cars 
 laden in a similar manner by another 
 route, it is error not to allow the defend- 
 ant to show that at the time of the in- 
 jury the route under the bridge was the 
 only track it owned or operated by which 
 it could deliver the shipment. Pennsyl- 
 vania Co. V. Kenwood Bridge Co., 49 N. 
 E. 215, 170 111. 645, reversing 69 111. App. 
 145. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 value of a chest and its contents, which 
 were enumerated in the petition, a wit- 
 ness, after stating the value in detail of 
 a number of articles, was asked if she 
 knew the value of the chest and contents, 
 and answered in the affirmative, stating 
 the value. She also stated that, besides 
 the articles she had specially mentioned, 
 there were some others which she had 
 not named. Such statement was not 
 made in answer to any question, but in 
 connection with her testimony relating 
 to the contents of the chest. Held, that 
 an objection to her testimony on the 
 ground that there was evidence tending 
 to show that there were more goods in 
 the chest than was sued for was not well 
 taken. Seyfarth z'. vSt. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 52 Mo. 449. 
 
 89. Irrelevant and immaterial evidence 
 — Illustrations. — In an action against a 
 carrier for failure to deliver cotton 
 shipped, the issue was whether the cot- 
 ton had lost in weight from natural 
 causes, or through the fault of the car- 
 rier. Held, that evidence that other 
 people's cotton had been stolen by the 
 carrier's agents at the place where the 
 plaintiff's cotton had been delivered was 
 
 90. In an action by a county against a 
 carrier for loss of a convict car or wagon 
 by fire, evidence of the superintendent of 
 the convicts that he told one of them to 
 look after the fire which was in the car, 
 offered to show diligence 1)y the super- 
 intendent in protecting the car, was 
 properly excluded as immaterial, since it 
 did not matter what directions the su- 
 perintendent gave, but the question was 
 whether they were followed. Coweta 
 County t'. Central, etc., R. Co., 60 S. E. 
 1018, 4 Ga. App. 94. 
 
 Where a carrier's liability for goods 
 destroyed before their delivery to the 
 consignee was tried on the single issue 
 of defendant's negligence, and so sub- 
 mitted to the jury, the exclusion of an al- 
 leged contract offered by defendant, 
 whereby its liability was limited, was not 
 error. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Plum- 
 mer (Ky.), 35 S. W. 1113.
 
 831 
 
 LOSS OR INJLRV TO GOODS. 
 
 1062 
 
 Nature of Liability. — i'or the purpose of showing that goods when injured, 
 were in the possession of defendant as carrier and not as warehouseman, evi- 
 dence that the faihire of defenchmt's agent to delixer the goods on the morning 
 of their arrival, hefore they were injured, to those plaintiff sent for them, was 
 wrongful, is material.'" And as hearing upon the question whether a railroad 
 company had received goods for transj^ortation as a common carrier, and as 
 confirmatory of the statement of an agent that it had not, the defendant may 
 ask the agent whether it was not the custom to weigh and mark goods as they 
 were taken for transportation, the goods in question not having been weighed 
 and marked. "-' 
 
 Title to Property Shipped. — in an action by a consignor against a carrier 
 for the loss of property, a contract between the consignee and consignor is ad- 
 missible to show ownership of the property."'' And it is error to exclude testi- 
 mony to show that the pro]:)erty did not belong to the plaintiff but to one of 
 defendants as alleged by them.''^ 
 
 Proof of Loss. — The fact that the plaintiff", after the goods shoubl have been 
 delivered, made in((nirics for tiicm oi the carrier, is admissible in evidence of 
 
 inadmissible. Central R. Co. v. Brimson, 
 63 Ga. 504. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for the nondelivery of freight lost 
 from its depot after transportation, proof 
 that other freigiit of the same kind was 
 always cared for by it in the same man- 
 ner, and that none had ever been lost, 
 is immaterial. Lane r. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co.. tl2 Mass. 4.55. 
 
 In an action against an express com- 
 pany for damages to fish shipped, evi- 
 dence that other shipments made on the 
 same day to a different destination from 
 the same I)atch of fish were paid for 
 without complaint was not admissible, in 
 absence of a showing that all of the fish 
 shipped that day were prepared for ship- 
 ment in the same manner. Wells Fargo 
 & Co.'s Exp. V. Gentry (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 154 S. W. 36.3. 
 
 In an action against a railroad for 
 damages to plaintiff's shipment of poul- 
 try by delay in transportation and failure 
 to properly ice the car, the admission of 
 evidence that certain other poultry re- 
 jected by the consignee thereof and 
 thereafter purchased by plaintiff and in- 
 cluded in bis shipment was error, the 
 cause of the rejection not being stated, 
 and the evidence l)eing calculated to 
 cause the jury to lielieve that the poul- 
 try was rejected because it was tainted 
 or otherwise defective. Patterson & Co. 
 f. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 
 S. W. 336. 
 
 In an action for loss of goods testi- 
 mony of plaintiff as to the value to him 
 of the use of the goods during tbeir de- 
 layed transportation was inadmissible; 
 there being no evidence of any delay. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dement (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 115 S. W. 635. 
 
 Where defendant was sued for injuries 
 to a car of vegetables caused by its neg- 
 lect to keep them properly iced, evi- 
 dence that other cars shipped in tbe 
 
 same way, just before and just after the 
 injured shipment, arrived in good condi- 
 tion, was irrelevant and inadmissible. 
 Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Harlan (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 62 S. W. 971. 
 
 In an action against a carrier to re- 
 cover for an engine intrusted to its care, 
 and lost in transit, testimony as to 
 whether or not it was practicable to 
 carry such machine on an ordinary 
 freight car is not admissible on the ques- 
 tion of the making of the contract. Ames 
 r. First Div., etc.. R. Co., 12 Minn. 412. 
 Gil. 295. 
 
 Where a contract for the shipment of 
 goods contained no exception as to loss 
 hy fire, although the usual bills of lad- 
 ing issued by the carrier did contain this 
 provision, in an action for the price of 
 the goods, the same having been de- 
 stroyed by fire, a copy of such bills of 
 lading is not evidence for the transporter. 
 Clyde T'. Graver, 54 Pa. 251. 
 
 Value of car containing goods. — In an 
 action against a railroad companj- to re- 
 cover the value of cotton received for 
 transportation, and destroyed by fire 
 while on board of the cars, the value of 
 the car burnt has no relevancy to the 
 question at issue. Montgomery, etc., R. 
 Co. z\ Edmonds, 41 .\la. 6<)7. 
 
 Evidence of damage to other freight 
 than that specified in the statement of 
 the cause of action, and as to the 
 amount of such damage, is inadmissible 
 and it is error to admit such testimony. 
 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Smith. 84 Tex. 
 348, 351, 19 S. W. .■>()'.». 
 
 91. Nature of liabUity. — Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Dunlap, 148 Ala. 23, 41 So. 826. 
 
 92. Vaughan z: Raleigh, etc.. R. Co., 63 
 X. C. 11. 
 
 93. Title to property shipped. — Hess v. 
 South Dakota Cent. R. Co.. 30 S. Dak. 538, 
 139 X. W. 334. 
 
 94. Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Moore. 47 
 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 105 S. W. 532.
 
 1062 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 832 
 
 their having been lost/^"' To charge a carrier with an alleged deficiency in the 
 goods delivered, the testimony of the persons who actuall\- loaded the vessel is 
 the best evidence.'^'' 
 
 Evidence of Other Losses. — In an action for loss of goods, evidence as to 
 losses of other goods 1)\- other persons is incompetent.''" 
 
 Value of Goods and Amount of Damage. — Generally as to admissibility 
 of evidence as to the value of the goods shipped and the amount of damage sus- 
 tained by loss of or damage thereto, see elsewhere. *-'■'* 
 
 Character of Goods. — In an action against a carrier for the loss of a box 
 of goods, evidence as to its contents is admissible. ^^ And where the bill of lad- 
 ing described goods as two "bundles of carpet," evidence that the bundles con- 
 tained other articles than carpet is admissible, where the appearance of the 
 bundles suggested that they contained something besides carpet, and the articles 
 were not shipped at a reduced rate.^ 
 
 Condition of Goods. — Generally, evidence as to the condition of goods is 
 admissible.- Plaintiff can not introduce evidence of the condition of property 
 at a distant point, from which it w^as shipped by vessel to the place where it was 
 delivered to defendant, unless more direct proof is unavailable ; and where such 
 evidence has been admitted it is proper, on cross-examination, to inquire into 
 the mode of transshipment, the manner of its storage, the weather, and the con- 
 dition of the property on its arrival.-"^ Evidence that the person receiving goods 
 made no complaint as to their condition,'* and that he signed a receipt reciting 
 that they were in good condition,'' is admissible. 
 
 Weight of Goods. — \Miere some of the contents of a box have been lost, it 
 is competent to show what goods were in the box when it started, and wdien it 
 was delivered, and for that purpose to show the weight at the beginning and 
 end of its transportation; but it is not error, upon objection, to refuse to allow 
 
 95. Proof of loss. — In.sfledew v. North- 
 ern R. Co. (Mass.), 7 Gray 86. 
 
 96. Cafiero v. Welsh (Pa.), 8 Phila. 130, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 2286. 
 
 97. Evidence of other losses. — Rags- 
 dale V. Southern R. Co., 69 S. C. 429, 48 
 S. E. 466. See Central R. Co. v. Briin- 
 son, 63 Ga. .504. 
 
 In an action against the driver of a 
 stagecoach for nondelivery of money in- 
 trusted to him, evidence that third per- 
 sons had admitted that another package 
 of money was stolen from the stage on 
 the same day is not competent to prove 
 the loss. Shelden v. Robinson. 7 N. H. 
 1.57. 26 Am. Dec. 726. 
 
 98. Value of goods and amount of dam- 
 age. — Set post. "Achnissihility," § 1083. 
 
 99. Character of goods. — Bottum v. 
 Charleston, etc., R. Co., 51 S. E. 985. 72 
 S. C. 375, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 773, 110 Am. 
 St. Rep. 610. 
 
 1. Benson v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 35 
 Utah 241, 99 Pac. 1072, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 Ann. Cas. 803. 
 
 2. Condition of goods. — Where it ap- 
 peared in an action against an express 
 company for damages to a shipment of 
 fish that the fish shown to witness was 
 of the same batch of fish as those 
 shipped, evidence of such witness as to 
 the condition of the fish at a certain 
 time was admissible. Wells Fargo & Co.'s 
 Exp. V. Gentry (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. 
 W. 363. 
 
 Condition week after shipped. — Where 
 potatoes were left by the plaintiff at a 
 certain depot, under a contract for their 
 transportation to Chicago on the same 
 day, and they were not shipped until the 
 next day, it was not error, in an action 
 for injuries to the same, by freezing, al- 
 leged to have occurred in transitu, in 
 consequence of such delay, to permit a 
 witness to testify as to their condition 
 when seen by him in the warehouse of 
 the consignee, at Chicago, a week or 
 more after they were shipped. It was a 
 question to be determined, upon the 
 whole evidence, whether the potatoes 
 were frozen in transitu, or subsequent to 
 their arrival at Chicago. Curtis v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 18 Wis. 312. 
 
 3. Condition when delivered to defend- 
 ant. — Marquette v. Langton, 32 Mich. 251. 
 
 4. Failure to make complaint. — Patter- 
 son & Co. 7'. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 126 S. W. 336. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for damage to freight by water, de- 
 fendant was properly allowed to show 
 that the expressman receipting for the 
 goods at the depot looked at the box 
 containing them, and made no complaint. 
 Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., 52 Atl. 
 610, 75 Conn. 171, 56 L. R. A. 884, 96 
 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 5. Patterson & Co. v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 336.
 
 833 
 
 LOSS Ok IXJIKV T(J G(J(J1jS. 
 
 § 1062 
 
 a witness to testify that ])laintiff knowingly only paid the freight rate on a cer- 
 tain nuniher of pounds of freight." To establish the weight of a number of 
 bales of cotton burned while in the carrier's possession, it is competent for ])lain- 
 tilf to prove the average weight of a greater number of bales, of which the 
 burned bales were a portion,' or he may i)rove the weight of all the bales which 
 were delivered to the carrier, and of the bales which were not lost,*^ in order to 
 enable the jury to ascertain the weight of the bales which were destroyed. 
 
 Evidence of Custom. — In some instances evidence of custom is admissible, 
 such as a custom lo deliver goods without re(|uiring the production of the bill 
 of lading.-' a custom respecting deliveries for immediate shijjment,'" the custom 
 and usage of well-appointed and managed railway companies as to the mode of 
 shipment of baled cotton,'' the custom as to the time for unloading damaged 
 fruit,'- and the custom of defendant's servant to examine and keep open air 
 vents in cars.^-' But where goods in transit, while lying in the carrier's freight 
 house, were destroyed by fire, evidence as to the custom of other railroad com- 
 panies to keej) oil and to fill and light their lamps in their freight rooms is in- 
 admissible." .\nd in an action against a ferryman for a loss occasioned bv his 
 neglect to put up the chain at the end of his boat, he can not give in evidence 
 a custom at other ferries on the same river to put up the chain at the request 
 of passengers, and not otherwise.^'' The fact of delivery not being susceptible 
 of positive proof, evidence of usage or custom as to delivery is inadmissible.'" 
 
 As to Care Exercised. — Generally, evidence is admissible to show the care 
 exercised by the carrier, whether it was negligent or the contrary.'" So in an 
 
 6. Louisville, etc., R. Co. z\ Yudelson, 
 135 Ga. 7:;i. 7o S. I'.. r>7*\. 
 
 7. Weight of cotton destroyed. — Sniitli 
 V. North Carolina R. Co., (18 N. C. 107. 
 
 8. Montgomery, etc.. R. Co. v. Ed- 
 monds. 41 .\la. <)t)~. 
 
 9. Evidence of custom. — Where, in an 
 action against a carrier for loss of goods 
 destroyed in the delivering carrier's de- 
 pot, defendant claimed that the goods had 
 been destroyed by fire after the expira- 
 tion of a reasonal)le time within wliich 
 the consignee should have removed 
 them, and after defendant had refused to 
 deliver when delivery was first demanded 
 because no waybill had been received 
 from the initial carrier, it was competent 
 for plaintiff to show that the delivering 
 station was a prepay station, and that it 
 was the custom of defendant's agent to 
 deliver freight at such station to the 
 owner or consignee without requiring 
 the production of a bill of lading. Bow- 
 don V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 41 So. 21)4, 
 148 Ala. 2<). 
 
 10. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Burrow & 
 Co., 11(3 S. W. l'.)S, 8<) .\rk. 178. 
 
 11. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Manches- 
 ter Mills. 88 Tenn. ().53, 14 S. W. 314. 
 
 12. Presley Co. 7'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 139 X. W. f)0;t, 120 Minn. 295. 
 
 13. Custom as to air vents. — In an ac- 
 tion against a carrier for damages to 
 plaintitf' s shipment of apples through de- 
 fendant's negligence in failing to keep 
 open air vents in its car. testimony of 
 defendant's conductor that it was his cus- 
 tom to carefull)' examine all vents and 
 see whether they were open or closed, 
 was admissible, witness having previously 
 
 1 Car— 53 
 
 testified, in response to plaintiff's ques- 
 tion, that it was his duty to keep the 
 vents open, and having, on redirect ex- 
 amination, stated that it was his custom 
 to perform such duty. Cane Hill, etc., 
 Co. z'. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 95 S. W. 751. 
 
 14. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Payne, 15 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 58, 38 S. W. 366. 
 
 15. Miller v. Pendleton (Mass.), 8' 
 Gray 547; see Lewis z: Smith, 107 Mass. 
 334. 
 
 16. Fact of delivery. — Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. z: Pagan, 72 Tex. 127, 130. 9 S. W. 
 749, 2 L. R. A. 75, 13 .\m. St. Rep. 776. 
 
 17. On an issue as to whether a rail- 
 road carrier was negligent in failing to 
 control a fire whicli started in its yards, 
 evidence as to the facilities provided by 
 the city for extingiiishing fires was prop- 
 erly admitted. Peerless Mfg. Co. z\ Xew 
 York, etc., R. Co., 61 Atl. 511, 73 X. H. 
 328. 
 
 Remonstrances to carrier's servants. — 
 In an action against a carrier to recover 
 for injuries received by cattle while in 
 course of transportation, remonstrances 
 to the defendant's employees because the 
 cattle were improperly stowed were held 
 admissilile to show that the attention of 
 those in charge was called to the diffi- 
 cultj'. Black z\ Camden, etc., Transp. 
 Co. (,X. v.), 45 Barl). 40. 
 
 Whether flood might have been antic- 
 ipated. — In an action against a carrier 
 for loss of goods whjle in a railroad yard 
 by a Hood submerging the yard, evidence 
 of a flood fifty-nine j-ears liefore and of 
 the tradition of a flood al)out one hun- 
 dred years before, followed by proof
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 834 
 
 § 1062 
 
 action for injury to goods it niav be shown that similar articles shipped in the 
 same way were 'usually in a damaged and broken condition on their arrual or 
 that they usually arriy'ed uninjuredV'^ and where goods haye been lost by reason 
 of a col'lision, it is proper to introduce eyidence as to contriyances employed by 
 other carriers to preyent similar accidents, and to sho\y that such contriyances 
 were not in use by defendant.i» The fact that the shipper places a small yalu- 
 ation on his property is admissible on the question of whether the proper man- 
 ner of shipment was adopted by the carrier in yiew of such yaluation.20 Eyi- 
 dence as to care taken on rainy days is not admissible to show^ care taken on 
 fine days, nor eyidence as to care generally taken on rainy days to show care 
 taken on a certain rainy day.-^ 
 
 Condition of Car.— In an action against a earner for damage to goods 
 shipped, eyidence as to the condition of the car is admissible.-- And it is error 
 to exclude testimony tending to show that plaintiiT had knowledge of the char- 
 acter and condition of the car. 2^ 
 
 Competency of Servant. — Th.e plaintiff may introduce eyidence that the 
 carrier's servant was unfit for seryice.^-^ And where goods were injured as the 
 result of the negligent driving of defendant's drayman, eyidence that he was 
 drunk when he called for them is admissible.-'' But defendant can not intro- 
 duce evidence of the caution and skill of the servant who had charge of the 
 goods lost unless plaintiff attempts to predicate his claim to damages on proof 
 of the want of skill of such seryant.^^ 
 
 Evidence of Subsequent Precautions. — Evidence of precautions taken 
 after the happening of the injury is not admissible to prove antecedent negli- 
 gence.-'' 
 
 that one of the brakemen on the train 
 was unfit for service in coupling the cars 
 again by reason of a wound received in 
 an accident the night before was rele- 
 vant. Galveston, etc., R. Co. ?■. Johnson 
 (Tex.), 19 S. W. 867. 
 
 25. Kates Transfer, etc.. Co. f. Klas- 
 sen, 6 Ala. App. .301, 59 So. 355. 
 
 26. Caution and skill of servant. — 
 Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Edmonds, 
 41 Ala. ()fi7. 
 
 27. Evidence of subsequent precau- 
 tions. — Cunningham z'. Pennsylvania R 
 Co., 40 Pa. Super. Ct. 212. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 death of chickens smothered while car- 
 ried in an ordinary express car, the ad- 
 mission of evidence that, after the ship- 
 per had complained of the loss, the car- 
 rier began to use another kind of a car 
 for like shipments, was error, though the 
 trial occurred more than two and one 
 half years after the loss, and though it 
 did not appear that the change was not 
 made until long after the loss. Wells 
 Fargo & Co.'s Exp. v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. 
 Api).), ]:'.9 S. W. 926. 
 
 Evidence not violating rule. — In an ac- 
 tion against a railroad company to re- 
 cover for the loss of cement which was 
 destroyed in cars on a siding during a 
 flood, there was testimony that prior to 
 the particular flood the tracks had been 
 raised as a precautionary measure. A 
 witness for the company testified that, 
 after the tracks had been raised, cars had 
 not been removed from the siding at 
 times of flood. Held, that plaintiff was 
 
 that the high-water mark of the more 
 recent flood was higher than the flood 
 in question, and that, before the location 
 of the yard, the chief engineer of the 
 carrier had knowledge of the prior 
 floods, was admissible on the issue of 
 whether the flood in question might 
 ' reasonably have been anticipated by the 
 carrier. Atchison, etc., R. Co. r. Madden, 
 etc., Co., 103 S. W. 1193, 46 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 597. 
 
 18. Steele r. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247, 79 
 Am. Dec. 49. 
 
 19. Boscowitz V. Adams Exp. Co., 93 
 111. 523, 34 Am. Rep. 191. 
 
 20. Winn v. American Exp. Co., 149 
 Iowa 259, 128 N. W. 663. 
 
 21. The man who carted the goods to 
 plaintiff's house testified that the weather 
 was clear at the time. It appeared that 
 it rained later in the day. Held, that a 
 question asked him by defendant as to 
 the care he took on rainy days was prop- 
 erly excluded. Mears v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., .52 Atl. 610, 75 Conn. 171, 56 L. 
 R. A. 884, 96 Am. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 22. Condition of car. — Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Barfield, 58 S. E. 236, 1 Ga. App. 
 203. 
 
 23. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 105 
 S. W. 532. 47 Tex. Civ. App. 531. 
 
 24. Brakeman unfit for service. — In an 
 action again.-,t a railroad company for 
 damage done to cattle while in transit 
 over its road, where it appeared that the 
 cars became uncoupled while in motion, 
 and the bringing of the cars violently to- 
 gether again caused the injury, evidence
 
 835 
 
 LOSS OR INjUKV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1062-1063 
 
 Why a car was not re-iced may not be shown in an action for breach of a 
 carriers contract to re-ice a car of tomatoes at certain points on the ronte.-^ 
 
 Offer of Reward. — On the qnestion of whether a carrier admitted his Ha- 
 bility for goods lost, evidence of his having offered a reward for their recovery 
 is admissil)le.-'* 
 
 Mode of Shipment. — b'videncc that the person shipping the goods was of- 
 fered two iiKjdcs of shipment, one called "owner's risk," at a certain rate, and 
 the other "sliipper's risk," at a higher rate, and chose the former, is admissible.'-" 
 
 Evidence insufficient to fix the identity of the goods is properly e.x- 
 cludcrl ill an action against the carrier f(jr freight inipro]>erIy delivered.''' 
 
 Hearsay Evidence. — In an action for damages to a car of vegetables caused 
 by not keeinng them sufficiently iced, evidence by the consignor that all the veg- 
 etables were fresh from farm wagons, and accepted by his foreman as being in 
 first-class condition, is not lK-arsa\.''- 
 
 Impeaching or Contradicting Evidence. — Kvidence intended for impeach- 
 ing or contradicting a witness should I)c exchidcd unless it would have that 
 tendency. •'•■' 
 
 Manufactured Evidence. — Papers which constitute no part of the contract 
 for the deli\ery oi the goods are inadmissible on behalf of the carrier, as this 
 would i)ermit it to manufacture evidence for itself. •''•* 
 
 Harmless Error. — A part\- can not com]:)lain of the admission of evidence 
 which docs not prejudice him.'-' 
 
 § 1063. Declarations and Admissions. — The declarations and admissions 
 of the carrier's agent respecting business within the sco])e of his authoritv to 
 
 entitled t > show in contradiction of the 
 defendant's witness that cars had been 
 removed subsequent to the elevation of 
 the tracks, the admission of such testi- 
 mony not violating the rule of the text. 
 Cuiniingham ?•. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 40 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 212. 
 
 28. Why a car not re-iced. — Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co. f. Orcm. etc., Produce Co.. 
 Ill .\I(1. :!.)(>, 7.3 .-\tl. o71. 
 
 29. Offer of reward, — Bennett r. North- 
 ern Pac. Exp. Co., 12 Ore. 49, 6 Pac. 160. 
 
 30. Mears r. New York, etc., R. Co.. 
 75 Conn. 171, 52 Atl. 610, 56 L. R. A. 
 8S4, 96 .-Km. St. Rep. 192. 
 
 31. Evidence insufficient to fix identity 
 of goods.— Callaway :•. Si)Utlu>rn R. Co., 
 12(i Ga. 1'.)."). .").") S. E. 2;{. 
 
 32. Hearsay evidence. — Ft. Worth, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Harlan (Tex. Civ. App.), 62 S. 
 W. 971. 
 
 33. Impeaching or contradicting evi- 
 dence. — In a suit against a carrier for 
 damage to a shipment, where witness 
 testified he did not know the origin of 
 the fire, it was error to admit an affida- 
 vit previously made by him that he sup- 
 posed it was caused by passing engines. 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Bath & Co.. 17 
 Tex. Civ. App. 697, 711, 44 S. W. .->9.-). af- 
 firmed, in '.Kl Te.x. 7:!1, no (ip. 
 
 Agent's certificate giving amount of 
 goods destroyed. — .\n agent of a railroad 
 company, on the day after a fire, drew up 
 a statement in the form of a certificate, 
 giving tlie amount of plaintiff's goods de- 
 stroyed while in the possession of the 
 
 company, etc. The railroad company in- 
 troduced the deposition of the agent as 
 to the same facts. Held, that the state- 
 ment was admissible evidence to contra- 
 dict the deposition in case it disagreed 
 with the statement, and the attention of 
 the witness was called to that fact. East 
 Line, etc., R. Co. f. Hall. 64 Tex. 615. 
 
 34. Manufactured evidence. — Erb 7: 
 Koekuk Packet Co., r.i Mo. 5.3. which 
 was an action to recover the value of 
 three boxes of goods shipped at St. 
 Louis on board of one of the defendant's 
 boats, to be delivered at Leavenworth. 
 It appeared that the boxes were included 
 in the bill of lading, but not included in 
 the receipt given at the place of destina- 
 tion. Held, that evidence of a waybill 
 on a railroad, and a manifest of a steam- 
 boat running over a portion of the line 
 over which the goods had to pass, was 
 inadmissible to explain the discrepancy 
 between the bill of lading and the re- 
 ceipt. 
 
 35. Harmless error. — On an issue of a 
 carrier's negligence in permitting a con- 
 signment of perishable freight to remain 
 on its tracks in summer without icing, 
 the admission of a telegram from the 
 carrier's servant to its claim agent, that 
 when the car was inspected the goods 
 appeared in good condition, that one- 
 third of the ice remained, and a certain 
 quantity was put in, the inspection being 
 shortly before the ice was put in, does 
 not prejudice defendant. Lamb :■. Chi- 
 cago, etc.. R. Co.. 76 N. W. 1123. 101 
 Wis. 138.
 
 § 1063 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 836 
 
 transact and made while he was engaged in such husincss are admissible.''" 
 
 36. Declarations and admissions of 
 carrier's agent. — Texas, etc.. R. Co. :'. 
 Felker. 40 Tex. Civ. App. 004. 1)0 S. \\ . 
 530: Baltimore, etc., R. Co. z'. Christie, 
 5 \\'. \'a. o25. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where an agent of a 
 carrier, wliile engaged in tracing and lo- 
 cating a car, stated that it had not yet 
 reached a certain place, the declaration 
 was admissible as part of the res gestrc 
 in an action for damages to the shipment 
 contained in the car, as was also a state- 
 ment made by another agent when he 
 was attempting to adjust plaintiff's claim 
 for damages, and when he and plaintiff 
 were examining the shipment to ascer- 
 tain tlie damages. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Watkins. 4o Tex. Civ. App. 321, 100 
 S. W. 162. 
 
 In an action for damage and loss to a 
 shipment of oil, there was no error in 
 admitting evidence of statements by the 
 soliciting freight agent of one of the car- 
 riers and the local freight agent of the 
 other that, if consignee would accept the 
 oil. "they would see them through," as 
 it tended to show the inducement of- 
 fered consignee to receive the oil, and 
 that by receiving it consignee did not in- 
 tend to waive damages. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Oriental Oil Co., 51 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 336, 111 S. W. 979. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for defi- 
 ciency in cotton seed shipped, where 
 there was evidence that the witness was 
 the agent of defendant railroad at a cer- 
 tain station, and had received as such 
 agent the cotton seed in question, and 
 that one B. was agent of defendant, and 
 as such had weighed the cotton seed in 
 question, it was competent for the wit- 
 ness to testify what the correspondence 
 was between these two agents of the de- 
 fendant in regard to such matter. Rags- 
 dale v. Southern R. Co., r>l S. E. 540, 72 
 S. C. 120. 
 
 In an action to recover for the loss of 
 a trunk shipped by express, evidence 
 that, on demand being made to the pres- 
 ident of the express company, he ad- 
 mitted that the trunk had been in the 
 company's possession, is admissible. 
 Harnett r. Westcott, 56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 213, 3 N. Y. S. 7, 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 962. 
 
 In an action for loss of goods, inter- 
 views with the carrier's agent in an at- 
 tempt to locate the goods were admissi- 
 ble. Fein v. Weir, 114 N. Y. S. 426, 129 
 App. Div. 299, affirmed in 92 N. E. 1084. 
 
 Declaration of freight claim agent. — 
 In an action for loss of freight, evidence 
 that declarations were made by a gen- 
 eral agent of tlie railway company, in- 
 vested with authority to adjust claims 
 against it, within the scope of his agen- 
 cies, show that the authority of the 
 freight claim agent was such as to 
 render his report as to the claim in ques- 
 
 tion l)inding as admissions against car- 
 rier. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Gernon, 84 
 'l\'X. 141, 142. 19 S. W. 461. 
 
 Written communications. — In an ac- 
 tion for freigln burned after delivery for 
 shipment, a postal card written the ship- 
 per by the carrier's agent after the fire, 
 stating that the carrier would not as- 
 sume further responsibility for the 
 freight, was admissible to show that the 
 agent knew the freight had been deliv- 
 ered for shipment. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 c'. Burrow & Co., 116 S. W. 198, 89 Ark. 
 178. 
 
 An express company received at St. 
 Louis a ])ox of goods directed to the 
 town of J., stipulating that its liability 
 should cease upon delivering the goods 
 to another carrier at the agency of the 
 company nearest J. The box was deliv- 
 ered to the other carrier at M., and never 
 reached J. In tracing it, the St. Louis 
 agent directed his letter to an agent at 
 T., which was nearer to J. than M., and 
 received a reply that the box had been 
 lost in the burning of a car. This reply 
 the St. Louis agent indorsed, asking the 
 shipper to present claim, invoice, and re- 
 ceipt for settlement. Held, in an action 
 for the loss, that the letter, reply, and 
 indorsement were competent as an ad- 
 mission of liability. Schutter z'. Adams 
 Exp. Co.. 5 Mo. App. 316. 
 
 A letter received by due course of mail, 
 purporting to be written by the general 
 claim agent of a railroad corporation, 
 and upon its printed letter heads, in re- 
 ply to a letter addressed to the corpora- 
 tion or to such claim agent and sent 
 through the mail, is presumptively genu- 
 ine and authorized, and is admissible in 
 evidence without further proof that such 
 person is the general claim agent of the 
 corporation or that the letter was writ- 
 ten by the party by whom it purports to 
 l)e signed. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. J'. Mc- 
 Intyre, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 82 S. W. 
 346. 
 
 Declarations held inadmissible. — C. 
 sought to recover the value of a trunk 
 and contents, lost from the cars of de- 
 fendant. On the trial the evidence ad- 
 mitted that B., who was since deceased, 
 a clerk in an office of defendant, declared 
 some time after the loss that he had dis- 
 covered what had become of the trunk; 
 that it had been put ofif the cars at a cer- 
 tain point and the contents lost. Held, 
 that there being no effort in the case to 
 fix the liability of the defendant by rea- 
 son of any act or agreement of the sup- 
 posed agent B., but a mere attempt to 
 prove by his declarations a fact with 
 which he was not in any way connected, 
 and of which he did not appear to have 
 any personal knowledge, the evidence 
 was improperly admitted. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. z'. Christie, 5 W. Va. 325.
 
 837 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY' TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1063-106: 
 
 Where some of the contents of a box have been lost, any admission which ma> 
 have been made by the consignee in reference thereto is adniissiljle.-'" 
 
 § 1064. Opinion Evidence. — In an action against carriers for injuries to 
 goods, witnesses who ha\c (luaHlied as ex])erts may give their o|)ini(jn as to the 
 cause of the (himage.-''' A non-expert witness can only testify as to facts.^" In 
 an action to recover the value of cotton lost by fire it is not error to refuse to 
 permit the question to be answered, whether everything was done which could 
 be done to sa\e the cotton from being burned.'" 
 
 § 1065. Documentary Evidence.— Bill of Lading.— A bill of lading ac- 
 kiiowkdgiiig the receipt of goods is evidence of their delivery to the carrier.^ ^ 
 
 Waybill. — In an action for loss of freight, the waybill which went with the 
 freight is comjjetent evidence against the carrier.-*- Where the plaintiff intro- 
 duces a waybill in evidence by offering a ])art of it, the defendant has the right 
 to have the entire pajier submitted to the jury.-*-' 
 
 37. Admission of consignee. — Louis- 
 ville, etc.. R. Co. r. Yudclson, 135 Ga. 
 7:U, 70 S. K. 576. 
 
 38. Expert and opinion evidence. — 
 Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Bath, 40 Tex. 
 Civ. .^pp. 270, 90 S. \V. 55, affirmed in 
 101 Tex. 641, no op. (that dama^^c 
 caused hy fresh, and not by salt water). 
 
 39. Illustrations of testimony as to 
 facts. — In an action for the loss of sev- 
 eral barrels of molasses in shipment, tes- 
 timony that the witness had inspected 
 the shipment at a certain point, but was 
 unable to stop the leakage, as all of the 
 barrels seemed to be in good condition, 
 and the leakage appeared to be from fer- 
 mentation, was not a conclusion of the 
 witness. International, etc., R. Co. 7'. 
 Drought & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 100 S. 
 W. 101 1. 
 
 In an action for tlie loss of several 
 barrels of molasses in shipment, testi- 
 mony that "some of the barrel heads 
 showed to have been staved inwards by 
 heavy blows from the outside," was not 
 a conclusion of the witness, but testi- 
 mony as to a fact. International, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Drought & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 100 S. W. toil. 
 
 On an issue as to the cause of dam- 
 age to a shipment in transit, the testi- 
 mony of a witness tliat it was his judg- 
 ment, from the general appearance of the 
 shipment, that it was due to tlie im- 
 proper storing or packing of the goods 
 in the car, was admissible as the state- 
 ment of a fact, and not merely an opin- 
 ion. Texas, etc., R. Co. "'. Warner, 42 
 Tex. Civ. App. 280, 93 S. W. 4S9, affirmed 
 in 101 Tex. 664, no op. 
 
 In an action against a railroad for 
 damages to a car of vegetables, caused 
 by not keeping them sufficiently iced, ev- 
 idence that the vegetables were carefully 
 packed, and that the car was well iced 
 with five hundred pounds of ice when it 
 left the starting point, is not objection- 
 able, as stating a conclusion. Ft. Wortli, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Harlan (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 
 62 S. W. 971. 
 
 Statement of opinion.— Testimony of 
 a carrier's agent at the delivering point, 
 that barrels in which flour was shipped 
 were green when loaded on the cars, and 
 that, by piling them several tiers deep, 
 the barrels were bent out of shape, and 
 tile flour spoiled, may be regarded as a 
 statement of an opinion. Gulf, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Frank Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. 
 W. 210. 
 
 40. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. v. Ed- 
 monds, 41 Ala. 667. 
 
 41. Bill of lading. — Harrison r. Hix- 
 son (Ind.), 4 Blackf. 226; Mussellam r. 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 31 Ky. L. Rep. 
 90S, 104 S. W. 337: Fasy r. International 
 Nav. Co., 177 N. Y. 591, 70 N. E. 1098, 
 affirming 79 N. Y. S. 1103, 77 App. Div. 
 4()9. 
 
 Sufficient identification of consignee. — 
 In an action against a carrier tor loss of 
 freight alleged to have been consigned 
 to "A. G. B.," the bill of lading issued to 
 "W. R. B." is admissible in evidence on 
 it appearing that the goods had been or- 
 dered and paid for by "A. G. B.." and 
 that the seller had always addressed him 
 as "W. R. B." Bullock v. Charleston. 
 etc., R. Co.. 64 S. E. 234. 82 S. C. 375. 
 
 That the defendant acknowledges in a 
 bill of lading the receipt of other goods 
 also, is no objection to its admission as 
 evidence of the delivery of certain goods 
 to the carrier. Wallace :•. X'i^us (Ind). 
 4 Blackf. :.'•■,(). 
 
 Bill executed by one defendant admis- 
 sible against all. — Where, in an action 
 against a carrier for damages to a ship- 
 ment, plaintiff alleged that defendants 
 belonged to a certain system and were 
 partners, and partnership was not de- 
 med. the bill of lading, although exe- 
 cuted by one of the partners, was ad- 
 missible against them all. St. Louis, etc.. 
 R. Co. 7: Watkins, 45 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 321, 
 100 S. W. 162. 
 
 42. Mussellam :•. Cincinnati, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 104 S. W. 337. :!1 Ky. L. Rep. '.lOS. 
 
 43. Part of waybill introduced in evi- 
 dence. — Where, in an action against a
 
 §§ 1065-1066 cARKiiiRS. 838 
 
 Memorandum. — An insiruniciu ilated at the place and time of shipment, and 
 in the form of the ordinary bill of lading, but without sig-nature, which was de- 
 livered to the consignee, with the goods, on payment of the charges, is admis- 
 sible as an original memorandum of the shipment, notwithstanding a certificate 
 attached thereto, dated more than a year after the time of shipment, and signed 
 by the carrier's agent at the place of shipment, to the effect that the instrument 
 was a cop\-." 
 
 The books of a shipper, shown to have been kept by a competent book- 
 keeper ill the usual course of its business, are admissible- against the carrier to 
 establish the weights of carloads of cotton seed as shown by entries therein, 
 though neither the bookkeeper making the entries nor the person who weighed 
 the cars aiul announced the result testify with reference thereto.-^'' 
 
 Written Admissions. — The admissibility in evidence of written admissions 
 is treated elsewhere.-*'' 
 
 Necessity for Proof of Execution. — A bill of lading not declared upon is 
 not evidence in an action to recover goods lost by a carrier without proof of its 
 execution. -^"^ But where the bill of lading is alleged in the petition to have been 
 signed bv the defendant, it is admissible in evidence without proof of its exe- 
 cution, if its execution be not denied by the defendant under oath in its answer."*^ 
 Where, in an action against connecting carriers for injuries to cotton, certain 
 dray receipts were given by witness for the cotton on delivery thereof to a steam- 
 ship company, such receipts are not objectionable, in that they are not shown to 
 have been executed by the witness.^'* A certificate of weight not shown to be 
 an exact copy of the book of original entries, or that it was given in the regular 
 course of business, by one authorized to do so, is inadmissible in an action against 
 a carrier for loss of grain in transit, to prove the delivery of the grain to and 
 reception thereof by the carrier.-'''^ 
 
 § 1066. Parol Evidence. — Where the consignor of goods, in an action 
 against the carrier for their loss, introduces the bill of lading to prove the de- 
 livery of goods, he may show by parol testimony that the goods belong to him- 
 self, and not to the consignee. ^^ But it is held that where, in an action to re- 
 cover for goods lost by a carrier, plaintiff' produces a bill of lading, parol proof 
 that the goods were shipped by the shipper •named therein as the agent of plain- 
 tiff is inadmissible.-^- W'hen the bill of lading, by reason of contradictions 
 therein, is not conclusive as to the contract between the parties, the plaintiff" 
 may show the real contract under which the carrier received tlie property.''-"' In 
 
 carrier for damages to goods in transit. 48. Barrow v. Philleo, 14 Tex. 345, 346; 
 
 plaintiff introduces in evidence a waybill Texas, etc., R. Co. t'. Logan, 3 Texas 
 
 of a prior connecting road, with the ex- App. Civ. Cas., § 186. 
 
 ception of a sentence written in lead 49. Dray receipts. — Houston, etc., R. 
 
 pencil, reciting that the goods, when re- Co. v. Bath, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 270, 00 S. 
 
 ceived, were in a badly-damaged condi- W. .55. 
 
 tion, it is error to exclude that sentence 50. Certificate of weight.— Emison v. 
 
 when subsequently offered by defendant; OIijo, etc. R Co 12 O C D 727 
 
 it not appearing that the sentence was d -n '1 -j " tt • ~ rr- 
 
 written subsequent to the making of the ^^\F^f°^ ^pf^'^'^f •To?^"'"^" "' ^''^' 
 
 waybill. Goodman v. Oregon R., etc., '^^'^ <I"^'>' ^ ^^''''^^- -6- 
 
 Co.. 22 Ore. 14. 2S Pac. 894. 52. Peck v. Dinsmore (Ala.), 4 Port. 
 
 44. Memorandum. — Weide v. David- 212. 
 
 son, 15 Minn. 327, Gil. 258. 53. When bill not conclusive. — Salts- 
 
 45. Books of shipper. — Gulf, etc., R. man v. New York, etc., R. Co., 65 Hun 
 Co. V. Belton Oil Co., 45 Tex. Civ. App. 448, 20 N. Y. S. 361, 48 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 44, 99 S. W. 430. .'55, in which case the body of the bill 
 
 46. Written admissions. — See ante, stated that defendant agreed to forward 
 "Declarations and .Admissions," § 106.';. its car of plaintiff's property from Av- 
 
 47. Necessity for proof of execution. — oca, N. Y., to Buffalo, N. Y., and the 
 Peck T. Dinsmore (.\!a. ), 4 I'ort. 212; St. heading of the bill showed that the car 
 Louis, etc., R. Cc>. v. Watkins, 45 Tex. was to he taken from Avoca to Elkhart, 
 Civ. App. 321, 100 S. W. 162. Ind.
 
 839 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS, 
 
 §§ 1066-1067 
 
 an action for loss of frcij^lit, evidence of the circumstances of the giving of a 
 receipt by tlie carrier for the frei},'ht is achnissihle to support the defense that 
 the freight had not been dehvered t(j it.'-* 
 
 § 1067. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence. In General.— The rules 
 as to the \\eif,dit and sutViciency of evidence in actions against carriers f<jr loss 
 of or damage to goods are the same as in other civil actions.''"' 
 
 54. Circumstances of giving receipt. — 
 Mussfllam ;■. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., Iti4 
 S. W. :{:{7. :n Ky. L. Kcp. 'kis. 
 
 55. Weight and sufficiency of evidence. 
 — In actions against carriers of live 
 stock, sec also, post, "Actions," chap- 
 ter 2n. 
 
 As to loss occurring at sea, sec post. 
 •"Carriers liy Water," i'art \'II. 
 
 Evidence sufficient to sustain verdict 
 or judgment for plaintiff. — Central, etc., 
 R. Co. :. Mercantile Claim Co., 8 Ga. 
 App. 17, 08 S. E. 402; Oostanaula, etc.. 
 Steamboat Co. v. Hampton. 65 S. E. 303, 
 6 Ga. App. 499; Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Broome, 60 S. E. 355. 3 Ga. App. 641; Il- 
 linois Cent. R. Co. v. Mossbarger, 28 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 1217, 91 S. \V. 1121; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Watkins, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1254, 
 91 S. W. 1122; Brennisen v. Pennsylva- 
 nia R. Co., 100 Minn. 102, 110 N. W. 362, 
 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 169; Banks v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., Ill Minn. 48, 126 
 N. \V. 410; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Garrison (Tex. Civ. App."), 79 S. W. 611; 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Japhet & Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 1194. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for the loss of a bale of cotton, 
 plaintiff's evidence showed that the bale 
 was loaded on a dray to be delivered to 
 defendant, and that defendant's check 
 clerk had signed a receipt for the bale in 
 the drayman's receipt book, l)ut that the 
 receipt had been erased. Defendant's 
 check clerk testified that he had signed 
 the receipt, but, on being informed by 
 the head clerk that he had made a mis- 
 take, he erased his signature. Defend- 
 ant's head clerk testified that, in billing 
 out the cotton in the depot for shipment, 
 he had been unable to find the bale in 
 question: that lie then directed tlie check 
 clerk to mark off his receipt for the bale; 
 and that, had the bale been received, wit- 
 ness would have discovered it when he 
 billed out the cotton. Held, that a ver- 
 dict for plaintiff was warranted by the 
 weight of the evidence. Savannah, etc., 
 R. Co. :■. Steininger, 84 Ga. 579. 11 S. E. 
 236. 
 
 Defendant received a piano from plain- 
 tiff at W. to be carried to L.. and to be 
 there delivered to a connecting line. De- 
 fendant's tracks crossed tlie tracks of the 
 other line at L.. where they were con- 
 nected by a "Y." Defendant delivered 
 the piano to two draymen at L. to be 
 transferred to the station of the other 
 carrier, and while in the draymen's pos- 
 session it was injured by a fall from the 
 
 • Iray. Held sufficient evidence to sus- 
 tain a verdict for plaintiff. Missouri 
 I'ac. R. Co. V. Young, 25 Neb. 651, 41 N. 
 W. 646. 
 
 W here goods were delivered to a car- 
 rier and placed in a sealed car and set on 
 a switch, and an unprecedented flood 
 came, and no evidence as to the condi- 
 tion after the flood was offered, the goods 
 in question not being identified in the 
 car after the flood, tlie perishable goods 
 caught in the flood being dumped in the 
 river, and the goods in controversy were 
 not of such character and those identi- 
 fied were forwarded to their destination, 
 and those not identified were forwarded 
 to the claim department, and the goods 
 in controversy never reached their des- 
 tination, and there was no showing as to 
 the same by the claim department, a ver- 
 dict against the carrier will not be dis- 
 turbed. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Logan, 
 etc., Co., 23 Okla. 707. 29 L. R. A., X. S.. 
 663, 105 Pac. 343. 
 
 Evidence that plaintiff delivered a 
 basket to a servant of defendant railroad 
 company to be shipped over its road, 
 that this servant was the same person 
 who had repeatedly shipped baskets for 
 her, and that on this occasion he said 
 that he shipped it, and that neither she. 
 nor any one for her ever received the 
 basket, justifies a judgment in favor of 
 plaintiff for the value of the basket. 
 Quarrier v. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co., 20 W. 
 Va. 424. IS Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 535. 
 
 Evidence insufficient to sustain verdict 
 for plaintiff. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. i'. 
 Beacli, 20 Okla. 155, 108 Pac. 1098. 
 
 Evidence held insuflicient to sustain a 
 recovery on count of the complaint 
 based on carrier's common-law liability 
 as an insurer under its contract. South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Adams Mach. Co., 165 Ala. 
 430, 51 So. 779. 
 
 lividence for plaintiff in an action 
 against a railroad company for loss of 
 freight by fire, showing a hole in the 
 smokestack of a certain locomotive, 
 claimed to have set the fire, but shown 
 by the proof not to have been in the vi- 
 cinity at the time, was ground for re- 
 versing a judgment for plaintiff, though 
 there was evidence tending to show that 
 another engine set the fire; it not appear- 
 ing that the latter was defective. Den- 
 ver, etc., R. Co. V. Peterson. 09 Pac. 578, 
 30 Colo. 77, 97 Am. St. Rep. 76. 
 
 Where there is no evidence to show 
 that the machine injured was delivered 
 to the carrier in good condition, or that
 
 § 1067 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 840 
 
 Nature of Liability. — Evidence that defeiulaiit received the goods sued for 
 under a contract to ship them and gave a hill of lading therefor, is sufficient to 
 show liability as a common carrier.''" 
 
 Capacity to Contract. — Parol evidence that a railroad corporation estab- 
 lished bv law in one state has held itself out, through its agents, as a com- 
 mon carrier over a railroad in another state, is sufficient ])rima facie 
 evidence of its capacity to contract for such carriage to maintain an action 
 against it for the loss of merchandise intrusted to it.-"^" 
 
 Contract to Carry. — In an action against a carrier for the loss of goods, 
 evidence that the goods were shipped in the name of a person as the agent of 
 plaintitt. and were the property of plaintiff, is not sufficient to establish an un- 
 dertaking to carry.''"^ 
 
 Execution of Bill of Lading. — In an action against a carrier for damages 
 to a shipment, proof of the execution of the bill of lading may be made by cir- 
 cumstantial evidence."'" 
 
 Ownership. ^In an action for injuries to goods the plaintiff can not recover, 
 in the absence of sufficient evidence that he is the owner of the goods or has 
 an interest therein entitling him to maintain the action.''" 
 
 it was injured while in the carrier's pos- 
 session, a verdict for plaintiflf for $137 
 is unsupported by the evidence, though 
 he testifies that at the time of the trial — 
 two years after the receipt of the ma- 
 chine — it is worthless, but that he has 
 used it during that time with only $37.50 
 paid for repairs. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Breeding, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 154. 16 S. W. 184. 
 
 Verdict against weight of evidence. — 
 In an action against a railroad company 
 for loss of freight destroyed in a fire 
 which burned the company's freight de- 
 pot, two witnesses for plaintiff testified 
 that engine No. 553 passed the freight 
 depot shortly before the fire, and that 
 sparks were escaping from a small hole 
 in its smokestack; and other witnesses 
 testified to seeing such engine in the yard 
 at the time, and to subsequent examina- 
 tion of the engine, revealing a hole in the 
 smokestack, several v,-eeks later. The 
 engineer, fireman, and brakeman of the 
 train supposed to have set the fire testi- 
 fied that its engine was No. 554, a com- 
 panion engine of No. 553; and the latter 
 was shown by its engineman and other 
 railroad employees, and the engine rec- 
 ord, to have been at another place on the 
 day of the fire. Held, that a verdict for 
 plaintifif based on the theory that the 
 fire was set by engine No. 553 was mani- 
 festly against the weight of the evidence. 
 Denver, etc.. R. Co. v. Peterson, 69 Pac. 
 578, 30 Colo. 77, 97 Am. St. Rep. 76. 
 
 More than nominal damages. — Evi- 
 dence held to show chunage justifying 
 more than nominal damages. New York, 
 etc., Transp. Line v. Baer & Co., 84 Atl. 
 251, 118 Md. 73. 
 
 56. Nature of liability. — Lcngsfeld v. 
 Jones. 11 La. Ann. 624. 
 
 57. Capacity to contract. — McCluer v. 
 Manchester, etc.. Railroad (Mass.), 13 
 Gray 124, 74 Am. Dec. 624. 
 
 58. Contract to carry. — Peck v. Dins- 
 more (Ala.), 4 Port. 212. 
 
 59. Execution of bill of lading.— St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Watkins, 100 S. W. 
 162, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 321. See ante, 
 "Proof of Execution of Bill," § 599. 
 
 60. Ownership — Illustrations. — Where, 
 in an action for injuries to goods, plain- 
 tiffs testified that he made the shipment, 
 and that it was consigned to H., but 
 there was no evidence that the property 
 belonged to plaintiff, or that he had any 
 interest therein after it was delivered to 
 the carrier, he could not recover. Mex- 
 ican Cent. R. Co. v. Locke (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 126 S. W. 296. 
 
 In an action to recover for loss of 
 property, a letter from the carrier ac- 
 knowledging receipt of the property to 
 be forwarded is a sufficient recognition 
 of the plaintiff as its owner. Stadhecker 
 V. Combs & Co. (S. C), 9 Rich. Law. 
 193. 
 
 In an action for damages to cattle 
 shipped over defendant's railroad, and 
 which were bruised and injured by im- 
 proper transportation, so that they lost 
 25 per cent in value, plaintiffs alleged 
 that they were partners, and the cattle 
 were shipped on defendant's road through 
 plaintiffs. A witness testified that he 
 knew plaintiffs; that he l:)OUght thirty of 
 the cattle, for which he paid them .a 
 certain sum each for the smallest: that 
 they were in the stock pen at the railroad. 
 P. testified that the cattle were the lot 
 shipped by him over defendant's road. 
 Held, that the partnership, not being de- 
 nied under oath, need not be proved 
 (Rev. St., art. 1265), and that the evi- 
 dence, on demurrer to it, authorized the 
 inference that the cattle belonged to 
 plaintiffs. Good v. Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex.), 1 S. W. 854, 4 L. R. A. S01.^_ 
 
 In an action by "E. F. Dawson" for 
 damages to a shipment, evidence of a
 
 841 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1067 
 
 Defense of a Common-Law Exemption.— W hen a carrier sets up the de- 
 fense that the loss of property delivered to him for transportation was occa- 
 sioned by the public enemies of the state, he must establish that fact Ijy clear 
 and satisfactory evidence.'" 
 
 That Carrier Received Goods.— In absence of pro.jf that the carrier re- 
 ceived for transportation the goods claimed to be lost and damaged, a judgment 
 against the carrier in an action for (hnnagcs for loss and damage in transit is 
 not sustained by evidence.''- In an action to recover for loss of property, a 
 letter from the carrier acknowledging receipt of the property to be forwarded 
 is a sufficient recognition of its receipt by the carrier.''-^ 
 
 That Goods Lost While in Custody of Carrier.— In an action against a 
 carrier for the loss of property while in its custody, the plaintiff must furnish 
 satisfactory proof of the loss;"'-* but he is not required tfj ])rove it to a mathe- 
 
 shipment by "Dawson & Co." was insuffi- 
 cient to show ownership, .\tchison. etc., 
 R. Co. V. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.), '.)() 
 S. W. r,o. 
 
 61. Clear and satisfactory evidence. — 
 Wallace r. Satulers. r>o Ca. i:!4. 
 
 62. That carrier received goods. — Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. z\ Cunihv Mercantile, 
 etc.. Co. (Tex. Civ. .\pp.). 122 S. \V. "jGH. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action for the 
 value of cotton alleged to have been de- 
 livered by ijlaintiff to defendant railroad 
 company for shipment, evidence held to 
 support a verdict for defendant on the 
 ground that tlie cotton had never been 
 delivered to or received by it. Smith v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 96 Ark. 647, 1H2 
 S. W. 926. 
 
 In an action against two express com- 
 panies for l)reakage of plate glass in- 
 trusted to tliem as carriers, the bill of 
 lading purporting to he issued by only 
 one of them, and nothing in the record 
 tending to show that the other ever as- 
 sumed any liability in their carriage, the 
 judgment, l)eing against both, was re- 
 versed as unsupported l)y the evidence. 
 Merchants' Despatch z: Smith, 44 111. :n9. 
 
 Suit against the South Carolina Rail- 
 road Company for cotton lost. Proof 
 that the cotton was delivered to an in- 
 terior railroad company, terminating at 
 the interior end of defendants' railroad, 
 and consigned to a firm in Charleston, 
 but no proof that it came into the pos- 
 session of defendants, nor that the two 
 roads were joint contractors. Held, that 
 the proof was insufficient. South Caro- 
 lina R. Co. V. Bradford ( S. C). 10 Rich. 
 L. 307. 
 
 Evidence Iield to show that tobacco 
 was delivered to a carrier tor transporta- 
 tion l)efore its destruction l)y fire, so as 
 to charge the carrier as an insurer with 
 liability for its loss, though no notice 
 was given to the carrier after the load- 
 ing had been completed. Pittsburg, etc., 
 R. Co. V. American Tobacco Co., 104 S. 
 W. 377, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 1013. 
 
 Evidence that wool was delivered at 
 the station of a common carrier in sacks 
 marked witli the name and address of the 
 owners, whose place of business was in 
 
 Boston, and with the initial of the agent 
 who had purchased it; that the weights 
 and numbers were upon all the sacks; 
 that previous shipments had been made 
 by the same agent at the same place to 
 the same principals, during the same sea- 
 son; and that when said agent delivered 
 this wool, he piled it in on part of the 
 building, pointed it out to the defendants" 
 agent, and said. "That pile of wool is 
 for Boston" — is evidence of a delivery to 
 the carrier for shipment to the principals 
 at Boston. Nichols v. Smith, 11."j Mass. 
 332. 
 
 Evidence held to justify a findmg that 
 the goods were delivered to an author- 
 ized agent and that they were never de- 
 livered hy him at the carrier's office. 
 Fein v. Weir, 114 N. Y. S. 426. 129 App. 
 Div. 299, affirmed 92 N. E. 1084. 
 
 63. Stadhecker z: Combs & Co. ( S. C), 
 9 Rich. L. 193. 
 
 64. That goods have been lost. — Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. z: Schumacher, 29 Md. 
 168, 96 Am. Dec. 510. 
 
 Loss not shown. — In an action against 
 tlie last of several connecting carriers for 
 failure to deliver one barrel of molasses 
 of a car load shipped to plaintiflF, he did 
 not show what number of l^arrels was 
 shipped, or that their condition was dif- 
 ferent on arriving at their destination. 
 The evidence showed that the enipty bar- 
 rel was dry, and that no head for it was 
 found in the car. Held, tfiat no loss in 
 transit was shown, and plaintiff is not 
 entitled to recover. Cooper v. Georgia 
 Pac. R. Co.. 92 Ala. 329, 9 So. 159, 25 Am. 
 St. Rep. 59. 
 
 In an action against a carrier to re- 
 cover the value of a box and its contents, 
 the evidence showed the delivery of the 
 box to the carrier directed to B. at L., 
 to be delivered to D.; that plaintiff had 
 made efforts to find the box, l)ut had not 
 been alile to do so; that he had made in- 
 quiries at the office of the carrier in l)Oth 
 towns, and had also inquired oi B.; and 
 that he had not seen the box since he 
 shipped it. Held not sufficient evidence 
 that the carrier had lost the box, to en- 
 title plaintiff to maintain an action for
 
 § 1067 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 842 
 
 matical certaintv. but siniplv to such degree as would be sufficient to satisfy the 
 minds of the jiirv of the fact.'-'' On proof of delivery of property to a carrier 
 in a <^ound condition, and of a failure to deliver it. a sufficient cause is made to 
 sustain a recoverv for loss bv the shipper.«« Mere proof of the difference be- 
 tween initial and' terminal weights may be sufficient to make out a prima facie 
 case of loss of part of a shipment of grain during transportation."^'" Where the 
 property asserted to have been lost by the carrier is accounted for, and the ap- 
 parent discrepancy explained by a slight mistake in numbering, a verdict against 
 the carrier should be set aside. "^ 
 
 Delivery to Carrier in Sound Condition and Delivery to Consignee in 
 Damaged Condition.— Proof of delivery of goods to a carrier in sound con- 
 dition,'"''' and of their redeliverv at the end of the route in damaged condition,''^ 
 
 its value. Morley f. Eastern Exp. Co., 
 116 Mass. 97. 
 
 In an action against a carrier to re- 
 cover for a package of jewelry lost from 
 a box, the loss not being discovered un- 
 til after delivery to the consignee, there 
 was evidence that the box had been 
 opened, and the nails redriven, but none 
 as to the care taken of the box from the 
 time of the delivery to the discovery of 
 the loss. Held insufficient to warrant a 
 finding that the package was abstracted 
 while in the carrier's possession. Can- 
 field V. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co.. 75 N. Y. 
 144, reversing 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. 562. 
 
 Evidence held insufficient to show that 
 the loss occurred before delivery to con- 
 signee. Brown v. Missouri, etc., R. Co.. 
 112 Pac. 147. 83 Kan. 574. 
 
 65. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Schu- 
 macher, 29 Md. 168, 96 Am. Dec.^ 510. 
 
 Evidence showing loss while in car- 
 rier's possession. — Where, in an action 
 against a carrier for loss of freight, the 
 original bill of lading showing receipt of 
 six boxes of goods consigned to_ plaintiff, 
 and the carrier's receipt to plaintiff for 
 freight charges on five of the boxes ac- 
 knowledged a shortage of one box, for 
 loss of which the action was brought, the 
 evidence showed that the loss occurred 
 while the goods were in the carrier's pos- 
 session, be Lorme v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 60 S. E. 440, 79 S. C. 370. 
 
 In an action against a railroad corpo- 
 ration for the loss of a case of goods in- 
 trusted to it for carriage, there was evi- 
 dence that the case, together with other 
 goods filling two cars, was delivered to 
 the defendant at L., to be transported to 
 P., whence it was to be carried by a line 
 of steamers to A.; that the two cars were 
 received by the agents of the steamer 
 from the defendant, "unopened, and just 
 as they were received," and were kept on 
 their wharf, carefully watched and guarded, 
 until the goods were transferred to the 
 steamer; and that, on unloading the cars, 
 it was found that the case was not in 
 either car. The defendant asked tlie 
 judge to rule that there was no evidence 
 of the loss of the case between L. and 
 the depot at P. Held, that this ruling 
 was rightly refused. Green v. Boston, 
 
 etc., R. Co., 128 Alass. 221, 35 Am. Rep. 
 370. 
 
 In an action to recover for loss of a 
 traveling bag from a carrier of parcels 
 for hire, to whom it was intrusted to_ be 
 delivered at a designated depot in time 
 for a particular train, a prima facie case 
 it made out by the testimony of the 
 plaintiff that he inquired at the baggage 
 room at the proper time, and was unable 
 to find his baggage. Zeigler v. Freeman, 
 12 O. C. C, N. S., 122, 21-31 O. C. D. 342. 
 
 66. Duncan v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 16 N. D. 610, 118 N. W. 826; Taugher v. 
 Northern Pac. R. Co., 21 N. D. Ill, 
 129 N. W. 747. See ante, "Plaintiff's Bur- 
 den of Proof in General," § 1056. 
 
 Evidence sufficient to show nondelivery 
 to consignee. — Tradewell v. Chicago, etc , 
 R. Co. (Wis.), 136 N. W. 794; Central, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Manchester Mfg. Co., 64 
 S. E. 1128, 6 Ga. App. 254. 
 
 67. Morris v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. 
 (N. D.). 141 N. W. 204. 
 
 68. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Goforth 
 (Miss.), 14 So. 457. 
 
 69. Delivery to carrier in sound condi- 
 tion. — Swiney v. American Exp. Co. 
 (Iowa), 115 N. W. 212; Duncan v. Great 
 Northern R. Co., 16 N. D. 610, 118 N. 
 W. 826; Armstrong, etc., Co. v. Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co., 26 Okla. 352, 109 Pac. 216, 
 29 L. R. A., N. S., 671. 
 
 Illustrations. — Evidence of a witness 
 that he assisted in packing the goods, 
 and that he knew they were put up in 
 such a manner that there was no possi- 
 bility of their sustaining injury, except 
 from neglect or carelessness, was suffi- 
 cient to show a delivery to the carrier in 
 
 70. Redelivery in damaged condition. — 
 
 Swiney v. American Exp. Co. (Iowa.), 
 115 N. W. 212; Duncan v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 16 N. Dak. 610, 118 N. W. 826; 
 Armstrong, etc., Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 26 Okla. 352, 109 Pac. 216, 29 L. R- 
 A., X. S., 671. 
 
 Evidence held insufficient to warrant 
 a finding that the goods were damaged 
 prior to carrier's delivery to a drayman 
 at destination. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Musgrove, 153 .'\la. 274, 45 So. 229.
 
 843 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1067 
 
 makes a sufficient case to sustain a recovery of damages by the shipper. The 
 fact that a consignee has received of a common carrier the goods, without ob- 
 jection, and receipted for them as in good order, is only presumptive evidence 
 that they have not been damaged in the carrier's hands.' ^ Where phiintitt gave 
 no evidence that goods were in good c(jn(hti(jn when deHvered to the carrier: 
 but defendant, in attempting to show that the goods were fhimaged l>y reason 
 of bad packing, prochiccd evidence which proceeded on the assumption that the 
 damage occurred while the property was in transit, and the evidence as to the 
 mode of packing was conflicting, the jury might find from defendant's testi- 
 mony that the damage occurred while the goods were in transit, without accept- 
 ing tlif tlu()r\- of the witnesses that it was caused by careless packing."- 
 
 Negligence. — The general rules as to the weight and sufficiency of evidence 
 to i)rove,''' or dispro\e negligence,"'* appl\- to actions against carriers for loss 
 
 good order. Hall v. Morrison's Adm'r. 20 
 Tex. 179. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for dam- 
 ages to property transported by it, evi- 
 dence that the property was in good 
 condition" when loaded on the car, and 
 that the car was receipted for in good 
 condition when it reached defendant's 
 road, tends to show that the property 
 was in good condition when received by 
 defendant. Modern Match Co. v. Balti- 
 more, etc.. R. Co., 104 X. W. 19, 140 Mich. 
 570. 
 
 Where, in an action for damages to an 
 automobile in transit, plaintiff testified 
 that it was in good condition when de- 
 livered, and in a damaged condition when 
 received it was sufficient to establish 
 prima facie that the automobile was re- 
 ceived by defendant in good condition. 
 Paterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 103 N. 
 W. 621, 9,5 Minn. 57. 
 
 Where the recital in a receipt given by 
 a carrier, that goods received by it for 
 transportation were in good condition, 
 was corroborated by evidence, the fact 
 that it rained on the day the goods were 
 shipped did not show that they were ex- 
 posed to rain while being delivered to 
 the carrier and did not prevent a finding 
 that the goods were in good condition 
 when delivered to it. Struebing Co. v. 
 Merchants Despatch Transp. Co.. 12fi N. 
 W. 21, 142 Wis. t)57. 
 
 71. Effect of receipt given by consignee. 
 — Bloomingdale v. Durell, 1 Idaho 33. 
 
 72. Leo V. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 30 
 Minn. 4:;s. 15 X. W. S72. 
 
 73. Evidence sufficient to show negli- 
 gence. — Marande v. Te.\as, etc., R. Co.. 
 42 C. C. A. 317, 102 Fed. 246, reversed 
 in 22 S. Ct. 340. 184 U. S. .173. 46 L. Kd. 
 487; Presley Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 139 N. W. 609, 120 Minn. 295; Fockens 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 99 Minn. 404, 
 109 N. W. 834; Brennisen v. Pennsvl- 
 vania R. Co., 101 Minn. 120, 11 N. W. 
 945: Peerless Mfg. Co. v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 61 .\tl. 511, 73 N. H. 328; Farmer 
 V. United States Exp. Co., 25 S. Dak. 96, 
 125 N. W. 575; Fire .Ass'n f. Loeb. 25 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 24, 59 S. W. 617. affirmed in 94 
 Tex. 690; .\tchison. etc.. R. Co. r. Madden, 
 
 etc.. Co., 103 S. W. 1193, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 
 597 (negligence in depositing goods in yard 
 in view of approaching flood); Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Gilmore (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 152 S. W. 1102 (negligence in not notify- 
 ing consignee of arrival of freight); Na- 
 tional Rice Mill. Co. v. New Orleans, etc., 
 R. Co.. 61 So. 768. 132 La. 615 (negligence 
 in failing to save property from impend- 
 ing finod). 
 
 Where an express company contracted 
 to carry certain berries in a refrigerator 
 car, evidence that, when the car arrived, 
 the ice bunkers of the car were found to 
 be nearly empty and the berries spoiled, 
 was sufficient to establish the carrier's 
 negligence. Taft Co. v. American Exp. 
 Co., 133 Iowa 522, 110 X. W. 897, 10 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 614. 
 
 Proof by the plaintiff that the injury 
 might have been avoided by the exercise 
 
 74. On an issue as to the liability of a 
 railroad company for goods damaged in 
 an unprecedented storm, where there was 
 no evidence as to the effect of the storm 
 on its cars, or to show that they were 
 broken or leaks caused as a result there- 
 of, mere evidence that the cars contain- 
 ing the goods appeared to be good, close, 
 dry cars, and the testimony of the con- 
 ductor that the cars were in good condi- 
 tion at a certain point, was insufficient to 
 clear the company of negligence, not ex- 
 cluding the possibility of their leaky con- 
 dition. Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Browne, 66 
 S. W. 341, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437. 
 
 Cotton was destroyed at the burning of 
 a compress. Several witnesses were near 
 when the alarm sounded, but did not 
 know what caused the fire. The switch 
 engine had not been near for three and 
 onj-half hours. The cotton was on two 
 cars on a side track near the compress. 
 One of the cars was saved. What effort 
 was made to save the other was not 
 shown, nor what precautions had been 
 taken for the protection of cotton in 
 cars on the side track. Held, that the 
 evidence did not show that the loss oc- 
 curred without fault on the part of the 
 carrier. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. China 
 Mfg. Co., 79 Tex. 26. 14 S. W. 785.
 
 1067 
 
 C.\RRn-:RS. 
 
 844 
 
 of or injury to goods. It is enough for the phiintiti to (hsolose circumstances 
 sufficient to raise a fair inference of negligence.'' W here, in an action 
 
 of reasonable skill and attention on the 
 part of the carrier sufficientl}' establishes 
 the negligence of the defendant. Read Z'. 
 St. Lonis, etc., R. Co., 00 Mo. 199. 
 
 Where in an action for claj' pots dam- 
 aged in transitu, it is shown that the pots 
 were sound and carefully packed in the 
 car, but that they were shifted about and 
 badh- damaged when received, though 
 similar pots, packed in like manner, had 
 uniformly arrived unbroken, the jury 
 were warranted in finding that damage 
 was due to the negligence of the carrier. 
 PhcEnix Pot-Works v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 Co.. 139 Pa. 284, 20 Atl. 1058. 
 
 Evidence that the pier where the vessel 
 lay was covered by a building owned by 
 the defendant steamship company, whose 
 interior was open throughout, and whose 
 ends and sides were made of pine boards; 
 that in one room was a stove, two feet 
 from a partition, with the pipe running 
 through the ceiling, and with no protec- 
 tion around either stove or pipe; that the 
 fire came from that room, and soon con- 
 sumed the steamship; and that there was 
 no sufficient watch, warranted a finding 
 that the fire was caused by the negligence 
 of the defendant. Hill Mfg. Co. z: Provi- 
 dence, etc.. Steamship Co., 125 Mass. 292. 
 
 In an action for injury to wheat from 
 a flood while in a car standing on a side 
 track, it appeared that at 7:30 a train 
 which ■ had put from the station was 
 driven back by water over the track. Be- 
 fore that time the company's agent at the 
 station had noticed that the water was 
 rising. At about 8:30 the agent asked the 
 conductor and engineer to haul the cars 
 from the side track to the main track, 
 which was on higher ground, and which 
 was at no time covered by the water; 
 but they refused, fearing that the water, 
 which was then over the side track, would 
 put out the fire in the engine. They testi- 
 fied, however, that a short time after 
 they got back to the station they looked, 
 and the water was not over the side 
 track. Held, that the evidence was suffi- 
 cient to warrant a verdict for plaintiffs, 
 on the ground that the loss was due to 
 the failure of defendant's agents to ex- 
 ercise ordinary care and diligence in re- 
 moving it to a place of safety. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. V. Keedy, 75 Md. 320, 
 23 Atl. 643. 
 
 Where the evidence showed that the 
 fruit when shipped was in good condition, 
 and properly packed in a refrigerator car, 
 and the only reason for its failure to 
 reach its destination in sound condition 
 was the failure of the carrier to keep the 
 car ventilated and iced, the evidence 
 showed the negligence of the carrier and 
 not the character of the fruit. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Jackson & Co., 55 Tex. 
 Ciy. App. 407, 118 S. W. 853. 
 
 Plaintifif shipped two lots of fruit trees 
 over defendant's railway; one lot to pur- 
 chasers, which were delayed in their ar- 
 rival, on account of which the purchasers 
 refused to take them, and plaintiff had 
 to sell them at a loss. When plaintiff 
 shipped these trees, he notified the agent 
 of defendant of his contract with the pur- 
 chasers, and that, if the trees did not 
 reach them by a certain time, they would 
 be a total loss to him, as the purchasers 
 would not take them after that date. 
 The other lot were frozen and killed in 
 transit. They were in good order when 
 shipped. Held, that a verdict awarding 
 plaintiff damages for both lots would 
 be sustained, the evidence showing neg- 
 ligence on the part of the carrier's serv- 
 ant. Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. Talley, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 765. 
 
 Negligence of corn-press company. — 
 Evidence that the carrier, after receiving 
 cotton, placed it in the hands of a third 
 party, to be compressed; that the com- 
 press was a large shed, open on the east, 
 where a platform forty-five feet wide 
 reached a railroad track on which were 
 several cars loaded with cotton, from one 
 of which a servant of the compress com- 
 pany removed a bale in which the fire 
 originated about five minutes afterwards; 
 that the officers and employees of the 
 compress company indulged in smoking 
 under and around the shed; that one em- 
 ployee had been seen .carrying matches 
 behind his ear; that on the day of the 
 fire an officer of the company was seen 
 under the shed walking over some cotton 
 with a lighted cigar in his hand, held, 
 sufficient to support a finding that the 
 fire arose from the negligence of the com- 
 press company. Otis Co. z'. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 622, 20 S. W. 676. _ 
 
 Evidence insufficient to show negli- 
 gence. — The fact that the floor of a rail- 
 road warehouse was saturated with oil, 
 and that the company permitted com- 
 bustible material to be collected there, 
 where there is nothing to show the cause 
 of the fire that destroyed the warehouse 
 and its contents, does not show negli- 
 gence so as to authorize a recovery by 
 one whose goods were burned. Texas 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Flanary (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 50 S. W. 726. 
 
 75. Witting v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 101 Mo. 631. 14 S. W. 743, 20 Am. St. 
 Rep. 636, 10 L. R. A. 602. holding that 
 where plaintiff's evidence was that a foun- 
 tain was properly packed and delivered to 
 the carrier in good order, and that when 
 it reached its destination one side of the 
 crate was broken, and one of the inside 
 stays broken, and the others out of place, 
 there is no error in refusing an instruc- 
 tion in the nature of a demurrer to the 
 evidence.
 
 845 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1067 
 
 on the contract of carriage, plaintiff does not plead that the loss was 
 due to the carrier's negligence, mere proof of nondelivery of the goods by 
 the carrier is not ])rima facie evidence that the goods were lost by reason of 
 the carrier's negligence within the rule that a carrier can not limit its liability 
 for the negligent loss of goods by a special contract, though, if negligence be 
 alleged, proof of the nondelivery of the goods would be sufficient prima facie 
 evidence to re(iuire the carrier to show that the loss was due to a cause for which 
 it was not responsible.'" Evidence that cabbages had just been cut, were sound 
 and hard when shipped, but decayed in transit, and were badly damaged on 
 reaching destination, warranted a finding that defendant railroad's cars were 
 either not ])r()pcrlv c()ii>tructcd or not refrigerated.'' 
 
 Identification of Goods Lost. — It is held that no recovery can be had in a 
 suit for a general shortage of two bales of cotton alleged to have been lost by 
 a carrier out of shipments covering a whole season, where no cotton is identified 
 as that which was lost."'* In an action to recover for nine bales of cotton, the 
 average weight, class, and value of which is shown by the evidence, it is not 
 necessary to identify the cotton by marks or brands, or by a certain number of 
 pounds, if the jury are satisfied in regard to the nine particular bales of cotton, 
 and are able to say the nine bales sued for were the property of the plaintiff."'^ 
 
 As to Value or Damage. — Generally, as to the weight and sufficiency of 
 evidence to sliow value or damage, see post, "Weight and Sufficiency," § 1084. 
 
 Additional Instances. — In the notes are set out numerous decisions of the 
 courts as to the weight and sufficiency of evidence to show particular facts, 
 such as the cause of the loss or damage,"^" misrepresentation or concealment of 
 the nature of goods by the shipi)er.''^ to what destination goods were marked.*"- 
 
 76. Oregon, etc., R. Co. z: Blyth. IS) 
 Wyo. 410. 118 Pac. 649. 119 Pac. 875. 
 Am. Cas. 1913 E, 288. 
 
 77. Missouri, etc., R. Co. z: McLean. 
 55 Tex. Civ. App. i:i(). lis S. W. If.l. 
 
 78. Identification of goods lost. — Illi- 
 nois Cent. R. Co. v. Gross (Miss.), 22 
 So. 946. 
 
 79. Montgomery, etc., R. Co. r. Knlb, 
 73 Ala. 396. 49 Am. Rep. 54. 
 
 80. Cause of loss — Sparks from en- 
 gine. — Testimony of a witness that he 
 saw sparks coming from defendant's en- 
 gine and blowing in the direction of the 
 cotton, either on the night in which the 
 fire occurred or the night before, and 
 about two and one-half hours earlier 
 than the hour at which the fire occurred, 
 authorized the jury to conclude that the 
 cotton was set on fire l)y the sparks seen 
 by the witness. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Beard. 7S S. W. 2.-.3. 34 Tex. Civ. App. 
 ISS. 
 
 Removal from one car to another. — 
 
 Tlie mere fact that oranges and lemons 
 shipped in boxes were transferred from 
 one car to another of the same kind, due 
 to the defective condition of the car on 
 which they were originally shipped — the 
 unloading being accomplished by running 
 the cars on parallel tracks, thereby re- 
 quiring the carrying of the boxes only 
 about twenty feet — does not sufficiently 
 show that the fruit was damaged by sucli 
 removal, or the extent of the damage, 
 so as to entitle the shipper to recover for 
 damages to the fruit from decay. Corso 
 
 t'. New Orleans, etc.. R. Co., 48 La. .\nn. 
 1286. 20 So. 752. 
 
 Spontaneous combustion. — Where spon- 
 taneous combustion was merely shown to 
 have been a possible cause of the fire, 
 and the carrier's expert testified that the 
 evidence did not indicate any particular 
 cause of the fire, and that no substance 
 had been mentioned which would refer 
 it to spontaneous combustion, the evi- 
 dence was insufficient to justify a finding 
 upon the theory that the fire was due to 
 spontaneous combustion. Lloyd v. Haugh. 
 etc.. Transfer Co., 72 Atl. 516. 223 Pac. 
 148. 21 L. R. A., N. S., 188. 
 
 Act of God. — Evidence held to show 
 that the damage was caused by an act of 
 God. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Texas Star 
 Flour Mills (Tex. Civ. App.), 143 S. W. 
 1179. 
 
 81. Concealment by a shipper of the na- 
 ture of the goods, discharging the car- 
 rier from liability, is not shown by the 
 fact that the initial carrier's agent issuing 
 the bill of lading did not give a full and 
 complete description thereof. Central, 
 etc., R. Co. r. Jones, 66 S. E. 492, 7 Ga. 
 App. 165. 
 
 Evidence held to sustain finding that 
 carrier was not misled as to the character 
 or value of the goods by any statement 
 of the shipper, or by the nature of the 
 packages or the markings thereon. Gal- 
 veston, etc.. R. Co. V. Quilhot (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). 134 S. W. 261. 
 
 82. Destination. — Evidence held insuffi- 
 cient to support a finding that goods
 
 § 1067 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 846 
 
 that the name of destination was changed by the carrier,'*-' that cars were ordered 
 with ice,'^"' that goods were received for immediate shipment,^"' that the carrier con- 
 sented to goods being placed on the platform before ready for shipment,"*"' that a 
 shipment was diverted,'^" that a fire in a carload of cotton had been in the cotton 
 at the time of loading the car,'^^ that cotton took fire while on side track,^'' that 
 carrier waived notice of limitation as to the-amonnt of its liability in case of 
 loss, and that limitation was not assented to by plaintiffs,'"' that there was a 
 total loss,''i that property was of no value after injury,"- that a comi)ress com- 
 pany was defendant's agent for receiving the cotton destroyed,"'-' that plaintifif's 
 claim was filed for a certain amount,-'-* that defendant's agent refused to give 
 plaintiff the key to warehouse until it was too late to move the freight before 
 fire spread to the building,^-"* the amount of the loss of each of the plaintiffs,''*^ 
 that lost goods were of a certain value,''" and a custom extending liability. ^^ 
 
 were marked tor a certain destination. 
 Southern Exp. Co. v. Hill, 84 Ark. 362, 
 105 S. W. 877. 
 
 A receipt given by a carrier for goods 
 shipped, and stating the destination, is 
 only prima facie evidence that the goods 
 were marked for such destination. South- 
 ern Exp. Co. z: Hill. 10,5 S. W. 877, 84 
 Ark. 36S. 
 
 83. Change of name of destination. — 
 Where the name of the place of destina- 
 tion specified in the waybill is changed 
 in the course of transportation, evidence 
 that the copy given by defendant to the 
 consignee did not show the change; that 
 it was passed to a connecting company, 
 when, if it ran to the place named in_ the 
 alteration, defendant would have retained 
 it; and that the waybill delivered by the 
 connecting company specified the original 
 place of destination — will justify a finding 
 that the change was made by defendant. 
 Harris v. Cheshire R. Co. (R. I.), 16 Atl. 
 512. 
 
 84. That ice was ordered. — Where, in 
 an action for damages to cabbages by 
 failure to properly ice the cars, plaintiff 
 testified that defendant's agents had in- 
 structions to ice all the cars, that the 
 records covering the movements of cars 
 showed with one or two exceptions that 
 the cars were ordered without ice, and 
 the written requisition for the cars failed 
 to contain an order for ice, did not tend 
 to disprove a finding that ice was ordered. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McLean, 55 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 130, 118 S. W. 161. 
 
 85. Goods received for immediate ship- 
 ment. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Burrow 
 & Co., 116 S. W. 198, 89 Ark. 178. 
 
 86. Yarborough v. Southern Railway, 
 78 S. C. 103, 58 S. E. 936. 
 
 87. Diversion. — In an action against 
 a carrier for injury to four car loads of 
 grain by a flood, an averment in the state- 
 ment of claim that the cars were di- 
 verted from the usual course of transit 
 by placing them in a c«=trtain yard, instead 
 of carrying them to a certain other yard, 
 is not borne out by the proof, where it 
 was specified in the bill of lading that the 
 grain should be carried to "the usual 
 place of delivery at said destination," and 
 
 the undisputed evidence was that for 
 seven years prior to the f^ood all con- 
 signments of grain for delivery at the 
 point in question, unless specially con- 
 signed to consignees who had private sid- 
 ings, had been placed in the yard in which 
 the grain was placed for inspection and 
 reconsignment, and that plaintiff knew 
 of the usage and expected the cars to be 
 placed there. Smith v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co., 72 Atl. 264, 223 Pa. 118. 
 
 88. Latta v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 
 59 So. 250, 131 La. 272, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 
 988. 
 
 89. That cotton was burned while in a 
 car on a side track does not show that 
 the cotton took tire while on such side 
 track, there being no other evidence to 
 such effect. Insurance Co. v. Lake Erie, 
 etc., R. Co., 53 N. E. 382, 152 Ind. 
 333. 
 
 90. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Cutter, 140 
 111. App. 324, judgment affirmed Cutter 
 7'. Wells, Fargo & Co. (Ill), 86 N. E. 
 695. 
 
 91. Total loss. — In an action by a con- 
 signee for damages to a keg of syrup 
 which had soured, and for a penalty for 
 delay in allowing the claim, evidence held 
 to warrant a finding that there was a to- 
 tal loss, although the keg itself was prob- 
 ably in good condition and worth about 
 twenty-five cents, thus relieving the con- 
 signee from the duty of accepting the 
 goods and giving him the right to sue 
 for the entire value of the goods. Wil- 
 kins V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (N. C), 75 
 S. E. 1090. 
 
 92. Berley v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 
 64 S. E. 397, 82 S. C. 232. 
 
 93. Texas Mid. Railroad v. Edwards & 
 Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 643, 121 S. W. 
 570. 
 
 94. Harter z'. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 
 67 S. E. 290, 85 S. C. 192. 
 
 95. Donnell v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 
 84 Atl. 1002, 109 Me. 500. 
 
 96. Arkadelphia Mill. Co. v. Smoker 
 Merchandise Co., 100 Ark. 3^, 139 S. W. 
 680. 
 
 97. Kettenhofen v. Globe Transfer, etc., 
 Co., 70 Wash. 645, 127 Pac. 295. 
 
 98. Custom extending liability. — Evi-
 
 847 
 
 LOSS OR IXU'RV TO GOODS. 
 
 1068 
 
 §§ 1068-1085. Damages— §§ 1068-1080. Extent of Liability, Meas- 
 ure and Elements of Damages — § 1068. In General. — The liability of a 
 common carrier to make ctjinpensation for gocjds or property lost by it extends 
 at common law not onl}' to the dnty imposed upon it by law to safely transport 
 the goods, but also to its responsibility to make reparation by way of damages 
 in favor of the owner of the property to the fullest extent fixed and allowed by 
 law in such cases."" The owner may recover the actual damages sustained.^ 
 as the direct and necessary consequences of the loss or injury of goods.- He 
 is restricted to such actual loss and can not recover what erroneously appeared 
 lo ])c the (lamages when the goods first arrived.'' 
 
 Remote and Speculative Damages. — The general, if ncjt the universal, 
 rule applicable in cases where compensation is sought for the consecjuences of 
 the wrongful or negligent act of a carrier, or for the violation of its contract, 
 is that it is responsible only for the proximate and not the remote consequences 
 of its actions. •• Damages which arc uncertain and speculative arc not recover- 
 able.^ 
 
 Liability for Acts of Agent. — While a carrier is liable for the actual dam- 
 ages to goods shipped caused by the act of his agent done in the usual course 
 of his employment, yet he is not responsible for wanton and willfvd flamages 
 done by the agent without his consent or subsequent ratification.*^ 
 
 Where No Loss Is Sustained. — If, by an actual sale and receipt of the 
 price, the consignee protects liiniself against any loss resulting from the goods 
 
 dence held not to sliow a custom extend- 
 ing a railroad's liability as common car- 
 rier for goods ready for delivery at des- 
 tination. Knight V. Southern Railway, G7 
 S. E. IC, 8.^, S. C. 78. 
 
 99. Common-law liability. — Galveston, 
 etc.. R. Co. r. Ball, S(» Tex. cori, G06. 16 S. 
 W. 441. 
 
 As to effect of stipulations limiting lia- 
 bility or fixing value of goods, see post, 
 "Limitation of Liability," chapter 14. 
 
 Under the Texas statutes, the liability 
 of a common carrier for loss of freight 
 is that imposed by the rules of the com- 
 mon law. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Levi, 76 
 Tex. 337, 340, 13 S. W. 191; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Douglas & Sons, 2 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 28. 
 
 1. Actual damages — Illustrations. — In 
 an action against a carrier for injury to 
 goods, part of which plaintiff had sold. 
 he may recover actual damages for in- 
 jury to the portion unsold. Henry v. 
 Central R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 815, 15 S. E. 
 757. 
 
 Where the injury to the goods is less- 
 ened by the action of the plaintiff, the 
 carrier should only be charged with ac- 
 tual loss, and plaintiff should be allowed 
 for expenses incurred in so doing. Rob- 
 ertson V. National Steamship Co., 60 N. 
 Y. Super. Ct. 132, 17 N. Y. S. 459, 42 N. 
 Y. St. Rep. 694. 
 
 Where, through the negligence of a 
 carrier, meat consigned to Europe was 
 partly destroyed, and a portion taken for 
 the ship's use, the shipper can recover 
 of the carrier for the meat used by the 
 ship as well as for that destroyed. Sher- 
 man V. Innian Steamship Co. (.N. Y.), 26 
 Hun 107. 
 
 2. The plaintiff was about to commence 
 
 the publishing of a newspaper in Cin- 
 cinnati, and w-as waiting for the machin- 
 ery to arrive from New York, where it 
 had been purchased. The carriers had 
 been notified of these facts when they 
 contracted to carry the machinery to Cin- 
 cinnati in four daj'S. \ part of the ma- 
 chinery was lost. Held, that the carrier 
 was liable for the direct and necessary 
 consequences, including wages of men 
 who were idle for want of the machinery 
 after the time when it was to have been 
 delivered, and the cost of efforts made 
 to recover the machinery, as well as the 
 cost of replacing that which was lost, and 
 whicli could only be replaced by order- 
 ing it from the manufactorj- in New 
 York. Cincinnati Chronicle Co. v. White 
 Line Cent. Transit Co.. 1 Cin. R. 300, 13 
 O. Dec. 561. 
 
 3. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Godair, 3 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 514, 22 S. W. 777. 
 
 4. Remote damage. — Evans v. Rudy, 34 
 Ark. 3S:i: Daniels v. Ballatine. 23 O. St. 
 532, 13 Am. Rep. 264; Alderson v. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 
 617, affirmed in 93 Tex. 678, no op. 
 
 5. Yoakuin v. Dunn, 1 Tex. Civ. .-Kpp. 
 524, 21 S. W. 411, holding that the follow- 
 ing charge was erroneous: "If you find 
 that by reason of the total or partial loss 
 of some of the articles belonging to the 
 collection or museum, the whole collec- 
 tion is depreciated in value, and rendered 
 unfit for profitable exhibition, you will 
 consider such incidents and results, for 
 the purpose of determining the actual 
 damage you find the plaintiff has sus- 
 tained." 
 
 6. Liability for acts of agent. — Mendel- 
 sohn v. Anaheim Lighter Co., 40 Cal. 
 657.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 848 
 
 §§ 1068-1069 
 
 being damaged in transitu, he can not recover of the carrier anything beyond 
 nominal damages and costs, although he may be hable, on account of warranty 
 or fraud in making the sale, to refund to the purchaser a part of the priceJ 
 
 Possibility That Goods Damaged by Freshet before Loss.— Though 
 goods saved by a carrier from the perils of a freshet were damaged by passing 
 tiirough the freshet without its fault, yet, if some not saved are unaccounted 
 for, aiid it is not shown that the freshet caused their loss, or what their condi- 
 tioii was when they disappeared, a recovery for their full value may be had."^ 
 
 § 1069. Loss of Goods. — The general rule is that where goods are lost or 
 destroved the carrier is liable for their value at the place of destination at the 
 time they should have been delivered,'^ with interest thereon from that time,^'^ 
 
 7. Where no loss sustained.— Henry v. 
 Central R.. etc., Co.. 89 Ga. 815, 15 S. E. 
 757. 
 
 8. Goods damaged before loss. — Char- 
 lotte, etc., R. C(i. c'. Wooten, S7 Ga. 203, 
 13 S. E. 50'J. 
 
 9. Loss of goods — Value at destination. 
 — United States. — Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 28 L. Ed. 527, 4 S. 
 Ct. 566; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill, 
 147 U. S. 591, 622, 37 L. Ed. 292, 13 S. Ct. 
 444. 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 487; Primrose 
 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 154 U. S. 1, 
 14, 38 L. Ed. 883, 14 S. Ct. 1098; Wood- 
 ward V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. 403, 
 Fed Cas. No. 18006; Ormsby v. Union 
 Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed. 706, 2 McCrary 48. 
 
 Alabama. —South, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 
 72 Ala. 451, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 634; 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Gilmer, 89 Ala. 
 534, 7 So. 654, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 450; 
 Echols V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 90 Ala. 
 366, 7 So. 655; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Kelsey, 89 Ala. 287, 7 So. 648, 42 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 584; East Tennessee, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 22 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 437, 51 Am. Rep. 489; South- 
 ern R. Co. V. Hatter & Son, 165 Ala. 423, 
 51 So. 723. 
 
 Ca///or»ja.— Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 
 108; Hart v. Spalding, 1 Cal. 213. 
 
 Georgia. — Wilson v. Atlanta, etc., R. 
 Co., 82 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076; Chattanooga 
 Southern R. Co. v. Thompson, 133 Ga. 
 127, 131, 65 S. E. 285; Taylor & Co. v. 
 Collier, 26 Ga. 122. 
 
 /»J/a»a.— Wallace v. Vigus (Ind.), 4 
 Blackf. 260. 
 
 ///i»oi.y.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dick- 
 inson, 74 111. 249; Northern Transp. Co. 
 V. McClary, 66 111. 233; Plaff v. Pacific 
 Exp. Co., 159 111. App. 493; S. C, 251 111. 
 243, 95 X. E. 1089. 
 
 /ott'O.— Robinson Bros. v. Merchants' 
 Despatch Transp. Co., 45 Iowa 470; Cobb, 
 etc., Co. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa 
 601. 
 
 Kentucky.— Addims Exp. Co. v. McDon- 
 ald (Ky.;, 1 Bush. 32; Cincinnati, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Spratt (Ky.), 2 Duv. 4; Cincin- 
 nati, etc., R. Co. V. Hansford, 30 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 1105, 100 S. W. 251. 
 
 Louisiana. — Burke v. Clarke, 11 La. 206; 
 Price, etc., Co. v. The Uriel, 10 La. Ann. 
 413; Rathbone v. Neal, 4 La. Ann. 563, 
 
 50 Am. Dec. 579; Lewis v. The Success, 
 18 La. Ann. 1; Porter v. Curray, 7 La. 
 233. 
 
 Maine. — Little v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 
 66 Me. 239; Perkins v. Portland, etc., R. 
 Co.. 47 Me. 573, 74 Am. Dec. 507. 
 
 Maryland. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Pumphrey, 59 Md. 390, 9 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 331. 
 
 Minnesota. — Jellett v. St. Paul, etc., R. 
 Co., 30 Minn. 265, 16 x\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 246, 15 N. W. 237.. 
 
 Mississippi. — Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ragsdale, 46 Miss. 458. See Mobile, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Robbins Cotton Co., 94 Miss. 
 351, 48 So. 231. 
 
 Missouri. — Union R., etc., Co. v. Traube, 
 59 Mo. 355, 8 Am. R. Rep. 441; Davis v. 
 Wabash, etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 449, re- 
 versed on other grounds, 89 Mo. 340; 
 Rice V. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co., 3 Mo. 
 App. 27; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 65 Mo. 569. 
 
 Nebraska. — Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Lawler, 40 Neb. 356, 58 N. W. 968, 61 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 255. 
 
 Xetu Hampshire. — Hackett v. Boston, 
 etc., Railroad, 35 N. H. 390. 
 
 Xezi' York. — Sturgess v. Bissell, 46 N. 
 Y. 462; Harris v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 
 61 N. Y. 656; Sherman v. Wells (N. Y.), 
 28 Barb. 403; Rice v. Ontario Steamboat 
 Co. (N. Y.), 56 Barb. 384; Harris v. Pan- 
 ama R. Co., 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 312; 
 Davis V. New York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 1 Hilt. 543. 
 
 North Carolina. — Lewark v. Norfolk, 
 etc., R. Co., 137 N. C. 383, 49 S. E. 
 882. 
 
 Ohio. — Erie R. Co. v. Lockwood, 28 O. 
 St. 358, 14 Am. R. Rep. 143; McGregor & 
 Co. V. Kilgore, 6 O. 358, 27 Am. Dec. 260; 
 Louis V. Buckeye, 1 Handy 150, 12 O. 
 Dec. 74. 
 
 Oregon. — Prettyman v. Oregon R., etc., 
 Co., 13 Ore. 341, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 413, 10 Pac. 634. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Lucesco Oil Co. v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co., 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 477; Gill- 
 ingham v. Dempsey (Pa.), 12 Serg. & R. 
 183; Ruppel V. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 
 167 Pa. 166, 31 Atl. 478, 46 Am. St. Rep. 
 666; Hand v. Baynes (Pa.), 4 Whart. 204, 
 
 10. Interest as element of damages. — 
 
 See post, "Interest," § 1074.
 
 849 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO COOUS. 
 
 § 1069 
 
 Xi Am. Dec. .>4; Warden 7\ Greer (Pa.), « 
 Watts 424. 
 
 South Carnliiia. — Kyle v. Laurens R. Co. 
 (S. C), 10 Rich. L. :iH2, 70 Am. Dec. 231; 
 Shaw V. South Carolina R. Co. ( S. C), 
 5 Rich. L. 402, 57 Am. Dec. 768; Walling- 
 ford V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 20 S. C. 
 258, 2 S. E. I'J, :tO Am. & Knu. R. Cas. 40; 
 Brown z'. Northwestern Railroad, 75 S. 
 C. 20, 54 S. H. 821). 
 
 Tennessee. — Dean v. V'accaro, 39 Tenn. 
 (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744; East 
 Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 91 
 Tenn. 699, 20 S. W. 312, 17 L. R. A. 691, 
 30 Am. St. Rep. 902; Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Mason, 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 116, 
 16 .\m. & EnK. R. Cas. 241. Sec Cole 
 7: Rankin (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 72. Com- 
 pare, Edminson f. Baxter, 5 Tenn. (4 
 Hayw.) 112, 9 .\m. Dec. 75. 
 
 Texas. — Eowler v. Davenport, 21 Te.x. 
 626; Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Cook, s Tex. 
 Civ. App. 376, 27 S. W. 769; M. P. R. 
 Co. V. Barnes & Co., 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 575; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Clark. 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 512, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 628; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Tankersley, 63 Tex. 57; Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491; Southern 
 Pac. R. Co. v. D'Arcais, 64 S. W. 813, 27 
 Tex. Civ. App. 57; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Payne, 38 S. W. 366. 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
 58; Wolfe i: Lacy, etc., Co., 30 Tex. 349, 
 351; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Pagan, 72 
 Tex. 127. 132. 9 S. W. 749. 2 L. R. A. 75. 
 13 Am. St. Rep. 776; Galveston, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Efron (Tex. Civ. App.). 38 S. W. 
 C39; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 3 Texas 
 App. Civ.. Cas., § 192; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Booton, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 67, 15 
 S. W. 909; T. B. & H. R. Co. v. Mont- 
 gomery. 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 238, 
 16 S. W. 178; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ball, 80 Tex. 602, 16 S. W. 441; Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 
 431, 439. 49 S. W. 526; Texas, etc.. R. Co. 
 T. HofTecker (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 
 617; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 191; Pacific Exp. Co. z: 
 Hertzberg. 17 Tex. Civ. App. 100, 42 S. 
 W. 795; International, etc., R. Co. z'. 
 Parish, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 130, 132, 43 
 S. W. 1066; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 479; Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Dement (Tex. C'w. App.). 
 115 S. W. 635; Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: 
 Hewett, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 273; 
 Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Martin. 2 Texa., 
 App. Civ. Cas.. § 342. 
 
 I'ermont. — Laurent v. \aughn. lid 
 Vt. 90. 
 
 I'irgiiiia. — Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stock & Sons. 104 \'a. 97. 51 S. E. 161. 
 
 West J'ir^iiiiia. — Quarrier z\ Baltimore. 
 
 etc.. R. Co., 20 W. \'a. 424. is Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. Cas. 535. 
 
 ll'isconsin. — Chapman z'. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 26 Wis. 295, 7 Am. Rep. 81; Whit- 
 ney z: Chicagro. etc.. R. Co.. 27 Wis. 327. 
 5 Am. R. Rep. 291; Dean z\ Chicago, etc.. 
 R. Co.. 43 Wis. 305. 
 1 Car— 54 
 
 lingl'ind.— Brandt v. Bowlby, 2 B. & Ad. 
 932, 22 E. C. L. 214; O'Hanlan v. Great 
 Western R. Co., 6 B. & S. 484. 118 E. C. 
 L. 484; Anderson v. North Eastern R 
 Co.. 9 W. R. 519. See also Redman'i 
 Law of Ry. Carr. (2d Ed.), p. 134; Hiort 
 T'. London, etc.. R. Co., 4 Exch. Div. 188, 
 27 W. R. 778; Waller z: Midland Great 
 Western R. Co., L. R. 4 Ir. 376. revers- 
 ing L. R. 1 Ir. 520. 
 
 Canada. — Worden v. Canadian Pac. R. 
 Co., 13 Ont. Rep. 652. 30 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 127; Leader z\ Northern R. Co.. 3 
 Ont. C. & Div. 92. 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 287. 
 
 By the terms of a sale of machinery, 
 $400 of the price was to be paid on deliv- 
 ery, and of this the buyers had paifi $100, 
 and the seller had it consigned to its own 
 order, and drew on the buyers, bill of 
 lading attached, for $300. Held, that the 
 seller under these conditions could sue 
 the carrier in case of its loss for its full 
 value, and recovery could not be reduced 
 by the amount paid on account for which 
 it was bound to account to the buyers. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Adams Mach. Co., 
 165 Ala. 4:;f;. 51 So. 779. 
 
 Not credit price. — Where freight is 
 lost, the carrier is liable to the consignee 
 for its value at the time of the loss at 
 the place of destination, and not for the 
 credit price at which the consignee bought 
 it. Brown z\ Northwestern Railroad. 54 
 S. E. 829, 75 S. C. 20. 
 
 Where title passed to buyer. — A seller 
 and purchaser agrood that the property in 
 goods siiould pass to the purchaser when 
 delivered to the carrier at the place of 
 shipment, but that the seller should re- 
 tain the right of possession until a draft 
 for the purchase price, with bill of lading 
 attached, was paid. The carrier lost the 
 goods in transit. Held that, the title hav- 
 ing passed to the buyer, the carrier was 
 lial)le. not merely for the sale price, but 
 for the value of the goods, unless a less 
 amount would cover the damage. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. z'. Wilson Hack Line. 46 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 38, 101 S. W. 1042. 
 
 Market value at date of destruction. — 
 
 Measure of damages for total loss of 
 goods, caused In' the carrier's negligence 
 while they remained in the depot of des- 
 tination, is the market value of the goods 
 at that place at date of their destruction. 
 East Tennessee, etc.. R. Co. z\ Kellv. 91 
 Tenn. 699. 20 S. W. 312. 17 L. R. .\.' 691, 
 30 Am. St. Rep. 902. 
 
 Freight in which there is inherent de- 
 fects. — '\hc measure of damages for total 
 loss of freight in which there is an inher- 
 ent defect is the price it would have 
 brought in the market at the place of 
 destination in the condition thej' would 
 have been in had the carrier exercised 
 due care, less freight charges. Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. z: Pagan. 72 Tex. 127. 9 S. 
 W. 749. 2 L. R. A. 75. 13 Am. St. Rep. 
 776.
 
 §§ 1069-1070 cARRTi-Rs. 850 
 
 deducting the unj^aid cost of transportation.^^ The standard of value to be 
 taken in such case is the wholesale price.^- Where the only evidence as to the 
 value of lost goods is the price stated in the hill, made out at the time they were 
 bought, the jurv should be limited, in assessing the damages, to the price stated 
 in the bill, with interest thereon from the time of the loss to the time of trial. ^'^ 
 
 Carrier by Water. — ^^'here goods are lost during a voyage the carrier is 
 liable for their value at the port of destination,^"* but when the loss occurs at 
 the place of landing before the voyage begins, the carrier is lialjle for their 
 value at such jiort.^"' 
 
 Value at Nearest Market. — The measure of damages for the destruction 
 by a carrier of a collection of birds and animals in a museum is the value of 
 such specimens at the nearest market, rather than the value of the owner's time 
 in collecting them.^'' 
 
 TiOSS of Draft. — The measure of damages for the loss of a draft is prima 
 facie the amount due thereon, the company being entitled to reduce that valua- 
 tion by showing payment, insolvency of the maker, or invalidity of the draft. ^' 
 
 Partial Loss. — \\'here the goods are uninjured in quality, but there is a par- 
 tial loss, the owner can not abandon the goods and recover their entire value ; 
 he can recover onlv the price, at the place of deliverv, of the goods actually 
 lost.i^ 
 
 Agreed Valuation. — If two or more articles of an interstate shipment are 
 shipped on an agreed valuation fixed by the shipper, and a part of them is de- 
 livered and the balance lost, the shipper can recover only a ])ortion of the agreed 
 value, determined by the ratio of the aggregate value to the amount stipulated 
 as such value.''" 
 
 Deduction of Factor's Commissions. — Where a common carrier under- 
 takes to carry cotton to a market, and it is lost, it is not allowable for the jury 
 to deduct the factor's commissions from the value. -'^' 
 
 Shipment at Reduced Rate. — Where a common carrier receives goods for 
 transportation, at a value lower than their actual value, and, in conseciuence 
 thereof, ships the same at a reduced rate, it remains liable for the full value 
 of the goods, if there is no agreement or contract in the bill, of lading as to any 
 limitation on account of loss or damage, by reason of any reduction of freight. ^^ 
 
 §§ 1070-1072. Injury to Goods— § 1070. In General.— As a general 
 rule where goods are injured under such circumstances as to render the common 
 carrier liable, the owner may recover the difference between the value of the goods 
 in their damaged state and what would have been their value at destination if 
 
 11. Deduction of unpaid charges. — See 127; Dusar v. Murgatroyd, Fed. Cas. No. 
 post, ••Freight, Allowance and Deduc- 4,199, 1 Wash. C. C. 13. 
 
 tion," § lOT.'i. 16. Value at nearest market. — Yoakum 
 
 12. Wholesale price. — Wallace v. Vi- v. Dunn, 1 'J"cx. Civ. App. 524, 21 S. W. 
 gus (Ind.), 4 Blackf. 260; Texas, etc., R. 411. 
 
 Co. V. Payne, 38 S. W. 366, 15 Tex. Civ. 17. Loss of draft.— Zeigler v. Wells, 
 
 App. 58. etc., Co., 23 Cal. 179, 83 Am. Dec. 87. 
 
 13. Blumentha! v. Brainerd. 38 Vt. 402, 18. Partial loss. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 91 Am. Dec. 350. Booton, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 67, 1.5 
 
 14. Goods lost during voyage. — Kansas. S. W. 909; Shaw z'. South Carolina R. Co. 
 — Emily v. Carney, 5 Kan. ()45. • ( S. C), 5 Rich. L. 462, 57 Am. Dec. 
 
 Xew York. — Krohn v. Oechs, 48 Barb. 768. 
 
 127; Watkinson v. Laughton, 8 Johns. 19. Portion of agreed value. — Fielder v. 
 
 213. Adams Exp. Co., 69 W. Va. 138, 71 S. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Gillingham v. Dempsey, E. 99. 
 
 12 Serg. & R. 183. 20. Deduction of factor's commissions. 
 
 Texas. — Fowler v. Davenport, 21 Tex. — Kyle v. Laurens R. Co. ( S. C), 10 Rich. 
 
 626. L. :')82, 70 Am. Dec. 231. 
 
 15. Goods lost before voyage begins. — 21. Shipment at reduced rate. — L. & N. 
 Lakeman v. Grinnell, 18 X. Y. Super. R. Co. v. Levi, 18 O. C. C. 873, 8 O. C. D. 
 Ct. 625; Krohn v. Oechs (N. Y.), 48 Barb. 373.
 
 851 
 
 I<(J.SS OR INJURY TO CXJODS. 
 
 § 1070 
 
 delivered in good order,-- with interest,-^ less tlie unpaid costs of transporta- 
 tion. ^^ The rule also a])phes where goods are taken for transportation to a 
 point beyond the initial carrier's line.-'^ The common carrier is not Hable for 
 the whole vahie of i)roperty damaged by his want of care, so long as its char- 
 acter is not so changed but that it may be applied to the ordinary uses of such 
 property, though he will be answerable for the depreciation in its value bv rea- 
 son of its being rendered unfit for some particular uses.-'' 
 
 Determination of Damages. — The measure of damages in an action against 
 a carrier fur injury to .^oods, caused by its negligence, should be fixed ac- 
 cording to the average of the range of prices of such goods in the entire market, 
 
 22. Where goods injured. — .Irkansus. — 
 St. Louis, Lie, R. Co. V. Plioonix Cotton 
 Oil Co., ll.j S. W. Ijy.'i, 88 Ark. 594. 
 
 Dchnvarc. — Carpenter v. Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. (Del.), Pen. 15. G4 Atl. 252. 
 
 lozi'a. — Parsons x'. United States Kxp. 
 Co., 144 Iowa 745, 12:5 N. W. 77G, 25 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 842. 
 
 Kcntuckx. — Stone v. Adams Exp. Co. 
 (Ky.), 122 S. W. 200. 
 
 Louishimi. — Henderson v. Maid of 
 Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 352; Oakey v. 
 Russell (La.), (i Mart., N. S., 58; Silver- 
 man V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 26 So. 447, 
 51 La. Ann. 1785. 
 
 Michiaau. — See Marquette v. Langton, 
 32 Mich. 251. 
 
 Minnesota. — Paterson v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 10.$ N. W. ()21, 95 Minn. 57. 
 
 Missouri. — Heil t'. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 
 
 16 Mo. App. ?.G'A. 
 
 Xew York. — Robertson v. National 
 Steamship Co.. 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 132, 
 
 17 N. Y. S. 459, 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 694; 
 King V. Sherwood, 48 N. Y. S. 34, 22 App. 
 Div. 548. 
 
 Ohio. — Harshman v. Litle Miami, etc., 
 R. Cos. (O.), Dayton 175. 
 
 Texas. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Bell 
 (Tex.), 2 Posey Unrep. Cas. 517; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Avery (lex. Civ. App.), 33 
 S. W. 704; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Berch- 
 field, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 145. 33 S. W. 1022; 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. i'. Silegman (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 298; Missouri Pac. 
 R. Co. V. Breeding, 4 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 154, 16 S. W. 184; St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Henry (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. 
 W. 334; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Calvert, 
 41 Tex. Civ. App. 236. 91 S. W. 825; Texas 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Watson. 54 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 509. 118 S. W. 175; Gulf, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Stewart (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S. 
 W. 1020; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 
 62 Tex. 209, 213, 21 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 126; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Truesdell. 21 
 Tex. Civ. App. 125, 51 S. W. 272. affirmed 
 in 93 Tex. 125, no op.; Missouri, etc.. 
 R. Co. z: Webb, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 431, 
 49 S. W. 526; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Jarrell, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 425, 86 S. W. 
 632, aflirmed in 101 lex. 649, no op.; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Arnold, 16 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 74. 40 S. W. 829; Texas, etc.. 
 R. Co. V. Klepper (Tex. Civ. App.). 24 S. 
 W. 567; Reeves v. Texas, etc., R. Co., U 
 
 Tex. Civ. App. 514, 32 S. W. 920; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Eddins, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 
 116. 26 S. W. 161; Gulf, etc., Co. z: Stan- 
 ley, 89 Tex. 42. 33 S. W. 109, attirming 
 29 S. W. 806; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 ;-. Wright, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 136, 49 S. 
 W. 147; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. r. Smith. 
 11 Tex. Civ. App. 550, 32 S. W. H2s: In- 
 ternational, etc., R. Co. V. Dimmit County 
 Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186. 189. 
 23 S. W. 754; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Harris (Tex. Civ. App.). 138 S. W. 1085. 
 
 rirgiiiia. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Jacobs, 
 109 Va. 27, 63 S. E. 17. 
 
 Defendant, a common carrier, agreed to 
 transport apples from two of its sta- 
 tions to Albany, and there deliver them 
 to a steamboat line for New York. On 
 the ship's arrival in New York, they were 
 found injured by frost caused l)y delay 
 in delivery at Albany. Held, in the ab- 
 sence of any proof of difference in value 
 between the two places, or that the fruit 
 was injured after leaving Albany, the 
 value of the apples is their value as 
 proved in New York, deducting the 
 freight from Albany to Ne^y York City. 
 Marshall v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 
 Barb. 502, affirmed in 48 N. Y. 660. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for in- 
 juries to peaches by its failure to prop- 
 erly ice the cars. plaintifT's damage de- 
 pended upon the market value of the 
 peaches at destination. Perkins Co. v. 
 -American Exp. Co.. 85 N. E. 895, 199 
 Mass. .-.(il. 
 
 Machine broken in transit — The meas- 
 ure of damage for breaking a machine 
 in transit is the difference between the 
 value of the machine at the place of de- 
 livery at the time and in the condition in 
 which it was delivered not including 
 wliich it ought to have arrived, and its 
 value at the time and in the condition in 
 which it was delivered not including 
 tlie amount plaintiff may have expended 
 in repairing it. Missouri Pac. R. Co. f. 
 Breeding, 16 S. W. 184, 4 Texas App. 
 Civ. Cas., § 154. 
 
 23. See post, "Interest." § 1074. 
 
 24. See post. "Freight, Allowance and 
 Deduction." § 1073. 
 
 25. Southern Exp. Co. r. Tacobs. 109 
 \a. 27, 63 S. E. 17. 
 
 26. Hackett v. Boston, etc.. Railroad. 35 
 N. H. 390.
 
 §§ 1070-1071 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 852 
 
 and not according to any sudden inflation or depression of prices. ^'^ Sale by 
 auction in a great mart of commerce is a proper method of determining the 
 value of goods damaged in the hands of a carrier.-"^ 
 
 Time for Estimating Damages. — Where a shipment arrived at its destina- 
 tion in the night, its market \alue on the next day was the market value to be 
 employed in determining the measure of damages in an action against the car- 
 rier for damages caused by imi)roper handhng.-'-' 
 
 § 1071. Right to Abandon Goods. — \\ here property is injured in transporta- 
 tion through the neghgence of the carrier, but is not entirely worthless, the owner 
 can not refuse to accept it and sue for its marget value, but may recover only for 
 the injury.-'" But where the goods are injured so as to entirely destroy their 
 
 27. Determination of damages. — Smith 
 V. Griffith (X. Y.). 3 Hill 333, 38 Am. Dec. 
 639. 
 
 28. The Queen, 78 Fed. 155; Pacific 
 Coast Steamship Co. v. Bancroft-Whit- 
 ne3' Co., 94 Fed. 180, 36 C. C. A. 135, 
 reversed on other grounds in Queen of 
 the Pacific, 21 S. Ct. 278, 180 U. S. 49, 
 45 L. Ed. 419. 
 
 29. Time for estimating damages. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Henry (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). SI S. W. 334. 
 
 30. Right of owner to abandon goods. 
 — Alabama. — -See Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 MontmoUen. 39 So. 820, 145 Ala. 468, 117 
 Am. St. Rep. 58. 
 
 Louisiana. — The mere fact that fruit is 
 slightly damaged does not entitle the 
 consignee to refuse to receive it and re- 
 cover its full value. Corso v. New Or- 
 leans, etc., R. Co., 48 La. Ann. 1286. 20 
 So. 752. Compare Meyer v. Vicksburg, 
 etc., R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 639, 6 So. 218, 
 17 Am. St. Rep. 408. See Henderson v. 
 Maid of Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 352, hold- 
 ing that the doctrine of abandonment for 
 a constructive total loss does not apply 
 to a contract of affreightment. 
 
 Michigan. — Reason v. Detroit, etc.. R. 
 Co., 113 N. W. 596, 150 Mich. 50. 
 
 Xczu York. — Mills v. National Steam- 
 ship Co., 5 N. Y. S. 258, 25 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 856. 
 
 Texas.— GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 4 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 47, 15 S. W. 128; 
 Baumback v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 4 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 650, 23 S. W. 693; Gulf, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Pitts & Son, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 212, 83 S. W. 727; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Everett, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 83 S. W. 
 257; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Booton, 4 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 67, 15 S. VV. 909; Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Moore, 47 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 531, 105 S. W. 532; G., H. & S. A. 
 R. Co. v. Van Winkle & Co., 3 Texas 
 Civ. Cas., § 443; Houston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Harn, 44 Tex. 628. 
 
 Where a car load of chops was injured 
 in transit by wetting, the fact that the 
 consignee was in the wholesale trade, to 
 which the chops, in their damaged con- 
 
 dition, were unsuitable, did not entitle 
 him to refuse to accept them and sue the 
 carrier for their original value. Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Pitts & Son, 37 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 212, 83 S. W. 727. 
 
 Where a carrier undertook in good 
 faith to repair a machine injured in tran- 
 sit, the fact that the machine when ten- 
 dered was in a condition which rendered 
 it worthless for the purpose intended, but 
 could, at a moderate expenditure, have 
 been so repaired as to render it as use- 
 ful as before the injury, does not justify 
 the shipper in abandoning the machine 
 or refusing to accept it; his remedy be- 
 ing an action for damages. Parsons v. 
 L'nited States Exp. Co., 144 Iowa 745, 
 123 N. W. 776, 25 L. R. A., N. S., 842. 
 
 Where only a part of property is in- 
 jured, and the remainder arrives safely, 
 the consignee can not reject the unin- 
 jured portion, and hold the carrier liable 
 for the whole. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bivens, 13 Ind. 263; Silverman v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 20 So. 447, 51 La. 
 Ann. 1785. 
 
 Offer to deliver damaged goods on un- 
 reasonable conditions. — In Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. z\ Martin, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 
 342, which was a case of a total loss of 
 a part of the goods, and an offer upon 
 unreasonable conditions to deliver the re- 
 mainder in a damaged condition, it was 
 held that the owner is not bound to re- 
 ceive the remaining damaged portion 
 thereof, but may maintain an action 
 against the carrier for the value of all 
 the goods as shipped. 
 
 Effect of verdict. — Where the verdict 
 in favor of the consignee in an action 
 for the value of damaged chops injured 
 in transportation was the same as plain- 
 tiff would have been entitled to recover 
 had he accepted and sold the 'chops for 
 their reasonable value in their damaged 
 condition, the fact that he unlawfully re- 
 fused to accept the same and sued for 
 their value, instead of the difference be- 
 tween the value as shipped and as de- 
 livered, was immaterial. Gulf, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Pitts & Son, 83 S. W. 727, 37 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 212.
 
 853 
 
 LOSS OR IXJIKV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1071-1073 
 
 value, the consignee may refuse to accept them, and hold the carrier for their 
 value."'' 
 
 § 1072. When Damaged Goods Sold. — Where goods delivered to a car- 
 rier are damaged 1)\ the rising of a sudden Hood, the measure of damages to 
 the owner of goods, where a part of them have been sold by him, is the differ- 
 ence between the general value and the amount realized by the sale.'- W here the 
 carrier sells damaged goods, on the refusal of the consignee to receive them, it 
 is bound by such sale as evidence of their value, and must repay the owner so 
 much of the loss as has not been paid by the insurers. •'•' Where a contract 
 of afYreightment was entire, and part of the goods were lost, and, on the con- 
 signee's refusing to accept the remainder, the carrier sold them, the shipper is 
 entitled to recover the proceeds of the sale, less charges for care, storage, wharf- 
 age, and expenses of the sale, but no charges for freight are to be deducted.''* 
 In allowing damages to a consignee of goods, the carrier should be credited with 
 the amount realized from a sale of the goods for the benefit of the consignee's 
 creditors. •'•'' 
 
 § 1073. Freight, Allowance and Deduction. — Where recovery is based 
 on the value of goods at destination, freight charges unpaid should be de- 
 ducted; •*'' and, if the charges have already been i)aid, the plaintiff can not re- 
 
 31. IJraiul r. Woir. o7 X. V. S. 731, 27 
 -Misc. Rt-p. 2\2. 
 
 Where a machine is so damaged that 
 the cost of repairing it would equal the 
 cost of a new one, tlu- consi^nco may re- 
 cover its valiK-. the frciKlu paid, and in- 
 terest from the time when it should have 
 been delivered, l)ut not damage result- 
 ing from the loss of its use, unless the 
 carrier knew of the contemplated use. 
 Thomas, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wabash, etc., 
 R. Co., 62 Wis. 642, 22 N. W. 827, 51 
 Am. Re]). 72."). 
 
 32. When damaged goods sold. — 
 Strouss z: Wal)ash, etc.. R. Co.. 17 Fed. 
 209. See Magdeburg General Ins. Co. v. 
 Taulson. 29 Fed. ' ."):;o. 
 
 Necessity of selling injured goods in 
 order to establish damage. — See post, 
 "In General," § 10S2. 
 
 33. Cassilay v. Young & Co. (Ky.), 4 
 B. Mon. 265, :{9 Am. Dec. 505. 
 
 34. Stevens r. Say ward (Mass.). 3 Gray 
 
 lit-!. 
 
 35. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. r. Lavin, 
 136 Ky. -•').-., 124 S. W. 274. 
 
 36. Deduction of unpaid charges. — Gcor- 
 iTJa. — Wilson v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 82 
 Ga. 386, 9 S. E. 1076; Taylor & Co. v. 
 Collier. 26 Ga. 122. 
 
 Indiana. — Wallace v. \'igus (Ind.), 4 
 Blackf. 260. 
 
 Kentucky. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Spratt (Ky.). 2 Duv. 4. 
 
 Louisiana. — Porter r. Curray, 7 La. 233. 
 
 .UiV/iiga«.— Marquette v. Langton, 32 
 Mich. 251. 
 
 Missouri. — Gray v. Missouri River 
 Packet Co., 64 Mo. 47. 
 
 Nczv Y'ork. — Rice v. Ontario Steaml)oat 
 Co. (N. Y.). 56 Barb. 384: Robertson z: 
 National Steamship Co., 60 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 132. 17 X. Y. S. 459. 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 
 694. 
 
 Ohio. — Erie R. Co. v. Lockwood, 2h O. 
 St. 358, 14 Am. R. Rep. 143. 
 
 Pcnnsylz-ama. — Tuesco Oil Co. 7'. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. (Pa.), 2 Pittsl). R. 477. 
 
 Texas. — Galveston, etc.. R. Co. z\ Ball, 
 80 Te.x. 602, 606, 16 S. W. 441; Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Jackson, 62 Te.x. 209. 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 126; Fowler z: Dav- 
 enport, 21 Tex. 626; International, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 550; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Hoffecker (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 123 S. W. 617. 
 
 /■ //■.£,' nn'fl. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stock & Sons, 51 S. E. 161, 104 \a. 97. 
 
 Where, in an action for the loss of 
 corn by the sinking of a barge, the proof 
 showed that the corn was worth forty- 
 two to forty-three cents per bushel at 
 destination, and at the price of forty-two 
 cents, after deducting the value of the 
 corn saved and the freight, there was 
 left an amount due to plaintiff exceeding 
 the amount of the verdict, an objection 
 that the cost of transportation should 
 have been deducted from the judgment 
 Was not sustainable. Marsden Co. z: 
 Bullitt & Co., 72 S. \\\ 32, 24 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 1697. 
 
 Reason of rule. — The object of the law 
 is to give compensation for the injury, 
 and no more. The carrier is compelled 
 to pay the enhanced value of the prop- 
 erty at the place of delivery. The owner, 
 therefore, in recovering this value at the 
 terminal point receives in substance and 
 effect the benefits of the transportation 
 as fully as if the goods had lieen trans- 
 ported and delivered to him. in which 
 event he would have been bound to pay 
 the cost of transportation. For these 
 reasons, perhaps, the law gives the car- 
 rier the benefit of the freight charges in 
 assessing the damages. Galveston, etc.. 
 R. Co. z: Ball. SO Tex. 602, 607. 16 S. W. 
 441.
 
 §§ 1073-1074 
 
 CAKRIllKS. 
 
 854 
 
 cover the amount so paid in addition to the value of the goods, with interest.^" 
 It is held that no deduction can he made for unpaid charges, unless the amount 
 is proved. ^'^ And it has heen held that no deduction will he made where the 
 defendant sets up no counterclaim for freight;^" hut if is also held that evi- 
 dence of the amount of freight unpaid is admissihle on the issue of damage 
 though not pleaded as a counterclaim.'" Where the freight due a carrier, en- 
 tered into the amount of damages for which the carrier was liable for loss of 
 the goods, limitations did not run against the carrier's right to have the freight 
 deducted from such damages.-*^ A carrier who, by his own fault, loses part of 
 the goods sent by one entire contract, and sells the remainder at the port of 
 delivery, after waiting for an owner the stipulated time, can not set off against 
 the consignee, who sues for the proceeds of the sale, any sum for freight, since 
 freight has not l^een earned.-* - 
 
 Where plaintiff recovers the value of goods at the point of shipment, 
 in an action for the loss thereof or damage thereto, it is proper to add the amount 
 of charges paid by plaintiff;"*^ and unpaid charges will not be deducted in es- 
 timating the damages.^-* 
 
 Verdict Not Deducting Charge. — Where the verdict is for the full amount 
 of the damage alleged, it is erroneous, since no allowance was made for the 
 amount due the carrier for freight ; and it can not be insisted that this was ac- 
 counted for by the jury by balancing the amount due for freight with the amount 
 due as interest, when no claim is set up in the complaint for interest, and there 
 is no testimony, and no direction in the charge of the court, in relation thereto.^^ 
 
 § 1074. Interest. — It seems to be settled by the later authorities that in 
 actions against carriers for loss of or injury to goods, interest may be recov- 
 ered as an element of damages."*''' 
 
 37. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Ball, 80 
 Tex. 602, 16 S. W. 441; Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Kelley (Tex. Civ. App.), 20 S. 
 W. 470; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Kemp (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 714. See Thomas, 
 etc.. Mfg. Co. V. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 62 
 Wis. 642, 22 N. W. 827, 51 Am. Rep. 725. 
 Contra, Sherman v. Tnman Steamship 
 Co. (N. Y.), 26 Hun 107. 
 
 38. Charges must be proved. — Gray v. 
 Missouri River Packet Co., 04 Mo. 47; 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. Nicholson, 
 61 Tex. 550. 
 
 39. Bamberg v. South Carolina R. Co., 
 9 S. C. 01, 30 Am. Rep. 13. 
 
 40. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hoffecker 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 617. 
 
 41. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hoffecker 
 (Tex Civ. App.), 123 S. W. 617. 
 
 42. Stevens v. Sayward (Mass.), 8 
 Gray 215. And see Sayward v. Stevens 
 (Mass.), 3 Gray 97. 
 
 43. Jenkins v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 60 
 S. E. 407, 84 S. C. 520; Galveston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Ball, 80 Tex. 602, 007, 16 S. W. 441; 
 M. P. R. Co. V. Barnes & Co., 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 575. 
 
 44. M. P. R. Co. V. Barnes & Co., 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 575. See Fine 
 & Bro. V. Southern Exp. Co., 10 Ga. App. 
 161. 73 S. E. 35. 
 
 45. Verdict not deducting charges. — 
 Miami Powder Co. v. I'ort l^oyal, etc., R. 
 Co., 38 S. C. 78, 16 S. E. 339, 21 L. 
 R. A. 123. 
 
 46. Interest as an element of damages. 
 
 — Vmtcd 6Va/fj.— Mobile, etc., R. Co. 'v. 
 Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 28 L. Ed. 527, 4 S. 
 Ct. 566; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill, 
 147 U. S. 591, 622, 37 L. Ed. 292, 13 S. 
 Ct. 444, 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 487; Prim- 
 rose V. Western Union Tel. Co., 154 U. 
 S. 1, 14, 38 L. Ed. 883, 14 S. Ct. 1908; Wes- 
 tray v. Miletus, Fed. Cas, No. 17,461, af- 
 firmed in Fed. Cas. No. 9,545, 5 Blatchf. 
 335; Insurance Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 9 Fed. 811 (gross negligence on part of 
 carrier) ; Woodward v. Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 1 Biss. 403, Fed. Cas. No. 18.006. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc.. Railway v. 
 Phelps, 46 Ark. 485. 
 
 Georgia. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 85 Ga. 497, 11 S. E. 809. 
 
 Illinois. — In Northern Transp. Co., v. 
 McClary, 66 111. 233, and Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Ames, 40 111. 249, it was held 
 that interest was properly allowed as an 
 element of damages. But the contrary 
 was held in Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 
 54 111. App. 130, following Illinois Cert. 
 R. Co. V. Cobb, 72 111. 148, holding that 
 interest is not recoverable unless its re- 
 covery is authorized by statute. 
 
 hnva. — Robinson Bros. v. Merchants' 
 Despatch Transp. Co., 45 Iowa 470; Cobb, 
 etc., Co. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa 
 001. 
 
 I^onisiana. — Murrell v. Dixey, 14 La. 
 Ann. 298; Clines v. Frisbee (La.), 5 Rob.
 
 $:>:) 
 
 LOSS OK INFfKY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1074 
 
 That the owner was paying interest on a debt which the goods shipped 
 
 192. Compart; Morgan v. Bell (La.), 4 
 Mart., O. S., 015. 
 
 Massaclittsctts. — Gushing ?'. WclLs, etc , 
 Co., 98 Mass. 550; Spring i'. Haskiil 
 (Mass.), 4 Allen 112. 
 
 Miiiiicsuta. — Cowley v. Davidson, 1:5 
 Minn. 92, Gil. Hr>. 
 
 Missouri. — It seems to be impossible to 
 reconcile the Missouri decisions with one 
 another. In Gray z'. Missouri River 
 Packet Co., 04 Mo. 47, it was held that 
 where live stock is killed in the course 
 of shipment through the gross negligence 
 of the carrier, interest is properly al- 
 lowed on its value. But the allowance of 
 interest in such cases is, to some degree, 
 within the discretion of the court, and 
 where there has been no negligence on 
 the carrier's part, the recovery of in- 
 terest is not permitted. vSee, also, Dunn 
 z: Hannibal, etc., R. Co.. OS Mo. 20H. 
 In Padley z: Catterlin. 04 Mo. -Kpp. 
 029, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1258, however, the 
 court seems to be of the opinion that it 
 is settled by these decisions that plain- 
 tiff in such actions is entitled to recover 
 interest on the damages allowed. But 
 in New York, etc., R. Co. v. Estill, 
 147 U. S. 591, 13 S. Ct. 444, 37 L. 
 Ed. 292, 54 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 487, mod- 
 ifying 41 Fed. 849, it was held that under 
 the statute and decisions of Missouri it 
 is improper to allow interest on the 
 amount of damages, in an action against 
 a carrier of live stock. 
 
 Xczi- i'ori^.— The New York decisions 
 do not harmonize with each other. While 
 Sherman z: Wells (N. Y.), 28 Barb. 403. 
 and Harris z: Delaware, etc., R. Co., 01 
 N. Y. 650, support the general rule, in 
 Black z: Camden, etc.. Transp. Go. (N. 
 Y.). 45 Barb. 40, it was held that whether 
 interest should be allowed on damages 
 for injury to property through the neg- 
 ligence of the carrier, was a matter 
 within the discretion of the jury. See, 
 also, Wilson z'. Troy, 135 N. Y. 96, 32 
 N. E. 44. 18 L. R. A. 449, 31 Am. St. 
 Rep. 817, citing Walrath z\ RedfieUl. 
 18 N. Y. 457, 402; Mairs z'. Manhattan 
 Real Estate Ass'n, 89 N. Y. 498; Duryee 
 z: New York, 90 N. Y. 477, 499; Home 
 Ins. Go. z: Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 11 Hun 182, 188; Moore z: New York. etc.. 
 R. Co., 120 N. Y. 071, 27 N. E. 791, 4 Silv- 
 ernail Ct. App. 480. It is also held that 
 interest is not allowable unless the car- 
 rier has been guilty of negligence ( Lake- 
 man v. Grinncil, 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 025) 
 or misconduct. Watkinson z: Laughton 
 (N. Y.). 8 Johns, 213. 
 
 O/iio.— Erie R. Go. v. Lockwood, 28 O. 
 St. 358, 14 Am. R. Rep. 143. 
 
 Pcinisxhania. — Lucesco Oil Go. v. Penn- 
 sylvania R. Go. (Pa.), 2 Pittsb. 477. 
 
 South Carolina. — Kvle v. Laurens R. 
 Co. (S. C), 10 Rich. L. 382, 70 Am. Dec. 
 
 2.31. See Brown v. Northwestern Rail- 
 load, 54 S. E. 829, 75 S. C. 20. 
 
 Tc.ras. — Rio Grande R. Co. v. Cross, 5 
 i e.\. Civ. App. 454, 23 S. W. 529; Ft. 
 Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 
 104, 17 S. W. 834, 49 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 
 157; Galveston, etc., R. Go. v. Ball, 80 
 Te.x. 002, 10 S. W. 441; Galveston, etc., 
 I\. Co. z: Johnson (Tex.), 19 S. W. 807; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. McCarty, 82 Tex. 
 OOM. IS S. W. 710; Houston, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Jackson, 02 Tex. 209, 21 .\m. & Eng. 
 R. Gas. 120; Watkins z: Junker, 90 Tex. 
 584, 587, 40 S. W. 11, reversing 38 S. VV. 
 1129; Carter z'. International, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 081; Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. z: Hewett, 2 Texas App. Civ. 
 Gas., § 273. Some of the cases hold that 
 interest should not l)e allowed unless 
 there is fraud, delinquency, or injustice 
 on the part of the carrier; and that in 
 such case it is allowed by way of punish- 
 ment. Fowler z\ Davenport, 21 Te.x. 026; 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 2 Texas 
 App. Civ. Gas., § 342; Wolfe v. Lacy, 
 etc., Co., 30 Tex. 349. In San Antonio, etc., 
 R. Go. V. Addison, 96 Tex. 01, 70 S. W. 
 200, it was held that interest is not re- 
 coverable, eo nomine, but may be al- 
 lowed by way of indemnification, as a 
 part of the damages; it is an element of 
 the damages, to be included as such by 
 plaintiff in his claim and by the jury in 
 the verdict. 
 
 rcrmont. — Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 
 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350; Newell z\ 
 Smith, 49 \'t. 255; Laurent v. Vaughn, 
 30 \t. 90. 
 
 I'irgiiiia. — Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stock & Sons, 104 Va. 97, 51 S. E. 101, 
 
 West Virginia. — Clarke-Lawrence Co. 
 V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 03 W. \ a. 
 423, 01 S. E. 304. 
 
 ll'iscousiti. — Chapman v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Wis. 295, 7 Am. Rep. 81; 
 Thomas, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wabash, etc.. 
 R. Co., 02 Wis. 042, 22 N. W. 827, 51 
 Am. Rep. 725; Whitney v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co., 27 Wis. 327, 5 Am. R. Rep. 291. 
 
 Interest recoverable from time of loss 
 or damage. —^L P. R. Co. z\ Barnes, l 
 Tc.\as App. Civ. Gas., § 575; Texas, etc., 
 R. Go. V. Payne, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 60, 
 38 S. W. 300; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Efron (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 039; 
 International, etc., R. Co. v. Dimmit 
 County Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 
 23 S. W. 754; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Carty. S2 Tex. OOS. IS S. W. 710. 
 
 Need not be asked in pleadings. — In- 
 terest may be allowed on the amount of 
 damages sustained, though it is not asked 
 for in the pleadings. Ft. Worth, etc.. R. 
 Co. v. Greathouse. 82 Tex. 104, 17 S. W. 
 S34. 49 Am. & Eng. R. Gas. 157; Inter- 
 national, etc., R. Co. V. Lewis (Tex. Civ. 
 .App.). 23 S. W. 323, 324; Houston, etc.. 
 R. Co. z: Tackson. 02 Tex. 209, 21 Am. &
 
 ;§ 1074-1075 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 856 
 
 was intended to satisfy neither adds to his right to recover interest nor enlarges 
 the Hability of the carrier.-*"" 
 
 § 107 5. Expenses of Owner. — The plaintift' may recover reasonable ex- 
 penses incnrred in an ettort to restore injnred property to its former condition,'*''^ 
 the expense incnrred in lessening the loss,-^" and the cost of efforts made for 
 the recover)' of lost property/'^ including a reward paid for such purpose. •'^- It 
 is held that the plaintift" may recover compensation for the actual expenses and 
 loss of time caused by the loss of property in addition to its value. •'^^ Actual 
 expenses incurred by plaintiff' during a period of delay in making a journey, ne- 
 cessitated by defendant's negligence in transporting her baggage to the station, 
 is recoverable as special damages."'-* But it is held that the owner of machinery 
 lost in transportation can not recover special damages for time lost and expense 
 incurred in making successive calls for the freight at the carrier's office without 
 proof of notice to the carrier's agent of the value of the time or attendant expense 
 or the distance that would have to be traveled in making such calls. ^^ A carrier 
 is not liable for the expense of discovering whether goods have been injured, ^*^ 
 or expenses of shipper's agent in going to the place of delivery to investigate as 
 to the goods which had been rejected. -^"^ 
 
 Attorney's fees are not recoverable by the plaintiff' in an action against the 
 carrier for loss of or injury to goods. ^^ 
 
 Eng. R. Cas. 126. But see Missouri, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Dawson Bros. (Civ. App.), 84 
 S. W. 298, holding that interest can not 
 be recovered as an element of damages 
 sustained, unless it is specifically pleaded, 
 or the amount sued for is sufficient to 
 cover the damages allowed as interest 
 and such other sum as may be included 
 in the recovery. 
 
 Rate. — Where, in an action to recover 
 for goods lost in transitu over defend- 
 ant railroad compan\''s road, there was 
 judgment for plaintiff, the court prop- 
 erly allowed interest on the value of the 
 goods at 8 per cent until the law chang- 
 ing such rate to 6 per cent went into 
 effect, since plaintiff was entitled to the 
 current rate of legal interest on the value 
 of the goods lost. Rio Grande R. Co. v. 
 Cross, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 454, 23 S. W. 529; 
 Rio Grande R. Co. v. Munoz Successors 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 531; Rio 
 Grande R. Co. v. Cross (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 23 S. W. 1004. See Galveston, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Johnson (Tex.), 19 S. W. 867. 
 
 48. Paying interest on debt. — Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. z: Jackson, 62 Tex. 209. 21 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 126. 
 
 49. Repairing injury. — Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Tuckett (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. 
 \V. 670. 
 
 The plaintiff recover what it cost to 
 put goods in a salable condition after its 
 arrival at the place of consignment, it 
 appearing that such expenditure was 
 beneficial to the defendants, Ijy reducing 
 the damages which they would otherwise 
 have sustained under the operation of the 
 general rule. Winne z\ Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co., 31 Iowa 583. 
 
 50. Robertson v. Xational Steamship 
 Co., 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 132, 17 X. Y. S. 
 459, 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 694. 
 
 51. Cost of recovering property. — Cin- 
 cinnati Chronicle Co. z'. White Line Cen;. 
 Transit Co., 1 Cin. R. 300, 13 O. Dec. 561. 
 
 52. Reward. — Greenfield Bank v. Leav- 
 itt (Mass.), 17 Pick. 1, 28 Am. Dec. 268 
 
 53. Evans v. Rudy, 34 Ark. 383. 
 
 54- Kates Transfer, etc., Co. v. Klassen, 
 6 Ala. App. 301, 59 So. 355. 
 
 55. Pacific Exp. Co. z'. Jones, 52 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 367, 113 S. W. 952. 
 
 56. Expense of discovering whether 
 there is injury. — Eleven cases of a car of 
 eggs being broken, and an examination 
 of twenty unbroken cases showing in- 
 ternal injury in seventeen, the consignee 
 can not collect of the carrier for expense 
 of examining the other two hundred and 
 fifty-two cases, having no external in- 
 jury, and showing, on examination, no in- 
 ternal damage. Martin v. Delaware, etc., 
 R. Co., 141 N. Y. S. 942. 
 
 57. Western Mfg. Co. v. Guiding Star, 
 37 Fed. 641. 
 
 58. Attorney's fees. — Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Benson, 86 Ga. 203, 12 S. E. 357, 
 22 Am. St. Rep. 446, holding that in the 
 absence of evidence that the carrier 
 acted in bad faith or was stubbornly liti- 
 gious or put the plaintiff to unnecessary 
 expense, an instruction that the jury 
 could add reasona1)lc attorney's fees to 
 tlie actual damages, was erroneous. 
 
 Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, 
 as amended by Acts Cong. June 29, 1900, 
 and April 13, 1908, does not authorize_ the 
 recovery of attorney's fees in actions 
 against carriers, for loss of or damage to 
 goods in transportation. Blair v. Wells 
 Fargo & Co. (Iowa), 135 N. W. 615; Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. Harper Bros., 201 
 Fed. 671, 121 C. C. A. 570. -
 
 857 
 
 LOSS (JK INJLKY T(J GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1075-1077 
 
 Where General Measure of Damages Allowed. — The rule that the owner 
 of projierty which is injured in transportation must exert himself to prevent dam- 
 ages or render the injury as slight as possiljle, and, when he has done so, may 
 recover his reasonable and necessary labor or expense jjerformed or incurred for 
 the purpose, has no application where he had been allowed to recover the gen- 
 eral measure of damages.-"'" 
 
 § 1076. Goods Shipped under Contract of Sale. — f'.enerally where goods 
 are shipped under a contract of sale the contract price furnishes the standard 
 for the damages to be assessed.''" Where goods are shipped to a consignee with 
 an option to take and pay for them at a price fixed, or return them, in an action 
 against the carrier for their loss the measure of damages is not the market value 
 at the place of destination, but, at most, the price fixed, with interest, from a 
 day when the goods would, in the usual course of carriage, have reached the 
 consignee and have been accepted.'*^ 
 
 § 1077. Goods Having No Market Value. — Loss of Goods. — The meas- 
 ure of damages in a suit against a carrier for loss of articles having no market 
 value and useful chietlv to owner, such as second-hand clothing and hfjusehold 
 goods, is the actual money value of the articles to the owner or the actual loss in 
 monev sustained bv him,''- not any financial i)rice that he might for special rea- 
 
 59. Where general measure of damages 
 allowed. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Fos- 
 ter (Tex. Civ. App. ), S'.) S. W. 4.J0. 
 
 60. Goods shipped under contract of 
 sale. — Where the owner of ^^oods shipped 
 had sold the same for part cash and part 
 credit, and lost the sale by the goods 
 having been damaged in transit, his meas- 
 ure of damage was the difference between 
 the value of the goods in their damaged 
 condition at the time they reached their 
 destination and the present value of his 
 contract with the buyer. Gulf, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Coulter (Tex. Civ. App.), 138 S. 
 W. 16. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for injuries to a shipment of potatoes, it 
 appeared that the shipper had sold the 
 potatoes for delivery at a distant point, 
 that the buyer at the point of delivery, 
 because of the damaged condition of the 
 shipment, refused to accept the pota- 
 toes, but there was no evidence to show 
 what the sound potatoes were sold for 
 at the place of delivery, or that diligence 
 had been used to secure their market 
 price, the shipper's measure of damages 
 was the difference between the total 
 amount of the contract price of the whole 
 shipment agreed to be paid by the l)uyer. 
 less the freigiit charges paid and the 
 amount for which the sound potatoes, in 
 the exercise of ordinary care to ol)tain 
 on their delivery at the point of delivery 
 the market price, were sold. Texarkana, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Shivel (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 114 S. W. 19(). 
 
 61. Magnin t. Dinsmore, (i2 X. Y. 'M>, 
 ,50 How. Prac. 4,")T, 20 Am. Ivcp. 442. 
 
 62. Goods having no market value — 
 Actual loss to owner. — .lUilhvna. — Kates 
 Transfer, etc.. Co. v. Klassen, 6 Ala. App. 
 301, 59 So. 355. 
 
 Kciituclcv. — .Adams Exp. Co. v. Hoeing, 
 9 Ky. L. "Rep. 814. 
 
 Oklahoma. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dunham, 3(J Okla. 724, 129 Pac. 862. 
 
 Pcnnsyhania. — ^Lloyd v. Haugh, etc.. 
 Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148, 72 Atl. SIC, 21 
 L. R. A., N. S., 188. 
 
 Texas. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson 
 Hack Line, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 38, 101 S. 
 W. 1042, atifirmed in 102 Tex. 595, no 
 op.; International, etc., R. Co. v. Nichol- 
 son, 61 Tex. 550; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Clark, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 512, IS 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 628; Texas, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Cook, 2 Te^xas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 659; Houston Transfer, etc., Co. v. 
 Whitcomb (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 
 358; Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Dement 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S. W. 635. 
 
 The measure of damages for loss by a 
 carrier of household goods and personal 
 efTects is the actual value of the thing 
 destroyed to the owner, considering its 
 cost, the practicability and expense of 
 replacing it, and such other considera- 
 tions as affect its value to the owner. 
 Lloyd V. Haugh, etc., Transfer Co.. 72 
 Atl. 516, 223 Pa. 148, 21 L. R. A., X. S.. 
 188. 
 
 The measure of a carrier's liability for 
 property destroyed by his negligence, 
 which has not been the subject of traffic, 
 is the fair value of the property at or 
 near the place of its destruction. Harris 
 V. Panama R. Co.. 16 X. Y. Super. Ct. 
 7. attirmed in .")S \. Y. 6(>0. 
 
 Second-hand vehicles. — In an action lor 
 the value of second-hand vehicles lost by 
 a carrier, where they have no market 
 value, the measure of recovery is their 
 actual value. Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son Hack Line, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 38, 101
 
 §§ 1077-1078 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 858 
 
 sons place on them, nor, on the other hand, the amount for wiiich he could sell 
 them to others.*^^ Where a package lost by an express company in transit has an 
 actual value as part of a work, and its loss must be supplied, the measure of dam- 
 ages is the cost of supplying it, which, nothing else appearing, is the cost of its 
 production.'^-* 
 
 Where Goods Injured. — Where household goods in use are injured while 
 being iranspDrted 1)\- a carrier, the measure of damages, is the ditTerence in their 
 actual value just prior to and just subsequent to the injury, and not the differ- 
 ence in the market value of similar goods at the nearest second-hand stores. ''^ 
 
 Portraits. — In an action against a carrier for the loss of a portrait the meas- 
 ure of damages is the actual value of the portrait to the plaintift'.'^*^ Damages 
 because of the peculiar value attached by the owner to the portrait are not re- 
 coverable.''' Where the portrait may be reproduced the owner is entitled to sup- 
 plv the lost portrait, and to recover of the carrier the cost.^*^ 
 
 § 1078. Profits. — Where goods intended for sale are lost the carrier is not 
 liable for profits which plaintiff' might have made had he resold the goods in the 
 ordinarv' course of his business.''^'* Also the carrier is not liable for profits an- 
 ticipated from the multiplication of copies of a lost picture and -the sale thereof.''^' 
 Xor is it liable for the rental value of property.' ^ 
 
 S. W. 1042. affirmed in 102 Tex. 595, 
 no op. 
 
 Cost of reproducing or replacing 
 goods. — In Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Key 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 43, it was held 
 that the measure of damages is the cost 
 of reproducing or replacing the goods, 
 if they can be reproduced or replaced. 
 Compare Houston Transfer, etc., Co. v. 
 Whitcomb (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 
 358. 
 
 Original cost. — Where, in an action 
 against a carrier for damages sustained 
 in transit to goods which have no rnarket 
 value, the only evidence of value is the 
 price at which plaintiff has sold similar 
 articles, it is error to instruct the jury 
 to look to the original cost of the articles 
 injured, in estimating plaintiff's damage. 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Ney (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). 58 S. W. 43. 
 
 Questions for jury — Evidence. — Where 
 there is no market value for the article 
 in question, alleged to have been lost 
 through carrier's negligence, the value 
 must be ascertained by the jury as a fact, 
 considering the circumstances which 
 would have affected the market value had 
 there been one. G. H. & S. A. R. Co. 
 v. Watson, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 813. 
 
 In ascertaining the value of household 
 goods in use for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the damages sustained by the in- 
 jury or destruction thereof, the original 
 cost of the property, the manner in which 
 it has been used, its general condition 
 and quality, the percentage of its depre- 
 ciation from use, damage, age, decay, or 
 otherwise, are all proper to be submitted 
 to the jury. Wells Fargo Exp. Co. v. 
 Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 314. 
 
 63. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Ney (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 43; International, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 550; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Clark, 2 Texas App. 
 
 Civ. Cas.. § 512, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 628. 
 
 In a suit against a carrier to recover 
 for the loss of household goods and 
 clothing, the value of these articles as 
 second-hand articles in the public mar- 
 ket is not the measure of their value in 
 fixing damages. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Frame, 6 Colo. 382. 
 
 64. Adams Exp. Co. z\ Hoeing, 9 Ky. 
 L. Rep. S14. 
 
 Architect's plans. — In an action against 
 a common carrier for loss of a package 
 containing architect's plans, the measure 
 of damages is the reasonable expense of 
 procuring new plans. Mather z'. Ameri- 
 can Exp. Co., 138 Mass. 55, 52 Am. Rep. 
 25 s'. 
 
 65. Where goods injured. — Benedict v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 91 
 S. W. 811; Wells Fargo Exp. Co. v. Wil- 
 liams (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 314; 
 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Sniythe, 55 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 557, 119 S. W. 892. 
 
 66. Loss of portrait. — Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Am. Rep. 
 808; Green v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 128 
 Mass. 221, 35 Am. Rep. 370, holding that 
 in an action for the loss of portrait of 
 plaintiff's father, evidence that plaintiff 
 has no other portrait of his father is ad- 
 missiljle. 
 
 67. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 55 
 Tex. 323, 40 Am. Rep. 808. 
 
 68. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 55 
 Tex. 323, 343, 40 Am. Rep. 808. 
 
 69. Profits.— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Payne, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 38 S. W. 366; 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Hansford & 
 Son, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1105, 100 S. W. 251 
 
 70. Bennett v. Drew, 16 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 355. 
 
 71. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hewett, 2 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 273 (rental value 
 of machine); Burke z: Clarke, 11 La. 206 
 (wages of slaves).
 
 859 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1079 
 
 § 1079. Special Damages. — In order to render a carrier liable for special 
 damages resulting frcjni a loss of or injury to goods, notice of the conditions 
 from which they \\(nil<l result should be given the carrier at the time the contract 
 of carriage is made.'- So where, on shipment of {jrojierty, there was no notice 
 to the carrier of any special use to which it was to be applied or of such scarcity 
 as to prevent another purchase of a like amount by consignee, consignee was 
 not entitled to special damages for its loss."-'* ' It is held that notice to a carrier 
 subsequent to the receipt of goods will render it liable for damages accruing 
 after that time because oi negligence in not tracing and finding the goods."* .-\ 
 
 72. Special damages. — American Exo. 
 Co. x: Kiiiiiii.^s, ^ti Miss. 329, 38 So. 374, 
 109 Am. St. Kcp. 70H; Gulf, etc., R. Co. 
 r. Pickens (Te.x. Civ. App.). 58 S. W. 
 ]")(;: Pacific Exp. Co. f. Jones, .52 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 367, 113 S. W. 9.52, 9.54. 
 
 In Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Belcher, 88 
 Tex. 549, 32 S. W. 518, the court said: 
 "The rule seems to be settled that plain- 
 tiff, in order to recover special damages 
 for breach of a contract, must show that 
 at the date of the contract defendant had 
 notice of the special conditions rendering 
 such damages the natural and probable 
 result of such breacli under circum- 
 stances showing that tlie contract was to 
 some extent based upon or made with 
 reference to such conditions. Waller z'. 
 Railway, L. R. 4 C. L. Ir. 376; Harvey 
 r. Connecticut, etc.. Railroad, 124 Mass. 
 421, 26 Am. Rep. 673." 
 
 Reasons for rule. — "X'arious reasons 
 have l)een assigned for the limitations 
 thus placed upon the right to recover 
 such damages. For instance, it is some- 
 times said that defendant is entitled to 
 the notice at the time of entering into 
 the contract, so that he may protect 
 himself against such special or extraor- 
 dinary liability by declining to make the 
 contract, by inserting stipulations pro- 
 tecting himself against such lial)ility, by 
 charging additional compensation to 
 cover the extra risk, or by making im- 
 mediate extra preparation to guard 
 against the breach; and, again, it has 
 been said that plaintiff 'ought not to be 
 allowed to obtain an advantage which he 
 has not paid for.' " Pacific Exp. Co. z'. 
 Jones, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 113 S. W. 
 952, quoting Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Belcher, 88 Tex. 549, 32 S. W. 518. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against a 
 carrier for the loss of a piston rod nec- 
 essary for the operation of plaintiff's 
 gin, the carrier could not l)e held liable 
 for special damages, owing to the en- 
 forced idleness of the gin, in the absence 
 of a showing, either that it had notice 
 of the special circumstances before it re- 
 ceived the shipment, or that the initial 
 carrier contracted for a through ship- 
 ment, and had such notice before re- 
 ceiving the shipment. American Exp. 
 Co. v. Jennings, 38 So. 374, 86 Miss. 329, 
 109 Am. St. Rep. 708. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for loss 
 of a consignment of ice shipped by plain- 
 
 tiffs to tiiemselves, plaintiffs were not en- 
 titled to recover for the loss of fish, for 
 the packing of which they intended to 
 use the ice, in the alisence of any evi- 
 dence that the carrier knew or should 
 have known that the ice was intended 
 for that purpose. Levvark v. Norfolk, 
 etc., R. Co., 49 S. E. 882, 137 X. C. 383. 
 
 Defendant railroad was not liable for 
 special damages where it had no notice 
 that plaintiff's shipments of cabbages 
 were made to fill a sale at a special 
 price. Missouri, etc., R. Co. z'. McLean, 
 55 Tex. Civ. App. 130, 118 S. W. 161. 
 
 In an action against a railroad for 
 damages done to a thresher and conse- 
 quent loss of profits resulting from time 
 lost in having the thresher repaired, 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover damages 
 sustained by reason of not being able to 
 thresh all the grain he had contracted to 
 thresh, where it appeared that he had 
 shipped the thresher for the purpose of 
 threshing wheat, and had made contracts 
 to thresh certain crops, and had notified 
 defendant's agent of that fact prior to 
 the shipment. Chicago, etc., R. Co. z: 
 Calvert, 91 S. W. 825, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 
 236. 
 
 Where plaintiff notified defendant, 
 when he shipped a museum, of the pur- 
 pose for which it was being shipped, 
 defendant is liable for such damages as 
 plaintiff might probably sustain by rea- 
 son of the failure to have the museum 
 thereof or exhibition, in the way of lost 
 profits; not eo nomine as net profits, but 
 as damages, to be determined by ascer- 
 taining the probable net profits. Yoa- 
 kum 7\ Dunn, 1 lex. Civ. App. 524, 21 
 S. W. 411. 
 
 Insufficient notice. — Where the owner 
 of a steam shovel ships it by rail, stat- 
 ing at the time to the agent of the rail- 
 road company that he "had got a con- 
 tract," and wanted to ship his shovel, and 
 the shovel is injured in transit, the com- 
 pany is not liable on that account for 
 loss of profits that would have been 
 made by using the shovel, since the state- 
 ment as to the use to which the shovel 
 would put is too vague to charge the car- 
 rier with special damages. Gray f. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 54 Mo. App. 666. 
 
 73. Matheson z'. Southern Railwav, 79 
 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 437. 
 
 74. Matheson v. Southern Railwav, 79 
 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 437. 
 
 Where, after notice to a carrier after
 
 1079-108: 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 860 
 
 carrier is not liable for special damages caused by the loss of machinery in 
 transportation because of the faiktre of its agent at destination to notify the 
 owner of such loss, in the absence of proof that such agent had knowledge 
 thereof.'"'' 
 
 Pleading' and Proof. — Tlie pleadings and evidence must show that special 
 damages were contemplated by the carrier when the property was received for 
 shipment.'*^ Evidence as to special items of damage can not be given unless 
 alleged in the petition.' ' 
 
 § 1080. Exemplary Damages. — A carrier is liable for punitive damages 
 for a gross, willful, and tortious breach of the duty enjoined upon it by law as 
 a common carrier for hire.''" Where reckless or willful disregard of consignee's 
 rights or even indifference u) tiiem does not appear, but all the testimony tends 
 to show a loss by theft from the carrier or some mistake, which after diligent 
 effort it can not account for. the carrier is not liable for punitive damages.'-' 
 
 § 1081. Duty of Owner to Mitigate or Avert. — A shipper of property 
 that became injured during the transportation can not recover for such further 
 injuries as he might have averted by properly caring for the property.^'^ After 
 the carrier has committed a wrong the damaged party must not increase it, and, 
 if he does, he can not complain of loss or injury sustained by his willful acts of 
 commission or omission.^ ^ 
 
 §§ 1082-1084. Evidence as to Value or Damage— § 1082. In Gen- 
 eral. — Presumption. — A court can not presume that goods lost by a carrier 
 
 shipment of fertilizer of the special use 
 to which it was to be applied, it made 
 diligent and prompt efifort to find and 
 deliver the same, it was not liable for 
 special damages for failure to do so, 
 within the rule of the text. Matheson v. 
 Southern Railway. 79 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 
 437. 
 
 75. Pacific Exp. Co. v. Jones, 52 Tex. 
 Civ. App. 367, 113 S. W. 952. 
 
 76. Pleading and proof. — Houston, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Brown. ?,?, Tex. Civ. App. 237, 
 238. 76 S. W. 580; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 
 760, 23 S. W. 320; Wells Fargo & Co. v. 
 Battle. 5 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 534, 24 S. 
 W. 353. 
 
 To lay a basis for greater damage 
 against a carrier for injury to or non- 
 delivery of property shipped than the 
 difference in value when shipped and 
 when the goods are received or lost, 
 plaintifif must allege such special dam- 
 ages as will render the carrier amenable 
 to damages beyond the general rule. 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Bell (Tex.), 2 
 Posey Unrep. Cas. 517. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for failure to deliver cotton at the des- 
 tination named in the bill of lading, the 
 consignor claimed damages suffered l)y 
 reason of the consignee's refusal to ac- 
 cept after having procured samples, 
 which he would not have done if the 
 cotton had been delivered at the proper 
 place, plaintiff could not recover, in the 
 absence of proof that the carrier was in- 
 strumental in permitting the consignee 
 to procure the samples, or that it had 
 
 any knowledge of the contract between 
 plaintiff and the consignee, since such 
 damages were special, and not the prox- 
 imate result of the carrier's breach of 
 contract. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Pickens 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 156. 
 
 77. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Breeding, 4 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 154, 16 S. W. 184. 
 
 78. Exemplary damages. — Mendelsohn 
 V. Anaheim Lighter Co., 40 Cal. 657. 
 
 Evidence held to show a reckless dis- 
 regard of the consignee's rights, entitling 
 him to punitive damages. Mills v. South- 
 ern Railway, 73 S. E. 772. 90 S. C. 366. 
 
 79. Matheson v. Southern Railway, 79 
 S. C. 155, 60 S. E. 437. 
 
 80. Duty to mitigate or avert damages. 
 — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Rushin. 3 Texas 
 App. Civ. Cas., § 317 (fruit trees). 
 
 81. Armistead v. Shreveport, etc., R. 
 Co., 108 La. 171, 32 So. 456. 
 
 A carrier having failed to take certain 
 cotton seed, and to carry it from one 
 point to another according to contract, 
 and the other contracting party, being 
 in possession of the cotton seed at the 
 place of intended shipment, having aban- 
 doned it, so that it was lost or destroyed, 
 the measure of damages for which the 
 carrier is liable is the value of the seed 
 at the place of intended delivery, after 
 deducting its value at the place of in- 
 tended shipment and the freight as 
 agreed upon, and adding to the remain- 
 der the expense which would have been 
 incurred in preserving the seed. Armi- 
 stead V. Shreveport, etc.. R. Co., 32 So. 
 456, 108 La. 171.
 
 861 
 
 LOSS OR IXJURV TO GOODS. 
 
 §§ 1082-1083 
 
 had no market value in place of destination, and a fin<ling "of full value by 
 jury will he deemed the value at that place. ''- 
 
 Necessity of Selling Injured Goods to Establish Damage.— It is held 
 nut iK-ceNsar\. in oidc-r lo j^ive a ri-lil of action a;4ain>t a shipmaster for damage 
 to goods alleged to have been injured hy his fault, that the damaged goods should 
 be sold. The plaintitT may prove his d'amages in any other comi^etent manner.**^* 
 In Louisiana it is held that the amount of damage must be establi.shed by sale 
 of the goods at jmblic auction. ^^ 
 
 § 1083. Admissibility.— In General.— l-.vidence as to the cost of the 
 goods,^-' that the shipper placed a small valuation on thern.^" the statement of 
 owner's agent as to value at the time of shipment,^' and evidence tending to fix 
 the amount that damaged goods would have brought had they reached their des- 
 tination in good condition,"'" is admissible. Evidence that some of the articles 
 were torn and some full of grease and dirt and unfit for use is admissible as 
 descriptive of the extent of the damage.^'' The original account of sales at 
 destination of a car of damaged vegetables is admissible to show the amount 
 realized.'*" .And testimony that the amount realized from the sale of vegetables 
 at destination was the cash market i)rice in their damaged condition, and that 
 they were sold for the be.st market value obtainable, is admissible.'' ^ It is proper 
 to exclude evidence insufiicient to show the market ])rice of freight lost by the 
 carrier. "- 
 
 Amount Paid by Consignee in Settlement. — In an action by a consignee 
 ac^ainst a carrier tor damage to goods (IcfcmlaiU may show the amount paid by 
 the consignee to the purchaser of the goods in seitlement of the action against 
 him b\- such pm-chascr.-'-' 
 
 Value of Whole Shipment Where Loss Partial.— In a suit against a car- 
 rier for loss of cotton by fire, testimony as to the value of the whole amount 
 destroyed is admissible as showing the value of the part involved in the suit.*'^ 
 
 82. Presumptions as to market value at 
 destination. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. 
 Ball, so Tex. m2. If) S. W. 441. 
 
 83. Necessity of selling injured goods 
 in order to establish damage. — Shackel- 
 ford V. Patrick (S. C), 1 Mill Const. 311. 
 12 Am. Dec. 032. 
 
 84. Rule in Louisiana. — Smith v. Tlic 
 Wall. IS La. .\nn. 724; Henderson v. Alaid 
 of Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 352. See Elkins 
 & Co. V. New York, etc., Steamship Co., 
 14 La. Ann. (',47. 
 
 Where the goods are so damaged as 
 to be unsalable, liie shipper is not l)Ound 
 to send tlieni to auction to he sold as a 
 prerequisite to his right of action against 
 the carrier. Klkins & Co. v. New York, 
 etc.. Steamship Co., 14 La. Ann. 647. 
 
 It is proper to give notice of an auction 
 sale ol" damaged goods, but the failure 
 to do so will not preclude the owner 
 from recovering, when the proof of dam- 
 age is corroborated by independent tes- 
 timony, and there is no pretense of any 
 bad faith or sacrifice of the goods, which 
 have been sold by a duly licensed auc- 
 tioneer. Greenwood r. Cooper. 10 La. 
 .•\nn. 7;m"). 
 
 Expenses of sale. — In an action l)y the 
 shipper against a carrier for damage to 
 good.-^ in transportation, either party has 
 a right to require a sale of the goods liy 
 auction, and the expenses will form part 
 
 of the costs. Hlkins & Co. r. New York, 
 etc.. Steamship Co.. 14 La. Ann. C47. 
 
 85. Cost of goods. — In an action for 
 damage and loss to a shipment of oil. 
 there was no error in admitting evidence 
 that the oil cost consignee, plus the 
 freight, a certain amount a gallon. Bal- 
 timore, etc.. R. Co. z: Oriental Oil Co.. 
 .-.1 Tex. Civ. .\pp. :!:;(•). 1 1 1 S. W. '.i7!t. 
 
 86. Valuation placed on goods. — Winn 
 V. American Exp. Co.. 149 Iowa 259. 128 
 N. W. ()(i3. 
 
 87. Statement of agent. — Savannah. 
 etc.. R. Co. :•• Collins. 77 Ga. 376, 3 S. E. 
 416, 4 .\m. St. Rep. 87. 
 
 88. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Orem, etc., 
 Pro(Uice Co., Ill Md. 356. 73 Atl. 571. 
 
 89. Kates Transfer, etc., Co. v. Klassen. 
 6 .\la. .\pp. 301. 59 So. 355. 
 
 90. Original account of sales. — Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. z: Orem. etc.. Produce 
 Co.. 73 .Atl. 571, 111 Md. 356. 
 
 91. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McLean. 55 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 130, 118 S. W. 161. 
 
 92. Callawav r. Southern R. Co.. 126 
 Ga. 19.-.. .-..-. S" E. 2,i. 
 
 93. Amount paid by consignee in set- 
 tlement. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. :. Mc- 
 Durmitt Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. .App.). 87 
 S. W. 35.-.. 
 
 94. Value of whole shipment where loss 
 partial. — Missouri Lac. R. Co. r. Slier- 
 wood. 84 Tex. 125. 137. 19 S. W. 455. IT 
 L. R. A. 643.
 
 § 1083 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 862 
 
 Retail Price and Profits. — Evidence of the amount that niioht l)e realized 
 from a sale of the goods at retail, or as to the price they would have sold for at 
 public auction.''"' or as to what profit miyht he derived from such sale,'"' is inad- 
 missible. 
 
 Cost of Reproduction or Repairs. — In an action for loss of a family por- 
 trait the original cost and the prol)ahle expense of reproduction may be consid- 
 ered in estimating the damages."' Where it does not distinctly appear that a 
 machine injured in transportation has a market value at destination, evidence as 
 to the cost of repairing it is admissible."^ 
 
 Value at Point Other than Destination. — Generally unless it is shown that 
 goods had no market value at destination, evidence of their market value at 
 some other place — as the point of shipment — is incompetent. •'■' Where there was 
 evidence that the goods had no market value at the. place of delivery, it was 
 proper to admit evidence of the amount paid for them in other cities, where it 
 was also shown that the i^rices paid were those charged by dealers in such goods, 
 and that the goods were reasonal)ly worth the same amount at the place of 
 deliverv.i It is held couipetent to show the price of goods at another place, 
 in ascertaining its value at destination where the facilities for railroad transpor- 
 tation are so great that the value in the one place would tend to fix its price in 
 the other.2 It is not error to exclude evidence of the value of goods shipped at 
 the point of their destination, where the freight contract provides that in case 
 of loss the amount thereof shall be computed at the value of the goods at the 
 time and ])lace of their shipment.-"' 
 
 Intrinsic Value. — Where it is shown that goods have no market value, evi- 
 dence of their intrinsic value is admissible, otherwise not.-* The owner of a lost 
 manuscript mav testify as to the time' spent in the preparation of the manuscript 
 and what he considered it worth.-^ 
 
 95. Retail price. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Payne. 38 S. W. 366, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
 58; Miller v. Jannett, 63 Tex. 83, 87; 
 Schoolher v. Hutchins, 66 Tex. 324, 332, 
 1 S. W. 266. 
 
 96. Profits. — Texas,- etc., R. Co. v. 
 Payne, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 60, 38 S. 
 W. 366; Miller v. Jannett, 63 Tex. 82, 87. 
 
 97. Cost of reproduction. — Houston, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Am. 
 Rep. 80S. 
 
 98. Cost of repairs. — Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co. c'. Calvert, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 236, 91 
 S. W. S25. 
 
 99. Value at point other than destina- 
 tion. — Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Dishman, 38 
 Tex. Civ. App. 277, 85 vS. W. 319; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 30 S. W. 500; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Rob- 
 erts (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 479. 
 
 1. New York, etc., Steamship Co. v. 
 Weiss (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. 674. 
 See East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Hale. 
 85 Tenn. 69, 1 S. W. 620. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 value of property destroyed in transit 
 through its negligence, at a place where 
 such property has not been the sul)ject of 
 trade, the jury may, in deterinining the 
 fair value of the property, take into con- 
 sideration the fact that the property has 
 a market value at a place other than 
 that where it was destroyed, and to 
 which it was destined, and towards 
 which the carrier, in the course of the 
 
 usual and regular communication with 
 such place, was then taking it, in con- 
 nection with the hazards and expenses 
 attendant upon the residue of the in- 
 tended voyage. Harris v. Panama R. Co., 
 16 N. Y. Super. Ct. 7, affirmed in 58 N. 
 Y. 660. 
 
 2. Fort r. Saunders, 52 Tenn. (5 Heisk.) 
 487. 
 
 3. Caples v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 17 
 Mo. App. 14. 
 
 4. Intrinsic value. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W. 479. 
 
 Household goods. — Missouri, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Davidson, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 134, 
 60 S. W. 278; Benedict v. Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 91 S. W. 811. 
 
 Second-hand vehicles. — In an action for 
 the value of a consignment of second- 
 hand vehicles lost by a carrier, where 
 they had no market value, the jury, in 
 determining their actual value, could 
 take into consideration their cost when 
 new and at second-hand, what plaintiff 
 paid for them, and their condition when 
 they left the seller, and all facts disclos- 
 ing their history which would enable 
 them to determine what they were 
 fairly worth. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wil- 
 son Hack Line, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 38, 101 
 S. W. 1042. 
 
 5. Loss of manuscript. — Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Owens, 41 So. 752, 146 Ala. 412, 
 8 L. R. A., N. S., 369, 119 Am. St. 
 Rep. 41.
 
 863 LOSS OR INjlRV TO GOODS. § 1083 
 
 Pedigree of Dog. — In an acli(jii ai,'ain.st an express company for damages to 
 a dog while in transit, evidence of the breeding and characteristics of her dam, 
 of the elements constitnting her value, and of the value of her sire and dam, is 
 admissible.'"' 
 
 Proof of Value by Party. — In a suit against a carrier for loss of or damage 
 to property it is c()m])etcnt for the plaintiff to testify as to its value,^ although 
 he had a written bill showing the cost of the goods. ^ So to prove the value of 
 cotton lost in transit, the consignor may testify as to its cash value, at the time 
 of the los^. ])er pound i^'ross." 
 
 Claim for Damages. — In an action against a carrier for injuries to goods, 
 plaintiff's claim, fdcd before suit brought, is admissible as tending to show that at 
 that time he claimed a less amount of damages than the amount stated in his 
 petition.'" And where the carrier's agent testified that plaintiff had never 
 claimed more than a certain amount of damages to a shipment. ])laintiff could 
 introduce, in relnittal. a written claim for a larger sum, which he had presented 
 to the carrier throu.uh such agent." 
 
 A finding of arbitrators not resulting in adjusting the dispute, as to dam- 
 aged freight, in a suit afterwards brought to recover the damages, is not ad- 
 missible in evidence, at the instance of either party, over the objection of the 
 other, even though made in writing, and even though it had been long the cus- 
 tom of the carrier, and its custom at that place, to adjust such disputes in that 
 manner.' - 
 
 Payment of Freight. — In an action for damages to property in transporta- 
 tion, it is competent for j^laintift' to prove payment of freight charges, in order 
 that the charge should not be deducted from the difference in value at destina- 
 tion in the condition in which the property arrived and that in which it was de- 
 livered.'" And so nonpayment of charges may be shown. '^ 
 
 Hearsay Evidence. — Testimony of a witness as to the market value of prop- 
 erlv sliipi)c(l at a certain point, based upon daily reports of the market at that 
 jioint, is not liearsa\' c\ iilcnce.''' 
 
 Expert and Opinion Evidence. — Where a witness shows that he is ac- 
 quainted with the market at the place fixed by law as the standard of value, and 
 also with the property, he may then give his opinion of the value of such 
 propertv in its dift'ering conditions of wdiich he has knowdedge, and thereby 
 furnish the data from which the jury may assess the damages.'"^ Persons shown 
 
 6. Pedigree of dog. — Wiiichcll z: Xa- 15. Market reports. — International, etc., 
 tional I'.xp. Co., (;4 \'t. 1."). 2:5 Atl. 728. R. Co. 7'. Dimmit County Pasture Co., 
 
 7. Proof of value by party. — Savannah, ,'5 Tex. Civ. App. 18(), 2:! ?. \V. 7 'A; 
 etc., R. Co. r. Hoffmavor, T,> Ga. 410: Op- Southern Pac. R. Co. 7'. Maddox. T.J Tex. 
 penheimer 7'. Hdney, 2S Tcnn. (9 Humph.) 300. 301. 12 S. W. 81.5. 
 
 385. 16. Expert and opinion evidence. — 
 
 8. Savannah, etc.. R. Co. 7'. Hoffmayer, Texas, etc.. R. Co. 7'. Earlier i Trx. Civ. 
 75 Ga. 410. App.), 30 S. \V. 500. 
 
 9. Cash value.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. r. The opinion of a witness, not conver- 
 Gernon, S4 Tex. 141, T.» S. W. 461. sant with the market at the place of des- 
 
 10. Claim for damages. — Missouri, etc., tinatinn. as to the amount of the dam- 
 R. Co. V. Clayton (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 ages, is inadmissible. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 S. W. 1069. V. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.), .30 S. \V. 500. 
 
 11. Galveston, etc., R. Co. t-. Tuckett Injury to bees.— Where prior to the 
 (Tex. Civ. App.). 25 S. W. 150. slnpment ol bees, plaintiff mtormed the 
 
 ,- TA- J- r u-.. ^ /-^ *. 1 earner s auent tliat he liad sold the bees 
 
 12. Fmdmg of arbitrators.-Cen ral ^^^ ^,5,.. ;^.^ ^^^,^^, delivered, and after 
 Railroad 7'. Rogers .S: Sons, (.(, Ga. 2.>1. ^,^^^ ,^^^^^ \^^^^ ,^^^.,^ .^^-^^^^^^ j,^ transporta- 
 
 13. Payment of freight.— Missouri, etc., tion plaintiflf examined them, and was fa- 
 R. Co. 7'. .Tarrell, 3S Tex. Civ. App. 425, miliar with their market value and the 
 86 S. W. 632, atfirmed 111 101 lex. 649, extent of their injury, he was entitled 
 no op. to testify as to the amount of damages 
 
 14. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Woldert sustained, less than the price for which 
 Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 144 S. W. the bees had been sold. International. 
 1194. etc., R. Co. 7'. Aten (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 
 
 S. W. 346.
 
 §§ 1083-1084 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 864 
 
 to have sufficient knowledge of the cost and \ahie of second-hand goods, are 
 competent to testify as experts in an action against a carrier for the loss of 
 such goods.^' A witness may testify as to the weight of hogs at the time of 
 shipment, based on liis opinion where it is shown that he is qualified to give 
 such an opinion ''^ 
 
 Indorsement on a package by the company's agents, "Said to contain $300," 
 is evitience of \alue. in a suit to recover its loss.''^ 
 
 That one said before the shipment that he would give a certain 
 amotmt for the property is no evidence of its vahie, and is ina<huissil)le.-" 
 
 Evidence that the whisky had been shipped in fraud of the revenue 
 laws, no tax having been paid thereon, is admissible to determine its vahie. since, 
 if the tax had been paid, the value of the raw material would be enhanced to 
 that extent, and. if not paid, it would be decreased to that amount.-^ 
 
 Harmless Error. — In an action against a carrier for injury to property, the 
 admission of incomjietent evidence as to market value at an earlier time than 
 the injury, is harmless, where the verdict is for much less than is warranted 
 by all the competent evidence. -- 
 
 § 1084. Weight and Sufficiency. — Value of Goods. — A judgment in an 
 action against a carrier for goods lost can not be sustained, where the evidence 
 fails to show the character and value of the goods.--'' In an action to recover 
 for the loss of a trunk it is not necessary to prove specifically every article con- 
 tained in the trunk, and the value of each article.-^ Under a provision in a bill 
 of lading that the amount of any loss shall be computed at the value of the 
 propertv at the time and place of shipment, the invoice price of the goods is 
 not conclusive as to value.--'' 
 
 Value at Destination. — Where in a suit against a carrier for loss of or injury 
 to i)ropert\- the measure of damages is determined by the value at destination in 
 the absence of evidence of what its value would have been at its destination had 
 
 17. Value of second-hand goods. — 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. z'. Wilson Hack Line, 
 40 Tex. Civ. App. 38. 101 S. W. 1042, af- 
 firmed in 102 Tex. 595, no op., holding 
 that such evidence is not objectionable 
 as invading the province of the jury. 
 
 It is not error to exclude the testi- 
 mony of a witness as to the relative 
 value of new and second-hand goods, 
 when he states that he has no knowledge 
 as an expert as to the value of second- 
 hand clothing. International, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 550. 
 
 18. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Duncan, .'i 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 234. 
 
 19. Indorsement on package. — Weil ?'. 
 Express Co. (Pa.), 7 Phila. 88. 
 
 20. Galveston, etc., R. Co. 7'. Silegman 
 (Tex. Civ. App.-), 23 S. W. 298. 
 
 21. Toledo, etc., R. Co. 7'. Kichler, 48 
 111. 438. 
 
 22. Harmless error. — Galveston, etc., 
 R. Co. r. Williams (lex. Civ. App.), 25 
 vS. W. 1019, reversing 25 S. W. 311. 
 
 23. Value of goods. — Houston, etc., R. 
 Co. V. McGlosson, 1 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 224. 
 
 Sufficient proof of value. — In an action 
 against a carrier for damages to goods, 
 plaintiff's testimony as to their cost, the 
 amount of their use and deterioration, 
 and what they were worth to him, will 
 
 be treated as sufficient proof of their 
 value. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Giles 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 282. 
 
 Amount received at sale. — In an action 
 against an express company for the value 
 of goods lost or destroyed by reason of 
 defendant's negligence, the amount for 
 which it appears the goods were a short 
 time previously sold by complainants is 
 sufficient proof of their value, in the ab- 
 sence of other proof or of any Question 
 as to the value. Cole v. Rankin (Tenn.), 
 42 S. W. 72. 
 
 Evidence of the value of an entire 
 shipment of which the cotton lost was a 
 part, while admissible, is not sufficient to 
 prove the value of the lost property in 
 the absence of facts at least showing 
 tlie average weight, value and the quality of 
 the cotton, or showing that such average 
 weight, value or quality could not be 
 ascertained. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. 
 Sherwood, 84 Tex. 125, 19 S. W. 455, 17 
 L. R. A. 643. 
 
 Value at place of shipment. — Evidence 
 held to sustain a finding as to the value 
 of the freight at the place of shipment. 
 Weinberg v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 65 S. 
 E. 634, 83 S. C. 468. 
 
 24. Stadhecker v. Combs & Co. (S. C). 
 9 Rich. L. 193. 
 
 25. Invoice price. — Sanders v. Southern 
 Railway, 72 S. E. 637, 90 S. C. 79.
 
 865 LOSS OR INJL'RV TO GOODS. § 1084 
 
 it been pro])erly transported, a verdict can not stand.-'' But it is held that di- 
 rect testimony as to the value at the place of their destination is not indispen- 
 sable, if there is proof of the value in the markets of an adjoining state, and 
 other evidence from which the jury may properly make an estimate.-"' And it 
 is held that a sufficient basis t'o support a finding b)' the court is given by evi- 
 dence, unobjected to, of the cost at retail in the regular course of business at 
 the jjlace of shiijuient just prior to the shipment.-'' Ivvidence by plaintiff as to 
 the market value of goods at their destination is sufficient to sustain a finding 
 in accordance with such evidence, although witnesses for defendant who saw 
 the goods, or part of them, at the point of shipment, estimated the value of those 
 which they saw at a much less figure than i)laintiff's estimate.-'' 
 
 Amount of Damage. — Where, in an action against a carrier for injury 
 to property, the evidence shows the value of the property when shipjjed and 
 that it was damaged to the e.xtent of one-half of such value, the amount of the 
 damage is sufficiently shown.'"' Where in a suit against a carrier to recover for 
 injuries to dress goods damaged by sea water and soda ash, there is no evidence 
 of the amount of the damage, a finding that the goods were damaged one-third 
 (jf their invoice value is justified by common e-xjierience.-" Under an allegation 
 that some of the grates were delivered in a broken and damaged condition, evi- 
 dence that "the grates" were delivered in that condition will not justify an 
 inference either that all or any jxirticular number of them were broken and 
 damaged; but it ought to ai)])ear, approximately at least, how many were so in- 
 jured, and how much the injury impaired or diminished their value.''- 
 
 Experts' evidence that the value of merciiandise was fixed by the cost 
 price plus the cost of carriage, and that, except as varied by the freight to 
 (lift"erent points, such property had a uniform value in the section of the state 
 in which the business was carried on, was sufficient to establish the extent of 
 the loss.-''^ 
 
 Conflicting Evidence. — Where tlie evidence as to the amount of the dam- 
 ages is conrticting, that on behalf of the plaintiff' sustaining the finding of the 
 jury, there is no error in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the 
 verdict was contrary to law and without evidence to support it.^'* 
 
 Improbable Testimony. — In an action against a carrier for household goods 
 destroyed in transportation, damages will not be held excessive merely because 
 
 26. Value at destination. — Galveston, received at tlie sale does not show the 
 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Silcgman (Tex. Civ. App. ), market value of the potatoes. Carter v. 
 
 2:\ S. W. 298, 300. International, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 
 In an action to recover the value of App.), 93 S. W. 681. 
 
 whisk}' destroyed by fire wliile in transit, 27. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mason, 79 
 
 it appeared by the evidence that plaintiffs Tcnn. (11 Lea) IKj. 
 
 liad shipped with defendant, "1,2()4 gal- 28. Plaff v. Pacific Exp. Co., l-'SU 111. 
 
 Ions of whisky, then worth $2.25." Held, App. 493, judgment affirmed in 95 X. E. 
 
 that the evidence should be construed as 1089. 
 
 showing the market value per gallon at 29. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. 
 
 the place of destination. Toledo, etc.. Civ. App.), s.") S. W. 479. 
 
 R. Co. v. Kickler. ,51 111. lo7. 30. Amount of damage. — .\utrey v. 
 
 Contract price. — In an action to recover Georgia, etc., R. Co., 113 Ga. OlS, 38 S. 
 
 for cotton shipped over defendant's E. 941. 
 
 road and alleged to have been destroyed 31. Bradford v. Cunard Steamship Co.. 
 
 l)y defendant's negligence, proof of the 147 Mass. ;")."), 16 N. E. 719. 
 
 price at which cotton was contracted to 32. .\tlaiita, etc., R. Co. v. Texas Grate 
 
 be sold is insufficient to show the mar- Co., si Ga. fi(i:,>, '.i S. E. 600. 
 
 ket value at its destination. Galveston, 33. Expert evidence. — Te.xas, etc., R. 
 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Efron (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 Co. v. 1 ownsend (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), 106 S. 
 
 S. W. 639. W. 7f)0. 
 
 Where carriers sold a car load of 34. Conflicting evidence. — Western, etc., 
 
 potatoes without giving the buyers an Kailroail v. Mathis. 77 Ga. 488, 2 S. E. 
 
 opportunity to inspect them, the anmunt 692. 
 
 I Car — ,j3
 
 §§ 1084-1086 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 866 
 
 plaintift's testimony as to their value seems improbable."'-'' 
 
 § 1085. Recovery as Affected by Allegation of Damages. — Where the 
 petition claims damages only for the injury to and loss of property through a 
 collision, there can be no recover for injury caused by delay and detention. "^'^ 
 As to necessitv for pleading special damages, see ante, "Special Damages," § 
 1079. 
 
 §§ 1086-1087. Province of Court and Jury— § 1086. In General.-"— 
 
 In an action against a carrier for loss of or injury to goods, the case should be 
 submitted to the jury where the evidence is such that different minds might rea- 
 sonably draw different inferences therefrom, ^•'^ or where there is any evidence 
 from which the jury might properly find the existence of a fact material to the 
 issues.^'^ Where the carrier discharges its burden of proof as to an issue it is 
 entitled to have the question submitted to the jury, although, under the evidence, 
 they may find a verdict against it.'*" In an action by a consignee against a car- 
 
 35. Improbable testimony. — Missouri, 
 etc., R. Co. 7'. Davidson, 25 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 134, 60 S. W. 278. 
 
 36. Damages not alleged. — Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Sims (Tex. Civ. App.). 26 S. 
 W. 634. 
 
 37. Province of court and jury — In ac- 
 tions against carriers of live stock.— See, 
 also, post, "Carriers of Live Stock," Part 
 III. 
 
 As to carriers by water generally. — See 
 post, "Carriers by Water," Part VII. 
 
 38. Where different inferences may be 
 drawn from evidence. — Mouton r. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 128 Ala. 537, 29 So. 
 602, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 673. 
 
 Plaintiff was the consignee of a car of 
 wagons, which was destroyed by fire 
 while in transit over the defendant road. 
 The fire in the car was discovered a 
 little after midnight, when the train was 
 between stations, about four miles from 
 B., a station with a large water tank, and 
 which the train had just left. The wag- 
 ons were properly packed in the car 
 without any inflammable material, and 
 the car door sealed, with the usual car 
 seals. On discovering smoke issuing 
 from the car, the train was stopped, but 
 no flame was discovered until the con- 
 ductor opened the door of the car. A 
 small hole was cut through the roof of 
 the car, through which a few pails of 
 water were poured, but, the hole be- 
 ing so small, some of the water was 
 lost. On the conductor's orders, the 
 train was cut, and the burning car taken 
 four miles, to W., a station where there 
 was no water tank or appliances for ex- 
 tinguishing fires. Held, that the evi- 
 dence, though not conflicting, was such 
 that difi^erent minds might reasonably 
 draw different inferences therefrom in 
 regard to defendant's diligence in at- 
 tempting to extinguish the fire, and hence 
 it was error for the court to give a gen- 
 eral charge in favor of the defendant. 
 Mouton V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 29 So. 
 602, 128 Ala. 537, 20 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., 
 N. S., 673. 
 
 39. Where, plaintiff testified without 
 
 ol)jection that B. delivered his trunk to 
 the carrier for transportation, such evi- 
 dence justified a submission of the issue 
 of the delivery of the trunk to the car- 
 rier to the jury. Wells Fargo & Co. <'. 
 Hanson, 91 S. W. 321, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 
 174. 
 
 Evidence insufficient. — In an action for 
 cotton alleged to have been delivered to 
 the defendant as a common carrier and 
 destroyed by fire, evidence tending to 
 show that the course of dealing and cus- 
 tom was to place goods to be shipped on 
 the platform where the cotton was de- 
 stroyed, and that it was the expectation 
 and intention of the owner and also of 
 the railway company that they were 
 placed there for shipment, and would ul- 
 timately be shipped when instructions 
 were given or when the party was ready 
 for shipment, but not showing that such 
 goods were, by virtue of the custom or 
 course of dealing, to be thereafter re- 
 garded as in the actual possession of the 
 railway, was insufficient to authorize sub- 
 mission to the jury of the question of de- 
 livery by reason of such custom. Mis- 
 souri, etc., R. Co. V. Beard, 78 S. W. 253, 
 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188. 
 
 40. Where carrier discharges burden of 
 proof as to an issue. — Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Richmond, 94 Tex. 571, 63 S. VV. 619, 
 621. 
 
 "If the law required that the carrier 
 should prove its defense so conclusively 
 that a jury could not find against it be- 
 fore the court would be allowed to sub- 
 mit the issue, then there could be no 
 state of case in which such issue could 
 be properly submitted on the evidence of 
 the carrier alone; for, if the evidence was 
 not sufficient to permit the submission, 
 the court must direct the jury to find for 
 the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the 
 evidence should be so conclusive that the 
 jury could not find to the contrary, then 
 there would be the duty of the court to 
 intrust them to find for the defendant." 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, 94 Tex. 
 571, 63 S. W. 619, 621. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for loss
 
 867 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1086 
 
 rier, proof that the latter received the goods, and on demand failed to deliver or 
 account for them, is sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury."*^ 
 Where goods transported under a bill of lading were injured by fire, alleged to 
 have resulted from the carrier's negligence, plaintilT was entitled to go to the 
 jury on a count alleging a cause of action in contract, as well as on a count in 
 tort, tJKju^h it could not rcnviver on both."*- 
 
 Direction of Verdict. — \\ here the evidence makes out a prima facie case,^'' 
 as where there is positive evidence of defendant's negligence."*^ or there is some 
 evidence to establish plaintiff's case,"*-"' it is error to direct a verdict for defend- 
 ant. Where the exidence is insufficient to sustain a \erdict for one party, it is 
 properly directed for the other. ^'' In an action for loss of goods through the 
 alleged negligence of a carrier, where there is no direct evirlence whether the 
 loss was caused by the alleged negligence or liy a defect in the tank furnished 
 by the consignee, or by causes specified in the bill of lading as relieving the 
 
 of goods by fire after arrival at destina- 
 tion, evidence tliat tliere was no fire left 
 in the depot where the goods were, and 
 that the place was fastened up, sul'ticiently 
 negatived its negligence so as to require 
 the jury's determination of that issue. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Burton, 165 Ala. 
 425, 51 So. 643. 
 
 41. Cass V. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 
 14 .\llen 448. 
 
 42. Garvan v. Xew York, etc., R. Co., 
 210 Mass. 2~:>. '.)(■. X. I",. 717. 
 
 43. Direction of verdict. — Morris v. Min- 
 neapolis, etc., R. Co. (N. Dak.), 141 N. 
 W. 204. 
 
 Where there is evidence of a delivery 
 of an entire shipment l)y the carrier in a 
 damaged condition, and that the goods 
 were originally shipped in a good condi- 
 tion, and evidence as to the amount of 
 damages authorizing recovery of a larger 
 amount as damages on the entire ship- 
 ment, it was error to direct a verdict for 
 only a portion of the damaged goods as 
 to which defendant conceded liability. 
 Ohlen V. .Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 58 S. E. 
 511, 2 Ga. .\pp. :i2:',. 
 
 44. Positive evidence of negligence. — 
 Where syrups were delivered to a car- 
 rier to be transported in barrels in good 
 order, and on arrival some of the barrels 
 were in such condition that the contents 
 had escaped, a charge that the verdict 
 must be for defendant was properly re- 
 fused. New York Cent., etc., R. Co. f. 
 Eby (Pa.), 12 .\x\. 482. 
 
 Where, while a freight car loaded with 
 stoves was waiting at its destination to 
 be unloaded, rain went through the roof 
 of the car, and the stoves were found 
 damaged by rust, and a casual inspection 
 of the roof would have revealed the un- 
 suitableness of the roof, it was error to 
 give a peremptory instruction for the rail- 
 road in an action by the consignee. 
 Gardner v. Xew Orleans, etc., R. Co., 29 
 So. 469, 78 Miss. 640. 
 
 45. Bank v. Southern Rxp. Co., 86 S. C. 
 532, 68 S. E. 647. 
 
 46. Evidence insufficient to sustain ver- 
 dict. \ \ rdici in an action against a car- 
 rivr for dauiage to a car load of peri>haljle 
 fruit from a delay of two days, the train 
 being side-tracked because of unprece- 
 dented rain, which overflowed and washed 
 out the track, is properly directed for de- 
 fendant, though plaintiff expresses the 
 opinion that defendant had not sufficient 
 cause for the delay, and though a light 
 work train went over the road through 
 the water a day earlier than the freight 
 train was moved; the train dispatcher, 
 wiio was not cross-examined, testifying 
 that no train could go between the place 
 where the train was side-tracked and the 
 destination of the car, before the day it 
 was moved, and that a locomotive was 
 sent for and brought over the train as 
 soon as it could be done, and that this 
 was the first train run over this section 
 after it was repaired. Burnham v. Ala- 
 bama, etc., R. Co.. 32 So. 912. 81 Miss. 46. 
 
 Plaintiff showed by himself and other 
 competent witnesses that the inside doors 
 referred to were properly closed and 
 fastened with the device furnished bj- de- 
 fendant for that purpose. The only evi- 
 dence claimed to create a conflict arises 
 from the fact that, a few minutes after 
 the car started on its journey, one of the 
 inside doors referred to came open, and 
 a quantity of fla.x with which the car was 
 loaded ran out through the opening so 
 made. Held, that such door opening may 
 as readily l)e attributed to other causes 
 as to tiie failure of the shipper to prop- 
 erly fasten it. and, had the question l)een 
 submitted to a jury, a verdict for defend- 
 ant, based upon the fact that such door 
 came open in transit, could only have 
 l)een arrived at by inference, and would 
 have been mere guesswork on the part 
 of the jury under the facts of the case, 
 and that the opening of this door did 
 not create a sufiicient conflict in the evi- 
 dence to constitute error on the part of 
 the trial court in directing a verdict for 
 plaintiff. Duncan v. Great Xorthorn R. 
 Co., 16 X. Dak. 610. lis X. W. S26.
 
 §§ 1086-1087 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 868 
 
 carrier from liability, the court should not sustain a demurrer to the evidence or 
 direct a verdict.'*" 
 
 A nonsuit can be ordered only when there is an entire failure of proof of a 
 material fact.^^ Where, in an action for injuries to household goods during 
 transportation, evidence as to the actual value of the goods at their destination 
 was erroneously excluded, the failure of the court to set aside the judgment of 
 nonsuit was reversible error.^'' 
 
 § 1087. Particular Questions of Law or Fact.— What constitutes a 
 common carrier is a question of law."'" \\'hether defendant comes under the 
 definition is one of fact for the jury."'^ 
 
 Whether defendant acted as a common carrier or as a forwarder 
 
 where there is evidence tending to estalilish that he acted in the latter capacity 
 and also evidence tending to show that his general business was that of a com- 
 mon carrier is a question for the jury."'- 
 
 Delivery to Carrier. — Where an action is brought to recover for loss of 
 articles alleged to have been delivered to a common carrier, the question of 
 deliverv is for the jury.^'" 
 
 Effect of Contract. — Whether a contract whereby the plaintiff, in consid- 
 eration of a lower rate of freight, assumed the loss and damage to his property 
 changed the relation of defendant from that of a common carrier to a private 
 carrier is one of law.'""^ 
 
 Whether goods were shipped under a special contract is a question of 
 fact for the jury."'^ 
 
 47. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Watkins 
 Merchandise Co., 76 Kan. 813, 92 Pac. 
 1102. 
 
 48. Nonsuit. — Wallingford v. Columbia, 
 etc.. R. Co., 26 S. C. 258, 2 S. E. 19, 30 
 Am. cS: Hng. R. Cas. 40. 
 
 Illustrations. — In an action against a 
 railroad company for injury to stock 
 shipped in a defective car, plaintiff made 
 out a prima facie case; and defendant's 
 only evidence to overthrow it was the 
 testimony of the one of plaintiff's vvit- 
 nesses on cross-examination, together with 
 a contract shown hiin by defendant, and 
 claimed to be the real contract between 
 the parties. Held, that defendant's mo- 
 tion for a nonsuit was properly refused. 
 Wallingford v. Colunil)ia, etc., R. Co., 26 
 S. C. 258, 2 S. E. 19, 30 Km. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 40. 
 
 In an action to recover a shipment of 
 cotton alleged to have been destroyed 
 by fire while in the custody of defend- 
 ant carrier, where there was some evi- 
 dence that the cotton was delivered to de- 
 fendant, though no bill of lading was 
 given, together with evidence that it was 
 the custom of plaintiff to place cotton on 
 the railroad depot platform, which the 
 carrier would accept without special no- 
 tice to that effect, it was error to direct 
 a nonsuit. Copeland v. Southern Rail- 
 way, 57 S. E. 535, 76 S. C. 476. 
 
 49. Benedict v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 91 S. W. 811. 
 
 50. What constitutes common carrier. 
 — Pennewill v. Cullcn (Del.), 5 Har. 238: 
 Avingev v. South Carolina R. Co., 29 S. 
 C. 26.='/, 7 S. E. 493, 13 Am. St. Rep. 716. 
 
 51. Pennewill v. Cullen (Del.), 5 Har. 
 238. 
 
 A charge that if defendant, after a re- 
 fusal to carry plaintiff's freight, had car- 
 ried for a certain company alone goods 
 received at a private platform, plaintiff 
 cannot recover, is properly refused, as 
 it assumes that the position of common 
 carrier has not been established, which is 
 a question for the jury. Avinger v. South 
 Carolina R. Co., 29 S. C. 265, 7 S. E. 493, 
 13 Am. St. Rep. 716. 
 
 52. Whether common carrier or for- 
 warder. — Schloss V. Wood, 11 Colo. 287, 
 17 Pac. 910. 
 
 53. Delivery to carrier. — Southern R. 
 Co. V. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36, 58 S. E. 333. 
 
 54. Effect of contract. — Kimball v. Rut- 
 land, etc., R. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 
 567. 
 
 55. Whether goods shipped under 
 special contract. — Wallingford v. Colum- 
 bia, etc., R. Co., 26 S. C. 258, 2 S. E. 19, 
 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 40. 
 
 In an action to recover damages for 
 the death of hogs which had been trans- 
 ported over a railroad, the shipper claimed 
 and testified that an oral contract was 
 made for transportation to a point be- 
 yond the line of the contracting company, 
 in which there was no limitation of lia- 
 bility, and that the stock was shipped un- 
 der that contract; that, after the stock 
 was loaded and had left the station, he 
 signed a paper, which he could not well 
 read, and did not read, but which he sup- 
 posed to be a receipt. The company con- 
 tended, and offered testimony to show, 
 that the only contract made with the
 
 869 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1087 
 
 Plaintiff's Title or Ownership. — Where it api)ears that plaintiff trans- 
 ferred the bill of lading to a third party, for vahie, but there is evidence that 
 such transfer was only as security for money borrowed, and without intention 
 to pass the title the f|iicstions of fact so raised are for the jury.^'' 
 
 Authority of Agent. — Whether or not an agent of a common carrier has 
 authority to do certain acts for which it is s(jught to char<(e the common car- 
 rier,"-" and whether, in a ])articu!ar case, a merchant shijjping goods to his cor- 
 respondcni, had authority to make a contract on behalf of the corresj)on<lent 
 for shipment on different terms from those ordinarily adopted by common ear- 
 ners,''* arc (juestions for the jury. 
 
 Negligence of Carrier. — Ordinarily what constitutes neghgence on the part 
 (jf the carrier i> a (|uestion f(jr the jury to determine/'" But there are some 
 
 sliippcr was the- writlcn one enibodicd in 
 tiic l)ill of lading siyncd l)y the sliipper, 
 and which, to a great extent, limited the 
 liability of the company. Held, that the 
 court was warranted in sul)mitting to the 
 jury the question of what constituted the 
 contract of the parties. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Clark. 48 Kan. 321, 329, 29 Pac. 
 
 56. Plaintiff's title or ownership. — Hipp 
 V. Southern R. Co., M S. C. 12'.), 27 S. E. 
 62:i. 
 
 57. Authority of agent. — Thurman i: 
 Wells, Fargo & C(x (X. V.), 18 Barb. 
 5(K». 
 
 Whether a freight claim agent of a car- 
 rier who passes on claims and either re- 
 jects or orders them paid has authority 
 to adjust a freight claim and communi- 
 cate the decision to the claimant so as 
 to make his statement to the claimant 
 bind the carrier held for the jury. Ten- 
 het V. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 64 S. E. 232, 
 82 S. C. 4r,5. 
 
 58. American 1 ransp. Co. z\ Aloore, 5 
 Mich. 3()S. 
 
 59. Negligence of carrier. — United 
 5M/t'.y.— Arthur z: Te.xas, etc., R. Co., 204 
 U. S. 505, 51 L. Ed. 590, 27 S. Ct. 338; 
 Marande v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 184 U. S. 
 173, 192, 46 L. Ed. 487, 22 S. Ct. 340. 
 
 Illinois. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cun- 
 ningham, 88 111. App. 289. 
 
 .]fassacliusctts. — Aigen v. Boston, etc., 
 Railroad, 132 Mass. 423. 
 
 Micliiiiiui. — Modern IMatch Co. v. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co., 140 Mich. 570, 104 X. 
 W. 19. 
 
 South Carolina. — Ferguson r. Southern 
 Railway, 91 S. C. 61, 74 S. E. 129. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Hecht v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 132 Wis. 605, 113 N. W. 68; Congar 
 V. Galena, etc., R. Co., 17 Wis. 477. 
 
 Illustraticns. — The cjuestion as to 
 wliether a carrier by a canal boat agree- 
 ing to deliver goods in good condition, 
 "the dangers of the navigation excepted." 
 was negligent, is for the jury, where the 
 boat struck a stone in the bottom of tb.e 
 canal, and caused the goods to become 
 wet and damaged. Humphreys z: Reed 
 (Pa.), 6 Whart. 435. 
 
 In an action by a shipper to recover 
 the value of certain clay pots damaged 
 
 in transit, it was shown that the pots 
 were sent carefully packed in the car. l)Ut 
 on arrival they were found to be shifted 
 about and badly damaged, and that like 
 goods packed in the same manner had 
 always arrived unbroken. Held that, 
 though there was no proof of a collision 
 or derailment, the question of the carrier's 
 negligence was one of fact for the jury. 
 PhcxMiix Pot-Works z: Pittsburgh, etc., R. 
 Co., 139 Pa. 284, 20 Atl. 1058. 
 
 A plaintiff entrusted a shipment of cot- 
 ton to a carrier to be carried by boat to 
 a certain port. During the transporta- 
 tion the boat was injured by running into 
 a snag in the river, and it was found 
 necessary to transfer the cotton to the 
 bank. This the carrier proceeded to do, 
 l)Ut as the river threatened to rise, he 
 left a small amount of cotton in the boat 
 for his hands to unload and went to a 
 near-by town to secure another boat. 
 The hands were dilatory and delayed un- 
 necessarily in the unloading of the cotton 
 so that the part that remained in the boat, 
 when the carrier left, was damaged. It 
 was held, that it was a question for the 
 jury as to whether the carrier w-as guilty 
 of negligence in leaving the cotton before 
 it was entirely unloaded. Johnson v. 
 Friear, 12 Tenn. (4 Yerg.) 48. 26 .\m. Dec. 
 215. 
 
 Where, in an action against a railway 
 company for the value of cotton burned 
 while being transported, all engineers 
 and conductors of trains in which the car 
 w^as carried testified that the engines 
 were in good condition and carefully 
 managed, and that the car w-as tight and 
 securely sealed, and carefully handled 
 and managed while in their trains, and 
 there was no evidence as to how the fire 
 originated, the question of the negligence 
 of the company was for the jury. Judg- 
 ment (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 410. re- 
 versed. Texas, etc.. R. Co. :: Richmond. 
 63 S. W. 619. 94 Tex. 571. 
 
 Leaving shipment at out of way station. 
 — In an action tor destruction of goods 
 by fire, whether the carrier was negligent 
 in leaving the shipment at an out of the 
 way station, where there was neither station 
 agent nor water, no inhabitants, and no 
 one to look after the safety of the cars
 
 § 1087 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 870 
 
 cases in which the court can determine wliat constitutes negUgence, as where 
 the precise measure of duty is determinate, the same under all circumstances.^'^ 
 
 containing it, held for the jury. Santa 
 Fe, etc., R. Co. v. Grant Bros. Constr. Co., 
 13 Ariz. 186. 108 Pac. 467. 
 
 Leaving shipment at place exposed to 
 danger. — liven if a carrier of a car load 
 of explosives was liable for its destruc- 
 tion by fire only in case of negligence, 
 yet it is a question for the jury whether 
 it was not negligence to allow it to stand 
 for several days unguarded on a transfer 
 track, half a mile from the business part 
 of a town, exposed to the risk of fires 
 built by tramps, who infested the vicin- 
 ity, and from sparks of passing locomo- 
 tives, the nature of its contents being an- 
 nounced by a placard thereon. Phcenix 
 Powder Alfg. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 101 
 Mo. App. 412. 74 S. W. 492. 
 
 In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for goods destroyed by fire while 
 in a car standing alongside a freight house, 
 which was burned, it appeared that the 
 freight house was a wooden building, 
 standing close to the track, with a shingle 
 roof, covered with moss; that the roof 
 had often before taken fire from sparks 
 from passing engines, as defendant knew; 
 and that a high wind was blowing at the 
 time, and the car was directly in the path 
 of the flames. Held, that it was for the 
 jury to say whether defendant was neg- 
 ligent in leaving the car so exposed. 
 Tanner v. New York, etc., R. Co., 108 
 X. Y. 62:5, 1.5 N. E. 379. 1 Silvernail Ct. 
 App. .")69. 
 
 In an action for injury to four car loads 
 of grain by a flood, whether the master 
 of the yard in which the cars were placed 
 and his assistant, who knew that floods 
 in which the river rose over twenty-eight 
 feet were not unusual, and that it had 
 been above that height four or five times 
 in the five preceding years, and had 
 reached a height of 32.4 feet, and that 
 there had been a rapid rise during the 
 day, were negligent in placing explicit 
 reliance on the reports from the weather 
 bureau, and the manager of a river coal 
 company, whose experience gave weight 
 to his opinion that the water would rise 
 twenty-six or twenty-eight feet, and pos- 
 sibly higher, and in not removing the 
 cars to higher grounds, was for the jury. 
 Smith V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 72 Atl. 
 264, 223 Pa. 118. 
 
 Negligence in not getting goods to 
 place of safety after knowledge of dan- 
 ger. — Pinkerton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 
 117 Mo. App. 288, 93 S. W. 849. 
 
 Whether carrier negligent in exposing 
 goods to danger. — I'cntinian v. Atcliison, 
 etc., R. Co., 9« S. W. 939, 44 Tex. Civ. 
 App. 455. 
 
 Knowledge of defects in car and neg- 
 ligence in failing to repair. — Missouri, 
 
 etc., R. Co. i: Tripis (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 117 S. W. 199. 
 
 Negligent delay in transporting freight. 
 
 — Funsten Dried Fruit, etc., Co. v. To- 
 ledo, etc.. R. Co.. 163 Mo. App. 426, 143 S. 
 W. 839. 
 
 Delivering goods during stormy weather. 
 — Defendants, common carriers, running 
 a line of steamers between New Orleans 
 and the gulf ports of Texas, were also 
 carriers of the mails; and the times of 
 arrival and departure of their steamers 
 were well known at such ports. There 
 was evidence that it was the uniform 
 custom to discharge the cargo of these 
 steamers on the wharf immediately after 
 their arrival, to be left until called for 
 by the consignees. It appeared from the 
 testimony that the weather upon one of 
 the days of arrival when the plaintiffs 
 goods were landed upon the wharf was 
 rainy and threatening. The goods were 
 discharged as usual, and covered so as 
 to protect them against rain, but no no- 
 tice was given to the plaintifif. In the 
 night following, the goods were destroyed 
 by a hurricane. Held, that it was a 
 question for the jury, upon all the facts 
 in the case, whether the defendant was 
 guilty of negligence, so as to make him 
 liable, and that it was error to instruct 
 them that such a landing of goods was 
 prima facie evidence of willful negligence 
 on the part of the carrier. Morgan v. 
 Dibble. 29 lex. 107, 94 Am. Dec. 264. 
 
 As to means of transportation. — Where 
 there was considerable testimony as to 
 whether a stall in an express car in which 
 plaintiff's horse was placed for shipment 
 was properly constructed, the express 
 company's negligence was a question for 
 the jury. Armstrong v. United States 
 Exp. Co., 159 Pa. 640, 28 Atk 448. 
 
 Where a railway carrier is not, as a 
 matter of law, bound to furnish refrig- 
 erator cars to carry perishal)le goods, 
 whether it is negligence not to do so is 
 a question for the jury. Udell v. Illino's 
 Cent. R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 254. 
 
 Excessive speed in running train. — It 
 is a question for the jury whether the 
 carrier was negligent in running its 
 freight train at the rate of fifteen miles 
 an hour around a curve, and over a 
 high embankment; that being the great- 
 est speed allowed for such a train any- 
 where on the road. Lucesco Oil Co. v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.), 2 Pittsb. 477. 
 60. Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta 
 Oil Refin., etc., Co., 63 Pa. 14, 3 Am. 
 Rep. 515. 
 
 Negligence and liability on the part of 
 a common carrier are inferences of law 
 from the fact that every available pre- 
 caution was not taken to prevent the 
 spread of fire on a railroad train on which
 
 871 
 
 LOSS OR IXTURV TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1087 
 
 \\here the facts in relation to the loss In' fire at a dejiot of goods are undisputed, 
 the question of negligence on the part of the carrier is one of law for the court.'^^ 
 What constitutes extraordinary diligence,"- whether the carrier has exercisied 
 due diligence to avert a loss"'' or taken proper care of the goods,"-* and whether 
 goods cfjuld have been saved by the use of ordinary diligence and care,"^ are 
 questions for the jury. The question whether a delay was due to an obstruc- 
 tion which defendant by the exercise of reasonable care could have avoided is 
 for the jury.'''' 
 
 Negligence or Wrong of Shipper. — What acts of the shijjper constitute 
 negligence releasing the carrier irom liability should not be laid down by the 
 coiirl, but (k-trrniiiK'd bv tbc jury.''" Wlietber the carrier was misled by the 
 
 merchandise was carried Uj^etlier with a 
 coml)Ustil)le siil)Stancc. The question 
 need not he sulmiitted to the jury. F.m- 
 pire Transp. Co. v. Wanisutta "Oil Refin., 
 etc., Co., (V-i Pa. 14, :5 Am. Rep. 515. 
 
 61. Braunton v. Southern Pac. Co., 2 
 Cal. -App. l~:5, 8H Pac. 205. 
 
 62. As to diligence. — Richmond, etc., R. 
 Co. r. White, 8cS Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 63. Wallace v. Clayton, 42 Ga. 443; 
 Lawrence v. McGregor (O.), Wright 19:5. 
 
 In an action to recover from a railroad 
 company for goods lost hy an unprece- 
 dented rise of a river, it is for the jury 
 to determine whether the carrier had such 
 premonitions of approaching danger as to 
 awaken the apprehensions of men of pru- 
 dence, or whether, in view of the means 
 of escape, the carrier used energetically 
 all the means at command to meet the 
 emergency and save the property. La- 
 niont & Co. V. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 5() 
 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 58. 
 
 64. After the arrival of goods at their 
 destination, and notice to the consignee, 
 the latter commenced to remove them; 
 but, residing at a distance, he could not 
 take more than one load per day. The 
 goods were thrown out of the car on the 
 giound, and while in this situation were 
 damaged by rain. Held, that the ques- 
 tion whether defendant carrier had taken 
 proper care of the goods was for the 
 jury. Cook v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.), 5S 
 Barb. 312. 
 
 Where defendant carrier agreed to carry 
 plaintiff's trunk to a station, and, in his 
 absence left it on the platform, in the 
 usual place for such deliveries, and it was 
 stolen therefrom, but the evidence whether 
 plaintiff was to he there to receive it was 
 conflicting, the question whether defend- 
 ant exercised reasonal)le care in protect- 
 ing it was for the jury. Ft. Wortli Trans- 
 fer Co. z: Isaacs (Tex. Civ. Aiip.). 40 S. 
 W. 39. 
 
 65. In an action for injury to wheat 
 from a flood wliile in a car standing un a 
 side track, it being in evidence tt^at, 
 though the water rose only a few inches 
 in the car, the door was never opened, 
 though the car remained there some eiglu 
 days, and that the wiieat was sulistan- 
 tially destroyed, it was proper to allow 
 
 the jury to determine whether defendant's 
 agents could not, l)y the use of ordinary 
 diligence and ,care. have removed and 
 saved some of the wheat from destruc- 
 tion. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Keedy. 
 75 Md. 320, 23 Atl. 643. 
 
 66. Joynes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 239 
 Pa. 93, 8C. .\tl. G53. 
 
 67. Negligence of shipper. — Cobl), etc., 
 Co. V. llliuMis Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa 601. 
 vSee Missouri, etc., R. Co. z: Tripis (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). 117 S. W. 199. 
 
 In an action against truckmen for neg- 
 ligence in unloading machinery which 
 tliey had moved, the question as to con- 
 triljutory negligence, in that plaintiff or- 
 dered the machinery to be unloaded at 
 once, on its delivery after dark, is for 
 the jury, lackson .Architectural Iron 
 Works z: Hurlbut. .-.2 N. E. 665, 158 N. 
 Y. 34, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432. affirming 36 
 X. Y. S. 808, 15 Misc. Rep. 93. 
 
 In an action against a railroad company 
 for failure to ship certain seed, the ques- 
 tion of contributory negligence in expos- 
 ing the seed to rains, and permitting it 
 to remain so exposed for a period during 
 which rains would likely fall upon it, 
 wherel)y it would heat and spoil, thereby 
 contributing to the injury, is for the jury 
 within Const., art. 23. § 6, providing that 
 the defense of contributory negligence 
 shall in all cases be a question of fact 
 for the iurv. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Beatty. 11<; Pac. 171, 27 Okla. 844. 
 
 Failure of shipper to furnish caretaker 
 and means to protect against fire.— W lure 
 there was evidence of an express contract 
 l)ctween the common carrier and the 
 shipper of the goods whereby the shipper 
 was to send a man along with the goods, 
 shipped on an open car. with a tarpaulin 
 to cover them, and buckets of water to 
 l^rotect them against fire; and tliat the 
 siiipper failed to do this, and the goods 
 were destroyed liy fire, it was held that, 
 altliough tlie carrier was liable for negli- 
 tieiice. yet it was a question for the jury 
 wliether the goods were destroyed by the 
 negligence of the defendant, or in conse- 
 .quence of the failure of the plaintiff to 
 perform the contract on his part, under 
 the evidence in the case. Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Purcell. 37 Ga. 103. 92 Am. Dec. 53.
 
 § 1087 
 
 CARRII^RS. 
 
 %72 
 
 shipper's fraud or negligence is a ([iiestion for the jury.^''' 
 
 Reasonable Time for Removal of Goods. — What is a reasonable time for 
 the consignee to remove his goods from a carrier's de])ot is generally a question 
 for the jury/'"'' But where there is no dispute about the material facts, the 
 question what is a reasonable time is for the court.'" Reasonable diligence on 
 consignee's part to inform himself of the arrival of goods, is generally a ques- 
 tion for .the jury."^ 
 
 Notice to Consignee. — Where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the 
 consignee had been given notice of the arrival of the goods, the question is for 
 the jury.'- 
 
 Duty as to Tracing Lost Goods. — (Ordinarily what railway companies 
 should do where the shipper demands that lost goods be traced is a question for 
 the jury, but where the question admits of but one conclusion, it is for the court 
 to decide '•" 
 
 Time of Loss. — Whether goods were lost before or after the carrier had de- 
 posited them in its warehouse, in order to fix the liability of defendant either 
 as carrier or warehouseman, is a question for the juryJ"^ 
 
 The cause of a loss or damage to goods in charge of a common carrier is 
 a question for the jury.'"' as whether it was caused by the carrier's negligence.''^ 
 
 68. Jenkins v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 84 
 S. C. 530. 66 S. E. 407 (cigars shipped as 
 "tobacco"). 
 
 69. Reasonable time for removal of 
 goods. — Lewis v. Louisville, etc., R. Co , 
 1;{:j Ky. 361, 122 S. W. 184, 2.5 L. R. A., 
 X. S., 938, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 527; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ferguson-Mckinney 
 Dry Goods Co.. 97 Miss. 266, 52 So. 797; 
 Southern R. Co. v. Adams Mach. Co., 
 165 Ala. 436, 51 So. 779; Berry v. West 
 Virginia, etc.. R. Co., 30 S. E. 143, 44 W. 
 Va. 538, 67 Am. St. Rep. 781. 
 
 In McGregor v. Oregon R.. etc., Co., 
 50 Ore. 527, 93 Pac. 465, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 
 668, iu is held that it is proper to submit 
 the question to the jury only in case of a 
 conflict in the testimony, or when the 
 facts are doubtful or complicated, etc. 
 
 70- McGregor v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 
 50 Ore. 527, 93 Pac. 465, 14 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 668; Berry v. West Virginia, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 W. Va. 538, 30 S. E. 143, 67 Am. 
 St. Rep. 781; Normile v. Northern Pac. 
 R. Co., 36 Wash. 21, 77 Pac. 1087, 67 L. 
 R. A. 271. 
 
 71. Lewis V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 135 
 Ky. 361, 122 S. W. 184, 25 L. R. A., N. 
 S., 938, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 527. 
 
 72. Notice to consignee. — Citizens', etc.. 
 Bank v. Southern R. Co., 153 N. C. 346, 
 69 S. E. 261; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gil- 
 more (Tex. Civ. App.), 152 S. W. 1102. 
 
 73. Duty as to tracing lost goods. — 
 Freiberg v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 11 O. 
 C. C. N. s., 241, 20-30 O. C. D. 669, af- 
 firmed in 83 O. St. 482. 
 
 74. Time of loss. — Sessions v. Western 
 R. Corp. (Mass.), 16 Gray 132. 
 
 75. Cause of loss or damage. — Hall v. 
 Renfro (Ky.), 3 Mete. 51. 
 
 The question wheth-^r cotton was set 
 on fire by sparks fro.">.i a locomotive is 
 for the jury, where the cotton was stored 
 in and along the side of open sheds in 
 
 close proximity to railroad tracks on each 
 side, although the only locomotive near 
 the cotton on the day that the fire was 
 discovered did not go near the shed 
 where tiie fire started, and is not shown 
 to have been throwing out any sparks, 
 while, if there had Ijeen any, the wind 
 would have carried them in the opposite 
 diicctions, since one possibility is that 
 the fire was set by other locomotives on 
 a preceding day, and smouldered until 
 the day it was discovered. Marande v. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co., 22 S. Ct. 340, 184 b. 
 S. 173, 46 L. Ed. 487, reversing 102 Fed. 
 246, 42 C. C. A. 317. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped by defendant a car 
 load of fruit in good condition, under de- 
 fendant's contract to keep the car below 
 a certain temperature. When the car ar- 
 rived at its destination the temperature 
 was found to be very much higher than 
 agreed, and the fruit was greatly dam- 
 aged. Held, without other proof, it was 
 for the jury to say what caused the dam- 
 age. Perishable Freight Transp. Co. v. 
 O'Neill. 41 111. App. 423. 
 
 76. Congar v. Galena, etc., R. Co., 17 
 Wis. 477; Funsten Dried Fruit, etc., Co. 
 V. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 426, 
 143 S. W. 389. See Missouri, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Tripis (Tex. Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 
 199. 
 
 Whether the escape of molasses from 
 a Ijarrel is the result of defective coop- 
 erage or of the carrier's negligence, theie 
 being evidence that the barrel was defect- 
 ive, is for the jury. Menner v. Dela- 
 ware, etc.. Canal Co., 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 
 135. 
 
 •Whether the lack of ice caused the 
 damage is a question for the jury. Mc- 
 Connell Bros. v. Southern R. Co., 144 
 N. C. 89, 56 S. E. 559. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 loss of a car load of tomatoes alleged by
 
 873 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1087 
 
 or 1)\' an act of (loil.'" 
 
 What constitutes an act of God, sucli as will relieve a common carrier 
 from its common-law liability, is ordinarily a (|uestion for the jury.'" 
 
 Whether a carrier is bound to know the character of the contents of 
 packages intrusted to it is a (|uesti<iii <>{ law upon the facts, not a questitjn of 
 fact f<ir a jur\- to llnd."" 
 
 Whether the carrier discharged its burden of proof that the goods were 
 destroyed by an act of (iod, the inthlic enemy, inherent defects therein, or neg- 
 ligence of the shipper is for the jury, e.\cei)t where evidence is so overwhelming 
 as to leave no rocjui for a reasonable doubt that the prima facie case has been 
 destrovcd.'"' 
 
 Whether Whole Shipment Transported.— Where the railway company 
 retained, at tlie i^oint of destination, cotton scaled in the same cars in wiiich it 
 was transported, and there was no evidence that the whole quantity delivered 
 to it was transported to such point, except the mere fact that the cars, on ar- 
 rival, were still sealed, it was for the jury to determine as to whether the whole 
 quantity delivered to th.e comjjany had been actually so transported. ^^ 
 
 Whether Claim Made in Tirtie Required.— In an action against a carrier 
 for dama,i,^c to goods, the question whether the claim for damages was made 
 within the time re(|uired is one of fact for the jurv.^- 
 
 Whether Value of Premium Included in Claim. — In an action for the 
 loss of a part of a shipment of goods, it was for the jury to say whether the 
 value of a premium which the purchaser received was included in the claim and 
 should be deducted.^-' 
 
 Effect of Receipt and Retention of Voucher for Damaged Goods.— 
 Where plainlilT received a voucher from a carrier in payment for certain dam- 
 aged goods, whether plaintitT's failure to return the voucher estop|)cd him from 
 
 plaintilT to lu'vc rotted from the neglect 
 of the company to properly ice them, 
 where the evidence is conflicting as to 
 whether the condition of the tomatoes 
 was caused by lack of ice which defend- 
 ant had agreed to supply, the case is for 
 the jury. Conrad Schopp Fruit Co. v. 
 Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co., 4.3 Pa. Super. Ct. 
 481. 
 
 Whether a lack of sufficient watchmen 
 contributed to the loss of cotton liy fire 
 is a question for the jury, notwithstand- 
 ing the contention that the watchmen ac- 
 tually present discovered the fire as soon 
 as it started, where it is possible for the 
 jury to infer that the fire might have 
 been smouldering for a considcralilc pe- 
 riod before its discovery, and a sufficient 
 force of watchmen, if present, might have 
 materially aided in extinguishing the fire. 
 Marande v. Texas, etc., R. Co.. 102 Fed. 
 246, 42 C. C. \. 317; S. C, 22 S. Ct. 340, 
 184 U. S. 173. 4r, L. Kd. 4ST. 
 
 Failure to provide facilities for extin- 
 guishing fire. — The question whether the 
 negligence of a railroad company in fail- 
 ing to provide proper facilities for extin- 
 guishing fire in cotton sheds contributed 
 to a loss of the cotton liy fire is for the 
 jury, where the cotton was piled up high 
 around the platforms on which hose was 
 kept, and when an attempt was made to 
 use the hose the water would not come, 
 either because the hose had become tan- 
 gled, or otherwise, and the valve was 
 found already open when one of the men 
 
 tried to open it, although the railroad 
 company contends, but without any posi- 
 tive proof of the fact, that one of the em- 
 ployees had opened the valve and taneled 
 the hose after the alarm of fire, especiajly 
 when there had been no systematic in- 
 spection thereof, and no fire drill had. and 
 no instructions given as to the use of the 
 apparatus. Judgment 102 Fed. 24f>, 42 C. 
 C. A. 317, reversed. Marande v. Texas, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 22 S. Ct. 340. 184 U. S. 173, 
 4fi L. Ed. 487. 
 
 77. Gulf. etc.. R. Co. v. Boyce. 39 Tex. 
 Civ. .\pp. 19.^), 196, 87 S. W. 39.). affirmed 
 in 101 Tex. ()39, no op. 
 
 78. What constitutes act of God. — 
 Fentiman z'. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 44 
 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 45.5, 4r.O, 98 S. W. 939. 
 See Southern R. Co. v. Smith, V2r> Ky. 
 r.,56, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 243, 102 S. W. 232. 
 
 79. Berley v. Newton (N. V.>. 10 How. 
 Prac. 490. 
 
 80. Whether the carrier discharged its 
 burden of proof. — l-cntiman f. Atchison, 
 etc.. R. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 4,).-), 98 S. 
 W. 939. 
 
 81. Whether whole shipment trans- 
 ported. — Hiiip ■:■. Southern R. Ct,'.. ".'7 S. 
 i:. ('.23, .-)0 S. C. 129. 
 
 82. Whether claim made in time re- 
 auired. — McConnell Bro.<5. f. Southern 
 I'l. Co.. 144 X. C. 89, 56 S. E. 559. 
 
 83. Whether value of premium included 
 in claim. — P.urross :■. .\tlantic. etc.. R. 
 Co., no S. H. ();t2, 79 S. C. 2.-)0.
 
 § 1087 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 874 
 
 claiming the value of the goods and a statutory penalty, and whether its receipt 
 and retention constituted payment, are questions for the jury.^-* 
 
 Additional instances of questions held to he for the determination of the 
 jurv are set out in the notes. ^^ 
 
 84. Effect of receipt and retention of 
 voucher for damaged goods. — ^^()ody z\ 
 Southern Railway. 7'.) S. C. :29r, C>() S. E. 
 711. 
 
 85. Additional instances. — An agent for 
 a shipper of goods, makinsr inquiry over 
 the telephone as to the arrival of goods, 
 directed what other persons should say 
 while he stood at their elbow, and an 
 operator at a telephone connection re- 
 peated the inquiry to the carrier's agent. 
 Held, that the reliability and accuracy of 
 the means of communication was for the 
 jurj' in an action for loss of the goods, 
 and that it was for them to say, also, 
 whether the message which finally 
 reached defendant fairly apprised it of the 
 fact that plaintiff was inquiring for the 
 particular goods in question. Southern 
 R. Co. V. Adams Mach. Co., 165 Ala. 
 436, 51 So. 779. 
 
 In an action against the owners of a 
 steamboat to recover the value of a 
 sealed package of money delivered by 
 plaintiff to the clerk of such boat for 
 transportation, the proof was that, al- 
 though it was the uniform custom of 
 steamboats to carry cash letters, no 
 charge was made for such service, iinless 
 a receipt was demanded by the shipper, 
 when a charge of one-fourth of 1 per cent 
 was made upon the amount of the bills. 
 Held, that it was not improper for the 
 court to leave to the jury the question of 
 fact, whether cash letters belonged to 
 that class or character of goods wliich 
 the boat undertook to carry for hire. 
 Knox 7\ Rives, etc.. Co., U Ala. 249. 
 
 Where initials on waybill different from 
 those of consignee. — Where, in an action 
 against a carrier for damage to goods 
 shipped, it appears that the initials of the 
 consignee on the waybill are different from 
 those of plaintiff, but that the waybill was 
 issued without the knowledge of plain- 
 tiff and in his absence, and that the car- 
 rier treated plaintiff as the owner, deliv- 
 ering to him the freight and accepting 
 from him the charges, such difference 
 is not a question of variance between the 
 allegations and proof, but, instead, raises 
 an issue of fact for determination by the 
 jury. Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Barfield, 58 
 S. K. 2:i»). 1 Ga. .\pp. 2o:'.. 
 
 Whether more definite tender of dam- 
 aged goods excused. — Where the demand 
 read. "We feel ju.stified in putting in a 
 claim for the entire shipment, and hold 
 the goods subject to your inspection," 
 and where a later letter contained com- 
 plaints that the consignees had lost the 
 use of their money for the intervening 
 period, it was a question for the jury 
 whether a fiat denial of liability by the 
 
 express company did not e.xcuse a more 
 definite tender of the almost worthless 
 books. Hardy v. American Exp. Co., 65 
 N. E. 375, 182 Mass. 328, 59 L. R. A. 
 731. 
 
 Amount of damage. — Where plaintiff 
 testified that ninety-eight cents was the 
 damage to a case of goods in shipment 
 and there was no direct evidence in con- 
 tradiction, and he relied for corrobora- 
 tion on the facts that he filed his claim for 
 ninety-eight cents, and that defendant did 
 not contest the claim, but paid it to an- 
 other, while defendant's evidence was the 
 itemized bill from plaintiff's vendor filed 
 with the claim, which showed the price 
 of a dozen bottles of olives was $2.15 less 
 10 per cent and the claim for loss of six 
 bottles, whether the damage was for the 
 amount claimed or for ninety-seven cents 
 as claimed by defendant was for the jury. 
 Sumrell z'. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 67 S. 
 E. 585. 152 N. C. 269. 
 
 Whether damages within reasonable 
 contemplation of parties. — Defendant rail- 
 road company received certain batteries 
 for transportation, packed with excelsior 
 in four open crates. On the top of each 
 box was pasted a bill, with a label in 
 large red letters. "This side up. Batter- 
 ies. Handle with care." When the bat- 
 teries were delivered it was found that 
 they had lieen spoiled by being turned 
 over, and the contents spilled out. Held 
 that, whether the damages sustained were 
 within the reasonable contemplation of 
 the parties after the railroad company 
 had accepted the crates with such injunc- 
 tion of caution was for the jury. Hoye 
 V. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 100 N. Y. S. 190, 
 114 App. Div. 821, affirmed in 191 N. Y. 
 101, 83 N. E. 586. 
 
 Whether goods tendered for immediate 
 shipment. — In an action against a carrier 
 for the loss of cotton destroyed by fire 
 while on defendant's platform, the ques- 
 tion whether it had been placed there 
 by defendant's consent as cotton tendered 
 for immediate shipment, notwithstanding 
 a rule that the carrier assumed no risk 
 for cotton put upon its platform, unless 
 tendered for immediate shipment, held for 
 the jury. Griffin v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 72 S, E. 46:!, 89 S. C. 547. 
 
 Reasonableness of explanation why pe- 
 tition claimed more than claim. — Where, 
 in an action against a carrier for loss of 
 goods, plaintiff's claim before suit 
 brought, which was for less than the 
 amount sued for, was introduced in evi- 
 dence, and he undertook in his evidence 
 to give an explanation why some of the 
 items were omitted from the claim and 
 why the petition claimed more than the
 
 875 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1088 
 
 § 1088. Instructions. — In General. — In an action against a carrier for 
 loss of or damage to guu(l>, it i> error to give instructions which are calculated 
 to mislead the jury,**" or are conflicting,^' or which require too high a degree 
 
 claim presented io tlie railroad, whether 
 his explanation was reasonable and proper 
 was for the jury. Missnnri, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Claytnn (Tex. Civ. .\pp.), S4 S. W. 
 lotl'.i. 
 
 86. Misleading instructions — Illustra- 
 tions. — In trover against a carrier to re- 
 cover for goods lost in transit, it was 
 improper to instruct tiiat the jury could 
 find a conversion if defendant so man- 
 aged as to interfere witli the rights of 
 plaintiff to, and his control over, the 
 property, so that ijlaintitT lost the same, 
 since such instruction was too indefinite 
 for application l)y the jury, and was cal- 
 culated to mislead them, by permitting 
 them to find a conversion though the 
 goods were lost through the negligence 
 of the carrier. Bowlin ?■. Nye (Mass.), 
 10 Gush. 4U\. 
 
 An instruction, that the measure of 
 damages is the difference in the value of 
 the goods in the condition in which they 
 were delivered and their value if deliv- 
 ered in good order, is erroneous, as lead- 
 ing the jury to include injuries necessarily 
 incident to the shipping of the goods, 
 while the carrier is liable only for injury 
 resulting from its negligence. Texas 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Watson. 54 Tex. Civ. App. 
 118 S. W. 17.-.. 
 
 Instruction held not misleading. — .\n 
 instruction, in an action for failure to 
 deliver cotton, that a carrier is bound to 
 e.xercise extraordinary diligence, and in 
 case of loss the presumption is against it, 
 and no excuse avails unless the loss was 
 caused by the act of God or public enemy, 
 vi'as not misleading, w-ithout first charg- 
 ing that, before any presumption would 
 arise against the carrier, the burden was 
 on plaintiff to show that the cotton was 
 never delivered, where upon the whole 
 charge the jury was made to understand 
 that the principle stated w-as not appli- 
 cal>le unless tlie jury was first satisfied 
 that the cotton was never delivered to 
 plaintiff. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Man- 
 chester Mfg. Co., G4 S. E. 1128, (5 Ga. 
 App. 254. 
 
 Where it was doubtful from the evi- 
 dence whether goods, for the loss of 
 which suit was lirought against a rail- 
 road company, were ever received by de- 
 fendant, an instruction that one railroad 
 is not responsible for loss occurring on 
 another is not erroneous as being unau- 
 thorized or misleading. McCaffrey v. 
 Georgia, etc., R. Co., 69 Ga. 622. 
 
 An instruction that, in transferring ex- 
 press matter from one train to the other, 
 the law imposed on the servants of the 
 express company the duty of exercising 
 ordinary care, was not erroneous as mis- 
 leading the jury and authorizing them 
 to find the company guilty of negligence 
 
 other than that charged in the declara- 
 tion, which was in placing the chute in 
 the car, wiiere such act was a preparatirm 
 for and a part of the transfer of the ex- 
 press matter, .\merican Exp. Co. v. Ris- 
 ley, 17'.) 111. 295. 53 N. E. 558, affirming 
 77 111. App. 476. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for loss 
 of cigars shipped as "smoking tol)acco," 
 an instruction that as a general proposi- 
 tion tlie highest price of the article at 
 destination with the freight added is the 
 true measure of damages, is not objec- 
 tionable as intimating that the carrier is 
 responsible for the price of the shipment 
 regarded as cigars. Jenkins v. .\tlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 66 S. E. 407, 84 S. C. 520. 
 
 Plaintiffs imported cattle for breeding 
 purposes, and in the course of their trans- 
 portation l)y defendant railroad company 
 they were so injured in a collision that 
 many of them, which were with calf, 
 miscarried. Held, in an action for dam- 
 ages, that instructions that the carrier 
 was bound to deliver the cattle at their 
 destination in as good order as it re- 
 ceived them, and that if it failed so to do 
 it must pay the difference between their 
 value in such condition and their value in 
 the condition in which they were actually de- 
 livered, are not misleading, when the jury 
 are told in the same charge that the car- 
 rier is lial)le only for injuries directly 
 traceal)le to its negligence. New York, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 13 S. 
 Ct. 444. 37 L. Ed. 292. 54 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 487. 
 
 Verdict showing jury not misled. — In 
 an action against a carrier for loss of 
 goods, the jury were instructed that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to recover the value 
 of the goods which the carrier failed to 
 deliver, "for which you may find the de- 
 fendant liable under the instructions and 
 evidence," "unless you believe from the 
 evidence that the defendant was excused 
 from such delivery by such cause as is 
 set out in instructions given you for the 
 
 87. Conflicting instructions. — In an ac- 
 tion against a railway company for the 
 value of goods placed near its tracks for 
 shipment and destroyed by fire, an in- 
 struction on the theory that the evidence 
 of the custom and course of dealing in 
 permitting goods to accumulate on the 
 platform for shipment might be sufficient 
 to constitute possession by defendant as 
 a carrier, was irreconcilably conflicting 
 with an instruction that the defendant 
 would not be liable as a common carrier 
 unless the cotton was received by it for 
 immediate sliipment and it had received 
 shipping instructions from the plaintiff. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Beard. 7S S. W. 
 253. 34 Tex. Civ. App. ISS.
 
 § 1088 
 
 CARRIFlRS. 
 
 876 
 
 of proof, ^'^ or which invade the province of the jury,""'' or which are on the 
 weight of the evidence.'"' It is proper to refuse a requested charge which does 
 not correctly state the law.''^ It is not error to give an instruction stating a 
 sound principle of law and applicable to a phase of the case as developed by 
 the evidence.*^- A\'here the charge affirmatively sets out the plaintiff's rights 
 in regard to the delivery and receipt of goods, the converse of the affirmative 
 part of the charge is sufficiently given by the use of a negative phrase implying 
 the plaintitT's duty in regard to such delivery and receipt of goods.'''' 
 
 defendant." In one of the instructions 
 for defendant the jury were told tliat 
 under Rev. St. U. S., § 4281, the plaintiff 
 could not recover for any articles com- 
 posed of silk, manufactured or unmaiui- 
 factured, wrought up or not witli any 
 other material, furs, or laces, unless a 
 written notice of the character of the ar- 
 ticles and their value had been given tlie 
 carrier at the time it received the box; 
 that in assessing damages such articles 
 must be omitted from the estimate. Phin- 
 tiflf stated that the aggregate value of the 
 goods in the box was $2,o36. and the 
 evidence indicated that the value of the 
 lace and silk goods was about $600. The 
 jury gave plaintiff a verdict for $1,604.30. 
 Held, that they were not misled by the 
 first instruction. Hamburg-American 
 
 Packet Co. v. Gattman, 127 111. 598, 20 
 X. E. 662. 
 
 88. Instruction requiring too high de- 
 gree of proof. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 (^.idley, 119 Ala. 523, 24 So. 753 (charge 
 requiring carrier to "satisfy" jury that 
 loss could not have been prevented by 
 exercise of due care). 
 
 89. Instructions invading province of 
 jury. — In an action against a railway 
 company for its failure to deliver goods 
 shipped, in which the evidence is con- 
 flicting as to whether they were ever 
 received for shipment, and whether freight 
 was ever paid on them, an instruction, 
 given by the court of its own motion, 
 that, "if the jury believe from the evi- 
 dence that defendant received pay on the 
 freight for the goods in question, that 
 was sufficient evidence that the defendant 
 had the goods at that time in possession," is 
 erroneous, as invading the province of 
 the jury. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 
 52 Ala. 278. 
 
 It being a question for tlie jury whether 
 the carrier exercised the proper degree of 
 care under the circumstances, it is error 
 to instruct that, if the jury find that the 
 loss was in any respect due to the 
 crowded condition of the depot, or to the 
 want of sufficient hands, the carrier is 
 liable. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 
 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 90. Instruction on weight of evidence. 
 — It is a charge on the weight of evidence 
 to tell the jury that lost articles have no 
 general market value where the evidence 
 as to the nature of the articles, and the 
 manner of their collection and prepara- 
 tion, tends to show that they are all such 
 
 specimens as might have a market -value. 
 Yoakum v. Dunn, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 524, 
 21 S. W. 411. 
 
 Instruction held not erroneous. — In 
 an action to recover for the loss of a 
 package of money shipped with defend- 
 ant, the court instructed the jury that if 
 they believed that the express company 
 received the envelope with money in it, 
 and afterwards had the envelope in its 
 possession without the money, the jur}^ 
 might infer that the money was ab- 
 stracted while in defendant's possession. 
 Held, that the instruction was not er- 
 roneous as directing the jury on the 
 weight of the evidence. Southern Exp. 
 Co. V. Thornton, 41 Miss. 216. 
 
 91. In an action against a carrier for 
 loss of goods in transit, there was no 
 error in refusing a charge that if 
 the conductor of a freight train ascer- 
 tained that a car was on fire, and an 
 emergency arose without negligence of 
 the carrier, and if the conductor in good 
 faith took a certain course which he 
 thought was that offering the best pros- 
 pect of saving the goods from destruc- 
 tion, though the course so taken was a 
 mistake, such mistake would not be 
 chargeable to the carrier as negligence. 
 Atlanta, etc., R.- Co. v. Jacobs' Pharm- 
 acy Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 S. E. 1039. 
 
 92. Southern R. Co. v. Williams, 139 
 Ga. 339, 77 S. E. 168, holding that an 
 instruction that if a carrier carried lum- 
 ber to its destination, and delivered it 
 to another railroad, which undertook to 
 carry it to the particular point of des- 
 tination, and if the other carrier acted 
 as agent of the defendant, it would be 
 immaterial ;on which line tire damage 
 was done, was not error. 
 
 93. In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for injury to trees en route, the 
 court instructed that, if plaintiff called 
 for the trees at destination within a 
 reasonable time and made a reasonable 
 effort to receive them if they reached 
 there within a reasonable time, he was 
 not required to stay until they arrived, 
 unless he had notice as to when they 
 would arrive; but if he made reasonable 
 effort to get them, and if they did not 
 arrived within a reasonable time and 
 were damaged for that reason, he would 
 be entitled to recover damages, "but 
 otherwise he would not be." Held, that 
 liy the qtioted plirasc the court gave the 
 converse of the affirmative part of the
 
 877 
 
 l.oss OK iXMKV To r,ool)^ 
 
 § 1088 
 
 Must Be Applicable to Pleadings and Evidence. — It is error to give an 
 
 instruction mil apjilii. ;ilik- to ilie i^^ues rai>e(l 1)\ tlic pleadings, though it may 
 be entirely correct as an abstract proposition of law ; '** and so it is proper to 
 refuse an instruction not applicable."'* It is error to give an instruction on an 
 issue not raised by the evidence,"" or opi)Osed to the evidence."" and it is proper 
 to refuse an instruction not raised or supported by the evidence."^ When the 
 
 instruction, and sutliciently charKed as 
 to plaintiff's duty to use reasonable ef- 
 forts to receive the goods even if tliey 
 did not arrive witliin a reasonable time. 
 Young f. Southern R. Co., l'>7 N. C. 74, 
 72 S. K. Sli.'i. 
 
 94. Applicability to issues raised by 
 pleading. — Central R., etc., Co. v. Cooper 
 ;»:. C.a. 4()f), '22 S. E. 549. 
 
 Illustrations. — It is error to charge 
 that, if the property was damaged by l)e- 
 ing placed in unsafe cars, the jury should 
 find for plaintiff, where llie declaration 
 merely alleges failure to deliver. Central 
 R., etc., Co. V. Avant, 80 Ga. 195, 5 S. 
 E. 78. 
 
 Where the sole ground of liability al- 
 leged in a declaration against a railroad 
 company for damages to goods was that 
 defendant negligently unloaded the goods 
 in the rain and stored the same in the 
 open air, it was error to charge that, if 
 the goods were delivered to the wrong 
 person by the company, it would consti- 
 tute a conversion by defendant for which 
 plaintiff could recover the full value of 
 the goods, though the evidence was con- 
 flicting as to whether the one who un- 
 loaded the goods was the agent of plain- 
 tiff or of defendant. Central R., etc., Co. 
 V. Cooper, 95 Ga. 406, 22 S. E. 549. 
 
 A charge that a railroad company 
 might be found liable for the loss of 
 cotton deposited by the plaintiff on their 
 depot platform, and l)urned, held to 1)e 
 erroneous; the declaration not alleging 
 that they received the cotton in their 
 character of common carrier. Smith v. 
 King's Mountain R. Co., 3 S. C. 53. 
 
 Where the petition claims damages 
 only for the injury to and loss of horses 
 through a collision, it is error to charge 
 that plaintiff may recover for injury 
 caused by delay and detention. Texas, 
 etc.. R. Co. 7'. Sims (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 
 S. W. 634. 
 
 95. In an action against a carrier for 
 loss of the goods siiipped. after they 
 were unloaded, and plaintiff notified of 
 their arrival, based on its liability as a 
 common carrier, instructions as to its 
 liability as a warehouseman are properly 
 refused, no claim l)eing made in the com- 
 plaint against defendant as a warehouse- 
 man. Wynantskill Knitting Co. z: Mur- 
 ray. 90 Hun ."..■■>4. 36 X. V. S. 26. 71 X. V. 
 St. Rep. 3:;. 
 
 96. Applicability to issues raised by evi- 
 dence. — Wiiere there is nothing in tlie 
 pleadings or evidence properly present- 
 ing as an issue in the case the question 
 whether the person by whom the ship- 
 
 per's goods were unloaded from the car- 
 rier's car was or was not authorized to 
 receive the goods for the shipper, and 
 the controlling question being whether 
 that person in unloading and storing the 
 goods was acting as agent of the ship- 
 per or carrier, it is error to so shape the 
 instructions to the jury as to present for 
 their consideration the question as to the 
 authority of such person to receive the 
 goods and in so qualifying the written 
 request of the carrier as to submit tiiat 
 question for the jury's determination in 
 connection with, and as a part of, the 
 question of agency. Central R., etc., Co. 
 V. Cooper, 95 Ga. 406, 22 S. E. 549. 
 
 97. Instructions opposed to evidence. 
 — The uncontradicted evidence being 
 that some efforts were made by the car- 
 rier to save the plaintiff's goods, it was 
 error to charge the jury upon any hy- 
 pothesis grounded on the assumption or 
 contingency that no efforts whatever 
 were made. Richmond, etc., R. Co. z\ 
 White. 88 Ga. 805. 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 In an action of assumpsit brought to 
 recover the value of oil claimed l)y the 
 plaintiff, the declaration containing no 
 good counts except the common counts, 
 which was in the possession of defend- 
 ant at the time the action was brought, 
 and which had not been sold or in any 
 way tortiously disposed of by the defend- 
 ant, and which came into the possession 
 of the defendant as a common carrier, 
 and not wrongfully, it was held, error 
 for the lower _court to instruct the jury 
 that if they b'elieved from the evidence 
 that the oil was the property of the 
 plaintiff, it was their duty to find a ver- 
 dict for the plaintiff for the value of the 
 oil, there not being evidence before the 
 jury tending to prove a sale of the oil 
 by the plaintiff to the defendant, but the 
 evidence clearly proving that there had 
 been no such sale, and that the defend- 
 ant had only refused to deliver the oil 
 to plaintiff on demand, under the peculiar 
 circumstances shown by the evidence, as 
 stated in the opinion of the court in 
 Dresser 7\ West Virginia Transp. Co., 8 
 W. \"a. .-.-.3. 
 
 98. Instructions not raised or supported 
 by evidence. — In an action to recover for 
 loss of goods, the refusal to instruct the 
 jurj- "tliat tiie mere fact of delivery of the 
 goods to the defendant corporation for 
 transportation raised a presumption that 
 such delivery was made and the goods 
 received for immediate transportation." 
 etc., is justified, when it can not be gath- 
 ered from the case that there was any
 
 1088 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 878 
 
 liability of the carrier has changed to that of a warehouseman, it is error to 
 submit to the jury the question of liability as carrier.'"' Where the only issue is 
 as to defendant's liability as a carrier,^ it is error to charge that it might be 
 held liable upon its responsibility as a warehouseman.- So where the petition 
 charges defendants as warehousemen, and not as common carriers,'' instructions 
 
 such "mere fact of delivery of the goods" 
 in evidence, unaccompanied by proof of 
 verbal communication between the agents 
 of the parties, and of the contract they 
 entered into, the true character and terms 
 of which were really the subjects of the 
 controversy between the parties. Jones 
 V. New England, etc., Steamship Co., 71 
 Me. 56. 
 
 In an action against a company for 
 loss by fire of cotton deposited at a 
 switch where there was neither agent, 
 station, nor platform, an instruction that, 
 if plaintiffs contracted with defendant to 
 furnish a car for shipment of the cotton, 
 and failed to do so, by reason of which 
 the cotton w-as damaged by fire, defend- 
 ant is liable, should be refused, where 
 there is no evidence connecting the fire 
 with the failure to furnish a car. Kansas 
 City, etc.. R. Co. v. Lilly (Miss.), 8 So. 
 644. 
 
 In an action for failure to adjust a 
 freight loss claim, it was proper to refuse 
 to instruct as to the liability of a gratui- 
 tous bailee, where there was no testi- 
 mony that the company had given notice 
 that it would no longer hold as ware- 
 houseman; its liability being either that 
 of carrier or warehouseman. Sanders v. 
 Southern Railway, 72 S. E. 637, 90 S. 
 C. 79. 
 
 In an action to recover for breach of 
 a contract in failing to transport a quan- 
 tity of cord w^ood, by reason of which 
 the wood was w^ashed away by a freshet 
 and was lost, the court properly refused 
 to instruct the jury that "the measure of 
 damages in case of a failure to deliver 
 goods according to contract, and which 
 are lost, is their market value," etc., de- 
 fendants not being sued as common car- 
 riers, and there being no evidence of a 
 delivery of the wood to them. And a 
 further instruction that plaintiff is en- 
 titled to recover as damages whatever 
 he may have expended in the recovery 
 of the wood washed away, if the jury 
 believe that it would not have been 
 washed away if defendants had kept their 
 contract, is also properly refused, in the 
 absence of any evidence to show that 
 such damage can be fairly and reason- 
 ably considered as naturally arising from 
 the breach of the contract in question. 
 Slaughter v. Denmead, 88 Va. 1019, 14 
 S. E. 833. 
 
 99. Hurley & Son v. Norfolk, etc., R. 
 Co., 68 W. Va. 471, 69 S. E. 904. 
 
 1. In an action of assumpsit against a 
 railroad company for failure to deliver 
 five hundred and twenty-five bales of cot- 
 ton described in the bills of lading, the 
 evidence w^as that one P., a cotton broker, 
 
 purchased large quantities of cotton 
 from time to time, and, under a contract 
 with the defendant railway company, 
 caused the cotton to be compressed, and 
 inade ready for shipping. When com- 
 pressed, each bale was by him weighed, 
 classed, and marked; and, when a number 
 of bales had been so marked, he made 
 out a bill of lading, describing them by 
 their appropriate marks, and obtained 
 the certificate of the superintendent of 
 the compress company, indorsed thereon, 
 that the cotton called for by the bill was 
 in the warehouse; also the signature of 
 the defendant's freight agent. When- 
 ever a sale was made, P. assigned the 
 proper bills of lading to the purchaser. 
 Plaintiffs claimed as such purchasers and 
 assignees of P. There was evidence 
 that, at the time plaintiff's bills of lading 
 were made out and signed as above, 
 there was no cotton of the grade called 
 for in the warehouse (and it was con- 
 ceded that, bj' an arrangement between 
 P. and defendant, bills of lading were 
 often issued before the cotton called for 
 had arrived), but that in this instance 
 there was other cotton on hand of an in- 
 ferior grade, some of which certain em- 
 ployees of P., with knowledge of defend- 
 ant's freight agent, re-marked with marks 
 indicating the grade called for by plain- 
 tiflf's bills, and that defendant forwarded 
 this inferior cotton to plaintiffs. Held, 
 that in such action the only issue was 
 as to defendant's liability upon the bills 
 of lading as a common carrier. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Knight, 122 U. S. 79, 7 S. 
 Ct. 1132, 30 L. Ed. 1077. 
 
 2. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 122 
 U. S. 79, 30 L. Ed. 1077, 7 S. Ct. 1132. 
 
 3. Petition alleging liability as ware- 
 houseman. — In an action against a rail- 
 road company for the value of certain 
 goods, the petition alleged that on the 4th 
 of December, 1864, the defendants were 
 engaged in the business of common car- 
 riers and as warehousemen, running and 
 operating a road from Chicago to Ne- 
 vada, and having a warehouse at the lat- 
 ter place. On this day, the plaintiff's 
 goods were delivered to the defendants 
 at Chicago, to be transported to Nevada, 
 as per receipt, etc., and that said goods 
 were duly transported by the defendants 
 to their said warehouse in Nevada, and 
 were therein so carelessly and negli- 
 gently kept, that the aforesaid articles 
 were entirely lost and destroyed, and the 
 defendants both utterly failed and re- 
 fused to deliver the same, etc. Held, 
 that defendants were charged as ware- 
 housemen, and not as common carriers. 
 Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Iowa 73.
 
 879 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO GOODS. 
 
 § 1088 
 
 assuming thai the)' arc to be held as common carriers are erroneous.^ Where 
 the shipper claims and testifies that an oral contract was made for transporta- 
 tion in which there was no limitation of liability, but that he signed a paper, 
 which he sup])osed to be a receipt, and the carrier offered testimony to show 
 that the only contract made was the written one embodied in the bill of lading 
 signed by the shijjper and which limited its liability, the court is warranted in 
 defining tlie common-law liability of the carrier in case the jury should find in 
 favor of the theory of the shipper.-"' 
 
 Necessity for Instructions. — The defendant is entitled to have any defense 
 which the evidence tends to support submitted to the jury under a proper 
 charge." Where the defendant claims that the goods were damaged before re- 
 ceived for shipment it is entitled to have that issue distinctly submitted to the 
 jury.' When a contract stipulates that after defendant's delivery of the goods 
 to a connecting line it should not be liable for injuries, and the evidence shows 
 that a large part of the damages were sustained after such delivery, the court 
 should instruct that defendant was not liable therefor.^ And where the allega- 
 tions of the complaint that the goods were damaged while in transit over de- 
 fendant's line are unsupported by evidence, defendant is entitled to an instruc- 
 tion to that effect.'-' 
 
 Ignoring or Excluding Pertinent Questions. — Instructions which ignore 
 or exclude from the consideration of the jury (|uestions pertinent to the issues 
 are erroneous.^" So it is proi)er to refuse an instruction as to defendant's com- 
 
 4. Porter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 
 Iowa 73. 
 
 5. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 48 
 Kan. ;!:M, ;.>'.i Pac. 312. 
 
 6. Necessity for instruction. — Where, 
 in an action for the value of a puncheon 
 of molasses which burst while in the 
 custody of a carrier, there is evidence 
 that the cause was the fermentation of 
 the molasses, defendant is entitled to 
 have it considered by the jury under a 
 proper charge, as the carrier is not liable 
 for loss or damage resulting from de- 
 fects inherent in the goods. Currie z'. 
 Seaboard, etc.. R. Co., 72 S. E. 493, 156 
 N. C. 432. 
 
 7. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Dorsey, 70 S. 
 W. 575, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 377. 
 
 8. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Allcorn (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 18(). 
 
 9. Goodman v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 22 
 Ore. 14, 2S Pac. 8!)4. 
 
 10. Instructions ignoring or excluding 
 pertinent questions. — In an action against 
 a railroad corporation for the loss of 
 cotton which was destroyed by fire while 
 on board of the defendant's cars, S. tes- 
 tified that the plaintifif made an oral 
 agreement with the superintendent of the 
 road, that he (the plaintiff) would cover 
 the cotton with a tarpaulin, and send a 
 man along with it, with buckets of water. 
 Ihe court charged that, if the contract 
 was made as testified liy S., it was still 
 incumbent on the defendants to prove 
 that there was no negligence on their 
 part. Held, that this was erroneous, as 
 the effect of it was to exclude from the 
 consideration of the jury the question in 
 dispute — whether the cotton was de- 
 stroyed by the negligence of the defend- 
 ants, or by the failure of the plaintiff to 
 
 perform his part of the express contract, 
 if they should believe such a contract 
 was made. Southern Exp. Co. f. Pur- 
 cell, 37 Ga. 103, 92 Am. Dec. 53. 
 
 In an action for the value of a ship- 
 ment of lumber, it was error to charge 
 that, if plaintiff was entitled to recover 
 at all, he was entitled to the full amount 
 claimed, there being no controversy as 
 to the value of luml)er, as disregarding 
 the amount due for freight charges un- 
 paid and value of the lumber saved from 
 a wreck. Southern R. Co. v. Williams, 
 77 S. E. 153, 139 Ga. 357. 
 
 An instruction that if the jury find for 
 plaintiff, suing defendant carrier for in- 
 juries to fruit owing to insufficient re- 
 frigeration, they should find the full 
 amount proven, and look to the evidence 
 and see what the amount proven is, is 
 improper, as authorizing damages to the 
 liighest amount without considering in- 
 lierent defects in the fruit. Southern R. 
 Co. V. Williams, 77 S. E. 153, 139 Ga. 357. 
 
 In an action against common carriers 
 at sea, to recover the value of a cask of 
 brandy, the contents of which have been 
 lost on the voyage by leakage, it is er- 
 roneous to charge the jury that the only 
 question is whether the cask was prop- 
 erly made, and sufficient, so that with 
 ordinary or proper care the leakage 
 would not have occurred. Such an in- 
 struction withdraws from the jury the 
 question whether the cask was properly 
 stowed. Tysen z: Moore (X. Y.). 56 
 Barb. 442. 
 
 .\ shipper, having sole charge of the 
 loading, loaded corn while it was wet. 
 The car itself was secure against leakage 
 from rain. There was a delay in trans- 
 portation of about two days, caused by
 
 § 1088 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 880 
 
 mon-law liability as an insurer which pretermits all inquiry whether the goods 
 were ready for delivery. ^ Where there is practically no dispute as to a matter, 
 it is proper to give an instruction withdrawing the question from the jury, 
 therebv clearing the atmosphere at the trial and confining and directing their 
 attention to the remaining questions. i- Where the question is whether defend- 
 ant was liable as a common carrier or as a warehouseman, depending upon 
 whether a certain car had been placed in a proper position for unloading, it is 
 not error for the court in an instruction to eliminate every question except that 
 as to defendant's liability as a carrier, where it charges that, if the car was put 
 in a proper place for unloading, defendant was not liable on any ground. i"' 
 
 Withdrawing proper evidence from the jury is error. ^^ 
 
 Submitting Issue Proved by Undisputed Evidence. — Where the evidence 
 is undisputed that goods were second-hand, an instruction that the jury, in de- 
 termining the value of the property, are authorized to take into consideration, 
 among other things, the cjuestion whether the property was new or second-hand, 
 is not objectionable as submitting the issue as to whether the property was new 
 or second-hand.^-'' 
 
 Slight Technical Inaccuracy. — An instruction is not rendered erroneous 
 by a slight technical inaccuracy, which does iiot mislead the jury.^'' 
 
 Repetition of Charge. — It is not error for the court to give a charge, re- 
 quested by plaintiff, which includes a statement of the issues as they have al-' 
 
 the drawhead of the car being broken. 
 In an action by the shipper for damages, 
 the court charged that if the corn was in 
 a worthless condition when shipped, and 
 the damage did not result from lack of 
 proper care on the company's part, and 
 the car was forwarded within a reason- 
 able time, the jury should find for the 
 company. Held insufficient, in failing to 
 call attention to the act of plaintiff in 
 loading the corn in a wet condition, and 
 submitting to the jury to determine how 
 far such action contributed to the loss 
 complained of. Galveston, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Smith, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 138. 
 In an action against a railway com- 
 pany for goods which had been placed 
 near its tracks for shipment and de- 
 stroyed by fire, in which one theory for 
 recovery was that the fire was caused 
 by the negligence of the railway, and 
 another theory was th^t it was burned 
 after it had been delivered into the pos- 
 session of the railway as a common car- 
 rier, it was error to instruct that, if the 
 fire was caused by the defendant's loco- 
 motive, defendant was lial)le, as defend- 
 ant, on the theory first stated, was en- 
 titled to have submitted the issue of 
 plaintiff's contributory negligence in ex- 
 posing the cotton to danger by fire. 
 Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Beard, 78 S. W. 
 253, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 188. 
 
 11. Southern R. Co. v. Adams Mach. 
 Co., 16.5 Ala. 436, .51 So. 779. 
 
 12. Smith z: Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 223 
 Pa. 118, 72 Atl. 264, wherein it was held 
 that the question of a diversion of cars 
 from the usual course by placing them in 
 a certain yard, instead of carrying them 
 to a certain other yard, was in effect 
 withdrawn from the jury by a charge 
 that the custom of delivering at the yard 
 where the cars were placed had been 
 
 established to the judge's satisfaction, 
 that this was a delivery within the mean- 
 ing of the law because agreed to by the 
 parties, and that the only question re- 
 maining was as to negligence. 
 
 13. Independence Mills Co. v. Burling- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa 535, 34 N. W. 
 320, 2 Am. St. Rep. 258. 
 
 14. In an action against a railroad com- 
 pany for the. loss of goods shipped by it, 
 defendant's agent testified that, at the 
 time of the shipment, plaintiff's hus- 
 band, with whom the agreement for ship- 
 ment was made, stated that, if the goods 
 were lost, the company would have to 
 pay him $25. The court charged, in sub- 
 stance, that unless it appeared that both 
 the husband and the agent had authority 
 to make such valuation, and actually 
 agreed upon it, it would not be binding 
 upon plaintiff. Held, that the jury, in 
 ascertaining the value of the goods, 
 might properly consider such testimony, 
 and that the charge withdrew it from 
 their consideration, and was erroneous. 
 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 77 Ga. 
 376, 3 S. E. 416, 4 Am. St. Rep. 87. 
 
 15. Submitting issue proved by undis- 
 puted evidence. — Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Wilson Hack Line, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 38, 
 101 S. W. 1042. 
 
 16. Slight technical inaccuracy. — Where 
 the court, in its instructions, made it 
 clear that, if the berries shipped were 
 damaged by the reason of their tendency 
 to deteriorate, considering their condition, 
 and the railroad company was not neg- 
 ligent in the handling of the fruit, then 
 tliere would be no liability, the instruc- 
 tion was not rendered erroneous because 
 the court inaccurately termed the tend- 
 ency an act of God. Fockens v. United 
 States Exp. Co., 109 N. W. 834, 99 Minn. 
 404.
 
 881 
 
 LOSS OR INJURY TO COODS. 
 
 §§ 1088-1089 
 
 ready been stated in the general charge, and also defines the duties and Hahihties 
 of common carriers substantially as given in the general charge, thus repeating 
 in the t-barge tlu-sc matters.'" 
 
 Charge in Conjunctive. — W here, in an action against a carrier for dam- 
 ages to plaintitT's shipment of ap]jles, jjlaintiff charged that through defendant's 
 negligence the ai)ples were heated, scalded, and decayed, he could not comphin 
 of a charge in the conjunctive, in the absence of a request that the heating, scald- 
 ing, and decaying be disjunctively submitted. ''^ 
 
 Waiver of Error in Charge. — In an action against a carrier for goods lost, 
 ])laintiff's failure to re(|uest a proper charge on the measure of the carrier's lia- 
 bilitv does not constitute a waiver of error in a charge given, limiting the car- 
 rier's lial)ilit\- to tlie CNcrcise of ordinary care.''' 
 
 Harmless Error in Instructions. — Error in an instruction is harmless 
 where it is not prejudicial to the party complaining.-" The jjlaintifF can not 
 comj)lain of an instruction fixing the damages at the time and place fixed by his 
 pleadings, even if it were erroneous in this respect.-' 
 
 § 108 9. Verdict. — In an action against a carrier for injuries to goods 
 shipped and ordered returned, where plaintiff refused to receive them, and there 
 was no evidence of the condition or \alue of the articles refused, though the 
 rule as to measure of damages was correctly stated as the difference between 
 the value of the articles as shipjied and as off'ered to be returned, it could not 
 be applied, anil, if the verdict allows ])laintift" for the articles not accepted, the 
 judgment must be reversed.-- Where the plaintiff' contends that the judgment 
 is for an insufficient sum, the burden rests upon bini of showing that a verdict 
 for a greater sum was demanded.-^ 
 
 17. Repetition of charge. — Galveston, 
 etc., R. Co. f. Tiickctt (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 25 S. W. !.-.(). 
 
 18. Charge in conjunctive. — Cane Hill, 
 etc., Co. V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. 
 (Tex. Civ. App.), 9,-) S. \V. Tr.l. 
 
 19. Waiver of error in charge. — Bibb v. 
 Missouri, etc., R. Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 
 508. 84 S. W. 663. 
 
 20. Harmless error in instructions. — In 
 an action ayainst a carrier for tbe loss 
 of goods, the evidence as to the loss 
 being practically undisputed, a charge 
 misleading and confusing as to the value 
 of the goods can not avail the defend- 
 ant, being detrimental, if at all, only to 
 plaintiff. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Town- 
 send (Tex. Civ. App.), 106 S. W. 760. 
 
 In an action against a carrier for the 
 destruction of goods in transit, plaintiff 
 testified to the market value of the goods 
 at their destination, while defendant's 
 witnesses testified to their value at the 
 point of shipment, and estimated such 
 value at a sum far less than plaintiff's 
 estimate. The court charged that the 
 evidence of defendant's witness was ad- 
 mitted tor its tendency to disprove plain- 
 tiff's testimony, and not to establish value 
 as a basis for the verdict. Held, that 
 as the charge was correct in so far as it 
 stated that defendant's evidence was in- 
 competent to estal)lish value, and any 
 error in permitting the evidence to be 
 used at all was favorable to defendant, 
 the charge was not prejudicial to defend- 
 
 1 Car — 56 
 
 ant. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. 
 Civ. .-Kpp.), 85 S. W. 479. 480. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for loss of freight by reason of its fail- 
 ure to furnish a suitable car, there was 
 evidence justifj-ing a recovery of the 
 contract price for which the goods were 
 sold, and, if the market value was the 
 proper measure of damages, plaintiff 
 would have been entitled to recover 
 more than the verdict, defendant was not 
 prejudiced by an instruction authorizing 
 a recovery of the contract price. Hous- 
 ton, etc., R. Co. V. Wilkerson Bros. (Tex. 
 Civ. App.), 82 S. W. 1069. 
 
 21. Where the petition fixed all dam- 
 a,ges claimed at the time of the arrival 
 of the goods at their destination, plain- 
 tiff could not complain of an instruct!" n 
 that the measure of damages was the 
 difference between the market value of 
 the goods in the condition in which they 
 arrived and their value had they arrived 
 in proper condition, though the evidence 
 showed that the goods arrived during the 
 night and were not delivered until the 
 following day. Cane Hill, etc. Co v. 
 San .\ntonio, etc.. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. 
 App.). 95 S. W. 751. 
 
 22. Verdict. — Reason v. Detroit, etc., R. 
 Co., 150 Mich. 50, 113 X. W. 596. 
 
 23. High Co. f. Adams Kxp. Co., 5 Ga. 
 .\p]i. S63. 63 S. K. 1125. 
 
 Judgment not erroneous. — High Co. r. 
 .•\(lams i".xi>. Co.. 63 S. E. 1125. 5 Ga. 
 
 .\i)p. S6;;.
 
 CHAPTER xril. 
 Carrier as WarehousE-man. 
 
 I. When Liability Begins or Ends, §§ 1090-1097. 
 
 A. Goods Awaiting Transportation, § 1090. 
 
 B. Goods Being Transported, § 1091. 
 
 C. Goods Awaiting Delivery to Consignee, §i^ 1092-1097. 
 a. In General, § 1092. 
 
 h. Express Companies and General Carriers by Water, § 109:J. 
 
 c. Railroads and Carriers by Water Having Fixed Schedule, § 1094. 
 
 d. Necessity for Notice of Arrival of Goods, § 109"). 
 
 e. What Is Reasonable Time, § 109(). 
 
 f. How Long Liability Continues, § 109T. 
 fL Duties and Liabilities. §§ 1098-1100. 
 
 A. In General, § 109S. 
 
 B. Degree of Care, § 1099. 
 
 C. Acts or Omissions Rendering Carrier Liable, § 1100. 
 III. Actions against Carrier as Warehouseman, §§ 1101-1104. 
 
 A. In General— Pleading, § 1101. 
 
 B. Evidence, § 1102. 
 
 C. Instructions, § 110,3. 
 
 D. Finding. § 1104. 
 
 §§ 1090-1097. When Liability Begins or Ends— § 1090. Goods 
 Awaiting Transportation.— The liability of a carrier, as such, for goods 
 received for transportation, does not commence nntil the duty to transport has 
 completely arisen. ^ \\'here goods are delivered to a carrier for shipment, and 
 received to be forwarded in the usual course of business, its hability as carrier 
 attaches immediately upon the delivery of the goods,- and it is liable as such 
 
 1. Liability as carrier — Goods awaiting 
 transportation. — Barron 7'. F.ldrcdge, 100 
 Mass. 4.5.-), 1 Am. Rep. 126. See St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citizens' Bank, 87 
 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154. See ante, "When 
 Liabilitv Commences," chapter .5. 
 
 2. Delivery of goods to carrier. — 
 Missouri. — Gregory z'. Wabash R. Co., 46 
 Mo. App. 574. 
 
 New For^.— Blossom v. Griffin, 13 N. 
 Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75. 
 
 0/u'o. —Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. ?■. Barrett, 
 36 O. St. 448. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. 
 338. See ante, "When Liability Com- 
 mences," chapter 5. 
 
 Under Texas statutes. — Lender Rev. St., 
 art. 2.s:i, liability as a carrier does not 
 attach until a bill of lading is given, or 
 until the goods have been delivered to, 
 and received by, the carrier. Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. v. Wheat, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., 
 § 165. 
 
 Where one is both a forwarder and 
 carrier, and agrees to transport merchan- 
 dise during a season at a stated rate, in- 
 cluding warehouse charges, and receives 
 the shipment into his warehouse on a 
 bill of lading of the goods "to be for- 
 warded," he is responsible as a carrier, 
 and not as a warehouseman. Blossom v. 
 Griffin, 1?, X. Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75. 
 
 Instructions to forward goods forth- 
 with may be inferred from an established 
 course of dealing between the shipper 
 and the carrier, without direct evidence 
 of such instructions. Moses z'. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 
 222. 
 
 Direction for immediate shipment. — A 
 letter to freight agent, accompanying 
 goods sent to carrier's station, saying: 
 "Will you * * * have these * * * 
 marked according to the address, * * * 
 and forwarded to N.? Will you mark 
 them prepaid? I will be at the depot to- 
 morrow, and get the bill of lading and 
 pay the freight," is a direction for im- 
 mediate shipment, and does not make the 
 marking of the goods prepaid a condition 
 piecedent to shipment. Berry v. South- 
 ern R. Co., 30 S. E. 14, 122 N. C. 1002. 
 
 Delivery of goods with consignee's 
 name and address marked thereon is, in 
 tiie absence of directions or agreements 
 to the contrary, equivalent to a direction 
 for immediate shii^ment. Gregory v. Wa- 
 bash R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 574. 
 
 Stock shipments. — Where cattle have 
 been placed in defendant's pen for im- 
 mediate shipment over defendant's rail- 
 road, and part of them have actually been 
 placed on the cars, the cattle are in the 
 custody of defendant as a carrier, and
 
 883 
 
 CAKRIKR AS WARKHOL'SKMAX. 
 
 § 1090 
 
 if thev are injured or destroyed while awaiting transjKjrtation.'' The test ques- 
 
 not as a warehouseman. Ciuh', etc., 1^. 
 Co. V. Trawick, 80 Tex. ii70, 15 S. W. 
 ."ifiH, 18 S. W. 948. 
 
 Public notice that goods held at own- 
 er's risk. — WluTi- LicKjds an- (li-livtT(.-(l at 
 carrier's warehouse lor transportation 
 presently, the carrier is liable for tlie 
 floods as common carrier, notwithstand- 
 ing^ a public notice, of wliich i)laintiiT Iiad 
 kn(nv]ed{?e, that all goods would lie at 
 the owner's risk in the company's ware- 
 house, and that no responsibility would 
 be admitted for any loss or injury ex- 
 cept such as might arise by negligence 
 of the agents of the company. Moses v. 
 Boston, etc., Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 
 Am. Dec. 22:1. 
 
 Condition not affecting carrier's liabil- 
 ity as to goods awaiting transportation. — 
 A part of a lot of wudl was sent to a 
 railroad company for transportation, and 
 it was agreed tiiat the rest should be 
 sent on notice from the company that it 
 was ready to ship the wool. After such 
 notice, and delivery of the rest of the 
 wool, the owner signed a shipping re- 
 ceipt, upon the back of which was a con- 
 dition that the company would not be 
 responsible for articles conveyed upon 
 its road, unless the same were signed for 
 as received, etc. HeUl, that this condi- 
 tion could not affect tlic company's lia- 
 bility for the safe-keeping of the wool 
 while awaiting transportation, as the 
 owner had a right to treat the condition 
 as intended to affect only the liability in 
 respect to the carriage of the wool. De- 
 troit, etc., R. Co. V. Adams. 15 Mich. 458. 
 
 Goods "awaiting delivery" does not in- 
 clude goods awaiting transportation. — 
 The section of the charter of a railroad 
 company which provides that the com- 
 pany shall not be responsiiile for goods 
 on deposit in any of their depots "await- 
 ing delivery" does not include goods in 
 such depots awaiting transportation, but 
 refers only to such goods as have reached 
 their final destination. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co. 
 (U. S.). Ki Wall. 318, 21 L. Ed. 297. 
 
 Illustrations. — One who had goods in 
 defendant's warehouse, under a storage 
 contract, terminated the storage agree- 
 ment, paid all defendant's charges, and 
 surrendered the contract, and thereupon 
 directed defendant, who was also a com- 
 mon carrier, to deliver the goods at her 
 residence the same day, and paid the 
 transportation cliarges, and defendant ac- 
 cepted and entered the order. Held 
 that, from the time of such acceptance, 
 defendant assumed the relation of a car- 
 rier. Snelling v. Yetter, 49 N. Y. S. 917, 
 25 App. Div. 590, 27 Civ. Proc. R. 158. 
 
 Hay dealers, in accordance with a rule 
 of defendant carrier, were accustomed to 
 unload their hav into defendant's freight 
 
 house, and then to load it on the cars. 
 Though frequently requested, defendant 
 failed to furnish cars sufficient to trans- 
 Ijort the hay as fast as delivered, and it 
 accumulated until the freight house was 
 full. '1 he agent of plaintiffs assignors 
 thereupon notified persons supplying them 
 with hay not to deliver any more, but 
 defendant's agent told them he would 
 fmd r<jom for it, and had the hay sul)se- 
 (juently delivered placed in an open shed. 
 Defendant had general orders to ship the 
 hay as fast as it could be loaded on the 
 cars. Held, that defendant's liability for 
 the hay as soon as delivered at the 
 freight house, was that of a common car- 
 rier, and not of a warehouseman. Lon- 
 don, etc., I'ire Ins. Co. v. Rome, etc., R. 
 Co., 08 Hu'n 598, 2\i \. Y. S. -'.il, 52 X. 
 Y. St. Rep. 581. affirmed in 144 X. Y. 200. 
 .iO N. E. 79, 4:{ .-\m. St. Rep. 752. 
 
 .\ railroad company employed a receiv- 
 ing and shipping clerk, whose duty and 
 practice it was to correct, tally, and check 
 goods delivered for transportation, and 
 hand his account to the bookkeeper, who 
 entered them on a book kept for the pur- 
 pose. By. this book goods were shipped, 
 but none were shipped until receijjted. 
 C, who had been in the habit of send- 
 ing receipts for the company to sign 
 when he delivered goods to it for trans- 
 portation, sent a number of barrels to 
 the company's freight house for transpor- 
 tation, and directed to a person residing 
 in a city upon the railroad. They were 
 received by employees of the company, 
 and the receiving clerk was present when 
 a portion of them was delivered, and di- 
 rected where to put it. The barrels were 
 not, and C. did not ask to have them, 
 tallied, counted, booked, or receipted. 
 The same evening they were destroyed 
 in the freight house by an accidental fire. 
 Held, that the company was liable as a 
 common carrier. Coyle v. Western R. 
 Corp. (X. Y.), 47 Barb. 152. 
 
 The owner of goods about to arrive at 
 a depot in C. wished them carried from 
 th re to R. : and an express company, by 
 their agent at C, undertook to remove 
 and deposit such goods in their ware- 
 house as soon as possible on the arrival 
 of the goods in C. and to carry them from 
 C. to R. within a reasonable time, for a 
 certain sum, which was paid. The goods 
 arrived at C and the express company 
 received notice of their arrival. Held, 
 that the goods were delivered to the com- 
 pany as common carriers. Southern I-'xp. 
 Co. V. McVeigh, (>1 \'a. (20 Gratt.) 2()4. 
 
 3. .V.Tv' Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, 
 etc.. Railroad, 24 X. H. 71. .55 Am. Dec. 
 222. 
 
 O/iio.— Pittsburg, etc.. R. Co. v. Barrett. 
 36 O. St. 448. 
 
 Wisconsiu. — White v. Goodrich Transp. 
 Co.. 4r. Wis. 49.?, 1 X. W. 75.
 
 § 1090 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 884 
 
 tion is whether the carrier holds the goods only for the purpose of transporta- 
 tion, without further directions."* 
 
 Goods Detained for Carrier's Convenience. — Where a carrier receives 
 for transi)ortation goods which are ready for immediate carriage, and it detains 
 the goods in its warehouse for its convenience, it is liable as a common carrier.^ 
 \\ here goods are deposited in a carrier's warehouse to await the usual trains, 
 while the goods remain in the warehouse the carrier is liable as a common 
 carrier.'' 
 
 Goods Detained for Shipper's Convenience. — Where goods are deliv- 
 ered to a carrier to be stored for a specified time, or until the happening of a 
 certain event," as where they "are not to be shipped till other goods are deliv- 
 ered to be shipped with them,^ the liability of the carrier is that merely of a 
 warehouseman. Where goods are delivered to await further orders before 
 shipment,"' or are detained at the request of the consignor,^'' the liability of the 
 carrier during such detention is that of warehouseman only. 
 
 If anything remains to be done by the consignor of goods or his agents 
 
 4. Test question. — Wade t'. Wheeler 
 (N. Y.), a Lans. 201, affirmed in 47 N. 
 Y. 658. 
 
 5. Goods detained for carrier's con- 
 venience. — Missouri. — Gregory v. Wabash 
 R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 574"^ 
 
 Xczi' Hampshire. — Barter & Co. v. 
 Wheeler, 49 X. H. 9, 6 Am. Rep. 434. 
 
 Pcuusvlvania. — Clarke v. Needles, 25 
 Pa. 33"^ .' 
 
 The fact that the plaintiff consents 
 that goods may wait in the warehouse 
 because the carrier has no car ready will 
 no"; relieve the carrier from liability as 
 an insurer. Gregory v. Wabash R. Co., 
 46 Mo. App. 574. 
 
 6. Moses V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 24 
 N. H. 71, 55 Am. I>ec. 222. 
 
 A carrier received freight for trans- 
 portation, though it had no trains sched- 
 uled to carry it until the following day. 
 The shipper knew the facts, and under- 
 stood that the goods would be stored in 
 the depot until the following day. Held, 
 that the carrier while holding the goods 
 at the 'depot was liable as carrier, and 
 not as a warehouseman. Southern R. Co. 
 V. Smith, :il Kv. L. Rep. 243, 102 S. W. 
 232. 
 
 7. Goods detained for shipper's con- 
 venience. — Si. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Citi- 
 zens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154. 
 
 8. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Riggs, 10 
 Kan. App. 578, 62 Pac. 712. 
 
 Where a part of a load of goods were 
 delivered to a carrier for transportation, 
 and were detained in its depot to await 
 the balance so as to forward them in one 
 load, and the goods were destroyed l)y 
 fire before the arrival of the balance, the 
 liability of the railroad company is that 
 merely of a warehouseman. Watts 7'. 
 Boston, etc., R. Corp., 106 Mass. 466. 
 See Gregory v. Wabash R. Co., 46 Mo. 
 App. 571. 
 
 That the carrier was authorized to for- 
 ward goods as rapidly as delivered, does 
 no*: render it liable as a common carrier 
 fo • the loss of a part of the goods which 
 
 were delivered for transportation, and 
 detained in its depot, to await the balance. 
 Watts V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 106 Mass. 
 466. 
 
 9. Goods detained to await orders. — 
 United States. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 United States (U. S.), 39 Ct. CI. 405. 
 
 Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cit- 
 izens' Bank, 87 Ark. 26, 112 S. W. 154. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Barron v. Eldredge, 100 
 Mass. 455, 1 Am. Rep. 126. 
 
 Michigan. — Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Shurtz, 7 Mirh. 515. 
 
 Nez,' For/?.— Wade v. Wheeler (N. Y.) 
 3 Lans. 201, affirmed in 47 N. Y. 658; 
 O'Neill V. New York, etc., R. Co., 60 N. 
 Y. 138, reversing 3 Thomp. & C. 399. 
 
 O/no.— Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Bar- 
 rett, 36 O. St. 448. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Schmidt v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 90 Wis. 504, 63 N. W. 1057. 
 
 Instances.— Where a railroad finds 
 goods in one of its cars without bill of 
 lading or other instructions, and removes 
 them to a storehouse, requesting and 
 awaiting instructions which are not fur- 
 nished, its liabilities are those of a ware- 
 houseman and not of a common carrier. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. United States 
 (U. S.), 39 Ct. CI. 405. 
 
 A carrier who has furnished a shipper 
 with a car which the latter has loaded 
 with lumber is liable only as a ware- 
 houseman, until notified of the readiness 
 of the car for transportation and of the 
 name of the consignee; and hence it is 
 not liable as an insurer for the destruc- 
 tion of the lumber by fire while the car 
 was standing on its track before it w^as 
 so notified. Basnight v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., Ill N. C. 592, 16 S. E. 323. 
 
 10. Arkansas. — Little Rock, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Hunter, 42 Ark. 200. 
 
 Illinois. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mont- 
 gomery, 39 111. 335. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, etc., 
 Railroad, 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222. 
 
 Neztj York. — Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. 
 Y. 262.
 
 88: 
 
 CAKRIMR AS WAKF. HOL'SKM AX, 
 
 §§ 1090-1091 
 
 after their delivery to a carrier before they are rearly for transportation, the 
 carrier is only responsible for them as a warehouseman, and not as a common 
 carrier." 
 
 § 1091. Goods Being Transported. -Goods Awaiting Delivery to 
 Connecting- Carrier. — W here goods are delivered to a carrier to be trans- 
 ported to a place named, there to be delivered to a connecting carrier for fur- 
 ther transportation, the liability as carrier remains on the first carrier until it 
 has delivered the goods for transiujriation to the next one. Its liabilitv. while 
 the goods are in its depot, does not become that of a warehouseman^'- even 
 
 11. Where something remains to be 
 done. — Judson z\ Western R. Curp. 
 (Mass.), 4 Allen TjSo. si Am. Dec. 718; 
 Stapleton v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 94 N. 
 W. 739, 133 Mich. 187; Pittsburg, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Barrett, 3f) O. St. 448; Fisher v. 
 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 17 O. C. C. 491. 
 9 O. C. D. 413; American Lead Pencil 
 Co. V. Nashville, etc.. Railway, 124 Tenn. 
 57, 134 S. W. 013, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 323. 
 See Dunnington & Co. v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 155 S. W. 750, 153 Ky. 388. 
 
 Where a carter conveys s'oods designed 
 for shipment to the freight depot of a 
 railroad company, and deposits them on 
 the platform of such depot, where such 
 goods are customarily delivered to and 
 received by such company for shipment, 
 and notifies the proper shipping agent of 
 such company of the presence of such 
 goods on the platform, and that they 
 are to be shipped to a certain station on 
 such railroad after one of the articles has 
 been properly crated, and that a person 
 will come and crate such article during 
 the day, and the agent of the company 
 expresses his assent to what is said and 
 proposed, this amounts to the delivery of 
 such goods to the railroad company and 
 its acceptance of the custody thereof as 
 warehouseman. Fisher v. Lake Shore, 
 etc., R. Co., 17 O. C. C. 491, 9 O. CD. 
 413. 
 
 Goods held for payment of freight. — 
 Under Tex. Rev. St., art. 281, a carrier 
 is liable as warehouseman only for goods 
 consigned for shipment which are held 
 in storage awaiting prepayment of the 
 freight; and this, whether the storage be 
 gratuitous or not. Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Morse, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas.. § 411. 
 
 12. Goods awaiting delivery to connect- 
 ing carrier. — I'lntcd States. — Micliigan 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co. 
 (U. S.), If. Wall. 318. 21 L. Ed. 297. 
 
 Michigan. — Condon v. Marquette, etc., 
 R. Co., 55 Mich.. 218, 21 \. W. 321, 54 
 Am. Rep. 367. 
 
 Miiuicsota. — Irish v. Milwaukee, etc., R. 
 Co., 19 Minn. 376, Gil. 323, 18 .\m. Rep. 
 340; Lawrence v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 15 
 Minn. 390, Gil. 313, 2 Am. Rep. 130. 
 
 Arte Vorlc. — Dunson r. New York Cent. 
 R. Co. (N. Y.), 3 Lans. 265; McDonald r. 
 Western R. Corp., 34 N. Y. 497. 
 
 IVisconsiii. — Hooper v. Chicago, etc., R. 
 Co., 27 Wis. 81, 9 Am. Rep. 439; Conkey 
 
 z: Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co.. 31 Wis. ciy, n 
 Am. Rep. 630, overruling Wood f. Mil- 
 waukee, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 541. 9 Am. 
 Rep. 465, 2 Am. R. Rep. 312. 
 
 In the absence of special agreement or 
 custom, an initial carrier is riot relieved 
 from its liability as insurer by simply un- 
 loading them at the end of the route, 
 and storing them in a warehouse with- 
 out delivery or notice to the connecting 
 carrier.- Irish r. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co.. 
 19 Minn. 376, Gil. :523. IH .-Xm. Rep. 340. 
 
 In the absence of notice to remove 
 goods, an intermediate carrier, which 
 lield tliem in its warehouse for thirteen 
 days while waiting for a through line of 
 canal boats to the destination of the con- 
 signment, remains liable as a carrier, for 
 there was no apparent intention to de- 
 vest that liability. McDonald v. Western 
 R. Corp., 34 N. Y. 497. 
 
 Effect of mistake in directing goods. — 
 Plaintiff shipped goods to be delivered 
 to a connecting carrier, but. after ship- 
 ment, discovered that the connecting car- 
 rier was erroneously named. He applied 
 to defendant, who corrected the bill of 
 lading, and promised to see that the 
 goods were properlj' delivered to the con- 
 necting carrier, and shipped from its 
 terminus. The goods were placed in de- 
 fendant's warehouse at the terminus, and 
 two days later were destroyed by a 
 flood. Held, that the mistake in direct- 
 ing the goods was no defense to an ac- 
 tion to recover the value of the goods. 
 Dunson 7'. New ^'ork CeiU R. Co. (N. 
 Y.). .3 Lans. 2C)5. 
 
 Goods stored by connecting carrier. — 
 A warehouseman who received from a 
 steamer goods marked in his care for 
 forwarding by certain lines, he being also 
 a carrier over a part of the route, and 
 accustomed to forward by the first boat 
 over tliat route, whether it was his own 
 or another's, was, in respect to the goods, 
 a carrier, while he retained them in his 
 warehouse for live days, awaiting an op- 
 portunity to ship them. Ladue v. Griffith. 
 25 N. Y. 364, 82 Am. Dec. 360. 
 
 Instances. — Defendant carrier placed 
 goods received in its warehouse, at the 
 termination of its line, from whence car- 
 rier by boat was to receive them. Under 
 the custom prevailing, defendant entered 
 their receipt on its books, which were 
 regularl\ iii-;pected by the carrier by
 
 § 1091 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 886 
 
 though tlie connecting carrier is not reatly to receive them.^-' But it has been 
 held that a carrier, which, pursuant to directions of the consignee to deliver 
 the goods to a certain transfer company, places the goods in its warehouse to 
 remain until the transfer company is ready to receive them, is liable only as 
 an ordinary bailee for hire.^-* Where the connecting carrier refuses or neglects 
 to receive the goods, ^"'' after being notified of their arrival, ^^^ the first carrier, 
 after a reasonable time.^" may store them, and thereafter its liability as carrier 
 ceases, and is simply that of warehouseman. 
 
 boat, wliich was in tlu' hal)it of removing 
 such goods without further ceremony, ex- 
 cept that of receipting for them. No 
 special request for the removal of the 
 goods in question was made, and they 
 were destroyed in defendant's warehouse 
 by an accidental fire seven days after ar- 
 riving there. Held, that defendant's lia- 
 bility was that of a common carrier, and 
 not that of a warehouseman. Condon v. 
 Marquette, etc., R. Co., 55 Mich. 218, 21 
 N. \V. 321, 54 Am. Rep. 367. 
 
 A carrier transported goods to its 
 terminus, marked for a place beyond, to 
 which there was a circuitous connection 
 by rail, and also direct connection by a 
 line of wagons. There was an arrangement 
 between the carrier and the owner of the 
 line of wagons, by which the latter hauled 
 all freiglft for the destination point in 
 question, which was not otherwise routed. 
 It w^as the custom to make a trip when- 
 ever sufficient freight accumulated for a 
 load. Held, that while the goods re- 
 mained in the first carrier's warehouse 
 awaiting transportation by wagon, the 
 carrier's liability was not reduced to that 
 of warehouseman. Lawrence v. Winona, 
 etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 390, Gil. 313, 2 
 Am. Rep. 130, 
 
 Defendant's railroad was completed 
 only to W., but arrangements were made 
 with one P. by which he was to carry all 
 goods beyond that point, going to M., 
 and not otherwise consigned or directed; 
 P. not to charge above a certain price, 
 and to look to consignees for his charges, 
 the only interest defendant having in the 
 arrangement being to thereby increase its 
 freight business. Goods were carried to 
 W. and stored without charge, and as 
 often as a load accumulated were to be 
 carried forward by P., who had no regu- 
 lar time for his trips. While so stored 
 in the warehouse, waiting for a load to 
 accumulate, certain goods, going to M., 
 were destroyed by fire. Held, that P. 
 was an independent carrier, defendant an 
 intermediate carrier, and that its liability 
 as common carrier had not terminated 
 by the storage. Lawrence v. Winona, 
 etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 390, Gil. 313, 2 
 Am. Rep. 130. 
 
 13. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 08 
 111. 471, 18 Am. Rep. 504. _ 
 
 14. Hartmann v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 
 39 Mo. .\pp. 88. 
 
 15. Refusal or neglect of connecting 
 carrier to receive goods. — Rawson v. 
 Holland, 59 N. Y. 611, 17 Am. Rep. 394, 
 
 affirming 5 Daly 155. See Wood v. Mil- 
 waukee, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 541, 9 Am. 
 Rep. 405, 2 Am. _R. Rep. 342. 
 
 Contract providing for liability of car- 
 rier having custody. — A carrier can not 
 convert itself into a warehouseman by 
 proving that it had, before the fire, ten- 
 dered the goods to the connecting car- 
 rier, and tliat the latter neglected, al- 
 though without reasonable excuse, to 
 take them into its actual custody, where 
 the contract of carriage provided that the 
 carrier in whose actual custody the goods 
 were when destroyed should alone be 
 liable. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Clayton, 173 
 U. S. 348, 43 L. Ed. 725, 19 S. Ct. 421. 
 
 Although a carrier requests the con- 
 necting carrier to remove the goods, 
 where it does not specify any particular 
 time, and does not give notice that the 
 goods will be stored at the risk of the 
 connecting carrier upon failure to comply 
 with the request, the first carrier is lia- 
 ble as carrier and not as warehouseman. 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Clayton, 43 L. Ed. 
 725, 173 U. S. 348, 19 S. Ct. 421. 
 
 16. Notice of arrival. — Dunson v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.), 3 Lans. 265. 
 
 It seems that where a carrier of goods 
 to be delivered to a subsequent carrier 
 for transportation to their destination has 
 given notice to the second carrier of the 
 arrival of the goods, and the latter fails to 
 receive them within a reasonable time 
 after such notice, he may limit his liabil- 
 ity by an act showing such intention, as 
 by depositing in a warehouse with per- 
 haps notice to the forwarders. Goold v. 
 Chapin, 20 N. Y. 259, 75 Am. Dec. 398, 
 affirming 10 Barb. 612. 
 
 Sufficiency of notice. — The notice need 
 not be in writing, but will be implied from 
 the course of dealing between the parties, 
 or from custom and usage of the business. 
 Wood V. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 
 541, 9 Am. Rep. 405, 2 Am. R. Rep. 343. 
 
 Where goods are received by a carrier 
 for transportation beyond such carrier's 
 road, and the uniform custom between 
 connecting carriers is for the first car- 
 rier to deposit notice, in a special box 
 in its own depot, to which the next car- 
 rier has constant access, of the arrival 
 of such goods, such deposit is sufficient 
 Mills V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 
 622, Am. Rep. 152. 
 
 17. The reasonable time which a con- 
 necting carrier has to take from the first 
 carrier goods which are ready for de- 
 livery is the earliest practicable time
 
 887 
 
 CAKRIllK AS WAKKHOISKMAX. 
 
 §§ 1091-1092 
 
 Goods Being Delivered to Connecting Carrier. — A carrier which trans- 
 ports goods on a river, and unloads them on a lluat for delivery to connecting 
 boats, does not become a warehouseman, for the act is part of the transporta- 
 tion of the goods. ^** And the carrier is liable for their loss, though notice was 
 repeatedlv given to the connecting carrier t(j take them.^'-* 
 
 Extraordinary Interruption of Transportation. — In case of an extraor- 
 dinary intcrruplion of coninuinicalion along the line of transit Cas by storm, 
 flood, earthciuake, or war), necessitating a considerable delay in transportation, 
 the carrier in whose hands the goods are may st<jre them, and at once give notice 
 to the consignee, and thus absolve himself irom lial)ility as carrier while such 
 interruiitiiui continues.-" 
 
 Goods Stopped in Transitu. — W here a shipjier orders goods to be stopped 
 in transitu, and re(iuests the carrier t(j hold them for the shij^per at the place 
 of destination, after the goods arrive there, and are so held, the carrier's lia- 
 bility as such terminates, and his liability of warehouseman begins.-^ 
 
 Stipulations as to Reshipment. — A stipulation in a bill of lading that the 
 carrier, in case of low water, may reship in other craft, does not vary his obli- 
 gation to deliver safely. If sucli stijjulation is resorted to his liability is not 
 changed into that of a warehouseman.-- Under a bill of lading reciting that 
 goods were "to be forwarded across the isthmus," and then to be reshipped, the 
 common carrier does not cease to be such as to the transportation across the 
 isthmus, and become a bailee for hire, chargeable only on proof by the shipper 
 that the loss arose from his negligence or that of his servants.--' 
 
 §§ 1092-1097. Goods Awaiting Delivery to Consignee— § 1092. In 
 General. — What Law Governs. — The law of the state where the contract for 
 transi)ortation is made governs as to when the carrier's liability as such ceases 
 and that as a warehouseman begins.-'* 
 
 after the first carrier is ready to deliver 
 the jjoods; and this rule will not be 
 modified by any convenience of the 
 owner or second carrier requiring a 
 longer time. Wood v. Milwaukee, etc.. 
 R. 'Co.. 27 Wis. 541, 9 Am. Rep. 46.5, 2 
 Am. R. Rep. 342. 
 
 Question for jury. — A railroad com- 
 pany carried goods to its station to be 
 forwarded by boat to the destination. 
 The boat received shipments for that. 
 point from the railroad frei.ght house, 
 and made two trips daily. They arrived 
 by rail on the 1.3th. and the waybills luid 
 to be copied into the railroad company's 
 books, and the frciglit distributed to the 
 proper part of the freight house for the 
 boat, and new bills of lading made, and 
 the freight checked, before it was ready 
 to deliver to the boat. This was not 
 done in time for the boat's morning trip 
 next day. but the freight was ready for 
 her evening trip. She did not take it 
 aboard, and it was destroyed by fire that 
 night, in the freight house. Held, that it 
 was a question for the jury whether a 
 reasonable time had elapsed for the l)oat 
 to remove the goods, so as to reduce the 
 carrier's lia])ility to warehouseman. 
 Wood r. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co.. 27 Wis. 
 .541. 9 .•\ni. Rep. 4f,r). 2 Am. R. Rep. 342. 
 
 18. Goods being delivered to connect- 
 ing carrier. — Miller f. Steam Nav. Co.. 
 10 X. Y. 4.31. Seld. Notes (U, affirming 13 
 Barb. 3iil: Goold z: Chapin (X. V.K 10 
 Barb. 612. 
 
 19. Cxoold V. Chapin. 20 X. Y. 259. 75 
 .*\m. Dec. 39S. 
 
 The float is not a warehouse, so as to 
 relieve defendants from liability as car- 
 riers, on the ground that they had de- 
 posited the goods in a warehouse after 
 giving notice. Goold 7'. Chapin (X. Y.), 
 10 Barb. 612. 
 
 20. Extraordinary interruption of trans- 
 portation. — Conkcy T. Milwaukee, etc.. R. 
 Co., 31 Wis. ()19.'ll Am. Rep. tv.W. See 
 Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Morehead, 5 
 W. \'a. 293. 
 
 21. Goods stopped in transitu. — Mac- 
 \'eagh V. Atciiison, etc., R. Co.. 3 X. 
 Mex. 327, 5 Pac. 457. 
 
 The fact that the shipper orders the 
 carrier to ship the goods to another point 
 does not constitute a new contract of 
 carriage, unless the carrier undertakes to 
 carry as ordered; and the previous ac- 
 knowled.gment by the carrier that he held 
 the goods subject to the shipper's order 
 does not constitute such undertaking, so 
 as to make him lial>Ie as carrier rather 
 than warehouseman wliile he holds the 
 goods. Mac\eagh v. Atchison, etc., R. 
 Co.. 3 N. Mex. 327. 5 Pac. 457. 
 
 22. Stipulations as to reshipment. —Mc- 
 Gregor .*t Co. f. Kilgore. 6 O. :!.-.'.». 
 
 23. Simmons r. Law. 21 X. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 213. affirmed in 42 X. Y. (3 Keyes) 
 217. 4 Al^Ii. Dec. 241. 
 
 24. What law governs. — Plaintiffs con- 
 tracted in Xew York with the X. Co. for 
 tlie transportation of certain goods by
 
 § 1092 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 888 
 
 Completion of Contract of Carriage. — A carrier is not liable as a ware- 
 houseman for the loss of goods, until the contract of carriage has been com- 
 pleted.-^ And as long as it has control of the goods and no one else may move 
 them without its consent, it is liable as carrier.-*' 
 
 Delivery to Consignee. — It is held that, upon delivery to the consignee, the 
 carrier's liabilitx beoonies that of a warehouseman.-" And it has been held that, 
 where the consignee has accepted a delivery of the goods and sold and removed 
 some of it. the fact that such merchandise still remains in the carrier's cars for 
 the convenience of the consignee does not impose any liability as warehouseman 
 on the carrier.^s 
 
 that companj- from New York to Boston, 
 and the delivery thereof to plaintiflfs who 
 were the consignees. The goods were 
 received by defendants, who were con- 
 r.ecting carriers over the latter part of 
 the route, and were residents of Massa- 
 chusetts. Upon arrival of the goods at 
 Boston, they were called for, but a de- 
 livery refused until the next day, as it 
 was not convenient to deliver at the time. 
 They were unloaded the same afternoon, 
 and placed in defendant's warehouse, but 
 too late for delivery; and during the 
 night the warehouse, with the goods, was 
 destroyed by fire. In an action to re- 
 cover the loss, held, that defendants were 
 liable; and this, although, under the de- 
 cisions of the courts of Massachusetts, 
 the operators of a railroad, as a matter 
 of law, cease to be common carriers, and 
 become warehousemen, when the duty 
 of transportation is completed, and goods 
 are deposited in a warehouse awaiting 
 the orders of the owner or consignee. 
 Faulkner v. Hart, 82 N. Y. 413. 37 Am. 
 Rep. 574, reversing 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 471. 
 
 25. Completion of contract of carriage. 
 — Wheeler v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 
 52 Hun 75, 5 N. Y. S. 101, 22 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. 590, reversed on other points in 
 125 N. Y. 155, 26 N. E. 248, 21 Am. St. 
 Rep. 729. 
 
 "As long as the defendant, in obedience 
 to its obligations as a common carrier, 
 was required to move the car upon the 
 track, its liability as such common car- 
 rier did not cease." Independence Mills 
 Co. V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 72 Iowa 
 535, 2 .'\m. St. Rep. 258, 32 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 4.-."i, :u X. W. 320. 
 
 Goods destroyed in course of delivery. 
 — A carrier is liable for the loss of goods, 
 where a portion of them were transferred 
 to a float belonging to such carrier pre- 
 paratory to their delivery, and were there 
 destroyed by fire. Miller v. Steam Nav. 
 Co., 10 N. Y. 431, Seld. Notes 64. af- 
 firming 13 Barb. 361; Goold v. Chapin, 
 20 X. Y. 259, 75 Am. Dec. 39S. 
 
 If a carrier is delayed a whole season 
 by stress of weather it is still responsi- 
 ble for the safe-keeping of the goods as a 
 carrier, and not as a mere warehouseman. 
 Western Transp. Co. v. Newhall, 24 HI. 
 466, 76 Am. Dec. 760. 
 
 Injury to vessel. — When a vessel is so 
 disal)led that she can not be repaired, if 
 the master can not forward the goods, 
 his obligation as common carrier still 
 continues. Minnesota Min. Co. v. 
 Chapman. 2 West. L. M. 75, 2 O. Dec. 
 Reprint 207. 
 
 26. Huntting Elevator Co. v. Bosworth, 
 179 U. S. 415, 45 L. Ed. 256, 21 S. Ct. 
 183; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bosworth, 
 179 U. S. 442, 45 L. Ed. 267, 21 S. Ct. 
 183; Rau v. Bosworth, 179 U. S. 443, 45 
 L. Ed. 268, 21 S. Ct. 194; Bosworth v. 
 Carr, etc., Co., 179 U. S. 444, 45 L. Ed. 
 268, 21 S. Ct. 194. 
 
 27. Delivery to consignee. — The plain- 
 tiff shipped tubs of Initter by the defend- 
 ant's boat, and directed the captain to 
 sell them on arrival. On arrival the cap- 
 tain hauled the boat to the pier, and 
 gave her in charge to another agent of 
 the carrier. The next day the butter was 
 placed on deck. The captain sold part, 
 and the rest was stolen. Held, that from 
 the time the butter was placed on deck 
 it was to be deemed delivered to the cap- 
 tain as the shipper's consignee, and that 
 the defendant's liability thereupon be- 
 came that of a warehouseman. Labar v. 
 Taber (N. Y.), 35 Barb. 305. 
 
 Where a carrier permits the consignee 
 of merchandise to open the cars contain- 
 ing the same after they have been placed 
 on a spur track near the consignee's 
 warehouse, and to remove part of the 
 contents thereof, and exercise and retain 
 dominion over the same, and put his 
 own locks on the cars, the carrier's lia- 
 l)ility, as such, for the merchandise in 
 the cars, is terminated. Vaughn i'. New 
 York, etc., R. Co., 61 Atl. 695, 27 R. I. 
 235. 
 
 Where the consignee of goods shipped 
 ])y railroad receipted for them on their 
 arrival at their destination, removed _ a 
 part of them, and himself put the remain- 
 der up in one of the railroad company's 
 Ijuildings, although he fCOukl have re- 
 moved them also, the railroad company 
 was not liable for the goods on their 
 subsequent destruction by fire. Stapleton 
 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 94 N. W. 739, 133 
 Mich. 187. 
 
 28. Vaughn v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 27 R. I. 235, 61 Atl. 695.
 
 8S9 
 
 CAkKIi;K AS VVAKKHOUSKMAN. 
 
 § 1092 
 
 Goods Held at Consignee's Request. — Where the goods are held at the 
 rcf[uest of the consignee and for his con\enience, tlie carrier is liable only as a 
 warehonscnian.-'' 
 
 If the consignee refuse to receive the goods, the carrier's liability is that 
 of a warehouseman.-'" 
 
 Failure or Refusal to Deliver Goods. — W here a consignee of goods called 
 for them and was told that tliey were there, bnt conld not be delivered to him 
 until the next day, and they were destroyed by fire that night, defendant's lia- 
 bility was that of a carrier.-" W here carrier refused to deliver goods unless 
 
 29. Goods held at consignee's request. 
 
 — .//(;/;</);;(;.- Soiuhcrii l\,\p. Co. v. Hol- 
 land, lOy Ala. 302, I'J So. (Hi. 
 
 Marvlaiid. — United Fruit Co. v. New 
 York, \tc., Transp. Co., 104 Md. 567, 65 
 All. 415, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 240, 10 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 437. 
 
 Micliif^ait. — Hasse v. American Exp. 
 Co., 94 Mich. i:i:{, 53 N. W. 918, 34 Am. 
 St. Rep. 328, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 635. 
 Nezi' York. — Fenner v Buflfalo, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 N. Y. 505, 4 Am. Rep. 709, revers- 
 ing 46 Barb. 103. 
 
 Pcnnsyhania. — National Line Steamship 
 Co. V. Smart, 107 Pa. 492. 
 
 rr.ra.s.— Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wever, 
 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 60; Texas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Robertson (Tex. Civ. App.), 
 143 S. W. 708. 
 
 IVcst Virginia. — Hurley & Son v. Nor- 
 folk, etc., R. Co., 68 W. Va. 471, 69 S. 
 E. 904. See Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Morehead, 5 W. \a. 293. 
 
 A railroad company received goods for 
 transportation, and gave a bill of lading, 
 which stated that, after arriving at their 
 destination, the goods should be held un- 
 der the liability of a warehouseman, when 
 they were placed in the storeroom, or 
 were to be taken from the car by the 
 consignee. They were kept in a freight 
 car for several days after reaching their 
 destination, and were then destroyed by 
 fire. Before the fire the owner's agent 
 had been wrongly informed that they had 
 been unloaded, at which he expressed re- 
 gret, and requested the company to store 
 the goods for a few days. Held, that the 
 company was not liable as a common 
 carrier. Draper v. Delaware, etc.. Canal 
 Co., 118 N. Y. 118, 23 N. E. 131, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 410. 
 
 Goods left with carrier's servant. — A 
 railway company delivered to the owner 
 goods which were in its warehouse, tak- 
 ing his receipt therefor, and by an ar- 
 rangement between the owner and the 
 ba-ggage man a part of the goods were 
 left in the warehouse, and subsequently 
 lost. Held, that the company is not lia- 
 ble for the goods, lost, where the bag- 
 gage man had no authority to make any 
 contract for the company, his permitting 
 part of the goods to remain in the ware- 
 house being his private arrangement, to 
 wliich the company was not a party. 
 Mulligan v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 4 Dak. 
 315, 29 N. W. 659. 
 
 Special contract for storage. —If the 
 
 (k-leiniaiii railroad company, in accord- 
 ance with its ''universal and unbroken 
 custom," at the station to which it trans- 
 ported the goods, collected the freight 
 charges from the plaintiff "on three of 
 said shipments of freight, and then and 
 there agreed to safely store and keep 
 said freight in" its warehouse at that 
 point "until such time as the same might 
 be called for and receipted for by the pe- 
 titioner," and under this arrangement "the 
 defendant company had possession of all 
 the" plaintiff's goods embraced in such 
 shipments, "when the same were de- 
 stroyed by fire" which consumed its 
 warehouse, the duty which the company 
 owed to the plaintiff, relatively to such 
 goods, was that of a warehouseman, and 
 not that of a carrier. Kight v. Wrights- 
 ville, etc.. R. Co., 56 S. E. 363, 127 Ga. 
 204. 
 
 30. Refusal to consignee to receive 
 goods. — Ccor'^ia. — AnK-rican Sugar Refin. 
 Co. V. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27, 21 S. E. 3S3. 
 
 Xcxv I'orA-.— Adler v. Weir. 96 N. Y. S. 
 736. 49 Misc. Rep. 134: Landsberg v. 
 Dinsmore (N. Y.). 4 Daly 490. 
 
 Tennessee. — Kremer v. Southern Exp. 
 Co.. 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 356; Rankin v. 
 Memphis, etc., R. Co., 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk) 
 564. 
 
 r(U-(;.s-.— See House v. Soder, 36 Tex. 
 629. 
 
 Illustrations. — A local carrier, as agent 
 of the purchasei of goods, received and 
 receipted for them on their arrival at the 
 depot of the transporting common car- 
 rier; but the purchaser refused to receive 
 them because of inconvenient storing 
 facilities due to a recent fire, and directed 
 tlieir return to the depot. Held, that 
 the transit had terminated and that the 
 common carrier held them at the depot 
 merely as warehouseman. O'Neal i'. Day. 
 53 Mo. .\pp. 139; Shoninger v. Day. 53 
 Mo. .App. 147. 
 
 Where goods arc sent by express C. 
 O. D.. and the consignee refuses to ac- 
 cept them, and the shipper, on notice 
 thereof, directs the express company to 
 I'old them until called for. it becomes 
 liable to the consignor only as a ware- 
 l.ouseman. Byrne v. Fargo, 73 N. \ . S. 
 943, 36 Misc. Rep. 543. 
 
 31. Refusal to deliver goods.— Fisher i'. 
 >sorthern I'ac. R. Co.. 49 Wash. 258. 94 
 Pac. 1073.
 
 §§ 1092-1093 CARRIERS. 890 
 
 the con^i'^nee would accept all, which he refused to do. on account of damage 
 to some of them, and two weeks later the goods were destroyed by the burning 
 of the depot, the defendant was liable only as a warehouseman.32 A carrier 
 is not liable as such for goods stored in its warehouse because it did not know 
 who was the consignee, though the goods^ bore a mark which former agents 
 understood as one used by the consignee."'^ 
 
 Wrong Information as to Arrival of Goods.— \\ here goods are called for 
 by the consignee, and he is informed that they have not arrived, which prevents 
 their removal, the carrier's liability as such continues.^-* But it is held that if 
 the carrier subsequently notifies the consignee that the goods have arrived it is 
 not liable for their loss after the consignee has had a reasonable time to re- 
 move them.-"'^ It is also held that the carrier is liable only as a warehouseman, 
 but that if the goods are destroyed the owner may recover on the ground that 
 the ne^lis^ence of the carrier was the proximate cause of the loss.^^^ 
 
 When^Consignee Unable to Remove Goods.— A common carrier's liabil- 
 ity as '^uch can not be prolonged by the consignee beyond such time as is usually 
 required for the removal of goods at that place, even though the consignees 
 inability to remove them results from causes that the consignee did not produce, 
 and could not avoid, if they were not the result of the carrier's procurement 
 or negligence.^'^ 
 
 § 1093. Express Companies and General Carriers by Water.— Ex- 
 press Companies.— Where it is incumbent on an express company to deliver 
 goods 10 the consignee personally, it can not change its common-law liability to 
 that of a warehouseman by notifying the consignee that he can have the goods 
 by calling for them.ss And where the company does not deliver or attempt to 
 deliver the goods, it will be liable for their loss by theft from its office during 
 the night following its receipt.^^ But where an express company after diligent 
 inquirt-, can not find the place of residence of the consignee,-^^ or can not make 
 delivery because consignee, having knowledge of the arrival of the goods, is absent 
 from home.-^i its liability as carrier is at an end. When no attempt is made to 
 deliver goods or to notify the consignee within a reasonable time, the express 
 company remains liable as carrier.42 If there is a custom of giving notice, where 
 
 32. Frederick r. Louisville, etc.. R. Co., of packages, except where the place is 
 
 -[?,?, -Xla 486, .31 So. 908. so small as not to justify the employment 
 
 33 Failure to deliver caused by im- of messengers, or the consignee does not 
 perfect marking.— Great Western R. Co. reside within a reasonable distance of 
 r Wheeler. 20 Mich. 419. the office, and then prompt notice must 
 
 34 Wrong" information as to arrival of be sent. American vStandard Jewelry Co. 
 goods.— Berry v. West Virginia, etc., R. r. Witherington, 81 Ark. 134, 98 S. W. 
 Co., 44 W. Va. 538, 30 S. E. 143, 67 Am. 69,'). 
 
 St. Rep. 781. 39. American Exp. Co. v. Baldwin, 26 
 
 35. Effect of subsequent notice.— Wil- m. 504. 79 Am. Dec. 389. 
 
 Hams r. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 53 ^^ American Exp. Co. v. Hockett, 30 
 
 Hun 63.5. 6 N. Y. S. 36, 25 N. Y. St. Rep. j^^, ^.^^ 95 j^^ jy^^ 691. 
 
 •'^L '' ^'^Y'^^'^ ^^- ... u To '. 41. Adams Exp. Co. v. Darnell, 31 Ind. 
 
 36. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. <.'. Dec 58'> 
 Kelly. 91 Tenn. (7 Pickle) 699, 20 S. W. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 58 
 
 312 17 L R ^ 691 30 Am. St. Rep. 902; 42. No attempt to deliver or notify con- 
 
 S C 91 Tenn (7 Pickle) 708, 20 S. W. signee.— Goods were sent by express m 
 
 ^j^ ■' time to have reached their destination on 
 
 37 Where consignee unable to remove Thursday, but, being carried by a cir- 
 goods.-Harris f. Louisville, etc., R. Co., cuitous route, did not arrive until Satur- 
 Kv I Rep 392 See post, IL VL X. day evening. The consignee called at the 
 
 38 ' Express companies.— Witbeck v. office Saturday afternoon, and was told 
 Holland (X. Y.), 55 Barb. 443, 38 How. that they had not arrived. He In^ed 
 Prac 273, affirmed in 45 N. Y. 13, 6 Am. about one hundred rods from the office, 
 Rep '23- State v. Parshley, 81 Atl. 484, and was well known. The goods re- 
 108 Me '410 37 L R A N S, 444. mained in the office, with no effort being 
 
 In' Arkansas it ' is "the' duty of an ex- made to deliver them or notify the con- 
 press company to make personal delivery signee of their arrival, until luesday
 
 891 
 
 CARRIER AS VVAKKIIOUSEMAX. 
 
 § 1093 
 
 an express company gives notice to the consignee of the arrival of the goods, 
 and a reasonable time has elapsed within which the consignee could come and get 
 them, the company's liability as a carrier ceases.-*^ And it is held that where 
 failure of an express company to give notice by mail of the arrival of a pack- 
 age, when such is the adopted mode, is not the proximate cause of delay in re- 
 moving the package, and the loss would have occurred if it had been mailed, 
 and sufficient time had elapsed for the receipt thereof if notice had been mailed, 
 and the consignee had exercised reasonable diligence, the carrier is liable as 
 warehouseman only."''* Where goods arc exj^ressed C. O. D., the liability of 
 the exi)ress com])any as a common carrier terminates on the safe carriage of 
 the goods to their ])lace of destination, notice to the consignee of their arrival, 
 and an offer to deliver on payment of the amoimt charged against them.-*^ 
 Leaving an express package in the freight room of a railway station at which 
 the express office is maintained instead of in the room in which such packages 
 are usually placed does not continue the liability of the express company as 
 carrier."' 
 
 Carriers by Water. — In the case of a carrier Ijv water where the time of ar- 
 rival is uncertain the consignee is entitled to a reasonable time after notice in 
 which to remove the goods. Until the lapse of that time, the ship remains lia- 
 ble as a carrier.-*" And consignee's knowledge of the vessel's arrival does not 
 
 ni.Lilu, wlien they were destroyed by fire. 
 Held, that the express company was lia- 
 ble for their loss. Union Exp. Co. v. 
 Ohleman, 92 Pa. ?.2?,. 
 
 43. Reasonable time after notice. — Rob- 
 erts V. Union Line Hxp. Co., 2 O. Dec. 
 577; Hutchinson v. United States Exp. 
 Co., G3 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. 
 R. A.. X. S., 393. 
 
 44. Hutchinson v. United States Exp. 
 Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. 
 R. A.. N. S., 393. 
 
 A consignee who had not called for his 
 mail and would not have received notice 
 of the arrival of package at express of- 
 fice can not hold express company liable 
 as carrier for a package which arrived at 
 4:30 Saturday and remained in the office 
 until the following Monday night, when 
 it was stolen without negligence on the 
 part of the carrier. Hutchinson v. 
 United States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 
 59 S. E. 949. 14 L. R. A.. N. S., 393. 
 
 45. Goods expressed C. O. D. — Hasse 
 f. .American l-.xp. Co., 94 Alich. 133, 53 
 X. W. '.U>^, ?,\ Am. St. Rep. :'.:iS. 
 
 Where the consignee is not ready to 
 receive any pay for the goods, it is the 
 duty of the company to safely store and 
 care for them, and to hold them for a 
 reasonalile time to enable the consignee 
 to make such payment, and to notify the 
 consignor, and the liability of the com- 
 pany meanwhile is that of a warehouse- 
 man. Hasse v. American Exp. Co.. 53 
 N. W. 918. 94 Mich. 133, 34 Am. St. Rep. 
 32S. 
 
 Notice unnecessary. — Goods were re- 
 ceived l)y an express company, to be de- 
 livered to the consignee in care of B. By 
 the terms of the bill of lading the com- 
 pany was authorized to retain the goods 
 for thirty days, to collect the price. B. 
 refused to receive the goods or pay the 
 
 price, because the consignee was indebted 
 to him; but he said the consignee would 
 be in town in a few days, and B. would 
 inform him of the arrival of the goods. 
 The carrier retained the goods thirty-nine 
 days. Held, that notice to the consignee 
 was not necessary. Landsberg v. Dins- 
 more (N. Y.), 4 Daly 490. 
 
 46. Hutchinson v. United States Exp. 
 Co., 63 W. Va. 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. 
 R. A.. X. S., 393. 
 
 47. Carrier by water. — United States. — 
 Constable z\ National Steamship Co., 154 
 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903. 14 S. Ct. 1062: 
 The Eddy (U. S.). 5 Wall. 481. 18 L. Ed. 
 486; Richardson v. Goddard (U. S.). 23 
 How. 28, 39. 16 L. Ed. 412; The Xail 
 City, 22 Fed. 537; Germania Ins. Co. v. 
 LaCrosse. etc.. Packet Co.. Fed. Cas. No. 
 5.361, 3 Biss. 501; \'ose v. .-Mien. Fed. 
 Cas. No. 17.005, affirmed in Fed. Cas. 
 No. 17,006. 3 Blachf. 289; The Citv of 
 Lincoln, 25 Fed. 835; The Mary Wash- 
 ington. Fed. Cas. No. 9.229. 1 Abb. U. 
 S. 1, Chase 125; The St. Laurent. Fed. 
 Cas. No. 12.231. 7 Ben. 7. 
 
 Coiniecticiit. — Graves z'. Hartford, etc.. 
 Steamboat Co.. 38 Conn. 143. 9 Am. Rep. 
 369. 
 
 Illinois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Car- 
 ter. 62 111. App. 618; Crawford f. Clark. 
 15 111. 561. 
 
 Louisiana. — Kohn z: Packard. 3 La. 224. 
 23 Am. Dec. 453; Kennedy z: Roman, 
 19 La. Ann. 519. 
 
 Missouri, — Erskine v. Thames. 6 Mo. 
 371. 
 
 Xczv Jersey. — Morris, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Ayres, 29 N.J. L. 393, SO Am. Dec. 215. 
 
 Nezc York. — Miller v. Steam Nav. Co., 
 10 N. Y. 431. Seld. Notes 64. affirming 13 
 Barb. 361: Russell Mfg. Co. z: New Ha- 
 ven Steaml)oat Co.. 50 N. Y. 121; S. C, 
 52 N. Y. 657; Solomon f. Philadelphia.
 
 § 1093 
 
 CARRIFRS. 
 
 892 
 
 dispense with actual notice of the time and place the vessel would discharge her 
 rrrgo.-''^ But notice may he chspensed with hy contract or custom.'*"-' After the 
 
 etc.. Steamboat Co. (X. Y.), 2 Dalv 104; 
 Price V. Powell. 3 N. Y. 322: Rowland v. 
 Mill! (N. Y.), 2 Hilt. 150; Barclay v. 
 Clvde (N. Y.), 2 E. D. Smith 95; Mc- 
 Andrew v. Whitlock. 32 N. Y. Super. 
 Ct. 623. affirmed in 52 N. Y. 40. 11 Am. 
 Rep. 657. 
 
 Tennessee. — Dean v. \'accaro, ;!9 Tenn. 
 (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Parker v. Milwaukee, etc., 
 R. Co., 30 Wis. 689. 
 
 Canada. — Richardson v. Canadian Pac. 
 R. Co., 19 Ont. Rep. 369, 45 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 413; Bourne v. Catliff. 11 CI. & 
 F. 45, cited in Mitchell v. Lancashire, 
 etc., R. Co.. L. R. 10 Q. B. 256. 
 
 Doubtful whether notice required in 
 modern times. — The rule of the text orig- 
 inated prior to the era of steam nav- 
 igation, when a voyage from Liverpool 
 to New York rarely consumed less than 
 three w'eeks, when the time of the arrival 
 of the vessel could not be forecasted 
 with any accuracy, when crews were dis- 
 charged immediately upon her arrival, 
 and die vessel was usually detained sev- 
 eral weeks in the slow and laborious 
 process of unloading, taking on cargo, 
 and refitting before setting out upon 
 another voyage and it is doubtful 
 whether it is applicable to modern ship- 
 ping. Constable v. National Steamship 
 Co., 154 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 
 1062. 
 
 Under a bill of lading requirmg "the 
 goods to be taken from alongside by the 
 consignee immediately the vessel is 
 ready to discharge," otherwise they will 
 be deposited, at the risk of the consignee, 
 in the warehouse provided for that pur- 
 pose, personal notice to the consignee of 
 the time and place of discharge is not 
 necessary. Constable v. National Steam- 
 ship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 14 S. Ct. 1062, 38 
 L. Ed. 903. 
 
 But under such a provision it has been 
 held that, after landing, the goods re- 
 mained in the carrier's custody as car- 
 rier, subject to the modified responsi- 
 bility created by the contract, until after 
 notice of arrival had been given the con- 
 signee, and a reasonable time had elap- 
 sed for their removal. Gleadell v. Thom- 
 son, 56 N. Y. 194, affirming 35 N. Y. 
 Super. Ct. 232. 
 
 Consignee's store closed on holiday. — 
 Where goods were landed on a wharf 
 on the 4th of July, and accidentally de- 
 stroyed by fire the following night, and 
 it appeared that the store of the con- 
 signee was closed the whole of the day 
 on which the goods arrived, and until 
 after they had been destroyed, it was 
 held that the carrier was excused from 
 giving notice of the arival of the goods. 
 Ely V. New Haven Steamboat Co. (N. 
 Y.), 53 Barb. 207, 6 Abb. Prac. N. S., 72. 
 Where a steamer arrived on Sunday 
 
 morning, and was moored to the owner's 
 dock, and no notice of its arrival given 
 the consignee — it being the custom not 
 to unload until Monday or Tuesday — 
 there was no delivery to the consignee, 
 so as to relieve the carrier from liability 
 tor loss by fire occurring on Monday. Hill 
 Mfg. Co. V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 104 
 ^L-lSS. 122. 6 Am. Rep. 202. 
 
 That the consignee was obliged to re- 
 cive the cargo package by package, does 
 not dispense witli the necessity of due 
 notice to the consignee, and a reasonable 
 opportunity to identify the goods and re- 
 ceive them into his custody. Ihe Santee, 
 Fed. Cas. Xo. 12,330, 17 Blatchf. 186. 
 
 That the consignee and others had sub- 
 mitted to a delivery to a drayman before, 
 when no loss occurred, will not bind him 
 to yield his legal right to notice when 
 it is for his interest to assert it. Dean v. 
 X'accaro. 39 Tenn. (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. 
 Dec. 744. 
 
 Where the unloading is temporarily 
 interrupted ))y the crowded s.tate of the 
 wharf, on account of the other con- 
 signees not removing their goods, no 
 new notice need be given on resumption 
 of the work. Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. 
 Tangier, Fed. Cas. No. 12,267, 3 Ware, 
 110; S. C, Fed. Cas. No. 12,266, 1 Cliff. 
 396. 
 
 Where the selection of a wharf other 
 than the usual wharf is allowable and 
 proper under the usages of trade or the 
 necessities of the case, the obligation of 
 the carrier to give notice to the con- 
 signees of the time and place of dis- 
 charge is not increased or modified 
 thereby if the consignees are not preju- 
 diced by the change. Constable v. Na- 
 tional Steamship Co.. 154 U. S. 51, 14 S. 
 Ct. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903. 
 
 Failure to give actual notice to con- 
 signees of the time and place of dis- 
 charge of cargo unloaded at a wharf, 
 other than the vessel's usual wharf, at 
 which the goods, before delivery to the 
 consignees, are destroyed by fire, does 
 not render the carrier liable for the loss, 
 where the consignees, had they received 
 notice, could not have removed their 
 goods before the fire, and where they 
 took no steps on the faith of the cargo's 
 l)eing discharged at the usual place. Con- 
 stable V. National Steamship Co., 154 U. 
 S. 51, 14 S. Ct. 1062, 3S L. Ed. 903. 
 
 48. Knowledge of vessel's arrival. — 
 The Middlesex, Fed. Cas. No. 9,533; Un- 
 nevehr v. Hindoo, 1 Fed. 627. 
 
 Mere knowledge that ship is unloading 
 does not impose upon the consignee the 
 duty of waiting at the vessel till his mer- 
 chandise is discharged. Robinson v. Chit- 
 tenden (N. Y.), 7 Hun 133. 
 
 49. Contract or custom excusing no- 
 tice. — See post, "Necessity for Notice of 
 Arrival of Goods," § 1095.
 
 893 
 
 CAKKIKR AS WARKIIOUSIvMAX. 
 
 §§ 1093-1094 
 
 goods are unloaded, notice to the consignee, and a reasonable time thereafter 
 for their removal, the carrier is only liable as a warehouseman.''" If the con- 
 signee refuses or neglects to receive the goods, the carrier is still liable as bailee, 
 and bound to reasonable care for their safe custody, or to store them on ac- 
 count of the owner. ''1 Where the owner of a vessel agrees, for a single price, 
 to transport a cargo from one ])ort to another, antl allow storage thereof in the 
 vessel during the winter following the voyage, his lialnlity as carrier ceases on 
 arrival at the port of destination, and he is thereafter liable as a warehouseman 
 oidy.''- 
 
 § 1094. Railroads and Carriers by Water Having Fixed Schedule. — 
 Mass'achusetts Doctrine. — As to carriers by railroad and carriers by water 
 ha\ing a fixed lime lor arrival, there is a conflict in the cases as to when the 
 carrier's liability as such ceases and its liability as warehouseman only attaches. 
 v^ome courts follow what is known as the Massachusetts doctrine and hold that, 
 where the goods have reached their destination and have been safely placed on 
 llie platform or in a warehouse for delivery to the consignee, the carrier's lia- 
 bility as such ceases and its liability as a warelKniseman begins."'-' It is held 
 
 50. The Titania, 124 Fed. 97.5, affirmed 
 131 Fed. 239, (>.) C. C. A. 215; Salmon 
 Falls Mfff. Co. V. Tangier, Fed. Cas. No. 
 12,207, .3 Ware 110; Liverpool, etc., Co. 
 V. Suitter, 17 Fed. 695; De Grau v. Wil- 
 son, 22 Fed. 500; The Bobolink, Fed. Cas. 
 No. 1,588, () Sawy. 14G; Hirsch z\ Steam- 
 boat Quaker City, 2 Disn. 144, 13 O. 
 Dec. Reprint 89. 
 
 Illustrations. — W here goods were 
 shipped tii New York under a bill of lad- 
 ing coiuaining a clause, "Goods to be 
 taken from alongside by the consignee 
 immediately the vessel is readj^ to dis- 
 charge, or otherwise they will be landed 
 l)y the master and deposited at the ex- 
 pense of the consignee, and at the risk 
 of fire, loss, or injury, in the warehouse 
 provided for that purpose, or sent to 
 tlie public store, as the collector of the 
 district shall direct," and the vessel ar- 
 rived on a Wednesday morning, and on 
 Thursday the mercliandise was .landed 
 in good order, and phiccd by itself at 
 an accessible part of the pier, the arrival 
 of the vessel being known to the con- 
 signees on Thursday, who on that day 
 had the bill of lading stamped by the 
 ship as proof that the goods had ar- 
 rived, and also entered the goods at the 
 customiiouse and procured a permit to 
 land them, but made no attempt to 
 remove the goods till late on the fol- 
 lowing Saturday afternoon, when one 
 truck load was taken away, and on Sun- 
 day a tire l)roke out on the pier and the 
 goods were destroyed, held that, when 
 the goods were burned, the relation of 
 the shipowners to them as common car- 
 riers had been terminated, and they were 
 in the custody of the shipowners as 
 warehousemen. De Grau z'. Wilson, 17 
 Fed. (>98. affirmed in 22 Fed. 5t;o. 
 
 A cargo of lemons and oranges, con- 
 signed to defendants, was delivered at a 
 pier in the morning of a certain day 
 along with other consignments of the 
 
 same nature. All the fruit was removed 
 on that day. except that of the defendants, 
 who had actual notice in time to remove 
 it. Tlie pier was covered, and all rea- 
 sonable precautions taken to protect the 
 fruit against frost, which precautions, 
 however, did not avail, owing to the se- 
 verity of the weather. Held, that the lia- 
 bility of the shipowner as common car- 
 rier terminated on the day the cargo 
 was discharged. Liverpool, etc.. Co. v. 
 Saitta. 22 Fed. 560. affirming 17 Fed. 695. 
 Where the passage to the goods was 
 blocked by landing other freight, so that 
 the consignee could not obtain access 
 to it, and in this position was damaged 
 by rain before removal, though a rea- 
 sonable time had elapsed after notice of 
 its arrival for the consignee to remove 
 it before the rain, it is a question for the 
 jury whether the carrier is liable. Good- 
 win V. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 58 Barb. 195. 
 
 51. Failure or refusal to receive goods. 
 — The City of Lincoln. 25 Fed. 835; The 
 Mary Washington. 1 Abb. U. S. 1. Chase 
 125. Fed. Cas. No. 9.229; Crawford v. 
 Clark. 15 111. 561; Hathorn z: Elv. 28 N. 
 Y. 78. 
 
 If the goods are injured before notice, 
 the carrier is lialde. tliough the consignee 
 afterwards refuses to take them. The 
 Mary Washington. Fed. Cas. No. 9.229. 1 
 Abb. I". S. 1. Chase 125. 
 
 52. Agreement to allow storage in ves- 
 sel. — NortDu :■. The Ricliani Winslow. 
 
 53. Massachusetts doctrine. — Gc<>ri^iii.— 
 The Massachusetts doctrine prevails in 
 the absence of a different custom as to 
 delivery. But where the goods arrive 
 out of time, notice must be given and 
 the consignee allowed a reasonalile time 
 to call for and remove them. See Civ. 
 Code, § 2295; Southwestern R. Co. z: 
 Felder. '46 Ga. 433. 11 Am. R. Rep. 419; 
 Western, etc.. Railroad z\ Camp. 53 Ga.
 
 § 1004 
 
 CARRII'RS. 
 
 894 
 
 596; Almand v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 95 
 Ga. 775. 22 S. E. 674; Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Pound, 111 Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312; 
 Kight V. Wrightsville. etc., R. Co., 127 
 Ga. 204. 56 S. E. 363; Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Pattison, 112 Ga. 468, 37 S. E. 
 766. See, also. Rome R. Co. z'. Sullivan, 
 etc.. Co., 14 Ga. 277: Central R., etc., 
 Co. V. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393, 10 Am. R. 
 Rep. 85; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Tliomp- 
 son. 86 Ga. 327, 12 S. E. 640, 45 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 422; Richmond, etc., R. Co. 
 r. White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 In order to show the existence of a 
 custom varying the general rule, the cus- 
 tom consisting in the company having 
 observed a usage of notifying consignees 
 of the arrival of goods, it must he proved 
 that the usage is of an estal)lished nature, 
 and the notices given of such character 
 as to indicate that the company intended 
 to remain liable as a common carrier un- 
 til the consignee had Jiad reasonable 
 time to receive his goods. Georgia, etc., 
 R. Co. z: Pound, 36 S. E. 312, 111 Ga. 6. 
 
 Illinois. — Gregg v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 147 111. 550, 35 N. E. 343, 37 Am. St. Rep. 
 238, affirming 47 111. App. 590; Porter v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 111. 407, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 286; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Alex- 
 ander, 20 111. 23; Davis v. Alichigan, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 111. 412; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Friend. 64 111. 303; Richards v. Michi- 
 gan, etc., R. Co., 20 111. 404; Chicago, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Scott, 42 111. 132; Vincent v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 49 111. 33; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 111. 88, 
 5 Am. Rep. 92; Merchants' Dispatch 
 Transp. Co. v. Hallock, 64 111. 284; Roth- 
 schild V. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 09 111. 
 164; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sawyer, 09 111. 
 285, 18 Am. Rep. 613; Cahn v. Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co.. 71 111. 96; Merchants', etc., 
 Transp. Co. v. Moore. 88 111. 130, 30 Am. 
 Rep. 541; Chicago, etc., R. Co. z'. Jenkins, 
 103 111. 588. See Schumacher v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 108 111. App. 520, judgment 
 affirmed, 69 N. E. 825, 207 111. 199; Bryan 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 111. App. 
 181. 
 
 Indiana. — Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Cool. 26 Ind. 140; Bansemer v. Toledo, 
 etc., R. Co.. 25 Ind. 434, 87 Am. Dec. 367; 
 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Nash, 43 Ind. 
 423; Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Mer- 
 riam. 111 Ind. 5, 11 N. E. 954. See New 
 Albany, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 12 
 Ind. 55. 
 
 lozca. — Mohr v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 40 Iowa 579; Francis zk Dubuque, etc., 
 R. Co., 25 Iowa 60, 95 .Am. Dec. 769; 
 Hicks V. Wabash R. Co., 131 Iowa 295, 
 108 N. W. 534, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 235. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Thomas v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Corp. (Mass.), 10 Mete. 477, 43 
 Am. Dec. 444; Norway Plains Co. v. 
 Boston, etc.. Railroad (Mass.), 1 Gray 
 263, 61 Am. Dec. 423; Sessions v. Western 
 R. Corp. (Mass.), 16 Gray 132. See also 
 Rice V. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 98 Mass. 
 
 212; Barron z: Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455, 
 1 Am. Rep. 120; Lane v. Boston, etc., R. 
 Co., 112 Mass. 455; Stowe v. New York, 
 etc., R. Co., 113 Mass. 521; Rice v. Hart, 
 118 Mass. 201, 19 Am. Rep. 433; Hall v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Corp. (Mass.), 4 Allen 
 439, 92 Am. Dec. 783. 
 
 Missouri. — Gashweiler v. Wabash, etc., 
 R. Co., 83 Mo. 112, 25 Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 403, 53 Am. Rep. 558; Standard Mill- 
 ing Co. V. White Line Cent. Transit Co., 
 122 Mo. 258, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 185, 
 20 S. W. 704; Rankin v. Pacific Railroad, 
 
 55 Mo. 167; Holtzclaw v. Duff, 2f Mo. 
 392; Cramer z'. American, etc., Exp. Co., 
 
 56 Mo. 524; Eaton v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 12 Mo. App. 380; Bergner v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 499; Kansas 
 City Transfer Co. v. Neiswanger, 18 Mo. 
 App. 103; Buddy v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 
 20 Mo. App. 200; Hartmann v. Louisville, 
 etc., R. Co.. 39 Mo. App. 88; Pindell v. 
 St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Mo. App. 84; 
 Hull & Co. V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 00 
 Mo. App. 593. Compare Bell v. St. Louis, 
 etc., R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 363, holding that 
 liability as a carrier continues until the 
 consignee has had such time to examine 
 and receive the goods as would be nec- 
 essarily required by one residing in the 
 vicinity, and informed of the probable 
 time of the arrival of the goods, and of 
 the carrier's course of business. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — Neal & Co. v. Wil- 
 mington, etc., R. Co., 53 N. C. 482; Tur- 
 rentine z'. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 100 N. 
 C. 375, Am. St. Rep. 002, S. E. 116; 
 Hilliard v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 51 
 N. C. 343. 
 
 Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Kelly, 91 Tenn. (7 Pickle) 699. 20 S. 
 W. 312, 17 L. R. A. 691, 30 Am. St. Rep. 
 902, 55 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 621; S. C, 91 
 Tenn. (7 Pickle) 708, 20 S. W. 314; Penn- 
 sylvania R. Co. V. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239, 
 79 S. W. 124, 64 L. R. A. 443; Southern 
 Exp. Co. V. Kaufman, 59 Tenn. (13 Heisk.) 
 161; Butler v. East Tennessee, etc.. R. 
 Co., 76 Tenn. (8 Lea) 32, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 249. See, also. Dean v. Vaccaro, 
 39 Tenn. (2 Head) 488, 75 Am. Dec. 744; 
 Lancaster Mills z'. Merchants' Cotton- 
 Press Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 24 Am. St. Rep. 
 580, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 423, 14 S. W. 
 317. 
 
 The statutory provision requiring no- 
 tice to the consignee (M. & V. Code 
 'I'cnn., S 2788) does not extend the liabil- 
 ity of tile carrier. Butler v. East Tennes- 
 see, etc., R. Co., 70 l"cnn. (8 Lea) 32, 9 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 249. 
 
 Removal of part of goods. — In Ses- 
 sions z'. Western R. Corp. (Mass.), 16 
 Gray 132, after a portion of the goods 
 had been removed, the remainder were 
 destroyed l)y fire while in the company's 
 warehouse. It was held that the com- 
 pany could be held only as a warehouse- 
 man. See, also, Bassett v. Connecticut 
 River R. Co., 145 Mass. 129, 13 N. E. 370,
 
 895 
 
 CARRIKR AS WARK HOUSF.M AX, 
 
 § 1094 
 
 that tlie liability as carrier ceases only after the unloading of the goods. ^^^ But 
 where by custom or contract the carrier transacts its business on the cars them- 
 selves,"''^ or completes its duty by placing them in a convenient place for un- 
 loading,''" it is not necessary to unload the goods in order to terminate its lia- 
 bility as carrier. 
 
 New Hampshire Doctrine. — .V class of cases follow what is known as the 
 New 1 lampshirc doctrine and hold that the liability of the carrier as such does 
 not cease u]Jon the arrival of the goods at their destination and their deposit 
 in a warehouse, but continues until the lapse of a reasonable time for the re- 
 moval of tl'.o goods by the consignee.-'''^ 
 
 1 Am. St. Rep. 44:i; Rlaisdell 7-. Connecti- 
 cut River R. Co., 14". Mas.s. i:52. 13 N. !•.. 
 373. 
 
 Carrier of money. — A carrier who was 
 in tlie habit of carrying larji^e sums of 
 money for hire, and keeping the same for 
 several hours after its transportation in 
 a desk until it is called for and taken 
 away by the owners, is liable merely as 
 a warehouseman, if the money is lost 
 from the desk. Conway Bank z>. .Ameri- 
 can I-'xp. Co. (Mass.), s .Mk'n ."il:.'. 
 
 Rule may vary with character of con- 
 signment. — Independence Mills Co. v. 
 Burlington, etc.. R. Co., 72 Iowa 535. 34 
 N. W. 320, 2 Am. St. Rep. 258, 32 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 45G. See. also, State v. 
 Creeden. 78 Iowa 55(). 43 N. W. 673, 7 L. 
 R. A. 295. 40 .Am. & Rng. R. Cas. 31. 
 
 Where goods are consigned "notify" a 
 third person, if such third person fails or 
 refuses williin a reasonable time to ap- 
 pear with the 1)ill of lading properly in- 
 dorsed and receive the goods, the car- 
 rier's liability is that of a warehouseman. 
 Florida, etc., R. Co. z'. Berry, llfi Ga. 10, 
 42 S. K. 371. 
 
 Failure to call for goods within time 
 limited by rule of carrier. — Where the 
 rule of a railroad company required 
 freight to be received and removed within 
 twenty-four hours after reaching its des- 
 tination, otherwise it would be placed in 
 store, an unauthorized delivery of goods 
 within the twenty-four hours to persons 
 as agents of the consignee will not 
 change the liability of the company from 
 that of a carrier to that of a warehouse- 
 man, on the grounds that the persons to 
 whom delivery was made were ware- 
 liousemen. and that the goods were not 
 called for by the consignee during the 
 twenty-four hours. Angle v. Mississippi, 
 etc.. R. Co., 18 Iowa 555. 
 
 54. Necessity for unloading of goods. — 
 Porter z\ Chicago, t-tc.. 1\. Co., 20 111. 
 407, 71 Am. Dec. 280 ; \allette f. Ben- 
 nett, 69 111. 632; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Bensley, 69 111. 630; Rice v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Corp.. 98 Mass. 212. 
 
 55. Where carrier transacts business 
 on cars. — MacW'a^h r. .\tcliison, etc., R. 
 Co.. 3 X. Me.x. 327, 5 I'ac. 457. 
 
 56. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Reyman, 
 166 Ind. 278, 76 N. K. 970, 73 X. E. 587. 
 See Dixon v. Central, etc., R. Co., 110 Ga. 
 173, 35 S. E. 369. 
 
 If, by direction of the consignee, given 
 in respect of a series of anticipated ship- 
 ments, of which such goods form one, 
 they be stored in a car, and side tracked 
 for the convenience of the consignee, 
 and notice thereof be given the latter, 
 the liability of the carrier, as dependent 
 upon the safety of the place of storage, 
 is at an end. Pindell v. St. Louis, etc., 
 R. Co., 41 Mo. App. 84. 
 
 Where it was the usage to receive de- 
 livery and unload refrigerator cars while 
 they were standing in some convenient 
 place, the location of a car at that point, 
 and a readiness to permit the consignee 
 to take possession, relieved the carrier 
 of further obligation than that of a ware- 
 houseman, without any notification to 
 the consignee of the arrival of the goods. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Reyman, 166 Ind. 
 278, 76 N. E. 970. 73 N. E. 587. 
 
 Place must be safe and convenient. — 
 The liability, as a common carrier, of a 
 railroad company transporting grain, 
 commonly and most conveniently re- 
 moved directl}' from the cars instead of 
 through a warehouse, does not cease un- 
 til the car is placed in a safe and conven- 
 ient location for unloading; and the find- 
 ing of a jury that a car was so placed that 
 it could, l)ut with difficulty, be unloaded, 
 justifies a verdict holding the company 
 liable as a common carrier. Independ- 
 ence Mills Co. z'. Burlington, etc.. R. Co., 
 72 Iowa 535, 34 X. W. 330, 2 .\m. St. 
 Rep. 258, 32 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 456. 
 
 57. New Hampshire doctrine. — Ala- 
 haiim. — Bowden f. .Atlantic C«'ast Line 
 R. Co.. 148 Ala. 29, 41 So. 294; Lou- 
 isville, etc., R. Co. z: McGuire & Co., 
 79 Ala. 395; Collins v. Alabama, etc., 
 R. Co.. 104 .Ala. 390. 16 So. 140, 61 .Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 229; Columbus, etc., R. 
 Co. z: Ludden, 89 Ala. 612. 7 So. 471, 42 
 .Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 404; .Anniston. etc., 
 R. Co. v. Ledbetter. 92 .Ala. 326, 9 So. 
 73; .Alabama, etc., R. Co. z: Kidd, 35 .Ala. 
 209; Central, etc.. R. Co. z: Merrill & Co., 
 153 .Ala. 277. 45 So. 628; Kenncdv Bros. 
 z: Mobile, etc.. R. Co.. 74 Ala. 4.30, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 145: Mobile, etc.. 
 R. Co. r. Prewitt, 46 .Ala. 63. 7 .Am. Rep. 
 586. See, also, Western R. Co. z: Little. 
 86 .Ala. 159, 5 So. 563, 37 .Am. & Eng. R. 
 Cas. 659; Alabama, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Grabfelder, 83 .Ala. 200. 3 So. 432. Com-
 
 ^ 10^4 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 896 
 
 The English doctrine is substantially the same as the New Hampshire doc- 
 trine. The consignee of goods shipped by railway is entitled to a reasonable 
 
 pare Southern Exp. Co. z\ Armstead, 50 
 Ala. 350. 
 
 Arkansas. — The carrier is liable as in- 
 surer until a reasonable time after notice 
 to the consignee (Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 z: Nevill, 60 Ark. 375, 30 S. W. 425, 28 L. 
 R. A. SO. 46 Am. St. Rep. 208), and until 
 proper delivery at destination (Arkadel- 
 phia Mill. Co. Z'. Smoker Merchandise 
 Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 680.) 
 
 California. — The Massachusetts doctrine 
 seems to have obtained originall3\ See 
 Jackson v. Sacramento X'allc}- R. Co., 23 
 Cal. 268. But the New Hampshire doc- 
 trine now prevails in consequence of the 
 provisions of § 2120 of the Civil Code 
 requiring notice to the consignee of the 
 arrival of the goods. See Wilson v. Cali- 
 fornia Cent. R. Co., 94 Cal. 166, 29 Pac. 
 861, 17 L. R. A. 685; Cavallaro v. Texas, 
 etc., R. Co., 110 Cal. 348, 42 Pac. 918, 52 
 Am. St. Rep. 94. See, also, Hirshfield v. 
 Central Pac. R. Co., 56 Cal. 484, 7 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 398. 
 
 Connecticut. — Graves v. Hartford, etc., 
 Steamboat Co., 38 Conn. 143, 9 Am. Rep. 
 369. 
 
 Delazi.'arc. — See McHenry v. Philadel- 
 phia, etc., R. Co. (Del.), 4 Har. 448. 
 
 Kansas. — Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Maris, 16 Kan. 333; Missouri Pac. R. Co. 
 V. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., 55 
 Kan. 525, 40 Pac. 899; Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Newberger & Bro., 73 Pac. 57, 67 
 Kan. 846. 
 
 Kentucky. — Jefifersonville R. Co. v. Cleve- 
 land (Ky.), 2 Bush 468; Wald v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co., 92 Ky. 645, 13 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 853, 18 S. W. 850; Briant v. Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co.. 9 Ky. L. Rep. 47; Louis- 
 ville, etc., R. Co. V. Jones, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 
 494; Adams Exp. Co. v. Tingle, 10 Ky. L. 
 Rep. 358: Lewis v. Louisville, etc., R. 
 Co., 135 Ky. 361, 122 S. W. 184, 25 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 938, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
 Cas. 527. 
 
 Louisiana. — Maignan v. New Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co., 24 La. Ann. 333. See Segura 
 V. Reed. 3 La. Ann. 695. 
 
 Maryland. — See Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Green, 25 Md. 72. 
 
 Michigan. — In AIcMillan v. Michigan, 
 etc., R. Co., 16 Mich. 79. 93 Am. Dec. 208, 
 the court was equally divided, but the 
 views of Cooley, J., that the New Hamp- 
 shire rule v/as the trre one were approved 
 in Buckley v. Great Western R. Co., 18 
 Mich. 121. 
 
 In the absence of an express contract 
 or one fairly inferable from the nature of 
 the business, the known necessities under 
 which it is carried on, and the established 
 usage between the parties, the company 
 can not shift its responsibility as a com- 
 mon carrier to that of a mere warehouse- 
 man by simply depositing the goods in 
 the warehouse at the end of its route. 
 
 Feige v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 62 Mich. 
 1. 28 N. W. 685; Black v. Ashley, 80 
 Mich. 90, 44 N. W. 1120, 42 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 428. 
 
 Minnesota. — Pinney z'. First Division, 
 etc., R. Co.. 19 Minn. 251, Gil. 211, 20 
 Am. R. Rep. 71; Derosia v. Winona, etc., 
 R. Co., 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119; Arthur 
 v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 38 Minn. 95, 35 
 N. W. 718; Kirk v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 59 Minn. 161, 60 N. W. 1084, 50 Am. St. 
 Rep. 397, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 2" 3 
 (carrier held liable for goods stolen from 
 car while it was at station). See also 
 Armstrong z\ Chicago, etc., R. Co., 4") 
 Minn. 85. 47 N. W. 459, 45 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 422, note. 
 
 Nebraska. — Burlington, etc., R. Co. :■. 
 Arms, 15 Neb. 69, 17 N. W. 351. 
 
 Nezv Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, etc.. 
 Railroad, 32 N. H. 523, 64 Am. Dec. 381; 
 Welch V. Concord Railroad, 68 N. H. 
 206, 44 Atl. 304. See also, Jewell ?■. 
 Grand Trunk Railway, 55 N. H. 84; Smith 
 V. Nashua, etc.. Railroad. 27 N. H. 86. 59 
 Am. Dec. 304. 
 
 Nezv Jersey. — Bobbink v. Erie R. Co.. 
 82 N. Y. L. 547,82 Atl. 877; Morris, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Ayers, 29 N. J. L. 393. 80 Am. Dec. 
 215. The latter case was regarded in 5 
 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2nd Ed.) 264. 
 as following the Massachusetts doctrine, 
 but it seems to follow the New Hamp- 
 shire doctrine, and is so cited in Poyt'i- 
 ress V. Durham, etc.. R. Co., 148 N. C. 
 391, 62 S. E. 515, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 427; 
 3 Wood on Railways (Ed. 1894) 1935. and 
 Hutchinson on Carriers. § 370. 
 
 New York. — Mills v. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Rep. 152; Hedges 
 V. Hudson River R. Co., 49 N. Y. 223, 3 
 Am. R. Rep. 346; Zinn v. New Jersey 
 Steamboat Co.. 49 N. Y. 442, 10 Am. 
 Rep. 402, 3 Am. R. Rep. 340; McAndrew 
 V. Whitlock, 52 N. Y. 40, 11 Am. Rep. 
 657; Rawson v. Holland. 59 N. Y. 611, 17 
 Am. Rep. 394; McKinney v. Jewett, 9") 
 N. Y. 267, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 209; 
 Faulkner v. Hart, 82 N. Y. 413, 37 Am. 
 Rep. 574, reversing 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 471; Draper v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 
 118 N. Y. 118, 23 N. E. 131, 42 Am. & 
 Eng. R. Cas. 410; Solomon v. Philadel- 
 phia, etc., Steamboat Co. (N. Y.), 2 Daly 
 104; Pelton v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 
 54 N. Y. 214, 13 Am. Rep. 568; Sprague 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 637; 
 Nicholas v. New York, etc., R. Co., 89 
 N. Y. 370. 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 103; 
 Miller v. Steam Nav. Co.. 10 N. Y. 431, 
 Seld. Notes 64, affirming 13 Barb. 361; 
 Hedges v. Hudson River R. Co., 29 N. 
 Y. Super. Ct. 119; King v. New Bruns- 
 wick, etc.. Steamboat Co., 73 N. Y. S. 
 999, 36 Misc. Rep. 555; Lamb v. Camden, 
 etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.), 2 Daly 454. 
 
 A provision in the contract of shipment
 
 897 
 
 CAKRII-K AS \V ARKllorSI-.M \.\, 
 
 § 1094 
 
 time, after the goods ha\e arri\e(l at their dehtination, within which to take 
 them away, and during such time the goods are in the hands of the railway as 
 carrier anrl subject it to all the liahilitics which attach to that character. Hut when 
 
 that the goods were to l>e delivered at 
 the company's depot does not affect the 
 rule. Lamb v. Camden, etc., Transp. Co. 
 (N. Y.), 2 Daly 454. 
 
 Ohio. — The carrier's lial)ility as insurer 
 continues uiUil after the consignee has 
 been notified of the arrival of his proods 
 and has had a reasonable time in which 
 to inspect and remove them. Lake !\rie, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Hatch, (J O. C. C. 230, 3 
 (X C. D. 430; affirmed in 52 O. St. 408, 39 
 N. E. 1042, 01 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 293. 
 And see Gaines v. Union Transp., etc., 
 Co., 28 O. St. 418. 
 
 Oregon. — See McGregor v. Oregon R., 
 etc., Co., 50 Ore. 527, 93 Pac. 405. 
 
 Fcnnsylvaiiia. — The New Hampshire 
 doctrine has l)een followed in some cases. 
 See Moyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 31 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 559; National Line 
 Steamship Co. v. Smart, 107 Pa. 492; 
 Frank Bros. & Co. v. Central R. Co., 9 
 Pa. Super. Ct. 129; Pennsylvania, etc., R. 
 Cc. V. Waltman (Pa.), 1 Walk. 139. But 
 the Massachusetts doctrine was held in 
 McCarty v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 
 Pa. 247; Shenk v. Philadelphia/ Steam 
 Propeller Co., 60 Pa. 109, 100 Am. Dec. 
 541. 
 
 South Carolina. — The New Hampshire 
 doctrine now prevails. Knight v. South- 
 ern Railway, 85 S. C. 78, 67 S. E. 16; 
 Deschamps v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 82 
 S. C. 26, 64 S. E. 144; Murphy v. Southern 
 Railway, 77 S. C. 76, 57 S. E. 664; Brun- 
 son V. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 76 S. C. 9, 56 
 S. E. 538, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 577. But 
 Wardlaw v. South Carolina R. Co., 11 
 Rich. L. 337, and Hipp v. Southern R. 
 Co., 50 S. C. 129, 27 S. E. 623, followed 
 the Massachusetts doctrine. See Spears 
 V. Spartansburg, etc., R. Co.. 11 S. C. 158, 
 where it is said that the carrier's liability 
 as insurer does not extend over the whole 
 time of the existence of its lien for freight 
 charges. 
 
 Texas. — The rule is declared by statute 
 to be that the carrier's liability as such 
 continues until actual delivery to the con- 
 signee or his agent. l)ut that "if the car- 
 rier at the point of destination shall use 
 due diligence to notify the consignee, and 
 the goods are not taken by the consignee, 
 and have in consequence to be stored 
 in the depots or warehouses of the com- 
 mon carriers, they shall thereafter only 
 be liable as warehousemen." Rev. Stat. 
 Texas, arts. 281, 282. See the statute 
 applied in Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Havnes 
 & Co., 72 Tex. 175, 10 S. W. 398, 37 
 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 645. See also, 
 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. .\dams, 49 Tex. 
 748. 30 Am. Rep. 116; Texas, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Capps, 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 33; 
 
 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Schneider, 1 Texas 
 .\pp. Civ. Cas., § 118; Galveston, etc.. R. 
 Co. V. Hunt (Tex. Civ. App.;, 32 S. W. 
 549, 550. 
 
 Under the statute a railroad company 
 remains lialile as a cfjinmon carrier fur 
 gofjds not disciiarged frtjm its car, though 
 a third person has agreed with the con- 
 signee to unloatl them, and the car is at 
 the place of discharge; there lieing no 
 agreement by the consignee to receive 
 the goods on the car, and no notice, or 
 diligence to give notice, of the arrival 
 of the car. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Haynes 
 & Co.. 72 Tex. 175, 10 S. VV. 398, 37 
 -Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 645. 
 
 I'crmoiit. — Ouimit v. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 
 605, 84 Am. Dec. 646; Blumenthal v. 
 Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 .\m. Dec. 3.50; 
 Winslow V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 
 700, 1 Am. Rep. 365. 
 
 Virginia. — Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Stuart's Draft Mill. Co., 109 \'a. 184, 63 
 vS. E. 415. 
 
 Washington. — Fisher z\ Northern Pac. 
 R. Co., 49 Wash. 258, 94 Pac. 1073; Hur- 
 ley & Son V. Norfolk, etc., R. Co.. 6s W. 
 Va. 471, 69 S. E. 904. 
 
 ll'cst I'irginia. — Berry v. West X'irginia, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 44 W. Va. 538. 30 S. E. 143. 
 67 Am. St. Rep. 781. See Baltimore, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Morehead, 5 W. \a. 293. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Wood v. Crocker, IS Wis. 
 345, 86 Am. Dec. 773; Wood v. Milwaukee, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 27 Wis. 541. 9 Am. Rep. 564. 
 2 Am. R. Rep. 342; Parker i'. Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co., 30 Wis. 689, 7 Am. R. Rep. 
 255; Lemke v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 39 
 Wis. 449. 13 Am. R. Rep. 406; Backhaus 
 V. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 92 Wis. 393. 66 N. 
 W. 400. See also Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Fairchild. 6 Wis. 403. 
 
 Reason for rule. — In Graves v. Hart- 
 ford, etc.. Steamboat Co., 38 Conn. 143, 9 
 Am. Rep. 369, the court said: "What- 
 ever reasons there are for imposing a 
 strict rule of responsibility during the 
 transit, exist and continue in full force 
 until tlie consignee has had a reasonable 
 time to take the goods into his own care 
 and custody. * * * In making the deliv- 
 ery, care is needed to avoid mistakes, 
 and attention required to see if the goods 
 are uninjured. During the whole process 
 of delivery, until fully completed, the 
 goods should remain in the care of the 
 carrier upon the full responsil)ility per- 
 taining to him as such, and he ought not 
 to be allowed to lay aside that responsi- 
 bility until the owner of the goods has 
 had a fair and reasonable time and oppor- 
 tunity to receive them." 
 
 If the loss or injury results from a want 
 of ordinary care .'ii tlic p^irt of the car- 
 
 1 Car— 57
 
 §§ 1094-1095 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 898 
 
 such reasonable time has ela])sc(l, the company becomes Hable as a warehouse- 
 man merely.""'' 
 
 § 109 5. Necessity for Notice of Arrival of Goods. — Massachusetts 
 Doctrine. — The authorities are in conllict as to whether or not, in the case of 
 carriers bv railroad and carriers b}- water having a hxed time for arrival, the 
 carrier is bound to give the consignee notice of the arrival of the goods at their 
 destination in order to terminate its liability as insurer and assume responsibil- 
 itv as warehouseman t)nly."''' v^ome courts follow the Massachusetts doctrine 
 and hold that the carrier is under no obligation to give such notice."" But no- 
 
 rier, the quostion of rea.sonal)lc time be- 
 comes immaterial. Laml) z'. Camden, etc., 
 Transp. Co. (N. V.). 2 Daly 454. 
 
 It is the duty of the consignee to be 
 ready at the place of de.stination to re- 
 ceive the goods when they arrive, or 
 within a reasonal)le time thereafter. Ala- 
 bama, etc.. R. Co. 7'. Kidd, :55 Ala. 200. 
 
 Liability affected by charter.— The 
 Michigan Central Railway Company, un- 
 der its charter, is liable as warehousemen 
 only, for goods transported over its line 
 to Detroit, and there deposited in its 
 warehouse awaiting delivery to an inter- 
 mediate consignee. Michigan Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Lantz, 32 Mich. 502. Property on 
 deposit in depots is to be considered as 
 awaiting delivery as soon as it is in con- 
 dition to be delivered to the consignee 
 when demanded. Michigan Cent. R. Co. 
 r. Hale, (i Midi. 24:i. 
 
 In case of portable boxes of merchan- 
 dise, the liability of a railway company as 
 common carrier does not terminate till 
 the goods are placed in its freight room, 
 ready for delivery to the consignee, and 
 he has had a reasonable time to remove 
 them. Kirk v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 59 
 Minn. 161. 60 N. W. 1084, 50 Am. St. 
 Rep. 397, 61 ;\m. & I'",ng. R. Cas. 203. 
 
 Where goods have been placed in a 
 railway company's depot to await the 
 owner's convenience in removing llieni, 
 and they are destroyed, the company is 
 liable only on proof of its negligence. 
 Pennsylvania, etc., R. Co. v. Waltman 
 (Pa.), 1 Walk. 139. 
 
 Illustrations. — ^Where defendant deliv- 
 ered, on the track at the consignee's 
 warehouse, a carload of sugar on Sunday 
 night, which was there destroyed by fire 
 before working hours on Monday morn- 
 ing, defendant is liable, although it was 
 the custom of the consignee to break the 
 seals and unload cars so delivered with- 
 out further authority. Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. V. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., 
 55 Kan. 525, 40 Pac. 899. 
 
 Five to seven days were reasonal)ly re- 
 quired to transport goods frcjm the place 
 of shipment, and on the eighth day after 
 their shipment plaintiff called for them 
 at the point of destination, l)Ut they had 
 not arrived. He called for them on each 
 succeeding morning for five days, when 
 he left the city, the goods arriving the 
 day after his departure. Held, that the 
 company was lial)lc for the loss of the 
 
 goods by fire on the niglit following their 
 arrival. JefTersonville R. Co. z'. Cleve- 
 land (Ky.), 2 Bush 468. 
 
 In Eagle v. White (Pa.), 6 Whart. 505, 
 37 Am. Dec. 434, the goods arrived at 
 their destination about dark on Saturday 
 evening, and at the request of the con- 
 signee the car containing them was run 
 on to a side track to remain until Monday 
 morning, at which time the consignee 
 opened the car and found that some of 
 his goods had l)een stolen. The carrier 
 was held liable. 
 
 58. EngHsh doctrine. — J^iiiilaiid. — ^Chap- 
 nian v. Creat Western R. Co., 5 Q. B. Div. 
 278, 49 L. J. Q. B. 420, 42 L. T. N. S., 252. 
 See also Bradshaw v. Irish North- Wes- 
 tern R. Co., 7 Ir. R. C. L. 252, 21 W. R. 
 581. 
 
 Canada. — In Richardson z'. Canadian 
 I'ac. R. Co., 19 Out. Rep. 369, 45 Am. & 
 ICng. R. Cas. 413, the authority of Chap- 
 man V. Great Western R. Co., 5 Q. B. 
 Div. 278, was recognized and followed. 
 In earlier cases, the Massachusetts doc- 
 trine seemed to be announced. Hall v. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co., 34 U. C. Q. B. 517; 
 Bowie V. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 7 U. C. 
 C. P. 191; O'Neill v. Great Western R. 
 Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 203; Inman v. Buffalo, 
 etc., R Co., 7 U. C. C. P. 325. 
 
 59. Necessity for notice of arrival. — As 
 to express companies, and^ carriers by 
 water generally, see ante, "Express Com- 
 ])anies and General Carriers by Water," 
 8 1093. 
 
 60. Massachusetts doctrine. — Georgia. — 
 No notice to the consignee is necessary, 
 except where the goods arrive out of 
 lime, in which case notice must be given 
 and the consignee allowed a reasonable 
 time to call for and remove them. See 
 Civ. Code, § 2295. Southwestern R. Co. 
 V. Felder, 46 Ga. 433, 11 Am. R. Rep. 419; 
 Western, etc.. Railroad v. Camp, 53 Ga. 
 596; Almand v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 95 
 Ga. 775, 22 S. E. 674; Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Pound, 111 Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312; 
 Kight V. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 127 
 Ga. 204, 56 S. E. 363; Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. z'. Pattison, 112 Ga. 468, 37 S. E. 766. 
 See, also, Central R., etc., Co. v. Ander- 
 son, 58 Ga. 393, 16 Am. R. Rep. 85; 
 Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Thompson, 86 Ga. 
 327, 12 S. E. 640, 45 Am. & I'.ng. R. Cas. 
 422; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 88 
 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. Compare Rome 
 R. Co. V. Sullivan, etc., Co., 14 Ga. 277,
 
 899 
 
 CAKRIKR AS VVAKK IK )ISI;MA X. 
 
 § 1095 
 
 liol(liii,L( that tlic carrier must give no- 
 tice. 
 
 Illiiiois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 
 42 111. 132; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ken- 
 dall, 72 111. .-\pp. \()-i; Richards r. Mich- 
 igan, etc., R. Co., 20 111. 404; Porter v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 111. 407, 71 Am. 
 Dec. 28(i; Davis v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 
 20 111. 412; Rothscliild ?•. Michigan Cent. 
 R. Co., 69 111. 104. Compare Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Sawyer. GO 111. 2H->, 18 .\m. 
 Rep. ()i:i (notice of arrival of bonded 
 goods held necessary), and Jackson & 
 Son V. New York Cent. R. Co., 1G7 111. 
 App. 461, holding that carrier must give 
 notice. 
 
 Indiana. — Bansemer v. Toledo, etc., R. 
 Co., 2.5 Ind. 4:54, 87 Am. Dec. 'MM \ Cincin- 
 nati, etc., R. Co. V. McCool, 26 Ind. 140; 
 Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Reyman, 160 Ind. 
 278, 76 N. K. !)70, 73 N. E. 587. See 
 Pittsl)urg, etc., R. Co. v. Nash, 4:! [iid. 
 423. 
 
 loKHi. — Mohr V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 40 Iowa 579; Francis v. Dubuque, etc., 
 R. Co., 25 Iowa 60, 95 Am. Dec. 769; 
 Hicks V. Wal)ash R. Co., 131 Iowa 295, 
 108 N. W. 534. 8 L. R. A., N. S., 235. 
 
 Kentucky. — Jeffcrsonville R. Co. v. 
 Cleveland" (Ky.). 2 Bush 468. Compare 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Stiles, 133 Ky. 
 786, 119 S. W. 786; Adams Exp. Co. v. 
 Tingle, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 441. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Norway Plains Co. v. 
 Boston, etc., Railroad (Mass.), 1 Gray 
 263, 61 .A.m. Dec. 423. See, also. Rice v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Corp.. 98 Mass. 212; Bar- 
 ron V. Eldredge, 100 Alass. 455. 1 Am. 
 Rep. 126; Stowe v. New York, etc.. R. 
 Co., 113 Mass. 521; Rice v. Hart, 118 
 Mass. 201, 19 Am. Rep. 433. 
 
 Minnesota. — Derosia v. Winona, etc., R. 
 Co., 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119. 
 
 Where the consignee resides eighteen 
 miles from the station the carrier need 
 not give notice to him, but if he had an 
 agent there, known to the carrier, such 
 agent was entitled to notice, and reason- 
 al)le time thereafter to remove them. 
 Pinney v. F'irst Division, etc.. R. Co.. 19 
 Minn. 251, Gil. 211, 20 .\m. R. Rep. 71. 
 
 Missouri. — Rankin v. Pacific Railroad, 55 
 Mo. 167; Gashweiler v. Wabash, etc.. R. 
 Co., 83 Mo. 112, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 403, 53 Am.. Rep. 558; Eaton v. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 12 Mo. App. 386; Bergner 
 v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 13 Mo. .\pp. 499; 
 Kansas City Transfer Co. z'. Neisvvanger. 
 18 Mo. App. 103; Buddy v. Wabash, etc., 
 R. Co., 20 Mo. .A.pp. 206; Pindell v. St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co., 34 Mo. App. 675; Herf. 
 etc.. Chemical Co. 7'. Lackawanna Line, 
 70 Mo. App. 274; S. C, 100 Mo. App. 164. 
 73 S. W. 346; Ross v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co., 119 Mo. App. 290. 95 S. W. 977. See, 
 also Bell v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 6 Mo. 
 App. 363; Holtzclaw r. DuflF, 27 Mo. 392; 
 Cramer v. American, etc., Exp. Co., 56 
 Mo. 524. Compare Pindell v. St. Louis, 
 etc.. R. Co., 41 Mo. .\pp. 84. 
 
 -Vrti' .fersey. — Morris, etc.. R. Co. 7'. 
 
 .Ayers, 29 \. J. L. 393, 80 Am. Dec. 
 215. 
 
 Fennsyhania.—McCany v. New York 
 etc., R. Co., 30 Pa. 247; Shenk v. Phila- 
 delphia Steam Propeller Co., oo Pa. 109, 
 100 Am. Dec. 541; National Line Steam- 
 ship Co. v. Smart, 107 Pa. 492. See .\llan 
 V. l'enn.sylvania R. Co., 10 Am. & Kng. 
 R. Cas., N. S.. 347. Compare .\llam v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co.. 5 Pa. Dist. R. 54. 
 
 Soutli Carolina. — Layton & Sons v. 
 Charleston, etc., R. Co., 90 S. C. 323. 72 
 S. E. 988; Knight v. Southern Railway. 
 85 S. C. 78, 67 S. E. 16; Spears z-. Spar- 
 tonburg. etc.. R. Co.. II S. C. 158. Set- 
 Murphy V. Southern Railway, 77 S. C. 76. 
 57 S. E. 664. 
 
 M'cst i'ir^inia. — Notice is not required 
 and the consignee must remove the goods 
 from the warehouse within a reasonal>le 
 time. Berry z: West Virginia, etc.. R. 
 Co., 44 W. Va. 538, 30 S. E. 143. 67 .\m. 
 St. Rep. 781. Compare Baltimore, etc.. 
 R. Co. ;•. Morohead. .". W. Va. 293. 
 
 Reasons for doctrine. — In South, etc.. 
 Alaliama R. Co. i: Wood, 66 Ala. 167. 
 9 .Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 424, 41 .Am. Rep. 
 749. the court said: "It is not unreason- 
 able in such cases to assume that the 
 consignee has already been advised by 
 the consignor of the fact that the goods 
 have been forwarded to him. It would, 
 too, be practically impossible to require 
 such notice to each consignee, where the 
 arrivals of goods by this mode of trans- 
 portation are so frequent and various as 
 is the case in populous emporiums of 
 commerce and the great centres of rail- 
 way traffic." See, also, Norway Plains 
 Co. V. Boston, etc.. R. Co. (Mass.). 1 
 Gray 2f).i. 61 .\m. Dec. 423. 
 
 The custom of notifying consignees 
 before preferring against them a cliari^e 
 of demurrage does not warrant the impli- 
 cation that the carrier thereby agreed 
 to remain liable as a common carrier 
 rather than a warehouseman up to the 
 time of the notice. Georgia, etc.. R. Co. 
 V. Pound, 111 Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312. 
 
 A custom that the carrier's liability as 
 such shall continue after the transporta- 
 tion and storage of the goods is not 
 suflicientl}- proved by evidence which 
 shows no more than that the company 
 had l>een in the habit of notifying a par- 
 ticular customer by postal card of the 
 arrival of his goods and informing him 
 that storage or demurrage would be 
 charged thereon unless they were called 
 for within a time specified, and that it 
 had in this manner, and also by mes- 
 sages l)y telephone and otherwise, given 
 similar notices to other customers, in 
 some of wiiich it was stated that unless 
 the goods were removed as requested 
 they would be "held" or "stored" at the 
 owner's risk. Georgia, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Pound. Ill Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312: Georgia, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Pattison. 112 Ga. 468. 37 
 S. !•:. 766. 
 
 The fact that a carrier gives notice of
 
 \095 
 
 CARRlKRS. 
 
 900 
 
 tice should be given where the goods arrive out of time."i It is held that the 
 same rule applies to other corporations using railroads as a means of convey- 
 ance, such as merchants' dispatch transporiaiion companies where by their usage 
 they'merelv undertake to deliver the goods at their depots.''- 
 
 New Hampshire Doctrine. — In some jurisdictions by force of statute or 
 decisions, the Xew Hampshire doctrine is followed and until the consignee has 
 been notified by the carrier of the arrival of his goods the carrier remains lia- 
 ble as insurer ;' the carrier assumes the liability of a warehouseman only, after 
 notice to the consignee and the lapse of a reasonable time thereafter in which 
 to remove the goods/"''^ But notice is excused where the goods are not properly 
 
 the arrival of a consignment, and requires 
 its removal within twenty-four hours, 
 does not show that the liability as car- 
 rier continues to the end of that time. 
 Richards 7'. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 20 III. 
 404. 
 
 61. Where goods arrive out of time. — 
 Frank r. Grand Tower, etc., R. Co., 57 
 Mo. App. 181; Southwestern R. Co. v. 
 Felder. 46 Ga. 433, 11 Am. R. Rep. 419; 
 Western, etc.. Railroad v. Camp, 53 Ga. 
 596; Almand v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 95 
 Ga. 775, 22 S. E. 674; Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Pound. Ill Ga. 6, 36 S. E. 312; 
 Right r. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 127 
 Ga. 204. 56 S. E. 363; Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Pattison, 112 Ga. 468, 37 S. E. 766. 
 Compare Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. White, 
 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. E. 802. 
 
 62. Mercliants' Dispatch 1 ransp. Co. v. 
 Hallock, 64 111. 284. 
 
 63. New Hampshire doctrine. — .-lla- 
 bauia. — Xotice is now required by stat- 
 ute. Code 1907, § 5604; Greek-American 
 Produce Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 4 
 Ala. App. 377, 58 So. 994. 
 
 But it seems that formerly the Massa- 
 chusetts doctrine was held. South, etc., 
 Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 66 Ala. 167, 
 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 419, 41 Am. Rep. 
 749; Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. McGuire & 
 Co., 79 Ala. 395; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Oden. 80 Ala. 38; Columbus, etc., R. Co. r. 
 Ludden. 89 Ala. 612, 7 So. 471, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 404. But see Alabama 
 Mid. Ry. Co. v. Darby, 119 Ala. 531, 
 24 So. 713; Collins v. Alabama, etc., R. 
 Co., 104 Ala. 390, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 229, 16 So. 140, and Kennedy Bros. v. 
 Mobile, etc., R. Co., 74 Ala. 430, 21 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 145. 
 
 Under Code 1896, § 4224, where the 
 destination of the goods is a city of two 
 thousand or more inhabitants, and hav- 
 ing a daily mail, the lial)ility of the com- 
 pany becomes that of a warehouseman 
 only when, within twenty-four hours after 
 the arrival of the goods, it has stored 
 them in a safe warehouse and mailed a 
 notice to the consignee. The notice may 
 be to a third party where the consignor 
 so directs. Collins v. Alabama, etc., R. 
 Co., 104 Ala. 390, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 229, 16 So. 140; Columbus, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Ludden, 89 Ala. 612, 7 So. 471, 42 Am. 
 & Eng. R. Cas. 404. The statute did not 
 lay upon the carrier a duty to notify the 
 
 consignee, but merely determined the 
 time of termination of the strict liability 
 of the carrier. Central, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Burton, 165 Ala. 425, 51 So. 643. The 
 statute made no distinction l)etween in- 
 corporated and unincorporated cities and 
 towns; and incorporation need not be 
 sliown, to take advantage of the statute. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co. z: Johnson, 33 So. 
 661, 135 Ala. 232. 
 
 Arkansas. — Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Ne- 
 vill, 60 Ark. 375, 30 S. W. 425, 28 L. R. 
 A. 80, 46 Am. St. Rep. 208; Kansas, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Morrison (Ark.), 146 S. W. 
 853. 
 
 Califuniia. — Notice is now required by 
 statute. Cal. Civ. Code, § 2120; Wilson 
 V. California Cent. R. Co., 94 Cal. 16i), 
 29 Pac. 861, 17 L. R- A. 685. See, also, 
 Jackson v. Sacramento Valley R. Co., 23 
 Cal. 268; Hirshfield v. Central Pac. R. 
 Co., 56 Cal. 484, 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 398. 
 
 Kansas. — Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. V. 
 Maris, 16 Kan. 333. 
 
 Louisiana. — Maignan v. New Orleans, 
 etc., R. Co., 24 La. Ann. 333; Sleade v. 
 Payne, 14 La. Ann. 453. 
 
 .l/(;rv/a"rf.— United Fruit Co. v. New 
 York," etc., Transp. Co., 104 Md. 567, 
 65 Atl. 415, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 240, 10 Am. 
 & Eng. Ann. Cas. 437. 
 
 Where a carrier charged, l)esides the 
 regular freight charges, a compensation 
 for streetage to the plaintiff's place of 
 l:)usiness, it was held that if the course 
 of dealing between the carrier and the 
 consignee rendered personal notice of the 
 arrival of the cars unnecessary, the car- 
 rier was not required to give such notice 
 to constitute delivery, notwithstanding 
 the extra charge of streetage. Balti- 
 more, etc., R. Co. V. Green, 25 Md. 72. 
 
 .Iftc/n'^'f/H.— McMillan v. Michigan, etc., 
 R. Co.," 16 Mich. 79, 93 Am. Dec. 208; 
 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Mich. 
 538; Walters v. Detroit United R. Co., 
 139 Mich. 303. 102 N. W. 745. See also 
 Buckley v. Great Western R. Co., 18 
 Mich. 121. 
 
 Mississippi.— GuU, etc., R. Co. v. Fuqua, 
 36 So. 449, 84 Miss. 490; Yazoo, etc., R. 
 Co. V. Blum, 102 Miss. 303, 59 So. 92; 
 Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Ferguson-McKinney 
 Dry Goods Co., 97 Miss. 266, 52 So. 
 797. 
 
 Xcw Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, etc.,
 
 901 
 
 c.\rrii:k as vv.\ki:noL'jij:MAx. 
 
 § 1095 
 
 R. Co., 32 N. H. 023, 04 Am. Dec. :i81; 
 Welch V. Concord Railroad, (>8 X. H. 200, 
 44 Atl. 304; Smith z: Xashua, etc.. Rail- 
 road. 27 X. H. 80, 5'J .\m. Dec. 304. 
 
 AVti' ]'orL\ — Mills r. Michij,'an Cent. R. 
 Co., 45 X. Y. 622, Am. Rep. 152; Hedges 
 V. Hudson River R. Co., 49 N. Y. 223, 3 
 Am. R. Rep. 340; Rawson v. Holland, 
 59 X. Y. Oil. 17 Am. Rep. 394; Solomon 
 V. Piiiladelpliia, etc.. Steamboat Co , 2 
 Daly 104; McDonald v. Western R. Corp., 
 .34 X. Y. 497; Sprague v. Xew York- 
 Cent. R. Co., 52 X. Y. 037; Duniiam v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 46 Hun 245, 11 X. 
 Y. St. Rep. 472; Sherman v. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 64 X. Y. 254, affirming 5 
 Daly 521; Zinn v. Xew Jersey Steam- 
 boat Co., 49 X. Y. 442, 10 Am. Rep. 402. 
 3 .\m. R. Rep. 340; Browning z-. Long Is- 
 land R. Co.. 2 Daly 117; Grieve v. Xew 
 York, etc., R. Co.. 49 X. Y. S. 949, 25 
 App. Div. 518; Hedges z'. Hudson River 
 R. Co., 29 X. Y. Super Ct. 119; Becker v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 96 X. Y. S. 1, 109 
 App. Div. 230; King r. Xew Brunswick, 
 etc.. Steamboat Co., 73 N. Y. S. 999, 36 
 Misc. Rep. 555; Pelton v. Rensselaer, etc.. 
 R. Co., 54 X. Y. 214, 13 Am. Rep. 508; 
 Weed z: Barney. 45 N. Y. 344, 6 Am. Rep. 
 96; Faulkner v. Hart, 82 X. Y. 413, 37 Am. 
 Rep. 574. reversing 44 X. Y. Super. Ct. 
 471; Price z\ Powell, 3 X. Y. 322. 
 
 If the consignee does not then call for 
 the goods, liability as a common carrier 
 ceases. Fcnner z'. Buffalo, etc., R. Co.. 
 44 X. Y. 505, 4 Am. Rep. 709; Grieve v. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 49 X. Y. S. 949. 
 25 App. Div. 518. 
 
 Xurth Carolina. — The Xew Hampshire 
 doctrine now prevails. Poythress v. Dur- 
 ham, etc., R. Co., 148 N. C. 391, 02 S. F. 
 515, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 427; Wall-Huske 
 Co. V. Southern R. Co., 147 N. C. 407, 01 
 S. E. 277; Citizens', etc.. Bank z: South- 
 ern R. Co., 153 X. C. 346, 69 S. E. 201. 
 But it seems that the Massachusetts 
 doctrine was formerly held. See Xeal & 
 Co. V. Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 53 X. C. 
 482; Hilliard r. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 
 51 X. C. ;!43 (question discussed but not 
 decided); Chalk z'. Charlotte, etc.. R. Co., 
 85 N. C. 423, 9 .-Km. & Kng. R. Cas. 
 106. 
 
 Ohio. — Hirsch 7'. Steamboat Quaker 
 City, 2 Disn. 144, 13 O. Dec. Reprint 89; 
 Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. z: Hatch. 52 O. 
 St. 408, 39 N. E. 1042, 01 Am. cS: Eng. R. 
 Cas. 293; Roberts z'. Union Line Exp. 
 Co., 2 O. Diec. 577. 
 
 Oregon. — If the consignee is absent, on 
 the arrival of the goods but lives in the 
 immediate vicinity of the place of deliv- 
 ery, the carrier must notify him of the 
 arrival of tlie goods, after which he has 
 a reasonable time to remove them; but if 
 he is alisent, unknown, or cannot lie 
 found, the carrier may place the goods 
 in a warehouse, and after keeping them a 
 reasonalde time, if not delivered, the car- 
 rier's liability as such ceases. McGregor 
 
 V. Oregon R., etc., Co., 50 Ore. 527, 93 
 Pac. 405. 
 
 Tennessee. — See Code, § 3597, ch. 26, 
 p. 841; Code 1884, § 2788; Pennsylvania 
 R. Co. V. Xaive, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S. \V. 
 124, 04 L. R. A. 443; Dean z: Vaccaro, 39 
 Tcnn. (2 Head) 488, 75 .Am. Dec. 744; 
 Butler V. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 76 
 Tenn. (8 Lea) 32, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 249, holding that the statute does not 
 appear to affect the liability of the car- 
 rier. 
 
 Texas. — The statute provides that a car- 
 rier shall remain lialde as such until ac- 
 tual delivery to the consignee unless it 
 has used due diligence to notify the con- 
 signee. See Rev. St.. arts. 281. 282; Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co. V. Haynes & Co., 72 
 Te.x. 175, 10 S. W. 398, 37 Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 645; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 .Am. Rep. 110; 
 Galveston, etc., R. Co. f. Hunt (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 32 S. W. 549. 
 
 What constitutes due diligence depends 
 in some degree upon the facts and cir- 
 cumstances of each case in which it is 
 to be shown, and upon the custom and 
 usage of business at the place of deliv- 
 ery (Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Adams, 49 
 Tex. 748, 30 .\m. Rep. 116), and is a ques- 
 tion for the jury. (Texas, etc.. R. Co. f. 
 Gilmore (Tex. Civ. App.). 152 S. W. 1102). 
 
 Vermont. — Guimit v. Henshaw. 35 Vt. 
 605, 84 Am. Dec. 040; Blumenthal v. 
 Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 .\m. Dec. 350; 
 Winslow V. Vermont, etc., R. Co., 42 Vt. 
 700, 1 Am. Rep. 305. 
 
 I'ir'ginia. — See Xorfolk, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Stuart's Draft Mill. Co.. 109 \a. 184, 63 
 S. E. 415. 
 
 Washington. — Xorth Yakima Brewing 
 etc., Co. V. Xorthern Pac. R. Co.. 95 Pac. 
 486, 49 Wash. 375, 10 L. R. .A., X. S., 
 935. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Wood v. Crocker. IS Wis. 
 345, 86 Am. Dec. 773; Lemke z: Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 39 Wis. 449, 13 .Am. 
 R. Rep. 406. See Hermann 7-. Goodrich. 
 21 Wis. 530. 
 
 Canada. — Richardson v. Canadian Pac. 
 R. Co., 19 Ont. Rep. 369, 45 .Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 413. 
 
 Origin of rule.— "The custom of send- 
 ing notice to the consignee sprung out of 
 the necessity of Imsiness. and is for the 
 l)enefit and convenience of l)Oth parties. 
 '1 he railroads established this custom, the 
 public acquiesced therein, and the law 
 adapts itself thereto." Railroad Co. z: 
 Hatch. 52 O. St. 408. 39 X. E. 1042. 
 
 Where the consignee is absent from the 
 terminus of tlu- carrii-r's route, and has 
 no agent to whom delivery can be made 
 or notice given, the carrier may terminate 
 his lialiility as carrier l)y depositing the 
 merchandise in a warehouse. Xorthrop 
 ?'. Svracuse. etc.. R. Co. (X. Y.). 5 .Abb. 
 Prac.. X. S.. 425; S. C, 3 .Abb. Dec. 
 3Sf>. 
 
 Effect of knowledge of consignee. — 
 Where tools were ct>iisigned t<> the
 
 1095 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 902 
 
 addressed to the consignee's usual shipping i^lace.''"* or where his residence is 
 unknown and the carrier fails to ascertain it after due inquiry.'""' 
 
 Effect of Contract or Custom. — It is held that the giving of notice to the 
 consignee of the arrixal of goods may he waived hy contract,*'"' and also hy the 
 previous course of dealings hetween the parties.*'^ And notice may be excused 
 
 shipper at a flag station, and on arrival 
 the consignee,' in passing through the 
 town, noticed a car containing siniihir 
 goods standing on the side track, where- 
 upon he immediately took steps to as- 
 certain if the shipment belonged to him, 
 no notice of arrival on the part of the 
 carrier was required. Normile r. North- 
 ern Pac. R. Co.. 77 Tac. 10S7, liO Wash. 
 21. 67 L. R. A. 271. 
 
 Where the bill of lading stipulated for 
 notice to a third person, and provided 
 that if the property was not removed on 
 presentation of the bill within 48 hours 
 after notice, the carrier was liable as a 
 warehouseman only, the third person, on 
 receiving notice, must within forty-eight 
 hours present the bill if lie wished to 
 hold the carrier as such, as after that 
 time the carrier became a warehouseman. 
 Lyons v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 119 N. 
 Y. S. 703. affirmed in 120 N. Y. S. 1132, 
 136 App. Div. !•()■;. 
 
 A carrier under a bill of lading requir- 
 ing notice to the purchaser from the con- 
 signee is liable as carrier until it lias 
 placed the car in a proper place for ex- 
 amination by the purchaser. Johnson & 
 Co. z: Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.), 79 
 Atl. 109.5. 
 
 Condition in notice. — Where after a 
 stipulation for notice, without any agree- 
 ment as to the form or conditions thereof, 
 the carrier gives notice, with the condi- 
 tion written thereon, that the liability 
 of the carrier terminates upon the arrival 
 of the goods, and the consignee receive 
 such notice without objection and con- 
 tinues his shipments over the road, such 
 condition is binding on both parties. Lea- 
 venworth, etc., R. Co. V. Maris, 16 Kan. 
 333. 
 
 64. Goods not properly addressed. — 
 American Stan(hird Jewelry Co. v. With- 
 erington. 81 Ark. 134, 98 S. W. 695. 
 
 65. Pelton v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co.. 54 
 N. Y. 214, 13 Am. Rep. 568. See Zinn 
 v. New Jersey Steamboat Co.. 49 N. Y. 
 442, 10 Am. Rep. 402, 3 Am. R. Rep. 340. 
 
 In Sherman v. Hudson River R. Co., 64 
 N. Y. 254, it was said: "When the con- 
 signee is unknown to the carrier, a due 
 effort to find him and notify him of the 
 arrival of the goods is a condition prece- 
 dent to the right to warehouse them." 
 
 If the consignee is unknown, or absent, 
 or cannot be found, the goods may be 
 stored. Railroad Co. v. Hatch, 52 O. St. 
 408, 39 N. E. 1042; affirming 6 O. C. C. 
 230, 3 O. C. D. 430; Hirsch v. Steamboat 
 Quaker City, 2 Disn. 144, 13 O. Dec. Re- 
 print 89; Roberts v. Union Line Kxp. 
 Co., 2 O. Dec. 577. 
 
 Where a i)arty has no fixed residence, 
 and liis temporary stopping place is 
 not known to the cai-rier shipping his 
 goods, and on their arrival at the point 
 of destination the company places them 
 in the warehouse, it is not at fault for 
 failing to give the shipper notice of the 
 arrival of the goods. Butler v. East Ten- 
 nessee, etc.. R. Co.. 76 Tenn. (8 Lea) 32. 
 9 Am. & Kng. R. Cas. 249. 
 
 66. Contract dispensing with notice. — 
 Gashweiler r. Wal)ash, etc.. R. Co., 83 
 Mo. 112, 53 Am. Rep. 558; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Carter, 62 111. App. 618. 
 
 Where the bill of lading provides that 
 the goods shall be taken from alongside 
 by the consignees immediately the vessel 
 is ready to discharge, otherwise they shall 
 he deposited in the company's warehouse 
 at the owner's risk notice to the con- 
 signees is not necessary. Constable v. 
 National Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 38 
 L. Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062. 
 
 67. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Carter, 62 
 111. App. 618. 
 
 Where it has l)een the custom of the 
 consignee to call daily and receive goods' 
 shipped to him by a common carrier, no 
 notice to the consignee of the arrival of 
 any consignment is necessary; but, where 
 the usage has been for the consignee not 
 to receive or remove goods arriving upon 
 a holiday, as to such goods the ordinary 
 rule applies. The carrier, to relieve him- 
 self from lialMlity for damages to the 
 goods after their arrival, must give no- 
 tice and a reasonable time to remove; 
 otherwise, the liability attaches until after 
 the time of removal upon the next day. 
 Russell Mfg. Co. t. New Haven Steam- 
 boat Co., 52 N. Y. 657. See S. C, 50 N. 
 Y. 121. 
 
 Question for jury. — In an action against 
 a railroad company for the value of oats 
 shipped l)y plaintiff directed to a military 
 officer at tlie foot of Sixth street wharf, 
 in Washington, D. C. there was evidence 
 that a course of dealing between defend- 
 ant and the consignee to the effect that 
 the consignee's depot was the Sixth street 
 wharf in Washington, he being the for- 
 age agent of the government; that it was 
 his duty to report every night to another 
 officer all cars that arrived at the foot 
 of Sixth street; that as many as twenty 
 cars a day were received at such depot 
 on the government wharves, whence oats 
 were shipped to Alexandria. The custom 
 was to deliver all cars marked for the 
 first officer referred to at the foot of Sixth 
 street. Held, that the court should have 
 left it to the jury to find whether the 
 course of dealing between the railroad
 
 903 
 
 C.\KKIi:i< AS WAKKIIOUSEMAX. 
 
 §§ 1095-1096 
 
 where a usage or custom prevails which dispenses witli it;''*' but sucli usage 
 or custom must be so clear and notorious as to atiford a presumption that all 
 parties acted with an understanding of its character and application.'^'-* And 
 notice must be given where the carrier contracts to give notice,"" or where it 
 is tlu- custom (if the parties for it to be given."^ 
 
 Sufficiency of Notice. — As to sufficiency oi notice of arri\al of goods, see 
 elsewhere. "- 
 
 § 1096. What Is Reasonable Time. — Some courts hold that the liability 
 of a carrier as sucli continues until the consignee has had a reasonable oppor- 
 lunit\- to rcmo\c the goods on arri\al at their destination.""' It is held that 
 
 compaii}- anil the consisnee was such as 
 to make it unreasonable to expect per- 
 sonal notice of the arrival of the cars, 
 and if sucli course of dealing renderc(l 
 sucli notice necessary, or dispensed 
 witli it, then the company was ncjt imper- 
 atively required to give such notice, to 
 constitute delivery, notwithstanding an 
 extra cliarge of strcetagc. Baltimore, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Green, 2'> Md. 72. 
 
 68. Effect of usage or custom. — Illinois. 
 —Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Carter, 62 111. 
 App. IJIS. 
 
 Xcw York.— Gihson v. Culver (N. Y.), 
 17 Wend. 305, 31 Am. Dec. 297; Atlantic 
 Nav. Co. V. Johnson, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
 475. Compare Mierson v. Hope, 2 
 Sweeney 5(5. 
 
 Vermont. — Farmers', etc., Bank v. Chap- 
 lain Transp. Co., 16 \\. 52. 42 Am. Dec. 
 491. 
 
 Contra. — A custom of a railroad com-- 
 pany not to notify consignees of the ar- 
 rival of goods at a station where there 
 was no freight agent will not relieve the 
 company from liability for injury to 
 goods after their arrival at such station, 
 where the consignee was not notified. 
 Allam V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 5 Pa. Dist. 
 R. 54. 
 
 The liability of a carrier does not termi- 
 nate until notice of the arrival of the 
 goods at their destination has been given 
 the consignee, irrespective of any custom 
 on the part of the railroad not to give 
 such notice. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Fuqua, 
 36 So. 449, 84 Miss. 490. 
 
 The usage or custom of a port can not 
 dispense with delivery, or notice of the 
 landing of the goods. Dean v. Vaccaro, 
 39 Tenn. (2 Head) 488, 75 .\m. Dec. 744. 
 
 Custom as to holiday. — Where it is a 
 general and uniform custom at a place 
 to which freight is consigned not to give 
 notice of arrival on the 4th of July, neg- 
 ligence can not be predicated on the fail- 
 ure of a carrier to give notice, and one 
 who ships goods to an agent at a place 
 where such custom prevails is bound by 
 such custom, though he had no actual 
 knowledge thereof. Pennsylvania R. Co. 
 V. Naive, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S. W. 124, 04 
 L. R. -A. 443. 
 
 69. Usage or custom must be notorious. 
 — The Alarv Washington, Feci. Cas. No. 
 9,229, 1 Al)b. U. S. 1. Chase 125; Howe 
 
 V. Lexington, I-'ed. Cas. N'o. 6,767a. See 
 Gibson V. Culver (N. Y.), 17 Wend. 305. 
 31 .\m. Dec: 297. 
 
 Contra.— See Turner 7-. Huff. 46 /\rk. 
 222. 55 Am. Rep. 5s(l. 
 
 70. Contract to give notice. — Tanner v. 
 Oil Creek R. Co., 53 Ph. 411; Layton & 
 Sons V. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 90 S. C. 
 323. 72 S. F. 988. 
 
 Where a bill of lading contains a pro- 
 vision and condition to the effect that, "if 
 the word 'order' is written immediately 
 l)efore or after the name of the party to 
 whose order the property is consigned, 
 the surrender of the bill of lading, prop- 
 erly indorsed, shall be required before de- 
 livery of the property at destination," and 
 the words "order notify" appear before 
 the name of the consignee thereon, such 
 bill of lading requires notice to the con- 
 signee. Lavton & Sons v. Charleston, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 72 S. F. 988, 90 S. C. 323. 
 
 That notice was contrary to the rules 
 of the freight office does ncjt excuse the 
 carrier's failure to notify the consignee 
 where it contracts to do so. Tanner v. 
 Oil Creek R. Co., 53 Pa. 411. 
 
 71. Custom to give notice. — Aabama. — 
 Such custom does not have the effect of 
 imposing the positive duty to give such 
 notice, but merely affects the time of 
 termination of the liability of the carrier 
 as such. Central, etc.. R. Co. v. Burton, 
 165 Ala. 425, 51 So. 643. 
 
 Georgia. — Richmond, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 White, 88 Ga. 805, 15 S. F. 802. 
 
 Kentucky. — Bryant v. Louisville, etc.. R. 
 Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 47; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Hopkinsville Canning Co., 132 Ky. 
 578, 116 S. W. 758. 
 
 Missouri.— Vvd^nk v. Grand Tower, etc., 
 R. ,Co.. 57 Mo. App. 181; Kerf, etc.. 
 Chemical Co. v. Lackawanna Line. 100 
 Mo. App. 164. 73 S. W. 346. 
 
 The usage may be dispensed with by 
 an express stipulation to tliat etTect in 
 the contract of shipment; but a stipula- 
 tion that the goods are to be called for 
 on the dav of their arrival docs not have 
 that effect. Herf. etc.. Chemical Co. v. 
 Lackawanna Line. 7:: S. W. 346, 100 Mo. 
 
 App. 164. 
 
 72. Sufficiency of notice.— See ante, 
 "Duties in ^Llking Delivery." § S45. 
 
 73. See ante. "Railroads and Carriers by 
 Water Having Fixed Schedule." § 1094.
 
 § 1096 
 
 CARRlliRS. 
 
 904 
 
 such reasonable time is not to have reference to the peculiar situation and cir- 
 cumstances of the consignee, but is such time as would give to a person residing 
 in the vicinitv of the place of delivery, and informed of the usual course of the 
 carrier's business and of the time when the goods may be expected to arrive, 
 suitable onportunity, within the usual business hours, to inspect the goods and 
 take theni away.""* It is also held that what constitutes such reasonable time 
 depends upon the circumstances of each particular case/^ such as the character 
 of the freight,'" and the proximity of the consignee to the point of delivery and 
 his knowledge of the arrival of the shipment.'" Computation of the reasonable 
 time in which a consignee may apply for and remove freight begins when it is 
 at the place and ready for delivery in the usual manner.' ^"^ It is also held that 
 the period of reasonable time begins when the consignee knows, or, in the exer- 
 cise of reasonable diligence should know, that the goods have arrived. '^'^ 
 Instances of reasonable time are set out in the notes.^" 
 
 74. What is reasonable time. — Maryland. 
 — United Fruit Co. r. New York, etc., 
 Transp. Co.. 104 Md. 567, 65 Atl. 415, 8 
 L. R. A., N. S.. 240. 
 
 Minnesota. — Derosia v. Winona, etc., R. 
 Co., 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119; Pinney v. First 
 Division, etc.. R. Co., 19 Minn. 251, Gil. 
 211, 20 Am. R. Rep. 71. 
 
 Xczi' Hampshire. — Moses v. Boston, etc., 
 Railroad, 32 N. H. 523, 64 Am. Dec. 381. 
 
 Wisconsin. — See Wood v. Crocker, 18 
 Wis. 345, 86 Am. Dec. 773. 
 
 75. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Merrill & 
 Co., 153 Ala. 277, 45 So. 628; Poythress v. 
 Durham, etc., R. Co., 148 N. C. 391, 62 
 S. E. 515, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 427; North 
 Yakima Brewing, etc., Co. v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co., 49 Wash. 375, 95 Pac. 486, 16 
 L. R. A., N. S., 935. 
 
 76. Briant v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 9 
 Ky. L. Rep. 47. 
 
 77. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Merrill & 
 Co., 153 Ala. 277, 45 So. 628; Briant v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 47. 
 Contra, Berry v. West Virginia, etc., R. 
 Co., 44 W. Va. 538, 30 S. E. 143, 67 Am. 
 St. Rep. 781. 
 
 78. Southern R. Co. v. Adams Mach. 
 Co., 165 Ala. 436, 51 So. 779. 
 
 79. Lewis v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 135 
 Ky. 361, 122 S. W. 184, 25 L. R. A., N. 
 S.. 938, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 527. 
 
 80. Instances of reasonable time- 
 Plaintiff consigned goods to himself at 
 Waseca. They arrived, a portion on 
 March 8th and part on March 10th, and 
 were unloaded ready for delivery on the 
 morning following their arrival. He first 
 called for them March 16th, and, no one 
 being present to deliver them to him, he 
 went away, and March 17th they were 
 destroyed by fire. Held, that a reasonable 
 time in which to remove them had 
 elapsed. Derosia v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 
 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119. 
 
 Where the consignee, after being noti- 
 fied on Saturday afternoon of the delivery 
 of the shipment on the dock, allows part 
 of it to remain there until the following 
 Wednesday afternoon, when it is de- 
 stroyed by fire, the carrier is not liable 
 as a carrier for its loss. Wynantskill 
 
 Knitting Co. v. Murray, 90 Hun 5.)4, 36 
 N. Y. S. 26, 71 _N. Y. St. Rep. 33. 
 
 Notice of arrival on November 25, was 
 given the owners the same day; the 
 goods were discharged on the 27th; and 
 the owners had three full days in which 
 to remove them before December 1st, 
 when it was discovered that part of the 
 goods had been lost since the 29th. Held, 
 that the owners had had sufficient time by 
 the exercise of due diligence to remove 
 them. Tarbell v. Royal Exch. Shipping 
 Co., 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 190; S. C, 110 
 N. Y. 170, 17 N. E. 721, 6 Am. St. Rep. 
 350. 
 
 Goods arrived Thursday, and were dis- 
 charged on dock Friday. Notice was 
 mailed Thursday evening, but did not 
 reach the plaintiff till Saturday forenoon. 
 Saturday was very stormy, and the goods 
 were not called for until Monday, when 
 they were found to be greatly injured by 
 rain. Held, that Monday was a reason- 
 able time to remove the goods. Solomon 
 V. Philadelphia, etc., Steamboat Co. (N. 
 Y.), 2 Daly 104. 
 
 After the arrival of goods they were 
 placed on a platform at the depot for the 
 convenience of delivery to consignees, 
 and remained there for nearly two days. 
 Notice of their arrival- was given to plain- 
 tiff, who paid the freight charges with 
 full knowledge of the place of deposit; 
 and in the afternoon of the second day 
 they were destroyed by fire. Held, that 
 defendant's liability as carrier had ceased. 
 Chalk V. Charlotte, etc., R. Co., 85 N. C. 
 423, 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 106. 
 
 The consignee of a package of money, 
 who lived one mile from the station, re- 
 ceived .notice Monday evening that the 
 package had arrived, but did not call for 
 it until Wednesday noon. The package 
 was lost in the meanwhile. Held, that 
 the consignee did not call for the pack- 
 age within a reasonable time, and hence 
 the carrier was not liable. Adams Exp. 
 Co. V. Tingle, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 441. 
 
 The consignee of money, who learned, 
 by meeting the station agent at another 
 place than the destination point, that the 
 money had arrived, and who proceeded
 
 905 
 
 CARRIER AS WARF.HOL'SIC.MAN. 
 
 § 1096 
 
 Where the goods did not arrive on time, and when the consignee ex- 
 
 to his home, 14 miles Iroiu the lieslina- 
 tion point, and was about sending for the 
 money the next day, when it was de- 
 stroyed, had had a reasonable time to re- 
 move it. Roberts v. Union Line Exp. Co., 
 2 O. Dec. 577. 
 
 Where the only reason why goods 
 ready for delivery by a carrier -were not 
 removed before destroyed by fire was 
 because the consignee wished to have the 
 bill of lading when he paid the freight, 
 and had not received it from the con- 
 signor although he had written for it sev- 
 eral times, a reasonable time for removal 
 had elapsed where the goods had re- 
 mained in the depot some weeks after ar- 
 rival, and the consignee, about a week 
 before the tire, had knowledge of their 
 arrival, and the carrier's only liability was 
 that of a warehouseman. Knight v. 
 Southern Raihvav, <)7 S. E. !(>, 85 S. 
 C. 78. 
 
 Where a Ijox laj- in a railroad com- 
 pany's freight house from the 17th of 
 September to the 24th, the consignee 
 knowing the fact, and on the night of 
 the 24th was stolen, it was held that a 
 reasonable time had elapsed. Blumenthal 
 V. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350. 
 
 Where goods were held at destination 
 three and one-half months after arrival 
 when they were sold for freight charges, 
 the carrier's liability as a carrier had 
 ceased, and had become that of a ware- 
 houseman when the goods were sold. 
 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Stuart's Draft 
 Mill. Co.. 109 \'a. 184, 63 S. E. 415, 
 
 Plaintiff called at defendant's freight 
 office and said that he desired to pay 
 the freight bills and remove the ship- 
 ment. He was informed that the freight 
 bills would be ready at any time after 
 noon on that day; but plaintifif did not 
 call for the containers in the afternoon, 
 and they were destroyed the following 
 night by fire, without negligence on de- 
 fendant's part. Plaintifif's place of busi- 
 ness was but 400 feet from the ware- 
 house where the containers were stored, 
 and the only reason why they were not 
 taken away, during the afternoon of May 
 5th, before the fire, was that it did not 
 suit plaintifif's convenience. Held, that de- 
 fendant's relation as carrier had been 
 terminated, and that it was not responsi- 
 ble for the loss of the containers. North 
 Yakima Brewing, etc., Co. v. Northern 
 Pac. R. Co., 95 Pac. 486, 49 Wash. 375, 
 16 L. R. A., N. S., 935. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped goods by defendant's 
 road to W., where they were received at 
 the depot at 5:30 p. m. on Saturday, and 
 were destroyed l)y fire about noon on the 
 following Tuesday. Held tliat, plaintiff 
 had a reasonable time in which to remove 
 the goods. Lemkc v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 
 39 W'is. 449. 13 Am. R. Rep. 406. 
 
 One day is a reasonalilc time to unload. 
 1 Car— 58 
 
 and remove to a distance of one mile 03 
 balej of hops, so as to change the car- 
 rier's liability to that of a warehouseman, 
 where the consignee has sufficient drays 
 availal)le to effect the removal. Brand r. 
 New Jersey Steamboat Co., 10 Misc. Rep. 
 128, 30 N. Y. S. 903, 02 N. V. St. Rep. 
 470. 
 
 Three days after notice held reasonable 
 time. Anniston. etc., R. Co. v. Ledbetter, 
 92 Ala. 320, 9 So. 73; Backhaus v. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co., 92 Wis. 393, 00 N. W. 
 400. 
 
 Where a piano, which could have been 
 removed from the carrier's depot in about 
 an hour, is allowed to remain three days 
 after its arrival, the carrier will be held 
 liable only as a warehouseman, notwith- 
 standing consignee lived twenty-eight 
 miles away. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Ludden, 89 Ala. 012, 7 So. 471, 42 Am. & 
 I'.ng. R. Cas. 404. 
 
 Where a cart shipped to the shipper, as 
 consignee, was received at the delivery 
 point on September 27th, and the con- 
 signee notified thereof, the carrier was 
 only liable as a warehouseman for its loss 
 by fire on October 1st, even though the 
 consignee did not arrive at the place of 
 delivery, or have an agent there, till after 
 such time. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Peter- 
 son, 69 Pac. 57S, 30 Colo. 77, 97 Am. St. 
 Rep. 70. 
 
 Six days lield reasonable time. Welch 
 V. Concord Railroad, 68 N. H. 200, 44 Atl. 
 304. 
 
 Plaintiff received four hundred and 
 thirty-seven bales of cotton, which had 
 been shipped over defendant's road. 
 Plaintiff immediately began to haul the 
 cotton in wagons to its factory, which 
 was six miles distant. The station plat- 
 form would only hold about one hundred 
 bales, and the rest were allowed to re- 
 main in the cars until room was made 
 for them on the platform. SLx days after 
 its arrival one hundred and three bales 
 on the platform and twenty-five bales in 
 a car were destroyed by fire. Held, that 
 such six days was a reasonable time 
 within which the cotton might have been 
 removed, as a matter of law, and hence 
 the liability of the defendant as a com- 
 mon carrier had ceased, under the bill 
 of lading, providing that lial)ility as a 
 carrier ceased on the arrival of the goods 
 at their destination. Tallassee Falls Mfg. 
 Co. V. Western Railway, 29 So. 203, 128 
 Ala. li'.T. 
 
 Eight days held more than a reasonable 
 time. Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. Maris, 
 10 Kan. 333. 
 
 Nine days. — Where goods shipped to 
 a consignee under a contract providing 
 that, if not removed in twelve working 
 hours, they should remain stored in the 
 freight station at the owner's risk, were 
 stolen nine davs alter arrival having been
 
 § 1096 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 90o 
 
 pected them, that fact is to be considered in deterniinini:^ whether a consignee 
 
 meanwhile seized on attachment against 
 the consignee, who failed to claim them, 
 it was held, that the carrier had become 
 a warehouseman. Frank Bros. & Co. i: 
 Central R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 129. 
 
 Eighteen days between the mailing of 
 notice o\ the arrival of goods at their 
 destination and their destruction by fire 
 is more than a reasonable time for their 
 removal by the consignee. Southern R. 
 Co. f. Adams Mach. Co., 1(55 Ala. 43(). 51 
 So. 779. 
 
 Instances of what is not reasonable 
 time. — .\ shipment was read}- for delivery 
 at about noon and was burned that night. 
 It did not appear where the consignee re- 
 sided or was engaged in business, or 
 that he knew of its arrival or readiness 
 for delivery. Held that, it was not a 
 reasonable time within wliich the com- 
 pany's liability should be changed from 
 that of a carrier to that of a warehouse- 
 man. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Merrill & 
 Co., 153 Ala. 277, 45 So. 628. 
 
 In the absence of statute or custom, 
 from the arrival of goods at destination 
 on Friday at 3 p. m. to Monday at 1:45 
 a. m. was not a reasonable time for their 
 removal bj' the consignee so as to termi- 
 nate the liability of the carrier as such. 
 Central, etc., R. Co. v. Burton, 165 Ala. 
 425, 51 So. 643. 
 
 A steamboat discharged a shipment of 
 twenty-six bales of cotton Saturday after- 
 noon, about sunset. The consignor, who 
 was then present, received notice, but was 
 able to remove twenty bales only. On 
 Monday following, the consignee was re- 
 quired to remove another shipment, which 
 had previously arrived, and did not call 
 for the remaining six bales until about 
 2 o'clock p. m. Five bales had then dis- 
 appeared. There was evidence that it 
 was customary for the consignee to have 
 at least forty-eight hours within which 
 to remove goods from the wharf. Held, 
 that the consignee was not guilty of any 
 negligence, and that the carrier's lial)il- 
 ity did not end when the cotton was first 
 demanded by the consignee. Sleade v. 
 Payne, 14 La. Ann. 453. 
 
 Goods arrived at the carrier's freight 
 house between 1 and 3 o'clock in the 
 afternoon. In the usual course of busi- 
 ness, from two to three hours were re- 
 quired to unload the freight from the cars 
 into the warehouse, and no goods could 
 be removed therefrom after 5 o'clock un- 
 til the next morning. During the night 
 the goods were consumed by fire. Held, 
 that upon these facts the jury were war- 
 ranted in finding that the consignee had 
 not a reasonable opportunity to take the 
 wool into his possession before the fire. 
 Moses V. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 32 N. 
 H. 523, 64 Am. Dec. 381. 
 
 A railroad company is liable for goods 
 destroyed in its cars by fire on the night 
 
 after their arrival, if the consignee, imme- 
 diately on notice of their arrival, begins 
 to remove them, using a reasonable num- 
 ber of teams, and discontinues his labors 
 only at the end of the usual working 
 hours of the day. Dunham z\ Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 46 Hun 345, 11 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. 472. 
 
 Notice of arrival of the goods re- 
 ceived by the consignee after dark, in 
 the month of February, would not re- 
 quire him to call for them before busi- 
 ness hours the next day, and the carrier 
 is lial)le if the goods are burned that 
 night in its warehouse. Lake Erie, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Hatch, 6 O. C. C. 230, 3 O. C. D. 
 430. 
 
 Plaintiff's agent learned of the arrival 
 of the goods in question between 4 and 
 5 o'clock p. m., which was a few hours 
 after the car in which the goods were 
 transported reached destination. The 
 shipping receipt had not arrived, and it 
 was customary for the carrier's office to 
 close at 6 p. m. Plaintiff did not remove 
 the goods that night, during which they 
 were destroyed by fire. Held, tliat the 
 loss occurred before the expiration of a 
 reasonable time for the removal of the 
 goods as a matter of law. McGregor v. 
 Oregon R., etc., Co., 50 Ore. 527, 93 Pac. 
 465. 
 
 Goods wdiich arrived at their destina- 
 tion at 11 o'clock a. m. were unloaded in 
 defendant's depot between 1 and 3 p. m., 
 and were probably ready for delivery to 
 the consignee about 4 o'clock p. m. The 
 depot was closed, as usual, at 6 p. m., 
 and the goods were destroyed by fire the 
 next morning, before business hours. 
 Held, that a reasonable time for the con- 
 signee to take the goods away had not 
 elapsed before their destruction, and de- 
 fendant continued liable for them as a 
 common carrier. Parker v. Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co., 30 Wis. 689, 7 Am. R. Rep. 
 255. 
 
 Goods for the plaintiffs, transported 
 over the defendant's railroad, reached the 
 station at the place of their destination 
 near sundown, and were taken from the 
 cars and placed in the warehouse of 
 the company about dark on Sunday night, 
 and a few minutes afterwards the ware- 
 house was closed for the night. The 
 warehouse was three-quarters of a mile 
 from the plaintiffs' place of business. 
 Their cartman had called for the goods 
 on Saturday afternoon about 3 o'clock, 
 and was told l)y the freight agent that he 
 need not come again that day, as it 
 would be late before the freight train 
 would arrive. He was, however, in- 
 formed about dusk that the goods had 
 come, btit made no effort to get them, as 
 it was nearly time for the warehouse to 
 close. Before Monday morning the 
 goods were destroyed, together with the
 
 907 
 
 CARUIKR AS WAKIvHOUSKMAN. 
 
 § 1096 
 
 had such reasonahk- opportunit)' to reinrne the ^oofls as would terminate the 
 hahihly of a railroad as a common carrier. *"' 
 
 The consignee's distance from the depot or means or removal i- umi i.j 
 be considered in deterniiiiin;^ wlial is a rea'^onahle time.""- 
 
 Where there is a stipulation for notice, without limitations or conditions, 
 of the arrival of <.(o()d>, du- na^Diiahlc lime for ri-nio\al cdmint-iurs with the 
 date of the notice.^-' 
 
 When Question for Court or Jury. — The (|uesiion wiiciiicr a consijinee has 
 had a reasonahlc lime in which to ninove jifoods after their arrival at the i>lace 
 of destination is a (|uestion for the jury, if there he a conllict of evidence as 
 to the material facts, or when the facts are donhtful ; '*■' hut if the evidence is 
 undisputed,^'' or the facts few and >ini|ile.^*' the (|ui-stion is one for the court. 
 
 warehouse, without fault of the defend- 
 ant. Held, that the defendant was liable 
 for the . goods as a common carrier. 
 Wood V. Crocker. IS Wis. 34.5, 8(5 Am. 
 Dec. 77:5. 
 
 The consignee of flour sent hy rail 
 demanded the flour at the freight depot 
 the morning after its arrival which was 
 late in the afternoon, and it was not to 
 be found. The railroad company was 
 held liable. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co. v. 
 Fairchild. i> \\'is. lo:;. 
 
 81. Goods arriving out of time. — JcfTer- 
 sonvillc R. Co. v. Cleveland (Ky.), 2 
 Bush. 4r)8. 
 
 82. Distance from depot.^Berry v. 
 West Virginia, etc.. R. Co., 44 W. Va. .538, 
 30 S. E. 143, G7 Am. St. Rep. 781; Gulf, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Ferguson-McKinney Dry 
 Goods Co., 97 Miss. 266, 52 So. 797. But 
 see Central, etc., R. Co. v. Merrill & Co., 
 1.53 .Ma. 277. 45 So. 628. 
 
 That the consignee lives twenty-eight 
 miles from the place to which the goods 
 are consigned will not be considered in 
 determining what is a reasonable time 
 after the arrival of the goods within 
 which he should have called for them. 
 Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Ludden, 89 Ala. 
 612, 7 So. 471, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 404. See Southern R. Co. v. Aldredge, 3S 
 So. 805. 142 .'\la. 3C.S. 
 
 83. Stipulation for notice. — Leaven- 
 worth, etc.. R. Co. V. Maris. 16 Kan^ 333. 
 
 84. Question for jury. — United States. 
 — Broadwell r. Butler. Fed. Cas. No. 1910. 
 6 McLean 296. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Sessions v. Western R. 
 Corp. (Mass.). 16 Gray 132. 
 
 Miunesota. — Derosia v. Winona, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119, 8 Am. R. Rep. 
 363. 
 
 M/.f.yo»n.— Frank r. Grand Tower, etc., 
 R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 181. 
 
 Ncxi' York.— Roth v. BulTalo. etc.. R. 
 Co.. 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736; 
 Hedges v. Hudson River R. Co., 49 N. Y. 
 223, 3 Am. R. Rep. 346; reversing 6 Robt. 
 N Y. 119. See Lamb 7\ Camden, etc., 
 Transp. Co. (N. Y.). 2 Daly 454. 
 
 Xorth Carolina.— Voxthrcss v. Durham, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 148 N. C. 391, 62 S. E. 515. 
 18 L. R. A.. N. S.. 427. 
 
 .South Carolina. — Knight v. Southern 
 Railway. 85 S. C. 78. 07 S. E. 10. 
 
 West I'irfiinia. — Berry v. West \'irginja, 
 etc., R. Co.. 44 W. \a. 538. 30 S. E. 143. 
 67 Am. St. Rep. 781. 
 
 Il'iconsin. — Lemkc v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 39 Wis. 449. 13 .\xn. R. Rep. 400; 
 Wood V. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 27 Wis. 
 541. 9 Am. Rep. 465. 2 .Am. R. Rep. 342. 
 lini^htiid. — Coxon r. North Eastern R. 
 Co.. 4 Ry. & C. T. Cas. 2S4. 
 
 Where the passage to the wharf was 
 so blocked liy landing other freight that 
 the carts of the consignee could not ob- 
 tain access to his goods, which were dam- 
 aged by rain l)efore removal, held, that 
 it was a question for the jury to deter- 
 mine whether under circumstances a rea- 
 sonable time had elapsed after notice of 
 its arrival for the consignees to remove 
 it. before its injury by the rain. Good- 
 win r. Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. (N. Y.), 
 5S Barb. 195. 
 
 85. Question for court — .Uahama. — 
 Cohiml)us. etc.. R. Co. z: Ludden. 89 Ala. 
 612, 7 So. 471. 42 .\m. & Eng. R. Cas. 
 404. 
 
 Colorado. — Denver, etc.. R. Co. z: Teter- 
 son, 30 Colo. 77. 69 Pac. 57S. 97 Am. St. 
 Rep. 76. 
 
 Kentucky. — .Adams Exp. Co. v. Tingle. 
 7 Kv. L. Rep. 441. 
 
 .Missouri. — Frank f. Grand Tower, etc.. 
 R. Co.. 57 Mo. -App. 181. 
 
 .Wtc J'orA'.— Laporte 7-. Wells Fargo & 
 Co.'s Exp.. 48 N. Y. S. 292. 23 App. Div. 
 267: Hedges i: Hudson River R. Co.. 49 
 N. Y. 223, 3 Am. R. Rep. 346. 
 
 .Xorth Carolina. — Povthress v. Durham, 
 etc.. R. Co.. 148 N. C. 391. 02 S. E. 515. 
 18 L. R. A.. N. S.. 427. 
 
 South C(ir(7/(»<7.— Knight f. Southern 
 Railway. 85 S. C. 78. 07 S. E. 10. 
 
 ll'est I'ir^iuia. — Berry v. West \'irginia. 
 etc.. R. Co!. 44 W. Va. 538. 30 S. E. 14^. 
 67 Am. St. Rep. 781. 
 
 Wisconsin. — Lemkc v. Chicago, etc.. R. 
 Co.. 39 Wis. 449, 13 .Am. R. Rep. 400. 
 
 86. Frank f. Grand Tower, etc.. R. Co.. 
 57 Mo. .App. 181; Lemke 7'. Chicago, etc.. 
 R. Co.. 3" ^^■i- •''• i:f Am. R. Rep. 406.
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 908 
 
 §§ 1097-1098 
 
 8 1097 How Long Liability Continues.— A carrier's liability as ware- 
 houseman continues so long as it keeps the goods in its warehouse/'^' or until it 
 notifies the consignee that it will not insist on storage charges.^^ 
 
 88 1098-1100. Duties and Liabilities— § 1098. In General.— Duty 
 to Store in Safe Place.— A carrier must provide a reasonably safe , place 
 where freight can be stored ; ^•' or, as was stated in another case,_ it is bound 
 to use ordinary care and prudence in providing a depository/'" It is not bound 
 to provide a place that is fireproof.-'^ W'bere a carrier has no depot or ware- 
 house at the place of destination for the storage of such freight as corn, it has 
 a rit^ht to warehouse the corn in cars on side tracks.^^ 
 
 Duty to Keep Watch.— A carrier liable as a warehouseman need not em- 
 plov -I watchman to guard the goods transported by it, where they are awaiting 
 deliverv to the consignee at the proper place.'^-' A railroad company is not re- 
 
 87. How long liability continues.— The 
 City of Lincoln. 25 Fed. siio; Lane v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 455. 
 
 88. Brunson v. Atlantic, etc.. R. Co., 7(5 
 S. C. 9. 56 S. E. 538, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 
 
 89. Duty to store in safe place.— Mer- 
 chants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Alerriam, 111 
 Ind. 5. 11 N. E. 954; American Exp. Co. 
 V. Hockett. 30 Ind. 250. 95 Am. Dec. fiOl; 
 Whitnev v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 
 327; Bates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 
 Wis. 235, 122 N. W. 745. , • , ■ 
 
 For the selection of a wharf which is 
 known to be weak for the discharge of 
 its cargo, a vessel is liable. The City of 
 Lincoln, 25 Fed. 835. 
 
 In an action against an express com- 
 pany to recover damages for the failure 
 to deliver a package of money, an an- 
 swer alleging that it placed the package 
 in a safe owned by defendants, where 
 they usually kept money packages, and 
 safelv locked the same; that the package, 
 rema'ining thus securely locked up for sev- 
 eral days, and no one calline: for it, was 
 stolen by burglars, who, in the nighttime, 
 broke into the office of the defendants 
 and broke open the safe, and stole the 
 package of money, without any fault or 
 neglect of the defendants, was not_ sufti- 
 cient to show a good defense. It did not 
 show that either the building or the safe 
 was of such a character and construction 
 as to render them a safe place for the 
 deposit of money unguarded. American 
 Exp. Co. V. Hockett, 30 Ind. 250, 95 Am. 
 Dec. 091. 
 
 The fact that a carrier took adequate 
 precautions against fire on its own prem- 
 ises docs not exonerate it from liability 
 as a matter of law for the destruction of 
 goods from a fire originating on adjoin- 
 ing premises which it did not own nor 
 control, although such fire was so violent 
 that it was impossible to prevent it from 
 spreading to its own building, where it 
 had full knowledge of the manifest danger 
 to its own premises arising from the spe- 
 cially hazardous condition of those ad- 
 joining, and took no means to guard 
 against it. Under such circumstances it 
 
 may have been culpable negligence, and 
 a breach of duty as a bailee for hire, to 
 place the goods in such warehouse. Judd 
 V. New York, etc., Steamship Co., 117 
 Fed. 206, 54 C. C. A. 238, affirmed 128 Fed. 
 7, r,2 C. C. A. 515. 
 
 Wooden warehouses, roofed with 
 shingles, and managed and controlled by 
 prudent agents, are lawful depositories 
 for the storage of goods at railway de- 
 pots by the carrier. Lewis, etc., Co. v. 
 Louisville, etc., R. Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep. 144. 
 
 In a town of 800 inhabitants, a Ijurglar 
 pried up a window that was nailed down 
 in a wooden building inclosed with 
 boards, and whose door was locked, and 
 stole goods stored by an express com- 
 pany. Held, that the company was not 
 negligent in storing in such a building. 
 Grossman v. Fargo (N. Y.), 6 Hun 310. 
 
 In villages the same degree of security 
 can not be required of a warehouseman 
 or a common carrier, either as to fire or 
 burglary, as in cities. If there is no bet- 
 ter or safer place, he may properly leave 
 a box of jewelry overnight in his express 
 office, used for such purposes. Laporte 
 V. Wells Fargo & Co.'s Exp., 48 N. Y. S. 
 292, 23 App. Div. 267. 
 
 90. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Brownlee 
 (Ky.), 14 Bush. 590. 
 
 91. Warehouse need not be fireproof.— 
 Adix v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 150 Iowa 
 379, i::o X. W. 162. 
 
 92. Using car as warehouse. — Gratiot 
 St. Warehouse Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 221 111. 418, 77 N. E. 675, affirming 
 judgment 122 111. App. 405. 
 
 93. Duty to keep watch. — Texas Cent. 
 K. Co. V. Flanary (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 
 S. W. 726. 
 
 A carrier is not required to keep a 
 sufficient watch to preserve goods stored 
 in its depot from loss by fire, where it 
 is only liable for the exercise of reason- 
 able care and diligence. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co. V. Gidley, 119 Ala. 523, 24 So. 753. 
 
 Where a car containing plaintiff's 
 merry-go-round was placed on a side 
 track four miles from town, near an 
 amusement park, and while standing there 
 the car and contents were destroyed at
 
 909 
 
 CAKRIKR AS WAKKHol'SEM AN, 
 
 S 1098 
 
 quired to keep a continuous watch durinj^ the night in its depots ai small 
 jjlaces,'-''* or wliere the value of goods stored is small ; '•'"' and the mere fact that 
 a depot had, on several occasions, been broken open, and articles of small value 
 taken, does not impose such a duty on the company.'"' 
 
 Duty to Give Notice. — It is not re(|uired of the warehousemen at a railroad 
 station to notifv consignees living at a distance of the arrival of their goods, 
 either through the mails or otherwise.'-'' Although a carrier, as warehouseman, 
 fails to notify the consignor of the consignee's refusal to accejU the goods, it 
 is not liable for the subse(|uent loss of the goods by theft from it, in the absence 
 of proof of negligence as a bailee.''^ 
 
 Duties with Regard to Perishable Goods. — The carrier as warehouseman 
 is bound to exercise common and ordinary ])rudence in the storing of perishable 
 goods.'*"' ])Ut a carrier is not negligent in failing to unload semiperishable freiglit 
 after notifying the consignee of their arrival at destination, in the absence of 
 evidence that it knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have 
 known, that the freight would have been in better condition if unloaded.^ 
 
 Sale of Property to Prevent Loss. — .\ carrier liable as a warehouseman 
 mav sell propcrlN- to i)rc\eut loss by decay. Any kind of imminent danger of 
 loss or destruction will iustif\- a sale in such case.- 
 
 Statutes Making Railroad Companies Liable for Damage by Fire. — A 
 railroad corporation is not liable, under statutes which provide that a railroad 
 company shall be liable for damages sustained by fire from its engines,^ or 
 originating in operating its road,"* for goods destroyed by fire while in its pos- 
 session as warehouseman or depository. 
 
 night bj' fire, the railroad company was 
 not negligent in failing to keep a watch- 
 man at the car to protect its contents 
 from possible danger from fire. Adix v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 150 Iowa 379. 130 
 X. W. ir,2. 
 
 94. Lewis, etc.. Co. v. Louisville, etc., 
 R. Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep. 144; Merchants' 
 Dispatch Transp. Co. z'. Hoskins, 14 Ky. 
 L. Rep. 927. 
 
 95. Where the daily average of goods 
 stored in a railroad warehouse does not 
 exceed $500. ordinary care does not re- 
 quire the company to keep a night watch 
 about such warehouse or to have some 
 one sleep therein. Kronshage v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co.. 40 Wis. 587; Pike v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 40 Wis. 583. 
 
 96. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co. v. 
 Hoskins. 14 Ky. L. Rep. 927. 
 
 97. Duty to notify consignee. — Neal & 
 Co. r. Wilmington, etc.. R. Co., 53 N. C. 
 4S2. 
 
 98. Duty to notify consignor. — Adlcr r. 
 Weir, 9f. X. V. S. 73(i, 49 Misc. Rep. i:!4. 
 
 99. Duties with regard to perishable 
 goods. — Burroughs v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 67 Mich. 351. 34 N. W. 875. 
 
 The defendant placed eggs received by 
 freight in its warehouse on December 
 11th. While there the temperature from 
 December 17th to December 22d was 
 from zero to 7 deg. above. Eggs would 
 freeze in this warehouse with the ther- 
 mometer at 8 deg. above zero. The eggs 
 were frozen when examined after the 
 22d. Held, that the defendant was lialilo 
 for damages. Burroughs r. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co., (57 Mich. 351. 34 X. W. 875. 
 
 Effect of custom. — In a suit against a 
 connecting carrier for injury to pcrisha- 
 i)le goods l)y freezing while stored in its 
 warehouse at Buffalo, X. Y., it was im- 
 material that railroad companies both in 
 Buffalo and Michigan generally have and 
 use warehouses which are not protection 
 to perishable goods against freezing, and 
 that they do not undertake to give such 
 protection to property in their warehouses. 
 Burroughs v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 34 X. 
 W. 875. 07 Mich. 351. (By divided court.) 
 
 1. Becker v. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 9(5 
 X. Y. S. 1. 109 App. Div. 230. 
 
 Where a contract for the shipment of 
 evaporated fruit provided that property 
 not removed by the cctnsignec within 
 twenty-four hours after its arrival at des- 
 tination might be kept in the car at the 
 sole risk of the owner, the carrier, after 
 notifying the consignee of the arrival of 
 the fruit, was not bound to unload the 
 fruit, and put it in cold storage, to await 
 the consignee's pleasure and convenience, 
 and was not negligent in leaving the fruit 
 in the cars for several days. Becker 7'. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co.. 9C, X. Y. S. 1. 100 
 .'Xpp. Div. 230. 
 
 2. Sale to prevent loss. — Dudley f. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co.. .-.> W. \a. 004, 52 S. 
 E. 71S. 3 L. R. A.. X. S.. 113.-,. 112 Am. 
 St. Rep. 1027. 
 
 3. New Hampshire statute.— Gen. Laws, 
 c. K',2. $;; >'. 9; Welch r. Concord Rail- 
 road, '-.s X. H. ::i";. }4 .\tl. 304. 
 
 4. Oklahoma statute.— St. 1893. c. 37: 
 Walker :•. I'.ikUbcrry. 7 Ok1r>. -.'''< 54 
 Pac. 553.
 
 S 1099 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 910 
 
 § 1099. Degree of Care. — Bailee for Hire — Ordinary Care. — It is held 
 that a carrier which has carried property for hire and is keeping it for a rea- 
 sonable time in its own warehouse, at the point of destination, until it shall be 
 called for, is a bailee for hire.'' As such it is liable only for the want of ordi- 
 nary care in th.e custody of the goods ; " and the care exercised should be in 
 
 5. Bailee for hire. — Hardman v. Alon- 
 tana Union R. Co., 83 Fed. 88, 21 C. C. 
 A. 407. 39 L. R. A. 300. 
 
 That goods were stored in cars instead 
 of a waroliouse did not change the rail- 
 way compan3''s position as a depository 
 for hire. Dixon v. Central, etc., R. Co., 
 110 Ga. 173. 35 S. E. 369. 
 
 Necessity for knowledge of notice of 
 storage charges. — In an action to recover 
 from a railway compan3% as a bailee for 
 hire, the valne of goods alleged to be lost 
 from its warehouse through its negli- 
 gence, it was not error for the court to 
 refuse to instruct the jury that a certain 
 printed notice posted in defendant's de- 
 pot, relating to the rates charged for the 
 storage of goods not removed within two 
 days after being unloaded from the cars, 
 and limiting to defendant's liability for 
 property remaining in the freight depot, 
 could not be considered as creating a con- 
 tract between the plaintifif and defendant 
 for the storage of the goods, unless it 
 should appear that the plaintiff knew of 
 said notice, and acquiesced in its terms. 
 Dimmick v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 18 
 Wis. 471. 
 
 6. Ordinary care. — United States. — 
 White c. Colorado Cent. R. Co., Fed. 
 Cas. No. 17,543, 5 Dill. 428, 3 McCrary 
 559; The Titania, 124 Fed. 975, affirmed 
 in 131 Fed. 229, 65 C. C. A. 215. 
 
 Alabama.— Southern R, Co. v. Aldredge, 
 142 Ala. ,368, 38 So. 805. 
 
 California. — Jackson v. Sacramento Val- 
 ley R. Co., 23 Cal. 268. 
 
 Delczi'arc. — McHenry v. Philadelphia, 
 etc., R. Co. (Del.), 4 Har. 448. 
 
 Georgia.— Kiglit v. Wrightsville, etc., 
 R. Co., 127 Ga. 204, 56 S. E. 363. See 
 Civ. Code, 1895, §§ 2928, 2930. Western, 
 etc., Railroad v. Camp, 53 Ga. 596. 
 
 ///i«o/.s.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 
 42 111. 132; Bryan v. Chicago, etc., R, Co., 
 169 111. App. 181. 
 
 /;i(//a;ui.— Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. 
 V. Merriam, 111 Ind. 5, 11 N. E. 954; 
 Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. i: McCool, 26 Ind. 
 140. 
 
 loica. — Leland v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 
 (Iowa), 23 N. W. 390; Adix v. Chicago, 
 
 etc., R. Co., 150 Iowa 379, 130 N. W. 162. 
 
 Kansas. — Leavenworth, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Maris, 16 Kan. 333. 
 
 Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Brownlee (Ky.), 14 Bush 590; Adams 
 Exp. Co. V. Tingle, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 358. 
 
 .l/arv/rt»d.— Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. 
 
 Schumacher, 29 Md. 168. 96 Am. Dec. 510. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Lane v. Boston, etc, 
 
 R. Co., 112 Mass. 455; Thomas v. Boston, 
 
 etc., R. Corp, (Mass.), 10 Mete. 477, 43 
 Am. Dec. 444;; Norway Plains Co. v. Bos- 
 ton, etc.. Railroad (Alass.), 1 Gray 263, 61 
 Am. Dec. 423, 
 
 Minnesota. — Derosia v. Winona, etc., 
 R. Co., 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119, 8 Am. R. 
 Rep. 363. 
 
 Missouri. — Bush v. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co., 3 Mo. App. 62; Hull & Co. v. Mis- 
 souri Pac. R. Co., 60 Mo. App. 593. 
 
 Nezv Ha-iupshire.- — Brown v. Grand 
 Trunk Railway, 54 N. H. 535. 
 
 .Vf'Ti' York. — Grieve v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 49 N. Y. S. 949, 25 App. Div. 518; 
 Hathorn v. Ely, 28 N. Y. 78. 
 
 Ohio. — Hirsch v. Steamboat Quaker 
 City, 2 Disn. 144, 13 O. Dec, Reprint 89. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Moyer v. Pennsylvania 
 R. Co.,' 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 559; Allam v. 
 Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 
 325, 
 
 South Carolina. — Brunson v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co., 76 S. C. 9, 56 S. E. 538, 9 L. 
 R. A., N. S.. 577. 
 
 7V.ra,^-.— Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Flanary 
 (Tex. Civ. App,), 50 S. W. 726; Texas, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Morse, 1 Texas App. Civ. 
 Cas., § 411; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Schnei- 
 der, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 118. 
 
 West Virginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Morehead, 5 W. Va. 293; Berry v. West 
 Virginia, etc., R. Co., 44 W. Va. 538, 30 
 S. E. 143, 67 Am. St. Rep. 781; Hutchin- 
 son V. United States Exp. Co., 63 W. Va. 
 128, 59 S. E. 949, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 393; 
 Hurley & Son v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 68 
 W. Va. 471, 473, 69 S. E. 904. 
 
 Wisconsin. — T)\mm\ck v. Milwaukee, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 Wis. 471: Pike v. Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co., 40 Wis. 583; Kronshage v. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 40 Wis, 587; Whit- 
 ney V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 327. 
 Care demanded of other warehouse- 
 men. — Leland v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 
 (Iowa), 23 N. W. 390. 
 
 Diligence used as to own property. — 
 Standard Milling Co. v. White Line Cent. 
 Transit Co., 122 Mo. 258, 26 S. W. 704, 
 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 185. 
 
 Evidence that the care used was such 
 as carriers usually exercise al^out similar 
 freight, is competent, but is not controll- 
 ing evidence upon the question of due 
 care. Cass t'. Boston, etc., R. Co. 
 (Mass.), 14 Allen 448; Lane v. Boston, 
 etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 455. 
 
 A stipulation in a bill of lading that 
 goods be forwarded to "depot only" does 
 not authorize the carrier to unload the 
 goods at such depot, and give them no 
 further attention, but it is responsible 
 therefor as a warehouseman. Mer-
 
 911 
 
 CARKIKK AS WAKlUIOL'SEMAX. 
 
 § 1099 
 
 proportion to the loss likely to be sustained by want of such care." A carrier as 
 warehouseman is liable for the loss or destruction of goods caused by its neg- 
 ligence.*^ In the absence of negligence on its part a carrier is not liable for dam- 
 ages caused to the goods by storm." or for their loss by theft '" or fire." A 
 
 chants', etc.. Transp. Co. :•. Mcrriain. Ill 
 Tml. ."), 1 1 X. I'", '.t.'.l. 
 
 A bill of lading provided that freight, 
 unless removed on the day of its dis- 
 charge, was "liable to 1)C storcil at the 
 risk and expense of the owner; all mer- 
 chandise at owner's risk while on the 
 wharf." The ^oods in question, wliile 
 stored on the wharf, were damaged bj' 
 an unusually high tide. Held, that the 
 company was bound to use rcasonal)le 
 care in storing the goods, and was liable 
 as a warehouseman for ordinary neglect. 
 Merchants', etc.. Transp. Co. v. Story, 50 
 Md. 4. :;;! Am. Rep. 29,3. 
 
 Illustrations. — A cargo of lemons and 
 oranges, consigned to defendants, was 
 delivered at a pier in the morning of a 
 certain day along with other consign- 
 ments of the same nature. All the fruit 
 was removed on that day, except that of 
 the defendants, who had actual notice 
 in time to remove it. The pier was cov- 
 ered, and all reasonalile precautions 
 taken to protect the fruit against frost, 
 which precautions, however, did not 
 avail, owing to the severity of the 
 weather. Held, that the carrier's duties 
 as warehouseman were fulfilled. Liver- 
 pool, etc.. Co. V. Saitta, 22 Fed. 560, af- 
 firming 17 Fed. 695. 
 
 In an action against an express com- 
 pany to recover the value of a package 
 of bonds, an ai:sw-er setting up that de- 
 fendants deposited the package in a good 
 and secure iron safe of a respectable and 
 responsible merchant of the village, and 
 caused the safe to be securely locked, 
 said safe being the most secure place of 
 deposit in the village, showed that the 
 defendants exercised reasonable care as 
 bailees. Adams Exp. Co. v. Darnell, 31 
 Ind. 20, 99 Am. Dec. 582. 
 
 Where goods were in a lighter, await- 
 ing removal by the consignee, who re- 
 peatedly informed the captain of the 
 lighter that he would remove them dur- 
 ing the day. but late in the afternoon 
 sent word tliat he would not remove them 
 that day. whereupon the captain covered 
 them with tarpaulins, instead of putting 
 them in a warehouse, he used reasonable 
 care as a warehouseman. Brand z\ New 
 Jersey Steamboat Co., 10 Misc. Rep. 12S, 
 ■50 N. Y. S. 903, 62 N. Y. St. Rep. 470. 
 
 If a carrier who is in the liahit of car- 
 rying large sums of money for hire, and 
 keeping the same for several hours after 
 its transportation, and until it is taken 
 away by the owner, deposits money, 
 which has been so carried, in a w^ooden 
 desk, under lock and key, in his office, to 
 wliich another person lias access, ami 
 
 which is situated in a railroad station, 
 which is open to all comers, and then 
 leaves the building for several hours in 
 the middle of the day, with no person in 
 cliarge of it, the judge cannot rule, as a 
 matter of law, in an action against the 
 carrier for a loss of the money, that the 
 evidence fails to show such want <>i care 
 as to render him liable. Conwav Bank f. 
 American F.xp. Co. (Mass.), 8 Allen .512. 
 Where a railroad agent received goods 
 into the company's warehouse at a coun- 
 try station, which was an ordinary 
 wooden l)uilding kept fastened by locks 
 and bolts day and night, and situate<l but 
 two hundred yards from the agent's 
 dwelling, it was held that ordinary care 
 of the goods was exercised, so that the 
 company was not liable for their loss by 
 theft. Neal & Co. z: Wilmington, etc., 
 R. Co.. 53 X. C. 482. 
 
 7. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Scott. 42 III. 
 132: Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. v. Schu- 
 macher. 29 Md. lOS. 96 Am. Dec. .MO. 
 
 8. Illinois. — .American Exp. Co. v. 
 Baldwin, 26 111. 504, 79 .\m. Dec. 389. 
 
 Iitdiaihi. — Merchants', etc.. Transp. Co. 
 r. Merriam. Ill Ind. 5, 11 X. E. 954. 
 
 Mississif'p!. — Yazoo, etc., R. Co. i. 
 Blum. 102 Miss. 303. 59 So. 92. 
 
 Xcw York. — Grieve v. New York. etc.. 
 R. Co.. 49 N. Y. S. 949. 25 App. Div. 518; 
 Becker z: Pennsylvania R. Co.. 96 X. Y. 
 S. 1. 109 App. Div. 230. 
 
 Though the carrier has no freight de- 
 pot, liut atlo])ts that i>i a railroad C'lin- 
 pany, it is liable for goods destroyed 
 through its negli.gence as a warehouse- 
 man. Mercliants'. etc., Transp. Co. :•. 
 Merriam, 111 Ind. 5. 11 X. E. 954. 
 
 9. Damage caused by storm. — Gulf, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Xorth Texas Grain Co., 
 32 Tex. Civ. .\pp. 93. 74 S. W. .567. 
 
 .\ buyer of certain grain shipped by 
 rail refused to receive it, and the rail- 
 road company requested the parties in 
 interest to direct the disposition of the 
 trrain. which they refused to do. and. 
 there being no proper storage facilities 
 at the place to which the grain was con- 
 signed, the railroad took it to another 
 town, 14 miles away, where it was prop- 
 erly stored. Held, that the railroad com- 
 pany was not liable for damages to the 
 grain caused by an unprecedented storm. 
 Gulf. etc.. R. Co. :. Xorth Texas Grain 
 Co.. 71 S. W. 5C.7. ::2 Tex. Civ. App. 93. 
 
 10. Loss by theft. — King z: Xew 
 Brunswick, etc.. Steamboat Co.. 73 X. Y. 
 S. 999. 36 Misc. Rep. 555; Byrne z: Fargo. 
 7.i X. Y. S. 943. 36 Misc. Rep. 543. 
 
 11. Loss by fire. — Murphy f. Southern 
 Railwav. 57 S. I'.. 664. 77 S. C. 76.
 
 § 1099 
 
 CARRlEKe 
 
 '12 
 
 carrier, as warehouseman, is not liable for the destruction of goods, caused by 
 the neghgence of its employee, who was an independent contractor.'' - 
 
 Where Goods Held Gratuitously. — Where a carrier holds goods gratui- 
 tously in its warehouse after their arrival at their destination, for the benefit 
 of the consignee, it is liable only for losses caused by gross negligence. i=' But 
 it has been held that the extension of time within which goods might be re- 
 moved without additional charges did not change the rule of liability on the 
 carrier to use ordinary diligence.'' ■* Where the owner requests agents of the 
 carrier to keep the goods, which they refuse to do, and the owner leaves the 
 goods at the depot, he does not thereby make the agents his own, so as to be 
 chargeable with their acts.^-^ 
 
 Compulsory Bailee. — Where goods arrive in a damaged and perishing con- 
 dition, from causes for vvdiich the carrier is not responsible, and the consignees 
 decline to receive them, the carrier becomes a compulsory bailee, bound only to 
 such reasonable care as a prudent man would take of property of which he has 
 become the involuntary custodian.^*'' 
 
 Questions for Court or Jury. — The question whether the carrier, as a 
 wareliouscman, exercised ordinarv care is generally for the jury.''" But where 
 
 12. Brunswick Grocery Co. v. Bruns- 
 wick, etc.. R. Co.. 32 S. E. 92, t06 Ga. 270, 
 71 Am. St. Rep. 249. 
 
 IS. Goods held gratuitously. — Georgia. 
 —Kenny Co. r. Atlanta, etc.. R. Co., 122 
 Ga. 365, 50 S. E. 132. 
 
 Maine. — Knowles v. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., 38 Me. 55, 61 Am. Dec. 234. 
 
 Missouri. — Hapgood Plow Co. v. Wa- 
 bash R. Co., 61 Mo. App. 372. 
 
 Xeii' Hampshire. — Brown v. Grand 
 Trunk Railway, 54 N. H. 535. 
 
 Xorth Carolina. — McCombs v. North 
 Carolina R. Co., 67 N. C. 193. 
 
 Ohio. — Roberts v. Union Line Exp 
 Co., 2 O. Dec. 577. 
 
 South Carolina. — Brunson v. Atlantic, 
 etc., R. Co.. 76 S. C. 9, 56 S. E. 538, 9 L. 
 R. A., N. S., 577. 
 
 Tennessee. — Kremer v. Southern Exp. 
 Co., 46 Tenn. (6 Coklw.) 356. 
 
 JVest Virginia. — Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
 z: Morehcad. 5 W. Ya. 293. 
 
 ■Where a carrier is prohibited by its 
 charter from charging for storage, it is 
 liable only as a gratuitous bailee for 
 property deposited with it in its ware- 
 house to await orders from the owner 
 for its transportation. Michigan, etc., R. 
 Co. f. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where the agent of a 
 consignee removes most of the goods 
 from a car, but leaves some in it on ac- 
 count of approaching night, and the car 
 is broken open after having been locked 
 by the agent of the railroad company and 
 the goods are stolen, the railroad com- 
 pany is only liable for gross negligence 
 as a gratuitous bailee. Kenny Co. v. At- 
 lanta, etc., R. Co., 50 S. E. 132, 122 Ga. 
 365. 
 
 Plaintiff shipped some hay l)y defend- 
 ant's road, and on its arrival plaintiff re- 
 quested that it might remain in the cars 
 until he was ready to remove it to a boat. 
 The track on which the cars stood and 
 
 the one on defendant's wharf being the 
 only one from which freight could be 
 shipped, defendant moved the cars onto 
 the track on the wharf, which was then, 
 and had been for several months, over- 
 loaded with iron, and gave way. precipi- 
 tating the hay into the water. Held, that 
 defendant was a gratuitous bailee and not 
 liable. Knowles t'. .\tlantic, etc., R. Co., 
 38 Me. 55, 61 Am. Dec. 234. 
 
 Where the owner of goods is present 
 at their arrival at the place of destina- 
 tion, and is then notified that the car- 
 rier will not store them, and still leaves 
 them, if the carrier does store such 
 goods, it will be liable, as a depositary, 
 for gross negligence in the care of them. 
 Smith I'. Nashua, etc.. Railroad. 27 N. H. 
 86, 59 Am. Dec. 364 
 
 Where goods are stored in the car of 
 a railroad company without its knowl- 
 edge or consent, and it. needing the car, 
 stores the goods in its warehouse, as a 
 matter of accommodation to the owner, 
 it is not responsible for the burning 
 thereof, unless it is the result of its gross 
 negligence. Texas Cent. R. Co. t'. Flan- 
 ary (Tex. Civ. App.), 45 S. W. 214. 
 
 A railroad company which permits a 
 person to store his wool in a car. merely 
 as a matter of accommodation, without 
 any agreement on his part to ship the 
 wool over such road or to pay any sum 
 as freight or storage, is liable for the 
 loss of the wool by fire only in case of 
 gross negligence. Texas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Flanary (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 726. 
 
 14. Western, etc., Railroad ?'. Camp, 53 
 Ga. 596. 
 
 15. Smith V. Nashua, etc., Railroad, 27 
 N. H. 86, 59 Am. Dec. 364. 
 
 16. Compulsory bailee. — The Bobolink, 
 Fed. Cas. No. 1,5ss. 6 Sawy. 146. 
 
 17. Question for jury. — United States. 
 — Judd 7'. New York, etc.. Steamship Co.,
 
 913 
 
 CARRIER AS WAREHOUSEMAN. 
 
 §§ 1000-1100 
 
 there is no clis]jute as to the facts, the question may become one for the court.'* 
 Where the consignee was notified of the arrival of goods, Ijut failed to take them 
 away for more than two days after their arrival, and a regulation of the com- 
 pany, publicly i)osted, directed a charge to be levied for storage of goods under 
 such circumstances, it was proper to leave to the jury the question whether the 
 carrier was a ])ai]ec for hire or jjcrforming a gratuitous service. '=' 
 
 § 1100. Acts or Omissions Rendering Carrier Liable.— Proximate 
 Cause of Loss.— A carrier in its capacity as warehouseman is liable only for 
 the ordinary and proximate consequence of its faults.-" 
 
 117 Fed. 20(;. r>4 C. C. A. 2;iS, affirmc<l in 
 128 Fed. 7, (12 C. C. A. r,l.-). 
 
 Alabama. — Southern R. Co. v. Al- 
 dredge, 142 .Ma. 368. 38 So. 805. 
 
 Arkaiisas.-^St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 
 Dodd, ;-)<) Ark. 317, 27 S. W. 227. 
 
 Massacliiisctts. — Sec Barron v. Eldredge, 
 100 \[ass. 4.-).-), 1 Am. Rep. 126. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where a carrier's agent 
 testified that the depot in which the 
 .goods sued for were kept was a safe 
 place, and that it was kept locked at 
 night, and also in the day, whenever de- 
 fendant's employees were not present, 
 which was all the evidence on that sub- 
 ject, in an action for failure to deliver 
 the goods whether or not there was a 
 want of ordinary care was for the jury. 
 Southern R. Co. z: Aldredge. 38 So. So"-;, 
 142 Ala. 368. 
 
 In an action against a carrier liable as 
 warehouseman for goods destroyed, it 
 appeared that the goods were stored in a 
 warehouse near which was piled a large 
 quantity of cotton, the cotton being very 
 near the railroad tracks. About fifteen 
 minutes after a train passed, the cotton 
 caught fire, which extended to the ware- 
 house in which plaintiffs' goods were 
 stored. Held, that it was a question for 
 the jury whether defendant, as a ware- 
 houseman, exercised ordinary care in 
 protecting the goods. St. Louis, etc., R. 
 Co. 7'. Dodd, 59 Ark. 317, 27 S. W. 227. 
 
 A steamship company received from a 
 connecting carrier a consignment of 
 wool, which it placed in its shed adjoin- 
 ing the dock to await shipment, and while 
 there the shed and its contents were de- 
 stroyed by fire, which originated in an ad- 
 joining shed owned by others. Both 
 sheds were of wood, and very dry. and 
 the one in which the fire originated con- 
 tained a large quantity of jute, which 
 was very inflammable, and particularly 
 exposed to danger from fire. In an ac- 
 tion by the owner to recover the value 
 of the wool, there was evidence tending 
 to show that the company had knowl- 
 edge of the condition of the adjoining 
 shed, and that it had no watchman, and 
 little, if any, fire protection; also that 
 while defendant employed a watchman 
 its shed was not as well constructed to 
 withstand a fire from the outside as oth- 
 ers along the docks, and that there were 
 no fire hydrants within easy reach, as 
 
 there were in the case of other sheds. 
 Held, that the question whether defcnd- 
 
 granted 118 Fed. 826, 55 C. C. A. 438. af- 
 firmed in 128 Fed. 7, 62 C. C. A. 51.5. 
 
 18. Question for court.— Laporte r. 
 Wells Fargo & Co.'s Exp.. 48 X. Y. S. 
 292. 23 .\pp. Div. 267. 
 
 19. Dimmick :•. Milwaukee, etc.. R. Co., 
 18 Wis. 471. 
 
 20. Proximate cause of loss — Instances 
 when defendant liable.— A railroad com- 
 pany holding pr(i],t.Tty in its warehouse 
 as a bailee for hire allowed a car marked 
 "Powder." whicii was in fact empty, hut 
 locked, to be placed in close proximity 
 thereto. The warehouse caught fire, and 
 the property was destroyed solely be- 
 cause the firemen were prevented, 
 through reasonable fear of the powder 
 car. from extinguishing the fire. Held. 
 that the company was lial)Ie for the loss. 
 Hardman z: Montana Union R. Co.. 8.3 
 Fed. 88, 27 C. C. A. 407. 39 L. R. A. 300. 
 
 Where goods are placed by a carrier 
 in its warehouse, and the consignee in- 
 quires for them a number of times, but 
 is told each time they are not there, the 
 carrier is liable as a warehouseman for 
 their destruction by fire, notwithstanding 
 the fire may have occurred without any 
 negligence on its part, as the failure to 
 ('eliver was the proximate cause. East 
 Tennessee, etc., R. Co. r-. Kellv. 91 Tenn. 
 (7 Pickle) 708. 20 S. W. 314. following 
 Deming v. Merchants', etc.. Storage Co., 
 90 Tenn. 306. 17 S. W. 89. 13 L^R. A. 
 518. 
 
 Instances where defendant not liable. 
 — Barrels containing oil were carelessly 
 handled l)}- the employee of defendant, 
 and. while leaking, were delivered to an- 
 other carrier in an adjoining warehouse, 
 where, through negligence of the other 
 carrier, the oil took fire, and both ware- 
 houses were consumed. Held, that the 
 first carrier was not liable for the <le- 
 struction of the .gootls stored with it. un- 
 der a ')ill of lading exempting defendant 
 from liability by fire, since defendant's 
 negligence was not tlie proximate cause 
 of the loss. McMillan f. Michigan, etc., 
 R. Co.. 16 Mich. 79. 93 .Am. Dec. 208. 
 
 In an action against a carrit.- for the
 
 § 1100 
 
 CARRlliRS. 
 
 914 
 
 Delivery to Unauthorized Person. — .\ carrier whose liability lias been re- 
 duced to that of a warchouseinau is lialileif it delivers the goods to an unau- 
 thorized person.-^ 
 
 Delivery Prevented Through Carrier's Negligence. — A carrier, when 
 liable only as a warehouseman, is bound to deliver the goods on demand and 
 pavment of charges ; and if, through its negligence deliver}- can not be procured, 
 and goods are destroyed bv fire, the carrier is liable. -- 
 
 loss oi luinl)er loaded in a car, it ap- 
 peared that the car was furnished by 
 the carrier and loaded with lumber, and 
 that defendant was not notified that ii 
 was ready for shipment, nor of the name 
 of the consignee. Held, that the fact 
 that the carrier permitted the car, after 
 it was loaded, to stand near a dry kiln, 
 in which the fire originated, is not such 
 negligence as will render it liable as a 
 wareliouseman. since it was merely a 
 gratuitous bailee, and the destruction of 
 the car would not be the actual and 
 proximate consequence of the act com- 
 plained of. Basnight z'. Atlantic, etc., R. 
 Co., Ill N. C. 592, 16 S. E. 323. 
 
 When grain stored in a carrier's ele- 
 vator is destroyed by a fire not caused 
 by its negligence, its delay in not remov- 
 ing the grain as speedily as it should have 
 done does not render it liable for the 
 loss; the fire, and not the delay, being 
 the proximate cause of the loss. Davis 
 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 29 
 Atl. 313, 45 Am. St. Rep. 852. 
 
 21. Delivery to unauthorized person. — 
 Alabama. — Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. KidJ, 
 35 Ala. 209. 
 
 California. — Cavallaro v. Texas, etc., R. 
 Co., 110 Cal. 348, 42 Pac. 918, 52 Am. St. 
 Rep. 94. 
 
 Illinois. — Diamond Joe Line z'. Carter, 
 76 111. App. 470. 
 
 Indiana. — Merchants,' etc., Transp. Co. 
 v. Merriam. Ill Ind. 5, 11 N. E. 954. 
 
 The plaintiffs bought fifty barrels of 
 flour, which were on deposit, at the time 
 of the purchase, in the freight depot of a 
 railroad company, taking from the 
 vendor an order upon the company for 
 their delivery, and presented the same at 
 the depot. The defendants' clerk, in ac- 
 cordance with their usual practice, took 
 the order, delivering a "flour check" in 
 return, which was duly delivered by the 
 plaintiffs to another clerk, who was au- 
 thorized to deliver flour upon such 
 checks, and take receipts on the backs of 
 the checks, for the amounts delivered 
 from time to ti:"e, v.ntil the checks were 
 filled. Upon this check twenty-two bar- 
 rels of flour were delivered to the plain- 
 tiffs, and twenty-eight to persons not au- 
 thorized to receive them. Held, that the 
 defendants were liable for the value of 
 the twenty-eight barrels, irrespective of 
 the degree of negligence of which they 
 were guilty. Hall t'. Boston, etc., R. 
 Corp. (Mass.), 14 Allen 439, 92 Am. Dec. 
 783. 
 
 Plaintifl:'. in pursuance of an agree- 
 ment with defendants, advanced money 
 to purchase wheat at Toledo, Ohio, and 
 the same was consigned to it at Oswego, 
 on defendants' vessel, to be held by it as 
 security for the advances, and to remain 
 on board the vessel until sold. The bill 
 of lading provided for the delivery to 
 plaintiff, and was indorsed over and de- 
 livered to it. A portion of the wheat 
 was sold and delivered on plaintiff's or- 
 der, but the rest was removed and dis- 
 posed of, without its consent, by the de- 
 fendants. Held, that defendants were li- 
 able therefor as warehousemen, if not as 
 carriers. Bank r. Doyle, 91 N. Y. 32, 43 
 Am. Rep. 634. 
 
 In an action against the owners of a 
 steamer for nondelivery of goods trans- 
 ported by defendants, it appeared that 
 on the arrival of the steamer the con- 
 signees were notified of her readiness to 
 discharge the goods; that they obtained 
 and furnished the necessary permit for 
 the landing of the goods, but did not re- 
 move them, and they were placed by 
 defendant upon the wharf, which was in- 
 closed, and was the warehouse desig- 
 nated in the bill of lading; that the ware- 
 house was under control of defendants, 
 and at the gate was stationed a delivery 
 clerk, who took receipts for the goods, 
 and without whose consent the goods 
 could not be removed; and that the goods 
 were called for by a cartman not author- 
 ized to receive them, but who receipted 
 for, and was allowed to remove, them. 
 Held, that defendants were liable as 
 warehousemen for the goods. Collins 7'. 
 Burns. 63 N. Y. 1. 
 
 22. Delivery prevented through car- 
 rier's negligence. — Derosia r. Winona, 
 etc.. R. Co., IS Minn. 133, Gil. 119, 8 Am. 
 R. Rep. 363. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where tlie carrier has 
 become lial^le only as a warehouseman, 
 and the goods are demanded by the 
 owner, and he is informed by its agent 
 that the goods have not arrived, and after- 
 wards the depot, together with the goods, 
 is burned, the failure to deliver the goods 
 on demand of the owner is such negli- 
 gence as will render the company liable. 
 Union Pac. R. Co. z\ Moyer, 40 Kan. 184, 
 19 Pac. 639, 10 Am. St. Rep. 183. 
 
 Plaintiff, after the lapse of a reasonable 
 time from the arrival of goods by de- 
 fendant's railroad at their destination to 
 take them away, al)out 4 o'clock in the 
 afternoon went for them, found defend-
 
 915 
 
 CARKIKR AS WAKKHOUSEMAX. 
 
 § 1100 
 
 Storing- Explosives with Goods.— It is ncgligeiue on ihc pan of a carrier 
 to place expl(jsi\cs in il> uarelKnise, along with goods of a combiistihle nature, 
 and it is liable f(jr their destruction resulting fnjin the presence (jf the ex- 
 plosives.--'^ 
 
 That the floor of a warehouse was saturated with oil, and that the 
 carrier permitted conihustihle material t<j i>e collected there, where there is 
 nothing to show the cause of the fire that destroyed the warehouse and its con- 
 tents, does not show negligence so as to authorize a recovery l)y one whose goods 
 were burned.--* "^ 
 
 Particular Instances. — .Mlowing a drunken person to sleej) in the ware- 
 Ikuisc.-' or a wood tire to be made in a traction engine forty feet from a wooden 
 depot roofed with shin<;les, where there is no reasonable grounds to apprehend 
 danger.-'' is held not to be negligence. P.ut allowing an engine to pass a plat- 
 form, on which cotton is stored, at a high rate of speed, throwing sparks, shows 
 negligence.-" Further instances of negligence are set out in the notes.-** 
 
 ant's warcliouse open, but no one about, 
 and aiter waiting fifteen or twenty min- 
 utes, and no one coming, went awa^', and 
 did not return that day. The morning of 
 the following day the warehouse, with the 
 goods, was destroyed by fire. Held that, 
 unless the absence of all persons from the 
 warehouse at that time would have been 
 permitted l)y a wareliouseman of ordi- 
 nary prudence and care, defendant was 
 guilty of negligence, for which it might be 
 liable; and if an ordinarily prudent man, 
 after waiting as plaintiff did, might rea- 
 sonably conclude that to wait longer, or 
 call again that afternoon, within the usual 
 business hours, would have been useless 
 to enable him to procure the delivery of 
 the goods, he would be justified in doing 
 neither, and the loss occurring thereby 
 migln be attributed to the negligence of 
 defendant. Derosia f. Winona, etc.. R. 
 Co., 18 Minn, i;!;!, Gil. 119, 8 Am. R. Rep. 
 ,3(i:!. 
 
 23. Storing explosives with goods. — 
 White :•. Colorado Cent. R. Co., Fed. 
 Cas. No. 17,.54,"5, 5 Dill. 428, 3 AlcCrary 
 
 While plaintiff's goods were lying in 
 the freight depot of the defendant rail- 
 way company, which was responsible for 
 them as warehouseman, a drayman 
 brought a carboj' of sulphuric acid to the 
 depot, and left it inside. The defendant's 
 rules forbade receiving acid into the de- 
 pot, but all the defendant's emploj'ees 
 were engaged elsewhere, and there was 
 no one to enforce the rule, or see where 
 the acid was placed. In consequence of 
 a leak in the carboy, an- explosion was 
 caused, which set fire to the depot, and 
 plaintiff's goods were destroyed. Held, 
 that defendant was negligent. Farmers' 
 Loan, etc., Co. f. Oregon R., etc.. Co., Tii 
 Fed. ]()();?. 
 
 24. Texas Cent. R. Cr.. :■. Flannrv (Tex. 
 Civ. App.). .-)() S. W. TL'i;. 
 
 25. Drunken person sleeping in ware- 
 house. — Young f. Wilmington, etc., R. 
 Co., 11(5 N. C. '.);!2, 21 S. i:. 177. 
 
 26. Allowing fire near warehouse, — 
 
 Lewis, etc., Co. v. Louisville, etc .. K. Co., 
 i:! Ky. I., kc]). 144. 
 
 27. Allowing engine to pass throwing 
 sparks. — Texas, etc.. iv. Co. : . \\ evc-r. 3 
 Texas Ap]). Civ. Cas., § (iO. 
 
 28. Damage from flood. — In an action 
 against a carrier for damages to goods 
 consisting of books, it appeared that the 
 goods were unloaded upon the wharf, and 
 notice of their arrival sent to the con- 
 signee. The wharf was well covered, and, 
 save for its proximity to the water, a se- 
 cure place for storage. The damage was 
 caused by the wharf becoming flooded. 
 due to a violent rainstorm. It appeared 
 that this was the first time the part of the 
 wharf on which the goods were stored 
 had been flooded within twenty years. 
 Both a day and a night watchman were 
 employed at the wharf. The rainstorm 
 began about 12 p. m.. and the wharf be- 
 came flooded al)out 2 p. m., when the 
 watchman attempted, without success, to 
 remove the goods. Held a finding that 
 tlie carrier, as a warehouseman, was neg- 
 ligent in caring for the goods, would not 
 l)e disturbed. Merchants', etc.. Transp. 
 Co. r. Story, .".o Md. 4, :« .-Km. Rep. 293. 
 
 Failure to take receipt. — Certain goods 
 were discliarged fron: defendant's steamer 
 on its private wharf, to which only de- 
 fendant, and those permitted by it. had 
 access; the owner had constructive pos- 
 session, but delayed removing them, and 
 left them in charge of defendant, during 
 which time they were lost. It was de- 
 fendant's rule that no goods should be 
 taken from the wharf without a receipt, 
 but no receipt was taken for the missing 
 goods. Held, that defendant was negli- 
 gent in not taking a receipt, as the prop- 
 erty could not have been removed with- 
 out its consent, tacit or otherwise. Tar- 
 l>ell V. Royal Kxch. Shipping Co., 110 N. 
 V. 170, 17 X. E. 721. 6 .\m. St. Rep. 350. 
 reversing .">;; X. V. Super. Ct. 190. 
 
 Express companies. — Property was 
 locked up in a safe, and the key was put 
 in the coat pocket of the expressman.
 
 §§ 1101-1102 
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 916 
 
 §§ 1101-1104. Actions against Carrier as Warehouseman — § 1101. 
 In General — Pleading. — There is no distinction belween the right of a con- 
 signor to sue a carrier and his right to sue a warehouseman, either in tort or on 
 contract.-^ The storage of the goods does not create a new contract, which 
 must be pleaded and distinguished from the original contract of transportation 
 in order to recover the goods or their value.-'^'^ And an objection that a carrier 
 was sued as such, whereas the evidence showed its liability to be that of a ware- 
 houseman, is untenable, where answer in confession and avoidance presented 
 issue of liability as a warehouseman.^'' 
 
 § 1102. Evidence. — Presumption and Burden of Proof. — Where the re- 
 lation of common carrier is once shown to have existed if the carrier seeks to 
 escape liability on the ground that its responsibility for the safety of the freight, 
 at the time the loss or injury complained of occurred, was that of a warehouse- 
 man only, it has the burden of producing evidence in support of such conten- 
 tion.^- it is held that in an action against a carrier as warehouseman, the bur- 
 den of proyiug negligence is upon the plaintiff. •^•'' But it is also held tb.at where 
 
 which was left hanginp; near an open win- 
 dow of a room on the ground floor of a 
 house in the city, where the expressman, 
 who was a sound sleeper, slept, and the 
 key was stolen, the safe opened, and the 
 property stolen. The company was lield 
 liable. American Exp. Co. z\ Baldwin, 26 
 111. 504, 79 Am. Dec. 389. 
 
 In an action against an express com- 
 pany, as warehouseman, to recover a pack- 
 age of money, it appeared that defend- 
 ant's agent, on retiring, placed the money 
 on his dresser, and that he did not miss 
 it till the consignee called for it on the 
 following day, at which time, instead of 
 going to the dresser, he looked for it in 
 his express case and other places, and 
 stated that he must have sent the money 
 away that morning by mistake. It did 
 not appear that the door of the agent's 
 sleeping room was locked, and there was 
 no evidence of a theft or loss of the 
 money, other than the fact that it was 
 missing. Held, that a verdict for plaintiff 
 was warranted. Bagley Elevator Co. t'. 
 American Exp. Co., 63 Minn. 142, 6.5 N. 
 W. 264. 
 
 An express clerk attempted to deliver 
 a package at the office of the owner, which 
 he found closed. He left a notice, which 
 was received by an employee of the 
 owner, who went to the express office 
 for the package, but was told that the 
 clerk had not returned yet. On the re- 
 turn of the clerk, the package was placed 
 in a fireproof safe. No demand was made 
 for it afterwards. A fire occurred, and 
 the package was lost by the watchman 
 taking it, with other packages, from the 
 safe to send it to a place of safety. Held, 
 that there was not sufficient evidence of 
 negligence on the part of the company 
 or its agents to render it liable for the 
 loss. Howard Exp. Co. t'. Wile. 64 Pa. 
 201. 
 
 Failure to notify consignee of fire. — 
 Where a freight car containing plaintiff's 
 merry-go-round was burned at night be- 
 fore it was unloaded, and there was no 
 
 evidence that the carrier's night dis- 
 patcher knew where plaintiff resided or his 
 telephone call, and plaintiff could not have 
 reached the fire in time to have saved any 
 of his property if he had been notified 
 promptly, the railroad company was not 
 negligent in failing to do so. Adix t'. 
 Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Iowa 379, 130 
 N. W. 162. 
 
 29. Action against carrier as warehouse- 
 man. — Edgerton :■. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 
 240 111. 311, 88 N. E. 808. 
 
 30. Pleading. — Wilson v. California 
 Cent. R. Co., 94 Cal. 166, 29 Pac. 861, 17 
 L. R. A. 685; Hoyt v. Nevada County, 
 etc., R. Co., 68 Cal. 644, 10 Pac. 187. 
 
 31. See Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Morse, 1 
 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 411. 
 
 32. Responsibility as warehouseman 
 only. — Peoria, etc.. R. Co. z\ United 
 States Rolling Stock Co., 136 111. 643, 27 
 N. E. 59, 29 Am. St. Rep. 348; Chicago, 
 etc., R. Co. V. Warren, 16 111. 502. 
 
 33. Burden of proving negligence. — 
 United Stafcs.—De Grau v. Wilson, 17 
 Fed. 698, affirmed in 22 Fed. SOO; vStrauss 
 V. Wilson, 17 Fed. 701. 
 
 Illinois. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ken- 
 dall, 72 111. App. 105. 
 
 Kentucky. — See Adams Exp. Co. v. Tin- 
 gle, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 358. 
 
 Mississippi. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Fergu- 
 son-McKinney Dry Goods Co., 97 Jiliss. 
 266, 52 So. 797. 
 
 Missouri. — Standard Mill. Co. v. White 
 Line Cent. Transit Co., 122 Mo. 258, 26 
 S. W. 704, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 185. 
 
 Nciv York. — Grieve v. New York, etc., 
 R. Co., 49 N. Y. S. 949, 25 App. Div. 518: 
 Lyons v. New York, etc., R. Co., 119 N. 
 Y. S. 703, affirmed in 120 N. Y. S. 1132, 
 136 App. Div. 903. 
 
 Nezv Jcrscv. — Frank Bros. & Co. v. 
 Central R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 129. 
 
 Xortli Carolina. — Young v. Wilming- 
 ton, etc., R. Co., 116 N."C. 932, 21 S. E. 
 177. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Moyer v. Pennsylvania
 
 917 
 
 CARRIER AS WAKKHOUSKM AX. 
 
 § 1102 
 
 a carrier, liable as a warehouseman, fails to deliver on demand goods intnisted 
 to it, or does not account for such failure, prima facie negligence will be im- 
 puted to it,^^ and it has the burden of showing that the loss was not occasioned 
 by its negligence.^^ And it can not rebut this presumjjtion by mere proof thai 
 the goods can not be found, without any affirmative explanation for their dis- 
 appearance.-"' Where the nature of the accident itself affords j^rima facie proof 
 of negligence, the failure of the carrier to furnish pnjof that it took proi)er pre- 
 cautions may subject it to the inference that such jjrecautions were omitted.^' 
 So where it is shown that the fire causing the Ujss was set by sparks from de- 
 fendant carrier's engine,-''* or occasioned by the carelessness of its emi)loyces,'" 
 it has the burden of jiroving that the loss was not due to its negligence. 
 
 Admissibility of Evidence. — Generally evidence relevant and material to 
 the issues raised l)v ihe pleadings is admissible to show the carrier's negligence 
 or freedom from negligence and the care used by it in the custody of the goods 
 in an action against it as a warehouseman.-*" .Accordingly evidence as to the 
 existence of labor disturbances,^' the character and l<jcation of the warehouse,*^ 
 
 R. Co.. 31 Pa. vSuper. Ct. S.'iO; Frank Bros. 
 & Co. V. Central R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 
 129. 
 
 Under a bill of lading exempting car- 
 rier from loss by fire in an action against 
 it for goods destroyed by fire in its ware- 
 house, where they were awaiting reship- 
 ment to the point of tlieir destination, 
 plaintiff can not recover, unless he proves 
 negligence. Hornthal v. Roanoke, etc., 
 Steamlioat Co., 107 N. C. 7fi. 11 S. R. 
 lOl'.i. 
 
 Defense not implicating bailee in neg- 
 ligence. — It is a sufficient defense if the 
 bailee accounts for a loss in a way not 
 implicating himself in negligence unless 
 the bailor proves negligence. Farnham 
 V. Camden, etc., R. Co., 55 Pa. 53. 
 
 34. Failure to deliver on demand. — 
 Southern R. Co. r. .-Xldredge, 142 Ala. 308, 
 38 So. 805, 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.. N. S., 
 519; Wilson r. Southern Pac. R. Co., 62 
 Cal. 164; Aaronson z'. Pennsylvania R. 
 Co., 23 Misc. Rep. 666, 52 N. Y. S. 95. 
 
 The disappearance of goods in the pos- 
 session of a carrier holding them as ware- 
 houseman only raises a presumption of 
 negligence on its part in the care of the 
 goods. Lyons v. New York, etc., R. Co., 
 120 X. Y. S. 1132, 136 -App. Div. 903. af- 
 firming 119 N. Y. S. 703. 
 
 35. .-//(Tt(7;»a.— Southern R. Co. v. Ald- 
 redge, 142 .\la. 368. 38 So. 805, 25 .-\.m. & 
 Eng. R. Cas.. N. S.. 519. But see Fred- 
 erick f. Louisville, etc., R. Co.. 133 .Ma. 
 486. 31 So. 968. Compare Collins v. Ala- 
 bama, etc., R. Co., 104 Ala. 390. 16 So. 
 140, 61 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 229, holding 
 that plaintiff must prove negligence. 
 
 C(T/;7or;;ifl.— Wilson v. California Cent. 
 R. Co.. 94 Cal. 166, 29 Pac. 861. 17 L. R. 
 .\. 685; Tackson r. Sacramento \'alley R. 
 Co.. 23 Cal. 268. 
 
 Cfliiuccticut. — Boies v. Hartford, etc., 
 R. Co., 3? Conn. 272, 9 .-Km. Rep. 347. 
 
 GrcruifT.— .Almand v. Georgia R., etc.. 
 Co., 95 Ga. 775. 22 S. fe. 674. 
 
 Massachusetts.— Cass v. Boston, etc., 
 R. Co. (Mass.). 14 Allen 448. Compare 
 Lamb r. Western R. Corp. (Mass.), 7 W- 
 
 len 98, hfilding that if the plaintiff proves 
 simply that the goods were stolen from 
 the depot, and fails to offer any evidence 
 of a want of ordinary care on the part of 
 the carrier, the judge may properly rule 
 that the evidence is insufficient to main- 
 tain the action. 
 
 South Carolina. — Wardlaw v. South 
 Carolina R. Co., 11 Rich. L. 337. 
 
 South Dakota. — Farmen v. United 
 States Exp. Co., 25 S. Dak. 96, 125 N. W. 
 
 36. Aaronson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
 52 X. \. S. '.15. 23 Misc. Rep. 6f,t-.. 
 
 37. Where accident shows prima facie 
 negligence. — Russell Mfg. Co. '-. Xcw 
 llavLii Snamboat Co.. .-)0 X. Y. 121. 
 
 38. Fire from engine. — Lebnd :-. Chi- 
 cago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa), 23 X. W. 390. 
 
 39. Carelessness of employees. — St. 
 Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. 
 App.), 35 S. W. 28. 
 
 40. Admissibility of evidence. — In an 
 action against a railroad company for 
 damage to mercliandise after it had been 
 unloaded from the cars, and after the con- 
 signee had been notified that it was ex- 
 posed and could not lie stored, evidence 
 for the tlefendants that the consignee was 
 usually notified, upon the arrival of mer- 
 chandise for him. that it could not be 
 stored and must he immediately removed. 
 is admissible, as bearing both upon the 
 defendants* negligence and upon the rea- 
 sonalileness of a delay on the part of the 
 consignee in removing the goods. Stowe 
 f. Xew York. etc.. R. Co.. 113 Mass. .V21. 
 
 41. Existence of labor disturbances. — 
 Upon the issue as to tlie negligence of a 
 railroad company in failing to employ a 
 sufficient numlier of watchmen to guard a 
 large quantity of cotton piled upon its 
 wharf against fire, evidence as to the ex- 
 istence at the time of lalior disturbances 
 relating to men employed on ships load- 
 ing at such wharf was competent. Texas, 
 etc.. R. Co. V. Coutourie. 135 Fed. 46.'5. 
 68 C. C. A. 177. 
 
 42. Character and location of depot. — 
 In an action against a railroad company
 
 § 1102 
 
 CARRIKRS. 
 
 918 
 
 that defendant had negUgently stored intiammable materials therein,-^'^ the custom 
 of other carriers as to keeping night watch, etc.,^-* that the defendant used the 
 care usually exercised in the vicinity by other carriers,-*'" that on account of an 
 accumulation of freight in the warehouse which could not l)c moved because of 
 the low stage of water, the plaintiff's goods were detained until destroyed by 
 lire,-*"' is held admissible. One of the issues being as to the negligence of de- 
 fendant, goods in its depot having been destroyed by fire set by lightning, testi- 
 mony of an expert as to the test of the lightning arrester some time before the 
 fire is competent.-*' Defendant, being sued as a common carrier, and claiming 
 that it held the goods destroyed as a warehouseman only, may show that they 
 were not left for immediate shipment, l)ut were to be held till the rest were 
 brought the next morning.-*'' 
 
 Evidence Inadmissible.^ — In an action against a carrier as warehouseman 
 for the loss of goods, evidence by the defendant that other goods of the same 
 kind were alwavs cared for in the same manner, and that none had been lost 
 before, is immaterial ; ■*'■' and a contract limiting liability as carrier is also im- 
 material.^*' In such an action evidence as to the carrier's custom of storing 
 goods of its employees. 5'' and as to how far plaintiff lived from the depot,'''^ 
 has been held inadmissible. 
 
 Instances of sufficiency of evidence as to ordinary care.''^^ and to show 
 
 to recover the value of goods destroyed 
 by fire alleged to have been due to de- 
 fendant's negligence while they were in 
 its hands as carrier, and stored in its de- 
 pot, plaintifif may show the character and 
 location of the depot, the materials of 
 which it was composed, its liability to 
 take fire on exposure, etc.. to show de- 
 fendant's negligence in failing to store 
 the goods in a reasonably sale warehouse. 
 Whitney z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 
 327; Bates z: Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 
 Wis. 235, 122 N. W. 745. 
 
 In an action against a carrier to re- 
 cover for goods lost by fire while stored 
 in a warehouse, through the alleged neg- 
 ligence of defendant in storing them in 
 an unsafe place, evidence is admissible 
 showing the condition of surrounding 
 buildings, or that smoking in the locality 
 had been prohibited by a city ordinance, 
 as bearing on the issue as to such negli- 
 gence. Judd V. New York, etc.. Steam- 
 ship Co., 130 Fed. 991. 
 
 Evidence as to the sufficiency of the 
 freight house for the business usually 
 done and as to its contents at the time of 
 the damage, is admissible upon the ques- 
 tion of the care used l)y the carrier in the 
 custody of the merchandise. Stowe t'. 
 New York, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass. 521. 
 43. Negligence storing of inflammable 
 materials. — In an action against the re- 
 ceivers of a railroad company for the 
 loss of a lot of wool by fire while in the 
 freight house, evidence that oil had been 
 stored therein, and leaked out upon the 
 floor, and that other inflammable mate- 
 rials were in the end near the wool, and 
 that the adjacent windows were broken, 
 within 30 feet of which a locomotive had 
 passed 15 minutes before the fire was dis- 
 covered, is proper for the jury on the is- 
 sue of a want of ordinary care as ware- 
 
 houseman. Nichols z'. Smith, 115 Mass. 
 332. 
 
 44. Evidence as to custom. — Evidence 
 that it was customary for a railroad com- 
 pany, in that part of the country, to keep 
 a night watch about its freight depot, a 
 light burning in the office, etc., is not 
 conclusive upon the point whether a com- 
 pany, whose general practice was in ac- 
 cordance with such custom, had exercised 
 ordinary care as to goods stored therein, 
 ]mt is evidence for the jury to consider 
 in that connection. Derosia v. Winona, 
 etc., R. Co., 18 Minn. 133, Gil. 119, 8 Am. 
 R. Rep. 363. 
 
 45. That defendant exercised usual care. 
 — Cass z'. Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 
 14 Allen 448; Lane z\ Boston, etc., R. Co., 
 112 Mass. 455. 
 
 46. Accumulation of freight in ware- 
 house. — Horntlial r. Roanoke, etc., Steam- 
 boat Co., lOr N. C. 7G, 11 S. E. 1049. 
 
 47. Expert testimony. — Missouri Pac. R. 
 Co. z: Riggs. 10 Kan. App. 578, 62 Pac. 
 712. 
 
 48. Missouri Pac. R. Co. z: Riggs, 10 
 Kan. App. 578, 62 Pac. 712. 
 
 49. Evidence held immaterial. — Lane v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 455. 
 
 50. Contract limiting liability. — Union 
 Pac. R. Co. V. Moyer, 40 Kan. 184, 19 Pac. 
 639, 10 Am. St. Rep. 183. 
 
 51. Evidence of custom. — Merchants', 
 etc., Transp. Co. z'. Story, 50 Md. 4, 33 
 Am. Rep. 293. 
 
 52. Southern R. Co. z: Aldredge, 142 
 Ala. 368, 38 So. 805. 
 
 53. Sufficiency of evidence as to ordi- 
 nary care. — Defendant undertook to carry 
 a ])ackage of money consigned* to plain- 
 tiff. The package ^arrived at its destina- 
 tion on Monday e'vening, of which fact 
 the consignee, who lived about a mile 
 from the station, was informed on the
 
 919 
 
 CAKRIKR AS WAKi: HOUSEMAN. 
 
 §§ 1102-1103 
 
 custom,-'-* are set out in the notes. 
 
 § 1103. Instructions. — Where the only issue is as to defendant's liability 
 as a carrier, it is .error t(j cliarge the jury upon any theory of liahility as ware- 
 houseman.'"' .\n(l where tlie only issue is whether defendant is j^uilty of negli- 
 gence in burning goods, it is error to give an instruction based on a hyjMjthetical 
 delivery to defendant for shipment.''" A charge that if the defendant failed to 
 deliver the property and undertook to dei)Osit it in its warehouse, its liability 
 would be that of a warehouseman, correctly submits to the jury the question 
 whether defendant delivered the property to its agent to be deposited in its 
 warehouse or to plaintiff.'"' It is proper to refuse a recjuested charge, requiring 
 too high a degree of proof,"'"' or one not supported by the evidence.''*-' Where 
 
 same day. Defendant's agent testified 
 that he saw tlie package in tlie drawer, 
 where valuables were kept. Tuesday even- 
 ing; that nc.\t morning, when he went to 
 tlie office, he discovered that the store- 
 room in which tlie office was kept had 
 been entered in the night, but that he 
 did not look after the money in question 
 until noon, when for the first time he 
 discovered that it was gone. Defendant 
 moved the court to instruct the jury, as 
 a matter of law. that defendant had ex- 
 ercised ordinary care for the safety of 
 the money. Held that, since defendant 
 assumed the burden and therefore neces- 
 sarily undertook to show that it had ex- 
 ercised ordinary care in the keeping of 
 the money, the court could not say that 
 its own evidence was conclusive on plain- 
 tiff. Adams Exp. Co. v. Tingle, in Ky. L. 
 Rep. 358. 
 
 Plaintiflf's goods, after being trans- 
 ported by defendant, a common carrier, 
 were upon the latter's wharf, and were 
 destroyed by fire occurring in the night- 
 time, originating on the wharf. A large 
 quantity of other freight was on the 
 wharf, and was also destroyed. Evidence 
 was given tending to show that no ap- 
 paratus or means for extinguishing fires 
 were kept there. A private watchman 
 was left in charge with some colored men, 
 but neither of them were produced as 
 witnesses, nor did it appear that he was 
 at his post, or that any person was on 
 the wharf when the fire l)rokc out. Held, 
 that the evidence was such as to require 
 the sul)mission of the question of neg- 
 ligence to the jury. Russell Mfg. Co. z: 
 New Haven Steamboat Co.. 50 N. Y. 121. 
 
 Evidence that a railroad company, 
 which has in its custody as warehouse- 
 man a valise containing property of value, 
 placed it upon the floor of its dock, which 
 was guarded by watchmen, who checked 
 oflf everything that went out. is not in it- 
 self sufficient to establish conclusively 
 that the disappearance of the contents of 
 the valise in question was not due to want 
 of proper care, .\aronson f. Pennsyl- 
 vania R. Co., 52 N. Y. S. '.»5. 2:5 Misc. Rep. 
 666. 
 
 54. Evidence insufficient to show cus- 
 tom. — l".\i(lence that the carrier had been 
 in the habit of notifying a particular cus- 
 
 tomer by postal card of the arrival of his 
 goods, and informing him that storage 
 or ilcmurrage would Ijc charged thereon 
 unless they were called for within the 
 time specified, and had also given mes- 
 sages by telephone and otherwise to 
 other customers, in some of which it was 
 stated that unless the goods were removed 
 as requested they would be held or 
 stored at the owner's risk, is insufficient 
 to show a custom varying the general 
 rule that after the arrival of the goods at 
 their destination the carrier is only liable 
 as a warehouseman. Georgia, etc., R. 
 Co. r. Round, 111 Ga. G. 36 S. E. 312. 
 
 55. Instructions. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. 
 V. Kni--;ht. 122 L'. S. 79, 7 S. Ct. 1132, 30 
 L. Ed. 1077. 
 
 56. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. r. Courtney (Tex. 
 Civ. .\pp.). 23 S. W. 226. 
 
 57. Georgia R.. etc.. Co. v. Thompson, 
 86 Ga. :{27, 12 S. E. 640. 4.", Am. & Eng. 
 R. Cas. 422. 
 
 58. Charge requiring too high degree 
 of proof. — Southern R. Co. r. Aldredge. 
 14 .\la. ;!GS, ;iS So. 8(15, where the court re- 
 fused a requested instruction that, if the 
 jury were not satisfied to a reasonable 
 certainty whether the goods were left 
 with defendant at defendant's risk or at 
 plaintiff's risk, the jury could not find 
 a verdict for plaintiff. 
 
 59. Charge unsupported by evidence. 
 — Galveston, etc.. R. Co. :•. Smith, >>1 Tex. 
 47'.i. 17 S. W. i:!:i. 
 
 Illustrations. — Where in an action for 
 value ui goods destroyed by fire while in 
 a railway depot, the testimony showed 
 that employees of the railway company 
 in charge of the depot were engaged in 
 saving the property during the fire, in 
 the discharge of their duties, it was proper 
 to refuse an instruction that the railway 
 company would not as a warehouseman 
 be responsible for the negligence of its 
 servants about matters not in line of 
 their duty. Galveston, etc.. R. Co. r. 
 Smith, 81 Tex. 47'). 17 S. W. 133. 
 
 Where, in an action against a carrier 
 for loss of goods stored, there was no 
 evidence that .\. received the goods from 
 the carrier's agent, but the evidence was 
 clear that the goods never went out of 
 the possession of defendant's agent until 
 they were lust, a requested instruction
 
 CARRIERS. 
 
 920 
 
 §§ 1103-1104 
 
 improper evidence has been admitted over objection, it is error for the court 
 to refuse to charge that such evidence could not be considered for any purpose. ^^' 
 Error in charging ''^ or refusing to charge''- may be cured by instructions. 
 
 § 1104. Finding. — In an action against carrier for loss of goods by fire, 
 where the issue presented by the pleadings was whether defendant negligently 
 allowed the goods to remain in the depot without notice to the consignee, a find- 
 ing that the consignee did not have reasonable time to inspect and remove the 
 goods in the usual course of business after they were received, and before they 
 were destroved. is outside the issue.'^^^ 
 
 that if defendant received the goods from 
 the carrier's agent, and asked him to 
 allow them to remain until he could send 
 back for them, and when he sent back for 
 them they were not there, such facts did 
 not establish defendant's negligence, was 
 properlv refused. Southern R. Co. v. 
 Aldredge, 38 So. 805, 142 Ala. 368. 
 
 60. Where improper evidence admitted. 
 —Southern R. Co. v. Aldredge, 142 Ala. 
 368, 38 So. 805 (fact that plaintiff lived 27 
 miles from depot). 
 
 61. Instructions curing error. — In an 
 action against a railroad company, as 
 warehousemen, for a failure to deliver 
 property received by them, the judge's 
 instruction, "that if the property was 
 taken by mistake from the defendants' 
 depot, and they exercised ordinary care 
 in the matter, they w'ould not be liable," 
 when taken in connection with the in- 
 struction, "but if the defendants' agent 
 delivered it by mistake to a wrong per- 
 son they would be answerable," is no 
 
 cause for a new trial. Lichtenhein v. 
 Boston, etc., R. Co. (Mass.), 11 Cush. 70. 
 
 62. A charge that the burden was on 
 plaintiff to prove to a reasonable cer- 
 tainty that the goods were lost on ac- 
 count of defendant's negligence, and if 
 the evidence as to negligence was so 
 equally balanced that the jury were not 
 convinced to a reasonable certainty that 
 the goods were lost on account of negli- 
 gence, and if the goods were kept in de- 
 fendant's depot with reasonable care, 
 plaintiff could not recover, cured error 
 in refusing to charge that if the jury 
 were reasonably satisfied that the de- 
 fendant kept the goods in its depot with 
 reasonable care, and that some one stayed 
 in the depot in the day, and kept it locked 
 at night, plaintiff could not recover. 
 Southern R. Co. v. Aldredge, 38 So. 805, 
 142 Ala. 368. 
 
 63. Finding outside of issue. — Missouri 
 Pac. R. Co. r. Newberger, 63 Kan. 884. 
 65 Pac. 655.
 
 I aw library 
 
 UT«VEMITY .K CAUFORNU
 
 !i.il?.^'^.^^~.'^"'\'^^'^^0>if.lUBRJ. 
 
 AA 000 742 674
 
 ^?fs 
 
 
 'i>~-